length of linen, the Gospel of John describes Jesus' burial as involving multiple cloths, with a separate "napkin" over the face. Neither John nor the Synoptic Gospels Unshrouding the Shroud mentions the burial garments being pre- served, yet some thirteen centuries after the Crucifixion, the "shroud" turned up in the possession of a soldier of fortune who would not or could not state how he acquired the most important relic in Christendom. (Even Joe Nickell pro-shroud author Ian Wilson admits that ow that radiocarbon testing has es- The question of image formation has been this implies some guilty secret.)5 N tablished a medieval date (c. 1260- a major one during the past decade of the Worse, when an investigation was 1390) for the "shroud" of Turin—long bally- controversy. Since the laws of geometry made—as stated in a bishop's report to Pope hooed as the burial cloth of Christ—reaction ruled out simple contact-imprinting from a Clement6—an artist was found who con- has been as strong as it was immediate. body (such images would suffer severe wrap- fessed to having "cunningly painted" the Skeptics, although occasionally pausing to around distortion), and because experiments image. (Consequently, Clement determined pinch themselves, were ebullient over their disproved "vaporography" (the notion that that the shroud was only an artistic "repre- vindication. ammoniacal body-vapors reacted with burial sentation.") In addition, the shroud image Shroud proponents, on the other hand, spices on the cloth to produce a vapor bears "blood" flows that are neat and pic- were universally chagrined, but were other- "photo"), shroud proponents were avowing turelike, that failed to mat the hair, and that wise divided in their response. Some ac- a miracle, while skeptics were suggesting are suspiciously red—unlike genuine blood, cepted the carbon-14 results but still insisted artistry. which blackens with age. the cloth had a mysterious, non-artistic Based on samples removed from the In recent years McCrone—one of the origin: In other words, if it is not a mir- cloth, microanalyst Walter McCrone con- world's foremost microanalysts—discovered aculous shroud, it might nevertheless be a cluded the image had been painted.4 How- that the "blood" was actually tempera paint miraculous icon—remaining suitable for ever, the samples were reclaimed before he containing red ochre, vermilion, and rose veneration and, according to Anastasio had completed his analyses, and in any case madder pigments.? Ballestrero, the Archbishop of Turin, cap- he left unexplained why the image stain did Yet even without scientific tests, the avail- able of performing miracles. not soak into the cloth as the "blood" did. able evidence pointed to a simple hypothesis: Stressing the "mystery of the shroud," the In 1978, the year previous to McCrone's A medieval artist created the shroud. Quite archbishop asserted, "After all this research, analysis, with the encouragement of Paul obviously, that single hypothesis ties to- we do not have any plausible answers to Kurtz and the Committee for the Scientific gether the negative Gospel evidence, the explain how the image of Christ was Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal 1,300-year gap in the historical record, the created."' His scientific advisor, Luigi (CSICOP), I published the results of my original owner's silence, the reported forger's Gonella, added, "The real scientific problem successful experiments in simulating the confession, and the still-red "blood." In fact, is in the strangeness of this object. We have mysterious images. The method, a rubbing the pieces of evidence actually corroborate an object that should not exist."2 technique using a bas-relief sculpture, auto- one another. The medieval confession is sup- Other shroud devotees agreed but, re- matically yields negative images similar to ported by the lack of a record prior to that fusing to accept the new scientific findings, the image on the Turin cloth. Among these time; the unnaturally red "blood" is con- continued to maintain that the shroud is were minimal depth of penetration, encoded sistent with its having been "cunningly authentic. One such diehard, the Reverend three-dimensional information, and numer- painted"; and so on. William Driesbach, an Episcopal priest who ous other shroudlike features. In marked contrast has been the approach heads a shroud center in Atlanta, huffed; Shroudologists, however, rushed to dis- of shroud advocates, who typically began "Before it's over, it will be the accuracy of miss these results on "scientific" grounds. with the desired answer and worked back- the carbon-14 tests [that are] in question, They applied a dubious "image-analyzer ward to the evidence. For example, several not authenticity of the shroud."3 test" that succeeded in reassuring devotees, scientists affiliated with the Shroud of Turin Just what is it about the Turin cloth that securing favorable media attention for Research Project (STURP)8—a group provokes such passion? A major issue con- shroud "science," and deflecting attention whose Catholic leaders also served on the cerns its quasi-negative "self-portrait of from the fact that authenticity advocates Executive Council of the pro-authenticity Christ"—one in which darks and lights are were themselves bereft of any viable Holy Shroud Guild—made statements approximately reversed. This property was hypothesis for the image formation. revealing their bias months before they discovered when the image was first photo- So consistently different, in fact, have examined the cloth in 1978. Robert Dinegar, graphed in 1898. Many have since wondered been the ways in which shroud advocates for instance, said, "I believe it through the how a medieval artist could have produced and skeptics have approached the evidence, eyes of faith."9 a negative image on the linen prior to the that the comparison represents a significant Having thus targeted the wished-for con- invention of photography. lesson to be learned from the extended con- clusion, advocates were unable to see the troversy. profound case against authenticity and in- stead attempted to explain away the damn- Joe Nickell is the author of Inquest of the Skeptical investigators have been prop- ing prima-facie evidence. They offered one Shroud of Turin and a Fellow of the erly content to follow the trail of evidence rationalization for the Gospel evidence, Committee for the Scientific Investigation wherever it may lead. A starting point was another for the lack of historical record, still of Claims of the Paranormal. the Gospel evidence. For example, whereas the Turin cloth is a single fourteen-foot others for the forger's confession, the red Winter 1988/89 51 "blood," and the paint pigments. not forensic serologists, but who nevertheless stone tomb, might have produced the image When shroud proponents turned to scien- claimed that they had "identified" blood. on the cloth through a "mercerization tific analyses, it became even more apparent They eschewed standard tests, dismissed process.") In the future, in light of the recent, that their approach was governed by a de- McCrone's findings (although they them- genuinely scientific findings that have estab- sired answer. A case in point stems from selves discovered vermilion), and opted for lished a medieval date for the cloth, perhaps tests of the "blood" conducted by an offi- an unorthodox approach. In my book In- there will be a decline in such pious nonsense. cial—but once secret—Turin commission on quest on the Shroud of Turin," forensic the Holy Shroud (1969-76). Interestingly, the analyst John F. Fischer details the objections Notes fault lay not with the Catholic scientists (they to their methodology and tells how similar had not been selected from pro-shroud results could be obtained with tempera paint. 1. Roberto Suro (New York Times News rosters) but with the Turin church authori- A further instance of bias is the question- Service), "Church Says Turin Shroud Not from ties. Not only did the latter originally deny able pollen work of the late Max Frei, then Christ's Burial," Lexington Herald-Leader, 0cto- ber 14, 1988. the existence of the clandestine group, hav- a retired criminologist associated with the 2. "Shroud Continues to Enthrall Scientists, ing to retract their denials when the truth official commission. Frei passionately be- Faithful," National Catholic Register, August 18, became known, but they later challenged lieved that the shroud was genuine and stated 1988. their own experts. When the commission that pollens removed from it were "very 3. Philip J. Hilts, "It's 14th-Century, Say the Labs," turned in a moderately skeptical report, typical" of Palestine. Unfortunately, Frei ap- The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 0ctober 3-9, 1988, p. 43. noting that the "blood" failed all tests and parently used no controls and attempted to 4. Walter C. McCrone, "Light Microscopical pointing to traces of what appeared to be match the pollens to the Near East but not Study of the Turin 'Shroud,' " parts I-III, The paint, Turin issued a rebuttal report. The to Europe. This procedure was criticized by Microscope 28 (1980), pp. 105-13, 115-28; 29 forensic experts, it seemed, had gotten a Smithsonian botanist who was skeptical (1981), pp. 19-38. 5. Ian Wilson, The Shroud of Turin: The "wrong" answers. of Frei's ability to differentiate the particular Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ? Revised Edition A somewhat similar episode occurred pollen grains from similar ones in Italy. (Be- (Garden City, New York: Image Books, 1979), with STURP. When STURP member fore his death in 1983, Frei suffered a blow pp. 87-88. McCrone discovered pigments and con- to his credibility when, representing himself 6. The text of the report, written by Bishop cluded the "blood" was tempera paint, Pierre D'Arcis in late 1389, is given in Wilson, as a handwriting expert, he pronounced the 266-72.