Wow--I step away from my desk for a few days, and look at the ribbing I
get.  My original post about defleshing embalmed remains was fired from
the hip and didn't provide enough information.  I hope I'm not sticking my
neck out too far, but I'd like to put my finger on a few clarifying
points:  I am the collections manager for an osteopathic hospital's
archives.  A bit ago I got a call from the anatomist in charge of our
anatomical museum.  He is the one who asked me about defleshing these
remains (b/c of my physical anthro and forensics backgrounds).  I told him
that I didn't know anything in particular about *embalmed* remains---it's
just not something that comes up every day, but that I'd find out and get
back to him.

Sally Shelton, one of the good folks from SPNHC, asked these questions;

Anyway, I'd really appreciate it if the original author would clarify some
key points that have a great deal of bearing on the answer:
*You do mean embalmed (tissues fixed with an agent such as natron or
formaldehyde) and not simply naturally mummified (dried)? There are
enormous differences in how these are preserved, differences which will
drastically affect your protocol.

Yes--these are embalmed, not mummified, remains. However, I do not know
the original preparation method.

*Are these human remains? If so, why is this action being done and with
whose authority (sorry, can't find the original post)? This is critically
important.

These are human remains.  They are NOT archaeological, nor are they Native
American remains.  These specimens are from cadavers which have been
donated by the decendants to the college and hospital or have otherwise
been legally obtained.  They are used for teaching medical students
anatomy.

*Given the state of DNA and other molecular research today, why is
defleshing these remains so important when the adherent tissue contains
so much vital information? It doesn't have to look aesthetically pleasing
to be important. When so much work is being done today to save soft
tissue, I question the decision to remove it.

I am in compete agreement that worlds of information previously
unsuspected by us is now becoming increasingly available through molecular
research.  Further, I agree wholeheartedly that specimens do not have to
look pretty to be valuable and that as much information about them ought
to be retained as possible.  My understanding of the decision to deflesh
these particular remains is this--that they represent only a portion of a
single individual whose cadaver was used to teach anatomy to medical
students.  Necessarily, the body was embalmed to allow dissection over an
extended period.  Of those bodies which were dissected, this one bore some
osteological pathology or anomoly worthy of further study.  This new
specimen would then be prepared by the anatomy lab (by which methods I
don't know for certain).
        My original post was merely a request for any suggestions to speed
along the process of defleshing this specimen (lab was using a 70 degree
bath with a detergent--sodium hydroxide?).  I know that the embalmed part
is unusual--that's what threw me off.  I'll try tracking down some info
from UT Knoxville and LSU--each school deals with a lot of human
postmortem studies. So far, nothing from the Journal of Forensic Sciences,
but will keep digging away.  If there are any recommendations I'd still
like to hear.

        It has been suggested by my learned colleagues that the worms
crawl in, the worms crawl out, and, further, that the worms play pinochle
on one's snout.  While it saddens me that some otherwise professional
individuals find it acceptable to joke at the expense of the deceased, I
must correct the record--the worms may play pinchole where you live, but
in Philly, they are fierce canasta adherants...

Matthew Rowley
Collections Manager
Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine
[log in to unmask]