The Visibility of Red Ochre

Comments

1. Hi, Hugh,

   Adler was described by Heller (and possibly self-described) as a “porphyrin nut.” You and I could easily be described as IONs — “iron-oxide nuts.” And, we are “highly charged” about them! I always enjoy the volley with you on these topics. However, I am ridiculously pressed for time right now –with an unexpected new project and my cousin from Greece coming to visit tomorrow (and my needing to do things to prepare for his stay.) I am not sure exactly how long my project will take to complete (probably less than a few weeks), but I will be happy to resume this discussion here (or if this comment section gets closed if you are interested in opening up another one so that I can respond to your comments.

   Cheers,

   Teddi

2. Hi Teddi,

   Thanks for your reply.

   1.) Superficiality. I’m not sure what you mean by “cellulose’s fibers –with just the top 1-2 microfibers being impacted by the wine.” A single fibre of flax is a plant cell, which typically has a ‘cell wall’ surrounding the ‘cell membrane’ which encloses the contents. In the case of supporting/transport structures such as the cells in bast fibre, the contents are minimal, as the cell doesn’t have to do anything, just be there. It mainly consists of a tube (the lumen), for transporting fluid around the plant (like blood in an animal), and a strong cell wall, to keep it straight. The cell wall consists of two sections, primary (one thin layer) and secondary (three thicker layers). The relative thicknesses can be compared to, say, a pencil, with a tube in the middle (containing the lead), the wooden surround (the secondary cell wall), and the paint layer over the outside (the primary cell wall). Any chemical interaction the cell has with the outside is likely to affect the primary cell wall, but not necessarily the secondary. This is why Giulio Fanti and others refer to (and photograph) the primary cell wall sometimes being peeled off the fibre, and why Ray Rogers was able to identify it, probably mistakenly, as an extraneous layer of starch.

   2.) I did hunt for cobalt among iron oxide and hematite, but without success. Your Virginia reference does not seem relevant. I did find one paper which suggested that after the extraction of ore, 0.4% of the ‘tailings’ was cobalt, but this is extremely small. Better to Google “trace elements” and “red ochre,” for more specific identification of the… um… trace elements in red ochre…

   3.) “And, regarding the “purity” of ochres, the common aforementioned contaminants in iron-earth pigments were found to be ABOVE the 1% level –and, of course, this was, also, determined experientially by Dr. John Heller, Dr, Alan Adler and Giovanni Riggi di Numana (using the electron microprobe to detect the aforementioned contaminants.) But, the iron-oxide on the Shroud was 99%+ pure –indicating that it is not derived from an iron earth pigment.” I don’t follow this. Where did Heller, Adler and Riggi detect their contaminants? Did they use a sample of red ochre from an art shop?

   Best wishes,
   Hugh

3. Hi, Hugh,

   I think that if oak gall ink were involved in the body image making process, there would be foxing on the body image –however, there are no signs of foxing’s bullseye or snowflake patterns.

   If iron-oxide is abandoned as the primary colorant, then what you are really talking about is what is accounting for the straw-yellow body image. I know that you are quite partial to the vinegar/acetic acid/wine route for the degradation of the cellulose, but how does vinegar/wine/acetic acid remain so superficially on the cellulose’s fibers –with just the top 1-2 microfibers being impacted by the wine. This does not seem possible –and to, simultaneously, create such uniformity.

   As was illustrated in that experiment that I had done with wine and linen, a lot of sediment was visible from the wine when examined under the microscope. But, we do not see sediment from grapes on the Shroud.

   I disagree that the burnt blood on the Shroud is a red herring –blood (like other things) translocates across the Shroud and, also as it was being rolled onto itself (when it used to be rolled onto a long dowel), this, in effect, resulting in the blood’s being mechanically abraded and then translocated to various areas of the Shroud –with the Shroud’s being rolled and folded.

   Regarding cobalt –try plugging in “iron ore” and/or “hematite” –I found this on energy.virginia.gov: “The cobalt discovered in the Commonwealth [of Virginia] is associated with other sulfide or metallic elements such as iron, copper, arsenic, and nickel. These sulfide ores can be found in veins, or irregularly distributed throughout the metamorphosed volcanic or magmatic rocks.” So, as my late father would say, “How ’bout them apples?”

   And, regarding the “purity” of ochres, the common aforementioned contaminants in iron-earth pigments were found to be ABOVE the 1% level –and, of course, this was, also, determined experientially by Dr. John Heller, Dr, Alan Adler and Giovanni Riggi di Numana (using the electron microprobe to detect the aforementioned contaminants.) But, the iron-oxide on the Shroud was 99%+ pure –indicating that it is not derived from an iron earth pigment.

   Regarding the contact transfer of paint from the painted copies of the Shroud onto the genuine Shroud, the great likelihood (just even from the point of view of respect) is that when the painted copy is touched to the genuine Shroud –which has Jesus’ blood on it, those who are touching it are not going to want to have Jesus’ blood (from the genuine Shroud) touch the BACK of a cloth? That would be so disrespectful –since when displaying the painted copy, that part which touched the genuine Shroud would be put to the bottom –that seems like a worse offense to me than letting one’s national flag touch the ground. I don’t know how other countries are about this, but in America, that’s verboten. But, even if during the sanctification process the painted copy had its back to the front of the Shroud (wow, just even writing that seems so disrespectful –I can’t imagine that they would not put them face-to-face ), it is a near-certainty that the painted copy was either rolled onto itself (for transport) or folded. As such, what is on back can potentially get translocated to the front.

   With your not seeing Heller’s and Adler’s densitometric study, there are many things that scientists don’t show us (in terms of things they do –particularly when they are doing a lot of things. That’s why I keep saying –there is a lot of trust involved with scientific studies. As such, the credibility of the scientist/s involved is of great importance.

   Alright, well, I’m falling asleep –I’ll try to carve out some time tomorrow to finish responding to your comments.

   All the best,

   Teddi

4. Hi Teddi,

   Thank you for persisting with your forensic examination of my evidence; it contributes so much to my own!

   — “The only thing that really matters with regard to iron-oxide (what comprises the pigment red ochre) is whether or not iron-oxide is responsible for the body image and/or the “blood images” that we can clearly see with our naked eyes. Adventitious particles of iron-oxide and vermilion are irrelevant – particularly since they should both be expected.”
   – I half agree with this, but as you know, and as even McCrone acknowledged on occasion, I don’t think the remaining iron-oxide is the primary colourant of the image we see now. The fibres do appear dotted with particles in the way I described, but, as also observed, they vary in colour themselves, which may be explained by their primary cell wall being somewhat degraded in itself. The medieval hypothesis is that the Shroud was originally much easier to see in, say, 1300, but lost its primary pigment, probably because it was washed, leaving only the stain left by the medium in which the pigment was carried. This is the basis for various experiments by myself, Joe Accetta and Luigi Garlaschelli using iron acetate, vinegar and oak gall ink.

   — “We know that burnt blood turns into iron oxide – and that there are some bloodstained areas on the Shroud that were burnt.”
   – This is a red herring. The amount of blood that was burnt is trivial.

   — “Then, this blood-derived iron-oxide – which was over 99% free from the typical contaminants for the mineral form of iron oxide (hematite) which are manganese, cobalt, aluminum and nickel.”
   – This was another hopeful guess by Heller and Adler. Ochre mines vary in their level of contamination, but some ochres are very pure indeed. Try looking for “trace elements in red ochre” in Google scholar for details. I can’t find one that even mentions cobalt; can you?

   — “The iron oxide that was found in the water stained margins was, also, over 99% free of these expected contaminants for hematite that would be used to make red ochre pigment.”
   – As I say, I do not expect these contaminants to be present in greater than 1% amounts. In the analyses I have found online, they tend to be expressed in parts per million.

   — “Also, we know that of the over 50 documented PAINTED COPIES of the Shroud, we know that at least one (but, most likely many of them) was painted with iron-oxide paint and VERMILION. Therefore, per Locard’s principle of contact transfer, when this particular painted copy (along with the other 50+ painted copies) was TOUCHED to the genuine Shroud (so as to sanctify the copy to turn it into a 3rd class relic by having touched a 1st class relic [the Shroud]) it undoubtedly left little (probably all microscopic) fragments of paint on the Shroud.”
   – Actually we know rather little of these. Were they laid out on the Shroud, for example, or merely laid on it, all folded up? If they were laid out, was it face down or face up? And so on. There are any number of ways in which adventitious ochre could have ended up on the Shroud, but I don’t think any of them correspond to the actual amount, size and distribution of the particles we observe on the fibres of the Shroud.

   — “But, again, to have a painting, the paint must account for the image – paint cannot just merely be present. For example, microscopic particles of paint can flick off of a paintbrush as one is painting and land onto something. However, what it lands on is not transformed into a painting – the paint is merely a pesky contaminant.”
   – Quite so. I agree with that.

   — “From Dr. Alan Adler’s paper “The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics,” Adler states the following with regard to the straw-yellow body image on the Shroud:
   “[A]ll the modified (colored) portions of the fibers show a uniform straw yellow coloration, as confirmed by a densitometric study of these photo images, yielding a less than 2% variation in the absorbance of the individual colored body image fibers.”
   – I’ve not seen this densitometric study, not did Heller and Adler publish any photographs, which is a pity. From what you can see on the Nitowski/Kohlbeck photographs, to claim that you can divide the fibres in to two categories, straw yellow and pale linen, is a huge oversimplification, and I don’t agree with it.

   — “We know that – like colored pixels of the same color which only vary by less than 2% in intensity of color – the appearance to the naked eye of darker areas on the Shroud are due to just a tighter clustering of colored fibers- – not visibly perceptible difference in the intensity of the colors.” – I’m afraid I don’t agree with this at all, and have never seen any evidence that suggests it might be correct. The Mark Evans micrographs show wide variation in colour both along fibres and from fibre to fibre. I do not believe in the so-called “half-tone effect,” and don’t think there is any evidence to justify it.

   — “And, since the body image is not dependent upon iron-oxide to be visible, it makes sense that there is no correlation when looking at the body image on the Shroud – versus your experiment – where you are, of course, looking at iron-oxide on linen – which will, naturally, yield the variation that you see.”
   – lNo. If the density of the image is proportional to the density of the original ‘paint,’ then it is proportional to the density of the pigment and to the density of the medium. Any traces left by either of these after washing, even if they no longer contribute to the colour, will still be proportional to the original application.

   — “But, you have not yet established that your experiment is relevant to the body image on the Shroud, because you first must show that the image, itself, is formed from a sufficient amount of iron-oxide so as to be responsible for the image that is seen with the naked eye – not just microscopic traces of iron-oxide that has translocated and/or been deposited via contact transfer from the many paintings which have been touched to the Shroud – and which have provided some contamination to it.”
   – As I said above, I don’t think the iron oxide is any longer responsible for the visible image.

   — “Let’s not forget – even ultramarine blue has been found on a Shroud sticky-tape – yet, we see nothing with ultramarine blue color that is detectable by the naked eye anywhere on the Shroud.”
   – Indeed. I never forget it. Nor the pink pantyhose!

   — “You mentioned that “[a]ll we know is the data from Morris et al., who did not investigate the chest wound, or the area near it.” But, actually, they did, indeed, investigate the chest wound. Naturally, with all of the areas where there were bloodstains, the iron levels went up (as compared to the general background levels), because, of course, blood contains iron.”
   – Goodness me; you’re absolutely correct. Mea culpa. Point 23. Which, with Point 1 (heel) and Point 18 (trickle on hair) they specifically identify as bloodstain. The heel and chest read 50 and 58 µg/cm2 respectively, and the hair trickle 16 µg/cm2, perhaps because it was much less dense anyway. Anyway, your point about the chest wound, as I recall, was that it showed increased iron-oxide levels as a result of it being either burnt, or dowsed with water; was that it? Actually I think it avoids both those possible contaminants, but let that be. I’m currently focussing on image, not blood.

   — “What I am saying is that STURP’s findings tell us that there is a rather uniform layer of covalently bound iron to the cellulose as part of linen’s manufacturing process (via the retting process for flax.) In addition to this rather uniform layer, there is iron-OXIDE (not just iron) that is in the water stain margins and near the areas where burn marks intersect with bloodstains and where these two types of iron-oxide have translocated to different parts of the cloth (as demonstrated by John Jackson.)”
   – Whether there is iron of any kind in the water stains or the blood is not, at present, the focus of my study. There is a much more variable amount of iron on the cloth in non-blood, non-water stain areas than there is calcium or strontium, and whatever other elements there may be are too poorly characterised to be definitive about. Attempting to account for the non-uniform distribution of iron by invoking blood and/or water stains is not relevant to this point.

   — “You, then mention that the layer of iron, even outside bloodstains, is not at all uniform when compared to, say, the calcium or strontium. Well, of course it isn’t.” Ah! You are admitting that it’s not uniform. Well, that’s a start. Now don’t you find it curious that the random translocation of iron particles should just happen to coincide rather well with the image intensity profile across the face?
   With the Morris, et al. paper, one, of course, shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. They acknowledge some challenges which can explain some of the peculiarities that you like to enjoy – as if it were marrow from a bone. But, it’s not. The ultimate conclusion of their paper is that the body images that are visible are not created from iron (or, for it to be visible, it would need to be iron-oxide since pure iron is whitish or grayish.) And, again, the iron in the non-image areas is iron that does not have the expected contaminants of hematite.”
   – Quite so, except that the “expected contaminants of hematite” are too minor to have been detectable.

   — “Thank you for the explanation regarding the iron-oxide. So, I really should shut up right now – because I prefer your answer (it’s more helpful to me) to what I’m about to mention, but curiosity killed the cat and only satisfaction will bring it back. You mention in your explanation that “None of the iron dissolved in stream water nor any of the minerals in mineral water are in particulate form; they are in the form of soluble iron compounds, such as iron sulphate, which separate into their individual ions in solution.” But, here’s the thing – what about bits of hematite that crumble and fall into the water – is this not what creates ferruginic waters that can, actually, discolor linen (and why people avoid such waters when retting linen.)”
   – Iron oxide is heavy and insoluble and not readily carried in streams. What discolours ferruginous waters (I can find no mention of ferruginic waters) is various salts. These can indeed stain cloth, which is why I think that the cloth might actually be stained by an iron salt.

   — “My understanding of iron from my research is that iron that is covalently bound to something will not oxidize upon exposure to oxygen. (This was a question that I was wondering about 6 months ago because X-ray fluorescence and X-radiography cannot detect oxygen —so I had wondered whether or not the rather uniform layer of iron that they detected across the entire cloth could, in fact, be iron-oxide (since, obviously, the Shroud has been exposed to oxygen and that iron would have oxidized IF it was capable of doing so in the form that it was in. But, from my research, the answer that I found was that the covalent bonding precludes this. Do you agree?”
   – Broadly, yes. Almost all metals oxidise quite readily, and have oxidised, don’t oxidise any more. The word “oxidise,” much to my students’ frustration, does not necessarily mean “combine with oxygen.” It has a technical definition which often means “combine with lots of things.” However, organoiron compounds are quite unstable in heat, and decompose easily, leaving iron oxide as part of the ash. Simply lying around in air does not necessarily result in oxidation, although it is a common factor in the spoiling of food.

   — No, the cellulose bound iron from the retting process was not just a guess – as you say – by Heller and Adler. They tested even modern day craft linen and found iron on it.
   I said: “We know from Heller and Adler that even modern-day linen that is water-retted has iron, calcium and strontium on it (as a contaminant from the retting process.)”
   You said: “No, we don’t.”
   I say: Yes we do. See page 20 of Adler’s “The Orphaned Manuscript.”
   – The evidence for this is missing from the references Heller and Adler give in their Chemical Investigation paper, and from the Orphaned Manuscript. I’m afraid I disagree with most of this page. Adler’s statement, “positive tests were obtained without the need for prior acidic digestion” does not really mean much since the tests for iron listed (Mg bathophenanphroline and PPTS) act as iron reducers anyway.

   All in all I’m afraid I don ‘t agree with the “retting” hypothesis as being the source of any of the iron on the Shroud, let alone concentrations of more than, say 10µg/cm2.

   Best wishes,
   Hugh

5. Hi, Hugh,
   The only thing that really matters with regard to iron-oxide (what comprises the pigment red ochre) is whether or not iron-oxide is responsible for the body image and/or the “blood images” that we can clearly see with our naked eyes. Adventitious particles of iron-oxide and vermilion are irrelevant —particularly since they should both be expected.
   We know that burnt blood turns into iron oxide —and that there are some bloodstained areas on the Shroud that were burnt. Then, this blood-derived iron-oxide —which was over 99% free from the typical contaminants for the mineral form of iron oxide (hematite) which are manganese, cobalt, aluminum and nickel. The iron oxide that was found in the water stained margins was, also, over 99% free of these expected contaminants for hematite that would be used to make red ochre pigment.
   Also, we know that of the over 50 documented PAINTED COPIES of the Shroud, we know that at least one (but, most likely many of them) was painted with iron-oxide paint and VERMILION. Therefore, per Locard’s principle of contact transfer, when this particular painted copy (along with the other 50+ painted copies) was TOUCHED to the genuine Shroud (so as to sanctify the copy to turn it into a 3rd class relic by having touched a 1st class relic [the Shroud]) it undoubtedly left little (probably all microscopic) fragments of paint on the Shroud. But, again, to have a painting, the paint must account for the image —paint cannot just merely be present. For example, microscopic particles of paint can flick off of a paintbrush as one is painting and land onto something. However, what it lands on is not transformed into a painting —the paint is merely a pesky contaminant.
   From Dr. Alan Adler’s paper “The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics,” Adler states the following with regard to the straw-yellow body image on the Shroud:
   “[A]ll the modified (colored) portions of the fibers show a uniform straw yellow coloration, as confirmed by a densitometric study of these photo images, yielding a less than 2% variation in the absorbance of the individual colored body image fibers.”
   We know that —like colored pixels of the same color which only vary by less than 2% in intensity of color— the appearance to the naked eye of darker areas on the Shroud are due to just a tighter clustering of colored fibers —not visibly perceptible difference in the intensity of the colors. And, since the body image is not dependent upon iron-oxide to be visible, it makes sense that there is no correlation when looking at the body image on the Shroud —versus your experiment —where you are, of course, looking at iron-oxide on linen —which will, naturally, yield the variation that you see. But, you have not yet established that your experiment is relevant to the body image on the Shroud, because you first must show that the image, itself, is formed from a sufficient amount of iron-oxide so as to be responsible for the image that is seen with the naked eye —not just microscopic traces of iron-oxide that has translocated and/or been deposited via contact transfer from the many paintings which have been touched to the Shroud —and which have provided some contamination to it. Let’s not forget —even ultramarine blue has been found on a Shroud sticky-tape —yet, we see nothing with ultramarine blue color that is detectable by the naked eye anywhere on the Shroud.
   You mentioned that “[a]ll we know is the data from Morris et al., who did not investigate the chest wound, or the area near it.” But, actually, they did, indeed, investigate the chest wound. Naturally, with all of the areas where there were bloodstains, the iron levels went up (as compared to the general background levels), because, of course, blood contains iron.
   You quoted me as saying the following and added your question that follows:
   “We, also, have to deal with iron-oxide coming from the water stain margins (one of which goes “nose-to-nose” with the chest wound when it was scanned!) and those that translocated.” I’m not quite sure I see your point here. Are you now admitting that the iron is not a “rather uniform layer” and instead coming up with possible reasons why the layer is not uniform?”
   What I am saying is that STURP’s findings tell us that there is a rather uniform layer of covalently bound iron to the cellulose as part of linen’s manufacturing process (via the retting process for flax.) In addition to this rather uniform layer, there is iron-OXIDE (not just iron) that is in the water stain margins and near the areas where burn marks intersect with bloodstains and where these two types of iron-oxide have translocated to different parts of the cloth (as demonstrated by John Jackson.) I, too, have performed a small experiment to satisfy my curiosity about this, and I, too, saw the contact transfer with my microscope. I, also, have seen how when a stone (I have some ancient Bactrian turquoise from Afghanistan) is just lightly rubbed across linen fabric, when you look under a microscope, sure enough, you’ll see (as I did) some of the turquoise on the linen. This is all just basic Forensic 101.
   “You, then mention that the layer of iron, even outside bloodstains, is not at all uniform when compared to, say, the calcium or strontium. Well, of course it isn’t.” Ah! You are admitting that it’s not uniform. Well, that’s a start. Now don’t you find it curious that the random translocation of iron particles should just happen to coincide rather well with the image intensity profile across the face?
   With the Morris, et al. paper, one, of course, shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. They acknowledge some challenges which can explain some of the peculiarities that you like to enjoy —as if it were marrow from a bone. But, it’s not. The ultimate conclusion of their paper is that the body images that are visible are not created from iron (or, for it to be visible, it would need to be iron-oxide since pure iron is whitish or grayish.) And, again, the iron in the non-image areas is iron that does not have the expected contaminants of hematite.
   Thank you for the explanation regarding the iron-oxide. So, I really should shut up right now —because I prefer your answer (it’s more helpful to me) to what I’m about to mention, but curiosity killed the cat and only satisfaction will bring it back. You mention in your explanation that “None of the iron dissolved in stream water nor any of the minerals in mineral water are in particulate form; they are in the form of soluble iron compounds, such as iron sulphate, which separate into their individual ions in solution.” But, here’s the thing —what about bits of hematite that crumble and fall into the water —is this not what creates ferruginic waters that can, actually, discolor linen (and why people avoid such waters when retting linen.) My understanding of iron from my research is that iron that is covalently bound to something will not oxidize upon exposure to oxygen. (This was a question that I was wondering about 6 months ago because X-ray fluorescence and X-radiography cannot detect oxygen —so I had wondered whether or not the rather uniform layer of iron that they detected across the entire cloth could, in fact, be iron-oxide (since, obviously, the Shroud has been exposed to oxygen and that iron would have oxidized IF it was capable of doing so in the form that it was in. But, from my research, the answer that I found was that the covalent bonding precludes this. Do you agree?
   No, the cellulose bound iron from the retting process was not just a guess —as you say— by Heller and Adler. They tested even modern day craft linen and found iron on it.
   I said: “We know from Heller and Adler that even modern-day linen that is water-retted has iron, calcium and strontium on it (as a contaminant from the retting process.)”
   You said: “No, we don’t.”
   I say: Yes we do. See page 20 of Adler’s “The Orphaned Manuscript.”
   Cheers,
   Teddi

6. “Morris, et al. did not find there to be a correlation between iron levels and visible image.” Indeed. They had no way of sampling the intensity of the visible image. I, on the other hand, do, and have shown the correlation in “STuRP Revisited,’ at medievalshroud.com/sturp-revisited.

   “Other levels can come about from, for example, iron-oxide from the burnt blood to translocate to different areas – and, perhaps, closest to the sites of the burnt, bloodstained areas (such as with the chest wound.)” Who knows? All we know is the data from Morris et al., who did not investigate the chest wound, or the area near it.

   “We, also, have to deal with iron-oxide coming from the water stain margins (one of which goes “nose-to-nose” with the chest wound when it was scanned!) and those that translocated.” I’m not quite sure I see your point here. Are you now admitting that the iron is not a “rather uniform layer” and instead coming up with possible reasons why the layer is not uniform?

   “You, then mention that the layer of iron, even outside bloodstains, is not at all uniform when compared to, say, the calcium or strontium. Well, of course it isn’t.” Ah! You are admitting that it’s not uniform. Well, that’s a start. Now don’t you find it curious that the random translocation of iron particles should just happen to coincide rather well with the image intensity profile across the face?

   “Plus, Morris et al. mentioned that the fact that their measurements were performed while the Shroud was still attached to its Holland cloth, as well as inhomogeneities in the cloth (such as potentially a heavier warp thread in the foot region) as well as instabilities in the X-ray tube output intensity or misalignment of the apparatus could have accounted for some of these variations that really still don’t matter – because they do not present a 1:1 correlation between iron levels and visible image.” Of course. You may, if you wish, decide that the Morris paper is meaningless and tells us nothing about the distribution of any elements at all. No need to summon up retting or translocation; just reject the whole paper. That’s understandable and you’re perfectly entitled to that view. I, on the other hand, beg to disagree, and take the view that their measurements are meaningful.

   “Well, I ask: what prevents covalently bound iron in water from being in particulate form – precisely since a lot of iron in water comes from iron-oxide from the earth getting into the water. The mineral in, for example, mineral water – are those not in particulate form?” A bit of chemistry here, if I may. None of the iron dissolved in stream water nor any of the minerals in mineral water are in particulate form; they are in the form of soluble iron compounds, such as iron sulphate, which separate into their individual ions in solution. I won’t explain the difference between ionic and covalent bonding here, it would take too long, but it is something I teach almost daily to my students. Try searching for it on Google or YouTube: there are some good clear explanations available.

   “You mention that heat applied to almost anything containing iron is likely to result in some form of iron oxide, including blood and cellulose.” The heat required to reduce cellulose to ash, and any bonded iron to iron oxide, has not occurred to most of the Shroud.

   “However, we do not see that at all with all of the cellulose-bound iron that is rather uniformly spread throughout the cloth” I don’t think there is any cellulose bound iron; that, as I say, is a guess by Heller and Adler to try to account for Morris’s iron findings without admitting that particulate matter closely resembling iron oxide is present, and clearly visible, on the Shroud.

   “We know from Heller and Adler that even modern-day linen that is water-retted has iron, calcium and strontium on it (as a contaminant from the retting process.)” No, we don’t. They do say “linen makers are specifically enjoined against using ferruginous waters for retting as it will stain the cloth.” Their references for this are Bendure and Pfeiffer’s America’s Fabrics, Olney’s Textiles Chemistry and Dyeing, and Wingate’s Textile Fabrics. The most modern of these is dated 1949. None of them even mention the dangers of retting cloth in water with iron in it.

   Best wishes,
   Hugh

7. Morris, et al. did not find there to be a correlation between iron levels and visible image –that’s really what matters about the X-ray fluorescence study. Other levels can come about from, for example, iron-oxide from the burnt blood to translocate to different areas –and, perhaps, closest to the situs of the burnt, bloodstained areas (such as with the chest wound.) We, also, have to deal with iron-oxide coming from the water stain margins (one of which goes “nose-to-nose” with the chest wound when it was scanned!) and those that translocated.

   So, who knows how many little microscopic particles of iron and/or iron-oxide there are on the cloth? What matters is what is present in a large amount to produce the body image that is seen with the naked eye. That’s the heart of the issue. The rest is like trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

   You claim that my statement that “a rather uniform layer of iron that is covalently bound to cellulose via the retting process of flax so as to create linen,” is wishful thinking.” No, it’s really not. You, then mention that the layer of iron, even outside bloodstains, is not at all uniform when compared to, say, the calcium or strontium. Well, of course it isn’t –because there is iron-oxide from the burnt blood and water stain margins that have to factor into things –including translocation issues. Plus, Morris et al. mentioned that the fact that their measurements were performed while the Shroud was still attached to its Holland cloth, as well as inhomogeneities in the cloth (such as potentially a heavier warp thread in the foot region) as well as instabilities in the X-ray tub output intensity or misalignment of the apparatus could have accounted for some of these variations that really still don’t matter –because they do not present a 1:1 correlation between iron levels and visible image.

   You mention that iron covalently bonded to cellulose would not be visible as particles, nor would it be dispersed on the sticky-tape, off the fibres, as is also seen.” Well, I ask: what prevents covalently bound iron in water from being in particulate form –precisely since a lot of iron in water comes from iron-oxide from the earth getting into the water. The mineral in, for example, mineral water –are those not in particulate form?

   You mention that heat applied to almost anything containing iron is likely to result in some form of iron oxide, including blood and cellulose. However, we do not see that at all with all of the cellulose-bound iron that is rather uniformly spread throughout the cloth –perhaps this, too, is due to the iron being covalently bound to the cellulose (such as why it won’t oxidize into iron-oxide) –but, I am not sure –what say you on that? Regardless, the cellulose-bound iron is not capable of providing anything visible, so it’s all really irrelevant when we’re trying to figure out what comprises the body image. Also, one has to account from WHERE the iron would come from. We know from Heller and Adler that even modern-day linen that is water-retted has iron, calcium and strontium on it (as a contaminant from the retting process.)

   So, I think that this is, as we Americans would say, a big “nothing-burger.”

   All the best,

   Teddi

8. Hi Teddi,

   You’re right, of course; Morris et al. calculated iron, not iron oxide. However, much of what follows is less clear. As I mentioned, the iron they detected was at very variable levels, from about 7µg/cm2 in their only non-image area, to about 17µg/cm2 at the nose and hair. The transect across the face was not associated with blood. The variation in iron levels (even outside bloodstains) is too variable for it to be accounted for by any putative retting process, which was, I must point out, not a measurement or an observation but a guess. The retting process, and the iron content of the water involved, is wholly unknown. Your statement “a rather uniform layer of iron that is covalently bound to cellulose via the retting process of flax so as to create linen,” is wishful thinking. The layer of iron, even outside bloodstains, is not at all uniform when compared to, say, the calcium or strontium. What’s more, the experiment described in the post shows opaque particulate matter attached to the outside of the fibres, exactly as observed on the Shroud fibres by Nitowski and Kohlbeck (and anybody else who has seen their micrographs). Any iron covalently bonded to cellulose would not be visible as particles, nor would it be dispersed on the sticky-tape, off the fibres, as is also seen.

   Heat applied to almost anything containing iron is likely to result in some form of iron oxide, including blood and cellulose. As both these organic materials are mostly composed of hydrogen and oxygen, they are easy to burn away as water, leaving any metallic elements behind as ash.

   Best wishes,
   Hugh

9. Hi, Hugh,

   You mentioned that “[t]hey detected significantly increased levels of iron oxide over the face area compared to the off-image area beside it, with intensity peaks over the nose and hair, which are the darkest parts of the image.”

   Well, no, they did not detect “iron-oxide” —just iron. That is an important distinction —since blood only contains iron (not iron-oxide) unless it’s burnt. Also, X-ray fluorescence can’t measure an element like oxygen —so, this is why Morris, Schwalbe and London properly declined to overstate the evidence about excluding “iron-oxide” from being present in the “blood images,” because their equipment was not capable of detecting (to confirm or deny) the presence of oxygen. However, with regard to distinguishing what heavy metal substance is contained (in non-adventitious amounts) in the non-burnt reddish “blood image” areas, this was confirmed by Heller and Adler to be heme bound iron from blood —iron-oxide was specifically excluded through their tests.

   And, of course, as you know, the iron in blood does not give blood it’s reddish color —porphyrins do that.

   So, while the iron levels in the bloodstains are, naturally, elevated (since blood contains iron), that iron has NOT oxidized (so as to form reddish iron-oxide) so as to explain the reddish color that is seen in the bloodstains.

   And the Shroud does not contain a layer of iron-oxide, but it does, however, contain a rather uniform layer of iron that is covalently bound to cellulose via the retting process of flax so as to create linen. And, of course, the X-ray fluorescence testing did, indeed, detect even this INVISIBLE layer of iron —proving that the equipment would, therefore, easily detect the iron contained in the iron-oxide which comprises red ochre pigment that is visible to the naked eye.

   Now, here’s an interesting thing that I have contemplated —could the iron that is covalently bound to the cellulose (and found rather uniformly throughout the Shroud) oxidize to TRANSFORM into iron-OXIDE? My research indicates that the answer is NO —but, if you think differently, I would be interested in your thought on this.

   All the best,

   Teddi

10. Hi Teddi,

    Your first comment is perfectly true. I merely wanted to confirm for myself what has been suggested by previous researchers. Further experiments are on their way, to investigate yellow ochre. Although yellow ochre is not exactly the same chemical as red ochre, there is a close family relationship, and both are mined from the same cliffs in various parts of the world.

    Your second comment is also relevant. There is no “layer of iron oxide” on the Shroud. It is particulate and dispersed. To constitute a “layer,” you may well need 0.7 x 10-4 g/cm2, or 70µg/cm2. This is over twice the maximum amount of iron oxide I used, and significantly over the maximum amount calculated by Morris et al. in the bloodstains. It is no surprise that radiographic investigation did not detect it.

    You are also correct that Morris et al. concluded that “[t]here appears to be no evidence of heavy element concentration differences between image (non-blood) and off-image. points which would suggest an obvious forgery,” but I disagree with them. They detected significantly increased levels of iron oxide over the face area compared to the off-image area beside it, with intensity peaks over the nose and hair, which are the darkest parts of the image.

    Blood contains about 700µg/cm3 iron, but without knowing how far a cubic centimetre of blood might spread out, it is not easy to convert this to an areal density.

    Best wishes,
    Hugh

11. Hi, again, Hugh,

    In “Radiographic Examination of the Shroud of Turin –a Preliminary Report” by R.W. Mottern, R.J. London and R.A. Morris, there is mention that the “the thickness of hematite which must be present to be radiographically detectable is estimated to be 0.1 micrometer or .7×10-4 gm/cm2.” As such, the radiographic examination was sensitive enough to detect iron in the straw-yellow body image if iron-oxide was what was forming it.

    In “X-Ray Fluorescence Investigation of the Shroud of Turin,” by Morris, Schwalbe and London, the authors mention that the goal of their study was to determine if the images on the Shroud were produced or altered by any applied pigments or dyes. The conclusion was that “[t]here appears to be no evidence of heavy element concentration differences between image (non-blood) and off-image. points which would suggest an obvious forgery . . . Substantially non-uniform concentrations of iron were observed, particularly in the dorsal-foot and side-wound ‘blood’ stain regions. However, we can say no more that either blood or some iron-based pigment was used to produce the stains.”

    Now, we must remember, STURP presented a BODY OF EVIDENCE. So, we have the work of, especially, Heller and Adler which demonstrate that the “blood images” did, indeed, contain blood. And, of course, blood contains iron. And, of course, in areas where bloodstains intersect with burn marks, we know that combusted blood yields iron-oxide.

    But, back to the issue of the Morris, Schwalbe and London study not excluding some iron-based pigment to produce the “blood images.” Well, we can, for once, thank McCrone for something –HE precludes this as he repeatedly told us with his final findings that it was NOT an iron-based pigment that was used to create the “blood images” but VERMILION. So, thanks, Walt!

    Cheers,

    Teddi

12. Hi, Hugh,

    I see you’ve pulled out the ol’ microscope and Petri dishes out. I’m gonna state what should be rather obvious –and your experiment confirms what McCrone’s experiment confirms (and I’ve done a bit of experimenting with red ochre and yellow ochre, myself)– red ochre (as the name implies) is REDDISH. McCrone’s photos of the spots and your photos of the spots are REDDISH (well, more pinkish.) But, of course, the body image is STRAW YELLOW –which is perfectly consistent with another pigment that I’ve experimented with –YELLOW ochre –which is, of course, YELLOWISH in color and chemically different from red ochre (since it is an iron oxide hydroxide.

    Moreover, regarding the reddish bloodstains, McCrone concluded that these were painted with vermilion –not red ochre. So, the red ochre that McCrone referenced is only accounting for (in terms of what he claims we see) the body image on the Shroud.

    Best regards,

    Teddi