Advertisement

Biosemiotics

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 299–313 | Cite as

Plant as Object within Herbal Landscape: Different Kinds of Perception

  • Renata SõukandEmail author
  • Raivo Kalle
Original Paper

Abstract

This contribution takes the notion of herbal landscape (a mental field associated with plants used to cure or prevent diseases and established within specific cultural and climatic zones) as a starting point. The authors argue that the features by which a person recognises the plant in the natural growing environment is of crucial importance for the classification and the use of plants within the folk tradition. The process of perception of the plant can be divided into analytical categories according to the sign concept of Charles Sanders Peirce. Whereas the plant can be seen as the object, the feature(s) the plant is recognised by is (are) the representamen(s), and the image of the plant within the herbal landscape can be understood as the interpretant. Different methods of perception of the signs within the herbal landscape are demonstrated comparing the herbal knowledge acquired from the herbals with the method of plant recognition learned in the traditional way. The first can be looked at with the terms of Tim Ingold as transportation, using plant features to go across, leaving all other signs present in the landscape unnoticed. The wayfarer, guided by signs learned within the context of surroundings, walks along and perceives the plant as a part of the herbal landscape. Although the examples analysed come from Estonian ethnobotany, the method of analysis can be applied in ethnobotanical research worldwide.

Keywords

Ethnobotany Recognition of plant Interpretation Perceived landscape Medicinal plants 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Governmental Research and Development program “Estonian Language and Cultural Memory” (EKKM09-84), EEA/EMP Grant 54 MP1RT08079N and the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (Centre of Excellence CECT) for supporting this research. Our special thanks to Sabine Brauckmann, Kalevi Kull, Kati Lindström, Timo Maran and Morten Tønnessen for their useful comments on this manuscript.

References

  1. Bennett, B. C. (2007). Doctrine of signatures: an explanation of medicinal plant discovery or dissemination of knowledge? Economic Botany, 61, 246–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berlin, B. (1970). A preliminary ethnobotanical survey of the Aguaruna region of the Upper Maradnon River valley, Amazon, Peru. Report to the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  3. Berlin, B. (1992). Ethnobiological classification: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brodt, S. (2001). A systems perspective on the conservation and erosion of indigenous agricultural knowledge in central India. Human Ecology, 29, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, S., et al. (2006). Quantitative ethnobotany of two East Timorese cultures. Economic Botany, 60, 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CP = Peirce, C. S. (1931–1935, 1958). In C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.) Vols. I–VI, A. W Burks (Ed.) Vols. VII–VIII, Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. CD-ROM. (In-text references are to CP, followed by volume and page numbers).Google Scholar
  7. Dafni, A., & Lev, E. (2002). The doctrine of signatures in present-day Israel. Economic Botany, 56, 328–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Natale, A., Pezzatti, G. B., & Pollio, A. (2009). Extending the temporal context of ethnobotanical databases: the case study of the Campania region (southern italy). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 5, 7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Eyssartier, C., Ladio, A. H., & Lozada, M. (2008). Cultural transmission of traditional knowledge in two populations of north-western Patagonia. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 4, 25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Farina, A. (2008). The landscape as a semiotic interface between organisms and resources. Biosemiotics, 1, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hensel, H. (2008). Uus looduse teejuht. Mis ravimtim see on. Tallinn: Sinisukk.Google Scholar
  12. Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ingold, T. (2006). Up, across and along. In E. Näripea, V. Sarapik, & J. Tomberg (Eds.), PLACE and LOCATION. Studies in environmental aesthetics and semiotics (Vol. V, pp. 21–36). Tallinn: Estonian Academy of Arts.Google Scholar
  14. Ingold, T. (2009). Against space: Place, movement, knowledge. In P. W. Kirby (Ed.), Boundless worlds: An anthropological approach to movement (pp. 29–43). www.berghahnbooks.com. Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  15. Ingold, T., & Kurttila, T. (2000). Perceiving the environment in Finnish Lapland. Body & Society, 6, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jarić, S., et al. (2007). An ethnobotanical study on the usage of wild medicinal herbs from Kopaonik mountain (central Serbia). Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 111, 160–175.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kukk, T. (1999). Eesti taimestik. Tallinn: Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastus.Google Scholar
  18. Kukk, T., & Kull, T. (2006). Globaalne ja lokaalne eesti taimestik. In I. Rohumets (Ed.), Lehed Ja Tähed: Looduse ja Teaduse Aastaraamat (pp. 10–17). Tallinn: MTÜ Loodusajakiri.Google Scholar
  19. Lääts, J. (1937). Kodumaa ravimtaimed: Käsiraamat ravimtaimede tundmaõppimiseks ning nende kasutamiseks ravimitena. Tartu: Ilutrükk.Google Scholar
  20. Lippmaa, T. (1935). Eesti geobotaanika põhijooni: Aperçu géobotanique de l’estonie. acta instituti et horti botanici universitatis tartuensis (Vol. 4, fasc. 3–4). Tartu: K. Mattiesen.Google Scholar
  21. Lira, R., et al. (2009). Traditional knowledge and useful plant richness in the Tehuacán–Cuicatlán valley, Mexico. Economic Botany, 63, 271–287.Google Scholar
  22. Liu, Y., et al. (2009). Medicinal plants used by Tibetans in Shangri-la, Yunnan, China. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 5, 15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lozada, M., Ladio, A., & Weigandt, M. (2006). Cultural transmission of ethnobotanical knowledge in a rural community of northwestern Patagonia, Argentina. Economic Botany, 60, 374–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Masing, V., Paal, J., Kuresoo, A., et al. (2000). Biodiversity of Estonian wetlands. In B. Gopal, W. J. Junk, & J. A. Davis (Eds.), Biodiversity in wetlands: Assessment, function, and conservation (Vol. I, pp. 279–295). Leiden: Backhuys.Google Scholar
  25. Molares, S., & Ladio, A. (2009). Ethnobotanical review of the Mapuche medicinal flora: use patterns on a regional scale. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 122, 251–260.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Müller-Schwarze, N. (2006). Antes and Hoy Día: plant knowledge and categorization as adaptations to life in Panama in the twenty-first century. Economic Botany, 60, 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Paal, J. (1998). Rare and threatened plant communities of Estonia. Biodiversity and Conservation, 7, 1027–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peterson, K. (1994). Nature conservation in Estonia. Tallinn: Juma.Google Scholar
  29. Reyes-García, V., et al. (2006). Cultural, practical, and economic value of wild plants: a quantitative study in the Bolivian Amazon. Economic Botany, 60, 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rivera, D., et al. (2007). Gathered food plants in the mountains of Castilla–La Mancha (Spain): ethnobotany and multivariate analysis. Economic Botany, 61, 269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sõukand, R. & Kalle R. (2008). Historistlik eesti rahvameditsiini botaaniline andmebaas (HERBA). [http://herba.folklore.ee].
  32. Sõukand, R., & Raal, A. (2004). Ravimtaimed Eesti rahvameditsiinis. Ajalooline taust, etnofarmakoloogiliste andmete kogumine ja analüüs [Medicinal plants in Estonian folk medicine: historical background, collection and analysis of ethnopharmacological data.]. Akadeemia, 8, 1734–1762.Google Scholar
  33. Tammeorg, J., Kook, O., & Vilbaste, G. (1972). Eesti NSV ravimtaimed. Tallinn: Valgus.Google Scholar
  34. Thomas, E., Vandebroek, I., & van Damme, P. (2007). What works in the field? A comparison of different interviewing methods in ethnobotany with special reference to the use of photographs. Economic Botany, 61, 376–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thomas, E., et al. (2009). Cultural significance of medicinal plant families and species among Quechua farmers in Apillapampa, Bolivia. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 122, 60–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Valk, U. (Ed.). (1988). Eesti Sood [Estonian Peatlands]. Tallinn: Valgus.Google Scholar
  37. Vandebroek, I., et al. (2004). A comparison of traditional healers’ medicinal plant knowledge in the Bolivian Andes and Amazon. Social Science & Medicine, 59, 837–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Estonian Literary MuseumTartuEstonia
  2. 2.Institute of Philosophy and Semiotics, Department of SemioticsUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations