Medical "services" were not mentioned by Asoka. He says he is making चिकित्सा (in Prakrit) available. There is no evidence for sheds, buildings or anything similar. It is possible to read one expression as meaning "a place to sit down." It could be simply that he caused the planting of herbs, as he said.

There is a very developed specialist literature in western historical circles about what exactly qualifies as a hospital. This is because there are various medical facilities mentioned in Roman and Greek times, such as valitudinaria and xenones, as well as various Middle Eastern Christian institutions such as that described in the 12th century Pantocrator Typicon, that included elaborate medical facilities. The historians who write about these things have developed very fine-grained ideas about the differences between rest-houses, hospices, pilgrimage stops, recuperation houses, clinics, hospitals, and so on. And there have been very heated controversies, for example surrounding the (in my view excellent) book "The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine Empire" by Tim Miller. Gunter Risse's study, "Mending Bodies, Saving Souls: A History of Hospitals" develops the idea that a hospital is defined by both overnight stay for patients, permanent attending physicians and by a clearly-defined teaching function. Nothing in the Asokan inscriptions mentions any medical institution of any kind.

The earliest detailed description of a hospital is in the Carakasamhita, datable probably to the period 100AD-400AD (depending on Dṛḍhabala's contribution). Like the Pantocrator Typicon, Caraka's blueprint is extraordinarily detailed and realistic. But as with the Byzantine document, we have to ask ourselves as historians whether Caraka's description can be taken at face value. Perhaps it was wishful thinking, or even science fiction? My own instinct is to take it seriously as a description of a real institution, but I wish there were more archaeological or other evidence to strengthen the case.

Best,
Dominik

On 14 August 2011 06:44, Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattacharya200498@yahoo.com> wrote:

It is certain that medical service was available from state to humans and animals. How could that be realised without some permanent arrangement like sheds in junctions of highways or smaller roads? Or, are we to assume that there were roaming veterinarians and medicine men? Roaming medicine men are known from the term Cāraṇavaidya, a lost branch of the Atharvaveda and, according to me (2005, 2008, 2011), the extant Atharvavedas too testify to that. But the information from the AVs are much older than Asoka's inscriptions. Did the roaming Vaidyas survive till then? Or, did Asoka arrange for some? The matter is worth enquiry.
Best
DB

--- On Sat, 13/8/11, Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

From: Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: [INDOLOGY]
To: INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk
Date: Saturday, 13 August, 2011, 6:42 PM

There's absolutely not a shred of evidence that Aśoka built hospitals, by the way. This got into the secondary literature once, and has been repeated ever since.

Dominik

--
Dr Dominik Wujastyk
Institut für Südasien-, Tibet- und Buddhismuskunde
Universität Wien
Spitalgasse 2-4, Hof 2, Eingang 2.1
A-1090 Vienna
Austria
Project: http://www.istb.univie.ac.at/caraka/

2011/8/13 Thrasher, Allen <athr@loc.gov>

"A sixties issue of the Polish Great Encyclopedia presented Aśoka, quite consistently, as a builder of the hospitals for animals. But not only. In this famous entry he was also a builder of the hospitals for plants."

Presumably only for potted plants, since digging up and moving would put a strain on plants in the ground. Or did Maurya bureaucrats, like their British Indian successors, in anticipation of transfer do their gardening in pots so their favorites could move with them to the next station? ;-)

Allen

Allen W. Thrasher, Ph.D.

Senior Reference Librarian and Team Coordinator

South Asia Team

Asian Division

Library of Congress

101 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20540-4810

USA

tel. 202-707-3732

fax 202-707-1724

The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Library of Congress.