Wild Plant Usage Across Cultures: Is Four Hundred Species The Benchmark?
We’re heading down a dead-end road off U.S. Route 160 in northeastern Arizona. The landscape is semi-arid, dotted with sagebrush, junipers, and piñon pines.
Nine miles along the road we arrive at the visitor centre for Navajo National Monument.
From the rear of the small centre, a trail starts beside a Navajo hogan and a small sweathouse. The path leads gently downhill towards a deep canyon cut into the Shonto plateau rock.
Situated here is the remarkable Betatakin, “House Built on a Ledge” in Navajo. In Hopi, the place is called Talastima, or “Place of the Corn Tassel”. This is an Ancestral Puebloan cliff dwelling, built within a massive south-facing rock alcove.
I was struck by a paragraph on one of the information boards, under the heading Wilderness Skills.
“The Puebloans grew cotton, using dry-land and irrigated farming techniques; the climate then was much like today. They domesticated turkeys and dogs. They used everything the land provided; pinyon pine, prickly pear cactus, ricegrass, and sunflowers. Archaeologists discovered the remains of 400 different plants in Talastima/Betatakin – the people knew this land well.”
The figure of four hundred plants resonated with me. I’d seen or heard similar figures elsewhere.
Australian Aboriginals – Diversity of Available Plant Foods
In their 1998 paper Australian Aboriginal plant foods: a consideration of their nutritional composition and health implications, Brand-Miller and Holt write:
“The Australian bush contains thousands of edible wild plants, ranging from sweet and tangy fruits and starchy seeds to leaves, tubers, fungi and seaweeds. Early accounts of these plant foods can be found in the journals of European explorers, botanists. However, knowledge of their role in Aboriginal diets, especially in temperate Australia, is very incomplete.”
Later in the paper, they add the following, highlighting the consumption of hundreds of species of plant:
“Writers often comment on the wide range of vegetable foods available to hunter-gatherers which contrasts with the relatively narrow variety of crops produced by agriculture. Australian Aboriginals across Australia ate some 300 different fruit species and 150 varieties of roots and tubers. However, we do not know to what extent Australian Aboriginals exploited all the species available or limited themselves to an optimal foraging strategy based on relatively few species.”
In other parts of the world archaeology has helped piece together a picture of some wild food diets of the past.
Pre-Historic Britain – Diversity of Plants in Hunter Gatherer Diets
The figure of four hundred plants mentioned in Arizona reminded me of comments made by one of my wild food mentors, Professor Gordon Hillman. In a short segment of a TV show in the late 1980s, Gordon discussed the range of plant foods eaten by our hunter gatherer ancestors. The clip is embedded below.
The clip starts with Gordon peeling the root of sea club rush and explaining it is “one of many wild roots, seeds, other plant bits that would have been eaten by hunter-gatherer populations. Most of them would have eaten a good 400 or 500 different species of wild plant, some of them even a couple of thousand.”
So, here’s another reference to at least 400 plants being used.
The presenter expresses surprise at the diversity of plant foods, stating she would had imagined pre-historic hunter gatherer diets to be very monotonous.
Gordon replies “Quite the opposite. What’s happened is that through time, the range of different plant species that we’ve eaten, animal species too, has declined. In contrast, hunter gatherers, [ate an] enormously diverse range of different plants.”
The presenter asks Gordon how he knows that people ate this range of hundreds of wild plants.
Gordon explains there is a lot of evidence: “We’ve got charred remains from archaeological sites …Now, from these charred remains excavated from archaeological sites, we can work out what the foods were that they ate. And not only from the remains of the food plants themselves…But also from human faeces. And in these little fragments, we found literally hundreds of seeds, little bits of tuber, and so on. And from that, we know they ate these things.”
The full piece was centred around Lindlow Man, a bog body found in 1984 that generated a lot of media interest.
Four Hundred Plants is a Sub-Set
Returning to the “400 different plants in Talastima/Betatakin”, let’s look at the wider North American context for a moment.
Daniel E. Moerman’s Native American Food Plants contains more than 11,000 food uses of 1,866 plant species (mostly vascular plants and some non-vascular plants).
In North America there are more than 31,000 kinds of vascular plants. We know more than 1,500 of these were used as food by First Nations.
It should be obvious that not all of these plants occur in all parts of North America. It’s a large land mass with a diversity of ecoregions, each containing distinct assemblages of species. So, it should also be self-evident that no group of people used all the plants, or even had knowledge of them.
Regardless, wherever you look, people had a deep knowledge of the plants where they lived.
Under the section heading Appreciating the Common Knowledge of Our Past, Moerman writes “…in past times this was to a large degree the knowledge of ordinary people… part and parcel of everyday life. People walked in the world and saw plants they knew to be useful for various purposes. Their children learned of these matters as naturally as our children learn the names of baseball teams or athletic shoes or rock bands.”
Today it is still possible to have a deep connection with plants.
Monica Wilde – A Year Living On Wild Foods
Over a period from late 2020 to late 2021, Monica “Mo” Wilde lived exclusively on wild foods for a year. In Scotland.
Mo consumed well over two hundred wild plants and encountered more edible plants still. In addition, she ate scores of fungi species as well as over twenty species of seaweed. The year was documented in her book The Wilderness Cure. The plant, fungi and seaweed species are listed towards the back of the book.
Mo’s experiment highlighted that the benefits of ingesting wild foods go beyond simply providing calories and macronutrients. There were wide-ranging health benefits. This is something she has been investigating further via The Wildbiome™️ Project.
How Many Food Plants Are There?
Sturtevant’s Edible Plants of the World listed around 3,000 edible plants. But we now think there are over 7,000 edible plants. This number was derived as follows…
According to the 2020 World checklist of vascular plants, facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, there are 347,298 accepted species.
The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew has also produced a “World Checklist of Useful Plant Species“. This includes 40,292 species with at least one documented human use.
From this database it is currently estimated that there are at least 7,039 edible plant species, which includes 7,014 vascular plants. This is a little over 2% of all vascular plants.
Plants As Medicine
Some of the four-hundred plants at Betatakin would have been used as medicine.
In Moerman’s Native American Medicinal Plants, he presents a catalogue of approximately 27,000 medicinal uses of 2,700 plant species in North America. There is considerable overlap with the species in Moerman’s Native American Food Plants.
To be sure, plants are often used for both food and medicine. In Kew’s database most of the 7,039 edible species mentioned above have additional uses, the most common being medicines (70%) and materials (59%).
Plants As A Material Resource
It will be no surprise to students of bushcraft or traditional living skills, that plants (including trees) are the potential source of materials for many practical items. These include, tinder, fuel, friction fire-making sets, cordage, nets, baskets, containers, bags, clothing, traps, throwing sticks, spears, bows, arrow shafts, shelter structures, shelter coverings, mats, bedding, and watercraft. Plants also provide dyes, paints, glues, soap, insect repellents, and fish poisons.
In Australian Plants as Aboriginal Tools, Philip A. Clarke focuses on material culture (rather than food and medicine). He characterises a relationship with plants deeper and more integrated than being simply a superstore of useful resources. The plants provide materials but also shape the culture. Further, the plants support, and are an integral part of, the ecosystem on which the people relied.
Four Hundred Plants is Ten Percent
Moerman’s Native American Ethnobotany, which incorporates food and medicinal uses, and extends to include material uses, documents First Nations use of 4,029 kinds of plants with a total of 44,691 uses across 186 categories.
So, four-hundred plants for food, medicine and materials is but ten percent of Moerman’s total.
My view is that still makes for a favourable environment.
The Environment Dictates What’s Available
Not everywhere has four hundred useful, edible and medicinal plants available in the vicinity, or via trade with neighbouring groups.
Some environments have more, some have less. In some places, even if there is a lot of vegetation, more of the total plant mass is inedible (wood and cellulose-packed leaves for example), while in others there is lower species diversity.
In many environments, seasonality is a factor too, with not all resources being available all the time. This may entail a variety of different resources being sought out throughout the year to meet the same need (for example fibres for cordage sourced from tree bark in the spring but sourced from plant stems in the late summer and early fall). It may also mean that one resource, or set of resources, dominates at a particular time of year (e.g. berry season).
In a given environment, the plant species available clearly dictate what is possible in terms of plant usage. Lack of plant diversity doesn’t make life impossible, though.
Frank W. Marlowe in his book The Hadza Hunter-Gatherers of Tanzania reports “The Hadza diet consists of more than 880 species. The vast majority of species are mammals and birds.”
He also highlights that some of these foods have much greater weight in the Hadza diet than others. “In terms of frequency and in terms of kilograms or kilocalories (kcals), the diet is dominated by far fewer species.”
The Hadza, who maintain a hunter gatherer lifeway, eat a narrower range of plant foods than some groups, including 10 tubers, 10-12 species of berry, and baobab fruit. Even so, these foods are still very important. Despite the number of species of birds and mammals in the diet, Marlowe’s study showed meat contributed only 27.1% of the food brought into Hadza camps by weight. Berries were 28.5%, tubers 24.7% and baobab 11.5%. The remaining 8.1% was honey.
Marlowe further points out that not all food is consumed in camp. Berries in particular are often eaten directly off the bush, with him estimating 50% of berries being eaten out of camp. He also estimates 40% of honey, 25% of tubers, 20% of baobab and 15% of meat is eaten out of camp.
Marlowe’s ranking of the food types by kilocalories provided to the Hadza diet are, in descending order, berries, meat, baobab, tubers, then honey.
Even though the Hadza do not eat a vast range of plant foods, those that they do eat are very important, providing the bulk of their diet by both weight and by caloric intake.
Other plants are used for their tools such as fire drills, bows, axe handles, digging sticks and shelters.
Learn Common and Useful Plants
Do you need to learn 400 useful plants? Not necessarily, no. But if you are motivated to do so, you should. It will only enhance your enjoyment and appreciation of the natural world, as well as your practical abilities in the realm of bushcraft, survival and traditional living skills.
Whatever the number of plants you set out to become familiar with, you have to start somewhere. And it’s good to start with a plan.
Assuming you want to learn more about the plant (and tree) resources around you, my recommendation is to first focus on what is common in your area. Learn to identify what you see often. Be curious.
Focusing on plants you see often will provide more opportunities to learn and check your identification. Learning the most common plants in your area will provide you with a good starting framework to add less common species to your knowledge later on (if necessary or desired).
Also, focus on what’s useful in your area. If you’re lucky, this might be simply a subset of the common species. Otherwise, you might have to seek out less common species to satisfy a particular need (the shoot of a particular plant species for a hand drill, for example).
If you are learning to identify wild food plants, you should also learn to identify the poisonous species you are likely to come across in the same area. Some poisonous plants are very distinctive. Some might look like an edible species when both are young. Others might be similar to an edible species at all stages of development. Pay particular attention to the poisonous species that look like edible species. Be cautious. If you are unsure, don’t eat it.
Below I’ve included some useful resources on this site to get you started.
If you wish to take your tree and plant identification skills much further forwards in a structured way, with guidance from me, then please consider my online Tree and Plant Identification Masterclass. This is a 12-module course, delivered over a year. I lead the course online and you do the fieldwork close to your home, or at a venue that is convenient to you.
Additional Useful Resources On This Site
Ten Common European Poisonous Plants You Should KnowForaging For Early Spring Greens: Some To Eat, Some To Avoid…12 Easy-To-Forage European Plants For Spring And Early SummerTen Of The Best European Berries To ForageIn Search Of Winter Greenery: Twelve Candidates For Frosty ForagingFive Survival Plants Every Forager Should Know
You Might Also Like…
Survival Foraging: A Realistic ApproachBoost Your Bushcraft With Urban Botany
Related Paul Kirtley Podcasts
PK Podcast 010: Alyssa Crittenden On The Hadza, Honey And The Human DietPK Podcast 015: John Rensten On Urban ForagingPK Podcast 035: Anna Lewington On Adventures In Ethnobotany And The Bounty Of BirchesPK Podcast 040: Miles Irving On Wild Foods, Foraging, Health And Connecting With NaturePK Podcast 50: Les Hiddins, The Bush Tucker Man
14 thoughts on “Wild Plant Usage Across Cultures: Is Four Hundred Species The Benchmark?”
Thank you, fascinating.
I’m glad you thought so Jerry.
Warm regards, Paul
Great article Paul, thank you. Gordon looks fairly young in that programme. I think it all shows our ancestors in the UK would have moved around quite a bit.
Hi David, yes I think you are right. Having access to that range of plant foods would likely require movement, at least between seasonal camps.
Warm regards,
Paul
Yes indeed Paul (and all) , all super interesting.
There is always mention of the nutritional benefits of plants. There is very rarely a deep dive on the anti nutrients that are a large element of plants. Some are instantly poisonous and other can accumulate over many years. Animals have teeth, claws and can fight or flight. Plant use chemical warfare, some to attract, some deter, some have evolved to be selective. The plant will kill or make sick one animal or insect, yet another will animal or insect will thrive on the same plant. One train of thought is that plants are healthy eating, another is they are not as healthy as we are lead to believe? The classic veggie/ carnivore debate…. Yes indeed… interesting!
Hi Darren,
Thanks for your comments. Yes, I think plant edibility is too often reduced to “edible” or “poisonous”, with no recognition of any grey area in between, perhaps other than “inedible” being applied to species or parts of plants that are too woody to chew, for example.
I’ve covered some of the anti-nutrients in more detail in some of my online courses, in particular discussing members of the Fabaceae that can cause neurolathyrism, as well as thiaminase in the context of my perennial bugbear – bracken greenery being included as an “edible” in survival manuals and websites.
But you are probably correct in that there is not enough wider discussion about these types of compounds. The context of the diet surrounding them is a factor too (they can have a different effect on you if you are starving or if you are eating them as part of a well balanced diet). You have just given me an idea for another article…. :-).
Thanks and warm regards,
Paul
Hi Paul. Great article! Thanks for wrapping this up in a nice bundle.
Mors would often say that he speculated that it would be possible to live completely off plants for the month of July in our province(Aberta) – however, this could only be done in one area of Alberta(and a bit into British Columbia) – because most of the large areas for wild plant foods have been plowed under for agriculture in the province. There simply isn’t enough habitat to sustain the plant communities used for food, within a small enough walking area. Especially if you have a group of people to feed.
Modern foraging to satisfy a village of people, is very difficult now because the pockets of nutritional plant foods are so very far apart or on private land. And the relatively unpopulated Boreal Forest is locked in winter for so many months with a very short growing season.
Mors would go on to say, that if a person really wants to live off the land in our modern world, then you should begin with learning the skill of gardening. Especially if you want to have plants in your diet throughout the year. Otherwise, be prepared to eat meat for most of your diet all year long.
I would love to find research that helps to paint a picture of the edible plant use in the Boreal Forest – from a hunter gatherer perspective. I suspect that edible plants were utilized as food, but not to a great extent. Being nomadic, on foot, with no horses or oxen to carry supplies, would have made it very challenging for Boreal Hunter Gatherers to gather, preserve, store, and carry any quantity of plant foods as they moved from Camp to camp.
Archeologists have speculated that Alberta Boreal Hunter Gatherers would have experienced starvation – which killed some of their family groups – at least once a decade. There simply was no food… Even with all their skills and knowledge, the environment became too harsh and people and animals would suffer.
Anyways, take care Paul. Happy New Year
Hi Dale, it’s good to hear from you. Happy New Year! I hope you and Colleen are both well.
I’m glad you liked the article and thanks for sharing some of Mors’s thoughts.
You are correct, with respect to Canada we do need to make a distinction between land use in today’s world and the way the land was before contact with Europeans and colonisation. It’s an even more extreme situation in the UK, where almost all land is given over to farming in some respect, whether crops, livestock or forestry plantation. All of these significantly diminish biodiversity and leave little room for wild food plants other than around the margins.
Dale, I suspect you might be well aware of some or all of the following resources, but I’ll lay them all out anyway for the benefit of other readers too…
With respect to wild food plant use by First Nations in Canada, the best single volume I am aware of is Kunlein and Turner’s Traditional Plant Foods of Canadian Indigenous Peoples: Nutrition, Botany and Use. If you haven’t studied this book in detail, I would recommend you do. It’s possible to find free PDFs of the earlier print runs of the book online.
In terms of the number of plants, Kuhnlein and Turner state “As of 1990, about 550 different species of plants have been documented in the literature as having been utilized in one way or another in the traditional diets of Indigenous Peoples in Canada and neighboring areas. When the variety of food types yielded by these plants is considered, the diversity is even greater, since many plants provide more than one type of food.”
Of course, by the same logic as in the main article above, not all plants were used in all places. Indeed, not all plants occur in all places.
Clearly there is a big difference between the shores of the Great Lakes and the northern boreal forest.
It is possible to interrogate the Native American Ethnobotany Database online. This is the base information that makes up Daniel Moerman’s Native American Ethnobotany book. I find referring to the book on my shelf easier but if you have the patience, you can also extract it from the database online.
One can approach it by searching on plant species present in an area you are interested in, to find out any Native American usage of that plant by searching on the scientific name of the plant. For example, the result for Typha latifolia would look like this – http://naeb.brit.org/uses/search/?string=typha+latifolia.
But in terms of finding out about local uses, one could also think about a particular group, and search on them via the “tribes” tab. So for example, Woodland Cree, have the following uses listed – http://naeb.brit.org/uses/tribes/58/.
One can then go into each species to find out a little more. For example, for Woodland Cree, the food use of the common bearberry, Arctostaphylos uva-ursi, yields the following entry http://naeb.brit.org/uses/4566/. The nice thing about the online database is it has the original source referenced right there in the entry.
In terms of how important individual plant species were, and what quantities were consumed, it’s hard to know from pure listings of uses. Kuhnlein and Turner make a number of points in this area…
“Generally speaking, fewer plant foods (both in terms of species, and in total quantity) have been used by Indigenous People resident in northern latitudes. The greatest variety of plant foods appears to have been in the ecologically diverse plateau and montane region of south central British Columbia. Here, for example, the Nlaka’pamux (Thompson) Interior Salish used no less than 120 plant species in some way as sources of foods, flavorings or beverages (Turner et al., 1990; Laforet et al., 1990). In eastern Canada, as noted previously, cultivated plants including maize and squash, augmented a variety of gathered plant species, with fruit (berries) being the most widely exploited. Published ethnobotanical works often describe the plants used, but give little quantitative information on the extent of use by population groups.”
“The amount of a plant food used, together with its nutrient contents, are the two essential pieces of information needed to determine the contribution a food makes to the nutrient needs of individuals. In the absence of the first essential piece of information, only generalizations about potential usefulness of a plant food to a population group can be made. However, if a food is known to be a good source of nutrition, and if it is widely available and known to be aesthetically pleasing to the group, assumptions can be made with greater certainty that the food is, or was, widely used.”
A book that is more specifically targeted (and researched on) on the boreal of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan is Aboriginal Plant Use in Canada’s Northwest Boreal Forest by Marles.
In terms of plant use for food in the boreal, it’s a general observation that the importance of plant food diminishes the further we are from the equator. Robert Kelly reiterates this in The Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers: The Foraging Spectrum, where he references some of the work of Lawrence H. Keeley. This is because much of the plant matter is inedible (lichens, mosses, vegetation of spruce trees, etc.). The many cold months of the year, with snow covering on the ground, is also a factor in not being able to find plants to eat (or dig them up).
Hence, you’d expect hunting of terrestrial animals to be more important in the boreal and tundra, making up more of the diet. Research has shown that this isn’t necessarily the case, though. As you go north, fish and marine mammals seem to replace plant food usage. There seem to be a number of related factors for this. If there is not a lot of edible or nutritious vegetation, then it also reduces the number or density of large game. By contrast the adjoining waters are relatively productive.
Kelly summarises thus:
“In cold, heavily forested environments, a combination of low temperatures and high primary biomass means that few plant foods can serve as dietary staples. These same factors reduce the abundance of large game and consequently require foragers to maintain large territories. Where high population density makes this impossible (or where the costs of mobility are high), hunter-gatherers turn to aquatic resources to compensate for the lack of terrestrial foods.”
Kelly also states that in cold environments, food storage also dramatically increases. This seems to be partly because it is necessary but also partly because it is possible (foods spoil more easily and rapidly in warm environments, less so in cold environments).
But yes, there is still the question of famine… It’s not an area I have read much about specifically but I think all of us who have an interest in wilderness living skills for the north have a sense of there being cycles of abundance and scarcity; This derives from our personal experiences of the extreme seasonality of the north but also from reading works such as the writings of Samuel Hearne.
In terms of academic papers, the following is quite short, digestible and interesting. For the purposes of our discussion here (centred on hunter-gatherers in cold forests), however, the paper’s headline is misleading. Definitely read the Discussion in section 4 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0853.
Dale, thanks again for your comments. This sort of discussion is exactly what we should be having in our field. It’s nice to not be answering questions about what type of steel my knife is made out of lol 🙂
Warmest regards,
Paul
Amazing. Thank you for the effort of sharing such in-depth information. I loved it.
My pleasure Kerri. I’m glad you liked the article so much and I appreciate you leaving a comment to let me know.
All the best,
Paul
Thank you Paul another interesting article, most informative. I’ve read Mo Wilde’s book earlier in 2024, also very interesting, as well as the medical follow up’ s on other case studies.
Happy new year
Joe
Hi Joe, good to hear from you, and Happy New Year to you too! I’m glad you enjoyed Mo’s book. I have a podcast recorded with her about the year on wild foods. I hope to put it out fairly soon.
Warm regards,
Paul
Good article Paul. So, you found yourself stateside.
As I was reading, I could not help but think how in my own modern life I am down to maybe 50 to 70 plant species consumed on a regular basis. That is a far cry from the 400. We have lost much today.
Take good care.
Hi Michael, it’s good to hear from you. Thanks for your comments on the article. I’m glad you liked it. At 50-70 plant species on a regular basis, you are doing better than most. With those who are focused on gut health recommending people increase to 30 plants per week, it seems many people eat far less than this.
We had a good trip in Arizona and Utah thanks. Lots’s of amazing landscapes visited, and lots of learning about plants and people.
All the best,
Paul