Still Shrouded in uncertainties

Evidence of the Shroud. By lan Wilson. Macmillan, 1986. 158 pp. $46.15.

(Reviewed by Denis Dutton)

Ian Wilson's second book on the Shroud is intended more as a condensed and colourfully illustrated Popular introduction to the study of the relic than his previous work ("The Shroud of Turin," 1978). With few exceptions, the "evidence," as assembled here, supports claims for the authenticity of the Shroud. But there is at least one new twist.

Wilson provides 'a general review of the findings' of the i978 scientific examination of the Shroud, including blood analysis, photographic examination, and pollen. analysis by the criminologist Max Frei. He is delighted by Frei's apparent identification of pollen on the Shroud, which supposedly shows that the cloth was in the Jerusalem area and Asia Minor some time-in its history.

The enthusiasm should not surprise, as Frei's conclusions would perfectly support Wilson's own hypotheses about the movements of the Shroud before its "discovery" in Europe in the fourteenth century. Wilson unfortunately fails to mention that Frei used no "double-blind" techniques and that his work was never subjected to independent review by a scientific journal. The analysis has been called into question by some professional palynologists, who view the specificity of his identifications as highly improbable. (Frei died in 1983, but not, alas, before he had authenticated the Hitler diaries.)

Wilson does present a chapter with some of the considerations in favour of the idea that the Stroud is a medieval forgery, relying mostly on the views of Walter McCrone, the well known Chicago forensic scientist who believes the image is a painting. McCrone is treated fairly, but Wilson ignores the work of other investigators who have discovered ways a medieval forger might have concocted a Shroud with all of the photographically negative and three dimensional properties of the image of the Shroud of Turin.

The believers in authenticity are represented in this book by their most persuasive arguments, while some of the most intriguing hypotheses of sceptics are selectively ignored. Nevertheless, the fact that any evidence for forgery is presented here at all marks a step forward in Shroud literature.

Wilson is still convinced of the plausibility of speculations presented in his 1978 book: that the Shroud is actually the fabled cloth of Edessa, a relic which miraculously bore: the visage of Jesus. However, the Edessa cloth had only the face of Christ, where the Shroud is a nearly three-metre length of linen with the full front and back image of Christ's crucified body.

This is explained by Wilson with the suggestion that the Shroud was mounted in a frame for centuries, with only the face visible. That the present shroud shows no fading or other signs of this treatment bothers Wilson; as well it might, but he thinks there are fold marks in the cloth which support his view. Well, I suppose it might have been folded wherever it was kept.

But though Wilson inclines strongly towards authenticity, his single nod in the direction of forgery contains a Surprise. Following an Italian gallery director, he suggests that if the Shroud is a fake, it might have been painted by Leonardo da Vinci. Of course, while the earliest records of the Shroud of Turin do explicitly state it is a forgery, they also make it a century and & half cider than Leonardo.

But not to worry: Wilson says Leonardo might have connived with the owners of the Shroud, the Savoy family, to replace the original with his forgery. And while there are no historical records whatsoever to support the idea that Leonardo ever heard of the Shroud, or that the Savoys had any secret dealings with him, Wilson still claims "the idea is by no means impossible.” This is a fair representation of Wilson's notion of historical argument: if something isn't impossible, it might well be the case.

Like so much of the chatter that surrounds this curious cloth, the Leonardo hypothesis springs not from a sober view of available evidence, but from' passionately-held (and essentially religious) convictions about the importance of the relic. If it is not to be the actual burial cloth of Jesus, then let's imagine it is an original Leonardo. For the Shroud Crowd, nothing but the best.

When he comes to evidence against forgery, Wilson relies largely on the blood studies which suggest that there is indeed human blood on the Shroud, and that it possesses properties of a person who was ill or had suffered an accident. or physical. abuse. Some of the conclusions about the blood on the Shroud are arrived at on the basis of samples clinging to a single microfibril on a linen thread, which is slender evidence indeed.

Wilson nowhere lets on that it is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that a clever forger would have used human blood to decorate the wound areas of the Shroud. Once that is acknowledged, the evidence of blood on the Shroud does not add much to the cases either of the believers or the sceptics.

What is needed now is carbon dating of the cloth, and the recent Vatican announcement that it is to be undertaken is welcome news. It should be noted, however, that claims are already being put in advance that the cloth has been too contaminated by modern handling to be accurately dated. My own best estimate is that the average of the test dates will be A.D. 1335, plus or minus 30 years. But even if I am right, the dating may simply generate new controversies.