Versions of Dividing Traditional Dress into Regions. Example of Latgale / Tradicionālā apģērba novadu izveides varianti. Latgales piemērs

Abstract

Researchers of Latvian dress history have made multiple attempts to divide the traditional dress of the 19th century into small regions and to draw maps of these regions. Emphasizing the differences among the garments that survived from these regions, Latvian folk costumes were created. The aim of this study is to investigate the construction and the validity of these regions regarding Latgalian traditional dress. To find out how these regions were constructed a thorough examination of the maps was carried out and their justification was questioned by analysing the uniqueness and chronology of the characteristic traits of the garments that were used for the division of each region. The conclusions that were made allow to revise the approach of seeking the geographical differences that has been used in the research of traditional dress so far.

Summary

Since the interwar period researchers of Latvian dress history have made multiple attempts to divide the traditional dress of the 19th century into smaller regions. They also published maps of these regions. In 1930s Latvian folk costumes were created by artists and museum personnel by emphasizing the differences and combining the garments that had survived from these regions. Rihards Zariņš, Matīss Siliņš, Adolfs Karnups and Elga Kivicka made the first maps of regional costumes in 1930s. Jānis Niedre cleared most of the borders and created a map of more widespread clothing traditions in 1946. Mirdza Slava returned to the division of regions in 1966, and Zīle Bremze, Velta Rozenberga and Ilze Ziņģīte produced yet another version of regions in 1995-2003.

The aim of this study was to investigate the construction and the validity of these regions regarding Latgalian traditional dress. To find out how these regions and maps reflecting them were constructed a thorough examination of the maps was carried out and their justification was questioned by analysing the uniqueness and chronology of the characteristic traits of the garments that were used for the division of each region.

The research revealed that before any common or distinctive traits could be found in the dress of any region, the garments had to be collected by the museums. In 1920s and 1930s the process of collecting the items that had randomly survived from peasants was influenced by the capacity of the expeditions, as well as by the ideological position of the researchers and people who advocated for wearing folk costumes. Their priority was to look for the luxurious and elaborate garments that showed distinction and originality so that they could be used as a proof of the rich culture of the Latvian people. Thus, the quest for differences and uniqueness was present at the very foundation of the museum collections that formed the basis of the future analysis.

It was discovered that none of the examined six maps were alike as each of them were created based on different and often vague criteria. A closer study of the remaining garments revealed that all the traits that were used to distinguish the traditional dress of the regions within Latgale can be found in other areas. In several cases, e.g. ornamented twill linen cloth used for chemises and shoulder straps embroidered with red yarn, they were common not only outside Latgale but also behind the national borders. Some regional peculiarities turned out to be characteristic traits of certain historical periods: white monochrome skirts reflect the tradition of the 18^th century and the beginning of the 19^th century dress while tartan skirts belong to the fashion of the second half of the 19^th century. When white skirts have survived from one area and tartan skirts from another, it can lead to an assumption that they show regional differences.

The article concludes that every garment, its form, colour, usage etc. is distributed in a specific area. Many traits are common behind the borders of one region. The garments that have survived show that more distinctive differences may appear between two skirts that are three decades and not three parishes away. This questions the ability to show them on the same map and draw borders based on them. It also emphasises the necessity to acknowledge that peasants’ traditional dress has always been exposed to changes in fashion. Determination to finding regional differences has been an obstruction in seeing that, as well as in noticing how many common traits there are among dresses of various regions. The conclusions that were made allow to revise the approach of seeking the geographical differences that has been used in the research of traditional dress so far.

This article reflects the results of Ieva Pigozne’s postdoctoral research project Development of Folk Dress in Latgale in the 19^th Century.