The Carbon Dating Controversy

• Original protocol agreed to in 1985 was to include seven different labs.

• Three were to be new AMS nuclear accelerator labs and four were to be older proportional counter labs.

• The tests were to be blind by also dating control samples from other linens.

• From three to five samples were to be cut from at least three different locations on the cloth.

The Protocol Ignored

• Only three labs selected

• All were AMS nuclear accelerators--no proportional counter labs were included

• The tests were not blind--all three labs knew which samples were from the Shroud

• Only one site was cut for the sample and cut into three sections.

The Sample

• Cut from one of the worst possible sites on the cloth according to archaeologists.

• Outside selvedge edge/corner

• Adjacent to a seam believed to be Medieval

• Handled dozens of times over the centuries

• Adjacent to a water stain and burn area from the 1532 fire.

What Did They Date?

• No chemical analysis was done on samples prior to dating in 1988

• Spectral analysis on fibers from sample area done in 1996 show that it was not chemically consistent with the rest of the cloth

• Ten times as much salt and the presence of starch

A Re-weave?

• Evidence from photo-analysis of samples show threads of varying diameters

• Presence of starch may indicate “Invisible Mending” by Medieval weavers

• Eight centimeters were cut but one cm was eliminated due to extraneous material. What was it?

• Was the side strip added or part of the original cloth?

Bio-Plastic Coating?

• Microorganisms abound on the linen

• Anaerobic bacteria leave a plastic-like coating on the fibers

• Proven to skew C-14 dating results on other artifacts

• A factor in skewing the Shroud date?

Effect of 1532 Fire?

• Melted silver burned through the cloth.

• Doused with gallons of water

• Silver melts at 900 degrees centigrade

• Could the heat and carbon rich gases have created an environment for isotopic exchange thus altering the C14/C12 ratio?

Too Many questions left unanswered

With only one sample from one of the worst locations possible, the C-14

dating tests of 1988 are totally

inadequate to render as irrelevant one of the greatest historical artifacts of

all time.

Medieval?

• A painted forgery?

• Who did it?

• How did he do it?

• Why can’t we replicate it?

• Can the Shroud with all of its complex details be adequately explained in a Medieval context?

Recent discoveries from pollen tell a different story

Evidence show the cloth most likely originated in the Holy Land

Recent Pollen Studies

Two Israeli scientists:

Dr. Avinoam Danin--World’s leading expert on the flora of Palestine, author of 6 books, Professor at the Hebrew University.

Dr. Uri Baruch--Palynologist, Israel Antiquities Authority, Hebrew University

Gundelia tournefortii

• Flowering thorn plant that grows only in Middle East--Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Israel

• Represents 40% of the 204 pollen analyzed from tape samples

• Also confirmed by flower image on the anatomical left shoulder of Shroud image

• Blooms only in April and May• Insect pollinated species

Pistacia lentiscus

• Very clear image found on abdomen of Shroud image.

• Significant because it was a commercially purchased spice plant sold in markets

• Consistent with biblical record of spices in the tomb

Zygophyllum dumosum

• Flower images found on upper chest

• Endemic to Israel, Sinai and Jordan with unusual and readily identifiable leaf morphology

• Blooms between January and May