Identification of Giovanni Battista Morgagni remains following

Virchows Arch
DOI 10.1007/s00428-014-1611-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Identification of Giovanni Battista Morgagni remains following
historical, anthropological, and molecular studies
Alberto Zanatta & Fabio Zampieri & Girolamo Zampieri &
Alice Giuliodori & Gaetano Thiene & Luciana Caenazzo
Received: 13 May 2014 / Accepted: 16 June 2014
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Abstract Morgagni died on December 5, 1771, 89 years old,
and was buried in Saint Maxim Church in Padua, where his
wife and five of his 15 children, four daughters, and one son
were already buried. In 1868 and 1900, the tomb was opened
to identify Morgagni. Among the remains of several adult
individuals, two skulls considered of very old persons were
identified and replaced in an earthenware jar inside the sepulcher. In 2011, we opened the tomb and found the remains
described during the first two identifications, but additionally,
we found the skulls fragments of three very young individuals
which could have been Morgagni’s children. An anthropological analysis confirmed that one of the skulls inside the earthenware jar belonged to the oldest individuals (“senilis”) between those found in the tomb. A genetic analysis proved a
kinship between this skull and the fragments of young individuals (one male and two females), supporting the hypothesis
that they were Morgagni and his children. In conclusion,
thanks to the interaction between historical studies, anthropological research, and molecular analysis that reinforce each
other, we can assume that the skull is Giovanni Battista
Morgagni’s and that the series of skull fragments are from
his children who were buried together with their parents.
Keywords Morgagni . Anthropological analysis . Genetic
analysis . Historical analysis
A. Zanatta : F. Zampieri : G. Thiene (*)
Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences,
University of Padua, via A. Gabelli 61, Padua 35121, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]
G. Zampieri
Padua Archeological Museum, Via Andreini 1, Padua 35141, Italy
A. Giuliodori : L. Caenazzo
Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Padua,
via G. Falloppio 50, Padua 35121, Italy
Introduction
Giovanni Battista Morgagni is considered the father of pathological anatomy and one of the most important innovators in
the history of medicine. In his De sedibus et causis morborum
per anatomen indagatis (Seats and causes of diseases investigated by anatomy, Venice 1761) [1], he established pathological anatomy as a science by correlating clinical histories
with autopsy findings. He considered the lesion in the organ,
revealed by autopsy, as the fundamental cause of disease, its
origin and progression, as well as its clinical symptoms. Organ
pathology as established by Morgagni, namely that a sickened
organ causes a disease, has been recently confirmed by
transplantology, in which the substitution of the affected organ
is the cure of the disease.
Morgagni was born in Forlì in 1682 and graduated in
medicine and philosophy in Bologna in 1701. He left Bologna
soon after his degree, attracted by the freedom of research and
teaching at the nearby University of Padua. Here he was
appointed as professor of Theoretical Medicine in 1711. From
1715 to his death (1771), he acted as professor of Anatomy.
Morgagni had 15 children, among them 12 daughters. Four
daughters only lived for a few days. They were baptized and
buried in a mass grave at Saint Maxim Church in Padua, near
Morgagni’s house, with their brother Lucio Filippo, who died
2 years later in 1718. Eight daughters became nuns. The two
remaining sons were Luigi Agostino, a Jesuit, and Giovanni
Maria Fabrizio, the only son who got married.
In 1770, when his wife died, Morgagni bought a sepulcher
in Saint Maxim Church, in which he placed her bones and the
remains of the other children already buried there. He also
decided to leave the tomb at the disposal of any Padua University professors who would have needed a sepulcher. When
Morgagni died and was placed in this family tomb, the following inscription was engraved on the headstone:
“Sepulcrum Morgagni anatomici et suorum. Item Gymnasii
Virchows Arch
patavini professorum si quem unquam iuverit hic condi.
MDC[C]LXX (Sepulcher of Morgagni and his relatives.
Equally of Padua University Professors if ever one would like
to be buried here. 1770)” (Fig. 1). Saint Maxim Church’s
archive unfortunately doesn’t report whether any professor
took advantage of this opportunity, but the fact that the tomb
actually contains the remains of several adult individuals
seems to confirm this hypothesis.
On July 18, 1868, the mayor of Forlì, Alessandro Mazzoni,
sent a letter to the mayor of Padua, Andrea Meneghini, demanding the restitution of Morgagni’s remains to his hometown. To meet this request, Meneghini organized an identification of Morgagni’s tomb in Saint Maxim Church, which was
carried out on August 18th of the same year. The request of
Forlì couldn’t be fulfilled, because up to 11 skulls, as well as
scattered osseous elements, were discovered in the tomb. Seven skulls were found at the west wall of the tomb and two at the
east wall. A tenth skull was found in the center and a last one,
fragmentary, was found in the south-west corner. This last skull
was retained to be the oldest one of the series. Given that
Morgagni died at 89 years old, it was assumed to be
Morgagni’s skull and was placed inside an earthenware jar in
the south-west corner of the tomb. The others were left in their
original position, and the tomb was closed the same day [2].
In 1900, another attempt at identification was made by the
Rector Achille de Giovanni (1838–1916), the pathologist
Augusto Bonome (1857–1922), and the anatomist Dante
Bertelli (1858–1946). Among the skulls found during the first
identification, which had been left in their place, one was
claimed to have belonged to an old man, possibly Morgagni,
and was placed inside the earthenware jar with the other skull
Fig. 1 Headstone of Morgagni’s and his relatives’ tomb in Padua’s Saint
Maxim Church
which was believed to have been Morgagni’s. During the
identification, a new passage was discovered inside the tomb,
probably dating back from an older sepulture. Saint Maxim
Church, in fact, was situated over the site of an archaic
necropolis. Up to 20 skulls were found and were arranged in
two lines along the east wall of the tomb, while the remaining
9 skulls from the first identification were placed next to the
north wall. The earthenware jar was left in its original position,
at the south-west wall. This identification also did not lead to
the result which had been hoped for, and the remains of
Morgagni still were not identified for sure [2].
2011 and 2012 were two very significant years for the
history of Padua University and, in particular, for its Medical
School. 2011 marked 300 years since the call to this University of Giovanni Battista Morgagni (1711–2011) and 250 years
since the publication of his De sedibus et causis morborum
per anatomen indagatis (1761–2011) [1]. In addition to this,
2012 marked 300 years since Morgagni’s inaugural lecture at
the University, which was titled Nova institutionum
medicarum idea (New idea for medical curriculum, Padua
1712) (1712–2012), and in which he proposed a new program
for the medical curriculum [3]. The PhD School on “Medical,
Clinical and Experimental Sciences” of Padua University
organized, on the occasion of theses anniversaries, a series
of lectures and events that culminated in two International
Congresses, one historical and one scientific, in March 2012,
at the Bo Palace of Padua University [4].
On May 3, 2011, a new identification of Morgagni’s tomb
was carried out, organized by a commission directed by Prof.
Gaetano Thiene, who was the principal promoter of the activities celebrating the Morgagnian anniversaries. The order of
skeletal remains in the tomb corresponded to that described
during the second identification (Fig. 2). We observed a series
of skulls next to the east wall: those of the 1900 identification
which came from an older sepulture. We found, however, only
14 skulls (classified from C1 to C14), while the record indicated that there were 20 of them; probably the remaining
skulls deteriorated, since the tomb and the site of the church
have flooded several times during the last century. This series
of skulls, being very old, had deteriorated more than the other.
There were eight skulls at the north wall (classified from C15
to C22), as indicated in 1900 identification: these skulls were
those which had been found in the 1868 identification, which
consequently belonged to the original disposition of
Morgagni’s tomb. In this case, one skull was missing. We
noted the earthenware jar in the south-west corner with two
skulls inside (classified with C23 and C24), one complete
(C24) and the other fragmentary (C23), and some teeth and
vertebras. There were also scattered osseous elements in the
center and towards the south wall (classified FS). Finally, we
identified in the north-east corner the fragments of several
skulls (classified C25): nine lower jaws, two teeth, seven
frontal bones with orbits, three left and six right frontal bones,
Virchows Arch
Fig. 2 Schematic of the remains
found in Morgagni's tomb: the
series C15–C22 are the skulls
found during the first
identification (1868) which
composed the original
Morgagni’s tomb; C23 and C24
are the two skulls attributed to
Morgagni during the recognitions
of 1868 and 1900; C1–C14 are
the skulls found during the second
recognition (1900) and belonging
to an older entombment; FS are
scattered osseous elements;
C25, finally, holds several skulls
fragments
and, finally, one sphenoid bone. Of these fragments, some
seem to have belonged to very young individuals. We immediately realized that we had in our hands the remains of
Morgagni’s children who died prematurely.
All these elements have been classified, packed, and
transported to the Pathological Anatomy Museum of Padua
University for scientific analysis and photographic documentation. On May 16, 2012, after one year of research, the
remains of Morgagni’s tomb were replaced in their original
site, protected by sterile bags, and the sepulcher was restored
and reclosed (Fig. 3). We also left in the tomb a book relating
to an iconographic research of Morgagni and which summarizes the activities done for the Morgagnian anniversaries [5].
The identification of Morgagni’s remains, according to the
historical sources, should be focused on the skulls C15–C24,
because they surely belong to the original disposition of
Fig. 3 Replacement of Morgagni’s tomb remains with the book published for the 2011–2012 Morgagnian anniversaries
Morgagni’s tomb, while C1–C14 came from an older sepulture. Of skulls C15–C24, the skull which anthropometry will
confirm to belong to the oldest individual will be most likely
to be Morgagni’s, because he died at an age—89 years old—
which was very rare to reach in Morgagni’s time. We found
skull fragments of very young individuals (C25), which, according to historical sources, could be Morgagni’s children
who died prematurely. We were in the position to perform a
DNA analysis to discover whether a familial relationship
could be proved between the DNA extracted from these
fragments and the DNA extracted from the teeth of the oldest
individual of the series.
When direct reference samples, such as personal items,
from missing individuals are not available, identifications
can be carried out indirectly based on the ranking of likelihood
ratios (LRs) constructed from a comparison of the probability
of observing DNA profiles of remains of a presumed relationship with profiles from reference samples of the alleged family
members versus the hypothesis that the remains are unrelated
to the family [6]. The 99.9 % confidence value was advocated
by the DNA Commission of the International Society for
Forensic Genetics [7].
There are two ways to increase the power of identification:
(i) type more markers and (ii) type more relatives. The number
of markers that can be typed will be limited by the quality and
quantity of DNA derived from the remains. If there is sufficient DNA, then a large battery of genetic markers is available
to assist in making an identification. In many cases, the quality
and quantity of DNA are poor. Increasing the number of
reference relatives can increase the chances of identifying
Virchows Arch
remains, particularly for challenged samples. In some cases,
the number of relatives can be quite large, but in others, the
number of available relatives is very limited. Typing all the
relatives of a large pedigree can be costly and may not be
necessary to reach a certain threshold for identification. Because there are information and cost factors regarding which
and how many relatives are selected and typed, some selection
criteria should be considered to guide identity testers. The
probabilities of confirming identity with certain combinations
of relatives are more powerful than with certain other combinations [6].
The purpose of DNA analysis in this work is to contribute
to the results of historical and anthropological research on the
confirmation of the identity of the bones belonging to
Morgagni. Because direct references are not available, we
used indirect relative references for the identification by kinship analysis, considering the bone fragments present in the
grave which hypothetically belong to children. Furthermore,
to avoid the disruption of the skeletal remains, we used two
teeth recovered from the skull, taking into account the problems mentioned above.
Material and methods
The type of deposit found inside the tomb has forced a
separate investigation of anatomical elements: bones were
completely mismatched and not in anatomical connection.
The anthropological research carried out on all the anatomical elements began with an initial morphology of the samples
and a further verification of measures and indices using appropriate anthropometric tools. There was also a valuation of
the minimum number of individuals, the age, and the sex. The
occupational markers and the presence of pathologies were
considered. All the skeletal elements present, for a total of
647, were classified and analyzed in order to have a correct
estimate of the minimum number of individuals and for a
complete analysis of markers and diseases.
After their recovery from the church of Saint Maxim, all
the findings were studied at the Museum of Pathological
Anatomy at different stages that can be summarized as
follows:
(1) inventory and cleaning, (2) morphological analysis and
sorting, (3) cataloguing, (4) anthropometric analysis, (5) determination of age and gender, (6) estimation of stature, (7)
calculation of the minimum number of individuals, (8) analysis of the occupational markers, (9) paleopathological analysis, (10) photographic documentation, (11) data collection,
and (12) electronic archiving and statistical analysis.
Regarding DNA analysis, the main problem is not only
when working with ancient DNA stems to some degree from
the low amount of starting molecules and the presence of PCR
inhibitors but also includes endogenous DNA damage and
fragmentation. Much effort has been focused on improving
the extraction and purification procedures. Although some
methods have been more influential than others, none has
been generally accepted. In fact, if postmortem changes are
probably the most important factors in the degradation of
DNA, other factors also contribute to the degradation of the
DNA, such as hydrolysis, oxidative action of oxygen, nonneutral pH, temperature and humidity conditions, UV radiation, and the presence of humic acids in soil.
In historical cases and ancient DNA investigations, as in
this study, bone and teeth samples are often the only biological
material available for DNA typing. Problems which researchers face while working with DNA extracted from bones
and teeth samples recovered from mass graves are limited to
DNA quantity, DNA degradation, contamination, and postmortem changes [8–10]. The presence of inhibitor(s) may also
prevent amplification. Inhibition is an especially significant
problem when DNA is extracted from old and ancient material
[10, 11]. One potential inhibitor is humic acid. DNA extraction from soil always results in co-extraction of other soil
components, mainly humic acid or other humic substances,
which negatively interfere with DNA detecting processes
[11–13].
In the literature, most of the protocols for DNA extraction
from bone and teeth suggest an incubation of powdered material in an ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) solution.
The EDTA both demineralizes the bone/teeth (to an extent
dependent on the EDTA concentration and the volume of
extraction buffer) and inactivates DNAses by chelating bivalent cations such as Mg++ or Ca++ [14].
The degradation and fragmentation of DNA involve the
need to dedicate extreme attention to the problem of contamination, which is present from the recovery of the remains
until completion of all the experimental phases. Contamination can be caused by soil and laboratory microorganisms,
especially by the human DNA (exogenous DNA) that can
come from the operators during the archeological excavation,
by laboratory personnel during DNA analysis, and from instrumentation which has not been properly sterilized.
For the DNA analysis, we considered two teeth which
fitted perfectly with the complete skull in the jar (C24),
anthropological analysis of which confirmed to belong to the
oldest individual of the series (Fig. 4). For the identification of
kinship, it was necessary to extract bone fragments from
different craniums anthropological analysis of which
established to have belonged to very young individuals.
These samples were conserved in sterile containers to
preserve the integrity of the material and to limit contamination from chemical/physical agents, bacteria and mold, until
the analysis.
To prevent and reduce DNA contamination, we
followed the most stringent criteria proposed for ancient
DNA studies [15].
Virchows Arch
Fig. 4 Age groups (Iuvenis<20,
Adultus 21–40, Maturus 41–60,
Senilis>61) of the skulls
belonging to the Morgagni’s tomb
All DNA extractions and amplifications were carried out in
sterile hoods in laboratories physically separated from the
laboratory in which post-PCR analysis was conducted. Dedicated reagents and pipettes were used, together with filterplugged tips. All tools were washed with DNA RemoverTM
solution and then UV-irradiated among uses.
The specimens were cleaned with an abrasive brush and then
soaked in agitation in a NaClO 10 % solution for 5/10 min.
Subsequently, the samples were washed twice in agitation with
distilled water (ddH2O) for 10 and 5 min, respectively.
After this step, each side of the samples was irradiated at
240 nm (UV light) for 20 min.
After decontamination, the samples were pulverized using
the TissueLyserII (Qiagen); the program used consists of
1 min at 25 Hz, and it was repeated once again if the samples
were not pulverized thoroughly enough. The quantity of powder obtained was 3–8 g for the skulls and 0.6–1 g for the teeth.
The powder was then incubated in agitation from 3 to 5 days
(depending of the specimen) with a decalcification solution
(EDTA-Tris, pH 7.5), replacing the solution every day [14].
For the DNA extraction, the following procedure was
adopted: about 1 g of powder was incubated overnight in
15 ml of extraction buffer (EDTA 0.5 M, 1 % NLauroylsarcosine) and 200 μl of 20 mg/ml Proteinase K, in
a rotary shaker at 56 °C. This protocol was modified, adding
50 μl of DTT 1 M for each sample. The obtained solution was
treated with an equivalent volume of phenol/chlororm/
isoamyl alcohol (25:24:1) and, subsequently, was concentrated and purified using a Centricon-30 filter column (Millipore)
up to a 30-μl volume [14].
Low copy number Short Tandem Repeat (STR) amplifications were conducted, amplifying autosomic STR loci using
different amplification kits (all produced by Applied
Biosystems, Foster City, CA): D8S1179, D21S11, D7S820,
CSF1PO, D3S1358, THO1, D13S357, D16S539, D2S1338,
D19S433, vWA, TPOX, D18S51, D5S818, FGA, and
amelogenin for determination of sex. For each PCR reaction,
twice the recommended Taq Gold concentration and 1 μl of
10 mg/ml BSA were added to the reaction mix. Moreover, six
additional PCR cycles were used (overall 36 cycles). Water
instead of DNA was used as negative PCR control.
PCR products were separated on an Applied Biosystems
3130 (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) and analyzed
using GeneMapper ID software version 3.2, using GeneScan
500 LIZ as internal size standards and allelic ladders provided
by the manufacturer.
Results were elaborated using GeneScan Analysis 3.7
software.
Results
The minimum number of individuals inside the tomb was 32
people, according to the whole orbitals which were the most
recurring anatomical element between the 647 classified.
After this first step of the study, sex was determined
through analysis of the femurs [16, 17]: 8 males, 3 females,
3 uncertain for the right femur, 12 males, 5 females, and 2
uncertain for the left. We also calculated the femoral robustness and pilastric index and the valuation of the height [18,
19]. On average, the height of the male was about 173 cm,
while the average female’s height was 157 cm. It is also
important to note the sexual dimorphism evidenced by the
femoral occupational markers: they were more evident and
frequent in the male than female, because of the daily posture
and the different kind of work [20].
Once this stage was completed, we studied all the 24 skulls
found in the tomb. Among them, we focused our attention on
the complete skull presumed to be that of Morgagni which had
been found inside the earthenware jar (C24) (Fig. 5). The
other one inside the earthenware jar (C23), placed there during
the 1868 recognition, belonged to a “maturus” individual
Virchows Arch
Fig. 6 The most complete skull fragment among those classified C25,
characterized by a clearly young morphology
Fig. 5 Skulls C23 (left) and C24 (right) found inside the earthenware jar.
The C24 belongs to the oldest individual of the whole series of skulls
examined (“senilis”), while C23 appeared to be a “maturus”
(Fig. 4), based on the analysis of cranial sutures [21], so it
could not belong to Morgagni.
Skull C24 was in a good condition, although the lower jaw
appeared without the right arch. Both jaws were toothless, and
the only tooth still present is the third molar on the right
maxillary arch, but it is included and had not fully erupted.
We also found one incisor and one premolar in the earthenware jar which fitted perfectly with the left superior jaw that
was used for the molecular analysis. Many alveolar processes
of the maxilla are completely reabsorbed in correspondence of
dental elements lost in life: PM2, M1, and M2 of the right
arch; PM1, PM2, M1, M2, and M3 of the left one. The other
teeth were lost post-mortem.
The biological profile of the remains corresponding to the
elderly individual is male (degree of sexualization: 0.2 skull,
mandible 0.5). The skull, according to the method of obliteration of the cranial sutures of Meindl and Lovejoy [21], turned
out to have belonged to a “senilis” elderly man (over 61 years
of age); indeed, it was the oldest skull of them all, as demonstrated by the complete obliteration of all the cranial sutures.
Figure 4 shows the results according to the age groups of the
10 skulls which are surely related to Morgagni’s burial, thanks
to historical documentations. The skull which is hypothetically Morgagni’s is the only one which could be considered to
have belonged to a “senilis” individual. This fact was sound
proof that this skull could have belonged to Morgagni, and it
confirmed the supposition made during the second identification (1900).
The skull had no special epigenetic characters, except for
an occipital bun evident in the nuchal portion. There were also
no signs of pathological disorders, even if there was some
evidence of an abscess on the left maxilla, next to the nasal
cavity. In general, it is a skull of average length and is not very
wide; the face is of average width, the orbits are of a medium–
small size, the nasal cavity is of medium depth, and finally, the
palate is long and narrow.
Concerning the skull fragments classified as C25, we found
that they belonged to three different young individuals, demonstrated by their complete orbital arch.
The results from the morphological analysis clearly revealed that they belonged to a range of age between birth
and the first few years of life. The most complete skull
fragment belonged to a young individual of about 2 years
old, thanks to the presence of a part of metopic suture and to
the calculation of the frontal transverse index, typical of a
convex forehead [22] (Fig. 6).
We decided to call them C25, C25 A, and C25 B, and they
have been used to test the relation of kinship with C24.
Table 1 Genetic profiles obtained from the bone fragments analyzed
Polymorphism
C24
C25
C25 A
C25 B
D8S1179
10–?
10–13
10–12
10–?
D21S11
D7S820
CSF1PO
D3S1358
TH01
D13S317
D16S539
D2S1338
D19S433
VWA
TPOX
D18S51
31–32
10–11
–
–
–
11–12
–
–
18–?
19–?
11–12
13–16
31–?
10–12
11–13
15–17
6–7
12–13
9–11
20–?
–
17–19
9–11
31–?
–
11–?
18–19
7–?
12–13
–
20–23
9–14
17–18
–
25.2–31
11–?
9–12
–
–
8–11
–
–
–
–
–
AME
D5S818
FGA
XY
10–12
31–32
16–17
XY
9–12
30–?
–
XX
9–10
31–?
–
XX
–
–
Virchows Arch
As reported in literature [6], to evaluate whether an unidentified person belongs to a family pedigree (P), usually one or
more family reference persons from the putative pedigree are
typed. In a schematic explanation, the identification is
assessed by comparing two alternative hypotheses: the subject
is the specific member of the putative pedigree, and (the other
hypothesis) the same subject is unrelated to the known reference members of the putative pedigree. The results of the
statistical probability were calculated based on a ratio of the
probabilities of the DNA evidence under each hypothesis (for
the detailed explanation, see Ge et al. [6]).
For the probability calculation, we used The Familias program (it is freely available at the website: familias.name). The
Familias program may be used to compute probabilities and
likelihoods in cases where DNA profiles of some people are
known, but their family relationship is in doubt. The program
may compute which pedigree is most likely and how much
more likely it is than others.
In this case, also if we obtained partial genetic profile with
STR autosomal polymorphisms and no data for Y chromosome haplotype, the statistical elaboration has given three
values expressed by a percentage ranging from 90.8805 to
99.8291 % that the C24 skull is the father of the three children
C25, C25 A, and C25 B (1 male and 2 females), demonstrating the existence of the relationship (Table 1).
Conclusion
Historical and archive documents tell us that in the tomb
investigated in Saint Maxim Church of Padua, Giovanni
Battista Morgagni, his children, his wife, and other unidentified individuals were buried, some of whom might have been
professors at the University of Padua. We also know that
Morgagni died at 89 years old, an age which was very rare
to reach at the end of the eighteenth century.
Historical documents tell us that two different identifications were made on this tomb, in 1868 and 1900. In the first,
up to 11 individuals were found, and the skull (fragmentary)
which belonged to the oldest of the series, deduced to be that
of Morgagni, was placed in an earthenware jar. During the
second identification, another (complete) skull from this series
was claimed to have belonged to a very old individual and so
was placed in the earthenware jar with the previous one.
Moreover, a new passage was discovered inside the tomb,
dating back from an older sepulture, where up to 20 skulls
were found.
During our identification in 2011, we observed the same
order described in the 1900 identification. Anthropometrical
analysis confirmed that the complete skull inside the earthenware jar, called by us as C24, belonged to the oldest individual
of the original disposition of Morgagni’s tomb, because it was
the only one that could be defined “senilis” (over 61 years of
age). Moreover, we found fragments of skulls, called C25,
which were not detected during the previous identifications
and which surely belonged to very young individuals.
Genetic analysis performed on skull C24 and on the C25
series of skull fragments tell us that the C24 was a male and
that he was the father of the C25 series of fragments.
In conclusion, thanks to the interaction between historical
studies, anthropological research, and molecular analysis that
reinforce each other, we can assume that the skull called C24
is that of Giovanni Battista Morgagni and that the C25 series
of skull fragments are from his children who were buried
together with their parents.
Acknowledgements The authors express their gratitude to Antonio
Mattiazzo, Archbishop of Padua, and to Giovanni Brusegan, Rector of
the Saint Maxim Church, for allowing the opening of the tomb to identify
the Morgagni’s remains.
Conflict of interest We declare that we have no conflict of interest.
References
1. Zampieri F, Zanatta A, Thiene G (2014) An etymological “autopsy”
of Morgagni’s title: de sedibus et causis morborum per anatomen
indagatis (1761). Hum Pathol 45:12–16
2. Zampieri G (2012) Introduzione. In: Zampieri G (Ed), La Chiesa di
San Massimo in Padova Cappella Universitaria. Archeologia Storia
Arte intorno alla Chiesa di San Massimo. Risultati della ricognizione
scientifica della tomba di Giovan Battista Morgagni e altri interventi,
L’Erma di Bretschneider, Roma, pp. 19–37
3. Morgagni GB (1712) Nova institutionum medicarum idea, Apud
Josephum Coronam sub signo Coronae, Patavii
4. Thiene G (2012) Le celebrazioni morgagnane dell’anno accademico
2011-2012. In: Zampieri G (ed) La Chiesa di San Massimo in Padova
Cappella Universitaria. Archeologia Storia Arte intorno alla Chiesa di
San Massimo. Risultati della ricognizione scientifica della tomba di
Giovan Battista Morgagni e altri interventi, L’Erma di Bretschneider,
Roma, pp 219–258
5. Zampieri F, Zanatta A, Rippa Bonati M (2012) Ritratti di Morgagni
nelle collezioni pubbliche padovane, Museo d’Arte medievale e
moderna, biblioteca civica e Museo Bottacin. Cleup, Padova
6. Ge J, Budowle B, Chakraborty R (2011) Choosing relatives for DNA
identification of missing persons. J Forensic Sci 56:S23–S28. doi:10.
1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01631
7. Prinz M, Carracedo A, Mayr WR, Morling N, Parsons TJ, Sajantila
A, Scheithauerg R, Schmitterh H, Schneideri PM (2007) DNA
Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics
(ISFG): recommendations regarding the role of forensic genetics
for disaster victim identification (DVI). Forensic Sci. Int Genet 1:3–
12. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2006.10.003
8. Andelinovic S, Sutlovic D, Erceg Ivkosic I, Skaro V, Ivkosic A, Paic
F, Rezić B, Definis-Gojanović M, Primorac D (2005) Twelve-year
experience in identification of skeletal remains from mass graves.
Croat Med J 46:530–539
9. Alonso A, Andelinovic S, Martin P, Sutlovic D, Erceg I, Huffine E,
de Simón LF, Albarrán C, Definis-Gojanović M, FernándezRodriguez A, García P, Drmić I, Rezić B, Kuret S, Sancho M,
Primorac D (2001) DNA typing from skeletal remains: evaluation
of multiplex and megaplex STR systems on DNA isolated from bone
and teeth samples. Croat Med J 42:260–266
Virchows Arch
10. Reiss RA, Rutz B (1999) Quality control PCR: a method for detecting
inhibitors of Taq DNA polymerase. Biotechniques 27(920–2):924–
926
11. Zhou J, Bruns MA, Tiedje JM (1996) DNA recovery from soils of
diverse composition. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:316–322
12. Sutlovic D, Definis Gojanovic M, Andelinovic S, Gugic S,
Primorac D (2005) Taq polymerase reverses inhibition of quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction by humic acid. Croat
Med J 46:556–562
13. Sutlovic D, Definis Gojanovic M, Andelinovic S (2007) Rapid
extraction of human DNA containing humic acid. Croat Chem Acta
80:117–120
14. Loreille OM, Diegoli TM, Irwin JA, Coble MD, Parsons TJ (2007)
High efficiency DNA extraction from bone by total demineralization.
Forensic Sci. Int Genet 1:191–195. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2007.02.006
15. Cooper A, Poinar HN (2000) Ancient DNA: do it right or not at all.
Science 289:1139
16. Pearson K, Bell J (1917-1919) A study of long bones of the English
skeleton. Part I. The femur. In: Draper’s Company, Research
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Memories University of London Chapters 1-4, Biometric series 10:
1–224
Black TK3rd (1978) A new method for assessing the sex of fragmentary skeletal remains: femoral shaft circumference. Am J Phys
Anthropol 48:227–231
Trotter M, Gleser GC (1958) A re-evaluation of estimation of stature
based on measurements of stature taken during life and of long bones
after death. Am J Phys Anthropol 16:79–123
Olivier G (1963) L’estimation de la stature par les os longs des
membres, Bulletins et mémoires de la société d’Anthropologie de
Paris. Série XI 4:433–449
Capasso L, Kennedy KAR, Wilczak CA (1999) Atlas of occupational
markers on human remains. Edigrafital s.p.a, Teramo
Meindl RS, Lovejoy CO (1985) Ectocranial suture closure: a revised
method for the determination of skeletal age at death based on the
lateral-anterior sutures. Am J Phys Anthropol 68:57–66
Martin R, Knuβmann VR (1988) Anthropologie. Handbuch der
vergleichenden biologie des menschen. Band I. Wesen und Methoden
der Anthropologie, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart-New York