Start here
The story, in brief
Gilded metal, clear rock crystal, and reverse-painted glass surround a tooth in a reliquary now at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The contrast is deliberate: a small and otherwise ordinary-looking object receives an elaborate setting because of the person it is said to connect with. [SRC-01; EX-02]
The container is medieval
The Met dates the reliquary to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and identifies manufacture in Tuscany. [SRC-01]
The catalog now calls it human
The current material entry explicitly identifies a human tooth; it does not disclose the test or examination behind that entry. [SRC-01]
The owner remains uncertain
The descriptive text says the tooth is attributed to Mary Magdalene, without establishing that identity. [SRC-01]
Explore the chapters
Look first at the object the museum can describe
The reliquary combines gilded copper and silver, rock crystal, and verre églomisé: an image made on the reverse of glass. The Met connects its restrained painted palette with Franciscan preferences, while observing that crystal and gilded metal still create a costly effect. This is an object designed to focus attention, not simply to conceal its contents. [SRC-01]
Why make the contents visible?
Rock crystal allows the relic to be seen while remaining enclosed. The Met’s wider study describes this development in medieval reliquaries: apertures and transparent vessels gave believers a glimpse of what an elaborate container honored. Seeing the tooth helped devotion, but visibility alone could never identify its former owner. [SRC-01; EX-02]
An updated catalog detail matters
The current materials field explicitly lists a human tooth, with the classification Homo sapiens. The description still treats its association with Mary Magdalene as an attribution. The material classification and the personal identity therefore remain separate questions: calling a tooth human is not a published biological identification of Mary Magdalene. [SRC-01]
What dates belong to which things?
The fourteenth- and fifteenth-century dates describe the reliquary. Its gift to the museum by J. Pierpont Morgan in 1917 describes a later collecting event. Neither date directly establishes when the tooth formed, when it entered the container, or whose tooth it was. The history of a container and the history of its contents can overlap without being identical. [SRC-01]
The Catholic meaning of a bodily relic
The Met explains that medieval Christians understood saints as living with God and interceding for others. Bodily remains were honored as a connection with that person, and costly containers expressed their religious importance. That historical explanation makes the object intelligible even to a visitor who leaves its personal attribution undecided. [EX-02]
What would make the attribution stronger?
The next useful evidence would be early inventories, inscriptions or seals linked to this particular container, and a documented history of the tooth’s placement and movement. Any examination could address material or age only within its own limits. Even establishing that the tooth is ancient and human would leave the named identity to be demonstrated. [SRC-01]
Catholic reflection & discussion
Let the object open a larger question
Pause over what this object brings to mind: a person, a place, an act of devotion, or a question about the past. Let that curiosity guide a careful reading of both its history and its meaning.
These editorial prompts invite reflection on the article. They are distinct from Church teaching and the evidence findings.
Pause and reflect
- What draws your attention to this object, and what are you hoping to understand through it?
- How does the article distinguish the object's documented history from the meaning people give it?
- If an attribution remains uncertain, which questions about faith, memory or devotion would still be worth exploring?
Discuss with family or a group
Choose questions suited to your readers' ages and experiences. Anyone can pass or keep a response private.
- Begin with a familiar family keepsake. What can an object help someone remember, and what would be needed to establish its history?
- Choose one image or description in the file. Which things can you observe, and which would you need a source to know?
Questions people ask
Open any question for a fuller answer and its sources.
Does the museum identify it as Mary Magdalene’s tooth?
It records that traditional attribution. The description does not establish biological identity with the historical Mary Magdalene. [SRC-01]
Is it only possibly human?
The current public materials entry is stronger: it calls it a human tooth. The page does not describe the examination underlying that classification. [SRC-01]
Is the tooth dated to the Middle Ages?
The catalog dates the reliquary to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. That is not automatically a date for the enclosed tooth. [SRC-01]
Does museum ownership count as Church authentication?
No ecclesiastical authentication act is supplied in this catalog. The Met documents a museum object and its attributed contents. [SRC-01]
What the evidence can establish
Evidence verdict: unresolved
What does The Met's catalog establish about the tooth in its reliquary, and can it be identified as Mary Magdalene's?
The Met documents a medieval reliquary and now catalogs its enclosed object as a human tooth. Its traditional attribution to Mary Magdalene remains unestablished by the cited record.
Sources: [SRC-01]
Church or institutional status
No formal church authentication located; official museum custody
- Authority
- The Metropolitan Museum of Art
- Scope of the finding
- The specific reliquary and enclosed tooth in The Met collection.
- Limits of the finding
- No cited ecclesiastical act or test identifies the tooth as Mary Magdalene's.
- Official sources
- [SRC-01]
Sources and notes
Back to the overviewSource labels describe a document's type and role, not the strength of a claim. Where provided, notes explain its use, access limits, and outstanding checks.
- SRC-01The Metropolitan Museum of Art — Reliquary of Mary Magdalene (opens in a new tab)Official source
Documents the reliquary, its date and provenance, and an enclosed object now cataloged as a human tooth, traditionally attributed to Mary Magdalene. What it does not establish: The current medium field identifies a human tooth but supplies no test method or identification of the individual. The curatorial attribution to Mary Magdalene remains qualified.
- EX-02The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Relics and Reliquaries in Medieval Christianity (opens in a new tab)Official sourceCited in this file
Read the source note for the passage used and any limits on what it supports.
Museum scholarship explaining bodily relics, contact relics, intercession, precious containers, and medieval Christian devotion; general historical context, not authentication of this particular object.
Corrections and updates
Expanded this file with a sourced narrative, 6 chapters and 4 answers to common questions. The existing evidence verdict label and institutional status are retained. Independent human review remains pending.
Updated the earlier ‘possibly human’ description to match The Met’s current catalog, which lists a human tooth. The source gives no testing method and does not identify Mary Magdalene as the individual; that attribution remains unresolved.