Science is a beautiful institution. All hypotheses need to stand up to the scrutiny of many other scientists, and the work researching the Shroud’s authenticity is no different. The attached titled “Was the Shroud of Turin Invisibly Rewoven with Foreign Material at the Radiocarbon Site to Match the Rest of the Cloth?” by Mark Antonacci is one example providing argumentation potentially refuting the invisible reweave theory concerning the radiocarbon dating results.
The hypothesis of the Shroud
The Invisible Reweave Hypothesis: Joe Marino and Sue Benford wrote an article about a potential source, an invisible reweave, of the difference in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud versus the date if it is authentic. An invisible reweave is a technique to reweave new material to repair damage to an existing cloth. It was very popular in France at the time.
This hypothesis was later supported by work by Ray Rogers using the Raes sample, which was taken adjacent to where the radiocarbon samples were taken. This invisible reweave, using material dated possibly to the 16th century, could explain the 1260 to 1390 dating of the Shroud versus its assumed dating to the time of Jesus.
Mark Antonacci’s Hypothesis
His hypothesis has a handful of critical questions concerning the Invisible Reweave Hypothesis.
Here are a few:
1) If the reweave, hypothesized to be made up of cotton and linen, would have needed to be dyed in some manner to match the color of the linen. The color of the dye would have faded over time, and the reweave would have become apparent.
2) No repairs were detected at the site where the radiocarbon samples were taken, even after the Holland cloth was removed.
3) The repairs were not detected using photography and microphotography during the 1978 STURP research.
4) XRay fluorescence of Ray Rogers’ Raes sample (taken close to the radiocarbon samples showed “the same relative concentrations of calcium, strontium, and iron.”)
5) Rucker refutes some of Ray Rogers’ arguments based on the sample being part of a water stain and the water stain having no noticeable, differentiated impact on the rewoven sample and the original cloth.
6) Rucker refutes Ray Rogers’ analysis concerning the content of vanillin in the lignin of the sample. Rucker argues the heat from the 1532 Chambery fire would have invalidated the assumption that the cloth was always at roughly 20 to 25 degrees C.
Conclusion
Antonacci’s ideas on the reweave theory bring up several key questions, such as the level of secrecy it would take to enact reweaving the Shroud without it being noticed. In addition, the technology used today would be near impossible for it to be undetected. Antonacci’s paper provides some interesting perspectives on the possibility of the Shroud having an invisible reweave and it having impacted the radiocarbon dating.
In addition Rucker’s possible refutation of the Rogers’ analysis seems to indicate that there are other reasons leading to the radiocarbon dating of the 1260 to 1390. Hopefully at some point the Vatican will allow the next round of scientific research on the Shroud to resovle many of these issues.
End Notes
Antonacci, Mark. “Was the Shroud of Turin Invisibly Rewoven with Foreign Material at the Radiocarbon Site to Match the Rest of the Cloth?”. 2017.
J. Marino and M. S. Benford, “Evidence for the Skewing of the C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin Due to Repairs,” “Sindone 2000” Orvieto Worldwide Congress, Orvieto, Italy, August 27-29, 2000, http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marben.pdf.
R. N. Rogers, “Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin,” Thermochimica Acta, 425 (2005) pps. 189-194, 189.
https://www.academia.edu/35673357/Invisible_Reweave_N27
Find Out More
If you are interest in finding out more about the hypothesis comment down below.
What caused the significant deviation of the carbon samples in 1988?
There have been at least 3 possible reasons published in scientific journals.
I don’t know if we’ll ever know for sure. The most important thing to remember
is the fact that the raw data from the 3 carbon dating labs shows significant deviation (1.04%) – and thus, the carbon dating test is invalid. The ages differ by 91-97 years
for every inch you move closer to the center of the Shroud.
My point is – while the “cause” of the data discrepancies is an open question /
there is not doubt that the carbon dating test is invalid – based on the objective fact of its significant deviation by the Chi square test (Italian engineer – Ernesto Brunati).
Jim,
Definitely agree that there are significant discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating. The Shroud authenticity debunkers have been definitively debunked. I look forward to the next scientific research to be done on the Shroud. It will be interesting to see if the hypotheses of Rucker hold up or something else is discovered.
I have written 12 papers on the 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud that are available on the research page of my website http://www.shroudresearch.net . My most thorough explanation for the layman is my paper 25 “Understanding the 1988 Carbon Dating of the Shroud”, which is 38 pages long. My work on this topic is based on my MS in nuclear engineering and my running nuclear analysis computer software for 38 years while in the nuclear industry. This allowed me to run nuclear analysis computer calculations to solve the carbon dating problem for the Shroud. Carbon dating related to the Shroud does not just result in one item that must be explained, i.e. the 1260-1390 AD date for the Shroud. There are four items that must be explained: the date (1260-1390) at the sample location, the slope as a function of the distance from the bottom of the cloth (36 years/cm), the distribution/range of the subsample dates (1155 to 1410 AD), and the carbon date for the Sudarium (about 700 AD). The only hypothesis that is consistent with these four requirements is the neutron absorption hypothesis, so other hypotheses should be rejected. The neutron absorption hypothesis says that the burst of radiation from the body that formed the image also included neutrons. A small fraction of these neutrons would have been absorbed in the trace amount of nitrogen in the cloth to form new C-14 atoms in the fibers, which would have shifted the carbon date forward. For example, to shift the carbon date forward from 33 AD to the midpoint of 1260-1390 would require the C-14 atom density at the sample location to be increased by only 16.9%. This would occur if only one neutron in every ten billion neutrons in the body were emitted in this radiation burst from the body. Much more information is included in my papers.
Robert,
Definitely look forward to the next round of scientific research on the Shroud. It will be very interesting to see if certain points on the Shroud lead to a date at some point in the future. Thanks so much for your comments.