Can a Use-Based Taxonomy Be Natural? an Example from Aguaruna Folk Classification of Trees Kevin Jernigan

Can a Use-based Taxonomy be Natural? An example from Aguaruna folk classification of trees Kevin Jernigan Research Abstract This work examines the classic utilitarian vs. intellectualist most perceptually distinctive organisms have the great- debate in cognitive ethnobiology from a new perspective. est probability of being named. Others (Hunn 1982) have It challenges the notion that classifications based on util- emphasized the importance of usefulness, arguing that ity are artificial, that is, necessarily constructed from a few cultural knowledge should be adaptive. Evidence (Berlin special characteristics. The paper involves a new analysis 1992, Posey 1984) suggests that ecological relationships of ethnographic data collected by the author over multiple also play an important role in classification. field sessions from 2004 to 2010 in nine Aguaruna villages in Amazonas, Peru. In previous work, Aguaruna par- Debate has focused not only on the factors motivating ticipants described uses, along with sensory and ecologi- classification but also on the mechanics of how folk taxon- cal characteristics of local tree species. They also stated omies are organized (Atran 1998, Berlin et al. 1974, Hunn which tree folk genera they consider related to each other 1982). An important aspect of these discussions concerns as “companions,” typically placing taxa together in natu- the naturalness of taxonomic schemes. Natural (or general purpose) schemes group together members based on ral groupings. This new synthesis took the descriptions many common shared characteristics (Berlin et al. 1966). of uses and physical characteristics for a sample of 41 Modern scientific classification is a good example. Con- Aguaruna tree folk genera and subjected both to hierar- versely, artificial (or special) classification schemes use a chical cluster analysis to see which would better repro- small number of characteristics designed for a particular duce the folk classification. Use data performed nearly as purpose. For instance, one might classify plants as “ed- well as sensory data in reproducing the natural groupings ible,” “medicinal” or “psychoactive.” Berlin (1991,1992) ar- of trees. This makes sense considering that plant uses gues that the widespread agreement between scientific tend to be based on physical properties (including pres- and folk systems of classification provides good evidence ence of secondary compounds) that related species will often share. Introduction Correspondence Bases for classification Kevin Jernigan, Anthropology Department, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A. A classic and ongoing debate within the field of ethno- [email protected] biology relates to the relative strengths of intellectualist, ecological, and utilitarian approaches to folk classification (Anderson 2000, 2010, Atran 1998, Berlin 1991, 1992, Hunn 1982, Posey 1984). Folk taxonomic systems typically give linguistic recognition to only a portion of the bio- logical diversity in any given region (Berlin 1991, Hunn Ethnobotany Research & Applications 12:685-703 (2014) 1982). Some authors (Berlin 1991,1992) maintain that the Published: 22 December 2014 www.ethnobotanyjournal.org/vol12/i1547-3465-12-685.pdf 686 Ethnobotany Research & Applications that the latter are general purpose, based on observa- Background tions of the morphological and behavioral qualities of organisms. Similarly, Atran maintains that folk taxonomies Study site are general-purpose schemes that work “to maximize in- ductive potential relative to human interests” (1998:563). This study involves a new analysis of ethnographic data Hunn (1982) has suggested that folk classifications are collected over multiple field sessions of the author and based on an extensive natural core along with a periph- collaborators in nine Aguaruna villages from 2004 to 2010. ery of artificial taxa based on utilitarian considerations. In The previous studies interviewed 30 adult Aguaruna par- any case, major contributors in this field (Berlin 1992, El- ticipants, focusing on the process of tree identification len 2008, Hunn 1982) have largely discussed use-based (Jernigan 2006b, 2008), medical ethnobotany (Jernigan classifications as being artificial rather than natural. The 2009), and knowledge of life histories of local birds and possibility that utility based classification schemes could mammals (Jernigan 2006a, 2010, Jernigan & Dauphine be natural has largely not been explored. The present arti- 2008). The work involved researchers from the University cle examines this assumption through a detailed analysis of Georgia, the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and the of the Aguaruna life form category númi – “trees.” Specifi- Universidad Nacional Mayor San Marcos in Lima, Peru. cally, it tests the hypothesis: When sensory and ecological characters listed by Aguaruna participants for local trees All work took place on the upper Marañón river (see Fig- are subjected to a hierarchical cluster analysis, the result- ure 1), in the department of Amazonas, Peru, approxi- ing classification will be a natural one. However, a similar mately 300 km northeast of the major Peruvian city of Chi- analysis based on use characters should fail to produce clayo. This is an area of high species diversity of both flora natural groupings. and fauna (Jernigan & Dauphine 2008). These studies all D G D Marañón River G D PERU Marañón River G Nieva River PERU Marañón River Nieva River PERU E K Nieva River B E K F H C E B K AF I H C B J F A H C I Fig 1 J A I J FigureFig 1 1. Study area on the upper Marañón river, Amazonas, Peru. Communities of A) Atash Shinukbau, B) Bajo Ca- chiaco, C) Chiriaco, D) Ciro Alegria, E) Kayamas, F) Pagki, G) Santa Maria de Nieva, H) Tunants, I) Wawas, J) Wichim, Fig 1 and K) Yangunga. Red denotes study communities, grey denotes other communities. www.ethnobotanyjournal.org/vol12/i1547-3465-12-685.pdf Jernigan - Can a Use-based Taxonomy be Natural? An example from 687 Aguaruna folk classification of trees conformed to American Anthropological Association ethi- – “companions.” In previous research (Jernigan 2006a), cal guidelines (1998–2012). For all work, prior informed the author asked Aguaruna participants to group folk gen- consent was obtained first at the community level, then era of trees that they consider to be companions. For ex- from individual participants. Permission was also granted ample, the majority of participants recognized the relat- by the Peruvian Ministry of Agriculture for collecting bo- edness of trees in the genus Cecropia (Urticaceae), in- tanical voucher specimens. cluding satík (Cecropia membranacea Trécul) and súu (Cecropia engleriana Snethl.). As with many of the com- Approximately 40,000 people in this region identify eth- panion groupings, this particular group can be justified in nically as Aguaruna (Lewis et al. 2013). Local traditional terms of both morphological similarities and similar uses. subsistence practices focus on swidden agriculture, sup- Both Cecropia species have palmate leaves with long pet- plemented by wild plant foods and meat from livestock, ioles and clusters of oblong fruit. Both serve as firewood wild game, and fish. Despite some expansion of market and have sap that treats hepatitis and anemia. economies in recent years, local substance activities con- tinue to dominate (Jernigan 2006b). A majority of “companions” form natural groupings from the perspective of modern scientific taxonomy. However, The present analysis relies on interviews from the native occasionally trees that are not biologically closely related communities of Alto Pagki, Atash Shinukbau, Bajo Ca- can also be considered kumpají. For example, the spe- chiaco, Ciro Alegria, Kayamas, Tunants, Wawas, Wichim, cies shijíg (Hevea guianensis Aubl.), tákae (Brosimum and Yangunga (Figure 1). All research participants are parinarioides Ducke) and barát (Chrysophyllum san- Aguaruna speakers, and interviews were carried out by guinolentum subsp. balata (Ducke) T.D. Penn.) are often the author and collaborators in that language. Villages placed together because they each have copious white range in elevation from 300–600 masl, corresponding to sap that serves as a source of rubber. a transition zone between lowland and montane tropical evergreen forest. Methods Aguaruna folk taxonomy In previous work (Jernigan 2006a, 2008, 2009, 2010), The present discussion of Aguaruna folk taxonomy focus- Aguaruna participants freelisted the following for local es on the life form category númi, which includes most tree species: 1) their uses, 2) their physical characteris- of what falls under the English folk category “tree.” How- tics (e.g. “the trunk is smooth” or “the sap is white”) and 3) ever, it excludes soft-wooded taxa such as Carica papaya their ecological relationships with animals (e.g., “the fruit L. (papái) and palms in general (Jernigan 2006b). For a is eaten by tapirs” or “stinging ants live in the trunk”). wider treatment of Aguaruna folk classification see Berlin (1992) and Jernigan (2006b). The present analysis takes a sample of 41 Aguaruna tree folk genera of high salience in freelists that are wide- Aguaruna classification has a built-in mechanism for rec- ly agreed to form 15 distinct groups of related “compan- ognizing the relatedness of certain folk genera within a ions” (Table 1) (Jernigan 2006a). Scientific names in this life form category. Such related taxa are called kumpají table are those accepted in the Tropicos database (Mis- Table 1. Trees used for analysis

Load more