Was the Dating a Hoax?
Seventeen years after a highly publicized study announced the Shroud of Turin to be a medieval "hoax" dating from the years 1260 to 1390, American chemist Raymond Rogers has just published a report in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta (January 2005) with evidence that the 1988 study's carbon-14 dating of the Shroud was invalid.
Though not denying the accuracy of the C-14 study in dating the sample it had, Rogers produces evidence that the section of the Shroud from which the sample was drawn for the study was a patch, invisibly rewoven into the Shroud during the medieval period. Consequently, argues Rogers, the 1988 study's approximate 1325 A.D. dating of the entire Shroud is false.
A Surprising Discovery
Soon after the results were released from the 1988 C-14 study, hypotheses began to surface refuting its dating. While some were mere conjecture, others were based on more scientific evidence pointing to why the cloth could not, as a whole, be medieval, pointing to such evidence as the properties of the image on the cloth, which could not have been reproduced in medieval times.
Rogers' report, however, is the first to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. A fellow at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Arizona), Rogers led the chemical team examining the Shroud in the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP).
Rogers began his study when he came across a report by Sue Benford and Joseph Marino saying they could see a visible difference between the area where the 1988 sample was cut and the rest of the Shroud. Rogers, who usually viewed attempts to invalidate the 1988 study as "ludicrous," he told us, set out to show their claim was wrong, but in the process, he discovered they were correct.
Comparing threads from the 1988 C-14 sample with threads taken from other parts of the Shroud in previous studies, Rogers found that the 1988 sample had completely different chemical and physical properties from the rest of the Shroud. The 1988 sample had the presence of artificial dye and a chemical called vanillin, while neither was found in the samples from the rest of the cloth.
The presence of vanillin, which decreases over time, in the 1988 sample indicates that it was dated correctly by the C-14 test; however, its absence elsewhere in the Shroud points to the cloth being old enough to be that of Christ. "A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss (in the original cloth) suggests that the Shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old," writes Rogers in his report.
Rogers confirmed his chemical analysis with photographs of the Shroud taken in 1978 by Vern Miller and Barrie Schwortz (see photos), which showed a visible difference between the section from which the 1988 sample came and the rest of the cloth.
Explaining Turin's Mistake
How could the first Church-authorized scientific study to date the Shroud have chosen a re-woven sample, rather than a piece of the original? The answer is not clear.
When the process began, in 1986, to have the Shroud dated by carbon-14 testing, a protocol was initially drawn up including seven radiocarbon dating labs around the world.
But in 1987, the then-cardinal of Turin, Anastasio Alberto Ballestrero, announced that on the advice of his scientific advisor, Luigi Gonella, only three laboratories would be used for the study, a decision criticized by the directors of all the original laboratories, as well as by Dr. Harry Gove, who invented the AMS technology used in the 1988 radiocarbon dating.
The protocol was changed again when only one sample was selected from the cloth to be tested, a move that immediately sparked further controversy in the greater scientific community interested in the Shroud. "There has been an outcry without ceasing since that time," said Michael Minor, the general councilor of the American Shroud of Turin Association for Research (AMSTAR). "The scientific community was polarized by that study."
Rogers is quick to blame the Church and scientific authorities in Turin, citing their lack of cooperation with the broader scientific community and failure to follow what he says is standard scientific protocol in gathering evidence.
"The sampling operation should have involved many persons from different fields before cutting anything," Rogers said. "And if you really want to get a radiocarbon data, take a lot of samples."
Asked whether he thought the authorities at Turin had been aware of such evidence as the 1978 photographs indicating that the corner of the Shroud from which they took the sample was unlike the rest of the cloth, Rogers responded that "it doesn't matter if they ignored it or were unaware of it. Part of science is to assemble all the pertinent data. They didn't even try."
Turin's Reaction Today
Rogers' study has generally been received by the press and the scientific community associated with the Shroud as convincing evidence that the 1988 study was in fact based on a medieval rewoven section of the cloth. The study was released and promoted by AMSTAR, an association of scientists who participated in STURP.
Meanwhile, the reaction in the archdiocese of Turin to Rogers' study reveals the complex dynamics surrounding one of Christendom's most revered treasures.
Though the Church officials who led the 1988 study are now long retired, a tension seems to continue between those in Turin most closely associated with the Shroud and the larger scientific community, of which Rogers is a part.
The Shroud is owned by the Pope and his successors, but is under the custodianship of the archbishop of Turin, who is now Cardinal Severino Poletto.
In making decisions about the Shroud, Cardinal Poletto relies upon the counsel of various scientific advisors, most important of whom is Msgr. Giuseppe Ghiberti, who is both the cardinal's spokesman and president of the Diocesan Commission for the Holy Shroud.
And closely connected to the archdiocese is the Center for the Study of the Shroud, a group of Turin professors and scientists, and Dr. Mechtilde Flery-Lemberg, a textile conservationist who led the 2002 restoration job on the Shroud.
The first words from Turin authorities, where the Shroud is held, dismissed Rogers' research.
Msgr. Ghiberti said in a January 22 article in the Italian newspaper Avvenire that Dr. Mechtilde Flery-Lemberg "examined the Shroud with great care and has absolutely not seen any sign of added textile . . . the lining was also removed and for the first time in 500 years we saw the reverse side of the cloth. There is no sign of a mend."
In 2002, Dr. Flery-Lemberg, who has been given almost exclusive access to the Shroud by Turin authorities, carried out tests to discover the presence of a patch, responding to circulated reports about its existence.
"I am surprised that a specialist like Rogers can fall into such lack of precision in his article," Msgr. Ghiberti told Avvenire. "I should expect, rather, that the C-14 dating could be rectified, but not on the basis of the patch hypothesis."
In early February, however, Turin seemed to change its initial position when the Diocesan Commission for the Holy Shroud released another statement calling Rogers' study "very interesting" and a basis for future study "on the chemical characteristics of the cloth and its possible inhomogeneity."
But while noting that Rogers found new evidence that the 1988 sample had the presence of dye not found on other samples of the cloth, the statement said that Rogers' argument that the 1988 study was based on a medieval patch "has not been confirmed by the textile experts and researchers who have examined it."
Dr. Flery-Lemberg could not be reached for comment, but Minor says that she does not agree with Rogers' study, a position also indicated by Msgr. Ghiberti's earlier remarks.
Not surprisingly, the Vatican has not made any public remarks, as the Pope usually does not publicly intervene in matters that are under the custodianship of another diocese.
Rogers defended his study to Inside the Vatican, saying that the Turin "experts are embarrassed and protecting their reputations," and that they are not experts in the correct fields.
"A textile expert knows all about spinning and weaving, thread counts, etc.," said Rogers. "They do not think in terms of chemistry. This was an occasion when the composition of the cloth was important."
According to Barrie Schwortz, official documentary photographer for STURP, tension between the Turin Shroud experts and the greater scientific community dates back to the 1978 STURP project, which gathered American scientists together to examine the image on the Shroud.
Schwortz suggested that the American STURP scientists, who went on to publish a great deal of material on the Shroud research, "threatened the authority" of Turin experts.
Dame Isabel Piczek, a particle physicist and professionally-trained artist who has studied the Shroud, while praising the Center for the Study of the Shroud and Dr. Flery-Lemberg and Msgr. Ghiberti for their work on behalf of the Shroud, stressed the need for each expert to respect the limits of his or her own field.
In the case of discovering an invisible reweave, she says, chemical analysis such as Rogers' is necessary.
"It is not good enough just to look (with the naked eye) for a re-woven patch," Piczek told Inside the Vatican. "It is an invisible reweave, which requires microscopic and microchemical analysis (to discover)."
"Rogers' paper has to be accepted," Piczek said. "New discoveries always cause lots of controversy, but (Rogers' report) should be trusted because it was published in a peer-reviewed journal."
Future of the Shroud
It remains unknown whether the Shroud will be made available for further tests to establish its dating.
"There have been so many conflicting reports about C-14 tests," Minor said. "Until C-14 methods improve, I don't blame the Church for not allowing additional testing."
Msgr. Ghiberti told Inside the Vatican that while he thinks the Church will make the Shroud available for further scientific analysis, he does not know when, and seems to agree with Rogers that a more scientific method is needed to approach the Shroud.
"I think that it is good that research continues to improve, but we need a good, very scientific, organic program," Msgr. Ghiberti said.
To further complicate matters, the 2002 restoration project of the Shroud may have eliminated the data necessary to test the date of the Shroud.
"Turin has done more damage to the Shroud than did the fire of 1532," said Rogers, adding that the restoration job is a "good example of what can happen to destroy chances of future studies when chemistry is completely destroyed."
In the midst of the debate about the Shroud, pilgrims still continue to visit Turin to honor what many believe is the burial cloth of Christ and a sign of His Resurrection.
"(After the 1988 study), we did not have fewer pilgrims," said Msgr. Ghiberti. "The general interest of the people was no less curious and affectionate than in the past."
While science cannot prove that the Shroud is Christ's — "there is no fingerprint for Jesus," Minor points out — it can disprove false claims that it is not.
It seems that Raymond Rogers has done just that, but it remains to be seen whether those closest to the Shroud in Turin will agree.
© Urbi et Orbi Communications
This item 6567 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
