1
   

"Joan d'Arc ashes" are ... from a mummy

 
 
Reply Wed 4 Apr, 2007 11:42 pm
Quote:
Link to Egyptian mummy shows Joan of Arc holy relics are fake

Alok Jha, science correspondent
Thursday April 5, 2007
The Guardian

Relics thought to be of Joan of Arc are forgeries made from the remains of an Egyptian mummy, according to scientists. After a battery of tests on the remains, rumoured to have survived the fire that killed the French saint, experts said they were astonished with the results.
St Joan was burned at the stake in 1431 in Normandy after being accused of heresy. The relics were discovered in 1867 in a jar in the attic of a pharmacy in Paris with the inscription "remains found under the stake of Joan of Arc, virgin of Orleans".

Chemical tests of the remains revealed the presence of embalming materials used by Egyptians, while two expert "noses" from the perfume industry identified smells that pointed to decomposing flesh rather than someone burned at the stake.
The relics consist of a charred-looking human rib, chunks of what appear to be blackened wood, a 15cm fragment of linen, and a cat's thigh bone. Forensic scientist Philippe Charlier, who led the investigation, told the journal Nature: "I'd never have thought that it could be from a mummy."

Dr Charlier obtained permission to study the relics last year. Carbon dating showed they came from the 3rd to 6th centuries BC and analysis of the bones matched those from Egyptian mummies. He said mummies were used in Europe during the Middle Ages in medicines and that the 1867 discovery date fitted the period when Joan of Arc was rediscovered by historians and resurrected as a national myth.

Historical records describe how St Joan was burned three times to ensure nothing remained and the survival of her organs was interpreted as a miracle.

Dr Charlier said it was not unusual for internal organs to resist burning. He said: "Organs such as the heart and intestines, which have a high water content, are very resistant to fire. We see it all the time in forensics."
Source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,319 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Apr, 2007 11:49 pm
Photos from today's Le Figaro, page 11:

http://i12.tinypic.com/4hkr679.jpg
http://i7.tinypic.com/3zbummh.jpg
http://i13.tinypic.com/34q3dqf.jpg
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2007 12:39 am
Quote:
Charred relics are not Joan of Arc's, says expert

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 05 April 2007

The relics of Joan of Arc - the Catholic saint who was burnt at the stake in 1431 - are a forgery and are probably derived from a much-older Egyptian mummy, a study has found.

A forensic scientist has shown that the bones and linen fragments discovered in the attic of a Paris pharmacy in 1867 were not those of a woman who had died in the 15th century.

Instead, it appears that the bones belong to a person who had died some time between the 6th and 3rd centuries BC, and had been embalmed in the manner of ancient Egypt.

After the "relics" came to light in the 19th century they were recognised as genuine by the Catholic Church and have since been held in a museum in the Loire town of Chinon.

Philippe Charlier of the Raymond Poincaré Hospital in Garches near Paris, who was given permission to study the remains, is quoted in the journal Nature saying that they belong to an Egyptian mummy who had lived many hundreds of years before Joan of Arc.

"I'd never have thought that it could be from a mummy," Dr Charlier said.

The relics comprise a charred human rib, chunks of what seem to be carbonised wood, a 15cm fragment of linen and a femur from a cat. An inscription found with the material said: "Remains found under the stake of Joan of Arc, Maid of Orleans."

The charred appearance of the bones, wood and linen were consistent with the idea that they belonged to someone who had been burnt at the stake. The cat's bone supported the notion that a black cat had been thrown on the pyre - a tradition when women were burnt as witches.

However, high-powered microscopes showed that the black crust on the bones was not carbonised as a result of being burnt, but impregnated deposits of mineral and vegetable material. "I see burnt remains all the time in my job. It was obviously not burnt tissue," Dr Charlier said.

Instead, the black material appears to be the result of an embalming mix of wood resins, bitumen and chemicals such as malachite. Dr Charlier also found pine pollen - pine trees did not grow in Normandy at the time Joan of Arc was killed, but pine resin was widely used for embalming in ancient Egypt.

Two further lines of evidence point to a link with ancient Egypt. Carbon dating of the remains suggest they belong to the period between the 6th and 3rd centuries BC. And spectroscopic profiles of the rib, femur and wood chips match those of Egyptian mummies from the same period. Joan of Arc, who was canonised in 1920, was a peasant girl from eastern France who heard the voices of saints and rose to become the inspiration for the French armies to defeat the invading English. She was captured and burnt at the stake at the age of 19, with her body being burned three times to make sure there was little left to worship.

Dr Charlier says the Catholic Church is ready to accept his study's results.
Source
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2007 03:36 am
Somebody's 17th Century joke has finally been revealed. I wonder how much the pharmacist paid for his mummy bones.


Joe(sacrebleu)Nation
0 Replies
 
George
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2007 11:32 am
He got burned on that deal.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2007 01:01 pm
I hope there wasnt a lot at stake.

What were Joan of Arcs 3 miracles to get her canonized? I hope her unburned viscera wasnt one of them.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2007 01:59 pm
No - she cured three nuns of cancer.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2007 02:24 pm
I wonder how many other so called relics are fake. I recall reading that there were so many pieces of the cross being sold in Medieval times that Christ would have to have been crucified a hundred times.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2007 03:23 pm
I'm working on something courteous to say. Be back when I think of it.




now where did I put that relic again? Can't remember, Pius the ---. or Leo the___. Maybe in my jewelry box.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2007 06:34 pm
Snorkle!!!



And this kind of religious charlatanism hasn't stopped yet!
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2007 07:16 pm
I do have that relic from my mother in law, mother in law... , and do actually wonder where I put it. It might be worth something on ebay...

Now, now, I admit to having more sensitivity some time ago - at one point extremely much more, though I'm over it now.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 05:03 pm
Relics were big business in the middle ages.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 07:38 pm
plainoldme wrote:
Relics were big business in the middle ages.

Now you can buy them on eBay.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 08:47 am
One Spring day in Sister Mary Gilmary's classroom.

It was nearing Good Friday and we seventh graders had spent the previous two days reading and discussing the Passion of Christ. There was considerable interest, amongst the boys at least, in the amount of pain that would be felt when the nails went through the hands and feet.
One kid had stepped on a nail the previous summer and told us all about how awful it felt. He said that it was really really awful, but that he didn't blackout and that he was smart enough, the doctor had said, to bring the piece of wood with the nail in it to his house to show his mother.

All of us had been required to write a poem, mine had the nails crying out that they didn't want to be part of the sacrifice and Christ's tears becoming the seeds of faith for millions.

On Holy Thursday, Sister brought a relic for us to see and touch. I don't remember now who's piece of bone is was, but it was in a lovely little glass case. A tiny piece of something on a bit of red felt, Sister said it was an actual piece of bone from the Saint.

We passed it from desk to desk, hand to hand, each of us looking at the small round brownish white dot. Sister was relieved to get it back after it had made the rounds of the room.

Then we walked in two columns down to Saint James Church to have our confessions heard. (1961)

http://photos10.flickr.com/15986205_6ed5f2b7a8_m.jpg

Later, much later, I remember talking to someone who had been horrified to learn that a few soldiers in Viet Nam had kept the skulls and scalps of of people they had killed. I already knew about receiving powers from the bones of the dead so it didn't surprise me.

Joe(hoc est corpus meum)Nation
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 10:53 am
Everyone wants a short cut to heaven.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 11:02 am
At Sanja Marinia's Church, we had a reliquary that looke like a bowling trophy with rays coming out the sides and a glass case in the center in which was a piece of the "true Cross". I think it was taken out of the vault and held by Fr Miczkiuin with a large napkin. Hed walk around and say something that translated to "behold a hunk of the true cross where Jesus was crucified". Then we all had to kiss it. I refused because , even back then I was afraid of germs and boogers from all these snotty kids that were in my class. So Fr Miczkuin allowed us to kiss our fingers and then touch the base of the reliquary . It actually looked like one of those brass "sunray" wall clocks with a base on it.

The piece of the cross was so small, it was like a splinter , so, even if it were of the proper age, nobody could do tree ring analyses.

Did they have shoppes where the monks shaved up hunks of the cross and pile them up for later sale?

How comes only the Catholics got them?

Why shave upa cross at all? why not send it , in its entirety to the head place where Catholics stash their goods.

What'd they do with the nails.?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2007 11:23 am
I always thought saving and displaying bodily parts was more than a bit ghastly.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2007 12:21 pm
Quote:
always thought saving and displaying bodily parts was more than a bit ghastly.




Since body parts are too-too solid flesh, I'd say "ghoulish" rather than "ghastly".

After all, we're picking bones here.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 03:06 pm
farmer -- If the reliquary looked like a sun with rays, it may actually have been a monstrance, the vessel that holds the concecrated host for display at some time of the year. Perhaps Holy Week. The reason only Catholics have relics has to do with relics being one of the causes of the Reformation. Some Protestants wanted to purify religion of that sort of superstition.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » "Joan d'Arc ashes" are ... from a mummy
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 05:04:42