Veget Hist Archaeobot (2006) 16: 61–70 DOI 10.1007/s00334-006-0036-z

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

¨ Sillasoo Ulle

Medieval plant depictions as a source for archaeobotanical research

Received: 18 October 2004 / Accepted: 19 December 2005 / Published online: 8 February 2006 C Springer-Verlag 2006


Abstract This paper summarises the research methodology and most important results of a study which was carried out on flowering plant depictions (representations) in late medieval religious paintings from southern central Europe. This approach derives from the studies of material culture by historians of everyday life. Plant depictions may be used as a source for archaeobotanical research and studies into vegetation history after fully recognising their particularities. Firstly, the pictures show “the reality effect” and not reality itself, and an abundance of apparently realistically depicted objects; secondly, the research must be fully contextual, considering both the contemporary cultural background and participants involved. Thirdly, as pictures are great mosaics of different experience and knowledge, their language is symbolic and their relationship with geographical space uncertain. This, however, does not mean that reading and interpreting pictures is impossible. The major results of this study include the list of plant species not discovered from archaeobotanical research; the knowledge that the frequencies of occurrence of plant depictions might correspond to their occurrence in real cultural spaces that also may be indicated in pictures; and it highlights the importance of using several types of sources when pursuing research into the history, uses and perceptions of plants in the medieval period. Keywords Plant depictions . Religious art . Later Middle Ages . Southern central Europe . Archaeobotanical approach

Communicated by Stefanie Jacomet ¨ Sillasoo (
) U. Institute of Ecology at Tallinn University, Uus-Sadama 5, Tallinn, 10120 Estonia e-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +372-66-22-187 Fax: +372-66-22-283

Introduction Late medieval art may be considered a source of data for archaeology and ethnology because it contains images of apparently realistically depicted material objects (Schmidt 1969). This method of investigation can also be applied to plant depictions since plants may be considered as material objects in the context of art. However, even if there is an invasion of realism and naturalism in many late medieval images, they do not show the reality itself but represent the effect of reality (Moxey 1996). These images are not copies of the objects, but only hints of real historical examples and their cultural contexts. They represent topoi, where real and unreal things, people and events frequently occur side by side and intermingle. They are related to some sort of dramatics, and one may draw parallels with decorations in performances, which form a context that is at the service of the subject matter, for example legends and persons (Panofsky 1971; K¨uhnel 1980; Vavra 1980, 1986; Ringbom 1984; Baxandall 1986; Freedberg 1989; SindingLarsen 1992; Cassidy 1993; Mart´ınez-Burgos Garc´ıa 1996; Jaritz 1996). However, the distinction between realism and symbolism can never be definitive. The roots of “symbolism” lie in “realism” and vice versa. The selection of symbols is certainly related to cultural spaces and experiences beside fantasies created in artists’ minds. This “innovative” approach was never used in regard to plants in late medieval religious paintings, although the potential of the source has been acknowledged (see Willerding 1984; Pacini 1994). Earlier, late medieval plant depictions have been investigated in detail by art historians from the point of view of symbolism (see Wolfhardt 1954; Behling 1967). I attempted to focus on the realism of their representation, and the use of such images of plants as a source for archaeobotanical research. Three questions lay at the heart of the analysis: (1) what are the patterns of intention for the depicted plants; (2) which plants are found in the images and are they the same ones found in archaeobotanical assemblages from this period; and (3) what are the possibilities and limitations of using religious art as a comparative data source in archaeobotanical research.

62

Materials and methods The study is based on a digitalised database of about 20,000 mainly late medieval images, located at the Institut f¨ur Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der fr¨uhen Neuzeit of the Austrian Academy of Sciences situated in Krems an der Donau, Nieder¨osterreich, Austria (see at http://www.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/realonline). Only panel paintings were used for the analysis; a sample of 250 paintings was selected from about 5,000 individual pictures. These were images which were displayed in public spaces, and the medium and the quality of which permit the identification of depicted plants better than, for instance, in wall paintings or sculptures. The images date to the 15th and the beginning of the 16th centuries. With regard to artistic provenance, they originate from a number of regions in southern central Europe, including today’s Austria, South Tyrol (Italy), Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia, The Czech Republic, and southern Germany.

Identification of plants Almost all identifications were made from digital images in the database and in the Krems institute. This was not an easy task, and a number of identifications remained uncertain. A few plant depictions were identified from original works of art, which was found to be the best way for doing such work. The plants were identified by the author with the help of E. H¨ubl and M. Kohler-Schneider from the Institute of Botany at the University of Agriculture in Vienna, T. Kukk from the Institute of Botany and Zoology at the Estonian University of Agriculture, and E. Liventaal from the Botanical Garden in Tallinn, using Hatton (1960), J´arovka and Csapody (1979), Hegi (1984), L¨uber (1990), Laubner and Wagner (1996), Polunin (1997), della Beffa (1999), Burnie et al. (1999), Rothmaler (2000) and Haupler and Muer (2001). Kr¨ussmann (1974) was most helpful for identification of roses. Concerning plant images from the Albrechtsaltar, much reliance was placed on the identifications made by E. Sch¨onbeck from the Institute of Botany at Vienna University (R¨ohrig 1981). Latin plant names correspond basically to the nomenclature provided by Oberdorfer (2001), but occasionally also Zangheri (1976) and Adler et al. (1994) were used; English names of plants follow Wrobel and Creber (1996). Plant depictions in paintings – a contextual analysis Beside the identification of plant depictions, the research concentrated on the contexts in which they occur. Two major groups of contexts with plants were distinguished. The first group comprised plants that were shown growing in natural landscapes, including meadows, fenced meadows, roadsides, execution sites, embankments, cliffs, woods, courtyards and gardens. The frequency of occurrence of plants in these contexts was observed as well as the cor-

respondence to their modern habitats. The second group included plants that had been picked or transplanted, including plants in vases and pots in domestic space; plants in baskets, in wreaths, in the hands of persons and scattered. The depictions were sometimes accompanied by texts on speech ribbons. The frequency of occurrence was also observed in this group of plant representations by context, persons, and sometimes scenes. This group of plants was supposed to give an example of a number of more symbolic and other potential uses of plants in human space than the most substantial ones. Results and discussion Identification of plants The investigation depended on two phenomena in late medieval religious art: the realism and the frequent occurrence of plant depictions. With the help of these phenomena, art may be used to discover new plant species, to investigate the varieties of late medieval cultivated plants and their dating as well as to investigate the patterns of their representation – realism versus symbolism. All plant images in the selected pictures were realistically painted. However, as these have to be seen as a reality effect (Moxey 1996) and not the reality itself, many details necessary for a proper botanical identification were missing. Plants are frequently shown schematically. In such circumstances, the identification of plant depictions cannot be based on scientific criteria which are based on having an actual physical plant in front of the investigator, which can then be examined from all sides with a magnifying glass in different phases of growth. The identification of plant images has to be carried out on a more cognitive basis, using the experience in botanical identification. The general growth habit of the portrayed plants was frequently a more important criterion than the number of petals in flowers, for example. This kind of approach certainly leaves many open ends and permits plant identification often only to a rather general level. Geographical distribution Plants are, as are many other biological entities, related to geographical space. However, the question remains whether the provenances of the analysed plant images really represent their regional contexts or whether we can only recognise intrusive ideas. Painters were often travellers, and travelling was one of the important activities of nobles and merchants. It has been considered, for example, that the depictions of southern European plants in the Ghent altarpiece by Jan van Eyck (ca. 1390–1441) were the result of his visits to Portugal in 1428; or that Albrecht D¨urer (1471–1528) who made a painting of German iris (Iris germanica), a plant which was established in western gardens after about 1887, was probably inspired by the sketchbook of Jacopo Bellini (1400–1470) during his first stay in Venice (for the depiction see

63

http://gallery.euroweb.hu/htm/d/durer/2/16/2/03iris.html; Blunt 1951). Yet there is another explanation for the introduction of foreign plants into images. Although these plants did not grow either in the local natural environment nor were they generally cultivated in the Netherlands or in central Europe, many noblemen and educated people at that time were engaged in importing plants. They collected rarities and tried to grow them in their private gardens (see Gothein 1914; Hennebo 1962; Hobhouse 1999). Depiction of certain plants may also have followed general traditions of representation. Although a collection of plant representations may be found in late medieval art from southern central Europe, in real life these plants did not necessarily grow there then. Thus, plants identified in the selection of paintings are only the tentative representatives of the broad-scale flora in the southern central Europe. Patterns of intention for the illustrated plants This question could not be resolved without a look at historical sources which on the one hand are texts where plants are mentioned as symbols, and on the other texts that describe various plants involving practices. The depictions are to be seen in the contexts that are closest by the subject, date and provenance. One cannot omit religious texts such as the Bible (see http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/ARTFL/public/bibles/) and the Golden Legend, translated into many late medieval European languages (Voragine 1993), Marian literature (see Salzer 1893) and also the popular Book of Nature by Konrad von Megenberg (Pfeiffer 1861), all of which make the link between the Word and Nature, the major issue regarding plants in religious paintings. Religious and secular festivities, practices and superstition are also important areas to search for evidence of the uses of plants and the underlying thoughts; in late medieval popular religion these practices were much intermingled. Again, these plant depictions derive from the public religious art of the Catholic Church before the Reformation, between ca. 1420–1520. There is more than one pattern of intention for these plant depictions. Based on studied written sources one may conclude that, in religious art, images of nature were used for explaining and exemplifying religious messages. Certain features of plants such as their habitat, appearance, smell or their being evergreen, for instance, were associated and compared with human features and virtues that may be received through religion (see Pfeiffer 1861; Moldenke and Moldenke 1986; Voragine 1993). The connotations of the use of plants in ceremonies and festivals may also have been ascribed to the plants in art and literature. These uses include examples of ceremonial plant-related practices: the use of wreaths or garlands, scattering or strewing, and the use of maypoles or palm fronds or flowers in their place (see Vogt 1893; Moser 1961; B¨achtold-St¨aubli and HoffmannKrayer 1987; Blickle 1988; Vavra 1988; R¨osener 1991; L¨other 1999). Sometimes these floral elements are shown in the context of natural landscapes either as flowers or

palms, if not as particular plant species. The selection of such plant messengers or symbols in art is socially, culturally and naturally determined and depends on their level of abstraction. Plants shown in both natural and artificial landscapes were probably selected because of their frequency of occurrence in nature as well as their use in religious rituals and symbolism. These plant representations in paintings may provide some evidence of contemporary existing vegetation, but they certainly reflect knowledge of it. The kinds of knowledge depended on the cultural experience of a painting’s participants, the artists, patrons and beholders. The knowledge of plants was different among different groups of people, and it also depended on the social, cultural and natural environments in which they functioned. The official view of plants came from people within the church (clerks), since it was they who carried out plant studies, in connection with medicine. There also was a non-official interest in plants (see Reeds 1991), which sources are more difficult to find and differentiate. One may presume that while the knowledge of plants among the common people was directed more towards the use of local natural sources, the experience and knowledge of the upper strata of society also extended to distant natural resources crossing both natural and economic borders by collecting both rarities and knowledge of them. Plants and their contexts In 250 religious paintings ca. 650 plant depictions were identified. In the modern scientific sense, these plants in pictures are in most cases considered species in sensu latu, because the features and details that today’s botany uses in plant identification are not all available in the pictures. 471 of these plants were shown growing in a natural environment, and 182 removed from the natural environment. The frequencies of their contexts are shown in Figs. 1 and 2 and the most frequent species in Fig. 3. A very important question is the degree to which the most commonly occurring plants are represented in the images in natural environments or taken out of it. Possible differences might show distinct perceptions and uses of plants not only in the way in which they were visually represented, but also in lives of late medieval people. As seen in Fig. 3, cultivated garden plants in the images more often represent contexts beyond the natural environment, while wild plants usually represent natural contexts. This pattern of representation might correspond to how common these plants actually were in particular late medieval landscapes. Two wild species, however, Convallaria majalis (lily of the valley) and Chrysanthemum leucanthemum agg. (ox-eye daisy), are partly exceptions to this model. Subsequently, although in the images they still occur mainly in the context of natural environments, they obviously also alluded to the regional cultural landscapes. The reasons why C. majalis is frequently used in the scenes from the lives of several (male) saints and in the scenes of the Annunciation in particular, are twofold. It was certainly more common than Lilium candidum (white

64

Fig. 1 The frequency of occurrences of plant depictions in various landscapes

tain), frequently occurring in human environments today, is shown in many scenes showing the context of roads. It seems to have been no less a frequently grown and known ruderal plant of late medieval cultural landscapes in central Europe. Rosa spp. (roses), L. candidum (white lily) and Dianthus caryophyllus (carnation) were the most common cultivated plants shown in these religious images. Rosa spp. and D. caryophyllus, shown in many images of the Virgin and female saints were most probably also the most frequently cultivated flowers in late medieval central Europe, particularly in the gardens of the upper and upper middle classes. Concerning the use of L. candidum in the images, there might be a strong influence of artistic tradition. Viola odorata (sweet violet), an old garden plant that also grows naturally in central Europe, dominant in images of the Virgin and female saints, was certainly much appreciated for its sweet fragrance and may have alluded to sainthood (see also Sillasoo 2003). Comparison with archaeobotanical evidence

Fig. 2 The frequency of plant depictions removed from the natural environment

lily) in late medieval landscapes in the region, and perhaps therefore partly substituted for white lily in popular religious symbolism. The use of Fragaria vesca (wild strawberry) images, commonly shown in devotional paintings of the Virgin, female saints and in the scenes of the Adoration of the Magi, may be compared to the use of C. majalis images. According to written texts and archaeobotanical material, F. vesca must have been a plant which was well known and much appreciated by medieval people. It could offer a number of ways of conveying spiritual messages in religious art: white and red respectively were the symbols of purity and passion, flower and fruit the symbols of the Virgin and Christ and the tripartite leaves could symbolise the Trinity. Primula veris (cowslip) and Taraxacum officinale group (common dandelion) are two flowers appearing in spring landscapes and therefore related to Easter symbolism; they are present in the scenes of the Agony in the Garden and the Crucifixion and Passion of Christ. C. leucanthemum agg. may have been traditionally used in midsummer customs because of its flowering time and was therefore well known; it appears in scenes of male saints, including one out of the life of St. John the Baptist. Plantago major (greater plan-

Comparison with archaeobotanical evidence, which derived from K¨uster (1988), Maier (1988), Opravil (1988), Schultze-Motel (1992, 1993, 1994), R¨osch and Fischer (1993, 1997, 1998a,b, 1999), Kroll (1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001), Oeggl (1998) and R¨osch (1999a,b) showed the real potential of pictorial sources. In this comparison, only plant taxa identified to species or conferred species (cf.) were involved. Concerning the dates of the sources, pictorial evidence covered the 15th and the beginning of 16th century while the time scale for archaeobotanical evidence was a little broader, also including the 14th century. This was not a close region to region comparison, but a broad-scale one resulting in general information about the late medieval vegetation in southern central Europe. The majority of archaeobotanical data originated from places in southern Germany while relatively little data was available from locations in Austria and Slovakia. Although defining smaller divisions of vegetation within this area was considered unnecessary for this research, it should perhaps be ultimately examined in more specific and restricted keystudies. This comparison was searching confirmation for pictorial evidence from archaeobotanical data and not vice versa (see Fig. 4). Archaeological evidence was present for 10 illustrated cultivated plants (or taxa that are not known to belong to the natural vegetation of the region, excluding fruit), but absent for culinary plants such as Asparagus officinalis (culinary asparagus), Cichorium endivia var. crispus (endive), Rumex patientia (patience dock), and Tragopogon porrifolius (purple goat’s beard, salsify); ornamental plants, such as D. caryophyllus with its varieties, Dicentra spectabilis (milkwort), Fritillaria imperialis var. lutea (crown imperial fritillary), Iris germanica and I. florentina (German and Florentine irises), Lilium candidum, Matthiola incana (common stock) with its varieties, Muscari cf. botryoides (grape-hyacinth), Nerium oleander

65 Fig. 3 The most frequently depicted plants and their representation in and out of nature

(common oleander), Viola alba (Parma violet) and V. odorata; Olea europaea (olive) and Phoenix dactylifera (date palm) represent cultivated plants from distant regions; the subspecies and varieties of Brassica oleracea (cabbages), Daucus carota (carrots), Rosa spp., Althaea rosea (hollyhock) and Aquilegia vulgaris (columbine) (see Table 1). Archaeobotanical evidence was present for most of the portrayed weed and ruderal plant species (in today’s sense). Chamomilla recutita (wild chamomile) and Geum urbanum (herb bennet) were shown in paintings but absent from late medieval archaeological material (see also Table 1). G.

urbanum was found to be present in archaeological material from the high Middle Ages (R¨osch 1999a). Both plants are recorded as medicinal plants in late medieval literature; the flowers of C. recutita and the roots of G. urbanum were used. These plants may be absent from archaeobotanical material because of this special and perhaps intensive use in the later Middle Ages. Of the depicted wild plant species, 34 were found to be present in archaeological material, but 50 were not discovered there (see Table 1). On the one hand archaeobotanical evidence represents the environments from centres of production and consumption, and it seldom extends far beyond the limits of settlements. Paintings, however, may show environments that are neither connected to the centres of production nor consumption, but rather the roads and meadows beyond and around them. Plants that grew there were collected for various purposes, but they also formed part of the original vegetation. This evidence may be considered as the contribution of late medieval southern central European religious art to contemporary botanical evidence. Religious art in archaeobotanical research

Fig. 4 Plant depictions in the context of archaeobotanical evidence (plant species were counted, but their varieties are not included)

Botanical evidence from art certainly differs from evidence from archaeological excavations. Archaeobotanical sources represent physical evidence found in settlements, while pictorial sources give only indications of this evidence. However, data from either source represents parts and products of the human environment that played an important role in daily and festive life. Late medieval pictorial sources are very important from the point of view of broadening the scope of investigation into late

66 Table 1 Contribution of late medieval art from southern central Europe to contemporary archaeobotanical evidence. Species that are also found in archaeological excavations are not listed. The visual archive is accessible online at http://www.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/realonline)a Plant name Cultivated plants Althaea rosea L. var. alba Althaea rosea L. var. rubra Althea rosea L. var. nigra Aquilegia vulgaris L. var. alba Aquilegia vulgaris L. var. rubra Asparagus officinalis L Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata alba Cichorium endivia L. var. crispum Mill Daucus carota ssp. sativus (Hoff.) Hayek Dianthus caryophyllus L. var. albus Dianthus caryophyllus L. var. roseus Dianthus caryophyllus L. var. ruber Dianthus caryophyllus plenus albus Dianthus caryophyllus plenus roseus Dianthus caryophyllus plenus ruber Dianthus caryophyllus plenus ruber/roseus Dicentra spectabilis (L.) Lem Fritillaria imperialis L. var. lutea Iris florentina L Iris germanica L Lilium candidum L

Matthiola incana (L.) R. Br. var. rosa Matthiola incana (L.) R. Br. var. alba Muscari cf. botryoides (L.) Miller Nerium oleander L Olea europaea L Phoenix dactylifera L Rosa centifolia L Rosa gallica L Rosa gallica L. var. officinalis Thory Rosa gallica L./ × alba L Rosa gallica L./ × damascena Mill Rosa moschata J. Herrm Rosa rubiginosa L./ × damascena L Rosa rubiginosa L./ × damascena L. var. versicolor Rosa × alba L Rosa × alba L./centifolia L Rosa × alba L./ × damascena Mill Rosa × alba L./ × damascena Mill. var. versicolor Rosa × damascena Mill Rosa × damascena Mill./gallica L Rumex patientia L Tragopogon porrifolius L Viola alba Bess Viola cf. odorata L Viola odorata L Weeds and ruderal plants Geum urbanum L Matricaria recutita L

Number of painting in the visual archive 2307 2307 306 2307 2307 302 1∗ 11707 2307 454, 2307, 11960 131, 204, 454, 737, 1149, 11960 2307 266, 527 157, 266, 268, 271, 308, 527, 1682, 9315 528, 648, 739 1109, 1110 11887, 12008 2023 266 11, 266 14, 21, 591, 864, 912, 943, 1157, 1205, 1295, 1539, 1652, 1661,1729, 1768, 1844, 1990, 2355, 2644, 2786, 3010, 3842, 4652, 11145, 11165, 11612, 11634, 11809, 11920, 12010, 11887, 12411, 12678 2307 2307 302 12411 3∗ 11675 266, 268, 2814 192, 308, 958, 1158, 2237, 1889, 11511, 11810 648 527, 1085, 1158, 4312, 11704, 11835 11511 18 2336 958, 1158, 2237, 2792, 11511, 12203 648, 2302, 11704 14, 1157, 4312, 11810, 11835 2302 266, 2009, 2155 268, 12002 3∗ , 17, 22 12962 3∗ , 11, 13, 18, 1840, 2763 2595 3∗ , 11, 17, 18, 527, 1840, 2075, 2307 403 683, 1005

67 Table 1

Continued

Plant name Plants from wild habitats Aconitum napellus L Althaea cf. officinalis L Asarum europaeum L Asplenium ruta-muraria L Asplenium trichomanes L Astragalus glycyphyllus L Caltha palustris L Campanula glomerata L Campanula persicifolia L. var. alba Cirsium canum (L.) All Clematis alpina (L.) Miller Convallaria majalis L

Coronilla varia L Corydalis cava (L.) Schweigg Cruciata laevipes Opiz Cyclamen purpurascens Mill Dianthus cf. superbus L Fragaria moschata Duchesne Galanthus nivalis L Geranium cf. pratense L Geranium phaeum L Geum rivale L./Potentilla sp Hieracium pilosella L Linum perenne agg Lysimachia nummularia L Lysimachia punctata L Nepeta cataria L Nigritella rubra (Wettst.) K. Richt Phyteuma orbiculare L Phyteuma spicatum L Pinguicula alpina L Pinguicula vulgaris L Plantago cf. coronopus L Polemonium caeruleum L Polypodium vulgare L Pseudorchis albida (L.) A. et D. L¨ove Pulmonaria officinalis L Pyrola uniflora L Quercus petraea agg Ranunclulus aconitifolius agg Rhinanthus minor L Salix caprea L Salvia nemorosa L Tetragonolobus maritimus (L.) Roth Trillium sp Verbascum densiflorum Bertol Verbascum nigrum L Verbascum thapsus L Veronica longifolia L

Number of painting in the visual archive 608 11707 0∗ , 13, 17, 12006 11680 18 0∗ , 17 1521 608 1104 17 737, 926, 2013 3∗ , 11, 13, 20, 22, 71, 131, 156, 192, 194, 195, 225, 266, 268, 271, 279, 282, 321, 431, 433, 434, 435, 528, 689, 690, 693, 716, 737, 751, 863, 865, 998, 1040, 1067, 1184, 1271, 1310, 1485, 1522, 1661, 1698, 1836, 1840, 1914, 2024, 2072, 2384, 2385, 2569, 2595, 2598, 2763, 2765, 2766, 2785, 2913, 4652, 11623, 11622, 12007, 12076, 12358, 12704, 13001, 13008 790 13 11 13 12071 434 2431 1088, 1540, 2013 434 2013 18 13008 11, 22 11 3∗ 11683 433, 790 0∗ 1445 11680 11701 12614 2342 13008 11, 13, 608, 2763 13330 2013 716, 2763 2013 22, 316 753 414 11680 12704 414 2∗ , 440 289

Paintings with numbers∗ originate from R¨ohrig (1981): 0∗ Death in a Pot, 1∗ Visit to a Monastery, 2∗ Elias Divides the Jordan, and 3∗ The Virgin in the Choir of Patriarchs. a

68

medieval plants. They open up new perspectives along with the identification of undiscovered plant species and allow researchers to work with information that comes from fields other than botany. Our knowledge depends on our sources and their preservation. Botanical evidence that was found in late medieval art from southern central Europe very well proves this. These are not only plants and their varieties that occur in human space and do not produce recognisable generative remains such as seeds, or were cut or eaten up before they could do so, as with vegetables. There are also plants from wild habitats. Some of them were used for healing and as wild food. Others are well-known religious symbols, connected with some sort of superstition, or they drew observers’ attention to their extraordinary appearance, smell and colour, for example. Some were noticed as a usual part of frequented wild environments. Weeds and ruderal plants are sometimes depicted, but it seems that they can be much better studied in archaeological material from settlement sites and granaries. One might also find species that may be extinct in the present European flora, which is difficult to discover, but much more difficult to prove that they were not a product of the painters’ imagination. The depiction of Trillium sp. (Fig. 5) was found in this research, for example – a discovery that needs a further theoretical ecological study. Depicted landscapes can be regarded as mosaics composed of different items of knowledge. They include pieces of natural, social and cultural realities that represent the intimate relationship between the patrons, the painters and beholders of the paintings, being in the service of the religious subject and the purpose of the painting. Concerning plants in the context of the natural environment, one may speak about “disguised symbolism” (Panofsky 1971) or rather “disguised realism”. In one way they are symbols, in another way these symbols originate from their natural environments. This is also true of plants removed from landscapes and shown in domestic spaces. There also are more direct symbols in paintings: their meanings are explained by banderols (labels on the paintings) (see R¨ohrig 1981). Their selection, again, depends on nat-

Fig. 5 Fragment from the Agony in the Garden by an unknown master, provenance Slovakia, before 1500, recently located in Bardejov, Slovakia (nr 11680 in the visual archive)

ural, social and cultural factors. The frequencies of occurrence of plants in paintings are related to these factors, but interpreted first of all as their occurrence in traditional cultural landscapes. The patterns in the symbolism of plants that are not related to widespread cultural traditions may be numerous, differ greatly between small geographical regions and are, perhaps, very difficult to detect. Conclusions Pictorial evidence represents one of the three major sources for discovering the cultural history of plants in the late Middle Ages. Botanists may consider pictorial sources to be of low value because they do not contain the full complex of identification features. Plant images frequently appear impressionistic and sometimes suggest more than one species. This research showed that interpreting late medieval religious images from a botanical point of view is difficult, but not impossible. The type and context of the sources themselves determine what sort of information may be gleaned from them. Latrines as archaeological deposits reveal information about eating habits. Works of religious art offer insights into aesthetic and religious contexts. These spheres of contexts and sources may coincide occasionally, but they certainly have their own special area and group of plant species, characteristic of each type of context or source. The variety and diversity of sources provides researchers with a variety of plant species, and these help to explain the ways in which these plants were perceived and used. In the field of natural science, the final word should always be given to actual archaeobotanical evidence that has been or will be physically discovered from material excavated in the region. However, this does not suggest that one should ignore historical records that describe the late medieval uses to which these plants were put and pictorial sources, where they are available. It should also not be forgotten that the results of any research, this included, might represent the ideologies of its masters, patrons, beholders and the time and space when and where it was carried out. Acknowledgements I would like to thank G. Jaritz, Institut f¨ur Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der fr¨uhen Neuzeit, Austrian Academy of Sciences in Krems an der Donau, for teaching and guidance in medieval studies; M. Kohler-Schneider and E. H¨ubl, Institute of Botany, University of Agriculture Vienna, for consultations on central European vegetation; A. Choyke, Central European University Budapest for linguistic assistance and interdisciplinary discussions. I also appreciate the help of E. Liventaal, Botanical Garden Tallinn, for identification of roses and T. Kukk, Institute of Botany and Zoology, Estonian University of Agriculture Tartu, for identifications of some difficult depictions. I thank T. Lempi¨ainen, University of Turku, for introductory notes on the history of science; M. R¨osch, Landesdenkmalamt Baden-W¨urttemberg, K. Oeggl, University of Innsbruck, M. K¨uhn, University of Basel, C. Vermeeren, BIAX Consult NL, and C.-A. Haeggstr¨om, Helsinki University, for their papers and consultation. This research was completed at the Central European University, Department of Medieval Studies in Budapest and was fully funded by the Soros-Foundation.

69

References Adler W, Oswald K, Fischer R (1994) Exkursionsflora von ¨ Osterreich. Ulmer, Stuttgart B¨achtold-St¨aubli H, Hoffmann-Krayer E (eds) (1987) Handw¨orterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens. vol. 1–10. de Gruyter, Berlin Baxandall M (1986) Truth and other cultures. In: Patterns of intention: on the historical explanation of pictures, chapter 4. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 103–137 della Beffa MT (1999) Alpenblumen: Ein umfassender Ratgeber zum Finden, Bestimmen und Erkennen (translated by Manuela Eder). Neuer Kaiser, Klagenfurt Behling L (1967) Die Pflanze in der mittelalterlichen Tafelmalerei. B¨ohlau, K¨oln Blickle P (1988) ‘Zu merklichem Nachtheil gemeines Nutzens:’ Die Bauernhochzeit im Mittelalter. In: Schultz U (ed) Das Fest: eine Kulturgeschichte von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Beck, M¨unchen, pp 92–104 Blunt WJW (1951) The art of botanical illustration. Collins, London Burnie G, Forrester S, Grieg D, Guest S, Harmony M, Hobley S, Jackson G, Lavarack P, Ledgett M, McDonald R, Macoboy S, Molyneux B, Moodie D, Moore J, North T, Newman D, Pienaar K, Purdy G, Silk J, Ryan S, Schien G (1999) Botanica: The illustrated A-Z of over 10,000 garden plants. 3rd edn. K¨onemann, K¨oln Cassidy B (1993) Introduction: iconography, texts, and audiences. In: Cassidy B (ed) Iconography at the crossroads: papers from the colloquium sponsored by the index of Christian art, 23–24 March 1990. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 3–9 Freedberg D (1989) The power of images: studies in the history and theory of response. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Gothein ML (1914) Geschichte der Gartenkunst. Diederich, Jena Hatton RG (ed) (1960) Handbook of plant and floral ornament from early herbals. Dover, New York Haupler H, Muer T (2001) Bildatlas der Farn-und Bl¨utenpflanzen Deutschlands. Ulmer, Stuttgart Hegi G (1984) Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa. 3rd edn. vol. 1–7, Parey, Berlin Hennebo D (1962) G¨arten des Mittelalters. Broschek, Hamburg Hobhouse P (1999) Illustrierte Geschichte der Gartenpflanzen vom ¨ alten Agypten bis heute, (translated by Gurlitt-Sartori M, Bergfeldt C.) Scherz, BernJaritz G (1996) “Et est ymago ficta non veritas”: Sachkultur und Bilder des Sp¨aten Mittelalters. In: Jaritz G (ed) Pictura Quasi Fictura, Die Rolle des Bildes in der Erforschung von Alltag und Sachkultur des Mittelalters und der fr¨uhen Neuzeit, Internationales Round-Table-Gespr¨ach in Krems an der Donau, 3. Oktober 1994. Forschung des Instituts f¨ur Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der Fr¨uhen Neuzeit, ¨ Diskussionen und Materialen, vol. 1 Verlag der Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, pp 9–14 J´arovka S, Csapody V (1979) Ikonographie der Flora des s¨ud¨ostlichen Mitteleuropa. Fischer, Stuttgart Kroll H (1995) Literature on archaeological remains of cultivated plants (1992/1993). Veg Hist Archaeobot 4:51–66 Kroll H (1997) Literature on archaeological remains of cultivated plants (1995/1996). Veg Hist Archaeobot 6:25–67 Kroll H (1998) Literature on archaeological remains of cultivated plants (1996/1997). Veg Hist Archaeobot 7:23–56 Kroll H (1999) Literature on archaeological remains of cultivated plants (1997/1998). Veg Hist Archaeobot 8:129–163 Kroll H (2000) Literature on archaeological remains of cultivated plants (1998/1999). Veg Hist Archaeobot 9:31–68 Kroll H (2001) Literature on archaeological remains of cultivated plants (1999/2000). Veg Hist Archaeobot 10:33–60 Kr¨ussmann G (1974) Rosen, Rosen, Rosen: Unser Wissen u¨ ber die Rose. Parey, Berlin K¨uhnel H (1980) Abbild und Sinnbild in der Malerei des Sp¨atmittelalters. In: Europ¨aische Sachkultur des Mittelalters. Ver¨offentlichungen des Instituts f¨ur Mittelalerliche Re¨ ¨ alienkunde Osterreichs, vol. 4. Verlag der Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, pp 83–100

K¨uster H (1988) Sp¨atmittelalterliche Pflanzenreste aus einem Brunnen von Deggendorf (Niederbayern). In: Schmotz K (ed) Vortr¨age des 6. Niederbayerischen Arch¨aologentages, Deggendorf, pp 175–199 Laubner K, Wagner G (1996) Flora Helvetica: Flora der Schweiz. Haupt, Bern L¨other A (1999) Prozessionen in Sp¨atmittelalterlichen St¨adten. B¨ohlau, K¨oln L¨uber M (1990) Wildbl¨uhende Blumen. Schwabe, Basel Maier U (1988) Pflanzenhaltige Bodenproben aus der mittelalterlichen Bischofsburg in Bruchsal. In: K¨uster H (ed) Der pr¨ahistorische Mensch und seine Umwelt: Festschrift f¨ur Udelgard K¨orber-Grohne zum 65. Geburtstag. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor-und Fr¨uhgeschichte in Baden-W¨urttemberg, vol 31, pp 403–417 Mart´ınez-Burgos Garc´ıa P (1996) Verhaltens- und Reaktionmodelle und der Inhalt von Bildern. In: Jaritz G (ed) Pictura Quasi Fictura, Die Rolle des Bildes in der Erforschung von Alltag und Sachkultur des Mittelalters und der fr¨uhen Neuzeit, Internationales Round-Table-Gespr¨ach in Krems an der Donau, 3. Oktober 1994. Forschung des Instituts f¨ur Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der Fr¨uhen Neuzeit, Diskussionen und Materialen, ¨ vol 1. Verlag der Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, pp 23–47 Moldenke HN, Moldenke AL (1986) Plants of the Bible. Dover, New York Moser H (1961) Maibaum und Maibrauch. Bayerisches Jahrbuch f¨ur Volkskunde 1961:115–159 Moxey K (1996) Reading the “Reality Effect”. In: Jaritz G (ed) Pictura Quasi Fictura, Die Rolle des Bildes in der Erforschung von Alltag und Sachkultur des Mittelalters und der fr¨uhen Neuzeit, Internationales Round-Table-Gespr¨ach in Krems an der Donau, 3. Oktober 1994. Forschung des Instituts f¨ur Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der Fr¨uhen Neuzeit, Diskussionen und Mate¨ rialien, vol. 1. Verlag der Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien, pp 15–21 Oberdorfer E (2001) Pflanzensoziologische Excursionsflora. 8th edn. Ulmer, Stuttgart Oeggl K (1998) Rekonstruierte Flora des 13/14. Jahrhunderts um Schloss Tirol. In: Spindler K (ed) Das Geheimnis der Turris Parva: Spuren hochmittelalterlicher Vergangenheit in Schloß Tirol. Landesmuseum Schloss Tirol, Innsbruck, pp 107–127 Opravil E (1988) Mittelalterliche Pflanzenreste aus st¨adtischen und d¨orflichen Brunnen und Gruben. In: K¨uster H (ed) Der pr¨ahistorische Mensch und seine Umwelt: Festschrift f¨ur Udelgard K¨orber-Grohne zum 65. Geburtstag. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor-und Fr¨uhgeschichte in Baden-W¨urttemberg 31, Theiss, Stuttgart, pp 389–397 Pacini E (1994) Purposes and manners of representation of plants in the European art of the 13th–17th Century. In: Moe D, Dickson JH, Jørgensen PM (eds) Garden history: garden plants, species, forms and varieties from Pompeii to 1800. vol 42 PACT, pp 171–179 Panofsky E (1971) Early Netherlandish painting, its origin and character. vol 1. Icon, New York Pfeiffer F (ed) (1861) Das Buch der Natur von Konrad von Megenberg: Die erste Naturgeschichte in deutscher Sprache. Aue, Stuttgart Polunin O (1997) Flowers of Europe: a field guide. Oxford University Press, Oxford Reeds KM (1991) Botany in Medieval and Renaissance universities. Garland, New York Ringbom S (1984) The devotional image. In: Icon to narrative: the rise of the dramatic close-up in fifteenth century devotional painting, 2nd edn., chapter 1, Davaco, Beukenlaan, pp 11–71 R¨ohrig F (ed) (1981) Der Albrechtsaltar und sein Meister. Tusch, Wien R¨osch M (1999a) Ern¨ahrung und Umwelt im mittelalterlichen Villingen: botanische Untersuchungen an arch¨aologischen Bodenbefunden. In: Jenisch B (ed) Die Entstehung der Stadt Villingen. Forschungen und Berichte der Arch¨aologie des Mittelalters in Baden-W¨urttemberg 22, Theiss, Stuttgart, pp 365–573

70 R¨osch M (1999b) Ein Pollenprofil aus dem ehemaligen Fischweiher des Herzogs von W¨urttemberg bei Navern, Stadt Kirchheim/Teck, zur Kenntnis der Kulturlandschaftsgeschichte des Sp¨aten Mittelalters und der Fr¨uhen Neuzeit im Vorland der Schw¨abischen Alb. Fundberichte aus Baden-W¨urttemberg vol 23, pp 741–778 R¨osch M, Fischer E (1993) Pflanzenreste aus einer sp¨atmittelalterlichen Latrine und einem Keller der fr¨uhen Neuzeit im Bereich des ehemaligen Augustinerklosters in Heidelberg. In: Carroll-Spillecke M (ed) Die Untersuchungen im Hof der neuen Universit¨at in Heidelberg. Materialhefte zur Arch¨aologie in Baden-W¨urttemberg 20, Theiss, Stuttgart, pp 101–174 R¨osch M, Fischer E (1997) Pflanzenreste aus Latrinen, Fehlb¨oden, Gefachen und Wellerh¨olzern. In: Bedal A, Marski U (eds) Baujahr 1337: Das Haus Pfarrgasse 9 in Schw¨abisch Hall: Funde und Befunde. Stadtarchiv, Schw¨abisch Hall, pp 103– 149 R¨osch M, Fischer E (1998a) Pflanzenreste als historische Quellen sp¨atmittelalterlicher Alltagskultur – neue Untersuchungen in S¨udwestdeutschland. In: Bedal K, Fechter S, Heidrich H (eds) Haus und Kultur im Sp¨atmittelalter, Berichte der Tagung “L¨andliche Volkskultur im Sp¨atmittelalter in neuer Sicht” des Fr¨ankischen Freilandsmuseums vom 24. bis 26. April 1996. Bad Windsheim, pp 59–74 R¨osch M, Fischer E (1998b) Die Pflanzenreste aus dem Haus Hochbr¨ucktorstr. 27. In: Landesdenkmalamt B-W/Stadtarchiv Rottweil (ed) “. . .von anfang biss zu unsern zeiten. . .” Das mittelalterliche Rottweil im Spiegel arch¨aologischer Quellen. Stuttgart, Landesdenkmalamt Baden-W¨urttemberg, pp 113–119 R¨osch M, Fischer E (1999) Pflanzenreste aus einer Lehmwand: Dokumente von Landwirtschaft und Ern¨ahrung im 14. Jahrhundert. In: Heimatmuseum Reutlingen (ed) Unter Putz und Pflasterstein: Bauforschung und Mittelalterarch¨aologie in Reutlingen zum Beispiel Pf¨afflingshofstrasse 4. Heimatmuseum Reutlingen, pp 126–184 R¨osener W (1991) L¨andlich-b¨auerliche Feste im Hoch – und Sp¨atmittelalter. In: Altenburg D, et al. (eds) Feste und Feiern im Mittelalter. Paderborner Symposion des Medi¨avistenverbandes. Thorbecke, Sigmaringen, pp 153–163 Rothmaler W (2000) Exkursionsflora von Deutschland. 10th edn. vol 3, Gef¨aβpflanzen: Atlasband. Spektrum, Berlin Salzer A (1893) Die Sinnbilder und Beiworte Mariens in der deutschen Literatur und lateinischen Hymnenpoesie des Mittelalters: mit Ber¨ucksichtigung der patristischen Literatur. K. u. k. Hofbuchdruckerei Jos. Feichtingers Erben, Linz Schmidt L (1969) Der Wirklichkeitsgehalt der gotischen Tafelbilder in volkskundlicher Sicht. In: Alltag und Fest im Mittelalter: Gotische Kunstwerke als Bilddokumente, Austellung in Orangerie des Unteren Belvederes von 14. November 1969 bis 15. Novem¨ ber 1970. Osterreichische Galerie, Wien, pp 15–35

Schultze-Motel J (1992) Literature on archaeological remains of cultivated plants (1989/1990). Veg Hist Archaeobot 1:53–62 Schultze-Motel J (1993) Literature on archaeological remains of cultivated plants (1990/1991). Veg Hist Archaeobot 2:47–59 Schultze-Motel J (1994) Literature on archaeological remains of cultivated plants (1991/1992). Veg Hist Archaeobot 3:33–61 ¨ (2003) Plant depictions in late medieval religious art. Sillasoo U In: Laszlovszky J, Szabo P (eds) People and nature in historical perspective. Central European University & Archaeolingua, Budapest, pp 377–393 Sinding-Larsen S (1992) Medieval images as a medium of ritualized communication. In: Hundsbichler H (ed) Kommunikation und Alltag im Sp¨atmittelalter und Fr¨uher Neuzeit, Internationaler Kongress von 9. bis 12. Oktober 1990 in Krems and der Donau. Ver¨offentlichungen des Instituts f¨ur Mittelalerliche ¨ ¨ Realienkunde Osterreichs, vol 4. Verlag der Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, pp 323–338 Vavra E (1980) Kunstwerke als Quellenmaterial der Sachkulturforschung. In: Europ¨aische Sachkultur des Mittelalters. Ver¨offentlichungen des Instituts f¨ur Mittelalerliche Re¨ ¨ alienkunde Osterreichs, vol 4. Verlag der Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, pp 195–232 Vavra E (1986) Reflexionen des Fortschritts im religi¨osen Bild des Mittelalters. In: Alltag und Fortschritt im Mittelalter, Internationales Round-Table-Gespr¨ach, 1. Oktober 1984, Krems an der Donau. Ver¨offentlichungen des Instituts f¨ur Mittelalterliche ¨ ¨ Realienkunde Osterreichs, vol 8. Verlag der Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, pp 167–191 Vavra E (1988) ‘De deum laudamus’ – Kirchliche Feiern zur Zeit des Konstanzer Konzils (1414–1418). In: Schultz U (ed) Das Fest. Eine Kulturgeschichte von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Beck, M¨unchen, pp 127–139 Vogt F (1893) Beitr¨age zur deutschen Volkskunde aus a¨ lteren Quellen. Zeitschrift des Vereins f¨ur Volkskunde 1893:349– 372 Voragine J (1993) The golden legend: reading on the saints, vol 1–2 (transl. Ryan WG). Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Willerding U (1984) Pal¨ao-ethnobotanische Befunde und schriftliche sowie ikonographische Zeugnisse in Zentraleuropa. In: van Zeist W, Casparie WA (eds) Plants and ancient man, proceedings of the 6th symposium of palaeoethnobotany in Groningen, 1983. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 75–98 Wolfhardt E (1954) Beitr¨age zur Pflanzensymbolik. Zeitschrift f¨ur Kunstwissenschaften 7:177–196 Wrobel M, Creber G (eds) (1996) Elsevier’s dictionary of plant names. Elsevier, Amsterdam Zangheri P (1976) Flora Italica. Cedam, Padova