Rivera Diego, Verde Alonso, Obón Concepción, Alcaraz Francisco, Moreno Candelaria, Egea Teresa, Fajardo José, Palazón José Antonio, Valdés Arturo, Signorini Maria Adele, Bruschi Piero
Depto. Biología Vegetal, Campus de Espinardo, Universidad de Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Grupo de Investigación en Etnobiología, Flora y Vegetación del Sureste Ibérico. Laboratorio de Sistemática y Etnobotánica, Instituto Botánico, UCLM, Jardín Botánico de Castilla-La Mancha, Avenida de la Mancha s/n, 02006 Albacete, Spain.
J Ethnopharmacol. 2017 Jan 4;195:96-117. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2016.11.040. Epub 2016 Nov 26.
This paper has two overarching aims: (1) presenting the results of studying the Albacete tariff of medicines of 1526 and (2) broadly analyzing the origin and influences of medicinal traditional knowledge in the region of Albacete, Spain. We use historical and modern literature that may have influenced this knowledge. Our primary goal was to determine the ingredients used in the pharmacy in the 16th century CE in Albacete through the analysis of the tariff, and our secondary goal was to investigate until when ingredients and uses present in pharmacy and herbals persisted in later periods.
The identity of medicines and ingredients was determined by analyzing contemporary pharmacopoeias and classical pharmaceutical references. We analyzed further 21 sources (manuscripts, herbals, and books of medicines, pharmacopoeias, pharmacy inventories, and modern ethnobotanical records) for the presence/absence of ingredients and complex formulations of the tariff. Using factorial and cluster analysis and Bayesian inference applied to evolution models (reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo), we compared textual sources. Finally, we analyzed the medicinal uses of the top 10 species in terms of frequency of citation to assess the dependence of modern ethnobotanical records on Renaissance pharmacy and herbals, and, ultimately, on Dioscorides.
In Albacete 1526, we determined 101 medicines (29 simple drugs and 72 compound medicines) comprising 187 ingredients (85% botanical, 7.5% mineral, and 7.5% zoological substances). All composed medicines appear standardized in the pharmacopoeias, notably in the pharmacopoeia of Florence from 1498. However, most were no longer in use by 1750 in the pharmacy, and were completely absent in popular herbal medicine in Albacete 1995 as well as in Alta Valle del Reno (Italy) in 2014. Among the ingredients present in different formulation are the flowers of Rosa gallica, honey (Apis mellifera), the roots of Nardostachys jatamansi, and Convolvulus scammonia, pistils of Crocus sativus, grapes and raisins (Vitis vinifera), rhizomes of Zingiber officinale, bark of Cinnamomum verum, leaves and fruits of Olea europaea, mastic generally of Pistacia lentiscus, and wood of Santalum album. The statistical analysis of sources produces four well-separated clusters (Renaissance Herbals and Pharmacopoeias, Ethnobotany and Folk Medicine, Old phytotherapy, and Modern phytotherapy including Naturopathy) confirming our a priori classification. The clade of Renaissance Herbals and Pharmacopoeias appears separated from the rest in 97% of bootstrapped trees. Bayesian inference produces a tree determined by an initial set of two well-distinct core groups of ingredients: 64, locally used in Mediterranean Europe during centuries; and 45, imported, used in pharmacy during centuries. Complexity reached its maximum in Albacete 1526 and contemporary pharmacopoeias, gradually decreasing over time. The analysis of medicinal uses of the top 10 ingredients showed low coincidence between Dioscorides and different Renaissance herbals or medical treatises and of all of them with ethnobotany in Albacete.
Regarding our question: is there something new under the sun? In some aspects, the answer is "No". The contrast between expensive drugs, highly valued medicines, and unappreciated local wild medicinal plants persists since the Salerno's school of medicine. Old medicine in Mediterranean Europe, as reflected by Albacete 1526 tariff of medicines, involved strict formulations and preferences for certain ingredients despite other ingredients locally available but underappreciated. This confirms the fact that any system of medicine does not get to use all available resources. Ethnobiological records of materia medica, in rural areas of Albacete, describe systems with a high degree of stability and resilience, where the use of local resources, largely wild but also cultivated, is predominant in contrast with the weight of imported exotic products in pharmacy.
本文有两个总体目标：（1）呈现对1526年阿尔瓦塞特药品价目表的研究结果，以及（2）广泛分析西班牙阿尔瓦塞特地区药用传统知识的起源和影响。我们使用了可能影响该知识的历史和现代文献。我们的主要目标是通过分析价目表确定公元16世纪阿尔瓦塞特药房所使用的成分，次要目标是调查药房和草药中存在的成分及用途在后期持续存在的时间。
通过分析当代药典和经典药学参考文献来确定药品和成分的身份。我们进一步分析了21种资料来源（手稿、草药、医学书籍、药典、药房清单和现代民族植物学记录），以确定价目表中成分的存在与否以及复杂配方。我们使用因子分析、聚类分析以及应用于进化模型（可逆跳跃马尔可夫链蒙特卡罗）的贝叶斯推理来比较文本来源。最后，我们根据引用频率分析了排名前十的物种的药用用途，以评估现代民族植物学记录对文艺复兴时期药房和草药的依赖程度，并最终评估对狄奥斯科里季斯著作的依赖程度。
在1526年的阿尔瓦塞特，我们确定了101种药物（29种单一药物和72种复方药物），包含187种成分（85%为植物性成分，7.5%为矿物性成分，7.5%为动物性成分）。所有复方药物在药典中似乎都是标准化的，特别是在1498年的佛罗伦萨药典中。然而，到1750年，大多数药物在药房中已不再使用，在1995年阿尔瓦塞特的大众草药以及2014年意大利雷诺上游谷地的草药中也完全没有出现。不同配方中存在的成分包括法国蔷薇花、蜂蜜（意大利蜜蜂）、甘松根、药旋花、藏红花雌蕊、葡萄和葡萄干（欧亚葡萄）、生姜根茎、肉桂树皮、油橄榄叶和果实、乳香黄连木的乳香以及檀香木。对资料来源的统计分析产生了四个明显分开的聚类（文艺复兴时期的草药和药典、民族植物学和民间医学、古老的植物疗法以及包括自然疗法在内的现代植物疗法），证实了我们的先验分类。在97%的自展树中，文艺复兴时期草药和药典的分支与其他分支分开。贝叶斯推理产生了一棵树，该树由两组最初明显不同的核心成分决定：64种在几个世纪中在地中海欧洲本地使用；45种是进口的，在几个世纪中用于药房。复杂性在1526年的阿尔瓦塞特和当代药典中达到最大值，随后随着时间逐渐降低。对排名前十的成分的药用用途分析表明，狄奥斯科里季斯与不同的文艺复兴时期草药或医学论著之间以及它们与阿尔瓦塞特的民族植物学之间的一致性较低。
关于我们的问题：太阳之下是否有新事物？在某些方面，答案是“没有”。自萨勒诺医学院以来，昂贵药物、高价值药物与未被重视的本地野生药用植物之间存在的差异一直存在。1526年阿尔瓦塞特药品价目表所反映出的地中海欧洲的古老医学，涉及严格的配方以及对某些成分的偏好，尽管当地有其他可用但未被重视的成分。这证实了任何医学体系都不会利用所有可用资源这一事实。在阿尔瓦塞特农村地区，药用植物的民族生物学记录描述了具有高度稳定性和复原力的体系，其中本地资源的使用占主导地位，本地资源大多是野生的，但也有栽培的，这与药房中进口外来产品的重要性形成对比。
