Study of data from 1988 Shroud of Turin testing suggests mistakes

Shroud of Turin

A team of researchers from France and Italy has found evidence that suggests testing of the Shroud of Turin back in 1988 was flawed. In their paper published in Oxford University's Archaeometry, the group describes their reanalysis of the data used in the prior study, and what they found.

Back in 1988, a team of researchers was granted access to the Shroud of Turin—a small piece of cloth that many believe was used to cover the face of Christ after crucifixion. As part of the research effort, several research entities were chosen to examine individual pieces of cloth from the shroud, but in the end, only three were allowed to do so: The University of Arizona in the U.S., the Federal Institute of Technology in Switzerland and Oxford University in the U.K.

After testing was concluded, the researchers announced that all three research groups had dated their cloth snippets to a time between 1260 and 1390—evidence that the shroud was not from the time of Christ. But there was a problem with the findings—the Vatican, which owns the shroud, refused to allow other researchers access to the data. In this new effort, the research team sued the University of Oxford, which had the data, for access—and won. After studying the data for two years, the new research team announced that the study from 1988 was flawed because it did not involve study of the entire shroud—just some edge pieces. Edge pieces from the shroud are rumored to have been tampered with by nuns in the Middle Ages seeking to restore damage done to the shroud over the years. In a recent interview with L"Homme Nouveau, Tristan Casabianca, team lead on the new effort, claimed that the raw data from the 1988 tests showed that the test samples were heterogeneous, invalidating the results.

The researchers suggest that new studies must be conducted on the shroud if its true date is to be ascertained. For that to happen, the Vatican will once again have to provide access to the shroud, which appears to be in doubt, as officials with the church have proven reluctant to allow further testing.


Explore further

New study suggests Shroud of Turin a fake, supporting study retracted

More information: T. Casabianca et al. Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data, Archaeometry (2019). DOI: 10.1111/arcm.12467

Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, Nature, Vol. 337, No. 6208, pp. 611-615, 16th February, 1989. www.nature.com/articles/337611a0

Journal information: Archaeometry , Nature

© 2019 Science X Network

Citation: Study of data from 1988 Shroud of Turin testing suggests mistakes (2019, July 24) retrieved 18 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-07-shroud-turin.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
2460 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 24, 2019
In any case, it's an obvious fake.

Jul 24, 2019
Jesus was from Nazareth, that makes Him a Nazarene.
He was Not a Nazarite (a religious sect whose members had long hair and beards).
He was, also, Not a Roman nosed pretty boy, as depicted in all illustrations of Him.
(Isaiah 53:2) "he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him."
Also, the first picture of Jesus was not painted until 300 years after His ascension.
(a point which makes a reasonable likeness highly unlikely. They didn't have Polaroids back then)
So, as roger said, an Obvious fake.

Jul 24, 2019
They studied the Shroud data for two years and came up with conclusions that could have been arrived at from publicly available data, that is, that the samples came from the edges and the date ranges that the researchers determined.

They are basing their conclusion not on the actual data but on rumours that the shroud was repaired in the middle ages and the promise that if the threads in the middle of the shroud were tested there would be a different result, this said knowing that it could never be tested.

Findings based on rumour and conjecture, obviously the researchers were not scientists.

Jul 24, 2019
"...obviously the researchers were not scientists."

IMHO, that's a gross over-simplification, and unkind, too.
Analogy is dropping your keys in the street, but only being allowed to look for them directly under the street-lights...

Jul 24, 2019
this is an interesting parallel between the Vatican controlling the evidence, rigging access to the alleged shroud

& trump claiming innocence of collusion, high misdemeanors, sexual deviancy & being the head of an organized crime family
because?
he controls access to the evidence against him & his minions
therefore "proving" he is innocent of any possible charges

so?
if i murdered you?

& successfully hide your corpse
& the murder weapon & other physical evidence ?
including video of me killing you
& i forcibly silence every potential witness of my crime?

then you are miraculously reincarnated to serve as as a juror at my trial?
you must vote me innocent

that's impeachable logic
i'm getting mighty fond of using that phrase

Jul 24, 2019
The edge theory has been asserted since the study was done, that's hardly new. There may be something to it, and further testing would be a good idea, but the Vatican is not likely to allow it.

In any case, who cares, it's a known fake, the first mention of it in history (around the mid 1300's) is a letter from a Bishop to the Pope, telling him the shroud was a fake and the forger had confessed. Great provenance! Now, it may have been another shroud, but that only illustrates how many "artifacts" were around in the middle ages. As some fella once said, there were enough slivers of the true cross to build Noah's ark.

Jul 24, 2019
In this new effort, the research team sued the University of Oxford...
Well, there's a research strategy I've not seen before...

rogerdallas:
In any case, it's an obvious fake.
Yeah, a forgery. No one seem to have figured out exactly how the image was made, although there are theories. Would be interesting to find that out.

RobertKarlStonjek:
They are basing their conclusion not on the actual data but on rumours that the shroud was repaired in the middle ages ...
No. They found that the 1988 raw data showed the samples were heterogeneous, thus making the previous dating and any based on those samples invalid. This result is consistent with the nuns story.


Jul 24, 2019
(Isaiah 53:2) "he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him."
More pointedly, "His visage was so marred above that of any man." My mother would argue that was a reference to his beating. But it can only refer to an exceptional ugliness. Were his face so beaten up worse that any physical thrashing before suffered by anyone else in war or robbery, etc. he'd have been unconscious on the ground before meeting Pilate, and it would be a miracle right there if he were even alive.

No crucifixion would have been necessary.

Not only that, but the natural affinity of pronouns in the Zacchaeus incident, and the geometry of climbing the tree for a better view favors--strongly favors--the non-eisegetical view that it was Christ who was "short of stature". In summary, the writings are describing a Messiah who is short, and ugly to the point of truly... r e p u l s i v e.

KBK
Jul 24, 2019
"As some fella once said, there were enough slivers of the true cross to build Noah's ark."

the late middle ages version of Nigerian princes?

Jul 24, 2019
"the late middle ages version of"
credulous brits & euros practicing simony

Jul 24, 2019
"a small piece of cloth that many believe was used to cover the face of Christ after crucifixion."

As I recall, the Shroud is a full-length cloth with the (very faint) appearance of having been folded over the head of a crucified corpse, so that one end shows the front and the other end shows the back (with the feet at the extreme ends). Part of its identification as Christ is a stain supposedly corresponding with the wound made when the centurion stabbed the body in the side to confirm he was dead, and stains on the brow supposedly due to the crown of thorns.

Ah, here: https://news.nati...science/

Jul 25, 2019
But there was a problem with the findings—the Vatican, which owns the shroud, refused to allow other researchers access to the data. In this new effort, the research team sued the University of Oxford, which had the data, for access—and won.
I don't understand this. I get that the Vatican owns the shroud but why/how did/would they restrict access to the *research* on the shroud? Apparently the universities which examined the shroud signed a contract which transferred the copyright of the research data to the Vatican.

That's weird and bizarre enough already (it sounds like the Vatican *employed* the universities) but why would they also agree to a contract which fully excluded third party access to the data? What kind of preposterous scheme is this, I've never heard about (non national security related) "proprietary research data" before.

So noone beside the Vatican and these three universities has seen this data since 1988.. Really?

Jul 25, 2019
What kind of preposterous scheme is this, I've never heard about (non national security related) "proprietary research data" before.


I guess the intention of the longest surviving organized crime family in the world was to publicize the conclusions if it bolstered their con game, and hide the data so that no one can take a look and verify. If they were successful in arm-twisting universities to keep the data under lock and key, I am sure the original conclusions could also have been influenced by the crime family.

Jul 25, 2019
Even the edge criticism is invalid because if I recall correctly there was a PBS special - perhaps Nova in the late 1990s? - done on the testing by one of the labs, probakyb at the University of Arizona. I believe the gentleman looked at a paint specimen discovered on the shroud fragment, and using a microscope and his knowledge of chemistry, concluded the color and/or type of paint was developed in the Europe during the13th to 14th centuries. This paint fragment, while pulled from the edge, is also seen in the figure.

Jul 25, 2019
The religious myth is just that, and scientists that claim else would have to provide extraordinary evidence to back their extraordinary claim. In this case the imprint is obviously not human, since it is distorted and IIRC too long (about 2 m, not impossible but unlikely), and there is the provenance of claimed confessed fake as zorro6204 reminds us.

The original research was published by 21 scientists in Nature (impact factor 42 today; "the answer to everything" ;-).

This so called research was published by people from a private address in France, an Italian public web site for "scholars of the Schroud [sic]" [ http://www.sindon...TORY.HTM ] respectively from a Department of Economics and Business [!] at a university in Italy.

- tbctd -

Jul 25, 2019
- ctd -

It has been "published" in an archaeological journal (impact factor 1.1 https://www.journ...aeometry ) and apparently no peer but only editorial review [ https://onlinelib...ors.html ].

The original paper mention how the researchers - with the help of textile experts - took a strip adjacent to an earlier sample but "on the main body of the shroud away from any patches and charred areas". The three groups examined the material and removed foreign material, which should exclude heterogeneities, then cleaned the material in many different ways. The 3 groups found that only 1 of 4 subsamples had unexplained errors, and 2 of the 3 remaining agreed with the shroud history (i.e. its presentation to the public). I don't know of restoration of religious material, but I note that the article claims it is a rumor and not a fact.

- tbctd -

Jul 25, 2019
- ctd -

The new paper mainly repeat the analysis to find again that some samples have unexplained errors, and that the datings as a whole then is statistically heterogeneous. The separate cleaning methods are not discussed, nor the result using the useful datings, likely because it is a self proclaimed religious scholar analysis aimed at criticism of data (several decades after the fact and with incomplete material) rather than scientific analysis aiming at dating an object.

Better, scientific criticism was published at the time of the original data, pointing out that they had mistreated the source of unexplained errors so it could not be reconstructed. But AFAIK the consensus is that the analysis stands on the remaining data. But besides using modern analysis they also, rightly, points out that modern analysis would be blinded. However, with all the data, errors and all, agreeing on medieval times, the old analysis is not wrong.

Jul 25, 2019
They found that the 1988 raw data showed the samples were heterogeneous, thus making the previous dating and any based on those samples invalid.


Even if the previous analysis did not suffice, which it seems to do, all they conclude is that they cannot rule out the medieval age - since that is what the data says - but that the original 95 % uncertainty interval is unreliable.

I don't understand this. I get that the Vatican owns the shroud but why/how did/would they restrict access to the *research* on the shroud.


No one did. The new paper refer to a letter in Nature by another "Shroud scholar" which was aggravated by that none of the authors of the paper were present at a meeting by "scholars" devoted to the cottage industry of religious discussion of the Turin shroud.

***

TL;DR: This was a piece of "biblical history" - the subject "is not even wrong" - that should not have been published in an archaeological journal, and the apparent lack of peer review astounds me.

Jul 25, 2019
I say these artifacts should be tested to destruction the way they used to test the faith of wayward xians. Its important enough to find out if god is real or not, isnt it? And if theyre fake through and through then why wouldnt the church want to know that?

Chop them up, test every last square inch. With the utmost care and professionalism of course. Take lots of pics.

Jul 29, 2019
Jesus will not approve of all this idolatry over the shroud.
Praise the Lord

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more