|
Posted on 05/12/2008 2:04:11 AM PDT by Swordmaker
There exist today multiple arguments of a historical/archaeological nature which conclude that the Shroud of Turin is older than the medieval date ascribed to it by radiocarbon dating in 1988. This has led to the proposal of various hypotheses to explain this apparent discrepancy. One hypothesis is that the linen sample used in the radiocarbon dating actually came from a medieval “re-weave”. While this hypothesis has been argued on the basis of indirect chemistry, it can be discounted on the basis of evident bandings in the 1978 radiographs and transmitted light images of STURP. These data photographs show clearly that the banding structures (which are in the Shroud) propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would, ten years later, be where the sample was taken for radiocarbon dating.
Another hypothesis to explain the medieval radiocarbon date is that the Shroud sample has been contaminated by intrinsically younger (in a radiocarbon sense) material that is alien to the cloth such as bioplastic residues from microbial action. The problem here is that the amount of carbon mass in such a contamination needed to skew the radiocarbon date of the Shroud from the first to the fourteenth century would be in excess of twice that present in the Shroud sample itself, assuming that the intrinsic radiocarbon date of the contamination is of modern age or older.
These considerations have led our research team to consider a new contamination- enrichment hypothesis that does not suffer from these limitations. It has been observed that carbon monoxide in the sea-level atmosphere is significantly enriched in radiocarbon well above that found in normal biogenic quantities derived from carbon dioxide. The reason for this is that carbon-14 produced by cosmic ray interactions with the atmosphere first interacts with oxygen to form 14CO with relatively high efficiency. Only later, on the order of one to two months, does 14CO interact with OH radicals in the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide which subsequently mixes into the atmosphere at a lower radiocarbon ratio than that which exists in carbon monoxide.
This raises the possibility of enrichment if carbon monoxide were to slowly interact with a sample so as to deposit its enriched carbon into the sample. We presume that textiles could be particularly vulnerable to such enrichment by gaseous contamination, since the gas molecules would easily diffuse around and interpenetrate into the 15 micron diameter fibrils that are loosely spun and woven together to make up the cloth. It turns out that, given the degree of natural radiocarbon enrichment that has been measured in atmospheric carbon monoxide at sea-level, only about a 2% carbon contamination relative to the overall carbon in the sample would be required to move a first century date of the Shroud textile to the fourteenth century.
The problem, therefore, is to test if there exist a chemical or physical pathway by which atmospheric carbon monoxide can contaminate a linen sample to the 2% level AND in a way that is consistent with the chemical and physical nature of the Shroud. It must also be shown why such contamination has evidently not occurred in some other linen samples for which a reasonable radiocarbon date is believed to have been rendered. For example, the linen wrap for the Dead Sea Scrolls apparently yielded a radiocarbon date consistent with it historical context; however, it is understood that this wrap had been sealed in a jar for two thousand years, which arguably might have protected (or retarded) it from atmospheric-based carbon monoxide contamination.
We at Turin Shroud Center of Colorado are studying the radiocarbon monoxide enrichment hypothesis, taking into account its concentration in the atmosphere, and expect that these studies will take many months to complete. While we, of course, cannot guarantee the outcome of these experiments, we intend, at the completion of these studies, to present our work in an appropriate manner. We do not intend to release interim progress reports or premature information about our experiments until our work is completed.
|
While this hypothesis has been argued on the basis of indirect chemistry, it can be discounted on the basis of evident bandings in the 1978 radiographs and transmitted light images of STURP. These data photographs show clearly that the banding structures (which are in the Shroud) propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would, ten years later, be where the sample was taken for radiocarbon dating.
Dr. Jackson's is mischaracterizing Raymond N. Rogers' peer-reviewed chemical tests as "indirect chemistry." As a matter of fact, Rogers' tests were done on the remaining sample cut from the Shroud in 1988 for the Carbon Dating tests and threads and small pieces of the main body of the Shroud. Rogers' chemistry analysis showed that the sample that was C-14 tested was both physically and chemically not the same as the main body of the Shroud, regardless of the radiographic and transmitted light photographs showing a continuation of "banding structures" cited by Dr. Jackson as if that alone was proof that the sample was the same as the main body of the Shroud. The banding structures are visible to the naked eye and could have been incorporated into the repaired repaired areas by the extremely skilled French weavers who apparently repaired the cloth in the mid 16th Century.
Among the discrepancies where the tested area differ from the main body of the shroud are:
All of these show that the sample that was tested is not homogenous (the same) as the Main body of the Shroud.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, rose from the dead, what’s the problem?
Nonsense. The area from which they took the sample for radiocarbon dating WAS in a rewoven section.....and it’s quite obvious when viewed microscopically.
This whole “it was created in the Middle Ages” junk has been shot down completely.
Technically, the only thing that has been shot down is the credibility of the 1988 Carbon 14 tests, which returned inconsistent test results of 1260 AD to 1390 AD for dates when the Linen in the Shroud was grown.
It has put that particular question of "when was the Shroud created?" back to "we don't know," because the C-14 test sample has been shown to not be representative of what they intended to test, the Shroud of Turin.
There has/will be a veracious antipathy of certain entities against the Shroud...they will froth at the mouth rather than ever acknowledge that the Shroud may just be authentic. Thus is has ever been, the struggle of the Light and the Dark.
I have kept track of Barrie Schwortz's most excellent site at http://www.shroud.com/ and have corresponded with him over the years. (Barrie, a scientist on the 1978 'expedition', went into it as a skeptic)
As a portrait artist, I approach the problem from the evidence that exists in paintings - most particularly the iconic renderings that have existed from long before the carbon-dating postulations.
The iconic paintings of Jesus had one original source and there were many hundreds painted for the churches (no photography back then) = they all have the same visage - and is the depiction still used today as what we recognize as Jesus: with the hair, the beard, etc..
This is one of my favorite icons = and, as you can see by going to the web site - it is interchangeable with the shroud. (Another thing that pins it for me is that many of the iconic paintings have a wisp of hair mid-forehead...This 'wisp' shows on the Shroud - it is, actually, flows of blood = but was thought by the early painters to be hair. It is little things like this that, in my mind, connect the Shroud with the early iconic paintings.
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/pantocrator.htm
This famous iconic painting, the "Pantocrator" - was painted in the 500's = centuries older than the carbon dating = The artist obviously, in my mind, took this image from the Shroud. 
But there are some that will never accept the authenticity of the Shroud - even were Jesus to appear before them and so identified it. There will always be wheat and there will always be chaff...
Thanx for the ping ot this on-going discussion. Has there been dating done of old woven materials perahps going back to the Roman period, as a control for this hypothesis, to check if ‘enrichment’ is seen in such other material?
Thanks for the ping. Also, since we know that the Sudarium and the Shroud both have AB blood type, why can’t we connect them by DNA and prove an exact match? After all, one is in Italy and the other in Spain!
There wouldn’t have to be any further testing at all. Just the samples that have “already” been taken from both samples. You can’t ruin the DNA.
I’ve often wondered why this approach hasn’t been taken.
FRegards
Any DNA on either the Shroud or the Sudarium are too degraded to be used for such a comparison. Only small broken strands have been found. Even the determination the blood is AB is somewhat controversial. There have been several tests done that showed the type match, but other scientists claim it is not possible to do such tests with blood that is so old and that old blood often tests to AB even though it was not originally AB. Most of those who claim that it is not possible have not done any tests on the blood on either cloth, but it is a valid concern. Basically, there needs to be more research in this area. It may well be that there are complete DNA strands on both cloths but they have not been found to date.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
