From cradle to grave via the dissection room: the role of foetal and infant bodies in anatomical education from the late 1700s to early 1900s

Abstract

The preponderance of men in the narrative of anatomical education during the 1800s has skewed the historical perception of medical cadavers in favour of adult men, and stifled the conversation about the less portrayed individuals, especially children. Although underrepresented in both the historical literature and skeletal remains from archaeological contexts dated to the 1800s, these sources nevertheless illustrate that foetal and infant cadavers were a prized source of knowledge. In the late 1700s and 1800s foetal and infant cadavers were acquired by anatomists following body snatching from graveyards, from the child's death in a charitable hospital, death from infectious disease in large poor families, or following infanticide by desperate unwed mothers. Study of foetal and infant remains from the 1800s in the anatomical collection at the University of Cambridge shows that their bodies were treated differently to adults by anatomists. In contrast to adults it was extremely rare for foetal and infant cadavers to undergo craniotomy, and thoracotomy seems to have been performed through costal cartilages of the chest rather than the ribs themselves. However, many infants and foetuses do show evidence for knife marks on the cranium indicating surgical removal of the scalp by anatomists. These bodies were much more likely to be curated long term in anatomical collections and museums than were adult males who had undergone dissection. They were prized both for demonstrating normal anatomical development, but also congenital abnormalities that led to an early death. The current findings show that the dissection of foetal and infant cadavers was more widespread than previous research on anatomical education suggests. This research details the important role of the youngest members of society in anatomical education during the long 19th century, and how the social identity of individuals in this subgroup affected their acquisition, treatment and disposal by elite medical men of the time.

Skeletal Material from the Cemetery of the 19th Century Copenhagen Hospital for the Poor: Autopsies, Surgical Training and Anatomical Specimens

“…Infants and foetuses were uncommon subjects in the dissection halls in comparison to adults, but recent research has shown they were more common than previously thought. Dittmar & Mitchell () describe how foetuses and infants were prized for the study of growth and development and often kept in museums, whereas children are reported as less favoured because of their small size (Hodge et al, ). However, it is possible that the two children in our sample were taken out of necessity or because they had died of a disease that would not leave traces upon the skeletal material.…”

“…However, it is possible that the two children in our sample were taken out of necessity or because they had died of a disease that would not leave traces upon the skeletal material. Upon the passing of the Anatomy Act in the UK, infant bodies were often acquired following a child's death in charitable hospitals and foetuses from dissection of deceased pregnant women and miscarriages (Dittmar & Mitchell, ).…”

“…While we attempted to categorise the bone material as originating from one of the four post mortem surgical interventions, it is difficult to impossible from an osteological perspective to say with any certainty. Craniotomy and thoracotomy might leave osteological evidence for an autopsy, but these interventions would also be performed during dissections (Chamberlain, ; Dittmar & Mitchell, ). Many factors may assist in differentiating dissection from autopsy, as Dittmar & Mitchell () determined from historical autopsy and dissection manuals.…”

“…Craniotomy and thoracotomy might leave osteological evidence for an autopsy, but these interventions would also be performed during dissections (Chamberlain, ; Dittmar & Mitchell, ). Many factors may assist in differentiating dissection from autopsy, as Dittmar & Mitchell () determined from historical autopsy and dissection manuals. Such factors comprise whether the corpse was sawn into sections, evidence of colour dyes on the bones, dissected animals found in the same grave, and non‐matching body parts and the presence of knife marks upon unopened skulls, just to mention a few.…”

“…It is also known that cadavers were sold to private teachers, students and young doctors at the hospital by so‐called corpse carriers, a business later taken on by the hospital itself (Rasmussen, ). Having to rely on resurrectionists and grave robbing was a problem also faced elsewhere in Europe (Boston & Webb, ; Dittmar & Mitchell, ; Fowler & Powers, ; Mitchell, ) and North America (Halling & Seideman, ; Hodge et al, ; Owsley et al, ). A similar development towards dissections of the unclaimed was seen throughout Europe, for example, the Anatomy Act in 1832, England (Boston & Webb, ; Fowler & Powers, ; Humphries, ; Mitchell, ), and a request from the Guild of Surgeons and Barbers at Edinburgh in 1694 (Kaufman, ), who also held public dissections in 1702.…”