Further, an Italian scientist managed to reproduce the Shroud by using materials that would have been available during the Middle Ages.
The other reasons for fakery (not fraudulence, as it apparently wasn’t designed to deceive people) are given in a very nice article by the historian Charles Freeman that just appeared in “Circumstantial evidence also comes from the nature of the weave.
Most images on this site are copyrighted and used with permission.
In other words it is almost certain that the shroud itself was not carbon dated.But what we should be reading, if scientific accuracy is important, is that the carbon dating is well understood to be invalid. Thanks to the Internet, many of today’s readers are well informed and this makes reporters’ stories that mostly rely on regurgitated old information look lame.What is being reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals and at scientific conference is very different than what is being reported in main stream media. Because, invariably, any reporting about the shroud falls under the general category of religion which is often a subcategory of something called lifestyle. The new information, well documented in ethical scientific journals, doesn’t prove that the shroud is authentic. But it does show that the single scientific argument having any peer-reviewed gravitas, has crumbled.The genetic lineage, or haplotype, of the DNA snippets suggested that people ranging from North African Berbers to East Africans to inhabitants of China touched the garment.Still, the strongest genetic signals seemed to come from areas in and around the Middle East and the Caucasus - not far from where Jesus was buried, and consistent with the early folklore surrounding the object.