In research of the Shroud of Turin over the last few decades, there are a few fundamental categories such as date analysis through primary sources, reconstruction of the full Shroud, and one of the most popular being carbon dating. A paper is written by Emanuela Marinelli titled “The Setting for the Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud” delves into such carbon dating, however more specifically radiocarbon dating. Thus, taking the organic material on the Shroud of Turin and taking the property of radiocarbon to date the relic. The method is quite complicated, and so is the research with the Shroud.
What does the abstract tell us about the paper?
The abstract of Marnielli’s paper states these challenges that differentiate such categories of research as such:
“The method of radiocarbon dating, performed in 1988, placed the origin of the Shroud between 1260 and 1390 A.D.; but the reconstruction of the events that led to that analysis, and the controversy following its course, throw heavy shadows on the validity of the result. Not all the procedures followed to complete the radiocarbon test were regular. The history of the events and the traumas suffered by the relic makes it a difficult object, whose radiocarbon dating cannot provide reliable data. The analyzed sample, because of its peculiar characteristics, was not representative of the whole sheet. Consequently, according to the radiocarbon dating, it cannot be definitely stated that the manufacture of the Shroud should be placed in the middle of the fourteenth century” (Marinelli).
So what does this mean?
Her paper then breaks down into several parts divided by questions.
The first question being “have all the procedures followed for the development of radiocarbon tests been regular?” (Marinelli). The question is divided into two phases, the first being “the long path toward the sampling” and the second “the painful wait for the results and the subsequent controversy.” The first phase’s main points discuss different radiocarbon dating methods in chronological order, beginning with dating in “1947 by chemist Willard F. Libby” (Marinelli). Libby states that to radio-carbon date the Shroud properly, it would be necessary to “destroying half a square meter”; however, he states that this method “was obviously impractical.” Over the years, this amount would shorten from a square meter to “20 cm long”, thus hopefully having the church allow this destructive dating method be done.
What is the conclusion of the paper?
The conclusion of Marinelli’s paper is written as such: “The heavy shadows thrown on the whole course of radiocarbon dating of the Shroud were never dissipated. Not all the procedures followed for the completion of the radiocarbon test were regular. The history of the events and of the traumas suffered by the relic make it a difficult object, whose radiocarbon dating cannot provide reliable data. The analyzed sample, because of its peculiar characteristics, was not representative of the whole sheet. Consequently, according to the radiocarbon dating performed in 1988, it cannot be definitely stated that the manufacture of the Shroud should be placed in the middle of the fourteenth century”(Marinelli).
What other concepts can be drawn from this type of research?
When politics and research collide
Some of this controversy comes from the politics around the testing and the blackmailing of the Church to force carbon testing. Here is a quote from Professor Luigi Gonella, Faculty of Sciences of the University in Turin, before joining the Department of Physics at Turin Polytechnic and close scientific advisor to Cardinal Ballestrero’s (Archbishop of Turin and Custodian of the Shroud) on Shroud matters.
“The Vatican was continually threatened by the laboratories themselves, who went on repeating: if you don’t leave it to us, only to us, the results will not be acceptable. So, in the end, Ballestrero had to surrender, though suffering badly. And I to submit. Also because these gentlemen did everything to support the argument that the Church was throwing a spanner in the works of science” 141. Gonella explains: “It was blackmail. They put us up against the wall just with a blackmail. Either we accepted the test of 14C on the terms imposed by the laboratories, or it would break out a campaign of accusations saying the Church fears the truth and is an enemy of Science” 142.”
Other than the politics, I think the interesting issue that the Shroud debunkers couldn’t answer is the statistics. How could the dating have had such a vast difference in the test results from each of the three labs? Based on Marinelli’s paper, despite being incredibly written and having many great and plausible ideas, it was not entirely well explained and seemed to be wanted to be swept under the rug. I was never a lover of statistics, but here it is evident that experts in sampling and statistics can find fault with the not insignificant and what appear to be systematic differences in the measurement results.
Other Thoughts
I enjoyed reading Marinelli’s paper, which is one of many debunking the debunkers. Another excellent compendium of all the events surrounding the radio-carbon dating of the Shroud is Joe Marino’s The 1988 C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Expose’. 2021.
Find Out More
citation: Marinelli, Emanuela. “The Setting for the Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud”. 28-30 April 2021. acediemia.edu.
I applaud your inclusion of Prof. Marinelli’s paper. It is a classic example of ‘getting back to the original document’. Often times, these original documents written so close to the actual time of the event, are forgotten. Emanuela has preserved the facts for us in a scholarly manner. This is well worth the read for anyone who wants the truth. It is far superior to what Wikipedia says (or rather, lacks) about the Shroud.
Hi Jim,
Yes, I really enjoyed reading Prof. Marinelli’s paper. Very informative.
Shroud studies reveal that the image thereon was the result of a radiation event (photonegative properties, banding, blood stains physically separated from the mother wound, superficiality, atomic bonds severed, skeletal features, coin over the eye). When do we admit that C14 was manufactured, consistent with the radiation observations, offsetting the natural decline enough to distort the dating results.
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the post. Yes, that seems to be the prevailing theory. I especially like what Robert Rucker has written about this. I hope at some point there will be another round of testing on the Shroud to corroborate or negate a lot of these hypotheses.