The Shroud of Turin, the controversial piece of linen that some believe to be the carbon, a variant of carbon that is incorporated in all living organisms. The Turin shroud already underwent carbon dating in The Shroud of Turin, a linen cloth that tradition associates with the crucifixion and burial of . The proposed changes to the Turin protocol sparked another heated debate among scientists, and the sampling procedure was postponed. On April. But since some have refused to believe the bishop's findings, or the carbon dating showing the shroud was from the medieval, not the.
Is It a Fake? DNA Testing Deepens Mystery of Shroud of Turin
Remainder of original posting deleted. In this last sentence lies the rub.
Translating the C14 age into a "real age" for the Shroud is not the simplest explanation in terms of the totality of evidence. No one makes an argument for the Shroud being or years old because the evidence from all the various studies that have been done on the object indicate that it is a real burial cloth with the image and bloodstains of a crucifixion victim.
If it is not Christ, it is another crucified male who underwent the same kinds of tortures as mentioned in the biblical account, ie Roman-style crucifixion prefaced by scourging.
Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin
But the point I was trying to make is that the radiocarbon data is the only hard evidence we have that indicates a specific time for the origin of the Shroud, as distinct from the more indirect data that suggests it might have an earlier origin, or is sufficiently indecisive to allow an interpretation of an older age, if that is what we want.
As an archaeologist with 25 years of experience using C14 for the dating of excavated samples, I know what most archaeologists do when C14 produces a date which conflicts strongly with other evidence from a site: This happens often in archaeology, even on sites and samples which were thought to be ideal for C14 dating.
Very rarely is the problem of these individual aberrant dates ever resolved or even addressed. But over the years a whole host of difficulties have come to light with C14, e. The causes of these phenomena are known, but in many other cases anomalous dates have not been satisfactorily explained.
Caution is certainly in order when C14 results conflict with the lines of interpretation indicated by other evidence. I have no real quarrel with this paragraph.
As a radiocarbon scientist not, I must stress, an archaeologist I am familiar with the problems that can arise when a radiocarbon date apparently conflicts with prior expectations.
And as an occasional bearer of bad news, I am used to having a back full of arrows! I can also say that in the great majority of cases the result of this is to reconfirm the previous result.
We should remember that if radiocarbon dating or any other technique is to be really useful we must expect it to produce new knowledge that may well conflict with what was previously thought.
Shroud dating leaves 'forgery' debate raging | Science | The Guardian
The examples of anomalous dates referred to do occur, and as pointed out they are mostly well understood - which means they do not pose a further problem. Sometimes problems do remain and we have to be prepared to either wait for a solution further down the track or start digging deeper to find out what is really going on. But I do not think that this is the situation with respect to the Shroud. When I attended the conference in Turin for planning the C14 dating of the Shroud, at the invitation of the Vatican Academy of Sciences, I argued strongly for an extensive testing program This was met with arrogant dismissal by 5 of the 7 radiocarbon lab heads in attendance.
C Debate from edocki.info-shroud
The labs were also each given three control samples one more than originally intendedthat were: Official announcement[ edit ] In a well-attended press conference on October 13, Cardinal Ballestrero announced the official results, i.
The official and complete report on the experiment was published in Nature. Colonetti', Turin, "confirmed that the results of the three laboratories were mutually compatible, and that, on the evidence submitted, none of the mean results was questionable. Since the C14 dating at least four articles have been published in scholarly sources contending that the samples used for the dating test may not have been representative of the whole shroud.
Rogers took 32 documented adhesive-tape samples from all areas of the shroud and associated textiles during the STURP process in On 12 DecemberRogers received samples of both warp and weft threads that Prof. Luigi Gonella claimed to have taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating.
The actual provenance of these threads is uncertain, as Gonella was not authorized to take or retain genuine shroud material,  but Gonella told Rogers that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample. He stated that his analysis showed: The main part of the shroud does not contain these materials. Based on this comparison Rogers concluded that the undocumented threads received from Gonella did not match the main body of the shroud, and that in his opinion: It may not have taken us long to identify the strange material, but it was unique amongst the many and varied jobs we undertake.
She has rejected the theory of the "invisible reweaving", pointing out that it would be technically impossible to perform such a repair without leaving traces, and that she found no such traces in her study of the shroud.
Gove, former professor emeritus of physics at the University of Rochester and former director of the Nuclear Structure Research Laboratory at the University of Rochester, helped to invent radiocarbon dating and was closely involved in setting up the shroud dating project.
He also attended the actual dating process at the University of Arizona. Gove has written in the respected scientific journal Radiocarbon that: If so, the restoration would have had to be done with such incredible virtuosity as to render it microscopically indistinguishable from the real thing.
Even modern so-called invisible weaving can readily be detected under a microscope, so this possibility seems unlikely.
Shroud dating leaves 'forgery' debate raging
It seems very convincing that what was measured in the laboratories was genuine cloth from the shroud after it had been subjected to rigorous cleaning procedures. Probably no sample for carbon dating has ever been subjected to such scrupulously careful examination and treatment, nor perhaps ever will again. Atkinson wrote in a scientific paper that the statistical analysis of the raw dates obtained from the three laboratories for the radiocarbon test suggests the presence of contamination in some of the samples.
They examined a portion of the radiocarbon sample that was left over from the section used by the University of Arizona in for the carbon dating exercise, and were assisted by the director of the Gloria F Ross Center for Tapestry Studies. They found "only low levels of contamination by a few cotton fibers" and no evidence that the samples actually used for measurements in the C14 dating processes were dyed, treated, or otherwise manipulated. They concluded that the radiocarbon dating had been performed on a sample of the original shroud material.
A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggest the shroud is between and years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as years".