“Yes, and I’m sure Ruffian’s house is totally disinfected of any and all reminders of his or her past—no letters, locks of hair. . . “
And I guess your house is infected with ancient heirlooms of your great-great grandparents that were really made in China a couple years ago.
If this shroud was a legitimate historical item, it would be super-cool.
It, however, appears to be a fake, albeit an 800 year old fake.
(Oh, and FreeRepublic courtesy is to copy a poster whom you slime so they can respond.)
You keep saying that...but what's your evidence? As a half-dozen people have already said, the Carbon-14 test HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED to have been contaminated with medieval material.
You are dense. No one cherishes a tool used by his grandfather or his grandmother’s engagement ring UNLESS he has satisfied himself of its authenticity.
You presume inauthenticity and then decry family heirlooms totally based on inauthenticity.
The issue here is whether this particular “heirloom” is authentic. If it is, humans cherish authentic “heirlooms” across the globe and across time.
But you bait and switch. You challenge authenticity and when we adduce overwhelming evidence in favor of authenticity, you dismiss all heirlooms. When I give you overwhelming evidence that people do, instinctively, value heirlooms from people they care about, you dismiss cherishing of fake heirlooms.
No one is advocating cherishing of something we know to be fake.
Make up your little mind. Is your beef with the inauthenticity of this particular relic or with cherishing of relics and heirlooms of any sort, including authentic relics?