In 1978 I clearly remember as a child the disappointment when they announced the carbon dating found the age of the shroud to be 1200-1300 a.d.. I am not sure if the scientists claimed it was a medieval replica or if it was the people reporting it that took that leap (memory issues) I have however seen on t.v. recently that there is a new theory regarding a flaw in the carbon dating. According to what I heard, they proposed that it was mended using an almost invisible form of “reweaving” that merges new fabric with the old. Unfortunately that was also the area chosen for the carbon dating. My understanding is that the repair includes dyed cotton fabric which is not present in the rest of the shroud. Is this correct, or just another stretch? I figure you are a good person to ask. Also, I understand that there are other datable areas of the shroud that could be used. They said that the shroud was cleaned and all the charred areas were attended to. Some charred pieces were cut away and saved and that these pieces would be extremely good candidates for dating. Please tell me, Is that true? Is it being done?
Your memory is only a tad flawed... The carbon date testing was done in 1988, not 1978... and it was the scientists who did the testing who gleefully claimed it to be a medieval relic and a hoax. The rest of what you have stated is pretty accurate and true. The patch material is dyed cotton that is rewoven into the original undyed Linen in a proportion between 60% new to 40% old to 40% new to 60% old... and gives rise to the disparity of the 1988 test's sample's date results. And, no. new testing of the charred pieces is not yet being done.
An unauthorized C-14 test was done prior to the 1988 test from a thread pulled from the center of the Shroud... and the age reported from that admittedly small sample was 1st Century, give or take 100 years (due to the small sample). That test has never been published and is only whispered about among Shroud scholars because it was unauthorized and the researcher who did it was wrong to have done it without permission. However, it's results fly in the face of the later results of the authorized test... along with a lot of other scholarship that show the provenance of the shroud to be older than the earliest date of the 1988 test results.
Heavens, marstegreg......I don’t think I ever responded to your question here, and I apologize for that.
Here’s the answer, as short as I can make it:
The radiocarbon dating tests (they were conducted at several locations) in 1988 have all been royally and completely shot down......YEARS ago. Here’s why.
In short, the section that they cut the test sample(s) from was later shown to be “rewoven”, as you remember. It was done using a methodology known as “invisible weave”. What I think is so cool about this, is that the person who first brought this invisible weave technique (a technique known and used from the middle ages forward) was what I like to refer to, respectfully, as a “talented amateur”. The Shroud has been studied by top people in their disciplines from across many fields, from around the world....but some amazing work has been done by such “talented amateurs”.
In this case, it was one Sue Benford. She and her husband researched this and presented a paper on invisible weaving. That..........got the attention of one Ray Rogers.
Now, Ray was one of the original STURP team members. Genius, really. He was a muckity-muck at Los Alamos. When it comes to textiles, understanding how they react when burned, and countless other things related to textiles...Ray had no peer. Crusty as hell, but he was the man and everyone knew it.
Ray had pulled back from STURP (don’t ask me why, because I’d rather not go into it here; involved personalities...). However, he heard of Sue’s work years after he had withdrawn from Shroud study, and it re-invigorated him.
He got the scientific juices flowing and dug into what Sue found, and sure as hell....complete with microscopic examination....he confirmed that the area of the Shroud that had been cut for radiocarbon testing was, in fact, rewoven.
Masterfully so. You see it clearly with microscopy. The naked eye? You can’t see it.
Ray published a paper (I have it....) in a refereed scientific journal. His findings were verified by other scientists around the world (Russia, France, etc.).
The issue was laid to rest. The samples were taken from a rewoven area from the middle ages, NOT from original Shroud material.
Now....the media and the skeptics don’t exactly go out of their way to point all this out, do they? That ticks me off, but it’s typical.
Anyway, hope this helps answer your question.