hoax
Jack Mullen
THERE are lots of ancient burial shrouds in existence today, but only one of them bears a body imprint. It is, of course, the shroud of Turin, which has been venerated for centuries by Christians who believe that the imprint is that of the crucified Jesus Christ. Undoubtedly one of the most controversial Christian relics in the world, there’s even a word to describe people who study it – “sindonologists”, from the Greek word “sindon” which means, as you might have guessed, a shroud.
Its origins are shrouded – if you’ll pardon the expression – in mystery, but it first came to public attention when it was handed over to the Church of Lirey in Troyes, France, in the 14th century (sources vary about the precise date). The scepticism started even then, when the bishop of Lirey denounced it as a painted forgery – but that certainly didn’t diminish the fervour of the believers. The dukes of Savoy brought it to Turin in 1578, where it has remained ever since.
It was photographed for the first time in 1898, and in 1902 the first investigation of the shroud was conducted by French physician Dr Yves Delage. His report to the French Academy of Sciences ignited a controversy which was finally quenched only when Vatican-sponsored carbon-dating tests in 1988 determined that the shroud itself dated from no earlier than 1260.
That still left the question of how the photographic-like image was embedded into the medieval linen and, as yet, it hasn’t been answered to everyone’s satisfaction. But Dr Nick Allen, dean of the faculty of art and design at Port Elizabeth Technikon, believes he has the answer. The University of Durban-Westville believes it, too – he was awarded a PhD for his highly original research on the shroud, which he has never seen.
He dismisses the suggestion that the image is a painted forgery, and says the only way that you can get a three-dimensional image of such accuracy on a two-dimensional support is by photography. In the Middle Ages?
Allen was himself sceptical about his own deduction, but further investigation showed that all the chemicals and equipment needed to create a photograph (in theory, at least) were available to people in the 14th century. The next step was to see whether the theory could be put into practice – using materials from the Middle Ages – and if it was possible to produce a “shroud image”. It was, and Allen did, using a form of camera obscura. Camera obscura means “darkened room” – in simple terms, that’s what it is, but it has a hole in one wall through which light falls on to the opposite wall. A cloth treated with light- reactive substances can be hung there to collect any image between the light and the peephole.
“After about three days, you get a very nice purply-brown negative photograph of whatever was outside the camera,” says Allen.
A further process enabled him to remove all chemical traces from the linen, and leave the image intact – a controlled, chemically induced “scorch mark”. A smart medieval forger would have been able to do precisely the same – although Allen doesn’t claim to know exactly what was used back then.
So, how have his conclusions been received? “I think most people who are rational and look at the findings, realise that there can be no other explanation.” And what about Christian believers in the shroud?
“Most people have been quite polite. But the point is, as I always say to people, your faith cannot be dependent on a piece of medieval linen.”
For more information, see: http://www.petech.ac.za/Shroud