Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c7.s3.t6.8

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;