Turin Shroud Older Than Thought

[Umbran]

Which would work really well with Umbran's note about the facial distortion, or lack thereof. Just what would the original face look like?

Well, when you do paint a human face, put a cloth on it, and spread out the cloth, you get an image rather like you'd expect if you did something really nasty - took the skin off the head and spread it out flat. Eeew.

Anyway, in order to get something that would look human after that, you'd need to have a really small and skinny head as compared to a human.

 

[Terath Ninir]

Actually, the image on the shroud is a photo negative. Since it's *at least* 700 years old, no one knew what a photo negative is and never would have painted it that way. Not to mention that the image has conclusively been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to NOT be paint.

The most likely theory is that the shroud was laid flat. A heated metal statue, most likely bronze, was set down on the shroud, which was then folded over on it. The negative image was then created by scorch marks from the statue.

There are numerous holes in this theory. What happened to the solid metal statue afterwards? Why would anyone keep the shroud afterwards, when it gave a kind of faint negative image? Why would anyone go to all this trouble for a fake?

As an adventure idea, one could use the "standard paranormal" explanation: it is radiation from the body of some being, be it celestial or infernal. In a D&D world, that radiation would be magical in origin, of course. The shroud would then be imbued with magic tied to whatever Outsider was covered with the shroud. The properties of the shroud could be tied to the nature of the Outsider in question.

If you want to get funky, you could have the item actually *be* a shroud -- the "Shroud" of Turin is actually just a long piece of cloth and was not placed on a body like a shroud -- that gives its powers only when worn like a shroud. Include some undead in your campaign that are in shrouds, get the PCs this item, and watch the good clerics and the paladins go after them!

 

[Umbran]

The most likely theory is that the shroud was laid flat. A heated metal statue, most likely bronze, was set down on the shroud, which was then folded over on it. The negative image was then created by scorch marks from the statue.

There are numerous holes in this theory.

The biggest I can think of being that this process would not produce what looks like a normal photo-negative image.

You are correct that the shroud looks akin to a photo negative image. But any time you wrap the shroud around something (flesh, bronze, whatever) to produce the image, you get the same distortion of the face I mentioend before. So, in order to get what looks like an undistorted photo negative, you'd have to have a very cleverly made statue, distorded so as to produce a normal looking image after the folding. And that's getting into the level of absurdity.

Note that the fact that the shroud doesn't have paint on it does not mean that whatever was used to create the image was not painted on. One can imagine, for example, a dye or oxidant could have been painted onto the cloth to produce the image. And an oxidant has, chemically, roughly the same effect as burning by hot bronze.

One of the leading contenders as the artist in question is Mr. Leonardo Da Vinci himself. I think we're likely to lose if we place bets upon what he woule "never" have done. That's part of genius.

And, any time you bring up Leonardo Da Vinci, you bring up some lovely plot ideas

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

And, any time you bring up Leonardo Da Vinci, you bring up some lovely plot ideas

Exactly. Like...what if that's Da Vinci's face? What if...Da Vinci is Nyarlathotep.


EDIT: On the shroud itself, you could go the Indiana Jones route. Put it on, something happens...but not something good. Maybe there's something trapped within the shroud just waiting to escape. Or maybe it kills the wearer, trapping their last image on the shroud itself. Or...wait for it...maybe the thing 'trapped' is...yep, Nyarlathotep.

 

[Terath Ninir]

So sorry, but my dad studies the Shroud as a hobby. Prepare to lose!

(He has conceded that it is most likely man-made. But he is not satisfied with any of the current theories of how it was done. He's not even willing to concede it as a hoax, per se; it may have been made by accident or as an attempt at art.)

The biggest I can think of being that this process would not produce what looks like a normal photo-negative image.

You are correct that the shroud looks akin to a photo negative image. But any time you wrap the shroud around something (flesh, bronze, whatever) to produce the image, you get the same distortion of the face I mentioend before. So, in order to get what looks like an undistorted photo negative, you'd have to have a very cleverly made statue, distorded so as to produce a normal looking image after the folding. And that's getting into the level of absurdity.

Which is along the lines of what I said: the leading theory has flaws to it. In order to get the image to look the way it does, the shroud really would have had to be held flat both above and below -- so it would look like a letter U from the side. Possible, but not likely. As for why a statue would produce a negative scorched image: I can't explain that, but the explenation was pretty believable to me. It was in a book that I don't own, however, and I'm already doing two other Google searches right now, so I'm not gonna do another one.

And, as I said, the theory, while better than the others, doesn't seem correct to me.

Note that the fact that the shroud doesn't have paint on it does not mean that whatever was used to create the image was not painted on. One can imagine, for example, a dye or oxidant could have been painted onto the cloth to produce the image. And an oxidant has, chemically, roughly the same effect as burning by hot bronze.

Just barely possible, but not plausible. There is no paint residue on the Shroud -- at least if those who studied it did their job right; given that multiple groups have done so, I'd say that it is unlikely that *all* of them missed paint residue. To oxidize the cloth, the paint would have had to have been there for some time. It seems unlikely you could get all the paint off, leave the oxidation, and not damage the cloth, all at the same time.

And that doesn't explain why someone would paint a negative image, anyway. No, while I would venture that the Shroud is a work of man, it is a much more clever work than people give it credit for.

Note that this could all work well for a Cthulhu-stylez game: it is assumed to be fake at first, but then explanation after explanation fails. Until the mad cultists get ahold of it and PROVE it isn't man-made...

One of the leading contenders as the artist in question is Mr. Leonardo Da Vinci himself. I think we're likely to lose if we place bets upon what he woule "never" have done. That's part of genius.

And, any time you bring up Leonardo Da Vinci, you bring up some lovely plot ideas

Okay, so I'm resorting to Google: "Leonardo di Vinci" and "died". I don't even have to follow a link: he died in 1519. The Shroud dates back to *at least* the 1300s. Thus, that theory has about as much veracity as the movie "Hudson Hawk". (Which you should see! Despite its reputation, it is one of the best bizarre comedies I've ever seen.) Not that you couldn't work that into a campaign, though. There are any number of ways you could work di Vinci in with the Shroud; just make it a much younger item than it is. Or maybe he was asked to craft a fake, so that the real image could be locked in a vault to keep it away from the Cthulhu cultists...

Too bad I'm not gonna run any games that could use this any time soon. It has all sorts of possiblities.

 

[Umbran]

Which is along the lines of what I said: the leading theory has flaws to it.

Yep. Just backing you up with flaws that you hadn't mentioned.

In order to get the image to look the way it does, the shroud really would have had to be held flat both above and below -- so it would look like a letter U from the side.

Yes. You might be able to do soemthing long these lines, but not with a statue. What you would need is a well designed etched plate of metal that is heated and then applied to the cloth.

As for why a statue would produce a negative scorched image

It would leave a negative scorched image for about the same reason that you leave handprints - the surface has something on it that interacts with the cloth. You get the negative image because the raised metal surface burns the cloth, while the valleys in the surface don't touch the cloth, and so don't burn them.

Just barely possible, but not plausible. There is no paint residue on the Shroud -- at least if those who studied it did their job right; given that multiple groups have done so, I'd say that it is unlikely that *all* of them missed paint residue. To oxidize the cloth, the paint would have had to have been there for some time. It seems unlikely you could get all the paint off, leave the oxidation, and not damage the cloth, all at the same time.

I say again, you don't have to use paint or pigments at all. It isn't that paint oxidizes the cloth - it's that you applied a chemical oxidizing agent to the cloth in the same manner as paint.

You seem to buy the heated metal story. All that is is a burn on the cloth - which is chemical oxidation. So, why not simply paint a chemical solution on the cloth that will have similar effect? Depending upon the agent in question, it might not leave much in the way of residues after centuries of exposure to air.

And that doesn't explain why someone would paint a negative image, anyway.

Because the artist is trying to create an image akin to having put a cloth against flesh, of course. Whoever made it is tryign to sell it as a burial cloth. A talented sculptor like Da Vinci would realize that the raised portions of the face and body would touch the cloth, and hollws in the face wouldn't. But, he wants an image that'd be recognized by laymen, so he paints it like a painting, rather than like it was really wrapped around the face.

Okay, so I'm resorting to Google: "Leonardo di Vinci" and "died". I don't even have to follow a link: he died in 1519. The Shroud dates back to *at least* the 1300s. Thus, that theory has about as much veracity as the movie "Hudson Hawk".

Ah, but you see, for a very long time, the Shroud was not on open public display. It was locked away in the hands of some noble family (I forget which) for a very long time - possibly centuries, if my memory serves. There is absolutely no proof that the thing we call the Shroud of Turin is the original. We've only the word of some very Machiavellian people. It is possible that the original was even destroyed (likely by fire), and the one we now see a forgery designed to keep that house's prestige intact. All you'd need is an old piece of cloth and an artist...

And, btw, if you compare the image on the shroud to self-portraits by Da Vinci, you find they have strikingly similar proportions in their facial structures. Da Vinci was known to be a vain man with an odd sense of humor. Ankh-Morpork may be correct - it may be Da Vinci's face

 

[Michael Morris]

My thoughts on the shroud are thus: For those with faith - no proof is necessary. For those without faith - no proof will ever be enough.

As to my beliefs, this isn't a place to express them.

 

[tarchon]

I'm 100% sure that the Shroud of Turing is a hoax, I mean, just look at it:

This was obviously made with a silk-screen process.

 

[GreyShadow]

Sure looks like Nyarlathotep's love child to me.

 

[Michael Morris]

Ok, now you guys are crossing into being offensive. It is one thing to declare you don't believe in something, it's quite another to belittle those that do.