Introduction

Different Amazonian indigenous groups have special considerations for and relationships with certain plant species, such as cassava, plantains, peach palm, coca, cotton, sedges, and ginger (Daly 2021; Descola 1996; Giovannini 2015; Kujawska et al. 2020; Martin 1970; Rival 2002; Salick et al. 1997; Sosnowska and Kujawska 2014). These useful plants are subject to active propagation and management, often leading to cultivated varieties. In local cosmologies, their ontological status is that of kin or affine, which means that local indigenous groups establish social relations with these plants (Descola 1996; Rojas-Zolezzi 2014, Weiss 1975). Moreover, viewed from botanical taxonomy, these plants are often over-differentiated in local classifications (Boster 1986).

Domesticated sedges (Cyperus spp.), also known as piri-piri in Amazonian Spanish (Tournon et al. 1998), are found in the home gardens of indigenous groups across Amazonia (Cipolletti 1988; Shepard 1998; Tournon et al. 1998, Valadeau et al. 2010). In our previous paper, we discussed the complex interconnections between domesticated sedges and the Ashaninka people from the Arawak linguistic family who inhabit Peruvian Upper Amazonia (Kujawska et al. 2020). Sedges (Ash. ibenki) were exclusively propagated in a vegetative way and were mostly exchanged among kinship lines. We recorded a tremendous diversity of ethnospecies of ibenki (N = 86) that corresponded to four species from the genus Cyperus. This over-differentiation pattern was accompanied by a great number of uses ascribed to these plants which were embedded in the Ashaninka etiological system. Continuing with the line of inquiry from the previous work on ibenki, in this study, we explore the complex relationship between the same group of Ashaninka people and the second most important group of useful plants growing in Ashaninka home gardens called ibinishi. This ethnotaxon, distinguished in the Ashaninka classification of plants, presents a priori a similar pattern of over-differentiation as ibenki (Kujawska et al. 2020). This group of plants has not been described in the literature about Arawak-speaking people from Peruvian Amazonia. We found no reference to ibinishi plants, while the references to ibenki/ivenki (Ashaninka), ivenkeki (Matsigenka) and epe’ (Yanesha) which correspond to Cyperus spp. are numerous (Luziatelli et al. 2010; Revilla-Minaya 2019; Rojas Zolezzi 1997; Santos-Granero 2012; Shepard 1998; Valadeau et al. 2010). Thus, we think the phenomenon of ibinishi is worthy of further exploration.

The ethnotaxon ibinishi corresponds to three botanical genera: Justicia, Lepidagathis, and Ruellia (belonging to the Acanthaceae family). Although some species, such as Justicia pectoralis Jacq., have gained great interest among ethnobotanists and anthropologists (Schultes 1990), in general, these genera have been little discussed in Amazonian ethnobotanical literature. In Table 1, we present a short state of the art considering the relationships of Amazonian societies with these three genera.

Table 1 An overview of ethnobotanical studies in Amazonia and the Caribbean concerning genera of Justicia, Lepidagathis, and Ruellia
Full size table

In ethnobotanical sources, Justicia pectoralis has been described as a cultivated plant by indigenous societies in Amazonia (see review in Schultes 1990). The species is characterized by a wide morphological variation. The generation of morphological variability is one of the consequences of domestication (Pickersgill 2007). Finding many variants of the same plant species or plant crop is part of the so-called domestication syndrome. In plants, this syndrome is defined by a wide variety of traits that, depending on the species, may include a reduced ability to disperse seeds without human intervention, reduced physical and chemical defenses, reduced unproductive secondary shoots, reduced seed dormancy, larger seeds, more predictable and synchronous germination, and, in some seed-propagated species, larger and more abundant inflorescences (Hammer 1984). In this work, we refer only to the incipient domestication phase of the domestication syndrome. A plant population is considered incipiently domesticated due to human intervention at least by promotion/propagation or tolerance in the system, but with the average phenotype of the selected character still within the range of variation found in wild conditions (Clement 1999).

In this work, we explore further our proposed method of analysis called the more-than-utility approach to ethnobotany (ethnobiology) to investigate biological, ecological, and social relationships between different human cultures and plants (Kujawska et al. 2020). This is a theoretical-methodological approach, emerging from the dialogue between ethnobotany, ecology, phytochemistry, anthropology, and cognitive-based science. This approach engages with the growing fields of the more-than-human perspective in the humanities (Guzmán-Gallegos 2019; Marder 2013), anthropology beyond humanity (Ingold 2013; Kohn 2013), and multispecies ethnography (Tsing 2015), which postulate a shift of perspectives and foci from those strictly human, and emerged in Western ontology, toward less hierarchical or even horizontal interspecies relations. Therefore, this perspective seeks to go beyond the classical utilitarian approach in ethnobotany and ethnobiology. In practical ethnobotanical endeavors, the proposed approach means looking at all elements of the interactions between plants and human societies in addressing human and plant agency. It also proposes taking into account not only human-users’ perspectives, but also those of plants, in which case approaches from ecology, chemical and sensory ecology, and ecosemiotics seem appropriate paths (Daly and Shepard 2019; Hornborg 2001; Kołodziejska and Kujawska 2020; Maran 2020; Shepard 2004).

Amazonia covers 61% of the Peruvian territory (IBC 2006). This region is populated by 59 different ethnic groups, and the indigenous population has been estimated around 300,000 people of which the Ashaninka number over 100,000 according to the latest census (BDPI 2020), hereby being the most numerous Peruvian Amazonian society. Yet, the ethnobotanical knowledge and practices of plant management by the Ashaninka people have been sparsely documented and discussed in the literature (Aldave and Summers 2014; Luziatelli et al. 2010; Kujawska et al. 2020; Reynel et al. 1990; Rojas Zolezzi 2014). Moreover, Cyperus and several species of the Acanthaceae family are traditionally cultivated plants in their gardens and are of great importance for their well-being. However, so far, no study has been published on this subject. This paper offers the most systematic ethnobotanical study on the Acanthaceae cultivated by one of the Amazonian indigenous groups.

The general objective is to analyze the place which ibinishi occupy in the life of the Ashaninka from the Tambo River valley, particularly in their medicine, cosmology, classification system, and agricultural practice at present. To achieve this, we: (1) make a comparison between botanical taxonomy and Ashaninka classification; (2) describe forms of cultivation and propagation of ibinishi; (3) evoke the stories of the mythical origin of these plants; (4) analyze the nomenclature of the ethnospecies and the consensus between the name, use, and their distribution; (5) analyze forms of circulation of these plants between people in different communities; and (6) describe the diversity of uses in relation to Ashaninka illness etiologies and symptoms.

Methods

Study Group and Data Collection

The Ashaninka (Arawak Linguistic Family) Number 112,000 Members (BDPI 2020). They inhabit Upper Amazonia in Peru (Selva Central), particularly the tributaries of the Upper Ucayali River, such as the Apurímac, Ene, Perené, Pangoa, and Tambo; valleys of the Pichis and Pachitea rivers; and the interfluvial area of the Gran Pajonal (Rojas Zolezzi 2014; Veber 2003).

We worked in Ashaninka native communities along the Tambo River, affiliated to the regional organization Central Asháninka del Río Tambo (CART). The study of medicinal plants in home gardens of the Ashaninka was performed in 12 communities: Anapate, Capitiri, Charahuaja, Chembo, Marankiari, Oviri, Shevoja, and Vista Alegre, plus Poyeni and its three hamlets—Shikapaja, Sabareni, and Selva Verde—which were treated in the analysis as separate communities (Fig. 1). Each community was visited at least twice. The number of studied home gardens per community was distributed evenly. Ibinishi were recorded in 59 home gardens which belonged to 67 participants: 52 women and 15 men; their age range was from 22 to 70 years old. The number of participants was higher than the number of home gardens because some married couples keep their own separate ibinishi in one garden. A similar phenomenon was documented in our previous study of ibenki (Cyperus spp.).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Map of Ashaninka communities along the Tambo River, with communities where the research was conducted marked

Full size image

The first contact with the Ashaninka from the Tambo River was established by Joanna Sosnowska in 2008. Building trust and rapport with the Ashaninka was a long process that included discussions with CART authorities (before and after every visit to the native communities) and obtaining their permits. In each community, before starting fieldwork, we had meetings with community authorities and then a general meeting with the inhabitants, and numerous conversations during our stays about the purpose of the project, as well as about the potential returns to the Ashaninka. This scenario was repeated with every consecutive visit and fieldwork in all communities. The information on cultivated home garden plants and voucher specimens were collected by MK and JS during five field stays in the period 2016–2019 and in 2022. Study participants were recruited from Ashaninka volunteers who wished to collaborate in this study. The ethnobotanical data were obtained during guided tours in 70 home gardens, and ibinishi were present in 59 gardens, or 84% of all studied gardens. During these guided tours, we stopped at every plant, and the garden owners were asked to give a plant name in the Ashaninka language, its uses, forms of propagation, and the sites and persons from which they were obtained. Every ibinishi plant that was shown to us was documented with photography and in a field note. Whenever the plants had flowers, and the plant owner agreed that we could take a sample, we collected herbarium specimens. Moreover, we interviewed 16 specialists/experts of Ashaninka traditional medicine: including midwives, bone setters, shamans, and steam bath makers or other healers (in Spanish: curanderos). Other semi-structured interviews and conversations (at least 30) were conducted among lay Ashaninka and concentrated on illnesses and forms of treatment in order to contextualize the information on plants used in Ashaninka traditional medicine, including their etiological system, and cosmology. No recording was done, as Ashaninka participants were reluctant toward being recorded. Most Ashaninka participants were bilingual in Ashaninka and Spanish, though on a few occasions we were assisted by a native interpreter. The Ashaninka plant names were translated into Spanish with the help of native interpreters. Three Ashaninka persons from three different communities, including a bilingual teacher, went through the complete list of the recorded names of ibinishi in order to check the spelling and their translation to Spanish.

Twenty-three herbarium specimens of cultivated Justicia, Lepidagathis, and Ruellia species were collected in Ashaninka home gardens. The specimens were pressed and dried (without using alcohol). Botanical identification of these specimens was made by consulting botanical keys, descriptions and specialized bibliography, and verifications with USM Herbarium specimens and with other virtual herbaria: Missouri Botanical Garden (MO) and Field Museum Herbarium (F), among others. The taxonomic ordering of angiosperms was performed according to Angiosperm Phylogeny Group IV (2016). For up to date scientific names, we used specialized websites, such as Plants of the World Online (2023) and the International Plant Names Index (IPNI) (nd). The specimens were deposited in the USM Herbario de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos in Lima. The Ashaninka authorities gave their written approval for the implementation of the project, and the corresponding permissions from the Peruvian state for collecting herbarium specimens were granted by SERFOR, N° 252-2017-SERFOR/DGGSPFFS and RD N° D000163-2022-MIDAGRI-SERFOR-DGGSPFFS-DGSPF.

Data Analysis

During data analysis, we took into account the following variables: ethnoclassification and nomenclature, cultivation practices (including modes of propagation), and Ashaninka cosmology (including myths). We analyzed the correspondence between the ethnospecies and their uses in general, and across the communities, by means of two consensus analyses (see further). We also analyzed the circulation of plants between people and communities. Finally, we analyzed the uses of ethnospecies of ibinishi and their connection to Ashaninka etiologies, in order to better understand deep and long-lasting plant-people relationships.

We understand a particular ibinishi as a record of a particular ethnospecies, with information on its use, form of obtaining (from a family member, non-family, purchased) and place/community where it was obtained from, and supported by photography and/or a herbarium specimen in a particular garden, belonging to a particular person. In this study, the number of records is synonymous with the number of citations.

Our cognitive analysis of plant groupings and nomenclature (i.e., classification system) has been combined with the semantic analysis of names (see Tournon 1991). We counted any lexemic variation as one name. Venn diagrams were prepared and used to present the relationship between ethnotaxa and botanical taxon.

We conducted consensus analysis based on the number of mentions of folk species and corresponding uses. For this, we used Trotter and Logan’s (1986) consensus index [\(\left(\frac{Nm- Nu}{Nm-1}\right)\Big]\) where Nm refers to the number of records of each ethnospecies and Nu to the number of uses. In our case, we set out to find the degree of consensus among the Ashaninka on the correspondence between ethnospecies names and their uses.

While this formula gives us information about the name-use consensus, it informs little about the distribution of name-use consensus between communities. In order to do this, we added to Trotter and Logan’s index a component that considers the distribution of names across the communities (which we refer to as “overall community consensus on use”), as in the following formula \(\left(\frac{Nm- Nu}{Nm-1}\right)x\ \left(\frac{Nc}{Ntc}\right)\) where Nc refers to the number of communities where ethnospecies of a given ibinishi were recorded, and Ntc to the total number of communities studied (N = 12) (for more details see Kujawska et al. 2020). Both consensus indices were calculated for a subgroup of 17 ethnospecies, which were recorded in at least three Ashaninka gardens (i.e., mentioned at least three times).

In the paper, we also included wild growing Justicia, Ruellia as well as other Acanthaceae species which we recorded and collected during walks in the forest with Ashaninka collaborators, in order to analyze which Acanthaceae species the Ashaninka cultivate, and which they collect from the wild. Then, we compared the management of Acanthaceae plants by the Ashaninka with the available literature on the status of domestication of these species in Peruvian Amazonia (Bautista et al. 2012; Parra Rondinel 2014).

We also analyzed the means of obtaining plants and propagules (via kinship, affines, non-related persons, purchase) and places from which propagules of ibinishi were obtained (the same community versus another community) by each of our collaborators. This approach, in concordance with overall community consensus on use and other findings, allows to generate some interpretations about processes of domestication of ibinishi plants by the Ashaninka people.

Uses of ibinishi were divided into etic categories and discussed according to shaninka etiologies and symptoms, as well as “actions” in which they were involved. These diverse yet complementary analyses enabled us to discuss the place which ibinishi plants occupy in Ashaninka lives, cosmology, and plant classification.

Results

Ibinishi—the Patterns Behind Their Grouping and Naming

Within the ethnotaxon ibinishi, we found 66 ethnospecies cultivated in 59 home gardens. An ethnospecies is defined here as a plant distinguished by the Ashaninka people and endowed with a separate Ashaninka name and use(s). Our analysis of ibinishi is based on the 177 exemplars collected in Ashaninka home gardens. Two monotypic names, ibinishi and pinitsi, were also used when people did not remember or did not want to mention the specific name of their ibinishi. These monotypic names are most likely synonyms, deriving from different traditions of naming. Pinitsi was translated to us as “a small herbaceous curative plant.” We recorded 20 exemplars under the monotypic name ibinishi and three under the name pinitsi.

There is a 1:3 correspondence between ibinishi ethnotaxon and its botanical equivalents of Justicia, Lepidagathis, and Ruellia genera. Even though we did not collect all the species from these genera cultivated by the Ashaninka, we can observe, from the botanical perspective, an over-differentiation phenomenon (Fig. 2). When we look more closely at Venn diagrams and the botanical identification in the list of ibinishi (Table 2), it becomes clear that ibinishi correspond mostly to Justicia species, especially to J. pectoralis.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Groupings of ibinishi and their correspondence to botanical taxonomy. Legend: ethnospecies corresponding to more than one botanical species are shown in gray

Full size image
Table 2 Ethnospecies of ibinishi recorded in the Ashaninka home gardens in the native communities of the Tambo River, Peruvian Upper Amazonia
Full size table

In this overall scheme of over-identification, there are at least two specific ibinishi which merge different botanical species under one ethnospecies. Kamarishi/kamaripinitsi “leaf or herb of the devil kamari”—reported by 15 persons—corresponds to Justicia pectoralis, unspecified Justicia sp., and Lepidagathis lanceolata (Nees) Wassh. It is one of the most frequently cultivated and popular ibinishi; therefore, the lumping together may be due to its extensive use. Oyecharishi “leaf of the rainbow” amalgamates at least three Acanthaceae species: Justicia comata (L.) Lam., Justicia pectoralis, and Lepidagathis lanceolata. Oyecharishi was cultivated by four people, and the causality behind using the plant bears great consensus among them. “Oyecharishi is used when a rainbow hits the child – when the mother takes her baby to the river shore, there are plenty of rainbows there; as the baby has this strong smell, the rainbow can easily hit them” (Span. chocar). Oyechari is a kind of bog, or at least this is a birth place of the rainbow, and according to the Ashaninka, it may affect the child (Span. cutipar) most often producing diarrhea. Oyechari may also produce a skin burning in adults, but for this event, oyecharibenki is used (Cyperus sp.). The symptom-related use of oyecharishi, the child’s diarrhea, may be the reason for grouping several species under one ethnospecies.

All the specific names within the ibinishi ethnotaxon are descriptive secondary lexemes composed of a productive constituent and the suffix shi, which comes from the world oshi—“a leaf.” Apart from ibenki and ibinishi, another important group of plants distinguished by the Ashaninka is inchatoshi which can be translated as “forest trees.” The names of many forest plants have the suffix shi as well. In other words, the suffix shi is shared between ibinishi and many forest plants. The ibinishi ethnotaxon includes pinitsi, which is a primary lexeme and which performs as a suffix of secondary lexemes, e.g., kamaripinitsi “herb of the devil” and otsitipini “herb of a dog.” The exceptions to this rule of producing secondary lexemes of ibinishi are ibinishitesamani “pusanga for a white-lipped peccary” and ibinishiteshintori “pusanga for collared peccary.” The first part of this lexeme is ibinishi which was translated by an Ashaninka interlocutor as “pusanga,” and the second part corresponds to a specific animal. Pusanga is an object, often a plant or an animal part used in love lore. When we asked the Ashaninka whether the word “ibinishi” could be translated as “pusanga” in general, they disagreed with this suggestion.

The analysis of semantically productive constituents in the secondary lexemes shows that specific names evoke non-humans such as animals, including insects, such as ants and bees; then fish, birds, and mammals; spirits and spirits of dead people; natural phenomena; stars; and minerals. Another group of semantically productive constituents are health problems and symptoms: vomiting, headache, colic, pain, and some specific states (sadness, crying), body parts, and body flux. Another group forms semantic constituents which indicate various activities, e.g., witchcraft. Other names directly point to various tools, such as a fishing net or machete. Finally, there are names evoking the staple food—manioc—and the culturally most important beverage, piarentsi “manioc beer” (all Ashaninka names translated to Spanish and English are found in Table 2).

Cultivated Acanthaceae Species in Ashaninka Home Gardens

The ibinishi are perennial herbs and subshrubs of 15–30 cm in height, and they are distinguished by the Ashaninka by their life habit—they expand horizontally, forming a carpet-like formation separated one from the other (in gardens where several ibinishi are planted) and from other plants through careful weeding and occasional pruning (Fig. 3). We did not observe, however, other practices, such as soil improvement or parasite removal. Ashaninka people do not collect the seeds of these plants. They exclusively propagate them in a vegetative way. Whenever they move their households, they transplant ibinishi by dividing them. The same practice is followed when they share their ibinishi with their kinsfolk or other people.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Examples of ibinishi growing in Ashaninka home gardens along the Tambo River: A Satanentsishi—“leaf of colic with localized sharp pain,” Justicia sp.; B Erishi—“leaf of the bee eri (Trigona spp.),” Justicia pectoralis; C Collecting tsimerishi—“leaf of a small bird tsimeri,” Justicia comata; D Kanekishi—“leaf of the ant kaneki,” Justicia polygonoides

Full size image

In Table 3, we included the species from the Acanthaceae family collected during research: not only cultivated ibinishi but also species transplanted to home gardens from the forest, and wild-growing plants which were collected in the forest but not considered ibinishi by the Ashaninka. In this table, we indicate the management practices performed by Ashaninka people and collate these practices with the known status of domestication of these species from the literature (Bautista et al. 2012; Parra Rondinel 2014).

Table 3 Acanthaceae species* cultivated and collected by the Ashaninka people from the Tambo River valley and their status of domestication**
Full size table

The main difference between the Ashaninka practice and the literature is contemplated in Justicia polygonoides Kunth and Ruellia menthoides (Nees) Hiern which are considered wild species in the literature (Bautista et al. 2012; Parra Rondinel 2014), but which Ashaninka people cultivate and propagate in a vegetative way like all other ibinishi. Thus, their populations in the Tambo River valleys are most probably incipiently domesticated. On the other hand, Aphelandra aurantiaca (Scheidw.) Lindl. is considered incipiently domesticated in the literature, but in the Tambo River valley it is collected from the wild. The genus Justicia seems very important for the Ashaninka. We found the populations of Justicia comata, Justicia pectoralis, and Justicia polygonoides exclusively cultivated. From what we could observe, Justicia pectoralis possesses great morphological variance. Other Justicia species, such as Justicia appendiculata (Ruiz & Pav.) Vahl, Justicia pilosa (Ruiz ex Nees) Lindau, Justicia poeppigiana (Nees) Lindau, and Justicia rauhii Wassh., were collected in the forest by the Ashaninka.

The Mythical Origin of Ibinishi

The mythical origin of ibinishi is uncertain; they appear in the myths of the origin of piri-piri in general, but there are no specific myths that would only apply to them without amalgamating their origin with that of ibenki.

In 2022, we recorded the following story about the origin of ibenki and ibinishi:

In earlier times, a person (Ashaninka person) deceived a condor by pretending to be dead. The person was so intelligent that he spread his cushma (a tunica dress) allover with young shoots of the setico tree (Cecropia spp.) which contain phlegm. He kept this cushma for one week in a cave, for it to gain the odor of the dead. The person who had this cushma wore it and laid down on the beach. Soon a gallinazo (Coragyps atratus) and the condor arrived to devour the rotten meat. The person had put his face and his limbs inside the cushma. The condor very much liked to eat eyes. So, they were discussing with the gallinazo who would eat which part and who would eat the eyes while they were coming closer to what looked like a rotten human body. When they finally reached the man, he jumped and said “Why do you want to eat me? I am not dead”. So, the condor responded “Why are you playing games with me? What do you want from me?”. And this is when the person asked for ibenki and ibinishi. And in that moment different varieties of ibenki and ibinishi appeared in the world: masontobenki, menkoribenki, makarobenki. These first piri-piri were for the war. And also kaniribenki and kanirishi – to burn chacra (agricultural field), they have small pepa (rhizome in botanical terms).

Some interlocutors explained to us that the story of the origin of ibenki (Cyperus spp.) could be applied to ibinishi. In that myth, it was a sankori ant (cf. leaf cutter ant, Atta spp.) who gave an Ashaninka man his first ibenki to help him weed his agricultural field faster (see the full length version in Kujawska et al. 2020).

The mentioned stories suggest the importance of ibinishi in the realm of agriculture and war. We recorded just one ibinishi being used in agriculture nowadays, namely kanirishi “leaf of cassava” used to enhance the growth of manioc (Span. para que engorde la yuca). More specifically ibinishi was recorded for war and conflict—masontoshi “leaf of a calm person” to intimidate an enemy or tsoraroshi “leaf of fearlessness” and soraroshi to deal with police, namely to fool the police when they intervene (Table 2).

According to the Ashaninka people, ibinishi are as old as ibenki. Ashaninka people believe that not only they have piri-piri (cultivated plants with special powers), but every kind of animal has their own piri-piri, because, they explain, in earlier times, animals were humans. For example, the gallinazo cultivates its own piri-piri. When part of his ibinishi dies, it is a sign to him that someone has died, and he starts searching for a dead body.

Consensus on Name, Uses, and the Distribution of Ibinishi

Given the huge diversity of ethnospecies of ibinishi (N = 66), we asked a question: what potential do names of specific ibinishi have for transmission in the cultural sphere? One way of answering this question is through the analysis of consensus between names and uses and, further on, the distribution of these plants and corresponding names across Ashaninka communities (“overall community consensus on use”).

According to the consensus analysis carried out on the subgroup of 17 ethnospecies (each with ≥ 3 mentions), the average consensus on use was high (0.87). The names have high communicative value, and Ashaninka people understand and share the uses which stand behind those names. Eight out of the 17 ethnospecies had a maximum consensus on use equal to 1: charabashi “leaf of the zungaro fish,” inchashishi “leaf of harm/sorcery,” irajantsishi “leaf of the blood,” manijishi “leaf of the bullet ant,” otsitipini/otsitishi “leaf or herb of dog,” pochokiroshi “leaf of being asleep,” sabirishi “leaf of the machete,” and shienkantoshi “leaf of the child’s crying.” This means that each of these ethnospecies had the same use among people that have named this ethnospecies (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Consensus on use and the overall community consensus on use

Full size image

The average consensus on use decreases considerably when incorporating the spatial correction factor, and the overall community consensus on use drops markedly to 0.29 (Fig. 4). The ethnospecies with the highest overall community consensus on use were kamarishi “leaf of the devil” (0.67) followed by sabirishi “leaf of the machete” (0.58), followed by katitorishi “leaf of katitori termite” (0.5) and tsimerishi “leaf of the small bird tsimeri” (0.5). It means that their names and uses are shared across the communities.

These results can be better understood when we take also into account: (a) the circulation of ibinishi between people (along kinship or non-kinship lines) and (b) the places of obtaining of the propagules of ibinishi (from the same versus from another community). Ibinishi are mostly exchanged between families (37.2%). This score is slightly higher than the sum of all other forms of circulation of ibinishi between affines, non-family members (such as comrades, friends), and purchases which reaches 34.3%. We do not have information on 28% of the exemplars (Table 4). These plants predominantly circulate within single community (44.6%) and to a lesser extent are brought from other communities (26.5%).

Table 4 Circulation of ibinishi among people and places in Ashaninka communities of the Tambo River valley
Full size table

Women (N = 52) reported between 1 and 11 (mean 2.7), and men (N = 15) reported between 1 and 6 (mean 2) ibinishi in their home gardens. Women cultivate these plants for a wide array of uses for themselves, their children, household protection, etc., while men tend to have specified ibinishi for a limited number of uses, for example, ensuring good hunting and fishing and enhancing hunting skills in their dog.

Ibinishi—Their Use and Agency

We arranged the recorded uses into 19 categories which were etic but which followed the logic of our interlocutors. There are misfortunes and illnesses for which the Ashaninka clearly identify their cause or even describe a given problem from the causal perspective. These cause-driven health conditions treated with the help of ibinishi are found mainly in the categories of food proscriptions, spirits and devils, witchcraft, and parent-child relations (Fig. 5). In total, we counted 34 descriptions of the use of ibinishi from the perspective of the cause of the illness, a disruption of norms or disharmony.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Categories of the use of ibinishi with an emphasis on causes, actions, and symptoms, through which illnesses and other problems are described in a given category of use

Full size image

Food proscriptions refer to the breaking of food taboos. It may happen when a menstruating wife or a daughter eats fish or meat brought by her husband or father or another male from the family. As a consequence, the man loses his luck in hunting or fishing. Other food proscriptions refer to the breaking of food taboos by a pregnant woman, who instead of eating safe food in the pregnancy, such as manioc, plantains, and certain kinds of fish, eats fruits, palm weevil emoki (Span. suri), or some other kinds of fish and game, which may affect her (Span. cutipar) and cause the childbirth to be painful and slow.

The concept of cutipar basically refers to a form of contagion from an animal, a plant, a rainbow, etc. to humans. To affect people (Span. cutipar) is in the nature of a given non-human being. Ibinishi are also used to counteract an act of sorcery—an intentional malevolent action by other humans or non-human animals, which produces harm, illness, or misfortune. Ibinishi used to counteract the sorcery were divided into two categories: witchcraft and spirits and devils. For example, ants and one particular stingless bee eri (Trigona spp.) are considered matsi (Span. brujo)—sorcerers—and they take the food remains (including milk vomited by babies and chewed and spat-out coca leaves) left by humans to their nests, and they use them to produce an illness which is then transmitted to humans. The remedy is a specific ibinishi whose name contains the designation of an ant or a bee sorcerer. Additionally, a nest should be localized and burned. The Ashaninka recognize a great number of malevolent ants, and there are specific ibinishi to counteract their actions manijishi “leaf of the bullet ant,” kanekishi “leaf of ant kaneki,” and katitorishi “leaf of katitori termite.” The harm of the bee eri manifests in dizziness, especially after drinking a manioc beer. The dizziness and the headache are treated with erishi (the juice from crushed leaves is poured into the eyes). According to Ashaninka myths and stories, Eri—the sister of Abireri—the Ashaninka mythical cultural hero and trickster, was the one who gave manioc beer (Ash. piarentsi) to the Ashaninka people (Sosnowska and Kujawska 2014).

Another category, which encapsulates more causes than symptoms, is the parent-child relation, especially when the father of a small child goes to the forest to hunt. The spirit of a small child accompanies him, and the child’s spirit may be captured by birds such as tsimeri or aroni. The latter is described as “the same as a devil.” As a consequence, the child follows and imitates the voice of the bird, cannot sleep at night, and cries a lot. For this purpose, aronishi or tsimerishi is used. A small child may be also affected by the diet of their parents.

Ibinishi are involved in many actions which are not confined to medicine but which have consequences in health and well-being. The action of ibinishi is directly related to their perceived agency. The action of ibinishi is manifested, for example, in hunting, where certain ibinishi are used as pusangas for animals or to obtain certain qualities in hunting dogs, etc. Pusangas, however, are used most often in love lore—to attract a person and make them fall in love with a person who acts through the pusanga. But in a hunting context, it is also used to attract animals (or the mother of a certain species/class of animals). Ibinishi are also involved in actions related to child rearing; in this case, these plants are used to develop certain qualities in children, such as walking, or talking, or to counteract bad habits such as eating earth/soil when they are toddlers. Another category in which the action of ibinishi is manifested is what we have called “violence.” It may be violence related to warfare or household violence provoked by a drunk family member. There is one special ibinishi called soraroshi, used when the police are coming to take an Ashaninka person; this plant causes the police to be fooled. The Ashaninka person needs first to rub the leaves of soraroshi in the hand before shaking it with the policeman’s. Other categories in which a desired action of ibinishi is expected are childbirth, expert medicine, fishing, and horticulture. Altogether, we counted 26 descriptions of ibinishi from the perspective of actions they are involved in.

Ibinishi are also used to counteract mere symptoms, such as digestive problems, skin fungus, fever, and headache, which are not directly related to culturally defined etiologies or for which the Ashaninka say that they do not stem from the malevolent action of other people or non-humans (they are natural). These ailments were placed in the digestive problems and symptom categories. But the Ashaninka sometimes describe health or other problems via symptoms, not the causes, but which have explanation in their etiological system and cosmological order. For example, “when the visions are advanced and one is about to die, the juice of the leaf is placed in the eye of that person” for which purpose neaasamanpentsishi “leaf of visions” is used. Thanks to other interlocutors’ explanations we know that these states are never “natural” but provoked by a devil or a spirit of a dead person who presents themselves in the forest in the disguise of an attractive lover-to-become or an alive family member. In the category of “child fragility,” all the descriptions refer to a symptom—a child’s crying—but from numerous conversations and the description of uses of other plants we learn that the child crying often has its cause in the breaking of taboos by parents or mal aire and the capture of the child’s spirit by animals, etc. In total, we recorded 34 descriptions of illnesses and other problems expressed through symptoms, which is exactly the same number as in the case of causal explanations.

Modes of Preparation and Administration

In the case of ibinishi, it is always leaves which are used, and the most common form of preparation and intake is by squeezing fresh leaves and inducing the release of juice, which is applied directly into the eyes. Hence ibinishi are defined by topical ocular juice administration. Occasionally, baths are prepared too.

Probably due to the specificity of the application of leaf juice as a drug delivery, it is mainly ibinishi, compared to other cultivated home garden plants, that are used to counteract the effect of encounters with malevolent spirits, devils, and spirits of dead people in the forest. In such circumstances, an appropriate medicine is one which can be applied to the eye of an affected person. We also collected information about forest plants (Ash. inchatoshi) administered in the same way, used to “bring back the mental equilibrium” after encounters with spirits.

Discussion

Ibinishi Among Arawakan Indigenous Groups

In the ethnography on the Ashaninka cosmology, Weiss mentioned pinitsi, identified as Justicia pectoralis (Weiss 1975: 538). In the 1960s, Weiss came across circa 17 “varieties” (ethnospecies) of pinitsi cultivated in home gardens among the ribereño Campa people (a denomination for the Ashaninka, Asheninka altogether) who lived along the Ene, Tambo, and Perené Rivers. He also counted 70 “varieties” of ivenki (Cyperus spp.), but the author did not write down their names. Rojaz Zolezzi (2014) reported ivenki (Cyperus spp.) and pinitsi (Justicia pectoralis) as two classes of cultivated plants with ritual uses among the Ashaninka from the same region. Vilchez-Gamarra (2017) found pinitsi (Justicia sp.) commonly cultivated in Ashaninka gardens and used against headache and mal aire in three communities in Perené and Pichanaki district, in the same region of Selva Central. To the best of our knowledge, these are the only other works, apart from ours, that refer to the cultivation and use of Justicia species among the Ashaninka. We are unaware of the origin of the name ibinishi, which seems to have existed side by side with pinitsi and which is currently more in use than pinitsi by the Ashaninka of the Tambo River valley.

Luziatelli et al. (2010) mentioned botanically unidentified pinitsi among the Ashaninka from the Perené—one of the tributaries of the Tambo River. According to these authors, pinitsi—small herbaceous plants—were cultivated in gardens in secret, and their specific names were secret too; therefore, it was impossible for the researchers to collect any specimens. Other information provided was that they were used to protect against the action of malevolent shamans and spirits (Luziatelli et al. 2010). In their conclusions, these authors wrote that “two particular categories of plants called pinitsi and ivenki (Cyperus spp.) had an important cultural value, often for magic-protective use in the household” (Luziatelli et al. 2010: 20). The picture that arises from our and other studies is that there are two major groups of cultivated plants which play important role in maintaining good health and social relations of the Ashaninka people. The ethnobotanical studies from other Arawakan groups include the information exclusively about cultivated Cyperus spp. (Revilla-Minaya 2019; Santos-Granero 2012; Shepard 1998; Valadeau et al. 2010).

Ibinishi as “Companions” of Ibenki

Ibenki and ibinishi are the two major groups of plants cultivated in Ashaninka home gardens along the Tambo River valley. There are certain similarities between them, as, for example, in the pattern of constructing secondary lexemes and in the meaning of these binomials. Forty-four percent of names of specific ibinishi have their equivalent in ibenki names—they have identical semantically productive constituents, with different suffixes which identify these groups in the Ashaninka nomenclature. Some ibinishi are comapañeros “companions” of a given ibenki and aim at strengthening their companion ibenki’s action (Kujawska et al. 2020). Although the overall diversity of ibenki is higher (86 ethnospecies) than those of ibinishi (66), especially considering the fact that they grow practically in the same number of gardens and are cultivated by a similar number of plant owners, the patterns behind the consensus on name and use and the overall community consensus on use are very similar. The circulation of ibenki and ibinishi relies on the same scheme, although the exchange between communities is slightly higher for ibenki than for ibinishi (32 % versus 26.5%) (Kujawska et al. 2020).

However, these two groups of plants are distinguished not only due to their different appearances (morphology) by the Ashaninka, but they are also discriminated by plant parts employed in healing and specific forms of administration. While for ibenki this is always the rhizome, whose juice is ingested, in the case of ibinishi, it is always the leaves that are used, and the squeezed leaf juice is placed in the eyes. We suppose that ibenki might have emerged first as a group of cultivated plants with a wide medicinal and more-than-medicinal uses, and ibinishi followed their path. We support this claim with the following argumentation: the mythical origin of ibinishi is uncertain and always lumped with that of ibenki. Second, Justicia species documented in this research are most probably only incipiently, not fully domesticated, unlike Cyperus spp. (Kujawska et al. 2020). Moreover, the ethnogenus ibenki is very “stable”—it has a 1:1 correspondence to the Cyperus genus—while the ibinishi ethnotaxon is less clear in relation to botanical taxonomy. Third, the diversity of ethnospecies of ibinishi is lower than that of ibenki, and the diversity of uses is oriented toward specific uses, such as counteracting violence, sorcery, and malevolent actions of spirits and animals, coupled with a greater symptomatic use than ibenki. Moreover, we never heard of ibenki being a companion of a specific ibinishi, but several times we heard that a specific ibinishi was a companion of ibenki.

Ashaninka Classification of Medicinal Plants

Ashaninka classification of medicinal plants, on the highest level, distinguishes ibenki and ibinishi as cultivated garden plants and inchatoshi as wild forest plants. This distinction is based both on the ecology and ontological status of these groups of plants. The ecological discrimination into cultivated or even domesticated and wild plants has its analogy in animal classification. In the Ashaninka cognitive system of animal organization, one of the used classificatory criteria separates domestic from wild animals (Rojas Zolezzi 2003). The clear distinction is made between forest inchatoshi and garden ibenki—fully domesticated plants endowed with mythical origin, possessing an ontological status and subjectivity of plant-persons, and which are in kin relation to the Ashaninka and equipped with many culture-specific virtues (Kujawska et al. 2020). Ibinishi do not have identical ontological status to ibenki. Although they create a well-distinguished group of cultivated medicinal plants, ibinishi have the same suffix shi as wild forest plants. Therefore, we may surmise that ibinishi are in the intermediate position between forest and garden plants but currently perceived much closer to ibenki than to inchatoshi.

The position of a plant for Ashaninka people takes into account multiple criteria. It can also be interpreted that the ontological status acts as a modeler of the social distance between different inhabitants, both human and non-human, in the Ashaninka world (Rojas Zolezzi 2014). This aspect of Amerindian perspectivism has also been documented by other researchers (Rival 2002; Santos-Granero 2012). What is characteristic of the Ashaninka case is this juxtaposition between the ecological and ontological considerations referring to domestic and wild space, plant subjectivity, and their proximity to people.

The second, more perceptual level of classification of medicinal plants relies on perceived visual cues. Ibenki and ibinishi, lianas (shibitsa), trees (inchato), and plants from the Araceae family (kajento) or Piperaceae family (ibarantsi) are differentiated due to perceived visual features which form patterns (our field observations; Luziatelli et al. 2010; Rojas Zolezzi 2014). Even to an untrained eye, ibinishi form different formations than other garden plants. However, the suffix shi, from oshi “leaf,” does not necessarily indicate the lifeform—as this suffix is shared by forest trees, shrubs, and herbs.

The Secoya curaca once said Yo probé todas las hojas “I have tried all kinds of leaves” (Vickers 1976:161), which can be interpreted as “I have tried all the medicines.” Following the argumentation of Randall and Hunn (1984), we interpret the shi suffix in specific ibinishi not as an indicator or a metonymy (a part that stays for the whole) of a specific life form or a morphological criterion that defines this group of plants. As in the case of the Secoya healer, oshi/shi is present in the names of medicinal plants or medicinal leaves rather than anything else. Or in other words, the suffix shi in the plant name indicates which part is used medicinally. Many studies dedicated to medicinal plant use among different Peruvian Amazonia indigenous groups pointed to the predominance of leaves used in the treatment (Luziatelli et al. 2010, Odonne et al. 2013, Valadeau et al. 2010). For the Ashaninka, the forest trees that produce edible fruits have a suffix ki “plenty;” therefore, a tree may be called ompikiriki or ompikirishi depending whether a person refers to its edible fruits or medicinal leaves (our field observations; Rojas Zolezzi 2014).

Finally, on the specific level, it is the use of criterion that predominates in the classification. The nomenclature has a powerful mnemonic function in designating uses or properties to otherwise uniform classes of ibenki and ibinishi, respectively. Hence, the Ashaninka system of classification takes into account different aspects, i.e., ecology, ontology, visual features, and use. The importance of uses should be acknowledged in this classification, because it is of paramount importance to relate an adequate medicinal plant and its name to a given etiology, health condition, or symptom.

Sociopolitical Implications of the Incipient Domestication of Ibinishi

Ways of grouping and patterns of naming (constructing secondary lexemes) reveal how the Ashaninka deal with intra-ethnogenus diversity. Long processes of Cyperus and Justicia domestication have blended in the ethnic memory with mythical origins of these species (see Tournon et al. 1998).

We count with just one ethnographic historical source (Weiss 1975) with which we can compare our findings and ponder on the importance of ibinishi/pinitsi among the Ashaninka. Based on this comparison, we may claim that the popularity of ibinishi is growing among the Ashaninka, while that of ibenki remains at the same level.

What is the reason for the increasing number of ethnospecies of ibinishi and their presence in Ashaninka home gardens? We surmise that the clue to this phenomenon can be found in recent Ashaninka history, especially that related to the presence of the Sendero Luminoso “Shining Path” subversive guerrilla like organization in the late 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. “10,000 of about 80,000 Ashaninka people were forcibly displaced in the Ene, Tambo, and Perene valleys, at least 6,000 died and almost 5,000 were under Sendero’s control. By 1990, at the height of its power in Amazonia, Sendero controlled the entire Ene River and the Tambo River down to Poyeni […] Fourteen out of thirty-five Communidades Nativas of the Tambo and all thirty of the Ene disappeared as people escaped or were taken by Sendero into the forest, in many cases voluntarily” (Sarmiento-Barletti 2011:156). The Comite de Autodefensa—Ashaninka self-defense militia—managed to rescue nearly 4000 Ashaninka people in the Ene and Tambo River valleys in the following years. These people were taken to núcleos poblacionales—kind of settlements that soon became overpopulated (Sarmiento-Barletti 2011). These facts are in line with the Ashaninkas’ accounts we heard during fieldwork about the displacement of people, their temporary refuge in the forest, their loss of gardens and piri-piri, and confusions in defining who was an ally and who was an enemy in the forest. In recent years, the Ashaninka from the region have been experiencing pressure and violence from cocaine producers and drug traffickers, though decisively to a lesser extent along the Tambo River than the Ene River (Rodrigues Viana 2017). Following the Ashaninka approach to certain plants, especially the domesticated ones, with whom Ashaninka people have kin-like relations and which are considered loyal allies, the agency of ibinishi must have increased in these times of social unrest and violence.

Moreover, “[a]ny excess or defect in any activity can lead the person to dangerous situations that can culminate in his transformation, with illness or with death itself” (Fernández 1986: 71). The middle ground and balance reflect the notion of the Ashaninka kametsa asaike “good life” (Sarmiento-Barletti 2011). The transformation in this case needs to be understood in the animistic sense—as a gradual change of the body and perspective of one class of being into another. As we maintained in the previous paper, the life of the Ashaninka is above all relational and processual (Kujawska et al. 2020). Hence, ibinishi seem to grow in importance as the Ashaninka’s allies, because ibenki seem not to be sufficient in situations of excess (of violence from people and spirits), confusion (when an enemy is in disguise), and scarcity (of meat and fish in overpopulated villages).

Another possible conjecture is that of a loss and return of the ibinishi in the life of the Ashaninka due to unidentified causes. The literature has reported such processes in certain cultivars as seen through genetic analysis, which indicate processes of selection and de-selection over time (Chiou et al. 2014; Scaldaferro et al. 2018). However, descriptions of forms of propagations, patterns of circulations of ibinishi, and their uses and position in the classification suggest an ongoing process of domestication of populations of certain Acanthaceae species among the Ashaninka. An exact estimation of the stage of domestication of these populations was beyond the scope of this research. Here, we should underline that the notion of domestication is a Western construct which we may observe among the Ashaninka using etic lenses but which is experienced along their own modes of engagement with plants and the world. These processes of domestication may be enhanced by current needs or more enrooted behavior, as the Ashaninka people have practiced agriculture for centuries (Heckenberger 2005) and the domesticated plants have mythical origin and the special status of plant-persons and kin. So, we surmise that the Ashaninka people practice their engagement with the world through plant cultivation and active participation in what we call plant domestication.

Ethnopharmacology of Ibinishi

The phytochemicals found in specific Justicia, Lepidagathis, and Ruellia species cannot be solely responsible for the numerous properties ascribed to these species by the Ashaninka. Numerous reports about the use of dried leaves of J. pectoralis as an hallucinogenic snuff applied on its own or as an admixture to Virola snuff raised interest in the chemical compounds of this species. An apparent discovery of small amounts of alkaloids tryptamines in J. pectoralis reported by Schultes (1990) was not confirmed by further phytochemical studies (Roersch 2018). Justicia pectoralis contains betaine and coumarins. The ocular administration of leaf extract may produce smooth muscle relaxation lowering heart rate and blood pressure. At high doses, such as those when directly put into the eyes, coumarins may produce a sedative and even hypnotic effect (Macrae and Towers 1984). High levels of betaines have been also found in different Ruellia species (Fischer et al. 1988). Clinical studies showed anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial properties of betaine and its derivatives in humans (Zeisel et al. 2008). However, only a limited number of Ruellia species have been chemically and biologically studied so far (Sanz-Biset and Cañigueral 2011).

Most probably, the Ashaninka used ibinishi first to counteract the stress and restlessness produced by visions in the forest or during warfare, but due to their effectiveness in this regard, this group of plants was endowed with other properties and thus their agency expanded. However, to fully understand the agency of ibinishi from both ethnopharmacological and sociocultural perspectives and plant ecology, other studies directly dedicated to the cultivation, propagation, and processes of domestication should contribute to the understanding of the position of cultivated Acanthaceae species in indigenous Amazonia.

Conclusions

This article is the first comprehensive analysis of the importance and meaning of ibinishi/pinitsi in the life of the Ashaninka of the Tambo River valley, particularly in their medicine, cosmology, classification, and agricultural practice today. This is also the first systematic analysis of the cultivated species from the Acanthaceae family among one Indigenous Amazonian group.

Based on our research, we suggest that ibinishi are perceived by the Ashaninka as subjects that (co)produce the social world and have been subjected to domestication processes. Moreover, ibinishi seem to respond to new and changing scenarios, thus being part of silent strategies of resistance and cultural resilience. Our findings lay the groundwork for further analysis and interpretations related to the relationships between Ashaninka people and plants, or wider still, Indigenous Amazonian people and plants.

We used a theoretical-methodological approach called the more-than-utility approach, to address the research problem in a holistic way. In this approach, we used the combination of perspectives from ethnobotany, anthropology, ecology, phytochemistry, and cognitive-based science. The engagement with these particular branches of science was due to our aims, research questions, and Ashaninka forms of worlding. By choosing this particular theoretical-methodological path, we also wanted to get as close as possible to Ashaninka knowledge, practices, and cosmology related to these Acanthaceae plants.

A future complementary contribution to this study would be one that fully addresses the domestication processes of Acanthaceae species by contextualizing the asexual reproduction of the ibinishi by the Ashaninka adopted for their biological and cultural conservation.