VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY

Auksė NOREIKAITĖ

LITHUANIAN-LATVIAN BORDERLAND: THE EXPRESSION OF ETHNIC IDENTITY DURING THE 20TH CENTURY AND AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 21ST CENTURY

Summary of Doctoral Dissertation Humanities, Ethnology (H 006)

Kaunas, 2020

The doctoral dissertation was prepared at Vytautas Magnus University between 2015 and 2020 according to the right to deliver doctoral studies, which was granted for Vytautas Magnus University together with Klaipėda University and the Lithuanian Institute of History by the Act of the Minister of Education and Science (Republic of Lithuania) No. V-574, signed on the 17th July 2020.

Scientific supervisor: Assoc. prof. dr. Laimutė Anglickienė (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, Ethnology H 006).

Council of defence of the doctoral dissertation:

Chair Dr. Vida Savoniakaitė (The Lithuanian Institute of History, Humanities, Ethnology H 006). Members: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Dalia Senvaitytė (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, Ethnology H 006). Assoc. Prof. Dr. Egdūnas Račius (Vytautas Magnus University, Social Sciences, Political science S 002). Assoc. Prof. Dr. Jūratė Lubienė (Klaipėda University, Humanities, Philology H 004). Dr. Antra Kļavinska (Rezekne Academy of Technologies, Humanities, Ethnology H 006).

The doctoral dissertation will be defended in a public meeting of the Council of Scientific Field of Ethnology, Vytautas Magnus University, at 11 a. m. on the 15th of June, 2020 at the auditorium 313 of the Faculty of Humanities, Vytautas Magnus University. Address: V. Putvinskio str. 23, LT-44243 Kaunas, Lithuania.

The summary of the doctoral dissertation was sent out on the 15 of May, 2020.

The dissertation is available at the Martynas Mažvydas National Library and the libraries at Vytautas Magnus University, Klaipėda University, and the Lithuanian Institute of History. VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS

Auksė NOREIKAITĖ

LIETUVOS IR LATVIJOS PARIBYS: ETNINIO TAPATUMO RAIŠKA XX A.–XXI A. PRADŽIOJE

Mokslo daktaro disertacijos santrauka Humanitariniai mokslai, Etnologija (H 006)

Kaunas, 2020

Mokslo daktaro disertacija rengta 2015–2020 metais Vytauto Didžiojo universitete pagal suteiktą Vytauto Didžiojo universitetui, Klaipėdos universitetui ir Lietuvos istorijos institutui (2017 m. liepos 17 d. Lietuvos Respublikos švietimo ir mokslo ministro įsakymu Nr. V–574) doktorantūros teisę.

Mokslinė vadovė: doc. dr. Laimutė Anglickienė (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Humanitariniai mokslai, Etnologija H 006).

Disertacijos gynimo taryba: Pirmininkė dr. Vida Savoniakaitė (Lietuvos istorijos institutas, Humanitariniai mokslai, Etnologija H 006).

Nariai: doc. dr. Dalia Senvaitytė (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Humanitariniai mokslai, Etnologija H 006). prof. dr. Egdūnas Račius (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Socialiniai mokslai, Politikos mokslai S 005). doc. dr. Jūratė Lubienė (Klaipėdos universitetas, Humanitariniai mokslai, Filologija H 004). dr. Antra Kļavinska (Rėzeknės technologijų akademija, Humanitariniai mokslai, Etnologija H 006).

Daktaro disertacija bus ginama viešame etnologijos mokslo krypties posėdyje 2020 m. birželio 15 d. 11 val. Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto Humanitarinių mokslų fakulteto 313 auditorijoje. Adresas: V. Putvinskio g. 23, LT-44243 Kaunas, Lietuva.

Daktaro disertacijos santrauka išsiųsta 2020 m. gegužės 15 d.

Disertaciją galima peržiūrėti Lietuvos nacionalinėje Martyno Mažvydo, Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto, Klaipėdos universiteto ir Lietuvos istorijos instituto bibliotekose. INTRODUCTION Lithuania and Latvia are often geopolitically perceived in the world as Baltics’. On the one hand, these countries have many similarities, as they are not only united by their historical neighbourhood, but also by the common origin of their ethnic groups — Lithuanian and Latvian are the only living Baltic languages in the world. Since the 13th century, these lands were touched by the different historical, political, and social processes, which led to the formation of the economically and culturally different sovereign states in the early 20th century. A new borderline between Lithuania and Latvia was marked in 1921, however, the border was formed since the13th century. Due to the active processes of migration, assimilation, and acculturation on both sides of this border, in the course of history a unique border socio-cultural environment was formed, in which various ethnic groups played an important role, therefore, issues of the ethnic identity are especially important here. Although the cross-border movement of Lithuanian–Latvian border residents and constant co-operation have been going on for many centuries, it has revived at the beginning of the 21st century, when both countries became part of the European Union and the Schengen area. Therefore, it is especially important to record the ongoing processes and analyse their impact on the self-identification of these populations in the border region. Many scientists agree that identity is constructed (Fredrik Barth (1969), Anthony Giddens (2000), Manuel Castells (2006), Thomas Hylland Eriksen (2002), etc.), it can change and be mobile. Therefore, it is important to find out how the ethnic identity of the border residents was formed and continues to be formed; how it is affected by the living environment – the border; how the ethnic identity is expressed in interaction with others in everyday life. In the context of these days, an important question also arises: are the issues of the ethnic identity still relevant to the border residents in a globalizing world? Research problem – construction of the ethnic identity of the Lithuanian- Latvian border residents; and the border social system in the 20th century – the beginning of the 21st century. Hypothesis. Due to the assimilation and acculturation processes, the importance of the Latvian identity is decreasing on the Lithuanian side, and the Lithuanian one on the Latvian side. The orientation of the population towards the identity of the ethnic majority

5 prevails. Meanwhile, globalization processes are undermining the importance of ethnic identity. Research object – the ethnic identity of the Lithuanian-Latvian border residents. Research aim – to investigate how and from what ethnic identity of the Lithuanian-Latvian border residents was formed, expressed and changed during the 20th century and at the beginning of the 21st century; and to reveal how the different identities help to create the social system of this border and vice versa – how the border itself determines the processes of the identity construction. The objectives of the study were the following: 1) to analyse the ethnic processes that took place in the area of the Lithuanian-Latvian border and to reveal their influence on the self-perception of the ethnic identity of the border residents; 2) to single out and analyse the ethnic markers of the Lithuanians and Latvians living on the border and to reveal how these markers construct the ethnic identity of the border people in the socio-cultural border space; 3) to find out the emic concepts of the Lithuanian-Latvian border region and to study the features of the border social system. Chronological boundaries: the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. A long historical period has been chosen because it is the only way to see the change in the expression of ethnic identity and to understand the meaning of the ethnic markers. In some cases, the context of the 19th century is also used, as after the serfdom, social hierarchical relations between Lithuanian and Latvian ethnic groups were formed, as well as, ethnic images and stereotypes of these groups, which continued to develop intensively in the 20th century. The analysed periods illustrate several significant historical breakthroughs: 1) the formation of modern Lithuanian and Latvian national consciousness at the beginning of the 20th century and the era of nationalism in 1918–1940, when the choice of the national identity of the border people during the establishment of the Lithuanian- Latvian state border (1920–1921) was a particularly significant event 2) World War II and the occupation of the Republics of Lithuania and Latvia, which changed the meaning of the ethnic markers and the possibilities of choosing ethnic/national identity; 3) the era of globalization (the end of the 20th century – the beginning of the 21st century), which

6 provided an opportunity to construct multiple identities and rethink the meanings of the ethnic markers. Research data and methodology. The basis of the study is empirical material collected in several stages: in 2008–2019 from 10 municipalities on the Lithuanian side and 13 municipalities in Latvia (see map No. 1). 228 interviews were conducted, lasting from 15 minutes to 4 hours. 139 informants were interviewed on the Lithuanian side and 89 in Latvia. Interviewed different age, sex, education, Lithuanian-Latvian border residents. Two online questionnaires were used: in 2016–2019, the questionnaire “Everyday life of the Lithuanian-Latvian border residents” was filled in by 148 residents in Lithuania and 177 in Latvia. “Ethnic identity of the Lithuanian-Latvian border residents” (see Appendices No. 1-4). In 2017–2020, 196 respondents in Lithuania and 191 in Latvia answered the questions of the questionnaire “Ethnic Identity of the Lithuanian-Latvian Border Residents”. The collected empirical data (interviews, questionnaires, photographs, videos) are stored in the Ethnology Data Archive of the Department of Cultural Studies, Vytautas Magnus University (VDU ER) (files No. 2289, 2657, 2658, 2659, 2660, 2661 and 2662).

1 Map. Field research places in 2008–2019.

Research organisation. The field research was organised in several stages: during 2008–2012 various ethnographic expeditions (in Žagarė, Žeimelis surroundings,

7 Biržai city and district, Palanga, Skuodas city and district, as well as in Īslīce parish in Latvia) were visited, where the author was interested in the ethnic and cultural border processes. It was noted that to reveal the topic of the ethnic identity of the border residents, it is valuable to study the relationships between ethnic groups. During the doctoral studies (2015–2019), field research was continued both in the previously researched places (Žeimelis surroundings, Palanga, Žagarė) and in the new areas: Mažeikiai, Akmenė, Joniškis, Rokiškis, and Zarasai districts. In 2016–2018, field research was carried out in Latvia as well: in Rucava, Saldus, Rundāle, Bauska, Nereta, Ilūkste, Daugavpils, Preiļi municipalities, as well as, in Liepāja, Bauska, and Daugavpils cities. The research data were also collected by the questionnaires in Lithuanian and Latvian languages online and with a small number of printed copies. The questionnaire “Everyday life of the Lithuanian-Latvian border residents” consisted of questions about people’s activities on weekdays and holidays, the most common dishes; the cross-border movement: the aims, frequency, directions; the languages used both during the Soviet era and the establishment of the independent states. There were also questions about the advantages and disadvantages of the place of residence and the significance of Lithuania and Latvia. In the course of the field research, questions were added as to whether the respondent considered his place of residence to be a border area and how many kilometres he considered that the area had to be extended from the state border in order to be called a border area. The second questionnaire focused on the ethnic identity, asking to indicate both one's own and ancestral nationalities and religions, explaining the use of languages and dialects in the family and the public space, asking people about other nationalities and religions in their place of residence and about their differences. To find out what literature contributes to the formation of the spiritual world of the border residents, the most significant book read, the press currently being read, and the websites visited were asked. One of the last questions is to mark the suitable identity from the list or name another. The questionnaires were distributed online through groups operating in the social networks: Facebook groups of border village communities, libraries, sub-districts, cultural centres. The research questionnaire was also distributed by the e-mail to help teachers, regional studies activists, museologists, and librarians from the border areas. The results of the survey helped to select some areas for more detailed field research. Other places were chosen because they have been the subject of the field studies

8 in the past and it proved significant for further exploration: interviewing some of the previously interviewed informants, thus, detecting a change or stability in their expression of thought. Choosing the places for the field research, it was important to take into account the diversity of the ethnic (regional) identity of the border residents. Some of the selected areas on one side of the border were paired with a nearby area on the other side of the border. During the field research, various cultural events, commemorations, and festivals were also observed and sometimes filmed. In some of the observed events, communication, and cooperation between Lithuanians and Latvians and the languages used in their communication were recorded. Close observation of various gatherings and the daily life of the border in general allowed to record Lithuanian-Latvian relationships, interactions, acculturation phenomena in customs and languages, living folklore of the border residents, and attitudes towards various social, cultural and political topics. Visual data are also important for the dissertation – photographs of the public spaces, cemeteries, living environments of the respondents, and their photos, which provided significant additional data on the expression of the ethnic and regional identity of the border residents. Selection and access to informants. In the research, the informant was primarily viewed as a border person (living on the Lithuanian-Latvian border), therefore, no special selection of the informants was applied according to their nationality or religion, the most important criterion was their place of residence – border area. The position was that the border area is the whole territory of the sub-districts (seniūnija in Lithuania and pagasts in Latvia), which borders with the neighbouring Republic. Informants were usually selected at random, sometimes using the snowball method or recommendations from friends, acquaintances, relatives. The field research followed the emic research perspective, i. e. the aim was to the informant’s position (as much as possible) and to get to know the topic from the inside. During the field research, the position was taken that the ethnographer must become a stranger to the research environment, but, on the other hand, through cognition, the researcher must become their own, while remaining neutral and impartial. The author's good knowledge of Lithuanian and Latvian languages helped her to get closer to the informants on both sides of the border.

9 Depending on the Personal Data Protection Law, to avoid any inconvenience or harm to the informants, to prevent them from being identified by other residents in a particular area, the anonymity of the interviewed respondents was maintained, when publishing the survey results, i. e. their names are not mentioned, depending on the situation, also, a place of residence. Methods. The following ethnographic field research methods were used to collect the material: participant observation, semi-structural interviews, informal conversations, questionnaires, collection of the visual material (photos, videos), diary writing. The qualitative content analysis, case analysis, and interpretive methods were applied to analyse the collected data, as well as, press, television programs, films, websites, social networks. In addition, the questionnaire data were processed by the method of quantitative analysis. A comparative method was used to compare the material collected in the different areas, the historical-comparative method was used to analyse the expression of the identity of the border people and their daily life in the different historical periods. A cartographic method was used to analyse the prevalence of diverse regional identities. Novelty and relevance of the topic. Ethnic identity research is not losing its relevance worldwide, and issues of border residents’ identity tend to be the most problematic. Nowadays, regional policy issues are also relevant in various parts of the world, the cultural meanings of borders are being rethought (Wilson, Donnan 1998; Krause 2016; Holt 2018, etc.), and the importance of the local identity is emphasized (Eriksen 2002; Paasi 2003, 2012, etc.). At the beginning of the 21st century, various ethnic processes are still taking place on the Lithuanian-Latvian border, but this border is not as politically significant as, for example, the region of the South-Eastern Lithuania, which even raises issues of the national security. Meanwhile, the Lithuanian-Latvian border region has not yet been fully explored, especially – there is a lack of comparative studies of ethnic processes on both sides of the border. The author's research on the border in 2011–2013 showed that the relationships between Lithuanians and Latvians in different border areas were affected by different factors (Noreikaitė 2013, 2017); therefore, it is important to examine other ethnic processes in the border, which form the uniqueness of the border as a region and the identity of the border residents. This study is the first attempt to examine in detail the

10 ethnic processes that have taken place and are still taking place on both sides of the Lithuanian-Latvian border and have a significant effect on the humanities and social sciences. The results of the study should be relevant to both the general public and politicians and might help to maintain a smooth intercultural dialogue as well as good cross-border relations.

Defended propositions 1. The Lithuanian-Latvian border has long been characterized by the diversity of the ethnic groups, but in the era of nationalism, it was extremely important to draw strict ethnic boundaries, hence, the possibility of the multiple ethnic identities was rejected and presented as a negative phenomenon. Nevertheless, the intensive processes of assimilation and acculturation have led to the formation of various combinations of mobile ethnic and regional identities, which manifested most on this borderland in the era of globalization that began at the end of the 20th century, and are still important to these ethnic groups. 2. For the concept of ethnicity, it is important to draw and maintain ethnic boundaries of Lithuanian and Latvian ethnic groups through the ethnic markers: language, religion, celebrations and rites, food, character and mentality, and the value system. The significance of the ethnic markers in the socio-cultural space of the border is changeable, they can turn into ethnic links that form the general social system of the border. 3. Ethnic connections and their quest help to construct multiple ethnic and / or regional identities of the border residents, which in turn helps to create a social system on the Lithuanian-Latvian border, involving both the area on one side of the border and including the socio-cultural space on the other side of the border.

The structure of the research. This doctoral dissertation consists of Introduction, 4 descriptive chapters with subsections, Conclusions, a list of sources, and literature and appendices. The Introduction presents the object of the research, aim, tasks, the relevance of the topic, material collection process, selection of informants, methods of data collection and analysis, an overview of sources, used concepts.

11 The first chapter reviews the scientific works of the Lithuanian-Latvian borderland area and describes the theoretical approach of the research. The second chapter “Ethnic Processes and Interethnic Relations on the Lithuanian-Latvian Border” discusses migration and assimilation processes, analyses how they affected interethnic relations, and formed the socio-cultural environment on the Lithuanian-Latvian border. The third chapter “Markers of Ethnic Identity of Border Residents and Their Significance in the Socio-Cultural Space of the Border”, analyses ethnic markers such as language, religion, celebrations and rites, food, character and mentality, and the value system, trying to find out what function – an ethnic marker or link – they performed at different times in the different border locations. The fourth chapter “Features of the Lithuanian-Latvian border social system: Significance of Regional Identity” analyses how the socio-cultural region of the Lithuanian-Latvian border and its smaller sub-regions were formed and continue to develop. The significance of the expression of the regional identity of the border residents at the beginning of the 21st century is shown in this region. The data examined in the mentioned parts of the dissertation are summarised in the Conclusions. The dissertation is illustrated in 1 figure, 2 tables, and 17 appendices (questionnaires compiled by the author, a map and tables, prepared according to the collected research data, and photos taken in the field research). At the end of the study, there is a list of bibliography (380 publications).

12 1. REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC WORKS ON THE LITHUANIAN- LATVIAN BORDER AND THEORETICAL APPROACH TO RESEARCH

The first subchapter of this part consists of a wide review of scientific works on the Lithuanian-Latvian border topic. The works of the researchers are discussed chronologically and thematically. The second subsection presents the theoretical approach to this research. Firstly, the problem of the concept of ethnic identity is discussed. The concepts of ethnic identity and ethnicity in the social sciences and humanities are understood ambiguously. The concept of ethnicity is closely related to, and in Lithuania, it is often identified with, the concept of identity (Savoniakaitė 2010). It should be noted that it is characteristic of the Eastern and Central Europe that ethnicity encompasses both nationality and citizenship, and the use of the term depends on the context. There are different theoretical concepts of ethnicity. One defines the ethnicity as a system of objective cultural elements and symbols, the other denies the significance of culture and considers ethnicity as a social phenomenon. Moreover, ethnicity can be understood as primordial (natural) and as an instrumentalist (constructed, situational). These concepts are revealed differently in the studies of various anthropologists and sociologists, but one should agree with the concept of primordialism proposed by Clifford Geertz, which does not completely deny the instrumentalist approach and argues that ethnic identity should be understood as “givens” of social existence and more as a cultural imagination fixed in time and space (Geertz 1973: 259). The vagueness of the concept of ethnicity is its advantage, as it “allows to discuss different groups of the same nationality (without raising the ontological question of whether they are one “nation”)” (Kasatkina, Leončikas 2003: 19). In the dissertation, the concept of ethnic identity is understood as the social identification of groups according to the criterion of common origin, recognizing their system of cultural elements and both primordial and instrumentalist approaches of identity. Theoretical guidelines for borderline ethnic identity research. For the analysis of the ethnic identity of the border residents, scientists' theories about the construction of identity by drawing social boundaries in the social space were used (Barth

13 1969, Eriksen 2002, Baumann 2002, Castells 2006, etc.). The position chosen is that ethnicity is first and foremost a social phenomenon, where a certain group distinguishes itself culturally from others, but it is equally necessary for the distinction of such a group to be recognized by other groups as well. Secondly, an ethnic group does not only have its cultural singularity, it must also be related to the social practice: at least a few social situations are needed to maintain ethnic identity (Barth 1969). Also relevant are the theories of scientists about the construction of identity in the context of the era of globalization, when individuals choose different identity strategies and combine them (Giddens 1991, Eriksen 2002). The context of everyday life and the theories of scientists about the relationship between identity and everyday life are important for the research of the identity of border residents (Berger, Luckmann 1999, Giddens 2000, Edensor 2002). For the analysis of the ethnic identity of the border residents from the social point of view, it was very important to pay attention to the socio-cultural space of the border as well, when analysing the expression of the ethnic identity at the border, it was important to pay attention to both sides and overlapping identities (Wilson and Donnan 1998). The theories of the historian Oscar Jaquez Martinez on the social system of the border and the models of the interaction of border regions were relevant for this analysis (Martinez 1994: 5–6).

2. ETHNIC PROCESSES AND INTERETHNIC RELATIONS ON THE LITHUANIAN-LATVIAN BORDER

This chapter of the dissertation consists of two subsections, in which the processes of residents’ movement on both sides of the border are analysed; an attempt is made to explain the directions, causes, and results of their interaction. The subsection “Migration and Assimilation Processes in Historical Contexts” discusses both Latvian emigration to Lithuania and Lithuanian emigration to the territory of Latvia, as well as, the movement of other ethnic groups on this border. Larger migrations of the residents on both sides have been recorded since the 15th century: they were encouraged by difficult conditions of serfdom, and later in the Russian Empire (1795–1918) – the avoidance of the obligation to recruit. Serfs migrations also took place during the migration of their landlords. There was an extensive network of Baltic German

14 manors in the territory of Lithuania, and Polish manors on the Latvian side, especially in the South-Eastern Latvia. It is important that in 1561 the Latgale region was annexed to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and in 1569 – to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The most intensive movement of the population is associated with the abolition of slavery (in Suwalki governorate in 1807, in the Courland governorate in 1817, in the Livonia governorate in 1819, in Kaunas and Vitebsk governorates in 1861). After receiving the freedom of movement, Latvians bought or rented land and manors on the Lithuanian side. Lithuanian emigration to the territory of Latvia at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century was mostly related to the job search and they moved much less often after bought some land. Lithuanian youth went to study. During the interwar period, seasonal and pendulum migrations of Lithuanians were especially popular, as a large part of them were only seasonal agricultural workers. The high emigration rate of border Lithuanians to Latvia affected the internal migration of the Lithuanian-Latvian border area. During the interwar period, the sub- districts of the Northern Lithuania, especially Biržai and Šiauliai counties, were those areas, where there the labour shortage was often felt (Morkūnas 1977: 28). As a result, workers from other Lithuanian counties came here. After the establishment of the state border between Lithuania and Latvia in 1921, part of the Latvians entered Lithuania, and part of the Lithuanians entered the territory of Latvia. Lithuanian and Latvian scholars pointed out that during the interwar period, one of the most important problems in preserving the ethnic identity of both Latvian Lithuanians and Lithuanian Latvians was the policy of the authoritarian regime of both countries. The assimilation of Lithuanian Latvians and Latvian Lithuanians was carried out by various measures (Jēkabsons 2003; Akmenytė 2008). After World War II, for some of the population, migration to a neighbouring country was an opportunity to hide from the political persecution of the Soviet structures. Many Lithuanians settled in Latvia after deportations in Siberia, and many of them came here as economic immigrants. After the closure of Lithuanian Latvians schools and non- government organizations in Lithuania, many Latvians moved to Latvia. In turn, both due to the internal migration of the population to larger cities and due to the natural assimilation through mixed families, the number of Latvians living in Lithuania decreased

15 sharply during the Soviet era. In Latvia, the number of Lithuanians increased significantly, they inhabited the Courland region most densely. Various other ethnic groups have long lived on the Lithuanian-Latvian border: Germans, Poles, Russians, Belarusians, and Jews. Some of them significantly contributed to the formation of the uniqueness of the Lithuanian-Latvian border. Other ethnic groups on the Lithuanian-Latvian border had less or only local cultural influence and changed their ethnic orientations over time. For example, the Votes, Swedes, and Finns assimilated with the Latvians, and some Latvian Russian landowners assimilated with the Germans. The Karaites and Tatars of the Duchy of Biržai assimilated with the Lithuanians, while the Tatars of Latgale with the Poles. The ethnic group of the Roma, who has settled on the border since the middle of the 15th century, has preserved its ethnic identity the most. In the 21st century, members of various ethnic groups, both European and Asian, can be seen on the Lithuanian-Latvian border. The history of migration of various ethnic groups shows that the Lithuanian- Latvian border has long been very variegated and many different ethnic and confessional groups have coexisted here and intermingled. Lithuanian and Latvian scholars agree that most of the Lithuanian-Latvian border is undergoing assimilation processes, dominated by the culture and language of the ethnic majority, except for the Eastern Latvian border, where the strong influence of Slavic-speaking ethnic groups is still felt. The history of migration of ethnic groups on the Lithuanian-Latvian border reveals not only the physical movement of various groups but also the migrations of their identities. The ethnic history of this border reflects both stable and mobile identities and reveals both the primordial and instrumentalist nature of the ethnic identity. Looking at the entire historical period from the 13th century to the present day and based on the analysis of ethnic assimilation processes, it can be seen that identity choices were determined by several reasons: the pursuit of the personal security and economic well- being, hierarchical social relations, and political factors. The second subsection “Everyday life of the borderland: relationships with others” analyses the interaction of Lithuanian and Latvian ethnic groups in everyday life, as well as, the stereotypes, images, and nicknames. The research showed that in relationships with others, the hierarchical relations established in separate groups of the society were significant, in which the element of ethnicity was important. Relationships

16 between Lithuanians and Latvians were influenced by social, economic, religious, and less political reasons. The most significant influence was exerted by the economic and social reasons that led to the largest distance between these ethnic groups. The origins of social friction date back to the 19th century, when Latvians, who had previously been released from serfdom, started establishing in the Kaunas governorate. Only a few decades later, Lithuanians were freed from serfdom and began to seek a better life and settled in a large part of the Latvian border, but most of them were unable to rise in the social hierarchy for a long time. The attitude of Lithuanians and Latvians towards each other was also influenced by the category's own – other / stranger, which sometimes created preconditions for finding a certain interethnic hostility, increased the distance in their interrelationships. However, it can be observed that due to the assimilation processes at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, the features of otherness are no longer significant and they are increasingly used only for playful contact with each other. Analysis of relationships between Lithuanian and Latvian confirms anthropologists' theories that ethnicity manifests itself through social contacts (Barth 1969; Eriksen 2002 etc.) and ethnic classifications we / they, other or own / stranger (Eriksen 2002: 23–42). Nevertheless, the ethnic classification own / stranger at the Lithuanian-Latvian border is faintly expressed, it was more significant until the beginning of the 20th century. The history of the 20th century already shows the obvious interaction of Lithuanian and Latvian ethnic groups: mixed marriages, bilingualism, and the drawing of ethnic boundaries, mainly within the category other. The significance of otherness varied in different border areas and, as a result, interethnic relations developed differently. On the Lithuanian-Latvian border, examples of peaceful coexistence and more acute ethnic tensions can be found, which have arisen both due to the religious differences and different socio-economic status. The most common expression of ethnic tensions the nicknames, which not only reflect the history of ethnic processes on the Lithuanian- Latvian border for a hundred or even several hundred years but also illustrate the social concept of ethnicity in drawing boundaries. Images of ethnic groups in everyday life usually occur in conflict situations, sometimes without even seeking to offend, but easily making fun of a relative, neighbour, or co-worker, who lives nearby and sometimes behaves strangely. Both Lithuanians and

17 Latvians consider each other a little stupid, which is completely normal in inter-ethnic relations. This is reflected in such nicknames given to Latvians as zirga galva (horse head), skabputris / skabdirsis, the insult that Latvians become stupid in the afternoon, as well as Lithuanian nicknames leišiai (Lithuanians – with a negative connotation), dullais leitis (stupid Lithuanian), linu leitis (linen Lithuanian), etc. Both Latvians denationalized and Lithuanians, who became Latvians or people born in mixed Lithuanian and Latvian families were nicknamed skerslatviai (semi-Latvian/cross-Latvian). It can be noticed that the derogatory attitude on the Lithuanian-Latvian border led to the assimilation of a smaller ethnic group into a larger group, often not only due to ethnicity, but also due to different status in the social hierarchy. Thus, when analysing issues of ethnic group identity, it is also important to see the overall cultural and social background that shapes their status in the living environment. It can be noticed that due to the interaction of Lithuanian and Latvian ethnic groups on the Lithuanian-Latvian border, especially on the Lithuanian side, a group of “local” people emerged in the 20th century. Such ethnic groups of mixed identities are a common phenomenon in the world, which is illustrated by the example of tuteišiai (locals) in South-Eastern Lithuania and South-Eastern Latvia – the result of interaction between local Lithuanians, Latvians and Slavic speakers (Polish, Belarusian, Russian). Such a group of locals was formed on the political system based on the nationalism ideology, and the Lithuanians from other regions. These Lithuanians considered strangers, because the members of their ethnic group had taken over the objective features of the Latvians: language, religion, customs, dietary habits, etc. The negative attitude towards them was expressed in the nickname skerslatvis. In this way, the old locals of the Lithuanian ethnic group became even closer to other locals – Latvians, to whom they no longer applied the ethnic category strangers. At the beginning of the 21st century, we can already see how the nickname skerslatvis becomes ethnicon, which describes the ethnic, regional, and linguistic identity of the border residents and their mixed identities. Considered that the concept of ethnicity is very broad, perhaps the question of whether to assign skerslatviai to an ethnic group could be raised.

18 3. MARKERS OF ETHNIC IDENTITY OF BORDER RESIDENTS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE IN THE SOCIO-CULTURAL SPACE OF THE BORDER

This chapter analyses ethnic markers and their significance in the border socio- cultural space. The research showed that the Lithuanian-Latvian border residents do not tend to single out ethnic markers. During the interviews, many informants initially stated that there are no or no significant differences between Lithuanians and Latvians, but after talking longer, these differences and the otherness of the other were revealed in certain life situations of the respondents. It was observed that some informants were reluctant to answer questions about ethnic differences, indicating that ethnic relations issues are still sensitive and that submitters relaxed to them deliberately try not to see differences, thus, even emphasizing their particular tolerance for others. A similar trend was observed using the questionnaire survey method. When answering the question of how foreigners living in their area of residence stand out, less than half of the respondents from Lithuania (35.8%) and Latvia (43.2%) distinguished ethnic markers. However, a significant number of them did not name one, but several markers or gave more detailed comments. In-depth interviews found that some informants from mixed families found it difficult not only to talk about ethnic differences but also about their ethnic identity. However, when talking about ethnic group differences, informants from mixed families sometimes tried to apply some of the markers they observed to themselves or to reject them as uncharacteristic of them. In this way, the interviews revealed a deep understanding of ethnic identity even for those informants, who did not have special signs expressing their Lithuanianness and Latvianness. Therefore, F. Barth's theory is important: the ethnic boundary is “not the sum of “objective” differences, but only those which the actors themselves regard as significant” (Barth 1969: 14). The research showed that the following ethnic markers are revealed in the socio- cultural space of the Lithuanian-Latvian border: language, religion, festivals and rituals, mentality, appearance, or clothing. It was observed that the identified ethnic group differences were sometimes very individual, related to personal observations, usually, from everyday life. Some markers, such as values and character, very often become ethnic stereotypes, but as an ethnic marker they are revealed in the interaction with others in

19 very specific (personal) situations. Due to the small amount of ethnographic data, the dissertation did not discuss the appearance and clothing, as it can be noticed that these markers mostly indicate the difference between Lithuanian / Latvian and Russian or Roma ethnic groups. Language. At the Lithuanian-Latvian border in the 20th and early 21st centuries, the meaning of language as a marker was different and changed due to political circumstances. The national policy pursued in interwar Lithuania and Latvia sought to eliminate the influence of the language and culture of ethnic minorities not only through the policy of assimilation but also by forming a negative public attitude towards the ethnic group that had an undesirable influence. Thus, in some places in Lithuania, particularly sharp conflicts arose precisely due to the use of the Latvian language in public places. Bilingualism was a common phenomenon on the Lithuanian-Latvian border in the 20th century and has survived in some areas to this day. For this reason, in some border areas, the language was not a significant ethnic marker, but only a means of communication. The research showed that bilingualism is more typical of Joniškis, Pakruojis, and Biržai districts, while in Skuodas and Šventoji Latvians mostly communicated with Lithuanians in Lithuanian. Due to bilingualism, a border community of mixed ethnic groups was formed on the Lithuanian side, which was viewed negatively by the residents and civil servants of other regions of Lithuania and was nicknamed as skerslatviai. In some districts, such as Žeimelis and Biržai, the language used in the family did not even coincide with the chosen ethnicity. Bilingualism has also led to changes in the Latvians of Lithuania language, due to which they no longer feel owns in their ethnic homeland. As a result, it is possible to observe cases when Latvians of Lithuania have to look for alternative forms of identity to maintain their ethnic identity (for example, the case of Curonian identity) (Noreikaitė 2012: 81–83). In this way, the changed Latvian language continues to be a marker that helps to form a new ethnic identity or even to stand out as a new ethnic group. On the Latvian side, in the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, the Latvian language was more often used in interethnic relationships, except for the eastern border, which is dominated by Slavic-speaking people. Latvians usually did not learn Lithuanian, and Lithuanians, who were mostly labour immigrants in rural areas, learned and later even spoke Latvian in their families to achieve faster integration into the local

20 community. During the field research, only a few Latvian informants, who knew Lithuanian, were found. Religion was a significant marker not only in previous centuries but also in the interwar period, which was the main obstacle to mixed marriages and had a significant impact on interpersonal relationships and perceptions of ethnic identity. The religious difference was also exacerbated by the negative attitude of some Catholic clergy against Protestantism. Following the authorities, some members of the Catholic community also lived in similar moods, expressing their views by communicating with members of a community of a different religion, but in the same local area. Religious tolerance in some places was also determined by the authority of individual clergy. According to the informants, it can be noticed that religious conflicts often did not develop due to the rather restrained reaction of Latvians, who kept grief within themselves or reduced opposition through humour in pursuit of a peaceful neighbourhood. On the Latvian side in the 20th century, religious differences were of lesser importance, as Latvians belonged to various religious groups. Nevertheless, the Evangelical Lutheran Church significantly contributed to the fostering of Latvian identity, while the Roman Catholic Church helped to establish Latgalian identity. At the beginning of the 21st century, both in Lithuania and Latvia, religion is no longer perceived as a significant marker, it is important only for the older generation of informants, who still tend to equate religion with nationality. The importance of religion has declined mostly to the fact that many mixed families live on the Lithuanian-Latvian border, whose children and grandchildren already belong to various religious communities, as well as, a large number of non-religious people currently living on the border. Festivals and rites. The basis of Lithuanian and Latvian traditional culture consists of elements of both pre-Christian and Christian culture. Almost all festivals of both nations are the same, only their meaning, symbolic burden, and some customs differ. The different branches of Christianity professed by Lithuanians and Latvians have also determined their customs, which also act as ethnic markers, forming the basis of the cultural and ethnic identity of these ethnic groups.

21 In the questionnaire, 7.4% of the respondents living on the Lithuanian side, and 5.6% of the informants on the Latvian side, stated that the members of other ethnic groups living next to them stand out with different festivals, their traditions or customs. After detailed interviews, it became clear that the majority of border residents very clearly identified Lithuanian and Latvian customs and even some holidays. In the dissertation, only St. John's Day, Christmas Eve, and the funerals are analysed in more detail, as they have the most prominent functions of the ethnic marker in the narratives of the informants. St. John's Day. On the Lithuanian side of the Lithuanian-Latvian border, St. John's Day has deep traditions that have developed through contacts with the Latvian ethnic group. Older informants still consider this holiday to be more Latvian than Lithuanian, which was a significant ethnic marker in interwar Lithuania. In many places, St. John's Day is celebrated in separate Lithuanian and Latvian groups, but there were exceptions – joint Lithuanian and Latvian St. John's parties. Among some Lithuanians, St. John's Day was a significant celebration during which they sought to change their position in the social hierarchy – to be culturally equal to the Latvian ethnic group, which had played a significant role and higher status in this border region. On the Latvian side, from the Lithuanian immigrants’ point of view, St. John's Day was also considered a Latvian national holiday. The participation of Lithuanians in the public St. John's Day celebration meant their integration into Latvian society. Nowadays, St. John's Day is no longer an ethnic landmark, as in both countries the festival has state status and is used in the border region as an ethnic link contributing to cultural and economic cooperation. Christmas Eve. Christmas Eve is one of the most important holidays for Lithuanians on the Lithuanian-Latvian border. Christmas as an ethnic landmark is most evident in the narratives of informants living in Lithuania because here they noticed that local Latvians did not have such a festival. However, in Latvia this festival was celebrated, and, as in Lithuania, it is usually inseparable from St. Christmas. Christmas Eve was especially significant for Latvian Catholics. Christmas Eve can be considered an important indicator that helps to understand the ethnic processes taking place on the Lithuanian-Latvian border: in Latvia, it shows the significance of Lithuanian identity and the level of acculturation, while in Lithuania, Christmas Eve reveals the intensity of Lithuanian Latvian acculturation and assimilation.

22 Funeral rites. The narratives of both Lithuanian and Latvian informants allow the funeral rites to be distinguished as an ethnic marker. Funeral rites have emerged as a significant ethnic marker throughout the 20th century, and their significance in the border socio-cultural space declined only at the beginning of the 21st century with the unification of funeral customs. Lithuanians laid out the deceased at home, Latvians laid out at non- residential buildings or chapels. Lithuanian laid out shorter, usually 3 days, and Latvians could last a week or even longer. The Latvian tradition is characterized by the covering of the dead body and coffin with a cloth, moreover, the period of mourning is especially significant for Lithuanians, etc. The emotional attitude to death also differed (according to informants, death is a fun event (celebration) for Latvians, and a sad event for Lithuanians. A significant attitude towards the deceased person. According to the narratives of the older generation of informants, it can be noticed that during the liminal period the deceased is still own for Lithuanians, who “lives” with the family at home for another three days, while the deceased is already a stranger to Latvians at that time and stays outside the residential house. In the narratives of informants of Lithuanian origin, the significant difference between Lithuanian and Latvian funeral rites is related to the expression of respect for the deceased. This shows the different worldviews of Lithuanian and Latvian ethnic groups on the highly sensitive issue of death. Nevertheless, on the Lithuanian-Latvian border, some Lithuanians also copied funeral traditions – in some places, only those that were acceptable to their worldview, in others – everything to identify themselves with the Latvian ethnic group, which is in a higher social hierarchy. At the beginning of the 21st century, the Lithuanian and Latvian cultural space retains a different understanding of the funeral flowers and their colour, which allows long-standing stereotypes to continue to exist. Food as an ethnic marker has different meanings on the Lithuanian-Latvian border, which may change over time. It can be noticed that on both sides of the Lithuanian-Latvian border, food as an ethnic marker was most expressed in the first half of the 20th century, especially in the nutrition of Latvian farmers and Lithuanian hinds. Lithuanian hinds knew Latvian eating habits best, as work on Latvian farms was accompanied by a distinctive dietary culture. On the Lithuanian side, a significant dish that also served as a marker was the summer meal of Latvian peasants skabaputra (lat. skābs – sour, putra – porridge), which

23 in the interwar period became a national dish in Latvia and food of higher status residents. In turn, for some people living on the Lithuanian side, this dish has long been a part of Lithuanian culture. However, the significance of skabaputra in the socio-cultural space of the Lithuanian-Latvian border was not the same and some Lithuanians assessed it negatively and therefore mocked the people of Latvian nationality. Attitudes towards skabaputra may have been determined by the different traditions of milk consumption. Fermented milk was more important in Latvian culture and sweet milk in Lithuanian. Skabaputra could also have had the meaning of a social marker, which is why Lithuanian employees assessed it negatively. Thus, for some, skabaputra has become an ethnic marker that separates the Lithuanian and Latvian nations, for others, it has become a regional marker, which is one of the most important signs of the uniqueness of the Lithuanian residents living near the Latvian border. The disappearance of the skabaputra making tradition coincides with the assimilation processes, which became especially active on the Lithuanian-Latvian border during the Soviet era. The assimilation processes of Lithuanians and Latvians in the western part of the border are also illustrated by another dish – kastinys – "Samogitian butter from whipped, warmed sour cream" (LKŽ V: 395). Kastinys is an important marker for Samogitians, which distinguishes them not only from other nations, but also from the inhabitants of other regions of Lithuania and the Lithuanians in general, and helps to establish their regional and ethnic identity. However, the same butter is produced in Western Latvia and is called “baltais sviests” (white butter), "leitis" (Lithuanian), “baltais leitis” (white Lithuanian), "leišu sviests" and "leišsviests" (Lithuanian butter). It is assumed that the Lithuanian ethnonym appeared in the names of the butter late together with Lithuanian labour emigrants in the second half of the 20th century (Bušmane 2008: 277). However, this dish could have spread in Latvia in the past through religiously homogeneous marriages of Courland residents and Lithuanians of Klaipėda region, which later was already understood as its own, with a long tradition. White butter in South Courland was an everyday Latvian dish, often made in the interwar period, but was forgotten in the Soviet era and reborn at the beginning of the 21st century for tourism purposes, thanks to the “Rucava Traditions Club”. In this case, we can consider white butter as a marker of the regional identity, which distinguishes Rucava residents not only from all regions of Latvia but also from the Courland region.

24 Character and mentality. Character and mentality are a complementary marker. During the field research, it was noticed that the border residents of Lithuania and Latvia often distinguished their character traits as a marker. The questionnaire showed that character and mentality are the most important ethnic markers for Latvian residents (26.8% of respondents), while for Lithuanian informants it is the second most important marker (9.6% of respondents) after the language. Ethnic differences distinguished by the informants, related to differences in character, temperament, mentality, on the one hand, can be discussed as ethnic stereotypes formed over time. Both Lithuanian and Latvian respondents attributed to Lithuanians characteristics related to activity and extraversion; in turn, passivity, reticence, or introversion were attributed to the Latvians. It is important to note that the narratives of the informants revealed specific everyday life situations in which these differences act as significant ethnic markers – hindering interethnic relations, or these markers are used by the border residents to construct their ethnic identity. To see ethnic markers invisible to the naked eye requires regular contact with others, a closer look at their otherness. These markers are particularly important for informants born in mixed families, for whom ethnic markers such as language, religion, festivals, or food are not relevant, but the use of the inner instincts to search for their ethnic identity. In search of their identity, they delve into the inner world, perform a kind of psychoanalysis, and through their experience of encounters with others and established ethnic stereotypes, border residents discover certain characteristics and streaks that help to maintain their homogeneous or multiple ethnic identities. Markers related to the value system were most evident in the observations recorded during the field research and in the informants’ narratives about their relationships with others. Such markers were important for both Latvian (11.8% of respondents) and Lithuanian (8.0% of respondents) residents. One of the most striking differences is diligence versus laziness and the resulting differences – tidiness versus negligence, which usually occurs in the everyday life contexts of the border. On the Latvian side, tidiness is more attributed to the Lithuanian ethnic group; as a marker, it is especially significant in the daily life of the border at the beginning of the 21st century. In turn, on the Lithuanian side, tidiness can be an ethnic marker for both Lithuanians and Latvians, but its significance in the 21st century border

25 socio-cultural space has already diminished. On both sides of the border, Lithuanians are emphasised on material values and frugality, while according to the informants, the characteristic value of the Latvian ethnic group is education and a humanistic attitude, not only to a member of own community but also to others. Such differences were most expressed in the interwar period and the post-war period. Analysing the ethnic identity of the Lithuanian-Latvian border residents through the expression of the ethnic markers, it is possible to confirm the theory of F. Barth and the anthropologists who followed him that ethnicity is a social phenomenon. As a large number of people on this border come from mixed families, many ethnic groups, their various objective cultural features, and ethnic links become important for the construction of their identity. Ethnic identity is constructed through experience with others and one’s own, selecting the most appropriate ethnic markers for a person to use in social situations. Research has shown that ethnic markers manifest themselves in very specific, often everyday life, social situations.

4. FEATURES OF THE LITHUANIAN-LATVIAN BORDER SOCIAL SYSTEM: SIGNIFICANSE OF REGIONAL IDENTITY

This chapter analyses the features of the Lithuanian-Latvian border social system and reveals the place of the regional identity of the border residents. The subsection “Features of the Lithuanian-Latvian Border Region” discusses the concept of the Lithuanian-Latvian border region and its boundaries. The Lithuanian-Latvian border can also be understood as a cultural region that is not strictly defined. This border region can be distinguished by various socio-cultural and socio-economic criteria, but one criterion may be sufficient to distinguish a formal cultural region. Explaining the concept of the Lithuanian-Latvian border region is a very important emic perspective to understand how and by what criteria it is defined by the local people. As the most important feature of the delimitation of the border region, the expression of overlapping identities was chosen and the significance of identities in the creation of the social system of the border was analysed. The analysis of this region is based on the classification of O. J. Martinez's borders, in which the cross-border movement of border residents and the features of

26 interconnections play an important role, according to which the border can be distinguished as a specific region separating or uniting states or ethnic groups. Speaking about the models of border interaction, the researcher emphasized the importance of creating a common social system (Martinez 1994). In the case of the Lithuanian-Latvian border, an important emphasis is on the search for a common identity. The second subchapter “Creation of a Common Border Social System and Search for a Common Identity” seeks to find out how border residents form a common Lithuanian-Latvian border social system and analyse the expression of both their ethnic and regional identity. It was found out that the social system on the Lithuanian-Latvian border is not homogeneous and has various peculiarities in different segments. One of the most important features of this system is the expression of regional identity, and according to it, parts of Cuorland, Semigallia, and Selonia can be distinguished on the Lithuanian-Latvian border. In these parts, the social system of the border is further subdivided into sections according to the settlements closest to the border, where the connections of the people on both sides of the border develop. At the beginning of the 21st century, these sections can be attributed to the third (interdepended borderland) and fourth (integrated borderland) model of border region interaction. The third model is characterized by the prevailing stability most of the time, the interaction of both sides of the border and the development of the border region is promoted by economic and social factors; in turn, the border people maintain friendly relations and cooperation. The fourth model of the border region is characterized by strong and long-term stability, functionally connected economies of both countries, unrestricted movement of people and goods across the border, and border residents perceive themselves as members of one social system (Martinez 1994: 5–7). Analysing the social system of the Lithuanian-Latvian border, it was noticed that in constructing their identities, individuals rely on both primordial and instrumentalist concepts of identity. The search for regional identity is important both for people born in mixed families and for other border residents who consider local history important or even may have economic benefits in searching for a regional identity. On the other hand, regional identity allows individuals to feel safe and comfortable in their living environment together with other ethnic groups living here. It also allows for dialogue with others living beyond the state border.

27 CONCLUSIONS

1. In the Lithuanian-Latvian border area, active ethnic processes took place in various periods of history: interactions and migration of different ethnic groups. All this has shaped the ethnic, cultural, religious, and social diversity of this border area. The history of ethnic processes testifies to both the stability of the identities of different ethnic groups and their mobility. It can be stated that on the Lithuanian-Latvian border, Lithuanian and Latvian ethnic groups were formed by involving both nationalities and many members of other ethnic groups. It can be observed that migration within ethnic groups, or in other words, choices of identities, have had similar reasons throughout history – the pursuit of personal security, economic prosperity, hierarchical social relations, as well as, various political factors. 2. Historically, the western and central borders of both Lithuania and Latvia are currently dominated by Lithuanians and Latvians, while the eastern part has a more mixed ethnic population with large Slavic-speaking communities, especially in Latvia. The analysis of the ethnic identity of the inhabitants of this border between the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century confirms the theory developed by many modern anthropologists that ethnicity manifests itself in social contacts by defining one's own and other's ethnic boundaries. On the Lithuanian- Latvian border, the most important ethnic classification is other and poorly expressed category of stranger, which shows that ethnic relations on this border do not have many tensions. Ethnic friction due to a different religion, different social or economic situation is mostly manifested by nicknames, which not only reflect the history of ethnic processes on the Lithuanian-Latvian border for more than a hundred years but also illustrate the social concept of ethnicity based on ethnic boundaries. 3. In the 20th century – the beginning of the 21st century, during the process of drawing the boundaries of ethnic groups in the socio-cultural space of the Lithuanian-Latvian border, ethnic boundaries related to language, religion, food, festivals and rites, character and mentality, as well as, value system. Many of them were formed during the interwar period and later manifested themselves both as ethnic landmarks and as ethnic connections, depending on various social and

28 political contexts. Some markers were particularly important in the first half of the 20th century, such as religion, which was the main obstacle to the formation of mixed families. Later, religious differences diminished, both because of the Soviet-era policy of atheism and the prevailing view that faith is a personal matter for each person. 4. During the interwar period and at the beginning of the 21st century, an important language marker remained on the Lithuanian-Latvian border, but its significance differed, and the population's attitude towards the language was influenced by political circumstances. On one hand, in areas characterized by bilingualism, language did not have a marker function and was simply a means of communication. On the other hand, during the interwar period, the political system prevailing on both sides of the border emphasized the ethnic majority language; bilingualism was treated negatively and language became a symbol of national identity expression. At the beginning of the 21st century, language remains one of the most important markers, although, Lithuanian and Latvian languages are related, they are different enough not to be able to communicate fully by knowing only one. At the Lithuanian-Latvian border, only a small number of people know and use both languages, often, only one language dominates in mixed families. 5. Ethnic markers important for Lithuanian and Latvian border people are related to calendar events, family festivals, and rituals. The most significant can be considered St. John's Day, Christmas Eve, and funeral rites. Due to its national status during the interwar period in Latvia, the St. John's Day celebration at the border area has long been considered a cultural expression of the Latvian ethnic group. When St. John's Day was declared a national holiday in Lithuania at the beginning of the 21st century, it officially became a part of Lithuanian culture. The pre-Christian nature of the festival allows us to consider this festival as an ethnic link, which is already used on the Lithuanian-Latvian border to create a common socio-cultural space. Christmas Eve as a marker is more revealed on the Lithuanian side, after World War II, it became more and more popular among the Latvians of Lithuania. On the Latvian side, Christmas Eve is a cultural link of mixed families. On both sides,

29 Christmas Eve can also be seen as an important indicator of the intensity of acculturation and assimilation processes. Throughout the 20th century, the difference in funeral rites was significant, which expressed the different worldviews of Lithuanian and Latvian ethnic groups on the sensitive issue of death. The most important differences are related to the attitude towards the fact of death (for Lithuanians it is a sad event, and for Latvians it is fun) and the body of the deceased during the liminal period (Lithuanians considered the deceased still their own, and for Latvians, it was already a stranger). At the beginning of the 21st century, the Lithuanian and Latvian cultural space was dominated by different understandings of flowers suitable for funerals and their colour. This is more emphasized by the Lithuanian ethnic group living on the Lithuanian side. 6. During the interwar period, a significant marker was food: both different dietary cultures and specific dishes. Well-established taste habits allow either to accept the dietary norms of another ethnic group or to reject and turn them into a marker. In some places, the Latvian dish skabaputra, which was used to create Latvian nicknames, became an important ethnic marker on the Lithuanian side. In turn, the other part of Lithuanians also considered skabaputra as a social marker, for whom the consumption of the dish meant the opportunity to change their status in the social hierarchy, and thus it became a common dish of the Lithuanian territory near the Latvian border. On the Latvian side, the Lithuanian dietary habits were very acceptable to the Latvians, therefore, they easily took over the potato dishes typical of Lithuanians (potato dumplings and potato pudding); in the Courland region, Latvians adopted kastinys – a specific Samogitians dish. Over time, Lithuanian dishes have acquired an important cultural significance, widespread in Latvian regions, and form the local identity of the Latvian territory near the Lithuanian border at the beginning of the 21st century. 7. At the beginning of the 21st century, the most important markers for the Lithuanian-Latvian border people are related to character and mentality, and the value system. In the borderland socio-cultural space, they often manifest themselves in everyday life contexts through relationships with others, such as

30 diligence versus laziness, differences: tidiness versus negligence, as well as, differences in character (temperament) and mentality, which often contribute to the formation of ethnic stereotypes. These markers become particularly important for individuals from mixed families, who help them not only to search for their own identity but also to rethink the ethnic identity assigned to the state or family. When talking about the search for ethnic identity, informants often rely on their inner feelings, therefore, value and mental markers are more significant to them than the objective cultural differences between Lithuanian and Latvian ethnic groups. In this case, it reflects an instrumentalist approach to ethnicity: through their experience of encounters with others and established ethnic stereotypes, border residents discover certain traits that help maintain or reshape their homogeneous or multiple ethnic identities. 8. On the Latvian side, despite large Lithuanian migrations, the border socio-cultural space was more influenced by the Latvian ethnic group, which was in a higher social hierarchy. However, Lithuanians influenced the formation of dialects and dietary traditions in the regions of Latvia near the Lithuanian border. At the beginning of the 21st century, these cultural influences help to shape the regional identity of border people. 9. Due to the historical social hierarchy system on the Lithuanian-Latvian border, ethnic markers also were understood as the social markers in some border areas. On both sides of the border, the Latvian ethnic group was usually in a higher position in the social hierarchy, so the adoption of Latvian language and cultural elements (festivals, rites, customs, diet) could sometimes mean simply seeking to change social status rather than ethnic identity. In this way, a peculiar socio- cultural space was formed on the Lithuanian side, which is characterized by bilingualism, religious tolerance, St. John's Day, the synthesis of various customs (especially funerals), skabaputra making, etc. During the interwar period, the policy of nationalism pursued by both Lithuania and Latvia emphasized the positions of the ethnic majority and rejected the possibility of multiple ethnic identities, presenting it as a negative phenomenon. All these processes helped to form a group of locals on the Lithuanian-Latvian border, which was called by others a pejorative nickname – skerslatviai (semi-

31 Latvians/cross-Latvians). Over time, as groups draw boundaries, the word has taken several meanings in different border areas, and at the beginning of the 21st century, it is already observed how it changes from a nickname to a neutral ethnicon of mixed-ethnic people. Based on the fact that the concept of ethnicity is very broad, and a narrative of the common origin of its members, as well as, self- identification and the affirmation of others, are sufficient to define an ethnic group, it can be said that an ethnic group of skerslatviai is formed on the Lithuanian-Latvian border. The definition of this ethnic group includes an ethnic and a local component. 10. At the end of the 20th century – the beginning of the 21st century, or in the era of globalization, ethnic markers are no longer important and are increasingly becoming ethnic links that help to form a common social system both in a particular settlement and by connecting the territory beyond the state border. Regional identity is becoming increasingly important for the Lithuanian-Latvian border residents, especially from mixed families. In search of their identity or rethinking their assigned ethnic identity, they create a variety of overlapping combinations of ethnic and regional identities. Some regional identities of the Lithuanian and Latvian border residents (Curonians, Semigallians, Selonians) coincide on both sides and this helps them to create a common border socio- cultural space. Often these local identities are primordial and based on the criterion of common origin, which is important in defining an ethnic group. On the Lithuanian-Latvian border, some cases of regional identity are based on the narrative of common Baltic identity (mostly a specific Baltic tribe), while others merge Lithuanian and Latvian ethnic identities based on the identities of their ancestors (the case of skerslatviai). In other parts of the border, where different regional identities prevail (for example, Samogitians and Courland people) or where people do not emphasize regional identity (for example, in case of Biržai and Vecumnieki districts), residents form a common border socio-cultural space through the border area itself or around an object of importance to both ethnic groups, such as the river separating the states. The formation of common socio-cultural space on the

32 Lithuanian-Latvian border is mainly stimulated by the intensive cross-border co- operation projects funded by the European Union at the beginning of the 21st century. For economic gain, people on both sides are interested in seeking ethnic and cultural connections that contribute to the search for a common identity and to the development of a concept of a region that connects both sides. In this way, the peripheral areas on the Lithuanian-Latvian border form distinctive sub-regions of this borderland, based on developing social relations, as well as, the search for and creation of a common identity. These sub-regions are becoming a kind of centers connecting the two countries and can have a positive impact on cross- border relations between Lithuania and Latvia.

33 SANTRAUKA

ĮVADAS

Lietuva ir Latvija pasaulyje geopolitiškai dažnai suvokiamos kaip vieno regiono valstybės (angl. the Baltics). Viena vertus, abi šalys turi daug bendrumų: jas jungia ne tik istorinė kaimynystė, bet ir titulinių etninių grupių bendra kilmė – lietuvių ir latvių kalbos yra vienintelės gyvosios baltų kalbos. Kita vertus, nuo XIII a. šie kraštai buvo veikiami skirtingų istorinių, politinių ir socialinių procesų, dėl kurių XX a. I pusėje susiformavo ir ekonomiškai bei kultūriškai skirtingos suverenios valstybės. Lietuvą ir Latviją skiria 1921 m. nustatyta siena, kuri pradėjo rastis dar XIII a. Dėl aktyvių migracijos, asimiliacijos ir akultūracijos procesų abipus šios sienos ilgainiui formavosi ir savita paribio sociokultūrinė aplinka. Jai didelę reikšmę turėjo įvairios etninės grupės, todėl ypač aktualūs tapo etninio tapatumo klausimai. Nors Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio gyventojų judėjimas per sieną bei nuolatinis bendradarbiavimas vyksta daug metų, tačiau šie procesai dar labiau suintensyvėjo XXI a. pradžioje, kai abi šalys tapo Europos Sąjungos ir Šengeno narėmis. Todėl labai svarbu fiksuoti šiuo metu vykstančius procesus ir analizuoti jų poveikį pasienio regiono gyventojų saviidentifikacijai. Daugelis mokslininkų (Fredrikas Barthas (1969), Anthony‘s Giddensas (2000), Manuelis Castellsas (2006), Thomas Hyllandas Eriksenas (2002) ir kt.) sutinka, kad tapatybė (identitetas) yra konstruojama, ji gali kisti ir būti mobili. Tai grindžia poreikį išsiaiškinti, kaip formavosi ir tebesiformuoja pasienio gyventojų etninis tapatumas, kaip jį veikia gyvenamoji aplinka – pasienis, kaip etninis tapatumas išreiškiamas kasdienėje sąveikoje su kitais. Ar globalėjančiame pasaulyje paribio gyventojams apskritai vis dar aktualūs etninio tapatumo klausimai? Tyrimo problema – Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio gyventojų etninio tapatumo bei paribio socialinės sistemos konstravimas XX a.–XXI a. pradžioje. Hipotezė: dėl vykstančių asimiliacijos ir akultūracijos procesų Lietuvos pusėje mažėja latviškosios tapatybės svarba, o Latvijos pusėje – lietuviškosios, vyrauja orientacija į etninės daugumos tapatumą. Savo ruožtu dėl globalizacijos procesų menkėja etninio tapatumo reikšmė. Tyrimo objektas – Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienio gyventojų etninis tapatumas.

34 Darbo tikslas – ištirti, kaip ir iš ko formavosi, reiškėsi ir kito Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienio gyventojų etninis tapatumas XX a.–XXI a. pradžioje, ir atskleisti, kaip įvairūs tapatumai padeda kurti šio paribio socialinę sistemą ir, atvirkščiai – kaip pats paribys veikia tapatumų konstravimo procesus. Tikslui pasiekti išsikelti šie uždaviniai: 1) išnagrinėti XX a.–XXI a. pradžioje Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribyje vykusius etninius procesus ir nustatyti jų įtaką pasienio gyventojų etninio tapatumo savivokai; 2) išskirti ir išanalizuoti pasienyje gyvenančių lietuvių ir latvių etninio tapatumo riboženklius ir atskleisti, kaip jie konstruoja pasienio gyventojų etninį tapatumą sociokultūrinėje paribio erdvėje; 3) išsiaiškinti Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio regiono emines sampratas ir ištirti paribio socialinės sistemos bruožus. Chronologinės tyrimo ribos: XX a.–XXI a. pradžia. Pasirinktas ilgas istorinis laikotarpis, nes tik taip galima pamatyti etninio tapatumo raiškos kaitą ir suprasti etninių riboženklių reikšmę. Kai kuriais atvejais pasitelkiamas ir XIX a. kontekstas, nes po baudžiavos panaikinimo pradėjo formuotis socialiniai hierarchiniai lietuvių ir latvių etninių grupių santykiai, taip pat šių grupių etniniai paveikslai, stereotipai, kurie toliau intensyviai plėtojosi XX a. Analizuojamas laikotarpis iliustruoja kelis reikšmingus istorinius lūžius: 1) modernios lietuvių ir latvių etninės ar tautinės savimonės susiformavimą XX a. pradžioje ir 1918–1940 m. trukusią nacionalizmo erą, kurioje itin reikšmingas įvykis buvo paribio gyventojų pilietinio tapatumo pasirinkimas, nustatant Lietuvos ir Latvijos valstybinę sieną (1920–1921 m.); 2) II pasaulinį karą ir Lietuvos ir Latvijos Respublikų okupaciją, kuri keičia etninių riboženklių reikšmę, etninio tapatumo pasirinkimo galimybes; 3) XX a. pabaigoje prasidėjusią ir XXI a. pradžioje tebesitęsiančią globalizacijos erą, kuri suteikė galimybę konstruoti daugialypius tapatumus ir permąstyti etninių riboženklių reikšmes. Tyrimo duomenys ir metodologija. Darbo pagrindas – 2008–2019 m. keliais etapais surinkta empirinė medžiaga iš 10 savivaldybių Lietuvoje ir 13 savivaldybių Latvijoje. Taip pat pasitelkta internetinė apklausa, kurią sudarė du klausimynai – „Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio gyventojų kasdienybė“ ir „Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio gyventojų etninis tapatumas“ lietuvių ir latvių kalbomis. Atlikti 228 interviu, kurių trukmė – nuo 15 min. iki

35 4 val. 139 pateikėjai apklausti Lietuvoje ir 89 Latvijoje. Informantai – įvairaus amžiaus, lyties, išsilavinimo Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienio gyventojai. 2016–2019 m. internetinį klausimyną „Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio gyventojų kasdienybė“ Lietuvoje užpildė 148 gyventojai, Latvijoje – 177. 2017–2020 m. anketą „Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio gyventojų etninis tapatumas“ Lietuvoje pateikė 196 informantai, o Latvijoje – 191. Surinkti empiriniai duomenys (interviu, internetiniai klausimynai, fotografijos, vaizdo įrašai) saugomi VDU Kultūrų studijų katedros Etnologijos duomenų rankraštyne (bylų Nr. 2289, 2657, 2658, 2659, 2660, 2661 ir 2662). Medžiagai rinkti naudoti šie etnografinio lauko tyrimo metodai: dalyvaujamasis stebėjimas, pusiau struktūruoti interviu, neformalūs pokalbiai, anketavimas, vaizdinės medžiagos rinkimas (nuotraukų, vaizdo įrašų) ir dienoraščio rašymas. Surinktiems duomenims nagrinėti taikyti kokybinės turinio analizės, atvejo analizės ir interpretacinis metodai. Jie taikyti ir spaudos, televizijos programų, filmų, internetinių svetainių, socialinių tinklų medžiagos analizei. Papildomai anketų duomenys apdoroti kiekybinės analizės metodu. Lyginamuoju metodu sugretinta įvairiose gyvenamosiose vietovėse surinkta medžiaga, istorinis-lyginamasis metodas naudotas analizuojant paribio gyventojų tapatumo raišką ir jų kasdienybę įvairiais istoriniais laikotarpiais. Skirtingam regioninio tapatumo paplitimui nagrinėti taikytas kartografinis metodas. Temos naujumas ir aktualumas. Etninio tapatumo tyrimai nepraranda reikšmės visame pasaulyje, o paribio gyventojų identiteto klausimai paprastai būna problemiškiausi. Pastaruoju metu įvairiose pasaulio šalyse išlieka aktualūs ir regioninės politikos klausimai, permąstomos sienų kultūrinės reikšmės (Wilson, Donnan 1998; Krause 2016; Holt 2018 ir kt.), globalizacijos kontekste akcentuojama lokalinio tapatumo svarba (Eriksen 2002; Paasi 2003, 2012 ir kt.). XXI a. pradžioje Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienyje tebevyksta įvairūs etniniai procesai, tačiau šis paribys nėra toks politiškai reikšmingas, kaip, pavyzdžiui, Pietryčių Lietuvos regionas, keliantis net nacionalinio saugumo klausimus. Vis dėlto Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienio sritis dar nėra visapusiškai išnagrinėta, neatlikta išsamių lyginamųjų šių arealų etninių procesų tyrimų. 2011–2017 m. disertacijos autorės atlikti tyrimai parodė, kad lietuvių ir latvių santykius skirtingose pasienio gyvenamosiose vietovėse veikė nevienodi veiksniai

36 (Noreikaitė 2013a, 2017), todėl tikslinga gilintis ir į tokius paribyje vykstančius etninius procesus, kurie formuoja paribio kaip regiono savitumą ir jo gyventojų tapatumą. Šio darbo reikšmę humanitariniams ir socialiniams mokslams didina tai, kad abipus Lietuvos ir Latvijos sienos vykę ir tebevykstantys etniniai procesai yra taip nuodugniai išnagrinėti pirmą kartą. Tyrimo rezultatai turėtų būti naudingi tiek plačiajai visuomenei, tiek politikams, siekiantiems palaikyti sklandų tarpkultūrinį dialogą ir išsaugoti gerus tarpvalstybinius santykius.

Ginamieji teiginiai: 1. Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribys nuo seno pasižymėjo etninių grupių įvairove, tačiau nacionalizmo epochoje buvo itin svarbu brėžti griežtas etnines ribas, o daugialypio etninio tapatumo galimybė buvo atmetama ir pateikiama kaip neigiamas reiškinys. Visgi intensyvūs asimiliacijos ir akultūracijos procesai sudarė sąlygas susiformuoti įvairių kombinacijų, judriems etniniams ir regioniniams tapatumams, kurie šiame paribyje labiausiai prasiveržė XX a. pabaigoje prasidėjusioje globalizacijos eroje ir individams yra aktualūs iki šiol. 2. Lietuvių ir latvių etninių grupių etniškumo sampratai svarbus etninių ribų braižymas ir palaikymas per toms grupėms reikšmingus etninius riboženklius – kalbą, religiją, šventes ir apeigas, maistą, charakterį ir mentalitetą bei vertybių sistemą. Etninių riboženklių reikšmė paribio sociokultūrinėje erdvėje yra kintanti, jie gali virsti etninėmis jungtimis, formuojančiomis bendrą paribio socialinę sistemą. 3. Etninės jungtys ir jų paieškos padeda konstruoti paribio gyventojų daugialypius etninius ir (arba) regioninius tapatumus. Jų pagrindu galima kurti bendrą Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio socialinę sistemą, apimančią abiejų šalių sociokultūrinę erdvę.

Darbo struktūra Disertaciją sudaro įvadas, 4 dėstymo dalys, išvados, šaltinių ir literatūros sąrašas bei priedai. Įvade pristatomas darbo objektas, tikslas, uždaviniai, temos aktualumas, medžiagos rinkimo eiga, pateikėjų atranka, duomenų rinkimo ir analizės metodai, šaltinių apžvalga, vartojamos sąvokos. Pirmajame skyriuje apžvelgiami Lietuvos bei Latvijos paribio moksliniai darbai ir aprašoma tyrimo teorinė prieiga.

37 Antrajame skyriuje „Etniniai procesai ir tarpetniniai santykiai Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienyje“ , aptariami migracijos ir asimiliacijos procesai, analizuojama, kaip jie veikė tarpetninius santykius ir formavo Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio sociokultūrinę aplinką. Trečiajame skyriuje „Pasienio gyventojų etninio tapatumo riboženkliai ir jų reikšmė paribio sociokultūrinėje erdvėje“ analizuojami šie etniniai riboženkliai: kalba, religija, šventės ir apeigos, maistas, charakteris ir mentalitetas bei vertybių sistema. Siekiama išsiaiškinti, kokią funkciją – etninio riboženklio ar jungties – jie atliko įvairiais laikotarpiais skirtingose pasienio gyvenamosiose vietovėse. Ketvirtajame skyriuje „Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio socialinės sistemos bruožai: regioninio tapatumo reikšmė“ nagrinėjama, kaip formavosi ir tebesiformuoja Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio sociokultūrinis regionas bei mažesni jo subregionai. Siekiama atskleisti, kokią reikšmę XXI a. pradžioje šiam arealui turi pasienio gyventojų regioninio tapatumo raiška. Minėtose disertacijos dalyse išnagrinėti duomenys apibendrinami Išvadose. Disertacijoje medžiaga iliustruojama 1 paveikslu, 2 lentelėmis ir 17 priedų (tai autorės sudaryti klausimynai, pagal surinktus tyrimų duomenis parengtas žemėlapis ir lentelės bei lauko tyrimuose padarytos nuotraukos). Darbo pabaigoje pateikiamas ir literatūros sąrašas (380 publikacijų).

38 IŠVADOS 1. Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienio teritorijoje įvairiais istorijos laikotarpiais vyko aktyvūs etniniai procesai – skirtingų etninių grupių tarpusavio sąveikos ir migracija. Visa tai formavo šios pasienio teritorijos etninę, kultūrinę, religinę ir socialinę įvairovę. Etninių procesų istorija liudija ne tik įvairių etninių grupių tapatumų stabilumą, bet ir tapatumų judrumą. Galima teigti, kad Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienyje lietuvių ir latvių etninės grupės formavosi įtraukdamos tiek viena kitą, tiek ir daug kitų etninių grupių narių. Taip pat įvairiais laikotarpiais abiejose pasienio pusėse būta ir labiau dominuojančių etninių grupių – Baltijos vokiečių, lenkų, rusų, iš dalies baltarusių, – kurios įtraukdavusios narius ir iš lietuvių, ir iš latvių etninių grupių. Galima pastebėti, kad migracijos tarp etninių grupių, arba, kitaip tariant, tapatumų pasirinkimai, per visą istoriją turėjo panašias priežastis – asmeninio saugumo, ekonominės gerovės siekis, hierarchiniai socialiniai santykiai, taip pat įvairūs politiniai veiksniai. 2. Istoriškai susiklostė, kad vakarinėje ir vidurio, tiek Lietuvos, tiek Latvijos paribio pusėje šiuo metu vyrauja lietuvių ir latvių apgyventos vietos, o rytinėje dalyje gyventojų etninė sudėtis mišresnė, čia gausios slavakalbių bendruomenės, ypač Latvijoje. XX a.–XXI a. pradžios tirto paribio gyventojų etninio tapatumo analizė patvirtina daugelio šiuolaikinių antropologų plėtotą teoriją, kad etniškumas reiškiasi socialiniuose kontaktuose apsibrėžiant savo ir kito etnines ribas. Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienyje svarbiausia etninė klasifikacija – kitoks ir menkai išreikšta svetimo kategorija, o tai rodo, kad šiame paribyje etniniai santykiai neturi didelių įtampų. Etninė trintis dėl kitokios konfesijos, skirtingos socialinės ar ekonominės padėties labiausiai pasireiškia pravardėmis, kurios ne tik atspindi daugiau nei šimto metų Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio etninių procesų istoriją, bet ir iliustruoja socialinę etniškumo sampratą, paremtą etninių ribų braižymu. 3. XX a.–XXI a. pradžioje etninių grupių ribų braižymo procese Lietuvos ir Latvijos sociokultūrinėje erdvėje didžiausią reikšmę turėjo etniniai riboženkliai, susiję su kalba, religija, maistu, šventėmis ir apeigomis, charakteriu ir mentalitetu, taip pat vertybių sistema. Daugelis jų nusistovėjo tarpukario laikotarpiu, o vėliau reiškėsi tiek kaip etniniai riboženkliai, tiek kaip etninės jungtys, priklausomai nuo įvairių socialinių ir politinių kontekstų. Dalis išskirtų riboženklių buvo ypač svarbūs

39 XX a. I pusėje, pavyzdžiui, religija, kuri labiausiai trukdė kurti mišrias šeimas. Vėliau religinė skirtis vis menkėjo: sovietmečiu – dėl vykdytos ateizmo politikos, šiuo metu – dėl vyraujančio požiūrio, kad tikėjimas yra kiekvieno asmeninis reikalas. 4. Tiek tarpukariu, tiek ir XXI a. pradžioje Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribyje išlieka svarbus kalbos riboženklis, tačiau jo reikšmė skyrėsi, gyventojų požiūrį į kalbą veikė politinės aplinkybės. Viena vertus, dvikalbėse gyvenamosiose vietovėse kalba neturėjo riboženklio funkcijos ir buvo tik komunikacijos priemonė. Kita vertus, abiejose pasienio pusėse tarpukario laikotarpiu vyravusi politinė sistema sureikšmino etninės daugumos kalbą, dvikalbystė buvo vertinama neigiamai, o kalba tapo pilietinio tapatumo išraiškos simboliu. XXI a. pradžioje kalba išlieka vienu svarbiausių riboženklių, nes lietuvių ir latvių kalbos, nors ir giminiškos, tačiau pakankamai skirtingos, kad, mokant tik vieną iš jų, galėtų vykti pilnavertė komunikacija. Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienyje tik nedidelė dalis gyventojų moka ir vartoja abi kalbas, dažnai viena iš jų yra dominuojanti ir mišriose šeimose, todėl abiejų pasienio pusių atstovų komunikacijoje paprastai pasitelkiama trečia kalba. 5. Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienio gyventojams yra svarbūs etniniai riboženkliai, susiję su kalendorinėmis ir šeimos šventėmis bei apeigomis. Reikšmingiausiais galima laikyti Jonines, Kūčias ir laidotuvių apeigas. Joninių šventė, dėl jos nacionalinio statuso tarpukario Latvijoje, pasienyje ilgą laiką buvo laikoma labiau latvių etninės grupės kultūrine išraiška. Dalis lietuvių latviškai tradicijai priskyrė vakarėliuose naudojamus ugnies atributus. XXI a. pradžioje Jonines Lietuvoje paskelbus valstybine švente, jos oficialiai tapo ir lietuviškos kultūros dalimi. Ikikrikščioniška šventės prigimtis Jonines leidžia laikyti etnine jungtimi, kuri Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienyje jau panaudojama ir kuriant bendrą sociokultūrinę erdvę. Kūčių šventė kaip riboženklis labiau atsiskleidžia Lietuvos pusėje, pokariu ji nuosekliai populiarėjo tarp Lietuvos latvių. Latvijoje Kūčios pasireiškia daugiau kaip mišrių šeimų kultūrinė jungtis. Abiejose sienos pusėse Kūčias galima laikyti ir svarbiu indikatoriumi, kuris parodo akultūracijos ir asimiliacijos procesų intensyvumą.

40 Visą XX a. reikšminga išliko laidotuvių apeigų, papročių skirtis, kuri išreiškė nevienodą lietuvių ir latvių etninių grupių pasaulėžiūrą itin jautriu mirties klausimu. Svarbiausios skirtys yra susijusios su požiūriu į mirties faktą (lietuviams tai liūdnas įvykis, o latviams – linksmas) ir mirusiojo kūną pereinamuoju laikotarpiu (lietuviai mirusįjį laikė dar savu, o latviams jis jau buvo svetimas). XXI a. pradžioje Lietuvos ir Latvijos kultūrinėje erdvėje įsivyravo skirtingas supratimas apie laidotuvėms tinkamas gėles ir jų spalvą. Tai labiau akcentuoja Lietuvos paribyje gyvenanti lietuvių etninė grupė. Galima pastebėti, kad nevienodas požiūris į laidotuvių gėles toliau leidžia gyvuoti iš kartos į kartą perduotoms latvių pravardėms ir stereotipams. 6. Tarpukariu reikšmingas riboženklis buvo maistas – tiek skirtinga mitybos kultūra, tiek konkretūs patiekalai. Nusistovėję mitybos įpročiai leidžia arba priimti kitos etninės grupės mitybos normas, arba atmesti ir jas paversti riboženkliu. Kai kuriose Lietuvos gyvenamosiose vietovėse svarbiu etniniu riboženkliu tapo latvių patiekalas skabaputra. Jis neatitiko dalies lietuvių mitybos įpročių ir buvo pasitelktas latvių pravardėms kurti. Kiti lietuviai skabaputrą laikė ir socialiniu riboženkliu, jiems patiekalo vartojimas reiškė galimybę pakeisti savo statusą socialinėje hierarchijoje. Tokiu būdu skabaputra tapo palatvės regionui būdingu patiekalu. Latvijos pusėje gyvenantiems latviams buvo itin priimtini lietuvių mitybos įpročiai, latviai lengvai perėmė lietuvių bulvinius patiekalus (cepelinus, kugelį), Kuržemės regione – žemaičiams būdingą kastinį. Laikui bėgant, lietuviški patiekalai įgijo svarbią kultūrinę reikšmę, paplito latvių regionuose ir XXI a. pradžioje taip pat formuoja palietuvės regionų lokalinį savitumą. 7. XXI a. pradžioje Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienio gyventojams svarbiausi riboženkliai yra susiję su charakteriu ir mentalitetu bei vertybių sistema. Paribio sociokultūrinėje erdvėje jie dažnai pasireiškia kasdienybės kontekstuose bendraujant su kitais, pavyzdžiui, išryškėja darbštumas vs. tingumas, tvarkingumas vs. apsileidimas, taip pat charakterio (temperamento) ir mentaliteto skirtumai, kurie neretai padeda formuotis etniniams stereotipams. Minėti riboženkliai tampa ypač reikšmingi mišrių šeimų asmenims – juos paskatina ne tik ieškoti savo savasties, bet ir permąstyti valstybės ar šeimos priskirtą etninį

41 tapatumą. Kalbėdami apie etninio tapatumo paieškas, pateikėjai dažnai remiasi savo vidinėmis jausenomis, todėl vertybiniai ir mentaliniai riboženkliai jiems yra reikšmingesni negu objektyvūs lietuvių ir latvių etninių grupių kultūriniai skirtumai. Tai atspindi instrumentalistinį požiūrį į etniškumą – pasitelkdami susidūrimų su kitais patirtį ir nusistovėjusius etninius stereotipus, paribio gyventojai atranda tam tikras savybes ir bruožus, kuriais palaikomas ar performuojamas jų vienalypis arba daugialypis etninis tapatumas. 8. Latvijos pusėje, nepaisant didelių lietuvių migracijų, paribio sociokultūrinei erdvei didesnę įtaką padarė aukštesnę padėtį socialinėje hierarchijoje užėmusi latvių etninė grupė. Tačiau lietuviai darė poveikį formuojantis palietuvės dialektams ir mitybos tradicijoms. XXI a. pradžioje šios kultūrinės įtakos padeda formuoti pasienio gyventojų regioninę savastį. 9. Dėl Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribyje istoriškai susiklosčiusios socialinės hierarchijos sistemos, kai kuriose pasienio gyvenamosiose vietovėse etniniai riboženkliai turėjo ir socialinių riboženklių reikšmę. Abiejose pasienio pusėse dažniausiai aukštesnėje socialinės hierarchijos pozicijoje laikyta latvių etninė grupė, todėl latvių kalbos ir kultūros elementų (švenčių, apeigų, papročių, mitybos) perėmimas kartais galėjo reikšti siekį pakeisti socialinį statusą, o ne etninį tapatumą. Tokiu būdu Lietuvos pusėje susiformavo savita sociokultūrinė erdvė, kuriai būdinga dvikalbystė, religinė tolerancija, įvairių papročių (ypač laidotuvių) sintezė, vartojama skabaputra, švenčiamos Joninės ir t. t. Tarpukario laikotarpiu tiek Lietuvos, tiek Latvijos valstybių vykdyta nacionalizmo politika sureikšmino etninės daugumos pozicijas ir atmetė daugialypio etninio tapatumo galimybę, jį pateikė kaip neigiamą reiškinį. Visa tai sudarė sąlygas Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienyje formuotis vietinių gyventojų grupei, kuri kitų buvo pavadinta menkinamosios reikšmės pravarde – Skerslatviais. Laikui bėgant ir grupėms braižant ribas, skirtingose pasienio gyvenamosiose vietovėse šis žodis įgavo ne vieną reikšmę, o XXI a. pradžioje jau galima stebėti, kaip jis iš pravardinio virsta neutraliu, mišrios kilmės gyventojų etnikonu. Remiantis tuo, kad etniškumo sąvoka yra labai plati, o etninei grupei apibrėžti užtenka jos narių bendros kilmės naratyvo, savęs apsibrėžimo ir kitų patvirtinimo,

42 galima teigti, kad Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribyje formuojasi skerslatvių etninė grupė, kurios apibrėžimas apima ir etninį, ir lokalinį dėmenį. 10. XX a. pabaigoje prasidėjusioje globalizacijos eroje etniniai riboženkliai nebeturi didelės reikšmės ir vis dažniau virsta etninėmis jungtimis, kurios padeda formuoti bendrą abiejų šalių paribio socialinę sistemą. Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienio gyventojams, ypač iš mišrių šeimų, vis svarbesnis tampa regioninis tapatumas. Ieškodami savo savasties ar permąstydami priskirtą etninį tapatumą, jie kuria įvairias persidengiančias etninio ir regioninio tapatumo kombinacijas. Dalis Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio gyventojų regioninių tapatybių (kuršių, žiemgalių, sėlių) sutampa ir tai kuria lietuvių ir latvių paribio sociokultūrinę erdvę. Neretai šie lokaliniai tapatumai turi ir primordialistinį pobūdį bei yra paremti bendros kilmės kriterijumi, į kurį atsižvelgiama apibrėžiant etninę grupę. Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribyje dalies regioninio tapatumo atvejų pagrindas yra bendro baltiško tapatumo naratyvas (daugiausia konkrečios baltų genties), kita dalis gyventojų sujungia lietuvišką ir latvišką etninį tapatumą, remdamiesi savo protėvių identitetais (skerslatvių atvejis). Kitose pasienio atkarpose, kuriose vyrauja skirtingas regioninis tapatumas (pavyzdžiui, žemaičių ir kuržemiečių) arba ten, kur gyventojai nesureikšmina regioninio tapatumo (pavyzdžiui, Biržų ir Vecumniekų apylinkių atvejis), bendra paribio sociokultūrinė erdvė formuojama remiantis pasienio teritorija arba abiem etninėms grupėms svarbiu objektu, pavyzdžiui, valstybes skiriančia upe. Bendros Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio sociokultūrinės erdvės formavimą labiausiai skatina XXI a. pradžioje intensyviai vykdomi bendradarbiavimo per sieną projektai, kuriuos finansuoja Europos Sąjunga. Siekdami ekonominės naudos, abiejų sienos pusių gyventojai yra suinteresuoti ieškoti etninių ir kultūrinių jungčių. Kartu taip ieškoma bendros tapatybės ir formuojama abi puses jungiančio regiono samprata. Tokiu būdu Lietuvos ir Latvijos periferinės gyvenamosios vietovės vystomais socialiniais ryšiais, taip pat bendro tapatumo paieškomis ir kūrimu suformuoja savitus Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio subregionus, kurie tampa savotiškais dvi valstybes jungiančiais centrais ir gali teigiamai paveikti tarpvalstybinius Lietuvos ir Latvijos santykius.

43 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ON THE TOPIC OF THE DISSERTATION (Publikacijos disertacijos tema) 1. Noreikaitė, A. 2017, „Lietuvių ir latvių tarpusavio santykiai Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienyje“, Gimtasai kraštas, 2017/1, 17–26. Prieiga internete: http://www.ziemgala.lt/lt/metrastis-gimtasai-krastas/gimtasai-krastas- 20171/lietuviu-ir-latviu-tarpusavio-santykiai-lietuvos-ir-latvijos-pasienyje [žiūrėta 2020 03 20]. 2. Noreikaitė, A. 2017, „Latvijos lietuvių etninio tapatumo raiška XXI a. pradžioje“, Etninės kultūros globos taryba (tyrimas atliktas 2017 m. pagal Etninės kultūros globos tarybos vykdomą programą „Etninės kultūros tęstinumas ir kaitos tyrimai“. Sutarties numeris SA-5). Prieiga internete: http://www.ekgt.lt/media/dokumentai/ veikla/Tyrimai/2017tyrimai/Noreikaite_tyrimas.pdf [žiūrėta 2020 03 20]. 3. Noreikaitė, A. 2018, „Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienio gyventojų judėjimas abipus sienos XX a. II pusėje–XXI a. pradžioje“, Žiemgala, 2018/1, 15–21. Prieiga internete: http://www.ziemgala.lt/lt/zurnalas-ziemgala/ziemgala-20181/lietuvos-ir-latvijos- pasienio-gyventoju-judejimas-abipus-sienos-xx-a-ii-puseje-xxi-a-pradzioje [žiūrėta 2020 03 20]. 4. Noreikaitė, A. 2019, „Lietuvas latviešu tēls Lietuvas un Latvijas pierobežā“, Latvijas Vēstures Institūta Žurnāls, 2019/2, 116–151. Prieiga internete: https://doi.org/10.22364/lviz.110.05 [žiūrėta 2020 03 20].

44 CONFERENCE PARTICIPATION (Pranešimai konferencijose)

1. Noreikaitė, A. 2016, „Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio gyventojų etninio tapatumo tyrimų problematika“, KU, LII ir VDU jungtinė doktorantūros mokslinė konferencija Veritas ethnologica. Etnologijos doktorantų tyrimai, 2016 m. sausio 28 d. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. 2. Noreikaitė, A. 2016, „Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio latviai: kitoniški, tačiau savi“, tarptautinė mokslinė konferencija Skirtys ir bendrumai kultūriniuose ir socialiniuose kontekstuose, 2016 m. rugsėjo 22–23 d. Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas. 3. Noreikaitė, A. 2016, „Jāņi Lietuvas un Latvijas pierobežā: etnisku attiecību liecinājums“ [lie. Joninės Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienyje: etninių santykių atspindys], tarptautinė mokslinė studentų konferencija Latvistika: dabar ir toliau (la. Latvistika: tagad un turpmāk), 2016 m. spalio 7 d. Ryga: Latvijos universitetas. 4. Noreikaitė, A. 2017, „Etniskie procesi un identitātes problēmas Rubas pagastā“ [lie. Etniniai procesai ir tapatumo problemos Rubos valsčiuje], Mokslinė ataskaitinė sesija apie etnologų darbą 2016 m., skirta Ainos Alsupės atminimui, 2017 m. kovo 24 d. Ryga: Latvijos universiteto Latvijos istorijos institutas. 5. Noreikaitė, A. 2017, „Mokyklinės kraštotyros reikšmė ir tęstinumas“, tarptautinė- praktinė konferencija Žiemgalos krašto mokinių tiriamoji kūrybinė veikla, 2017 m. balandžio 27 d. Žeimelis: Žeimelio gimnazija. 6. Noreikaitė, A. 2017, „Etninio tapatumo raiška Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio gyventojų kasdienybės kontekstuose“, etnologų doktorantų mokslinė konferencija Veritas ethnologica: etnologijos doktorantų tyrimų gairės, 2017 m. gegužės 11–12 d. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universitetas. 7. Noreikaitė, A. 2017, „Latviešu tēls Lietuvas un Latvijas pierobežas lietuviešu stāstos“ [lie. Latvių įvaizdis Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienio lietuvių pasakojimuose], tarptautinė studentų konferencija Latvistika: dabar ir toliau (la. Latvistika: tagad un turpmāk), 2017 m. rugsėjo 29 d. Ryga: Latvijos universitetas. 8. Noreikaitė, A. 2017, „Lietuvas un Latvijas pierobežas iedzīvotāju etniskās identitātes izpausme ikdienas kontekstos“ [lie. Etninio tapatumo raiška Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio gyventojų kasdienybės kontekstuose], tarptautinė mokslinė konferencija

45 Kultūrų sankirtos XI (angl. Culture Crossroads XI), 2017 m. lapkričio 1–4 d. Ryga: Latvijos kultūros akademija. 9. Noreikaitė, A. 2017, „Latvijos lietuvių etninio tapatumo raiška XXI a. pradžioje“, mokslinė konferencija Etninė kultūra ir tapatybės ugdymas, 2017 m. lapkričio 16 d. Papilė: Papilės kultūros namai. 10. Noreikaitė, A. 2018, „Lietuvos ir Latvijos paribio gyventojų etninio tapatumo formavimasis bei raiška XX a. pab.–XXI a. pr.“, III nacionalinė doktorantų konferencija Veritas ethnologica, 2018 m. gegužės 3–4 d. Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas.

46 INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHOR OF THE DISSERTATION

Auksė Noreikaitė was born on 22 December 1987 in Žeimelis (Pakruojis district). She studied ethnology at Vytautas Magnus University from 2007 to 2011 and obtained a bachelor’s degree in Ethnology and Folklore Studies (Bachelor’s Paper title: “Cultural Identity of the Latvians in Lithuania”). From 2008 to 2009, she studied at the University of Latvia in Riga with the student exchange program Erasmus. In 2009, from June to September, she completed LLP/Erasmus placement in The Ethnographic Open-Air Museum in Latvia. From 2011 to 2013, A. Noreikaitė studied in the Comparative Cultural Studies programme at Vytautas Magnus University and obtained a master’s degree in Ethnology and Folklore Studies (Master graduation thesis – “Relationships between Lithuanians and Latvians on the Lithuanian-Latvian State Border”). During her master's studies, she received a scholarship from the Lithuanian Research Council for the EU Structural Funds project “Promotion of Students' Scientific Activities” for scientific practice in 2012. Since 2015, she studied at the joint doctoral program in the field of ethnology at Vytautas Magnus University, Klaipėda University, and The Lithuanian Institute of History. Scientific interests: ethnic and regional identity, ethnic processes on the Lithuanian- Latvian state border, Latvians in Lithuania, Lithuanians in Latvia, border studies. Contacts: [email protected], [email protected]

INFORMACIJA APIE DISERTACIJOS AUTORĘ

Auksė Noreikaitė gimė 1987 m. gruodžio 22 d. Žeimelyje (Pakruojo r.). Vytauto Didžiojo universitete 2007–2011 m. studijavo etnologiją ir įgijo etnologijos ir folkloristikos bakalauro kvalifikacinį laipsnį (bakalauro darbo tema „Lietuvos latvių kultūrinis tapatumas“). 2008–2009 m. pagal Erasmus studijų mainų programą studijavo Latvijos universitete Rygoje. 2009 m. birželio–rugsėjo mėn. Rygoje atliko LLP / Erasmus praktiką Latvijos etnografiniame muziejuje po atviru dangumi. 2011–2013 m. Noreikaitė Vytauto Didžiojo universitete baigė Lyginamųjų kultūrų studijų magistrantūrą ir įgijo etnologijos ir folkloristikos magistro kvalifikaciją ( magistro darbo tema „Lietuvių ir latvių tarpusavio santykiai Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienyje“). 2012 m., magistrantūros studijų metu, gauta Lietuvos mokslo tarybos ES struktūrinių fondų projekto „Studentų mokslinės veiklos skatinimas“ stipendija mokslinei praktikai atlikti. Nuo 2015 m. studijavo jungtinėje Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto, Klaipėdos universiteto ir Lietuvos istorijos instituto etnologijos mokslo krypties doktorantūroje. Moksliniai interesai: etninis ir regioninis tapatumas, etniniai procesai Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienyje, Lietuvos latviai, Latvijos lietuviai, paribių studijos. Kontaktai: [email protected], [email protected]

47

Auksė NOREIKAITĖ

LITHUANIAN-LATVIAN BORDERLAND: THE EXPRESSION OF ETHNIC IDENTITY DURING THE 20TH CENTURY AND AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 21ST CENTURY

Summary of Doctoral Dissertation

Editors: Karolina Vaičiūnaitė (English), dr. Agnė Čepaitienė (Lithuanian)

Spausdino – Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas K. Donelaičio g. 58, LT-44248 Kaunas Užsakymo Nr. K20-031. Tiražas 35 egz. 2020 05 04. Nemokamai.