PLANTS AS A SIGN OF LATGALIAN IDENTITY IN CULTURAL LANDSCAPE, WRITING AND STORIES

Authors

  • Andrejs Svilāns Mg. sc. biol., Director of the National Botanic Garden. (LV)
  • Daina Roze Mg. sc. biol., Researcher (National Botanic Garden), doctoral candidate (University of Daugavpils). (LV)
  • Valentīns Lukaševičs Dr. philol., Researcher (ESF project „Linguo-Cultural and Socio-Economic Aspects of Territorial Identity in the Development of the Region of Latgale” (Nr. 2009/0227/1DP/1.1.1.2.0/ 09/ APIA/ VIAA/071), Rezekne Academy of Technologies), Docent (University of Daugavpils). (LV)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17770/latg2012.4.1692

Keywords:

.

Abstract

Mass settlement of Latvian rural inhabitants in towns and cities started just a little more than a hundred years ago, therefore bond with nature is a specifically Latvian identity sign. Studying the peculiarities of a nation, garden and plants give an opportunity to see and understand what is hard to get in a direct way as garden reveals the hidden and open processes that have taken place and are still happening in the economic, political, and social life of an individual person or the whole society. To form a perspective on the plants existing in the cultural environment as a socially significant phenomenon in Latvian identity development and preservation, in 2008 interdisciplinary research „Plants as a sign of Latvian identity” was initiated in Latvia.

The present article „Plants as a sign of Latgalian identity in cultural landscape, writing, and stories” covers the results of the fifth cycle of the above mentioned research. The goal of the research was to make out which plants are assumed to be the sign of Latgalian identity. The authors of the present paper were interested in singling out the factors that were considered essential by respondents in the formation of the notion of Latgalian plants, the colours believed to belong with Latgalian garden. Collecting stories was also considered important because not everything is preserved in written sources and, as the previous studies revealed, respondents’ stories were those that made it possible to understand the role of plants in the sustaining of identity. The research made use of questionnaire and written interview. The obtained results were analyzed by means of the comparative method using evidence of the cultural landscape, popular works by Latgalian authors, press periodicals published in Latgalian, literature in horticulture and gardening, archive materials of the Open-Air Ethnographical Museum of Latvia, internet resources, postcards from the private collection of Andrejs Svilāns and the prior results gained within the interdisciplinary research „Plants as a sign of Latvian identity”. We set to reveal in the research what opportunities for investigating Latgalian identity are offered by the plants grown in the cultural landscape of Latgale and the way the obtained results extend the existing studies of Latvian identity.

Summarizing the results of 93 questionnaires and oral interviews, 139 diversities were recognized as Latgalian plants including 54 caulescent plants – decorative plants, 35 vulnerary plants and herbs, 22 trees and 28 shrubs. The notion of the Latgalian as well as Latvian plants, according to the respondents, has been formed mostly by the gardens seen by their parents, grandparents, relatives as well as their stories. The impact of fiction and classical folklore is recognized as most essential in case of Latvian plants. The plants growing in the cultural landscape used by writers of fiction are signs that are understood and unite people belonging to a particular cultural space, they function as symbols of Latgale and the native homestead. Works produced both in Latgalian and Latvian literary language by Latgalian authors have cultivated and continue to cultivate Latgalian self-awareness, but print bans and works produced before emigration and during emigration by Latgalian writers have attributed specific worth to fiction and folklore.

The research revealed that identity signs are rather stable; both Latvian and Latgalian plants were most often assumed to be those grown by a couple of preceding generations – basically at the end of the 19th –beginning of the 20th century in estate and peasant gardens. These plants are considered to be Latgalian though their origin in most cases is not the local flora. At the same time in their replies to the question what should not be grown in a Latgalian garden respondents replied – „foreign plants”, meaning plants that had entered rural homesteads later on (in recent decades).

The research showed that, unlike respondents from other regions, Latgalians perceive their regional landscape in a more syncretic way, not excluding plants that, due to some stereotypical notions or symbolism, do not „fit” into it, e. g. alders, asps, osiers, etc.

Traditions are formed in a long-term period, but those originated in the second half of the 19th century had a special significance. Under conditions of Russification, they helped to maintain Latgalian identity, also planting particular plant combinations in line with the notion of a Latgalian garden.

The information concerning plants grown in peasant homesteads in Latgale is rather scarce in the materials of the Open-Air Ethnographical Museum of Latvia, as compared to other regions. Investigation of detached homestead and village garden cultures might be a task of the further research, as village was a closed community that maintained Latvian traditions.

The research brought out several debatable issues that remain unanswered. To find answers to them, a necessity to address directly the supplier of information emerged clearly in further research as well as to prepare visual material – photographs, drawings that would make it easier to identify plants and reduce the problem of taxonomic differentiation that appeared in the preceding research. For instance, it is not clear where is the border between „briar-roses” – wild rose species (Rosa sp.) and cultivated rose species and old cultivars as well as between willows (Salix fragilis), pussy willows (S. caprea or S. acutifolia x daphnoides ‘Pashal’) a. o. taxa of the genus Salix.

The present paper does not pretend to provide an exhaustive study and analysis of the factors affecting the notion of the Latgalian plants. This is the task of further studies, as, according to the prior studies of Latvian plants, each such factor is worth a separate voluminous research.

The authors of the present paper intend to proceed with the studies of garden culture as well as collecting the Latgalian names of plants grown at home, in the garden, growing in the forest, meadow, field, studying the use of plants and their economic and social significance as well as collecting stories in order to preserve this non-material culture legacy as complete and correct as possible. We hope that the paper will encourage researchers of various fields to participate in the study to use the opportunities provided by garden plants for a more unusual insight.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[B. a., n.] (1920).Latgolas Wōrds. Nr. 23. 20. martā. 4.

[B. a., n.] (1935).Latgolas Wōrds. Nr.14. 3. aprīlī. 2.

[B. a., n.] (1936a). Latgolas Wōrds. Nr. 19. 13. maijā. 2.

[B. a.., n.] (1936b). Latgolas Wōrds. Nr. 20. 20. maijā. 1.

[B. a., n.] (1936c). Latgolas Wōrds. Nr. 16. 22. aprīlī. 2.

Balodis, Agnis (2001). Latvijas un latviešu tautas vēsture. Rīga: Neatkarīgā teātra „Kabata”

grāmatu apgāds.

Beitnere, Dagmāra (2010). Valoda un identitāte socioloģijas skatījumā. www.valoda.lv/downloadDoc_27/mid_527,sk. 18.05.2011.

Beitnere, Dagmāra (2003). Pašreference latviešu kultūras paradigmā (20. gadsimta 20.–40. un

gadi līdz mūsdienām). Disertācija socioloģijā. Rīga.

BDM ZM Nr. 14 –Rozenberga, V. (apkopotāja, 1960). Latgales trūcīga zemnieka sētas

apstādījumi. Puķu dārzs.

BDM ZM Nr. 421 –Feldmane, Dz. (pierakstītāja, 1955). Teicēja Mežinskis Solomeja, Preiļu raj.

Gailišu c. p. Mežinsku sādža.

BDM ZM Nr. 523–525, 540, 546 – Ramans (1925–1934). Latgales ainavas. Fotogrāfiju kolekcija.

BDM ZM Nr. 526 –Latgales baznīcu fotogrāfijas. Ģeogrāfa Ramana fotogrāfiju kolekcija. 1926.

BDM ZM Nr. 7448 – Dzenis, J. (zīmējuma autors, 1980). Abrenes apr. Balvu raj. Rugāju pag.

Rugāju c. p. Siliniekos.

BDM ZM Nr. 89662 – Kunnos, J. (zīmējuma autors, 1983). Voičuka Šakina sētas situācija

Jaunlatgales apr. Balvu raj. Šķilbēnu pag. Šķilbēnu c. p. 20. gadi.

Boldāne, Ilze (2008). Daži politiskie priekšnoteikumi etnisko stereotipu izveidē: Latvijas piemērs.

Vēsture un identitāte. Rīga: Zinātne.

Brežgo, Boļeslavs (1943).Latgolas inventari un generalmēreišonas zem’u aproksti. 1695–1784.

Daugavpiļs: Vl. Lōča izdevnīceiba.

Briška, Anna (2010). Koncepta rūžeņa lingvokulturoloģiskais raksturojums. Via Latgalica

Humanitāro Zinātņu Žurnāls III. 142–153.

Bula, Dace (2011).Mūsdienu folkloristika. Paradigmas maiņa. Rīga: Zinātne.

Cinovskis, Raimonds, Janele, Ilze, Skujeniece, Inta, Zvirgzds, Andris (1974). Koki un krūmi

Latvijas lauku parkos. Rīga: Zinātne.

Dindonis, Pēteris (1939). Puķkopība. Rīga: Valters un Rapa.

Dzimtines seja jōpodora krōšņōka (1935). LatgolasWōrds. Nr. 14. 3. aprīlī. 2.

Jaunsudrabiņš, Jānis (1985). Mana dzīve. Kopoti raksti, XV. Rīga: Liesma.

Juško-Štekele, Angelika (2011). Valodas un runas semantiskās modifikācijas latgaliešu pasakās.

Latgalistikys kongresu materiali, III. Rēzekne: SIA „Latgales druka”.

Gailums (1936). Augļu kūku stōdeišona. Latgolas Wōrds. Nr. 15. 8. aprīlī. 4.

Kemps, Francis (1938). Latgales likteņi. Ainas no senās un jaunākās pagātnes. Rīga: P. Puduļa

izdevniecība.

Klīdzējs, Jānis (1997). Cilvēka bērns. Rīga: Sprīdītis.

Klīdzējs, Jānis (1983). Otrais mūsos. Ņujorka: Grāmatu draugs.

Klīdzējs, Jānis (1962). Jaunieši. Ņujorka: Grāmatu draugs.

Klīdzējs, Jōņs (1944). Gōjputnu dzīsme. Stōsti. Daugavpils: V1. Lōča izdevnīceiba.

Kriķis, L., Galiņš, A. (1937). Daiļā sēta. Rīga: Ziedoņa Kukura apgāds.

Kruks, Sergejs (2005). Identitātes nepārtrauktības un realitātes mainīguma reprezentācijas

dilemma pagātnes un tagadnes interdiskursīvā mijiedarbībā. Letonika 13 LZA LFM. Rīga:

SIA „NIPO NT”. 5–15.

Krogzeme-Mosgorda, Baiba (2002). Anketēšanas metode folkloras vākšanā: pētnieka statusa

problēma un stāstījuma izveides iespēja. Cilvēks. Dzīve. Stāstījums. Rīga: Latvijas Antropologu

biedrība. 37–44.

Kursīte, Janīna (2008). Kāzas Latgalē. Rīga: Madris.

Kursīte, Janīna (2006). Kultūrainava kā daļa no savs–svešs binārās varas sistēmas. Kultūra un

vara. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds. 103–110.

Kursīte, Janīna, Stafecka, Anna (1995). Latgaliešu literatūra. Rīga: Zvaigzne ABC.

Laganovskis, Jezups (1980). Labākais piemineklis. Rīga: Liesma.

Malahovskis, Vladislavs (2011). Sādžas koncepts Latgalē. Latgalistikys kongresu materiāli, III. Via

Latgalica.

Matisovs, Ivars (2010). Urbanizācijas procesi un īpatnības Latgalē. Via Latgalica Humanitāro

Zinātņu Žurnāls, III. 19–35.

Melluma, Aija, Zariņa, Anita (2011).Sādža kā telpiskās struktūras elements Latgalē. Referāta

kopsavilkums. LU 60. zinātniskā konference. 02.02.2011. 12–13.

Naaizmērstule (1927). Naktineica. Zīdūnis. Nr. 3. (31). 20–22.

Naaizmērstule (1934). Naktineica. Lauku zīdi. Rēzekne: Dorbs un Zineiba. 361–364.

Pranka, Maruta (2007). Identitāte reģionālās attīstības kontekstā. Spogulis. Rīga: SIA „N.I.M.S.”.

–354.

Pujāte, Signe, Vītola, Ieva (2009). Nemateriālā kultūras mantojuma dokumentēšana: rokasgrāmata

iesācējiem. Rīga: Mantojums.

Rancāne, Anna (2005a). Saules kalponīte. Rīga: Zvaigzne ABC.

Rancāne, Anna (2005b). Zīmes. Rīga: Zvaigzne ABC.

Rancāne, Anna (1986). Piektdiena. Rīga: Liesma.

Romislovs, Vladimirs (1927). Kas jōīvaroj jaunū sātu ceļut. Latgolas Zemkūpis. Nr. 3. 2.

Roze, Daina (2011a). Anša Lerha-Puškaiša devums dārzkopībā: avoti un stāsti. Daugavpils

Universitātes Humanitārās fakultātes XX starptautisko zinātnisko lasījumu materiāli. Vēsture XIV.

Vēsture: avoti un cilvēki. Daugavpils: Daugavpils Universitātes Akadēmiskais apgāds „Saule”. 264–

Roze, Daina (2010c). Anša Lerha-Puškaiša devums dārzkopībā: kultūrainavā un stāstos.

Letonica 20. Rīga:LZA LFMI. 154–180.

Roze, Daina (2010b). Augi kā latviskās identitātes zīme. Daugavpils Universitātes Humanitārās

fakultātes XIX starptautisko zinātnisko lasījumu materiāli. Vēsture XIII. Vēsture: avoti un cilvēki.

Daugavpils: Daugavpils Universitātes Akadēmiskais apgāds „Saule”. 164–171.

Roze, Daina (2011b). Jānis Jaunsudrabiņš: folklora, daba un dārzs kā latviskās identitātes zīmes.

Letonica. Rīga: LZA LFMI. 157–169.

Roze, Daina (2008). Liepu lapu laipu liku. Medības. Makšķerēšana. Daba. Nr. 7. 28–30.

Roze, Daina (2010a). Some Plants as a Sign of the Latvian Identity. In: Balkan and Baltic States

in United Europe: Histories, Religions and Cultures.Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Institute of

Folklore Studies. 132–141.

Salceviča, Ilona (2005). Gadsimts latgaliešu prozā un lugu rakstniecībā: 1904–2004. Rīga:

Zinātne.

Smits, Entonijs (1997). Nacionālā identitāte. Rīga: AGB.

Sperga Ilze. http://www.katolukalendars.lv/materiali/kulturvesture/98-musdienu-latgaliesuliteratura-

autori-bez-lasitajiem, sk. 20.09.2011.

Rudzītis, Jāzeps (2006). Latviešu vēstītājas folkloras dzīve tautā 19. un 20. gadsimtā. Rīga: Zinātne.

Zeile, Pēteris (2006). Latgales kultūras vēsture. Rēzekne:Latgales Kultūras centra izdevniecība.

Ziedonis, Rimants (2006). Austrumu robeža. Rīga: Zvaigzne ABC.

Valeinis, Vitolds (1998). Latgaliešu lirikas vēsture. Rīga: Jumava.

Downloads

Published

2012-12-31

Issue

Section

ARTICLES

How to Cite

Svilāns, A., Roze, D., & Lukaševičs, V. (2012). PLANTS AS A SIGN OF LATGALIAN IDENTITY IN CULTURAL LANDSCAPE, WRITING AND STORIES. Via Latgalica, 4, 53-68. https://doi.org/10.17770/latg2012.4.1692