Phytomedicinal Knowledge and “Official” Sources in Tatev (Armenia)

  • Roman Hovsepyan Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Yerevan, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7004-1145
  • Nina Stepanyan-Gandilyan Institute of Botany, Yerevan,
  • Christian Stollberg Hochschule Wismar–University of Applied Sciences, Technology, Business and Design, Malchow/ Insel Poel,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14237/ebl.10.1.2019.1266
Keywords: Folk medicine, Books, Rraditions, Epistemology, Herbal market

Abstract

Ethnographic investigations in the villages of the Tatev community in southern Armenia reveal the positive attitude of the local community toward “official” sources (e.g., printed books, administrative officials, and people of higher education) on herbal medicine and the belittling of their own traditional ethnobotanical knowledge. Although this may be a global phenomenon, we observe and discuss particular reasons specific to the post-Soviet context as conditioned by politics and propaganda. Nowadays, the local population gather and use a minimum of forty wild plants (ethnotaxa) mostly for nutritional, medicinal, and aromatic (tea and flavoring) purposes. Biological species of the traditionally used medicinal plants of the Tatev community were identified, and preparation methods and purposes of the herbal remedies were recorded. The most frequently and traditionally used medicinal plants of the Tatev community belong to these genera: Mentha, Thymus, Ziziphora, Hypericum, Knautia, Arctium, Plantago, Tanacetum, Rosa, and Sambucus.

Author Biographies

Roman Hovsepyan, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Yerevan,

Dr. Roman Hovsepyan is an ethnobotanist and archaeobotanist and a senior research fellow at the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography in Yerevan. His current research interests are the ethnobotany of Armenians, Yezidis, and Kurds, and the prehistory of plant cultivation and use in the South Caucasus and South-Eastern Europe.

Nina Stepanyan-Gandilyan, Institute of Botany, Yerevan,

Dr. Nina Stepanyan-Gandilyan is an ethnobiologist and botanist. She is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Botany, National Academy of Sciences. Her main research interests include the ethnobotany of the Armenian Highland, the role of the pomegranate in Armenian culture, and floristic studies (Lamiaceae and Asteraceae family plants).

Christian Stollberg, Hochschule Wismar–University of Applied Sciences, Technology, Business and Design, Malchow/ Insel Poel,
Dr. Christian Stollberg is heading a research group at the Wismar University of Sciences, Malchow/ Island of Poel, Germany. As a chemical engineer, he is dedicating his work to the processing of plant materials for medical, cosmetic and nutraceutical applications. In the context of medicinal plants, he plays an active role in an international network enhancing the sustainable land use and small-scale organic farming.

References

Allayarov, Kh. A. 1993. The History of Traditional Medicine in Central Asia. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Scientific Research Center “Medical Museum” of the Russian Medical Academy, Moscow (in Russian).

Ayvazyan, Ye. 1927. The Doctor in Our Village. Female Worker of Armenia 11:28 (in Armenian).

Bashkuev, V. Yu. 2017. The Confrontation between Soviet and Tibetan Medicine in the Late 1920s–Early 1930s. Power 2:157–162 (in Russian).

Blium, A. V., and D. Farina. 1998. Forbidden Topics: Early Soviet Censorship Directives. Book History 1:268–282.

Boldyrev, R. 2017. Propaganda of Health and Hygiene in the USSR [web page]. Available at: http://infosplanet.info/plakaty-i-listovki/propaganda-zdorovya-i-gigieny-v-sssr/. Last accessed on February 1, 2019 (in Russian).

Eaton, K. B. 2004. Daily Life in the Soviet Union. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, London.

Ghazanchyan, M. 2013. Medicinal Plants for Everyone. Prescriptions and Remedies. Luys, Yerevan (in Armenian).

Grigorov, N. 1891. Village Tatev. Collection of Materials for Describing the Localities and Tribes of the Caucasus 13:59–125 (in Russian).

Harutyunyan, M. 1927. “Liberating” Midwife. Female Worker of Armenia 9:17 (in Armenian).

Hovhannisyan, J. 2005. Green Box of Medicine. Zangak-97, Yerevan (in Armenian).

International Society of Ethnobiology. 2006. International Society of Ethnobiology Code of Ethics (with 2008 additions) [web page]. Available at: http://ethnobiology.net/code-of-ethics/. Accessed on February 1, 2019.

Khudabashian I. 1917a. Criminal Abortion. Healthy Life 1:4–6 (in Armenian).

Khudabashian I. 1917b. Preventive Means against Birth Fever. Healthy Life 4:19–22 (in Armenian).

Knaus, W. A., and N. A. Petroff. 1982. Inside Russian Medicine: An American Doctor's First-Hand Report. Everest House Publishers, New York, NY.

Lisitsyan, S. 1969. Armenians of Zangezur. AS Arm. SSR, Yerevan (in Armenian).

Malkhasyan, B. J. 1929. Trachoma and the Fight Against It. Healthy Lifestyle 1:16–18 (in Armenian).

Markwick, R. D. 2013. Censorship and Fear: Historical Research in the Soviet Union. Groniek, 46:371–385.

Medynskiy, E. N. 1952. Public Education in the USSR. Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR, Moscow (in Russian).

Mirakyan I. 1930. Doctor's Comments. Healthy Life 2-3:43–44 (in Armenian).

Mikhlin, V. M., and V. A. Kiryak. 1985. Non-classical healing: the past and the present. “Stiynets”, Chisinau (in Russian).

Ohanyan. 1917. The Oculist’s Discussions. The Eyes of the Elderly People. Healthy Life 6-7:9–13 (in Armenian).

Phillips, S. D. 2004. Waxing Like the Moon: Women Folk Healers in Rural Western Ukraine. Folklorica 9:13–45.

Plamper, J. 2001. Abolishing Ambiguity, Soviet Censorship Practices in the 1930s. The Russian Review 60:526–544.

Q.O. 1917. Mailbox. Healthy Life 6-7:30 (in Armenian).

Takhtajyan, A. L. ed. 1954-2010. Flora of Armenia. Vol. 1–11 (In Russian).

Venclov, T. 1978. USSR: Stages of censorship. Index on Censorship 7:61–62.

The artisan market along the road to the Tatev Monastery (June 2017). Primarily medicinal and aromatic plants and homemade products (jams, wines, vodkas, honeys, sweets, etc.) are traded here.
Published
2019-06-02
How to Cite
Hovsepyan, R., Stepanyan-Gandilyan, N., & Stollberg, C. (2019). Phytomedicinal Knowledge and “Official” Sources in Tatev (Armenia). Ethnobiology Letters, 10(1), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.14237/ebl.10.1.2019.1266
Issue
Vol 10 No 1 (2019)
Section
Research Communications

Copyright (c) 2019 Roman Hovsepyan

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  • Authors retain ownership of the copyright for their content and grant Ethnobiology Letters (the “Journal”) and the Society of Ethnobiology right of first publication. Authors and the Journal agree that Ethnobiology Letters will publish the article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits others to use, distribute, and reproduce the work non-commercially, provided the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal are properly cited.
  • Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

For any reuse or redistribution of a work, users must make clear the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0).

In publishing with Ethnobiology Letters corresponding authors certify that they are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements. They warrant, on behalf of themselves and their co-authors, that the content is original, has not been formally published, is not under consideration, and does not infringe any existing copyright or any other third party rights. They further warrant that the material contains no matter that is scandalous, obscene, libelous, or otherwise contrary to the law.

Corresponding authors will be given an opportunity to read and correct edited proofs, but if they fail to return such corrections by the date set by the editors, production and publication may proceed without the authors’ approval of the edited proofs.