http://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/ … &lat=735.0
The cloth has a herringbone twill pattern.
The cloth is woven in a three-to-one herringbone twill composed of flax fibrils.
Herringbone, also called broken twill weave, describes a distinctive V-shaped weaving pattern usually found in twill fabric.
The herringbone weave pattern has been found in ancient cultures:
Various herringbone weaves have been found in antiquity:
– A pair of woolen leggings found in the permafrost of the Italian-Austrian Alps have a 2:2 herringbone weave, dating to 800 to 500 BC. – A dark blue cloth with a 2:2 herringbone weave was found at Murabba’at Cave in Israel, from the Roman period. – A textile with a 2:2 herringbone weave was found at Pompeii, from 79 AD. – An illustration of a cloth having a herringbone weave from Antinoöpolis in Greece from 130 AD. – The Falkirk Tartan, a wool 2:2 herringbone tartan found at Vindolanda in England from around 240 AD.
Strictly speaking, the entire cloth does not have a herringbone weave. Sections of the cloth does not have a herringbone weave pattern, but simply a reverse twill pattern. This is most likely due to weaving errors.
From a close study of photographs, it would appear that where the opposing lines of the
3/1 twill meet, the reversal is a true mirror image, whereas in other places the twill drops
out of true correspondence to give a herringbone effect. (In a reversing twill the opposing
lines of twill are mirror images; in a herringbone weave the two opposing lines of twill
drop out of strict correspondence by two or three weft threads.) These changes may be
faults in the weave because of incorrect drawing-in through the healds.
No more than four healds would have been needed to weave the Shroud linen. The
reversal of the twill lines would be accomplished by drawing-in the warp threads
appropriately through the healds: 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 … The apparently wrong lifting warp
threads at some of the twill reversals would seem to be typical of the drawing-in mistakes
that could be expected with a comparatively primitive loom.
The herringbone weave pattern gives the cloth a distinctive appearance, but also has some practical value.
The most effective way of dealing with the curling problem is to have a weave with a
periodically reversing twill line—a herringbone. The end result can be a cloth that has an
attractive striped appearance with a smooth surface that sheds soiling, that does not curl
and that drapes well over the human body. Hence the use of these types of cloths for
apparel; hence the particular handle and appearance of the Shroud and even perhaps its
Cloth with the herringbone weave is rarer and more expensive to produce than cloth with a normal weave.
The herringbone weave was much more expensive than anything to be found in Jerusalem.
For the 1988 C-14 testing, the British Museum attempted to find a medieval linen with a herringbone weave as a control sample, but was not able to find one.
All was proceeding well until, one by one, the protocols established by Tite to
ensure an accurate dating were, for various reasons, set aside. This included the
“Blind Test” provision. Tite had failed to find suitable medieval linens with the same weave as the Shroud as control samples.
The herringbone weave is not mentioned at all in the gospels. So, the herringbone weave is further evidence against the likelihood of a medieval forgery.
Why would a forger even bother to use a cloth with a herringbone weave when it’s more expensive and not mentioned in the Bible?
How did he get this cloth with a herringbone weave?
Who even made linen cloths of this size with a herringbone pattern during the Middle ages?