Tests in 1988 concluded
the cloth was a medieval "hoax"
Posted on 01/27/2005 7:11:07 AM PST by yankeedame
Last Updated: Thursday, 27 January, 2005, 11:05 GMT
Turin shroud 'older than thought'
The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to a new study in a peer-reviewed journal. A research paper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.
The author dismisses 1988 carbon-14 dating tests which concluded that the linen sheet was a medieval fake.
The shroud, which bears the faint image of a blood-covered man, is believed by some to be Christ's burial cloth.
The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic
Raymond Rogers
Raymond Rogers says his research and chemical tests show the material used in the 1988 radiocarbon analysis was cut from a medieval patch woven into the shroud to repair fire damage.
This was responsible for an invalid date being assigned to the original shroud cloth, he argues.
"The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic," said Mr Rogers, who is a retired chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, US.
Fire damage
The linen sheet was damaged in several fires since its existence was first recorded in France in 1357, including a church blaze in 1532.
It is said to have been restored by nuns who patched the holes and stitched the shroud to a reinforcing material known as the Holland cloth.
"[The radiocarbon sample] has obvious painting medium, a dye and a mordant that doesn't show anywhere else," Mr Rogers told the BBC News website.
"This stuff was manipulated - it was coloured on purpose."
Michael Minor, vice-president of the American Shroud of Turin Association for Research commented: "This is the most significant news about the Shroud of Turin since the C-14 dating was announced in 1988.
The shroud first surfaced in France in 1357
"The C-14 dating isn't being disputed. But [the new research] is saying that they dated the rewoven area."
In the study, he analysed and compared the sample used in the 1988 tests with other samples from the famous cloth.
Microchemical tests, which use tiny quantites of materials, demonstrated that the shroud must be older than previously thought.
These tests revealed the presence of a chemical called vanillin in the radiocarbon sample and in the Holland cloth, but not the rest of the shroud.
Vanillin is produced by the thermal decomposition of lignin, a chemical compound found in plant material such as flax. Levels of vanillin in material such as linen fall over time, so it provides one way to date the shroud.
'Older date'
"The fact that vanillin cannot be detected in the lignin on shroud fibres, Dead Sea scrolls linen and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old," Mr Rogers writes.
"A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old."
In the 1988 study, scientists from three universities concluded that the cloth dated from some time between 1260 and 1390. This ruled it out as the possible burial cloth that wrapped the body of Christ.
That led to the then Cardinal of Turin, Anastasio Alberto Ballestrero, admitting the garment was a hoax.
The shroud is stored
at the cathedral of Turin, Italy
But since, several attempts have been made to challenge the authenticity of these tests.
"The sample tested was dyed using technology that began to appear in Italy about the time the crusaders' last bastion fell to the Mameluke Turks in AD 1291," said Mr Rogers.
"The radiocarbon sample cannot be older than about AD 1290, agreeing with the age determined in 1988. However, the shroud itself is actually much older."
Some now hope the Vatican will give approval for samples of the shroud to be re-tested.
But, says Mr Minor, "the church is very hesitant, very reluctant for that to be done, because they've been given so many conflicting opinions".
Anyone gotten Dan Rather and 60 Minutes to verify it?
slow news day? or no news day?
One credible theory always had been that the fire caused a change in the carbon reading.
I believe!!!
An act of carelessness of this kind would be stunning. It boggles the mind. I remember the hype about the study, one would presume that the researchers would do all in their power to prevent such a mistake. Perhaps it was much more difficult than I imagined?
I'll say. Personally, I don't care if it's scientifically authenticated. It's a beautiful and dramatic relic and provides great solace to the faithful.
Doesn't the guy in the shroud look a tad older than 33?
Tough life with no A/C.
You get viciously beaten up and crucified and then see how you look.
Cordially,
I'm not a Catholic but if in 1988 that Cardinal said it's a hoax then doesn't that mean that all Catholics are supposed to believe it's a hoax? Then why do the Catholics still keep it?
One has to wonder if scientists were trying to debunk the myth of the cloth, or just attempt to debunk the religion of Christianity.
Yeah, they should just burn it, it's only a piece of history. /sarcasm
Nope. A cardinal does not individually make "official" Catholic policy statements.
No it does not.
It has to do with faith. You can ridicule the Catholics
if you like; that won't affect faith and belief any more
than the debates among scientists.
Even if the cloth is ultimately proven a fake, it still
represents ideas Catholics and Christians have died for
throughout the ages. If it was faked, it was faked out
of faith in a powerful idea.
Well, then, I would think that I would look like I'd been beaten and crucified. Not way older than my age.
Does a boxer after a fight look twice his age? No, he looks beaten up, puffy faced, black eyes, swollen, etc.
I don't mean to question an article of your faith, I was (ham-handedly apparently) making an observation.
Who said I was ridiculing Catholics? Sheesh. I was just curious...
---"Anyone gotten Dan Rather and 60 Minutes to verify it?"---
Not yet, but they have given it over to the "Jesus Seminar" who have decided that the shroud was probably actually made in the 1970s, if it really exists at all. And they think the face on the cloth is actually a woman.
Plus, they've determined that it could not have been discovered in France, and decided that it was probably actually discovered in southern Mexico.
You do realize that people had much tougher lives back then, lived shorter lives, etc.
Beards like that also add 10 years to faces anyway.
I am not saying it is Jesus on that cloth, but your age criticism is silly.
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.