the biggest radiocarbon dating mistake ever

1.   Some researchers point to an avalanche of other data that suggests authenticity despite whatever the radiocarbon dating results suggest. Some of this data, such as the chemistry of the bloodstains is well documented in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Some of it, such as geographic specific pollen identification, needs further study. Some of it is based on historical documentation and it should be considered. But it is the unexplained image that universally prompts us to wonder about the provenance of the shroud.  One microscopist, Walter McCrone, claimed that he found paint particles in samples taken from the shroud. But every other scientist who has physically examined the shroud or the samples disagrees. The spectral analysis is quite conclusive.

 

2.   There were other hypotheses as well. For instance it has been suggested that the “resurrection of Jesus” changed the radiocarbon content. Such an idea, of course, cannot be tested. And, as can be expected, conspiracy theories will attach themselves to controversial scientific findings. One is that the samples were secretly switched and any number of reasons why this might have been done have been advanced.

 

3.   For clarity, Benford and Marino are quoted here: “According to Ronald Hatfield, a scientist at Beta Analytic, the world’s largest radiocarbon dating service, a merging of threads from AD 1500 into a 2,000 year old piece of linen would augment the C-14 content, such that a 60/40 ratio of new material to old, determined by mass, would result in a C-14 age of approximately AD 1210 (Beta Analytic Laboratories, 2000). This correlates very closely with the Oxford mean date of AD 1200 as reported in Nature (Damon, 1989:613) and with the observed ratio of original versus medieval material in the C-14 sample.”

4.   According to Currie: “The critical, non-AMS issue relates to sample validity. The originally agreed upon sampling protocol was to have involved seven laboratories, two measurement techniques (decay and atom [AMS] counting), and multiple samples representing different regions of the cloth. Shortly before the event, however, the scheme was changed to restrict the number of laboratories (all AMS) and the number of samples to three, all taken from the same location. The sampling location, near a corner of the Shroud, and near an area damaged by the fire of 1532 AD, is considered an unfortunate choice, because of the possibility of exogenous carbon from the fire, repairs, and organic contamination from handling through the ages.” [cites Gove]

But, according to Meacham: “This account is incorrect. The original protocol called for ONE sample to be cut from the Shroud and divided into seven segments to be distributed to the seven labs. . . To me, as an archaeologist with 17 years’ experience in the application of C-14 dating to field contexts, this proposal seemed absurd. One should seize the opportunity to date samples from different parts of the cloth, avoiding a possibly anomalous (e.g. starched) area. This is the major scientific question now relevant. The dating of the Shroud is not, after all, a laboratory inter-comparison experiment. Three dates from reputable labs, hopefully on samples from three different sites on the relic, should give a good indication of the radiocarbon age of the cloth, and whether or not random contamination or other problems exist which require sophisticated testing techniques."

5.  In a private email, Van Haelst commented for this article: “Arizona did not select four dates. In fact they combined 4 times TWO dates, obtained the same day, using the same standards and blanks. This gives: