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:
Some curious comments in that paper about “overlapping” images, about which I shall have more to say later, made me decide to look closely at parts of the image where scourge marks are adjacent to major “bloodstains”. (See my previous posting for why I have placed quotation marks around “bloodstains”, and why I prefer for now to use the term “AROW-blood” for those stains, i.e “assumed-rightly-or-wrongly blood”.
Why compare scourge marks with bloodstains, or rather AROW-blood? Because the Fanti paper says that those scourge marks represent a major source of blood on the Shroud, but failed to make clear what a scourge mark image represented – just blood – or the outlines of bruised or torn flesh- or maybe a combination of the two.
This sceptic’s misgivings about the scientific precision of that paper, i.e failing to make clear exactly what was being studied – were further increased when he came to read the classification system those authors employ for scourge marks (admirable though it was on the part of the two authors to catalogue and classify scourge marks into three categories – two major and one minor)
You see, we are told that there are two major categories – one from a Roman flagrum (“Type 1”) and the other a collection of bound rods (“Type 2”). It is the former that interests me most. Anyone with the least familiarity with the Shroud will know that the Man shows what appears to be scores and scores of scourge marks on both frontal and dorsal sides – 372 no less according to Fanti et al, and that some of these are “dumbbell-shaped” corresponding with a Roman flagrum (whip) that has two lead spheres near the tip of each strap.
But the authors state that some straps have three spheres per strap, but in their images of the marks left by two and three spheres, there is scarcely any difference between the two.
Why? Because the strap between the spheres leave its imprints too. When there are 3 spheres per strap, one sees virtually no evidence of each sphere – just a somewhat blurred rectangular smear of image density that — with the eye of faith- might show 3 spheres. Even with just 2 spheres per strap there is so much imprinting of the strap between the two that one can only just make out the “dumbbell” shape that is supposed to be the signature of a Roman flagrum. There is worse to come: it is only the strap that lies between the spheres that leaves an imprint according to F&F (if I may so describe our two investigators). The strap that connects the spheres with the handle is not imaged. Now how can that be, one wonders? How can a small part of strap between spheres leave an image, and not the strap that connects with the handle?
And in any case, what is the nature of the image? We are told elsewhere that the lead spheres tend to bruise rather than cut – so why is it imaged if not breaking skin and shedding blood? What is blood on those “scourge marks” and what is “broken skin” but, most importantly, where is the blood or lesion that would surely have been left by the strap that is adjacent to the sphere that is furthest from the end, closest to the handle.
One might also ask why a mark that is little more than a short rectangle, a mere 2cm long, is interpreted as a flagrum with 3, rather than 2 lead spheres?
Matters are not helped by the map that F&F use to show the marks that they specifically identify as flagrum -derived (Type 1 in their terminology). They use a symbol that almost exclusively shows 3 rather than 2 lead spheres per strap – so we are given no indication as to the relative proportions of 2 spheres (classic “dumbbells”) and this intruder – the 3-sphere dumbbell that is not a dumbbell.
To make matters worse, they show us a reconstruction of the flagrum that produced the marks on the Shroud. Look at it carefully.
It fudges on the key issue of the number of lead spheres by showing two complete distal spheres, with the third (nearest the handle) being an incomplete sphere.
I shall publish this now, but be back later with a Shroud Scope image that suggests that it was not the Man on the Shroud that was lashed (difficult if there was no strap connecting lead spheres with handle) but the Shroud itself. Yup, we have prima facie evidence here that the Shroud image was a hoax/forgery, because the multiple scourge marks simply fail the test of credibility.
Sorry to give an incomplete story (that will be rectified in the next few hours) but it’s the way I work – presenting instalments rather than a finished work. It’s the way Charles Dickens wrote his novels (in penny instalments) except mine are free.
20 June: Time now to deliver on that reference to Shroud Scope in the title. First, here’s a portion of the F&F map with which I opened this post.
The region of interest is the area of the forearm indicated by the white barrow. It is one that has some faint scourge marks. Let’s look at those in close up, since they reveal a surprising and somewhat alarming feature (which is just about visible here, even without magnification).
So areas of image intensity which are identified on the F&F map as being scourge marks – if not the Type 1 flagrum type – but the Type 2 rod type – can be located on the Shroud Scope image, if somewhat indistinct (F&F used a range of image-enhancement techniques). But they are not confined to the forearm as indicated on the map. They extend onto the fabric. Why should they do that, if the scourge mark is a type of wound that while imaging at least partly on account of seepage of blood, does not bleed so profusely as to create blood trails onto the fabric beyond the immediate image. If the latter occured generally, then many more “scourge marks” would have shown the same propensity to leak beyond the site of the lesion.
However, if scourge marks – or at any rate, some of the 372 of them on the Man in the Shroud – were not on the figure at the time of imaging, but applied directly to the latter, then it is perhaps not surprising that some were misapplied so as to leave imprints beyond the intended area. The risk of the latter occurring would be greatest, needless to say, with a slender limb than with a more extensive part of the anatomy like the chest, back and shoulders.
My next post will look critically at the entire range of alleged scourge and blood markings on the Shroud, and ask the question: “Is the range and presentation of these markings too good to be true – are we seeing clear evidence of a hoax or forgery?”
Reference will be made to two features reported here: that of F&F, namely that the lead spheres of the Roman flagrum appear to be unconnected to the whip handle, and also mine, i.e. that at least one set of lash marks (one marking in particular) has run over onto the neighbouring fabric, suggesting that it was fabric, not subject, that received the scourging, or rather an attempt to simulate the appearance of scourging.
Update: 22 June: There is now a follow-up post to this one, entitled: Shroudie Congresses- places where fantasies are peddled.
Final thought: x-ray fluorescence was one of the techniques used to detect the heavier elements in the Shroud. Why do we not have, say, an iron (Fe) map for the entire Shroud, one that would discriminate between different image areas, notably blood/non-blood? X-ray fluorescence is a non-destructive procedure, and is ideally suited to the scanning of surfaces (indeed, it does not penetrate more than a few mm at most)