Quote for Today on Carbon Dating

imageIn archaeology, if there are ten lines of evidence, carbon dating being one of them, and it conflicts with the other nine, there is little hesitation to throw out the carbon date as inaccurate . . .

— Biblical archaeologist Eugenia Nitowski
Founder of the Ariel Museum of
Biblical Archaeology

Hat tip to Stephen Jones from his most recent update to his October News posting.

7 thoughts on “Quote for Today on Carbon Dating”

  1. I wonder what are the other nine lines of evidence. The historical record agrees with the C14 result. There is no evidence pointing to the first century, unless you want to consider the Tiberius coins.

    1. Ciao signore Rinaldi. Domanda per voi. Do you believe the possibility that Fr. Filas work may have indeed produce some evidence that the Lepton coin was imprinted on the Shroud?

  2. Dr Eugenia Nitowski (pictured above) lived 1949-2007. Her early training was in Seventh Day Adventist schools; she became interested in archaeology, obtaining two Masters degrees and her doctorate. At Notre Dame where she had obtained her doctorate, she became a Catholic and joined the Carmelite order of nuns, taking the name of Sister Damian of the Cross. Her involvement with Shroud studies was considerable including: obtaining microscope slides of Jerusalem flora for matching with the Frei samples, her studies of tombs in Jerusalem, and her work wih Kohlbeck and Otterbein, identifying the dirt on the Shroud as Jerusalem travertine aragonite limestone.

    An excerpt from a letter to Fr Otterbein includes the following:
    “Limestone (calcium) samples were collected from as far south
    as 30 miles from Jerusalem to as far north as the Galilee and Mt. Carmel. As previously reported, Kohlbeck and Damian had matched a heavy calcium concentration from the foot area on the Shroud of Turin to samples collected in Jerusalem. This evidence was called into question, so sampling around Israel was performed to assertain if such a test was valid. From as close as 30 miles from Jerusalem, the limestone changes and does not match either Jerusalem or the Shroud of Turin. Therefore, the match between Jerusalem and the shroud is a valid one. The Shroud of Turin was indeed in Jerusalem at one time during its history.”

    Clearly Dr Nitowski was convinced that the TS had Jerusalem provenance. But like so many other studies it seems open to the criticism that it was not subject to peer review. Is the evidence still available? Can her tapes, slides, record of results be otherwise confirmed? As part of the 2002 “Restoration”, the TS was vacuum cleaned! Some say that the dust was collected and classified. I wonder? Or like so many other key data concerning the TS, has it all vanished into the black hole of Limbo? Dr Nitowski has provided an important lead, can it be confirmed, or is it now lost forever?

    A tribute to Dr Nitowski can be found at:


    1. Sister Damian’s paper, ” A CONSERVATOR’S REPORT ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN” was heavily criticized. One in particular, was her statement that the Holland Cloth needed to be removed to preserve the Shroud. The researchers who criticized her work failed to relies that Sister Damian did have the attention of the Turin authorities. This internal disagreements and back and forth bickering within the US scientist was also a contributing factor of dismissing STURP and ASSIST from participating in the C14 process. Grant you, my conclusion is based on hear-say from further correspondence between Fr. Otterbien and Fr. Rinaldi who was in constant contact with the Turin authorities.

Comments are closed.