The C14 Sample: Looking Deeper

Exploring work by Jospeh Marino and Sue Benford - Arif Khan

Raymond Rogers' work may have been internationally ackowledged and given press coverage, but upon further examination it appears that fears of the carbon 14 sample being contaminated with rewoven cloth were present as early as 1986 [1].

The team of Sue Benford and Joseph Marino produced three research papers each providing evidence for restoration of the shroud leading to the skewing of the result.

Amazingly Benford and Marino point out that even during the actual cutting of the C14 sample evidence of rewoven repairs came to light. Giovanni Riggi,the person who actually cut the C14 sample, stated:

"I was authorized to cut approximately 8 square centimetres of cloth from the Shroud…This was then reduced to about 7 cm because fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric …" (Riggi 1988:182). [2]

Along with this report Benford and Marino point out that another Italian author discussing the cutting of the sample noted:

"…1 cm of the new sample had to be discarded because of the presence of different color threads” (Tessiore,
1988:44).[3]

Further to this yet more evidence of anomalies were brought to light once the threads were examined at one of the laboratories in Oxford. The Paper by Benford and Marino from 2000 goes on to say:

"Upon microscopic examination of the Oxford C-14 sample, Professor Edward Hall, head of the Oxford lab, noticed fibers that looked out of place. A laboratory in Derbyshire determined that the rogue fibers were cotton of “a fine, dark yellow strand.” According to Peter South of the lab, “It may have been used for repairs at some time in
the past…” (Rogue Fibres found in the Shroud, 1988:13)."

More >>

The date being presented at the British Museum in 1988

Thus the question of the C14 sample area being rewoven was well known and understood around 2000. Comment from members of the STURP team had been put forward also. Benford and Marino quote the late Dr. Alan Adler who noted:

"So you can talk all you want about how reproducible the date is, but you can’t talk about how accurate it is. You have no way of knowing if the area you took the C14 sample from represents the whole cloth. That’s an area which has obviously been repaired. There’s cloth missing there. It’s been rewoven on the edge. They even cut part of it off, because it was obviously rewoven on the edge. The simplest explanation why the date may be off is that it’s rewoven cloth there. And that’s not been tested (Case, 1996:73)."

Professor Gilbert Raes had a sample of the cloth from an area adjacent to the C14 sample. He also had a chance to examine the C14 sample that was given to Oxford laboratories. He not only reported that cotton fibres were found in both samples, but also that they consisted of

"two pieces of material sown together"

If these doubts had been present so long ago why has it taken so long for the media to pick up on these issues? Why have people such as Dr. Tite refussed so strongly to even think of considering that the results may be incorrect?

More >>

Criticism of this research by other scientists and subjective and speculative lead to the the authors seeking out further confirmation. Barrie Schwortz comments on his website that when Raymond Rogers first saw the claims of Benford and Marino he believed he could :

"disprove their theory in 5 minutes"

But now Rogers' research have concusively confirmed the hypothesis of Benford and Marino.

Whilst it is Rogers who is getting the press coverage the pioneering work of Benford and Marino deserves special mention. Rogers' research was the final piece of the jigsaw in completing the proof of their hypothesis.

Next we need further tests to see what result we get when the C14 tests as applied to samples of the Shroud from areas where we suspect no reweaving at all.