AFRICAN TRADITIONAL PLANT KNOWLEDGE TODAY: An ethnobotanical study of the Digo at the Kenya Coast By Mohamed PAKIA, M.Sc. KWALE, KENYA A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF A DOCTOR OF NATURAL SCIENCES (Dr. rer. nat.) AT THE FACULTY OF BIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY AND GEOSCIENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BAYREUTH BAYREUTH, GERMANY JANUARY 2005 i DECLARATION This dissertation is the result of original research conducted by myself with the guidance of my supervisors Prof. Dr. Erwin Beck and Prof. Dr. Franz Rottland. Any reference to other sources has been acknowledged in the text. No part of this work has been submitted for a degree at any other University. Mohamed Pakia, January 2005. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The study forms part of the ‘Sonderforschungesbereich 560’ at the University of Bayreuth, Germany. Financial support was provided by the German Research Foundation (DFG), and I express my gratitude towards that. I am highly indepted to the exceptional and friendly support and advice I received from my supervisors Prof. Dr. Erwin Beck and Prof. Dr. Franz Rottland. It is through their continued encouragement and moral support that I managed to accomplish what I have. I also appreciate the support of all the respondents who cooperated and participated in the interviews and discussions. I recognise the exceptional contributions from Mr. Abdalla Mnyedze, Mr. Hussein Siwa, Mr. Juma M. Mwahari, Mr. Bakari Zondo, Mr. Ali M. Zimbu, Mr. Rashid Mwanyoha, and the members of the Mwembe Zembe farmers group, to mention but a few. I also acknowledge the administrative assistance I received from Frau Marika Albrecht and Frau Ursula Küchler, in the office of Prof. Beck. They created a family atmosphere for me that made me feel at home far from home. I also thank all the students and staff of the Department of Plant Physiology, University of Bayreuth, for supporting me in many different occasions, whenever I had technical or social problems. Special thanks are due to my family members who beard with the domestic implications of my absence, particularly when we lost Hari Pakia, to whom I dedicate this dissertation. iii Traditionelles Pflanzenwissen im heutigen Afrika: Eine ethnobotanische Studie der Digo an der Kenianischen Küste Zusammenfassung Das Volk der Digo ist eine von neun Untergruppen der Midzichenda (amtliche Schreibweise Mijikenda), die im südlichen Teil der kenianischen Küste leben und dort "heilige Wälder", sog. Kaya als Schutzgebiete bewahren. Ursprünglich bezog sich der Begriff Kaya auf eine befestigte und bewohnte Lichtung im Wald, aber heute ist damit der Wald selbst gemeint. Es handelt sich um Reste des früheren Küstenwaldes, die immer noch spirituelle Bedeutung für die Midzichenda haben. Das Fortbestehen der Kaya-Wälder hat dazugeführt, dass nicht nur die Pflanzen, sondern auch traditionelles Pflanzenwissen und damit verbundene Glaubensvorstellungen erhalten geblieben sind. Da die Digo sich als erste von den übrigen Midzichenda-Gruppen getrennt haben, kann angenommen werden, dass das ursprüngliche Pflanzenwissen sich bei ihnen stärker und reiner erhalten hat. Andererseits dringt auch die Botanik als Wissenschaft über den Schulunterricht und die landwirtschaftliche Beratung in die Digo-Gesellschaft ein. Da beide Wissenssphären unterschiedliche Strukturen und Schwerpunkte haben, existieren sozusagen zwei Systeme von Pflanzenwissen gleichzeitig und parallel, erstaunlicherweise ohne dass es dadurch zu ernsten Konflikten kommt. Ziel der vorliegenden Studie ist die Dokumentation des "traditionellen" Pflanzenwissens der Digo mit den darauf bezogenen Vorstellungen und Praktiken. Zugleich sollte die Wirkung globaler Einflüsse (vor allem der wissenschaftlichen Botanik) auf das Pflanzenwissen der Digo untersucht werden. Mit diesem Ziel hat der Verfasser, der selbst ein Digo ist und in dieser Gesellschaft aufwuchs, seine persönlichen Erfahrungen vor dem Hintergrund seines im Studium der Botanik erworbenen Pflanzenwissens gesichtet und mit linguistischen und ethnologischen Grundbegriffen angereichert und analysiert. So gerüstet hat er versucht, das eher verborgene Wissen der Digo ans Licht zu bringen. Zahlreiche traditionelle Nutzer von Pflanzen - Heiler, Bauern, Holzfäller, Zimmerleute, Hausbauer, Gemüse- und Pilzsammler wurden befragt und beobachtet. Dasselbe geschah mit den "Fortschrittlichen" - Lehrern, Studenten und Schülern. Aus den Antworten, ihren Begründungen und dem beobachteten nicht verbalisierten Umgang mit Pflanzen wurde sowohl tradiertes Wissen freigelegt als auch der Einfluss der wissenschaftlichen Botanik festgestellt. Vorsichtige Prognosen über die künftige Entwicklung des Pflanzenwissens der Digo wurden daraus abgeleitet. iv Die Kaya Elders stehen im Ruf, die Bewahrer des kulturellen Wissens der Digo zu sein; deshalb stand am Anfang der Untersuchungen die Vermutung, dass sie wegen ihres umfassenden Wissens die bevorzugten Gesprächspartner sein würden. Es zeigte sich aber, dass auch die Kaya Elders nur Pflanzenwissen in den Bereichen ihres jeweiligen Alltags besitzen, also im Feldbau, als Heiler etc. Diese völlig unerwartete Beobachtung zeigt einen Rückgang der Kultur-bewahrenden Funktion der Elders zu Gunsten ökonomisch bestimmter Lebensstrategien. Die Konsequenz ist, dass man nur Digo-Gruppen mit partiellem, auf spezifischen Nutzen ausgerichtetem Wissen findet. Daraus ergab sich die Notwendigkeit, möglichst viele verschiedene Nutzer von Pflanzen zu befragen - ein Umstand, der von manchen Ethnobotanikern übersehen wird. Das Pflanzenwissen der Digo - untrennbar vom täglichen Leben der Menschen - bietet ein riesiges Beobachtungsfeld. Die vorliegende Studie kann deshalb auch nicht erschöpfend sein, geht aber ihr Ziel der Dokumentation und Illustration des tradierten Wissens durchaus gründlich an; im Einzelnen wurden folgende Aspekte genauer untersucht. - Lexikon der Pflanzen und Pflanzenteile - nicht-verbalisiertes Pflanzenwissen - Gliederung der Pflanzenwelt - kognitives Erfassen der "unsichtbaren" botanischen Prozesse - praktische Anwendung des Pflanzenwissens beim Feldbau - lokale und globale Komponenten des Pflanzenwissens Als Fazit kann vorausgeschickt werden, dass das pflanzenbezogene Wissen der Digo im angewandten Bereich sehr extensiv ist, dass es andererseits lückenhaft ist, wo Wissen nicht zur Anwendung gebracht werden kann und es unerheblich ist, ob man etwas über eine Pflanze weiß oder nicht. Mit anderen Worten: Das praxis-bezogene Pflanzenwissen der Digo zielt überhaupt nicht auf Vollständigkeit oder Kohärenz, ist also kein wissenschaftliches Wissen. Der globale Einfluss der wissenschaftlichen Botanik auf das Wissen der Digo ist eher peripherer Natur und im Wesentlichen auf Terminologie und nicht auf Sachkenntnis ausgerichtet. Wenn tradiertes Pflanzenwissen der Digo verebbt, dann nicht wegen des Eindringens der globalen Pflanzenwissenschaften, sondern weil im Zuge der Urbanisierung und Subsistenzwirtschaft durch Handel und in der Tourismusbranche die Bedeutung des Pflanzenbaus und der Landwirtschaft nachlässt. v Die verschiedenen Aspekte der Studie sind als Kapitelfolge in fortschreitender Komplexität des Wissens dargestellt und führen von der einfachen Terminologie zur "Erklärung" und schließlich zum Ausblick auf die künftige Entwicklung. Im Folgenden werden die einzelnen Kapitel der Reihe nach zusammengefasst. Terminologie und Beschreibung von Pflanzen Das Pflanzenwissen der Digo ist in hohem Maße lexikalisiert; es enthält ca. 80 Bezeichnungen für Pflanzenteile, etwa 20 beschreibende Termini für Pflanzen und mehr als 500 Pflanzennamen. Auch findet man nicht-verbales Wissen, z.B. die Kenntnis unbezeichneter Blütenteile, und unterspezifizierte Eigenschaften wie Farbe, Geruch und Geschmack. Einiges davon wird kognitiv erfasst, während anderes für die Digo ohne Belang zu sein scheint. Man geht also selektiv vor und lässt sich von seinen materiellen und sozialen Interessen leiten. Vollständigkeit des Wissens, wie in der wissenschaftlichen Botanik, ist außerhalb der Interessenssphäre. Die Digo-Terminologie deckt sich vielfach nicht mit der wissenschaftlichen Terminologie und sie ist auch nicht ohne weiteres in andere Sprachen übersetzbar. Es gibt Teiläquivalente wie Makodza: Blätter, Ruwa : Blüten, Tunda : Frucht, oder Muzi : Wurzel, aber die jeweils durch diese Begriffe abgedeckten semantischen Felder sind zwischen den Sprachen nicht deckungsgleich. Die Digo-Pflanzenterminologie zeigt starke Anleihen bei der Fauna (Mensch und Tier), vermutlich weil letztere stärker erfahren wird. So werden Körperteilbezeichnungen auf Pflanzenteile übertragen: Nyama (Fleisch), Mromo (Mund), Dzitso (Auge), Mongo (Rückgrat), Mishipa (Adern) und Mala (Finger). Andererseits werden Bezeichnungen für Pflanzenteile wörtlich oder metaphorisch auf Menschliches übertragen, z.B. Gopha (Rinde), Sina (Stamm), Mbeyu (Samen). Das Pflanzenlexikon der Digo hat ererbte (historisch ableitbare) Wörter und Innovationen für neu erfasste Elemente. Zu letzterem dienen auch Lehnwörter, vor allem aus dem Swahili. Die Digo gehen also aktiv mit ihrem botanischen Vokabular und seiner Anpassung um. Dies war auch während der Feldforschung zu beobachten. Benennung und Beschreibung sind vor allem am Nutzen orientiert, d.h. der Grad der lexikalischen Detailliertheit entspricht dem Grad der Nützlichkeit. Das gibt vor allem den Nutzpflanzen eine besondere Stellung in der vi Terminologie (an der Kokospalme dargestellt). Auch ist eine gewisse, vom kulturellen Kontext abhängige Polysemie erkennbar, wobei z.B. das gleiche Wort gewöhnlich "Blüte" bedeutet, aber in einem anderen Kontext auch für "Blatt" steht. Traditionelle Pflanzenbestimmung Nach dem schon dargestellten Nutzenprinzip erkennen die Digo vor allem die von ihnen genutzten Pflanzen und heben deren nützliche Teile hervor. Die Identifizierung von Pflanzen im Terrain ist wenig verbalisiert, sondern beruht auf einer Vertrautheit, die nicht mehr bewusst erworben oder gar abgeleitet wird. Die Lokalität des Vorkommens spielt dabei eine wichtige Rolle. Entsprechend langwierig ist der Identifikationsprozess in unvertrautem Gelände, wo Ableitungs- und Analogieverfahren eingesetzt werden müssen. Die unterschiedlichen Interessen der Nutzergruppen haben zu unterschiedlichen Identifikationsverfahren geführt. Holzverarbeiter haben sehr detaillierte Möglichkeiten der Unterscheidungen von Holzarten und -qualitäten wie Farbe, Geruch und Maserung. Diese Kenntnisse beschränken sich aber auf die benutzten Hölzer. Heiler unterscheiden (verbal oder nicht-verbal) vielen Pflanzenteile - auch Wurzel - die im allgemeinen sonst kaum Interesse finden. Gemüse- und Pilzsammler sind am "Essbaren" und dessen Kennzeichen interessiert und beachten die übrige Pflanzenwelt nicht. Unter den Pflanzenteilen, die zur Identifikation benutzt werden, stehen die Blätter an erster Stelle und erhalten folglich auch die größte Detaillierung. Hier kommt das Digo einer wissenschaftlichen Beschreibung am nächsten, während die Blüten weitestgehend vernachlässigt werden. Die Auswahl des zu Beschreibenden ist auch hier ausschließlich am Nutzen orientiert und lässt so einen beträchtlichen Teil der Pflanzenwelt außer Acht. Pflanzennamen und Benennungsstrategien Die Pflanzennamen des Digo bestehen aus Wörtern und Satzteilen, die zur weiteren Differenzierung die phonologischen und morphologischen Mittel der Sprache einsetzen. So können die verschiedenen Entwicklungsstadien einer Pflanze durch die Wahl des entsprechenden Präfixes (z.B. Diminutivpräfix) dargestellt werden. Einige Pflanzen haben zusätzliche - auf Feminines verweisende - Nasalpräfixe, die das grundsätzliche Verständnis der Digo verdeutlichen, dass Pflanzen (wie alles was biologisch produziert) weiblich sind. vii Lexikalisch unmarkierte Pflanzenbezeichnungen verweisen unausgesprochen auf Weibliches, während "männliche" Pflanzen, die als nutzlos, weil nicht produzierend, eingeschätzt werden, mit dem Zusatz Mlume (männlich) markiert werden. In einem Korpus von 390 Pflanzennamen sind ca 40 % nicht semantisch analysierbar. Die meisten davon sind ererbte Termini mit weiter Verbreitung im Midzichenda und finden sich auch bei den Duruma und Giriama. Die analysierbaren Pflanzennamen scheinen nach den folgenden kognitiven Kriterien gebildet. - Nützlichkeit, besonders bei Pflanzen mit magischer Funktion - Habitat, u.a. Tsaka (Wald), Koma (Wildnis), Bara (Hinterland), Pwani (Meeresnähe), Ziya (See), Munda (Ackerland) - Verweis auf tierische Merkmale - Physische Eigenschaften wie Geruch, Farbe, Geschmack und Größe der Pflanze oder einzelner Pflanzenteile - Eigenschaften des Wuchses (z.B. parasitisch und epiphytisch) Auch hier gehen die Namen auf verschiedene historische Stufen der Sprachentwicklung zurück. Je nach dem "Knoten" im linguistischen Stammbaum, auf den ein Name zurückgeführt werden kann, kann man Altersstufen zwischen mehr als tausend und weniger als hundert Jahren ansetzen. Interessanterweise beschränken sich auch lexikalische Innovationen auf den ursprünglichen kleinen Satz an Merkmalstermini, also die "primären" Farbtermini nyiru (schwarz), nyereru (weiß) und kundu (rot), den Geruchsterminus nuuk (stinkend) und den Geschmacksterminus utsungu (bitter). Digo-Taxonomie Die Merkmale in der Volkstaxonomie im Digo sind nur entfernt vergleichbar mit denen der wissenschaftlichen Taxonomie. Auch ist die Digo Taxonomie nicht annähernd so umfassend wie die von Berlin (1992) und anderen Ethnographen vorgestellten mittelamerikanischen Taxonomien, entspricht aber der bei Kakudidi (2004) angegebenen geringen Tiefe. Es gibt im Digo keinen „UNIQUE BEGINNER“, d.h. keinen Typ "Pflanze", weshalb Pflanze auch keine klassifikatorische Ebene im Digo ist. Die deutlichsten klassifikatorischen Ebenen sind „Pflanzliche Lebensformen“ und „Pflanzenart“, mit gelegentlicher Kennzeichnung von Volksgenera und Volksvarietäten. Die pflanzlichen Lebensformen werden als viii Diskontinuitäten erkannt - was der Rationalismustheorie von Atran (1990) entspricht. Die Ausweisung tieferer taxonomischer Ebenen wird auch hier vom Nutzwert bestimmt - was mit Malinowskis (1974) utilitaristischer Sicht übereinstimmt. Die Digo Taxonomie berücksichtigt also einerseits die hohe hierarchische Ebene der pflanzlichen Lebensform, beruht aber überwiegend auf Unterscheidungen auf tieferen Ebenen („Gattungen“, „Arten“ und „Varietäten“), die aber selten mit der wissenschaftlichen taxonomischen Bewertung übereinstimmt. Sie entspricht damit Bulmers (1970) Ansicht einer mittleren Position zwischen "intellektuell" und "utilitaristisch". Die Wahrnehmung interner botanischer Prozesse bei den Digo Die Digo lernen im wesentlichen durch Beobachtung. So kennen sie zwar einige Einzelheiten der Pflanzenvermehrung, haben aber dazu kein durchgehendes Konzept. Ihre Auffassung der Pflanzen als weiblich wird reflektiert in der Bezeichnung von produktiven Stadien wie Msichana (Mädchen), inamimba (ist schwanger), inavyala (gebärt). Entsprechend werden als männlich erkannte Pflanzenteile vernachlässigt oder gar vernichtet. Konzepte wie Photosynthese, Bestäubung („Pollination“) und Befruchtung („Fertilization“) sind im Digo nicht vorhanden. Einige der Befragten gaben individuelle Schilderungen von vorstellbaren Vorgängen, z.B. beim Blütenbesuch von Insekten. Das Ergebnis dieser Untersuchungen zeigt, dass - im Unterschied zur Pflanzenbeschreibung - die Digo sich keinesfalls motiviert fühlen, solche Vorgänge zu verstehen. Sie geben persönliche Meinungen wieder, die nicht einer gemeinschaftlichen Kontrolle unterliegen. Landwirtschaftliche Praxis bei den Digo Die meisten landwirtschaftlichen Praktiken der Digo haben sich aus langer Erfahrung entwickelt, und haben zu festen Vorstellungen geführt, beispielsweise über die Bedürfnisse der angebauten Pflanzen, die Tragfähigkeit der Böden, über Pflanzenkrankheiten und Schädlinge. Ein Digo Landwirt klassifiziert Böden nach ihrer Ertragsfähigkeit, da dies ihre wichtigste Funktion ist. Einige traditionelle Praktiken sind aufgegeben worden aus politischen und sozialen Gründen. So war der Wechsel vom kommunalen zum individuellen Landbesitz auch ein Wechsel von kommunal kontrolliertem Anbau zur individuellen Farmbewirtschaftung. Auch dabei bleibt man allerdings weitgehend innerhalb traditioneller Praktiken einschließlich magisch-religiöser Maßnahmen und der ungebrochenen Präferenz lokaler Saatvarietäten, besonders beim Mais. Hybridmais wird in stillschweigender ix Übereinstimmung abgelehnt. Der Einsatz von Magie bezieht sich auf eine wenig effektive Schädlingskontrolle und auf die ausschließliche Abhängigkeit des Feldbaus vom Regen. Misserfolg führt zum Einsatz psychologischer Ermutigungsmaßnahmen. Prognosen über die Entwicklung des Pflanzenwissens bei den Digo Auf den globalen Einfluss z.B. mit der wissenschaftlichen Botanik reagiert das botanische Wissen der Digo auf vielfältige Weise. Dazu gehören Umstrukturierung, Mischung und Widerstand oder Gleichgültigkeit. Entgegen der Annahme dass das Globale sich unvermeidlich mit dem Lokalen mischt oder dieses ersetzt, zeigen sich die Digo als Akteure, die nur dann Änderungen herbeiführen, wenn das Risiko materiellen Verlusts minimiert werden kann. Beim Einfluss botanischen Grundlagenwissens gibt es kein materielles Risiko. Hier kann die in der Schule vermittelte Terminologie das traditionelle botanische Lexikon vorübergehend ergänzen, allerdings nicht in der Landessprache, sondern durch englische Termini. Derartige Ergänzungen sind aber in der Regel innerhalb von zwei bis fünf Jahren nach Schulabschluss völlig in Vergessenheit geraten. Hinzukommt, dass die meisten Schulabgänger durch intensive Mitarbeit auf der häuslichen Farm ihr traditionelles Wissen erweitern - was ihnen größere Überlebenschancen gibt. Eine Ausnahme von dieser allgemeinen Erkenntnis wurde jedoch in der Farbterminologie in der Pflanzenbeschreibung festgestellt, wo die traditionell auf drei beschränkten „basic colour terms“ (nyiru "schwarz", nyereru "weiß" und kundu "rot") einer Struktur mit mehr entlehnten Farbtermini weichen, vor allem bei jüngeren Sprechern. Die ursprünglichen termini bleiben aber in Nischen (z. B. der emotionalen Sprache und bei fixierten Wendungen) erhalten. In der Phytotherapie hat die aufkommende nationale und globale Unterstützung zwar nicht die Essenz, aber die Verfahrensweisen beeinflusst (z.B. die Hygiene bei der Zubereitung und Standardisierung von Präparaten). Die Phytotherapie wird so stärker vermarktbar, beruht aber immer noch auf den traditionellen Substanzen. Dies verspricht gute Aussichten für eine "modernisierte" Digo-Heilkunde. In der Landwirtschaft leisten die Digo Widerstand gegen Veränderungen, weil sie ums Überleben und nicht um Ertragsmaximierung kämpfen. Der Widerstand beruht auf einer langen Geschichte geringer Erträge und dem immer drohendem Hunger, also einer x "Hungerökonomie", die ihnen kein weiteres Risiko erlaubt. Das konservative Verhalten ist Überlebensstrategie und hat keine ideologische Basis. Eine Mischung mit modernen Techniken könnte vermutlich die Überlebenschancen erhöhen, ist aber ohne materielle Hilfe nicht praktikabel. Es ist zu vermuten dass sich die traditionellen Methoden in der absehbaren Zukunft halten werden. xi ABSTRACT The Digo are one of the nine subgroups of the Midzichenda (commonly known as Mijikenda), who inhabit the southern part of the Kenya coast, and they maintain sacred forests known as kaya. Traditionally kaya referred only to a cleared settlement area in the middle of the forest, but today the term is used to include the forested part. Thus, kaya today are the remnants of the ancient coastal forest, and are still of mythical significance to the Midzichenda. The persistence of the kaya forests has led to the conservation of plant utility values associated with traditional plant knowledge, views and beliefs. Since the Digo were the first to separate from the rest of the Midzichenda group, the original traditional plant knowledge may, at least partly, have been better preserved in its original form by this ethnic group. On the other hand, modern plant science has been introduced into the Digo community through teaching in schools and to the farming Digo population via consultations by government employees. This created a situation of two types of plant knowledge with only little overlap. The aim of this study has been to document the ‘traditional’ Digo knowledge, practices and beliefs related to the plant world, which are threatened of being lost in the course of time. In addition, the study is intended to investigate the global influence (particularly modern science) on the Digo plant knowledge. To achieve these, the author – who is a Digo and grew up in that society, combined his ‘native’ experiences with his scientific training in botany, which is complemented by exposure in linguistics and anthropology – to unearth the rather hidden plant knowledge of the Digo. Traditional Digo plant users, viz. herbalists, farmers, carpenters, pole cutters, house builders, vegetable and mushroom collectors were interviewed and plant-related actions were observed. Also the ‘modernists’, i.e., pupils, students, teachers and Government extension workers were interviewed and observed. From the responses, explanations and observed actions, the traditional Digo plant knowledge was extracted, and the influence of modern science to that knowledge was assessed for a commentary on the future prospects of Digo plant knowledge. The kaya elders are reputed as historical repository holders of cultural knowledge, and it was assumed that they have a comprehensive understanding of the Digo plant knowledge and hence were considered a primary source of information for this study. Surprisingly, it was noted that the elders maintain only a limited part of the Digo plant knowledge viz. the one that applies to social areas of their interests and trades e.g. farming, healing, and fishing. This observation is new, and it demonstrates a shift from the historical cultural inclination by kaya xii elders to economically motivated strategies. Unfortunately, there was no other social group with comprehensive Digo plant knowledge in its entirety. Instead the knowledge is fragmented among various plant users. This called for consultation with a wide range of respondents to cover the diversity in the plant knowledge among different plant user groups, a fact that many ethnobotanists and anthropologists might have overlooked. Digo plant knowledge is inseparable from the day-to-day life of the people, thus it forms an enormous field for a study. Although this thesis can not, by any means, be considered exhaustive, it can confidently be considered an exceptionally thorough attempt at the documentation and illustration of a traditional plant knowledge, as it focuses on the major knowledge domain areas in language and practice. The knowledge aspects that were covered can be summarised as: • lexical expressions on plants and plant parts • non-verbalised actions related to plant life • categorization of plants • cognitive understanding and explanations of the ‘invisible’ plant processes • practical application of the traditional plant knowledge in agriculture • and the interplay between ‘local’ and ‘global’ components of the plant knowledge. Studies in these aspects are presented in individual but inter-related chapters, and in a sequence of increased complexity of knowledge – starting from the simple lexicon towards the high level ‘reasoning’ capacity, and finally commenting on the future prospects. In summary, Digo plant knowledge can be described as extensive in what is known (labels and descriptions), but at the same time it is voluntarily incomplete as there is a conscious ignorance of some areas of plant life, especially the non-observable processes such as sexual reproduction (pollination), nourishment (photosynthesis) and growth and development. Plant knowledge among the Digo is centred on value related objectives and the realities of social life, and can therefore be termed a ‘practical knowledge’. The knowledge content and scope varies between different social groups, as a result there is no qualification equivalent to a ‘general botanist’, but there are professionals in specific trades that relate to plants e.g. healers, farmers, carpenters etc. The Digo encounter different global influences on their traditional knowledge, and there might be considerable change in the lexicon and the description of plant and plant parts in the near future, but traditional materials, particularly in agriculture and healing, will suffer minimal changes in content due to the necessities of life. The following are summaries of the individual chapters, presented chapter by chapter. xiii Digo plant lexicon and description The Digo have a considerable verbal component in their plant knowledge, which includes 80 labels of plant parts, about 20 descriptive expressions for plants, and over 500 plant names. However, there are also non-verbalised areas e.g. term-less parts of flowers, and underlabelled plant features, such as colour, aroma, and taste. While some of the unlabelled aspects might be cognately perceived, others seem to be of no interest to the Digo. The Digo therefore, unlike botany scientists, are selective of what to address and what to describe, based on their social and economic interest. This can be appreciated to indicate that the Digo are not striving for completeness of plant knowledge. The Digo terms for plant parts are not absolutely translatable into English or relatable to scientific equivalents. Thus there are only approximate equivalent terms between Digo and scientific terminology, e.g. makodza for leaves, ruwa for flower, tunda for fruit, and muzi for root, but in a strict sense, there are inclusions and exclusions that make these equivalents considerably different. Digo plant lexicon is characterised by considerable transfer from the human/animal life elements to the plant part labelling and description. Such transfers are based on a better knowledge of the human life situations as compared to the situation with plants. Human/animal body parts labels such as nyama [meat], mromo [mouth], dzitso [eye], mongo [backbone], mishipa [veins], and mala [fingers] are used in labelling plant parts. On the other hand labels of plant parts such as gopha [bark], sina [basal stem], kolo [basal stem] and mbeyu [seed] are used in human life situations. The Digo plant lexicon includes both old terms (inherited from common Bantu or protoSabaki) and contemporary terms (newly innovated or borrowed) to fill gaps where the old language did not account for labelling. Most loan words in the Digo plant lexicon are borrowed from Swahili. These observations depict Digo plant knowledge as being active, accommodating new observations, new values and new plant entries. Even during the field work of this study lexical ‘innovations’ and ‘loans’ in plant knowledge could be observed. The incentive for both plant part labelling and description is to a greater extent, but not exclusively, value oriented. Thus plants and plant parts which are commonly used are labelled in detail, a fact that separates crop plants e.g. the coconut palm, from wild palms. A unique xiv feature observed for the Digo plant lexicon is the label focussing on an entity (i.e. the part), which sometimes changes meaning in a different socio-cultural context. Thus, a label that commonly refers to the flower can in some social functions be used to mean the leaf, or the same plant part is identified with different names in different occasions. Traditional Digo plant identification methods The Digo plant users are familiar with the botanical world important to them. Digo plant identification is characterised by familiarity, with only some precision on scientific characters, but little reliance on verbal descriptions. Through experience plant collectors identify plants on the bases of selected features that make ‘fixed’ images in their memory, thus the identification is done correctly but without any rigorous procedures. However, for inexperienced collectors and in new environments, individuals portray slowness and reduced confidence in the identification. In such situations rigorous identification methods (procedural) are used, and plant recognition is through observation of the useful plant part for different social groups, hence a multitude approaches in identification of the same species. Among the Digo plant user groups, the timber users have supreme knowledge of inner wood features (colour, smell and wood grain patterns), but their knowledge is limited to timber species. Healers have advanced knowledge in diverse features (verbalised and non-verbalised) in many plant parts, including roots, which are least used by the other plant users. Healers are the only social group that can comfortably identify both fresh and dry specimens. Vegetable and mushroom gatherers are concerned with only the ‘edible’ plant. Otherwise, they generally disregarded knowledge in species not ‘important’ to them. From a general view, preference of a plant part for identification depends on the scope of description and the linguistic expression of associated features. Leaves are the most described plant organs, and consequently are used in plant identification. Using leaves for plant identification, the Digo concur with science, but their disregard of flowers deviates from science. Other deviations of Digo from modern science in plant identification include the methods of identification. While science uses analytical methods, guided by rigid systems, the Digo use ‘holistic’ methods, and focus only on species of value and interest to them, disregarding a considerable part of the botanical world. While modern scientists are interested in the ‘unknown’ species or plant life and object to document the whole biological world, to the Digo additional xv knowledge is appreciated only if it adds a new ‘value’ to their life, but knowledge on its own is not considered a ‘value’. Digo plant names and naming procedures The Digo plant names consist of words and phrases of different forms and structures, but like other nouns and phrases in the language, the names abide to morphological and phonological rules of the language. Thus changes in the prefix of a plant name modify it to refer to different developmental stages of the plant. Some plant names however, have a prefix borrowed from ‘female’ human names, suggesting the perception of plants as ‘female’ beings. Further, there is evidence that ‘unmarked’ Digo plant names refer to the ‘female’ status, as in reference to ‘male’ plants (understood as an abnormal state) the names are always marked with the term mlume (for male). In a corpus of 380 plant names, 40% are not semantically analysable, but evidence is shown that most of these are inherited labels, shared with other major Midzichenda languages (Duruma and Giriama) and Swahili. However, the plant names whose meanings were interpretable indicate that plant naming is guided by the following principles. 1. Utility value, particularly for plants used for magico-medicinal purposes. 2. Habitat, which includes tsaka [forest], koma [wild], bara [hinterland], pwani [sea side], ziya [lake], munda [farmland] and nze [outside farmland]. 3. Relation or inferences to animal attributes or structural appearances. 4. Gender, expressed to differentiate similar plants, based on fruit production or structure of plant parts. 5. Physical characters of the plant parts, including colour, smell, taste, and size of parts 6. Plant habit, particularly relative to growth (twining, piling, parasitic and epiphytic). Similar to the descriptive lexicon, Digo plant names comprise of names of different historical ages, ranging from over a thousand years old to less than a hundred years old, which emphasizes the evolutionary course of Digo plant knowledge and vocabulary. Updates in Digo plant names are through innovations and loans from other languages. It is interesting that the innovations stick to the unwritten traditional guiding principles, e.g. only the primary colour terms (nyiru, nyereru and kundu) are used in plant labels; and the old terms for smell (nuuk, modified to nuka), and taste (ucung, modified to utsungu) are used. xvi Digo folk taxonomy Features of Digo folk taxonomy are only remotely comparable to scientific taxonomy, and do not correspond to comprehensive folk taxonomies as reported by Berlin (1992) and other ethnographers, but concurs with Kakudidi’s (2004) shallow ranking. In Digo there is no label or description of the unique beginner, i.e. there is no term equivalent to ‘plant’, and therefore ‘plant kingdom’ is not a recognised rank in Digo folk taxonomy. The clearly recognised folk taxonomy ranks are life-forms and folk species, with occasional presence of folk generics and folk varietals. The life-forms are differentiated on the basis of discontinuity of kinds, which is consistent with Atran’s (1990) rationalism theory; but the recognition of lower taxonomic ranks is biased towards species of utility value, which agrees with Malinowski’s (1974) utilitarian view. The Digo folk taxonomy, therefore, expresses itself as an intellectual thinking at the high rank categories (plant life-forms), but bases the perspectives of social reality and practical interests at the lower rank categories (folk generics, folk species and folk varietals), thus taking an intermediate position between ‘intellectual’ and ‘utilitarian’, which is in line with Bulmer’s (1970) view. Digo perception of internal plant processes The Digo learn most of their plant knowledge through observation. As a result they know some details in plant propagation, including propagules and the specific part of a plant organ where ‘new plants’ develop. However, scientific concepts are not shared with the Digo comprehension. Their perception of plants as ‘female’ beings is emphasised in the ‘feminine’ description of plant developmental stages viz. msichana [girl] for the stage just before the first fruit production; inamimba [is pregnant] for plant with flower buds, inavyala [is giving birth] for a plant bearing fruits. The perception of plants as being female is further twined with an understanding that male plants and plant parts are irrelevant in plant reproduction and propagation. Thus male inflorescence in maize does not play any role in maize production, and male papaya plants are cut down in the farms. Associated scientific concepts such as pollination, fertilization and photosynthesis are thus not perceived. However, some respondents gave explanations related to reproduction, particularly for observable events such as the insect and flower association. However, the observation made indicated that at a community level, it is deemed not an obligatory commitment for the Digo to understand fine details in plant processes, a practice which contrasts with labelling and descriptions of plants and plant parts. Thus, the individuals only contemplate on details in plant processes as a xvii leisure, at will and freely, to the best of their imagination. They do not feel obliged to make explanations that are conceptually justifiable or to convince anyone with what the say. In other words, these are only personal opinions that can not be termed ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ from a communal knowledge view. Digo farming practices A great part of the Digo farming knowledge reflect past experiences, and an understanding of the correlations between different components such as demand of crop plants, performance of soils, diseases and pest menace, has been stabilized. A Digo farmer recognizes and classifies soils in a way related to crop production, which is his priority investment. In practice today, some old farming practices are maintained, but others have been dropped due to various socio-political reasons. Some traditional farming practices related to soil fertility management were affected by the change in the land tenure system. The shift from the customary communal land ownership to individual ownership was also the point of departure from a ‘communally’ controlled and managed agriculture to ‘free style’ individual farming practices and management. However, even with individual management, Digo farmers maintain to a considerable degree traditional practices, which include magico-religious measures and practices, and continued preference of local seed varieties, particularly in maize farming. There is a unanimous but silent rejection of the hybrid maize. The application of magic in farming is based on the relatively less effective approaches in pest management, and their exclusive reliance on rains, which are not reliable. These frequently lead to frustrations as a result of crop failures, hence the consultation of ‘psycho-confidence’ for hope and courage. The future of Digo plant knowledge In the face of global influence such as scientific botany, the Digo plant knowledge reacts in a multitude of ways, which include: complementation, re-structuring, blending and resistance. Contrary to the belief that modern or global (science) inevitably replaces or blends with the ‘local’, the Digo are active actors, selective of what to change based on the risk of material loss. In plant lexicon and description, where there is no risk of material loss, change is acceptable. Thus school-mediated plant knowledge complements the Digo lexicon for parts that are not labelled. But these are rapidly forgotten in the post-school life, thus the scientific terms are xviii not likely to form the day-to-day Digo plant lexicon. In addition, in the post-school life, people show improved traditional plant knowledge as they become almost full time helpers in domestic farming, which gives Digo plant knowledge a potential to survive. But in plant descriptions, the restructuring of the colour terms is evident. The traditional role of the Digo primary colour terms (nyiru, nyereru and kundu) in plant description is fading off, while simultaneously the application of the ‘new’ colour terms (grini and chijani) among the ‘young’ Digo speakers increases. However, the language is creating niches for the survival of the exclusive application of the ‘basic’ colour terms in emotional and standard phrases. National and global support to Digo healing has not hybridised it in its essence, but has modernised it in form, i.e., in hygiene, standardisation of dosage etc. Consequently, the healing system is helped to become more marketable and competitive, but the traditional cures (including plants) are employed as the main phytotherapeutical substances. What is clear, however, is that the ‘blended’ Digo healing has a good future perspective, and the traditional cures and knowledge will continue to be used. In agriculture, the Digo farmers, whose agency is framed by struggling for survival, resist modern agriculture, partly due to the costly material. The observed resilience towards global influence by Digo farmers is based on a long history of low yields and imminent hunger, and therefore they cannot afford to enhance risks in their already marginal economy. Their apparent conservatism has no ideological value for them but is a strategy for survival. Although it is commonly recognised that chances of survival of the community depend on high crop yield through adoption of modern agricultural inputs, lack of material support to the Digo farming strengthens the continued existence of traditional farming practices, which will persist into the foreseeable future. The argumentation and description given in the chapters, as summarised above, is complimented by seven Appendices, which cover further details such as: aspects of Digo linguistics (Appendix IV), field notes on Digo plant identification (Appendix V), notes on the semantics of plant names (Appendix VI), and Digo annual agricultural calendar (Appendix VII). xix CONTENTS PAGE i DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ZUSAMMENFASSUNG iii ABSTRACT xi LIST OF TABLES xxiii LIST OF FIGURES xxiv LIST OF APPENDICES xxv CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1.1 Considerations on ethnobotany ………………………………………………… 1 1.2 Historical and social settings of the Digo ………………………………………. 2 1.2.1 Area and number of speakers …………………………………………... 2 1.2.2 Socio-linguistic situation ………………………………………………. 3 1.3 Previous studies …………………………………………………………………. 5 1.4 The current study ………………………………………………………………. 6 1.4.1 Background …………………………………………………………….. 6 1.4.2 The aim of the study …………………………………………………… 6 1.4.3 Motivation for the selection of the Digo and Plant science ……………. 6 1.4.4 Assumptions and expectations …………………………………………. 7 1.4.5 Content of the thesis ……………………………………………………. 8 1.4.6 Conventions and abbreviations ………………………………………… 9 CHAPTER TWO: MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1 Research strategies ……………………………………………………………… 10 2.1.1 The formal quantitative method ……………………………………….. 11 2.1.2 Informal qualitative techniques ………………………………………… 13 2.2 Specific activities for the study ………………………………………………… 14 2.3 Analytical and comparative approach ………………………………………….. 16 xx CHAPTER THREE: THE DIGO LANGUAGE AND ETHNOPHYTOGRAPHY 3.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………….. 18 3.2 A consideration of Chidigo linguistic aspects …………………………………. 18 3.3. Digo ethnophytography 3.3.1 General names for plant parts (relative to stem, leaf, root, flower & fruit) …… 19 3.3.2 Special lexicon for plant parts in specific species (coconut tree, banana, maize, and cassava plants) ………………… 32 3.3.3 Labels of plant parts in relation to cultural significance Leaves that are not makodza ………………………………….. 38 Maruwa that are not flowers …………………………………… 40 3.3.4 Descriptive terms for plant parts and characters (colour, size, form, maturity, water content, smell, taste, texture and touch) 40 3.3.5 Derived linguistic expressions for plant features ………………………. 45 3.3.6 Mushrooms ……………………………………………………………... 46 3.4 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………. 47 CHAPTER FOUR: TRADITIONAL PLANT IDENTIFICATION AND COLLECTION NORMS 4.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………….. 4.2 Plant features used for identification 52 (leaf, stem, fruit, flower, root, stage, and habit) ……………………… …. 52 4.3 Human senses used in plant identification …………………………………… 59 4.4 Diversified professional basis of plant identification (identifications by timber users, vegetable and mushroom collectors, and healers) …. 60 4.5 General plant identification process among common Digo ………………….. 63 4.6 Traditional trainings in plant identification ……………………………………. 63 4.7 The significance of environment in plant identification ………………………. 65 4.8 Norms in plant collections …………………………………………………….. 65 4.9 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………. 67 xxi CHAPTER FIVE: DIGO PLANT NAMES AND NAMING CRITERIA 5.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………. 5.2 Form of Digo plant names 5.3 5.4 5.2.1 Simple words forming Digo plant names ……………………………. 69 5.2.2 Phrase expressions forming Digo plant names ………………………... 73 Semantic aspects of Digo plant names 5.3.1 Meanings of Digo plant names ……………………………………….. 74 5.3.2 Aspects of Digo plant names and naming methods ………………….. 75 Comparative view on Digo plant names (synonyms, innovations, loans, inherited terms, and shared names) ……………….. 5.5 69 81 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………… 84 CHAPTER SIX: FOLK TAXONOMY AND CLASSIFICATION 6.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………… 87 6.2 Theoretical aspects and literature on folk taxonomy ……………………….. 87 6.3 Terms and their meanings in folk taxonomy ………………………………… 90 6.4 Digo folk taxonomy …………………………………………………………. 91 6.4.1 Categories of plant life-forms ………………………………………….. 93 6.4.2 Folk generics …………………………………………………………. 95 6.4.3 Folk species …………………………………………………………... 97 6.4.4 Variant categories …………………………………………………….. 97 6.4.5 Covert categories (categories without lexicon) ………………………. 101 6.4.6 Non-hierarchical classificatory plant groupings …………………….. 101 6.5 Are Digo folk categories recognised or constructed ………………………… 102 6.6 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………….. 102 CHAPTER SEVEN: MBEYU – A DIGO PLANT CONCEPT 7.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………….. 103 7.2 The plant part mbeyu …………………………………………………………. 103 7.3 Gender in plants …………………………………….………………………… 104 7.4 The development of mbeyu [seed] …….…………………………………….. 105 7.5 Seed germination and plant development ……………………….……………. 107 xxii 7.6 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………. 108 CHAPTER EIGHT: DIGO TRADITIONAL FARMING KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES 8.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 109 8.2 Farmers’ perception of soil fertility ………………………………………….. 109 8.3 Soil fertility management practices ………………………………………….. 111 8.4 Plant pathology and pest management ……………………………………….. 112 8.5 Maintenance of traditional crop cultivars ……………………………………. 113 8.6 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………. 114 CHAPTER NINE: THE FUTURE OF CONTEMPORARY DIGO PLANT KNOWLEDGE 9.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 115 9.2 Complimentary sources for plant lexicon …………………………………….. 116 9.3 Shift and re-adjustments in colour terminology ……………………………… 117 9.4 Global support and enrichment of phytotherapy …………………………….. 120 9.5 Resilience in agricultural practices ………………………………………….. 121 9.6 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………. 123 REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………….. 125 xxiii LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 2.1: A summary of the group categories and number of the respondents involved 14 Table 3.1: Examples of different collective term labels in Digo plant lexicon ……….. 48 Table 4.1: Frequency of application of plant parts in traditional Digo plant identification methods for some plant species (n=236) of different growth forms …………………..... 58 Table 4.2: Frequency of application of human senses in traditional Digo plant identification methods for some plant species (n=236) of different growth forms ...…………………… 60 Table 5.1: Vernacular plant names where prefix chi_ does not reflect diminutive connotation ………………………………………………………………………..…… 71 Table 5.2: Interpretation of prefix Chi_ in some Digo plant names ………………….. 71 Table 5.3: Examples of Digo plant names with Nasal prefix in unmarked size ……….. 72 Table 5.4: Summary of references in Digo plant names (n = 380) ……………………. 81 Table 5.5: Examples of loaned plant names in Digo …………………………………… 83 Table 6.1: Examples of Digo folk generics, their folk species and scientific species equivalents. ……………………………………………………………………………… 96 Table 6.2: Examples of Digo ethnobotanical categories and sub-categories in the folk classification ……………………………………………………………………………. 100 xxiv LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Fig. 3.1: The parts of a stem in a tree and a sketch of an injury on a stem, labelled in their Digo equivalent terms ………………………………………………………….. 20 Fig. 3.2: Basic leaf parts labelled in their Digo equivalent terms, Bougainvillea colourful bracts, and a palmate leaf that shows mala ga kodza [fingers of a leaf]……… 23 Fig. 3.3: Root nodules in a leguminous plant and buttresses in a tree labelled in their Digo equivalent terms …………………………………………………………… 25 Fig. 3.4: Maize plant flowers, the female inflorescence and fruit, and the male inflorescence; and a bisexual flower with visible stamens, pistil and petals, all labelled in their Digo equivalent terms ………………………………………………… 27 Fig. 3.5: Woolly fruits of kopak tree i.e. Ceiba pentandra, and of cotton i.e. Gossypium sp. and winged fruits of Gyrocarpus americanus ……………………………………… 29 Fig. 3.6a: The embryo [chitsa] in maize and bean seeds …………………………… 30 Fig, 3.6b: The seed and the embryo in a mango fruit ……………………………… 30 Fig. 3.6c: Hilum and seed coat in a bean seed labeled in Digo ……………………. 30 Fig. 3.7: Coconut leaf and its parts, labelled in their Digo terms …………………… 33 Fig.3.8: Some of the recognised stages of coconut fruits punga, kolokotsi, daka, dafu, nazi and nguta) ………………………………………………………… 34 Fig. 3.9: A sketch diagram showing the interior parts of a coconut fruit, and a coconut fruit split open ………………………………………………………….. 35 Fig.3.10: Parts of a banana plant: a section of the banana plant, a flower bud of the banana plant, an infruitescence of banana, and a bunch of bananas …………. 36 Fig. 3.11: A schematic illustration of an example of reciprocal transfers between human and plant situations …………………………………………………………. 49 Fig. 6.1: Schematic relation of ethnobotanical ranks in Berlins’s idealized folk taxonomy 88 Fig. 6.2: Summarised schematic relationships of rank categories in Digo folk classification 92 Fig. 6.3 Assorted local maize varieties recognised by the Digo ……………………….. 99 Fig. 6.4: Some of the mango varieties recognised by the Digo ……………………….. 99 Fig. 6.5: The common coconut varieties recognised by the Digo ……………………… 99 Fig. 9.1: Illustration of the evolutionary sequence of underived colour terms in Languages ………………………………………………………………….…. 119 xxv LIST OF APPENDECIES PAGE Appendix I: Questionnaire used for data collection of the traditional Digo plant knowledge ……………………………………………………………………………. 133 Appendix II: List of respondents involved in interviews and discussions ……….…… 137 Appendix III: A list of Digo plant names, their botanical and standard English names 142 Appendix IV: Aspects of Chidigo structure and affiliation ………………………….. 153 Appendix V: Notes on Digo plant identification process and features used ………… 157 Appendix VI: Notes on the Digo plant naming criteria ………………………………. 165 Appendix VII: Digo agricultural aspects in maize farming ………………………….. 179 1 CHAPTER ONE GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1.1 CONSIDERATIONS ON ETHNOBOTANY Striving with the natural burdens of their domestic needs, human populations have developed a multitude of practices which to a certain degree warrant their life. In the current days such practices may be encountered particularly in the tropical developing countries e.g. the subsaharan Africa (Getz et al. 1999, Infield 2001; Brosius 1997; Berkes 1999). Over time, the traditional practices of local populations, their social ethics, technologies and beliefs, emanate to a way of life based on a knowledge referred to here as ‘traditional knowledge’. Traditional knowledge is still vital for the local people of Africa as it cuts through forests, water, and agro-ecosystems, ranging from farmland to wilderness (Pandey 2004). Ethnobotany is the study of the traditional knowledge, specifically, the relationship between the humankind and their plant world (Brown 1984). Berlin (1992) sums up the motivation behind ethnobotanical studies as to ‘reveal much about the way people conceptualise the plant life in their environment.’ Over the last decades ethnobotany has assumed a significant scientific attention, with endorsements from institutions of a high international profile such as Kew, the Royal Geographic Society, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (Ellen 1996). Ellen (1996) differentiates two phases of ethnobiological research which he labels as the ‘old’ and the ‘new’. The old ethnobiology focused primarily on identifying plants (and animals) that are considered important in a material culture and on the uses by locals. The new ethnobiology, which began in the 1950s, emphasizes rather the linguistic, mainly semantic aspects of folk biological knowledge. Semantics is assumed to be the key to unveil what exists and what is important in a human group (Brown 1984). According to Ellen (1996) the old ethnobotanical studies (a branch of ethnobiology) focused on traditional knowledge as an economic commodity and researchers were eager to exploit it through demonstration of its usefulness. This led to simplistic conceptions of ethnobotanical knowledge that tended to make ethnobotany a subject that represents a common course but lacks unifying theories (Ford 1978). This, Ellen explained, was due to the historically different traits of biological ethnobotany and anthropological ethnobotany, whereby the former operates within the bio-economic paradigm, while the latter operates primarily within 2 a cultural-linguistic paradigm. While biological ethnobotany (the old) resulted in data that is no more than species identifications against vernacular names, and lists of plant uses, anthropological ethnobotany (the new) investigates the relationships between plants and humans by placing plants in a comprehensive cultural context. Although there is a considerable overlap between the body of data of the two kinds of ethnobotany, Ford (1978) claims that ‘new’ ethnobotany should represent the advanced mode of ethnobotanical research. 1.2 HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL SETTING OF THE DIGO The Digo are one of the nine Midzichenda ethnic groups, known in their Swahili designation as Mijikenda. The Midzichenda are a Bantu-speaking people consisting of nine ethnic groups that are linguistically and culturally closely related (Willis, 1996), but still with considerable differences in their ethnobotanical background (Pakia & Cooke 2003a, b). The term midzichenda is purely descriptive, which literally means ‘nine homes’, referring to the nine constituent ethnic groups, namely, the Digo, Duruma, Giriama, Rabai, Chonyi, Kambe, Ribe, Kauma, and Jibana. The Midzichenda settled at the Kenya Coast in the 16th Century (Spear 1978) or earlier (Morton 1972; 1977; Walsh 1992; Willis 1996), after emigrating from the North following a war between them and the Galla. Their typical settlements were fortified forest villages, known as kaya (Spear 1978; Schmidt 1991; Willis 1996), found in the ‘ancient coastal forest’ of eastern Africa (Robertson & Luke 1993; Burgess et. al. 1998), which are rich in botanical diversity (Robertson & Luke 1993; Burgess et. al. 1998). During their historical kaya life, the wild plant resource has been of great importance to the Midzichenda for a wide range of basic needs (Pakia & Cooke 2003a). Over the centuries the Midzichenda accumulated a wealth of traditional botanical knowledge, with associated practices and beliefs, which became part of their culture. Although in the 19th Century the Midzichenda started to move out of the kaya villages to occupy vacant land outside, where extensive farming started (Robertson & Luke 1993), the kaya continued to be revered as sacred ancestral areas and places of worship. In addition, the Midzichenda who still maintain a great proportion of their traditions, continue to use the wild plant resources in the kaya forests and other wild areas. 1.2.1 Area and number of speakers The Digo are a population of farmers and fishermen who live in the coastal belt stretching from south of Mombasa in Kenya to Tanga in Tanzania (Map I). Their populations are given 3 as 101,336 for Kenya, in 1966; and 18,688 for Tanzania in 1967 (Nurse & Hinnebusch 1993). In the 1979 population census the figures were given as near 700,000 for all Midzichenda, and the Digo are the second largest group after the Giriama (Nurse & Hinnebusch 1993). An unconfirmed population figure for the Kenyan Digo for 1999 was given as 225,000 by an official in the Kwale District statistics office. 1.2.2 Socio-linguistic situation Although the data for this study is exclusively from the Kenyan Digo, there is no important difference between the Kenyan and the Tanzanian Digo as far as language is concerned. There are also Swahili speaking settlements (mostly urban centres) in the narrow coastal belt. The Digo are partly neighbours of Swahili speaking groups and partly share their territory with them. English and Swahili are the two national and official languages in Kenya. In secular learning institutions, teaching is in English, but Swahili is the Linguafranca. Based on personal observations, the author can state that almost every Digo speaks and understands Swahili, even if he or she does not have a formal education, he would still know and use Swahili to some degree. Furthermore, the Kenya coastal area consists of a dialect continuum with a high degree of code switching, borrowing and mutual intelligibility. This applies not only to the relation between the Midzichenda languages, but also between Swahili and Midzichenda. There is a long history of contact and interchange between Midzichenda and Swahili (Nurse & Spear 1985, Spear 1978), hence in many cases the code switching is not intentional, in so far as the speakers are not always aware in every word in their daily use of language whether it is a Swahili or a Digo word. The Swahili used especially by uneducated Digo is not up to the standard level, but also the ‘correct’ Swahili used along the Digo coast is full of local peculiarities. In that sense one may speak of a continuum between ‘pure’ Digo and ‘pure’ Swahili. This includes plant names, and plant characteristics. In addition, Midzichenda and Swahili form a closely related group of languages. Thus we find a SwahiliDigo language area which is to a considerable extent a result of either contact or common heritage, and it is often impossible for the linguist to identify the kind of relationship that underlies a given case. What will be presented here as findings for Digo may in part also apply to Swahili but has not been verified yet (Rottland & Grosserhode 2004). On the other hand, English is much less known. 4 Map I: The geographical settlement area of the Digo in Kenya Coast. Nairobi DIGO Mombasa D I G O In addition to contacts with the Swahili speakers, the Digo are also in contact with the Indian and Arab communities. On the West the Digo are neighbours of other Midzichenda ethnic 5 groups (Duruma and Rabai). To the East the Digo territory borders the Indian Ocean, from which they derive one of their subsistence, namely fishing. Other economic activities of the Digo are agriculture and small scale livestock keeping. However, their proximity to other ethnic groups in the urban centres and the presence of various industries in the area, have led to supplementing the reliance on their natural resources with employment earnings. Amidst the Digo, there are immigrant populations of Kenya up-country communities i.e. Kamba, Kikuyu, Luhya and Luo, and some from Tanzania. These folks were attracted to the Kenya coastal area by jobs in tourism industry, sugar industry, and availability of land for farming (Were et al. 1987). Presumably, following the commercial and other social encounters of the Digo with other Midzichenda tribes, Swahili, Afro-Arab, Indian and Western cultures, in the past and in the present, there was and still is, a great exchange of cultural elements, particularly in knowledge, practice and language. Thus, apart from describing the actual Digo plant knowledge, this study also aims at identifying external influences that have and still are affecting that knowledge. 1.3 PREVIOUS STUDIES Parts of the Digo ethnobotanical knowledge and practices have been documented in several studies (Greenway 1940; Glover et. al 1969; Hawthorne et. al 1981; Schmidt 1991; Pakia & Cooke 2003a; and Pakia & Cooke 2003b). Other studies at the Kenya Coast focused on the history of the Midzichenda (Griffiths 1935; Morton 1972, 1977; Prins 1972, Spear 1978; Mwangudza 1983; Mutoro 1985; Mambo 1987; Walsh 1992; Willis 1996). The floristic composition of the Midzichenda sacred forests (the kaya forests) and other forest areas (Robertson 1984; Schmidt 1991; Robertson & Luke 1993) revealed a high diversity of the forested area at the Kenya Coast, encompassing about 3,000 plant taxa. Although some of the previous ethnobotanical studies addressed anthropological issues of the Midzichenda, the majority of the plant related practices and semantics is still not documented, particularly, the details for the individual Midzichenda ethnic groups are lacking. Thus, it was felt imperative that the traditional Digo plant knowledge is documented, so as to preserve the indigenous knowledge, the language, and customary beliefs associated with the plant world. Such knowledge, if it remains undocumented, is likely to disappear as people globally become drawn into a homogenized culture of the modern world (Diamond & Bishop 1999). It was on the basis of this argument that the current study was deemed necessary and hence undertaken. 6 1.4 THE CURRENT STUDY 1.4.1 Background This study was inaugurated by the Humanities Collaborative Research Centre of the University of Bayreuth (Sonderforschungsbereiche: SFB) financed by the German Research Council (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft: DFG). The special criteria of the Humanities Collaborative Research Centre are: Transdisciplinary approach, international cooperation and internationalization of research with regard to the choice of the topic, as well as academic capacity building. The disciplines that participate in the Centre include: Languages and literature, Art, Developmental Sociology, Social Anthropology, History, Private and International Law, Islamic Studies, Cultural and Social Geography, Plant Sciences, and Religion. The aim of the Centre is to investigate local action in the context of global influences, by focusing on current situations, and tracing them back to the past phenomena. 1.4.2 The aim of the study As stated above, the aim of this study was to document the ‘traditional’ Digo plant knowledge, practices and beliefs related to the plant world, which are threatened of being lost with time passing by. In addition, the study is also intended to investigate the global influence (particularly modern science) on the Digo plant knowledge. The field work of the study was conducted at the Kenya Coast, between August 2000 and July 2004. The field work was followed by six months of data analysis and writing, between August and December 2004, at the University of Bayreuth, in Germany. 1.4.3 Motivation for the selection of the Digo and Plant science The Digo were the first group to separate from the rest of the Midzichenda (Spear 1978) which on the one hand makes them more likely to have maintained some of the ‘old’ knowledge, practices and semantics related to plant world. Thus the Digo have significant features of ‘traditional’ setting, which include the historical kaya culture, an active Language (Chidigo), components of socio-cultural life (such as fishing, farming and phytotherapy) which were practised long before the entry of modern science. However, on the other hand, part of the Digo area is a melting pot of other ethnic groups from up-country Kenya, Arabia, 7 Inda and Europe (Were et al. 1987). The experience of the Digo, therefore, gives an incentive of local and global elements of varying significance. The choice to concentrate on plant knowledge in this study is based on the fact that plant knowledge is more instructive, and plants have a long lifespan cutting across human generations. The Digo have a strong relation to, and respect of, the plant world, which can be traced to their historical association with the kaya forests. In addition, they (until early 1980s) pegged their wealth indication to plant ownerships (e.g. the number of coconut trees). Still to date, the plant world has a very high economic value to the Digo (Glover et al. 1969; Schmidt 1991; Pakia & Cooke 2003 a, b). Despite this traditional background, the young Digo are encouraged to go to school (schooling was made compulsory in the year 2003), where they learn theories of pure science and practices of modern agriculture. In this scenario, it is of interest to investigate how the traditional knowledge reacts to modern science. The author, being a native Digo (grew up in that society and is fluent in the language) and has studied Botany in South Africa, identified features of traditional Digo plant knowledge which could be used to compare, at least the partially coherent ideas, into what could be termed as a Digo plant concept. To this end, not only verbally expressed knowledge but also observational data have been compiled. Since the author is a local, there were no restrictions in active participation and observation of the Digo in their life, as they undertake their day to day socio-cultural activities, while maintaining a mutual trust and honesty in the community. 1.4.4 Assumptions and expectations At the onset of field work, the general assumption of this study was that “another plant knowledge exists, which developed prior to the modern scientific knowledge”. This would be proven by the existence of a kind of Digo plant knowledge that is ‘consistent in its content’. A second expectation was that in the Digo community, a specific social group exists which is the repository of the traditional plant knowledge, representing the status of a leadership in plant knowledge. That group was presumed to be the kaya elders (a council of elders charged with preservation of traditional rules and traditional plant resource management). A third expectation was that global and local knowledge would integrate smoothly, with the global i.e. scientific system, replacing or at least modifying the local. Modification would be indicated by an opening of Digo plant lexicon and practices such as in agriculture and healing. In the course of the study it became obvious that all these assumptions and expectation were 8 not correct. These literature-based and conceivable assumptions were falsified by a thorough and systematic investigation into a field which had not been addressed in a similar comprehensive study. 1.4.5 Content of the Thesis In the introductory, Chapter One, the background of the Digo and their inclination to the botanical world is reviewed, as well as their linguistic history and relation to Anglo Bantu. Chapter Two presents the methodology used in field work and data analysis. Also described are the persons (respondents) involved in eliciting the Digo plant knowledge. Chapter Three gives an overview of the relevant Chidigo linguistic and ethnophytological (plant lexicon and description) aspects, including etymological interpretations and historical aspects of the lexicon. This is followed by a discussion of the traditional plant identification methods (Chapter Four), exploring the plant characters and human senses used for the identification. Chapter Five discusses the morphology and phonology of the Digo plant names based on semantic analytical approach, to unravel the guiding aspects in the Digo plant naming process. This is followed by a discussion on how the Digo order their plant world, i.e. Digo folk taxonomy in Chapter Six. In Chapter Seven the Digo understanding of ‘the not so visible’ internal plant processes is assessed through an example, namely ‘mbeyu’, a traditional notion related to plant propagation. Important issue in this Chapter is to establish the extent of Digo plant knowledge beyond lexicon and descriptive terms. In Chapter Eight, practical Digo plant knowledge in their day to day life is presented, exemplified by farming. In an Appendix, Digo knowledge in the times and indicators of rains, for land preparation, sowing, weeding, harvesting, methods of crop storage and communal controls in agriculture are presented. In the last Chapter, Chapter Nine, Digo plant knowledge encounters modern scientific botany and agriculture. The discussion extends on the future prospects of the Digo plant knowledge and its associated practices. 9 1.4.6 Conventions and abbreviations The following conventions have been used in the text of this thesis. Digo plant names appear in italics, and are treated as nouns, spelt with an upper case of the first letter. Other Digo words are also written in italics in lower case. Translations or respective terminologies of the Digo plant names and words are given, and these are put in square bracts [ … ]. The scientific equivalents to Digo plant names are not always included, and the reader is recommended to Appendix III which has all the Digo plant names and their scientific correspondences referred to in this thesis and sorted in alphabetic order. Digo compound plant names are written as ‘short phrases’ with the different words separated, including the genitival links e.g. Mwinika ngulu and Mnazi wa tsozi. The spellings for the Digo plant names and other Digo words are done in accordance with the orthography given in Appendix IV. Commonly used abbreviations are: pp. pages pl. plural singl. singular sp. Species (single) spp. Species (plural) 10 CHAPTER TWO MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1 RESEARCH STRATEGIES Inevitably, the modern concept of plant science represents the background of the ethnobotanical study. Modern plant science was used to identify essential areas of plant life and defining the subject areas covered such as: plant description, plant identification, plant classification and propagation. The role of linguistics in this study is to analyse the semantic composition of Digo plant knowledge and thus prepare the way towards an understanding of its cognitive structure, as well as to identify changes in terminology which can be analysed as features of globalisation. In general the investigation took the following strategic approach: i) document the traditional plant labels and descriptive terms for plant parts, which on the whole forms what will be considered as the Digo plant lexicon. ii) determine the features and methods used in traditional Digo plant identification and recognition methods. iii) establish the traditional plant naming criteria, through analysis of the semantic meanings of the Digo plant names. iv) determine the traditional categorisation and grouping of plants among the Digo. v) document the traditionally conceptualisation of plant processes through an exemplified Digo plant concept, the mbeyu. vi) document the practical plant knowledge of the Digo, using traditional farming systems as the example. vii) commenting on the future prospects of the traditional Digo plant knowledge by assessing the global influence in plant lexicon and plant related practices such as agriculture and healing. The research therefore targeted both verbal and non-verbal data, covering the subsistence activities of the Digo that pertains to plant world. It is a fact that most traditional knowledge is dispersed widely, organised with respect to particular contexts, and defined in terms of different subsistence activities in a community (Ellen 1996) and the Digo are no exception in this. Much of the traditional knowledge therefore might be inaccessible except via a research strategy which allows for multi-focal approach. Thus, in this study a combination of field methods were used to tap as much of the targeted data and information as possible. The methods included both quantitative formal methods and qualitative informal techniques. The 11 quantitative formal methods comprised interviews using a structured questionnaire (Appendix I). While the informal qualitative techniques included semi-structured interviews, open-ended discussions, active and passive observations of the day-to-day socio-cultural and economical activities of the Digo. Evidence from the field work of this study showed that some respondents tend to take a friendly position in interviews and discussions, hence give ‘what you would like to hear’ answers, beating the objective of the researchers. With the current author, however, being a local in community helped to minimise if not completely avoid such drawbacks. The author had a general idea of the situation, and respondents felt obliged to present honest responses. On the other hand, the author took a perspective of an external observer of his own community, so as to view the traditional knowledge and practices from a different, scientific perspective. At the end of the day the author realised that there is considerable traditional knowledge that he did not know prior to indulging in the study, despite being a local. 2.1.1 The formal quantitative method A formal qualitative method consisted mainly of the structured interviews, which were used to allow for involving a relatively large number of respondents, and conducted using a questionnaire (Appendix I). The rationale behind using a questionnaire was to secure a substantial quantitative data, as respondents give answers to the same set of questions, which allowed for systematic considerations, as well as noting variability between individual respondents and between social groups. The questionnaire A questionnaire was developed, then tested in the field to establish that targeted botanical knowledge was captured. Responses obtained in the preliminary interviews noted that the Digo understanding of their plant world was not accessed from general questions, but rather from questions that exemplified the life or features of specific plants. Although the questionnaire was maintained, semi-structured interviews and open ended discussions focused on specific species. The questionnaire consisted of 25 questions that covered different areas of plant knowledge, and responses were sorted out and discussed in related subject matter of respective Chapters. However, in summary, the questions can be broadly grouped as: - General questions (for general plant life) – addressed in questions 1 – 9. 12 - Plant identification – question 10. - Plant classification – questions 11 – 13. - Plant development (Digo concept of plant propagation) - questions 14 – 17. - Practical plant knowledge (agriculture and phytotherapy) – questions 18 – 25. Respondents sample used in structured interviews The respondents, for both structured interviews and discussions, were mainly the Digo who share a cultural heritage that includes the plant knowledge. The persons involved (referred here as ‘respondents’) were selected from a cross-section of social groups of the community in order to capture their diversity in the knowledge (Appendix II). Respondents were considered along specific social groups, age, gender, and literacy variations. However, the responses showed that, other than variations between social groups e.g. healers, farmers, and carpenters, considerable variation in plant knowledge is observable between two respondent groups, namely: a) the elderly, illiterate or semi-illiterate, mainly practising the traditional Digo life and b) the young, modern, educated or in an educational institution, exposed to modern science. The elderly Digo respondents comprised of kaya elders, traditional healers, peasant farmers, pole cutters, local carpenters, local house constructors and house wives. Most of the respondents in these categories live in the rural areas of Kwale District, Coast Province, Kenya, while the ‘modern’ Digo are pupils in primary and secondary schools, and Government extension officers, whose interests are in the western life style and modern science. Most of these were living in the urban centres, from where they were attending their studies or work, and usually separated from their families. Another group of respondents linking these two extremes were the post-school youths, who had rejoined their families after studies, thus were living in their rural villages and participating in domestic activities such as farming. The respondents were visited at their homes for the interviewing. Some respondents were revisited every year for four years consecutively, to confirm previous information that was collected as well as sought new information. The respondents were selected from the Digo area that stretches between Waa and Msambweni, a distance of about 40 km South-North along the Mombasa-Lungalunga road, and between Tiwi and Golini, a distance of about 20 km East-West along the Mombasa-Kwale road. 13 The media of interviews To capture most of the targeted information and to create a levelled platform, the interviews were all conducted in the Digo language, Chidigo, which was familiar to most respondents, although some of the young Digo seemed more comfortable in presenting themselves in Swahili or English. The use of Chidigo allowed for a comparative analysis between respondents within and between the social groups. In addition, it allowed for recording fine details of linguistic concern in their ‘original’ formations. There is a common tendency of ‘Swahilinising’ words in interviews or discussions conducted in other than Chidigo. 2.1.2 Informal qualitative techniques The informal qualitative techniques included semi-structured interviews (guided discussions), open ended discussions, and observations. Semi-structured interviews and open-ended discussions involved selected respondents who had profound knowledge in the traditional Digo plant knowledge, and were involved in discussions that focused of specific plant aspects that they have considerable conversancy. In semi-structured interviews there were specific target areas of discussion, and although a respondent was allowed expound on these, he was guided to a certain extent not to move out of the targeted discussion area. The main target in these interviews was qualitative data, particularly specialised information that might not be commonly found among other community members. During open end discussions the respondents were allowed to respond to general questions in a selected topic of plant knowledge, and were allowed to talk freely on related issues so as to capture as much as the respondents could offer. Overall, both the semi-structured interviews and the open-ended discussions allowed for eliciting from the respondents a rich and detailed qualitative data that forms part of Digo plant knowledge. On the other hand, the observations of the local people in their day to day activities, included visits to traditional ceremonies, initiations, trade fairs, learning sessions, plant material collection and working sessions in the farm fields. In these activities, the author participated as an active observer and sometimes as a passive observer, thus taking both internal and external views of the activities. As a method, observation (both active and passive) allowed for critical uncovering in detail the practical part of the plant knowledge in day to day life of the Digo. This method was significantly useful in ensuring that both verbal and non-verbal knowledge components were captured and recorded. 14 The methods and techniques above were used in supplementation to allow for wider coverage and capture of the Digo plant knowledge. In total 177 respondents of different social and academic background (Table 2.1) were involved in the interviews and discussions. Table 2.1: A summary of the group categories and number of respondents involved. Respondent category Number Kaya elders 10 Farmers 40 Healers 13 Pole cutters/ house builders 7 Carpenters 8 Vegetable and mushroom gatherers 19 Government Extension officer 1 Secondary school pupils 51 Primary school pupils 9 Post school youths 19 Out of 177 persons, 65 were female and 112 were male, consisting of 60 elderly persons (50 years and above), 80 young adults (18 – 50 years old) and 37 youths (less than 18 years old). Although the elderly respondents were mainly illiterate or semi-illiterate, most of them had minimal religious knowledge following an exposure in Islamic schools, i.e., madrassa. This respondent group category generally believed and trusted the traditional practices, but occasionally had some little knowledge on the modern scientific knowledge which they learnt informally from friends or from the Government extension officers. Ten selected elderly farmers were the key respondents, who were visited annually to clarify or expand on an issue in the traditional plant knowledge. The interviews were conducted in the period between August 2001 and June 2004. In addition to the responses recorded in these interviews, other published ethnobotanical works documented in the same area (Pakia & Cooke 2003a, b; Beentje 1994; Schmidt 1991, and Glover et. al 1969) were consulted as secondary sources of information particularly for the plant names and uses. 2.2 SPECIFIC FIELD ACTIVITIES FOR THE STUDY • respondents were visited at their homes and interviewed using the structured questionnaire 15 • some respondents were conducted through the forest, and were requested to give the terms used as labels for different plant parts (in general and for specific species). Also the respondents were requested to describe the different features of the plant parts, and give other descriptive terms related to plants. Occasionally photographs of plants were used for the same. • during the forest visits, some respondents were requested to identify different plant taxa. In these sessions the verbal responses were recorded and the behaviour of the respondents in the plant identification process were observed keenly, particularly the plant parts the respondents focused on in the identification. Also some respondents were requested to give an elaborate explanation on their methods of plant identification and the plant parts they considered important for identification. • respondents were also requested to give membership of different plant species to categories of higher ranking and the names for these categories. This was done by allowing the respondent to use his/her own examples, but sometimes suggested examples of species and categories were presented to the respondents to kick start the discussion. From these discussions, information on Digo plant classification and respective classificatory terms were collected. • during semi-structured interviews and the open-ended discussions some respondents were intentionally pushed to answer questions, particularly when their responses were conflicting i.e. inconsistent. This was useful to establish the position of ‘conflicting knowledge’ in the Digo plant knowledge. But some respondents seem to express being offended when their arguments were proved to them as incoherent. • in addition to visiting the peasant farmers at their homes for interviews and discussions, visits were also made to their farm fields (in their company) to observe the applied farming methods and practice. Selected farmers were re-visited every year for four consecutive years, responding to the same questions to establish consistency of their responses. • some respondents were involved in discussions of the non-visible plant processes, particularly those related to plant propagation, development and nourishment. This was intended to investigate the Digo understanding of plant concepts, equivalent to the scientific ones like photosynthesis and pollination, a knowledge area above simple lexicon and description. • pupils and students were visited in their schools, involved in interviews and discussions, and their learning sessions observed. 16 2.3 ANALYTICAL AND COMPARATIVE APPROACH In order to structure the Digo plant knowledge and to distinguish its global from its local aspects a certain degree of focusing is needed as well as some terminological reticence. The global aspect referred to here is scientific botany, which enters the local scene directly through schools or indirectly through the work of agricultural advisors and occasional training courses for local healers and farmers. The other branch of the dichotomy is the traditional Digo botanical knowledge that has not been influenced by the global system (e.g. farmers who have not been to school and who have missed or avoided agricultural training). Thus, what was gathered from observations and interviews with elder farmers is considered as the “traditional” Digo plant knowledge. Since the scientific knowledge is introduced into the Digo community through school, Digo pupils and students are considered as holders of the ‘modern scientific’ knowledge. Partly, by using a comparative analysis between these ‘educated’ young Digo and their ‘illiterate’ elderly parents, plant-related semantics and practices were contrasted. Overall, the analysis attempted to establish the extent the ‘global’ (modern scientific botany) influences the ‘local’ counter part (traditional Digo plant knowledge), in order to estimate the future prospects of the Digo plant knowledge and associated practices. As a guide in the consideration of ‘traditional’ plant knowledge from gimmicks, and from the ‘modern’ plant knowledge the following inferences were made. 1. responses from a sample of persons supposedly influenced by global forces i.e. modernists (school pupils), were considered to comprise a knowledge that has considerable components of scientific botany, thus the ‘global’. While responses from a sample of ‘typical traditionalist’ persons (kaya elders, healers, farmers, pole cutters, house builders, and carpenters) as being the potential ‘traditional’ Digo plant knowledge, thus the ‘local’, unless for some reasons doubted. 2. response from post school youths, were used as transitional stages of change, and also to give the predictions of the maintenance of ‘modern’ knowledge and its future potential in the society. 3. information that concurred between the majority of the traditionalist respondents was acceptable and considered common ‘traditional’ plant knowledge of the Digo. Also willingness of respondents to give answers, and answers that are given without much effort or strenuous thinking, combined with the high convergence of information, were 17 used as indicators of a ‘common’ knowledge. The degree of fluency and consistency of answers (in repetitive interviews) was used as indicator of mastery of the knowledge. 4. information and practices that were not shared was considered ‘specialized’ to the social group that present it. 5. for information that is characterised by disagreements, an explanation was sought towards the divergence. Either this indicated intra-diversity in the traditional plant knowledge, or some sources of information erred. 18 CHAPTER THREE DIGO LINGUISTIC ASPECTS AND ETHNOPHYTOGRAPHY 3.1 INTRODUCTION In this Chapter, an overview on linguistic aspects of the Digo (language history and semantics) is presented, and a discussion is made on ethnophytography of the Digo, focusing on the lexicon and descriptions related to plants and plant parts. The linguistic presentation is intended to allow the reader to follow the subsequent discussion, thus only the aspects enough for that purpose have been presented as it was not the objective of this study to develop a monograph of Chidigo. In the text summary overviews of the Digo linguistic aspects is given, which is supplemented by Appendix IV. The Digo ethnophytography presented, both lexicon and descriptions of plant parts, were recorded from a wide range of respondents and have been compiled as a general plant knowledge to be commonly found among the Digo, unless otherwise stated. A major part of the discussion focuses on the higher plants (Plantae Kingdom), with some representation of lower plants including mushrooms (Fungi Kingdom). First the plant lexicon are presented and then followed by the descriptive terms. The arrangement of the lexicon for the plant parts is adopted from Berlin et al. (1974), which is based on groups of expressions, referring to stems, leaves, flowers, fruits and roots. The lexicon and descriptive terms of the parts are listed and then supplemented by explanatory comments. To begin with, the discussion makes considerations of Chidigo linguistic aspects. This followed by the Ethnophytography (General and special names of plant parts), including the descriptive terminologies. 3.2 A CONSIDERATION OF CHIDIGO LINGUISTIC ASPECTS The language spoken by the Digo, Chidigo, is a Bantu language related to the Sabaki group (Proto-Sabaki) of languages. Generally, Midzichenda languages are quite similar to each other, and to a large extent mutually intelligible. Further more, Midzichenda and Swahili are close relatives within the Sabaki which is a branch of the North East-coast Bantu. The concept of a Sabaki branch which includes Midzichenda, Swahili, and Pokomo, has been introduced by Nurse and Hinnebusch (1993) and is backed by a number of regular phonological, grammatical, and lexical correspondences. These correspondences include plant names. Nurse 19 and Hinnebusch (1993) have also presented re-constructions at various levels, i.e., protoBantu and proto-Sabaki. Chidigo has 5 vowels: a, e, i, o, u, pronounced as in Swahili (Nurse & Hinnebusch 1993), and 28 consonats, which are similar to those published by Dammann (1936) who worked on Digo folk tales in Tanga, Tanzania. In morphology, Chidigo like other Bantu is a class language, different from gender languages. The classes are organised in pairs and their relation is one of number. Chidigo has both primary and derived prefixes, and in its grammar the class system is characterized by verbal concord or agreement, i.e. the class membership of a given noun is repeated in dependant word categories such as adjective, verb and pronoun. For more details on historical and semantic aspects of Chidigo the reader is advised to confer Appendix IV. 3.3 DIGO ETHNOPHYTOGRAPHY 3.3.1 General names for plant part The Digo perceive muhi [plant] to comprise of kodza [leaf], muhi [stem] and muzi [root], as a result likosi [algae], koga [moss], and uoga [fungi] are not typical plants, although they may be related to plants. In the following, an inventory of the general Digo lexicon of plant parts is presented with the English translation, and where possible re-constructions for common Bantu (CB) or/and proto-Sabaki (PSA) are indicated to note inherited terms. Although the labels are known to have either high or low tones, these details have been excluded here. The list of lexicon is followed by explanatory comments on related aspects. Terms relative to the stem DIGO ENGLISH Muhi stem, between base and first branch ti (H) muti Sina base of tree trunk, above ground kina (HL) ishina Kolo synonym for sina kodo (HL) ikolo Gopha bark koba (HL) mukoWa Chironda injury or scar on the bark donda (LL) kilonda (cf. ‘sore’) Chilingo A ring made (by removing bark) around the stem CB PSA Nyere appendages on the bark - - Nyama za muhi wood grains yama (LL) - (cf. ‘meat’) 20 Chiini heart wood - Bacha soft wood - Panda branch panda (HL) - (cf. ‘fork’) Pindi section between internodes pindi (HH) - (cf. ‘shin’) Pindi a cassava tuber - Gutu a bulge on stem - Pango a hole in a stem pango (HL) - (cf. ‘cave’) COMMENTS Muhi The term muhi, is commonly used to refer to the stem (Fig. 3.1), the part between the basal part of the stem to the first branch. However, the term has considerable polysemy, i.e., has a very broad range of applications and meanings, which include a tree and a pole. The term muhi means ‘tree’ in all Bantu languages. Muhi consists of sina, the basal part of the stem (Fig. 3.1), which has a synonym - kolo. The prerequisite of muhi to have a sina or kolo disqualifies some scientifically accepted ‘stems’ in the category muhi, e.g., underground stems (stem tuber and rhizomes) are thus not recognised as mihi. Both sina and kolo trace their origin to the common Bantu terminologies. The basal part of the stem is perceived to have ‘ancestral’ connotations for the aerial parts of the plant, a derivation that is applied to human relationships. In metaphorical references the terms sina and kolo refer to the ‘ancestral person’ or ‘place of birth’ in human situation. Muhi Gopha Chironda Sina/kolo Fig. 3.1: The parts of a stem in a tree (right), and a sketch of an injury on a stem (left), labelled in their Digo equivalent terms. Gopha Muhi [stem] has a part known as gopha [bark] (Fig. 3.1), which traces its origin to the common Bantu word koba. The term gopha is used in everyday conversation to refer to 21 ‘wound cover’ in humans. Following the application of gopha to human life situation, there has been a reciprocate transfer to plants, where an injury or scar on the bark of the tree (Fig. 3.1) is known as chironda [wound]. The term chironda is also traceable to the common Bantu (donda) and proto-Sabaki (kilonda), but then referred to wound and damaged tissue in humans and other animals. The application of the terms gopha [wound cover] and chironda [wound] to the ‘bark’ in plants and ‘skin’ in humans, suggests that the Digo consider the bark and the skin as equivalent structures in different organisms. This is further supported by the reference of appendage growths e.g. lichens on the bark of a plant, as nyere [hair]. The etymology of nyere is unknown, and seems to be new in Digo, most likely is borrowed from Swahili – nyele. To kill the plant, a Digo farmer strip off the bark around the entire perimeter of the stem, a process referred to as kupiga chilingo [stripping]. Nyama za muhi The inner wood of a plant is known as nyama za muhi [wood grains], an expression that translates to ‘meat of a tree’. The reference of wood grains as ‘meat’ stems from structural resemblance of the grains to meat chunks, and from the understanding that nyama is the internal content of every organism. Thus there are other plant parts referred to as ‘meat’ e.g. coconut and mushroom flesh, but these are discussed in their respective sections. With reference to quality, nyama za muhi can either be chiini [heart wood] at the centre portion of stem, or bacha [soft wood] on the periphery. Only species that undergo secondary growth exhibit chiini, and is preferred for carpentry and for building purposes due to its durability (Pakia 2000). Bacha is prone to damage by pests, thus less preferred in carpentry and building. The etymology of chiini is ‘purity’, but its relation the ‘heart wood’ in plants is not clear. The etymology of bacha is unknown. The terms chiini and bacha are common among timber users (carpenters, pole cutters, house builders) but are not part of a general Digo plant knowledge. Panda Panda [branch] refers to a shoot from the muhi or a Y-shaped junction of branching. The etymology of panda is ‘to climb’, and also refers to catapult, focusing on the Y-shaped branch which is used in making the catapult. For all these meanings, the Digo share the term panda with the Swahili, and evidence shows that it is a common Bantu term. When a branch is cut, the resulting knob is known as gutu, a term also applicable to severed human body parts of e.g. amputated hand or leg. If a hollow develops at the knob or in the middle of the stem, 22 which is common in Muhuhu [Brachylaena huillensis], the hole is known as pango. However, pango also refers to a cave or hole in general, thus the term is not restricted to plant parts. Pindi This term refers to the section between two internodes e.g. in sugar cane stem, and also to cassava root tubers. It is surprising that a stem and a root, which are locally understood to be different as well, are identified with the same form. There was no explanation given for this labelling criterion, but it is probably a ‘numerical’ term (used in counting) rather than a label for a plant part. This assumption is supported by the fact that finger segments, commonly used to facilitate counting, are also known as ‘pindi’. Terms relative to the leaf DIGO ENGLISH CB Kodza leaf janį (cf. leaf) (kodza is shared among all Midzichenda) Mishipa ya kodza leaf veins kįpa (LL) mushįpa (cf. vein, artery, tendon) Mongo wa kodza mid rib gongo (LL) mugongo (cf. back, backbone) Lutsa leaf apex - Mlita leaf petiole - Mala ga kodza leaf lobes yada (HH) PSA kyala (cf. finger) COMMENTS Kodza The etymology for kodza [leaf] is unknown, but it is a common label for leaf in Midzcichenda languages, referring to the leaf (Fig. 3.2), thus suggesting its a regional lexicon. The Swahili however, refer to the leaf as jani, and apparently it is the Swahili who have maintained the original CB label for leaf. Thus kodza is only a proto-Midzichenda label, but not proto-Bantu term. The term kodza differs slightly from the scientific equivalent i.e. leaf, as kodza excludes some scientifically defined ‘leaves’ e.g. leaf bracts of Bougainvillea (for being colourful) (Fig. 3.2), seed leaves (cotyledons), spines and tendrils, (for their significant structural variation from the ‘ideal’ leaf). To the Digo, the function of kodza is protective, and is described as nguo [clothing] for the plant, protecting it from the hot sun. Thus, when deciduous trees shed off their leaves in the dry season, the Digo explain it as ‘inabadilisha nguo’ [is changing cloth]. Also makodza are indicators of the vigour and good health of plants. 23 Lutsa Mongo wa kodza Mishipa ya kodza Mala ga kodza Mlita Fig. 3.2: Basic leaf parts (right) labelled in their Digo equivalent terms, Bougainvillea colourful bracts (middle), and a palmate leaf that shows mala ga kodza [fingers of a leaf] Mishipa ya kodza The label mishipa ya kodza [leaf veins] (Fig. 3.2) derives its name from structural and functional resemblance to human veins [mishipa]. The term mishipa is traceable to CB (kipa) and PSA (mushipa), but then referring to only the human parts. Thus the label ‘mishipa ya kodza’ is a recent innovation, but it matches the English label ‘leaf veins’, referring to the same plant parts and possible from a similar perception. Mongo wa kodza The label mongo wa kodza [mid-rib], translates to ‘spinal cord of leaf’, and derives its name from its strategic positioning on the leaf (spinal) and its structural resemblance to human spinal column [mongo]. The term mongo is traceable to CB (gongo) and PSA (mugongo), but its application to plant labelling is a new observation. Lutsa The etymology of lutsa [leaf apex] is ‘sharp end’, and it traces its origin from the sharp leaf apices. There is no record of a separate label for rounded and truncate apices (not sharp), thus it can not be immediately said if such apices would have a different label or share this label. Mlita The term mlita [leaf petiole], is also used to refer to the stalk of a fruit and a flower, which suggests that mlita has structural connotations. However, the etymology of mlita is unknown. Mala ga kodza 24 The Digo consider each leaflet (pinna) in a compound leaf (pinnate and bipinnate) e.g. in Afzelia quanzensis and in Parkia filicoidea respectively, as independent kodza [leaf]. The same description is also made for leaflets in digitate compound leaves e.g. Vitex spp. and Lannea spp. But leaf lobes in simple palmate leaves (Fig. 3.2) e.g. in cassava plant, are known as mala ga kodza [leaf fingers]. The reference of leaf lobes as mala [fingers] is partly based on the digitate (5 numerical) of the lobes and on the palm-like structure of the lobbed leaf. However, the application of mala for other plant parts (cf. banana fruits) suggest that the label is not specifically a reference for plant parts, and it is possible that it has numerical connotations. The term chala is traceable to CB (yada) and PSA (kyala). Terms relative to the root DIGO ENGLISH CB PSA Muzi root di - Chiazi root tuber - - Pingu root nodules pingu (cf. charm, fetters) Ngamba buttress - - Ngao synonym for ngamba Misipha ya mizi synonym for ngamba gabo igaWo (cf. shield) COMMENTS Muzi The term muzi [root] goes back to CB and PSA (di) terminology, but has been modified, although the referent still remains as roots (Fig. 3.3). In metaphorical language mizi (pl.) refers to a ‘stability’ or permanency. Thus the phrase ‘akachita mizi’ [has established root], means one has established a permanent position. The internal fibrous structures in the middle of the cassava tubers are also known as mizi. The Digo understand plants as living organisms that feed on ‘soil’ and drink ‘water’ via mizi [roots]. Thus the roots were described as mromo [mouth] of the plants. However, this descriptive label was given by the elderly Digo to elaborate the explanations of feeding in plants. Otherwise it is not a general label identified with the root. 25 Pingu Ngamba/ Ngao Muzi Fig. 3.3: Root nodules in a leguminous plant (left), and buttresses in a tree (right) labelled in their Digo equivalent terms. Chiazi Root tubers are labelled with names of their respective species e.g. manga [cassava], myogwe [sweet potato] and nduma [arrowroot]. However, a relatively new root tuber plant, irish potato is known as viazi (pl.), and the label also refers to wild root tubers in general, putting together a variety of species that are not identified with a specific name. Chiazi, therefore, is a collective term for root tubers, and the irish potato is labelled with this general term because it is ‘new’ and lacks a specific name. The reference of internal fibrous structures in cassava tuber as mizi (cf. above) indicates that root tubers are more inclusive plant part, and muzi is only a sub-part of the tuber. In other words, mizi [roots] are sub-parts of viazi [root tubers]. To regard stem tubers (sweet and irish potatoes) as plant parts related to mizi suggests that the Digo consider underground plant part as muzi [root], which would thus include stem tubers, such as stolons and rhizomes. The Digo in this consideration deviate from science, where these parts are viewed as stems. Pingu Pingu [root nodules] refer to nitrogen assimilation structures in the roots of Leguminous and other plants [Fig. 3.3]. The term pingu also refers to a magical charm, a meaning that goes back to CB for charms. Most likely the root nodules were labelled after the charms due to structural resemblance. But the transfer to plant life situation led to a ‘new’ use for the root nodule, i.e. making the charms, thus applying the doctrine of ‘signatures of symbols’ postulated by Paracelsus (1490-1541) (Thomson 1978). The Digo use root nodules of Ndago [Kyllinga or Cyperus spp.] to make a charm that induces magical strength at a time of danger. Ngamba Ngamba refers to buttress (Fig. 3.3), but its etymology is unknown. However, its synonym ngao means ‘shield’ and this meaning goes back to CB. On the other hand mishipa ya mizi 26 means the ‘neck of the roots’, which simulates the buttress to the human neck. This was supported by an argument that a tree is like a human being positioned head down. Generally buttresses are understood to develop in trees that grow on a rocky soils hence develop shallow roots, as additional support and protection for the tree against forces such as winds. Thus the label ngao [shield] is viewed on structural (flat) and functional (protective) connotations. Although the Digo perception in buttress development differs from the scientific view, the synonym misipha ya mizi [neck of the roots], which describes the buttress as part of root concurs with scientific understanding. Terms relative to the flower DIGO ENGLISH CB PSA Ruwa flower duba įluwa Punga male inflorescence of maize - mpunga (cf. rice plant) Mwana female inflorescence of maize - - Chowa young female inflorescence of maize - - Thamra synonym for punga - - Njiyo stigmas of maize inflorescence - - Viapha petals and sepals - - Vishale stamens and filaments - - COMMENTS Ruwa The label ruwa [flower] goes back to CB (duba) and PSA (luwa), only slightly modified. The original PSA label, i.e. luwa, reappears in fixed labels such as Chiluwa [Mkilua fragrans] which bases its naming to the flower. Ruwa is understood to have structural feature (colourful) and functional feature (reproductive) i.e. from which fruits are produced. Based on the structural qualification ruwa includes colourful bracts of Bougainvillea, which are scientific described as ‘leaves’. And based on functional qualification, ruwa includes chowa [female inflorescence of maize plant], but excludes punga [male inflorescence of maize plant] because the latter neither produces fruits nor is it colourful (Fig. 3.4). Surprisingly, male flower of papaya is labelled as ruwa, even though it does not produce fruits (a functional disqualification). Assumingly, the colourful appearance of the male papaya flower (structural qualification) and its close resemblance to the female papaya flower led to its inclusion into the ruwa category. Therefore, one can conclude that ruwa is a plant part that is either 27 colourful or produce fruits, or both, which does not concur with the scientific definition of ‘flower’. Punga/ Thamra Vishale Viapha Mwana Njiyo Chowa Fig. 3.4: Maize plant flowers, the female inflorescence/fruit (left) and the male inflorescence (middle), and a bisexual flower with visible stamens, pistil and petals (right), all labelled in their Digo equivalent terms. Punga The plant part punga is the male inflorescence of maize (Fig. 3.4), but the Digo understand it as an indicator of the maturity of the corn, i.e. when it dries the corn is mature and ready for harvesting. From a general perspective, punga also refers to panicle structures in grasses e.g. Panicum maximum, sugarcane [Saccharum officinarum] and the florets in a coconut inflorescence. Mwalimu Mwakatengo, from Kinondo, was the only respondent who gave a synonym for punga, i.e. thamra, but he also knew the term punga for the same part. In follow up discussions, the term thamra was noted to be unknown among the Digo. It is assumed that thamra is a loan word from Swahili or from Tanzanian languages. On the other hand, punga seem to be a modification of mphunga [rice] which has similar reproductive structure, but the latter is an older term (PSA) for rice. Njiyo Generally, the parts of a flower (petals, sepals, anther, and stigma) are not lexicalised in Digo. Occasionally there were invented responses e.g. viapha [small wings] for petals and sepals, and vishale [small arrows] for stamens and filaments (Fig. 3.4), probably as respondents try to be polite. But in general, these responses were neither common nor consistent to be considered genuine. Despite this observation, some labels for flower parts were common and are genuine. These include njiyo [stigma of maize flower] (Fig. 3.4), which is a homonym for a colourful decorative attire of traditional dancers. The colourfulness and the free hanging posture of the two led to the homonym whose etymology is unknown. 28 Terms relative to the fruit DIGO ENGLISH CB PSA Tunda fruit - įtunda Gada skin (exocarp) of fruit and rind of root tuber - Sufi kapok, woolly fruits - - Pamba cotton, woolly fruits - - Tembe seed - - Chitsa embryo (maize, mango, bean, pea) - - Mwezi cotyledons of mango seed - jedį (cf. moon) Mwezi embryo in coconut seed - - Dzitso scar (hilum) in bean seed, scars in coconut seed, eye bud in irish potato Mbeyu propagation material begu/ beyu - (cf. seed) COMMENTS Tunda The term tunda [fruit] is restricted to fleshy fruits (berry, drupe, pome, and hesperidium), excludes dry dehiscent fruits (follicle, legume and capsule) and dry indehiscent fruits (caryopsis, achenes and nuts). Although all plant parts that develop from flower are supposed to be fruits, respondents were hesitant to include maize corn, groundnut, bean pod, cow pea pods, among others, in to the tunda category. Thus tunda as fruit category excludes some scientifically defined fruits. Although the etymology of tunda is unknown in Digo, the term is common and always refers to fruit (or a sub-set of fruits). The meaning of tunda was most likely lost in the history of the language as evidence shows that this term is regional, shared with the Swahili, and is traceable to PSA. The cover of both fruits and seeds, as well as the rind of root tubers is known as gada [skin], the exocarp. Some fruit types have specific labels, e.g. sufi [kapok] (Fig. 3.5) and pamba [cotton] which refer to woolly fruits of domesticated plants as well as woolly fruit producing plants in the wild e.g. Msufi mwitu [Bombax rhognaphalon] and Pamba mwitu (Gossypoides kirkii]. The terms sufi and pamba are most likely loan words of Arabic and Persian origin (respectively), loaned via Swahili. Winged structures in the fruits e.g. in Gyrocarpus americanus (Fig. 3.5) and Combretum schumannii, are known as mapha [wings]. The labelling of these plant parts 29 after ‘wings’ is based on structural similarities, however, the genuineness of the labels could not be immediately established as the respective species were not common in some areas of study. Fig. 3.5: Woolly fruits of kopak tree i.e. Ceiba pentandra (left), and of cotton i.e. Gossypium sp. (middle), and winged fruits of Gyrocarpus americanus (right). Tembe In some fruits there are tembe [kernels or seeds]. The term tembe also refers to grains in general e.g. tembe ya mtsanga [soil particle] and tembe ya tsere [maize grain]. Seemingly, tembe is a structural label for grain, and not restricted to seed per se. The historical (CB) label for seed is begu ~ mbeyu, but most Digo today prefer the term tembe. This term is probably a loan word from Swahili. On the other hand, the term mbeyu has broader meanings (cf. Chapter 7) that include propagule, and is of a functional label rather than a label for a specific plant part. Chitsa The term chitsa [embryo] refers to embryo in most seeds where it is observable with unaided eye, e.g. in maize, bean, mango (Fig. 3.6a). But in the coconut seed the embryo is known as mwezi. The etymology of chitsa is unknown, but the plant part is understood as the source of the ‘next’ plant, and so is the mwezi in coconut seed. The etymology of mwezi is moon. The basis of labelling the coconut seed embryo as mwezi is likely to be the structural resemblance between the embryo and ‘full moon’. Mwezi also refers to the cotyledon of mango seed (Fig. 3.6b), which resembles half-moon, and probably the bases of its labelling. Dzitso A mark on the seed, as in the bean seed, is known as dzitso [hilum], which is the scar of attachment to the fruit (Fig. 3.6c). The etymology of dzitso is ‘eye’, and is applied to the three scars on a coconut seed and the eye buds of irish potato as well. Dzitso seems to be a 30 structural label, for fruit or seed parts where the new shoot comes out. The label also concurs with other speakers e.g. the English label ‘eye buds’. Gada Dzitso Chitsa Fig. 3.6a: The embryo [chitsa] in maize and bean seeds Fig. 3.6c: Helium and exocarp in bean seed labeled in Digo Koko Mwezi Fig, 3.6b: The seed (left) and the embryo (right) in a mango fruit Lexicon for exudates Some plants produce exudates, which the Digo distinguish with reference to the use or effects to humans. Although each exudates is labelled and described, there is no collective term equivalent to ‘exudates’. There are six types of exudates that are identified and labelled in Digo, as follows: DIGO ENGLISH CB PSA Maziya milk latex (harmless) dįba - Maronvi caustic and toxic oil - - Ukaka sticky latex - - Gamu sticky resinous sap - - Ulimbo burning or itching latex dimb (cf. stick to) wulimbo (cf. bird lime) Utsungu toxic latex cungu wucungu (cf. gall, bitterness) (cf. milk) cungu (cf. bitter) COMMENTS Maziya The term maziya has the etymology ‘milk’, and goes back to CB for the same meaning. Today the term also refers to latex produced by Euphorbia hirta (a medicinal latex); Hunteria zeylanica 31 and Suregada zanzibariensis (latex has no known use); and Ficus spp. (latex used to fix feathers in arrow shaft). Thus maziya is a milk-like exudate that is either useful or not, but generally not harmful. Even the milky fluid produced by seeds e.g. maize, in the milky stage of development is referred with the same term - maziya, and its presence indicates immaturity. Maronvi The exudate maronvi [caustic and toxic sap] is produced by the cashew nut fruits at immature stage [dunje] and from the outer cover of mature cashew nuts. The caustic and toxic character of this sap is known to the Digo, hence take precaution and avoid contact. The etymology of maronvi is unknown, but is among the exudates learnt from early childhood due to the domestication and commercial value of cashew nut to the Digo. Ukaka The exudate ukaka [sticky latex] is produced by Saba comorensis and Landolphia kirkii, and is used by Digo youth to make an adhesive trap for birds. Its etymological meaning is unknown. Gamu The exudate gamu [sticky resinous sap] is produced from the bark of cashew tree, and its adhesive features are used for sticking objects on a given surface. The Digo label for this sap is a loan from English ‘gum’, based on the sticky features and general applications which are shared. Ulimbo The exudate ulimbo [burning or itching latex] is produced by plant species such as Euphorbia nyikae and Synadenium pereskiifolia. This latex is understood to adversely affect the skin and eyes on contact, hence it is avoided. Some people use it as a fish poison. Although the label is closely identical to the terms dimb (CB) and wulimbo (PSA), the meanings are not. The ‘old’ words refer to ‘sticky latex and bird lime’, which concur with ukaka in ‘today’ Digo. Utsungu The exudate utsungu [toxic latex] is produced by Acokanthera schimperi, and is understood to be lethally poisonous, both orally and intravenously. Due to this property, utsungu is used as an arrow poison. The etymology of utsungu is ‘bitterness’, which goes back to CB (cungu) and PSA (cungu or Wucungu), where the terms also referred to gall. Utsungu also means poisonous substances, seemingly the bases of the labelling. However, Acokanthera schimperi (the source of 32 the exudates) is relatively new at the Kenya Coast, introduced by the Giriama (Beentje 1994) for the use of making arrow poison, thus the application of utsungu to the exudates is relatively new. 3.3.2 Special lexicon for plant parts in specific species The lexicon presented above consists of general labels that are applicable to most plant species. However, in addition to these, there are labels for plant parts in specific species or group of related species, as indicated in the following sections. The discussion is organised on the basis of species of interest, and a list of the special lexicon for each species is presented, then followed by explanatory comments on related aspects. As earlier, English translation or equivalent, common Bantu (CB) and proto-Sabaki (PSA) terms are also given where possible. The coconut tree DIGO ENGLISH CB PSA Kuti leaf - įkuti (cf. coconut leaf) Mbati mid-rib of leaf - - Kumbi leaf petiole - - Kumbi exocarp of coconut fruit - - Makalala fronds - ndlala (cf. palm frond part) Ukuti spine of the frond - kuti Ndifu coir - - Phanda flower of coconut tree - - Punga florets of coconut flower - mpunga (cf. rice plant) Chendze fruit stalks of coconut flower - - Phalanga cover of inflorescence - - Kolokotsi, daka, tale young stages of fruit - - Dafu, koroma middle stages of fruit - - Nazi, nguta mature stages of fruit - - Chivo endocarp - - Uwi coconut milk - - Madzi coconut juice (liquid endosperm) ji Nazi coconut meat (solid endosperm) - Mlala young palms (of palmate leaves) - Bangalala leaf in mature palms (of palmate leaves) maji (cf. water) - 33 COMMENTS Kuti Although leaves are generally known as makodza, the leaf of a coconut tree is commonly known as kuti (Fig. 3.7). Like kodza, the etymology of kuti is unknown, but the term goes back to PSA (ikuti), referring to the same plant part. Application of the term kuti is used relatively less in reference to other pinnate palm leaves (whose leaflets share a clearly visible midrib), e.g. Phoenix and Raphia. For other closely resembling leaves of Cycads e.g. Encephalartos hildebrandtii, the term is not used at all. The remote application of the term to some palm leaves and complete exclusion for cycad leaves is based on both structural differences with, and functional divergence from, the coconut leaves. From the kuti, domestic items such as vyungo (plaited roofing material1), kandza (woven mat), and liphyero (broom), are made. Similar items from other palm species have an inferior quality compared to those from the coconut leaf; and cycads are never used for making these items. Parts of the kuti are also identified by specific names (Fig. 3.7). Makalala (interchangeable with mikalala) refers to the leaflets, i.e. fronds, a label that goes back to PSA, ndlala. The label makalala probably originates from a noise the fronds make with wind effect. The mid– rib of the kuti is known as mbati. The etymology of mbati is unknown, but the plant part is used in making vyungo [plaited roofing material] and mbano [sticks for smoking fish]. The mid-rib of the fronds are mikuti (ukuti - singl.). Like mbati, the etymology of ukuti is unknown, but is traceable to PSA (kuti). Mikuti are used for making liphyero [broom] and tsatsa [fish traps] (Pakia 2000). The leaf petiole of kuti [the leaf] is kumbi, which is also a homonym for the exocarp of the coconut fruit. The etymology of kumbi is unknown, but is used for fire wood by commercial food vendors. Ndifu [fibrous material on petiole] is also a homonym for the coir. The fibrous material is used as a sieve, particularly in palm sap tapping, and the coir husk is used for washing utensils (as steel-wool). In recent times the coir husk is used for making floor rags and is also processed to coco-peat for horticultural soil mixtures. Mikalala Ukuti Mbati Fig. 3.7: Coconut leaf and its parts, labelled in their Digo terms 1 Vyungo are made using plucked off fronds which are woven back onto the leaf stick [mbati] by tying each frond individually onto the stick, and making sure the tied fronds overlap such that water can not percolate. 34 Phanda Phanda is the flower branch of the coconut tree and the term also means ‘to sow’, but a possible relationship between the two is not clear. Flower parts of the coconut tree, unlike in many other flowers, are labelled. These include: chendze [fruit stalks], phalanga [cover of the inflorescence], and punga [florets]. Chendze is used as a broom, and phalanga for firewood. The florets, punga, derive their name from their resemblance to rice panicle [Mphunga]. Nazi The term nazi generally refers to the coconut fruit, but in strict sense it refers to the mature stage of the fruit, which is also the most useful stage. From punga, the coconut fruit develops through seven recognised stages (Fig. 3.8), which are listed below in sequence of their development: • Kolokotsi - is the immature stage, very small, no fluid [madzi] or flesh [nyama] inside. The fruit at this stage is only used in magic related purposes. • Tale - is still immature and small, but larger than kolokotsi, hardly with any fluid or flesh. This stage is also only useful in magic related purposes. • Daka - is immature stage but large sized, with some fluid that is not sweet, and no flesh. • Dafu - is a middle stage, has sweet fluid and shallow flesh, and is used for refreshment. • Koroma - is an intermediate stage, the fluid is no longer sweet and the flesh is too hard for refreshing, but still too soft to produce uwi [coconut milk]. This coconut milk is different from that in the Western view, which is here referred to as the ‘fluid’ [madzi]. • Nazi - is the most useful stage from which the coconut milk, used for cooking and for making coconut oil, is obtained. Primarily the Digo grow coconut trees for the nazi. • Nguta - is a late stage, which is mostly avoided by farmers. Locally, the flesh is chewed and is believed to be aphrodisiac. Nguta can be sold as copra for oil production. Fig.3.8: Some of the stages of coconut fruits (right to left) – punga, kolokotsi, daka, dafu, nazi and nguta. In addition to the elaborate stages, the parts of the coconut fruit are also labelled in great details (Fig. 3.9). As mentioned earlier, there are kumbi [exocarp] and ndifu [coir]. Other parts 35 are chivo [endocarp], the fruit shell commonly used for fuel, and in recent times it is used for making bracelets. Nazi is the flesh, madzi is the fluid and mwezi is the embryo. Most lexicon for coconut plant the Digo share with the Swahili. These include fruit stages daka, tale, dafu, koroma and nazi, whose equivalents in Swahili are – kidaka, kitale, dafu, koroma, and nazi. The same applies to Digo labels madzi and uwi for Swahili maji and tuwi. Since the species was introduced, originally from South Asia (Maundu et al. 1999), possibly the Digo got it via the Swahili before it naturalised as native species at the Kenya coast (Beentje 1994). This assumption was, however, refuted by Abdallah Mnyedze, who claimed kaya Ganzoni was the first landing place of the coconut fruit afloat from India. He based his argument on historical accounts made by his fore-fathers. Madzi Ndifu Nazi Mwezi Chivo Kumbi Ndifu Fig. 3.9: A sketch diagram showing the interior parts of a coconut fruit (left), and a coconut split open (right) Corresponding plant parts in other palm trees (Phoenix and Raphia) are only scarcely labelled with the lexicon of plant parts of coconut tree, and so is the application of utility values of those parts. When the labels are used for parts of the other palms, an indicative affix phrase is used e.g. ‘ukuti wa uchindu’ [ukuti of Phoenix], which on the whole denotes the coconut tree (whose labels remain unmarked) as the prototype for the labels in those palms. In contrast to the coconut and other pinnate leaf palms, palm trees with palmate leaflets (spirally arranged), such as in Borassus and the Doum palm (Hyphaene), the leaves are known as mlala (in young plants) and bangalala (in mature trees). The difference in the label for the different palm ages relate to utility. Leaves of the young plants are used for weaving mats, baskets, hats, etc, but not leaves of old trees of these palms. The etymology of bangalala is unknown, but mlala goes back to SPA (mulala), meaning ‘dwarf palm’, probably in reference to ‘young palm’ as noted in this study. 36 The banana plant DIGO ENGLISH CB PSA Mgomba banana plant - - Gomba pseudo-stem, leaf, flower bud - - Ndizi banana fruits - - Chala cha ndizi individual banana fruit yada kyala (cf. finger) Tsana ya ndizi bunch cluster of banana fruits Mkungu wa ndizi infruitescence - - - COMMENTS Mgomba Mgomba refers to the banana plant, which consists of gomba [pseudo-stem], and the term gomba is also used to refer to the leaf and to the flower bud (Fig. 3.10). In Digo, the etymology of gomba is ‘to speak’, and there is a clan known as ‘Achina-gomba’. However, there is no evidence connecting ‘speaking’ or the clan to the banana plant. Gomba MGOMBA GOMBA (Flower bud) MKUNGU WA NDIZI (infruitescence) TSANA YA NDIZI Fig.3.10: Parts of a banana plant. From left to right – A section of the banana plant, a flower bud of the banana plant, and infruitescence of banana, and a bunch of bananas Ndizi Ndizi refers to the banana fruits, which have a numerical label mala [fingers], i.e. mala ga ndizi [banana fingers]. The use of the numerical label mala here is similar to leaf lobes (described earlier). This numerical description is applied to similar looking fruits of wild species such as Uvaria spp. While a single banana fruit is considered as ‘finger’, a bunch cluster of bananas is tsana (Fig. 3.10); a term that also means ‘comb’. It is not clear whether 37 tsana is a homonym for the banana bunch and the comb, or is polysemic for the two based on structural resemblance. Fruit Bunches for some other species are also labelled, e.g., suche-ramphunga [rice panicle], shazi-ra-nazi [coconut fruits tied together]; dzitsa-ra-nazi [coconut fruits in fruit stalks]; and phutsa-ra-kunguma [panicle of Sorrindea fruits]. The whole infruitescence of banana plant is mkungu-wa-ndizi (Fig. 3.10) Linguistic comparison show similarities between Digo lexicon in banana plant with that of the Swahili, i.e. mgomba, gomba, ndizi, chana and mkungu (in Swa.). Despite these common lexical, the labels are not traceable to CB or SPA, and their etymology are unknown. This suggests the labels, like the banana plant itself, are new. It is very likely that the Digo received the labels with the plant via the Swahili. The maize plant DIGO ENGLISH CB Tsere maize plant, maize cob Chowa female flower of maize plant - - Punga male flower of maize plant - mpunga (cf. rice plant) Njiyo stigmas of maize flower - - Mguguta hard axis of the maize cob - - cede (cf. clean) PSA mucele (cf. cleaned grain) COMMENTS Tsere refers to the maize plant as well as the cob. The label tsere goes back to CB (cede) and PSA (mucele), but these terms refered to ‘clean grain’. Since maize was introduced to the Digo by the Portuguese and the English (Waaijenberg 2000; Harrison 1970), the application of the term tsere on the maize must be relatively new, but using an old label – mucele. The modification from mucele to tsere allowed for the differentiation between tsere [maize] and mtele [cleaned rice seeds]. In its early development, tsere [cob] is known as chowa [young female inflorescence]. The etymology of chowa is ‘sheath’, a label used due to its functional similarities of this plant part (covering and protecting developing cob), with that of a knifesheath (covering and protecting the knife inside). 38 The cassava plant Manga cassava plant Manga cassava tubers Puli fruit of cassava plant Tembe ya manga synonym to puli COMMENTS In Digo, fruits are commonly named after the mother plants e.g. Mchungwa (tree) and Chungwa (fruit). However, in cassava plant this is not the case, instead the root-tubers and rhizomes share a name with the plant. The fruits in cassava plant are known as puli, a term that also refers to earring. The cassava and other tuber plant examples suggest that in Digo the plant shares a name with the ‘useful’ part. While the cassava tubers are eaten, the fruits have no known use. Hence the tubers share the name manga with the plant. The label puli, for the fruits, was given by elderly Digo, whilst most young Digo referred to it as tembe ya manga [seed of cassava plant]. This labelling pattern was common among all speakers for fruits that are not used in wild species. For example, seeds of Milicia excelsa and Hymenaea verrucosa are referred to as tembe za Mvure and tembe za Mtandarusi respectively. But the timber of these species, because its useful (Pakia 2000; Beentje 1994) is referred with the respective species name. 3.3.3 Labels of plant parts in relation to cultural significance Leaves that are not makodza Dawa medicine Vwanda leaf poultice Nyungu a bath pot (made with leaves) Vuwo synonym for nyungu Maruwa leaves in funeral ceremony Mashada leaves in a marriage ceremony COMMENTS In Digo social life, the label kodza, which commonly refer to leaf, changes from one occasion to another. As medicine, all plant parts are referred to as dawa [medicine], leaves inclusive. However, specific dawa has different label depending on the mode of preparation. Vwanda 39 [leaf poultice] is made by smashing the leaves, and nyungu or vuwo [bath pots] are shredded leaves in a ‘medicinal’ pot with water. Apart from dawa, the other medicinal labels for leaves are relatively technical, known mainly to healers and their assistants. During a funeral ceremony, the body of the deceased is covered with a timber plunk. Gaps between the wood plunk and the dead body are covered with ‘maruwa’ to protect soil from reaching the dead body. In a normal conversation maruwa refers to flowers, but in the funeral rites maruwa refers to leaves. The use of the term mauwa for leaves, as indicated here, probably signifies ‘beauty’ connotations associated with flowers, which in principle reflect affection to the deceased. Surprisingly, in this practice there are no efforts made to search for the true flowers [maruwa], and even when these are available in the vicinity, they are never used. Yet the label maruwa, for leaves, is synonymous and nobody mistakes the referent in that occasion. During a wedding ceremony, the married man, friends and relatives use leaf decorations that are placed under their head caps. These decorations testify the occurrence of a wedding ceremony in an area. The leaves used in the wedding ceremony are known as mashada, and is usually a sensitive ceremony that one is penalised on referring to these leaves as makodza. However, it was not clear whether this practice was typical Digo or is borrowed from SwahiliIslam culture, as the practice is shared with the Swahili speakers. In addition, mashada is a loan word from Arabic shahada [declaration], which agrees with the objective of the decorations, i.e. to declare the wedding event. Vegetables, leaves and fruits, are used as side dish [mboga] among the Digo, and are collectively referred to as mtsunga. The plant part used differs between the species, and individual species maintain their specific names, with only that specific part used as a vegetable referred to as mtsunga. For example, in cassava plant, it is only the young leaves which are used as vegetable and it is only these leaves that are labelled as mtsunga. However, there are some species which are used as vegetable that probably lost their specific names and are grossly identified as mtsunga, e.g. Launea cornuta. Further, mtsunga of some species is distinguished with specific names, e.g. Mpeya is leaf vegetable of cassava, and Mtsafwe is the leaf vegetable of cow pea. 40 Maruwa that are not flowers Maruwa ornamental plants (with or without flowers) Maruwa decorative drawings on hands and legs, and on khanga [cloth fabrics] Maruwa flower rosettes or other decorative items dressed in the hair Maruwa plaited patterns on the hair COMMENTS In addition to referring to leaves in funeral ceremony, maruwa also refers to plants for ornamentation, whether the plant is in flower or not. The term is used even for non-obviously flowering species e.g. Casuarina equisitifolia. The ruwa here refers to the ‘ornamentation’ of the plant, and not to the ‘flower’ as such. Although the Digo do not communicate romantic emotions via flowers, such as in the Western culture, flowers are used affectionately in different ways. Flower drawings and other drawing patterns are preferred in fabrics to improve the ‘beauty’ for romantic attractions. Also, for the same reason, hair plaiting is done in patterns identified with flower names e.g. chiluwa (Mkilua fragrans). Drawings made on hands and legs using special ink (piko) or plant extract - hina, [Lawsonia inermis], for romantic attractions, are also known as maruwa. Flower rosettes of selected species (Chiluwa [Mkilua fragrans], Mlangi-langi [Cananga odorata], and Asmini [Jasminum sp.] are also as decorations on clothes, heads or beds for their beauty and fragrance. All these beautification elements, flowers or otherwise, collectively known as maruwa. In other words, ruwa in Digo has a concept of beauty, which is understood as a prerequisite of romantic attraction. 3.3.4 Descriptive terms for plant parts and characters General descriptive terms Colour terms DIGO ENGLISH CB PSA Nyiru black (darker shades) yįdu - Nyereru white (lighter shades) yedu - kundu red kundu - Itsi unripe, green, uncooked bici - 41 Rangi ya nyasi grass colour (for green) yatiį (cf. grass) - Chirere cha mgomba young banana leaf (for pale green) - - Chijani - leaf (for green) janį (cf. leaf) COMMENTS The colour terms commonly used in plant descriptions are nyiru [black], nyereru [white] and kundu [red], which are the ‘basic colour terms’ (Berlin & Kay 1969), and trace their origin to CB (yidu, yedu and kundu respectively). The term nyiiru on the whole translates as black, but in the plant context it mostly correspond to English ‘green’ and is estimated to indicate a plant of good vigour. Occasionally maize seedlings develop whitish leaves, described as mereru [white], and are understood to reflect a poor vigour of the plant, i.e., the contrast of ‘maru’. Such seedlings are usually weeded. A dead leaf is referred to as kodza rakundu [red leaf], but this covers a range of colours such as red, orange, yellow and brown. The above general colour identities and descriptions are applicable to all plant parts (leaves, fruits, stems, flowers, roots etc), with the basic colours prominently featuring in plant description. However, there is a colour term restructuring pattern that is going on among the Digo speakers, details of which are discussed in Chapter 9 of this thesis. In addition to the basic colour terms, the Digo have derived colour terms such as the transfers itsi [unripe], rangi ya nyasi [grass] and chirere cha mgomba [young banana leaf]. There are also borrowed colour term chijani (from Swahili kijani) and griini (from English green). Size terms DIGO ENGLISH CB PSA Kulu large size kudu - Dide small size - - Refu long deepų - Fupi short kųpį - Pana wide - - Dzembamba thin - - Zito dįtu (cf. heavy) - thick or succulent COMMENTS Size of plant parts is described as kulu [large] or dide [small] but only comparatively within and between species. These are also the general labels denoting size categories everything in 42 life. Surprisingly, only kulu traces its origin to CB (kudu), and dide seems to be an innovation. The length of a plant part is described as refu (long) or fupi (short), both shared with Swahili and traceable to CB (deepų and kųpį respectively). The term zito refers to thick or succulent parts e.g. Aloe leaves, and concurs with the CB term dįtu for ‘heavy’. The terms pana [broad] and dzembamba [thin] describe the breadth, and are most likely loan words from Swahili. Form descriptions DIGO ENGLISH CB PSA Nyooka straight yįnuk (cf. straighten) - Panda branched panda (cf. forked) - Plant parts commonly described by form or shape are trunks and branches, and the terms used are nyooka [straight] and panda [branched], which are traceable to CB. Occasionally roots and leaves are also described using these terms. Some form descriptive terms are specific to leaves (cf. ‘leaf section’). Maturity terms Tsanga immature stage Pevu mature stage Tosa just about to ripe (ready tomorrow) Ivu ripe COMMENTS Maturation in plant parts is described as tsanga [young] and pevu [mature], which are important for plant collectors e.g. vegetable gatherers normally go for only the ‘young leaves’ [makodza matsanga], while fruit collectors go for pevu [mature]. These labels apply to all plant parts. However, fruits that are eaten raw, e.g. mango, pawpaw, and banana, have additional maturation descriptive terms, i.e., tosa [ready for tomorrow] and ivu [ripe]. Except for the term tsanga, which is also applicable to humans, the other maturation terms (pevu, tosa and ivu) are strictly plant related. The etymologies of all these terms are unknown, neither are they traceable to ‘old’ vocabulary, but they are regional, shared even with the Swahili. It is not clear what the source of these terms are. 43 Water content descriptions Itsi fresh bici (in common Bantu) Kavu dry - COMMENTS Water content of a plant part is sometimes indirectly recognizable by its colour. Itsi [wet] refers to a green part, which commonly has high water content, while kavu [dry] refers to a dead plant part that is more or less dry. However, the term itsi has a considerable polysemy, as it also refers to ‘uncooked’ stuff (for materials that are utilised after cooking), ‘fresh’ items and ‘early’ periods of time. In normal conversation, therefore, itsi can be used to characterize a fresh thing or person, and could be applied to first stages of a period. Smell and taste descriptions DIGO ENGLISH CB PSA Nuka to good smell nųųk (cf. smell) - Nuka vibaya bad smell nųųk (cf. smell) - Mtswano sweet - - Utsungu bitter cungu cungu (cf. bitter) Kakasi sour - - COMMENTS Both smell and taste have minimal verbalised descriptive labels. Smell is generally known as nuka, modified from the original CB term nųųk. The term ‘nuka to’ means good smell, and nuka vibaya means bad smell. As for taste, except for utsungu which means bitter taste, and traces its origin from CB cungu, the other taste descriptions, mtswano [sweet] and kakasi [sour] are new. Other tastes and smells remain mainly cognates that are not lexicalised. Occasionally some smell types are referenced in comparative entities, such as marashi [perfume], machingwa [orange], maembe [mango], asmini [Jasmin] and chiluwa [Mkilua]. Taste is referenced as limau [lemon] or munyu [salty]. Due to the minimal lexicon, plant characters are rarely described by taste or smell. Texture and surface feel descriptions Laini smooth surface Maugu rough surface, with conical structures Kwaruza rough surface 44 Guwika peeling bark Mialo fluted or fissured Ereza slippery Magophamagopha flaking or scaly Mabaramabara has patches (lichen growth) Texture descriptions are commonly used for the bark of the stem and root. Some of these descriptive terms (i.e. laini, maugu, and kwaruza) are also used the shin of root tubers and fruits. The descriptions laini and kwaruza are also applicable to leaf surfaces. The term laini is probably borrowed from Swahili, and there is no clear evidence on its origin. Specific descriptive terms for plant part Description of the leaves In addition to the application of most of the general descriptive terms (above), leaves are described in terms of the upper and lower surfaces as dzulu [upper] and nyuma [behind] respectively. Upper surface is also known as ndani [inside] and lower surface as konze [outside]. A horizontally positioned leaf has a clear upper and lower side, fitting the descriptions dzulu and nyuma respectively. However, it is in a vertical young leaf, whose sides are described in science as ‘adaxial’ and ‘abaxial’ respectively, that the logic of the Digo labels ‘ndani and ‘konze’ (respectively) is clear. This is indicative of an observational behaviour of the Digo in the development process of the leaf. Leaf shape is described extensively by the variations in leaf types, as: - kodza mwenga [simple leaf], which means ‘one leaf’ - makodza ga panda mwenga [pinnate leaves], which means ‘leaves with one branching’ - makodza ga panda mbiri [bi-pinnate leaves], means ‘leaves with two branching’ - makodza ga mala [lobed leaves], means ‘leaves with fingers’ (cf. terms relative to leaf). In addition to laini [smooth] and ina kwaruza [rough surface], leaf surface feel is also described as msasa [sand papery], ina manyoya [hairy], and ina awisa [itchy]. Flowers and fruits The flower is the least described plant part by the Digo. Apart from abstract colour descriptions, relative size and smell connotations (cf. general descriptive terms), Digo verbal 45 expression on flower features is minimal. Notable lacking in Digo lexicon are descriptive terms for the varied colour patterns and the array of smells in flowers. Fruit descriptions are mainly based on maturation stage, colour, taste and smell (cf. general descriptive terms). Description of the roots Roots are often overlooked, probably because of growing underground. Thus except for roots of food value, this plant part is not elaborately described. The edible roots and root-tubers are characterised by size, colour and taste features (cf. general description terms). An only root specific description is pukupuku [small pieces] refers to small cassava or potato tubers. Description of the tree canopies The crown of a tree is neither lexicalised nor described in Digo. However, some differences seemed to be cognately appreciated, thus some provisional descriptions were given, such as: Muhi wa kuvimba [plant with a wide crown], muhi wa kuvimba photsi [plant with wide crown base], Muhi wa kumera kuganya panda [plant with interlocking branches]. But the overall impression was that tree canopies are unknown. 3.3.5 Derived linguistic expressions for plant features During the interviews and discussions, some plant descriptions used were linguistic expressions derived from attributes in human life situation, introduced into plant life situations, as follows. Kuhambala – to crawl. Refers to creepers e.g. Cissampelos paraire and Abrus precatorius. Kupanda – to climb. Refers to climbing growth form of liana and climber species. Kugwira – to hold. This refers to the attachment of plant onto others using tendrils or twining. Kuvyala – to give birth. This refers to fruit producing period and process. Kuodzaza – to fill. This refers to high fruit production in the plant e.g. mango tree. Kulala – to sleep. This refers to leaning position for a plant i.e. when not standing up right. Kuzama – to bend. This is synonym to kulala. Kuima – to stand. This refers to the upright position for the plant. Kumyoka – to bend. This refers to a bent form of a plant part, e.g. a pole. Kunyooka – to be straight. This refers to a straight form in a plant part, especially for poles. Kuvwala nguo – to dress. Refers to plant closing its leaves on touch e.g. Biophytum petersianum. 46 Kubadilisha nguo – to change cloth, e.g. deciduous plants producing new leaves after dry season. Kurya – to eat. Refers to the feeding process, where plants are said to ‘eat soil’ through roots Kuhama – to taste. This refers to a good taste in a plant or plant part. Kuriphiza – to revenge. Plants are believed to avenge for bad treatment, e.g. coconut tree, can drop a fruit on someone (or his close relative) when that person hits it without a good reason. Kuishi – to live. This refers to the living state of the plant Kufwa – to die. This refers to the end of the life of the plant. 3.3.6 Mushrooms Uoga refers to mushrooms, and also known as udzondzo. However, these labels specifically refer to fleshy mushrooms. Non-fleshy mushrooms are addressed as woga koma or udzondzo koma, meaning ‘wild or poisonous mushrooms’, and the label also apply to fleshy mushrooms that are not eaten. A mushroom comprises of the following parts. Uoga mushroom cap Nyama za uoga fleshy edible parts of mushroom (cap and stem) Muhi wa uoga stem, foot Mgoti synonym for muhi wa woga Miraba the gills Fundula stage when the cap is still closed Bumula stage when the cap is open (concave, convex or flat form) COMMENTS The uoga [mushroom] is utilised as food, but specifically used is the cap, which is also referred by the name uoga, underscoring an earlier argument that the useful part shares the name with the whole. The term uoga goes back to the CB term yoga, but its plural ‘vyoga’ also refers to a skin disease (characterised by dotted spots, just like mushroom clusters or the velum partiale on the cap). One respondent linked the relationship of the disease with mushroom by arguing that someone suffering from the disease is not allowed to eat mushrooms. This was though not confirmed by other respondents. The fleshy part of the mushroom, also known as nyama za uoga [mushroom meat], include the cap and the stem. This part is labelled with ‘meat’ term in reference to its ‘fleshy’ state as well as its ‘tasty’ aspects. In fact, in a strict sense, the term nyama is attributed to a specific 47 mushroom, i.e. choga-nyama [meat mushroom] a Termitomyces spp., which was said to be as ‘tasty’ as beef. The mushroom stem (foot) is identified as the ‘stem’ i.e. muhi wa woga [stem of mushroom], also known as mgoti, whose etymology is unknown. The term miraba, whose etymology is ‘marks’, for the gills of the mushroom is typically descriptive. But the label was not common among respondents, thus it was not immediately established if it is genuine or not. Notable, some mushroom parts (e.g. sheath, velum partiale and spores) are not lexicalised in Digo. In its development the mushroom changes from fundula [closed cap] to bumula [open cap]. During mushroom collection preference is made on the fundula stage, as in bumula the mushroom is usually infested by pin-worms. Other morphological variations in the mushrooms (e.g. convex, concave or flat cap) seemed less important to the Digo, as they are not lexicalised. But notably, different edible species, their habitats and time-periods of growths are well understood by the collectors. The mushroom collectors broadly recognised mushroom habitats, i.e., Brachystegia woodland [mirihini], farmland areas [mdani] and termite mounds [tsuluni], as well as the respective species found in these habitats. All the respondents would not try mushrooms that were not known to them as edible, even when presented with scientific literature as evidence of edibility. Thus, only about 10 mushroom taxa were considered edible to the Digo (as learnt from their elders), take no risks in trying the about 50 other species indicated as edible in the scientific literature and were available in their environs. This showed an obvious strong mistrust to scientific opinion on one hand and unquestioned trust in traditional knowledge on the other hand. 3.4 CONCLUSIONS The above observations give clear evidence that the Digo have a considerable verbal component in their plant knowledge (lexicon and descriptive terminology). However, the lexicon is not exhaustive, as there are recognisable gaps e.g. flower parts or non-verbalised plant features (aroma and taste features), some of which are cognitively but not verbally appreciated. It can be concluded that, unlike modern botanists, the Digo are selective on the plant knowledge of interest to them. This can be appreciated on the basis that the Digo are not striving for absolute plant knowledge, which is a characteristic of folk botanical knowledge. 48 The lexicon of plant parts is noted to be of varied meanings and sending different messages across, and each label has a different degree of inclusiveness. While some labels are used for specific plant parts, there are lexicons that are collective terminologies for parts either on the bases of structural, functional or numerical function. Among the collective term labels, the structural bases account for most of the Digo plant lexicon. Examples of collective term labels are presented in Table 3.3 below. Commonly noted, the Digo plant lexicon is not exclusively translatable to English or scientific equivalents, as member plant labels (e.g. kodza, ruwa, mizi) sometimes differ. Thus there are only approximate equivalent terms between the Digo and the scientific terms, e.g. leaves for makodza, flower for ruwa, fruit for tunda, and root for muzi, but in the strict sense, the Digo terms contrast scientific terms by including or excluding parts that make them considerable different from the equivalent scientific terms. Table 3.1: Examples of different collective term labels in Digo plant lexicon Structural lexicon Functional lexicon Numerical markers Punga [male inflorescence of maize, Ruwa [colourful, beautiful, Pindi [stem segments, individual root florets in coconut flower, panicles in ornamental and reproductive tubers] Panicum spp.] plant or plant part] Dzitso [scar on seed, or mark on root Utsungu [bitter, poisonous Mala [‘finger’ – leaf lobes, monocarp tuber, three ‘eyes on coconut seed] latex] or fusiform fruits e.g. banana] Pango [hole] Chitsa [embryo in all seeds] Tembe [seeds, grains of all kinds – Mbeyu [propagation plant plants and non-plant] material] Mlita [stalk – fruit stalk, leaf petiole] Gamu [sticky latex] Pingu [a swelling, root nodule, Nyama [fleshy and tasty plant magical charm] part e.g. mushroom meat] Lutsa [any sharp end, including leaf apex] Ngao [shield, tree buttress] Mwezi [embryo in coconut seed, cotyledon in mango seed] 49 In the Digo plant labelling and description, there is a considerable transfer from human/animal life situation to the plant world, and vice versa. To some extent the transfers are based on the Digo having a better knowledge in the human life situations where structural and functional knowledge of parts and systems is relatively better understood compared to the situation in plant world. Thus human/animal labels such as nyama [meat], mromo [mouth], dzitso [eye], mongo_ [backbone], mishipa_ [veins], and mala_ [fingers] are used as labels for plant parts. In the other direction, labels for plant parts are used literally or metaphorically to human life situations. The plant lexicon gopha [bark], sina [basal stem], kolo [basal stem] and mbeyu [seed], are used in human and animal life situation as: gopha for wound cover, sina for ancestry, kolo for ancestry or historical links, mizi for origin or stability, and mbeyu for blood lineage. In some cases there are back and forth transfers in the labelling. For example, the transfer of gopha into human life situation, led to the transfer of chironda [wound] into plant life situation. In the latter, chironda refers to an injury or a scar on the bark of the stem (Fig. 3.11). Plant gopha [bark] Plant chironda [injury/scar] Human gopha [wound cover] Human chironda [wound] Fig. 3.11: A schematic illustration of an example of reciprocal transfers for labels between human and plant situations Other transfers led to new use value for the part, e.g. pingu, which originally means magic charms, when used to label root nodules this led to the latter being used in making the charms. The Digo plant lexicon includes both old and contemporary terms. In other words, some terms have been maintained from the old CB or PSA terminologies (whole or in part), but others are completely new, being either changed from the ‘old’ CB or PSA terms or are innovations used to fill gaps in the old language. Examples of maintained historical lexicon include: panda [branch], tunda [fruit], (m)beyu [seed], wulimbo [birdlime], kuti [coconut leaf], and ukuti [mid-rib of coconut leaf frond]. Modified lexicon include: muhi [stem] from ti (CB) and muti (PSA), sina [basal stem] from kina (CB) and ishina (PSA), kolo [basal stem] from kodo (CB) and ikolo (PSA), and ruwa [flower] from duba (CB) and iluwa (PSA). Changed or new lexicon includes kodza [leaf], which was originally jani (CB); and muzi [root], which was originally di (CB). This is evidence that some ‘old’ (non-plant) lexicon have in the ‘new’ Digo received wider application that includes plant labelling. For example: Mucele (PSA) referred to clean grain then, but today is used as mtele [cleaned rice grain] and tsere [maize grain]. Mpunga referred to rice plant, and is today used as mphunga [rice plant], and punga 50 [male inflorescence of maize plant, florets of coconut tree, panicles of grasses]. In addition, terms such as yada/ kyala [finger], cungu [bitter], kipa/mushipa [vein], ji/maji [water], gongo/mugongo [backbone], igaWo [shield], pingu [charm] and diba [milk] which existed from early times, their application in plant lexicon is relatively a new phenomenon. The above elaborations reflect the Digo plant knowledge as an active knowledge that adjust to challenges such as new observations and new plant entries or discoveries, without necessarily being influenced by outside world. Even during the field work of this study it was noted that ‘innovation’ in plant lexicon and ‘new’ observation in plant variations or details, is going on among the Digo. For example, few respondents referred to flower petals and sepals as viapha [small wings], and flower stamens and filaments as vishale [small arrows] obviously putting structural implications to perspective, and ‘create’ a label where otherwise there is none. If these are maintained and spread to the wider Digo population, the labels will in future form part of common Digo plant knowledge and become genuinely accepted terms in plant lexicon. In addition to innovations, there are also loan words in Digo plant lexicon. The Swahili have contributed considerably to the Digo vocabulary, particularly for the newly introduced crop plants such as coconut, banana, cotton, and kopak. In addition to trade and social contact, the Swahili, through Islam, also influence plant related knowledge and culture of the Digo, for example the label mashada [decorative leaves in a wedding ceremony] and related practices are suspected to be of Swahili-Islam origin. During this study, a potential loan in plant labelling was noted, i.e. thamra (a synonym for punga), suspected to be either of Swahili or Tanzanian language origin. Although it was not yet common, if in future more Digo come to contact with it, it could form a common synonym to punga in future. The referent in Digo plant lexicon can vary on the bases of socio-cultural events. Thus, ruwa, which commonly refers to flower, extends to the context of ‘colourful’, ‘love’, ‘beauty’ and ‘ornamentation’. In ornamentation ruwa refers to flowerless and non-flowering plants. On the same note, the leaf which is commonly known as kodza, remains the referent but the label changes with socio-cultural context, hence referred as: maruwa in funeral rites, mashada in wedding ceremony, dawa in phytotherapy, and mtsunga as vegetable. Although not indicated in the semantics of the lexicon, the incentive for both plant part labelling and description, to a greater extent but not exclusively, is value oriented. Thus plants and plant parts which are of common use are labelled in detail, a fact that separates crop plants e.g. the coconut palm, from wild species. This leads to the use of a coconut palm as a prototype for related wild palm species, in both lexicon and description. This is evidence that 51 the frequent contact and interest instilled by need made the Digo eloquent and detailed in plant knowledge biased to ‘useful’ parts and species. Thus, although the Digo lexicon in general is less comprehensive, in some areas the Digo labelling or description is more detailed compared to the scientific terminology. This is notable in the specific lexicon for coconut e.g. the distinction and labelling of coconut fruit stages. Therefore characterizing the Digo plant knowledge as comparatively poor or rich strongly depends on the plants in question. Comparatively, among the parts, leaves are the most described parts, while the flowers are the least. Although leaves are not the most utilised parts (Pakia & Cooke 2003a) they have the most diversified uses (ranging from food, building, crafting, medicine, decoration, funeral rites etc) compared to other plant parts. This is in addition to being of varied types and being more common in many plants. These features combine to contribute to the high lexical inputs and description of leaves. Flowers, on the other hand are the least used, in addition to being seasonal and commonly produced on elevated levels (in trees), which make them difficult to observe. The most striking variations in flowers are colour and scent, and both are minimally lexicalised features in Digo vocabulary, putting flowers to a disadvantage in the description. 52 CHAPTER FOUR DIGO TRADITIONAL PLANT IDENTIFICATION METHODS AND COLLECTION NORMS 4.1 INTRODUCTION After establishing the Digo plant lexicon and descriptions of plant parts in the previous chapter, in this chapter the Digo plant identification2 methods and plant collection norms are presented. The identification methods were investigated during forest walks in company of respondents who made the identifications from whole species in the forest and sometimes from only specific parts of the species. The plant identification sessions and observations of respondents as they go through the identification process were complemented by responses from interviews (cf. question 10 in the questionnaire) and from general discussions on important plant parts and features for plant identification. The observations of, responses and explanations from respondents in all above sessions constitute of what is discussed here and presented as the ‘traditional Digo plant identification methods’. The plant lexicon and descriptive terms referenced in this Chapter have been elaborately discussed in Chapter Three. Collection norms were recorded from respondents in independent discussion sessions. The Chapter is presented along the following topical issues: - Plant features used for identification - Human senses used in plant identification - Diversified professional basis of plant identification - Traditional trainings in plant identifications - Significance of environment in plant identification - Norms in plant material collection - Conclusion 4.2 PLANT FEATURES USED FOR IDENTIFICATION From the observations of and explanations from the respondents, notes were made on the identification of 261 scientific species, which were identified as 236 plant taxa in Digo perspective (Appendix V), a ratio of 1:1.1 (Digo : science), which is almost a one-to-one ration. The list excludes cultivated crop plants although these are mentioned in the text. It is clear that most of the plant taxa recognised by the Digo are each equivalent to a scientific plant taxon, 2 ‘Identification’ here refers to the process of plant recognition, which includes the verbalised expressions and the non-verbalised actions of the respondent in the field as they go through the identification process. 53 except for few cases where two or more scientific species are coalesced e.g. Chiahira for epiphytes and Mbodzembodze for species with desiccating leaves. The Digo also recognise as two different taxa the sub-species Lannea schweinfurthii ssp. stuhlmannii and Lannea schweinfurthii ssp. acuminata, i.e. Mchumbu and Mchumbu madzi respectively. This is one of rare cases where sub-species are identified as different in Digo. Based on the notes, the Digo identify plants mainly via morphological features of parts (leaves, bark, root, and fruits) and to a lesser extent via aroma, taste and sound features of the parts. In herbaceous species e.g. grasses and epiphytes, the whole plant was important for identification. The following are discussions plant features used for identification in each individual plant part. 4.2.1 Plant identification from leaf features The leaf features used for plant identification include the shape, size, texture (surface feel), colour, smell and taste. The leaf shape was the preferred feature for plant identification compared to the other features. This is because leaf shapes are more diversified and are verbally distinguished (cf. Chapter 3). In contrast, leaf size has only rudimentary comparative references; distinct leaf texture features such as sand papery, are found in a limited number of species; and colour, smell and taste have minimal lexical distinctions (cf. Chapter 3). Leaf shape features are diversified by the varied leaf types, e.g. kodza mwenga [one leaf] for simple leaf, makodza ga panda mwenga [leaves with single branching] for pinnate leaves, makodza ga panda mbiri [leaves with two branching] for bi-pinnate leaves, and makodza ga mala [leaves with fingers] for lobbed leaves. These variations form the starting point of identification and recognition of species. Distinctions in leaf sizes i.e. kulu [large], dide [small], pana [broad], dzembamba [thin], and zito [thick or succulent], is not systematic, thus they are only useful for contrasting specific leaves within and between species, but not for strict species identification. This is also true even in scientific botany, where the ranges of leaf size specifications are arbitrary, and not strongly indicative of species, except in comparative context (Beentje 1994). Leaf texture (surface feel) mainly concerns the leaf blade, and are lexicalised as: laini [plain], ina manyoya [hairy], msasa [sandpapery], ina kwaruza [rough surface] and ina awisa [itchy] (cf. Chapter 3). However, only sandpapery and itchy features are useful in plant identification due to their specific association with the relevant species, while the other features are less unique 54 among species and unreliable for plant identification. But even with the sandpapery and itchy features, the use of these features in identification is minimal because of the limited number of species that have these. Sandpapery leaves are known to occur in Ficus exasperata and Cordia monoica, both named after sand paper, i.e., Msasa. Itchy feeling is known to result on contact with leaves of Mwamdzavi [Tragea furialis]. Traditionally, plant description and differentiation on the bases of colour is restricted to the basic colour terms (nyiru, nyereru and kundu), which makes the distinction between species rather minimal. The notable case where leaf colour was important in plant identification was for species with leaves of different colour shades on the upper and the lower sides, e.g. Mtsunduzi [Croton megalocarpoides] and Mweza [Achyranthus emerginatus]. These species are identifiable from the leaf colour patterns, described as ‘ndani n’maru, konze n’mereru’ [‘green’ upper surface, and whitish lower surface]. Similar descriptions are used in modern botany, for example Beentje (1994) describes C. megalocarpoides as ‘leaves are silvery beneath …’. In contrast to the above features, smell has minimal lexicons (cf. Chapter 3), which are also too general. Although more smell types are recognised these are not lexicalised nor described, thus are difficult to use. However, in this study, healers were noted to indulged in continued contact and usage of smell and consequently develop some experience such that they can operate without verbal expressions. Thus healers through ‘experience’ are able to distinguish species from different smell kinds, and endure the absence of lexicons. Taste, like smell, is categorised rather in few domains (cf. Chapter 3). The taste domains used in plant identification of wild species are utsungu [bitter] (e.g. for Azadirachta indica and Launaea cornuta), and kakasi [sour] (e.g. for Cyphostemma adenocaule). However, all the three tastes (mtswano [sweet], utsungu [bitter] and kakasi [sour]) are used for edible plants, both domesticated and wild species. But the overall observation still remains, that the lexicon of taste is not exhaustive, and other taste varieties remain non-verbalised. Due to its limited lexical, taste outside the edible species is not used, and individual are particularly hesitant to take the risks involved with poisoning from unfamiliar species. The low reliance of colour, and the unpopularity of smell and taste features in plant identification apply for all plant parts. Even the healers who ventures into using smell features in plant identification, they do so only for some species e.g. Mdungu [Zanthoxylum chalybeum], Mgweni 55 mdide [Uvaria acuminata], Mwangajine [Uvariodendron kirkii], Mvuma [Premna chrysoclada], Muurusapungu [Premna hildebrandtii] and Chivumbani [Ocimum suave]. The substantial use of leaf features in plant identification by the Digo concurs significantly with the modern botanical methods, as referenced in the Flora of Tropical East Africa (FTEA) and in Beentje (1994). However, there are also some contrasts between the two authorities. A traditional Digo identifies most plants via features in fresh leaf, while a modern taxonomist identifies even dried sample specimens. Some respondents explained this knowledge limitation as due to the damaging effect caused by drying, as important identification features (to the Digo) are tampered. Practical observations though, showed that except for colour and partly shape, some leaf features are not significantly affected. Assumable, therefore, it is the lack of need to identify dried specimen that made the Digo inexperienced with dried specimens. On the contrary, modern taxonomist is continuously challenged to identify dry specimens. This assumption is supported by the ability of Digo healer to identify dried specimens (at least for some species), because of the need posed by his work. 4.2.2 Plant identification from stem features The Digo differentiate stems via bark colour, texture (surface feel), presence of growths (e.g. lichen) and exudates (cf. Chapter 3). Although some plant species are differentiated and identified via stem colour e.g. Mlala mwereru [black mlala] for Monodora grandidieri, and Mlala mwiru [white mlala] for Disopyros kabuyeana, commonly the differentiation is between related plants - from a Digo perspective. The example above shows differentiated species of the ‘genus’ Mlala. Differentiation is also done for Mkongolo species i.e. Mkongolo mwiru [black Mkongolo] and Mkongolo wa kundu [red Mkongolo]. Otherwise, stem colour, is not a feature useful in general plant identification. Variations in stem surface are recognised among the Digo (cf. Chapter 3) but only a few are unique enough or restricted to specific species to be used in plant identification. These include ereza [slippery] in Bombax rhodognaphalon; mialo [fluted] in Synsepalum spp; maugu [conical structures] in Zanthoxylum chalybeum and guwika [peeling] in Commiphora spp. The other stem surface features are either too common or less salient, and not used in the identification. Although seven kinds of exudates are known and labelled (cf. Chapter 3), the Digo make minimal reliance on exudates for plant identification, limited to species with commonly useful 56 such as the historical commercialised gum copal [gamu] from Hymnaea verrucosa (Spear 1978). Continued contact and interest seem important here to develop the necessary experience. 4.2.3 Plant identification from fruit features Generally, only the plants whose fruits are edible (Pakia 1997) were identifiable from fruits. Also species whose fruits have other social values e.g. medicinal (Catunaregam nilotica and Solanum incanum) or as tools for playing games (Caesalpinia bonduc) (Pakia & Cooke 2003a, b) were identifiable from their fruits. Some herbaceous species have injurious fruits which make them identifiable from their fruits, e.g. Oxygonum sinuatum, Bidens pilosa and Cenchris mitis. And so is the twining Mucuna puriens [Uphupu] whose fruits lead to an itchy feeling on contact. Otherwise for most wild species identification via fruits is unreliable, and is commonly complemented by features in other plant parts. The identification of plants via fruits for crop plants is very detailed, usually accomplished to cultivar level. Using fruit features, a Digo farmer differentiates assorted mango cultivars (boribo, ngoe, dodo, shikio, chidigo, chimaji, and epoli). This also applies for coconut cultivars (mnazi mwiru [black coconut tree], mnazi wa kundu [red coconut tree], and mnazi wa chisamli [yellow coconut tree]); and papaya cultivars (moyo wa simba [lion’s heart] and moyo mwereru [white heart]). In maize corns, the colour patterns of seeds are used to differentiate between cultivars such as: maricheni [yellow kernels], chitweka [black kernels], tsere ra matungo [black, red, and white kernels], and tsere ra mjundo [striped kernels]. In contrast, even wild species that are identifiable via fruits, sometimes the identification does not go to species level. For example, Uvaria lucida and Uvaria acuminata are distinguishable via leaves to basic taxa Mngweni-mkulu and Mngweni-mdide respectively. However, via fruits the identification is done only to the genus level ‘Mngweni’, then respondents fail to make further distinctions. 4.2.4 Plant identification from flower features Flowers are less used in plant identification by the Digo. Respondents presented with flowers, particularly of wild species, consulted other plant parts for identification or comment. This behaviour was encountered even for common tree species such as Milicia excelsa, Diospyros squarrosa and Afzelia quanzensis. The few exceptions where plant identification via flower features were done include species whose flowers have local values, e.g. ornamentation plants (Bouganvillea sp., Thevetia peruviana, Stachytarpheta jamaicensis and Lantana camara); perfume plants (Mkilua fragrans and Cananga odorata); broom making species (Panicum 57 maximum) and flowers are used in spiritual healing (Nymphaea sp. and Nymphoides forbesiana). Few species have salient flower distinction and were identified via their flowers, e.g. Gloriosa superba. The minimal reliance of flower in plant identification by the Digo is a significant deviation from modern science, which strongly relies on flower details (Beentje 1994). Low reliance on flower for plant identification by the Digo is possible due to flowers being least used (hence relatively less physical and conceptual contacts made with it), flowers are only seasonal, and the flower features are minimally lexicalised. 4.2.5 Plant identification from root features Generally, plant identification from root features is the least common for wild species, except for plants with edible roots e.g. Mariga [Dioscorea dumetorum] and ‘perfume-root’ plant Mrandze [Dalbergia boehmii]. However, the use values of these species are no practices, and their identification knowledge was recorded among only the elderly Digo. Crop plants with roots of food value e.g. cassava, are identified considerably via their roots, mainly through colour and taste. Thus in the local market, cassava tubers are identifiable to a majority of the Digo through colour to cultivar levels e.g. chibandameno, chileso, guzo, mjiriama. The tastes of different cassava cultivars (and other edible roots) are not elaborately lexicalised, except for the broad categories of autsungu [bitter] or ka-utsungu [non-bitter]. Some wild species with roots of medicinal value are also identifiable from their roots, using features such as colour, smell and taste e.g. Zanthoxylum chalybeum, Premna chrysoclada, Uvariodendron kirkii. However, this is specifically used by Digo healers. 4.2.6 Plant identification at different plant development stages For most seedlings, respondents gave wrong identifications or confessed that they did not know the plant. This was the case despite a correct identification of the mature plant specimen of those species, and was observed for even common tree species such as Combretum schumannii (mkongolo), Julbernardia magnistipulata (mkuwa), Milicia excelsa (mvure) and Cynometra suaheliensis (mfunda). The situation was even more difficult for species associated with morphological changes in the developmental stages e.g. Schlechterina mitostemmatoides [Mfunganyama]. The seedling and sapling stages of S. mitostemmatoides have small deeply indented leaves, while the mature stage has relatively large leaves with serrated margins (Beentje 1994). The respondents failed to link the seedling and sapling stages to the mature stage of this species. A similar observation was made by Palgrave (1977) studying the local notion of baobab 58 tree in southern Africa, where young plant of baobab was not perceived by the native community. In addition to the common variation between young and mature stages of plants, another possible reason for the young individuals not to be identified would be that, in contrast to the mature stage, they are not used by the Digo. 4.2.7 Plant identification by habit of the species In addition to morphological features, some plants are identifiable through peculiar habits. For example: Biophytum petersianum and Mimosa pudica are identified by the desiccation habit i.e. closing leaves on touch; and Synaptolepis kirkii and Garcinia livingstonei are identified by their ‘fixed’ branching patterns (twice and thrice respectively). In summary, considering the frequency of use for all the plant parts in the corpus of 236 taxa (Appendix V), the leaf was the most used in plant identification, while the flower was the least (Table 3.1). In fact, for most species the other parts only complimented the leaf in plant identification. Only about 10% of the species in the corpus (Appendix V) were unidentifiable from leaves alone, because their leaves were either not prominent enough in these species or too similar between species to reveal the differences. These include: Tacca leontopetaloides, Cissus spp., Euphorbia spp. Asparagus spp., Sedges and grasses. To the Digo, the leaves in grasses and sedges are generally similar, hence undifferentiated. In the Table below identification via the roots was excluded because its data was an underestimate following refusal by healers to divulge complete information on medicinal species identifiable by roots. However, it is still estimated that the flower remains the least used plant part in identification. Notable, in tree species flower is not used at all in identification. Table 4.1: Frequency of application of plant parts in traditional Digo plant identification methods for some species (n=236) of different growth forms. It should be noted that some identification cases overlap. Growth form Total Leaves Stem Fruits Flower number Whole plant Tree 92 90 28 18 0 3 Shrub 73 68 8 13 5 5 Climber 12 9 5 4 0 1 Epiphyte- Parasite 2 0 0 0 0 2 Herbs 47 35 2 6 3 10 Grasses 10 4 1 1 1 4 Total cases 236 206 44 42 9 25 59 4.3. HUMAN SENSES USED IN PLANT DENTIFICATION As most species were identified from morphological features that are visually recognisable, the visual sense accounted for most of the identification. Surprisingly, though, colour in flowers has a high visual perception, but it is not used in plant identification. Through the sense of touch, relatively few physical aspects of plant parts such as hairy condition, rough or smooth condition, sandpapery and desiccation are recognised. In the identification process, sometimes respondents walked to a plant and touched it (particularly the leaves) before giving an identity of the species, with confidence. However, touch was commonly used to confirm species with sand papery leaves (Ficus exasperata and Cordia monoica) or desiccate leaves (Biophytum spp and Mimosa pudica). Identification by ‘itchy’ feeling (as in Tragea furialis and Mucuna puriens) are usually only coincidental but not intended method of identification. As noted earlier, smell and taste are not commonly applied in plant identification, except for perfume and food plants. Healers use these features to identify a limited number of medicinal value. However, even the Digo healers do not use the scent in flower for identification, most likely because of the limited use of the flower for medicinal purposes. Although ‘hearing’ is not enlisted as a method in plant identification in scientific botany, a Digo can identify Acacia zanzibarica from ‘the noise’ caused by wind effect. This is the only species identified via hearing by the Digo In summary, the Digo use all senses for plant identification, but on the basis of the frequency each sense was used, visual accounts for most identifications (Table 3.2). For most species the other senses were used only to confirm the identification. Out of the corpus of 236 taxa (Appendix V), the frequency for each sense show that visual accounts for 100%, and is confirmed by touch (3%); smell (6%); taste (4%); and hearing (less than 1%). The relatively high account for ‘taste’ is a result of wild edible fruit species. 60 Table 4.2: Frequency of application of human senses in traditional Digo plant identification methods for some plant species (n=236) of different growth forms. Growth form Number (n) Visual Confirmation through Touch Smell Taste Hearing Tree 92 92 1 4 5 1 Shrub 73 73 3 9 1 0 Climber 12 12 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 Herbs 47 47 3 1 3 0 Grasses 10 10 o 0 0 0 Total cases 236 236 7 14 9 1 Epiphytes - Parasites 4.4 DIVERSIFIED PROFESSIONAL BASIS OF PLANT IDENTIFICATION The Digo plant identification methods are manifold, with identification approaches generally being different from person to person, and varied from species to species. To an extent the identification methods suggest specialisation due to varied plant usage. Individuals from different plant user groups, which also create local professional categories, focus on different plant parts in the identification process. Each user group put emphasis on the ‘useful’ part as defined by the group, and make that part the central focus of plant identification. The variations between plant user groups are discussed below. 4.4.1 Plant identification by timber users Timber users (pole-cutters, house builders and carpenters), use morphological features of leaves, bark of stem, and features of inner wood, to identify plants, but without knowing any differences in the roots of the species in question. In addition to the commonly used plant features, timber users use specialists’ knowledge of inner wood variations to identify ‘useful’ species. These include colour and smell. Although smell is used, it is generally unlabelled and only broadly described as taina harufu [no smell], inharufu chache [weak smell] or inharufu sana [strong smell]. Timber plunks of Albizia versicolor and Milicia excelsa are identified with a ‘strong’ smell, but their variation, which are cognately perceived, are not verbalised. Some carpenters are allergic to smell in specific species hence avoid them. Colour patterns in wood grain [nyama za muhi] are also used, but mostly remain non-lexicalised too. The identification here seems to be 61 based on long term contact and experience. The ability to identify both standing trees in the forest, timber plunks and processed timber products (furniture pieces) using the inner wood features, timber users supersede other plant users in this respect. However, the plant identification knowledge of timber users hardly goes beyond the important timber species. Carpenters, for example, have a very good knowledge of both local sawn timber species (e.g. Mvure, Mtsani, Mzambarau, Mrihi and Mbambakofi) as well as non-coastal timber species Cypress and Pine (identified in their English names). This is despite the carpenters not having seen the standing trees of the non-coastal species. Surprisingly, these carpenters failed to make correct identifications for some common Kenya coastal forest tree species that grew in the local forests, e.g. Mfunda, Mkuwa, Mchizatsaka, Chikunguni and Mtsamvia. The tree species that carpenters fail to identify were mainly those that are ‘not important’ for sawn timber. In addition to the useful species, timber users also have a good knowledge on prohibited or disguise species in their trade. Pole collectors recognise species prohibited from building e.g. Mfumula ndolwa and Mviru, which are believed to lead to domestic problems when used as building poles. Carpenters identify Mnguonguo (coined as ‘false Mvule’) which resembles Mvure, but has poor wood quality that is not durable for carpentry. 4.4.2 Plant identification by non-timber users Plant identification by vegetable gatherers On the other hand, vegetable gatherers (mainly Digo housewives) identify plant species via leaf features, and their knowledge is biased to edible herbaceous plants. While the vegetable species are identified and labelled with specific names, non-edible herbaceous species are collectively referred to as nyasi [grasses], with the connotations of ‘useless’. The plant identification knowledge of house wives hardly extended to tree species, and generally failed to distinguish between very important local timber species e.g. Mvure, Mtsani, Mbambakofi etc. They could neither distinguish the standing trees nor sawn timber plunks or finished furniture pieces of these species. Surprisingly, most of them identified standing trees of Brachystegia spiciformis, because this tree species is associated with some edible mushroom types that they also collect. But even for Brachystegia spiciformis they could not identify it from its inner wood features. 62 Plant identification by mushroom collectors The Digo house wives are also the collectors of mushrooms (fruiting bodies of fungi), which are identified mainly on the basis of colour of cap. On a broad perspective, mushrooms are also recognised on the basis of their habitat, thus specific mushroom types are expected at different habitat areas (cf. Chapter 3). Some of the identification features are reflected as descriptive affixes in the mushrooms names. For example: Nimakoba-mwereru [white Nimakoba] for Russula aeruginea; Nimakoba-wakundu [red Nimakoba] for Russula aquosa; Nkuvi-mdide [small Nkuvi] for Termitomyces sp.; Nkuvi-wa-mdani [farmland Nkuvi] for another Termitomyces sp., and Nkuvi-wa-mirihini [Brachystegia woodland Nkuvi] for a different Termitomyces sp. Depicting their vegetable knowledge patterns in mushroom, the gatherers differentiate and identify only edible mushrooms. Non-edible mushrooms, which have no other known use except the suspicion that they are poisonous, are collectively known as uoga koma [wild/poisonous mushroom]. There is a strong rigidity in mushroom consumption, as only those learnt from the elders as ‘edible’, are collected and eaten (about 10 taxa only) (cf. Chapter 3). Plant identification by healers In contrast to the other plant user groups, a Digo healer identifies plants through a multitude of features of different parts, which include the minimally lexicalised colour, smell, and taste. This is in addition to the healers being the only social group that can make plant identifications via roots (for non-food value root plants) and can identify both fresh and dry specimens. Like the other plant users, though, healers are biased to important species and parts i.e. medicinally used. Due to scarcity, medicinal plants are commonly collected in masses and are stored in a container. The medicinal plant part of a specific species in the mass is sorted when a patient visits the healer, which could be days or months after the collection. The healer sorts through the mass of dry plant parts which by then show little differences from ‘untrained’ eye. Surprisingly, healers sort and identify the target plant part with very little effort, a reflection of an extensive experience and a proof of a great understanding of their trade. During the field work of this study it was amazing to observe Mzee Krauni, a healer from Kombani, singles out a root piece of a specific species from a mass of root, bark, and stem pieces. The same observation was made with Abdallah Mnyenze. No wonder the Digo healing career reaches climax with age. 63 4.5 GENERAL PLANT IDENTIFICATION AMONG COMMON DIGO The above ‘procedural’ identification methods reflect a rigorous processes, that applies to professional situations where species identification is done with great care and re-confirmation. However, a common Digo combines bits of the above based on exposure and interest, e.g. housewives who are not healers, would commonly have some knowledge on basic medicinal plants to attend basic health issues for their children. In such circumstances, the housewives would use more or less similar identification methods as used by healers. The same is true for persons interested in furniture, who learn basic features of timber species. In other words, a little of any of the professional skills would also be found among the common Digo, but the scope varies between individuals depending on need and interest. The identification methods have are less rigorous over time as the individual become familiar with the species. Thus in an identification process, the systematic procedures described above might not be observable. The individuals seem to distinguish the plants based on familiarity and consultation of parts for fine details are done for less commonly used or collected species, or species whose identity (for some reason) is doubted and needs proper confirmation. The individuals behave in a manner indicating that they have memorized ‘pictorial images’ of the species in their memory where fixed characters of the species are maintained and used for the identification. This is notable by the absence of active thinking or strenuous procedures as the respondent identifies species. One glances at a species and immediately identifies it – no identification procedure is applied. The memorized ‘imagines’ for the plants are individually based, and non-verbalised. Thus by viewing wood grain pattern on a timber plank, a carpenter readily tells the species, but he will strain to explain the ‘visual’ aspects that led to the identification. This was also a common observation with members in the other plant user groups. 4.6 TRADITIONAL TRAININGS IN PLANT IDENTIFICATION Digo plant gatherers and users receive informal training towards plant identification and application. In all situations, the trainer (usually an elderly person) accompanies the trainee (relatively younger) in collection errands, where plant identification and collection skills are demonstrated. The trainer goes through the collection process practically, demonstrating it to the trainee, whom through observation and repeating the activities learns the skills. 64 Considering the training of a Digo healer, on which an emphasis was put during this study, it was noted that the healer training course consists of three phases. The first phase involves forest visits where plant identifications and collections are demonstrated. The identifications constitute activities such as viewing, touching, smelling and tasting of parts of the different species, which the trainer also gives the species name and medicinal uses. The preliminary collections include the medicinally used part (bark, roots, leaves etc) and a branch (specimen) of the species. The second phase, done on the same day after the collections but at home, involves the trainee sorting the collected plant parts (after being mixed) and matching them with respective specimens of the species. While sorting, the trainee also gives the name of the species and its medicinal uses, as taught by the trainer. The first and second phases are repeated for undefined period of time, with new species introduced in the collection and sorting as the trainee masters the previous species, to the satisfaction of the trainer. In an advanced stage, the third phase, the trainee sorts the parts as above, but now only handling the relevant medicinal plant parts which are usually in dry state. The trainee continuously repeats the identification of species from the plant parts, at the same time giving the names and the medicinal uses of the species. In essence, the trainee learns how to identify the species via the medicinally useful plant part. The sorting and identification, is done under the instruction, supervision and guide of the healer trainer, and it comprise both verbal and non-verbal knowledge aspects. When a trainee makes mistakes in the naming, this can be verbally corrected. But when he makes mistakes in the identification, he is ordered to repeat the process, and the repeating order continues until the mistakes are rectified. Seeking verbal expressions, Mzee Krauni was once requested to explain the variations in the ‘smell’ of different species. In response, he shoved the plant parts to the nose of the interviewer and said ‘nusa’ (smell it), indicative of the absence of verbal explanations, being a trade of experiences. The same is done with the trainees, practically learning how to differentiate different features (smells and tastes) without lexical expressions. Thus by the time the trainee graduates from his master, he is capable of identifying medicinal plants both from standing specimens and via the medicinally used parts, including dry specimens, and using features that are not verbalised e.g. smell and colour. The healer training procedures in plant identification which focus on the useful plant part, represents a general phenomenon of the training procedures among all the other plant user groups of the Digo, only varying in the part emphasised and the intensity of the training. 65 4.7 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENT IN PLANT IDENTIFICATION Conducted through different forest and wild areas (familiar and non-familiar), the respondents expressed varied readiness in plant identification and in the confidence of their responses. Plant identifications were much faster in familiar areas where collections had been made previously. The respondents expressed their familiarity in such areas and proved to be in control, knowing ‘what is what’ with easy and readily. However, the identification speed was significantly slower in unfamiliar areas where respondents had not visited before. Slowed identification was observed even with species commonly known to them, and some identifications were given only as tentative, as the confidence had reduced. Although a plant species could exhibit variation from one locality to another, the observations made with the respondent was beyond species variability. The difference in identification speed between ‘common’ and ‘new’ environments was based on ‘familiarity’ notion that builds ‘experience’ through continued contact with the plants in common environments. This supports the assumption that the Digo plant identification methods are not strongly based on systematic procedures (indicated earlier), but rather on memory and experience. In new environment, where abstraction is called, the respondent is not comfortable. The Digo make plant identification, therefore, is to some extent a cognitive premise that strongly relies on ‘memory’, and in new areas a re-orientation is necessary for identification to be done confidently. 4.8 NORMS IN PLANT COLLECTIONS In most situations, local plant identifications are in the context of plant collection for various uses. In other words, the Digo make plant identifications with the objective of collecting the species. There are different and varied collection manner, some are relatively simple and formal, without any rituals or other customary practices involved. These include collections of timber, building poles, food, and general plant medicines. While other plant collections are relatively complex and with strong attachments to spiritual being, usually calling for observance of rituals and sacrifices. Such collections are based on the belief that plants are residences of spirits or plants are active beings and they react to human activities. Depending on collectors, the rituals observed vary. The following are examples of norms practiced by the Digo in plant collection. Healers are characterised by both normative and non-normative norms. Among the practitioners employing less normative norms is Salim Nasoro Mwakweli, a healer from Kinondo. He feeds the spirits that reside on medicinal plants, which are believed to be responsible of the medicinal 66 efficacy of the plant. The spirits are fed with cereals (preferable uncooked rice, green peas or millet) by gentle throwing the grains onto the plant, while saying some words (not be divulged). The feeding is done just before the collection of the medicinal part. Failure to feed the spirits lead to calamities of different magnitudes, the least is the patient not being cured of the ailment, and the most is the healer suffering spiritual ailments or even might die. Other healers, e.g. Ms. Nkoti Juma Ngefa, maintain silence when collecting plant medicines for treating ailments inflicted by bad spirits or by ancestral powers (chifudu). When collecting only hand signals are allowed in interacting with the public. Other healers, e.g. Ms. Mebakari Chakwe, walk backwards to approach a medicinal plant meant for treating pregnancy complications and to neutralise forces of evil eye. These healers give the medicine to the patients from behind (chinyumenyume), to ‘reverse’ the forces that inflicted the ailment. According to healers, the efficacies of some plant medicines were not based on the chemical constituents, as science postulates. This is notable with the medicine for dizziness, which Mzee Abdalla Krauni cures using medicine concoction made from leaves that must be caught in the air in a swirling wind. The leaves could be of any species, and their curative power is obtained by the ‘swirling’ forces. On his part, Mzee Suleiman Dzilala uses a stump of any plant species found on a walkway for a charm that stops players of an opponent team from scoring in a match. It is not the healers alone who have norms for plant collections. Large trees of all species are believed to be common residence places for spirits, and the spirits are offended when the plant is cut. Thus timber cutters, sometimes, must make sacrifices of animals (preferable black sheep) to appease the spirits. Accidents that occur during timber harvesting have been related to angry resident spirits on the tree. For a farmer it is not allowed to carry farm harvests using ones cloth [bindo]. This leads to the removal of good produce from the farm. To discourage excessive harvesting, some species are labelled as ‘inviters of poverty’, e.g. lemons fruits, thus one always collects only enough for the day. For mushroom collectors, a giant size mushroom [dzoga ndzovu] is collected only after one cries before it, else collecting and eating such mushroom leads to loss of one’s parents. Those who have lost their parents they don’t have to cry. Children have their norms in plant collection too. It is forbidden for one to run to a mango tree for fruit collection. Running is believed to make the ripe fruits that had fallen and ready for collection to fly back onto the tree. 67 With the kaya forest system partially in practice, it is forbidden to collect any kind of plant material from the sacred sites. These include the grave yards where prominent persons were buried, praying grounds and places where community protection charm was buried. Generally it was felt being unkind to harvest and eat fruits of a plant growing on any graveyard. 4.9 CONCLUSION The Digo plant users familiarise with the botanical world which is important to them, thus overtime they recognise and identify different plant taxa, but put significant emphasis on utility (material or immaterial). The Digo plant identification knowledge can be better understood by focusing on the learning process, which is comparative to children learning how to identify objects (Goddard 1998). It will be appreciated that some ‘referents’ are learnt from ‘pointing out’ in context, and not necessarily with the aid of words or verbal definitions (Russel 1948). Most plants to the Digo are an example of such ‘referents. The fact that a healer trainee is given a plant name with no verbal descriptions for it means the trainee must develop a construct for the plant so as to relate the form and the name. Sub-consciously the trainee develops a reference ‘image’ (referred here as memorized ‘pictorial image’) useful for future identifications. In the training process, there is a clear progression from recognition of a plant based on observable physical characters (a rigorous method) to a casual ‘glance’ method based on the memorized ‘pictorial images’, and focussing on the features of the useful plant part if confirmation is needed. In other words the identification is based on familiarity that comes with experience (in which cognate images form), but the rigorous method of identification by scrutinizing features of the ‘useful part’ is used to confirm the identification. The fact that the useful part in a species is different between plant user groups, there are multitude approaches in identification through the systematic method. Between Digo plant user groups, the timber users show supremacy knowledge of the inner wood features (colour, smell and patterns of the wood grains), but only limited to timber species. Healers are advanced in the application of diverse features, verbal or non-verbal, across most medicinal plant parts including roots, which are least used by other plant users. Healers are also the only social group that can comfortably identify both fresh and dry specimens. Vegetable and mushroom gatherers are concerned with only the ‘edible’ taxa, or plants that are indicative of their interest e.g. Brachystegia spiciformis, which is a tree but also an indicator of specific types of mushrooms. Otherwise, tree species do not receive much recognition from vegetable and mushroom collectors. 68 Partly, the plant part used for identification depends on the scope of variation of that part, as well as the extent of lexicon associated to its features. Leaves are relatively diverse and characterised with extensive lexicon and descriptions among the plant organs, consequently they are also the most used in plant identification. The considerable reliance on leaves for plant identification the Digo concur with modern science, but their disregard of flowers is a critical deviation from science. There are other notable deviations between the Digo and modern science in plant identification. While science uses theoretical principles and guided systems, the Digo use memorized ‘images’ of plants, and when in doubt confirm by focussing on the useful part of the species. Since the Digo plant identification is associated with familiarity and experience, it is no surprise that individuals are easily disorientated in ‘new’ environments, and their identification speed slows down. While modern scientist in the forest would be interested in the ‘unknown’ plants with the objective of documenting the whole botanical world, the Digo is interested in only the ‘known’ plants that have a ‘value’ to them. Additional knowledge such as features useful for identification of other species is appreciated if this adds a new ‘value’ to their life, but knowledge on its own is not considered a ‘value’. 69 CHAPTER FIVE TRADITIONAL PLANT NAMES AND NAMING PROCEDURES AMONG THE DIGO 5.1 INTRODUCTION In this chapter, semantic analysis of Digo plant names is carried out and guiding principles in Digo plant naming are discussed. The discussion is based on botanical and semantic analysis of a corpus of about 380 Digo plant names (Appendix VI) that were recorded during the field work of this study, and supplemented by data from previous studies by the author (Pakia 1997). The analysis was complemented by inquiry with elderly Digo speakers on the meanings of the plant names. The primary aim of this chapter is to present insightful commentaries on the basic plant names from a Digo linguistic perspective, in relation to the respective plant features and values, and to unravel the principles underlying plant naming procedures in Digo. The Digo plant names in the text are given with their meanings in brackets, but without respective botanical names. The reader is recommended to refer to Appendices III and VI. The subject is discussed along topics that are understood as principal in the naming process, as follows: • Form of Digo plant names - words and phrases forming Digo plant names • Semantics of plant names – meanings and aspects of naming • Comparative aspects - synonyms, loans, inherited terms • Conclusion 5.2 FORMS OF DIGO PLANT NAMES 5.2.1 Simple words forming Digo plant names The Digo words forming plant names are nouns, and like other nouns, consist of a prefix and a stem. The following is a discussion on the prefixes and stems related to plant names. Prefixes in Digo plant names Most prefixes3 in Digo plant names are of class pair 3 - 4 i.e. Mu_, M_/Mi_, which are primary prefixes (c.f. Appendix III; Appendix VI), and these account for 80% of the analysed 3 In the text prefixes, when written independent of the rest of the word are followed by a dash e.g. Chi_, and affixes are preceded by the dash e.g. _ziya. 70 corpus of Digo plant names in this study. In addition to primary Mu/Mi prefixes, there are secondary prefixes that replace the primary prefixes to express diminutive or augmentative sizes of the plants. For example the labels – Chiuyu, Muuyu and Dziuyu - all refer to Baobab of different sizes, with Chi_ and Dzi_ being the secondary prefixes that express small and large, respectively. The augmentative prefix Dzi_ is interchangeable with prefix Li_ for climbers i.e. Libugu or Dzibugu, but in other plant life-forms the prefix strictly remains ‘Dzi_’. The diminutive prefixes are also primary prefixes in class pair 7- 8 (Chi/vi), and this agrees with the observation that these prefixes do not express diminutive size of plant in all cases. There are some plant names in which Chi_/Vi do not imply size factor, which range from trees to herbs. About 16% of the corpus has the prefix Chi_ in a sense that does not denote size, example of these names are given in Table 6.1. In some plant names, however, the size connotations of Chi_ are metaphorically related or coded, as is indicated in Table 6.2. Prefixes in unmarked4 sizes of some plant names are neither Mu/Mi nor Chi/vVi, and can be considered to be in class pair 9 - 10 (Nasal/Nasal), but such plant names maintain the prefixes Chi and Dzi for their diminutive and augmentative sizes respectively. About 13% of the names in the corpus were of this type, and their examples are given in Table 6.3. Some of the prefixes in class pair 9 – 10, have female gender connotations borrowed from personal names of humans. Digo is not a gender Language (cf. Chapter 3), thus prefixes in plant names and other nouns are not grammatical gender distinct. However, there are primary semantics functioning as references to the sex of a person in human beings. Some Digo plant names have prefixes whose semantics connote ‘female’ gender, e.g. Nchibandu, Nchikoma, Nchivuri and Nchidoka; including some fungi names: N’kuvi, Nimaziya, N’chibalazi, Nimakoba, and Nimahembo. This is probably a general lexicon for non-gender languages, as a similar observation was made by Rottland (2003) for the Southern Nilotic languages in Kenya. Table 5.1: Vernacular plant names where prefix chi_ does not reflect diminutive connotation Vernacular name Botanical name Comments Chiswenya Amaranthus sp. herb 4 ‘Unmarked’ in linguistic refer to terms that have both specific and general meanings relating to a dimension in question. For example in height, the ‘unmarked’ – tall – in ‘how tall is the tree?’ does not express predetermined size context that the tree must be tall; but the marked term – short - in ‘how short is the tree’ presupposes that the tree is short. 71 Chidori, Harrisonia abyssinica shrub Chimwemwe, Gardenia volkensii shrub Chitadzi, Ormocarpum kirkii shrub Chikombe tsui Acacia adenocalyx shrub Chifumai Erythroxylon emarginatum tree Chibombo Tabernaemontana elegans tree Chikunguni Ludia mauritiana tree Chiluwa Mkilua fragrans tree Table 5.2: Interpretation of prefix Chi_ in some Digo plant names Vernacular name Botanical name Rationale of chi_ in the name Chibalazi chanze, Tephrosia villosa Species named after pigeon pea plant (Mbalazi), but is small, hence the chi_ Chibambara Commiphora lindensis A small form of C. africana [Mbambara] Chibugu Rhynchosia velutina, Climbers are identified with the root word Indigofera trita _bugu, these are small forms, hence the chi_ Pleicosepalus parviflorus Chidimutsaka Toddaliopsis sp. Named after Lime tree (Mdimu), but it has smaller fruits, hence the chi_. Chidungadunga Barleria setigera Most thorny species are identified with the root name _dungadunga, this is a small form of those Chikonje Stylochiton salaamicus Species named after sisal (konje) [Agave], hence the small size prefix Chikwadzu Cynometra webberi Named after Tamarind (Mkpwadzu) but considered as a small form Chiphatsa Vernonia hildebrandtii Species share the root word _phatsa with V. zanzibarica, and is small form Chitsai Striga asiatica Named after a witch (mtsai), but its small size led to the diminutive labelling Chitsamvia Cola minor Named after Synsepalum spp. (Mtsamvia), but because is relatively smaller hence the chi_ Chiziyaziya Euphorbia hirta Latex producing species share root word _ziyaziya, its small size is reflected by the chi_. Table 5.3: Examples of Digo plant names with Nasal prefix in unmarked size Vernacular name Botanical name 72 Futswe Asystesia gangetica Golonje Aloe spp. Ganga Euphorbia spp. Galagala tsui, Plectranthus tenuiflorus Jirimata Pupalia lappacea Konje Agave sisalana Nchikoma, Diphasia sp. A Nguji, Bidens pilosa Todza, Bidens pilosa Nchivuri, Blighia unijugata Reza Solanecio angulatus Toro Nypmhoides forbesiana Vumbamanga Ocimum gratissimum Stems in Digo plant names Digo plant names that constitute simple words have stems which are combined with a prefix. The stems of the words in plant name are either ‘original’ or derived, and while some are simple words, others are reduplicated. Over 60% of the plant names in the corpus analysed in have simple-word stems, of which the ‘original’ word stems are the most common, accounting for 37% of the corpus. Examples of ‘original’ stem words are: _kwadzu, _kadi, _funda, _bondo, _ jafari, _dungu, _kete, _koko, _kwamba, _bokwe etc. Derived stem-words account for 17% of the corpus, forming the second largest group of the stem kinds. Examples of derived stem-words are: _nuka [smell], _ahira [sitting on], _ndiri [hard], _tadzi [crown], _lumwa [become sick], _dhahabu [gold], _sabuni [soap], _tseketse [tickle] etc. Reduplicated stems are actually repeating phrases of simple words, and plant names with this type of stemwords account for 7% of the corpus. Examples are: Chidungadunga [to pierce], Chimwemwe [a smile], Dokadoka [to break], Mziyaziya [milk]. Reduplicated stem-words in Digo, generally are emphatic on the subject, and for plant names the emphasis is on the referred feature or character of the plant. 5.2.2 Phrase expressions forming Digo plant names 73 The phrase-expression stems take similar prefixes as simple-word stems, with the same inferences. The phrase expressions that form Digo plant names are of three types, namely genitives, object phrases and noun + determiner. The following is a discussion of each of these phrase expressions. Genitive phrases The genitives are phrases that constitute of two nouns with a genitival link e.g. Chinuka cha m’masai. The genitival links are characterized by verbal concord or agreement with the class membership of a given noun, and the common genitival links used in plant names are: cha, ra, ga, wa, and ya. Examples of plant names that are genitive phrases are: Chibalazi cha nze [pigeon pea of outside], Humbo ra nguluwe [stomach of pig], Mnazi wa nyoka [coconut tree of the snake] etc. In some plant names, however, the genitive expressions are without the genitival links, e.g. Chibalazi mlungu, where the link ‘cha’ between the two nouns was dropped to shorten the name. Similar observations are made in: Konje tsaka [forest sisal], Chishikio paka [cat ear], Mdimu tsaka [forest lime], Ndago munda [farm sedge], Vwivwi koma [wild vwivwi] etc. Surprisingly, the majority of the genitive phrases are those without genitival links, while the genitive phrases with genitival links are fewer. Object phrases The object phrases consist of a verb and an object e.g. Chivundza kesi [case terminator]. The plant names that are of the object-phrase expressions account for 15% of the corpus. Other examples of plant names of the object-phrase expression are: Mtsonga nyomba [arrow shaft maker], Mtsunga ng’ombe [cattle herder], Muoza nyama [meat spoiler], Munwa madzi [water drinker], Mrinda ziya [water pond protector], Mlaza koma [spirits layer] etc. Noun-determiner phrases In these phrases the plant name consists of a noun and a determiner e.g. Toro ndide [small Toro]. In some cases these phrases consist of two nouns, the second noun being the determiner of the first, e.g. Mtsani ndzovu [Elephant Albizia], where ‘elephant’ connotes a ‘large’ size. The ‘noun–determiner’ phrases accounted for about 10% of the plant names in the corpus. Other examples of ‘noun-determiner’ phrases in plant names are: Jirimata chetu 74 [female Jirimata], Kongwe lume [male Kongwe], Libugu pamba [climbing cotton], Mbavubavu mkulu [large Mbavubavu], Mkongolo mwiru [black Mkongolo] etc. 5.3 SEMANTIC ASPECTS OF DIGO PLANT NAMES 5.3.1 Meanings of Digo plant names Some words that form basic plant names are also commonly used words in day-to-day Digo conversations, which indicate that these are derived names and the sources of their derivation can be easily established. For examples: Nchivuri [shade], Chiahira [sitting on], chibugu [climber], Chilua [flower], Phatsa [covering], Chisikolo [without root base], Chitsai [witch], Chiyuyu [peeling], Kalumwa [never get sick], Mburuga [foretell], Mdhahabu [golden], Chinuka [smelling], Msabuni [soap], Mpira [rubber], Msuwaki [tooth brush], Mwarubaini [fourty], Reza [neutralizer], and Phoza [healing]. Such plant names indicate an attribute or value of the plant, and subsequently suggest the likely naming principle. In the corpus of plant names, about 60% have their meanings interpreted, but the meanings of the remaining 40% are unknown. On the other hand, Digo plant names that are of phrase-expression forms tend to have part of their meaning being clearer, particularly the attributes which form the second part of the name. However, the meaning of the noun, which is usually the first part of the name, remains unknown. This results in plant names that can only be partially interpreted. For example: Mtsani tsiye [small Albizia] and Mtsani ndzovu [large Albizia]; Ndago-kulu [large sedge], Ndago-munda [farm-land sedge], and Ndago-ziya [aquatic sedge]; Mwinika ngulu [king-fish Asparagus] and Mwinika ndzovu [elephant Asparagus]. In all the examples above the meanings of the first names, i.e. Mtsani, Ndago and Mwinika, are unknown. These observations suggest that simple-word plant names are older and are the inherited labels retained from proto-Sabaki or even proto-Bantu lexicon. And the phrase-expression plant names are new developments, created by combining old lexicon (the nouns) with attributive expressions, as new observation, differentiation or values in the plant world are made, which call for additional verbal distinctions. 5.3.2 Aspects of Digo plant names and naming methods 75 The semantic analysis of the plant names (Appendix VI), complimented by ecological and ethnobotanical aspects of the plants, established some guiding principles in Digo plant naming criteria, which can be approximated to adhere to following aspects: habitat, animal reference, gender, size, colour, smell, taste, plant extract, plant habit, plant origin and utility motivation. However, the above listing is not exhaustive, because of the plant names whose semantics are unknown and there are no indicators which guiding principle was followed in their naming. For the rest of the plant species, the assumed naming principles are discussed in the following. Habitat in plant naming The habitat of a plant is used in plant naming in 8% of the plant names in the corpus. There are five broad distinguished habitats that are commonly used in plant nomenclature, namely: koma [wild], pwani [sea], ziya [pond], bara [hinterland] and tsaka [forest]. Other affixes that have habitat connotations but less used are: munda [farmland], mlungu [God’s], _nze [outside ‘farm’]. The labels koma, mlungu and _nze denoted ‘uncultivated’, thus affixed to crop plant names, referring the wild counterparts. The names of the cultivated ones remain unmarked. For example: Mbalazi [pigeon pea] and Chibalazi cha nze [‘outside’ pigeon pea] or its synonym Chibalazi mlungu [God’s pigeon pea]. Mtungudza [African egg plant, cultivated] and Mtungadza koma [Sodom’s apple, the wild form]. This infers that plants that are not cultivated are ‘wild’, found ‘out’ there, and belong to God. However, the affix _koma is sometimes cautionary for plants believed to be poisonous or non-edible. The affix _pwani [sea] refers to species that grow by the sea shore e.g. Futswe ra pwani [seaside Futswe for Melanthera biflora], or at least a species that is comparatively ‘coastal’ to another e.g. Mkungu wa pwani [seaside Mkungu for Guettarda speciosa]. In both examples the plants are named after other wild species which maintain unmarked labels i.e. Futswe [Asystesia gangetica] and Mkungu [Terminalia cattapa]. The contrast label for the ‘pwani’ is bara [hinterland], which refers to species that grow further inland e.g. Mkoko bara [hinterland mangrove]. Again species labelled with the affix _bara are named after counterpart wild species only to contrast the habitat from unmarked labels, e.g. Mkoko [Mangroves]. Species found in fresh water areas e.g. water ponds, are labelled with the affix _ziya [water pond] e.g. Ndago ziya and Mrinda ziya. Also Mnwa madzi [Trichilia emetica], which translates to ‘water drinker’ carries the connotations of a species with affinity to water. Some species are designated 76 as ‘river’ species e.g. Mng’ambo [across the river] and Mtanga muho [Mtanga by the river]. The latter is compared to Mtanga [Spirostachys africana] which grows away from rivers. The labels _tsaka [forest], _tsakani [in the forest] and _mwitu [forest], refer to species that grow in forest areas. There are reservations for the label _mwitu, as it is of Swahili origin, and probably the plant names with this term are loans. All the species designated as ‘forest’ types, are termed after unmarked plant names that are either domesticated or grow in non-forest environment such as grassland. For example, forest species Mwembe tsaka [Forest type mango] is named after domesticated Muembe [Mango tree], and forest species Mphanva tsaka [Forest Mphamva] is named after Mphamva, which is a grassland species (Beentje 1994). The differences between the affixes _tsaka and _tsakani in plant names is only syntactic; where genitival link is not used in the former, but is used in the latter e.g. Muizu wa tsakani [forst Banana], otherwise their semantic is exactly the same. Animal references in plant naming Names of animals (mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, insects etc.) are used in naming plants, which has a range of interpretations, including: an association with the animal, physical simulation, metaphorical size inference, cautionary warning, or utility. In the corpus of plant names, however, the interpretation of the animal names in some plant names could not be immediately established. An association implication between plant and animal is carried in names such as Mkalafisi [where hyena stays]. The named species (Tetracera boiviniana) is believed to be an indicator of an area preferred for residence by hyenas. On the same note Mnazi wa tsozi [sun bird’s coconut tree] designates the plant (Erianthemum curvirameum) as an important one for sun bird hence visit it frequently (for its flowers)5. A simulative reference between an animal or its body part with the plant or plant part is noted in names such as: Chikombe tsui [Leopard’s claws], where the thorns of the species (Acacia mellifera) are compared to the claws of a leopard. In Chishikio paka [cat’s ear], the leaves of the plant (Cissampelos pareira) are compared to the ear of a cat. However, both shikio and paka are Swahili terms, suggesting the name might be a loan. The animal name ndzovu [elephant] denotes large size in plants comparative to another plant. Thus Mtsani ndzovu [Albizia versicolor], Mwinika ndzovu [Asparagus sp.] both refer to the 5 The Digo consider the coconut plant as very important, and is inferred on the same for this species to the sun bird, because of the frequent visits. 77 large types of their kind. Animal names as cautionary ‘codes’ in plant naming are found in Mnazi wa nyoka [snake’s coconut tree] depicting the poisonous potential in the labelled species (Scadoxus multiflora and Siphonochilus brachystemon) as being comparative to that of snake. Also the plant name Muolaga kuku [chicken killer] sends warnings that the species (Holarrhena pubescens) is poisonous. However, what is described as poisonous in Digo perspective might not be recognised with the same status in scientific botany. Animal names are also used to name plants on bases of use e.g. Mvua pweza [fishing octopus] is so called because sticks of the species (Ochna thomasiana) are used in octopus fishing. The same is true with Mvua koe [fishing ‘koe’ – a kind of crustacean] for the species Pluchea sordida. In some cases the rationale of animal names in the plant naming is not clear. For example in: Mgwanyahi [fall buffalo] for Xylopia parviflora; Mgongolo [Millipede] for Hoslundia opposita]; and Mtsalafu [black ants] for Cassia occidentale]. Gender in plant naming In the Digo understanding, plants are naturally female (cf. Chapter 3), thus unmarked plant names usually refer to the ‘female’ type. Counter part male plants are commonly marked with the affix _mlume [male], and only in few instances are the females are also marked (_mchetu). The only male plant that is known to occur naturally is the male papaya, otherwise ‘male’ is a product of malformation or old age, i.e., when a plant does not or no longer produce fruits. Male – female designations in plants are also made on the bases of the size of the parts. Large plant parts are considered as masculine, hence found in ‘male’ plants; while small parts are considered vulnerable and feminine, hence found in ‘female’ plants. However, as for flower and fruit the larger size of these is feminine and the smaller size is masculine. Examples of the above designations are notable in: Mgweni mcehtu [female mgweni] and Mgweni mlume [male mgweni] are differentiated by the ‘male’ (Uvaria lucida) having broader leaves compared to the ‘female’ (Uvaria acuminate) (Beentje 1994). But Kongwe chetu [female kongwe - Commelina bracteosa] has large, deep blue flowers compared to Kongwe lume [male kongwe - C. forskaolii] which has smaller and less colourful flowers. On the same note Ndago chetu [Cyperus spp.] has an inflorescence with relatively longer spikelets compared to Ndago lume [Mariscus spp.]. In the name Mkambavitu [Flueggea virosa], vitu [things] refers 78 to the fruits in this species, which are white and more visible compared the male counterpart Mkpwambalungo [Phyllanthus reticulatus]. Mgweni mlume [Male mgweni - Monanthotaxis fornicata] is also known as Mgweni madevu [hairy Mgweni], meaning ‘hairy’ state in plants is also considered as a male feature. The spikes of Cenchrus mitis are sharper compared to Pupalia lappacea, hence the labels Jirimata lume [Cenchrus mitis] and Jirimata chetu [Pupalia lappacea], which means ‘sharp and dangerous’ features in plants are male related, while ‘gentle and harmless’ are female related. Size aspects in plant naming There are only two size categories, kulu [large] and ndide [small], and these are applied to plant naming on the basis of the size of their parts, particularly the leaves. Thus Mngweni mdide [Uvaria acuminata] is in reference to its small leaves compared to Mgweni mkulu [U. lucida]. The same applies to Mbavubavu mdide [Premna resinosa] and Mbavubavu mkulu [Grewia forbesii]. A slightly different label is Mriga yeri [Dioscorea sp.], which is assumed to refer to a small type of the unmarked Mriga [Dioscorea dumetorum], but this remains to be confirmed. Colour reference in plant naming Mainly only the basic colour terms (Berlin and Kay 1969), _iru [black], _ereru [white] and kundu [red], are used in the plant names and general plant description (cf. Chapter 3). However, Mdhahabu [Golden] is also a colour term used in plant naming, referring to the ‘golden yellow’ stem of the species (Maclura africana). The focus on colour for plant naming is mostly the bark and occasionally the colour of flowers for wild species. Thus Mlala mwiru [Diospyros kebuyana] and Mlala mwereru [Monodora grandidiera] are differentiated on the basis of the colour of their stems, as black and white respectively. Mkongolo wa kundu [Combretum paniculatum] is considered as the ‘red’ type of the unmarked Mkongolo [C. schumannii], but the focus here is on the flowers, which are ‘deep red’ in C. paniculatum (Beentje 1994). However, for crop plants the naming focuses mainly on the colour of fruits e.g. Mnazi mwiru [black coconut tree], Mnazi wa kundu [red coconut tree] and Mnazi wa chisamli [Yellow coconut tree], are all labeled and differentiated on the basis of the colour of their fruits. 79 Smell features in plant naming Plant names maintain only the old label nųųk (common Bantu) modified to nuka in today Digo, which is unmarked term for smell. Thus Chinuka [Clerodendrum incisum] is named after its ‘strong smell’, but Mnuka lovu [C. glabrum], is named after its ‘unpleasant smell’. C. glabrum is also known as Chinuka cha m’masai [the smell of the Masai], probably associated the historical ‘unpleasant’ relation of the Digo with the Masai. The plant name Mkota wongo [stimulating the brain] also has smell inference, indicating the smell in the species (Grevea eggelinga) leaves which send a strong pungent when crashed and sniffed. Taste features in plant naming Like smell, only the common Bantu term cungu [bitter] modified in today Digo to utsungu (but maintaining the same meaning), is used in the plant naming. Thus the plant names Mtsunga wa utsungu [bitter vegetable] for Launea cornuta, and Chihumbo utsungu [gall bladder] for Phyllanthus amarus, indicate the bitter taste in these plants. Special plant habits in plant naming Plants are also named after some notable habits, particularly those associated with their growth features e.g. the epiphytic plants are collectively labelled as Chiahira [sitting on others], which simulates these plants with a chicken sitting on its eggs (_ahira). Some plants are named after their rigorous growth habit e.g. Mfungasanzu [closing pile] for Garcinia livingstonei due to its blocking growth style; and Mfunganyama [tangles animal] for Schlechterina mitestemmatoides due to its twining. Because of growing tallest in the forest, Xylopia parviflora is known as Mwahula tsaka [breaking the forest canopy]. Utility values in the plant naming In the list of 380 plant names, about 20% of the names are related to utility value, including the cautionary names, i.e. for species to be avoided in utilization. The plant naming on the basis of utility is more common for species important for medicinal and magical value (Pakia & Cooke 2003b), which account for over 50% of the names related to utility in the list (Appendix VI). The plant names connoting medicinal-magical values include names of the diseases, the source of ailments, and the result of cures or treatments. For example the names 80 Mdege [evil eye], Mbavubavu [convulsion affecting rib-cage] and Mdzongodzongo [stomach ailment] are labels related to diseases. Mwanga jine, Mwanga, Punga hewa, Chirehani refer to the spirits that activate the ailments for which the species are used as a cure. Muurusa pungu [scare off Pungu – a ‘spiritual’ bird believed to causes convulsions], the species is used to chase or scare off the source of disease from the victim. Plant naming signalling the medicinal-magical outcome on using the species include: Mtseketse [amuse], Chimwemwe [smile], Chivudza kesi [case terminator], Mvundza kondo [war terminator], Mbundugo [extra strength], Phoza [heal], and Reza [neutralizer]. Other utility values used in plant naming are domestic values, where names indicate the use, the product obtained, or a warning against use. General use labels include Msasa [sand paper], Mbangula mavi [faeces cleaner], Mtsusa tsalu [beads cleaner], and the respective species are used as their names indicate. Plant product naming is found in Mtsonga nyomba [arrow shaft maker], Mtsonga mwiko [cooking stick maker], Msabuni [soap], Mvwiko [floaters], Mutsi [pestle], Msuwaki [toothbrush], and Msusu [bird trap]. For all these, the species in question is used for making the respective domestic item in their names. Plant naming to code a warning (‘do not use this species’) include fixed labels that are commonly associated with prohibition for real or arbitrary unpleasant outcome, e.g. Mzigande, where etymology is unknown but tags it as a poisonous plant. Other ‘poison’ cautionary labels have been mentioned earlier i.e. _koma, _wanyoka, and _olaga (cf. section on habitat and animal references respectively). Warnings other than of poison are given e.g. by Mfumula ndolwa [a home ‘breaker’] because this species leads to quarrels and breaks homesteads6 once used. Mpamapama [nose wounds] causes the nose wounds when used for firewood, and Chiyuyu [peeling] causes itch and peeling of skin on contact. Chitsai [witch], Striga asiatica, tells the farmer that this species prevents a good harvest of his crop, particularly maize. Un-analysable plant names As noted earlier, a considerable percentage (40%) of the plant names in the corpus are unanlysable. Surprisingly the unanalysable plant names include some of the most common and widely known and utilised species, e.g. vegetables (Futswe, Mnavu, Mrenda, and Demu), popular medicines (Golonje, Mchinjiri, Mdungu, Mkone, and Muhumba), species for weaving (Mlala, Chitsapu), popular timber species (Mbambakofi, Mkoko, Mkongolo, Mleha, Mnyendze 6 This is better understood from the Digo perspective where traditionally a large family comprising of grandparents, parents and grand-children form several small families that live together in the same compound, and if they separate, usually due to misunderstanding, the homestead is described as ‘broken’. 81 and Mrihi), and edible fruit species (Mbokwe, Mbungo, Mbalazi, Mfudu and Mkpwakpwa). Considering the high proportion of these plant names, the commonality and utility values, to assume that all these are loan names from other languages would be unrealistic. Further, about half of the unanalysable plant names, the Digo share with other Midzichenda (Giriama and Duruma) and Swahili (Appendix VI), which is supportive of the argument that these names are inherited labels. More discussion on inherited plant names is presented in section 5.4.4 of this chapter. In Table 5.4 a summary of the references made in the corpus of 380 plant names (Appendix VI) is given. Table 5.4: Summary of references in Digo plant names (n=380). (Reference cases are presented in the same order as presented in Appendix VI) REFERENCE CASE OCCURRENCE (%) Habitat 8 Animal 9 Male-Female (Gender) 5 Colour 1 Size 2 Taste or aroma 2 Growth habit 12 Utility 17 Unanalysable 44 5.4 COMPARATIVE VIEW ON DIGO PLANT NAMES 5.4.1 Plant synonyms in Digo Amongst the Digo some plant names are relatively ‘common’ but others are strictly ‘professional’. Although most local professional groups identify few plant species with names not common to the rest of the community, the Digo healers are particularly the most secretive in their plant naming, thus medicinal plants commonly have two names, the ordinary name and the professional one. For example: Mkulukazingwa [the great is never disobeyed], is the commonly known Muuyu [Adansonia digitata]; Mtengedzi [meaning unknown] for what is commonly termed as Mdzongodzongo [Catunaregam nilotica]; Mnyinyi [shiny leaves] is commonly known as Mchizatsaka [Xylopia parviflora]. Mtere [meaning unknown] is to the ordinary Mburuga [Caesalpinia bonduc], and Mpingwa [opposer] is the common Mchinjiri [Dichrostachys cinerea]. Instead of Pamba mwitu [Gossypioides kirkii], the healer use the 82 name Mngagamwe [meaning unknown]. The list is certainly longer but the healers are usually hesitant to divulge much of their professional secrets. Among the Digo speakers, there are notable differences in some plant names due to dialectical differences in phonology in the Southern and the Northern Digo (cf. Chapter 3), particularly resulting from an interchange of ‘l’ and ‘r’ that leads differing pronunciations for plant species such as: Mtserere (North) and Mtselele (South); Nchivuri (N) and Nchivuli (S); Chinyakore (N) and Chinyakole (S) etc. In addition, there are major variations in the names of some species between the local populations. These include: Maize (Zea mays) - Matsere (N) and Mapemba (S); Banana plant (Musa spp.) - Mgomba (N) and Mkoo (S). Devil’s weed (Lantana camara) - Mjasasa (N) and Mtsambala (S). Mkilua fragrans - Chiluwa (N) and Chingade (S). Although some plant synonyms are shared among all Digo e.g. Mshomoro [Lantana camara]; Mdizi [banana plant]; Mbibo/ Mkorosho [cashew tree] and Mlimau/ Mkapu [lemon tree], there were no immediate explanations for the lexical variations between the Southern and Northern Digo, but contacts and influence from different communities (Tanzanian in the South, and Swahili and other Midzichenda in the North) can not be ruled out. What clearly emerges here is a linguistic variation within the Digo, which call for an investigation into historical and current relationship between Midzichenda languages (Rottland & Gosserhode 2004). 5.4.2 Innovations of plant names by the Digo Since languages are impervious, lexical borrowing are common from cross-linguistic influence (Winfred 2003), and the Digo are no exception, but it seems innovations in plant lexicon are preferred to loan labels. Wild plant species are always dubbed as ‘kama _’ [looks like _], hence a name is innovated from existing lexicon for a ‘newly’ discovered plant. In recent history plants which have been introduced have been given vernacular names such as Mwarubaini [neem], Msukukuu [Delonix regia] and Mkayamba [Cassia sp.]. The naming Mwarubaini is based on the belief that the species cures forty (arubaini) diseases. Mkayamba refers to pods produced by the species that resemble the kayamba (a rattle musical instrument). And Msukukuu has the notion of the species flowering on sikukuu (holy days). Other innovations refer to the useful substance in the species, e.g. Rangi [colour] for Bixa orellana, Utsungu [bitter or poison] for Acokanthera schimperi], and Mpira [rubber] for 83 Landolphia kirkii. These labels are Digo words with specific meanings, but have had their meanings expanded into the plant world as to be used as plant labels. In agriculture, innovations for hybrids and cultivars have been through labelling the new entries as _rachizungu [English type] or _rachigirikacha [modern agriculture type]. Consequently the old or local type is re-named as _rachidigo [Digo type]. This naming criterion is common for fruit crop plants such as mangos, oranges, pineapples, and guavas, e.g. Pera rachidigo [small fruiting and common guava cultivar], and Pera rachizungu [a larger fruiting, relatively new guava cultivar]. 5.4.3 Loan plant names in Digo New plant species, wild or cultivated, that are introduced to the Digo and do not have a close resembling counterpart, have been adopted with their ‘new’ names. Thus there are ordinary loans for some plant names (Table 5.5), which will most likely be naturalised after some time. Table 5.5: Examples of Loaned plant names in Digo Digo name Botanical name Donor language Original name Kabichi Brassica oleracea var. capitata English Cabbage Mtiki Tectona grandis English Teak Mvinde Casuarina equisetifolia Swahili Mvinje Mkasuarina Casuarina equisitifolia English Casuarina Epoli Mangifera indica (variety) English Apple Bikisa Bixa orellana English Bixa Karuti Daucus carota English Carrot Mjhafari Zanthoxylum Swahili Mjafari Mwasimini Jasminum Swahili Muasumini 5.4.4 Inherited plant names in Digo Plant names that are in agreement between the major Midzichenda groups (Digo, Duruma, and Giriama) and the Swahili, are interpreted as inherited from common Bantu or protoSabaki. In the corpus of 380 plant names, the Digo share 40% with at least one of the above named groups. And about half the Digo plant names of unknown origin or meanings are also shared, which qualify to be considered as inherited names whose meanings have been lost with time. However, the Midzichenda and the Swahili form a dialect continuum that has led to closeness and mutual intelligibility between languages that allows for easy transfer, so that 84 contact phenomena are not always clearly distinguishable from genetic heritage. Thus while the assumption that these are inherited plant names is favoured in this thesis, more studies are needed to establish this conclusion. Out of the three ethnic groups the Digo shared about onethird of the names with the Durum, one-fourth with the Swahili and one-fifth with the Giriama. However, these numbers should be understood as estimates, because there was no enough reference material for a thorough compilation. 5.4.5 Digo plant names shared with science and the West Three Digo plant names have a coincidence agreement with scientific or western lexicon for the same species. These are: Chilua, Mlangilangi and Chitsai. The scientific name Mkilua fragrans derives its origin from its Digo name, Chilua, which is endemic to the Kenya Coast (Beentje 1994). The English vernacular name Ylang-ylang for Cananga odorata, was adopted in Digo as Mlangilangi, after it was introduced for cultivation and then it went wild at the Kenya Coast (Beentje 1994). Chitsai [witch] for Striga asiatica has a more interesting coincidence. This species is known as ‘witch weed’ in English, Teufelszwirn in Germany [devil] and Strega [witch] by Italians. The Swahili name for Striga is Kichawi [witch] (Heine & Legère 1995), and the Latin designation, Striga, refers to a wild female human being with magical powers (Rottland & Grosserhode 2004). This is a special case different from Chilua and Mlangilangi as the sharing is in the meaning but not the name as such. All the languages concur with the ‘witch-hood’ of the species. The coincidence of ‘witch connection’ for Striga, and its linking of Africa with Europe is a subject of curiosity, because the coincidence is evidently not resulting from cultural contact or influence. 5.5 CONCLUSION The above discussion is a testimony on the rich and varied plant names in Digo. The names range from simple words to complex phrases, and from old labels to relatively new labels. And the variation is also noticeable in the semantics of the names. A close scrutiny of the Digo plant names leads to several conclusion, all indicative of the intimate relation between the Digo and their plant world, both in language and practice. The Digo plant names summarise the perceptions of the Digo on their plant world, thus giving a quick indication of basic knowledge on the subject. These include the understanding of plants not in isolation but as part of a related system (ecosystem), forming an association with 85 other environmental components e.g. habitats, animals, and even super-natural beings (i.e. spirits), which are in one way or another expressed in the plant names. To expression such understanding, the Digo show that they have been, and continue to be, observant of what unfolds in their environment. The aspects selected and related verbally to the plant lexicon, e.g. animal names, reflect their importance in the life and culture of the Digo. For example, plant names labelled as indicators of the residence of hyena [Mkala fisi] is indicative of the importance to understand where this animal stays, so as to avoid the area, particularly for herdsmen, unaccompanied women and children. The observational character is also indicated in the understanding that plants are useful, but there are some that are harmful (poisonous or spiritually evil) and should be avoided. The uses and the warning to avoid using are all expressed in the plant names. In the expression of use values in plant names, the Digo virtually indicate their main socioeconomic activities in the plant names. These include farming, where Chitsai [Striga asiatica] is related to maize production, and Mvundza jembe [Allophylus rubifolius] is cautionary to the farmer on the damage the stumps of this species could do his hand hoe (Appendix VI). While in fishing Mvua pweza [Ochna thomasiana] and Mvua koe [Pluchea sordida] are both related to fishing activities. The Digo also practice wild mammal hunting, and this is indicated in the name Muoza nyama [Turraea floribunda] which promises the hunter that using this species for traps guarantees finding his catch. As much as the Digo plant names express their understanding of nature and their socioeconomic activities, the names also give a summarized impression of their hidden cultural fair, such as their beliefs. The presence of considerable plant names that have a reference to spirits and spiritual powers e.g. Mwanga, Mwanga jine, Punga hewa, Muurusa pungu etc (cf. Appendix VI), is evidence that the life of the Digo revolves prominently around the belief of super-natural beings, with substantial indulgence in magico-medicine. Digo plant names also indicate that the Digo plant knowledge is active. While old labels are maintained (sometimes modified), new labels are also included, either through innovations or loan from other languages. This suggests that the knowledge is adjustable to new demands in the society, a factor that is necessary as new priorities are continuously found with time. However, a unique and one of the important observations in Digo plant naming is that there are guiding principles. Both old labels and recent innovated plant names adhere to this guidance. The fact that some plant names are centuries old, going by linguistic historical 86 evidence, yet in the innovations the unwritten traditional guiding principles in plant naming continue to be followed today, is a surprise revelation. However, despite these interesting observations derived from the analysable plant names, the presence of a considerable unanalysable plant names calls for further investigation in the subject. 87 CHAPTER SIX DIGO PLANT CLASSIFICATION AND ASSOCIATIONS 6.1 INTRODUCTION After having presented the Digo plant lexicon and identification in the previous Chapters, it is appropriate at this point to examine how the Digo order their plant world, i.e. how they classify their plant diversity and typify their vegetation. In writing this Chapter on plant categories, the author used scientific botany and linguistic aspects as guide lines to interpret and present the findings. The Chapter starts with some theoretical aspects and gives an overview of the relevant literature on folk taxonomy, followed by a comprehensive description of Digo folk taxonomy. Finally, the issue of non-classificatory plant groupings in Digo plant knowledge is discussed. 6.2 THEORETICAL ASPECTS AND LITERATURE ON FOLK TAXONOMY All human societies respond to the diversity of plants and animals in their areas by grouping them into categories of greater or lesser inclusiveness (Brown 1984). In previous studies, ethnographers (Berlin 1992, Berlin et al. 1973, 1974) reported universal tendencies in folk taxonomies, which apparently show considerable cross-language uniformity. The core of Berlin’s proposal of ‘general principles of classification and nomenclature’ in folk biology is the concept of ethnobiological ranks, or what Krifka (2001) refers to as nodes, estimated to range between 5 – 6 ranks. Following the introduction of the ‘general principles of classification’ of folk taxonomies and its descriptive framework, most subsequent studies on the subject have presented more or less similar results, adopting Berlin’s schematic relationship of ethnobiological ranking and hierarchical levels, termed as ‘the idealized folk taxonomy’ (Fig. 6.1). However, since different speakers may entertain different taxonomic features (Krifka 2001), the subsequent studies have indicated differences in the number of ethnobiological ranks but always maintained above five. There are different theoretical postulations that have been made to explain the category recognition by the pre-literate communities. 88 Fig. 6.1: Schematic relation of ethnobotanical ranks in Berlins’s idealized folk taxonomy Unique Beginner UB Life form Lf Folk generics Fg Folk species Fs Varieties V Lf Fg Fg Lf Fg Fg Fs V V Fg Fs V Utilitarians such as Malinowski (1974) argue that pre-literate people think through their stomach, i.e. they discriminate the natural world into useful or useless plants (and animals), primarily on the bases of edibility. In the ‘utilitarian view’, folk taxonomic systems are influenced by goals, theories, and belief systems, and are cultural-dependent constructions (Hunn 1982; Ellen 1993).The alternative is the ‘intellectualist view’, where structures of kinds in nature are considered to consist of ‘clusters’ that are more or less imposed on the minds, leading to correspondence between cultures in the category recognition (Atran 1990; Berlin 1992). Atran, however, interprets agreement between cultures in terms of ‘universal properties of mind’ rather than the structure of nature alone. Structuralists such as Levi-Strauss (1966) concur with empirists like Berlin and his associates (1974), in explaining the outlook of pre-literate people towards the natural world as being ‘primarily intellectual’. However, structuralists and empirists differ in philosophical perspectives, as the two advocate different kinds of intellectual mode. For Levi-Strauss, the pre-literate people are concerned with a mode of thinking that unifies through symbolic logic of diverse aspects in their culture; for Berlin and associates the preliterate are concerned with ordering the world through a criterion based on morphology and structure. Between the ‘utilitarian’ and the ‘intellectualist’ there is an intermediate position (Medin & Atran 1999), arguing that the two views are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and their relative 89 influence may depend on factors such as rank in the hierarchy (Bulmer 1970). Thus pragmatists like Morris (1984), do not entirely agree with Malinowski, but emphasise that pragmatic concerns are highly relevant in interpreting the nature and structure of folk classifications, echoing some of Bulmer’s (1974) early misgivings to ethnologists. Presented in Berlin’s systematic classification structure, most folk taxonomies have been depicted as relatively comprehensive, with five or more ethnobiological ranks. According to Berlin the ranks are: unique beginner, plant life-forms, folk generics, folk species, and varietal level (Fig. 6.1). A classification of animals and plants with this number of levels, and flawless in their systematic relationships may be conceivable in advanced societies. Previously, several authors raised questions concerning the applicability of some aspects of Berlin’s framework (Brown 1984). These include Bulmer (1974) who argued that Berlin’s generalizations are premature, since they are based on only a small number of well described native systems of plant and animal classification. Brown (1984) disqualified Bulmer’s objection, and quoting Hays (1977) explained that, accumulating cross-language evidence for the most part has borne out the core of Berlin’s proposals if not all. Putting aside other reservations on Berlin’s framework, Bulmer’s argument is the one of interest in this study. The ‘extensive, comprehensive and well described’ classification system forming an ‘idealized folk taxonomy’ (Berlin et al. 1974, pp 26) was not observed by Kakudidi (2004) who studied folk taxonomy of Batoro and Bakinga, in Uganda. Although Kakudidi assumed that his observation of a less comprehensive folk taxonomy could have been due to none exhaustive data, the observations made in the present study suggest that this framework corresponds to facts, at least for the small-scale subsistence cultures in question. Heine & Heine (1988), studying the plant knowledge of the Chamus in upcountry Kenya documented a relatively comprehensive folk taxonomy (for a small scale subsistence culture), however, their introduction of ‘new’ ranks – sub-life form and super generic, may attract reservations. Notably, investigators reporting ‘comprehensive’ folk taxonomies are Europeans, and probably their scientific background had sub-conscious influence in favour of elaborate classificatory view. Kakudidi and the author of the current study are indigenous to the respective study groups, and their observations agree with Bulmer’s (1974) criticism. The results of the current study are based on field work, as well on personal experience and understanding of the language and the community. Technically, these are complemented by the botanical training, and acquaintance with linguistic and anthropological aspects. While plant science is used as a reference to organise the results and develop interpretations and conclusions, it is still the Digo folk concepts that are discussed and maintained in their untainted form. 90 6.3 TERMS AND THEIR MEANINGS IN FOLK TAXONOMY In ‘folk biology’, semantic issues raise confusion which results from disregard of the fact that some ‘words’ used as labels for classificatory categories are terms with fixed meanings in scientific botany, and might be different in meaning from the same words in everyday’s English (Goddard 1998). Although linguistic and scientific expressions do not necessarily have to carry the same meanings, in a subject like ethnobotany – where biology and linguistic are key subject areas, it is necessary that terminological variations are minimised. In that respect, terms of specific concern are ‘genus’ and ‘species’, which have been and continue to be commonly used as ethnobiological ranks in folk taxonomies, probably after having been introduced by Berlin et al. (1973, 1974). In the folk taxonomy perspective, these terms have different contexts from those in scientific botany. ‘Folk genera’ are considered as ‘the most stable and basic level of categories’ (Goddard 1998) and thus are ‘the basic building blocks of all folk taxonomies’ (Berlin et al. 1974). Since these descriptions coincide with scientific species, ‘folk generics’ should be viewed as equivalent to the scientific ‘species’ (Berlin 1992) from a folk perspective. However, the use of ‘folk genera’ to refer (equivalently) to scientific ‘species’ rather complicates a conception from the biological view; bearing in mind that these terms were borrowed from biology. Berlin’s basis for using ‘folk genera’ is not clear, but it seems that there is no standard guide in the application of terms in folk taxonomy as there have been several attempts to modify the terms e.g. ‘folk species’ by Bulmer (1970) and ‘generic species’ by Atran (1998). Although Atran meaningfully defends his ‘new’ terminology that ‘distinction between genus and species’ is not pertinent to local communities, that ‘distinction between genus and species is relatively new’, and that ‘the term ‘generic species’ reflects dual character’, he still maintains the category ‘folk species’ below his ‘generic species’ category. It is not clear how Atran’s ‘generic species’ and ‘folk species’ categories partition. And even more problematic is the sub-division of the ‘folk species’ (which supposedly is equivalent to sub-species or cultivar levels) into ‘folk varieties’; and this is in folk taxonomies, which are relatively less detailed. In an effort to harmonise the above confusion, in this thesis the unmarked terms ‘genera’ and ‘species’ refer exclusively to their scientific meanings. ‘Folk generics’ and ‘folk species’ refer to their equivalent hierarchical ranks i.e. genera and species respectively, but from a folk taxonomical perspective. In principle, the category ‘folk genera’ in this thesis is equivalent to the ‘intermediate categories’ described by Berlin et al. (1973, 1974), whilst ‘folk species’ here refers to Berlin’s ‘folk genera’ and Atran’s ‘generic species’. It is not clear what the ‘varietal’ rank in this thesis would represent between Berlin’s ‘folk species’ and ‘varietal’, as both are sub- 91 categories of the ‘basic units’ (i.e. sub-species or cultivars). But ‘varietal’ rank in this thesis is on the level of scientific sub-species or cultivars. There is no evidence, at least from the Digo perspective, that the folk classifications have sub-divisions below the equivalent of scientific sub-species or cultivars, which apparently correspond with Berlin’s ‘varietal’. Heine & Heine’s (1988) sub-life-forms are more ‘collective terms’ of convenience that are not strictly classificatory, and some of their labels in this category are actually labels of plant parts e.g. miya [thorns], maziya [latex], maruwa [flowers] (cf. Chapter 3). While Atran (1990) rejects nonmorphologically based categories in the classification, Morris (1984) suggests that terms indicating utility e.g. salt, poison, medicine, food etc. are justified classificatory categories and ‘such taxonomies are conceptually not isolate’ (Morris 1984: pp 48). What Morris did not consider is that these groupings do not fit into a hierarchical framework because the bases of groupings differ from that of life-forms, and membership cuts across different life-forms. Thus, although the pragmatic dimension is recognised in this study, utility groupings are viewed as ‘collective terms’ isolated from the life-form hierarchical categories, and hence have been dealt with separately as additional groupings. Brown (1977) rejects unlabelled ethnobiological classes, in this thesis these have been treated as ‘covert categories’ (categories without terms, but are caognately perceived), because evidence shows the Digo have a significant non-verbalised plant knowledge at their disposal (Cf. Chapters 3 and 4), thus cognate taxonomic categories are acceptable, as long as they can be communicated. 6.4 DIGO FOLK TAXONOMY Like in other folk taxonomies, in Digo there is no term equivalent to ‘plant’, i.e. there is no kingdom category, as there is neither label nor a periphrastic expression that refers to the unique beginner. And again similar to the other societies, the concept ‘plant’ is understood. Due to lack of a label and a description for the ‘plant kingdom’, it was difficult to communicate and elaborately discuss this category. Thus, ‘plant’ in this study is treated as only a concept in the Digo plant knowledge and not a taxonomic category. The Digo folk taxonomy has fewer clearly recognised ethnobotanical ranks, only two, and two additional ranks that are restricted to useful wild plants and crop plants (Fig. 6.2). The categories that are undoubtedly recognised and common in Digo folk taxonomy are: life form and folk species; whereas folk generics and folk varietal are rare and only observable among useful wild plants and crop plants. Although none of these ethnobiological ranks are lexicalised, their respective taxa are labelled and described. Using predetermined examples, respondents allocated 92 membership to appropriate taxa in the life-form categories, as well as identifying more member examples for each life form category. This confirmed that the life-form categories were perceived, and logically that classificatory rank is recognised. Through analysis of plant names, folk generics, specifics and varietals were notable. However, it is worthy of mentioning here that plant name analysis is tricky and can easily misleading investigators, because some plant names appear to be related but the respective plants are not associates in the classification. On the other hand not all classificatory relationships are obvious in the plant names. Examples of such obscure cases are: Mnazi [coconut], Mnazi wa nyoka [snake’s coconut tree] and Mnazi wa tsozi [sun bird’s coconut tree], although these labels share the label ‘mnazi’, they are not related in the classification. While Mutsu [Avicennia marina], Mdzago [Bruguiera gymnorrhiza] and Mkoko [Rhizophora mucronata], do not share names but are collectively considered as Mikoko [mangroves]. Further, Mkoko bara [Sideroxylon inerme] in the classification is not in the Mikoko group. To avoid this problem, investigators need to have thorough understanding of the language, and good intuition and comprehension of the semantic relevance in the plant names, i.e. whether classificatory oriented or simulation from a different perspective. Fig. 6.2: Summarised schematic relationships of rank categories in Digo folk classification Life form Lf Lf Lf Folk generic Fg Folk species Fs Fs Fs Fs Fs Fs Fs Fg Fs Fs Varietals V V V V V V Fs 93 6.4.1 Categories of plant life-forms The Digo differentiate three plant life-forms. And as in the other folk taxonomies (Atran 1985, 1990; Berlin et al. 1974,; Berlin 1992; Johnson-Gottesfeld & Hargus 1998) the Digo plant lifeforms are major plant categories, being polytypic (Goddard 1998) i.e. consisting of several different kinds, and are labelled with simple words, which is common feature in folk taxonomies (Johnson-Gottesfeld & Hargus 1998). The three plant life-forms are: mihi [trees and bushes], mbugu [climbers and lianas] and nyasi [grass + herb]. Life-form classes and the terms used for labelling them tend to be added to languages in a more or less set order (Brown 1984, pp. 318). According to this author the life-form and their terms are added in the following order: stage I language has no life-form category, in stage II one life-category viz. ‘tree’ appears; at stage III ‘grerb (‘grass + herb’ or ‘grass’ alone) is added. ‘Vines’ or ‘shrub’ appear at stage IV. Based on that order, Digo with three life-form labels is a stage IV language. Based on the descriptions given by respondents, the Digo life-forms are differentiated on the basis of their morphology, in particular the woody condition of the stem and the height of the plant. However, based on the description of each life-form, some plants could not be classified to any of the above three recognised plant life-forms above, and these were put in a separate ‘group’ that has been labelled as ‘unaffiliated’ (Berlin et al. 1973, Berlin 1992). A fourth life-form, uoga [mushroom], will be considered as a provisional category which, however, is still very vague. Mushrooms are obviously not really understood as plants like in other folk taxonomies (Johnson 1999), and as it is in science, i.e. the kingdom of fungi. In the following sections, the life-forms are commented upon. Mihi The life-form mihi comprise of tall plants with woody stems, and the size of which varies from the height of a person (5 ft) to a forest canopy height (>20 ft). This plant life-form encompasses uni-stemmed as well as multi-stemmed ‘trees’ which might also be addressed as big shrubs. Because of the woody nature of their stems all palms are included in this life-form. Sisal (Agave sisalana) is included in this life-form only after producing its inflorescence (which is used for building). Aloe spp. are considered as mihi after producing observable stems with a terminal leaf rosette. Of all the plant life-forms, mihi, are the most important timber sources (Pakia & Cooke 2003a) for: furniture, house construction, household equipments, firewood, and simultaneously may produce edible fruits. Plants that are potential members of this life-form but are smaller (between 1–2m height) i.e. young trees and shrubs, are labelled with diminutive equivalents - 94 chidzihi (singl.) or vidzihi (pl.). However, this is only at a stage when the nature of the species is already recognisable and has started to produce a woody stem. Mbugu Mbugu are lianas and climbers producing twining stems, and scandent shrubs. Their salient character is the ability to climb, but the species must also have a woody stem. Thus ground trailers, twining grasses and herbs e.g. Commelina benghalensis and Cissampelos pareira are not part of this plant life-form. Members of this life-form e.g. Saba comorensis, Ancylobotrys petersiana and Landolphia kirkii, are characterised by flexible but strong wood, and thus are used for crafting, mostly of furniture. It should be noted that tropical lianas may develop a stem with several decimetres in diameter. Nyasi This plant life-form comprises of herbaceous plants, including grasses, sedges, creepers and very small woody plants lower than 1m. The Digo have a special term for sedges - ndago, otherwise most members of this life-form are addressed with the collective term – nyasi. Seedlings of trees and shrubs in the herbaceous layer are also considered as nyasi. Epiphytic orchid plants (Anselia africana and Angraecum dives), non-woody trailing plants (Plicosepalus parviflorus, Commelina benghalensis, Cissampelos pareira) and ground-creepers (Oxygonum sp. Plectranthus flaccidus and Asystasia gangetica) are also nyasi. Although Hyparrhenia spp. grows above 2m high, its delicate herbaceous stem and its general grass-like features qualify it for the nyasi life-form. In a very general sense nyasi may contain connotations of uselessness, except for being fodder. However, specific member species in nyasi have ethnobotanical uses (Pakia & Cooke 2003a) e.g. vegetables (Asystesia gangetica, Launea cornuta, and Talinum caffrum), house building (Cyperus exaltatus, Hyperrhenia sp. and Heteropogon contortus) and making music instrument (kayamba – from Hyparrhenia sp.). On the perception that nyasi are useless herbaceous plants, herbaceous crops are re-labelled as mimea, most likely a loan term from Swahili. Unaffiliated This is a group of plants that are individually labelled, but do not fit into any of the three plant life-forms discussed above. These include: maize, banana, sisal (before producing the inflorescence), Aloe (ground sitting rosette), sugarcane, cacti, Euphorbia (before producing a stem), and the cassava plant. The non-categorization of these plants was based on their semiwoody stems yet relatively tall features, which Berlin et al. (1974) referred to as ‘aberrants’. 95 These plants have been put in a ‘group’ that is labelled as ‘unaffiliated’ (Berlin et al. 1973, 1974) to fit them in the hierarchy, otherwise they form single member categories as from life-form level. The fact that these are mainly useful plants and they are individually labelled, suggest that probably their identity by their names replaces categorization. Uoga The life-form uoga (vyoga pl.) comprises mushrooms, particularly referring to fleshy fruiting bodies. There are two distinguished kinds of uoga: unmarked uoga - which refers to the edible mushroom, and uoga-koma - which refers to non-edible or poisonous mushrooms. Despite the abundance of fungal species in the area, and their conspicuous salience in the rainy season, only species which are known to be edible are identified with specific names. All the other species are grossed as vyoga-koma [wild/poisonous mushrooms]. Other fungal fruiting bodies e.g. of Gonoderma spp. which grow on tree trunks, puff balls, and earth stars were not considered as typical uoga, and were not put in any other category. On the other hand, mosses are differentiated from plants by the term koga, algae as likosi, and lichens are not labelled at all. All these are neither related to plants nor to mushrooms, and have only their respective collective terms without subordinate categories. 6.4.2 Folk generics Some Digo plant names appear in a sequence such that further categorization is recognisable. Thus through analysis of ‘basic’ Digo plant names, it is established that the ranking levels folk generics is found in few labels. Digo folk genus is considered to be a group of plants that share their first label (genus name), and each is then differentiated with an additional affix (epithetic name), and the referred taxa are not sub-species or cultivars of the same species in the scientific sense. Based on this analysis, in a list of 390 plant names (Appendix V), folk generics in Digo were noted to be relatively few, representing only 2% of the corpus. In addition, the folk generics are notable among ‘useful’ species, e.g. timber, medicinal and food plants. However, from experience, some plant names do not maintain the genus label in each taxa, but classificatory view the taxa are understood to belong to the same genus category, e.g. the species Mutsu [Avicennia marina], Mdzago [Bruguiera gymnorrhiza] and Mkoko [Rhizophora mucronata], do not share names but are collectively considered as Mikoko [mangroves]. Examples of Digo folk generics are given in Table 6.1 96 Table 6.1: Examples of Digo folk generics, their folk species and scientific species equivalents. Digo genus label Digo folk species Scientific equivalent Bondo [Panicum] Bondo kulu Panicum maxima Bondo dide Panicum sp. Ndago kulu Cyperus Ndago ndide Kyllinga Ndago ziya Fimbristylis Ndago munda Mariscus Mtsani ndzovu A. Versicolor Mtsani tsiye A. adianthifolia Ndago [sedges] Mtsani [Albizia] Mngweni [Uvaria & Mgweni madevu Monanthotaxis fornicata Monanthotaxis] Mgweni mkulu or Mgweni mlume Uvaria lucida Mgweni mdide or Mgweni mchetu U. acuminata Mwinika ngulu Asparagus sp. Mwinika ndzovu A. fulcatus Mfudu V. payos Mfudu madzi V. mombassae Mfudu unga V. doniana Mwinika [Asparagus] Mfudu [Vitex] Although some of the Digo ‘folk generics’ fit into scientific genera, there are notable cases where membership varies. For example Mtsani [Albizia] does not include Albizia anthelmintica, which instead is known as Mporojo. On the other hand Mgweni cut across the scientific genera Uvaria and Monanthotaxis. Ndago is estimated to refer to ‘sedges’ as a whole, putting together the scientific genera Cyperus, Fimbristylis, Mariscus and Kyllinga. Commonly, after the life-forms the Digo classification comprises ‘folk species’, and the ‘folk generics’ described above are rare. In fact, it is very clear that the Digo do not think of hierarchical categorization below life-forms and above folk species, they are more focused on the basic ‘species’ level. Cases where closely resembling ‘useful’ species are differentiated are few. In true consideration therefore, the ‘folk generic’ level does not form a clearly recognised category in the Digo folk classification. 97 6.4.3 Folk species The ‘folk species’ rank is the most stable level of categorization, and folk species are the basic categories in the Digo folk taxonomy. Folk species are the first possible terminal category, and form the majority of the labelled constituents in the classification. Although some folk species correspond one-by-one with scientific species, other folk species amass more than one scientific species in a label e.g. Mbavubavu [Grewia holstii and G. ectasicarpa] or Mvundzakondo [Allophylus rubifolius and Allophylus pervilei]. In some cases the coalesced species are of different genera e.g. Mvundzajembe [Allophylus rubifolius, Allophylus pervilei, Alchornia laxiflora, Acalypha neptunica and Mallotus oppositifolius]. Or even different plant families as in chikombe-tsui [Acacia adenocalyx and Capparis viminea]. Epiphytes are collectively known as Chiahira. Although variations between member species are observable and conceived, the individual species are not distinguished with specific names, and are generally considered as ‘one’. Some member species that are coalesced in one folk species, are used indiscriminately for given values, particularly medicinal uses, but others are not. Probably the interesting questions are why are scientific species coalesced into one ‘folk species’? And why some coalesced species share use values others do not? Species coalescing usually revolve between utility and morphology of the respective species. In the above examples – Mvundza jembe has utility connotations (species used spiritually in bringing peace) and any member species is eligible to the use. The same is true with Mbavubavu (species used to treat rib-cage ailments, particularly convulsions). However, Chikombe tsui [Leopard’s claws] has structural connotations, referring to the presence of pricks in the species. Thus plants sharing structural features of parts can also be coalesced into one folk species. However, species coalesced on structural bases do not share utility application as in the previous example. 6.4.4 Variant Categories In Digo folk taxonomy variants are the lowest possible terminal categories. Variants are rare, and exceptionally recorded among crop plants of major cultural importance. Berlin et al. (1974) also documented variants only among important cultivars of the Tzeltal community. In the Digo lexicon crop variants are not a new phenomenon as some of them have been known for centuries. Newly introduced varieties (hybrids or cultivars) have been coined to distinguish their ‘new’ status using the expression ‘_ra-chizungu’ [European type] e.g. pera ra chizungu [European guava]. In such situation respective ‘old’ counterpart variants are relabeled as ‘_ra-chidigo’ [Digo type] e.g. pera ra chidigo [Digo guava]. Since variants are 98 labelled by adding a modifier affix e.g. the _ra-chizungu or _ra-chizungu, to a basic category label, such as embe [mango], pera [guava], nanasi [pineapple], variant labels are commonly phrase expressions of a ‘noun and a modifier’ (cf. Chapter 5). However, in day-to-day Digo conversations, the lexicon for some variants may be abbreviated to a ‘simple word’ labels by using only the modifier. For example, instead of embe ra boribo, this is shortened to ‘boribo’. In the following text examples of variants for the crop plants: maize [Zea mays], mango [Mangifera indica], coconut [Cocos nucifera], pepper, simsim [Sesamum orientle], cowpea [Vigna unguiculata] and paw-paw [Papaya carica]) are listed. The highest variants were recorded in mango (18 variants), and least variants were recorded in Paw-paw and Sesame (2 variants each). Most variants for mango were given during discussions without proper descriptions. Thus, in the text their description has been excluded. Readers are also recommended to Appendix VII (Table G.2), where more crop variaties have been presented. Kunde [cowpea] variants: Chifumbatele (has high yields), Koroboi (short type), Zonga (twines extensively) and Chimakoo (grows in an erect position). Papali [paw-paw] variants: Moyo wereru (yellow flesh) and Moyo wa samba (red flesh). Ufuha [sesame] variants: Ufuha mwiru (with black seeds) and Ufuha mwereru (with relatively white seeds) Matsere [Maize] variants: Gachidigo (local variants): Mwatsaka (red), Maricheni (yellow), Chitweka (black), Tsere ra matungo (black, red, white pattern), Mjundo (striped patterns), Mbokomo, Bumubumu (grows quickly) and Chifumba tele (high produce). Others are Gachizungu (hybrids variants): Kosti (very tall) and Katumani (very short). Maembe [mango] variants: Chidigo, Chishikio punda, Dodo, Chimaji, Chisukari, Dzunga, Chikunguma, Ching’ongo, Tovu, Zafarani, Ngoe, Boribo, Batawi, Epoli, Faransa, Kasuku, Dobe and Sapai. Mnazi [coconut] variants: Mnazi-wachisamli (deep yellow fruits), Mnazi-mwiru (dark green fruits) and Mnazi-wakundu (orange coloured fruits). 99 Fig. 6.3 Assorted local maize varieties recognised by the Digo Fig. 6.4: Some of the mango varieties recognised by the Digo, (from right to left) – Ngoe, Boribo, Batawi, and Chimaji. Fig. 6.5: The common coconut varieties recognised by the Digo, Chisamli (left), Mnazi mwiru (middle), and Mnazi wa kundu (right) In Table 6.2, specific examples of the Digo ethnobotanical categories and sub-categories are given for the ranks life-form, folk generics, folk species, and varieties, which show the distribution of varieties in crop plants, and folk generics in selected useful plant taxa. 100 Table 6.2: Examples of Digo ethnobotanical categories and sub-categories in the folk classification Life forms Folk generics Folk species Mihi Mtsani Mtsani tsiye Folk varietals Mtsani ndzovu Mdimu Mdimu Mdimu-tsaka Mnazi Mnazi wa kundu Mnazi mwiru Mnazi wa chisamli Mbugu Mngweni Mngweni mlume Mngweni mchetu Mngweni madevu Nyasi Ndago Ndago munda Ndago ziya Ndago kulu Uoga Nimakoba Nimakoba mwereru Nimakoba wa kundu Nkuvi Nkuvi wa mirihin Nkuvi wa mdani Unaffiliated Matsere Maricheni Chitweka Tsera ra matungo Tsere ra mjundo Ndizi Gojozi Chisukari Chini Manga Chibandameno Chileso Mjiriama Boto Gushe 101 6.4.5 Covert categories (Categories without labels) In addition to the labelled ‘folk generics’ there were other cognitively conceived but nonverbalised categories that fit in that level. These include species identified as ‘close relatives’ ‘(because of similarity appearance) with the coconut tree [Mnazi], listed by respondents as Phoenix reclinata [Uchindu], Raphia farinifera [Mtsikitsi], and Borassus aethiopicus [Mvumo]. However, although each of these species is independently lexicalised, and similarity between them is appreciated, there is no cover term for them. But indications were clear that the category equivalent to ‘palms’ was recognised only not actively lexicalised. Similarly cognate relations were noted for citrus plants and Acacias. These categories are here considered as ‘covert categories’, and have been observed in other folk taxonomies (Berlin et al. 1973, 1974). 6.4.6 Non-hierarchical classificatory plant groupings Apart from the above hierarchical classificatory levels discussed above, the Digo have other plant grouping expressions that are used to associate or classify plants along utility value, e.g. Mihi ya kurya [food plant], mihi ya dawa [medicinal plants], mihi ya sumu [poisonous plants], mihi ya kudzengera [house building plants] and maruwa [ornamentation plants]. Other groupings are based on physical structures or secretions in the plants. For example: Miya [thorns] – refers to prickly plants or ‘thistle’ e.g. Chiombe-tsui [Acacia adenocalyx], Mnyondoya [Flacourtia indica], and Jirimata[Cenchrus mitis]. Although each species has its specific name, the label is a ‘cover’ category for all these, and can include even unknown species with thorny structures. M/Chiziya [milk] – refers to plants producing milk latex (not to be confused with ‘ziya’ [lake] as in Mrinda-ziya [lake protector]). Species in this group include: Mziyaziya [Hunteria zeylanica], Chiziyaziya [Euphorbia hirta], and Nimaziya [mushroom Lacterius sp.]. There are also collective lexicons for plants with specific characters or growth form. These include Mwamdzavi refers to itchy plants (Tragea furialis and Laportea lanceolata), and Mbodzembodze refer to resurrection plants (Biophytum petersianum and Mimosa pudica). Chiahira refers to all epiphytic plants and Mnazi wa tsozi refers to parasitic plants. 102 6.5 ARE DIGO FOLK CATEGORIES RECOGNISED OR CONSTRUCTED This chapter might be incomplete without contributing to the theoretical issues of folk biology related to folk taxonomy. One such basic issue concerns a clarification as to whether the Digo classificatory categories are recognised or constructed. The observations made in this study indicate that the Digo plant category recognition takes an ‘intermediate position’ (Bulmer 1974). While intellectual aspects play significant role in higher level categories (life-forms), either through discontinuity of natural kinds (Berlin 1992) or through higher-order cognitive structure of minds (Atran 1990). At the lower levels of the taxonomic hierarchy (‘folk generics’, ‘folk species’, and varietals), perception is on the bases of subsistence needs. Thus categories above and below the ‘folk species’ i.e. ‘folk generics’ and ‘folk varietal’ are observable only among useful wild plant species and crop plants. 6.6 CONCLUSION The features of Digo folk taxonomy suggest a pattern remotely comparable to the scientific taxonomy, and not as comprehensive as other folk taxonomies reported by Berlin and other ethnographers. The ‘idealized folk taxonomy’ scheme (Berlin et al. 1974, pp 26) is too detailed for the Digo folk taxonomy, which have irregular presence of folk generics and varietals. Although the Digo folk taxonomy starts off with broadly inclusive ranks of life-forms that are differentiated on basis of discontinuity of kinds, which is consistent with Atran’s rationalism theory, recognition of lower ranks is mainly compelled by value, emphasising perspectives of social reality and practical interests. In the lower categories non-used and less use species are not elaborately categorised. The Digo folk taxonomy therefore combines both intellectual and utilitarian aspects, consequently taking an intermediate position (Bulmer 1970). Similar to other folk taxonomies (Atran 1995; Berlin 1992), small sized and perceptually less salient plant forms e.g. moss, lichen, fungi and graminoids are under differentiated. Utility in Digo plant groupings is emphasised in groupings that are strictly value related, which disregard morphological features. Membership in such groups is not exclusive, thus a plant could belong to different groups on the same level. Notable in Digo folk taxonomy is the presence of cognate categories that are not lexicalised, which are potential folk generics – such as palms, acacias and citrus plants, labelled in this study as covert categories. 103 CHAPTER SEVEN MBEYU, A DIGO CONCEPT IN PLANT PROPAGATION 7.1 INTRODUCTION In the previous chapters, the knowledge areas covered (plant lexicon, description, identification and classification), are all based on mainly visual morphological characters of the plant. In this chapter, the author attempts to establish the extent of Digo plant knowledge beyond the lexicon, description and categorization. Thus, the cognitive domain of the Digo relative to plant knowledge is investigated in relation to plant processes. Selected for this investigation is the conception of the Digo on plant processes related to propagation. The chapter is purposeful biased to explanations and understanding from a ‘traditional’ Digo perspective, thus it is mainly the ‘intellectual’ comprehension of the elderly Digo on the subject (whose knowledge does not originate from school), that forms the core of discussion. Respective scientific explanations, as given by pupils and students, and even some farmers who learnt modern concepts from their advisers, have been largely excluded. The plant knowledge areas focused in the discussion, i.e. plant propagation and development, together form a constituent that can be summarised, from a Digo perspective, as mbeyu. The chapter starts with explanations on the meanings of the term mbeyu, and then the Digo interpretations of gender in plants is revisited (gender was briefly discussed in chapter 5). The Digo conception on the developmental process of a selected type of mbeyu (the seed) is discussed, and is followed by a discussion on ‘how the seed develops to another plant’ (seed germination and plant development). 7.2 THE PLANT PART MBEYU The term mbeyu is a synonym for tunda [fruit] (cf. Chapter 3), and it also refers to: seed, propagation material (of all kinds) and breed type. Propagation materials known as mbeyu is inclusive of both sexual and asexual materials, i.e., seeds, vegetative cuttings, suckers of banana plant, seedlings/saplings, and eye buds of potatoes. A fruit containing seeds can also be referred to as mbeyu. Since mbeyu has the connotations of ‘propagation’ for the various plant parts, then it can be considered as a functional label. This means, seeds intended for consumption would not qualify to be mbeyu. Even seeds or other plant part designated for propagation but proved to be in unviable state would be disqualified from being mbeyu. The 104 term mbeyu is actually a cover term for ‘propagation material’, and individual propagates have specific labels, which are: vigoda [vegetative cuttings], mitse [seedlings and saplings], tembe [seeds], mwana [banana sucker], and dzitso [eye bud of potato]. In humans and animals, the term mbeyu is applied to generative elements, particularly those visually observable e.g. eggs of birds [mayayi] or human semen [mbeyu za chilume]. However, it seems as the size of propagates get smaller e.g. pollen grains in flowers and spores in fungi, the conception becomes even more difficult to the Digo. No wonder pollens are referred to as ungaunga [flour] and their function is largely unknown, while spores are neither labelled nor recognised at all. 7.3 GENDER IN PLANTS Although the Digo understand and correctly point to some papaya trees as male, the gender connotations here are not similar to those perceived in humans and other animals, and not similar to science either. Although it is known that in humans and in other animals, male and female contribute towards the formation of a progeny, in plant reproduction ‘male’ is not considered functionally important. Thus the female papaya is understood to produce without any contribution from the male counter part. In fact Digo farmers cut down male papaya, whose only importance was given as the roots being of medicinal interest. In plants, malefemale definitions are simple based on fruit production; ‘female’ produces fruits and ‘male’ does not. This description of male-female is applied to dioecious plants (as is the case with the papaya plants) as well as to bisexual plants. In bisexual plants, ‘female’ status changes to ‘male’ status once the plant stops producing as through age or infection (cf. Chapter 5). Here the implication is that a male status is just like a stage of development, and because individuals progress from one stage to the other, so can they change from male to female and vice versa. Since plants are generally considered female (cf. Chapter 3 & 5), linguistic phrases applicable to developmental stages of female humans are also applied to respective stages in plants. These include: msichana [girl] - the stage just before the first fruit producing period; inamimba [is pregnant] - the time when the plant has unopened flower buds; and inavyala [is giving birth] - refers to the plant at the time when it is producing flowers and fruits. The stages msichana and inavyala were synonymously accepted by respondents, but the application of the term inamimba in plant life situation was disqualified by some respondents, 105 who argued that the basis of pregnancy are strictly related to sexual intercourse, which plants ‘do not indulge in’. However, there is a common Digo metaphor ‘.. nyasi zina mimba …’ [… grasses are pregnant …], which means ‘you never know who is hiding what (identity)’, that strongly gives testimony of mimba as an acceptable description in plants. 7.4 THE DEVELOPMENT OF MBEYU [SEED] Although there are different types of mbeyu, the development of only one of these is discussed here. The mbeyu selected for discussion is the tembe [seed]. As a mbeyu, the seed is understood as the initial stage of a new plant, and the flower is generally known to be the reproductive part of the plant, from which the seeds are produced. But unlike scientific botany, the Digo have no perception of sexual process (involvement of the male and female gametes) in seed development. Therefore, the presence of male and female gametes in flowers is generally unknown, as indicated by the consideration of punga [male inflorescence of maize plant] as indicator of the vigour and maturity of the cob, but not related to the maize reproduction process (cf. Chapter 3). Also njiyo [stigma], like punga, is only an indicator of the maturity of the cob. One farmer (out of the 40) mentioned of madzi [fluid] flowing from the punga through the maize stem to the chowa [young female inflorescence in maize plant], and two healers (out of 13) believed that plants have sexual relationships via their roots. Although not exactly conforming with scientific understanding, these were the only explanations that underscored participation of ‘male’ and ‘female’. However, even with their ‘modern’ knowledge the farmer and the two healers could not further explain the male and female identities of the involved plants or plant parts. These explanations were rather unique, reflecting individual arguments and borrowed analogy from human/animal life situation. But on the whole, the common Digo knowledge is that sexual process does not occur in flowers, instead the embryo (visible as a miniature fruit in some flowers) ‘grows’ by enlarging into the clearly recognisable fruit or seed. But even the processes involved in growth (development of plant matter) for the seed/fruit and the rest of plant parts were unknown, and there was no indication of ‘desire to know’. Although insects and birds are known to visits flowers frequently, the role of the birds and insects was interpreted differently among the Digo, and overall their interpretations were different from the scientific one i.e. insects and birds are pollinators. The role of other potential pollinators (water and wind) was also not recognised. The colourful and conspicuous state of flowers is understood as marembo [beauty], a feature associated with the female 106 gender (and plants are female), contrast to scientific view, has nothing to do with the birds and insects (pollinators) visiting the flower. The explanations of insect-flower relationship were not consistent, and seemed to be personal opinions. From a general view, the explanations are based on benefit or loss between the plant and the insect, as summarised in the following. Insect protecting the flower - The insect (here specific reference was made to the bee) was described as playing a protective role for the flower against any potential pests, such as caterpillars. In this relation the bee does not profit, because it undertakes the security responsibility on a voluntary basis’. This understanding is likely to be the most shared conception, as its acceptability is traceable in a Digo saying and song ‘…. nakala buo narinda maruwa …’ [I became a bee protecting the flower; buo is a type of bee], referring to confession of indulging in an unpaid job. Insect as a ‘mechanic’ - Other respondents described the ‘insects’ (all pollinating insects and birds) as ‘mechanic’ operators removing a certain obstruction in the flower which otherwise inhibits fruit formation and seed development. The ‘obstruction’ was described as madzi [fluid] with inhibitory effects, which the insect sucks to pave the way for fruiting. Probably, madzi here refers to the nectar which the pollinators collect from the flower. Insect as the male counterpart - Since the plants are understood as female beings, and male plants are said to play no role in propagation, the insect (in that respect birds are ignored) is assumed to be the male counter-part of all flowers. The insect is said to ‘mate’ with the flowers upon visiting them. The exact term used in reference to the mating is tsota, a term commonly used in reference to the mating between a cock and a hen. In the above insect-flower relationships (insect as security, mechanic or mate) the presence of the insects during flowering stages of plants was described as necessary and related as beneficial to the crop plants. However, in another insect-plant relationship, the insect does not please the farmer, as explained below. Insect as a parasite - Some respondents described the insect (and birds) as parasites, feeding on the flower or something from the flower, which on the whole the flower is adversely affected and fruit and seed production are reduced. While some respondents explained that the insect feeds on the flower parts, other respondents explained that the insect collects madzi 107 [fluid] that they use for making honey, and the removal of the madzi has negative effects on the flower and the plant production. Most likely the fluid referred to here is again the nectar. This relation depicts the insect as a parasite, and because yields are reduced, the farmer (with this belief) hates the insect for roaming in the flowers of his crop, and he would already predict poor crop yields. Some moderate respondents agreed that the insect benefits by extracting some fluid from the flower, but disagreed the arguments that there were negative effects on the plant, because, they argued, the fluid has no use to the flower. According to these respondents, whether the insect visits or does not visit, the flower will still ‘grow’ into a fruit or seed. 7.5 SEED GERMINATION AND PLANT DEVELOPMENT The seed is understood as the initial stage of most plant species, and for some species cuttings, suckers, and eye buds were identified as the initial stages. The specific part of a seed that is important for plant propagation is the chitsa [embryo] (cf. Chapter 3), which the farmer scrutinizes before sowing, to ensure it is not damaged by pests or disease. In a way the farmer is confirming the viability of the seed. The cotyledons in both mango (dicotyledon) and maize (monocotyledon), are not perceived as important in the seed germination and plant development process, i.e., its scientifically described importance for nourishing the germinating seedling was unknown. The cotyledons in mango and in cashew nut grow above the ground during germination, thus are noticeable and are labelled in Digo, viz. mwezi in mango, and gophodo in cashew nut. The role of these cotyledons was described as ‘only’ protective for the chitsa in the seed stage. The endosperm in the maize seed, which remains underground during germination, seemed to be even more difficult to assign a role in the germination process. Subsequent stages in plant development are described differently, depending on the species in question, but all were based on the plant height. The coconut tree, for example, is recognised to have two developmental stages i.e. mutse [seedling or sapling] and mnazi [the tree], and no other labelled stages except for distinctive descriptions related to fruit producing i.e. msichana, unavyala, mlume. The term mutse generally refers to seedling and sapling, while the mature stage of each species is identified by the respective name of the species. The two stages: mutse and ‘mature’ – noted in the coconut tree are common for most tree species. Probably the maize plant has the most recognised developmental stages, which are described 108 on the basis of the height of the plant in relation to domesticated birds and animals. These include: chimo cha kuku [chicken height] and chimo cha mbuzi [goat height]. Other developmental stages are described on bases of the reproduction phase, e.g. gana-sisa-virere [stop upward growth – to start reproduction], gana-tuluza-punga [producing male inflorescence], ganatuluza-ndamba [producing female inflorescence] gana-vyowa [have immature cobs], and ganakata-njiyo [losing stigma]. The last described stage is indicative that the cob is mature. 7.6 CONCLUSION The above discussion reiterates earlier observations that the Digo learn through familiarity. From the indulgence in agricultural practices and plant propagating, the Digo have learnt about propagates, and even specific site where the new plant [mutse] comes out, i.e. chitsa. Even though Digo plant knowledge is characterised by considerable borrowings from the human life situation (including labels of developmental stages), sexual reproduction and male gender are perceived as irrelevant in plant life. However, the interesting part was the observation that the individual Digo attempted to make give some explanations for the plant processes, presenting it as ‘what might be’ taking place. Clearly though, at a community level there was no obligation for the Digo to understanding the details in plant processes. There were no indicators that the Digo community or specific social group was committed to understand the plant processes, similar to the situation on plant terminology and plant groupings. Explanations given by the individuals were personal interpretations, presented to the best of one’s imagination. Otherwise the Digo do not have a commonly shared knowledge on plant processes that could be used to determine the authenticity of a given explanation. Although the discussion focused on plant propagation processes, the comments from respondents on other plant processes e.g. nourishment (photosynthesis) and growth (plant matter), have similar implications. In summary, the Digo plant knowledge, like any other local knowledge, consists of factual ideas, skills and capabilities, some with empirical background (Antweiler 1998), but it concentrates on readily observable plant features. Thus, although there is a rich lexicon (chapter 3) and some knowledge on groupings among plants (chapter 6), the knowledge above these i.e. the internal plant processes, is not a priority. Thus, even when the explanations given by the individual might not be biologically or conceptually justifiable, the respondents do not feel obliged to give convincing explanations. 109 CHAPTER EIGHT DIGO TRADITIONAL FARMING KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES 8.1 INTRODUCTION As a whole the Kenya Coast is characterized by large stretches of semi-arid wilderness in the north and densely populated agricultural land in the south. The Digo occupy most of the medium to high potential arable land in Kwale District where they live on agriculture as the most important economic activity (Spear 1978, Were et al. 1987). The old staple food crops of the Midzichenda were sorghum and millet, which in the course of the nineteenth century were largely replaced (Spear 1978), and today the dominant crops in terms of area, yield and value at the Kenya Coast are maize, cassava, coconut, cashew, mango, banana, citrus and tomato. Although there are variations between areas and between individual farms in the area, the pool of genetic materials is commonly shared and maintained through a wide area of the Coast region. This chapter gives an overview of the application of Digo plant knowledge, exemplifying it through assessing specifica practices related to the traditional Digo farming system. Since maize is the staple food cultivated annually and the most widely cultivated crop among the Digo, it has been selected for a case study in the Digo farming system, its knowledge and practices, and its details are presented in an Appendix (cf. Appendix VII). In the text of this chapter, a discussion of general farming practices is made. The information presented here refers mainly to the traditional farming methods, including aspects and practices that are minimally practiced today. The data was collected from about 40 elderly farmers through open-ended discussions about the general annual farming cycle and activities related to specific crops. The discussions were undertaken with individual farmers as well as with groups, where farmers’ perceptions and crop management strategies were discussed in common. 8.2 FARMERS’ PERCEPTION OF SOIL FERTILITY Historically the Digo used the shifting cultivation method (Spear 1978, Were et al. 1987). In the search the farmer selected a place to cultivate his crop and based his choice on soil ‘fertility’ - nguvu ya mtsanga [strength of soil]] and the specific requirements of the crop to 110 be cultivated. The Digo farmer usually desires to grow both food crops and commercial plants, and based on soil conditions the farmer may have farmland separated from the residential area. The homesteads, commonly found on sandy soil areas, are also used for growing cash crop (coconut and cashew) and some food crops (peas, cassava, and potatoes). Maize is cultivated on farmland areas that are established on clay soil areas. Digo farmers differentiates soil into three main types: - mtsanga mwiru – black cotton soil, very fertile, with a high clay portion. This soil type is also known as chilongo [clay]. - mtsanga wa kundu – red soil, moderately fertile, with average clay and sand. This soil type is also known as mtsanga wa tsuluni [termite mound soil] - mtsanga mwereru – white sand soil, not fertile, with a very high sand content and low to no clay. This soil type is also known as tsanga sheshe [sand gravels]. The above soil types are described by colour and texture, but there is also a strong correlation between these soil categories and the soil’s water holding capacity, which compare with basic physical characteristics of soil described in science (Fitzpatrick 1980). However, the Digo see soil fertility as dynamic, since a particular piece of land can become more or less fertile over time as evidenced by a number of indicators, which include the appearance of specific weed species. For example Chitsai [Striga asiatica] and Luswi [Rottboellia exaltata] are indicators of low fertility associated with low crop yields, while the presence of the grasses Bondo [Panicum spp.] and Mdembe [Hyparrhenia sp.] are indicators of high fertility, associated with high crop yields. Chitsai is scientifically recognized as a parasitic weed that leads to low crop yield (Ivens 1982), but the Digo notion on the species is that this plant bewitches the crops, affecting the produce magically. Luswi is a vigorously growing pioneer of disturbed ground, hence a troublesome weed in maize and fields of other crops (Ivens 1982). A site dominated by sedges is associated with poor crop yields and hence considered as ‘not fertile’. To overcome the sedge menace and poor performance of most crops, cowpeas [kunde] are grown on such sites for two to three seasons, which eventually eradicate the sedges allowing for the cultivation of other crops at that site. Nitrogen fixing in the root nodules [pingu] of both the sedges and the peas are not understood nor associated to the vigor of these plants. These observations indicate that the perception of Digo farmers on soil fertility is not on its nutrient status, but on the potential of producing good crop yields. Specific crop plants are known to have specific soil requirements. Rice, banana, sugar cane, and vegetables, are grown in marshy areas [bura]. Green peas, cassava and coconut are grown 111 in sandy soils. Termite mounds [tsulu] and black clay soils [chilongo] are known for high maize yields. 8.3 SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The most common practices used by the Digo to improve the soil productivity are: - Fallowing: Fields are left fallow for up to two years, so that the soil can generate. However, the use of this traditional method to restore soil productivity has been on the decline due to changing land policy. Previously, large land parcels were under clanial ownership (Were et. al. 1987) but in the post-independence era, the land tenure system changed, and land is now owned by individual families. Due to land scarcity elsewhere, other ethnic groups have moved into the area and acquired land. This has led to land scarcity in the Digo area, and fallowing has consequently been out of practice. - Crop rotation: Farmers are aware that by rotating crops the yields are improved. The farmers’ choice of crops for the rotation is determined by adaptability to soil and rainfall patterns, as well as by the desire to increase chances of food sustainability. Commercial considerations are only secondary. The main crop rotation patterns cited by the respondents are: - • maize – peas, beans, and ground nuts • maize – cassava • maize – sesame Crop remains: After harvesting, maize plants are cut near ground level and the straw is left on the field to decompose and add to the fertility of the soil. Sometimes the crop remains are burnt and the ash acts as fertilizer. Surprisingly, however, the Digo farmer does not associate ‘ash’ with soil fertility, instead it is understood as a ‘pesticide’ and observed high crop yields were associated with reduced pest infestation. - Manuring: Some crop farmers keep livestock, and the dung is used to maintain and enhance soil fertility. The manure is gathered and allowed to decompose before it is applied on the fields. However, there are relatively few farmers who keep livestock, and even the livestock holders own only a small number of cattle per household. Thus the application of manure is low and restricted to small areas around the homesteads, mostly to the home gardens. - Terracing: On slopes, farmers construct terraces to improve soil fertility and crop productivity. But this practice is used with only certain crop types, particularly tuber plants, such as cassava, potato and yams. 112 - Weeding: Farmers also enrich their soils by uprooting the weeds, which they drop on the ground to decompose, or burn them to ashes or bury them as green manure. Whichever way chosen, it adds to the fertility of the soil. - Mineral fertilizer: The use of mineral fertilizer is very limited and is an indicator of high socio-economic status. The traditional farmers argued that due to the low and unpredictable rains, and high pest infestation and diseases, it is a great risk and mostly unprofitable to use costly mineral fertilizers. 8.4 PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PEST MANAGEMENT Pest infestation and disease are some of the main problems facing the Digo farmer. Sometimes the farmer is unable to successfully address the ‘pest’ or ‘disease’ itself, and rather adopts an increased ‘sowing’ to increase the chances of obtaining an unaffected crop. However, this does not mean he does not attempt to deal with the pests or diseases, rather it can be understood as adopting less effective methods. Ash, whose fertility effects are not known, is used by the Digo farmer as a pesticide against kunyale [caterpillars of moths], also known as fumbiri. An extract from the leaves of Mtsunga wa utsungu [Launaea cornuta] is sprayed on infected plants by caterpillars or sprayed directly on the pests, in order to kill them. Some farmers deal with the caterpillar infestation by smoking infected leaves at a fire place, and this is believed to chase the pests in the crops on the farm (by proxy or magically). Weaver birds and wild pigs are major pest problem to the Digo farmer, as these pests feed on the maize seeds just after sowing and even as mature cobs. To avert the wild pig problem some farmers collect soil from a foot print of the pig at the place where the pig entered the farm, put it in a shell together with rain water, and then bury these in a thick forest. This exercise is believed to magically affect the pigs and make them unable to find their way to the farm any more. Generally, the Digo do not use synthetic pesticides, but rather share their crop with the pest. Thus, to reduce loss through pests such as rats and weaver birds, the Digo farmer sows more seeds in each hole, so that even after the pests feed on them, there would be enough left for the farmer. In maize growing, four to six seeds are put in each planting hole, instead of the officially recommended one or two seeds. While working in the crops, Digo farmers must exercise respect in their social conducts, especially in sexual relations. Disregarding this rule has a direct impact on the crop, which will appear as a disease on the plants, and this can only be solved by a healer. This belief is in 113 addition to other magical influences e.g. kutsorera and dzongo that are said to affect the yields of the crop. Kutsorera is a magical influence believed to transfer the quality of a crop from one farm to another, thus a victim ends up with a poor harvest even though his crop looked good. Dzongo is an act of jealousy or hatred where one spoils the crop of neighbours with an ‘evil eye’. For both influences one can call a healer to put a protective charm [fingo], so that attempts to ‘steal’ or ‘destroy’ the crop will fail. Dzongo is a less sophisticated magic rite that can be healed by the farmer himself by putting pepper or fruits of Catunaregam nilotica [Mdzongodzongo] on the farm to counteract the evil eye. Pepper when placed in the farm makes the witch to have itching eyes, and Catunaregam fruits help to abort bewitching. These magical influences are different from physical stealing [kuiya], against which the farmer physically guards the fields or calls a healer to put a protective charm [chirapho]. 8.5 MAINTENANCE OF TRADITIONAL CROP CULTIVARS Most crop plant species have a wide range of varieties, and the farmers show a great interest in conserving the seed of the varieties left to them by their parents. Frequent famines that struck the area force many farmers to eat up all their seeds, and they later have to look for new seeds (Waaijenberg 2000), which results in a slow variation of traditional varieties. With regard to maize farming, Digo farmers prefer to grow the ‘local’ cultivars, a diverse mix of materials introduced by the Portuguese and English (Harrison 1970; Waaijenberg 2000) in the 17th -18th centuries during trade and administrative contacts (Spear 1978). These cultivars have naturalized so much that the Digo consider them as their own, hence they refer to these cultivars as ‘matsere ga chidigo’ [Digo maize cultivars]. The Digo farmers have for centuries learnt how to cope with these cultivars, and are reluctant to let them go for modern cultivars. The modern hybrid maize cultivars suitable for the coastal belt (Pwani hybrid, Coast composite, and Katumani), are locally known as ‘matsere ga chizungu’ [European maize cultivars] and are less preferred, mainly because their seeds are expensive. Unreliability of the rains and high weed and pest incidence at the Coast are other reasons to withstand growing the hybrid maize varieties (Waaijenberg 2000). In addition, such modern varieties need mineral fertilization and the use of pesticides, which adds considerably to the farming costs. The Digo farmer prefers to grow as many cultivars of the same crop species as possible, due to the varied advantages associated with individual cultivars. For example, the maize cultivar Chifumba tele is grown on a forest edge because it is of short height and allows for the 114 detection of baboons and monkeys that invade farms to damage the crops. However, some farmers prefer some cultivars because they are ‘lucky’ with them, and avoid others with which they feel uncomfortable with [sinago mkono], i.e., they get low crop yields. 8.6 CONCLUSION A great part of the Digo farming system and knowledge seems to have been achieved from their capacity to observe and develop an experience of correlation between different components such as crop plants, soils, pests and disease. Thus a Digo farmer recognizes and classifies soils, for a particular purpose – crop production, which is his priority investment. Today some old farming practices are maintained, while others have been dropped due to various socio-political reasons. Some traditional practices related to soil fertility management have been affected by political changes in the land tenure system. Probably the change from customary land tenure to ‘individual’ land ownership was the point of departure for the shift from a Digo ‘communal agricultural practice’ in terms of control and management, to ‘free style’ individual farming practices and management. The break of communal farming and management, combined with high pest infestation and unreliable rains, have contributed considerably to poor crop yields among the Digo. The frustrations associated with low crop yields have led to the maintenance of magical practices in farming. On the other hand crop failure due to one reason or another has contributed to the farmers’ efforts in maintaining the cheaply available traditional cultivars against the expensive modern cultivars. For details on the resistance of Digo farmer towards modern cultivars, the reader is recommended to chapter 9. 115 CHAPTER NINE THE FUTURE OF THE CONTEMPORARY DIGO PLANT KNOWLEDGE 9.1 INTRODUCTION The Digo have had historical encounters with other African, Arabian, Asian and European traders, rulers and missionaries. However, the most recent, ongoing and most influential global encounter for the Digo plant knowledge is scientific botany, which enters the Digo community directly through schools or indirectly through the work of agricultural advisors and occasional training courses for local healers and farmers. This Chapter7 focuses on the influence of scientific botany on the Digo plant knowledge and related practices, and eventually comments upon the future prospects of the Digo plant knowledge, i.e. its vitality. In general it can be said that the relationship between the Digo plant knowledge and scientific botany ranges from one of co-existence over interaction up to a complete blending. The latter may vary between the extremes of total takeover and thorough cultural mixture. The different relations are exemplified with constellations in three specific Digo plant knowledge areas, namely: language use, phytotherapy activities and agriculture practices. In previous Chapters it was noted that the Digo plant knowledge is partly verbal, when plants and plant related processes and phenomena are described and commented upon, and partly it is non-verbal, i.e. observable only as action e.g. in agriculture and phytotherapy. In order to structure the plant knowledge and to distinguish its local from the global aspects there is need for some terminological reticence. Specifically relevant here is the plant knowledge of the Digo farmers and healers. As it turned out, this knowledge was relatively uninfluenced by botanical science (e.g. from farmers who have not been to school and who have missed or avoided agricultural training). Historical evidence shows that the knowledge of farmers has been in practice for more than four previous generations. This ‘old’ Digo plant knowledge, which was elicited from the elderly Digo, was compared with the plant knowledge held by the young Digo (pupils, students and post school youths), who are being or have been exposed to scientific botany. The following is a synthesis of the responses from and observations of the elderly illiterate Digo (farmers and healers) and the young educated 7 The content of this Chapter were presented in the 2nd Symposium of the SFB/FK 560 in October 2004 in Bayreuth Germany 116 Digo. The discussion concentrates on the three major types of encounters between the Digo plant knowledge and modern plant science, depicting the reactions in the following: 1. Language: a) the complementary use of non-borrowed and borrowed plant description terms b) re-structuring of the semantic field of colour terms 2. Phytotherapy: inherited cultural loans and modern global support of the local healers 3. 9.2 Farming: resilience to the modernization of the agricultural practice COMPLEMENTARY SOURCES FOR PLANT LEXICON The Digo show a wealth of linguistic expressions and undeniable experience in plant handling. There are about 500 recorded Digo plant names (Pakia 2000, Appendix III), ten distinct names of vegetation types and over 70 labels for different plant parts (cf. Chapter 3). However, school knowledge has introduced into the Digo vocabulary, particularly among the young Digo speakers, terms that were never there before. Plant observation as revealed by the non-borrowed lexicon is restricted to parts and processes that are visible to the unaided eye. The presence of microscopes, other scientific facilities and literature in the school led to the understanding of the presence of sub-structures (e.g. cells, vascular tissue, stomata etc) in plants. Due to lack of equivalent terms in their vernacular, the teacher and the students are obliged to use the ‘new’ English or scientific terms even as they converse in Digo. For example, during the interviews of this study, a typical answer from young educated Digo to the question ‘how do plants take up water?’ was the following “… paipu mbiri kpwenye huno muhi. Kuna phloem, na xylem sasa hino xylem ambayo inahala ….” [ ….. there are two pipes in this tree. There is phloem and xylem, now this xylem which takes ….]. However, in addition to microscopic parts, other relatively larger parts that are not lexicalised in Digo, e.g. petals, sepals, anthers and bracts, are referred to in Digo by their botanical terms. These scientific labels are used to fill a gap, where otherwise there was no label; ultimately in the language there is a composition of terms which do not blend or replace each other but complement and enrich the vocabulary. Born on fluency and richness of the answers in a topic, responses from post-school young Digo led to the suspicion that the ‘new’ terms (scientific or English) learnt in school are not maintained for long, but to a large extent are lost together with most of the other schoollearned knowledge. Unlike the pupils, the post-school youths were ill-at-ease with questions 117 demanding scientific knowledge e.g. ‘How do plants transport water?’ They were neither confident nor fluent in explaining the scientific terms which they at best vaguely remembered. Descriptions of processes such as ‘photosynthesis’, ‘transpiration’ and ‘pollination’ were poorly or wrongly presented, and functions of parts such as ‘stomata’, ‘ovary’, and ‘pollen grains’ were mixed up. It was difficult to state what they truly knew, and sometimes they seemed to remember only the terms. In contrast, when these people were asked about spirits and demons, their confidence and fluency revitalised. For example, most of them knew the trees said to be the residence of spirits. These youths also showed relatively more knowledge in what they had learned from home, e.g., the Digo lexicon for plant parts, medicinal plants, traditional farming practices and local crop cultivars. The indications here are that there might be an intermediate state of knowledge and semantic gain from science, much of which though is lost with time after school. In contrast to the school scientific terms, borrowed terminologies which form part of the daily life of the Digo, e.g. names of introduced plants e.g. Kabichi [Cabbage], Mtiki [Teak], Mkasuarina [Casuarina], Bikisa [Bixa], and Karoti [Carrot], are likely to stay and be stabilised in the Digo language. The deduction here is that the school offered an environment that encouraged the use of scientific and English terms in Digo conversation, but the pupils remembered them only when they were in school. This was because the school knowledge does not fit into the practical life of the Digo, thus at home pupils and students find their school knowledge being out of place with most of it not applicable. At the same time, participating more fully in the domestic activities, e.g., farming, they learn more Digo plant knowledge and practices. Thus, while the school knowledge is forgotten, Digo plant knowledge is learnt, which indicates a prospective stability for the Digo plant knowledge. 9.3 SHIFTS AND RE-ADJUSTMENTS IN COLOUR TERMINOLOGY The Digo are characterized with considerable openness in verbal behaviour, especially in the lexicon. In the Digo language there can be areas identified with an ongoing expansion of terminology and consequently a restructuring of semantic fields – incipient but visible. The process is exemplified here with reference to colour terminology, especially as applied to plants. The external partner in this example is not only scientific botany, but also the usage of colour terms in the English language. The most striking conflict with resulting mixtures is revealed by a comparison of English ‘green’ with lexical descriptions of plant colours in 118 Digo. In English, ‘green’ has considerable polysemy, i.e., a very broad range of applications. Leaving aside the references which are not directed to vegetation, most important in this context is the ‘green’ that serves as the unifying colour term for the plant kingdom. Almost any type of vegetation is inseparable from the notion of ‘green’. What is more, ‘green’ includes the material side of vegetation, i.e. it refers to the plant matter, cf. ‘green grocer’, ‘green house’, ‘greenery’ etc. In looking for equivalents in Digo, reference is made to the language used by ‘older’ speakers lacking formal education. It turned out that the Digo language does not have a comparable cover term as ‘green’. The speakers distinguish a range of colour terms for plant description in which three terms are prominent, but with connotations which differ considerably from the structuring of the colour field in English. The colour of stages of a ripening mango may be described in English as: (1) dark green, (2) reddish and (3) yellow. A Digo farmer describes the same stages as (1) dziru, (2) kundukundu, and (3) dzereru. On a colour chart ‘dziru’ has its focus in black, and the term is applied to many objects which in English would also be termed as ‘black’. Equivalent relationships exist between ‘kundu’ and ‘red’, as well as between ‘dzereru’ and ‘white’ (cf. Chapter 3). It has to be stressed that apart from the three terms indicated above, Digo has a wide range of derived or borrowed colour terms, including terms corresponding more closely to ‘green’ , such as the transfers ‘itsi’ [unripe], ‘nyasi’ [grass] or ‘chirere cha mgomba’ [banana shoot], or straightforward borrowings such as ‘griini’ (from English) or ‘chijani’ (from Kiswahili). However, the vegetative connotations of ‘dziru’, ‘kundu’ and ‘dzereru’ are among the prominent markers of ‘old’ vs. ‘new’ Digo and a point of contention between the generations. Young Digo (including the author), who have learned the English terms for the entire colour spectrum at school or even pre-school, together with the notion of nature being ‘green’, either ignore the colour references used by their parents, or are strictly opposed to them, in spite of their reverence for age. If they take up the most rigorous standpoint they maintain that ‘plants are green’ without admitting any modification. Speaking in Digo, they use the borrowed terms ‘griini’ or ‘chijani’. The above described situation can be better understood by introducing the notion of ‘basic color terms’ as presented first by Berlin and Kay (1969). According to these authors, underived and unborrowed (i.e. basic) colour terms evolve in a sequence which is independent of a given culture. Within their evolutionary scale, stage I has two categories, viz. ‘white’ and ‘black’; at stage II ‘red’ is added (Fig. 9.1). ‘Green’ appears either before or after ‘yellow’ at 119 stage IIIa or IIIb. Berlin and Kay list Swahili as a Stage II language, and neighbouring Digo shows the same characteristics, as they have white, black and red as the basic colours. black red white Stage1 Fig. 9.1: blue brown Grey Pink Orange purple Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6 yellow green Stage 2 Stage 3 Illustration of the evolutionary sequence of underived colour terms in languages (Adopted from Berlin & Kay 1969). As indicated above, although there are many other colour terms available in Digo, the prominence of the ‘basic’ colour terms is still observable by a number of traits; for example: • the three terms are true adjectives having adjectival concords (cf. Appendix IV), e.g. chitabu chakundu [red book], chitabu chiru [black book] and chitabu chereru [white book]. • they are the only ones used in the description of demons or other members of the spiritual world, e.g. ‘red’ is bara-masai, ‘white’ is mwarabu or mdzomba, and ‘black’ is mdigo or chitsimba kazi. • they are preferred in emphatic expressions, i.e., nyereru tseeeee [bright white], nyiru piiiiii [dark black], and kundu dooooo [deep red]. • returning to the point of departure, they are preferred in plant descriptions as given by older speakers. The resulting cultural mixture – still in progress – can be characterized by the following (old and new) features. In their use, the young Digo restrict the application of the ‘basic’ colour terms, and the semantic field of colour terms is consequently restructured. It is very likely that the ‘basic’ colour terms will continue to attenuate in general application and in plant descriptions. However, some fixed terms related to agriculture will probably remain, e.g., a phrase ‘matsere ganafunga wiru’ [the maize is becoming ‘black’, i.e. dark green], where the basic colour nyiru [black] here refers to the ‘maturity’ of the maize. In such expression the colour notion of ‘nyiru’ will be weakened in favour of the notion of ‘maturity’ or ripeness. In the next two to three generations it might be difficult to understand why a colour term is used 120 in reference to crop maturity, as the basic colour ‘nyiru’ would be no longer featuring in plant description i.e. in reference to ‘green’. 9.4 GLOBAL SUPPORT AND ENRICHMENT OF PHYTOTHERAPY As elsewhere in Kenya, phytotherapy is a very important part of Digo plant knowledge. Phytotherapy does not seem to suffer from a global conflict, but rather enjoys support and recognition from the Kenyan government and even from outside Kenya. This support stems from the growing appreciation of alternative medicine in many parts of the world. The support leaves phytotherapy as such untouched, i.e., it does not interfere with the therapeutical core, but is geared at improving the standards of collecting, preparing and administering these substances. The ‘Kenya Neem Foundation’ a non-governmental organisation, puts the aim as ‘production of alternative medicines in a more hygienic and safer environment’ (Cited in a Kenyan Local News paper – The Daily Nation July 27-2004). All the visited healers had Government licenses of operation and certificates of attendance of Government and NGO sponsored courses and seminars. This led to a strong liaison with modern medicinal institutions, and the use of modern tools such as gloves and scapel, e.g. by the birth attendants. The degree of ‘modernity’ varies from one healer to another, mainly depending on the economic status of the person. Mr. Abdalla Mnyendze is probably a case of the 21st Century healer, who owns an office where he treats his patients. Traditionally the patients’ attendance is done under a big tree or in a rock cave by the sea shore. Also in the office, where a label ‘Dr. Mnyendze’ decorates the wall, are labelled bottles containing different concoctions from medicinal plants which have been prepared in advance. Under normal circumstances, the healer would visit the forest after a patient has explained his or her problems; not to mention that in Digo healing writing has not been part of the art. In spite of his assumed Doctorate and modernity, Mnyendze bases his authority very much on his famous teachers who did not have the chance to participate in government medical trainings. Before preparing the medicines, he tells the plant about his therapeutical ancestry as a basis to command authority. In other words he influences the medical substance through an incantation. This can be seen as step backward from the ‘new’ phytotherapy, and in a strict sense, therefore, there is a mixture of rational phytotherapy with something magical. There is also evidence for the integration of Indian, Swahili and Arab medicines and cures (Schulz-Burgdorf 1994), which can be traced back several centuries. In healing, it is common 121 to find Digo plant medicines combined with a special term used by healers, ‘mihi ya pepho’ [cold plants], refers to Grewia plagiophylla, Lannea schweinfurthii, Ormocarpum sennoides, Sclerocarya birrea and Adansonia digitata. These plants are used to ‘cool down’ a problem, and thus create harmony. ‘Cold’ and ‘hot’ together with ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ are the key notions of humoral medicine which was prominent in Medieval Europe, and is still influential in some Arab Schools of medicine. It is possible that the notion of cold, maintained by the Digo is a remnant of Arab medical influence. On the whole therefore, trends of modernity and blending in Digo healing can not be denied, but basically the therapeutical substances still consist of the traditional plant components. Thus, while the healers portray an external modern appearance, their core functioning in the treatment is based on the Digo traditional healing system which, according to the observations of this study, will remain in existence for a considerable time to come. 9.5 RESILIENCE IN AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES The general Digo farming practices have been discussed in Chapter 8 of this thesis, and the cultivation of maize, which is the staple food of the Digo presented in Appendix VII. As mentioned in the previous Chapter, about ten traditional varieties of maize are cultivated, and there are also ‘new’ varieties (hybrid maize) associated with considerable better crop yields. Agricultural consultants visit the Digo farmers and encourage them to grow the hybrid maize varieties, and pupils in school are taught about modern farming systems. Furthermore, the media (TV, Radio, magazines and news papers) present news and information on plant science and plant farming systems which also reach the Digo farmer in one way or another. However, on visiting farms it was noted that the Digo farmers have not changed their ‘old’ farming style. The farmers categorically refuse to use the hybrid maize seed, because (they said) it is expensive and has to be bought every year, while they could get the local varieties from their last harvest, or from neighbours and friends for free. The farmers also continued to plant 4 – 6 maize kernels in a hole, not the officially recommended 1 – 2 kernels. This is done ‘to cater for the rat’s share’, they explained. The farmers argued that when planting only 1 kernel in a hole, and the rats visit the fields nothing would be left for the farmer. Due to inability to purchase pesticides such as rodenticides against the rats, the Digo farmer addresses the pest menace by increasing the number of maize plants per hole or hectare (cf. Chapter 8). 122 Although it was expected that the ‘old’ Digo farming practices would be slowly replaced by the ‘modern’ techniques, especially because the increasing population requires higher crop yields, the observations in the farms disapproved that expectation. Resilience of the local farming practices to the global knowledge and influences could be traced to the following factors: • Knowledge offered in schools is too academically oriented with little practical reference to the local situations, i.e. it does not build on the existing knowledge. This is notable mainly by the fact that the medium used in school is English and contains scientific (Latin) terms, most of which are neither translatable into the local lexicon nor applicable in the local scene. • Teaching is done without the necessary facilities to enhance learning. With too theoretical lessons, concepts are turned into simple fantasies and students are left to imagine facts. For example, during visits to school classes and interviewing the pupils, it was noted that in a lesson on ‘Bio-gas processing’, there was not even a drawing of the processor. In a lesson on ‘the use of a tractor’, there was not even a picture of a tractor, and these were common situations for other lessons. • In Digo tradition there is a strong respect of local elders’ authority (including practices and knowledge); thus, a knowledge learnt in school cannot be implemented at home if it is disapproved by the elders. This natural age boundary and unquestionable respect does not allow for competition or conflict between the school-learned farming practices and traditional Digo farming practices, with the latter continuing to be practiced unchanged. • There is very little aid to the local farmer, who usually can not survive loss, e.g. from using modern practices. The hybrid maize, fertiliser and pesticides all require financial input, which considerably adds up to the farming costs. If these commitments are taken and the rains fail (which is a common occurrence) and since there is no irrigation system, the loss the farmers incur is too much for them. This leads to the farmers’ preference of the traditional ways and cultivars which are based on centuries of experience. It is with reference to this point that Waaijnberg (2000) is of the opinion that what the Digo farmers do at present is the best they can do. All in all, it is agreeable that the traditional farming method is still the Digo farmer’s best means of survival, in a time when he is not thriving to become rich, but to survive and keep away from hunger. With continued lack of external support, the Digo farming knowledge and practices are likely to continue in the foreseeable future. 123 9.6 CONCLUSION The survey made shows that school-mediated plant knowledge is rapidly forgotten, and after two to five years scientific concepts and terms are only vaguely or not at all remembered. Thus the vocabulary of scientific botany will not have much chance of survival in the everyday Digo, although it could have become functional and fill in the terminological gaps, if it fitted into the practical outlook of the Digo. The fact that post-school people show relatively improved traditional plant knowledge as they become almost full time helpers in domestic farming, gives Digo plant knowledge a potential to survive. On the restructuring of colour terms, it is clear that the central role of Digo basic colour terms is on the way to weaken, while simultaneously the application of the ‘new’ colour terms is stabilising. However, the language is creating niches for the survival of the exclusive application of these ‘basic’ terms, especially in emotional expressions and fixed phrases. The changes in colour terms are irreversible, and have a very high degree of vitality, particularly because they are not based on a conscious commitment by any group of speakers. The Digo healing, with remnants of Arabic-Swahili medical influence, is not hybridised in content but modernised in form (hygiene, standardised dosage etc) to become more marketable and competitive. This is a conscious effort which is generally accepted, and in line with the agency of the actors (healers) who are geared towards a ‘better and appreciated’ system, and improved social status. However, there is still a clear combination of somatic phytotherapy and magic or ritual. The observations in this study show that traditional Digo healing (in content), will remain for a long time to come. In agricultural practices, the Digo farmer, whose agency is framed by needs to survive and who has a long history of low yields and eminent hunger, cannot afford to enhance risks in their already marginal economy. Thus there is a conscious resilience towards global influence, and the farmers’ apparent conservatism has no ideological value for them but is a strategy for survival. And due to the lack of material aid to the Digo farming, it is evident that the Digo traditional farming practices will continue into the foreseeable future. On the whole, therefore, Digo plant knowledge might suffer the loss of some lexical expressions, particularly traditional colour descriptions for plants in the near future, but general knowledge and practices in farming and traditional healing will remain in place. In contrast to the generalised belief that the modern or global (science) inevitably replaces or 124 blends with the ‘local’, the Digo are active ‘actors’ selecting what to change and what not to, based on the material risk and expected social benefits resulting. 125 REFERENCES Antweiler, C. 1998. Local Knowledge and Local Knowing: An Anthropological Analysis of Contested 'Cultural Products' in the Context of Development. Anthropos 93:469-517 Atran, S. 1998. Folk biology and the anthropology of science: cognitive universals and cultural particulars. Bahavioural and Brain Sciences 21: 547 - 609. Atran, S. 1990. Cognitive foundations of natural history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beentje, H. 1994. Kenya trees, shrubs and lianas. Nairobi: National Museums of Kenya. Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis. Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological classification: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton: Princiton University Press. Berlin, B. 1999. How a folk botanical system can be both natural and comprehensive: one Maya Indian’s view of the plant world. In: D.L. Medin and S. Atran (eds.) Folkbiology. Cambridge: the MIT Press. pp. 71 – 90. Berlin, B., D.E. Breedlove, & P.H. Raven. 1973. General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. American Anthropologist 75: 214 – 242. Berlin, B., D.E. Breedlove, & P.H. Raven. 1974. Principles of Tzeltat plant classification: an introduction to the botanical ethnography of Mayan-speaking community in the Highland Chiaps. New York: Academic Press. Berlin, B. & P. Kay. 1969. Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Reprinted 1991). Brokensha, D. & B.W. Riley. 1980. Mbeere knowledge of their vegetation, and its relevance for development. In: D. Brokensha, D.M. Warren, & O. Werner (eds). Indigenous 126 knowledge systems and development. New York: University Press of America. pp. 111 – 127. Brosius, P.J. 1997. Endangered forest, endangered people: environmentalist representations of indigenous knowledge. Human Ecology 25: 47 – 69. Brown, C. 1977. Folk biological life-forms: their universality and growth. American Anthropologist 79: 317 – 342. Brown, C. 1984. Language and living things, uniformities in folk classification and naming. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Bulmer, R.N.H. 1970. Which came first, the chicken or the egg-head? In: J. Pouillon & P. Maranda (eds.), Echanges et communications. Vol. II. The Hague: Mouton and Co. pp. 1069 – 1091. Bulmer, R.N.H. 1974. Folk biology in the New Guinea Highlands. Social Science Information 13 (4/5): 9 – 28. Burgess, N.D., G.P. Clarke, & W.A. Rodgers. 1998. Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa: status, endemism patterns and their potential causes. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 64: 337 - 367. Clements, G.N. & J. Goldsmith. (eds.). 1984. Autosegmental studies in Bantu Tone. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Dammann, E. 1936. Digo-Märchen. Zeitschrift fűr Eingeborenensprachen 26:81 – 97; 202 – 231. Diamond, J. & K.D. Bishop. 1999. Ethno-ornirthology of the Ketengban People, Indonesian New Guinea. In: D.L. Medin & S. Atran (eds.). Folkbiology. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Ellen, R. 1993. The cultural relations of classification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 127 Ellen, R. 1996. Anthropological approaches to understanding the ethnobotanical knowledge of rainforest populations. In: D. S. Edwards, W. E. Booth and S. C. Choy (eds.). Tropical rainforest research: current issues. Dordrecht: Kluwer pp. 457 – 465. Fitzpatrick, E.A. 1980: Soils - their formation, classification and distribution. London, Longman. Ford, R. I. 1978. Ethnobotany: Historical diversity and synthesis. In: R. I. Ford (ed.). The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany. Michigan: Anthropological Papers No. 67, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan. pp. 33 – 50. Getz, W.M., L. Fortman, D. Cumming, J. du Toit, J. Hilty, R. Martin, M. Murphree, N. Owen-Smith, A.M. Starfield & M.I. Westphal. 1999. Sustaining natural and human capital: villagers and scientists. Science 283: 1855 – 1856. Glover P.E., F.C. Magogo & H.A. Bandari, 1969. A Digo-botanical glossary from the Shimba Hills. Nairobi: Kenya National Parks. Goddard, C. 1998. Semantic analysis. A practical approach. New York: Oxford University Press. Greenway, P.J. 1940. A Swahili-Botanical English dictionary of plant names. Unpublished. Griffiths, J.B. 1935. Glimpse of a Nyika tribe (Waduruma). Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 65: 95-267 Guthrie, M. 1967. Comparative Bantu Vol. 1. Farnborough: Greg Press. Harrison, M.N. 1970. Maize improvement in East Africa. In: C.L.A. Leakey (ed.) Crop improvement in East Africa. Farnham Royal, England: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau. pp. 27 – 36. Hawthorne, W., K. Hunt & A. Russel. 1981. Kaya: An ethnobotanical perspective. A report of the Oxford Ethnobotanical expedition to Kenya. Unpublished. 128 Hays, T.E. 1974. Mauna: Explorations in Ndumba ethnobotany. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington. Hayes, T.E. 1979. Plant classification and nomenclature in Ndumba, Papua New Guinea Highlands. Ethnology 18: 253 – 270. Heine, B. & I. Heine. 1988. Plant concepts and plant use. An ethnobotanical survey of the semi-arid and arid lands of East Africa. Part I: Plants of the Chamus (Kenya). Saarbrücken: Breitenbach Publishers. Heine, B. & K. Legère. 1995. Swahili plants: an ethnobotanical survey. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verla. Hoorweg, J., D. Foeken & R.A.Obudho. (eds.) 2000. Kenya Coast Handbook. Culture, Resources and Development in the East African littoral. Muenster, Hamburg, London: Lit Verlag. Huber, H. 1974. The agriculture calendar of the Kwaya. Tanzania Notes and Records. 75: 49 54 Hunn, E. 1982. The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. American Anthropologist 84: 830 – 847. Infield, M. 2001. Cultural values: a forgotten strategy for building community support for protected areas in Africa. Conservation Biology 15: 800 – 801. Ivens, G.W. 1982. East African weeds and their control. Nairobi: Oxford University Press. Johnson, L.M. 1999. Gitksan plant classification and nomenclature. Journal of Ethnobiology 19 (2): 179 – 218. Johnson-Gottesfeld, L.M. & S. Hargus. 1998. Witsuwit’en Plant Classification and Nomenclature. Journal of Ethnobiology 18(1): 69 – 101. 129 Kakudidi, E.K. 2004. Folk plant classification by communities around Kibale National Park, Western Uganda. African Journal of Ecology 42 (1): 57 – 63. Kisseberth, C.W. 1984. Digo tonology. In: G.N. Clements & J. Goldsmith (eds.). Autosegmental studies in Bantu tone. Dordrecth: Foris Publications pp. 105 – 182. Krifka, M. 2001. Lexikalische Semantik. Berlin: Institut für deutsche Sprache und Linguistik, Humboldt-Universität Berlin. Levi-Strauss, C. 1966. The savaged mind. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Mambo, R.M. 1987. Nascent political activities among the Mijikenda of Kenya’s Coast during the colonial era. Transafrican Journal of History 16: 92-120. Maundu, P.M., G.W. Ngugi & C.H.S. Kabuye 1999. Traditional Food Plants of Kenya. Nairobi: KENRIK/NMK. Medin, D.L. & S. Atran. 1999. Folkbiology. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Meeussen, A.E. 1980. Bantu lexical reconstructions. Tervuren: Archives d’Anthropologie 27. RMCA. (Reprint of 1969 edition). Malinowski, B. 1974. Magic, science and religion. London: Souvenir Press. (Reprint of 1925 edition). Mogaka, H. 1992. A Socio-economic survey of Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, Kenya. Nairobi: Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Project. Morris, B. 1984. The pragmatics of folk classification. Journal of Ethnobiology. 4(1) : 45 – 60 Morton, R.F. 1972. The Shungwaya Myth of Mijikenda: A Problem of Late Nineteenth Century Kenya Coastal History. International Journal of African Historical Studies 5 (3): 397 - 423. 130 Morton, R.F. 1977. New Evidence Regarding the Shungwaya Myth of the Mijikenda Origins. International Journal of Afriacan Historical Studies 10 (4): 628 - 643. Mutoro, H.W. 1985. The spatial distribution of the Mijikenda kaya settlement on the hinterland Kenya Coast. Transafrican Journal of History 14: 78-98 Mwangudza, J.A. 1983. Mijikenda. London: Evans Brothers. Nurse, D. & T. Spear. 1985. The Swahili: Reconstructing the history and language of an African society, 800-1500. Filadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press Nurse, D. & T. J. Hinnebusch 1993. Swahili and Sabaki. A linguistic history. Berkley, Los Angels, London: University of California Press. Nyamweru, C. 1997. Report on socio-cultural research carried out in Kwale and Kilifi Districts of Kenya. Unpublished. Pakia, M. 1997. An ethnobotany survey of the kaya complex in Kwale District. A report submitted to People and Plants (UNESCO) and Coastal Forest Conservation Unit (NMK). Unpublished. Pakia, M. 2000. An ethnobotanical and ecological study of two kayas (sacred forests) at the Kenya Coast. M.Sc. thesis, University of Natal. Pakia, M. & J. Cooke. 2003 a. The ethnobotany of the Midzichenda tribes of the coastal forest areas in Kenya: 1. General perspective and non-medicinal plant uses. South African Journal of Botany 69 (3): 370- 381. Pakia, M. & J. Cooke. 2003 b. The ethnobotany of the Midzichenda tribes of the coastal forest areas in Kenya: 2. Medicinal plant uses. South African Journal of Botany 69 (3): 382 – 395 Palgrave, K.C. 1977. Trees of Southern Africa. Cape Town: Struik (New edition revised and updated by Meg Coates Palgrave). 131 Pandey, D.N. 2004. Traditional knowledge systems for Biodiversity Conservation. MV Next Software Inc. Redwood City, Internet Publications. Philippson, G. 1993. Tone and stress in Sabaki. In: Nurse & Hinnebusch (eds.). Swahili and Sabaki. A linguistic history. Berkley, Los Angels, London: University of California Press. pp 248 – 265. Pollnac, R.B. 1972. Variation in the cognition of Luganda color terminology. PhD dissertation, University of Missoury. Prins, A.H.J. 1972. The Shungwaya problem: Traditional history and cultural likeness in Bantu north-east Africa. Anthropos 67: 9-35. Robertson, A. 1984. Floristic survey of kaya forests. A report to the National Museums of Kenya. Unpublished. Robertson, A., & Q. Luke 1993. The vegetation and conservation status of kaya coastal forests in Kenya. A report to WWF and National Museums of Kenya. Unpublished. Rottland, F. 2003. Okiek Plant names. APAL 1: 91 – 133. Rottland, F. & R. Grosserhode. 2004. Observations on Swahili and Midzichenda plant names. In: K. Bromber & B. Smieja (eds.). Globalisation and African Languages. Risks and benefits. Berlin: Mouton pp. 313 - 322. Russel, B. 1948. Human knowledge – its scope and limits. London: George Allen & Unwin. Schladt, M. 1989. Benennungsstrategien für wildpflanzen bei ostafrikanischen hirtennomaden. Köln: Institut für Afrikanistik, Universität zu Köln. Schmidt, R. 1991. Ecology of tropical lowland rain forest (Dissertationes Botanicae. Band 179). Berlin, Stuttgart: J. Cremer publishers. Schulz-Burgdorf, U. 1994. Aspekt der Swahili-Volsmedizin im Lamu-Archipel Kenyas. Muenster: Litt. (Interethnische Beziehungen und Kulturwandel) Band 7. 132 Spear, T. 1978. The kaya Complex. Nairobi: Kenya Literature Bureau. Thomson, W.A.R. 1978. Healing plants: a modern herbal. New York: McMillan. Turner, N.J. 1989. “All berries have relations,” mid-range folk plant groupings in Thompson and Lillooet Interior Salish. Journal of Ethnobiology 9(1): 69 – 110. Van Otterloo, R. & K. Van Otterloo. 1980. A sociolinguistic study: The Bantu Language groups of the Kenya Coastal area. Language Data, African Series, 17. Nairobi: Summer Institute of Linguistics iii. Walsh, M. 1992. Mijikenda Origins: A Review of the Evidence. Transafrican Journal of History 21: 1-18. Waaijnberg, H. 2000. Agriculture. In: Hoorweg, J. D. Foeken & R.A.Obudho. (eds). Kenya coast handbook. Culture, resources and development in the East African littoral. Muenster, Hamburg, London: Lit Verlag. pp. 175 – 195. Were, G.S., D. Nyamweya & H. Ipu .1987. Kwale District Socio-cultural Profile. A Report for the Ministry of Planning and National Development. Nairobi: Institute of African studies, University of Nairobi. Willis J. 1996. The Northern kayas of the Mijikenda: a Gazetteer, and an Historical Reassessment. Azania XXXI. Winfred, D. 2003. An Introduction to contact linguistic. Berlin: Blackwell. 133 APPENDIX I: Questionnaire used for data collection of the traditional Digo Plant knowledge (English version) Name Age Academic level Who is the source of your Digo plant knowledge? 1. For living things it is necessary to eat and drink. Do plants also need to eat and drink? If yes, what do they eat and drink, and how do they eat and drink? 2. Are wind, air and sunlight important in plant life? 3. What is the function of roots in plants? 4. What is the importance of leaves in plants? 5. When a plant is cut or injured, does it feel pain? 6. Are plants likely to be residence of spirits? Give example of such plants. Is it necessary to follow certain customary rules before collecting parts of such plants? 7. In Swahili people say ‘kila shetani ana mbuyu wake’. Are there such sayings in Digo that relate to plants or forest that you know? 8. Why do plants such as the baobab lose its leaves during the dry season? 9. What foods, medicines and other useful resources are found in the forests? 10. How do you identify different plant types? - by viewing the plant form or shape? - by viewing the shape of leaves? - by the type of fruits? - by ‘touch’ features? - by smell? - by taste of parts? - by colour of plant parts? 11. What types of plants do you know? 12. Mushrooms are what type of plants? 134 13. Are there male and female plants? 14 In human life there are different stages of development, from a baby, young adult and to elderly person. Are such stages found in plant life? 15 In plant life what is the propagation material, and how does it develop to a full plant? 16. How do plants procreate? 17. Butterflies, bees and birds like visiting flowers of some plants. What is the relationship between these organisms and the plants? Are there any benefits or loss to either party? 18. Do you grow plants for ornamentation? And do wild plants have ornamental features? 19. What is the important of weeding? 20. What destroys crop plants? 21. Some farmers inter-crop plants, what crops do you inter-crop, and why? 22. Some farmers use cattle dung to improve crop produce, which ways do you use to improve the produce of your crop, and why? 23. What facilities do you use for farming? 24. Are magic and witchcraft important in crop farming? 25. Is religion (Islam, Christianity or Traditional) important in crop farming?] 135 APPENDIX I: Questionnaire used for data collection of the traditional Digo Plant knowledge (Swahili version) Jina Umri Kiwango cha elimu Mpaji ujuzi wako katika mambo ya miti ya kienyeji 1. Kwa maumbile lazima kuna kula na kunywa.. Je, miti pia ni maumbile na inakula na kunywa? Kama ’ndio’ ni nini vyakula na vinywaji vya miti, na inakula na kunywa vipi? 2. Je, upepo, hewa na nuru ya jua ni muhimu katika maisha ya miti? 3. Je, kazi za mizizi ya miti ni nini? 4. Je, umuhimu wa majani katika miti ni nini? 5. Je, mti unapokatwa au kujeruhiwa huhisi maumivu? 6. Je, inawezekana miti ni makao ya shetani? Ni kama miti gani? Ni lazima kufuata sheria maalum wakati unachkua sehemu ya mti ambao ni makao ya shetani au pepo? 7. Katika misemo ya kiswahili watu husema ‘Kila shetani ana mbuyu wake’. Kuna misemo ya Kidigo kama huu inayohusu miti au msitu unayo ijua? [In Swahili people say ‘kila shetani ana mbuyu wake’. 8. Kwa nini miti kama mbuyu na miengine majani yake hukauka na kuanguka, wakati wa ukame? 9. Ni aina gani ya chakula, dawa au faida zengine, hupatikana msitunii? 10. Ni namna gani unatambua aina ya mti tofauti tofauti? Kutazama umbo la mti? Kutazama umbo la majani? Kutazama aina ya matunda? Kuhisi kwa vidole sehemu fulani za mti? Kutumia harufu? Kuonja ladha ya sehemu za mti? Kutazama rangi ya sehemu za mti? 11. Unajua miti aina gani na gani? 12. Uyoga ni miti aina gani? 13. Je, kuna miti ya kiume na kike? 136 14. Katika maisha ya binadamu ziko hali mbalimbali kama kuwa mtoto mchanga, msichana au mvulana, barobaro, mtumzima na baadaye mzee. Je, hali kama hizo pia ziko katika maisha ya miti? 15. Katika maisha ya miti mbegu ni sehemu gani, ha hukua namna gani? 16. Je miti inazaliwa namna gain? 17. Vipepeo, nyuki na ndege hupenda kuenda kwenye maua ya miti fulani. Na kuna uhusiano gani baina ya wanyama hawa na miti hii? Je, kuna faida au hasara yoyote kwa miti na/au wanyama hawa? 18. Je, munakuza miti ya kurembesha bustani zenu nyumbani? Na miti ya porini iko na uzuri pia? 19. Umuimu wa kupalilia ni nini? 20. Ni nini huharibu mimea? 21. Baadhi ya wakulima wanakuza miti pamoja, Je ni miti gani wewe unakuza pamoja na kwa nini? 22. Wakulima wengine hutumia kutia choo cha ng’ombe ardhini ili kuboresha mazao ya mimea? Wewe unatumia njia nyingine, na kwa nini? 23. Ni vyombo gani ambavyo unatumia katika ukulima? 24. Je, uganga na uchawi ina umuhimu katika ukuzaji wa miti? 25. Je, dini (kiislamu, kikristo au ya kimila) ni muhimu katika ukuzaji wa mimea? 137 APPENDIX II: List of respondents involved in interviews and discussions, presented in order of social groups (NB: some respondents cut across the social groups e.g. farmer-healer) KAYA ELDERS Abdallah Mnyedze Kaya Kinondo Mohamed Mwamatezo Kaya Likunda Hussein Siwa Kaya Diani Abdalla Boga Kaya Diani Ramadhan Mwapataka Kaya Diani Suleiman Dawa Kaya Diani Juma Juma Ganzori Kaya Tiwi Hamisi Kala Kaya Likunda Rashid Mambo Kaya Muhaka Mwakuloha Abdalah Muhaka FARMERS Juma Mohamed Mwahari Vuga Hamisi Ali Mwakurichwa Muhaka Mwanajuma Matano Muhaka Shee A. Mwadzinare Muhaka Bakari Zondo Vuga Mwakande Hundeiyi Vuga Suleiman Mambeya Vuga Fatuma Chiphanga Diani Suleiman Siwa Diani Ngozi Abdalla Simba Diani Hamisi Omari Dzivwa Unkunda Ramadhani Mwakalato Ukunda Bakari Mwakuzimu Ukunda Mambo S. Mambo Muhaka Tarifaa Mwalaulo Vyongwani Omar Kanga Tiwi Ali Mohamed Zimbu Tiwi Omar Mwakusema Tiwi Mzee Alii Tiwi Rashid Mwanyoha Tiwi Bakari Chakwe Kinondo Ali A. Chitega Kinondo Bakari Mwatete Kinondo Mwalimu Hemed Mwafujo Mwabungo Ndaro Mwafulusi Lunguma Suleiman Mbiti Lunguma 138 Kayuga Fujo Lunguma Salim Katunga Lunguma Juma Tsetsetse Lunguma Idd Mwaboma Vyongwani Mwembe-Zembe farmers group (10 farmers) HEALERS Salim N. Mwakweli Kinondo Mebakari Bakari Chakwe Makongeni Salim A. Chiwaka Kinondo Bakari A. Mnyendze Kinondo Mwanaidi Adidi Kinondo Mwatime Mwnyi Kinondo Mariam Salim Kinondo Hamisi Majaliwa Vuga Nkoti Juma Ngefa Vuga Said Ali Godi Tsimba Hamisi Mwangaza Muhaka Mzee Krauni Kombani Swaleh Dzilala Waa POLE CUTTERS/HOUSE BUILDERS Halfan Hamisi Chimbombo Vuga Abdalla Mwasene Vuga Juma Mahone Chirimani Juma Zandzale Muhaka Kassim Chidege Ukunda Rajab Mwaboma Lunguma Hamisi A. Doni Tsimba CARPENTERS Said A. Zingi Diani Swaleh Suleiman Vuga Salim Zehulo Vuga Peter Kassim Tsimba Muda Abdallah Tsimba Mohamed Gakurya Matuga Juma Juma Shauri Ukunda Mohamed Sarai Muhaka 139 VEGETABLE – MUSHROOM COLLECTORS Mejumaa Ndaro Lunguma Mwanatumu Nadzuwa Lunguma Marera Dzombo Lunguma Binti Chishaka Lunguma Mwanasiti Garero Vyongwani Asha Suleiman Goyo Diani Mwanarusi Jabali Diani Samini Ali Ukunda Mwanasha Ganzori Tiwi Bidala Mohamed Tiwi Hadija M. Dzendze Msambweni Mwanasha Sirikwa Msambweni Bintihamadi Dzarino Msambweni Mamboleo Bakari Kinondo Mwanajuma Juma Kinondo Halima Rashid Pesa Kinondo Fatuma M. Mwasumbi Kinondo Asha Juma Zamu Kinondo Tabu Omari Kinondo AGRICULTURAL EXT. OFFICER Fredrick Mwawasi Kwale SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS DIANI SECONDARY SCHOOL Hassan Mbwana Form 4 Shibe M. Shibe Form 4 Zani Hamisi Form 4 Mwahasi Mwachega Form 4 Mgandi Mwadzaya Form 4 Munyiva Kasonga Form 4 Peter Mwero Form 4 Subira Chanjari Form 4 Pili Omar Form 3 Nema K. Rawende Form 3 Ramadhani Juma Form 3 Juma Bakari Form 3 Mohamed Lagiza Form 3 Zenatra Gula Form 3 Rehema Sinago Form 3 Aisha Mwakutala Form 3 140 Omar Mzee Chasi Form 2 Koka Boga Form 2 Mebakari Mwabishi Form 2 Makoroma Juma Form 2 KINONDO SECONDARY SCHOOL Ali Idd Form 4 Mwanasha Boga Form 4 Sofia Mohamed Form 4 Hassan A. Mtukuu Form 4 Mariam Mwaboga Form 4 Mwanalima Mwinyi Form 4 Halfan O. Chirema Form 3 Rehema H. Kama Form 3 Salim Magogo Form 3 Idd R. Mdzala Form 3 Mariam Hussein Form 3 Rehema Hussein Form 3 Juma Athumani Form 3 Hamisi Mwarizo Form 2 Zania Mwalaba Form 2 Sita Omar Lalo Form 2 Abduli Mbingi Form 2 Rehema O. Mwabeha Form 2 Shee Randzuga Form 2 Ali Mwanyendesi Form 2 KAYA TIWI SECONDARY SCHOOL Nassoro S. Mwanganyawa Form 4 Salim Magogo Form 4 Bintiathumani Guli Form 4 Twalib Makarani Form 4 Fredrick Ngala Form 4 Mwanamkasi Idd Form 4 Mebakari Hamisi Form 4 Sudi Masemo Form 3 Lipo Suleiman Form 3 Tatu Abdallah Form 2 Juma Mwarizo Form 2 141 PUPILS (Tiwi Primary School) Mwachirimira Hamisi Mishi Omar Mwamairi Abdallah Mohamed Mwasuche Zainabu Mwasaria Mwanakibu Mohamed Chigudi Hamisi Mwadzereru Mwanasiti Mwanahalima POST SCHOOL YOUTHS Kassim Nassoro Tunu Vuga Mohamed Ali Zingi Vuga Omar Said Msirikeni Vuga Abdalla Idd Vuga Mohamed Idd Nariri Vuga Kudura Nariri Vuga Nassoro Mwanganyawa Vuga Abdallah R. Mwakoi Vuga Hussein R. Mwakoi Vuga Hassan M. Mwauchi Tiwi Said Mwajefwa Tiwi Bakari Shauri Tiwi Juma Mwakoyowa Tiwi Omari Chivumba Tiwi Nassir Mwabuga Tiwi Ali S. Zimbu Tiwi Kadara M. Kashembwe Tiwi Omar R. Mwagandzori Tiwi Swaleh Mwavumbi Tiwi 142 APPENDIX III: A list digo plant names, their botanical and standard English names The list is ordered alphabetically by Digo names. Cf. also Appendix VI where linguistic analysis of some names is given BOTANICAL NAME DIGO NAME Panicum maximum Jacq. Pyrenacantha kaurabassana Baill. Solanum melongena L Angraecum dives Rolfe. Ansellia africana Lindl. Tephrosia villosa (L.) Pers. Tephrosia villosa (L.) Pers. Commiphora obovata Chiov. Hypoestes forskaolei (Vahl) R. Br. Tabernaemontana elegans Stapf Rauvolfia mombasiana Stapf Rhynchosia velutina Wight & Arn. Indigofera trita L.f. Plicosepalus curviflorus (Benth.) Tiegh. Secamone retusa N.E.Br Toddaliopsis sansibarensis (Engl.) Engl. Harrisonia abyssinica Oliv. Barleria setigera Rendle Commelina bracteosa Hassk. Erythroxylum emarginatum Thonn. Haplocoelum mombasense Bullock Scorodophloeus fischeri (Taub.) J.Léonard Chazaliella abrupta (Hiern) Petit & Verdc. Acacia seyal Del. Bondo Bundi Bungulia Chiahira Chiahira Chibalazi chanze Chibalazi mlungu Chibambara Chibaruti Chibombo Chibombo ulimbo Chibugu Chibugu chilume Chibugu sicho kolo Chiburu madzi Chidimu tsaka Chidori Chidungadunga Chidzedza Chifumai Chifunga sandzu Chifunga sandzu Chigamba Chigundi Phyllanthus amarus Schum. & Thonn. Cissampelos pareira L. var. orbiculata (DC.) Miq. Hyphaene coriacea Gaertn. Acacia adenocalyx Brenan & Exell Capparis viminea Oliv. var. viminea Stylochaeton salaamicus NE Br. Stylochaeton salaamicus NE Br. Craibia brevicaudata (Vatke) Dunn Ludia mauritiana Gmelin Elaeodendron schweinfurthianum (Loes.) Loes Rourea orientalis Baill Cynometra webberi Bak.f. Strychnos pangenesis Gilg Dichapetalum arenarium Bret. Acacia mellifera (Vahl) Benth. Mkilua fragrans Verdc. Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertner Leucas sp. Gardenia volkensii K.Schum. ssp. Volkensii Oxygonum sinuatum (Meisn) Dammer. Mkilua fragrans Verdc. Clerodendrum glabrum E. Mey. Clerodendrum incisum Klotzsch Clerodendrum incisum Klotzsch Acacia adenocalyx Brenan & Exell Clausena anisata (Willd.) Benth. Chihumbo utsungu Chihumbohumbo Chikoko Chikombe tsui Chikombe tsui Chikonje Nyaa Chikunguni Chikunguni Chikunguni chilume Chikuta manena Chikwadzu Chikwakwa Chikwalakwala Chikwata kombe Chilua Chimbikaya Chimvuno Chimwemwe Chindiri Chingade Chinuka cha mmasai Chinuka Mtsatsa Chinyakore Chinyapala STANDARD OR COMMON NAME Egg plant Orchid Orchid White galled Acacia, Whistling thorn tree Double thorn Acacia - 143 Appendix III Cont. BOTANICAL NAME Phyllanthus delpyanus Hutch. Scutia myrtina (Burm.f.) Kurz Alchornea laxiflora (Benth.) Pax & K.Hoffm. Lantana viburnoides (Forssk.) Vahl Ocimum gratissimum L. var. gratissimum Cissampelos pareira L. var. orbiculata (DC.) Miq. Plicosepalus curviflorus (Benth.) Tiegh. Amaranthus graecizans L. Ormocarpum kirkii S. Moore Memecylon amaniense (Gilg) A. & R.Fernandes Striga asiatica (L.) O.Ktze. Cola minor Brenan Cordia somaliensis Bak. Allium cepa L. Allium sativum L. Ficus lutea Vahl Aganthisanthemum bojeri Klotzsch var bojeri Ocimum suave Willd. Triumfetta rhomboidea Jacq. Aganthisanthemum bojeri Klotzsch var bojeri Synadenium pereskiifolium (Baill.) Guill. Synadenium pereskiifolium (Baill.) Guill. Euphorbia hirta L. Sansevieria kirkii Baker Psilotrichum sericeum (Roxb.)Dalz Tylophora sp. Commelina benghalensis L. Plectranthus flaccidus Guerke Asystasia gangetica (L.) T. Anders. Melanthera biflora (L.) Wild Plectranthus tenuiflorus Vatke Euphorbia nyikae Pax Panicum maximum Jacq. Aloe spp. Adenia gummifera (Harv.) Harms Lawsonia inermis L. Ormocapum sennoides DC. Hypoestes aristata Soland. ex Roem & Schult. Pupalia lappacea (L.) Juss. Cenchrus mitis Anderss. Brassica oleracea var. capitata Jateorhiza palmata (Lam.) Miers. Syzygium aromatic (L.) Merr. et Perry Daucus carota L. Commelina bracteosa Hassk. Commelina forskaolii Vahl Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp Gonatopus boivinii (Decne.) Engl. Parquetina nigrescens (Afzel.) Bullock Indigofera sp. Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench. Maytenus undata (Thunb.) Blakelock Manihot esculenta L. Dioscorea astericus Burkill Zea mays L DIGO NAME STANDARD OR COMMON NAME Chinyapala Chinyokola Chiphala kanga Chiphatsa chilume Chirahani Chisikio paka Chisikolo Chiswenya Chitadzi Chitambuu Chitsai Witchweed Chitsamvia Chitundo Chitunguu madzi Onion Chitunguu saumu Garlic Chiuzi Fig tree Chivuma nyuchi Chivumbani Chivumbani cha chigala Chivundza kesi Chiyuyu Tupa Chiziyaziya Asthma weed Chongwa Demu Dokadoka Dzedza Wandering Jew Fuka Futswe Futswe ra pwani Galagala tsui Ganga Gogwe Golonje Gore Hina Henna Humbo ra nguluwe Jirimata futswe Purple Haze Jirimata kulu Jirimata lume Kabichi Cabbage Kalumwa Karafuu Clove Karoti Carrot Kongwe chetu Kongwe lume Kunde Cow pea Kundzwi Libugu pamba Lihago Mabenda Okra, lady finger Machende ga mnyau Manga Cassava Mani Mapemba Maize, corn 144 Appendix III Cont. BOTANICAL NAME Phaseolus vulgaris L. Zea mays L Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. Afzelia quanzensis Welw. Commiphora africana (A.Rich.) Engl. Commiphora lindensis Engl. Abutilon mauritianum (Jacq.) Medic. Abutilon zanzibaricum Mast. Euphorbia hirta L. Caesalpinia bonduc (L.) Roxb. Grewia ectasicarpa S. Moore Grewia holstii Burret Premna resinosa (Hochst.) Schauer Grewia forbesii Mast. Ampelocissus africana (Lour.) Merr. Anacardium occidentale L. Mimosa pudica L. Biophytum petersianum Klotzsch Psychotria lauracea (K. Schum) E.M.A. Petit Bougainvillea spp. Ancylobotrys petersiana (Kl.) Pierre Annona senegalensis Pers. Trema orientalis (L.) Bl. Bourreria nemoralis (Gürke) Thulin Sida acuta Burm. f. Caesalpinia bonduc (L.) Roxb. Citrus reticulata Blanco. Lagenaria siceraria (Molina) Standley Amaranthus hybridus L. Dichrostachys cinerea (L.) Wight & Arn. Celtis mildbraedii Engl. Xylopia parviflora (A.Rich.) Benth. Hyparrhenia sp. Lannea schweinfurthii (Engl.) Engl. var. stulmannii (Engl.) Kokwaro Lannea schweinfurthii (Engl.) Engl. Var. acuminata (Engl.) Kokwaro Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck Gyrocarpus americanus Jacq. Commiphora pteleifolia Engl. Citrus aurantium L. Antidesma venosum Tul. Commiphora zanzibarica (Baill.) Engl. Hyparrhenia sp. Hyperthelia dissoluta (Nees ex Steud) Clayton Maclura africana (Bureau) Corner Citrus aurantiifolia (Christm.) Fam. Swingle Hunteria zeylanica (Retz.) Gardn. var. africana Suregada zanzibariensis Baill. Cissus rotundifolia (Forssk.) Vahl. Cissus sylvicola Masinde & Newton Cissus quinquangularis Chiov. Cissus rotundifolia (Forssk.) Vahl. Cissus sylvicola Masinde & Newton Cissus quinquangularis Chiov. Salacia madagascariensis (Lam.) DC. DIGO NAME Maragwe Matsere Mbalazi Mbambakofi Mbambara Mbambara Mbangula mavi Mbangula mavi Mbatata Mbate Mbavubavu Mbavubavu Mbavubavu mdide Mbavubavu mkulu Mbebeneka Mbibo Mbodzebodze Mbodzembodze Mbogaboga Mboganvila Mbohoya Mbokwe Mbonobono Mbunduchi Mbundugo Mburuga Mchendza Mchiburu Mchicha Mchinjiri Mchiza tsaka Mchiza tsaka Mchuchi Mchumbu STANDARD OR COMMON NAME Kidney bean Maize, corn Pigeon pea Mahogany Asthma weed Cashew nut Bougainvillea Wild custard apple Tangerine Calabash gourd Amaranth Chinese lantern tree African celtis - Mchumbu madzi - Mchungwa Mchusa Mdandachindi Mdandzi Mdanga tsongo Mdege Mdembe Mdembe Mdhahabu Mdimu Mdimu tsaka Mdimu tsaka Mdokadoka Mdokadoka Mdokadoka Mbugubugu Mbugubugu Mbugubugu Mdoma Sweet orange Sour orange Thatching grass Lime - 145 Appendix III Cont. BOTANICAL NAME DIGO NAME Salacia madagascariensis (Lam.) DC. Bridelia micrantha (Hochst.) Baill. Synsepalum kassneri (Engl.) T.D. Penn. Zanthoxylum chalybeum Engl. ssp. chalybeum Bruguiera gymnorrhiza (L.) Lam. Antidesma venosum Tul. Catunaregam nilotica (Stapf) Tirvengadum Garcinia livingstonei T. Anders Vitex payos (Lour.) Merr. Vitex mombassae Vatke Vitex doniana Sweet Canthium kilifiensis Bridson ined. Cynometra suaheliensis (Taub.) Bak.f. Sterculia appendiculata K. Schum. Schlechterina mitostemmatoides Harms Garcinia livingstonei T. Anders Haplocoelum inoploeum Radlk. Entada rheedii Spreng Bourreria nemoralis (Gürke) Thulin Feretia apodanthera (Del.) Heinsia crinita (Afz.) G.Tayl. Sclerocarya birrea (A. Rich.) Hochst. Mimusops somaliensis Chiov. Ficus bussei Mildbr. & Burret Ficus faulkneriana C.C.Berg Ficus sycomorus L. Stereospermum kunthianum Cham. Musa spp. Hoslundia opposita Vahl Cyphostemma adenocaule (Steud.) Descoings Sterculia rhynchocarpa K. Schum. Antiaris toxicaria (Pers.) Lesch. Acacia stuhlmannii Taub. Ziziphus mucronata Willd. ssp. mucronata Catha edulis (Vahl) Forsk ex Endl. Zanthoxylum chalybeum Engl. ssp. chalybeum Lantana camara L. Pandanus kirkii Rendle Tetracera boiviniana Baill. Bridelia cathartica Betrol. F. Phyllanthus reticulatus Poir Monodora grandidieri Baill. Crotalaria emarginata Boj. Rinorea elliptica (Oliv.) O.Ktze. Streblus usambarensis (Engl.) C.C.Berg Streblus usambarensis (Engl.) C.C.Berg Vitellariopsis kirkii (Baker) Dubard Thevetia peruviana (Pers.) K. Schum. Mwambaro Mdudu Mdulu Mdungu Mdzago Mdzenga tsongo Mdzongodzongo Mfidzofidzo Mfudu Mfudu madzi Mfudu unga Mfumula ndolwa Mfunda Mfune Mfunga nyama Mfunga sandzu Mfunga sandzu Mfwihi Mfyofyo Mfyofyo Mfyofyo Mg’ongo Mgama Mgandi Mgandi Mgandi Mgodo Mgomba Mgongolo Mgongolo mlume Mgoza Mgua Mgunga Mgungune Miraa Mjafari Mjasasa Mkadi Mkala fisi Mkalakala Mkambakamba Mkele Mkelekele Mkete Mkete Msusu Mkilishangwe Mkode Avicennia marina (Forssk.) Vierh. Bruguiera gymnorrhiza (L.) Lam. Rhizophora mucronata Lam. Sideroxylon inerme L. Sideroxylon inerme L. Hyphaene compressa H. Wendl. Grewia plagiophylla K. Schum. Mkoko Mkoko Mkoko Mkoko bara Mkoko mwitu Mkoma Mkone STANDARD OR COMMON NAME Mangrove Black plum Mgude Morula Fig tree Fig tree Fig tree Banana False Mvule, False Iroko Fever tree Buffalo thorn Khat, Abyssinian tea Devil’s weed, Tick berry Screw pine Yellow Oleander, LuckyNut Mangrove Mangrove Doum palm - 146 Appendix III Continued BOTANICAL NAME Grewia densa K. Schum. Balanites wilsoniana Dawe & Sprague Combretum schumannii Engl. Ellipanthus hemandradenioides Brenan Combretum paniculatum Vent. ssp. paniculatum Musa spp. Rhoicissus revoilii Planch. Anacardium occidentale L. Grevea eggelinga Whitfieldia elongate (Beauv.) C.B.Cl. Diospyros cornii Chiov. Adansonia digitata L. Vepris lanceolata (Lam.) G. Don Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. Terminalia catappa L. Guettarda speciosa L. Sorindeia madagascariensis DC. Digitaria milanjiana (Rendle) Stapf Synaptolepis kirkii Oliv. Julbernardia magnistipulata (Harms) Troupin. Ficus lutea Vahl Ficus sur Forssk. Tamarindus indica L. Strychnos madagascariensis Poir. Phyllanthus reticulatus Poir Flueggea virosa (Willd.) Voigt. Flueggea virosa (Willd.) Voigt. Monodora grandidieri Baill. Diospyros greenwayi F.White Monodora grandidieri Baill. Diospyros kabuyeana F.White Carpodiptera africana Mast. Fernandoa magnifica Seem. Plicosepalus curviflorus (Benth.) Tiegh. Cananga odorata (Lam.) Hook.f. & Thoms. Pleurostelma cernuum (Decne.) Bullock Newtonia paucijuga (Harms) Brenan Citrus limon (L.) Burm. Synaptolepis kirkii Oliv. Polysphaeria multiflora Hiern Tricalysia ovalifolia Hiern Manilkara mochisia (Bak.) Dubard Cola uloloma Brenan Solanum nigrum L. Scadoxus multiflorus (Martyn) Raf. ssp. katharinae (Bak.) Friis & Nordal Siphonochilus brachystemon (K. Schum) BL. Burtt. Erianthemum curvirameum (Engl.) Wiens & Polh. Manilkara discolor (Sond.) J.H. Hemsl. Brackenridgea zanguebarica Oliv. Crossopteryx febrifuga (G. Don) Benth. Gossypioides kirkii (Mast.) J.B.Hutch. Ziziphus robertsoniana Beentje sp. nov ined Antiaris toxicaria (Pers.) Lesch. Xylopia parviflora (A.Rich.) Benth. DIGO NAME Mkone chibugu Mkonga Mkongolo Mkongolo mwiru Mkongolo wa kundu Mkoo Mkororoi Mkorosho Mkota wongo Mkula usiku Mkulu Mkulu kazingwa Mkumba mbega Mkunazi Mkungu Mkungu wa pwani Mkunguma Mkuse Mkuta manena Mkuwa Mkuyu Mkuyu Mkpwadzu Mkpwakpwa Mkpwamba lungo Mkpwamba mchetu Mkpwamba vitu Mkwele Mlala Mlala mwereru Mlala mwiru Mlanga Mlangalangazuka Mlangamia Mlangilangi Mlazakoma Mleha Mlimau Mlunga njira Mmangwi Mmangwi Mmangitovu Mnago Mnapu Mnavu Mnazi wa nyoka Mnazi wa nyoka Mnazi wa tsozi Mng’ambo Mng’andu Mng’andu Mngagamwe Mng'ambo Mnguonguo Mngwa nyahi STANDARD OR COMMON NAME Mgurure Banana Cashew nut Bastard/ Indian almond Fig tree Fig tree Tamarind Mdadarika Lemon Black nightshade False Mvule, False Iroko - 147 Appendix III Cont. BOTANICAL NAME Uvaria acuminate Oliv. Monanthotaxis fornicata (Baill.) Verdc. Uvaria lucida Benth. ssp. lucida Monanthotaxis fornicata (Baill.) Verdc. Uvaria acuminata Oliv. Uvaria lucida Benth. ssp. lucida Clerodendrum glabrum E. Mey. Pseudobersama mossambicensis (Sim.) Verdc. Cussonia zimmermannii Harms Gigasiphon macrosiphon (Harms) Brenan Parkia filicoidea Oliv. Xylopia parviflora (A.Rich.) Benth. Flacourtia indica (Burm.f.) Merrill Oncoba spinosa Forssk. Lannea schweinfurthii (Engl.) Engl. Var. acuminata (Engl.) Kokwaro Lannea schweinfurthii (Engl.) Engl. var. stulmannii (Engl.) Kokwaro Stenotaphrum dimidiatum (L.) Brongn. Keetia lukei (D.M.Bridson) Keetia venosa (Oliv.) Bridson Keetia zanzibarica (Klotzsch) Bridson Triumfetta rhomboidea Jacq. Waltheria indica L. Paullinia pinnata L. Markhamia zanzibarica (DC.) Engl. Margaritaria discoidea (Baill.) Webster Cordia goetzei Gürke Scorodophloeus fischeri (Taub.) J.Léonard Carica papaya L. Psidium guajava L. Leptactina platyphylla (Hiern) Wernh. Vismia orientalis Engl. Trema orientalis (L.) Bl. Gloriosa superba L. Acalypha fruticosa Forssk. Dalbergia melanoxylon Guill. & Perr. Achyranthes aspera L. Oryza sativa L. Dichrostachys cinerea (L.) Wight & Arn. Ormocapum sennoides DC. Landolphia kirkii Dyer Albizia anthelmintica Brongn. Schizozygia coffaeoides Baill. Deinbollia borbonica Scheff. Diospyros squarrosa Klotzsch Dalbergia boehmii Taub. ssp. boehmii Kigelia africana (Lam.) Benth. Lecaniodiscus fraxinifolius Bak. Sesamum calycinum Welw. Cucurbita maxima Duchesne Dioscorea dumetorum (Kunth.) Pax Dioscorea sp. Brachystegia spiciformis Benth. Paramacrolobium coeruleum (Taub.) Léonard Pluchea dioscoridis (L.) DC. DIGO NAME Mngwene Mngwene mlume Mngwene mlume Mngweni madevu Mngweni mdide Mngweni mkulu Mnuka lovu Mnwa madzi Mnyala Mnyandza Mnyendze Mnyinyi Mnyondoya Mnyondoya mchetu Mnyumbu STANDARD OR COMMON NAME - Mnyumbu madzi - Mnyumbwe Mnyundzu Mnyundzu Mnyundzu Mnyururika Mnyururika Mongo wa mbulu Mpalawanda Mpalika Mpamapama Mpande Mpapali Mpera Mpera wa tsakani Mpera wa tsakani Mpesi Mpewa Mphatsa Mphingo Mphulula mbuzi Mphunga Mpingwa Mpingwa Mpira Mporojo Mpukuse Mpwakapwaka Mpweke Mrandze Mratina Mremero Mrenda Mrenje Mriga Mriga yere Mrihi Mrihi Mrinda ziya Pawpaw Guava African Ebony Devil’s horsewhip Rice Chinese lantern tree Sausage tree Pumkin - 148 Appendix III Cont. BOTANICAL NAME Stachytarpheta jamaicensis (L.) Vahl Commiphora edulis (Kl.) Engl. Combretum schumannii Engl. Jatropha sp. Ozoroa obovata (Oliv.) R. & A. Fernandes Drypetes natalensis (Harv.) Hutch. Synsepalum subverticillatum (E.A. Bruce) Pennington Ozoroa insignis Del. ssp. reticulata (Bak.f.) Gillett Ozoroa obovata (Oliv.) R. & A. Fernandes Ficus exasperata Vahl Diospyros ferrea (Willd.) Bakh. Lantana camara L. Grewia ectasicarpa S. Moore Grewia holstii Burret Ceiba pentandra (L.) Gaertn. Bombax rhodognaphalon K. Schum. Colubrina asiatica (L.) Brongn. Grewia holstii Burret Millettia usaramensis Taub. Commiphora africana (A.Rich.) Engl. Dobera loranthifolia (Warb.) Harms. Salvadora persica L. Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. Hymenaea verrucosa Gaertn. Cucumis sp. Catunaregam nilotica (Stapf) Tirvengadum Caesalpinia bonduc (L.) Roxb. Dichapetalum madagascariense Poir. Oncoba spinosa Forssk. Calophyllum inophyllum L. Senna occidentale (L.) Irw. et Barn. Lantana camara L. Synsepalum brevipes (Baker) Pennington Albizia versicolor Oliv. Albizia adianthifolia (Schumach.) W.F.Wright Encephalartos hildebrandtii A.Br. & Bouché var. hildebrandtii Acalypha fruticosa Forssk. Clerodendrum glabrum E. Mey. Grewia glandulosa Vahl. Grewia vaughanii Exell Manilkara sulcata (Engl.) Dubard Toddalia asiatica (L.) Lam. Piliostigma thonningii (Schumach.) Milne-Redh. Hoslundia opposita Vahl Elaeis guineensis Jacq. Raphia farinifera (Gaertn.) Hyland Boerhavia repens L. Maytenus heterophylla (Eckl. & Zeyh.) Robson Rytigynia celastroides (Baill.) Verdc. Drypetes reticulata Pax Lamprothamnus zanguebaricus Hiern Ochna mossambicensis Klotzsch. Ochna thomasiana Engl. & Gilg Turraea nilotica Kotschy & Peyr. Dichapetalum zenkeri Engl. DIGO NAME Mruwa Mryakwembe Mryanyani Msabuni Msalasanga Msambwe Msambwe Msangasanga Msangasanga Msasa Mshipa Mshomoro Msokoto Msokoto Msufi Msufi mwitu Msuko Msuko Msumari bara Msusu Msuwaki Msuwaki Mtamata Mtandarusi Mtango koma Mtengedzi Mtera Mtobwe Mtondoo Mtondoro Mtsalafu Mtsambala Mtsamvia Mtsani ndzovu Mtsani tsiye Mtsapu Mtsatsa Mtsatsa Mtsaye Mtsaye Mtsedzi Mtseha Mtseketse Mtserere Mtsikitsi Mtsikitsi Mtsimbikaya Mtsokola ng’ongo Mtsokola wongo Mtsomatsanje Mtsome Mtsometsome Mtsonga mahana Mtsonga mwiko Mtsonga nyomba STANDARD OR COMMON NAME Blue Porterweed Fig tree Devil’s weed, Tick berry Kapok Toothbrush tree Tomato Gum copal tree Cycad Camel’s foot Wild oil palm Raffia palm - 149 Appendix III Cont. BOTANICAL NAME DIGO NAME Mildbraedia carpinifolia (Pax) Hutch. Polysphaeria multiflora Hiern Polysphaeria parvifolia Hiern Uvaria lucida Benth. ssp. lucida Agelaea pentagyna (Lam.) Baill Adenia kirkii (Mast.) Engl. Croton megalocarpoides Friis & Gilbert Hibiscus micranthus L.f. Hibiscus micranthus L.f. Launaea cornuta (Oliv. & H.) C. Jeffrey Stylosanthes fruticosa (Retz.) Alston Deinbollia borbonica Scheff. Vernonia colorata Drake Abutilon zanzibaricum Mast. Triumfetta rhomboidea Jacq. Waltheria indica L. Passiflora edulis Sims. Jasminum meyeri-johannis Engl. Sideroxylon inerme L. Dichapetalum zenkeri Engl. Ximenea americana L. Solanum incanum L. Jasminum meyeri-johannis Engl. Mangifera indica L. Acacia zanzibarica (S.Moore) Taub. Tacca leontopetaloides (L.) Kuntze Strychnos spinosa Lam. Thespesia danis Oliv. Brachylaena huillensis O. Hoffm. Senna singueana (Del.) Lock Cassia abbreviata Oliv. Pemphis acidula Forst. Ophrypetalum odoratum Diels Paramacrolobium coeruleum (Taub.) Léonard Plectranthus tenuiflorus Vatke Trichilia emetica Vahl. Antidesma venosum Tul. Holarrhena pubescens (Buch.-Ham) Wallich Ricinus communis L. Turraea floribunda Hochst. Turraea wakefieldii Oliv. Diospyros squarrosa Klotzsch Avicennia marina (Forssk.) Vierh. Saba comorensis (Bojer) Pichon Premna hildebrandtii Güerke Adansonia digitata L. Saccharum officinarum L. Millettia usaramensis Taub. Memecylon sansibaricum Taub. Casuarina equisetifolia L. Vangueria infausta Burch. Pluchea sordida (Vatke) Oliv. & Hiern Ochna thomasiana Engl. & Gilg Plectranthus tenuiflorus Vatke Premna chrysoclada (Boj.) Guerke Mtsonga nyomba Mtsonga nyomba Mtsonga nyomba Mtsonga nyomba Mtsophe Mtsotsone Mtsunduzi Mtsunga mbuzi Mtsunga ng’ombe Mtsunga wa utsungu Mtsungula Mtsungurira kuzimu Mtsungutsungu Mtsusa tsalu Mtsusa tsalu Mtsusa tsalu Mtunda Mtunda hofu Mtunda koma Mtundukula Mtundukula Mtungudza koma Muasumini wa tsakani Muembe Muhega kululu Muhi wa nyoka Muhonga Muhowe Muhuhu Muhumba Muhumba tsaka Muinamia bahari Muizu wa tsakani Mukwe Mumbu Munwa madzi Muoga ivu Muolaga kuku Muono Muoza nyama Muoza nyama Mutsi Mutsu Muungo Muurusa pungu Muuyu Muwa Mvamva Mvamva wa tsakani Mvinde Mviru Mvua koe Mvua pweza Mvuga Mvuma STANDARD OR COMMON NAME Wild lettuce Passion fruit Wild plum Sodom apple Mango Coast whistling thorn Castor oil plant Baobab Sugarcane Whistling pine - 150 Appendix III Cont. BOTANICAL NAME Borassus aethiopum Mart. Acalypha neptunica Müll. Arg. Alchornea laxiflora (Benth.) Pax & K.Hoffm. Allophylus rubifolius (A.Rich.) Engl. Bourreria teitensis (Gürke) Thulin Grandidiera boivinii Jaub. Mallotus oppositifolius (Geisel.) Müll.Arg. Mildbraedia carpinifolia (Pax) Hutch. Allophylus pervillei Bl. Allophylus rubifolius (A.Rich.) Engl. Kigelia africana (Lam.) Benth. Milicia excelsa (Welw.) C.C.Berg Davallia chaerophylloides (Poir.) Steud. Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn Phyllanthus amarus Schum. & Thonn. Adenium obesum (Forssk.) Roem. & Schult. Rhynchosia congensis Baker Xylopia parviflora (A.Rich.) Benth. Combretum illairii Engl. Erythrina sacleuxii Hua Rinorea ilicifolia (Oliv.) O.Ktze. var. ilicifolia Rottboellia exaltata (L.) Lf Bridelia cathartica Betrol. F. Cissus sp. Cyphostemma buchananii (Planch.) Desc. ex Wild & RB Drumm Tragea furialis Boj. Abrus precatorius L. ssp africana Verdc. Terminalia sambesiaca Engl. & Diels Isolana cauliflora Verdc. Polyalthia stuhlmannii (Engl.) Verdc. Uvariodendron kirkii Verdc. Abrus precatorius L. ssp africana Verdc. Terminalia prunioides Laws. Bombax rhodognaphalon K. Schum. Azadirachta indica A. Juss Hibiscus sp. aff vitifolius Inhambanella henriquesii (Engl. & Warb) Dubard Cyphostemma adenocaule (Steud.) Descoings Achyranthus emerginatus Asparagus falcatus L. var. falcatus Asparagus sp. Barringtonia racemosa (L.) Spreng. Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. Sideroxylon inerme L. Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels Syzygium guineense (Willd.) DC. Rauvolfia mombasiana Stapf Triainolepis africana Hook. f. Securidaca longipendunculata Fres. Hunteria zeylanica (Retz.) Gardn. var. africana Sideroxylon inerme L. Asteranthe asterias (S. Moore) Engl. & Diels ssp. asterias Cordia monoica Roxb. Tetracera boiviniana Baill. DIGO NAME Mvumo Mvundza jembe Mvundza jembe Mvundza jembe Mvundza jembe Mvundza jembe Mvundza jembe Mvundza jembe Mvundza kondo Mvundza kondo Mvungunya Mvure Mvwiko Mvwiko Mvyarira nyuma Mwadiga Mwadiga Mwahula tsaka Mwamba ngoma Mwamba ngoma Mwambala lutswa Mwambanyama Mwambeberu Mwamchitophyo Mwamchiviza STANDARD OR COMMON NAME African fan palm Sausage tree Mvule, Iroko Fern Bracken fern Desert Rose Itch grass - Mwamdzavi Mwamsusumbika Mwanga Mwangajine Mwangajine mchetu Mwangajine mlume Mwangala nyuchi Mwarambe Mware Mwarubaini Mwejenje Mwembe tsaka Mwenjere Mweza Mwinika ndzovu Mwinika ngulu Mworong’ondo Myogwe Myongoyongo Mzambarau Mzambarau Mzigande Mzigande wa pwani Mziji Mziyaziya Mziyaziya Mzondohera nguluwe Terminalia Terminalia East African Bombax Neem tree Sweet potato Java plum Mshiwi Violet tree - Mzondohera nguluwe Mzondohera nguluwe Sand paper tree - 151 Appendix III Cont. BOTANICAL NAME DIGO NAME Uvariodendron kirkii Verdc. Cymbopogon citrates (Nees) Stapf Ananas comosus (L.) Merr. Cocos nucifera L. Eugenia sp. Melanthera biflora (L.) Wild Diphasia sp. A Ehretia amoena Klotzsch Ehretia bakeri Britten Vepris euginiifolia (Engl.) Verdoorn Blighia unijugata Bak. Chytranthus obliquinervis Engl. Mariscus spp. Kyllinga erecta (Schum.) Mzondohera nguluwe Mzumaa Nanansi Nazi Nchibandu Nchidoka Nchikoma Nchikoma Nchikoma Nchikoma Nchivuri Nchivuri mlume Ndago lume Ndago munda Cyperus rotundus L. Heteropogon contortus (L.) Beauv. Synaptolepis kirkii Oliv. Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc. Arachis hypogaea L. Carissa bispinosa (L.) Desf. Ssp. bispinosa Persea americana Mill. Gossypioides kirkii (Mast.) J.B.Hutch. Vernonia hildebrandtii Vatke Corchorus olitorius L. Senecio cydoniifolius O. Hoffm. Phaseolus aureus Roxb. Hyptis suaveolens Poit. Solanecio angulatus (Vahl.) C.Jeffrey Brassica oleracea var. acephala Zingiber officinale Rosc. Phoenix dactylifera L. Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc. Bidens pilosa L. Heteropogon contortus (L.) Beauv. Nymphoides forbesiana (Griseb.) Kuntze Nymphaea sp. Solanum macrocarpon L. Vitex zanzibarensis Vatke Phoenix reclinata Jacq. Sesamum orientale L. Julbernardia magnistipulata (Harms) Troupin. Gonatopus boivinii (Decne.) Engl. Tacca leontopetaloides (L.) Kuntze Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC. Acokanthera schimperi (A.DC.) Schweinf. Ficus stuhlmannii Warb. Solanum tuberosum L. Ocimum gratissimum L. var. gratissimum Dioscorea sansibariensis Pax Pseudovigna argentea (Willd.) Verdc. Ndago ziya Nguji Njira mbiri Njugu mawe Njugu nyasa Nvuje ya nze Ovakado Pamba mwitu Phatsa Phombo Phoza Podzo Pungahewa Reza Sukumawiki Tangawizi Tende Tendegwa mawe Todza Todza Toro Toro ndide Mtungudza Ubani wa pwani Uchindu Ufuha Ukwe Ulanga Ulanga Uphupu Utsungu Uuzi kaha Viazi Vumbamanga Vwivwi koma Yogweyogwe STANDARD OR COMMON NAME Lemon grass Pineapple Coconut Creeping sedge, watergrass Nutgrass, watergrass Bambara nut Groundnut, Peanut Avocado Green gram Kale Ginger Date palm Bambara nut Blackjack African egg plant Sesame Buffalo bean Fig tree Irish potato - 152 Appendix III Cont. BOTANICAL NAME DIGO NAME STANDARD OR COMMON NAME Mushrooms8 Russula aeruginea Lindblad Russula aquosa Leclair. Russula paludosa Britz. Termitomyces spp. Termitomyces sp. Lactarius spp. Calvatia spp., Lycoperdon spp. Ganoderma spp. - Nimakoba mwereru Nimakoba wa kundu Hako ra nyani Nkuvi Choga nyama Nimaziya Tumbaku ya fisi Dzogalele Nimahembo Chibazi Mwatsaka Chidzogolo Nlumbwi Mwatsaka Nchikalango Chidzogolo Nlikosi Gadugadu Nimarondo The milky caps Puffballs - 8 Some mushroom species still had their identification undone by the time this thesis was written. 153 APPENDIX IV: Aspects of Chidigo structure and affiliation Digo diachronic relationships The language spoken by the Digo, Chidigo, is one of the nine Midzichenda languages. The nearest relatives of the Midzichenda languages are Swahili and Pokomo. These three language units have been classified together by Nurse and Hinnebusch (1993) as the Sabaki group, which again is part of what those authors call North Eastcoast Bantu. The concept of a Sabaki branch is backed by a number of regular phonological, grammatical, and lexical correspondences. These correspondences include plant names. Nurse and Hinnebusch (1993) have also presented re-constructions at various levels, i.e., for proto-Midzichenda and for proto-Sabaki. However, it should be borne in mind that re-constructing lexemes within Midzichenda and within Sabaki, i.e., within a dialect continuum, is problematic in so far as the closeness and mutual intelligibility of the languages allows for easy transfer, so that contact phenomena are not always clearly distinguishable from genetic heritage. Language structure Phonology Vowels Digo has 5 vowels: a, e, i, o, u, pronounced as in Swahili (Nurse & Hinnebusch 1993), e.g. a- ga-da [peel], is pronounced as in Swahili ga-ri [car] e- te-mbe [seed], is pronounced as in Swahili te-mbea [walk] i- bi-bo [cashew fruit], is pronounced as in Swahili bibi [lady] o- to-sa [nearly ripe], is pronounced as in Swahili to-ka [get out] u- ru-wa [flower], is pronounced as un Swahili ru-husa [permission] Consonants The table below (Table D1) sets out a Digo consonant system, adapted from the Giriama consonant Table in Nurse & Hinnebusch (1993). Table D1: Table of Digo consonants Place of articulation Manner of articulation Stops Affricates Labial Alveolar/dental palatal velar labiovelar Voiceless p (t) ch k kp Voiced b d j g gb Voiced ts Voiceless dz f S sh ph dh, z ź Continuants w l, r y h Nasals m n ny ng' Fricatives Voiceless Voiced The symbols used in the table are the standard phonetic ones, except for dh, sh, ny and ng’ which are used as in Swahili orthography (Nurse & Hinnebusch 1993), and have here been used in Digo orthography. In addition the ph in Digo orthography has been taken to stand for phonetic v. Midzichenda languages distinguish an alveolar t 154 from a dental one. Since the distinction is not made in the orthography made so far, and since it could not be checked on the nature of t for each word, the existing orthography has been followed by reducing the two ts to one. Thus the table has been simplified, and does not distinguish between bi-labials and labio-dentals, so that f and ph appear in the same labial column. Vowels after ‘h’ are nasalised, and for this reason one also finds the spelling /nh/, cf. munhi instead of muhi (Dammann 1936). Since the nasalisation is automatic, it was not found necessary to indicate it in writing. Dammann (1936) who has published Digo folk tales from the Tanga area, also uses the five vowels and the following consonants: the stops p, b, t, d, k, g, aspirated: stops ph, th, kh, fricatives v, v, f, s, z, š, ž, h (with a remark on nasality), and affricates ts, dz, tš, dž. Dammann also has the nasals indicated in the table above, plus an additional labiovelar nasal m. As for liquids Dammann uses r which is adequate for southern Digo. Finally he has the continuants w, y. As noted by Nurse & Hinnebusch (1993), which correspond to observations in this study, ž is very rare in Digo. Dialects Among the Kenyan Digo speakers there are two distinct groups, characterised by variation in dialect interchange between r and l. While in south (Kinondo to Lungalunga) r replaces l in pronunciation, in some words the r is interchanged with l in north (Ukunda to Likoni). The speakers are aware of this variation, and although ‘immigrant’ speakers switch to the dialect of the host group, it usually takes time. These differences are traceable in plant names e.g. Mkalakala in the north could be identified as Mkarakara in south. Tone Similar to a number of Bantu languages in the East African coast, Digo is a so-called reduced tone language (Philippson 1993). As a somewhat simplified statement it can be said that the reduction for Digo consists in the fact that not all syllables of a given word are tonally relevant. Strictly speaking however, it would have required that the tone for the Digo word is indicated in the presented text. This however, has not been practised so far as there were no examples to follow, and the tonal analyses existing are far from exhaustive. Therefore tone in the presentation has been disregard. Morphology In the morphology of Chidigo, one finds the well-known Bantu noun class system which is presented here in the way established in Bantu studies. Bantu languages were originally called class languages in distinction to gender languages. Gender languages have a sex reference for all nouns, i.e. masculine, feminine or neuter, as der Mann, die Frau, and das Kind in German. Class languages do not have gender reference but have a difference in referring to classes of objects e.g. human beings, animals, plants, things. In modern grammatical treatments the term ‘class’ is replaced by ‘non-sex gender’. The non-sex gender system exemplified here for Digo retains the established enumeration of classes for Bantu. The classes are organised in pairs and their relation is one of number, e.g. class 2 is the plural of class 1, etc. The following is an overview of primary noun classes of Digo, which have a predetermined prefix for each class: Class 1 - has prefix m(u) Class 2 - has prefix a e.g. mutu [person] atu [people] Class 3 – prefix m(u) class 4 - prefix mi e.g. muhi [tree] mihi [trees] 155 Class 5 – Zero prefix Class 6 – prefix ma e.g. embe [mango] maembe [mangoes] Class 7 – has prefix chi Class 8 – has prefix vi e.g. Chitu [thing] vitu [things] Class 9 – N Class 10 - N e.g. ndimu [lime fruit] ndimu [lime fruits] Class 11 – has prefix li Class 10 – N e.g. lilimi [tongue] ndimi [tongues] Class 12 and 13 do not exist in Digo Class 14 – u abstract has no plural e.g. ure, uzito, ubaya [length, weight, evil] Class 15 – ku infinitive e.g. kugomba [to speak], kutsimba [to dig], kurema [to refuse] Derived prefix attachment (Secondary prefix) Apart from the primary prefixes given above, the so-called secondary prefixes may be used instead. These prefixes add specifications of size viz. diminutive and augmentative. These prefixes are also known as derived prefixes, and they include: Chi_ vi_ e.g. chidzihi [small tree] vidzihi [small trees] dzi_ madzi_ e.g. dzibugu [large climber] madzibugu [large climbers] As for climber plants, the augmentative prefix dzi is interchangeable with li, i.e. dzibugu[large climber] and libugu [large climber]. In Digo, as in any Bantu language, the class system is characterized by verbal concord or agreement, i.e. the class membership of a given noun is repeated in dependant word categories such as adjective, verb and pronoun. The following is a list of nominal concord: Mutu aredza a_ Mutu wa Nairobi Atu aredza a_ Atu a Nairobi Muhi ukagwa u_ Muhi wa tsakani Mihi ikagwa i_ Mihi ya tsakani Embe rikagwa ri_ Embe ra chidigo Maembe gakagwa ga_ Maembe ga chidigo Chitu chikagwa chi_ Chitu cha mayo Vitu vikagwa vi_ Vitu vya mayo Ndimu ikagwa i_ Ndimu ya utsungu Ndimu zikagwa zi_ Ndimu za utsungu Lilimi rinaluma ri_ Lilimi ra ng’ombe Ndimi zinaluma zi_ Ndimi za ng’ombe Ulaya iredza i_ Ulaya ya Kwale The table below (Table D2) presents a summary of the Digo class prefixes, which include the nominal, verbal and pronominal prefixes. 156 Table D2: Digo class prefixes Class NP VP PP 1 mu a u 2 a a a 3 mu u u 4 mi i ya 5 0 ri ra 6 ma ga ga 7 chi chi cha 8 vi vi vya 9 N i ya 10 N zi za 11 li ri ra 14 u zi za 15 ku i ya Notes: NP – Nominal prefix; VP – Verbal prefix; and PP – Pronominal prefix; N – stands for a homorganic nasal. Although classes 9 and 10 have identical nominal prefix (NP) there is an underlying difference which comes out in the dependant prefixes, i.e. /i/ for class 9 and /zi/ for class 10. 157 APPENDIX V: Notes on Digo plant identification processes and the features used (n= 236) (The list is ordered in alphabetic order by Digo names) BOTANICAL NAME Panicum maximum Pyrenacantha kaurabassana Angraecum dives Ansellia africana Tephrosia villosa Commiphora lindensis Hypoestes forskaolei Tabernaemontana elegans Rhynchosia velutina Rhynchosia congensis Indigofera trita Plicosepalus curviflorus Secamone retusa Toddaliopsis sansibariensis Harrisonia abyssinica Barleria setigera Scorodophloeus fischeri Phyllanthus amarus Hyphaene coriaceae Capparis viminea Acacia adenocalyx Craibia brevicaudata Ludia mauritiana Cynometra webberi Acacia mellifera Mkilua fragrans Gardenia volkensii Oxygonum sinuatum Clerodendrum glabrum Clausena anisata Lantana viburnoides Cissampelos pareira Ormocarpum kirkii Striga asiatica LIFE FORM Grass Liana Epiphyte DIGO NAME Bondo Bundi Chiahira IDENTIFICATION DETAILS (human senses and plant features used) Visual aspects of leaves and inflorescence Visual features of the leaves and the tuber Visual aspects of whole plant Herb Tree Herb Tree Liana Liana Herb Liana Herb Shrub Shrub Shrub Tree Herb Tree Shrub Chibalazi chanze Chibambara Chibaruti Chibombo Chibugu Chibugu chichetu Chibugu chilume Chibugu sicho kolo Chiburu madzi Chidimu tsaka Chidori Chidungadunga Chifunga sandzu Chihumbo utsungu Chikoko Chikombe tsui Visual features of the leaves were used Visual aspects of leaves and stems Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of leaves, presence of latex Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of whole plant Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and aromatic features Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of whole plant Visual aspects of leaves, stem and fruits Visual aspects of leaves Tree Chikunguni Visual aspects of leaves Tree Tree Shrub Shrub Herb Shrub Herb Shrub Herb Tree Herb Chikwadzu Chikwata kombe Chilua Chimwemwe Chindiri Chinuka cha mmasai Chinyapala Chiphatsa chilume Chisikio paka Chitadzi Chitsai Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and flowers, and aromatic of flowers Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects and aromatic features of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of whole 158 Appendix V Cont. BOTANICAL NAME Cola minor Encephalartos hildebrandtii Cordia somaliensis Aganthisanthemum bojeri Ocimum suave Synadenium pereskiifolium Euphorbia hirta Psilotrichum serisum Plectranthus flaccidus Asystasia gangetica Melanthera biflora Plectranthus tenuiflorus Euphorbia nyikae Aloe sp. Adenia gummifera Hypoestes aristata Cenchrus mitis Commelina bracteosa Commelina forskaolii Sansevieria kirkii Parquetina nigrescens Indigofera sp. Erythrina sacleuxii Afzelia quanzensis Abutilon zanzibaricum Premna resinosa Grewia forbesii Biophytum petersianum Mimosa pudica Ancylobotrys petersiana Annona senegalensis Bourreria nemoralis Caesalpinia bonduc Dichrostachys cinerea Xylopia parviflora Lannea schweinfurthii ssp. stuhlmannii LIFE FORM Tree Shrub Shrub Herb Herb Shrub Herb Herb Herb Herb Herb Herb Shrub Shrub Liana Herb Grass Grass Grass Shrub Liana Herb Tree Tree Shrub Shrub Shrub Herb DIGO NAME Chitsamvia Chitsapu Chitundo Chivuma nyuchi Chivumbani Chiyuyu Chiziyaziya Demu Fuka Futswe Futswe ra pwani Galagala tsui Ganga Golonje Gore Jirimata futswe Jirimata lume Kongwe chetu Kongwe lume Konje tsaka Libugu pamba Lihago Mbamba ngoma Mbambakofi Mbangula mavi Mbavubavu mdide Mbavubavu mkulu Mbodzembodze IDENTIFICATION DETAILS (human senses and plant features used) Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects and aromatic features of leaves Visual aspects of whole plant and corrosive latex (on touch) Visual aspects of leaves and presence of latex Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects and taste features of leaves Visual aspects of whole plant and corrosive latex (on touch) Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of fruits Visual aspects of fruits Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects and desiccation (on touch) of leaves Liana Shrub Shrub Shrub Tree Tree Tree Mbohoya Mbokwe Mbunduchi Mburuga Mchinjiri Mchiza tsaka Mchumbu Visual aspects of leaves, fruits and stem Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and growth form of whole plant Visual aspects of leaves 159 Appendix V Cont. BOTANICAL NAME Lannea schweinfurthii ssp. acuminata Commiphora pteleifolia Hyparrhenia sp. Maclura africana Suregada zanzibariensis Hunteria zeylanica Cissus rotundifolia C. sylvicola C. quinquangularis Bridelia micrantha Zanthoxylum chalybeum Bruguiera gymnorrhiza Catunaregam nilotica Garcinia livingstonei Vitex payos Vitex mombassae Vitex doniana Canthium kilifiensis Cynometra suaheliensis Schlechterina mitostemmatoides Heinsia crinita Sterculia rhynchocarpa Acacia stuhlmannii Lantana camara Pandanus kirkii Flueggea virosa Crotalaria emarginata Vitellariopsis kirkii Sideroxylon inerme Hyphaene compressa Grewia plagiophylla Grewia densa Balanites wilsoniana Combretum schumannii Ellipanthus hemandradenioides LIFE FORM Tree DIGO NAME Mchumbu madzi IDENTIFICATION DETAILS (human senses and plant features used) Visual aspects of leaves Tree Grass Shrub Tree Mdandachindi Mdembe Mdhahabu Mdimutsaka Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of stem Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects and aromatic features of leaves Liana Mdokadoka Visual aspects of stem Tree Tree Tree Shrub Shrub Tree Tree Tree Shrub Tree Liana Mdudu Mdungu Mdzago Mdzongodzongo Mfidzofidzo Mfudu Mfudu madzi Mfudu unga Mfumula ndolwa Mfunda Mfunga nyama Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves, aromatic of leaves, bark and roots Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of leaves and taste features of fruits Visual aspects of leaves and taste features of fruits Visual aspects of leaves and taste features of fruits Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Shrub Tree Tree Shrub Shrub Shrub Herb Shrub Tree Tree Tree Shrub Tree Tree Tree Mfyofyo Mgoza Mgunga Mjasasa Mkadi Mkambavitu Mkelekele Mkilishangwe Mkoko bara Mkoma Mkone Mkone chibugu Mkonga Mkongolo Mkongolo mwiru Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and inner bark of stem Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves, flowers and fruits Visual aspects of leaves and aromatic features of flowers Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves, stem and fruits Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of leaves 160 Appendix V Cont. BOTANICAL NAME Grevea eggelinga Ziziphus mauritiana Terminalia catappa Sorindeia madagascariensis Digitaria milanjiana Ficus lutea Ficus sur Ficus sp Tamarindus indica Strychnos madagascariensis Phyllanthus reticulatus Monodora grandidieri Diospyros kabuyeana Newtonia paucijuga Manilkara mochisia Solanum nigrum Erianthemum curvirameum Manilkara discolour Ziziphus robertsoniana Crossopteryx febrifuga Brackenridgea zanguebarica Sclerocarya birrea Antiaris toxicaria Monanthotaxis fornicata Uvaria acuminata Uvaria lucida Trichilia emetica Pseudobersama mossambicensis Cussonia zimmermannii Gigasiphon macrosiphon Parkia filicoidea Flacourtia indica Keetia lukei Keetia venosa Keetia zanzibarica Triumfetta rhomboidea Paullinia pinnata LIFE FORM Shrub Tree Tree Tree Grass Tree DIGO NAME Mkota wongo Mkunazi Mkungu Mkunguma Mkuse Mkuyu IDENTIFICATION DETAILS (human senses and plant features used) Visual aspects and aromatic features of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of whole plant Visual aspects of leaves Tree Tree Shrub Tree Tree Tree Tree Herb Parasite Tree Mkpwadzu Mkpwakwa Mkpwamba lungo Mlala mwereru Mlala mwiru Mleha Mnago Mnavu Mnazi wa tsozi Mng'ambo Visual aspects and taste features of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects and taste features of leaves Visual aspects of whole plant Visual aspects of leaves Shrub Mng'andu Visual aspects of leaves and stem Tree Tree Shrub Shrub Shrub Tree Mng'ongo Mnguonguo Mngweni madevu Mngweni mchetu Mngweni mlume Mnwa madzi Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects and aromatic features of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Tree Tree Tree Shrub Shrub Mnyala Mnyandza Mnyendze Mnyondoya Mnyundzu Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Herb Liana Mnyururika Mongo wa mbulu Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves 161 Appendix V Cont. BOTANICAL NAME Markhamia zanzibarica Leptactina platyphylla Vismia orientalis Gloriosa superba Achyranthes aspera Acacia zanzibarica Landolphia kirkii Albizia anthelmintica Deinbollia borbonica Diospyros squarrosa Dalbergia boehmii Lecaniodiscus fraxinifolius Sesamum calycinum Dioscorea dumetorum Brachystegia spiciformis Paramacrolobium coeruleum Pluchea dioscoridis Commiphora edulis Jatropha sp. Drypetes natalensis Ozoroa insignis Ozoroa obovata Ficus exasperata Cordia monoica Ceiba pentandra Dobera loranthifolia Hymenaea verrucosa Oncoba spinosa Calophyllum inophyllum Senna occidentale Synsepalum brevipes Synsepelum subverticillatum Albizia versicolor Albizia adianthifolia Acalypha fruticosa Grewia glandulosa Grewia vaughanii Piliostigma thonningii LIFE FORM Tree Tree DIGO NAME Mpalawanda Mpera wa tsakani IDENTIFICATION DETAILS (human senses and plant features used) Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Herb Herb Tree Liana Tree Shrub Tree Tree Tree Herb Herb Tree Mpewa Mphulula mbuzi Mpiga kululu Mpira Mporojo Mpwakapwaka Mpweke Mrandze Mremero Mrenda Mriga Mrihi Visual aspects of leaves and flowers Visual aspects of whole plant and fruits, and piercing (touch) feature of fruits Visual aspects of leaves and wind sound effect Visual aspects of leaves, stem and fruits Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of leaves, aromatic features of roots Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of leaves and inner bark Herb Shrub Herb Tree Shrub Mrinda ziya Mryakwembe Msabuni Msambwe Msangasanga Visual aspects of whole plant Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of whole plant Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Tree Msasa Visual aspects and sandpapery features (touch) of leaves Tree Tree Tree Shrub Tree Herb Tree Msufi Msuwaki Mtandarusi Mtondoo Mtondoro Mtsalafu Mtsamvia Visual aspects of leaves, stem and fruits Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and ‘gum’ sap Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves, stem and fruits Tree Tree Shrub Shrub Mtsani ndzovu Mtsani tsiye Mtsatsa Mtsaye Visual aspects of leaves and timber Visual aspects of leaves and timber Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Tree Mtseketse Visual aspects of leaves 162 Appendix V Cont. BOTANICAL NAME Hoslundia opposita Maytenus heterophylla Rytigynia celastroides Drypetes reticulata Ochna mossambicensis Ochna thomasiana Polysphaeria parvifolia Polysphaeria multiflora Croton megalocarpoides Hibiscus micranthus Launaea cornuta Jasminum meyeri-johannis Ximenea americana Solanum incanum Strychnos spinosa Thespesia danis Brachylaena huillensis Senna singueana Ophrypetalum odoratum Julbernardia magnistipulata Ricinus communis Barringtonia racemosa Turraea floribunda Dalbergia melanoxylon Avicennia marina Saba comorensis Premna hildebrandtii Adansonia digitata Millettia usaramensis Vangueria infausta Premna chrysoclada Borassus aethiopum Acalypha neptunica Allophylus rubifolius Mallotus oppositifolius Allophylus pervillei Kigelia africana LIFE FORM Shrub Shrub Shrub Tree Tree Tree Shrub DIGO NAME Mtserere Mtsokola wongo Mtsokolang'ongo Mtsomatsanje Mtsometsome Mtsonga mahana Mtsonga nyomba IDENTIFICATION DETAILS (human senses and plant features used) Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Tree Herb Herb Shrub Shrub Shrub Tree Shrub Tree Shrub Tree Tree Shrub Tree Shrub Tree Tree Liana Shrub Tree Shrub Tree Shrub Tree Shrub Mtsunduzi Mtsunga ng'ombe Mtsunga wa utsungu Mtunda hofu Mtundukula Mtungudza koma Muhonga Muhowe Muhuhu Muhumba Muizu wa tsakani Mukwe Muono Muorong'ondo Muoza nyama Muphingo Mutsu Muungo Muurusa pungu Muuyu Mvamva Mviru Mvuma Mvumo Mvundza jembe Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects and taste features of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and flowers Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of whole plant Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and seeds Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and inner wood Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects and aromatic features of leaves, stem and roots Visual aspects of whole plant Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects and aromatic features of leaves, stem and roots Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of leaves Shrub Tree Mvundza-kondo Mvungunya Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and fruits 163 Appendix V Cont. BOTANICAL NAME Milicia excelsa Davallia chaerophylloides Adenium obesum Rottboellia exaltata Bridelia cathartica Cissus sp. Tragia furialis Terminali sambesiaca Isolana cauliflora Polyalthia stuhlmannii Uvariodendron kirkii Abrus precatorius Bombax rhodognaphalon Azadirachta indica Inhambanella henriquesii Cyphostemma adenocaule Asparagus sp. Asparagus falcatus Syzygium cumini Rauvolfia mombasiana Asteranthe asterias Diphasia sp. A (of FTEA) Blighia unijugata Chytranthus obliquinervis Mariscus spp. Kyllinga erecta Cyperus rotundus Synaptolepis kirkii Carissa bispinosa Gossypioides kirkii Vernonia hildebrandtii Corchorus olitorius Senecio cydoniifolius Hyptis suaveolens Solanecio angulatus Bidens pilosa Heteropogon contortus LIFE FORM Tree Herb Shrub Grass Shrub Liana Herb Tree Shrub Shrub Tree Herb Tree Tree Tree Shrub Herb Herb Tree Shrub Shrub Tree Tree Shrub Grass Grass Grass Herb Shrub Shrub Shrub Herb Herb Herb Herb Herb DIGO NAME Mvure Mvwiko Mwadiga Mwamba nyama Mwambeberu Mwamchitophyo Mwamdzavi Mwanga Mwanga jine Mwangajine mchetu Mwangajine mlume Mwangala nyuchi Mware Mwarubaini Mwembetsaka Mwenjere Mwinika ndzovu Mwinika ngulu Mzambarau Mzigande Mzondohera nguluwe Nchikoma Nchivuri Nchivuri mlume Ndago lume Ndago munda Ndago ziya Njira mbiri Nvuje ya nze Pamba mwitu Phatsa Phombo Phoza Pungahewa Reza Todza IDENTIFICATION DETAILS (human senses and plant features used) Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of whole plant Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of stem Visual aspects and itchy features (touch) of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and roots, and aromatic features of root Visual aspects of leaves, aromatic and colour of root Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of leaves, taste of leaves, bark and roots Visual aspects and aromatic features of leaves Visual aspects of whole plant and taste of leaves Visual aspects of whole plant Visual aspects of whole plant Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of whole plant Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of whole plant Visual aspects of whole plant Visual aspects of whole plant Visual aspects of leaves and stem Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and fruits Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of leaves and fruits 164 Appendix V Cont. BOTANICAL NAME Nymphoides forbesiana Nymphaea sp. Tacca leontopetaloides Mucuna pruriens Ficus stuhlmannii Ocimum gratissimum LIFE FORM Herb Herb Herb Shrub Tree Herb DIGO NAME Toro Toro ndide Ulanga Uphupu Uuzi kaha Vumbamanga IDENTIFICATION DETAILS (human senses and plant features used) Visual aspects of whole plant and flowers Visual aspects of whole plant Visual aspects of leaves and flowers Visual aspects of leaves, and itchy feeling from fruits Visual aspects of leaves Visual aspects of whole plant 165 APPENDIX VI: Notes on the Digo plant naming criteria Correspondences here refer to languages that share the vernacular plant name, abbreviated as ‘di’ for Digo, ‘du’ for Duruma, ‘gi’ for Giriama and ‘swa’ for Swahili. Information on the vernacular plant names for Duruma, Giriama and Swahili, was consulted from Beentje (1994), Heine & Legére (1995), Pakia (2000) Botanical name Digo name Semantics Correspondences REFERENCE TO HABITAT ‘Pigeon pea of God’, so called because it grows wild (under God’s care), but resembles cultivated pigeon pea i.e. Mbalazi (Cajanus cajan) ‘Pigeon pea of outside’. It is not cultivated, thus it grows ‘out’ there. ‘Nvuje of outside’. There is an Indian medicine known as nvuje (a spirit related medicine) that is sold in shops. This plant is considered a wild form of the same. ‘Futswe of the sea side’. The species is named after Futswe [Asystesia gangetica] but recognized to grow more to the sea front than the other species. ‘Mkungu of the sea side’. Species named after Mkungu [Terminalia catappa] but recognized to grow at the sea front. What is confusing is that Mkungu is relatively new in the area compared to the species named after it. ‘Incense of the sea side’. Species so called because it grows at the sea side and its exudates is used as incense (aromatic gum). ‘Mzigande of the sea side’. Species considered as the sea front type of Mzigande [Rauvolfia mombassiana]. - ‘Water drinker’. The name refers to the species preference in growing near rivers. - Mrinda ziya Mng'ambo ‘Water pond protector’. The name refers to the species’ common presence near water ponds. ‘Across the river’. The species is so called because it commonly grows at the river banks [ng’ambo] - Sansevieria kirkii Toddaliopsis sp. Konje tsaka Chidimu tsaka Hunteria zeylanica Suregada zanzibariensis Memecylon sansibaricum Mdimu tsaka ‘Mpera in the forest’. The species is recognized as the forest type of Mpera [Psidium guajava] ‘Muasmini in the forest’. The species is recognized as the wild form of grown perfume plant - Muasumini [Jasminum sp] ‘Banana in the forest’. The shape of the fruits of this species resembles those of mazu [bananas] hence the name, but recognized as the forest type. ‘Sisal in the forest’. The species resemble konje [sisal – Agave sisalana], but grows in the forest ‘Small lime plant in the forest’. The species is considered as the forest form of Mdimu [Citrus auratiifolia], but also smaller [Chi_] compared to ‘Mdimu tsaka’. ‘Lime plant in the forest’. The species is considered as the forest form of Mdimu [ C. auratiifolia] - Ophrypetalum odoratum Mpera wa tsakani Muasmini wa tsakani Muizu wa tsakani Inhambanella henriquesii Mwembe tsaka Tephrosia villosa Chibalazi mlungu Tephrosia villosa Carissa bispinosa Chibalazi cha nze Nvuje ya nze Melanthera biflora Futswe ra pwani Guettarda speciosa Mkungu wa pwani Vitex zanzibarensis Ubani wa pwani Triainolepis africana Mzigande wa pwani Mnwa madzi Pseudobersama mossambicensis Trichilia emetica Pluchea dioscoridis Manilkara discolor Ziziphus robertsoniana Leptactina platyphylla Jasminum meyeri-johannis Mphvamva tsaka ‘Forest Milletia’. The species is recognized as the forest type of the Mphamva [Millettia usaramensis] which grows in bushed grassland. ‘Forest Mango tree’. The species is recognized as the forest type of Mwembe [Mangifera indica]. di, du di, swa - di, gi - 166 Millettia usaramensis Msumari bara Sideroxylon inerme Sideroxylon inerme Gossypioides kirkii Mkoko bara Mkoko mwitu Pamba mwitu Dioscorea sansibariensis Vwivwi koma Solanum incanum Mtungudza koma Sideroxylon inerme Mtunda koma Cyperus sp. Ndago munda Rauvolfia mombasiana Chibombo ulimbo Ficus stuhlmannii Chiganda ulimbo Lannea schweinfurthii ssp. stuhlmanii Mnyumbu madzi Vitex mombassae Mfudu madzi Vitex doniana Mfudu unga Acacia mellifera Chikwata kombe Achyranthes aspera Mphulula mbuzi Hibiscus micranthus Commiphora edulis Mtsunga ng'ombe Mrya kpwembe Combretum schumannii Holarrhena pubescens Premna hildebrandtii Mrya nyani Muolaga kuku Muurusa pungu Pluchea sordida Ochna thomasiana Albizia adianthifolia Mvua koe Mvua pweza Mtsani tsiye Albizia versicolor Asparagus sp. Mtsani ndzovu Mwinika ndzovu Asparagus falcatus Mwinika ngulu ‘Hinterland nail’. The wood of the species is used as wooden-nails, but is not the ‘imported’ nails via the sea, this comes from hinterland. ‘Hinterland mangrove’ The species is recognized as a Mkoko [mangrove] that grows hinterland. ‘Forest mangrove’. The species is recognized as a Mkoko [mangrove] type that grows in the forest. ‘Wild cotton’. The fruit of the plant resemble those of cotton [Gossypium sp]. The term mwitu suggest the name is a loan from Swahili ‘Wild Vwivwi’. The species is recognized as a wild Vwivwi. Although not collected in this study, most likely there is a Vwivwi plant that is edible, hence this is distinguished as the wild and/or ‘poisonous’ form. ‘Wild tungudza’. The species is considered as a wild form (poisonous or non-edible) of the cultivated vegetable Tungudza [Solanum macrocarpon] ‘Wild fruit’. The plant is recognized as fruiting, but its tunda [fruit] is considered wild (poisonous or nonedible). ‘Farmland sedge’ is a species of Ndago [sedge] that is commonly found in the munda [farm]. REFERENCE TO EXTRACT OR EXUDATE ‘Chibombo with latex’. The species is considered as similar to Tabernaemontana spp. But has ‘ulimbo’ [latex], probably emphasizing the poisonous effect of the latex in this species. ‘Ficus with latex’. Most Ficus spp. (Fig trees) have latex, but the latex in this species is emphasized for its preference in the use of sticking feathers to arrow shafts. ‘Mnyumbu with water’. The species is considered similar to Mnyumbu [Lannea schweinfurthii spp. Accutifoliolata] but the distinction with ‘water’ between the two was not clear. The name Mchumbu is interchangeable with Mnyumbu. ‘Mfudu with water’. The unmarked label Mfudu refers to Vitex payos, and this particular V. mombassae is recognized to have fruits that are more watery compared to the unmarked Mfudu. ‘Mfudu with flour’. The fruits of V. doniana are considered to have more flour (starch) compared to the unmarked Mfudu. REFERENCE TO ANIMAL OR ANIMAL PART ‘Acacia with claws’. Chikwata is the general name for Acacia species. This is named after its prominent thorns, which are referred to as claws [kombe] ‘Goat scratcher’. Fruits of this species, which grows about knee high (the height of a goat), tend to scratch [phulula] and stick to passing objects, including goats [mbuzi]. Cattle herder ‘Food for kpwembe’. Fruits are believed to be the food of Kpwelekpwembe (a bird), shortened here as kpwembe. ‘Eaten by Baboon’. The ‘food’ relations between baboon [nyani] and the species was not clear ‘Chicken killer’. The species is considered as poisonous, kill [olaga] chicken [kuku]. ‘Scare off pungu’. Pungu is a bird believed to cause convulsions, this species scares off [urusa] that bird to cure the convulsions. ‘Fisher of koe’. Koe is a certain crustacean in the sea, sticks of the species are used for fishing it. ‘Fisher of octopus’. Sticks of this species are used to fish the octopus. ‘Small mtsani’. Mtsani is a collective name for some Albizia spp. This type is considered to be the small form [tsiye] ‘Elephant mtsani’- is the larger size Albizia, named after a ‘large’ animal, the elephant [ndzovu] ‘Elephant size Mwinika’. Mwinika a collective name for Asparagus, and it means to ‘crouch down’. This species is considered (medicinally) as strong enough to crash an elephant. ‘King fish Mwinika’. This Asparagus is medicinally strong, with curative power that can crash a king fish di, swa di, du, swa di, du, swa di, du di, du, gi, swa di, du di, du, gi, swa di, du, gi, swa (for Mfudu) di, du, gi, swa (for Mfudu) di, du, gi, swa (Chikwata) di-du di, du, gi di, du, gi di, du di, du, gi, swa di, du, swa di, du, swa 167 Tetracera boiviniana Maytenus undata Scadoxus multiflora Siphonochilus brachystemon Erianthemum curvirameum Mkala fisi Machende ga mnyau Mnazi wa nyoka Capparis viminea Acacia adenocalyx Plectranthus sp. Chikombe tsui Galagala tsui Cissampelos pareira Chishikio paka Ormocarpum sennoides Cordia monoica Asteranthe asterias Paullinia pinnata Humbo ra nguluwe Mzondohera nguluwe Mnazi wa tsozi Mongo wa mbulu Alchornea laxiflora Antidesma venosum Clausena anisata Phyllanthus delpyanus Rinorea ilicifolia Chiphala kanga Mdanga tsongo Chinya pala Mwambala lutswa Abrus precatorius Aganthesanthemum bojeri Xylopia parviflora Mwangala nyuchi Chivuma nyuchi Mngwa nyahi Hoslundia opposita Senna occidentalis Stylosanthes fruticosa Mgongolo Mtsalafu Mtsungula Elaeodendron schweinfurthianum Chikunguni chilume Rhynchosia velutina Chibugu chichetu Indigofera trita Chibugu chilume Lantana viburnoides Chiphatsa chilume Pupalia lappacea Jirimata chetu [ngulu]. ‘Hyena’s residence’ – species characterizes the residence [makao] of the hyena [fiis] ‘Testis of cat’. The fruits of this species resemble the testis [machende] of a cat [mnyau]. ‘Coconut tree of a snake’. The nyoka [snake] in this label is indicative of the poisonous status of the species, which grows like a (small) coconut tree [mnazim]. ‘Coconut tree of sun bird’, is an epiphytic species that grows high on other plants. The sun bird likes visiting the flowers of this species, hence considered as an important plant to the sun bird as a coconut tree is to a Digo farmer. ‘Claws of leopard’- Thorns of this species are equated to the claws [kombe] of a leopard [tsui]. ‘Playing site for leopard’. Probably refers to a species found in vegetation that leopards like for playing ground [galagala]. ‘Ear of a cat’. The leaves of the species resemble the ear [shikio] of the cat, hence the name. However, this name is probably a loan, because in Digo ear is sikiro and not shikio (which sounds more like Swahili). ‘Stomach of the pig’- the stem of this species twines like the stomach [humbo] of the pig [nguluwe] ‘Wiper of pig’s buttocks’. The pig is believed to clean its buttocks [zondoha] after toileting with this species. ‘Backbone of the crocodile’. The leaf of the species resembles the backbone [mongo] of the crocodile [mbulu], hence its name. ‘? of kanga’. Kanga refers to the guinea fowl. But the meaning of Chiphala is unknown. ‘Settling place for weaver bird’ – the species is known as a preferred resting place for weaver birds. Meaning Unknown. Pala means gazelle, but the meaning of ‘chinya’ is only suspected to be faeces, and there is no clear link between this meaning and the species. ‘Termite crawler’ – the species is used for building, and is known to be favoured by termite [lutswa] that build and crawl [hambala] along the poles. Meaning Unknown. Nyuchi refers to bees, but the meaning of the first part of the name is unknown. ‘Buzzing bees’. In its flowering stage the bees frequently visit the species, hence its name. ‘Fallen buffalo’. Probably the species was a land mark for a place where a buffalo [nyahi] had fallen [gwa] after it was arrowed. But it is not clear how else the species relate to the buffalo. ‘Millipedes’ The relationship between the species and the millipede is not clear. ‘Safari ants’- the relationship between the species and safari ants is not clear. ‘Rabbit’ – species is named after rabbit [tsungula], but the association of the two is not clear. MALE-FEMALE REFERENCE ‘Chikunguni male’ - The species is considered as the male form of Chikunguni [Craibia brevicaudata]. Although the word kunguni means bedbug the relationship between these species and the bedbug is not clear. Neither is the male state of this species over C. brevicaudata. ‘Female climber’- Chibugu is the diminutive label for climber [Mbugu], and this species is considered the female form, thus it also takes the unmarked label Chibugu (cf. below). ‘Male climber’ - This is the male form of Rhynchosia velutina, but reasons for it being the male are not clear. ‘Chiphatsa male’- Chiphatsa or Phatsa refers to Vernonia hildebrandtii. So called because it covers the ground like a roofing structure [kuphatsa]. The L. viburnoides is viewed as the male form of the unmarked Chiphatsa. ‘Jirimata female’ - Jirimata is like a ‘genus’ category of thorny fruit producing plants. The P. lappacea is considered female because its fruits are not very sharp di, du, swa - di, swa di, swa di, du, gi, swa di, du di, du di, du - - di, du, swa 168 Cenchrus mitis Commelina bracteosa Jirimata lume Kongwe chetu Commelina forskaolii Kongwe lume Cyphostema adenocaule Mgongolo mlume Oncoba spinosa Mnyondoya mchetu Polyalthia stuhlmannii Mwangajine mchetu Uvariodendron kirkii Mwangajine mlume Chytranthus obliquinervis Nchivuri mlume Cyperus spp. Ndago chetu Mariscus spp. Ndago lume Monanthotaxis fornicata Mngweni mlume Uvaria acuminata Flueggea virosa Mngwene mchetu Mkpwamba mchetu Flueggea virosa Mkpwamba vitu Phyllanthus reticulatus Mkpwamba lungo Ellipanthus hemandradenioides Mkongolo mwiru Combretum paniculatum Mkongolo wakundu Monodora grandidieri Mlala mwereru Diospyros kabuyeana Maclura africana Mlala mwiru Mdhahabu Uvaria acuminata Mngweni mdide Uvaria lucida Premna resinosa Mngweni mkulu Mbavubavu mdide ‘Jirimata male’ – the fruits are more sharp and fierce. ‘Kongwe female’ - this species is considered the female form because it has large and deep blue flowers compared to the male counter part, C. forskaolii ‘Kongwe male’ – is the male form because of smaller and less shiny (grayish) flowers (comparative to the female counter part C. bracteosa). ‘Mgongolo male’ – the species is considered as the male form of Hoslundia opposita [Mgongolo], however the relationship with the gongolo [millipede] for both species is not clear. ‘Mnyondoya female’ - The unmarked Mnyondoya [Flacourtia indica] resembles this species in the presence of thorns. It is surprising that the female form is marked. ‘Female spirit-being’ - This species also identified with the unmarked Mwangajine is considered female, probably for having smaller leaves compared to the other Mwangajine. ‘Male spirit-being’ – similar in appearance (both being Annonaceae species), this species is identified as the male form due to its large leaf size. ‘Nchivuri male’ – the species is considered the male form of Blighia unijugata but their gender considerations are not clear. ‘Female sedge’ - Ndago refers to sedges. This is considered as female because it has a relatively longer spikelets compared to the male counter part, Mariscus spp. ‘Male sedge’ – considered as male because it has an inflorescence that has relatively shorter spikelets compared to Cyperus spp. ‘Mgweni male’ - Mgweni refers to some Uvaria spp. This is considered as male because it has broad leaves compared to the female counter part ‘Mgweni female’ – so called because it has smaller leaves ‘Mkpwamba female’ - this species produces more visible white fruits, hence considered female form. ‘Productive Mkpwamba’. Vitu in this name refer to the fruits, and have the connotation of ‘female’ form as above. ‘Basket Mkpwamba’ – this is considered as the male counter part of F. virosa, but the association with the basket [lungo] is unclear. COLOUR REFERENCE ‘Black Mkongolo’. The unmarked Mkongolo [Combretum schumannii] has a brownish bark that peels off to reveal a paler under bark, which is compared to the bark of this species, that is described as black [mwiru]. ‘Red Mkongolo’ – this is the red form of Mkongolo. The ‘red’ Mkongolo is a climber, and is compared with the unmarked Mkongolo (a tree) via the colour of the flowers. Red Mkongolo has deep red flowers. Although consideration of tree and climber as related is not common, this is shared with science as bothe species are of the genus Combretum. ‘White Mlala’. Mlala is a label for two species distinguished by the colour of the bark of their stem. This species is considered the white form comparative to the other (cf. below). ‘Black Mlala’ is the black form of Mlala because its bark is comparatively darker. ‘Golden’ This species has a stem that is golden yellow in colour, hence its name. SIZE REFERENCE ‘Small Mgweni’ – in addition to being the female, U. acuminata is also recognized as a small [mdide] Mgweni for its small leaves. ‘Large Mgweni’ – the male Uvaria has the synonym as the large [mkulu] Mgweni. ‘Small rib plant’ – The species is referred to as small in comparison to Grewia forbesii by the size of their leaves. Their ‘rib’ relationship is based on their use to treat convulsions known as Nyuni wa mbavu di, swa _ di, du di, du, gi, swa (Ndago) di, du, swa (Ndago) di, du, gi, swa (Mkpwamba) di, du, gi, swa (Mkpwamba) di, du - - di, du, gi (Mkwele) - 169 Grewia forbesii Nymphaea sp. Dioscorea sp. Launaea cornuta Phyllanthus amarus Acokanthera sp. nr schimperi Terminalia catappa Clerodendrum incisum Clerodendrum glabrum Clerodendrum glabrum Grevea eggelinga Pemphis acidula Monanthotaxis fornicata Scorodophloeus fischeri Garcinia livingstonei Grewia ectasicarpa, G. holstii Xylopia parviflora Celtis mildbraedii Xylopia parviflora Schlechterina mitostemmatoides Rottboellia exaltata Whitfieldia elongata Drypetes reticulata Deinbollia borbonica [convulsions affecting the rib cage]. ‘Large rib plant’ is the larger form of the species used to treat Nyuni wa mbavuni, because it has larger leaves. Toro ndide ‘Small Toro’ – Toro refers to the water lily, and this species has relatively smaller features (leaves and flowers) compared to Nyphoides forbesiana, which is the unmarked Toro. Mriga yere ‘False Mriga’ – refers to a form closely resembling the genuine edible Dioscrea dumetorum. REFERENCE TO TASTE OR SMELL Mtsunga wa utsungu ‘Bitter vegetable’ – the species is used as a vegetable [mtsunga], but is known to be bitter [utsungu]. Chihumbo utsungu ‘Gall bladder’ – the species is named after the gall bladder [chihumbo ustungu] because of its bitter taste. Utsungu ‘Bitter’ – this species produces an extract that is bitter [utsungu] and poisonous Mkungu ‘Good smell’ – the fruit of this species has a good aroma [kungu] hence its name Chinuka ‘Smell’ – the species is named after its strong smell [nuka] which agrees with even the botanical epithetic name ‘incisum’. Mnuka lovu ‘Bad smell’ – the species is named after its smell [nuka] which is not pleasing [lovu] Chinuka cha m’masai ‘Masai smelling plant’ – refers to the ‘bad smell’ which is associated with the smell of the Masai, probably ignited by the belief that the Masai are ‘not good’ being Digo enemies in historical fights Mkota wongo ‘Smacking the brain’ – The leaves of this species have a strong smell that smacks [kota] the brain [wongo], hence the name. REFERENCE TO GROWTH FORM OR HABIT OF PLANT Muinamia bahari ‘Leaning towards the sea’- the species is named after its leaning habit, but the term ‘bahari’ is Swahili, and it is likely that the name is a loan. Mngweni madevu ‘Hairy Mgweni’ – This species is associated to U. acuminata and U. lucida i.e. Mgweni, but viewed as being hairy, a view that does not agree with Beentje (1994). Chifunga sandzu ‘Closing pile’ – The species is understood to grow in a form of a thicket that closes [funga] the way by pilling [sandzu]. It is smaller ‘Chi_’ comparative to Mfunga sandzu (see below) Mfunga sandzu ‘Closing pile’ – this is the unmarked form of the species that grows to close down the passage. Msokoto ‘Twine’ – the species grows in a twining form [sokota] Mchiza tsaka ‘Over-grows forest’ – species grows tallest in a forest. Mbavubavu mkulu Mwahula tsaka Mfunga nyama Mwamba nyama Mkula usiku Mtsoma tsanje Mtsungurira kuzimu Phyllanthus amarus Synaptolepis kirkii Angraecum dives Ansellia africana Mvyarira nyuma Njira mbiri Chiahira Hypoestes aristata Jirimata futswe ‘Forest breaker’ – X. parviflora is also described as the forest breaker by overgrowing the canopy. ‘Ties animal’ – the plant is said to grow in twining condition that it ties [funga] an animal [nyama]crossing through it. ‘Animal trapper’ – the species grows so densely that it traps an animal crossing through. ‘Grow by night’ – the species is believed to grow [kula] at night [usiku]. ‘Bloom in new field’- species is believed to bloom [tsoma] very quickly in a new field [tsanje] ‘Peeping heaven’ – the species is deep rooted such that its believed to be peeping heaven [tsungurira kuzimu], here heaven being underground (because that is where the dead go) ‘Producing from behind’ – species produces [vyala] its fruits at the back [nyuma] of the leaves. ‘Two ways’ – the species branches twice [mbiri] at each point, the branches are the njira [ways]. ‘Sitting on’ – this is an epiphyte species, which is described and labeled as sitting on others [ahira], a term that is used for a hen when sitting on its eggs. Chi_ is diminutive in terms of the plant size being usually small. This species takes the form of ‘Jirimata’ [Cenchris mitis] but has no thorny fruits and thus resembles Futswe [Asystesia gangetica] di, du, gi di, du, gi di, gi di, swa - di, du, gi di, swa - - 170 Vernonia hildebrandtii Chiphatsa Vernonia hildebrandtii Phatsa Oxygonum sinuatum Chindiri Plectranthus flaccidus Antiaris toxicaria Cussonia zimmermannii Xylopia parviflora Waltheria indica Triumfetta rhomboidea Margaritaria discoidea Trema orientalis Lecaniodiscus fraxinifolius Blighia unijugata Barleria setigera Cissampelos pareira Euphorbia hirta Hunteria zeylanica Sideroxylon inerme Psychotria lauracea Parquetina nigrescens Grewia densa Rhynchosia velutina Plicosepalus parviflorus Fuka Mgua Mnyala Mnyinyi Mnyururika Pleicosepalus parviflorus Cissus rotundifolia, C. sylvicola C. quinquangularis Cissus rotundifolia, C. sylvicola C. quinquangularis Tylophora sp. Mpalika Mpesi Mremero Nchivuri Chidungadunga Chihumbohumbo Chiziyaziya Mziyaziya Mbogaboga Libugu pamba Mkone chibugu Chibugu Chisikolo Chibugu sicho kolo Mbugubugu Mdokadoka Dokadoka Flueggea virosa Phyllanthus reticulatus Pseudovigna argentea Yogweyogwe Ampelocissus africana Stylochaeton salaamicus Mbebeneka Chikonje Isolana cauliflora Mwanga jine Mkambakamba ‘Covering’ – species so called because it grows in a way that it covers the ground like a roofing structure [kuphatsa]. Chi_ is diminutive, but it seems it is interchangeable with the unmarked label (see below) ‘Covering’ - species so called because it grows in a way that it covers the ground like a roofing structure [kuphatsa]. ‘Tough’ – Ndiri refers to ‘tough’ meat, this species probably received its name for being a ‘tough’ weed to deal with ‘To smoke up’ – so called because of the rapid appearance, like smoke, of its flowers ‘Peeling’ – the bark peels off [guwika], hence the name ‘Drying’ – the species dries [nyala] very quickly when cut, hence its name. ‘Shining’ – the leaves of this species are shinning [nyinyiha] hence its label. ‘Slippery extract’ – leaves of this species are squashed and used as medicine. But the leaves on crushing produce a slippery [nyururika] extract, hence its name ‘Cracks’ – the wood is said to crack [palika] easily, and thus its name. ‘Quick’ – grows very fast [upesi] hence its name. ‘Heavy’ – the wood is said to be heavy [remera] hence the name. ‘Shade’ – species has a broad canopy and forms a good shade [chivurivuri] hence its name. ‘Piercing’ – the species has thorns that pierce [dunga] dangerously, hence its name. ‘Intestine’ – the species grows twining like intestines [humbo] hence its name. ‘Milk’ – the species produces milk latex [maziya]. Chi_ is diminutive to the unmarked form, (see below). ‘Milk’ – species is the unmarked form of the latex producing plants di, swa di, swa di, du, gi di, du, ‘Vegetable’ – grows like a vgetable [boga] hence its name ‘Climbing cotton’ – species has a climber form [_bugu] and produces woolly fruits [pamba]. Climber ‘mkone’ – species has a climber form, but resembles Mkone [Grewia plagiophylla]. ‘Climber’ – species is a diminutive [Chi_] form climber _bugu. ‘No stem’ – the name is a short form of Chibugu sicho kolo – referring to a climber [chibugu] that has no stem base [kolo] (see below). ‘Climber without stem base’ – the species is believed it grows without a stem base or rooting system. ‘Climber’ – this is the unmarked form of climber species, reduplication _bugubugu emphasizes the ‘climber form’ ‘Breaking’ – the stem of the species is known to break [doka] easily, hence its name. di, du - ‘Breaking’ - the stem of the species is known to break [doka] easily, hence its name. Exclusion of ‘M’ does not seem to change meaning, and it was not expected to refer to a different species ‘Rope’ – species is a scandent and grows twining like a rope [kamba] hence its name. - ‘Sweet potato’ – by the nature of its growth (spreading) this species is compared to sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas], i.e. myogwe. The reduplication indicates ‘in the manner of’. ‘Chewable’ – the stem of the species is chewable (bebeneka], hence its name. ‘Sisal’ – the species resembles sisal [Sisalana agave] (konje), and its small size is indicated with the diminutive label Chi_. RFERENCE TO UTILITY Spirit-being – Mwanga and Jine are both spirits names. The species is named after dual spirits for its importance as a medicine in spiritual ailments. di, du, gi - di, du, gi, swa (for Mkamba) - - 171 Adansonia digitata Mkulu kazingwa ‘The great is never betrayed’ – This is a ‘healers’ name for the species, one of the few the author was allowed to record. It refers to the baobab, a large tree [mkulu] that when used as medicine it never fails. ‘Whip of sacred powers’ – a stick of the species is used as a whip [mlanga] to punish offenders or to open magically (by whipping) places that are closed e.g. homes and graves ‘Whip’ – branches of the species are used as magical whips against enemies ‘Layer of spirits’ – the species is named after its use of appeasing the spirits [koma] of dead relatives and put them to sleep [laza] in peace ‘Home digger’ – The species is used to magically destroy peace in a homestead [kaya] by ‘digging out’ [tsimba] (meanint to initiate) internal disputes. ‘Case terminator’ – the species is used to end [vundza] a dispute in favour of the user. ‘Hoe breaker’ – the species is also involved in ending [vundza] of disputes, and the hand hoe [jembe] is used as a symbolic item in the rites of solving domestic and community disputes. Literally, the name could also be cautioning a farmer about the stumps of the species which could damage one’s hand hoe. - Fernandoa magnifica Mlangalanga zuka Carpodiptera africana Pleurostelma cernuum Mlanga Mlaza koma Boerhavia repens Mtsimbi kaya Aganthesanthemum bojeri Acalypha neptunica Alchornea laxiflora Allophylus rubifolius Bourreria teitensis Grandidiera boivinii Mallotus oppositifolius Mildbraedia carpinifolia Allophylus rubifolius Allophylus pervillei Hyptis suaveolens Leucas sp. Chivuundza kesi Mvundza jembe Mvundza kondo ‘Breaker of war’ – the species is used to fight and end [vundza] the war [kondo] with diseases in the body di, du, gi, swa Pungahewa Chimvuno - Gardenia volkensii Chimwemwe Ormocarpum kirkii Euphorbia nyikae Jateorhiza palmata Chitadzi Ganga Kalumwa Sida acuta Mbundugo Caesalpinia bonduc Mburuga Dichrostachys cinerea Ocimum gratissimum Commiphora zanzibarica Mpingwa Chirahani Mdege Piliostigma thonningii Mtseketse Hoslundia opposita Plectranthus tenuiflorus Terminali sambesiaca Premna chrysoclada Mtserere Mvuga Mwanga Mvuma Azadirachta indica Senecio cydoniifolius Mwarubaini Phoza ‘Spirits’ – the species is used as a spiritual medicine for a specific spirit known as punga hewa. ‘Stomach full’ – the presence of the species is an indicator that crop will do well, hence there will be food satisfaction [mvuno]. ‘Smile’ – the species is magically used to induce appreciation and smile [chimwemwe] to an individual from peer groups and workmates ‘Crown of honour’ – the species is magically used to crown [tadzi] one to dominance ‘Healing’ – the species is used for healing [uganga] various ailments. ‘Never fall sick’ –the species is used as a medicine for various ailments, and is considered to be so effective that the user never falls sick again [kalumwa] ‘Spiritual strength’ – Bundugo is supplementary strength magically added to an individual, and this species is used for that. ‘Foretell’ – fruits of this species are used to predict and foretell [mburuga] events that will befall individuals and communities. ‘Opposition’ – the species is considered to oppose [pinga] the effects of diseases. ‘Spirit’ – the species is used to treat ailments associated with the spirit ruhani ‘Evil eye’ – Dege is an ailment caused by one casting evil looks on another. This species is used against such an infliction. ‘Tinkle’ – the species is used to cause an amusement [tseka] in one by being successful or appreciated in an institute. ‘Bring down’ – the species used to calm down [tserera] disagreements between lovers. ‘Mixer’ – species is used in a mixture [vuga] of medicine against stomachache. ‘Spirit’ – Mwanga is a spirit and this species is used to treat ailments caused by that spirit. ‘Roar’ – the species is used against convulsions and other spiritual ailments, and to roar [vuma] is a show of dominance and success in fight. ‘Forty’ – the species is a common medicinal plant believed to treat forty [arubaini] diseases. ‘Heal’ – the species is a common medicine in healing [phoza] spiritual ailments di, du, gi, swa di, du di, du di, du, gi, swa di, du di, swa di, du, gi, swa di, du, gi, swa di, gi, swa di, du, gi, swa di, du, gi, swa di, du, gi, swa - 172 Solanecio angulatus Grewia forbesii, G. holstii G. ectasicarpa, Catunaregam nilotica Reza Mbavubavu ‘Neutralizer’ – the species is used to neutralize [reza] witchcraft effects ‘Rib’ – the species is used to treat nyuni wa mbavuni [convulsions affecting the rib cage]. di, du, gi Mdzongodzongo di, du Secamone retusa Chiburu madzi Garcinia livingstonei Diospyros squarrosa Dobera loranthifolia Salvadora persica Markhamia zanzibarica Landolphia kirkii Kigelia africana Mfidzofidzo Mutsi Msuwaki ‘Stomach ailment’ – Dzongo is commonly a stomach ailment that is inflicted by evil looks. This species is used to treat such ailment. ‘Water Gourd’. The species probably produces gourds that are used for keeping or carrying water. This still remains to be confirmed. ‘Stir stick’ – a three pronged branch of this species is used as a stirring cooking stick [lifidzo]. ‘Pestle’ – a branch of this species is used for making a pestle [mutsi] ‘Toothbrush’ – sticks of this species are used as toothbrushes. Mpalawanda Mpira Mratina Jatropha sp. Ficus exasperata Streblus usambarensis Davallia chaerophylloides Msabuni Msasa Msusu Mvwiko Rourea orientalis Chikuta manena Rytigynia celastroides Mtsokola ng'ongo Maytenus heterophylla Mtsokola wongo Ochna thomasiana Turraea nilotica Dichapetalum zenkeri Polysphaeria parvifolia Polysphaeria multiflora Mildbraedia carpinifolia Abutilon zanzibaricum; Waltheria indica; Triumfetta rhomboidea Erythrina sacleuxii Erythrina sacleuxii Abutilon zanzibaricum Mtsonga mahana Mtsonga mwiko Mtsonga nyomba ‘Swahili sandals’ – wood pieces of the species are used for making mitawanda, Swahili sandals. ‘Rubber’ – species was marketed for its latex which was used for making rubber [mpira] ‘Traditional brew’ – fruits of this species are used for fermenting a Kikuyu traditional brew [mratina], probably to the Digo this is a loan word. ‘Soap’ – fruits of the species are used as alternative for detergents [sabuni] ‘Sand paper’ – the leaves are used as sand paper [msasa] to smoothen carvings ‘Trap’ – sticks of the species are used for making a trap [susu] ‘Floaters’ – leaves of this species are inserted in a water bucket as floaters [mivwiko] to minimize water spilling on to the person carrying the bucket on her head ‘Clears the dew’ – branches of this species are used to hit [kuta] the grass in order to clear off the dew [manena] during morning errands ‘Extractor of Sclerocarya fruit’ – the Sclerocarya birrea fruits have a nut [ng’ongo] in the middle, and thorns of this species are used to extract [tsokola] the nut. ‘Extractor of brain’ – thorns used to extract [tsokola] the brain stuff [wongo] in the skull of a prey animal e.g. gazelle. ‘Causer of leprosy’ – if the species is used for firewood or building it causes [tsonga] leprosy [mahana]. ‘Make cooking stick’ – branches of the species are used for making [tsonga] cooking sticks [mwiko] ‘Make arrow shaft’ – sticks of this species are used for making [tsonga] arrow shafts [nyomba] Mtsusa tsalu ‘Cleaning beads’ – leaves of this plant are used for cleaning [tsusa] beads [tsalu] - Mbamba ngoma Mwamba ngoma Mbangula mavi di, swa di, swa di, du Turraea floribunda Muoza nyama Deinbollia borbonica Chytranthus obliquinervis Mpwakapwaka ‘Drum making’ – the stem of the species is used for making [phamba] a drum [ngoma] trunk ‘Drum making’ – same as above. ‘Clear human waste’ – leaves of the species are used as toilet paper to clean [bangula] oneself of the waste [mavi] ‘Makes the animal rot’ – the species is used for making traps. The traps are believed to be strong that animal prey [nyama] will rot [ola, oza] when caught unless the hunter collects it. In other words the animal can not break off from the trap The name of the species mimics the spitting ‘sound’ after one sucks the fruits which are edible. However, this is only true for D. borbonica , but not for C. obliquinervis, which probably is named after D. borbonica on structural resemblance bases. di, du, gi di, du, gi, swa di, du, swa di, swa di, du di, swa di, swa - - - 173 Ximenia americana ssp. caffra Mtundu kula Ficus stuhlmannii Uuzi kaha Mkilua fragrans Chilua Antiaris toxicaria Bourreria nemoralis Striga asiatica Mnguonguo Mbunduchi Chitsai Cordia goetzei Synadenium pereskiifolium Canthium kilifiensis Mpamapama Chiyuyu Mfumula ndolwa Ocimum suave Chivumbani Ocimum gratissimum Vumba manga ‘Eat fruit’ – the species fruits [tunda] are edible [kula]. However, kula is a Swahili word whose counter part in Digo is rya [eat]. There are indications that the name is a loan word from Swahili who also call it by the same name (Beentje 1994). ‘Thread support’ – although both words have clear meanings in Digo, the connotations of these words in the plant label are not clear. ‘Flower’ – the species is used for its flower, which is referred by the common Bantu label ‘lua’ [flower] for perfume and ornamentation. ‘Clothing’ – the bark of the species is used for making clothes [nguo], (but not in current times) ‘Gun’ – fruits of the species are used (by children) as ‘bullets’ in toy guns [bunduchi]. ‘Witch’ – species is believed to be a witch [mtsai] against crop plants such as maize. Its small size led to the diminutive label Chi_. ‘Nose wounds’ – when used as firewood its smoke causes nose wounds [pamapama]. ‘Peel off’ – the latex from the species burns and skin peels off [yuka] on contact. ‘Dispersion of homestead’ – when used as firewood or building poles, the species leads to quarrels and eventually members of the homestead [ndolwa] disperse [fumuka]. However, in Digo ndolwa for ‘homestead’ is not a common word. ‘Vumba’ – the species’ has spiritual uses in healing which probably originated from Vumba in Tanzania. The species being small sized it is labeled with the diminutive prefix. ‘Vumba cassava’ – the spiritual uses of this species also likely to have been learnt from Vumba. The species has the unmarked form, but the reference to manga (which generally means cassava) in the labe is not clear. UNANALYSABLE NAMES (The important point in the follwing names in the considerable correspondences for the vernacular names) Vepris lanceolata Mkumba mbega Nymphoides forbesiana Toro Hypoestes forskaolei Chibaruti Craibia brevicaudata Chikunguni Ludia mauritiana Acalypha fruticosa Chitsatsa Ehretia bakeri Funga Asystasia gangetica Futswe Bridelia micrantha Mdudu Clerodendrum glabrum Mtsatsa Acalypha fruticosa Borassus aethiopum Mvumo Jasminum meyeri-johannis Mtunda hofu Tricalysia ovalifolia Mmangi tovu Melanthera biflora Nchidoka Dichapetalum arenarium Chikwalakwala Biophytum petersianum Mbodzembodze Feretia apodanthera Mfyofyo Heinsia crinita Bridelia cathartica Mkalakala di, du, gi, swa di, du, swa di, swa di, gi - di, du, gi, swa di, du, gi, swa di, du di, du di, du di, du, gi, swa 174 Crotalaria emarginata Strychnos madagascariensis Hyphaene compressa H. corriaceae Tricalysia ovalifolia Ozoroa insignis, O. obovata Ochna mossambicensis Vernonia colorata Sideroxylon inerme Pyrenacantha kaurabassana Commiphora lindensis Tabernaemontana elegans Harrisonia abyssinica Erythroxylum emarginatum Chazaliella abrupta Cynometra webberi Phyllanthus reticulatus Vitellariopsis kirkii Eleusine indica Stylochaeton salaamicus Acacia adenocalyx Scutia myrtina Memecylon amaniense Cola minor Encephalartos hildebrandtii Cordia somaliensis Mkelekele Mkpwakpwa Mlala di, du, gi, swa di, du, gi Mmangwimangwi Msangasanga Mtsometsome Mtsungutsungu Myongoyongo Bundi Chibambara Chibombo Chidori Chifumae Chigamba Chikwadzu Chikwamba Chilishangwe Chimbikaya Chinyaa Chinyakore Chinyokola Chitambuu Chitsamvia Chitsapu Chitundo Demu di-du di-du di, du, swa di, du di, du, swa di, du, gi, swa - Cajanus cajan Dzedza Golonje Gore Kundzwi Lihago M’bondo Mani Mbalazi di, du, swa di, du, gi di, du, gi di, du, gi di, du, gi di, du, gi, swa Afzelia quanzensis Commiphora lindensis Caesalpinia bonduc Ancylobotrys petersiana Annona senegalensis Mbambakofi Mbambara Mbate Mbohoya Mbokwe di, du, gi, swa di, du, swa - Psilotrichum sericeum Commelina bracteosa Aloe sp. Adenia gummifera Gonatopus boivinii Indigofera sp. Panicum maximum Dioscorea astericus 175 Saba comorensis Dichrostachys cinerea Hyparrhenia sp. Lannea schweinfurthii ssp. stuhlmannii Gyrocarpus americanus Hyparrhenia sp. Citrus auratiifolia Salacia madagascariensis Synsepalum kassneri Zanthoxylum chalybeum Bruguiera gymnorrhiza Vitex payos, V. doniana, V. mombassae Cynometra suaheliensis Stereospermum kunthianum Sterculia rhynchocarpa Acacia stuhlmannii Mkilua fragrans Zanthoxylum chalybeum Lantana camara Pandanus kirkii Monodora grandidieri Rinorea elliptica Bruguiera gymnorrhiza Avicennia marina Hyphaene compressa, H. corriaceae Grewia plagiophylla Balanites wilsoniana Combretum schumannii Rhoicissus revoilii Ziziphus mauritiana Sorindeia madagascariensis Digitaria milanjiana Ficus lutea, F. sur Tamarindus indica Phyllanthus reticulatus Monodora grandidieri Newtonia paucijuga Tricalysia ovalifolia Mbungo Mchinjiri Mchuchi Mchumbu di, du, gi, swa di, du, gi, swa Mchusa Mdembe Mdimu Mdoma, Mdulu Mdungu Mdzago Mfudu di, du, gi, swa di, du, gi di, du, gi, swa Mfunda Mgondo Mgoza Mgunga Mgwadi Mjafari Mjasasa Mkadi Mkele Mkete Mkoko di, du, gi di, du, gi di, du, gi, swa di, swa di, swa di, swa di, du, gi di, du, gi, swa Mkoma di, du, gi, swa Mkone Mkonga Mkongolo Mkororoi Mkunazi Mkunguma Mkuse Mkuyu Mkpwadzu Mkpwamba Mkwele Mleha Mmangwi di, du, gi, swa di, du, swa di, du, gi di, du, gi, swa di, swa di, du, gi, swa di, du di, du, gi di, du, gi 176 Polysphaeria multiflora Manilkara mochisia Cola uloloma Solanum nigrum Gossypioides kirkii Brackenridgea zanguebarica Crossopteryx febrifuga Sclerocarya birrea Gigasiphon macrosiphon Parkia filicoidea Flacourtia indica Stenotaphrum dimidiatum Keetia lukei, K. venosa, K. zanzibarica Gloriosa superba Albizia anthelmintica Schizozygia coffaeoides Diospyros squarrosa Dalbergia boehmii Sesamum calycinum Dioscorea dumetorum Brachystegia spiciformis Paramacrolobium coeruleum Drypetes natalensis Diospyros ferrea Lantana camara Ceiba pentandra Colubrina asiatica Hymenaea verrucosa Catunaregam nilotica Caesalpinia bonduc Dichapetalum madagascariense Oncoba spinosa Calophyllum inophyllum Synsepalum brevipes Synsepelum subverticillatum Grewia glandulosa Grewia vaughanii Toddalia asiatica Elaeis guineensis Agelaea pentagyna Mnago Mnapu Mnavu Mngagamwe Mng'andu di, du, gi, swa di, du, gi - Mng'ongo Mnyandza Mnyendze Mnyondoya Mnyumbwe Mnyundzu di, du, swa di, swa - Mpewa Mporojo Mpukuse Mpweke Mrandze Mrenda Mriga Mrihi di, du, gi, swa di, du, gi, swa di, du di, du, gi, swa di, du, gi, swa Msambwe Mshipa Mshomoro Msufi Msuko Mtandarusi Mtengedzi Mtera Mtobwe Mtondoo Mtondoro Mtsamvia di, du, gi di, du, gi di, du, gi, swa di, swa - Mtsaye - Mtseha Mtsikitsi Mtsophe - 177 Adenia kirkii Croton megalocarpoides Strychnos spinosa Thespesia danis Brachylaena huillensis Senna singueana Paramacrolobium coeruleum Julbernardia magnistipulata Plectranthus tenuiflorus Ricinus communis Barringtonia racemosa Dalbergia melanoxylon Avicennia marina Saba comorensis Adansonia digitata Millettia usaramensis Vangueria infausta Kigelia africana Milicia excelsa Adenium obesum Rhynchosia congensis Salacia madagascariensis Bridelia cathartica Cissus sp. Cyphostemma buchananii Tragea furialis Abrus precatorius Terminalia prunioides Bombax rhodognaphalon Hibiscus sp. aff. vitifolius Cyphostemma adenocaule Syzygium cuminii Rauvolfia mombasiana Securidaca longipendiculata Eugenia sp. Diphasia sp. A; Ehretia bakeri Ehretia amoena; Vepris euginiifolia Heteropogon contortus Corchorus olitorius Mtsotsone Mtsunduzi Muhonga Muhowe Muhuhu Muhumba Mukwe di, du, gi, swa di, du, gi, swa di, du, gi di, du, swa Mumbu Muono Muorong’ondo Muphingo Mutsu Muungo Muuyu Mvamva Mviru Mvungunya Mvure Mwadiga di, gi di, du, gi, swa di, du, gi, swa di, du, gi, swa di, du di, du, swa di, du, gi, swa di, du, gi, swa Mwambaro Mwambeberu Mwamchitophyo Mwamchiviza Mwamdzavi Mwamsusumbika Mwarambe Mware Mwejenje Mwenjere Mzambarau Mzigande Mziji Nchibandu Nchikoma di, du, gi, swa di, du, gi di, swa - Nguji Phombo - 178 Julbernardia magnistipulata Gonatopus boivinii Tacca leontopetaloides Heteropogon contortus Bidens pilosa Ukwe Ulanga - Todza di, du, swa 179 APPENDIX VII: Digo agricultural aspects in maize farming Agricultural calender The agricultural calendar of the Digo follows the lunar calendar, which in a given period can be related to the Greek calendar, but the two are independent. Currently (2003 – 2004), the first month [mfungo mosi] of the lunar calendar falls in November-December of the Greek calendar, and is the ninth month (Shawal) of the Islamic-Arab calendar. Up to about the mid 20th century, the monthly counting by the natural phenomenon of appearance and reappearance of the moon was combined with a four-day week calendar (kualuka, kurima phiri, kufusa and chipalata). The lunar months and the four days of the week were the main guide to farming activities. The first three days were spent in the ‘family’ farm, and chipalata was either a resting or a market day (Spear 1978), thus one conducted business or did optional farming on a farm field not shared by the family. These arrangements went hand in hand with the lunar calendar cycle, as summarized in Table 9.1 Table G.1: A summary of the Digo annual farming activities, for maize cultivation. Season Main farming Period: (Lunar calendar) Activity notes activity Kazikazi Land preparation Mfungomosi-mfungotatu st rd [1 – 3 month] [dry season] rd 3 month tema tsanje [clear new farm area] kurima dzindza [clear old field] th Mfungone [4 month] Kuocha maiyi [burn cleared plant matter] 4 Mwaka st 1 maize crop th month Kuumbiki [sowing in dry soil] th Mfungotsano [5 month] [long rains] soil, in the rain] Mfungosita-mfungosabaa th Mtsoo [low rains] Vuri [short rains] Pandwa maji [sowing in wet Other crop cultivation nd 2 maize crop th kpwekpwe [weeding and crop [6 – 7 month] maintenance] Mfungonane [8th month] Kutsenga [harvesting] Mfungotisia-mfungokumi Growing low rain demanding th th [9 – 10 month] crops (peas, nuts, sesame etc.) Mfungokumi-mfungo kumi na Pandwa [sowing], kpwekpwe mbiri [weeding] and kutsenga th th [10 – 12 month] [harvesting] The farming activities are announced by the chirimira [Pleiades] in the eastern sky. In Tanzania, Huber (2000) also noted the use of these stars by the Kwaya, who refer to these stars as indimira. The phrase chirimira chikagwa [the stars have fallen], means the stars are seen below the ‘four o’clock’ position of the sun (in East African solar patterns), and this indicates that the rains are about to fall, thus the period of leisure is over, and the time for cultivation is at hand. This occasion, although slightly varying between years, usually coincides with mfungopili – mfungotatu [first and second month of the lunar cycle). Farmers clearing new farm areas [tema 180 tsanje] should start as early as mfungomosi [first month], and farmers clearing old crop fields [rima dzindza] get busy in their farm fields a month later. In both cases, by mfungone [fourth month] the farmer would burn the piles of weeded plant material [kuocha maiyi]. For slashing and clearing [kutema] the farmer uses machete [phanga] and ax [shoka], while soil preparation [kurima] is done by hand-hoe [jembe]. This land preparation period (1st – 4th month) is usually dry, and is known as kazikazi. Some farmers prefer to sow before the rains, an activity known as kuumbiki. The disadvantage of kuumbikia is the loss of seeds through pest such as rats, and the advantage is the guarantee of the crop reaching maturity even when the rains stop prematurely, which is common in the area. The first rains are expected at the end of the fourth month [mfungone], a season known as chizima chandze [putting off the heat], which coincides with the March-April period of the Greek calendar. The signal of rains is read from the production of new leaves in deciduous trees and production of flowers in some others e.g. Albizia spp. Some farmers prefer to sow their seeds during the rains, an activity known as pandwa maji [sowing in water]. In the past, each village had a ‘prophet’ to identify the person to ceremoniously start off the maize sowing [ndiye gwira siku], and everybody would only sow his seed a day after the selected person had sown. Neglecting this rule, a farmer would be summoned and would be required to pay a fine to the committee of elders [ngambi].The strength of luck [chuso] of the selected person will determine the maize yields in that year. In a homestead, the man who heads the homestead will be the first to farm and to sow, then the rest of the family follows. However, he can delegate his ceremonial action to a daughter or son, trying their chuso. If the crop yield for that year is good, then the ‘starter’ is maintained, but if the crop yield is poor, another person is selected. There are prohibitions [miko] for the ‘starters’ at village and homestead levels. Among others, these include abstaining from sexual intercourse on the eve of sowing. These communal rites connected to sowing are not practiced today. The first rains, ingu ra popho [the rains of the butterflies], are interpreted as the migration period of butterflies (popho) flying from North (vurini) to South (mwakani) to get dressed up (become colorful). These rains mark the beginning of the long rain season [mwaka], which extend from the fifth month [mfungo tsano] to the eighth month. Between the 5th and the 7th month is the period of very heavy rains, and kpwekpwe [weeding] is the principal occupation of men and women during this season. Within the sixth month [mfungo sita] the rains are referred to as ingu ra kubwaga nyoe [the rain that ‘drops’ grasshoppers, which stay in the maize plant]. Within the sixth month, the maize plants start to produce stigma [njiyo], a process described as ‘ganasonga’ [plaiting]. In the seventh month heavy and continuous rains for a week or more [ingu ra mfungizo] are expected and mark the end of the rainy period of mwaka, i.e. mwaka unalaga [the long rains are bidding goodbye]. In the seventh month [mfungo saba] the kernels in the cob start to develop and by the end of the month the cobs are ready for roasting to eat [gakuocha]. At this stage the cobs lose the stigma, a processed described as matsere ganakata njio [cobs are losing the stigma], and the cobs start to dry up [ganakala kundu]. The rains disappear gradually, and by the 8th month it is relatively dry. By the end of the eighth month, four months after sowing, the cobs are dry [matsere 181 n’mafu] and are harvested. In the past, weeding and harvesting were done by cooperating groups [mwerya], from one farm to another, but this is not common today. Mfungotisia [9th month] and mfungo kumi [10th month] are characterized by low rains, a season known as mtsoo, and used for growing low rain demanding crops e.g. green peas (podzo), sesame [ufuha], ground nuts [njungu nyasa], bambara nuts [njungu mawe] etc. Mfungo kumi [10th month] to mfungo mosi [1st month] is the short rains season, known as vuri, when a second maize crop and the low rain demanding crops are cultivated. Some farmers prefer to grow cassava in mtsoo and vuri seasons. Chibuundzi celebration The first day after completing the collection of the maize crops is known as Mwaka hija. The women spend the day preparing the maize harvest by pounding and grinding [kuhwa na kusaga]. The second day, known as Mwaka kafu, celebration preparation begin with farmers going back to the farm to ‘hide’ the farming tools and fishermen going to the sea to remove their boats from the water and hanging their fishing tools. This is to put off all work related activities, and to get ready for the feasting set for the next day, the third day after harvesting, which is known as Chibuundzi. The Chibuundzi day is described as a holiday, and from a traditional perspective it is like the Islamic or Christian celebrations. On that day people spread ash around their houses; failing to do that the family will suffer [kushutwa n’chibuundzi] by having their chickens stop producing. On that day, people celebrate the harvest by taking a bath [kuoga mwaka], slaughtering animals, dancing and eating food prepared from the maize. If this day falls on a Saturday or a Tuesday, the long rains are referred to as male [mwaka mlume] and the crop yield is expected to be low. Chibuundzi and kuoga mwaka are more or less historical practices today, and there is evidence that the abandonment of this practice is predominantly due to religious attachments, since to some extent it contradicts the teachings of Islam. At the time of this study, very few Digo still undertake this celebration, done as a family issue rather than the historical communal celebration. Post harvesting processes and storage In maize harvesting, the cobs are snapped or husked by hand from the standing stalk and piled for collection and transportation to the homesteads. At home, selection of the more vigorous maize cobs is done, which are separated as seed for the next crop. The remaining cobs are stripped off the husks and put in a granary [chitsaga], which is a raised bed built above the fire place (about 2 m in height), at a size that depends on the maize to be stored. The fire underneath is maintained to burn continuously, otherwise the maize would rot. The leaves on the seed-cobs are only partly removed, and used to hang the cobs near the granary. In this form the family members know which maize not to consume. The cobs in the granary are used according to the needs of the family. The kernels are manually retrieved into a basket, which is usually done by women and children. The kernels are pound [kuphonda] and ground [kusaga] for making porridge [uji], hard pulp [sima] or grained pulp [mashaza]. Usually the maize produced by the Digo farmer is for domestic consumption. Most farmers complained that their harvest does not even suffice their household needs, usually lasting less than half a year. 182 Other crops such as peas are preserved in containers, gourds or large bottles. Pests are detracted by adding dried and ground chilli with the preserved seeds. This is usually the case with mbeyu (seeds to be used for the next crop), which usually receive extra care to ensure they are not damaged by pests. Fruits (e.g. mango), vegetables and root tubers (e.g. cassava), are preserved by drying in the sun. This was particularly common in the past when famine periods were frequently anticipated. There is a belief that when the mango trees produce excessively, that is an indicator of famine in the near future, thus the fruits were not left to go to waste but processed and preserved for the famine session. When needed for consumption these dried fruits and vegetables are soaked to smoothen first and then cooked. Cassava tubers are pounded into flour from which hard pulp [bada] is prepared. Traditional customary controls in the Digo farming system Like other traditional Digo practices, farming has been under customary control of an elders’ council, ngambi (Spear 1978). The ngambi enforced announcements through beating of drums or by messengers who moved through the village announcing the elders’ instruction, mainly related to planting and harvesting of crops. These included the selected person to start off sowing. The growing patterns of crops were also under the ngambi. Thus the sowing of Bambara ground nuts [Njugu mawe] was restricted to the mtsoo season, and a farmer who sowed these nuts in the heavy rains [mwaka] season was fined. This traditional rule resulted from the belief that the Bambara nuts attract sun-shine, thus when planted in the long rains would lead to less rains or even drought. Consequently, for such fault a farmer was fined a black bull that was given to the ngambi who used it in a ceremony to appease the spirits of the rains. The harvesting of coconut fruits, until very recently (early 1990s), was also controlled by the ngambi. The elders made a special structure (kaha) from the coconut leaves and raise it at a central site of the village as a sign that there should be no more harvesting or collection of coconut fruits from farms. The order affected even the use of coconut fruits in the households, meaning a total ban of use and trade of the coconut fruit of all stages in that period. This control was meant to discourage stealing and over-use, so that the fruits were given enough time to mature fully and in large numbers. The ban was removed by bringing down the kaha, at a time when the coconut fruits were in high demand and fetched good prices, e.g. in the month of Ramadhan, when demand extends to the neighbouring Swahili speakers. In all villages visited, all these customary controls were no longer in action. Thus control and decisions on farm activities and production were made at the homestead level. 183 Table G.2: Digo names of different varieties or cultivars of crop plants Crop plant Variety Description Matsere [maize] Chfumba tele High producing cultivar Chitweka Black kernels Katumani (also known as Hybrid maize, short and matures in a Matsere ga chizungu) relatively short period Kosti (also known as Matsere Hybrid ga chizungu) produces abundantly Mbokomu - Matsere ga bumubumu Fast growing cultivar Maricheni Yellow kernels Mwatsaka Red kernels Tsere ra mjundo Stripped colour patterns Tsere ra matungo Black, red, and white kernels Zonga Short cultivar Chimakoko Grows up right Chifumbatele Has comparative high yields Koroboi Is short Zonga Grows more in twining way Mwatsaka wa chitsawetsawe Very small and very hot Mwatsaka ng’ondzi Large and very hot Mwatsaka gowa - Mwatsaka wa masala Deep red Mwatsaka mbuzi Round, green and very hot Mwatsaka manga small, round and black Mwatsaka wa vipuli Round with a log stalk Podzo-za-msamli Light green peas Podzo-nyiru Dark green peas Ufuha-mwiru Lighter sesame seeds Ufuha-mwereru Black sesame seeds Mbalazi-nyereru Light brown seeds Mbalazi-mnjindo Striped seeds Mbala-bombo Dark brown seeds Boriti Think, long tubers, with darkish rind Boto - Chango - Chibandameno Sweet, light coloured rind, and white Kunde [Peas] Mwatsaka [pepper] Podzo [green peas] Ufuha [Sesame] Mbalazi [cow peas] Manga [cassava] flesh Chijenje - maize, grows tall and 184 Table G.2 Cont. Crop plant Variety Description Chileso Bitter, dark coloured rind, and white flesh Chiphukuse Small tubers, produce abundantly Gushe Very dark rind Guzo Thick and long tubers, with lighter rind Gwede - Kabagi - Kabatwa - Mbega - Mjiriama Dark coloured rind, and peeling outer cover Mgomba [banana] Mwamundu - Mzurilewao - Ride - Bokoboko Medium sized fruits, mainly for cooking Buli - Chibungale Small fruits, mainly for eating raw Chiivu Very small fruits, mainly for eating raw Chipembe cha ng’onzi Short fruits Chisukari Small fruits, produced abundantly. Mainly for eating raw, and are very sweet (sugary). Chitombo - Choga ivu - Gojozi Short but thick fruits, both for eating raw and for cooking Jamaica - Malindi or Mdundatsi Medium size fruits, produced abundantly, mainly for eating raw Matoke Short and reddish fruits mainly for cooking Mdzavudzo - Mkono wa tembo or Kamakwa Very long fruit, produced less than 3 fruits at a time. Mainly for cooking 185 Table G.2 Cont. Crop plant Variety Description Mshale Large fruits mainly for cooking Mtsuzi wa kamba Fruits are reddish in colour, mainly for eating raw Mphunga [Rice] Muareare - Ndizi ya chilume Large fruits mainly for cooking Ndizi ya chitsambala - Chibawa cha inzi or Seeds have wings Chitumbo Muhama [Sorghum] Mawa Tungudza [African egg plant] Mabungulia [Egg plant] Maembe [mango] Gushe - Kanja - Maria - Mosi wa sigara Dark brown seed cover Nimukora - Pishori Aromatic long grain Sindano/lokoli Long grain Singo ya mjali - Muhama mrefu Tall growing Muhama wa bombo Reddish seeds Muhama wa fumbula Large bunch seeded Mawa maru Pale brown fruits Mawa mereru Whitish fruits Tungudza za chidunguluma Small round fruits Tungudza za tovu ya ng’ombe Large, long fruits Bugulia kunda ng’onzi Short, thick fruit Bungulia ga tovu ya ng’ombe Long fruit Bungulia mdundatsi Long and heavy fruit Bungulia ga dunguluma Round fruit Bungulia ra chizungu Hybrid cultivar with very large fruits Batawi Medium sized fruit, round, and combined yellow and red shades when ripe Boribo Large fruit, curves slightly at the tip, and when ripe combines red and yellow shades Chikunguma - Chimaji Medium sized fruit, round, very juicy and sugary 186 Table G.2 Cont. Crop plant Variety Description Ching’ongo - Chisukari Small, round fruits, very sweet Dobe - Dodo Large round fruit, remains green even when ripe Dzunga - Ember a chidigo Small fruits, very fibrous flesh Embe-mango A new cultivar Epoli Large, round fruit, with a very small seed. It reddish even at immature stages, but becomes more red when ripe Faransa - Kasuku - Ngoe Large fruit, which curves at the tip, when ripe it changes to completely yellow. Sapai - Shikio punda Long fruits, also fibrous flesh Tovu Long fruits Zafarani Slightly long, and shiny red when ripe Mpapali [pawpaw] Moyo mwereru Fruit with yellow inner flesh, of different sizes and shapes Moyo wa simba Fruit with red inner flesh, of different sizes and shapes Nanasi [pineapple] Nasi ra baka Large fruit Nanasi ra chidigo Small fruits, sometimes grow wild in uncultivated farm areas