"Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud," Shroud of Turin News, June 2017

Shroud of Turin News - June 2017
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

[Previous: June 2017, part #1] [Next: July 2017, part #1]

This is part #2 of the June 2017 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Footnotes have been omitted. Typos have been corrected. The article's words are bold to distinguish them from mine. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

Carlino, E, De Caro, L, Giannini, C, & Fanti, G., 2017, "Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud," PLoS ONE, 12(6), June 30.

Abstract. We performed reproducible atomic resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy and Wide Angle X-ray Scanning Microscopy experiments studying for the first time the nanoscale properties of a pristine fiber taken from the Turin Shroud. We found evidence of biologic nanoparticles of creatinine bounded with small nanoparticles of iron oxide. The kind, size and distribution of the iron oxide nanoparticles cannot be dye for painting but are ferrihydrate cores of ferritin. The consistent bound of ferritin iron to creatinine occurs in human organism in case of a severe polytrauma. Our results point out that at the nanoscale a scenario of violence is recorded in the funeral fabric and suggest an explanation for some contradictory results so far published.

[Above (original): Extract of Fig 1: Low-magnification, light microscopy image of a fibre from the Shroud, the arrows indicate some of the blood particles on the surface of the fibre.]

This discovery of particles of "creatinine ... an important indicator of renal health[2]," in the Shroud man's blood, has been reported in many news articles, including: "Shroud, new study: there is blood of a man tortured and killed," Vatican Insider, Andrea Tornielli, 11 July 2017; "New research: Shroud of Turin bears blood of a torture victim," Catholic News Agency, Turin, Italy, July 14, 2017; "Experts in HUGE Turin Shroud discovery – is this proof at last Jesus WAS wrapped in cloth?," Daily Express, Joey Millar, July 17, 2017; "Turin Shroud is stained with the blood of a torture victim, new research shows - supporting the belief that it DOES show the face of Jesus," Daily Mail, Jay Akbar, 18 July 2017; "The Shroud of Turin is stained with the blood of a torture victim, a new study claims," The Sun, July 18, 2017. I will comment on some of them in July's Shroud of Turin News. Not only is creatinine in the man on the Shroud's blood: 1) an indicator that he was a real man, not a painting; 2) his blood is real blood, not paint or pigment; 3) he had been subject to trauma, as a crucifixion victim, including Jesus, would have been; and 4) a medieval forger would have known nothing about creatinine, which was only discovered in 1832[2].

But if the image of the man on the Shroud is not "a product of human artifice" then leading Shroud sceptics Steven Schafersman (and Joe Nickell who quoted Schafersman approvingly) have admitted that "the image is that of Jesus" and there is no "possible third hypothesis":

"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic (naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson[3] and Stevenson and Habermas[4] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate)[5]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus'[6]."

Introduction. The Turin Shroud (TS) is a handmade 3–1 twill linen cloth, 4.4 m long and 1.1 m wide, showing the double image of a dead body of a scourged, thorn-crowned man who was stabbed in the side and crucified. It is believed by many that it was the burial cloth in which Jesus of Nazareth was wrapped about 2000 years ago. Conversely, others think that it is a fake. However, the TS image has not been explained nor reproduced so far by science, although some hypotheses have been proposed. There are some indications that the TS was in Palestine in the first century A.D. and then taken to Edessa, now Sanliurfa (TR). The similarity of many details of the TS face with the Christ on Byzantine coins in use from the VII century A.D. is a clue that the TS were already known during the Byzantine Empire" is After the sack of Constantinople in 1204 the "Shroud of Christ" appeared in Europe in 1353 at Lirey (F) and in 1532 at Chambéry (F) where it was fire damaged. It was taken to Turin in 1578 where it is still now.

In the article, "The similarity of many details of the TS face with the Christ on Byzantine coins in use from the VII century A.D." (above) is referenced by footnote "[3]." That footnote refers to the book, Fanti G & Malfi P., "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford, Singapore, 2015. That book has an entire chapter, "3. Numismatic Investigation" (pages 81-140), with photographs of a great many Byzantine coins each with a Shroud-like face of Christ. One of these (see below) is a gold solidus coin minted in 692 during the reign of Byzantium Emperor Justinian II (685-695, 705-711).

[Above (enlarge): "Gold solidus of ... the first period of Emperor Justinian II, minted in 692, depicting a Shroud-like face of Christ ... we find ourselves in front of a Shroud-like face of Christ. Shroud resemblances of this face" include "the swelling on the cheeks caused by the suffered blows, the asymmetrical tear on the right side beard, and the asymmetrical hair shape."[7].]

In 1988 the linen fabric of the TS was radiocarbon dated to the Middle Ages. This result is considered wrong by some authors claiming the presence of systematic errors. Another work indicated an age for the TS "between 1300-and 3000-years old." A mechanical analysis coupled with opto-chemical measurements has recently dated the TS to 90 AD ±200 years.

There may well have been "systematic errors" in the 1988 Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin, but that does not explain how the radiocarbon date of the authentic first century Shroud could be shifted 12-13 centuries into the future to not just any date, but to 1269-1390, the mid-point of which, 1325 ± `just happens' to be a mere ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in c. 1355. But my theory that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking does explain it.

The "work [which] indicated an age for the TS "between 1300-and 3000-years old" with the footnote "[9]" was the 2005 paper by STURP chemist Ray Rogers (1927–2005), in the peer-reviewed journal Thermochimica Acta, in which Rogers reported that the vanillin content of the Shroud's linen was too low (i.e. undetectable) for it to have been harvested between 1260-1390:

"In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth’s production lay between A.D. 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin ... Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses ... The lignin at growth nodes on the shroud’s flax fibers ... did not give the usual chemical spot test ... for vanillin ... The Holland cloth and other medieval linens gave a clear test. This suggested that the rate of loss of vanillin from lignin could offer a method for estimating the age of the shroud ... If the shroud had been produced between A.D. 1260 and 1390, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in A.D. 1260 would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978. The Raes threads, the Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported ... Because the shroud and other very old linens do not give the vanillin test, the [Shroud] cloth must be quite old. It is thus very unlikely that the [Shroud] linen was produced during medieval times ... The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old[8]."

This was the subject of a 2005 BBC news article:

"The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to a new study in a peer-reviewed journal. A research paper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old. The author dismisses 1988 carbon-14 dating tests which concluded that the linen sheet was a medieval fake ... Raymond Rogers ... is a retired chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, US ... In the study, he analysed and compared the sample used in the 1988 tests with other samples from the famous cloth ... microchemical tests - which use tiny quantities of materials - provided a way to date the shroud. These tests revealed the presence of a chemical called vanillin in the radiocarbon sample and in the Holland cloth, but not the rest of the shroud. Vanillin is produced by the thermal decomposition of lignin, a chemical compound found in plant material such as flax. Levels of vanillin in material such as linen fall over time ... The fact that vanillin cannot be detected in the lignin on shroud fibres, Dead Sea scrolls linen and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old," Mr Rogers writes. `A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.'[9]."

The, "A mechanical analysis coupled with opto-chemical measurements has recently dated the TS to 90 AD ±200 years" (above) presumably is an update of three different methods (or a new fourth) to date the Shroud, carried out under the leadership of engineering professor Giulio Fanti [Right (enlarge)[10].] at the University of Padua, Italy. I had blogged about Prof. Fanti's three new methods of dating the Shroud in my posts of 27Mar13, 02Apr13, 21Apr13 and 02Jan14. They were mainly in response to the news articles, Tornielli, A., 2013, "New experiments on Shroud show it's not medieval," Vatican Insider, 26 March and Squires, N., 2013, "Turin Shroud 'is not a medieval forgery'," Daily Telegraph, 30 March. These three tests and their results were:

"Final results show that the Shroud fibres examined produced the following dates, all of which are 95% certain and centuries away from the medieval dating obtained with Carbon-14 testing in 1988: the dates given to the Shroud after FT-IR testing, is 300 BC ±400, 200 BC ±500 after Raman testing and 400 AD ±400 after multi-parametric mechanical testing. The average of all three dates of the Shroud is 33 BC ±250 years"[11].

This is summarised in the following table:

Test	Max/Min	Range
FT-IR	300 BC ±400	700 BC-AD 100
Raman	200 BC ± 500	700 BC-AD 300
Mechanical	400 AD ± 400	AD 0 - AD 800

So all three tests yield a date range in which Jesus' death (either AD 30 or AD 33) falls!

The TS shows a pale yellow background fabric, the body image — devoid of pigments — produced by a chemical reaction (dehydration and oxidation), blood stains and other localized signs of minor interest like burns, water stains etc. In 1969 Cardinal Pellegrino appointed a commission to investigate if the red stains clearly visible on the TS were blood. In 1973, a discordant conclusion was obtained: "The negative response of the investigation does not allow an absolute judgment of exclusion of blood nature of the material". Subsequent analyses of some TS threads evidenced only the presence of red pigments compatible with red ochre and vermilion, whereas other researchers found the evidence of blood. A recent study found both blood and pigments proposing a retouch for the faded bloodstains. In summary, there is a strong controversial about the TS authenticity due to contradictory results of scientific analyses.

This is confusing mentioning nearly 50 year-old Shroud blood research that had long been superseded (perhaps insisted upon by the peer-reviewers). The 1969-73 Turin commissions did not find evidence of blood on the Shroud because they failed to dissolve the blood particles into a solution, which was necessary to carry out the required wet chemical tests[12]. As for "some TS threads evidenced only the presence of red pigments compatible with red ochre and vermilion," this was the claim of the late microscopist Walter McCrone (1916-2002). But see 05Jan16 for a comprehensive refutation of McCrone's position. See also 03Jun17 where the late blood chemist Dr. Alan D. Adler (1931-2000)'s presentation of his 12 tests for blood on the Shroud at the October 1981 public final meeting of STURP in New London, Connecticut, after which he concluded:

"That means that the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, and without any reservation, nothing else but B-L-O-O-D!"[13].]

Also it is hard to believe that any custodian of the Shroud over the centuries would allow the most holy, precious blood of Christ (1Pet 1:19) on the Shroud to be "retouch[ed]", i.e. overpainted! It is far more likely that any odd flecks of paint on the Shroud (including its blood areas) are due to: 1) artists pressing their painted copies of the Shroud onto the original to `sanctify' them[14], or 2) tiny airborne paint particles from artworks in the same room that the Shroud has been in over the centuries:

"The STURP team also noted from their work on site in Turin one other easy way for the Shroud to have acquired quite a sprinkling of paint particles, without these having anything to do with it being by the hand of an artist. In virtually every one of the seven rooms of Turin's Royal Palace that the team were allocated for their testing work the ceiling was a magnificent Renaissance creation, richly decorated with frescos from which tiny paint fragments would fall like confetti as the team members worked below. Accordingly, there need be no argument concerning the presence of paint pigments on the Shroud's surface. It is the distinction between those that are definitely strays and those that may have been deliberately applied that forms the basis of the continuing dispute."[15]

Up to now, to our knowledge, microscopic analyses on the TS were limited, at the best of times, to sub-micrometer spatial resolution. Here we present an atomic resolution study on a fiber of the TS performed by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) and Wide Angle X-ray Scanning (WAXS) Microscopy. The fiber, of about two millimeters, comes from an area of the feet (dorsal image) containing some red crusts, of about one micrometer, visible by optical microscope. TEM experiments were performed in areas of the fiber away from red crusts. TEM analyses show that the fiber is fully covered by creatinine nanoparticles, 20–100 nm in size, embedding small (2–6 nm) nanoparticles, made of defected ferrihydrite, typical of biologic ferritin cores. WAXS shows the presence of diffraction peaks of defected cellulose. Here we show how atomic resolution investigations unexpectedly discover a scenario of violence hidden at the nanoscale in the TS fiber and also suggest an explanation for the controversial results so far obtained. Indeed, a high level of creatinine and ferritin is related to patients suffering of strong polytrauma like torture. Hence, the presence of these biological nanoparticles found during our TEM experiments point a violent death for the man wrapped in the Turin shroud.

That it was a "man wrapped in the Turin shroud" is alone sufficient to refute the anti-authenticist claim that the Shroud is "a product of human artifice" (see above), and therefore the only alternative (as admitted by sceptics Nickell and Schafersman) is that "the shroud is authentic," that is, "the image is that of Jesus"! Let alone that his blood contained nanoparticles of creatinine and ferritin indicating he died "a violent death" under "torture" as Jesus did. And since creatinine was only discovered in 1832, and that it is a nanoparticle, refutes all medieval forgery theories, whether painting (Bishop d'Arcis, McCrone), statue/bas relief (Nickell), medieval photograph (Nicholas Allen), Leonardo (Picknett & Prince) and a fourteenth century accident (Hugh Farey). That is all except one medieval forgery theory (see below)!

[...]

Conclusions. On the basis of the experimental evidences of our atomic resolution TEM studies, the man wrapped in the TS suffered a strong polytrauma. We studied a fiber of the TS by atomic resolution TEM experiments and WAXS. This is the first time that the TS is studied at this resolution and this range of view produced a series of experimental results, which thanks to recent studies on ancient dye painting, ferritin, creatinine and human pathology can be connected and understood in relationship with a macroscopic scenario in which the TS was committed. In fact, the fiber was soaked with a blood serum typical of a human organism that suffered a strong trauma, as HRTEM [High-Resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy] evidenced that the TS is covered by well-dispersed 30nm-100nm creatinine nanoparticles bounded with internal 2nm-6nm ferrihydrate structures. The bond between the iron cores of ferritin and creatinine on large scale occurs in a body after a strong polytrauma. This result cannot be impressed on the TS by using ancient dye pigments, as they have bigger sizes and tend to aggregate, and it is highly unlikely that the eventual ancient artist would have painted a fake by using the hematic serum of someone after a heavy polytrauma. Nevertheless, the presence of red pigments, detected in some studies seems to indicate a human intervention on the TS. This, in turn, has generated some difficulties for the modern investigations and stimulated the scientific debate about the actual origin of the TS. The analyses discussed in literature so far, have been realized without the necessary spatial resolution to distinguish what is coming from the nanoscale and cannot filter eventual artifacts. This has been the target of our work and the obtained results are not compatible with a painting but evidenced the presence of nanoparticles of pathologic blood serum related to the presence of creatinine bound with ferrihydrate, which are typical of an organism that suffered a strong polytrauma, like torture. Indeed, unexpectedly, at the nanoscale it is encoded a scenario of great suffering recorded on the nanoparticles attached to the linen fibers. Furthermore, here the experiments point how the nanoscale enable to study unspoiled properties of the Turin Shroud suggesting an effective experimental strategy for further studies.

That the particles of creatine and ferritin are nanoparticles (i.e. of the order of billionths of a metre) is the final nail in the coffin of all forms of the medieval painting and powder forgery theories. A medieval forger would not know about, could not see, let alone apply, nanoparticles.

However, as indicated above, there is still one last desperate refuge that anti-authenticists could flee to, and that is the theory that a forger took a real, live man, and in a mockery of Jesus, beat him, scourged him with a Roman flagrum [see 08Oct6], crowned him with thorns, crucified him, speared him in the side with a Roman lancea [see 03Jun17], and laid his dead body on a fine linen sheet with a rare and expensive 3:1 herringbone twill weave [see 16Juy15], which measured 8 by 2 Assyrian standard cubits [see 10Jul15], and then dusted it with pollen which matched the Shroud's journey from Jerusalem to Constantinople [see 16May15]! The principal proponent of that theory (albeit without those inconvenient facts!) is a Dr Michael Straiton and we will see its problems in the next installment.

As mentioned above, since the discovery of nanoparticles of creatinine and ferritin in the man on the Shroud's blood is the refutation of all forms of the painting and powder forgery theory, the only refuge for anti-authenticists is that a real, live man was tortured and crucified in mockery of Jesus. This is the view of British physician Dr Michael Straiton, that the man on the Shroud is a 13th century crusader who was crucified by Muslims in mockery of Jesus' crucifixion[16]. A variant of this theory is that of conspiracy theorists Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas who claim that the man on the Shroud is Knights Templar leader Jacques de Molay (c. 1243-1314)[17]. Space does not permit an examination of Knight and Lomas' theory (but see Ian Wilson's refutation of it[18]), so I will only here cover Straiton's theory. However, most of my refutation of Straiton's theory applies to all theories that the man on the Shroud was a live crucifixion victim other than Jesus.

Specifically Dr. Straiton claims that in the 1291 Siege of Acre the Shroud imprint was created on an unknown crusader's burial cloth, who was crucified by Muslim Turks in mockery of Jesus[19]. But in addition to the problems above of:
1. The man on the Shroud was scourged with a Roman flagrum; and
2. speared in the side with a Roman lancea; so where would 13th century Muslims have obtained those?
3. Similarly, where would 13th century Muslims have obtained a rare and expensive 3:1 herringbone twill weave fine linen sheet that the Shroud is?
4. Let alone one that was 8 by 2 Assyrian cubits?
5. And already, or by them, dusted with pollen which matched plants on the Shroud's journey from Jerusalem to Constantinople?

Straiton's theory needs to explain, but doesn't:
6. How exactly was the crusader's image formed on the Shroud[20].
7. Why did the crusader's body leave such a detailed imprint on the Shroud, when no other known dead body has[21]?
8. Why is the crusader's image on the Shroud a photographic negative[22]?
9. How did 13th century Muslims have a detailed knowledge of not only Roman crucifixion (see above)[23] but also of the Gospel accounts of Jesus' crucifixion[24]?
10. Why was a crusader crucified by Muslims given a dignified Jewish burial[25]?
11. Why there is evidence of the Shroud having existed many centuries before 1291[26]?

So Shroud sceptics are unlikely to flee to Dr. Straiton's theory, because as well as its above problems (most of which would be common to all live crucifixion victim other than Jesus theories), it would require them to admit they had been wrong for over a century about Bishop d'Arcis' claimed c.1355 confessed painter-forger[27]!

To be continued in the part #1 of my July 2017 Shroud of Turin News.

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "Creatinine," Wikipedia, 10 July 2017. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.51-53. [return]
4. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.121-129. [return]
5. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
6. Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring, pp.37-56, p.42; in Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
7. Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, pp.86. [return]
8. Rogers, R.N., 2005, "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta, 425, pp.189–194. [return]
9. "Turin shroud 'older than thought," BBC, 31 January, 2005. [return]
10. Roberto Brumat, 2013, "Shroud, new dating compatible with the age of Christ," (Google Translate). [return]
11. Tornielli, A., 2013, "New experiments on Shroud show it's not medieval," Vatican Insider, 26 March. [return]
12. Ruffin, C.B., "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, 1999, pp.74-75. [return]
13. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.216. [return]
14. Adler, A.D., Selzer, R. & DeBlaze, F., 1998, "Further Spectroscopic Investigations of Samples of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, 2002, pp.93-102, 98; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.73-74; Marino, J.G., 2011, "Wrapped up in the Shroud: Chronicle of a Passion," Cradle Press: St. Louis MO, p.273. [return]
15. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.98; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.115. [return]
16. Wilson, 1998, pp.10, 207; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.126; de Wesselow, 2012, p.150. [return]
17. Wilson, 1998, p.10; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.126; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.149-150. [return]
18. Wilson, I., 1996, "The Hiram Key," BSTS Newsletter No. 43, June/July. [return]
19. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.25; Wilson, 1998, p.208. [return]
20.Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.126; . de Wesselow, 2012, p.151. [return]
21. Wilson, 1998, p.209. [return]
22. Wilson, 1998, p.10. [return]
23. de Wesselow, 2012, p.150. [return]
24. Wilson, 1998, p.208. [return]
25. Wilson, 1998, p.209; de Wesselow, 2012, p.150. [return]
26.Wilson, 1998, p.209; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.126. [return]
27. Wilson, 1991, p.25. [return]

Posted: 19 July 2017. Updated: 11 April 2022.