From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 08:46:24 GMT

In article <LEET.92Sep1095317@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
> 
> >>>>> On Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:06:03 GMT, Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) said:
> 
> Tim> THE SHROUD DEBATE CONTINUES
> 
> Or, "STURP und Dreng, The Sequel".
> 
> Tim> In article <LEET.92Aug25122827@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:

[Heller Evidence Deleted as Robert McGrath has covered it already]

> All this is to blow away McCrone's contention that the red stuff is paint.
> They explain the presence of iron oxide as part of the retting process
> used to produce the cloth, and note that the water stains from dousing
> the fire caused the oxide to concentrate in the stain areas.

The idea that it is blood does not explain the fact that it is nice and red 
after 600-2000 years. It is also interesting that accounts of the shroud in 
the 15th and 16th centuries, such as that by Don Antonio de Beatis in 1517, 
talk about it's bright colours and the vividness of the image. No-one could 
say the image is vivid today, so perhaps, Lee, you can tell us how the image 
could be vivid for 1500 years and then fade suddenly over the next 500.

> Tim> Post your reference by all means, but Heller is in disagreement with Dr
> Tim> Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology who examined
> Tim> the shroud fabric in 1973. Herringbone twill is impossible to date with
> Tim> any precision, since it was so widely used for such a long time, but
> Tim> according to Raes *all* surviving 1st century examples of linen, from
> Tim> mummy wrappings to the cloth in which some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were
> Tim> wrappped, were of tabby weave. If Heller cites an example of herringbone
> Tim> twill from the 1st century I would be interested to check his source.
> 
> Heller does not discuss the textile issue, but Stevenson and Habermas
> do (_Verdict_on_the_Shroud, Servant Books, 1981).

Oh yes, THEM.  

>  They claim that
> Raes's results support their (vociferously pro-authenticity) position.

HOW?!

> I suppose we'll just have to find Raes's original work.  An email
> correspondent noted that there is a sample of 2nd century silk in
> herringbone weave, but that no twill of that weave survived.  (The
> correspondent - who did not give permission to reveal their name -
> said this confirms your position, Tim, but I find that the weave was
> known in 200 A.D. seems to support the idea that herringbone is not
> unique to the Middle Ages.)

I never claimed it was unique to the Middle Ages. It was used by a vast number
of cultures in a variety of periods, including the late medieval period. The
point is, that of all the many examples of linen which have survived from the
first century, *none* are of herringbone twill weave. On the other hand, this 
weave was universal for linen in the fourteenth century. The existence of 
herringbone silk in the late second century is irrelevant.
 
> Heller DOES note that cotton fibers were found wound in with the twill
> fibers, indicating that the cloth was woven on a loom which had also
> woven cotton cloth.  No cotton is grown in Europe, but it is grown in
> the Middle East (sez Heller).

Again Heller shows that he is no medievalist. Some cotton was grown in Sicily
but vast amounts of the stuff was imported into Europe from the East from the 
twelfth century onwards. It is not surprising at all for cotton fibres to be 
incorporated into the weave of a 14th century linen in this way. 
 
> Stevenson and Habermas argue with many references that mummification
> was not practiced by 1st century Jews.  They quote from the Mishna and
> "Laws of Mourning".

I know next to nothing of jewish burial practices in the 1st century, so I 
cannot comment on that, though several sources say that they wrapped their 
bodies in *strips* of linen. I do know that a sheet-shroud of the kind we see
in the Turin shroud was the common form of shroud in the late medieval period.
None of the pro-authenticity camp were ever able to produce an analogous 
example of a 1st century shroud in this form. 

Conclusion: taken with all the other evidence of its probable medieval origins,
I'd say were looking at a 14th century artefact. How about you Lee?

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism,alt.fan.dan-quayle,sci.skeptic