Mystery of a Lead Coffin Discovered Beneath Notre-Dame Solved...?

[Vixen]

So there's no evidence the older coffin was moved. The two coffins were displayed side-by-side at a press conference and you just assumed that was held in the cathedral and they were placed directly above the positions where they were found. Which appears to be a mistaken assumption.

The report notes that one of the coffins was buried "facing the congregation" which we should probably expect if they're describing the canon's coffin. It doesn't appear to specify which coffin they're referring to.

The remaining questions seem to be;
Does a cathedral canon outrank an archbishop (I'm no expert, but I'm going to venture to say no.)
Why was coffin A, buried in the 1400s, placed so close to coffin B, buried 250 years later?

De la Porte officiated the funerals of various French kings so he obviously was top guy.

As to your second question: it is only an assumption it is du Bellay who died 170 years or so earlier.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Ah, yes, I got the dates wrong. The poet died in 1560, the canon in 1710. One coffin is positively identified, the other has a suggested occupant but if the researchers don't see any anomalies which discount the poet from being the other burial then I'm not sure what worries you about it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

NB whoever wrote the entry in wiki, is incorrect: it was not a sarcophagus, it was a coffin. (Big difference.)

This link: https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/65904 shows a photograph of one of the lead coffins inside its stone sarcophagus. So there were both. It also notes that the differences in style and metallurgy between the two coffins, and their being found in different archaeological layers, indicate they date from different periods.

 

[Vixen]

What evidence is there that the older coffin was moved?

Your link shows the two coffins on display at a 2022 press conference. How did you get the idea that it shows them in the positions they were found? It doesn't say that. It doesn't even say the picture was taken in the cathedral. I'd have expected the cathedral floor still to be dug up when the pic was taken in 2022, when the discovery was announced, and it's a very long time since I've been there but I think the cathedral nave has a stone floor, not a wooden parquet floor.

The theory is that because du Bellay's coffin wasn't found in the family crypt when they last looked in 1758 (IIRC) then it fits being the newly found one. As a critic points out (the lead digger) the fact it wasn't found doesn't mean it wasn't there. The place is chockablock with bodies.

 

[Vixen]

This link: https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/65904 shows a photograph of one of the lead coffins inside its stone sarcophagus. So there were both. It also notes that the differences in style and metallurgy between the two coffins, and their being found in different archaeological layers, indicate they date from different periods.

Well, it lies on the axis of the former rood screen door, which the French newspapers are saying is 'an exceptional' burial location. It seems highly unlikely to me, du Bellay would have been moved there without any ceremony or record of it, especially given that the lead coffins were super-elite and cost a bomb. QEII was entombed in such. Plus the occupant appears to have been embalmed as well.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Should it matter that it "seems highly unlikely" to you that there would not be records of du Bellay being buried in that prestigious spot? Someone was buried there and whoever it is there appears to be no record of their burial. <shrug> It seems most likely to me it would be someone who was known to have been buried in the cathedral, but not necessarily in the spot people later assumed.

There doesn't appear to be any record of the details of the canon's "super-elite" burial ceremony either. His coffin was identified by the bronze plaque attached to it rather than by burial records. So I don't see that it's significant that the records regarding the older burial only indicate the intention for his being buried in a different part of the cathedral. The only puzzle seems to be whether he was temporarily buried in the nave but then never moved, or whether he was perhaps buried in the family crypt originally and moved a few years later for some now-forgotten reason.

It certainly looks as if du Bellay was a member of the elite. Having been expected to be buried in the family crypt in Notre Dame isn't the sign of his being a nobody. One of your links also mentions he was "no longer" a canon, implying he once was. So it's not a surprise he's in the cathedral.

 

[junkshop]

...their being found in different archaeological layers, indicate they date from different periods...

This is, I would suggest, an important point that Vixen has not considered in her theory. The coffins may have been relatively close latitudinally and longitudinally, but they were not close vertically, (there are three dimensions!) which in burials equates to temporally (there are four dimensions!).

They were both high-status burials, with fancy lead coffins, and were interred a part of the church not commonly used for that, but they happened at different times, and to suggest that these were sooper-sekrit lovers, is very silly.

 

[Mojo]

This is, I would suggest, an important point that Vixen has not considered in her theory. The coffins may have been relatively close latitudinally and longitudinally, but they were not close vertically, (there are three dimensions!) which in burials equates to temporally (there are four dimensions!).

Have the remains been dated, for example by carbon dating? If they are suggesting that it's someone who died in 1560 I would imagine that they have dating consistent with that, but I can't see it in any of the linked articles.

 

[Vixen]

Have the remains been dated, for example by carbon dating? If they are suggesting that it's someone who died in 1560 I would imagine that they have dating consistent with that, but I can't see it in any of the linked articles.

So far, it is the considered opinion of the following chap:

Eric Crubézy, medical doctor and professor of anthropology at Toulouse's Paul-Sabatier University, made the announcement at the end of a presentation that was already particularly rich since it reviewed no fewer than 14 excavations carried out in and around the religious building.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/culture/a...in-coffin-found-at-notre-dame_6726412_30.html

The problem might be that because air seeped into the lead coffin, the decomposition might be too advanced to achieve a DNA sample, for example from a back tooth, and there appears to be no living relatives to match it with anyway (but could be a very interesting exercise).

From the description:

Long before that when he was just an infant, his skull was deformed by being bound with a headband. (Deliberate cranial modification is widespread over every human population continent going back tens of thousands of years, including among the aristocracy of France and Italy in the High Middle Ages, see this portrait of a princess by Pisanello now in the Louvre, for example.) Interestingly, the top of his skull was sawed off, evidence that he was embalmed, an extremely rare practice in the Middle Ages.

The coffin also contains the remains of a shroud and many leaves and flowers at head-height, likely from a crown of flowers. There were leaves found at abdomen level, as well. Another unique element of this burial is that the lead sarcophagus was not just anthropoid, but specifically molded to fit around the body of the deceased. These features strongly suggest he was someone of aristocratic status.

https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/65904

But if an aristocrat, you'd think the coffin would have a label or seal, like De La Porte's one, or some mention in the records. The presence of a crown of flowers indicates a member of the priesthood. It could be that as du Bellay was once a canon of Notre Dame, as Jack by the Hedge points out, he meets that criteria.

More research is needed. Maybe more info will come to light in the coming months.

 

[Mojo]

So far, it is the considered opinion of the following chap:


https://www.lemonde.fr/en/culture/a...in-coffin-found-at-notre-dame_6726412_30.html

I can't see all of that without a subscription. What did he say about dating the remains?

The problem might be that because air seeped into the lead coffin, the decomposition might be too advanced to achieve a DNA sample, for example from a back tooth, and there appears to be no living relatives to match it with anyway (but could be a very interesting exercise).

You don't need DNA samples for carbon dating.

 

[Vixen]

I can't see all of that without a subscription. What did he say about dating the remains?

You don't need DNA samples for carbon dating.

It depends on the quality of the collagen in the bones. It is said the remains are in contaminated condition so maybe they have had to resort to guessing.

Nowadays people take radiocarbon technology for granted and many people think you can use radiocarbon on any human remains. Scientists wish that was true, but in reality, only 50% of corpses can be dated using this method because in some skeletons there isn’t enough organic material or it is contaminated.

The Conversation

DNA can give a clue from the amount of mutations and links to present day populations.

 

[theprestige]

Just uploading a floor plan of a typical mediaeval cathedral, this time, Amiens. The prototype was pretty much the same for all of them, with some more fancy than others, but they'd have a nave (main area from entrance up to the altar), west to east, transept (where arms cross the nave going north to south), the chancel, which was just beyond this point and the altar area, usually accessed to by steps and reserved for the choir. So this lead coffin was found as of the point the transept traverses the nave.

The black dots and geometrical angles represent the cathedral ceiling, arched vaults, with four to six tiercerons (star shaped) structures supporting the arch/dome (the geometrical lines) and meeting in a 'boss' point at the zenith, or centre (the black dots)

Amiens floorplan by Username Vixen, on Flickr

I'm pretty sure the black dots in this illustration are the support pillars, not the apices of the domes.

 

[Vixen]

I'm pretty sure the black dots in this illustration are the support pillars, not the apices of the domes.

If you compare where the ends of the pews are as in this diagram:


And here:


All of these show the aisles to be clear of pillars.

The main picture on the Friends of Notre Dame page here seems to show that the pillars are at the ends of the pulpits and not blocking the aisles or outer aisles (which is where the side chapels would be situated).

 

[junkshop]

I'm pretty sure the black dots in this illustration are the support pillars, not the apices of the domes.

Agreed

If you compare where the
ends of the pews are as in this diagram:

View attachment 57700
And here:

View attachment 57701
All of these show the aisles to be clear of pillars.

The main picture on the Friends of Notre Dame page here seems to show that
the pillars are at the ends of the pulpits and not blocking the aisles or outer aisles (which is where the side chapels would be situated).

re: first highlight - no pews are shown on this diagram.
re: second highlight - there is only one pulpit shown on this diagram (Q). It is octagonal, it doesn't have 'ends'.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

? There aren't any pews marked in those diagrams. And I assume you again meant 'pews' rather than 'pulpits' in your last sentence. Anyway, the bold dark marks on each of those floorplans are indeed the walls and pillars. The pews would be placed across the nave of course, with a clear passage up the middle and extending out to the line of pillars. Outside the line of pillars are the aisles.

I'm not sure what the source of confusion is here but it's pretty clear the black stuff is the base of stonework rising from floor level.

 

[Vixen]

I recently saw instructions on where an ancestor was buried at Turku Cathedral and how to find his floor stone, which was under the second arch from the front of the cathedral (it said), so a couple of months ago, I went to have a look by following the instructions that it was under the second vaulted ceiling star from the front and in front of a side chapel gate. The instructions were in Swedish and in 'jargon' language, so I see now it might have referred to the pillars, whilst I was looking up at the ceiling and that is how I located the flagstone.



As you can see below, west to east, the side chapel in question is the former Holy Cross Chapel, now called Agricola Chapel (so renamed when veneration of saints became disapproved of).






(As an aside, the Holy Cross referred to Saints Anne, Barbara, Ursula and Catherine, and was then amalgamated with St. Batholomew's Chapel which was the next along. Now used as a playroom for bored kids).

The point I am making here is that this tomb (under the cathedral floors in a family vault) is only second furthest east (aside from the frontmost dedicated to the Virgin Mary at the eastern point), the first being occupied by Tott, who was a military leader who helped Gustavus Adolphus to victory spreading the Swedish empire, and grandson - or was it the son - of former King Erik XIV's concubine Karin who had quite a high status despite never being royal, as they never married. (Another aside: Tott led his army into battle as the Hakkapelit after their battle cry of 'Hakka!' ('Hack'em down!'). The first chapel on the other, north side, contains the sarcophagus of the only monarch ever buried in Finland, Karin Månsdottir, King Erik's teenage bride, who was only Queen for barely two months before Erik was deposed by his own brother, John III. As you can see, it is quite far forward in the cathedral from the transept/nave crossing. The cathedral was consecrated in 1300 but had been constructed some years prior to that and had even prior to that been built slightly further down stream, so is a close copy of the Notre Dame template for cathedrals in their day.

So I found the tomb by finding the flagstone, immediately in front of the wrought iron gate of the Holy Chapel/Agricola Chapel by following the ceiling plan. (Note the wheel of Catherine wrought on it, indicating her manner of death.) What do you immediately notice otherwise about the position of the stone? Clue: The picture is taken with me standing at its head facing east, or almost at the head.

Eneskjiold - Turku Cathedral by Username Vixen, on Flickr

Do you see? It means the incumbent, Englebrekt Eneskiold (= 8th g-g-f) had his feet facing east and his head to the west, meaning he was a member of the congregation, so to speak, even in death, not the priesthood. He was a Swedish guy from Filipstad in Varmland, a Chamberlain (basically an accountant) who got knighted.


Turku Cathedral underfloor graves





Hence my scepticism that a poet no matter how widely renowned or noble would have been buried as a priest, with his feet facing west. But I am willing to accept that maybe Joachim du Bellay having once been some kind of a 'canon' might have retained that priestly status. I am still struggling to understand why he would have had his coffin moved to lie on the axis of the old rood screen as whilst poets are cool, surely they are not that cool. And as mentioned there is no record of his having been moved.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

<snip>
... Hence my scepticism that a poet no matter how widely renowned or noble would have been buried as a priest, with his feet facing west.

I don't recall its being said the poet was buried in the same manner as a priest. Was it not remarked upon that one of the two lead coffins was facing that way? That's what we could expect if one was a priest and the other a poet (and former canon).

 

[Vixen]

I don't recall its being said the poet was buried in the same manner as a priest. Was it not remarked upon that one of the two lead coffins was facing that way? That's what we could expect if one was a priest and the other a poet (and former canon).

Is there a citation for that, as I haven't seen one? Re Monsieur du Bellay being a former 'canon', actually he does not appear to have been ordained but rather just someone who worked a while at Notre Dame as some kind of official or assistant. It seems unlikely to me that Fr de la Porte who was buried about 20cm below the vault floor and the other coffin which was a couple of metres further below, would each be facing in different directions. These two coffins are the only ones located in that general area. I'd like to see more evidence the earlier one is Joachim du Bellay, although it is a nice idea.

 

[junkshop]

Re the positions of the two lead coffins: from INRAP the authority carrying out the excavations and research, here's what they say:

https://www.inrap.fr/archeologie-de-notre-dame-de-paris-avancees-des-recherches-19536#

And, if he is facing the congregation, so to speak, then it means he was a member of the clergy for sure, or .....someone close to Fr. Antoine.

Also pointing to a member of the eclessiastal class:


https://gizmodo.com/archaeologists-crack-460-year-old-notre-dame-lead-coffin-mystery-2000505001

There is nothing in either of these links that mentions the orientation of the un-marked coffin.

This post of Vixen's is the first to mention the orintation of the coffin, and it is pure speculation, as is her suggestion that this unknown body was that of someone 'close' to Antoine (said suggestion being debunked by the burials being in different achaeolgical layers - they were not contemporaries).

I have found no reference to the orientation of the mystery burial in any of the material linked in this thread (it is possible that I missed something - it is late, and I am full of wine). My point being that the orientation of the burial, that Vixen now wants a citation for, appears to come from her own unevidenced supposition.

 

[junkshop]

...It seems unlikely to me that Fr de la Porte...and the other coffin...would each be facing in different directions...

Why? Why does this seem unlikely to you?