Joan of Arc 'Relics' — Confirmed 20th-Century Forgery
Photo: Eugène Lenepveu · Public domain
Would be extraordinary if real — but it has been positively shown false.
The account
Relics claimed to be the charred remains of Joan of Arc, held in a Chinon pharmacy bottle since 1867, were analyzed in 2009–2010 by a multidisciplinary forensic team and confirmed to be a mummified cat leg bone and a human rib dating to the 6th–3rd century BC — Egyptian mummy components, not Joan's remains.
Read the full account →Collapse the account ↑
In 1867, a bottle appeared at a pharmacy in Chinon, France, with a label reading: "Remains found under the pyre of Joan of Arc, maiden of Orleans." It contained a blackened rib, what appeared to be charred matter, and other fragments. The items were treated as genuine relics and attracted wide devotional attention, eventually reaching museum display.
In 2007, Philippe Charlier assembled a multidisciplinary team including medical examiners, pathologists, geneticists, biochemists, a radiologist, a zoologist, and an archaeologist. The study was published in Forensic Science International in 2010. Techniques included DNA analysis, multiple forms of microscopy, chemical spectrometry, atomic-emission analysis, carbon dating, pollen analysis, and odor profiling by perfume industry experts.
Carbon dating placed the remains in the 6th–3rd century BC — roughly 1,800 to 2,400 years before Joan's death in 1431. The zoologist identified one bone as a mummified cat leg. The chemical analysis of the black coating revealed bitumen, wood resins, gypsum, and pine pollen — signature compounds of ancient Egyptian embalming. The researchers concluded the items were "mummia": fragments of Egyptian mummies that circulated in medieval Europe as pharmaceutical ingredients.
Joan of Arc was burned at the stake, and her executioners reportedly threw the ashes into the Seine to prevent relic collection.
Reviewer Notes
We weigh a claim on two things, kept separate from the story above.
Assessed by Miracles Jar AI
Not “low evidence” — positive proof it’s false: positive evidence shows the claimed facts are false.
Scientifically debunked forgery. Contains mummified cat bone and Egyptian mummy human rib. Not Joan of Arc.
The verdict: Scientifically debunked forgery. The items contain a mummified cat bone and an Egyptian mummy human rib. They are not the remains of Joan of Arc.
This is not an incorruptibility case but a confirmed relic forgery, included as an instructive example of how relic claims can be fully debunked. The multidisciplinary team published results in Forensic Science International: carbon dating placed the remains in the 6th–3rd century BC; zoological analysis identified cat bone; chemical analysis of the black coating matched Egyptian embalming compounds (bitumen, wood resins, gypsum). The researchers concluded the items were "mummia" — Egyptian mummy components used as medieval pharmaceuticals. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake; no charred remains were preserved.
Carbon dating places the remains in the 6th–3rd century BC — pre-dating Joan by 1,700+ years. Radiometric dating is reliable for this timeframe and conclusively rules out a 15th-century origin. Zoological analysis identified the bone as a mummified cat leg, not human — species identification is definitive; a cat bone is not a charred human remain. The chemical coating matched Egyptian embalming compounds: bitumen, wood resins, gypsum, pine resin — signatures of Egyptian mummification, consistent with "mummia" medieval pharmaceutical use. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake; executioners reportedly threw the ashes into the Seine, making survival of any genuine remains highly implausible.
The case shows what rigorous forensic analysis can accomplish with claimed relics, and how the absence of such analysis in most cases leaves the supernatural hypothesis neither confirmed nor truly ruled out. Joan is not an incorruptibility case — she was burned at the stake and the ashes were reportedly thrown into the Seine — so no genuine remains were expected to survive in the first place.
Evidence ledger — what the verdict rests on
Carbon dating places remains in 6th–3rd century BC — pre-dating Joan by 1,700+ years
Radiometric dating is reliable for this timeframe; conclusively rules out 15th-century origin
Zoological analysis identified the bone as a mummified cat leg, not human
Species identification is definitive; cat bone is not a charred human remain
Chemical coating matched Egyptian embalming compounds: bitumen, wood resins, gypsum, pine resin
Compounds are signatures of Egyptian mummification; consistent with 'mummia' medieval pharmaceutical use
Joan of Arc was burned at the stake — executioners reportedly threw ashes into the Seine
Historical record makes survival of any genuine remains highly implausible
What would raise this score: Adversarial scrutiny with real power to expose deception — hostile investigators, controlled conditions — coming back clean would raise the evidence bar.
What would lower it: A confession, an exposed method, or a documented financial motive would drive the evidence bar toward zero.
How this works
We keep two questions apart on purpose — so a thin record can’t make an impossible thing look proven, and a strong record can’t dress up an ordinary one as a miracle. First: Could nature explain it? (taking the account as true for the moment.) The question is whether nature could produce this at all — assuming, for the moment, the events are true as described. Second: is there real evidence it happened? A claim only stands out when both hold up — and we never call anything certain either way. How ratings work →
The natural explanation
The leading natural account for this case is deception: hoaxes, cold reading & stagecraft. Read what it explains — and where it stops.
Sources
Tagged by proximity to the event. Primary sources are direct or contemporaneous; tertiary are downstream retellings.
- 1.Primaryacademic
Charlier, Philippe et al., "The 'relics of Joan of Arc': A forensic multidisciplinary analysis (Forensic Science International, 2010)", 2010· no public link
Peer-reviewed forensic analysis; DNA, carbon dating, spectrometry, zoology, pollen analysis
- 2.Secondaryacademic
"Joan of Arc's relics exposed as forgery (Nature News Brief)", 2007· no public link
Nature coverage of preliminary findings; confirms Egyptian mummy origin
- 3.Secondarynews
"Joan of Arc 'relics' confirmed to be fake (NBC News, 2010)", 2010· no public link
Summary of final Forensic Science International findings for general audience
Cases like this
Nearest on the map — similar in how miraculous they’d be, and how strong the evidence is.