Regionas ir paveldas. Laisvalaikio ir šventinė Vilniaus apylinkių erdvė

Collection:
Mokslo publikacijos / Scientific publications
Document Type:
Straipsnis / Article
Language:
Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
Title:
Regionas ir paveldas. Laisvalaikio ir šventinė Vilniaus apylinkių erdvė
Alternative Title:
Region and heritage. The leisure and holiday space
Authors:
Šaknys, Žilvytis
In the Journal:
Contents:
Etnografinio regiono sampratos problema — Etnografinių regionų ribos ir Vilniaus apylinkių etnokultūrinė specifika — Tiriamųjų vietovių demografinė ir etninė specifika — Vilniaus apylinkių laisvalaikio infrastruktūra — Apibendrinimas — Literatūra.
Subject Category:
LT
Vilnius. Vilniaus kraštas (Vilnius region); Lietuva (Lithuania); Šventės. Atmintinos dienos / Festivals. Holy days; Kasdienis gyvenimas / Everyday life; Kultūros paveldas / Cultural heritage.
Summary / Abstract:

LTRengiant tyrimo projektą, buvo numatyta apžvelgti kultūrinę ir socialinę Trakų, Nemenčinės, Marijampolio, Medininkų, Kernavės ir Nemėžio specifiką. Tyrimo metu iškilo klausimų dėl vietovių aplink Vilnių regioninio savitumo. Buvo numatyta atlikti tyrimus skirtingo lygmens (kaimo, miestelio, miesto) netoli Vilniaus esančiose vietovėse, atskleidžiant įvairiose socialinėse bendrijose praleidžiamą laisvalaikį, šventes ir formuojamus ritualus. Tyrimai buvo atlikti iki 35 km nuo Vilniaus nutolusiose vietovėse, pasižyminčiose gyventojų tautybių ir išpažįstamų religijų įvairove. Idėja ir poreikis akcentuoti regiono sampratos klausimą kilo diskutuojant, kaip reikia įvardyti šias tirtas vietoves jungiantį regioną. Pagal dabartinį administracinį suskirstymą, visos šios vietovės yra Vilniaus apskrityje ir apima Vilniaus, Trakų ir Širvintų rajonus. Kyla klausimas, kas dar sieja šią teritoriją? Kuo ji išsiskiria iš kitų Lietuvos vietovių? Dėl to numatėme paanalizuoti šias vietoves jungiančios teritorijos etnografinius savitumus. [Iš straipsnio, p. 26]

ENEthnologists often associate their research territory with one or another ethnographic region or a part thereof, however in our case this would be rather difficult to identify. It would seem that defining an ethnographic region is rather straightforward. The Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Principles of State Protection of Ethnic Culture defines an ethnographic region as a historically-formed part of territory, in which a distinctive dialect, traditions and customs have been preserved and the heritage of the Baltic tribes has been integrated. Five ethnographic regions have been distinguished in Lithuania: Aukštaitija, Dzūkija, Suvalkija, Žemaitija and Lithuania Minor, which encompasses the territory of the historic Klaipėda Region as it was in 1923-1939 (Pivoriūnas, Šaknys 2003:111). According to this map, all of the locations we examined lie on the border of the Dzūkija and Aukštaitija regions. Kernavė is attributed to Aukštaitija, while the remaining locations are in Dzūkija (Dainava). However, the actual limits of this region surrounding the city of Vilnius are a topic of discussion to this day. I agree with ethnologist Vytautas Tumėnas’ conclusion that the evolution of the concept of Lithuania’s five ethno-regions (Lithuanian sub-ethnic lands) shows that its spread was not based on a tradition of state administrative division, but arose rather from the daily life of the local folk, publicistic and literary works, and the mutual interaction of scholastic thought (Tumėnas 2015: 57). The language criterion and the spatial distribution of dialects in Lithuania are equally important in the classification of ethnographic regions. According to the current classification of dialects, only two have been distinguished - that spoken by Aukštaitians (Highlanders) and by Žemaitians (Samogitians (historically), Lowlanders).If we apply a more refined classification of dialects, then in Kernavė people speak Eastern Aukštaitian-Širvintiškian (Rytų aukštaičių širvintiškių)-, in Nemenčinė, Medininkai, Nemėžis and Marijampolis they speak Eastern Aukštaitian-Vilniškian (Rytų aukštaičių vilniškių), and in Trakai - a Southern Aukštaitian sub-dialect (Pietų aukštaičių). Many of the people we surveyed also consider the places we studied as part of Aukštaitija. Meanwhile, in a large majority of maps from the 19th- early 20th centuries discerning ethnographic phenomena, most of our researched locations are attributed to Dzūkija. Then again, almost all the examined locations (except for Kernavė) belonged to the Polish-occupied Vilnius Region in 19201939. The “Vilnius Region” concept covers the territory lying within borders set out in the Soviet-Lithuanian Peace Treaty of 12 July 1920, which encompasses lands belonging not just to the present-day Republic of Lithuania, but to Belarus and Poland as well. Later, the Vilnius Region was deemed to include only Lithuanian ethnic lands, while after 1940 the Vilnius Region was often referred to that territory which the USSR gave to Lithuania in 1939 and 1940. Clearly, the Vilnius Region concept is not stable and does not define a fixed territory, which is why its use is frequently avoided in academic language. This is a territory not associated with any previously existing administrative division. For example, in the period 1569-1795 the part of the Vilnius Region that is within present-day Lithuania used to include the Vilnius and Trakai voivodeships, while by the late 19th century it covered not just a majority of the Vilnius Province, but part of the Kaunas Province as well.Some of the similar features found within the Vilnius Region could be explained by extensive agriculture. The prevalence of compact villages, hardly changed since the times of the Volok Reform, might have had some significance in this. In those parts of the Vilnius Region that belonged to Poland, many of the villages remained intact, differently to what happened in the Republic of Lithuania in 1919-1939 (Butkevicius 1971: 99). The locations in the Vilnius surroundings that are the focus of this research differ in terms of their type and administrative subject status. Among the cities, Trakai stands out (pop. 5,426) as the eldership and district municipal centre, Nemenčinė (pop. 4,831) is only the eldership centre. Like Trakai, Kernavė was also an important city in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and also had Madgeburg Law, but now it is only a town and eldership centre, the smallest of all the researched locations in terms of inhabitants (pop. 238). The third largest location (after Trakai and Nemenčinė) Nemėžis is an eldership centre and has long since become a suburb of Vilnius, part of it even falls within the boundaries of Vilnius City (pop. 2,241). Marijampolis and Medininkai are also eldership centres. These locations were chosen for their ethnic composition. The village of Marijampolis is the most Lithuanian by character in the whole Vilnius District. It has a population of 822. Medininkai, meanwhile, has only half as many inhabitants - only 413. Of all the locations, the only one where the population increased over the last decade was Trakai, even beating Nemenčinė in terms of number of residents in the last decade. The population figure in the latter and all the other locations decreased significantly over the same period. The ratio of Lithuanians and Poles is different in Trakai and Nemenčinė. [From the publication p. 303-305]

Subject:
Etnologija / Ethnology
Related Publications:
Permalink:
https://www.lituanistika.lt/content/110403
Updated:
2024-09-13 19:46:55
Metrics:
Views: 8
Export:
Download