Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, via Torino 155, 30172, Mestre, VE, Italy.
Estonian Literary Museum, Vanemuise 42, 51003, Tartu, Estonia.
J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2017 Oct 3;13(1):54. doi: 10.1186/s13002-017-0183-6.
To use any domestic remedy, specific knowledge and skills are required. Simple logic dictates that the use of wild plants in the context of limited interaction with nature requires prior identification, while in the case of non-plant remedies and cultivated plants this step can be omitted. This paper aims to document the current and past uses of non-plant remedies and cultivated plants in the study region for human/animal medication; to analyze the human medicinal and veterinary use areas in the context of the remedy groups; to qualitatively compare the results with relevant historical publications; and to compare the intensity and purpose of use between the remedy groups.
During field studies 134 semi-structured interviews were conducted with locals from 11 villages in the Liubań district of Belarus. Currently used home-remedies as well as those used in the past were documented by employing the folk history method. The subject was approached through health-related uses, not by way of remedies. Interview records were digitalized and structured in Detailed Use Records in order to ascertain local perceptions. An Informant Consensus Factor (FIC) was calculated for remedy groups as well as for different use categories.
In the human medication area the use of nearby remedies was neither very diverse nor numerous: 266 DUR for 45 taxa belonging to 27 families were recorded for cultivated plants along with 188 DUR for 58 different non-plant remedies. The FIC values for both remedy groups were lower than for wild plants. In the ethnoveterinary medicine use area there were 48 DUR referring to the use of 14 cultivated plant taxa from 12 families and 72 DUR referring to the use of 31 non-plant remedies. The FIC value for the whole veterinary use area of cultivated plants was relatively low, yet similar to the FIC of wild plants.
Differences between remedy groups were pronounced, indicating that in domestic human medicine cultivated plants and non-plant remedies are either remarkably less important than wild ones or not considered worth talking about. In ethnoveterinary medicine non-plant remedies are almost equally important as wild plants, while cultivated plants are the least used. People in study area seem to still more often rely on, or are more willing to talk to strangers about, wild plants, as promoted by both official medicine and popular literature.
使用任何国内疗法都需要特定的知识和技能。简单的逻辑表明，在与自然有限互动的情况下，使用野生植物需要事先识别，而在非植物疗法和栽培植物的情况下，这一步可以省略。本文旨在记录研究区域内非植物疗法和栽培植物目前和过去用于人类/动物药物的情况；分析药物组中人类药用和兽医用途的情况；从质量上比较与相关历史出版物的结果；并比较药物组之间使用的强度和目的。
在实地研究中，对白俄罗斯柳巴恩区 11 个村庄的当地人进行了 134 次半结构化访谈。通过采用民间历史方法记录当前使用的家庭疗法以及过去使用的疗法。通过与健康相关的用途而不是通过疗法来接近主题。访谈记录被数字化并在详细使用记录中进行结构化，以确定当地的看法。为药物组以及不同的使用类别计算了信息共识因子（FIC）。
在人类药物治疗领域，附近疗法的使用既不丰富也不繁多：记录了 45 种属于 27 个科的栽培植物的 266 个使用记录，以及 58 种不同的非植物疗法的 188 个使用记录。两种药物组的 FIC 值均低于野生植物。在兽医医学领域，记录了 48 个涉及 12 个科 14 种栽培植物的使用记录，72 个涉及 31 种非植物疗法的使用记录。整个兽医使用领域的栽培植物的 FIC 值相对较低，但与野生植物的 FIC 值相似。
药物组之间的差异很明显，表明在国内医学中，栽培植物和非植物疗法要么明显不如野生植物重要，要么不值得谈论。在兽医医学中，非植物疗法与野生植物几乎同等重要，而栽培植物的使用则最少。研究区域的人们似乎仍然更倾向于依靠野生植物，或者更愿意与陌生人谈论野生植物，这既受到官方医学的推动，也受到大众文学的推动。
