2015 preamble: Hello dear site visitor. Welcome to the site.
You have chosen to check out a 2015 posting. 2015 was my breakthrough year. Up till then I’d been wedded to direct scorching of hot metal template (whether fully 3D or bas relief). Why? The resulting imprints were not unlike TS body image, albeit sharper, but were, nevertheless, negative tone-reversed, responsive to 3D-rendering software (ImageJ) , bleachable etc etc. (All very encouraging).
But there was a fly-in-the-ointment: one cannot monitor degree of coloration when metal is pressed into linen – the action/contact zone being shielded from sight.
The solution took shape in late 2014: instead of heating the template, I coated it with a thin smear of oil, then lightly dusted with white flour ,then imprinted the flour-image onto linen. I then heated the linen over a ceramic hot plate (later with a modern electric iron or fan oven). Result: an arguably better model of the TS body image (fuzzier etc)
But the full potential of the was new procedure not realized. Why? Because I imprinted onto dry linen.
Similar two-step technology was developed in 2015 via an entirely different route.
I had been looking at acids as possible colorants for creating a look-alike “Shroud” image (with most or all its distinctive and unusual features) . Weak organic acids and even strong mineral acids (sulphuric etc) were quickly rejected for one reason or another. They either failed to produce colour, or, if they did (sulphuric) it was not only scarcely visible, but the cloth was dramatically weakened.
It was nitric acid (HNO3) that proved interesting. It produced a faint yellow coloration of untreated linen, probably on account of protein traces.. Could that be made more pronounced? Answer: YES, first by coating the linen with a high concentration of protein (gelatin or egg white), then realizing that a more common medieval commodity, i.e. plain white flour with its 10% or thereabouts of protein would serve.
Image formation? Initially I created imprints of metal and other templates (ceramic etc) using a slurry of wheat flour in water, with or without heat treatment to gelatinize the starch. I found to my delight that I could produce a negative image of my face, 3D enhancible, simply by taking the flour imprint and bolding up the intrinsic faint yellow colour of wheat flour using simple commercial photoediting software (Windows Office).
Insert image of my face, from May 2015: get it from this link.
Images of hands etc, brass crucifixes, plastic figurines quickly followed, still using liquid flour slurry as imprinting medium.
But they were criticized by a particular high-profile individual: I was told the edges were too sharp, too well defined to be considered a valid model.
There was a simple solution that largely silenced the critic.
I returned to the Oct 14 technique that had been shelved, with a small modification: smear the hand, (or metal or plastic template) with veg oil, sprinkle with white flour, shake off excess flour, imprint onto WET linen, then heat the linen until the desired degree of yellow coloration had been obtained (via the kind of Maillard browning or caramelization reactions that occur rotinely when baking flour-based goods).
Yes, nitric acid was dispensed with as the means of coloration. In its place was thermal colour development. Expressed more simply: HEAT the imprinted linen!
No, not a scorch, in the sense that the linen constituents per se (cellulose etc) were being coloured via complex thermal reactions, but, totally separate, at least chemically the acquired flour imprint. (How that imprint interacts physically with linen fibres provides a whole new dimension for speculation and detailed research – with microscopy leading the way.
One final step: a vigorous rub with soap and water to dislodge loose encrustations. What stubbornly remains behind is a somewhat diffuse fuzzy-edged yellow to brown discoloration of the cloth. If imprinted as an image, one sees with time and further reseacrh (2015 and beyond) a growing list of resemblances to (guess what?) the reported properties of the TS body image, including those bizarre features revealed by microscopy (“half tone effect”, “image discontinuities” etc). Yup, I say we’re home and dry with “Model 10”. Correction – home and wet (after the final washing step). Just add 30 mins for drying and we’re home and dry!
It did not take long for the rest of the faux-biblical ‘narrative’ pieces to fall into place. A fuzzy whole body imprint obtained with white flour and heating, with blood in all the right places, is likely to have been a 14th century Veil of Veronica -obsesssed attempt to simulate (“fake”) the imprint that might have been left on Joseph of Arimathea’s fine linen, used to retrieve a recently crucified body from a cross, for transport to a nearby rock tomb. (NO, neither intended nor used as the final burial shroud in 33AD, taking the biblical account as, er, 100% Gospel truth, thereby making the term “Turin Shroud” highly misleading, especially as it’s routinely expanded to “burial shroud”). See margin comments on this site for more details.
Here are the two key links: the first to the floured-up horsebrass from 2014:
The second is the link to imprinting of my face with plain white flour (amazingly) WITHOUT use of physical developing agent (mere recourse to photoediting software):
Maybe three more links from red-letter year, 2015, like Dan Porter’s reports on my Model 10 thinking, proposed mechanism for “half tone effect etc etc.
So much for the background to 2015. (Thanking you dear reader in advance for your patience and forebearance. (Hopefully you’ll appreciate that when one has posted a reported-in-real time online learning curve via 350+ postings, here and elsewhere, some kind of packaging then makes sense).
Here’s the start of the original posting.
What follows is a concise summary of several weeks of somewhat hazardous research, first with sulphuric acid, then nitric acid, in the author’s garage. The numerous experiments that led up to it, with minute to minute photography and interpretation, are all described on his sciencebuzz site, this site having been mothballed some months ago and now reactivated. I have decided against placing images on this posting – they can all be found on sciencebuzz.
Note: the author is a retired biomedical scientist, best known for his research into cereal dietary fibre and resistant starch. His aim is NOT to produce a facsimile copy of the Turin Shroud (not having access to it, even simply to examine through a hand lens would make that difficult). It is merely to suggest how it might have been produced, as a riposte to those misguided souls who would have us believe that the so-called ‘enigmatic’ features of the TS image – negative superficial image, 3D properties etc. – place it beyond the realms of conventional science, “not made by human hand”, a product of supernatural radiation etc etc.
As I say, this is just a bald summary, with no attempt at literary flourishes.
1. The so-called Shroud of Turin was probably made in the first half of 14th century, in agreement with the radiocarbon dating. (I say “so-called” because I don’t consider it was made to represent a burial shroud at all – see below).
2. It built on the idea of the Veil of Veronica, the latter having according to legend having captured a likeness of the face of Jesus imprinted shortly before crucifixion onto a face cloth. The Veronica was then Christianity’s most venerated relic, despite it having no biblical authority. In contrast, the new cloth, the new ‘relic’, WOULD have biblical authority. What’s more it would show the entire body of Jesus, front and back.
3. The three synoptic Gospels provided a legitimizing ‘window of opportunity’ for creating a whole body image on cloth before consignment of the crucified Jesus to the rock tomb. All make clear that Joseph of Arimathea’s sheet of linen was used to receive the body at the cross itself (not the tomb) for discreet and dignified onward transport to a nearby tomb. In other words the cloth functioned not only as an impromptu stretcher but, in the instant visual narrative created by the TS, as an up-and-over ‘body bag’ too, given its length (approx. 4.4 x 1.1 metres). There are no strong grounds for thinking J of A’s linen was intended as the final burial shroud. The account in John suggests otherwise, it being replaced by Nicodemus’s “winding” sheet.
4. The new image was therefore to be that of the crucified Jesus on J of A’s linen. It would have the bloodstains obviously. But how to represent the body? Answer: by supposing that the body left a sweat imprint too, one that had yellowed or browned over 13 centuries.
5. The imperative was to produce an image that would be interpreted immediately by relic-hungry pilgrims as an IMPRINT, not a painted image. How was that ensured? Answer: first by showing a LIFE-SIZE image of a naked man (clothing, even a loin cloth would interfere with imprinting of sweat). Second by showing both frontal and dorsal surfaces aligned head to head, with a small gap between the heads, so as to be suggestive of an imprint formed on an up-and-over sheet of linen. Third, it would be fine linen (herring bone twill) consistent with the biblical account. It is the fourth detail that is the crucial one: the image would not be that as in an artist’s portrait, with light and shade used to give the appearance of form, depending on direction of light, with prominent features like nose, chin and forehead appearing light, and recessed features like eye hollows being dark. Everything would be reversed. Raised relief would be dark, recesses would be light, because that is the reversed pattern that one sees after IMPRINTING BY CONTACT, as distinct from portrait painting, or modern photography. However, we can describe the desired outcome as saying it was to resemble a photographic negative, centuries before photography was invented.
6. No attempt would be made to imprint images of wound sites (from flagrum, nails, lance) – too difficult. Instead blood (or blood substitute) would be applied in all the biblically correct places at the sites of those wounds.
7. The body image would have to be imprinted first, so as to know where to apply the blood.
8. The task then becomes one of creating a NEGATIVE imprint off both sides of a naked man that would be yellow or yellowish-brown in colour for body, with additional bloodstains. It needed to be clearly visible, viewed at close quarters, say a few metres, but not too prominent.
9. A painted image was ruled out. First, it is difficult to paint by freehand a convincing negative image intended to be seen as an imprint. Second, paint pigments would be immediately recognized as such. A more subtle means or mimicking an ancient dried-on sweat imprint needed to be found, using novel one-off technology if necessary.
10. Novel one-off technology might indeed have been deployed and available in the 14th century (possibly with the aid of alchemy). The first of two steps required choosing an organic-based material that could used for imprinting the negative image that could then be made, in a second step, to turn yellow, or yellowish brown, by treatment with a “developing” agent. In other words, the image was to be produced not by photography, but a tactile equivalent (contact imprinting) followed by chemical development. The TS image might thus be described as a TACTILE CHEMOGRAPH.
11. It was reasonable to suppose that acids would be considered as chemical development agents, not the weak acids of nature (acetic, lactic, citric etc ) but the far stronger MINERAL ACIDS. The three most important, found in all chemical laboratories, are: hydrochloric (HCl), sulphuric(H2SO4) and nitric (HNO3). Descriptions, and methods of making these three all began to appear in the 13th/14th century alchemical literature. Which would be seen as prime candidate for developing an organic imprint to simulate sweat? Answer: nitric acid. Why? Because inadvertent splashes of nitric acid onto skin quickly become bright yellow or orange. It’s an example of the so-called xanthoproteic reaction, used in fact as a quick test for protein. At first sight a nitric acid stain on skin might seem to be a “burn”, but it’s not. It’s far more subtle. The nitric acid is reacting with certain amino acids in skin protein (keratin) specifically the so-called aromatic amino acids, producing yellow or orange-red nitration products. The prime target is generally considered to be the amino acid tyrosine, being phenolic and thus chemically reactive towards nitro-substitution. One or two others (tryptophan, phenylalanine) may or may be targets as well (the literature is confusing). One report claims that tyrosine and tryptophan give different colours (yellow and orange respectively) which may or may not be relevant to the TS “sepia” image.
12. 13th/14th century alchemists knew nothing about the mechanism of the xanthoproteic acid, only the end result – that certain organic materials turned yellow or orange when treated with nitric acid. Which organic material would have been chosen for imprinting. It would have to be one that could be smeared or painted onto a human subject (living or dead) to which blood spots and trails could then be added, and the two ingredients then efficiently transferred to linen by imprinting, ready for the second stage development with nitric acid.
13. White flour from wheat fits the bill, as least in principle. A cold dispersion in water, i.e. paste or slurry, acts as a fairly fast (but not too fast) adhesive, helping stick things together, like the photos in a home-made album this author made as a young child. Flour slurry, of the right consistency, allows linen to mould itself closely to body contours,. When one removes the linen, the adhesive properties of the rapidly drying paste are apparent. Flour transfers efficiently to linen, leaving the skin stripped almost clean of flour.
14. (Late addition in italics – in response to first comment below; original version shown scored through). After ‘painting’ the human subject with imprinting medium (flour paste etc), blood is added in trickles directly on top of the paste in all the biblically correct places (before the latter has time to dry). Subject and linen are then brought together under some pressure to get a conjoint imprint of medium and blood. When the linen is peeled away, one has blood imprint UNDER body image, thus modelling the Heller/Adler finding from protease digestion, i.e. that there is no body image under the bloodstains.
The negative flour image can then be dried, blood, or blood substitute added, and then The imprinted linen is then either (a) exposed to the vapour from concentrated nitric acid or (b) steeped in nitric acid solution of approx 10% w/v concentration or greater. The yellow-brown image takes several hours to develop in vapour, usually with faint discoloration of the linen per se. Image development is much faster in solution (typically an hour or less) but the linen is more discoloured.
15. The colour is due to reaction between the nitric acid and flour protein, notably the viscoelastic gluten, so crucial for breadmaking. Starch contributes at most a trace of faint yellow colour. That is easily demonstrated by making a stiff dough of white flour with water, then kneading it under water. The starch granules wash out;, leaving a much smaller ball of rubbery gluten. One then allows the starch to sediment under gravity, such that it and gluten can be tested side-by-side with nitric acid. The gluten turns orange, the starch is scarcely altered at all.
16. To conclude, a new model has been described for how the TS body image was produced as a medieval fake/forgery/hoax, one that could be promoted as representing the sweat (and blood) imprint left by the newly crucified Jesus on Joseph of Arimathea’s linen.
The model still needs a name, more or less specific for the unique chemistry proposed, based on nitration of food proteins (admittedly a leap of faith there, inasmuch as other combinations of imprinting medium and chemical might result in a developed sepia image). But my gut instinct says it’s nitric acid and food protein. So why not call it the xanthoproteic model? That means – yellow/protein in plain English.
Comments on the science and technology are welcome, but this is not the place for discussing theological implications. Theology may occasionally benefit from an input of science, to be carefully distinguished from pseudoscience, but – with no disrespect to Stephen Hawking- science rarely if ever benefits from an input of theology.
PS: please ignore the banner on this blog (due to be replaced). It was designed to convey the essence of the model that preceded the one set out here – i.e. the contact scorch model. It seemed to have quite a lot going for it, a scorched-on image being symbolic of the way that an alleged Templar uncle of the Shroud’s first known owner (Geoffroi de Charny) had been executed by sadistic slow-roasting alongside Jacques de Molay in 1314. So what prompted the flight from thermal imprinting to wet imprinting/chemical development? It was little or nothing to do with the properties of thermal scorches, vis-a vis the TS. The latter has often been described as “scorch-like”. STURP almost said as much in its 1981 Summary. No, it was one tiny detail on the Machy mould for a second Lirey pilgrim’s badge – a small inset image on the border of what clearly was the face of Jesus above the word SUAIRE. I (and possibly I alone) took that to be an allusion to the Veil of Veronica face cloth. Whether it was or not hardly matters – it was the realization that a simulated sweat imprint ticked a lot more boxes than a heat scorch, provided some of the drawbacks of wet-imprinting could be solved, e.g. reverse side coloration, maybe via minor changes of technique. Both of course are imprints, so either can be a valid working model for exploring the generic properties of imprints – their negative character, 3D properties etc – as proved to be the case with the “wasted years” focused on thermal scorches. Much know how was acquired exploring linen properties and its ability to acquire a superficial image by different means.