The Prevalence of Wild Food Knowledge Among Nomadic Turkana of Northern Kenya

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofitpublishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access tocritical research.

The Prevalence of Wild Food Knowledge Among NomadicTurkana of Northern KenyaAuthor(s): Tammy Y. WatkinsSource: Journal of Ethnobiology, 30(1):137-152. 2010.Published By: Society of EthnobiologyDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-30.1.137URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2993/0278-0771-30.1.137

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in thebiological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable onlineplatform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations,museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated contentindicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.

Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercialuse. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to theindividual publisher as copyright holder.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-30.1.137

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2993/0278-0771-30.1.137

http://www.bioone.org

http://www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use

http://www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use

THE PREVALENCE OF WILD FOOD KNOWLEDGE AMONGNOMADIC TURKANA OF NORTHERN KENYA

Tammy Y. Watkins

Food insecurity is a chronic problem for much of East Africa and especially among Turkana

pastoralists of northern Kenya. Uncertain physical and social environments, high seasonality ofrainfall with cyclical droughts, human and animal diseases and civic insecurity contribute to food

insecurity. Researchers often paint the environment as harsh, unforgiving and desolate, yet also

acknowledge that the Turkana use wild food resources. This research explores the persistence of wild

food knowledge using methods drawn from both cognitive and ethnoecological anthropology and thepossible implications among the Turkana. Wild food resources are a strong domain of knowledge that

crosses boundaries of age, sex and location. I assess differences in cultural salience between sexes.

Follow up questions suggest that cultural practices related to division of labor explain some of thesedifferences. Wild food resources are clearly important to Turkana livelihoods, yet they are

infrequently addressed in development programs and only marginally addressed in food security

research. More research needs to be conducted on the nutritional contributions of these resources,

specific management practices of the resources and how they could be incorporated into policy anddevelopment programs for the region.

Key words: wild foods, Turkana, pastoralists, East Africa

Inseguridad alimentaria es un problema cronico en gran parte de Africa Oriental y especialmente

entre los pastores Turkana del norte de Kenya. Incertidumbre en and el ambiente fısico y social,temporadas altas de lluvias con sequıas cıclicas, enfermedades humanas y de animals e incertidumbre

cıvica contribuyen la inseguridad alimentaria. Investigadores frecuentemente pintan el ambiente

como duro y desolado pero tambien frecuentemente reconocen el uso de recursos de alimentos

silvestres por los Turkana. Esta investigacion explora la persistencia del conocimiento de losalimentos silvestres y las implicaciones posibles entre los Turkana utilizando metodes tomados de la

antropologıa cognocitiva y etnoecologica. Recursos de alimentos silvestres son un campo fuerte de

conocimiento que entrecruza las fronterasde edad, sexo y procedencia. Evaluo las diferentesrelevancias culturales entre sexos. Preguntas subsecuentes siguieren que practicas culturales en la

division social del trabajo explican algunas de estas differencias. Recursos de alimentos silvestres son

claramente importantes para el sustento de los Turkana, sin embargo no son mencionados

frecuentemente en programas de desarollo y solo marginalmente en investigaciones de seguridad dealimentos. Mayor investigacion se debe llevar a cabo sobre la contribucion nutricional de estos

recursos, sobre practicas de manejos especıficos y como pueden ser incorporados dentro de programas

de polıtica publica y desarollo de la region.

Introduction

This research focuses on the Turkana pastoralists who live in the aridenvironment of North Turkana District of Kenya, near the borders of Uganda andSudan in the Rift Valley Province. The climate is seasonal and unpredictablewhile the landscape is spatially heterogeneous (Gray et al. 2003; Little and Leslie1999). Many Turkana practice nomadic pastoralism, a livelihood that maximizesthe unreliable resources of the semi-arid environment (Dyson-Hudson and

Tammy Y. Watkins, 17525 Grapevine Road, Chester, AR, 72934 (e-mail: [email protected])

Journal of Ethnobiology 30(1): 137–152 Spring/Summer 2010

McCabe 1985). Nomadic pastoralism, moving large numbers of livestock acrossthe drylands, persists in part due to limited opportunities for access to regionaland national markets, out of cultural identity and pride in ownership of cattle,and as an adaptation to the limitations of the arid landscape. Water and fodderfor livestock are two important resources around which they manage theirmovements to minimize risk and maximize resource access (Layton et al. 1991).Some have settled into year-round villages, originally established as feedingcamps during severe droughts of the 1980s (Little and Leslie 1999), but those whohave been forced into settled village life and wage labor still desire to purchaselivestock and return to a nomadic life (Broch-Due and Anderson 1999). For thisreason, settled Turkana maintain social ties to nomadic family and friends, oftenthrough rights to livestock and visits to nomadic camps. Semi-nomadicpastoralists, who move freely between nomadism and sedentism, are probablythe most numerous among the Turkana population.

Northern Kenya, like much of East Africa, experiences unreliable seasonalrains, frequent droughts and subsequent food insecurity. Malnutrition, especiallyamong children, remains prevalent in Africa across subsistence modes andcultural groups. In this area, regional and household food insecurity andmalnutrition are often the result of environmental factors such as drought orflooding, animal predation, as well as social factors such as violence ordisplacement (Nyariki et al. 2002). Civic insecurity, due most frequently toraiding between pastoral groups, presents an additional barrier to food securityfor the Turkana (Pike 2004). Pastoralists use an array of strategies to deal with theunpredictable and patchy environments of East Africa. They manage herdcomposition and move herds and households attempting to minimize the risksinherent in variations in access to forage, water and, ultimately, food production(Dahl and Hjort 1976; Mace 1993).

The Turkana use many resources for food. Meat, milk and blood are thestaples of their diet, but they obtain flour from maize, sorghum or millet throughtrade. As national borders have restricted peoples’ movements, trade to the northand west has been limited, and the Turkana must purchase flour or obtain it fromfood distribution programs. Before the irregular seasonal rains begin, milkproduction diminishes and the Turkana limit the bleeding of livestock for humanconsumption to decrease stress on animals (Dahl and Hjort 1976), thus reducingthis important source of nutrition. Wild food resources can be extremelyimportant during this time. It is unclear how many wild food resources areavailable or known to the pastoralists who have resided in this socially andecologically challenging region for hundreds of years. Wild game areoccasionally hunted and consumed (Broch-Due and Anderson 1999) and wildfruits, nuts, and greens could play an important part in nutrition and foodsecurity. In fact, many pastoral groups collect nuts and palm fruits for regular useas well as for famine food during the dry season (Galvin 1992). Ethnobotanicalstudies in Ethiopia (Guinand and Lemessa 2001), Uganda (Tabuti 2001), coastalKenya (Pakia 2001) and of the Loita Maasai in southern Kenya (Maundu et al.2001) consistently report local peoples’ knowledge of wild plants for food,medicine, and other uses. Previous research of the Turkana often mentions, butfails to quantify or fully describe, foraging (Gray et al. 2004; Gulliver 1955; Little

138 WATKINS Vol. 30, No. 1

and Leslie 1999), but my research suggests that wild foods are important formaintaining food security in this challenging environment.

In addition, decades of development projects in East Africa have resulted inforeign and invasive species which may out-compete native flora (Mwangi andSwallow 2005). The fact that indigenous plant resources are important to foodsecurity makes understanding and controlling invasive species an even morepressing need. Little and Leslie (1999) noted that these wild foods are used by theTurkana, but there is little empirical data regarding who collects these resources,in what quantities, or if nomadic pastoralists managed them in any way.

This paper explores Turkana knowledge of and preferences for wild plantresources and documents and analyzes their preparation, storage, andconsumption. It does not examine the Turkana’s knowledge of wild plants forhuman or veterinary medicine or any other uses. Drawing from cognitiveanthropology and cultural domains of knowledge, cultural consensus theory andthe associated model suggest that knowledge of a given domain can be describedand measured among a group of people with a shared culture (Romney et al.1986). Thus consensus or agreement among informants about what plantsresources do or do not belong in the domain of wild foods reflects knowledge orcompetence within the shared culture. Consensus can be statistically modeledand used to comment not only on the domain itself but also on the competence ofindividual informants. This analysis considers gender, age and differences inlocation with associated differences in ecology. The framework of culturaldomain analysis (Borgatti 1994) was used to analyze information obtained from31 Turkana, 15 men and 16 women, in three different locations. Elements ofcultural domain analysis used here include a factor analysis, to analyze thestrength of the domain and cultural salience, using both frequency and rankingof items on free lists to calculate the importance of different wild food resourcesas well as the preparation methods of these resources.

Methods

I collected information about the Turkana’s use of plants from individuals atthree locations, each successively farther from trading centers. Individualsnearest the trading center were more likely to have access to wage labor and lesslikely to own extensive livestock, falling primarily into the group of settledTurkana. The two locations further from the trading center did not have access towage labor and ranged from semi-nomadic to nomadic Turkana.

I chose these locations based on their relationship with a trading center andaccessibility by available transportation (Figure 1). Lokichoggio is the mainmarket town and a point of reference. Nadome is a village 2.2 km east by aseasonal road. As you continue 22 km east down this seasonal road you reachNanam. Lokangae is approximately 70 km southeast of Lokichoggio. While themost direct route to Lokangae is a footpath that requires crossing two seasonalriverbeds, the settlement can also be reached by going south on a paved roadapproximately 65 km to the smaller market town of Kakuma, then turning easton a seasonal road for approximately 50 km. The majority of Turkana travel toand from markets by foot, either along roads or footpaths.

Spring/Summer 2010 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 139

Once the villages’ chiefs granted permission to proceed, I approachedindividuals for participation. Oral consent was obtained from each participant. Ichose participants first by selecting individuals opportunistically and thenbalancing sex in an effort to maintain an even ratio. In addition, children andadults were included to allow for analysis of how widely the domain of wildfoods was shared.

Following other studies of cultural consensus modeling (Caulkins 1998; Miller2004; Ryan et al. 2000), I collected data from informants using free lists. Free listsgive information on salience, perceptions, classification and ranking of itemswithin a cultural domain (Weller and Romney 1988), in this study, knowledge ofwild plant foods. Free lists are generated by an open-ended question, preferablywith one-word answers, here plant names. Those most easily recalled will beranked higher than those recalled later or lower on the list. Each participant listedall of the wild food plants he or she could recall. Most began with plants thatprovide greens. Informants were prompted to add any roots, fruit or seeds to thelist if these were absent after the initial question. Follow up questions regardingavailability and preparation for each item provided additional information insuccessive lists (Ryan et al. 2000). With successive lists to complement assessmentof cultural consensus, I made comparisons based on location, sex of the informant,and preparation methods of wild foods (Weller and Baer 2002).

Free lists were gathered in June and July of 2005. During subsequent visits tothe same villages from July of 2006 to July of 2007, specimens of plants and their

FIGURE 1. Location of research sites in northern Kenya.


associated foods were collected for identification and analysis. During these threeyears, each location was visited multiple times and included both the rainy anddry seasons, first in 2005 and then again in 2006 to 2007. Free lists were obtainedin 2005 at a time when greens, seeds and some fruits were available. Atsubsequent visits informal discussions of food, food preferences, livestockmanagement, and nomadic movements of livestock and households providedqualitative insight into free list data and analysis. During these visits, I lived inthe community, carried water, acquired food and visited participatinghouseholds during the morning, midday and afternoon to observe activitiesand common behaviors of each member, including their various contributions tohousehold production and food security. During 2006 and 2007 food security wasmeasured from three different perspectives. First, food basket monitoringinvolved quantifying any and all food resources of the household. Second,dietary diversity was measured through a structured interview that includedpast week consumption, current week consumption and plans for next week’sconsumption. Finally, coping mechanisms for food insecurity such as workingfor food or skipping of meals were discussed in a semi-structured interview.

During late 2006 and early 2007, wild food specimens were collected,prepared as for consumption, and preserved for transport to the University ofNairobi, Upper Kabete Campus where the laboratory in the Department of FoodScience, Nutrition and Technology conducted proximate and Vitamin A and Canalyses. Proximate analysis consists of measurements of moisture, protein, fat,carbohydrates, fiber and ash, expressed as percentage of total.

Results

Thirty-one Turkana informants provided free list information (Table 1)giving the names of 155 different wild foods. There was some duplication whenone species provided both fruit and sap or roots and greens. This duplicationoccurred with approximately four trees that provide both fruit and sap and twoherbaceous plants that provide both tuber and greens, reducing the total namesto approximately 149. When possible, plant specimens were collected, and 50 ofthem have been identified to species (Table 2) using available plant keys.Specimens were identified with the assistance of the East Africa Herbarium andthe Kenya Resource Center for Indigenous Knowledge (KENRIK), both a part ofthe National Museums of Kenya. Of these 50, 15 are herbaceous plants, 27 aretrees or woody shrubs, 6 are vines and 1 is a fungus.

I analyzed the data to test for cultural consensus. In order for this test to bevalid, the following conditions must be met: the informants must share a

TABLE 1. Characteristics of Turkana participants by location.

Nadome Lokangae Nanam Totals

Households 7 7 6 20Individuals 10 13 8 31Men 4 7 4 15Women 6 6 4 16


TABLE 2. Turkana wild foods identified to species.

Local Name1 Scientific Name2 Family Description

Akaporait Ipomea mombassana Vatke Ipomaceae Herbaceous plantAurengo Hydnora abyssinica Schweinf.

(H. johannis Becc.)Hydnoraceae Fungus

Dodo (TYW02) Amaranthus hybridus L. Amaranthaceae Herbaceous plantEbei Balanites rotundifolia(Van Tiegh.) Blatt. Balanitaceae TreeEbekut Prosopis juliflora Fabaceae Tree or shrubEbenyo Acacia mellifera (Vahl) Benth. Mimosaceae TreeEbolo (TYW05) Cucumis figarei Nand. Cucurbitaceae VineEchoke Ficus sycomorus L. Moraceae TreeEdadalasikin Kedrostis gijef (J.F. Gmet.) C. Jeffrey Cucurbitaceae VineEdapal Dobera glabra (Forssk.) Poir. Salvadoraceae TreeEdome Cordia sinensis Cam. Boraginaceae TreeEdung Boscia coriacea Pex. Capparidaceae TreeEgilae Vatovaea pseudolablab (Harms) Gillett Papilionaceae VineEkadela (TYW07) Coccinia grandis (L.) Voigt Cucurbitaceae VineEkadeteo Rhus natalensis Krauss Anacardiaceae Herbaceous plantEkalale Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. Rhamnaceae TreeEkaletelete Portulaca oleracea L. Portulacaceae Herbaceous plantEkamongo (TYW10) Leptadenia hastata (Pers.) Decne. Asclepiadaceae Tree or woody shrubEkerereu Lycium europaeum L. Solanaceae Herbaceous plantEkolese Cucumis prophetarum L. Cucurbitaceae VineEkoromait Acacia seyal Del. Mimosaceae TreeEkunoit Acacia senegal (L.) Willd. Fabaceae TreeElamach Balanites pedicullaris Mildbrix Schlecht. Balanitaceae TreeElamae Ximenia americana L. Olacaceae Tree or woody shrubEmeyen Berchemia discolor (Klotzch) Hemsl. Rhamnaceae Tree or woody shrubEngol Hyphaene compressa H. Wendl. Palmae TreeEngomoo Grewia tenax (Forssk.) Fiori Tiliaceae Tree or woody shrubEome Cucumis dipsaceus Spach Cucurbitaceae VineEosin Aikeny (TYW09) Justicia uncinulata Acanthaceae Herbaceous plantEpat Grewia mollis Jass. Tiliaceae Tree or woody shrubEpeduru Tamarindus indica L. Caesalpiniaceae TreeEpete(t) Sterculia Africana (lour) Fiori Sterculiaceae TreeEpetet Acacia nubica Benth. Mimosaceae TreeEpongae Grewia villosa Willd. Tiliaceae Tree or woody shrubEputen Brachystelma johnstonii N.E. Br. Asclepiadaceae Herbaceous plantEregae Acacia reficiens Wawra. Mimosaceae TreeEroronyit Balanites aegyptiaca (L.) Del. Balanitaceae TreeErut Maerua decumbens (Brongn.) DeWolf Capparidaceae TreeEsekon Salvadora persica L. Capparidaceae TreeEsugumaran Meyna tetraphylla (Heirn.) Robyns Rubiaceae Herbaceous plantEsuguru (TYW01) Tribulus cistoides ssp. cistoides Zygophyllaceae Herbaceous plantLoarakimak (TYW08) Adenia volkensii (Harms) Passifloraceae Herbaceous plantLoderekae Dregea Schimperi (Decne.) Bullock Asclepiadaceae Herbaceous plantLokiliton Amaranthus graecizans L. Amaranthaceae Herbaceous plantLokito Kayep Cocculus hirsutus (L.) Diels. Menispermaceae TreeLorodo Cissus rotundifolia (Forsk.) Vahl Vitaceae TreeLoyei Ngorok (TYW03) Amaranthus graecizans L. Amaranthaceae Herbaceous plantMurere (TYW04) Corchorus trilocularis L. Tiliaceae Herbaceous plantNamunye Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Mansf. Cucurbitaceae VineNgitit Acacia tortilis (Forssk.) Hayne Mimosaceae TreeSuuya Solanum villosum Mill. Solanaceae Herbaceous plant

1 Local names were given by informants in Lokichoggio Division, North Turkana District in July of 2005. There are

multiple spellings of these names in various references. Species identified with voucher specimens that are stored at

the Kenya Resource Center for Indigenous Knowledge at the Museums of Kenya in Nairobi are marked (TYW).2 Plants were identified using the following sources: Agnew (1974), Beentje (1994), Dharani (2002), and Maundu et al.

(1999).


common culture, they must have been interviewed individually and thequestions must come from a common domain (Borgatti 1994). I analyzed freelist data using ANTHROPAC 4.0. Factor analysis uses a matrix of matchesbetween the lists to calculate an Eigen value ratio. Because the ratio of Eigenvalues between the first and second factor was 41:1, this analysis suggests thatthe large number of plant names provided represents a single domain. The freelists analyzed here meet the three conditions described above and the ratio is fargreater than the 3:1 ratio required to indicate a single factor in consensus analysis(Bernard et al. 1986). Consensus analysis was repeated using age, location andsex of the informants as a factor. None of these variables affected the ratio,indicating that these groups do not represent subcultures. This indicates that theinformants generally knew the same suite of wild plant resources and lists werenot measurably affected by age, gender or location.

ANTHROPAC also generates a knowledge score, which reflects the level ofagreement between a respondent’s free list and the composite of all free lists: thehigher the knowledge score, the more plant names shared with the group. Inaddition to the strong cultural consensus, each informant’s knowledge score wasuniformly high (Table 3). Knowledge scores are not significantly affected bylocation (ANOVA F 5 1.908, p 5 0.167) or by age (ANOVA F 5 .527, p 5 0.877).This suggests that children and adults share a similar body of knowledgeregarding wild foods that is not measurably influenced by location. Aspreviously mentioned, the Turkana District environment is heterogeneous, sothis shared knowledge reflects the mobility of the people across the landscape.

Free listing assumes those plants most salient to the individual will berecalled first, without getting at personal preference, or preponderance. Thus thefree list reflects just ‘‘general knowledge.’’ The frequency of wild plant foodsprovided in the free lists are interesting when compared by sex (Table 4). Thefirst 13 wild foods mentioned by both male and female respondents are similar,with only minor variations in their order. Differences begin to emerge at the 14th

plant food mentioned. Ngapongae, ngalam, emeyen, esekon and ngitit(numbers 14 to18 for males) are all consumed when collected and require nopreparation. Eminae ekunoit and eminae ebenyo (numbers 19 and 20 for males)are both tree saps that can also be consumed with no preparation. From thisinformation, ANTHROPAC calculates cultural salience by factoring the rankingsalong with the frequencies of each name to calculate Smith’s solution (Smith’s S)for a salience index (Borgatti 1995).

When sorted by cultural salience or Smith’s S, a similar pattern emerges.Here, cultural salience is measured by Smith’s S, which is a combination offrequency and ranking (Table 5). The top 10 or 12 wild foods mentioned by bothmales and females are similar, with limited variation in ordering, but differencesemerge in the second set of 10. Tree saps or types of eminae emerge as more

TABLE 3. Comparison of male and female knowledge scores as calculated by ANTHROPAC.

N Highest Lowest Average

Male 15 93 81 87.7Female 16 95 81 89.2


culturally salient to males than females, not occurring until after the top 20 forfemales. Males also focus on fruits and seeds, ngitit, ngalam, ngapongae, esekon,that require little or no preparation.

I asked informants about preparation methods for each food provided in hisor her original free list. All informants were able to provide at least basicdescriptions of most foods. Fourteen foods had no specified method ofpreparation mentioned by any informant. Methods of preparation that wereonly mentioned once, for example chewing, fermentation and crushing, could

TABLE 4. The 20 most frequently listed Turkana wild plant foods. Plants in bold were listed in asignificantly different order by men than by women.

Order Total Male Female

1 Edome Engomoo Edome2 Elamach Edome Elamach3 Engomoo Elamach Edung4 Edung Edapal Elero5 Elero Elero Engomoo6 Edapal Ekolese Erut7 Erut Ebei Edapal8 Ebei Engilae Esekon9 Engilae Edung Engilae

10 Ekolese Erut Ataikol11 Ebolo Ebolo Ebei12 Ataikol Ngakalalio Ngakalalio13 Ngakalio Ataikol Lokiliton14 Esekon Ngapongae Ebolo15 Emeyen Ngalam Ekolese16 Ngalam Emeyen Lorakimak17 Lokiliton Esekon Atadita18 Atadita Ngitit Emeyen19 Eroronyit Eminae Ekunoit Ebekut20 Loyongorok Eminae Ebenyo Ngalam

TABLE 5. Comparison of Turkana wild foods by cultural salience (Smith’s S).

RankCombined Maleand Female Smith’s S Male Smith’s S Female Smith’s S

1 Edome 0.719 Engomoo 0.675 Edome 0.6592 Elamach 0.626 Edome 0.784 Elamach 0.5893 Elero 0.620 Elamach 0.666 Edung 0.5164 Engomoo 0.580 Edapal 0.611 Elero 0.6135 Edapal 0.545 Elero 0.629 Engomoo 0.4916 Edung 0.532 Ekolese 0.557 Erut 0.4367 Erut 0.461 Ebei 0.542 Edapal 0.4838 Ekolese 0.443 Engilae 0.276 Esekon 0.3269 Ebei 0.412 Edung 0.550 Engilae 0.218

10 Ngakalalio 0.382 Erut 0.488 Ataikol 0.40811 Ataikol 0.370 Ebolo 0.424 Ebei 0.29212 Ebolo 0.346 Ngakalalio 0.404 Ngakalalio 0.36313 Esekon 0.288 Ataikol 0.329 Lokiliton 0.13214 Emeyen 0.246 Ngapongae 0.221 Ebolo 0.27415 Engilae 0.245 Ngalam 0.205 Ekolese 0.33816 Lorakimak 0.184 Emeyen 0.300 Lorakimak 0.22317 Ngalam 0.179 Esekon 0.248 Atadita 0.18918 Eroronyit 0.168 Ngitit 0.180 Emeyen 0.19519 Ngapongae 0.152 Eminae Ekunoit 0.111 Ebekut 0.10620 Ekalale 0.145 Eminae Ebenyo 0.073 Ngalam 0.155


not be included in statistical calculations. I sorted methods of wild foodpreparation by frequency and calculated cultural salience using Smith’s S(Tables 6 and 7). Respondents most frequently mention wild foods that can beprepared simply by boiling or cooking. This suggests that anyone could preparethese foods for themselves or for those who share a cooking pot, usuallyhousehold members. However, men are frequently away from the home tendinglivestock for long periods and may share cooking pots with other men and boys.In contrast to some characterizations of pastoralists, such as for the Nuer (Evans-Pritchard 1950), my research also demonstrates that men and boys have theknowledge and skills of food preparation beyond consuming raw milk andblood. A close second in frequency for both sexes are those plants that require nopreparation and can be consumed immediately. Males mention variouspreparations with milk or blood more frequently than females consistent withtheir frequent access to these food sources while herding alone or in smallgroups. Females are more likely to mention drying of wild foods, saving them forconsumption at a later date. Females are the only ones that reported soaking, alsovery time consuming, as a method of preparation.

Discussion

Some elements of the domain of knowledge for wild foods among thispastoralist population are surprising. This knowledge seems to be widespread,without strong divisions by location, age or sex. It has long been accepted thatmen and boys forage when they are herding livestock. Exactly what they foragefor or what it may contribute to health or nutrition is just beginning to be

TABLE 6. Cultural salience of methods of preparation of 99 Turkana wild foods.

Method of Preparation Frequency Smith’s S

Boil or Cook 35 0.259Fresh 31 0.170Fresh or Boil 18 0.139Dry 8 0.162Roast 4 0.051Boil with Milk 3 0.073

TABLE 7. Comparison of Turkana methods of food preparation mentioned by males and females.

Male Frequency Female Frequency

Boil 19 Boil 18Fresh 17 Fresh 16Fresh/Boil 14 Fresh/Boil 10Unspecified 8 Dry 7Boil w milk 4 Unspecified 6Dry 3 Roast 3Boil/Roast 3 Boil/Dry 2Fresh/Boil w blood 2 Boil w milk 1Ferment 2 Soak 1Fresh/Dry 2 Ferment 1Roast 1 Fresh/Roast 1Roast/Fresh 1


explored (Johns et al. 2000). These results seem to suggest that not only men andboys have knowledge and experience in foraging but women and girls also sharethis knowledge and access these resources on a regular basis when they areavailable. This is compatible with findings among foraging societies wherewomen and girls do the most foraging (Hawkes et al. 1997). Availability isdependent on rainfall and sometimes the region’s soil. Given the heterogeneity ofthe Turkana District environment and the unpredictable rainfall patterns,availability of different species may be brief. Greens appear fairly quickly afterthe rains begin but herbaceous plants may not bear fruit without lengthy rains.Some trees bear fruit after both long and short rains while most shrubs and othertrees in this sample only bear fruit (and nuts) once a year. The wide array of typesof wild foods (greens, fruits, seeds and nuts) suggests that each would beavailable at different points in the plant’s lifecycle, aiding in general availabilityacross seasons.

Interesting differences in frequency and salience arise in the comparison oflists provided by male and female respondents. There are definitely wild plantfoods commonly known to all of the respondents, but specialization ofsubsistence practices and food preferences emerge. More specifically, in followup questions the salience of certain wild food resources became apparent,primarily related to food preparation. Males mentioned fruits, seeds, nuts andtree saps, which require little preparation while females mentioned fruits thatrequired more time and some special knowledge to prepare. In addition, the fewwild foods more salient to females are more likely to be stored and utilized byentire households. A more detailed analysis of observed behavior in a stratifiedsample will yield useful insight into gender-based knowledge and practices.

It is surprising that the harsh, arid, and challenging environment of northernKenya offers such an array of foods. This region is often portrayed as ‘‘marginal’’and ‘‘desolate’’ (Dyson-Hudson and McCabe 1985). Non-governmental organi-zations and governments focus on drought and malnutrition in efforts to gainfunds for development and relief projects (Nyariki et al. 2002). In contrast to thiscommon portrayal, a handful of informants were easily able to recall over 150edible foods offered by this environment. By comparison, ethnobotanical surveysof wild food plants and their uses in Ethiopia across several ecological zonesprovided 100 wild food plants (Guinand and Lemessa 2001). An ethnobotanicalstudy of the Loita Maasai in savanna and bushlands of southern Kenya yieldedonly 48 different plant species used as food (Maundu et al. 2001). A six monthstudy in agricultural grasslands of Uganda identified 98 species of plants that canprovide food, but many of these are threatened by habitat destruction and loss ofknowledge due to low preference in a society focused on market production andexchange (Guinand and Lemessa 2001).

Besides providing calories during seasonal food shortages or droughts, themicronutrient contributions and availability of different wild foods acrossseasons can have important implications for Turkana health. Nutritional analysesof 22 of the wild food plants collected in Turkana District reveal that they provideimportant vitamins, minerals and calories as well as flavor and variety to the diet(Table 8; Ogoye-Ndegwa Aagaard-Hansen 2003). Fruits and nuts are dispersedthroughout the Sahel and savanna environment. Many greens sought by the


Turkana grow in environments disturbed by livestock and human activities, andare available during the rainy season.

Many fruiting trees and shrubs are located near rivers, as are seasonally andcontinuously occupied settlements, villages and trading centers. Although theTurkana are knowledgeable about wild food resources, they only rarelytransplanted or nurtured any wild foods in their compounds or near settlements.If a fruiting tree or shrub volunteers inside a compound, probably from seedsdeposited after the fruit is consumed, it may be protected from livestock orhuman damage. However, most compounds do not have these trees or shrubspresent. Some informants suggested that access rights to wild food products isrestricted when a plant grows inside a compound, but most wild foods in publicspaces were considered an open resource. However, there did not seem to beconsensus on this issue.

There was a great deal of variation in the proximity of wild foods to thedifferent study locations. Nadome, is located on the banks of a seasonal riverwhere there were many edome and ngakalalio trees as well as other fruit bearingshrubs. Nanam, though also near a seasonal river, is on the perimeter of a largeplain, which is often brown and devoid of vegetation for most of the year.Availability of greens and wild vegetables is highly seasonal. The gallery forestalong the seasonal riverbed is limited, and I noted few fruit trees or shrubs in anyseason. The third location, Lokangae, is two or more kilometers from a seasonalriver and is devoid of any trees other than some acacia and scrub ebekut, Prosopisjuliflora, an introduced species that has become quite invasive. Most people hererefer to plants that are found in other places. Many discussed wild greens andtubers that are found ‘‘in the mountains,’’ the nearest of which are the Pelekechrange approximately 50 km to the south. The fact that the knowledge of theseplants did not vary by location is a testament to the mobility of even semi-nomadic Turkana.

Wild food resources are a part of local knowledge of the environmentassociated with long residence and use of the environment. However, local andglobal influences are changing that landscape and threatening some resources.As settlement continues, the gallery forests along rivers are threatened. Manytrees, shrubs and vines that offer wild foods grow in this riparian environment.While surface water in these seasonal rivers is absent for most of the year, there isoften water, just below the sandy surface, that is available to species adapted tothis particular environment. These gallery forests are threatened by aggressiveerosion due to the heavy monsoonal rains combined with increased human andanimal use. As trees fall due to seasonal floods, women quickly turn them tocharcoal and sell them in trading centers. Some small trees are cut and used forhousing and fencing. The increased presence of small livestock, especially yearround in more settled areas, does not allow natural re-seeding of native flora. Allof these activities are having a cumulative effect of deforestation in the galleryforests of Turkana Districts.

The Turkana are increasingly using the invasive species P. juliflora (ebekut)for thorn fences and house construction, partially because it is abundant in thelandscape but also in an effort to remove it from the landscape. Some Turkanaconsume the pods. Children in particular chew ebekut seedpods and then spit


TA

BL

E8.

Nu

trit

ion

anal

ysi

so

fT

urk

ana

wil

dfo

od

s.1

Sci

enti

fic

Nam

eD

escr

ipti

on

%M

ois

ture

%P

rote

in%

Fat

%F

iber

To

tal

Ash

/m

iner

als

%C

arb

oh

yd

rate

sV

itA

mg

/10

0gV

itC

mg

/10

0g

Mae

rua

dec

um

ben

sd

ried

fru

it8.

3720

.75

0.89

1.25

2.08

66.6

70.

1113

5.95

0C

ucu

mis

pro

phe

taru

md

ried

fru

it9.

1018

.13

6.90

21.6

311

.54

32.7

00.

5585

.400

Dob

era

gla

bra

dri

edn

ut

8.63

20.4

01.

552.

035.

7961

.60

0.14

173.

000

Bos

cia

cori

acea

dri

edfr

uit

7.72

21.0

11.

791.

803.

6464

.04

0.03

496.

900

Dob

era

gla

bra

tree

sap

15.5

05.

171.

200.

355.

8071

.98

0.02

71.6

90D

ober

ag

labr

are

dfl

esh

/fr

uit

0.82

145.

850

Dob

era

gla

bra

fres

h-n

ut

42.6

011

.26

0.34

1.54

3.28

40.9

80.

2713

44.7

60B

alan

ites

ped

icu

llar

isfr

esh

nu

t67

.64

4.39

0.73

4.59

1.88

20.7

7C

ordi

asi

nen

sis

fres

hfr

uit

80.7

01.

980.

511.

101.

2214

.49

12.1

812

9.28

0Z

izip

hu

sm

auri

tian

afr

esh

fru

it48

.26

2.67

0.78

2.85

2.39

43.0

550

.43

0.03

3C

ucu

mis

pro

phe

taru

mfr

esh

fru

it84

.70

0.16

415.

300

Cu

cum

isfi

gar

eifr

esh

fru

it83

.15

3.44

2.41

4.68

2.00

4.32

13.8

30.

015

Coc

cin

iag

ran

dis

fru

it84

.90

4.62

56.8

60P

ortu

laca

oler

acea

leav

esan

dst

ems

89.7

02.

000.

591.

322.

473.

920.

5717

3.07

0C

orch

oru

str

iloc

ula

ris

leav

es72

.90

6.24

0.75

2.25

3.61

14.2

53.

3565

0.15

0Ip

omea

mom

bass

ana

leav

es81

.80

5.16

0.46

2.16

2.93

255.

800

Am

aran

thu

sh

ybr

idu

sle

aves

76.3

06.

480.

634.

264.

3513

44.8

00L

epta

dan

iah

asta

tale

aves

60.0

07.

042.

154.

665.

7520

.40

3.47

64.5

20A

den

iav

olke

nsi

ile

aves

86.8

03.

940.

671.

371.

885.

343.

5427

2.65

0Ju

stic

iau

nci

nu

lata

leav

es86

.30

3.27

0.50

1.77

2.96

5.20

5.25

5.93

0V

atov

eap

seu

dol

abla

ble

aves

17.0

42.

050

Vat

ovea

pse

ud

olab

lab

tub

er75

.07

0.26

2.47

0.26

1.15

19.5

227

.17

0.13

0

1T

hes

en

utr

itio

nal

anal

yse

sw

ere

com

ple

ted

on

spec

imen

sco

llec

ted

inN

ort

hT

urk

ana

Dis

tric

tin

2006

and

2007

.F

oo

ds

wer

ecl

ean

edan

dp

rep

ared

asif

for

con

sum

pti

on

.T

hey

wer

e

then

tran

spo

rted

toU

niv

ersi

tyo

fN

airo

bi,

Up

per

Kab

ete

Bra

nch

,p

rese

rved

inic

edco

ole

rsd

uri

ng

the

36to

48h

ou

rjo

urn

ey.

Jere

mia

hM

’th

ika

and

Ro

sem

ary

Kam

auo

fth

eL

abo

rato

ry

inth

eD

epar

tmen

to

fF

oo

dS

cien

ce,

Nu

trit

ion

and

Tec

hn

olo

gy

con

du

cted

the

anal

ysi

s.


out the insoluble fiber after the slightly sweet taste has been extracted. Somewomen grind the seedpods, much as they do maize or seeds like ngitit, using thisflour to flavor maize or wheat flour.

As the species becomes more of a problem through its invasive nature, its badreputation follows. There are many Turkana beliefs about this species, which theygenerally view as an ‘‘enemy of the Turkana.’’ For example, the Turkana believe thistree is poisonous to both plants and animals. They have observed little vegetationaround large trees and how invasive the small, scrub trees are. The Turkana explainthe preponderance of ebekut by suggesting that it ‘‘steals the water’’ from otherplants and lowers the ground water levels in the seasonal riverbeds. Some observedthat donkeys suffer and die after consuming the tree or its seedpods because, theysuggest, the insoluble fiber present in the seedpods causes intestinal obstruction.Deaths of other animals, especially sheep and goats, after browsing on ebekut arealso attributed to the foliage or seedpods. However, animal scientists have foundthat the intestinal tracts of small livestock are able to tolerate consumption of limitedamounts of the seedpods (Mahgoub et al. 2005) and simply pass the undigestedmaterial. After one woman ground and used the flour, her husband became angryand demanded she stop. Local tales of children developing swollen stomachs andbecoming sick, like the donkeys that consume the insoluble fiber, became quitecommon. This is in spite of a government program conducted by the Arid ResourcesLand Management Program that is trying to encourage utilization of this plant.Better information is needed about the species and its interactions in theenvironment with both people and their animals. Involving Turkana in this processwill allow these people to build on present observations and knowledge of ebekut aswell as aid in dispelling myths about the plant.

Future research will need to include more in-depth analyses of the micro-and macro-nutrient contributions of these wild food resources. This will aid inbetter understanding of the nutrition and health impacts they have on individual,household and even regional scales. In addition, a more extensive and fine-grained study of who accesses these resources, how often, and when will need tobe conducted. This will aid in a better understanding of current managementpractices of resources, the potential of these resources to household and regionalfood security as well as better range management of northern Kenya forcontinued pastoral production and ecosystem management.

Concluding Remarks

Arid lands ecosystems are still being explored by researchers and are justbeginning to be scientifically understood. The South Turkana Ecosystem Project(STEP) was a long term, multidisciplinary research project with the NgisanyokaTurkana in South Turkana District (Little and Leslie 1999). This project focusedon one particular group of Turkana and the southern part of the region.According to McCabe (2004) who focused on livestock and environmentinteractions, much of the Turkana District could be classified as in a state ofpersistent disequilibrium. The presence of such a variety of resources importantfor human consumption, not just livestock and wildlife consumption, underlinesthe need to continue research in these ecosystems.


There are ongoing attempts, primarily by NGOs, in Kenya and Sudan to basemicro-development schemes on some fruits and nuts (Armstrong et al. 2008). It isunclear if any consideration of management of or access to these resources isconsidered (Fratkin 1997). For example, access rights and privileges to waterhave been well documented for South Turkana District (Broch-Due andAnderson 1999; McCabe 2004) but there is no information regarding manage-ment of other resources such as wild foods. As pressure increases on allresources, existing rights and privileges need to be better understood to ensurecontinued access and avoid conflict. Information presented in this study showsthat wild plant food resources and the Turkanas’ knowledge of them are critical.Care should be taken in development projects to recognize and considerprotection, not only of the environment, but also the knowledge of thatenvironment and the importance of continued access to its wild plant resources.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation and the WennerGren Foundation. Nutritional analysis was specifically funded by Sigma Xi. Nutritionalanalysis was performed by Jeremiah M’Thika and Rosemary Kamau. Plant specimenswere identified primarily with the assistance of Joshua Muasya and Patrick Maundu. JohnEbenyo provided field assistance. AMREF-Kenya assisted with initial transportation andintroductions to communities. Many communities in Lokichoggio Division, TurkanaDistrict, Kenya were very open and helpful, as were the local and District administrators.None of this would have been possible without their cooperation and assistance.

References Cited

Armstrong, S., K. Belknap, C. Viezee, and G.

Wagner

2008 Value Chain Framework and the Lulu

Livelihoods Programme: Guided Case Stud-

ies in Value Chain Development for Con-

flict-affected environments. In Micro Report

#102, USAID, general editor, pp. 1–57.

USAID and MEDIC, Washington, DC.

Agnew, A.D.Q.

1974 Upland Kenya Wild Flowers: A Flora of the

Ferns and Herbaceous Flowering Plants of Upland

Kenya. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Beentje, H.J.

1994 Kenya Trees, Shrubs and Lianas. Nation-

al Museums of Kenya, Nairobi.

Bernard, H.R., P.J. Pelto, O. Werner, J. Boster,

A.K. Romney, A. Johnson, C.R. Ember, and A.

Kasakoff

1986 The Construction of Primary Data in

Cultural Anthropology. Current Anthropolo-

gy 27(4):382–396.

Borgatti, S.P.

1994 Cultural Domain Analysis. Journal of

Quantitative Anthropology 4:261–278.

1995 ANTHROPAC 4.0. Analytic Technolo-

gies, Lexington.

Broch-Due, V. and D. Anderson

1999 Remembered Cattle, Forgotten People:

The Morality of Exchange and the Exclusion

of the Turkana Poor. In The poor are not us:

Poverty and Pastoralism, eds. D.M. Anderson

and V. Broch-Due, pp. 50–88. Ohio Univer-

sity Press, Athens.

Dahl, G. and A. Hjort

1976 Having Herds. Stockholm Studies in

Social Anthropology 2. University of Stock-

holm, Stockholm.

Dharani, N.

2002 Field Guide to Common Trees and Shrubs

of East Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.

Dyson-Hudson, R. and J.T. McCabe

1985 South Turkana Nomadism: Coping with

an Unpredictably Varying Environment. Eth-

nography Series. HRAFlex Books, Boston.

Evans-Pritchard, E.E.

1950 Nilotic Studies. Journal of the Anthro-

pological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland

80(1/2):1–6.


Fratkin, E.

1997 Pastoralism: Governance and Devel-

opment Issues. Annual Review of Anthropol-

ogy 26:235–261.

Galvin, K.A.

1992 Nutritional Ecology of Pastoralists in

Dry Tropical Africa. American Journal of

Human Biology 4(2):209–221.

Gray, S., M. Sundal, B. Wiebusch, M.A. Little, P.

Leslie, and I.L. Pike

2003 Cattle Raiding, Cultural Survival, and

Adaptability of East African Pastoralists.

Current Anthropology 44(Supplement):S3–S30.

Gray, S.J., B. Wiebusch, and H.A. Akol

2004 Cross-sectional Growth of Pastoralist

Karimojong and Turkana Children. American

Journal of Physical Anthropology 125(2):193–202.

Guinand, Y. and D. Lemessa

2001 Wild Food Plants in Ethiopia: Reflec-

tions on the Role of Wild Foods and Famine

Foods at a time of Drought. Paper presented

at the The Potential of Indigenous Wild Foods,

Kenya.

Gulliver, P.H.

1955 The Family Herds: A Study of Two

Pastoral Tribes in East Africa, The Jie and

Turkana. International Library of Sociology

and Social Reconstruction. Routledge and

Kegan Paul LTD, London.

Hawkes, K., J.F. O’Connell, and N.G. Blurton

Jones

1997 Hadza Women’s Time Allocation,

Offspring Provisioning, and the Evolution

of Long Postmenopausal Life Spans. Current

Anthropology 38(4):551–577.

Johns, T., M. Nagarajan, M.L. Parkipuny, and

P.J.H. Jones

2000 Maasai Gummivory: Implications for

Paleolithic Diets and Contemporary Health.

Current Anthropology 41(3):453–459.

Layton, R., R. Foley, and E. Williams

1991 The Transition Between Hunting and

Gathering and the Specialized Husbandry of

Resources: A Socio-ecological Approach.

Current Anthropology 32(3):255–274.

Little, M. and P. Leslie

1999 Turkana Herders of the Dry Savanna:

Ecology and Biobehavioral Response of Nomads

to an Uncertain Environment. Oxford Univer-

sity Press, New York.

Mace, R.

1993 Nomadic Pastoralists Adopt Subsis-

tence Strategies That Maximize Long-Term

Household Survival. Behavioral Ecology and

Sociobiology 33(5):329–334.

Mahgoub, O., I. Kadim, N. Forsberg, D. Al-Ajmi,N. Al-Saqry, A. Al-Abri, and K. Annamalai

2005 Evaluation of Meskit (Prosopis julia-

flora) pods as a feed for goats. Animal FeedScience and Technology 121(3):319–327.

Maundu, P.M., D. Berger, C.o. Saitabau, J.Nadieku, M. Kipelia, S. Mathenge, Y. Morimoto,and R. Hoft

2001 Ethnobotany of the Loita Maasai. InPeople and Plants Working Paper, P. a. P.International, general editor, pp. 1–55. Peo-ple and Plants International, Paris.

Maundu, P.M., G.W. Ngugi, and C.H.S. Kabuye1999 Traditional Food Plants of Kenya. Na-

tional Museums of Kenya, Nairobi.

McCabe, J.T.2004 Cattle Bring Us to Our Enemies: Turkana

Ecology, History, and Raiding in a DisequilibriumSystem. University of Michigan Press, AnnArbor.

Mwangi, E. and B. Swallow2005 Invasion of Prosopis juliflora and Local

Livelihoods: Case Study from the Lake Baringo

Area of Kenya. World Agroforesty Centre.Submitted to ICRAF Working Paper.

Nyariki, D.M., L.S. Wiggins, and J.K. Imungi2002 Levels and Causes of Household

Food and Nutrition Insecurity in DrylandKenya. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 41(2):155–176.

Ogoye-Ndegwa, C. and J. Aagaard-Hansen2003 Traditional Gathering of Wild Vege-

tables among the Luo of Western Kenya - ANutritional Anthropology Project. Ecology of

Food and Nutrition 42(1):69–89.

Pakia, M.2001 Indigenous Wild Food Plant Research

in Coastal Regions of Kenya. Paper present-ed at the The Potential of Indigenous WildFoods, Nairobi, Kenya.

Pike, I.L.2004 The Biosocial Consequences of Life on

the Run: A Case Study from TurkanaDistrict, Kenya. Human Organization 63(2):221–235.

Romney, A.K., S.C. Weller, and W.H. Batchelder1986 Culture as Consensus: A Theory of

Culture and Informant Accuracy. American

Anthropologist 88(2):313–338.

Ryan, G.W., J.M. Nolan, and P.S. Yoder2000 Successive Free Listing: Using Multi-

ple Free Lists to Generate ExplanatoryModels. Field Methods 12(2):83–107.

Tabuti, J.2001 Traditional Food Plants of Bulamogi

County, Kamuli District (Uganda): Prelimi-


nary Results. Paper presented at the The

Potential of Indigenous Wild Foods, Nairobi,Kenya.

Weller, S.C. and R. Baer2002 Measuring Within-and Between-

group Agreement: Identifying the Propor-

tion of Shared and Unique Beliefs acrossSamples. Field Methods 14(1):6–25.

Weller, S.C. and A.K. Romney1988 Systematic Data Collection. Qualitative

Research Methods. Sage Publications, BeverlyHills.


Documents

The Prevalence of Wild Food Knowledge Among Nomadic Turkana of Northern Kenya