Was the sample used in the Jull paper NOT from the Shroud of Turin?

Two comments from B&B, with the second startling comment arriving only a half hour after the first:

1. Does it bother anyone that Tim Jull commandeered a souvenir or museum curiosity of the Holy Shroud that was given to Arizona expressly for c14 testing? Wasn’t there a protocol? Is this ethical? Now that Jull admits to having a piece of the shroud shouldn’t he return it to the rightful owner?

Think about the ramifications of this next comment. I think he may be right. Others have expressed similar concerns:

2. Hey, that isn’t even [a] piece of material from the shroud. Look at the photograph. That’s not 3 over 1 herringbone. Did Jull accidentally save a control sample and then study that by mistake? Is Arizona messed up or what?

imageI have now heard from five knowledgeable people who think that the fragment examined by Jull is not from the Shroud of Turin because it is not a 3-over-1 twill weave. What do you think?

To the right is the picture from the Jull paper. It is a small subset of the bigger picture below from a news account about the Jull paper. To my untrained eye it looks like a 2-over-1 twill which may or may not be herringbone. How do papers like this get corrected if such a mistake was made?

 

image

7 thoughts on “Was the sample used in the Jull paper NOT from the Shroud of Turin?”

  1. Could you be more precise? Is the picture from the Jull paper or from a news account about the Jull paper?

    1. gianni, the larger picture is from the news account. It is more useful for establishing the twill hop count. The smaller picture is from Jull’s paper. It was important to establish that the news photo was from the same piece of cloth that Jull cites in his paper. That has been done.

  2. 1) I think this is the reverse of the sample.
    2) We know that also Zurich laboratory preserved a piece of the sample.
    3) I would remember a previous observation I made about Jull’s sample:
    Ann Hedlund, the textile expert, established that the warp fabric count is 30 yarns per cm and the weft is 40 yarns per cm.
    But other experts who studied the textile of the Shroud counted differently:

    Timossi: warp/40 weft/27
    Raes: warp/38,6 weft/25,7
    Vial: Warp/37,6 weft/25,8
    Vercelli: warp/36 weft/24
    Hedlund/Jull: warp/30 weft/40

    Vercelli’s count is very important because was made on a c14 sample.

    1. As to Domenico’s points.
      1) This is the weft face (the weft threads are prominent) and it may be called the reverse because in the Shroud textile the warp face is more “beautiful” and regular. The image of the body is on the warp face.
      2) As to Zurich, it would be interesting to know something more. Can you provide any sources?
      3) In the Radiocarbon paper, Freer is the first author, while Hedlund is only mentioned thus: “[she] was also consulted on the weave structure of the fragment.” In the Acknowledgements her name is mentioned “for helpful discussions”.
      Concerning the wrong data in the paper, I have published a note here, but it is in Italian:
      http://sindone.weebly.com/autogoltucson.html

  3. Dominic, I’m not sure I understand what you mean by the reverse of the sample. Am I not correct in assuming that even on the other side of the sample, the twill (2 or 3 hop) would be obvious.

    There have been suggestions that Jull confused warp and weft. But even so, Jull’s thread count is high. Thanks for that data. I had some of it but you have rounded it out nicely.

Comments are closed.