The Shroud of Turin

The Shroud of Turin Website

With zoomable images of the shroud.

The Mysteries of the Shroud

A teaser article from the Fortean Times, vol 110, 1994, to make you rush out and buy the book. Still, it gives you the gist of the arguments by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince (who are not art historians, and are not academics of any kind that I have discovered). Notice the way they write, try and catch their assumptions and the structure of their arguments. Decide for yourself what you think is valid and what is not. Then visit the links below.

Review of The Mysteries of the Shroud

The Book you were supposed to rush out and buy was, "The Turin Shroud: in whose image?" Here it is reviewed by Professor Daniele Scavone of the University of Southern Indiana. Notice that she is a professional academic. Note the way she writes, and her rebuttals of the authors' arguments. Notice her tone. Assess the whole.

Leonardo did NOT fake the shroud

A further review of Picknett and Prince, by Professor Nicholas Allen. Click on his "home" link, and notice the way he sets up his credentials. Is this valid? Can you find out where he is teaching? Can you find out what he is professor OF? What are his qualifications to address this issue? Is he of the same ilk as Picknett and Prince, or is he of the same ilk as Scavone? Or something else. What kind of signals is he trying to give you, and what kind of signals are you actually getting?

In response to correspondence from Professor Allen - it seems his web site was incomplete when we visited it in 1998. Here is the page giving his professional academic credentials. Check them out, recheck his articles, and see what you think. He has also published a book on the Shroud.

Report on the Czechia Shroud Copy

In January of this year, an old copy of the Turin shroud was discovered in the Czeck town of Broumov. It is a 17th-century painting, and the site has an OK image of the head.

ABC News, 3rd August 1999 Use archived link below.

A new study claims that the shroud was produced in the 8th century, or even possibly in the 1st. This study also used "scientific" procedures, and questioned the validity of the 1988 findings. Can you pick out the spurious argument here? Also, pick out the stronger one(s).

If the news link above is obsolete, click on this archived story instead.


How important is writing style and technique? Which of all these authors do you find the most credible (which is not necessarily the same thing as agreeing with his or her findings)? Rank them and think about your reasons.

What do you do when "science" and "art history" come into conflict? Is the process of interpreting "scientific" results as scientific as the experiments themselves? Is "science" necessarily stronger and more valid than art history? How will you deal with this?

Finally, you might want to visit the Official Catholic Church Shroud of Turin Site