Anthony, a reader of this blog, writes:
Many thanks for the blog you put together each day. I have to admit that, as a non-scientist, I am rather adrift about the significance of the latest Italian findings. Stephen E Jones appears to conclude that they prove all the doubters wrong. I think you are rather more reticent. Whatever, I am more concerned about a December 22nd letter in England’s Daily Telegraph by Waldemar Januszczak [pictured] in which he states that that the image on the shroud is an obvious fake because it is in keeping with the art of the period of the carbon dating. Waldemar is an ebullient presenter of various art programmes on the BBC. Art, the impression he gives, is his life and his spirituality. I cannot believe therefore that he can be wrong in this. Could someone enlighten me?
Anthony, I think this other letter to the editors of the Daily Telegraph from Michael Daley (pictured just below), Director of ArtWatch UK, answers this quite well.
SIR – Waldemar Januszczak (Letters, December 22) pronounces the Turin Shroud a cleverly imprinted impression of a bearded, apparently crucified man, reflecting the artistic conventions of the Middle Ages, though earlier depictions of Christ had attributed to him the features of a blond, curly haired boy.
We are armed with many centuries’ worth of scientific advances, and numerous formidable analytical technical studies of the material composition of the Shroud, but two questions remain.
What would Christ’s true appearance have been after his crucifixion? Secondly, by what means could a fraudster of the Middle Ages have so cleverly imprinted an apparent photographic negative impression on a piece of fabric, so long before the invention of photography?
Given that fakes tend to belong to identifiable family types, I wonder whether Mr Januszczak knows of any similar artefacts.
Michael Daley
Director, ArtWatch UK
Barnet, Hertfordshire
In this blog, I would be happy to discuss any medieval art that “is in keeping with the art of the period of the carbon dating,” or, for that matter, any period in history. One need not be a scientist to understand such qualities as being like a photographic negative or having three-dimensional encoding. We could demonstrate this right here with off-the-shelf computer software.
The letter from Daley may be found at Just how could the Turin Shroud have been faked? – Telegraph. I have not been able to find the letter from Januszczak. If someone does have a link, please let us all know so we can read the letter.
UPDATED ON DECEMBER 28:
Anthony kindly sent along a copy of Januszczak’s letter. It reads:
Dear Sir
Whenever the authenticity of the Turin Shroud is discussed, no one ever mentions the most obvious proof of the shroud’s falsehood: theactual image of Christ on the cloth. This bearded, long-haired, suffering Christ was popular in the Middle Ages but had no precedents in the art of earlier epochs.
The first images of Christ showed a blond, curly haired boy who worked miracles. These early Christs often had feminine characteristics too. It took 600 years for images of Christ with a beard to appear. And even when this bearded Christ did emerge, he was enthroned like an emperor not covered with wounds or crucified.
The Middle Ages invented this suffering, bearded Christ and then somehow found a clever way to imprint the image on the fake Turin Shroud.
Waldemar Januszczak
London N6
Anthony then asked, “My question is, apart from the abracadabra at the end, whether the rest is accurate.”
Yes, I think so in large measure. Most commonly Christ was depicted as young – actually notably as a young shepherd carrying a lamb. It is widely believed, however, that the image of the Christ Pantocrator developed after the finding of the Image of Edessa in A.D. 544. The earliest and best example is the 6th century Pantocrator from St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai which bears an uncanny resemblance to the shroud. For this reason and other reasons the Image of Edessa is thought to be the Shroud of Turin. I certainly think so. It is also important to note that two other lines of images evolved almost certainly from this same sixth century discovery. And thus I challenge the use of the word “invented” in the letter. They are very telling. One is the Man of Sorrow image (left below) which developed after the Edessa image arrived in Constantinople in A.D. 944. The other is manuscript illustration such as we find in the Hungarian Pray Manuscript (right below), ca. 1194. This last, in particular, from before the carbon dating period, shows clearly that Waldemar Januszczak is on thin ice unless he can show a single negative image or image with 3D encoding.
En 1979 el doctor Gilbert R.Lavoie se puso en contacto con la Universidad de Harvard, solicitando que le indicaran el nombre de un profesor que fuera especialista en iconografía antigua.
Le dieron el nombre del Dr. Ernst Kitzinger. ¿Quién era este especialista?
Ernst Kitzinger, judío-alemán nacido en Munich en 1912, uno de los grandes historiadores del arte , especializado en arte antiguo, medieval y bizantino, perteneció al pequeño grupo prodigiosamente dotado de Historiadores del Arte alemanes, que incluyó a Richard Krautheimer, Erwin Panofsky y Kurt Witzmann, y que desarrollaron la mayor parte de su actividad en los Estados Unidos.
Durante su paso por la Universidad de Harvard dirigió los doctorados de varios de sus estudiantes que como Christine Kondoleon, Irving Lavin, Henry Maguire, Lawrence Nees y Willian Tronzo, serían a su vez muy importantes historiadores del arte.
El lector interesado puede encontrar la referencia bibliográfica de su importante obra y su biografía el el “Dictionary of Art Historians”, Diccionario de Historiadores del Arte asociado a la Universidad de Duke
http://www.dictionaryofarthistorians.org/kitzingere.htm
Lavoie tuvo suerte, pues pudo encontrarse con Kitzinger justo antes de que éste partiera para Inglaterra, en la que planeaba vivir su retiro.
La consulta de Lavoie, que estaba trabajando sobre las marcas de sangre, fue:
-¿Puede usted mostrarme trabajos de artistas que hayan pintado marcas de sangre como las que usted ve en la Sábana Santa de Turín?.
Y esta fue la contestación de Ernst Kitzinger:
“La Sábana Santa de Turín es única en el arte. No entra en ninguna categoría artística.
Para nosotros, un grupo muy pequeño de expertos en todo el mundo, creemos que la Sábana Santa de Turín es realmente la Sábana Santa de Constantinopla. Ustedes saben que los cruzados tomaron muchos tesoros de regreso a Europa durante el siglo XIII y creemos que la Sábana Santa es uno de ellos.
En cuanto a las marcas de sangre hechas por los artistas, no hay cuadros que tengan marcas de sangre como los de la Sábana Santa. Usted es libre de buscar…..pero no los encontrará”.
Google Translation:
In 1979 Dr. Gilbert R. Lavoie be contacted Harvard University, requesting that you indicate the name of a professor who was a specialist in ancient iconography.
He was given the name of Dr. Ernst Kitzinger. Who was this expert?
Ernst Kitzinger, Jewish-German born in Munich in 1912, one of the great art historian specializing in ancient art, medieval and Byzantine small group belonged to the prodigiously gifted German Art Historians, which included Richard Krautheimer, Erwin Panofsky and Kurt Witzmann, and developed most of its activity in the United States.
During his tenure at Harvard University led the doctorates of several of his students like Christine Kondoleon, Irving Lavin, Henry Maguire, Lawrence Nees and William Tronzo, would in turn important art historians.
The interested reader can find the citation for his important work and his biography on the “Dictionary of Art Historians,” Dictionary of Art Historians associated with Duke University
http://www.dictionaryofarthistorians.org/kitzingere.htm
Lavoie was lucky Kitzinger could meet just before he left for England, where he planned to live out their retirement.
The consultation Lavoie, who was working on the marks of blood, was:
– Can you show work by artists who have painted as blood marks you see on the Shroud of Turin?.
And this was the answer to Ernst Kitzinger:
“The Shroud of Turin is unique in the art. Do not fall into any category of art.
For us, a very small group of experts around the world, we believe that the Shroud of Turin is actually the Shroud of Constantinople. You know that the Crusaders took many treasures back to Europe in the thirteenth century and believe that the Shroud is one of them.
As for the blood marks made by the artists, there are no pictures with marks of blood such as the Shroud. You are free to find ….. but do not find it. “
I don’t think it takes an expert in ‘Art History’ to note this was not a piece of art created by some medieval or anyother period artist. I think people like Januszczak, tend to errogantly believe other’s lack the abilities to critic such things. I for one, can instinctly recognize this is not a artist’s rendition, “Just on viewing alone”. I don’t even have to mention facts such as the 3D encoding, as I think anyone with eyes and even mediocre knowledge in art can recognize that this image on the Shroud is UNIQUE in it’s ‘qualities’, ‘realism’, and definately not ‘representative’ of any medieval paintings AT ALL….NOT EVEN CLOSE! It is an incredibly ridiculous claim by one who is supposed to be knowledgeable in such matters.
R
Re; Update- I would also guess Mr. Januszczak is not aware of the Christ portrait found in the catacombs in Rome dating around 300AD. Which by the way also bears a striking resemblance to face seen on the Shroud. Although dated to 300AD some believe it may be of an earlier date, possibly even the 1st century and quite plausibly painted by someone whom actually had seen Jesus.
R