PDA

View Full Version : Shroud of Turin - New Date?



Teallaura
05-26-2014, 08:00 PM
New scientific tests on the Shroud of Turin, which went on display Saturday in a special TV appearance introduced by the Pope, dates the cloth to ancient times, challenging earlier experiments dating it only to the Middle Ages.
Pope Francis sent a special video message to the televised event in the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy, which coincided with Holy Saturday, when Catholics mark the period between Christ's crucifixion on Good Friday and his resurrection on Easter Sunday.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/

Anyone know what the heck they did? It mentions 'infra-red light and spectroscopy' but doesn't give details.

Raphael
05-26-2014, 08:07 PM
Gary Habermas will be happy with that

Paprika
05-26-2014, 10:34 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/

Anyone know what the heck they did? It mentions 'infra-red light and spectroscopy' but doesn't give details.
He really should have published the research in a journal, or at the very least made the relevant scientific reports much more accessible. The only way to find out, at the moment, is to buy his book.

KingsGambit
05-26-2014, 10:42 PM
This is very interesting, though 300 BC to 400 AD is still quite a wide range so certainty will probably never be possible.

But, yes, Habermas should be very pleased as Raph said. He has been one of the few academics to consistently hold to its authenticity.

TimelessTheist
05-27-2014, 04:32 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/

Anyone know what the heck they did? It mentions 'infra-red light and spectroscopy' but doesn't give details.

I'm fairly sure Italian experts, way before this, used this computer imaging software to determin it couldn't have been faked.

rogue06
05-27-2014, 04:43 AM
FWIU, Fanti, as mentioned in your link, employed infra-red light and spectroscopy but appears to have developed his own method of analyzing the data. Essentially he developed a calibration curve based on examining changes in cellulose structure on a few samples of fabrics from an assorted different time periods (ranging from 1000 to 4000 years old) and then figured where the Shroud fit into the results.

Again, FWIU, his original results showed that the Shroud was actually several hundred years older than the time of Christ but Fanti, citing the fire that the Shroud was damaged by in the 16th century, "corrected" the dates and moved the dates up so that the calculated age of the Shroud included the time that Jesus was crucified.

ETA: This from Wikipedia:


In 2013, Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta, a former Vatican journalist, published a book in which they dated the shroud to between 280 BC and 220 AD.[33][206] Fanti and his colleagues conducted a variety of mechanical and chemical tests on fibers which had broken off from the shroud over time, and which had been collected through vacuuming by Riggi during the 1978 STURP tests.[33][216][217] In 2013 Fanti published a paper in the Textile Research Journal explaining his micro-mechanical method and that he had invented and calibrated these tests himself. He stated they had derived an origin for the tested fibers of 400AD, but with an error margin of 400 years due to the unknown influences of temperature and humidity on the samples during their lives.[218] Cesare Nosiglia, Archbishop of Turin and Custodian of the Holy Shroud, responded that "as it is not possible to be certain that the analyzed material was taken from the fabric of the Shroud, the Holy See and the Papal Custodian declare that no serious value can be recognized to the results of such experiments."[219] Skeptic Gian Marco Rinaldi has criticized Fanti’s methods as inadequate, and thus considers his results to be unreliable.[217] In particular he highlights the fact that the fragments of linen fiber available for testing had broken off from the shroud over time, and that these fibers were thus inherently fragile and unrepresentative in terms of strength. He notes also that other factors that affect the apparent aging of a fabric are variable in nature, such as the differing conditions of temperature and humidity, exposure to various chemical agents, mechanical stresses, weather conditions, and the different methods of processing and bleaching the flax to begin with, which would affect the calibration of the tests. He points also to the fact that the shroud is known to have been baked in a fire, and concludes that Fanti’s correction for the potential effects of that fire is “somewhat arbitrary”, as it is calibrated against the effects noted on the baking of a new fabric manufactured using modern technology.[217]


Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Recent_developments)

Leonhard
05-27-2014, 04:50 AM
It sounds very interesting, but since there's no information about the technique used or how it was applied, there's nothing yet that really overturns the original C-14 dating, from my perspective. If its legitimate, that would be very interesting.

Addendum: Given rogue's info, if that's an adequate description, I find this new dating highly dubious.

Teallaura
05-27-2014, 07:15 AM
Thanks, Rogue! :smile:


Um, Leo, Rogue's link is discussing an earlier effort, as near as I can tell. The article I cited specifically states they used samples taken in '88 - the same samples (presumably the spares or controls) that were used for the C-14.

I'd like to know exactly where the sample came from - there were big problems with the '88 sampling. I'm dubious of the '88 date - but if the sample came from the same area, I'm also dubious of this thing (if memory serves, there might be a sample from an undisputed area - but I can't swear to that).

Anyway, thanks, guys! :flowers:

Carrikature
05-27-2014, 07:19 AM
Thanks, Rogue! :smile:


Um, Leo, Rogue's link is discussing an earlier effort, as near as I can tell. The article I cited specifically states they used samples taken in '88 - the same samples (presumably the spares or controls) that were used for the C-14.

I'd like to know exactly where the sample came from - there were big problems with the '88 sampling. I'm dubious of the '88 date - but if the sample came from the same area, I'm also dubious of this thing (if memory serves, there might be a sample from an undisputed area - but I can't swear to that).

Anyway, thanks, guys! :flowers:

Rogue's link is the same effort. Check the dating on the article you linked. Also, the article you linked says where the samples came from:


The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ.

Teallaura
05-27-2014, 07:29 AM
collected through vacuuming by Riggi during the 1978 STURP tests

No, it isn't - they're talking about the '78 exam. And I said my article stated the samples were from '88.

:huh: Haven't had your coffee yet, huh? :wink:

rogue06
05-27-2014, 07:32 AM
Found this article concerning criticism of Fanti by Rinaldi (actually what appears to be a translation of note #17 (http://www.queryonline.it/2013/04/04/sindone-le-datazioni-alternative-di-giulio-fanti/) mentioned in the Wiki entry):


In fabric over time the cellulose in the fibers is altered and degrades. The more time that passes, the greater the alteration. By measuring, in a fabric of unknown age, some parameter that is related to the degree of alteration, and comparing it with the values of the same parameter in ancient fabrics of known ages, the age of the unknown tissue can, in principle, be estimated. This would work if it were not that alterations may proceed at different speeds depending on several factors. In short, the degradation of cellulose is not a clock that always ticks at the same rate (as it is does with the decay of radiocarbon). To take a trivial example, if I meet someone and observe her dress, I can try to figure out if the dress is new or old, looking more or less if it is worn, torn, faded or crumpled. But I can not correctly estimate the age if I do not take into account various other factors such as the quality of the fabric, the conditions in which it was stored and how and how much was used.

The new results.

Fanti has obtained some antique fabrics from different eras of approximately known date. He conducted three sets of measurements using three different methods. In the first and second series he measured certain alterations of cellulose using spectroscopic methods – Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and Raman spectroscopy. For spectroscopic analyses Fanti turned to two more professors, Anna Tinti of Bologna and Pietro Baraldi of Modena. In the third series he measured a set of mechanical parameters, for example the behavior of fibers under tension and the breaking load (with the assistance of a doctoral student, Pierandrea Malfi).

In each series, from measurements on samples of known age, Fanti has constructed a calibration curve, which represents how the trend varies with age. Then he measured the same parameters on the Shroud and derived an estimate of its age by making a comparison with the calibration curve.

Fanti says that he has not found in the literature similar calibration curves for these three methods, and supposes that they have been introduced by him for the first time.

There were nine ancient fabrics used in compiling the calibration curves, with ages from 3000 BC to 1000 AD. Five were from Egypt, three from Israel and one from Peru. He also used two modern fabrics of recent manufacture.

The confidence intervals at 95% for the origin of the fabric of the shroud with the three methods were respectively: 300 BC ± 400 and 200 BC ± 500, 400 AD ± 400. Averaging these values, Fanti arrived at a final result to 33 BC ± 250 and is satisfied that this interval includes the time of Christ.

We see that the three results cover a very wide range, from 300 BC to 400 AD. Considering the bounds of the intervals of confidence, the dates extend further, from 700 BC to 800 AD.

The dispersion would be even greater if Fanti had used his original result for the first series, which was 752 BC ± 400. However here Fanti has made a correction, trying to take into account the effects of the fire of 1532 in which the Shroud was involved, and moved the date from 752 BC to 300 BC. This is based on measurements made on a recent piece of fabric which has been subjected to heating. This correction is somewhat arbitrary. On the one hand it is not known at what temperature and for how long the cloth of the Shroud has been heated by the fire. On the other hand the effects on a new fabric manufactured using modern technology may be different from the effects on the Shroud, also taking into account that the damage triggered by the fire may have worsened over the centuries.

It should be noted that, as he made a correction for the first method, Fanti should also have made a correction for the third method, as results from similar heating tests of modern materials produced an apparent aging “of a few centuries” using this method. However it seems that Fanti decided to rejuvenate the result of the first series, whose original results came out too old, but preferred not to do the same to the third series, whose original results came out too young.

All tests were conducted on individual fibers of flax. These are the ‘elementary’ fibers which make up the threads. The fibers are thin and have a diameter of about 10 or 20 micrometers (thousandths of a millimeter). Thread is manufactured by the twisting together of fibers in the spinning process. Any section of thread may contain a hundred or so fibres.

There is no guarantee that the methods are reliable

The factors that affect the apparent aging of a fabric are variable in nature. We can cite the light, the conditions of temperature and humidity, the presence of dust, exposure to various chemical agents, and mechanical stresses. Also factors that seem insignificant can accumulate a significant effect if continuing for centuries. For example, a linen fabric which is folded can produce damage to the fibers in the bends (which is why today the Shroud is kept fully extended to prevent further damage). In general, the processes of degradation can be very slow and are not easily simulated with laboratory experiments.

Hypothetically, you can imagine some differences in the conditions of preservation of the Shroud compared to other fabrics. The weather conditions, temperature and humidity, were different in Europe from in Egypt or Israel. In particular, moisture is harmful to fabrics and the Egyptian climate is probably drier than the French or Piedmontese. The methods of processing flax in Europe in the 14th century may have been different from those of ancient Egypt, such as the bleaching process. The comparison fabrics probably rested for centuries in a tomb and then remained in the warehouses of a museum, while the Shroud has had a much more lively history, especially in the early days. It was transported here and there, both before and after the transition to the Savoy. It was folded and unfolded, and later rolled up on a tight cylinder and unrolled. It was involved in a fire. It was mended. It was exposed to light outdoors, and to the fumes of incense or candles or torches. Perhaps it was brushed to clean it.

Also there may have been unknown episodes in the history of the Shroud, especially in the period before 1500, which have had a measurable effect today.

Fanti says he has conducted tests to assess the “systematic effects” of various factors, but in practice he has only made the correction that we saw for the first series.

These uncertainties mean that the methods used by Fanti are inherently unreliable because it can not be excluded that there were influences of factors known or unknown, with effects difficult to assess. So, if his methods result in a date that differs from that obtained in other ways, it is necessary to doubt the result. We have two reasons to think that the fabric of the Shroud was manufactured around 1300, the radiocarbon dating and the historical fact of its first appearance. On the other hand, we have no reason to suggest that the Shroud is from the first century. The only “evidence” of antiquity adduced by Shroudologists is in the (non-existent) fingerprints of two coins of Pontius Pilate!

However, there is a more concrete reason to think that the fibers of the Shroud used by Fanti were unsuitable for testing.

In two television interviews, Fanti was shown withdrawing a fiber from a piece of fabric. He separated out a thread and pulled out a fiber with tweezers. But this is not the way in which he got the fibers of the Shroud. He did not have a piece of fabric, or even pieces of intact thread. He used a dust collection made by Giovanni Riggi di Numana in 1978.

It should be noted that from 1534 to 2002 the cloth of the Shroud was continuously fastened with stitching to another linen cloth for support. In 1978 Riggi unstitched some sections on the edges and stuck in the cavity a vacuum cleaner with which he collected dust in cotton filters interposed along the tube outlet. Years later, some of these filters were made available to Fanti. From these filters, in particular the one designated as “h”, Fanti took the material for his analysis.

Together with dust of various kinds were also fragments of fibers of the shroud, in addition to flax fibers of the support fabric, cotton fibers from the filters and possibly other fibers of uncertain origin.

We can assume that any fibers of the Shroud collected from the vacuum extractor had deteriorated more than the fibers still enclosed in the threads. Fibers have, in the course of time, detached from the back of the Shroud and become trapped inside the cavity between the cloths, but those that have would be either weaker or more damaged than those which remained in the threads. For example they could be fibers that originally came from areas of stitching or burning or soaking in water or any other places that had suffered damage for some reason.

In addition to the fibers that had already become detached in the past, Riggi’s vacuum cleaner could have detached others while it was working, and those fibres, too, would be weaker or more damaged than those which remained. Fanti’s material is thus shown to be unrepresentative in being particularly deteriorated, so it is no wonder that the age he calculated is more apparent than real.

In a 2008 article Fanti showed photographs of many fibers collected by filters of which he had already come into possession, including those from filter “h”. We saw that the fibers were very short, averaging about a millimeter. Usually linen fibers are somewhat longer. So those used by Fanti were small fragments derived from the breakage of fibers which were already integrally fragile. In his book Fanti does not say how long the fibers from his comparison tissues were, but he may provide more detail in a future publication.

After they were collected in 1978, the fibers remained on the filters for several years, together with the rest of the dust and dirt sucked in. The individual fibers were exposed to dust on all sides.

Earlier than 2008, fibers were collected from Fanti’s filters using adhesive tape. Photographs were obtained showing the fibers on the tape. Fanti does not say if these fibres were used for his present experiments, but if they were they had remained in contact with the glue for a time of perhaps several years and then a solvent may have been used to remove them from it. We hope to find more information on these procedures when Fanti’s next article appears.

However they were obtained, Fanti then observed them at length under a microscope. The aim was to separate the flax fibers from the Shroud from those coming from the cloth support or from those of cotton or other origin. Looking into the microscope, Fanti says, he was able to distinguish the fibers of the Shroud not only from those of other material, but also from the linen fibers of the fabric support. For observation under the microscope, the fiber must be illuminated and, if it is not on a tape, somehow manipulated.

In short, the Shroud material used for the experiments was not the most fortunate. In his book Fanti makes no secret that the fibers of the Shroud which he used come from Riggi’s filters but does not comment on the risks implicit in the fact that these fibers have had a more complicated history than those freshly extracted from other fabrics containing intact threads. We can only note Fanti’s own words concerning the third method, the mechanical one, with reference to his experiments on the comparison fibres. (p. 85):

“In some cases, in fact, fibers taken from particular parts of a thread which had been more exposed to the environment and mechanical actions such as rubbing, showed a structural weakening, due to probable microcracks, which sometimes lead the mechanical method to result in dates with amplitude shifts of up to a thousand years.” Such is the true accuracy of this method. Two fibers taken from the same thread can produce dating with a difference of a thousand years. Fanti continues:

“To avoid incurring similar problems of measurement, the fibers used to perform the mechanical tests – and thus the determination of the curves of dating – were taken from their fabric in a similar way to those used to pick up the fibers from the Shroud.”

I do not know if Fanti means that he extracted fibers from his comparison fabrics with a vacuum cleaner, at least for the third series, but in any case he could not select the fibers that had separated in time from the points of greatest wear and tear that had built up for centuries.…

For my part, I think that there is no reason to doubt that the material used by Fanti really comes from the filters of the vacuum cleaner used by Riggi in 1978. It is known that Riggi kept the filters and later on several occasions had bestowed portions of the material to others. Today Riggi is gone, but I do not think that Fanti has made false declarations about the origin of the fibers examined by him.

I would also add that I can not know if Fanti has correctly identified the fibers of the Shroud, distinguishing them from other fibers collected from the extractor, such as those of cloth or filter support, but that would be material of a more recent age than the Shroud itself and not could provide a dating at the time of Christ. In short, I believe that the results are unreliable, not for any doubts about the origin of the material, but for the inadequacy of the methods used.


Source (http://shroudstory.com/2013/04/04/a-critical-review-of-giulio-fantis-new-book-unreliable-results-because-of-inadequacy-of-methods/)

TimelessTheist
05-27-2014, 07:37 AM
However, there's one thing tgat bothers me, and that's that tge Gospels seem to contradict this. Tgey list a seperate sheet for both his head, and body.

Teallaura
05-27-2014, 08:01 AM
However, there's one thing tgat bothers me, and that's that tge Gospels seem to contradict this. Tgey list a seperate sheet for both his head, and body.
There's an explanation for that - but that's another thread.

shunyadragon
05-27-2014, 08:09 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/

Anyone know what the heck they did? It mentions 'infra-red light and spectroscopy' but doesn't give details.

Considering the problematic issues with the history of the shroud, nature of the traditional shroud, and the image, does anyone actually believe the shroud is the genuine shroud of Jesus Christ?

Teallaura
05-27-2014, 08:13 AM
Considering the problematic issues with the history of the shroud, nature of the traditional shroud, and the image, does anyone actually believe the shroud is the genuine shroud of Jesus Christ?

Considering that those issues have been addressed many do in fact believe it to be a First Century artifact - that being the case, Jesus' burial shroud would be the most likely explanation.

And that's a topic for another thread! :rant:

shunyadragon
05-27-2014, 08:14 AM
I'm fairly sure Italian experts, way before this, used this computer imaging software to determin it couldn't have been faked.

Disagree, like many claims of shroud(s) of the time, pigments found on the shroud, and the anatomical problems with the image it was likely faked.



According to Dr. Walter McCrone and his colleagues, the 3+ by 14+ foot cloth depicting Christ’s crucified body is an inspired painting produced by a Medieval artist just before its first appearance in recorded history in 1356.

The faint sepia image is made up of billions of submicron pigment particles (red ochre and vermilion) in a collagen tempera medium. The pigments red ochre and vermilion with the collagen tempera medium was a common paint composition during the 14th century; before which, no one had ever heard of the Shroud.

Carrikature
05-27-2014, 08:19 AM
No, it isn't - they're talking about the '78 exam. And I said my article stated the samples were from '88.

:huh: Haven't had your coffee yet, huh? :wink:

It's the same people, the same timeframe, the same book, and the same methodology. The difference between Wikipedia and USA Today is where the samples originate.

TimelessTheist
05-28-2014, 09:58 AM
Meh, people have been debating wheyher it's authentic or not since the Middle Ages.

TimelessTheist
05-28-2014, 10:01 AM
There's an explanation for that - but that's another thread.

Can we start a thread? As I'm interested in what that explanation is.

Teallaura
05-28-2014, 01:33 PM
Sure - but it'll be several days before I get to it - really busy and I owe RW a response as it is. PM me the link.

Teallaura
05-28-2014, 01:36 PM
It's the same people, the same timeframe, the same book, and the same methodology. The difference between Wikipedia and USA Today is where the samples originate.

1988 and 1978 are the same timeframe? :huh:

The problem Wiki talks about is the secondary way that the '78 samples were obtained (and I agree - way too many problems with that). The new attempt uses the '88 samples - which have a completely different set of problems that Wiki doesn't mention. It must be discussing the first attempt and not the present one - the sample dates make that clear.

Raphael
05-28-2014, 02:02 PM
a bit out of date, but Frank Turek interviewed Gary Habermas on the Shroud a few years back on Cross Examined.

http://mediaserver3.afa.net/archives/CrossExamined/FRANKT_012112.mp3

He also gave a lecture at The Christian Apologetics Conference in Gothenburg, Sweden titled: The Shroud of Turin: A Non-Reproducible Artifact That Points To A Supernatural Cause
http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/Habermas_Apologia%2018-10-2013%20Shroud%20Session%201%20E1b.mp3

Carrikature
05-28-2014, 02:10 PM
1988 and 1978 are the same timeframe? :huh:

The problem Wiki talks about is the secondary way that the '78 samples were obtained (and I agree - way too many problems with that). The new attempt uses the '88 samples - which have a completely different set of problems that Wiki doesn't mention. It must be discussing the first attempt and not the present one - the sample dates make that clear.

The article you linked is dated March of 2013. The segment Rogue linked refers to events in 2013. That's the timeframe I'm talking about.

I don't know what present attempt you're referring to. The article you linked is over a year old.

Teallaura
05-28-2014, 03:54 PM
The article you linked is dated March of 2013. The segment Rogue linked refers to events in 2013. That's the timeframe I'm talking about.

I don't know what present attempt you're referring to. The article you linked is over a year old.

Rogue's link talks about the '78 samples where the USA one talks about the '88 samples - they cannot be the same attempt regardless of year. Best guess is Wiki is out of date and referring to an earlier event (why else would anyone use the '78 samples under such bad collection?) - dunno and really don't care. I just wanted to know what the technique was.

:shrug: