Talk:Shroud of Turin

AB blood group

@Salnitrum: I don't see why naysayers would like to dispute the AB blood group. If true, that's one of the best arguments against the corpse being Ancient. Since the AB blood group did not exist in Antiquity. So, of course, skeptics seek evidence for any claim about the shroud, but that kind of works in this case against their vested interest. So, it is difficult to say they toe the line hereupon. And this is about Shroudies, too: their vested interest is to deny the AB blood group. Morals: this isn't about us vs. them, but about having good evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, @Tgeorgescu:, but the purpose of this edit is not to take a side in an "us vs. them" debate, but to accurately reflect the academic timeline of the "Blood stains" section. Currently, the text mentions McCrone's hypothesis that the stains are merely medieval iron oxide pigment. It is a matter of factual completeness to state that other peer-reviewed studies—specifically Professor Baima Bollone's 1983 paper in Shroud Spectrum International—directly challenged McCrone's claim by identifying components like human serum, blood proteins, and specific burial spices (aloes and myrrh).

Whether the AB blood group supports an ancient or medieval origin is an interpretive matter for the reader or for other dedicated sections of the article. In the specific context of "Blood stains chemistry", Baima Bollone's peer-reviewed finding remains a prominent and highly-cited counter-argument to the "paint-only" hypothesis and warrants inclusion for neutrality (WP:NPOV). I suggest we focus on the reliability of the source rather than the perceived motives of the factions. Salnitrum (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Baima Bollone's human blood narrative has been critiqued and reviewed by Kelly Kearse who is already included in the section, but not as a response to Baima specifically, just general on why it cannot be human blood, Kearse has two reports addressing it. The latest modern data and information should be prioritized, they are from 2020 and 2025. It should be indicated that Baima's claims on bloodstains have been addressed as no longer valid, and even Dr. Alan Adler back in the 1980s expressed similar concerns about those findings. That source as well which you said is from the Shroud Spectrum International was discussed above, it comes from Issue #6 March 1983 section 3, here are the archives: https://www.shroud.com/spectrum.htm. Ancient Greek Scribe (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with prioritizing the most recent modern consensus (such as Kearse's 2020/2025 papers) and clarifying that Baima Bollone's findings are now heavily contested or considered obsolete by subsequent forensic analysis.

However, Baima Bollone's 1981/1983 study represents a major historical milestone in the Shroud's twentieth-century research timeline, directly countering McCrone's "paint-only" hypothesis at the time and shifting the entire academic debate toward biomolecular analysis. Completely omitting his work creates a historical gap in the narrative of how the scientific community transitioned from looking at pigments to discussing blood degradation and contamination.

Instead of removing the reference, a more encyclopedic approach would be to include it briefly as a historical stepping stone, immediately followed by the modern consensus. For example:

"While Professor Pierluigi Baima Bollone initially claimed in 1983 to have identified type AB human blood and burial spices, this conclusion was later challenged by researchers like Alan Adler and more recently Kelly Kirsten (2020, 2025), who noted that such early testing methods could not definitively confirm ancient human blood due to degradation and potential contamination."

What do you think about this phrasing? Salnitrum (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I can support its inclusion in that way as a historical claim in contrast to the latest findings, cheers. Ancient Greek Scribe (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll update the section according to the agreed-upon wording. Please feel free to copyedit or refine the text further if you feel it can be improved for better flow or accuracy. Salnitrum (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

We should also mention that as part of its authenticity tests in the Middle Ages, the shroud was repeatedly boiled in both water and oil, to see if the image would disappear. This would have destroyed or eliminated any "original" blood residue. Therefore, if there is any actual blood on the shroud today, it was added post-boiling. See and and Wdford (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

"specific burial spices (aloes and myrrh)." Myrrh was not only used for burial rituals. It has traditional uses in medicine as an antiseptic and analgesic. Dimadick (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC)