Here are the first two paragraphs:
We have several documents indicating the presence of the relics of burial linens in Constantinople. Partial list of them is available in Daniel Scavone’s article.
The problem is that those descriptions are usually very brief and vague, so the confusion appears. The burial cloth are described in various documents as sindon (syndon), sudarium (plural sudaria), linteum, spargana, fasciae, othonia, entaphia, just to name a few. The Mandylion, considered by some as identical to the Shroud of Turin, Has also some own specific terms, like mantile, himation or tetradiplon.
So with very mention of a burial cloth in a letter or document, we must stop and wonder: Is this the cloth that is now in Turin? What have we maybe assumed wrongly in trying to prove the shroud’s authenticity with history?
A man I used to work for kept a piece of paper, a pair of scissors and a rock on his desk. A wooden sign read, “Go back and study the problem some more. I want a different conclusion next time.”