Ethnobotany: major developments of a discipline abroad, reflected in New Zealand

Abstract

Ethnobotany describes the relationship between people and plants. Research illustrating this relationship, both in New Zealand and abroad, is largely scattered throughout a number of disciplines including anthropology, botany and ecology. This review examines the ethnobotany field overall and evaluates the contributions made in three main areas of ethnobotanical research. First, the issues that have arisen in the field of ethnobotany globally and the changes that have taken place are analysed. Second, details of the relationships between Māori and New Zealand plants and how these issues may affect research undertaken in New Zealand are outlined. Third, future research avenues and opportunities in ethnobotany are defined. To explore theories which underpin the use of plants, the focus needs to shift from historical analyses of plant uses to a better description of what is occurring today. Increasingly, ethnobotanical research will require the application of scientific rigour, interdisciplinary collaboration and working with communities.

Keywords:

• ethnobotany
• New Zealand
• people
• plants
• Māori
• ethnobotanical research

Ethnobotany has emerged as an interdisciplinary approach to describing the relationship between people, their environment and flora. As a discipline, ethnobotany has its roots in economic and colonial botany. Throughout history, explorers and traders have described the uses of plants by indigenous peoples for economic or health reasons. The first section of this article outlines the development at a global scale that can be broken down into four phases: before the 17th century, when oral traditions and early written texts describe plant uses; from the 17th century to the 19th century, when economic botany focused on indigenous uses of plants for profit; early 20th century descriptions of the relationship between people and plants; and late 20th century modern ethnobotanical studies that include hypothesis testing. The second section reviews the similar progression that has occurred here in New Zealand, with a focus on the relationship between Māori and plants, the associated research issues linking directly with what has occurred globally and how this is reflected in New Zealand's ethnobotanical publications. The third section identifies future research directions for ethnobotany here in New Zealand.

Global ethnobotany

Oral traditions and early written texts

For millennia, humans have used plants, in addition to a source of food, as medicine, dyes, textiles, construction materials, weapons and as tools, currency, clothing and in rituals associated with social life. Before writing began, this information, essential for human survival, would have been passed down from generation to generation entirely by oral means. The importance of these plants can be found in non-verbal expressions of culture in the form of paintings, monuments, statues, carvings and evidence of plant remains (Alcorn 1995). One of the earliest texts describing the use of plants is the herbal De Materia Medica by Pedanius Dioscorides written in ad 77. Copies of this five-volume pharmacopoeia describing over 600 Mediterranean plants were in use until ad 1600 and it was translated into four other languages (Collins 2000). Herbals like De Materia Medica were one of the first written texts to give plant names, lists of synonyms, characteristics, habitat, distribution, medicinal uses, preparations and cures (Collins 2000). Although less well known in the West, other ancient manuscripts including those written on Indian Ayurvedic, Arabic and Chinese medicines are rich in plant uses. Religious texts (Moldenke & Moldenke 1952) such as the Bible also describe the use of plants. Overall, describing, recording and communicating uses of plants, irrespective of its form, has been an important endeavour inextricably linked to the survival of people.

Economic botany

The systematic recording of plant use by different cultures can be traced to the early European explorers who ventured into the New World during the 17th and 18th centuries. Economics was the key driver behind these voyagers, with the intent to find new lands and resources, including plant products, useful to the colonial empires. Not only were plant uses described and samples taken, but the reliance of explorers on the indigenous peoples for food and supplies provided opportunities to record their plant uses. Consequently, the travel journals of early European explorers and botanists contained many of these types of observations (Davis 1995). Published descriptions of natural history, including the indigenous uses of plants of newly colonised areas, were similarly completed by the employees of trading companies. Physicians engaged to look after people on voyages and colonial settlers often published works on medicinal botany and natural history (Schiebinger 2005). For example, employees of the Dutch East India Company produced a number of works on both medicinal plants and the natural history of Africa, Asia and the New World (Cook 2007). Jacobus Bontius, one such physician of the Dutch East India Company, looked after the company's medical affairs in Batavia (Jakarta). In 1626, he produced a volume which described the use of local plants to treat diseases, as well as a natural history of the shrubs, trees and herbs growing in Java (Cook 2007). As European colonies became established, the practical use of plants by new immigrants, as well as their commercial potential, became the principal driver of the description of plant use in the early colonial years.

Central to the systematic recording of plant uses, now known as economic botany, was the spread of crops to and from the New World by botanic gardens. Such transfers were provided by Kew Gardens, in London, UK. From the 1780s, Kew Gardens received plants, seeds and information from the New World, catalogued them and sent them on to other parts of the world to be planted as crops (Drayton 2000). This exchange included the important colonial plants of cochineal, coffee, sugar, rubber and nutmeg (Schiebinger 2005). The impetus behind these explorations was the economic objective of contributing to the empire and breaking other countries’ monopolies over trade (Spray 2007). Gardens like Kew, therefore, transformed knowledge into wealth and power and became vital assets to the respective colonial empires (Brockway 1979). As new territories were colonised, gardens planted by missionaries also played a large role as a source of collections and new information about indigenous plant use (Bravo 2007). The creation of official colonial botanical gardens by France was also a means of encouraging economic botany. These include those in Cayenne, Ile de France and Ile Bourbon (Réunion) (McClellan & Regourd 2001). Gardens attached to colonial hospitals provided further opportunities for French state-appointed physicians to research and construct colonial knowledge (McClellan & Regourd 2001). The act of recording local plant names and their medicinal uses became a practical part of survival in inhospitable places. New immigrants recorded both indigenous knowledge and their own adaptation to the local environment.

Ethnobotany

John W Harshberger (1896) was the first to describe ethnobotany as the study of plants used by primitive and aboriginal people. He combined his interest in Native American plant usages and Western science classification, creating a new field that crossed both social and natural sciences. From this foundation mark, anthropology took over and viewed plants as representations of cultural traits (Ford 1994). Interdisciplinary co-operations became the norm, with botanists describing species from a Western science point of view, and anthropologists transcribing the native nomenclature without understanding the indigenous classification behind it. However, the aim of much of what was written was still to discover useful plant products. Conklin's (1954) study of the botanical nomenclature and classification of the Hanunóo in the Philippines is generally considered as the first ethnobotanical text. As an American anthropologist, Conklin used ethnology, ecology and linguistics to describe the basic indigenous plant name types and taxonomic structures. His work on folk taxonomies was followed later by Bulmer (1974) in Papua New Guinea and Berlin et al. (1973) in Mexico. The modern definition describes folk taxonomies as universally consisting of well-defined clusters of organisms, grouped into categories or taxa, based largely on morphological and behavioural affinities and differences (Berlin et al. 1973). Research into theories such as the development of folk taxonomies became a focus for ethnobotanists in the late 20th century.

Modern ethnobotany

Many modern definitions of ethnobotany exist, including those by Ford (1978), Berlin (1992) and Cotton (1996). All describe the relationship between indigenous or traditional people and plants. However, Balick & Cox (1996) go further to state that ethnobotany is ‘the study of the interactions of plants and people, including the influence of plants on human culture’, thereby, broadening the definition to include the influence plants have on shaping a culture as well as incorporating modern or Western societies, as suggested earlier by Ford (1994). There has been not only a recent shift in focus from indigenous societies, but also a change in the methods used to describe these relationships. Having been the domain of anthropology for much of the 20th century, there has been a recent expansion of ethnobotany into different disciplines with a deliberately interdisciplinary approach (Sithole et al. 2002). Modern ethnobotanical research uses a number of different methods adapted from varied fields, including history, evolutionary biology, agronomy, forestry, linguistics, ecology, ethnology, botany, pharmacology, geography, archaeology and paleobotany (Alexiades 2003). Such is the contribution from different disciplines that subdisciplines have formed within the wider discipline of ethnobiology that also incorporates ethnobotany. The current aim in the field of ethnobiology is to describe the relationship between people, the environment and associated biota (Salick 2003). The subdisciplines involved include ethnoecology, ethnozoology, ethnopharmacology, ethnomycology and ethnomedicine. International organisations such as the Society of Economic Botany, Society of Ethnobiology and the International Society of Ethnobiology have provided more focus to their associated disciplines and encouraged an expansion in research with the creation of scholarly journals; these include the Journal of Ethnobiology, Ethnobiology Letters and Economic Botany.

Alcorn (1995) suggested that there are two aims of a modern ethnobotanical study. The first is to describe facts about plant use and plant management; the second is to define, describe and investigate ethnobotanical roles and processes. Indeed, in recent years there has been a significant shift from compilations of data to greater methodological and theoretical objectivity (Choudhary et al. 2008). Alongside this realignment, there has been a conscious move from implied to stated hypotheses which test inferred inter-relationships by gathering both qualitative and quantitative ethnobotanical data (Phillips 1996). These data can then be evaluated by statistical methods, pattern analysis or by mathematical modelling (Salick 2003). An example of a discipline that provides quantitative methods able to be applied to ethnobotany is ecology (Peters 1996). Early applications identified the non-market benefits of the Amazonian rainforest (Peters et al. 1989), while later applications of this methodology provided inventories, monitoring and finally methods of biodiversity management (McClatchey et al. 2004). A number of ethnobotanical methods manuals have also been produced, including those of Given & Harris (1994), Martin (1995) and Cotton (1996).

Not only is ethnobotany now demonstrating increased scientific rigour, but it continues to develop theories based on this type of research. Berlin's (1992) analysis of folk taxonomies introduced the idea that cultures perceive and name flora and fauna based on a number of defined principles. Moerman (1991) not only described Native American ethnobotany, but also analysed the numbers of medicinal plants within botanical families and showed that certain plant families are more commonly used for medicines than others. More recently, the cultural importance of plant species has been described quantitatively. One of the ways in which this is achieved is through relative cultural importance (RCI) indices which calculate a per plant value (Hoffman & Gallaher 2007). The extent to which ethnobotanical knowledge is held and lost is also a feature of modern ethnobotanical studies (Zent 2001). Comprehensive ethnobotanical texts include those in Asia (EF Anderson 1993; Austin 2004) the Americas (Boom 1987; Moerman 1998), the Pacific (Whistler 2000; Balick 2009) Europe (Pardo de Santayana et al. 2010) and Africa (Maundu et al. 2001).

Current issues emerging from ethnobotanical research

Intellectual property rights

In the 1990s, ethnobotanical contributions were made to science in the fields of ecology, sustainable agricultural management practices and in the economic potential of undiscovered plant compounds (Prance 1995). At the heart of this contribution is the inherent value of indigenous people's knowledge. Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is defined as:

a cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission. [It concerns] the relationship of living beings (including human) with one another and the environment. (Berkes 1999)

There are also a number of qualities associated with TEK. It is considered fluid and evolving, similar to biological diversity, and has close links to indigenous rights. The importance of TEK has now been recognised in ecology (Berkes 1999), bioprospecting (Lozoya 1996) and language conservation (Nettle & Romaine 2000). As a result of these positive developments, both scientists and indigenous peoples became interested in conserving TEK.

An unintended consequence of ethnobotany being a conduit between TEK and science is the perception of a linkage to biopiracy (McClatchey 2005) and other misappropriations of TEK. One of the first definitions of biopiracy evokes the unauthorised and uncompensated expropriation of traditional knowledge, including the patenting of seeds, trees, human tissue and medicinal plants (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration 2012). In response to negative public perceptions, the increase in popularity of ethnobotany and the widespread nature of the research, ethnbotanists have written extensively on the topic of TEK. One of the dilemmas with conserving TEK is the fact the rights belong to the collective and are different from the rights of individuals. Intellectual property rights law provides for the rights of the individual, not the collective rights that are the legitimising norms and standards for indigenous peoples and many others worldwide. Traditional knowledge that is in the public domain is also not covered by intellectual property rights law (Mead 1994).

Fair and equitable compensation for the use of TEK was first suggested by D Posey (1990), followed by Brush & Stabinsky (1996) and again by D Posey & Dutfield (1996). Alongside the discourse on providing compensation for TEK has been the development of the first sets of ethics by the Society of Economic Botany in 1994, and the International Society of Ethnobiology (ISE) in 2006. The ISE set of ethics was created to facilitate ethical conduct and to develop equitable and meaningful relationships (International Society of Ethnobiology 2006). The Society of Economic Botany ethics guidelines were developed in New Zealand in conjunction with the Mataatua Declaration which states:

Indigenous people have the right to define and control their knowledge and if they want to share it with the global community they are the first benefactors of this knowledge. (Commission on Human Rights 1993)

Both sets of ethics also incorporate the Declaration of Belem. This declaration outlines the concern of scientists and several indigenous populations that the study of indigenous peoples and the development of national research programmes should guarantee the conservation of biological and cultural diversity (DA Posey 1988).

Common responses by both researchers and indigenous groups to the TEK issue are outlined by Alexiades (2003). These include:

1.	withholding information from the public domain as a way of protecting collective intellectual property rights;
2.	resisting the application of Western property rights and patenting of life forms, in particular those that apply to indigenous genetic and cultural resources;
3.	using Western property rights and contractual agreements in the forms of patents, copyrights and trademarks to ensure that indigenous and other local people receive appropriate recognition and compensation; and
4.	developing alternative models to claim rights over TEK and resources.

Both the research ethics and protective methods outlined above have been a stop gap for an international legal framework to protect TEK. The following discussion outlines the current international legislation that puts the onus on nation states to protect the rights of indigenous peoples and their knowledge.

Internationally, indigenous peoples have striven for rights which include the recognition and ownership of traditional knowledge outside the domain of science. Two important agreements are the International Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIPs) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The purpose of the DRIPs is to set out the collective and individual rights of indigenous people and to encourage countries to work with indigenous people to solve issues at a global scale (United Nations 2008). There are two parts of Articles 11 and 31 that are important to TEK. The first part of Article 11 states indigenous peoples have a right to practise and revitalise their past, present and future cultural traditions and customs. The second part says nation states should attempt to make reparation for all cultural property and knowledge taken without prior informed consent. The first part of Article 31 acknowledges that indigenous people have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and manifestations of their culture, including knowledge of the properties associated with fauna and flora, and oral traditions. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop intellectual property over traditional knowledge and cultural heritage. The second part outlines that indigenous people, in conjunction with states, are to take effective measures to recognise and protect these rights. The proposal was adopted in September 2007 with only four member states voting against it.

In 1992, the CBD, a legally binding treaty, was signed with the purpose to conserve biodiversity, promote sustainable use of its components and provide fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources. By including the following Article 8(j) to:

Encourage the sharing of benefits arising from the utilisation of knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. (United Nations 1992)

The international community effectively recognised the link between biodiversity, indigenous peoples and their knowledge. Following the CBD, the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) was adopted in 2010. This provides a legal framework for the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources. It also provides protection for states and indigenous people in relation to biopiracy and biodiscovery activities. Both the DRIPs and the Nagoya Protocol put the obligation on nation states to develop, with indigenous people, laws which protect intellectual property associated with traditional knowledge. Responses to date have provided either defensive protection, ensuring the rights are not given to anyone else, or positive protection, where the rights are given to elders to protect and promote their traditional knowledge.

Participation and collaboration in ethnobotanical research

Together with the focus on ethical considerations referred to above there has been a recent change in the way in which data from ethnobotanical research is shared with indigenous communities. Power dynamics between ethnobotanists, indigenous communities and/or local communities can be at play in research (Alexiades 2003); desirably, dialogue between these groups needs to be free and open with all sides contributing. Researchers are encouraged to obtain prior and informed consent (Colchester & MacKay 2004) and collective informed consent in cases where there are collective arrangements, for example, land use planning and in developing new technologies (Varelius 2008). Further to these imperatives is the need to include participants in the research process itself, not just in providing informed consent for the research to proceed. Such an approach is common in some health care projects and is viewed as constituting a vehicle for community empowerment (Alexiades 2003). In ethnobotany, examples of participatory efforts include the community-based participatory research used by O'Fallon & Dearry (2002). Collaborative examples include the inclusion of key informants as co-authors on published papers and books (Majnep & Bulmer 1977). There are also examples of committing to sharing knowledge with the larger community (Moran et al. 2001) and publishing the results of relevant research in indigenous languages (McClatchey & Winter 2005). Another example is the provision of training for communities to record their own knowledge using video (Lunch & Lunch 2006). This growing focus on the need to work with indigenous communities is accompanied by an increasing number of non-Western authors publishing in international journals (B. Dahl, Society of Economic Botany, pers. comm. 2011). This highlights the change currently underway in which Western scholars visiting and researching different cultures are being replaced progressively by researchers working within their own cultures (Ford 1994).

Ethnobotany in New Zealand

Adaptation of Eastern Polynesian ancestors of Māori to New Zealand's climate

As the first human inhabitants of New Zealand, the Eastern Polynesian ancestors of Māori migrating from tropical Pacific islands had to adapt to temperate climatic conditions. Of the tropical and subtropical crops brought to New Zealand only six remained in cultivation at the time of European arrival. They were kūmara (Ipomoea batatas L. Lam.), taro (Colocasia esculenta), tī pore (Cordyline terminalis (L.) Kunth.), uhi or yam (Dioscorea spp.), hue or gourd (Lagenaria siceraria (Molina) Standl.) and aute (Broussonetia papyrifera (L.) Vent.) (Harris 1999). In addition, a number of native plants were domesticated, or, at least wild populations were managed. These became staple foods including the fern Pteridium esculentum (G. Forst.), the rhizome of which (aruhe) was a key source of carbohydrate, the fruit of karaka (Corynocarpus laevigatus J. R. et G. Forst) and the making of the sweet compound kāuru from tī (Cordyline spp.). Fibres were derived from materials such as harakeke, also known as New Zealand flax (Phormium tenax J. R. et G. Forst), timber was harvested from numerous tree species and medicinal plants were identified including kawakawa (Macropiper excelsum Forst. f.) (Harris 1999). The traditional knowledge associated with these domesticated and wild crops was accumulated and handed down through generations orally and refined by practice. One of the ways in which this was done was through whakapapa, or genealogy, used as a mental construct upon which knowledge is situated, stored and recalled (Roberts et al. 2004). Plant whakapapa may include genealogical order with multiple cosmogonic ancestors, provide narratives (Jahnke 2010), describe relationships through time and space and can include both flora and fauna. This knowledge, known as mātauranga Māori (traditional knowledge), allowed Māori to inhabit even the cool temperate southern regions of New Zealand. This knowledge handed down from generation to generation has formed the basis for many of the studies of the relationship between people and plants in New Zealand.

Economic botany and early ethnobotany

Early explorers and traders

Observers of early life in New Zealand recorded ethnobotanical information. These early writings had a dual purpose, providing insights into Māori plant use as well as describing flora of potential economic value. The first contact between Europeans and Māori was through the explorer Captain James Cook. On Cook's first voyage in 1769 Sir Joseph Banks and Dr Daniel Solander, seen in Fig. 1, made the first botanical collections, which became the foundation of New Zealand botany. Banks also recorded observations on Māori agriculture, collected foods, garments, houses, canoes, carvings, nets and weapons (Banks 2008). Economic observations were also recorded, including which collected greens were palatable to sailors to relieve scurvy, as well as observations on the suitability of flax and timber trees as future trade items. Of interest were the first records of the differences between areas visited including the number of people, cultivations, boats, cloth and carved works (Banks 2008). Not only did the locals provide food to replenish the stocks of ships, a second wave of plant and animal introductions also occurred. Cook introduced potato and corn (Banks 2008) and in 1769 De Surville introduced wheat, peas, rice, pigs and fowls (McNab 1914). The early timber traders and whalers from the 1790s to the 1800s recorded further interactions with New Zealand's flora, such as the amount of timber taken and the profit made. Māori provided whaling and timber ships with food supplies, and lumber was taken by crews for trade and ships repairs (McNab 1914). The uptake of new crops by Māori is seen in D'Urville's records of crops of potatoes being cultivated in Tasman Bay during his voyage to New Zealand in 1827 (GP Smith 1907). Skills associated with plants were also important, for example, Tahua and Ngāhuruhuru were kidnapped from the Bay of Islands and taken to Norfolk Island to teach convicts how to weave (Kamira 2010).

Figure 1  Painting of Captain James Cook, Sir Joseph Banks (second from left), Lord Sandwich, Dr Daniel Solander (second from right) and Dr John Hawkesworth by John Hamilton Mortimer 1740–1779, National Library of Australia, an7351768.

Early missionaries

Following the exchange with explorers and whalers, other groups of people began recording the use of New Zealand's native and introduced flora. Missionaries were one of the most important recorders with three objectives. First, to promote agriculture, second, they wished to record Māori culture and third, to provide information to settlers on the value of natural products on offer. One of the first missionaries Rev. Samuel Marsden was instrumental in developing agriculture early on. Successes and failures of the crops planted at the mission station established in the Bay of Islands in 1814 were recorded in The Missionary Register (eight volumes). In 1812, before the mission was set up, Ruatara brought back wheat to the Bay of Islands after staying with Marsden in Parramatta, planning to export wheat to Port Jackson (Middleton 2003). Māori plant names and uses were a subject of interest. Rev. Herbert William Williams (1844) produced the first edition of the Māori dictionary, which provided a number of plant names. The Rev. Richard Taylor provided a comprehensive list of Māori names for native flora and fauna (Taylor 1848), and a chapter in his later book Te Ika a Maui describes Māori uses of plants further (Taylor 1855). As a contemporary the Rev. William Colenso contributed a number of papers in the Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute on Māori use of plants and economic botany (Colenso 1865, 1880). Missionaries had a privileged position being able to record Māori culture due to their familiarity with the language, their close association with Māori affairs and assisting with important events such as the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.

European colonisation

The arrival of settlers began a new era of recording New Zealand's plant uses focused on the economic value of New Zealand's flora. As more and more settlers arrived, various publications were produced with two broad aims; to encourage settlers to New Zealand and provide information to assist with their adaptation to the new environment. Books were published providing accounts of adventures in New Zealand, detailing the exotic nature of the landscape. Within these publications were recorded Māori use of plants for house materials (Dieffenbach 1843), clothing (Angas 1847), food (Bidwill 1952) and food preparation (Polack 1838). Not only were Māori uses of plants recorded, plants useful for explorers were also described (Reischek & Priday 1930). Fig. 2 shows agricultural practices associated with the fern P. esculentum. It was drawn by early explorer and geologist Johan Franz Julius von Haast providing an example of pictorial methods for recording Māori relationships with plants.

Figure 2  Ink and wash drawing illustrating Māori agricultural burning practices to maintain the fern P. esculentum by Haast, Johann Franz Julius von (Sir), 1822–1887. [Haast, Sir John Francis Julius von] 1822–1887: Mount MacKay, Rotoroa, Humbold Chaine 25 January 1860. Ref: A-108-034. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. http://beta.natlib.govt.nz/records/22680353.

Two types of publication were aimed at the adaption of settlers to the new environment. The first was a number of handbooks and pamphlets for settlers, outlining the habits of Māori (Wilson 1859), suitable areas of economy (Ward 1841) and agriculture (Petre 1842). As the New Zealand colony increased in size and exports of New Zealand flora became more established, a second type of publication based on commerce increased. Griffin (1884) wrote New Zealand: Her Commerce and Resources, a work directly related to the perceived commercial opportunities at the time. Important trade items such as flax and timber were widely written about. Publications detailed the trade in flax (Seymour et al. 1870), future opportunities the flax trade could provide if mechanised (Petre 1842), a list of dyes (Brodie 1845) and details of the capital investment required for the flax industry (Hursthouse 1857). A number of these publications on flax included notes on Māori methods of preparation and different flax varieties (Selwyn 1847; Seymour et al. 1870).

As the European population of the New Zealand colony increased, immigrants began producing works on native and introduced flora for uses other than commercial. Publications were written on the cultivation of native trees and shrubs (Potts & Gray 1870) and on herbal remedies (Neil 1891). Biographical works on the settlers’ experiences contain references to plants, for example, those planted in kitchen gardens (Hay 1882). Other early settler narratives also recorded the use of plants by Māori through recollections of Māori life and customs in earlier times. Māori plant use was recorded in early settler memoirs and journals which, recorded plant use in the form of food products (Beattie 1939), cooking methods (Stack & Perry 2004), agriculture (Miller 1958), clothing (Campbell 1881) and trade items (Porter 1815). Historical accounts of the colonisation of New Zealand also provide snippets of Māori plant uses current at that time. Examples are the preparation of karaka berries, observations on coastal kūmara plantations, as well as identification of products such as dyes and oils (Wakefield & Stout 1908).

Early in the European settlement of New Zealand, Māori supplied produce to the increasing number of colonists. These commercial opportunities were recorded in early settler narratives and during this time, from the 1840s to the 1850s, Māori agriculture held a position of economic importance not seen since (Hargreaves 1959). For a number of political and economic reasons (Petrie 2002), Māori entrepreneurial activity in agriculture and recorded observations associated with changes in plant use correspondingly declined. Māori began working in timber felling, gum digging and public works for wages and the former focus on agricultural production waned. From then on, the balance of power shifted. As European settlement increased, the Māori population decreased dramatically, laws were introduced decreasing Māori ownership of land and increasing cultural assimilation. From then on, the relationship between Māori people and New Zealand's flora was recorded with a focus on protecting surviving knowledge and encouraging cultural revitalisation.

Ethnologists

The relationship Māori have with plants was revisited around the turn of the 20th century by a new group of investigators. Academics, in particular ethnologists, provided much of what is referenced in descriptive works created in the later part of the 20th century. Māori scholars worked towards cultural revitalisation using Western ethnographical and anthropological studies (Kahotea 2006). Examples include Māori food preparation by Makereti (1938) and Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hīroa)'s (1924) documentation of the evolution of Māori clothing and his work The Coming of the Maori (Buck 1929). Non-Māori ethnologists such as Firth (1959) and Best (1905, 1942, 1976) provided detailed studies on not only Māori plant use, but also the cultural context of these uses. Best documented karakia (prayers) associated with certain treatments or religious rites involving plants. Alongside the spiritual nature of plant use, the origin of plant species and placement within Te Ao Māori (the Māori world) was also recorded. The validity of Best's translations has been questioned (Jahnke 2010), however, his work can still be considered reflective of the style and attitude of research at the time. Other ethnologists including members of the Polynesian Society contributed much to the understanding of Māori–plant relationships. These include similarities in the use of plants with other Polynesian cultures (Beaglehole 1940), kūmara varieties (Tapsell 1947), flax plantations (Palmer 1961), division of labour (Heuer 1969), plants in the Chatham Islands (Shand 1896) and canoes in southern New Zealand (Bathgate 1969). Often ethnographic works detail the relationship between Māori and plants at a regional level. Examples include works by Andersen (1907) and Beattie & Anderson (1994) in the South Island, White (1874) in the North Island and SP Smith (1910) in the west coast of the North Island.

Modern ethnobotany

Descriptive uses of New Zealand plants

More recently, two approaches have been applied when describing uses of plants in New Zealand. One approach has been to provide an overview of specific areas of use of plant species, another has been to focus on the uses of a particular species. Medicinal use is a subject area which has received particular attention. Publications in this area include Stark's Maori Herbal Remedies (1979), Macdonald's Medicines of the Maori (1973) and Te Rongoa Maori: Maori Medicine by PME Williams (1996). Riley's (1994) ethnobotanical reference book Maori Healing and Herbal describes the uses of 200 plants and includes close to 1000 references. First published in 1994 and more recently in 2003, this work has become an important reference on the Māori medicinal use of plants. Smaller books on the Māori medicinal plants have also been published (Paul 1987; Maysmor 2003).

In terms of Māori use of food plants, Crowe's (2004) A Field Guide to the Native Edible Plants of New Zealand can be considered in the same vein as Riley's; it is well researched and covers over 190 plant species as well as lichens, mushrooms and seaweeds. Fuller (1978), Skinner and Brown (1981) and Riley (1988) describe Māori food and cooking, including the preparation of traditional foods. The economic uses of native plants have been addressed by Brooker et al. (1988) Cooper et al. (1991) and Haase (1990), putting together much of the research completed by Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) on chemical products extracted from native plants including insecticides, medicines and cosmetics (McClean & Smith 2001).

Works on Māori cultural life and customs include Orbell & Moon's (1985) book The Natural World of the Maori. It details myths, legends and whakataukī (proverbs) associated with the environment, including plants. Works describing the history of New Zealand plants also contain aspects of plant use. Publications include the The Great Sacred Forest of Tane (Clarke 2007), Garden of Tane (Gordon 1944) and Plants of New Zealand (Laing & Blackwell 1964). Further well-known resources include J Beever's (1991) A Dictionary of Maori Plant Names and the Ngā Tipu Whakaoranga (Māori Plant Use Database) website which promotes access to detailed information on Māori uses of native plants (Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research 2012a).

The other approach has been to record the uses of particular species, genera or groups. Harakeke has received the most attention for reasons of its key importance as a source of fibre in traditional life, in the previous natural fibre industry, and use in contemporary Māori arts and crafts, seen in Fig. 3. Early examples include the practice and use of harakeke in traditional and agricultural settings (Critchfield 1951). Later works include the description of harakeke cultivars held in the Rene Orchiston Collection managed by Maanaki Whenua (Scheele et al. 1994), in contemporary weaving (Hopa 1971; Pendergrast 1975, 1984; Pendergrast & Brake 1987) or in resource management (Herbert & Oliphant 1991). Other plant examples include descriptions of the Māori use of corn (Yen 1959) and the origin of Māori cultivars of potatoes (Harris 2005). Dancing Leaves by Simpson (2000) describes both Māori and European perspectives on tī (Cordyline spp.). Further works include those on rengarenga (Arthropodium cirratum (G. Forst.) R.Br. (1822)) cultivation (Harris & Te Whaiti 1996) and on hue (Clarke et al. 2006). A comprehensive work on the Māori use of fungi gives an example of research on a group of organisms (Fuller et al. 2004). Non-native plants in New Zealand also have been described. The ethnobotanical reviews on the genus Cyphomandra (Bohs 1989) and on kiwifruit (Astridge 1975) focus on two introduced plants with an agricultural tradition here in New Zealand. In terms of modern descriptions, Wilcox (2003) produced a list of the plants found in the Otara market, and Harris & Heenan (1992) produced a review of the domestication of native plants in New Zealand.

Figure 3  Dell Wihongi unpacking kūmara returned to Aotearoa in November 1988. These kūmara were originally deposited in a Japanese seedbank by Doug Yen during his research. Source: Sue Scheele.

Plant–people relationships in other research disciplines

Researchers in a range of different disciplines may not consider themselves as ethnobotanists, however, their research still describes the relationship of people with plants. Data from botany, natural history, archaeology, anthropology and Māori studies can be used to test ethnobotanical theories of plant use. For example, the processes involved in the naturalisation of plants depend on a distinct relationship between people and plants. First Hooker (1867) and later Thomson (1922) provided a list of naturalised plants in New Zealand. Natural histories are likewise a source of descriptions pertaining to people and the landscapes they inhabit. Because they are specific to place, they usually provide a chronology of the changes in use of the natural resources including native and introduced flora. One of the most popular of these is associated with Canterbury (Winterbourn et al. 2008). Environmental history describes the human interaction with the natural world and how both are transformed. A recent publication outlines the significance of grasses to the economy of New Zealand (Brooking et al. 2011). Both archaeology and anthropology are closely linked with the use of plants. For example, archaeology has provided descriptions of tī ovens (Knight 1966), kūmara pits and agriculture in the South Island (Law 1969) and lists of vegetable foods available in Dusky Sound (Coutts 1969). Working with people, methods and data from other disciplines, to develop theories, will result in better descriptions of the relationship of people and plants in New Zealand.

Hypothetical and theoretical ethnobotanical research

In comparison with descriptive works, a smaller number of ethnobotanical works state theories and test hypotheses. The importance of this has been highlighted when working with mātauranga Māori in New Zealand (Crawford 2009). Focusing on ethnobotany, Yen (1974), seen in Fig. 4, tested hypotheses on the origin of kūmara using evidence from a number of different disciplines, while returning traditional cultivars of kūmara which he had previously deposited in Japan during his research. Burtenshaw & Harris (2007) worked on experimental ethnobotany looking at the productivity of ancient Māori cultivars of kūmara. Māori dispersal of plants has been tested in research on Meryta sinclairii (Hook.f.) Seem. (1862) (RE Beever 1984). Harakeke has been a focus for researchers and includes a number of studies. For example, one study in particular looked at the growth and weaving quality characteristics of a number of varieties at sites across the country (Harris et al. 2005). Phylogenetic studies have looked at the origin and relationship between harakeke plant cultivars (Buck 1924; McBreen et al. 2003; Scheele & Smissen 2010). Another phylogenetic study tested theories on the dispersal of hue (Clarke et al. 2006). Horrocks et al. (2004) tested evidence of prehistoric mixed cropping of four introduced Polynesian plants and Horrocks (2004) looked at plants in the prehistoric Māori diet. In anthropology recent work by Leach (2005) asks if pre-contact Māori held the concept of ‘weeds’. These studies provide examples of theoretical and hypothesis-based research in New Zealand which reflects the global trend.

Figure 4  Kairaranga (weaver) Kahu Te Kanawa preparing muka (harakeke fibre) for weaving. Source: Sue Scheele.

Intellectual property rights in New Zealand

Global issues around intellectual property rights are of great concern both in New Zealand and the Pacific, with Mead (2007) giving examples of non-ethical research. At this time, there are no domestic laws for ensuring the protection of mātauranga Māori and customary practices and procedures, leaving a best practice approach to cope with this issue. It is generally accepted that there are two types of intellectual property in New Zealand associated with native flora. The first are the property rights associated with the native flora itself and the second are the intellectual rights of TEK associated with the native flora. DV Williams (2001) suggests a further element which intellectual property rights would need to protect is the mauri (life force) of objects in their natural form. Because New Zealand is a signatory to the Nagoya Protocol and a relatively recent signatory to DRIPs, it is up to the New Zealand government to develop this legislation in conjunction with Māori to maintain and develop their cultural and intellectual property. However, creating legislation to protect both types of intellectual property has proved to be a long process. As part of this process the New Zealand government has been awaiting the release of the Waitangi Tribunal report on the Waitangi 262 Flora and Fauna Claim discussed below.

Waitangi 262 claim (Flora and Fauna Claim)

The Waitangi 262 claim was lodged in 1991 by six iwi, Ngāti Wai, Ngāti Kuri, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Porou, Ngāti Kahungunu and Ngāti Koata. In essence, this important claim asked the question who has control, tino rangatiratanga, over mātauranga Māori, tangible products of mātauranga Māori and the important contributions mātauranga Māori has to make. It also asserted that the Crown, represented by the New Zealand government, was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi by failing to design systems which adequately recognise Māori rights to indigenous flora and fauna, and the mātauranga Māori associated with them. Sadly, by the time the report Ko Aotearoa Tēnei was released in 2011, only one of the original claimants was still alive. The report provides a number of discussion points which are of direct importance to future ethnobotanical research. These relate to the genetic and biological resources of taonga (culturally important) species; Māori relationships to the environment; control of mātauranga Māori, defined as knowledge, wisdom and ways of knowing in research; relationships with science and technology agencies; rongoā Māori (medicines), and intellectual property rights at the international scale. One of the key tenets stressed in the document is partnership and how the government is responsible for upholding the Treaty of Waitangi within the various ministries and departments relating to the relationship Māori have with New Zealand's flora and fauna (Waitangi Tribunal 2011).

The lack of a legislative framework which provides for intellectual property rights has made researchers careful when working with Māori in the past. Dialogue between ethnobotanists and Māori around appropriate methodologies dates back to 1988, with the International Workshop on Ethnobotany held at Te Rehua Marae, Christchurch. Among the attendees were Dell Wihongi, Saana Murray and John Hippolite (later among the original claimants of the Flora and Fauna Claim), and Emily Schuster (a leading figure in the revitalisation of weaving), and ethnobotanists and botanists Doug Yen, Art Whistler and Warwick Harris. The mood for a change in the relationship between Māori and researchers was further expressed in the First International Workshop on Ethnobotany in 1993, where the Maatatua Declaration was formulated. Stemming from these meetings are examples of collaborative and participatory ethnobotanical work. The series on the evaluation of harakeke weaving varieties by Harris and his colleagues in association with the National Committee of Māori Weavers/Te Ropu Raranga Whatu o Aotearoa is a great example (Harris & Woodcock-Sharp 2000; Harris et al. 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009). One of the projects included participants providing land, assisting in measuring and maintaining plants and evaluating leaf qualities, and fostered extension and education use of the plantings (Harris et al. 2005).

In association with individuals modifying their approach to working with communities, research policy was also changing. In the early 1990s, the new Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) were created from the former DSIR. Māori aspirations and commitments to the Treaty of Waitangi began to be included in strategic documents for these new organisations (McClean & Smith 2001). Without a clear legislative framework for intellectual property rights, the Royal Society of New Zealand commissioned a report outlining good practice guidelines to facilitate productive and collaborative relationships between Tangta Whenua and scientists (Cram 2002). One of the suggestions was to establish a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), or other significant documentation, to protect the rights and responsibilities of both parties. These documents have become a popular vehicle for CRIs and universities to protect Māori interests in research. Maanaki Whenua has outlined some successful ingredients for developing relationships with Māori collaboratively, and advocates the use of MoUs to formalise relationships (Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research 2012b). Strategies such as this are necessary in response to the Vision Mātauranga Māori policy developed by the New Zealand government intent on unlocking the:

science and innovation potential of Māori knowledge, resources and people. (Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment 2012)

Associated with this policy is the Vision Mātauranga Capability Fund providing resource for four themes; indigenous innovation, taiao/environment, hauora and mātauranga. This move is positive for future collaborative studies in ethnobotany. However, DV Williams (2001) reminds us that Māori and Western views are different and the way forward is to incorporate paradigms from within Māori knowledge systems, rather than in Western terms and warns against assimilating mātauranga Māori into Western science.

Kaupapa Māori-based research

Appropriate methodologies to work with Māori communities have developed in spite of a lack of a legal framework to protect mātauranga Māori. Action research, collaborative research and co-management are all approaches to research in which the community are not only the participants in research, but also have different levels of involvement in research development, implementation and the realisation of the research outcomes. For example, in health, incorporating indigenous beliefs into research protocols and measurements can enhance the understanding of health and illness (Durie 2004). Kaupapa Māori theory is a framework developed from a foundation of kaupapa Māori (Māori ideology) and mātauranga Māori that is entrenched on this land (Pihama 2001). Within this theory, kaupapa Māori research enables Māori to engage with research that is meaningful and can make positive changes (LT Smith 1999). This approach to research has encouraged participation and collaboration in research of indigenous communities around the world. In terms of benefit sharing, a recent publication suggests that a way forward for working on Māori economic enterprise projects would be at a community level, with a proportion of benefits being non-profit in nature (Dana & Hipango 2011).

Future directions for ethnobotany in New Zealand

New Zealand ethnobotanical research has followed the same trajectory as the discipline worldwide. Similarly, there have been four phases: oral traditions and early texts from explorers that recorded Māori plant use; economic botany publications focused on the commercial use of plants in the 19th century; early 20th century descriptive research focused on Māori use of plants; and late 20th century ethnobotanical research that includes the development of theories and hypothesis testing. Those that test hypotheses are found in a range of different disciplines, reflecting the current global trend towards a wide scope in research of the relationship between people and plants. The future direction of ethnobotanical work here in New Zealand is in collaboration, studying the present and working with communities. Ethnobotanical studies describing the relationship between people and plants sit comfortably in a number of different disciplines and will need support from national and international journals. One of the challenges to be met in future is to develop protocols which would encourage researchers from differing fields to work together to explain fully a particular research question. Collaboration with other experts in different disciplines is vital to exploring theories of plant use in New Zealand today. It will require scientific rigour, and in some cases a borrowing of methodologies from different disciplines, or perhaps creating new ones to suit, for example, creating new RCI indices specific to culture and place here in New Zealand. Another area of research is the use of models to test social theories and how these concepts might be applied to the relationship between people and plants (Currie et al. 2010).

So far, much has been written of plant use in the past in areas such as archaeology, ethnology and history. Past uses can be expanded upon and incorporated to look at broader patterns of plant use across time and space. In this respect, there is a need to encourage research that will describe better the relationships New Zealanders have with plants today. The importance is to capture what is currently occurring, to compare it with the past and then to assess the consequences this may have on the future of New Zealand's flora. Examples of areas of study include market surveys (Bye & Linares 1983) of the Otara Markets, home garden surveys (Coomes & Ban 2004) and exercises in food origins (Bletter 2007). Ethnobotany of urban areas is important as over 70% of our population lives in the main urban centres (Statistics New Zealand 2012). Wehi and Wehi (2010) recently considered current traditional plant harvesting in urban areas and conservation lands, highlighting the fact that traditional harvesting practices can occur in urban settings. Further research into adaptations in cultural practices to urban living could be an important focus in the future.

Urban ethnobotany is a strong feature in considering the changes to the relationships recent migrants to New Zealand have with plants. The types of data which can be gathered include changes to migrant traditional health care practices and the transplantation of medicinal plants from one cultural context to another (Ceuterick et al. 2008). A study in New Zealand looked at how gardening practices of Samoans have transformed since migrating to Auckland (Lima 2001). Other overseas examples include medicinal plant use by Latino healers in New York (Balick et al. 2000), health foods, spices and other plants used by the Sikh community in London (Sandhu & Heinrich 2005) and comparing the use of traditional food plants between urban centres in Vietnam and Hawai'i (Nguyen 2003). There are also opportunities in the way researchers engage with communities using new technology and social media sites as a way to reach urban populations.

The communities with which ethnobotany engages are critical to successful research. Community groups may also have questions they would like answered and working closely with them to produce results relevant to them is important. An example of such a group is Te Waka Kai Ora (the National Māori Organics Authority of Aotearoa) interested in sustainability and the protection of native flora and fauna. Connecting with a group such as this provides research opportunities in the application of Māori gardening principles (Roskruge 2011), for example. By encouraging kaupapa Māori style of research, action, collaborative and co-management research approaches, researchers and organisations will be adhering to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Encouraging New Zealand and international students to study their own cultures and relationships with plants provides an opportunity to develop an interest in their traditional knowledge and encourage methodologies that are culturally appropriate. The aim of this type of research would be to maintain the integrity of knowledge while at the same time promoting its ability to be used for positive development (Forster 2003).

Summary

Although not a comprehensive review of all publications associated with the use of New Zealand's plants by people, it is clear that research in New Zealand has followed the same trajectory as has ethnobotany globally. Relatively few publications on ethnobotany test hypotheses explicitly. As a result a coherent body of theoretical knowledge is lacking because much of what is known about relationships between people and plants has focused on the past. Describing the changes in plant use occurring today will require both collaboration between researchers from different disciplines and encouraging research in new areas such as urban ethnobotany. Exploring theories of plant use in New Zealand today will require scientific rigour, and in some cases borrowing of methodologies from different disciplines, or perhaps creating new ones to suit. Ethnobotany is an exciting field and will also require support from scholarly journals, both nationally and internationally.

Acknowledgements

Ngā mihi ki a tatou. A special thank you to Dick Bellamy, Mike Pearson, Brian Murray, Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Emma Trembath, Sue Scheele and three anonymous reviewers.