Yunatov’s Records of Wild Edible Plant Used&nbsp;by the Mongols in Mongolia&nbsp;During 1940-1951:&nbsp;Ethnobotanical&nbsp;Arrangements and Discussions
Authors: Zhang YanYing , Wurhan Wurhan , Sachula Sachula , Khasbagan Khasbagan 
Published: September 2020

Background: Researchers have rarely studied traditional botanical knowledge in Mongolia over the past 60 years, and existing studies had been based on the theory and methodology of ethnobotany. However, Russian scientists who studied plants in Mongolia in the 1940s and 1950s collected valuable historical records of indigenous knowledge and information on Mongolian herdsmen utilizing local wild plants. One of the most comprehensive works is titled: "Forage plants on grazing land and mowing grassland in the People's Republic of Mongolia" (FPM) by A. A. Yunatov (1909-1967). Yunatov’s work focused on forage plants in Mongolia from 1940 to 1951, which was published in 1954 as his early research. Later, the original FPM was translated into Chinese and Cyrillic Mongolian in 1958 and 1968, respectively.Materials: In addition to morphological characteristics, distribution, habitat, phenology, palatability and nutrition of forage plants, Yunatov recorded the local names, the folk understanding and evaluation of the forage value, as well as other relevant cultural meanings and the use of local wild plants in FPM through interviews. The book contains the most precious records created in the 1940s and 1950s on folk knowledge of wild plants used by the Mongols in Mongolia. It is composed of 8 chapters, and 351 pages in total. The fifth chapter of FPM is titled “A systematic expounds of forage plants”, and has 272 pages, accounting for 77.49% of the total. The order and content of the book appeared to be oriented along profiles of specific plant. And author collected specific information of plants such as the local name, morphology, distribution, habitats, ecological characteristics, phenology, and he also discussed the palatability to livestock, particular forage use, other usages, and chemical composition.Methods: Through careful reading and understanding of all three versions of the book, the information of plants shown in the records regarding listed local edible use in FPM was sorted. The process is equivalent to ethnobotanical fieldwork. Edible plants listed in FPM were categorized based on purposes of use, and ethnobotanical inventories were made following the research methods of classical ethnobotany.Results: FPM listed records of 35 species that belong to 15 families and 25 genera of wild edible plants. Most species belong to Liliaceae and Allium. Wild grain and grain substitutes come from starch-rich parts such as seeds, bulbs, roots and rhizomes of 12 species, accounting for 34.28% of all species. Wild vegetables come from the parts of a young plant, tender leaves, young fruits, lower part of stems, and bulbs of 9 species, accounting for 25.71% of all species. There are only three species of wild fruits, accounting for 8.57% of all edible plant species. Tea substitutes come from the parts such as leaves, roots, follicle, and aboveground parts of 8 species of wild plants, accounting for 22.85% of all species. Wild seasonings come from the parts such as seeds, rhizomes, tender leaves of 7 species, accounting for 20.00% of all species.Conclusions: Six species of wild edible plants listed in FPM have been proven to be collected and consumed by Mongolian in the 12th century, which demonstrates significant cultural and heritage value. Seven species of plants mentioned in this book were closely correlated to processing of traditional dairy products, meat and milk food by the locals. Similarities and differences are noticeable in the utilization of wild edible plants between the Mongols in Mongolia and the Mongols in China. Yunatov was not an ethnobotanist, but he faithfully recorded data obtained from interviews and surveys about the Mongols in Mongolia collection and consumption of local wild plants during 1940-1951. His research mission meant to focus on forage grass, the feed plant that livestock would consume.Nevertheless, he also recorded the wild plants for human consumption. Although his records on the edible parts and intake methods of some plants are incomplete, it provided ethnobotanical materials aged more than 70 years, representing a living history of ethnobotany from the perspective of the history of science. Even by today`s standards, it will be challenging to obtain first-hand information of the richness and to the extent of Yunatov’s research.