Shroud turin dating
In his new book, , he concludes: “...reweaving is the scenario best supported by the data” to explain the 1988 test results (Meacham, 207).
He and Rogers used it as part of a request made to Shroud custodian Cardinal Poletto for a new C-14 test. Meacham agrees (in this instance) with Flury-Lemberg that any patched area ought to have been identified by trained textile specialists.
In a 2002 paper they answered their critics with evidence from other knowledgeable authorities (Benford and Marino, 2002a).
In a second paper in 2002, they discussed the expertise of 16th century European weavers and the motives of the Shroud’s owners, the rich Savoy family (and future kings of Italy), for making “Invisible Repairs” to textiles like the Shroud (Benford and Marino, 2000b). Flury-Lemberg continued to insist that such reweaving did not exist and that the patch would be recognizable on the reverse side, Benford and Marino produced a fourth paper.
With “95% confidence,” the three C-14 labs concluded that the cloth was manufactured between 12, over a thousand years too late to have been Christ’s burial shroud (Damon, 194).
However, those who had followed closely Shroud research in the 20th century realized there were too many reasons from science, history, art history and medicine to accept those results at face value.
Having acquired Shroud material both adjacent to the C-14 site and threads from the sample area, he was surprised to find “colored encrustations (or coatings) on their surfaces” that were present nowhere in the main body of the cloth.Especially strange was the wide divergence of dates for Shroud samples among the labs (each lab ran numerous tests on the sample they received), so wide that the results could not pass a standard statistical analysis called the Chi Square test (Marino and Benford, 2000:4).Such an inordinate spread did not occur among the other three cloths tested as controls. In the 17 years since then many theories have been proposed (for brief descriptions and analyses, see Chapters 18 and 19 of Frederick Zugibe’s ), but until recently scientific testing of those theories has not produced much promise.The paper then went on to discuss the Shroud’s historical circumstances in the early 16th century that may have led to repairs at the cloth’s corner that was later to be radiocarbon dated.William Meacham is a professional archaeologist who has followed Shroud research since 1981 and was involved in some of the planning for the 1988 radiocarbon tests.