Here is part 7, "2.1. A linen sheet" in my series, The Shroud of Turin The previous page was part 6, "2. What is the Shroud of Turin?" See part 1, the main Contents page, for more information about this series .
2. WHAT IS THE SHROUD OF TURIN?
2.1. A LINEN SHEET
© Stephen E. Jones
Dimensions. As previously mentioned , the Shroud of Turin is a rectangular sheet of fine linen[1], yellowed with age[2], 4.4 long by 1.1 metres wide[3] or 14 feet 3 inches by 3 feet 7 inches[4]. These unusual dimensions correspond very closely to 8 by 2 Assyrian cubits of 21.4 inches[5], which was the standard Jewish cubit in Jesus' day[6]. So even the dimensions of the Shroud are a major problem for the forgery theory[§1] of the Shroud's origin![7]!
[Above (enlarge): The Shroud laid out flat, presumably after the 2002 restoration]
Side strip. The Shroud is a single cloth apart from a strip about 8 cms (3½ inches) wide along its left-hand side (looking at the Shroud with its frontal image in the lower half and upright) and joined by a single seam[8]. The strip is incomplete at its ends, with 14 cms (5½ inches) and 36 cms (14 inches) missing at the bottom and top left hand corners respectively[9]. This side strip is made from the same piece of cloth as the Shroud, since unique irregularities in the weave of the main body of the Shroud extend across the side strip[10]. The outer long edges of the main body of the Shroud and the side strip have a selvedge, a weaver-finished edge[11]. This indicates that the Shroud was originally woven on a wide loom, and the side strip was cut lengthwise and joined to the main body of the Shroud to give it a selvedge on both long edges[12]. Weaving on extra-wide looms is known from antiquity, particularly in ancient Egypt, but it is not known from the Middle Ages[13]. Moreover, the hand-stitching of the seam joining the two inner edges of the side strip and the main Shroud is known only from textiles excavated from the first-century Jewish fortress at Masada, near the Dead Sea[14]. This is more evidence for Shroud's authenticity and further problems for the forgery theory[§2].
[Above (enlarge): Side strip (left) and seam (centre) near the bottom right hand (i.e. frontal image feet end) corner of the Shroud: ShroudScope]
[Above (enlarge): "How the shroud was originally woven much wider than its present width. Reconstruction of the likely size of the bolt of cloth of which the two lengths of the Shroud (shaded) formed part. This wider cloth was very expertly cut lengthwise, then the raw (i.e. non-selvedge) edges of the shaded segments joined together by a very professional seam to form the Shroud we know today."[15]]
Weave. The cloth's weave is known as "3 to 1 twill" because each transversal weft thread passes alternatively over three and under one of the longitudinal warp threads[16]. This gives the weave the appearance of diagonal lines which reverse direction at regular intervals to create a herringbone pattern[17]. Such complex herringbone three to one twill weaves are known from antiquity, for example, from Egypt and Syria, but they are not known from the Middle Ages.[18]
Yarn. In 1973, textile expert Prof. Gilbert Raes was given four samples from the Shroud's bottom left-hand corner: a 12 mm long weft thread, a 13 mm long warp thread, a 10 x 40 mm piece from the side strip and a 13 x 40 mm piece from the adjacent main Shroud [19] Raes confirmed that the threads and the pieces were linen from common flax plant Linum usitatissium[20]. The flax yarn in the two pieces had what is known as a Z-twist, from the spindle having been rotated clockwise, whereas the yarn in the threads was the more unsual S-twist[21]. Raes also found traces of cotton, of the Middle Eastern species Gossypium herbaceum, in the piece from the main body of the Shroud but not in the piece from the side strip.[22]. This is very significant as we will see when we consider the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud in "6. Science and the Shroud."
NOTES
1. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Allanheld: Totowa NJ, p.11; Danin, A., 2010, "Botany of the Shroud: The Story of Floral Images on the Shroud of Turin," Danin Publishing: Jerusalem, Israel, p.7 [return]
2. Antonacci, M., 2000, "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.212. [return]
3. The Shroud was precisely measured by textile expert Dr. Flury-Lemberg prior to the 1998 exposition and found to be 437 cm long by 111 cm wide. (British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 51, June 2000 [PDF]). [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.69. [return]
5. 8 x 21.4 inches = 171.2 inches and 2 x 21.4 inches = 42.8 inches. The Shroud is 172.0 x 43.7 inches. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.181. [return]
7. Wilson, 1991, p.181. [return]
8. Wilson, 1979, p.21. [return]
9. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.162. [return]
10. Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, p.42. [return]
11. Wilson, I., "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, 2010, p.72 [return]
12. Wilson, 2010, p.72. [return]
13. Wilson, 2010, pp.74-76. [return]
14. Wilson, 2010, p.72. [return]
15. Wilson, 2010, p.73. Upper case heading reduced. [return]
16. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.161. [return]
17. Wilson, 1979, p.69. [return]
18. Wilson, 2010, pp.74-76. [return]
19. Antonacci, 2000, p.98. [return]
20. Sox, H.D., 1981, "The Image on the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?," Unwin: London, p.74. [return]
21. Wilson, I. & Miller, V., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.36. [return]
22. Wilson, 1979, pp.70-71. [return]
§1, §2. I have created a section "9. Problems of the Forgery Theory" and I will keep a progressively numbered total of all the problems of the forgery theory encountered along the way, so they can all be brought together and discussed in that section.[return]
Continued in part 8, "2.2. The Shroud's location".
Posted 31 October 2012. Updated 4 August 2024.
Posts
11 comments:
S'uch complex three to one twill weaves are known from 'antiquity, for example, from Egypt and Syria, but they are not known from the Middle Ages.'
This is surely not true- your source was certainly not someone who knew about textiles- 3/1 was used extensively especially in ecclesiastical vestments . As one commentator says `'Tablet-woven 3/1 was used to create some of the most elaborately patterned bands of the Middle Ages. Collingwood's Techniques of Tablet Weaving (TTW) illustrates some amazing examples, including the maniple from Arlon, which is my favorite piece of tablet weaving."
The choice of twills is not difficult to make - 3/1 is fairly standard. Gilbert Raes said that the weave in itself could not be used to date the Shroud as examples go back to 800 Bc and certainly throughout the Roman period ( it was common for damask) and Middle Ages,
Weaving fan
Thanks for your comment.
>>Such complex three to one twill weaves are known from 'antiquity, for example, from Egypt and Syria, but they are not known from the Middle Ages.'
I have now added "herringbone" before "complex three to one twill weaves" and changed the page numbers to "pp.74-76."
In pages 76-77 textile expert Flury-Mechtild refers to extra-wide looms, one of which the Shroud was woven on, already mentioned in reference [13]:
"Weaving on extra-wide looms is known from antiquity, particularly in ancient Egypt, but it is not known from the Middle Ages"
I have now added a diagram from Wilson's book to illustrate this.
>This is surely not true- your source was certainly not someone who knew about textiles- 3/1 was used extensively especially in ecclesiastical vestments .
My reference [18] was to Wilson, I., "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, 2010, pp.72,76-77. Here is the part of what Wilson wrote:
"A further highly unusual feature of the Shroud's linen is the weave itself. ... an altogether more complex three-to-one herringbone twill ... To make it, the weaver would have had to pass each weft (or transverse) thread alternately under three warp (or vertical) threads, then over on; creating diagonal lines. At regular intervals he or she would then have had to reverse direction to create the distinctive zigzags. ...Even among textile experts, therefore, the search for parallels to the Shroud, whether from the Middle Ages or from further back in antiquity, has not been easy. This difficulty was made very evident when the British Museum's Dr Michael Tite, the official invigilator for the 1988 carbon dating work, was looking for some historical samples of linen resembling the Shroud's weave to use for controls. His plan was that the carbon dating laboratories should not know which of the samples had come from the actual Shroud. He even sought my help on this. But the plan failed. In order to provide controls that were at least all of linen he had to abandon the requirement that their weave should be herringbone. French specialist Gabriel Vial found much the same difficulty following his hands-on examination of the Shroud in 1988. There was literally no parallel that he could cite from the Middle Ages. ... Vial found the era of antiquity itself - that is, around the time of Christ - significantly more productive ..." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, 2010, pp.74-75).
I have changed the page numbers of reference 18 from "pp.72,76-77" to "pp.74-76".
>As one commentator says `'Tablet-woven 3/1 was used to create some of the most elaborately patterned bands of the Middle Ages.
Were they herringbone weave? That is, did the diagonal weave reverse regularly to give a herringbone ">>>" appearance?
>Collingwood's Techniques of Tablet Weaving (TTW) illustrates some amazing examples, including the maniple from Arlon, which is my favorite piece of tablet weaving."
See my question above about "herringbone".
>The choice of twills is not difficult to make - 3/1 is fairly standard.
Then why could the British Museum not find any medieval 3:1 twill herringbone weaves comparable to the Shroud's for the 1988 radiocarbon dating?
>Gilbert Raes said that the weave in itself could not be used to date the Shroud as examples go back to 800 Bc and certainly throughout the Roman period ( it was common for damask) and Middle Ages,
From your words above, Raes was evidently meaning one could not from the weave date the Shroud precisely to the time of Christ.
Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.
‘A further highly unusual [sic] feature of the Shroud's linen is the weave itself. ... an altogether more complex three-to-one herringbone twill ...’
Ian Wilson, not so far as is known an expert on textiles. Compare:
Gilbert Raes, renowned expert on ancient textiles: “At the beginning of our age both cotton and linen were known in the Middle East. The type of weave [the herringbone pattern of the Turin Shroud] is not particularly distinctive and does not enable us to determine the period in which it was produced” .
There is nothing particularly special about 3/1 weave which is why it is so widespread, even way back in ancient Egypt and still used by weavers today. Wilson is misleading here. Remember also that Tite had to find a piece of linen that the owners would allow to be cut up to be used as a CONTROL. Wilson seems to imply that there were no similar herringbone cloths around in the Middle Ages. This is not true- it is simply that most are in museums (e.g the Victorian and Albert Museum in London) and can not be cut up to provide a control sample.
Weaving fan
>‘A further highly unusual [sic] feature of the Shroud's linen is the weave itself. ... an altogether more complex three-to-one herringbone twill ...’
I regard your putting a "[sic]" in Wilson's words quoted by me (and therefore my words) as substandard and personally offensive. The only valid excuse would be if Wilson or I made a spelling or grammatical mistake, which we didn't.
>Ian Wilson, not so far as is known an expert on textiles.
This is FALLACIOUS. Wilson has spent a LIFETIME studying the Shroud and has met, seen and heard at Shroud conferences, and corresponded with, many "an expert on textiles". To dismiss what Wilson says about the Shroud's weave because he is not "an expert on textiles" is also substandard.
>Compare:
>
>Gilbert Raes, renowned expert on ancient textiles: ... The type of weave [the herringbone pattern of the Turin Shroud] is not particularly distinctive and does not enable us to determine the period in which it was produced” .
This is also substandard. As I previously pointed out, Raes was talking about not being able to pinpoint the weave of the Shroud TO THE TIME OF CHRIST. He was not saying that 3:1 herringbone twill weave linen was produced in Europe in the Middle Ages.
>There is nothing particularly special about 3/1 weave which is why it is so widespread, even way back in ancient Egypt and still used by weavers today.
This is merely an ASSERTION by you. It is also FALLACIOUS. That 3:1 herringbone twill weave is "widespread" TODAY and was known "in ancient Egypt" does not thereby mean it was produced in Europe in the Middle Ages.
>Wilson is misleading here. Remember also that Tite had to find a piece of linen that the owners would allow to be cut up to be used as a CONTROL.
This is FALSE. The amount of linen needed as a control in the 1988 AMS radiocarbon dating was only the size of a POSTAGE STAMP. So it would NOT mean it would have to be "cut up". The Shroud is of FAR GREATER value than any individual medieval linen and so the Vatican would never have allowed the Shroud to be C14 dated if that meant it would be "cut up."
The fact is that Tite of the British Museum could NOT FIND a medieval piece of linen AT ALL which was 3:1 herringbone twill and therefore visually identical to the Shroud, so that the C14 dating labs could not tell which was the Shroud. But if medieval European 3:1 herringbone twill linen was so common as you claim it was, it would have been NO PROBLEM for Tite to obtain a POSTAGE STAMP sized sample of at least ONE of them.
>Wilson seems to imply that there were no similar herringbone cloths around in the Middle Ages. This is not true- it is simply that most are in museums (e.g the Victorian and Albert Museum in London) and can not be cut up to provide a control sample.
This is FALSE. See above.
As I pointed out above, several aspects of your comment I found to be substandard and even offensive, and so according to my policies it should not have appeared (see below). I only allowed it to appear so that I could further refute your argument.
I used to have a policy for those who like to argue and waste my time by reiterating the same false and substandard arguments:
"Each individual will usually be allowed only one comment under each post. Since I no longer debate, any response by me will usually be only once to each individual under each post."
This policy was not permanently abolished, but only temporarily relaxed, and is held in reserve by me to invoke whenever I deem it necessary, as I now do.
Therefore you have had your last comment under this post. You are free to comment under other posts on this blog, but if they are similarly substandard they won't appear.
Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.
I suspected this "Weaving fan" above may have been Colin Berry, who has been permanently banned from commenting on this blog because of his continual substandard and offensive comments.
Now according to this post on Dan Porter's blog it seems it was.
Evidently Colin is not troubled by the ethics of posting comments to a blog where he has been banned, by the subterfuge of adopting a new pseudonym for the sole purpose of deceiving its Moderator.
But just as the leopard cannot change his spots, so it seems that Colin Berry cannot change his style, by not posting offensive and substandard comments! So whatever pseudonym Colin uses he won't last long on my blog.
I note that Dan does not like my style of moderating. He is welcome to his opinion. It has been a conscious choice with me from the beginning to have a set of stated policies which protect me from having to waste my time responding to the `empty vessels which make the most noise', the downright nasty types, and even the psychologically disturbed, which inhabit cyberspace. If that means my blog has a smaller reading audience, then so be it.
Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.
I see many weeks, later that I am supposed to be one Colin Berry. I am not. I am simply someone who is interested in textiles, among other things, and who has several books on the subject around. I particularly like medieval cloth and the best of these can often be seen in paintings of the period. It is a pity that you are so closed to discussion on these issues but as I see that no one is making any further comments on your articles it is clear that no one bothers to debate with you. i only need to read your comments on what i have written to understand why you have no comments from anyone else. You are simply not interested in anyone who disagrees with you.
As apparently you are not going to publish anything more from me, you can keep this to yourself if you wish to, What a waste of a chance to learn something from someone outside your closed circle.
weaving fan
>I see many weeks, later that I am supposed to be one Colin Berry. I am not.
I believe you ARE Colin Berry and that you are lying. Colin Berry posted "Weaving Fan's" comment on my blog onto his blog, feeling free to edit them as if they were his own. And significantly no "Weaving Fan" commented on that post.
>I am simply someone who is interested in textiles, among other things, and who has several books on the subject around.
No one would adopt a pseudonym "weaving fan" (and forget it was originally "Weaving Fan" with capitals-see above) just to comment on one of my posts.
>I particularly like medieval cloth and the best of these can often be seen in paintings of the period.
OK.
>It is a pity that you are so closed to discussion on these issues
I am not closed to discussion with those who are truthful and honest but you, Colin, are not. And with those who can make their points without descending into personal attacks, which you (Colin) cannot.
>...but as I see that no one is making any further comments on your articles it is clear that no one bothers to debate with you.
When I started my new series, "The Shroud of Jesus?" I realised it would not be topical and controversial, so it would not generate a lot of comments. But I am more interested in researching and setting out publicly the case for and against the Shroud's authenticity, than generating commments.
Nevertheless, the latest Sitemeter report of two days ago, shows that this blog is still averaging 69 visits and 128 page views a day, which I satisfied with.
Unlike other blogs I don't court popularity and I am not unhappy if no one wishes to debate with me. Indeed, for about 7 years I had a policy statement which included: "Since I no longer debate, any response by me will usually be only once to each individual under each post." I have always seen my primary focus on this blog as actually blogging.
In March this year under my post "`I heard the Shroud image was made by a bas-relief metal sculpture heated'" responding to a comment by yourself (Colin Berry) I repeated my agreement with a 2004 early blogger's distinction "Message Boards" (e.g. discussion groups) and "Weblogs" (blogs):
----------------------------------
"What are the Differences Between Message Boards and Weblogs? Posted by: leelefever on August 23, 2014... Responses Weblogs and Message Boards both allow for responses from the community- new topics can be responded-to by others. Weblog topics have comments and message board topics have replies. This subtle difference in syntax reveals a difference in the roles. The word comment for weblogs implies that the author does not need further participation to reach a goal-comment if you want. Reply, on the other hand, implies that participation is explicitly requested by the poster. A discussion is not a discussion without a reply.
----------------------------------
and I highlighted the key difference in "Responses": "Weblog topics have comments and message board topics have replies" and "The word comment for weblogs implies that the author does not need further participation to reach a goal-comment if you want."
[continued]
[continued]
This original distinction between discussion groups and blogs has become blurred as blogs (like Dan Porter's) have become like discussion groups.
But I prefer to stick with the original distinction, and if I wanted a Shroud of Turin discussion group I would have started one on Yahoo, rather than start a Shroud of Turin blog on Google
>i only need to read your comments on what i have written to understand why you have no comments from anyone else. You are simply not interested in anyone who disagrees with you.
By shifting over to personally attacking me you confirm that you ARE Colin Berry, who apparently just can't help himself in that regard!
And you are wrong. There are plenty of comments on my blog from those who disagree with me. But I am not interested in the comments of those like yourself (Colin Berry) who deliberately and repeatedly breach my stated policy against making "off-topic, offensive or sub-standard" comments.
>As apparently you are not going to publish anything more from me, you can keep this to yourself if you wish to,
Even though I believe you to be Colin Berry, who is permanently banned on my blog for repeatedly breaching my stated policies on "off-topic, offensive or sub-standard" comments, I decided to publish your comment to again state my view on comments.
>What a waste of a chance to learn something from someone outside your closed circle.
Wrong again. I learn everything I can from `outside my closed circle' (as you put it). I own and have read every Shroud anti-authenticity book and article that I am aware of. I have a standing Google search on "Shroud of Turin" and "Turin Shroud" and read any significant news article, pro- or anti-authenticity it throws up. I read every post on Dan Porter's blog, which canvases a wide range of views on the Shroud.
But as I state in my comment above, I am not interested in wasting my time responding to comments from the `empty vessels which make the most noise', the downright nasty types (including Colin Berry), and even the psychologically disturbed, which inhabit cyberspace.
Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.
A little late here but nonetheless, WeavingFan seems to be misinformed here on several levels. Wilson has never claimed to be an expert on weaving, he acquires his information from talking to 'experts' in the field. So his statements are derived from 'experts'' statements, in most instances. Weaverfan seems to put to much into the 3 to 1 herringbone weave, as although it has been known thru-out the past several thousand years, it still was quite rare in the middle ages. Whereas in ancient Egypt it was not rare, but widely used. As a matter of fact the Egyptians were known to have created far more elaborate weaves. Hense the point Wilson was making is simple reasoning; The Shroud is more likely to come from antiquity then from the middle ages. But the weave was not his only point, the seam, the size of the sheet etc were part of the equation. Size for instance, no sheets of the size of the Shroud have ever been found from the middle ages, (made from one piece), whereas from antiquities, especially from Egypt many of the same or much larger sized woven linens have been found, using immensely sized looms. This was and is the MAIN point of evidence that the Shroud was not manufactured in the middle ages, but from antiquity. The seam stitching is just the final nail pointing the Shroud to 'atleast' the late 1st century. No stitching of this kind has been found on any artifacts from the middle or anyother age.
As for the side-strip; I tend to not accept Madam Flurys' theory that it was done during the manufacturing process. Reasoning; it makes no sense, especially when one realizes how elaborate and expensive it was to create and to purchase such clothes of this size...No one paying the price would accept inferior quality as this; (a stitched seam) along the sheet? The manufaturuer would go out of business with this shoddy production method. It is unlikely the side strip was from the manufacture process, but from later on. I tend to side with Dr Jackson's side-strip hypothesis as it simply makes more sense.
F3
Flagrum3
>A little late here but nonetheless, WeavingFan seems to be misinformed here on several levels.
Agreed. He is (I believe) Colin Berry (for reasons given above) who in the past has failed to confirm that he own and/or has read any pro-authenticity books on the Shroud.
>Wilson has never claimed to be an expert on weaving, he acquires his information from talking to 'experts' in the field. So his statements are derived from 'experts'' statements, in most instances.
Agreed. It is fallacious to claim that unless one is an expert in a topic area, then one is disqualified from writing about that topic. If it were so, then Weaving Fan (Colin Berry) himself would be disqualified from writing about the Shroud!
But of course it was all part of Colin Berry's ad hominem personal attack approach. He claims to be a scientist but in that respect his comments are the very ANTITHESIS of science.
>Weaverfan seems to put to much into the 3 to 1 herringbone weave, as although it has been known thru-out the past several thousand years, it still was quite rare in the middle ages.
It was either rare or NON-EXISTENT in medieval Europe. As I pointed out, Dr. Michael Tite of the British Museum (with all its resources) was unable to provide the C14 labs with even a postage stamp size sample of medieval 3:1 herringbone twill weave linen that was visually identical to the Shroud so that it could be used as a "blind" control sample.
>Whereas in ancient Egypt it was not rare, but widely used. As a matter of fact the Egyptians were known to have created far more elaborate weaves. Hense the point Wilson was making is simple reasoning; The Shroud is more likely to come from antiquity then from the middle ages.
Agreed. But it is a characteristic Internet `empty vessels which make the most noise' like Colin Berry that as a debating tactic they refuse to concede ANY point in favour of the Shroud's authenticity.
>But the weave was not his only point, the seam, the size of the sheet etc were part of the equation. Size for instance, no sheets of the size of the Shroud have ever been found from the middle ages, (made from one piece), whereas from antiquities, especially from Egypt many of the same or much larger sized woven linens have been found, using immensely sized looms.
Agreed. But then I doubt that Colin has actually read Wilson's latest book on the Shroud, or even ANY pro-authenticity books on the Shroud.
>This was and is the MAIN point of evidence that the Shroud was not manufactured in the middle ages, but from antiquity. The seam stitching is just the final nail pointing the Shroud to 'atleast' the late 1st century. No stitching of this kind has been found on any artifacts from the middle or anyother age.
Agreed with everything above except "or any other age." As my post above which this is a comment under states, "Moreover, the hand-stitching of the seam joining the two inner edges of the side strip and the main Shroud is known only from textiles excavated from the first-century Jewish fortress at Masada, near the Dead Sea."
[continued]
[continued]
>As for the side-strip; I tend to not accept Madam Flurys' theory that it was done during the manufacturing process. Reasoning; it makes no sense, especially when one realizes how elaborate and expensive it was to create and to purchase such clothes of this size...
The reason Mme Flury-Lemberg claimed the wide linen sheet from which the Shroud came was cut lengthways and the side-strip attached as part of the manufacturing process is so that both edges of the linen cloth that became the Shroud had a selvedge (a weaver-finished edge) on each long side. That makes good sense to me.
>No one paying the price would accept inferior quality as this; (a stitched seam) along the sheet? The manufaturuer would go out of business with this shoddy production method.
Disagree. It was not "inferior quality" not was it " shoddy" to give the linen sheet which became the Shroud two selvedges along its long edges.
>It is unlikely the side strip was from the manufacture process, but from later on.
It is very UNLIKELY that the side-strip was attached "later on" because it and the Shroud came from the one large cloth as is evident in that the same imperfections in the weave of the Shroud continue on through the side-strip.
But unless that was done close to the time and place of manufacture of both, the main body of the Shroud and the side-strip would go their separate ways and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to bring them both back together again.
>I tend to side with Dr Jackson's side-strip hypothesis as it simply makes more sense.
I can't remember what that was, but it would have to account for the above facts and probabilities that Flury-Lemberg's theory, that the Shroud including its side-strip were once part of the same larger woven linen sheet which had a selvedge on each long side, does.
Stephen E. Jones
Post a Comment