Late addition (July 2019)
Please forgive this postscript, correction, “prescript”, correction, intrusion, added many years later – based on some 350 and more postings here and elsewhere.
That’s including some 7 years of my hands-on investigation into image-forming techniques, chosen to be credible with simple, indeed crude, medieval (14th century) technology etc etc.
(Oh, and yes, I accept the radiocarbon dating, despite it being restricted to a single non-random corner sample, making all the oh-so-dismissive, oh-so-derogatory statistics-based sniping totally irrelevant – a ranging shot being just that me dears- a single ranging shot, albeit subdivided into three for Arizona, Oxford and Zurich).
Sindonology (i.e. the “science” , read pseudoscience – of the so-called “Shroud ” of Turin) can be simply summed up. It’s a re-branding exercise, one designed to pretend that the prized Turin possession is not just J of A’s “fine linen”, described in the biblical account as used to transport a crucified body from cross to tomb.
Oh no, it goes further, much further, way way beyond the biblical account. How? By making out that it was the SAME linen as that described in the Gospel of John, deployed as final “burial clothes”. Thus the description “Shroud” for the Turin Linen, usually with the addition “burial shroud”. Why the elision of two different linens, deployed for entirely different purposes (transport first, then final interment)?
Go figure! Key words to consider are: authentic relic v manufactured medieval icon; mystique, peaceful death-repose, unlimited opportunity for proposing new and ever more improbable image-formation mechanisms etc. How much easier it is to attach the label “Holy” to Shroud if seen as final burial clothes, in final at-peace repose – prior to Resurrection- as distinct from a means of temporary swaying side-to-side transport in an improvised makeshift stretcher !
As I say, a rebranding exercise (transport to final burial shroud) and a very smart and subtle one at that . Not for nothing did that angry local Bishop of Troyes suddenly refer to a “sleight of hand” after allegedly accepting it when first displayed. Seems the script was altered, or as some might say, tampered with! It might also explain why there were two Lirey badges, not just one. Entire books could be written on which of the two came first… I think I know which, with its allusion (?) to the Veil of Veronica… yes, there are alternative views (the face above “SUAIRE” a visual link to the face-only display of the Linen as the “Image of Edessa” or as that on the then current “Shroud” per se.
Face shown (left) on mid- 14th century Machy Mould (recently discovered variant of the Lirey Pilgrim Badge) above the word “SUAIRE” (allegedly meaning “shroud”). Inset image on the right: one version among many of the fabled “Veil of Veronica” image. I say the two are related, and deliberately so, but this is not the time or place to go into detail.
No, NOT a resurrectional selfie, but instead a full size version of, wait for it, the legendary VEIL OF VERONICA , product of inital body contact – no air gaps- between body and fabric, but with one important difference. The Turin image was intended to look more realistic, less artistic.
How? By displaying a negative tone-reversed image implying IMPRINT (unless, that is, you’re a modern day sindonologist, in which case ‘resurrectional proto-photographic selfie” becomes the preferred, nay, vigorously proferred explanation assisted by unrestrained imagination, creation of endless pseudoscience etc etc, with resort to laser beams, corona discharges, nuclear physics, elementary particles, earthquakes etc etc – the list is seemingly endless!
Welcome to modern day sindonology.
Personally, I prefer no-nonsense feet-on-the-ground hypothesis-testing science, aided by lashings of, wait for it, plain down-to-earth common sense.
Start of original posting
Stop press (added 12th March):
I have added to the end of this post a section on the work of Irene Corgiat, pyrographical artist par excellence, who has produced a remarkable simulation of the face on the Shroud using her “electric pyro-tool”.
Another stop press added July 29 2012: see this later post of mine for an explanation as to why 1532 burn holes fluoresce under uv whereas Shroud body image does not (it’s due to aromatic fluorochromes).
1. The Shroud image does not fluoresce under uv light – in the way that any self-respecting modern-day scorch image does. So it could not possibly have been produced by branding technology, could it? RIGHT?
2. The image is front and back only – without sides – exactly as expected of branding technology.
3. The image exhibits most if not all the chemical characteristics of a scorch mark, like carbohydrates that have been dehydrated, oxidised etc. – in other words the kind of chemical changes that accompany pyrolysis, aka thermal degradation, the ones that result in caramelisation, browning, formation of Maillard reaction products etc. – exactly as expected of branding technology.
4. The image is like a photographic negative, i.e. light/dark reversed – exactly as expected of branding technology.
5. The image is superficial – confined to the outermost layers of the fabric, exactly as expected of branding technology
6. Not only that, but the image is largely confined to the crown fibres, where one thread loops over another – exactly as expected of branding technology.
7. The image is interrupted by creases in the fabric – exactly as expected of branding technology.
8. The image area of the cloth is mechanically weaker than adjoining non-image areas – exactly as expected of branding technology
9. The image does not depend on painting, primitive photography etc., inasmuch as there are no traces or pigments, photographic emulsions etc – exactly as expected of branding technology
10. Computer-aided analysis and processing can generate a 3D-like impression (like a bas relief) but the resultant image fails to show the familiar topological relief resulting from conventional lateral illumination, as in a photograph or painting – exactly as expected of branding technology.
11. The Shroud is arguably much wider (1.1m, 3.7 feet) and thus wasteful of material than would be expected of something intended to serve purely as a burial shroud, but does provide the required ‘work-around’ surplus for medieval forgers – exactly as expected of branding technology.
Psst: I only added that last one to make up a nice round 10 for the blog title (oh, and to give something for the shroudies to rubbish). Cue lots of brickbats in the next day or two about needing space inside the Shroud for those Gospel of St. John sackloads of myrrh and aloes. Yup, I too expect to be thermally imprinted (“branded”) yet again as an upstart ignoramus. They have been queuing up to do it – Dan Porter (3D imaging), Barrie Schwortz (fluorescence), Dr.Di Lazzaro (failure to embrace his uv radiation model)…
C’est la vie for the Doubting Thomases of this world…
Colin Berry PhD, aka sciencebod
PS: I now firmly believe the Shroud image to be a ‘scorchograph’. Don’t bother googling – you encountered that term here first.
My next posts will be a heavy critique of the so-called (misleading and deceptive) mantra of the Shroud as possessing ‘encoded 3D information’. I shall present evidence that 2D -> pseudo 3D imaging software is simply more responsive to scorchographs than to photographs ( – or to hand-drawn pyrographs?)
Further postscript, added 12th March. Yes, that final comment in brackets was prompted by my having been made aware yesterday of the work of Irene Corgiat.
I have taken her image of the face on the Shroud, produced with the aid of an ‘electric pyrotool’, which I assume to be something akin to a soldering iron (without the solder), given it some extra contrast and brightness, and then checked it out in the ImageJ 3D-enhancement program. Here is the before-and-after result:
Irene’s image does respond a little to the 3D software, being recognizable (just about) as a face, but clearly does not have anything like as much “encoded 3D information” as the thermo-prints I have produced with metal templates, or that of the Shroud image for that matter. I think it is interesting that she was able to produce so good a simulation artistically, but the 3D evidence suggests that if the Shroud image was produced through pyrography (“scorching”) – as I firmly believe to be the case- then it was more likely to have been done by a printing process. There would have been little by way of human input at the scorching stage (except for choosing temperature, contact time, contact pressure etc).
It is probably the semi-automated aspects of the latter that give rise to the smooth graduated changes in image density that the software can more readily respond to and process, as distinct from more individualistic variations that arise when it is a discriminating artist deciding how much scorching to apply here or there for best artistic effect. So don’t take that personally, Irene. Take it as as a compliment in fact. I’m saying your art is not sufficiently robotic to be easily analysed for cues to 3D relief by a pre-programmed computer.
But your input is welcome all the same, dear lady, showing how versatile the pyrographical approach can be, applied in different ways. Who knows? Maybe the chief features of the Shroud image were obtained with a hot metal template, with secondary touching-up here and there with a hand-held hot iron.
Oh, and I raise my hat to you for “painting” a light/dark reversed image that produced that amazingly Shroud-like pseudo-negative, with its serene countenance. It is invariably the latter reversed image that is chosen by the media (not the original with the tortured facial expression that pilgrims had to be content with for centuries).
Directory of my posts to date (here and previously on my Science Buzz site)
E – indicates experimental content
1. The Turin Shroud – could it have been produced by photo-stencilling Dec 30 2011 (E)
7. The Turin Shroud elicits ever more bad science etc … Jan 7 2012
List not yet complete