Overview
- The journal Archaeometry published a formal critique by Tristan Casabianca, Emanuela Marinelli, and Alessandro Piana disputing Cicero Moraes’s bas-relief hypothesis.
- The authors list technical issues including anatomical mistakes, left–right reversals, an arbitrary body height, reliance on a 1931 photo, and cloth tests on cotton rather than linen.
- The critique argues the model ignores two central properties reported for the Shroud: the image’s extreme surface-only character and independent indications of blood on the fabric.
- Moraes replied in the same journal, defending his conclusions as a strictly methodological exploration of body-to-cloth projection and pointing to historical artworks that critics say do not match the Shroud’s imagery.
- The commentators note that bas-relief scenarios were examined and rejected in the early 1980s, reference ongoing disputes over the 1989 radiocarbon date, and echo Cardinal Roberto Repole’s caution against superficial conclusions.