Talk:Spikenard

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

For further reading on SpikeNard

additional information on spikenard:

2 general info references on:
.. 1. uses
.. 2. naming, distribution, commercial limits

then 3 clinical studies showing medicinal effect for:
.. 1. Memory
.. 2. HepatoProtective Effect
.. 3. Cholesterol profile

Uses (1) Reference:
Summary (ParaPhrased-Excerpt):
Spikenard is a perennial medicinal plant in Nepal traditionally used as a stimulant for the cardiac, respiratory, and nervous systems and as a carminative, stomachic, laxative, antispasmodic, diuretic, and emmenagogue. The plant also has cosmetic uses in hair washes and hair oils.
Reference: A Note on Nardostachys jatamansi Journal of Herbs, Spices & Medicinal Plants, Volume 2, Issue 2 June 1994 , pages 39 - 47
Reference Link: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a904380791&db=all

Naming, Distribution & Commerical Limits (1) Reference:

Summary: (RePhrased)

Species Naming: Upon examining a specimen from Bhutan labeled 'Jatamansi', but containing sample from 2 species, the roots of Nardostachys jatamansi and the aerial part of Valeriana wallichii, Sir William Jones in 1790 discovered that 'Nardus' of the Greeks, the 'Spikenard' of the Holy Bible, 'Sumbul-e-Hind' of Persians and Arabians, and 'Balchar' of India all are 'Jatamansi' of Sanskrit. Five years later, in 1795, Roxburgh published an illustration labled 'Valeriana jatamansi' based on the 'specimen', that was not yet recognized as being from 2 seperate species. In 1821 D. Don acquired a single-species specimen of the actual 'Jatamansi' and re-described it 'Valeriana jatamansi' and later as 'Patrinia jatamansi'. In 1830 De Candolle described it under the new genus 'Nardostachys' and classifed 'Nardostachys jatamansi' and N. grandiflora.

Distribution: Nardostachys jatamansi is native to the Central, Eastern, Sino-Indian and Kumaon Himalayas (Northern India and Nepal near Mount Everest). The plant is found clinging to steep rocky cliffs, on grassy slopes and by river banks at altitudes 3000-4000m (above sea-level). Nardostachys jatamansi propagates by direct extension, using underground rhizomes and aerial-distribution of winged fruits for distant distribution. The fruit in the Himalayan region matures from October to November by traveling on high mountain winds from the west to the north.

Commercial Limits: The use of this plant as a medicine and it's limited habitat have lead to over-harvesting, endangering the species existance and legal limits imposed in Bhutan, Neapl & India on poaching the plant in the wild and its export. In Indian street markets the medicinal-plant is often sold adulterated with the simmilar appearing but much cheaper Selinum vaginatum and S. candollei. The adulterants can be differentiated from true jatamansi, by noting that Nardostachys jatamansi rhizomes have a sweet smelling red-brown fibrous covering, where Selinum vaginatum and S. candollei have an unpleasant pungent dirty brown fibrous cap. Many Himalayan herbs are commercially exploited, including Aconitum ferox, Picrorhiza kurrooa and Swertia chirata.

Reference: On the history, botany, distribution, uses and conservation aspects of Nardostachys jatamansi in India Medicinal Plant Conservation Dec 2007 vol 13 num 1
Reference Link: Full PDF (see p8-12): http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/mpc13.pdf#page=8

Medicinal Effect: (3) References
In animal models spikenard has shown beneficial effects on cholesterol, memory and has a hepatoprotective effect.
3 clinical references for statement below:

Memory reference:

Summary:(RePhrased) In an animal model spikenard extract given for 8 days (at 200 mg/kg doses) improved memory, learning and reversed amnesia.
Ayurvedic medicine practitioners, use the roots of Nardostachys jatamansi for anti-ischemic, antioxidant, anticonvulsant, and neuroprotective activities.

Reference: Nardostachys jatamansi Improves Learning and Memory in Mice Hanumanthachar Joshi, Milind Parle Journal of Medicinal Food. Spring 2006: 113-118

Reference link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16579738

HepatoProtective Reference:

Summary:(RePhrased) In animal model spikenard extract showed hepatoprotective effect

Reference: Nardostachys jatamansi protects against liver damage induced by thioacetamide in rats Journal of Ethnopharmacology Volume 71, Issue 3, August 2000, Pages 359-363

Reference Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10940571

Cholesterol Profile reference:

Summary:(RePhrased) In animal model spikenard used with Tumeric (Curcuma longa) improved HDL and cholesterol profile

Reference: Hypolipidaemic effects of Curcuma longa L and Nardostachys jatamansi, DC in triton-induced hyperlipidaemic rats Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 1988 Oct-Dec;32(4):299-304

Reference Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3215683

Orchus2 (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Insight on the scriptures

SPIKENARD

[Heb., nerd; Gr., nar′dos].

A small aromatic plant (Nardostachys jatamansi) found in the Himalaya Mountains. The stems and roots of this plant are generally considered the source of the nard or spikenard mentioned in Scripture. (Ca 1:12; 4:13, 14; Mr 14:3) The spikenard plant is distinguished by its clusters of blackish, hairy stems, about 5 cm (2 in.) long, that branch out from the top of the root. The leaves sprout from the upper portion of the plant, which is terminated by heads of pink flowers.

To preserve its fragrance, nard, a light, fragrant, reddish-colored liquid, was sealed in cases of alabaster, a soft, usually whitish, marblelike stone named after Alabastron, Egypt, where vessels of this material were manufactured. The pound of perfumed oil, “genuine nard,” poured by Mary from an alabaster case upon the head and feet of Jesus Christ, ‘in view of his burial,’ was evaluated at 300 denarii, the equivalent of about a year’s wages. (Mr 14:3-9; Joh 12:3-8; Mt 20:2) The fact that this perfumed oil was so expensive suggests that its source may have been distant India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.59.196 (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge interwiki links

The interwiki links from wikidata:Valeriana jatamansi should be merged in. Nardostachys jatamansi and Nardostachys grandiflora are mentioned as synonyms for V. jatamansi in wikidata, but somehow there are still two disjoint sets of interwiki links. --88.73.32.75 (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've had my eye on splitting the Valeriana/Nardostachys species into a separate article. The present article mentions Lavandula stoechas as another source of nard, and it doesn't seem it all certain that the biblical/classical spikenard was always derived from Nardostachys. It's quite likely that more than one plant was the source of the spikenard of antiquity. Plantdrew (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've split Nardostachys jatamansi into a separate article. Spikenard can discuss the oil/perfume/spice of antiquity, but the botanical source of this substance does not seem to be firmly settled. Plantdrew (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Old Testament nard may be Lemon Grass

According to New Perfume Handbook (ISBN 0751404039) p. 315, in the Old Testament, nard was made from lemon grass (see p. 189). It claims that nardostachys jatamansi is what is used for the substance referred to in the New Testament.

The Book of Perfumes (ISBN 9780543014658) p. PT57 et. seq. discusses the subject in more detail, and may resolve the discrepancy if someone would like to read through it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Pharos and Ubikwit: FYI. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Thanks. I'll let Pharos have a go at adjusting that text.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've put lemongrass in as an option, but my impression is that most scholars who think that ancient "spikenard" is different from modern spikenard, think it must have been lavender. Fwiw, the Hebrew Wikipedia actually redirects the biblical word to the lavender page.--Pharos (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Bible references

Moved from article for discussion. What encyclopedic information does this provide? Mere mention of spikenard in bible myths does not inform about the plant. This content is WP:UNDUE. --Zefr (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Zefr - One could make the same argument about the reference to Homer's Iliad in the article. A statement that spikenard is referenced in a bible story need not be excised as myth if it is not stated as a statement of fact of the underlying event, but as a statement of fact that the account exists. This is not substantively different from stating, as the article does, that Homer's Iliad references spikenard. Need we excise that from the article since Homer's Iliad is mythology? No, the statement regarding Homer's Iliad only states a fact that the Iliad references spikenard. What does the mention of the Iliad myth inform about the plant? Nothing directly, but it gives cultural background regarding the importance of the plant. Similarly, the biblical references that you have deleted only state that "the bible states" while leaving to the reader to their own determination of the historicity or authenticity of the underlying stories themselves. The bible, along with many other religious texts, along with explicitly fictional accounts such as the Iliad, regardless of whether they are considered historical, mythological/mythical, or part both, is a book of much cultural significance, as is the character of Jesus himself. As the reader of the article on spikenard may be interested to know that the Iliad references spikenard, so the reader may be interested to know that the bible references the use of spikenard in reference to the burial of Jesus. The statement also was verifiably a statement of fact, because the statement was not "Mary anointed Jesus" but was rather "the Gospels state that..." and leaves to the reader to make his/her own determination as to the authenticity of the story itself. The reader may easily verify the truth of the statement itself by referring to any account of the Gospels and seeing if that story is actually present. The statement further does not give any undue weight because the statement does not give a viewpoint (such as a minority viewpoint or the like). It does not speak positively or negatively about the bible or Jesus, does not proclaim their authenticity or do the opposite - it is completely neutral and leaves to the curious/educated reader to make that determination him/herself. A statement that a story in the bible references spikenard is not a viewpoint, it is an easily verifiable statement of fact. WikiManZopolis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The Old Testament, King James Version, the Song of Solomon 1:12 mentions the use of spikenard as an enticing, romantic sort of fragrance. It reads “While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.” And continuing in the Song of Solomon 4:13-14 it reads: “Thy plants are an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits; camphire, with spikenard, Spikenard and saffron; calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices:”

In the New Testament John 12:1–10, six days before the passover Jesus arrives in Bethany. In Bethany, Mary, sister of Lazarus, uses a pint of pure nard to anoint Jesus's feet. Judas Iscariot, the keeper of the money-bag, asked why the ointment was not sold for three hundred denarii instead (about a year's wages, as the average agricultural worker received one denarius for 12 hours work: Matthew 20:2) and the money given to the poor. Two passages in parallel (Matthew 26:6–13, and Mark 14:3–9):

3 And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.

4 And there were some who had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?

Are you saying we should purge articles of literary references? Or just biblical references, because obviously the Bible is one of the least influential books on the planet as compared to all the pop culture modern books written by authors nobody's ever heard of but gave a TEDtalk once; that are splayed across innumerable other articles? Jarwulf (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The Bible references must be kept in. The Bible is not being used here as a factual historical authority, but as a major cultural resource. For the same reason, in articles on crucifixion or virgin birth, you would obviously make extensive references to the Bible texts on the subject. Darorcilmir (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I also agree; the Bible reference is as relevant as the Inferno reference. --Pokechu22 (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I restored the nard Bible reference. I checked Merriam Webster's and Collin's; they both say nard = spikenard (no other definition). Even if you don't believe spikenard was actually used, clearly it was and is thought to be spikenard. Wikinights (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarification requested about Spikenard revert

Thanks for your reversion of photo of the close (and often confused) cousin of Nardostachys jatamansi in the Spikenard article.

This is certainly an area of confusion, best summarized in this recent article in the Jan. 20, 2020 edition of the Journal of Ethnopharmacology: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0378874119304106 which includes the quote: "The overlapping vernacular names of Nardostachys jatamansi (D.Don) DC. and Valeriana jatamansi Jones ex Roxb. adds to the confusion of mistaken identity" (p. 2 of the PDF, or for a more detailed discussion follow this link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378874119304106#sec4

The article has the virtue of including scientifically validated photos of the two plants side by side: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0378874119304106-gr1_lrg.jpg

Since my only goal was to include an accurate photo of the plant, my question is: do you know of any validated photos of Nardostachys jatamansi? If not, do you think we could include a low-res version of the Journal of Ethnopharmacology article under fair use? I have only a little experience in this area, so am happy to defer to your expertise.

Thanks in advance, E.L.Greeley (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello E.L.Greeley. Wikimedia Commons has botanical illustrations of Nardostachys jatamansi, but no photos. Your side-by-side picture is interesting, but - if not present in W Commons - has to be cleared for use as described here. Then, it would need a WP:SCIRS source indicating that N. jatamansi and Valeriana jatamansi (no WP article) are actually both considered 'spikenard', given their wide botanical distribution (Middle East to China). Zefr (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. The Journal of Ethnopharmacology is indexed by MEDLINE, so it qualifies as a WP:SCIRS reliable source, if I read the link you supplied correctly. That's the good news. The bad news is in two parts.

1. the Journal article is copyrighted and therefore the image ineligible for use on Commons.
2. the Journal article appears to indicate that the botanical drawing in Commons is incorrect as it combines the roots of N. jatamansi with the flowers of V. jatamansi. I hate to act rashly, but
3. do we need to remove the botanical drawing in the N. jatamansi article? Personally I hate to delete things from articles, perhaps we could just note it is a historically significant but scientifically inaccurate rendering? I'm starting to think we may need to add a section on the historical confusion surrounding the two plants, but if so that's well above my pay grade! Thanks again, E.L.Greeley (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

E.L.Greeley - we would benefit from the input by botanical experts, such as Peter coxhead and Plantdrew on issues 1-3. Zefr (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Zefr, I have some good news to report: after a bit of searching, I managed to track down 3 pictures of Spikenard that have a suitable Creative Commons license. The one I favor is found at: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/30507388 along with a thumb gallery that shows the other two candidates. I will begin the process of uploading the photo to Commons. The site looks legit to me, but let me know if you see any problems. Thanks, E.L.Greeley (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)