Ethnic and Religious Affiliations Affect Traditional Wild Plant Foraging In
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Genet Resour Crop Evol (2019) 66:1495–1513 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-019-00802-9 (0123456789().,-volV)( 0123456789().,-volV) RESEARCH ARTICLE Ethnic and religious affiliations affect traditional wild plant foraging in Central Azerbaijan Andrea Pieroni . Renata Sõukand Received: 27 May 2019 / Accepted: 28 June 2019 / Published online: 8 July 2019 © Springer Nature B.V. 2019 Abstract Gathering and consuming wild food have preserved a few ancient Slavic culinary uses of plants are traditional practices in many areas of the wild plants (Armoracia rusticana Gaertn., B.Mey. world and their role in fostering food security has and Scherb., Crataegus spp., Rumex acetosella L., and been increasingly discussed in recent years. In this especially Viburnum opulus). Tat cultural markers field study, we focused on traditional foraging among were represented by barberries (especially in their Azeris, Tats, Russian Molokans, and Udis in Central original lacto-fermented preparation) and Or- Azerbaijan. Via 78 semi-structured interviews, with nithogalum spp., while for Udis Smilax excelsa L. an equal number of individuals from the four ethnic/ shoots were particularly salient, as were wild Allium, religious communities, 73 wild food folk taxa were Chaerophyllum, Prangos, Smyrnium, and Tragopogon recorded. While Caucasian autochthonous Udis have spp. among the Azeris. Overall, the practice of a restricted use of wild food plants in comparison traditional foraging is alive in the Azeri Caucasus in with the other groups, possibly due to the fact that the most remote mountainous areas and this heritage they live in a plains area that is horticultural-driven is the result of a complex co-evolution, in which both and well-connected, the most divergent ethnobotany human ecological trajectories and cultural attachment was exhibited by the Tats (10 folk taxa exclusively to certain plant tastes have possibly shaped specific used by them) which may be related to both their foraging patterns over centuries. cultural and geographical isolation and the fact that this community was endogamic until only a few Keywords Ethnobotany · Wild food plants · decades ago. Whereas the Azeri plant cultural Foraging · Local knowledge · Minorities · markers are mainly retained by refugees from Caucasus · Azerbaijan · Plant genetic resources Karabakh, Russian Molokans, who represent a dis- tinct, conservative ethno-religious group, seem to Introduction & A. Pieroni ( ) While foraging is defined in behavioral ecology as an University of Gastronomic Sciences, Piazza Vittorio Emanuele II 9, 12060 Cuneo, Pollenzo, Italy animal’s search for wild food resources, in human e-mail: [email protected] ecology it is considered an adaptive strategy, which concerns both hunter-gatherer societies and, to a R. So˜ukand lesser extent, horticulturalist and especially pastoral- Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics, and Statistics, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Via Torino ist communities (Sutton and Anderson 2004). 155, 30172 Venezia, Mestre, Italy Although foraging includes both wild animal and 123 1496 Genet Resour Crop Evol (2019) 66:1495–1513 plant resources, most of the gathered/foraged items in three reasons: (a) the traditional gathering of wild the world, apart from insects and gastropods, are food plants has not been systematically investigated vegetable items. in the country in the last few decades; (b) the country Gathering and consuming wild food plants are is home to remarkable linguistic and religious traditional practices still followed in many areas of diversity along the Greater Caucasus Range and wild the world and their role in fostering food security has food gathering as part of the local gastronomic been increasingly discussed in recent years (Bharucha heritage is complex and diverse at cultural (religious/ and Pretty 2010; Neudeck et al. 2012; Nolan and ethnic) edges (Pieroni et al. 2018); (c) the country has Pieroni 2014; Ong and Kim 2017; Shaheen et al. the lowest Global Food Security Index in Europe 2017; Shumsky et al. 2014). (GFSI 2018) and neglected food plant resources Although the diversification of diets and their could play a role in shaping culturally appropriate traditional ingredients (underutilized and orphan food sovereignty-driven policies, which may be crops, wild plants, wild crop relatives, and wild particularly important within the community of meat) is considered a key issue in combating internal refugees (approx. one tenth of the popula- malnutrition and hunger (Heywood 2013), there is a tion), who, as a consequence of the (ongoing) remarkable lack of knowledge concerning the diverse “frozen” war with Armenia, are particularly vulner- aspects and scales of foraging and its effect on local able in terms of food security. communities in many areas of the world. The objectives of this study were therefore: (a) to In Europe, especially in its southern and eastern record the traditional plant foraging among four regions, where these practices are still alive, tradi- linguistic, ethnic and religious communities living tional food plant gathering has been under threat along the Greater Caucasus Range; (b) to compare since the 1960s as a result of the industrialization of the data among the four communities in order to point local food systems, the changed social role of women out possible differences and food plant cultural within the household, and the abandonment of small- markers (sensu Pieroni et al. 2015: plants used and scale agro-pastoral activities (Cucinotta and Pieroni mentioned exclusively by one cultural group), as well 2018; Łuczaj et al. 2012; Pieroni 2003). as to compare the same data with the food ethnob- On the other hand, a remarkable resilience of otany of neighboring regions (Arab, Persian, Kurdish, traditional foraging has often been described in those and Turkish areas), and to formulate hypotheses to communities in which minor wild plant ingredients explain possible differences. are considered crucial for shaping local cultural identities and/or for preserving health and well-being (Cucinotta and Pieroni 2018; Reyes-Garcı´a et al. Materials and methods 2015). Additionally, these two aspects may represent not only factors that slow the decline of traditional Study area and communities foraging, but also, together with the new trend of eating wild foods sometimes spread by star chefs and Figure 1 shows the visited villages on the southern the “return to nature” effect, real potent drivers for slopes of the Greater Caucasus Range (Fig. 2). the resurgence of these practices (Łuczaj et al. 2012; Table 1 presents the characteristics of the selected Reyes-Garcı´a et al. 2015). groups. Three of the selected communities (Azeris, The Caucasus region of Eastern Europe and, in Tats, Udis) have been living in the study areas for particular, its post-communist period, have been the many Centuries, while the Molokans arrived in the focus of only a few, mainly sporadic, wild food nineteenth century from Russia and the Azeri ethnobotanical studies, such as those recently con- refugees from Karabakh reached the present territory ducted in Georgia (Bussmann et al. 2016, 2017; approximately 30 years ago. Łuczaj et al. 2017), Armenia (Hovsepyan et al. 2016), and Dagestan (Kaliszewska and Kołodziejska- Field study Dego´rska 2015). We decided to focus on Azerbaijan and its The field study was conducted during the spring of traditional wild food plant gathering primarily for 2018 and the study participants were mainly selected 123 Genet Resour Crop Evol (2019) 66:1495–1513 1497 Fig. 1 Study area and visited villages Fig. 2 Southern slopes of the Greater Caucasus Range 123 1498 123 Table 1 Characteristics of the study participants Ethnic or ethno- Azeris Azeri internal refugees (Russian) Molokans Tats Udis religious group Arrival in the present area Eleventh century AD 1988 from Armenia and the 1830 from Russia (North) Second century AD from Persia (SW) “Autochthonous” (first mentioned in the from Central Asia Nagorno-Karabakh region fifth century BC) (NE), when Oghuz (South; formally in Azerbaijan Turks arrived in the this territory is nowadays area and mixed with occupied by Armenian military the autochthonous forces within the self- Iranic populations proclaimed Republic of Artsakh) Approx. number of 9 million 250,000 2000 25,000 4000 inhabitants in Azerbaijan Geographical Mountainous Mountainous Hilly and mountainous Mountainous Plain characteristics of the study villages Original language Azeri (Turkic group, non Azeri (Turkic group, non Indo- Russian (Slavic group, Indo- Tat (Iranic group, Indo-European) Udi (NE Caucasian group) Indo-European) European) and Kurmanji European) Kurdish (Iranic group, Indo- European) Socio-linguistic Monolingual in Azeri Monolingual in Azeri (youngest Mainly monolingual in Russian; Bilingual in Azeri and Tat; elderly Bilingual in Azeri and Udi; some of the characteristics of the (youngest community community members); some bilingual in Azeri and community members fluent in elderly community members speak study villages members); bilingual in bilingual in Azeri and Russian Russian Russian Azeri and Russian Kurmanji Kurdish (elderly (elderly community community members) members) Genet Resour Crop Evol (2019) 66:1495–1513 Religion Shia Islam Shia and Sunni Islam Spiritual Christianity (sect) Shia and Sunni Islam Orthodox Christianity (Albanian and Armenian Churches) Marriages Exogamic with other Exogamic with other Muslims Endogamic in the past, now Endogamic in the past, currently Endogamic Muslims partially