Norman Golb of the University of Chicago has some definite ideas about the origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls. To this end he has written a number of papers critiquing the current presentation in San Diego. While Professor Golb’s ideas have been rejected by most involved in the study of the Scrolls, his views have had an impact and accordingly have altered this area of study. No longer does any serious scholar accept the original idea that they were all written by the community living in Qumran.Now it is generally accepted that the scrolls were principally written elsewhere—most likely in Jerusalem—and then brought to Qumran.
However, Golb’s thesis that all the Scrolls were removed from Jerusalem immediately prior to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem has also been overtaken by subsequent study.Scholars at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, are now positing what could be categorized as older caves—caves with scrolls deposited at an earlier time, as well as later caves—where the scrolls were clearly deposited immediately prior to the fall of Jerusalem. Carbon dating of the linen shrouds in which some of the scrolls were wrapped prior to placing in the earthen ware jars have been used to help establish these dates.
In my view, Golb’s latest paper highlights how difficult it is to take a complex issue such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and produce something that will be of genuine interest to the public. Despite the shortcomings that Professor Golb sees in the catalogue, the San Diego Natural History Museum bookstore, conveniently located at the end of the display, is replete with books on the subject. These include Golb’s own book, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search for the Secret of Qumran, and others which present arguments that don’t always support the approach taken in the catalogue and display.
You say that Golb's view has "been overtaken by subsequent study."
The official Israel Antiquities Report by archaeologists Yitzhak Magen and Yuval Peleg, published in 2006 and now available on-line (see http://www.antiquities.org.il/images/shop/jsp/JSP6_Qumran_color.pdf) contains no such information, but simply endorses the Jerusalem theory without making the distinction betweer earlier and later scroll hidings that you describe.
So I'm a bit confused. Perhaps you could provide a reference to published scientific data on these shrouds, or to some publication by the "scholars at the Hebrew University" to whom you refer, along with their names, so readers can verify this claim of yours?