[Index #1] [Previous: Barbara Frale #30] [Next: To be advised]
This is "Gabriel Vial," part #31 of my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. For more information about this encyclopedia, see part #1. This post will help me write, Chapter 3, "A linen cloth" of my book in progress, "Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!" See 06Jul17, 03Jun18, 04Apr22, 13Jul22, 8 Nov 22 & 20Jun24).
Vial Gabriel Vial (1916-2005) was the Curator of the International Centre for the Study of Ancient Textiles (CIETA) at the Ancient Textile
[Right (enlarge): Gabriel Vial[KD10].
Museum, Lyon, France[RR05, 189; RR08, 63; WI10, 70].
Radiocarbon dating Vial and Prof. Franco Testore (1925-2018), an Italian textile expert from Turin Polytechnic's Depart-ment of Material Science, were present at the cutting of the radiocarbon dating sample in Turin Cathedral on 21 April 1988[DP89, 611; GH96, 260; GV01, 125]. They had been invited by the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (r, 1977-89), to be expert witnesses to the cutting of the sample[WI10, 70]. They were also to choose the best place on the Shroud from which to cut off the sample[PM96, 48], and to follow all the operations[PM96, 48]. But when asked by the Cardinal to nominate the place from which the sample was to be taken, neither Vial nor Testore could say where because of their limited knowledge of the Shroud[GV01, 125]. So that decision was made by Turin professors Giovanni Riggi (1935-2008) and Luigi Gonella (1930-2007)[DT12, 166]. Which was to take the sample from the same corner where Prof. Gilbert Raes (1914-2001) had taken his sample in 1973, at the bottom left corner of the frontal image, called "Raes' corner"[GV01, 125], with Riggi doing the cutting[PM96, 62-63; GH96, 276].
The British Museum's Michael Tite (1938-), who was the cordinator of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating[IJ98, 162; GM98, 67; WI98, 6], had asked Prof. Jacques Evin (1937-), Director of the Lyon radiocarbon dating laboratory, among others, to find a 13th-14th century herringbone twill linen cloth, from which a sample could be provided as a control[GV01, 129]. Evin was eventually successful in obtaining from the Basilica of Saint Mary Magdalene, in the town of Saint-Maximin-la-Sainte-Baume, in Provence, France, threads from the cope of St. Louis d'Anjou (1274-97)[PM96, 56-57; GV01, 129]. This sample was plain-weave linen, but its gold thread embroidery was herringbone weave and on the sample there was an impression which appeared to be herringbone[WI89, 6; WI98, 186; AM00, 182]. Also, it was only threads, not pieces of cloth, as the other samples were[WI98, 186]. Tite asked Evin to mail the sample to him, but fearing a postal strike, Evin gave the sample to Vial to hand deliver it to Tite, which he did[WI89, 5; GV01, 129], and it became the fourth sample[GV01, 129].
Report Vial took the opportunity to make a very careful examination of the Shroud, which he called "The Document" (see below), and write a technical report on the cloth[VG91, 7; WI10, 70].
[Above (enlarge): Dimensions of parts of the Shroud as measured by Vial[VG91, 7]. "31" and "32" should be "S1" and "S2".]
Weave Vial confirmed Vignon's 1938 identification of the Shroud's weave as "3:1 herringbone twill"[VG91, 7].
Dimensions Vial measured the total dimensions of the Shroud as "length 4.30 m x width 1.08 m"[VG91, 7]. Or ~14 ft 1 in. x ~3 ft 6 in. This compares with the latest 442 cm = 14 ft 6 in. average length and 113.35 cm = 3 ft 9 in. average width, during the 2002 Restoration after the Shroud's Holland cloth backing had been removed[LM05].
Two parts Vial found that the Shroud is actually two cloths, what Vial called the "Main piece" (usually called the "Main body of the Shroud"[WI79, 71; WI98, 72; AM00, 98) and a "Lateral band" (usually called the "Sidestrip" which Vial also later calls it). The image lies on the Main piece[VG91, 7].
Main piece Vial gives the dimensions of the Main piece as "4.30 x 1.08 m"[VG91, 7] but that is an error because that is the total dimensions of the Shroud (see above). In the diagram above Vial gives the width of the main piece as "ca 1.01 m" but that is also an error because 108 - 8 - 0.5 cm = 99.5 cm. Since the width of the Sdestrip is usually quoted as 8 cm[SR82, 41] and the seam is likely to be about 0.5 cm, either Vial's "1.08 m" width of the Shroud, and/or his "ca. 1.01 cm" width of the main body of the Shroud, is slightly too short.
Sidestrip As mentioned above, Vial initially called this the "Lateral band." The Sdestrip, which Vial gives the dimensions of as "3.80 x 0.08 m", agreeing with his diagram above. is sewn to the main body of the Shroud by a seam[VG91, 7]. The Sdestrip of the frontal image is 14 cm shorter (at the bottom left hand corner) and the Sdestrip of the dorsal image lacks 36 cm (at the top left hand corner[VG91, 7; PM96, 162]. See my "Sidestrip #5"). These two corners are where the Shroud was held at expositions over previous centuries and it is presumed they frayed and/or became semi-detached from the Main body of the Shroud, and were cut off and distributed as relics[AA98, 90-91]. At those two missing ends of the Sdestrip can be seen the cloth which serves as a lining for the entire sheet[VG91, 7] (the Holland cloth backing added in 1534 by Chambéry's Poor Clare nuns to support their repairs to the Shroud after the 1532 fire)[WI79, 262; PM96, 161; WS00, 22].
Hem All around the Shroud is a rolled hem[VG91, 7], presumably the blue satin hem which surrounds the perimeter of the Shroud that was sewn on in 1868 by Princess Clotilde of Savoy (1843-1911)[PM96, 161; WI98, 189].
Selvedge There is a selvage, the cloth's original, weaver-finished edge as it grew lengthwise on the loom[WI10, 72], along each lateral edge, at the outside of the main piece and the Sdestrip[VG91, 7]. See "31" and "32" (which should be "S1" and "S2") on the diagram above.
Original fabric Because of the cut between Main piece and Sdestrip, the width of the "original fabric" is unknown[VG91, 7-8]. Here and on future page 14, Vial states that the Main body of the Shroud and the Sdestrip were originally parts of a wider cloth, which was cut and then rejoined! Up to now, going by Wilson's:
"One genuinely big surprise from Dr Flury-Lemberg's findings within the last decade is that the original cloth from which the Shroud derived was very likely substantially larger"[WI10, 71-72],I had thought that Mechthild Flury-Lemberg (1929-) discovered this (see 22Jan15; 11Sep15a; 08Oct16; 24May20; 18Apr21 & 21Mar23). But since it was a "genuinely big surprise" to Wilson in 2000 (see BSTS Newsletter No. 51, June 2000), either Wilson had not read that part of Vial's report, or he had forgotten it.
Technique Description: A chevron (herringbone) twill weave. The chevrons are oriented in the warp (lengthwise) direction (vertical herringbone twill). The structure is 3:1 twill, of 41 threads in the straight series and 39 threads in the return series[VG91, 8].
Weaving faults There are two types of typical weaving faults. Type 1: some series are too narrow (e.g. 37 threads) and some are too wide (e.g. 45 threads). Type 2: narrow rows for short distances[VG91, 8].
Warp (lengthwise). Fibre is linen, with "Z" twist and unbleached[VG91, 8]. That the Shroud's linen fibres were "unbleached" contradicts STURP chemist Ray Rogers [1927-2005] assumption that the Shroud's linen yarn was bleached, as described by Pliny the Elder (23/24-79):
"Pliny the Elder, who wrote his Natural History about AD 77, ancient linen yarn was spun by hand on a spindle whorl. When the spindle was full, the spinner prepared a hank of yarn for bleaching by the fuller. Each hank of yarn was bleached separately, and each was a little different; indeed, different parts of the same hank show slightly different colors, a little like variegated yarn. This effect can be observed on the Shroud"[RR08, 18].This has adverse implications for Rogers' saponaria theory, about how the image was formed. Vial was an ancient textiles expert who examined in detail the cloth itself, whereas Rogers was a chemist who analysed sticky tape samples lifted from the Shroud. If Vial says the Shroud's linen is "unbleached" then it is unbleached!
Regularity of spinning. The warp thread was "not spun with great reglarity": neighbouring threads have diameter which varies by factor of 3. A quick sample of 7 neighbouring threads had diameters ranging from 12.2 - 31.0 mm, with average of 21 mm[VG91, 8, 10]. However, this is normal for handspun threads, and is found in all ancient textiles[VG91, 10].
Twist The "Z" direction twist is "unusual." Twist in the "S" direction is the natural direction of flax fibre when it dries[VG91, 10]. Egyptian flax was typically spun in the "S"-direction[VG91, 10; SR82, 42]. Ancient linen with a "Z" twist has been found at Palmyra (Syria) and the Judean desert[VG91, 10].
Thread count Piece 1 (Main). Average was 38.3 threads per cm. Piece 2 (Sidestrip). At only one place there were 38.1 threads per cm. Vial's estimated average thread count of the warp was 38.1 threads per cm[VG91, 11].
Weft (widthwise). Fibre is linen, with "Z" twist and unbleached[VG91, 11].
Regularity of spinning. The weft thread was thicker and more irregular than the warp thread[VG91, 11].
Twist The twist of the weft thread is identical to that of the warp thread, so the same comments above about the "unusual" "Z" direction twist applies to the weft[VG91, 11].
Thread count Six counts were taken at different places on the cloth (3 Main and 3 Sidestrip). Piece 1 (Main): Average of 25.4 passes per cm. Piece 2 (Sidestrip): Average of 26.2 passes per cm. Overall average of 25.8 passes per cm. There was a slight difference in thread count between the warp and weft. But until the reverse side of the Shroud is examined, where the weft dominates, no definitive judgment can be made[VG91, 12].
Construction The chevron is traditional, in being oriented in the direction of the warp[VG91, 12]. The 3:1 twill gives the cloth two different faces: A dominant weft face seen by the weaver on the loom, and a dominant warp face which is underneath the weaving[VG91, 12]. The image is on the warp face[VG91, 12].
The weaving method called "face down" requires the elevation of only one quarter of warp threads[VG91, 12]. Weaving a 3:1 twill cloth 
[Right (enlarge): "... a three-to-one (3:1) herringbone twill pattern ... means that the weft thread passes under three warp threads and then over one"[AM00, 98]. Extract from diagram at VG91, 13, showing that weaving the Shroud's 3:1 twill cloth required four shafts (numbered 1-4)].
required 4 shafts. The shafts were operated by pedals which the weaver manoeuvres with the passage of each weft thread[VG91, 12].
Construction of the original fabric The main piece and the sidestrip are each joined at a half-series where they had been cut[VG91, 14].
[Above (enlarge): Join of main body of the Shroud and sidestrip at matching half-series weaves[VG91, 14]. But the two edges, although matching, were originally separated by an unknown width of cloth (see 11Sep15b).]
X-rays have shown that irregularities in the weave of the main piece continue across into the sidestrip (see 11Sep15c), proving they were once part of the same large cloth, but were cut apart and then re-sewn together very soon after[VG91, 14].
Comments on weaving techniques Weaving faults. Type 1 - Differences in number of threads in a series are typical in ancient fabrics and result from counting errors by the weaver[VG91, 15]. Type 2 faults reveal the method used in threading the warps[VG91, 15].
Execution of warp chevron in 3:1 twill Traditional method. Before stretching on the loom, the warp threads are passed through heddles of four shafts. Archaic method. From the pattern of faults in the Shroud cloth, this was the method used to weave the Shroud[VG91, 15]. This is evidence that the Shroud is not medieval [SEJ], but it is not known when the traditional method began[VG91, 15].
Comparison of Shroud fabric with other ancient cloths I have personally analysed a Chinese fabric from the Tan era (618-907) in the New Delhi Museum; a herringbone 3:1 twill in silk. The fabric of Doura-Europas given as a 3:1 twill is, in reality, a damasked lozenge of 2:2 twill in wool. The only herringbone in linen so far analysed and published is that cited in note 10 [Martin de Vos ... painting of The Last Supper ... on linen with a 3:1 (herringbone) twill weave. Structured
[Above (enlarge[FMW]): "The Last Supper" (c. 1575) by Flemish artist Maerten de Vos (1532-1603). The painting is 1,460 mm (57.48 in) high and 2,125 mm (83.66 in) wide, and is painted on a piece of 3:1 herringbone twill weave linen].
with a series of 9 threads straight, 7 threads return, itpresents faults of the same type as those studied here]. It is very late — second half of the XVI th century — and much simpler than that of Turin. The number of threads per centimeter in its main warp is practically half of the Turin count (19.5 instead of 38) and the proportion of warp/weft reductions is less: 19.5/16 = 1.22 instead of 38/26 = 1.46 for Turin. The important main warp of the latter thus offered a much smoother surface to the reproduction of the image. If one takes into account the three constitutive elements of a textile — the structure, the primary material, and the reductions of warp and weft — one must acknowledge that the Shroud of Turin is truly "incomparable" (my emphasis)[VG91, 18].
Again, if I hadn't read Vial's report to the very end, including the footnotes, I would have continued to believe Wilson, that the only known example of 3:1 herringbone twill linen, apart from the Shroud, is two fragments in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London:
"Herringbone woven linen was certainly not commonplace in the mediaeval European world in which the Shroud was purportedly forged. Dr Donald King, the Keeper of Textiles at London's Victoria and Albert Museum, was only able to find one possible example in his collection … in the form of two seven inch by four inch (18 x 10.5 cm) cuttings from a stole or maniple. Because this bears a printed design of foliage and birds inspired by patterns from late-fourteenth-century woven silks, it is thought to have been made around this same date. But it represents a lone example and as has been pointed out by Manchester textile specialist the late John Tyrer its texture is very much coarser than the Shroud. So the Shroud is the only known example of plain herringbone twill linen dating from before the second half of the sixteenth century"[WI98, 69-70].Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
Bibliography
AA98. Adler, A.D., 1998, "Concerning the Side Strip on the Shroud of Turin," in AC02, 87-89].
AC02. Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy.
AM00. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY.
DP89. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, 611-615.
DT12. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London.
FMW. "File:Marten de Vos - The Last Supper - Google Art Project.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 3 January 2022.
GH96. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK.
GM98. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK.
GV01. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL.
IJ98. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY.
KD10. Koudinoff, D., 2010, "In honour of Gabriel Vial," weavinglesson.blogspot.com, November.
LM05. Latendresse, M., 2005, "Length Measurements on the Shroud of Turin," 16 August.
PM96. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta.
RR05. Rogers, R., 2005, "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, No. 1–2, 20 January, 189-194.
RR08. Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC.
RTB. Reference(s) to be provided.
SR82. Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: A Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta, No. 135, 3-49.
TJ83. Tyrer, J., 1983, "Looking at the Turin Shroud as a Textile," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 6, 35-45, 37.
VG91. Vial, G., 1991, "The Shroud of Turin: A Technical Study," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 38/39, March/June.
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
WI89. Wilson, I., 1989, "A French Accusation Against Dr. Tite," BSTS Newsletter, No. 22, May, 4-7.
WI98. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY.
WI10. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London.
WS00. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London.
Posted 12 October 2024. Updated 29 October 2024.
No comments:
Post a Comment