Radiocarbon 14 dating shroud turin
I mention this merely to inform the non-specialist . The Shroud of Turin has undergone numerous scientific tests, the most notable of which is radiocarbon dating, in an attempt to determine the relic's authenticity. Gove consulted numerous laboratories able already at the time (1982) to carbon-date small fabric samples. Aware of the great marketing opportunity that public interest about the results would bring, laboratories competed fiercely; to avoid conflict, it was decided to let all interested laboratories perform the tests at the same time (this was also an attempt to obtain independent, yet replicable, results): the group expected to perform the radiometric examination under its own aegis and after the other examinations had been completed, while the laboratories considered radio-carbon dating to be the priority test, which should be completed at the detriment of other tests, if necessary. We are faced with actual blackmail: unless we accept the conditions imposed by the laboratories, they will start a marketing campaign of accusations against the Church, which they will portray as scared of the truth and enemy of science.Researchers carried out several batteries of tests in 1988 and concluded that the cloth was woven between 12 A. group planned different studies on the cloth, including radio-carbon dating, since its very first meetings. The six labs that showed interest in performing the procedure appeared to be divided in two groups, each following a unique method: In 1982, the S. During a conference on radio-carbon dating in Trondheim in 1985, representatives from all candidate laboratories jointly announced the end of collaboration with the S. [...]The pressure on the ecclesiastic authorities to accept the Turin protocol have almost approached illegality..D , which appears compatible with the earliest record of the relic's existence (1353). This is particularly significant because, should the chosen portion be not part of the original weave, should it have been contaminated by external agents, or should it be in any way not representative of the remainder of the shroud, the results would only be applicable to that portion of the cloth.The official and complete report on the experiment was later published in Nature, revealing that:.The debate remains open between those who, on the basis of these results, have denounced the shroud as a fake and those who challenge the reliability of the results.
The reportage, broadcast late July, asserted that the shroud was, in fact, medieval, before tests had begun at the lab at Oxford's.
The cellulose of the linen itself would be good from this point of view, but the effect of the fires and subsequent drenching with water . Any microbiological action upon the Shroud (fungi, moulds, etc., which might arise from damp conditions) might have important effects upon the C14 content. [etc.] Many ordinary packing materials such as paper, cardboard, cotton, wool and string contain carbon and are potential contaminants.
This possibility could not be ruled out That such concerns have been far from eliminated by more modern methods is quite evident from a recent booklet by Dr Sheridan Bowman, Michael Tite’s successor as Keeper of the British Museum’s Research Laboratory, in which she lists the sorts of conservation and packing materials that archaeologists should avoid using when sending their samples for processing by a radiocarbon-dating laboratory: ‘Many materials used for preserving or conserving samples may be impossible to remove subsequently: do not use glues, biocides . Cigarette ash is also taboo.’ It is worth reminding ourselves here of the variety of already listed carbon-containing materials with which the Shroud maintains daily contact, e.g., a sixteenth-century holland cloth, a nineteenth-century silk cover – quite aside from the innumerable candles that have been burnt before it, the water that was thrown over it at the time of the 1532 fire, and so on. Archaeologists, who routinely call upon radiocarbon-dating laboratories’ services, tend to shy from openly criticising the results they receive, even if they do not necessarily agree with some of them, but one who certainly has no qualms is Greece’s Spyros Iakovidis, speaking at an international conference in 1989: ‘In relation to the reliability of radiocarbon dating I would like to mention something which happened to me during my excavation at Gla [in Boeotia, Greece].
or that put forth by the laboratories, would be executed.
Also present were cardinal Ballestrero, four priests, archdiocese spokesperson Luigi Gonella, photographers, a camera operator, Michael Tite and the labs' representatives (who, according the protocol, should in fact not have been present).