Metodologiniai lietuviškųjų egodokumentų paieškos aspektai lenkišku požiūriu

LTStraipsnyje apibrėžiama „lietuviško egodokumento“ samprata, pateikiami „lietuviškumo“, „lietuvybės“ apibrėžimai suteikiant jiems istorinį turinį, teigiama, kad egodokumento samprata yra glaudžiai susijusi su autoriaus kultūrinės orientacijos ir tapatumo problema, apibūdintina pasitelkiant egodokumentalumo sąvoką. Kritiškai vertinama situacija archyvuose, kurių darbuotojai nė nežino, kad savo saugyklose turi egodokumentų, tad jų aprašymo ir pateikimo platesniam vartotojui per informacinę sistemą klausimas tebėra atviras. Antroje straipsnio dalyje aptariami reikšmingesni lietuviškų egodokumentų telkiniai Lenkijos atminties institucijose, visų pirma archyvuose. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Archyvai; Duomenų bazė LEGODOK; Egodokumentalizmas; Egodokumentas; Kultūros paveldas; Lietuviškumas; Mikroistorija; Archives; Cultural heritage; Culture heritage; Database LEGODOK; Egodocumentality; Egodocuments; Historical anthropology; LEGODOK database; Lithuania; Lithuanian; Lithuanian identity; Microhistory.

ENLithuanian egodocuments can be understood in two ways. In the first way they are texts in which Lithuanians express themselves. In this case egodocuments created in Lithuania but by non-Lithuanians are not considered Lithuanian egodocuments while egodocuments created anywhere in the world but by Lithuanians should be considered Lithuanian egodocuments. Thus we come to a definition where „the author being Lithuanian“ is the key defining trait of a Lithuanian egodocument. The second interpretation assumes that Lithuanian egodocuments (especially in combination with the concept of Egodocumental heritage of Lithuania) are documents written by people who have in various ways encountered Lithuania and have the county strongly defined in their vision of the world, while presenting their own stories about their own lives in this context. This is a formula that needs further exploring. Databases registering Egodocumental heritage of Lithuania should be broader, more extensive which would allow the user to make selections any egodocuments that he considers being Lithuanian by his own aspects and definitions. Also, we would like to address the broader definition of what an egodocument is and what it can become for a researcher. Currently we can say that an egodocument is such a text in which the author speaks about himself and usually in the first person. The purpose of classifying certain egodocuments is not only to describe its formal attributes but also the analysis of the values expressed by the author. This way egodocuments can be analyzed in the context of historical anthropology and especially in the context of history of mentalities and micro history.The paper also discusses the Polish national archives. The main feature of the archives is the construction of an archival information system and the philosophy of the search in the system which consists of searching from general to specific. Secondly, the researchers perform a pilot typological investigation of archival funds and units that can be expected to contain Lithuanian egodocuments. The main problem of classifying texts as egodocuments is following: should precedence be given to formal types of documents or to their contents? Why is it problematic to find egodocuments using an archival information system? Preliminary research suggests the conclusion that no text is an egodocument by default, without being read as an egodocument. Which means that egodocumentality is the result of interpretation. So there are no clear definitions for egodocuments and egodocumentality is only subjective. [From the publication]

• Balio Sruogos laiškų teksto ypatumai / Neringa Markevičienė. Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademijos metraštis 2021, t. 44, p. 207-256.
• Pokario atminties pasakojimai: laisvės kovų dalyvių atsiminimai / Rita Tūtlytė. Žmogus ir žodis. 2018, 2, p. 4-29.
• Vaclovo Biržiškos ir Petro Joniko susirašinėjimas (1948-1955) : recenzija / Alma Braziūnienė. Archivum Lithuanicum. 2016, t. 18, p. 413-420.