7-77-94-ejob-13-14

Department of Botany, Faculty of Biology, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, 1164 Sofia, Bulgaria*Corresponding author: [email protected]

An ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Bulgaria

77

EurAsian Journal of BioSciencesEurasia J Biosci 7, 77-94 (2013)http://dx.doi.org/10.5053/ejobios.2013.7.0.10

There are two starting points for the study of

wild edible plants: that nothing could be more

natural than the human need for food, clothing and

housing, and that the natural environment is the

logical resource for meeting those needs in the most

effective way. Through gathering, wild plants are

supplied in two large groups: plants for medicine

(herbs) and plants for food. Wild plants grow in

places that border human settlements - some of

them are uninhabitable to humans (forests and

fields, clearings, around rivers, roads), but there are

areas associated with human activity (pastures,

meadows, fields, field margins, corners and ends

around the yards). Their collection is related to the

use of knowledge. Wild herbs, greens and

mushrooms should be collected by knowledgeable people (Turner et al. 2011, Chevalier et al. 2013).

Abundant ethnographic material from all folk regions showed that Bulgarians sometimes catch animals, birds, or fish, or gather plants, fruits, mushrooms, i.e. they are sporadically appropriated from the nature. These food materials are called “wild” because they are appropriated from nature directly in the form that can be most useful (Markova 2011). In this article, “wild” edibles are accepted as all plants growing without intentional cultivation and include predominantly native and

Received: September 2013Accepted: October 2013

Printed: November 2013

INTRODUCTION

AbstractBackground: This study focuses on the wild vascular plants traditionally used for humanconsumption in Bulgaria and its aim is to present data about the richness and diversity of plantsused as a nutrition source, about folk botanical knowledge and to give an impression about theircontemporary state and development in relation to natural plant resources and traditional foodculture. The study covers the period from the end of 19th to the middle of the 20th century.Material and Methods: The study gathered data from more than 30 ethnobotanical andethnographical sources which provide information for the end of 19th to the middle of the 20th

century, in addition to field data collected through semi-structured interviews.Results: A total of 88 wild plant species, 25 families and 52 genera were identified as edible plants.Prevailing are representatives of Rosaceae, Amaranthaceae, Amaryllidaceae, Brassicaceae,Compositae and Polygonaceae. The largest numbers of species are from Allium, Rumex andChenopodium. Similar in number are the species which are used as leaves (43) and fruits (38),followed by young shoots (9), seeds (7), roots (4), bulbs (4) and inflorescences (2). The largest groupis from plants whose aboveground parts are gathered mainly during the spring and used asvegetables. Important species are Urtica dioica, Rumex acetosa, Rumex patientia, Chenopodium album,Atriplex prostrata and Amaranthus retroflexus. The fruits are mostly gathered from Rosaceae,Adoxaceae, Ericaceae and Vitaceae shrubs and trees. The study determined eight major foodgroups: fresh greens and fruits, stuffed pies, stewed and boiled greens, boiled cereals, sweets(boiled fruit products), dried fruits, snacks and lacto-fermented products. The predominant taste issalty-sour-spicy. Some of wild foods are also used for medicinal purposes and included inpreventing or healing diets.Conclusions: Today’s traditional diet is very different from the past. Bulgaria provides a goodopportunity for ethnobotanical research into wild edible plants as there is much ethnographic dataavailable, including food culture and botanical observations, as well as the possibility of field studyin rural areas where wild food plants are traditionally used on a daily basis.Keywords: Balkans, Bulgaria, edible greens, food groups, traditional knowledge.

Nedelcheva A (2013) An ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Bulgaria. Eurasia J Biosci 7:77-94.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5053/ejobios.2013.7.0.10

Anely Nedelcheva*

©EurAsian Journal of BioSciences

naturalized species. It is also accepted that “Edible wild plants are endowed with one or more parts that can be used for food if gathered at the appropriate stage of growth and properly prepared” (Kallas

2010).

Over the past decade, a number of summarizing ethnographic studies on food and the nutrition of Bulgarians were published, based on document collections, ethnographic archives, regional folklore studies etc. They draw attention to historical aspects of food and nutrition, the relationship between cooking and the gender roles of women and men in daily food preparation, food as an identification marker for different ethnic groups, the dietary characteristics of Christians and Muslims, the meanings of dinner as a community meal, monastery kitchen characteristics, the principles of classification of food and nutrition, food selection and the current ban on particular foods (Alexiev 2010, Krasteva-Blagoeva 2010, Matanova 2010, Markova 2011, Georgiev 2013). They all give valuable information about food sources, including wild plants. The work of Markova (2011) “Food and nutrition: between nature and culture” is an attempt at ethnologically reconstructing the system of traditional Bulgarian nutrition by clarifying and defining the types of food that are commonly eaten. There are several large botanical reviews on useful plants, but mainly from the first half of the last century. “Materials for the Bulgarian botanical glossary”, written by Ahtarov et al. (1939), is a comprehensive and detailed survey organized as a dictionary of folk plant names, but also includes some data on the use of plants and in most cases indicates the region that is the source of the data. The same book, in a separate introductory section, provides an analysis of the folk names used in the botany written by Bulgarian botanist Bozhimir Davidov. The information presented is based on field studies and data collected mostly for medicinal properties and rarely as food, handicrafts etc. Stojanov and Kitanov (1960) in “Wild useful plants in Bulgaria” provide an inventory of useful plants in Bulgaria, including naturalized alien species. A small part of the information in this study is the authors' own observations and their field studies, but in many

places it is unclearly cited. Thus it is difficult to distinguish the original ethnographic data from the general information about plants obtained from other sources. Such information, but on cultivated plants, is contained in the book of Stranski (1963) “Wild and cultural plants in Bulgaria”. In recent years, ethnobotanical studies in Bulgaria have partly shed light on the use of wild plants for food (Ivancheva and Stancheva 2000, Kultur and Sami 2008, Nedelcheva 2009, 2012a, b, Nedelcheva and Dogan 2009), but investigation targeting wild food plants has not been conducted. At the same time, there are a number of publications related to the edible plants of neighbouring territories in the Balkans: Macedonia (Matevski 2010, Pieroni et al. 2013), Kosovo (Mustafa et al. 2012), Albania (Pieroni 2008, 2010), Bosna and Herzegovina (Redzic 2006, 2010a, b), Croatia (Pieroni et al. 2003, Luczaj et al. 2013b), with which Bulgaria is connected botanically, culturally and socio-historically. An important period with influence on Bulgarian cuisine is the period of Ottoman Empire and for this reason, ethnobotanical studies on edible plants in the territories of Turkey are very interesting and important (Dogan et al. 2004, 2013, Ertug 2004, Ozbucak et al. 2006, Kargioglu et al. 2010, Dogan 2012). Bulgaria is connected with many European countries on the one hand because of the Mediterranean climate and Mediterranean floristic elements; on the other hand it is connected with others as a result of common processes (including food culture) during the socialist and post-socialist periods. Edible plants were the focus of ethnobotanical research in the Mediterranean European regions (Leonti et al. 2006), Italy (Guarrera 2003, Guarrera et al. 2006, Lentini and Venza 2007, Mattalia et al. 2012), Spain (Tardio et al. 2006, Pardo-de-Santayana et al. 2007, Menendez-Baceta et al. 2012) and other countries mostly from central Europe: Poland (Luczaj and Szymanski 2007, Luczaj 2008, 2010a, b, Luczaj et al. 2012a), Slovakia (Luczaj 2012), Hungary (Denes et al. 2012), Romania (Pieroni et al. 2012, Papp et al. 2013), Belarus (Luczaj et al. 2013a), Estonia (Kalle and Soukand 2012), Sweden (Svanberg 2012), Cyprus (Della et al. 2006) and Slovenia (Cerne 1992).

Certainly, in recent years there has been growing

Nedelcheva

78

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 7: 77-94 (2013)

interest in edible plants in response to the demand for new resources for a healthy diet, new markers of cultural identity and importance, features of migration processes, ethnobotanical linguistics, food seasoning, agro-ecosystem development, etc., to which a number of recent studies in Europe have been devoted (Pieroni 2001, Guarrera 2003, Pieroni et al. 2005, Tardio and Pardo-de-Santayana 2008, Nebel and Heinrich 2009, Turner et al. 2011, Vanzani et al. 2011, Di Tizio et al. 2012, Luczaj et al. 2012b).

The history of the use of wild plants as food is in fact part of the history of the population in this area, an inevitable result of the dynamic processes of the structure of the society, the cultural relationships and the religious characteristics. There is some data about the life of the ancient Slavs and Bulgarians in the first centuries after the formation of the Bulgarian state which can give us an idea about the food of the two ethnic groups involved in the formation of the Bulgarian nation - Slavs and Bulgarians. The Slavs used mainly vegetarian food and agricultural crops; they prepared different kinds of bread and used wild fruit as well. The Bulgarians used to lead a nomadic lifestyle and they had a mainly dairy and meat based diet. After the establishment of a settled lifestyle, the difference in the sources and means of nutrition was wiped out and it can be accepted that a uniform Bulgarian food has existed since approximately the 10th century. After converting to Christianity, the Bulgarians observed periods of fasts and during these periods the food was mainly vegetarian. The food of the Bulgarian Bogomils (the followers of a dualistic, antifeudal and reforming people’s movement which came into being in the bosom of the Bulgarian church in the 10th century and which has found a wide response and imitation in the society) was thoroughly vegetarian. The middle of the 17th century is a period when a lot of new plant species were introduced - e.g. rice, potatoes, tomatoes, pepper, corn - and thus the use of wild plants was reduced. At the end of the 19th century, two types of food were distinguished - city and peasant. There were also changes in the ways of treating and preparing the food. This period completely changed the meaning and place of wild plants in the current

gastronomical culture of the Bulgarians (Vakarelski 1977, Georgieva 1999, Pavlov 2001, Gecheva 2007).

This study focuses on the wild vascular plants traditionally used for human consumption in Bulgaria and its aim is to present data about the richness and diversity of plants used as a nutrition source and folk botanical knowledge, and to give an impression about their contemporary state and development in relation to natural plant resources and traditional food culture for the period from the end of 19th to the middle of the 20th century. Thus ethnobotanical knowledge of food plants collected from the wild will be enlarged in one more European country, which is part of the European Mediterranean area and part of the Balkan Peninsula.

Study area

The Balkan Peninsula is part of south-western

Europe, a historical crossroads of the ancient

cultures of Europe and Asia and a territory in which a

multitude of ethnic and religious communities live.

Because of its geographical location, Bulgaria is a

country where the culture and history of the people

populating the Balkan Peninsula have been

interwoven. Bulgaria is located in Southeast Europe,

in the northeast part of the Balkan Peninsula. Its

territory is located between 44°13′ and 41°14′ north

latitude, 22°22′ and 28°37′ east longitude. It is a

European, Balkan, Black Sea and Danube country. It

is bordered by Romania to the north, Serbia and

Macedonia to the west, Greece and Turkey to the

south, and the Black Sea to the east, with a territory

of 110,994 square kilometres (Fig. 1).

The population of Bulgaria is 7,364,570 and

consists mainly of ethnic Bulgarians (84.8%), with two sizable minorities, a Turkish ethnic group (8.8%) and the Roma (4.9%). The majority of the population, or 72.5%, reside in urban areas (Anonymous 2011). The official language of the country is Bulgarian, which is a member of the Slavic linguistic group.

The territory of Bulgaria belongs mainly to the

south eastern province of the Central European

79

NedelchevaEurAsian Journal of BioSciences 7: 77-94 (2013)

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Floristic Region. Bulgaria’s geographic location is the

reason for the considerable diversity of plants. Many

Mediterranean elements enter along the valleys of

the bigger rivers in southern Bulgaria and along the

southern Black Sea coast. Mediterranean parts exist

even on the southern slopes of the Stara Planina

Mts.

Bulgarian flora comprises 159 families, 906 genera and 4030 species: 12.8% are endemics of the native Bulgarian flora, 11% of the total Bulgarian flora (4102 species), including alien species (Petrova and Vladimirov 2010, Assyov et al. 2012). Bulgaria has four clearly manifested seasons and a traditional seasonal diet. The use of fresh herbs is also seasonal, which required development of methods for their storage and all-year-round use.

Bulgarian cuisine is a representative of the cuisine of south-eastern Europe. It is essentially South Slavic and shares characteristics with other Balkans cuisines (Vakarelski 1977). Radeva (1980) noted that the Bulgarian diet is less closely connected to the Slavic peoples (according to guidelines in the past in ethnographic science), but with Caucasians who live in similar natural and geographical conditions.

Ethnobotanical data collection

This study was conducted in the 2009-2013

period and gathered data from more than 30

ethnobotanical and ethnographical sources that

provide information for the end of 19th and to the

middle of the 20th century. The field data was

compiled through semi-structured interviews with a

field questionnaire organized to seek the following

information about plants: local name, plant part(s)

used, local mode of preparation, and use in

traditional customs. Data was collected from 53

informants (35 female and 18 male) older than 65

years, living in villages. At this stage, the study did

not seek representation of all or certain folk or

administrative regions.

The list of species is presented in alphabetical order by Latin name and includes data on family, local name(s), part used, and mode of preparation and consumption. Family assignations follow the “Angiosperm Phylogeny Group III system” (Stevens 2013) and “The plant list database” (Anonymous 2010). Approaches from a number of ethnobotanical studies in Europe (Luczaj and Szymanski 2007, Kalle and Soukand 2012, Luczaj et al. 2012b) are followed concerning the registration of highly variable and taxonomically unresolved species in the list.

A total of 88 wild plants species, 26 families and

52 genera were identified as edible plants. Recorded

data are presented by list of species, families, local

name(s), part used and method of consumption

(Table 1). Only one family (Equisetaceae) is from

spore-bearing plants and one from monocots

(Amaryllidaceae). The most prevalent are represen-

tatives of Rosaceae (22.5%), Amaranthaceae and

Amaryllidaceae (10%), Brassicaceae and Compositae

(8.75%), Polygonaceae and Apiaceae (6.25%) (Table

2). The largest numbers of species are from Allium,

Rumex, Malva and Chenopodium. They represent

more than 20% of registered taxa. We can add to

this group some unlisted and variable Rosa species,

Rubus spp. and Taraxacum spp. The list includes 37

species of perennials, 5 species of biennials and 14

species of annuals, 15 species of trees, and 17

species of shrubs (including 5 species of dwarf

shrubs).

The edible parts of plants, their method of

preparation and the taste characteristics of the final

product are given in Table 3. Similar in number are

the species which are used as leaves (43) and fruits

(38), followed by young shoots (9), seeds (7), roots

Nedelcheva

80


Fig. 1. Map of the study area.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

81


Table 1. The wild edible plants used as food in the study area.

(4), bulbs (4) and inflorescences (2). Most of the

plants (73%) have multiple edible uses.

Edible greens

The largest group is from plants with

aboveground parts (young leaves (43), shoots and

stems (9), gathered mainly during the spring and

used as vegetables. It is 59.1% of all listed species,

dominated by Amaryllidaceae, Amaranthaceae,

Brassicaceae, Compositae and Polygonaceae (Fig.

2a).

Important species are Urtica dioica, Rumex

acetosa, Rumex patientia, Chenopodium album,

Atriplex prostrata and Amaranthus retroflexus, which

had a very wide usage in the past, but are also still

used today. Conversely, many others were found

only in ethnographical sources (Agrostemma githago,

Cardamine spp., Bellis perennis, Lepidium spp.) Most

of these plants are rarely used and more or less

regional or used as substitute, for example in terms

of infertility, famine and etc.

Gathered leaves and shoots were used like

vegetables, as a basic food component in the past,

Nedelcheva

82


Table 1. Continued.

*collected info, which is not visible in ethnographical and ethnobotanical sources**fruit=pseudo-fruit

but nowadays they are used instead of cabbage and spinach. They are not stored dry for winter. Edible greens are preferred for raw consumption or as ingredients for salad. These two food categories overlap to a large extent. In the past consumption of vegetables seasoned only with salt was more commonly called “salad”. Vitis vinifera leaves are used for “sarma” (stuffed with rice or bulgur and/or minced meat). They are used in many meat dishes, especially in spring. U. dioica is used as single ingredient or mixed in vegetarian diets, but never with meat. In poor regions, people eat nettles mixed with small quantities of flour for weeks at a time. Using edible greens provides food with a mostly sour and sometimes bitter sour taste (Table 3). There are some traditional combinations of food ingredients, such as lamb with sorrel (Rumex spp.) and mint (Mentha spicata L.). These three components are involved in the preparation of many dishes typical for a festive meal of St. George day (6th May).

A traditional dough meal with a filling is the

“banitza”. It is a pie made of dough sheets with

different vegetables (young and fresh leaves or

shoots depending on the season: U. dioica, Rumex

spp., A. retroflexus, Chenopodium spp., A. prostrata

and etc.) and very rarely fruit (apple, pumpkin) between the sheets. The pie has different names depending on the kind of vegetable it contains and its shape. Various kinds of pottery and appliances have been created for its preparation and baking. A special type of meal is the “zelnik”, which looks like the “banitza” but is prepared of two dough sheets -

upper and lower- with greens in the middle (a filling of different kinds of green vegetable leaves). “Banitsa” or “zelnik” prepared with amaranth “shtir” is called “shtirnik”, especially in West Bulgaria (Kyustendil region) (Zahariev 1949) (Fig. 3). The preferred use of one or other green vegetable for pie filling is generally regionally differentiated. For example, Pieroni et al. (2013) report Atriplex hortensis L. as the most preferred filling in Western Macedonia.

Rheum rhaponticum is endemic and a rare plant in Bulgarian flora (locality in south-western Bulgaria, Rila Mts.) (Petrova 2006, Petrova and Vladimirov 2009, 2010). Leaf peduncles have a strong sweet taste and were used as a snack, for pies or for sweets in the past. Data about the use of R. rhaponticum as an edible plant is found in old monastery books and written sources of recipes and it is also presented in the oldest written documents about traditional Bulgarian food culture. The plant could be found in the gardens of monks from the Rila Monastery (Stranski 1953, 1963, Stojanov and Kitanov 1960, Nedelcheva 2009, 2012a). Today, this plant has lost its importance as a food.

The addition of garlic to food is common for the

Bulgarians who also well know its healing qualities.

Allium ursinum (wild garlic) is used nowadays as a

substitute for garlic in many regions in the country in

the spring, and such use is not supported by many

ethnographic data. The leaves and bulbs of the wild

garlic can be consumed raw, cooked or pickled. It is

added to salads and a number of meals. Buttermilk

with wild garlic is an appropriate cold soup for the

summer. Alliaria petiolata was also used in the past

as a substitute for garlic because of its taste and

smell. Since ancient times, onion has been used raw

or as an ingredient in many meals. Many species and

particularly their stems and leaves (over 20 Allium

wild species) can be consumed.

83


Table 2. Taxonomical structure of edible plants in the studyarea.

The young shoots of some species can be

consumed raw as a snack, in salad, marinated and in

pickle or added to soups (Chaerophyllum bulbosum,

Anthriscus spp., Рastinaca sativa, Heracleum

sibiricum). The stems of these Apiaceae species have

a thick consistency and they are suitable for thermal

processing or fermentation. Not least, they give

food a specific flavour due to their essential oil

content. Due to the antimicrobial properties of

these oils, they are a natural preservative,

particularly for lacto-fermented foods.

Fruits and seeds

The fruits (including pseudo fruits) of 38 species

(43.8%) were obtained, mostly from Rosaceae,

Adoxaceae, Ericaceae and Vitaceae shrubs and trees

(Fig. 2b). They can be consumed fresh, dried or after

thermal or lacto-fermented processing. Fresh or

dried fruit may be cooked in water until tender and

used to make jams, marmalade or compote (with

macerated whole fruits or pieces of fruits) (Table 3).

The fruits gathered during the summer or

autumn (apples, plums, and pears) are cut in slices

and dried. They are consumed directly or stewed and

sweetened in the winter. Dried fruits (most

commonly apples and pears) are ritual food,

particularly in winter customs (Christmas Eve) - with

the common name “oshav”. Fresh fruit is cut into

slices and dried on strings or spread on dry and well

aired places. This is superb, basic high-calorie food

for the winter.

Various fruits (including wild Malus and Pyrus

spp., Mespilus germanica, Sorbus torminalis,

Vaccinium vitis-idaea) are stored for the winter,

chiefly as a fruit pickle in vinegar or in brine. The

acetic fruit pickle is more frequent and favourable.

This is the way in which the fruits were preserved for

the winter historically. Nowadays fruit pickle is not

commonly used. The fruits are preserved better in

wine, which elevates their taste.

The use of R. canina as a food plant is typical in the poorer regions as well as those with unfruitful soils. The use of R. canina is a sign of poverty, and has been the main food and vitamin source in these regions for many years, according to data from folk songs and legends. Brier jam is very famous and common - it has a complicated recipe and is a time consuming procedure. Special wooden devices and containers are made for its preparation. The names of many settlements and areas in Bulgaria originate from the folk name of R. canina, Bulgarian (Bg): “shipka” (Ahtarov et al. 1939, Stojanov and Kitanov 1960, Stranski 1963).

The use of the walnut seeds (Juglans regia) and

hazel bush seeds (Corylus avellana) is wide. They can

be consumed raw or dried and added to many meals.

These seeds are a valuable source of nutrition during

the winter. The edible chestnut (Castanea sativa) has

a very limited distribution throughout the country

(south-western Bulgaria, Belasitsa Mts.). Its seeds

are consumed roasted or boiled (as a sweet) or as a

bread flour ingredient.

Aquatic plants are not preferred as food. One of the exceptions is Trapa natans which is aquatic edible plant. Water chestnut has fresh fruits that taste like chestnuts; they are boiled or baked like potatoes, or prepared as bread flour (Stojanov and Kitanov 1960, Stranski 1963).

Nedelcheva

84


Table 3. Number of plants according to plant parts used, the mode of preparation and taste characteristics.

* male catkins, **spore stem, ***leaf peduncle, **** tuber

Underground parts

Underground parts have a relatively limited use (9.9%): roots (4), bulbs (3) and tuber (1) from Amaryllidaceae, Apiaceae, Compositae and Amaranthaceae (Fig. 2c). The bulbs of Allium spp. were widely used as a substitute for onion. Chenopodium bonus-henricus is used as an ingredient and emulsifier in traditionally prepared sweet “halva”, as in other Balkan areas (Pieroni et al. 2013). The use of underground parts is more common in mountainous and rural regions and increases in periods of scarcity, mostly as a substitute for potato (Redzic 2006, 2010a).

Food groups

The study outlined eight major food groups with

wild edibles: fresh greens and fruits (raw), salads, stuffed bakery products (pie), cooked meals (stewed, boiled, roasted or fried greens, including boiled cereals), sweets (boiled or macerated fruit products), dry fruits or greens, lacto-fermented products (vegetable pickle and fruit pickle) and bread ingredients (Table 3). The taste is culturally distinct, and the predominant taste of Bulgarian cuisine is salty-sour-spicy (Markova 2011). Wild edible plants are food ingredients that cover all the main taste categories. Fruits are the main ingredient in sweets. Edible greens are cooked together with meat and give the dishes a salt-sour taste of dishes. More than 70% of all recorded foods are characterized by a salty-sour taste (Fig. 4). Plants such as Allium spp., Alliaria petiolata and Nectaroscordum siculum are used as a substitute for onion and garlic in food preparation and are mainly responsible for the spicy character of the food. Bulgarians often add sourness to cooked meals. The sourness is used instead of vinegar and gives the soup sour taste. In the past, people in poor regions usually used as sour the wild unripe fruits (V. vinifera, Cerasus spp., Berberis vulgaris, Ribes spp.) as well as the leaves of Rumex spp. and Oxalix acetosella.

Symbolic plants

The traditional holidays of the Bulgarian people

involve the preparation of ritual food, which consists

mainly of ritual breads. Wild plants play a significant

role in their decoration. They are also used as

symbols (e.g. putting buds of the cornel-tree in the

bread as a symbol of health and abundance). Some plants are an unalterable part of Bulgarian traditions and represent an obligatory part of the table prepared for religious holidays (Valchinova 1995, Marinov 2003a, b). A clear example of this is the selection of meals for Christmas Eve (24th

December), which is entirely vegetarian, and commonly comprised of vegetarian “sarma” stuffed V. vinifera or cabbage leaves, “oshav” (stewed dried fruit-mainly plums and pears), walnuts, hazelnuts,

85


Fig. 2. Systematic structure of the main food groups in thestudy area. a) Edible greens, others (Adoxaceae,Caryophyllaceae, Campanulaceae, Equisetaceae, Oxalida-ceae, Portulacaceae, Rosaceae, Urticaceae), b) Fruits andseeds, others (Berberidaceae, Cannabaceae, Cornaceae,Grossulariaceae, Moraceae, Juglandaceae, Lythraceae,Vitaceae), c) Underground part.

dried fruits and boiled cereals.

In the Bulgarian Orthodox Church tradition, the

Lenten fast prior to Easter is the time for a

vegetarian meal, mostly based on edible greens

gathered in the spring (U. dioica, Rumex spp.,

Chenopodium spp., A. prostrata and A. retroflexus,

etc.).

Bread and bread ingredients

Bread is the most basic food of the Bulgarians and the word “bread” is often used in the sense of nutrition in general. It is prepared mainly of wheat, rye and in more rare cases, of corn flour (Vakarelski 1977, Georgieva 1999). In this study, 10.2% of listed plants are used for bread flour or as bread ingredients. In some periods of bad harvest in the past or if the families were poor, substitutes were added to the flour, it was entirely replaced by rose hip flour (R. canina), or young male catkins of C. avellana (pollen and buds) were mixed with the bread flour. In one of the oldest written sources, dedicated to the Life of St. Ivan Rilski, it is noted that he had been using brier flour for the framework of small flat loaf (a kind of bread). This is one of the first written documents that gives information about the use of fresh and dried brier as food, especially for survival (Nedelcheva 2009, 2012a).

Acorn flour (made of baked and ground acorns)

was used in periods of plagues, disasters, poverty

and hunger (Ouercus frainetto). The fruit of Sorbus

aria was also mixed with bread flour in the past. The

dried and ground fruit of Crataegus was sometimes

added to the flour to give it a sweet taste. Flour was

Nedelcheva

86


Fig. 3. Relationships between food groups and taste patterns.

Fig. 4. “Banitsa” or “zelnik” prepared with amaranth(Amaranthus retroflexus) “shtir” is called “shtirnik”especially in the Western Bulgaria (Kyustendil region).

made of Trapa natans and was also mixed with bread flour (Stojanov and Kitanov 1960).

Medicinal foods

Many of the traditional foods have strong healing and strengthening qualities and are used for medicinal purposes and included in a prevention or healing diet (Georgiev 2013). This is of great importance especially for vegetable foods. A number of the plants that are edible are also used in folk medicine because of their healing qualities. The jams and the jellies prepared from cornels (Cornus mas) have an astringent effect, while those prepared from Rheum rhaponticum have a laxative effect. The soup (or other meals) of U. dioica, nettles, is generally used for strengthening the body especially for a weakened body after a long illness, anaemia and as a natural blood purifier.

Invasive species

A. retroflexus and Helianthus tuberosus were

recorded in the surveyed area as edible plants. A. retroflexus is a widespread weed used today mainly for forage. It is an invasive alien species. H. tuberosus was cultivated as an ornamental plant in the past and nowadays has great potential to be a serious threat to biodiversity and natural resources. For now, its popularity and use is limited and it is cultivated in private farms in small quantities. Still, it rarely occurs in ruderal habitats (Petrova et al. 2012).

Poisonous plants

Strong folk botanical culture is shown in the use

of some poisonous plants as food (the aril of the

seeds of yew (Taxus baccata L.), the fruits of bladder-

cherry (Physalis alkekengi L.)) after appropriate

processing (treatment, gathering of the non-

poisonous parts only or their use in a limited time

period of the development of the plant). Well

matured fruits of Sambucus ebulus are used for jam

and as food dye (dried or fresh), although the unripe

fruits are well known to be poisonous.

Folk plant names and folk nomenclature

Some traditional plant names are a true

reflection of their edibility and the adjective “edible”

(Bg: “yadliv” or “edliv”) is often added to folk names.

This approach in the traditional botanical

nomenclature is usually used for species that are

edible as an exception in comparison to those that

are similar (Bg: “yadliv kesten” (edible chestnut) Castanea sativa vs. “konski kesten” (horse chestnut) Aesculus hippocastanum L.). For a number of species, and mainly for those whose leaves are used for the preparation of salads, the traditional name is a direct reference to the dish (Bg: “salata” Lactuca, Taraxacum). The adjective “edible” is used mainly to describe mushrooms in order to distinguish edible mushrooms from poisonous ones. It is rarely used for qualifying higher plants. Most traditional names for the plants used as food reflect their gustatory characteristics, taste and aroma (Bg: “kiselets, kisel buren,” (sour weed) Rumex, “sladak buren” (sweet weed) Atriplex) or morphological forms. Most of the names are old and accompanied the migration of the peoples. The names were transmitted from person to person and thus absorbed and changed according to the spirit and customs of the Bulgarians, mostly with Slavic and Bulgarian origin (“dub” Quercus, “louk” Allium, “dryan” Cornus, “leska” Coryllus, “glog” Crataegus, “loza” Vitis, “lapad” Rumex and etc.)

(Ahtarov et al. 1939, Nedelcheva and Dogan 2009). In folk botanical nomenclature, all edible greens are called “zelenini” or “zelenii”. These names are based on name of green colour “zelen” and the local name of cabbage Brassica oleracea L. “zele”. In this way, all leaf vegetables are well distinguished and separated in folk knowledge. The other old name of wild edible greens is “trevi neseeni”, which means grasses which are not sown, and is visible how the folk nomenclature defined the category “wild”.

The list of species included in this study

represents around 2.18% of Bulgarian flora. This

proportion would be greater, if plants used as food

seasonings and beverages were added, but that is

not the subject of the present study. At this stage of

the study, comparing representativeness of the flora

with similar studies in the Balkans and Europe would

be premature and incorrect.

The systematic structure of established species is

comparable with those for neighbouring regions.

The absence of some species is notable, such as

Gymnosperm (Pinaceae), Boraginaceae, Convolvula-

ceae, Crassulaceae, Dioscoreaceae, Fabaceae,

Araceae, Dioscoreaceae, Orchidaceae etc, which are

listed as food plants in Mediterranean areas. The

87


presence of significant differences in the registered families is primarily due to edible greens, while plants which are used because of their fruits and seeds are mainly representatives of Rosaceae, Adoxaceae, Ericaceae, Fagaceae and Vitaceae, as reported for many study areas (Guarrera 2003, Dogan et al. 2004, 2013, Guarrera et al. 2006, Leonti et al. 2006, Tardio et al. 2006, Lentini and Venza 2007, Pardo-de-Santayana et al. 2007, Dogan 2012, Mattalia et al. 2012, Menendez-Baceta et al. 2012).

Although the species from Apiaceae, Brassica-

ceaeae and Compositae are well represented in this study, they were used rarely and more or less regionally, or as a substitute for vegetables, for example due to infertility of the land and famine. People's memory of them as food plants is almost completely lost. Conversely, in areas with a dominant Mediterranean climate, the use of plants from the Asteraceae, Brassicaceaeae, Apiaceae families as edible greens is very common (Dogan et al. 2004, Dogan 2012) and nowadays they are sold in the local markets (Dogan et al. 2013). This finding is similar to the data of Redzic (2010a), who reported a species list related to stress situations and necessity in, for example, times of war.

The use of wild plants has four well defined

seasonal characteristics, as a result of the climatic

characteristics of the study area, because of the

need to preserve food, and widely applied

conservation practices. The use of plants, and more

precisely separate parts of them, as food is a

reflection of the empirical experience of the people,

which has lasted for thousands of years.

The results of this study show the predominant

role of edible greens (59.1%), followed by fruits and

seeds (43.18%) and underground parts (9.9%).

Edible greens play a dominant role in the salty sour

taste of foods in Bulgarian cuisine. Nowadays, no

more than four species of edible greens are in active

use by people. In contrast, many of listed species of

plants used for fruits continue to be collected and

used. Traditional folk knowledge of fruits is well

preserved.

One of the most symbolic and emblematic plants

in the Bulgarian flora is the nettle (U. dioica), which is

used widely even nowadays. For instance, when you

first eat nettle in a year you should say: “We got to the green again this year”, which means that this year we survived despite the bad winter weather and that the spring is coming with its abundance of food. This saying is used even nowadays but with a change in the meaning, and mainly in order to show that the winter passed this year without many illnesses and difficulties. There are a number of sources that show the value of the nettles as food in the Bulgarian cultural heritage. There are many famous proverbs such as “When a Greek is born, their first words are dried mackerel, while the Bulgarian would say nettles”, “Green zelnik with nettles”, “Silk carries, nettles eats”. “A time will come when you’ll wear silk and eat nettles”, etc. It is also a plant with healing and colouring qualities. Many of the names of regions and settlements in the country originate from the name of the nettle. The use of Urtica urens L. has also been reported in some areas of the Balkans (Dogan et al. 2004, 2013, Dogan 2012, Redzic 2006, Luczaj et al. 2013b). It was not confirmed for this study area, however. In the field studies, many informants clearly described U. dioica as “edible” and U. urens as “not edible”, “not harvested”.

Unlike many other areas of the Balkans and Europe (Dogan et al. 2004, Redzic 2006, 2010a), the use of young leaves and shoots from Malva spp. is not part of Bulgarian cuisine (excluding the use of immature seeds as children’s snacks in the past), while the plant is well known as a medicinal herb.

Generally, people accept the traditional importance of food and psychologically associated food with healing practices or conditions of psychological stress (pregnancy, illness, age)

(Messer 1984, Markova 2011). This study recorded a large number of species that were used in times of scarcity and poverty, mostly as ingredients of bread, substitutes for potatoes, a source of vitamins in the early spring, etc. Here, established species in this group were also used under the emergency conditions of the recent war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as can be seen in the works of Redzic (2006, 2010a, b).

The use of a large number of species for the

preparation of bread flour is very typical of poor

Nedelcheva

88


regions in the Balkans. Redzic (2006, 2010a) reported that over 16% of edible plants were used for this purpose, which is comparable to the 10.2%

found in the present study.

The plains, mainly in the northeast and south parts of the country, are rich in fertile and easily arable lands. Agriculture there is more easily developed and wild plants have been replaced by cultivated ones as food. On the other hand, new meals may be a mixture between wild and cultivated plants. In this way, the diet of the Bulgarians becomes more varied and at the same time more nutritious. In the mountainous areas, there is less diversity in edible plants - mainly the fruits and seeds of some of the plants. Here, striving to ensure their nutrition, the people in a number of cases have used untypical sources of food or vegetarian species which replace other traditionally used plants (e.g. the male flowers/catkins of the hazel bush are added to bread flour) (Radeva 1984, Gramatikov 1992, Markova 2006).

The use of wild plants by the population reflects the social structure of society and therefore the social differentiations in nutrition. Along with cultural and socio-economic development, attitudes toward wild food sources are changing. For a long period after the sixties of the last century, the use of wild edible plants was considered a sign of poverty and low social status. This factor in the loss of traditional knowledge has been reported in other studies (Luczaj and Szymanski 2007, Luczaj et al. 2012b, 2013a).

The influence of other cultures during different

historical periods is obvious, mainly in the ways of

preparing and preserving the plants, as well as in the

way of cooking various meals. This is suggested by

written sources mainly from the period of the

Bulgarian Renaissance and reflects the strong

influence of Ottoman cuisine and folk medicine. The foreign influence on techniques of preparation and the consumption of food and wild nutritive sources has led to the creation of the unique Bulgarian traditional cuisine (Vakarelski 1977, Markova 2011).

Though it has passed through many stages of

cultural influence and yet survived, today’s

traditional food and diet is strongly changed.

Fortunately, in the last decade, there has been a

return to natural food and the Bulgarian cooking

culture is a part of that. The development of rural

tourism has led to a revival of Bulgarian national

cuisine and the use of traditional national sources of

food supply, such as wild plants.

Knowledge of the use of wild plants in the

Bulgarian diet is original and unique in its character.

At the same time, it is inseparable from the

traditional culture of the Balkans and Europe.

The present study showed the function of wild

edible plants as a sign of the ethnic and cultural

identity of Bulgarians but also reveals the vital

importance of wild plants to building the typical

taste and characteristic methods of preparing and

eating food. Wild edible plants are an important part

of Bulgarian patterns of culture.

Bulgaria provides a good opportunity for

ethnobotanical research into wild edible plants

because it provides much ethnographic data,

including observations on food culture and botany,

plus the possibility of field observations in rural

areas where wild food plants are traditionally used

on a daily basis. This study and its data will be the

basis for further cross-cultural and geographical

analysis.

I would like to thank all informants who

generously gave their time to be interviewed.

89


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CONCLUSION

Ahtarov B, Davidov B, Yavashev A (1939) Materials for the Bulgarian botanical glossary. Bulgarian Academy of Science,Royal Court Printing House, Sofia.

REFERENCES

Alexiev B (2010) Food of the Sarakatsans in Bulgaria: Manufacture of food products and nutrition. Bulgarian Folklore1: 39-52.

Anonymous (2010) The Plant List, Version 1. http://www.theplantlist.org (Date accessed 01.09.2013)Anonymous (2011) Population Census the Republic of Bulgaria (Final data). National Statistical Institute Republic of

Bulgaria (NSI), Sofia. http://www.nsi.bg/census2011/PDOCS2/Census2011final_en.pdf. (Date accessed 027.08.2013)

Assyov B, Petrova A, Dimitrov D, Vassilev R (2012) Conspectus of the Bulgarian vascular flora. Distribution maps andfloristic elements. Bulgarian Biodiversity Foundation, Sofia.

Cerne M (1992) Wild plants from Slovenia used as vegetables. Acta Horticulturae 318: 87-96.Chevalier A, Marinova E, Peña-Chocarro L (eds) (2013) Plants and people: choices and diversity through time (Earth).

Oxbow Books, Oxford.Della A, Paraskeva-Hadjichambi D, Hadjichambis AC (2006) An ethnobotanical survey of wild edible plants of Paphos

and Larnaca countryside of Cyprus. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2, 34.http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-2-34

Denes A, Papp N, Babai D, Czucz B, Molnar Z (2012) Wild plants used for food by Hungarian ethnic groups living in theCarpathian Basin. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 81(4): 381-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2012.040

Di Tizio A, Luczaj LJ, Quave CL, Redzic S, Pieroni A (2012) Traditional food and herbal uses of wild plants in the ancientSouth-Slavic diaspora of Mundimitar/Montemitro (Southern Italy). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 8,21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-8-21

Dogan Y (2012) Traditionally used wild edible greens in the Aegean Region of Turkey. Acta Societatis BotanicorumPoloniae 81(4): 329-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2012.037

Dogan Y, Baslar S, Ay G, Mert HH (2004) The use of wild edible plants in western and central Anatolia (Turkey).Economic Botany 58(4): 684-690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2004)058[0684:TUOWEP]2.0.CO;2

Dogan Y, Ugulu I, Durkan N (2013) Wild edible plants sold in the local markets of Izmir, Turkey. Pakistan Journal ofBotany 45(S1): 177-184.

Ertug F (2004) Wild edible plants of the Bodrum area (Mugla, Turkey). Turkish Journal of Botany 28: 161-174.Gecheva K (2007) Bogomilism. Bibliography. Publishing House Gutenberg, Sofia.Georgiev M (ed) (2013) Bulgarian Folk Medicine. Professor Marin Drinov Academic Publishing House, Sofia.Georgieva R (1999) Food and nutrition (late II-I millennium BC). In: Georgieva R, Spiridonov T, Reho M (eds), Ethnology

of the Thracians, University Publishing House, Sofia, 71-111.Gramatikov G (1992) The Walnut in traditional folk culture. Bulgarian Ethnology 4: 28-39.Guarrera PM (2003) Food medicine and minor nourishment in the folk traditions of Central Italy (Marche, Abruzzo and

Latium). Fitoterapia 74(6): 515-544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0367-326X(03)00122-9Guarrera PM, Salerno G, Caneva G (2006) Food, flavouring and feed plant traditions in the Tyrrhenian sector of

Basilicata, Italy. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2, 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-2-37 Ivancheva S, Stancheva B (2000) Ethnobotanical Inventory of medicinal plants in Bulgaria. Journal of

Ethnopharmacology 69(2): 165-172.Kallas J (2010) Edible wild plants. Wild foods from dirt to plate. Gibbs Smith, Layton, Utah.Kalle R, Soukand R (2012) Historical ethnobotanical review of wild edible plants of Estonia (1770s-1960s). Acta

Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 81(4): 271-281. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2012.033Kargioglu M, Cenkci S, Serteser A, Konuk M, Vural G (2010) Traditional uses of wild plants in the middle Aegean region

of Turkey. Human Ecology 38(3): 429-450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-010-9318-2Krasteva-Blagoeva E (2010) Taste in the Balkans: Food and identity. Bulgarian Folklore 1: 7-20.Kultur S, Sami SN (2008) An ethnobotanical study from Isperih (Razgrad-Bulgaria). Journal of Pharmacy of Istanbul

University 40: 11-18.

Nedelcheva

90


http://link.springer.com/article/10.1663%2F0013-0001(2004)058%5B0684%3ATUOWEP%5D2.0.CO%3B2#

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0367326X03001229

Lentini F, Venza F (2007) Wild food plants of popular use in Sicily. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 3, 15.http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-3-15

Leonti M, Nebel S, Rivera D, Heinrich M (2006) Wild gathered food plants in the European Mediterranean: Acomparative analysis. Economic Botany 60(2): 130-142. h t t p : / / d x . d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 6 6 3 / 0 0 1 3 - 0 0 0 1 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 6 0[130:WGFPIT]2.0.CO;2

Luczaj L (2008) Archival data on wild food plants used in Poland in 1948. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine4, 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-4-4

Luczaj L (2010a) Changes in the utilization of wild green vegetables in Poland since the 19th century: a comparison offour ethnobotanical surveys. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 128(2): 395-404.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2010.01.038

Luczaj L (2010b) Plant identification credibility in ethnobotany: A closer look at Polish ethnographic studies. Journal ofEthnobiology and Ethnomedicine 6, 36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-6-36

Luczaj L (2012) Ethnobotanical review of wild edible plants of Slovakia. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 81(4):381-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2012.030

Luczaj L, Dumanowski J, Kohler P, Mueller-Bieniek A (2012a) Manna grass (Glyceria) in Poland: the use and economicvalue of this wild cereal from the Middle Ages to the twentieth century. Human Ecology 40: 721-733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-012-9513-4

Luczaj L, Pieroni A, Tardio J, Pardo-de-Santayana M, Soukand R, Svanberg I, Kalle R (2012b) Wild food plant use in 21st

century Europe: the disappearance of old traditions and the search for new cuisines involving wild edibles. ActaSocietatis Botanicorum Poloniae 81(4): 359-370. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2012.031

Luczaj L, Kohler P, Piroznikow E, Graniszewska M, Pieroni A, Gervasi T (2013a) Wild edible plants of Belarus: fromRostafiński’s questionnaire of 1883 to the present. Journal of ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9, 21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-21

Luczaj L, Zovko-Koncic M, Milicevic T, Dolina K, Pandza M (2013b) Wild vegetable mixes sold in the markets of Dalmatia(southern Croatia). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9, 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-2

Luczaj L, Szymanski WM (2007) Wild vascular plants gathered for consumption in the Polish countryside: A review.Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 3, 17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-3-17

Marinov D (2003a) Selected works. 1.2 Folk belief. Publishing House East-West, Sofia.Marinov D (2003b) Selected works. 1.2 Religious folk customs. Publishing House East-West, Sofia.Markova M (2006) Traditional food and typology farmers/stockbreeders. Bulgarian Ethnology 2: 161-173.Markova M (2011) Food and nutrition: Between nature and culture. Profesor Marin Drinov Academic Publishing

House, Sofia.Matanova M (2010) Food and nutrition. Classification, choice and prohibitions. Bulgarian Folklore 1: 89-107. Matevski V (2010) Important plant species in the Mavrovo National Park. http://www.oxfamitalia.org/wp-

content/uploads/2010/12/30-1-2010-final-angliski-V-MATEVSKI-MAVROVO-FLORA.pdf. (Date accessed 26.3. 2013) Mattalia G, Quave CL, Pieroni A (2012) Traditional uses of wild food and medicinal plants among Brigasc, Kyé, and

Provençal communities on the Western Italian Alps. Genetic Resources Crop Evolution 60(2): 587-603.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10722-012-9859-x

Menendez-Baceta G, Aceituno-Mata L, Tardio J, Reyes-Garcia V, Pardo-de-Santayana M (2012) Wild edible plantstraditionally gathered in Gorbeialdea (Biscay, Basque Country). Genetic Resources Crop Evolution 59(7): 1329-1347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10722-011-9760-z

Messer E (1984) Anthropological perspectives on diet. Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 205-249.http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.13.100184.001225

Mustafa B, Hajdari A, Pajazita Q, Syla B, Quave CL, Pieroni A (2012) An ethnobotanical survey of the Gollak region,Kosovo. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 59(5): 739-754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10722-011-9715-4

91


http://link.springer.com/article/10.1663%2F0013-0001(2006)60%5B130%3AWGFPIT%5D2.0.CO%3B2#

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1663%2F0013-0001(2006)60%5B130%3AWGFPIT%5D2.0.CO%3B2#

92


Nebel S, Heinrich M (2009) Ta chòrta: A comparative ethnobotanical-linguistic study of wild food plants in a Graecanicarea in Calabria, Southern Italy. Economic Botany 63(1): 78-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12231-008-9069-9

Nedelcheva A (2012a) Medicinal plants from an old Bulgarian medical book. Journal of Medicinal Plants Research 6(12):2324-2339. http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/JMPR11.831

Nedelcheva A (2012b) Traditional knowledge and modern trends for Asian medicinal plants in Bulgaria from anethnobotanical view. EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 6(7): 60-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.5053/ejobios.2012.6.0.7

Nedelcheva A, Dogan Y (2009) Folk botanical nomenclature and classification in Bulgarian traditional knowledge. In:Morel JP, Mercuri AM (eds), Plants and Culture: seeds of the cultural heritage of Europe. Edipuglia, Bari, 169-173.

Nedelcheva AM (2009) Plants related to the life and medicinal practice of St. Ivan Rilski. In: Morel JP, Mercuri AM (eds),Plants and Culture: Seeds of the cultural heritage of Europe. Edipuglia, Bari, 175-178.

Ozbucak TB, Kutbay HG, Akcin OE (2006) The contribution of wild edible plants to human nutrition in the Black Searegion of Turkey. Ethnobotanical Leaflets 10: 98-103.

Papp N, Birkas-Frendl K, Farkas A, Pieroni A (2013) An ethnobotanical study on home gardens in a TransylvanianHungarian Csángó village (Romania). Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 60(4): 1423-1432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10722-012-9930-7

Pardo-de-Santayana M, Tardio J, Blanco E, Carvalho A, Lastra J, San Miguel E, Morales R (2007) Traditional knowledgeof wild edible plants used in the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal): a comparative study. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 3, 27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-3-27

Pavlov I (2001) Presence of food in the Bulgarian lands in XV-XIX century. Proffesor Marin Drinov Academic PublishingHouse, Sofia.

Petrova A (ed) (2006) Atlas of Bulgarian Endemic Plants. Gea-Libris Ltd, Sofia.Petrova A, Vladimirov V (eds) (2009) Red List of Bulgarian vascular plants. Phytologia Balcanica 15(1): 63-94.Petrova A, Vladimirov V (2010) Balkan endemics in the Bulgarian flora. Phytologia Balcanica 16(2): 293-311.Petrova A, Vladimirov V, Georgiev V (2012) Invasive alien plants in Bulgaria. Bulgarian Academy of Science, Neo Print,

Sofia.Pieroni A (2001) Evaluation of the cultural significance of wild food botanicals traditionally consumed in northwestern

Tuscany, Italy. Journal of Ethnobiology 21(1): 89-104.Pieroni A (2008) Local plant resources in the ethnobotany of Theth, a village in the Northern Albanian Alps. Genetic

Resources and Crop Evolution 5(8): 1197-1214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10722-008-9320-3Pieroni A (2010) People and plants in Lëpushë. Traditional medicine, local foods, and post- communism in a North

Albanian village. In: Pardo de Santayana M, Pieroni A, Puri R (eds) Ethnobotany in the new Europe: People, healthand wild plant resources, Berghahn, New York/Oxford, 16-50.

Pieroni A, Giusti ME, Munz H, Lenzarini C, Turkovic G, Turkovic A (2003) Ethnobotanical knowledge of the Istro-Romanians of Žejane in Croatia. Fitoterapia 74(7-8): 710-719.

Pieroni A, Nebel S, Santoro RF, Heinrich M (2005) Food for two seasons: culinary uses of non-cultivated local vegetablesand mushrooms in a south Italian village. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 56(4): 245-272.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09637480500146564

Pieroni A, Quave CL, Giusti ME, Papp N (2012) “We are Italians!”: the hybrid ethnobotany of a Venetian diaspora inEastern Romania. Human Ecology 40(3): 435-451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-012-9493-4

Pieroni A, Rexhepi B, Nedelcheva A, Mustafa B, Hajdari A, Kolosova V, Cianfaglione K, Quave CL (2013) One centurylater: the folk botanical knowledge of the last remaining Albanians of the upper Reka Valley, Mt. Korab, WesternMacedonia. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9, 22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-22 Radeva

L (1980) Balkan-Caucasian parallels in food and nutrition. In: Anonymous (ed), Issues of Ethnography andFolklore, Bulgarian Academy Science Publishing House, Sofia, 67-71.

Radeva L (1984) Food and feeding. In: Anonymous (ed), The Bulgarian’s outline of their feature of their traditional folkculture, Bulgarian Academy Science Publishing House, Sofia, 101-104.

http://academicjournals.org/journal/JMPR/article-abstract/A789CB134354

Redzic S (2006) Wild edible plants and their traditional use in the human nutrition in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ecologyof Food and Nutrition 45: 189-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03670240600648963

Redzic S (2010a) Use of wild and semi-wild edible plants in nutrition and survival of people in 1430 days of siege ofSarajevo during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-1995). Collegium Antropologicum 34(2): 551-570.

Redzic S (2010b) Wild mushrooms and lichens used as human food for survival in war conditions; Podrinje-ZepaRegion (Bosnia and Herzegovina, W. Balkan). Human Ecology Review 17(2): 175-187.

Stevens PF (2013) Angiosperm Phylogeny Website, Version 12. http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/ (Date accessed 01.10.2013)

Stojanov N, Kitanov B (1960) Wild useful plants in Bulgaria. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia.Stranski I (1953) The food sources of Ivan Rilski. Priroda 2: 10-17.Stranski I (1963) Wild and cultural plants in Bulgaria. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia.Svanberg I (2012) The use of wild plants as food in pre-industrial Sweden. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 81(4):

317-327. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2012.039Tardio J, Pardo-de-Santayana M (2008) Cultural importance indices: a comparative analysis based on the useful wild

plants of Southern Cantabria (Northern Spain). Economic Botany 62(1): 24-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12231-007-9004-5

Tardio J, Pardo-De-Santayana M, Boyd R (2006) Ethnobotanical review of wild edible plants in Spain. Botanical Journalof the Linnean Society 152(1): 27-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2006.00549.x

Turner NJ, Luczaj LJ, Migliorini P, Pieroni A, Dreon AL, Sacchetti LE, Paoletti MG (2011) Edible and tended wild plants,traditional ecological knowledge and agroecology. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 30(1-2): 198-225.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2011.554492

Vakarelski H (1977) Ethnography of Bulgaria. Publishing House Science and Art, Sofia.Valchinova G (1995) Of Nettles and Garlic. Food Hypostases of Christmas and Easter. Bulgarian Ethnology 4: 53-67. Vanzani P, Rossetto M, De Marco V, Sacchetti L, Paoletti MG, Rigo A (2011) Wild mediterranean plants as traditional

food: A valuable source of antioxidants. Journal of Food Science 76(1): C46-C51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750- 3841.2010.01949.x

Zahariev Y (1949) Land and population-ethnographical study. Food and feeding. Collection of Folklore andBibliography XLV: 144-149.

93


Bulgaristan’daki Yenebilir Yabani Bitkiler Üzerine Etnobotanik Bir Çalışma

ÖzetGiriş: Bu çalışma, Bulgaristan’da geleneksel olarak tüketilen yabani vasküler bitkiler üzerine yoğunlaşmaktadır veçalışmanın amacı; gıda kaynağı olarak kullanılan bitkilerin çeşitliliği, halkın bitkiler hakkındaki bilgisi konusunda verisağlamak ve bitkilerin günümüzdeki durumları ile doğal bitki kaynakları ve geleneksel gıda kültürü ile ilişkili olarakgelişimi hakkında bilgi vermektir. Çalışma, 19. yüzyılın sonu ile 20. yüzyılın ortaları arasındaki zaman diliminikapsamaktadır.Materyal ve Metot: Bu çalışmada, 19. yüzyılın sonu ile 20. yüzyılın ortaları için bilgi sağlayan 30 etnobotanik veetnoğrafik kaynaktan veri toplanmış ve yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşmelerle elde edilen arazi kaynaklı verilerle birliktedeğerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Bu çalışma sonucunda 88 yabani bitki türü, 25 familya ve 52 genus yenebilir bitki olarak tanımlanmıştır.Rosaceae, Amaranthaceae, Amaryllidaceae, Brassicaceae, Compositae ve Polygonaceae temsilcileri baskın türlerolarak göze çarpmaktadır. En çok Allium, Rumex ve Chenopodium türleri mevcuttur. Bunları, yaprak (43) meyve (38),genç sürgünler (9), kökler (5), tohumlar (6), yumrular (3) and infloresens (2) şeklinde tüketilen bitkiler izlemektedir. Enbüyük grup, genelde bahar mevsiminde toprak üstü kısımları toplanan ve sebze olarak tüketilen bitkilerdir. Önemlitürler Urtica dioica, Rumex acetosa, Rumex patientia, Chenopodium album, Atriplex prostrata ve Amaranthus retroflexus’tur.Meyveler çoğunlukla Rosaceae, Adoxaceae, Ericaceae ve Vitaceae çalı ve ağaçlarından toplanmaktadır. Çalışmada sekizbüyük gıda grubu belirlenmiştir: taze yeşillik ve meyveler, sebze içli hamur işleri, güveç ve kaynatılmış yeşil bitkiler,kaynatılmış hububat, tatlılar (kaynatılmış meyve ürünleri), kurutulmuş meyveler, kuruyemişler ve mayalanmış ürünler.Baskın tatlar, tuzlu-ekşi-baharatlı şeklindedir. Yabani bitkilerden bazıları aynı zamanda tıbbi amaçlarla da kullanılmaktave önleyici ve tedavi edici diyete dahil edilmektedir.Sonuç: Günümüzde, geleneksel diyet büyük oranda değişikliğe uğramış durumdadır. Bulgaristan, çeşitli sebeplerdenötürü yenebilir yabani bitkilerin etnobotanik araştırılması açısından iyi bir fırsat sunmaktadır. Bu sebepler arasında,gıda kültürü ve botaniksel gözlemler gibi etnoğrafik veriler sağlamasının yanısıra, yabani yenebilir bitkilerin günlükhayatta geleneksel olarak kullanıldığı kırsal kesimlerde arazi çalışması imkanı vermesi sayılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Balkanlar, Bulgaristan, geleneksel bilgi, gıda grupları, yenebilir yeşil bitki.

94


7-77-94-ejob-13-14

Documents

wild plants

wild vascular plants

study ofwild edible

wild plant species

wild herbs

wild edibles

field data

important species