History of Anthropologies, Ethnologies and Ethnographies in Hungary, 17^th-20^th centuries

Following an initial period dominated mostly by Jesuit science, a globally oriented ethnography and anthropology emerged in Hungary ca. 1760–1830. The period of modern institutionalisation – the emergence of the structures of research and academic life that are closer to the present ones – covers the last three decades of the 19^th century, ca. 1870–1900. As often in its cultural and intellectual history, Hungary was deeply impacted by Western European ethnographic and anthropological approaches – especially German, but also French, English and also Scandinavian. Methodological and ideological influences of Southern Europe can also be identified, however, from the earliest beginnings (e.g. Spanish and Italian influences in the case of the Jesuit scholars). The impact of the Euro-American West was/is especially relevant in the most recent period, i.e. from the political transformation that took place in 1989/1990 until 2020.
The scope and the chronological horizon of this research theme begins in the year 1650 and extends until approximately 2020. It should be noted, however, that after the year 2010 and along with the launch of a new political establishment in Hungary, such numerous and profound changes came about in scholarly life – both in the institutional structures and the orientation of research – that they would perhaps deserve a separate research theme. The general intention of the current survey is not to cover the most recent period and its political/institutional/scholarly transformation in Hungary; some of the studies included in the Selected Bibliography, however, touch upon that period.

The articles and the bibliographies in this research theme aim to cover the particular local – cultural and political – contexts in which the sciences of cultural otherness (ethnography, ethnology and anthropology) emerged and were embedded in Hungary as a so-called “peripheral” region. The term “peripheral” is used here in the sense in which Immanuel Wallerstein (1930–2019) applied it in his historical survey of economic, social and cultural “centres” and “peripheries”. Wallerstein pointed out the so-called “marginal” regions – and their cultural/scientific traditions – that did not become part of the political/economic/cultural centre of “the West” (Wallerstein 2004). A “periphery vs centre” relation is relevant, however, also as regards the political/administrative and cultural situation and conditions of the Kingdom of Hungary and its place in the Austrian Empire to which it belonged by force from the end of the Turkish occupation, i.e. from 1697 up until 1918. The Western/“central” and the East-Central European/“peripheral” scholarly traditions had many things in common – for example in the representation of non-European indigenous peoples. Yet the peripheral position seems to have contributed to the fact that the history of ethnographic and anthropological thinking and practices in Hungary have become less known (especially in their early phases) in the countries of the “centre”. They have not really become part of the mainstream histories of anthropology, whereas there has been interesting and relevant research, based on the specific situation, motivation and intentions of Hungarian scholars. For this reason, the articles and the bibliographies found in this research theme may be important for a new, relevant, more detailed and more comprehensive history of anthropology.

The thinking behind the studies in this research theme is to discuss 1) the activity of individual authors (scholars as well as amateurs) of ethnography (including folklore) and sociocultural anthropology in Hungary; 2) the establishment of particular (academic and amateur) institutions of research, like museums, scholarly societies, “folk” societies, cultural movements, and so on; 3) the emergence of subjects and directions of research which are relevant to ethnography and anthropology in Hungary and beyond. In addition, a selected – but hopefully expandable and representative – bibliography compiled from the work of dozens of currently active researchers (ethnographers, folklorists and sociocultural anthropologists based in various research institutions in Budapest, Miskolc, Debrecen, Szeged) is attached to the research theme. The aim of this bibliography is to present, as far as possible, the means and the results of Hungarian scholarship as they present themselves. It includes studies related to the history of anthropology as a history of science, both in its broader and narrower perspectives.

Historical research was carried out in various directions and in various related fields, or sub-disciplines (such as folklore, cultural history, gender studies, critical studies, and so on) in Hungary. They may also be relevant for a new history of anthropology of the country as well as for a new global history of anthropology including historical and also recent Hungary. The aim of the editor of this research theme was/is to let the representatives of the various research directions speak for themselves. It has been stated in historical/anthropological research for a while that scholarly narratives and interpretations in the history of knowledge are rather plural (Geertz 1973; De Certeau 1980). They function in polysemous ways. Consequently, it seemed more accurate to consider “histories” as well as “anthropologies, ethnologies, and ethnographies” in the plural to be included in this research theme. This intention is also reflected in the title of the research theme itself. The principles of multiplicity and multivocality are especially relevant for the history of sociocultural anthropology in the Kingdom of Hungary that has always been a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious country since its very establishment.

The periodization used within this research theme:

• 1) The earliest period (1650–1830)
• 2) From the institutionalisation of ethnography/ethnology to World War I (1825–1914)
• 3) Between WWI and WWII; until the socialist period (1918–1951)
• 4) From to the socialist period to the change of regime (1963/1967–1989/1990)
• 5) From the change of regime to the 2020s

Acknowledgments: In addition to each and every author who suggested works to include in the Selected Bibliography, I would particularly like to thank the following colleagues for their support, persistent enthusiasm for and valuable assistance to the whole project: Vilma Főzy, Veronika Lajos, Borbála Mészáros, Éva Mikos, Károly Zsolt Nagy, Mihály Sárkány, Erika Vári, Miklós Vörös, Gábor Wilhelm. I also would like to express my gratitude to Balázs Borsos, Bea Vidacs and Zoltán Fejős for their thorough reading, constructive criticism, and useful advice. Special thanks are due to the representatives of the related sciences, especially history, for their contribution: Béla Vilmos Mihalik, Géza Szász, and Gergely Tóth.

Ildikó Sz. Kristóf, Hungarian Academy of Sciences