Hic locus est Ubi Mortui Viveuntes Docent.

We appreciate the comments of Drs. Eid and Otsuki regarding the recent article by Jones and Whitaker (2009). In a day where at one of our own medical institutions cadaveric dissection is being supplanted with what was described to one of us by an administrative faculty as ‘‘more sophisticated’’ means of teaching anatomy (e.g. radiology), we still feel strongly about the continued use of the kentai and dissection (Kozai, 2007). Use of the human cadaver is certainly a privilege and should never be considered inconvenient as pointed out by these authors. Human dissection offers us a lesson not only in tactility but also humility that more static forms of anatomy cannot provide. We are regretful that gone are the days when human dissection was openly endorsed by the state. For example, in 1240 A.D., Emperor Frederick II mandated that physicians living within his domain must show documentation of having participated in anatomic dissections before being allowed to practice medicine (Kevorkian, 1959)! The suggestion Drs. Eid and Otsuki makes regarding the Egyptian mummy is intriguing. Eventhough the Egyptian embalmer’s original intentions were to preserve the body, he was faced with a new knowledge and opportunity for discovery that made possible the advancement of our understanding that would later be essential to the erection of scientific anatomy. With the spread of the belief of Osirian immortality, the precursor of the anatomist was born in Egypt.