The Northfield News in Vermont reports:
Donald W. Messier, RFP, M.A. presented a program devoted to the mysteries of the Holy Shroud of Turin at St. John the Evangalist Church last Sunday, Mr. Messier is the State Director of Shroud Exhibit for the State of Vermont. He is a well-known expert or Sindonologist in the study of the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.
. . .
Small samples of the linen were carbon dated in 1988 in a flawed study that examined a part of the Shroud that had been repaired and rewoven in the 12th Century. Further study led Professor Max Frei, Director of Scientific Dept of the Zurich, Switzerland Criminal Police said, “I can confirm, without the fear of being proven wrong, that this linen cloth dates back to Palestine, 2000 years ago.”
Further study by Frei? Didn’t Frei die in 1983?
I remember the quote from Frei. Even then, I couldn’t figure out how pollen could indicate anything other than the cloth’s probable presence in the Middle East at some time in its history. How he ever concluded that it was 2,000 years old based on pollen is beyond me. Sounds like wishful thinking. I’m not saying he is wrong, its just that pollen data cannot provide that conclusion.
It seems that Max Frei Sulzer found pollen grain that he believed came from extinct plants in Palestine. The book “The Shroud. Fresh light on the 2000-year-old mystery” has a list (page 98) of the grains published by Father Heinrich Pfeiffer, but this does not help to clear the doubts. Uri Baruch did not remove the grains from the tape, but examined them in situ. His work was defended by Professor Avinoam Danin, who felt that it was Dr. Thomas Litt who had not examined the grains correctly by cleaning them first. Given these details, it becomes obvious that it is necessary to make an examination of what is left of Frei’s collection that was acquired from his widow.
I haven’t seen Frei’s original report, without which I am loath to comment on his findings, but justifiable suspicion may come from the fact that he managed to identify so many different plants from so few samples, that there are astonishingly few tree and grass species compared the less common shrubs, and that about 12% of his sample consists of insect-borne pollen rather than wind blown.
Repaired and rewoven in the 12th Century? Really? Did anybody know that? That would be a neat trick. Take 1st Century material and mix it with 12th Century material thus making it seem 14th Century. Is anyone thinking at this newspaper?
I have seen worse examples.
I recall MPH expressing the opinion some months ago, something along the lines that the reweave was done not in the 12th century as has been sometimes stated, but at some time around the 18th – 19th centuries, by a princess in the House of Savoy. They would certainly have the resources to commission such work. That might explain the shift in dates. But I’m not aware that there is any record of the work being carried out, which seems surprising.
It was princess Clothilde of Savoy, in 1868 she was doing some repairs on the Shroud, in the vicinity of future C14 sample. Wilson writes about that in “Blood and the Shroud”.
The question about wind- and insect-borne samples was indeed raised quite some time ago and is an important one. Given that no one can say anything about when the Church will allow another hands-on examination, and the fact that many of the papers are based on old studies, we have to pounce on what is available, and that is the rest of Max Frei’s collection.
I thnk someone mentioned that there’s also some 8 or so cartons that Ray Rogers endowed, as yet unopened.
The Shroudies in the US surely know something about that. Father Werner Bulst’s papers were said to have been lying in the basement of some building in Germany.
O.K.: “It was princess Clothilde of Savoy, in 1868 she was doing some repairs on the Shroud, in the vicinity of future C14 sample. Wilson writes about that in “Blood and the Shroud”.”
Sorry O.K. but the true fact is Wilson NEVER developed any theory including the Duchess of Savoy 1868 mending to account for the C14 dating fiasco. Besides this mending, I also take into account a second most likely contaminating factor: RAINWATER mixed either with ASHES or limestone dust.
Max: this is misunderstanding. I never claimed that Wilson developed ANY theory about Duches of Savoy and C14 corner. I just said that Wilson informs us in his 1998 “Blood and the Shroud” that Duchess was performing some repairs in this area in 1868.
“Besides this mending, I also take into account a second most likely contaminating factor: RAINWATER mixed either with ASHES or limestone dust.”
This is theory developed by André Marion, Gérard Lucotte in “Le linceul de Turin et la tunique d’Argenteuil : Le point sur l’enquête” about carbon-dating of the Holy Tunic of Argenteuil. I remind that it was dated to 530-650 AD (Saclay) and 670-880 AD (Archeolabs). However the Tunic was heavilly contaminated as during the French Revolution in 1793-1795 it was buried by abbot Ozet in the parish garden. I did some calculations ( http://ok.apologetyka.info/racjonalista/w-potrzasku-bredni-prawdy-i-poprawdy-na-temat-poplamionych-krwia-relikwii-pasyjnych,432.htm ) and conluded that this calcium-carbonate theory is barely satisfying in respect to the Tunic (however I don’t think it was the only factor), and definetly inadequate to the Shroud.
In case of the carbon-dating of the Holy Tunic (and Sudarium of Oviedo as well) about 36 % of carbon should come from contaminants. But in the case of the Shroud about 65-75 %.
And remember that in calcium-carbonate (CaCO3) only 12 % of its molar mass is carbon. In case of some lipids it is about 90% . In case of linen it is about 25 %. I don’t know what is percentage of carbon in wool -The Holy Tunic of Argenteuil is made of it.
O.K., the contaminants are 50% (according to Pr Evin) and 66% (according to Jackson) NOT 75%! Such a contaminant amount just cannot be explained by a medieval or early sixteenth century invisible mending in se.
Besides rainwater as additional or sole contaminant present in the Turin Shroud could be linked to a specific 1st c. CE Judean purifying ritual: living water or rainwater mixed with ashes. This has nothing to do with the theory developed by André Marion, Gérard Lucotte in “Le linceul de Turin et la tunique d’Argenteuil as their theory is only developed for the Argenteuil Tunic.
What I find just a little mystifying, is that if it was known that Princess (Duchess) Clothilde of Savoy carried out repairs in the vicinity of the C14 sample site around 1868, why was this not so evident to textile expert Mme Flury-Lemburg who insisted that the cloth was homogenous, and as far as I know is still in denial about the reality of French invisible reweaving?
Note that Benford & Marino in a 2005 paper make a strong case for the French weaving having been commissioned by Margaret of Austria, as a result of a bequest in her will and testament of 1508. Margaret had married Philibert of Savoy in 1501, and Philibert died in 1504, so that Margaret became the Duchess of Savoy. She had an intense interest in tapestries. The paper also offers an explanation for the missing corners of the Shroud cloth, which are otherwise a mystery. Benford and Marino’s investigations led to Ray Rogers examining threads from the sample site, confirming the present of dyes and gum, supporting the argument of reweave.
Sorry, but if the patch was made in 1532 or around this date, the amount of contaminants MUST be 75 % to shift datings from 1st to 13th-14th century. If it was made in 19th century that amount is 65 %. I calculated it personally, -besides it is very easy to calculate and every high school graduate who had advanced program of mathematics could easily calculate that. However it is possible that invisible mending to exchange about 75 % of sample mass: all wefts and perhaps a few warps (wefts are ususally thicker than warps).
In fact IT IS THE ONLY non conspiracy and non-sci-fi theory able to explain the shift of dates -and the ONLY theory that there are proofs for.
Circa 1st century? Max THIS CHANGES NOTHING in carbon dating!!! Do you understand that ???
Max see this table:
I wrote: “O.K., the contaminants are 50% (according to Pr Evin) and 66% (according to Jackson) NOT 75%! Such a contaminant amount just cannot be explained by a medieval or early sixteenth century invisible mending in se.”
You wrote: “Sorry, but if the patch was made in 1532 or around this date, the amount of contaminants MUST be 75 % to shift datings from 1st to 13th-14th century. If it was made in 19th century that amount is 65 %. I calculated it personally.”
This is exactly was I was telling you! It just cannot be medieval. Two professional carbonists’ contaminant estimates are 50% (Pr Evin) and 66% (Director of an American lab) to have a 1st c. CE artefact to be placed in the Middle Ages (1260-1390).
You also wrote: “Circa 1st century? Max THIS CHANGES NOTHING in carbon dating!!! Do you understand that ???”
Living water or rainwater mixed with ASHES in-soaking the shroud and then the latter having been subjected to a fumigation ritual should “change nothing” in terms of C14 dating the said shroud”? Really?
Yes it changes nothing -because the contamination comes from the 1st century! Any additional carbon from 1st century is IRRELEVANT in case of C14 dating.
O.K., would you bet your house on it?
Reminder for O.K.: the TS carbon dating is medieval. Wash a 20th c. CE linen cloth with a detergent sed in the 50s, it can… look 200-300 years older (see Wölfli’s step-mother napkin case).
Max, look at this thread:http://shroudstory.com/2013/10/03/and-then-too-we-have-two-comments-from-daveb-of-wellington/#comments
Reminder for O.K.: Ancient peoples employed animal and/or wood ashes and water for washing/purifying
Yes Max, but no one except me has understood the Wölfli’s joke with his step-mother napkin case.
1945 AD 190 years BP
1675 AD 172 years BP
This is the basics of carbon-dating, Max. The Shroud could be purified with ashes, boiled with oil, spread with lard , contaminated in whatever way in the 1st century, and this would change nothing for the carbon dating. Because anyway all the carbon would come from the 1st century.
The contamination must be LATER, from 16th-20th century to change the dates. Definetly NOT EARLIER.
OK is quite right, Max. If the sources of the carbon all died relatively contemporaneously, be they formed into cloth, wood, ashes, bones or whatever, the proportion of C14 in them is the same. There is a slight difference in marine environments, but that is probably irrelevant here. Contaminating something with an older material, such as a carbonate (e.g. limestone) can only serve to make the apparent age older than it really is.
Comments are closed.