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

Abstract

Socio-economic changes impact local ethnobotanical knowledge as much as the ecological ones. During an ethnobotanical field study in 2018–2019, we interviewed 25 Setos and 38 Russians in the Pechorsky District of Pskov Oblast to document changes in wild plant use within the last 70 years according to the current and remembered practices. Of the 71 botanical taxa reported, the most popular were Vaccinium vitis-idaea, Vaccinium oxycoccos, Vaccinium myrtillus, Betula spp., and Rumex acetosa. The obtained data was compared with that of 37 Setos and 35 Estonians interviewed at the same time on the other side of the border. Our data revealed a substantial level of homogeneity within the plants used by three or more people with 30 of 56 plants overlapping across all four groups. However, Seto groups are ethnobotanically closer to the dominant ethnic groups immediately surrounding them than they are to Setos across the border. Further study of minor ethnic groups in a post-Soviet context is needed, paying attention to knowledge transmission patterns.

Promotion of Wild Food Plant Use Diversity in the Soviet Union, 1922–1991

“…Rosaceae led the ranking by a significant margin, followed by Asteraceae and Ericaceae. These results are consistent with the results of field research: Rosaceae and Asteraceae were found to be frequently used by respondents in Europe [ 3 ], including many southern regions once occupied by the USSR [ 6 , 59 ], while Ericaceae, followed by Rosaceae, were predominant in northern regions [ 60 , 61 , 62 ]. The dominance of Rosacea could be seen as an invitation to explore more borderland species.…”

Cultural vs. State Borders: Plant Foraging by Hawraman and Mukriyan Kurds in Western Iran

“…However, our observations and the respondents' reports confirmed that movements along this border still exist nowadays. This unique similarity across state borders stands in contrast with the findings of Stryamets et al [15], who highlighted the similarity between two ethnic groups (the case of the Hutsuls and Romanians) within the same country (Romania or Ukraine), while they found higher differences within groups across the border (Romanians living in Romania and Ukraine) and Belichenko et al [35] for Seto people residing on the border between Estonia and Russia.…”

“…The currently obtained cross-border difference (JI = 54) is comparable with the high similarity (JI = 53) between Muslim and Kakai Kurds in Iraq [16]; while the dissimilarity between Hawraman and Mukriyan Kurds in Western Iran (JI = 35) resembles the difference between Muslim Kurds and Assyrians (J = 32) and Assyrians and Yazidis (JI = 34) in Iraq [32]. The cross-border JIs in DiGe studies [10] varied from 65 among Setos in Estonia and Russia, where the border was merely administrative until 30 years ago [35], to 55 among Hutsulsin Romania and Ukraine, where the solid border was established over 75 years before the study [8]. At the same time, the Polish-Belarus-Lithuanian borderlands ranged from 48 to 62, as in that once homogenous region, the borders shifted several times in the last 75 years [20].…”

Boundaries Are Blurred: Wild Food Plant Knowledge Circulation across the Polish-Lithuanian-Belarusian Borderland

“…Several researchers have noted changes in the use of natural resources [ 21 ] (p. 60) and significant divergence in LEK between the divided border communities [ 22 , 23 ], despite many years of living together in the same area and sharing the same religious faith [ 24 ], as well as accessing multilingual folk and scientific literature regarding the use of wild plants [ 25 ]. In this vein, various ethnobotanical border studies have found that differences within the compared ethnic groups are more pronounced than those with other local communities currently inhabiting the same country [ 26 , 27 ].…”