The importance of a border: Medical, veterinary, and wild food ethnobotany of the Hutsuls living on the Romanian and Ukrainian sides of Bukovina
Graphical abstract
Introduction
Recent studies have shown that groups sharing the same or very similar environments, but with diverse cultural backgrounds (e.g. different ethnos and/or religion) have considerably different knowledge of folk medicinal plant uses (for the most recent examples concerning Europe see Pieroni et al., 2015, Bellia and Pieroni, 2015, Quave and Pieroni, 2015, Menendez-Baceta et al. (2015), Mustafa et al. (2015)). Studies conducted on the Asian side of former Soviet territories suggest that centralization of the medical system and official prohibition to practice folk medicine have caused the erosion of traditional knowledge (Mamedov et al., 2005). Kassam (2009) demonstrated significant difference in the loss of traditional ecological knowledge on the post-Soviet (Tajik) side of the Badakhshan region of the Pamir compared to the Afghan side; the region is populated by several ethnic groups that have been politically divided since the end of 19th century. Yet, it is not clear to what extent various factors (such as culture, economy, isolation, social and political situations, etc.) contribute to such differences in the utilization of the same existing natural resources.
This paper will address the effect of border creation and subsequent separation of a single ethnic group, the Hutsuls of Bukovina, on changes in the use of plants. The selected group, which had been a homogenous ethnic group for centuries, was separated in 1940 as the result of the formation of state borders. This group, therefore, provides the opportunity to establish if disparate socio-cultural, economic and political conditions have induced remarkably different changes in local plant use in communities that share a historical legacy and environment, but have experienced different conditions for more than two generations.
The medical ethnobotany of Romania has been relatively well studied during the past five decades (for a review see Dragulescu (2006)) and recently the results of a number of ethnobotanical fieldwork studies among minorities in Romania have been published (Kołodziejska-Degórska, 2012, Papp et al., 2013, Pieroni et al., 2012, Pieroni et al., 2014), including a very recent investigation on the use of wild edible plants and mushrooms among ethnic Ukrainians living in the Maramureş region, also inhabited by Hutsuls (Łuczaj et al., 2015).
Conversely, Ukraine is a considerably under-studied region, especially from the perspective of recent field research. Medicinal ethnography of Bukovina, however, is relatively well covered through historical sources, as there are some regional reports originating from the 19th century and later ethnomedicinal and ethnoveterinary research and analyses of archival data published in national languages, mainly Polish and Ukrainian.
However, thus far there have been only two articles published in English concerning plant use in the territory of present-day Ukraine, bordering Bukovina. One of them is a recent documentation of the current use of mushrooms, wild food and medicinal plants in Roztochya (Western Ukraine) (Stryamets et al., 2015) and the other (Kujawska et al., 2015) concerns remotely collected historical ethnographic data from the pre-WWII period covering the part of present-day Ukraine that belonged to the Polish Republic from 1818 to 1939.
Although scarce, the existing ethnographic literature concerning Bukovina allows for some diachronic comparisons regarding the use of medicinal plants. On the other hand, the well-researched legacy of Romanian ethnomedicine allows for a comparison with a neighbouring region and the possibility of identifying Romanian influences (if any) on the use of plants by Hutsuls presently living in Romania.
Within the framework of the autocratic and formalized Soviet medical system, one of the most important means of influence might have been The State Pharmacopeia of the Soviet Union/USSR (11th edition, 1990), which contains separate chapters on selected, officially accepted plants (Shikov et al., 2014). Besides the Pharmacopeia there were several other official lists (Shikov et al., 2014), and also state-wide recommendation books (for example see Hammerman et al. (1970)). During the Soviet period, the use of plants other than the officially sanctioned taxa was negatively addressed. Research on the medicinal properties of plants in Ukraine was rather intense and widespread, as was the popularization of the medicinal use of plants, especially since the end of the 1960s (Skybitska, 2014). Official popular books (meant for a wider public, but written mainly by doctors or pharmacists following strict guidelines provided by authorities) on national medicinal plants in almost every national republic and often in national languages (Kook and Vilbaste, 1962, Podymov and Suslov, 1966, to name a couple), were published during different short periods of relative freedom within the last three decades of the Soviet State. In Ukraine, the work of Nosal and Nosal (1965) was very popular and was widely sold throughout the country. Such regional books, like the one covering the Hutsuls (Boltaroviš, 1980) in which descriptions of folk uses as well as popular explanations of the context of these uses are provided, could be published only at the very end of the Soviet period. Although within the present work it is not possible to cover all possible early sources of influence, the possible effect of the Soviet Pharmacopeia should be relatively easy to track. If such an influence is present, it must be well reflected in the current use of plants on the Ukrainian side (but not on the Romanian side) of the border.
This research addresses the question as to whether there are differences between the use of plants among Hutsuls presently living in Romania and in Ukraine. If in fact there are disparities in plant use between the two groups, then what may explain these differences? Our working hypothesis is that these two groups still share a remarkable legacy in plant use, yet some differences may exist due to diverse influences of the Soviet and Romanian states, as well as to the current socio-economic situation. The results of the present study will be compared with the historical data from ethnographic sources concerning Bukovina and documented Romanian plant-use traditions. The possible influence of the Soviet Pharmacopeia on the Ukrainian side of the border will be discussed as well.
Section snippets
Ecological, geopolitical and ethnographic background
The Carpathian area is highly biodiverse with over 7500 species (including introduced species) occurring in the Carpathian Mountains and in the large lowlands extending towards the south, north and east; the vegetation of the Ukrainian Carpathians belongs to the Central European Province, being the richest in the region, and includes a number of Transylvanian and Balkan species as well as several endemic forms (Bojnanský and Fargašová, 2007). The Carpathian region occupies only about 5% of the
Results and discussion
Table 1 presents all covered domains of plant use: wild food, recreational teas, medicinal and ethnoveterinary plants. Altogether, 101 vascular plant and 2 fungi taxa belonging to 49 families were utilised, of them 57 were wild, 41 cultivated, two found both wild and cultivated and three obtained from outside the local environment.
The top five most represented families (with the highest total of used taxa) were: Rosaceae (11), Asteraceae (10), Apiaceae (8), Polygonaceae (6) and Lamiaceae (6).
Conclusion
Although considerable changes have occurred within specific medicinal applications and less in the taxa used, Hutsul herbal ethnomedicine on the Ukrainian side of the border seems to have continued to evolve (abandoning some uses and adopting others), whereas on the Romanian side it has undergone significant erosion with a proportionally smaller adoption of new uses and the leaving behind of more traditional uses than on the Ukrainian side. In sum, current ethnomedicinal practices of Hutsuls
Acknowledgements
The field study was financed in large part by research funds of the University of Gastronomic Sciences (Pollenzo, Italy) and the Estonian Science Foundation Grant IUT22-5; writing of the paper was partially supported by European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (Center of Excellence in Estonian Studies, CEES). Our special thanks, however, go to all the study participants of the various Hutsul communities, who generously shared their knowledge.
References (55)
- et al.
Medicinal plants in the Mediterranean area: synthesis of the results of the project Rubia
J. Ethnopharmacol.
(2008) - et al.
The importance of cultural factors in the distribution of medicinal plant knowledge: a case study in four Basque regions
J. Ethnopharmacol.
(2015) - et al.
Folk medicine in Uzbekistan: I. Toshkent, Djizzax, and Samarqand provinces
J. Ethnopharmacol.
(2004) - et al.
Medicinal plants of the Russian Pharmacopoeia; their history and applications
J. Ethnopharmacol.
(2014) - Arsenich et al., 1987.=Арсенич П. I., Базак М. I., Болтарович З. Е., eds. (1987). Гуцульщина: I ст.-етногр....
- et al.
Isolated, but transnational: the glocal nature of Waldensian ethnobotany, Western Alps, NW Italy
J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed.
(2015) - et al.
Atlas of Seeds and Fruits of Central and East-European Flora: The Carpathian Mountains Region
(2007) - Boltaroviš 1980.=Болтарович З. Е., 1980. Народне лікування украïнцiв Карпат кінця ХІХ — початку ХХ століття. Акадимiя...
Handbuch Der Pharmaceutischen Botanik: Ein Leitfaden Zu Vorlesungen Und Zum Selbststudium
(1837)Pflanzenheilmeittel der rumänischen Volksmedizin
(2006)
Medicinal plants from Chatkal Biosphere Reserve used for folk medicine in Uzbekistan
Med. Aromat. Plant Sci. Biotechnol.
Botanische Beiträge aus Galizien. Ueber die Heil- und Zauberpflanzen der Ruthenen in Ostgalizien und der Bukowina
Verh. der Zool. Bot. Ges. Wien
Viewing change through the prism of indigenous human ecology: findings from the Afghan and Tajik Pamirs
Hum. Ecol.
Mental Herbals – a context-sensitive way of looking at local Ethnobotanical knowledge: examples from Bukovina (Romania)
Trames
Eesti NSV Ravimtaimed
Threatened vascular plants in the Ukrainian Carpathians: current status, distribution and conservation
Thaiszia J. Bot. Košice
Fischer's lexicon of Slavic beliefs and customs: a previously unknown contribution to the ethnobotany of Ukraine and Poland
J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed.
Cultural Politics in Greater Romania: Regionalism, Nation Building, and Ethnic Struggle, 1918–1930
Wild food plants and fungi used by Ukrainians in the western part of the Maramureş region in Romania
Acta Soc. Bot. Pol.
Wild food plant use in 21st century Europe: the disappearance of old traditions and the search for new cuisines involving wild edibles
Acta Soc. Bot. Pol.
Medicinal plants used in Russia and central Asia for the treatment of selected skin conditions
J. Herbs, Spices Med. Plants
Cited by (96)
Genus Equisetum L: Taxonomy, toxicology, phytochemistry and pharmacology
2023, Journal of EthnopharmacologyEthnomedicine survey on folk dermatology in Transylvania, Romania
2022, Clinics in DermatologyAn ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants in Güce district, north-eastern Turkey
2022, Plant DiversityCabbage in Polish folk and veterinary medicine
2022, South African Journal of BotanyAn ethnoveterinary study of wild medicinal plants used by the Kyrgyz farmers
2022, Journal of EthnopharmacologyCitation Excerpt :In the literature mentioned (Lucchetti et al., 2019) that the T. campylodes G.E.Haglund has folk human medicinal value and its root decoctions are used as depurative, diuretic and laxative remedies. Moreover, the Wakhi and Kyrgyz people in Afghanistan use it as a food seasoning (Sõukand and Pieroni, 2016). The aerial parts of J. pseudosabina Fisch.
Keeping their own and integrating the other: medicinal plant use among Ormurs and Pathans in South Waziristan, Pakistan
2023, Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine