Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation
A Research Division of Carnegie Mellon University

Hunt Institute Archives Text Discovery Platform

Search a large and growing portion of our online collections, including handwritten documents.
PROTOTYPE

This prototype uses state-of-the-art artificial intelligence, including a vision-language model (VLM) capable of reading handwritten documents as well as typed and printed text, to create searchable transcriptions of digitized materials in the Hunt Institute Archives. This makes it possible to search the textual contents of individual pages, including material that may not be described in the archival catalog.

Use Keyword search for specific words, names, dates, scientific names, or phrases. Try Semantic search (experimental) to describe a topic, question, or kind of material when you do not know the exact wording used in the documents.

About the AI-generated transcriptions

The transcriptions are generated automatically from page images and may contain errors, especially with difficult handwriting, unusual names, multiple languages, image-quality problems, or complex layouts. They are intended primarily as a discovery aid rather than authoritative transcriptions.

Each result provides the generated transcription and links to the original digitized material and associated archival description so that readings can be checked against the source. The transcription workflow uses AI models run locally by the Hunt Institute.

About Keyword and Semantic search

Keyword search is the default and matches the wording in the transcriptions. Results contain all your terms. Use quotes for an exact phrase. Substring matching is supported, so aceae can find plant-family names ending in -aceae.

Semantic search (experimental) is useful when you know what kind of material you are looking for but do not know the words used in the documents. It ranks transcribed passages by similarity of meaning, so relevant results may not contain the exact words in your query.

Semantic queries can be broad research topics, descriptions of activities or relationships, or natural-language questions. For example:

Semantic search is not a chatbot: a question is used as a search query, and the system returns archival passages that appear conceptually related to it rather than generating an answer or summary. Short descriptions and ordinary research questions generally work better than lists of disconnected keywords. Quotation marks have no special meaning in Semantic mode. Cross-language matching may work in some cases, but it should not be treated as translation.

Keyword and Semantic search are complementary. Keyword search lets you require particular wording; Semantic search can surface differently worded passages about the same subject. Depending on the research question, trying both can reveal different useful material.

Open a result: use the prominent page-and-transcription link to see the metadata, PDF, and full transcription. Keyword-search terms are highlighted in the transcription.

Archives Collections Database (ArchivesSpace): the Collection, Item/Folder, and Digital Object links open the corresponding archival records. Collection-level dates describe the collection as a whole, not necessarily the specific item or page.

If a PDF does not load: on the detail page, use the Digital Object link, click “Go to file” in ArchivesSpace, and navigate to the page number shown here.

Current limitations
  • Automated transcriptions can contain missing or incorrect text or unintended repetition. Difficult handwriting, image quality, unusual layouts, and multiple languages can reduce accuracy. Always consult the original page image when an exact reading matters.
  • Semantic search remains experimental. Its rankings are an additional discovery aid, not a complete or definitive set of relevant results, and highly ranked pages can sometimes be only broadly related.
  • This is an active prototype. Search coverage, transcriptions, functionality, and the interface may continue to change as additional archival material is processed and the system is improved.

← Back to results

Page 21 · DO #4751 · 231_Rogers_Bx5FF1_r

Collection
David James Rogers (1918–2007) papers
Item/Folder
Amer. Museum-MANIOC Symposium, 1971
Digital Object
DO #4751, page 21
Collection-level dates
1948–1977
Open PDF at page 21 ↗

Page transcription

Brent Berlin 3
Cognitive Aspects of Aguaruna Jivaro Botanical Ethnography

A. Description of research: Abstract
Building on the results of more than six years of research in the area of botanical ethnography, the applicant proposes to initiate basic ethnobotanical research among the Aguaruna Jivaro, a primitive horticultural group of American Indians residing along the Upper Maranon River and its many tributaries in Northern Amazonian Peru. The major focus of the study will aim at (a) compiling initial detailed data relevant to the testing of hypotheses concerning the nature of primitive ethnobiological classification and nomenclature which have been suggested to be applicable to all pre-scientific peoples (Berlin, Breedlove and Raven, in press; Berlin, in press), (b) providing more information on pre-scientific man's ethnobotanical conceptualization of the tropical forest leading ultimately to a study of Aguaruna ethnobiology in general and (c) providing data on the use of tropical forest resources which may be of value to modern man at a time when such research is of crucial importance. The methods to be employed will be those developed in the area of ethno-scientific research over the last decade, accompanied by systematic botanical sorting of the flora recognized linguistically by the Aguaruna. The immediate research goal will be to discover the underlying cognitive principles of classification and identification utilized by these people in interacting with their floral environment and to describe in what ways this knowledge is used by them for their own benefit. The long term goal is directed toward illuminating the nature of primitive classification and cognition which is supported by detailed empirical field research on actual folk systems.

B. Specific aims
The applicant proposes to spend 15 months of research time in Amazonian Peru living among the Aguaruna. There are two specific aims of the field research during this period. The first is to determine the full inventory of Aguaruna plant taxa and their botanical referents by extensive ethnoscientific elicitation and botanical collecting. Compilation of these basic data will form the foundation for the research leading to the discovery of those cognitive principles utilized by the Aguaruna in classifying, naming, and identifying these plant taxa. The final description of the native conceptualization of plants will contribute to the testing of hypotheses relating to the principles of ethnobiological classification which have been claimed to be highly general.

The second specific aim is to provide a detailed ethnobiological description of the ways in which the knowledge of plants is utilized by the Aguaruna in ways of cultural significance. Two broad and fundamental areas of human activity will be examined in detail: economic folk botany and the cultural use of plants in medicine and ritual. In this regard, an intensive description of horticultural knowledge is envisioned, along with studies of the significance of non-cultivated plants of major economic importance. The relationship of plants to social structure will be examined, especially as it relates to myth, social groupings, and religion. A preliminary study of Aguaruna theories of disease and disease classification will be undertaken with special reference to the use of plants which are employed because of their presumed medicinal value.

C. Methods of procedure
An adequate ethnobotanical description carried out from a cognitive point of view should specify explicitly the cultural knowledge held by members of a particular society which enables them to behave appropriately in any cultural contexts where botanical knowledge is utilized by them, consciously or unconsciously. The completeness of such a description must be evaluated in terms of the extent to which one can provide concise answers to at least the following questions (modified, in part, from Conklin 1969):