Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c7.s3.t6: § 66. Continuation: Malar and Nasal Bones, Superciliary Ridges

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c7.s3.t6

Language
English

§ 66. Continuation: Malar and Nasal Bones, Superciliary Ridges

c7.s3.t6.1

1. Nāsā or nāsikā, nose, nasal bone; gaṇḍa, cheek, cheek-bone, malar bone; gaṇḍa-kūṭa, or hanu-kūṭa, malar prominence; lalāṭa, brow or superciliary ridge; kakāṭikā, denoting the combined nasal and malar bones. The last term is peculiar to the Atharva Veda. The term lalāṭa is only found in the several versions of the system of Atreya (§§ 4, 12, 16), and in the Atharva Veda (§ 43). The term hanu-kūṭa is peculiar to the list of Bheḍa (§ 12); Charaka prefers the term gaṇḍa-kūṭa, and Suśruta, its shorter alternative gaṇḍa.

c7.s3.t6.2

2. Beside the two maxillary bones which have been discussed in the preceding paragraph, and the palatal bones which will be discussed in the next paragraph, the face of the skeleton (Fig. 32) comprises the following bones: two malar, two nasal, two lachrymal, two inferior turbinated, and one vomer. Of these bones the five last-mentioned are very small, and lie in the interior of the skull. It cannot, therefore, surprise us that they escaped the observation of the ancient Indian anatomists. The only bones which, forming a portion of the external skull, came under their notice, are the malar and nasal bones of the cheek (gaṇḍa) and nose (nāsā or nāsikā) respectively. But regarding the nature of these bones, and, in fact (as already stated in § 65, cl. 1), regarding the structure of the face generally, the opinions of Ātreya-Charaka and Suśruta differ very considerably. It is on this point that the two systems show one of their two most striking divergences (for the other see § 59, cl. 3).

c7.s3.t6.3

3. In the systems of Ātreya-Charaka (§ 4) those four bones, the two malar (gaṇḍa-kūṭa) and the two nasal (nāsikā), are considered as forming, together with the two superciliary ridges, or brows (lalāṭa), a single continuous central bone which lies across the middle of the face of the skull, bounded by the frontal bone above, the alveolar process of the superior maxillary below, and the two temporal bones on either side. The configuration of this central bone, and its position in the face, are indicated by dotted

c7.s3.t6.4

FIG. 32. ANTERIOR VIEW OF SKULL. Showing, within dotted lines, the central facial bone (K, L, M, N).

c7.s3.t6.5

Fr. = Frontal bone P. = Parietal bone } Śiraḥ-kapāla. S. = Sphenoid bone T. = Temporal bone, Śaṅkhaka. L. = Superciliary ridges, Lalāṭa. N. = Nasal bones, Nāsikā. M. = Malar bones, Gaṇḍa-kūṭa. K. = Body of superior maxillary, Kakāṭikā. A. = Alveolar process, dant-olūkhala.

c7.s3.t6.6

lines in Fig. 32. It will be seen from it that the central facial bone must include also the ‘body’ of the superior maxillary, which appears to have been looked upon as forming a continuous whole with the contiguous cheek or malar bones (gaṇḍa, or *gaṇḍa-kūṭa*). A more experienced anatomist, such as Suśruta was, could not fail to see that what was supposed to be an undivided central bone was in reality a very composite structure, made up partly of a number of separate small bones, partly of portions of the bones contiguous to the hypothetical central bone. The former are the two malar bones and the two nasal bones, which accordingly Suśruta counted separately in his list (§ 27). The latter are (1) the superciliary ridges which form merely two prominent portions of the frontal bone, and (2) the lower part of the hypothetical central bone which forms really the ‘body’ of the superior maxillary. Consequently Suśruta altogether omitted the two superciliary ridges, or brows (*lalāṭa*), from his list, while he included (as shown in § 65) the lower part of the central bone in one—the upper—of his two jaw-bones (*hanu*). With regard to the nose, including its cartilaginous portion, Suśruta counted three bones. In accordance with his homological principle, he took the two nasal bones as constituting a single bone in the median line, and added the two lateral cartilages of the external nostrils. That he included the latter is proved by the fact of his enumerating the nose (*ghrāṇa*) among the tender bones (*taruṇa*): see the class-list of the bones in § 30.

c7.s3.t6.7

4. As to Vāgbhaṭa I, he follows his usual practice of compromise. With Suśruta he holds the separate existence of two nasal, two malar, and two maxillary bones, and with Ātreya-Charaka the separate existence of the superior alveolar process. In the main, therefore, his system agrees with the system of Suśruta, the only difference being that (as already pointed out in § 65, cl. 5) he divides the superior maxillary horizontally into two separate bones, an upper and a lower, the upper being the ‘body’ (*hanu-bandhana*), and the lower the alveolar process (*dant-olūkhala*), that is, K and A in Fig. 32. It is a difference which indicates a distinct decadence in anatomical knowledge.

c7.s3.t6.8

5. Ātreya-Charaka’s hypothesis of a single, undivided central bone, as reported by Charaka (§ 4), though erroneous, has at least the merit of presenting a consistent view of the structure of the face. In itself, the traditional text of Bheḍa’s report (§ 12) of that hypothesis need not necessarily involve an inconsistency. It makes Ātreya hold three central bones, constituting the nose, the cheeks, and the brows respectively. On referring to Fig. 32, it will be seen that the nasal bones might easily be taken to form a single bone; and the two superciliary ridges, irrespective of the metopic suture, do form a single bone (of the brow, lalāṭa). With respect to the two malar bones (including the ‘body’ of the superior maxillary) there would be some difficulty by reason of the nasal aperture; still, the extension of the bones downwards being undefined, they might, at a pinch, be taken to constitute a single bone. But, as has been shown in § 13, cl. 4, Bheḍa’s account of the system of Ātreya cannot be correct, because it works out the incorrect total 362, instead of 360. It is probable, therefore, that the traditional text of that account is corrupted, and that the genuine list of Bheḍa agreed with that of Charaka in counting a single undivided central bone of the face. In confirmation of this view the curious fact should be noted that the traditional text of the list of Bheḍa substitutes the term hanu-kūṭa, lit. prominence of the jaw, for the term gaṇḍa-kūṭa, prominence of the cheek, in order to indicate the malar bone. It has been pointed out above that in Ātreya’s view of the structure of the face the ‘body’ of the superior maxillary forms an extension of the malar bones. Hence, in itself, the malar prominence might be correctly described by either of the two terms, gaṇḍa-kūṭa, prominence of the cheek, or hanu-kūṭa, prominence of the (upper) jaw. But the difficulty is that the system of Ātreya knows no more than one hanu, and that that hanu is the inferior maxillary (see § 65), while the term hanu-kūṭa would introduce a reference to the superior maxillary, and thus be inconsistent with the system of Ātreya. For this reason it is practically certain that the word hanu-kūṭa in the traditional text of Bheḍa is a false reading for gaṇḍa-kūṭa. The case of the Non-medical Version of the system of Ātreya is still more unsatisfactory. That version counts four central bones in the place of the single central bone of Charaka; viz. one each for the nose, brows, cheeks, and eyes (§ 16, also § 17, cl. 4). Referring again to Figure 32, it may be seen that that count represents an impossible view of the structure of the face. The brows, or superciliary ridges, as above explained, do, indeed, form a single bone; so might the two nasal bones, and the two malar bones;

c7.s3.t6.9

but how the two eyes (or eyeballs) should form but a single bone is not conceivable. This only proves how little the system of Atreya was understood by the author of the Non-medical Version, and how deficient was his knowledge of anatomy—a circumstance, however, hardly surprising in a writer who was not an expert in medicine but in law.

c7.s3.t6.10

6. The system presented in the Atharva Veda (§ 43) agrees in the main with that of Ātreya-Charaka. The central facial bone of the latter system appears in the Atharva Veda divided into two portions, an upper and a lower. The upper portion consists of the two superciliary ridges, and is called lalāṭa, or the brow. The lower portion comprises the body of the superior maxillary together with the malar and nasal bones, and is called kakāṭikā.

Linked texts (1)