IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v51y2000i5p679-690.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The scope of hunter-gatherer ethnomedicine

Author

Listed:
  • Voeks, Robert A.
  • Sercombe, Peter

Abstract

We examined the cosmology and ethnomedical beliefs of the Penan hunter-gatherers of Brunei Darussalam on the island of Borneo. Our results suggest that they maintain a medical system that is limited in scope and detail compared to neighboring swidden rice cultivators. The Penan recognize the existence of a nearly infinite array of mostly unnamed, animist spirits that are loosely connected with the misfortunes of humans. Although taboo violation is believed to be associated with illness, there is no strict corpus of belief in respect to spirit placation. Dream readers offer advice on the causes of illness episodes, but their recommendations are neither necessarily accepted nor rigidly enforced. At least prior to permanent settlement, the Penan appear to have suffered from a limited suite of illnesses and treated them with a short list of plant medicines. We suggest that the Penans' abbreviated ethnomedical system is a function of their foraging subsistence mode. With a low population density, lack of domesticated livestock and fowl, and nomadic lifestyle, the Penan are unlikely to have suffered from the array of crowd and lifestyle diseases that afflict settled, agricultural societies. We hypothesize that the Penans' uncomplicated ethnomedical system, and perhaps that of other nomadic, tropical forest foraging groups, is consistent with the relatively disease-free conditions inherent to this subsistence lifestyle.

Suggested Citation

  • Voeks, Robert A. & Sercombe, Peter, 2000. "The scope of hunter-gatherer ethnomedicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 51(5), pages 679-690, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:51:y:2000:i:5:p:679-690
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(00)00012-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:51:y:2000:i:5:p:679-690. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.