Suchergebnisse

Map 1: the Habsburg Empire -- Map 2: Bukovina -- Introduction: a Jewish el Dorado? -- A new land -- Military rule, 1774 -- 1786 -- The making of Bukovina Jewry: the Galician years, 1786 -- 1848 -- Revolution, absolutism, emancipation, 1848 -- 1867 -- The rise of Bukovina Jewry -- State, society, and minority: Jewish politics -- Conclusion -- Gazetteer

The article is dedicated to the presentation of Polish historical, ethnological, linguistic and sociological, generally interdisciplinary scientific research of the Bukovina region, separated from Moldova after 1774. For political reasons, these studies could start as fully professional, after the fall of communism, when obstacles to accessing Romanian and Ukrainian archives and travelling from Poland to both sides of Bukovina disappeared. The article describes the reasons for Poles' interest in Bukovina, which results from the multiculturalism of the region and the phenomenon of tolerance. The starting point for the research was the Polish minority in Bukovina, which migrated to this region like other ethnic groups after 1774. Currently, the topics best approached by Poles are referring to the dialect of Poles in Bukovina, the culture and identity of the Polish Highlanders in Romanian Bukovina and re-migration from Bukovina in Poland, migration and political history of Poles in Bukovina. The folklore festivals in Jastrowie, Poland and the "Polish Culture Days" in Suceava, Romania also play an important role in the research of Bukovina by Poles. Unfortunately, there is little professional Polish research on problems not related to the Polish minority.

BACKGROUND: Cross-border research is a novel and important tool for detecting variability of ecological knowledge. This is especially evident in regions recently divided and annexed to different political regimes. Therefore, we conducted a study among Hutsuls, a cultural and linguistic minority group living in Northern and Southern Bukovina (Ukraine and Romania, respectively). Indeed, in the 1940s, a border was created: Northern Bukovina was annexed by the USSR while Southern Bukovina remained part of the Kingdom of Romania. In this research, we aim to document uses of plants for food and medicinal preparations, discussing the different dynamics of Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) transmission among Hutsuls living in Ukraine and Romania. METHODS: Field research was conducted using convenience and snowball sampling techniques to recruit 31 Hutsuls in Ukraine and 30 in Romania for participation in semi-structured interviews regarding the use of plants for medicinal and food preparation purposes and the sources of such knowledge. RESULTS: The interviews revealed that, despite a common cultural and linguistic background, ethnobotanical knowledge transmission occurs in different ways on each side of the border. Family is a primary source of ethnobotanical knowledge transmission on both sides of the border; however, in Romania, knowledge from other sources is very limited, whereas in Ukraine interviewees reported several other sources including books, magazines, newspapers, the Internet and television. This is especially evident when analysing the wild plants used for medicinal purposes as we found 53 taxa that were common to both, 47 used only in Ukraine and 11 used only in Romania. While Romanian Hutsuls used almost exclusively locally available plants, Ukrainian Hutsuls often reported novel plants such as Aloe vera, Aronia melanocarpa and Elaeagnus rhamnoides. Knowledge related to these plants was transferred by sources of knowledge other than oral transmission among members of the same family. Therefore, this may ...

Background: Cross-border research is a novel and important tool for detecting variability of ecological knowledge. This is especially evident in regions recently divided and annexed to different political regimes. Therefore, we conducted a study among Hutsuls, a cultural and linguistic minority group living in Northern and Southern Bukovina (Ukraine and Romania, respectively). Indeed, in the 1940s, a border was created: Northern Bukovina was annexed by the USSR while Southern Bukovina remained part of the Kingdom of Romania. In this research, we aim to document uses of plants for food and medicinal preparations, discussing the different dynamics of Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) transmission among Hutsuls living in Ukraine and Romania. Methods: Field research was conducted using convenience and snowball sampling techniques to recruit 31 Hutsuls in Ukraine and 30 in Romania for participation in semi-structured interviews regarding the use of plants for medicinal and food preparation purposes and the sources of such knowledge. Results: The interviews revealed that, despite a common cultural and linguistic background, ethnobotanical knowledge transmission occurs in different ways on each side of the border. Family is a primary source of ethnobotanical knowledge transmission on both sides of the border; however, in Romania, knowledge from other sources is very limited, whereas in Ukraine interviewees reported several other sources including books, magazines, newspapers, the Internet and television. This is especially evident when analysing the wild plants used for medicinal purposes as we found 53 taxa that were common to both, 47 used only in Ukraine and 11 used only in Romania. While Romanian Hutsuls used almost exclusively locally available plants, Ukrainian Hutsuls often reported novel plants such as Aloe vera, Aronia melanocarpa and Elaeagnus rhamnoides. Knowledge related to these plants was transferred by sources of knowledge other than oral transmission among members of the same family. Therefore, this may imply hybridization of the local body of knowledge with foreign elements originating in the Soviet context which has enriched the corpus of ethnobotanical knowledge held by Ukrainian Hutsuls. Conclusions: While ethnobotanical knowledge among Romanian Hutsuls is mainly traditional and vertically transmitted, among Ukrainian Hutsuls there is a considerable proportion of LEK that is transmitted from other (written and visual) sources of knowledge. This cross-border research reveals that despite a common cultural background, socio-political scenarios have impacted Hutsul ethnobotanical knowledge and its transmission patterns. ; Background: Cross-border research is a novel and important tool for detecting variability of ecological knowledge. This is especially evident in regions recently divided and annexed to different political regimes. Therefore, we conducted a study among Hutsuls, a cultural and linguistic minority group living in Northern and Southern Bukovina (Ukraine and Romania, respectively). Indeed, in the 1940s, a border was created: Northern Bukovina was annexed by the USSR while Southern Bukovina remained part of the Kingdom of Romania. In this research, we aim to document uses of plants for food and medicinal preparations, discussing the different dynamics of Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) transmission among Hutsuls living in Ukraine and Romania. Methods: Field research was conducted using convenience and snowball sampling techniques to recruit 31 Hutsuls in Ukraine and 30 in Romania for participation in semi-structured interviews regarding the use of plants for medicinal and food preparation purposes and the sources of such knowledge. Results: The interviews revealed that, despite a common cultural and linguistic background, ethnobotanical knowledge transmission occurs in different ways on each side of the border. Family is a primary source of ethnobotanical knowledge transmission on both sides of the border; however, in Romania, knowledge from other sources is very limited, whereas in Ukraine interviewees reported several other sources including books, magazines, newspapers, the Internet and television. This is especially evident when analysing the wild plants used for medicinal purposes as we found 53 taxa that were common to both, 47 used only in Ukraine and 11 used only in Romania. While Romanian Hutsuls used almost exclusively locally available plants, Ukrainian Hutsuls often reported novel plants such as Aloe vera, Aronia melanocarpa and Elaeagnus rhamnoides. Knowledge related to these plants was transferred by sources of knowledge other than oral transmission among members of the same family. Therefore, this may imply hybridization of the local body of knowledge with foreign elements originating in the Soviet context which has enriched the corpus of ethnobotanical knowledge held by Ukrainian Hutsuls. Conclusions: While ethnobotanical knowledge among Romanian Hutsuls is mainly traditional and vertically transmitted, among Ukrainian Hutsuls there is a considerable proportion of LEK that is transmitted from other (written and visual) sources of knowledge. This cross-border research reveals that despite a common cultural background, socio-political scenarios have impacted Hutsul ethnobotanical knowledge and its transmission patterns.

Unidad de excelencia María de Maeztu CEX2019-000940-M ; Background: cross-border research is a novel and important tool for detecting variability of ecological knowledge. This is especially evident in regions recently divided and annexed to different political regimes. Therefore, we conducted a study among Hutsuls, a cultural and linguistic minority group living in Northern and Southern Bukovina (Ukraine and Romania, respectively). Indeed, in the 1940s, a border was created: Northern Bukovina was annexed by the USSR while Southern Bukovina remained part of the Kingdom of Romania. Methods: in this research, we aim to document uses of plants for food and medicinal preparations, discussing the different dynamics of Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) transmission among Hutsuls living in Ukraine and Romania. Field research was conducted using convenience and snowball sampling techniques to recruit 31 Hutsuls in Ukraine and 30 in Romania for participation in semi-structured interviews regarding the use of plants for medicinal and food preparation purposes and the sources of such knowledge. Results: the interviews revealed that, despite a common cultural and linguistic background, ethnobotanical knowledge transmission occurs in different ways on each side of the border. Family is a primary source of ethnobotanical knowledge transmission on both sides of the border; however, in Romania, knowledge from other sources is very limited, whereas in Ukraine interviewees reported several other sources including books, magazines, newspapers, the Internet and television. This is especially evident when analysing the wild plants used for medicinal purposes as we found 53 taxa that were common to both, 47 used only in Ukraine and 11 used only in Romania. While Romanian Hutsuls used almost exclusively locally available plants, Ukrainian Hutsuls often reported novel plants such as Aloe vera, Aronia melanocarpa and Elaeagnus rhamnoides. Knowledge related to these plants was transferred by sources of knowledge other than oral transmission among members of the same family. Therefore, this may imply hybridization of the local body of knowledge with foreign elements originating in the Soviet context which has enriched the corpus of ethnobotanical knowledge held by Ukrainian Hutsuls. Conclusion: while ethnobotanical knowledge among Romanian Hutsuls is mainly traditional and vertically transmitted, among Ukrainian Hutsuls there is a considerable proportion of LEK that is transmitted from other (written and visual) sources of knowledge. This cross-border research reveals that despite a common cultural background, socio-political scenarios have impacted Hutsul ethnobotanical knowledge and its transmission patterns.

AbstractBukovina, a predominantly Eastern Orthodox land, today divided between northern Romania and southwestern Ukraine, was the outmost frontier of the Habsburg Empire. Between its incorporation into the Empire in 1774 and Greater Romania in 1918, Bukovina produced an unusual Church. Rather than support a mono‐ethnic Orthodox community, as evident across nation building processes in Southeastern Europe, in 1873, Romanians, Ruthenians and Serbians (in Dalmatia) established a multi‐ethnic Church which rejected association with that of their Romanian brethren in Habsburg Transylvania. This article explores the lead up to the establishment of the church in 1873 and argues that, under the leadership of Bishop Eugen Hakmann, the Metropolitanate of Bukovina and Dalmatia was a novel ecclesiastical institution in which the clergy refused national identification while laypeople supported the growing rise of nationalist movements. This multi‐ethnic Church became one of the most intriguing Orthodox structures which would impact upon the emergence of national churches in nineteenth‐century Romania, Serbia and Ukraine.

"W książce podjęta jest stale aktualna i ważna problematyka wyznaczania granic społecznych i zróżnicowania świata społecznego, migracji i idącego za tym poczucia odrębności, wyobcowania, ale też budowania wspólnoty pomimo […] doświadczanych w toku codziennego życia różnic". Zawarte w niej teksty posłużą lepszemu rozpoznaniu "fenomenu pogranicza w różnych jego aspektach (językowym, kulturowym, społecznym, politycznym) przez osoby należące do świata nauki oraz przez praktyków społecznych (polityków, działaczy i aktywistów). Poszczególne artykuły mogą być również pomocne w procesie dydaktycznym na różnych szczeblach i kierunkach kształcenia w różnych krajach Europy Środkowej" (z recenzji prof. dr. hab. Lecha Suchomłynowa). ; "The book tackles the continuously topical and important subject matter of the setting of social boundaries and the diversity of the social world, of migration and the associated sense of separateness and alienation but also community building despite [.] the everyday experience of difference". The texts comprising this volume will allow for a better understanding of "the phenomenon of the borderland in its various aspects (linguistic, cultural, societal, political) on the part of members of the scientific community and of social practitioners (politicians and activists). Particular texts might also prove useful in the educational process at different levels and in different fields - and in different Central European countries" (from review by Professor Lech Suchomłynow). ; Redakcja naukowa książki została sfinansowana w ramach programu Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego pod nazwą "Narodowy Program Rozwoju Humanistyki" w latach 2015–2018, nr projektu 1bH 15 0354 83