“Here is ‘2.6’,” writes Stephen Jones as he continues his series . . .
. . . The other marks (4): Plant images", which is part 15 of my series, "The Shroud of Turin." The previous post in this series was part 14, "2.6. The other marks (3): Dirt on foot and limestone." See the Contents page (part 1) for more information about this series.
As many of you know, I’m not a big believer in the plant images. I’m not saying they aren’t there; I’m saying I’m not convinced. I think they are a form of pareidolia.
I do think there are at least two “marks,” to use Stephen’s terminology, that look like petal flowers, above and to the right and left of the face — marks that artists might have interpreted as flowers.
![clip_image001[6]](https://i0.wp.com/shroudstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/clip_image0016.jpg "clip_image001[6]")
![clip_image001[8]](https://i0.wp.com/shroudstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/clip_image0018.jpg "clip_image001[8]")
I think that Stephen’s comments on this alleged aspect are appropriate in recording what some have claimed to have observed, and yet cautious and honest in his own reservations about these claims. I personally fail to see them, mainly because I have not made the concentrated effort evidently required to perceive them. I can certainly accept that other more perceptive observers, particularly artists, sincerely believe they can observe them. But there is always a danger in seeing what one wants to see, and this has been extensively discussed in various other postings on this site.
What I do find intriguing is the icon at the head of Dan’s posting where some artist has indeed included images of what might appear to be flowers either side above the head, corresponding to these claims. I wonder how far back in time the inclusion of such images was first indicated on similar icons. This would have to be significant for the argument of a date when such icons with these images were first shown, as they are a persuasive argument that the Shroud would have been the model for such icons.
I would be cautious in allowing that these alleged images say anything about how the image of the TSM was formed, as they could quite easily be two different processes. Such images are readily formed on paper by those who commonly practise flower-pressing as a hobby. They do not necessarily say anything about how the TSM image was formed.
Dave, I believe the icon shown above is of the Pantocrator in St.Catherine’s monastery (Sinai), and dates to the mid 6th century. Which is the oldest of known Pantocrator images, of that we know. I agree with you that these images may not say anything about the formation process, except for the fact that a single flower image does appear (and quite clearly) on a VP-8 image taken very early on by Jackson et al. Making it quite possible the image was formed in the same instant as the body image, but not 100% percent.
R
One for Max Patrick Hamon here? Do quantities of fresh flowers play a role in his fairly elaborate reconstruction of the burial practice of the man in the shroud?
One problem is that Professor Danin “saw” a very large quantity of flowers.