In recent years several statistical analyses have been conducted on the radiocarbon dating data, shroud of turin carbon dating, attempting to draw some conclusions about the reliability of the C14 dating from studying the data rather than studying the shroud itself. Pictorial evidence dating from c. Main page Contents Current events Random article About Wikipedia Contact us Donate. ISBN I am, of course, inclined to the latter in both cases.
37 thoughts on “Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data”
Hat tip to Joe Marino for spotting this. The following was published yesterday, March 22,in Archaeometry, a Wiley publication. Link: Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data © Oxford University Abstract: Inthree laboratories performed a radiocarbon analysis of the Turin Shroud, shroud of turin carbon dating. However, the raw data were never released by the institutions.
Inin response to a legal request, all raw data kept by the British Museum were made accessible. A statistical analysis of the Nature article and the raw data strongly suggests that homogeneity is lacking in the data and that the procedure should be reconsidered. Authors: T. MARINELLI Collegamento pro Sindone, Rome, Italy G. TORRISI Department of Economics and Business, University of Catania, Corso Italia 55, Catania CT, Italy. The same rationale applies to the intra-laboratory differences.
We also computed the Ward and Wilson test for the raw radiocarbon dates of Arizona, and in both cases raw 1 and raw 2the null hypothesis was rejected. Using OxCal for Arizona Raw 2, the overall agreement index Based on these results, a relevant problem emerges in the consistency between the Arizona raw radiocarbon dates and the published results from the other laboratories.
Shroud of turin carbon dating sample from the corner of TS has been carbon-dated by Damon et al. However, this result has been disputed recently. Rogers [] compared the properties of fibers from the dated corner with those from other areas of the Shroud, pointing to the significant chemical differences, suggesting that the sample dated originated from repaired area with interpolated material.
This has been further corroborated by Benford and Marino []. Riani et al. New, alternative dating techniques developed by Fanti et al. Basso, R. Monte carlo method applied to the mechanical dating of the turin shroud. MATEC Web of Conferences, Benford, M. and Marino, shroud of turin carbon dating, J.
Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the turin shroud of turin carbon dating. Chemistry Today, 26 4 Damon, P. Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Fanti, G. Non-destructive dating of ancient flax textiles by means of vibrational spectroscopy. Vibrational Spectroscopy, — Mechanical ond opto-chemical dating of shroud of turin carbon dating turin shroud. Riani, M.
Regression analysis with partially labelled regressors: carbon dating of the shroud of turin. Statistics and Computing, 23 4 Rogers, R. Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin. Ther- mochimica Acta, 1 — Dear Hugh, you must have misinterpreted the sentence you quote, shroud of turin carbon dating.
They are not talking about the Shroud as a whole. But, without rancor or accusations of malfeasance or fraud, the authors of the paper move gently but firmly to completely trash the conclusions of the testing. Here is the statement:. This variability of the Nature radiocarbon dates in a few centimeters, if linearly extrapolated to the opposite side of the TS, would lead to a dating in the future. This paper totally discredits the results of the radiocarbon dating as related to the entire Shroud.
Shroud of turin carbon dating paper is a PROFOUND game changer. after 30 years of critical data tragically being unavailable. The result must be discarded unless you believe the Shroud is yet to come into existence in the FUTURE.
It may take some time for it to sink in and to become widely known to the general public, but the dating results are simply being set aside. I think it is an amazing coincidence that this paper is posted on this blog just three days or so after Dan started reposting. A strange coincidence?
But in any case Dan, thank you. Your timing is impeccable and I pray your blog is widely accessed as it has been in the past. Bless you. I fear I disagree. Much is made, quite validly, about the chronological gradient of the sample, which, to my mind, shroud of turin carbon dating, if genuine, is more likely to indicate some kind of very minor contamination, perhaps of an oily nature, and probably of marine or mineral hydrocarbon origin. I accept that another hypothesis is that this gradient can be extrapolated towards the middle of the cloth, making the centre of it date far into the future, but, in the absence of any good reason why it should be so, do not give it credence myself.
However, the inhomogeneity of the sample is certainly not a game changer. As I said before, it is more like a game clarifier. Had the British Museum co-ordinators known the order of the samples, and hypothesised the gradient, I think their final conclusion would have been even more conclusive, not less. Hi Hugh, I would like to send you a private message. Could you send me an e-mail address so that I may do so?
Cordialement Patrick. Inhomogeneity of the sample means that THE sample in this particular problem is simply a garbage -for whatever reason statistics alone does not specify it. You cannot make any valid conclusion based on it. Any extrapolation towards the center of the cloth is pointlessbecause: 1 linear regression is only first approximation 2 inhomogenity may be not regular. Either Fanti is right, or C is right or neither of them.
C date has been scientifically challenged in peer-reviewed literature and not only -there are many good non peer-revieved papers on the matter, which shroud of turin carbon dating, cannot be cited in most peer-reviewed publications. So far, no one has challenged Fanti in proper scientific way. We have a sample of two mammals: me and my dog. On average we have 3 legs.
The measured average number of legs of a mammal; is then 3. The C measurement of Shroud sample yielded result after callibaration, shroud of turin carbon dating. But statistically speaking, one part of the sample is years older than the other.
And the probability that this just a statistical error shroud of turin carbon dating is that the obtained results were drawn from inherently imprecise -containing statistical errors -measurements of the homogeneous sample -the p-value -is unacceptably low, shroud of turin carbon dating. This means that if the Shroud had been woven at one time in, say AD -it is very unlikely we would have obtained the results we had.
And the hypothesis that the different parts of the Shroud were woven at different times, is absurd. Then is like the average number of 3 legs among mammals. There are the various not all that I know are included! results of various datings of the Shroud and related cloths Sudarium of Oviedo and the Tunic of Argenteuil by various methods. The numbers are actually a complete mess -almost each result contradicts almost all of the others.
Yet here we are being asked to pay to see what it has or has not revealed regarding the Linen and its surviving content of C! Why bother at all with statistics — which is, after all, a separate discipline from science? Random sampling is the ONLY WAY one can have any degree of confidence NOT absolute certainty whether low, intermediate or high, in the validity of final conclusions about the population, if based merely selecting small samples.
So, yes, not surprisingly, the decision was made to restrict sampling to a corner region that pesky real world intruding yet again! So, non-random sampling of the Linen AND non-random division of the single sample! Er, let me guess…. Realistically speaking, the primary purpose was NOT to yield a final gold-standard answer.
Yes, a third source of non-homogeneity! Simple eye-balling of results says that all 3 labs came back with a date somewhere between the mid 13th and late 14th century! That suggests to me that while the non-existent statistical design was less-than-ideal, sob, sob, reflecting the intrusion of extraneous considerations, the actual methodology was reasonably reproducible, probably basically sound. Indeed the answers, even with the modest degree of scatter around mean, were in my humble view remarkably consistent.
The ranging shot exercise had served its purpose with minimal disfiguration to the Linen. OK, so there were inhomogeneities where data spread was concerned, with the possibility of SMALL but significant numerical trends across the width of that corner sample but NOT based on random sampling so therefore statistically OTT.
To which I say: data collection must take precedence, albeit preliminary ranging-shot data first, then checked and re-checked. Are we looking at sampling error?
Or are eternal optimists angling for the intervention of a a mind-boggling supernatural phenomenon — based on the claim of shoddy statistics — when statistics were if the truth be told sidelined, indeed ignored from the outset? Collin, you forget the comments so soon regarding the issue of retesting. It is only a couple of days ago.
2012 international dating sites in the world
This means that if the Shroud had been woven at one time in, say AD -it is very unlikely we would have obtained the results we had.
And the hypothesis that the different parts of the Shroud were woven at different times, is absurd. Then is like the average number of 3 legs among mammals. There are the various not all that I know are included! results of various datings of the Shroud and related cloths Sudarium of Oviedo and the Tunic of Argenteuil by various methods.
The numbers are actually a complete mess -almost each result contradicts almost all of the others. Yet here we are being asked to pay to see what it has or has not revealed regarding the Linen and its surviving content of C! Why bother at all with statistics — which is, after all, a separate discipline from science? Random sampling is the ONLY WAY one can have any degree of confidence NOT absolute certainty whether low, intermediate or high, in the validity of final conclusions about the population, if based merely selecting small samples.
So, yes, not surprisingly, the decision was made to restrict sampling to a corner region that pesky real world intruding yet again! So, non-random sampling of the Linen AND non-random division of the single sample! Er, let me guess…. Realistically speaking, the primary purpose was NOT to yield a final gold-standard answer. Yes, a third source of non-homogeneity! Simple eye-balling of results says that all 3 labs came back with a date somewhere between the mid 13th and late 14th century!
That suggests to me that while the non-existent statistical design was less-than-ideal, sob, sob, reflecting the intrusion of extraneous considerations, the actual methodology was reasonably reproducible, probably basically sound. Indeed the answers, even with the modest degree of scatter around mean, were in my humble view remarkably consistent.
The ranging shot exercise had served its purpose with minimal disfiguration to the Linen. OK, so there were inhomogeneities where data spread was concerned, with the possibility of SMALL but significant numerical trends across the width of that corner sample but NOT based on random sampling so therefore statistically OTT.
To which I say: data collection must take precedence, albeit preliminary ranging-shot data first, then checked and re-checked. Are we looking at sampling error? Or are eternal optimists angling for the intervention of a a mind-boggling supernatural phenomenon — based on the claim of shoddy statistics — when statistics were if the truth be told sidelined, indeed ignored from the outset?
Collin, you forget the comments so soon regarding the issue of retesting. It is only a couple of days ago. Test, test, test. But other testing must now be allowed before another go at traditional carbon date testing. If you would agree to that, then we would be on the same page. Best regards. Sorry, I disagree profoundly, Robert. We are not on the same page. Indeed we are reading from different books. Mine has just one word on the cover : SCIENCE. Yours has additional words.
So the next step MUST BE to repeat the dating with a wider range of sampling sites, if only to see whether the previous estimate of age is confirmed. Then, and only then we can return to hypothesis whether that includes blue-sky speculation or not. Colin, you make a point. Science is a noble and legitimate path to the truth. But science is a process, and a broad multi-disciplinary process, not single thread test based. The truth is the end we are all seeking and different paths can lead to the truth.
At this time other testing, that is also scientific in nature, besides just radiocarbon testing, must come first if the truth about the Shroud is to be advanced. No one is suggesting to turn away from sound scientifically based research. You must agree, as an honest scientist, that the Shroud custodians essentially have shut down access to the Shroud for scientific research after the radiocarbon testing results were announced.
That, as you MUST also acknowledge has hindered for over 30 years now the scientific quest for the truth about the Shroud. You and Hugh should both now be delighted that true additional scientific studies may in the not too distant future now be permitted.
We should all be on the same page for that. But it must be carefully controlled so that the tragic carbon dating fiasco is not, that is never, repeated. Time for this frontline sceptic, correction, realist, to take a break from the eternal headbanging exercise…. KIndly hold off from spotlighting any of my latest new thinking please Dan, whether communicated here or via email. No, it did not. There was fairly conclusive evidence for the medieval origin of the corner strip taken for analysis, certainly, but not for the entire Linen.
That still allows for a tentative conclusion that the entire Linen is of medieval origin, but a return visit for collecting a wider, RANDOM range of samples is needed, at least in the radiocarbon-sceptic world in which we live.
Spokesmen for that second group declared at the St. to repeat the dating over wider sampling sites, since it might return the same dating. That second group wants us to view it as soberly science-based while it plays its silly games with sub-atomic physics, invoking protons for this, neutrons for that.
Surely we can now move on to dark matter and dark energy. I saw one enthusiast suggesting the image could have been etched by the body of Christ being instantly converted from matter to energy. My rough calculation was that this would have been an energy release equivalent to 80, Hiroshima scale nuclear bombs.
I think that would have laid waste to much of the Middle East. Even if one gave science a brief holiday, and entertained albeit briefly the notion of the resurrectional selfie, there are profound difficulties. Top of my list would be the means by which selectivity of action at numerous levels could be assured.
How can there selective scorching of linen at the gross level, without simultaneous scorching of hair at the same time to say nothing of heat-sensitive molecules in blood, skin etc. And what about that so-called half-tone effect, where two linen fibres can exist side by side, one coloured yellow with image chromophore, the other totally uncoloured?
In relation to radiocarbon dating I would like to know your opinion on Christen, J. Summarizing a Set of Radiocarbon Determinations: A Robust Approach. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society.
Series C Applied Statistics , 43 3 , Christen used a fairly simple technique of his own to analyse the 12 dates given by the Nature paper on the radiocarbon testing, treating them all as independent, and decided that the oldest and the youngest were outliers. Outliers can be difficult statistical anomalies at the best of times, and deciding whether the two extremes of a range of measurements are outliers is even more contentious.
However, once these were eliminated, the others were sufficiently coherent for him to consider them all consistent. Riani and Atkinson, however, built on the inconsistency observed by the authors of the Nature paper, and determined a hypothetical chronological gradient along the 4cm or 5cm strip cut into pieces for testing.
Although their gradient is statistically satisfying, it is not empirically verifiable, as the 12 pieces upon which they based their results were not recorded in position, and are now, of course, destroyed. This is not the case.
There is nothing about the inconsistencies in the radiocarbon measurements that contradicts a medieval date, and plenty to refute a first century one. I am, of course, inclined to the latter in both cases. Only the mathematical possibility of a distortion factor does not imply the invalidation of its results. We need to know a factual possibility. That is to say, which empirical variable could produce a deviation of more than a millennium in the data.
Having discarded some spurious proposals -Kuznetsov, bioplastic layer, neutron discharge, etc. Of course, the invisible mending is the only viable option -and it has been shown by Rogers. It also explains the statistical deviations, showing that the mean value is actually not trustworthy.
Just 3 legs for an average mammal, based on a sample consisting of a human and a dog. The whole corner has been meticulously restored, thread after thread, and then in it was foolishly cut for a single sample for C dating. And then surprise, we have garbage results. The C datings are today just a history without any scientific value. They are contradicted by numerous other research, both historical and regarded to material dating: Codex Pray, Robert de Clari testimony, Byzantine icons and coins, Sudarium of Oviedo, as well as Rogers vanilin loss estimates, and Fanti et al.
alternative datings based on material from different Shroud areas provided by both Riggi and STURP. The C has been falsified by other research. Stephen Jones also has the only viable option — different again. For me, the idea that the corner has been meticulously restored lacks credibility, both technically and contextually. If the research into the corollaries is more compelling than the disputed results, it may call them into further question, which is not the same thing. are compelling.
Its never done now. Secondly in order to hold them together they were glued with a resin. Thirdly both ends were made entirely of cotton. pdf -there is a soot on its surface most likely due to the bombing in , and the Tunic of Argenteuil which also has inconsistent C datings see table at pg. There are many results that contradict the results of Damon et al. Yet some people want to stick to them at all costs -especially the trolls that control english Wikipedia which is worse than communist propaganda when Poland was in the Soviet block.
This is completely unscientific. Bella et al tried to undermine Rogers -but actually they failed, nitpicking only the tertiary detail. Contradictory results are common in science. There were also results that were discredited in science. had he been right, it could not have been external galaxy. But it turned his measurements were actually wrong.
Just as C datings of the Shroud are wrong. According to the logic of C results fanatics, there are no other galaxies in the Universe besides Milky Way. I think at this moment we can safely assume that the Shroud dates BEFORE AD -but we cannot give any precise dating. This does not advance the debate a single step.
Tell us what is the most important proof of the authenticity of the Holy Shroud and we will see. I think that Hugh has explained very well why the statistical analysis is irrelevant in itself if you want to claim authenticity of the Shroud.
Can you add something? Then we should expect that all the statistical deviations are just results of purely random errors, following normal Gaussian distribution. This is true in case of the control samples. We must reject at least two of the measurements as outliers to have the results significant while all the measurements devices seem to work fine for control samples. More, there seems to be a systematic correlation between the lenght of the sample and date obtained.
This should not happen, had the cloth been relatively uniform. Statistically , one end of the sample seems to be nearly years older than the other but ONLY statistically, this may not reflect reality. Then there are all other contradictions I listed: Fanti et al. datings, vanillin content, Sudarium of Oviedo, Byzantine coins etc.
The C corner has been meticulously rewoven, restored in modern 16thth century times. Thread by thread, so there are no differences visible to the naked eye and X-ray and transmitted light photographs are difficult to interpret. This shows that the material in C sample is DIFFERENT and younger than in the rest ofd the Shroud.
And this is consistent with all other results -statistical deviations, Fanti et al. results, historical consideration and so on. We know that this area got ripped and was restored. Then in it was sampled for C dating which was plain stupidity. Garbage sample provided garbage results.
We just know that the C datings have been discredited by all the evidence. The best we can do, is to follow Fanti et al. datings, which still need to cross-checked by other measurements to check their reliability.
And all what I have written above it is not the case for or against the authenticity of the Shroud. It is a case for a good scientific practice. As a group of independent measurements, none of them is more than 2 SD from the mean. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin.
The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved. The carbon dating test results present problems for religious people who wanted to believe the scourged and crucified man had been Jesus.
Bedford and Marino claimed that the sample that was carbon-dated came from a section of the shroud that had been expertly repaired to be undetectable by the naked eye. Ray Rogers, one of the lead research scientists involved with STURP, became furious when he found out the integrity of his work product had been challenged by amateurs in a published, peer-reviewed paper. He said the claims of Benford and Marino were absurd and promised to prove they were wrong by testing material from the original sample still in his possession.
Instead, Rogers found powerful evidence suggesting Benford and Marino had been absolutely correct in saying the material for the original carbon dating tests had been taken from a contaminated section of the shroud, identifying cotton fibers in the sample not found in the rest of the shroud. He proposed testing the scorch marks on the shroud for more accurate carbon dating. The new tests have recently been performed, putting the shroud in the right time frame so that it could be authentic.
Shortly before dying of cancer, Ray Rogers published a paper refuting the earlier carbon dating results from the tests performed in , on the basis the sample was flawed.
But had he? The Shroud of Turin once covered the bloodied corpse of a crucified man. The image on the shroud was created by a still unidentified process. It was not painted. From pollen and flower tests, we also know the shroud was once in or very near to Jerusalem.
And now we even know that the shroud could have been in Jerusalem in 33 AD. The shroud temporarily covered the mortal remains of Jesus the Christ while He was in the tomb prior to His resurrection.
com called to my attention that the original article incorrectly cited a paper published by Benford and Marino. The link has been corrected to point to the paper in this edited version. John, the paper linked to by you in this posting, the paper you say made Rogers furious, refers to the late Ray Rogers. See my posting at shroud at shroudstory.
Last Name. Make this an anonymous donation.
No comments:
Post a Comment