Home > Image Theory, Other Blogs > Colin Berry Has It All Figured Out, Sort Of, Maybe

Colin Berry Has It All Figured Out, Sort Of, Maybe

May 9, 2015

You’ve got to love the experimentation and impressive results so far

imageColin Berry gives this lengthy title to a blog postings over at his Science Buzz blog: The chemical principles behind the iconic Turin Shroud can now be explained. All that remains is to produce a look-alike copy. Then he goes on to say:

It’s taken over 3 years of almost non-stop experimentation, but this blogger/retired science bod is now able to explain how the faint negative image of the Turin Shroud was obtained (as a feat of medieval technology, aided by alchemists).

The task: produce a contact image that could be claimed to be that left by the crucified Jesus on Joseph of Arimathea’s ‘fine linen’.

It’s incredibly simple in principle (why didn’t I think of it sooner?):

1. Paint an adult human male (alive or dead) with an organic paste …

2. Press linen against the subject (or subject against linen) …

3. Develop the image chemically….

[…]

So I maintain that the plausible science is established – at least in principle-  so far as producing a negative  sepia 2D image from imprinting off a 3D subjectis concerned.  Whether it matches all the additional or peculiar characteristics of the TS image (extreme superficiality, lack of reverse side image, lack of uv fluorescence, microscopic characteristics etc.) remains to be seen. However,let’s insert a note of caution: not all those listed characteristics were necessarily there immediately after image formation, regardless of age – centuries or millennia. Some of those characteristics may be a result of ageing. At present it seems sensible to adopt a broad-brush approach, attempting to accommodate  only those ‘headline’ characteristics of the TS that have led to its being described as iconic or enigmatic. Where the latter are concerned, the prize for the most ‘iconic’ must surely go to the pioneering 1898 photography by Secondo Pia, which converted the Shroud negative back into a positive (by innocently treating the TS as a positive and convereting to a negative!).

Categories: Image Theory, Other Blogs Tags:
  1. May 9, 2015 at 3:59 am

    Thanks Dan. I’ve just added this to the top of the posting:

    Caption (again, too long):

    It’s said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Here’s a flour/egg yolk imprint done just two hours ago, photographed here after removal from the nitric acid bath, neutralized with bicarbonate, rinsed with water, shown here drying out on the radiator, ready for processing in Image J (tone reversal as per Secondo Pia followed by 3D rendering).

    Sorry about the failure to get the sindonologically correct separation of the two images, frontal and dorsal, and the less than perfect alignment on the long axis. Practice will hopefully make perfect.

    I might decide to show the results of ImageJ processing later. But first I must insist on a sworn and signed affidavit from Charles Freeman to the effect that he won’t repeat his faux pas from earlier this morning, unhelpfully and mistakenly assuming that this blogger is now fooling around with blue developing chemicals. (Sepia imprints become blue on tone-reversal in ImageJ needless to say).

    • May 9, 2015 at 4:32 am

      PS: Here’s the same “Galaxy Warrior” after drying and pressing briefly with an electric iron:

      Methinks I’ll convert to B/W before ImageJ processing. Once bitten, twice shy.

  2. daveb of wellington nz
    May 9, 2015 at 4:21 am

    Here’s another recipe you might like to try. The quantities need scaling. Assuming the scaling is proportional to the surface area of the subject, then the factor is the sq. rt. of the height of the subject in feet, divided by the sq. rt. of 6. The quantities given are for a 6 ft high subject. Anoint the subject with 1 lb of pure nard (or spikenard). Leave for a day or two. Surround the subject with 80 imperial lbs of a mixture of myrrh and aloes (proportions currently unknown and some experimentation may be necessary). Wrap the lot in a linen cloth and tie the bundle firmly. Check the results after 36 hours. Results may not be immediate. There may be additional unknown factors. It may help if the subject is recently dead, and supplementary amines may be necessary, such as cadaverine and putrescine. Results are not guaranteed, but it has been rumoured to have worked in one notable case!

    • daveb of wellington nz
      May 9, 2015 at 4:31 am

      A bit rusty on the dimensional analysis. Scaling factor should be the square of the height of the subject in feet, divided by 36. For a two foot long piglet, use one ninth of the quantities.

      • May 9, 2015 at 4:45 am

        Or there again, that predecessor of the Troyes bishop Pierre d’Arcis was right. It WAS (arguably) a painting – at least to start with, figuratively speaking. But not of paint directly onto linen, but of paint – or paint-like organic matter – a proxy for ancient sweat- onto subject (followed by imprinting and chemical development). Yes, it was “cunningly painted”, a “sleight of hand”, an “impression”, “imprint” etc. It’s all there in the d’Arcis memorandum, if one looks closely, and provided one does not approach it with too many preconceptions (they being the kiss of death to science and much else besides).

  3. anoxie
    May 9, 2015 at 4:43 am
  4. May 9, 2015 at 5:41 am

    Here’s the end result before and after image processing with my new “model”, the plastic “Galaxy Warrior”. (purchased yesterday at Poundland for… you guessed it, £1).

    Click to enlarge:

    Top left: as-is imprint using flour/egg yolk, then nitric acid solution as developing agent.

    Bottom left: the same after conversion to grayscale image, then tone-reversal as per Secondo Pia.

    Right: the same grayscale image after 3D rendering in ImageJ.

    I hope no one here will be offended by my choice of template. I could have used the brass crucifix used for the thermal scorch model, but a plastic template seems to work as well if not better than brass.

    The logical next step would a whole body imprint from a real person, as deployed by Luigi Garlaschelli in his ambitious and indeed awesome modelling of the TS by powder/slurry ‘frottage’. Hat tip also to Hugh Farey and Joe Accetta re sulphuric acid as a potential chemical etching agent – wrong acid as it turns out, but right approach. I shan’t be attempting the whole-body imaging myself. If anyone here or elsewhere wishes to try it, I shall be interested – indeed intrigued – to see the outcome (but please credit this blogger with having laid the chemical and technical foundations so to speak).

  5. May 9, 2015 at 5:46 am

    Is anyone keeping track of the number of final solutions that Colin has proposed?

    • anoxie
      May 10, 2015 at 3:16 am

      When should we stop the track record, on may 9 or may 10?

      Since each commment brings a new version, maybe the number of CB´s comments could serve as a proxy.

  6. May 9, 2015 at 6:34 am

    Apologies to anoxie and John Klotz for not having made a beeline to the right answer, correction, most credible hypothesis. I must have missed the signposts.

    Hypothesis it must remain, until such a time as the Vatican and Turin custodians see fit to provide sufficient image-bearing samples of linen for a thorough compositional analysis, to include nitrogen in all its chemical forms (which should arguably have happened earlier, in view of the near cult-like status of the Rogers’ Maillard hypothesis, one that also features an acquisition of external nitrogen – from ammonia, putrefaction amines etc – in contrast to my nitric acid. However, my model could conceivably work without nitrogen sequestration (as nitrated protein etc, ) relying purely on the oxidizing power of HNO3 (with release and loss of gaseous oxides of nitrogen which would escape analysis).

  7. May 9, 2015 at 9:03 am

    Well Mr. Berry! When are you going to create an image using the procedures you claim were used by the “forger”? We’re all waiting with baited breath. I just can’t wait to see your artwork with the same clarity and detail as that of the image on the Shroud.
    Now stop hypothesizing and go ahead and get it done.

    • May 9, 2015 at 9:24 am

      Oh so it’s “clarity and detail” now that has to be reproduced, is it Mr.Ward? Are they the new defining characteristics of the Turin Shroud – clarity and detail? Two years ago I was being told my contact scorches were TOO well-defined, had TOO much contrast.

      Strange. I could have sworn that the headline characteristics were the negative superficial image with 3D properties, no reverse side image, absence of fluorescence under uv. “Clarity and detail? When did you last look at the feet?

      Who needs moving targets? Some uncharitable souls might be forgiven for thinking they were guaranteed, indeed engineered, to prevent anyone hitting the bullseye.

      • Thibault HEIMBURGER
        May 9, 2015 at 4:56 pm

        Colin,

        “I could have sworn that the headline characteristics were the negative superficial image with 3D properties, no reverse side image, absence of fluorescence under uv.”

        Yes, but do you really think that these properties are the ONLY important properties of the TS image ?

        There are many other properties that are important to consider.

        First example: image fibers on the TS are not cemented together. This is an observed fact, not a “moving target”.

        Can you demonstrate that the image fibers of your nice “Galaxy warrior” imprint are not stuck together?
        You have a microscope.

        Thanks.

        • May 9, 2015 at 7:07 pm

          With all due respect, Thibault, I hardly think it’s fair to compare a fresh imprint, just one hour old or less, with one that has had at least 700 years in which to deteriorate, at least in terms of de-cementing of fibres and other incidental, non-enigmatic features.

          That’s why I prefer to focus on those unusual and enigmatic features that have managed to survive centuries of wear and tear – notably the approximate colour, the 3D properties,maybe the absence of fluorescence (though that too may have been present initially). The new technology described here was well within the means of a medieval forger intent on simulating a sweat imprint, and what’s more gives an image with a degree of photographic fidelity, albeit of a somewhat non-photogenic negative, but at least it responds to tone reversal and 3D-enhancement, as did the equally non-photogenic TS image in Secondo Pia’s dark room.

          Let me say again: I am not attempting to produce a facsimile copy of the TS (how can I, given the subtlety of ageing changes?). I’m simply responding to the claim that the headline features of the TS image (superficiality, 3D properties etc) cannot be reproduced by conventional science, implying a supernatural origin. Yes, there will have to be some microscopy, but I’m not hugely impressed with the evidence for this or that ‘enigmatic’ aspect of TS image properties (half tone effect, discontinuities,striations etc etc) if based (as seems to be the case) on a few sticky tape tests or the Mark Evans photomicrographs you published a while ago, showing bundles of apposed fibres, not separate ones. Indeed, I’m tempted not to bother at all with microscopy until we get some decent pictures of individual TS image fibres released into the public domain. Assuming they exist, maybe you could use your influence where it matters to publish them here on this site.

  8. Louis
    May 9, 2015 at 9:33 am

    The Church proceeds with the expositions because of tradition and also due to the fact that there is no proof of forgery. Bishop d’Arcis did not name any forger, did not convince the Pope, and so the expositions have continued. Pope John Paul II said that the matter was left to science. If that is so, then all the characteristics, body and blood together, have to be taken into account. There is no point in leaping to conculsions.
    For a start, the microscopic characteristics, mainly the extreme superficiality, have to be taken into account, as illustrated in the second photograph in the link below:
    https://www.academia.edu/11355553/Dr._Paolo_Di_Lazzaro_explains_his_research_on_image_formation_on_the_Shroud_of_Turin
    Secondly, there have been developments when it comes to the blood, and these will also have to be considered, as demonstrtated in the second photograph in the link below:
    https://www.academia.edu/11804110/Is_the_Sudarium_of_Oviedo_the_key_to_unraveling_the_mystery_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin
    The matter is much more complex.

    • May 9, 2015 at 9:39 am

      Let’s open a book on how many more times Louis links to those same two sites of his in 2015.

  9. Louis
    May 9, 2015 at 9:55 am

    If Colin can tackle what is in the two links convincingly I will not paste them when it comes to his hypothesis. If not, it will go beyond a book, perhaps reach volumes. I am trying to cut a long story short,but it does not depend on me.

    • May 9, 2015 at 10:07 am

      One reads lots of things on the internet. Some have something new and interesting to say, such that one feels that a comment – appreciative or otherwise – is appropriate. Neither of those two items – an interview and a short review – made this blogger wish to express his candid opinion. One has to prioritize – and avoid needless conflict. One retains the right to remain silent.

      • May 9, 2015 at 10:21 am

        PS: it was perhaps a little thoughtless of me to use colloquial English. “Open a book” means to take bets or wagers. Betting shops on the high street in the UK are also called “bookmakers”.

  10. Louis
    May 9, 2015 at 10:22 am

    It is always better to avoid needless conflict, but it must also be remembered that both the interview and short review have had something new to say and have, therefore, to be tackled before proceeding.

  11. May 9, 2015 at 7:27 pm

    PS: And it’s not only natural and spontaneous ageing changes one needs to consider. Let’s not forget either the words of Savoy courtier Antoine de Lalaing in 1503:

    …the Shroud’s authenticity has been confirmed by its having been tried by fire, boiled in oil, laundered many times but it was not possible to efface or remove the imprint and image.’

    Was it really an attempt to test authenticity? How likely was that, given the high risk of destroying a supposed relic?

    If those treatments really were applied, it was far more likely with a view to achieving a different objective, namely to accelerate the effects of ageing, to tone down an image that was too prominent initially to be credible as 1300 years old.

    I might try boiling my efforts in oil, or laundering many times. if only to de-cement any cemented fibres.

  12. daveb of wellington nz
    May 10, 2015 at 12:16 am

    That is certainly strange treatment to give a relic considered authentic. The actions of Geoffrey II de Charnay and Margaret de Charnay, would seem to testify that they genuinely believed it was authentic. Margaret went to extraordinary lengths to ensure its continued safety, an old woman taking it to the safety of the Alps, refusing to surrender it to the Lirey canons where it might be vulnerable during the wars in France. Duke Louis, first Savoy owner, was prepared to compensate her magnificently for it, and to make a settlement with the canons in compensation for their claims.

    What is the basis of Antoine de Lalaing’s comment? Did later Savoys subject it to such ordeals? Or is he referring to some ancient legendary accounts known to the family, recounted by Margaret de Charnay? Or is it merely hearsay? Or does the comment have no basis in fact, but is merely an attempt to enhance the Shroud’s reputation? Does anyone know any more about the basis of the comment?

    • May 10, 2015 at 12:55 am

      The story may be entirely apocryphal, if that is the correct turn of phrase. But it would seem to demonstrate one thing, assuming de Lalaing has been correctly cited (which I have no reason to doubt).

      It shows that the TS image was considered baffling and mysterious a mere 150 years or so after the first recorded public showing at Lirey. Looking then at the much earlier d’Arcis memorandum, a mere 30 years post Lirey display, and making the same two assumptions (i.e. not necessarily accurate as regards content, but not a forgery or attempt to deceive or misrepresent either) then the TS image was also seen as baffling and mysterious in 1355 approx, or it would not have been able to attract pilgrims from far and wide, creating resentment in the bishop’s palace.

      So there are three main options to consider at the time of the Lirey display: a genuine 1300 year old relic, a fake imprint onto extant modern linen that indeed looked like a fake, or a fake that had been processed to make it look 1300 years older than its true age. How would/could the latter be achieved? Laundering would fade the image, especially if made originally from food ingredients like flour, egg yolk etc as per new kid on the block model. Boiling in oil would darken the linen, while possibly not affecting the image given it was already in a tan-coloured HNO3-oxidized state, though blood is problematical, unless a heat-stable blood substitute.

      I believe the Lalaing “legend” has a basis in fact, but not for the reasons Lalaing himself stated or even imagined. He’d simply picked up on gossip and placed his own interpretation on it, just as d’Arcis placed his own interpretation with his reference to the TS having been “cunningly painted” while (in my view) being genuinely sincere in his protestations re the claimed authenticity of the TS.

    • daveb of wellington nz
      May 10, 2015 at 3:37 pm

      Having given the matter further thought overnight, I recall that STURP found dirt on the significant image locations of nose, knee and feet, and of course there are pollens from the Middle East. Whether the dirt originated from the aragonite limestone dust of the Via Dolorosa, or as Hugh Farey might have it from the limestone caves of the Troyes region, and whether pollens from the Dead Sea area might or might not drift across the Mediterranean, such detritus would surely be removed by frequent laundering, and certainly by boiling in oil.

      I suggest that Lalaing’s comment ought not be given any more credence than the hearsay ravings of Piere’ D’Arcis, that they be given the same unsympathetic response as Pope Clement VII and his Papal Legate gave to said complaint, a self-important hearsay comment by a Savoy courtier seeking merely to enhance the Shroud’s reputation as some kind of mysteriously indelible imaged object. They obviously didn’t try diimide.

      • May 10, 2015 at 3:49 pm

        “I suggest that Lalaing’s comment ought not be given any more credence than the hearsay ravings of Piere’ D’Arcis,

        Ravings? What a strange and inappropriate term to apply to an otherwise blameless bishop who felt he was discharging his role in medieval France as a defender of the faith (against cynical and financial opportunism).

      • daveb of wellington nz
        May 10, 2015 at 8:03 pm

        I know I was being deliberately provocative. It’s a conclusion I’ve felt inclined to come to slowly, particularly after the recent discussions above.

        I think it’s significant that there’s nothing there of evidential substance, nothing from Bishop Henri when D’Arcis would have had this material freely available to him when he was attempting to state his objections to the Pope. He doesn’t identify those others who he said objected to the expositions, nor those he consulted, and his artist also remains anonymous. To me it suggests an unwarranted obsession, possibly jealousy, hearsay, mistaken interpretation, and when 100 years of heavy construction resulted in a shambles in his cathedral, his mind might well have turned. My comment of ‘ravings’ was perhaps an attempt to restore a balance from the flim-flam of the Chevalier-Thurston misrepresentation.

        More to the point, my first paragraph would indicate that there seems little to be taken seriously in the Lalaing comment, given the detritus discovered on the cloth since then.

        • May 11, 2015 at 1:59 am

          Your obsessive anger against d’Arcis, Chevalier and Thurston leads you to some evident mistakes. Geoffroy II the Charny never said the Shroud was authentic, but a “representation”. Lady Marguerite was a thief, a swindler and a liar. She stole the Shroud to the collegiate of Lirey and promised to compensate the Lirey canons several times and never kept his word. She finished being excommunicate. I would not bet my last dime on what actually thought this woman. You prefer to invent a villain character to the poor d’Arcis and miss this real rascal in this story.

          Summary: you don’t know anything about the real feelings of d’Arcis, Geoffroy and Marguerite. You are making a kind of movie with good guys and bad guys. But the script of your film is very little historical.

      • daveb of wellington nz
        May 11, 2015 at 3:28 am

        I have no obsessive anger against Bishop Pierre D’Arcis at all. He claims that many had objected to the exposition, but more particularly that the cloth was represented as the true burial cloth. He claims that he saw it as his duty to suppress it. The reasons he gives are specious, that the evangelists would have mentioned the image if there had been one.

        His writings are utterly devoid of any scrap of evidence that he might offer in support of his case. The theologians he claims to have consulted are not named, nor is his alleged artist, nor any quote from Bishop Henri. There is no paint on the Shroud, and there’s no good reason to suppose there ever was any. Neither Pope Clement VII nor his Legate gave him any kind of positive response, but he was commanded to keep silent. I think it possible that the particular circumstances he faced, his powerlessness to stop the showings, the collapse of his cathedral, his need for cash to set matters right, and the frustration at this impotence might even have turned his mind.

        Too much credence has been given to the D’Arcis “memorandum”, and this is solely due to the misrepresentation of Chevalier and Thurston, to suit their own particular agenda of demythologising the foundation beliefs of Christianity.

        Margaret de Charnay clearly saw it as her duty to preserve the Shroud, and the Lirey Church was vulnerable in the prevailing conditions. It disappeared long ago. If it had not been for Lady Margurite, we would not have the Shroud today. It would have been consigned to the bonfires of the French Revolution along with all the other holy objects. The canons were compensated by Duke Louis, and she was never excommunicated.

  13. May 10, 2015 at 8:40 am

    When you can produce an image that is only two microns deep, on a 3×1 herringbone cloth dated from 290BC -290AD and have that image only appear where the blood, serum, were not present. When you can do this without any binders, turpentine, gum arabic, linseed oil, and do it all as a photographic negative, then tell everyone how this was perceived, done and executed in the last 1800 years by those who had no knowledge of photographic process, or what a negative was, and explain why the cloth in Spain which is the head shroud also matches perfectly, blood, type, and matter, then you can sway some to believe that the shroud is perhaps the work of human hands.

    • May 10, 2015 at 12:45 pm

      Here’s some advice, Michael. Try making one point at a time.Back it up with some data and/or links.Then maybe a response is possible within a reasonable time frame.

      • Thomas
        May 11, 2015 at 3:50 am

        Is it just a coincidence of the similar timing of the flaggelant movement in mid 1300s and the shroud?
        Colin could a dead flaggelant’s body have formed the template?
        Thus explaining blood stains etc.

        • May 11, 2015 at 4:36 am

          If, perish the thought, you were minded to fake the ultimate in holy relics, Thomas, wouldn’t you want to start with a clean slate, metaphorically speaking? First apply your imprinting medium and then, while still wet, apply blood in all the biblically correct places. Then, and only then, imprint and develop.

          Note that you are not required to mimic wounds and scourge marks themselves, only the blood imprints they leave on linen.

  14. Hugh Farey
    May 11, 2015 at 4:22 am

    DavidMo: “She finished being excommunicate.”
    Daveb: “She was never excommunicated.”

    http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/ItalySavoy.htm: “For her pains, Margaret de Charny is excommunicated in 1457 for not returning the shroud to the canons of the church of St Mary of Lirey in France. The canons are compensated for their loss, and the excommunication is lifted in 1459.”

    No primary sources…

    Scurrilous and unfounded accusation: Bishop Henry suppressed the veneration of the Shroud.
    What actually happened: The veneration of the Shroud was suppressed.

    Scurrilous and unfounded accusation: Bishop d’Arcis said the Shroud was a fake.
    What actually happened: The Shroud was publicly declared a fake whenever exhibited.

    Whether or not the d’Arcis memorandum is a tissue of lies, events turned out exactly as if he was telling the truth. Curious, no?

    • daveb of wellington nz
      May 11, 2015 at 6:54 am

      The canons had originally agreed to release the Shroud along with several other religious and precious items to Humbert for safe-keeping during the troubles in France, and he had signed a document agreeing to return them. Not until after Humbert’s death did the canons request the return of the items, and Margaret accordingly returned everything except the Shroud, which she retained. Her grandfather Geoffrey I, who had founded the Lirey Collegiate church with canons, had acquired the Shroud and it had come into the possession of her father Geoffrey II. She evidently considered she had a duty of care for it, perhaps even some title to it, seeing rather more in it than apparently did her contemporaries, including the local bishop and the canons. By this time the Lirey church was in a state of disrepair, and unsuitable to house the Shroud.

      What is curious is that the canons should set so much store by what was alleged to be a forgery, that they themselves issued an excommunication, and it only required a cash settlement to appease them and to lift it. So who are the ones demonstrating cupidity in this matter? Margaret seems to be the one practising a religious duty to ensure the safety of this relic, by delivering it to the House of Savoy which kept it safe for 500 years! The chateau of Varambon with which she was compensated, had already been in the Palud family for several generations, the family of her nearest relation, her nephew the flamboyant Francis de Palud.

      As for Bishop D’Arcis declaring the shroud a “fake”, each and every occupant of the See of Rome since the time of Pope Pius XI has made it clear enough that they personally considered it to be the authentic burial cloth of Christ! So much for Bishop Pierre D’Arcis’ opinion of it!

      • Hugh Farey
        May 11, 2015 at 7:13 am

        What about Popes before Pius XI? Clement VIII for instance…

      • daveb of wellington nz
        May 11, 2015 at 3:51 pm

        Presumably typo, Clement VIII, pope 1592 – 1605, himself a significant and interesting character but unconnected with the Lirey affair, you more likely mean Clement VII.

        A predecessor of Pius XI, Pope Pius X, was noted for his encyclical attacking “Modernism”, a course that both Chevalier and Thurston seem to have been headed.

        Pius XI seems to have been persuaded of the Shroud’s authenticity, by Pia’s photography and the work of Barbet.

        On the date of bailli Jean de Venderesse unsuccessful visit to Lirey to seize the Shroud on 15 August 1389, his bailli colleague, Geoffrey II de Charnay was assisting King Charles VI in Paris with preparations for a five-day nuptial celebration by a tourney marking the arrival of his soon-to-be queen, Isabel of Bavaria. Soon after, the king’s entire retinue set off on a royal tour first to Burgundy, and then to Avignon where they were entertained by Pope Clement VII.

        Clement was formerly known as Robert of Geneva, his father being a cousin of Aimon of Geneva, the step-father of Geoffrey II. If anyone knew anything about the true origins of the Shroud, it seems quite likely that Clement might well have been privy to it, with the presence of both Charles VI and Geoffrey II in Avignon when D’Arcis was raising his objections.

        On 5 January 1390, Clement sent a letter to D’Arcis to keep silent about the Shroud under threat of excommunication. On the same date, Clement also sent a letter to Geoffrey II stating that he could continue to hold the Shroud expositions, but he should limit the lavishness of the ceremonial. There was then no mention that Geoffrey was required to describe the Shroud as a “figure or representation of Jesus’ shroud”.

        Conceivably if he had access to the papal archives, Clement may even known or heard about the Greek Patriarch’s complaint to an earlier Pope that Frankish crusaders had pillaged the sacred burial cloths from Constantinople.

        Clement was clearly not persuaded by D’Arcis’ objections, and his actions in the matter seem to be those of a shrewd pontiff responding to a tricky situation, the advice from his legate, and aware that if the Shroud was in fact authentic, it might possibly prompt an adverse reaction from Constantinople.

        For the next 500 years, the expositions were essentially a Savoy affair, and it was only with the results of the photography in 1898, that the Shroud attracted the interest raised during the 20th century.

        • Hugh Farey
          May 11, 2015 at 4:51 pm

          Very true.

      • May 12, 2015 at 1:50 am

        Here the facts we know.

        1. D’Arcis’ memorandum contains certain statements which are consistent with other documents and some statements that do not have any confirmation.
        2. It cannot be said if the unconfirmed claims whether they are false or true. We can not nor confirm nor deny them and it is absurd to discuss about them.
        3. We know that at the time of the memorandum the exhibition of the shroud had been banned because we have the request of Geoffroy II and the papal bull that suspends the ban.
        4. We know there were some claims that the shroud was a fake and had been painted. Because such a thing is clear from the letter from the king to his Bailly. See also Liège’s affair below.
        5. We know that the pope does not considered true the shroud, since the last bull says it can not be displayed as such.
        6. We do not know the private reasons of one and all. They are private. D’Arcis could act out of envy or honesty. The Pope could act out of conviction or political calculation. You don’t know anything about the personal opinion of Clement VII. You only know the personal opinions of the popes that expressed them. The public opinion is other thing.
        7. Marguerite could act out of greed or because he believed he had a subjective right over the shroud.
        8. But we know that Marguerite recognized that it had no right to retain the shroud because it promises to return the piece within a specified time and pay for the temporal possesion several times; 1418, 1443, 1447 and last 1458 (if I remember exactly). The latter was an attempt to lift the excommunication that hanged over her since 1457. She never paid anything nor returned the cloth, but she said to have transfered it to the House of Savoy. We have not any document of this cession.
        9. We know that an episcopal commission met in Liège in 1449 because Marguerite exhibited the cloth as authentic and the bishop had doubts.
        10. We know that the commission ruled that the cloth was painted.
        11. We know that they could examine the papal bull. The report of the chronicler says that the papal bull stated that the cloth was not the true Shroud of Christ.

        This is what can be known and what we cannot state.After you can do interpretations or screenplays. The difference is that interpretations never pass the boundaries of what cannot be said with a high degree of possibility. In the screenplays the imagination is free and sometimes contrary to the facts.

      • daveb of wellington nz
        May 12, 2015 at 3:07 am

        An example of how it is possible to confine oneself merely to citing documents and yet come to an incorrect conclusion!

        The so-called letter from the king to his bailli, has all the hall-marks of Pierre D’Arcis’ connivance throughout, particularly in its last sentence where it is proposed that the cloth be handed over “… so that I may relocate it in another church in Troyes and place it under honest custody.” No imaginative screen-play is required to interpret that intent, D’Arcis wanted it for his own cathedral! Despite the royal signature, it is quite likely the king never saw nor noticed it, but it was merely in a sheaf of routine papers for his signature.

        The reference “… a certain cloth hand-made and artificially depicted cloth (etc)” has no more status than the assertion that it is the substance of his complaint.

        After the death of Geoffrey II, ownership of the Shroud rightfully passed to his daughter Margaret de Charney, not the Lirey canons. It might be thought presumptive of her husband Humbert to sign a document agreeing to return it. After his demise, she clearly asserted what she considered her rights of ownership.

        Despite all the assertions that the cloth was painted, we now know that the cloth was never painted, was never touched by any paint-brush, nor ever near any artist’s palette, notwithstanding recent specious hypotheses.

        If I were so inclined to do, I might have dealt with the other objections, but truly I cannot be bothered.

        • May 13, 2015 at 2:48 am

          First of all: you present the facts wrong.

          “After the death of Geoffrey II, ownership of the Shroud rightfully passed to his daughter Margaret de Charney, not the Lirey canons. It might be thought presumptive of her husband Humbert to sign a document agreeing to return it. After his demise, she clearly asserted what she considered her rights of ownership”.

          Humbert de la Roche, Marguerite’s husband, represented her in 1418. What he signed was in her name and it commited her. Marguerite was directly sued by the canons of Lirey in 1443 (Dôle), 1447 (Besançon) and 1449 (Troyes). It don’t matter what were her claims but what the Court’s sentences were. She committed herself before the Courts to return the Shroud to canons of Lirey in three years and paid an economic compensation. She never kept her word. She was objectively a crook and a liar.

          Secondly: your interpretation is biased by your prejudices. You seem to think that all the people who affirm that the Shroud is a fake are immoral and malicious (Chevalier, Thurston, d’Arcis, etc.), and the people that think (according you) that the Shroud is authentic is well-meaning and honest.

          “No imaginative screen-play is required to interpret that intent, D’Arcis wanted it for his own cathedral! Despite the royal signature, it is quite likely the king never saw nor noticed it, but it was merely in a sheaf of routine papers for his signature.”

          You make a pure speculation. You don’t know if the idea to carry the shroud to Troyes was suggested by d’Arcis, the king’s counsellors or the same king. You don’t realize that the same thing can be speculated about the papal bulls in opposite direction. Maybe the king thought that carrying the false shroud to Troyes was the simplest way to avoid its exhibition. Maybe d’Arcis was honest in trying to avoid the exhibition, maybe not. These are useless speculations. Pure melodrama.

          “Despite all the assertions that the cloth was painted, we now know that the cloth was never painted, was never touched by any paint-brush, nor ever near any artist’s palette, notwithstanding recent specious hypotheses”.

          “We know”? You think. I don’t know if the shroud was originally painted. I know that this was stated several times in the first years. This is not a definitive conclusion, but casts a shadow over the origins of the shroud.

          And the Freeman’ hypothesis could be incorrect but not “specious”. Your qualification is “specious” because unfounded and because, one time again, suggest a dishonest intention in the people that not think as you. Be careful with words, please.

      • daveb of wellington nz
        May 13, 2015 at 5:15 am

        Bailli Venderesse warrant: “… so that I may relocate it in another church in Troyes and place it under honest custody.”
        If not the cathedral, what other church in Troyes might have been intended? If not D’Arcis, under whose honest custody? The intent is plain enough.

        “You seem to think that all the people who affirm that the Shroud is a fake are immoral and malicious (Chevalier, Thurston, d’Arcis, etc.),” What is that if not presumption on your part? I consider that Markwardt makes an adequate case of deliberate fraud against Chevalier & Thurston and that is enough, others can make their own inferences as to what that might mean, The best that might be said for D’Arcis, is that he might have been genuinely concerned at misrepresentation of what he considered a false relic, but that he was mistaken on many matters, relying on hearsay, and even though he was qualified in Law, he failed to produce concrete evidence to support his case, to the extent that Pope Clement VII commanded him to silence, and allowed Geoffrey II to resume the expositions.

        It is indeed fortunate, even providential for posterity, that Magaret de Charney was so intrepid in her designs to retain the Shroud instead of returning it to an unsuitable church is a state of disrepair. She knew that the Besancon church had already been destroyed by fire, and doubtless she would have learnt from that example.

        How many sacred relics were lost in the turmoil of the French Revolution? No imagination is required to envisage what would have happened to the Shroud, had it remained in France!

  15. Max patrick Hamon
    May 11, 2015 at 4:59 am

    Hugh, you wrote: “The Shroud was publicly declared a FAKE (upper cases mine) whenever exhibited.

    Reminder for him re FAKE:

    As a noun, a FAKE is something that is a counterfeit; not what it seems to be; it is an imitation, something COPIED (upper cases mine) or derived from an original
    Synonyms: forgery, COPY (upper cases mine), fraud, REPRODUCTION (upper cases mine), dummy, imitation, hoax, counterfeit

    As a verb, to FAKE is to make a fraudulent COPY (upper cases mine) of something. Synonyms: forge, COPY (upper cases mine), REPRODUCE ( upper cases mine), fabricate, counterfeit, falsify

    Now Hugh kept repeating (on another thread) Pierre d’Arcis didn’t think at all the Lirey Shroud was a COPY/REPRODUCTION of the Shroud of Christ/a liturgical shroud used on Easter weeks as “cloth of the Resurrection”), Curious, no?

    • Max patrick Hamon
      May 11, 2015 at 5:19 am

      Re ‘the Fraud’, on November 25, 2014 at 6:30 am, I wrote:

      “In his 1389 CE Memorandum, Pierre d’Arcy, using the latin word depinxit, ‘painted’, misrepresented the Lirey Shroud case to the pope. The FRAUD ACTUALLY WORKED BOTH WAYS namely to present the Lirey Shroud as Yeshua’s genuine shroud when it actually had no certificate of authenticity that accompanied it OR to present it as a mere painted copy/reproduction (or fake) when actually nobody could tell for sure whether it was or not the real thing.”

      • Max patrick Hamon
        May 11, 2015 at 6:00 am

        Actually, it does seem there were earlier Shroud copies of Christ (one that was lost in the 1349 CE fire and a new one painted in 1378 CE) as examples for Pierre d’Arcy to make allegedly ‘meaningful comparisons’ with the Lirey Shroud. The artist (as “an artist”) he is referring too, most likely, if ever existed, had once copied/reproduced (copiaverat = depinxerat) the Besançon Shroud (a copy of a copy).

        On November 25, 2014 at 8:58 am, I wrote:

        “Apparently destroyed during the French Revolution, most likely the Shroud used in the Easter liturgy at the cathedral of St. Stephen at Besançon (then capital of Burgundy and straddling France and the German Holy Roman Empire) was a 16th c. CE painted copy and a late/second substitute for ‘the original Besancon Shroud’ (most likely a painted Shroud copy Othon de la Roche sent via his father, Ponce de la Roche, to the Besançon archbishop Amédée de Tramlai, less likely a white linen destroyed in a fire on March 6, 1349). Its veneration was not so much linked to its being considered genuine as both being a shroud copy of or shroud substitute for Yeshua’s original/Holy Shroud and part and parcel of the Easter liturgy.

        And on November 25, 2014 at 12:04 pm,I also wrote:

        “17th CE Besançon first historian, Chifflet, told us that the Besançon Shroud had “disappeared” after the fire of the cathedral St. Sephen (1349 CE) (A few isolated documents referred to the Shroud’s rediscovery in a niche in the church in 1378 CE) Chifflet saw it then and described it as a cloth with a clumsy frontal only painted image of the body of Yeshua looking like the Lirey Shroud. This frontal-only shroud copy of 1377 CE was singled out in the official account of those events in 1794 CEas having been torn into bandages.”

        If the Lirey Shroud was thought to be a cunning copy of the Shroud of Christ, most likely the Besançon Shroud was a clumsy frontal-only shroud painted copy and a pale/non embroidered copy of Byzantine-Greek threnoi epitaphioi.

  16. Hugh Farey
    May 11, 2015 at 8:00 am

    “Now Hugh kept repeating (on another thread) Pierre d’Arcis didn’t think at all the Lirey Shroud was a COPY/REPRODUCTION of the Shroud of Christ/a liturgical shroud used on Easter weeks as “cloth of the Resurrection”), Curious, no?” Not at all. There is no suggestion whatever in the d’Arcis memorandum that the Bishop thought there was actually a shroud from which the Lirey one was copied.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      May 11, 2015 at 9:36 am

      Hugh wrote: “There is no suggestion whatever in the d’Arcis memorandum that the Bishop thought there was actually a shroud from which the Lirey one was copied.”

      Oh, really? Do you mean the very phrase “the Shroud of Christ” just could not in se suggest to both Henry of Troyes and Pierre d’Arcy the Lirey Shroud was just a cunningly painted copy/reproduction of it? Pierre d’Arcy discarded the Lirey Shroud as such since he thought there was no figure on the Shroud of Christ and therefore could only be a fraudulent… COPY/REPRODUCTION!

      Methinks Hugh you got it all wrong and have a real knack to mispresent other’s opinion (mine, Pierre d’Arcy and Wölfli etc)

      Once you wrote re Wölfli having problems dating his mother-in-law’s linen tablecloth
      (see link at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n20part4.pdf): “A modern tablecloth would probably date at BP200 or more, which on calibration would indicate a number of dates between about 1670 and the present day. I suspect Dr Wolfli knew this, and was joking.”

      On April 21, 2015 at 8:52 am, I wrote:

      “No, Hugh. Indeed Dr Wolfli was NOT joking AT ALL.”

      On April 21, 2015 at 9:08 am you replied:

      “How do you know that? Anyway, in that case, he perhaps was not aware that all modern artefacts date as well to the 17th century as they do to the 21st. The accuracy of any C-14 date depends on the slope of the calibration graph, which, averaged out over the last three or four hundred years, is more or less flat. Everybody’s mother-in-law’s tablecloths will date as well to then as they do to now.”

      On April 21, 2015 at 10:22 am, I replied:

      “See Ian Wilson’s review of David Sox’s The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of all Time, Lamp Press paperback. On p. 138 Sox notes:
      “Wölfli of Zurich was WORRIED (upper cases mine; NOT JOKING) about the results he had with the linen tablecloth of his wife’s mother. It was 50 years old, but carbon dating said it was 350 years old. There might have been A PROBLEM CREATED BY DETERGENT (upper cases mine) which had been used on the cloth.”

      On April 21, 2015 at 9:57 am, Louis commented
      Re: Dr.Wolfli
      It is evident that Ian Wilson didn’t take it as a joke.If he had, there would be no mention in the review. Dr. Wolfli is recorded elsewhere expressing doubts about the Shroud’s radiocarbon dating.

      On April 21, 2015 at 10:50 and 10:52 am and on April 22, 2015 at 5:14am, I myself commented:

      “Actually, it was Sox first who didn’t take it as a joke and then Wilson didn’t either.
      Most criously, ONLY Hugh takes it as a joke! It does seem actually Wölfli feared the TS could be dated 9th or 10th centrury CE (that is 300 years older than expected) because of the presence of detergent. Alike Tite and Hall, he thought the TS was unlikely to be the Shroud of Christ.”

      Hugh, could you stop your art of misrepresenation of other’s thoughts , PLEASE?

      • Max patrick Hamon
        May 11, 2015 at 9:39 am

        Typo: your art of misrepresenting other’s thoughts

  17. Louis
    May 11, 2015 at 9:07 am

    Whatever his shortcomings, Clement VII certainly knew how to take a decision and unfortunately there is no additional documentation for us to determine what made him act as he did in the case of the Shroud. His decision to excommunicate Henry VIII may have been spurred by a love letter from the king to his lover Anne Boleyn, that fell into his hands.
    If the Image of Edessa/Shroud are one and the same object, then it was a stolen relic:
    https://www.academia.edu/7447446/Was_there_a_link_between_the_Knights_Templar_and_the_Turin_Shroud_An_interview_with_Dr._Barbara_Frale

    • daveb of wellington nz
      May 11, 2015 at 6:12 pm

      Louis, some confusion, there were two popes who took the name of Clement VII. Cardinals meeting in Rome for the first time in nearly a century elected Urban VI in 1378. However they reneged on that choice that same year, because of Urban’s monarchical ambitions and evident mental illness, and so they elected Robert of Geneva who took the name Clement VII and who returned to Avignon. Urban continued as Pope in Rome, and Robert of Geneva is officially listed as an antipope Clement VII. This is the Clement involved in the Lirey affair. The Rome-Avignon schism was not resolved until the Council of Constance 1414-18.

      Giulio de Medici also took the name of Clement VII as Pope in Rome 1523-34, and was the Pope involved during the time of Henry VIII’s request for an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. His declaration in 1533 that Henry’s marriage to Catherine was valid prompted the English Act of Supremacy of November 1534, making the king of England head of the English church. He has been portrayed as a weak and vacillating figure, imprisoned by Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, unable to deal with the rise of Protestantism in Germany, a typical Renassance prince, preoccupied with Italian politics, his patronage and enjoyment of Renaissance culture, and the advancement of his family, unsystematic and extravagant, and who gravely underestimated his unpopularity in Germany.

  18. Hugh Farey
    May 11, 2015 at 11:13 am

    “Once you wrote re Wölfli having problems dating his mother-in-law’s linen tablecloth…” Yes, I suggested he might be joking as the problem as reported was that it dated to the 17th century, and I thought it likely that he would have known that modern cloths invariably date to the 17th century, because of the fluctuations in atmospheric C14 since that time. There is no problem with detergent. If this was in fact unknown to him, then he might indeed have been concerned about the accuracy of his laboratory, but I suspect he knew it very well. If he wasn’t joking, there must have been some other reason for his concern. I wonder what it was. No doubt Sox and Wilson, who may not have understood the radiocarbon calibration curve, considered the case more serious than it actually was.

    “Hugh, could you stop your art of misrepresentation of other’s thoughts , PLEASE?” I never misrepresent others’ thoughts. I merely try to understand them. You should try it sometime.

  19. Max patrick Hamon
    May 11, 2015 at 2:22 pm

    If words have a meaning, Wôlfli was WORRIED, he was not joking. Stop misrepresenting Wölfli’s opinion AGAIN, please!

    • Max patrick Hamon
      May 11, 2015 at 2:42 pm

      Was Saxer and Bonnet-Eymard NOT meaning the Lirey Shroud was thought by Pierre d’Arcy a copy/a reproduction of the Shroud of Christ? If words have a meaning here again, they did undersand his memorandum as saying it was a copy/reproduction, which is in striking contrast with your alleged ‘understanding’. BTW si your understanding of medieval Latin really reliable and better than Saxer’s and Bonnet-Eymard’s. I very much doubt it (all the more so as you just ignored the verb copio, copiare meaning to reproduce/to copy a painting or image, was NOT USED –not a single occurrence!– in its figurative and extended sense in the 14th C. CE (the verb copio, copiare was not available in its figurative or extended sense until the 1640s CE and the noun copia, as painted copy, not until the 15c. CE!).

    • Hugh Farey
      May 11, 2015 at 4:50 pm

      I don’t think Wolfli was worried at all. I think he was joking. I think David Sox didn’t get the joke. However he does describe Wolfli as having “a wonderful sense of humour” and three times refers to Wolfli’s jokes elsewhere. I don’t think I am misrepresenting Wolfli at all. I think he was, unwittingly, misrepresented by Sox, who didn’t understand.

      And don’t go on and on about possible meanings for copy, fake, reproduce, etc, etc. Of course all these words can mean to reproduce another painting, but in this context, they very clearly don’t. To pretend that there is no other possibility is, to use your favourite word, misrepresentation. Neither Saxer nor Bonnet-Eymard make any reference to any other shroud in this context, and it is clear that they didn’t think d’Arcis was referring to a copy of another image. These worthy gentlemen understood medieval Latin, and I understand them. You have made no effort to do either, but spent the last couple of weeks distorting the meanings of Latin, French and English words to suit a wholly unsupported personal agenda of your own. Well, fair enough. Perhaps you’re right. I just don’t think so.

      • Max patrick Hamon
        May 12, 2015 at 6:53 am

        Hugh, methinks YOU think against the fact since you didn’t quite get Wölfli’s real worry about his radiocarbon dating the TS.

        Re subtantial detergent residue as a possible source of contamination that may skew the radiocarbon dating results, you assert (as if it was a proven scientific fact!?): “There is NO PROBLEM (upper cases mine) with detergent”. Could you refer us to any scientific research papers as far as modern AND ancient linens’ accurate radiocarbon dating is concerned, PLEASE?

        (Methinks you’d better had read e.g. “14C Analysis of protein extracts from Bacillus spores” by
        Jenny A. Cappuccio from Biosciences & Biotechnology Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94551, United States, and Miranda J. Sarachine Falso,
        , Michaele Kashgarian & Bruce A. Buchholz from Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94551, United States, before passing your most ill-informed comment)

        You also wrote: “And don’t go on and on about possible meanings for copy, fake, reproduce, etc, etc. Of course all these words can mean to reproduce another painting, but IN THIS CONTEXT, THEY VERY CLEARLY DON’T (upper cases mine). ”

        How come then BOTH Victor Saxer (a medieval Historian and anti-shroudie familiar with medieval Latin) and Bruno Bonnet-Eymard (a linguist and shroudie) understood Pierre d’Arcis thought the Lirey Shroud was A COPY OR REPRODUCTION if the matter is so crytal-clear as you misleadingly claim?

        Shall I endlessly quote Victor Saxer’s “Le Suaire de Turin aux Prises avec l’Histoire”? E.g. on p.31, the medieval historian twice claimed the Lirey Shroud was “une COPIE” (a copy) and not the original Shroud of Christ!

        (Reminder for Hugh AGAIN: “En public ils le (le Suaire de Lirey) présentaient comme une COPIE (upper cases mine) du Suaire (du Christ); en privé, ils affirmaient que c’était le vrai” (…) “ils (les chanoines) vénéraient et faisaient vénérer une COPIE (upper cases mine) à l’égal de l’original”)

        Can you really/correctly read medieval Latin and French? I very much doubt it.

        Shall I endlessy quote Bruno Bonnet-Etmard’s translation in French of the Pierre d’Arcy Latin memorandum key sentences: “Il fut même prouvé, grâce à un artiste qui l’avait REPRODUIT (= REPRODUCED, upper cases mine), qu’il était fait de main d’homme et non confectionné ou accordé miraculeusement”.

        You can be wrong in your opinion, not in your facts. How long will you be in denial? Do you really think your knowledge of medieval Latin is superior to both Saxer’s and Bonnet-Eymard’s?

        You also wrote: “To pretend that there is no other possibility is, to use your favourite word, misrepresentation”.

        Actually I gave THREE different alternative translations for depinxerat (“had painted/copied/reproduced”), YOU pretend there is one single possibility “painted”. Then AGAIN you’re misrepresenting my opinion. Methinks it’s really a commentorial tic with you. Nope.

        • Hugh Farey
          May 12, 2015 at 7:45 am

          No, Max. You have either not read, or have misunderstood, my last post. Have another go, and then respond to it, rather than guessing what it says and ‘endlessly repeating’ the same old stuff, which is no more (nor less) correct now than when I first disagreed with it.

        • Max patrick Hamon
          May 12, 2015 at 10:00 am

          Hugh, you wrote: “David Sox didn’t get the joke. However he does describe Wolfli as having “a wonderful sense of humour” and three times refers to Wolfli’s jokes ELSEWHERE (uppercases mine)”.

          You mean Sox did get Wölfli’s previous jokes ‘elsewhere’ but (most curiously) was totally unable to get that one ‘here’ re detergent as a possible contamination source when the FACT was then/still is substantial detergent residue COULD/CAN skew both modern AND ancient linens’ radiocarbon dating results? Do you seriously mean Sox both can AND cannot detect Wölfli’s jokes according to your most conjectural interpretation of Sox’s words? What now if your own interpretation of Sox’s words was totally wrong since you do seem to be igorant of the possible impact of detergent on radiocarbon dating results? What if Sox took at face value what was to be taken as such: Wölfli really worried about the test and the impact of substantial detergent residue (besides the atom bomb effect +160% in atmosphere) and did radiocarbon his mother-in-law linen tablecloth?

          No, Hugh. Your interpretation is pure speculation and even contrary to facts.

          Besides don’t you elude my questions re impact of substantial detergent residue, PLEASE!

          I repeat: Could you refer me to any scientific research paper (BTW it would be new –and not old–stuff!) backing up your view (“There is no problem with detergent”) as far as modern AND ancient linens’ radiocarbon dating results are concrned, please?

          Don’t you elude my second question too (you have eluded it already twice!):

          “How come then BOTH Victor Saxer (a medieval Historian and anti-shroudie familiar with medieval Latin) and Bruno Bonnet-Eymard (a linguist and shroudie) understood Pierre d’Arcis thought the Lirey Shroud was A COPY OR REPRODUCTION of the genuine Shroud of Christ (or even a copy/reproduction of a liturgical shroud people ‘thought’ to be the genuine Shroud of Christ) if the matter is so crystal-clear as you misleadingly claim?

          Re your putting words in my mouth: “To pretend that there is no other possibility is, to use your favourite word, misrepresentation”.

          Can you answer the two following questions:

          Haven’t I actually given THREE different alternative translations for depinxerat (“had painted/copied/reproduced”)?

          Don’t YOU pretend there is only one single possibility i.e. “(had) painted” to translate depinxit/depinxerat when actually given the 14th c. CE context and the unavailibility of the Latin verb copio, copiare meaning to paint a copy/a reproduction, the verb depingere could have referred to a painted copy or reproduction of the genuine Shroud of Christ or an alledgedly ‘genuine’ Shroud of Christ as well in this very specific context?

          Philologically speaking, the alternative just cannot be totally ruled out all the more so if one is aware of the etymology of copia (from Greek coopia made from co, “together” + opis, “resources –in terms of creativity, ability –in terms of talent or even genius, power –in terms of impressive rendering”, which does apply to the Lirey Shroud aka Turin Shroud as an alleged ‘painted copy/reproduction’ of the Shroud of Christ or an allegedly ‘genuine’ Shroud of Christ i.e. a painted copy of a painted copy or white linen substitute).

        • Max patrick Hamon
          May 12, 2015 at 10:20 am

          Typo: and did radiocarbon date his mother-in-law’s linen tablecloth?

        • Max patrick Hamon
          May 12, 2015 at 10:23 am

          Third question to Hugh: “Do you really think you have a superior knowledge to Saxer’s and Bonnet-Eymard’s put together as far as medieval Latin is concerned?

  20. Max patrick Hamon
    May 11, 2015 at 2:50 pm

    Typo: BTW is your understanding of medieval Latin really reliable and better than Saxer’s and Bonnet-Eymard’s? I very much doubt it

  21. Hugh Farey
    May 12, 2015 at 11:57 am

    You’re still barking up the wrong tree, Max.

    1) Detergent may be a contaminant when one is trying to radiocarbon date relatively modern spores grown on a gel in a petri dish. There is no evidence that it has a significant effect as a contaminant on larger objects, as it can be, and routinely is, removed. It is unlikely to have affected a table cloth, even if, which I doubt, Wolfli actually dated one.

    2) It’s no use asking for scientific papers attempting to show that some effect or other doesn’t occur. There are no papers devoted to the hypothesis that detergent is not a contaminant in radiocarbon dating. There are no papers devoted to the hypothesis that ice-cream is not a contaminant either, or brickdust or wombat-feathers. Don’t bother to ask.

    3) Both Victor Saxer and Bruno Bonnet-Eymard make clear that their use of the term ‘reproduce’ does not refer to a copy of a painting, as you would know if you read their accounts in full rather than snatching at snippets.

    4) Your list of possible meanings for various English, French and Latin words is only submitted in order for you to dismiss them in favour of your own personal favourite to suit this context, for which there is no evidence. This is misrepresentation.

    5) I do not challenge Saxer’s or Bonnet-Eymard’s interpretation of medieval Latin. I can’t think how you can possibly imagine that I do. What I challenge is your interpretation of their interpretation, which is quite a different thing.

    6) Your last paragraph, beginning “Philologically speaking, the alternative just cannot be totally ruled out,” sounds as if you are resubmitting your hypothesis in a rather more humble manner than heretofore. This is excellent progress; well done. As I say, it may be that you are correct. I just don’t think so.

  22. May 12, 2015 at 12:13 pm

    It says “figured out, sort of maybe” in the title. Might I humbly suggest there’s a bit less “maybe” now.

    That’s isolated wheat flour gluten in the bowl at the back. That’s a portion of it treated with nitric acid to get the sepia (red-brown) TS-like colour in the dish bottom left. That’s the flushed-out, then gravity-sedimented starch fraction in the glass dish on the right, also treated with nitric acid, with faint yellow coloration only.

    Why should wheat gluten (the protein fraction) of flour produce a orange colour with nitric acid? Answer: it’s almost certainly due to its high content of the phenolic amino acid tyrosine that readily nitrates with nitric acid in the so-called xanthoproteic reaction (used as a test for proteins).

    In other words, the TS sepia colour is NOT due to dehydrated, oxidized carbohydrates, as suggested in the STURP summary. It’s due to nitrated protein formed by secondary chemical development with nitric acid of a contact imprint made from a human subject (dead or alive) using a slurry of white flour as imprinting medium.

  23. Max patrick Hamon
    May 12, 2015 at 3:05 pm

    Hugh, you’re still misrepresenting both issues and my opinion on each of them (as usual):

    You misleadingly wrote:

    “There is no evidence that it (substantial detergent residue) has a significant effect as a contaminant on larger objects, as it can be, and routinely is, removed.”

    This is just ignorance fallacy since the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
    Could you tell me when exactly ALL KINDS of substantial detergent residue could be first removed once and for all? Had you read radiocarbon literature, you should have been aware “Detergents can resist removal due to their hydrophobic attractions with proteins. Incomplete rinsing can leave a substantial detergent residue that may skew the F14C value.”

    Can you refer me to any scientific paper backing up your opinion (there is “NO EVIDENCE” at all modern AND ancient detergent have a signficant effect as a contaminant on modern AND ancient linens? Actually, you just cannot. Period.

    BTW re natural soap and detergent, have you ever studied the impact of remoistened substantial human urea residue mixed with ashes and water on a linen cloth that was fumigated (aloetic fumigation) as far as radiocarbon dating is concerned? Most obviously you haven’t. Reminder: when it comes to radiocarbon date very old textiles, oddly in only 60-70% cases carbonometry is accurate chronometry. It is not 100%.

    You also wrote: “Both Victor Saxer and Bruno Bonnet-Eymard make clear that their use of the term ‘reproduce’ does not refer to a copy of a painting, as you would know if you read their accounts in full rather than snatching at snippets.”

    I read both Victor Saxer’s and Boonet-Eymard’s. Methinks you just skipped twice the word “une copie” in VS ‘s paper on p. 31 and in BBE’s on p15-16 the words “reproduit” (two occurrences), reproduire (one occurrence) and reproductions (two occurrences). BBE states “les reproductions de reliques étaient d’usages courant à l’époque (…) elles étaient considérées comme nos modernes reproductions photographiques” in other words “reproductions” here within a medieval context is synonym of “more or less faithful copies/reproductions”. This is no misrepresentation at all! Most obviously you cannot correctly read French (BTW I did read their whole paper each time and more than once and both are written in French NOT in English just in case who had missed it!).

    Etymologically speaking, copia/”copy” is the most fitted vocable to describe the Lirey Shroud aka the TS as a most impressive/creative/genial rendering of the true burial of Shroud of Christ. And I just cannot careless if you disagree.

    I don’t agree with your interpretation of VS’s and BBE’s interpretation either and I mean substance. You only mean blabla.

    You also wrote: “Your last paragraph, beginning “Philologically speaking, the alternative just cannot be totally ruled out,” sounds as if you are resubmitting your hypothesis in a rather more humble manner than heretofore. This is excellent progress (..)”.

    Had you carefully read me, re depinxerat and its three possible translations (“had painted/copied/reproduced”), I wrote (it does seem moons ago): “A philologist worth his/her salt just can totally ruled out an alternative reading”. Is your motto don’t do as I do, do as I say, your favorite motto?

    • Max patrick Hamon
      May 13, 2015 at 3:05 am

      Additional typo: BBE states “les reproductions de reliques étaient d’usage courant à l’époque (…) elles étaient considérées comme nos modernes reproductions photographiques” in other words “reproductions” here within a medieval context is synonymOUS WITH “more or less faithful copies/reproductions”.

  24. Max patrick Hamon
    May 12, 2015 at 3:09 pm

    Typo:“ A philologist worth his/her salt just CANNOT totally ruled out an alternative reading”. Most obviously, you’re definitely NOT ONE!

    • Max patrick Hamon
      May 12, 2015 at 3:13 pm

      Additional typo (sorry): “Etymologically speaking, copia/”copy” is the most fitted vocable to describe the Lirey Shroud aka the TS as a most impressive/creative/genial rendering of the true burial CLOTH of Shroud of Christ.”

  25. Max patrick Hamon
    May 12, 2015 at 3:34 pm

    Reminder for Hugh: For example limestone carbonates, handling of the specimens in the field or lab (e.g., accidental introduction of tobacco ash, hair, or fibers) can all potentially affect the age of a sample and so can a foaming detergent (ashes mixed with water and starch).

    • Max patrick Hamon
      May 12, 2015 at 3:36 pm

      Typo: foaming ashes mixed with water, starch and human urea residue.

  26. Max patrick Hamon
    May 13, 2015 at 3:15 am

    Besides Christ’s burial iconography (think e.g. of the Pray Codex Ms illustration) and threnoi epitaphioi-like liturgical shrouds (think e.g. of the 13th c. CE Besançon Shroud), and Christ’s face iconography give us a fairly good idea of what the Shroud of Christ should have looked like in the Medieval Ages. Pierre of Arcy’s very idea of a medieval artist reproducing i.e. more or less copying Christ iconography was common sense then.

    • Max patrick Hamon
      May 13, 2015 at 3:19 am

      Typo: more or less FAITHFULLY copying medieval Christ iconography

  27. Max patrick Hamon
    May 13, 2015 at 3:34 am

    Additional typo (sorry typing in haste): (e.g. just think e.g. of the Stuggart Psalter and Pray Codex Ms illustrations)

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: