Acta Oecologica Carpatica
An accepted paper to Acta Oecologia Carpatica, to be published in 2010. ETHNOGEOBOTANICAL STUDIES IN GYIMES (GHIMEŞ) I: PLANT NAMES, FOLK TAXONOMY, PERSONAL AND COMMUNAL PLANT KNOWLEDGE Zsolt MOLNÁR1 and Dániel BABAI2 Keywords: Romania, ethnoecology, traditional ecological knowledge, ethnogeobotany, folk taxonomy, mountain vegetation ABSTRACT We performed our ethnobotanical studies in Gyimes (Gyimesközéplok, Hidegség pataka / Ghimeş, Lunca de Jos, Valea Rece), in the Eastern Carpathians of Romania. Our aim was to complete existing research, that was focused mainly on knowledge of medicinal herbs and to get to know local knowledge of the wild flora, folk plant denominations, folk taxonomy and the structure and approach of individual knowledge regarding wild plants. The most important methods were participatory observation and structured interviews (collected from approximately 50 persons). Knowledge of plants mostly based on personal experience is surprisingly detailed and precise. In total we collected 235 plant names, which refer to 172 folk taxa (280 species). Folk taxonomy is especially edifying in the following species groups: tall grasses, ferns, willows, gentians
and clovers, which are analyzed in detail in this article. Out of the ca. 450 species observable in the landscape 62% have a folk name in Gyimes (see Appendix). People with the highest knowledge know 90% of the folk taxa, but an “average” Gyimes person knows 75-80% of them. The knowledge of children (10-12 years old) is half that of their parents, their knowledge is incomplete rather than incorrect. Taking into account the constancy and cover of plant species in 88 phytosociological relevés, we can say that the degree of local knowledge of a species grows with its constancy and cover, and the knowledge of species with highest constancy and cover is 70-88%. We compared plant names in Gyimes with names of other Transylvanian regions, and the similarity with nearby landscapes (10-20 km) is only 40-72%, with the far regions (70-200 km) being 17-30%, that is to say that many of the names are endemic.
INTRODUCTION The complex relationship between man and plantlife, as an integral part of traditional culture, can be examined from many aspects (see Péntek and Szabó 1985, Rab 2001). This multifaceted relationship includes knowledge about natural flora and vegetation. However, ethnobotanical research paid attention in the beginning (e.g. Clusius 1583, Wolkinger et al. 1992) and later too, to the knowledge and use of medicinal herbs, together with important species for farming, and to gathering as an ancient activity (e.g. in Hungary: Vajkai 1948, Kóczián et al. 1976, Szabó and Péntek 1976, Péntek and Szabó 1976, Oláh 1987,
Gunda 1990, 2001, Gub 1996, Kisbán 1997, Grynaeus and Szabó 2002). This priority is reasonable given its importance both in terms of cultural history and traditional knowledge (Péntek and Szabó 1985). Because of the special attention given to medicinal herbs, we have very little information about certain wild plant species (e.g. grasses and sedges). A further deficiency of earlier studies is that the plants were often identified later from the herbarium. This is sufficient to identify the herbs, but it is often difficult to decide which “folk taxon” refers to which (one or few or many) taxonomical species (and to
Ethnogeobotany in Gyimes I: plant names and folk taxonomy
-1-
Acta Oecol. Carpat.
.
which it does not!). It is difficult to analyze the certainty of recognition of a given plant in its different aspects (young individual, flowering, fruit ripening, dry stem), as well as the percentage of the population that knows the species, and the number of species known by a person. Our research in Gyimes is focused on a community that has preserved ancient cultural elements (Pócs 2008), has a huge traditional ecological knowledge, and where many historical, ethnological and ethnobotanical data are already available, e.g. Rab et al. (1981), Tankó (2001), Ilyés (2001), Antal (2004), reviewed by Pálfalvi (2001). An important criterion in our selection of the studied community was to study a well-defined, small community (thereby reducing the complications arising from geographical heterogeneity). In Gyimes the first ethnobotanical collection was made by János Wagner (Wagner 1899), then Ödön Balogh made research in this area, although his aim was not enriching the ethnobotanical data (Balogh 1932). The first specifically ethnobotanical work about Gyimes was written in Romanian language (Rácz and Holló 1968). Afterwards in the 1970s MATERIALS AND METHODS Gyimes is located between the sandstones of the Eastern Carpathians, but in a part of the studied area, at the right-hand tributaries of the Hidegség stream, limestone bedrock emerges (Dobos 1939). It is a relatively uniform area from a natural and ethnographical point of view (Rab et al. 1981). The settled Csángó population primarily built their villages in the Tatros Valley and along its tributaries. Hidegség stream is the largest tributary of the upper Tatros. It has a mountain climate and 4-6 °C annual average temperature. In the valleys the annual precipitation is 700-800 mm, in the mountains it reaches 1000-1200 mm (Pálfalvi 1995, Nechita 2003). According to Pálfalvi (2001), the flora is composed of 567 species, and the adjacent area to the north has 1146 species according to Nechita
-2-
research was done on folk therapy and herb use (Kóczián et al. 1975, 1976). The most extensive survey so far was made by Rab János with his colleagues in Gyimesbükk (Rab et al. 1981). Pál Pálfalvi has been doing regular ethnobotanical studies in the area since 1981, both on natural and cultivated flora (200 informants, 800 plant species, 3500 pages of notes), but only a small fraction of his results are published (e.g. Pálfalvi 1987, 2001). During our research we strove to explore the botanical knowledge of people in Gyimes. Our aim was to get to know the knowledge of species, folk names, folk taxonomy, and the structure and approach of individual knowledge about plants. We did not analyse toponyms (unlike earlier studies in the region, see Péntek and Szabó 1985, Rab 2001), because our research area is too small for this purpose and a linguistic interpretation is limited by the lack of our knowledge in this field. We did not collect knowledge about medicinal plants, because this would have increased the length of interviews too much, and our medicinal knowledge is too little for a credible collection in this field.
(2003). See a short description of the vegetation in Babai and Molnár (2010). The area started to be populated in the 18th century. The immigrant population started straightaway to clear forest to increase the areas of pastures and meadows for livestock. By the second half of the 19th century a specific grassland forest mosaic landscape structure developed, as a result of livestock farming (Kósa and Filep 1978, Tankó 2001, Ilyés 2001). In the past three centuries a characteristic culture evolved, preserving a number of ancient, SzeklerHungarian traditional elements, and reflecting Romanian influence to a smaller degree (Ilyés 2007, Pócs 2008). The life of people in Gyimes is closely linked to the landscape, because they strongly depend on the biomass-production of the landscape even today (grazing,
Zs. Molnár and D. Babai
Acta Oecologica Carpatica
mowing, forest management). We estimate that they spend 210 days in the open air (meadows, pastures, forest, garden) in a year. Approximately 80% of the consumed food is locally produced, and 70% of transport uses horse carts. However, almost all families have television and only a very small proportion of their clothes are homemade. We collected our data in Hidegségpataka (Valea Rece), which belongs to the municipality of Gyimesközéplok (Lunca de Jos), with a population of about 1000 people. We intentionally focused detailed researches on a small area, to get a comprehensive knowledge of individual people and a community (accepting that we might fail to collect several names that are used only in certain parts of Gyimes). The majority of our master-teachers (informants) are local-born residents of Hidegség, fewer of them were born in Háromkút, which was founded by Csángó people from Gyimesközéplok, and is located in the Nagyhagymás mountains. We collected our data between 2005 and 2009, through participatory observations, structured interviews and preformulated questionnaires (Babbie 2003), and with regular fieldwork in the company of Gyimes people (approximately 260 days of collection). We collected data from a total of 50 persons, and recorded 90 hours of intensive interviews with voice recorder from 30 people, of which 20 have been typewritten (a total of 855,000 characters text) (Babai 2008). In order to precisely know the local folk species names, in addition to the names collected by us, we checked the names in the literature (Kóczián et al. 1976, Rab et al. 1981, Rab 2001) and we examined whether these names are known locally and to what extent. We eliminated the names unknown in Hidegség, while we collected new names in the field. We paid great attention to eliminating wrong names. By folk taxon we mean a species or a group of species referred to by a name by Gyimes people. The folk taxon list comprised 135 names at the beginning of the
questionnaires, is 172 at the time of writing, and grows continuously. It can not be considered complete (we estimate that we learned 90% of the names so far). Our informants can be grouped in three age categories: young (under 20 years - 4 persons), middle-aged (between 20 and 60 years – 7 persons) and older people (over 60 - 9 persons), of which 11 are women and 9 men. We collected at least 1-1.5 hours of information from each person, usually 3-4 hours, but with some of them we talked about plants and vegetation for several dozens of hours during the past years. In our article we have tried to present the names of wild plant species and the most important elements of related knowledge. With the aim of better understanding the folk plant knowledge, we illustrated our results with direct quotations. So, the reader can become familiar with the Gyimes people’s way of thinking and reasoning. The quotation from one person is separated from another by semicolon, and the interviewer’s and interviewee’s thoughts by a slant (/). The informants are marked with their initials at the end of the quotations, which is decoded in the Acknowledgements. We compared the plant names in Gyimes with names in other landscapes of Transylvania (and Moldavia) (Péntek and Szabó 1985, Gub 1996, Rab 2001, Rab et al. 1981, Kóczián et al. 1976, Halászné Zelnik 1987). We considered names identical if they differed in pronunciation or in one letter, but considered as distinct those names with more differences, for example ”bakceka” and “bakszaka”. We did not take into account whether a plant name denotes the same or a different species in the studied landscape (that will be part of a different type of analysis in the future). In the summer of 2006 we made 88 phytosociological relevés in the area, encompassing all habitat types distinguished by the Gyimes people in correct proportion to their economical significance and occurrence. On the herbaceous associations we used 4*4 m quadrats, in the case of woody vegetation 100-400 square meter sized quadrats. We estimated the cover of the
Ethnogeobotany in Gyimes I: plant names and folk taxonomy
-3-
Acta Oecol. Carpat.
.
plant species as percentage. We used these relevés for analysis of species knowledge in relation to constancy and abundance, as well as to estimate the relative cover of the named species in different vegetation types. To estimate abundance we added up the cover values of a species in the phytosociological table, then we classified the species in 5 groups with a similar number of species, the categories are the following: I (0,0-0,6), II RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS What are the sources of traditional plant knowledge in Gyimes? The main source of knowledge of plants in Gyimes is personal experience (e.g. related to the species location, habitat, time of blooming and ripening), as well as older people, usually parents, grandparents (e.g. the species name, uses of a plant, sites of rare species). It is worth quoting literally what they think about their sources of knowledge (see also in Berecz 1997) : “The nature made itself known”, “Experience, experience” (P. K.), “I learned these on my own here and there, from my grandmother long time ago, but maybe she died so long ago, that I did not have so much mind at the time to observe things that would be necessary” (F. D.), “Well, I grew up at my grandparents and I was right there with them, and we were always in the open air in the summer. And so, as they told me, as they said, so I grabbed them and they are with me right now” (J. Gy.*). However it is not uncommon, that the knowledge is not based on personal experience, but the person just heard about the plant and its way of use: Leontopodium alpinum? / “Well, I can’t say anything about it, ‘cause it isn’t over here, only there at the Bárány Mountain. On the Bárány Mountain.” / “And on what kind of places is it growing?” / “Well, it is on stony, rocky places. So I heard, I haven’t seen where it grows at all.” (F. D.). Many people say, that their parents and older generations knew much more plants, moreover in older times every plant had its name: “The older people knew even more plants, for example I don’t know the rezfugburján (Scrophularia).” (T. S.). Some people -4-
(0,60-3), III (3-10), IV (10-30), V (301000%). In the case of constancy, the following classes of similar species numbers were set up based on the phytosociological table: I (under 2 %), II (2-4 %), III (4-10 %), IV (10-15 %), V (over 15 %).
consider that it is important to pass on the knowledge to the young people. A possible source of knowledge is school: “When I was a child, I knew so many kinds of flower, we learned in school, we had to draw them, there was a day in every week.” (J. Gy.). But we emphasize, that we were able to find only few cases where traditional plant knowledge originated from the school curriculum. In recent decades, however, books, and to a smaller extent television and Hungarian tourists, have become increasingly important sources of knowledge. “I read it in God’s pharmacy...“ (P. E.) (see Treben 1990). “But, you see, here it is called vadcsombor (Thymus) and I talked with Hungarian people and they call it kakukkfű.” (P. K.). Unfortunately, Maria Treben’s book (1990) contributes significantly to the fading of and distortion of the knowledge of Gyimes people, because they consider it more credible than the knowledge of their own community. The accuracy, originality and approach of the observations The majority of the observations are accurate or very accurate. For example, when we asked Tímár Sándor about Listera ovata – never named by him – he examined its flower carefully and recognized that the plant has something to do with the orchids: “This is similar to bergőburján (Orchids), but it’s not exactly like it”. In the case of Betonica officinalis he said: “Its leaf is similar to bárányláb (Salvia pratensis), but its flower to bergőburján” (Orchids). In other cases they emphasize that they did not observe the species in detail (cf.
Zs. Molnár and D. Babai
Acta Oecologica Carpatica
Grynaeus and Szabó 1993): “I can’t say what kind of flower it has, maybe I’ve seen its flower, but I didn’t pay attention to it.” (J. Gy.). Leontodon: “I don’t know, autumn flowers.” (P. K.). Often they do not observe smaller plants e.g. apropos of Viola arvensis: “They are around the summerhouses, then I don’t know, it can be in the grass, we don’t notice it so much.” (Cs. P.). They perceive the richness of the flora, although they have only visited a few parts of the world: “in Bikkhavas (...) there is no flower on the world that can’t be found there.” (T. E.); “I liked Germany, the sowing is nice, but there were not so many flowers!”. They see the differences between the species composition of different landscape units: “What grows down (in the valley), it is up there too (in the mountains), but what is there up high, it’s not always down.” (Cs. P.). Pteridium aquilinum is one of the most edifying examples for the character of folk observation. It is a frequent species, it spreads in an obvious way, it damages pastures, and it is difficult to eliminate. By the cast of mind of Gyimes people, as a plant, it should disperse with seeds and obviously, before seed-yield it must bloom. Because the flower was never seen, a good many people have not found the “seed” either, so interesting explanations have been born (see details about these with an international review in Gunda 1989). “It has no flower, in early summer I often looked for it, it has little dots on its back. Such little droppings, can there be some seed in it? I don’t know if it multiplies from that. It can contain some seed. Because it spreads well. ” (T. S.). About its flowering they mention the following: “It must be picked at night on the 24th June, before midnight, it must be brought into the house, it blooms at night, it sheds the flowers by morning.” (P. K.). “At midnight one must draw a circle around it and step in it, but inasmuch as the devil is coming at midnight, (s)he steps out from the circle so (s)he can’t see the flower” (P. K.). The Gyimes people also observe that this species does not have a herbivore, nothing eats it (in ecological terms this is called a
vacant niche, Lawton 1984), this is expressed so: “useless plant, there is nothing to eat it, ...just the rot eats it.” (P. K.), but they know that sometimes the cow chews it. The traditional folk approach is most often utilitarian (Péntek and Szabó 1985). With this in mind it is surprising that – although the Gyimes people are deeply believing Catholics – as we read through the legends of Gyimes (Antal 2004), we did not find any situation in which any person got any kind of “punishment” for harming the natural vegetation (cf. Nelson 1983, Berkes 1999) (it is common that for a bad deed against people one had to suffer punishment, and disturbing bird nests brings a curse on humans). However, the economic approach can be seen also in that the Gyimes people rarely waste anything, they use the goods taken from nature sparingly (this approach, unfortunately changed a lot since 1990). However, alongside the economic approach a more modern approach sometimes appears, too. This is illustrated by the following example: “The rakottya (Salix caprea) is not a kind plant for the farmers, it harms the farmer. So these cause damage, but for somebody, in fact for nature, everything has benefits, (...) this is like the wild animals (beasts), that are necessary, but sometimes it would be better if they didn’t exist. “ (J. Gy.*). A source of interest about plants – in addition to their economic importance- is their beauty. Many plants are known for their beauty or other striking traits: “Here June and July are the most beautiful. Then is it worth coming here. Mostly for people who like and know plants. I must say honestly, I have to stop and watch, it is impossible to tell how many beautiful colored flowers there are, one is more beautiful than the other, but it doesn’t last long. Two weeks, then it shrivels. It all dries, but they are wonderful. ” (F. D.). During our discussions they mention for example Salvia pratensis for its beauty: “Where the soil is fatter, it makes the whole grass blue, when it is blooming.” (P. K.); Trollius europaeus: “When we went to make hay, we always picked it, it was so beautiful.” (T. Ed.).
Ethnogeobotany in Gyimes I: plant names and folk taxonomy
-5-
Acta Oecol. Carpat.
.
The naming of plants Mainly those plant species which are economically important in a positive or negative way, or are spectacular, have a folk name (Péntek and Szabó 1985). In our experience less spectacular species can also get named, like Clematis alpina: “It has such weak stems, it goes up on the trees... I don’t know its fruit, I don’t think it has any, it’s something weak, but...I didn’t search for it, but I know it.” (T. E.). The bulk of collected plant names (see in detail in Appendix) are typical folk names, some are old Hungarian names, and a few stem obviously from the scientific name. 25% of them are simple words, the majority are compound words, especially adjectival structures (75%). Words with Romanian origin (see also Borza 1968) are relatively numerous (5%): árior, burusztuj, dancia, dobronyika, eszburatória, eszpenz, fériga, johóburusztuj, keptelán, ménisóra, pizdánkóró, podbállapi, reszfugburján, vízipuji, questionably: heskó. In Kalotaszeg and Gyergyó their proportion is just 2-2 % (Péntek and Szabó 1985, Rab 2001). The higher value in Gyimes can be explained by the Romanian origin of a small part of the population, and their vocabulary of plant names could have been built in the local dialect. Some of the plant names in Gyimes refer to the color of the flower, fruit, leaf, bark or root. Sometimes not only the color, but also the time of blooming can be important. This character rarely becomes a denominator, because among many other factors, the blooming time depends on the weather conditions of a given year. Despite this, there are a few species that are suitable to be named in this way (e.g. Primula veris, Trollius europaeus). An important aspect can be the flavor or smell of the plant or parts of it. The adjectival part of the name can refer to the fruit’s shape, character, or differentiating characteristic from similar fruits. The size, shape and form can be important, too. This can apply to the whole plant or to a part of it, to its flower or fruit. A further group is formed by names, which -6-
describe a characteristic of the plant’s habitat. The mode of use can also be relevant in the naming of some species, for example taxa used as animal fodder, in human and animal therapy. Humorous or obcene names in Gyimes are rare. Compared with the literature data (Rácz and Holló 1968, Rab et al. 1981, Rab 2001, Péntek and Szabó 1985, Gub 1996, Halászné Zelnik 1987) the plant names match at least 72% of the names of Gyimesbükk (10 km distance), and just 40% of the names of Gyergyó Basin (20 km distance), populated by Szeklers, 30% of Sóvidék names (70 km distance), and 30% of the names of Kalotaszeg (about 200 km distance), and only 17% of the Csángó area in Moldavia (approx. 100 km distance). It seems that the usage of the names is not homogeneous within Gyimes, the names of the neighbouring Gyergyó Basin are more different, but the similarity with names of further places is not much smaller. It would be worth analyzing this question further, involving other landscapes too. We experienced that the Gyimes people remarked that in other landscapes many species have different names: “There are other names, they don’t call them like us... The Gyergyó people neither and nor the people from Csík. We must call them how we learned, eh. We don’t know otherwise what they are.” (J. Gy.). Many of them know the more important names used in Gyergyó. Matching the name and the plant species For the majority of species and species groups one folk taxon has one name (homonymy) (e.g. eszpenz - Helleborus purpurascens – everybody knows this name, and for everybody it means the same species). Some of these names refer to a species even if the genus of that species is represented by more species in this landscape, therefore these are true species names (e.g. borfüge (Ribes petraeum), leánykafüge (Ribes alpinum), szőrös füge (Ribes uva-crispa), this is the case for 28% of the names). In other cases it cannot be decided whether the name is a species name or a genus name, because there is a single
Zs. Molnár and D. Babai
Acta Oecologica Carpatica
species in the region (e.g. Populus, Helleborus, 39% of the names). So, in total 67% of folk plant names denote a single species. In other cases the folk taxon scientifically consists of more taxa (e.g. Salix, Trifolium, Rumex, Galium), but in this case we cannot talk about polisemy, because one folk taxon has one single folk name. However, the following taxa include species belonging to different genera: imola, bergőburján, fériga, árvacsihány, vadborsó, serkefű, harangvirág (8% of the names). See detailed examples in the next section, and the meaning of the species in the Appendix. We examined the number of folk taxa that a folk name refers to. We found only 13 (16) names whose meaning is not univocal in the community: csillagvirág, burusztuj, epefű, pulykafű, féregfű tüdőfű/tüdőburján, szakaburján, reszfug, baraboly, fehér boglár, fehér bürök, csipkebogyó, vérehulló. So the name usage of Gyimes-people is surprisingly clear. The reason for this phenomenon could be the small scale of the study area (and by this the lack of geographical heterosemy), and regularity of communication within the community. At the same time it is not uncommon that a folk taxon has more names (34 taxa have two names: 20%, 7 have three names, 5 have four, 1 has 5 and 1 has 6 names). One reason for the many synonyms can be the complex origin of the Gyimes society (Tankó 2001). For example, the “berkeeper”, also known as “piroseper” refers to one folk taxon (Fragaria vesca + F. moschata). Chamaenerion angustifolium is also known by two names. The Hungarian name of this species refers to the plant’s habitat, - clearcuts (vészvirág), while the other is a Romanian word: eszburatória, eszburator or eszburetor (a zbura = to fly). Both names can be considered widespread, but a person usually uses only one. Vaccinium vitis-idaea is “ménisora”, but rarely it is called “piros kokojza”. Perhaps in order to distinguish better the two species of Vaccinium, in case of V. vitis-idaea the language of Gyimes borrows the word
“ménisora” from the Romanian language (merisoare). An interesting phenomenon is the detection and naming of species that have only recently arrived in the region. On the bank of Hidegség stream a previously unseen plant appeared. Tímár Sándor drew our attention to it. He told us, that he walked there regularly, but he never detected this species before. We found out that it is Hippophaë rhamnoides, which occurs in the Tatros valley, but not in Hidegség. As its habitat and its leaves are similar to the bushy Salix species, with the significant difference that it has spines, the finder called it szúrós csigolya (“spiny willow”). Another case is also the recently appeared Telekia speciosa. It has no name yet, but because of its appearance and habitat it turns up in conversations that involve “medvesaláta” (e.g. Cirsium pauciflorum), like a newcomer in the valley. Recognition and observation of new species is not an isolated phenomenon, we met it on several occasions. Names of plants are not only created, but they may disappear too. One of the tributaries of Hidegség is named Szalamás. We do not know, but it is probable that the name comes from the local folk name of Allium ursinum (salama – see in Rab 2001), the plant is extinct, and the meaning of the name is not known anymore. Folk taxonomy In this section we will present in detail those groups of species in Gyimes, whose folk taxonomy is particularly interesting and typical. From among the species groups one of the most important is the group of “imola”. Imola is used as the name of every narrow-leaved grass which occurs in the area (typical especially for former arable fields, manured meadows, where the quantity of hay is large, but the quality is lower than on the other meadows). More than 20 species are in this group (e.g. Agrostis spp. Trisetum, see Appendix). The Gyimes people are aware that this taxon has more species: “This is imola, too, but not
Ethnogeobotany in Gyimes I: plant names and folk taxonomy
-7-
Acta Oecol. Carpat.
.
that kind.” (T. S.), but they don’t find it necessary to make more detailed differentiation. The “pair” of imola is the zablevelűfű (or zablevel). The main distinctive mark is the shorter stalk, and the wider leaf. More species from several genera are given this name. The name is used mostly for Brachypodium pinnatum (this has a special name, too: heskó), but they use it for Deschampsia caespitosa and Festuca pratensis, too. The zablevel is generally considered of poor quality, although sometimes they emphasize its good quality. This is especially true for Festuca pratensis, which is sown rarely as forage. Perhaps a little surprising, but logically, a species of grass can be both “imola” and “zablevel”. For example, the Dactylis glomerata in spring (when its inflorescence is the most obvious) is clearly imola, while in autumn, in the short second crop (when its large leaves are seen) it is zablevel (J. Gy.). A similar phenomenon can be observed in Transylvania in the case of sterile and reproductive stems of Equisetum species (Rab 2001), the spring and autumn aspect of Colchicum autumnale, and the flower and leaf of Tussilago farfara (Péntek and Szabó 1985). Interesting is the group of sáté. Almost all the Gramineae and Cyperaceae species that grow on boggy, wet soils are called sáté (sáté (Carex), virágos (flowering) sáté (Eriophorum spp.), gombolyik (rounded) sáté (Juncus spp.), lapos (flat) sáté (Deschampsia and Glyceria)), but they use distinctive adjectives only if it has significance in the conversation. They do not make a distinction between the species of Eriophorum (E. angustifolium, E. latifolium), both of which are “flowering sáté”. Generally only Carex species of wet habitats are called sáté. In contrast, Carex species that occur in dry habitats do not belong to this group, and even their presence is ignored. “Well, if it is sáté, than it certainly grows in wet places.” (Cs. P.). Asking about sedges in dry habitats on the field, we could not collect a name: “this isn’t -8-
a sáté, that grows only in wet places, this is leafy grass, (but) not imola”. Most people mention forest ferns (mainly Dryopteris spp.) and Pteridium aquilinum that sometimes become abundant on pastures as ördögborda (rib of devil). A few people separate the “Dryopteris” species, which live in forest, from Pteridium. The former are named with a Romanian term fériga, (rarely erdei pajzsika, cf. Treben 1990), the latter is named ördögborda. Salix species are sorted in two large groups: ficfák and csigolyák. The former group has strong trunks (Salix fragilis and tall Salix elaeagnos individuals). The latter are shrubs consisting of several thin trunks (Salix elaeagnos, S. purpurea, S. triandra, S. viminalis). For bushy Salix species everybody uses csigolya, some people distinguish more of them (red, black, green, white csigolya), but the usage of these names – according to our experience so far is not clear, and not consistent, perhaps these “names” are just adjectival structures. To some, the vörös (red) csigolya is the pimpó, pimpófa (Salix daphnoides). The pimpófa – despite its trunk– is not a ficfa. The fehér (white) ficfa sometimes refers to tree-size individuals of Salix elaeagnos (the underside of the leaf is white). Rarely, the tamariska (Myricaria germanica) is considered a kind of csigolya, too (P. E.). Salix caprea was never classified as a ficfa or a csigolya, it has a special name: rakottya. The species group medvesaláta and disznyókáposzta is not unambiguous. This includes Sonchus and Cirsium species, and since its appearance, Telekia speciosa. Certainly, it comprises tall herb plants, but the question needs further investigation. Almost every Gentiana species has a specific name. Asking about the “relationship” between the species, we think that they probably don’t know it (epefű – Gentiana cruciata, gyertyánfűgyökér – G. asclepiadea, dancia – G. lutea, csillagvirág – G. praecox, fecskevirág – G. utriculosa). We can notice pairs of plants. Between the borfüge (Ribes petraeum) and leánykafüge (Ribes alpinum) the distinction
Zs. Molnár and D. Babai
Acta Oecologica Carpatica
is made first of all by the taste of their fruits. Borfüge is sour, while leánykafüge is lencsettédes, meaning a little bit sweet, but without an aroma. Several Viola species occur in the area. They are grouped into one taxon, but one type is more beautiful, the other is more fragrant. Both Primula veris and P. elatior occur in the area. Some Gyimes people consider them different taxa, they see the differences, but these are not so significant that the two species have to get separate names (“Yellow, two types of yellow. The paler yellow one grows higher, and the one which is darker yellow, that is just dwarf. ” (T. M.)). In the case of Trifolium species there is one name – vadhere - that is used for two different folk taxa, which botanically can be divided into further species. The red group of vadhere (which is also called rarely “piros (red) boglár”) contains Trifolium alpestre, T. pratense and T. medium, while the white group (rarely “fehér (white) boglár”) includes T. pannonicum, T. ochroleucum, T. montanum and T. repens. There are people who make a distinction between the truly white and yellowish flowered vadhere. Several Carduus and Cirsium species belong to the csipke taxon, although most people do not distinguish them by name: “Exactly which is the szamárcsipke or all of it is szamárcsipke, just they don’t grow equally, I don’t know.” (Cs. P.). Sometimes, they are definitely grouped in more taxons. It seems that the larger species (e.g. Cirsium eriophorum, C. furiens, Carduus acanthoides) are szamárcsipke, the shorter ones (e.g. Cirsium arvense) are simply csipke. Baraboly describes several species and also part of a plant. It refers to Anthriscus sylvestris and Chaerophyllum bulbosum, and to the leaf of köménmag (Carum carvi) (which is also called csürkefű, pulykafű); some consider that the pulykafű has no flower (the leaves of Carum carvi are collected in the spring as fodder for chickens).
In some regions the spring and autumn aspect of Colchicum autumnale are considered to be two different taxa (Péntek and Szabó 1985, Gub 1996). In Gyimes this is rare, most people are aware that the two developmental stages belong to one single species. The three species of Fragaria are grouped very reliably in two taxa. The tokos eper (F. viridis) tastes better, but it is harder to collect and it is more of a habitat specialist than the “berke eper”, also known as piros eper (F. moschata and F. vesca). People observe several kinds of utilapu (Plantago spp.), but these rarely have special names. The name lándzsás útifű already occurs too (originating from the book of Treben 1990). There are at least two types of lósósdi (Rumex spp.): “That is another kind. That does not grow as high as this. This grows up on a stem. That is lower and grows branching. ” (T. S.). The latter is Rumex alpinum. The vadcsombor usually means just the Thymus species, but at times it is listed here as Origanum vulgare (which is also known as ezergyógyfű) and Teucrium chamaedrys (which does not have a specific name). The mezei gyapár is generally only Antennaria dioica, but more attentive people differentiate two forms: “There is the reddish, and there is the other. So more whitish, more brownish (Gnaphalium spp.). But both are very nice. I used to collect it in early summer, when it still has beautiful flowers. It does not wither, and then it will remain, it dries.” (F. D.). Unintentionally appearing narratives (short stories) It the case of some species we observed the phenomenon that certain knowledge is activated almost automatically during conversations about a species (Keszeg 2002). One cannot talk about something else related to the species, until this permanent, name-related information or narrative, usually related to use, has been told. A good example of this is Helleborus
Ethnogeobotany in Gyimes I: plant names and folk taxonomy
-9-
Acta Oecol. Carpat.
.
purpurascens, which is a well-known species. At its mention the first activated information is the utilization of the plant’s thin roots in folk therapy, mainly for treating pigs: “If the pig gets ill, they dig out the roots, they make a hole in the pig’s ear, and put a piece into it. Then that heals, but it makes such a big hole there, that you can put your finger through it.” (T. E.). Similar narratives are revealed in the case of other species, too. Such is Euphorbia amygdaloides, known as árior in Gyimes, about which almost everybody notes that the injured leg of horses can be healed with it. The species knowledge of the studied community and individuals Although we did not perform a methodical floristic survey, we identified 453 species during field trips and phytosociological studies. Gyimes people can name 280 of these, that is 62% of the 453 species. They name the 172 differentiated folk taxa using 235 names. A similar proportion was found by Rab (2001) in the Gyergyó Basin (400 species have folk names out of 885 growing in the wild), just like Péntek and Szabó (1976) in Árapatak (207 out of 600 species have folk names). However, the calculation of these proportions is not easy. Do we take into consideration the total flora or species “visible” for the locals: for example, should we take into consideration the species that occur in a restricted area of the landscape and hardly visible, or the very similar Cerastium species? In the course of our semi-structured questionnaire we studied the knowledge of 135 folk taxa (identified before the preparation of the questionnaires). Based on this we can say that more than the half of the 20 people know 85% of the species included in the questionnaire. Further examining the results, we can state, that 91 taxa on the list (67,4%) are known by 70% of the interviewed Gyimes people, but half of the taxa are known by 80% of the interviewed people (including children, too). Finally we mention that 23 species (17%) are known by all the interviewed people. If we analyze - 10 -
youths’ knowledge of species, we can say that those aged 10-12 know half of the species known by their parents (in Amazonia, at this age they know almost 100% of them, Berlin 1992). For the characterization of a community it can also be important which species are not denominated, not known or not detected among those that occur in their environment. In Gyimes there are some abundant and salient species, in addition, that appear in significant cover in different habitats, but which nevertheless remained unnamed taxa. At least, during our collections no names were found for these species (e.g. Aegopodium podagraria, Anthyllis vulneraria, Centaurea phrygia, Doronicum austriacum, Heracleum sphondylium, Hieracium pilosella agg., Leontodon hispidus, Luzula luzuloides, Melampyrum sylvaticum, Potentilla erecta, Prunella vulgaris, Pulmonaria rubra, Salvia verticillata, Thalictrum aquilegifolium). Further collections focused on this issue may restrict the number of these species. For example, in the case of one of the most frequent dicots of the hay meadows in Gyimes, Centaurea phrygia we could not collect a folk name, although Birkás-Frendl Kata collected on a single occasion a name referring to this plant (personal communication) (Kóczián et al. 1976, Rab et al. 1981 do not list a name for this species, either). If Gyimes people do not know the plant’s name, often they say such phrases as: “This is medicine, too!” (J. Gy.); “Every grass is a medicinal plant, do you understand?” (K. B.). When we ask whether it really has no name, we get this kind of answer: “Certainly it has!” (J. Gy.). Taking into account the constancy and cover of plant species in 88 phytosociological relevés, we can say that the degree of local knowledge of a species grows with its constancy and cover, and the knowledge of species with highest constancy and cover is 70-88%. When we compare the two adult age groups, we can conclude that there is no significant difference between the wellknown species of the middle-aged (20-60)
Zs. Molnár and D. Babai
Acta Oecologica Carpatica
and the older group. Interestingly, the less known species of the middle-aged are not known better by the older group, and there are just a few species that are better known by the elder (“reszfugburján”, “pokolszökésburján”, “pásztortáska”- the first two were used in the treatment of diseases cured today with medicines). At the same time, there are a few species which are known better by middle-age people (porcsfű, szarvaskeret – the latter is sown, too). The less-known species (known by less than 50%) are partly species that are sporadic, have a small size and are difficult to observe (20 species). A few species were included in this group because they do not occur in the valley of Hidegség, just near Háromkút, also inhabited by Csángó people (e.g. Vaccinium uliginosum, Gentiana lutea). These species are mainly, but not solely, known by people who originate from Háromkút, and today live in Hidegségpataka.
Surprisingly, in the case of some frequent species, although a name is widespread in the community, some people do not know that name, or not any name for the given species. Such a species is Chamaenerion angustifolium. Examining the relationships between collective and individual knowledge, we can state that those people who are known for their large knowledge in terms of folk taxon number, know approximately 90% of the total taxa known by the community. People with “average” knowledge know 75-80 %. So there is no big difference between the specialists and people with average knowledge. This experience is very different from the experience in Kalotaszeg in 1980s (Péntek and Szabó 1985), where 3-4-fold differences were found between people with small and outstanding knowledge. However, it is important to note that we studied a smaller community and not a whole region, and furthermore, we did not study cultivated and ornamental plants.
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all we thank our Gyimes informants (teachers), especially Prezsmer Erzsébet (Boris Bálintné) (born 1939) = P. E., Antal (Bucsi) Béla (born 1937) = A. B., Györgyice (Matri) János and wife Marika, Jánó György (Tódi Anna Gyurka) (born 1939) = J. Gy. and wife Marika, their son, Jánó Béla (born 1970) = J. B. and wife Anna (born 1970) = J. A., Jánó György (born 1950) = J. Gy*. and wife Ilona, Kajtár (Káruly) Jenő† and son Kajtár Jenő (born 1981) = K. J., Kis (Cokán) Béla (born 1954) = K. B., Kulcsár Péter and wife Mária†, Prezsmer Csaba (Háromkút), Prezsmer Károly (Gyurka Pista Károly) (born 1935) = P. K. and wife Virág, their son, Károly and wife Betti, Sinka (Berbécs) György and wife Anna (S. Gy. A.), Tankó (Kicsi Emre) Emil (born 1940) = T. E., Tankó (Marci) Ilona, Tankó (Tímár) Tódor (born 1949) = T. T. and wife Valéria, T. M. (Tamás Andrisné) (born 1939) = T. M., Tankó (Csukuj) Károly, Tankó (Csukuj) Anna (born 1939) = T. A., Tankó Ilona (born 1961) = T. I., Tankó Tímár (Tódor) Attila, Tankó (Béla) István, Tímár Dezső (born 1966) = T. D. and wife Csorba Piroska (born 1968) = Cs. P., their son Lukács, Tímár (Triffán) Sándor (born 1934) = T. S. and wife Jola†, Fitos (Fintu) Dezsőné (Ilonka) (born 1953) = F. D., and Ferenc Piroska (born 1937) = F. P., Jánó Péter (born 1938) = J. P., Tímár Edit (born 1970) = T. Ed., Vándor Károly (born 1951) = V. K. We thank Bartha Sándor, Biró Marianna, Czúcz Bálint, Szabó István, Szabó László Gyula, Szabó T. Attila and Varga Anna for their comments on an earlier version of the manuscript, and Péter Gabriella, Demeter László and Barbara Knowles for English translation. The research was funded by grant T49175 of the OTKA. REFERENCES Antal M., 2004 – A gyimesvölgyi csángó magyarok hiedelmei. [The beliefs of the
Csángó Hungarians in the Gyimes valley.] General Press Kiadó, Budapest.
Ethnogeobotany in Gyimes I: plant names and folk taxonomy
- 11 -
Acta Oecol. Carpat.
.
Babai D., 2008 – „Há’ hogyne vóna!” Népi növényzetismeret Gyimesben. [„Certainly it has!” Folk plant knowledge in Gyimes.] A paper for the National Scientific Student Conference. Pécsi Tudományegyetem Néprajz és Kulturális Antropológia Tanszék, 50 pp. Babai D., Molnár Zs., 2009 – Népi növényzetismeret Gyimesben II.: termőhely- és élőhelyismeret. [Folk plant knowledge in Gyimes II.: knowledge of habitats.] Botanikai Közlemények 96: 145-173. Babbie E., (2003) – A társadalomtudományi kutatás gyakorlata. [The practice of sociological research]. Balassi Kiadó, Budapest. Balogh Ö., 1932 – Néprajzi jegyzetek a gyimesfelsőloki és gyimesközéploki csángókról. [Ethnography notes on the Csángós from Gyimesfelsőlok and Gyimesközéplok.] Erdélyi Múzeum 37: 332-353. Berecz A., 1997 – "Bú hozza, kedv hordozza", Magon kőtt énekesek iskolája I. Néprajzi tanulmány a néphagyomány ismeretlen "zeneesztétiká"-járól. [„Sadness brings it, joy carries it”, School of singers grown from the seed I. Ethnographical study on the unknown „music esthetics” of folk tradition.] Private edition, Lajosmizse, 272 pp. Berkes, F., 1999 – Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia. Berlin, B., 1992 – Ethnobiological Classification. Principles of Categorisation of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Borza, Al., 1968 – Dictionar etnobotanic. [Ethnobotanical dictionary.] Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania, Bucuresti. Clusius, C., 1583 – Rariorum stirpium per Pannonias observatorum Historiae. Dobos F., 1939 – A Gyimesi-szoros földrajza. [The geography of the Gyimes-strait.] Geographica Pannonica 33. Kultúra nyomda, Pécs, 36 pp. - 12 -
Grynaeus T., Szabó L. Gy., 1993 – Növények ismerete és használata Dávodon (Bács-Kiskun m.). [Knowledge and use of plants in Dávod, Bács-Kiskun county, Hungary.] Gyógyszerészet 37: 29-36., 85-92. Grynaeus T., Szabó L. Gy., 2002 – A bukovinai hadikfalvi székelyek növényei. [The plants of Székelys of Hadikfalva, Bukovina.] Gyógyszerészet 46: 251-259., 327-336., 394-399., 588600. Gub J., 1996 – Erdő-mező növényei a Sóvidéken (Fűben-fában orvosság). [Plants of forests and grasslands in the Salt region (Medicine in tree and grass).] Firtos Művelődési Egylet, Korond, 99 pp. Gunda B., 1989 – A virágzó páfrány. In: A rostaforgató asszony. [The blooming fern. In: The screen turner woman.] (Gunda B.). Múzsák, Budapest, 71-84. Gunda B., 1990 – A természetes növénytakaró és az ember. [Natural vegetation and human.] Agria 24: 165219. Gunda B., 2001 – A vadnövények gyűjtése. In: Magyar Néprajz II. Gazdálkodás. (ed. in chief.: Paládi-Kovács A.). [Collection of wild plants. In: Hungarian Ethnography II. Farming.] Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 11-40. Halászné Zelnik K., 1987 – Moldvai csángó növénynevek. [Moldavian Csángó plant names.] Magyar Csoportnyelvi Dolgozatok 36., Budapest, 3-22. Ilyés Z., 2001 – Az állattartás és rétgazdálkodás hatása a történeti kultúrtáj mintázottságára és antropogén morfológiai elemeire. [The effect of animal husbandry and meadow management on the patterns and anthropogenic morphological elements of the historical cultural landscape.] In: Számadó. Tanulmányok Paládi-Kovács Attila tiszteletére (eds.: Szarvas Zs. et al.). MTA Néprajzkutató Intézet, Budapest, 53-65. Ilyés Z., 2007 – A tájhasználat változásai és a történeti kultúrtáj 18-20. századi fejlődése Gyimesben. [Landscape
Zs. Molnár and D. Babai
Acta Oecologica Carpatica
changes and the 18-20. century development of the historical cultural landscape in Gyimes.] Eszterházy Károly Főiskola, Eger, 191 pp. Keszeg V., 2002 – Homo narrans. Emberek, történetek és kontextusok. [Homo narrans. People, stories and contexts.] Komp-Press Kiadó, Kolozsvár. 330 pp. Kisbán E., 1997 – Táplálkozáskultúra. In: Magyar Néprajz IV. Anyagi kultúra 3. Életmód. [Gastronomic culture. In: Hungarian Ethnography IV. Material culture 3. Way of living.] (chief editor: Paládi-Kovács A.). Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 417-584. Kóczián G., Pintér I., Gál M., Szabó I., Szabó L. Gy., 1976 – Etnobotanikai adatok Gyimesvölgyéből. [Ethnobotanical data from the Gyimes valley.] Botanikai Közlemények 63: 2935. Kóczián G., Pintér I., Szabó L. Gy., 1975 – Adatok a gyimesi csángók népi gyógyászatához. [Data on the folk medicine of Csángós in Gyimes.] Gyógyszerészet 19: 226-230. Kósa L., Filep A., 1978 – A magyar nép tájitörténeti tagolódása. [Spatio-temporal divisions of Hungarian people.] Budapest. Lawton, J.H., 1984 – Non-competitive populations, non-convergent communities, and vacant niches: the herbivores of bracken. In: Ecological communities: conceptual issues and the evidence (eds.: Strong, D. R., Simberloff, D., Abele, L. G., Thistle, A. B.). Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 67-101. Láncz I., 2002 – A bácskai és a bánáti népi növénynevek alaktani és szemantikai sajátságai. [Morphological and semantic properties of folk plant names from Bácska and Bánát.] Hungarológiai Közlemények 122–129. Molnár Zs., Babai D., 2008 – Comparison of traditional Hungarian Csángó and scientific habitat-related knowledge. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium: Preservation of Biocultural Diversity - a Global Issue (Ed.:
Splechtna, B.). BOKU University, Wien, 133-141. Molnár Zs., Babai D., 2009 – Népi növényzetismeret Gyimesben I.: növénynevek, népi taxonómia, az egyéni és közösségi növényismeret. [Folk plant knowledge in Gyimes I.: plant names, folk taxonomy, plant knowledge on individual and community level.]. Botanikai Közlemények 96: 117-143. Molnár Zs., Bartha S., Babai D., 2008 – Traditional Ecological Knowledge as a Concept and Data Source for Historical Ecology, Vegetation Science and Conservation Biology: A Hungarian Perspective. In: Human Nature. Studies in Historical Ecology and Environmental History (Eds.: Szabó P., Hedl, R.). Institute of Botany of the ASCR, Brno, 14-27. Molnár Zs., Hoffmann K., 2009 – A hortobágyi pásztorok növény- és növényzetismerete. [Plant and vegetation knowledge of herdsmen in the Hortobágy.] Manuscript, MTA ÖBKI, Vácrátót. Nelson, R. K., 1983 – Make prayers to the raven. A Koyuko view of the northern forest. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago – London. Oláh A., 1987 – Zöld varázslók, virágorvosok. Népi gyógynövényismeret Békés megyében. [Green wizards, flower-doctors. Folk medicinal plant knowledge in Békés county.] Békés megy. Tanács V.B. Tudományoskoordinációs Szakbizottsága, Békéscsaba. Orbán B., 1868 – Székelyföld leírása történelmi, régészeti, természetrajzi s népismei szempontból. [Description of Szeklerland from historical, archeological, natural and ethnographical points of view.] Pest, Panda and Frohna. Pálfalvi P., 1987 – Vicia faba germplasm collection in Eastern Transylvania. Not. Bot. Hort. Agrobot. Cluj 17: 35-38. Pálfalvi P., 1995 – A Gyimesi-hágó (1164 m) környékének florisztikai vázlata. [Floristic sketch of the surroundings of
Ethnogeobotany in Gyimes I: plant names and folk taxonomy
- 13 -
Acta Oecol. Carpat.
.
the Gyimes Pass (1164 m).] Múzeumi Füzetek (Az Erdélyi Múzeum Egyesület Természettudományi és Matematikai Szakosztályának Közleményei) 4: 107114. Pálfalvi P., 2001 – A Gyimesek botanikai és etnobotanikai kutatásának története. [The history of botanical and ethnobotanical research in Gyimes.] Kanitzia 9: 165-180. Péntek J., Szabó A., 1985 – Ember és növényvilág. Kalotaszeg növényzete és népi növényismerete. [People and plantlife. The vegetation and folk plant knowledge of Kalotaszeg.] Kriterion Könyvkiadó, Bukarest, 367 pp. Péntek J., Szabó T. A., 1976 – Egy háromszéki falu népi növényismerete. [Folk plant knowledge of a village in Háromszék, Transylvania.] Ethnographia 87: 203-225. Pócs É., 2008 – Előszó. In: Vannak csodák, csak észre kell venni. Helyi vallás, néphit és vallásos folklór Gyimesben I. [Foreword. In: There are miracles, just they need to be noticed. Local religion, folkbelief and religious folclore in Gyimes.] (ed.: Pócs É.). L’Harmattan Kiadó, Budapest, 7-14. Rab J., Tankó P., Tankó M., 1981 – Népi növényismeret Gyimesbükkön. [Folk plant knowledge in Gyimesbükk.] Népismereti dolgozatok 23-38. Rab J., 2001 – Népi növényismeret a Gyergyói-medencében. [Folk plant knowledge in the Gyergyó Basin.] Pallas – Akadémia Könyvkiadó, Csíkszereda, 247 pp. Rácz G., Holló G., 1968 – Plante folosite în medicina populară din Bazinul superior al Trotuşului (Ghimeş). [Plants used in folk medicine in the Upper Valley of Trotuş river (Ghimeş).] In: Plantele medicinale din flora spontană a Bazinului Ciuc. Miercurea-Ciuc, 171176. Rácz J., 2001 – Népi növényneveink. [Our folk plant names.] Magyar Nyelvőr 125: 287-297. Rácz J., 2010 – Növénynevek enciklopédiája. [Encyclopedia of plant - 14 -
names.] Tinta Könyvkiadó, Budapest, 812 pp. Szabó T. A., Péntek J., 1976 (1996) – Ezerjófű. Etnobotanikai útmutató. [Thousandgoodherb. Ethnobotanical guide.] Kriterion Kiadó, Bukarest (1976) / Budapest, Tankönyvkiadó (1996), 254 pp. Tankó Gy., 2001 – Életvitel a Gyimesekben. Gyimesi szokásvilág II. [Way of life in Gyimes. Traditions in Gyimes II.] Erdélyi Gondolat Könyvkiadó, Székelyudvarhely. Treben, M., 1990 – Egészség Isten patikájából [Health from God’s pharmacy.] HungaPrint, Budapest. Vajkai A., 1948 – Népünk természetismerete [Nature knowledge of our nation.] Magyar Népkutatók Kézikönyve II., Budapest. Vörös É., 2008 – A magyar gyógynövények neveinek történeti-etimológiai szótára. [Historical-ethymological dictionary of Hungarian medicinal plant names.] A Debreceni Egyetem Magyar Nyelvtudományi Intézetének kiadványai 85., Debrecen, 501 pp. Wagner J., 1899 – Eine Excursion in der Umgebung von Gyimes (Siebenbürgen). Allg. Bot. Zeitschr. 3: 42-43; 4: 61-62.; 5: 77-78. Wolkinger F., Szabó I., Szabó T. A., (eds.) 1992 – The Beginnings of Pannonian Ethnobotany: Stirpium nomenclator Pannonicus. Univ. West. Hung., BioTár, Collecta Clusiana, Seinamanger-GrazGüssing 2: 1-142.
Zs. Molnár and D. Babai
Acta Oecologica Carpatica
AUTHORS: 1
Zsolt Molnár
[email protected] Institute of Ecology and Botany of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Alkotmány u. 2-4. Vácrátót, Hungary, HU - 2163 2 Dániel Babai
[email protected] Institute of Ethnology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Országház u. 30. Budapest, Hungary, HU - 1014 APPENDIX Folk plant names in Hidegség-pataka (Valea Rece), Gyimesközéplok (Lunca de Jos) in the order of their Latin names. Sources: 1 Rácz and Holló 1968, 2 Kóczián et al. 1976, 3 Rab et al. 1981 (these sources cover a slightly larger area than our studies), MB data of the authors (Zs. Molnár, D. Babai) (names in brackets are rare names, sources in brackets indicate that the name refers to another species; ? means uncertainty). Latin name Abies alba Acer pseudoplatanus Achillea collina, A. distans, A. millefolium Aconitum moldavicum Actea spicata Agrimonia eupatoria Agropyron repens, Agrostis tenuis, A. canina, A. stolonifera, Anthoxanthum odoratum, Arrhenatherum elatius, Avenastrum pubescens, Calamagrostis arundinacea, C. epigeios, Cynosurus cristatus, Dactylis glomerata, Festuca rubra, Koeleria sp., Phleum pratense, Poa compressa, P. nemoralis, P. pratensis, P. trivialis, Trisetum flavescens Alchemilla acutiloba, A. crinita, A. glabra, A. glaucescens, A. monticola, A. subcrenata, A. xanthochlora. Allium sp.? Alnus incana Antennaria dioica Anthriscus cerefolium?, Peucedanum oreoselinum? Anthriscus sylvestris, Chaerophyllum bulbosum, Carum carvi Aquilegia vulgaris, Campanula abietina, C. carpatica, C. glomerata, C. persicifolia, C. rotundifolia, C. trachelium, C. patula Arctium lappa Artemisia absinthium Astragalus glycyphyllos Athyrium filix-femina, Dryopteris carthusiana, D. dilatata, D. expansa, D. filix-mas, Gymnocarpion dryopteris, Phegopteris connectilis Bellis perennis Betula pendula Botrychium lunaria Brachypodium pinnatum, (Nardus stricta) Brachypodium pinnatum, Deschampsia caespitosa, Festuca
Local name Fehér fenyő 2,3,MB (jegenye fenyő MB) Jáhor 3,MB, jáhorfa MB Pulykafű 1,3,MB, féregfarkú fű 1,2,3,MB (fehér üröm (3),MB, cikafű MB, féregfű MB) Papucsvirág MB (ómák MB) Tolvajlapi 3 (resztug MB) Apróbojtorján MB
Imola 3,MB
Zsanika 2,3,MB (Máriapalástja MB) Vadfokhagyma MB Cserfa (2),3,MB, egerfa 3 Mezei gyopárdi MB, gyapár 3 Vadpetrezselyem 1,3,MB Baraboly MB Harangvirág 3,MB Burusztuj 1,MB, bojtorján 3,MB Fehér üröm 2,3,MB Disznószakáll MB, szakállfű MB, Saskörmű lapi MB, macskaköröm MB Ördögborda 2,3,MB, Fériga MB (erdei pajzsika MB) Boglárka 3,MB, fehér boglár MB Nyír 2,3,MB Tüdőfű (2),(3),MB Heskó MB Zablevelű fű MB , zablevel MB
Ethnogeobotany in Gyimes I: plant names and folk taxonomy
- 15 -
Acta Oecol. Carpat.
.
gigantea, F. pratensis Briza media Bunias orientalis Callitriche sp. Caltha palustris Capsella bursa-pastoris Carduus acanthoides, Cirsium eriophorum, C. furiens Carex caespitosa, C. distans, C. echinata, C. flacca, C. flava, C. hirta, C. pallescens, C. panicea, C. pilulifera,C. rostrata,C. vesicaria, Eleocharis palustris Carlina acaulis Carum carvi Cerasus avium Chamaenerion angustifolium Chelidonium majus Chenopodium album Cicerbita alpina? Cirsium erisithales, C. oleraceum, Chenopodium spp. Cirsium furiens, C. arvense, C. oleraceum Cirsium pauciflorum, C. rivulare, C. erisithales, Telekia speciosa, Sonchus arvensis Clematis alpina Clematis alpina Clematis recta Colchicum autumnale Conium maculatum Convolvulus arvensis
Daphne mezereum
- 16 -
Bábakonty 2,3,MB Kömenymag 2,3,MB (the leaf: baraboly MB, csirkefű MB, csürkefű MB, pulykafű MB) (kaporburján MB) Cseresznye MB Eszburatoria 3,MB, vészvirág MB, (eszburator MB, eszburetor MB , rezbura MB) Fökönburján 3,MB, vérehulló fű MB, vérehulló fecskefű MB Laboda (3),MB Sánta Tamás lapija MB Pizdánkóró MB (pizdakóró, pizdánmóróMB) Csipke 3,MB, csipkebogyó MB Medvesaláta 3,MB Erdei felfolyó MB (vadkomló MB, erdei kócsoló MB) Vadkomló MB Fehér bürök MB Varjúhagyma 2,3,MB Bürök MB, fehérbürök MB, bürökburján MB Vad fuszulykavirág 3,MB, gyűrűfű MB, szuláklapi MB, felfolyó Magyaró 3,MB , mogyoró MB Istengyümölcse 3,MB (Isten gyümölcsfája MB), galagonya 3 Bergőburján (3),MB Farkashárs 2,3,MB, kutyacseresznye (2),(3),MB, (kutyakokojza ). The flower: vadboroszlán 3 Mezei szegfű MB, vadszegfű MB, piros szegfű MB Belénlapi (2),(3),MB, tejes reszfugburján 3 Ármurár (2),MB Macskanyelvű fű MB Szakaburján (2),(3),MB Füzike MB
MB
Dianthus carthusianorum Digitalis grandiflora Echinops sphaerocephalus Echium vulgare Echium vulgare, Astragalus glycyphyllos Epilobium spp. Equisetum arvense, E. telmateja, E. fluviatile? (Juncus inflexus?) Equisetum palustre Euphorbia amygdaloides Fagus sylvatica Fragaria moschata, F. vesca Fragaria viridis Fraxinus excelsior Galanthus nivalis Galeopsis speciosa, G. tetrahit Galinsoga parviflora, G. hirsuta Galium aparine, G. mollugo Gentiana asclepiadea Gentiana cruciata
Sáté 3,MB (sádé MB)
MB
Coryllus avellana Crataegus monogyna Dactylorhiza maculata, Gymnadenia conopsea, sometimes Platanthera bifolia, only sometimes Nigritella rubra
Eriophorum angustifolium, E. latifolium
Poloskafű MB, táskafű MB, rezgő 3, bolhafű MB, palaskafű MB Borsos lenkő MB, borsostyuka 3 Metefű MB, nyúló fű MB Mocsárvirág MB (mocsár MB, mocsárlapi 3,MB, békavirág MB, mocsári MB Szívvirág MB, pásztortáska MB, táskavirág MB Szamárcsipke 2,(3),MB
Surlófű 3,MB, sullófű 3, lófarok MB Békaláb (1),2,(3),MB, Zsurlófű MB? Virágos sáté MB (békavirág MB, békafű MB, pimpó 3, virágos sádé MB, gombolyik sádé MB) Árior 2,MB, álivor 3 Bükk 3,MB Berkeeper MB, piros eper MB, földieper 2,3 Tokos eper MB (koseper MB) Kőrösfa 3,MB Hóvirág 3,MB Kenderfű MB, kendercsipke MB Hadiburján MB, katonaburján 3,MB, oroszgyom MB Ragadván(y) 3, MB, „ragadozó” MB, „ragadós” MB Gyertyánfű MB, gyertyafű MB, gyertyánfűgyökér MB (epefű 3) Epefű 1,2,(3),MB (gyertyámburján 3)
Zs. Molnár and D. Babai
Acta Oecologica Carpatica Gentiana lutea Gentiana praecox Gentiana utriculosa Geranium pratense Glyceria notata, Scirpus sylvaticus, (Deschampsia cespitosa) Helleborus purpurascens Heracleum sphondylium Hippophaë rhamnoides Huperzia selago, Lycopodium annotinum, L. clavatum Hypericum perforatum, H. maculatum, Hypochoeris maculata Jovibarba globifera Juncus articulatus, (Equisetum palustre) Juniperus communis Lamium album, L. purpureum, Urtica urens Larix decidua Laserpitium latifolium, Pimpinella major Lathyrus pratensis, L. transsylvanicus, L. vernus, Vicia cracca, V. sativa, V. sepium, (Astragalus glycyphyllos) Leontopodium alpinum Leonurus cardiaca Leucanthemum vulgare Lilium bulbiferum Lonicera xylosteum Lotus corniculatus Lycopodium spp. Majanthemum bifolium Malva sp. Malva sylvestris or M. neglecta? Matricaria discoidea Medicago falcata Melittis melissophyllum, Nepeta cataria Mentha longifolia Myosotis arvensis, M. palustris Myricaria germanica Nardus stricta Onobrychis viciifolia Ononis spp.? Origanum vulgare Oxalis acetosella Paris quadrifolia Parnassia palustris Petasites albus, P. hybridus Picea abies Pinus sylvestris Plantago major, P. lanceolata, P. media Plantago media Polygonatum verticillatum Polygonum aviculare Polygonum lapathifolium Polypodium vulgare Populus tremula Potentilla anserina
Dancia 2,MB Csillagvirág MB Fecskevirág MB Szentjánosvirág 3,MB, Szent János burján 1 Lapos sáté MB (zablevelű sáté MB) Eszpenz 2,3,MB Szarvasfű MB, kecskekapor MB Szúrós csigolya Serkefű MB, féregfű (3),MB Vérburján 1,2,3,MB, pozsárnyica? 3 Kőrózsa 1,MB Gombolyiksáté MB (gombolyag sáté MB, gömbölyű sáté MB) Borsika 2,3,MB (borsfenyő MB) Árvacsihány 2,3,MB, árvacsalán 1, fehér csihány MB Szomorúfenyő MB Kecskekapor MB Vadborsó 2,3,MB (borsófű MB) Havasi gyapár MB(gyapárdi MB, kőgyopár MB, csillagvirág MB ) Gyöngyalja 1,2,3,MB (gyöngyajj, szúrós gyöngyajjMB), szívburján 3 Papvirág 2,3,MB (margareta 2,3,MB) Liliom MB, tüzes liliom MB, mezei liliom MB Csontfa (3),MB Szarvaskeret 2,MB, keret MB, macskaköröm 3 vadlucerna MB Korpafű MB, bundzsák 3 Jézusszivelapi Papsajt 2,3,MB Kócsolóburján MB, kócslóburján MB, kulcsolófű 1?, kulcsolódó burján MB, kulcsburján MB Kamilla 2,3,MB, almabüzü 2,3, MB, édesalmabüzü 2 Lucerna MB Dobronika MB, dobronyika (1),MB, méburján 3 Lómenta 2,3,MB, kámforos lapi MB (hűtős lapi MB, vadmenta MB , vadfodormenta 2,3,MB, csombormenta MB) Kéknefelejcs 3,MB Tamariska 3,MB Szőrcse 3,MB (kecskeszakáll MB, disznószőr MB) Bartacin 3,MB Ótvarburján 2,3, MB Szúrfű 2,3,MB, ezergyógyfű MB Madársósdi MB, erdei sósdi 3,MB Pokolszökésburján 3,MB, négylevelűfű MB, (epefű MB) Torokgyíkvirág 1,(2),3,MB, (jégvirág 2,MB) Keptelán MB (burusztuj? MB) Veres fenyő 3,MB (szurok fenyő MB, barna fenyő MB) Lúcs 3,MB (lucfenyő MB) Utifű MB, útilapi 2,3,MB Szőrös útilapi MB Kakastaréj (3),MB Porcsfű MB (tápszakáll MB) Vérehulló fű MB, hunyor 3, szégyenburján 3 , boldogasszonylapi MB, Márialevele? MB Édesgyüker MB, kőméz MB Nyár, nyárfa (1),3,MB (fekete nyárfa MB) Libapimpó 1,3,MB (libapempó MB), libafű 2 (féregfű? (3),MB)
Ethnogeobotany in Gyimes I: plant names and folk taxonomy
- 17 -
Acta Oecol. Carpat.
.
Potentilla spp. Primula veris Pteridium aquilinum Pulmonaria officinalis Pyrus spp. Ranunculus polyanthemos Rhinanthus minor, Rh. angustifolia Ribes alpinum Ribes petraea Ribes petraeum Ribes uva-crispa Rosa canina agg. Rubus fruticosus agg. Rubus vitis-idea Rumex acetosa Rumex alpinus, R. obtusifolius? Salix caprea Salix cinerea, S. elaeagnos, S. purpurea, S. triandra, S. viminalis Salix daphnoides Salix fragilis Salvia pratensis Sambucus ebulus Sambucus nigra Sambucus racemosa Scrophularia nodosa, Actea spicata, Lilium martagon (?) Senecio doria, (Telekia speciosa) Senecio vulgaris Sonchus arvensis, S. oleraceus, (Cirsium arvense?) Sorbus aucuparia Spiraea chamaedryfolia Stellaria media Streptopus amplexifolius Symphytum officinalis Taraxacum officinale Taxus baccata Telekia speciosa Tanacetum vulgare (?) Thymus spp. (Origanum vulgare, Teucrium chamaedrys). Tilia cordata Tragopogon dubium, T. orientale Trifolium alpestre, T. dubium, T. medium, T. ochroleuca, T. pannonicum, T. montanum, T. pratense, T. repens Trifolium medium, T. pratense, T. alpestre Trifolium pannonicum, T. montanum, T. repens Trifolium pratense Trollius europaeus Tussilago farfara Typha spp. (!) Urtica dioica Urtica urens Vaccinium myrtillus Vaccinium uliginosum Vaccinium vitis-idaea Veratrum album Veronica beccabunga
- 18 -
Recés zsanika MB Kukukvirág 3,MB Ördögborda 2,3,MB Tüdőburján MB Körte MB Sárgaburján 2,3 Csengőkóró 3,MB Leánykafüge MB Vadribizli MB Borfüge MB Szőrös füge MB (vadfüge MB) Hecselli 2,3,MB (seggvakaró 3,MB), csipkebogyó 2 Szeder 3,MB Mána 3, MB, Málna 2,3,MB Sóska MB, Lósósdi 2,(3),MB Lósósdi 2,(3),MB Rakottya 3,MB Csigolya (fekete, ződ, fehér, vörös, piros) 3,MB Pimpó (3),MB (vörös csigolya MB) Ficfa MB, fűzfa MB Bárányláb (1),(2),(3),MB, báránfű MB Büdös bojza 3,MB, gyalokbojza 1 Fekete bojza 2,MB, bojza 3 Piros bojza 3,MB Reszfugburján 1,2,3,MB (sárga reszfug MB, fekete resztug MB), resztug MB Johóburján MB, johóburusztuj MB , juhsalátaMB Rontóburján 1,3,MB Disznyókáposzta (3),MB Kórus 1,3,MB Gyüngyemény MB Tyukorfű 3,MB, csukorfű MB Nyúleper (3),MB Fekete nadály 2,3,MB Lánclapi 3,MB, cikória 2,3,MB (láncfű MB) Tisza MB Finánctubák 3, Büdös burján 3,MB Büdös burján 3,MB Vadcsombor 1,2,3,MB (északi kakukkfű MB) Szádokfa MB Bakceka 2,3,MB, bakszukakóró 3 Vadhere MB (piros here MB, fehér here MB) Piros boglár MB Fehér boglár 3,MB Veres here MB Pünkösdi rózsa (2),MB (bimbaskóró MB, bimbackóró MB , bimbaszkóró MB) Podbállapi 2,3,MB, martilapi 2, MB Nád MB Csihán 1,3,MB, nagy csihán 2 Csipcsihány MB, szaporacsihány MB, csipcsalán MB, árvacsihány MB Fekete kokojza 2,3,MB Takonykokojza MB , fehérkokojza MB Ménisora MB, piros kokojza 2, MB Ászpa 2,3,MB, zászpa 2 Vízipuji 1,2,3,MB
Zs. Molnár and D. Babai
Acta Oecologica Carpatica Viola canina, V. declinata, V. hirta, V. joói, V. mirabilis, V. sylvestris Viola tricolor Viscaria vulgaris
Ibolya 3,MB Vadárvácska (3),MB Szurkos viola MB
Ethnogeobotany in Gyimes I: plant names and folk taxonomy
- 19 -