Turin Shroud Older Than Thought

[Fate Lawson]

Not for me to say it's real or not real. But as for making a "burned" or "etched" photo-realistic negative image....

Let us postulate that someone is doing a "sand-casting" for a statue in two halves to be pinned or welded together. So we have two "sand box" molds. Said sand-boxes are sitting head to head on one long strip of cloth. Molten metal is poured into sand. Heat dissapates through sand into cloth. Where sand is thinnest, more heat to cloth, more scorching; where sand is thickest, less heat to cloth, less scorching. One "photo" image.

 

[tarchon]

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.

If you would care to point out any belittling that actually occurred, I would be happy to apologize. Otherwise, please consider the possibility that humor peripherally related to a topic is not in and of itself belittling anything related to that topic (though I admit to mildly poking fun of pro-hoax explanations with the "silk screen" comment). See "Turing" is very similar to "Turin" and the "Shroud of Turing" is a pun realized as an inherently absurd concept, a photoshopped picture of Alan Turing. Compare the well-known cartoon of "the Holy Grell."

 

[Shemeska]

Having looked at both the various examinations of the shroud, its defined history, and its speculative history, I've got a rather mixed opinion of it, being both a Christian, a scientist, and a rather potent skeptic.

I feel that the Shroud is likely from the time period in or around 30ish AD, however as to the source of the image, I simply can't say but I'm open to any and all possibilities, both intentional and unintentional creation. I'll neither exclude or affirm any link to the historical Christ, though there's plenty of lore to link them, though little of it documented (though several texts from Constantinople, previous to the Turkish conquest of it, make mention of a cloth that resembles what we would call the Turin shroud. It might be it, it might be an earlier cloth that the Turin shroud was based upon, but the date is earlier than that of the Turin cloth in France, or the suggested hoax dates)

Then there's the semi-plausible link to the Sudarium of Oviedo, which has a fairly well documented history in Spain since the 7th century (older than most all claims of a date for the Turin cloth, both its documented emergence in France and most claims of forgery in the middle ages). The putative blood stains on the Sudarium, held to have been the seperate cloth on the head from the main shroud in hebrew burial customs, match very closely with those on the Turin shroud. I'll admit that it's possible that the Sudarium was used as a model for the Turin cloth, if one goes with the later origin story, or they both may have been based on a now lost original cloth.

I can't say, but I can't wholly dismiss the claims out of hand (though the carbon dates are certainly something that tosses a wrench into those claims).

 

[Algolei]

If you would care to point out any belittling that actually occurred, I would be happy to apologize.

I thought he was just kidding.

Now, check out this quote from the original site pointed to by Krieg:

The history of the cloth has been steeped in mystery. It has survived several blazes since its existence was first recorded in France in 1357, including a mysterious fire at Turin Cathedral in 1997. [emphasis mine]

"Mysterious fires," eh? Hmmm! Clearly this shroud has pyrotechnic capabilites of some sort, even if it's not immune to the flames itself.

 

[tarchon]

HI can't say, but I can't wholly dismiss the claims out of hand (though the carbon dates are certainly something that tosses a wrench into those claims).

The article is what I have more trouble with than the shroud itself. The shroud is obviously a very real and significant artifact, whatever its origins. The 13th century date is fairly strong, but it's difficult to completely rule out that it could be an actual burial shroud, whatever the date. But if it is a manufactured artifact, it is without a doubt the greatest paragon of reliccraft of the Middle Ages, one might even say an inspired work of art. There is also the possibility that the putative creator intended it solely as a devotional work, rather like an icon, but that the provenance was "exaggerated" as it moved down the chain of custody.

 

[Shemeska]

There is also the possibility that the putative creator intended it solely as a devotional work, rather like an icon, but that the provenance was "exaggerated" as it moved down the chain of custody.

*nod* Even if you went with the assumption that it wasn't related to the historical burial cloth of Christ, regardless of the Turin cloth's actual date of origin, I'd argue that such is the most likely case, rather than a blatant hoax intended to decieve. It's fascinating either way, and the official Vatican stance on the shroud is that it should be seen as such a devotional work (though if it was proven to be -the- shroud, I could see that altered slightly).

 

[Torm]

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.

Neither is entirely true - it depends on what you're trying to prove....

There is no reason questioning the validity of the Shroud of Turin should be taken by anyone as a proof or denial of their religion - there are plenty of Christians who, knowing that particular bit of cloth's known history, question whether or not it was really Christ's burial shroud, and there are a number of scientists, christian or not, who believe that the shroud is the right age and could have been the burial shroud of Jesus Christ, a real historical man. Neither group is commenting on the divinity of Christ - His divine status is completely irrelevant to the question.

Now, to de-hijack a little: How about a plot in which some group that knows the shroud is real but is on "the other side" (Satanic cult, actual demons, etc) has been actively working to discredit it (and other Biblical artifacts) as one of the more passive parts of a campaign to reduce the number of the faithful believers in an upcoming battle of some sort - maybe not the battle, but a secret one that might or might not lead into that, depending on its outcome.

 

[reanjr]

Kinetics for dating?! If they really wanted to know the age, they'd radiocarbon the putatively original parts, but I'm guessing they won't. I suppose if they did, it would just turn out that the most recently tested part was a "patch" too.

Radiocarbon dating only works on certain materials, is not extremely accurate, and if I recall correctly, is pretty much useless for something this young.

 

[tarchon]

Radiocarbon dating only works on certain materials, is not extremely accurate, and if I recall correctly, is pretty much useless for something this young.

Quite the contrary - radiocarbon works better for younger samples because the remnant C14 is available in much greater quantities, thus less relative error. It's when you get to 20000-50000 YA that it starts to trail off. This happens to be an ideal subject for radiocarbon, a thousand years or two old and made of plant material. Kinetic dating is extremely wonky since the decay rate is exponentially dependent on temperature and also often prone to deviation due to catalytic effects, pH varations, light exposure, and so on. I really never have seen anyone who was able to establish a chemical kinetic time scale that could be used with any confidence, though it has been proposed in many forms. I think protein racemization is the most solid that I've heard of, but it's still wonky.

 

[Cyberzombie]

First off, Spoony Bard (known here under his devious pseudonym of Michael Morris): Grow a sense of humour already!

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.

Hmm. Now that is a theory I hadn't heard. That would be much easier to control, and create a much more reliable "product". Dunno why I didn't think of that myself; it seems such a logical idea...

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.

Thanks. I couldn't remember that at all.

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.

I just flat don't believe it was done with chemicals. Chemicals leave residues, and chemistry back in the 13th or 14th centurey *sucked*. Maybe they could have done it, but my studies into alchemy give me little confidence in their abilities. I could still be wrong, but I think a scorch is more likely.

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

Okay, here's why I flat out don't believe the di Vinci connection: I have done fairly extensive studies in linguistics. Now, that would seem totally unimportant to this case, but bear with me. Trivia books often include origin stories for words. If those stories involve a famous person, chances are good the story isn't true. If the story is exciting, I can pretty much guarantee the story isn't true. The more boring the story, the more likely it is to be true.

I have found that this property of linguistic history applies to other types of history. Your theory involves Leonardo di Vinci, one of the most famous people in all of history. Your theory also involves a *very* exciting storyline -- with forgery and conspiracy. (Having also studied conspiracies quite a bit, the fact that a conspiracy would be involved *also* makes the story unlikely.) All in all, it's way too fun and exciting to be true. But it makes for a lovely storyline, especially given all the varied reasons WHY Leonardo di Vinci would be forging a then semi-obscure religious relic.