Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer


Volume 59, Issue 1, July 2017

Articles

Traditional Knowledge of Plant Classification among Dimasa Tribe of Dima Hasao District, Assam, India

https://doi.org/10.20324/nelumbo/v59/2017/115986

Published 2017-12-01

  • Sangeeta Haflongbar
    • ,
  • Aparajita De

Sangeeta Haflongbar
Department of Ecology & Environmental Science, Assam University, Silchar- 788011

Aparajita De
Department of Ecology & Environmental Science, Assam University, Silchar- 788011

Abstract

The cognitive aspect of ethnobiology i.e. how the traditional people view nature is very significant in ethnobiological research. The present paper deals with the cognitive attribute of ethnobiology prevalent amongst the Dimasa tribe of Dima Hasao district, Assam, India. A total of 161 plant species were recorded. A comparison of the traditional classification system of the plants with Berlin's classification principle was also made. The various life forms of plants and their corresponding Dimasa names also categorized. The study depicts the deep knowledge base of Dimasa tribe of the district and the potential of folk taxonomy in identification of local species found in a community.

Keywords

Dima Hasao District, Dimasa, Ethnoclassification, Folk Taxonomy.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. ATRAN, S., S. MEDIN AND N. ROSS 2004. Evolution and devolution of knowledge: A tale of two biologies. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 10:395-420.
  2. BEGOSSI, A., M. CLAUZET, J.L. FIGUEIREDO, L. GARUANA, R.V. LIMA, P.F. LOPES, M. RAMIRES, A.L. SILVA, AND R.A.M. SILVANO 2008. Are Biological Species and Higher-Ranking Categories Real? Fish Folk Taxonomy on Brazil’s Atlantic Forest Coast and in the Amazon Current Anthropology 49(2):291-306.
  3. BERLIN, B., D.E. Breedlove and P.H. Raven. 1973. General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. American Anthropologist 75:214-242.
  4. BERLIN, B. 1992. Ethnobiological classification principles of categorisation of plants and animals in Traditional Societies Princeton: On the making of a Comparative Ethnobiology. Printon University Press, USA.
  5. BROWN, C.H. 1974. Unique beginners and covert categories in folk biological taxonomies. American Anthropologist 325-327
  6. BROWN, C.H. 2000. Folk classification: An introduction. In Ethnobotany. A Reader. Edited by Minnis P.E. University of Oklahoma Press. 65-80. Norman.
  7. CARRINGTON, J.F. 1981. Linguistic pitfalls in Upper Zairean folk taxonomy research. Unpubl. Mss. Nat. Univ. Zaire.
  8. CENTRAL GROUND WATER BOARD: Northeastern Region 2008. Ground water information booklet: North Cachar Hills District, Assam. Ministry of Water Resources, Guwahati.
  9. COSTA-NETO, E.M. 1998. Folk taxonomy and cultural significance of “abela†(Insecta, Hymenoptera) to the Pankarare, Northeastern Bahia State, Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology 18(1):1-13
  10. HARGREAVES, J.B. 1976. Killing and curing: succulent use in Chitipa. Cactus and Succulent Journal 48:190-196.
  11. HIEPKO, P. 2006. Eipo plant nomenclature and classification compared with other folk taxonomic systems. Willdenowia 36:447-453
  12. HUNN, E. 1982. The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. American Anthropologist, New Series. 84(4):830-847.
  13. JAIN, S.K. AND R.R. RAO 1977. A handbook of field and herbarium methods. Today and Tomorrow’s Printers and Publisher, New Delhi
  14. LUNA-JOSE, A. AND B.R. AGUILAR 2012. Traditional knowledge among Zapotecs of Sierra Madre Del Sur, Oaxaca. Does it represent a base for plant resources management and conservation? Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. 8:24.
  15. MALINOWSKI, B. 1974. Magic, science and religion. Souvenir Press, London. Reprint of 1925 edition.
  16. MORRIS, B. 1984. The pragmatics of folk classification. Journal of Ethnobiology 4(1):45-60.
  17. MORRIS, B. 2000. The pragmatics of folk classification. In Ethnobotany. The reader. Edited by Minnis P.E. University of Oklahoma Press. 69-87. Norman.
  18. RIVERA, D., C. OBÓN, C. INOCENCIO, M. HEINRICH, A. VERDE, J. FAJARDO AND J.A. PALAZÓN 2007. Gathered food plants in the mountains of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain): ethnobotany and multivariate analysis. Economic Botany 61(3):269-289.
  19. TAMULI P. AND P. SHARMA 2010. Ethnomedico botany of Dimasa Kachari of North Cachar Hills district of Assam. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 9(4):718-720.
  20. TURNER, N.J. 1988. “The Importance of a Roseâ€: Evaluating the Cultural Significance of Plants in Thompson and Lillooet Interior Salish. American Anthropologist, New Series 90(2):272-290.
  21. TURNER, N.J. 2000. General plant categories in Thompson (Nlaka’pamux) and Lillooet (Stl’atl;imx). Two interior Salish languages of British Columbia. In Ethnobotany. The Reader. Edited by Minnis P.E. University of Oklahoma Press. Norman.

Most read articles by the same author(s)