Concepts of nature are always cultural statements. This may not strike Europeans as much of an insight, for Europe’s landscape is so much of a blend. But in the new worlds ― ‘new’ at least to Europeans ― the distinction appeared much clearer not only to European settlers and visitors but also to their descendants. Hence the fond conceit of primeval nature untrammelled by human associations which could later find expression in a reverence for wilderness.

Reference

I'm having trouble understanding "could".

I'd like to know if "could" is used to indicate that something is typically the case.

Concepts of nature are always cultural statements. This may not strike Europeans as much of an insight, for Europe’s landscape is so much of a blend. But in the new worlds ― ‘new’ at least to Europeans ― the distinction appeared much clearer not only to European settlers and visitors but also to their descendants. Hence the fond conceit of primeval nature untrammelled by human associations which could later find expression in a reverence for wilderness.

Reference

I'm having trouble understanding "could".

I'd like to know if "could" is used to indicate that something was typically the case.