The Shroud restored

MARCH IS the month of Lent, a period of penitence and reflection on the Passion and Death of Jesus. Our thoughts turn to the Sacred Shroud which is preserved in Turin and, according to ancient Christian tradition, wrapped the lifeless body of Christ.

As is well-known, there is the image of a man on this Shroud. This image is a mystery. It isn’t a painting, nor a design, nor even an image made by any heat or radiation. If looked at up close, you can hardly see it, yet it can be seen very clearly from a distance. An artist, therefore, could not have painted what he was unable to see as he worked on the Shroud. What is more, there are no signs of coloured pigments. Instead, there have been found traces of human blood, type AB. A computer analysis reveals that the Shroud image has three-dimensional qualities, which do not belong to either paintings nor normal photographs.

A precious artefact?

On the image of the man of the Shroud, there are all the signs of the Passion and Death of Christ, as described in the Gospels. This is why the historical probability that this Shroud really did wrap Christ’s body, as tradition goes, is very high indeed. In this case, the linen would be of enormous value and would become the most precious relic of all.

However, there is no absolute certainty. This is why the Shroud has always been at the centre of relentless discussions. On one hand, there are those who believe that the Shroud wrapped the body of Christ removed from the Crucifix; on the other hand, there are those who deny this possibility. However, heated discussions break out even between those who believe; discussions born out of love, zeal, and the desire to protect and defend this precious relic.

Everyone wants it to be preserved in the best way possible, but they are divided as to how to preserve the Shroud. The latest discussion came about in the summer of 2002 when the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Severino Paletto, papal Custodian of the Shroud, decided to authorise a new method of conservation to be used on the Sacred Shroud; the discussions resulting are yet to be concluded.

As is well-known, the Shroud has been involved in several accidents over the centuries. One of the most serious was the fire in 1532. At that moment in time, the Shroud belonged to the House of Savoy who kept it in a silver casket in the Holy Chapel of Chambéry Castle in Savoy. On 4 December of that year, a tremendous fire broke out; the Shroud’s casket began to melt because of the high temperature and a drop of molten silver from the lid fell onto the cloth. The Shroud suffered enormous damage which was partly repaired by the Poor Clares of Chambéry. The nuns sewed thirty triangular patches onto the Shroud to cover the holes made by the molten silver, and attached a full size baking cloth (known as the Holland Cloth) to strengthen it.

In September 1578, the Shroud was transferred to Turin where it still remains to this day. In 1983, Umberto of Savoy bequeathed the Shroud to the Holy See, formally making it at long last physical property of the Catholic Church.

The Shroud remained in Turin, wrapped up in a cylinder and enclosed in a silver casket. However, it had been observed that the material was slowly deteriorating. It was thus necessary to think about new methods of conservation and preservation, also to remove all the creases and wrinkles that had formed over the centuries.

Considering the fact that this is a very precious relic, a Commission for the Shroud Conservation was set up in 1991, composed of experts in different disciplines. The scientists studied various solutions, coming to the conclusion that the Shroud should be kept in an extended, flat and horizontal position.

A special type of reliquiary was studied, made of bullet-proof glass, waterproof, in absence of air and in presence of an inert gas. The reliquiary should be protected from light and maintained in constant climatic conditions. However, the construction of this reliquiary was difficult and lengthy to achieve. In April 1997, another fire broke out in the cathedral, running the risk of damaging the Shroud once again, and thus work on the new reliquiary speeded up. Eventually, in 1998, after the nth exhibition in Turin, the Sacred Shroud was finally placed in the famous ultramodern reliquiary where it remains to this day.

An eventful path

While the reliquiary was being made, the Commission for the Shroud Conservation realised that it was necessary to unstitch the thirty patches and the underlying Holland Cloth sewn on by the Poor Clares of Chambéry after the fire of 1532, as polluting dust had deposited in the stitches and was causing damage.

The decision to carry out another intervention was made in secret by the members of the Commission for the Shroud Conservation. The project was taken to Rome by Cardinal Paletto to receive the Pope’s approval. John Paul II examined the project personally and approved it on 3 November 2001. Restoration began immediately.

The restoration involved very delicate work as can be deduced from the thorough and detailed report written by Monsignor Giuseppe Ghiberti, President of the Diocesan Commission for the Exposition of the Shroud. This work was entrusted to two experts recognised world-wide, the Shroud expert Mechthild Flury Lemberg and the restorer Irene Tomedi, who worked from 20 June to 23 July 2002, under the supervision of various other scientists.

The two experts, using the most sophisticated techniques, removed the patches sewn on by the nuns in 1534, and also the Holland Cloth. It was then possible to observe and photograph the lower part of the Shroud which had never been observed before as it had been covered by the Holland Cloth.

The unstitching of the patches revealed just how necessary this intervention was. The patches had become containers of carbonic residues and waste products which was very damaging for the Shroud.

All of the material which had been removed (including the patches and the Holland Cloth), having been in contact with the Shroud for centuries and thus precious and very important for future studies, was put away in special containers. The new baking cloth on which the Shroud now rests is a length of new linen presented by Mechthild Flury Lemberg. Her father bought it in Holland (another ‘Holland Cloth’!) some fifty years ago for household uses that never materialised. She washed it several times to de-size and soften it, but did not bleach or dye it. It has thus remained a chemically untreated fabric with a deep ivory hue that provides a soft relief for the holes left by the 1532 fire. Its textile structure is normal, therefore much less elaborate than that of the Shroud linen. The two can thus be readily distinguished.

The work completed, the Shroud, as you can see in the photos we are publishing, seems freer, smoother and lighter. It was also a few centimetres longer when measured.

Monsignor Ghiberti concluded his long report by writing that the Shroud appears to be more beautiful after its restoration. “The signs of its vicissitudes remained to tell of the misfortunes this Holy Linen suffered, over the centuries, in its sojourn among men. But now, this dramatic past seemed to have taken on an aura of serenity in acceptance of the insults which it no longer tries to hide, standing witness to the suffering recorded in the image.”

An expert opinion

Not all of academics agree with this restoration project and have made various critical remarks.

“The entire operation has left me rather perplexed,” attests Emanuela Marinelli, a Shroud expert who has written many books on the subject. “Both myself and other academics do not feel that such a dramatic intervention was necessary. Mons. Giuseppe Ghiberti declares that ‘the process of carbonisation ‘travelled’ and was probably still not in progress.’ Yet this statement is not convincing. The process of carbonisation cannot ‘travel’. Raymond N. Rogers, a laboratory fellow at the University of California has revealed in his article, ‘The chemistry of autocatalytic processes in the context of the Shroud of Turin’ (www.shroud.it/ROGERS-2.PDF) that based on the facts of chemistry and the current storage conditions, reveals the Shroud of Turin was in no danger of autocatalytic decomposition. The carbonic residues, dust and detritus didn’t represent any menace and were worth studying together with fragments of carbonised material before being removed.”

I asked mineralogist Emanuela Marinelli if there were other academics who shared her perplexity about the restoration and she replied, “There are some interesting comments about this intervention on the Internet site www.shroud.com/restored.htm. Many of these texts have been written by scientists alarmed by the intervention carried out. It is perfectly legitimate to worry about further wearing out of this ancient cloth, lacking its Holland Cloth and the patches which supported it and prevented the possibility of any tearing. The variation in the measurements of the Shroud is also worrying: one of the long sides has grown by about four centimetres and the other by about eight centimetres. To uncrease the folds, lead weights were applied and it appears that an ultrasound vaporiser was also used. The stress of such manipulation, carried out mostly with bare hands, has been worsened by a month’s exposure to incandescent lamps.”

However, many experts had stated that the folds should be removed at all costs?

“Many others however agree that considering the history of the Shroud, the removal of these creases is a great loss as they were witness to ancient ways of preserving the Shroud. The sixteenth century restoration itself, which has now been destroyed, was a historical testimony which has now been irreparably lost. Regarding the tension of the stitches, Giulio Fanti, professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Padua and co-ordinator of the ATLAS project which studies the Shroud, has emphasised that such tension should have been first measured by ‘sewing’ optical fibres with a particular reticule (reticule of Bragg) in the cloth. Since 1998, the Shroud has been preserved flat and thus any tension caused by the old system of rolling it had already been eliminated.”

Hasn’t any new data been acquired through this intervention?

“Of course, but at the same time, several possible sources of information about the Shroud have been lost. Professor William Meacham, professor of Archaeology at the University of Hong Kong, has noticed that the removal of the carbonised material and dust has resulted in a lost opportunity of studying it on site; furthermore, the mixing of carbonised material with other particles has spoiled the chances of a separate examination. The professional delicacy and skill of Mechthild Flury-Lemberg and Irene Tomedi is indisputable, and the Shroud is impeccably clean, however it is only right that we ask ourselves whether this was the most important objective to be reached.”

Wasn’t the intervention discussed beforehand between the Shroud experts?

“Unfortunately not. The decision to carry out such an operation was made by a very exclusive group of people, without a more ample consultation of the scientists and historians who have been interested in the Relic for many years. In fact, no-one had ever suggested an intervention of this kind during the various international congresses held in the last four years (Turin 1998, Richmond 1999, Rio de Janeiro 1999, Turin 2000, Orvieto 2000, Dallas 2001, Paris 2002, Rio de Janeiro 2002), not even in the meetings held by the Turin International Centre of Sindonology (Turin 1998) and by Cardinal Severino Poletto, the Archbishop of Turin (Turin 2000). Nine scientists who participated in this last congress have written a protest letter to the Custodian of the Shroud, the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Severino Poletto, precisely because of the lack of necessary consultation. Many other Shroud experts have expressed their perplexity by writing directly to the Pope.”

These problems aside, have there been any discoveries during the intervention?

“Lateral stitching has been found on the Shroud which is identical to stitching found on Hebrew material dating back to the first century discovered in Masada, a rise near the Dead Sea: further proof in favour of the Shroud’s authenticity.”

But how does this discovery relate to radiocarbon dating carried out 14 years ago which dates the origin of the Shroud back to the Middle Ages.?

“Recent studies by Raymond N. Rogers (www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf) have invalidated these tests by revealing that the material of the main part of the Shroud is significantly different from the radiocarbon sampling area. The validity of the radiocarbon sample must thus be questioned with regard to dating the production of the main part of the cloth.”