The Authentication of the Turin Shroud : Part 7

The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in
Archaeological Epistemology : Part 7

By William Meacham - Archaeologist

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY - Vol. 24 - NÂ¡ 3 - (June 1983)

Published by the University of Chicago Press

Copyright 1983 by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research

Apart from McCrone, the skeptics have moved on to a more
refined position not dependent on the identification of any
pigment in the cloth, i.e., that the cellulose degradation
was produced by a paint or coloring material formerly
present. It should be noted that the earlier vaporgraphic
theory could be resurrected with the same logic: that a
reaction of bodily vapors occurred with a sensitizing
material on the superficial fibers of the linen only or was
provoked by sunlight, all evidence of the initial reaction
now having "evaporated, been washed away, or otherwise
disappeared." Because the Shroud is unique, every hypothesis
of image formation must involve a set of unique conditions,
and none can be rejected on this basis alone. Body imprints
are invariably distorted, as Mueller remarks, just as
paintings and rubbings invariably contain pigment layers
(and distortion in three-dimensional projection). The new
hypothesis of a "post-pigment image" has a certain built-in
immunity, like postulation of an ancient occupation in
regions where artifacts would not have survived. Clearly, to
be testable and viable, the hypothesis must derive from or
at least not conflict with the known elements of
14th-century art.

This it manifestly fails to do. In addition to the four
unprecedented features described above, there is no rubbing
from the entire medieval period that is even remotely
comparable to the Shroud, nor is there any negative
painting. Nickell's wet-mold-dry-daub technique was not
known in medieval times, according to art historian Husband
(cited in Sox 1981:88), and even that technique fails to
reproduce the contour precision and three-dimensional
effect, the lack of saturation points, and the resolution of
the Shroud image. The bas-relief used would have been far
more accurate than any example of 14th-century wood carving
or sculpture known; even later carvings by 15th-16th-century
masters of bas-relief do not have the fine detail of wounds
and postures which would translate into the undistorted
three-dimensional projections of Tamburelli, confirmed as
accurate anatomically by the forensic pathologist Zugibe
(1982:169-76). Similarly, even the blood flows painted in
the greatest 14th-century works of art are not at all
comparable to those on the Shroud.

There are many more flaws in the "powerful case" for
medieval artifice, and I must beg the reader's forbearance
for what must begin to seem like the whipping of a very dead
horse. There is no medieval depiction of scourge marks of
such realism (radiation and fine detail) or correspondence
to the Roman scourge. The nude figure of Christ is extremely
rare, unheard of in an object for public veneration, and
Shroud copyists generally saw fit to correct it. The
wrist-nailing is unique, according to art historian McNair
(1978:35): "I have studied hundreds of paintings, sculptures
and carvings of Christ's crucifixion and deposition, from
the 13th to the 16th centuries, and not one of them shows a
nail wound anywhere but in the palm of the hand." Depiction
of a non-circlet crown of thorns severing the head is
extremely rare. The Shroud is unlike any 14th-century or
earlier artist's conception of the deposition and wrapping
in linen. The portrayal of the face is extremely close to
the Byzantine style, as Whanger has shown. It is clear,
therefore, that clever artistry simply cannot be stretched
to cover such a wide range of extraordinary circumstance,
Innovation, even at genius level, is bounded by the cultural
context and cannot diverge therefrom to the extent that the
Shroud contradicts the 14th-century milieu. From this
massive conflict between the Shroud and medieval art 1
believe there can be only one conclusion - that the Shroud
image belongs to the 1st millennium, with the corollary that
it is the imprint of a body. There conclusions should now be
considered well-documented archaeological judgements,
approaching the level of certainty if normal standards are
applied, especially since they agree exactly with the
evidence from medical studies.

I have not invented this historical knowledge (dating and
assessment) or failed to present it, as Schafersman and
Pellicori maintain. The identification and dating of
artifacts by their cultural affinities is part and parcel of
archaeology. A web of intricate, interlocking, field-tested
evidence is usually taken as proof, though not exactly
comparable to proof in the natural sciences, as Maloney and
Otterbein point out. With the medical, pollen, blood,
pigment, and art historical evidence all pointing away from
medieval forgery and collectively indicating the Shroud's
origin in the ancient Middle East, the issue of Stage 1
authentication should have been settled after the
archaeological confirmation of three cultural traits first
hypothesized from Shroud studies - the Roman wrist-nailing
and the 1st-century Jewish placing of coins over the eyes
and supine, hands-over-pelvis burial posture. The skeptics,
however, posit such miraculous qualities in the "clever
artist" that, by the same criteria, no artifact, manuscript,
or work of art could ever be dated or authenticated. And
contrary to Alcock, science and history do proceed by
decisions of validity and authenticity.

The possibility that the Shroud is ancient but not the
burial cloth of Christ is only mentioned by Cole, who merely
states a series of propositions without substantiation. It
is difficult to build a case on this possibility, but it is
not the hopeless case of medieval artistry. I do not believe
it a "ritual" to examine all the Stage 2 alternatives, but
there is of course a very compelling argument for the
representation of Christ in the Shroud figure, virtually
ruling out accident. The only real, though highly unlikely,
alternatives to the full authenticity of the Shroud are
therefore the early-forgery and imitation scenarios. The
skeptics would do well to redirect their energies into these
possibilities, if they are quite determined to remain
skeptics.

Establishing the authenticity of the Shroud does not, of
course, hinge on convincing every investigator, still less
on resolving all difficulties and unknowns.. Rather,
authentication results from a process in which a minimum set
of unique conditions and imposing probabilities has been
established. Among these prerequisites is not, contrary to
Jackson, a satisfactory explanation of the Shroud's early
history and the image formation. Being confronted with
genuinely ancient objects of unknown provenance is a common
experience for the museum curator, and ancient technology
cannot always be reconstructed by the archaeologist. The
"lost" 1,300 years and the image origin may always remain
unexplained - indeed, this prospect is beginning to appear
likely - but data sufficient for authentication have been
obtained from other aspects of the Shroud. The dating,
geographical origin, and association with Christ are
indicated not by an isolated feature or datum, but by a web
of intricate, corroborating detail as specific as that used
in the authentication of a manuscript or painting and
certainly as reliable as many other
archaeological/historical identifications which are
generally accepted. This consistent mesh of detail, with
layer upon layer of data from various disciplines, is more
than circumstantial, but it is less than irrefutable.
Perhaps the reason Pellicori and STURP support only Stage 1
is that they are not accustomed to the methodologies
involved, a problem often encountered when, to paraphrase
Pellicori, nonarchaeologists attempt to make archaeological
judgements. The proper scrutiny of the evidence requires
more of a legal than a laboratory method, and qualification
by elimination rather than quantification is the determining
factor.

As noted in the conclusion to my article, there can be no
irrefutable proof of the past, since it cannot be repeated,
and conspiracies on a massive scale, forgery of documents,
bungling of excavations, etc., are always possible. In each
of the examples of historical "fact" which I have compared
with the Shroud - Tutankhamen's tomb, the dating of the
Parthenon, Shakespeare's authorship, Hitler's death, the
Lascaux paititings, the Shang dynasty - there is an element
of the circumstantial, and nothing irrefutable, but careful
investigation of the pattern of interlocking data, unique
features, and the extraordinary circumstance required by
alternative explanations leaves no reasonable doubt, and no
substantial reason to doubt, unless one has a particular axe
to grind. So it is with the Shroud.

The epistemological element in the question of authenticity
of the Shroud is of equal fascination with the relic itself.
Cole's espousal of extraordinary standards for emotional
issues is a splendid example of the manner in which our
preconceptions filter empirical data, especially in the
degree of proof we require. And, as Burridge points out, so
many of our supposed certainties, even in the natural
sciences, are actually possibilities or probabilities that
we need to be continuously reminded of the frailty and lack
of absolute certainty inherent in our knowledge. But in an
epistemological framework no stricter than that normally
operative for judgements of history and science, the image
on the Shroud of Turin can, I submit, be confidently
ascribed to the body of Christ.

------------------------------------------------------------

References Cited

* Althusser, Louis. 1971. Lenin and philosophy. New
York: Monthly Review Press. [RJD]

* Angier, Natalie. 1982. Unraveling the Shroud of Turin.
Discover, October, pp. 54-60. [JRC, MM]

* Barbet, Pierre. 1963. A Doctor at Calvary. New York:
Image.

* Bender, A. P. 1895. Beliefs, rites, and customs of the
Jews connected with death, burial, and mourning. Jewish
Quarterly Review 7:101-3.

* Binford, Lewis. 1962. Archeology as anthropology.
American Antiquity 28: 217-25. [RJD]

* Bollone, Pierluigi Baima, Maria Jorio, and Anna Lucia
Massaro. 1981. La dimostrazione della presenza di tracce di
sangue umano sulla Sindone. Sindon 30:5-8.

* Bornkamm, g. 1974. "Jesus Christ," Encyclopedia
Britannica Macropaedia, vol. 10, pp. 145-55. [JRC]

* Bortin, Virginia. 1980. Science and the Shroud of
Turin. Biblical Archaeologist, Spring, pp. 109-17.

* Brandone, Alberto, and P. A. Borroni. 1978. "L'analisi
per attivazione neutronica nello studio della Sindone di
Torino," in La Sindone e la scienza. Edited by Piero Coero
Borga, pp. 205-15. Turin: Paoline.

* Breckenridge, J. 1959. The numismatic iconography of
Justinian II. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 144-45:1-104.
[ADW]

* Bucklin, Robert. 1961. The medical aspects of the
crucifixion of Christ. Sindon, December, pp. 5-11.

* Bucklin, Robert. 1970. The legal and medical aspects
of the trial and death of Christ. Medicine, Science, and the
Law 10:14-26.

* Bucklin, Robert. 1981. "Afterword," in Verdict on the
Shroud, by Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas, pp.
189-90. Ann Arbor: Servant.

* Bulst, Werner. 1957. The Shroud of Turin. Milwaukee:
Bruce.

* Cameron, Averil. 1980. The sceptic and the Shroud.
Inaugural lecture in the Department of Classics and History,
King's College, London, April 29.

* Cameron, Malcom. 1978. "A pathologist looks at the
Shroud," in Face to Face with the Turin Shroud. Edited by
Peter Jennings, pp. 57-59. Oxford: Mowbray.

* Caselli, Giuseppe. 1950. "Le constatazioni della
medicina moderna sulle impronte della S. Sindone," in La S.
Sindone nelle ricerche moderne. Turin: Lice.

* Chevalier, Ulisse. 1900. Etude critique sur l'origine
du Saint Suaire de Lirey-Chambry-Turin. Paris: Picard.

* Codegone, Cesare. 1976. "Sulla datazione di antichi
tessuti mediante isotopi radioattivi," in La S. Sindone.
Turin: Diocesi Torinese.

* Culliton, Barbara J. 1978. The mystery of the Shroud
challenges 20th-century science. Science 201:235-39.

* Curto, Silvio. 1976. "La Sindone di Torino:
Osservazioni archeologiche circa il tessuto e l'immagine,"
in La S. Sindone. Turin: Diocesi Torinese.

* De Clary, Robert. 1936. The conquest of
Constantinople. Translated by E. H. McNeal. New York:
Columbia University Press.

* Delage, Yves. 1902. Le Linceul de Turin. Revue
Scientifique 22:683-87.

* Dinegar, Robert H. 1982. The 1978 scientific study of
the Shroud of Turin. Shroud Spectrum International
1(4):3-12.

* Donovan, Vincent J. 1980. The Shroud and the laws of
probability. The Catholic Digest, April, pp. 49-52.

* Filas, Francis. 1980. The dating of the Shroud of
Turin from coins of Pontius Pilate. Privately printed.

* Filas, Francis. 1982. The dating of the Shroud of
Turin from coins of Pontius Pilate. Youngtown, Ariz.: Cogan
Productions. [ADW]

* Filogamo, Guido, and Alberto Zina. 1976. "Esami
microscopici sulla tela sindonica," in La S. Sindone. Turin:
Diocesi Torinese.

* Fleming, Stuart J. 1978. "The Shroud: Further
scientific investigation," in Face to Face with the Turin
Shroud. Edited by Peter Jennings, pp. 61-68. Oxford:
Mowbray.

* Frache, Giorgio, Eugenia Mari Rizzatti, and Emilio
Mari. 1976. "Relazione conclusive sulle indagini d'origine
ematologico praticate su materiale prelevato dalla Sindone,"
in La S. Sindone. Turin: Diocesi Torinese.

* Francez, J. 1935. Un pseudo linceul du Christ. Paris.

* Frei, Max. 1978. "Il passato della Sindone alla luce
della palinologia," in La Sindone e la scienza. Edited by
Piero Coero Borga, pp. 191-200. Turin: Paoline.

* Frei, Max. 1982. Nine years of palynological studies
on the Shroud. Shroud Spectrum International 1(3):3-7.

* Gabrielli, Noemi. 1976. "La sindone nella storia
dell'arte," in La S. Sindone. Turin: Diocesi Torinese.

* Gibbon, Edward. 1776-78. The decline and fall of the
Roman Empire. London.

* Gilbert, Roger, and Marion M. Gilbert. 1980.
Ultra-violet visible reflectance and fluorescence spectra of
the Shroud of Turin. Applied Optics 19:1930-36.

* Green, Marius. 1969. Enshrouded in silence. Ampleforth
Journal 74:319-45.

* Haas, Nicu. 1970. Anthropological observations on the
skeletal remains from Giv'at ha-Mivtar. Israel Exploration
Journal 20:38-59.

* Hachlili, Rachel. 1979. Ancient burial customs
preserved in Jericho Hills. Biblical Archaeology Review,
July/August, pp. 28-35.

* Hamilton, E. I. 1965. Applied geochronology. London,
New York: Academic Press.

* Handsman, Russell. 1980. Studying myth and history:
Perspectives for the past from the Continent. Reviews in
Anthropology 7:255-68. [RJD]

* Heller, J. H., and A. D. Adler. 1980. Blood on the
Shroud of Turin. Applied Optics 19:2742-44.

* Heller, J. H., and A. D. Adler. 1981. A chemical
investigation of the Shroud of Turin. Journal of the
Canadian Society of Forensic Science 14(3):81-103.

* Hengel, Martin. 1977. Crucifixion. London: SCM.

* Hynek, R. W. 1936. Science and the Holy Shroud.
Chicago: Benedictine.

* Jackson, John P., Eric J. Jumper, Bill Mottern, and
Kenneth E. Stevenson. 1977. "The three-dimensional image of
Jesus' burial cloth." Proceedings of the 1977 U.S.
Conference of Research on the Shroud of Turin. Edit by
Kenneth Stevenson, pp. 74-94. Bronx: Holy Shroud Guild.

* Judica-Cordiglia, G. 1961. La Sindone. Padua: Lice.

* Jumper, E. J., A. D. Adler, J. P. Jackson, S. F.
Pellicori, J. H. Heller, and J. R. Druzik. n.d. A
comprehensive examination of the various stains and images
on the Shroud of Turin. Advances in Archeological Chemistry.
In press.

* Jumper, Eric J., and Robert W. Mottern. 1980. A
scientific investigation of the Shroud of Turin. Applied
Optics 19:1909-12.

* Kanael, Baruch. 1963. Ancient Jewish coins and their
historical importance. Biblical Archaeologist 26(2):38-62.

* Kraus, S. 1910-11. Talmudische ArchÅ ologie. Leizpig.

* La Cava, Francesco. 1953. La passione e la morte di N.
S. Ges Cristo illustrata dalla scienza medica. Naples:
D'Auria.

* Lavoie, Bonnie B., Gilbert R. Lavoie, Daniel
Klutstein, and John Regan. 1981. The body of Jesus was not
washed according to the Jewish burial custom. Sindon
30:19-30.

* Leone, Mark. 1982. Some opinions about recovering
mind. American Antiquity 47:742-60. [RJD]

* McCrone, Walter C. 1980. Light microscopical study of
the Turin "Shroud" 2. The Microscope 28:115-28.

* McCrone, Walter C. 1981. Microscopical study of the
Turin "Shroud" 3. The Microscope 29(1):19-39. [SDS]

* McCrone, Walter C. 1982. Shroud image is the work of
an artist. The Skeptical Inquirer 6(3):35-36. [JEA, JRC,
PCM]

* McNair, Philip. 1978. "The Shroud and history:
Fantasy, fake, or fact?" in Face to face with the Turin
Shroud. Edited by Peter Jennings, pp. 21-40. Oxford:
Mowbray.

* Madden, F. 1967 (1864). History of Jewish coinage and
of money in the Old and New Testament. San Diego: Pegasus.
[ADW]

* Mandelbaum, Maurice. 1938. The problem of historical
knowledge. New York.

* Moedder, Hermann. 1949. Die Todesurache dei der
Kreuzigung. Stimmen der Zeit 144:50-59.

* Morris, R. A., L. A. Schwalbe, and J. R. London. 1980.
X-ray fluorescence investigation of the Shroud of Turin.
X-ray Spectrometry 9(2): 40-47.

* Mueller, Marvin M. 1982. The Shroud of Turin: A
critical appraisal. The Skeptical Inquirer 6(3): 15-34.

* Murphy, Cullen. 1981. Shreds of evidence. Harper's,
November, pp. 42-65.

* Nickell, Joe. 1978. The Shroud of Turin - Solved! The
Humanist 38(6): 30-32.

* Nickell, Joe. 1979. The Turin Shroud: Fake? Fact?
Photograph? Popular Photography 85(5):97-99, 146-47.

* Nickell, Joe. 1981. New evidence: The Shroud of Turin
is a forgery. Free inquiry 1(3):28-30. [JRC]

* Nickell, Joe. 1983. Inquest on the Shroud of Turin.
Buffalo: Prometheus Press. [MM, JN, SDS]

* O'Rahilly, Alfred. 1941. The burial of Christ. Irish
Ecclesiastical Record 59.

* Papini, Carlo. 1982. Sindone: Un mistero che si svela.
Turin: Claudiana.

* Peacock, B. A. V. 1979. "The later prehistory of the
Malay peninsula," in Early South East Asia. Edited by R. B.
Smith and W. Watson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

* Pellicori, S. F. 1980. Spectral properties of the
Shroud of Turin. Applied Optics 19:1913-20.

* Pellicori, Samuel, and Mark S. Evans. 1981. The Shroud
of Turin through the microscope. Archaeology 34:34-43.

* Raes, G. 1976. "Rapprt d'analyse du tissu," in La S.
Sindone, pp. 79-84. Turin: Diocesi Torinese.

* Rehin, R. W., Jr. 1980. The Shroud of Turin. Medica
World News, December 22, pp. 40-50. [JRC, SDS]

* Ricci, Giulio. 1977. "Historical, medical, and
physical study of the Holy Shroud." Proceedings of the U.S.
Conference of Research on the Shroud of Turin. Edited by
Kenneth Stevenson, pp. 58-73. Bronx: Holy Shroud Guild.

* Riggi, Giovanni. 1981. Electronic scanning microscopy
and microanalysis of dust taken from burial fabrics of
Egyptian mummies, in relation to dust taken from the Shroud
of Turin. Paper read at the STURP conference, New London,
Conn., October 9.

* Rinaldi, Peter M. 1972. It is the Lord. New York:
Vantage.

* Rinaldi, Peter M. 1979. When millions saw the Shroud.
New York: Don Bosco.

* Robinson, John A. T. 1978. "The Shroud and the New
Testament," in Face to Face with the Turin Shroud. Edited by
Peter Jennings pp. 69-80. Oxford: Mowbray.

* Rodante, Sebastiano. 1982. The coronation of thorn in
the light of the Shroud. Shroud Spectrum International 1(1):
5-24.

* Rogers, R. N. 1977. "Chemical considerations
concerning the Shroud of Turin." Proceedings of the U.S.
Conference of Research on the Shroud of Turin. Edited by
Kenneth Stevenson, pp. 131-35. Bronx: Holy Shroud Guild.

* Sabloff, Jeremy A. 1981. When the rhetoric fades: A
brief appraisal of intellectual trends in American
archaeology during the past two decades. Bullettin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 242:1-5. [PCM]

* Sava, Anthony F. 1957. The wounds of Christ. Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 16:438-43.

* Schafersman, Steven D. 1982a. Science, the public, and
the Shroud of Turin. The Skeptical Inquirer 6(3):37-56.

* Schafersman, Steven D. 1982b. Are the STURP scientists
pseudoscientists? The Microscope 30(3):232-34.

* Schafersman, Steven D. 1982c. Letter. The Microscope
30(4):344-52.

* Schwalbe, L. A., and R. N. Rogers. 1982. Physics and
chemistry of the Shroud of Turin. Analytica Chimica Acta
135:3-49.

* Segal, J. B. 1970. Edessa the Blessed City. Oxford.

* Sox, H. David. 1978. "Bringing the Shroud to the
test," in Face to face with the Turin Shroud. Edited by
Peter Jennings, pp. 41-56. Oxford: Mowbray.

* Sox, H. David. 1981. The image on the Shroud: Is the
Turin Shroud a forgery? London: Unwin.

* Stacpoole, Alberic J. 1978. "The Shroud of Jesus: Icon
and relic," in Face to face with the Turin Shroud. Edited by
Peter Jennings, pp. 81-85. Oxford: Mowbray.

* Stevenson, Kenneth E., and Gary R. Habermas. 1981.
Verdict on the Shroud. Ann Arbor: Servant.

* Stuckenrath, Robert, Jr. 1965. On the care and feeding
of radiocarbon dates. Archaeology 18:277-81.

* Tamburelli, G. 1979. La Sindone dopo l'elaborazione
tridimensionale. L'Osservatore Romano, November 7. [GT]

* Tamburelli, G. 1981. The results in the processing of
the Holy Shroud of Turin. IEEE Transactions on Pattern
Analysis and Machine Intelligence 3(6):670-76.

* Tamburelli, G. 1982. Reading the Shroud, called the
fifth Gospel, with the aid of the computer. Shroud Spectrum
International 1(2):3-11.

* Thurston, Herbert. 1903. The Holy Shroud and the
verdict of history. The Month 101:17-29.

* Turin Commission. 1976. La S. Sindone: Ricerche e
studi della commissione di esperti nominata dall'arcivescovo
di Torino, card. Michele Pellegrino. Rivista Diocesana
Torinese, Supplement.

* Tzaferis, Vasilius. 1970. Jewish tombs at and near
Giv'at ha-Mivtar. Israel Exploration Journal 20:18-32.

* Vignon, Paul. 1937. The problem of the Holy Shroud.
Scientific American 156:162-64.

* Vignon, Paul. 1939. Le Saint Suaire devant la science,
l'archeologie, l'histoire, l'iconographie, la logique.
Paris.

* Volckringer, J. 1942. Le problme des empreints devant
la science. Paris: Carmel.

* Walsh, John. 1963. The Shroud. New York: Random House.

* Weaver, Kenneth F. 1980. The mystery of the Shroud.
National Geographic 157:730-53.

* Weitzmann, K. 1976. The Monastery of Saint Catherine
at Mount Sinai: The icons. Vol. 1 Princeton University
Press. [ADW]

* Whanger, Alan D., and Mary Whanger. n.d. Points of
congruence between features of the facial and head areas of
the Shroud of Turin and early portrayals of Jesus Christ.
MS.

* Wilcox, Robert K. 1977. Shroud. New York: Bantam.

* Wilson, Edmund. 1955. The scrolls from the Dead Sea.
London: Allen.

* Wilson, Ian. 1978. The Turin Shroud. Middlesex:
Penguin.

* Wilson, Ian. 1979. The Shroud of Turin. New York:
Image Books. [ADW]

* Wilson, Ian. 1981. New findings on the Turin Shroud.
MS.

* Wuenschel, Edward A. 1945. The Shroud of Turin and the
burial of Christ. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 7:405-37.
[AJO]

* Wuenschel, Edward A. 1945. John's account of the
burial. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 8:135-78 [AJO]

* Wuenschel, Edward A. 1953. The truth about the Holy
Shroud. American Ecclesiastical Review 129:170-87.

* Zugibe, F. T. 1981. The Cross and the Shroud.
Cresskill, N.J.:McDonagh. [PCM]

* Zugibe, F. T. 1982. The Cross and the Shroud.
Garnerville, N.Y.: Angelus Books. [ADW]

Go To Part Six . . .

Go To Part One...

The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology : Part 7

The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in
Archaeological Epistemology : Part 7