Pollens on the 'Shroud': a Study in Deception
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Pollens on the 'Shroud': A Study in Deception JOE NICKELL espite its exposure as an artistic forgery, the Shroud of Turin (which bears the D front and back images of an apparently crucified man) is still promoted as the burial cloth of Jesus by a small, but vocal, group of religious enthusiasts, including a few scientists. They continue to cite the "presence of Pales- tinian pollen grains on the Holy Shroud" (De Vincenzo 1993) as a major counterargument to the carbon-14 test results, which indicated the The Shroud of Turin cloth was of medieval manufacture (Damon et al. 1989; Nickell 1989, 1991). Unfortunately, it has been shown to now appears that the pollen study was an be an artistic forgery, exercise in deception—self-deception, at best, if but a small group of not outright scientific fraud. enthusiasts still cite The analysis was conducted by a Swiss criminologist named Max Frei-Sulzer (1913- the supposed 1983). Frei once taught an evening course in presence of microscopical techniques in the Zurich Univer- Palestinian pollen as sity extension system; subsequently he was a major counter- asked to create a crime laboratory for the local police, which he began in 1950 (Palenik 1982). argument. It now In 1973, as a consultant to a shroud commission appears that the Frei was granted permission to take samples pollen study was an from the cloth. This involved pressing small strips of sticky tape onto the cloth's surface, exercise either in then peeling them off—coated with surface self-deception or debris—and sticking them on microscope slides. outright scientific During the next two years, between jobs as fraud. a freelance criminologist, Frei microscopically examined his tapes and in March 1976 issued a report, claiming he had found certain pollens that "could only have originated from plants that grew exclusively in Palestine at the time of Christ." Frei was also quoted as asserting: "I can state with certainty that the Turin shroud dates from the time of Christ." (Humber 1978: 196; Wilcox 1977:167). Apparently, however, he Summer 1994 area of the Anatolian steppe that includes Urfa (Edessa, in ancient times)—both in Turkey (Frei-Sulzer 1979). He reportedly traveled through the Near East and Turkey "in different floral seasons" in order to obtain pollen specimens to compare with those on the shroud (Frei-Sulzer 1982). The discovery of these addi- tional pollens seemed strikingly to confirm a "theory" of the shroud's history advanced by Ian Wilson. This is an important issue for shroud advocates since the cloth lacks any provenance before the 1350s. Wilson's conjectural history of the shroud begins with the notion that it was the ancient Image of Edessa, also known as the Mandylion. According to a fourth-century legend, Jesus miraculously imprinted his face on a cloth as a gift to Edessan King Abgar, in "consolation" for his affliction with leprosy. The Mandylion remained in ing the frontal image. Edessa until 943, when it was seized was either "misquoted" or withdrew by the Byzantines and installed at this rash statement, because shroud Constantinople. From there, this researcher Ian Wilson (1979:80) soon theory holds, it was eventually taken insisted, "Frei makes no such claims," to France by crusaders (Wilson 1979: describing him as a "cautious indi- 126-191). vidual." However, not only is the story of Subsequently, Frei had also Abgar and Jesus demonstrably apoc- claimed, according to wire-service ryphal, but the Mandylion bore only reports, that "he found traces of a facial portrait, not the twofold ointment made from a type of aloe imprint of a crucified man. It is there- that grows only on the island of fore not surprising that historians are Socotra, off the coast of South Yemen. quick to dismiss Wilson's scenario Ancient texts refer to the ointment (Nickell 1987: 41-48). as having been applied to corpses Nevertheless, Frei's pollen evi- before burial, Frei said." These alleged dence gave Wilson's ideas new cred- findings—consistent with the refer- ibility. In return, Wilson devoted a ence to aloes in the Gospel of John chapter to Frei in his book and gave (19:39)—were presented to the Arch- an extended list of 49 "Plant Species bishop of Turin just in time to make of Pollen Samples from the Shroud (as 1981 Easter news (Dart 1981). identified by Dr. Max Frei)" in an Earlier, Frei had also claimed to appendix (Wilson 1979: 77-81, 293- have found pollens on the shroud that 298). (Later Frei [1982] claimed to have were characteristic of two other non- identified at least 56 different pollen European regions, including Istanbul types.) (formerly Constantinople) and the Still, Wilson did concede "that Frei 380 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 18 ••MHH Photomicrograph of slide 6-B/d from the Max Frei collection. While this detail shows two or three of the many pollen grains found on that tape (which contains much more pollen than all of the other 25 tapes combined), they are from the lead end where Frei's gloves left the myriad of cotton fibers shown crisscrossing the area. Clean gloves should have left no pollens in this area. McCrone labels this—and a suspicious smear of several hundred pollens on the body of the same tape—"contamination." (Photomicrograph courtesy of Paul C. Moloney, ASSIST) was using palynology, the science of have been kept in the course of its pollen analysis, in a particularly history. Another complication is that unusual way." As he explained: "Nor- plants that originally had one specific mally a core is taken from some regional derivation are today found all sedimentary deposit, and by simple over the globe" (Wilson 1979: 79-80). analysis of the pollens at different Related criticisms came from var- levels, a picture can be built up of ious quarters. Some faulted Frei's changes of flora in one region over work for apparently failing to use a given period." He continued: "By control samples. Another problem contrast Frei was trying to use the was the possibility of contamination. method to determine through which According to an article in Science 81, geographical regions one given object, even Shroud of Turin Research Pro- the shroud, had moved, the significant ject (STURP) scientists "say the clues being the identification on the pollens might have been carried by the object of pollen from plants of spe- wind or deposited by the shroud's cifically limited geographical distribu- visitors; its presence does not prove tion." Wilson elaborated: "One of the that the shroud was ever in the Holy complications of the method is that Land" (Burden 1981). many plants are common to virtually However, Smithsonian botanist all areas in which the Shroud might Richard H. Eyde (1986) observed that Summer 1994 381 the real problem with Frei's work was McCrone (1980; 1981) is the noted that he claimed to do that which was microanalyst who discovered paint suspect. Eyde noted that pollen iden- pigments—notably red ochre—on the tification "is not to species save in rare shroud image. cases; rather it is to this or that 'type' Schafersman (1982a) subsequently of [pollen] grain—or to genus or elaborated on his views, terming Frei's species-group." He added: "This is so pollen data "incredible" and casting well known, that the burden of proof suspicion on how the data "supports is on the one who says he's identified in exquisite detail a highly speculative a species by its pollen. The identifier history of the 'shroud's' journey that must say what traits separate the no reputable historian or scientist identified grain from grains of related endorses because there is no inde- plants." pendent evidence for it." Schafersman Other problems with Frei's cred- pointedly observed that at the Inter- ibility were forthcoming. Before his national Congress on the Turin death in 1983, his reputation suffered Shroud in 1978, Frei publicly endorsed a severe blow when, representing Wilson's shroud/Mandylion theory. himself as a handwriting expert, he Schafersman went on to explain pronounced as genuine the notorious how unlikely it was, given the evi- "Hitler diaries," which were soon ex- dence of the shroud's exclusively posed as third-rate forgeries (Brown- European history, that 33 Middle ing 1983). Eastern pollens could have reached the In the meantime, an even more cloth, particularly only pollen from serious question had arisen about his Palestine, Istanbul, and the Anatolian pollen evidence—not just about its steppe. With such selectivity, Scha- interpretation, but concerning its very fersman stated, "these would be existence. Frei's alleged findings were miraculous winds indeed." In an article at variance with those of STURP, in the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Schafers- whose members had taken their own man (1982b) called for an investigation sticky-tape samples from the shroud of Frei's work, for comparison not in 1978 (at which time Frei took a only with STURP's tapes but with second set of samples). Now, it is not "duplicate and independent sticky- true—as shroud enthusiast Daniel C. tape samples of pollen and dust" that Scavone (1989: 44-46) reports (with Schafersman wished to be taken from characteristic inaccuracy)—that "the the shroud. STURP scientists were shocked when Although new samples were not they examined the tapes for pollens taken, after Frei's death another and not one pollen was found on any organization, the Association of of them." However, STURP did report Scientists and Scholars International that "very few pollen were observed for the Shroud of Turin (ASSIST), on the tape samples in the present obtained Frei's tape samples. His project" (Schwalbe and Rogers 1982).