BackgroundPeriods of extreme food shortages during war force people to eat food that they normally do not consider edible. The last time that countries in Western Europe experienced severe scarcities was during World War II. The so-called Dutch famine or Hunger Winter (1944–1945) made at least 25,000 victims. The Dutch government took action by opening soup kitchens and providing information on wild plants and other famine food sources in “wartime cookbooks.” The Dutch wartime diet has never been examined from an ethnobotanical perspective.MethodsWe interviewed 78 elderly Dutch citizens to verify what they remembered of the consumption of vegetal and fungal famine food during World War II by them and their close surroundings. We asked whether they experienced any adverse effects from consuming famine food plants and how they knew they were edible. We identified plant species mentioned during interviews by their local Dutch names and illustrated field guides and floras. We hypothesized that people living in rural areas consumed more wild species than urban people. A Welch t test was performed to verify whether the number of wild and cultivated species differed between urban and rural citizens.ResultsA total number of 38 emergency food species (14 cultivated and 21 wild plants, three wild fungi) were mentioned during interviews. Sugar beets, tulip bulbs, and potato peels were most frequently consumed. Regularly eaten wild species were common nettle, blackberry, and beechnuts. Almost one third of our interviewees explicitly described to have experienced extreme hunger during the war. People from rural areas listed significantly more wild species than urban people. The number of cultivated species consumed by both groups was similar. Negative effects were limited to sore throats and stomachache from the consumption of sugar beets and tulip bulbs. Knowledge on the edibility of famine food was obtained largely by oral transmission; few people remembered the written recipes in wartime cookbooks.ConclusionThis research shows that 71 years after the Second World War, knowledge on famine food species, once crucial for people’s survival, is still present in the Dutch society. The information on famine food sources supplied by several institutions was not distributed widely. For the necessary revival of famine food knowledge during the 1940s, people needed to consult a small group of elders. Presumed toxicity was a major reason given by our participants to explain why they did not collect wild plants or mushrooms during the war.
Historic herbaria can provide a wealth of information on a diversity of topics, including the past occurrence of plants, their abundance, names and uses. The collection of Naturalis Biodiversity Center in Leiden, the Netherlands, contains two book herbaria by Jacob Breyne (1637–1697) of Danzig. These herbaria, dated 1659 and 1673, contain a total of 105 specimens in various states of intactness, and with or without original labels. The identity of the specimens in the Leiden Breyne herbaria had not been completely assessed. Here we discuss the taxa represented within these two historic herbaria as well as the information contained in the handwritten texts within them. The two Breyne herbaria combined were found to contain 62 species, representing 24 plant families. Both herbaria contain several species now rare around Gdańsk, including two species currently considered regionally extinct (Swertia perennis L. and Dactylorhiza viridis (L.) R.M. Bateman, Pridgeon & M.W. Chase). Labels with the specimens give a range of information on the collecting locations, ecology, abundance and/or use of the species. The Leiden Breyne herbaria reveal changes in the flora of northern Poland over the course of three centuries, as well as pre-Linnaean nomenclature, historic uses of plants and (international) correspondence between scientists.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.