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]