Seite 187 [187]
OCR
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LANDSCAPE IN THE RESEARCH OF ENVIRONMENTAL HUMANITIES 185 can read in Zoltan Ilyés’s publications. The rivalry for landscapes often has an ethnic aspect (Ilyés 2007). One of the best examples is the conflict of interests and differences in landscape-related ideas between the indigenous population and the colonizers. The colonizers looked down upon the subjugated peoples as uncouth and uncultured. They lived in the wilderness, and, according to the prevalent view, the white man brought culture to an “empty land” and turned it into a cultivated landscape. Science has by now superseded this view, but it is by no means equally outdated among the public. In his classic work, William Cronon introduces the different land uses, “ecologies” and networks of contact with the environment of the indigenous (Indian) people of New England and the settlers, thus providing a choice example of the confrontation of diverse attitudes to the landscape (Cronon 1983). Occupying and incorporating the “empty lands” was a life-and-death issue for expanding empires. Hence in some ways it is the product of colonization, which they strove to justify with ideological, political and scientific arguments as well. “LAND CONQUEST THROUGH ONION DOMES” The so-called conquest through onion domes is a symbolic, national-political process of expansion in Transylvania, Romania. The Romanian Orthodox Church launched extensive campaigns of church building in the interwar years and after the change of the political regime in 1989. Its target area is the Székely country whose settlements are still generally populated by Hungarians. The prime locations are the exposed, visible urban centers, and the distinguished spectacular spots of the natural landscape. The expansion of the Orthodox religion, the national faith of Romania and the multiplication of its churches and monasteries in the Székely country fills Hungarians living there with a sense of losing ground and living under threat. The interviews conducted by journalist Zoltan Csaky with politicians and clergymen illustrate the everyday fears and dilemmas related to the “nationalization” of the landscapes. For example, the idea of “losing the landscape” appears in the opinion of Gabor Kolumban, county representative in the European Council, in these words: ” The expansion of the Orthodox Church is to be seen as a sort of cultural colonization, for they create highly visible building complexes that modify the character of a landscape, and consequently, they leave a landscape-altering message, the activity, the trace, the footprint of another culture in this region. As far as I see, this is detrimental to the development of the Székely country in several ways” (Csäky 2004: 48; a more recent approach to the question: Zahorän 2012). Objective and subjective landscape history After the review of the interpretations of the landscape, we narrow our focus to the question of landscape history. We do so, because landscape history is important for several disciplines of the humanities (ethnography, archaeology, historical studies) and it provides a good framework for analytical possibilities. In spite of its frequent use, only rarely can one read about it in Hungary. Landscape history has no chair of its own in the traditional academic order of disciplines (if there still is such a thing). This is similar to the position of environmental history, which Lajos Racz defines (with reference to Michael Powell)
