chapter 2
new horizons, 1883–1918
 | 29

AAs the Army Medical Museum entered its third decade of service to the nation, its 

shelves, cases, and storage rooms housed an ever-expanding collection of skeletal 

remains, mounted surgical specimens, anatomical examples, medical instruments, 

and volumes upon volumes of literature. To take advantage of the potential 

opportunities afforded by this expansion, the museum needed new leaders 

with inquisitive minds, innovative ideas, and the energy and enthusiasm to turn 

possibilities into reality. Enter Major John Shaw Billings and Major Walter Reed.

Dr Billings had served as librarian for the Office of the Surgeon General for 

nearly 30 years before becoming the fourth curator of the museum in 1883. The 

library he had built became a new museum-library division. As the new curator, 

Billings continued the campaign for a new building. In what was typical 

Washington fashion even then, he identified the most influential congressmen 

and wrote to physicians in their districts, asking them to lobby for a new 

structure. By 1885 Congress had approved funding for the new landmark Army 

Medical Museum and Library building, to be erected at what is now 7th Street 

and Independence Avenue, SW, in Washington. Working with architect Adolph 

Cluss, Billings helped with plans and specifications to ensure that the structure 

would fulfill his vision of a multifunctional facility that could incorporate 

exhibits, research, and education. By late 1887 the laborious process of moving 

into the new museum had begun. The building would eventually earn the 

affectionate title “Old Red Brick” by those who worked there during the next 

80 years. In 1888, shortly after the new museum was fully occupied, the initial 

Dr John Shaw Billings, famed librarian and fourth 

curator of the Army Medical Museum, 1883–1893. 

(MIS 60-5419-2)
30 | Armed Forces Institute of Patholo gy, 1862–2011

rationale for the museum’s existence came to fruition when the sixth and final part of the monumental 

Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion was published. 

Once in the new building, Curator Billings changed the museum’s emphasis. While continuing to develop the 

comparative anatomy, human anatomy, and anthropological collections, Billings moved the museum into a 

more historical direction by collecting and exhibiting the material culture of medicine. Under his direction, 

the museum’s collection policy was influenced by both American and European scientific and scholarly 

trends, yet linked to the research strengths (microscopy and photomicrography) of the Surgeon General’s 

Office. Billings’s collections encompassed human anatomy and embryology, pathology, numismatics, 

ethnography and physical anthropology, comparative anatomy, specimen preparation, and the further 

development of the microscope. On display in the new museum was a collection of microscopes started by 

Billings in 1884 with 17 instruments obtained in Europe. Toward the end of his tenure he collected medical 

instruments and military artifacts, including equipment and supplies, with the goal of building a national 

museum with a broad encyclopedic reach. But his clearest vision for the future was stated in the Medical 

News of Philadelphia in 1886:

1. To illustrate the effects, both immediate and remote of wounds and of the diseases that prevailed in the 

Army.

2. To illustrate the work of the Army Medical Department; models of transportation of sick and wounded, 

and of hospitals; medical supplies; instruments, etc.

3. To illustrate human anatomy and pathology of both sexes and of all ages.

4. To illustrate the morphological basis of ethnological classification, more especially of the native races of 

America; including anthropometry and craniology.

5. To illustrate the latest methods and apparatus for biological investigations and the various methods of 

preparing and mounting specimens.1(p84)

Billings further wrote that he envisioned an institute of pathology with “earnest and well-trained students” 

working with the museum’s collections to advance the field. “Sooner or later we shall have half a dozen or 

more of specially trained men busy in the laboratories and work-rooms of the museum, each engaged on his 

own problems, and the whole for the common good.”1(p88)
New Horizons, 1883–1918 | 31

Billings’s collection policies and vision for the museum’s future paved the way for the next curator 

to explore even wider horizons. In 1893 Major Walter Reed became the fifth curator of the Army 

Medical Museum. Building on efforts begun by Billings, Reed organized and taught the first class of 

the recently established Army Medical School—a 4-month course of instruction to be offered each 

year at the museum. At nearly the same time, Brigadier General George Sternberg, Surgeon General 

of the Army, published A Manual of Bacteriology,

2 the first American textbook on the subject. Under 

Sternberg and Reed, the Army’s interest in pursuing bacteriology, epidemiology, and immunology 

grew, as did interest in new medical discoveries. Reed was particularly aggressive about obtaining 

an apparatus for and experimenting with X-rays following Wilhelm Roentgen’s discovery of the 

radiation in January 1896.

Reed is most famous for his achievements from 1898 to the end of 1900. During three tremendous 

years he wrote imperishable pages in the history of medicine. First, as president of an Army board 

of medical officers set up to investigate the typhoid fever epidemic in camps within the United 

States, he helped broaden understanding about the ways in which typhoid spreads— an essential 

step in the eventual triumph over that disease in the next decade. Reed was then called upon to head 

another board to investigate infectious diseases in Cuba—a group of medical officers who would 

discover and prove beyond a doubt the method of transmission of the most dreaded diseases of the 

tropics: yellow fever. And although Reed died suddenly in 1902 from appendicitis, his 10-year tenure 

as curator had permanently shaped the future course of the Army Medical Museum.

In 1910, the Army Medical School, which had increasingly encroached on space used for exhibits 

and research, moved out of the museum and into its own building on Louisiana Avenue, SW. By the 

time the United States entered World War I, the Army Medical Museum, although still a popular 

tourist and educational attraction, had become more of a research-focused entity, concentrating on 

pathology. The museum was reorganized into two main sections: the Pathology Department and the 

Instruction Laboratory. 

The Pathology Department was a new function, and the size and scope of World War I required 

that new procedures for collecting, preserving, and cataloging thousands of new specimens be 
32 | Armed Forces Institute of Patholo gy, 1862–2011

established. Under the Instruction Laboratory were the departments of Motion Pictures, Still Photography, 

Wax Modeling, and Anatomical Art. 

Circular letters were sent to Army medical staff in both the United States and France requesting material. 

Circular No. 42, sent to the American Expeditionary Forces in France on July 27, 1918, requested “pathological 

specimens, bacteria, animal parasites, missiles, armor, instruments, apparatus, casts, models, paintings, 

drawings, diagrams, charts, statistical tables, cinema films, photographs, lantern slides, and other things 

pertaining to the preservation of the health and the prevention and treatment of disease of United States 

soldiers, or the history of the Medical Department of the Army.”1(pp182,183) Also, seemingly for the first time, the 

value of autopsies was recognized. Writing in 1918, the surgeon general said that an autopsy “almost invariably 

yields information which is instructive and of great value and importance in the treatment of the living,” 

and that “great good to the service and (to) medical science would result” if it were “practicable to hold postmortem examinations after all deaths.” While the number of actual autopsies performed was low, the military’s 

belief that such procedures could help fight disease was strengthened and solidified in official documents.1(p162)

Unlike the Spanish-American War, which had yielded little in the way of specimens, World War I brought 

the museum 9,960 accessioned specimens, together with 12,700 autopsy protocols. The specimens included 

600 sections of lungs of soldiers who died from the 1918 Spanish influenza—specimens used much later 

by an AFIP scientist, Jeffrey Taubenberger, who successfully unlocked the mysteries of that disease in 2005. 

Writing in 1919, Dr James Ewing, who served with the Army as a contract surgeon during the war, said of 

the museum: “The variety of diseases represented was surprising and the opportunity of illustrating the 

developmental stages of common and even of rare diseases, with their complications, was far greater than 

the writer has ever before enjoyed. Hence the value of an extensive museum collection was very completely 

demonstrated. . . . The value of a comprehensive pathological museum for teaching students, clinicians and 

pathologists, and for research in the etiology and pathogenesis of disease is probably underestimated even by 

most confirmed pathological anatomists.”3

Ewing’s assessment, as well as other records of the museum and Surgeon General’s Office during the first two 

decades of the new century, made it clear that by 1919 the stage had been set for the institution’s transformation 

from a traditional museum to a diagnostic facility concerned with patient care via pathology. n
New Horizons, 1883–1918 | 33

Havin g wo r k e d as a s u r g e o n during the Civil War, and then with the Surgeon General’s Office as its librarian since 1865, Billings was an overwhelming favorite 

to take charge of the newly-merged Army Medical Museum and Library. He inherited 

an institution that had already enlarged its focus from collecting specimens of military medicine and surgery. Three initial collections (medical, surgical, and microscopical) had been reorganized and increased with sections for pathological, anatomical, 

and comparative anatomy specimens, as well as miscellaneous objects, such as instruments and equipment. Billings began increasing the museum’s collections with the 

same energy he had devoted to building the library’s holdings, founding an extensive 

collection of historical microscopes. In addition to collecting, Billings had 

the responsibility for running the museum, 

including exhibiting the collections 

and compiling a catalog. He also 

oversaw completion of the sixth and 

final section (which comprised two 

volumes) of the Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion. 

Each of the six sections is massive in 

itself, averaging nearly 1,000 pages of 

text, with an average of 40 full-page 

plates, many in color, plus scores of 

black-and-white woodcuts. Perhaps 

most importantly, during his tenure 

Billings was able to convince Congress to 

fund construction of a new home for the 

museum, allowing the aggressive expansion of both collections and new research 

in science and medicine.

Pages from one of the six volumes of the 

Medical and Surgical History of the War 

of the Rebellion. (NCP 17026)
34 | Armed Forces Institute of Patholo gy, 1862–2011

A page from the Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion depicting gunshot scalp wounds and contusions of the skull. (MIS 62-1019-4)
New Horizons, 1883–1918 | 35

The “Evolution of the Microscope” exhibit at the Army Medical Museum. Several of the microscopes in the collection were obtained by Billings and are still on display at AFIP’s 

National Museum of Health and Medicine. (MIS 60-4223-11)
36 | Armed Forces Institute of Patholo gy, 1862–2011

Aft e r man y y ear s of wo r kin g in the cramped quarters of Ford’s Theater, in 1887 the 

staff of the Army Medical Museum began moving into a new, spacious and attractive building more suited to its expanding collections and missions. The structure consisted of a center 

building, measuring 112 by 55 feet, with two 60-by-131–ft wings. In the courtyard, a 52-by24–ft annex was connected with the rear of the center building by a covered passageway.

The central and western portions of the first floor were mostly occupied by the clerks of the 

Surgeon General’s Office Record and Pension Division, while the east wing was given over to 

functions of the museum: a dissecting room, an anatomist’s room, a darkroom, a room exhibiting the supplies and equipment for a post hospital, and a room for genitourinary specimens 

considered unsuitable for public display.

The east wing on the second floor stored more museum specimens, the west wing held library 

shelf stacks, and the central portion of the floor contained library offices and reading rooms. 

[Bottom] The fifth home of the Army 

Medical Museum, as depicted in architect 

Adolph Cluss’s plans. (MIS 61-6440)

[Opposite] A photograph of the museum 

building following completion in 1887. 

The building became known as the “Old 

Red Brick.” (AMM 740)
New Horizons, 1883–1918 | 37

The library and museum wings were built to form fireproof 

compartments separated from the other parts of the building. 

Both were open from the second story to the roof, forming 

halls 31 feet high to the eaves and 47 feet to the ridge of lantern 

skylights. 

The third floor held offices, a microscopy room, and a room 

equipped for anthropometry. A fourth floor in the central 

building contained only the photographic gallery and several 

storerooms, two of which displayed examples of stretchers and 

other devices for transporting sick and wounded in combat. 

The anatomical and biological laboratory was located in the 

annex, which also contained the utilities and somewhat primitive sanitary facilities. This building would be home to the 

Army Medical Museum and its successors, the Army Institute 

of Pathology and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, for 

nearly 80 years.

New Horizons, 1883–1918 | 39

[Opposite] The museum’s main hall. In addition to its own operations, the museum often hosted professional meetings. A famous 

gathering occurred in 1907 when renowned physician and pathologist Dr Maude Abbott held a meeting at the museum to lobby for 

establishment of the International Association of Medical Museums. Over the next several decades this organization would evolve 

into what is now the International Academy of Pathology. In 2008, AFIP Director Dr Florabel G Mullick was named president of the 

Academy. (Reeve 30328)

[Top] Movement to a larger facility meant more room for laboratories and research, including the “Histo-pathology Room,” shown 

here. (Reeve 30329)
40 | Armed Forces Institute of Patholo gy, 1862–2011

[Top] Front and [Inset] rear views of the Surgeon General’s Library. By the time the museum 

moved into the “Old Red Brick,” the library had grown to 115,000 bound volumes and 184,000 

unbound pamphlets and papers. (AMM 741; AMM 407)

[Opposite] Chemistry laboratory for the Army Medical School, which shared space with the 

museum until 1910. (AMM 1156)
New Horizons, 1883–1918 | 41
42 | Armed Forces Institute of Patholo gy, 1862–2011

Students of the Army Medical School, established in 1893, work in one of the many laboratories they shared with museum staff. (AMM 1155)
New Horizons, 1883–1918 | 43

[Left] Brigadier General George Sternberg, Surgeon General of the Army, 

1893–1902. During his tenure, the museum’s research efforts were directed 

toward bacteriology. Sternberg also secured authority for creation of the Army 

Medical School. Established as part of the Army Medical Museum, the school 

consisted of a 4-month course of instruction to train candidates for admission 

to the Army Medical Corps in their duties as medical officers. (AMM 387)

[Right] Major Walter Reed, fifth curator of the museum, 1893–1902. Like 

Surgeon General Sternberg, Major Reed was greatly interested in bacteriology. 

Beginning in 1898, as president of the Army board of medical officers set up to 

investigate the typhoid fever epidemic in Army camps in the United States, he 

helped broaden the understanding of how typhoid spreads. Reed then led the 

board of officers investigating infectious diseases in Cuba, which discovered the 

transmission method of yellow fever. (MIS 05-6832-1)

In addition to his interest in bacteriology, 

Major Reed followed the latest advances 

in medical technology. Within 3 months 

of Wilhelm Roentgen’s discovery of X-rays 

in January 1896, Reed obtained an X-ray 

apparatus: (right) Roentgen ray tube. 

(left) An electrostatic generator. 

(MIS 62-1020; MIS 62-4101)
44 | Armed Forces Institute of Patholo gy, 1862–2011

Dr William Gray was the first person on the Army Medical Museum’s staff to use the new X-ray technology in a clinical setting. Here he X-rays a patient on a hospital ship during 

the Spanish-American War in 1898. (AMM 2186)
New Horizons, 1883–1918 | 45

The typhoid team: (top) Major Frederick Russell, seventh curator of the museum, 1907–

1913, and (bottom) Lieutenant James Carroll, sixth curator of the Army Medical Museum, 

1902–1907. Carroll and Russell studied typhoid with Major Reed, initiating experiments 

with a vaccine and carrying out mass inoculations. (AMM 6090; NLM 61-167) 

Th e t yph oid b oar d, established in August 1898 by the Army Adjutant General’s 

Office, consisted of Reed and subsequent museum curators Lieutenant James Carroll and 

Major Frederick Russell. The three doctors immediately went to work by inspecting military 

campsites throughout the eastern United States. By October the board was back in Washington studying the detailed medical records of 118 regiments. Over the next several years the 

board disproved the theory that typhoid was primarily a waterborne disease; rather, it is “disseminated by the transference of the excretions of an infected individual to alimentary canals 

of others.”1(p137) The board also concluded that typhoid was found in flies, which conveyed 

the infected organisms from their source to a person, and that men who ate in screened tents 

were less susceptible to typhoid than those whose mess tents were open to flies.

In the latter years of Lieutenant Carroll’s tenure as curator, he conducted an experiment 

in vaccination against typhoid, which, like Reed’s experiments with yellow fever in Cuba, 

used human volunteers as subjects. After limited success with an oral vaccine, Carroll 

investigated vaccination by hypodermic injection. He also consulted with the British and 

German armies, which had achieved some success with vaccinations. After considerable 

study, by 1909 the board had determined that “the practice of anti-typhoid vaccination is 

both useful and harmless and that it offers a practicable means of diminishing the amount 

of typhoid in the Army both in times of peace and war.”1(p143) The board’s findings were 

proven correct in March 1911, when an Army division was mobilized in Texas because 

of unrest on the Mexican border, with mandatory vaccination for military personnel. 

With more than 10,000 men in camp, the only death from typhoid was that of a civilian 

teamster who had refused vaccination.1(p1430) With this evidence, vaccination for typhoid 

was made compulsory for the entire Army on September 30. Typhoid vaccination did 

not originate in the United States, but the US Army was the first to make vaccination a 

required prophylaxis against typhoid. n
46 | Armed Forces Institute of Patholo gy, 1862–2011

[Top] Major Russell (far right) vaccinating volunteers against typhoid during the experimental phase, circa 1910. (AMM 6093)

[Opposite] By 1917, with the United States about to enter World War I, typhoid vaccination scenes such as this were commonplace. (Reeve 36335)

48 | Armed Forces Institute of Patholo gy, 1862–2011

[Top] The yellow fever team. In addition to Major Reed, the most prominent members 

of the yellow fever board included (left) Dr Jesse Lazear of Johns Hopkins, who lost 

his life in the experiments; (middle) Dr Aristides Agramonte, a Cuban member of 

the board; and (right) Dr Juan Carlos Finlay, who assisted Reed during research and 

testing. Even in death, Lazear proved to be an instrumental member of the team. Following his passing, a small notebook containing entries on his experiments was found. 

Reed analyzed the notes and realized they furnished the clue to the secret of mosquito 

transmission of yellow fever— namely, that it was a matter of the timing of the bites. 

Subsequent experiments by Reed and others identified how many days a mosquito 

must have the illness before it could be successfully passed on by a bite. (MIS 61-6532-6; 

MIS 61-6532-16; Reeve 71133)

[Bottom] Expanded view of Camp Lazear, which demonstrates its distance from a 

populated area and shows the tents that housed both those running the experiments 

and the volunteers who took part in them. (Reeve 40732)
New Horizons, 1883–1918 | 49

So o n aft e r fi e l d wo r k was c o mp l e t e d on typhoid, 

Major Reed was sent to Cuba in June 1900, joining other doctors 

focused on identifying the specific agent of yellow fever, which had 

killed over 100,000 people in the United States from 1793 through 

1900. Reed relied heavily on Dr Juan Carlos Finlay, who had long 

been an advocate of the theory that yellow fever was transmitted by 

mosquitos.1(p118) The team’s biggest hurdle: humans were the only 

known animal subject to yellow fever. Permission was obtained 

to experiment on humans, which unfortunately resulted in four 

deaths, but provided support for the mosquito theory of yellow 

fever. More work was needed, and by November 1900, Reed had 

established Camp Lazear in Cuba, where tests of yellow fever transmission could be carried on under controlled conditions.

The distinguishing feature of Camp Lazear, located in a Havana 

suburb, was a pair of frame buildings located on opposite slopes 

of a small valley. One, the “Infected Mosquito Building,” was 

designed to test the mosquito theory; the other, the “Infected 

Clothing Building,” was designed to test the widely accepted theory 

of infection by contact with clothing, bedding, and other articles 

that had been in contact with yellow fever patients. By early 1901, 

through a series of highly controlled experiments using volunteers 

from both the US military and the Spanish immigrant population, Reed and the other investigators were able to prove that 

transmission by mosquito was the primary source of yellow fever, 

and that control of the mosquito population could significantly 

reduce the number of cases. At the same time, volunteers sleeping every night in the Infected Clothing Building—averaging 21 

nights amid the filthy garments—resulted in not one case of yellow fever, which put to rest beliefs that transmission was possible 

through such contact.1(pp125–128) While this pioneering research was 

vital in proving the disease’s method of transmission, it would be 

another quarter of a century before it was finally established that 

the infecting agent of yellow fever is not a visible “parasite” such as 

Reed sought, but a virus that had not yet been trapped by filters or 

revealed by microscopes.

Camp Lazear in the Havana suburbs, where yellow fever research 

was conducted. Pictured here is 

the “Infected Clothing Building,” 

where it was proved that yellow 

fever could not be caught by contact with clothing or bedding from 

those already infected. (Reeve 

40731-2)
50 | Armed Forces Institute of Patholo gy, 1862–2011

After 15 years of operation in the museum building, the Army Medical School moved in 1910 to rented quarters on Louisiana Avenue, SW. The school had originally occupied a 

mere two rooms in the museum when it opened in 1893, but as it grew it increasingly took over space that had been dedicated to exhibits. (Reeve 60542)
New Horizons, 1883–1918 | 51

[Top] Example of Lamb’s “Scheme of Classification for the Collections of the Army Medical Museum Surgeon General’s 

Office.” (Reproduced from: Shufeldt RW. On the classification adopted for the material constituting the collections of the 

Army Medical Museum of the Surgeon General’s Office at Washington. Medical Review of Reviews. 1918;24:12.)

[Botton] Dr Daniel Lamb, museum pathologist and custodian in the first 2 decades of the 20th century. Dr Lamb designed and instituted a new classification system for the museum’s specimens. Under his system, specimens illustrating 

any one disease were collected in one place, with a subarrangement organized according to the organ involved. Under 

this plan, it had been possible, for example, to select in a few minutes specimens to be loaned to a meeting on tuberculosis in Baltimore without having to search for specimens in multiple locations. Dr Lamb also urged the museum to 

begin directing as many resources to pathology as it was investing in bacteriology at the time. (MIS 57-13237)
52 | Armed Forces Institute of Patholo gy, 1862–2011
New Horizons, 1883–1918 | 53

[Opposite Left and Right | Top] Anatomical models and pathological specimens on exhibit in the early part of the 20th century. (Reeve 30538; Reeve 30535; Reeve 30325)

[Opposite | Inset] Major Eugene Whitmore, eighth curator of the Army Medical Museum, 1913–1915. Although praising the museum’s work in the field of bacteriology 

and immunology, Major Whitmore was critical of the ongoing shift away from the museum’s exhibit role. Under his leadership this mission was reenergized to present more 

focus on the collection, preparation, and exhibition of specimens illustrating medicine in all its branches.1(p150) (MIS 05-7110-1)
54 | Armed Forces Institute of Patholo gy, 1862–2011

[Opposite] Osteology exhibit on display just prior to World 

War I. (Woodward 3833)

[Bottom] Exhibit detailing the historical development of microscopes and surgical instruments, circa 1918. (Reeve 30537) 

[Opposite | Top Far Right] Colonel William Owen, tenth 

curator of the Army Medical Museum, 1916–1919. During 

his tenure, Colonel Owen pushed for construction of a new, 

175,000-square-foot building to house the museum and 

library on the south side of the Mall, between 41⁄2 and 6th 

Streets, SW. The plan was endorsed by more than a score 

of medical college deans and faculties, as well as top leaders 

in the medical profession. Preliminary plans for the building were approved by the city’s Fine Arts Commission. But 

in the middle of a war, with Army money, materials, and 

manpower in short supply, the timing was not good and the 

project joined many other deferred plans of the time. Colonel 

Owen also envisioned an expanded role in pathology for the 

museum, writing: “I do not believe that a mere collection 

of anatomical and pathological curiosities for exhibit to the 

curious and the prurient should be permitted. A medical 

museum should be, in my judgment, a great library of history 

and pathology, where the student of medicine may come and 

study the history of disease and its pathology, for the benefit 

of himself, his patients and his nation.”1(p165, 168) A conference 

room named for Colonel Owen exists in AFIP’s headquarters 

today. (MIS 05-6766-1)

[Opposite Top]Front elevation of Colonel Owen’s proposed 

Army Medical Museum and Library. (Reproduced from: 

Owen W. The Army Medical Museum. New York Medical 

Journal. 1918; June: 4.)

[Opposite Bottom] Bird’s eye view of the Mall, Washington, 

DC, as planned by the Fine Arts Commission. The arrow 

points to the site proposed for the Army Medical Museum 

and Library. (Reproduced from: Owen W. The Army Medical 

Museum. New York Medical Journal. 1918; June: 3.)
New Horizons, 1883–1918 | 55
56 | Armed Forces Institute of Patholo gy, 1862–2011

Du rin g Wo r l d War I m u s e u m s taff established the Instruction Laboratory to create 

educational materials for military service members and document medical aspects of the war 

through motion pictures, photography, illustrations, and cast models. Altogether, 137 films were 

produced and distributed for showing in camps and through civilian outlets. The films’ subjects 

ranged from diagnosis of tuberculosis to handling the wounded on the battlefield to training 

the new medical officer. In one case, drawings detailing every step in an operation were used to 

create an instructional film. The Instruction Laboratory’s most controversial production was a four-reeler called Fit to Fight, which dramatically focused on the 

moral, medical, and readiness issues related to venereal disease. Museum 

artists also created extensive illustrations for training camp lectures on 

medical topics. This attempt to add to the medical knowledge of 

officers and enlisted personnel through anatomical medical art 

helped make the Army of 1917–1918 the first in US history in 

which deaths from disease were fewer than those from 

battlefield casualties. Meanwhile, museum teams were 

deployed to Europe to accurately document medical 

aspects of the war, including making wax models of 

soldiers’ injuries. Eventually museum staff photographed, captioned, filed, and cross-indexed about 

10,000 still photographs and turned out some 40,000 

feet of motion-picture film showing medical and 

surgical activities at hospitals. In the same period the 

artists and modelers produced 35 casts of surgical 

subjects, about 200 drawings and paintings, and 

1,000 photographs of technical subjects.

References

1. Henry RS. The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; Its First Century, 1862–1962. Washington, DC: Office of the 

Surgeon General, Department of the Army; 1964.

2. Sternberg GM. A Manual of Bacteriology. New York, NY: Wood; 1892.

3. Rhode MG. The Army Medical Museum in World War I. Paper presented at: Annual Conference of the American 

Association for the History of Medicine; April 24, 2009; Cleveland, OH.

[Opposite] Art Department at the Army Medical 

Museum during World War 

I. (Reeve 309)

This slide warning about the 

dangers of alcohol was one of 

many produced by museum 

artist Sergeant Paul H Terry, 

who, upon his discharge after 

the war, originated the famous “Terrytoons,” which 

included the character 

Mighty Mouse. 

(MIS 06-03122)
New Horizons, 1883–1918 | 57
58 | Armed Forces Institute of Patholo gy, 1862–2011

[Top] Examples of lantern slides produced by the museum to warn of the 

dangers of promiscuous behaviors. (OHA 367: World War I Lantern Slide 

Training Sets)

[Bottom Right] Advertisement for one of the most controversial films 

produced by the museum during World War I. (Reeve 895)
New Horizons, 1883–1918 | 59

[Left] Staff of the Instruction Laboratory arrange motion picture film 

on drying racks inside their office space at the Army Medical Museum. 

(Reeve 492-B)

[Right] Instruction Laboratory personnel going through the painstaking task of cutting and polishing motion-picture film. (Reeve 491-B)
60 | Armed Forces Institute of Patholo gy, 1862–2011
New Horizons, 1883–1918 | 61

[Opposite Left] Much effort was expended to produce 

realistic models of medical problems during the war. 

Pictured here is (top) a trench foot model and (bottom) an 

X-ray burn of the chest; both produced by Captain James 

Frank Wallis, who led the museum’s modeling section. 

(M-550,10731; Reeve 36721)

[Opposite Right] Illustration of mustard gas burn by 

Brainerd. (OHA 229: Medical Art/Illustration Collection)

[Left] Nose reconstruction drawn by Lieutenant William 

Schwartz, who headed up the anatomical art service. (OHA 

229: Medical Art/Illustration Collection) 

[Right] Medical illustration by Summers of an unidentified 

operation. (OHA 229: Medical Art/Illustration Collection)
62 | Armed Forces Institute of Patholo gy, 1862–2011

[Top Left] Camp Mills in Long Island, 

New York, one of many camps that had a 

high rate of influenza cases. (OHA 308: 

Smith Scrapbook Flu #2) 

[Bottom Left] Eleanor Allen making wax 

models in France during the war. Allen had 

studied at the Chicago Art Institute and 

joined the museum staff in March 1918. 

(A022256 [formerly Reeve 17656], courtesy 

of National Library of Medicine)

Cross-section of trench foot. (Reeve 30610)
New Horizons, 1883–1918 | 63

[Top Right] Dr James Ewing, who was highly influential in collecting pathology specimens at camps during the war, 

including specimens from victims of the 1918 influenza epidemic. (NCP 1288)

World War I-era influenza-infected tissue on microscope slides (left) and in wax blocks (inset), which are still stored in 

AFIP’s massive Tissue Repository. Some of these specimens were used in 2005 by AFIP scientist Jeffrey Taubenberger to 

investigate the disease. (NCP 4198; NCP 17029)
“As World War I came to a close, the Army Medical 

Museum—already incorporating a progressive vision and 

performing leading-edge medical research—was poised for 

a long transition leading to the development of an institute 

of pathology.”