Publicatie cu continut integral - Asociatia Tinerilor Istorici din Moldova

latGale as lIeUX De MeMOIRe: re-tHınKınG Hıstorıes and constructınG
ıdentıtıes ın natıonalıstıc ımaGınatıon 1
– 0 –
maksym W. KYRCzaniW
Voronezh State University
Modern Latgale, like Vidzeme, Kurzeme and Zemgale, is one of the Latvian regions. Latgale has it own history.
Historical processes in this region were not like processes which took place in other Latvian territories. Contacts
between local Balts and their Slavic neighbors led to changes in Latgale. That is why Latgale got unique features
in language, culture and religious preferences of local Latvians. In the same time history of Latgale wasn’t part
of Latvian history in general. Latgale belonged to Poland ant later, in the 19th century, it was part of Vitebskaia
guberniia. Local Latgalian intellectuals were not among active Latvian nationalists.
By the beginning of the 20th century among Latvians were many Latvian nationalists and Riga become the
center of Latvian National Revival. Latgalian region didn’t play remarkable role as it did it during early political
history of Latvia. In the same time Latgale was less developed territory then other lands. In general Latgale was
backward region. It lived due the laws of «narrow provincialism», local political, cultural and national processes
had ultra-local mainly regional, non Latvian, character. National leaders of non-Russian movements in other
okraina regions and national outskirts in Russian Empire also often underlined such facts 2 . Latvian intellectual of
the Soviet era L. Taivans presumed that Latgale was territory where old archaic culture dominated 3 . In Latgale,
due theories of Regional Studies 4 , non-communicative identity developed. By the beginning of the 1900s important
status of Latgale was in the past and the region was typical periphery 5 . German historian Hans Heinrich Nolte
presumes that lands, like Latgale, were separated from other Latvian lands by political “failure” 6 . Sidney Pollard
presumes that such un-developed lands existed in conditions of permanent provincialization of local political and
cultural norms 7 .
National Awaking begun here later, in the beginning of the 20th century, but after Russian revolution (1917)
by 1920 Latvian intellectuals were able to unite Latgale with other Latvian lands. That is why, on political map of
Europe latvijas republika, new state, appeared. In inter-war Latvia local Latgalian intellectuals got opportunities
for development of their culture and language, but after political upheaval in 1934, when Kārlis ulmanis went to
power, Latgalian was prohibited. When Latvia was occupied by Germans in 1941 Latgalians again got opportunities
for development of their culture, but Soviet re-occupation in 1944/1945 led to restoration of anti-Latgalian
policy. Latgale lost local unique features and transformed from region with status of periphery to part of Latvian
SSR. Soviet ideologists proclaimed that Latgalians belonged to Latvian socialist nation.
Latvian intellectuals begun to understand Medieval Latgale as local Latvian lieux de memoir only. Under lieux
de memoir I understand as different historical phenomena like historiography, history of ideas (this viewpoint is
characteristic mainly for French historiography) and geographically determined territories (this article is based on
the second understanding). Latvian historians, during soviet occupation, also imagined Latgale in their own way,
but as Latvian (not Latgalian) region. History of Medieval Latgale was artificially written in All-Latvian context.
In the same time it was understandable in categories of social and economic history. National heritage was ignored
and in historical concepts it was replaced by meta-narratives about ruling role of the Great Russian People or participation
of Latgalian workers and peasants in class struggle or revolutionary movement. Latgalian intellectuals
in diaspora continued to use Latgalian language and cultivated their own narratives about Latgale. In the Latvia
1 I am thankful to Dr. Tuomas Lehtonen (Finnish Literature Society), prof. Thomas Lindkvist (Göteborg University), Alexander Andreeff
(Gothenburg University), Eva Eihmane (University of Latvia), Marek Tamm (Tallinn University) for their interesting remarks which were
very helpful for writing of this paper.
2 DONTSOV, 2001, 72.
3 TAIVAN, 1988, 21.
4 DIKMANN, 2001, 74.
DIKMANN, 2001, 74.
5 NITTS, 2001, 32.
6 NOL’TE, 2001, 51 – 61.
7 POLLARD, POLLARD, 1995, 121 – 136.
Analele ANTIM. Revistă de istorie, 8, 2008, p. 207-215