“Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India: Part I. Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body” is a seminal work by Dr. A. F. Rudolf Hoernle, first published in 1907. This comprehensive volume delves into the osteological knowledge present in ancient Indian medical literature, particularly focusing on the works attributed to Atreya and Sushruta. Dr. Hoernle’s meticulous research sheds light on the anatomical understanding and medical practices of ancient India, offering valuable insights into the historical development of medical science in the region.

In this work, Dr. Hoernle examines three primary systems of medicine that have been preserved through ancient manuscripts: the Atreya system from the 6th century B.C., the Sushruta system, and the Vagbhata system from the 7th century A.D. The Atreya system, ascribed to the physician Atreya, is considered the most ancient, while the Sushruta system is nearly as old. The Vagbhata system, developed by Vagbhata I, is a synthesis of the two earlier systems. Dr. Hoernle’s analysis highlights the evolution of medical knowledge in ancient India and the interplay between these systems.
A significant portion of the book is dedicated to vindicating the original forms of the osteological summaries found in the Charaka and Sushruta Samhitas. Dr. Hoernle points out that the true form of Charaka’s osteological summary is at risk of being overshadowed by a poorly considered substitute, which gained popularity through Gangadhar’s edition of Charaka’s Compendium. Similarly, Sushruta’s original osteological summary has been lost over time, replaced by a falsified version that became widely accepted, possibly due to Vagbhata I’s influence. Dr. Hoernle emphasizes the importance of preserving and restoring these original texts to maintain the integrity of ancient Indian medical knowledge.

Dr. Hoernle also explores the decline in anatomical knowledge and practice in ancient India, attributing it to the rise of Neo-Brahmanism, which discouraged contact with the dead. This cultural shift led to a rapid decline in the practice of human dissection and, consequently, a deterioration of anatomical texts. Attempts were made to restore and edit these corrupted texts, but without practical anatomical experience, these efforts were often unsatisfactory. Dr. Hoernle’s work underscores the necessity of practical anatomical knowledge for accurate medical understanding and the challenges faced in preserving such knowledge in the face of cultural and religious changes.