Claiming Indigeneity in Europe: Livonian activism for language protection

ABSTRACT

This article addresses the impact of international law in the fields of intangible cultural heritage safeguarding and the protection of the rights of Indigenous peoples on national legislative and policymaking processes related to the legal status of the Livonian language and the Livonian people in Latvia. As argued in this article, recent international law developments and purposeful claims of Indigeneity have served as an efficient argument used through Livonian activism at the national level to strengthen their language protection and to gain increased policy support for the practice and continuity of Livonian language and culture.

KEYWORDS:

• Indigenous peoples
• intangible cultural heritage
• International Decade of Indigenous Languages 2022–2032
• international law
• language policy
• Livonian language
• UNESCO
• United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)

Introduction

The narrative about the Sámi as the only Indigenous people¹ in Europe (or, more precisely – in the European Union: Sámediggi 2023) is being reproduced up until today. This, however, does not reflect the developments of the attribution of the status of Indigenous peoples through national laws, neither in Europe, nor within the European Union. In 2021, a law ‘On Indigenous peoples of Ukraine’ was adopted, defining their legal status and rights and mentioning in particular Indigenous peoples in the territory of the Crimean Peninsula, namely Crimean Tatars, Karaims, Krymchaks (Verkhovna Rada 2021, Art. 1.2). This law referred to the Constitution of Ukraine, which already mentions Indigenous peoples (Ukr. ‘korinni narody’; Verkhovna Rada 1996b, Art. 11, cf.; 1996a), and also, among other, to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP; United Nations 2007a). Introducing the status of Indigenous peoples has also been debated in Estonia, with activists wishing to introduce such recognition for the Seto (Jääts 2015, 258), who ‘regard themselves as a distinct Indigenous people and seek domestic and international recognition, although many Seto in Estonia also have an Estonian ethnic identity and consider themselves a subethnic group of Estonians’ (Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 2021, 3). The debates in Ukraine on these issues are said to have taken several decades (President of Ukraine 2021), and also respective debates and claims in Estonia are not new. The impact of international law developments on debates and decisions in this field is clearly visible, most significantly with the adoption of the UNDRIP in 2007, which contributes to building the argument also at the national level.

Furthermore, representatives from European countries, including those other than Nordic, actively engage in international forums on Indigenous issues. Estonian and Latvian governments have been represented and intervened recently at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII; United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 2021). Representatives from Estonia and Latvia also have been appointed to the Global Task Force for Making a Decade of Action for Indigenous Languages (2022–32) – a governmental representative from Latvia as a UNESCO Member State, an individual representative from the Cooperation Council of Estonia’s Indigenous Languages, as well as an individual representative of UNPFII, coming from Estonia (UNESCO 2021). This Decade was officially launched at UNESCO in December 2022, with the participation of, among others, representatives of the Latvian government and of the Livonian people (UNESCO Latvijas Nacionālā komisija 2022), acknowledged as the Indigenous people in Latvia.

At the national level, in the case of Latvia, the year 2023 has been proclaimed the Year of Livonian Heritage, putting at the forefront Livonian as ‘one of the few officially recognized Indigenous languages of the European Union’ (LSM 2022). This is taking place in the context of about 250 persons self-identifying as Livonians according to the census in Latvia in 2011, whereas 166 persons were identified as Livonians in 2023 according to administrative data at the disposal of governmental institutions (National Statistical System of Latvia 2023)²; and even fewer are speaking the Livonian language; however, the use of Livonian language is being purposefully revived (Muktupāvela and Treimane 2016; Ozoliņa et al. 2022). As for a historical context, and with regard to further reflection on Indigeneity in this article, it is to be mentioned that the predecessors of both Livonians and Latvians have inhabited distinct regions of the present-day territory of Latvia. The earliest written sources about ethnic groups living in this territory date back to the ninth to the thirteenth century, and Livonians were first mentioned in the eleventh-century sources; there is a hypothesis that they originated from Baltic Finns and Scandinavians, whereas several ancient Baltic people, who populated other regions of the territory at the time, consolidated and later, presumably in the sixteenth century, formed Latvians as one people (Vasks 2024; Zemītis 2024).

As I will argue in this article, the recent enhanced attention to the Livonian language and heritage, both at a national and an international level, is a consequence of Livonian activism in a number of national legislative and policymaking and implementation processes that have taken place over the last years. On the one hand, setting the international policy agenda in the field of intangible cultural heritage safeguarding by the adoption of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003) and international recognition of the minimum standard of the rights of Indigenous peoples through the adoption of UNDRIP have served as momentum and provided a platform for reconsidering the state of support to safeguarding Livonian culture and language in Latvia. On the other hand, the attention paid to Livonian culture and language at the national level would not have been possible without persistent activism from the side of Livonian representatives. As explored in this article, the interconnectedness of both these aspects have led to a stated legal recognition of Livonians as Indigenous people in Latvia, thereby opening novel prospects for Livonian language protection.

At the present moment, UNDRIP serves as a reference for a common understanding of the rights of Indigenous peoples. No definition of ‘Indigenous peoples’ or criteria of Indigeneity, however, are provided therein. On the one hand, this remains a matter of continuous interpretation through international dialog, building upon previous international studies and establishments of common conceptual grounds (Cobo 1983)³ as well as decades of negotiations (Anaya 2004; Burger 2016; Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 2004; United Nations 2023) and evolving scholarly reflection on the adoption of the UNDRIP (Charters and Stavenhagen 2009; Allen and Xanthaki 2011; Dahl 2012; Åhren 2016; Lennox and Short 2016, among others). As observed by Indigenous rights scholar Kristy Gover (2016, 38), ‘[a] large body of scholarship has emerged debating the utility or desirability of a universal, global definition of Indigenous peoples, and these questions formed a prominent part of discussions during the 22-year-long negotiation of the [UNDRIP].’ A part of these reflections has been on the ‘constructions of Indigenous identity’ and respective definitions, including ‘the pernicious fantasy of the ‘Indigenous look’’ (Paradies 2016, 24, 27). On the other hand, and importantly, the question of Indigeneity remains an issue of the self-identification of respective communities. As it has been acknowledged, ‘in the absence of a definition, human rights norms and jurisprudence lean heavily on self-identification as the method to be used by states to extend recognition to indigenous individuals and communities’ (Gover 2016, 38). Furthermore, this is also a matter of legal recognition of the status of Indigenous peoples, their languages, and other cultural expressions at the domestic level, whether based on direct references to UNDRIP or not.

The UNDRIP is a declaration – a statement of the international community, expressed by the majority of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, and it does not demand any further steps of ratification, or other, at the national level, contrary to treaties (United Nations 1969). In the case of Latvia and with respect to the rights of the Livonian people, an act of ratification of the UNDRIP is sometimes misleadingly mentioned as existing. Despite the nonexistence of such an act, however, one may certainly rely on the fact that Latvia voted in favor of adopting this declaration at the moment of the respective vote at the UN (United Nations 2007b) and thus aligned itself with this declaration. This vote demonstrates Latvia’s political stance and legal commitment to respect and promote the rights of Indigenous peoples. It in no way constitutes a statement on whether or not there is an Indigenous population in Latvia, however.

This article is based on a content analysis of legal sources, respective travaux préparatoires and policy documents, with examples of public communication both from the side of governmental institutions and Livonian community members. The elaboration of the argument in this article is also informed by conversations with Livonian community members, researchers of Livonian heritage, and by observations of events celebrating Livonian culture in Latvia. This article is focused on the time period after the reestablishment of the independent State of Latvia de facto in 1991, and especially on legal and policy developments in recent years, and it follows a historical and thematic approach for elaborating the argument.⁴ Particular attention will be paid to the role of Livonian activism (on Indigenous activism see Greymorning 2019) in national processes with regard to strengthening the legal status of both the Livonian language and Livonian people in Latvia.⁵

This article has legislative processes in Latvia as the major point of interest, starting with the consideration of (i) the debate on Livonian in national language legislation after the reestablishment of independence of the Latvian State; (ii) a more recent debate, as part of constitutional reform, on the constitutional foundations and identity of Latvian State, and on the role of Livonian culture therein; (iii) the application of a national law on intangible cultural heritage for safeguarding Livonian language and culture; and (iv) claiming Indigeneity of Livonian people and advancing the consistency of respective terminology in Latvia in recent legislative and policymaking developments with regard to historical Latvian regions. Due attention is paid in this article to the semantic nuances of terminology in Latvian, as far as reflected within legislative and policymaking processes.

Livonian in national language legislation

On 4 May 1990, with the adoption of the Declaration of the Supreme Council of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (Latv. Latvijas Padomju Sociālistiskās Republikas (LPSR) Augstākā Padome), ‘On the Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia,’ the self-determination of the Latvian nation was reminded to the international community, along with a reminder that Satversme – the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia, adopted in 1922, was still in force de jure (LPSR Augstākā Padome 1990). After extensive russification experienced during the Soviet period, developing a national language policy was among the most urgent and crucial steps for strengthening Latvia’s independence and distinct identity. Moreover, the language had not been addressed in the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia, and it became a matter of several constitutional reforms later on.

At the time of the reestablishment of independence, a Law on Languages of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (Latv. LPSR Valodu likums) was in force since 5 May 1989 (LPSR Augstākā Padome 1989). The law’s title using a plural form – ‘languages’ was a significant aspect, later debated in Parliament (Latv. Latvijas Republikas (LR) Saeima) when elaborating a novel draft of Official Language Law (LR Saeima 1998a; 1998b). The named law of 1989, as stated in its Preamble, aimed at protecting the Latvian language, while it also stated that Russian was the second most broadly spoken language in the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic, and citizens could choose between the two – Latvian and Russian – for the official correspondence with and communication within governmental and administrative institutions, as well as organizations and enterprises. Furthermore, rights to education were also stated to be fulfilled in both languages. In this law, it was written that ‘the use of Latvian, as well as its dialects and written Latgalian language in all fields of culture, is guaranteed’⁶ and that ‘the State guarantees also the safeguarding and development of Livonian culture in the Livonian language’ (Article 15).⁷

After the reestablishment of independence, the law was replaced in 1992 by a new Law on Languages of the Republic of Latvia (LR Augstākā Padome 1992). The plural form ‘languages’ was still used in its title and it followed the same structure as the previous law. There were, however, some adaptations regarding the new institutional setting and a fundamentally different emphasis. Most significantly, it was stated that ‘the official language in the Republic of Latvia is the Latvian language’ (Article 1). The Russian language (along with English and German) was mentioned only as far as it concerned languages in which documents were to be accepted by governmental institutions without demanding their translation into the official language (Article 8).

Regarding the Livonian language (as well as the Latgalian written language and the dialects of Latvian), the formulation remained the same as in the respective law of 1989 (Article 15). It is to be noted also that the following article stipulated that place names were to be given in Latvian, and municipalities had the right to decide on cases where they could be reproduced and used also in other languages (Article 16). As further legislative processes witnessed, a part of the Members of the Parliament still deemed that more extensive reconsideration of language policy was needed. Therefore, the adoption of this law was followed by extensive parliamentarian debates to develop a novel law for strengthening the legal status of Latvian as the only official language in Latvia.

A new draft law, ‘Official Language Law of the Republic of Latvia,’ was developed by the Government in 1995 (LR Saeima 2023), and an alternative draft law on this same matter was prepared a year later by the Educational, Cultural, and Scientific Commission of the Parliament. This alternative draft reached plenary debates at the Parliament in 1997, with major emphasis, as it was presented, put on the differences between the two drafts regarding the use of the Latvian language in education. The alternative draft envisaged a timewise more gradual shift toward education in Latvian (First reading; LR Saeima 1997).⁸ The use of language in education was indeed at the heart of debates, which became lively and lengthy. The readings of this draft law at the Parliament witness that the legal status of the Livonian language was debated regarding its distinctiveness compared to ‘foreign languages’ (Latv. svešvalodas). It was though questioned whether the legal status of Livonian was to be part of an Official Language Law or another law (Second reading; LR Saeima 1998a). The legislative task to distinguish the legal status of the Livonian language from the one of other languages, which might eventually be more widely used in Latvia, such as Russian, was grounded in the argument that no other State would sustain the transmission of the Livonian language. Therefore, a different legal status would mean possibilities of a different treatment, supporting the use and practice of the Livonian language, whereas all other languages were to be considered foreign languages in Latvia. As a Member of the Parliament, Anna Seile said it:

Livonian language has, however, a particular status. Livonians are as much Indigenous [Latv. pirmiedzīvotāji] in Latvia as are Latvians. Therefore, although their language is not an official language because they are very much a minority in Latvia, it has to be protected by this law (Second reading; LR Saeima 1998a).

During the parliamentary debates, when expressing some criticism of the approach to attribute a particular status to the Livonian language, there was also a proposal to give a particular status to another Finno-Ugric language, Estonian. This was followed by a response by another Member of the Parliament, Juris Vidiņš, saying, ‘They [i.e. Estonians] are not Indigenous [Latv. pamatiedzīvotāji]!’ (Third reading; LR Saeima 1998b).

With regard to the terms used in Latvian, these illustrations of the debate at the Parliament demonstrate that the terms ‘pirmiedzīvotāji’ and ‘pamatiedzīvotāji’ were used in parallel without making a semantic distinction. Moreover, they could be used for designating both Livonians as well as Latvians, in other words, ‘inhabitants’ (Latv. iedzīvotāji) of the territory of the Latvian State that have resided there as the first ones (Latv. pirm-) or the ones that are the foundation (Latv. pamat-) for the State. Semantically both terms used in the parliamentarian debates had an emphasis on the fact of inhabiting a territory instead of foregrounding the concept of a people (Latv. tauta) or ethnicity (Latv. tautība), which both could also be used for naming the foundations of the State (Latv. pamattauta, pamattautība).

The Official Language Law was finally adopted in 1999 (LR Saeima), stipulating that ‘[t]he State shall ensure the maintenance, protection and development of the Liv [Latv. lībiešu]⁹ language as the language of the Indigenous (autochthonous) population [Latv. pirmiedzīvotāju (autohtonu) valoda]’ (Article 4). Thus, the argument of Indigeneity was used as a solution to define a particular status of the Livonian language and thereby ensure its distinct protection in Latvia. It was stated in the law that ‘[a]ny other language used in the Republic of Latvia, except the Liv language, shall be regarded, within the meaning of this Law, as a foreign language’ (Article 5). The law also included a special regulation regarding the use of names, stipulating that ‘[n]ames of places, institutions, public organizations and undertakings (companies) in the Liv coastal territory, and names of events taking place in this territory, shall also be created and use thereof shall be in the Liv language’ (Article 18, part 4). This aspect was further elaborated in two regulations adopted by the Government (Cabinet of Ministers 2000, 2012). Assuring the application of these regulations in practice in respective territory, however, has met some resistance from administrative institutions. As it has been later acknowledged, ‘unfortunately, this unique exception for Livonian has, in fact, not been sufficiently utilized, and this is due primarily to an insufficient degree of awareness of this law and a lack of coordination’ (Ernštreits 2017, 203). After resistant and sustained Livonian activism in defense of their linguistic rights stipulated in the aforementioned law and regulations,¹⁰ the first road sign in both the Latvian and Livonian language was installed in early 2023, indicating the name of Talsi county (Āboltiņš 2023; Ozola-Balode 2023). An official ceremony regarding the installation of the sign was organized soon after as part of a regional visit of the President of Latvia, Egils Levits (Latvijas Valsts prezidents 2023).

The argument of Indigeneity was used also in other legislative and policymaking initiatives in Latvia, both earlier and later, although not necessarily or consistently in all legal acts that concerned Livonians. Early in 1991, the Government of the Republic of Latvia – the Council of Ministers (Latv. Ministru padome) – adopted a decision ‘On establishing a State-protected cultural and historical territory “Līvod rānda”’ (LR Ministru padome 1991) with the aim ‘to secure in the Republic of Latvia necessary conditions for the safeguarding, existence, and development of Livonian ethnicity [Latv. lībiešu tautība], as well as to protect the last region inhabited by Livonians on the coast of the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Riga’ (Preamble). After Livonians being ‘exiled in the course of the two world wars and the Soviet occupation’ (Ozoliņa et al. 2022, 235), the named decision included the task ‘to develop together with the Livonian cultural association [Latv. Lībiešu kultūras savienība] a system of measures that would favor the return of inhabitants of Livonian descent to their historical territory, “Līvod rānda”’ (point 4.2.). The argument of Indigeneity was not applied in this particular legal act.

That same year, in 1991 a law was adopted ‘On Free Development of Latvia’s National and Ethnic Groups and Their Right to Cultural Autonomy’ (LR Augstākā Padome 1991). Its Preamble starts with a statement that ‘the Latvian nation, the ancient Indigenous people [Latv. sena pamattautība] – Livonians [Latv. lībieši], and also national and ethnic groups reside in the Republic of Latvia.’ Regarding Livonians the law stipulates:

State authorities and administrative bodies of the Republic of Latvia shall be responsible for the preservation of the national identity and historical and cultural environment of the ancient Indigenous people – the Livonians – and for the restoration and development of the social and economic infrastructure of their populated territory (Article 4).

Besides, a political support for the continuity of both the Latvian and Livonian peoples was shown early after the reestablishment of independence also in the repatriation policy. In 1995, a Repatriation Law was adopted to favor the repatriation of persons of Latvian and Livonian origin. The Preamble of this law starts with a statement that ‘Latvia is the only ethnic territory in the world inhabited by Latvians and Liivs’¹¹ (LR Saeima 1995). The concept of Indigeneity, as reflected in respective terms in Latvian, was not used in this law, and equal attention paid to both Latvians and Livonians demonstrated a common understanding of the ethnic ties between these two peoples and the territory of the Latvian State.

Later, when developing national policies for supporting the continuity of Livonian culture, the term ‘Indigenous ethnicity’ (Latv. pamattautība) was used to designate both Livonians and Latvians, with a semantic reference to ethnicity (Latv. tautība). For instance, the formulation ‘Livonians – the second Indigenous ethnicity of Latvia [Latv. otra Latvijas pamattautība]’ was used (LR Ministru kabinets 2008b). Another formulation that was used in a policy document was ‘Indigenous ethnicities of Latvia [Latv. Latvijas pamattautības] – Latvians and Livonians (Livs) [Latv. Lībieši (līvi)]’ (LR Ministru kabinets 2008a).

Altogether, during the first two decades after the reestablishment of independence, several conceptually interconnected terms were used to define the status of the Livonian language and Livonians (Latv. pirmiedzīvotāji, pamatiedzīvotāji, pamattautība). No specific and clear understanding or explanation of the meaning of these terms was legally stipulated, however. As sociolinguists Ina Druviete and Gunta Kļava have concluded (2018, 137), ‘there is considerable uncertainty regarding the proper terminology to use when describing the status of Livonians as an ethnicity, especially when translation is involved. The use of the terms pamattauta, pamattautība demands some understanding of how the Latvian nation developed, and it is not that simple to translate these terms into English.’ Furthermore, in respective legislative processes in Latvia, no direct reference was given at that time to international debates on Indigenous peoples – neither to the explanation of the concept of Indigenous people (Cobo 1983) nor to the UNDRIP once it was adopted in 2007. Thus, there is no testimony on how the meaning of the terms used in Latvian would be positioned conceptually and understood in relation to international developments within the UN on the legal status and the rights of Indigenous peoples. Overall, the concepts designating Indigeneity (Latv. pirmiedzīvotāji, pamatiedzīvotāji, pamattautība) during those years were seen as relevant to both Latvians and Livonians, with a difference of the ones – Latvians – being a majority and a nation with officially recognized national language, while the others – Livonians – a minority within the territory of the Latvian State.

Livonian traditions in a constitutional reform

The efforts invested in developing a national language legislation and policy after reestablishing an independent Latvian State did not avoid a continuity of tensions in society in Latvia, in particular concerning the use of the Russian language in education and beyond. As a response to a referendum in 2012 on the Russian language as a second official language, with a majority of voters (74.8%) having voted against (Centrālā vēlēšanu komisija 2012), a constitutional reform was initiated in 2014 by several Members of the Parliament for developing a Preamble to the Constitution¹² in order to reiterate the right to self-determination of the Latvian nation, to acknowledge the values and principles of the Latvian State, and to define the identity of Latvia (LR Saeima 2014c).

This initiative of constitutional reform had already had some earlier preparatory steps. In response to a demand of the President of the Republic of Latvia, an elaborate legal analysis and opinion on the constitutional foundation of the Latvian State and the core of its Satversme was prepared by the Commission of Constitutional Law, established by the President of the Republic of Latvia in 2007. According to its opinion, ‘the core of the Satversme also includes the duty to take care of strengthening ties between all persons belonging to the Latvian nation and all citizens of Latvia and their State, as well as to sustain the culture of the Latvian nation’ (Konstitucionālo tiesību komisija 2012, 131). This opinion significantly explored the issues of language and culture as elements of constitutional identity and did so with a focus on the Latvian nation. Attention was also paid to the fulfillment of the rights of ethnic minorities. This opinion, however, did not raise the question about the status of the Livonian people in Latvia, who at that time were not mentioned in the Constitution.

Nevertheless, the debate about the Preamble became a platform for discussing the importance of Livonian people and their culture in Latvia. The first draft of the Preamble did not include any reference to Livonian culture or language. During the second reading of the draft law, an amendment proposed by a Member of the Parliament, Dāvis Stalts, self-identified Livonian by ethnicity, was considered among other amendments. As debates at the Parliament witness, the aim of the proposal was to have Livonian people mentioned in the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia. The proposal mentioned Livonian lands alongside Latvian lands at the beginning of the Preamble instead of mentioning Latvian lands only. This would mean a constitutional acknowledgment of historical ties that unite Livonians with the territory of Latvia. As Dāvis Stalts stated during debates:

By submitting this amendment, it was stated historically precisely that the Latvian State has been established by uniting Latvian and Livonian lands. It really so happened, as Livonian people do not have any other fatherland than only Latvia, and there is no other territory historically inhabited [by Livonians], only the territory of Latvia (LR Saeima 2014b).

This proposal was reworked into a compromise formulation. Instead of speaking about ‘Livonian lands,’ Livonians were mentioned in another paragraph of the Preamble, the one where the identity of Latvia was defined. There it became stated that ‘since ancient times, the identity of Latvia in the European cultural space¹³ has been shaped by Latvian and Liv traditions, Latvian folk wisdom, the Latvian language, universal human, and Christian values’ (LR Saeima 2014a, 1922). This way, the formulation did not secure any territorial ties, but the legislator chose instead to recognize Livonian traditions as an identity marker of Latvia. The argument of Indigeneity was not stated during plenary debates at the Parliament concerning this constitutional reform of adopting an elaborate Preamble to Satversme. It could be presumed, however, that such an argument – stipulated in previously adopted laws and policy documents – was supposed to be common knowledge among Members of the Parliament.

Later, a different legal framework became instrumentalized in promoting the protection of the Livonian language and culture, the one of intangible cultural heritage safeguarding. National legislative processes in the fields of language protection and intangible cultural heritage safeguarding have been in distinct kinds of dialog with international law (Cornu and Vaivade 2020). Firstly, language policy and legislation in Latvia was primarily a nationally driven process, with an international political influence on national debates. The concept of Indigeneity – through respective terms in Latvian – was instrumentalized therein as an argument to define a distinct legal status to the Livonian language, to differentiate it from any foreign language used in Latvia. Secondly, adopting a national law in intangible cultural heritage safeguarding was, in turn, a measure of the implementation of an international agreement and, thereby, a nationally and sovereignly defined response to an international agenda.

Making use of the intangible cultural heritage law

In 2003, the General Conference of UNESCO, including the Delegation of Latvia, adopted a Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Rapidly it became almost a worldwide recognized normative instrument with 183 States Parties (UNESCO 2024). Latvia approved this convention by adopting a law in late 2004 (LR Saeima 2004). In parallel, a process was initiated to develop a national policy for implementing the named convention in continuity with previously developed policies and the work of existing administrative institutions. Several policy documents in the field of intangible cultural heritage safeguarding have been adopted after approving the named convention. Separate attention was paid to the cultural heritage of Livonians as a ‘foundational’ ethnicity (Latv. pamattautība) of Latvia, along with Latvians (LR Ministru kabinets 2008a). When it came to the adoption of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law (LR Saeima 2016), the Livonian heritage was not specifically highlighted. Efforts for safeguarding the Livonian intangible cultural heritage were to undergo the same process of recognition and solicitating policy support as for any other intangible cultural heritage elements in Latvia. Inventorying intangible cultural heritage, a State obligation under the named UNESCO convention, was defined by the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law and became a policy tool used by the Livonian people to raise the visibility of their heritage, including the Livonian language.

The nomination of the ‘Livonian cultural space’ to the Intangible Cultural Heritage National Inventory was submitted by the Livonian association ‘Līvõ kultūr sidām’ (Livonian Cultural Centre, founded in 1994). Based on a decision of the National Intangible Cultural Heritage Council, the ‘Livonian cultural space’ was inscribed on the national inventory in 2018. The nomination text speaks of Livonians as Indigenous people or ‘foundational’ people (Latv. pamattauta) in Latvia, with reference to the previously named law of 1991 (Ernštreits 2018). This narrative has changed over time, moving toward another terminological alternative for expressing the concept of Indigeneity in Latvian – ‘first inhabitants’ (Latv. pirmiedzīvotāji), claiming recognition of the distinct status of Livonians.

Recognizing the ‘Livonian cultural space’ as an intangible cultural heritage has been a step toward raising public awareness in Latvia about the safeguarding of Livonian culture and language. Furthermore, this has provided additional possibilities for support to community initiatives to safeguard Livonian heritage, remaining though small scale and without fundamentally changing any systemic support for safeguarding Livonian culture and language in Latvia. As was observed a year later, mechanisms were still missing for implementing respective laws that define the status of both the Livonian people and the Livonian language (Brikmane 2019).

The use of the concept of ‘cultural space’ here connects to the history of UNESCO’s earlier efforts to safeguard intangible cultural heritage and to the practice and experience of applying the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO 2003) in Latvia. The concept of ‘cultural space’ has been used by UNESCO as an alternative to the concept ‘heritage site,’ replacing emphasis from the tangible to the intangible values of culturally distinct places and cultural heritage in general. The concept ‘cultural space’ was used in 1997 at the occasion of hosting in Marrakesh an International Consultation on the Preservation of Popular Cultural Spaces, and later when UNESCO General Conference adopted a resolution on the oral heritage of humanity and decided ‘to highlight the importance of the intangible cultural heritage for peoples and nations by proclaiming spaces or forms of cultural expression part of the ‘oral heritage of humanity’’ (UNESCO 1997). The attention to cultural spaces was accordingly integrated into the further operation of the Proclamation of the Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity (2001–05) (UNESCO 2023). As it was explained in respective regulations:

For the purpose of these Regulations, the anthropological concept of a cultural space shall be taken to mean a place in which popular and traditional cultural activities are concentrated, but also a time generally characterized by a certain periodicity (cyclical, seasonal, calendar, etc.) or by an event. Finally, this temporal and physical space should owe its existence to the cultural activities that have traditionally taken place there (UNESCO 1998).

The practice of using the concept of ‘cultural space’ with regard to intangible cultural heritage has diminished internationally over the years after the named program of proclamations ended, and international lists of intangible cultural heritage were introduced instead. Some States and communities, however, used this concept as relevant and meaningful. In Latvia, this has been the case with the Suiti community, this historically and culturally distinct community that inhabits a territory near the Baltic Sea and has a strong regional identity. They chose to prepare a nomination named ‘Suiti cultural space’ to one of UNESCO’s intangible cultural heritage lists. Such a nomination was inscribed in 2009. The practice of using the concept of ‘cultural space’ undertaken by Suiti was taken up also by other communities in Latvia to recognize their intangible cultural heritage at the national level. This became the choice also for nominating ‘Livonian cultural space’ to the Intangible Cultural Heritage National Inventory in Latvia.

In 2022, the ‘Livonian cultural space of Vidzeme’ (Latv. Vidzemes lībiskā kultūrtelpa)¹⁴ was nominated and inscribed to the Intangible Cultural Heritage National Inventory with regard to Livonian heritage expressions in the region of Vidzeme. The initial nomination of the ‘Livonian cultural space’ inscribed in 2018 put at the territory of Northern Courland (Livonian Cost) the forefront, although it also mentioned other territories historically inhabited by Livonians. The new inscription of another cultural space related to Livonian culture may thus be seen as complementary, gradually drawing a broader picture of Livonian cultural manifestations in the territory of Latvia (Ozoliņa et al. 2022).

Eight cultural spaces have been inventoried in Latvia as intangible cultural heritage (Latv. Suitu kultūrtelpa, Upītes kultūrtelpa, Rucavas kultūrtelpa, Lībiešu kultūrtelpa, Vidzemes lībiskā kultūrtelpa, Nīcas kultūrtelpa, Bārtas kultūrtelpa, Piebalgas kultūrtelpa) altogether through the process of nominating them from the side of respective communities (Latvijas Nacionālais kultūras centrs 2024). Calling each of these a ‘cultural space’ has been a novel practice initiated for the purpose of intangible cultural heritage inventorying. This practice has led to complementary uses and further applicability of this concept in yet another legislative and policymaking framework, the one on the safeguarding and development of historical regions of Latvia. When the President of the Republic of Latvia presented the draft Law on Historical Regions of Latvia, cultural spaces gained particular attention as distinct elements to protect within or across the borders of different historical regions of Latvia. In that context, Livonian cultural space was mentioned among other cultural spaces inventoried as intangible cultural heritage in Latvia (Latvijas Valsts prezidents 2020). A conceptual bridge was established between the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law and the new draft law. Furthermore, the drafting of this new law became a platform for bringing attention to Livonian culture and language, which was done with references to international law instruments – Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO 2003) and UNDRIP (United Nations 2007a) in particular.¹⁵

The Livonian cultural space in Latvian lands

The drafting of the Law on Historical Regions of Latvia was envisaged when adopting the Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas (LR Saeima 2020), which became a legal frame for administrative reform. According to this law:

In order to strengthen common identity among residents and preserve and sustainably develop the cultural and historical environment, belonging of towns and rural territories to historical Latvian regions [Latv. latviešu vēsturiskās zemes]¹⁶ – Vidzeme, Latgale, Kurzeme, Zemgale, and Sēlija – shall be governed by a separate law (Section 3. Scope of Application of the Law, part 2).

This was a response to the expressed dissatisfaction of some local communities in Latvia with the administrative reform process. This motivated to timely envisage the development of a legislative response, which would focus more on sustaining local cultural identities. This took its form in the Law on Historical Regions of Latvia (LR Saeima 2021) with an integrated reference to the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law (LR Saeima 2016). The term ‘historical Latvian lands’ was used in the adopted Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia (LR Saeima 1922), although not explained in the annotation of respective amendments. To unify terminology that designates regions of Latvia became one of the tasks stated in the annotation of the draft Law on Historical Regions of Latvia, where ‘historical regions of Latvia’ were explained as distinct in terms of cultural identities, expressed through cultural heritage and linguistic particularities (Latvijas Valsts prezidents 2020).

In order to address common cultural identities and cultural environments in different regions of Latvia, a connection to intangible cultural heritage safeguarding became evident. This connection, along with linkages to the preservation of tangible cultural and natural heritage and the protection of cultural diversity, was manifested in the annotation of the draft Law on Historical Regions of Latvia (Latvijas Valsts prezidents 2020) through providing references to respective UNESCO conventions (UNESCO 1972, 2003, 2005). The recognition of ties with intangible cultural heritage safeguarding was the most explicitly elaborated and gained a particular significance concerning cultural spaces. The reference to the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO 2003) and along it the history of its adoption – did not directly impact the interpretation of the concept of ‘cultural space’ at the national level in Latvia. This concept is left without definition and open to interpretation. Having cultural spaces inventoried on the Intangible Cultural Heritage National Inventory in Latvia, however, the ones already inscribed, as well as potential future inscriptions to come, serves as a plausible and potentially reliable move for cultural spaces to be considered as such also beyond inventorying and in the implementation of other policies that would follow. The Law on Historical Regions of Latvia was adopted in 2021 (LR Saeima 2021), after a rather smooth process timewise and an open process in terms of public debates in different regions of Latvia organized to involve society in discussing the draft law and to obtain public support for such a legislative initiative. According to this law, it is the task of the State and municipalities to support and promote cultural spaces in the historical regions of Latvia, the measures for such support being defined by this law and the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law (Article 2, part 3). Direct connections between these two fields of legislation and policymaking were pointed out.

The considerations of Indigeneity were also addressed within the drafting process. The annotation (Latvijas Valsts prezidents 2020) spoke about the historically evolving ethnocultural processes through which the descendants of the ‘foundational inhabitants’ (Latv. pamatiedzīvotāji) in the territory of Latvia have formed the Latvian nation. This explanation of the history of the Latvian nation concerned respective ‘ancient Baltic peoples’ (Latv. baltu sentautas), not distinguished anymore. It was stated in the annotation also that Livonians ‘have significantly influenced the formation of Latvian nation’ as being ‘ancient foundational ethnicity (first inhabitants or autochthons)’ (Latv. senā pamattautība (pirmiedzīvotāji jeb autohtoni)). The concept of Indigeneity – expressed through several parallel terms in Latvian – was thereby used in the drafting of the Law on Historical Regions of Latvia with regard to the Livonian people as well as the history of the Latvian nation.

In this law, particular attention is paid to protecting the Livonian language and culture, although the adopted law significantly differs from its first draft in what concerns the support to safeguarding Livonian culture and protecting the use of Livonian language, and the potential impact of Livonian people on further decision-making. Through legislative debates, constructively proposed arguments, and draft amendments, the State’s and the municipalities’ obligations became more concrete, and the law adopted was substantially based on Livonians’ own agency and activism, grounded on clear claims of their Indigeneity.

The previously mentioned references to the three UNESCO conventions were followed by a general reference to UNDRIP in the annotation of the draft law (Latvijas Valsts prezidents 2020) as a part of the response to the question on the respective international obligations of Latvia. This reference gained, however, a much more concrete use in amendments proposed by the Livonian Institute of the University of Latvia, established as a research institution in 2018 (Latvijas Universitātes Lībiešu institūts 2020). These amendments were proposed through official correspondence sent to the Parliament shortly after the draft law, along with its annotation and a cover letter was received at the Parliament from the President of the Republic of Latvia. There were several conceptual amendments initially proposed by the Livonian Institute of the University of Latvia, bringing the attention of the legislator to the status and rights of Indigenous people (‘first inhabitants’) of Latvia (Latv. Latvijas pirmiedzīvotāji) – Livonians.

The first two amendments proposed concerned the Preamble – the formulation of the conceptual grounds of the draft law that would serve as a guide for its implementation. The proposal of the Livonian Institute of the University of Latvia to put at the very beginning of the Preamble equal attention to the sustainability of both the Latvian nation, language, and culture and Livonian Indigenous people, language, and culture did not receive support. Nevertheless, the wording on the Livonians’ role in forming the Latvian nation became slightly strengthened. A further amendment proposed concerned a deletion of a reference to the law ‘On Free Development of Latvia’s National and Ethnic Groups and Their Right to Cultural Autonomy’ (LR Augstākā Padome 1991), considered to give only a partial insight into relevant laws and to be confusing with regard to terminological developments. This reference was deleted and is absent in the law adopted.

Furthermore, the Livonian Institute of the University of Latvia emphasized the role of municipalities as complementary to State obligations with regard to safeguarding the Livonian cultural environment and heritage. This was later echoed in the law and obligations of both the State and municipalities became addressed together in Article 4 (LR Saeima 2021). The last amendment proposed by the Livonian Institute of the University of Latvia concerned the representation of the Livonian community within the envisaged council on the historical regions of Latvia, and UNDRIP was referenced for supporting this proposal. This proposal was accepted, which provides a possibility to follow up on envisaged support to Livonian culture and language in further steps of policymaking and implementation.

There were also other amendments integrated while reading the draft law at the Parliament, including amendments that concerned the Livonian culture and language and were not initially presented by the Livonian Institute of the University of Latvia. These were obligations concerning the use of language. Firstly, regarding the Livonian language, an obligation was included for both the State and respective municipalities to enhance the learning and the use of the Livonian language and to introduce and use place names in the Livonian language in the environment (Article 4, point 7). As mentioned earlier, this responsibility is gradually being assumed. Secondly, a separate obligation was integrated, saying that the State promotes the Latgalian language as a variation of the Latvian language and the use of Livonian language in informative space, particularly within public electronic media (Article 4, point 9).

Concerning terminological variations in Latvian regarding the status of Livonians and the Livonian language, the initial draft law submitted to the Parliament by the President of the Republic of Latvia acknowledged in its Preamble the role of Livonians in the formation of the Latvian nation and stipulated State obligation to secure the safeguarding and sustainable development of the identity and cultural environment of Livonians as Indigenous or ‘ancient foundational ethnicity of Latvia’ (Latv. Latvijas senā pamattautība; draft Article 5, part 3), with previously mentioned reference to the law ‘On Free Development of Latvia’s National and Ethnic Groups and Their Right to Cultural Autonomy’ (LR Augstākā Padome 1991). The proposal of the Livonian Institute of the University of Latvia was, however, to follow the terminology used in the Official Language Law (LR Saeima 1999) regarding Livonians as Indigenous inhabitants or ‘first inhabitants’ (Latv. pirmiedzīvotāji). This proposal was followed throughout the legal text adopted. This has indeed contributed to gradually establishing consistency of legal terminology in Latvian. Furthermore, it has indirectly strengthened connotation ties with the international discourse on the rights of Indigenous peoples, and UNDRIP in particular.

An extensive participatory process was initiated in late 2021 and carried out in 2022 to accumulate proposals from society and to discuss and formulate tasks to be included in respective policy (Latvijas Nacionālais kultūras centrs 2022a, 2022b; LSM 2021). The elaborated draft plan for implementing the Law on Historical Regions of Latvia (LR Kultūras ministrija 2022) includes particular attention paid to Livonian culture and language. Respective commitments encompass providing support to the work of media in the Livonian language, securing possibilities to optionally learn the Livonian language as part of general education (with a remote learning option), supporting research on Livonian cultural heritage, fostering creative expressions in the Livonian language, securing accessibility of and consultations in standardized Livonian language in order to support language development, and securing the use of Livonian in the indications of place names. This last commitment, in continuity with the first case mentioned above where the Livonian language has been used to indicate a place name, is being gradually fulfilled (Liepiņa 2024; Livones.net 2023), years after such a right was initially stated.

Conclusion

The developments of international law in the fields of intangible cultural heritage safeguarding (Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, UNESCO 2003) and the protection of the rights of Indigenous peoples (UNDRIP, United Nations 2007a) has had a direct impact on national legislative and policymaking processes in Latvia, strengthening the legal status of the Livonian language and Livonian people. References to contractual State obligations stipulated in a convention and to a minimum standard adopted in international law through a declaration served as an international law argument used for claiming attention and support to secure the future of the Livonian language and culture. Furthermore, the named developments of international law have impacted legislative processes in the field of regional development in Latvia by adopting the Law on Historical Regions of Latvia (LR Saeima 2021) and undertaking its implementation. This may prospectively become a meaningful ground for safeguarding Livonian cultural space, including using the Livonian language.

The recognition of the Livonian people as Indigenous people has recently been directly stated in Latvian law – through adopting the Law on Historical Regions of Latvia, complementing the previous recognition of the Livonian language as a ‘language of an Indigenous (autochthonous) population’ (Latv. pirmiedzīvotāju (autohtonu) valoda) in Latvia according to the Official Language Law (LR Saeima 1999). This is significantly an outcome of Livonian activism during respective recent legislative processes. As the analyzed processes witness, the terms designating Indigeneity in Latvian (Latv. pamattauta, pamattautība, pamatiedzīvotāji, pirmiedzīvotāji) have had varied meanings, being used with respect to both Livonians and Latvians as Indigenous to the territory of the Latvian State. The most recent legislative developments have, however, consolidated a consistent designation of Indigeneity in the Latvian legal language (Latv. pirmiedzīvotāji), based on the term used in the Official Language Law.

Since international law remains silent on defining the concept of Indigenous people and is thus open to variations of definitions depending on local specificities, self-identification and domestic legal recognition remains crucial. Self-identification of inhabitants of Latvia as Livonians was a question asked during the census in 2011. Currently, a research question could be complementary, the one on the self-identification of Livonians as Indigenous in the sense of international discourse evolving in dialog with the UNDRIP. This remains beyond the scope of this article. As for domestic legal recognition, the decision of the Latvian legislator to acknowledge Livonians as Indigenous people in Latvia is a sovereign decision, and internationally it is to be respected as such. It will be of interest to follow how the developments in national law will impact further developments of international discourse and cooperation in this field, including the dynamics of understanding Indigeneity in Europe and what role Livonian activism will have in the regional and global international scene in this regard.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Dr. Valts Ernštreits, Director of the Livonian Institute of the University of Latvia, for responsiveness and cooperation, Prof. Kristin Kuutma, Chairholder of the UNESCO Chair on Applied Studies of Intangible Cultural Heritage at the University of Tartu, Estonia, for generous conversations, and Prof. Rūta Muktupāvela, Rector of the Latvian Academy of Culture, and anonymous reviewers for their attentive reading and valuable advice on the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the European Regional Development Fund, the State budget of the Republic of Latvia and the Latvian Academy of Culture under the grant ‘Intangible Cultural Heritage as Resource for Sustainable Development in Northern Europe: Rights-Based Approach’ (1.1.1.2/VIAA/3/19/476).

Notes on contributors

Anita Vaivade

Anita Vaivade is an Associate Professor of Cultural Heritage Studies at the Latvian Academy of Culture. After attaining master’s degrees in sociology and legal sciences, she defended her doctoral thesis cum laude on the conceptualization of the intangible cultural heritage in law in 2011. She conducted her research in parallel to professional responsibilities as Sector Director for Culture, Communication, and Information at the Latvian National Commission for UNESCO (2006–12). Vaivade led the Latvian delegation to the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2013-15), and since 2017 leads the UNESCO Chair on Intangible Cultural Heritage Policy and Law at the Latvian Academy of Culture. Vaivade joined the UNESCO global network of facilitators for intangible cultural heritage in 2017 and has co-led the ‘Osmose’ research project, an international comparative study on intangible cultural heritage-related national laws in 26 countries. She has published on national policies on intangible cultural heritage in various countries, with a particular interest in conceptual developments in legal language. Her current focus is on respective legal and policy developments in Northern Europe.

Notes

1. According to a present scholarly practice (Younging 2018), the concepts ‘Indigenous people’ and ‘Indigeneity’ will be capitalized in this article, whereas maintaining respective original writing in citations. Capitalization is also used when my own English translation is provided for texts originally in Latvian or another language.

2. The most recent population and housing census in Latvia was carried out in 2021. It was based on administrative data, which are also used for further updates. The respective number of Livonians indicates thereby only persons who have their ethnicity administratively registered, which is optional.

3. The definition provided in the respective initial international study as follows: ‘Indigenous communities, peoples, and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society. They are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories and ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems’ (Cobo 1983, Pt. 3: ‘Conclusions, Proposals, and Recommendations,’ 50).

4. For a brief historical account of the Livonian language situation, including policies in earlier periods, see (Druviete and Kļava 2018), 133–34.

5. For other case studies regarding the agency of communities in intangible cultural heritage safeguarding in the Baltic States, see (Kuutma and Vaivade 2021).

6. For a legal analysis of the status of the Latgalian written language in Latvia, see (Bitāns 2012; Pleps 2011).

7. Wherever possible, official translations of laws in English are used, and references to translations are provided instead of referring to original versions in Latvian. Some terms of a respective original text may be indicated in square brackets to highlight the semantic aspects of terminology. If no official translation is available, the original version in Latvian is referred to, and my own English translation is provided.

8. The debate on the draft law at that time was influenced by external views brought by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), as mentioned during debates at the Parliament (LR Saeima 1998a, 1998b).

9. Several variants are used in official translations for naming the lībieši people in English – Livs, Livonians, and Liivs – with corresponding variants of the name of their language.

10. Lately, Livonian Indigeneity was reminded and claimed through an administrative process on the use of Livonian language on road signs. The argument of Indigeneity was put into practice, including with a respective reference to UNDRIP, as a response to a refusal from a governmental institution to apply the relevant regulations concerning the indication of place names in the Livonian language in respective territory in Latvia. For an artwork of Livonian activism on this case, see (Ernštreits 2021); for a scholarly reflection, see (Kļava and Ernštreits 2022), 221–25.

11. The term used in the initial text of the law to name Livonians was līvi, later amended to lībieši (līvi).

12. The Latvia’s Satversme had had a one-sentence preamble since its adoption in 1922 – ‘The people of Latvia, in freely elected Constitutional Assembly, have adopted the following State Constitution’ (Latv. Latvijas tauta savā brīvi vēlētā Satversmes sapulcē ir nolēmusi sev šādu valsts Satversmi). For a commentary on this, see (Balodis 2014).

13. Here the concept of ‘cultural space’ is applied geographically broadly, compared with the use of this concept in later legislative developments in Latvia analyzed further in this article.

14. There is a semantic nuance to this usage: the original formulation of ‘Livonian [Latv. lībiešu] cultural space’ is in a genitive form and could also be translated as ‘the cultural space of Livonians;’ whereas an adjective form is used in the other formulation ‘Livonian [Latv. lībiskā] cultural space of Vidzeme’ to denote Livonian historical legacies in Vidzeme region, including the Livonian dialect of Latvian language. These were the choices of communities nominating these two nominations to the national inventory.

15. The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO 2003) speaks about intangible cultural heritage present in the territories of its States Parties, and the territorial aspect is of significance to be addressed, particularly concerning cultural spaces – within or eventually across State or regional borders.

16. In official translations ‘latviešu vēsturiskās zemes’ is translated as both ‘historical Latvian lands’ (LR Saeima 2014a) and ‘historical regions of Latvia’ (LR Saeima 2021).