[ Previous ][Contents][ Next ]

Fig. 3

tainty of positively identifying an object which is found in an open grave with a given period, leaves one in doubt as to the period of origin of this remarkable dental specimen, even if as Renan states the grave was located in the oldest section of the necropolis. The inaccuracies referred to are based on the illustrations as well as the written description occurring in Renan's work. The teeth supported by the Phoenician dental appliance as they appear in the cut from Renan's book do not give the anatomical form characteristic of upper teeth. Therefore, either the figure has been badly drawn or the appliance was a restoration of two lost lower incisors and not the upper ones. The present author is also of the opinion that Fig. 3 showing the appliance inverted and seated on an imaginary mandible, gives a picture more nearly correct from an anatomical viewpoint than the Fig. 4, which is the one given in Renan's "Mission de Phénicie." Gaillardot mentions this appliance occurring on "a part of the upper jaw of a woman." It is equally hard to understand on what ground the doctor has based his statement that the appliance was on the teeth of a female skeleton, since it is well known that there is no characteristic difference in microscopical structure between a male and a female jaw.(13) This, however, does not detract any value and prestige from the Gaillardot specimen as being the first specimen of ancient dental art unearthed in Phoenicia. It may or may not be as old as the necropolis in which it was found, but it does not seem to the present writer to be linked with Egyptian dentistry in any way.

Fig. 4

[ Previous ][Contents][ Next ]

980519 pas - Email: hseeden@aub.edu.lb