MJMiracles Jar
← All claims
incorruptibilityChinon pharmacy, then museum display, France·Joan died 1431; 'relics' surfaced 1867; forensic analysis 2007–2010

Joan of Arc 'Relics' — Confirmed 20th-Century Forgery

Photo: Eugène Lenepveu · Public domain

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.

The Pharmacy Bottle

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.

The Forensic Investigation

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.

The Findings

The results were unambiguous. 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.

Why It Matters

Joan of Arc is not an incorruptibility case — she was burned at the stake, and her executioners reportedly threw the ashes into the Seine to prevent relic collection. This 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.

Sources

Tagged by proximity to the event. Primary sources are direct or contemporaneous; tertiary are downstream retellings.

  1. 1.
    Primaryacademic

    Charlier, Philippe et al., "The 'relics of Joan of Arc': A forensic multidisciplinary analysis (Forensic Science International, 2010)", 2010↗ search

    Peer-reviewed forensic analysis; DNA, carbon dating, spectrometry, zoology, pollen analysis

  2. 2.
    Secondaryacademic

    "Joan of Arc's relics exposed as forgery (Nature News Brief)", 2007↗ search

    Nature coverage of preliminary findings; confirms Egyptian mummy origin

  3. 3.
    Secondarynews

    "Joan of Arc 'relics' confirmed to be fake (NBC News, 2010)", 2010↗ search

    Summary of final Forensic Science International findings for general audience

Related claims