"The teeth of Waterloo." Topic

During centuries, it was seen as normal to extract teeth from soldiers on the battlefield. War times helped supplying with a great quantity of teeth, commonly known as "The teeth of Waterloo". As a great majority of the dead soldiers had passed away at a young age, those teeth were generally of a higher quality than the human teeth of the usual circuit (Craft, 2009).
Therefore, the teeth of the 50,000 soldiers who had died on the battlefield of Waterloo on June 12, 1815 were extracted and used for the making of dentures known as "The teeth of Waterloo". Human teeth were used until 1860 and were soon replaced by porcelain dental veneers (FDI, no date). Indeed, they had already been used on soldiers of the American War of Independence (1775-1783). Hence, those saved teeth helped restoring the mouth of numerous Englishmen during the Regency and even afterwards (Woodforde, 1968; Genet & Ruggiu, 2007).
Claudius Ash (1792-1854) was a dental manufacturer living in Westminster. He was coming from a family who was highly involved in the dental art since his father was already a goldsmith working with gold and silver for dental purposes. Until 1820, the teeth of dead soldiers were extracted from their mouths and contributed to the manufacture of dental sets. From 1820, Ash used a more noble material: porcelain (Woodforde, 1968).
By Xavier Riaud – Dental Surgeon, Doctor in Epistemology, History of Sciences and Techniques, Laureate and Associate member of the French Dental Academy.

Who had the task to take so many teeth at Waterloo?
And how they did that?. The soldiers had been buried.
What a cripy job!.

Amicalement
Armand

Shudder!

Who had the task to take so many teeth at Waterloo?

Civilians and soldiers who scavenged from the dead.

And how they did that?. The soldiers had been buried.

Naif, much?

Men didn't fall dead into an open grave which backfilled itself. Someone had to bury the bodies. The teeth were extracted before burial.

BDA article

link

Michael Crumplin writes about removal of teeth from the dead for use as prosthetics in his book 'Men of Steel: Surgery in the Napoleonic Wars' p90

Teeth were valuable assets to the looter, both military and civilian. Heartless gangs of soldiers in the Peninsular War scoured the field to draw teeth from hapless victims. Most were then sold to wealthy endentulous [Crumlin is a surgeon, he uses technical terms a lot] civilians and often set in hippopotamus ivory!

There's an illustration of a set of teeth at the Royal Cllege of Surgeons museum on the same page captioned 'Cadaveric teeth removed at the Battle of Waterloo'

Incidentally Armand, what's your Doctorate in?

TMP link

The Napoleonic Battlefield was such a contained event compared to modern battles. A British officer could fight the battle of Waterloo, return to Brussels and have a fine meal and a bath before going to bed between linen sheets. It led to very strange relationships between the living and the battle dead, particularly when no one government agency was responsible [or took responsibility] for the huge number of bodies, both men and horses.

For instance, more than three thousand bodies remained piled up against the outside wall of the City of Brussels for more than two weeks as wounded died. They were finally burned three weeks after the battle.

During the period, the human body was used for any number of things. For instance, moss from a human skull was used to stop nose bleeds. There was great run on Waterloo skulls for that reason alone, not counting teeth…and other reasons. The public was not barred from visiting the battlefield, so skulls and other things disappeared.

As an example, Miss Charlotte Eaton visited the battlefield almost a month after Waterloo. She was struck by the 'confined space' of the battle. She almost faints at the sight of a human skull visiable through the earth, and she is paralyzed with shock at the sight of a hand nearly clean of flesh "outstretched above the ground, as if it had raised itself from the grave." She notes that piles of human ashes were still smoking as the locals endeavoured to get rid of the dead one way or another.

The countrymen told us, that so great were the numbers of the slain, that it was impossilbe entirely to consume them. Pits had been dug, into which they had been thrown, but they [the bodies]were obliged to be raised far above the ground. These dreadful heads were covered with piles of wood, which were set on fire, so that underneath the ashes lay numbers of human bodies unconsumed.

Yet as appalled as this gentle lady was by the scene, she cannont resist taking a few macabre souvenirs: Among them a broken sword bought from a peasant and some human ashes wrapped in one of the pieces of paper--letters, pages of note books or bibles, cartridge paper etc.--that littered the battlefield.

She is very typical of the public response. In the following years, having 'souvenirs' from the battle, equipment, ashes, skeleton parts or most notably a "Waterloo Skull" on display in the parlor was not only a common sight, but regarded as a positive draw for visitors.

The destruction left by a battle was a veritible windfall for many entrepeneurs and a curious public.

Bill

"Naif, much?"

What kind of a question is that, Sr. Rhetor?

Amicalement,

Allen

What an incredibly distasteful topic. Are there no blogs to randomly link today?

I really wish a stifle would remove not just the object's posts, but any threads they start. Distasteful to the extreme.

You really don't want to be reading 'Men of Steel: Surgery in the Napoleonic Wars' then…

human history distasteful? I find it very interesting, thanks Armand

Hard to see how this is distasteful. A sober fact of life back then. Grim but interesting reading.

Another interesting find.

Well, What prompted my post was Armand assuming that all the dead at Waterloo were buried. Puts quite a spin on what the average soldier was thinking when going into battle, without anything like dogtags or much hope of being identified if killed.

What amazes me is that the British and Belgian officials, both civil and military, left the whole problem of cleaning up the battlefield [for the most part] to the country folks who lived in the area.

I don't remember seeing a "Waterloo" cemetery when I was there, yet most later large battlefields starting in the 1850s in Europe and after the ACW do. Can we thank the Red Cross for that, to some extent?

Bill

I know English is your second language Armand (or perhaps your third or fourth…). But I have always heard them referred to as 'Waterloo teeth', rather than 'Teeth of Waterloo'.

Apparently at least 52 barrels of teeth went from Waterloo to Britain alone. Enough to tide the toothless masses over until porcelain teeth strong enough to survive the rigours of dental use were developed in the 1860s.

orble.com/waterloo-teeth

I don't remember seeing a "Waterloo" cemetery when I was there

That's because there isn't one. There aren't any for Agincourt or Ramilles either. What you have is grave pits.

yet most later large battlefields starting in the 1850s

I'm willing to bet that there isn't one for Sedan either.

The whole concept of war cemeteries didn't really begin until after the Great War

I'm willing to bet that there isn't one for Sedan either.

The whole concept of war cemeteries didn't really begin until after the Great War.

Actually there is one at Sedan. There are cemeteries for each of th major ACW battles in the East. Solferino has one as does St.Privat-Gravolette.

I doubt that such cemeteries were as pervasive or inclusive as those after WWI.

I have visited the Cemetery at Antietam and matched up grave stones with some tintype pictures of soldiers killed in the battle.

Bill

McLaddie

I put the trend towards military cementeries -and rememberance of the death- to a general change of the social mores, more than to any particular association (though it could be rightly argued that the foundation of the Red Cross was a reflection of the same change in the mentalities). With the coming to age of the burgeoise in Europe and the uprising nationalism, to bury the dead from battles accomplished two things: saved the new elites from the moral anguish of sending young men to battle, and served as memorial of their sacrifices for the nation, giving to future generations a place that acted as a shrine and a sacred ground, to honor those that shed their blood for the nation. It didn't matter that many of those men weren't born in that nation at all, or that they would have gladly concede the honor to other men! What was important was what it meant to the survivors.

It wasn't only military cementeries though, but also statues, monuments, dedications of buildings, the writing of poems to the sacrifice and valour, ecc. War became the craddle of nations, in more than one sense. War (and death) became the defining treat of how nations were born, and maintained. Even today, in a more pacifist -at least, theoretically- society war still defines our ideas of nationhood.

By the way, I would like to thank you for your commentaries on how Waterloo deads were treated. I didn't know the story.

Best

In a similar vein, Russin Crimean War remains were, I believe, sold as fertiliser.

basileus66:

You're welcome. I got the Miss Eaton story from the book

Dancing into Battle: A Social History of Waterloo
by Nick Foulkes.

It gives a wonderful feel for the relationship of British/European Society to the Army and war in general.

Bill

You are righ Mr. Whatisitgood4atwork , I made my best efford in the translation, so sorry for that.
Many thaks for your good contribution Mr. McLaddie.

Amicalement
Armand

Please do not apologise Armand. I did not mean it as criticism. Your English is very good and I greatly respect anyone who can learn a foreign language – yet alone several as you have. I am learning another language myself and know how difficult it is. As I make so many mistakes in Chinese I always appreciate it when someone politely points them out so I can improve.

Thanks you Mr. Whatisitgood4atwork!.

Amicalement
Armand