Because I am curious and love checking out on the main pages where articles come from clicking on those links right at the bottom of the page printed in small print, you should know that the article claiming that the carbon testing is now discredited might be biased. If you check the main webpage from the shroudstory webpage you will see that the main thrust of that webpage is to support the point that the shroud is a real thing. Also while this is not a bar to providing a non-biased debate you should know that that site is run by a "lifetime Episcopalian and an active member of Trinity Church, Wall Street (Episcopal)."
Checking the other sites such as BBC or www.shroud.com
which I got to via both the shroudstroy site and BBC, it seems to support that the shroud is only 700 years. A quote from www.shroud.com:
The history of the Shroud of Turin can be best studied by dividing it into two specific categories. The general consensus of even the most doubting researchers is to accept a "1350" date as the beginning of the "undisputed" or documented history of the Shroud of Turin. This also happens to coincide with the approximate date determined by the 1988 carbon dating of the cloth. Although there is a significant amount of evidence supporting the Shroud's existence prior to the mid 1300's, much of it is, in fact, "circumstantial" and remains mostly unproven.
Another interesting tidbit. Apparently in 2002 the shroud was 'restored.' Agains some quotes:
June 20 - July 22, 2002: A small group of textile experts, headed by Mechtild Fleury-Lemberg of Switzerland, perform a dramatic and radical "restoration" of the Shroud under the auspices of the Archbishop of Turin and his advisors at the Turin Center for Shroud Studies, and with the full permission of the Vatican. They remove the thirty patches sewn into the cloth by Poor Clare Nuns in 1534 to repair burn holes from the 1532 fire. They remove the backing cloth (frequently referred to as the "Holland Cloth") that was sewn onto the back of the Shroud in 1534 to strengthen the fire damaged relic. They photograph the hidden back side of the cloth and then re-attach a new, whiter linen backing cloth. They use lead weights suspended from the edges of the Shroud to "flatten" many of the creases in the cloth and apply steam to certain areas to help accomplish this. They handle the cloth without gloves or special clothing. They scrape away the charred edges of all the burned areas and collect the scrapings into small containers. During a continuous period of thirty-two days, they expose the cloth to significant amounts of potentially damaging light and the polluted air of Turin. They perform this restoration in secret, without consulting any of the world's Shroud experts (including most of their own advisors) that could have contributed important scientific guidance to ensure that no valuable scientific or historical data was lost or damaged during the restoration. They set off a firestorm of controversy, criticism, debate and recrimination that ultimately engulfs, polarizes and divides the Shroud research community. For more information on how this important event unfolded, see the 2002 Website News page. You will also want to read the Comments On The Restoration page, where fourteen noted Shroud experts express their own opinions of the restoration.
Over the past several months, I spoke with many of the researchers who attended the special, invitation-only viewing of the newly restored Shroud in Turin, on Friday, September 20, 2002. They expressed a very broad spectrum of opinions on the restoration and the results. Some praise the effort and believe that proper care was exercised in the performance of the restoration and that the removed materials were properly documented and archived so they could be used for future testing. Others believe that considerable material was lost or contaminated and that future testing would be severely impacted because of the intervention. Some even believe that certain tests may never be able to be performed. Concerns have been expressed criticizing the techniques used during the restoration, including possible DNA contamination and overexposure to ultraviolet light sources. Some are greatly disturbed by the confirmed change in the image proportions and the apparent change in image contrast. However, the most frequently voiced criticism continues to be over the lack of any consultation with the international scientific community before the restoration was undertaken.