Comparison with other burial shrouds

But, let’s look at the article:

Although the grave in the Ben Hinnom Valley (Akeldama) in Jerusalem was
visited by robbers, there was a single, sealed and untouched loculus. Upon opening this
grave a black mass of material and bones were found. The mass itself appeared to be made
up of fabric and human hair. The bones in this loculus had not been gathered for a secondary
burial, as was the custom for Jewish burials at the beginning of the first millennium CE.

The textile fragments belong to a shroud. The deceased was buried with the shroud
because there was no secondary burial. The tomb was probably sealed because of leprosy
and there was no bone-collecting after a year. The shroud is made of wool. … rin_Shroud

Rather than the TS being an anomaly, this discovery would be an anomaly compared to other burials. This shroud was made from wool, not linen.

The use of wool textile in primary use for burials and shrouds is less common than linen in the Land
of Israel and was usually used for shrouds in secondary use.

Further, proper burial custom would be to take the bones and put it into an ossuary. But this was not done.

The bones in this loculus had not been gathered for a secondary
burial, as was the custom for Jewish burials at the beginning of the first millennium CE.

The cloth did have a Z-spin weave. Authors state a Z-spin weave is indicative of a special cloth that only the rich would buy.

Wool textiles from the Roman period in Israel are usually S-spun. Z-spun textiles comprise only
a small proportion of Roman-period textiles recovered in Israel and neighbouring countries, while
in Greece and Italy, for example, the Z-spin was the norm [11]. Therefore the wool textile from
Akeldama could have been imported. This would indicate that the individual came from a wealthy
family. Importing a special and “fine” burial cloth would entail time and expense and would not be done
for the common man.

It also states many other types of shrouds have been discovered in other excavations. These have an S-spin with a plain weave.

The best preserved shrouds are from Roman-period ‘En Gedi (2nd-1st centuries BCE, Second
Temple period). They were found in eight Jewish tombs on the southern bank of Nahal ‘Arugot and
in one tomb on the northern bank of Nahal David [17].
Seventy textile fragments of an undyed, cream-colored linen were preserved, the largest measuring
16 × 12 cm 2 . Two varieties were observed, both of which used S-spun linen threads: Type A is a plain
weave with 12 × 10 threads/cm; Type B, somewhat coarser, is an extended tabby (basket weave) with
8 × 2 by 6 × 2 threads/cm

Some had wool red bands.

The shrouds are made of linen, but a small group of them is decorated with narrow wool red bands

None of the shrouds or textiles ever discovered in Israel are sha’atnez (mixed linen and wool).

But none of the Jewish shrouds found in the above-mentioned archaeological sites and none of the shrouds made
from reused textiles (see below) are made of sha’atnez.

Although thousands of textiles in the Land of Israel have been examined, no one piece of sha’atnez
has been recovered from any Roman Jewish site [24].

Shrouds could have been from a variety of sources, including tunics, mantles, and sacks.

Shrouds were sometimes made from reused textiles. Most of the shrouds in the Cave of Letters were
made from tunics and mantles, usually made of wool, that had been ripped apart for this purpose.
Linen sacks were also in secondary use as shrouds.

Textiles were very costly, esp linen.

Textiles were too costly to throw away. When a garment had passed the state where patching was no
longer possible, it was cut into pieces and either remade into another garment or used for patches [37].
Despite the fact that the Land of Israel was considered an important textile center, there was a chronic
shortage of garments in general, and of linen ones in particular. Such linen garments were quite rare and
certainly very expensive [38].

Burial custom included wrapping and binding.

The Hebrew word for these burial shrouds, takrikim, connotes wrapping and binding more than dressing
as is also indicated by Tractate Semahot: “Man may wrap and bind men but not women, but women may
wrap and bind both men and women”

It was important to bury the body on the day of death.

To honor the dead the family has to bury him within the day when the dead occurred: “One who
delays the burial of his deceased thereupon performs a transgression. (On the other hand) if he delayed
(the burial) for the deceased’s honour, (in order) to bring him a sarcophagus or shrouds, that is not
considered a transgression”

It was a custom to spend great sums on burial.

During the late Second Temple period it became common to spend great sums on expensive
shrouds [43]. The rich grew very extravagant in this respect, securing fanciful and costly garments,
and establishing a custom which became a burden upon mourners of the middle and poorer classes, who
could ill endure the expense and yet desired to show the highest respect for their dead.

As for comparison with the TS, it is the media that claims the TS is not authentic, not the authors.

The Akeldama discovery immediately suggested to the media some comparisons with the Shroud of
Turin. The detailed characterization of the weave has allowed them to be compared to the Turin shroud,
providing additional proof for them that the latter is not authentic

Certainly the TS has a unique cloth that is linen with Z-spin thread and a herringbone weave pattern. But that does not mean a unique shroud is automatically inauthentic. As evidenced by the above, there are many different types of shrouds that have been found, so there is no requirement that all shrouds be exactly the same.

Interestingly the article had significant analysis on comparing it to the TS. If the TS cloth has been proven to be of medieval dating, why would they even bother to make the comparison?