# Shroud of Turin...is this still a controversy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 15, 2010, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517 "2010-03-15T04:11:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/21 "2010-03-15T15:48:35Z")
> [@Yssy](#): > > Tell me more! (please?) > [@](#): > > Blood group AB is found in less than five percent of the population. It is certainly the most recent blood group. Unlike the other Abo blood groups, group **AB resulted from the intermingling of group A Caucasian people and group B Mongolian people. Some of this may have been peaceful, some must have been part of the violent turmoil that marked the great “Migration of Peoples” at the end of the Ancient Period (300AD-800AD)** > > This time period was characterized by the collapse of the ancient civilizations, brought on by the influx of various wandering hordes of predominantly Eastern origin. The incidence of blood group B was probably very high in these Steppe dwellers, so the appearance of group AB in Europe is probably the result of the intermingling of these Eastern invaders with their European hosts. In Europe, the distribution of this blood group parallels group B, with a low incidence in Western Europeans. There is a very high incidence of AB blood in sub-continental Indians, again probably the result of migration, conquest, caste distinctions and intermingling . > > **Little evidence for the occurrence of group AB extends beyond 900 to 1,000 years ago, when a large western migration of Eastern peoples took place. Blood group AB is rarely found in European graves prior to 900 A.D.** Studies of prehistoric grave exhumations in Hungary indicate a distinct lack of this blood group into the Langobard age (fifth to seventh century A.D.). This would seem to indicate that, up until that point in time, European populations of blood groups A and B did not come into common contact. If they did, they neither mingled nor intermarried. [Excerpted from _The complete Blood Type Encylopedia_](http://www.dadamo.com/knowbase/theory/anthro.htm) Wiki says that the earliest dating found for type AB is 700 CE, but that’s Wiki, so take it for what it’s worth. The source quoted above suggests that it was even later than that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/22 "2010-03-15T15:52:36Z")
But Israel is not part of Europe. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/23 "2010-03-15T15:56:18Z")
So what? There was no AB in Asia either. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/24 "2010-03-15T16:00:15Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > So what? There was no AB in Asia either. Your cites don’t support that claim. Not that I think the shroud is really that of Jesus’, but I’m not convinced there were no AB blood types in the Middle East around the time Jesus is supposed to have lived. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/25 "2010-03-15T16:04:14Z")
Sorta breaking news. [First Century Burial Shroud Found](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1236161/First-burial-shroud-carbon-dated-time-Christs-crucifixion-caves-near-Jerusalem.html). > [@](#): > > Archaeologists have discovered the first known burial shroud in Jerusalem from the time of Christ’s crucifixion - and say it casts serious doubt on the claimed authenticity of the Turin Shroud. > > Ancient shrouds from the period have been found before in the Holy Land, but never in Jerusalem. > > Researchers say the weave and design of the shroud discovered in a burial cave near Jerusalem’s Old City are completely different to the Turin Shroud. … > > Professor Gibson said the Turin Shroud did not fit what was known of burial practices in first-century Palestine - now confirmed by the Jerusalem shroud. > > 'The Turin shroud is a single sheet made with a twill weave. > > ‘The twill weave is known from this part of the world only from the mediaeval period, so we’re talking about something that’s from the Middle Ages,’ Gibson told the Daily Mail. > > 'But the Jerusalem shroud confirmed another local practice which casts even more doubt on the Turin artefact. > > ‘It wasn’t one continuous sheet,’ said Gibson, pointing out the Turin Shroud is a single rectangular sheet measuring about 14ft by 3ft. > > 'What our shroud shows is that the practice of having a separate shroud or wrapping for the body and for the head was common practice. > > ‘There was a separate wrapping for the head itself, which was very important because when they brought someone to burial they would place the head wrapping separately on the face in case the person wasn’t actually dead and woke up again, they would be able to blow off the face wrapping and shout for help,’ said Gibson. All of which is confirmation for what DtC already said. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/26 "2010-03-15T16:04:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Your cites don’t support that claim. Yes it does. > [@](#): > > AB resulted from the intermingling of group A Caucasian people and group B Mongolian people. Some of this may have been peaceful, some must have been part of the violent turmoil that marked the great “Migration of Peoples” at the end of the Ancient Period (300AD-800AD) No intermingling of groups until 300-800 CE. A and B were separate until then. > [@](#): > > Little evidence for the occurrence of group AB extends beyond 900 to 1,000 years ago, It doesn’t specify Europe. If you can show evidence for type AB in 1st Century Asia (or anywhere else in the world), cough it up. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/27 "2010-03-15T16:08:41Z")
“Little evidence” means there is some evidence, just not much. Also: > [@](#): > > Some of this may have been peaceful, some must have been part of the violent turmoil that marked the great “Migration of Peoples” at the end of the Ancient Period (300AD-800AD) There is no date applied to the part that “may have been peaceful”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/28 "2010-03-15T16:11:06Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If you can show evidence for type AB in 1st Century Asia (or anywhere else in the world), cough it up. No, that’s not the way it works. You made a claim, and you gave a cite which does not support that claim. Now, it may be true-- I really don’t know. I’m just not convinced by your cites. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/29 "2010-03-15T16:16:54Z")
My claim is fully supported. You’re grasping at straws. The way to rebut is by showing evidence for the date you would like to be true, not just by trying to make specious arguments for gaps in my cites. For what it’s worth, here is the [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Blood_stains): > [@](#): > > A problem with a blood type AB for an authentic shroud is that it is today known that this type of blood is of relative recent origin. There is no evidence of the existence of this blood type before the year AD 700. It is today assumed that the blood type AB came into the existence by immigration and following intermingling of mongoloid people from central Asia with a high frequency of the blood type B to Europe and other areas where people with a relatively high frequency of the blood type A live. The ball is in your court. Your thesis that the A and B groups were intermingled in Palestine before the 1st Century is based on what evidence? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/30 "2010-03-15T16:19:55Z")
This whole angle is kind of moot anyway, since there has been no blood discovered on the shroud. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/31 "2010-03-15T16:26:03Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No blood has been discovered on the shroud, despite the extremely common claims made by pro-authenticity defenders. One pair of chemists (Dr.s Heller and Adler) made an _interpretive_ determination that residue recovered from sticky tape used to pull fibers (not from the shroud itself) contained a lot of iron oxide and interpreted it as blood. They also identified it as type AB which didn’t exist until the 7th Century. > > Their interpretations have been greatly disputed by other chemists and forensic experts (the pair in question had no experience in forensics, artistic pigments or detection of forgery). Other forensic tests done directly on the alleged “blood” on the shroud have shown it to be red vermillion paint. It was also shown that decayed temura pigments can and do produce exactly the same residue that Heller and Adler identified as blood. Yeah, isn’t iron oxide the usual pigment used in red paint since pigments have been used? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/32 "2010-03-15T16:29:14Z")
Yes. The STURP researchers interpreted the iron oxide from decayed paint as “blood,” because that’s what they wanted to find (or what they wanted the public to believe they had found). ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/33 "2010-03-15T16:33:11Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] They also identified it as type AB which didn’t exist until the 7th Century. [/QUOTE] If you believe that **Jesus** is the Son of God, finding type AB blood on the shroud wouldn’t rule out it being **Jesus** ’ blood, even if there were no other humans with type AB blood at the time. > [@](#): > > This whole angle is kind of moot anyway, since there has been no blood discovered on the shroud. Not that I’m arguing with this point. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/34 "2010-03-15T17:05:07Z")
If type A was common in European peoples, and B was common in Asian peoples, then AB would be common anywhere that those two populations mingled. And there must surely have been some region where those populations mingled, unless you’re positing that there was some uninhabited swath of barrier-land between them. That region of intermingling might not have drifted into Europe until 700 or 900 or whenever, but it had to be somewhere. Of course, quibbling about the blood type is irrelevant, anyway, until and unless we know something about the genetics of the Annunciation. Jesus’ parents, according to those who claim the Shroud’s authenticity, were not a Middle-Eastern man and a Middle-Eastern woman; his father was God, and presumably He could have contributed whatever genes He wanted to Jesus. But then, I figure that if God did miraculously bring about the conception of Jesus, He wouldn’t have missed the chance for a bit of extra symbolism, and so would have made Jesus type O negative. ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/35 "2010-03-15T17:21:12Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > 1. We will never know for sure how it was made, and it is a remarkable artefect for this reason. It seems _possible_ that it was made using either a contact method (a sheet laid on an actual person or corpse prepared with pigments or chemicals to create an imprint)… This has been demonstrated not to be the case. If you wrap a cloth around a human head and measure the distance between the ears you will see that it is quite a bit bigger than the measurement on the shroud. It will also be quite distorted and not look anything like the shroud. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/36 "2010-03-15T17:52:36Z")
Joe Nickell was able to make a passable copy by using, instead of a real person, corpse, or statue, a _bas relief_. This gave him the image with the same distortion seen in the real shroud. See his book \*\* Inquest on the Shroud of Turin\*\* for details. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/37 "2010-03-15T17:52:50Z")
The “shroud” is a 14th century forgery. The only mystery is, how was it made? My theory (on why it displays a negative image): the shroud was originally painted in vivid colors. It was then hung up where it was exposed to strong sunlight. Over the centuries, the exposed linen darkened-meanwhile, the shroud was washed several times-this resulted in the original image disappearing (and most of the iron oxide and vermilion pigments being washed out). This is simple, but it explains why: -the image is a negative (no forger would want this) -the small amounts of pigments in the cloth -the fact that the dark area of the image has only shallow surface penetration ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/38 "2010-03-15T18:14:05Z")
> [@wedgehed](#): > > Holy relics were a big business back in the day. Europeans traveling to the Holy Land were almost guaranteed to bring back the bones of some martyr or bits & pieces of the True Cross. The Catholic Church never ruled one way or the other on the Turin Shroud. Not being a Catholic I might have the terminology wrong, but I think they considered it “an object worthy of veneration”, which might be their way of saying “if it puts you in a Godly frame of mind, go for it”. primary relics (part of a person) are more valuable than secondary relics (something they touched). the only primary relics in this case would be blood on the shroud or the ‘holy foreskin’ (either it was divided or there were competing claims for this). i don’t have a cite handy but did come across that issue when reading on the shroud. i don’t recall i ever heard a claim of the ‘holy placenta/umbilical’. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/39 "2010-03-15T18:19:48Z")
[QUOTE=DtC] The show focused specifically on the claims of a pro-authenticity crank, Ray Rodgers, who is a credentialed scientist, but one who has been pro-athenticity from the beginning. The show tried to portray him as the classic, skeptical scientist, shocked by his findings, but the truth is that Rodgers has never been a skeptic. The show also tried to portray STRP as an objective scientific endeavor, when it’s actually a pseudoscience front group for pro-authenticity believers (akin to the Discovery Institute which propounds Intellegent Design). [/QUOTE] I love the way they portrayed him as a skeptical scientist, determined to show the misguided believers who brought the ‘new evidence’ to him, saying he could disprove it in 5 minutes, but then, stunned by the revelation (heh) that it was absolutely true! What a load. It didn’t smell right, but thought I’d ask here to get the 'dope on it. Thanks for the responses everyone…feel free to continue to discussion in any direction you want. -XT ---
**Author:** ![SCSimmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e495f1/32.png) [@SCSimmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCSimmons)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/40 "2010-03-15T19:18:06Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But then, I figure that if God did miraculously bring about the conception of Jesus, He wouldn’t have missed the chance for a bit of extra symbolism, and so would have made Jesus type O negative. **Chronos** has won all Shroud of Turin threads forever. Congratulations! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517.md?page=3)