From the “Norwegian Flora” (Eighteenth Century) to “Plants and Tradition” (Twentieth Century): 200 Years of Norwegian Knowledge about Wild Plants

Abstract

From the “Norwegian Flora” (eighteenth Century) to “Plants and Tradition” (twentieth Century): 200 Years of Norwegian Knowledge about Wild Plants. Much ethnobotanical knowledge is documented through history in books of various kinds, which allow diachronic studies of plant use. These texts can also contribute to investigate plant knowledge transmission. Here we evaluate the influence of the first Norwegian Flora, Flora Norvegica (J. E. Gunnerus 1766–1776), a major Enlightenment natural history work in Norway, by comparing it to Planter og Tradisjon (“Plants and Tradition,” O. A. Høeg 1974), Norway’s most important ethnobotanical compilation. We systematized information from these two key historical sources of plant knowledge in Use Reports per category of use. In total, 2449 Use Reports for 552 taxa were collected, including vascular plants, ferns, mosses, algae, lichens, and fungi. We find over 100 unchanged traditions (i.e., plant-use combinations recorded in both books): only 270 Use Reports and 185 taxa are recorded in both sources. Plant knowledge may have changed, been lost or newly developed in Norway, but it is also possible that it has largely been under-documented. We argue that differences are explained to a great extent by the differing aims and socio-economic contexts of the two texts. Ultimately, perceptions of what nature is and what it is for determine what ethnobotanical knowledge is documented in historical sources. Norwegian Abstract Fra Flora Norvegica (18th århundre) til Planter og Tradisjon (20th århundre): Norsk kunnskap om ville planter gjennom 200 år. Etnobotanisk kunnskap, kunnskap om menneskers plantebruk, finnes bevart i forskjellige typer bøker fra flere århundrer. Diakrone sammenlikninger av. plantebruk er mulig ved å analysere slike bøker. Tekstene gir også innsikt i hvordan plantekunnskap er blitt formidlet. Her undersøker vi hvilken innflytelse den første norske flora, opplysningstidens Flora Norvegica (J. E. Gunnerus 1766–1776) har hatt på senere utbredelse og formidling av. plantekunnskap. Det gjør vived å sammenlikne den med Norges viktigste etnobotaniske oppslagsverk, Planter og Tradisjon (O. A. Høeg 1974). I artikkelen har vi systematisert og deretter sammenliknet plantekunnskap fra disse to verkene i kategorier av. angitte bruksområder (UR). Vi har samlet 2449 bruksområder for 552 ulike planter, inkludert bregner, moser, alger, lav og sopp. Selv om intensjonen bak de to verkene og de sosio-økonomiske kontekstene er svært ulike, finner vi over 100 uendrede tradisjoner (bruksområder angitt i begge verk), mens bare 270 bruksområder og 185 taxa er angitt i begge verk. Kunnskapen kan ha blitt endret, gått tapt, eller er ny i Norge, men det er også mulig at plantekunnskapen ikke har vært godt nok dokumentert over tid. Vi argumenterer for at det skyldes at intensjonen bak de to verkene og de sosio-økonomiske kontekstene er svært ulike. Vi diskuterer hvordan en grunnleggende forståelse av. naturen og bruken av. naturen har påvirket formidlingen av. plantekunnskap i de historiske kildene.

Historical, archaeological and linguistic evidence test the phylogenetic inference of Viking-Age plant use

“…medicine) than specific ones (e.g. to treat digestive issues; figure 2); this trend is also observed at shallower historical depths (eighteenth to twentieth century) [34]. If a plant is good as food, fodder or for construction depends to a large extent on its physical qualities.…”

“…Onions and angelica are, for example, assumed to have been widely used during the Viking-Age, but leave few archaeobotanical remains because people used the vegative parts [34,35]. Yet PCMs infer ancestral medicinal and food uses of angelica among Old Norse-speaking populations.…”

“…A recent article highlights the cultural importance of ale for the Nordic peoples through time [43]. The plants added in alcoholic drinks are also conserved when we look at a historical time-lapse (eighteenth to twentieth century [34]). With our approach, we can identify the plant species that have kept their relevance over time.…”

“…Archaeobotanical data are informative about the presence of plants, but extremely rarely of their uses. Historical evidence is limited to cultures with a written tradition, texts are biased towards what was considered important to write down at a particular time [34], and they may be from a later time period than that of interest, as it is the case here. Linguistic evidence does not always allow precise dating and plant names that refer to uses should be analysed with care.…”

From trend to threat? Assessing the sustainability of wild edible plant foraging by linking local perception to ecological inference

“…In this study, 272 taxa were reported as being used as foods, more than three times the number reported by Schulp et al (2014) from a synthesis of ecosystem services provided by vascular plants used as wild foods in Europe. Our results show that there are no conservation issues for most foraged species yet attention should be paid to specific practices and some red-listed plants, a trend observed elsewhere (Landor-Yamagata et al 2018;O'Neill et al 2017;Teixidor-Toneu et al 2021). Here, some sustainability issues have been identified including (1) botanical identification challenges, (2) potentially damaging foraging practices, (3) the emergence of 'fashionable' WEPs that might be overharvested locally, and (4) the spread of alien and potentially invasive species.…”