Wednesday, July 28, 2021

The Shroud is consistent with the man being Jesus #35: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!

THE SHROUD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MAN BEING JESUS #35
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #35, "The Shroud is consistent with the man being Jesus," in my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus’ burial sheet!" For more information about this series, see the "Main index #1" and "Other marks and images #26." See also "The Shroud of Turin: 3. The Bible and the Shroud." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Main index #1] [Previous: The Shroud is consistent with the Bible #34] [Next: The Shroud man and Jesus were beaten #36]


  1. The Bible and the Shroud #33
    1. The Shroud is consistent with the man being Jesus #35

The man on the Shroud is consistent with him being Jesus[2].

[Above (enlarge): "`Crucifixion,' sculpture in wood according to research carried out on the Holy Shroud" by Italian artist Giulio Ricci (1913-95)[3].]

Some of the parallels between the Gospel evidence and the Shroud evidence are summarised below in table form[4] (see a different table in part #34):

Gospel evidenceVersesShroud evidence
Jesus was repeatedly struck in the face.Mt 26:67-68; 27:30; Mk 12:4; 14:65; 15:19; Lk 22:63-64; Jn 18:22; 19:3The man has bruises and swellings around both eyes, both cheeks, the nose, and the chin.
Roman soldiers scourged Jesus.Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; Jn 19:1The man's body, except for the face, arms and feet, bears the marks of a severe scourging by a Roman flagrum.
Soldiers plaited a crown of thorns and put it on Jesus' head.Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2There are numerous puncture wounds in the man's scalp.
Jesus initially was forced to carry his own cross.Jn 19:17Smudging of the scourge wounds on the right shoulder and back indicate that the man had carried a heavy object.
Jesus' cross had to be carried for him, indicating He stumbled and fell under its weight.Mt 27:32; Mk 15:21; Lk 23:26There are cuts and bruises on both knees, indicating falls on a hard surface.
Jesus was nailed to the cross through His hands and feet.Lk 24:39; Jn 20:20, 25-27.The Shroud shows a man pierced through the wrists and feet.
Jesus was already dead on the cross so His legs were not broken.Jn 19:31-33The man in the Shroud died on the cross and his legs were not broken.
A soldier pierced Jesus' side with a spear, to ensure that He was dead, and out came blood and water.Jn 19:34There is a large wound in the side of the man's right chest and a mixture of blood and fluid had flowed from it.
Jesus was buried in a linen shroud.Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53The Shroud is linen and bears the imprint of a man which matches the Gospels' description of Jesus' suffering, death, burial and resurrection!

Leading Shroud sceptics admit that the Shroudman is either Jesus or an artistic depiction of Him - see Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939) and Steven Schafersman (quoted approvingly by Joe Nickell) in "#34."

But an agnostic, Yves Delage (1854–1920) [see "1900a"], Professor of Zoology at the Sorbonne, Paris, considered and rejected that the Shroud was a painting (see next) and concluded that the Shroudman actually was Christ:

"Should I speak of the identity of the person who left his image on the shroud? ... On the one hand we have the shroud, probably impregnated with aloes-which brings us to the East outside Egypt-and a crucified man who had been scourged, pierced on the right side and crowned with thorns. On the other hand we have an account - pertaining to history, legend and tradition - showing us Christ as having undergone in Judea the same treatment as we decipher on the body whose image is on the shroud. Is it not natural to bring together these two parallel series and to refer them to the same object? Let us add that, in order that the image should be produced and not later destroyed, it is necessary that the body should remain in presence of the shroud at least twenty- four hours, the time necessary for the formation of the image, and at most a few days, after which there supervenes putrefaction which destroys the image and finally the shroud. Now this is precisely what tradition - more or less apocryphal, I admit - asserts to have happened to Christ who died on Friday and disappeared on Sunday ... I consider Christ as a historical person, and I see no reason why anyone should be scandalised if there exists a material traces of his existence"[5].
However, having shown that the Shroud image was not a painting (see next), and refusing to accept that it was a result of the supernatural resurrection of Jesus, the agnostic Delage, was left with "some physico-chemical phenomenon" as the explanation:
"For these and many other reasons which need not be specified, there results the conviction that the image on the shroud is not a painting made by the hand of man, but that it has been obtained through some physico-chemical phenomenon"[6].
Problem for the forgery theory. (See previous three: #31, #32 and #34). The agnostic Yves Delage (see above), Professor of Zoology at the Sorbonne, Paris, then and now one of the world's leading universities, gave his reasons why the Shroud image is not a painting:

• The unknown 14th century artist would have been greater than the Renaissance (14th-17th century) painters:

"At first sight it would seem that the image on the shroud is ... a painting made for the purpose of a pious fraud. But when this hypothesis is examined with care, we see that it must be rejected for the following reasons: (1) As the shroud is Jesus’ burial sheetated since the fourteenth century, if the image is a faked painting, there must at this epoch have existed an artist-who has remained unknown-capable of executing a work hardly within the power of the greatest Renaissance painters"[7].
• It would have been impossible for a 14th century forger to paint the Shroud image in negative:
"While this is already very difficult to admit for an image painted as a positive, it becomes quite incredible in the case of a negative image, which lacks all aesthetic character in this form and assumes its value only when lights and shades are reversed, while strictly respecting their contours and values. Such an operation would be almost impossible except by photography, an art unknown in the i4th century. The forger, while painting a negative, must have known how to distribute light and shade so that after reversal they would give the figure which he attributed to Christ, and that with a perfect precision: for we know how little is required to change a beautiful head into a caricature, especially when its beauty is due to the expression"[8].
• Why would a 14th century forger have depicted the Shroud image in negative, when it could not have been appreciated by his contemporaries?
"I add this argument whose force will be felt on reflection: Why should this forger have taken the trouble to realise a beauty not visible in his work and discernible only after a reversal which only later was made possible? He was working for his contemporaries and not for the twentieth century and the Academy of Sciences" (emphasis Delage's)[9].
• The Shroud's negative image could not have been the result of a colour reversal because (amongst other things) it is in monochrome:
"The idea that the image could have been painted in positive and changed to negative, as has happened to certain paintings on cloth and certain frescos, is contradicted inter alia by the fact that the image is in monochrome and consequently could not have undergone two inverse modifications from clear to shadow and from shadow to clear"[10].
• The Shroud's image has no outline [see #14], which is alien to the art of the 14th century:
"(2) The image results from the juxtaposition of graded tints, without definite delineation or sketching, like a badly focussed photograph: a procedure quite alien to the artistic conceptions of the fourteenth century"[11].
• The image is realistic, perfect and has no artisic style [see "#16"]:
"(3) The image is strongly realist, impeccable, without defect or omission: only imperfectly does it take account of tradition. it is neither schematic nor conventional: characteristics not to be found in any of the artistic productions of this epoch nor to such an extent in those of any epoch"[12].
• The dumbbell shaped scourge marks were made by a Roman flagrum

[Right (enlarge): Reconstruction by Delage's colleague Paul Vignon (1865-1943)[13], of a Roman flagrum from the scourge marks on the Shroud[14]. One similar to this was recovered in the 19th century from the Roman city of Herculaneum[15] which, with its neighbour Pompeii, was buried in the eruption of Mt Vesuvius in AD 79[16].]

with thongs ending in heavy weights [see 15Jul13], unknown in the 14th century:

"(b) The marks of the flagellation in the form of a dumb-bell, such as might be made by a flagrum with thongs ending in hard heavy masses of the same form, analogous to those in certain archaeological museums. It would be interesting to know if people of the 14th century knew this construction of the flagrum: if they did not. this is a further proof. And the convergence of these marks, downward on the back, crosswise on the thighs, upward on the calves, towards a point where the executioner's hand could be! A forger does not think of all that. To be convinced, one need only examine the pictures of the epoch: and yet these artists had an equal desire to represent the truth"[17].
• The Shroudman's image is non-traditional:
"(3) The image ... only imperfectly does it take account of tradition ... (a) The loins, perhaps the genital region, naked: which would have been considered most irreverent. The bishop or the prior who might have ordered the shroud from a monastic or lay artist would not have failed to require the addition of a loin-cloth. For we must place ourselves in the epoch in which the fraud might have been carried out; the shroud destined to enflame the zeal of the faithful should not at the same time shock their feelings or scandalise them. This is so true that the loin-cloth has been added to certain copies. (d) The hands pierced through the wrist and not through the palm, in conformity with the anatomical requirements and against tradition"[18].
It is remarkable that the first arguments against the Shroud being a painting, and for the Shroudman being Jesus, were made by by Delage, an agnostic! Clearly Delage had no pro-Christian bias, rather the opposite. There could be no stronger proof that the Man on the Shroud is Jesus, and not a forger/artist's depiction of him, than that the first to argue this, on purely scientific grounds, was the agnostic, Yves Delage (1854–1920), Professor of Zoology at the Sorbonne, Paris!

I will expand on the items of evidence in, "The Bible and the Shroud #33," in future posts in this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (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. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.46-53; 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.122-124. [return]
3. Ricci, G., 1978, "The Way of the Cross in the Light of the Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, Second edition, Reprinted, 1982, p.61. [return]
4. Robinson, J.A.T., " The Shroud of Turin and the Grave-Clothes of the Gospels," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.22-30, 22-23; Robinson, J.A.T., "The Shroud and the New Testament," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, pp.69-81; Wilson, 1979, pp.46-53; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.43-54,121-128; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.44-45; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "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, pp.40-46; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.119; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.31-40. [return]
5. Delage, Y., 1902, "Letter to M. Charles Richet," Review scientifique, 31 May, in O'Rahilly, A. & Gaughan, J.A., ed., 1985, "The Crucified," Kingdom Books: Dublin, pp.76-77, 79. [return]
6. Delage, 1902, p.74. [return]
7. Delage, 1902, p.72. [return]
8. Ibid. [return]
9. Delage, 1902, pp.72-73. [return]
10. Delage, 1902, p.73. [return]
11. Ibid. [return]
12. Ibid. [return]
13. Vignon, P., 1939, "Le Suaire de Turin devant la Science, l'Archeologie, l'Histoire, l'Iconographie, la Logique," Masson: Paris, p.56. [return]
14. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.56. [return]
15. de Wesselow, 2012, p.144O. [return]
16. "Herculaneum," Wikipedia, 14 July 2021. [return]
17. Delage, 1902, p.73. [return]
18. Ibid. [return]

Posted 28 July 2021. Updated 20 August 2025.

Tuesday, July 13, 2021

Shroud of Turin News, May-June 2021

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

[Previous: April 2021] [Next: July - December 2021]

This is the May-June 2021 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. The articles' words are bold to distinguish them from mine. A Google search of "Shroud Turin" (without the quotes) for the months of May and June, found only two articles worth commenting on in May and none in June! And both of them are about the book, "A Catholic Scientist Champions the Shroud of Turin" (2021) by Gerard Verschuuren [Right[2]]! I had ordered Verschuuren's book on 13 July and it arrived on 26 July.


News:
"Re-examining the Shroud of Turin," MercatorNet, 4 May 2021, Francis Phillips. People who read the title of this book will probably divide into two camps: those who already believe the piece of cloth known as the Holy Shroud and preserved in Turin cathedral to be the actual winding sheet of the crucified Christ; and those who think the author has allowed his objective scientific judgement to be overborne by his subjective faith. So why did Verschuuren include "Catholic" in its title? Why not, "A Scientist Champions the Shroud of Turin"?

However, in this study Verschuuren remains faithful to his twin vocations, both as a Catholic and as a scientist, achieving an admirable balance in a highly controversial area. The chief value of what he has written, particularly for our modern age, is to demonstrate that there need be no conflict between the two. If by "science" is meant fully naturalistic science, which claims that `nature is all there is - there is no supernatural,' then there would be a conflict if Verschuuren invokes the supernatural, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus (i.e. "God raised Jesus on the third day after his crucifixion"), to explain the man's image on the Shroud, because to Naturalistic Science there is no God, and so the image on the Shroud must be either a forgery or an unusual natural occurrence. But if by "science" is meant "following the evidence wherever it leads," then the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is the burial sheet of Jesus and the image on the Shroud is a `snapshot' of Jesus' resurrection:

"Even from the limited available information, a hypothetical glimpse of the power operating at the moment of creation of the Shroud's image may be ventured. In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly, there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant ... its image ... becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection"[3]!

He has dedicated the book "To all scientists who have defended the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin." This includes the many agnostic scientists and technicians who have become involved in trying to unravel the mystery posed by the Shroud over recent decades, and who have concluded on purely scientific grounds that it is not a fake. To come to this conclusion does not, of course, imply they have taken the spiritual step of identifying the Man of the Shroud with Christ of the Gospels. Agreed, but they will be like Thomas de Wesselow, stuck halfway believing the Shroud to be Jesus' burial cloth but with no plausible explanation of how Jesus' image became imprinted on the Shroud.

However, to speak of "the Man of the Shroud" is to accept that the image on the cloth is of a real man and is not a painted icon. What is the scientific evidence for this? Verschuuren's study goes into some detail on the different investigations that have played their part in the ongoing Shroud research and their findings. Lay people not versed in the dense technical complexities described here (such as this reviewer) must take it on trust that science, though often inconclusive, debatable and provisional, can still reach certain demonstrable conclusions. It is the `trade secret of anti-authenticism' (with apologies to the late Stephen Jay Gould), that leading anti-authenticists admit that the Shroudman's image is not painted:

Professor Edward Hall (1924–2001), Director of Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory which was one of the three laboratories which carbon-dated the Shroud to 1260-1390:

"Prof. Hall acknowledged that he had found the Shroud very impressive on viewing it in Turin. Having spent several hours viewing it, including with a hand lens, he felt quite confident that it was not painted. He found no sign of paint responsible for the image. Instead he subscribed to the `hot statue' theory"[4].
Professor Michael Tite, the British Museum's coordinator of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating and Hall's successor at Oxford laboratory:
"Dr. Tite won general respect by his open-minded approach to the Shroud, and acknowledged himself sufficiently impressed by the evidence that although he adhered to the 14th. century date, he did not believe the Shroud to be a painting"[5].
• Arch-sceptic Joe Nickell:
"While we should never underestimate what an unknown, skillful artist might be capable of - and so cannot conclusively rule out freehand painting - we must add that convincing evidence for any painting medium (that is, oil, egg tempera, etc.) on shroud image fibers is lacking ... Even at 40X magnification there are no obvious encrustations and no apparent cementing between threads nor any consistent and confirmed coating of fibers to indicate the presence of a painting medium ... The superficiality of the stain - extending `only 2 or 3 fibers deep into the thread structure' - is another strong argument against painting. A fluid medium (for example, paint, dye, ink) would be expected, by capillary action, to penetrate much farther - to the depth of a full thread, or even to the reverse of the cloth. Finally, tests at several laboratories failed to detect the presence of any foreign organic substance in `body' image areas"[6].
See also next on the absence of brushstrokes on the Shroud image.

But then as an erlier arch-sceptic, the late Walter McCrone (1916-2002) correctly pointed out (paraphrased):`Why would a medieval forger go to all the work of preparing a statue, etc, when painting the image on cloth would have been the simplest method?':

"I realize that there are still, perhaps, a majority of people convinced by the carbon-dating that the `Shroud' is medieval, who are still looking for an answer as to how the `Shroud' was produced. Many mechanisms have already been proposed. Some say it was draped wet over a bas-relief to which it was shaped then dabbed with powder or a paint. Some say a painting was prepared and transferred to a cloth in contact with it by pressure. However, I see no reason to doubt that an artist like Simone Martini simply took up his brush and a dilute red ochre watercolor paint based on scraps of parchment as the vehicle and proceeded to paint the `Shroud.' Why go to all the work of preparing a statue or bas-relief or making a transfer of the image from a primary artist's rendering? A direct approach to painting a dilute watercolor image on a canvas of the proper size is a common sense assumption; Occam's Razor applies here ..."[7].
Thus, ever since the dramatic discovery - from the first photograph of the Shroud taken in 1898 by photographer Secundo [sic Secondo] Pia - that the image is a photographic negative, its secrets have slowly yielded to further investigation. See my immediately previous post.

In 1973 two US physicists, John Jackson and Eric Jumper, who went on to found the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), made computer scans of the photos of the Shroud It was not Jackson and Jumper but STURP's Don Lynn (1932-2000) and Jean Lorre (-2005) (a man), working at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who used a microdensitometer, which measures variation in image density[8], to scan photos of the Shroud negative[9], four million points for each one[10]. The scanned data in 256 discrete levels of intensity[11] was then processed through a computer[12]. These density studies revealed that the Shroud body image is non-

[Left (enlarge)[13]: The computer TV screen showing that the Shroud image's microdensit-ometer data was random and therefore not directional[14]. The white cross in the centre of the screen represents the warp and weft of the weave[15].]

directional[16] and in particular there was no sign of brush strokes)[17]. The only directional feature found in the Shroud image (apart from the scourge mark bloodstains which are not part of the image) was the weave of the cloth underneath[18]. This absence of directionality in the Shroud image is significant because the microdensitometer would have revealed the presence of brush strokes if the image had been painted[19]. Thus the microdensitometer testing further proved that the Shroud image was not painted[20]. [see 29Oct16 & 15Aug20].

and thereby "transformed the photograph into a three-dimensional map of the body." Indeed! STURP's Jackson, Jumper and William R. Ercoline found that Lynn and Lorre's micro-densitometer data could be expressed mathematically as, "a single global mapping function" [see 11Aug15, 06Dec19 & 15Aug20]. But no

[Above enlarge: "Correlation of image intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D structure of a human body shape"[21].

"... the frontal image on the Shroud of Turin is shown to be consistent with a naturally draping cloth in the sense that image shading can be derived from a single global mapping function of distance between these two surfaces..."[22].
medieval forger would know about a "global mapping function" as the concept of function in mathematics didn't exist until the invention of "the infinitesimal calculus at the end of the 17th century"[23]. And even if he did, no medieval artist/forger could depict a whole human body, front and back, consistent with a single global mapping function (let alone in negative)!

This was sufficient to show that the image was not a painting - for "how could a two-dimensional painting ever include three-dimensional information of a real body?" I am not sure that this is a valid argument. A photo of the Shroud face (e.g. below)

[Above (this article): A photograph of the Shroud face (left), when developed, the negative of it (right) is a photographic positive, which means that the Shroud face is a photographic negative!]

is physically two-dimensional, yet it contains three-dimensional information encoded within it (see above). So it is possible, at least with a computer, to encode three-dimensional information in a physically two-dimensional work of art. But a medieval forger couldn't have done it, as the concept of photographic negativity didn't exist until the 19th century [see 05Jun21].

In 1978, twenty STURP specialists from different scientific disciplines studied the Shroud for five days, concluding from their data that the image was that of a "scourged, crucified man.":

"We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin"[24].
This is fatal to one of the two central pillars of anti-authenticism (the other is the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud to 1260-1390-see future below), the claim by a Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-1395) that the Shroud had been "cunningly painted," as discovered by one of his predecessors, Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370), who had allegedly extracted the confession of the "the artist who had painted it"[25]. There are many reasons to dismiss d'Arcis' claim [see 03Jul18] as at best mistaken, or at worst a deliberate lie, but that the Shroudman's image is not painted [see also 11Jul16] means that it cannot be true!

Information not observable to the naked eye showed a mass of injuries, wounds in the wrists and feet and innumerable bloodstains. Included in these innumerable bloodstains, are at least a hundred tiny dumbbell-shaped scourge marks on the Shroudman's body and legs[26], which match wounds caused by a Roman flagrum with two lead balls on the end of each of its three thongs[27] [Right [see 08Oct16] & 15Jul13]], evidently designed to cause internal bleeding so a crucifixion victim didn't die too soon of blood loss[28]. Each of those scourge wounds has tiny blood clots which each have a serum retraction `halo', clearly visible in ultraviolet light [Below [29]] but

barely visible, and some are invisible, to the naked eye[30]. Therefore a medieval forger would not only require a modern knowledge of the physiology of clot retraction, but would have to produce images of serum rings that are clearly evident only under ultraviolet light (which was only discovered in 1801!)[31].

Anatomical analysis further revealed the image to be the figure of a man just under six foot, with a gash in his side, his face beaten and his legs unbroken. This quote puts it well:

"Now it seems to me otiose, if not ridiculous, to spend time arguing ... about the identity of the man represented on the Turin Shroud ... If ... the figure is Jesus’ burial sheet, it can only be Jesus for three good reasons: first, because it is most unlikely that the shrouds of any other crucified men - mainly slaves, peasants and crooks - would either have been of this quality or have been considered worth preserving; secondly, because of the thousands of victims of crucifixion which history records, only one is known to have suffered both wounds to the head (consonant with a spiky cap being pressed down upon the cranium [Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17 & Jn 19:2,5]) and the side (compatible with a deep jab from a Roman lance[Jn 19:34]) as we see represented on the Shroud; and thirdly, because this man - although demonstrably crucified - has not suffered the crurifragium, or breaking of the leg-bones with a heavy mallet[Jn 19:31-32], which was an almost invariable concomitant of crucifixion. The Shroud-Man is Jesus Christ or nobody"[32].
[...]

I have briefly summarised the essential information provided by Verschuuren, who describes the proven medical and other facts. At this stage readers will naturally ask, "but what about the carbon dating of the Shroud in 1988 done in laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona which dated the cloth to `AD1260-1390 with at least 95% confidence'"?

[Above (enlarge): From left to right, Prof. E. Hall (Oxford), Dr M. Tite (British Museum) and Dr R. Hedges (Oxford) on 13 October 1988 in the British Museum, London, announcing with an exlamation mark, that the Shroud had been radiocarbon dated to "1260-1390!"[33].]

The triumphal headline news at the time seemed to vindicate those critics who were certain the Shroud was a medieval forgery, cleverly concocted at a time when fake relics were common (in The Canterbury Tales Chaucer takes a cynical view of the gullibility of the laity in this respect). The author faces this supposedly conclusive evidence head-on, explaining why carbon dating is not as `infallible' as is sometimes thought, that the protocols laid down for conducting the 1988 tests were ignored and that the single sample of the cloth tested was taken from a repaired strip on the side, which would have been contaminated in various ways over the centuries and which was thus inappropriate for a forensic study. Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory's Director, Prof. Christopher Ramsey, admitted in 2008 that, "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow":

"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that ... experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information"[34].
In October 2018 I wrote an "Open letter to Professor Christopher Ramsey," which I both emailed and paper mailed to him, pointing out some of this "lot of other evidence." These included two in particular: three drawings in the 1192-95 Pray Codex [Above: See 04Oct18a] and

the 12th century "Surrender of the Mandylion to the Byzantines" [Above: See 04Oct18b] in the Madrid Manuscript of John Skylitzes (c.1040s–1101). But Ramsey didn't even acknowledge my open letter, which he must have received (the email didn't bounce), which tells me that Ramsey knows that these two 12th century artworks depicting the Shroud, alone (and they are not alone!), prove that the "1260-1390" radiocarbon date of the Shroud must be false!

[...]

Yet how to respond to the objection that the first documented mention of the Shroud is from the French village of Lirey in 1357 - which suggests a medieval origin? For starters, as I have previously pointed out [see 24May20 with references, 21Jun20 & 03Mar21], that the first undisputed appearance of the Shroud was at Lirey, France in c.1355, meaning that anti-authenticists don't dispute it, is not the same as being "the first documented mention of the Shroud." Because in 1207 [see "1207"] there is a historical record of what can only be the Shroud in Constantinople in 1201:

"In 1207, after the sack of Constantinople in 1204, Nicholas Mesarites, keeper of the Emperor's relics in the Pharos Chapel, Constantinople, recalled that in 1201, in that chapel, was `the sindon [which] wrapped the mysterious, naked dead body [of Christ] after the Passion' (my emphasis). The Greek word variously translated `mysterious', `indefinable' and `uncircumscribed', is aperilepton, which literally means `un-outlined' or `outlineless'. The Shroud-image uniquely has no outline [see 11Jun16], so there could be no stronger proof that the Shroud in Constantinople is that of Lirey, Chambéry and Turin!"
This is objective, historical evidence that the Shroud existed in Constantinople in 1201, over a century and a half (154 years) before it was exhibited at Lirey in c. 1355! And 59 years before the earliest possible radiocarbon date of 1260! Irrespective of whether anti-authenticists accept it!

I won't go into the details of the likely provenance of the cloth that Verschuuren includes, except to chart a journey that takes in Edessa in Turkey, where the Image of Edessa was venerated for many centuries; Constantinople, Athens, France, and finally Turin, the capital of the royal house of Savoy. Agreed. See "1204."

It is worth noting that the historical Image of Edessa, documented in 593, ... See below:

"c.593. Historian Evagrius Scholasticus (c.536-594) recorded in his Ecclesiastical History that the 544 Persian siege of Edessa [see "544"] was repulsed by a "divinely wrought likeness," that is, acheiropoietos, or "not made by hands"[35]

... bears a remarkable resemblance to the face of the man on the Shroud, leading to the suggestion by Shroud investigator Ian Wilson, who made the television film Silent Witness, that it was the actual Shroud, folded in four to show only the face and known as a "tetradiplon". Tetradiplon is a compound Greek

[Above (enlarge): Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin illustrated: The full-length Shroud of Turin (1); is doubled three times (2) through (4) keeping the man's face uppermost); resulting in the man's face within a rectangle, in landscape aspect (4); and the Shroud having been "four-doubled" in side view (5). Exactly as depicted in early copies of the Image of Edessa, such as the 11th century Sakli church, Turkey (6)]. From 15Sep12]

word comprised of tetra "four" and diplon "doubled," hence "four doubled" or "doubled in four"[36]. In all of early Greek literature it is only found twice and both times it refers to the Image of Edessa aka Mandylion[37]. In 1966 Shroud historian Ian Wilson experimentally proved, by taking a full-length photograph of the Shroud and doubling it four times, so that the face one-eighth was uppermost in landscape aspect, that the Image of Edessa/Mandylion was the Shroud "four doubled"[38] (see above). Here in Wilson's own words is his account of his `Secondo Pia' discovery':

"Yes it was a very real and indeed a very moving moment, though the exact date was one that I never recorded, not least because at the time I had absolutely no idea of all that might subsequently flow from it. To the best of my recollection it would have been around the summer of 1966, probably early evening, and at my parents' home in south London. I was staying there after having recently left a job that had been based in Oxford (with Oxfam), and whilst doing a three month stint of `Shroud history' researches at the then Reading Room of the British Museum. I know that I had earlier (when still living in Oxford), purchased volume VIII of Roberts and Donaldson's Ante-Nicene Fathers, which has translations of the New Testament Apocrypha. And it was whilst reading the `Acts of the Holy Apostle Thaddaeus' in this that a footnote at the bottom of page 558 `Lit., doubled in four' struck my attention. It was so early in my researches that I did not even have to hand any readily usable full length photo suitable for performing the folding experiment. But I had a very strong feeling that it was going to work, so at the time hastily improvised by cutting out a photo from a newspaper article. Then the moment that I saw the result there was what I can only describe a quite extraordinary feeling of `thrill' – an all-encompassing tingling of the spine and incredibly humbling realisation that this was something that had to be significant"[39].
Certainly, icons, frescos and paintings of the face of Christ, such as the tenth-century mosaic of Christ in Hagia Sophia,

[Above (enlarge)[40]: Christ Pantocrator ("Ruler of All"), part of a larger 10th century mosaic in the Narthex of Hagia Sophia Cathedral, Istanbul (formerly Constantinople).]

Istanbul, bear a remarkable similarity to the features of the face on the Shroud as revealed by modern science. See above the "remarkable similarity" between this tenth century mosaic, "to the features of the face on the Shroud"! But, as Wilson has pointed out:

"... if the radiocarbon dating is to be believed, there should be no evidence of our Shroud [before 1260]. The year 1260 was the earliest possible date for the Shroud's existence by radiocarbon dating's calculations")[41].
Atheists tend to place too much reliance on science to answer all questions. Verschuuren, who sees no conflict between his scientific training and his religious beliefs, rejects such scientism, reminding us that they "both have their own authority and expertise. In the world of science, we can find only atoms, molecules, nucleotides, genes, cells, brains and the like, but no souls, no sins, no angels, no miracles, no redemption"! This is simplistic. Naturalistic science, which holds that `nature is all there is - there is no supernatural,' claims that there are "no souls, no sins, no angels, no miracles, no redemption."

On the other hand, religion has its own limitations too: This is also simplistic. What exactly is "religion"? Presumably Verschuuren, a Roman Catholic means the Christian religion in general and the Roman Catholic version of it in particular? But there are a great many religions some of which claim there are "no souls, no sins, no angels, no miracles, no redemption" And there are no doubt some Roman Catholics in good standing, including Roman Catholic clergy, who deny or limit the existence of "angels" and "miracles".

it cannot find out whether radiocarbon dating is reliable or whether there is real human blood in the stains of the Shroud. Why can't "religion" use the scientific method to investigate whether "radiocarbon dating is reliable or whether there is real human blood" on the Shroud? Indeed it was STURP, which was comprised mostly of religious believers, that discovered "there is real human blood in the stains of the Shroud"!

Science and religion each have their own `territory' and their own authority." Verschuuren is a refutation of his own argument, in that he is a religious person who is using science to examine scientific claims that the Shroud is a fake. Indeed, the Shroud itself is both a religious relic and an object of scientific investigation!

Christians, familiar with the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion and knowing something of what 20th century scientific studies have revealed about the mysterious, haunting image, have no doubts; they continue to find the ineffable nobility of this majestic figure as it emerges into the light of secular scrutiny, bearing all the agonising and tragic reminders of the exquisitely prolonged torment that preceded death, a compelling and sufficient witness to its true identity. Agreed. But that refutes Verschuuren "science" and "religion" false dichotomy!

"Vindicating the Holy Shroud," Catholic Culture, 4 May 2021, Jeff Mirus ... I have previously called attention to Gerard Verschuuren’s latest book on the Shroud of Turin (see Out of the past, three surprise books, all occasions of grace). But having finished a careful reading of Verschuuren’s argument, I decided it would be useful to summarize the main points. The following is a summary of the conclusions of the noted geneticist, in accordance with the nine areas of study he undertook in the main chapters of his book: I don't have the time to comment on Mirus' article. So I will end here this May-June 2021 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. To buy more time, I may post a combined July-August 2021 issue in September.

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. "A Catholic Scientist Champions the Shroud of Turin Paperback – March 23, 2021," by Dr Gerard Verschuuren (Author), Sophia Institute Press, Amazon.com. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.251; 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.234. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1995, "From a Forgotten Memorandum: A Visit to the Oxford Research Laboratory 7 July 1988," BSTS Newsletter, pp.15-18, 16. [return]
5. Wilson, I., 1989, "Paris - The Symposium Scientifique," BSTS Newsletter, No. 23, September, pp.2-7, 3. [return]
6. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, pp.99-100. [return]
7. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.122. [return]
8. Culliton, B.J., 1978, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science," Science, Vol. 201, 21 July, pp.235-239, 237; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.37; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.204. [return]
9. Antonacci, 2000, p.37. [return]
10. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.137. [return]
11. Culliton, 1978, p.237. [return]
12. Antonacci, 2000, p.37. [return]
13. Antonacci, M., 2016, "Test The Shroud: At the Atomic and Molecular Levels," Forefront Publishing Company: Brentwood TN, p.7. [return]
14. Antonacci, 2016, p.7. [return]
15. Ibid. [return]
16. Heller, 1983, p.137; Meacham, 1983, p.287; Antonacci, 2000, p.37; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.136. [return]
17. de Wesselow, 2012, p.136. [return]
18. Antonacci, 2000, p.38. [return]
19. Ibid. [return]
20. Antonacci, 2000, p.38; de Wesselow, 2012, p.136. [return]
21. Jackson, et. al, 1984, "Correlation of image intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D structure of a human body shape," Applied Optics, Vol. 23, No. 14, pp. 2244-2270. [return]
22. Wilson, I., 1985, "Some Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter, No. 9, January. [return]
23. "Function (mathematics)," Wikipedia, 17 July 2021. [return]
24. "A Summary of STURP's Conclusions," October 1981, Shroud.com. [return]
25. Wilson, 1979, p.267. [return]
26. Bucklin, R., 1970, "The Legal and Medical Aspects of the Trial and Death of Christ," Medicine, Science and the Law, January; McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: fantasy, fake or fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.23; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.70; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.84; Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.20; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "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, p.42; Antonacci, 2000, p.27; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.56; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.45; de Wesselow, 2012, p.133. [return]
27. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.34; McNair, 1978, p.23; Heller, 1983, p.3; Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius...: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.51; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.31; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.84; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 25; Wilson, 1998, p.42; Ruffin, 1999, p.25; Wilson, & Schwortz, 2000, pp.56-57; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.81; Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, p.19; Oxley, 2010, p.172; Wilson, 2010, p.45; de Wesselow, 2012, p.133. [return]
28. Barnes, 1934, p.34; de Wesselow, 2012, p.133. [return]
29. "Figure 4. Evaluation of clotted blood using direct and uv light," Kearse, K.P., 2019, "Science, Theology and the Turin Shroud," International Shroud Conference, Redeemer University College, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada, August 14-17, 2019. [return]
30. Heller, 1983, p.185; Case, 1996, p.40; Antonacci, 2000, pp.26-27; Adler, A.D., 2000b, "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Bloodstains," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," EffatĂ  Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.129-138, 132; Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.10-27, 14; Guerrera, 2001, p.37; de Wesselow, 2012, p.104. [return]
31. Antonacci, 2000, p.27; Adler, 2000b, p.132; Adler, 2000c, p.14. [return]
32. McNair, 1978, pp.23-24. [return]
33. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, plate 3b. [return]
34. Ramsey, C.B., 2008, "The Shroud of Turin," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, March. [return]
35. Ruffin, 1999, p,55; Wilson, 1998, p.268. [return]
36. Wilson, 1979, p.120; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.36; Wilson, 1986, p.112; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.141; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.105; Wilson, 1998, p.152; Antonacci, 2000, pp.132-133; Wilson, & Schwortz, 2000, pp.110-111; Guerrera, 2001, pp.2-3. [return]
37. Drews, 1984, p.36; Wilson, 1986, p.112; Wilson, 1991, p.141; Iannone, 1998, p.1055; Wilson, 1998, p.152; Antonacci, 2000, pp.132-133; Wilson, & Schwortz, 2000, p.110; Guerrera, 2001, pp.2-3; Oxley, 2010, pp.23-24. [return]
38. Wilson, 1979, p.120; Wilson, 1986, pp.112-113; Wilson, 1991, p.141; Wilson, 1998, p.152; Wilson, & Schwortz, 2000, p.111; Antonacci, 2000, p.1325; de Wesselow, 2012, p.288I. [return]
39. Ian Wilson, "Re: What was the date of your `Secondo Pia' discovery?," Email 12 December 2016 8:08 AM, to S.E. Jones (emphasis Wilson's) [return]
40. "File:Byzantinischer Mosaizist des 9. Jahrhunderts 001.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 21 March 2021. [return]
41. Wilson, 1998, p.141. [return]

Posted 13 July 2021. Updated 25 July 2026.

Saturday, June 5, 2021

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Nineteenth century

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
NINETEENTH CENTURY
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is part #24, "Nineteenth century" of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. For more information about this series see the Index #1. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. This page was initially based on Ian Wilson's 1996, "Highlights of the Undisputed History: 1800."

See important update.

[Index #1] [Previous: 18th century #23] [Next: 20th century (1) #25]


19th century (1801-1900b).

[Above (enlarge): "Secondo Pia (1855–1941)'s 1898 negative of the face image on the Shroud of Turin, in the MusĂ©e de l'ÉlysĂ©e, Lausanne"[2]. This, the most important photograph of the 19th century (indeed of all time!), occurred near the end of it [see "1898b" below].]

1800a May 15: Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821) and his French army begin crossing the Alps into Italy through the Great St Bernard Pass[3]. The Holy Roman Empire Austrian occupiers of northern Italy were unable to assemble fast enough to meet the French and in June 1800 were defeated first at the Battle of Montebello (9 June) and then at the Battle of Marengo (14 June)[4].

1800b September: King Charles Emmanuel IV (r. 1796–1802) and Queen Marie Clotilde (1759–1802) leave their exile in Sardinia [see "1798b"] for Florence, but the French victory at the Battle of Marengo caused them to flee to Rome and then to Naples, where they stayed from November 1800 to March 1801, before returning to Rome as guests of the wealthy Colonna family[5].

1802a 7 March: Death of Queen Clotilde followed by the abdication on 4 June of King Charles Emmanuel IV in favour of his younger brother, King Victor Emmanuel I (r. 1802–21)[6].

1802b June: The first account of the invention of photography by Thomas Wedgwood (1771–1805), using paper and leather coated with silver nitrate, is published by Humphry Davy (1778–1829) in the Journal of the Royal Institution in London, but Wedgwood's photographs haven't survived because he didn't then know how to fix them so that light didn't blacken them[7]. Contrast the step-by-step development of photography in the 19th century [see 1816, 1827, 1835, 1839a & 1839b below] with "astonishingly absurd" (Joe Nickell) `medieval photograph theory' of Prof. Nicholas Allen [see 13Jul07, 07Aug16, 05Sep16 & 16Jun19] that because the Shroud is a photograph, therefore photography must have been invented in one fell swoop by an unknown genius before the first undisputed appearance of the Shroud in 1355 and then it was completely forgotten to be independently rediscovered in the 1800s!

1804 November 13: Private showing of the Shroud for the visit to Turin of Pope Pius VII (r. 1800–23), a prisoner en route from Rome to Paris to crown Napoleon as Emperor on 2 December, who would be crowned only by the Pope, as Charlemagne (r. 800–14) had been[8].

1806a Restoration to the Sainte Chapelle, Paris of the Crown of

[Above (enlarge): The Crown of Thorns[9], bought in 1238 by King Louis IX of France from Emperor Baldwin II of Constantinople, and from 1801 to 2019 kept in Notre Dame Cathedral, Paris[10]. On 15 April 2019 a major fire in the cathedral, caused the relocation of the relic to the Louvre Museum[11]. Today the Crown of Thorns is a circlet made of plaited rushes[12], but originally it had many thorns which were over time removed and distributed as relics[13]. The locations of many of these thorn relics are known and they have been identified as having come from the plant Ziziphus spina-Christi[14]. On the Shroud the bloodflows at the back of the head all end in a concave line [see "1238"], indicating they were halted by a circular band which held the thorns in place, so it is possible (if not probable) that this circlet was actually part of Jesus' crown of thorns (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2)! See also 08Sep13, 19Oct15 & 11Nov17]

Thorns, which during the French Revolution (1789–99) had been kept in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris[15].

1806b 6 August: Dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire when Emperor Francis II (1792–1806) abdicated, following the Empire's defeat by the French under Napoleon at the Battle of Austerlitz (2 December 1805)[16].

1807 6 April: Marriage of Prince Charles Felix (1765–31) to Princess Maria Cristina of Naples and Sicily (1779-1849), but they were to have no children[17].

1813 October: The Sixth Coalition of Prussian, Austrian and Russian forces defeat Napoleon at the Battle of Leipzig (16-19 October), invade France, capture Paris, and force Napoleon to abdicate and go into exile on the island of Elba, between Corsica and Italy[18].

1814a May 3: Louis XVIII (r. 1814–15, 1815–24) is crowned King of France[19].

1814b May 20: Public showing of the Shroud, the first since 1775 [see "1775b"], to mark the return to Turin on that day of King Victor Emmanuel I (r. 1802–21)[20].

1815a February 26: Napoleon escapes from Elba and retakes control of France, causing Louis XVIII to flee to Ghent, then in the Netherlands[21]. But Napoleon is soon defeated by the Seventh Coalition, led by the Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (1769-1852), at the Battle of Waterloo (18 June)[22]. Louis XVIII is restored to the throne of France)[23] and Napoleon is exiled to the remote island of Saint Helena in the South Atlantic, where he died in 1821[24].

1815b May 21: Pope Pius VII, marking his return to Italy a year before on 24 May 1814, after Napoleon's defeat, personally displays the Shroud from the balcony of Turin's Palazzo Madama[25]. When the Shroud is returned to its casket it is sealed with both the papal and royal seals[26].

1815c 9 June: The Congress of Vienna, amongst other restorations to the pre-Napoleonic European order, restored to the Kingdom of Sardinia all the lands it had lost, including Piedmont, Nice, Savoy and added the seaport Genoa[27].

1816 NicĂ©phore NiĂ©pce (1765–1833), using paper coated with silver chloride, photographed images formed in a small camera obscura, but the photographs were negatives and not permanent as NiĂ©pce also could find no way to prevent the coating from darkening when it was exposed to light for viewing[28].

1817 30 September: Marriage of Prince Charles Albert of Carignano(1798–1849) to the sixteen-year-old Archduchess Maria Theresa of Austria (1801-55)[29]. They had three children, one of whom was Victor Emmanuel II (1820–78), who in 1870 [see below] became the first king of a united Italy since the sixth century[30].

1819 6 October: Death of the childless former King Charles Emmanuel IV (1751–1819)[31].

1821a March 6: Emboldened by their July 1820 success in forcing King Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies (1816–25) to grant a constitution modelled on the Spanish Constitution of 1812[32], revolutionaries named the Carbonari, who had support in the army, met with Charles Albert (1798-1849), Prince of Carignano, a distant cousin of King Victor Emmanuel I, demanding that he help them force King Victor Emmanuel I to grant a similar constitution to the Kingdom of Sardinia[33]. The revoluionaries were taking advantage of the absence in Modena over 300km (~200 miles away) of Crown Prince Charles Felix (1765– 1831) [34]. After indicating his support, Charles Albert changed his mind and on 10 March went to Moncalieri Castle to alert the king[35]. That night, the garrison of Alessandria rose up and took control of that city[36]. The next day, 11 March, Victor Emmanuel I called a meeting of the council of the Crown, in which the majority, including Charles Albert, declared their willingness to grant a constitution[37]. The following day, 12 March, the Citadel of Turin fell into the hands of the rebels[38]. Faced with a spreading armed uprising, on 13 March King Victor Emmanuel I, who had no surviving son, abdicated in favour of his yonger brother, Charles Felix (r. 1821–31)[39]. But since Charles Felix was in Modena, Charles Albert was appointed regent[40]. Charles Albert on 13 March wrote to the new king Charles Felix an account of the events, seeking his instructions, but on the same day Charles Albert signed a decree granting a constitution which would not become law until approved by the king[41]. The Holy Alliance coalition of Austria, Prussia, and Russia could not tolerate this rebellion so in February 1821, it had sent an army to crush the revolution in Naples[42]. King Charles Felix also called for an Austrian intervention, which occupied Piedmont from April 1821 to 1823[43]. Faced with an enemy overwhelmingly superior in number, the Carbonari revolts collapsed and their leaders fled into exile[44].

1822 January 4: Showing of the Shroud to mark the start of the reign of King Charles Felix (r. 1821–31), first privately in the Royal Chapel then publicly from the Chapel balustrade[45].

1827 NicĂ©phore NiĂ©pce (1765–1833) takes what is today the oldest

[Above (enlarge[46].): Niépce's "View from the Window at Le Gras" (1826-27), "the oldest surviving camera photograph"[47].]

surviving camera photograph, "View from the Window at Le Gras," on a pewter plate coated with bitumen inside a camera obscura[48].

1831 27 April: Death of the childless and brotherless King Charles Felix (r. 1821–31)[49]. He is succeeded as Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia by his distant cousin, Charles Albert, Prince of Carignano (r. 1831–49)[50].

c1831 Thomas Frank Heaphy (1813-73) begins sketching the likenesses of Christ in the Catacombs of Rome which were early centuries' underground cemeteries[51]. Heaphy was in Rome during the 19th century opening of many of the catacombs[52] and sketched those that depicted the likeness of Christ, under conditions of great difficulty[53]. Heaphy, relying on the datings of Italian archaeologist Giovanni Battista de Rossi (1822–94) who opened many of the Roman catacombs in Heaphy's day[54], thought that the likeness of Christ in the catacombs must have been first or second century when Christians were alive who had seen Jesus or knew Christians who had[55]. Since Heaphy died in 1873, long before the 1898 first photograph of the Shroud [see above and "1898c" below], made the Shroud face well-known, Heaphy could not have been trying to, and nor did he claim to, depict the catacomb's face of Jesus as the face of the Shroud[56]. Therefore, Heaphy's early centuries' paintings of Shroud-like images of Jesus' face in the catacombs are independent confirmation that the Shroud had existed from the first century[57]. Leading Shroudies Ian Wilson and Dorothy Crispino (1916-2014) were critical of Heaphy, with Wilson accusing Heaphy of being "a cheat" and "fraudulent"[58]. But Rex Morgan had stood by Heaphy, that his catacomb paintings were evidence for the Shroud's existence in early centuries, while agreeing that Heaphy may have been wrong on some dates[59].

One of Heaphy's watercolour paintings in particular, that of a fresco in the Catacomb of Saints Nereo and Achilleo (Latin Nereus and

[Above (enlarge): "Original painting of fresco. Catacomb of SS Nereo and Achilleo. Probably 1st century ..."[61]. Wilson noted of this that, "the Heaphy profile view" was an "`odd-man-out'" in depictions of Jesus[62]. Morgan pointed out that Heaphy's painting was of the "three-quarters profile portrait of Christ, in a fresco ... in the ceiling of a vault in the Orpheus Cubiculum of the Domitilla catacomb" [see below] because "The figure [in the fresco] has long hair and a beard; a white mantle is clasped upon the right shoulder. Just as Heaphy had copied it"[63]. Belgian industrial chemist, Remi Van Haelst (1931-2003), saw this fresco and wrote of it, "This is the oldest representation of the Lord, made by an unknown artist ... who had know[n] Jesus":

"On the sepulchral vault, in the light of his flashlamp, the guide showed me a very vague painting. In a kind of circular inset on the ceiling of the chamber I saw the figure of a human bust, looking from the left side. With a kind of sepulchral voice the monk told me: `This is the oldest representation of the Lord, made by an unknown artist, probably based on descriptions or perhaps a sketch or painting by someone who had know[n] Jesus or his disciples"[[63a]
I propose that this fresco is a depiction of Jesus sitting up in the Tomb immediately after His resurrection, and the "white mantle" around His shoulder and back is the Shroud! My reasons are: 1) the simplest way to show Jesus sitting up is by a profile view; 2) Jesus is naked under the "white mantle" as He was when buried (Jn 19:23); and 3) there is no mention in Scripture (or elsewhere as far as I am aware) of Jesus wearing a white mantle, or a white robe, but the Gospels mention that Jesus was buried in a "linen shroud" (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53) which would have been white (Rev 19:14). If so, this is a first century depiction of the Shroud!]

Achilleus) [64]. When it couldn't be found in that catacomb, Wilson had dismissed it as "another piece of Heaphy's artistic fantasising"[65]. But in 1969 British Shroud researcher Sylvia Bogdanescu, with her Romanian-born husband and a knowledgeable guide, photographed Heaphy's fresco in the cubiculum of Orpheus, which was in the

[Above (enlarge). "The Earliest Portrait of Christ," A fresco dated to the 1st Century AD and having similar characteristics to the image on the Shroud of Turin and representing one of the most important recent pieces of evidence for the antiquity of the Shroud" (Photograph by Christopher Morgan 1996)[66]. This is not Bogdanescu's original photograph but a later one taken by Rex Morgan's archaeologist son, Christopher. I have ordered Bogdanescu's book, "The Catacombs and the Early Church" (1998) and I am hoping it has Bogdanescu's original photograph in colour. It does, but it is inferior to this photograph.]

different, but nearby, Domitilla catacomb[67], which dates from the first century[68]. Domitilla's husband was the consul Titus Flavius Clemens who was martyred in 95 and she herself was banished from Rome in the same year[69]. Wilson's response, instead of admitting that he had been wrong all along about Heaphy being dishonest, was:

"But even the most hardened counterfeiter (and I wouldn't rate Heaphy in quite that category), can pass the occasional genuine article"[70].
But would a "counterfeiter" have gone to this much trouble?:
"He [Heaphy] at once saw the value of the frescoes in this part, but his time in Rome was ended, and he must leave the next day. He realised that he could only do the work he desired in this section by staying all night, and he determined to do so. By further bribing he prevailed upon the custodian to lock up, and leave him there as if forgotten. Providing himself with candles and matches, as he thought sufficient, he descended 80 feet down to carry out his lonely and perilous task, - more perilous than would appear, for there have been instances of people swallowed up and lost in the catacombs, in one case that of a party consisting of an officer and twenty soldiers. As he proceeded he made careful notes of turnings and any features in the passages along which he groped his way, lest he should never find his way back to the entrance, so many and intricate are the passages in the larger catacombs. The catacombs are said to have an aggregate of 700 miles of passages, and a single false turn may lead into a labyrinth of passages from which the unwary explorer can find no way out. Having carefully noted in his sketch-book all the marks and turnings that he deemed necessary, he returned to the entrance to reassure himself that he knew his way. At length he was able to begin work, and soon became so absorbed that he forgot the novelty of his situation. There were three pictures he wished to copy, and having completed two [one of which was the above], he found that his supply of candles would not last out the work on the third, a picture of Adam and Eve in Paradise. Rather than lose his picture he decided to work while his last candle lasted, and then trust to groping his way back to the entrance to wait there in the dark until the door was opened. He tells us it became a race between his picture and the candle as to which would be completed first. The picture won by an inch of candle, and even this proved deceptive, for, as it turned out, afterwards, the wick did not extend above half-way into it. He ends his dramatic account of this adventure: `The perils I encountered during this night in the catacombs, in total darkness, and the difficulties I had to surmount in finding my way out, I must, however, leave to the imagination of the readers'"[71].

1835 William Henry Fox Talbot (1800–77), after learning in early

[Above (enlarge[72].): Talbot’s oldest surviving photographic negative of a latticed window at Lacock Abbey in 1835. See the positive made from that negative.]

January 1839a that Louis Daguerre had announced without details his daguerreotype photographic process [see below], Talbot asserted scientific priority based on experiments he had begun in early 1834[73]. At a meeting of the Royal Institution on 25 January 1839, Talbot exhibited several paper photographs he had made in 1835 and then communicated the general nature and details of his process to the Royal Society[74]. Talbot's "Calotype" process used writing paper bathed in a weak solution of ordinary table salt (sodium chloride), which when dried and brushed with a solution of silver nitrate, created a coating of light-sensitive silver chloride that darkened where it was exposed to light[75]. In 1841 Talbot announced his improvement of his process which, pioneered by Daguerre [see below], used an invisibly slight `latent' image which reduced the exposure time in the camera[76]. Talbot further devised ways of chemically stabilizing his negatives, making them insensitive to further exposure to light so that they could be used to create photographic positives[77]. The translucent calotype negative made it possible to produce as many positive prints as desired by simple contact printing, whereas the daguerreotype was an opaque direct positive that could be reproduced only by being copied in a camera[78]. But photographs produced by the paper calotype process were not as sharp as those produced by the metallic daguerreotype process[79]. Talbot is regarded as "the father of the negative-positive photographic process"[80]. but Jesus by His negative Shroud image beat him to it by more than 18 centuries!

1839a 7 January: Louis Daguerre (1787–1851), an associate of NiĂ©pce

[Above (enlarge[81].): View of the Boulevard du Temple, taken by Daguerre in 1838 in Paris, includes the earliest known photograph of a person"[82].]

who had died in 1833, at a joint meeting of the French Academy of Sciences and the AcadĂ©mie des Beaux Arts, announced and described in general terms, his daguerreotype photographic process[83]. But only to the Academy of Sciences's secretary François Arago (1786–1853), under assurances of strict confidentiality, did Daguerre demonstrated his process[84]. In his "Daguerreotype" process, Daguerre exposed inside a camera obscura a thin copper sheet coated with light-sensitive silver iodide[85]. This required a very long exposure to produce a distinct image, but Daguerre made the crucial discovery that an invisibly faint `latent' image created by a much shorter exposure could be chemically `developed' into a visible image[86].

1839b 9 September: Astronomer John Herschel (1792-1871) photo- graphs on a still-existing glass plate the "forty-foot telescope" [Right (enlarge)[88].] which his father, Sir William Herschel (1738-1822) had constructed in 1789[89]. In the same year, 1839, Herschel coined the term "photo-graphy" (Greek photos "light" + graphos "writing")[90]. Herschel was also the first to apply the terms "negative" and "positive" to photography[91]. In 1819 Herschel had discovered sodium thiosulfate to be a solvent of silver halides and after experimentally applying it in early 1839, Herschel informed Talbot and Daguerre that this "hyposulphite of soda" ("hypo") could be used to "fix" pictures and make them permanent[92].

1842a April 12: Marriage of Crown Prince Victor Emanuel II (1820–78) to his cousin Maria Adelaide, Archduchess of Austria (1822–55)[93].

1842b May 4: Showing of the Shroud to mark the royal marriage[94]. Lithographs (e.g. below - enlarge[95]) - show the Shroud being exhibited from a balcony of the Palazzo Madama[96]. The making of a daguerreotype of the Shroud on this occasion is considered but rejected[97].

1844 4 March: Birth to Victor Emanuel II and Adelaide of Austria, a son, Prince Umberto I (1844–1900b)[98], who in 1878 would become King of Italy.

1848a 12 January: The Sicilian revolution of 1848 began a year of popular revolts against absolutist monarchies across Europe[99]. Led by Ruggero Settimo (1778-1863) against the French King Ferdinand II (r.1830-59) of The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, on 13 April the provisional government declared the King deposed[100]. A new constitution was issued on July 10, under the name of the Fundamental Statute of the Kingdom of Sicily, which provided for a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy[101]. In response, the King assembled a military force which by 15 May 1849 had crushed the revolution[102].

1848b 4 March: King Charles Albert of Sardinia (r. 1831–49), concerned at the revolutionary unrest agitating Italy, granted a constitution [Left (enlarge):[103].], the Statuto Albertino[104], to the Kingdom of Sardinia. The Statute in 1860 became the constitution of the unified Kingdom of Italy until 1948[105].

1849 28 July: Death of King Charles Albert (1798-1849)[106], who is succeeded as Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia by his son Victor Emmanuel II (r. 1849–61), who in 1861 would become King of Italy.

1855 Arthur Forgeais (1822-78) a French archaeologist and numis-

[Above (enlarge)[107]: Lead pilgrim's badge or medallion in the Cluny Museum, Paris[108] from the first undisputed exposition of the Shroud at Lirey, France from c.1355-56[109]. See 13Apr18]

matist, taking advantage of the dredging of the river Seine, Paris, during reconstruction of its bridges, discovers in the dredged up mud a pilgrim's lead badge (above), amongst a great many artifacts at a presumed `wishing well' near the Pont au Change bridge[110]. This is the earliest surviving depiction of the Shroud as a double-imprint cloth, held out by two clergy whose heads have broken off[111]. It must have been obtained at Lirey, France during the first undisputed exposition of the Shroud there in c.1355 by Geoffroy I de Charny (c. 1300-56) and his wife Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332–1428), because it bears their coats of arms[112].

1857 Discovery of the Alexamenos graffito[113].which depicts Jesus naked from the rear, on a cross, with the head of a donkey[114]. This

[Above (enlarge): The Alexamenos graffito mocks Alexamenos, a second century Christian Roman soldier or slave[115], who is depicted raising a hand in worship of a naked Jesus who has a donkey's head, on a cross from the rear, under the caption: "Alexamenos worships [his] God"[116]. See 13Apr16]

earliest known depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus, dated c.200, was found scratched on a wall in an excavated building under the Palatine Hill, Rome[117]. The nude back view of Jesus was intended by the anti-Christian mocker to be especially shocking and degrading.

1861 17 March. The Kingdom of Italy is established[118] and Victor Emmanuel II (r. 1861-78) becomes Italy's first king[119].

1868a April 21: Marriage of Prince Umberto I (1844–1900b) to his cousin Princess Margaret of Savoy (1851–1926)[120]. On 11 November 1869, their only child, Prince Victor Emmanuel would be born, who would become King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy (1900b–46)[121].

1868b April 24-27: Showing of the Shroud for four days on the Turin

[Above (enlarge)[122]: Fernando Perrin, "Ostension of the Holy Shroud," lithograph, 1868[123], depicting the marriage of Prince Umberto I to Princess Margaret of Savoy.]

Cathedral's high altar, to celebrate the royal marriage[124].

1868c April 28: Princess Clotilde of Savoy (1843-1911), daughter of Victor Emanuel II and Adelaide of Austria, changes the Shroud's former lining cloth of black silk that had been sewn on by Sebastian Valfre (1629–1710) in 1694 [see "1694a], substituting for it one of crimson taffeta[125]. The Shroud is then measured and found (wrongly) to be 410cm. x 140 cm[126]. It actually is 437cm. x 111cm, which will be a problem for the next 1898 exposition[see 1898b].

1870 20 September: King Victor Emmanuel II (r. 1849–61), having supported the military victories of Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807-82), completes the unification of Italy by entering Rome and setting up his new capital there on 2 July 1871[127].

1878 9 January: Death of King Victor Emmanuel II (1820-78)[128]. He is succeeded as King of Italy by his son, Umberto I (r. 1878–1900b)[129].

1888 George Eastman (1854–1932) first put cheap box cameras with a roll of sensitised film into mass production[130].

1896 24 October: Marriage of Prince Victor Emmanuel III to Princess Elena of Montenegro (1873-1952)[131]. They were to have five daughters and one son, Prince Umberto II (1904–83)[132], who would become the last King of Italy, reigning for only 34 days (9 May-12 June 1946)[133]. An exposition of the Shroud to celebrate the royal wedding was deferred to May 1898 [see 1898b] to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the Statuto Albertino [see 1848b], the constitution of the nascent Kingdom of Italy[134].

1897 Completion of the current stone church of Lirey, on the site of

[Above (enlarge)[135]: Third Church of St. Mary, Lirey, France. It was on these grounds in c.1355 that the Shroud was first exhibited in undisputed history.]

Geoffroy de Charny (c. 1300–56)'s wooden church built in 24 June 1353, and reconstructed in stone on 27 March 1526[136].

1898a May 25: Afternoon. Before the 1898 exposition began that day [see "next], Secondo Pia (1855–1941), an experienced Turinese amateur photographer[137], takes two 21 x 27 cm. test photographs of the Shroud[138], but due to technical difficulties he is unable to take his planned official photographs[139].

1898b May 25: The beginning of an 8-day public exhibition of the

[Above (enlarge): Photograph by Secondo Pia of the interior of Turin Cathedral during the 1898 exposition with the Shroud exhibited above the high altar[140].]

Shroud which will run until 2 June[141].

1898c May 28: At night, Pia is successful[142] and takes two further 21 x 27 cm. test photographs of the Shroud and four 50 x 60 cm. official photographs[143]. At midnight in his home Pia develops one of his large glass photographic plates and he is astonished to see that the emerging negative of the Shroudman's face is life-like [see above and below] [144]!:

"A small, red light shone feebly in Pia's darkroom as he gingerly placed the large glass plates in a solution of oxalate of iron ... In the dim, red glare, he held the dripping plate up before his eyes. Clearly visible was the upper part of the altar with the huge frame above it containing the relic. But the brown stain-image seemed somehow different from the way it looked on the cloth itself. It had taken on a molding ... a depth ... a definition. Turning the plate on its side, he gazed at the face. What he saw made his hands tremble and the wet plate slipped, almost dropping to the floor. The face, with eyes closed, had become startlingly real. `Shut up in my darkroom,' Pia wrote later, `all intent on my work, I experienced a very strong emotion when, during the development, I saw for the first time the Holy Face appear on the plate, with such clarity that I was dumbfounded by it'"[145].

[Above (enlarge): Negative of Pia's fourth test photograph taken on 28 May[146]. From the mention above of "the upper part of the altar with the huge frame above it" I presume that this is the actual negative photograph in which Pia first saw the Shroudman's life-like face.]

Pia realised that the Shroudman's image must be a photographic negative[147]! This was shocking not only to Pia but also to King Umberto I and his advisors[148]. It was agreed that after informing the Vatican, no public announcement be made until the matter had been carefully considered[149]. But one of the king's court leaked the story to a newspaper and it became a worldwide sensation[150]. Proponents of the forgery theory tacitly confirmed that the Shroud image being a photographic negative was fatal to their position, by accusing Pia of fraudulent retouching his Shroud negatives[151]. It would not be until the 1931 exposition [see future "1931"] that Pia, age 76, would be vindicated, when a professional photographer, Giuseppe Enrie (1886-1961) took better photographs of the Shroud and confirmed that the Shroudman's image is indeed a photographic negative[152]! However, scientists saw these newspaper accounts and Pia's accompanying photographs, and this began a new era in the Shroud's history, that of science[153] [see below].

1898d May 26 and 27: Three members of Pia's Turin photography club, Prof. Noguier de Malijay, Lt. Felice Fino and Fr Giovanni Sanna Solaro smuggle, their

[Right (enlarge): Fr. Solaros's negative of the Shroud face[154].]

cameras into the exposition and take photographs, which when developed, confirm that the Shroudman's image is a photographic negative[155]!

1899 Roman Catholic historian Canon Ulysse Chevalier (1841–1923) publishes his Le Saint Suaire de Turin, est-il l'original ou une copie? ("The Shroud of Turin, is it the original or a copy?")[156], the first of his 6(!) books[157] against the authenticity of the Shroud.

1900a Yves Delage (1854–1920), a French zoologist at the Sorbonne University in Paris[158] [Left (enlarge)[159].], from the anatom-ical details of the Shroudman's image evident in Pia's negative photographs, realised that the Shroud could not have been produced by an artist[160]. Delage showed Pia's photographs to his assistant, Paul Vignon (1865-1943), a Roman Catholic biologist, and asked him to conduct a scientific investigation into the Shroud[161]. In that same year Vignon met with Pia in Turin and confirmed that his photographs were genuine[162]. Pia gave Vignon a full set of his photographs for his investigation[163]. From those copies of Pia's plates, Vignon, in collaboration with other scientists, were able to study in great detail the anatomy of the man on the Shroud[164]. Vignon confirmed that Pia's photographs were photographic negatives and that, combined with their fine anatomical detail, meant that the Shroud could not be a forgery because the forger would have been working blind, unable to check his work[165]. Moreover, a medieval forger would not have been able to even conceive of a negative image, since photographic negativity entered the realm of human knowledge only when photography was invented in the middle of the nineteenth century[166]. See above 1816, 1835 & 1839b. Let alone a medieval forger having the skill to depict the entire double body image in negative values[167]. And what would be the point in painting a negative image on the cloth, when it couldn't be appreciated until photography was invented at least 5 centures later[168]? Vignon would in 1902 submit a report of their investigation to Delage, which concluded that the image on the Shroud was of Jesus[169], produced on His burial sheet by ammoniacal vapours from His body[170]. And, although he was an agnostic[171], Delage, now a Professor of Zoology at the Sorbonne, would in 1902 [see future "1902"] present to the French Academy of Sciences their finding that the man on the Shroud was Jesus[172]!

1900b 29 July: Assassination of King Umberto I (r. 1878–1900b)[173]. He is succeeded by his son, King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy (r. 1900b–1946)[174].

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. "Holy Face of Jesus," Wikipedia, 16 February 2021. [return]
3. "1800: April–June," Wikipedia, 24 May 2021. [return]
4. "Great St Bernard Pass: Napoleonic crossing," Wikipedia, 5 May 2021. [return]
5. "Clotilde of France: Queen of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 15 May 2021. [return]
6. Ibid. [return]
7. 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.210; "1802: April–June," Wikipedia, 14 May 2021. [return]
8. Crispino, D.C, 1982, "Commemorations," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 2, March, pp.33-35, 34; Wilson, 1998, p.297. [return]
9. "File:Couronne d'epines - Crown of Thorns Notre Dame Paris.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 5 March 2021. [return]
10. "Crown of thorns: France," Wikipedia, 15 April 2021. [return]
11. "Crown of thorns," Wikipedia, 15 April 2021. [return]
12. Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963, p.94. [return]
13. Cruz, 1984, p.34. [return]
14. Cruz, 1984, p.35. [return]
15. Ibid. [return]
16. "Holy Roman Empire: French Revolutionary Wars and final dissolution," Wikipedia, 7 June 2021. [return]
17. "Charles Felix of Sardinia: Marriage and return to Turin (1814-1821)," Wikipedia, 1 June 2021 & "Maria Cristina of Naples and Sicily," Wikipedia, 22 May 2021. [return]
18. "Napoleon," Wikipedia, 6 June 2021. [return]
19. "Louis XVIII," Wikipedia, 30 May 2021. [return]
20. Wilson, 1998, p.297; Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, p.269. [return]
21. "Louis XVIII: Hundred Days," Wikipedia, 30 May 2021. [return]
22. "Napoleon," Wikipedia, 6 June 2021. [return]
23. "Louis XVIII: Second Restoration (from 1815)," Wikipedia, 30 May 2021. [return]
24. "Napoleon," Wikipedia, 6 June 2021. [return]
25. Crispino, 1982, p.34; Wilson, 1998, p.297. [return]
26. Ibid. [return]
27. Scott, 2003, p.269; "Congress of Vienna: Final Act," Wikipedia, 9 June 2021. [return]
28. "History of photography: 1816 to 1833: Niépce's earliest fixed images," Wikipedia, 20 May 2021. [return]
29. "Charles Albert of Sardinia: ," Wikipedia, 16 May 2021. [return]
30. "Victor Emmanuel II of Italy," Wikipedia, 3 June 2021. [return]
31. "Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 4 June 2021. [return]
32. "Revolutions during the 1820s: Italy," Wikipedia, 5 April 2021. [return]
33. "Charles Albert of Sardinia: Participation in the Revolution of 1821," Wikipedia, 16 May 2021. [return]
34. Charles Felix of Sardinia: Revolution of 1821," Wikipedia, 1 June 2021. [return]
35. "Charles Albert of Sardinia: Participation in the Revolution of 1821," Wikipedia, 16 May 2021. [return]
36. Ibid. [return]
37. Ibid. [return]
38. Ibid. [return]
39. Ibid. [return]
40. Ibid. [return]
41. Ibid. [return]
42. "Revolutions during the 1820s: Italy," Wikipedia, 5 April 2021. [return]
43. Ibid. [return]
44. Ibid. [return]
45. Wilson, 1998, p.297. [return]
46. "File:View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 5 March 2021. [return]
47. "View from the Window at Le Gras," Wikipedia, 5 April 2021. [return]
48. "View from the Window at Le Gras: Creation," Wikipedia, 5 April 2021. [return]
49. Charles Felix of Sardinia: Death and succession," Wikipedia, 1 June 2021. [return]
50. "Charles Albert of Sardinia: Accession to the throne," Wikipedia, 16 May 2021. [return]
51. Morgan, R., 1986, "The Holy Shroud and the Earliest Paintings of Christ," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.140. [return]
52. Dobson, C.C., 1933, "The Face of Christ: Earliest Likenesses from the Catacombs," Centenary Press: London, p.7; Morgan, 1986, p.21; Crispino, D.C., 1986, "Recently Published," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 21, December, pp.23-24, 23. [return]
53. Dobson, 1933, pp.14-18; Morgan, 1986, pp.24-29. [return]
54. Dobson, 1933, p.25. [return]
55. Dobson, 1933, pp.14-18; Morgan, 1986, pp.15,21, 119-120; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.151. [return]
56. Morgan, 1986, pp.9-10, 15. [return]
57. Morgan, 1986, p.16. [return]
58. Crispino, 1986, p.23; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.90, 108. [return]
59. Morgan, 1986, p.120. [return]
61. Morgan, 1986, plate 1. [return]
62. Wilson, I., 1992, "Still in Rome: Rediscovery of 'Oldest Painted Likeness of Christ'?," BSTS Newsletter, No. 32, pp.7-10, 8. [return]
63. Morgan, R.H., 1993, "New Evidence for the Earliest Portrait of Jesus," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 42, December, pp.28-29, 28. [return]
63a. Van Haelst, R., 1987, "Did I see the Lord?," Shroud News, No. 44, December, pp.11-15, 12. [return]
64. Morgan, 1986, plate 1. [return]
65. Wilson, 1992, pp.8-9. [return]
66. Morgan, R., 1997, "The Earliest Portrait of Christ," Shroud News No. 100, February, back cover. [return]
67. Wilson, 1992, pp.8-9. [return]
68. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.150; "Catacombs of Domitilla," Wikipedia, 5 December 2020. [return]
69. Dobson, 1933, p.30; "Flavia Domitilla (saint)," Wikipedia, 15 May 2021. [return]
70. Wilson, 1992, p.9. [return]
71. Dobson, 1933, pp.19-20. [return]
72. Robinson, L., 2017, "William Henry Fox Talbot: An Overview," Photofocus, 7 May. [return]
73. "Henry Fox Talbot: Photographic inventions," Wikipedia, 28 March 2021. [return]
74. Ibid. [return]
75. Ibid. [return]
76. "Calotype: The process," Wikipedia, 14 March 2021. [return]
77. "Henry Fox Talbot: Photographic inventions," Wikipedia, 28 March 2021. [return]
78. "Henry Fox Talbot: The Calotype," Wikipedia, 28 March 2021. [return]
79. "Calotype: The process," Wikipedia, 14 March 2021. [return]
80. Whitmire, V., 2021, "William Henry Fox Talbot 1800-1877," The International Photography Hall of Fame and Museum. [return]
81. "File:Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre (unmirrored).jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 22 February 2021. [return]
82. "Louis Daguerre: Development of the daguerreotype," Wikipedia, 12 June 2021. [return]
83. "Louis Daguerre: Biography," Wikipedia, 12 June 2021. [return]
84. Ibid. [return]
85. "Louis Daguerre: Development of the daguerreotype," Wikipedia, 12 June 2021. [return]
86. Ibid. [return]
88. "File:Herschel first picture on glass 1839 3.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 15 September 2020. [return]
89. "John Herschel: Photography," Wikipedia, 25 June 2021. [return]
90. Ibid. [return]
91. Ibid. [return]
92. Ibid. [return]
93. "Adelaide of Austria: Duchess of Savoy," Wikipedia, 18 June 2021. [return]
94. Wilson, 1998, p.298. [return]
95. Falcinelli, R., 2010, "Two unpublished letters of Secondo Pia about the 1898 Shroud photography," Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Scientific approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, ENEA Frascati, Italy, 4-6 May 2010. [return]
96. Wilson, 1998, p.298. [return]
97. Ibid. [return]
98. "Adelaide of Austria: Issue," Wikipedia, 18 June 2021. [return]
99. "Revolutions of 1848: Italian states," Wikipedia, 25 June 2021. [return]
100. "Ferdinand II of the Two Sicilies: Revolutions of 1848," Wikipedia, 22 May 2021. [return]
101. "Sicilian Constitution of 1848," Wikipedia, 4 April 2021. [return]
102. "Ferdinand II of the Two Sicilies: Revolutions of 1848," Wikipedia, 22 May 2021. [return]
103. "File:Carlo Alberto firma lo Statuto.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 18 August 2018. [return]
104. "Statuto Albertino," Wikipedia, 9 June 2021. [return]
105. Ibid. [return]
106. "Charles Albert of Sardinia: Final days in Oporto," Wikipedia, 16 May 2021. [return]
107. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
108. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.103; Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
109. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.221-222. [return]
110. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.21, 194 n.20; Bonnet-Eymard, B., 1991, "Study of Original Documents of the Archives of the Diocese of Troyes in France with Particular Reference to the Memorandum of Pierre D'Arcis," Shroud News, No. 68, December, pp.6-18, 15; Foster, A., 2012, "The Pilgrim's Medallion / Amulet of Lirey," BSTS Newsletter, No. 75, June; "Arthur Forgeais," Wikipedia, 13 March 2021. Translated by Google. [return]
111. Wilson, 1991, p.21; Guerrera, 2001, p.103. [return]
112. Wilson, 1991, p.21. [return]
113. "Alexamenos graffito," Wikipedia, 26 June 2021. [return]
114. O'Rahilly, A. & Gaughan, J.A., ed., 1985, "The Crucified," Kingdom Books: Dublin, p.237; Wilson, 1998, p.49; "Alexamenos graffito," Wikipedia, 26 June 2021. [return]
115. O'Rahilly, 1985, p.237; Wilson, 1998, p.49. [return]
116. "Alexamenos graffito," Wikipedia, 2021. [return]
117. O'Rahilly, 1985, p.237; "Alexamenos graffito," Wikipedia, 2021. [return]
118. "Kingdom of Italy," Wikipedia, 14 June 2021. [return]
119. "Victor Emmanuel II of Italy: Wars of Italian Unification," Wikipedia, 3 June 2021. [return]
120. "Umberto I of Italy: Youth," Wikipedia, 3 June 2021. [return]
121. "Victor Emmanuel III of Italy," Wikipedia, 5 July 2021. [return]
122. Cozzo, P., 2019, "The Shroud at Court: History, Usages, Places and Images of a Dynastic Relic," Brill: Netherlands, p.297. [return]
123. Scott, 2003, p.296. [return]
124. Wilson, 1998, p.298. [return]
125. Ibid. [return]
126. Ibid. [return]
127. "Victor Emmanuel II of Italy: Completion of the unification," Wikipedia, 3 June 2021. [return]
128. "Victor Emmanuel II of Italy," Wikipedia, 3 June 2021. [return]
129. "Umberto I of Italy: Reign," Wikipedia, 3 June 2021. [return]
130. O'Rahilly, 1985, p.47; "George Eastman: Career," Wikipedia, 27 June 2021. [return]
131. "Elena of Montenegro: Marriage," Wikipedia, 6 June 2021. [return]
132. "Elena of Montenegro: Children," Wikipedia, 6 June 2021. [return]
133. "Umberto II of Italy," Wikipedia, 19 June 2021. [return]
134. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.14; Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, p.17; McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: fantasy, fake or fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.25; Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.26. [return]
135. "Lirey, France," Google Street View, August 2008. [return]
136. Crispino, D.C., 1988, "To Know the Truth: A Sixteenth Century Document with Excursus," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 28/29, September/December, pp.25-40, 25. [return]
137. Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius. ..: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.49Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.34; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.18. [return]
138. Wilson, I., 1992, "Recent Publications," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 30, December 1991/January, 1992, p.12; Moretto, 1999, p.24. [return]
139. McNair, 1978, p.26; Wilson, 1979, p.26; Morgan, R.H., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.122. [return]
140. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.24. [return]
141. Wuenschel, 1954, p.14; Otterbein, A.J., 1977, "Introduction," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.3-9, 4; Wilson, 1979, pp.264-265; Wilson, 1998, pp.298-299; Moretto, 1999, p.24; Wilson, 2010, p.306. [return]
142. McNair, 1978, p.26; de Wesselow, 2012, p.18. [return]
143. Moretto, 1999, p.25. [return]
144. McNair, 1978, p.26; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.18-19. [return]
145. Walsh, 1963, p.24; de Wesselow, 2012, p.18. [return]
146. Moretto, 1999, pp.24-25. [return]
147. Walsh, 1963, pp.26-27; McNair, 1978, p.27; Cruz, 1984, pp.49-50; Wilson, 1998, p.18; Antonacci, 2000, p.35. [return]
148. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.54. [return]
149. Adams, 1982, p.54. [return]
150. Adams, 1982, p.54; Drews, 1984, p.3. [return]
151. Walsh, 1963, p36; Adams, 1982, p.57; O'Rahilly, 1985, p.50; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.169; Antonacci, 2000, p.47; Wilson, 2010, p.19. [return]
152. Adams, 1982, p.56; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.168-169; Wilson, 1998, p.18; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.197-198. [return]
153. Antonacci, 2000, p.4; Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, pp.70-71; de Wesselow, 2012, p.19. [return]
154. Fanti & Malfi, 2015, p.71. [return]
155. van Haelst, R. & Morgan, R., 1987, "Honouring an Almost Forgotten Shroud Scholar: Don Noguier de Malijay," Shroud News, No. 40, April, pp.8-10, 9. [return]
156. Fossati, L., 1992, "A Critical Study of the Lirey Documents," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 41, December, pp.2-11, 2. [return]
157. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.112. n.5. [return]
158. Drews, 1984, p.4; Antonacci, 2000, p.4; "Yves Delage," Wikipedia, 21 January 2021. [return]
159. Portrait of Professor Delage (1911-12), by Mathurin MĂ©heut (1882–1958)," Station Biologique de Roscoff, France. [return]
160. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, p.36; Drews, 1984, p.4; Antonacci, 2000, p.4; Guerrera, 2001, p.51. [return]
161. Antonacci, 2000, p.4; Guerrera, 2001, p.51; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.19-20. [return]
162. Morgan, 1980, p.64; Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.36; Guerrera, 2001, p.51. [return]
163. Morgan, 1980, p.64; Drews, 1984, p.4. [return]
164. Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 20. [return]
165. Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.36. [return]
166. Morgan, 1980, pp.64-65. [return]
167. Morgan, 1980, p.65. [return]
168. Morgan, 1980, p.65. [return]
169. Antonacci, 2000, p.4. [return]
170. Drews, 1984, p.4. [return]
171. Drews, 1984, p.4; Antonacci, 2000, p.4; Guerrera, 2001, p.51. [return]
172. Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.41; Cruz, 1984, p.51; Drews, 1984, p.4; Antonacci, 2000, p.4; Guerrera, 2001, p.53; de Wesselow, 2012, p.20. [return]
173. "Umberto I of Italy: Assassination," Wikipedia, 3 June 2021. [return]
174. "Victor Emmanuel III of Italy: Accession to the throne," Wikipedia, 5 July 2021. [return]

Posted 5 June 2021. Updated 28 March 2026.