From: paulk@shock.engin.umich.edu (paul kominsky)
Subject: Re: Shroud of Turin
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 19:45:23 EDT
Organization: Rarely
Distribution: na
Originator: paulk@shock.engin.umich.edu


Dave, I am moving this weekend, and will no longer have net
access.  I hope you find the references interesting.  If you
would like to discuss your findings by snail-mail, I have
sent you my address.  If you do write to the three labs to
get responses to these issues, I would definitely like to 
know about it.

I apologize for my last post.  Rather than getting upset, I
should have clarified what was apparently misunderstood.
(All my books are packed, so this is from memory.)

} > However, I think it is suggestive (the word I originally
} > used when I first mentioned the coins) because it seems to be a level of
} > detail unlikely for a supposed 14th century artist.  There is no record that
} > anyone saw this before the computer enhancement, so it would be useless work
} > for a medieval artist.

What I was trying to suggest is that I have seen no Medieval mention
of coins on the eyes with regard to the Turin Shroud or with regard
to any of the other cloth images in circulation at the time.  It 
doesn't seem to be a part of the burial story, either in the Gospels
or in the iconographic tradition.  I am not making an argument from
absence here, but I still wonder why an alleged forger would add them
to the image?   You have suggested that the forger thought (rightly
or wrongly) that such a practice was common in the 1st century and 
that it would lend to the image's credibility, but I'm not entirely
convinced of this possibility.  I have seen quotes of Medieval Jewish
texts which talk about the evil of graven images.  A couple of examples
are even given in the article in BA you mentioned.  These are normally
mentioned by those who seem to be against the Shroud as evidence that
the coins are a mistake.  But if that is the implication of these
texts, then I would wonder why a forger would use coins?  If I were
a forger trying to make a successful forgery, I would not add something
on my own initiative which could (if it had been visible) potentially 
have cast doubt on the image.

That was the idea I had.  Thinking about this, though, I suppose it's
possible that a forger might intentionally do some things counter to
the norm in order to make an image seem like an intentionally poor 
forgery, making it more likely to be considered authentic because of
the anomalies.  So I'll concede that the mere inclusion of a coin in
a Medieval work is inconclusive.

I do understand your position that the infrequency of references
to coins on the eyes leads you to doubt the Shroud's authenticity.
It's similar to a line of reasoning which suggests problems with
the C14 results.  Ian Wilson, for example, did a bunch of work
on the iconographic details of the Shroud which dated it prior
to the 4th century or so.  For example, on some early "Veronica's
Veils" and "Burial Cloths," there is a line through the neck (among
other details).  A corresponding line exists on the Shroud, but it
is a fold yellowed with age.  Wilson concludes that the Shroud must
predate and be the model for these other images.  So, when another
piece of data seems to contradict the art historical evidence, I
wonder what's wrong with the other piece of data.  If some other
work with a known recension were somehow dated centuries later 
on one test, the test would be questioned.

I also mentioned that the particular coin identified on the eyes may
have been strange for Medieval numismatics.  In saying this, I was
referring to the lettering on the coin, which is (I think) "ACAI"
(the letters before and after not being visible).  This phrase, and
what looks like a curved staff in the center of the coin, is what
identified it as a lepton from Pilate's era, because coins with such
a staff were only minted then.  However, the lettering should read
"AKAI", but a letter has been switched.  (There are pictures of
these letters in an article in BA).   Now I don't think there are
many existing examples of coins with this change, even though this
error did occasionally occur, as the coins were minted by hand.  I
wonder if Medieval numismatics knew that this minting error occurred?
I don't know the answer, but a negative response would be suggestive
of authenticity.

} > Now, if you're not concerned about scientific rigor,...

I meant the generic "you" here, not you personally, Dave.

The point of the paragraph is that I personally expect the
tests to be done rigorously before I feel obliged to accept
the results.  According to the French book I mentioned, the
labs did rather unusual things when the samples were received,
like opening some of the sealed containers on a Sunday with
only two people watching, and the rest on Monday.  The Arizona
lab allegedly did that, according to the interpretation of 
conflicting quotes from workers at the Arizona lab given in
the book.

} What makes this an especially interesting fallacy is that, when I had a
} search made through Catholic Index of Periodicals for any recent comment on
} the shroud in the Catholic literature, I found the church to be quite mute on
} any suggestion of wrongdoing or fraud, or even on the shroud in general.  

This is probably true.  I believe Card. Ratzinger said that the Church
would not do any more tests or make any more statements on the Shroud,
until the controversy on the subject died down in certain circles.

} By the way, on a side issue, the first mention of the
} Shroud was in the middle of the 14th century (ie: 1353).  Why would the Arizona
} Lab's dating of 14th to 15th century be considered "too recent?" Is there
} actual some basis for your charge of "too recent," or is this editorializing
} on your part?

It's been a while since I looked at this, but I think the first run
from Arizona dated the Shroud later than the 1350's, later than the
first unquestionable historical reference.  At least one of the runs
produced a value firmly in the 15th century. (This was beyond the
calibration anomaly where a C14 test gives three possible calendar
years).  The point is that even though the dating would contradict
historical reference, it can be chalked up to various systematic
errors in sampling, cleaning, etc.  These errors would not be 
sufficient to make a 13 century difference, however, so if this 
single dating *is* essentially correct, the question of the Shroud's
authenticity would be answered.  (Barring, of course, theories that
the Resurrection skewed the C14 tests.)

} But to me it sounds
} rather questionable that faithful Jews would break one of the ten God given
} commandments and put graven images on the eyes of the person they thought to
} be the Messiah and "God incarnate" (especially as the custom is recorded to
} have only pagan significance); I see that act as explicitly going against the
} prohibition of graven images.  

Fine.  I understand this position.  I hope you can understand mine,
that we are talking about someone who was founding a somewhat different
religion--a religion which in a sense relaxed the rules at its outset.
Christianity has a long history of not being overly concerned about 
many of the pagan customs.  I would imagine that the followers of
Jesus were more like today's Conservative Jews than Orthodox Jews.

} You were also correct that your French reference is pretty much
} useless to me, so instead I shall write to the C14 dating labs and asking them
} to address your concerns of scatter and weight differences.  

I once got a short work in English which talks about most of the 
issues I've mentioned.  The work was polemic in nature, but 
contained filterable details.  The address inside was:

Le Centre de Renaissances Catholiques des Laurentides (Inc.)
255, Chemin de la Reserve,
Shawinigan RR2, P.Q.
Canada G9N 6T6.

} As to your argument that the "strip" of cloth tested was on the edge of the
} shroud, and is possibly of a more recent manufacture than the rest of the
} shroud, I will have to wait until I read the article in Nature.  

The Nature article only verifies that the samples were taken from one
site on this strip.  The strip is about 6" wide and attached to the
Shroud proper.  A line is visible on the side in most photos of the
Shroud, and the corners are off at the ends of the strip showing the
backing cloth.  According to some textile experts, the side strip has
the same weave as the rest of the Shroud, and because the imperfections
in the weave seem to match up, they conclude that the strip was originally
part of the Shroud, but cut off and sewn back on for some unknown reason.

I have no real complaints about using this area for the samples, and
for a rough dating there really wasn't any need to get samples from a
lot of locations on the cloth.  When I originally mentioned this I had
not reviewed my references.

Also, in case I have not been sufficiently clear, I am not questioning
the validity of C14 testing, nor that the Shroud can be accurately
tested this way.  I am not suggesting that the sample location was
bad (it wasn't a scorched region), nor am I suggesting that handling/
fire/candles/whatever skewed the results (I'm sure samples can be 
reasonably well cleaned).  The thesis I'm advancing (more or less
described in the French book) is that the samples tested may not
have been the samples cut.

} Finally Paul, I will have to point that you have not not actually presented
} any evidence which would cause me to have any significant doubts about the C14
} dating labs.  You mention "scatter" in dating, but neither mention the scope
} of that scatter, or present the the acceptable limits for such scatter (I'll
} get that information from the Nature article myself).  

The chi^2 test of the three labs' results seems to be 6.2 (with the
proper degrees of freedom).  Allegedly the industry standard corresponds
with a chi^2 of 5.9 for this many degrees of freedom, and a larger
number supposedly indicates less than a 5% chance of homogeneous
sampling.  This scatter is supposedly the reason the Student 
distribution is used in the Nature report.  I'm no statistician,
so I don't know what this all means, but visibly it is clear from
the Nature report that the Shroud dates have a larger scatter.

The main problem is that there were only three labs' results to
analyze.  Six or seven labs were part of the original experiments
to determine procedures for the C14 testing, so the statistical
problems are the result of the person who cut the number of labs.

Regarding the differences in samples taken and samples tested:  I
cannot recall the precise weights/sizes at the moment, so don't
be surprised if my memory has shifted some numbers a bit.  As I
recall, the size reported in Nature was 70mm x 10mm, but the strip
cut was reported as 81mm x 14mm (according to the French book and
the shorter English work).  Again, I'm pretty sure that the
relative differences were 11mm and 4mm in the length and width 
respectively, but I can't recall the absolute sizes with certainty.

I recall the person in change of the C14 testing (Dr. Tite) explaining
this by saying he wasn't too concerned about these details, and
had written 7cm by 1cm in the Nature report.  The editorial staff
wanted two sig figs, so he had them add the zero.  I would still
say that 7cm and 81mm are not very close, and it is exactly
this seemingly casual attitude (lacking concern for details) that
causes me to question the rigor of the experiment.

Oh, thanks for mentioning sci.skeptic; I only wish I'd known about
it earlier.  BTW, I have read the books by Nickell, Heller, and 
Wilson, and some other less well-known authors.  I just didn't
want to get into the arguments about McCrone's work here.

pjk