Colin Berry tells us, I’ve been misunderstood. I did not claim that the Turin Shroud image was an actual sweat imprint – only that is was made to SEEM like a sweat imprint.
Got it? I thought I had. And I thought most of us had. But:
As the comments on other Shroud sites, to say nothing of editorial content, become increasingly bizarre, it’s time to set out my own stall more carefully to avoid misunderstanding.
In my last posting I made what I consider to be a major new claim regarding the faint body image on Turin Shroud – one for which I not unnaturally expect credit if it finds general support – and brickbats if not.
Nope, I don’t seek commercial gain, nor media celebrity but do expect academic kudos if as I hope my ideas prove to be the correct ones- and I have reason to believe that the "simulated sweat imprint" idea is not only original, except for one passing mention discovered yesterday in googling. Let’s not beat about the bush. It’s a PARADIGM SHIFT , one that will require a major rethink about the TS and how it was able to capture the imagination through engendering assumptions that never got properly questioned, even to this day.
It goes to the heart, not just of science and the scientific method vis-a-vis other methods of enquiry. It has a huge amount to say about the theory of knowledge in general – and the way in which our view of the natural and material world can be coloured by our preconceptions, faulty as often as not).
[ . . . ]
But just because it was intended to be seen that way does NOT mean that the medieval artisan set out to create an image with sweat, or even simulated sweat, or indeed any liquid concoction whatsoever. . . .
Okay, some people misunderstood, maybe.
. . . Why is the scorch hypothesis still in the frame? Answer: because it seems as good a way as any for SIMULATING a sweat imprint, given a contact scorch from a hot template can be as faint and superficial as one wishes – it being a fairly simple and straightforward matter to control image intensity. What’s more, while the medieval artisan would not have known it, the resulting image would centuries later respond to modern technology, starting with photography and light/dark reversed images ("negatives") on silver-coated emulsions, giving the "haunting" photograph-like positive image revealed by Secondo Pia (1898), and later still the remarkable response to 3D-rendering software etc.
. . . The field is wide open to others to come up with alternative suggestions and test them
Was that a scorch imitating sweat or sweat imitating a scorch?
“Correction: last paragraph above. “It’s NOT entirely impossible for the image to have been formed with no application of heat.””
Or sweat imitating a scorch with no heat?
A kind of double back flip?
Artistic note: 4.5
Scientific note: 1.2
Dan,
While I appreciate your comments on Occam’s razor posted earlier (see e.g. quantum theory) along comes Colin to make the opposite point. His complex theories and speculations all dance around a point he is beginning to prove but can not accept: the Shroud is authentic. Authenticity really is the simplest solution.
I agree with Mr. Klotz. The theories by Freeman and Berry are amusing and compelling only if one turns a blind eye to all of the other facts. Foremost, is that no one on earth can duplicate the shroud.
Everyone has their own reasons as to why they believe the shroud is authentic or not. As a physician, the elephants in the room are all of the forensic/pathological/anatomical findings on the shroud that are what we call in medicine “pathognomonic” for the shroud being authentic. For instance, do Berry and Freeman truly believe that some 14th century artist knew what a Roman flagrum looked like and was able to create identical scourge marks on the shroud. Or, does the fact that the blood stains have surrounding – invisible – serum plasma surrounding them – a separation of blood components that could have only occurred naturally – not speak to some natural or better yet – supernatural event?
Hi Stan. I have a lot of respect for the letters MD, so I hope you will be able to answer a couple of questions that have been bothering me for some time.
1) At what angle does an arm have to be held for blood to trickle down it as it appears on the Shroud?
2) If an arm is held at that angle above the shoulder, and a puncture wound made in the centre of the wrist between the ulnar and radial arteries, how much blood flows out?
Many thanks.
Wow, this is a man on a mission! My boring idea that this is a medieval painting whose gesso and pigments have fragmented ( this kind of medieval paint does not flake) over the centuries and rough treatment of the expositions is certainly not going to get me any plaudits from art historians who say why should I claim credit for something that is obvious ( well to eyes trained in such things at least).
We look forward to the peer- reviewed publication in a major academic journal that will set Colin on the path to fame, fortune and even perhaps the Nobel prize for Chemistry, a system of making images on linen that not a single one of the thousands of art historians working with medieval images has ever seen or even guessed at! Better than landing something on a moving comet any day.
Charles.
Have you, after all those errors in weak sides pointed out so far, abandoned your hypothesis?
No. O.K.,- certainly not any hypothesis contained in my History Today article.
Any hypothesis that goes out to the academic community needs to wait at least a year before one can begin to assess whether it has academic support or not so we are in very early days -it takes easily a year or more before academic journals will publish their responses.
Obviously I am interested in the comments of specialists who are looking objectively at the Shroud as an artefact, not from those who appear to have made up their minds already as their views may be prejudiced. This means attracting the attention of people who may know nothing about the Shroud but a lot about ancient weaving or painting on linen. This is my main aim over the coming months.
I am not sure what you means by ‘errors in weak sides’ anyway.
Charles.
Obviously I am interested in the comments of specialists who are looking objectively at the Shroud as an artefact, not from those who appear to have made up their minds already as their views may be prejudiced.
Me too, so that exclude yours.
No. O.K.,- certainly not any hypothesis contained in my History Today article.
Charles, have you read my own recent presentations:
http://shroudstory.com/2014/11/11/why-the-images-and-bloodstains-were-not-painted-on/
http://shroudstory.com/2014/11/10/guest-posting-by-o-k-on-the-shroud-as-a-negative/
Do you know what the photographic negative is? How do you explain lack of directionality in FFT spectrum (do you even know what’s that)? What about 3D qualities, etc., etc.
On History Today website it writes:
In the November edition of History Today, Charles Freeman, in a remarkable piece of historical detective work, reveals the truth about the origins of the Shroud of Turin.
They claim you “reveal the truth”. What is this truth? Are you able (or even competent) to defend it against charges?
Or, like a classic said: “The Goral (Highlander) epistemology says there are three truths: Holy truth, truth-likewise and s#%t-truth”, and yours is of that third kind, and your article serves only to get some little money and deceive a few gullible people?
Your problem Charles, is you regard the Shroud as something subject to an art historian’s analysis. The only thing that an art history can truly conclude is that there is no existing precedent for the Shroud discernible in art history. Despite repeated challenges you have not produced a single existing work of art dating to medieval times which comes within a “country mile” (forgive my Americanism) of the Shroud.The reason is that science has demonstrated that it is not a work of art.
As long as you stand on a pedestal proclaiming your art historian credentials without taking a serious examination of the science – and showing just a tad respect for qualified scientists like Ray Rogers and John Brown, then your opinions are worthless.
The issue of the Shroud’s authenticity passed beyond an art history’s purview into the realm of physics decades ago.
I disagree, John. The iconography of the Shroud, with its all- over scourge marks and patterns of blood flows on the arms and head is very similar to other fourteenth century crucifixions and entombments. (I assume that you have read my article for preliminary findings on this.) This is the world of art history. I am assembling a chronological sequence of art that shows how iconography similar to that of the Shroud starts appearing in western art about 1300.
I think we should leave it to the art historians who assess my hypothesis whether it relates to art history or not. I am in no rush.
If you want to concentrate on the realm of physics there is no one stopping you, but please don’t try and stop other people doing their own research on the Shroud from a different perspective from your own..
I am assembling a chronological sequence of art that shows how iconography similar to that of the Shroud starts appearing in western art about 1300.
Yes, Charles, but can you explain the reason for that change? Have you familiarised with my own small study: http://shroudstory.com/2014/05/18/paper-chase-a-revolution-indeed/ ?
My answer is that it was opposite way than you claim, that is the Shroud had a crucial impact on the iconographic revolution of 12th-14th century. That explains both things: 1) why there is similarity (if one may call it) between Shroud and 14th century iconography 2.) what is the origin of the 14th century representations of the crucifixion and entombment. Your opposite claim may answer 1.) but not 2.) So mine is better in that issue.
The most profound revolution In iconography in the later thirteenth / early fourteenth century was tHe emergence of blood cults relating to the scourging and crucifixion. So it is not just the Crown of Thorns in place, but blood flowing down the hair, along the arms, and from the wounds and the scourging marks covering the whole body. All this has, of course, been well covered by scholars, Caroline Walker Bynum in her Wonderful Blood, James Marrow in his works on Passion iconography( where he dates the emergence of all-over scourging to 1300) and Jeffrey Hamburger who is particularly interested in the emergence of these aspects in Southern Germany. The iconography of the Shroud, the all-over scourging, the pattern of the blood flows, fits well into this change and so one can argue for the creation of the images on the Shroud then.
The alternative is to say that the Shroud inspired this dramatic change. The change does seem to have originated in Southern Germany, and apparently under Dominican influence, so the Shroud would have had to have been there 1290-1300 and associated with the Dominicans . There is just not a shred of evidence for this.
Charles
“The alternative is to say that the Shroud inspired this dramatic change. The change does seem to have originated in Southern Germany, and apparently under Dominican influence,so the Shroud would have had to have been there 1290-1300 and associated with the Dominicans . There is just not a shred of evidence for this.”
Or people traveled to where the shroud was.
“Or people traveled to where the shroud was”.
John: If the Shroud had been so important that some people has seen it and then copied diverse features of it, someone had represented not only the wounds of Passion but the very form of the Shroud. This is not the case. There is not a single representation of the Shroud folded in two as the Turin Shroud before 1350. And only one before the 16th Century. And remember that the form of the Shroud is perhaps the more representative feature of it.
Attributing so big importance to a semi-concealed object is impossible. The fame and diffusion of the Shroud begins only in the 16th.
Clearly Shroud devotion multiplied substantially from the 1500s. Hence a number of extant depictions.
such devotion did not exist before the 1500s. And that may explain the lack of depictions.
lack of depictions does not imply non existence.
Don’t be confused. Lack of depictions is contradictory with wide influence.
The existence is ascertained with references in texts. We have some texts with references to the Shroud, but not depictions.
I am compiling depictions of the expositions of the Shroud, 1580 -1750. One on its own is not relevant- the question is whether one can see features recorded by different artists at different times, that correlate to each other. So if an artist in 1578 shows thumbs on the hands and an artist in 1680 shows thumbs at the same angle, it is possible but certainly not conclusive that there were originally thumbs on the hands. This is tricky territory which is why we need a data base of all the depictions of the Shroud (there seem to be at least fifty independent ones – see Beldon Scott for some of them), release it to the wider academic world and let the discussion begin. It may be that after lots of scholars have looked at it, they decide there is not enough to suggest that there are features that are no longer there. But it is like visiting a doctor feeling run down. He still orders the blood test even if turns out to show nothing wrong. A data base of all the expositions is just one of the things that needs to be done if we are to build up a comprehensive survey of the Shroud. As a historian it is one of the first things I would have done, with the very first assessing the looms that might have woven the Shroud.
Sue Benford describes her interests on the site she set up with Joe which i accessed simply under ‘Benford Pyramids’.
Peer review? When did you last submit something for peer review, Charles, as distinct from editorial approval for book or magazine?
There’s a time and a place for everything, peer review included. The technical stuff I publish in blogs does not need peer review. Apart from being copiously illustrated with step-by-step photographs of what I see, the aim has not been to force feed technical detail, but to generate an overarching hypothesis as to why the TS image looks the way it does – which can be summed up in a single word – peculiar. It’s the peculiarity that should have told you the TS was no ordinary painting, whether age-degraded or not. You should also be aware that your claim that all the pigment has now disappeared, while conceivably possible (though hugely improbable) is totally unscientific. One has to be able to detect at least traces of original pigment for the claim to be regarded as scientific.
Speaking more generally, what those in the world of liberal arts, especially in the UK’s notoriously schizoid and divisive “Two Cultures” society still fail to appreciate is that science (as distinct from technology) is essentially rooted in the world of ideas. If one has a new idea, it does not necessarily need to go for peer review initially. Idea are ideas, and are like genies that have a way of escaping from their bottles.
My genie of an idea – the “simulated sweat imprint” (SSI) hypothesis – is now the subject of the latest posting on my specialist TS site, the latter having been dormant these last 8 months.
http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/the-shroud-of-turin-probably-not-miraculous-just-a-simulated-sweat-imprint-a-triumph-of-medieval-joined-up-thinking/
I have no intention of submitting any of it for peer review. I shamelessly regard the SSI idea as a paradigm shift. It has certainly changed my way of interpreting all manner of detail regarding the TS (see the 16 listed points in the new posting). I hope that in time it will start to influence your thinking too Charles, and maybe that of some others on this site whose own might charitably be said to have crystallized prematurely.
Charles, one simple question. Have you read my own presentation: http://shroudstory.com/2014/05/18/paper-chase-a-revolution-indeed/ ?
stan walker MD comment above: “As a physician, the elephants in the room are all of the forensic/pathological/anatomical findings on the shroud that are what we call in medicine “pathognomonic” for the shroud being authentic.”
I should like to know if there has ever been any other single case where a competent forensic pathologist was fooled into imagining that the image from any painting, entire or fragmented, or from a non-photographic template was actually that of a real human person. For that seems to be the consensus of many of them concerning the Shroud image.
It may be a telling commentary on art historians in general, perhaps even an indictment, if any of Charles Freeman’s colleagues or acquaintances can make the distinction, for it is only too obvious that he cannot!
“The alternative is to say that the Shroud inspired this dramatic change. The change does seem to have originated in Southern Germany, and apparently under Dominican influence,so the Shroud would have had to have been there 1290-1300 and associated with the Dominicans . There is just not a shred of evidence for this.”
Correct – there is no evidence. One can only speculate.
However, one may reasonably ask why this significant change in art history occurred.
Of course, there could be several reasons. One might think The Black Death in the mid 1300s might have had something to do with it, but this doesn’t stack up given the artistic changes started occurring circa 1300.
Personally, I think the changes were linked to the epitaphios, which started to appear around circa 1200AD – 1300AD and showed a more bloodied Christ than seen before.
And that the epitaphios was influenced by the Shroud. I doubt the Shroud was in southern Germany in the the late 1200s, although it could have been.
It’s worth reminding oneself of the geography of Europe around 1200AD. I found the very good map below. It shows how close Hungary was to the Byzantine Empire. And it wasn’t far from Hungary to Southern Germany….The Danube acted as an important trade route in the middle ages, and connected southern Germany, through Hungary, and out to the Black Sea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary#mediaviewer/File:Europe_mediterranean_1190_cropped.jpg
Thomas. Perhaps you should start by reading the three specialists that I have quoted, Walker Bynum, Marrow and Hamburger, before you put forward your own theories.They deal with the issues in detail after many years working with the evidence. Marrow, in particular, shows how the changes relate to the new emphasis on Old Testament texts.Then if you disagree with these authorities you can,of course, explain why.
It is always good to start with the authorities, in particular as this field has been extensively worked on. I remain amazed that Colin seems to be going his own way without having started by consulting the many specialists working on medieval painting. He may end up rejecting their work but he should at least know about it before he goes public. Art historians today have to know a great deal of chemistry as much depend on the analysis of pigments, so he will be able to find people he can talk to. He needs to search out other faded cloths for comparison with the Shroud – I know of two, mentioned in my article, and there must be many more not on display anywhere so perhaps a conservation lab dealing with medieval textiles might be the place to start. Certainly I am hoping that my article helps find some to compare with the Shroud – sadly most have decayed.
But perhaps the lure of going it alone is too strong for Colin.. I doubt, however, even if he finds a new way of making images of which the Shroud is the only example, it is going to revolutionise science in the way he suggests.
I’m free like anyone else to put forward any theory I like. As a free thinker who was once in academia I know the dangers of conventional wisdom and the doctrine that often dominates in the so called bastions of free thought that universities are supposed to be.
Some time I’ll read Marrow and I’ll keep an open mind.
Of course you are free to put forward your own theories, Thomas. And we all know cases where people, whether academics or not, stick to their theories even if there is no evidence to support them.
You still need to read as widely as possible among the specialists who have devoted their lives to the subjects and often disagree with each other. I wish I had more time to do that myself! But with four trips to the Mediterranean in six weeks, the Shroud is only a small part of my work!
A major problem is the lack of comparative studies. Is Colin going to look at the faded Zittau Lenten Veil in the church museum at Zittau in Saxony? This is a painted linen from 1472, much larger than the Shroud (8.2 metres by 6.80 metres), with 90 separate paintings on the linen. It had survived relatively intact until the Second World War when it was looted by some Russian soldiers who used it to cover a steam bath. This alone caused the pigments to fall off in some areas and it was then left in the damp so parts were very faded. It is not only important in itself but it has received a full restoration programme and the contrast between those areas that remain faded and those that are relatively intact is easy to see. There is a full report in Caroline Villers, The Fabric of Images (London 200). Villers has a mass of material for those interested in how medieval linens were painted..
Then there is the Adoration of the Magi, no 35, in Diane Wolfthal’s The Beginnings of Netherlandish Canvas Painting , Cambridge UP 1989 now in the Museum of Prints and drawings in Berlin. Here the images seem to have suffered from abrasion but much of the original remains intact, allowing one to see how a particular painted linen might have decayed.
Even with their faded areas, these are still intact enough to be displayed- there must be lots of other examples that are hidden away in storerooms. I am not going to take Colin seriously unless he he can show that he has made a sustained effort to look at other faded linens from the Middle Ages before embarking on a theory of his own. He needs to show how the Shroud is different from these but you can’t do that until you have looked at the others!
Similarly ,we need to make a data base of all the known depictions and copies of the Shroud so that scholars and others can independently make their own assessments of their relevance and accuracy by comparing them against each other. I have already put out the call to one professor of art history to see whether we can find a student wanting an interesting subject for ,say, a master’s Dissertation.
O.K:
“My answer is that it was opposite way than you claim, that is the Shroud had a crucial impact on the iconographic revolution of 12th-14th century. That explains both things: 1) why there is similarity (if one may call it) between Shroud and 14th century iconography 2.) what is the origin of the 14th century representations of the crucifixion and entombment. Your opposite claim may answer 1.) but not 2.) So mine is better in that issue.”
There are other explanations of the concern on deathand pain in the 14th Century. They are well founded on historical and social events that produced a change of mentality. For example: the ravaging black plague or the endemic state of war in France and other European countries. These and other dramatic events produced a reduction of one third of the population and some heretic and ascetics movements. It is the moment of the popularity of the Dances of the Death in Art, for example. Or the flagellants, that is a case in point.
Furthermore, your alleged explanation is fanciful. (See my comment to John Green). A fanciful explanation is not better that ignorance.
I think your problem, you sindonists, is the absolute ignorance of History. It seems that you sometimes confuse History with Game of Thrones.
Charles:
Is Colin going to look at the faded Zittau Lenten Veil in the church museum at Zittau in Saxony? This is a painted linen from 1472, much larger than the Shroud (8.2 metres by 6.80 metres), with 90 separate paintings on the linen. It had survived relatively intact until the Second World War when it was looted by some Russian soldiers who used it to cover a steam bath. This alone caused the pigments to fall off in some areas and it was then left in the damp so parts were very faded.
[…]
Then there is the Adoration of the Magi, no 35, in Diane Wolfthal’s The Beginnings of Netherlandish Canvas Painting , Cambridge UP 1989 now in the Museum of Prints and drawings in Berlin. Here the images seem to have suffered from abrasion but much of the original remains intact, allowing one to see how a particular painted linen might have decayed.
I allowed myself to bold key phrases.
As you can see those examples work against your hypothesis. Paintings don’t decay uniformly, but for your theory the Shroud being painted prop, must have lost all of its pigment, and yet leave residual image. With negative characterstics, 3D feature, lack of directionality in Fourier spectrum etc., which all you ignore and really I think you don’t even understand.
That makes your theory pseudo-scientific garbage.
David Mo:
Lack of depictions is contradictory with wide influence
Attributing so big importance to a semi-concealed object is impossible. The fame and diffusion of the Shroud begins only in the 16th.
Only in your mind. The source doesn’t have to be widely known to have wide influence.
Furthermore, your alleged explanation is fanciful. (See my comment to John Green). A fanciful explanation is not better that ignorance.
Babble.
Charles:
The most profound revolution In iconography in the later thirteenth / early fourteenth century was tHe emergence of blood cults relating to the scourging and crucifixion. So it is not just the Crown of Thorns in place, but blood flowing down the hair, along the arms, and from the wounds and the scourging marks covering the whole body. All this has, of course, been well covered by scholars, Caroline Walker Bynum in her Wonderful Blood, James Marrow in his works on Passion iconography( where he dates the emergence of all-over scourging to 1300) and Jeffrey Hamburger who is particularly interested in the emergence of these aspects in Southern Germany. The iconography of the Shroud, the all-over scourging, the pattern of the blood flows, fits well into this change and so one can argue for the creation of the images on the Shroud then.
Charles & David Mo:
If you are so wise (but only in your own belief), than how do you explain following things (see my presentation: http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/crucifixes-by-century-1.pdf )
-the reduction of number of nails presented in crucifixion portrayals, from 4 to 3?
-the fact that roughly 90 % portrayals of crucifixion with 3 nails (dominant since 14th century, but the change already begins in 12th !) shows right foot atop of the left, just like the positive image on the Shroud indicates?
This cannot be explained by plagues, wars and social changes in the 14th century!!!
O.K:
Wise? This is not a debate for “wise men” (whatever you want to mean with this) but for experts and I’m not one and never I have pretended to be one. (I say this in the entry of my blog referred to medieval iconography of the Three Women at the tomb. Here: http://sombraenelsudario.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/las-santas-mujeres-en-la-tumba-vacia-imagenes/
I’m sorry but your presentation about crucifixion is worse than the other that we have discussed here about Fourier transform. There are not clear conclusions, no criterion to selection, unwarranted inductions and an absolute misunderstanding of the History of Art.
I cannot answer to your questions because they are incorrectly stated. For example, you asked: “-the reduction of number of nails presented in crucifixion portrayals, from 4 to 3?”
The question is badly poosed because there is not a single reason for this reduction, there is not a unique process of reduction and the answer makes no sense if we don’t precise this points.
There are some periods and some artists that have represented three nails and other four nails. This depends of theological conventions about what is the correct way to see the Christ and of artistic conventions also. The reasons why the normal iconography of the 10th century shows a Christ with four nails are different from the same feature in Velazquez’s Christ. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Cristo_crucificado.jpg/300px-Cristo_crucificado.jpg). In the first case the Christ is represented in is Majesty even when it was in the Cross. His hieratic attitude, that include his open arms, is the proper representation of the Power (also the power of the Emperor and his court). In the second case, Velazquez, is the result of Counter-Reform. The crossed legs were considered as an indecent position, and a more static position was recommended by relevant religious authorities (Cardinal Bellarmino, for example). This implies four nails, obviously. In the middle, polemics about the number of nails were spread across Europe when the Cathar Crusade.
I am not a “wise” man, but those things are common thoughts in History of Art.
David Mo:
I’m sorry but your presentation about crucifixion is worse than the other that we have discussed here about Fourier transform. There are not clear conclusions, no criterion to selection, unwarranted inductions and an absolute misunderstanding of the History of Art.
This is comical.Does it mean that your understanding of this topic is even worse than (your complete ignaorance) about Fourier? Or simply you cannot find any reasonable counterarguments, so you are forced to subsititute them with slurs, like ususal?
I cannot answer to your questions because they are incorrectly stated. For example, you asked: “-the reduction of number of nails presented in crucifixion portrayals, from 4 to 3?”
Is my english so bad, or do you not understand simple issues? Before 14th century overwhelming majority of portrayals showed Christ crucified with 4 nails (feet nailed separately). Since 14th century onwards overwhelming majority of Western-type crucifixion portrayals (I do not include Orthodox, which always portarayed both feet nailed separately) show 3 nails, feet nailed together, and what’s more in ~90 % instances the right foot is above the left, just like the positive Shroud image indicates.
And you, instead of explaining the reasons of this radical revolution, are talking without sense about Velazquez, who is just the exception proving the rule.
There is not “radical revolution”. The Crucifixion with trhee nails existed long before 1350. For example these pictures from the Britishh Library.
One leaf from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: the preface with West-Saxon genealogy from Cerdic (494) to Alfred (899)
England, S. E. (Winchester); 4th quarter of the 11th century
http://molcat1.bl.uk/IllImages/BLStudio/mid/Addvarious/add_ms_34652_f005r.jpg
Registrum Prioratus Ecclesiæ Christi Cantuariensis, including a Martyrology
England, S. E. (Canterbury, Christ Church); 2nd half of the 13th century
http://molcat1.bl.uk/IllImages/NOF/mid/011ARU000000068U00166V00.jpg
The artist of the Shroud continues a stylistic previous tendency that was growing before 1350. (13th century!). A small quest in the collections of the British Library, Enluminures, Joconde database, and similar shows it. I am sorry that you didn’t understand why I have spoken of Velázquez, for it is an explanation of this change of paradigm. Your English is not bad. Your ignorance about History of Art it is. Drawing conclusions about ten centuries of Art evolution with a handful of bad pictures with a random criterion is hilarious. It is worse than your kitchen science with JPGEs.
The image of the Shroud is an example between others of a stylistic previous tendency in some respects, as the nails case. You have not any proof nor hint that the evolution of this tendency has been caused by the Shroud. This is wishful thinking.
Thomas wrote: “Personally, I think the changes were linked to the epitaphios, which started to appear around circa 1200AD – 1300AD and showed a more bloodied Christ than seen before.
And that the epitaphios was influenced by the Shroud. I doubt the Shroud was in southern Germany in the the late 1200s, although it could have been.”
And Charles replied: “Of course you are free to put forward your own theories, Thomas. And we all know cases where people, whether academics or not, stick to their theories even if there is no evidence to support them.”
Now what about outstanding American Byzantine Art Historian, Dr. Ernst Kitzinger’s opinion in 1979:
“The Shroud of Turin is unique in art. It doesn’t fall into any artistic category. For us, a very small group of experts around the world (German Byzantine Art Historian Hans Belting included), we believe the Shroud of Turin is the Shroud of Constantinople. You know that the crusaders took many treasures back to Europe during the 13th century, we believe that the shroud was one of them (Lavoie 2000: 73 – 74).”? Threnoi epitaphioi do show Shroud-like characteristics as early as 1200 and 1300 CE. They are modeled on the famous relic.
Can Charles account for the sudden emergence of the threnoi epitaphioi in the 1200s CE? He just cannot.
Besides can he account for the dramatic change in the depiction of the two Archangels’LONG NARROW HERRINGBONE WEAVE PATTERNED loros (or stole) symbolic of Yeshua’s burial shroud (see late 13th CE Grandson antependium from a Cypriot workshop) when the Knights templar owned the entire island of Cyprus? He just cannot.
Charles’s hypothesis just fail to do justice to the two most eloquent iconographical facts. It is not ‘factproof’ AT ALL!
“Not a single serious historian has come forward to buttress (the radiocarbon dating, 1325 CE ±65,) with some sound, readily cogent elucidation of how someone in the Middle Ages could have come up with such an extraordinary object” (Dixit Wilson 2010: 3). This is still valid today in spite of Charles’s red herring…
Just one thought on why there are so few double images copies of the Shroud. I do not think I am the first to point out that the image of the back of Christ contains literally his naked “backside.” That and the fact a double image is twice as long and unwieldy as single representation of the front side made it both practical and modest to simply recreate the front side. To some in medieval times, it not most, Christ’s naked buttocks would be a scandal.
Indeed, David Rolfe lost a promised $100,000 in financing for the post-production costs of “Silent Witness” when he refused to show Christ on the cross with a modest loin cloth. At that was 1978, not 1352.
Reminder: in the 1163-1195 CE Hungarian Pray Ms bifolium (five depiction), the Benedictine monk illustrator reveals nearly 40 Shroud characteristics to the initiated eye.
Here a vague example from the Space exploration :
MIDAS was the first space-borne AFM to be built…
AFM and Rosetta mission:
“In situ nanometre imaging of cometary dust with the MIDAS atomic force microscope”
Link:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsmicro2009/pdf/9002.pdf
question: the sakli mural of the edessa image from the 1100s…
http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/my-critique-of-charles-freemans-turin_23.html
are the 3 circles on one side and 4 on the other depicting the poker holes?
Or is it just my wishful thinking?
they would appear to symbolise something, rather than being merely decorative.
Possibly the Trinity and the Evangelists?
Hugh,
On the Shroud itself, you know that thing in Turin, there are burn holes. On the Ventral image (front) there three holes on the left as viewed and four on the right. Coincidence? Come one. Get real and stop searching frantically for theories that disprove authenticity.
Some day, I would like to see a simple acknowledgment that something does indicate authenticity. Is this similarity conclusive? Of course not. But is it another circumstance pointing in admittedly oblique way o the existence of the Shroud as a model.\? To quote the former governor of Alaska: “You betcha.”
To Thomas,
On August 25, 2012 at 9:21 am, I wrote:
In all likelihood, the 11th c. CE Salki/”Hidden” Church fresco depicts the Hoy Face of the Constantinople Sindon (now kept in Turin) in conjunction with the same Byzantine roundel motifs that are depicted on the entire garments/robes cloaks of individuals of secular significance (the elite), the Christian Militant Saints & Martyrs and Archangels.
The seven red brick and white roundel motifs, as a symbol of the perfection and the unity, can be read at two different levels:
1/- no matter how sketchy it looks, in the particular grouping of the seven brick-red coloured roundels, an 11th century CE Cappadocia shepherd could have easily recognized the seven-star asterism seen as a Ladle (in the constellation of Ursa Major/the Great Bear). All the more so if you think they were featured both on the inside and outside of the two outer wings of a reliquary, when swung shut, the facial image was no longer intervening between the three stars – Alcor, Mizar, Alioth – in the tail forming the handle and the four stars – Pheeda, Megrez, Dubhe, Merak – at the head forming the scoop and the asterism geometry restored.
Reminder: Zeus (the king of the gods) turned Callisto and her son Arcas into bears and put them in the sky to form two constellations: the Great Bear (Plough or Ladle) and the Little Bear. Both constellations are made of seven mains stars. In ancient times the name of the Great Bear constellation was Helike, (“turning”), because all northern hemisphere stars will of course be seen to rotate around Polaris but of course this will appear more manifest for the brighter asterisms at the north-most declinations, such as Ursa Major.
In the Sakli fresco, Yeshua is the Pole as an example to follow and a guide through the journey of life, from earth to heaven. As to the white roundel field, it is a symbolic motif of all the good deeds the truthful and faithful place as a treasure in heaven (see Yeshua’s teachings:”If you want to be perfect, go, sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven (Matthew 19:21).”
2/- because there are two different kinds of wisdom: “Heavenly Wisdom (or Christian Wisdom) ‘vs.’ Earthly Wisdom (or Greek Wisdom)”, there are also two ways to read the constellation-like shaped seven-roundel motif:
First reading: the three brick red roundels on the left (inside wing of a reliquary?) are symbolic motifs of Sophia (Greek for Wisdom) and her three holy daughters Pistis, Elpis, and Agape (Greek Faith, Hope and Charity) whereas the four three brick red roundels on the right (inside wing of the reliquary?) are symbolic motifs of the four “cardinal” virtues: dikaiosyne (Greek for justice), phronesis (Greek for prudence), sophrosyne (Greek for temperance), and andreia (Greek for courage).
Second reading: the three brick red roundels on the left (inside wing of the reliquary?) are symbolic motifs of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) whereas the four three brick red roundels (on the right (inside wing of the reliquary?) are symbolic motifs of the four orthodox Christian cardinal virtues: agape (Greek for selfless love), eleos (Greek for mercy), thysia (Greek for sacrifice), and diakonia (Greek for service).
I’m now of the opinion that the TS is best described as a thermal (or maybe thermochemical) imprint masquerading as a pseudohidrosohaematogram… ;-)
David Mo:
There is not “radical revolution”. The Crucifixion with trhee nails existed long before 1350. For example these pictures from the Britishh Library.
[…]
The artist of the Shroud continues a stylistic previous tendency that was growing before 1350. (13th century!).
Once again you have mocked yourself! In my paper (http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/crucifixes-by-century-1.pdf ) I wrote (pg. 38):
•As we can see, between 12th and 14th century there is also a dramatic change in portrayal the number of nails that pierced the feet –from 2 to 1.
•Ian Wilson in the chronology of the Shroud at the end of his 1998 book „The Blood and the Shroud” mentions under the date 1149 first known instance 3 nails portrayal, on the bronze baptismal font in Tirlemont (Belgium).
•Also the overwhelming majority of portrayals show right foot above the left. Why not 50-50?
Of course the change didn’t start in the 14th century, but about 200 years before (if the first illustration you provided is indeed from the 4th quarter of the 11th century, than congratulations, you have found earlier such representation than Wilson) -but the trend grow slowly, and only since the 14th century 3-nail model became dominant up to this day.
Have you even read my presentation with understanding? Have they taught you this ability in school?
I am sorry that you didn’t understand why I have spoken of Velázquez, for it is an explanation of this change of paradigm
It is an explanation of nothing -Velázquez lived in the 17th century, 300 years after the revolution, and his portrayal with 4 nails was exception in this period.
You have not any proof nor hint that the evolution of this tendency has been caused by the Shroud. This is wishful thinking.
Yeah, yeah -the change from 4 nails to 3, and the fact that 90 % of portrayals show right foot above the left is irrelevant. This is just what the Shroud shows. And there are no other explanations for those.
You are ridiculous. Go back learning how to draw viable conclusions David Mo, and then return.
O.K.:
“…the change from 4 nails to 3, and the fact that 90 % of portrayals show right foot above the left is irrelevant. This is just what the Shroud shows. And there are no other explanations for those”.
1. You cannot provide an “explanation” of all the particularities of the History. Chance or the limits of knowledge are important determinant in historical explanation. You are an ignorant in History if you don’t know this.
2. In absence of any explanation you cannot accept the first explanation that comes to your mind. Specially when we are spoken of particular in History. You are an ignorant in History if you don’t know this.
3. The priority of the right over the left. Right is the saint side of the things, left is the devilish side. (The artist of the Shroud probably didn’t think he was doing a replica by contact and changed the side of the bound and the hands. This is not his unique mistake from a naturalistic point of view. See the hair).
4. If we have a tendency toward an end (substitution of the 4 nails by 3) that begins in a point and grows toward another, you cannot say that the cause of the arrival to the end is in the half of the process. If you had done the simple quest I have suggested you would had understand that the change from 4 nails to 3 is progressive. You will find no crucifixions with three nails in the early centuries of Christianity. Scarcely one in the 11th century. Some in the 12th century. Many in the last half of the 13th century. And then there are few crucifixions with 4 nails in the 14th century. Etc. (I’m sorry for this childish explanation but I am not sure that you have understand what a progressive evolution signifies).
But your intent of explanation of a particular fact by a point in the middle of a chain has an essential flaw. You cannot attribute a wide effect of change in history (of Art) to an unknown event. Some events as the exhibition of Veronica’s Veil had a big impact on the medieval imaginary, but we know a handful of depictions of this artefact that justify his popularity. Nothing of this in the Shroud’s case. The first wide depictions and representations of the Shroud were known in the 16th century. How this semi-occult object could determine the History of Art is a mysterious thing. And you know that mysterious explanations need strong evidences. And you are not even the slightest hint. nations need strong evidences. And you have not even the slightest hint.
If you want an explanation of the change of styles from hieratic to dynamic, I suggest you a visit to the Principles of Art History of Wölfflin with particular attention to the tectonic/a-tectonic opposition.
The change from four to three nails is evolutionarlly explained by the same rules than explain the change of vertical-horizontal compositions of the Crucifixions to the sinuous forms. That is to say, from the Romanesque art to the Gothic.
You do not have to look at earlier depictions of the Shroud to know that the scourge marks cover the whole body back and front- they can still be seen. There does not appear to be any other example in western art before 1300, probably starting in Northern Europe. Either the Shroud inspired this change among all the artists even though there is no documentary evidence to support this (and why would this inspiration take place just about 1300 ? ) or the artist of the Shroud was copying what other artists were doing.
James Marrow thinks the change was inspired by Isaiah 1.6 which theologians thought referred to the flagellation of Christ. I have a illustration for a forthcoming lecture that shows how the squiggles of the blood on the Holkham Bible ( London, c. 1330) are very similar to the squiggles of blood on the head of the man on the Shroud. I have a ‘slide’ that puts them next to each other to make the point and that is before we move on to compare the blood on the arms with similar flows of blood on fourteenth century crucifixions and Pietas.
I
David Mo:
If we have a tendency toward an end (substitution of the 4 nails by 3) that begins in a point and grows toward another, you cannot say that the cause of the arrival to the end is in the half of the process. If you had done the simple quest I have suggested you would had understand that the change from 4 nails to 3 is progressive. You will find no crucifixions with three nails in the early centuries of Christianity. Scarcely one in the 11th century. Some in the 12th century. Many in the last half of the 13th century. And then there are few crucifixions with 4 nails in the 14th century. Etc.
And once again you have shown your lack of understanding of the topic. Yes, the first represenatation of Christ crucified with three nails appear in 11th-12th century, and their frequency arises through 13th century and become dominant in 14th century. The Shroud surfaces in Lirey ~ 1356, when 3-nails model is well established.
But you have ignored one crucial thing, well known from the reconstructed history of the Shroud. During Crusade period, in 11th-12th century many noble Latin guests visited Imperial Court in Constantinople, and sometimes were even given privilage to see imperial collection of relics (check Daniel Scavone’s article http://shroudstory.wordpress.com/about/acheiropoietos-jesus-images-in-constantinople-the-documentary-evidence/ ). At the same time first 3-nail portrayals start to pop up. As we are almost certain that the Shroud was in Constantinople at that time, this is probably the reason. The rumors about three nails used during crucifixion began to spread (even if their origin remained unknown), and the change occured.
And BTW, you contradicts yourself in your statements
1. You cannot provide an “explanation” of all the particularities of the History. Chance or the limits of knowledge are important determinant in historical explanation. You are an ignorant in History if you don’t know this.
2. In absence of any explanation you cannot accept the first explanation that comes to your mind. Specially when we are spoken of particular in History. You are an ignorant in History if you don’t know this.
and later you state:
The change from four to three nails is evolutionarlly explained by the same rules than explain the change of vertical-horizontal compositions of the Crucifixions to the sinuous forms. That is to say, from the Romanesque art to the Gothic.
According to 2. you cannot accept this “explanation”. And according to your other words:
And you are not even the slightest hint. nations need strong evidences. And you have not even the slightest hint.
And according to 1. you cannot explain every phenomenon of history. What does not prevent you from providing an “explanation” via some evolutionary-babble without any basis I suppose that in your obstinacy you simply cannot accept the only sound explanation – the influence of the Shroud of Turin.
O.K.:
“As we are almost certain that the Shroud was in Constantinople at that time…”
Yes. The theory of the wide influence of the Shroud over the medieval Art has the same degree of certainty than the confusion between the Mandylion (or de Clari) and the Shroud. This is to say, nil, zero, null.
“And BTW, you contradicts yourself in your statements”.
“By the way”, not, because the word “explanation” has a diverse sense in both cases I mentioned.
1. When a particular occurrence is a cause (or determinant condition) of another particular occurrence. This is the model of explanation in natural sciences. A determinate event a under determinate laws and circumstances determines the occurrence of b.
2. In History (of Art) a particular event is explained when it is coherent with a model or frame. In this case, other alternative were possible in the same circumstances. The model M (a style, for example) determines that a particular occurrence α is not compatible and tends to disappear. But M is compatible with a, b, or others. And so, the actual occurrence of a can be explained.
All we can say in our issue is that the solution of the three nails was coherent with a change of composition typical of the pass from the Romanesque (tectonic) to the Gothic (a-tectonic). The first was a solid composition based on predominance of vertical and horizontal lines, and the second with a sinuous composition.
You can see in these instances from the Met.http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/md/web-large/DT120.jpg
http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/cl/web-large/cdi1970-324-9.jpg
I have selected two images of the same technic and material, to avoid undesirable interferences.
A most competent expert in History of Art than I am and another space of debate are needed to expound in detail these issues. But a best knowledge of Art and its History were needed, and you have neither the one nor the other.
Or this http://www.photo.rmn.fr/CorexDoc/RMN/Media/TR4_MD5/c/b/0/a/01-011735.jpg
…and this http://www.photo.rmn.fr/CorexDoc/RMN/Media/TR1/EA3I0G/10-509706.jpg
…and these.
http://www.photo.rmn.fr/CorexDoc/RMN/Media/TR1/FMCPH3/10-515684.jpg
http://www.photo.rmn.fr/CorexDoc/RMN/Media/TR4_MD5/a/8/0/e/10-515617.jpg
…etc.
David Mo:
Yes. The theory of the wide influence of the Shroud over the medieval Art has the same degree of certainty than the confusion between the Mandylion (or de Clari) and the Shroud. This is to say, nil, zero, null.
Only in your closed mind.
“By the way”, not, because the word “explanation” has a diverse sense in both cases I mentioned.
1. When a particular occurrence is a cause (or determinant condition) of another particular occurrence. This is the model of explanation in natural sciences. A determinate event a under determinate laws and circumstances determines the occurrence of b.
2. In History (of Art) a particular event is explained when it is coherent with a model or frame. In this case, other alternative were possible in the same circumstances. The model M (a style, for example) determines that a particular occurrence α is not compatible and tends to disappear. But M is compatible with a, b, or others. And so, the actual occurrence of a can be explained.
All we can say in our issue is that the solution of the three nails was coherent with a change of composition typical of the pass from the Romanesque (tectonic) to the Gothic (a-tectonic). The first was a solid composition based on predominance of vertical and horizontal lines, and the second with a sinuous composition.
That’s why History of Art has actually little in common with “hard” science -it has descriptive power only but not explanatory -while the true hard science should not only describe phenomena but also explain it. What would be value of physics, chemistry, geography, astronomy, had it only described their relevant phenomena, and provided no explanation why they do happen? But it seems that most art historians.are simply learned to assign artworks to a few standard drawers, and they lack imagination or the ability to think outside the scheme. That’s why there is so little utility from History of Art in the Shroud studies -the discipline has no suitable methods for this kind of task.
Saying that event is “coherent” is actually meaningless -it can be coherent with multiple models or frames, and thus giving us no unambiguous answer. Yes, three nails are coherent with a sinuous composition -but that implies nothing. Correlation does not imply causation. And there is no reason why four nails wouldn’t have to be coherent with Gothic art.
No Mo, you have provided no reliable reason for sudden revolution from 4 nails to 3 in the 12th-14th century -and there certainly must have been some cause for this effect. It was not merely an artistic caprice that can be labeled as a change of style. It must have been some much more concrete thing. The only expalantion is the Shroud.
O.K.
“The only expalantion is the Shroud”.
“Correlation does not imply causation.”
Σὺ εἶπας
Recommended Reading: http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.html
‘But it seems that most art historians.are simply learned to assign artworks to a few standard drawers, and they lack imagination or the ability to think outside the scheme.’
O.K. Please tell me how you have learned this? It is not my impression of the world of art history.Perhaps before you make this kind of statement could can read Caroline Villers (ed.), The Fabric of Images, European Paintings on Textile Supports in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, as this has a great deal of information about painted linens. It is wrong to say art historians have nothing to say about the Shroud or that it could not be a painting until you have read something about paintings on linen. On page 104 there is a panel from the Zittau Veil which shows two faded figures. I showed it to my audience last night to show them that the Shroud is not the only piece of linen with mysterious figures on it! Until then many of them thought there was something unique about the Shroud.
And you will know that STURP actually said that they had not examined any painted linens- so how could they say that the Shroud was not painted!!
So please do some basic homework and learn a little about the way art historians work before you are so dogmatic.
By the way note that “explanation” was with quotation marks and note also the precision “not all”.
David Mo
would you care to explain, given you believe the shroud is an artistic creation, why the artist may have created the blood along the lower back?
What could have been the rationale?
Where is the artistic precedence?
Your questions are supported on an erroneous assumption: that the artist of the Shroud was intending to make a painting of a scene. He actually intended to represent the mark of a body on a cloth. We don’t know if he was inspiring himself in some similar works. If some similar shrouds have existed they are missing now. It is possible that his work was original or not.
I cannot explain all the features of the Shroud, the same way as as a lot of particular features of many works in the History of Art. Can you explain why the artist chose to paint the trickles of blood in the nape if they are simply impossible?
There is not a singular explanation for all singular features of any work of Art.
That’s a too convenient answer. On the one hand we hear from you and Charles that the image is consistent with images of the time and therefore the image is merely an artistic creation reflecting that. In fact there are major departures in addition to some similarities. An art historian would ask why the atypical ‘blood belt’? This is yet to be convincingly addressed. It’s too convenient just to put it down to one particular whim of one particular artist.
By the way the bare buttocks remains a big departure from the norm. Point me towards one piece of work designed for public use or worship consistent with this. I am yet to see one.
A valid point Thomas. It is often described by early observers as the mark of the chains or cords which held Jesus to the pillar for the scourging, and, if it was indeed painted or dribbled on, may have been intended as that. All the blood flows have a curiously “dribbled” look, from the marks of the Crown of Thorns right down to the feet.
Thomas:
The works or Art of the period never or scarcely never are exact replicas of other images. They usually share a frame and occasionally are very similar to each other. But even in this case there are some differences. Originality is not forbidden into the general frame.
We have not many images of Jesus’ back (two or three?), and none of them represents Jesus in the tomb. So is difficult to say what is typical and what is not. In any case, the trickles of blood in the back do not seem very realistic. The blood spills, when amassed in a point, tend to do irregular forms and not arabesques from left to right and vice versa.
You can do a simple experiment: do a cut in your belly, let the blood run and put a finger in his way. You will tell me. You can do the same experience with a coloured liquid, if your love for science has its limits.
What excites me about the Shroud is that it does seem to be the only survivor of the grave cloths used for the Quem Queritis ceremony. We know that there were once hundreds- according to Karl Young who wrote the definitive book on the ceremonies in the 1930s,there are at least 400 accounts of these ceremonies still surviving in monastic records and there was a variety of cloths brought out to display to the congregation, some of them single cloths such as the Shroud.
Increasingly my own view is that artists had a template they copied, suggesting that this was the cloth in which the body of Christ had lain and so placing the wound on the side on the left rather than the conventional right. It can be seen in the same place on the Besancon Shroud.
I know that specialists in medieval drama ( Cambridge academics no less) are interested in my approach as it gives the Shroud a great deal of importance as a lone survivor.
It also confirms that the Shroud was originally created as an object o veneration as this was more than a stage prop but a ceremonial cloth that was displayed to the congregation and then taken in solemn procession to be laid on the high altar.
It may well have become associated with miracles and then Jeanne de Charny , who may have been in a state of high anxiety in the 1350s from the devastation of the Black Death and the absence on her husband in war – he died,of course in 1356 – began passing it off as authentic, perhaps because she herself had had a miraculous vision or whatever. There is no record of this but there are similar instances of this happening to other objects of veneration that became associated with the miraculous. We cannot rule that out at this very troubled time for her when we have so many other examples.
But I think the Shroud is important for the reasons I have given.
When it first appeared I was impressed by OK’s paper, and guess that his criterion for selecting the crucifixes (the wikipedia list) was as likely to be uninfluenced by bias regarding the number of nails, position of foot and so on as any other.
However, I understood the point of his research was to show that the appearance of the Shroud ignited a transformation in depictions of the crucifixion, from four to three nails, adding the crown of thorns and so on. Having accepted that this transformation was not sudden, one is at a loss to try to pinpoint when the Shroud began to have this effect. Clearly not its appearance at Lirey, as the transformation had begun two hundred years before. If Robert de Clari’s observation in 1204 identifies the Shroud in Constantinople, that’s still a hundred years after the great transformation began. The putative arrival of the Shroud in Constantinople in 944 would be a possible start date, but how strange then that Byzantine crucifixion iconography into the midst of which the Shroud had suddenly appeared, showed no indication of its existence (such that it is excluded from OK’s examination), while Western European sculptors recognised it immediately. This is all rather inconsistent. I don’t accept that the Shroud was somehow hidden from the Byzantines but exposed to tourists from Europe, nor that the four nails of Helena had anything to do with it, as they were as well known to Western Christianity as to Eastern.
I also mentioned in an earlier response to OK that I was not convinced by his explanation for the wrong foot being atop. The Shroud clearly shows a wound in the right side and a left foot atop. Artists could either follow this (assuming, as we do, that the Shroud was a mirror inversion), or reverse it (assuming that the Shroud was a straight painting), but in fact the crucifixions said to be derived from it show the wound in the right side but the right foot atop. To reverse one but not the other, on the basis of convoluted biblical interpretation, is pushing credibility, I feel.
A similar argument to the one above applies to the Crown of Thorns. Unless a truly dramatic change in depictions occurred suddenly after 1239, it’s purchase by Louis cannot be said to have had anything more than a ‘booster’ effect on something that had been slowly changing for years. As such, it makes more sense to claim that the Crown of Thorns (or the Shroud) were products of the artistic development, rather than that the artistic development was derived from the relics.
“As such, it makes more sense to claim that the Crown of Thorns (or the Shroud) were products of the artistic development, rather than that the artistic development was derived from the relics.”
Or perhaps neither had any influence on each other at all.
well put
The dramatic change in iconography from about 1300 probably had several deep- rooted causes, not least a more profound emphasis on the suffering of Christ as shown by illustrating the flow of his blood and the persistence of the Crown of Thorns on his head even when he was being buried. The pattern of its spread was partly inspired by the growth of the preaching orders , the Dominicans and Franciscans, who set up their bases all over. It is a vastly complicated process but the art shows it very graphically. No relationship has even been shown between the Shroud and any order and so it is hard to see how any change inspired by the Shroud would have spread around. These monastic networks were very important in spreading religious culture.
From the 1350s, the veil of Veronica was frequently reproduced in paintings but it is usually shown as if it were itself a vivid painting – certainly not as a cloth whose images were made of sweat.
David Goulet:
“As such, it makes more sense to claim that the Crown of Thorns (or the Shroud) were products of the artistic development, rather than that the artistic development was derived from the relics.”
Or perhaps neither had any influence on each other at all.
Unlikely. The correspondences are too strong to be results of independent processes.
Hugh:
I also mentioned in an earlier response to OK that I was not convinced by his explanation for the wrong foot being atop. The Shroud clearly shows a wound in the right side and a left foot atop. Artists could either follow this (assuming, as we do, that the Shroud was a mirror inversion), or reverse it (assuming that the Shroud was a straight painting), but in fact the crucifixions said to be derived from it show the wound in the right side but the right foot atop.
Hugh, I adressed those issues on pg. 41-46 of my presentation. See in particular slide ‘How artists perceived the Shroud” on pg. 44. You have there famous della Rovere painting, and there is clear that he mixes left and right sides. The side wound on Jesus body is obviously on the right side (on the Shroud it seems to be on the left, but in reality is on the right) -but the hands are crossed right over left, just like the positive image on the Shroud shows.
The mistake you make is that contrary to what you imagine, people were not (and still often aren’t) quite as rational, as yourself or you want them to be. The lack of consequence in the portrayals was very common. Aside from della Rovere you can point as examples the transfers of the side wound on the depictions Shroud of Besancon from left to right and vice versa, or the Pray Codex:
On the first illustration we see Jesus crucified in traditional Byzantine representation -which would imply 4 nails:
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/History/Greek-Byzantine/Pray-Codex/pray1.html
Yet on another illustratrtion, on the beam of the cross hold by angel we see only three nails (and the side wound on right side):
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/History/Greek-Byzantine/Pray-Codex/pray4.html
I don’t accept that the Shroud was somehow hidden from the Byzantines but exposed to tourists from Europe,
But although you cannot accept it, all seems that it was indeed like that -the ordinary Byzantines had no access to the Shroud, except for a short and extraordinary period of 1203-1204. The existence of the image on the Christs’ burial shroud was Byzantine state secret. Just read Nicholas Mesarites and his vague and allusive statements in his 1201 homily. The paradox is that Westerners probably knew much more the existence of the Shroud than ordinary Byzantines. It is very wide topic why it was in that way, and we have no place here to discuss it in detail. But we will return to that in another thread, as we will be gradually gathering and explaining all the pertinent issues.
nor that the four nails of Helena had anything to do with it, as they were as well known to Western Christianity as to Eastern.
No source give the precise number of nails recovered by Helena. Gregory of Tours claims four, but his number is merely a guess.
As such, it makes more sense to claim that the Crown of Thorns (or the Shroud) were products of the artistic development
But you have no reason for the sudden manifestation of that development -except the arrival of the relics.
I’m finding your replies somewhat inconsistent, if I may say so. Your paper, if I understand it correctly, attempts to demonstrate that the Shroud influenced art, by means of two specific “dramatic” changes – the 13th century “dramatical increase” in depictions of Crown of Thorns,, and the 12th-14th century “dramatic change” in the number of nails. However, David Mo pointed out that these changes were already beginning in the 11th century, and you agreed, now suggesting that the “dramatic change” began then, when “noble Latin guests” visited the Imperial Court in Constantinople during the Crusades. The dramatic change now takes over 300 years, which weakens the force of the word “dramatic,” don’t you think? There was quite clearly, by your own admission and by the evidence of your own paper, no “sudden manifestation” of anything. The 1239 purchase of the Crown of Thorns did not inspire a dramatic change, it was in the middle of a very gradual change. The appearance of the Shroud in Lirey in 1350 or so came towards the end of this change.
Similarly, I can’t follow your argument regarding the number of nails. Firstly you claimed a 12th to 14th century change from 4 to 3, based on the Shroud, but claimed that Byzantine crucifixes ignored the Shroud in favour of Queen Helena’s discovery of 4 nails. When I said that this was as well known to the West as to the East, you now say nobody knew how many nails were discovered after all!
It all narrows down to your claim that Western crucifix makers in 1150 knew more about the appearance of the Shroud than Byzantine crucifix makers. I simply don’t accept this, and would need considerably more evidence than the visits of a few Roman nobles during the Crusades to convince me it was true.
Hugh:
if I understand it correctly, attempts to demonstrate that the Shroud influenced art, by means of two specific “dramatic” changes – the 13th century “dramatical increase” in depictions of Crown of Thorns,, and the 12th-14th century “dramatic change” in the number of nails. However, David Mo pointed out that these changes were already beginning in the 11th century, and you agreed, now suggesting that the “dramatic change” began then, when “noble Latin guests” visited the Imperial Court in Constantinople during the Crusades. The dramatic change now takes over 300 years, which weakens the force of the word “dramatic,” don’t you think?
I assumed that everyone knows those basic elements of reconstructed Shroud history -so I didn’t mentioned it directly in the paper. I though it was obvious.
The word ‘dramatic’ is used here rather in the sense of ‘radical’ than indicating a pace, which was indeed slow in the 12th century, but in the 13th century, when Shroud was in Western hands, it increases, and by 14th there is a dominance of 3-nail model.
The 1239 purchase of the Crown of Thorns did not inspire a dramatic change, it was in the middle of a very gradual change.
You should separate the transition from 4 to 3 nails, and the Crown of Thorns -those are two independent issues, although mechanism is very similar. And there is indeed a total radical change in the case of Crown (contrary to more gradual transition from 4 to 3 nails), before 13th century there are virtually no depictions with Crown, while by 14th there are no without.
Western crucifix makers in 1150 knew more about the appearance of the Shroud than Byzantine crucifix makers.
I do not claim that Western crucifix makers knew more about the appearance of the Shroud, than Byzantine, simply they heard unspecified rumors that Christ was crucified with three nails, while their Orthodox colleagues adhered stricter (and still do) to the conservative tradition. The access to the Shroud and the shape of Byzantine iconography was strictly controlled by Byzantine hierarchy, on the West there was more liberty. Most lists of Constantinople’s relics are of Western (or generally foreign) provenance.
When I said that this was as well known to the West as to the East, you now say nobody knew how many nails were discovered after all
No Hugh, I said: ‘No source give the precise number of nails recovered by Helena.Gregory of Tours claims four, but his number is merely a guess.’ There is a difference between ‘no source give the precise number’ and ‘no one knew’, Helena certainly knew how many nails she recovered.
You have relevant links on pg. 35 of my paper.
And there is one very curious instance, The Cave of the Treasures , the syriac apocryphal text from 6th-7th century (yet including much older material, probably originating from 2nd-3rd century Edessa) speaks explicitely about THREE nails.
Hugh:
O.K. is falling in a logical fallacy: “correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for “with this, therefore because of this”) and false cause.” (Princeton.edu)
In Wikipedia you can find a useful abstract on this kind of fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
This fallacy is common to all the sindonists who claim to a causal relation from the Shroud to some artistic features when they observe a coincidence between both. Obviously, the Shroud is not the cause of the “dramatic” (¿?) change of the number of nails in the 14th century, that is the result of a previous evolution, as you have accurately pointed.
The second fallacy is the hyperdeterminism. They don’t conceive that we have not an answer to every problem. So, if they find no answer they invent imaginative solutions. Ray Rogers informed on this fallacy. But some sindonists only read or retain what interest them.
Running out of arguments, David Mo? In your desperate attempt to search for fallacies in my reasoning, you have not noticeced that you are making several own.
O.K. is falling in a logical fallacy: “correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for “with this, therefore because of this”) and false cause.” (Princeton.edu)
Yes, “correlation does not imply causation”, but on the other hand causation makes correlation. That means two correlated features may be cause related; correlation does not invalidate causation. The problem is to show reliable cause-effect relation and in some cases it can be done, in others not. It can be reasonably postulated that the Shroud image caused appearance of three-nails crucifixion portrayals, but on the other hand can you formulate any reasonable casual relationship between sinuous composition and three nails (or even common cause for the two)? I hadly believe, this seems to be only time coincidence.
This fallacy is common to all the sindonists who claim to a causal relation from the Shroud to some artistic features when they observe a coincidence between both. Obviously, the Shroud is not the cause of the “dramatic” (¿?) change of the number of nails in the 14th century, that is the result of a previous evolution, as you have accurately pointed.
Obviously you don’t understand what the cum hoc, ergo propter hoc is. It is fallacy only if you cannot provide reasonable hypothesis explaining relation between the two (substituting explanation with the relationship, that’s what YOU have actually done with sinuous composition and three nails), not that you postulate the relationship itself. Had it been so, then practising science would be virtually impossible.
The second fallacy is the hyperdeterminism. They don’t conceive that we have not an answer to every problem. So, if they find no answer they invent imaginative solutions. Ray Rogers informed on this fallacy. But some sindonists only read or retain what interest them.
Once again you don’t understand what you are writing. The fact that we cannot provide answer to every problem does not mean we cannot provide to this one particular problem. And we can, it is the influence of the Shroud. The reduction of nail number was certainly due to some reason. And the only reliable reason seems to be the Shroud’s influence. But that’s an unacceptable explanation for some obstinent Shroud sceptics who would resort to anything only to deny it. Even to their own misunderstanding of logic. But this is another fallacy: argument from personal incredulity.
Back to school, David Mo, to learn again how to formulate correct reasonings. The more you write, the more ignorance turns out of you.
O.K.:
Your fallacies about the number of nails (abstract):
1. There is not any “dramatic” change in the middle of the 14th Century. There is a gradual evolution between the 11th and the 15th Centuries. “Dramatic” is your invent.
2. The same causes produce the same effects. The causes of the process are the same, because the process is a regular one.
3. Non multiplicanda entia sine necessitate. If there are some causes that produce a process, you don’t need add new superfluous causes.
4. Simultaneity is not cause. The only fact we have is the concordance in time between de appearance of the Shroud at Lirey and a moment of the process of evolution from 4 to 3 nails. No auxiliary evidence can be added to this coincidence. No texts, no testimonies, no depictions, no images of the Shroud till the 16th century that justifies its popularity and impact on Art.
5. The cause must be proportional to the effect. An unknown artefact cannot be the cause of a wide effect in Art.
Conclusion: It is much more likely that some features of the Shroud were the effect of an evolutionary process in the Art that the contrary.
I don’t ask you to do his homework because Ii know you are not able.
The game is over.
I was up this morning about 3:30 AM (my nornal wake up time) and I was watching this program, “Forensic files” on WLNY TV. It’s a program that solves real life old crimes. They were telling the true story of a guy that killed his wife, put her in a box and placed her nightgown over her face. About 20 years later the find the box and open it and find the bones and the nightgown. On the nightgown is an image of her face.
I found the program also on youtube and the interesting part is at about 14:20 minutes into it. So maybe a decaying body can leave an image.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMRhxhaKjT4
Forensic Files – Season 9, Episode 19: Deadly Matrimony
Also there is a book written about this case, ” The stranger in my bed.”
By the way they didn’t say if the image was already imprinted on the nightgown before hand or it was caused by the decaying body.
So maybe a decaying body can leave an image.
John, see this:
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi26part5.pdf
Sometimes decaying bodies leave some less or more clear imprint -but having little in common with what we see on the Shroud.
O.K.
For me the issue is can a decaying body leave an image. If it can than it’s reasonable to believe the shround’s image may be a natural event.
Just like two snowflakes are not alike, and they are caused by the same process I don’t expect two images to be alike. I mean she wasn’t nailed to a cross and I don’t think any spices were put on her.
It’s hard to tell what type of image it is without looking at it in person. In the past few week they also had a story where a jaw was imprinted on a shirt I believe it was.
I can’t see an image!!!!
I really can’t see what they are talking about, but maybe it’s because this is TV. The important thing is that people that are there see some image and thay say it looks like a face.
BTW this is not the first time this program had a story on where a body part left an image on something.
I see Colin and some others that believe it was created by someone in the 13 hundreds doing a lot of research but who on this group is doing any reseach into that it was created by a natural process?
Me! A couple of weeks ago I let a number of dead mice decay for a week, enshrouded in cloths variously steeped in dextrin, saponin, and a mixture of the two. Cadaverin and putrescine were given off in sufficient quantity to make my laboratory impossible to work in and unpleasant even to enter. Apart from some liquid emerging from the underside of the mice as the abdomen burst, there has been no visible effect on the cloth. My next plan is to give the cloths some “aging” to see if anything will appear.
Please, we want pictures of it!!!!
Andrea
Other what’s on TV I don’t have any pictures of it.
excuse me, John, but… I asked for pictures of Hugh in his laboratory! :-)
Hugh, you have a lot of variables to explore; e.g. the TSM shows no sign of decay, maybe you left it too long; did you try it with different temperature and humidity levels? Bet you didn’t mix up any recipe of Max’s red heifer ashes. Magnetic field variations? radon? But not looking good so far for Rogers’ Maillard, I guess.
Another thing is I read recently there might be something about the weave, there may be an effect there. Just because it’s Edgerton linen, that mightn’t be enough.
I think Hugh must also take into consideration all the information we have extracted from the image so far. So one is bound to question the rationale behind tests with dead animals, waiting for decay to see if any image appears on cloth.
No one asks, Why did it happen only to Jesus’ body?
David Mo
But both Charles and you have argued that continuity with the artistic trends of the time is a strong factor to suggest it was an artistic creation.
Yet we have a number of totally unique features in the shroud. These unique features are far more than “an artistic variation on a theme.”
I think I have already answered to this. Some features of the Turin Shroud are common to the latest Gothic Art and the pre-Rinascimento and are not realistic. But others are due to the non artistic function of the cloth. And others may be original.
Both Charles and I are claiming for a study by specialists. I, at least, am not. I only am able to point to some similarities and differences.
A good comparison is with ancient bronzes- almost every one has vanished over the centuries, but like painted linens, we know, from accounts,etc, there were once hundreds of thousands. We are just lucky in what has survived. When we find a bronze ( most are dredged up from shipwrecks),we usually treat it as unique only because we have usually lost any comparative examples. We also have marble copies of some but as marble is less tensile than bronze many of them have to have additions or adaptions to make them stand up without cracking- so actually they are not exact copies of the original!
If the Shroud had been in an English church it would have been burned at the Reformation. If it had been in what was Catholic Europe,most linens must have been thrown away as their images decayed.Because the Shroud has survived we must not think that artistically it is out of the ordinary any more than the chance find of a bronze statue suggests that that statue is like no other bronze statue that had ever been made.
Think big!
All very true, daveb. I used two samples of linen, each divided into four 15cm x 30cm sheets, folded over in half over two thawed rats of the kind called fuzzies (bred for herpetologists). They were all placed in an incubator at 23°C for 7 days. The four sheets were soaked in a 10% dextrin solution, a 10% sapinin solution, a mixture of the two, and nothing (as a control).
I did not consider red heifers, radon, or varying the magnetic field. Nor am I likely to. I didn’t check the humidity (dry), but it did occur to me that I might have had a result had I periodically misted the sheets.
Essentially the animals themselves were not the crucial part of the experiment. Either cadaverine, putrescine, urea, ammonia, or any other suggested vapour discolours cellulose, dextrin, saponin, myrhh, or some other suggested textile soak or it doesn’t. So far, in my experience, it doesn’t, although I agree that there are plenty of possible permutations not yet explored.
I’m not sure what Louis’ point is, unless it is about a possible miracle (defined as an occurrence outside physical laws). As I have said before, such a possibility cannot be wholly discounted, but is both impossible to prove and beyond the competence of science to test for, so I must exclude it from any of my considerations.