Turin shroud older than thought

[nichomach]

BBC Linkage

The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to a new study in a peer-reviewed journal.

A research paper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.

The author dismisses 1988 carbon dating tests which concluded that the linen sheet was a medieval fake.

The shroud, which bears the faint image of a blood-covered man, is believed by some to be Christ's burial cloth.


The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic
Raymond Rogers

Raymond Rogers says that his research and chemical tests show the sample used in the 1988 radiocarbon analysis was cut from a medieval patch woven into the shroud to repair fire damage.

This was responsible for an erroneous date being assigned to the original shroud cloth.

"The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic," said Mr Rogers, who is a retired chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, US...In his study, Mr Rogers analysed and compared the sample used in the 1988 tests with other samples from the famous cloth.

Microchemical tests, which use tiny quantites of materials, demonstrated that the shroud must be older than previously thought.

These tests revealed the presence of a chemical called vanillin in the radiocarbon sample and in the Holland cloth, but not the rest of the shroud.

Vanillin is produced by the thermal decomposition of lignin, a chemical compound found in plant material such as flax. Levels of vanillin in material such as linen fall over time, so it provides one way to date the shroud.

"The fact that vanillin cannot be detected in the lignin on shroud fibres, Dead Sea scrolls linen and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old," Mr Rogers writes.

"A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old."

This, of course, doesn't prove that the shroud is genuine, but it does indicate that the radiocarbon study on which many of the assertions that the shroud is a fake are based may have been carried out using some quite sloppy procedures with regard to sample selection. Essentially, all it proved was that a sample which should have been known to be medieval was medieval, whereas the actual shroud could be anywhere between 1300 and 3000 years old but is definitely not a medieval fake.

Any thoughts, opinions?

[Kumagoro]

I vaguely remember seeing a documentry about the carbon dating ... this was ages ago.
I remember the sample being cut off from the edge of the thing and it didnt look like it
had been repaired in anyway.... but its such a long time ago now i cant be sure at all.

Well why dont they date it again....

[nichomach]

Seems like an obvious idea to me - aside from the wonky carbon dating, all the other evidence indicates that it's considerably older than 1290, but it'd be nice to be sure.

[yamangman]

Well, this new research has certainly narrowed it down....

Where does the idea come from that it is a medieval 'fake' - a fake? What precisely is it faking? It's nowt but an old fella on a bit of material.