English
ankle-bones (gul/phau in the dual number)*; 1 Ts it likely that the word Caraka (literally, a wanderer) had anything to do with the itinerant character of Caraka’s profession as a medical practitioner? 2 Hymns Il. 33 and x. 2 are particularly important in this connection. 3 Caraka also counts one parsmi for each foot. Hoernle (Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, p. 128) remarks on the fact, that Caraka means the backward and downward projections of the os calcis, that is, that portion of it which can be superficially seen and felt, and is popularly known as the heel. The same may be the case with the Atharva-Veda. Suégruta probably knew the real nature of it as a cluster (kurca); for in Sarira-sthana v1 he speaks of the astragalus as Riirca-Ssiras, or head of the cluster, but he counts the parsni separately. Hoernle suggests that by parsnt Sugruta meant the os calcis, and probably did not think that it was a member of the tarsal cluster (karca). It is curious that Vagbhata I makes a strange confusion by attributing one pdrsni to each hand (Astanga-samgraha, 11. 5; also Hoernle, pp. 91-96). 4 Gulpha means the distal processes of the two bones of the leg, known as the malleoli. As counted by Caraka and also by Susruta, there are four gulphas. See Hoernle’s comment on Susruta’s division, Hoernle, pp. 81, 82, 102-104. Sugruta, Ill. Vv. 19, has “‘ tala-kiirca-gulpha-samsritani dasa,” which Dalhana explains as tala (5 salakas and the one bone to which they are attached)—6 bones, kiirca—z bones, gulpha—z bones. Hoernle misinterpreted Dalhana, and, supposing that he spoke of two kircas and two gulphas in the same leg, pointed out a number of incon- sistencies and suggested a different reading of the Susruta text. His translation of valaya as “‘ornament”’ in this connection is also hardly correct; valaya prob- ably means ‘‘circular.’’ Following Dalhana, it is possible that the interpretation is that there are two bones in one cluster (kirca) in each leg, and the two bones form one circular bone (valaydsthi) of one gulpha for each leg. If this is accepted, much of what Hoernle has said on the point loses its value and becomes hyper- critical. There are two gulphas, or one in each leg, according as the constituent pieces, or the one whole valaydsthi, is referred to. On my interpretation Sugruta xi] Bones in the Atharva-Veda and Ayur-veda 285 3. digits (arigulayah in the plural number)!; 4. metacarpal and metatarsal bones (ucchlankhau in the dual number, i.e. of the hands and feet)?; 5. base (pratistha) ; 6. the knee-caps (asthivantau in the dual)*; 7. the knee-joints (janunoh sandhi)®; 8. the shanks (janghe in the dual)*; 9. the pelvic cavity (Soni in the dual)’; 10. the thigh bones (#r# in the dual)§; 11. the breast bones knew of only two bones as forming the kérca, and there is no passage in Susruta to show that he knew of more. The os calcis would be the parsni, the astragalus, the kiirca-siras, the two malleoli bones and the two gulpha bones. * Both Caraka and Susruta count sixty of these phalanges (pdni-padanguli) , whereas their actual number is fifty-six only. 2 Caraka counts these metacarpal and metatarsal bones (pani-pdda-salakd) as twenty, the actual number. Susruta collects them under tala, a special term used by him. His combined tala-kiirca-gulpha includes all the bones of the hand and foot excluding the anguli bones (phalanges). 3 Caraka uses the term pani-pdda-salakadhisthana, Yajiiavalkya, sthana, and Susruta, kirca. Caraka seems to count it as one bone. Karca means a network of (1) flesh (ma@msa), (2) sird, (3) sndyu, (4) bones (mamsa-sird-snayv-asthi-jalani). All these four kinds of network exist in the two joints of the hands and feet. * Hoernle remarks that in the Atharva-Veda asthivat and janu are synony- mous; but the text, x. 2. 2, seems clearly to enumerate them separately. The asthivat is probably the patella bone. Caraka uses the terms jdnu and kapdlikd, probably for the knee-cap (patella) and the elbow pan (kapalikad). Kapalika means a small shallow basin, and this analogy suits the construction of the elbow pan. Susruta uses the term kiirpara (elbow pan), not in the ordinary list of bones in Sdriva, v. 19, but at the time of counting the marma in ibid. v1. 25. 5 This seems to be different from asthivat (patella). 6 The tibia and the fibula in the leg. Caraka, Bhela, Sugruta and Vagbhata I describe this organ rightly as consisting of two bones. The Atharva-Veda justly describes the figure made by them as being a fourfold frame having its ends closely connected together (catustayam yujyate samhitantam). 'The corresponding two bones of the fore-arm (avatni)—radius and ulna—are correctly counted by Caraka. Curiously enough, SuSruta does not refer to them in the bone-list. The bahu is not enumerated in this connection. ? Caraka speaks of two bones in the pelvic cavity, viz. the os innominatum on both sides. Modern anatomists think that each os innominatum is composed of three different bones: ilium, the upper portion, ischium, the lower part, and the pubis, the portion joined to the other innominate bone. The ilium and ischium, however, though they are two bones in the body of an infant, become fused together as one bone in adult life, and from this point of view the counting of ilium and ischium as one bone is justifiable. In addition to these a separate bhagasthi is counted by Caraka. He probably considered (as Hoernle suggests) the sacrum and coccyx to be one bone which formed a part of the vertebral column. By bhagasthi he probably meant the pubic bone; for Cakrapani, commenting upon bhagasthi, describes it as ‘‘ abhimukham kati-sandhana-karakam tiryag-asthi”’ (the cross bone which binds together the haunch bones in front). Susruta, however, counts five bones: four in the guda, bhaga, nitamba and one in the trika. Nitamba corresponds to the two sroni-phalaka of Caraka, bhaga to the bhagastht, or pubic bone, guda to the coccyx and trika to the triangular bone sacrum. Susruta’s main difference from Caraka is this, that, while the latter counts the sacrum and coccyx as one bone forming part of the vertebral column, the former considers them as two bones and as separate from the vertebral column. Vagbhata takes trika and guda as one bone, but separates it from the vertebral column. 8 Caraka, Susgruta and Vagbhata I count it correctly as one bone in each leg. Caraka calls it aru-nalaka. 286 Speculations in the Medical Schools [cH. (uras)} ; 12.the windpipe(grivah in the plural)? ; 13.the breast (stanau in the dual); 14. the shoulder-blade (kaphodau in the dual)*; 15. the shoulder-bones (skandhan in the plural)®; 16, the backbone (prstih 1 Caraka counts fourteen bones in the breast. Indian anatomists counted cartilages as new bones (taruna asthi). There are altogether ten costal cartilages on either side of the sternum. But the eighth, ninth and tenth cartilages are attached to the seventh. So, if the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth cartilages are considered as a single bone, there are altogether seven bones on either side of the sternum. This gives us the total number of fourteen which Caraka counts. The sternum was not counted by Caraka separately. With him this was the result of the continuation of the costal cartilages attached to one another without a break. Sugruta and Vagbhata I curiously count eight bones in the breast, and this can hardly be accounted for. Hoernle’s fancied restoration of the ten of Suégruta does not appear to be proved. Yajfiavalkya, however, counts seventeen, i.e. adds the sternum and the eighth costal cartilage on either side to Caraka’s fourteen bones, which included these three. Hoernle supposes that YAjfia- valkya’s number was the real reading in Susruta; but his argument is hardly convincing. 2 The windpipe is composed of four parts, viz. larynx, trachea, and two bronchi. It is again not a bone, but a cartilage; but it is yet counted as a bone by the Indian anatomists, e.g. Caraka calls it “jatru”’ and Susruta “‘ kantha- nadi.”’ Hoernle has successfully shown that the word jatru was used in medical books as synonymous with windpipe or neck generally. Hoernle says that originally the word denoted cartilaginous portions of the neck and breast (the windpipe and the costal cartilages), as we read in the Satapatha-brahmana: “tasmad ima ubhayatra parsavo baddhah kikasdsu ca jatrusu”’ (the ribs are fastened at either end, exteriorly to the thoracic vertebrae and interiorly to the costal cartilages—jairu). In medical works it means the cartilaginous portion of the neck, i.e. the windpipe (Caraka), and hence is applied either to the neck generally or to the sterno-clavicular articulation at the base of the neck (Susruta). It is only as late as the sixth or seventh century A.D. that, owing to a misinter- pretation of the anatomical terms sandhi and amsa, it was made to mean clavicle. See Hoernle’s Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, p. 168. 3 “ Parsvayos catur-vimsatih parsvayos taévanti caiva sthalakani tavanti caiva sthalakadrbudani,” i.e. there are twenty-four bones in the parsva (ribs), twenty- four sthdlakas (sockets), and twenty-four sthalakadrbudas (tubercles). Susruta speaks of there being thirty-six ribs on either side. A rib consists of a shaft and a head; “‘at the point of junction of these two parts there is a tubercle which articulates with the transverse process of corresponding vertebrae, and probably this tubercle is arbuda.’? There are, no doubt, twenty-four ribs. The sthdlakas and arbudas cannot properly be counted as separate bones; but, even if they are counted, the total number ought to be 68 bones, as Hoernle points out, and not 72, since the two lowest have no tubercles. ‘ Kaphoda probably means scapula or shoulder-blade. Caraka uses the word amsa-phalaka.