Scientific Article on the Discrepancies in the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin

image The article in Chemistry Today  “Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud” by M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino is now available to the general public without a subscription.

The issue is chimica oggi • Chemistry Today • vol 26 n 4 / July-August 2008.

I highly recommend the article. It is perhaps the best article on the subject of the carbon dating problems.

Link is

4 thoughts on “Scientific Article on the Discrepancies in the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin”

  1. In the same way, see this abstract of a new scientific paper, in which prof. Riani, Atkinson, Crosilla and Fanti say that :
    ” The p-values of the robust test statistics lead us to reject the null hypothesis that the ages measured by the three laboratories are homogeneous and suggest the presence of an important contamination in the 1988 TS samples that put serious doubts about the claim by Damon et al.: “…the quoted errors fully reflect all sources of error…”. ” Robust Statistical Analysis of the 1988 Turin Shroud Radiocarbon Dating Results

    1. This is an old peer-reviewed paper but, in my opinion, it is one of the most important written in the last few years.
      I am very surprised to see only one comment (in 2010).

      I would like to know your opinion (Hugh, Kelly and all of you).

      To begin, there is something unclear about Fig.8:

      “The continuous, fully-observable sewing
      thread represents a significant change
      of technique, and suggests this section
      of thread, which incorporated the Raes
      sample and C-14 sample areas, was
      applied from the top versus reverse
      of the cloth. This further implies the
      two sections of sewing threads (C-14
      region versus main Shroud) were
      applied at different times and by
      different artisans with the main Shroud
      stitching possibly from the same time
      period as Masada (21)”

      I am unable to see this significant change of technique in Fig;8.
      Joe ?


  2. Hi Thibault.
    This paper was a summing up of various others published as far back as 2000, but although Benford and Marino introduced an important suggestion, that the C-14 corner was substantially rewoven in the 16th century, I do not think any of their arguments stand up to scrutiny. The first couple of pages deal with the now wholly discredited quad mosaic photos, and the illustrations of the rest of the paper are too blurred to substantiate any of their observations. Using Shroud 2.0 on an iPad the details of the stiching can be seen quite clearly, and there certainly has been a bit of correction around the place where the side seam runs along the edge of the cut out corners. However this is related to the fixing of the shroud to the backing cloth, and has nothing to do with invisible patching.

Comments are closed.