An illustration for this posting automatically created by DALL E and ChatGPT
to demonstrate the point of this posting.
After seeing Hugh Farey’s recent post, Isotope, on his blog, I asked the Oyster Man for his opinion. The Oyster Man is more knowledgeable about isotopes. He is also more knowledgeable about baseball. Who is the Oyster Man? You will have to wait for my forthcoming book that I hope to publish this December. I can tell you that I also call him Oyman, for short. Sometime I yell “Oy Veh” at him in Yiddish exasperation.
The big discussion point in Hugh’s post, as I see it, is the title of Meacham’s article in the latest issue of the BSTS newsletter. Farey writes:
This graph, and the explanation of how it was achieved, has now been published in the Newsletter of the British Society for the Turin Shroud (Issue 99, Summer 2024), under the title: ‘Shroud Isotopes Reveal Probable Near East Origin,’ by Bill Meacham. I think “probable” is rather an optimistic authenticist assessment – “possible” would be rather more realistic – but think that this kind of experiment could be diagnostic if further investigation is carried out.
The Oyster Man comments:
In baseball, when the home plate umpire makes a questionable call, fans erupt in taverns and bars all over town. Was the game ‘possibly’ or ‘probably’ lost as a result? As the evening progresses, and more and more beers are consumed, the qualifiers ‘possibly’ and ‘probably’ get dropped from all protestations. Similarly, I can imagine in the near future, YouTube pontificators from the Shroud-is-real crowd will proclaim that ‘isotope studies’ certainly prove that carbon-14 dating is wrong. Such is the misunderstood world of Shroud science in our cyber-drunk, social media-driven world.
Geographic provenance may be unreliable. DNA tests have demonstrated that pollen cannot conclusively indicate a Middle Eastern origin. Just as pollen-based provenance has been discredited— with Shroud forensics tainted by pollen from the Americas and China—this new isotope study falls short of logical scrutiny. Pollen adheres to everything and gets deposited everywhere. If some insist that pollen proves the Shroud was in the Holy Land where Jesus walked, they must also contend that the Shroud is from the land of baseball. After all, pollen analysis suggests that the Shroud is from Wrigley Field.
Linen is probably not a local commodity. The question may only be how much so. At first glance the scattergram for this study seems to support the local origin. It may also, depending on how many beers you’ve consumed, argue for the possibility or the probability that the Shroud originated in or around Israel. Frankly, I don’t see it. There are not enough data points to think this chart robustly represents reality. As an old prof of mine would have said, “there isn’t enough corn there on that chart to entice a starving chicken to start pecking.”
I wonder, too: was all linen truly local? Were there not hundreds of ships, daily, plying the Mediterranean and the Aegean in the 1st century and the 16th century alike? Did linen not journey from Alexandria to Tunis, from Tripoli to Constantinople, from Smyrna to Trebizond, from Athens to Thessaloniki, from Corinth to Barcelona, from Valencia to Cadiz? Did merchant caravans not traverse the intricate network of roads, often referred to as the Silk Road, which in reality was a series of routes carrying a myriad of commodities, including, we can well imagine, linen cloth?
What a statistician might call an outlier, might in fact be a length of 3-over-1 herringbone linen bought by a faker of relics at a wharf market. That doesn’t rule out authenticity. But it does rule out certain adjectives. I remain mostly skeptical that the Shroud is genuine. On the other hand, the Oyster Man thinks that it is possibly or it is probably genuine. He also thinks that muddled Shroud science gets in the way of our seeing how and why.
I don’t know the article in BSTS, but perhaps you mean the research that Meacham presented on Marco Tosatti’s blog?:
https://www.marcotosatti.com/2024/03/25/the-linen-of-the-shroud-is-middle-eastern-new-isotope-tests-prove-it-meacham/
Ufnortunately it is virtually worthless. I am much disappointed by Meacham’s (with whom I had a little discussion about this) attitude towards those research.
When Joe Marino first distributed news about Meacham’s research, my initial opinion was:
<<>>
Then when I got (via Joe) response form Meacham, I was fully aware this is NOT the way it should have gone.
For example, Meacham disregarded any previous research on Raes sample, then assigned quite artificila geographical labels to samples, then admitted, he did not perform any statistical analysis.
Here are my comments I sent to Meacham.
About Raes sample provenance:
<<>>
About possible Syrian provenance of the Shroud:
<>>
About possible Parthian (modern Iraq and Iran) provenance of the Shroud, and geographical labels Meacham attached to samples.
<<>>
In response to Meacham admitting that he had not performed any statistical analysis:
<<>>
Meacham’s “research”, at last in the version presented on Marco Tosatti’s blog is completely unreliable, unfortunately. This is not how it should have been performed, really.
Near East
South Asian countries, specifically Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, as well as the Central Asian countries, are included in the definition according to the department of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University.
Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud
Gianni Barcaccia, Giulio Galla, Alessandro Achilli, Anna Olivieri & Antonio Torroni
Abstract
The Turin Shroud is traditionally considered to be the burial cloth in which the body of Jesus Christ was wrapped after his death approximately 2000 years ago. Here, we report the main findings from the analysis of genomic DNA extracted from dust particles vacuumed from parts of the body image and the lateral edge used for radiocarbon dating. Several plant taxa native to the Mediterranean area were identified as well as species with a primary center of origin in Asia, the Middle East or the Americas but introduced in a historical interval later than the Medieval period. Regarding human mitogenome lineages, our analyses detected sequences from multiple subjects of different ethnic origins, which clustered into a number of Western Eurasian haplogroups, including some known to be typical of Western Europe, the Near East, the Arabian Peninsula and the Indian sub-continent. Such diversity does not exclude a Medieval origin in Europe but it would be also compatible with the historic path followed by the Turin Shroud during its presumed journey from the Near East. Furthermore, the results raise the possibility of an Indian manufacture of the linen cloth.
Furthermore, from the New Testament
Acts 2:1-13 – New International Version
The Holy Spirit Comes at Pentecost
2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.
5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,[b] 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”
13 Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.”
Conclusion
This confirms that Joseph of Arimathea bought the Linen cloth sold by Indian settled Jewish Traders.
“They have had too much wine.” That would seem to apply to “Oyster Man” who constantly refers to being drunk, muddled, etc.
I won’t comment further on such anonymous opinions, especially the nonsense that O.K. posts.
The “Indian DNA” on the Shroud seems very dubious, FAR less reliable as an indicator of origin than the stable isotopes.
Dan, however, makes a point about how linen would have been traded all over the place, and we know from Roman and other records from antiquity that there was massive trade in textiles, mostly cotton and silk from India, or from China via the Silk Road.
What Dan seems not to understand is that the geographical origin of any textile is encoded in the isotope ratios. Thus linen (flax) produced in Egypt can now be clearly distinguished from that grown in Israel. The only question is whether there is such clear distinction of flax grown in Europe from that of Egypt or Israel.
In a paper now submitted for peer review, I have dealt in some detail with that question, and propose experiments that can I believe conclusively settle the matter one way or the other.
Bill, I’m sorry if I offended you. I would be thrilled if a good test emerges from this that provides likely geographic provenance. Perhaps this will be it. Or it is it and I just misunderstand. You say, “What Dan seems not to understand is that the geographical origin of any textile is encoded in the isotope ratios.”
Is it? I’m looking forward to your peer-reviewed paper.
I am quite certain that I don’t know enough about the subject. So, may I, in the meantime, ask a couple of perhaps naïve questions? My intent is not to challenge but to honestly inquire.
It is my understanding from my anonymous friend, the Oyster Man, that δ18O (oxygen isotopes) and δ2H (hydrogen isotopes) in organic materials such as flax are possibly or probably primarily a consequence of environmental factors at the time of the plant’s growth (and harvesting). I understand that there is much yet to be learned about how this happens.
I understand the scatter of several samples. I do wonder, however, if the sampling is sufficiently predictive, not only statistically, but for other reasons.
How much are the initial ratios affected by the microclimates and year-to-year weather variations? Are not, for example, Israel and the surrounding areas rife with microclimates? I’m thinking of the Negev, Judean Hills, Jordan Rift Valley, Galilee Region, and Golan Heights, Is this a factor that has been considered. If so, is it significant? Might we not encounter closely similar climate pockets in say Israel and Spain? These might be outliers or a commonality with more data points in any analysis.
Can the relative proportions of different isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen within the organic material change over time by fractionation? Might a fire hot enough to melt silver have affected these ratios enough to cause statistical concern? Is not knowing the age of a sample problematic? What experiments have been conducted?
Even if my questions are absurd—and they may be because I don’t know enough—and the cloth currently in Turin is conclusively shown to be from Israel, isn’t it reasonable, nonetheless, to think that a medieval forger in Europe could have purchased the cloth from a merchant dealing in textiles from the Holy Land for his deception?
As for anonymous people in the world of the Shroud, it is quite common and, in many cases, understandable. Anonymous people, mostly those who we never hear from, are our audience when we post publicly on the internet. Frankly speaking, I thought the Oyster Man’s comments quite reasonable and sober. We must accustom ourselves to this reality or we must close and lock the cyber doors.
Bill, I have always admired and respected the work you do. You know that.
Dan
My response to Meacham:
I won’t comment further on such anonymous opinions, especially the nonsense that O.K. posts.
So scared are you? No matter. It is my duty and displeasure to have you exposed.
First of all, I fully concur with both Hugh’s and Dan’s critical remarks about your “research”. But there is more, a fundamental flaw in your research. And while the general idea of using isotope ratios to indicate geographical origin is sound (with some reservations of course), the way you executed it is horrible.
We base on what you did post on Marco Tosatti’s blog https://www.marcotosatti.com/2024/03/25/the-linen-of-the-shroud-is-middle-eastern-new-isotope-tests-prove-it-meacham/ . To all Readers, please don’t be intimidated by ‘scientific” outlook of Meacham’s post. Actually, this is a very primitive science (it does not mean that simple and ‘primitive’ research cannot yield important results!).
All what we have, is a single scatter plot showing hydrogen vs oxygen isotope ratios for various samples of linen from various geographical areas:
Egypt, Europe and Israel. Note that ‘Egypt’, ‘Europe’ and ‘Israel’ are just labels for generic regions of origin of the samples, coming likely from various different subregions with various geographic and climate conditions. Europe is actually a vast and diverse area, from Scandinavia and Russia to Greece, Spain and Portugal. And similarly Israel, despite relatively small area, has large variety of different environments, from desert to mountains and southern-European-like coastal plains. As you mentioned in the blog post (quote: Recent testing on several threads from the Shroud of Turin provided a strong indication that the flax used to make the linen was grown in the Middle East, specifically the western Levant (Israel, Lebanon, western parts of Jordan and Syria)) and in private correspondence, the label ‘Israel’ actually means the whole Levant area.
But anyway. The figure shows the ‘Shroud’ sample (whether it is really original Shroud sample we will discuss later on) -the green dot -is somewhere between Israel and Europe, apparently closer to Israel. But contrary to what you say, one cannot securely associate it with the ‘Israel’.
There is no basis for that, since the results are ambiguous. The ‘Israel’ and ‘Europe’ groups clearly overlap as you can see on the figure (and there is no statistical reason they should not). They are not distinct form each other.
As you admitted, you did not performed any statistical analysis. There is hardly any basis for that. But you did claim that the two European measurements overlapping Israel group are outliers. You have no basis for that! Just because they have similar values to those from Israel (why should not they have? 8 out of 10 European samples have different results from Israel, but 2 out of 10 have similar)? It does not work this way! This is the fundamental misunderstanding of any statistical analysis! The numbers of samples for each area (10 for Europe, 5 for Israel, 15 for Egypt) are of course too small to associate any functional distribution (Gaussian or any other), yes. But there is no ban for the samples with different origin to overlap, no clear border values between each group. You cannot say that ‘Shroud’ sample belong to the ‘Israel and not to the ‘Europe’ group. instead.
This is what also Hugh noticed, and I fully agree with him. Now Dan and others also did notice the extensive trade of linen both in the Antiquity and the Middle Ages. And I fully agree that this factor makes any geographical indication of the place of the Shroud’s origin largely irrelevant to the matter of authenticity. The Shroud of Turin could be manufactured in Europe and traded to Jerusalem around 30 AD, or conversely, made in the Levant in 14th century and then traveled to Lirey in France.
But anyway, there is on MUCH more relevant FUNDAMENTAL problem with Meacham’s research. The SAMPLE which he uses. And what did he use?
The RAES sample from the infamous 1988 C-14 corner of the Shroud! THIS IS THE SAME SAMPLE,/B> from the very same area that was used in the 1988 C-14 dating. It seems that Meacham used it for his hasty test, because it was the only one available to him!
And as we know, Ray Rogers in his 2005 paper (see https://www.sindone.info/ROGERS-3.PDF , see also my comments on Rogers work: https://www.academia.edu/53330335/How_Rogers_refuted_1988_dating as well as explanation why Rogers’ critics are wrong on that matter https://www.academia.edu/53335795/Why_critics_of_Rogers_2005_work_refuting_the_1988_C_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_are_wrong ) had shown to be rewoven at some time between 16th and 19th centuries, and is not original part of the Shroud. You know well that according to Rogers, the Raes corner, contrary to all other Shroud areas, tested positive for vanillin, which proved that it has been interpolated (which disproved the 1988 dating). Which INVALIDATES Meacham research as well, no matter what results had he obtained. Most probably, Meacham tested a modern mending performed on the Shroud in 16-19th century and got results that could be associated either with Europe or Israel.
Meacham for years criticized the 1988 C-14 dating, rightly so. But what he eventually did is to repeat EXACTLY the very same mistakes they did. Meacham, you did even WORSE than 1988 C-14 teams! That is hypocrisy.
What Meacham did is a VERY, VERY, VERY BAD, BAD, BAD “science”. Instead of carefully planned, meticulous research program, we had just a hasty, ill-thought rush for sensational claims, to ‘prove’ Shroud authenticity. Which is absolutely not the way it should have been performed. And any serious Shroud researcher should resist that temptation.
You just took some of the remaining Raes samples (without even discussing the problem of their origin), and put them to a hasty and shaky test (I presume they were destroyed, right?)
Still to quote recent post of Meacham:
What Dan seems not to understand is that the geographical origin of any textile is encoded in the isotope ratios. Thus linen (flax) produced in Egypt can now be clearly distinguished from that grown in Israel. The only question is whether there is such clear distinction of flax grown in Europe from that of Egypt or Israel.
In a paper now submitted for peer review, I have dealt in some detail with that question, and propose experiments that can I believe conclusively settle the matter one way or the other.
The first part we have already discussed. But the second paragraph, it is a very misleading language. You can of course submit a peer review paper, assume even they accept it (you can always find a journal where they would accept). You can of course propose future experiments to cope with Israel/Europe isotope degeneracy. But this would not make what you had already performed any less meaningless nonsense it already has been, if you clothe it a ‘scientific’ language. You just took some of the remaining Raes samples (without even checking carefully the literature on their origin), and put them to a hasty and shaky test and I presume they were destroyed, right? So they can no longer be used for any better thought research than yours!
Meacham, it seems you are best at making personal attacks and insults, against me and others. But it appears that with regards to careful scientific analysis, you are not best at.Unfortunately, I am greatly disappointed.
At best you made a silly mistake. It happens, then please behave with honor, admit it, and apologize to many people you misled.
At worst, you are deliberately deceiving people and behave arrogantly to hide your errors and ignorance. Then you are just an impostor, like many full professors I met in my life. And lost any respect to. This discredits Shroud science in the eyes of many, if there are so many people around who behave in irresponsible way, and are granted Shroud samples based on their false authority.
Well, Dan, I was drafting some answers to your questions, but I see you have published the scurrilous rantings of an idiot who doesn’t know what he is talking about. And makes an absolute fool of himself. If this is the level of discourse you want on your blog, with ad hominems and defamations galore, I won’t be drawn into a pissing contest with a coward who won’t use his name while viciously attacking someone. In most forums such things are not allowed. So I deleted the draft and now depart.
This guy O.K. makes a couple of points that might be valid, but it gets lost in his vituperative and derogatory ranting.
He comes across as a TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL JERK JERK JERK !!! Really, does it make the statement more compelling to put it in caps and repeat it 3 times?
For a civilized discussion, you can’t be throwing verbal bombs every other sentence.