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:
Those who have been following my most recent postings will know that I had a kind of eureka moment a couple of days ago. I refer to the idea that the blood on the Shroud was not applied as fresh human blood – with all the attendant problems of clotting – but as the gut contents of the medicinal leech (Hirudo medicalis) which do not clot (since the leech secretes the potent anticoagulant hirudin).
It was not one of those wild ideas that come out of the blue. In fact it came from asking some very simple questions:
1. What would a medieval monk have used if wanting to dab or paint on blood in strategic locations on the Shroud image of a naked man, so as to make it seem the authentic burial cloth of Christ
2. If real blood, as distinct from a paint or pigment, how could the blood be obtained humanely?
In thinking of an answer to question 2, I initially thought of venesection, aka bloodletting, in which a medieval surgeon used a lancet to nick a vein, but then recalled the other method by which patients deliberately disposed of a perceived surplus of blood (usually on a DIY basis!) – using the medicinal leech .
I have been going back through the literature on the Shroud blood, looking all the while at the Shroud Scope images of blood that, as I’ve said previously, looks almost as if painted on. How could blood be so dense and “tarry” as to look the way it does, with it congregated on the ribs of the weave, and just a faint pink coloration underneath in places where it seems to have flaked off. (And why should it flake off anyway if just a “serum exudate” from blood clots as claimed by the late Alan D Adler?)
I have been looking at a picture that Thibault Heimburger MD posted from the Mark Evans photographic archive and comparing it with one of my own blood, dabbed onto linen. Here is Thibault’s first:
Does that look like ordinary human blood to you? Look at the patchy distribution on the weave of the cloth, not dissimilar from body image in appearance (contrary to Thibault’s caption if he won’t mind my saying).
Now look at my blood. Quite a difference – mine looking runny, with no preferential attachment to the ribs of the weave.
Let’s cut to the chase. I believe the Shroud blood came from the gut contents of the medicinal leech, fed on human blood. That is why it looks so “tarry” and why it largely “stays put” when dabbed on linen, at least the major pigment density (that does not preclude some bleed-through of fainter pigment, e.g. as soluble haemoglobin or haem or protoporphyrin to the opposite side of the cloth.
Leech digesta ARE presumably tarry, though I have no personal acquaintance myself, given the way that the leech is said to concentrate red blood cells by excreting plasma/serum. It then progressively breaks down red cell membranes to release haemoglobin as a kind of goo (see references in my previous posting at the end under ‘Background Stuff’) which it then proceeds to digest – just the globin protein we are told, leaving the protoporphyrin intact, the latter being finally excreted and presumably still red, or red-brown.
Techie bit: so leech digesta provide a spectrum of red pigments – intact red cells, lysed red cells, intact haemoglobin, partially-digested haemoglobin, free non-ligand bound haems with various molecules attached to the iron atom in place of the imidazole of globin histidine, and finally free protoporphrin IX and free iron. is it any wonder that Adler and Heller reported an atypical spectrum for Shroud porphyrins, resulting sadly in some wild speculation re complexation between methaemoglobin and bilirubin. (Bilirubin does not form binary or other complexes – it folds up on itself via internal hydrogen bonding – and is in any case sensitive to light and oxygen – being fairly rapidly bleached).
This is a holding post, just to let my readership (currently some 70 hits a day) know that the leech idea in now my main working hypothesis, and that with each passing hour and day I find more and more snippets in the literature that fit with that hypothesis – and nothing as yet to contradict it. I intend to produce an updated checklist shortly, showing how “concentrated, semi-digested haemoglobin” from the insides of leeches fed upon human blood can explain a host of details regarding Shroud “blood” that were previously difficult to explain, and which clearly perplexed Adler, Heller and others, Yes, Shroud blood is human blood, but it comes in a tube – commonly referred to as a “leech”- together with convenience additives, such as anticoagulants – all pre-processed and pre-packaged.
Less like ink from a runny marker pen (see my earlier post) – more like an artist’s oil paint, and applied as such, to simulate blood flows from a crown of thorns, spear wound in side, scourge marks, nail wound etc etc.
PS: This blog should be seen as a scientific odyssey, or, less grandly, a learning curve, warts an’ all. As I’ve said previously I believe it is the first time that a scientific investigation has been reported from the very first hesitant step on the internet in real time, starting last December on my ‘science buzz‘ site. I have now posted some 80 or so times, 56 of them on this, my main site. I still don’t claim to be an expert on the Shroud (and don’t care for that term anyway – I am a Shroud investigator/critical commentator using such data and other resources that are in the public domain). One thing’s for sure. There is a lot of “received wisdom” out there in the Shroudology literature – some of it purporting to be science – which to my now better-informed mind is frankly absurd and simply agenda-serving, indeed agenda-pushing.
Here’s a cautionary word for the promoters of pseudo-scientific claptrap: all it requires is proof that that blood on the Shroud is medieval or later, and what are you left with – a piece of cloth with a faint image of a naked man – without wounds, without any evidence of having been crucified? Remind you of anything? Yup, the Man on the Lirey Pilgrim’s badge – the earliest known representation (circa 1355) of the Shroud of Turin. Herringbone weave, yes. Double image, frontal and dorsal heads apposed, yes. Unequivocal evidence of having died by crucifixion – no… (See my previous posting re the Lirey badge and the probable link to Crusaders and/or tortured and then publicly-executed Knights Templar, notably Jacques de Molay and Geoffroi de Charney).
Postscript: that Shroud Scope picture at the top is now a source of intense interest to this investigative blogger (or should that be blogging investigator). Those red-brown stains that accompany the plum-coloured “blood” have intrigued me for some time. What are they? What do they represent? If one were dealing with “simple” human blood, simple but for the effects of ageing, or simple but for complex theories re clot retraction, one could speculate that the brown represents some kind of fractionation, with serum (brown) separating from blood pigments (red or plum). But the entire idea of serum is problematical (the subject shortly of another post) given the confusing STURP literature, with talk of the “blood” being in reality a “serum exudate”, while at the same time referring to “serum halos” which are only well visualised under uv light. There seems to be “serum” and “serum”…
My leech digesta theory opens up an array of new perspectives in attempting to explain the heterogeneity of those bloodstains. With leech digesta one is dealing with at least 3 components – ingested human blood (in varying degrees of digestion), the leech’s own digestive secretions (lipases, proteases etc) and finally the symbiotic bacteria in the leech gut, with two strains predominating, that assist the leech with its digestion of haemoglobin. Maybe it is one of more of the latter two components that are responsible for the red-brown staining. Note that it is restricted to where one sees plum-coloured blood, i.e. it is part of the same stain, not two adjacent or superimposed stains. One is looking at a mixture – the components of which were transferred to the linen simultaneously – as distinct from a serial “touching up” scenario.
Alternatively, the red-brown stain represents a “scab” of leech digesta, with a wide range of components, most of which has flaked off over the centuries to leave a porphyrin (plum-coloured) stain.
Postscript: added 6th April 2013
Fame at last. After having this posting largely ignored on The Other Site for months, Kelly Kearse has finally addressed the leech proposition, albeit in a strange mixture of interest and gentle sarcasm.
After sitting tight and waiting to see what killer points would be raised in objection (none, I think it safe to say) there was an opportunity to add some new thinking as to what precisely makes the blood a permanent bright-red colour after its lengthy sojourn in the leech gut.
Answer? Nitrite and/or nitrogen monoxide, NO? Here’s my full comment: