Mitopoetinių įvaizdžių ir vaizdinių semiotika ir tautinės tapatybės simbolių paieška Pranės Dundulienės darbuose

LTPranės Dundulienės darbai išsiskiria ypatingu dėmesiu lietuvių, etninės kultūros simbolikai, tačiau juose nėra pakankamai apibrėžti nei jos simbolio samprata, nei tyrimo metodai, nei jų ištakos. Straipnio tikslas - išsiaiškinti Dundulienės tyrimų metodologijos ypatybes ir taikymo pagrįstumų, atskleisti jos požiūrio į lietuvių mitopoetinius įvaizdžius novatoriškumų ir aktualumų. Siekiant šio tikslo nagrinėjama pasirinkto tyrimų objekto specifika, tarptautinis metodikos kontekstas, kvestionuojamas padarytų išvadų ir teorinių apibendrinimų pagrįstumas ir metodikos taikymo nuoseklumas, aptariama jos darbų, teorinių įžvalgų reikšmė ir savitumas. Remiantis analitiniu ir lyginamuoju metodu atskleidžiamas Dundulienės požiūrio interdiscipliniškumas, taikytų metodų, nuostatų ir paradigmų ryšys su užsienio autorių semiotiniais darbais, folkloristikos ir religijotyros tyrimais. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Lietuvių liaudeis kultūra; Lietuvos etnologija; Metodologija; Mitopoetinis įvaizdis; Mokslinis palikimas; Pranė Dundulienė; Semiotika; Lithuanian ethnology; Lithuanian folk culture; Methodology; Mitopoietic image; Prannė Dundulienė; Pranė Dundulienė; Scientific heritage; Semiotics.

ENPranė Dundulienė’s works are distinguished by special attention to the symbolism of Lithuanian ethnic culture. However, neither the specific understanding of a symbol, nor the methods of research or their sources are defined clearly enough in her works. The author of the present article aims to distinguish the features of Dundulienė’s research methods and the validity of their application, and to reveal the innovatory and urgent features of her approach to Lithuanian mythopoetic images. For that purpose the properties of the chosen object of research and the international context of research methods is analysed, the validity of the conclusions and theoretical generalisations is questioned, and the meaning and uniqueness of her works and theoretical insights is discussed. While analysing the contradictory assessments of Dundulienes legacy in the context of contemporary scholarship, a conclusion is drawn that the different nature of her opponents’ research leads to their critical one-sided approach and their exclusive focus on the country’s scholarly problems. It provokes further discussions about the relevance of her ethnological research, its methods, objects and topics, and the lasting value of its results. Dundulienė fostered the specific features of the Lithuanian school of ethnology - its close relations with the history of art, archaeology, and museology. Her approach exceeded the narrow understanding of ethnology as a branch of history. Dundulienė used the data and methods of folklore studies, archaeology, art theory, mythology, and cultural anthropology, and developed semiotic and comparative research. The problems that she raised, the chosen methods of research and the means of their analysis were similar to the approaches developed in Western scholarship, but in the Soviet period it was hardly possible to discuss and apply them openly.Dundulienė not only developed ethnographic field research, but also was interested in the search for historical narrative sources. Her works were distinguished by the attention to the aspects of non-material culture and the analysis of the meaning of ethnic culture for the traditional world outlook. She explored the tradition of the mythological worldview in folk knowledge, customs, work, and symbolic artefacts, archaic mythopoetic images of mythical origin, their retrospection and relics in the present day. She inquired into the cosmological aspects of folklore, folk art, customs, and other signs of culture, and interpreted them by formulating the conception of Lithuanian national identity. Thus, her research can also be attributed to the fields of ideology, folk art, and mythology. Dundulienė’s methods of image- analysis and the understanding of their mythopoetic context are closer to the folkloristic and art historical rather than ethnological approach.Dundulienė agreed with the views of the Tartu-Moscow Semiotic School (particularly Vladimir Toporov and Viacheslav Ivanov) and the Russian Mythological School of Folklore Studies and Ethnography. She used the methods of the semiotics of images applied by Marija Gimbutienė, adopted from the mythologist Joseph Campbell, who, in his turn, was influenced by the ideas of Carl Gustav Jung. She also referred to the archaeologist Boris Rybakov’s methods of research of ancient images, when the meaning of a symbol is analysed by comparing and correlating the data of archaeology, folklore studies and ethnology in the same territory in different periods. Dundulienės works are significant for the development of the semiotic research of Lithuanian ethnic culture from the viewpoint of methods, problems, objects, and topics; the conclusions of her studies are taken into account by the researchers of Lithuanian folklore and folk art, mythical worldview, customs, and knowledge. [From the publication]