From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:05:24 GMT

In article <LEET.92Sep8175237@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
> 
> >>>>> On Sat, 5 Sep 1992 08:46:24 GMT, Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) said:
> 
> Tim> In article <LEET.92Sep1095317@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:

> IMHO the single greatest weakness of the pro-authenticity camp is their
> failure to address how the iron in hemoglobin could resist oxidation for
> 2000 years.

Good point, we'll add that to the long list of their weaknesses.
> 
> Tim> It is also interesting that accounts of the shroud in the 15th and
> Tim> 16th centuries, such as that by Don Antonio de Beatis in 1517, talk
> Tim> about it's bright colours and the vividness of the image. No-one
> Tim> could say the image is vivid today, so perhaps, Lee, you can tell
> Tim> us how the image could be vivid for 1500 years and then fade
> Tim> suddenly over the next 500.
> 
> I would like to get the reference for these accounts.  From memory, some
> pro-authenticity author claimed that this was not "vividness" but
> "glory", or somesuch mistranslation compatible not with a clear image
> but with an image greatly impacting the emotions of the viewer.  That
> sounds like grasping at straws, to me, but there it is.

Yes, it does sound like that doesn't it.
 
> Tim> No-one could say the image is vivid today, so perhaps, Lee, you can
> Tim> tell us how the image could be vivid for 1500 years and then fade
> Tim> suddenly over the next 500.
> 
> Sure, if you'll explain how all the paint could flake off over 500 years
> while no-one complained.

As a guess, I'd say it didn't flake off, it faded. Medieval pigments tend to 
fade when exposed to UV light, which is why I never take my 14th century
manuscripts to the beach :-) 

> Please also explain why there is no evidence
> of chemical change in the scorch areas from the fire in the 1500's?

I have no idea. More reason to do more research on the shroud.

> And, why did the "blood" not flake off along with the rest of the image?

I'm guessing again, but different pigments behave differently. I have a page
fom a 15th century antiphoner at home. The reds and blues are still quite
vivid, but the greens have faded almost to nothing. Perhaps the 'blood' 
was painted with something different to the rest of the image. More research
needed. 

> Furthermore, Heller says the "image" is in the topmost microfibrils -
> how did the paint (or whatever) get applied without touching the
> fibers themselves?

And McCrone says a lot of fluid medium and a deft touch could produce this
effect. I have no idea if he is right. Again, we need to get some medieval
art historians onto the job. 

> Tim> I know next to nothing of jewish burial practices in the 1st
> Tim> century, so I cannot comment on that, though several sources say
> Tim> that they wrapped their bodies in *strips* of linen. I do know that
> Tim> a sheet-shroud of the kind we see in the Turin shroud was the
> Tim> common form of shroud in the late medieval period.  None of the
> Tim> pro-authenticity camp were ever able to produce an analogous
> Tim> example of a 1st century shroud in this form.
> 
> How many 1st century shrouds and/or mummies do we have lying around?
> If it's in the hundreds, I could see the validity of this objection.

Quite a large number have been preserved, particularly fom Egypt. None look
anything like the very medieval-style shroud cloth from Turin. The
authenticity camp strike out yet again. 
 
> Tim> Conclusion: taken with all the other evidence of its probable
> Tim> medieval origins, I'd say were looking at a 14th century artefact.
> Tim> How about you Lee?
> 
> I'd be happy to agree, if I could get all the loose ends cleared up
> (which is what started all this in the first place, much to my current
> chagrin).  So far all I can say is that the image is extremely
> mysterious, since it cannot be fully explained, so as a cautious and
> skeptical individual I can't fully accept the forgery story as it's
> usually presented, despite strong evidence for a medieval date for the
> cloth.  Since this isn't really going anywhere, and won't until I can
> find Nickell's book, howsabout we drop it?

I'll agree that the image is an intriguing puzzle, but the evidence for
a medieval date for both the cloth and the image is pretty rock-solid.
What we are left with, after the pro-authenticity camp's attempts to
make the shroud look unmedieval have been disposed of, is some ambiguities
regarding the composition of the image and it's means of production.
These should be able to be cleared up with further research. But I
don't think you can deny that the case against a medieval date, in light
of the artistic, iconographical, documentary, textile and carbon-dating
evidence, is very, very weak.

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16303 talk.origins:11227