Turin shroud: shrine or fake?
are difficult to find the person who would not hear about the Turin shroud … And it is even more difficult to find an artifact on which studying more time and forces - in total 150 000 hours of scientific researches is spent! But still there is no answer to the main issue: whether this relic is that shroud which wrapped up Jesus Christ`s body at burial - or it is falsification?
should not think that this question put the educated 20th century - doubts in authenticity of a shroud arose in 1353 (on other sources - in 1357) year when the French knight Geoffroi de Charni exposed on a public inspection a linen panel of 4,37 by 1,11 m in size with vaguely appearing prints of a human body and traces of blood. Nearly hundred years later - in 1452 - his granddaughter sold a panel to the duke Savoysky, and more than hundred years it was stored in the city of Chambery, and since 1578. - in Turin, in John the Baptist`s cathedral …
And so, disputes on authenticity of a shroud began at once: first it was unambiguously declared a fake - and there was even an artist who admitted that he fabricated it … However, recognition can be gained in the different ways - for example, under torture or by means of bribery … In any case, as he made it - the artist did not specify (and can be - could not specify). Did not trust in it and the people - the shroud was surrounded with such honoring that it was necessary to reckon with it already, and in 1390 the Pope Kliment VII made “solomonovo the decision“: the shroud - not the original and not falsification, is art reproduction of that funeral veil, some kind of icon created by the same principle as the Vernicle.
However, there were still people believing in authenticity of a shroud - and so there were several centuries. The main issue which sceptics - if a fake could not answer then produced by its what method? Fuel to the fire was added by the picture of a shroud taken in 1898 by the archeologist S. Pia. The camera “made out“ the image better, than it could be made with the naked eye: it represented anatomic the correct negative image of the person and when the negative was transferred to a positive, in the person and a figure it was succeeded to make out additional details …
In the next years a shroud as soon as was not investigated: X-ray, chemical analyses, image analyzer etc. And it must be said - in the majority a research case only raised new questions.
So, the pollen of plants which remained on a panel was investigated. Only 58 species of plants, from them 13 meet near the Dead Sea, six - mainly near Jerusalem … aragonite - a mineral which crystals found on a shroud too meets in the same place … Means, the original?
Do not hurry with conclusions! Supporters of authenticity of a shroud claim that the image “was printed“ on a shroud when the body was wrapped in it - at the same time (in whatever way the image was created) on the image there have to be blank spaces (from - for folds), proportions of a body have to be distorted - but anything there is no it … Such impression that the body was not wrapped in a shroud, and the onabyla is fixed over a body on some framework. There are also other discrepancies: feet of the lying person have to be turned by fingers up - and here a foot adjoined to a shroud a sole, for this purpose legs should be bent - but on the image they are not bent … Means, a fake - moreover not really qualitative?
But here bloody spots on a shroud were the presents, moreover - it was succeeded to investigate composition of blood, and in it the increased content of bilirubin was revealed - it accompanies adrenaline emission. In other words, the person had the most severe stress (if to assume that a shroud original, then everything is clear). However, if someone aimed to create a convincing forgery - that would be simple to get human blood, and process of “receiving“ blood could be a stress for the victim. So this argument is not really convincing too.
At last, in 1988 fabric samples for radio-carbon dating were taken, and investigated independently three samples - in Arizona, Oxford and Zurich - here that had to place all points over i! The verdict of scientists was unambiguous: fabric is made between 1275 and 1381. It would seem, it is possible to put an end it: a shroud - a medieval fake.
But not here - that was … Many doubted reliability of the analysis - and not some obscurantists, but serious scientists. Also we will directly tell - reasons for doubts were. The matter is that in 1532. (just during the period specified by researchers) the shroud suffered at the fire and it was dollied up - and so, there is no guarantee that the sample for the radio-carbon analysis was not taken from those medieval patches. Besides, the shroud was washed more than once in oils (in any case, in 1508 it precisely was) - traces of oil could not be removed completely and too distort results of research …
I the main stumbling block for sceptics is a question of a way of creation of a shroud. According to some researchers to receive such image, fabric should be subjected to light stream to stronger, than at nuclear explosion (and at the same time not to burn fabric). How it could be made in the Middle Ages?
However, the same can be made also in the chemical ways. The Italian scientist L. Garlaskelli in 2009 even reproduced as it could be made: the person was covered with linen fabric on which ochre with the small content of acid was applied, then fabric was heated in the furnace and washed. It turned out probably … but, as they say, - yes not: as regards a polutonovost to Garlaskelli`s image it was far yes shrouds! Really people of the Middle Ages could make it it is better than modern scientists?
There is also one more moment about which for some reason forget. Remember medieval images of the Crucifixion (though ours though western) - where nails are hammered? In a palm (not incidentally at stigmatik of an ulcer appear on palms). So people of the Middle Ages imagined a crucifixion on a cross - they represented it incorrectly (actually nails were driven in into wrists) as never observed in reality. And if the medieval European took in head to forge a shroud - probably, he would make it according to the wrong representation, having represented palm wounds - and on a shroud they on wrists where have to be at the present crucified … So all - the original?
Come to the rescue of scientists given to archeology: in 2009 in a cave in the valley Hinn (Israel) found remains of the person living during the same era as Christ, and that the cave was hermetically sealed, also the funeral shroud remained - and researchers had an opportunity to study in detail that funeral veils during that era were. Also we will directly tell, this original shroud was not so similar to the Turin shroud: the interlacing of threads is perfect other, the shroud is made of several parts (in particular, a separate piece of fabric for the head) - while a shroud integral … One more argument in favor of falseness of a shroud!
But here strangeness: when removed the lining sewn in the 16th century on a reverse side from a shroud the second image of the person (only persons, without body), exactly - in - exactly coinciding with the first was found (it the computer analysis showed) … At the same time both images mentioned only surface fibers of fabric - the middle of fabric structure is not mentioned (while chemical reactants had to impregnate fabric through). The hypothesis was made that it could turn out as a result of the crown category - an electric discharge which arises when the body is in the ionized atmosphere in electric field. Theoretically it could occur if in a cave where placed a body, gas radon was emitted … But - theoretically.
In a word, a definite answer to a question - what is the Turin shroud and as it appeared - is not present to this day. Whether future researches will give the answer?