Lietuvos etnologija / Lithuanian ethnology

In ethnographic research, participant observation and ethnographic view are inseparable from talking with people, hearing their stories, words and language. They are research actions, methods and sources of knowledge that supplement and enrich each other. However, in Lithuanian ethnology, it is historically characteristic to give priority to the methodology of an interview (enquiry) based on a questionnaire instead of observation. This article discusses the ethnographic experience during research on the Covid-19 pandemic, when it appeared that data from ethnographic interviews differs from, and even contrasts with, the facts of observation. The concept of ‘patchwork ethnography’, developed by anthropologists during the pandemic (Gűnel, Varma, Watanabe 2020), became an effective methodological and theoretical approach, which opened the way to understanding the reality of the pandemic.

The aim of the article is to present a wide research picture of the ethnographic heritage of the area of the Dnipro Rapids (currently a military frontline zone), which began in the 19th century. The essential features of the local cultural heritage from this region are very problematic, because, historically, the society of new settlers here changed many times. Exploratory fieldwork continued in the 1990s. Active systematic field studies of the entire existing layer of traditional music in most areas of the current Dnipro region lasted from 2015 to 2021, and were interrupted first by the pandemic, and later by the full-scale war. Continuity of field research in this area is currently almost impossible, and it stopped because of the Russian military action there. This is why the academic investigation of already-collected material from this region is very important and more relevant, because the continuity of this local folk culture heritage was discontinued.