Another feature was the find of microscopic fibres of cotton, indicating that it had been woven on a loom used for weaving cotton.
Further, the thread had been spun by hand indicating a production of the cloth ante c. This – and much more evidence – led to the famous conclusion reached by Meacham in 1983, by which the authenticity of the shroud of Turin was deemed to be highly probable.
Later, the Turin Archdiocese carried out a very controversial and aggressive restoration of the shroud, which according to Meacham seriously hampered further archaeological studies.
 Already in the 80s evidence was provided that the stains (and the image) on the cloth was created by blood and not painted by red okra.
Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he [Henri de Poitiers] discovered how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist, who painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought …
it would be quite unlikely the Holy Evangelists would have omitted to record an imprint on Christ’s burial linens or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time.
Later studies of the human mitochondrial genome lineages from dust particles have detected sequences from multiple subjects of different ethnic origins, clustering into some haplogroups ranging from India over the Near-East to Europe, thus demonstrating the fact that as of now contamination of a any DNA evidence is a fact to be reckoned with.
Later in the 90s contamination between male and female DNA was documented on the shroud; with male DNA being more noticeable.
However, he question of the mixture of male and female DNA could of course easily be considered null and void since the fondling and handling of the shroud (kissing) would easily explain the contamination of the blood imprinted on or used to create the image on the shroud.
Following this, the Pope instructed the people at Lirey not to present the cloth as the actual shroud of Christ, but rather as an image or representation of it.
Later studies of historical sources from the 13 century were however able to document that the written sources concerning the shroud attested to its presence in Constantinople before 1204 and perhaps even earlier.