(January 18, 2020 at 8:21 pm)Otangelo Wrote: Most recently Casabianca et al. (2019), based on information obtained after a legal filing with the British Museum, showed that some of the original Shroud date measurements reported by the three laboratories to the British Museum were modified from their original ‘raw’ laboratory values and transformed into their published form using an unstated methodology.
Our review and analysis of the Shroud radiocarbon data reveal a significant shortcoming in the original report by Damon et al. (1989). The shortcoming begins with the lack of adherence to the protocol that W-W define for combining the inter-laboratory data sets.
Rogers (2005) proposed a method for cross checking the dates of ancient textiles by measuring the loss of vanillin from residual lignin at the growth nodes of linen fibers. The tests he performed on the Shroud threads suggested to him a much greater age than the results Damon et al.
Fanti et al. (2013) developed a series of relationships between characteristics of fiber over time and a method of estimating the age of the fabric. He subsequently applied these techniques to a series of fibers extracted from the Shroud and derived an estimated calendar age of 90 AD +/− 200 yrs (Fanti et al., 2015).
Casabianca et al. didn't manage to do more than expand the range of the age slightly. You're looking at multiple AMS 14-C ages from multiple labs, all done double blind with quality control samples. All returned Medieval ages regardless of the age range and uncertainty you want to assign. The vanillin and fibre characteristic techniques are extremely dubious, especially as they are extremely sensitive to the storage conditions. Neither should be regarded as more reliable than the 14-C AMS dates obtained in 1989.
