medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
From: Henk 't Jong <[log in to unmask]>
> AFAIK shrouds were just like bedsheets (real bedsheets were often used, of
ca 1.5 x 2 meters) that were wrapped around a body and sewn down at one side
or in the midfront. So a shroud like the Turin one of over 4 m length and of
narrow width is quite unusual. In fact, that would have been an extreme
luxury.
yes.
yes, it is (or was).
btw, in addition to its size, the Turin Artifact is also "luxurious" in its
weave: technically, it is a "herringbone twill"
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/terms/herringbone.htm
(an otherwise near-worthless Shroudie site)
which gives the cloth an attractive appearance (and, perhaps, more strength?)
http://www.blackleaf.com/product.php?productid=212
(a somewhat more credible site)
but is somewhat more wasteful in its use of thread than a "straight" weave (i
don't know what that's called).
also, not to be forgotten is the undisputed/indisputable fact that cotton
fragments (of microscopic size) have been found imbedded within the linen
threads.
this suggests that the cloth was woven on a loom which was also used to weave
cotton (or, think of another possible explanation, if you like, and Share
It).
cotton being unknown in northern Europe in the 14th c., we can only assume
that the crafty Perpetrators of this particular Balderdash and Piffle took
care to import the cloth on which they painted their fake from some cotton
growing region.
shucks, the bastards even went so far as to import it from someplace close to
Palestine, so that pollen grains --microscopic pollen grains (well known in
14th c. France, right, Hank?)-- from plants only found in that region would
also be found (in the 20th c.) embeded in the cloth's fibers.
indeed, it appears that there's little that these "money-grubbers and the con
men" would do to foist their scam off on hapless John and Jane Does over the
centuries.
> Besides that: all these reliques are fakes,
i only know something about the Turin Artefact.
which is, clearly, a 14c. French Painting (right, Honk?).
>so why act as if we believe in them
you mean believe in their Fakeness?
as a Knee-Jerk Act of (pseudo-Scientific) Faith?
>and write serious studies about them, let alone make documentaries about them
with lots of question marks.
over the decades, i've consistently (and, so far, sucessfully) eschewed and
avoided making any documentaries whatever, about "them" or any other subject.
>Balderdash and piffle, except as a religio-cultural phenomenon.
"they" are certainly that.
and, at least in the case of the Turin Artifact, a quite excellent exemplum of
that curious phenomenon which we might term the "Religion of Science."
after all, it is, obviously, just your Typical, Garden Variety 14th c. French
Painting.
as any decent Documentary could point out, no Problemo.
right, Hink?
c
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|