Kolonialbotanik: Networks of collecting practices in colonial Germany
Publicatiedatum: 27 januari 2022
In April 1913, Dr. Friedrich Tobler, a lecturer in botany at the University of Münster in Germany, returned to Europe from the botanical research station Amani in Deutsch Ostafrika (DOA, German East Africa, including present-day Tanzania, Burundi and Rwanda), where he and his wife spent six months. His trip was funded by a Botanical Tropical Stipendium, which was administered through the German Imperial Colonial Office (Reichskolonialamt).
On his return, Tobler brought several specimens of African plants, indigenous to DOA, that he donated to the Botanical Gardens in Münster and other botanical gardens in Germany.
Using Tobler’s research trip as a starting point, this article argues that rather than being benign, the ‘collection’ of plants in extra-European contexts was only possible through asymmetrical power relations that stretched across broader political, economic and scientific networks.
The increased academic and public focus on the history and legacies of German colonisation in the last two decades has spread beyond the major centres of German colonialism (such as Berlin, Hamburg, Bremen and Dresden) into smaller areas, with a bigger spotlight on lesser-known actors. 
However, colonial botany has mostly been overlooked in Germany in favour of other sciences such as ethnology, and the associated Völkerschau (parades of people) in local German zoos, including the one at Münster. 
When colonial plants–such as tobacco–are at the centre of analysis, the focus is usually on how these plants were used as commodities within Europe, rather than how they were used within their originating spaces.  Otherwise, the analysis tends to focus on Germans as botanists in other colonial powers, such as the British Empire. 
This paper contributes to research on how botanical knowledge was collected in German colonies, by exploring the networks and silences in the archives that hide local workers’ contributions to the collecting practices of Tobler’s tour.
It demonstrates that the practice of producing botanical knowledge in the former colonies was created almost in isolation from local knowledge. In some ways, these practices were similar to that of historical ethnographic knowledge production, which was often recorded without the input of locals who were essential as informants, translators, and observable subjects. 
As the observation of colonial plants could be undertaken without involving local people, it becomes more challenging to uncover if, and how, local knowledge was incorporated into, or obscured in the European process of knowledge collection.
Instead of being used for local African benefit, the collection of knowledge surrounding colonial botany was knowingly and overwhelmingly produced for the benefit of European commercial, scientific, and economic gains. Thus, it has underscored the asymmetrical power relations at play within colonial spaces.
Friedrich Tobler and entwined Kolonialbotanik
Friedrich Tobler was born in 1879 in Berlin, the capital of the new nation state of Germany. By the time Tobler had completed his studies at Heidelberg, Berlin, and Leipzig, and undertook field work at the zoological station in Naples, Italy, as well as the marine biological station in Bergen, Sweden, Germany had entered the European race for imperial dominance.
In 1905, Tobler began working at the University of Münster.  From there, he applied to the Reichskolonialamt for the Botanical Tropical Stipendium, which was initially provided for German botanists to work at the Dutch Botanical Gardens in Bogor (Buitenzorg), Java, in the then-named Dutch East Indies.
This institute was established in 1817 for the benefit of researching and cultivating colonial botany and was thought to be useful for extending and maintaining European imperialism.  The use of the gardens by German colonial botanists demonstrates its use beyond that of the Dutch territories.
The burgeoning imperial empire of Germany saw the need for its own colonial botanical institute in Germany. Thus, in March 1891, the Botanical Research Centre for the German Colonies (Die Botanische Zentralstelle für die deutschen Kolonien, commonly referred to as ‘Zentralstelle’) was established in the Royal Botanical Gardens in Berlin.
The idea of the Zentralstelle was inspired by the tropical plant collection that German natural scientists, including Alexander von Humboldt, had ‘obtained’ from tropical locations. Its objectives were to transport live tropical plants to government research gardens in the colonies and Berlin, to private farmers in the German colonies, and to facilitate the transfer of plants and seeds between the German colonies.
The Zentralstelle’s primary aim was to obtain knowledge about ‘useful’ plants. This search for knowledge was spurred by commercial interests from the metropoles of Germany, which spread out into the colonies, interlocking colonial and metropole circuits of knowledge and business.
This knowledge of ‘useful’ plants for agricultural-colonial interests was also disseminated to aspiring gardeners for the colonial service, who were required to attend lectures on botany and agriculture and complete practical training at the Zentralstelle.
Furthermore, the Zentralstelle advanced German colonial interests in the metropole by providing information to the public in the associated Botanical Museum and supplying samples for display at the German colonial exhibition in Berlin in 1896. 
The Zentralstelle was one of the institutes involved in selecting the annual recipient of the Botanical Tropical Stipendium, a scholarship administered by the Reichskolonialamt, in which the final decision was voted on by a group that included: the State Secretaries of the Reich Office of the Interior and the Reich Treasury; the Royal Prussian Minister of Culture; the Director of the Imperial Biological Institute for Agriculture and Forestry; the German Academies of Sciences in Göttingen; and the Director of the Royal Botanical Garden and Museum in Berlin.
This thick network of professionally linked individuals consolidated and facilitated colonial agendas by aligning politics, culture, economics, agriculture, scientific institutes with their interests in the exploitation of colonial plants.
The initial idea was for German natural scientists to conduct theoretical and applied botanical or agricultural research at Buitenzorg in the Dutch colony. However, having established their own botanical research institutes, such as the research gardens in Victoria in the German colony of Cameroon from 1891, and the Biologisch-Landwirtschafliches Institut Amani (Biological Agricultural Institute Amani, present-day Tanzania) in Deutsch Ostafrika in 1902, scholarship holders were increasingly encouraged to concentrate their research within German knowledge networks.
In Tobler’s application, his networks of knowledge are evident in his referring to the encouragement he had received to apply for the scholarship in 1906 from Herr Geheimrat Adolf Engler. Engler, a previous scholarship holder in 1905, was a professor of Botany in Berlin.  Moreover, in his capacity as the director of the Zentralstelle, Engler personally recommended Tobler to the Reichskolonialamt for the scholarship.  In the year Engler encouraged Tobler, the latter had given a lecture series to a large public audience at the university in Münster on the most important agricultural plants of ‘foreign’ climates, including how to produce and process the harvests. 
This lecture series was subsequently printed under the title of Kolonialbotanik. The book, like the lecture series, focused primarily on the usefulness of agricultural plants for commercial profits in the colonies  , and made Tobler a potential useful candidate for broader colonial botanical interventions.
Indeed, this was one of the requirements of the scholarship; that the recipient would advance scientific knowledge that could be used to ‘improve’ the profitability of colonial botany.
Tobler’s application and the thick networks of government offices
In his application, Tobler provided a three-pronged research interest covering applied research, collection building as well as ‘pure’ research interests.  For the applied research interest, he stated his intention to perform comparative experiments on how the tapping of rubber trees could be most effectively undertaken in various locations, as well as an investigation into the root parasites on Nutzpflanzen (useful, that is, agricultural, plants).
The applied experiments revealed how he saw nature; as a resource that could be progressively instrumentalised for economic growth. As a botanist who had worked on lichen, he further added that he wished to collect lichen from the steppe, demonstrating his European proclivities to order, name, systemise and compare nature in order to control it.
Tobler presented his third line of investigation as a pure scientific endeavour, proposing to examine the pigmentation of tropical fruits, particularly as they ripened. Yet this too had a commercial application, for, as Tobler stated, if understood scientifically, the ripening process might be manipulated in order to improve how these fruits were exported from the colonies for European commercial markets.
Another one of Tobler’s scientific endeavours was to collect the algae from various water bodies in Africa to study them in Europe. In this last line of research, the algae was to be displaced from their origins to be examined in Europe, which was presumed to be the place of modern scientific knowledge.
In wishing to examine the algae in Europe and not in their natural habitat off the coast of East Africa, Tobler overlooked any collaboration with Africans, effectively dismissing the local, native knowledge they have. Overall, Tobler’s application focused on the use of the research learnings for the benefit of European science and markets, while silencing any indication of how the knowledge he could attain on algae would serve the African spaces from which it was taken.
Tobler also named Professor Albrecht Zimmermann, the director of the Amani institute, in his application, indicating that his position within imperial scientific networks was favourable. Zimmermann had recommended Tobler to the Reichskolonialamt through the Governor of DOA, Albrecht Rechenberg.  Instead of giving his approval to the Reichskolonialamt, Rechenberg stated that the scholarship would be better served if its recipient was currently employed in the DOA colonial service. He suggested that the potential DOA scholarship holder should be sent to collect knowledge of botany and agriculture from the British, or in the Dutch colonies.
It would, he explained, be better for the DOA if the scholarship holder would be someone intending to stay in DOA, for this knowledge could then be applied to Africa and not taken back to Germany.  To this, the Reichskolonialamt replied that the scholarship was given first and foremost to botanists in Germany, who through their previous work and potential, were seen to be most qualified to provide valuable contributions to science though a period in the tropics.  In doing so, the Reichskolonialamt prioritised the knowledge of African plants to serve interests in Germany, rather than in Africa itself.
To pacify the DOA governor, it was suggested that an official from that colony might well be chosen for the 1914 scholarship, especially if it served the economic interests of the colony in terms of agriculture, forestry or botany. Indeed, a suggestion was given that a DOA colonial officer employed in forestry might make use of the scholarship to travel to British India to obtain knowledge there and apply it back to DOA. 
This suggestion did not eventuate however, as the last scholarship-holder before the First World War was a botanist (with the unfortunate name of Franz Wilhelm Neger) from the Forestry Academy in Tharandt, Saxony, who was unable to travel to DOA due to the war. 
The coloniality of Tobler’s Tour
Once obtaining a positive vote from all the institutions and committees involved, Tobler began his travels in July 1912 with his wife, Gertrude Tobler, herself an established scientist with a PhD degree in botany. From July to April the following year, they travelled to South Africa, Mozambique, Zanzibar, German East Africa, and Egypt. During their tour, they spent six months at Amani. This purpose-built institute was established in the Usambaa Mountains in 1902 after the cultivation garden at the governor’s residence in Dar es Salaam became insufficient for the substantial cultivation tests that were being carried out there. 
The transfer of knowledge between various colonial spaces was evident at Amani in the backgrounds of the European personnel. For example, one of the initial gardeners, Otto Warnecke, had previously worked in the German colony of Togo. The aforementioned director Zimmerman, had worked at the Botanical Garden, Buitenzorg, in Java. 
In his report, Tobler mentioned the names of the many Europeans he encountered. Apart from Zimmerman, Amani accommodated one zoologist, two chemists, a number of European gardeners, and some 300 local workers including, in Tobler’s words, “Suahelis” and “Wanyamwesi” along with Asian tradesmen who undertook the manual labour.  Although these people working at Amani supported Tobler in his experiments, they were not named.  In part, this reflected the coloniality of the space in which power relations between Europeans and Africans was reflected in the control over how knowledge was acquired, credited and shared. At Amani, Africans remained workers for European researchers and scientists using facilities built with European knowledge, which had precedence over African knowledge of plants. 
At Amani, Friedrich Tobler conducted a physiological study of rubber, as he indicated in his application. He was also tasked by the Imperial Agriculture and Forestry office to collect substantial amounts of material from diseased and damaged tobacco and cotton plants.  Tobler was able to further their research interests by collecting cotton specimens to send back to Dahlem, but not tobacco. 
Also during their time in DOA, the Toblers partook in an 11-day expedition to Mt. Kilimanjaro, during which time Friedrich collected lichen and fungus and Gertrude took photographs, which Friedrich hoped to use in his botany classes at Münster University.  On this expedition, he tried collecting various indigenous plant material or seeds to send back to Europe and wrote in his official report: “I have brought several specimens of Adenium globosum from the steppe near Mombo to Münster in the botanical garden, and had the pleasure that at least one has developed well. I have also been able to grow from seed the large stem lobelia (L. Volkensii) from Kilimanjaro here and have already sent well thriving plants to other botanical gardens.” 
According to his report, Tobler collected hundreds of specimens during his tour, many of which he prepared in alcohol for further examination back in Europe, with some of the botanical material earmarked for teaching purposes and donated to the Botanical Institute in Münster.
Producing and disseminating knowledge of colonial botany
Once returning to Münster, Tobler sent in a handwritten report to the Reichskolonialamt, which was subsequently distributed to the agencies and institutes which had funded and participated his research, in order for them to benefit from the knowledge he had gleaned with the help of the scholarship.
Aside from the scientific reports stemming from his research trip, Tobler also wrote an article about the research station Amani for the Die Naturwissenschaften, a weekly periodical dedicated to the ‘progress’ of science, medicine, and technology.  In the article, Tobler’s belief in scientific progress was embellished with his nationalist and imperialist world view. Such beliefs were evident in the following quote: “[W]e must not forget that all work on the soil of German East Africa is, besides scientific value, also a piece of exploration of our great colony, on which it is our duty to work.” 
Tobler would later shift his nationalism from the German Empire to the Nazi Party, the NSDAP. For the historian Daniel Droste, this move by Tobler, along with several of his botanist colleagues, was not politically motivated, but was rather a means to safeguard their academic careers. 
Academic careers can be highly political ventures, as Tobler’s engagement in colonial botany demonstrates, with the ‘collection’ of and research on plants from extra-European contexts made possible only through asymmetrical power relations that closely tied together European political, economic and scientific networks, and excluded any contribution from Africans individuals, groups or networks.
Already in his 1907 publication Kolonialbotanik, Tobler reflected on nature as a resource to be commercially exploited. He further advocated for nature to be adapted and transferred to the most suitable climates. Tobler’s thoughts reflected the broader ideas about nature that circulated within the German colonies.
There, nature was considered a resource that was researched, shared, and admired if it was deemed useful to the commercial and agricultural interests of the colonisers. Potentially useful plants were cultivated and tested, and if considered suitable their seeds and saplings were disseminated through nodes of empire, sometimes first through the metropole of Berlin, before being sent to other locations of colonial agriculture in the colonies.
Akin to the practices of (proto)ethnologists, knowledge that Europeans generated about these plants gave no voice to local input, just as the collecting practices of the Toblers was devoid of reference to local helpers at Amani, or in his research at other locations on his tour. African plants were treated as a universal good that only Europeans could ‘properly’ decode and maximise.
By focusing on the colonial tour of a German botanist couple based outside of the major centres of German colonialism, this paper has argued that rather than being benign, colonial botany rested on thick layers of political, academic and economic networks that privileged European interests and concealed any contributions from non-Europeans.
There is currently little work on the institutions that facilitated colonial botany and its networks, including Amani. In 2020, an interdisciplinary publication collaborated on by artists, historians and social anthropologists examined the marks left by Amani in Tanzania and Germany, reflecting the increased focus on writing histories of entanglement that focus not just on cultural intercessions, transformation, and multidirectional processes, but also on the enduring distinctiveness of certain cultural ways of attaining knowledge. 
These points of entanglement are often difficult to find, as exemplified in the case of Tobler, in whose papers we can observe the networks involved in the coloniality of collecting practices, yet little on the objects of collection, the plants themselves or of the people on the ground who facilitated his research.
Moreover, the archives are silent as to whether the knowledge produced about African botany in Europe was transferred back to Africa beyond the nodes of European institutions.
 Ulrich van der Heyden and Joachim Zeller, eds., Kolonial Metropole Berlin. Eine Spurensuche (Landshut: Berlin Edition, 2002); Sebastian Bischoff, Barbara Frey, and Andreas Neuwöhner, eds., Koloniale Welten in Westfalen (Leiden, Boston, Singapor, Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2021); Jürgen Zimmerere, Kein Platz an der Sonne. Erinnerungsorte der Deutschen Kolonialgeschichte (Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 2013); Minu Haschemi Yekani and Ulrike Schaper, ‘Pictures, Postcards, Points of Contact: New Approaches to Cultural Histories of German Colonialism*’, German History 35, no. 4 (14 November 2017): 603–23, https://doi.org/10.1093/gerhis/ghx106; Birthe Kundrus, ed., Phantasiereiche. Zur Kulturgeschichte des Deutschen Kolonialismus (Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag, 2003).  For example, within the few publications on colonial traces in Münster there is no reference to botany. See: Silke Hensel and Barbara Rommé (eds) Aus Westfalen in die Südsee. Katholische Mission in den deutschen Kolonien (Berlin: Reimer, 2018); Philipp Erdmann, ‘Vom Verklärten Sehensuchtsort sur Unbequemen Erinnerung: Koloniale Spuren in Erinnerungsdiskursen der Stadt Münster’, Westfälische Forschung 69 (2019): 241–66.  Frank Jacob, Tabak und Gesellschaft. Vom brauen Gold zum sozialen Stigma, ed. Gerrit Dworok, Wissen Über Waren - Historischen Studien zu Nahrungs- und Genussmitteln 1 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2015).  See for example: Thomas Ruhland, Pietistische Konkurrenz und Naturgeschichte – Die Südasienmission der Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine und die Dänisch-Englisch-Hallesche Mission (1755-1802) vol. 31, Beiheft der Unitas Fratrum (Herrnhut: WinterDruck Herrnhut, 2018); R.W. Home, ‘A Botanist for a Continent: Ferdinand von Mueller (1825-96)’, Endeavour 22, no. 2 (1998): 72–75, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-9327(98)01112-0.  On ethnographical practices see: Patrick Harries, Butterflies & Barbarians: Swiss Missionaries & Systems of Knowledge in South-East Africa (Harare, Johannesburg, Oxford, and Athens: Weaver Press, Wits University Press, James Currey, & Ohio University Press, 2007); Tanja Hammel, Shaping Natural History and Settler Society. Mary Elizabeth Barber and the Nineteenth-Century Cape, Cambridge Imperial and Post-Colonial Studies Series (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019); Patrick Harries, ‘Anthropology’, in Missions and Empire, ed. Norman Etherington (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 238–60.  See Tobler’s obituary: H. Ulbricht, (1957), “Friedrich Tobler.” Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft (Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges), 70: 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1438-8677.1957.tb03928.x  Friedrich Karl Timler and Bernhard Zepernick, „German Colonial Botany“, Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 100 (1987): 143-68.  Friedrich Karl Timler and Bernhard Zepernick, „German Colonial Botany“, Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 100 (1987): 143-68.  Engler himself had an interest in colonial botany, publishing an article in the publication of the Zentralstelle on the flora of the Marshal Island, territories under German colonial rule since 1885. See: Engler, A. "Notizen über die Flora der Marshallinseln. Auf Grund einer Sammlung des Regierungsarztes Herrn Dr. Schwabe und dessen Handschriftlichen Bemerkungen." Notizblatt des Königl. Botanischen Gartens und Museums zu Berlin 1, no. 7 (1897): 222-26. Accessed July 7, 2021. doi:10.2307/3993926. See also: Bundesarchiv, Berlin [BARch], R 1001/8613 Botanisches Tropenstipendium. - Vergabe für das Jahr 1905 an Prof. Dr. A. Engler, Berlin-Dahlem. For more on Engler see: Markgraf, Friedrich, "Engler, Adolf" in: Neue Deutsche Biographie 4 (1959), S. 532 [Online-Version]; URL: https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/pnd118684906.html#ndbcontent.  BARch, R 1001/8620, A. Engles, Director Botanischen Gartens und Museums, to Herrn Staatssekretär des Reichs-Kolonialamts, 5. December 1911.  BARch, R 1001/8620. Botanisches Tropenstipendium. - Vergabe für das Jahr 1912 an Prof. Dr. Friedrich Tobler, Münster. Tobler’s application, Münster, 24.1.1911.  Friedrich Tobler, Kolonialbotanik (Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1907).  BARch, R 1001/8620. Botanisches Tropenstipendium. - Vergabe für das Jahr 1912 an Prof. Dr. Friedrich Tobler, Münster. Tobler’s application, Münster, 24.1.1911.  BArch, R1001/8620. Professor Zimmerman, Direktor des Kaiserlich Biologish Landwirtschaftlichen Instituts, Amani to Reichskolonialamt, Berlin durch das kaiserliche Gouvernement in Daressalam, 24. December 1910.  BArch, R1001/8620, Kaiserlicher Gouverneur von Deutsch-Ostafrika (Daressalam) to Reichskolonialamt, Berlin, 7. Januar 1911: Betrifft: Vergebung des Buitenzorg Stipendiums. K.No: 18.  BArch, R1001/8620, Dr. von Lindequist, Der Staatssekretär des Reichskolonialamts, Reichs-Kolonial-Amt to Herrn Gouverneur in Daressalm, B.I. 402/11, Auf den Bericht vom 7. Januar 1911. 3. April 1911  BArch, R1001/8620, Der Staatssekretär des Reichskolonialamts, Reichs-Kolonial-Amt to Herrn Gouverneur in Daressalm, B.I. 402/11, Auf den Bericht vom 7. Januar 1911. 3. April 1911  BArch, R1001/8622 Botanisches Tropenstipendium. - Vergabe für das Jahr 1914 an Prof. Dr. Franz W. Neger, Tharandt.  Friedrich Karl Timler and Bernhard Zepernick, „German Colonial Botany“, Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. Bd 100 (1987): 154-5.  Ibid.  BArch, R1001/8620, Friedrich Tobler, „Das Biologisch-landwirtschaftliche Institut Amani (Deutsch-Ostafrika) und seine Arbeit“, Die Naturwissenschaften, Wochenschrift für die Fortschritte der Naturwissenschaft, der Medizin und der Technik, no. 30, (25.7.1913) 717-721.  BArch, R1001/8620, Der Direktor der Kaiserlichen Biologischen Anstalt für Land und Fortwirtschaft to Herrn Staatssekretär des Reichskolonialamts, Berlin, 6 July 1912.  Flowers Manase, „Amani Hill Research Station from colonial science to colonial heritage“, in Wenzel Geißler, P., Gerrets, Rene, Kelly, Ann H. and Mangesho, Peter. Amani - Auf den Spuren einer kolonialen Forschungsstation in Tansania, Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2020. https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839449592, p. 11.  BArch, R1001/8620, Der Direktor der Kaiserlichen Biologischen Anstalt für Land und Fortwirtschaft to Herrn Staatssekretär des Reichskolonialamts, Berlin, 6 July 1912.  BArch R1001/8620 Bericht des Professor Dr. Fr. Tobler über eine mit Hilfe des botanischen Reisestipendiums ausgeführte Tropenreise 1912/13, Münster 21 September 1913, p. 9.  Ibid, p. 17  Ibid.  BArch, R1001/8620, Friedrich Tobler, „Das Biologisch-landwirtschaftliche Institut Amani (Deutsch-Ostafrika) und seine Arbeit“, Die Naturwissenschaften, Wochenschrift für die Fortschritte der Naturwissenschaft, der Medizin und der Technik, no. 30, (25.7.1913): 717-721.  Ibid.  Daniel Droste, Zwischen Fortschritt Und Verstrickung. Die Biologischen Institute Der Universität Münster 1922 Bis 1962, vol. 6, Veröffentlichungen des Universitätsarchivs Münster (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2012).  Wenzel Geißler, P., Gerrets, Rene, Kelly, Ann H. and Mangesho, Peter. Amani - Auf den Spuren einer kolonialen Forschungsstation in Tansania, Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2020. https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839449592 See also: Samuel Eleazar Wendt, ‘Securing Resources for the Industries of Wilhelmine Germany. Tropical Agriculture and Phytopathology in Cameroon and Togo, 1884-1914’, in Environments of Empire : Networks and Agents of Ecological Change, ed. Ulrike Kirchberger and Brett M. Bennett, e-book (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2020), 39-60.
About the author
Felicity Jensz received her PhD in colonial history from The University of Melbourne and habilitated at the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster (WWU), Germany, on the topic of colonial education, which will be published under the title “Missionaries and Modernity” in 2022 by Manchester University Press. She has published widely on British and German colonial history, including the topics of cultural contact, education and childhoods of non-European peoples and anthropological and natural history collections. (Felicity Jensz, University of Münster, firstname.lastname@example.org)
Felicity Jensz, ‘Kolonialbotanik. Networks of collecting practices in colonial Germany ’, Locus – Tijdschrift voor Cultuurwetenschappen 25 (2022). https://edu.nl/n3d4w
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.