Seite 190 [190]
188 GÁBOR MÁTÉ
about by the understanding of the difference between the perception and
recognition of the landscape. The landscape has become a research topic in
ethnography and cultural anthropology, for filled with cultural phenomena and
the values ascribed to it, the landscape shows various patterns as a mediating
medium. (On the limits of mapping groups and landscapes in Hungarian
ethnography, see Máté 2019). Ethnic, religious, political and power relations and
intentions cover a landscape like a subtle membrane. During an empirical study,
an anthropologist not only reads, but much rather "hears" the diverse resonances
of different groups in the landscape (“ us” and “ them”). Csaba Mészáros" study
discusses the changes in the a/aas, the symbolic landscape of the Sakha in Yakutia
and its connections to diverse age groups, political and economic contexts. In the
taiga dominated by redwood, alaas is a meadow, hayfield or pond. Used earlier for
cultivation, by today these places have acquired additional meanings, while they
lost some of their significance. It was not only the local political elites which tried
to attach this landscape to themselves as an ethnic symbol, using diverse power
techniques. Its interpretation and use also reflect the ambivalence of their
relationship with the Russians (Mészaros 2008).
A change of perspectives can be witnessed in the work of Julie Cruikshank, who
directed the focus of research to a lifeless natural element, the glacier. She presents
the glaciers from a variety of possible and equivalent perspectives in her book.
North American Indian (Athapaskan, Tlingit) groups describe the ice rivers as
feeling and hearing “beings” who respond to the environment. Travelers write
about them differently and natural scientists also approach them from a different
angle. The ontological perspective of each group is different, but none of their
interpretations can claim exclusive validity, for none can encompass the totality
(Cruikshank 2005).
The subjective attitude to, and evaluation of, a landscape can be found in Sandor
Békési’s work about the Ferté. Békési wrote about the changing evaluation of the
“Majestic mire” in different ages. From “anonymity” and a scorned place, it has
risen to the status of a popular tourist destination and a carrier of natural values.
At the same time, besides the touristic and aesthetic discourse, there was also a
profit-oriented and technocratic conception of the landscape, and the attitudes
were further diversified by the new border (drawn by the Treaty of Trianon) (Békési
2009: 201-202). The study also demonstrates that a landscape is not always the
outcome of the “peaceful” symbiosis of human beings and nature; it is also the
cumulative result of conflicts between rival social groups and powerful interference
(Békési 2009: 186).
By way of a conclusion, we contend that if the landscape is a “scholarly extract”
of the “multi-rhythmic life of the world” and if we accept its hypothetical character,
then the outcome of the research work depends largely on the window through
which the phenomenon is observed, what light illumines the landscape for us to
have a mental image of it. After all, the different scholarly disciplines, no matter
how exact they may appear, recreate in their workshops the world which is
manifested in matter or shaped by thoughts.