4.2 Article

Healing Animals, Feeding Souls: Ethnobotanical Values at Sacred Sites in Central Italy

期刊

ECONOMIC BOTANY
卷 68, 期 4, 页码 438-451

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12231-014-9290-7

关键词

Sacred natural sites; ethnobotany; traditional ecological knowledge (TEK); old-growth forest; transhumance; Central Italy

资金

  1. Research Foundation of the University of Zurich

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Healing Animals, Feeding Souls: Ethnobotanical Values at Sacred Sites in Central Italy. Ethnobotanical knowledge is a fundamental repository of the values and applications of different plants. This knowledge is often related to spiritual beliefs and religious sites, where plants have been nurtured and conserved for their use in rituals and traditional practices. While this link is well known for different areas of the global south, it has hardly been investigated in relatively more secular and modernized Western contexts. Here, we use first-hand vegetation surveys and published records to examine the occurrence of ethnobotanical values at 30 Catholic shrines in Central Italy, and compare them with an equal number of non-sacred control sites. We ask this: to what extent is there an association of useful plants with sacred places in Italy, as found in other cultural contexts? We show that a greater number of useful plants are found at sacred sites. While this is mainly a consequence of the higher species richness of sacred sites, an association with plants used in animal husbandry is particularly evident, and likely related to the deep historical connection between sacred places and pastoralist traditions in Central Italy. Also, we show that there are significant variations in the distribution of old trees; the largest specimens are found at the center of sacred sites, while tree size visibly decreases away from the shrines. This indicates also that individual trees have been actively managed and conserved at sacred sites, probably driven by the symbolic values that old trees frequently embody.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据