Stephen E. Jones

Shroud of Turin quotes: Unclassified quotes: September 2007

[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; Shroud of Turin quotes: Unclassified, Classified] [My TheShroudofTurin blog]

The following are quotes added to my Shroud of Turin unclassified quotes in September 2007. See copyright conditions at end.

[May, Jun, Jul, Aug (1), Aug (2), Oct, Nov, Dec]

1/09/2007
"Frei was permitted to take 12 tape samples from the frontal end of the Shroud in 1973 and it was from this 
resource that he constructed his study of the 58 plant types represented on the Shroud. (1982 [Frei, M., 
"Nine Years of Palinological Studies on the Shroud," in Shroud Spectrum International, Issue 3, June 
1982, pp. 3-7]) In his view these were largely deposited on the Shroud via wind deposition. In 1978 Frei and 
STURP both took sticky tape samples. Since ASSIST had access to the Frei samples from 1986 until 1993 
and access to three of the STURP samples I was able to compare the two and suggested in my paper 
(presented in Paris in 1989; Maloney, 1990) that not only was there a distinct difference between the two 
methodologies of sampling, they represented two levels of material-STURP's samples preserving material 
from the crowns of the threads, Frei's samples included not only crown material but also material from deeper 
in the interstices of the weave of the cloth. To this we may add that Riggi's vacuum samples represent a 
third level of materials-apparently differing again both in their statistical nature and in the characteristics of 
the materials retrieved compared to the contents of the two sticky tape methods-from the backside of the 
Shroud. But let me emphasize here that in all sampling methods the investigator will find some common 
denominators-red and blue silk, burned flax fibers, and pollen grains (Heller & Adler, 1981, p. 86)-indicative 
of the spectrum of debris found on the Shroud." (Maloney, P.C., "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to 
the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., "The 
Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: 
Alexander NC, 2002, pp.30-31) 

1/09/2007
"In 1993, the Whangers acquired the entire Frei Collection from Mr. Paul Maloney of ASSIST, where the 
collection had been on loan from Mrs. Frei-Sulzer. This collection consists of `sticky-tape' slides Dr. Max 
Frei personally, collected both in 1973 and 1978 directly from the Shroud of Turin, as well as other slides he 
collected from the Tunic of Argenteuil and the Crown of Thorns. His original notes and manuscripts, along 
with numerous photographs and control samples are also included in this priceless collection. To alleviate 
previous allegations that Dr. Frei had `salted' the tapes, CSST retained the services of a supervisory forensic 
examiner in 1997 who concluded that there was no evidence of tampering with the `sticky-tapes,' after 
conducting a thorough examination of each individual Frei tape." (Dayvault, P.E., "CSST-An Overview," in 
Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 
1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 2002, pp.145-146. Emphasis original) 

2/09/2007
"Minute plant parts and pollen grains were incidentally observed on the Shroud of Turin by Dr. M. Frei in 
1973 when he was asked for an opinion by the church about accuracy of earlier photographs (Frei 1982). 
Applying methods he developed in his forensic investigations, Frei used transparent sticky tapes 
approximately 5 cm long which he pressed into the linen of the Shroud using pressure of his thumb to 
assure collecting of small particles for microscopic examination. The location of his sampling sites in 1978 
utilized a grid devised by Prof. Baima Bollone and Dr. Aurelio Ghio and is fully documented 
photographically by Barrie Schwortz (Schwortz 1978 and 1998) and partially in Weaver (1980: p. 750). 
Comparing the pollen grains he found on the Shroud with pollen grains he obtained from living specimens in 
Israel, Turkey, Cyprus. France, and Italy, Frei (1982) concluded that the Shroud with its pollen must have 
originated in the Middle East. His untimely death in 1983 prevented him from completing the examination of 
his collection of 1978. Preliminary studies of his material by Maloney (1988) revealed a wealth of additional 
pollen grains as well as other plant parts." (Danin, A. & Baruch, U., "Floristic Indicators for the Origin of the 
Shroud of Turin," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, 
Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: 
Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 2002, p.202)

2/09/2007
"Images of plants were detected on the Shroud by Scheuermann (1983 and by Whanger and Whanger in 
1985 on photographically enhanced prints of negatives from photographs by Enrie in 1931. The Whangers 
tentatively identified the plant images by comparison to 1:1 illustrations of plants in Flora Palaestina 
(Feinbrun 1978; Zohary 1966, 1972 . ... The first author became involved with the interpretation of plant 
images he saw on the 1:1 enhanced photos of the Shroud at the Whangers' collection at Durham, North 
Carolina in 1997. The second author in February 1998 checked microscopic slides derived from the Shroud, 
sampled by Frei, which are in the custody of The Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin (CSST)." (Danin, 
A. & Baruch, U., "Floristic Indicators for the Origin of the Shroud of Turin," Paper presented at the Third 
International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, 
I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," 
Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 2002, pp.202-203)

2/09/2007
"Microscopic slides sampled by Dr. Max Frei in 1973 and 14 of the 27 slides he sampled in 1978 were studied 
microscopically at 100 to 800 power magnification. In determining the pollen grains from the Shroud, U. 
Baruch compared grain morphology with control specimens, collected and determined by A. Danin in 1996 
& 1997, and his own control collection. The samples were studied using an Olympus AX-70 computerized 
research light microscope." (Danin, A. & Baruch, U., "Floristic Indicators for the Origin of the Shroud of 
Turin," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, 
Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: 
Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 2002, pp.202-203)

2/09/2007
"Plant image detection Plant images were studied at the first stage using 1:1 prints derived from third 
generation approved Giuseppe Enrie (1931) negatives and printed for high contrast (Whanger & Whanger 
1998). The findings were later compared to the negatives of Secondo Pia (1898) displayed in Museo Della 
Sindone and Archivio di Stato, both in Turin. They were also compared to a 25% life size colour photograph 
of the Shroud (Miller, 1978) and to the fluorescence photos assembled by Miller (1978). Finally, on June 4, 
1998 the first author observed a few of the images on the Shroud itself, using a pair of binoculars from a 
distance of ca. 4 m, at the exposition of the Shroud of Turin. Plant name nomenclature follows Feinbrun-
Dothan and Danin (1991) and Danin (1998)." (Danin, A. & Baruch, U., "Floristic Indicators for the Origin of 
the Shroud of Turin," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 
1998, Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the 
Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 2002, p.203)

2/09/2007
"Pollen Table 1 presents results of re-determination of microscopic slides which were determined by Frei 
(1982). The rest of the slides reported by Frei (l.c.) are not in the possession of CSST at present. Of the 34 
pollen grains reported at the specific level by Frei (1982) only 3 are recognized as such (Gundelia 
tournefortii, Ricinus communis, and Lomelosia [Scabiosa] prolifera) by the present authors. All Frei's 
determinations are correct at the higher taxonomical level, however, the differences in our perception will be 
discussed later." (Danin, A. & Baruch, U., "Floristic Indicators for the Origin of the Shroud of Turin," Paper 
presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., 
Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas 
Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 2002, p.204. Emphasis original)

2/09/2007
"Table 2 presents the results of pollen determination of the 1973 tapes and 14 of the 27 sticky tapes sampled 
by Frei in 1978. The most frequent type of pollen of all 168 grains studied is that of Gundelia tournefortii 
which accounts for 33.3% of the grains investigated and identified. The second most frequent is the 
Cistaceae type (13.1%). Although Dr. A. Orville Dahl determined several clustered pollen grains which he 
identified as likely those of Cistus creticus from tape 6Bd (Whanger 1996), we can not approve or 
disapprove this determination until pollen of the suspected Cistaceae are removed from the sticky tape and 
determined under a microscope with higher resolution." (Danin, A. & Baruch, U., "Floristic Indicators for the 
Origin of the Shroud of Turin," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 
6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the 
Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 2002, p.204)

2/09/2007
"Plant images Images of opened flowers, flowering buds, inflorescences, leaves, spiny bracts, stems, and 
fruits have been observed on photos of the Shroud and An the Shroud itself. An example of an 
inflorescence of a plant from the Cisteraceae (Compositae), best fitting in size and morphology to that of 
Chrysanthemum coronarium, is presented in Fig. 1. Hundreds of additional flowers and inflorescences 
were discovered on the enhanced photos 4 the Shroud. We shall restrict ourselves in the present paper to 
only three species which are the most significant. An image of an inflorescence of Gundelia tournefortii 
was observed at the area of the right anatomic shoulder (Fig. 1). Discovered first on Enrie's enhanced 
photos it was later seen again at the same location in Enrie (1931) and Pia (1898) negatives in Turin, and in 
Miller (1978) colour photo. Images of Zygophyllum dumosum leaves were observed at the man's chest 
area, above the boundary of the water stain (of the fire extinguishing at the church in Chambery, France, 
1532). The leaf of Z. dumosum, which starts to develop in winter, is succulent. It has a sausage-like 
petiole and two flat thick elliptic leaflets (Figs. 2, 3). In summer the two leaflets dry and fall. The six-months-
old sausage-like leaf slowly shrinks during the summer. Following the first rain the one-year-old leaf swells 
and resumes its full size. By that time new leaves, each with two leaflets start to grow. The images on the 
Shroud are of two pairs of young but full-sized leaves and a few sausage-like older leaves (Fig. 2). The large 
top-left leaf in this figure was first observed on Enrie's (1931) enhanced photograph and later on his 
negatives, on Pia's (1898) negatives, on Miller's (1978) colour photograph, on Miller's (1978) fluorescence 
photo, and finally on the Shroud itself." (Danin, A. & Baruch, U., "Floristic Indicators for the Origin of the 
Shroud of Turin," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, 
Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: 
Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 2002, pp.205-206. Emphasis 
original)

2/09/2007
"A peduncle carrying three fruits of Pistacia lentiscus (Fig. 1) was observed in all the five media listed 
above for the Zygophyllum dumosum leaf. In addition there are more than 300 spots, at same size as these 
three fruits, most of which have an attached line which looks like a pedicel. Many of these spots, interpreted 
as fruits as well, are attached to branched lines which resemble peduncles of Pistacia palaestina and P. 
atlantica (as illustrated by Huber, 1972)." (Danin, A. & Baruch, U., "Floristic Indicators for the Origin of the 
Shroud of Turin," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, 
Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: 
Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 2002, p.206)

2/09/2007
"Chronological notes Being the most frequent pollen type on the Shroud (Table 2), Gundelia 
tournefortii may serve as a quasi-calendar for indicating the season when its spiny flower-carrying 
inflorescence was laid on the Shroud. According to Feinbrun-Dothan and Danin (1991) G. tournefortii 
blooms from March to May. Danin's field observations of 1998 could extend the blooming time to February 
in the warm parts of its area in Israel. This definite calendar dictates the origin of Pistacia fruits. All the 
three species do not bear fruits between February and May. Therefore these fruits were originated from a 
preserved source and were not picked up directly from local trees and shrubs. The phenologic status of 
Zygophyllum dumosum indicated by the presence of leaves from two years and from flowers (Fig. 3) may 
be found in the eastern Judean Desert between January and April." (Danin, A. & Baruch, U., "Floristic 
Indicators for the Origin of the Shroud of Turin," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the 
Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: 
Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 
2002, p.207. Emphasis original)

2/09/2007
"Spatial notes Gundelia tournefortii is restricted to the Middle East. Zygophyllum dumosum is 
endemic to Israel, West Jordan, and Sinai. The three Pistacia species mentioned above have a wider 
distribution area, and since their fruiting time does not coincide with the flowering time of Gundelia 
tournefortii they have no significance as distributional or chronological indicators (cf. Discussion)." 
(Danin, A. & Baruch, U., "Floristic Indicators for the Origin of the Shroud of Turin," Paper presented at the 
Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & 
Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," 
Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 2002, p.207. Emphasis original)

2/09/2007
"Discussion The two plant species that are part of the Shroud, evidenced by pollen grains incorporated 
among the linen threads and by their images, indicate that it came from the Middle East. The most likely area 
where flowering stems of both G. tournefortii and Z. dumosum could be laid fresh on the Shroud is the 
vicinity of Jerusalem. Pollen grains of G. tournefortii at a density of 11-14 grains/5 cm 2 could not derive 
from dispersal by natural agents (e.g. wind) (Fig. 4). In the rare cases where pollen grains of this species 
were found as part of the `pollen-rain' (Baruch 1993), they never reached a density of more than 1-2 
grains/400 cm 2. The inevitable conclusion is that the pollen containing inflorescence or inflorescences had 
been laid on the Shroud, prior to the formation of the plant images sometime in the remote past." (Danin, A. 
& Baruch, U., "Floristic Indicators for the Origin of the Shroud of Turin," Paper presented at the Third 
International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, 
I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," 
Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 2002, pp.207-208. Emphasis original)

2/09/2007
"There can be hardly any doubt that the plant images presented here form a genuine part of the Shroud. The 
proof we have that they are not artifacts caused in the processes of photographic enhancement of Enrie's 
(1931) negatives, is that the images were discovered also on Enrie's negatives, the photos made by Pia 
(1898), and those of Miller (1978). The three sets of photographs are separated by up to 80 years. They were 
taken with different cameras, with different optical quality, using films with different emulsions and different 
spectral characteristics. They were developed under different darkroom conditions, and yet the same sets of 
images were observed in the photos of all three generations. This fact, together with other non-body 
images, not mentioned here, prove that the images are not artifacts, but part of the nature of the Shroud." 
(Danin, A. & Baruch, U., "Floristic Indicators for the Origin of the Shroud of Turin," Paper presented at the 
Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & 
Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," 
Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 2002, pp.208-209)

2/09/2007
"The images of the Zygophyllum dumosum leaf and the three Pistacia fruits were seen on the Shroud 
even without photographs. The images of Zygophyllum dumosum leaves on the Shroud are of turgescent 
ones indicating that fresh plants were laid on the Shroud (Fig. 2). The distribution maps of G. tournefortii 
and Z. dumosum have area of almost common boundaries along the Jerusalem-Hebron area in Israel and 
the Madaba-Karak area in Jordan. On the earth map both areas are in a small locality-the Holy Land. Further 
investigations may enable us to use additional plant indicators for restricting the area in the Holy Land from 
where the Shroud started its journey. Fruits of the three species of Pistacia are not available on plants 
during the season indicated by Gundelia tournefortii and Zygophyllum dumosum. Therefore, these 
fruits should have been brought in from a storage. The present day practice (as was told by a spice-
merchant in the market of the Old City of Jerusalem) is that the Pistacia fruits (BUTUM in Arabic) are 
picked up when ripe in September, dried and preserved by this way to be sold the year round. They are used 
as a condiment for cakes and as a component of spices (e.g., Za'atar)." (Danin, A. & Baruch, U., "Floristic 
Indicators for the Origin of the Shroud of Turin," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the 
Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: 
Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 
2002, p.209. Emphasis original)

2/09/2007
"The differences in determinations of pollen grains between us and M. Frei (1982) derive from the 
knowledge and perception of the pollen flora of the study area. It seems that M. Frei was not aware of the 
possibility that many of his determinations at the specific level could not be accepted by palynologists 
today. At present, with the great increase in our knowledge of the Middle Eastern palynology, palynologists 
familiar with the local flora will be highly reluctant to determine a Chenopdiaceae pollen grain as Anabasis 
aphylla. This is because generally Chenopodiaceae pollen grains can not be determined to a specific level. 
Frei was correct, however, in his determination of Gundelia tournefortii, which became one of our leading 
indicators." (Danin, A. & Baruch, U., "Floristic Indicators for the Origin of the Shroud of Turin," Paper 
presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., 
Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas 
Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 2002, p.209)

2/09/2007
"The Dr. Max Frei Collection consists of 27 `sticky-tapes' he personally collected from the Shroud in 1978. 
Forty-one slides containing individually dissected pollen grains collected from the Shroud in 1973 are also 
included. The collection further includes 7 tapes from the Tunic of Argenteuil, and 6 tapes from the Crown 
of Thorns (Notre Dame), taken in 1979. Control samples, original notes and correspondence, miscellaneous 
photographs and a manuscript make up the rest of this invaluable collection." (Dayvault, P.E., "The Frei 
Collection Digitization Project," Originally presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of 
Turin, Turin, Italy, June 6, 1998, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: 
Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 
2002, p.215)

2/09/2007
"Dr. Max Frei, a botanist by profession, also served as the head of the Zurich Police Department's Crime Lab 
and was expert at determining -he presence of dust and other particulate matter at crime scenes via the 
collection of `sticky-tapes.' The method of `sticky-tape' collection which he invented is, in part, what makes 
this collection so important. He would pull off a strip of 1.5 cms. clear adhesive tape, Sello brand, 
approximately 1-10 cms. long, place it on the surface and would then knead it into the fabric to collect any 
minute particulate matter in-between the threads and fibrils. His work and subsequent studies were never 
completed, in that he died in 1983. In 1988, his widow and son, wishing for Dr. Frei's studies to be continued, 
released the full custody of the Collection to the ASSIST group, to which they had previously loaned 5 
samples to Mr. Paul Maloney for examination. In 1993, Dr. and Mrs. Whanger became the sole custodians of 
the Frei Collection.." (Dayvault, P.E., "The Frei Collection Digitization Project," Originally presented at the 
Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, Turin, Italy, June 6, 1998, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & 
Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," 
Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 2002, p.215)

2/09/2007
"This is important evidence for many reasons, but primarily because it is original, it came directly from 
the Shroud and other Relics, it was authorized by the Church, and the tapes were personally taken by 
Dr. Frei. Each Frei `sticky tape' collected in 1978 was photo-documented by Barrie Schwortz, the official 
documenting photographer of the 1978 Scientific Examination. Dr. Frei took these samples from 
predetermined sites located on a grid designed by Prof. Baima Bollone and Dr. Ghio. The provenance of the 
collection is intact in that we know where it has been and who has had access to it. Even Dr. Walter 
McCrone, a noted Shroud skeptic, examined the 1978 tapes in 1988 and declared that they were consistent 
with other evidence from the Shroud and concurred they had in fact originated from contact with the 
Shroud. In 1997, CSST engaged a senior forensic microscopist to examine the entire collection of tapes for 
the presence of tampering. His final report indicated that there was no evidence of physical tampering with 
the Frei Collection. Part of the reason for seeking this exam was to answer the allegation that the tapes had 
at one time been tampered with or `salted' with pollen grains. That issue is now settled." (Dayvault, P.E., 
"The Frei Collection Digitization Project," Originally presented at the Third International Congress on the 
Shroud of Turin, Turin, Italy, June 6, 1998, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: 
Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 
2002, pp.215-216. Emphasis original) 

3/09/2007
"The sticky-tape samples of surface debris lifted from the Shroud were taken by Dr. Max Frei to his Zurich 
laboratory to examine the pollen fossils adhering to the adhesive. Pollen is microscopic, or nearly so, and 
imperceptibly it lodges in the fabric of any cloth exposed to air during the pollen season. These pollen 
grains are almost indestructible, and, under examination through an electron microscope, their type, 
classification, and other physical characteristics become quite clear. Comparing with pollen grains that are 
found in specific areas of the world but in no other areas, Dr. Frei was able to determine with absolute 
certainty that there was a significant quantity of pollen on the Shroud from plants that grew exclusively in 
Palestine and the Anatolian steppes of Turkey, as well as pollen from France and Italy. He concluded that 
the cloth at some time in its existence had been exposed to the air of Palestine and Turkey-very strong 
evidence that goes a long way toward obviating the possibility of a European counterfeit. After several 
years of careful study of the Shroud surface debris samples, Dr. Frei' delivered a supplemental report to the 
cardinal of Turin on April 1, 1981, confirming all of his earlier, tentative work on the commission. He had 
found fifty-six varieties of pollen on the Shroud, including fourteen found only in the eastern 
Mediterranean, and two-thirds of these varieties come exclusively from plants growing in semidesert areas 
from Palestine to Turkey. He also determined that the latter varieties were at least 500 years old, making it 
most likely that they had become embedded in the Shroud before it was brought to Europe. It is his opinion 
that the cloth of the Shroud is indeed about 2,000 years old and came from the area of Palestine. ... His book 
Pollens of the Shroud of Turin was scheduled for 1983 publication, but his unexpected death held up 
publication. Dr. Frei's published scientific papers make abundantly clear ... that the pollen from more than 
ninety plants found on the Shroud come from four areas only: Near East desert (Dead Sea area); Anatolian 
steppes of Turkey (Edessa); Bosporus (Istanbul/Constantinople); Western Europe (France and Italy). He 
has stated flatly that the `spectrum of pollens from Palestine and Turkey could not be explained by storms 
and accidental contamination' carrying the pollen to Western Europe. Frei's pollen samples and research 
files were delivered to ASSIST in 1988 by the Frei heirs." (Tribbe, F.C., "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated 
Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, 2006, 
pp.111-112)

3/09/2007
"Dr. Professor Werner Bulst, S.J., of Darmstadt, West Germany (as well as other scientists in Europe, Israel, 
and the United States) has extended and validated the Shroud pollen work of the late Dr. Frei, and it is 
reported in Nos. 10, 19, and 27 of Shroud Spectrum International (Nashville, Indiana) and in Biblische 
Zeitschrift. Notably, Bulst has obtained written reinforcement from Professor Avinoam Danin of Hebrew 
University and Professor Aaron Horowitz of Tel Aviv University, who find Frei's work to be without flaw. 
(Frei had been one of the world's most esteemed criminologists and had been president of the United 
Nations Commission on Criminology; in his Shroud studies, Frei made seven expeditions to the Near East to 
identify all of the pollens found in the Shroud.) Bulst points out that although the Shroud was exposed to 
the air at least twenty-seven times in the West since the fourteenth century, only seventeen species of 
European plants are represented on the Shroud. Danin and Horowitz are satisfied that indeed the Shroud of 
Turin was fabricated in Jerusalem to account for the high pollen count of species from that area. They point 
out that the prevailing winds in Palestine blow from the north and west. Bulst comments: `The spectrum of 
non-European species is highly astonishing.' ... Dr. Frei has often used pollen data (collected from clothing, 
for instance) in testifying in court in the course of his forty years' work as a criminologist. Such testimony, 
by an expert like Frei, is regularly accepted as evidence in court. ... This data does not prove that the Shroud 
was in Palestine in Jesus' time and not later, but it is evidence that leads us toward that conclusion." (Tribbe, 
F.C., "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. 
Paul MN, Second edition, 2006, pp.112-113. Emphasis original)

6/09/2007
"On 25 April at 11 am, Harbottle called. He had learned from Otlet that the shroud samples had been 
removed on 21 April 1988. Hall had flown into London on 25 April with the samples in hand and he received 
a lot of publicity. The archbishop had been, according to Harbottle, furious about Hall's trying to 
commercially capitalize on the venture. Harbottle also said that the BBC were going to film the measurements 
at Zurich. He said that, according to Otlet, there was no possibility this time of any outliers because the 
three labs would consult together so the answers would come out the same. I must say I thought that Otlet 
was being either paranoid or surprisingly cynical." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the 
Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.252)

6/09/2007
"I then talked to Donahue. He said that he had been in Turin for the sample taking. ... They had been 
summoned at 6:30 in the morning for the sample removal. I phoned Damon that evening and he said that he 
was going to tell Gonella that I was to be invited to Arizona to watch the dating (I wondered why he felt 
obliged to inform Gonella). He said that he was not going to ask him whether I could come, he was simply 
going to tell him that I was coming. ... I wrote to Damon on 26 April saying that he had a perfect right to 
invite anyone he wished to view the measurements at Arizona. It was quite unnecessary to inform Gonella 
he was inviting me and, in fact, might lead to complications. However, it was his business." (Gove, H.E., 
"Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, 
p.253)

6/09/2007
"I continued: `As you know, I have been highly critical of the many changes that have been made in the 
protocol agreed to at the Turin workshop. That procedure would have been the most credible way of dating 
the Turin Shroud. I think all of us agree that the present procedures are less than ideal. My main criticism is 
that three labs are too few. I have always made it clear that the three labs that were chosen are excellent 
ones. If none of the three makes any mistake in their measurements then all will agree with each other within 
a standard deviation or so, on all three samples. If the public believes there has been no collusion, then the 
date for the shroud will probably be generally accepted except by those who have emotionally fixed ideas 
about its age and who would not accept any date that disagreed.'" (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: 
Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.253)

6/09/2007
"On 26 April Bob Otlet sent me a newspaper clipping from the London Independent of Monday, 25 April. 
The headline read 'Analyzing the Strands of Time' by a reporter named Nicholas Schoon. It said he had met 
the professor whose delicate task it was to try to date the Turin Shroud, and it contained many revealing 
stories about Hall. It said the man on the flight from Turin to Heathrow had something very special in his 
briefcase-a small steel vessel containing a 2 square centimetre piece of linen. This snippet was cut from the 
Turin Shroud. The article continued: `Professor Edward Hall, head of the Oxford University Research 
Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, is charged with the task of determining whether the 
Turin Shroud dates back to the first century or is an extremely clever medieval forgery. He has just collected 
his sample from Italy along with 2 other pieces of ancient linen. He has no way of telling which is which, 
they are simply numbered 1, 2 and 3. [Since the samples were not unravelled it would be instantly apparent 
to Hall which one came from the shroud-as he well knew. Hall continued to play the 'blind measurement' 
game.] `Hall, 63, describes himself as "a total agnostic" and admits he was highly sceptical about the 
shroud's authenticity at first. "I thought it was a load of codswallop, definitely a forgery. But now I have 
looked at the evidence more closely and have a more open mind. If it turns out to be from the year zero and 
one had no idea how the hell it was made, I would find that very worrying, quite strange, really".'" (Gove, 
H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 
1996, pp.253-254)

6/09/2007
"The next morning at about 8 am (6 May 1988) I arrived at the Arizona AMS facility. I had asked Donahue to 
let Shirley attend this historic event since she had been involved in the shroud dating enterprise from the 
beginning. He said he ... regretted he could not make an exception for Shirley-a deep disappointment for her. 
I would be the only one present outside the Arizona AMS group. Doug immediately asked me to sign the 
following statement: `We the undersigned, understand that radiocarbon age results for the Shroud of Turin 
obtained from the University of Arizona AMS facility are confidential. We agree not to communicate the 
results to anyone-spouse, children, friends, press, etc., until that time when results are generally available to 
the public.' It had been signed by D J Donahue, Brad Gore, L J Toolin, P E Damon, Timothy Jull and Art 
Hatheway, all connected with the Arizona AMS facility, before I signed. My signature was followed by T W 
Linick and P J Sercel, also from the Arizona facility. ... I had a bet with Shirley on the shroud's age-she bet 
2000 ± 100 years old and I bet 1000 ±100 years. Whoever won bought the other a pair of cowboy boots. 
Although my guess was wrong, it was closer than Shirley's. She bought me the cowboy boots. The reader, 
by now, will have guessed that despite the agreement I had signed, I told Shirley the result that had been 
obtained that day. She and I had been associated with this shroud adventure now for almost exactly eleven 
years-there was no way I could not tell her. I knew she would never violate my confidence and she never 
did." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: 
Bristol UK, 1996, pp.262,264)

6/09/2007
"I had remarked to Damon the previous evening that I could not think of another scientific measurement that 
equalled the one about to take place in terms of general public interest-not, of course, in terms of scientific 
interest. Perhaps the discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamen was in the same class. I made the same remark 
again and there was general agreement. It was most remarkable for me to have had a major responsibility in 
bringing the shroud to the test of time, to be about to observe it happen and to learn before anyone but the 
handful of people present how old the shroud actually was. Damon had been informed that the measurement 
was about to begin and arrived shortly after. The previous evening he had said he would bet it was 9th 
century, i.e. 800 to 900 AD or 1188 to 1088 years old. His argument had something to do with when 
crucifixions ceased." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of 
Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.262)

6/09/2007
"Eight of the ten samples in this first historic load were OX1, OX2, blank, two shroud and three controls. ... 
Damon said the 1/2 cm^2 shroud sample being used in this 6 May run had a red silk thread in it as well as 
some blue threads or fibrils and they had been removed. There was absolutely no problem in identifying the 
shroud-it was finely, closely hand woven (the weave was not as even as it would have been if done by a 
machine) and it was the unmistakable shroud herringbone weave." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: 
Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.263)

6/09/2007
"The first sample run was OX1. Then followed one of the controls. Each run consisted of a 10 second 
measurement of the carbon-13 current and a 50 second measurement of the carbon-14 counts. This is 
repeated nine more times and an average carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio calculated. All this was under computer 
control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen. The age of 
the control sample could have been calculated on a small pocket calculator but was not-everyone was 
waiting for the next sample-the Shroud of Turin! At 9:50 am 6 May 1988, Arizona time, the first of the ten 
measurements appeared on the screen. We all waited breathlessly. The ratio was compared with the OX 
sample and the radiocarbon time scale calibration was applied by Doug Donahue. His face became instantly 
drawn and pale. At the end of that one minute we knew the age of the Turin Shroud! The next nine numbers 
confirmed the first. ... Based on these 10 one minute runs, with the calibration correction applied, the year 
the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD-the shroud was only 640 years old! It 
was certainly not Christ's burial cloth but dated from the time its historic record began." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, 
Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.264)

6/09/2007
"It was unarguably the least interesting of all possible results. I remember Donahue saying that he did not 
care what results the other two laboratories got, this was the shroud's age. Although he was clearly 
disappointed in the result, he was justifiably confident that his AMS laboratory had produced the answer to 
the shroud's age. Like Donahue, I also had wished for a 2000 year age. That result would have been so much 
more exciting. Of course, it would not have proved the shroud was Christ's burial cloth but it certainly would 
have upped the odds. As a scientist, I would have (and did) bet it was not that old but I truly wanted it to 
be. My exhilaration at being present at this first dating of the Turin Shroud was somewhat dampened by the 
disappointing result. When the results of all three labs were finally averaged, the date of the flax harvesting 
came out to be 1325 AD ±33 years. That agreed with this initial Arizona result obtained in ten minutes using 
a piece of the shroud cloth measuring less than 1/4" x 1/4" inch. It was a triumph for carbon dating by AMS 
if not for those who passionately believed it was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ or for those of us who 
wished it might have been." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute 
of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.264)

6/09/2007
"I received a letter dated 1 June 1988 from Monsignor Giovanni Tonnucci, Charge d'Affaires at the 
Apostolic Nunciate to the USA in Washington as follows: `Dear Professor Gove ... For your information, I 
am also enclosing a copy of the statement which appeared in the 2 May 1988 issue of the English-language 
weekly edition of L'Osservatore Romano. With every good wish, I remain sincerely yours.' The article was 
titled 'Samples of Shroud of Turin taken for scientific dating'. It stated that three samples of cloth from the 
main body of the Shroud were removed on 21 April 1988. The total weight was approximately 150 milligrams 
comprising a strip measuring about 1 cm by 7 cm. It stressed the procedures followed to ensure blindness 
and described the three control samples. The ones supplied by the British Museum were stated to be a 
fabric of the first century AD and the other of the eleventh century AD while a fourth sample, the source of 
which was not given, was said to be dated about 1300 AD. It gave the names of the two textile experts who 
were present, Professor Franco A Testore of the Polytechnic of Turin assisted by M. Gabriel Vial of the 
Historical Museum of Fabrics of Lyon, and said the entire operation was videotaped and documented 
photographically. What really surprised me was the fact that the ages of the control samples were given in 
this news report and they actually corresponded to the results on the three control samples later obtained 
by the three laboratories. The article appeared even before Arizona carried out their measurements, although 
I am sure Damon and Donahue were not aware of it (the first Arizona measurement, at which I was present, 
was carried out six days after the article appeared). However, both Zurich and Oxford made their 
measurements considerably later and people in those two labs might have been aware of L'Osservatore 
Romano article." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics 
Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, pp.269-270)

6/09/2007
"Meanwhile, the story that the Shroud of Turin was a fake was getting increased attention from the press. 
The original rumour that the shroud was medieval appeared in the article by Kenneth Rose in the London 
Sunday Telegraph. Aside from a naive statement from Ballestrero that the labs would not know which of 
four samples was the shroud, there was not much reaction to the Rose report. However, this changed when 
the 27th August 1988 edition of the Washington Post carried a story by Tim Radford of the Guardian 
that "The furor began after Dr Richard Luckett of Cambridge University wrote in the Evening Standard 
yesterday that a date of 1350 'looks likely' for the 14-foot piece of linen which appears to bear the imprint... of 
Jesus. He also referred to laboratories as "leaky institutions".' ... Somehow the impression had been created 
that the 'leaky institution' Luckett referred to was Hall's Oxford Laboratory because the Washington Post 
quoted Gonella as saying `Frankly we in Italy feel we have been taken for a ride. I am amazed that there 
should be indiscretions of this sort from a university like Oxford. We had expected different behaviour from 
a laboratory of this reputation.' ... A friend of mine who was visiting Mexico sent me a clipping from the 27th 
August edition of the Mexico City News. It quoted the report carried by the Evening Standard on 26 
August and provided a few more details from that report. The Evening Standard report claimed that 
Oxford had found the shroud to be a fake which dated only to 1350 AD. It gave no attribution for its report 
but quoted Dr Richard Luckett of Magdalen College, Cambridge as saying `I think that as far as seems 
possible the scientific argument is now settled and the shroud is a fake'. ... Oxford had completed their 
measurements during the first week of August and had sent them to the British Museum. Hall certainly knew 
the Oxford result at the time of the leak and may also have known the overall result that was to be published 
in Nature. Both gave a mean several decades less than 1350 AD. Hall had no motive for perpetrating the 
leak and the clear disparity between what he knew the answer to be and the leaked date is convincing 
evidence that he did not." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of 
Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, pp.277-278)

6/09/2007
"The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle also carried the story on the front page of their 27th August 
edition under the headline 'UR (University of Rochester) scientist rejects story of relic's age'. The subhead 
read 'London paper claims tests show Shroud of Turin a fake'. The report read: `The ... London Evening 
Standard yesterday reported, without attribution, that radio-carbon tests at Oxford University showed the 
shroud was made about 1350. ... ' ... The article stated that Luckett, whose university is an ancient rival of 
Oxford, was not connected with the tests but had been associated with investigations of the shroud's 
history. `He wrote in a separate article in the Evening Standard that laboratories "are rather leaky places" 
but did not elaborate.' ... An Associated Press story appeared in the 9 September 1988 issue of the 
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle headlined 'Shroud's age remains secret Oxford research chief says', 
with the subhead 'He claims forgery report was just a guess'. Teddy Hall was quoted to this effect in the 
Oxford Mail. The article went on `But Dr Richard Luckett, a Cambridge University professor, said he 
stood by his word, adding, "I had an absolutely marvellous leak from one of the laboratories and it wasn't 
Oxford." Luckett, last month, said tests at Oxford showed the shroud was made in 1350. ... I must say I 
wondered about Luckett's date of 1350 because it was the date Donahue announced to me when I was 
present at the first radiocarbon measurement on the shroud in 6 May 1988. Of course, it also corresponds 
very closely to the shroud's known historic date. However, I still assumed Luckett had said he got the 
number from Oxford. When I read that he claimed he got it from one of the other two labs I worried that it 
might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement." (Gove, H.E., 
"Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, 
pp.278-279) 

6/09/2007
"Some scientists express concern about the three-lab decision. Among them are Harry Gove of the 
University of Rochester (N.Y.) physics department -- whose lab developed the accelerator carbon-14 dating 
technique - and Garman Harbottle of Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y. According to 
Harbottle, there `appears to be about a one in five chance for any given measurement' that the answer will be 
very wrong. If there are only three labs, he says, it may be difficult to identify whose is the spurious reading. 
Geoscientist Paul Damon, co-director of the Arizona tests, downplays that concern, pointing out that `we 
hope to get a number of [carbon-14] analyses from the 1 square centimeter of [shroud] being sent us' 
perhaps as many as seven." (Raloff, J., "Controversy builds as shroud tests near," Science News, April 
16, 1988)

7/09/2007
"As a teenager I learned also, of course, of the Turin Shroud, the fourteen-foot length of linen purported to 
have enwrapped Jesus in death, and to have become imprinted with a double image, the back and front, of 
his entire figure .... From first sight in a magazine article, the famous `negative' face from this ... struck me so 
forcibly as not by the hand of any artist that it impelled a decades-long hobby of enquiry into every aspect 
of the shroud's nature and origins, touching on medicine, archaeology, photography, Biblical studies, 
botany, physics, chemistry, microscopy, weaving, the history of art, and much more. On being accorded the 
exceptional privilege of examining the shroud at first hand in 1973, this served to convince me not only that 
no artist had produced such an image, but also that the shroud's face was the `true' original from which all 
the other `holy faces' had been copied by artists." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for 
Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.2-3)

7/09/2007
"As has now become world-wide public knowledge, just ten years later, in October 1988, all the hitherto 
arguably impressive amalgam of knowledge suggestive of the shroud's authenticity was blown sky-high on 
release of the results of a radiocarbon test to scientifically determine the age of the shroud's linen. Under the 
universally respected supervision of the British Museum Research Laboratory, the radiocarbon laboratories 
of Tucson, Zurich and Oxford, produced closely compatible datings strongly indicative that the shroud had 
been manufactured sometime between 1260 and 1390. Particularly convincing was the fact that the finding 
readily corroborated historical documents in which a French bishop declared that the shroud had been 
`cunningly painted' sometime around the middle of the fourteenth century. Effectively the shroud could be 
dismissed as just another of the many fraudulent `relics' for which the Middle Ages was notorious." 
(Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, 
pp.2-3)

7/09/2007
"But overlooked amidst all the enthusiasm for this apparent triumph of science over superstition has been 
one inescapable fact of history. Whatever the authenticity or otherwise of the shroud, and whatever the 
artistic or other origins of the `holy faces', at least some of the `faces' are quite irrefutably recorded 
substantially before the 1260 date that is the very earliest radiocarbon would ascribe to the shroud. So if the 
carbon dating genuinely obliges us now to discount the shroud as the source of inspiration for the `faces' 
(and that will remain a qualified `if'), from what did spring the strange idea of Jesus imprinting the likeness 
of his face on cloth?" (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," 
Doubleday: London, 1991, p.3. Emphasis original)

7/09/2007
"Quite incontestably a matter of historical fact is that throughout the years 944 to 1204 there reposed in this 
collection in Constantinople, as by no means its most insignificant item, the `holy face' cloth imprinted with 
Jesus's likeness that the Byzantines variously referred to as the Holy Image of Edessa, the Holy 
Acheiropoietos (`made without hands'), and the Holy Mandylion, or `mantle'. Despite not having a 
Grimaldi to sketch the scene, we nevertheless know that it was set in the chapel on the right-hand side, 
facing the east. But hanging like a pall of mystery over the exact identity of this cloth is the fact that it was 
regarded as so holy, and the security surrounding it so tight, that just as in the case of the Veronica before 
1207, there is no clear record of it ever being exhibited publicly throughout its entire time in Constantinople. 
Those allowed to view it would seem to have been only the emperor and the highest clergy, and even then 
on very special occasions." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," 
Doubleday: London, 1991, p.131)

7/09/2007
"So exactly what can we retrieve from early sources that may help us recognize and identify the `holy face' 
of Edessa? Unquestionably it was thought to be very old even when first brought to Constantinople in 944. 
In this regard the gold relief scenes studding the Palaeologue frame ... of the Genoese candidate convey the 
general Byzantine idea of its origins, as already very briefly sketched in the last chapter. Running anti-
clockwise round the frame commencing at the lower right-hand side, the scenes [pl. 24] show first King 
Abgar of Edessa, sick in bed, sending out a messenger, Ananias, in the hope of persuading Jesus to come 
to Edessa to cure him (scene a). In Jerusalem we see Ananias trying unsuccessfully to paint Jesus' portrait 
(scene b), then Jesus, after washing himself (scene c), imprinting his likeness on the cloth with which he had 
dried himself, and giving this to Ananias, together with a message to take back to Abgar (scene d). On 
Ananias' return to Edessa, we find Abgar miraculously cured by the `holy face' (scene e), accepting 
conversion to Christianity and throwing down the city's pagan idols (scene f). Then after Abgar's death 
there apparently occurs a pagan backlash, for a Christian bishop is portrayed hiding the `holy face' (scene g) 
in an apparent attempt to ensure its safety during a time of persecution of Edessa's Christians. Theoretically 
the events of these scenes occurred in the very first Christian century, and although inevitably semi-
legendary they at least have as a basis of fact that there was a King Abgar V (AD 13-50) directly 
contemporary with Jesus; also that Christianity had certainly become established and officially tolerated in 
Edessa as early as the late second century, during the reign of Abgar VIII (AD 179-212). The frame's next 
two scenes jump chronologically several centuries, for there follows the `holy face's' purported rediscovery 
by an Edessan bishop during a siege of Edessa by the Persians (scene h); and its miraculous routing of the 
Persians shortly after (scene i). This siege of Edessa by Persians is historically known to have taken place in 
the year 544, and from this point on the `holy face's' existence is quite uncontestably historical, with many 
documentary references to its existence in Edessa. In the final scene (scene j) there occurs a further 
substantial chronological jump, the `holy face' shown being brought in triumph from Edessa to 
Constantinople in 944. By way of demonstration of the continuance of its healing power this scene shows 
the cure of a madman simultaneous with the `holy face's' arrival in the Byzantine capital. Now suffice it to 
say that this illustrated story of the `holy face's' origins is but one of several slightly differing versions that 
prevailed and indeed continue to prevail in the world of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The consistent 
feature is the `holy face's' arrival at Edessa sometime while this was ruled by kings with the name Abgar (up 
to AD 214), but exactly what happened at this time has to be considered more of the stuff of legend than of 
history." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 
1991, pp.132-133)

7/09/2007
"But if we can identify none of the three principal claimants as the true Edessan `holy face', is there anything 
else still in existence that it might possibly have been? Here at long last it becomes unavoidable mentioning 
the `shroud' of Turin. While at first sight this might seem implausible, not least because we have so far 
understood the Edessa cloth to bear only the imprint of Jesus's face, there are a variety of clues that there 
may literally have been more to it than normally met the eye. Earlier in this chapter, for instance, we quoted 
as one of the earliest mentions of the Edessa `holy face' the passage from the sixth-century Acts of 
Thaddaeus that Jesus had: `asked to wash himself, and a towel was given to him ... And his image having 
been imprinted upon the linen, he gave it to Ananias.' Here the interesting feature is that in the original 
Greek text of this quotation the word translated as `towel' is `tetradiplon', meaning a cloth `doubled in four'. 
It is a most unusual word, occurring in the entire corpus of Greek literature only in regard to the `holy face' 
of Edessa, and it prompted me some twenty years ago to try `doubling in four' a photograph of the `shroud', 
just to see what might emerge. [Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin," Doubleday, 1978, pp.98-100] The result 
was more than astonishing. Doubled, then doubled twice again to give four times two folds, the `shroud' 
face appeared disembodied on a landscape aspect cloth exactly as conveyed by the copyists of the Edessan 
`holy face' pre-1204 [fig. 16]. From this and similar evidence I deduced that the `shroud' had been one and 
the same as the `holy face' of Edessa, which explained its otherwise unrecorded pre-fourteenth-century 
history. Why it had not been described as a `shroud' during the Byzantine era was simply because it had 
been folded and mounted on a board, so that only the face was visible. (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret 
Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.141-142)

7/09/2007
"Of course this was only a theory, and to most it very understandably seemed conclusively shattered when 
the carbon dating set the shroud's age as between 1260 and 1390, impossible to equate with the Edessa 
`holy face's' certain historical existence between the sixth century and 1204. But as recently as 1987 an Italian 
scholar resident in Rome, Professor Gino Zaninotto, happened to come across in the Vatican Library a 
Byzantine manuscript that had escaped all earlier studies of the Edessan `holy face', both my own and even 
those of the formidable German scholar Ernst von Dobschutz whose profusely documented 
Christusbilder (The Face of Christ), published in 1899, remains to this day the masterwork on the subject. 
The manuscript is the Vatican Library's Greek Codex no. 511, 32 and as Zaninotto expertly deciphered the 
handwriting, he found it to be a sermon by one Gregory, Archdeacon at Constantinople's Hagia Sophia 
Cathedral at the very time that the Edessa `holy face' was first brought to Constantinople in 944. In his text 
Gregory described himself as a `referendarius' or notary - in effect, a tenth-century Grimaldi - and as having 
made very careful studies of all that was known in his time about the `holy face' of Edessa, from sources 
both in Constantinople and in Edessa. In recounting the Abgar legend and the circumstances of the `holy 
face's' apparent rediscovery at the time of the Persian siege, he revealed himself as a shrewd discarder of 
many of the more dubious elements that circulated around these stories. But the real revelation to Zaninotto 
occurred in Gregory's account of how the `holy face' had come to be imprinted on the cloth. Omitting any 
mention of the concept of Jesus having washed himself, Gregory spoke only of the idea of it having: `... 
been imprinted with the drops of sweat from the agony [in Gethsemane], which flowed from the face of the 
Prince of Life like drops of blood.' Then Gregory went on: `And the image, since those flows, has been 
embellished by [blood] drops from his very side. The two [things] are full of symbolism, blood and water 
here, and there the sweat of the face.' Quite unmistakable here was the fact that Gregory, who would seem to 
have seen the Edessan `holy face' for himself, was describing it as bearing the stain of Jesus's wound in the 
side." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 
1991, pp.142-143)

7/09/2007
"Gregory made no attempt to explain how a cloth purportedly imprinted by Jesus in life could bear the stains 
of an injury which could only have been inflicted at or after death. For the Byzantine such things could be 
shrugged away as mysteries that were not for mortal man to pry into. But for us the question is crucial. How 
could it be that this `holy face' of Edessa was reported to bear the image of Jesus's wound in the side - 
unless it was a cloth that had wrapped his body after death, a cloth just such as we have in the Turin 
`shroud'? Could it be that despite the radio-carbon dating, the `holy face' of Edessa might have been one 
and the same as the `shroud', after all? It is an appealing idea. Identity of the Edessan `holy face' with the 
`shroud' would make sense of so much, not least the watery and `bloody sweat' characteristics described of 
the Edessa `holy face's' imprint, the consistently disembodied manner in which this is depicted, the herring-
bone weave on the cloth pasted to the S. Silvestro `holy face', and the likeness to the shroud face exhibited 
by Strozzi's copy of the Veronica. The Veronica, from this point of view, would seem to have been a copy of 
the shroud face made while this was in Constantinople in the guise of the `holy face' of Edessa." (Wilson, I., 
"Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.143-144)

7/09/2007
"The question is how could the Shroud have been arranged that such a deception, intended or otherwise, 
might have occurred? Here the copies of the Mandylion made before its 1204 disappearance turn out to be 
of considerable importance. For instance, one of their oddities is that on all with the exception of two icons 
the head was arranged in a landscape aspect rather than a portrait aspect ... What was so significant about 
this? The setting of the head on the cloth in this manner is totally at variance with a virtually universal 
artistic convention. That is, that throughout history, and in any country where artists created portraits, they 
have almost invariably chosen to set the face on the background of an upright rectangle rather than a 
horizontal rectangle, just as when creating a landscape they have done the reverse. There is no mystery 
about this-it is visually unappealing to set a head on a landscape-shaped background (particularly a totally 
plain one), and even more important, it is wasteful of available space. The consistent appearance of the head 
in this manner on artists' copies of the Mandylion therefore suggests one thing-that the artists were 
deliberately trying to reproduce a curiosity of the original. If the Shroud was the Mandylion, was this the 
manner in which it appeared in the early centuries?" (Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of 
Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 1979, pp.119-120)

7/09/2007
"This speculation takes on more credibility in the light of a piece of information gleaned from a text of the 
sixth century, the period when the Mandylion first came to light in Edessa. The text gives a description of 
how the image was thought by those of the time to have been created by Jesus on the linen of a cloth he 
had used to dry his face. This text, as translated in Roberts and Donaldson's voluminous Writings of the 
Ante-Nicene Fathers, at first sight seems totally uninformative: `And he ... asked to wash himself, and a 
towel was given to him; and when he had washed himself he wiped his face with it. And his image having 
been imprinted upon the linen ...' But, as a footnote reveals, one word in the passage gave the translators 
some difficulty. In order to convey the sense evident from the description, they used the word `towel.' But 
they were careful to point out that this is not the literal meaning of the strange Greek word used in the 
original text. The actual meaning is `doubled in four.' [Gk. tetradiplon]" (Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin: 
The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 1979, p.120)

7/09/2007
"The discovery is intriguing. Could the sixth-century writer have been trying to convey that the cloth he 
saw was literally `doubled in four'-i.e., that it was a substantially larger cloth, the folds perhaps being 
actually countable at the edges but otherwise inaccessible? The only logical test is to try to `double in four' 
the Turin Shroud to see what effect is achieved. This is not a difficult task. One simply takes a full-length 
print of the cloth, doubles it, then doubles it twice again, producing a cloth `doubled in four' sections. The 
head of Christ appears on the uppermost section, curiously disembodied, exactly as on artists' copies of the 
Mandylion. Furthermore, it appears on the cloth in landscape aspect, again exactly as on artists' copies of 
the Mandylion. It takes little imagination or artistic license to visualize the cloth as it would have been 
without the burn marks of the 1532 fire. There lies the most convincing original of all the various artists' 
copies of the Mandylion, the true and only cloth `not made by hands.'" (Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin: 
The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 1979, pp.120-121)

8/09/2007
"The seventeenth-century notary Jacopo Grimaldi, in his already so helpful `Brief account of the most holy 
Veronica', described one important, historic accompaniment of the Veronica that we have so far not 
mentioned. This was: `... a very ancient and most noble umbella, woven throughout in gold and silver of 
very rich work, and full of gold because of its very great age ... [which] used to be extended over the window 
of the shrine of the Veronica when it was shown to the people.' An umbella is a large fabric covering or 
canopy that in the Mediterranean world has been traditionally held over distinguished personages and 
revered objects, and with his characteristic thoroughness Grimaldi provided a most detailed sketch ... of this 
particular one as used for the Veronica. It was clearly of Byzantine origin, for besides transcribing the Greek 
inscriptions to its various panels of embroidered scenes from the life of Christ, Grimaldi also drew it as edged 
with the figures of predominantly Eastern Orthodox saints: St Cyril, St Basil, St Peter of Alexandria, St John 
Chrysostom, to name a few. But the most fascinating feature of Grimaldi's sketch is the umbella's central 
embroidered figure, larger than any of the rest, depicting Christ stretched out in death, the hands crossed 
over the pelvis in precisely the mode of Turin's `shroud' ... Grimaldi ... remarked: `It has depicted on it the 
same stories of our saviour Jesus Christ that Pope John VII ... had made in mosaic in his Oratory [i.e. the 
John VII chapel in old St Peter's], and the said umbella is in the Greek style.' For Grimaldi this was 
sufficient to date the umbella to John VII's time, i.e. to the early eighth century." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, 
Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.145-146)

8/09/2007
"Although this is one of the earliest epitaphioi known, there is a consensus among scholars that it must 
have had antecedents, as is certainly indicated by the same type of figure being found in other art forms. A 
particularly notable example occurs in a work entitled the Funeral Oration, forming part of the Pray 
manuscript 15 preserved in the National Széchényi Library of Budapest. Four pages of pen and ink drawings 
accompany a text that is among the very earliest in the Hungarian language, and in one of these ... we see 
Jesus's body being laid out full length on a shroud, entirely naked, and with the hands crossed over the 
pelvis in precisely the manner so characteristic of the Turin `shroud' image. This drawing can be accurately 
dated, being reliably thought to have been made at the ancient Benedictine monastery of Boldva in Hungary 
between the years 1192 and 1195. And according to the specialist of Hungarian medieval manuscripts, Ilona 
Berkovits: `... the style of its miniatures shows resemblance to the art associated with the middle of the 
[twelfth] century. It is not impossible that the miniaturist followed the illumination of an earlier, more 
elaborate manuscript, from the end of the eleventh or the beginning of the twelfth century, which has since 
been lost, and copied its compositions.'" (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True 
Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.150-151)

8/09/2007
"Furthermore, even earlier examples are to be found, albeit without the so shroud-like total nudity of the 
Pray drawing. Among the wealth of icons in the Hermitage Museum of Leningrad is a magnificent 
specimen with gold relief and cloisonne enamel. This comprises a crucifixion surrounded by figures of 
saints, with at the foot of the cross an image of Jesus with the familiar crossed hands, and with a rectangular 
modesty cover exactly as on the Milutin Uros epitaphios. It carries the inscription, `Christ lies in death, 
manifesting God', and its date is thought to be as early as the eleventh century. Also from the eleventh 
century are several Byzantine ivories of the so-called Threnos, or Lamentation scene of Jesus being 
mourned as he is laid out in death. In perhaps the finest of these, in the Victoria & Albert Museum, London 
... Jesus' hands can yet again be seen crossed at the wrists in the so peculiar `shroud' manner. He is also 
shown specifically lying on something like a shroud or a mattress. Now it might already seem to be more 
than coincidence that it was at this very point, within a century of the `holy face' of Edessa's arrival in 
Constantinople, that we come to the earliest to which this `crossed-hands' type can be traced in art. 
Although there are earlier depictions of Jesus's entombment, including some from the end of the ninth 
century, these show him wrapped with mummy-style bands. So why the change? And why the sudden 
crossed-hands type?" (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," 
Doubleday: London, 1991, p.151)

8/09/2007
"Furthermore, if we ask whether, quite aside from Professor Zaninotto's discovery of the Gregory 
manuscript, there might be any direct evidence that the `holy face' of Edessa was more than just a face on 
the cloth, we find that this is indeed the case. For instance, interpolated sometime before 1130 into the text of 
a sermon attributed to the eighth-century Pope Stephen III was the following remark concerning the `holy 
face' of Edessa: `For this same mediator between God and men, in order that in all things and in every way he 
might satisfy this king [i.e. Abgar] spread out his entire body on a linen cloth that was white as snow. On 
this cloth, marvellous as it is to see or even hear such a thing, the glorious image of the Lord's face, and the 
length of his entire and most noble body, has been divinely transferred ... [italics mine]. ' Following on from 
this, about the year 1141 the English monk Ordericus Vitalis wrote in his Historia ecclesiastica: `Abgar 
reigned as toparch of Edessa. To him the Lord Jesus sent ... a most precious cloth, with which he wiped the 
sweat from his face, and on which shone the Saviour's features, miraculously reproduced. This displayed to 
those who gazed upon it the likeness and proportions of the body of the Lord [italics mine].' Equally 
explicit is a mention of the `holy face' of Edessa by the well-travelled and somewhat underrated English 
raconteur Gervase of Tilbury. In his Otia Imperialia, completed shortly before his death in 1218, Gervase 
first quoted words allegedly spoken by Jesus to King Abgar: `If indeed you desire to see my physical 
appearance, I send you a cloth on which the image not only of my face but of my entire body has been 
preserved.' Then Gervase went on: `The story is passed down from archives of ancient authority that the 
Lord prostrated himself with his entire body on whitest linen, and so by divine power there was 
impressed on the linen a most beautiful imprint of not only the face but the entire body of the Lord.' " 
(Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, 
pp.152-153. Emphasis original)

8/09/2007
"Complicating the issue yet further is the fact that from as early as 958 there occur the first of several 
subsequent mentions of a burial sindon or shroud being among the imperial relic collection in 
Constantinople, without the slightest accompanying whisper of how this might have come to the city. The 
earliest, the 958 reference, comes from a letter of the Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennitus sent to his 
troops campaigning around Tarsus, telling them that he was sending them holy water consecrated by: `the 
precious wood [of the Cross], the unstained lance ... the reed which caused miracles ... the sindon which 
God wore, and other symbols of the immaculate Passion.'" (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The 
Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.153-154. Emphasis original)

8/09/2007
"But while in these two instances neither writer is likely to have seen either item with his own eyes, this 
could not have been the case with Nicholas Mesarites, a man who was none other than skeuophylax, or 
overseer of the holy relic collection and other treasures of the Great Palace of Constantinople. In 1201 
Nicholas was obliged to defend the Imperial collection at risk of his life when there was a palace revolution 
led by John Comnenus. He subsequently described how, completely unarmed, he stopped a bloodthirsty 
mob from breaking into the imperial collection by reminding them of the sacredness of the treasures that lay 
within. According to his own words as allegedly spoken at this time, he told them first of the `holy crown of 
thorns, which ... remains intact because it took on incorruptibility from touching the sacred head of Jesus', 
then `the holy nail ... preserved today ... just as it was ... when it penetrated the most holy and merciful flesh', 
then `the flagellum', and fourth `the burial shroud [sindones] of Jesus.' Then a little later he went on to 
mention `the towel' (cheiromaktron) with a `prototypal' image of Jesus `as if by some art of drawing not 
wrought by hand.' ... Now while we can only conjecture that this is the explanation of the double mentions, 
quite incontrovertible is that from Mesarites we have one of the most tantalizing indications that there really 
was a full-body imprint, ŕ la Turin shroud, on the shroud preserved in Constantinople's imperial 
collection. As Mesarites, according to his own account, continued his description of the shroud when 
confronting the mob: `It is of linen, a cheap and easily obtainable material, still fragrant with myrrh. And it is 
imperishable because it covered the uncircumscribed, naked and myrrh-perfumed dead body after the 
passion.' Besides describing the material of the shroud as linen, exactly the same as that of the Edessan 
`holy face', Mesarites also most interestingly describes the body as aperilepton, `uncircumscribed', or 
`outlineless', tantalizingly suggesting the outlineless quality of the Turin shroud. Also, he referred to the 
body as `naked', raising the question of why he should volunteer such information unless this nakedness 
was somehow evident on the sindon?" (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True 
Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.154-155)

8/09/2007
"Now although on its own Mesarites' reference is insufficiently explicit to persuade us that the shroud in the 
imperial relic collection really did bear a Turin-shroud type imprint, as it happens, from just two years later 
there is another and even more persuasive eyewitness to be called upon. This was a comparatively humble 
knight from Picardy in France, Robert de Clari who, as a member of the Fourth Crusade in 1203, toured 
Constantinople as a guest after having helped depose the Byzantine usurper Alexius III. Goggle-eyed at the 
wonders he saw around him, out-dazzling anything in western Europe, de Clari wrote an account of it, a 
History of those who Conquered Constantinople, which survives in a single manuscript in the Royal 
Library, Copenhagen. In this he noted: `... about the other marvels that are there [in Constantinople] ... there 
was another church called My Lady St Mary of Blachernae, where there was the shroud [sydoines] in 
which [lit. where] Our Lord had been wrapped, which every Friday raised itself upright, so that one could 
see the figure of Our Lord on it [lit. there] ... above].' Particularly in the light of the shroud carbon dating, for 
us this is one of the most crucial documents of any we have considered. Writing in the third person, Robert 
de Clari insisted `he may not have recounted in as fair a fashion as many a good author would have done, 
yet he always told the strict truth,' and there is nothing in his book to suggest otherwise. Authoritatively 
and unequivocally he tells us that as early as 1203 there existed in Constantinople a shroud with an imprint 
of Christ's body - thus corresponding in all essential features to the one that carbon dating and Bishop 
d'Arcis would have us believe was so cunningly forged in France a century and a half later." (Wilson, I., 
"Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.155-156)

8/09/2007
"There is one alternative, however, that makes complete sense of all the available facts. This is that what 
Robert de Clari saw was indeed the Edessan `holy face', revealed for the first time publicly as a full-length, 
image-bearing shroud, exactly as understood of the present-day shroud of Turin. It is even possible to put 
some sense to his description that the cloth `raised itself upright', vividly conveying an image of Jesus 
rising out of the tomb, exactly as in the `BASILEIS THS DOEHS' or `King of Glory' representations noted 
earlier in this chapter. Had there been contrived some gadgetry to make the cloth rise upright out of its 
casket, just as the emperor was made to whirl aloft before those who sought an audience with him in his 
golden throne-room? Clearly de Clari was fascinated by what he saw, sufficient to note that: `... no one, 
either Greek or French, ever knew what became of this shroud when the city was taken.' This suggests, 
perhaps because it had so recently come to be kept at Blachernae, that the Edessa `holy face'/shroud, was 
not with the other major relics when the Crusaders launched their full-scale sack of Constantinople in 1204. 
And this therefore at least allows the possibility that it became secreted away to emerge 150 years later as 
the cloth we now know as the Turin shroud." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' 
True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.157-158. Emphasis original)

8/09/2007
"But although we have now seen some compelling evidence that the `holy face' of Edessa may have borne 
the imprint of a full-length, shroud-like figure, still this does not mean that it can be identified with any 
certainty as one and the same as the shroud that we know today in Turin. Seriously to challenge the carbon 
dating, we still need some almost finger-print-type means of determining that it was this very same shroud, 
and none other, that was around in the early centuries as the original of all the `holy faces' that followed. Yet 
as we are about to see, even something very much along the lines of a finger-print-type identification may 
not be totally beyond our reach." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True 
Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, p.158)

8/09/2007
"But, rather fittingly, it was from Paul Vignon that the new sindonology received its most important impetus. 
Out of his background as a painter, he evolved an idea that lighted the dark years of the Shroud's primitive 
existence. First presented in 1938, his brilliant `Iconographic Theory' purported to show that the relic of 
Turin, with its imprint, was known and reverenced as far back as the fifth century. The theory had its 
beginnings in a fact already known to historians of art. The physical appearance of Christ in paintings, 
sculptures and carvings can be rather sharply divided into two periods, with the line of separation running 
through the fourth century. In the first period-from the evidence of the catacomb pictures and some early 
Christian sarcophagi-Christ is depicted as a beardless youth with an oval face exuding the clarity of 
innocence. The stress is on His divinity; His humanity is lost in a gloss of shining naivete. Nowhere, in all 
the art that has been preserved from the first 300 years after His death, is He seen any other way. Then, with 
the emergence of Christianity under Constantine, this obviously symbolic portrayal was discarded and 
pictures of Christ began to appear with the emphasis on His mature humanity-always as the same set 
type." (Walsh, J.E., "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, 1963, pp.154-155. Emphasis original)

8/09/2007
"The face now was long and sharply profiled, the nose virile. The eyes were large and deep-set. The hair 
was parted in the middle and fell to the shoulders; the face carried a beard, often two-pointed, and a 
mustache. The fact of this sudden and widespread change was known and it corresponded to the 
dawning curiosity that historians had noted as an element in the new freedom. What, people were asking in 
the bright days of Christianity's morning, did Christ really look like? But the underlying reasons for this 
total acceptance of a set type for Christ were never really searched for. Generally, it was supposed that the 
singular portrait was the fruit of tradition, or derived from some still more ancient original. Yet historians 
knew that no reliable descriptions of the Messiah had ever been preserved. Not one of His contemporaries 
wrote down what He looked like. ... For Vignon, however, the fact became an inspiration. Might not the 
new type of Christ have been modeled on the relic? If the Shroud had been hidden away under an official 
silence during the persecutions, and then brought out in Constantine's reign, it was possible-even probable-
that the physiognomy of Christ would thereafter be based on the imprint. Undeniably, the portrait on the 
cloth bore the same features as the traditional Christ of the artists." (Walsh, J.E., "The Shroud," Random 
House: New York NY, 1963, pp.155-156. Emphasis original)

8/09/2007
"There must be some way to tie the two together, Vignon thought. If the Shroud was the progenitor of the 
traditional Christ, then something of the parent must have carried over into the offspring! Eventually, after a 
long and minute comparison of the face on the cloth with hundreds of paintings, frescoes and mosaics, he 
found the answer. Certain peculiarities were evident in the Shroud-peculiarities that were really accidental 
imperfections in the image or the fabric itself, and that served no artistic purpose. Yet, he observed 
jubilantly, these very oddities appeared again and again in a whole series of ancient art works, even 
though artistically they made no sense. Surely, this could mean only one thing: ancient artists had taken 
their conception of a bearded, long-haired man from the image on the Shroud, and had included the 
anomalies because of a feeling that they were in some mysterious way connected with the earthly 
appearance of Jesus." (Walsh, J.E., "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, 1963, pp.156-157)

8/09/2007
"There were about twenty of these items in all; some very pronounced, some just strongly characteristic of 
the face on the cloth. Most arresting were such things as a small square set above the nose and open at the 
top, the result either of a defect in the weave or a unique, accidental stain. There was the distorted 
appearance of the nose, swollen at the bridge with the right nostril enlarged; the abnormal shading of the 
right cheek; a curved transverse stain that ran senselessly across the forehead." (Walsh, J.E., "The Shroud," 
Random House: New York NY, 1963, p.157)

8/09/2007
"Vignon was able to find no single art work in which all twenty or so of these peculiarities were present, but 
he didn't expect to. Different details could be traced in different works and some of the items appeared with 
more frequency than others. It was enough, he insisted, to discover even a few of them in any art work to 
establish a relationship with the Shroud. The peculiarities were distinctive of the relic and their existence 
could not be explained without it. In the examples that Vignon provided, some of these oddities were 
reproduced with almost startling exactness; others appeared to be the artist's fumbling attempts to translate 
into living terms the grotesqueries of the negative imprint. This was only natural, explained Vignon, since 
these ancient artists had no understanding of the true nature of their model-its negativity. Moreover, some 
of the pictures were copies of copies and the strange little indicators had undergone some slight 
metamorphosis in the successive transitions." (Walsh, J.E., "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, 
1963, p.158. Emphasis original)

8/09/2007
"The earliest example of a picture based on the relic was the Holy Face of Edessa, which could be dated in 
the fifth century. This portrait was one of the first achiropoeton (literally, not made with hands), and 
like the other such "miracle" pictures in early Eastern Christianity, it had a long and involved story of its 
own Today it probably does not exist, although both Rome and Genoa claim to possess it. But there are 
copies available in which Vignon was able to trace the tell-tale signs of its dependence on the Shroud. Other 
examples he assigned to succeeding centuries and even placed the relic in Constantinople through 
comparison with the well-known Holy Face of Laon." (Walsh, J.E., "The Shroud," Random House: New York 
NY, 1963, pp.158-159. Emphasis original)

8/09/2007
"Some scholars have used the Iconographic Theory as a springboard for additions and variations. The 
German, Werner Bulst, and his colleagues held that all of the so-called `miraculous' pictures of antiquity, 
including the legend of Veronica's Veil, were derived from the relic of Turin, or from a knowledge of it in the 
primitive church. Said Bulst: `In one point all of these legends surprisingly agree: the picture resulted from 
the impression of the Face of Jesus on a cloth. Often the cloth was called a sudarium or a sweat cloth. 
It was also called a sindon in the legends-the same word used by the Synoptics for the Shroud. In fact the 
word sindon is used in one of the oldest texts that makes mention of the picture of Edessa ... [In another 
version] of the Edessa legend Jesus was stretched out to His full length on a linen cloth and an impression 
of His whole figure was left thereon ... The question may well be raised whether so ancient and 
widespread a tradition about a cloth with the impress of Jesus might not have some historical point of 
contact ...' [Bulst, W., "The Shroud of Turin," Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, 1957, p.42]" (Walsh, J.E., 
"The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, 1963, pp.159-160. Emphasis original)

8/09/2007
"The image of the crucified on the Cloth of Turin differs, therefore, as has been shown, in its basic features 
and in numerous details from the whole artistic tradition. In this state of things it is all the more remarkable 
that, in regard to the Face itself, we must indicate a very extensive agreement with the ancient and traditional 
portrait of Christ. The most ancient representations of Christ, that have been preserved to us, have a typico-
symbolical character. Particularly striking in this respect is the figure of the Good Shepherd, which has come 
down to us in the rather numerous wall paintings of the catacombs, in the plastic art of the early Christian 
sarcophagi, etc., and in individual statues from the first centuries. Christ appears with a youthful, often 
boyish and affable figure, with oval face, beardless as a rule, and with short hair. About the fourth century 
another way of depicting Christ began to prevail, and it indicates an obvious striving to do greater justice to 
the historical appearance of the Lord. Thus the symbolical is in turn succeeded by the historical concept, or 
portrait. Christ now stands before us with stress on his manhood. His face is sharply profiled as a rule and 
longish, with virile nose, generally with large and deep-set eyes. The chin, lips, and cheek are moderately 
bearded; and the hair, often parted in the middle, reaches to the shoulders." (Bulst, W., "The Shroud of 
Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, 1957, pp.38-39)

8/09/2007
"Whence came this new type of Christ, which soon prevailed almost everywhere with certain variations and 
has so markedly determined Christ's picture in art up to the present day? The prototype of the new picture 
of Christ cannot be sought in the field of classical Greek and Roman art, where, among the numerous actual 
portraits, we will probably not find a single one with hair parted in the middle and reaching to the shoulders. 
We only find analogies to this picture of Christ in the paintings of Biblical figures which appear generally at 
a somewhat later date. We have no reliable literary tradition about the form and appearance of Christ. On 
this point the Gospels and the most ancient Christian writers are silent. The apocryphal accounts about the 
youthful or boyish beauty of Christ deserve no credence, since they were determined by theological 
speculations rather than an authentic tradition." (Bulst, W., "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, 
J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, 1957, p.39)

8/09/2007
"Since at least the sixth century, mention is made repeatedly and in various places of pictures of Christ 
which were "achiropoeton," i.e., "not made with hands." The most important of these is the so-called 
Picture of Edessa (or of Abgar). Its early history is obscure. The year 544 is the earliest and to some 
extent the more certain date for its existence. The (miraculous) picture was discovered in that year in the wall 
over a city gate in Edessa. Hence it seems to have been much older. We do not know exactly how this 
picture looked, but there is no doubt that it depicted Christ with beard and long hair.

The famous Picture of Veronica, which is known to have been in Rome from at least the twelfth century, 
also belongs to this type, but is probably much older and of oriental origin. This picture was likewise 
regarded as not-made-with-human-hands, a `true picture' of Christ, and was therefore held in the highest 
esteem. ... Now the image on the Cloth of Turin clearly agrees with this type of representation of Christ, at 
least in the basic features. It shows a very striking similarity to some very ancient pictures of Christ, e.g., to 
a picture in the catacomb of Peter and Marcellinus (about 400), to the Christ of the three crosses on the 
portal of St. Sabina in Rome (beginning of the fifth century), to several mosaics in S. Apollinare Nuovo in 
Ravenna (around 500), and to the mosaic in the apse of SS. Cosmas and Damian, Rome (about the sixth 
century). Such being the case, we must have here some relationship of dependency either direct or at least 
indirect. Agreement so extensive cannot be due to chance. There would be no trouble explaining it, if the 
image on the Cloth of Turin were a painting. Then it would simply be another link in the artistic tradition. 
Anyone making a `Shroud of Christ' must abide by the portrait canonized as traditional and legitimate. But 
should the fact be that the image on the Cloth of Turin is not a work of art at all, as those who have probed 
its artistic technique and style all but unanimously confess, then what? How explain its remarkable 
agreement with the traditional portrait of Christ? If the medical investigations, which we have yet to report, 
are correct: that the image on the Cloth is actually the imprint of a human corpse, of a man who was 
crucified, then quite naturally this portrait cannot derive from a fixed art type. Perhaps the relationship of 
dependency ought to be the other way round? In other words, must we not rather hold that the prevalent 
portrait of Christ, of which we have evidence from the fourth century (if not earlier), derives from the face on 
the Cloth (just how would be another question)? Or must we perhaps hold that, in a way we can no longer 
determine more precisely, it goes back to the Man whose image has come down to us, impressed on the 
Cloth of Turin?" (Bulst, W., "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: 
Milwaukee WI, 1957, pp.41-42)

8/09/2007
"These speculations gain added support from certain elements in the story of the Picture of Edessa, and the 
ancient Achiropoeta as a whole, which possibly may refer to the image on the Cloth of Turin, and perhaps 
interpret their being `not made with hands' for us. The history of the Picture of Edessa is a tissue of legends: 
numerous, different, and at times self-contradictory. But in one point all these legends surprisingly agree: 
the picture resulted from the impression of the Face of Jesus on a cloth. In one version it is the impress of 
His sweat-soaked Face. Often the cloth was called a Sudarium or sweat cloth," like the Picture of Veronica 
in the West. It was also called a Sindon in the legends - the same word used by the Synoptics for the 
Shroud. In fact, the word sindon is used in one of the oldest texts that makes mention of the Picture of 
Edessa. In another unique version of the Edessa legend, that we have in a manuscript of uncertain date, the 
connection with the Shroud is even more evident. It is a Latin translation, apparently from the Syriac, and 
was certainly known before the mid-twelfth century, if not much earlier. According to this, Jesus was 
stretched out to His full length on a linen cloth and an impression of His whole figure was left thereon." 
(Bulst, W., "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, 
1957, pp.41-42. Emphasis original)

8/09/2007
"The question may well be raised, whether so ancient and widespread a tradition about a cloth with the 
impress of Jesus might not have some historical point of contact, even if the tradition is largely legendary. ... 
The idea of a picture impressed on a cloth is first found in connection with Christ. This tradition about an 
impressed picture of Jesus meshes remarkably with the conviction of numberless doctors, who for quite 
different reasons, attest that the image on the Cloth of Turin must be the imprint of the sweat-sopped body 
of someone crucified. In a variety of indicative clues: nail wounds, whip stripes, and the marks of a crown of 
thorns they are led to suspect that the Someone is Christ. Should this medical evidence prove valid, and 
further, should the identification of Jesus as the one crucified be confirmed, we would have proof of the 
starting point in history and the core of the tradition for an imprinted image of Christ on a linen cloth." 
(Bulst, W., "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, 
1957, pp.42-43)

9/09/2007
"Despite these difficulties, however, all is by no means as unforthcoming as might at first appear. For 
instance, long recognized on the shroud as preceding the very distinctive scars of the 1532 fire are four sets 
of triple burn holes that derive from some unrecorded damage incident that was certainly before 1516, as the 
marks are clearly visible in a painted copy of that year. The four sets back each other up, indicating that the 
damage was sustained when the cloth was folded in four, and they appear almost as if a sputtering red hot 
poker was thrust through the cloth three times, the topmost of the three holes having next to it an extra one, 
as if created by a stray spark. In 1986 French Dominican monk Pere A. M. Dubarle, a former scholar of the 
Jerusalem Ecole Biblique, was corresponding on the subject of the shroud-like figure on the Pray manuscript 
of 1192 ... when his correspondent drew his attention to some curious holes indicated on the illustration 
below this figure. Clearly visible on the sarcophagus in the scene of the three Marys visiting the Empty 
Tomb was a line of three holes, with an extra one offset to one side ... Even more curious, though almost 
vanishingly tiny, was a similar set of three holes to be seen on the shroud or napkin-like cloth depicted 
rolled up on the sarcophagus ... . Could these have been intended to represent the `poker hole' marks that 
the artist of 1192 knew to be on the Christ shroud of his day, the one preserved in Constantinople? If this 
could be believed, then even on its own it would at a stroke set the shroud's date nearly a hundred years 
earlier than the very earliest date allowed by carbon dating." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The 
Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.160-161. Emphasis original)

9/09/2007
"However, well over half a century before this particular observation by Dubarle and his correspondent, 
another Frenchman had been fired by the self-same idea that something along these lines was the way to 
establish that the shroud really was around during the early centuries. This was Paul Vignon, who as early 
as 1900 had been shown the shroud photograph by Paris anatomy professor, Yves Delage. Although a 
biologist by training, Vignon became launched into decades of enthusiastic research into every aspect of 
the shroud. Late in his life, however, the topic that particularly absorbed him was the incidence in early 
Byzantine portraits of the Christ Enthroned/Christ Pantocrator type of curious facial markings seeming to 
derive from equivalent features on the shroud. ... Even before examining Vignon's specific arguments 
relating to the markings, there is a lot to suggest that he was on the right track in surmising a powerful 
association between Byzantine Pantocrator/Christ Enthroned portraits and those of the face of Christ on 
cloth, as in our `holy faces' and on the `shroud." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for 
Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.161-16l)

9/09/2007
"Particularly indicative of this are two very ancient Christ Enthroned/Christ Pantocrator portraits, both in 
Rome, and known from the earliest as Acheropita, or images `made without hands'. The first of these is the 
now familiar Acheropita of the Sancta Sanctorum Chapel of the Lateran ... which ... was in Rome at least as 
early as 754, more than two centuries before the earliest recorded existence of the Veronica. ... The second 
`Acheropita' ... is the already mentioned Christ Pantocrator head in mosaic ... set in the apse of the basilica of 
St John Lateran, just across the piazza from the Sancta Sanctorum chapel. Over-size, this is readily visible to 
every basilica visitor, and the Christ countenance is replete with some most distinctive markings, particularly 
on the forehead. .... In its original form it most likely dates as far back as the late sixth century.... these two 
`Acheropita', both with `holy face' associations, and both dating back to the sixth century (the time of the 
apparent rediscovery of the `holy face' of Edessa), point to a very clear relation between the Christ 
Enthroned/Pantocrator iconographic type, and the `made without hands' holy face on cloth. This is further 
indicated by the fact that when in 945 the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII celebrated the first 
anniversary of the `holy face' of Edessa's coming to Constantinople, he issued a clearly commemorative gold 
coin with a Christ Pantocrator bust on its reverse. There are also several references to the `holy face' of 
Edessa being set on a throne and being accorded imperial honours. Effectively, Christ Pantocrator/Christ 
Enthroned portraits from the sixth century on would seem to have been representations of the `holy face' of 
Edessa, merely in a translated form. And this serves to reinforce the significance that Paul Vignon attached 
to Byzantine Christ Pantocrator/Christ Enthroned portraits as embodying facial markings derivative from the 
shroud." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 
1991, pp.162-164)

9/09/2007
"Now to find a classic example of the Vignon type - even though Vignon himself appears not to have been 
aware of this particular one - we need look no further than a well-preserved and strongly Byzantine Christ 
Enthroned ... that to this day looks down from the apse of the Basilica of Sant'Angelo in Formis, a church 
sited among ancient ruins five miles north of Capua in central Italy. Because it is in fresco this particular 
example has not suffered the retouchings and alterations that so often beset panel paintings and mosaics. It 
dates from circa 1050, and immediately evident are a variety of markings to the face, including several 
identified by Vignon as derivative from the shroud. Notable among these are a transverse line across the 
forehead, a raised right eyebrow, an upside-down triangle at the bridge of the nose, heavily delineated lower 
eyelids, a strongly accentuated left cheek, a strongly accentuated right cheek, and a hairless gap between 
the lower lip and beard." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," 
Doubleday: London, 1991, p.164)

9/09/2007
"Although most such markings tend to come and go between one portrait and another, indicative inevitably 
of artists working at several hands removed from the hypothetical master-original, the one deserving of 
special attention is the upside-down triangle clearly indicated between the eyebrows. Particularly important 
is that unlike several other of the markings it has no logic as a natural feature of the face, making all the more 
interesting its recurrence in several other key works. Thus we see it particularly distinctively on the awe-
inspiring eleventh-century mosaic Pantocrator ... that glowers down from the dome of the church at Daphni, 
near Athens. In this, even more decisively than in the Sant'Angelo in Formis fresco, its occurrence simply 
cannot be dismissed as fanciful, for the reason that pieces of black mosaic have been specially selected and 
arranged into the shape of a triangle in order to convey it. Equally significantly, we see it very prominently 
and distinctively on several early copies of the `holy face' of Edessa, notably on the twelfth-century fresco 
at Spas Nereditsa ... and on the Genoa `holy face' ... , where importantly it appears on the oldest image, that 
is, the one underlying that visible at the present day, as revealed by X-radiography. Most crucially, of 
course, it is also on the Turin shroud itself ..., where its incidence, though unmistakable, seems to be the 
entirely natural one of some anomaly of the weave. It is hard to believe that it was not the incidence of this 
feature on the shroud that caused it to be repeated by so many copyists." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret 
Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.165-166)

9/09/2007
"Of course it is also arguable that such a single feature as this might be better attributable just to some trick 
of the eye, or at best to coincidence. This would be hotly refuted, however, by one distinguished American 
physician, Dr Alan Whanger, professor of psychiatry at Duke University, North Carolina. Introduced to the 
subject of the shroud at the time of its exposition in 1978, Whanger became so fascinated by the numerous 
parallels he observed between Byzantine Christ portraits and the shroud face that he invented his own 
special twin projector/polaroid overlay method in order more scientifically to compare the markings one 
against the other [Whanger, A.D. & Whanger, M., "Polarized image overlay technique: a new image 
comparison method and its applications," Applied Optics, Vol. 24, No. 16, 15 March 1985, pp. 766-772]. For 
as Whanger quickly discovered, just to set up twin projectors, one with a slide of the shroud face, the other 
with a suitable-looking Christ portrait, was inadequate to make a suitably precise comparison. He therefore 
added polaroid filters, a vertical one in the first projector, a horizontal one in the second, giving the viewer a 
third filter for manual rotation in front of the projected image. This enabled the observation and mapping of 
the points of similarity with a quite remarkable ease and precision. And with the aid of this method Whanger 
found some instances of a hundred or more points of similarity, or congruity between a Christ portrait and 
the shroud face, well over anything that could possibly be attributed to chance." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, 
Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, p.166)

9/09/2007
"Particularly astonishing have been the numerous points of congruity he identified in an icon Christ 
Pantocrator of the sixth century, from St Catherine's monastery, Sinai ... also in the first ever coins to feature 
the Christ Pantocrator image, superb gold solidi minted by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian II, and 
thereby precisely datable to about the year AD 692. As a result of these and similar researches Whanger has 
become personally convinced that the shroud, in the guise of the `holy face' of Edessa, has to have been in 
existence and known by Byzantine artists a full eight centuries before the earliest ascribed to it by carbon 
dating." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 
1991, pp.166-167)

9/09/2007
"The question raised is whether there is anything, besides the already-mentioned upside-down triangle, that 
might offer a similar vehicle for deduction in respect of the Christ Pantocrator/Christ Enthroned type portrait 
and the face on the shroud? In this regard perhaps no more distinctive and unnatural a feature is to be 
found on the shroud face than a sharply geometric topless square immediately between the eyebrows, just 
above the afore-mentioned upside-down triangle ... . As in the case of the triangle, its actual nature on the 
shroud is again uncertain. Although Whanger has thought it to be a Jewish phylactery, it is perhaps safest 
to regard it, as in the case of the triangle, as some accidental flaw or anomaly of the weave. Worthy of note 
is that a somewhat reminiscent feature can be seen on the Sant'Angelo in Formis Christ Enthroned ... on the 
Daphni Pantocrator ... and several others (including the Acheropita apse mosaic in St John Lateran ... . In 
each case, however, these are somewhat stylized, more rounded than on the shroud, as if having been 
rendered more naturalistic by artists copying this feature at second or third hand." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, 
Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, p.167)

9/09/2007
"But there is one example that is almost spectacularly different. Out on the Via Portuense, which runs south-
westwards out of Rome, there lies one of Rome's least-known catacombs, the Catacomb of S. Ponziano, or St 
Pontianus. It goes unmentioned even by the authoritative Blue Guide to Rome, and can only be visited by 
special permission from the Pontificia Commissione di Archeologia Sacra, the Pontifical Commission of 
Sacred Archaeology. Importantly, since the whole catacomb was closed down after AD 820, any decoration 
inside it almost inevitably has to be of an earlier date. On one wall, slightly damaged, but its colours still 
fresh, is to be seen a very fine fresco ... of Christ Pantocrator iconographically so close to that of the coins 
of Justinian II that its date is almost certainly the same, the end of the seventh century. But its real feature of 
interest is the one which lies between Christ's eyebrows, and would be well nigh impossible to convey on 
anything as small as a coin. This is a sharply delineated topless square ... exactly corresponding in shape 
and positioning to that so unnatural mark between the eyebrows on the shroud. Now there can be no 
question of this feature perhaps being the result of some later tampering with the fresco. Not only did 
Vignon feature it in his book of 1939, thus dating it back at least fifty years, there are many indications that it 
was the work of the original seventh-century artist. Throughout the work, for instance, the artist used only a 
very limited range of colours, and it can be seen to have been painted in one of these. Furthermore, it has 
been created in fresco, thereby having been made integral to the original wall plaster, and can be adjudged 
as such by any expert. And if this originality is accepted, its significance in relation to the shroud's date is 
difficult to over-estimate. Just as the viewing of a single footprint on fresh sand provided for Robinson 
Crusoe the conclusive evidence that there was another human being (later revealed as Man Friday) on his 
island, so the presence of this topless square on an indisputably seventh/eighth-century fresco virtually 
demands that the shroud must have been around, somewhere, in some form at this early date. Since that 
form can have been scarcely other than the `holy face' of Edessa, the shroud's history is effectively 
established at least as far back as the sixth century, with the Abgar story offering a glimmer of how it may 
have arrived in Edessa back in the first." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True 
Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.167-168)

9/09/2007
"Of course, there is one alternative scenario that may occur to the more dogged sceptic. It is the inevitable 
chicken-and-egg one. Perhaps the hypothetical forger, in addition to his brilliance in creating the 
photographic quality of the shroud image, and his rendering of its bloodflows with such exactness, also 
knew of the strange markings on Christ portraits in art, and added these for yet more convincing effect? 
While such a possibility has to be acknowledged, it is equally important to stress its unconvincingness. As 
in so much else in his methodology, the hypothetical forger would have been alone among fourteenth-
century artists, eastern and western, in taking an interest in these markings. Even in the Byzantine world the 
incidence of them fell away markedly following the Sack of Constantinople in 1204. Furthermore he would 
have had more than a little difficulty even finding out about the marking on the Ponziano catacomb fresco, 
for there seems no evidence that anyone knew of this catacomb's existence from its closure in 820 to the time 
the Italian archaeologist G. B. de Rossi began systematic excavation of all catacombs in 1852. Effectively, 
while there is a great deal to suggest that in the seventh/eighth century the Ponziano fresco artist might 
have taken his inspiration from a `holy face' cloth such as the shroud, there is absolutely nothing to suggest 
that in the fourteenth century the hypothetical shroud forger would or could have known anything of the 
Ponziano catacomb." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," 
Doubleday: London, 1991, p.168)

9/09/2007
"Overall then, we have satisfied all the main requirements for confidence that something answering all the 
essential characteristics of the shroud was in existence as the `holy face' of Edessa between the sixth 
century and 1204. We have seen that the idea of Jesus imprinting the likeness of his face on cloth, and the 
physical existence of a cloth corresponding to this idea, goes back at least as far as the sixth century. We 
have found that the idea of Jesus imprinting wounds from his dead body (notably the wound in the side) 
onto this cloth, dates back at least as far as the tenth century. We have established that the idea of Jesus 
imprinting the full imprint of his body on cloth dates at least as far back as the twelfth century. Not least, we 
have identified markings that virtually fingerprint the shroud to having been in existence at least as early as 
the eighth century. Against all this we have been able to add virtually nothing to the credibility of the 
hypothetical fourteenth-century forger. So was there in the fourteenth century a brilliant unknown 
individual who transmuted the undeniably pre-existent idea of Jesus imprinting his image on cloth into the 
extraordinary reality that is the Turin shroud, embodying in it features it was virtually impossible for him to 
know of? Or could the accuracy of the shroud carbon dating somehow be not quite all that has been claimed 
of it?" (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 
1991, p.169)

9/09/2007
"The only early literary reference seeming to suggest for it some prefourteenth-century existence is an 
account by Crusader Robert de Clari that in August 1203, shortly before the sack of Constantinople, he saw 
in that city a church `... which they called My Lady St. Mary of Blachernae, where was kept the sydoine in 
which Our Lord was wrapped, which stood up straight every Friday so that the [figure] of Our Lord could be 
plainly seen there. To this De Clari added intriguingly: `No one, either Greek or French, ever knew what 
became of this sydoine after the city was taken.' .... Yet even if the present-day Shroud was one and the 
same as the sydoine described by De Clari in Constantinople, there is no clear record of either the coming 
or the going of this." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, pp.103-104)

9/09/2007
"The question that arises is whether this makes it yet more likely that the Shroud must be the work of some 
fourteenth-century painter, or whether there could be some other possible explanation. One potentially 
rewarding approach is to consider whether, independent of literary references, there are any visual clues to 
the possible early existence of the cloth we know today as the Turin Shroud. Particularly interesting in this 
connection are the portraits of Jesus that have come down to us through the centuries, portraits which, it is 
to be noted, correspond very closely with the bearded, long-haired image visible, even without the aid of the 
photographic negative, on the Shroud linen itself. It needs to be recognized that while if the Shroud is the 
work of an artist of the fourteenth century the artist would obviously have copied the traditional likeness of 
the time, if, on the other hand, it genuinely derives from the first century and was subsequently preserved 
somewhere accessible, then inevitably early artists must have consulted it as a guide to Jesus' earthly 
appearance, of which there is no information provided in the Gospels. Following this line of thinking, it 
seems at least potentially productive to try to trace how far back the conventional Jesus likeness can be 
found in works of art and to try to determine whether this offers any clues that the Shroud image may lie 
behind it." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, pp.104-105)

9/09/2007
"A study of this kind is, to say the least, illuminating. A consistent Shroud-like, long-haired, fork-bearded, 
front-facing likeness of Christ can be traced back through numerous works in the Byzantine tradition dating 
many centuries before the time of Geoffrey de Charny. Beginning with the twelfth century, there is an 
imposing Christ Pantocrator from Cefalu, Sicily. From about a century earlier, a similar, almost terrifying 
Pantocrator glowers from the dome of the church of Daphni, near Athens. From back to the tenth century, a 
still familiar-looking Christ Enthroned stares out from the church of St. Angelo in Formis, near Capua ... . 
Datable back to the eighth century, a similar-looking Christ portrait is to be found in the depths of the 
Pontianus catacomb, near Rome. As early as the sixth century, still with the same facial resemblance, are a 
Christ portrait on a silver vase found at Homs, in present-day Syria, and a beautiful icon of Christ 
Pantocrator from the monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai Desert. Despite stylistic variations, each of 
these works seems inspired by the same tradition of Jesus' earthly appearance. And each has a strong 
resemblance to the face visible on the Shroud." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: 
London, 1986, p.105)

9/09/2007
"In this connection, as early as the 1930s a Frenchman, Paul Vignon, pointed out among this same family of 
Christ portraits a recurrence of certain strange markings seemingly derivative from the Shroud. One example 
is a starkly geometrical topless square visible between the eyebrows on the Shroud image. Exactly what this 
feature is remains undetermined, but it is to be seen in the identical position on the eighth-century 
Pontianus portrait, curiously unnatural on an otherwise naturalistic-enough work. Another example is a V 
shape visible between the apparent `eyes' on the Shroud image, and recurring on the Daphni and S. Angelo 
in Formis portraits, and several others. Altogether, some fifteen Shroud oddities of this kind consistently 
recur in Byzantine portraits of Christ." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 
1986, pp.105,107)

9/09/2007
"So persistent are these oddities that they have certainly not gone unnoticed by professional art historians. 
Professor Kurt Weitzmann of Princeton University has remarked of the sixth-century icon portrait from the 
St. Catherine monastery, Sinai ... : `... the pupils of the eyes are not at the same level; the eyebrow over 
Christ's left eye is arched higher than over his right . . one side of the mustache droops at a slightly different 
angle from the other, while the beard is combed in the opposite direction ... Many of these subtleties remain 
attached to this particular type of Christ image and can be seen in later copies, e.g. the mosaic bust in the 
narthex of Hosios Lukas over the entrance to the catholicon ... Here too the difference in the raising of the 
eyebrows is most noticeable ...' [Weitzmann, K., "The Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai: The 
Icons," Princeton University Press, 1976, p.15]" (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: 
London, 1986, p.107)

9/09/2007
"For Weitzmann and others, there has been disinclination to consider the Shroud as a possible source of 
these facial oddities, understandable enough from the point of view of damage to academic reputations if 
the Shroud were proved a forgery. But such considerations have not deterred Dr. Alan Whanger, professor 
of psychiatry at Duke University, North Carolina, an enthusiastic spare-time researcher on the Shroud. In 
1978, Whanger was so struck by the similarity between the Shroud facial image and that of the Christ 
portrait on a Byzantine gold solidus minted about the year A.D. 695, that he immediately began 
experimenting to find the best scientific means of comparing the two images, the one life-size, the other no 
more than nine millimeters high. The method he devised was to photograph both the Shroud face and the 
coin portrait so that each have the same proportions on 35-mm. transparencies, then to project the 
transparencies from two slide projectors so that they appear superimposed upon one another on the same 
projection screen. Because such double projection would normally make it difficult to determine which 
feature belongs to which image, Whanger adds a polaroid filter to each projector, one perpendicular, the 
other horizontal, and manually rotates a third one. The effect is to enable the areas of congruence between 
the two images to be observed with ease and precision ... ." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild 
Publishing: London, 1986, p.107-108)

9/09/2007
"The result throws up so many areas of congruity, including even the matching of Christ's neckline on the 
coin portrait with a persistent accidental crease on the Shroud, that to Whanger it has seemed self-evident 
that the Shroud must somehow have served as inspiration for the Byzantine coin. Exploring other Byzantine 
images, he alighted on the intriguing sixth-century Pantocrator, icon from St. Catherine's monastery, Sinai, 
with the strange features already noted by Professor Weitzmann (see previous page). Following a 
painstaking study undertaken with his wife, Mary, Whanger claims the identification of no fewer than one 
hundred and seventy points of congruity between the Shroud image and the sixth-century icon. To them, 
and to many who have studied their work, it seems irrefutable that artists at least as early as the sixth 
century somehow had available to them either the Shroud, or a detailed copy of it, seven centuries before, 
according to Dr. McCrone, the image was devised by some cunning medieval artist." (Wilson, I., "The 
Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, p.110)

9/09/2007
"Importantly, neither the distinctive Shroud-like Christ portraits, nor the facial markings associated with 
them, are to be found datable before the sixth century. Many pre-sixth-century portraits of Jesus show him 
as an Apollo-like, beardless youth (see opposite, below). Others, although of a bearded, long-haired type, 
lack the precision, frontality, uniformity of features, and Vignon facial markings so predominant from the 
sixth century on. Writing in the fifth century, St. Augustine complained that the portraits of Jesus in his time 
were `innumerable in concept and design,' for the good reason that `We do not know of his external 
appearance, nor that of his mother.' [St. Augustine, De Trinitate, VIII, 4, 5, in Migne, J-P., Patrologia 
Latina, Vol. 42, 1801] The change came only in the sixth century. From that time on, everyone seemed to 
know what Jesus looked like, and portraitists, as if by invisible decree, suddenly locked on to the type of 
representation by which we recognize a picture of Jesus today, complete with the strange facial markings." 
(Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, p.110)

9/09/2007
"So what caused them to do so? What, historically, is known to have been the source of inspiration for 
Byzantine portraits of Christ at that time? From the point of view of the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox 
Church, there is absolutely no mystery about this. The universally recognized source of the true likeness of 
Jesus in art was an apparently miraculously imprinted image of Jesus on cloth, the so-called Image of 
Edessa, or Mandylion, so highly venerated that a representation of it is to be found in virtually every 
Orthodox church even to this day. According to a clutch of early writers, this cloth was sent shortly after 
the death of Jesus to the town of Edessa, present-day Urfa, in eastern Turkey, a location in itself of interest, 
as it happens to be in the very Anatolian steppe region that Dr. Max Frei's pollen pinpoints as one of the 
sites of the Shroud's travels. In Edessa, the cloth is said to have been instrumental in the conversion to 
Christianity of the city's king, Abgar V (A.D. 13-50). Whatever the truth of this, some subsequent 
persecution seems to have caused the cloth's disappearance, but in the sixth century the cloth was 
rediscovered, apparently having been sealed for centuries in a niche above the city's gate. The fact of the 
time of its discovery being precisely that of the dramatic change in Christ portraits can scarcely be 
coincidental." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, pp.110-111)

9/09/2007
"Furthermore, from the sixth century on, the cloth is a reliably recorded object, and the contemporary 
information that can be gleaned is of considerable interest. The early artists' copies show it as, a sepia-
colored, disembodied image of Jesus' face set on a landscape (as distinct from portrait) -aspect, ivory-
colored linen cloth, precisely corresponding to the facial area on the Shroud ... . Literary descriptions speak 
of the image as acheiropoietos (not made by hand), and refer to its composition as `a moist secretion 
without colouring or painter's art,' `due to sweat, not pigments,' and `like drops of blood.' In 944 a 
Byzantine army was sent to remove this cloth from Edessa and take it to Constantinople; it was this which 
precipitated the prevailing mystery concerning this remarkable object. For when, in 1204, the Fourth Crusade 
sacked Constantinople, whatever the Image of Edessa was, it disappeared just as completely and 
inexplicably as the image-bearing sydoine described by Robert de Clari. Inevitably the question that 
arises is whether the cloth Image of Edessa could have been one and the same as the present-day Shroud. 
As is unmistakable, if this is the case, its history would neatly fill almost the entire missing portion of that of 
the Shroud -assuming the latter is genuinely of first-century date." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the 
Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, p.111)

9/09/2007
"At first sight, however, there are some powerful objections. For instance, early- manuscript accounts of the 
Edessa Image, almost without exception, describe what was visible on the cloth as only Jesus' face. Direct 
artists' copies, which because of the relic's holiness occur only from the tenth century on, similarly show 
only a face. Although manuscript accounts differ in their concepts of how the image was formed, they 
broadly comprise two traditions: (i) that Jesus imprinted his likeness on the cloth when he dried .his face 
after baptism; (ii) that Jesus imprinted his likeness on the cloth when he dried his face after the `bloody 
sweat' (noted in Luke 22:44) during the agony in Gethsemane. The universal idea of the Image of Edessa was 
one of an image of Jesus created while he was alive. And in a direct description of the imperial family 
studying the Image of Edessa at the time of its reception in Constantinople in A.D. 944, it is quite clear that 
people of that time had no idea they could be looking at a burial shroud." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the 
Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, pp.111-112)

9/09/2007
"While such objections might appear overwhelming, and continue to be so regarded by some historians of 
Byzantium, their force can be dispelled by one comparatively simple hypothesis: that at the time of its 
rediscovery in the sixth century, and for at least some while after its reception into Constantinople, the 
Shroud was folded and mounted in such a way that only the facial area was visible and accessible. On the 
basis of such a hypothesis, every description of the Image of Edessa during the period in question is 
compatible with a viewing of the Shroud. Assuming no awareness that it is a gravecloth, the Shroud image's 
`eyes' appear open and staring, readily suggestive that it was formed while Jesus was alive. Viewed in 
anything less than the strongest light (a rare commodity in Byzantine churches), the Shroud's `crown of 
thorns' blood flows are virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the face, hence easily interpretable as 
from the `bloody sweat' of Gethsemane" (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: 
London, 1986, p.112)

9/09/2007
"There is much to support such a hypothesis. For instance, the tenth-century official history of the Image of 
Edessa describes the cloth as mounted on a board and embellished with gold. These features seem 
corroborated by artists' copies which usually show the cloth stretched taut, as if on a board, and with a 
multistranded fringe, each strand of which is fastened to one of a row of nails ranged on either side of the 
cloth. A mounting arrangement of this kind would have been particularly ideal for the conservation of a 
cloth such as the Shroud, since no nails need have touched the linen itself." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of 
the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, p.112)

9/09/2007
"Even more pertinent is early information concerning possible folding. One sixth-century text relating to the 
Image of Edessa quite explicitly describes it as tetradiplon, `doubled in four.' A most curious choice of 
word, according to Cambridge University's Professor Lampe, editor of the Lexicon of Patristic Greek, in all 
literature it occurs only in association with the Image of Edessa, being scarcely, therefore, an idle turn of 
phrase. The word seems to mean doubled, then redoubled, then doubled again, i.e. doubling three times 
which has the effect of `doubling in four,' producing 4 x 2 folds. If the Shroud is folded in this manner, the 
result is unmistakable. The face alone appears, disembodied on a landscape-aspect background, in a manner 
of the most striking similarity to the early artists' copies of the Image of Edessa. The possibility can scarcely 
be ignored that if the Shroud was indeed preserved in this manner, the Byzantines might have kept it for 
centuries not realizing it was a shroud (or the Shroud), simply because the full-length figure had been 
sealed away long before their time." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 
1986, pp.112,114)

9/09/2007
"Obviously, it would be considerable support to such a theory if there is direct evidence that at some time 
while still in the possession of the Byzantines the Image's still hypothetical full-length imprint was suddenly 
revealed. There indeed seems evidence for this, beginning with sometime in the eleventh century. Without 
any explanation given, artists at this time begin to show scenes of Jesus' entombment in which, instead of 
being shown wrapped mummy-style as previously, his body is depicted enveloped in a specifically Shroud-
type winding sheet. Several examples of this type feature, for the first time ever, his hands crossed Shroud-
style over the loins, a particularly striking example of this being the Hungarian Pray manuscript, reliably 
dated 1192-95, which, like the Shroud, shows Jesus completely naked." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the 
Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, p.114)

9/09/2007
"Alongside such artistic evidence, gossip-mongering writers from the twelfth century specifically begin 
speaking of a full-length body imprint on the Image of Edessa. Ordericus Vitalis, around the year 1130, wrote 
of it: `This displayed to those who gazed on it the likeness and proportions of the body of the Lord.' 
[Emphasis supplied] A twelfth-century writer of a Rome codex similarly put into the mouth of Jesus that the 
cloth he was sending to King Abgar was `A cloth on which the image not only of my face but of may 
whole body has been divinely transformed.' [Emphasis supplied]" (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the 
Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, p.114. Emphasis original)

9/09/2007
"As perhaps the most tantalizing clue of all that the full-length figure came to light, from the eleventh 
century on, the Byzantines began to use in their Good Friday Liturgy beautiful epitaphioi, large 
embroidered cloths explicitly symbolic of Jesus' shroud, complete with a pictorial representation of the full-
length body of Jesus laid out in death. In two examples, the finest of which is that of King Uros Milutin, 
preserved in the Museum of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Belgrade, the body is represented frontally with 
the hands crossed in an identical manner to that of the Shroud. The date is two generations before the time 
of Geoffrey de Charny." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, pp.114, 
117. Emphasis original)

9/09/2007
"There is, then, at least a reasonable case to be made for the Shroud's having spent at least half its history in 
-a hitherto unrecognized guise, as the Image of Edessa. If the identification is to be sustained (and only an 
eventual first-century radio-carbon date can provide optimum support), some explanation is of course 
necessary for what might have happened to the cloth during the century and a half between its 
disappearance in 1204 as the Image of Edessa and its emergence as the Shroud in the 1310s in the hands of 
the De Charnys. There are various possibilities, but according to one Oxford scholar, Hungarian Dr. 
Csocsán de Varallja, the most likely person to have whisked the Shroud away during the confusion of the 
crusader capture of Constantinople was the Hungarian-born Empress Mary-Margaret, a colorful woman 
married when she was a child of ten to the considerably older Emperor Isaac II Angelus. By 1204, in the 
course of the vicissitudes preceding the fail of Byzantium, Isaac had been blinded and suffered two 
overthrows; he died during the Crusader capture of the city. When, after the sack, victorious crusader leader 
Boniface de Montferrat took charge of the imperial palace, he found inside the just-widowed Mary-
Margaret, a still attractive woman of twenty-nine. Boniface proposed to her the same day, they were married 
in little over a month, and they subsequently moved to Thessalonica. Here one of Mary-Margaret's few 
known activities was her founding of a Church of the Acheiropoietos (i.e. of the Image of Edessa) .... 
Arguably, she may have done this to house the Image of Edessa/Shroud brought with her from 
Constantinople. Perhaps significantly, one of the finest of all known epitaphioi originated in 
Thessalonica." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, p.117)

9/09/2007
"Most tantalizing of all, when, in 1207, Boniface died, Mary-Margaret married yet again, her new husband 
being a Nicholas de Saint-Omer, by whom she had a son William. This William became involved with the 
Order of Knights Templar, and whether or not he may have been instrumental in passing the cloth to the 
Order, what is certain is that there are good grounds for believing that by the end of the thirteenth century 
the Templars secretly had the Shroud, or at least something like it. At this time, all Europe buzzed with 
rumors that they were worshiping some form of bearded, reddish-color male head-sometimes referred to as 
on a plaque-at secret chapter meetings. Such rumors gave King Philip the Fair of France the excuse to arrest 
all Templars and confiscate the wealth of the order in 1307. Although whatever the original was it was never 
found, what may well be a copy of it came to light on the site of a former Templar preceptory at 
Templecombe, in Somerset, England ... . This is a bearded, Christ-like face painted on a wooden panel, of an 
unmistakable likeness to the Shroud in its folded form. A further clue lies in the name of one of the highest 
dignitaries of the Templars, the Master of Normandy, burnt at the stake in 1314 .... This was Geoffrey de 
Charny, a man just one generation before the Geoffrey de Charny of Lirey, who was the first certain (or 
reasonably certain) owner of the present-day Turin Shroud. Such, then, is a hypothetical explanation for 
how the Shroud might not only be a genuine first-century burial cloth, but also have actually played a 
prominent part in international affairs during the hitherto mysterious years preceding the fourteenth 
century." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, pp.117-118)

9/09/2007
"Professor Drews, for one, has been unconvinced by Professor Averil Cameron's arguments, but there 
remains one objection, the validity of which is recognized by the author. If the Shroud genuinely spent most 
of its years up to 1201 `doubled in four,' with only the face exposed, this would surely have left some telltale 
marks on the present-day linen, such as a darkening of the exposed area and vestiges of the original fold 
marks. Certainly there is no readily perceptible darkening of the facial area, but in fact there is no 
overwhelming reason why we should expect this. Darkening occurs due to the effect of exposure to light 
over long periods, and in the case of the Image of Edessa there is no evidence that it received such 
exposure. A `Liturgical Tractate' quoted by Drews indicates that while in Edessa it was kept in an upright 
chest with shutters that were opened only for brief intervals during two annual festivals. There were no 
doubt other times when the shutters were opened for artists to make the close copies that we have noted, 
but such events, both at Edessa and at Constantinople, would consistently have been in the dim lighting of 
an ecclesiastical interior, with the most minimal opportunity for darkening to occur." (Wilson, I., "The 
Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, pp.119-120)

9/09/2007
"It is a different situation in respect of the fold marks. Even if the folding arrangement minimized stress, 
nonetheless one would expect pronounced crease lines after what would have been more than one 
thousand years in the same position, although the extent to which, with moistening, old linen creases can be 
smoothed out is quite surprising. In fact, the Shroud's surface, when seen in an appropriate raking light, is 
literally crisscrossed with creases and fold marks of all kinds, inspiring Dr. John Jackson, in collaboration 
with photographer Vernon Miller, to make a special study of these as part of the STURP testing program in 
Turin in 1978. Regrettably, because of the limited time available, it was not possible for Miller to make a truly 
definitive set of raking-light photographs, but those he took with mere hand-held apparatus nonetheless 
showed up an intricate tracery of ancient and modern creasing from which John Jackson has been able to 
make some important deductions. In a published paper, `Foldmarks as a Historical Record of the Turin 
Shroud,' Jackson claims the pinpointing of at least four of the old Image of Edessa fold marks, with another 
two reasonably certain and the remainder there by implication. Particularly noteworthy is one fold mark 
studied by Jackson, that at location C (see photo), which can be traced clearly in the X-ray and ultraviolet 
photographs, those taken in raking light, and even in the conventional photographs from as early as 1898. 
Since it occurs precisely one-eighth length from the Shroud's natural halfway fold line, in itself it strongly 
suggests that the Shroud was genuinely once `doubled in four.' Undeniably, more definitive photographic 
documentation is required, but certainly there can no longer be claimed to be any absence of fold marks 
consistent with the Image of Edessa/ Shroud identification hypothesis." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the 
Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, p.120)

9/09/2007
"If the Shroud is genuinely ancient, its identification with the Image of Edessa remains the most plausible 
explanation for where and what it was during the centuries before the De Charnys. But it would be quite 
unwarranted to suggest such a history proved. For that there is still the requirement for the Shroud's 
fabrication to be positively and irrefutably dated to the first century A.D." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the 
Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, p.120)

11/09/2007
"In short, it is quite improbable that anyone, whether in the Middle Ages or in antiquity, whether a Christian 
or an opponent of Christianity, created the Shroud's image in order to simulate the image of Jesus' crucified 
body. Nor is there any statistical probability at all that the Shroud bears a nonintentional, or `natural,' image 
of a body other than Jesus' body. We must therefore conclude that, if the Shroud is indeed ancient, as it 
seems to be, it is very likely that the image on the Shroud is that of Jesus' body. Should a carbon test 
indicate that the Shroud itself dates from around the time of Jesus, the probability will be overwhelming that 
what we have on the Shroud is the vera imago of Jesus." (Drews, R., " In Search of the Shroud of Turin: 
New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, 1984, p.30) 

11/09/2007
"If we look before the 14th century for references to shrouds bearing an image, the 1300 years before the 
time of Geoffrey I de Charny are very, very silent. There is a shroud mentioned in Jerusalem in the 7th 
century, but from no point of view is it identifiable with the cloth we know in Turin. The only viable 
reference there is one lone account of a French Crusader, Robert de Clari, in Constantinople in 1203 who 
said he saw there what he called a sydoine on which the figure of Christ could be seen. The very isolation 
of this account has led historians to conclude that this Crusader must have been mistaken, and that the 
Shroud itself is, bluntly, a 14th century forgery. This was the problem I began (to look at) ten years ago. The 
particular issue that intrigued me was the face on the Shroud and it's reminiscence of two things: 1. The 
likeness of Christ in art which, displaying a strong resemblance to the Shroud, could be traced back long 
before the 14th century. 2. The tradition of Christ imprinting his face on cloth, as in stories such as that of 
Veronica's veil. ... As there is no record in the gospels of Christ's earthly appearance, nor is there an 
unbroken artistic tradition from the 1st century A.D. of what Christ looked like, it seemed to me that if the 
Shroud was genuine it must somewhere, somehow have been an influence on both of these. A viable 
method of research seemed to be to try to trace back likeness and cloth traditions to see what they led to, 
whether there was some known common source that could be identified which might not at first sight appear 
to be the Shroud." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud's History Before the 14th Century," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 
"Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud 
Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, pp.36-37)

11/09/2007
"The first aspect I tackled was the Christ likeness in art ... On these examples of Medieval and Renaissance 
likenesses, note the compatibility with the face on the Shroud. The type of Christ portrait I was particularly 
interested in was this bearded, rigidly front face example ... and although Jan van Eyck painted this in the 
15th century he is known to have derived the likeness not from the Shroud (at least directly), but from similar 
rigidly front facing examples in Byzantine art going back to the 11th century ... even as far back as the 6th 
century ... as in this Byzantine vase portrait from Syria. Compare the 6th century vase and the face on the 
Shroud and it looks very, very strongly as if whoever created this knew of the Shroud. Now an important 
discovery was that this type of likeness did not extend further back than the 6th century ... When one 
looked at earlier likenesses such as this 4th century example from a mosaic pavement in England, Christ was 
represented as Apollo-like and beardless, and yet we know it is Christ from the monogram. There were many 
similar examples of this type ... together with some vague bearded examples which had nothing of the 
definition of the 6th century and post-6th century likenesses. It all seemed as if no-one was sure what Jesus 
had looked like before the 6th century (except of course in the time of the apostles), and this is confirmed by 
a passage from St. Augustine in the 5th century who said quite bluntly `we know not his earthly 
appearance, nor that of his mother.'" (Wilson, I., "The Shroud's History Before the 14th Century," in 
Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of 
Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, p.37)

11/09/2007
"So it seemed that the likeness of Christ identifiable with the Shroud had emerged at one clearly 
determinable point in story, the 6th century. This was at least a background of fact on which to build. One 
other aspect suggested that this method of research was along the right lines. Back in the Thirties, a 
Frenchman, Paul Vignon, had been struck by certain oddities in Byzantine Christ portraits of the front-facing 
type: intriguing markings the face which he thought might be traceable to oddities on the Shroud (figure 11). 
A typical example was this Catacomb portrait from Rome, of the 8th century. Vignon noticed on this a 
curious topless square between the eyes, a most odd feature for an otherwise competent artist to include. 
He looked at the Shroud, and found an identical marking in the same place, an as yet unidentifiable 
irregularity of the image." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud's History Before the 14th Century," in Stevenson, K.E., 
ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud 
Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, p.38)

11/09/2007
"This was not an isolated instance. Other portraits such as this 11th century example (figure 13) from 
Daphni, near Athens, exhibited the same feature, generally in a more stylised form, but what made this line of 
thinking particularly significant was the discovery of some fifteen or so other features (figure 12) - a raised 
right eyebrow, a small triangle below the topless square, heavily accentuated eyes, an enlarged nostril, a 
hairless gap between lip and beard, exaggerated cheek markings, all of which seemed to occur with 
otherwise inexplicable repetitiveness in Byzantine portraits, and which seemed to be derived from the 
Shroud. (As in this 10th century, St. Angelo in Formos, Italy). The point Vignon never managed 
satisfactorily to explain was how, it the Shroud had had this profound influence on art that his work seemed 
to indicate, it could have remained apparently so unknown in history." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud's History 
Before the 14th Century," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of 
Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, p.39)

11/09/2007
"This is where I tried to push the argument further, and look in parallel at the tradition of Christ impressing 
his likeness on linen cloth, as on the Veronica (figure 14), seen here as the cloth relic looked in the 14th 
century, (being) held by a Pope. This so called Veronica cloth would seem to have been destroyed in 1527, 
there remaining in the original reliquary merely some form of cloth, but without an image. This was confirmed 
in 1907. We can trace the image-bearing cloth in Rome back to the 11th century but no further, and it would 
seem to have been merely a copy of an apparently similar looking cloth with a much longer history kept at 
that time in Constantinople. .... The concept of the woman dashing forward on the Via Dolorosa is late, 13th 
or 14th century. It's earlier form is a tradition merely of a woman Veronica possessing some form of cloth 
portrait of Jesus, and this can only be traced back to the 6th century as merely a Roman version of an early 
Eastern tradition about the same cloth just referred to as having been in Constantinople. Now it is this 
ancient cloth in Constantinople that is the whole focal-point of this study, because everything seems to lead 
back to it. Historians are agreed generally that it was the inspiration of the Veronica tradition and 
subsequent `relic.' And Byzantine/Eastern Orthodox tradition identifies this cloth portrait (in 
Constantinople) as the source of inspiration also for the likeness of Christ that we have studied in art." 
(Wilson, I., "The Shroud's History Before the 14th Century," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 
1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, 
pp.40,43)

11/09/2007
"What then did it look like (figure 15)? Artists copies are varied, but their consistent feature is a front-facing 
face of Christ, depicted in a sepia monochrome, set curiously disembodied on a cloth. Descriptions of the 
composition of the image are quite riveting. I quote from a 10th century document, `... a moist secretion 
without coloring or artificial stain ...' The name eventually given to the cloth was the Mandylion, also known 
as the image `not made by hands' of Edessa. It was an undoubted historical object for a certain clearly 
definable period commencing with the 6th century, precisely the period we have seen the identifiable 
portraits tracing back to. At this time it was discovered in a niche above a gate of the city of Edessa (figure 
16), a rather obscure little town now called Urfa in eastern Turkey. It had clearly been put in the niche, in 
which it was found along with a lamp and a tile, at some earlier period." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud's History 
Before the 14th Century," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of 
Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, p.43)

11/09/2007
"In 944 it was transferred from Edessa to Constantinople from where, in 1204 it disappeared during the 
Crusader sack of the city. Subsequently one or two odd icons have been claimed to be the original 
Mandylion but none have been conclusively identified as such. Historically therefore, what is interesting is 
that the period of the known existence of the Mandylion would fill in a very large gap in our knowledge of 
the history of the Shroud, if indeed this cloth was one and the same as the Shroud." (Wilson, I., "The 
Shroud's History Before the 14th Century," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States 
Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, p.44)

11/09/2007
"But was it the Shroud? There are large, apparent problems. 1. Artists copies and literary tradition alike 
suggest that there was no more than the face of Christ on the Mandylion. (figure 17) 2. Artists copies show 
Jesus' eyes open and staring on the cloth, as if alive. This is corroborated by contemporary ideas of how the 
image had been formed - one version suggesting that Jesus had asked to wash himself and then imprinted 
his likeness on the linen towel, another that the image had been created at the time of the agony in the 
garden, when St. Luke described Jesus' face streaming with a blood-like sweat, Jesus again creating the 
imprint by wiping his face on a linen cloth. 3. There is not the slightest idea from the documents of the time 
that the Mandylion cloth had been a burial wrapping. These facts forced one into one direction of thinking 
only - that if the cloth described was indeed the Shroud, those of the time did not know or recognize it as 
such, something explicable only by some peculiar manner in which it may have been mounted already at the 
time of it's discovery." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud's History Before the 14th Century," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 
"Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud 
Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, p.44. Emphasis original)

11/09/2007
"Gradually a picture began to emerge. First, one 6th century account of the Mandylion specifically 
described it as `doubled in four.' I tried this on a photograph of the Shroud (figure 18). Doubled, then 
doubled again, the face on the Shroud emerged apparently disembodied, exactly as on the Mandylion 
copies (figure 19). A scale model of the Shroud doubled in four shows the face disembodied. (You wouldn't 
have had the disfiguring markings from the 1532 fire). Next there was something significant about the early 
copies of the Mandylion (figure 20) - those up to the time of it's disappearance. They showed the cloth 
apparently stretched flat and nailed by means of a fringe at each side. Literary accounts of the period 
confirmed this arrangement, specifically stating that the cloth was displayed stretched on a board. Access 
to the hidden folds might therefore have been impossible without dismantling. And there was one further 
piece of information provided first by the literary accounts, and then by art. Tenth century documents 
described the image as having been embellished or covered with gold. At first I thought that artists' copies 
bore no visual clue to what the covering or embellishment might have been. Then recently one feature on 
the copies that had been troubling me suddenly made sense. Most pre-1204 copies feature this trellis 
pattern. At first I thought it was a stylised way of representing the weave of the cloth, but it was too crude 
for this and too consistent from one copy to another. diagram Then I began to consider whether it might 
have been a depiction of the original cover or embellishment - and realized that if indeed there had been 
such a cover, with a folded cloth underneath, it would have effectively prevented anyone recognizing the 
Shroud as a shroud. There was one more feature to such an arrangement. Seen in isolation in this form the 
eyes on the Shroud, as visible on the cloth itself would appear open and staring, as in life, a ready 
explanation for the early stories of how Christ had made the imprint. Note the Shroud positive how one 
might see the eyes as open (figure 18)." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud's History Before the 14th Century," in 
Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of 
Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, pp.44-46)

11/09/2007
"A clinching factor to the trellis-cover argument was the discovery in Parthian art of similar trellis-style 
embellishment used to adorn the costume of Parthian vassal kings. There is an excellent example of this on a 
Parthian statue of King Uthal of Hatra in Mosul Museum. For it was to precisely such a Parthian vassal-king 
of Edessa, Abgar V, a definite historical monarch that legend said the Mandylion had been taken back in the 
1st century A.D., there being extensive series of documents about a Christian mission to Edessa at this 
period. It was at this time that I believe the trellis cover was imposed, perhaps deliberately to disguise the 
somewhat unacceptable nature of the cloth as the wrapping of a dead body. Abgar would seem to have at 
least tolerated the Christians but one of his successors was less kindly disposed and began persecutions, 
which would have been about 57 A.D. It would have been in this episode that the Mandylion/Shroud 
disappeared. The subsequent discovery in the 6th century of course meaning that those who discovered 
them would have no idea what had taken place beforehand." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud's History Before the 
14th Century," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on 
The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, p.46)

11/09/2007
"There are many aspects which are quite impossible to deal with in the allotted time. Suffice it to say that 
late in the Mandylion's stay in Constantinople someone appears to have undone the trellis cover and seen 
for the first time the full-length figure on the cloth. This is the implication from 12th century documents 
which suddenly actually describe a full-length figure on the Mandylion, and from art of the time which 
suddenly begins to depict a figure of Christ (figure 21) with hands crossed over the loins in the character 
(manner) of the Shroud. This would support the veracity of the French Crusader, Robert de Clari's 
description of the (figure-bearing) sydoine he saw in Constantinople in 1203." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud's 
History Before the 14th Century," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States 
Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, pp.46-47)

11/09/2007
"We have then the matter of the cloth's fate after 1204 when according to the Crusader, `neither Greek nor 
Frenchman knew what became of it.' This is the most mysterious period of all. But whoever came to possess 
it would seem to have possessed vast wealth, or otherwise they would have sold such a valuable relic; also 
they must have had some motive for keeping it secretly to themselves. To me the prime suspects seem to 
have been the Order of Knights Templar, who had a great veneration for the Holy Sepulchre, and built for 
themselves vast fortresses so heavily guarded that they became the banks of Europe, and so mysterious 
that rumours began to circulate of secret Templar ceremonies at which some great relic was venerated, a relic 
which had the appearance of the face of an unidentified bearded man upon a panel. In 1307 the rumours 
were all that were needed to give the King of France the excuse to lay his hands on Templar wealth by 
arresting every member of the Order, not without a struggle, a struggle in which the mysterious `idol' the 
Templars were accused of possessing certainly disappeared. Just one clue survives to the appearance of the 
last Templar `idol,' a clue found in the tiny village of Templecombe in England, once the home of a Templar 
preceptory. During the demolition of a cottage outhouse in the 1950's there came to light this oak panel 
painting (figure 22), undoubtedly Templar, answering exactly the documentary descriptions of the `idol' and 
with the uncanny appearance of being a copy of the face on the Shroud." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud's History 
Before the 14th Century," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of 
Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, pp.46-47) 

11/09/2007
"If the Shroud was indeed the idol possessed by the Templars, one further clue survives as to it's fate. In 
1314 two of the last Templar dignitaries were brought out to be burnt at the stake, proclaiming to the last 
their innocence (figure 23). One was the Order's Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, the other the Order's 
Master of Normandy, Geoffrey de Charny. We do not know definitely if there was a family relationship 
between Geoffrey de Charny the Templar and Geoffrey I de Charny of Lirey, first known owner of the 
Shroud. But the likelihood is there. One may postulate the Shroud ripped or cut from it's panel at the time of 
the Templar capture, stuffed under a jerkin, and spirited away to safety with relatives of the Master of 
Normandy. The episode fits exactly the sort of murky past Geoffrey de Charny of Lirey would simply not 
have been able to reveal, particularly as a French King and Pope had been heavily implicated in the Templar 
demise. Such is the bizarre chain of events that I believe constitutes the hitherto `lost' 1300 years of the 
Shroud's history." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud's History Before the 14th Century," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 
"Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud 
Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, pp.48-49)

11/09/2007
"However, if we look to images from this time of Jesus laid out Shroud-like in death with crossed hands - the 
Shroud pose that has so unjustifiably been criticised as indicative of artistic `modesty' - we are far from 
disappointed. In Budapest's National Széchenyi Library is a book called the Pray Manuscript, greatly prized 
by Hungarians as the first surviving text in their language, and reliably thought to have been created at their 
Boldva Benedictine monastery between 1192 and 1195. But from the Shroud point of view by far its greatest 
interest is its four pages of coloured drawings, and in particular the third of these ..., which shows in its 
upper register Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus preparing Jesus's dead body for burial, with in the lower 
register the three Marys visiting the angel-guarded empty tomb. When I first came across this back in the 
1970s, I was particularly struck by the way, in the upper register, Jesus's dead body is depicted in a quite 
unmistakably Shroud-like pose and totally nude, this latter feature alone certainly atypical of most Byzantine 
art. This seemed sufficient reason in itself for including it in my first book published in 1978. However, what 
I had failed to spot were other features linking it and its associated drawings even more closely to our 
Shroud, features which subsequently came to be noticed by French scholars, most notably by ... Professor 
Jerome Lejeune ... For instance, first, and specifically in the case of the manuscript's Shroud-like depiction of 
Jesus's dead body, the drawing shows all four fingers of each of Jesus's hands, but no thumbs, exactly as 
on the Shroud. Whereas in the manuscript's other drawings Jesus's thumbs are depicted perfectly normally. 
Second, in this same drawing of Jesus's dead body, just over Jesus's right eye there is a single forehead 
bloodstain, delineated in red, located in exactly the same position as the very distinctive `3'-shaped stain on 
the man of the Shroud's forehead. Third, in one of the manuscript's other drawings, of Christ Enthroned, 
while Jesus's left hand is depicted with the nail wound through his palm, the wound in his right hand 
appears unmistakably, and most unusually, to be through his wrist." (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the 
Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, 
pp.145-146)

11/09/2007
"Possibly the most tell-tale feature of all, however, is one that was first reported in 1986 by the Dominican 
monk Pere A. M. Dubarle of St Joseph's Convent, Paris. In the lower register of the manuscript's page with 
the Shroud body there can be seen a shroud, obviously Jesus's, partly rolled up on the lid of the 
sarcophagus representing Jesus's tomb. If this piece of cloth is studied very closely, it can be seen that it 
bears a set of tiny `poker holes', three in a line and then one offset ..., precisely corresponding to the four 
groups of these still visible on the Shroud ... and known to predate the 1532 fire. Another, larger, set of this 
same arrangement of holes can be seen on the sarcophagus lid itself As Professor Lejeune felt bound to 
conclude from his study of all these different features: `Such precise details are not to be found together on 
any other known [Christ] image - except the Shroud which is in Turin. One is therefore forced to conclude 
that the artist of the Pray manuscript had before his eyes ... some model which possessed all the 
characteristics of the Shroud which is in Turin." (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that 
the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, pp.146-147)

11/09/2007
"After having been Byzantine in the sixth century, Edessa and its Christ-imprinted cloth fell into Moslem 
hands in the seventh century, as a result of which it was only in 943 that the Moslems became sufficiently 
weak, and the Byzantines proportionately strong, for the latter to make a determined attempt to win the cloth 
rightfully back for Christendom. Accordingly, Constantinople's Emperor Romanus sent a whole army 
eastwards for it, headed by his best general, John Curcuas who, on camping before Edessa's gates, 
astonished the Moslem emir by promising the town immunity from attack, the release of two hundred 
Moslem prisoners and the payment of twelve thousand silver pieces, all for just one thing - the cloth with 
Jesus's imprint. Despite such an offer seeming too good to refuse (particularly for a Moslem), the perplexed 
emir actually sent to his superiors in Baghdad for advice, with Curcuas and his army cooling their heels in 
the meantime. But then at last word came back that the Byzantine terms should be accepted, as a result of 
which the high-ranking Orthodox clergy whom Curcuas had brought with him, after making checks that they 
had been handed over the true cloth (there was apparently at least one attempt to deceive them), duly 
transported this the breadth of Antolia, the troops of Curcuas escorting them all the way. On 15 August 944 
... the cloth was carried by boat across the Bosphorus to St Mary at Blachernae, where it was viewed and 
venerated by Byzantine's royals. The next day, which would become the cloth's own special feast day (still 
celebrated in the Eastern Orthodox Church) it was carried around Constantinople's walls, thereby 
specifically establishing; it as the city's new palladian, theoretically yet more powerful than Blachernae's 
Virgin's robe. Then both at Hagia Sophia and in the throne-room of the Sacred Palace it was accorded a 
special coronation and enthroning, symbolically establishing (or reaffirming) it as Constantinople's very 
special `King of Kings'. Finally after all this and other ceremonial it was laid to rest in its own special place in 
the Sacred Palace's Chapel of the Pharos, there joining the emperor's matchless collection of relics of the 
Passion." (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is 
Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, pp.148-149)

11/09/2007
"What, then, was this cloth, that it held such enormous importance to the Byzantine people? If one talks 
to some modern-day scholars, such as the now-venerable Crusades historian Sir Steven Runciman, or the 
classicist Professor Averil Cameron of King's College, London, they will summarily dismiss it as merely 
`some old icon whose origins we cannot possibly hope to trace.' They will also insist that it could not 
possibly have been our Shroud because the word `Mandylion', the name often later given to the Edessa 
cloth in Byzantine art, could not have denoted anything of such a size. ... But were the Byzantines, the 
successors of the ancient Greeks, really so gullible that they would have gone to such elaborate lengths, 
and indulged in such excessive ceremonial, just for some old painting ...? Also, can we really be sure that 
the Edessa cloth was the handkerchief size that Sir Steven and Professor Cameron contend? Distant though 
Gervase of Tilbury and Ordericus Vitalis were from Byzantium, how could they have come to believe that the 
Edessa cloth bore the full imprint of Jesus's body, if it was really that small?" (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the 
Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, 
p.149. Emphasis original)

11/09/2007
"And what did the Byzantines themselves say about this cloth that they had acquired at such expense in 
943-4? It so happens that one year after the Edessa cloth had been brought to Constantinople a special 
Official History of it was written for its feast day, copies of which survive in manuscript form. In this the 
author unmistakably speaks of Shroud-like characteristics in the cloth's key feature, its imprint. He was 
clearly perplexed about this, because he went to the lengths of providing two quite different versions of 
how it may have been formed, freely admitting that `it would not be at all surprising if the facts had often 
been distorted in view of the time that has elapsed'. Thus according to the first version of the story that he 
gave - and it is one that can be found from as early as the sixth century - the image became formed when 
Jesus asked to wash himself and left it on the towel he used to dry his face. According to the second 
version, for which no surviving antecedent is known, it purportedly came about following Jesus's agony in 
the Garden of Gethsemane, when according to Luke's gospel `his sweat fell to the ground like great drops of 
blood'. [Lk 22:44] Reputedly Jesus again took a piece of cloth, wiped his face on it and produced an imprint, 
this time obviously a bloodier one." (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's 
Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, pp.149-150)

11/09/2007
"Now clearly neither of these versions tells us that the Byzantines knew as at AD 945 that this cloth was 
Jesus's burial shroud. For if they had, we would have none of our present difficulties. In the face of such 
initially conflicting information we can only provisionally suggest that perhaps at that time the Shroud was 
folded so that only the face was visible and knowledge of its full figure only came later, when the cloth had 
been more fully examined. This would account for Ordericus Vitalis's and Gervase of Tilbury's quite different 
ideas about the size of the cloth, even though they otherwise followed the original story. Also we can at 
least say that the water/sweat details in the Official History's author's accounts of the Edessa cloth image's 
creation sound uncannily like the characteristics of the Shroud's image. At the very beginning of the Official 
History the author also speaks of the image as `a moist secretion without colouring or painter's art ... made in 
the linen cloth'. It is his speaking only of a face on the cloth, as if unaware of any other feature, that 
represents the biggest stumbling-clock. But crucially, can we establish exactly what this face looked like? 
There are only a few surviving direct copies of the cloth of Edessa dating from its two and a half centuries in 
Constantinople, all varying one from the other, Byzantine art being notoriously non-naturalistic:-Some of 
these, such as the `Holy Face of Laon', the `Holy Face of Genoa' also, arguably, Rome's famous `Veronica', 
reached the West, where they achieved their own cult status and became prey to overpainting and 
adaptations of their size. However, even these convey at least one essential characteristic, that the Edessa 
cloth's face was a brownish monochrome, rigidly front facing and disembodied-looking on its cloth, certainly 
rather more than a little reminiscent of the Shroud." (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence 
that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, pp.150-151)

11/09/2007
"Arguably more reliable, because they would have been less prey to alteration, are copies that can (or in 
some cases could) be found among murals in Serbian, Russian and Cypriot churches, such as at Gradac, 
Studenica, Kato Lefkara ..., Spas Nereditsa ..., and elsewhere. These convey other recurring possible clues to 
the original's appearance, such as (on some) a lattice-type decoration, possibly from some kind of grille that 
once covered the cloth, also the face being set on a landscape-aspect cloth - i.e. something much wider and 
emptier at the sides than any artist would normally have chosen if he were setting out to paint a face on just 
any piece of canvas. One particularly interesting Edessa cloth copy... was discovered only a few years ago 
by the acknowledged expert in Cappadocian frescos Lennox Manton (a retired dentist), who very kindly 
brought it to my attention. This is painted above an arch in the Sakli or `Hidden' church in the Goreme region 
of central Turkey, roughly halfway between Urfa/Edessa and Istanbul/Constantinople. It dates to the tenth 
or early eleventh century and, despite some damage to the face, its general resemblance to the facial portion 
on the Shroud is really quite remarkable. There is the same sepia-coloured, disembodied, rigidly frontal face 
on the same landscape cloth. (If we isolate the Shroud's facial area, then its sides are indeed wide in relation 
to the face ...). And when we know, as we do from the Official History, that this same Edessa cloth's imprint 
had the appearance of `a moist secretion without colouring or painter's art', then can we really believe that 
this could not have been our Shroud?" (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the 
World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, p.151. Emphasis original)

11/09/2007
"Obviously much depends on whether there really was more to the Edessa cloth than ostensibly met the 
eye, or whether Sir Steven Runciman and Professor Cameron are right that this can solely have been a face 
only on a handkerchief-sized piece of linen. Deserving mention is that the term `Mandylion', which Sir 
Steven Runciman seems to have regarded as so crucial to his argument, is used nowhere in the lengthy 
Official History of the cloth, its earliest known incidence being in c. 990, and then only in the biography of 
an ascetic, Paul of Mount Latros, who merely receives a vision of this cloth. Out of several dozen references 
to the cloth of Edessa collected by the German scholar Ernst von Dobschutz, only three use the term. ... 
Furthermore, when we look to other indications of the cloth of Edessa's size we find that the eighth-century 
Greek theologian John of Damascus described it as a himation, evoking the two-yards-wide by three- 
yards-long outer garment worn by the ancient Greeks. Although these latter were not known for their 
prudishness, even they might have found a pocket-handkerchief-sized himation a little skimpy. Likewise, 
in the late tenth century Leo the Deacon spoke of the image as on a peplos, unequivocally denoting a 
full-size robe." (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is 
Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, pp.151-152)

11/09/2007
"For myself, however, by far the most illuminating of all the words used for the Edessa cloth has to have 
been tetradiplon, even though it only occurs twice, once in a sixth-century manuscript and once in the 
Official History. As a word in Greek, this is extremely rare and completely unknown outside the two 
abovementioned texts. Yet it is perfectly understandable, since it is a compound of the two ordinary words 
tetra meaning 'four' and diplon meaning `doubled' - thus `doubled in four'. Why should the cloth of 
Edessa have been described as 'doubled in four'? Inevitably this can only have had something to do with 
the way the cloth was once folded. It provided my cue, more than a quarter of a century ago, to experiment 
with what might happen if one tried folding the Shroud in four-by-two folds, as the word seemed to suggest 
... . When I tried this with the aid of a photograph, the revelation was something akin to Secondo Pia's 
discovery of the hidden negative. To my utter astonishment, the Shroud face appeared strangely 
disembodied, on a landscape-aspect cloth, exactly as it appears on the pre-1204 Edessa cloth copies, such 
as at Sakli, Gradac and Studenica, some of which I did not even know of at that time." (Wilson, I., "The 
Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New 
York NY, 1998, p.152)

11/09/2007
"Now if one imagined the cloth folded in this way, mounted on a board and decorated with some kind of 
gold covering, preventing easy access to the inner folds (and all this is precisely what the Official History 
describes of the Edessa cloth's early mode of conservation), then it is very easy to see how anyone viewing 
it might well suppose there was no more to the image than this face. It is also easy to understand how 
anyone, not knowing of the Shroud's hidden negative, would 'see' Jesus's eyes as open and staring, for that 
is exactly how they look on the cloth itself and it is indeed how later copyists of what was undoubtedly the 
Turin Shroud often depicted them. It would therefore be very understandable for people at any time when 
the cloth was displayed in this manner to suppose that its image had been made while Jesus was still alive 
(particularly if this was what earlier tradition dictated), the only jarring feature being the bloodflows on the 
forehead and hair. And this seems to have been precisely what disturbed the author of the Official History, 
hence his second version of the story of the image's creation that it derived from the `bloody sweat' that 
flowed down Jesus's face during the agony in Gethsemane." (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New 
Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, pp.152-153)

11/09/2007
"There is even an indication that only shortly after the Edessa cloth's arrival in Constantinople some people, 
in a more privileged position than the rest, were actually able to see more on it than just the face. In 1987 
Professor Gino Zaninotto, a classics scholar living in Rome, browsing in the Vatican Library, happened to 
come across a Byzantine manuscript that I was completely unaware of when I did my original research in the 
1960s and '70s ... . This was a sermon written by one Gregory, archdeacon of Constantinople's Hagia Sophia 
Cathedral at the very time of the Edessa cloth's arrival in Constantinople in 944, in which, as a man who had 
obviously seen at least something of its image for himself, Gregory made clear that he could not agree with 
the idea of it having been formed by Jesus washing himself. Instead, obviously following the same thoughts 
as expressed by the author of the Official History, he remarked that the cloth must have become:'... imprinted 
with the drops of sweat from the agony [in Gethsemane], which flowed from the face of the Prince of Life [i.e. 
Jesus] like drops of blood.' But then he went on with a statement that hardly makes any sense unless he was 
referring to something so very like the Shroud as to make little difference. In his words: 'And the image, 
since those flows, has been embellished by [blood] drops from his very side, the two [things] are full of 
symbolism, blood and water here, and there the sweat of the face.' In other words, according to Gregory, 
who had seen it for himself, the Edessa cloth's imprint included, in addition to watery blood on the face, a 
stain from the lance-wound in Jesus's side. In all logic, such a stain could only have become transferred 
onto the cloth after Jesus had been brought down dead from the cross. Hence, and even though Gregory, 
back in the tenth century, declined to pursue this further, since to do so he would have had to deny 
tradition, this cloth had to be Jesus's burial shroud." (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence 
that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, pp.153-154. Emphasis 
original)

11/09/2007
"Nor does the evidence stop here. For if the Edessa cloth was indeed one and the same as our Shroud, then 
we ought to find some evidence on the latter, in the form of old crease-marks, that it was 'doubled in four' for 
some lengthy period. In fact, when the American STURP team did their exhaustive examination and 
photography of the Shroud in 1978, one of the lesser-known parts of their programme was raking light 
photography specifically to show up such creases. The photographs revealed the cloth's surface to be 
criss-crossed with literally hundreds of old marks of this kind, but a truly significant set of ridge and valley 
fold marks showed up almost exactly where the `doubled in four' reconstruction dictated that it should ... 
[Jackson, J., "Fold marks as a Historical Record of the Turin Shroud," Shroud Spectrum, Issue 11, 1984, 
pp.6-29]. Furthermore, from the slightly uneven way that these creases fall and the fact that there is an 
evenly spaced bunch of four at one particular location, STURP's Dr John Jackson has even very 
convincingly reconstructed how the doubling in four followed a particular order that included part of the 
Shroud being folded around a square-shaped block of wood that would have run its full width. As Jackson 
further deduced, if the Shroud were kept in a casket slightly wider than its full width and there were a 
mechanical device for pulling it upwards from the fold line level with the front shoulders, then the Shroud 
body would appear to raise itself jack-in-the-box style from its casket in exactly the manner Robert de Clari 
reported of what he saw at the church of St Mary at Blachernae ... ." (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: 
New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, p.156)

11/09/2007
"The biggest and most beautiful of the churches was the cathedral, completely rebuilt and redesigned after 
an earlier one was destroyed in a disastrous flood in 525. And it was in this cathedral that our cloth of 
Edessa came to be stored in its own special chapel with its own caretaker, brought out once a year or so for 
a special ceremony, but too holy ever to be shown publicly in the manner of the Lirey and Turin Shroud. A 
hymn datable to 569 likens the colour of the cathedral's marble to that of `the image not made by human 
hands', a common way of describing the imprint on our Edessa cloth, and this is the earliest positive 
reference to its historical existence during this period. ... Certainly it seems no coincidence that it was 
precisely from the time of the cloth of Edessa's emergence as a historical object - tradition had it that it was 
found above a gate when the Persians were besieging Edessa in 544 - that there appeared in art the 
distinctive front-facing Christ likeness remarked on at the beginning of this chapter. And the affinities of 
this likeness, even back in the sixth century, to the face on our Shroud (alias the cloth of Edessa), are very 
striking indeed." (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic 
is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, p.156)

11/09/2007
"As but one demonstration, though worth citing, because they inevitably carry a date far firmer than any 
radiocarbon dating, are the gold coins of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian II, who had two reigns, the first 
between 685 and 695, the second between 705 and 711. Justinian was the first Christian ruler ever to mint 
coins with Jesus's facial likeness on them and in doing so, in what is thought to have been AD 692, he had 
his coin engraver display the Jesus face on the coins' obverse or `heads' side, with Justinian's own standing 
image, in palpable inferiority, on the `tails' or reverse. A splendid specimen of one of these gold solidi is in 
the museum at St Gallen, Switzerland..., and the general resemblance to the face on the Shroud, particularly 
given the tiny size of the coin, is quite astonishing." (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence 
that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, p.158)

11/09/2007
"A clearly painted variant of the same likeness, and dating even earlier, can be seen on a Christ Pantocrator 
icon in St Catherine's Monastery, Sinai .... Among the several indications that this dates to the sixth century, 
accepted by specialists such as Princeton University's Professor Kurt Weitzmann, are that it was painted 
using a special encaustic wax technique, the methodology of which subsequently died out. Again, the most 
striking parallels to the Shroud face can be pointed out. An American researcher, Dr Alan Whanger, has 
developed a special polaroid projection technique that has shown up some one hundred and seventy points 
of `congruence' between this and the Sinai icon. [Whanger, A.D., "Polarized Overlay Technique: A New 
Image Comparison Method and Its Applications," Applied Optics, Vol. 24, No. 16, 15 March 1985, pp.766-
772]" (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," 
Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, p.159)

11/09/2007
"But is there some way, perhaps akin to fingerprinting, to demonstrate the absolutely specific influence of 
the Shroud, and no other, on such early Christ likenesses? Indeed there is. Even before World War II the 
French scholar Paul Vignon most exhaustively traced numerous recurring oddities on such early portraits, 
features such as a raised eyebrow, a `V' shape between the eyebrows, an enlarged left nostril, a heavy line 
under the lower lip, a transverse line across the throat and much else ..., all of which seemed to indicate some 
common source of inspiration and all of which, as Vignon showed, corresponded to identical features to be 
seen on the Shroud .... " (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most 
Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, p.159)

11/09/2007
"However, one example may serve for the rest. Behind an insignificant-looking locked door in the via 
Alessandro Poerio in Rome's Trastevere district is one of Rome's lesser-known catacombs, that of S. 
Ponziano, and deep within this, just above a steeply descending walkway lined by bone-filled burial niches, 
can be seen a fresco of a Christ Pantocrator ... of the essentially identical kind to that on Justinian II's 
solidi and reliably datable to the same period. At Christ's eyebrows (though lamentable neglect has 
caused recent fading), the artist painted a distinctive topless square, starkly geometrical and quite at 
variance with the naturalism of the rest of the portrait. Why should the artist have chosen such an odd way 
to represent the eyebrows? On the Shroud, readily visible in exactly the equivalent place, is precisely the 
same topless square. But might this be just another feature which the Shroud's mediaeval forger 
incorporated to give his image extra authenticity? Hardly, since the Ponziano catacomb was closed down in 
AD 820 and not reopened until well after the Middle Ages. In a very real sense, therefore, the Ponziano 
catacomb Pantocrator represents the exact equivalent of Robinson Crusoe's finding the footprint of 
someone other than himself on his supposedly uninhabited island. It tells us that instead of there being no 
evidence for the Shroud before the 1350s, it really was in existence as early as the sixth and seventh 
centuries. And if it indeed was, then it can hardly have been other than the cloth of that time that we have 
called the cloth of Edessa." (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most 
Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, pp.159-160. Emphasis original)

12/09/2007
"ONE POINT about the Shroud that cannot be over-emphasized is its singularity as bearing a meaningful 
human imprint. Human bodies, whether they are alive or dead, do not normally create photographic-type 
imprints of themselves on cloth; in all history this idea is unique to Jesus Christ. So if the Shroud really were 
an inspired forgery of the radiocarbon-dated 1260-1390 period, then we might expect the earlier centuries to 
be entirely silent about any cloth of this description. Yet, whatever the validity of the carbon-dating 
findings, the historical facts are that this is far from the case. The idea of Jesus imprinting his likeness on a 
cloth is richly documented with absolute certainty at least as far back as the sixth century, historical sources 
further attesting to the existence of an actual object of this description back to this time. And by implication 
both the idea and this associated relic can be traced five centuries further back still to Jesus' Jerusalem." 
(Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 
2000, p.105. Emphasis original)

12/09/2007
"Particularly meaningful in elucidating this is a quaint-looking icon that once hung in HM Queen Elizabeth 
II's private chapel at Buckingham Palace,' before being transferred to Hampton Court.' Acquired by the 
Queen's great-great-grandfather Prince Albert, the icon itself is not particularly old, being probably 
seventeenth- or eighteenth-century, though with earlier Eastern Orthodox antecedents, particularly in 
Russia and in Genoa'. But it has two prime fascinations. First, its central feature is the face of Jesus imprinted 
on cloth, one that has all the hallmarks of being a distant echo of the facial area on the Turin Shroud. 
Although apparently only the face is represented, there is the same frontality, the same disembodiedness, 
the same monochromatic tonation. Second, all around the icon's sides are depicted scenes from this Jesus-
imprinted cloth's long and colourful history, scenes that place it in the Byzantine capital Constantinople 
(today Istanbul), and before then in Edessa (today the picturesque provincial town of Urfa in eastern 
Turkey). Both locations correspond to Dr Max Frei's finding of the pollens of Turkish plants on the Shroud. 
Then, before Turkey, the cloth is depicted in Jerusalem, redolent of Professor Avinoam Danin's finding of 
pollens from plants peculiar to the environs of that city." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The 
Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.105)

12/09/2007
"As the icon's pictorial sequence runs, in the time of Jesus an ailing king of Edessa called Abgar sent a 
messenger to Jerusalem to ask Jesus to come to cure him (scene 1). In the course of this mission the 
messenger tried to paint Jesus' likeness (scene 2), but before he could do so Jesus miraculously imprinted 
his features on a piece of cloth (scene 3) and instructed him to take this back to Abgar (scene 4). When 
Abgar saw this cloth he was promptly cured and converted to Christianity (scene 5). Ordering Edessa's 
pagan idols to be overturned, he had in their stead Jesus' image set up over the gate of his city (scene 6). 
But a successor reverted to paganism and persecuted the Christians, whereupon the image over the gate 
had to be taken down and the miraculously imprinted cloth hidden away (scene 7), a cavity above the gate 
being the chosen hiding place. There it remained until the sixth century, by which time Edessa had once 
again become Christian, and part of the Byzantine empire. At this point a bishop rediscovered it (scene 8) 
and invoked its divine protection to overcome a siege of Edessa by the Persians (scene 9). In 944 the cloth 
was transferred, amid much joyful celebration, to the Byzantine capital Constantinople (scene 10), where it 
stayed as part of the Emperors' relic collection until it disappeared without trace during the sack of 
Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204. This story unmistakably shows signs of having acquired some 
legendary accretions, as indeed do the surviving supporting texts, some from the fourth century AD and 
even earlier, that tell the story in words. Indisputably, however, the Jesus-imprinted cloth in question, 
whatever its true nature, was a genuinely historical object from its rediscovery in Edessa in the sixth 
century, through to its well-documented transfer to Constantinople and thereupon to its disappearance from 
that city in 1204. Equally indisputable is that those living in the sixth century believed that the cloth 
originated in Jerusalem and that its image had been imprinted by Jesus himself." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 
"The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.106)

12/09/2007
"Of course, from the Hampton Court icon, from other representations and from related texts, the Edessa 
cloth seems to have been just a face-only cloth created while Jesus was alive, rather than a full-body burial 
shroud. But, given the features it shares with the Shroud as bearing Jesus' imprint, and the striking match of 
its known history with the Shroud pollen evidence, if it could be identified as being the same as the Shroud, 
then the mystery of the latter's thirteen missing centuries of history would be explained at a single stroke." 
(Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 
2000, p.106)

12/09/2007
"So just what are the hard facts behind the story of the Jesus-imprinted cloth as told on the Hampton Court 
icon? First, it is a matter of firm historical record that there was a King Abgar of Edessa contemporary with 
Jesus. He was Abgar V, who reigned from AD 13-50. Although there is no contemporary evidence of this 
Abgar's conversion to Christianity, there was definitely a custom in his and neighbouring Parthian-
affiliated" (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: 
London, 2000, pp.106-107)

13/09/2007
"The request to use the Radio-carbon method on the Shroud has been frequently urged on the responsible 
authorities. It is known that the linen wrappings of the Dead Sea Scroll, for example, were successfully dated 
with this method, known as the Carbon 14 test. The fabric is tested with a Geiger counter for its content of a 
certain carbon isotope (C14.) which plants are known to absorb as long as they are alive. This carbon is 
radioactive and its half-life can be determined. It is, therefore, possible to date organic matter on the basis of 
its content of C14. There are evident drawbacks connected with this test. First and foremost, a considerable 
part of the test material must be burned. Besides, experts tell us that, in given circumstances, the margin of 
possible error is still rather wide, as much as 500 years, plus or minus. In the Shroud's case, some claim that 
the vicissitudes to which it was subjected through the centuries might even further extend the margin of 
error. We know, for instance, that in the Chambery fire in 1532, the folded Relic was extracted substantially 
damaged from its red-hot, partly melting silver chest (cf. p. 21 ) after having been drenched with water. As 
John Walsh remarks, the Shroud certainly `has not enjoyed the undisturbed, airless existence of the Dead 
Sea Scroll ...' [Walsh, J., "The Shroud," New York, 1963, p.170] With Bulst we conclude that, unless the 
Carbon 14 method can be further improved and the amount of test material considerably reduced, it is most 
unlikely that even an appreciable portion of the Shroud will ever be sacrificed for such a test. [Bulst, W., 
"The Shroud of Turin," Milwaukee, 1956, p.30]" (Rinaldi, P.M., "The Man in the Shroud," [1972], Futura: 
London, Revised, 1978, pp.55-56)

13/09/2007
"A more exact determination of a fabric's age has been made possible recently through the so-called 
Radiocarbon method. The fabric is tested with a Geiger counter for its content of a certain carbon isotope 
(C14), which every plant constantly absorbs as long as it is alive. This carbon is radioactive. Since we can 
determine its half-life, it is possible to date organic matter more exactly on the basis of its content of C14. 
The request to employ this process on the Cloth of Turin has been frequently urged, generally glossing 
over the fact that the test material must be burned. In the case of the Cloth of Turin, a piece about the size of 
a handkerchief would be required. Moreover, in this process the margin of possible error is still very wide. In 
objects approximately two thousand years old, the process may under favorable circumstances err by 130 
years plus or minus, and by as much as 450 years plus or minus in unfavorable circumstances. But we can 
rest assured that with improvements in the process, more accurate results will be achieved even with smaller 
scraps of test material. However, it is unlikely that a segment of this highly venerated relic would be 
sacrificed even for this." (Bulst, W., "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce 
Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, 1957, p.30)

16/09/2007
"In 1973 the Shroud was exhibited in the Royal Palace of Turin's Hall of the Swiss, for its first-ever televised 
showing. ... With the consent of Cardinal Pellegrino and the exiled King of Italy, approval was given for the 
cloth to be secretly examined by a group of scientific experts. Known as the Turin Scientific Commission, it 
included Professor Gilbert Raes and the Swiss botanist Dr Max Frei-Sulzer, the retired head of the Zurich 
Police Scientific Laboratory. ... Back in his Zurich laboratory Max Frei undertook a microscopic study of the 
minute dust particles he had removed from the cloth. Through painstaking analyses over the next two years 
he detected mineral particles, plant hair and fibres, bacteria, pollen grains, and the spores of mosses and 
fungi. Particularly interested in the pollen grains from flowering plants, he attempted to cross-match a 
number them against his files. From 49 types of pollen of known varieties of plants, he identified 33 plants 
that grow in Palestine, the southern steppes of Turkey, and the area around Istanbul. [Frei, M., "Plant 
species of pollen samples from the Shroud', in Ian Wilson, "The Shroud of Turin," 1979, pp.293-298]. ... In 
1976 the Turin Scientific Commission made a belated release of their report and observations. ["Report of the 
Turin Commission on the Holy Shroud," Screenpro Films, London, 1976] Included in the report was the first 
public disclosure of Frei's discoveries that pollens he had identified in his dust samples from the Shroud had 
come from plants exclusive to Israel and Turkey." (Whiting, B., "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: 
Strathfield NSW, Australia, 2006, pp.92-95) 

19/09/2007
"There is even evidence from the grave of a Neanderthal man that he was buried on a bed of twigs and 
flowers. In Shanidar Cave, Iraq, pollen from seven different ornamental flowers was found in clusters in a 
Neanderthal grave. [Leroi-Gourhan, A., "The flowers found with Shanidar IV, a Neanderthal burial in 
Iraq," Science, 190, 1975, pp.562-564] The clustering of the grains indicated that whole flowers had been 
placed in the grave, and the position of the soil samples the pollen was recovered from appear to suggest 
that flowers were laid below, on top of and beside the body. Palynological investigations such as this, and 
of the Iceman known as Oetzi, and of the Shroud of Turin, could be called archaeological or forensic."
(Milne, L., "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest 
NSW, Australia, 2005, p.85)

20/09/2007
"There was another problem with self-identified skeptic Shroud-debunkings. Schwortz's site includes the full 
texts of articles that argue that the Shroud is a forgery. It includes links to websites that purport to expose the 
Shroud as a fraud. I didn't find the full texts of articles supporting the Shroud's authenticity, or links to websites 
supporting the Shroud's authenticity on skeptic websites. In other words, a website maintained by a man who 
argues that the Shroud is authentic includes material supporting the full spectrum of opinion; the debunking 
websites I saw included only information that supports the debunker's point of view." (Goska, D.V., "The 
Shroud of Turin???," 11 April 2007) 

20/09/2007
"The entire affair does appear to have been `a somewhat shoddy enterprise' in Gove's words, not under 
properly stringent scientific controls. The sampling methodology was poorly planned and ad hoc; it seems 
to have been determined by individuals who have no experience in collecting samples for C-14 dating or in 
applying the results of such dating to actual field situations. In sum, the British Museum has much to 
answer for in its involvement: 1. Why did it acquiesce in the reduction of samples to be taken from seven to 
three, against the recommendation of the Turin Commission? 2. Why did it agree to the elimination of the 
small counter laboratories, which employ a more reliable counting system? 3. Why did it agree to only one 
sampling site, thereby raising the possibility of an anomalous zone being dated? 4. Why did it agree to the 
sampling of a scorched area of the cloth, again in conflict with the recommendation of the Turin 
Commission? 5. Did it approve the choice of the textile `expert'? And is it satisfied that his visual inspection 
of the sampled area is sufficient to rule out any possibility of a restoration/re-weaving of that area? 6. Why 
did it not follow its own guidelines in the inter-comparison experiment and insist that samples be taken well 
away from selvedges ? Or is 2-3 cm. considered to be `well away'?" (Meacham, W., "The Rape of the Turin 
Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: 
Morrisville NC, 2005, pp.95-96)

26/09/2007
"Rinaldi then wrote that it had been reported to Turin that in a lecture or press conference I had said: `Think 
of all the friends we agnostics will have if we can establish that the shroud is only 600 years old...'. He 
described this as a very unprofessional remark-well calculated to turn Cottino off and lots of other people as 
well. I assured David upon his return from school that I made no such statement. I have always been very 
careful, and was particularly so in Turin in 1978, to indicate that I felt the odds were against the shroud 
being Christ's burial cloth but that I really did hope it would turn out to be 2000 years old. Any such 
statement as the above would be completely contrary to my real feelings. I suppose my ill concealed disdain 
for those scientists who were 'true believers' did not gain me many brownie points amongst the majority of 
the people involved in the shroud and that one of them had decided to spread this falsehood." (Gove, H.E., 
"Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, 
p.48)

26/09/2007
"Gove's book makes it absolutely dear that he assumed leadership on every possible issue that he could, 
and that he was a major influence not just on the laboratories but also on the final decisions that led to such 
controversial results. Moreover, his book revealed that Gove was a major influence in the tragic outcome 
that excluded STURP from any involvement in the carbon dating or the twenty-five other areas of 
comprehensive scientific testing of the Shroud. Gove's book also revealed his deep-seated animosity toward 
STURP, the full extent of which would be revealed only by his publication seventeen years after joining 
STURP's effort, and eight years after the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud had taken place. Gove's true 
feelings and motives toward STURP and its involvement in the scientific testing of the Shroud are clearly 
revealed on the first page, on which he mentions them, in the very first chapter of his book. `I was 
determined to prevent their involvement in its [the Shroud's] carbon dating, if that were ever to come 
about.... Fortunately in this I was successful.' [Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin 
Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, pp.6-7] On the next page, he states, `I am happy 
to say that, in the end, they [STURP] played no role in its carbon dating.' [Ibid., p.8] One of the sad ironies is 
that STURP's participation could have prevented many amateurish aspects of the procedure and precluded 
the questionable sampling. While discussing the early period of 1978 to 1979, Gove further informs us of his 
actual `disdain for those [STURP] scientists.' [Ibid., p.48] In his 1996 book, he shows that his hypocritical 
and concealed attitude existed before he even made any pledges to or agreements with STURP. Immediately 
before he called STURP in 1979, accepting that its C-14 committee members could be present during the 
removal of the sample from the Shroud and during the sample's preparation and measurement, he blatantly 
reveals his duplicity: ` ... they [STURP] had good connections in Turin, and could be useful in obtaining a 
shroud sample for dating-if only they could be prevented from playing any other role.' [Ibid., p.57]" 
(Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. 
Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.193)

26/09/2007
"Gove would maintain the full extent of this attitude toward STURP throughout the entire process while 
continuing to look for an opportunity to eliminate them from any further Shroud testing. He dearly admitted 
in 1985, `I felt, naively as it turned out, that I now had a golden opportunity to eliminate STURP once and for 
all.' [Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: 
Bristol UK, 1996, p.87] Although that particular time was premature, it dearly indicates that his constant goal 
was to eliminate them. Gove understood from the start that STURP had always had great success in its 
dealings with Luigi Gonella, the scientific advisor to the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Ballestrero, and with 
the office of the Archbishop. By no coincidence, Gove had a number of conflicts with and criticisms of 
Gonella. Toward the end of the carbon dating process in 1987, when one of the directors of the carbon 
dating labs stated to Gove that he would avoid supporting Gove again in any further conflicts with Gonella, 
Gove clearly admitted his real motivations. `Let me hasten to assure you that my `hectoring' as you call it is 
directed toward STURP and only peripherally toward Professor Gonella to the extent he champions STURP's 
cause.' [Ibid., p.206]" (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and 
Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.193-194) 

26/09/2007
"The second document, a submission to Turin by Walter McCrone titled 'A Current Look at Carbon Dating', 
was written in October 1978. It gave McCrone's opinion of the current status of the field. It listed 
Brookhaven, the University of California at San Diego, and the National Bureau of Standards as small-
counter laboratories (he was wrong about the latter two) that require only 20 milligrams of linen (about 1 
square centimetre) and the accelerator groups included Rochester, Simon Fraser University in British 
Columbia, Canada, the University of Oxford in England, Atomic Energy of Canada in Chalk River, the 
University of Pennsylvania and Berkeley in the USA. He said it seemed reasonable that by December 1978 
there would be two laboratories (Rochester and Berkeley) that would be able to date a few milligrams of linen 
with an accuracy of better than 10%. He thought that the accuracy might be better at Berkeley but that 
Rochester would be able to date somewhat smaller samples. It is worth noting that McCrone was so 
unschooled in carbon dating he did not realize 10% accuracy meant 800 years! He said that the two samples 
removed for study by Professor Raes weighed about 50 and 100 milligrams respectively. He described how 
he would reduce the Raes samples to carbon dioxide gas-seal it in a glass ampoule for use with a cyclotron, 
or reduce the gas to elemental carbon and prepare a pressed pellet for the tandem accelerator. He suggested 
a protocol-in which he, of course, would play the key role. The measurements would involve control 
samples as well as a shroud sample and would be carried out blind. The person (McCrone, naturally) 
authenticating the shroud samples as the same ones studied by Professor Raes should maintain the further 
chain of evidence so that he (and only he) knows for certain the identity of the sample analysed by the 
dating laboratories. The results from the laboratories would be delivered, still sealed, to the proper 
authorities with the key to the identities of the samples. In this way only the person opening the sealed 
envelopes and comparing the data therein would be able to determine the age of the shroud samples. He 
then 'beseeched' Turin to release the Raes samples to him and ended by pledging that the dating analysis 
would be done blind and that only the final authorities to whom the dating analysis and the key to the 
samples are transmitted would know the true shroud date. My reaction to McCrone's 'beseechments' is 
predictable. He knew little, if anything, about carbon dating. In my view there was no reason for him to play 
any role in dating the shroud." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," 
Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, pp.48-49) 

26/09/2007
"I had very ambiguous feelings about STURP. On the one hand they were too convinced in their hearts that 
the shroud was Christ's burial cloth. On the other hand they had good connections in Turin and could be 
useful in obtaining a shroud sample for dating-if only they could be prevented from playing any other role." 
(Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol 
UK, 1996, p.57)

27/09/2007
"On the copy of this letter to Dinegar, I noted that I might have some problems in getting NSF funding for 
his travel. Would he be able to find some other source? This was distinctly tongue in cheek because I had 
no intention of asking the NSF to include him in the grant. ... By this time, I was finding Dinegar's actions on 
behalf of STURP intensely annoying. I felt, naively as it turned out, that I now had a golden opportunity to 
eliminate STURP once and for all." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," 
Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.87)

27/09/2007
"Let me hasten to assure you [Professor E.H. Hall] that my 'hectoring' as you call it is directed toward 
STURP' and only peripherally toward Professor Gonella to the extent he champions STURP's cause. It is 
certainly not directed to him in his capacity as the cardinal's science advisor. By all accounts, however, he is 
not held in particularly high regard in that capacity outside Turin. He is unfortunately still the power in 
Turin as far as the shroud is concerned. I have had almost ten years' experience with STURP and regard 
them as a pack of religious zealots who could really queer the pitch for carbon dating unless they are held at 
bay. .... I have received recent information that STURP's influence is on the wane and high bloody time I 
would say." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics 
Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.206. Emphasis original)

27/09/2007
"Throughout his involvement, Gove lobbied behind the scenes to eliminate STURP from any role in the 
further scientific investigation of the Shroud. The principal method Gove employed was through his 
influence with Prof. Carlos Chagas, the president of the Pontifical Academy of Science, and his colleague Dr. 
Vittorio Canuto. According to Gove's book, these men followed almost every suggestion Gove made. 
However, rarely, if ever, do any of Gove's suggestions deal with substantive scientific matters; Gove 
focused on maneuvering and procedure." (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, 
Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.194)

27/09/2007
"Yet Gove's reaction to Gonella's meeting and the important news that the radiocarbon dating and other 
tests would be performed on the Shroud indicates that his concern was on trivial procedural matters and not 
on any substantive matters of science. The next day following his meeting with Gonella, Gove called Canuto. 
`What really upset him [Canuto], as it did me, was Gonella's suggestion that the Turin workshop 
should be held at the Turin Polytechnic.... it would give the advantage to STURP' (italics added). [Gove, 
H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 
1996, p.98] These two were exceedingly concerned that the meeting should be held in Rome. The following 
day Gove made this same complaint to Chagas, who then set in motion a series of contacts and telexes over 
this matter of where the meeting should be held. Consistent with the above quotation in the conversation 
between Canuto and Gove, that merely holding the meeting at the Turin Polytechnic `would give the 
advantage to STURP,' Gove spoke with Michael Tite of the British Museum three days after calling Chagas. 
In part of this conversation Gove related to Tite `that Gonella had suggested that a STURP textile expert 
would be best and that appalled me' (italics added). [Ibid., p.99] In this same conversation, Gove and Tite 
discussed using a textile expert named Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, whom neither appear to have ever met, 
instead of STURP." (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and 
Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.194-195)

27/09/2007
"Gove's reaction in March of 1986, after learning of the approval of the scientific testing and dating of the 
Shroud, is even more illustrative. He again informed Canuto of his opposition to the sample taking and, 
apparently, complained again about the STURP testing scheduled for two weeks following the workshop. 
[Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol 
UK, 1996, p.100] When Gove learned from Canuto through Chagas that the meeting would be held at the 
Turin Polytechnic, Gove indicated he `was desperately disappointed in Chagas's lack of leadership.' [Ibid., 
p.101] He then made an incredible statement: `If the Pontifical Academy of Sciences had to knuckle under to 
`Princes of the Church' in matters of science, then I really must reconsider the involvement of our group:' 
[Ibid., p.101] The `group' comprised the carbon dating laboratories. He actually considered withdrawing the 
laboratories when the seven-year project stood on the verge of achieving its scientific objective-dating the 
Shroud-because of the location of a meeting. He also refers to the location of a meeting as a `matter of 
science' (italics added). Gove continued, `I had found that dealing with prelates, no matter how 
elevated, was a hopeless enterprise. I was not opposed to the workshop being held in Turin. However, it 
must not be held in Gonella's home territory, it must be held in a place controlled by the Turin Archdiocese' 
(italics added). [Ibid., p.101] A prelate is a high-ranking church dignitary, but there would certainly be far 
more prelates at the Turin Archdiocese than at the Polytechnic Institute. At the end of the quote, Gove 
revealed his real reason for being upset and disappointed in Chagas's leadership and for threatening to 
withdraw the laboratories, when he stated, `As far as I was concerned, Gonella's location was a STURP 
location.' [Ibid., pp.100, 102] The entire focus was changed from important scientific matters of testing and 
dating the Shroud to insignificant and petty matters such as the location and sponsorship of a meeting." 
(Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. 
Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.195) 

[top]