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:
Still more baiting and needling from The Other Site
Under the heading: “Reality- get real Colin Berry”, Dan Porter writes:
“And then I think about Colin Berry’s statement:
. . . Any real blood on the Shroud of Turin that still responds to tests for “blood”, e.g. porphyrins, albumins, physiological electrolytes (Na, K, Ca, Mg,P etc) is unlikely to be medieval blood, far less 1st century.
And I wonder if some scientists even know what reality is. Was the blood painted on recently? Is history part of reality? What is Colin thinking?
Well, I suggest you try this for reality, Dan Porter.
The chances of the blood on the Shroud being medieval blood (never mind 1st century) are remote. Why do I say that?
I say that on two grounds. Firstly from first principles. Moist blood is a nutrient medium par excellence for a range of bacteria and fungi and maybe larger organisms – insects etc. It has proteins (albumins and globulins supplying a good mix of amino acids), it has, or should have, mineral salts (shame Alan Adler could not find potassium etc), it has some carbohydrate and fats too. All that a dried-on blood stain lacks to be a near-perfect culture medium is liquid water, especially as absorbent linen is likely to wick away any occasional liquid water that might form briefly, e.g. as a result of temperature change with condensation of water vapour that has reached its dew point. But microorganisms are versatile. There are those, especially fungi, that work slowly and intermittently over months and years, providing the air has some moisture, slowly degrading a food source.
Yes, the blood looks painted on. It is almost exclusively confined to the ribs of weave, being indistinguishable from body image in that respect (see my earlier Shroud Scope series). But there is the colour difference that allows one to be distinguished from the other.
Ah yes, that colour – red or red- brown, indeed (astonishingly “bright red” some say). How can blood that is centuries old still be red you may ask, when it a matter of common observation that blood stains go brown within a few weeks (due to oxidation of haemoglobin to methaemoglobin – the Fe+2 ion in the first becoming Fe+3)?
Cue Alan D Adler’s permanently red “bilirubin –para hemic methemoglobin complex” for which there is only one place on one’s laptop – the recycle bin (nope, NOT ad hom, just a candid expression of chemical/biochemical opinion).
But at least the late Alan D Adler realised that the extracted red brown pigments in the “blood stains” had atypical spectra for porphyrins (if indeed that is what they were). Shame then he did not characterise the porphyins as protoporphyrin IX, the type that is present in blood, instead of rushing to invent a whole new field of cruci-fictional physiology-cum-theology.
Nope. I do not engage in ad hom, I just denounce sloppy, shoddy bad science whenever and wherever see it, and I don’t care whose reputation is offended – living or dead. Bad science has to be rooted out, especially when is trotted out on an almost daily basis by the mantra- intoning tendency on Dan Porter’s site and elsewhere.
When Adler moved from reporting an atypical porphyrin (?) spectrum to positing a biliribin-porphyrin complex, the latter assisted he said by the trauma of crucifixion, unsupported by hard analytical data, he moved from good to bad science. Somebody has to blow the whistle, and indeed should have done so a long time ago. Maybe then we would not be reading Barrie Schwortz saying he personally was a sceptic until won over by the Adler explanation for the permanently red “blood”. Did Barrie Schwortz ever consider seeking a second or third opinion from those who know something about bilirubin? That’s what scientists do – consult others – never taking the word of any one individual, no matter how esteemed. (I mention that in case Mr.Schwortz has forgotten another recent sound bite of his, namely that he went into Shroud studies as a photographer and now considers himself to be a scientist too ; -).
As I say – the blood looks painted on. As for when it was painted on, that is anyone’s guess. Radiocarbon dating might provide a ballpark answer. My guess would be medieval at the earliest, but more probably post-medieval, say 17th century and later. Some may be real blood. Some may be a fake blood-like pigment (iron thiocyanate?) added perhaps in the 19th century.
Personally I think it improbable that blood could survive relatively intact – ie. as a porphyrin-iron complex linked to a globin protein – for more than a century or two unless kept in very dry air (as is presently the case). Alan Adler’s findings spoke of highly denatured, at least partially-chemically degraded rather anything remotely representing native blood.
Fungi and bacteria would gradually degrade the blood, the latter representing a rich balanced source of nutrients. Even in “dry” rain-proof garages one can see spots of black or even pink mildew forming on one’s decorating cloths – there’s enough moisture in air to permit the growth of cellulase-secreting fungi – ones that gradually break down tough cellulose fibres. Imagine how much easier it must be to effect biodegradation of proteins, sugars etc as exist in whole blood.
How anyone can look at those intricate chain-like “bloodstains” on the forearms and back of the Man in the Shroud, and imagine them to be anything other than the work of an artist with a brush or swab doth truly pass all comprehension – at least in my version of reality. Admittedly the latter may differ from that of Dan Porter and his small band of pro-authenticity anti-sceptics. But then I have spent my entire career in experimental science and the teaching thereof. Scepticism is second nature when you see folk walking the scientific tight rope, attempting to keep facts and ideas in perfect balance and harmony. Few succeed first time, and a lot fail. Shroudology has had more than its fair share of abject failures …