The Side Strip

Among the most visible mysteries of the Shroud is the thin strip, about 8cm wide, which appears to have been originally part of the Shroud, then cut off, then sewn back on, in almost exactly the same place. That it is not from a different cloth can be shown by the correspondence of the weft threads on each side. For some time it was not clear whether the two parts were not in fact continuous, and the ‘seam’ was simply a ‘tuck.’ For sure, when Gilbert Raes unpicked the sample he was given in 1973, it fell apart into two pieces, but it was still not known whether this divide continued along the whole length of the Shroud. Luckily, when Shroud 2.0 became available, it was clear that the correspondence of the two sides was not exact, which meant that there were, in fact, two separate pieces.

However, they match so well that is difficult to believe that the separated strip could ever have been used for anything else – certainly not, for example, to be used as a tie to strap the cloth around a dead body.

Other theories also lack credibility. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg suggested that the cloth was originally much wider, and that a central strip had been cut out and the two sides reattached in order to preserve the selvedge on each edge, but that seems very far fetched. Other ideas revolve around positioning the image centrality on the cloth, or just a curious mistake.

I should like to propose a new idea, which is that the cloth was originally sewn to itself, in order to provide a continuous loop along its upper edge, so that it could be hung from a pole.

When it was repurposed as an actual burial cloth, the loop was cut off, leaving the 8cm strip still attached to the rest of the cloth.

To keep the image central, the strip was folded up, and the loose edges rolled over and stitched.

This stitching corresponds to what appears to be visible on close up pictures of the seam, although the original running or backstitch down the middle is not obvious, and is perhaps wholly or partially removed, although indications of its path are often visible.

This is essentially a flat-felled seam held by double whipstitching. The whip (or overcast) stitch on the upper edge is not unusual, and holds the edge of the seam tight against the cloth. The lower edge of the seam is often held reasonably tight by the running or backstitch that first joined the two pieces, but in this case, perhaps because it was intended to remove it, or because there was evidence of stress to the fabric, that stitch is nearer the middle of the seam, and another whipstitch border holds the bottom edge secure.

Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, who was an expert on restoring old textiles, suggested that the Shroud’s seam resembled a diagram found in the report on the textiles found at Masada by Avigail Sheffer and Hero Granger-Taylor (Textiles from Masada – a Preliminary Selection, 1994). It is one of several examples of seams found among the 120 or so fragments analysed (out of the 2000 or so excavated, mostly from rubbish dumps or fire places).

As illustrated, it has to be said, this seam is almost Impossible to stitch. The folds have to be held in place before either of the whipstitch sides can be sewn, so it looks as if a tacking stitch down the middle is missing.

Flury-Lemberg observed of the Shroud:

“The seam that connects the 8 cm wide strip to the larger segment is not a simple one. The type of seam construction chosen clearly displays the intention to make the seam disappear on the face of the cloth as much as possible. This is another reason to believe that the Shroud was planned and produced by professionals. The sewing has been done from the reverse of the fabric and the stitches have been executed with great care and are barely noticeable on the face of the Shroud. The seam appears flat on the face and raised like a roll on the reverse of the fabric. Examples of this same kind of seam are again to be found among the textile fragments of Massada. […] To concludes this chapter it can be said that the linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin does not display any weaving or sewing techniques which speak against its origin as high quality product of textile workers of the first century A.D.” (The Linen Cloth of the Turin Shroud: Some Observations on its Technical Aspects, Sindon 16, 2001)

I think that “flatter on the face than the reverse” would have been more accurate, as it is clearly raised a little on the face, but her photos do show a very rolled look on the reverse.

Also, we might query the phrase, “the intention to make the seam disappear on the face of the cloth as much as possible.” If that were the case, then the original tack would have held the two edges of the cloth together on the reverse side, not on the face.

Pressing the cloth would still create a bulge on both sides, but the lower one would be more inconspicuous from the face.

Without better description or further analysis it is impossible to say much more about it. However, we note that even in Flury-Lemberg’s statement there is no suggestion that the diagrams published by the Masada team illustrate seams exclusive to that particular time or place.

Funnily enough, an exact representation of my supposition, even including the running or backstitch down the middle, can be found in an article called ‘Archaeological Sewing,’ on Heather Rose Jones’s blog (heatherrosejones.com) from 2004. Here is her diagram and description:

“Figure 15. Sub-Roman: A fragment from Steinfelder Moor shows two cut edges joined with an elaborate flat felled seam. The two edges have been overlapped first, and have a running stitch on (presumably) both edges of this overlap. Then the overlapped section is folded into a Z, with the cut edges hidden in the fold, and the folded edges are sewn to the flat fabric with a hem-stitch.” Heather Rose Jones references a 1976 book by Karl Schlabow, ‘Textilfunde der Eisenzeit in Norddeutschland,’ and a woollen fabric found at Steinfelder Moor in North Germany, but alas, the reference is not online.

When Gilbert Raes was given his little sample to study in 1973, he separated it into two pieces, but did not comment on the seam, except to say that “the thread used to sew together Pieces I and II is a two-ply yarn (27 x 2 Tex, or Na 6,9/2). The plied yarn has an S-twist, while the single-twist threads have a Z-twist.” This does not appear to be especially diagnostic of any place or time.

ADDENDUM

Two new comments: Firstly, in an academia.edu article about invisible mending, Joe Marino calls attention to the seams of the Bayeux Tapestry, which, according to Pierre Bouet (‘Technical Aspects of the Bayeux Embroidery,’ The Bayeux Tapestry: Embroidering the Facts of History) are very cleverly executed so as to be “are almost indiscernible on the upper side.” Here is an example of one:

It is, indeed, very well hidden, much better than the Shroud, and the technique is much simpler too. This suggests that Mechthild Flury-Lemberg’s opinion, that “The type of seam construction chosen clearly displays the intention to make the seam disappear on the face of the cloth as much as possible,” is nonsense. There was another circumstance entirely.

Secondly, Giovanni Riggi di Numana (Rapporto Sindone: 1978/1987, 1988) writes:

“Lungo il lato “alto” una piega del tessuto ricucita idoneamente e formante un vano tubolare permetteva di inserire lungo bastone, probabilmente di legno, che sosteneva il peso del Telo per tutta la lunghezza e consentiva di appendere la Sacra Sindone distesa e ben visibile all’ossequio dei pellegrini e dei fedeli.”

“Along the “upper” edge, a fold in the fabric, suitably stitched down and forming a tubular compartment, allowed the insertion of a long stick, probably made of wood, which supported the weight of the Cloth along its entire length and allowed the Holy Shroud to be hung stretched out and clearly visible for the homage of pilgrims and faithful.”

Clearly di Numana had exactly the same idea as I have, although he may have thought that the tube was still there, flattened out and stitched against the Holland cloth. This seems unlikely, as surely it would have been noticed and commented upon when the Holland cloth was take off in 2002.