Shroud Of Turin
never formed and the eventual radiocarbon dating of the Shroud would be left to other researchers. Source: Shroud of Turin Website Shroud History Page . In fact, Dr. Michael Tite of the British Museum, who supervised the dating process, left the Some very heated debates have ensued over the years and a number of. Shroud of turin carbon dating new scientific tests on the shroud of turin The period until is subject to debate and controversy among historians. 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. . He stated that: "The fact that vanillin cannot be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers .
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.
I do not know what transpired at the conference. On the face of it the suggestions made by Meacham seem quite reasonable, and if they were dismissed out of hand by others at the conference I can understand his feeling aggrieved.
C Debate from draktbutikk.info-shroud
Yes, it would take a lot of extraneous carbonaceous material to throw the date off by years, if contamination ALONE is the problem. Isotope exchange with materials on or in prolonged contact with the cloth is another very strong possibility, and one which is very difficult or impossible to evaluate or test for I am not sure what is meant by "isotopic exchange" as distinct from "contamination".
If the suggestion is that 14C has preferentially migrated into the linen but not 13C and 12C, I have to say "no way! The transfer of carbon into or out of the cloth is fundamentally either a physical or chemical process, and will include all isotopes.
True, there may well be isotopic fractionation during such processes, but the extent of fractionation that occurs is nowhere near sufficient to cause an apparent shift of years in the radiocarbon age. The beauty of radiocarbon dating is that there are two stable isotopes, 12C and 13C, as well as the 14C.
The ratio of 13C to 12C can be, and always is, used to determine the degree of isotopic fractionation and correct the 14C accordingly. Where does that leave us with the C14 dating of the Shroud? Still at stage 1 -- more samples need to be dated, from various places on the cloth, along with samples from the backing cloth whose age is precisely known.
And of course all samples should be subjected to exhaustive screening and laboratory examination first. We can go through the process all over again, and maybe, if the Vatican agrees, that is what will happen. If I were a betting man I would take a pretty safe wager on the result. My original post that elicited the reply from Sparks does, however, remain correct -- "Anyone who still believes that C14 dating has proven the Shroud to be medieval should be quickly disabused of that notion.
BBC Sport (International version)
William Meacham I think we must agree to differ on this last point. Of course, at the end of the day reaching decisions on matters such as this involves making judgements, and there will always be differences of opinion on how to interpret the evidence available. I can only say that I feel comfortable with the judgement that the radiocarbon evidence we have gives us the best available estimate of the true age of the Shroud of Turin.
The lab representatives were not present at this packaging process, in accordance with the protocol. 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 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.
Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin
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 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. 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".