Traditional and Historical Sources: How the Library Treats Ancient Texts and Traditional Knowledge

The short answer

Traditional and historical sources tell you what people recorded, believed or did. They are valuable as history and as leads for research. They are not evidence that something is effective or safe today. The Research Library keeps these two things apart: historical and traditional claims on one side, and study records on the other.

This page explains how a text becomes a record, why each step adds uncertainty, and how to read a traditional record responsibly. For the wider comparison of tradition and trials, see historical use versus clinical evidence.

Primary and secondary sources

A primary source is an original, first-hand account that has not been interpreted or rewritten by other writers, such as a classical manuscript. A secondary source gives no first-hand evidence and analyzes, interprets or comments on what was gathered from primary sources. [1] Translations, commentaries, reviews and database entries are layers of this second kind. Each layer can change meaning, so it is useful to know which layer you are reading.

Four ways a passage reaches you

These four terms are used in this guide as plain labels for the layers a passage can pass through.

Reading a record, ask which of the four you are looking at. A passage locator (book, chapter, section or page) lets you find the exact words yourself, so look for one wherever it is given.

Why meanings shift

Terms in old texts can carry different meanings over time. One study of the concept of "body cun," a measuring term in Chinese medicine, found that the points of view differed across periods and among doctors and scholars. [2] Annotators also reshape what they explain. A study of medieval Korean monks found that one annotator modified the theory of the five phases in his own way to fit passages on Indian medicine into the framework he knew. [3]

Plant names are a special trouble. Studies of ancient and medieval materia medica share a concern about the reliability of modern identifications of the plants, and some identifications suggested in reference works are questionable. [4] A historical plant name may therefore point to a different species than the one now sold under a similar name.

Historical research can also correct the record. One study traced the origin of "Imperial Fuling" from the Qing Dynasty using chemical methods alongside documents, and it challenged the notion that high-quality Fuling came only from Yunnan Province. [5]

Traditional knowledge is not proof

Traditional systems have long histories. NCCIH says traditional Chinese medicine has evolved over thousands of years. [6] It also says studies of Chinese herbal products for a range of conditions have had mixed results. [6] For Ayurveda, NCCIH reports that only a small number of clinical trials have been published in Western medical journals. [7] Age is not evidence. A long record of use can motivate a good study, and the study is what tells you something about effects.

A traditional source also does not tell you a product is safe. NCCIH notes that some Ayurvedic preparations include metals, minerals or gems. [7] Product quality problems are covered in traditional medicine safety and clinical care.

Community knowledge and restricted knowledge

Not all traditional knowledge is meant to be shared. In a study with two Australian Indigenous communities, only some of the traditional uses of the plants were shared with researchers, and the difference reflected each community's reasons and intellectual property considerations. [8] Barriers of trust and benefit sharing often block collaboration. [8]

The Nagoya Protocol, an international agreement, also covers traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources and the benefits arising from its use. [9] A record that is silent on a practice does not mean the practice does not exist, and a record that exists does not mean everyone agrees it should be public. Read more in Indigenous and community traditions.

How the library treats these sources

The library shows connections and does not rate effectiveness, and none of its imported records has been reviewed by a clinician. A traditional or historical claim is not a study record, so read it as history and check whether any linked study exists. Browse the historical records collection with that in mind, and use the evidence types guide to see where trials sit.

Common misunderstandings

• "Old means tested." A long history of use is a reason for study, not a result.
• "A translation is the text." It is one reading of it.
• "The plant name matches, so it is the same plant." Identifications can be uncertain. [4]
• "If it is published, it is free to reuse." Community and legal expectations can apply. [9]