In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Ancient Egyptian Medicine
  • J. Worth Estes
John F. Nunn. Ancient Egyptian Medicine. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1996. 240 pp. Ill. $39.95.

Who buys books on ancient Egyptian medicine? Some Egyptologists seem to think the subject is not relevant to their work, and modern physicians can practice their profession perfectly well without knowing about healing practices along the Nile. Anecdotal data suggest that the largest market is among museum visitors, although some purchasers appear to be interested chiefly in “alternative medicine.” Nevertheless, physicians continue to enter this nebulous market, whatever their reasons. [End Page 336]

John Nunn, a retired British anesthesiologist, is the latest to do so, with this nicely produced volume. It is sensibly organized along conventional lines, with chapters on diet; the medical papyri and their contents, including Egyptian concepts of anatomy and physiology; the disease burden along the Nile; the roles of magic and religion in healing; the physicians themselves; and drugs, surgical techniques, and clinical “specialties.” The illustrations are, for the most part, well chosen and clear; many are not familiar. The four appendices include a chronology of Egyptian history; a tabulation of known physicians (swnw), which adds a few not previously known; an unsatisfactory list of plants used in Egyptian medicine, along with the pharmacological properties that have been attributed to them; and a listing of “the more important” (p. 217) Egyptian medical terms as hieroglyphs, transliterations, and meanings— presumably to validate the author’s knowledge of hieroglyphs, although it contributes little to the book.

Most of the information is accurate, although the absence of page references is unfortunate. Nunn’s most innovative contribution is a discussion of snake and scorpion bites (pp. 183–90). On the other hand, it is difficult to agree with some of his interpretations. For instance, he equates metu with specific tissues—whereas the Egyptians thought of them simply as long hollow structures, inasmuch as their ability to differentiate among blood vessels, tendons, and nerves was less than he assumes. Although he cites Steuer’s important 1948 paper on the pathogenic ukedhu, Nunn minimizes its importance in Egyptian medical thinking.

Many paragraphs are devoted to words for which we have no translations, to diseases not known to have occurred in Egypt, and to drugs not mentioned in any papyrus. Some terms, such as Gardiner’s sign-list and words like epagomenal, will frustrate non-Egyptologists. One can hardly agree that the cult of Imhotep “remains strong to this day” (p. 122), although Nunn cites this reviewer for this. The chapter on drugs is confusing, and shows little attempt to synthesize the material, most of which is best understood in reference to the metu and ukhedu. Moreover, today’s concept of the placebo effect cannot be equated with the healing power of nature.

J. Worth Estes
Boston University School of Medicine
...

Share