Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
Published in: Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

Traditional use and perception of snakes by the Nahuas from Cuetzalan del Progreso, Puebla, Mexico

Authors: Romina García-López, Alejandro Villegas, Noé Pacheco-Coronel, Graciela Gómez-Álvarez

Published in: Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Indigenous cultures are the result of their adaptation to the natural surroundings, in such a way that, amongst their main features is a set of knowledge, technologies and strategies for the appropriation of nature. In Cuetzalan del Progreso, Puebla, Mexico snakes represent 71.1% of the total local herpetofauna; and in addition to this, different groups of Nahuas have shown to have information of their use of various snake species in many ways. This study was conducted to investigate the traditional uses of snakes in this cultural group.

Methods

Formal and informal interviews were conducted with the inhabitants of the communities. During these interviews, 30 images of the different species of snakes present in the area were presented to the subjects, so that they would recognize them and reveal information about the knowledge they possess on them. A usage analysis was applied to each species considering the following categories: food purposes, medicinal, artisanal and magical-religious. Likewise, the frequency, the diversity and the value of use was estimated for these snakes.

Results

A total of 51 interviews were carried out. The individuals recognized 18 out of 30 images of snakes that were presented. The total of usage categories was five; we found that the magic-religious use was the most mentioned by 32 personas. Boa imperator and Antropoides nummifer were the species with the highest value of use. More than half of the interviewees mentioned killing snakes because they’re poisonous and aggressive. In the magic-religious aspect the “Danza de los Negritos” is highlighted; this is a local festival, brought by Africans, and alludes to snakes.

Conclusions

This study revealed that snakes are still very important for the culture in Cuetzalan del Progreso, finding that the magical-religious and the medicinal use stand out. On the other hand, the fear and misperception on the toxicity of snakes might represent a potential threat for their conservation. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out a long-term monitoring of the ethno-zoological activities, and develop a sustainable management plan compatible with the cultural characteristics of the natives of the region.
Literature
1.
Toledo VM, Alarcón CP, Barón L. Estudiar lo rural desde una perspectiva interdisciplinaria: una aproximación al caso de México. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. SEMARNAP. 1998.
2.
Alves RRN. Relationships between fauna and people and the role of ethnozoology in animal conservation. Ethnobiol Conserv. 2012;1:1–69.
3.
Santos-Fita D, Costa-Neto EM, Cano-Contreras E. El quehacer de la etnonozoología. In: Costa Neto EM, Santos-Fita D, Vargas-Clavijo M, editors. Manual de Etnozoología. Una guía teórico-práctica para investigar la interconexión del ser humano con los animales. Valencia España: Tundra; 2009. p. 23–44.
4.
Fleury LC, Almeida J. Populações tradicionais e conservação ambiental: uma contribuição da teoria social. Rev Bra Agroeco. 2007;2:3–19.
5.
Sarukhán J, Koleff P, Carabias J, Soberón J, Dirzo R, Llorente-Bousquets J, Halffter G, González R, March I, Mohar A, Anta S, De la Maza J. Capital Natural de México. Síntesis: Conocimiento actual, evaluación y perspectivas de sustentabilidad. CONABIO. 2009.CrossRef
6.
Wilson LD, Mata-Silva V, Johnson JD. A conservation reassessment of the reptiles of Mexico based on the EVS measure. Amp Rep Conserv. 2013;7:1–47. e61.
7.
Wilson LD, Johnson JD. Distributional patterns of the herpetofauna of Mesoamerica, a biodiversity hotspot. In: Wilson LD, Townsend JH, Johnson JD, editors. Conservation of Mesoamerican Amphibians and Reptiles. USA: Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC, Eagle Mountain; 2010. p. 30–235.
8.
Seler E. Las imágenes de los animales en los manuscritos mexicanos y mayas. México: Editorial Juan Pablos; 2004.
9.
De la Garza M. El universo sagrado de la serpiente entre los mayas. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; 2003.
10.
Casas-Andreu G. Mitos leyendas y realidades de los reptiles en México. Cienc Ergo Sum. 2000;7:286–91.
11.
Gatica-Colima A, Jiménez-Castro JA. Serpientes de cascabel: percepción por algunos pobladores del desierto chihuahuense en el estado de Chihuahua. Rev Lat Rec Nat. 2009;5:198–204.
12.
Santos-Fita D, Costa-Neto EM, Sciavetti A. ‘Offensive’ snakes: cultural beliefs and practices related to snakebites in a Brazilian rural settlement. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2010;6:13.CrossRef
13.
Ceríaco LMP. Human attitudes towards herpetofauna: The influence of folklore and negative values on the conservation of amphibians and reptiles in Portugal. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2012;8:8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Pandey DP, Pandey GS, Devkota K, Goode M. Public perceptions of snakes and snakebite management: implications for conservation and human health in southern Nepal. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2016. doi:10.​1186/​s13002-016-0092-0.
15.
Pinheiro LT, Mota Rodríguez JF, Borges-Nojosa DM. Formal education, previous interaction and percepción influence the attitudes of people toward the conservation of snakes in a large urban center northeastern Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2016;12:25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Alves RRN, Silva VN, Trovão DMBM, Oliveira JV, Mourão JS, Dias TLP, Alves AGC, Lucena RFP, Barboza RRD, Montenegro PFGP, Vieira WLS, Souto WMS. Students’ attitudes toward and knowledge about snakes in the semiarid region of Northeastern Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2014;10:30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Martín del Campo R. Ensayo de interpretación del libro undécimo de la Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España de Fray Bernardino de Sahagún. An Inst Biol. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 1938;9:379–391.
18.
Malkin B. Seri ethnozoology. Ocass Papers Idaho State Col Mus. 1962. No. 7.
19.
Monroy-Vilchis O, Cabrera L, Suarez P, Zarco-González MM, Rodríguez SC, Urios V. Uso tradicional de vertebrados silvestres en la Sierra de Nanchititla, México. Interciencia. 2008;33:308–13.
20.
Gómez-Álvarez G, Reyes-Gómez SR, Teutli-Solano C, Valadez-Azúa R. La medicina tradicional prehispánica, vertebrados terrestres y productos medicinales de tres mercados del valle de México. Rev Etnobiol. 2007;5:86–98.
21.
Gómez-Álvarez G, Valadez-Azúa R. Anfibios, reptiles y mamíferos utilizados en los productos medicinales expuestos en tres mercados del valle de México. In: XXVIII Mesa Redonda de la Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. Derechos humanos, pueblos indígenas, cultura y nación. McClung de Tapia E, Serrano Sánchez C. coords. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México-Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología; 2014. p. 909–20.
22.
Barajas E. Los animales usados en la medicina popular mexicana. México: Imprenta Universitaria; 1951.
23.
Rabiela T. La cosecha del agua en cuencas de México. México: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social; 1985.
24.
De María y Campos T. Los animales en la medicina tradicional mesoamericana. An Antrop. 1979;16:183–222.
25.
Fitzgerald LA, Painter W, Reuter A, Hoover C. Collection, trade and regulation of reptiles and amphibians of Chihuahua desert ecoregion: Traffic North America. Wachington: Word Wildlife Fund; 2004.
26.
Gómez-Álvarez G, Pacheco-Coronel N. Uso medicinal de serpientes comercializadas en dos mercados de la Ciudad de México. Rev Etnobiol. 2010;8:51–8.
27.
28.
Alves RRN, Neta ROS, Trovão DMBM, Barbosa JEL, Barros AT, Dias TLP. Traditional uses of medicinal animals in the semi-arid region of northeastern Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2012;8:4.CrossRef
29.
Barros FB, Varela SAM, Pereira HM, Vicente L. Medicinal use of fauna by a traditional community in the Brazilian Amazonia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2012;8:37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
31.
Souto WMS, Mourão JS, Barboza RRD, Mendonça LET, Lucena RFP, Confessor MVA, Vieira WLS, Montenegro PFGP, Lopez LCS, Alves RRN. Medicinal animals used in ethnoveterinary practices of the ‘Cariri Paraibano’, NE Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2011;7:30.
32.
Martínez GJ. Use of fauna in the traditional medicine of native Toba (qom) from the Argentine Gran Chaco region: an ethnozoological and conservationist approach. Ethnobiol Conser. 2013. doi:10.​15451/​ec2013-8-2.​2-1-43.
33.
Chakravorty J, Meyer-Rochow VB, Ghosh S. Vertebrates used for medicinal purposes by members of the Nyishi and Galo tribes in Arunachal Pradesh (North-East India). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2011;7:13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
35.
Vats R, Thomas S. A study on use of animals as traditional medicine by Sukuna Tribe of Busega District in North-western Tanzania. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2015;11:38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Gutiérrez-Mayén MG. Anfibios y reptiles del municipio de Cuetzalan del Progreso, Puebla. Estudio Herpetológico Informe Final. Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla. 1999.
37.
Canseco-Márquez L, Gutiérrez-Mayén MG. Herpetofauna del municipio de Cuetzalan del Progreso Puebla. In: Ramírez-Bautista A, Canseco-Márquez L, Mendoza-Quijano F, editors. Inventarios Herpetofaunísticos de México: Avances en el conocimiento de su Biodiversidad. Puebla: Pub Soc Herp Mex; 2006. p. 180–96.
38.
INEGI. Principales Resultados del Censo de Población y Vivienda 2010. Puebla: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía; 2010.
39.
Sahagún B. Historia general de las cosas de Nueva España. México: Editorial Porrúa; 1950.
40.
Hernández F. . Historia natural de la Nueva España: Volumen II, Obras Completas, Tomo III. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 1959.
41.
INEGI. Prontuario de Información geográfica municipal de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, vol. 21043. Cuetzalan del Progreso Puebla: Clave geostadística; 2009. p. 1–9.
42.
Albuquerque UP, Lucena RFP, Neto EMFL. Selection of Research Participants. In: Albuquerque UP, Cunha LVFC, Lucena RFP. Alves RRN, editors. Methods and Techniques in Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology. New York: Human Press, Springer; 2014. p. 1–13.
43.
Goodman L. Snowball Sampling. Ann Math Stat. 1961;12:48–170. Institute of Mathematical Statistics.
44.
Santos-Rodríguez D, Costa-Neto EM, Cano-Contreras E. Metodología de la investigación etnonozoológica. In: Costa-Neto EM, Santos-Fita D, Vargas-Clavijo A, editors. Manual de Etnozoología. Una guía teórico-práctica para investigar la interconexión del ser humano con los animales. Valencia España: Tundra; 2009. p. 253–72.
45.
Russell BH. Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. 4th. Oxford: Altamira Press; 2006.
46.
Medeiros PM, Almeida ALS, Lucena RFP, Souto FJB, Albuquerque UP. Use of visual stimuli in ethnobiological research. In: Albuquerque UP, Cunha LVFC, Lucena RFP. Alves RRN, editors. Methods and Techniques in Ethnobiology and Ethnoecology. New York: Human Press, Springer; 2014. p.87–98.
47.
Cotton CM. Ethnobotany, principles and applications. Canada: John Wiley and Sons; 1996.
48.
SEMARNAT (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, Protección ambiental-Especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo. 2010. http://​www.​semarnat.​gob.​mx/​node/​17. Accessed 6 Jan 2017.
49.
50.
51.
Blanco-Casco MAM, Cornejo-Rodríguez FJ, Salgado-Espinoza C, Romero-Luna R, Navarrete-Zamora N, Mora-Malerna A, Neyra-González L, López-Binqüist C. Artesanías y medio ambiente. México: CONABIO; 2009.
52.
Galeano MME. Estrategias de investigación social cualitativa. Medellín: La Carrera Editores; 2007.
53.
Mendonça LET, Vieira WLS, Alves RRN. Caatinga Ethnoherpetology: Relationships between herpetofauna and people in a semiarid region of northeastern Brazil. Amp Rep Conserv. 2014;8:24–32.
54.
Aguilera C. Flora y fauna mexicana. México: Mitología y tradiciones. Colección Raíces Mexicanas. Everest Mexicana; 1985.
55.
Bapiste L, Hernández S, Polanco R, Quiceno M. La Fauna Silvestre Colombiana: Una Historia Económica y Social de un Proceso de Marginalización. In: Ulloa A, editor. Rostros culturales de la fauna: las relaciones entre los humanos y los animales en el contexto colombiano. Bogotá: Inst Col Antrop-ICANH-, Fundación Natura y Fundación Mac Arthur; 2002.
56.
Chettri K, Chhetry DT. Diversity of snakes in Sarlahi District, Nepal. Our Nature. 2013;11:201–7.
57.
Burghardt GM, Murphy JB, Chiszar D, Hutchins M. Combating ophiophobia: origins, treatment, education, and conservation tools. In: Mullin SJ, Seigel RA, editors. Snakes: ecology and conservation. New York and London: Comstock Publishing Associates, A Division of Cornell University Press; 2009. p. 262–80. 62.
58.
Dodd Jr CK. Status, conservation, and management. In: Seigel RA, Collins JT, Novak SS, editors. Snakes: ecology and evolutionary biology. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company; 1987. p. 478–513.
59.
Jung K. Símbolos de transformación. 2nd ed. Buenos Aires: Paidós; 1962.
60.
Sten M. Ponte a bailar tú que reinas. Antropología de la danza prehispánica. México: Joaquín Mortiz; 1990. p. 11–2.
61.
León-Portilla M. México-Tenochtitlán, su espacio y tiempo sagrados. México: Plaza y Valdés; 1987.
62.
Wachtel N. Los vencidos. Los indios del Perú frente a la Conquista española (1530–1570). Madrid: Alianza Universidad; 1973.
Metadata
Title
Traditional use and perception of snakes by the Nahuas from Cuetzalan del Progreso, Puebla, Mexico
Authors
Romina García-López
Alejandro Villegas
Noé Pacheco-Coronel
Graciela Gómez-Álvarez
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1746-4269
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-016-0134-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 1/2017 Go to the issue

Review

The therapeutic use of the dog in Spain: a review from a historical and cross-cultural perspective of a change in the human-dog relationship

Research

Ethnomedicinal and cultural practices of mammals and birds in the vicinity of river Chenab, Punjab-Pakistan

Research

Ethnobotanical studies of fodder grass resources for ruminant animals, based on the traditional knowledge of indigenous communities in Central Punjab Pakistan

Research

Patient-centered boundary mechanisms to foster intercultural partnerships in health care: a case study in Guatemala

Research

Multi-functionality of the few: current and past uses of wild plants for food and healing in Liubań region, Belarus

Research

Diversity of use and local knowledge of wild and cultivated plants in the Eastern Cape province, South Africa