This is part #13, "13 October 1988," of my series, "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud." For more information about this series, see part #1. I have fallen behind again, but since the next significant day is 16 February 1989, I will catch up and then post each significant day in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as near to its 30th anniversary as possible. This series won't end with this announcement of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating, nor with the 1989 Nature article. I had always intended to cover the aftermath of the radiocarbon dating for as long as it was significant. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.
[Index #1] [Previous: 03Jul88 #12] [Next: 16Feb89 #14]
13 October 1988 On Thursday 13 October 1988[2], in the British
[Above (enlarge)[3]: From left, Prof. Edward Hall (Oxford), Dr Michael Tite (British Museum) and Dr Robert Hedges (Oxford)[4], announcing on 13 October 1988 in the British Museum, London, that the Shroud of Turin had been radiocarbon dated to "1260-1390!"[5]. Note the triumphant[6], jubilant[7], derisory[8], unprofessional[9] and unscientific[10] exclamation mark[11].]
Museum, London and in Turin[12], it was announced that the Shroud had been radiocarbon dated to 1260-1390[13], or 1325 plus or minus 65 years[14]. The three scientists declared the odds against were "astronomical" that the Shroud could be first century, yet had a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390[15].
As the laboratories were aware[16], 1325 was only 30 years before the Shroud's first appearance in undisputed history in 1355 at an exposition in the village of Lirey, France[17]. Therefore some Shroud sceptics claimed that 1325 was the date of the Shroud[18].
If this date range were true, the Shroud could not be the burial shroud of Jesus Christ[19], but would have to have been the work of a 13th-14th century forger[20].
This result was not unexpected, because in the preceding months there had been leaks in the English news media[21], that the radiocarbon dating had found that the Shroud was "medieval"[22], and that it had been dated "1350"[23]. It later transpired that the secondary source of those leaks was the Rev. David Sox (1936-2016)[see 5Aug17 & 22Nov16], and their primary source was allegedly Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89) [see 30Dec15 & 22Feb16].
The Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (r. 1977-1989), had no option but to announce the results communicated to him[24]. However, he added, "the problems of the origin of the image ... still remain ... unsolved"[25].
This was followed by worldwide news media headlines that the Shroud 
had been proven to be "a fake"[28] and "a fraud"[29].
However, this one test flew in the face of decades of research across many different fields which pointed to the Shroud being authentic[30].
Moreover the laboratories were unable to explain how the Shroud's image was created in the Middle Ages[31]. The poverty of the laboratories' understanding of this problem was exemplified by Oxford's Prof. Hall's `explanation' to reporters[32]:
"There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the fourteenth century. Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it"[33].Hall later showed that he was anything but the impartial, objective, scientist in respect of the Shroud, by declaring that anyone who continued to regard the Shroud as genuine, was the equivalent of a "Flat Earther" and was "onto a loser"[34].Based on the news media's reports that the science of carbon dating had proved that the Shroud was a medieval fake, those who knew that the preponderance of the evidence supported the Shroud's authenticity[35] assumed that the carbon dating must be wrong[36]. However, the media simply ignored that body of evidence and never questioned the reliability of the carbon-14 test[37]. Turin and the Vatican lent credibility to the test by failing to question its reliability[38]. So from then most people have wrongly dismissed the Shroud as a scientifically proven medieval forgery[39].
Continued in the next part #14 of this series.
Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.6; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.89. [return]
3. Wilson, 1998, plate 3b. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.8-9; Hoare, R., 1995, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, p.13; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.108; Garza-Valdes, L.A., 1998, "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, pp.9, 184; Wilson, 1998, pp.6-7; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.133; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.221; Wilson, 2010, p.89. [return]
5. Wilson, 1991, pp.8-9; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.108; Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
6. Garza-Valdes, 1998, p.5. [return]
7. Guerrera, 2001, p.133. [return]
8. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.108. [return]
9. Guerrera, 2001, p.133. [return]
10. Hoare, 1995, p.13. [return]
11. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.66; Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, p.53. [return]
12. Garza-Valdes, 1998, pp.5, 182; Wilson, 1998, p.310; Meacham, 2005, p.53; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.167. [return]
13. Wilson, 1998, pp.7, 310; Meacham, 2005, p.97; Oxley, 2010, p.221; de Wesselow, 2012, p.167. [return]
14. Wilson, 1998, p.7; McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.1, 141, 178, 246; Oxley, 2010, p.60; de Wesselow, 2012, p.170. [return]
15. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.8; Wilson, 1998, pp.7; Wilson, 2010, p.89. [return]
16. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611; Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
17. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.108; Wilson, 1998, p.7; Milne, L., 2005, "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, p.93. [return]
18. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.293; McCrone, 1999, pp.xxiii, xx. [return]
19. Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 21; Gove, 1996, p.264; Meacham, 2005, p.53; Oxley, 2010, p.221. [return]
20. Oxley, 2010, p.221. [return]
21. Wilson, I., 1988, "On the Recent `Leaks'," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September; Wilson, 1991, p.8; Garza-Valdes, 1998, p.183; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.164; Wilson, 1998, p.185. [return]
22. Gove, 1996, pp.273, 276; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.91; Garza-Valdes,1998, p.181. [return]
23. Gove, 1996, p277; Garza-Valdes,1998, p.181; Wilson, 1998, p.310; Wilson, 2010, p.88. [return]
24. Wilson, 1991, p.8; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.97; Garza-Valdes, 1998, p.183; Wilson, 1998, pp.7-8; Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, p.82; de Wesselow, 2012, p.167. [return]
25. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.98; Garza-Valdes, 1998, p.183; Wilson, 1998, p.8. [return]
26. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.94. [return]
27. Wilson, 1998, p.8. [return]
28. Morgan, R., 1991, "Did the Templars Take the Shroud to England?: New Evidence from Templecombe," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, pp.205-232, 206; Wilson, 1991, p.9; Iannone, 1998, p.164; Garza-Valdes,1998, p.5; Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
29. Iannone, 1998, p.164. [return]
30. Morgan, 1991, p.206; Borkan, 1995, p.21. [return]
31. de Wesselow, 2012, p.167. [return]
32. de Wesselow, 2012, p.167. [return]
33. Sheridan, M. & Reeves, P., 1988, "Turin Shroud shown to be a fake," The Independent, 14 October in Wilson, 1998, p.7; Oxley, 2010, p.221. [return]
34. Wilson, 1998, pp.7, 185, 310; Oxley, 2010, p.221. [return]
35. Iannone, 1998, p.165; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.119. [return]
36. Bennett, 2001, p.186. [return]
37. Iannone, 1998, p.165. [return]
38. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.98; Iannone, 1998, p.165. [return]
39. Bennett, 2001, p.186; Meacham, 2005, p.53; Wilson, 2010, p.2. [return]
Posted 30 October 2018. Updated 7 November 2023.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment