4 ms·
As unlikely as it may seem at first I lean towards the more sinister explanation. Why were almost half these bodies children. Wouldn't it have been more diffic
by vivekd 6y ago
As unlikely as it may seem at first I lean towards the more sinister explanation. Why were almost half these bodies children. Wouldn't it have been more difficult to obtain child cadavers than adult ones. And I wonder how child cadavers would have benefitted Hewsons research. In fact how would anything to do with Hewsons research, focused primarily on blood, have benefitted from cadavers
- irrational 6y ago> hiw would anything yo donwith What?
- Mirioron 6y ago>On fact hiw would anything yo donwith Hewsons research, focused primarily on blood, have benefitted from cadavers In fact, how would anything to do with Hewson's research, focused primarily on blood, have benefited from cadavers?
- Someone 6y agoI guess the fact that a large fraction of the available corpses were corpses of children was a factor in that. Child mortality was extremely high up to around 1900. https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality: “What is striking about the historical estimates is how similar the mortality rates for children were across this very wide range of 43 historical cultures. Whether in Ancient Rome; Ancient Greece; the pre-Columbian Americas; Medieval Japan or Medieval England; the European Renaissance; or Imperial China: Every fourth newborn died in the first year of life. One out of two died in childhood” It also may have been more practical to steal easier to haul corpses.