Turin Shroud

[Hope]

I have intentionally put this thread in the Science & Technology section because I don't want this to be a discussion about the icon-ic nature of this Shroud, but to look at the science that has been looking at how the image might possibly have been made.

It was triggered by the BBC article:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33164668

[jeremyp]

I have intentionally put this thread in the Science & Technology section because I don't want this to be a discussion about the icon-ic nature of this Shroud, but to look at the science that has been looking at how the image might possibly have been made.

It was triggered by the BBC article:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33164668

Apparently calcium carbonate has been found pretty much everywhere on the SofT.  This is a key constituent of gesso.  The Shroud was a painting, but through handling over the years, all the paint has come off.

[BashfulAnthony]

I have intentionally put this thread in the Science & Technology section because I don't want this to be a discussion about the icon-ic nature of this Shroud, but to look at the science that has been looking at how the image might possibly have been made.

It was triggered by the BBC article:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33164668

Apparently calcium carbonate has been found pretty much everywhere on the SofT.  This is a key constituent of gesso.  The Shroud was a painting, but through handling over the years, all the paint has come off.

Does the rest of the world know you have decided this?

[Hope]

The Shroud was a painting, but through handling over the years, all the paint has come off.

I seem to remember that the article discounted 'a painting'.

[Maeght]

I think there are many who question the findings of the STURP team who carried out the scientific testing of the shroud and reported on it in 1981. One criticism was that the team did not include anyone with expertise on medieval paintings on linen and that the conclusions ruling out such a painting were therefore unreliable. Gesso was certainly used as a base for such paintings, applied with a knife rather than a brush, and would have prevented penetration of the fibres by any paint - an observation used by STURP to rule out painting of the image. The article seems to suggest that no one agrees with the findings of Walter McCrone, who found ochre and vermillion pigments in samples taken from the shroud but this doesn't seem to be true. Two STURP scientists later dismissed his findings and identified the blood to be genuine but they were not experts in forensic analysis of blood stains or of medieval pigments. There is evidence which fits with the shroud being a painted linen cloth of the 14th century which has faded and been damaged and contaminated by repeated handling. It is worth noting as well that there were quite a few shrouds around at one time all of which were venerated. The Turin shroud has survived whereas others have not for various reasons.

[jeremyp]

I have intentionally put this thread in the Science & Technology section because I don't want this to be a discussion about the icon-ic nature of this Shroud, but to look at the science that has been looking at how the image might possibly have been made.

It was triggered by the BBC article:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33164668

Apparently calcium carbonate has been found pretty much everywhere on the SofT.  This is a key constituent of gesso.  The Shroud was a painting, but through handling over the years, all the paint has come off.

Does the rest of the world know you have decided this?

It wasn't me that decided this. 

[jeremyp]

The Shroud was a painting, but through handling over the years, all the paint has come off.

I seem to remember that the article discounted 'a painting'.

Which article in particular?

[jeremyp]

Here's a nice summary of the current situation (with links).

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/11/29/pope-francis-endorses-the-fake-shroud-of-turin/

The cloth is around 800 years old.  The Shroud first appeared in the 14th century.  The local bishop claimed it was a fake.  All the evidence points to it having been made in the 14th century.  What technology besides painting existed in the 14th century?

[Hope]

The Shroud was a painting, but through handling over the years, all the paint has come off.

I seem to remember that the article discounted 'a painting'.

Which article in particular?

The one linked to in the OP - it covers the option of its being a painting, but gives evidence that this would be unlikely. 

Furthermore, this picture is a negative; if the Shroud dates to the early- to mid-2nd Millennium, wh would know about the concept of negatives - again, a question the article raises.

[Maeght]

Furthermore, this picture is a negative; if the Shroud dates to the early- to mid-2nd Millennium, wh would know about the concept of negatives - again, a question the article raises.

I've never really understood the idea that it is a negative. If you look at it the figure is dark on a lighter background which is surely what you would expect if someone painted the linen to show a figure isn't it. The details become more visible in a photographic negative but that doesn't mean the shroud is a negative. Gesso is white so if the linen was coated with gesso then the figure painted wouldn't the paint being applied be darker than the background- which is what is seen?

[jeremyp]

The one linked to in the OP - it covers the option of its being a painting, but gives evidence that this would be unlikely. 

The article is wrong.  There was no other way to make the image than by painting in the 14th century.

Furthermore, this picture is a negative; if the Shroud dates to the early- to mid-2nd Millennium, wh would know about the concept of negatives - again, a question the article raises.

The image as it appears now is easier to see in negative, but that doesn't mean it was painted that way.