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:
Here is a screen grab from a fairly recent (2008) review by Faccini, Fanti et al.(pdf), the first two of whom I have strongly criticized previously for making extraordinary unsupported claims re scourge marks on the Shroud. (I’ve since been told by Giulio on The Other Site to address any complaints to the Journal editor, but being a public domain WYSIWYG retired science bod/blogger – as distinct from olde-worlde wielder of the pen and adhesive postage stamps I have declined to do so)
They claim to be able to see the spear wound in the side of the Man in the Turin Shroud. Just in case you cannot, they have circled the area in yellow.
Here’s a close-up of the circled area:
They then go on to say that the blood has flowed in rivulets downwards from the wound (fitting the idea that the Man in the Shroud had been vertical at the time the non-wound was inflicted – you know, like, er, um, being nailed to a cross?).
Here are Shroud Scope images of the same blood area. The first is on plain vanilla Shroud Scope default settings.
The second enhanced version has merely had adjustments made to contrast and brightness to get better colour-differentiation)
After adjusting brightness,contrast and mid-tone value in MS Office Picture Manager (-7,100,15 respectively)
My observations
1. There is no spear wound. Circle it in yellow if you wish, Prof. Fanti et al but the spear WOUND is entirely a figment of your imagination.
2. There is nothing to suggest that the blood below the circled area had got where it is by flowing downwards, whether in rivulets or less poetic dribbles. The idea of gravitational flow is also a figment of your imaginations, Prof Fanti et al, as is so much of what you publish.
What we do see on the Shroud Scope images are three distinct colour zones, only two of which can be confidently identified. The first is a thinnish plum-coloured stain that we can call “blood”. The second are yellowish-grey areas which are body image. But there is a third – a red-brown colour – that is superimposed on blood in some places –but not all. I was referring just recently to similar red-brown patches coincident with plum-coloured blood when discussing bloodstains on the forearm.
So what is responsible for the mysterious red-brown stains? (late ed: I am ignoring the 1532 scorch here – which I omitted to mention initially)
I have two working hypotheses at present, both of which are linked to my original, somewhat daring (indeed, some might say outlandish) ‘medicinal leech’ theory. The first is that the leech digesta deposited a variety of substances on the Shroud, only one of which was red blood pigment, the latter in progressive stages of digestion (intact RBC -> haemolysed RBC -> free haemoglobin -> partially to completely digested globin component -> free haem -> iron and free porphyrin). The other(s) could be leech digestive juices, including symbiotic bacteria, anticoagulants etc that congregated into the same or separate areas from the red blood pigments, and which look “red-brown” instead of plum-coloured.
The other hypothesis is that the leech digesta deposit uniformly on the cloth initially , and then the soluble red or plum-coloured pigments (undigested haemoglobin, porphyrins etc) bled through into the linen. The leech digesta initially dried and set solid to form a kind of hard red-brown skin, or dare one say scab, that could be mistaken for aged blood (which it was, in a sense). With time (decades, centuries) the scab flaked off in some places but not others, exposing the underlying water-soluble plum-coloured blood pigments that have migrated into the weave of the cloth.
So which hypothesis do I prefer? Answer: the second. Why? Because if you look carefully you will see an irregularity in the weave of the linen with a hang-up of red-brown pigment.
Note red-brown pigment lodged in the cavities of the horizontal weave irregularity.
That suggests that maybe the entire stain was red-brown initially, from which the rigid skin then gradually flaked off in places, but tending to get retained in the open box-shaped cavities of the irregular weave.
Note I am careful to differentiate between fact and hypothesis. The two should always be kept in watertight compartments. Maybe if Prof Fanti were a marine engineer he would better understand the need for ‘watertight compartments’. From where I am standing (just a retired science bod) the ship on which he sails, and of which he is arguably the Captain, is looking more and more like the Titanic, due to certain non watertight compartments
Takeaway message: there is no spear wound visible on the the Shroud of Turin. Blood certainly, though not necessarily 100% human blood, and in my opinion, probably painted-on blood, the latter probably from an engorged medicinal leech. But spear WOUND? NO! Personally speaking, I consider it totally unscientific to make claims that are not supported by data or other hard evidence, at least in science. I cannot speak for mechanical engineering….
My answer to the steeped-in-mystique Turin Shroud - evolving gradually from some 10 years of science-based experimental modelling. 
Do you pick up comments on older posts? I do hope so. I’m finding it difficult to read your blog in detail from start to finish as I keep getting distracted and having to look things up elsewhere!
The marking on the shroud referred to above has an upper-left edge which is different from the other edges, if so they may be termed. The upper-left edge has a distinct slightly elliptical curve, each end of which terminates in an abrupt, almost right angular corner. The edge is quite distinct (although it has a lighter-coloured fringe), and the area below it is darker than the rest of the alleged stain, in an approximate cigar-shape which some have likened to the cross-section of a spear. The left hand edge is also very distinct, but does not have a regular shape, and the rest of the stain has patches of light and dark which could be interpreted as twisted-rivulet shaped, even if they aren’t actually anything of the kind.
I’m not sure about your identification though. If I’m right, you are not denying the existence of the distinct (possibly spear-shaped) section, but you are saying that it is not qualitatively different from the rest of the stain. What I’m wondering is what sort of difference might be expected if it WAS a wound. Would laying a sheet over a stabbed body be able to differentiate between the source of some gore and the oozings derived from it? When you say “There is no spear wound,” are you suggesting that there was not even an intention to represent a spear wound, or simply that the whole marking is made of the same materials. Does that observation OF ITSELF prove that no wound existed?
My approach is probably different from yours, Hugh. I try to look at these images as if seeing them with no prior knowledge of what I am supposed to see (according to others whose observation and interpretation I regard as no better or worse than my own). When I look at the area in question, I do not immediately say “Ah, there’s something there that is not just blood, but a wound from which blood flowed”. In fact, while I see the sharper outline on that upper part you refer to, I still don’t see it as “spear-shaped” notwithstanding elliptical curves and right angular corners. And while with the eye of faith I might see your “twisted rivulet shapes” would one not see a higher density of pigment lower down if there had been flow under gravity?
The drawback in the approach you and others take in focusing on particular areas in search or one or other feature that matches the biblical account is that you do not apply the same level of scrutiny to the rest of the Shroud. So whose to say that your elliptical curves and right-angular corners are not to be found elsewhere, like the feet etc where the putative wound is from a nail rather than a spear? (Nope, I haven’t checked and am unlikely to do so).
What you have to bear in mind is that I was not saying there is definitely no spear wound. I was taking issue with Giulio Fanti for circling an area in yellow, stating categorically that was the site of a wound. That is not objective science, as he could show by giving that same image to people in the street, and asking them to circle the site of a wound.
Sorry, but my position is that if ain’t objective science, then it’s not science at all, and if proselytised as if it were science, by Associate Professors of Mechanical Engineering etc. then this retired science bod feels compelled to label it “pseudo-science”. I’m prepared if necessary to canvass the Royal Society on this and the other liberties that are being taken, such is the strength of my feeling on the matter. It was Paolo Di Lazzaro’s pseudo–science with his excimer lasers and uv beams in the UK national press, just before Christmas,which first alerted me to what has been happening in the (up till now) largely secret garden that is Shroudology. I was appalled – truly appalled – and said so (initially) on my sciencebuzz site.
Thank you. I liked what you say about the difference of approaches. I tend to read an account, preferably one I disagree with, and ask myself why somebody might come to that conclusion, however flawed. Probably something to do with teaching children, who come up with some wacky ideas, but often based on some kind of weird logic. So I don’t begin with a tabula rasa, but ask myself, why does so-and-so think it’s blood rather than jam, and look for the flaws in the reason. If somebody says “that looks like a spear-hole,” then (apart from the fact that to me it looks more like a cigar) I can see why he thinks so. I then ask, would there be more to the image of a wound than just its shape. If so, and there is no sign of it on the shroud, then it’s not a spear hole, whatever it looks like, but if a real wound-mark would have the same composition as all the other smears around it, then we have not disproved that it is a wound on those grounds alone. Of course, if the blood turns out really to be jam, then the wound is disproved on other grounds.
You are looking for reasons for disproving it’s a wound. I’m looking for reasons for thinking it might be a wound. Your position involves multiple assumptions (or at any rate working hypotheses) namely that the linen had been in contact with a wounded man haemorrhaging blood, that an unknown imaging process had succeeding in detecting a difference between intact and injured skin and flesh, despite the (masking?) presence of blood or blood clots.
My position requires no initial assumptions. Indeed it is looking for the kind of evidence that might underpin YOUR initial assumptions, while being willing to entertain other explanations that do not posit that the Shroud ever enveloped a real person.
Your position is one of empathy without final icy detachment. My position does not preclude empathy or any other kind of mindset that assists in understanding someone else’s views, but it INSISTS on adopting a final icy detachment. That at any rate is the ideal, if a counsel of perfection. I would assert that it is that same ideal – of finally divesting oneself of subjective thoughts and feelings – of FINALLY viewing with a cold detached eye – that is the essence of the scientific method. Not everyone is able to make that final retreat from subjectivity to objectivity. Not everyone is cut out to be a scientist. Some scientists manage the crucial mental manoeuvre on some days and not others. Some manage with certain topics and not others. Some imagine themselves to be as objective in researching a religious icon/artefact as any other – when it is painfully obvious to others that is not the case…
Oh dear. I’m afraid I’m not a very good scientist at all…..
I suppose it’s because if I have a position and want to try to get others to agree, I like to try to understand their point of view first, and then undermine it. That way, they are more likely to come round to my point of view. The cold icy detachment of the ideal scientist, perhaps such as yourself, is not, I think, very common in any field, least of all one that impinges on deep seated religious convictions. Nevertheless, I wish you luck… (there, failed again…)
OK, let’s agree to differ in our approach to the Shroud, shall we? I’d offer to shake hands, but would not want to give you frost bite…