Turin Shroud Older Than Thought

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

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.

One should not ask why Nyarlathotep does what he does.

 

[Angcuru]

What are the origins of the shroud that we know of, exactly? When did it first 'appear'?

From what I know, it first 'appeared' in the middle ages. So I'm wondering that if it actually does date back to the time of Jesus, why the big gap?

 

[Cyberzombie]

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.

That could work, too. Either PBS or Discovery had a series on ancient engineering a while back. The engineers consistantly made the mistake of assuming that ancient and mideval peoples always choose the most efficient method of doing something. In this case, Umbran's idea of a metal plate would be the most efficient. But your method, though more complicated, could just as easily be used. Sure, it's more complicated, but perhaps whoever did it didn't know an easier way, or didn't think of it. Modern engineers are so efficient because there are thousands of them comparing notes over the last several centuries. Whoever did this probably only had themself and whatever knowledge they gained from their apprenticeship.

 

[Cyberzombie]

From what I know, it first 'appeared' in the middle ages. So I'm wondering that if it actually does date back to the time of Jesus, why the big gap?

One theory I've heard is that it was captured/found in Jerusalem, or in another of the Crusador states, probably by the Templars. (Which immediately makes the story suspect -- as with conspiracies, any mention of the Templars is suspicious.) They would have brought it back to Europe with them, so it would first appear in Europe about when the Shroud is first documented.

If you remove the Templars from the equation, it's certianly possible that some Italian (or maybe French) knight "acquired" the genuine Shroud in Jerusalem and brought it back to Europe, where it ended up in Turin. It seems like the thing bounced around from place to place for a while...

So the fact that the Shroud first shows up then does not necessarily say anything about its authenticity.

 

[Umbran]

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...

Having poked around a bit, I've found something even better, insofar is it is more fun to think about

I just flat don't believe it was done with chemicals. Chemicals leave residues, and chemistry back in the 13th or 14th centurey *sucked*.

Chemicals leave residues... unless you wash them out!

Try this one - while modern photography and "photonegatives" weren't known 700 years ago, some basic optics were known even to Aristotle. It is known that Leonardo da Vinci knew the theory and workings of the camera obscura - essentially a pinhole camera. Drawings of such are in his papers. So the man knew how to throw an image onto a surface.

Take a large cloth. Paint it all over with the appropriate mild oxidant solution - yes chemistry was lousy then, but you don't need it to be good, by today's standards, in order to work. Throw an image on the cloth using a camera obscura. The light energizes the oxidant, burning the image on the cloth. You then launder the cloth, washing out the oxidant, but leaving the image.

All in all, it's way too fun and exciting to be true.

Oh, I'm quite well acquainted with the "Too cool to be true" rule. It holds for the hard sciences as well. We don't have aliens and flying cars because they'd be just too cool

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.

Why? Well, try this...

In Da Vinci's time, in Italy, having religious relics gave a family considerable clout. The Shroud was owned by the Savoy family. The Savoys had aspirations (and they achieved them, eventually becoming the royal family of Italy). The Savoys had a shroud since back in 1464 or so. But they didn't show it off much, and at least one local bishop declared it a fraud, and the Pope had to shut him up.

So, the Savoys are climbers, and want a nice shroud to exhibit. The Duke of Savoy had a son-in-law named Giuliano de Medici. Da Vinci worked for Guiliano, among others. Surely, the Savoys could afford to pay Da Vinci a considerable sum for the work. If that failed, Da Vinci was a vegetarian and practitioner of certain sexual practices the church frowned upon. If need be, Da Vinci could be pressured into making the thing.

Interestingly, in 1494, the Savoys switched from showing the shroud every decade or two to showing it every few years. Perhaps they were presented with a shroud that was better to look at?

 

[Cyberzombie]

...You then launder the cloth, washing out the oxidant, but leaving the image.

Possible, but still unconvincing. For me, at least. But it beats the hell out of a straight painting theory.

Oh, I'm quite well acquainted with the "Too cool to be true" rule. It holds for the hard sciences as well. We don't have aliens and flying cars because they'd be just too cool

Heh. Flying cars are easier, though. Most people can't drive *ground* cars with any proficiency. Add another dimension and most cities would become smoking craters within days...

Why? Well, try this...

Oh, by the large number of "why"s, I meant in campaign terms. Your idea is perfectly reasonable for a realistic setting, but you could include the Shroud and Leonardo in any setting from historical realism to horror to sci-fi.

 

[Shemeska]

The Savoys post date the Turin shroud

What are the origins of the shroud that we know of, exactly? When did it first 'appear'?

From what I know, it first 'appeared' in the middle ages. So I'm wondering that if it actually does date back to the time of Jesus, why the big gap?

Well documented:

The cloth we now call the Shroud of Turin first appears in the hands of a french noble by the name of Geoffrey de Charny in 1349. In 1355 he petitioned the Pope to construct a church in Lirey to honor the Holy Trinity. At this chapel the Shroud was first exhibited in public, though how long the Shroud had been in his hands is semi-speculative.

The Shroud remains in the hands of the de Charney family for approx. 100 years before it passes into the hands of the Savoy family. Ditch the Leonardo de Vinci theories guys... the modern shroud predates him and the Savoys by about 100 years.


Semi-speculative:


Going back to the sacking of Constantinople during the Crusades there was a relic in that city housed in the Pharos chapel known as the Edessa cloth (also referred to later as the Mandylion). Records from the period give the cloth a similar appearance to that later known as the Shroud of Turin, and the relic, along with many of the valuables in the chapel and the Bucholean Palace was plundered by the french knights who took part in the seige and subsequent looting. There is suggestive evidence that the Edessa cloth resurfaced in Athens three years later in the hands of Otto de la Roche, an associate of the Marquis Boniface de Montferrat who organized the looting by the french.

Then we have a gap from about 1204 to the 1350s in which there is no mention of either the Edessa cloth or the Shroud of Turin. It is possible that they are both the same relic.

Going back to Geoffry de Charney, he has the same name as another french knight who was burned at the stake in 1307 for heresy as a member of the Templars. 50 years or so later, a member of his family displays the shroud in public. The Edessa cloth may have passed from Otto de la Roche through various members of the French nobility and into the hands of the Templar, though the evidence is implied and speculative.

The Shroud after the 1350's is well documented, and the Edessa cloth before the fall of Constantinople is itself well documented (church records, papal letters, etc) since it first appears in extant records since around 544. The Edessa cloth was folded and was said to contain an image of Christ's face, and many have assumed then that it and the Turin cloth are different relics since the Turin cloth holds a full body image. However records from 944, written by Gregory Referendarius, the archdeacon of Hagia Sophia in constantinople, refer to the Edessa cloth being folded multiple times to show only the face, but that the full unfolded cloth bore the faint image of a crucified man, presumably that of Christ. It may be inferred from evidence of such folds on the Turin shroud that it and the Edessa cloth are the same artifact.

 

[Cyberzombie]

Thanks, Shemeska! Like I said, it's my dad that studies this, not me. Everything you typed matches my memories, though, so I can confirm that. It's the chain that makes it *possible* for the Shroud to be a truly ancient relic.

Just a side note: it's Leonardo DI Vinci.

 

[Umbran]

. Ditch the Leonardo de Vinci theories guys... the modern shroud predates him and the Savoys by about 100 years.

The story of the shroud may predate Leonardo, yes. But what proof do we have that the cloth that showed up in 1349 and the one shown by the Savoys in 1494 are the same piece of fabric? The word of the Savoys? As if power-hungry Italian nobles in the Renaissance would be trustworthy when talking about an item that grants political power? We sure don't have photographic evidence, or material samples or anything.

Assuming the shroud is not the burial cloth of Jesus Christ (and that's a good bet, since the images on the front and back don't even match in size or positioning), someone had to make it, right?

For all it's flaws when viewed with modern measuring tooks and instruments, the shroud is a wonderful piece of artwork. I'm not an art historian by any stretch, but some documentaries I've seen argue for Leonardo or one of his contemporaries based upon the art alone - it being far more reminicent in style to a late-1400s artwork than a mid-1300s.

 

[Umbran]

Heh. Flying cars are easier, though. Most people can't drive *ground* cars with any proficiency. Add another dimension and most cities would become smoking craters within days...

And I expect a discussion of whether that woudl be a good thing would be a bit too much of a hijack

Oh, by the large number of "why"s, I meant in campaign terms. Your idea is perfectly reasonable for a realistic setting, but you could include the Shroud and Leonardo in any setting from historical realism to horror to sci-fi.

True. But in creating fantastic stories, it helps to have a good handle of mundane ones. Heck, one of the best ways to make a fantastic story is to use a real one. As Twain said, "The best way to tell a lie is to tell the truth, and make it sound like a whopper."

Just a side note: it's Leonardo DI Vinci.

Just an aside to the side note - standardized spelling is a fairly modern thing. I am fairly sure 15th century Italian wasn't standardized yet, as my wife has to deal with it in translating dance and cooking texts from that era. So it could be Da or Di, depending upon who you ask.

Which brings me to an idea for a comedy game, in which the characters must deal with the famous man's much less well known cousin, Leonerdo, the original Renaissance geek.