A recent paper by Pam Moon, suggesting that the ‘loros’, a sort of ceremonial stole worn by the Byzantine hierarchy, not only represented the shroud of Christ, but was specifically derived from the Shroud of Turin, recalls a shroudstory debate in which the loquacious and sporadically knowledgeable Max Patrick Hamon convinced me that a depiction of some angels on a large altar frontal called the Grandson antependium, showed them wearing loroi, although they are rather plainly embroidered, and without the gem-studded elaboration of most depictions. However he failed to convince me that just because they are filled with herringbone embroidery, that in itself must be a reference to the herringbone weave of the Shroud.
The discussion was a development of a post which started with a consideration of the loom on which the Shroud must have been made.
Hugh Farey: John Tyrer’s article at shroud.com/pdfs/ssi06part6.pdf considers the loom the Shroud was woven on quite well, acknowledging that both the Z-twist and early 4-heddle looms are typically European, and casting doubt on a 1st century Middle Eastern origin, without, of course, positively disproving it. William Meacham, without giving sources, at shroud.com/meacham2.htm, says: “The thread was hand-spun and hand-loomed; after ca. 1200, most European thread was spun on the wheel.” Elsewhere we find: “Textile analysis suggests that the cloth originated in First Century Israel and that it was produced on a Syrian or Egyptian loom used during the time of the Roman occupation of Palestine. It appears to be identical to unique linen cloth found at the Masada fortress.” (Quoted, for example, at shroud.com/pdfs/porter1.pdf) As far as I know there is not a shred of truth in this entire statement, but if I’m wrong it suggests that some quality research into the textile has indeed been carried out. Sources, anybody?
Gian Marco Rinaldi: During the period ca. 1200-1500 two spinning methods coexisted in Europe: the ancient method with the spindle and the new method with a primitive type of wheel. Some people think that the thread spun with the spindle was worse (less strong, less regular, coarser). The contrary is true. The wheel spinning was worse and was used only because it was quicker and saved time and money. Indeed in many places rules were emanated that prescribed that the warp threads, which had to be stronger, had to be spun with the spindle. Only the weft threads might be spun with the wheel. It so happens that in the Shroud (according to Flury-Lemberg) the weft threads are coarser and less regular than the warp threads. This by itself does not imply that in the Shroud the warp threads were spun with the spindle and the weft threads were spun with the wheel because at any rate it was usual to use better threads for the warp threads. But surely the fact that the threads of the Shroud were “hand-spun” does not necessarily indicate that they were produced before 1200.
Charles Freeman: John Tyrer does not seem to be aware of the extensive import of cotton into Europe after 1200 and the fact that cotton and flax were often spun and woven in the same environment (as Gilbert Raes pointed out). If the Shroud was being produced specifically for the Quem Quaeritis ceremony, as I argue, then it would have to be in linen to match the gospel accounts but, of course, fibres of cotton (and no more than fibres have ever been found on the Shroud), may have drifted in, either when the yarn was being spun or when the weaving was being done. That fits well with the cotton evidence that has never been more than a tiny percentage of the Shroud. Tyrer also does not seem to be aware that while three-in-one SILK damasks are known from the third century (and one expert has suggested to me that there may have been some three-in-one WOOL tunics from the second century) the only linen three-in-one known to exist other than the Shroud is the fragments in the Victoria and Albert Museum dated to the fourteenth century from the pattern printed on them. The whole question of whether a pattern was printed on the Shroud as it is on the V & A samples with the ‘blood’ added separately for the Shroud is another avenue that needs research.
Max Patrick Hamon: The Gundestrup cauldron (a richly decorated silver vessel, thought to date to the 1st century BC) depicts people and deities from Celtic mythology. The most famous image from the cauldron is that depicting a Celtic antlered God usually identified as Cernunnos, the God of fecundity and master of the animals. Remarkably, he wears a zigzag/herring-bone weave patterned linen cloth.
David Mo: You cannot simply identify any zigzag form as a herringbone cloth, and less still as linen. Zigzag forms are widespread in the Gundestrup cauldron. They represent the hair of the beasts, which is neither herringbone fabric nor linen, of course. The most plausible interpretation is that the god of the beasts wears a fur cloth. “Cernunnos presents himself as a muscular elf with dull fur clothes…”
MPH: Could you tell me exactly/objectively what makes you think it is ‘fur’ and NEITHER ‘skin-leather’ NOR ‘linen’ nor ‘silk’ nor ‘hemp’ PLEASE, and how YOU can detect the difference between the five materials from the Gundestrup cauldron panel? Methinks my interpretation (zigzag/herringbone patterned linen) is at least as good as yours, if not better, since Cernunnos, besides wearing an antlered short helmet and a torc, does wear a zigzag patterned V-neck short-sleeve above a knee-long TIGHT FITTING one-piece cloth fastened by a belt. The ancient Celts were superior at making woven textiles for their Celtic clothing and linen and wool were the common clothing fabrics. Besides in the more early ages, the Druids (or sacrificing priests and judges) worshipped their gods in groves, and under tall venerable trees, dressed in fine linen.
Cernunnos as ‘walker of the worlds’ is not only the Lord of the Animals but also, among others, LIFE in the three worlds, and the torques and fine linen he wears are symbols of the wealth and prosperity associated with his figure. His tight-fitting shift (most likely a V-shaped herringbone patterned linen cloth), fastened by a belt at the waist, reminds one of costumes of horse-riding races.
Daveb of wellington nz: I find that interesting, Max. The Stone Circle culture ended ~1150 BC after widespread crop failures consequential to ash clouds from Icelandic volcanos blocking out sun. There are no known monuments nor ceremonial burials in Britain from 1100 to 600 BC. Celtic ideas emerged about 500 BC, focusing on springs and wells, originating from the Mesopotamian Ainu cult. Shakespeare’s ‘Herne the Hunter’ with his antlers [Merry Wives of Windsor] might likely be derived from your Cernunnos(?). I have sometimes entertained the idea that a Roman soldier might have acquired the Shroud cloth in Gaul or Britain before being posted to Palestine where he disposed of it. There may be more to your suggestion of a 3:1 herringbone twill from Britain than has been previously considered. The Salisbury legends re Joseph of Arimathea might be suggestive(?), although likely too late to be affirmative.
MPH: Well before the Pray codex (1192-1195), or the liturgical embroidered silk cloth known as the Epitaphios (threnos) of Thessaloniki (ca 1300), or that of Venice (ca 1200), or the Lirey Pilgrimage leaden badge (1370-1390), I hold the cathedra of Saint Mark (6th century) to be the earliest iconographic testimonial of Yeshua’s zigzag-weave-patterned burial cloth.
Beside the ‘desecrated throne’ is a 3D alabaster replica at reduced scale of the Hetoimassia (or relic-throne of the “Preparation” to the Second Coming of Christ). Hetoimassia, literally “preparation”, meaning “that which has been prepared” or “that which is made ready”, specifically refers to the “sign of the Son of Man” and his return at the Last Judgement. The (4th?)-6th century St Mark’s cathedra was part and parcel of the booty from the 1204 sack of Constantinople by the Franks & Venetians. The motif essentially consists of an empty throne with a prominent cushion and various Christic relics, among which are his burial cloth covering or sitting on the throne and/or his pre-burial sudarium/burial Byssus, a small face-cloth draped round a crux gemmata, and/or a ring of twisted rushes, to which thorns were attached to form his crown around or over the cross.
Representations of herringbone weave patterned cloth are very rare as far as pre-13th century Religious Art Works are concerned (all the more rare e.g. as on the lower lateral and back sides of the Hetoimassia can be seen a trellis pattern evocative of that of the Holy Mandylion/Sindon tetradiplon. To peremptorily assert that linen three-in-one can only be dated back to the 14th century is therefore contradicted by the very fact that iconographically it existed as early as the 1st century! Last but not least: at the 1988 radiocarbon dating, ‘Sample 4’ was lifted off the Cope of Saint Louis d’Anjou (1274-1297), a 13th century ‘linen three-in-one’!
CF: No problem about herringbone – it goes back millennia – it is the combination of herringbone and three-in-one that seems unknown. I talked to an authority of ancient weaving and they gave me the only examples they knew about – in wool and silk but not in linen. So just referring to herringbone is a red herring here! In my article, I simply made the point that, as we had an example of three-in-one linen in the V & A that has been dated to the 14th century, that weave was known then. That merely makes the point that cloths similar to the Shroud three-in-one herringbone were being woven at the same date. Circumstantial evidence. Not offered by me as anything more.
GMR: The Cope of Saint Louis d’Anjou is not of herringbone weave nor even three-in-one twill. The herringbone is embroidered decoration. It is common knowledge among sindonologists that Tite and others tried to find a 3:1 medieval textile for the C14 dating but did not succeed. Now you presume that Tite’s emissaries, Vial and Evin, had a 3:1 herringbone in their hands and did not realize it: big news!
MPH: The fact remains that the decorative embroidery is in imitation of the herringbone and three-to-one linen weave of Yeshua’s burial cloth.
“Tite asked Jacques Evin of the Lyon carbon dating laboratory to find for him a 13th/14th. century SAMPLE AS CLOSE TO THE SHROUD FABRIC AS POSSIBLE (my upper cases). Evin found an appropriate sample, of the correct herring-bone weave and yellowish colour, from the cope of St. Louis d’Anjou who died in 1297.” (excerpt from BSTS Newsletter N°22, reconstructed by French Catholic monk Frére Bruno Bonnet-Eymard from Evin and Tite’s exchange of letters
PRIOR TO the 14th century, the use of decorative/symbolical broken zigzag (herringbone) weave in clothes was associated with Yeshua’s ultimate sacrifice and his burial cloth (as corporal), see the late 13th century Antependium of Grandson.
The Antependium of Othon de Grandson, made in Cyprus, late 13th century. Materials and techniques : Assembled embroidered taffeta and silk serge. Central section: taffeta background, red silk; point couché retiré embroidery, in silver gilt lamé thread on yellow silk core, red, blue, green, brown, green, white and black silk. Lateral sections: serge background, black silk, point couché retiré embroidery, in silver gilt lamé thread on yellow silk core. Dimensions: 328 x 88cm. Now in Berne Historical Museum, Switzerland.
“this work [in which Western and and Byzantine influences are intermingled; my comment] has been attributed to a Cypriot workshop and is thought to be closely linked to the story of the knight Othon de Grandson and his sojourn in Cyprus in the late thirteenth century.” That is at a time when the entire island of Cyprus was ‘owned’ by the Knight Templars…
Now take a good look at the Pala d’oro Hetoimassia scene and Byzantine renditions of the ‘two Marys at the Sepulchre’ (art works dated PRIOR TO the fall of Constantinople in 1204), and you’ll be able to spot broken zigzag (herringbone) weave patterned clothes associated either with Yeshua’s burial cloth (used as a throne antependium) or with the Resurrection angel, Saint Michael.
Pala d’oro Hetoimasia, St Mark’s, Venice.
In the antependium of Grandson e.g. both the angels’ wings and loroi show the same broken zigzag (herringbone) weave pattern and both are the same colour as the Turin Shroud.
HF: I don’t think anyone has claimed that herringbone as a pattern was unknown before the 14th century. Herringbone embroidery seems quite common, as Max has pointed out, and zigzag patterns very common. However there is no evidence that any of these were imitating what Charles said there wasn’t any of, which is 3/1 herringbone twill weaving. The St Louis cope, as Gian Marco has shown perfectly clearly, is an ordinary 1/1 weave. I dare say that the uninitiated eye could mistake its embroidery for a herringbone weave, but that’s not the point. The idea that everywhere we see a zigzag we also see a reference to the weave of the Shroud is entertaining, but I disagree with it.
MPH: The two angels also wear the loros (or Byzantine ceremonial long scarf or stole) that symbolized the burial shroud of Christ. Now BOTH loroi DO show the same herringbone pattern!
HF: Well, that’s what I disagree with. As zigzag patterns crop up all over the place, not only including depictions of Jesus’s passion, there is no specific reason why they should imitate herringbone there but not anywhere else. I think they’re just patterns.
MPH: Most specifically in the Grandson antependium made in Cyprus late in the 13th century (i.e. when the entire island was owned by the Knight Templars), Saint Michael, the resurrection angel, wears a HERRINGBONE-PATTERNED LOROS or Byzantine ceremonial long scarf or stole that symbolized the BURIAL SHROUD OF CHRIST.
HF: No Max. You begun by airily announcing that there is evidence of early herringbone weave on the basis of a 1st Century silver vessel showing a character wearing a striped costume with faint alternating diagonal hatching on the stripes, and then the base of carved alabaster throne and now the figure of Saint Michael in the Antependium. Your expertise lies in knowing of these artifacts and being able to demonstrate them with references, for which we thank you, but we need not agree that they all illustrate herringbone cloth, or demonstrate that it was manufactured prior to the 14th century. I don’t, for one.
Had you stuck to the Stavronikita epitaphios you could have been on stronger ground. After all, here is a picture of a Shroud with a herringbone pattern, and here is the actual Shroud which has a herringbone weave. There is a logical inference. It is not proof, or a true fact, that the one derives from the other, but it is a sensible inference. There are counter-indications. The Stavronikita herringbone pattern is at right-angles with respect to the Shroud’s weave, and the Thessaloniki epitaphios shows herringbone embroidery as a general filler for any blank spaces, such as the sky, angels’ halos and so on. (The Stavronikita one leaves the sky unfilled)
Now we come to the Grandson antependium. Rather similarly to the Stavronikita epitaphios, large areas are left unembroidered, but over the embroidered area, herringbone is used as a convenient space-filler. The archangel Michael has collar, wings, halo, hem of tunic, sash and a thin central panel of his tunic in herringbone. None of them resembles a loros. He is carrying a cloth over one arm. It is not embroidered in herringbone. Not only the angels, but also a couple of incense burners are also embroidered in herringbone. Not, I think, to represent cloth. I think they’re just patterns.
MPH: The TRUE fact is the herringbone patterned stole or long scarf Saint Michael wears IS EXACTLY DRAPED AS A LOROS! Methinks you REALLY haven’t got the foggiest notion of HOW Western and Byzantine influences intermingled in Medieval Saint Michael iconography and HOW EXACTLY the loros was draped. You are NO EXPERT AT ALL in this specific field. Now in Byzantium the loros (ceremonial long scarf or stole) symbolized the BURIAL SHROUD OF CHRIST. The Grandson antependium loros does show a HERRINGBONE PATTERN as the Turin Shroud.
HF: I’m disappointed, Max. If you want anyone to believe you are an expert it’s no use shouting “The TRUE fact is the herringbone patterned stole or long scarf Saint Michael wears IS EXACTLY DRAPED AS A LOROS!” The Wikipedia article on the Loros explains that it went through considerable modification. It began as a long stole looped over the neck or shoulders. The shorter end dropped down the front almost to the floor, and the longer end crossed around the back and ended up draped over the left arm. The Byzantine illustrations in the article do not show quite how the crossing round the back was accomplished. Over the course of the 11th to 13th centuries the design was modified so that the two hanging ends dropped from a wide collar. Again, the long end fell down the front, but got shorter, but the long end still came forward from behind and was draped over the left arm as before. By the 14th century the whole thing may have been sewn to the tunic beneath, but there was invariably a hanging over the left arm. The Grandson archangel, dated about 1270, has nothing over his left arm. No loros. He does have the collar and dropping front strip, but there is no indication that his wide sash, the hem of his tunic, or the cloth over his right arm, are part of a loros. They could be stylistic elements derived from a loros, but not, as such, a loros itself. For a full discussion of the development of the loros from the Roman (pre-Christian) toga and its later adoption of the symbolism of the shroud of Christ, see, for example, pages 153 – 156 in the Chapter on “Imperial Costume and Regalia” in the “Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection” which is on Google Books.
MPH: The word Mandylion is a Byzantine-Greek borrowed from the Arabic mandil (mindil in Syriac) i.e. a “SCARF”. Now Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos comments in his Book of Ceremonies that the loros (or ceremonial LONG SCARF or stole of Byzantine emperors) symbolized the burial shroud of Christ. The (co-)emperor(s) (+(co-)empress(es) + the 12 most important imperial figures + archangels in paintings and mosaics) normally wore it on Easter Sunday. It was draped “himation/achiton fashion” all over his WHOLE BODY: “The men’s version of the loros was a long strip, dropping down straight in front to below the waist, and with the portion behind pulled round to the front and hung gracefully over the left arm. The female loros was similar at the front end, but the back end was wider and tucked under a belt after pulling through to the front again.
Hugh, you wrote: “They could be stylistic elements derived from a loros, but not, as such, a loros itself.” I DID specify the BYZANTINE LOROS here is REVISITED THROUGH A WESTERNER’S EYE, someone who literally identified the loros with Christ’s herringbone patterned burial cloth. The inscriptions are in three languages (Christ’s initials in GREEK; “MAT DNI”, for Mater Domini in LATIN, in Gothic characters; and Saint Gabiel [sic] and Saint Michiel [sic] in FRENCH) in addition to certain iconographic details. They enable us to place this work in the context of a Crusader kingdom, where Western and Byzantine influences intermingled, thereby strengthening the hypothesis that it was produced in Cyprus, (in the 1270s, i.e. when the Knights Templar ‘owned’ the entire island). At about the same time, the Byzantine loros iconography shows the loros lavishly decorated with gems as opposed to the Western loros iconography.
Put side by side the above depiction of the Byzantine loros and that of Archangel Gabriel with one end of his loros hung gracefully over the LEFT arm (as opposed to archangel Michael having one end of his loros hung gracefully over the RIGHT arm in inverted symmetry to Gabriel’s).
HF: Max, you claim that you “DID specify the BYZANTINE LOROS here is REVISITED THROUGH A WESTERNER’S EYE who literally identified the loros with Christ’s herringbone patterned burial cloth.” But you didn’t. This is wholly untrue. You went on and on about “The TRUE fact is the herringbone patterned stole or long scarf Saint Michael wears IS EXACTLY DRAPED AS A LOROS!” You are now admitting that I am correct, and that you were wrong, by suggesting that the loros was merely a Western interpretation of a Byzantine tradition. “They could be,” I said, “stylistic elements derived from a loros, but not, as such, a loros itself.” The very fact that the two angels appear to be symmetrical is enough to show that the patterns on their garments, if they represent the loros at all, consist of stylistic elements rather than exact depictions. I have elsewhere referred to the qantara-med.org article from which you are drawing your latest ideas, and know very well that the artist may not have been familiar with the significance of the loros in the Byzantine tradition.
MPH: I DID refer to the way Westerners depicted the Byzantine loros. Don’t you misrepresent my opinion, please. You got totally OFF THE MARK as YOU most stubbornly cling to the Byzantine way to depict loroi lavishly decorated with gems as opposed to the simpler, more austere and yet more realistic way for Westerners/most likely Templars here) to depict the said loros with herringbone patterns as symbolic of Yeshua’s burial cloth. Whether you like it or not the true fact is the herringbone patterned stole or long scarf that BOTH Saint Michael and Saint Gabriel wear ARE EXACTLY DRAPED/WRAPPED AS LOROI. They are Western (most likely Templar) depictions of the Byzantine loros. Period.
HF: Now you’re wriggling, Max. Either the loros is depicted as ‘exactly draped’ or it is not. As I have shown, it is not. The cloth draped over the archangel’s right (not left) arm is clearly separate from other parts of his clothing, and is not embroidered in herringbone anyway. Although you did indeed say that Western and Byzantine influences were mixed in this antependium, you made it abundantly clear that you did not think the loros was ‘interpreted’ in any way, but was ‘exactly draped.’ The loros, specifically, was not ‘revisited through a Westerner’s eye.’ Now you are saying that my interpretation – that the pattern merely incorporates stylistic elements derived from the loros – is yours, and that your interpretation – stubbornly clinging to exact drapery – is mine! Clever, but no cigar.
MPH: I’m not wriggling at all, YOU are! The true fact is the two Archangels Gabriel and Michael are EXACTLY draped/wrapped as Andronikos II Palaiologos is. The only difference is that the Emperor’s loros, symbolic of Yeshua’s Shroud, wound about the body like a winding sheet, is studded with gems and embroidered with gold, while the two Archangels have a much simpler, more austere and realistic herringbone patterned cloth. They are Western (most likely Templar) depictions of the Byzantine loros. Period.
HF: You know what, Max? I think you’re right. In fact I said this several posts ago (except for the Templar bit). But I do not believe a Byzantine artist could have embroidered the loros correctly over the Angel Gabriel’s arm but not over the Angel Michael, even for the sake of symmetry, which implies that the antependium artist was not familiar with, or not bothered about, the importance of the style of wearing it. Now what about the fact that the drape over the arm is in plain embroidery, not herringbone?
MPH: Just take a (good) look at Andronikos II Palaiologos’s loros, see how part of the loros over his left arm is turned up and its plain pinky red lining actually showing. The Western (Templar) weaver tried to copy the same drape partly up-turned over both Saint Michael’s right arm and Saint Gabriel’s left arm and most likely find it difficult to incorporate the herringbone pattern here along with the lining. Also, if you take a good look too to the Sant’Angelo in Formis fresco of the Archangel Michael (an 11th century fresco), you shall see the drape over the arm is in plain (green) lining. It is not a lavishly decorated gemmed drape. Most likely the Western (most likely Templar) weaver did not incorporate the herringbone pattern here just to show the lining in the manner of former Western depictions of Saint Michael-with-loros iconography.
Archangel Michael in a fresco in Sant’Angelo in Formis
HF: This is all excellent, Max. This is what an expert does, and goodness me I think you’ve proved your point, especially with your last reference, which shows the inside of the loros not only as it sweeps up from the waist to the arm, but also as it drops down the other side, which is unusual, but is the same as the Archangels in the Grandson antependium. Even the wings are the same shape. Many thanks. Now, as regards the herringbone pattern, would it be true to say that the Grandson antependium is the only depiction of a loros with a herringbone pattern, or are there others?
MPH: In the Grandson antependium, the body of the two archangels’ loroi do appear without any of the addition of Byzantino-Byzantine embellishments (no embroidery or appliquéd fabric/embroidery, no gemmed trim on the neckline, no pearled cuffs, no hems with pearls and/or precious gems at all). They show nothing at all to give the impression of expensive fabric, which is in keeping with Knights Templar’s philosophy of clothing. The altar antependium was made in Cyprus workshop in the 1270s. Now the Knights Templar owned the entire island at that time. The archangels’ loroi are definitely mingling Western and Byzantine styles. We can even read Gothic inscriptions in Old French (SAINT GABIEL and SAINT MICHIEL). If the weaver was not trying to represent what he thought was Yeshua’s double-length Shroud (now kept in Turin) can Hugh (or anyone) account for the late 13th century herringbone patterned loros STRONGLY evocative of the herringbone patterned Turin Shroud? Or to put it in other words, can you (or anyone) account for such an iconographic departure from the traditional depiction of the Byzantine Loros symbolic of Yeshua’s shroud in the 1270s? BTW, methinks the way the loros ORIGINALLY used to be wrapped all around the Byzantine Emperor’s body was reminiscent of the way Yeshua appeared to Mary Magdalene, all wrapped up in his sindon in the same way as a (Second Temple) gardener. Don’t you forget here the archangels with loroi are late 11th and 12th and late 13th century. ORIGINALLY (6th century) the end hanging out of the loros at waist level was a cloth on its own. The ancient loros was symbolic of the Shroud of Christ while ‘the end hanging out of it at waist level’, originally the mappa (manipulus/sudarium in the Western Church), was symbolic of the Mandylion.
Now Hugh, in conjunction with the Sant’Angelo in Formis fresco of Archangel Michael’s loros, symbolic of the Shroud of Christ, take a good look at the face of Christ (throning in majesty just above the archangel in loros).
The very name of Michael is derived from the question: מי כאל (mī kāʼēl) in Hebrew meaning “Who is like God?
First Answer: גַּבְרִיאֵל, the “Hero/Champion of God” aka Gabriel aka Yeshua.
Second answer: רָפָאֵל (Rafa’el), which meant “the one God has healed”.
DM: I think I missed an important quotation. Where is it said that the loros is a symbol of the Shroud?
HF: Although it is clearly derived from the pre-Christian toga, the loros seems to have taken on the symbolism of the shroud . Dressforsuccession.weebly.com/byzantine-origins.html says a bit about it.
DM: Thanks, Hugh. This is a hypothesis. That is what I have been able to find out so far. I have not found any document that says that the loros symbolized the shroud of Jesus. This is contradictory with the fact that the loros was worn by diverse dignitaries in the course of other ceremonies than Easter and in its origin was a symbol of Roman power. My particular question is if some contemporary document says the loros was the symbol of the shroud of Christ.
Andrea Nicolotti: From my book “From the mandylion of Edessa”, etc, pp. 71-72: “But we know that the Byzantines believed that Jesus was laid in the tomb wrapped in bands: therefore, on Easter Day, in memory of this, the imperial dignitaries would “wrap themselves with splendid loroi, in imitation of the burial bands of Christ.” (Constantinus VII Porphyrogenitus, De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae, II,52) The λῶρος was a long and narrow scarf, adorned with precious stones, which was worn wrapped around the body by the emperor and certain dignitaries. This quotation is noteworthy: evidently, in Constantinople at the time of Constantine, it was believed that Jesus’ body had been wrapped with long and narrow bands (σπάργανα)”
O.K.: But it hardly signifies anything, as we know that in Constantinople there were three alleged burial cloths of jesus, including almost certainly our Shroud of Turin.
CF: And the dead Christ is always depicted in Byzantine iconography as wrapped in bands – I saw a wonderful example just a couple of weeks ago in the Greek monastery of Hosios Loukas. If the Shroud had been as influential as Wilson et. al. suggest as a source for iconography they would not have gone on showing Christ wrapped in bands.
DM: Grazie, Andrea. I have your book, but one keep it all in one’s head. But the quotation from De Ceremoniis says the loros was only used in Easter. This is contradictory with other data. See here: Michael F. Hendy; Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, 4: Alexius I to Michael VIII, 1081-126, Harvard University press, 1999, pp.153ss. On line in Google Books.
AN: I do not know (and no time to verify). Probably there is a difference about the use of the emperors and dignitaries (only Easter) and the emperors only (also in other occasions). This could be useful: E. Condurachi, “Sur l’origine et l’évolution du loros impérial”, in «Arta si Archeologia», n. 11-12 (1935-1936), pp. 37-45.
MPH: David Mo wrote: “Where is it said that the loros is a symbol of the Shroud?” and “This is just a hypothesis.” Not at all! This is Byzantine Imperial symbolism! As insignia triumphalia heavy with Christian symbolism, the Emperor’s loros (or long scarf adorned with precious pearls and gems) & mappa (or shorter scarf – or mandylion in Byzantine Greek – adorned with a lining of roundels) had spiritual significance and were used to visually tie the identity of the ruler to his symbolic source of power, the Risen/Triumphant Christ (in conjunction with his Holy Sindon and Holy Mandylion), as selected and adapted textile for imperial symbolism. The loros and mappa were reserved specifically for the emperor. According to Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, the loros and mappa symbolized Christ’s burial winding sheets (a long and a much shorter one). Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos also says that this type of ceremonial scarf should not be worn by any other country’s rulers, but that they were specifically meant as a gift to the Byzantines. As such, the loros along with the mappa were only worn on the holiest days of the year including Easter, when the emperor represented the risen Christ. With the passing of time i.e. in the late 13th century, the loros and the mappa tended to merged into one ceremonial piece of lavishly adorned cloth (see the illustrations above). Allow me to ask the same two questions I previously asked, which no anti-authenticist here has yet been able to answer: If the Cyprus weaver was not trying to represent what he thought was Yeshua’s double-length Shroud (now kept in Turin) can YOU account for the late 13th century herringbone patterned loros STRONGLY evocative of the herringbone patterned Turin Shroud? Or to put it in other words, can YOU account for such an iconographic departure from the traditional depiction of the Byzantine Loros symbolic of Yeshua’s shroud in the 1270s?
Reminder: the ‘Templar/Cyprus’ loros as a LONG, NARROW HERRINGBONE PATTERNED stole or scarf wrapped around the Archangel’s body is BOTH symbolic of Yeshua’s burial wrapping sheet or SINDON (in which most likely he was draped when he first appeared as a gardener to Mary Magdalene) AND evocative of the double-length herringbone patterned Turin Shroud. Re the use of sadin or sindon worn a workwear by Second Temple period gardeners and the latter’s hairlessness (any faithful pious Judean should be able to spot them from afar in their preoccupation with ritual cleanliness (as gardeners used to be in contact with manure) see: Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu, 1923).