Volume 186, 20 June 2016, Pages 61–72
Abstract
Ethnopharmacological relevance
This
paper presents one of the first large-scale collaborative research
projects in ethnopharmacology, to bring together indigenous stakeholders
and scientists both in project design and execution. This approach has
often been recommended but rarely put into practice. The study was
carried out in two key indigenous areas of Guatemala, for which very
little ethnopharmacological fieldwork has been published.
Aim of the study
To
document and characterize the ethno-pharmacopoeias of the Kaqchikel
(highlands) and Q’eqchi’ (lowlands) Maya in a transdisciplinary
collaboration with the two groups Councils of Elders.
Materials and methods
The
project is embedded in a larger collaboration with five Councils of
Elders representing important indigenous groups in Guatemala, two of
which participated in this study. These suggested healing experts
reputed for their phytotherapeutic knowledge and skills. Ethnobotanical
fieldwork was carried out over 20 months, accompanied by a joint
steering process and validation workshops. The field data were
complemented by literature research and were aggregated using a modified
version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and
Trotter & Logan's consensus index.
Results
Similar
numbers of species were collected in the two areas, with a combined
total of 530 species. This total does not represent all of the species
used for medicinal purposes. Remedies for the digestive system, the
central nervous system & behavioral syndromes, and general tissue
problems & infections were most frequent in both areas. Furthermore,
remedies for the blood, immune & endocrine system are frequent in
the Kaqchikel area, and remedies for the reproductive system are
frequent in the Q’eqchi’ area. Consensus factors are however low. The
Kaqchikel, in contrast to the Q’eqchi’, report more remedies for
non-communicable illnesses. They also rely heavily on introduced
species.
Discussion and conclusions
The
transdisciplinary research design facilitated scientifically rigorous
and societally relevant large-scale fieldwork, which is clearly
beneficial to indigenous collaborators. It provided access and built
trust as prerequisites for assembling the largest comparative
ethnopharmacological collection, vastly extending knowledge on Maya
phytotherapy. The collection represents knowledge of the two groups’
most reputed herbalists and is a representative selection of the
Guatemalan medicinal flora.
ICD-10 proved useful for
making broad comparisons between the groups, but more refined approaches
would be necessary for other research objectives. Knowledge in the two
areas is highly diverse and seems fragmented. New approaches are
required to assess how coherent Maya phytotherapy is. The documented
‘traditional’ ethno-pharmacopoeias demonstrate dynamic change and
acculturation, reflecting the two linguistic groups’ sociocultural
history and context. This highlights the adaptive potential of
phyto-therapeutic knowledge and calls the equation of local indigenous
pharmacopoeias with ‘traditional’ medicine into question. We suggest
using the term ‘local’ pharmacopoeias, and reserving the term
‘traditional’ for the study of indigenous pharmacopoeias with a clear
delineation of ancient knowledge.
Graphical abstract
Keywords
- Guatemala;
- Traditional medicine;
- Culture change;
- Comparative research;
- Participative research;
- Transdisciplinary research
© 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
