Are These The Remains Of Joan Of Arc? | Myth Hunters
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- In 1867, bones believed to belong to Joan of Arc surfaced in France. Dr. Philippe Charlier, a leading forensic pathologist, takes on this cold case using both modern science and unorthodox techniques to try and analyze the relics. Do these remains truly belong to Joan of Arc, or are they part of an elaborate hoax?
Welcome to Unearthed History -- the home for all things archaeological! From ancient Roman ruins to buried medieval mysteries, we'll be bringing you award-winning documentaries that explore the remnants of long lost civilizations.
Subscribe so you don't miss out.
Discover the past on History Hit, with ad-free exclusive podcasts and documentaries released weekly and presented by world-renowned historians Dan Snow, Suzannah Lipscomb, Matt Lewis and more. Get 50% off your first 3 months with code 'UNEARTHEDHISTORY': historyhit.com...
To get in touch please email: owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com.
#UnearthedHistory #Archaeology #Documentary
When I heard that the remains were found in an old pharmacy, and the evidence that pointed to ancient Egypt, I immediately thought that it was probably mummy remains. Ancient mummy remains were thought to be a type of medicine a long time ago and there was a huge fascination with mummies. Someone probably thought "hey, let's just claim these are from Joan Of Arc".
Dr. Chalier's attitude toward the remains and his work is impressive. You really need someone dedicated like he is to tell the stories of his "Patients".
If you took the awful music and sound effects out, this might have been watchable.
One bone is not a body, LOL!
Smells like sketchy science!
Oh, to have such dedication from my doctor.. Very interesting documentary. Thank you.
What is wrong with you people Joan of Ark was trying to save France
Anyone want to buy a piece of the true cross?
I have an inexhaustible supply in my back garden.
Which type of wood was it made from
The flashing light and wooshing sound is annoying as h3ll.
It was just like today. It's all about world power and dominance
So I'm about half an hour in, and I keep asking myself when it will occur to them to carbon date any of these remains. Way to bury the lede there, editors.
That would have been my starting point too. But perhaps the queue for carbon-14 dating is pretty long.
It wasn't "The Church" that sentenced Joan. It was men with ambition that claimed the authority of the Church on their own, without consultation of fellow bishops. The Church canonized her as a Saint, after all.
Regarding "The Church" taking an interest in the discovery at the pharmacy, you have to remember that the Church in France had by then undergone intense persecution by the Republicans of the French Revolution, and never regained political power. In 1866, France was on the verge of the "Dictatorship of the Masses" under the Paris Commune. So, to clarify, "The Church" -- more accurately the local bishop -- agreed to open an investigation into the items that were brought to him by the pharmacist. We don't know if the bishop and investigators were eager, or neutral, but the policy is to remain neutral, and the documents were written with neutral, scientific language.
Getting some perfume sniffer to have a go isn't evidence. If volatile organic chemicals were worth looking at, it should have been done with gas chromatography.
The constant flashing makes it completely impossible to watch. I gave up after 2 minutes.
Don't waste your time. It's an Egyptian cat mummy.
It has been suggested that Joan of Arc was schizophrenic.
Joan or Jehanne la Pucelle was not schizophrenic, no mental issues.
There were no visions or celestial voices since both saints, Catherine of Alexandria and Margaret of Antioch (the one who killed a dragon) were removed from the Roman Catholic Church in 1969. They never existed, only part of the Medieval folklore !
Nearly 100 ''saints'' were also removed by the Vatican.
Concerning the visions of Michael the Archangel ... he was a most popular ''saint'' during the 15th century mainly because Mount St-Michel in Normandy had resisted the English troops for years and this was seen my the general population as a sign from God,
a miracle ! Numerous individuals, hundred of them had also visions and dreams from Michael .
The English troops' patron saint was Gabriel the Archangel.
Now we have a ''dilemma'' in heaven !!
That's one of the reasons, Although not the main reason, that i am a protestant. We don't care about relics. So we don't have to struggle with the question if they are real or not either.
Very good programme.
The jars (bottles) they're in are modern 20th century.
The jars in the video are not the relic bottles. No way they would have a bunch of actors handling the relic jars.
Bubbles in glass
@@davepowell7168 That doesn't mean anything, the style and form show they were machine made that would be after 1920s.
Simple answer no. Ashes and remains were thrown into river. To prevent this crap.
I thought JOAN OF ARC was burned alive. How could there be any bones???
Tell me you didn't watch this video, or if you did, you didn't listen to an f'ing thing during the viewing without telling me you didn't watch or listen.
She was burned on a pyre. Piled-up small branches, larger pieces of wood, most likely doused in cooking oil or kitchen fat. We aren't talking about a crematorium fired with natural gas to an extremely high temperature for a long time.
In most Medieval burnings, the street cleaners or even the executioners raked through the ashes. Mainly looking for gold, silver, or gemstones the person might have secreted about his/ her person, but also to gather up any remaining pieces of bone, etc. Bones were normally smashed to fragments with hammers, everything put into a burlap sack, and dumped in the river.
IF the burned-alive person was a wealthy person, or member of the aristocracy, OFTEN the workers would be partially paid to gather the remaining pieces of bone, flesh, etc and deliver them to the family for a nice reward.
BUT. In Jeanne's case, the Church was adamant that NOTHING of her should survive and form a "cult" of her believers who venerated these remnants. Documents of the period I've read in France state that her remains were burned three times over a few days, to incinerate all but the tiniest remains, which were then hammered to powder and dumped in the river. The entire process was supervised by Priests (and a few bishops) to ensure it was done as the king and the Church required.
This is what happens when a retired professor of Medieval History (Ph.D.) responds to your question.
You need super hot fire to destroy bone completely around 800c for an hour
@@MLA56Does not mean she didn't have devotees among the crew who saved things.
@@MLA56it wasn't "The Church," professor. It was the most powerful and ambitious bishop, in league with other bishops and the priests who had vowed obedience to the bishops at whose pleasure they served. The Church canonized her.
Noah of ark died of drowning
Now, that's punny!!
🫤
Was she really just a waste of good English matches - Blackadder!
The Roman Church murders Joan and later declares her a saint. Go figure.
The Roman Catholic Church of Normandy was under the English aristocracy control .
The Church had no much of a choice !
However, this was a political story, including a political trial.
Joan of Arc was accused of heresy, therefore giving the English aristocracy
an edge to discredit Charles...
since Charles VII had used the help of an heretic, an evil woman
to grab the French throne.
To offset the English, Charles' advisors recommended the Rehabilitation Trial and Joan became a virgin and had to become a younger ''girl'' .
To be a virgin was most important since the general population of the period believed that a virgin young girl or young woman was unaffected by an evil entity, couldn't be an heretic and would always speak the truth !
That was a cunning political move from Charles VII.
The Maid of Orléans became a ''saint'' only in 1920, nearly 500 years later
and this is another story by itself !!
Spoiler Alert, its my Egyptian mommy!
Forensic investigator walks into museum, sees rando collections of bones a subjects them to laboratory analyses? Who paid for this? Who allowed him to use lab resources for this?