Thursday, April 5, 2018

Water stains #28: Other marks and images: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

WATER STAINS #28
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #28, "Other marks and images: water stains," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" For more information about this series, see the "Main index #1" and "Other marks and images #26." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. Again see also, "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (1): Burns and water stains."

[Main index #1] [Previous: Burns #27] [Next: "Poker holes" #29]


  1. Other marks and images #26
    1. Water stains #28

Introduction As well as burns from the 1532 Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry fire (see previous part #27) there are water stains on the Shroud from extinguishing that fire[2]. But the most prominent,

[Right (enlarge): Water stains on the Shroud. According to photo- grapher Aldo Guerreschi and writer Michele Salcito, only the small water stains marked in red are from the 1532 fire. The rest of the large stains marked in blue are from a previous unrecorded, presumably ancient, water staining when the Shroud was kept in a Middle-Eastern type pottery jar[3]! (see below).]

large water stains [right] are, according to Guerreschi and Salcito, from a previous, unrecorded, presumably ancient, water staining when the Shroud was tightly rolled up inside a Middle-Eastern pottery jar[4]! (see future below).

Note: Even though I had saved Guerreschi and Salcito's two papers in 2015, and I had read about and accepted their ancient pottery jar experiment in Ian Wilson's "The Shroud" (2010), I hadn't mentally connected their findings with the burns marks in part #27. So after this post I will go back and update part #27 to take account of Guerreschi and Salcito's findings.

Water stains from the 1532 fire In 1931 Fr. Antonio Tonelli (1877-1938), based on the pattern of the burns from the 1532 fire, proposed that at the time of the fire the Shroud had been folded in 48 layers[5], "four times across the breadth and twelve times across the length"[6]. Even though he accepted Tonelli's reconstruction, Dr R.W. (Rudolf Maria) Hynek (1883-1952) considered it a "strange fact" that the water stains were from "water thrown over" the Shroud to extinguish the 1532 fire, yet the burns marks on the Shroud "remained dry, untouched by the water which soaked the rest of the Shroud"[7]. And in 1985, British Society for the Turin Shroud member, Dr. Michael Clift (1928-2016), later to become the Society's General Secretary, asked a `the Emperor has no clothes' question:

"... why are the water stains not directly over the fire damage? They are indeed so separated from it that one can fairly ask how was the fire extinguished?"[8].
By superimposing the 1931 Enrie photographs of the burned areas [Left (enlarge)[9].] over Barrie Schwortz' transparency photographs taken during STURP's 1978 Turin investigation,[Right (enlarge)[10].] Guerreschi and Salcito were able to `see through' the patches sewn over the burned areas by Chambéry's Poor Clare nuns in 1534, and determine with precision the exact contours of the 1532 burn holes and so discover the real burn damage to the Shroud [Left (enlarge)[11].] caused by the 1532 Chambéry fire[12].

Then by superimposing the first four burn holes in order of decreasing charring [Below (enlarge)[13]. Note the water stains in blue, realistic- ally around the burned areas.], Guerreschi and Salcito were able to determine the correct folding sequence of the first four layers of the Shroud at the time of the 1532 fire[14]. Then by repeating this process, Guerreschi and Salcito found that the Shroud had been folded in 32 [Left (enlarge)[15].] (not 48) layers of four layers of four thicknesses on one side and eight layers of four thicknesses on the other side, at the time of the 1532 fire[16]. That would make the Shroud pack length about 75 cm and its width about 29 cm[17]. These dimens- ions are more in proportion with the Chambéry chapel niche [Below (enlarge)[18].](165 cm L x 50 cm H x 60 cm D)[19], which held the Shroud's casket donated by Margaret of Austria (1480–1530)[20].

Ancient water stains Having accurately reconstructed the damage to the Shroud caused by the 1532 fire and from that the 32-layers in which the Shroud had then been folded, Guerreschi and Salcito saw clearly that the large water stains (in blue above) did not have any connection with those burns and that folding system[21]. They therefore realised that these large stains could not have been from the same incident[22]. The large water stains were similar and equidistant [Left (enlarge)[23].], with very irregular edges[24] [Below (enlarge)[25].] After numerous experiments Guerreschi and Salcito found that the folding pattern which fitted the large water stains was if the Shroud had been folded accordion-style in 52 layers [Above (enlarge): the first 13 of 52 layers[26].] resting against each other [Left (enlarge)[27].] in a near vertical slanting position[28]. Guerreschi and Salcito found with a sheet of linen having the same dimensions (436 cm by 111 cm) as the Shroud and the same herring bone weave, that the first section tended to collapse (see below)[29]. This explains that section's irregular water stain (see above top)[30]. [Below (enlarge): Collapse of the first section of a Shroud-like cloth folded accordion- style in 52 layers[31].]

Guerreschi and Salcito then considered what kind of receptacle could have been used to store the Shroud in a slightly curved slanted near vertical position, as indicated by the large water stains[32]. They reasoned that it could have been an ancient earthenware jar like those which were common in antiquity[33]. They then found on the website of the Israel Antiquities Authority an earthen- ware jar [Left (enlarge)[34].] found at Qumran (which was destroyed by the Romans in c. AD 68[35] and thus overlapped the time of Christ[36]) with the characteristics and dimensions to explain the large water stains on the Shroud[37]. Guerreschi obtained an exact replica of one of these ancient jars and fitted into it a cloth of exactly the same dimensions as the Shroud, folding it in the accordion-style arrangement that the large water stains indicated[38]. It was a perfect fit, and held the arrangement perfectly[39]! Guerreschi then repeated the experiment, this time with a puddle of water in the bottom of the jar and when he removed the cloth and opened it out, there was an identical pattern of water stains[40]! Ian Wilson personally verified a further repeat of Guerreschi's experiment:

"This is no anecdote. Guerreschi repeated it in April 2004, with me acting as his assistant, for a British-made television documentary produced by Pioneer Productions [Secrets of the Dead IV: The Shroud of Christ] As the production team can confirm, the filming occurred at the very end of the day, with no possible opportunity for a second 'take'. Again, an identical pattern was produced"[41]!
Problem for the forgery theory (see previous three: #24, #25 and #27). That the Shroud has water stains which perfectly fit it having been stored in a first-century earthenware jar is yet another problem for the medieval forgery theory. That is because a medieval forger would have been most unlikely (to put it mildly) to forge water stains on the Shroud to match its linen having been kept in a first-century earthenware jar, when it was not until the 21st century that it was worked out that was what they indicated. The only other alternative is that the forger went to the time, trouble and expense of finding a first-century linen cloth (which just happened to have those water stains) on which to imprint his forgery. But apart from then the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud's linen would be wrong, it again would be most unlikely for a medieval forger to do that. After it was announced on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390!"[42] journalists linked the Shroud to products of "mediaeval tricksters" such as "a feather from the Archangel Gabriel" and "the last breath of St Joseph"[43]. To which Ian Wilson responded:
"... is it not rather incredible that this unknown individual should have gone to so much trouble and effort to deceive in an age in which, as twentieth-century journalists have reminded us, a large proportion of the populace would have been very easily duped by a feather of the Archangel Gabriel or a phial of the last breath of St Joseph?"[44].
Similarly when Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory's Professor Edward Hall (1924-2001) claimed in the same newspaper article that: "Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged [sold] it[45], as I pointed out in "Weave" #4 of this series:
"... in a sense Hall was right! If the Shroud were a medieval forgery, then the forger, to maximise his profit, would have `just got a bit of linen.' That is, he would have used the least expensive `bit of linen' he could find that would still deceive his prospective buyers ... But the Shroud is not just any `bit of linen.' ... the Shroud would have been expensive and rare in the first century. And it would have been even more expensive and rare in the 14th century ... So the medieval forger would have been most unlikely to have obtained a fine linen herringbone twill sheet the size of the Shroud in the first place. And if the forger did have the opportunity to obtain the 8 x 2 cubit (see `Dimensions #3") ancient Syrian or Palestinian fine linen sheet that the Shroud is ... he would not have bought it for the very high price it would have been, as that would have severely reduced the profit margin on his planned forgery of the Shroud image upon it."
So neither of the two medieval forgery alternatives can plausibly explain why the Shroud has water stains which perfectly fit it having been stored in a first-century earthenware jar!

To be continued in the next part #29 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.34-57, 35; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 18; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.48; Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.10-27, 13. [return]
3. Guerreschi, A. & Salcito, M., 2002, "Photographic and computer studies concerning the burn and water stains visible on the Shroud and their historical consequences," IV Symposium Scientifique International du CIELT, April 25-26, 2002, Paris, France, pp.1-14. [return]
4. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, pp.1-14; Guerreschi, A. & Salcito, M., 2005, "Further studies on the scorches and the watermarks," The 3rd International Dallas Conference on the Shroud of Turin, September 8 through 11, 2005, The Adolphus Hotel, Dallas, Texas, pp.1-10. [return]
5. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, p.3; Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.105; Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.24; Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.45; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.2; 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.65; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.22; Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002; Guerreschi & Salcito, 2005, p.1; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.4. [return]
6. Hynek, 1951, p.3. [return]
7. Hynek, 1951, pp.3-4. [return]
8. Clift, M., 1985, "Contributions from B.S.T.S. members," BSTS Newsletter, No. 10, April, pp.11-13, 12. [return]
9. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.2. [return]
10. Ibid. [return]
11. Ibid. [return]
12. Ibid. [return]
13. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.3. [return]
14. Ibid. [return]
15. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.4. [return]
16. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, pp.4-5. [return]
17. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.5. [return]
18. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2005, p.2. [return]
19. Ibid. [return]
20. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.5. [return]
21. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.7. [return]
22. Ibid. [return]
23. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.8. [return]
24. Ibid. [return]
25. Ibid. [return]
26. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.10. [return]
27. Ibid. [return]
28. Ibid. [return]
29. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.12. [return]
30. Ibid. [return]
31. Ibid. [return]
32. Ibid. [return]
33. Ibid. [return]
34. Ibid. [return]
35. "Qumran," Wikipedia, 21 February 2018. [return]
36. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.83. [return]
37. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.12. [return]
38. Wilson, 2010, p.83. [return]
39. Ibid. [return]
40. Ibid. [return]
41. Ibid. [return]
42. Wilson, 1998, pp.6-7. [return]
43. Sheridan, M. & Reeves, P., 1988, "Turin Shroud shown to be a fake," The Independent, 14 October in Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
44. Wilson, 1998, pp.59-60. [return]
45. Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]

Posted: 5 April 2018. Updated: 18 April 2018.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I also expected from you a further argument this makes for problems with the forgery theory. For the relic to have ever been stored in such a way, and presuming the possessor appreciated it as holy, suggests that it was in peril. Correct me if I'm wrong in thinking that post-Lirey, France, there is no documented evidence of any threat to the shroud that would require such ends for its preservation. Therefore it must pre-date the carbon dating.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Anonymous

>I also expected from you a further argument this makes for problems with the forgery theory. For the relic to have ever been stored in such a way, and presuming the possessor appreciated it as holy, suggests that it was in peril.

I deliberately did not speculate why the ancient earthenware jar containing the Shroud, at some point in time had been partly filled with water, because no one knows.

It most likely was the result of an accident, because partly filling the jar would not have hidden the Shroud.

>Correct me if I'm wrong in thinking that post-Lirey, France, there is no documented evidence of any threat the shroud that would require such ends for its preservation.

Agreed. But see above that partly filling a water jar containing the Shroud would not have hidden it from a threat.

>Therefore it must pre-date the carbon dating.

The large water stains definitely predate the 1988 radiocarbon dating, since they are evident on Enrie's 1931 photographs of the Shroud. In fact the Shroud sample was cut from one of the large water stains. See the first photo above where the bottom left large water stain covers the area from where the 1988 carbon dating sample was cut.

Also, Guerreschi and Salcito point out that they must predate the Holland Cloth backing cloth sewn onto the Shroud in 1534 after the 1532 fire, because the large water stains would be on that too, but aren't.

That the large water stains perfectly fit an earthenware jar of a type common in the first century Middle East is evidence that the Shroud was stored in such a jar in the Middle East in the first or early centuries.

There is a 10th century Constantinople Official History that from 544 in Edessa to at least 944 in Constantinople the Shroud was mounted on a board, and it is most unlikely (to put it mildly) it was ever after that stored in a Middle Eastern earthenware jar.

The burden of proof is on anti-authenticists to explain how a late medieval (1260-1390) Shroud has water stains that perfectly fit it having been stored in a first century Middle Eastern earthenware jar!

Stephen E. Jones
----------------------------------
MY POLICIES. Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my current post can be on any one Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. To avoid time-wasting debate I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Anonymous

>>I also expected from you a further argument this makes for problems with the forgery theory. For the relic to have ever been stored in such a way, and presuming the possessor appreciated it as holy, suggests that it was in peril.

>I deliberately did not speculate why the ancient earthenware jar containing the Shroud, at some point in time had been partly filled with water, because no one knows. It most likely was the result of an accident, because partly filling the jar would not have hidden the Shroud.

I later read in Barbara Frale's 2012 book, "The Templars and the Shroud of Christ," that "Whoever raised the lid [of such an earthenware jar] would not have seen anything but a featureless mass of cloth, too tightly turned in on itself to show even the abundant marks of blood":

"Rather, it was a container designed for other purposes, where the Shroud was perhaps only provisionally housed. The shape of the object is exactly like that of the terra-cotta amphoras found in Qumran, which held the 800 or more manuscripts of the Essene library. In effect, amphoras were very versatile containers in which anything could and would be stored, from oil to grain to books. At the very bottom of that container there must have been some water, a small amount but enough to dampen the lower part of the cloth. This reconstruction seems to open a new and promising path of research. No doubt that kind of earthenware container was a highly commonplace object, made all over the Middle East and certainly not only in Qumran, but the community that lived in isolation on the Dead Sea shore had several features that might have made it a safe refuge for the earliest Christians, persecuted by the Jerusalem authorities almost from the time of Jesus's death. At any rate, if Salcito and Guerreschi's reconstruction is correct, it argues for a phase in the Shroud's history in which this object was not exhibited to the veneration of the faithful, but, on the contrary, hidden: Whoever raised the lid would not have seen anything but a featureless mass of cloth, too tightly turned in on itself to show even the abundant marks of blood. As is known, Jewish tradition held blood in horror and saw it as necessary to destroy anything that had come into contact with corpses, being in the highest degree impure and able to pollute people, things, and places." (Frale, B., 2012, "The Templars and the Shroud of Christ," Skyhorse Publishing: New York NY, p.171)

I then realised that I had missed your point, thinking only of the water, not the fact that this would indeed suggest that the Shroud was stored folded tightly in an earthenware jar at a time when "it was in peril," namely in the early first century when the tiny Christian church was being persecuted by its far more numerous enemies, the Jews (Acts 8:1-3; 11:19; 12:1-3)."

I have posted this correction under the "Comments" section of my April 2018, Shroud of Turin News.

Stephen E. Jones