Sceptic protests shrouding of tests procedure for religious relic

Press, 21 May 1987, Page 21

Sceptic protests shrouding of tests procedure for religious relic

By

JEFF HAMPTON

Serious questions arise from the Vatican’s planned age-testing of the important religious relic, the Shroud of Turin, according to some researchers.

One person leading the assault on the way tests will be run is Dr Denis Dutton, a shroud expert and senior lecturer in the philosophy of art at the University of Canterbury. “The situation, as it stands, is most disturbing,” he says in a recent letter published in a prestigious British scientific journal, “Nature.” “Who will wield the scissors? Where will the samples go after they leave the shroud?” he writes.

The shroud, which bears the imprint of a crucified man, is important to some Christians who believe it to be the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. Others such as Dr Dutton — an expert on art forgery — believe it is a fraud created by a clever artist.

The shroud, a piece of white cloth four metres long and more than a metre wide, is kept in the Cathedral of St John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. The Vatican has agreed, after years of controversy, to submit small pieces of the shroud to carbon-14 dating tests. Seven laboratories in France, Switzerland, the United States, and Britain will conduct the tests. But the laboratories will not know whether the material they test is an authentic piece of shroud. They will be sent a number of samples of linen for testing, some of which will date back to ancient Egypt, and others which will be relatively modern.

The Rev. Jim Beban, a Marist priest of St Mary’s Parish, Christchurch, regards the shroud as a "fifth gospel.”

“It verifies the details contained in the gospel,” says Father Beban, who has a particular interest in the shroud and has lectured on it. He welcomes carbon dating, but says that some carbon dating has erred by up to 1000 years. “All the scientific investigation that can be done should be done,” he says. “It is important to emphasise that the shroud isn’t an object of faith, and that it stands or falls on scientific investigation. “The faith has got nothing to lose from scientific investigation because it’s concerned with the truth."

The principle of carbon dating has been know for about 30 years, and the method has proved a valuable tool for researchers and archaeologists. It enables scientists to tell the age of an object by counting the number of carbon-14 atoms it contains.

Cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere create the radioactive carbon-14 atoms, which are absorbed by vegeta-

tion and trees, and thus any materials with an organic base, such as cloth and linen.

Radioactive atoms decay at a known rate. By counting the remaining carbon-14 atoms in an object, it is possible to find how long ago a piece of organic matter absorbed its dose.

The counting is done after a mass spectrometer isolates the carbon-14 atoms from other matter.

The Vatican plans to release the results of tests round Easter, 1988.

The timing of the release disturbs Dr Dutton, who is convinced the shroud is a forgery and is writing a book entitled “Requiem for the Shroud of Turin.”

“Why are they planning to do it round Easter?” he asks.

The way in which tests would be run was decided at a meeting of scientists and Vatican representatives in Turin last October.

Professor Carlos Chagas, president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, presided.

A British researcher who attended the meeting, Professor M. S. Tite, keeper of the research laboratory of the British Museum, agreed to act as “guarantor” of the tests.

However, Dr Dutton and an organisation of American sceptics, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, say it is not clear what role the museum will Play-

They have written to Professor Tite to try to determine how the tests will be run. The sceptics asked whether they could provide independent observers for the tests.

“I regret that because of the need for confidentiality I am unable to give you further in-

formation on the protocol for the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud,” Professor Tite answered them in a letter recently.

“Also, I am in no position to authorise the presence of scientific observers from your committee at various stages in the dating of the shroud.” He suggested that sceptics write to the Archbishop of Turin or the Pontifical Academy of Sciences if they want more information.

Dr Dutton says that three to five independent observers, perhaps chosen by the British Museum, should attend the tests.

Observers should oversee the taking of samples from the shroud, their coding and placing in packets, and their distribution, says Dr Dutton. He does not think that “blind testing" is necessary. “Blind testing,” in this case, means that the laboratories will not be told whether the cloth they test is from the shroud.

“It would be very difficult for seven laboratories to falsify the tests,” he says. “The results should be released by the British Museum — not by the Vatican at Easter. The Vatican ought not to be in a position of policing itself.” Dr Dutton says that shroud testing will not be done twice, so it is important to do it properly the first time. He and the American sceptics are using the power of the pen to agitate for the independent control of the tests.

They are writing to the Vatican and researchers involved, and publicising their views in the news media. Whatever the test results, Dr Dutton feels that it is a “no-win situation” for believers in the shroud.

The carbon dating can show that the shroud is a fake of no religious significance if, for example, it is found to have been made in the thirteenth century. Dating of the shroud to the first century will strengthen the arguments of those who believe in it, but will still not prove that the face on the cloth is that of Christ. But Father Beban believes that the shroud is an authentic relic and will prove to date from the first century. He says there is evidence that a shroud was venerated in Constantinople as long ago as the fourth century. It disappeared from view for some time because of the persecution of Christians, then reappeared after the Crusades when many religious relics were seized from the Middle East by the European Crusaders. Father Beban gives a number of reasons for his belief in the shroud’s authenticity.

He says it is made of a weave used in Palestine at the time of Christ, and scientists have found evidence of pollen from the Middle East on the material.

The image of Christ is big and has to be viewed from a distance to be appreciated, the type of work a medieval artist would have found difficult to do. Evidence of blood was found on the shroud, according to Father Beban.

Negatives of shroud photographs show a majestic and realistic figure, instead of the blurred image seen by the naked eye. Father Beban says this adds to its credibility. Details of the crucifixion in the gospels are confirmed by the image on the shroud, he says. For example, the shroud depicts a wound on the right side, as described in the gospels. Father Beban says it is a mystery how the image was put on the shroud. It is possible that a type of photographic image was imprinted on the cloth from a combination of ammonias and febrile sweat from the corpse, mixed with the powdered aloes and spices used to embalm the body and perfume the shroud. Dr Dutton, who was a professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan before coming to Christchurch, has long had an interest in the shroud.

“I view the whole shroud episode as one of the most interesting and serious intellectual escapes of the twentieth century,” he says, “particularly since the so-called scientific investigations of the shroud in 1978. “I think that shroud studies must stand as often wandering into the realms of pseudoscience.”

He says that supporters of the shroud, whom he called the “shroud crowd,” have religious rather than scientific aims. “I contend that the chances of it being authentic are minimal,” he says. But he wants to see the scientific tests done properly. Dr Dutton spoke against the shroud, saying that it is “as fake as the proverbial. $3 bill ” when an exhibition of photographs .of -the shroud came to Christchurch in 1985.

“The moral power and truth of Christ, however, does not depend on the authenticity of this old rag,” he said then.

He contended that scientific evidence about the shroud had been suppressed. Much of the literature on the subject was written by people whose “religious sensibilities had got the better of their critical faculties.” He believes the shroud is “a kind of rubbing done by a clever artist.”

A similar image was produced by an American, Joe Nickell, who had researched the subject and written a book on it entitled, “Inquest on the Shroud of Turin.”

Mr Nickell had proved that the rubbing technique could produce a negative image, like that of the shroud, says Dr Dutton.