John Klotz writes:
In reviewing the presentation of Benford-Marino at the 2008 Ohio Shroud conference, I came across something I had not taken note of before:
"’Another distinctive characteristic of the cloth also points to a pre-medieval origin of the Shroud. Although debated in the past, image-analyses tools and techniques have clearly identified the existence of horizontal and vertical bands throughout the Shroud. According to the Cambridge Textile Book,"Tapestry-woven coverlets and hangings were characterized in Hellenistic and early Roman times by ‘shaded bands’, which incorporated subtle colours of graded yarns. Combined later with figured designs, shaded bands had vanished by the fourth century’ (22). Thus, the Shroud, with its shaded bands could not likely have been created after the fourth century."
Footnote 22 reads:
"22. D. Jenkins, (ed.). The Cambridge History of Western Textiles (vol.1). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press: 113 (2003)."
I have to now make an admission. part of the Shroud was indeed forged – the "invisible patch" was a forgery, although a legitimate authorized forgery. The "invisible French weaving" was carefully designed to resemble the main body of the Shroud. Thus the presence of dye that Rogers found. Some have argued the the banding present on the Shroud appeared to pass through the mended area. There are two explanations for that: (1) either the carbon dating was really askew or (2) the invisible weavers when dying their patch to match the Shroud, took care ti dye it so that the bands were matched. There really were masters of weaving back in those days.
The sentence before the one quoted by Benford and Marino ends ‘but the most demanding and successful technique was tapestry’. It then goes on with the sentence that begins ‘Tapestry-woven coverlets. . . .’ This section seems to be about tapestries not linen weaves so perhaps one needs to take the point with caution. What is clear from this paragraph and the one before it is that the author of this chapter, John Peter Wild (Jenkins is only the editor of the whole volume), is talking of how clothing was enhanced by the selective application of colour but one cannot see the different colours of the Shroud today – perhaps they were clearer in the first century. Is there any other evidence of burial cloths being in banded colours? So far as one can see this paragraph is about coverlets, hangings and clothing. More work to be done here.
Charles,
Do you have their bleaching methods in a way that eliminated banding? I sincerely would like to see it.
Typo – inadvertent deletion
Do you have authority indicating when Europe or the Middle East changed their bleaching methods in a way that eliminated banding? I sincerely would like really to see it. It might be helpful.
No because, as I understand it, bleaching seems to have been done at times during the long history of linen ( since 6,000 BC), to make the linen look whiter, especially when the flax was dark. I don’t think it went in phases, now we bleach, now we don’t.
Charles,
You disappoint me. To say that people have been bleaching for 6,000 years is to dodge the question. There were different methods bleaching and some of the earliest methods gave uneven results so that when a larger object was made from linen bleached by the early processes bands were created. Evidence wise, it’s akin to fingerprints. Were there no bands that would be evidence casting doubt on the authenticity of the Shroud.
If somone were to claim hat he had an oil painting of Julius Ceasar that he posed for while alive, you would laugh at him. Oil paintings for art was not used by the Romans. (Am I wrong?)
If you want to say you don’t have time to study the issue, I’ll understand that. If you want to point out an inaccuracy, I’ll accept that. What is unacceptable is to write that bleaching has been done for thousands of years so it makes no difference.
Have you ever given forensic evidence in court? Some art experts have. Trying to determine the province of a work of art can be worth tens (if not hundreds) of millions of ddollars. cf La Principessa.
Your answer wouldn’t fly. Usually, the argument is that science demands absolute answers and legal standards such as beyond reasonable doubt do not apply in the august chambers of science. I think that’s nonsense of course. As I have written: “We do not order our lives by proof beyond reasonable doubt.” I also have written: “Fear the person who has no doubt. Witness George Armstrong Custer.”
The issue is whether the Shroud linen shows characteristics of an ancient pre-medieval bleaching process. The Holland Cloth which is clearly of medieval origin, unlike the Shroud in chief shows no banding and it is clearly medieval having been added to the Shroud circa 1532. The fact the Shroud itself shows banding is an indication that it pre-dates medieval. It may not be a 100% solution. But even if it’s 50-50, it’s an indication.
The fact the bleaching process of the linen in the Shroud dates to the time of Christ is a fact about the Shroud. It certainly doesn’t eliminate all possibilities. If the Shroud was pristine of bands, that would be evidence of medieval manufacture.
It is not a decisive fact as to the ultimate issue but it is a fact to be taken into account.
Maybe, if I ever stop being distracted by the blog, I’ll get my manuscript done :-) Actually, I appreciate this interchange because it helps be sharpen my work.
Thank you.
John. I simply do not know other than that, as I said, bleaching was done , and is still done today, to make linen whiter. Of course, it makes a difference – the linen becomes whiter!!
I don’t known what you mean by ‘an ancient pre-medieval bleaching process’. I think everyone will be helped if you can explain this and also explain how the bleaching on the Shroud differs from, say, ‘ a medieval bleaching process’. I am happy to confess ignorance because I know nothing about different bleaching methods at different times of history. If you can point to an authority on this it would be helpful.
I assume from what you say that STURP found remains of the bleach but as I am not a chemist I am not sure exactly what the signs of this would be.
I hope Hugh is noting all these discussions so that he can draw up a list of issues that none of us know much about so that he can commission experts to write about them for his Newsletter!
I note that the torso negative image above appears to have been flipped horizontally. The front-most arm showing the wrist wound is actually the left arm. It’s a mirror image of the negative.
You have to remember when viewing banding that – as far as I am aware – the backlit images are taken with the backing cloth in place and it is difficult to determine what is Shroud and what is not.
David,
The individual who took those pictures assured me the banding was not on the Holland cloth.
I am under the impression that the banding occurs because the bleaching was done to the hanks of unwoven yarn, not the finished cloth. The consequence is that the bleaching is uneven and results in the banded effect. However from my cursory searches, it seems that at times, both cloth and finished articles were occasionally completely bleached. We read in various places, “linen of purest white”, which might suggest that finished cloth was occasionally bleached. The bleaching itself seems to have been a process that would take considerable time, several months. Bleaching of linen seems to have been favoured over dyeing, as linen is apparently resistant to the dyes used in ancient times.
So Charles is probably correct with his unavoidably ambiguous comment as to the timing of the various methods used.
The critical question would then seem to be: “When did bleaching of hanks of yarn cease, and bleaching of the finished cloth become the norm?” As yet I do not have an answer to this question. Perhaps someone else does.
DaveB,
Thank you for your post. I was using dying and bleaching interchangeably which is of course an error. I will have to review Chapter 12 to see if I did the same error. Please keep keeping me on my toes.
Daveb,
I just checked Chapter 12. I did not use the word dye in the Chapter. I really don’t think Charles was confused. But if he was confused, he is perfectly free to berate me and then correct his opinion if he was confused by clumsy me.
I give up. Apparently either I have totally lost my ability to communicate a rational idea or Charles Freeman is not an advertisement for the intellectual prowess of of Cambridge graduates.
It’s very simple: Different methods of bleaching leave different artifacts. In the case of the linen used on the Shroud it left bands of darker color which obvious on the Shroud.
Okay, so people have been bleaching things for maybe 8,000 years or so. They all didn’t do it the same way, And the method some used might not leave artifacts of the process. In the case of the method used in ancient times on the Shroud it caused banding when different batches were used in the object..
Now, I will conceded that the process that caused banding nay have proceeded longer than I thought. One expert wrote a book and said it might have been used to 1250 at the outside. His name was Ray Rogers. But not after that. Benford-Marino relied on an Oxford text to say that it stopped circa 300-400 CE.
Now even taking Rogers figure of 1250 as the outside that would be the latest date for a forgery and there is no evidence that by 1250 the technology existed to forge the Shroud. In fact, there is now evidence that the technique to forge the Shroud did not exist by 2013 qand it is very doubtful it will exist in 2050 although maybe you never know about the the future.
What the banding does demonstrate is that the method used to dye the linen existed at the time of Christ. If it did not THAT would be evidence of in-authenticity. The Holland cloth linen did not exhibit bands. That’s because in Holland they developed a method of bleaching that did not lead to banding. The Holland cloth was used by the Poor Clare nuns who repaired the Shroud in circa 1534.
But I can not understand how a supposedly educated man does not understand that different methods of bleaching might leave different artifacts of one kind or another. The banding is such an artifact and do not insult everyone’s intelligence by claiming hat the banded dyed linen in the Shroud is indistinguishable from any other method of dying.
Really guys and gals, I do not believe that I am that inarticulate and neither was Benford./Marino or Rogers. There may be a disagreement when the dying process used on the Shroud stopped being used, but if any body has any evidence it was used after 1250 I’d like to see it. “Well, maybe” unless backed by facts doesn’t hack it.
I have finished the draft of Chapter 12. Now onto the short but very serious Chapter 13: Sunrise, Sunset, Sunrise. It will in part be tragic but ultimately optimistic and sunny.Occam’s razor will now be Chapter 14.
I still want to know how we know that the Shroud was bleached before or after the hanks of yarn were woven.
I also don’t understand the references to dyes- has anyone, other than Ray Rogers, argued that the Shroud was dyed as suggested above ‘ the banded dyed linen in the Shroud’. Normally linen is not dyed because the dye does not take.
The more I read those posts the more I feel we are in desperate need of basic introductions. eg. here on bleaching and blending, by experts who have had nothing to do with the Shroud. I may be the ‘supposedly educated man’ referred to above but I happily confess to knowing nothing about how ‘different methods of bleaching might leave different artifacts of one kind or another’. I just don’t feel awkward about admitting my ignorance.
Charles,
In response to an E-Mail by DaveB, I have already pointed out that I mistakenly (in haste) used dye and bleach interchangably and that I was referring to bleaching.
If you really want to know about it both Ray Rogers and Benford/Marino have written about it. If you really care to learn about it, do a little research. You know, on the Internet. But frankly I am too busy to deal with either feigned or actual ignorance from someone who is perfectly capable of finding the answer himself, or herself. If it’s too much bother, don’t bother.
If you have contrary authority let me know. I’d like to see it. As a matter of fact after your intial message, and you pointed out that the Oxford reference might not in fact not cover linen cloths like the Shroud, I did in fact do a little research and found out that in his book, a Chemist’s Perspective, Ray Rogers placed the last possible date for bleach bands to be 1250 CE. And he had consulted with an expert. He wasn’t writing in a vacuum. I am satisfied with the information I have. But if it is too much bother for you to read and investigate yourself, then that’s your problem. As I used used to say to my children: “Look it up.”
At some point I agree with Dawkins, the argument from personal incredulity doesn’t wash. (no pun iontended)
[I am writing this at the Association of the Bar library and for some reason their version of G-Mail doesn’t underline in red misspelling so if this is worse than usual I apologize. And I am not here to do research on the Shroud. Back to work]