The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in
Archaeological Epistemology : Part 6
By William Meacham - Archaeologist
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY - Vol. 24 - NåÁ 3 - (June 1983)
Published by the University of Chicago Press
Copyright 1983 by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research
------------------------------------------------------------
by Alan D. Whanger
Department of Psychiatry, Box 3196, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, N.C. 27110, U.S.A. 2 xii 82
Meacham has written a comprehensive, reasonably balanced,
fascinating, and informative article. I would commend him
for his courage in stating his conclusions in forthright
terms after building his evidence and argument. I have two
minor comments and one major criticism. On the minor side is
the statement that the Mandylion was discovered during a
siege of Edessa, about 525. According to Wilson's
(1979:136-40) documentation, the circumstance was a massive
flood that ravaged much of Edessa in 525, and the Mandylion
was found during the repair process. Another minor point has
to do with the question of the body's being washed.
According to Zugibe (1982), the body was probably partially
washed lightly prior to enshroudment.
Of major importance (from my standpoint, anyway) is that the
author has not seen the work my wife Mary and I did on the
polarized image-overlay technique of comparing the Byzantine
icons and coins with the Shroud image or the work on
identifying the coins over the eyes. Considerable perplexity
is expressed as to the "lost years" of the Shroud, "if
genuine." Our work shows that the Shroud image was well
known in the early part of the 6th century and, being
presumed to be an authentic image of Christ, was
scrupulously copied in many media. Our image-overlay
technique allows minute and detailed comparison of various
images. There is an encaustic icon of Christ in St.
Catherine's monastery at Mt. Sinai (probably a gift of
Justinian I [reign 527-65], who also built the monastery)
which shows at least eight medical diseases on the image of
Christ, all of which can be easily explained in terms of the
artist's having accurately copied the original model
(obviously the Shroud face) on the assumption that it was a
life image and not a death mask. These two images have 45
points of congruence (i.e., identical or very similar
features). The comparison of the Shroud image with a solidus
of Justinian II, struck between A.D. 692 and 695, shows at
least 65 points of congruence, indicating that this coin was
indeed a numismatic icon almost certainly copied from the
Edessan image, as Breckenridge (1959) speculated. The nearly
photographic-copy quality of the coin image (see fig. 1,
1-3) would have certainly required that the die cutter be
looking directly at the Shroud image as he worked. While the
analogy may not be strictly correct, it should be noted that
in a court of law 14 points of congruence are sufficient to
determine the identity of fingerprints, tire tracks, etc. By
examining many early artistic depictions, it can be seen
that within a comparatively few years' time after A.D. 530
the Shroud image had become the prototype for most
depictions of Christ.
Another icon at St. Catherine's monastery is very helpful in
elucidating the probable history of the Shroud. This is the
icon of Abgar V receiving the Mandylion from Thaddeus, which
Weitzmann (1976:94-98) attributes to the middle of the 10th
century. This icon was painted to commemorate the Receiving
of the Mandylion in Constantinople by Constantine VII, whose
face appears on Abgar's body. Assuming that the icon painter
would have preserved the proportions of the face image on
the Mandylion relative to the rest of the panel or frame, I
extrapolated the actual measurements from various
measurements of the face and found that the depicted
Mandylion is about 46 inches wide and about 20 inches high,
very near the measurements of the Shroud of Turin folded to
eight thicknesses as detailed by Wilson (1979), whose work
would tend to be strongly confirmed by our studies. These
observations would have obvious relevance to Meacham's
references to our work, and to the Shroud's first 1,000
years as being a "total blank. " He correctly but only
partially cites our reports on examining the coins over the
eyes on the Shroud. We used the same polarized image-overlay
technique to evaluate the reports of Filas, as he says, and
found in fact that there are identifiable coins over both
eyes. The image of the coin over the right eye is the
clearer of the two, and, in contrast to his statement, the
"letter-like shapes" are clearly distinguishable from the
vagaries of the weave. They virtually exactly match the
lettering on a Pontius Pilate lepton owned by Filas, which
has the misspelled inscription UCAI rather than the usual
UKAI. Our technique enabled us to study the coin more
completely and note 74 points of congruence between the
Pilate lituus lepton and the image over the right eye of the
Shroud (see fig. 1, 4-6). The coin nearly matches the type
illustrated in Madden (1967 [1864]), as no. 14 on p. 149,
except for the misspelling. We also, for the first time,
dated the coin as struck in the 16th year of Tiberius, or
A.D. 29. Interestingly, since people finally started looking
at this seriously, at least six Pilate lepta have been
discovered within the past year with the CAI misspelling,
which was unknown until the Shroud gave evidence of the
existence of such a coin. I have photographs of three of
these, the two datable ones both struck in A.D. 29. The coin
image over the left eye is less distinct but still clearly
identifiable as the so-called Julia lepton of Pilate, struck
only in the year A.D. 29. There are 73 points of congruence
between this coin and the area over the left eye. The
probability of placing two different coins minted in the
same year on a corpse "several decades" after their issuance
is rather remote.
Two of our major comparisons using the polarized
image-overlay technique. The first two photographs on each
line show the two images that are being compared; the third
shows, in static way, the type of comparison that is
possible as the superimposed images are viewed through a
third rotating polarizing filter. The four small black
rectangles on each image are the reference points that allow
for quick and accurate alignment of the two images.
The author, not having seen our confirmatory evidence
himself, is appropriately somewhat tentative in certain
conclusions. Our work has been reported by Filas
(1982:17-19) and is available on professionally prepared
slides, filmstrips, and videotape, as well as having been
internationally shown (albeit briefly) on television. The
static photographs and the videotapes give a fair idea of
the image comparisons, but the dynamic system of the
polarized image-overlay technique provides a far superior
and rather dramatic means of analysis. Over l,800 people
that I know of have seen a demonstration of this technique,
including at least 300 scientists of various sorts and at
least 6 members of the original STURP investigating team.
Not one of these has told me that he or she has not been
able to see the remarkable similarities and identities
between the icon and the Justinian II coin and the Shroud
image, even though I have invited criticism and comments.
While not scientifically valid, typical comments have
included "stupendous," "incredible," "phenomenal,"
"amazing," and "one of the most important discoveries of the
century." The negative comments have come, as far as I know,
from those who have not yet seen the slides or, in some
cases, have actually refused to look at them even when a
personal demonstration was offered. Such a refusal to look
at the results of an analytic technique strikes me as
unscientific and unscholarly and perhaps illustrates the
German proverb that says that "things which should not be,
cannot be." I would even be brash enough to say that anyone
who makes statements about the Shroud image and its history
and comparisons without at least having seriously viewed our
work is at best already out of date.
I consider this article to be one of major importance and
commend CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY for undertaking its
publication. Since the major weakness, as I see it, is
derived substantially from the fact that the author has not
seen our work firsthand, I am sending him my slides to
illustrate the points that I have mentioned. Slide Set G,
entitled "The Shroud Image on an Icon and Coin," skews the
comparison with the St. Catherine's icon and the Justinian
II coin but lists the congruences with a 6th-century mosaic
as well as a 10th-century Byzantine coin. Instructions for
the polarized image-overlay technique are detailed in the
accompanying sheets. The relevant slides have been marked by
a system of reference points devised by my wife to permit
rather rapid and accurate alignment of the superimposed
images. Slide Set I, entitled "Identification of the Coins
Over the Eyes of the Man of the Shroud of Turin," deals with
much finer and, in the case of the left eye, less distinct
detail and is therefore less obvious to the unsophisticated
observer. We do have our points of congruence plotted and
stand by our contentions that the Shroud is self-dating by
the presence of two identifiable coin images over the eye
areas. Certainly others may disagree with our findings or
interpretations, but I feel that anyone making a statement
about the coins without having carefully examined our
material may be leaving the arena of scholarship and
entering that of speculation.
------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY
by William Meacham
Hong Kong. 1983
The skeptics are certainly out in full array among the
commentators - out of all proportion, I might add, to either
their real numbers or the force of their case. If only the
latter were as strong as their rhetoric! It is surprising to
find their arguments directed almost entirely to the
discredited notion of medieval "clever artistry." Mueller
and Cole allege that my treatment of the Shroud is "not a
work of balanced scholarship" because it does not consider
this hypothesis in a substantial manner. I chose not to
convey the impression that "general and powerful arguments"
have been advanced for clever artistry precisely because
none have. I have informed the reader that there are
skeptics (and arch-skeptics), that there are difficulties,
major and minor unresolved questions, many divergences of
opinion among Shroud researchers, and a number of options
short of accepting full authenticity, but I have relegated
the idea that a clever medieval artist could have created
the Shroud to the level of a footnote, in the same way that
reputable scholarship would dismiss questions of
Shakespeare's authorship, Hitler's escape from Berlin, and
outer-space contributions to ancient civilization. Akin in
many ways to these notions, the skeptical case for medieval
artistry is based in part on the denial of empirical data,
is built on a postulated complex of exceptional
circumstance, and is quite untenable.
When Delage's 1902 lecture on the Shroud's authenticity
provoked a storm of controversy, he wrote (1902:683): "If
our proofs have not been received by certain persons as they
deserve to be, it is only because a religious question has
been injected into a problem which in itself is purely
scientific." Unfortunately, little has changed in the
intervening 80 years, and Delage's remark certainly applies
to the comments of Dent, Nickell, Schafersman, and above all
Cole, who even claims that ordinary standards of evidence do
not apply to the Shroud and that I have presented a
"religious apologetic." One can only wonder if Cole has ever
heard or read a "patently religious argument." I
categorically reject the implication that a religious
viewpoint can be discerned in the article or that any
argument is constructed on a theological base. Cole and
Mueller do attempt to press the supernatural into any
argument for authenticity, in spite of the fact that crude
approximations of the Shroud image have been produced by the
use of a corpse and spices, oils, etc., as Cole himself
points out. Injecting the religious/supernatural element
into the issue only distracts from the scientific
evaluation, which is not, as Dent maintains, the use of
science to serve "the opposite camp," but rather the proper
investigation of a material object. The skeptics have not, I
submit, advanced their arguments or camouflaged their highly
vulnerable position by this distraction.
The historical existence of Christ and an object possibly
associated with him are not "intrinsically religious
questions" as Cole mistakenly believes. Emotional issues
abound in science, certainly in the pages of CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY, yet would Cole have exceptional standards
applied to them for this reason? Further, to accept Cole's
"sleeping-dog rule" would excise many legitimate areas of
scientific interest. He violates his own rule in pronouncing
the Book of John "non-historical"; it is generally regarded
as a highly theological eyewitness account. Similar,
Schafersman must be applying extraordinary standards indeed
to reject all reputable scholarship and consider Christ by
"all available evidence to be mythical," whereas only last
year this same evidence made him "think it probable that
Jesus was an authentic person" (1982a:45). Most of
Schafersman's comments are equally in conflict with
empirical data, yet he labels my conclusion on the Shroud as
a "blatant example of human credulity."
Dent seems to be on his own peculiar crusade. Even without
following Binford, Leone, et al., one does not lose sight of
what he is up to - making the Shroud an ideotechnic artifact
so as to dismiss it. The Shroud would be in very good
company, however, as all the material of history,
archaeology, and evolution could also be so described,
following Croce. In Dent's highly ideological comment, he
points out that ideology is a mask and genuinely appears to
believe that, armed with his own particular one, he is able
to "pierce this mask" and perceive that the crucifixion is
"mythologically real but materialistically [sic] and
empirically unreal." Regardless of what mask he adopts, I do
not see how on earth Dent can know the latter. Perhaps he
really intends to refer to the resurrection. If not, for
Dent there is no history, only ideotechnic constructions. He
would presumably use the same terms to describe the
assassination of Gandhi or the reconstruction of
Australopithecus.
For one major misunderstanding that has crept into some
comments I admit responsibility by omission. In concluding
that the case for authenticity is very strong, I had no
intention to imply that further study is not necessary or
desirable. The work done thus far does indicate the
direction of future research projects, as I stated, and
there is a sense in which studies of the Shroud will always
be incomplete. Similarly, in pointing out the limitations of
C14 dating I would not for a moment argue that it need not
be done. To the contrary radiometric dating ranks as the
highest priority at present.
Beyond misunderstanding lies invective, and the comments of
Cole, Nickell, Schafersman, and Mueller are phrased in an
emotive tone not conducive to reasoned discussion. They
bristle with intemperate rhetoric: "gullibility," "credulous
bias," "notoriously subjective," "sheer whimsy," "blatant
example of human credulity," "conceit," and "so-called
evidence," to mention but a few examples. Doubts about
personal competence or expertise emanate from Schafersman
(graduate student) and Nickell (English instructor) like
stones from inside a glass house: Frei's work is
"questionable," STURP members may be pseudo-scientists,
Heller and Adler are "nonforensic scientists," Filas and
Whanger "nonexperts," and Bucklin and Gambescia "religious
devotees of the 'relic.' " Those with views supporting the
skeptics are mirabile dictu described in lavish terms: the
Turin Commission consisted of "forensic experts;" McCrone is
"probably the best-known forensic microbiologist in the
world" and "a distinguished expert"; Baden is not only "one
of America's foremost medico-legal experts," but "one of the
world's most distinguished pathologists." Naturally, the
former group are subject to a pro-authenticity bias, make
"subjective inferences," and find "artifacts of their own
hopes," whereas the latter conduct "impressive analyses" and
make discoveries and "positive identifications." I leave it
to the reader to decide whether this is the type of rhetoric
usually associated with a carefully reasoned argument, not
to mention a "powerful case."
Turning to some of the disputed points of data, the latest
summary of STURP findings (Dinegar 1982:7) does give
credence to both the pollen and the chin band. PeIlicori's
doubt on the pigtail has not to my knowledge been published.
I did not intend to give the impression that STURP was
monolithic in its thinking, and several divergences were
noted; I did attempt to relate what appears to be a solid
STURP consensus. The Turin Commission did not report that
blood penetrated the cloth (Frache, Rizzatti, and Mari
1976:50-51; Fleming 1978:62). The three-dimensional effect
indicates that the image has correct tonal gradations, i.e.,
contour information of a type not seen in medieval
paintings, rubbings, or black prints. The Shroud image may
have faded slightly since 1357, but it is incorrect to state
as a fact that it has faded radically. My suggestion of a
possible "Kirlian effect" was rather speculative, but the
Volckringer phenomenon should have definite applicability,
being essentially a cellulose dehydration process producing
exact, negative images.
The Mandylion's semilegendary history (Wilson 1978:158, 322)
puts its discovery at the time of a Persian siege of Edessa
in 544. I find the Mandylion/Shroud equation extremely
difficult, for the reasons Cameron (1980) cites, especially
the absence of mention of its revelation as a full-length
body image and the lack of discoloration of the exposed
portion of the cloth. On the other hand, the case made by
Whanger, Wilson, and Vignon (1938) before them for the
Shroud image's having been known and copied in early
Byzantine times is quite compelling. I would suggest,
therefore, that the Mandylion was a very early copy of the
Shroud face, perhaps as early as the 1st or 2d century if
the Abgar legend contains a grain of truth, and that the
concept of images miraculously imprinted on cloth by
Christ's face derives from a residual folk memory of the
Shroud and the Mandylion copy of it.
The presence of coins or flat objects on the eyes seems well
established by the three-dimensional reconstructions of
Jumper and Tamburelli. The letter-like shapes are
discernible in the earlier Enrie photographs, and several
numismatists see the possible imprint of a Pilate coin. This
is certainly not a baseless claim or a Rorschach effect, but
it may be the result of a peculiarity of the Enrie film and
technique, not replicated by STURP. Whanger (personal
communication, 1983) points out that there are discrepancies
between the 1931 and 1978 photographs which are not
explained by STURP) and which may be the result of minor
damage to the image in the interval. I fully agree with
Pellicori that, until new strategies are devised, the point
is moot.
Several comments are directed toward my caution with regard
to C14 dating. It is not an infallible technique, and, as
any field archaeologist knows, contamination either in situ
or after excavation is always a possibility to be taken
seriously. Maloney is correct to point out that pretesting
cleansing will remove most of the normal contaminants (humic
acids and lignins), but he errs in assuming that the quoted
margin of error reflects in any way the possibility of
contamination. One can never be certain that material of
more recent age has not been trapped in the structure of the
cellulose, that hydrocarbons have not formed, that ion
exchange has not taken place, etc. Stuckenrath (1965:280)
notes that the result is often more recent than expected and
cites the wide divergence-from 1750 to 800 B.C. - of a
series of 16 contemporaneous wood and charcoal samples;
Peacock (1979:212) and Codegone (1976:40) cite same-sample
inconsistencies; Hamilton (1965:43) cites conflicts between
the C14 results and known historical ages. Alcock, McCrone,
and Schafersman may find my lack of absolute faith in the
method "sheer whimsy," "invalid," or "absurd," but it is
based on experience: more than 50 samples excavated and
prepared and submitted for dating and liaison with major C14
laboratories at Oxford, Canberra, and Teledyne. I believe
that most archaeologists and radiocarbon scientists would
agree that to trust the method to Produce an "absolute date"
for a single artifact is what is absurd. It may, however, be
comforting to Alcock to believe that an ancient date can
easily be accommodated by the skeptics' position while a
recent date would settle the matter. The truth is that no
serious question in archaeology can be settled by a single
date, especially on an artifact subjected to so many
contamination possibilities. I would reject the claim that
there are dated objects "more exposed" than the Shroud. In
any event, what archaeologist worth his salt would give any
credence to a date on an excavated sample which had been
handled by hundreds of workers, kept in CO2-rich and
high-humidity atmospheres, remained missing for a long
while, been boiled in oil (mentioned in a 16th-century
text), washed, burnt and repaired, and touched to the sick
and to fresh paintings, had wax dribbled onto it, etc.?
Unless, of course, the result was to his liking after all!
Backward contamination is so rare that it may be dismissed,
and the eventual dating of the Shroud will at least provide
a minimum age.
The evidence for blood is a point of empirical data on which
the skeptics reveal the weakness of their position and
methods. Nickell quotes the unpublished opinion of "forensic
expert"; Fisher to the effect that the chemical tests were
not specific for blood; McCrone claims that his work
(published in his own magazine) shows no blood. But
according to the work of Heller (Professor of Life Sciences
at the New England Institute), Adler (Professor of Chemistry
at Western Connecticut) and Bollone (Professor of Legal
Medicine at Turin University) - all published in
peer-reviewed scientific journals - "there is nothing else
on earth which could give this battery of positive criteria
other than blood" (Heller, personal communication, 1982).
Claims that false positives could be obtained from a tempera
paint are undemonstrated and incorrect. Nickell counterposes
the Commission's "highly sophisticated tests" - really quite
standard forensic tests, apart from neutron activation,
which Nickell wrongly assumes to have a bearing on the
identification of blood. In his use of their data, Nickell
ignores the conclusions of the Commission experts that
"generic and specific diagnoses of blood on material of a
very ancient date . . . can have a real probative value only
with a positive result" and that their negative finding
"does not allow us to make an absolute judgement on the
exclusion of haematic remains" (Frache, Rizzatti, and Mari
1976:51, 54, emphasis in the original, translation mine). In
view of the positive microchemical evidence for blood and
the positive identification of the blood as primate by both
Bollone and Adler (personal communication, 1983), the
presence of blood traces on the Shroud must be considered as
proven. And, as Maloney points out, there is now strong
evidence (Jumper et al. 1983) that the bloodstains were on
the cloth prior to the body image. Finally ultraviolet
fluorescence and microchemical identification of serum
albumin in the clear areas within the blood flows provide
conclusive evidence that the bloodstains on the Shroud
derive from direct contact with a corpse and not from an
artist's brush.
'The pollen is another case of empirical data subjected to
unreasonable doubt. Frei's pollen evidence does indicate a
Middle Eastern origin for the cloth, which is not too
surprising, as several other linen "shrouds" were brought
back from the Crusades as relics. Pellicori misses the
significance of the pollen as a marker, percentages would be
useful in determining the immediate environment represented
by a deposit but not at all in proving that certain types
are intrusive. The presence on the Shroud of a wide variety
of Palestinian and Anatolian species is ipso facto evidence
of an exposure to air in those regions, unless a similar
presence can be documented in Holocene pollen deposits or on
other medieval artifacts in France or Italy. It may be, as
Mueller contends, that few STURP members give the pollen
data any credence, but this does not detract in the least
from the hard evidence Frei's work has revealed, especially
in the identification of halophytes found almost exclusively
around the Dead Sea. Riggi (1981), a member of STURP, has
reported preliminary findings of Shroud pollen and minute
animal forms "extremely similar in their aspects and
dimensions" to those from Egyptian burial fabrics.
Cole and Mueller challenge my statement on the unanimity of
medical opinion. Obviously, this was not intended to include
every doctor or biologist who has seen a snapshot of the
Shroud and formed an opinion. Baden's remarks are repeated
in no fewer than four comments, but he is a lone sniper
laying siege to a fortified city. Regardless of his
prestige, his opinions appear off the cuff. He has not seen
the Shroud, nor does he appear to be familiar with the vast
medical literature or to have been in contact with other
scholars; he has not published on the subject; he is said to
be "something of an iconoclast" (Bucklin in Rhein 1980:50);
his opinions were given on the basis of magazine
photographs; he cites the fact that linen sheets in his
morgue had never developed an imprint like the Shroud's,
which was termed "too good to be true." This is not to say
that Baden may not have something useful to contribute to
Shroud studies, but the fact that skeptics quote him at this
stage demonstrates their desperation in the medical arena.
In the same vein (apologies!), Nickell's claim that the
pathologist I cited have all been "religious devotees of the
relic" is not merely incorrect, but preposterous, as is
Schafersman's unverifiable notion that skeptical medical
authorities have just not bothered to make their opinions
known. The fact is that a number of investigators (Delage,
Barbet, Modder, Cameron) approached the Shroud with an
initial skepticism. It remains true that all informed and
published medical opinion concurs in interpreting the Shroud
image as the imprint of a crucified body. This evaluation
comes from Protestants, Jews, and agnostics as well as
Catholics, but even for the latter it is totally unjustified
to pronounce them all religiously biased, with scientific
judgement impaired. In sum, I stand by my statement that the
only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this body of
evidence is that cited from the respected archaeological
scientist Stuart Fleming - that the Shroud image is neither
medieval nor artistic in origin.
McCrone and others contend that I have ignored strong
arguments for human artifice, but suggestions that the image
might be a painting, rubbing, or print have been thoroughly
disproved by the recent analyses. It is established that the
visible body image does not reside in a pigment, ink, or
other coloring agent and that it has distinctly different
characteristics from the bloodstains. My dismissal of
McCrone's claims is more than amply justified by the battery
of Commission and STURP tests. Even Mueller, Nickell, and
Schafersman now accept the STURP interpretation of the image
as a cellulose degradation product, but McCrone still
insists that it is a water-color painting with a layer of
pigment. Not only are the iron oxide and other possible
pigment particles present only in trace levels far below the
visible range, but their identification, origin, and
distribution pattern are disputed. Heller and Adler
(1981:93) identify three types of iron compounds on the
Shroud - cellulosic and heme-bound iron and Fe2O3, the
latter concentrated in the water stain margins and possibly
derived from either of the former, from airborne dust, or
from contact with jewellers' rouge on glass. Further, Riggi
(cited in Heller and Adler 1981:97) found no evidence under
electron microprobe of the mineralogical contaminants (Mn,
Co, Ni, Al) invariably associated with iron-earth pigments
of medieval artists, nor did Heller and Adler find such
impurities in microchemical testing. The few isolated
examples of undisputed paint particles, e.g., cinnabar, are
completely consistent with dust deposition. Indeed, among
the millions of particles on the Shroud surface, it would be
surprising not to find traces of pigment, as the Shroud has
been copied at least 60 times.
Even if one ignored the very compelling evidence to the
contrary and granted McCrone's interpretation of the iron
particles and protein, all one could conclude would be that
minute traces of a solution or ointment containing pure
haematite are present in the body imprint. This is of course
a far cry from proving the image to be a painting. As STURP
responded to McCrone's first pronouncements, "microscopic
observations do not exist in a vacuum" (quoted in Sox
1981:61). McCrone is somewhat like Mearns's little man who
"wasn't there again today." He declined at least two
invitations to discuss his findings in the multidisciplinary
framework of STURP; he has declined invitations to present
his work at scientific congresses. He did not follow the
STURP "covenant," which he signed, to publish in
peer-reviewed scientific literature. And, as he admits, he
has not responded in print to the arguments of Heller and
Adler, Pellicori, Riggi, and Schwalbe and Rogers on the
physics and chemistry of the image. He has abandoned his
earlier claims of a synthetic iron oxide (post-1800) in the
image and of a pigment enhancement of the genuine image.
I should interject at this point that the established facts
as reviewed above are more than sufficient to refute the
medieval-clever-artistry hypothesis. A forger could have
obtained a Middle Eastern cloth, could have used some
primate blood (and serum), and could have depicted the body
in flawless anatomical detail, and the pigment could have
disappeared, leaving a faint dehydration image - but that
all of these unprecedented circumstances should have
coalesced in the production of a single relic is virtually
impossible to imagine. And yet, there are much greater
problems in the "viable hypothesis of image formation"
trumpeted by Mueller and Nickell.
[ Click Me ] Go To Part Five . . .
[ Click Me ] Go To Part Seven . . .