>There was plenty of evidence that the Shroud was from the First Century AD in Judea, from botanical evidence to knowledge of burial practices, but that was ignored in favor or the radiocarbon findings.
And the chemical and microphotograph data that showed that the "blood" was (tempura?) paint.
The spelling is tempera, and I don't know where you got THAT information. I've seen several tv specials about the shroud, and read several articles, and the information in everyone of those sources said that there was NO paint anywhere, so they were at a loss to explain how the image appears on the cloth. There is a sticky substance coating some of the fibers, but it was determined that it was either pollen (which a botanist state was traced to plants that only grew in the Middle east in the first century) or residue from the fire that burned the Church in Turin in which the Shroud was kept.
Only one person has ever claimed that and his work was not duplicated by any other scientist. Walter C. McCrone (deceased) is a microscropist and works with an OPTICAL microscope. His claims of tempura paint and iron oxide were NOT confirmed with ELECTRON microscopy and Micro-spectrometry which proved that it was NOT painted and that in fact there is no pigment at all.
McCrone even attempted to sabotage other researchers' investigation by not providing exemplar fibers from the shroud that contained "blood" but instead sent them fibers from the non-stained areas.