Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c7.s1.t6: § 52. Ankles and Wrists
Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c7.s1.t6
- Language
- English
§ 52. Ankles and Wrists
c7.s1.t6.1
Maṇika or maṇibandha, wrist-bone, and gulpha, ankle-bone. See Figs. 6 and 7. In literary Sanskrit these terms denote the wrist-joint and ankle-joint respectively; but as anatomical terms they signify more precisely the wrist-bones and ankle-bones, that is, the distal processes of the two bones of the forearm and leg which are known respectively as the styloid processes and the malleoli. By the ancient Indian anatomists, according to their peculiar method (§ 44, cl. 3), they are reckoned as separate bones; but while Ātreya counts them all singly, and thus in the list, reported by Charaka (§ 7), enumerates four wrist-bones and four ankle-bones, Suśruta counts them by pairs, and thus in his list (§ 34), has only two wrist-bones and two ankle-bones, one in each forearm, and one in each leg. The Traditional Recension, of the list of Charaka (§ 4), it is true, counts only two wrist-bones; but it has been shown in §§ 6 and 25 (p. 67) that the original and genuine list (§ 7) must have contained four wrist-bones. On the other hand, the Traditional Recension of Suśruta’s list (§ 27) gives four wrist-bones and four ankle-bones. This, as shown in §§ 31, 41, is also an error, due to the influence of Vāgbhaṭa I (§ 37), who, in pursuance of his aim of combining and harmonizing the two systems of Charaka and Suśruta, adopted Charaka’s way of counting the wrist-bones and ankle-bones.
c7.s1.t6.2
2. The truth regarding the way in which Suśruta contemplated the styloid processes and malleoli is clearly brought out by the term valaya, wristlet or anklet, which he applies to them (§ 30). It is obvious from this comparison that he looked upon each pair of styloid processes and malleoli as forming but a single composite bone encircling the lower part of the forearm, or leg, like a wristlet, or anklet (see Fig. 2, p. 80). It must be admitted that this is a rather fanciful way of treating those organs. At the same time, it is quite consistent with Suśruta’s methods; he treats the carpus and tarsus in exactly the same way. For him both are single, composite bones, or clusters (kūrca) as he calls them (§ 49). For the purpose of enumeration in the list of bones, the clusters, though consisting of a number of small bones, are reckoned each as a single bone, or—it would be better to say—as a single system of bones. Similarly, the pairs of styloid processes and malleoli are counted, in the list, each as a single bone, or rather as a single system of bones.