————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Transcriber’s note:
No major corrections have been made in the text, except
a few to have consistency in spelling and hyphenations.
Captions have been added to the portraits of dentists for
clarity.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF
[Illustration: The National Dental Association’s mark.]
THE NATIONAL DENTAL ASSOCIATION
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A
HISTORY OF DENTISTRY
FROM THE MOST ANCIENT TIMES
UNTIL THE END OF THE
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
BY
DR. VINCENZO GUERINI, CAV. UFF.
SURGEON-DENTIST, NAPLES, ITALY; DENTIST BY APPOINTMENT
TO THE ROYAL HOUSE; DENTIST OF THE SURGICAL CLINIC OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES; EDITOR OF THE ITALIAN REVIEW
L’ODONTO-STOMATOLOGIA; AUTHOR OF MANY ODONTOLOGICAL
WORKS; HONORARY PRESIDENT AD VITAM OF THE ITALIAN
ODONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY; MEMBER OF THE ITALIAN SOCIETY OF
SCIENTISTS, LITERARY MEN, AND ARTISTS; OFFICER OF THE
ORDER OF THE CROWN OF ITALY; DOCTOR OF DENTAL SURGERY
AD HONOREM OF THE CHICAGO COLLEGE OF DENTAL SURGERY;
HONORARY MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL DENTAL ASSOCIATION,
U.S.A.; MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE FEDERATION
DENTAIRE INTERNATIONALE; TITULAR MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY OF
THE PARIS DENTAL SCHOOL AND DISPENSARY; HONORARY MEMBER
OF THE ODONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF MALAGA, ETC.
With 104 Engravings and 20 Plates
[Illustration: Printer’s mark.]
LEA & FEBIGER
PHILADELPHIA AND NEW YORK
1909
COPYRIGHT, 1909
BY THE
NATIONAL DENTAL ASSOCIATION OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PREFACE.
The idea of writing a History of Dentistry first suggested itself to me
ten years ago, when I was charged by the Organizing Committee of the
Eleventh International Congress of Medicine with the reproduction and
description of all the appliances of ancient dental prosthesis existing
in the museums of Italy.
The highly interesting researches in which I then became engaged in
order to carry out worthily the important mission intrusted to me,
awoke in me the desire to gain still further acquaintance with all
that relates to dental art in the time of the ancients. I was thus
urged on to ever fresh efforts, not only in the discovery of prosthetic
appliances and other objects of ancient dentistry, but in the study,
as well, of dental literature and of all the written matter that might
throw light on dentistry in past ages.
This subject has already occupied many before me, and each one has
brought to it his contribution of greater or less value, some in the
form of short pamphlets, others in that of larger works.
The end I proposed to myself was to write a History of Dentistry which
should be much more complete, more circumstantial, and more exact than
those published hitherto, and which, instead of being, as are many of
these works, simply a compilation, should represent, at least in part,
the fruits of personal research and scrupulous examination of a vast
number of works of various kinds containing elements utilizable for the
purpose.
The first part of my work, which I now offer to the public, comprises
the remote origin of Dentistry and its development throughout the ages
as far as the end of the eighteenth century. In a short time I hope to
publish the second part of it, viz., the History of Dentistry during
the last hundred years.
I have carefully collected the greatest possible number of historical
data, keeping in view the consideration that some facts, although of
little value in themselves, may possess a certain importance for the
student desirous of procuring historical information relating to some
particular point of dental science.
If this book should, as I hope it may, contribute to the diffusion of
exact historical knowledge as to the origin and gradual development of
dentistry, my labor will not have been lost, for it will have realized
the object, a highly practical one, which has guided me in writing it.
VINCENZO GUERINI.
CONTENTS.
PART I.
FIRST PERIOD—ANTIQUITY.
CHAPTER I.
DENTAL ART AMONG THE EGYPTIANS 19
CHAPTER II.
THE HEBREWS 32
CHAPTER III.
DENTISTRY AMONG THE CHINESE 34
CHAPTER IV.
CUSTOMS RELATING TO THE TEETH AMONG DIFFERENT PRIMITIVE PEOPLES 42
CHAPTER V.
THE GREEKS 45
CHAPTER VI.
DENTAL ART AMONG THE ETRUSCANS 67
CHAPTER VII.
THE ROMANS 77
PART II.
SECOND PERIOD—THE MIDDLE AGES.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE ARABIANS 121
CHAPTER IX.
THIRTEENTH TO FIFTEENTH CENTURIES 140
PART III.
THIRD PERIOD—MODERN TIMES.
CHAPTER X.
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY 161
CHAPTER XI.
THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 218
CHAPTER XII.
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 255
INTRODUCTION.
Every dentist who has ever given any thought to the development of his
profession must have realized the growing necessity for an accessible
and authoritative history of the dental art. The early efforts in
this direction by Duval, Fitch, Carabelli, Snell, Linderer, Harris,
and others, followed in this country by the more recent essays of
Perine, Dexter, and Cigrand, are out of print and difficult to obtain.
The _Geschichte der Zahnheilkunde_, by Geist-Jacobi, and _Notice
sur l’Histoire de l’Art Dentaire_, by Lemerle, have given to the
practitioners of Germany and France valuable information which the
English-speaking dentist has often sadly lacked.
Realizing this situation, at the first meeting of the National Dental
Association, the late Dr. R. Finley Hunt offered the resolution: “That
a Committee of Three be appointed by the President to report at the
next annual meeting a measure looking to the preparation of a _full
history_ of the Dental Profession.” After a careful consideration of
the subject, this committee reluctantly concluded that, “whereas a
complete history of dentistry may some day be the result of the effort
now being made, this Association must confine its first attempts to
the history of dentistry in America.” In a letter to the committee
the late Dr. W. D. Miller said: “Of course, a universal history of
dentistry would be very interesting and valuable, but its compilation
would naturally cost an immense amount of labor.” Aside from this, it
did not seem possible that the data for a proper history of the early
development of the dental art in Africa and Europe could be collected
by an association working in America.
After several years of what may have seemed a policy of masterly
inactivity the unexpected happened, and the committee was able to
report at the Buffalo meeting of the Association that Dr. Vincenzo
Guerini, of Naples, Italy, had written a history of dentistry from
the earliest times to the beginning of the nineteenth century, and
that this work, translated into English and fully revised, had been
generously placed in the hands of the committee for publication under
the auspices of the National Dental Association, in token of the
distinguished author’s appreciation of American dental development.
The Association, deeply sensible of this high compliment, and fully
realizing this opportunity for accomplishing a purpose which had
hitherto seemed impossible, gladly arranged for the publication of
the book. After the delay incidental to the production of a work of
this character, and the necessary subscribers being obtained, this
exhaustive history of early dentistry, by the greatest authority on
that subject in the world, is presented for the serious consideration
of the thoughtful and studious members of the profession.
Dr. Guerini has spent many years of his professional life and large
amounts of money in collecting the material for this work. Our
historical records are scattered through a vast literature, and much
of it is of great antiquity, and it has never before been gathered
together and arranged in such a consecutive, logical order.
The importance and value of dental art and science as a humane service
are well recognized, but we are so accustomed to view the question from
the modern standpoint that we, generally speaking, overlook the immense
work done by our predecessors reaching far back in unbroken line to the
mists of antiquity. It was they who laid the foundations upon which
modern dentistry has been built, and no man can peruse the record of
their efforts as set forth in Dr. Guerini’s book without developing a
higher appreciation of their work and a keener realization of the worth
and dignity of the calling which they in common with ourselves followed.
It has been deemed wise to make a few amendments and commentaries, and
when that has been done the amendment has in each case been inserted as
a foot-note and designated by the initials of the commentator.
The supervision of the work while passing through the press and the
correction of proofs have been entrusted to Dr. Edward C. Kirk, of the
Committee; the index has been prepared by the chairman.
CHARLES MCMANUS, D.D.S.,
_Chairman of Committee on History of Dentistry,
National Dental Association, U. S. A._
A HISTORY OF DENTISTRY.
PART I.
FIRST PERIOD—ANTIQUITY.
INTRODUCTION.
The first beginnings of dental art were undoubtedly the same as those
of general medicine, for it is evident that in primitive times, when
the healing art was still in its rudimentary stage, no divisions could
have existed in it.
Scientific medicine, whose most ancient representative is Hippocrates,
was preceded for the course of many centuries by sacerdotal medicine
and by popular medicine.
Necessity, instinct, and even mere chance must have taught primitive
man some simple curative practices, in the same manner that they taught
him gradually to prepare his food and to satisfy the other wants of
life. It was in this way that popular medicine, which is found without
exception among all races and is perhaps as ancient as man himself, had
its earliest beginning.
As regards sacerdotal medicine, it was principally derived from the
false ideas prevalent among primitive peoples about the causes of
maladies. When, for example, an individual in full health was seized
with sudden illness, no one could imagine, in those times of profound
ignorance, that this happened in a natural manner; the fact was
therefore attributed to a supernatural cause, that is, to his having
been stricken by the wrath of some divinity. In this state of things
it was believed to be absolutely necessary to propitiate the inimical
or vengeful divinity, so that the patient might be restored to health.
It was, therefore, very natural that the intervention of sacerdotal
aid should be sought, that is, of the supposed intermediaries between
human beings and the gods. The priests, on their side, were ready to
occupy themselves with such cases, for their services were always well
recompensed, and, added to this, if the patient recovered, the respect
and veneration of the people for the sacerdotal caste was considerably
increased, whilst if he did not, this simply meant that he or his
family was not worthy of receiving the desired pardon, or that, anyhow,
the Divinity, for good reasons of his own, would not grant it.
However, it being to the interest of the priests to obtain the greatest
possible number of cures, they did not limit themselves merely to
offering up prayers and sacrifices and to imposing on the patients the
purification of themselves and other religious exercises; they also
put into practice—always to the accompaniment of ritualistic words and
ceremonies—the means of cure which their own experience and that of
others suggested to them. The art of healing the sick was transmitted
from generation to generation in the sacerdotal caste, acquiring an
ever greater development and complexity in proportion to the making of
new observations and fresh experiences. It is to be understood that in
this manner the priests became more and more skilful in the treatment
of disease; they were really the doctors of those times, albeit their
curative practices were mixed up with an ample dose of imposture. This,
at least in many cases, must have had, besides, the advantage of acting
favorably on the patients by means of suggestion.
We learn from Herodotus that the Babylonians used to carry the sick
into the public squares; the passers-by were expected to make inquiries
as to their illnesses, and if it so happened that they or any of their
acquaintances had been similarly afflicted, to come to the aid of
the patient by offering their advice and making known the means of
treatment that had effected recovery, exhorting him, at the same time,
to have recourse to them.
This usage had without doubt its advantages, as it must have led,
little by little, to the recognition of such remedies as were most
efficacious, among all those recommended, against the various maladies.
Another custom that served to furnish useful elements for the
development of the art of medicine was that of the votive tables, hung
in the temples by patients after their recovery, in sign of gratitude
for having received the invoked blessings. These tables contained a
brief description of the malady and of the treatment that had proved
useful in dispelling it. If we reflect that dental affections are often
of long duration and very tormenting, the thought naturally suggests
itself that among the votive tables not a few must have referred to
maladies of the teeth.
The numberless cases recorded by votive tables afforded precious
clinical material, which without doubt was utilized in a great measure
by the priests in compiling the earliest medical writings, and, as we
shall see later, Hippocrates himself stored up all the medical records
existing in the celebrated temple of Cos.
[Illustration: _Introduction of Ebers’ Papyrus, transcribed in Egyptian
hieroglyphic characters._]
CHAPTER I.
DENTAL ART AMONG THE EGYPTIANS.
Among the people of ancient times, the Egyptian nation was, without
doubt, the one in which civilization first took its rise and had its
earliest development. From the time of Menes, first King of Egypt (3892
B.C.), the inhabitants of the valley of the Nile were well advanced on
the path of civilization, and under the fourth dynasty, dating from
3427 years before the Christian era, they had already attained a high
degree of progress.
Medical art and science in every country have always progressed in
proportion to the general civilization, for the treatment of disease is
one of the first and most important manifestations of civilized life.
It is therefore natural that the healing art should have flourished
earlier in Egypt than elsewhere, that is, in the midst of the oldest
civilized people.
There, as in other countries, medicine was practised for some time only
by the sacerdotal caste; but not all the members of this caste were
doctors and priests at one and the same time; there was a special class
among them, called “pastophori,” whose mission it was to cure the sick.
Our knowledge of medicine as practised among the Egyptians of old is
now no longer limited to the scanty notices handed down to us by Greek
and Roman writers. The researches made by students of Egyptian lore
have placed original medical writings in our hands, now already partly
interpreted, that permit us to form a sufficiently exact idea of the
science of Medicine in ancient Egypt.
These valuable documents, denominated papyri, from the material on
which they are written, now exist in great numbers in the Berlin
Museum, in the British Museum, and in those of Leyden, Turin, Paris,
and other cities; but the most important of the papyri treating of
medical subjects is certainly the papyrus of Ebers, in the library of
the Leipzig University.[1] This very valuable papyrus—the most ancient
of all known works on Medicine—is the best written of all the Egyptian
medical papyri, and is also the best preserved and most voluminous.
In size it is 30 centimeters high, 20 meters long, and the whole text
is divided into 108 sections or pages, each one of about 20 to 22
lines. The celebrated Egyptian scholar, Prof. George Ebers, procured
it, toward the beginning of the year 1873, from an inhabitant of
Luxor, in Upper Egypt. He published a beautiful edition of it two years
later in Leipzig; and in 1890 Dr. Heinrich Joachim published a German
translation of the whole papyrus, with an introduction and explanatory
notes.
The Ebers’ papyrus is written in hieratic characters. We here reproduce
some passages of it, so as to give our readers an idea of the style of
writing.[2]
Lepsius and with him the greater part of Egyptologists are of opinion
that the Ebers’ papyrus is not an original work at all, but simply a
copy of medical writings of still earlier date, belonging to different
epochs, and which were collected and reunited to form a kind of manual
on medicine.
[Illustration: FIG. 1
Part of Ebers’ papyrus in Egyptian hieratic characters containing three
dental prescriptions.]
From some indications existing in the papyrus itself, Ebers has been
able to argue, with quasi certainty, that the papyrus was written
toward the year 1550 B.C. But some parts of it have their origin in a
far more remote epoch; they go back, that is, to thirty-seven centuries
or more before the Christian era. In fact, at page ciii of the Ebers’
papyrus[3] one reads:
“Beginning of the book about the treatment of the _uxedu_ in all the
members of a person, such as was found in a writing under the feet of
the God Anubis, in the city of Letopolis; it was brought to His Majesty
Usaphais, King of Upper and Lower Egypt.” Now, as Joachim remarks,
the Usaphais herein named was the fifth king of the first Egyptian
dynasty, and he reigned toward 3700 before the Christian era. Hence, it
may be argued that some, at least, of the writings from which the Ebers’
papyrus was taken were composed in the very remote epoch to which we
have just alluded, or perhaps still farther, for it is impossible to
know whether the book, deposited by unknown hands at the foot of the
statue of the God Anubis, had been written but a short time previous or
at a much earlier epoch.
[Illustration: FIG. 2
Part of Ebers’ papyrus in Egyptian hieratic characters containing
eleven dental prescriptions.]
Dental and gingival maladies are in no way neglected in the Ebers’
papyrus. At page 72, a remedy is prescribed “against the throbbing of
the _bennut_ blister in the teeth,” then two other remedies “to cure
the _bennut_ blisters in the teeth and to strengthen the flesh (gum).”
It is somewhat difficult to say what is meant by _bennut_ blisters; but
perhaps it means small, gingival abscesses of dental origin. The first
of the above remedies—probably meant to calm the pricking or throbbing
pain that, in such cases, often accompanies the dental malady—consisted
of:
“Seps-grains Part 1
Dough ” 1
Honey ” 1
Oil ” 1
To be applied on the part as a plaster.”
The other two remedies, very likely intended for the cure of dental
fistulæ, were to be used as masticatories. The first consists of:
“Fennel seeds Part 1
Dough ” 1
Anest-plant ” 1
Honey ” 1
Incense ” 1
Water ” 1”
The other was still more complicated and thus compounded:
“Dâm-plant Part 1
Anest-plant ” 1
Incense ” 1
Amaa-plant ” 1
Man-plant ” 1
Saffron ” 1
Aloe wood ” 1
Annek-plant ” 1
Cyperus ” 1
Onion ” 1
Water ” 1”
At page 89 of the papyrus[4] we find two other remedies, having the
same object, that is, “to cure the bennut blisters in the teeth and to
strengthen the flesh.”
The first is compounded in this way:
“Cow’s milk Part 1
Fresh dates ” 1
Uah corn ” 1
To be left stand and then to be masticated nine times.”
This is the second receipt:
“Anest-plant Part 1
Dough ” 1
Green lead ” 1
Sebests[5] ” 1
Cake ” 1
Dâm-plant ” 1
Fennel seeds ” 1
Olive oil ” 1
Water ” 1
To be used like the preceding one.”
In this same page 89 many other remedies corresponding to various
indications are prescribed.
“To strengthen the teeth:
Powder of the fruit of the dum-palm Part 1
Green lead ” 1
Honey ” 1
To be mixed and the teeth rubbed with it.”
The following is another remedy for the same purpose:
“Powder of flint stones Part 1
Green lead ” 1
Honey ” 1
To be rubbed on the teeth.”
Next comes a remedy “to cure the growth of _uxedu_ in the teeth,” that
is:
“Dough Part 1
Beans ” 1
Honey ” 1
Verdigris ” 1
Green lead ” 1
To be powdered, mixed, and applied on the teeth.”
The word _uxedu_ recurs more than thirty-five times in the Ebers’
papyrus, in relation to affections of the most different parts of the
body. By confronting all the passages of the papyrus in which one finds
the word _uxedu_, Joachim deduces that it does not indicate any special
disease, but has the general signification of “a painful swelling.”
According to Geist-Jacobi, by “growth of the uxedu in the teeth” may
be understood an alveolar abscess and the consequent swelling of the
surrounding parts.
Another remedy is intended for “the cure of the tooth that gnaws unto
the upper part of the flesh.”
The translator of the papyrus remarks that by the “upper part of the
flesh” is to be understood the gum. The remedy would, therefore,
correspond to the indication of curing a tooth “that gnaws or gives
pain unto the gum.” But as one sees, even putting it in these words,
the meaning is anything but clear. Perhaps the destructive action of
the carious process, reaching as far as the gum, is what is here meant
to be alluded to. Meanwhile here is the receipt:
“Cumin Part 1
Incense ” 1
Onion ” 1
To be reduced to a paste, and applied on the tooth.”
Besides the remedies already given, the two following are prescribed
for strengthening the teeth:
“Incense Part 1
Verdigris ” 1
Green lead ” 1
Mix and apply on the tooth.”
The other is compounded of:
“Water Part 1
Absinth ” 1
To be used as above.”
We next find a formula, preceded by this very vague indication:
“Chewing remedy for curing the teeth.”
“Amaa-plant Part 1
Sweet beer ” 1
Sut-plant ” 1
To be masticated and then spit on the ground.”
Another masticatory is intended to “strengthen and cure the teeth,” and
is compounded thus:
“Saffron Part 1
Duat-plant ” 1
Sweet beer ” 1
To be masticated and then spit on the ground.”
Finally, we have a medicament “for curing the gnawing of the blood in
the tooth.” It is complicated enough, being compounded with:
“The fruit of the gebu Part 1/32
Onion ” 1/64
Cake ” 1/16
Dough ” 1/8
Anest-plant ” 1/32
Water ” 1/2
One leaves it to stand and then chews for four days.”
But what meaning is to be attributed to the “gnawing of the blood in
the tooth?”
It is almost certain that this figurative expression referred to the
pain deriving from caries and pulpitis. It may have had its origin in
the observation of two phenomena, that is, first of all, the pulsating
character which the pain alluded to often assumes, and the eventual
issuing of blood from the cavity of a tooth affected by caries and
pulpitis, when the pulp is exposed. At any rate, the Egyptian doctors
of remotest antiquity undoubtedly did not ignore the presence of blood
in the interior of the tooth.
From what we have related, it clearly appears that at that remote epoch
many remedies were already in use for combating dental affections.
These must consequently have been frequent enough, which demonstrates
the erroneousness of the opinion held by some, who affirm, as does
Mummery,[6] that in ancient times diseases of the teeth were extremely
rare.
Besides this, it is fully evident, from the Ebers’ papyrus, that at the
time in which this was written, dental pathology and therapy were still
in a very primitive condition, and formed a part of general medicine,
from which they showed as yet no tendency to separate; so true is
this, that the remedies intended for the treatment of the teeth do not
constitute a special section of the work, but are to be found among
medicaments of an altogether different nature. Thus, at page lxxii of
the papyrus[7] we find, first, three remedies against the itch; then
five remedies for the cure of pustules in various parts of the body;
next an ointment and a potion for the _bennut blisters_ in whatever
part of the body they may occur; after this, three medicaments against
the _bennut blisters_ of the teeth; and lastly, a plaster for curing
crusts and itching in whatsoever part of the body.
One finds no mention of dental surgery in the Ebers’ papyrus. No
conclusions could be drawn from this fact if the work only spoke of
medical treatment, for then it might reasonably be supposed that the
compiler had purposely occupied himself with this subject only; but, on
the contrary, the Ebers’ papyrus frequently makes mention of operative
interventions, and among these, of the use of the knife and of the
red-hot iron for the treatment of abscesses and of certain tumors.
Therefore, there being no mention made in the papyrus of any dental
operation, not even of extraction, gives us reason to suspect that at
that remote epoch no surgical operation was carried out on the teeth,
and that, as yet, no instruments existed for practising extraction.
In the time of the celebrated historian Herodotus, of Halicarnassus,
who lived in the fifth century previous to the Christian era (about
from 500 to 424 B.C.), that is, more than a thousand years after
the time in which the Ebers’ papyrus was written, the dental art in
Egypt had made remarkable progress, and was exercised by specialists.
In fact, in the second book of Herodotus we find the following
passage: “The exercise of medicine is regulated and divided amongst
the Egyptians in such a manner that special doctors are deputed to
the curing of every kind of infirmity; and no doctor would ever lend
himself to the treatment of different maladies. Thus, Egypt is quite
full of doctors: those for the eyes; those for the head; some for the
teeth; others for the belly; or for occult maladies.”[8]
Having here had occasion to refer to the _History_ of Herodotus, we
will quote two passages of this famous work, which have a certain
interest for our subject;
“Whilst the tyrant Hippias, after having been driven out of Athens (510
B.C.), was marching against Greece at the head of the Persian army and
had already arrived at Marathon, he happened one day to sneeze and to
cough in a more vehement manner than usual; and he being already an
old man, and his teeth all shaking, a violent fit of coughing suddenly
drove one of them out of his mouth, and it having fallen into the dust,
Hippias set to work, with great diligence, to search for it; but the
tooth not coming to light, he drew a long sigh, and then said, turning
to those who were standing by: ‘This land is not ours, neither shall we
ever be able to have it in our power; what clings to my tooth is all of
it that will ever belong to me.’”[9]
In another part of the _History_, that is, in the ninth book, Herodotus
recounts as follows:
“When the corpses buried after the battle of Platea were already
despoiled of their flesh, a curious fact was seen; for the people of
Platea having collected the bones of those who had perished, there
was found amongst them a skull altogether devoid of commissures, and
composed of one single bone. A jaw was also found, the teeth of which,
comprising the molars, appeared to be made all of one piece, as though
composed of a single bone.”
Relative to this last passage of Herodotus, we may remark, as does
Stark, that the total synostosis of the skull bones is certainly very
rare, but that, nevertheless, one has authentic examples of the same,
not only in ancient but also in relatively modern times, witness the
famous skull of Albrecht von Brandenburg, surnamed the German Achilles,
who died in 1486, and was buried in the monastery of Heilbronn. As to
teeth united together and forming a single piece, no example exists
save in very ancient authors, for instance, in Valerius Maximus, who
recounts a similar marvellous fact of Prusia, King of Bithynia, and in
Plutarch, who attests to a similar fact in the person of Pyrrhus, King
of Epirus.
It is very difficult to establish within what limits the activity
of the dentists alluded to by Herodotus was displayed. It has been
affirmed by some that dental art in ancient Egypt was very far
advanced, and that not only the application of artificial teeth, and
even of pivot teeth, but also stoppings, were practised by the Egyptian
dentists of those days. Here are some data on this subject:
Joseph Linderer[10] tells us that, according to Belzoni[11] and others,
artificial teeth made of wood and very roughly fashioned have been
found in Egyptian sarcophagi.
George H. Perine, a dentist of New York, in an article on the history
of dentistry,[12] says: “Both filled and artificial teeth have been
found in the mouths of mummies, the cavities in the former stopped with
gold and in some cases with gilded wood. Whether these fillings were
inserted during life for the purpose of preserving the teeth, or after
death for ornamentation, it is, of course, impossible to say. That the
Egyptians were exceedingly fond of embellishing their persons with
gold ornaments and bright colored materials is a fact which has been
clearly established, and the discovery of mummies—of exalted personages
no doubt—some organs of which were gilded and embellished with showy
colors proves that their fondness for display accompanied them even
to the grave.” To this may be added, that after an embalmment of the
highest class[13] it was usual to gild the eyebrows, the point of the
nose, the lips, and the teeth of the corpse, and place a gold coin
between the teeth, or cover over the tongue with a thin gold plate.
Dr. J. G. Van Marter, a dentist in Rome, in an article on prehistoric
dentistry,[14] writes, among other things, that _the renowned
archæologist, Mr. Forbes, had seen mummies’ teeth stopped with gold_.
The great defect of all the assertions referred to is that of not being
accompanied by any element of proof, wherewith to demonstrate their
truth. When, for example, we are told that Mr. Purland possesses, in
his collection of antiquities, a tooth pivoted on to the root of a
mummy’s tooth, the question suggests itself naturally: If this tooth
is, as it appears, separated from the jaw of the mummy to which it is
said to have belonged, how can we be certain that the tooth itself is
really that of a mummy? Until sufficient proof of this be furnished, we
cannot but consider the above assertion as absolutely without value.[15]
The same may be said as to the assertions of Wilkinson and Forbes with
regard to mummies’ teeth stopped with gold. Where and by whom were
these mummies found? And where are they preserved? Was the stopping,
too, verified at the time of the finding of the mummy, in such a manner
as to exclude all possibility of fraud, or was it discovered afterward,
in circumstances such as to suggest the possibility of a mistification?
It has, in fact, been reported[16] that the pretended Egyptian stopping
in a mummy existing in an English museum was nothing else than a
practical joke, carried out, besides, in a very awkward manner.
In opposition to the above assertions, we have the most absolute
contradictory statements on the part of the most competent authorities.
The celebrated Egyptologist, Prof. George Ebers, has only been able, in
spite of the most accurate research, to arrive at completely negative
results in all that has reference to the dental art of the ancient
Egyptians.[17]
The distinguished craniologist Prof. Emil Schmidt, of Leipzig, who
owns a collection of several hundred mummies’ skulls, writes thus on
the question now before us: “In no jaw have I ever found anything that
could be attributed to the work of dentists: no fillings, no filing or
trepanning of teeth, no prosthesis.”[18] Virchow, who also examined
a great many Egyptian skulls, among which were several belonging to
royal mummies, did not find any indications of dentists’ work;[19] and
Mummery, as well, although he made the most conscientious researches on
this subject, could not arrive at any positive results whatever.[20]
Between the affirmations of some and the negations of others, it is
very difficult to say on which side the truth lies. For my own part,
I fail to find that there is the least proof of the ancient Egyptians
having known how to insert gold fillings and still less to apply
pivot teeth. But at the same time I think it cannot be doubted that
the Egyptian dentists knew how to apply artificial teeth. And even
though it may not be possible to demonstrate this by direct proof,
one is equally prone to admit it when one considers, on the one hand,
the remarkable ability of the ancient Egyptians in all plastic arts,
and, on the other hand, the great importance they attributed to the
beautifying of the human body; so much so, that even in so ancient
a document as the Ebers’ papyrus, one finds formulæ for medicaments
against baldness, for lotions for the hair, and other kinds of
cosmetics. Is it likely, therefore, that so refined and ingenious a
people should not have found the means of remedying the deformity
resulting from the loss of one or more front teeth?
Fortunately, however, we are not bound to content ourselves with simple
suppositions, for a well-authenticated archæological discovery made
in the month of May, 1862, has put us in possession of an irrefutable
proof.
The discovery to which we allude is registered in Renan’s _Mission de
Phénicie_, and was the result of researches made in the necropolis of
Saida (the ancient Sidon) by Dr. Gaillardot, Renan’s colleague in his
important scientific mission. In a grave in one of the most ancient
parts of the necropolis, Dr. Gaillardot found, in the midst of the sand
that filled the grave, a quantity of small objects, among which were
two copper coins, an iron ring, a vase of most graceful outline, a
scarab, twelve very small statuettes of majolica representing Egyptian
divinities, which probably formed a necklace, to judge by the holes
bored in them. But among the objects found (which, together with that
we are about to mention, are now in the Louvre at Paris), the most
important of all is “a part of the upper jaw of a woman, with the two
canines and the four incisors united together with gold wire;[21] two
of the incisors would appear to have belonged to another individual,
and to have been applied as substitutes for lost teeth. This piece,
discovered in one of the most ancient tombs of the necropolis, proves
that dental art in Sidon was sufficiently advanced.”[22]
[Illustration: FIG. 3
Phœnician appliance found at Sidon, as represented in a cut of Renan’s
Mission de Phénicie.]
To these words, literally translated from Renan’s work, we will only
add the following considerations:
Egypt was, in its time, a great centre of civilization, whose influence
was strongly predominant in all the neighboring region, and especially
in ancient Phœnicia and in its large and industrious cities Tyre and
Sidon. The remains discovered in many of the Phœnician tombs would of
themselves alone be sufficient to demonstrate luminously the enormous
influence exercised by the Egyptian civilization on the life and
customs of that people. Now, if there were dentists in Sidon capable of
applying false teeth, it may reasonably be admitted that the dentists
of the great Egyptian metropoli Thebes and Memphis were able to do as
much and more, the level of civilization being without doubt higher
there than in Tyre or in Sidon, or in other non-Egyptian cities.