Gianni Barcaccia and his team, who published an interesting exploration of some DNA from the Shroud in ‘Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud’ (Scientific Reports, 2015), have had new access to some hitherto unresearched material, and carried out new analyses of the Shroud’s DNA and new measurements of the radiocarbon.
The new research is ‘DNA Traces on the Shroud of Turin: Metagenomics of the 1978 Official Sample Collection, by Barcaccia and 18 other authors, and published in BioRχiv on 22 March 2026. They were given access to six pieces of thread extracted from the Shroud by Pierluigi Baima Bollone in 1978, a couple more from the reliquary in which it was stored, four small filters from the little vacuum cleaner used by Giovanni Riggi de Numana, and a microscope slide carrying “a tiny biological fragment.”
The thread samples from the Shroud were labelled AB1, C/D12, A11, C8, C9, C12; and vacuum filters were labelled C3, C6, C10 and C12, which appear to correlate to the grid pattern used by the Italians and Max Frei Sulzer, which was different from the one used by STuRP. The descriptions of the places they came from matches them reasonably closely, except for C8 and C9, which are described by Barcaccia as “arm,” but appear to come from the dorsal image. The ‘biological fragment’ on microscope slide B12 corresponds to the feet of the dorsal image.
The supplementary material published with Barcaccia’s paper says that “Our initial goal was to verify the presence of human blood traces on the shroud fibers. Next, we examined the possible presence (and characteristics) of DNA reads of human origin. Finally, we determined the number of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) derived from environmental and individual contaminants associated with all the organisms that have come into contact with this shroud over the centuries.” However, there is no further mention of blood, and we must wonder why not. Threads C8 and C9 seem to have come from areas of the Shroud that were intensely imaged and studded with ‘scourge marks,’ but apart from their existence being noted, they are not further mentioned in the paper.
I wonder why not. One of the tests described in this paper is a new radiocarbon age determination, but instead of using some of these threads actually from the cloth of the Shroud, only two threads from the reliquary were dated, corresponding, not surprisingly, to the repairs to the Shroud by the Poor Clare nuns in 1534, and by Sebastian Valfré in 1694. Perhaps the Shroud threads were simply too small for reasonable results to be expected.
As in 2015, numerous plant taxa were identified to genus level from the DNA sampled. Curiously, there was almost no overlap between the two lists, even though they were extracted from very similar areas. In 2015, the authors could write “Among the taxa identified, the most abundant belongs to the genus Picea,” so it is curious that in 2026, scarcely any Picea were identified at all, and those which were are not found in the Middle East. Nor, for that matter, were olive, date, myrrh, aloe, or any of the variety of thistles and thorns hitherto claimed. The most represented plant was Daucus carota, the wild carrot. Of course, by far the most abundant plant material is actually linen, with cotton probably second, yet for some reason scarcely any of their DNA is described at all.
As far as animals go, the new survey gives us a wide range of domestic mammals, and even some fish, but no sheep or camels. From a single one of the vacuumed samples came such a large representation of red coral that it constituted the majority of all the animal taxa counted. The main paper refers us to Supplementary Material, Datasets S7 and S8, which are worth reading.
The two Datasets are called “Complete list of taxa identified using the contig-BLAST approach” and “Summary of metagenomic analyses using the contig-BLAST approach (plant and animal taxa),” but I think these titles are the wrong way round, as Dataset S7 (which downloads as ‘media-4’) contains a far longer list of organisms than Dataset S8 (which downloads as ‘media-3’), which is restricted to 39 animal (not including human) and 60 plant taxa, listed in order of the number of ‘contigs’ (genetic sequences) for those taxa discovered. The total number of contigs for each organism is derived from the number found on each of the seven Shroud samples (threads AB1, C/D12, R58; filters C3, C10, C12l; slide B12).
The top ten animals by contig in the smaller Dataset are: Red coral, Dog, Cat, Chicken, Cattle (Genus), Pig, Mouse, Rat, Ray-finned Fish (Family), Deer (Family), which is varied enough and amounts to 94% of all the taxa identified. In the larger Dataset (which incudes humans), though, the top ten species are: Humans, Red Coral, Dog, Cat, Chicken, Chimpanzee, Pig, Mouse, Rat, Gibbon.
This casts an interesting light on the objectivity of the authors and the validity of their findings. I wonder whether it can be true that there are really more contigs identifying chimpanzees than pigs, mice or rats. If it is, why is it not mentioned in the main paper, and if it’s not, how do the authors account for their presence in Dataset S7, but not in Dataset S8?
Digging deeper into Dataset S7, it is divided into five kingdoms: Metazoa [animals] – 463 taxids, Viridiplantae [plants] – 473 taxids, Fungi – 556 taxids, Bacteria – 5766 taxids, Archaea – 22 taxids. A taxid is a genetic identifier, and may cover any genetically connected group of organisms, from kingdoms to sub-species, so it might be better to say that among all these taxids are: Metazoa [animals] – 287 species, Viridiplantae [plants] – 237 species, Fungi – 358 species, Bacteria – 4581 species, Archaea – 15 species.
Alphabetically, the animals range from Abax parallelepipedus, a north European beetle, to Zalophus californianus, a Pacific sea lion; and numerically (in terms of the number of contigs identified) from Corallium rubrum, the Red Coral, to 117 animals represented by a single contig. Between them, we note the appearance of the Giant Panda, Lions, Tigers and Polar Bears, Killer Whales, Hippopotamuses, Lobsters, Gorillas and Orang Utans. What all this means is impossible to say, but what seems to me extremely significant is the absence of any Camels, Fruit Bats, Ibex, Gazelles, Jackals, or any of the animals one might think typical of the Judean landscape. The presence of significant numbers of contigs of animals from South America to Borneo via the Arctic and the deep blue sea, coupled to the absence of animals associated with the Middle East, is a sure indication that the Shroud has never been anywhere near it.
Something similar happens when we look at plants. The researchers found one single Olive contig, and one single Fig, but no Palm Trees, no Dates, no Myrrh, no Aloes, and none of the various thistles whose pollen is said to be found in such abundance, or thorns which might have comprised the biblical ‘crown.’ No Locust beans, which John the Baptist may have lived on, and no Locusts, for that matter. Given that they did find nearly 240 species from elsewhere around the world, in this case evidence of absence really does look like evidence of absence.
Of course, everything discussed so far hides the only real purpose of the whole exercise (albeit unspoken) which was to try to demonstrate that either the ‘man in the Shroud’ or people associated with its retrieval and storage were from Israel. Over 99% of all the contigs found were human, and “several human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages were identified, including K1a1b1a, which matches the 1978 official collector’s mitogenome, H2a2 (i.e. the lineage of the mtDNA reference sequence rRCS), H1b, which is common in Western Eurasia, and H33, which is prevalent in the Near East and frequent among the Druze.” The optimistic (if unspoken) corollary to this last idea, that H33 indicates ancient Jewish contact with the Shroud, needs unpacking.
Firstly, it is not at all clear that H33 has been identified at all. See the Appendix below. Secondly, it is not clear that H33 is particularly exclusive to the Druze. A paper by Liran Shlush et al. does show that 99 of 311 Druze individuals had haplotype H, but only 8 had mutations indicative of H33.
The H33 haplogroup seems to have arisen in south west Europe, probably the Iberian peninsular, and spread from there. According to ‘Mitochondrial DNA diversity in northeast Iberians during the Iron Age’ (Daniel R. Cuesta-Aguirre et al., Journal of Archaeological Science, 2025), modern concentrations of H33 occur in six or seven parts of Europe and the Middle East.
Consequently, finding H33 on the Shroud no more indicates Druze connections than it does the Rhineland or Hungary. But there’s more. In Barcaccia’s 2015 paper is the information (in Table 2: ‘Table 2. Human mtDNA haplogroups found on the Turin Shroud’) that the H33 Haplogroup was actually given a Sub-Haplogroup type, namely H33c.
H33, it turns out, has several varieties, including H33a, H33b and H33c, associated with particular geographical areas. And although H33a and H33b are more associated with Western Asia, H33c generally has a more Western European distribution. This seems a contra-indication for a Middle Eastern provenance for the Shroud, although I’m not sufficiently familiar with genetics really to understand it.
Furthermore, Barcaccia’s 2015 paper lists 50 specific positions on a reference mtDNA where mutations were observed (see the column headed ‘Haplotype’ above), and this 2026 paper lists 56. Only six of these coincide. I find that remarkable, considering that the samples largely came from exactly the same places, and hope that someone will be able to comment on it more knowledgeably than I can. In the Supplementary Material to the 2026 paper, a table called ‘S2A – TS MtDNA’ includes H33 as found on the B12 microscope side, under the heading ‘mtDNA_haplocheck_minor_hg.’ Associated with it, under the heading ‘Haplotype,’ are the mutations: 73G 114T 263G 310C 497T 750G 1189C 1438G 1811G 2706G 3107C 3480G 4769G 7028T 8860G 9055A 9698C 10398G 10550G 10978G 11299C 11467G 11470G 11719A 11914A 12308G 12372A 12954C 14167T 14766T 14798C 15326G 15924G 16223T 16224C 16234T 16311C 16519C, and under the heading ‘Matches with previous Table 2 in Barcaccia 2015 et al.’ are the following: 73G, 263G, 7028T, 7146G, 7316A, 7402G, 12308G, 12372A, 12406A, 13758A, 16179A, 16234T, 16519C. However, only six of these “matches” (underlined) actually appear in both set of mutations. I don’t understand this.
The long and short of it is accurately summed up in Barcaccia’s concluding sentence to his ‘Human DNA sequences identified on the Turin Shroud’ section: “Our results indicate that the human DNA found on the TS specimens mostly derives from the main collector, and shows variable level of additional contamination.” On an investigation into proteinaceous material, he writes: “Overall, it can be concluded that no ancient peptides were identified in the samples, only keratins and other proteins associated with skin handling.”
Typically, the popular press seem to have ignored all this, and concentrated on the possibility that the cloth of the Shroud may have come from India, although there is absolutely nothing in the new research to suggest anything of the kind. The paper simply refers to Barcaccia’s previous DNA study, in which India played a prominent part. It seems strange that the new paper does nothing to confirm the previous one’s observations. The earlier one quoted 15 haplogroups, namely: H1, H2a, H3, H4, H13, H33, L, L3, M39, M56, R7, R8, R0a, U2 and U5. The new one found that “it was not possible to reconstruct complete mitogenome haplotypes that could be confidently classified into any of the South Asian minor lineages (e.g., M39, M56, R7, and R8) identified in our previous study.” Exit India.
It has to be said that there is an elephant in the room. Wrapped around the science is a convoluted and highly disputed discussion of the history of the Shroud, which to me indicates belief in its authenticity. Although I have no doubt that the scientific research was scrupulously impartial, I can’t help feeling that the appeal to Druze DNA without acknowledging its Western European equivalents, and the reference to a previous discovery of Indian DNA when there is nothing in the present study to confirm it, coupled to a failed attempt to authenticate the Shroud by radiocarbon dating, suggests that what Barcaccia and his colleagues really wanted to do was to demonstrate that the Shroud really is the burial cloth of Jesus. In fact, in so far as this study means anything at all, it is quite clear that it indicates that it isn’t.
==========================
Appendix: mtDNA identification in detail
Human mitochondria each contain a loop of DNA, consisting of about 16569 rungs of the DNA ‘ladder.’ Different versions of mtDNA are defined in terms of the number of differences in these rungs from a standard reference list.
Here are the differences which define haplogroups H, H33, H33a, H33b and H33c (from Haplogrep 3, Phylotree 17.0 Reconstructed Sapiens Reference Sequence):
Note that the H33 group differs from the H group by a single mutation (in position 11447 – indicated in yellow). H33a, H33b and H33c differ from H33 at 3507 (H33a), 16172 and 16400 (H33b), and 10373 and 16188 (H33c).
Barcaccia’s latest research lists the mutations observed from DNA extracted from microscope slide B12, which I have added to the table above as follows:
Of Barcaccia’s 36 noted mutations, only 8 match the previous table, and only at positions common to all of the previous lists. It is therefore not possible to resolve his list to H33 rather than H.
Hi John,
I’ve had no reply from Gianni Barcaccia, and to be honest I doubt if I will. Although the article as it stands is more pro-medieval than pro-authentic, it is clear that the authors, if they even noticed, wish it were otherwise. As to your speculation, well, why not, but to me the idea that there was lots of old middle eastern DNA but it’s all degraded is pushing wishful thinking to its limits. Or that it was all brushed off, only to be replaced by European DNA. Many things are possible, such as parading the Shroud around Turin Zoo to acquire the polar bear and hippo DNA, but without a bit more definite evidence, I don’t think it’s worthwhile to guess unless to promote a specific agenda, which I try not to go in for, much.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi Hugh,
Thanks for your extensive “Carrots and Corals” analysis of the recent 2026 Shroud DNA test results by Prof. Gianni Barcaccia and his research team.
What a surprise. Yes, I’ve seen the recent news notices for those many sensational articles about the “Indian Turin Shroud” that have popped up online. And I remembered that the “Indian” claim had been publicly made by Barcaccia already back in 2015. So I haven’t bothered reading these latest ones, regarding them as dubious.
But now you say the new test results do not even support that Indian origin claim. What have the reporters been thinking? It looks like many of them only read the article’s short initial abstract/summary, mentioning that earlier “Indian” hypothesis, and did not bother then reading the whole long article itself, which diverges from that abstract quite a bit. Also, the first paragraph of two of the new article, the “Intro” section, seems to summarize “previous” findings without clearly labeling them as those published in 2015. The little word “previous” gets rather lost among the mountains of highly technical jargon. A reporter, quickly reading that section, could easily have stopped reading right there, seeing apparently sensational news, a “scoop” or bit of golden click bait for readers. Besides that, the (long) article is full of genetics language which is difficult for average readers to understand. It’s very easy to give up on it.
Your in-depth sifting of the results certainly is impressive. I’ve been waiting many days for someone else to comment usefully, either here on your blog or in some other reputable forum. As so often, however, no one has done so.
It’s clear that Barcaccia and his team of 18 others made at least several mistakes in their research and writing. How unfortunate. Have you received any reply, even private, from any of them? Will you notify the journal itself? Please do.
Yet, I still wonder if your summary of the article’s results is too pessimistic about any evidence there for the Shroud’s possible 1st century authenticity.
In reading Barcaccio’s article, I noticed, though I’m unqualified in science, a few things that you may not have adequately covered in your blogpost. It was mentioned at times that really ancient DNA is naturally far more degraded than more recent DNA, to the point where ancient DNA sometimes cannot be identified today. Could that be a factor in the lack of 1st century Palestinian/Jewish DNA evidence?
Your summary does not seem to mention that timeline problem of degraded, unidentifiable DNA samples. Barcaccia’s article itself does not often mention it, either. But wouldn’t DNA particles that were 2,000 years old be much less likely to survive until 1978/2026 than DNA particles that were merely 300 or 200 years old? A lot of the plant and animal DNA traces found on those few samples taken from the Shroud in 1978 surely derives from people and their clothing that brushed up against the Shroud during only the previous 100 years. My favorite is that “Pacific sea lion” DNA.
No page numbers were given in the online version of Bacaccia’s article I read. So, for reference here, I’ll refer to its various headings. Under “Bacterial and Fungal taxa…,” one reads of the abundant presence of “salt-tolerant class Halobacteria, which is adapted to high salinity environments … and drought-stressed conditions.” That sounds a lot like desert conditions to me, as in the Middle East including the Levant. Also, “possible marine connections because the yeast is also found in seawater….” Again, it sounds a lot like locations near the eastern Mediterranean seacoast. Jerusalem? Galilee?
Under “Plant and Animal taxa identified…,” the article says, “Although none of the identified plant taxa can be uniquely associated with the Levant and the Middle East, several genera originated in the Fertile Crescent and are now widespread across the Mediterranean Basins. For example, almond trees, pistachios, and figs….” Also wheat: “By the 1st century BC … wheat was well-established in [the Middle East].”
Under “Reappraisal of the overall biodiversity …,” one finds, “Many identified plant species are native to and widespread in Central Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, extending from the Iberian Peninsula to the Middle East.”
As for animal and especially human DNA traces, it says, about the human DNA variant H33, “typical of the Near East and particularly frequent among the Druze [southern Syrian and Lebanese],” who, “share a common genetic ancestry with Jews.” The word “typical” is certainly misleading, because H33 is not at all dominant but apparently only a fairly common minor variant among the Druze. The “H33c” variant that you rightly noticed is a puzzle, of course, seeming to point more toward Iberia, far across the Mediterranean.
But the mysterious “Sea Peoples” of the Iron Age who invaded and colonized the Levant have apparently been traced recently to Sardinia, which is not far from Iberia. It may also be relevant that the region of Galilee in ancient Palestine was very close to the sea, only some 50 miles away (80 km), thus open to such migrants and influences. And from Sardinia/Iberia to the Levant was only about a 2-week voyage by ship in antiquity. Some or many people surely traveled that distance.
Considering the massive population dislocations that occurred in the Middle East throughout ancient times, with people moving here and there, marching armies, traders traveling, pilgrimages, rapes, brief affairs, slavery, Babylon, Harran, etc., all their DNA surely got rather mixed. And we actually have no idea of the ancient ancestry of Jesus or his disciples and original followers. The legend of his descent from King David is fictional. And even if David were in his family line, what about David’s wives? Where did they come from? What about Solomon and his “900 wives”? Where did they all come from?
Barcaccia’s article, and you yourself, say that “most of” the human DNA traces extracted from those thin slivers of Shroud samples in 1978 consisted of DNA from the skin of Prof. Baima Bollone himself, the Italian researcher who extracted them. Doesn’t this suggest something? If so much of the DNA came from just one man, and that man was a 20th century scientist who extracted the samples in the 1970s, doesn’t that tell us something? Probably all or almost all of the few other human DNA samples likewise derive from very recent human contact, in the 20th century, thus abundantly preserved. How many DNA-identifiable human individuals are proposed in all? “Several” Barcaccia writes. A paltry number, it seems.
The article does not seem to speculate about any possible reasons for the lack of specifically Palestinian plant or animal DNA traces. So I might just wonder aloud about that situation, as follows. Please comment or correct me wherever I’m mistaken. I’m only interested in the truth about the Shroud, come what may.
First, the sites or spots on the Shroud represented by the samples seem rather small, even tiny. Larger sample areas might have produced far more results, maybe including traces of specifically Levantine DNA, plant or animal or both.
Let’s also consider that the Shroud – if authentic – was almost certainly not much exposed to the open air during its early existence in the 1st century Levant and thus to microscopic DNA traces in the air. It may well have been a very new cloth woven less than a year before and stored all rolled up in a Jerusalem market stall or fabric shop. Eventually it was purchased for the corpse of Jesus and then carried, surely still rolled up, to his tomb, where it was first unrolled and used to cover his body. After its brief use there for less than 36 hours, it would have been retrieved by his disciples or women followers on that mysterious morning of the third day, presumably folded up or rolled back up for compact transport to a nearby home. There it would be opened for inspection. Its marvelous image would have been seen and have mystified all present. They must have felt it was supernaturally created, apparently a miracle, and so they, a tiny, new, and persecuted sect, kept it a secret, kept the cloth well protected, hidden, rarely opened. In all antiquity, it was surely never exhibited out of doors in the open air, and very few people would ever have been allowed to touch it or come near it. That protected condition could have lasted for several centuries as it was gradually taken northward.
Eventually, if the Shroud had such an ancient history, it ended up in France and, starting in about 1350, began to be exhibited to large crowds, sometimes even outdoors in the open air. Over the following centuries, it was demonstrably exhibited dozens of times, often to many thousands of people, and even touched by some of them, thus accounting for all that various far-flung DNA present on it today, often the product of recent and distant travel by steamship, train, airplane or jet.
Another speculation now if you don’t mind. Is there any chance that much or most of any 1st century Middle Eastern flora and fauna DNA debris on the Shroud could have been lost in, say, the 14th or 15th century when the Shroud first started being displayed widely and outdoors? Might its possessors have sincerely tried to clean it by brushing it or shaking it in the air before such displays. Could some or many microscopic DNA particles have been lost at that time?
Hugh, if you know of any better speculation that might introduce more ambiguity, or more certainty, to this issue, please let us know. Thanks!
John L.
Hi Joe!
I’m honoured that you can take the time to read this blog, and particularly thank you for providing real evidence in support of your views, which is, as you know, all too rare. However, I’m afraid you misunderstand STuRP’s view of the radiocarbon sample area, and specifically Tom d’Muhala’s position.
Nobody, I think, supposed that the piece of Shroud that was cut off in 1973 and sent to Gilbert Raes, and which he photographed in close-up and wrote a report on, was anything other than a genuine piece of Shroud and entirely typical of the rest of the cloth. However, alleged fragments of that sample, coupled to reports about the rather casual way it was being preserved, led d’Muhala and others to think that in the subsequent years, it had been muddled up with other textile fragments, and could no longer be considered reliable. As he points out, fragments Heller and Adler were given did not match the fibres they had examined from elsewhere, and photos taken by Gonella did not match the ones published by Raes.
Thus it was feared, not that the Raes sample was, as taken, unrepresentative but that no remaining alleged piece of it could be guaranteed to be part of the original. There was no suggestion that the Shroud itself, not even the area right next to where the Raes sample was cut from, was unduly contaminated. That is why, two years after the telegram you quote above, Tom d’Muhala himself had no qualms in signing off the recommendation that the area right next to where the Raes sample had been taken from should be used for the radiocarbon dating. Specifically, the 1984 proposals request “permission to take samples from several different non-image locations on the shroud. Two hundred milligrams (200mg) from each of the burned areas under and around the patches (excluding the dorsal shoulder fold mark intersection area) will be trimmed away. […] We also request 200-mg-samples from the presumed side strip, one patch, and the lower right-hand corner of the Shroud. […] We also request a 200-mg-sample from the Holland backing cloth.” As I explain in “Whose Silly Idea Was It Anyway?” the lower right hand corner was, to STuRP’s 1978 investigation, and the formal photos taken by Vernon Miller, what is usually recognised as the upper left-hand corner today, as the Shroud was unrolled the ‘wrong way round’ onto the specially made table.
If you consult the “Formal Proposal” of 1984, signed off by Tom d’Muhala and John Jackson, there is no reference to repairs. What the proposal does say, however, is “an erroneous state for the Shroud age is sometimes posed as possible due to cloth contamination […] We think this is now unlikely for two reasons: first, the current preparation treatment of samples is known to quantitatively remove both organic and inorganic accretions; and second, calculations using eqn. 3 show no significant contribution to the calendar date with less than five percent contamination.”
As a corollary to this, the rather tatty remains of the Raes sample were returned to the place they came from in 1988, just before the sample was extracted, and shown under magnification to be a correct fit, dispelling the notion that they had got lost, although it is still quite possible that something else was confused for them when STuRP tried to investigate them.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hugh wrote: This is completely untrue, as I’m sure Joe would readily acknowledge if anyone bothered to raise the point. The STuRP proposals, which are easily accessible via shroud.com, do not even mention “possible repairs,” but they do specifically advise taking a sample from the ‘Raes corner,’ and they specifically explain that they are not “worried about contamination.”
See the telex below from Eric Jumper and Tom D’Muhala of STURP
FEBRUARY 10, 1982
ATTENTIØN: LUIGI GØNELLA
AL THØUGH WE WERE IN FAVØR OF DATING THE RAES SAMPLES UP UNTIL VERY
RECENTLY, SERIØUS CONSIDERATION NOW LEADS US TØ FEEL ØTHERWISE. WE
NØW BELIEVE IT IS IMPERATIVE NØT TO DATE THE “RAES” SAMPLES UNDER
ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. WE DO, HØWEVER, PUSH MØRE STRØNGLY THAN EVER
FØR CARBON DATING TØ BE DØNE BUT THINK IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT NEW
SAMPLES BE REMØVED FRØM THE SHRØUD IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESSES
AND THESE NEW SAMPLES MUST REMAIN IN THE SØLE PØSSESSIØN OF ØNE
PERSØN, YOU, SO THAT THE CHAIN ØF EVIDENCE BE UNBRØKEN AND WITHØUT
QUESTIØN. WE FEEL THIS STRØNGLY BECAUSE WE ØURSFLVES NØ LØNGER
BELIEVE THAT THE “RAES” SAMPLES IN ØUR PØSSESSION ARE SHRØUD
MATERIAL. WE REFER TØ THE STARCH COATING ON ONE SUCH SAMPLE
EXAMINED BY HELLER’ AND ADLER. D’MUHALA’S EXAMINATION OF PHØTØS
TAKEN BY YOU AND HE, OF SAMPLES IN MSGR. CATINO’S ØFFICE, AND
ØRIGINAL PHØ TØGRAPHS OF “RAES” SAMPLES ALSØ PLACE GRAVE DØUBTS
IN ØUR MINDS ABØUT ALL THE RAES SAMPLES.
Notice that they state they don’t believe the Raes material is even original Shroud, which implies it’s a repair. The C-14 sample was right next to the Raes sample. Ray Rogers found the same characteristics in the Raes sample and in the C-14 sample. So, if the Raes material could be a repair and the material matches what’s in the C-14 sample, the latter could also be a repair.
Hi Steven,
Thanks very much for your comment, which is very flattering and much appreciated, but please feel free to criticise or question if you come across anything that grates at all. Sometimes it bothers me that I don’t spend more time writing to senior authenticists who ought to know better when they perpetrate myths supporting authenticity, but one can only do so much, and it would become repetitious. If I, or anyone else, made more effort to keep them straight it could only strengthen their case, and possibly encourage genuine researchers to take the Shroud more seriously.
Recently, Joe Marino, author of a mammoth book on the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, spoke on a site called ‘Curious Dimension,’ and included “They decided to take the C-14 sample right next to [the place where the Raes extract had been taken from], because it would, so to speak, deface the Shroud the least amount. But that was a big mistake because the Shroud of Turin Research Project […] had recommended not taking a C-14 sample from that area, because a big area had been taken out for relics [nearby], and they were worried about contamination and possible repairs.” This is completely untrue, as I’m sure Joe would readily acknowledge if anyone bothered to raise the point. The STuRP proposals, which are easily accessible via shroud.com, do not even mention “possible repairs,” but they do specifically advise taking a sample from the ‘Raes corner,’ and they specifically explain that they are not “worried about contamination.” Mistakes like that go a long way to discredit the authenticist cause without any need for serious refutation.
Anyway, best wishes!
Hugh
I thank you Hugh for this invaluable website and for the extraordinary amount of work you’ve done on the Shroud, for which you probably deserve a knighthood!
I first heard of you when you were on the Reason to Doubt you tune channel some years ago. Apart from that, I’ve read Andrea Nicolotti’s book he Shroud of Turin: The History and Legends of the World’s Most Famous Relic. Still, I have much to learn.
Cheers from Oz
I’m really sorry William, but if you have nothing specific to contribute, I won’t let you comment.
I wish you well in your faith and your charitable activities, but this is not the forum for your kind of debate.
Regards,
Hugh
No, William, no.
The DNA analysis is a purely mechanical process which either shows Middle Eastern DNA or it doesn’t. It does not ‘rely’ on any other alleged evidence that the Shroud is from one era or another. No reasonable interpretation of the DNA results supports a Middle Eastern provenance for the Shroud, and the only way in which it is corroborated by the pollen evidence is that the pollen too does not support a Middle Eastern Provenance.
Lawrence Schauf has written an entertaining couple of speeches summing up a theoretical ‘trial of the Shroud,’ but since he neither knows nor cares about the strength of any of the evidence in favour or against it, his speeches – especially his ludicrous version of the Defence’s closing speech – cannot be taken seriously. It’s a rare trial in which both the Prosecution and the Defence are represented by the same person!
Now, enough, William. I don’t want this blog to become a repetitious exchange of uncorroborated generalities. If there is anything wrong with my post, please point out where and why. Quote the words you object to, and explain why they are wrong. Otherwise, find another outlet for your platitudes.
Best wishes,
Hugh
In juridical science the understanding of the DNA falls within the majority of evidence (propensity of evidence). As such the DNA is correctly viewed in terms of the 2000 year old date of the Shroud.
Lawrence E Schauf a juridical scientist concludes that the C14 dating is fraudulent. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/trial-of-the-shroud-of-turin?sourc
Therefore the DNA analysis relies on the overwhelming other evidence that the date is 2000 years old and the DNA is interpreted in that context. Juridical science’s use of the most reasonable explanation of the DNA results supports a conclusion that the DNA provides a trail from the Middle East to Turin. The DNA evidence is corroborated by the pollen evidence.