The Scented Tree
by Jason Godesky
You can always tell the Scented Tree by its distinctive leaves: three differently shaped leaves, one shaped like a mitten, another like a talon, and the third like a regular leaf. You see those because of how the first Scented Tree came about. You see, the Scented Tree once walked about like a human person, but she had great power as a shape-shifter. She also loved beautiful aromas, and mixed many perfumes and aromatic scents from various plants, finding what sweet-smelling aromas would drive off evil spirits.
Well, this angered many evil spirits, who decided that they would curse the woman, and so one day they held their breath and attacked her. She began changing her shape—first a woman, wearing the mittens she used to gather plants, the form she wore when they attacked her; then she became a great bird of prey trying to grab them in her talons; finally, an aromatic tree. The evil spirits could not attack for very long, because they had to hold their breath, but they managed to bind her as she was changing into her last shape, as the talons and her mitten-covered human hand were changing into leaves, but then they could hold their breath no longer, and they found that the form they had caught her in had become even more aromatic to human people, and even more noxious to them. They fled then, leaving her trapped in that state.
They say that when the first Grandfathers came to Turtle Island, it was the aroma of the Scented Tree that drew them. One of them, a handsome and charming hunter, found the original Scented Tree, and learned from the spirits of how she had become trapped. He fell in love with her beauty and courage, and remained with her.
The evil spirits saw that the hunter’s love had begun to stir the woma’s heart, and release her from her bonds. So one day, once he had wandered far enough from the tree hunting his daily meal, they attacked him, and left a sickness that enflamed his eyes. The Scented Tree saw her beloved’s affliction, and whispered to him to make a poultice from her leaves, and it soothed the affliction of his eyes.
The hunter remained with her, and in time, their love restored her shape-shifting powers, and she became a beautiful woman again; the two married, and lived their lives happily together.
The trees she bore while in her form remain still, our siblings of the Green Nation and great friends of ours. They inherited from her that sweet aroma that drew the Grandfathers to our shores, an aroma that retains its potency to drive off evil spirits. The leaves can still ease afflictions of the eyes, or they can thicken a stew. The roots make a delicious tea.
Field Guide
Find more about the Healer from:
- [[Sassafrass|REWILD.info Field Guide]]
- Permaculture.info
- Plants for a Future
- Wikipedia
- USDA PLANTS Database
Oral cultures don’t memorize facts and figures about thousands of edible and medicinal plants. They learn stories—stories about the personalities and powers of plants, how they relate to each other, to the world, and to the people who seek them out. Here, we’re starting some new stories about our rediscovered friends.
- Last Week: The Healer
- Next Week: Frost Grape
In Western occult lore, Sassafrass is ruled by Jupiter, planet of luck, leisure, opportunity, and pleasure. Plants ruled by Jupiter tend to have a rich, sweet aromatic quality.
Comment by venuspluto67 — 13 August 2007 @ 12:59 PM
Huh, that’s interesting. Giuli didn’t catch it, so perhaps I should say up-front that I tried to wind a bit of “Sleeping Beauty” through here.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 13 August 2007 @ 1:00 PM
I love the picture you took from under the leaves.
I didn’t pick up on teh sleeping beauty thing, either.
Comment by rix — 13 August 2007 @ 2:22 PM
Man, and here I thought I’d been too heavy-handed describing the hunter as “charming.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 13 August 2007 @ 2:34 PM
From wikipedia
“Safrole, which is the main component (75-80%) of sassafras essential oil, is now recognized by the United States Department of Agriculture as a potential carcinogen…….Safrole and sassafras not certified as safrole-free have been banned in the United States as food additives or flavoring agents by the FDA since 1976 due to safrole’s designation as a carcinogen”
The Lauraceae family is generally nice enough to sniff but biochemically nasty to eat.
Sassafras is in the same family as Avocado, which itself has a nasty toxin in its skin (plus in the leaves and bark of the plant). Is avocado paleo?
Can man live by soothing (if carcinogenic) eye poultices and bitter mesclun mixes alone?
Comment by Void_genesis — 13 August 2007 @ 11:44 PM
Meh. I remain unconcerned. Calling something carcinogenic because concentrated extracts in mega doses cause cancer in rats strikes me as a little “unscientific”, imo.
Call it a hat trick, cause I missed it too…
Comment by jhereg — 14 August 2007 @ 7:27 AM
In the previous story on “The Healer,” we talked about some of the shoddy, poorly-conducted studies that have “proven” that Jewelweed is ineffective against poison ivy, too. The studies consistently isolated specific chemicals, rather than dealing with the whole plant. The studies of safrole are just more of the same. Sure, safrole all by itself is a mild carcinogen. Sassafras has been a regular part of diets among people who remain almost entirely cancer-free for thousands of years. Obviously, the plant itself is a tad more complex than just isolated safrole.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 14 August 2007 @ 8:31 AM
From Wildman Steve Brill:
If you can read through the lack of the Wildman’s proofreading, he makes a decent case for debunking the FDA scare. In his book, he also notes that even for the rats, the carcinogenic index for sassafrole doesn’t compare to that of beer.
Comment by rix — 14 August 2007 @ 11:08 AM
Cloves are without a doubt very toxic and are also ruled by Jupiter. However, a plant that is technically toxic can be acceptable for occasional medicinal purposes.
Comment by venuspluto67 — 14 August 2007 @ 12:21 PM
Mmm I love finding that tree, such, reminds me of lemon
Comment by Fenriswolfr — 14 August 2007 @ 7:50 PM
Well now, I did catch the sleeping beauty reference, and I want to say that this was beautifully told. You have a gift for evoking the beauty and truth of plant.
If sassafras was toxic in any reasonable amount I would be dead by now. When I lived in northern PA I drank ridiculous amounts of the tea (better as a cold infusion rather than a tea made with hot water).
too bad the fda doesn’t have the sense to use the whole plant on HUMANS, they might learn something.
Comment by Kiva Rose — 17 August 2007 @ 8:06 PM
Can someone help explain to me what exactly is a toxin? It gets muddled because dosage always comes into play, and that’s muddled because just about anything in high enough doses is a deadly, even water. I feel like this obfuscation is probably often deliberate on the part of those putting posisons into us and our environment, but I’d really love for someone to put this into perspective, and give me a grounding for determining whether people are just greenwashing or expressing legitimate concern.
Thanks y’all.
Comment by Archangel — 18 August 2007 @ 8:49 AM
Thank you. That’s a compliment that really means a lot to me.
I doubt that’s the problem. Humans are animals, so if there’s something that has the same effect on a rat as it does on a chimp, that’s a hell of a lot bigger range than from chimp to human. We’re animals, too, after all, and most of the things that happen to rats also happen to us. But they’re mostly studying Safrole in isolation, as if you’d ever find just 100% pure safrole in a sassafrass tree and nothing else. The failure of reductionism, once again.
Water becomes deadly because you’re overwhelming your system, not because water itself has any negative effect on the human body. Toxins always do damage. The dose doesn’t matter. The only question is how much. You can have a mild toxin that just does a little bit of damage, so taking just a little bit of it won’t matter much. It’s still doing damage, just not enough to matter much. Whereas with water, it generally doesn’t do any damage at all.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 18 August 2007 @ 8:32 PM
Here in my area, we have Umbellularia californica, or California Bay Tree. Also in the Lauraceae family, its very young leaves have the same redness patterning as Sassafras, and when nibbled also have a very root beer like flavor.
Great photo!
Comment by feralkevin — 3 September 2007 @ 9:58 PM
It’s not quite so clear cut. Many minerals can be toxic in large enough doses (iron, copper, potassium, etc), but are necessary in small amounts.
In general, I go with the “Little of This, Little of That Method”. If you consume a huge variety of food (obviously, avoiding truly toxic food), you’ll get everything you need w/o a harmful dose of anything.
I’ve been looking at this lately, and, I’m actually becoming more & more skeptical of this line of thinking. Lillies (including garlic & onions) are flat out toxic to cats & dogs (they cause kidney failure), but no such reaction exists in humans. Also, caffeic acid in rodents may only be toxic due to transformations performed by bacteria in the rodents’ gut. Rodents also interact differently with arsenic.
I don’t think we should toss out “what happens to this animal when it consumes such-and-such”, but it appears that a grain of salt is in order. This grain of salt combined w/ the previously mentioned strategy of using only a concentrated isolate leads me to look pretty critically at such claims of toxicity.
Comment by jhereg — 4 September 2007 @ 8:21 AM
Absolutely; each species is different. But, if you’ve got something on your hands that has the same reaction in rats, dogs and chimpanzees, across that breadth of diversity, what do you think are the chances that humans are somehow immune? Sure, if all you do is test one species of animal, you can’t extrapolate that to humans. Every half-descent scientist knows that. That’s not what we’re talking about. Generally, you’re talking about initial rodent tests, and if those work out, primate tests. Anything that holds true all the way from rodents to chimpanzees is going to hold true for humans, too.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 4 September 2007 @ 8:36 AM
And that’s a method that would have considerably more meaning, but safrole never got past the rodent stage. We don’t know what the effects of safrole (alone, in highly concentrated form) would be on primates. But we just declare it carcinogenic…?
That’s where the logic breaks down. Like I said, I’m not saying we should throw the whole line of inquiry out the window, but … some restraint and common sense should be applied.
Comment by jhereg — 4 September 2007 @ 11:50 AM
I swear I read about some safrole studies in primates, too. As far as some sloppy science going on with the safrole studies, there’s no doubt about that. But I don’t think you can say that animal studies don’t reveal anything, either. They quite clearly do—when done well. Almost nothing about the current literature on safrole should count as good science.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 4 September 2007 @ 12:20 PM
Sassafras trees are weeds in my mother’s yard. I thought they were mulberries for the longest time. Mulberries are weeds in my yard, and they have the same odd assortment of leaves, regular, talon & mitten. There’s something magical about these so-call weeds the gods afflict us with.
sharqi
Comment by sharqi — 4 September 2007 @ 2:38 PM
beautiful story Anthropik, thank you.
I would like to point something everyone missed. Safrole was banned in 1976, the same general period that scientists and hippies were in a mad rush to find a ‘legal’ trip.
If anyone has ever tried to sell you “X” or “rolls” they were trying to sell you an extract of the Scented Tree.
Safrole is a known carcinogen. It is also a know stimulant, and was removed from sasafrass and root beer once it was discovered that with a little ammonia, you have MDA on your hands. With a stronger and more controlled chemical, safrole can become MDMA.
Don’t believe the hype. The lobby against illegal drugs was bigger than the root beer lobby. Too bad, so sad. I can prove to you that clean air gives you cancer (O3 radicalizing your cells). Look deeper, always look deeper.
Comment by tonyZ — 12 September 2007 @ 2:18 PM
“If sassafras was toxic in any reasonable amount I would be dead by now. When I lived in northern PA I drank ridiculous amounts of the tea (better as a cold infusion rather than a tea made with hot water).”
ho hum. Using this sort of “logic” I can prove that cigarettes are good for you. After all, one of my uncles smoked a pack a day and lived to be 97. His brother (uncle #2) never smoked and died of a heart attack at age 49. Anecdotal reports, or extrapolations from one data point do not convincing arguments make.
Jason says: “But they’re mostly studying Safrole in isolation, as if you’d ever find just 100% pure safrole in a sassafrass tree and nothing else. The failure of reductionism, once again.”
…and this sort of logic refutes almost every experimental test on the effects of any industrial pollutant. After all you’ll never find just 100% pure dioxin, PCB, PAH, Hg, MTBE, and nothing else. The failure of reductionism indeed…
I agree that a large dose of skepticism is in order when attempting to apply federally/industrially funded scientific study to real life foraging, but jesus h. christ,! Skepticism demands greater intellectual rigor.
Comment by michael — 5 November 2007 @ 3:19 AM