Dining Tables Divided by a Border: The Effect of Socio-Political Scenarios on Local Ecological Knowledge of Romanians Living in Ukrainian and Romanian Bukovina

Abstract

Local cuisine is an important reservoir of local ecological knowledge shaped by a variety of socio-cultural, economic, and ecological factors. The aim was to document and compare the current use of wild and semi-cultivated plant food taxa by Romanians living in Romania and Ukraine. These two groups share similar ecological conditions and historically belonged to the same province, but were divided in the 1940s by the creation of a state border. We conducted 60 semi-structured interviews with rural residents. The contemporary use of 46 taxa (plus 5 cultivated taxa with uncommon uses), belonging to 20 families, for food consumption were recorded. Romanians in Romanian Bukovina used 27 taxa belonging to 15 families, while in Ukraine they used 40 taxa belonging to 18 families. Jams, sarmale, homemade beer, and the homemade alcoholic drink “socată” are used more by Romanians in Southern Bukovina, while tea, soups, and birch sap are used more in Northern Bukovina. We discuss the strong influence of socio-political scenarios on the use of wild food plants. Cross-ethnic marriages, as well as markets and women’s networks, i.e., “neighbors do so”, may have had a great impact on changes in wild food use. In addition, rapid changes in lifestyle (open work market and social migration) are other explanations for the abandonment of wild edible plants.

Language of Administration as a Border: Wild Food Plants Used by Setos and Russians in Pechorsky District of Pskov Oblast, NW Russia

“…As our interviewees still remember the time when there was only an administrative border between the two groups of Setos and crossborder relations were much stronger, there is still a higher level of overlap for current uses between the two Seto communities compared to the overlap with the cross-border dominant groups. We can observe very similar, although even stronger, cross-border differences between members of the same ethnic group in the historical region of Bukovina, which is currently divided between Romania and Ukraine [11]. The relatively high similarity between Setos living in Russia and Estonians for all taxa continually used can be explained by the education provided in Estonian and the spread of Estonian-language media.…”

“…Out of the 647 occasions in which the name of a wild food plant was mentioned, 175 were dialect names, two Russian names (a recent introduction of Ivan-chai [71]), and the rest were names used all over Estonia, including the whole of South Estonia. Five taxa were referred to by their dialectal name on more than 10 occasions: Vaccinium oxycoccos (29), Matricaria discoidea and Vaccinium vitis-idaea (both 18 occasions), Rubus nessensis (14), and Thymus serpyllum (11). Only one person used a single dialectal name, while five or more dialectal names were used by 17 people, of whom one used 19 dialectal names.…”

Crumbotti and rose petals in a ghost mountain valley: foraging, landscape, and their transformations in the upper Borbera Valley, NW Italy

“…It is affected by the changes undergone by other communities and the vast world, often in an unsymmetrical way [ 23 ]. Various factors, such as government policies, modern science and technology, education, and market development, can operate [ 24 , 25 ]. Migration is one of them [ 26 ].…”

Unity in diversity—food plants and fungi of Sakartvelo (Republic of Georgia), Caucasus

“…Of all species, 388 were wild/wild collected, although a few of them also occurred as weeds in gardens. Even when deducting the fungal species (95), the remaining 293 vascular plant species are a mostly a much higher number than found in any other study in the wider region [ 73 – 106 ] (73:148 species; 74:87 species; 75:41 species; 76:40 species; 77:276 species; 78:119 species; 79:84 species; 80:68 species; 81:30–100 species for different European regions; 82:112 species; 83:139 species; 84:49 species; 85:15 species (although focusing on weeds only); 86:78 species; 87:419 species for all of Spain; 88:36; 89:77 species; 90:40 species; 91:11 species; 92:48 species; 93:83 species; 94:105 species; 95:73 species; 96:47 species; 97:115 species; 98:67 species; 99:78 species; 100:79 species; 101:35 species; 102:52 species; 103:63 species; 104:80 species; 105:88 species; 106:51 species).…”