Radio Freethinker

Vancouver's Number 1 Skeptical Podcast and Radio Show

Debunking the Shroud

Posted by Ethan Clow on October 14, 2009

On Episode 30 of Radio Freethinker, download the podcast here; we talked about the Shroud of Turin and some recent scientific tests that disproved its authenticity.

But before we go any further let’s discuss what the Shroud of Turin is. The shroud is a 14 x 3 foot piece of cloth with the image of a man who appears to have been killed by crucifixion. Supposedly, this is Jesus Christ and supposedly it’s stained with his blood, although the Catholic Church does not officially recognize it as authentic.

The shroud itself was formerly the property of the House of Savoy until they gave it to the Catholic Church in 1983.

Since then the shroud has been subjected to carbon dating and now the recent scientific experiments by Luigi Garlaschelli. You can read about that here.

What Garlaschelli did was prove that with materials available in Medieval Europe, one could leave such an imprint on a piece of cloth.

Now this does not prove the shroud is a fake, it was already proved a fake when it was carbon dated several times in 1980’s. The shroud was estimated to be no older than 1260, which would put it right in the period of time of pilgrimage and charlatans creating holy relics and then making a profit off them.

The only “controversy” was that scientist weren’t sure how the image was transferred to the cloth, which led some to proclaim that it could only be a real miracle. However Garlaschelli proves that it was indeed possible, they placed a sheet over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. Then the cloth was artificially aged by heating it in an oven and washing it, this process removed the pigment from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. After that you just have add some burn marks or blood stains to get the final product.

It’s important to remember the implications of relics in the middle ages. And when we considered how relics were treated, created, and used, it gives us a better understanding of why and how the Shroud was reproduced.

The term “relics” applies to material remains of saints and also objects they had contact with. They embodied spiritual power and worked miracles.

There was considerable business in relics. If a church or city had holy relics it would draw pilgrimages from across Europe, therefore, roads, bridges, churches and monasteries would be constantly built and rebuilt along the routes the pilgrimages took.

Frequently new relics would be discovered along the pilgrimage routes, they attracted donations, wealth and prestige. Therefore they became a commodity which was traded and bought and stolen.

As popular as relics were in 11th and 12th centuries, relics exploded on the scene in the 13th century. This coincides with the sack and fall of Constantinople and the distribution of its wealth and relics. And of course, the multiplication of relics… which leads us to the Shroud of Turin. With all these relics floating around, being bought and stolen here and there, frequently you would find that one holy relic would appear in more than one place at once. Such a thing happened with the Spear of Destiny in Constantinople and Rome…

But that means that the more recognized your relic is, the more realistic it looks…the more reason people have to believe that yours is the real one. And that means pilgrimages to your city or church. So there was every incentive to make the Shroud of Turin and make it look as real as possible.

Now this doesn’t matter to true believers. To them, the Shroud is genuine and nothing we say will ever change their minds. Here’s a quote by Garlaschelli with regards to people believing him: “If they don’t want to believe carbon dating done by some of the world’s best laboratories they certainly won’t believe me,” Quite true. But as skeptics I think it’s interesting to understand the origins of such myths. Further, if we understand why such relics came to be in the first place it allows us to get a better understanding of the meaning the relic has in current times. By extension, it gives us a historic perspective to the Catholic Church and the middle ages.

Ethan the Freethinking Historian.


5 Responses to “Debunking the Shroud”

  1. Dan Porter said

    Lots of errors. See the posting at the Shroud of Turin Blog.

  2. Ethan Clow said

    I read your review of my post on your site. Thanks for the plug. But I must take issue with some of your claims. I’d like to suggest a couple sources: and First of all the study by Raymond Rogers was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal but again that doesn’t mean it was correct. Creationist articles occasionally get published in scientific journals as well. What could easily have happened was that editor in chief sent Rogers paper to other pro-authenticators and they functioned as the “peer reviewers.” Nevertheless there are some major problems with Rogers’s logic. The references Rogers uses were not peer reviewed or accurate, in fact the authors of these papers had their research rejected by the journal Radiocarbon. His main claim is that 1) the shroud used for dating in 1988 was from a newer piece of cloth and 2) his own method of dating is more accurate. Rogers claimed the test part was a replacement to the Shroud due to fire damage. He makes this conclusion based on two pieces of threads since the sample was destroyed during the initial testing. See main claim that observations of linen-production technology, chemistry of fibers, and amount of vanillin in lignin and gum Arabic all indicate that the shroud is far older than the middle ages. However, the cotton and madder that Rogers claims in only found in the sample is actually present everywhere on the shroud. Microanalyst Walter McCrone was employed by STURP (a pro-authentication special interest group) to examine the shroud. His discoveries didn’t suit STURP so they held him to a secrecy agreement. Nevertheless he noticed the cotton all over the shroud. He also determined that the “blood” was actually the work of an artist and nothing more. Skeptics suggest the cotton could have come from anywhere, the clothing of the people handling it for instance.Regardless, the cotton is not an accurate way to date it. His other point, using his method of dating based on the presence of vanillin in the lignin area of the sample is rather doubtful based on the size of his sample. He freely admits it can only give an accuracy range of 1700 years. Meaning he could be completely wrong by 1700 years.

  3. Brödus Hook said

    Actually there were errors in the carbon dating and those scientists didn’t follow proper protocol. First, they took it from ONLY ONE AREA OF THE CLOTH, they should have taken it from three. This piece was an outside corner and likely one of the most handled areas of the shroud and may very well have been sewn by poor claire nuns. Second, microchemical tests to make sure that piece was representative of the whole cloth that should have been conducted, WERE NOT PERFORMED. Very little artistic substances were found on it, with the exception of flecks from artists who traced it. No brushstrokes were found.

  4. Ethan Clow said

    @ Brodus

    Why take three samples? The evidence I’ve read doesn’t mention errors during the carbon dating process. The piece taken was not from the corners but rather from the “main body of the shroud” [Damon 1988, 612] Besides which, the carbon dating is only one part of the evidence that casts doubt on the shroud. Dr. Garlaschelli’s experiments prove that it would be possible to someone in medieval times to create a shroud like object. Essentially it was technologically possible to create a convincing shroud, and when you consider the other potential gains for creating one, it makes the medieval date more likely.

  5. john said

    I cannot accept the Shroud as an artistic work, or a fake. This is one more anomalous artifact presented to us, by us, as a reminder that “reality” is much richer, varied, flexible and spectacular than any materially oriented rational mind can comprehend. Just for kicks… see if Jesus has a belly button.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s