Have Medieval Archeologists Found Joan of Arc's Lost Remains? | Myth Hunters | Chronicle
France's leading forensic pathologist, Philippe Charlier, delves into the mystery of Saint Joan of Arc's remains, which were supposedly discovered in 1867 after being lost for centuries. Charlier, known as the "Indiana Jones of graveyards," approaches the investigation like a medical case, viewing the bones as patients rather than archaeological artifacts. The relics, including bones and a textile fragment, spark debate over their authenticity, with some believing them to be a hoax. Through various scientific methods including DNA analysis, CT scanning, and chemical analysis, Shaler attempts to determine if the remains truly belong to Joan of Arc.
Welcome to Chronicle; your home for all things medieval history! With documentaries covering everything from the collapse of the Roman Empire to the beginnings of the Renaissance, from Hastings to Charlemagne, we'll be exploring everything the Middle Ages have to offer.
Subscribe now so you don't miss out!
Chronicle is part of the History Hit Network. To get in touch please email owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com.
📺 Discover the past on History Hit with ad-free exclusive podcasts and documentaries released weekly presented by world-renowned historians Dan Snow, Suzannah Lipscomb, Matt Lewis, and more. Get 50% off your first 3 months with code CHRONICLE 👉 access.historyhit.com/
Yes, it was a bit disappointing. However, I have always preached to my daughter that I'd rather be disappointed with the truth than to live under a false assumption of a lie.
That's a good saying. Tbh I knew it wasn't going to be a good outcome, we would already know if her remains were true and found. It still reveals an interesting outcome hiding its own little detective story, why did they say it was Joan's remains etc
> HOW DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE,,,,CHECK WITH KZhead ???????
@@jamesanonymous2343 truth tends to reveal itself over a period of time to those who pay attention.
try telling that to all of tRUMP's scarecrow followers
The fact she knew she would be burned at the stake and still admitted to the voices makes me believe she was certain who they were from. Poor girl, what a horrible thing to do to a young woman. Monsters!
Makes me certain she was mentally ill. Today she would have been sectioned. put into a facility where they use plastic forks and you visit once a month. Absolute nutter. She knew nothing about war or strategy. She almost got herself killed on several occasions due to just being unaware of her surroundings and carelessness.
Or that she truly believed in what she experienced. But she was likely schizophrenic according to forensic psychology.
She was a witch, Jesus. What are you gunna do? Let her roam at will?
@@frompapertopeoplepodcast4889I was about to say that. And as a schizophrenic myself, I understand that level of conviction. I'm just very fortunate I've managed to keep it, well managed
largest genocide EVER - was not Jews, Native Americans, - BUT females - look into it Donna Reed's Documentary - The Burning Times - this genocide lasted for centuries - sometimes every female in a village was killed - including baby girls- i guess it isn't any different today - think about all the baby Chinese girls
Whether she was delusional or not she believed she heard voices and could inspire others by her determination to follow the instructions of those voices. There must have been something which convinced the dauphin to let a 16 year old girl, with no military experience, to lead his army to break the siege at Orleans -which none of his previous commanders had managed to do. Without her its highly unlikely that he would ever have succeeded as Charles VII - and he shows his gratitude for her efforts in gaining him the throne by abandoning her to a truly horrific fate.
Her hearing voices and music are typical of auditory epilepsy. With the possible addition of schizophrenia. Also a brain tumour could trigger these kinds of hallucinations. Most brain tumours occur in children fifteen and younger or the elderly. Therefore she was at the right age since reports are that she had experienced these auditory symptoms from a young age. In the seventies a physician reviewing the notes of her pre-immolation exam (because if she were pregnant she couldn't be executed) felt that she was actually a male. That went over about as well as any scientific review of her eymptoms. And why anybody could be confused as to who would fake her relics-it was big business back then.
Typical of all leaders u do the dirty work but u shouldn't grow bigger than I ur master lest u bring me down as well.. look up the King of France vs Teh Knights Templar
Not that unusual for world leaders to be dumb enough to believe a 16 year old girl. After all Greta Thunberg managed to fool a lot of adults didn't she?
@@senyongaeric1948 Philip IV was in debt to the Knights Templar - he owed them a fortune. Pope Clement was pro-French and had moved the papacy to Avignon and, with the demise of the crusades, there was no need for a special military arm to both fight and protect pilgrims. Then there was the vast wealth of the Templars which Philip IV couldn’t resist. So Philip sent orders that all Templar groups should be arrested simultaneously around the world - some complied, some didn’t. Edward II of England obeyed his father in law as far as getting his hands on the loot - but didn’t believe the bizarre charges against them so didn’t impose the same horrendous treatment as was meted out to Templars in France. So 1312 saw the Templars destroyed - without Philip getting his hands on the loot which had been spirited away - Grand Master Jacque de Molay issued a curse as he was about to be burnt which saw both Philip IV and Pope Clement dead within the year and we were left with the superstition about unlucky Friday 13th.
@@susanohnhaus611If she was delusional, which I am prepared to believe, it is remarkable what she actually achieved. There has to be more to the story. How was a schizophrenic young girl able to assemble and effectively lead a medieval army on a victorious campaign?
Clearly Not the physical remains of Joan of Arc , but 600 years later her memory burns bright in the minds of millions of French people.
Everyone loves Joan of Arc, but that french soldiers were willing to serve under her command speaks volumes about the french people.
And all Christians!
@@seankennedy1377 much like Jesus, religious people killed Joan.
@@ocumstweezers u have really 0 understanding of history. that was very common back in the 1400s life expectancy wasnt much longer than 30 back then. by 16 most peasants were family leaders military leaders king councils owners of vast lands lords and everything else. this wasnt exclusive to french.
@@mattx9260religious people kill everyone
I like the reaction of the perfume tester. "I smell vanilla. I swear I smell vanilla. Why do I smell vanilla? Is it OK that I smell vanilla?" Yes. The fact that it doesn't support our initial hypothesis is fine. Data is data. We prefer honesty. Thank you.
19:32 the best part is a couple seconds before that point. Where he smells/ detects a “particular” smell. Evidence that the 600 year old bones are “old” in his words. That part was incredible. 😂, they are actually getting out of topics and it does banalise scientific work in a world where more and more people each day see it as something that anybody without any particular knowledge can do. To put that guy to determine something like that with his nose would only strengthen the Tiktok university argument, that science is a lie and all that. Very poor taste for a scientist to do such a thing
@@feliperea3271 I think perhaps he was trying to con us,because some preserved saints bodies have the odour of sanctity or so we are told,they smell of some drug or poison. I just can't recall its name I'm 90 years old,same poison as in a peach stone,can anyone Help! Oh just thought of it Cyanide. Some saints incorruptible bodies smell of cyanide, or so we are told
I read “if you torture the results enough, they will confess”, meaning you can make the results agree with your hypothesis if you manipulate it enough. I’m so happy this man was true to the actual results!
So, the "found" the remains of someone who was burned at the stake and dumped in a river almost 600 years ago? I find that very hard to believe.
Came to say the same thing
No they said on jar lid that the remains was found below the fire with ashes on the 3rd burning attempt think they were taken by ordinary folk for luck.
So its all a lie she was a liar never heàrd voices,was supposed to be burned at the stake but evidently didn't or she couldn't be identify. I think less of her if she let sone other girl take her punidhmentu
No they were given the remains of an Egyptian mummy and its mummified cat,that had been founding the 18 the century or so,and passed them off as relics the soot on the bones was the remains of the embalming fluid. Out of decency the remains should be returned to Egypt where the person lived and died
@@laurielovett8849 no such thing was said or implied. All that was proven that the remains in those jars were not hers. Her true remains, if they haven't decomposed or washed out to sea, still lay at the bottom of the river. There is no possibility that some other girl was burned in her place. The judges and prosecutors, who wanted her dead and knew her face, witnessed the execution. They would all be familiar with the legend of St. Stephen. They would have wanted to be sure that there was no possibility of such a thing appearing to recur.
The youngest person to lead a continental army to victory! “I am not afraid. God is with me. I was made for this!”
Or.....yet another example of an idiot who claimed to know the will of a made-up fairytale character, and used this certainty to justify the slaughter of thousands...
From what I have read Joan's remains were burnt three times. After the first time, her remains were collected and then burnt a second time. The ashes were then collected, sieved and any fragments of bone or teeth were smashed and ground up before being dumped into the river Seine so there could be no remains left that could be used as relics in the future.
After the first immolation of Saint Joan by the Burgundian Church, her heart remained unburned, incorruptible. A miracle. And yet they continued to destroy what was left. They knew already it was a holy relic and still destroyed it. Pure evil. Disgraceful.
@@disideratum The French Revolution was also evil. sending children, families including their dogs to the guillotine. Insanity.
Joan's trial was one of the dirtiest and most corrupt in European history. It was so egregious that once the war was over, in 1453, the Church nullified it within two years. The same Church that took nearly 400 years to apologize for what it had done to Galileo. Full disclosure: I'm a member of that Church, and am quite prepared to acknowledge its mistakes. Over the course of 2,000 years, they are inevitable and many. But I do ask that people also remember the 2,000 years of charity hospitals, schools, and caring for the poor. Indeed, the Dickensian poor did not really exist in England until after the monasteries were dissolved and no one else stepped up to care for them.
@@shane99ca Corrupt individuals can't ruin the goodness of the Church. Those few went against the principles of those they were supposed to be in service of and ultimately Christ Himself.
@@disideratum Isn't that essentially what I said in my second paragraph?
Being burned at the stake doesn’t leave much in the way of remains if done properly. The charred bones are very fragile and crumble.
Ah, but these are 'holy' bones! 😉
Like anything else, how well anything gets done depends on who, how, where, and what is invested for 100% completion. Perhaps they ran out of wood.
Everything back then was scooped up, locked up in a box with a cross engraved on it and considered holy!... 😂
@@Allannah_Of_Rome Except she was burned as a heretic…
@@allangibson8494 - and later declared a saint by the same organization.
Very informative, thank you. I did not know she had been betrayed by her country and the Church. Very sad considering her devotion and courage for France.
how did you not know that? you seem to be from an english speaking country, so you must have gone to school?
@@esmeraldaweatherwaxe970I went to catholic high school and we didn’t learn much about her, or the stories of many other saints. It’s fine with me because I’m not religious, so I’m glad I learned about her later on my own, in a historical context.
@@PeachysMom Joan is important as an example of how the Church treats women who are folk heroes... the Patriarchy eh? ☹
You gotta learn somewhere! 😊
@@pippah447 Just stop with the modern feminist injections. St Joan was better than all of us.
A truely extraordinary young woman who was destroyed by men for being inconvenient. What’s really extraordinary is that she is remembered and they are all forgotten. The shame and disappointment are theirs, her name and story live centuries after her death.
Not for the first time a military commander was abandoned after successfully winning a war. Being that she was a female has nothing to do with it. Kings have done this since forever when they think someone may be a future contender and a threat to them whether that person was male or female is irrelevant. So stop trying to turn this into a man hating woman victim scenario
I'm trying to figure out if this is a good or bad thing
This isn’t a patriarchy thing. Stop trying to make everything a feminist manifesto. She was likely a mentallybill young woman who did remarkable things and then died for them.
@@codename495You must be a man to think that. History shows that her being female - dressing as a male and doing male things is what made it possible and easier for them to say it was Satan she was hearing.
Nah, she was either crazy or a liar
The fact that the bones were in a museum not a church reliquary suggests that the church did not really accept them as Joan of Arc’s when they were first found
Yes but the Church was part of putting her to the stake to be burned so they wouldn't want them if they were actually hers.
there was a you tube article on joan's bones; turned out to be parts of an egyptian mummy and what bones there were were so burned no dna could be extraced
An exceptional presentation, demonstrating the importance in the search for truth.
The biggest Joan of Arc irony is the Lovely Statue of her that was in Notre Dame in Paris. The Statue was to the far right side of the Altar, while a Saint Denis Statue was on the opposite side. During the horrific burning of Notre Dame on April 15, 2019, the wooden spire in flames crashed through the church ceiling & destroyed the Joan of Arc Statue with fire. Joan of Arc died by fire and her statue, in what should be the safest place possible inside of Notre Dame in Paris, was also completely burned. Ironic, and completely Creepy.
If the statue survived untouched people would have found it equally creepy.
So once again Joan of Arc was burned by a Catholic Church ..? That _is_ creepy .
@@Edam-Channel ONLY if it would have been the only one untouched. If it had been amongst all the other untouched statues, then no. In this case, if hers was the only one burnt then yes, it is indeed rightfully creepy.
@@Edam-ChannelY'mean because of the statues tooth gap and unibrow ? Ya true it was rather oooky
Paintings of her are bound to burst into flames at some point.
Interesting, they state at 23.26 that it takes "half a ton of wood and 5 hours to cremate a body". I had no idea it took soo much time and wood.
A body is full of water...does not burn fast!
Don't they use has now n it's hot like oxycetalene so don't take long either
supposedly, the germans were somehow able to cremate millions of bodies in less than 30 minutes each.
Humans aren’t very flammable - the average human female today will probably have about 50 kilos (about 14 Imperial Gallons) of WATER dispersed throughout her tissues. In order for a body to burn to ashes, all of that water must evaporate. Edit: Grammar
Nice guy refusing to pay her ransom
who refused to pay Gille DeRais
Reason being that Joan was a substitute sacrificial victim. Read Margaret Murray's book 'The Divine King in England'.
Georges de Tremoilles and his coterie were a very bad influence on Charles. That's why Yolande conspired with Arthur to get rid of them.
Once I saw a scrap of linen and resin coated bones, I knew it was a mummy.
There is a mistake at 8:46 min. of this video where a picture of Charles VII is mistakenly called Charles VI and Charles VIII portrait is given as the Charles VII (the Dophine).
Dauphin.
Dolphin
@@sodthatlikebutton1946 Dolphin? I hope you're joking.
A wonderful presentation. Showing the importance of honesty and integrity above all. This turned from the remains of St. Joan to something more important. A human story. A story of why belief is sometimes more important than truth.. but those moments are always fleeting. In the end all that is really important is that we find how intertwined we are with our real history. And how important the truth is.
Very Eloquently Said. ❤
Joan of Arc is very much alive in Brazil. Echoes of her protests upon being interrogated can be heard in the words of Admiral Othon Pinheiro, a soldier unjustly denounced and convicted during a grotesque case of Lawfare. One thing really caught my attention in the interview with Admiral Othon Pinheiro, his striking phrase that sums up the Brazilian national tragedy well: “the guy writes that [the fact] is that and [what was written] becomes true… it is very difficult to live in a system in which the comrade says one thing and it becomes true” The Admiral's words reminded me of something I read about Joan of Arc's trial. At one point she protested that everything that was against her was noted by the clerk but that which was in favor of her was not written down. Thus, what was written obviously did not represent the truth but would be seen as the only truth when read by someone (exactly as in the case of the Brazilian Admiral).
Lesser Magik and all of that , huh ? Interesting thoughts
Fascinating! And thank you for including all the details behind the scientific processes.
Jeanne was a girl full of the Spirit of the Lord, and her strong religious convictions gave her the strength she needed to lead the French Army. She was “ The Maid of Orleans “ and she was to be sure the Dauphin became King . Whether she was hearing the voices of angels and saints , I guess we’ll never know. But she made history. Her death was indeed cruel and tragic, most people that were “ burned “ at the stake usually had nothing but ash left anyway. I’d be lead to believe that there’s nothing out there to find , although it would be quite a revelation and a great way to make history yet again. She was canonized and made a Saint , so she did make Church history.
Burning at the stake usually didn’t totally consume a body. Even cremations today require breaking up of the larger bone chunks.
oh the irony ... MURDERED by the cult of catholics, then hundreds of years later made a saint in the cult that killed her
Continues to mystify , mystery
Is it possible she was really a young boy dressed as a woman and she confessed that to the D auphin and that's how she persuaded him to ride into battle? A stretch I know.
@@jackiemack8653 More than a stretch, considering, you know, history.
It's obvious the king just used Joan of Arc and then set her up. He wanted to keep all the power, glory and credit for himself.
That is what leaders do, be they kings or presidents!
Absolutely brilliant ,he never gave up.I did not think they were because to burn a body 3 times must have really done the job it was meant to do..However it was strange how ordinary burnings only took one burn.But it’s a great testament to not only his determination,but to science that he got to find out all these amazing things.A really well put together documentary .thank you 🥰
I think Joan of Arc may have been very big. That’s why she could be a warrior and men were willing to follow her. The fact that they had to burn her three times lends credence to this idea.
@@mdeeaonetwothree5162 No. It's because they were trying to destroy her body completely with nothing left for anyone to save. It's not about the size of the body. Even if she was large for a woman, like a man's size, that still wouldn't require three burnings. Men weren't burned three times.
Charles and Joan reached a breach of communication and agreement shortly after his coronation: he wanted to pursue a diplomatic course and Joan a military one. She felt her influence was waning, and had known at the start of her mission that she was only good for two years, and she told this to Charles. It was not the Church which made the fatal judgment about Joan's voices: it was an alliance between the University of Paris and the pro-Burgundian/pro English faction in Rouen, headed by Cauchon. They went so far as to try to falsify the record, but fortunately, the chief court reporter, Guillaume Manchon, kept his certified copy, which he gave to Charles when the king entered Rouen, and this record, along with the persistent attempts by Joan's mother, prompted the re-trial, proved that the first trial was a kangaroo court, and rehabilitated Joan.
Thank you for that little bit of extra information. My information on Joan of Arc is mostly learned from the play Saint Joan of Arc by George Bernard Shaw. A wonderful play which we studied in High School.
@@TheSeedpearl Good play, bad history. Better than the film "the Messenger" which denied she had a message and invented her sister's rape by English marauders to motivate her, contrary to legal testimonies on her upbringing that agreed that her townsfolk were not harmed during her early life. Shaw's friend and critic G.K. Chesterton commented that it makes no sense for a "skeptic" to: "take up a supernatural story that may have some foundation, and replace it with a natural story with no foundation."🧐
@@RexKochanski very interesting input from you. I don't think I saw the movie. But i do pick up information on Joan of Arc whenever I see something published.. or if someone has something to comment about. I know movies and TV shows are usually sensationalized.
I’d almost take bets that cats became ‘evil’ after one shat in a bishop’s shoe. The English condemnation of Joan was that she wore pants in order to ride astride with the army.
Agreed, and cats became ‘evil’ because they wouldn’t blindly obey.
@@DeidreL9 - just like women.😂
Super video. Well investigated, ending with the right outcome, although it be disappointing to many. Having said that as the narrator spoke, the bones and artifact did not make the woman, it was her quest, strength, determination and legacy which keeps her alive today. I was so intrigued and touched by this. Thank you so much for sharing.
Great documentary. Worth watching, thanks 😊
What I really wanted to know is how they know who Jeanne D'Arc's relatives are. It was my understanding, while researching my own family tree into France, that a lot of records were destroyed during the French Revolution. So how do they know who her living relatives are?
I thought about this, too. Researching living relatives is normally a great option in modern times. But not so much with Joan. How do we find her aunts and uncles?
@@FreezeDriedIceCreamPrepper Well, her Aunts and Uncles would be dead now. She would have many distant cousins, though, and she may have many-greats nieces and nephews, descended from her sisters and brothers if she had any.
exactly that, well spotted.
Not all records were destroyed during the revolution, not by a long shot. We’ve been able to trace our French ancestry back to the beginnings of the Huguenot religious movement in the 16th century - and find living relatives in France and the USA via DNA databases.
@@RuthZeeckyes so true. You posted great info
The music on this one is _wild!_
What blows my mind is that the bone relics were still in the process of decay, sheerly amazing.
Fascinating video! Unexpected plot twist made it more interesting
She actually did renounce her voices after the long and stressful ordeals of imprisonment and unending courtroom harassment. She was threatened with immediate execution unless she renounced both the voices and her male clothing. She was promised a transfer to a religious place for imprisonment instead of the politically situated one, where the guards were dangerous. She signed the paper, but was taken back to where she had been, minus the protection of male clothing. A few days later, she had recanted, and had resumed male clothing, stating that the guards had been vicious, and that Cauchon had lied, and that she had done wrong to betray herself and her voices. Manchon noted that she gave a "fatal response" to Cauchon's questioning, aware she was figuratively signing her death warrant. This documentary is full of inaccuracies.
First thought: bones+apothecary = mummia. Because the most likely explanation is usually the correct one, I'd have thought the first direction of the tests would be to prove or disprove it was bits of an Egyptian mummy.
Presented in this video is an exciting exploration into the mysterious tomb of Saint Joan of Arc, narrated by the extraordinary Philippe Charlier, sometimes called the "Indiana Jones of graveyards." Treating the bones as more than simply artifacts-like patients with stories to tell-Charlier's forensic technique brings an intriguing new dimension to the historical enigma. The use of scientific technologies, such as DNA analysis and CT scanning, provides an intriguing window into the possibility of discovering the truth about these ancient relics. This research is riveting from start to finish thanks to its fascinating mix of history, science, and mystery.
It was at a time when all relics/religious phenomenon was under scrutiny. Almost all churches and other religious sites had some sort of holy relic in their possession. There was also clergy who went from church to church disproving the validity of the relics and trashing tons of them as the devil's toys. This was the world Jean D'Ark was born into.
A 16-year-old peasant girl announcing she hears voices of the dead gets a hearing with the king. I haven't gotten past that yet. But the past is a foreign country whose language we cannot speak..
There are plenty of explanations how that exactly happened! Fascinating indeed.
As Dr Helen Castor pointed out in her BBC documentary about Jehanne, in those days it was an accepted fact that Churchmen, mystics or visionaries heard 'real' spiritual voices, the problem was how to determine whether they were the voices of Angels or of Demons. As to the audience with the Dauphin, it's pretty clear there were political forces at work either supporting or simply using Jehanne - she was accompanied to Chinon by a group of men who included a Royal Herald, she was escorted into the Dauphin's court by at least one prominent members of that court and there had been rumours circulating for months about a prophesied arrival of a 'maid from Lorraine' who would save France. Additionally, by the time Jehanne turned up, Charles was _desperate,_ the French army was broken and demoralized having lost every major encounter with the English for _years_ and Dr Castor's suggestion is he was willing to try *anything* to claw back some victory.
She was super cute so it makes sense
kings get desperate too, and syffillis does weird things to the brain..
Nice!
she came from a family that knew about battles and military tactics as they were involved with defending their village from the Burgundians
Pretty awesome documentary, honestly. Thanks.
I skipped ahead so I could save myself and you the trouble of wasting an hour of your life. No these aren't her bones.
Well then I have to nominate you for an award!! You have won the internet for the day! Thank you!!!!! I’ll go find another cool documentary..
Oh, I am so shocked!!!
@@jomomma1512 One of my irritations w/these kind of "documentaries" is that to fill an hour's worth of run time they think we need the person's ENTIRE life story, which, duh, we all already know all about from going to school, rather than just presenting the new information and getting to the point. You're welcome.
We all knew that. It would've been announced if they had proven to be her remains. None of that takes away from the fascinating exploration of just HOW this kind of investigation is done. It's something we would not see or learn about otherwise, unless we're studying in any of those fields. But if someone's only here for sensationalism, well, that's their problem.
I found it very interesting. Doesn't matter that they aren't her bones it was interesting to watch the process they go through to find out.
The narration speaks about S-twist fiber woven at 24 threads per cm, but shows the technician handling rough loosely-woven burlap with Z- twist fibers. I mean, come on!
Kembar there are a number of contradictions in this video. Very sloppy presentation.
This is just so fascinating...the perfect intersection of religion and science! ⛪️🧬🔥🔬✌️
It's history of a woman who used religion to make others follower her and I turn religious leader used her mental health issues to their advantage.😮
I've been to Rouen and saw the site of Jeanne d'Arc's burning. My still unanswered question is just how those bones get from Rouen to Paris to begin with.
Horses ? Nothing too complicated here.
@maryearll3359 duh! Chain of custody is what I'm talking about - the people/ownership pathway between Rouen and the apothecary (chemist) in Paris in whose attic they were "found". That just wasn't even eluded/alluded to in any way. Yes - duh, absence of such paperwork would be a sure sign of a fake. BUT in huge social conflicts - like, oh, I dunno - a Revolution - well, such paperwork has a habit of becoming lost. So the absence of such paperwork isn't necessarily a sign that something's not the real McCoy.
From a scientific standpoint, Joan may have been slightly, mentally unhinged. But heroic and so fascinating!
You should read up a bit more on Joan of Arc. You say heroic, I say reckless. Completely disconnected from reality, unaware of happenings going on in her direct vicinity. If it hadn’t been for Giles de Rais, she would have met her end very early on into her campaign from sheer carelessness.
However…she was done dirty by her pretender sovereign.
She was not. I'm not going to convince you, but please do some research there is a lot of documentation about her. She was not mentally unhinged. She was a true Mystic with the ability to predict so many catastrophic and triumphant events. She recognized key figures without having never met them before Above all she was pure, obedient, faithful, having not benefited from all of her accomplishments. Did you know the tower where she was held -that awful place -is still standing today? At one point She threw herself from the top trying to free herself from the worms, who fabricated a case against her. Less than 30 years after her death, the authorities admittedi she had never done any wrong, no blasphemy, no lies, no sorcery. Her own mother asked that her name be cleared from the slander. Even during her interrogations/trial she warned those who were fabricating all of those lies against her that thry were damming their own souls... unfortunately, as it's the case today, some of those corrupt accusers were clerics.
If Joan of Arc was a man you wouldn't say that . Sexist !!
@@VynylFantasyI have read the major works about her from French historians in the original language, read ridiculous amounts of her trial, AND been to Rouen, Orleans, Tours, and the chapel she prayed at in Paris before her attack, and your third sentence is absolutely a judgment and opinion you have and pretty fallacious. The fact is that no one to this day can explain many of the knowledge she had at such a young age, as well as her inexplicable conviction and courage, not to mention like she, a woman (and therefore regarded as inferior to men back then), was able to convince the most arrogant of knights and lead them into battle, and the King himself (discarding all this as mere superstitions from their part is nonsense as there were PLENTY of men and women claiming to be sent from God back then, a fact that actually made it even harder for her to be taken seriously - read Beaune’s book on her for this). Portraying her like some goof out of Bellevue pretending to be a messiah is, to be frank, quite biased of you and the easy way out to explain the supernatural. The world simply has not seen anyone like her since and there have been plenty of unhinged people with even more opportunities for glory or whatnot to match her exploits and here we are, still talking about her uniqueness 800 years later. I invite you read Pernaud’s and also Gallo’s works on her in addition to Beaume’s.
I'll save anyone coming here who reads this some time... The bones aren't even burnt so they're 100% not hers.
after so many years you can't find a reiabel descendant dna match anyway.. try doing geneology research and see how it all turns to mush since the wars destroy records and people lie about who fathered their babies.
TY
Actually, there were at least three scientifically plausible explanations of why the bones would not show the burn results they expected even if they had been cremated; therefore, more tests were needed before these could be truly excluded as Not Joan's.
@@CelticBearWoman i think that the fact there was no carbon found on the bones sealed the deal already.
Jeanne d'Arc héroïne dé France ❤
Y porqué hay que traducir al anglosajón?el anglosajón NO 👎 tiene nada de la gracia necesaria para hacer traducciones, en cambio el FRANCÉS es completamente válido para hacerse entender mundialmente 😅
great video again
This is the Most Interesting documentary I have ever watched
Okay, but may I ask where did they plan to find "living relatives" of Joan d'Arc to make the dna comparison?
They would not have to be direct descendants to find matching DNA. There are living descendants today of at least one of her brothers.
They would use genetic genealogy to attempt to find distant ancestors
Very easily - Joan wasn't an only child, and you don't need an _absolute_ direct descendant to get a match. I think even a cousin's direct descendant might be enough in some cases....
John d'arc lol
What an uneducated question.
Grossly dumbed down summary of her trial, and the role of the Church, apparently trying to exculpate the English. Even by the standards of that brutal age, her handling as a POW was criminal.
The point of the video was trying to determine if those remains were hers, not to explore the details of the trial. I'm sure there are other videos detailing that.
Nice sweet and thoroughly done.
She Was Always Icon for me …. Strength and Beauty and Wisdom…..🌞
Since the documentary makers knew from the start that the bones were not those of Joan of Arc, what was the point of making it?
It's a good story. Close out by listening to the omd song
Because intelligent people are curious about the process of determining the conclusion. In other words...the evidence and how it was processed to make the conclusion. Those that want to be spoonfed are prime candidates for believing lies and propaganda. AKA shallow thinkers.
ah, you have spotted the narcissist.. well done.
So sad to get to the end and not being what you thought it was gonna be :’)
Most documentaries end up that way, or inconclusive.
Great show Thank you.
It is still an incredible tale, a lot of effort from PC. I prefer to think that the morals learned from the story are still so very important today!
The French didn’t deserve her then, they don’t deserve her now. What happened to this poor girl is unspeakable and I hope her remains are left in peace
undeserving? Why is that ?
Who else knew the answer within the first 15 minutes?
"Have they....?" documentaries always seem not worth watching to me - Richard III's discovery proved that if the answer is "yes", we'd know about it, so obviously it's either going to be a no or, more likely, incredibly vague at the end. Having said that, this is a very well made documentary, and incredibly interesting 😊
It's amazing that as many times that they burnt her remains they still weren't completely burnt 😮😮
And the ones who murdered her go down in history just as that, murderers😢
I hope they tried retesting the mummy again and check it against other mummy DNA. Might be connected to someone that's been tested before 💜💜
There is another test that they don't mention--- the trace mineral isotope composition of the bones, which can indicate the geographical origin of the decedent. One of the most famous examples is the Amesbury Archer.
A great memory of my youth was as a performer in Jeanne d'Arc au bûcher, an oratorio by Arthur Honegger. Vera Zorina was famed for her part as Joan but memory does not recall who actually performed that part. My line as a dancing bar patron was, "More Wine!, more wine!". Small roll but big memories.
Just want to point out his "documentary" is so bad they couldn't even get the portraits of the Kings right at 8:48 it shows what it claims as a portrait of Charles VI, but it's actually a very well known portrait of Charles VII (the dauphin), and then they use a portrait of Charles VIII and say it's Charls VII. Charles VII has a very recognisable face and that portrait is often used in French history books, but even if you don't know what he looks like, you'd expect a documentary crew to check... These guys clearly know nothing of French history and apparently also don't know how to count Roman numerals, nor recognise the fashion approporiate to the time they're talking about since Charles VIII is clearly dressed in much later 15th century garb.
So she put Charles on the throne and he wouldn’t save her.
Nope.. they couldn't accept the fact a woman can do all that work on her own, and must be in league with the devil
Yes, that's right.
We don't have Bones ;; but she will always be in our hearts
fascinating, thank you
yeah it was an egyptian mummy not joan-they could have said that in a heck of a lot less time. like it strings you along was it was it for nearly an hour, then right at the end it isnt! They could have said all that in five minutes for gods sake, I'll never get that hour of my life back again
Knowing that the Catholics would find random bodies and sell them off as “saints” “relics”. I knew that would not be Joan but a random persons bones labeled as them.
Very good documentary.
Patron saint and they burned her. They sure know how to disrespect their own.
She was never the patron saint of England, who won a pyric victory...
they should start with carbon14 tests, then many manhours would be saved. work done uselessly before that test. in my opinion, kinda.
I am certain most of these tests were being done simultaneously, but the documentary is in a story telling mode, one at a time.
Why? Carbon 14 tests, or any tests depending on molecular decay, are guesses anyway. Can anyone be 100% certain the decay rate has remained constant for the entire history of the planet? Not unless they were there in the beginning.
Are you aware that forensic pathology as a field of intense study isn’t always easy to get money for studies? Like out of pocket doesn’t look cheap for equipment lol
There are cases in Asia, of Buddhist monks resisting cremation. They gave up when the furnace began to melt down
Myth and legend. Not possible by the laws of physics.
@@junepearl7993because weird things never happened? Do you believe the laws of physics are immutable laws laid down by a Devine creator Or that they are a description of how things act most of the time? Because science says they are the latter. Strange unexplained phenomena happen it’s just reality
Narrator: [Dramatic Voice] "These bones were a _fake_" Literally Everyone: "No shit"
ive not watched all the way through yet. But ive just gotten to the pine pitch and body preservation. I remember right at the beginning it was said that it took three times to burn her.. another ting pine pitch is used for is as a fire accelerant...i wonder if it was used to help burn her faster....
Irritating white flashes and drums pounding. What reason for this? Would have been interesting except for the cartoon additions.
Not Joan’s bones
Yes, we knew that going in, but thanks for your effort to be "the guy that blows it all wide open."
@@hodgeelmwood8677hee hee
Thanks, I hate wasting my time.
When i read the story of Joan there are some signs that tell me the supernatural was involved ! For instance when she came to meet the young king , he hid himself in the crowd and put one of his nobles on the throne to test her decernment. She had never seen him before . When she walked in the room , she took one look at the man on the throne , then walked over to the king who was standing in common clothes in the crowd and curtseyed in respect !
I fail to see how people don’t realize that burning a body still leaves bones. Even when the dead are cremated with modern technology there are bones left behind that must be ground.
Ignorance and politics can be dangerous.
I’ve got the genuine locations of some lost kings for you…. One of them is stored in Brighton museum and just needs analysing. Never been able to get anything looked at properly. Let me know and I’ll give you the registration number and the possible identity for the (burned bones).
Oh yes? What king is that? A Saxon?
@@captainhoratiobungleiii7147 Chuck Mangioni -- Sausage King of Chicago .
@@captainhoratiobungleiii7147 an Anglo Saxon King. A man who became a mythical legend…
Possibly*, a part of Henry II, lies forgotten in a church near Lewes. I have no doubt that other, very old Anglo-Saxon kings are also in the same place.
@@thelostlegendsoflewesandhamsey that would be interesting to research, indeed! Offa was buried near where I am from. They had great burial customs. Until they went Christian and got rid of the grave goods.
Such a tragic figure. She is one of my favorite saints.
Very enjoyable.
I am curious on where a 10 year old find a human skull. Was it in the woods? Was it a murder victim? A WW1 soldier? A skull from some old cemetery? Did he find it at like a specialty anatomy store? I don't think so could it would have been a he bought a not a he found... Where the police aware of this find and allow him to keep it?
He could have been obsessed with death and went on a nice little bike ride to the cemetery and dug up someone’s nan, he tells everyone it’s just archeology😂 No one would suspect a ten year old lad of grace robbing What was you doing at ten?😂I was obsessed with history but I wasn’t finding skulls, I was playing with my wwe figures and picking my nose 😂
You want a skull ? I can get you a skull , believe me ... there are ways, dude- you don't wanna know about it believe me ... Hell I can get you a skull by 3 o'clock this afternoon - _with_ lipstick dude..!
It's sayys the skull was 1300 years old. So a cemetery I guess? 🤷🏻♀️
It said in the video he found it on a visit to Pompeii when he was a 7year-old. Given his apparent age that would put the visit around the year 2000. I'm confident the curators of the Pompeii site at that time were not handing out 'free skulls' to every visitor who wanted one, but I suppose he _could_ have found something, stuffed it in a backpack and walked out without being detected... If the story is true, then it is blatant theft and destruction of historical artifacts since as the whole area has been a National Park since 1995 and is an UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Who really cares...
Burned then the the remains in the river... And they survived all that to be found later... Hmmm
Things buried without oxygen tend to last a very long time without corruption and deterioration .
@Chrisgriffith, it's like the Shroud of Turin. It was first "discovered" in 1354 or 1,321 years after Jesus was allegedly crucified. Yet Christians will still insist it is the burial shroud of Jesus. Now the way Christians are when it comes to holy relics, you know they would have paraded the shroud around long before 1354. Some of my other favorites. The Sea of Galilee water level went down due to a drought and it uncovered a small boat from 1 CE. Right off the bat, Christians claimed it was the boat Jesus was in when he walked on water. They found a comb for a female in a house in a city the "virgin" Mary use to live in. Again, Christians claimed it was the house Mary, Joseph and Jesus lived in based on that one comb. Like Mary was the only woman living in the city. Then there is the church in Ethiopia that claims to have the Arc of the Covenant. Yet no one is allowed to see it. The Catholic church claims to have the foreskin of Jesus from his circumcision. In 3,4,5 different churches at the same time.
@@samuelschick8813He did not say that, that is y o u r words. He just stated an archeological fact.
Did you not watch the whole video? These pieces were said to be taken from below where she was burned. Not in the river...
@@samuelschick8813 But how many were as famous ? Obviously some seriously creepy historical equivalent to a redditor was scrapbooking at the cremation pyres , et , VOILA !
The the editors of Chronicle: The picture at 8:28 is not the Dauphin, Charles (later Charles VII). You're showing the MUCH later Charles VIII (i.e., the one who had a thing for door frames, and known for getting France into the Italian Wars). The picture at 8:48 said to be "Charles VI" (i.e., the old mad king who thought he was made of glass) is likewise an error; it's in fact, Charles, the Dauphin (the one who should have been shown at 8:28), and the one whom Joan was trying to get crowned as Charles VII. Charles VII was José Ferrer's character perfectly cast (and whom he physically resembled) in the movie "Joan of Arc" (1948). And at 10:17, when depicting Charles VII, you once again incorrectly showed Charles VIII. It's almost like your video editor thought that one French King Charles was as good as any other Charles and that no one would notice the difference. Yes, all these Charles characters have similar names, but if you wanted to show a picture of England's Chas. II, you surely would not mistakenly show Chas. III (and Camilla), would you? By the way, I'm not French, I'm not even British. I'm just one of those "dumb Americans" who would not know the difference.
Fascinating!
At 23:23 "It takes half a ton of wood and five hours to cremate a body" If this is true then some other chapters in the history books sound very suspicious.
And to manage such an impossible task with a chimney that isn't even attached to the building ,no less ! They were just _that_ evil , you see ; so evil they appeared almost magical ! How on Earth did they even find the time to do all of that - yet still manage to shrink all of those heads - fabricate rollercoasters during metal shortages - fabricate electrified steel flooring during a metal shortage - dry , stretch and sew all of those lampshades - etc etc it just beggars belief ! What industriously evil people they were .
Half a ton of wood is not that much - an 8x4 foot trailer-load in fact. The 5 hours might be right, depending on your definition of "cremate". The purpose of most of the medieval burnings was to _kill_ the victim, not to cremate them. To kill the victim in the most painful way possible so that onlookers knew that whatever the victim had done it was really not a good idea to emulate them.
There are reports that Joan of Arc did not get burnt at the stake but was "swapped" by the French during the night before she was due to be burnt. Some other poor creature was burnt instead. Joan is said to have been spirited away into the countryside and eventually had a family. I don't know if this is true or not but it would not surprise me.
What reports are these? Are they all very accurate? So be very careful and sure about which u write, because death 💀 is a very horrible situation for anyone who is burnt at the stake, be it woman 👩 or man 👨, the onlyconsulta is that, for a Catholic, the person who suffers gains everlasting merit to ascend into heaven
This investigation by Charlier was years ago, not recently; and all it did was confirm what historians had long said (that the alleged relics were not hers), and likewise the Archbishop of Tours had rejected these in 1914 (they had been held in a secular museum, not by the Church). The only group which had previously supported them as valid remains of Joan of Arc was a previous group of scientists who examined them in 1913 or 1914, so Charlier merely debunked that group's previous examination.
if i may, i am a bit confused on a technicality? the indication by the "vanilla scent," the red blood cell under the microscope, etc, would not have been able to be analyzed for DNA?
they said they were not able to extract any DNA. think of it as fingerprints, the prints are there, they are, however, not enough to get a "whole" or valid print. sometimes the quantity/concentration/wholeness in forensics is just not enough to be extracted and studied despite the fact that its physically there. hope this helped !
i meant that in some cases, the fingerprint is not complete enough to be extracted and therefore cannot be studied/used.
After expensive and extensive laboratory and documentary investigation it has been conclusively proven that the remains of Joan of Arc are actually just an over full ashtray 😂
1960s KFC leftovers and 1/16th of a really pissed off kitty cat . What a world
catholics were famous for that, they did a count of how many fingers/hands/skulls some saints must have had for all te relics on display.. 🤣🤣
Of course they didn't and likely never will.
the best book on *_Joan of Arc_* is by Mark Twain -- he spent 12 years doing research and time in France ... Even though it is classified as a "novel", it IS base on facts.
In my humble opinion, the destruction of the ancient parts of the city is nothing more than a sin, because this horrible action destroys the greater part of the history of the places where many people once lived 🎉
Ok, we need to fill up 50 minutes with content. Go!
If click bait was a 1 hour documentary, this would painfully be it. The producers should be ashamed.
Why so? It was the whole journey of finding out if it was truly Joan's remains. I found it fascinating!
“What if” is the crux of this! Highly unlikely is the answer to this. France has a ton of bone remains and if you obsess on them maybe they will speak to you as well.
Why didn't Dr Charlier carry out the radio carbon 14 test first? That seems to be the obvious thing to do. I would have also tested the fabric in the same way at the same time. It would have saved much time and expense.