7th ESHS Conference Prague 2016

Prague, Czech Republic, 22–24 September, 2016
toolbox. This is how the Botanic Garden was urged to set up an attractive two folded (scientific collections
and popularization display) Forestry Museum and Curator Ch. Bommer was asked to design a
“phytogeographic” arboretum in the suburb of the capital. In his view, “dried collections” and living
collections were supposed to support and complement each other. Suddenly, the Garden that suffered
from severe budget limitations got extra money for what sounded like a politicians’ whim. The Museum
was inaugurated in 1902, as works in the Geographical Arboretum were still carried on. In 1912, foreign
botanists looked in awe at the 20.000 trees planted in Tervuren and the Museum of Forestry was
regarded as a must see of the State Garden. But, was it actually visited and, if so, who visited it? Did
these collections ever impact research and education as they were supposed to do? How did the
Botanic Garden manage to pile up its extensive collections so rapidly? How and why did the Curator
select the exhibited objects? What has the future in store for the Forestry Museum? These are some
of the questions we shall try to answer in this contribution.
Keywords: Botanic Garden, the late 19th century, Belgian State, Museum of Forestry, Ministry of
Agriculture, popularization, the early 20th century
Plants and politics: power relationships in botany in the Russian Empire, second half of
18th – early 19th century (ID 35)
Olga Elina (Institute for the History of Science and Technology, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow,
Russian Federation)
This paper analyses circulation of plant objects in the second half of 18 th – early 19 th century in the
context of power game of the patrons of botany, on one hand, and social mobility of professional
botanists, on the other hand. Focusing on the case of the Russian Empire, I will trace early history of
botanic collection in terms of gathering and expansion of the empire, as well as a part of noble culture,
that forced amateur patrons to invest in expeditions, botanic gardens, and professionals to manage
these projects. Young graduates of West-European universities, who started working at private botanic
institutions, later could successfully apply for high academic positions. Circulation of specimens had
developed as key element of botanic collection and basis for networking of the professionals and amateurs
around the world. I also argue that exchange/presenting of plant objects – seeds, specimens,
herbarium sheets – became an important channel of foreign policy. “Plant diplomacy” demanded to
recruit botanists for consulting purposes; these new responsibilities tremendously increased botanists’
status as experts “at highest levels”. Diverse group of personalities such as Empress of Russia Catherine
II, aristocrat Alexey K. Razumovsky, mine industrialist Prokophy A. Demidov, member of St. Petersburg
Academy of sciences Peter S. Pallas, director of St. Petersburg Botanic garden Friedrich B.
Fischer, King of England George III, president of Royal Society of London Sir Joseph Banks, professor
of medical botany Robert J. Thornton, all shared the passion for botanic collection. And most of them
were engaged in power games using botany as a political instrument.
Keywords: the second half of 18th century, the early 19th century, Russian Empire, botanic collection,
noble culture, plant objects, exchange
The role of Karl Ernst von Baer in the arrangement and growth of the craniological collection
of the St Petersburg Academy of Sciences (ID 39)
Erki Tammiksaar (Estonian University of Life Sciences; University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia), Ken
Kalling (University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia)
In 1775, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, professor of the University of Göttingen, the founder of the
science of anthropology, in his book “De Generis Humanis Varietate Nativa” divided the mankind into
five varieties (Caucasian, Ethiopian, Mongolian, American and Malayan) on the basis of the colour of
35