The paper is called X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample. It was written by Liberato De Caro, Teresa Sibillano, Rocco Lassandro, Cinzia Giannini and Giulio Fanti. Published in the open-access journal Heritage, an MDPI online publication, it was received on March 10th of this year and accepted by April 5th Four days later it was published.
I don’t think this is going to move the needle much until a Colin Berry or a Hugh Farey or any other scientist, who until now accepted the 1988 radiocarbon dating, changes their mind
The National Catholic Register carried the story. So did the Christian Broadcasting Network and a couple of other religious media sites. It was hard to find any secular press coverage. On April 28, iHeart Radio posted X-Ray Analysis Suggests Shroud of Turin Dates Back to Time of Christ, but that was pretty much it.
Barrie Schwortz mentioned it and provided a link to the Heritage site in his May 18 update to shroud.com He included this cautionary note:
Editor’s Note: Although this technique may prove reliable at some point in the future, it must be noted that it has never before been used to date any archaeological samples. Much more testing must be completed before this technique can be accepted by the scientific community as a viable dating method.
Now, more than two months since publication, MDPI and Google Scholar report no citations. Not one! There is only slight chatter in social media, a few mentions on Shroud specific Facebook pages is all.
I don’t think this is going to move the needle much until a Colin Berry or a Hugh Farey or any other scientist, who until now accepted the 1988 radiocarbon dating, changes their mind and realizes the Shroud is about 2000 years old.
If it accurately dates other linens across a wide array of samples, it is irrelevant what Colin or anyone else thinks. Not sure why an accurate dating method needs the approval of subjective opinions to be deemed valid. It either follows the scientific method and works, or doesn’t.
“It either follows the scientific method…..” exactly so. I wrote a blog post on this in April. See medievalshroud.
You beat me to it Hugh. Here’s what I penned a few minutes ago:
“I, along with others no doubt, look forward to the Hugh (and cry?) with interest.
Yup, as already stated, I personally no longer wish to get involved further with internet-based discussion.
That applies especially to that somewhat oddball Giulio Fanti-style of “South Water” (as distinct from mainstream) SCIENCE. (He being a Prof of Engineering, NOT science).
(South Water, in case you were wondering, is a rough-and-ready English translation from the French, i.e. “la Sud Eau science”).
Try to get the French pronounciation 100% right if wishing to grasp my precise meaning!. ;-) “
Who do you think you are to pass judgment on these scientists? Are you a scientist or a pastor? Of course it moves the needle right back to 33 AD plus or minus some because the linen fiber wasn’t in perfect condition.
Only very few people have analytical skills to analyse data properly. Most people don’t want to change their minds although they don’t have skills to understand what is correct or what is wrong.
Hi Anonymous and Hemraj,
Thank you for your comments, which I think bear response, because they illustrate a common mindset among proponents of this kind of topic, not just of the Shroud. Although I’m certain they do not mean to be, they are both fine examples of both the ab auctoritate and the ad hominem logical fallacies.
Neither of these are necessarily irrational positions in appropriate circumstances, but I think you use them here incorrectly. Firstly, you both assume that “scientists” must be right, and secondly, you both assume that I and/or Colin are incompetent to question their findings, and that we don’t want to change our minds anyway. Such assumptions, by you, are unfounded, even were they to be true.
It is not obvious that you have read either the original WAXS paper or my review of it, or that you understand the processes involved, so forgive me if I explain from basic premises, taking just one small aspect of the research to help illuminate where I think your criticism is unjustified.
The age of the Shroud was calculated by measuring various properties of it, and comparing them to a calibration graph constructed using the same properties of other linens of known age. One of these was a piece of fabric from Masada, confidently dated to around 60 AD. In a previous experiment, fibres from this fabric were selected for measurement, but, under inspection, half of them were found unsuitable. The WAXS experiment used whole threads, including all their fibres. Other fabrics were also used for both experiments, greater or lesser percentages of which were rejected in the first one as unsuitable, but used nevertheless in the second one. This clearly demands an explanation, whether one is a “scientist” or not.
To answer, on my behalf only, your specific points:
Anonymous: A) Who do I think I am to pass judgement on these scientists? I do not pass any judgement on these scientists; I hardly know them. All I can assess are their publications. B) Am I a scientist or a pastor? I’m a scientist. I don’t know why being a pastor should be considered particularly relevant, any more than an accountant or a bricklayer.
Hemraj: A) “Only very few people have analytical skills to analyse data properly.” Thank you; I’m one of them. B) “Most people don’t want to change their minds.” Thank you again; I’m not one of them.
I was not clear enough when I wrote, somewhat idiomatically, “I don’t think this is going to move the needle much,” I meant that the new wide-angle x-ray tests wouldn’t change peoples attitudes much. I am not evaluating the test scientifically. I am not qualified to do so. My assessment was based on the fact that no one was really embracing this. If it was convincing wouldn’t they? If an objective scientist who is otherwise accepting of the C14 test, found it convincing, might that change things. I don’t know. But for now, these tests are not changing anyone’s mind, no more so than had the team published a blank sheet of paper.
Maybe I should have said, “It’s not a game-changer.”
Do go read Hugh Farey. He wrote an excellent, superior piece on it. He wrote; “Ignoring the Shroud for a moment, it might be thought that the possibility of dating archaeological textiles by two or three different methods could only be a good thing. If mechanical deterioration could really be used as a chronograph, then surely it would have been taken up by now, but a glance at Google Scholar tells us that ‘Multi-parametric micro-mechanical dating of single fibers coming from ancient flax textiles’ has only been cited 11 times since publication in 2014, 7 times by Fanti himself, and all of them solely in connection with the Shroud. The archaeological world, it seems, remains unimpressed. We’ll have to wait to see if this crystallographic idea meets with better success.”
There was an earlier posting on Hugh Farey’s site, the title of which kinda says it all:
Fantisy
https://medievalshroud.com/fantisy/
I say it’s time EITHER that the oh-so-secretive so-called “Shroud Science Group” dropped “science” from its title, OR, failing that, dropped its “Coordinator”, read headline Prezzy, replacing with a REAL scientist as chief spokesperson. That’s if wishing to retain “science” in its title !
Sorry to be so blunt. (But have previously made the same statement more than once on my own site).
My Hypothesis
1. DNA results indicate that Shroud is most probably manufactured in India.
2. King Solomon brought Peacocks and Sandal wood either from India/Sri Lanka
3. During that time many Jewish traders settled in India and Sri Lanka
4. Some of the clothes of Jerusalem Temple Priests were made from Fine Indian Linen
5. One of the disciples of Jesus named Thomas spread the Good News in India and was killed in India
6. So most probably Joseph of Arimathea bought the burial linen cloth from one of the Jewish Traders who came to celebrate Passover at Jerusalem Temple.
My Hypothesis
1. The 3/1 herringbone weave of the Shroud indicates the Shroud was most probably manufactured in Northern Europe in the middle ages.
2. Herefordshire was a centre of flax production in Britain.
3. Geoffrey de Charny spent some time in captivity in Herefordshire.
4. He was widely considered to be an epitome of chivalry.
5. The Medieval “Usage of Hereford” specified that its figure of Christ be washed in wine before being wrapped in a shroud on Good Friday.
6. The North Transept of Hereford Cathedral was redesigned at the end of the thirteenth century to house the Shrine of St Thomas Cantilupe, removing the ‘Easter Sepulchre.’
7. So most probably Geoffrey de Charny was given the Shroud as a tribute to his nobility when it was no longer needed by the Cathedral.
We can all have hypotheses, Hemraj. What makes yours more probable than mine? There is no evidence that they Shroud came from India, that there were any Jews in India before 1000 AD, or that any textiles from India were worn by Jewish priests, whereas all my statements are derived from contemporary documents.
You show me your sources and I’ll show you mine!
Does one detect a hint there of galloping Anglicization Hugh?
I say: think primarily Champagne country rather than Herefordshire (even if latter supplied the raw un-imprinted linen, even if the 100 Years War was essentially an attempt to extend Kent and Sussex to subsume the wilder pastures east of Paris!
Oh, and think Order of the Star – that briefly-lived creation of Geoffroi de Charny and his close buddy/battle-hardened co-combatant (King John 2 of France) designed to match that recently-evolved Brit royalist-club equivalent.
Think France going through a turbulent phase, with its bolshy next door neighbour heaping endless trouble – not only on its doorstep, but through traipsing deeply and endlessly in heavy boots through the entire house …
Evidence from NT. On Pentecost Day People from Asia was at Jerusalem (approximate 2030 years ago)
Acts 2:5-13
New International Version
5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,[a] 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”
13 Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.”
What evidence Hugh you want?
The National Trust Sri Lanka
·
The Nestorian Cross Of Anuradhapura
In 1912, during routine excavations in the North-East of Anuradhapura’s ancient citadel, a cross was discovered engraved into the side of a smooth granite column of an excavated building. Initially dated to the Portuguese era by the then Archaeological Commissioner of Ceylon Edward Ayrton (1882 – 1914), it was later ascribed a much earlier date by Humphrey Codrington, the British Civil Servant and scholar. This later assessment dated the find to the 5th century AD – within 500 years of the birth of Christ.
Hugh, I think you have to do little bit more research about Jews.
The more realistic-looking an initial iconic (but medieval) artefact – designed in the first instance merely to SIMULATE entirely and legitimately as a visual AID to worship – the easier it then becomes to “progressively” shift stance, to engage in what might be termed “CREEPING DEIFICATION”.
What one sees (or rather has seen, over many centuries) might be described as a sad reflection on the inescapable self-corrupting aspect of human nature…
Hi Hemraj,
You and I seem to have different definitions of evidence. I’m afraid that, to me, your quotation from the bible is no evidence at all that the Shroud was made in India, and the discovery of a 5th century Christian cross in Sri Lanka is no evidence at all that Jewish traders settled there in Solomon’s time.
I could say more on this – Dan’s greatly-to-be-welcomed resurrected site – more, much more, to reinforce what I’ve said many times previously.
But I shan’t.
Use of the Internet has been shown (over the course of some 10 years of personal research) to be a complete and utter waste of time!
Why?
Answer: mainly on account of that appalling major search engine (Google). It merely skims the froth on the surface where the TS and much else is concerned. It fails to target the essentials.
That’s despite the TS having been a major source of interest – scientific v pseudo-scientific – these last decades, nay centuries.
Internet search engines, notably the major one (Google) have shown themselves to be a dead loss. They are, to put it baldly, a modern-day scandal, needing to be abolished (or at any rate radically reformed).
Time now to sit back, wait, see how things develop.
Then, and only then, maybe seek an alternative medium for communicating forcefully what needs to be said re the TS and its grotesque over-promotion, namely as being, it’s falsely claimed, of 1st as distinct from 14th century origin !