Any clues to the origin of this pic (cross section of teeth)

AI Thread Summary
The video referenced features a text that may be Arabic or Persian, prompting discussions about its age and origin. If it dates back to medieval times, it could suggest advanced techniques in dentistry, possibly involving lenses to observe blood vessels in teeth. Initial attempts to translate the text using Google Translate yielded no Turkish results, with the language detection indicating Arabic. The text's potential connection to the 18th-century work "Jarrāhiyyāt alKhaniyya" by Sharaf al-Dīn Sabuncuoğlu is noted, highlighting that three unique handwritten copies exist in various libraries, with one dating to the 18th century. Research by Turkish medical historian Prof. İlter Uzel has documented these copies. Additional resources explore the history of dentistry in the Ottoman Empire, indicating that 18th-century illustrations differ from the one in question.
Swamp Thing
Insights Author
Messages
1,031
Reaction score
769
At [01:02], this video youtu.be/qwbIu2PzCRs?t=62 shows the following picture. I'm guessing it's either Arabic or Persian. Can someone read the text and say if it gives any clues to its age and origin?

If it's even of medieval vintage, it would be pretty remarkable, implying that they may have used some kind of lens to see the blood vessels(?) or other structures within the sectioned teeth. (Although they did embellish it with some fanciful extra details!)

1609565015073.png
 
Science news on Phys.org
Google translate might be able to decode it. It has a camera feature on phones so you can image it and it will do the translation.

Anything beyond that is a needle in a haystack unless someone knows the books or owns the teeth.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Keith_McClary and Swamp Thing
So it's 18th century Turkish.

Just for fun I tried Google translate --- it says "no Turkish found".

In detect language mode it says it's Arabic and translates it as : "The Shaw nursery is suitable for a mobile phone. The suggestion of Alabgal and Al Suwal".
 
  • Like
Likes 256bits
Funny google.

It could be from this book. Not saying it is, but is still interesting.
Excerpt
To our knowledge, three handwritten copies of the Jarrāhiyyāt alKhaniyya remain. One copy is kept in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (National Library of France) in Paris, one in the Fatih Millet Library in Istanbul, and one in the Medical History Department of Istanbul University Çapa Faculty of Medicine. Each copy is unique, and each copy has a different number of pages. These differences may be because two of the copies were written by Sabuncuoğlu himself, but one copy dates to later in the 18th century. In 1992, the Turkish medical historian Prof. İlter Uzel conducted meticulous research on the three copies and then published them in Turkish, Arabic, and English (1–4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13–16, 18).
https://jag.journalagent.com/erciyesmedj/pdfs/EMJ_42_3_350_353.pdf
which is where the previous gets its 18th book reference , but Sharaf al-Dīn Sabuncuoğlu (1385-c.1468) .

More about Sabuncuoğlu
https://www.dailysabah.com/arts/por...-physician-and-pharmacologist-of-15th-century

Other sites I visited
18th century illustrations don't look like the one in question.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324498512_MiratulEbdan_Fi_Tesrih-i_Azaul-Insan_First_printed_illustrated_anatomy_book_in_Ottoman-Turkish_medicine

History of dentistry in the Ottoman empire
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278671470_History_of_Dentistry_from_the_Period_of_the_Ottoman_Empire_to_the_Republican_Period_1
 
  • Like
Likes Swamp Thing
There is a neighboring thread Cover songs versus the original track, which ones are better? https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cover-songs-versus-the-original-track-which-ones-are-better.1050205/ which is an endless subject and as colorful are the posts there. I came across a Buddy Holly cover by Eva Cassidy only to find out that the Buddy Holly song was already a Paul Anka cover. Anyway, both artists who had covered the song have passed far too early in their lives. That gave me the...
The piece came-up from the "Lame Jokes" section of the forum. Someobody carried a step from one of the posts and I became curious and tried a brief web search. A web page gives some justification of sorts why we can use goose(s)-geese(p), but not moose(s)-meese(p). Look for the part of the page headed with "Why isn't "meese" the correct plural?" https://languagetool.org/insights/post/plural-of-moose/

Similar threads

Replies
23
Views
6K
Replies
39
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
6K
2
Replies
67
Views
14K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top