Anthropology Today

Magic Darts and Messenger Molecules: A sensory ecology of human-plant engagements in indigenous Amazonia --Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: AT-D-18-00015R1 Full Title: Magic Darts and Messenger Molecules: A sensory ecology of human-plant engagements in indigenous Amazonia

Article Type: Article

Corresponding Author: Lewis Daly, PhD University College London (UCL) London, UNITED KINGDOM

Corresponding Author Secondary Information: Corresponding Author's Institution: University College London (UCL)

Corresponding Author's Secondary Institution:

First Author: Lewis Daly, PhD First Author Secondary Information: Order of Authors: Lewis Daly, PhD Glenn H. Shepard Jr., PhD Order of Authors Secondary Information: Abstract: Recent scientific findings about plant intelligence are forcing anthropologists to reconsider indigenous theories of plant vitality. In this paper, we compare original ethnographic and ethnobotanical research among two different peoples from opposite extremes of lowland South America - the Makushi of Guyana and the Matsigenka of southern Peru - and explore how somatic experiences and chemonsensory properties of plants permeate indigenous understandings of illness etiology and medical efficacy in both the cosmological and microbiological domains. We synthesize emerging theory in ecosemiotics, embodiment, plant personhood, and plant intelligence with the concept of "sensory ecology" (Shepard 2004) to recast multi-species ethnography as a phytochemical, as well as a philosophical, endeavour. Suggested Reviewers: Opposed Reviewers: Response to Reviewers:

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation Submission Click here to access/download;Submission;Daly & Shepard - Magic Darts and Messenger Molecules (2018).docx

MAGIC DARTS AND MESSENGER MOLECULES: 1 2 A sensory ecology of human-plant engagements 3 4 in Amazonia 5 6 7 Lewis Daly1 8 9 Glenn Shepard Jr.2 10 11 12 13 14 15 Key words: Amazonia, Makushi, Matsigenka, ethnobotany, shamanism, sensory 16 anthropology 17 18 19 20 21 22 1. Introduction: Magic darts 23 24 25 Waawi is a tiny crystal, like a marble. It looks like an arrow, but with macaw 26 feather wings. The pia’san [shaman] speaks to it; it shoots up in the air like a 27 missile… it shoots into your chest and kills you straight away. 28 29 30 The Makushi elder Grandpa John was explaining shamanic spirit-darts to 31 32 author Lewis Daly in July 2013 at Rewa village on the Rupununi River in southern 33 34 Guyana. Waawî darts are the primary tools of shamans (pia’san): they are fired during 35 36 shamanic warfare, extracted in curing rituals, and obtained during training from a 37 38 category of plant-charms known as bina (Andel et al. 2015; Daly 2015). To illustrate 39 40 these magical projectiles, John laboured over a sketch in Daly’s field notepad (Figure 41 1). The result – a tiny cluster of dark lines – disappointed Daly, who initially wrote 42 43 the seemingly incoherent scribbling off to John’s arthritis and failing eyesight. 44 45 In 2017, Daly came to the Goeldi Museum in Belém, Brazil to work with 46 47 author Glenn Shepard. Together, we read up on the botany and chemistry of bina 48 49 plants for clues to Makushi concepts. Bina charms come from many botanical 50 51 families, but most belong to the Araceae, a family known to contain a class of toxic 52 phytochemicals called “raphides.” These microscopic, needle-like crystals of calcium 53 54 oxalate (Figure 2) puncture tissues causing stinging, irritation and inflammation in 55 56 what is called the “needle effect” (Konno et al. 2014: 1). In light of this, we came to 57 58 59 1 Department of Anthropology, University College London (UCL), UK – [email protected] 60 2 Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi (MPEG), Belém, PA, Brazil – [email protected] 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 1 64 65 appreciate Grandpa John’s sketch as a sophisticated representation of a pathogenic 1 2 process taking place at a microscopic scale. 3 4 This chemistry may also be significant in the phenomenon of kanaimà assault 5 sorcery in the Guyana region (Butt Colson 2001; Wilbert 2004). According to the 6 7 Makushi, kanaimà dark shamans use powerful bina plants to master special 8 9 pathogenic darts in order to incapacitate their victims. Following this, they pierce the 10 11 victim’s tongue with snake fangs and scrape out the rectal sphincter with an iguana or 12 13 armadillo tail. Anthropologists have interpreted the symptoms of kanaimà assault as a 14 symbolic inversion of ingestion: mouth swollen shut like a sphincter, rectum open like 15 16 a mouth (Whitehead 2002). Yet these also match the mucosal and gastrointestinal 17 18 symptoms caused by exposure to large doses of calcium oxalate (Desphande 2002: 19 20 553; Hayes 2008: 990). This finding does not “explain away” kanaimà sorcery or the 21 22 widespread concept of magic darts in Amazonian shamanism (see Chaumeil 1993). 23 24 Rather, it reveals a chemosensory pathway connecting these more widespread 25 ideologies to a particular Makushi logic of substance. 26 27 In this paper, we compare original ethnographic research among the Makushi 28 29 people of Guyana and the Matsigenka people of Peru, exploring how chemosensory 30 31 experiences permeate indigenous understandings of etiology and efficacy in the 32 33 cosmological and microbiological domains. We synthesize emerging theory in 34 35 ecosemiotics, embodiment, plant personhood, and plant intelligence with the concept 36 of “sensory ecology” (Shepard 2004) to recast multispecies ethnography as a 37 38 phytochemical, as well as a philosophical, endeavour. 39 40 41 42 2. Amazonian Phyto-Worlds 43 44 Plants and people are entwined in deep historical partnerships. Indigenous 45 46 agroecological systems are typically characterised by an extraordinary diversity of 47 wild and cultivated plants (Rival 2001; Daly 2016). Biodiversity is associated with the 48 49 transformative powers of shamans (Shepard 1999), while cosmic energy-flows echo 50 51 rain forest ecology (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1976). In this frame, the Yanomami shaman 52 53 Davi Kopenawa describes shamanic visions through an encyclopaedic concatenation 54 55 of plant and animal species (Kopenawa and Albert 2013). Likewise, among the 56 57 Sambia forest people of New Guinea, Herdt (1981) shows how the morphology, 58 reproductive biology and sensory properties of keystone tree species furnish essential 59 60 metaphors for ritual and sexual symbolism. Thus indigenous engagements with 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 2 64 65 tropical biodiversity are both pragmatic and ideological, multisensory and multi- 1 2 scalar, reflecting what Lévi-Strauss (1969) termed the “science of the concrete.” 3 4 Despite their centrality to indigenous lifeways and cosmologies, plants remain 5 at the margins of mainstream anthropological theory (Rival 2012: 69). Recently, 6 7 however, a group of anthropologists has begun to explore the botanical world from an 8 9 anthropological perspective (Daly et al. 2016; Kawa 2016; Hartigan 2017; Myers 10 11 2017), a project which has been dubbed ‘anthrobotany’ (Daniel Moerman, pers. 12 13 comm. 2005) or ‘planthropology’ (Myers 2017), and whose chief method we term 14 In this paper we explore the role of sensory experience in 15 phytoethnography. 16 mediating people-plant engagements through a cross-cultural comparison of our 17 18 original research among the Makushi (Daly 2015) and Matsigenka (Shepard 2004). 19 20 21 22 - The Makushi 23 24 The Carib-speaking Makushi people live in the North Rupununi region of 25 southwestern Guyana. Numbering around twelve thousand people in Guyana, the 26 27 Makushi have endured a long and tumultuous history of contact with various colonial 28 29 and postcolonial forces. Makushi gardeners cultivate hundreds of species and varieties 30 31 of crops (Daly 2016), and as such have an intimate and sophisticated understanding of 32 33 the living logics of plants (Daly 2015). Put simply, Makushi social and ritual life is 34 35 unthinkable without plants. To be Makushi is to farm in the rain forest (yu), and to 36 perpetually engage with its diverse inhabitants – plant, animal, and spirit (Figure 3). 37 38 39 40 - The Matsigenka 41 42 The Matsigenka live in the Amazon headwaters in southern Peru. They 43 44 currently number some thirteen thousand people living throughout the Urubamba, 45 46 upper Madre de Dios, and Manu River basins. Matsigenka is an Arawakan language, 47 and the term matsigenka means ‘person’ or ‘people’, including the human essence of 48 49 animals, certain plants and other beings. The Matsigenka hunt, farm, fish and gather, 50 51 depending on a tremendous diversity of wild and cultivated resources for their 52 53 sustenance. Since the 1980s, gas exploration has increasingly affected communities in 54 55 the lower Urubamba region. 56 57 58 3. What kind of People are Plants? 59 60 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 3 64 65 For many Amazonian peoples, nonhuman agents can be “persons” or 1 2 “subjects” (cf. Viveiros de Castro 1998). In such cosmologies, personhood and 3 4 corporeality are typically thought of as being fabricated via the sharing of substances 5 and essences between bodies of different kinds (Vilaça 2002; Santos-Granero 2012). 6 7 In recent decades, anthropologists of lowland South America have made great strides 8 9 in theorising nonhuman subjectivity in such cosmologies (Descola 2013). Yet these 10 11 formulations tend to generalise the diversity of nonhuman agency while reducing 12 13 biological organisms to symbolic referents (Kohn 2013). While animals and the 14 metaphor of predation play a central role, plants have been mostly overlooked (but 15 16 see Shepard 2004; Wright and Taylor 2009; Rival 2012; Oliveira 2016). Here, we 17 18 underscore the centrality of botanical beings and plant-based substances in 19 20 Amazonian cosmologies. 21 22 For the Makushi, plants can be “persons” (pemon), and are routinely spoken 23 24 of, and spoken to, in subjective terms. As one gardener told Daly, “Plants? They are 25 people!” Personhood is ultimately determined by possession of a “soul” ( ), the 26 ekaton 27 vital essence which “brings life to things.” The soul, in turn, is constituted of 28 29 shimmering light energy (a’ka), which ultimately emanates from the sun (wei): a 30 31 photosynthetic cosmology if there ever was one. The possession of ekaton unites 32 33 plants, animals, and humans in an integrated web of cosmic sociality. However, what 34 35 the Makushi mean by “soul” should not be conflated with Western concepts. The soul 36 infuses the substance or “body” (esak) of the plant in complex and uncertain ways. Its 37 38 curative or toxic properties may be seen as a direct expression of this holistic spirit, as 39 40 revealed through specific sensory properties. As with many Amazonian cosmologies, 41 42 such unified body/soul concepts defy Cartesian dualism (e.g. Taylor 1996). 43 44 For the Matsigenka, some, but not all plants, can be people. Although plants 45 46 “grow,” a manifestation of their “life force” (ani), they don’t “walk” or express other 47 signs of volition; thus the Matsigenka treat most plants as inanimate beings (Shepard 48 49 2018). There are exceptions: the rubber tree (Hevea brasilensis), and other latex- 50 51 containing plants are treated as animate due to their elastic resin. Psychoactive plants 52 53 are considered to be animate beings with spirit “masters” (itinkami) who appear in 54 55 human form. The Matsigenka word for spirit, suretsi, also refers to the heartwood or 56 57 pith of a plant. Analogous to the Makushi case, suretsi can refer to the 58 pharmacological principles of medicinal and toxic plants. When a plant is heated in 59 60 water, its soul “contaminates” or “infuses” (okitsitinkake) the brew. When a person 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 4 64 65 drinks the decoction, the soul of the plant, manifest in its taste, odour and colouration, 1 2 “infuses” the body with this the holistic substance/soul. 3 4 Although substance sharing is well documented in Amazonia (Santos-Granero 5 2012), we highlight the centrality of plants for substance-based transfers, and the key 6 7 role of chemosensation in mediating them. Qualities, capacities and knowledge can be 8 9 acquired by humans via the bodily incorporation of plants and other subjectivities. In 10 11 order to fully appreciate plant personhood, then, it is imperative to investigate sensory 12 13 perceptions and phytochemical components of shamanic and medicinal plants: what 14 might be referred to as the ‘logic of substantivity.’ 15 16 17 18 4. The Concept of Medicines as Poisons 19 20 The Amazon rain forest harbours a vast trove of medicinal, bioactive and toxic 21 22 plants: of 150 known psychoactive plants from around the world, 130 (87%) are from 23 24 South America, mostly the Amazon Basin (Schultes and Raffauf 1990). Most 25 bioactive plants contain alkaloids, nitrogen-containing compounds of low molecular 26 27 weight that traverse cell membranes, causing physiological effects. Thousands of 28 29 toxic plants have been discovered by indigenous peoples of the Amazon as medicines, 30 31 poisons and shamanic substances (for example, see Hutukara 2015). Many plants used 32 33 in indigenous medicine and ritual have strong chemosensory properties, and are 34 35 commonly described as being “bitter”, “poisonous”, “pungent” or “strong” by local 36 healers. Chemosensory potency is often instrumental to understanding efficacy: the 37 38 strongest medicines are also the strongest poisons (Shepard 2004, 2015). 39 40 41 42 - Makushi: Bitter manioc, bitter bulbs 43 44 Poisonous plants are fundamental in Makushi society and ritual. Daily life 45 46 depends upon the harvest and detoxification of cyanide-containing bitter manioc 47 (Maniot esculenta, kîse in Makushi). The transformation of this deadly poison into a 48 49 life-giving foodstuff is a source of immense pride for Makushi people; as a village 50 51 leader exclaimed with passion, “We are scientists! We turn poison into food!” Poison 52 53 (kawi) is also integral to the structural dynamics of Makushi cosmology. Poisonous 54 55 plants and snakes (kîi) are mythically entwined, emerging from one another’s bodies 56 57 in the highly transformational “beginning times” (pia’ton) (cf. Rivière 1994). 58 Makushi plant medicines often involve plant-to-human substance transfers. 59 60 Many medicinal plants are toxic, poisonous, irritating, astringent, or bitter (mai), with 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 5 64 65 their efficacy or “strength” (meruntî) residing in this chemosensory potency (see 1 2 Figure 4). The category of bina plant-charms includes a diversity of species used for 3 4 myriad purposes. Most belong to the Araceae, Amaryllis, and Iris families, some of 5 which are known to contain the needle-like raphide toxins noted above (Andel et al. 6 7 2015). Plant-charms are typically rubbed into lacerations on the recipient’s body, or 8 9 dripped into the eyes or ears. The potent substances contained in these plants, and the 10 11 extreme sensory reactions they induce, are instrumental in their power as charms or 12 13 cures. 14 15 16 - Matsigenka: Invisible worms, eagle eyes and ergot 17 18 Toxicity is fundamental to Matsigenka medicine, as encapsulated in the 19 20 concept of kepigari. The word comes from the root -piga-, “to return, spin,” and by 21 22 extension “to feel dizzy; to be intoxicated; to go insane.” Kepigari refers to all toxic, 23 24 narcotic and psychoactive substances as well as lethal poisons. Plants and other 25 substances that are are often “bitter” ( ), “painful/pungent” ( ), or 26 kepigari kepishiri katsi 27 have an “intoxicating odor” (kepigarienka). The Matsigenka seek out bitter, pungent 28 29 and other toxic plants as medicines because their toxic properties are said to hurt, kill, 30 31 gather together and expel intrusive pathogenic agents, conceptualized as microscopic 32 33 worms, or tsomiri (Shepard 2004). Toxic plants are also important as hunting 34 35 medicines. A man can “lose his aim” by eating improperly cooked meat, by having 36 sex prior to a hunt, or from menstrual blood. These transgressions make his body reek 37 38 of carrion or raw blood (janigarienka) and infuse him with the spirit of the vulture 39 40 (tisoni), frightening game animals and offending their spirit-masters. Matsigenka 41 42 hunters use purgative and emetic plants to clean themselves of these odors and imbue 43 44 their body with the spirit of the harpy eagle (pakitsa), the epitome of hunting prowess. 45 46 They also apply caustic plant juices to their eyes to give eagle-eye vision (Figure 5). 47 The psychoactive nightshade Brunfelsia produces dizziness, nausea and a needle-like 48 49 prickling sensation in the hands and feet described as tseki-tseki-tseki-tsek!, a 50 51 physiological manifestation of the plant’s harpy eagle soul infusing the body (Shepard 52 53 2002). 54 55 Like the Makushi, the Matsigenka use toxic Araceae species. One caustic 56 57 Philodendron is extremely effective for caterpillar stings (Figure 6). A milder species 58 treats cataracts and conjunctivitis. The highly toxic Dieffenbachia sp. is used as an 59 60 abortifacient, a hunting purgative, and to inflict sorcery illness. However, the 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 6 64 65 botanical group most similar to the bina of the Makushi in terms of uses and function 1 2 is a diverse set of cultivated sedges (Cyperus spp.) with bitter, aromatic bulbs known 3 4 as ivenkiki (Shepard 2002). The Matsigenka recognize dozens of sedge varieties with 5 variable uses ranging from fever, headache and snakebite to fertility control to 6 7 treating or causing insanity to imbuing cultural skills such as hunting, weaving and 8 9 singing. Such diverse uses might be dismissed as “magic” or superstition. However 10 11 pharmacological studies revealed a mutualistic infection of the fungus Balansia 12 13 cyperi (Plowman et al. 1990), related to rye ergot (Claviceps purpurea), the botanical 14 source of LSD. Like rye ergot, fungus produces ergot alkaloids, known to 15 Balansia 16 constrict blood vessels, alter uterine contractions, and at high doses cause convulsions 17 18 and hallucinations. Many Matsigenka uses are coherent with the physiological 19 20 properties of ergot alkaloids. 21 22 23 24 5. Becoming Plant, Becoming Person 25 Among the Makushi, shamanic training involves the consumption of copious 26 27 doses of tobacco (kawai) and other toxic plants. During apprenticeship, the shaman 28 29 (pia’san) becomes an esak of plants, a word meaning both “master” and “body.” Thus 30 31 shamanic learning is a corporeal as well as spiritual enterprise, as the body becomes 32 33 infused with the substance and subjectivity of master plants. During healing rituals 34 35 known as “beating leaf”, shamanic spirits – including waawî spirit-darts – feed upon 36 pungent cigar smoke (Figure 7). Among the Matsigenka, too, tobacco and shamanism 37 38 are synonymous: the shaman is seripigari, “the one intoxicated by tobacco.” Tobacco 39 40 is judged by how painful (katsi) and intoxicating it is, which is also a measure of the 41 42 shamanic strength of the person who prepared it (Figure 8). Tobacco and other toxic 43 44 and psychoactive plants are like food for shamans and their spirit allies: as their 45 46 powers grow, shamans come to relish the pungent nourishment of tobacco over 47 ordinary food (Shepard 2015). In both cases, the shaman might be thought of as part- 48 49 plant. 50 51 The Matsigenka and other peoples of the Western Amazon consume the 52 53 hallucinogenic plant brew known as ayahuasca during shamanic rituals. Ayahuasca 54 55 and other shamanic plants are referred to as “plant teachers” who impart knowledge 56 57 directly to the apprentice shaman (Luna 1984; Shepard 2018). Likewise, the Makushi 58 refer to shamanic master plants as “piai-plants,” a term that means both “plants used 59 60 by shamans” and “plants that are shamans”. Thus these powerful plants are shamans 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 7 64 65 themselves, capable of teaching, transforming, and physically inhabiting their human 1 2 apprentices. 3 4 The process of corporeal transfer can also work in reverse: human bodily 5 fluids can be placed into plant tissue in order to alter the plant for shamanic ends. For 6 7 the Makushi, certain plants are “omens” (paanî), possessing clairvoyant powers. 8 9 These plants tend to have caustic tissues, notably Dieffenbachia sp., an Araceae with 10 11 particularly high concentrations of raphide crystals. If an ill (paran, i.e. cursed) 12 13 individual places a few drops of their blood into a notch cut in the plant’s stem, the 14 enemy who cursed them will be revealed in a dream (we’ne): this is embodiment in 15 16 reverse, flowing from person to plant. Among the Matsigenka, a similar procedure 17 18 involves applying the toxic sap of Dieffenbachia and other caustic plants to the hair, 19 20 clothing or footprint of a victim in order to inflict a lethal inflammatory illness. Thus 21 22 the flow of substances and the concomitant transfer of power and knowledge is 23 24 bidirectional, mediated by and encoded within specific chemical sensations. 25 26 27 6. Plant Intelligence, Messenger Molecules and the Anthropocene 28 29 Plants transmit information within themselves, to one another, and to fungi, 30 31 animals and the biosphere. Plant-animal interactions have been especially important 32 33 drivers of evolution, involving visual and tactile as well as biochemical signals. 34 35 Indeed, plants even control weather: Amazonian trees create aromatic compounds that 36 serve as condensation nuclei, seeding the clouds for rain (Loomis 2017). 37 38 Underground, plants and fungi live in intimate symbiotic associations, forming vast 39 40 subterranean communication networks (Tsing 2015: 138). Inherently communicative, 41 42 these multispecies assemblages traverse the biosphere. Much plant-human 43 44 communication takes the form of what Donna Haraway has called “non-linguistic 45 46 embodied communication” (2008: 27), working via somatic and semiotic transfers. 47 Indigenous understandings of plant substances as both material and spiritual agents 48 49 defy Cartesian dualism, while confounding the distinction between signifier and 50 51 signification. 52 53 Recent work suggests that plants exhibit complex and sui generis forms of 54 55 intelligence (Trewavas 2003; Pollan 2012), learning and memory (Gagliano et al. 56 57 2018). Gottlieb and Borin (2005: 34) suggest that alkaloids and polyphenols, the most 58 important compounds driving animal-plant interactions, did not emerge for their 59 60 apparent ecological function in attracting or deterring predators. Instead, these 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 8 64 65 compounds likely evolved to communicate information across cell membranes. 1 2 Trewavas points out that “the suite of molecules used in signal transduction are 3 4 entirely similar between [animal] nerve cells… and plant cells” (2003: 2). In other 5 words, phytochemicals represent a kind of biospheric nervous system. Such findings 6 7 give new levels of insight into indigenous understandings of “plants as teachers” 8 9 (Shepard 2018). 10 11 However, it is important to consider these findings critically. Myers (2015) 12 13 and Hustak and Myers (2012) marshal a feminist reading of recent as well as classic 14 research on plant communication into a critique of the reductionist, “disenchanting” 15 16 neo-Darwinian epistemologies and Western cultural bias infusing much published 17 18 scientific work on plant chemistry and ecology. However, some scientists grappling 19 20 with the molecular basis of plant communication find metaphors derived from human 21 22 communication to be misleading. As Melissa, a graduate student at a U.C. Davis lab 23 24 studying plant circadian rhythms, mused to Natasha Myers (2015: 47), 25 26 27 To assume that a plant is maybe passively, or responding in a way that is 28 caused by a chain of biochemical reactions is to say it is less important than 29 whatever a human is doing. And I think that is not true… It is as if you are 30 suggesting that to characterize it that way [at the molecular level] is to be 31 32 completely insufficient. [It’s as if there] has to be more there. And I think it is 33 important, and it’s arguably sufficient the way it is. 34 35 36 Our purpose here is to show how, if treated with epistemological nuance and 37 38 care, indigenous knowledge and laboratory science can illuminate one another, 39 without privileging one way of knowing over the other. Such synergies are all the 40 41 more striking when we consider the tremendous philosophical and cultural differences 42 43 between indigenous and Western ways of knowing and being, and should give pause 44 45 to anthropologists who would dismiss science for its colonial and patriarchal legacies. 46 47 There is a deeply political dimension to human-plant engagements. Plants are 48 49 silent political agents, acting as semiotic, ecological, and chemical mediators between 50 indigenous societies and outside forces. Plant-politics play out in the peripheral and 51 52 contested spaces that emerge between indigenous and state society, between the world 53 54 of the forest and the market economy (Tsing 2015). Deforestation, for instance, 55 56 violently disrupts the complex ecosemiotic network of plant-animal communication, 57 58 leading to continent-wide – even global – shifts in rainfall, biodiversity loss and 59 60 ecosystem collapse (Lovejoy and Nobre 2018). These escalating ecological impacts 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 9 64 65 bring about cascading consequences for the lives and cultures of indigenous peoples. 1 2 Indigenous activists across Amazonia are campaigning against the appropriation of 3 4 their lands and traditional environmental knowledge by corporate and state interests 5 (Conklin and Graham 1995; Kopenawa and Albert 2013). 6 7 Indigenous phyto-philosophies can teach us a great deal about sustainability 8 9 and multispecies relationality in the Anthropocene era (Brightman and Lewis 2017). 10 11 Indeed, as awareness of anthropogenic impacts on the environment increases, 12 13 anthropologists are beginning to pay greater attention to chemical ecologies (Shapiro 14 and Kirksey 2017; Tsing 2017). In this vein, our research emphasises the central 15 et al. 16 role of plant compounds in mediating human-plant relationships and undergirding 17 18 socio-ecological systems. If forests think, they most certainly do so with 19 20 phytochemicals; not with the kinds of signs and symbols that anthropologists are 21 22 accustomed to analysing (Kohn 2013). 23 24 25 7. Conclusion 26 27 28 29 The more deeply we commit ourselves to studying a people, the more 30 impossible it becomes to ignore what they say and think (Herdt 1981: 128) 31 32 33 The biggest challenge facing multispecies ethnography (Kirksey and 34 35 Helmreich 2010), as we see it, is a methodological one. The conventional methods of 36 37 social anthropology are not sufficient for investigating the complex and elusive 38 39 relationships that transpire across species boundaries (Tsing 2015). As Eduardo Kohn 40 41 (2013) has argued, interspecies relations are inherently semiotic, involving sign flows 42 43 across species boundaries. And yet sensory experience and phytochemistry have been 44 overlooked in much multispecies discourse. Human-plant relations are intrinsically 45 46 sensory, and are often mediated through chemosensation. Our ethnographic findings 47 48 suggest new avenues of analysis into the semiotics, pragmatics, and metaphysics of 49 50 human-plant engagements – in line with what Shepard (2004) has dubbed “sensory 51 52 ecology.” We are interested in the complex ways people think about, and think with, 53 plant-life. Anthropological methods are of course fundamental to this enterprise, and 54 55 yet as we have shown, phytochemical, ecological and even atmospheric studies 56 57 sometimes provide unexpected avenues of insight into the deeper cultural meanings of 58 59 plants for indigenous people. If we are to take their insights seriously, we must take 60 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 10 64 65 all of their insights seriously, not just the ones that appear to appeal most directly to 1 2 our particular discipline. Such two-way dialogue will be especially important in 3 4 collaborative research arrangements between indigenous peoples, scientists and 5 anthropologists in different parts of Amazonia (Abraão et al. 2008; Hutukara 2015). 6 7 After Grandpa John made that tiny sketch drawing, it took over four years, 8 9 combining the observations of two ethnobotanists and a thorough survey of published 10 11 literature, to reveal the profound wisdom contained there. This is not to say that every 12 13 element of indigenous ideology must be backed up by scientific facts to be considered 14 valid; nor will all scientific findings resonate with indigenous philosophies. But rather 15 16 than being reductionist, seeking to simplify socio-cultural phenomena to mechanistic 17 18 underpinnings, this approach could be called “additionalist,” seeking out synergies 19 20 between indigenous and bioscientific insights that reveal a more complete view of the 21 22 vast, mysterious universe we all inhabit together. This perpetually unfolding 23 24 discovery of deeper meanings is the very essence of both scientific inquiry and 25 shamanism. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 11 64 65 Figures: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Figure 1. Grandpa John’s tiny drawing of a spirit-dart. 22 waawî 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Figure 2. Raphides in plant tissue (Konno et al. 2014: 2). 60 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 12 64 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Figure 3. A Makushi farmer with the fish-poison plants in his garden (mîî). 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Figure 4. A highly toxic fish poison plant (aya) – also used as a medicine. 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 13 64 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Figure 5. Matsigenka hunters apply painful eye-drop medicines to improve their aim. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 14 64 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Figure 6. A Matsigenka healer using a caustic Araceae to treat Shepard for a painful 33 34 caterpillar sting. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 15 64 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Figure 7. A Makushi shaman (pia’san) conducting a healing ritual. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Figure 8. For the Matsigenka, the more painful the tobacco snuff, the more powerful 53 54 the shaman. 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 16 64 65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Figure 9. A Makushi farmer and her grandson in a cassava farm. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 17 64 65 Acknowledgements 1 2 3 4 We acknowledge support from Brazil’s National Research Council (CNPq) through 5 Programa de Capacitação Institucional (PCI) and thank the Grant Office and Human 6 7 Sciences Division at the Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi (MPEG) in Belém, Brazil. 8 9 Shepard’s field research was supported by the Wenner Gren Foundation and the 10 11 National Science Foundation. His ongoing work is supported by CNPq productivity 12 13 grants (Proc. 309064/2009-0, 308991/2015-0). Daly’s research in Guyana between 14 2011-16 was supported by the School of Anthropology at the University of Oxford. 15 16 Fieldwork was made possible by a scholarship from the Economic and Social 17 18 Research Council, UK (Award Number: ES/I016694/1). 19 20 21 22 Note on Contributors 23 24 25 Lewis Daly is a Teaching Fellow in Social and Environmental Anthropology at 26 27 University College London (UCL). Lewis has a doctorate in Anthropology from the 28 29 University of Oxford. He has been conducting ethnographic fieldwork with Makushi 30 31 communities since 2011, and is currently working on a series of articles on Makushi 32 33 ethnoecology and cosmology. 34 35 36 Email: [email protected] 37 38 39 40 Glenn H. Shepard Jr. is an ethnobotanist, medical anthropologist, and film-maker 41 42 based at the Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi (MPEG) in Belém, Brazil. He is currently 43 44 working on a monograph entitled Sorcery and the Senses, which explores shamanism, 45 46 ecology, and sensory experience in the Peruvian Amazon. He blogs at “Notes from 47 the Ethnoground” (ethnoground.blogspot.com). 48 49 50 51 Email: [email protected] 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 18 64 65 References 1 2 3 4 Abraão, Marcia Barbosa, Bruce W. Nelson, Douglas W. Yu, and Glenn H. Shepard Jr. 5 6 2008. Ethnobotanical ground-truthing: Indigenous knowledge, floristic 7 8 inventories and satellite imagery in the upper Rio Negro, Brazil. Journal of 9 Biogeography 35(12): 2237–2248. 10 11 Andel, Tinde van, Sofie Ruysschaert, Karin Boven, and Lewis Daly. 2015. The use of 12 13 Amerindian charm plants in the Guianas. Journal of Ethnobiology and 14 15 Ethnomedicine 11:66. 16 17 Brightman, Marc and Jerome Lewis (eds.). 2017. The anthropology of sustainability: 18 19 beyond development and progress. London: Palgrave MacMillan. 20 Butt Colson, Audrey. 2001. Itoto (kanaima) as death and anti-structure. In L. Rival 21 22 and N. Whitehead (eds.). Beyond the visible and the material: the 23 24 Amerindianization of society in the work of Peter Riviere. Oxford: Oxford 25 26 University Press. 27 28 Chaumeil, Jean Pierre 1993. Del proyectil al virus: el complejo de dardos-mágicos en 29 el chamanismo del oeste Amazónico. In C.E. Pinzon (ed.) 30 Cultura y Salud En 31 La Construcción de Las Américas. Bogota: Instituto Colombiano de 32 33 Antropología, pp. 261–277. 34 35 Conklin, Beth A. and Laura R. Graham. 1995. The shifting middle ground: 36 37 Amazonian Indians and eco-politics. American Anthropologist (N.S.) 38 39 97(4):695-710. 40 Daly, Lewis. 2015. What kind of people are plants? The challenges of researching 41 42 human-plant relations in Amazonia. Engagement, blog of the Anthropology 43 44 and Environment Society of the American Anthropology Association (AAA). 45 46 December 2015. https://aesengagement.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/what-kind- 47 48 of-people-are-plants-the-challenges-of-researching-human-plant-relations-in- 49 50 amazonian-guyana/ 51 ———. 2016. Cassava spirit and the seed of history. Commodity Histories. February 52 53 2016. http://www.commodityhistories.org/research/cassava-spirit-and-seed- 54 55 history 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 19 64 65 Daly, Lewis, Luiseach Nic Eoin, Katherine French, and Theresa Miller. 2016. 1 2 Integrating ontology into ethnobotanical research. Journal of Ethnobiology 3 4 36(1):1–9. 5 Descola, Philippe. 2013. Beyond nature and culture. J. Lloyd (trans.). Chicago, IL: 6 7 University of Chicago Press. 8 9 Desphande, S.S. 2002. Handbook of food toxicology. New York: Marcel Dekker. 10 11 Gagliano, Monica, Charles I. Abramson, and Martial Depczynski. 2018. Plants learn 12 13 and remember: lets get used to it. Oecologia 106(1):29–31. 14 Gottlieb, Otto R. and Maria Renata de M.B. Borin. 2005. Insights into evolutionary 15 16 systems via chemobiological data. In E. Elisabetsky and N. Etkin (eds.) 17 18 Ethnopharmacology: encyclopedia of life support systems. Oxford: 19 20 UNESCO/Eolss Publishers. Pp. 25–70. 21 22 Haraway, Donna. 2008. When species meet. London: University of Minnesota Press. 23 24 Hartigan, John. 2017. Care of the species: races of corn and the science of plant 25 Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 26 biodiversity. 27 Hayes, A. Wallace (Ed.). 2008. Principles and methods of toxicology (5th Ed.). New 28 29 York: Informa Health Care. 30 31 Herdt, Gilbert. 1981. Guardians of the flutes. Volume 1: idioms of masculinity. 32 33 Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 34 35 Hustak, Carla and Natasha Myers. 2012. Involutionary momentum: affective 36 ecologies and the sciences of plant/insect encounters. Differences 23(3):74– 37 38 118. 39 40 Hutukara Association. 2015. Manual of traditional Yanomami remedies. Hutukara 41 42 Associação Yanomami, Boa Vista, Brazil. 43 44 Ingold, Tim. 2013. Anthropology beyond humanity. Suomen Antropologi: Journal of 45 46 the Finnish Anthropological Society 38(3): 5–23. 47 Kawa, Nicholas. 2016. How religion, race, and the weedy agency of plants shape 48 49 Amazonian home gardens. Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 50 51 38(2):84–93. 52 53 Kirksey, Eben and Stefan Helmreich. 2010. The emergence of multispecies 54 55 ethnography. Cultural Anthropology 25(4):545–576. 56 57 Kohn, Eduardo. 2013. How forests think: toward an anthropology beyond the human. 58 Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 59 60 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 20 64 65 Konno, Kotaro, Takashi A. Inoue, and Masatoshi Nakamura. 2014. Synergistic 1 2 defensive function of raphides and protease through the needle effect. PLOS 3 4 One 9(3):1–7. 5 Kopenawa, Davi and Bruce Albert. 2013. The falling sky: words of a Yanomami 6 7 shaman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 8 9 Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1970. The raw and the cooked: mythologiques I. New York: 10 11 Harper and Row. 12 13 Loomis, Ilima. 2017. Trees in the Amazon make their own rain. Science, August 4, 14 2017. doi:10.1126/science.aan7209 15 16 Lovejoy, Thomas E. and Carlos Nobre. 2018. Amazon tipping point. Science 17 18 Advances, Feb 2018, 4(2):eaat2340. 19 20 Luna, Luis Eduardo. 1984. The concept of plants as teachers among four mestizo 21 22 shamans of Iquitos, northeastern Peru. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 23 24 11(11):135–156. 25 Myers, Natasha. 2015. Conversations on plant sensing: notes from the field. 26 27 NatureCulture 3:35–66. 28 29 ———. 2017. From the Anthropocene to the Planthroposcene: designing gardens for 30 31 plant/people involution. History and Anthropology 28(3):297–301. 32 33 Oliveira, Joana Cabral de. 2016. Mundos de rocas e florestas. Boletim Do Museo 34 35 Paraense Emílio Goedi, Ciências Humanas 11(1):115–131. 36 Pollan, Michael. 2003. The intelligent plant. The New Yorker 89:92–105. 37 38 Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo. 1976. Cosmology as ecological analysis: a view from 39 40 the rain forest. Man 11(3):307–318. 41 42 Rival, Laura. 2001. Seed and clone: the symbolic and social significance of bitter 43 44 manioc cultivation. In L. Rival and N. Whitehead (eds.). Beyond the visible 45 46 and the material: the Amerindianization of society in the work of Peter 47 Riviere. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 48 49 ———. 2012. Animism and the meanings of life: reflections from Amazonia. In M. 50 51 Brightman, V. Grotti, and O. Ulturgasheva (eds.). Animism in rainforest and 52 53 tundra: personhood, animals, plants, and things in contemporary Amazonia 54 55 and Siberia. Oxford: Berghahn Books. 56 57 Rivière, Peter. 1994. WYSINWYG in Amazonia. Journal of the Anthropological 58 Society of Oxford 25(3):255–262. 59 60 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 21 64 65 Santos-Granero, Fernando. 2012. Being and people-making in native Amazonia: a 1 2 constructional approach with a perspectival coda. HAU: Journal of 3 4 Ethnographic Theory 2(1):181–211. 5 Schultes, Richard Evans., and Robert F. Raffauf. 1990. The healing forest: medicinal 6 7 and Toxic Plants of the Northwest Amazon. Portland: Dioscorides Press. 8 9 Shapiro, Nick and Eben Kirksey. 2017. Chemo-ethnography: an introduction. 10 11 Cultural Anthropology 32(4):481–493. 12 13 Shepard Jr., Glenn H. 1999. Shamanism and diversity: A Matsigenka perspective. In 14 . D.A Posey (ed). London: United 15 Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity 16 Nations Environmental Programme and Intermediate Technology Publication. 17 18 93–95. 19 20 ———. 2002. Primates in Matsigenka subsistence and worldview. In A. Fuentes and 21 22 L. Wolfe (eds.) Primates face to face: the conservation implications of human 23 24 and nonhuman primate interconnections. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge 25 University Press, 101–136. 26 27 ———. 2004. A sensory ecology of medicinal plant therapy in two societies. 28 29 American Anthropologist 106:252–266. 30 31 ———. 2015. Agony and ecstasy in the Amazon: Tobacco, pain and the 32 33 hummingbird shamans of Peru. Broad Street 2(1):5–20. 34 35 ———. 2018. Spirit bodies, plant teachers, and messenger molecules in Amazonian 36 shamanism. In D. McKenna (ed.) Ethnopharmacologic search for 37 38 psychoactive drugs II: 50 years of research (1967-2017). Santa Fe: Synergetic 39 40 Press, 70-81. 41 42 Taylor, Anne-Christine. 1996. The soul’s body and its states: an Amazonian 43 44 perspective on the nature of being human. Journal of the Royal 45 46 Anthropological Institute 2(2):201–215. 47 Trewavas, Anthony. 2003. Aspects of plant intelligence. Annals of Botany 92:1–20. 48 49 Tsing, Anna L. 2015. The mushroom at the end of the world: on the possibility of life 50 51 in capitalist ruins. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 52 53 Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt, Heather Anne Swanson, Elaine Gan, and Nils Bubandt 54 55 (eds.). 2017. Arts of living on a damaged planet: ghosts and monsters of the 56 57 Anthropocene. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 58 Vilaça, Aparecida. 2002. Making kin out of others in Amazonia. Journal of the Royal 59 60 Anthropological Institute (N.S.) 8:347-365. 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 22 64 65 Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. 1998. Cosmological deixis and Amerindian 1 2 perspectivism. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.) 4:469– 3 4 488. 5 Wilbert, Johannes. 2004. The order of dark shamans among the Warao. In N. 6 7 Whitehead and R. Wright (eds.). In darkness and secrecy: the anthropology of 8 9 assault sorcery and witchcraft in Amazonia. London: Duke University Press. 10 11 Wright, Robin M. and Bron Taylor. 2009. Editors’ introduction: the religious lives of 12 13 Amazonian plants. Special Issue. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature, 14 3(1):5–8. 15 and Culture 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Anthropology Today | Daly and Shepard Jr. 63 23 64 65