Lenaerts Marc
Department of International Development, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford, Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3TB, UK.
J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2006 Nov 10;2:49. doi: 10.1186/1746-4269-2-49.
Indigenous Amazonian ethnomedicine usually relies on numerous forms of healing, exercised by both specialists and non-specialists. Such is the case among the "Asheninka del Ucayali" (Arawak from the Peru-Brazil border). This paper attempts to elicit the underlying consistencies of their manifold, often contradictory practices and statements.It draws on ethnographic data gathered between 1997 and 2000, and is essentially based on my own interviews and participant observation. Concerning some specific points these data are also compared with ethnobotanical findings, to highlight significant peculiarities of the Asheninka approach.The first question is about the nature of a "good medicine". When the Asheninka borrow botanical knowledge from another ethnic group and comment the fact, the contrast between indigenous self-assessments and objective ethnobotanical measurements points out a crucial difference: While the Western approach focuses essentially on chemical effectiveness of the plants themselves, Asheninka people pay much more attention to relational aspects.The relational dimension also involves the plants themselves, as a sort of person. The point has implications in Asheninka shamanism and herbalism. A shaman does not necessarily need to be a good botanist. His main concern is managing a network of personal relationships involving all kinds of living beings. This network is supposed to be the mainspring of illness - a belief shared by both shamans and ordinary people.However, most ordinary people have detailed herbal knowledge. In fact, this everyday herbalism amounts to an alternative explanatory model. Such a coexistence of two contrasting explanatory systems is frequent in Amazonia. Among the Asheninka, nevertheless, the underlying hierarchy is clear: the herbal, apparently more materialistic, approach is embedded in the shamanic, plainly relational, model.
亚马逊地区的本土民族医学通常依赖多种治疗方式,专业人士和非专业人士都可施行。“乌卡亚利阿申宁卡人”(来自秘鲁 - 巴西边境的阿拉瓦克人)就是如此。本文试图探寻他们多样且常相互矛盾的实践与说法背后的一致性。它借鉴了1997年至2000年间收集的民族志数据,主要基于我自己的访谈和参与观察。关于一些特定要点,这些数据还与民族植物学研究结果进行了比较,以突出阿申宁卡人方法的显著特点。第一个问题是关于“好药”的本质。当阿申宁卡人借鉴另一个民族的植物学知识并对此发表评论时,本土自我评估与客观民族植物学测量之间的差异指出了一个关键区别:西方方法主要关注植物本身的化学功效,而阿申宁卡人则更关注关系层面。关系维度也涉及植物本身,将其视为一种人。这一点在阿申宁卡人的萨满教和草药学中有影响。萨满不一定需要是优秀的植物学家。他主要关心的是管理一个涉及各种生物的人际关系网络。这个网络被认为是疾病的根源——萨满和普通人都有这种信念。然而,大多数普通人都有详细的草药知识。事实上,这种日常草药学相当于一种替代解释模型。在亚马逊地区,两种截然不同的解释系统并存的情况很常见。然而,在阿申宁卡人中,潜在的等级制度很明确:表面上更物质主义的草药方法嵌入在明显基于关系的萨满模型之中。