[john in springfield]

The cloth itself has been described (Raes 1976) as a three-to-one herringbone twill, a common weave in antiquity but generally used in silks of the first centuries A.D. rather than linen. The thread was hand-spun and hand-loomed; after ca. 1200, most European thread was spun on the wheel. Minute traces of cotton fibers were discovered, an indication that the Shroud was woven on a loom also used for weaving cotton. (The use of equipment for working both cotton and linen would have been permitted by the ancient Jewish ritual code whereas wool and linen would have been worked on different looms to avoid the prohibited "mixing of kinds.") The cotton was of the Asian Gossypum herbaceum, and some commentators have construed its presence as conclusive evidence of a Middle Eastern origin.

[Swordmaker]

The cloth itself has been described (Raes 1976) as a three-to-one herringbone twill, a common weave in antiquity but generally used in silks of the first centuries A.D. rather than linen. The thread was hand-spun and hand-loomed; after ca. 1200, most European thread was spun on the wheel. Minute traces of cotton fibers were discovered, an indication that the Shroud was woven on a loom also used for weaving cotton. (The use of equipment for working both cotton and linen would have been permitted by the ancient Jewish ritual code whereas wool and linen would have been worked on different looms to avoid the prohibited "mixing of kinds.") The cotton was of the Asian Gossypum herbaceum, and some commentators have construed its presence as conclusive evidence of a Middle Eastern origin.

Unfortunately, the Raes samples (taken in 1973) have been conclusively proved to have been a melange of mixed original Shroud linen Flax interwoven with a Medieval Cotton patch invisibly rewoven in the 16th Century to repair a worn area. This Raes area is right next the area where the 1988 Carbon 14 sample was taken and both suffer from the same problem, pollution with the 16th century cotton repair threads. The Cotton that Raes observed in his sample were only observed in his sample and were found in no other locations on the Shroud. His generalizations based on his observations of his samples were erroneously generalized to the Shroud because he assumed the samples were homogenous to the Shroud... just as the scientists who Carbon dated the adjacent samples generalized their results to the Shroud because they also assumed erroneously that their samples were homogenous to the Shroud as well. Both were wrong. Their sample both included material from the 16th Century.

These findings from 2005, have been peer reviewed and duplicated in several scientific journals. Incidentally, the latest studies have found that Raes was wrong about the type of Cotton... it was a European cotton... not Egyptian. However, because it was from a Medieval patch, that would be expected.

[Quix]

I’m still skeptical that they can be certain of the “ca 1200” claim.

Thanks.