ETHNOBOTANICAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND MEDICAL ETHNOBOTANY OF THE EASTERN BAND OF THE CHEROKEE INDIANS by David N. Cozzo (Under the direction of Brent Berlin) ABSTRACT The Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians live in one of the planet’s most floristically diverse temperate zone environments. Their relationship with the local flora was initially investigated by James Mooney and revisited by subsequent researchers such as Frans Olbrechts, John Witthoft, and William Banks, among others. This work interprets the collective data recorded by Cherokee ethnographers, much of it in the form of unpublished archival material, as it reflects the Cherokee ethnobotanical classification system and their medical ethnobotany. Mooney’s proposed classification system for the Cherokee is remarkably similar to contemporary models of folk biological classification systems. His recognition of this inherent system, 60 years before contemporary models were proposed, provides evidence for their universality in human cognition. Examination of the collective data concerning Cherokee medical ethnobotany provides a basis for considering change in Cherokee ethnobotanical knowledge, for re- evaluation of the statements of the various researchers, and a means to explore trends that were not previously apparent. Index Words: Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians, Ethnobiological Classification Systems, Ethnohistory, Ethnomedicine, Historical Ethnobotany, Medical Ethnobotany, Native American Medicine, Tradition Botanical Knowledge. ETHNOBOTANICAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND MEDICAL ETHNOBOTANY OF THE EASTERN BAND OF THE CHEROKEE INDIANS by David N. Cozzo B. S. Eastern Kentucky University, 1995 M. A. Appalachian State University, 1999 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Athens, Georgia 2004 © 2004 David N. Cozzo All Rights Reserved ETHNOBOTANICAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND MEDICAL ETHNOBOTANY OF THE EASTERN BAND OF THE CHEROKEE INDIANS by David N. Cozzo Major Professor: Brent Berlin Committee: Elois Ann Berlin Charles Hudson Ted Gragson Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2004 DEDICATION To my daughters, Jocelyn Grace and Alyssa Joy, whose love and support sustained me throughout the process. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to my committee members, Brent and Elois Ann Berlin, Charles Hudson, and Ted Gragson for their direction, insights, and nurturance throughout this endeavor. Their support and enthusiasm has enhanced any sense of accomplishment I associate with my academic pursuits. I would like to express my appreciation to the Faculty and Staff of the Anthropology Department at the University of Georgia for opening my eyes to the possibilities and helping me deal with the realities of higher education. I also wish to thank William Sturtevant, my research advisor at the Smithsonian Institution, and the staff at the National Anthropological Archives. Funding for this project was provided by a Graduate Research Fellowship from the Smithsonian Institution and the Anne S. Chatham Fellowship in Medicinal Botany. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………v LIST OF TABLES…..…………………………………………………………………………..vii Chapter 1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………1 2 Cherokee Ethnobotanical Classification System…………………………...22 3 Tlukûĭ – Tree.............................................................................................43 4 Uwáwa‛téna – Shrub; Udûnsínĭ – Vine……………………………………...94 5 Ganulû΄hĭ – Herbaceous (Non-woody) Plants........................................135 Part 1: Cherokee Intermediate Categories………………………..136 Part 2: Cherokee Herbaceous Plants……………………………...192 6 Kanéska – Grass……………………………………………………………..313 7 Egû΄lĭ or Igû΄lĭ – Fern…………………………………….…………………..330 8 Úgalŭ-hi – Moss; Ustaléta – Lichen………………………………………..339 9 Crop Plants…………………………….……………………………………..343 10 Cherokee Ethnomycology………….……………………………………….359 11 Re-evaluation of the Cherokee Ethnomedical System from an Ethnobotanical Perspective…………………………………………………369 References……………………………………………………………………………………398 Appendix: Cherokee Ethnomedical Conditions…………………….…………………….410 vi LIST OF TABLES Page Table 3.1: Botanical and Cherokee Names for Maples and Hickories………………….45 Table 3.2. Botanical and Cherokee Names for Oaks……………………………………..45 Table 3.3. Tree Index: Botanical Species and Folk Genera……………………………..48 Table 4.1. Shrub and Vine Index: Botanical Species and Folk Genera…………………97 Table 5.1. Botanical Families in the Intermediate Categories (with No. of Genera)….137 Table 5.2. Intermediate Category Index: Botanical Species and Folk Species……….138 Table 5.3. Herbaceous Plant Index: Botanical Species and Folk Genera……………..193 Table 6.1. Grass Index: Botanical Species and Folk Species…………………………..315 Table 7.1. Fern Index: Botanical Species and Folk Species…………………………….332 Table 8.1. Moss and Lichen Index: Botanical Name and Folk Species………………..340 Table 9.1. Crop Plant Index: Botanical Name and Folk Species……………………….343 Table 10.1. Fungus Index: Botanical Species and Folk Species……………………….361 Table11.1: Frequency of Remedy Selection for Cherokee Diseases…………………..373 Table 11.2: Number of Remedies Used for Cherokee Diseases……………………….391 Table 11.3: Number of Herbs Used per Bodily Fluid …………………………………….392 vii Chapter 1 Introduction The Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians live in one of the most botanically diverse temperate zone ecosystems on the planet. A complete study of Cherokee ethnobotany would be a monumental, multifaceted task, so in this present work I have chosen to concentrate on just two aspects: the ethnobotanical classification system and medical ethnobotany of the Cherokee. The former, until recently (Cozzo 2000), has not been explored and the latter, while partially described in several works (Mooney 1891, 1900, Mooney and Olbrechts 1932, Banks 1953), has not been treated in a comprehensive manner. As the field of ethnobotany has matured and been embraced by professional anthropologists, theoretical and methodological approaches have also matured. Mere lists of economically useful plants have been shown to be inadequate in explaining the human relationship to their botanical environment. The functional, social, and ideological context must all be considered when taking a holistic approach to plant/human interactions. Conklin’s study of the Hanunóo ethnobotanical classification system is considered a seminal work in the structure of cognition as it relates to the field of ethnobotany (Ford 1978), but it was Berlin and his collaborators that demonstrated the universality of folk systems (Berlin 1972, Berlin et al. 1973, Berlin 1992). 1 As the field of ethnobotany has matured and been embraced by professional anthropologists, theoretical and methodological approaches have also matured. Mere lists of economically useful plants have been shown to be inadequate in explaining the human relationship to their botanical environment. The functional, social, and ideological context must all be considered when taking a holistic approach to plant/human interactions. Conklin’s study of the Hanunóo ethnobotanical classification system demonstrated that the structure of cognition was also an integral part of the field (Ford 1978). The Cherokee myth of the origin of disease and medicine demonstrates why the Cherokee ethnobotanical system provides an ideal opportunity to integrate their ethnobiological classification system and their medical ethnobotany. In Mooney’s version of the myth, all the plants, “Each Tree, Shrub, and Herb, down to the Grasses and Mosses, agreed to furnish a cure for some one of the diseases named and each said: ‘I shall appear to help Man when he calls upon me in his need (1891: 252).’” Every plant was considered to have a medicinal application, “even the weeds”, but the means to use each was not always understood by humans. Clearly, as the Cherokees assumed that all plants had a medicinal value, whether known or unknown, the system is truly holistic. The segregation of the plants into the various life forms also delineates the basis of the classification system. But this myth was recorded over 100 years ago and the belief system that fostered it has gone through numerous changes. A compilation such as that described below is limited to the information that has been recorded by previous researchers, which is inherently bounded by the strictures of 2 fieldwork and the awe-inspiring task of comprehensively recording the complexities of human culture. Contemporary ethnobotany is a multidisciplinary field encompassing or integrated with such diverse disciplines as ethnoecology, ethnomedicine, cognitive ethnobotany, paleoethnobotany, traditional agricultural practices, and studies of material culture (Cotton 1996: 17). However, as traditional cultures are disappearing, there is a growing interest in historical ethnobotany. In the past, historical ethnobotanists have mainly been concerned with the relationship between people and plants as recorded in ancient texts and the pictographs of preliterate societies (Schultes and von Reis 1995: 89). However, as the discipline has evolved and methodologies have improved, it is advantageous from both practical and cultural perspectives to revisit the historical records of the ethnographers from the early days of the profession. This is especially relevant in North America, where most of the early ethnographic material