It has become a staple of sindonological faith that the Sudarium of Oviedo has so many mathematical coincidences with the head on the Shroud that its correlation is “beyond reasonable doubt.” Without, at least to start with, criticising the work which has resulted in this conclusion, let’s examine the Sudarium without any preconceptions ourselves, and see if we come to the same conclusion.
Here it is:
There are any number of images to choose from, and these are from a powerpoint presentation (‘The Sudarium of Oviedo and its Relationship with the Shroud of Turin,’ at shroud.com/pdfs/bennettpanppteng.pdf). They were not taken at the same time or in the same circumstances, and the one on the right has been edited to match the one on the left. Its frame has been cropped out (which is why the little step on the top edge is absent), and it has been slightly re-proportioned in length and width to match the prominent features.
It is instantly apparent that it has the approximate form of a Rorschach blot, and that the principle shapes appear to have been applied while the cloth was folded in two along a well-defined crease, which is slightly off centre, so that the ‘butterfly’ stain and the dark marks above it are not reflected.
The cloth is about 53cm from top to bottom, so its images can at least approximately be said to match the length of a man’s head, and the configuration below, from historic mysteries.com, can be soundly rejected:
ONE: CONTACT SURFACE
Having decided that the four main stains are more or less equivalent, the first problem is to decide which of them supposedly made contact with a face, the other three being where the stain seeped through the first layer, transferred to the second layer, and seeped through that to the ‘back cover’ of the bifold.
There are four such stains to choose from, and the most sensible seems to be to take the one with the most staining on, supposing that the other three surfaces were where the fluids seeped through to the back of the contact cloth, then through the next layer folded over. Here are the four stains, reflected as necessary to orient them similarly, from least intense to most intense, in my opinion:
For a more critical review, here is a look at some of the features of the first and last image above, as seen on one side of the cloth:
Areas (a), (f) and (g) are bigger or clearer on the left than on the right; areas (b), (d), (i) and (j) are bigger or clearer on the right than on the left. The space (h) is open on the left but almost closed on the right. Area (c) (the outline of the left patch has been copied onto the right) is different in detail on both sides so difficult to say which side ‘bled’ through to the other, and outline (e) (the outline of the right has been copied onto the left) is better defined on the right than the left, but appears to spread further on the right.
A similar comparison was made by Miguel Ángel Hacar Benítez, which he published in a paper called ‘Sudario de Oviedo: Análisis Matemático de las Manchas,’ in Sudario del Señor: Actas del I Congreso Internacional sobre el Sudario de Oviedo (1994).
R and A stand for Reverso and Anverso (Reverse and Obverse), and I and D stand for Izquierda and Derecha (Right and Left). The drawings are reflected the opposite way, but the order is the same.
All this leads me to think that if the principle stains on the cloth came from contacting a surface then the piece of cloth in contact was that one on the right hand side of the both sets of diagrams, labelled D.
TWO: NON-CONTACT SURFACE
If we suppose that Image D is the contact image, then Image C is whatever seeped through the cloth to the other side, and they are very similar. However, B, which was more or less in contact with C, is so different that we must suppose it wasn’t in very good contact. This is justified not only because of areas where liquid has not transferred, but also because some distinctive creases suggest that the top sheet was slightly rucked up, as seen in this raking light photograph (from Sudario del Señor):
With the aid of another photograph (from bennettpanppteng.pdf) , with rulers along the edges, we can quantify some of the discrepancies due to folds.
In particular, we can see that the A-shaped creases seem to have closed the gap between them, so that there was originally no contact there between the two sheets. When opened out, as here, the ‘mirror distances’ between the identified points increase on that side. Another demonstration of this can be seen below, where patch Z on the right hand side has split in two on the left.
THREE: THE FOLDED CLOTH
With the previous conclusions as a guide, we can reconstruct the folded cloth, at least the part nearest the crease:
I have indicated that the right-hand edge of the upper sheet is crumpled, simply so that we can see the markings on the sheet underneath. Its exact configuration is difficult to deduce.
FOUR: WELL, THAT’S A SURPRISE
The standard model, as illustrated in César Barta’s book, The Sudarium of Oviedo: Signs of Jesus Christ’s Death, looks like this:
However, this means that one of the least ‘bloodied’ sides made contact with the putative face, not face D, as concluded above. It is, however, the standard view taken by all the advocates of the ‘Sudarium/Shroud match’ hypothesis. This was first formally addressed in ‘Comparative Study of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin’ (1998), by Guillermo Moreno, José-Delfín Villalaín Blanco and Jorge-Manuel Rodríguez Almenar, who chose it on the grounds that, “the Reverse Left [RI above] is covered in blood and there is much more haematic substance on this part then on any other.” Although in general the authors of this paper are models of scientific discretion, I cannot agree with this statement. Readers may like to compare A and D of the comparative photos above to see for themselves.
On the other hand, if my alternative is followed, the result looks rather unsatisfactory, having to pass over a roll of crinkled cloth on the way round, and probably not reaching the back of the head. But then, maybe the cloth never enveloped a head at all.
I suspect that the standard model has really been adopted on the principle that because it’s easier to wrap a head according to the top diagram, therefore that must be how it was; in other words putting the conclusion before the evidence. If there is another reason, no doubt somebody will correct me, and I will be happy to amend this paragraph [see below!].
FIVE: ON THE OTHER HAND
The author of what is currently the best book in English on the Sudarium, César Barta, has vigorously defended the traditional view in the comments below, and presented two significant points which deserve to be examined. The most persuasive to me relates to a possible filtration effect, which means that “particles of enough size do not pass through the first layer. The observation through the microscope shows that the layer that receives the fluid and retains the large particles was the layer labeled ‘A’ in your post.” I think this deserves consideration.
However, what is not clear to me is what these “particles of enough size” might be. What is supposed to have been emitted from the mouth and nose of the body is described as “a mixture of pulmonary oedema and blood,” neither of which suggest much in way of filterable particles. There could be dust particles, but an X-ray fluorescence survey of 57 different spots around the cloth, carried out by Rodrigo Álvarez in 2012, shows little or no variation in mass in calcium, strontium and iron from one side to the other, or from clear areas, or stained areas.
It is true that there is significantly less calcium, strontium and iron on the darkest stains of face D compared to face A, and slightly more of these elements on the lighter stains of Face D compared to face A, but I don’t think this is sufficient to establish that the ejected liquid contained mineral particles. One might suppose that the outside of the cloth would be dustier than the contact surface.
What seems to me more sensible is that the fluid might have contained mucus, which might be supposed to have clotted on one side of the cloth, and there is some suggestive evidence to support this idea, as the densest parts of the image are larger on Face A than on Face D.
However, the X-ray fluorescence survey survey of potassium and sulphur, which are more variable in mass around the cloth than the other three elements and are related to blood content, clearly show that there is much more of both on the right hand side than the left.
This is good evidence that there is more residual blood in the right hand stain (D), than the left (A), but Barta points out that this could just as easily illustrate the fact that more blood has passed through the cloth than remains on the contact face.
Barta’s other suggestion is that the stains were formed when the face of the supposed body was towards the ground, and that “when the layers are subject to gravity, the upper layer is smaller than the lower layer because the capillarity effect, combined with the gravity effect, causes the fluid to flow more to the lower layer. The Sudarium was first placed around a head tilted downward and later, facing the ground. So, the bottom layer, the one furthest from the face, is the largest.” This is not at first sight unreasonable, but my initial experiments did not support the hypothesis. On the other hand, an experiment by Barta does show a slight increase in area of the stain on the non-contact cloth (the top stain is on the left here)
So I carried out more experiments on different cloths, and found that some ‘worked’ better than others. This is one of the best (the top stain is on the right here, and the blue and red ovals are the same size).
So, I am happy to concede that an ‘outer’ stain can be bigger than a ‘contact’ stain, although whether these are comparable to the rather more complicated stains we see on the Sudarium is still not clear to me. Readers will have to judge for themselves..
SIX: MATCHING THE SHROUD
For any comparison to be worthwhile, the Sudarium and the Shroud have to be scaled to the same size. In the case of the Sudarium, the cloth bounded by rulers will enable quite precise measurements; in the case of the Shroud, we are restricted to some measurements of the whole length and width, and for smaller areas, to Mario Latendresse’s invaluable Shroud Scope, at sindonology.org/shroudScope/shroudScope.shtml. The best I can manage is this:
The idea is that both cloths carry some kind of representation of a human face. However, the Sudarium followed the contours of the face closely, while the Shroud was either horizontal or close to it. Something like this:
The effect of this double positioning means that there can be no precise correspondence between the two cloths, unless some very specific points can be identified. The scaled diagrams above have been aligned so that a pair of almost unstained areas of the Sudarium correspond to the eyes of the Shroud image, a lightly stained area to the forehead, and the darkest areas to the nose and mouth area, from which, perhaps, it might be supposed that the majority of the staining fluid emerged. There is, however, no precise correspondence, and no evidence on the Sudarium of the ‘blood flows’ on the brow and hair of the Shroud.
Recently, it has been claimed that the ‘tear drop’ blood mark just below the ‘epsilon’ on the Shroud, is represented on the Sudarium. This only works if the contact stain is (A) rather than (D), so I reject it on those grounds, but for the sake of completeness will look at it anyway.
The contention is that while the teardrop blood mark was able to transfer to the Sudarium, the epsilon mark wasn’t. This is special pleading. Instead, fluid flowing over the brow was somehow brought up short against the epsilon, like a sea-wall, copying its outline as the edge of the stain it made. But in truth, there is no such epsilon-shaped outline. It has been drawn that way to match the hypothesis, not because it really exists.
Another alleged comparison is between some points on the Sudarium and the bloodstains on the back of the neck, but this too is invalid, as I illustrated in my earlier paper, ‘Separated at Birth.’
By now, I think it is fairly obvious that any coincidence between the Sudarium and the Shroud is just that, sheer coincidence, and not evidence that the one maps onto the other.
In November 2025, a paper by Otangelo Grasso appeared at academia.edu, entitled ‘Forensic Congruences between the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo.’ It lists what it claims are 49 “Correspondences from Comparative Studies,” which constitute a “complete, systematically organised catalogue of every congruence claim explicitly present,” using a few carefully selected sources. Curiously, these include a fictional thriller by a couple of theatre critics, and exclude the most important source of data on the Shroud, Sudario del Señor: Actas del I Congreso Internacional sobre el Sudario de Oviedo (1994), and also the first such comparison, ‘Comparative Study of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin’ (1998), by Guillermo Moreno, José-Delfín Villalaín Blanco and Jorge-Manuel Rodríguez Almenar.
Sadly, the list is a ludicrous collection of random associations, from the banal (“37. Linen composition: both artefacts are linen cloths”) to the non-congruent (“40. Weave pattern difference: Shroud exhibits 3-to-1 herringbone twill while Sudarium shows taffeta or octagonal weave, indicating different manufacturing contexts”), to the merely suppositional (“32. Miñarro sculpture reconstruction match: claimed to match Sudarium proportions and trauma patterns”), the repetitious (“27. Nose length concordance: approximately 8cm on both cloths,” and “29. Forehead-to-nose-tip length: given as 8cm for both”), the discredited (“45. ABO blood type AB concordance: both Shroud and Sudarium typed as AB, with frequency cited as approximately 5% in general populations or 1 in 1000 in some estimates”), and the flagrantly dishonest (“49. Calcium accumulation at nose region: both cloths show dust accumulation where cloth covered nose, with instrumental analysis revealing high calcium content via X-ray fluorescence near Shroud nose compared to high dust concentrations in corresponding Sudarium area”).
I can only repeat: By now, I think it is fairly obvious that any coincidence between the Sudarium and the Shroud is just that, sheer coincidence, and not evidence that the one maps onto the other.
Hi Hugh,
It’s good to be in dialogue with you on this Sudarium question.
Yes, I should have searched Google Books for Barta’s book. Just too busy. But I did order it via interlibrary loan yesterday, and it should arrive in a week or two, though too late to help me here. Our three-week window is about to close. Maybe those two negative Amazon reviews were too harsh, as you say. But they were very specific. And as you well know, language chaos has been a huge problem in the Shroud field. Writers very often do not take any care in their translations, and the result has been either misleading or incomprehensible. Finding basic native speaker help would be such a simple matter, too. So, if I’m partly mistaken about Barta’s book in that regard, I’ve been right about many other articles and books on the Shroud. Sloppy. Proper communication is crucial. But many writers have not cared – including some native speakers.
On the question of the blood, etc., spreading more on the outermost layer of cloth, one wonders if human action also played a role. Some descriptions of the Sudarium state that finger marks can be detected on it where fingers were placed on the nose and mouth to stop the flow of blood at some point in time, an important factor if the dead man was Jewish. If so, could the fingers also have smeared some of the blood there on the outside, spreading it farther? But this is just speculation.
You write, “and to treat the head of a dying man,” but surely he was not dying but already dead, just minutes before, which is why the face was covered. Who covers the face of a still-living man?
Again, “he could easily have been sitting against a wall….” That seems far-fetched. Why not simply move him a bit to enable a full head wrapping?
Yes, of course, most bogus relics are probably accidental finds. But the notion that the Sudarium was such a mere find, and its stain patterns only by coincidence matched the positions or configurations of a victim on a cross and then removed from the cross, patterns and positions first determined by science a thousand years later, seems a real stretch to me.
I look forward to reading Barta’s book, having read those on the Sudarium by Bennett and Guscin, though long ago.
Best wishes,
John L.
Hi John,
Thanks for that. However, I really wouldn’t want your characterisation of César Barta’s book, The Sudarium of Oviedo, to put anybody off (although I agree the price might!). It’s certainly not written in Spanglish, and I think the two negative reviews at Amazon.com have been written from a negatively partisan point of view. Of the various books in English on the Sudarium, Barta’s is the most comprehensive, the best referenced, and the most balanced – considering it is from a convinced authenticist.
Quite a lot of the book, including many of the illustrations, can be found at Google Books, so please judge for yourself.
Although I disagree with his overall model and conclusions, Barta has argued his case about the possibility of a liquid spreading further on the outside layer of a folded cloth well, and I have come to agree with him, although successive experiments show that it very much depends of how the cloth has been treated during its manufacturing process (from retting to weaving), something which is also relevant to the Shroud (and which is why I think more specific attempts to ‘duplicate’ the image process will not be worthwhile until we know more about it).
Overall, I’m far from convinced that the convoluted way the Sudarium has been manipulated to fit a crucifixion scenario is at all credible. Your “first question” betrays exactly the same “forgery” prejudice that is so often used in comments on the Shroud: “why would a forger…..?” As with a great many – perhaps most – bogus relics, I don’t think the Sudarium was a forgery at all. I think it may have been used to treat the head of a dying man, but he could more easily have been sitting against a wall than nailed to a cross. I think that the vast majority of medieval relics, mostly bones, stones and shreds of cloth, were themselves quite innocently found or derived; the forgery, if there was one, came in their misidentification.
And its history, of course, like the history of the Shroud, confuses “compatible with” and “definitely proven.” There is no evidence for the Sudarium of Oviedo before its reliquary was opened, in Oviedo, in 1075, although the successive radiocarbon dates, and the limestone dust, suggest a southern Spanish provenance associated with the Moorish invasion three hundred years earlier.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Thanks to both Hugh and Cesar Barta for this illuminating exchange on the Sudarium of Oviedo. I tend to think that Cesar prevailed, though some of his points may be questionable. And Hugh’s speculations have helped to clarify matters in the end.
Not yet having read Barta’s 2022 Sudarium book, I’m disadvantaged in judging it. Some reviews strongly suggest that many of the illustrations are dismally small, and that the English text is more “Spanglish” than anything else (probably due to linguistic overconfidence by the Spanish author and negligent editing by the Singapore-based publisher, both common flaws in the Shroud field). Anyway, those two factors could make the book difficult to understand. Be sure to have your microscope and Spanglish dictionary handy.
Hugh’s earlier Sudarium blogpost of May 25, 2022, “Separated at Birth?,” likewise tried to solve the Shroud-soudarion-Sudarium puzzle in a skeptical way. But I found it rather unconvincing in many ways. He offered alternative explanations for the few pieces of evidence that he targeted (he titled his review of Barta’s book a “selective” one, honestly enough, as he avoided a lot of relevant evidence). But Hugh did not actually refute thereby the real plausibility of the authenticity-supporting explanations, in my view. For example, the pollen and the limestone particles, the bloodstains on the nape of the neck, and the soudarion passage in the 5th century poet Nonnos’ Paraphrase. Hugh also provided too few links to the sources he mentioned, making it difficult for readers to check them. Moreover, the reputed history of the Sudarium, steadily taken westward across the Mediterranean due to Persian and Islamic conquests and threats from the east, seems perfectly plausible to me.
My first question is why anyone in medieval Spain would have created such a weird bloodstain pattern on a bogus Sudarium, a fake relic of Jesus? Why create a pattern that would not be recognized in any detail for a thousand years?
Why would anyone have thought to make such a bogus relic by doubling the face cloth over on itself, folding it in the middle, creating a Rorschach test a thousand years before Rorschach was born?
The Sudarium once covered a face, so, that person, and a man, was clearly dead, not merely wounded. The pulmonary fluid proves that too. If only a bogus medieval relic, allegedly of Jesus, the cloth with its stains was certainly created with enormous suffering and sacrifice by some poor human victim. Why bother, when animal blood would easily do?
The initial vertical flow downward of the fluids proves that the victim died in an upright position, not while lying down. How many ways are there to die upright and then remain upright for many minutes? Crucifixion in antiquity was certainly one, the major one, though conceivably there have been more.
If, as it seems, the victim was upright, why was the cloth folded back upon itself? That is very strange. Some object must have blocked the continuous wrapping around to the other side of the head. What object might that have been? The best scenario suggests the victim’s arm or shoulder raised up into a nearly vertical position, or at least 45 degrees, with the head lying heavily on it. But why? Was that position the result of deadly torture down in a dungeon? In that case, why even bother with such a discretionary cloth, such a decent veil of death, deep down in a dungeon? No, the death occurred in public, hence the need for, and permission to finally apply, such a discretionary cloth to hide the horror.
The tiny blotches of blood on the nape of the neck, suggestive of pin-pricks, would also seem to be a weird addition to any common torture and execution in medieval times. Why bother with such “needlepoint”? And is it attested anywhere in medieval pictures or texts?
The notion that a Spanish Christian was so precisely tortured to death by some Muslims in medieval Spain, and the Muslims then kindly provided him in death with such a veil, and kindly later donated that veil to other Christians, and that those other Christians then revered it as that of Jesus, seems to me of zero credibility.
And so we appear to arrive at Jesus of Nazareth, in all but name. But of course more research still needs to be done.
On another topic, it’s interesting that so much of the debate around the Sudarium of Oviedo, here on Hugh’s blog and elsewhere, revolves around the question of it as supporting evidence for the authenticity of the Turin Shroud. The authenticity point is the crucial one, of course, and personally I’m a believer (so far) in the authenticity of both Shroud and Sudarium. But there is another major point that should be recognized and probably hasn’t yet been by either side in the debate.
That other major relevance of the Sudarium of Oviedo is (to me at least, an agnostic) that, if authentic, it shows that the “soudarion” (the original Greek word) of the Gospel of John 20:7 was Not supernatural – was Not involved in any supernatural doings. The Sudarium, finally analyzed carefully by scientists since the 1980s, therefore refutes the traditional view held by most or all Christian theologians, from antiquity right up into modern times, who have thought the soudarion cloth in John 20:7 was a jaw band used in the tomb which had miraculously changed its location during a resurrection. And if they could be so mistaken about the soudarion for so long, it seems that their fellow Christians today could also be mistaken in their own claim that the image on Jesus’ burial shroud is supernatural, the result of a miracle. The Sudarium is thus one more piece of evidence for the Natural Shroud. That’s been my belief for more than 20 years: both Sudarium and Shroud are authentic – are from Jesus’ tomb – and are natural.
Mainstream or liberal New Testament scholars may have made a mistake in avoiding research on the Sudarium of Oviedo over the past several decades (“just another bogus relic,” they think). They might wish to start pondering it soon, just in case.
John L.
Merry Christmas.
And once you place the layer A on the face, the excess dust near the tip of the nose matches this feature of the Shroud, the wounds related to the crown of thorns across the forehead also match each other, and the wounds related to the crown of thorns on the nape also match on both cloths. The stitches in the Sudarium along this last part corresponding to the long hair at the nape of the neck justified the so called “ponytail” and the use of a Sudarium like this one of Oviedo explains the strands of hair on the sides of the Man of the Shroud along his cheeks because the fixing effect of the Sudarium. However, there is always room for doubt for those who do not want to believe.
Hi César,
I shall be very happy to add your photos to my post. Can you send them to me at hughfarey@hotmail.com? I’m still not convinced, but I do think you put a good case for your opinion, and will be happy to present it fairly.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Well, Hugh.
You perform a good work.
For the analysis of the filtration effect, you use the data from my article Barta et al., (2014). New Coincidence between Shroud of Turin and Sudarium of Oviedo. Workshop on Advances in the Turin Shroud Investigation. September 4, 2014, that includes the 57 measures of X-ray fluorescence. And you compared the data from layer A to layer D which are the two layers where data were taken. Only the spot 690 from the dark area of A could be compared with spots 675 and 743 from the dark area of D because they were more or less overlayed during the formation of the stains. The other spots inside the dark stain have no correspondence. Other two spots from the clearer stain around the darker could also be compared: Spot 701 of A with 676 of D and 688 of A with 737 of D.
Label X (cm) Y (cm) Ca (ppm) K (ppm) S (ppm) Fe (ppm) Sr (ppm)
A 690 34.0 24.9 17932 4820 2976 200.8 10.86
D 675 59.5 24.9 15545 20108 10581 135.5 6.28
D 743 58.5 24.7 15901 15610 9239 145.0 8.39
Label X (cm) Y (cm) Ca (ppm) K (ppm) S (ppm) Fe (ppm) Sr (ppm)
A 701 40.0 11.4 17089 6292 5255 165.3 11.1
D 676 54.0 9.9 17322 6139 5614 146.0 11.43
Label X (cm) Y (cm) Ca (ppm) K (ppm) S (ppm) Fe (ppm) Sr (ppm)
A 688 34.2 33.2 21205 3444 2350 181.1 13.19
D 737 55.0 32.2 21342 6859 4227 204.7 12.09
In fact, as it is seen in the tables, the mineral particles producing the Ca and Sr data are more present in layer A. These elements are associated with dust. The main result of the X ray fluorescence measures was the correspondence between an excess of dust near the tip of the nose in the Sudarium as well as in the Shroud. As the Shroud was directly on the face of the Man, the common dust remained in both cloth must come from the face of the Man. It is not only a correspondence between the two cloth but another clue that the layer A with more dust than D was the layer in contact with the face.
You are right that elements like K and S which are related to blood are more present in the dark stain of layer D. It would be expected if the fluid accumulates more in the lower layer because of the gravity. But the difference between the content in layer A to layer D is so huge that it deserves more research.
About experiments to show the size of stains when the layers are under the gravity law, I performed a quick test this morning and I confirm the result.
[here should be four photos of the quick experiment, but they cannot be pasted]
In conclusion there is no evidence that the layer D is the one in contact with the face and most of the findings lead to support that layer A is the one in contact with the face.
Regards.
César
Hi César,
Thank you for your further advice as to why we should think the left hand stain “A” made contact with the supposed head rather than the right “D.” I took your ideas seriously and attempted to acquire appropriate evidence for them. As you will see – I have amended my post accordingly – I analysed the X-ray fluorescence evidence, and carried out some ‘gravity flow’ experiments of my own, but have not found any good evidence for your assertions. Is there anywhere else you think I should research?
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi Hugh.
Thank you for your answer. I now understand better why your conclusion is wrong. I appreciate your strategy of trying to reach your own conclusion without any initial supposition. However, before developing your hypothesis is a good scientist practice to review the previous research. And, if you find that your conclusion (interpretation) does not follow the previous common interpretation, it is prudent to question your novel interpretation. You claim that as a stain progresses through layers of cloth, it gets smaller. This assumption is what makes the rest of the analysis wrong. You only consider the shape of the stains, and you forget the fluid material data and other findings. First at all, the layers of the cloth act as a filter and the particles of enough size do not pass through the first layer. The observation through the microscope shows that the layer that receives the fluid and retains the large particles was the layer labeled “A” in your post. We have to begin by considering this evidence as our starting point. Next, we have to find an explanation for the size of the stains. It is true that the stain “D” is the largest. Here you have the explanation. When the layers are subject to gravity, the upper layer is smaller than the lower layer because the capillarity effect combined with the gravity effect and causes the fluid to flow more to the lower layer. The Sudarium was first placed around a head tilted downward and later, facing the ground. So, the bottom layer, , the one furthest from the face, is the largest. This is the experimental result. Your reasoning stands then on a wrong assumption. Therefore, please reconsider your conclusion, which contrasts with great number of forensic, mathematical, physical and geometrical studies and then, reconstruct your analysis. As long as you remain starting from a wrong interpretation, the rest of the analysis is worthless.
Regards.
César
Hi César,
Thank you for your comment. If you have read my post, you will know that I did not start from any conclusion. I followed an ordered and precisely described method to try to discover, without any initial supposition, which mark on the Sudarium made contact with the putative head, and my conclusion was based on that process. In general, as a stain progresses through layers of cloth, it gets smaller, so it makes sense that in this case, the smallest stain is on the outside, not the contact side. If you disagree with this, then please, as I asked in my post: ‘If there is another reason, no doubt somebody will correct me, and I will be happy to amend this paragraph.”
However, I should point out that simply telling me I’m wrong does not constitute any kind of explanation.
Best wishes,
Hugh
To start with, It is astonishing that Hugh includes at the beginning of his writing the image of a claimed matching from https://www.historicmysteries.com/, which is in not supported by any scientist context like an article or proceeding and does not respect the scale of the photos. The inclusion of this image by Hugh lead to thinking that he is not reviewing the true subject. However, several images of correspondence between the Shroud face and the Sudarium stains that receive common support from those who are studied and analyzed in situ the Sudarium are not included. If Hugh wants to analyze the research on the Sudarium should start from the last results that receive more consensus. It is the rule in the scientist field.
On the following, he cites an article of the proceedings of I Congreso Internacional sobre el Sudario de Oviedo (1994). This of the Miguel Ángel Hacar Benítez. Hugh performs his own analysis but to reach the opposite conclusion than the author of the article about the order of how the stains came to on the cloth. The opinion of Hugh, is not only in contradiction against the conclusion of the cited author, but he is in contradiction against all the other researchers that deal with this point in the first congress (1994) and in the second congress on the Sudarium of Oviedo (2007) and in many other communications. The conclusion about the order of how the stains came to on the cloth took into account not only the shape of the stains but the microscopic observation of the blondish material on each surface and the coherence between position of the mouth, forehead, ear and nape If this sequence is not followed, the rest of the analysis can only be inconsistent. Trying to dispute the research on the Sudarium of Oviedo by starting to imagine the opposite conclusion that was obtained from data from different disciplines of people who observed the Sudarium directly discredits the rest of the Hugh’s analysis. Usually, a novel researcher stands on the solid conclusions of previous works. But if this novel researcher proposes a different conclusion, he has to prove the error of the previous conclusion. This is not the Hughs case. It is a key error that must be reconsidered. Once Hugh reviews his analysis accepting the correct order of the of how the stains came to on the cloth, I will continue reviewing his further analysis. In the meantime, it is not worth it.
Hugh,
Your recent critique of my paper, “Forensic Congruences Between the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo,” makes several pointed arguments, primarily about methodological weaknesses in the comparative literature. While you correctly identify areas where prior studies have been overconfident or methodologically loose, your conclusion – that all is “sheer coincidence” – itself fails to engage with the strongest evidence and misconstrues the purpose of my work.
Your core objection seems to be that I presented a “ludicrous collection of random associations” as some form of proof. This is a fundamental misreading. The paper was explicitly and transparently a systematic catalogue. Its goal was not to argue for authenticity but to inventory what claims have been made in a defined set of sources, precisely so they could be scrutinized. Listing an item like “both are linen” (#37) is not an argument for a match; it is a record that someone reported it as a point of comparison. The discussion section of that paper explicitly outlines the methodological limitations you cite, including the need for blinded validation and the problems with overlay subjectivity. We agree on the problems.
However, you then use the existence of these weaker claims to dismiss the entire body of evidence. This is an error. A critical assessment doesn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater; it examines which claims withstand scrutiny.
Let’s address your specific points:
1. On Contact Surfaces and Overlays.
You are right to question the arbitrariness of choosing a contact surface for the Sudarium and the subjective nature of geometric overlays. These are the weakest parts of the “geometric correspondence” argument. However, you are wrong to suggest this invalidates all comparative analysis. Strong forensic arguments do not rely on precise point-for-point mapping. They rely on convergence of independent, physiologically grounded evidence.
The most compelling correspondences survive your critique because they do not depend on which side of the cloth touched first or on subjective overlays:
• Blood and Edema Fluid: The presence of a blood-and-serous-fluid mixture (pulmonary edema fluid) on both cloths is a specific medical indicator of death by crucifixion/asphyxiation. This is not a generic stain; it’s a forensic clue to a specific cause of death.
• Directionality of Flows: The gravity-fed flows on the Sudarium indicate an upright body. The contact transfers on the Shroud indicate a supine body. This is not a contradiction; it is chronologically compatible evidence for a sequence of handling (uright after death, supine for burial) that fits the historical tradition perfectly.
• Specific Trauma Patterns: The correspondence of wounds in the nape/scalp region and the configuration of facial hair and swelling are anatomical details that exist independently of precise overlay. Their congruence is addressed in foundational studies you note I omitted, like the 1998 work by Villalaín Blanco et al., which used forensic pathology, not just image alignment.
2. On Excluded Literature and “Flagrantly Dishonest” Claims.
You state I excluded key sources like the 1994 Congress Acts and the 1998 comparative study. The corpus was defined to limit scope to studies with explicit, enumerated checklists for transparency. The 1998 study by Moreno, Villalaín, and Rodríguez is, in fact, the foundational work that established the forensic-pathological method for this comparison. Its conclusions form the basis for the “physiological evidence” tier I now emphasize. Ignoring it would be foolish; its findings are the bedrock.
Regarding claim #49 on calcium accumulation: labeling a reported finding from a peer-reviewed conference proceeding (Barta et al., 2015, SHS Web of Conferences) as “flagrantly dishonest” is a serious accusation, not a critique of methodology. If acknowledge that.
3. From Catalogue to Forensic Assessment.
Your critique has value: it forces a higher standard. Therefore, I have taken the core valid evidence from the catalogue – the physiological, biochemical, and fluid-dynamic data – and reframed it in a new paper: “Forensic Assessment of the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo.”
https://www.academia.edu/145466039/Forensic_Assessment_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin_and_the_Sudarium_of_Oviedo
This paper does what you advocate:
• Dismisses trivial, negative, and speculative claims.
• Demotes geometric overlays to the lowest tier of evidence.
• Anchors the argument in Tier 1 evidence: forensic pathology and biochemistry.
• Proposes a blinded experimental protocol to test the transfer hypotheses objectively.
The conclusion is not “beyond reasonable doubt,” but that a preponderance of the high-quality evidence converges more parsimoniously on the “same body” hypothesis than on coincidence.
Hugh, you have effectively criticized the weakest links in the chain of argument. But a chain can be repaired with stronger links. Dismissing the entire possibility based on the weak links is not scientific skepticism; it is a priori rejection. But we all know that you have an a priori committment to the medieval hypothesis – don’t you ?!
Otangelo Grasso