Posted on 06/07/2012 3:52:04 PM PDT by NYer
Marco Tosatti
Rome
In a recent conference held in Valencia, on the Holy Shroud, the work of one Marzia Boi, a university researcher at the University of the Balearic Islands stood out in particular. Boi is an expert in Palynology, which is the science that studies pollen.
As history lovers may already know, the fabric of the Holy Shroud is covered in pollen and Boi’s report clearly highlights that the pollen is proof that the shroud, which is kept in Turin, was a winding-sheet and was used according to rituals common in the Middle East over a thousand years ago. We have therefore taken the liberty of drawing the following conclusion (which we would like to point out was never made by the researcher herself): this discovery is strong proof against the theory of the shroud being a medieval fake. It seems somewhat incredible (and it would be a true scientific miracle) that a medieval forger would have known what ointments and oils were used in Jewish funeral rites in I century AD and that this same forger would have put together aromas and ointments in the knowledge that a few centuries later tools that had not yet been invented might reveal his work.
Marzia Boi wrote in her report in Valencia: “ The pollen traces on the Holy Shroud which have so far been linked to the geographic origin of the relic reveal what oils and ointments were put both on the body and on the sheet. These discoveries have an ethno-cultural meaning linked to ancient funeral practices. These non-perishable particles capture the image of a 2000-year-old funeral rite and thanks to them it was possible to discover what plants were used in the preparation of the body that was kept in the sheet. The oils allowed the pollens, as fortuitous ingredients, to be absorbed and hidden in the shroud’s fabric like invisible evidence of an extraordinary historical event.” According to Jewish custom the dead bodies and the winding sheets were treated with oils and perfumed ointments following a meticulous ritual.
Boi’s research analyses published work concerning the pollen residues on the Holy Shroud. Max Frei, the great Swiss expert on the subject, left a wealth of documentation. The analysis, carried out with more advanced tools than those available over thirty years ago, has made it possible for Boi to rectify some mistakes in pollen-identifications. Among these, an particularly important discovery was made: “I can see that what was believed to be Anemone pollen, actually comes from Pistacia. I identify pollen from Ridolfia Segetum as coming from a plant called Helichrysum which is part of the Asteraceae family.”
She also made another discovery. The pollen which had originally been identified as Gundelia Tourneforti (tumbleweed) pollen, is actually not. Gundelia Tourneforti is one of the 23,000 species in the world belonging to the Asteraceae family and it grows in the mountain-deserts across Asia Minor. In 1999 two great Jewish experts, Danin e Baruch, in their book “Flora of the Shroud”, confirmed that the pollen on the shroud came mainly from the Gundelia species and suggested that the Crown of Thorns might have been made with the leaves of this plant.
Marzia Boi disagrees. Her examination with the electron microscope yielded a different result: the main pollen residue comes neither from Ridolfia, nor Gundelia, but from Helichrysum (29.1%). Cistaceae pollen (8.2%), Apiaceae pollen (4.2%) and Pistacia pollen (0.6%) are also present on the shroud in smaller quantities. “All the plants mentioned here are entomophilous, that is, their pollen is carried by insects rather than air. This shows that there must have been direct contact with either the plants or the materials used for the funeral. The list of pollens reveals traces of the most common plants used in ancient funerals. The pollens identified clarify that the holy shroud was rubbed with oils and ointments, just as the body contained within it did.” There used to be a balm made from Pistacia leaves, fruits and bark that was also used as an ointment. However, a high quality oil was once produced from the Helichrysum and this oil was used to protect both body and shroud.
“The use of this oil in ancient funeral rites is documented in various countries, from Arabia to Greece.”
Marzia Boi concluded: “Identifying the main pollen traces found on the Shroud captures a snapshot of a funeral rite that followed the customs of Asia Minor, 2000 years ago. They are the components of the most precious oils and ointments of the time and have extraordinarily remained sealed in the fabric… The correct identification of the Helichrysum’s pollen, wrongly believed to be that of the Gundelia flower, confirms and guarantees that the body wrapped up in the sheet was an important figure.”
Since I have literally posted dozens of such articles on Freerepublic from those journals, I am not going to do your homework for you. The articles exist. There is no single extant historical object that has been subjected to the scientific and scholarly scrutiny the Shroud of Turin has. . . nor the number of published articles. Not one other. If you can name one, feel free. There are lots of articles on FreeRepublic relating to the Shroud and a Shroud of Turin Ping List which I maintain with several hundred members all who can vouch for the accuracy of my information. You are the one who is unaware of the science that has been done.
Try looking at Shroud.com the website maintained by Barrie Schwortz, the principal light photographer of the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), who is Jewish, which maintains a clearing house of scientific and scholarly papers on the Shroud. Or you could look at fellow freepers more accessible Shroud ABC Which has a lot of the data in article form.
Incidentally, many of the shroud researchers are not Christian... some are Jewish, including Barrie, Dr. Alan Adler and Dr. John Heller, the blood specialists. All are excellent scientists trying to investigate a mystery... and all EXCEPT Dr. Walter C. McCrone, an atheist, submitted their work to peer-reviewed scientific journals. McCrone published his ONLY in his own in-house magazine, The Microscopist, edited and reviewed by Walter C. McCrone.
About the answer I expected.
Thank you for the ping...and for your excellent post #13! Really appreciate all that you do.
It's not his job to do your research, it's your job to prove or disprove any of the data.
Christ lived and died nearly 2 thousand years ago - leaving a rather large "window of opportunity". This proves nothing. Indeed, time and again, God has specifically avoided leaving objects of worship because people become idolatrous.
Thing is - even if this really IS Christ's burial should - we will not know. We don't have DNA evidence. WE don't have any way to prove it. And what is the point of saying "where's your faith?" Personally, I don't need some 1000+ year old piece of fabric to tell me my Savior lived, died for my sins, and rose from the grave. THAT is where my faith is, not in some piece of fabric that nobody can prove where it came from.
What data?
Thanks for this interesting post. I believe the Shroud is real and that Christ left it for people who need tangible signs. He reached out to all of us in all generations in every possible way.
Won’t lead you by the hand.
Gee, he provided links and yet you cannot even get yourself to go study them?? You don't have the honesty or integrity to admit that you have absolutely no interest in studying the Shroud. You only want to insult those who have studied it at great length.
The rudeness you have expressed is to be expected.
Some of the scientific data from the 78 testing was flawed in samples taken, and some ignored and not followed up. If that material was still available, it should be given another go around with the improvements in technologies since then.
Whether you believe the Shroud is real or not, the one simple fact remains that it takes extraordinary effort to even come close to replicating it.
“You infer to this medieval faker an encyclopedic knowledge that is far MORE miraculous than if it IS the Shroud of a known miracle worker!”
Swordmaker, you are correct. Each confirmatory scientific analysis on the Shroud is in itself amazing. The evidence has been unfolding over many years, and I have found it extraordinary.
There are those who absolutely will not accept any of the positive evidence from scientific evaluation on the Shroud because they consider it ‘another of those Catholic relics’ that should have no standing.
Why is it so hard to believe that God might want such a thing as this Shroud to be preserved and found? Our same God put signs in the heavens to proclaim the birth of His Son Jesus. Signs that Eastern ‘astrologers’ were able to read and understand...hence the three ‘wise’ men who came to give Jesus homage. Why not evidence to establish the power unleashed when new life entered the body of our Lord Jesus as he resurrected from the dead?
Btw, I am not a member of the Roman Catholic church, but I am a member of the body of Christ, and I cannot toss disparaging darts at the Shroud each time there is additional evidence that it could really be the Shroud that covered the body of my Lord and Savior.
To quote from the article you linked:
The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries.
There is one major problem with Garleschelli's cartoonish attempt at making a shroud duplicate. He hasn't. Even superficically his image shows none of the subtle shading of the original. Most importantly is the fact the original image fibers contain NO PIGMENT, or pigment residue all the way down to the electron microscopic level. Even devices capable of determining subtle variations in the composition of the inert vinyl of the sample bags the thread samples were placed in after being taken could find no trace of any pigment! Garleschelli's laughable attempt at reproducing the Shroud of Turin did not evince any of the quasi 3D terrain mapping of the original (it's a mere transfer print), the image exists under the blood stains he placed, is easy to see close up, is soaked into the fibers, and appears on the back of cloth, both conditions unlike the Shroud. In other words, it fails ALL tests required to duplicate the Shroud in all respects. Earlier attempts by Joe Nickell did a better job, although they failed the same requirements.
Much of the material is being re-evaluated on an on-going basis. Exactly what data do you maintain was flawed in the samples taken in 1978? What has been ignored? What not followed up on? You might be surprised at what has been done in the 34 years since 1978.
Unfortunately, an idiotic, self-proclaimed fabric expert, Mechthild Flury-Lemburg, convinced the even more ignorany and idiotic custodians of the Shroud to permit it to be secretly "restored" in 2002 and that so-called restoration destroyed much of the in situ evidence on the Shroud by vacuuming, washing, stretching, steaming, cutting away "still burning" sections (from the fire of 1532!!! I know, I know!), and a host of other ill-advised offenses against the Shroud's original, pristine untouched status! Finally, she suggested the cloth be stored in an atmosphere heavily saturated with hydrocarbons, saturating the cloth with modern C14!!! An Idiot of the 32nd order!
This means that the Shroud itself is no longer a good primary source for samples! It has been irreparably compromised by bad decisions made without scientific input!
The presence of pollen on the Shroud has been known for decades. Israeli botanist Avinoam Danin and Dr. Alan Whanger (Professor Emeritus, Duke University....and a personal friend) laid out this work many years ago.
By the way, the cloth wasn’t “wound” at all.
“They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face. The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries.”Not even close.
Excellent post. I have only half- heartedly followed the evidence on the Shroud. Your post has given me the incentive to research further. Thanks.
Now as to the data, reviewing the C14 info, and the previous botanical data should shed newer light on the Shroud's travels.
The skeptics will always call it a fake, those who have faith will always believe.
As for me. for the Shroud to be a fake would have taken an intimate knowledge of the implements used by the Romans at the time of Christ, the linen, weave, materials available, the method and tools for the abuse of the body depicted, and a volunteer to not only take the abject abuse, but die in the process. They would have to know bloodflow in both living and dead individuals, and the dynamics of crucifixion as practiced by the Romans.
And that is just to name a few things to believe it's a fake.
I'd agree with that. This one wasn't. It wasn't even in the top 50. *Grin*
And that is just to name a few things to believe it's a fake.
Exactly... but at that time, given the general degree of gullibility, all it would take to fool both churchmen and pilgrims of the period is to use a long table cloth complete with grease and stains, splash pig, chicken, or beef blood on it, allow to dry and dirty it up, and claim it's the "Shroud of Christ", and voilá, instant relic, sufficient to bring in donations to fill your Cathedral's coffers for the next Century or two! Even the image would be superfluous! Especially one that had the nail holes so obviously in the "wrong" position, according to the mistaken art of the period! And, (BLUSH) Jesus would NEVER appear naked! He would be modest... all other pictures of Jesus Crucified from the period and earlier have him modestly covered with a breechclout! So, why go to all that effort and irrelevant scholarly revisionism?
Take a look at the Veronica of Manoppello, a relic that is supposed to be the holy face of Jesus, made by him on the Via Delarosa on the way to the Cross by pressing his beaten and sweaty face to the veil of a woman named Veronica who offered it to him to wipe the sweat off his brow... but what it most probably is is a self portrait of Raphael painted on either Cambric or Byssus that was spoken of in letters exchanged by Raphael and Dürer in which they discussed the technique and sent each other such self-portraits a Century before the "Veil of Veronica Image" appeared in the village of Manoppello in the possession of a soldier who claimed to have stolen the Veronica from the Vatican! The only problem was that there never was a theft and the Veronica, a Linen cloth with a crude, dim image on it, is still in the Vatican's possession. (Other theories hold that the TRUE source of the Veronica legend is the Shroud itself, displayed in a frame, folded to only show the face of the image.)
However, the Manoppello image while being an obvious painting—white pigment is visible in the eyes and teeth areas of the image—people of faith still believe it's the authentic Veronica, a miraculous image created by Christ, made without pigments.
In the 17th Century it was a no-brainer for the Church at Manoppello to accept the bequest of the cloth, even though the Vatican issued an announcement that no theft had ever taken place! In the 21st Century, the current Pope has made a pilgrimage to Manoppello to venerate the image—an image of a 16th Century artist. Go figure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.