Shroud of christ carbon dating updating netbeans from 5 0 to 5 5
Dinegar, who heads the STURP C-14 group which claimed to have made a detailed study of the application of C-14 to the Shroud, stated that "sample preparation procedures can insure no error in date due to foreign contamination accreted over the centuries" (1982:6; emphasis added).All of the above statements quoted from the literature reveal an unwarranted trust in radiocarbon measurement to produce an exact calendar date for any good sample submitted.Finally, the original sample was taken at the junction of the side strip (believed by some scholars to be a later addition) and the (selvage?) border (possibly treated to prevent unraveling, and certainly more subject to contamination than the main body of the cloth).Although the more recent STURP proposal has not yet been published, there is reason (discussed below) to suspect that it likewise has not been researched to the degree warranted by the object to be dated, and that significant input from a range of scholars is lacking.Because the next round of scientific testing of the Shroud may well be the last of this century, it is imperative that such details as the amount and number of samples and especially the sampling sites be very carefully considered.That "C-14 dating is, after all, only another tool for the archaeologist, but it behooves us, before attempting to use it, to know which end has been sharpened." In both the comment and in Shroud writing generally, there is exhibited a lack of awareness of the pitfalls and uncertainties inherent in the C-14 method.
In 1979, the much vaunted "Gove/Harbottle Proposal on Carbon Dating the Shroud" (Sox 197) outlined only standard pretreatment of the samples for carbonates and humic acids.Certainly most archaeologists would have rejected the use of samples subjected to a long separation from the object to be dated and held under unknown conditions of storage and handling.Further, Mc Crone (190) made his contribution by proposing to rely on "the person authenticating the Shroud samples as the same ones studied by Raes." (The original sample was apparently not even taken from the Shroud in the presence of Raes.) An art historian would certainly not have been satisfied that such a procedure could establish conclusively that the pieces were indeed from that sample removed from the Shroud in 1973, and that it had not been tampered with in the intervening years.Jumper et al (196) claimed that the test "if 'negative', i.e.not first century, can prove lack of authenticity" (emphasis added).