There is scarce information
about European folk knowledge of wild invertebrate fauna. We have
documented such folk knowledge in three regions, in Romania, Slovakia
and Croatia. We provide a list of folk taxa, and discuss folk biological
classification and nomenclature, salient features, uses, related
proverbs and sayings, and conservation.
Methods
We collected data among
Hungarian-speaking people practising small-scale, traditional
agriculture. We studied “all” invertebrate species (species groups)
potentially occurring in the vicinity of the settlements. We used
photos, held semi-structured interviews, and conducted picture sorting.
Results
We documented 208 invertebrate
folk taxa. Many species were known which have, to our knowledge, no
economic significance. 36 % of the species were known to at least half
of the informants. Knowledge reliability was high, although informants
were sometimes prone to exaggeration. 93 % of folk taxa had their own
individual names, and 90 % of the taxa were embedded in the folk
taxonomy.
Twenty four species were of
direct use to humans (4 medicinal, 5 consumed, 11 as bait, 2 as
playthings). Completely new was the discovery that the honey stomachs of
black-coloured carpenter bees (Xylocopa violacea, X. valga)
were consumed. 30 taxa were associated with a proverb or used for
weather forecasting, or predicting harvests. Conscious ideas about
conserving invertebrates only occurred with a few taxa, but informants
would generally refrain from harming firebugs (Pyrrhocoris apterus), field crickets (Gryllus campestris)
and most butterflies. We did not find any mythical creatures among
invertebrate folk taxa. Almost every invertebrate species was regarded
as basically harmful. Where possible, they were destroyed or at least
regarded as worth eradicating. However, we could find no evidence to
suggest any invertebrate species had suffered population loss as a
result of conscious destruction. Sometimes knowledge pertaining to the
taxa could have more general relevance, and be regarded as folk wisdom
concerning the functioning of nature as a whole.
Conclusions
The high number of known
invertebrate folk taxa suggests that it would be worth conducting
further investigations in other areas of Europe.
Traditional
knowledge systems about the landscape and the biota have been
fundamental for human development since the times of pre-modern and
pre-industrial societies in Europe. Humans living in close contact with
the landscape as herdsmen and peasants have long possessed unified,
systematic knowledge, including folk taxonomies, about phenomena that
were of importance to them. The use and management of natural resources
was based on centuries-old, often millennia-old ecological experience,
on multi-generational knowledge passed down from generation to
generation [1, 2].
Ethnozoology
is the scientific study of the dynamic relationships among people, and
animals. Traditional ethnozoological knowledge has great cultural and
economical importance. It is widely studied in the tropics and North
America (e.g. [3, 4, 5]), but also in Europe (e.g. [6, 7]). Wild animal-based natural resources are often among the key resources local communities depend on [8, 9]. A major goal of these communities is to use and manage these resources sustainably (e.g. taboos: [10]; social rules: [11, 12]).
Long-term sustainability in the use and management of natural resources
requires healthy ecosystems, while at the same time, sustainable
management often contributes to maintaining the health of ecosystems [13, 14].
The
knowledge passed by local traditional communities, however, not only
serves sustainable use and maintenance of the local community and its
environment but may also provide valuable data, information and
knowledge to science and conservation. Among the potential benefits of
traditional ecological knowledge, it can help science to recognize new
species (e.g. [15]), provide data on population sizes and dynamics of species that are difficult to observe [16, 17], support the monitoring of ecosystem health, incl. pasture conditions [18, 19], and develop efficient conservation managament strategies and practices [20, 21, 22, 23].
There
is no reason to imagine that European peasant and herder communities
differ fundamentally from native societies in other parts of the world
with regard to their ecological knowledge [24].
However, there is scarce information about European folk knowledge of
wild invertebrate fauna, including their use in healing and nutrition.
Researchers in ethnobiology seldom pay attention to invertebrates in the
European context [25].
By contrast, several comprehensive studies have been conducted in other
parts of the world. As early as 1887, Stearns published an
ethnoconchological work on the use of shells as money among aboriginals
of North America [26].
This was actually the first time the prefix “ethno-” was combined with a
research field, thus preceding Harshberger’s term “ethnobotany”, coined
in 1895 [27].
Another pioneering study was Henderson’s and Harrrington’s ethnozoology
of the Tewa people in New Mexico. This study gives a full list of
animals, including invertebrates, by order and gives their Tewa names as
well as their scientific names [28]. In a comprehensive study Bodenheimer [29]
reviewed the ethnographical literature of the use of insects as food
worldwide. Nowadays there are several important studies available
dealing with ethnobiological aspects of invertebrates. We can, for
instance, mention Bentley and Rodríguez [30] on the entire invertebrate fauna of Honduras, and Krause et al. [31] on the insect fauna knowledge of the Roviana people (Solomon Islands). Gurung [32] detailed the knowledge of arthropods among Tharu farmers in Nepal, while Hemp [33]
described what the peoples living near Mount Kilimanjaro (Tanzania)
knew about invertebrates. A particularly impressive ethnozoological
study is Morris [34],
dealing with the impact of insects and their classification in Malawi
folk culture. In addition, the literature on aquatic and coastal-marine
invertebrates is particularly rich (e.g. [35, 36, 37]).
The
general experience is that many invertebrate species have specific and
relevant benefits or detriments, although the number of locally known
folk taxa is higher than this [31].
Some culturally salient invertebrate species may even be important
keystone species in the lives of certain communities. The majority of
these are coastal-marine invertebrates (e.g. shellfish in British
Columbia - [37]; crabs (Ucides cordatus) in Brazil - [38, 39]).
There are fewer culturally salient species among terrestrial
invertebrates, and relatively few species have known folk uses (cf. [32, 40]). Keystone species include, among spiders for example, the bird-eating spiders for Afro-Brazilians in Bahia [41], while among lepidopterans there is the Brahmaeid moth on Taiwan [42].
European
folk knowledge about invertebrates has, since the nineteenth century,
been researched mostly by folklorists and linguists. In 1879–80 the
Swedish author Strindberg used a questionnaire to gather valuable data
regarding folk names and rhymes connected with the ladybird. His
research, using mapping as a method, is a pioneering work in folklore
about animals [43].
An encyclopedia was published about Romanian insect folklore, including
local names, legends, fables and myths, the role of insects in
witchcraft, and beliefs about insects as pests or as omens [44]. Herman published the local names of insects and invertebrate pest species known by Hungarian herders [45].
We can also mention an interesting article on folk knowledge about
botflies (Oestridae) found as parasites on domesticated reindeer,
published by the ethnographer and linguist Wiklund [46].
This kind of ethnographic folklore-linguistic research tradition
continues today in Europe. Wiggen, for instance, inspired by current
ethnobiologists, has recently published an exciting study on the
traditional names of lower animals in Norway [47]. In European cultures, it is generally quite uncommon to use or consume invertebrates [48, 49]. The only invertebrates with any significant ethnobiological literature are for the taxa of snails [50], slugs [51], leeches [52], ladybirds [6], crustaceans [53], oil beetles [54] and head lice [55],
but none of these are cultural keystone species. Here we should also
mention a small but intriguing study on Sami children’s knowledge and
use of small invertebrates for amusement and to play with [56]. In 2006, Svanberg [57]
published a small book with ethnozoological studies on the human
relationship with bumblebees, earthworms, froghoppers, isopods, liver
flukes, moonjellies and starfish in Scandinavia and Estonia. There is of
course extensive biological literature on pests, but very little
detailed documentation of folk knowledge has yet been carried out in
Europe [58, 59].
We are, however, of the opinion that further data may exist in local
languages, in works on ethnography, local history and perhaps even
linguistics, but these have not yet entered the international
ethnobiological literature (e.g. [60]).
There
is also very little Hungarian literature on folk knowledge of
invertebrates. Linguistic (dialectic), ethnographic and ethnobiological
literature is available concerning 161 invertebrate species in the
Sóvidék region in Transylvania [61], 67 taxa along the Danube [62], the beetle taxa Melolontha melolontha, Lucanus cervus and Lytta vesicatoria [63], and the snail species Helix spp. [64].
Sporadic data may also appear in ethnographic and linguistic literature
written in the Hungarian language, for example in monographs on farming
and forest ethnography, e.g. in Hegyi [65] on Lytta vesicatoria and Melolantha melolantha. To date, nothing has been published in English about the folk knowledge of invertebrates of the Carpathian Basin.
Our
article has the objective of presenting the Hungarian folk knowledge of
invertebrate species uncovered in three areas of the Carpathian Basin
(in Romania, Slovakia, and Croatia), including:
1)
a list of folk taxa of invertebrates,
2)
their folk biological classifications and nomenclatures,
3)
their salient features, and
4)
their uses, related proverbs and sayings, and their conservation.
This
is the first article in Europe to deal comprehensively with an entire
invertebrate fauna. The folk knowledge, nomenclature and uses of 208
taxa are presented in detail. The high number of known folk taxa
suggests that it would be worth conducting further investigations in
other areas of Europe.
Methods
Study areas
We
collected data among ethnic Hungarians practising small-scale,
traditional agriculture. Our research was conducted in Romania (Sălaj
county [Szilágyság], Nușfalău [Szilágynagyfalu] commune), Slovakia
(Gemer [Gömör] region, primarily in the municipalities of Vyšné Valice
[Felsővály] and Gemerské Michalovce [Gömörmihályfalva]), and Croatia
(Baranja region [Drávaszög], mainly around the villages of Lug [Laskó],
Vardarac [Várdaróc] and Kopačevo [Kopács] (Fig. 1)).
As the people we studied spend a lot of time in the fields and forests
during their everyday activities, they still have a close, direct
connection to their natural environment. The settlements where the data
were collected, each with between 100 and 2500 inhabitants, are
characterised by a large amount of abandoned agricultural land, and by
ageing populations.
Fig. 1
The study areas in Central Europe
The
three study areas are characterised by a moderate continental climate,
with a mean annual precipitation of 600–700 mm. The mean annual
temperature in the two northern areas is 8–8.5 °C (July mean 19 °C,
January mean −4 °C), while in Baranja, further south, it is slightly
higher, around 10 °C (July mean 21 °C, January mean −4 °C) [66].
The elevation is 75–90 m.a.s.l. in Baranja, 200–350 m.a.s.l. in Sălaj,
and 190–500 m.a.s.l. in Gemer. Gemer and Sălaj typically have closed
broadleaved forests (oak), while in Baranja there is a mixture of
riparian vegetation, marshland and mixed hardwood gallery forests (oak,
ash and elm).
Data collection and analysis
Data
was collected in Sălaj in summer 2010, and in Baranja and Gemer in
summer 2012. In each area, the objective was to identify and interview
local people with the most extensive knowledge. We employed a number of
techniques: in Sălaj we first consulted the local Calvinist priest, and
then followed the snowball method; in Gemer we also followed the
snowball method, but this time starting with the best informants from
earlier ethnobotanical researches; in Baranja we collaborated with the
local nature conservation warden, István Tórizs, to meet the people who,
in the warden’s view, had the greatest traditional folk knowledge. In
total we interviewed 58 people. The overall average age of the
interviewees was 75 years (within a range from 36 to 90 years), and the
regional average ages were 78 in Sălaj, 74 in Baranja, and 71 in Gemer.
All the informants retained memories of traditional forest use and
smallholder farming, and some were still practitioners. 55 of the
interviewees were Calvinist.
We
conducted indoor interviews recorded on a dictaphone (approximately
88 h of recording), since the presentation of living specimens and
direct observation of animals in the wild would have been greatly
inconvenient for most of the informants. Prior informed consent was
obtained before all the interviews, and ethical guidelines suggested by
the International Society of Ethnobiology were followed. We studied
“all” invertebrate species or species groups potentially occurring in
the vicinity of the settlements under investigation. We placed an
average of 12 photos of species of similar habitat and size on a sheet
of A4 paper, to give interviewees a sense of the context and relative
size of each taxon. In many instances during our preliminary study, the
differing scale of the pictures had greatly inhibited recognition. Where
ambiguous descriptions occurred, further enquiries of the
characteristics of the species in question were made in order to
facilitate identification of the animal at the finest possible taxonomic
level. Detailed lists of invertebrate taxa documented by zoologists
were available for the regions studied or for ecologically similar
neighbouring regions (e.g. [67, 68, 69, 70]).
We also included a few species that do not occur in the areas under
investigation, in order to check the authenticity of local folk
knowledge.
In
total we collected 3465 individual data records on 208 folk generics
and specifics. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with the
majority of informants and carried out picture sorting, during which
they were asked to group species according to their own systems. We used
these results to reconstruct the folk taxonomy. Figures depicting
taxonomic relations were prepared following the method used by Berlin [71].
Circles drawn in solid lines on these figures indicate scientific taxa
(one species, one genus, one order, one family), whereas those drawn in
small and large dashes represent, respectively, folk taxa and more
inclusive folk categories. When circles of scientific taxa overlap, this
indicates that certain scientific taxa were viewed as alike (e.g. “it
is a house mouse, but of a different kind”). Inclusive categories were
established on the basis of data collected by pile sorting,
co-references and direct questions. However, it was not our intention to
arrange individual taxa according to Berlin’s system of taxonomic
levels, since the communities we examined are too heterogeneous for
this. For each of the taxa, where possible, we documented the local name
(or names), their salient features, their uses, any damage they cause,
any personal attitudes expressed towards the taxa (positive, negative or
neutral), and related folklore issues. The habitats of the species (see
Appendix) were determined based on the interviews, on our own experiences and on the scientific literature.
We
have listed our data in tables, and summarised the results broken down
according to informant and taxon. We have not carried out a quantitative
comparison of the knowledge among the three communities, for the data
sets have, in many cases, low sample sizes. The differences between the
three areas which are important from a qualitative aspect are presented
in the chapter on results and discussion. Literal quotations are in
italics, and comments by individual interviewees are separated by a
slash.
