Main Menu
Tagcloud
I support
Car articles:
Random items:
Random pics
RSS Feeds
aggregators
Facebook Blog Network
linking back to brembs.net
Welcome Guest
Currently Online (17)
Extra Information
MicroBlog
Networking
Random Video
SciSites
GeoCounter
Such claims, sure to stir some public attention, needed a thorough peer-review process. I selected a team of four high-caliber international experts in both the field of ancient DNA analysis and radiometric dating. I also used a scheduled visit to Uppsala, where the work had been done, to meet the last and corresponding author of the manuscript, Marie Allen, and have a good look at the laboratories where the experiments had been made. Marie was the most gracious host and took a lot of time out of her busy schedule to show me around her lab and explain how professionally she had handled the relics according to the latest techniques.
The review-process was a lot more bumpy and time-consuming. The reviewers all liked the way she had handled and analyzed the DNA and only had minor suggestions for improvement in this respect. The radiocarbon dating itself was also ok, but two of the reviewers brought up the "reservoir effect". This could lead to a deviation in radiocarbon dating from the correct age if the two people had been on a high-seafood diet. To measure this reservoir effect, additional Nitrogen-dating techniques had to be applied. These proved difficult and time consuming, but after more than one year, the results were finally coming in. Indeed, there had been a measurable reservoir effect for both tested skulls, albeit not to a degree that would change the main conclusions of the study. Yesterday, almost 2 years after the initial manuscript had been submitted, the paper was finally published and I think both DNA and dating measurements are as accurate as they can possibly be, given today's technology. These measurements show that it is highly unlikely that the two skulls kept as relics by the Catholic church are the ones from St. Birgitta and her daughter. Most likely, not even one of the skulls comes from the person claimed by the church.
Nilsson, M., Possnert, G., Edlund, H., Budowle, B., Kjellström, A., & Allen, M. (2010). Analysis of the Putative Remains of a European Patron Saint–St. Birgitta PLoS ONE, 5 (2) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008986
Posted on Wednesday 17 February 2010 - 03:52:45
comment: 5
comment: 5| St. Birgitta relics church religion DNA radiocarbon genetics |
Comments
Jeremy
posted on
17 Feb 10: 08:39
:
When relics are not what they have been proclaimed to be
|
|
|
Reply to this |
What a fascinating paper, and as you say, a subject such as this one would need to be much more carefully handled than average. I don't suppose it will shake the faith of the faithfull (after all, what is faith but belief in the teeth of evidence?) but it does show how some interesting questions can be answered. Are any other relics going to be analysed in this kind of way? |
bjoern
posted on
17 Feb 10: 09:22
:
When relics are not what they have been proclaimed to be
|
|
|
Reply to this |
In don't currently have any similar reports on my desk and have not heard anything from these authors so far. But that doesn't mean that there isn't someone testing some specimen somewhere as we speak... |
Kevin
posted on
17 Feb 10: 11:25
:
When relics are not what they have been proclaimed to be
|
|
|
Registered: 17 Feb 10: 11:02 Reply to this |
After reading this post on 'When relics are not what they have been proclaimed to be', I am left wondering what happens When relics are not what they have been proclaimed to be. Specifically, what is the "Churches" reaction/response to the question. I have seen similar "revelations" before about some Saints remains including chicken bones and more than one persons remains. If you have the time, could you continue this post answering the question. Thanks, Kevin |
Jason Snyder
posted on
17 Feb 10: 16:30
:
When relics are not what they have been proclaimed to be
|
|
|
Reply to this |
Wow - the thoroughness is admirable, and sounds like it made for a better paper. Were the authors as fond of the thoroughness?! |
Marie A (author)
posted on
18 Feb 10: 09:29
:
When relics are not what they have been proclaimed to be
|
|
|
Reply to this |
Good comments and interesting questions here! There is a recent paper about analyses of relics, "The 'relics of Joan of Arc': a forensic multidisciplinary analysis. Charlier P et al. Forensic Sci Int. 2010 Jan 30;194(1-3):e9-15. Epub 2009 Nov 12. The responce from the church and abbey has been very positive in the Saint Birgitta case. They state that although it is sad that the sculls are not from Saint Birgitta, the relic shrine most likely contain bones from other saints and beatified persons. The relic shrine is still very precious to the abbey. They also say that it is important to allow and promote science and that we all want to find the truth. |
Submit comment
Render time: 0.8096 sec, 0.5274 of that for queries.














