When an Italian Cultural Resource is also a 14th Century Fraud

I don’t know if the Shroud of Turin is the most controversial or the most intensely studied artifact in the world but it certainly must be in the top ten. The Shroud itself is a linen cloth, a little over 14 feet long (4.4 meters) and a tad over 3 feet wide (1.1 meters). And, of course, it’s best known as bearing the faint image of an allegedly crucified man. Ostensibly, Jesus Christ.

The debate over its legitimacy involves centuries of history and ongoing scientific inquiry.

A History of Appearance and Controversy

The history of the Shroud of Turin is traced back to the mid-1300s. It was first displayed to pilgrims by Geoffroi de Charny in Lirey, France but even at this early stage, its legitimacy was in question. Bishop Pierre d’Arcis of Troyes to antipope Clement VII in the late fourteenth century recorded that the cloth was the work of a forger. The Shroud’s artist apparently admitted it was “cunningly painted… a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.” Clement VII hedged his bets and didn’t adopt a definitive position, However. In 1390 he declared the Shroud a mere representation or image when exhibited. And audiences in the 1400s also seemed to regard it as a proxy for Christ’s actual burial cloth.

The Shroud’s reputation began to shift after it was acquired by the House of Savoy in 1453. They launched a campaign to promote it as a holy relic worthy of widespread devotion. And Papal support followed, with Pope Paul II approving plenary indulgences in 1466. But it was Pope Sixtus IV who officially defined it as the “shroud in which the body of Christ was wrapped when he was taken down from the cross” and affirmed the authenticity of its blood traces in 1471. And then Pope Julius II sanctioned a public cult in 1506. 

Then, in 1532, the Shroud survived a fire in Chambéry, an event often attributed to miraculous intervention in early modern hagiographies (biographies of saints or church leadership).

In 1543, John Calvin wrote a book, Treatise on Relics, in which he criticized the Shroud’s legitimacy. He wrote: 

In all the places where they pretend to have the grave clothes, they show a large piece of linen by which the whole body, including the head, was covered, and, accordingly, the figure exhibited is that of an entire body. But the Evangelist John relates that Christ was buried, "as is the manner of the Jews to bury." What that manner was may be learned, not only from the Jews, by whom it is still observed, but also from their books, which explain what the ancient practice was. It was this: The body was wrapped up by itself as far as the shoulders, and then the head by itself was bound round with a napkin, tied by the four corners, into a knot. And this is expressed by the Evangelist, when he says that Peter saw the linen clothes in which the body had been wrapped lying in one place, and the napkin which had been wrapped about the head lying in another. The term napkin may mean either a handkerchief employed to wipe the face, or it may mean a shawl, but never means a large piece of linen in which the whole body may be wrapped. I have, however, used the term in the sense which they improperly give to it. On the whole, either the Evangelist John must have given a false account, or every one of them must be convicted of falsehood, thus making it manifest that they have too impudently imposed on the unlearned. 

-John Calvin, Treatise on Relics, 1543.

In 1578, the Shroud was moved to Turin, which  marked the beginning of a period of devotional enthusiasm to an extent not yet seen with this alleged relic. It lasted from 1578 to 1694 and followed the Council of Trent’s decree validating images and relics. This period saw the Shroud’s rise to prominence as ruling regimes embraced all sorts of charismatic cult objects for evangelization and piety. 

And this was all despite Protestant skepticism. John Calvin’s doubts were revived after the Chambéry fire but the Shroud’s authenticity was broadly accepted during this period due to persistent promotion by the House of Savoy, regular ecclesiastical endorsements, and Counter-Reformation propaganda. Public exhibitions drew massive crowds that ultimately waned after the Shroud’s installation in Guarino Guarini’s reliquary chapel in 1694. 

In 1997, the Shroud survived another fire in, possibly arson. This gave the Holy See an opportunity to have it restored in 2002, and allowed the reverse side of the cloth to be imaged and scanned. By 2010, the relic was back on display in Turin, renewing interest in it and prompting millions of visitors to drop in. By 2013, images of the Shroud were available on the internet, television, and various print media. Pope Francis encouraged the faithful to “contemplate the Shroud with awe” but, as with his predecessors, never actually affirmed its authenticity.

But Where Was the Shroud Before the 14th Century?

Before the mid-1300s, the Shroud’s provenance and lineage were a subject of mystery and debate. One theory links the Shroud to the Mandylion of Edessa, a cloth bearing a miraculous image of Christ’s face. This cloth was reportedly moved from Edessa to Constantinople then disappeared around the time of the city’s ransacking in 1204. Some descriptions of the cloth of Edessa, particularly one from around 1130, describe it as having “the glorious features of the Lord’s face, and the majestic form of his whole body… supernaturally transferred,” which Ian Wilson interprets as supporting its identification with the Shroud. 

But these full-length images were described as coming from a living Jesus and his “divine power” not from his death shroud. And Byzantines generally described the Mandylion as a kerchief rather than a sindon (a linen burial shroud). In fact, as a garment, a mandelion is something akin to a poncho, open on the sides and extending loosely to around the waist.

The Mandylion of Edessa would seem to be a poor origin for the Turin Shroud: it’s not a full-length cloth; it’s alleged to be from a living person rather than a dead one; no indications of mortal wounds or blood; and it’s one of several early cloths or shrouds–none of which can be definitively linked to the Turin Shroud. 

There simply is no record of the Turin Shroud prior to the mid-1300s. Of course, this doesn’t mean it did not exist. It simply means no provenance exists for it before the 14th century.

Is the Shroud of Turin Real?

The debate over whether the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial cloth of Jesus or a medieval forgery is fueled by several lines of evidence.

Image Properties 

The cloth bears anatomically correct images of the front and back of a man who appears to have suffered serious whips and lashes, crowning with thorns, piercing through the wrists and feet, and a wound in one side–all consistent with the biblical accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion. The image itself has the appearance of a photographic negative and, according to computer analysis, encoded three-dimensional information.

In the fall of 1978, the Shroud of Turin Research Project, Inc. (STURP), composed of a team of 32 American scientists and engineers, met in Turin to examine the Shroud. This group was a mix of agnostics, Jews, Mormons, Catholics, and Protestants. Many were from labs at Los Alamos, but others were from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Lockheed. The tests they performed included X-ray fluorescence, X-radiography, photography, infrared spectroscopy, and chemical analysis. All non-destructive tests.

The STURP team also examined the long-held observation that the Shroud’s image was “reversed” in a manner similar to a photographic negative. The photographs taken by the team were processed through a VP-08 image analyzer, which returned a 3-dimensional image of a man, prompting Heller and Adler (1981), members of STURP, to conclude that 3-D data was “encoded” in the shroud using an as yet unknown method.

Author and Shroud expert Joe Nickell noted that the shroud image as shown by the supposed 3-D imagery doesn’t have the necessary warping that should happen to a linen that is wrapped around the face. In fact, the image shows all the characteristics of being placed on a bas-relief statue followed by the application of pigment. By an artist. One of the dead giveaways is the fact that the locks of hair along the ears and below are shown in the Shroud image as if it were a standing figure–not one lying supine or even prone in death.

In fact, to obtain an image strikingly similar to the shroud, Nickell prepared a linen by wetting it, applying it to a bas-relief, allowed it to dry, then applied dried pigment rubbed on with a cloth-over-cotton dauber.

Bloodstains

Bloodstains with a reddish hue appear to be present on the Shroud, superimposed on the image itself. And their positions align with the described wounds of a crucified man. Putative blood marks are in specific areas that suggest pricks in the forehead from a “crown of thorns,” thick rivulets flowing from punctures in the feet, forearms, and wrists, what Andrew Casper describes as “a great constellation of lacerations” that mark the backside of the upper torso, and, finally, a large stain from what seems to be a mortal wound on one side of the torso.

Of course these stains are all consistent with the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion. And the STURP team concluded that the Shroud’s image did not result from applied pigment, and that it had traces of blood and dirt. 

Using a variety of physical and chemical tests like X-ray fluorescence, microspectrophotometry, porphyrin fluorescence, hemochromogen and protein tests, among others, the STURP team concluded that the red stains were actual blood material and that they detected heme derivatives, bile pigments, and proteins.

Walter McCrone, a chemist and a leading expert of microscopy with a resume of over 600 technical articles and at least 16 books and chapters was, for a time, a member of the STURP team. An expert in identifying painted forgeries, he ultimately left STURP. In his words he was “drummed out.” Others said he left of his own accord. He was, at any rate, able to test particles obtained from 32 samples collected by sticky tape on the Shroud with some revealing results.

Of the 32 samples, 14 were in non-image areas of the cloth; 18 were of areas of the cloth with images on it. Some of these included putative blood. On all 18 of the image areas had red ochre present. Each of the 14 non-image areas had no red ochre. The image areas that were not blood were confirmed to be collagen-based tempera paint; the image areas that were supposedly blood were confirmed to be paint composed of red-ochre and vermillion, but as separate components representing two different paints. 

Of course, Heller and Adler rebutted McCrone’s claims about pigment, saying that the Vermillion was probably from artists making copies of the Shroud over the centuries and that the iron oxide was heme-bound iron from blood. Neither of these two claims were substantiated with evidence and neither Heller or Adler had McCrone’s experience and expertise in identifying pigments. Moreover, the consistency of McCrone’s results only paled in comparison to the fact that blood turns dark brown and nearly black over time, losing its reddish hue in just months compared with the Shroud’s 20 centuries!

Medical and Pathological Consistency

Visible red marks on the Shroud are no doubt central to the discussion of medical pathology as it relates to anatomy. The Gospel accounts of the Crucifixion allege to record a bleeding man suffering various torments ranging from pricks in the skull from a crown of thorns to punctures in the forearms, wrists, and feet; and marks from being brutally whipped and lashed to a mortal wound in the side.

The red marks are claimed by Shroud believers to be the blood of Christ and are used by Shroud researchers to map out the shifting and twisting positions of the body the cloth is alleged to have once wrapped. 

Bevilaqua (2019) and Borrini & Garlaschelli (2018) describe a pair of short rivulets of putative blood on the back of the left hand that present a curious conundrum. Because of the position and direction of the liquid flow of these red marks, the person in the wrap would have been standing with arms at a 45 degree angle. These stains were different from forearm stains, which required vertical arms from a  standing subject. 

At the very least, this would seem to imply two different blood patterns at two different times. From a standing subject. Of course, this blood pattern analysis approach could be criticized for not considering variables such as hair, dirt, sweat, clots, muscle contractions, etc. Which Hermosilla (2019) certainly did. 

There are a variety of small indications that seem consistent with an artistic representation of a human corpse rather than a transferred image. One arm appears longer than the other; blood in hair seems to have rivulets on top of the hair rather than matting to the scalp as it should; the quantity of putative blood represented by the red marks is unexpectedly low; and the elongated features depicted by the Shroud image are reminiscent of Gothic art, a style contemporary to the 14th century. Much of this info is straight from Nickell (1998).

Jewish Burial Customs

The burial customs of the day, when Jesus Christ was crucified, are fairly well understood. There is also a Gospel account by the writer of John, which gives the most detailed account of Christ’s burial. In the John account, Jesus is wrapped in multiple cloths with a “napkin” over the face (a mandelion). The body itself was wrapped “in linen clothes with the spices” (ostensibly myrrh and aloes). The writer of John also states Jesus was interred in “the manner of the Jews.”

If Jesus’ body was treated in traditional Jewish fashion, it would have been washed and shaved. Yet, the Shroud presents an unwashed, bloodied corpse, with facial hair. And locks that defy gravity if it were lying down (was it therefore standing?). Wrapping a corpse in a single linen cloth is atypical of Jewish custom. No myrrh or aloes were detected on the fibers. Also atypical. 

Material Evidence

Traces of pollen were taken in the 1970s by Max Frei, a Swiss criminologist (and evangelical Protestant). His report is frequently cited as evidence that pollen “very typical” of Palestine was present on the Shroud. In 2015, Barta et al concluded that there were traces of calcium present on the Shroud that were linked to Calvary Rock in Jerusalem. Calcium is the chief molecule in limestone. 

While Barta et al argued that the lack of strontium is what proves the link to Jerusalem for the Shroud, the samples they took were from the Sudarium of Oviedo. This is another cloth–similar to the Shroud–that is believed to have covered the head of Christ. This relatively small linen cloth (about 1.5 x 2.5 feet) is currently preserved at the Oviedo Cathedral of Spain. Barta et al claim the dust they sampled matches the dust on the Shroud (which they did not sample) and that these are both legitimate cloths of the Christ corpse.

Max Frei failed to use control samples in his work and the STURP team even admitted that there were “very few pollen” particles found in their own tape samples. Even from STURP’s point of view, the work Frei did was statistically insignificant and they noted that the pollen particles present on the Shroud could just as easily been carried by the wind (Italy is, after all, on the Mediterranean Sea as is Palestine) or deposited by the many thousands of people that have viewed the Shroud over the centuries. And Joe Nickell pointed out that, at best, pollen on the Shroud would be consistent with imported linen purchased at a cloth market, such as certainly existed in Lirey, France during the mid-1300s.

As for the calcium-from-Jerusalem-limestone connection, Barta et al (2015) note the potential to overestimate strontium levels exists due to potential contamination from the supporting glass table used during the analysis. In addition, other researchers struggled to make a definite link between the Shroud and Jerusalem limestone because of the ambiguity present in the trace elements that were similar to places all over the world. 

Summary of the Shroud’s Claim to Legitimacy

There will probably always be a debate about whether the Shroud is the legitimate burial cloth of Jesus Christ. At least as long as there are those wanting to believe in the Gospel of Jesus and Christianity. 

That’s not to say that every Christian believes it’s real or even that only Christians believe it’s real.

One of the things I discovered as I did this deep dive into the story of the Shroud was there are plenty of Christians who think it is a forgery. And at least a few non-Christians that think it’s a real burial cloth.

From my point of view, however, the evidence is stacked against it being genuine. 

• First, there’s the lack of provenance prior to about the middle of the 14th century. Bishop d’Arcis stated that an artist confessed to painting the image on the cloth. This is a matter of historic record. Clement VII decreed that it be declared a mere representation when exhibited: also an historic fact. History also suggests the earliest owners behaved underhandedly and staged fake cures.
  
• Second, the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud from 1988, which was done at three separate laboratories, dated the cloth to between 1260 and 1390 CE with 95% confidence. Believers often state that this is because the portion that was dated was from a repair, not the original linen. But this assumes that experts in textile restoration and data collection of ancient textiles would overlook the obvious indications of repair that would appear: like coatings, dyes, and other manipulations. The statistical patterns in the radiocarbon data and complete lack of evidence for repairs make this highly unlikely as an excuse. 
  
• Third, Walter McCrone’s analysis that showed the presence of tempera paints and pigments in the image and blood stains is extremely damning. 
  
• Fourth, the blood flow patterns are just wrong. In my mind, they’re more consistent with an artist’s idea of what blood should look like rather than what naturally occurs due to gravity.
  
• Fifth, the Gospel accounts (i.e. John) mention burial linens found in the tomb with no mention of an image on them. Not only that, but these accounts include that Jesus’ body was handled in accordance with Jewish tradition. The Turin Shroud shows evidence of an unwashed, unshaved body. The Shroud itself is a single piece of cloth instead of multiple cloths and a facial cloth or napkin.

Life in the 14th Century

All that said, I still think the Shroud of Turin is an important cultural resource. Not as a burial cloth for Jesus, but as a cultural phenomenon of the 14th century. This was the period leading up to the Western Schism–a period of crisis in the Christian world that began in 1378 when the Holy See returned to Rome after being seated in Avignon, France for the previous 69 years. The conclave in 1378 elected an Italian Pope (Urban VI), pissing off the French cardinals who decided to elect one of their own (Antipope Clement VII).

This dual pope system went on for some 40 years and led to wars between princes, uprisings of the people, and overall discontent among citizens of various nations over Church corruption. The Crusades are still a thing. The Inquisition is still happening. Louis of Bavaria (1327-1330) has made his criticisms of the Church’s temporal powers known (essentially, the Church’s influence on secular affairs like government).

Through all of this is a rapid expansion of so-called Western civilization. The Age of Discovery is just around the corner with the 15th century, but more and more people are experiencing a liberation from those that rebounded from surviving the “Black Death” pandemic of bubonic plague between 1347-1351. Scholars estimate that perhaps as much as 50% of the European population perished due to the bacteria Yersinia pestis.

The economy following the pandemic was weird: Wages soared because of labor shortages; inflation was rampant; land-owners found it hard to maintain tenants; taxes were hard to collect as surviving poor people refused to compensate for rich people who were lost to the pandemic and tax collectors refused to go where the plague might have been.

Within all this change and societal strife, is it any wonder that a 14th century artist might create a depiction of a Savior? The real question is did he or she do it for spiritual reasons and a sincere desire to bring forth hope and unity? Or was the artist seeking to find a means of financial return at a time when the economic outlook was unpredictable and scary?

I think the Shroud of Turin, along with other artifacts of the world have this potential to be viewed outside of the original fake, fraudulent, or fantastic origins they are often attributed with. I may be skeptical of claims like the Shroud, but it doesn’t mean I can’t see value with interpreting the Shroud for what it is: a 14th century forgery with a history. Potentially one that we can learn from and even apply lessons to modern times.

Sources and Further Reading

Barta, C, R. Alvarez, A Ordonez, A Sanchez, J. Garcia (2015). New coincidence betweeen Shroud of Turin and Sudarium of Oviedo. SHS Web of Conferences, 15(8). 

Bevilacqua, Matteo, Gianmaria Concheri, Stefano Concheri, and Giulio Fanti (2019). Commentary on: Borrini M, Garlaschelli L. A BPA approach to the Shroud of Turin. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 64(1), 329-332

Borrini, Matteo and Luigi Garlaschelli (2018). A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 64(1), 137-143.

Calvin, John A (1854). A Treatise on Relics. Translated by Valerian Krasinski. Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter.

Casper, Andrew R. (2021) An Artful Relic: The Shroud of Turin in Baroque Italy. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Cozzo, Paolo, Andrea Merlotti, and Andrea Nicolotti, eds (2019). The Shroud at Court: History, Usages, Places and Images of a Dynastic Relic. Leiden: Brill.

Fanti, Giulio, and Giuseppe Zagotto (2017). “Blood Reinforced by Pigments in the Reddish Stains of the Turin Shroud.” Journal of Cultural Heritage, 25, 113-120.

Freer-Waters, Rachel, and A. J. Timothy Jull (2010). Investigating a Dated Piece of the Shroud of Turin. Radiocarbon, 52(4), 1521-1527.

Frei, Max (1979). Wissenschaftliche Probleme um das Grabtuch von Turin. Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau, 32(4), 133–5.

Heller, John H., and Allen A. Adler. (1980). Blood on the Shroud of Turin. Applied Optics, 19(16), 2742-2744.

McCrone, Walter C. (1990). The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist’s Pigment? Accounts of Chemical Research, 23(3), 77-83.

McCrone, Walter C. (1999). False Antiquities: Authentication of Art & Archaeological Objects–The Turin Shroud & The Vinland Map. Medico-Legal Journal, 67(4), 135-146.

Nickell, Joe (1998). Inquest on the Shroud of Turin: Latest Scientific Findings. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Nicolotti, Andrea (2014). From the Mandylion of Edessa to the Shroud of Turin: The Metamorphosis and Manipulation of a Legend. Leiden: Brill.

Nicolotti, Andrea (2020). The Shroud of Turin: The History and Legends of the World’s Most Famous Relic. Waco: Baylor University Press

Wilson, Ian (1998). The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World’s Most Sacred Relic is Real. New York: Free Press.