skip to content »

Radiocarbon 14 dating of the shroud of turin

radiocarbon 14 dating of the shroud of turin-44

It is thus a well-known fact that Carmen Polo, the wife of Franco left vestiges of lipstick on the so-called sudarium in Orviedo (the cloth said to have covered the face of the crucified Jesus).Later studies of the human mitochondrial genome lineages from dust particles have detected sequences from multiple subjects of different ethnic origins, clustering into some haplogroups ranging from India over the Near-East to Europe, thus demonstrating the fact that as of now contamination of a any DNA evidence is a fact to be reckoned with.

it would be quite unlikely the Holy Evangelists would have omitted to record an imprint on Christ’s burial linens or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time.What it seems, they believe is, that a renewed study of the DNA of the blood stains might reveal the contamination of persons maternally related to each other – in casu the admixture of mother and son! (This is not distinctly voiced, but may perhaps be characterised as a hidden agenda). Pellicori, Steven Schafersman, Giovanni Tamburelli and Alan D. Another feature was the find of microscopic fibres of cotton, indicating that it had been woven on a loom used for weaving cotton.Further, the thread had been spun by hand indicating a production of the cloth ante c. This – and much more evidence – led to the famous conclusion reached by Meacham in 1983, by which the authenticity of the shroud of Turin was deemed to be highly probable.Already in 1389, Pierre d’Arcis, the Bishop of Troyes tried to stop the Avignon Pope, Clement VII to exhibit the Shroud of Turin at Lirey.

In his memorandum from 1389 (quoted above) he famously raised doubts as to the veracity of the claims of its authenticity; concerns, which he shared with his predecessor, Henri de Poitiers.

It is in view of this – and the particular character of the relic – that a series of scientific and archaeological investigations have been carried out since the beginning of 1900 [3].

In the 1980s this was followed by a new spat carried out since 1969 -73 by archaeologists and biological scientists under the supervision of the so-called Turin commission.

William Meacham and others have nevertheless argued that these studies were carried out “since the dating was poorly planned, marred by petty rivalries, and scientifically flawed”.

The basic critique was based on the fact that the shroud had obviously undergone reparation during the centuries and the documentation of where the samples had been taken from was not conclusive.

Since then, the questioning of the authenticity by Pierre d’Arcis had been understood by the faithful to be no more than part of schismatic politics of the 14 century in Avignon, thus demonstrating beyond doubt that the claims of the medieval prelates in the late 14th century had no other intent than to control the emotional capital invested in the cloth.