Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T11:35:41.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is it possible to reconstruct a prehistoric religion? Latvian archaeology versus the believers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2021

Zenta Broka-Lāce
Zenta Broka-Lāce*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, Institute of Latvian History, University of Latvia, Latvia Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Today there is a revival of groups who claim to practice ancient Latvian religion. They often accuse archaeologists of lying and concealing the evidence of Latvian past superiority. On the one hand, this might be considered a misuse of archaeological data in order to support religious or nationalistic beliefs. On the other hand, hypothetical reconstructions of prehistoric religious beliefs are related to public archaeology and the relationship between science and the wider society. The aim of this paper is to investigate attempts to reconstruct ancient Latvian prehistoric religion through the lens of the archaeology of religion, and at the same time to broaden the discussion into the problematic relationship between nationalism and public archaeology.

Keywords

Archaeology of religionpublic archaeologynational identitynationalismneopaganismDievturība
Type
Articles
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , December 2021 , pp. 141 - 162
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Apals, J., and Mugurēvičs, Ē., 2001: Vēlais dzelzs laikmets (agrie viduslaiki) 800.–1200. g., in Ē. Mugurēvičs and A. Vasks (eds), Latvijas senākā vēsture 9. g. t. pr. Kr. – 1200. g., Riga, 290–377.Google Scholar
Arnold, B., 1999: The contested past, Anthropology today 15(4), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, B., 2006: ‘Arierdämmerung’. Race and archaeology in Nazi Germany, World archaeology 38(1), 8–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atgāzis, M., 1998: Izrakumi Pokaiņu meža akmeņu kaudzēs un arheoloģisko pieminekļu apzināšana Dobeles un Tukuma rajona, in Apala, Z. (ed.), Zinātniskās atskaites sesijas materiāli par arheologu 1996 un 1997. Gada pētījumu rezultātiem, Riga, 9–14.Google Scholar
Barrett, C.E., 2016: Archaeology of ancient religions, in Oxford research encyclopedia of religion, DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.48.10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bielenstein, A., 1865: Bericht über die 547ste Sitzung der Kurl. Gesellschaft für Literatur und Kunst den 13. December 1865, in Sitzungsberichte der kurländischen Gesellschaft für Literatur und Kunst, Mitau, 23–24.Google Scholar
Biezais, H., 1961: Die Gottesgestalt der Lettischen Volksreligion, Uppsala.Google Scholar
Bowie, F., 2006: The anthropology of religion. An introduction, Oxford.Google Scholar
Brastiņš, E., 1923: Latvijas pilskalni. 1. sējums Kuršu zeme, Riga.Google Scholar
Brastiņš, E., 1926: Latvijas pilskalni. 2. sējums Zemgale un Augšzeme, Riga.Google Scholar
Brastiņš, E., 1928: Latvijas pilskalni. 3. sējums Latgale, Riga.Google Scholar
Brastiņš, E., 1929: Gadskārtas dziesmas, Riga.Google Scholar
Brastiņš, E., 1930: Latvijas pilskalni. 4. sējums Vidzeme, Riga.Google Scholar
Brastiņš, E., 1932: Dievtuŗu cerokslis jeb teoforu katķisms, tas ir senlatviešu dievestības apcerējums, Riga.Google Scholar
Brastiņš, E., 1936: Mūsu Dievestības tūkstošgadīgā apkarošana, Riga.Google Scholar
Brastiņš, E., 1966: Cerokslis. Dievturības katēchisms, Čikāga.Google Scholar
Brastiņš, E., 1980: Latvju Dievadziesmas, Viskonsīna.Google Scholar
Brastiņš, E., 1993: Tautai. Dievam. Tēvzemei (rakstu izl.), Riga.Google Scholar
Brastiņš, E., 1996: Latvju tikumu dziesmas (Atkārt. izd.), Riga.Google Scholar
Bula, D., and Laime, S., 2017: Mapping the history of folklore studies. Centres, borderlands and shared spaces, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Burström, M., 2005: Focusing on time. Disciplining archaeology, in Gazin-Schwartz, A. and Holtorf, C.J. (eds), Archaeology and folklore, London and New York, 33–45.Google Scholar
Celms, V., 2008: Latvju raksts un zīmes. Baltu pasaules modelis, uzbūve, tēli, simbolika. Riga (Folkloras Informācijas centrs).Google Scholar
Celms, V., 2017: Baltu dievestības pamati/Baltų religijos pagrindai, Riga.Google Scholar
Constitution of the Republic of Latvia, 2014: Preamble text (19 June 2014), translation © 2019 Valsts valodas centrs (State Language Centre), at https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/57980-the-constitution-of-the-republic-of-latvia (accessed 9 October 2019).Google Scholar
Daina, no. 6354. Krišjāņa Barona Dainu skapis, at http://dainuskapis.lv/izversta-meklesana/?q=&type=text&ld=6354&rindas=&kodi=&rokr=&apr=&pag=&iesut=&izcteic=&cat=&onpage=10 (accessed 10 May 2021).Google Scholar
Dzenis, A., 2002: Par mūsu pirmdzimtenes areālu, Latvijas Vēstnesis 56, at www.vestnesis.lv/ta/id/61162 (accessed 12 October 2019).Google Scholar
Eidints, A., Bumblausks, A., Kulakausks, A. and Tamošaitis, M., 2013: Lietuvas vēsture, Riga.Google Scholar
Eliade, M., 1969: The Quest. History and meaning in religion, Chicago.Google Scholar
Fogelin, L., 2008: Delegitimizing religion. The archaeology of religion as … archaeology, in Whitley, D.S. and Hays-Gilpin, K. (eds), Belief in the past. Theoretical approaches to the archaeology of religion, London, 129–41.Google Scholar
Gavriļins, A., 2017: Vēstures avotu pētniecība. Lekciju kurss, Riga.Google Scholar
Gazin-Schwartz, A., and Holtorf, C.J., 2005: ‘As long as ever I’ve known it …’. On folklore and archaeology, in Gazin-Schwartz, A. and Holtorf, C.J. (eds), Archaeology and folklore, London and New York, 2–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Ruibal, A., González, P. and Criado-Boado, F., 2018: Against reactionary populism. Towards a new public archaeology, Antiquity 92(362), 507–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graudonis, J., 2001: Agro metālu periods 1500.–1. g. pr. Kr., in Ē. Mugurēvičs and A. Vasks (eds), Latvijas senākā vēsture 9. g. t. pr. Kr. – 1200. g., Riga, 116–85.Google Scholar
Grīnbergs, A., 2012: Zemgales reģiona senās kulta vietas/The ancient cult sites of Zemgale region, Jelgava.Google Scholar
Hamilakis, Y., 1999: La trahison des archéologues? Archaeological practice as intellectual activity in postmodernity, Journal of Mediterranean archaeology 12(1), 60–79.10.1558/jmea.v12i1.60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinrihsone, I., 2019: Mūžīgais kalendārs. ‘Perfokarte’, Dievturu Vēstnesis 29(1), 1369–80.Google Scholar
Insoll, T., 2004: Archaeology, religion, ritual, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ISG010, Population, population change, and key vital statistics, Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, at http://data1.csb.gov.lv/pxweb/en/iedz/iedz__iedzskaits__ikgad/ISG010.px/table/tableViewLayout1 (accessed 12 October 2019).Google Scholar
Jonuks, T., 2011: Hiis-sites in northern Estonia. Distinctive hills and plain fields, Archaeologia baltica 15, 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalnietis, G., 2016: Dievturība kā izvēles metode, in E. Mārtuža (ed.), Latviskas Latvijas spēks, Riga, 145–61.Google Scholar
Kalnietis, G., 2017: Pēcvārds, in V. Celms, Baltu dievestības pamati/Baltų religijos pagrindai, Riga, 202–51.Google Scholar
Ķencis, T., 2011: The Latvian mythological space in scholarly time, Archaeologia baltica 15, 144–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohl, Ph. L., 1998: Nationalism and archaeology: On the constructions of nations and the reconstructions of the remote past, Annual review of anthropology 27(1), 223–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lase, A., 2004: Pokaiņi bez noslēpuma?, Universitātes Avīze 10, 6–7.Google Scholar
Latvijas Dievturu sadraudze, at http://dievturi.blogspot.com/p/par-mums.html (accessed 9 October 2019).Google Scholar
Latvijas valsts meži (Latvia’s State Forests), 2016: The mysterious LVM Pokaiņi Forest, at www.dobele.lv/sites/default/files/editor/upload/turisms/bukleti/pokaini_en.pdf (accessed 9 October 2019).Google Scholar
Layton, R., 2005: Folklore and world view, in Gazin-Schwartz, A. and Holtorf, C.J. (eds), Archaeology and folklore, London and New York, 24–32.Google Scholar
Lipša, I., 2018: Nation building and gender issues in interwar Latvia. Representations and reality, in Fleishman, L. and Weiner, A. (eds), War, revolution, and governance, Boston, 30–55.Google Scholar
LNKC, 2015: Minhenē atklāta izstāde ‘Latviskās dvēseles raksti’, at www.lnkc.gov.lv/jaunumi/minhene-atklata-izstade-latviskas-dveseles-raksti/b/19 (accessed 9 October 2019).Google Scholar
Loze, I., 1983: Akmens laikmeta māksla Austrumbaltijā, Riga.Google Scholar
Loze, I., 2001: Neolīts 4500.–1500. g. pr. Kr., in Ē. Mugurēvičs and A. Vasks (eds), Latvijas senākā vēsture 9. g. t. pr. Kr. – 1200. g., Riga, 75–115.Google Scholar
Loze, I., 2006: Neolīta apmetnes Ziemeļkurzemes kāpās, Riga.Google Scholar
LVVA, 5459. Fonds, 1. apraksts (Ernests Brastiņš), Latvian State Historical Archive.Google Scholar
Marcus, J., and Flannery, K.V., 1994: Ancient Zapotec ritual and religion. An application of the direct historical approach, in C. Renfrew and E. Zubrow (eds), The ancient mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology, Cambridge, 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merkel, G.H., 1798: Die Vorzeit Lieflands. Ein Denkmahl des Pfaffen- und Rittergeistes, Berlin.Google Scholar
Meskell, L., 2005: Feminism, paganism, pluralism, in Gazin-Schwartz, A. and Holtorf, C.J. (eds), Archaeology and folklore, London and New York, 80–86.Google Scholar
Misāne, A., 2016: Reliģija un latviešu nacionālisms ideju vēsturē Latvijā, Riga, available at https://dspace.lu.lv/dspace/bitstream/handle/7/34500/298-56364-Misane_Agita_am09480.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed 12 October 2019).Google Scholar
Muižnieks, V., 2015: Bēru tradīcijas Latvijā pēc arheoloģiski pētīto 14–18 gadsimta apbedīšanas vietu materiāla, Riga.Google Scholar
Muižnieks, V., 2016a: No sentautām līdz tautai (On the road from ancient ethnic groups to a people), in V. Muižnieks (ed.), Ceļā uz latviešu tautu/On the road to becoming Latvian, Riga, 156–80.Google Scholar
Muižnieks, V., 2016b: Ticējumi un tradīcijas (Beliefs and traditions), in V. Muižnieks (ed.), Ceļā uz latviešu tautu/On the road to becoming Latvian, Riga, 121–55.Google Scholar
Muktupāvels, V., 2005: Baltic religion. New religious movements, in L. Jones (ed.), Encyclopedia of religion, 2nd edn, Detroit, 762–67.Google Scholar
Nastevics, U., 2018: Latvian religion. Dievturība? Reliģiski-filozofiski Raksti 24, 82–104.Google Scholar
Nastevičs, U., 2017: Lokstenes svētnīca, at http://dievturi.blogspot.com/p/svetnica.html (accessed 7 June 2021).Google Scholar
Nastevičs, U., 2020: Lokstene shrine of Dievturi, at https://paganplaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/lokstene-shrine-3.jpg (accessed 7 June 2021).Google Scholar
Nastevičs, U., and Celms, V., 2019: Lokstenes svētnīca, Dievturu Vēstnesis 29(1), 1347–49.Google Scholar
Ozoliņš, G., 2019: Dievturība Latvijā, in Nacionālā enciklopēdija, at https://enciklopedija.lv/skirklis/22202 (accessed 9 October 2019).Google Scholar
Pokaiņi, Forest, at www.dobele.lv/en/tourism/dabas-objekti-top/pokaini-forest (accessed 9 October 2019).Google Scholar
Pūtelis, A., 2019: Domas par latviešu mitoloģiju. Kā tika meklēts latviešu panteons, Riga.Google Scholar
Radošā apvienība DZĪVOTPRIEKS, 2017: Lokstenes svētnīca /// Pasaules brīnumi 17, at www.youtube.com/watch?v=rINSgJvTWAE (accessed 9 October 2019).Google Scholar
Reidzāne, B., and Laime, S., 2018: Latviešu folkloristika un mitoloģija, in J. Satradiņš (ed.), Latvija un latvieši. 2. sēj., Riga, 82–113.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1994: The archaeology of religion, in C. Renfrew and E. Zubrow (eds), The ancient mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology, Cambridge, 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubīns, I., 2019: Nacionāla latviskās dzīvesziņas dievestība, Dievturu Vēstnesis 29(1), 1344.Google Scholar
Sherwood, H., 2018: Religion. Why faith is becoming more and more popular, The guardian, 27 August 2018, at www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is-faith-growing-and-what-happens-next (accessed 9 October 2019).Google Scholar
Skujenieks, M., 1928: Latvija 1918–1928 gados, Riga.Google Scholar
Slapšak, B., and Novaković, P., 1996: Is there national archaeology without nationalism? Archaeological tradition in Slovenia, in Diaz-Andreu, M. and Champion, T. (eds), Nationalism and archaeology in Europe, London, 256–93.Google Scholar
Suny, R., 1993: The revenge of the past. Nationalism, revolution, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Tereško, J., 2021: Zirglietas, jātnieka piederumi, in G. Zariņa and A. Vasks (eds), Latvijas arheoloģijas rokasgrāmata, Riga, 452–56.Google Scholar
Trigger, B.G., 1984: Alternative archaeologies. Nationalist, colonialist, imperialist, Man (new series) 19(3), 355–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trigger, B.G., 2010: A history of archaeological thought, Cambridge.Google Scholar
UNESCO, 2008: Third session of the intergovernmental committee (3.COM) – Istanbul, 4 to 8 November 2008 (Baltic song and dance celebrations), at https://ich.unesco.org/en/3com (accessed 9 October 2019).Google Scholar
Urtāns, J., 2008: Ancient cult sites of Semigallia/Zemgales senās kulta vietas, Riga.Google Scholar
Urtāns, V., 1977: Senākie depozīti Latvijā, Riga.Google Scholar
Vaitkevičius, V., 2011: Ancient sacred places in Lithuania. Crossroads of geography, archaeology and folklore, Archaeologia baltica 15, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaitkevičius, V., 2015: Fire. The centre of the ancient Baltic religion, in Iršėnas, M. and Račiūnaitė, T. (eds), The Lithuanian millennium. History, art and culture, Vilnius, 27–33.Google Scholar
Vaitkevičius, V., and Vaitkevičienė, D., 2011: Preface, Archaeologia baltica 15, 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vankina, L.V., 1970: Торфяниковая стоянка Сарнате, Riga.Google Scholar
Vaska, B., 2016: Rotas un ornaments (Jewellery and ornament), in V. Muižnieks (ed.), Ceļā uz latviešu tautu/On the road to becoming Latvian, Riga, 95–120.Google Scholar
Vasks, A., 2001: Agrais dzelzs laikmets 1.–400. g., in Ē. Mugurēvičs and A. Vasks (eds), Latvijas senākā vēsture 9. g. t. pr. Kr. – 1200. g., Riga, 186–231.Google Scholar
Vasks, A., Vaska, B. and Grāvere, R., 1997: Latvijas aizvēsture, Riga.Google Scholar
Vasks, A., 2021: Priekšvārds, in Zariņa, G. and Vasks, A. (eds), Latvijas arheoloģijas rokasgrāmata, Riga, 7–8.Google Scholar
Vīks, I., 1995: Pokaiņi. Atradumi, mīklas, minējumi, Zemgale, 16 December 1995.Google Scholar
Vilcāne, A., 2021: Rotas, in Zariņa, G. and Vasks, A. (eds), Latvijas arheoloģijas rokasgrāmata, Riga, 457–70.Google Scholar
Zagorska, I., 2001a: Mezolīts 7600.–4500. g. pr. Kr., in Ē. Mugurēvičs and A. Vasks (eds), Latvijas senākā vēsture 9. g. t. pr. Kr. – 1200. g., Riga, 40–73.Google Scholar
Zagorska, I., 2001b: Vēlā paleolīta beigas 8500.–7600. g. pr. Kr., in Ē. Mugurēvičs and A. Vasks (eds), Latvijas senākā vēsture 9. g. t. pr. Kr. – 1200. g., Riga, 22–39.Google Scholar
Zemītis, G., 2004: Ornaments un simbols Latvijas aizvēsturē, Riga.Google Scholar