Moles, birthmarks and red hair: the anatomical features used to accuse women of witchcraft in the 17th century

Throughout accounts of 17th-century witch trials in Europe and North America, physical features alone were considered undeniable proof of witchcraft. The belief was that the devil branded witches’ bodies with symbolic, material marks – such as unusual growths or blemishes. This led to routine bodily inspections in witch trials. The discovery of such marks was thought to be strong medical and scientific evidence of witchcraft and frequently sealed the victim’s fate.

Here are just some of the anatomical features that historically would have been used to label someone a witch:

Are you a woman?

While men were occasionally accused of witchcraft, historical witch hunts overwhelmingly targeted women – particularly women who led an independent lifestyle (such as widows and spinsters) or who were outspoken and didn’t conform to societal norms. Historians estimate that more than 75% of those accused of witchcraft in the 16th and 17th centuries were female.

Religious teachings at the time reinforced the idea that women were morally weaker and therefore more susceptible to temptation and sin.

By this standard, if you identify as female today, you are one of approximately 3.95 billion potential “witches”.

How old are you?

Age was another factor in witch trials. Older women, especially those past childbearing age, were frequently suspected of witchcraft – particularly if they were a widow, owned property or lived alone.

Records suggest that more than half of those accused of witchcraft in Scotland between 1563-1736 were over 40 years old. At this time, the average life expectancy was around 32 years of age.

Today, with around 1.4 billion women globally over 40, many more might have found themselves under similar suspicion by historical standards.

Do you have an extra nipple?

The “witch’s teat” was a common trait witch-hunters used to identify someone as being a witch. This extra nipple was thought to be used by witches to nurse so-called demonic familiars – often imagined to be small animals or imps. Witch-hunters would examine the chest or torso for any irregularity and classify it as a witch’s teat.

In reality, supernumerary nipples (or polythelia) are benign. These form during early embryonic development and in some people do not fully disappear.

Another feature sometimes mistaken for a supernumerary teat was the clitoris. Historical accounts suggest that women were sometimes convicted based on the size of this body part. Pamphlets from the time, which describe the process of identifying a “witches’ teat,” often mention a small protrusion located near a woman’s “fundament” or “privy place” – euphemisms for a woman’s genitals.

It’s estimated that around 5% of the world’s population have at least one extra nipple. They appear more often on the left-hand side of the chest and are more common in men. Harry Styles, who has openly discussed having four nipples, would perhaps have been far less inclined to share this detail about himself in the 17th century.

Do you have a birthmark?

Any type of birthmark or skin discolouration could be labelled as a “devil’s mark” in the 17th century. Matthew Hopkins, the infamous “witchfinder general”, considered any unusual spot, freckle or birthmark a sign of a pact with the devil. Witch-hunters would often prick these marks with pins, believing that a true devil’s mark would not bleed or cause pain.

Around 80% of people today are born with some form of birthmark – making it a surprisingly common trait for so-called witches.

Pigmented birthmarks, such as moles or café au lait spots (flat, light-coloured birthmarks) result from clusters of pigmented cells that form during development. Vascular types, such as port wine stains (which are flat and red or purple in colour), are due to malformations in tiny blood vessels near the surface of the skin. Port wine stain birthmarks appear in only about 0.3% of children – but are twice as likely to occur in girls.

Do you have a mole or skin tag?

Moles and skin tags were also seen as possible devil’s marks. Witch-hunters would also test moles by attempting to cut or prick them. Like with birthmarks, if they didn’t bleed it meant that the person was thought to be a witch.

Today, we know that moles are simply clusters of pigmented cells, while skin tags are small, harmless growths that form when the skin rubs against itself. Yet in the 17th century, these innocent marks spelled disaster.

Do you have an extra digit?

Polydactyly, or having an extra finger or toe, was another rare but suspicious trait. An extra digit was seen as a supernatural deviation – alleged to enhance a witch’s powers as a “gift” from the devil.

In reality, polydactyly is a harmless genetic mutation – affecting about one in every 500-1,000 births. But in the past, this rare trait placed those who had it under scrutiny in witch-hunting societies.

Do you have red hair?

Red hair, an unusual trait, was considered ominous in certain regions – especially Europe. Some theories suggest that red hair’s rarity and association with a fiery temperament or pagan ancestry contributed to its stigmatisation. The notorious Malleus Maleficarum (“Hammer of Witches”), the 1468 treatise about witchcraft, warned of redheads as potential witches, linking them to “tempting powers” and “wild spirits”.

Today, less than 2% of the global population has red hair – though around 6% of people carry some red hair genetics. But in the 17th century, this uncommon trait may have increased suspicion that someone was a witch.

So, are you a witch?

If you have none of these traits, you would probably have been safe from early modern witch-hunters. But if you had at least one of these anatomical features, you may have had suspicions levelled against you.

Fortunately, all UK Witchcraft Acts were repealed in 1951 – which means these common features are now just anatomical quirks and nothing more.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.