The Anthropological Tradition in Slovenia

7/30/2019 The Anthropological Tradition in Slovenia

1/16

ANTROPOLOKA TRADICIJA NA SLOVENSKEM

Zmago Smitek,Boidar J e z e m i k .

IZVLEEK

Avtorja ugotavljata, da je poleg prevladujoe etnoloSke tradicije na Slovenskemobstajal tudi iv antropoloki ndselni tok, in vlanku dajeta pregled nekaterih njegovih

poglavitnih predstavnikov od16. stoletja dalje.Zaradi nejasne meje medantropologijo in naSlovenskem prevladujoo etnologijo je v lanku

poseben poudarek na staliih slovenskih avtorjev o razmerju med njima.

ABSTRACT

The authors advocate the thesis that - besides the prevailing ethnological tradition inSlovenia - there also exists a stronganthropological line of thought. Their articlepresents a revieiu ofsome of the most eminentsupporters ofthis line of thought.

Due to the undefined borderline betweenanthropology and the-in Slovenia-paramountethnology, the authors anphasize the viavs ofrelevant Slovene authors on the relation between the tzvo disciplines.

Antropokigija je ena mlajili akademsicili disciplin; to zlasti velja za stanje vSloveniji , kjer je dobila svoje mesto na Filozofski fakulteti ele leta 1991, ko se jepo sp rem em ba h v tudijskem prog ramu dotedanji Od del ek za etnologijo tudiformalno preimenoval v Oddelek za etnologijo in kul turno antropologijo. Pred

tem je bi la od konca estdesetih let eden i zmed tudijskih pre dm eto v na Fakultetiza naravoslovje in tehnologi jo (profesor B o o kerlj) in na Fakulteti zasociologijo, politine vede in novinarstvo v Ljubljani (profesor Stane Juni) .Seveda pa to ne pomeni, da antropoloka vpraanja e dolgo prej niso bilapredmet znanstvenega zanimanja .

Slovenski strokov njaki zastopajo spe kte r razlinih stali o razmerju me detnologijo in ant rop olo gij o. Po nekate rih je za razl iko od etno logi je, ki velja zana c io na ln o ve do pa r exce lenc e , an t r opo l og i j a tud i j d r u g i h , p r e d v s e mneevropskih ljudstev in kultur. Po Vilku Novaku je (slovenska) etnologija veda

o (slovenski) l judski kulturi ' . To stalie je implicirano v vseh obstojeihpregl edih zgo do vin e slovens ke etnologije , v katerih zam an i emo imen apiscev, ki obr avn ava jo nes lov ens ka ljudstva in kultu re-.

1 Vilko Novak: Raz isko val ci slo ven ske ga ivljenja, Ljubljana 1986, str. 3 6 7 - 3 6 8 .

2 France Kotnik: Pregled slovenskega narodo pisja; v: Rajko Loiar: Narodopis je S lovencev I(Ljubljana 1944), str. 21-52 . Slavko Kreniciilek: Dru be ni temelji razv oja slo ven ske etn olo ke misli;v; Slavko Krenieniek &Angcloi .'eds.; Pogledi na etnologijo (Ljubljana 1978) , str. 9-65 .

259


2/16

Nadalje je med slovenskimi etnologi dokaj zakoreninjeno stal ie, da je zaraz liko od etnologi je, ki velja za zg od ov in sk o v ed o^ antr opo log ija tudij takoimenovanih ljudstev in njihovih kul tur iz nezgodovinskega zornega kota, torejne zn an st ve no poetje'^. Prep ria nje, da je zg od ov in a edi na zna nos t, torej ni

umrlo z Marxom.Ne kat eri avtorji vidijo ant rop olo gij o zgolj kot sme r v etnolo giji , pri kateri naj

bi za razliko od kulturoloke smeri, pri kateri je p r e d m e t prouevanje kul tura ,bil spoznavn i cilj lovek kot nosilec kulture, kot da bi bilo v znanstvenemprou ev anju mo go e obra vnav ati lovek a lo eno od kulture^.

P o l e g o m en jen ih s t a l i j e m o g o e za s l ed i t i tudi mil j en je , da me dantropologijo in etnologijo ni nobene razlike, da gre dejansko le za dvoje imenza isto vedo*^.

Avtorja zastopata mnenje, da med antropoloko in etnoloko tradici jo naSlovenskem ni mogoe preprosto potegniti enaaja in da gre za dvoje tradicij, kista se sic er po go st o prepletali in prekr ivali, ve nd ar sta se pog ost o razvijali tudiena mimo druge . Pri tem je bila gla vna z na iln ost antr opo lo ke tradic ije, da jeskua la svo j p r e d m e t ( lo v ek a ) o b ra v n av a t i h o l i s t i n o i n j e p red v s emproblematizirala vpraanje, kaj je lovek, kakno je njegovo poreklo in proceskul tur neg a dozo reva nja, kaj je tisto, po e me r se razlikuje od ivali, me dt em koetnologija na Slovenskem tega vpraanja ni eksplicirala kot problem in se eve dn o obna a, kot da je to nekaj s am ou me vn eg a^

Raz log za uveljavitev izraza in vsebine etnologije na Slovenskem lahkoi emo v ob utk u nac ion al ne ogr oe nos ti v 19. stoletju in v prvi polovici 20.stoletja, ko je bil v evr ops ke m meri lu rele vant en politini deja vnik nar od kotkolektivna entiteta, in ne lovek kot posameznik. Zato je mogoe .e daneszaslediti mnenje, da antropoloke tradicije na Slovenskem sploh ni bilo in dazanjo e da ne s ni pro stor a.

Antropologija je po slovarski definiciji tudij loveka glede na razirjenost,izvor, razvrstitev in razmerja med rasami, fizine lastnosti, razmerja v drubi innaravnem okolju in kulture**. Beseda antropologija j eb i l a prvi uporabljena leta1501^, vendar so o antropolokih vpraanjih razmiljal i e prej: "Antropolokavpraanja so vena, ker se osredotoajo na univerzalno zanimanje za lovekovoivljenje in vedenje.""^

Avtorja vidita tem eljn o razl iko med an tro pol ogi jo in etno logi jo v tem, d a j ep r e d m e t prou evan ja a ntrop ologije lo vek kot po.sameznik, p r e d m e t etnologi je

3 Slavko Kn'iiicnlck: Retrogradni vidik - zanemarjen etnoloki metodini pristop?; referat nas impozi ju Predsod ki in s tereot ip i v sp ozn avn em p rocesu humanist i nih ved, Bokrai , o k t o b e r

1991, tip kopi s, str. 1.

4 Slavko KrcmciilL-k: Oba etnologija (Ljubljana 1978), sir. 106.

5 Slavko Krcmciiit'k: Etnologija (Opis raziskovalnega polja), razmnoen t ipkopis za posvete t no l ogov v Ljubljani, aprila 1992, str . 2.

" Bla Tciban: Kaj je pri n as antropologija?; Delo, 2. 10. 1991, str . 13.

7 Boiriiir Jczcrnik: O n o v e m v z g o j n o i z o b r a e v a l n e m p r o g r a m u ; Glasnik SED 3 1 / 1 - 2

(Ljubljana 1991), str. 13-16.

8 Webster's hlintli New Collegiate Dictionanj (Springfield 1987), s .v . ant hro polo gy .

' Magnus Hundt: Anthropolog ium de hominis d igni tate , n a t u r a et proprietat ibus (Liptz ik

1501). Za podat ek se zahval jujeva dr. H. F. Vermeulenu.

10 Annemarie de Waal Malefijt: Ima ges o f Man (New York 1974), Introduct ion .

260


3/16

pa lovek kot kolektivna entiteta. e sam izraz etnologija implicira preprianje,da je etn in a pripa dnos t bis tve na. Im e etnologija je po doslej zna nih virih nasta lov drugi polo vici ose mna jst ega stoletja, in sicer v vz ho dn em delu Sre dnje Ev ro pe .Takrat se je pojavila disciplina etnologija, da bi pripomogla k razreevanju

problemov, ki j ih je sodobnikom, zlasti seveda avstr i jskemu dvoru , zastavljalaet ni na pest rost preb iva lst va v Pod onav ju, na obm o ju, ki je bil o osvo btij eno invz et o tu rk em u c esar stvu . V tem smislu je uporab il naz iv etnol ogija Ad am Fr an cKollar leta 1 7 8 3 " . Poj mo val jo je kot inte lek tua lno dejavnost , v kateri se spro ue van je m jez ika, obia jev in insti tucij po sa me zn ih l judstev odkriv ajonjihovi izviri in prv ot na biv ali a. Etn olog ija naj bi se torej ukva rja la z etni n ozgod ovin o posam ezni h skupnost i ' " .

Temel jna razl ika me d antr opol ogij o in etno logi jo je v tem , da je p red me tantr opol ogij e l ove k kot posa mez nik, pred met etnologije pa je lov ek kot

kole ktivn a (etni na) enti teta. e izraz etnologija implicira, daj e bistven a etninap r ip ad n o s t . Ven dar je za loveka kot posamez nika pogosto pome mbne janjegova spolna, rasna, verska, starostna, poklicna, razredna itd. pr ipadnos t .Etnina pripa dnos t je dobila pose ben pouda rek in pom en v evropski zgodo vini19. stoletja v obdob ju rom anti ke, ki je odkrilo dr avot vorno mo nacio nalnezav est i. Zuna j E vr op e je ni in tudi ne v Evropi, kjer je temeljni subjekt lovek kotdravljan ne glede na svojo nacionalno, versko, rasno, spolno p r ip ad n o s t . . .

Zaetki ant ropo log ije so pove zan i s sreanji s pripa dniki drugih , druganih ,tujih kul tur . Za njenega zaetnika tejejo e Herodota. Razlinost kultur je za

antropologijo bistvenega pomena, saj e danes velja pravilo, da je antropolog"profesionalni tujec". ele primerjava omog oa problematizacijo, tj. vpraanje zakajprav tako, in ne drugae. Brez primerjave antropologija kot znanost sploh nimogoa . Paradoks antropoloke pozicije, ki je tudi stalni generator njene krizeoziroma je zaradi njega vsaka e tako popolna etnologija nezadostna, je v tem, da

je mogoe primerjavo opraviti samo z doloene (kulturne) pozicije. Antropolog jelahko nezadovoljen in kritien do svoje kulture, lahko je nekritien in zadovoljen,la hko ind iferen ten, toda ne mo re biti bre z en eg a od teh stali. Za to je njegovpog le d nujno ob rem enj en s kultur nim okolj em, v katerein je bil soci aliz iran .

Po Hu dg en ov i je bi lo obd obj e 16. in 17. stoletja as, ko se je za nim anj e zakulturne znailnosti ljudi v oddaljenih deelah in obdobjih neizmerno izostrilo."Ta litera tura e stnaj stega in sed em na js te ga stoletja, ki je dala pod la go sod obn iantropologi j i , prime rjaln emu veroslovju, antropogeografij i in tevilni m drug imsoro dnim strok am, pome ni to , kar mo ra mo zdaj teti za zna nst ven o me tod o vprouevanju kulture in drube: prvi, v dokonnem prehodu od motiva zabavek org an iz ir an em u razi skova nju; drugi, v bolj ali manj ja sn em zastavlj anjupo me m bn i h v pra anj ali pro bl em ov; in tretji, v izbor u urejanja idej, ki naj bi seupo rab i le pri obr avn ava nju vpraanja izvora love ka, razl inost i kul tur ,po me na podo bnos ti , zaporedja visokih civil izacij in poteka pr ocesa kul turn ihsprememb."'"^

11 Aciiiin Fmnciscus Kolhir. Hisloriac iurisque puhlici regni Hu n g a r i a e a mo cn i ta tes (Wien

1783) .

12 Viera Urbaiicnv: The Beginni ngs o f E th n o g r a p h y in Slovakia; Ethnologia Slavica 12/13(Bratislava 1 9 8 0 / 8 1 ) , str. 9 3 - 1 1 0 . Vitomir Belaj: Pla ido ye r za etnologiju kao historijsku zna nos t oetnikim skup inam a; Studia ethnolog ica 1 ( Z a g r e b 1989), s tr 9 -17.

13 Mar'^ard T. Hodgor. E a r l y Ant hr opo log y in the Sixteenth and Seve nteen th Cen tur ies

(Phi ladelphia 1971) , str. 8.

262


4/16

Prva dela ant rop olo ke n ara ve so zato izpod pere s pop otni kov, ki sopotovali v daljne tuje kraje. Zato je - glede na slovensko tradicijo - najboljp r i m e r n o z a e t i ta p r e g l e d z B e n e d i k t o m K u r i p e i e m ( B e n e d i c t e nCuripeschitz) in njegovim potopisom, ki j e b i l objavljen leta 1531 br ez na ve db e

ime na avtorja in kraja natisa pod nasl ovom We gr ay ss K(n iglic her) Ma y(es tt)potschafft gen Cons tanti nopel zu dem Trck isc hen Ka ys er Sol eym an. An noXXX - M D X X X I . Potopis po slovenskem delu ozemlja je skromen: li smo izLjubljane, skozi Gr osupl je, Nov o me sto in Me tl iko . Pi.sec torej do mn ev a, da sobralcu pot in kraji ob njej znani. Podrobneje opisuje bolj oddaljene kraje, zlastiBosno, ki je bila tedaj evropskemu bralcu neznana. Potopis je najstareji opispotovanja po Balkanskein polotoku iz 16. stoletja, ki je ohra njen in je po m e mb envir za antropologijo, etnografijo, .sociologijo, topografijo, orografi jo, hidrografi jopo sa me zn ih bal kan ski h deel , saj je iz tiste do be le ma lo ali sploh ni ohra njen ih

podatkov o razmerah in stanju v deelah, skozi katere je potoval (Bosna, Srbija,Bolgari ja in Gri ja) . '^

M e d plemii s s lovenskega ozemlja , k i so kot avs t r i j sk i a l i benekid ip lom at ski odp osl an ci potoval i v M os kv o ali v Car igra d , s i je najvej iznanstveni ugled pridobil Sigmund Herberstein. Na dveh odprav ah v Rusijo (vlet ih 1516-18 in 1526-27) je skr bno zapis ova l vse, kar je inoglo zanim ati tedanjeg aev ro psk ega izo bra en ca, ki o Rusiji ni vedel skoraj niesar. Let a 154 9 je naDun aju izdal iroko zastavljen opis Rusije z nasl ovom Re rum Mos cov it i car umCo mm en ta ri i, ki je postal bests el ler tedan jega asa in je izel v teviln ih p r e v o d i h

in izda jah. Her bens tein j e sku.al biti v svoji h opis ih vse sk oz i ra ci on al en innepristranski, hkrati pa tudi karse da izrpen in barvit. e pra v se je zan aa lpr ed vs em na last no izku njo in ra zu ms ko presojo , je z izpr aev anje m rus kihznancev zbira l tudi p o d a t k e o obmojih vzhodno od Moskve, ki jih sam niobiskal . T ak o je zapisal zan imi ve informacije o Sibiriji inTatar ih . Med n jegovimiinfo rma torj i so bili voja ki, ki so se udelei li obleg anj a K az an a leta 15 24 , oobmo ju Jugre (severnega Urala in dela Sibirije) pa s e j e oitno pouil iz ruskihrokopisnih popo tn ih vodn ikov '^ .

M e d t is t imi , ki so hvali l i He rb er st ei no vo de lo, je bi l tudi an g l e k iodposlanec v Rusiji George Turberville v svojih Letters in Verse (1568). T h ecelebrated Theatrum orbis ter rarum by Ortelius, first issued in 1570, i s sendingthe reader for more information to Sigmund Herberstein '^ .

Potopisc i Kur ipe ie vega in Her bers tein oveg a t ipa so ant rop olo ke pojaveopisovali nesistematino, a so imeli velik vpliv na oblikovanje evropskihj red s tav o (tujih) krajih in ljudeh. Zanim an je za razlike m ed d o m a o in tujocultu ra se je ujelo s prizad evanji Ev rop ejc ev, da bi se definirali kot civil izir ani;

zato so potrebovali antitezo. Povsod so odkrivali divjake, dobre ali slabe.

V 16. stoletju je pri lo na Sl ove nsk em do loevanja teologij e in filozofije, kose je zas tav ilo vpra anj e o razinerju m ed ver o in ra zu mo m. Pri tem je bilpo me mb en vpliv socinia nizma, radikal nega reformacijskega gibanja, ki ga jep o z n a l tudi n a jp o m em b n e j i p red s t av n ik s l o v en s k e r e fo rm ac i j e P r i m o Trubar ' ' ' . Filozofija je tedaj e po logiki omenjene delitve obsegala loveko

u Zmago mitek: Klic daljnih svetov (Ljubljana 1986), str. 38-39.15 O.e., str. 3.3-35.

if M. T. Hodgeii, o.e., str. 153.

17 Joe Poganik: Stareje s l ovensko s l ovs t vo (Ljubljana 1990), s tr . 2 2 1 - 2 2 3 .

262


5/16

pro blem at ik o in je vseb oval a zam etk e antropologi je in e tnologi je . Tru ba r se jeiv o zan im al za kultur ne zn ailno sti Slo ven cev in drugih Ju nih S lova nov (z las tiza njihov jezik in obiaje), poroal pa je tudi o znai lnos t ih i s lama .

Pri drugem reformatorju , A dam u Bo hori u (v pre dgo vor u k s lovenskislovnici , 1584), je s icer e zaznaven skepticizem, da bi bilo s f i lozofi jo mogoepriti do Domembnih spoznanj , "ker je lovek i razu m p o grehu s ta revoslepel" . ' Vendar je poldrugo s tolet je kasneje e delovalo nekaj po m em bni hteoretikov, ki so filozofijo razumeli, podobno kot Sa int - S imon , kot splo noznan ost , ki pove zuje d ognanj a p oseb nih znanosti ' '^ . Ta ko je filozof Jakob te l ind o k a z o v a l , da j e mo ra l n o n a z a d o v a n j e l o v e t v a p o t e k a l o v z p o re d n o znjeg ovim odd aljeva njem od narave^^. Fr anc Ks av er G m ei ne r je v zado an juvedno nov im lovekovim potrebam videl goni lno s i lo kul tur nega nap red ka- ' .O enakosti razl inih l judstev glede na kvali teto razuma in njihovi neenakosti

gl ede na njego vo kvanti t eto je pisal Martin Kur alt (1783) - - .

Po tr eb a po sisteina tin osti in me to di n os ti se ka e od 1 7. stoletja dalje vrazlinih navodil ih za zbiranje relevantnih podatkov. Med njimi so imelaposebno ugledno mes to taknale navodi la anglekega naravos lovca RobertaB o y l a : "Up o t eva j e ve l i k napr edek , dose en p red k ra tk im na pod ro junaravos lovja (edinega zanes l j ivega temel ja naravne filozofije), s potovanjigen t le inanov , pomorakov in drugih; in hudi mi nepr i jetno stmi, s kater imi sesooajo innogi bis troumni moje na svojih potovanjih, ker ne vedo vnaprej , o e m naj se poui jo v dee lah, ka inor pr ide jo , a l i s kakno metodo na j

poizveduje jo o stvareh, ki so tam znamenite , sem menil , da nebo nesprejemljivozanje, e b o d o im eli sp lo n e napot ke, ki se nan aaj o na vse, in e pos ebe j nado lo e no de elo s im manj om eji tv ami v njihovih nazorih."- ' ' Boy lov i napo tkiso bili izd ani v knjini oblik i po st hu mn o; v roko pis nih v erzi jah so bili v up or abie prej .

Isti ali po do ben vpra.alnik, name njen po pot nik om , je uporabljal tudis l o v e n s k i p o l i h i s t o r J a n e z V a j k a r d V a l v a s o r . V a l v a s o r j e v s v o j e menc iklo ped in o zasn ova nem delu Di e Ehr e des He rzo gt hu ms Grain (Ljubl jana1689) p o l e g o p i s o v n a ra v n i h p o s e b n o s t i , t o p o g ra f s k i h i n z g o d o v i n s k i hinformacij prvi s is t ema tin o prikazal p reb iva lce tedanje Kranj ske in Istre . V delu

j e opisa l obiaje , preh rano , noo, bivalia in go sp od ars tvo ter oznail nj ihovoet ni n o pri pad nos t. Na jve an tro po lo kih data je zb ran ih v esti knjigi, ki jo jenaslovil Kra njsk o-slo vans ki jezik, nravi in ege na Kran jsk em. V poglavju oKraevc ih je precej pozor nosti posveti l tudi zunanjosti mokih in ensk "in s temsegel dale naprej v so do bn o gledanje (nek ake an tro po lo ke al i - pret i rano -' r a s n e ' estetike)."2* Valvasor jev o met odo lahko ime nuj emo antr opo lok o zaradi

18 O.e., str. 220 .

1" Caudc-HcnridcSam-Simim: Izlior iz djela (Zagreli 1979) , str. .S4.

20 }akob telin: Specim en de ortu et progressu morum ( V enez i a 1740) .

21 Literargescliicltedes Ursprungs und Fortganges der Pliilosople, 1-2 (G ra z 1788 -89 ) .

22 Podrobneje o tel inu, Gmeinerju in Kura l tu : Ivan Urbani: Pog lav i tn e ideje s lovenskih

fi lozofov me d shol ast i ko in neos hola st iko ; Fi lozo fska knjinica 10 (Ljubljana 1971) , in Zmago

mitek: Slovenski poglcxti iz 18 . in 19. stoletja na kulturni razvoj l ove t va ; Tradit iones 15

(Ljubljana 1986) , str. 5-18.

23Kobi'rf Boyle: General He ad s for the Natural History o f a Country , Great o r Small; D r a w n

ou t for the Us e of Travel lers and Navigators (London I 6 9 2 ) , s t r . 1-2.

24 Vko Novak: Raziskovalc i s lov ensk ega iv ljenja (Ljubljana 1986) , str. 14.

263


6/16

njegove nara vosl ovne usm er jenost i in hol is t inega obravna vanja, po katerem jek m ek i ivelj nerazdruni del narave.

V a l v a s o r j e zbiral pod atk e na kraju sa me m, pre dvs em zaradi zn ans tve ne

ske pse , ke r je vse hotel videti in preve riti na svoj e o i. Nj eg ov a tere nsk a me to daj e obstajala tudi v opaz ovan ju, spraevanj u in skiciranju.

Glede na to, da Boyle v svoj ih napotkih izrecno omenja Cerkniko jezero(The Sc he m it ze r La ke in Carniola) ,-- '' po opisu katere ga je Va lv as or zasl ovel naAn gl e ke m, lah ko skle pain o, da je obstajala me d Va lvas orje m in Bo yl om nekapo ve za va in da je Bo ylo va navo dila poz nal tudi Valv asor, ko je zbiral gra div oza svojo Sla vo Vojvodine Kranjske. De lo je za sno van o izredno obs en o in je e denizm ed vrh unc ev e vrops kega naravoslovja. Med evrop skim i uenjaki 17. in 18.stoletja je od me va l pre dvs em njegov opis Ce rkn ik eg a jez era . "O slednje m je

ba ro n Va lv as or izdal dokaj obiren, eks akt en in kur ioz en opi s v svojemob i rnem delu o S lav i Vojvodine Kr an js ke , ki jo je re dk o najt i v n a ihknj inicah . "26

Anton Toma Linhart je objavil obseno historiografsko delo o Slovencih^^,v katerem je v zaetnih poglavjih skual orisati nain ivljenja Slovencev vnajstareji dobi in evolucijski tok njihove kulture. Linhart je verjel, da tudi v temprocesu, tako kot v naravi nasploh, obstajajo trdna pravila. Kulturni razvoj jepoj mo val kot loe vanj e od nara ve in stop nje van o poduhov ljanje . Loil je tirios no vn e stopnje kultu rnega nap redk a. e sredi 19. stoletja je bila o njeg ovem

delu zapisana pravina ocena, da je "prvi Kranjec..., ki je z lujo etimologije inj ez ikovn e prim erja ve razis kova l najstareja biva lia , najstareje sor ods tvo insocialni razvoj", in tudi "prvi , k i je kul turn ozg odo vins kem u delu poga nski hSlovanov posveal tisto pozornost, iz katere izvirajo pravna stanja in politinerazmere". '- '* Linh art je ne dv om no pozn al neka tera dela sodob nih francoski hteoretikov o razvoju civilizacije. Svoj spis ber die Nutzbarkeit der natrlichenPhi los oph ie (v al ma na hu Bl um en aus Krain fr das Ja hr 1781, Ljubl jana 1780) j ezasno val po zgled u An Ess ay on Ma n angl eke ga razsvet l jenca Alexa ndra Pop a.

Na prehodu iz 18. v 19. stoletje je po m e m bn o delo B ret onc a Balt azar jaHa cq ue ta , ki je pov ezo val svoje irok o nar avo slo vno za nim an je in deja vnost zraz isk ava mi na ina ivljenja, gos pod ars tva ter l judskih f izinih lastnosti in

j e z ikovn ih posebnosti- '*.

Gia n Ri na ld o Carli , do m a iz Kopr a, je v osem des eti h letih 18. stoletja vobseni tudiji Lettere Ainericane, objavljeni v Magazzino Letterario (Firenze1780), istega leta v knjini izdaji v dveh zvezkih in v razirjeni izdaji (Cremona1781-83), pisal o azt ek i in ink ovs ki kultu ri. Na vd u ev al se je nad nj iho vo

25 O.e. , s tr. 6.

26 Alberto Fortis: Saggio d'osservazioni sopra l'isola di C h erso ed Oser (Venez ia 1771 ) , s tr .81 . O po menu A. Fort i sa glej B o id a r Jezernik: O metodi in predsodkih v delu Alberta Fort i sa(P r i sp ev ek z a z g o d o v i n o antropolog ije); Tradit ione s 17 (Ljubljana 1988 ) , s t r . 71 - 8 5 .

27 Aton Toma Linhart: V ersu ch e iner Gesch ich t e v o n Krain und den brigen Lndern d e rsd l i chen Slaven Oesterreichs (I, Ljubljana 1789; II , 1791) .

2 8 1 / , K/w : b erd ie G esch i cht s f orschung und G esch i cht s schre i bung in Krain; M i t t h e i l u n g e ndes h ist orisch en Vere ines fr Krain ( 1857 ) , str , 51 ,

'i''Abbildung und Beschreibung der Sdwest- und stlichen Wenden, Iliyren und Slawen,., (Le ipz ig1 8 0 I - I 8 0 8 ) .

264


7/16

d r a v n o , d r u b e n o in e k o n o m s k o u r e d i t v i j o in z a v r a a l a m e r i k o"degeneracijsko teorijo", katere zagovorniki so bil i Buffon, Pauw in drugi.

Franc Sa mu el Ka rp e je obr avn ava l p odro je "empir in e psiho logi je aliantropo logije"^". Bil je za go vo rn ik teorije l ine arne kulturne evoluc i je . Zanimale

so ga pr ed vs em du e vn e razl ik e med l judstvi in vzroki zanje (p odne bje,prehrana, rasne znai lnost i , drubena ureditev ipd.) .

V procesu obl ikovanja amer i ke kulturne ant ropologi je ima po me mb nomes to mis i jonar s lovenske ga rodu Fr ide r ikBaraga , k i j ev l e t i h 1831-1868 delovalme d Indijanc i iz ple me n O tava in Ojibv a (ip eva ). Nap isal je mo nog rafi jo onj ihovi kul tur i , predv sem na podlag i svojega doteda njega p et letne ga bivanja pr iOtav ih na vzh od ni obal i Mi chi gan sk ega jezera, epr av s e j e tu in tam sklicevaltudi na poda tke drugih avtor jev. Baragova knj iga z naslovom Geschichte,Chara cter , Si t ten und Ge br uc he der nor dam erik ani sch en Indie r je izla v

Ljubljani le ta 1837 soa sno s s lov ensk o pr i red bo Pop is nav ad in saders hanjaindi jan ov Po ln oz hn e Am eri ke in s f rancosko izdajo Ab reg de l 'Histoire desIndiens de l 'Am r iq ue septent r ionale , na t i sn jeno v Par izu . Ba rag ov o znan s tven odelo im en uj em o antro polo ko predv sem zato, ker je rpal vz ore in pobude izamerike antropoloke l i terature. Leta 1847 je za ene ga od za etni kov am eri k eantro polog i je Henryja R. Schoolcraf ta izpolni l obs ee n vpra aln ik ("Inquiries")o Ind ijanc ih Ojib va. Bil je tudi zbiralec pre dm eto v ind i janske kulture in je leta1837 podari l Kr anj ske mu de el nem u inuzeju zbirk o z obino ja Gorn jega inMichiganskega jezera^" .

Zbi ral ec in pis ec knjige o Indijancih O tav a in Ojibva je bil tudi B a r a g o vsodelavec Franc Pire ' ' - .

Ivan Be ni ga r, ki je po preseli tv i v Arge nti no (leta 190 8) ivel med pat ago n-skimi Indijanci in Aravkanci in si med njimi ustvaril tudi druino, je prouevalko nc ep t prostora , asa in vzro nost i pri Aravkan cih i no tem napisal t ri razpr ave.Na tis nje ne so bile v Bo le tin o de la Ju nt a de Histo ria y Nu ini sm t ica v dvajsetihletih tega stoletja. V bis tvu gr e za tudije o na inu miljenja in zaz nav anj azunanjega sveta, temeljee na l ingvistini analizi . V zvezi s tem je nasprotovaltudi nekate r im zakl ju kom Lev y- Br hlo ve teor ije o pre dlo gin em mil jenju.

Najobsene je Ben igarj evo delo je knj iga El pro ble ma del ho mb re am eri ca no(Bahia Bianca 1928), v kateri je razpravlja l o etn oge nez i am er ik ih Indi janc ev,zlasti o difuzio nistini paci fiko -am erik i teoriji , kat ere pre dst avn ika sta bilaPaul Rivet in Jos Imbe l loni . Nasp roto val je zakl ju kom Imbel loni ja , bi l pa jekr i t ien tudi do evo luc ion izm a, ki mu je s icer naeloin a pr iznaval vel javo-*.

Po znaa ju in ob se gu s vojeg a dela je bil Be ni ga r pravi an ta ipo log . Zan ima laso ga podroja l ingvist ike, zgodovine, arheologi je , e tnologi je , sociologi je infilozofije, ki j ih je povezoval in imenoval "znanost o bistvu loveka"3*.

30 Franz Samuel Karpe: Darst el lung der Phi losophi e ohne B e y n a me n {Wien 1802) , vol. I.

31 Zuw^o mitek: B a r a g a , Schoolcraft in zaetki amerike antropologije; Nai razgledi

(Ljubljana, 11 10. 1984) , str . 5 6 9 - 5 7 0 .

32F ranc Pire: D ie Indianer in Nord-Amerika , ihre Lebe nswe ise , S i t ten, G e b r u c h e (St. L o u is

1855) .

33 Zmago mitek: Amerikanistina raziskovanja Ivana Benigarja - zasnove in teoretina

izhodia; Tradit iones 16 (Ljubljana 1987), sir. 7 3 - 8 2 .

IreneMislej: J a n e z Benigar: Izbrano gradivo (Ljubljana 1988).

265


8/16

T e o l o g Lambert Ehrl ich se je v let ih 1920-21 special iziral na socialniant ropo logi j i v Oxf ordu pr i profesorju R . R. Ma ret t u . Rez ul t a t tak ne ganjegovega tudija je bil o del o Origin o f Aus tral ian Beliefs (St . Gabri el - M dl in g1922), ki je, po avtorjevih lastnih besedah, "poskus podvrei preizkunji dejstva

iz Avstralije z razlinimi uveljavljenimi teorijami, ki se nanaajo na izvor vere inpriz adev anje pojasnit i - kol ikor je to mo go e - avstrals ka verovanja ". Ehr l ich jesicer najtesneje sodeloval z VVilhelmom Schmidtom in drugimi preds tavnik iduna jske ku l tu r noz god ov i nsk e o le , ko t p ro feso r na l jub ljanski Teo lok ifakulteti pa je tudi sicer delal na podrt iju p rimerj alnega verosl ovja. Etn olo gij o

je pojmoval dokaj iroko, v obsegu, ki se praktino izenauje s kul turno alisocia lno an t ropo log i jo .

N i k o Z u p a n i j e b i l prvi s lovenski akademski an tropolog . Leta 1921 j e b i l p onjegovih priza devan jih ustanovl jen Etnogr afski inst i tut pri Na ro dn em muz eju .upani je postal njegov upravnik, po us tanovi tv i Etnografskega muzeja 19235 a njegov ravnatelj in urednikasopisa Etnolog. Muzej je imel po upanievihj e s ed ah "nalogo, da pospeuje narodopis je , an t ropo logi jo in z g o d o v in o l judskeumetnosti, da zbira ttizadevni material, ga prouuje in hrani v svojih raz stav nihzbirkah"35. u p an iev opus je izr edn o iro k po tematik i, saj je bi lo nje gov oraziskovalno podroje l ingvist ika, f izina antropologija in etnina zgodovinaBa l ka nske ga polotoka^^. e pr av je ustvarjal v asu, ko se je ev ge ni ka najboljvsil jevala v evropskih okvirih, je na mednarodnem kongresu za znanstvenoprou eva nje l judskih pr obl em ov v Berl inu 29. avgusta 1935 nastopil z referatomO rasni estetiki ljudstva pri Jugoslovanih in zavrnil rasistino zakonodajo, ki jedovol jevala skleni tev zakonske zveze med Arijci in Neari jci le na pod lag ipoprejnje s teri l izacije, kot "nesod obno, pre ve poni eva lno in pre ve nape rjen oproti e l em en ta rn em u pravu loveka in vsakega naroda"^^. upani je leta 1940posta l prvi profesor na Filozofski fakulteti v Ljubljani na tedanjem seminarju zaetnografi jo, ki je kasn eje prer ase l v sam ost oje n odd ele k.

35 N/lo upani: Za Etnografski m uzej v Ljubljani; Et no l og 7 (Ljubljana 1934), s tr . 2 3 5 .

Cf. npr. tudijo Etnololki znaaj kosovskih erkeza; Etnolog 5-6 (Ljubljana 1933), s tr . 21 8-25 3.

37 Etnolog S-9 (Ljubljana 1936) , str. 62- 81.

266


9/16

THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL TRADITION INSLOVENIA

Zm ag o Smi tek ,Boidar J e z e m i k

Anthropology is one of the younger academic disciplines; this applies inpart icul ar to the state of affairs in Slove nia, wh er e anth ro po lo gy had acq uir edi ts plac e at the Facul ty of Phi los oph y onl y in 1991 wh en follow ing the ch an ge sin the curri cula the hitherto De pa rt me nt of Et hn ol og y w as formall y r en am edDe pa rt me nt of Et hno log y and Cultural A nth rop olo gy. Pri or to that, s ince theen d of the sixtie s, an th ro po lo gy had bee n on e of the subj ect s stud ied at theFacu l ty ofSociology, Poli t ical Sciences and J our nal ism in Ljubljana (Prof. Sta ne

Jun i ) . This, how eve r, is in no wa y indicativ e that ant hrop olog ica l issues sho uldnot have been a long time before that a topic arousing scientific interest.

Both authors find that in spite of the prevailing ethnological tradition inSlovenia there has existed also an active anth ropo logic al current o f thoug ht an din the paper they offer a survey of some of its main exponents from the 16thcent ury onwar ds . Be cau se of the unclear del imita t ion betw een ant hrop olog yan d in the Slo ven e area p red omi nat ing eth nol ogy the art icle is specifica lyfocused on the vie wpo int s of Slov ene aut hor s as reg ards the relat ion be tw ee nthe two fields.

M o d e m exper ts plead for a spec trum of different view s con cer nin g therela t ion bet we en ethnol ogy and anthropo logy. In contradis t inct ion to e th nol ogywh ic h ra nks as a na t iona l d i s c ip l ine par exce l le nce ac cor d in g to some ,ant hro pol ogy is the s tudy of other, mos tly non -E uro pea n peo ple s and cultu res.Ac c or d i ng to N ov ak (the Slovene) eth nol ogy is the discipline abou t (the Slovene)folk cul ture . (Vilko Novak , Researc hers in to Slove ne Life (in Slovene) , Ljubljana1986, p. 367-368). Th is is a view poi nt p res ent by impl ica tio n in all the exi sti ngsur vey s of the history of Slo ven e ethn olog y, in wh ic h one wo uld in vain s eek fornames of writers dealing with non-Slovene peoples and cultures (NS I; Views

(i n Slovene) .A m o n g the Slo ve ne ethn olog ists there is further on a fairly w ide sp rea d

op in ion tha t in con t rad i s t inc t ion to e thno logy , regarded as a h i s to r ica ldisc ipl ine , anthropology is the s tudy of the peoples and their cultures from anon-historical angle, thus an unscientific unde rtak ing: the belief that history isthe onl y science, had not died with Marx.

S o m e authors see in anthropology merely one trend within ethnology,wh er e in contra dist inc tion to the culturol ogical trend, the object of whi ch shou ld

267


10/16

be the s tudy of culture, the scientific pursuit is ai me d at ma n a s the veh ic le of

culture, as if in a scientific s tudy ma n cou ld b e treated in isola tion from cul ture .

In add iti on to the vi ew s indi cate d ab ov e it is als o pos sib le to co m e ac ros s an

opin ion m ak in g no distinction bet we en ant hro pol ogy and e thno logy , as if in fact

these were but two terms for the same discipline (B. Telban, Delo).

The aut hor s subs crib e to the opini on that the anth ropol ogic al and the

ethnol ogica l traditions in Slove nia cann ot simpl y be equa ted and that w e are

deal ing with two traditions often interlinking or ove rla yin g on e an oth er bu t

nev ert hel ess often one devel opi ng past the other. The principal c haract erist ic of

the an th rop ol ogi ca l traditi on in this con tex t wa s that it so ug ht to treat man or

rat her its subject holistic ally and thus concerned i tself with the problem: what

is man , wha t is his origi n and his pro ces s of cultural m atu rat ion , wh at i s it that

ma ke s him different from aniinals, wh er ea s et hno lo gy in Slov enia did notexpl ica te this que st ion as a pro ble m and still co nt in ue s to be ha ve as if it wa s

som eth ing underst ood for grante d.

T he rea son wh y the term and the cont ent of et hno lo gy had b ec om e

esta blis hed in Slov enia ma y be sough t in the Sloven e feeling of bei ng nati onal ly

iinpe ril led in the 19th an d in the first half of the 20ieth cen tur y wh en with in the

Eu ro pe an net wor ks it wa s nation as a collective entity that was the relevant

political facto r and not inan as an individual. Ther efor e there persis t trace s of

the opi ni on that in Slo veni a there has be en no ant hro pol ogi cal tra ditio n an d that

to da y as we ll ther e is no roo m for it.

By the lexi cogra pheri s definition ant hro pol ogy is the s tudy ofh u m an beings

in relat ion to distribution, origin, classification, and rela tions hip of race s,

physical character and social relations and culture. The wor d ant hro pol og y is

ac co rd in g to We bs te r' s dicti onary first record ed in Engl ish in 1593, whi le

anthropological issues had been considered already earlier. "Anthropological

que sti ons are timeles s be ca us e they center aro und the universal c onc ern to

under s t and human existence and h u m an behavior." (Annemarie de Waal

Malefijt, Ima ges of Man, Ne w York1974, Introduction)

T he aut hor s see the fundaine ntal difference be tw ee n ant rop ol ogy and

et hn ol og y in that the subject of ant hro pol ogy is man as an individu al whi le the

subject of ethnology is man as a collective entity. The very term ethnology i tself

impl ies that ethn ic be lo ng in g is essential . Ac co rdi ng to the so urc es curr ent ly

kn ow n the wo rd e thn ol ogy ca me up in the sec ond half of the 18th cen tur y,

specifically in the eastern part of Centr al Eur op e. At that time et hn ol og y is said

to hav e deve lop ed as a discipli ne whi ch was to help cop e with the pr ob le ms

arisi ng for con tem por ari es and of cours e in partic ular for the Austr ian Cou rt

through the ethnical variegation of the popu ation in the Danube basin, in the

area that had been liberated and taken from u n d e r the Turkish Empire. In this

sense the term ethnology was used by Adain Franz Kollar in 1783 who regarded

et hno lo gy to be an intellectua l activity in whi ch the s tudy of languag e, c ustom s,

and instit utions of individ ual peop les is used to dis cov er their ori gins an d

original settlements. Eth nol ogy should thus be concerned with ethnic history of

individual communities, (cf . Bela j ) .

Whi le the ver y teriu, as said above, et hno log y impli es eth nic be lo ng in g as

an ess ent ial qual ity , for ma n as an indivi dual it is ver y often inor e im por tan t

265


11/16

wheK he bel on gs acco rdi ng to sex, race, rel igion, age, voca t ion, class, etc . In theEuropean history of the 19th century ethnic belonging had obtained a specialstress and significance in the period of romanticism, which was intent upondiscovering the state-forming power of nat ional awareness. Outside Europe i t

do es not exist and als o not in Eu ro pe whe re the fun dam ent al sub ject is ma n asa citizen , irre spe ctiv e of w he re he be lo ng s b y nation, relig ion, race , or sex .. .

The beg inn ing s of anth ropo logy are re la ted to meet ings wi th me mb er s of other, different, foreign cultures. Its first beginner should be already Herodotus.The difference am on g cultures is for ant hro pol ogy of essential imp orta nce, wit hthe rule stil l tod ay h old ing that the ant hro po log ist is a "forei gner b y p rofess ion".It is on ly the co mp ar is on that m ak es it pos sib le to po se pr ob lem s, i .e. the q ues tio nof why in this part icular way and not otherwise. Without the comparisonan thr op ol og y is as a science not feasible . Th e par ado x o f the ant hro pol ogi cal

position, which is at the same time a permenent generator of i ts crisis andb ecau s e of wh ic h an y no mat ter how perfect eth nol ogy rema ins insufficient , l iesin the fact that a comparison can be made only from a fixed (cultural) position.The an thr op olo gis t ma y be dissatisfied with and critical ab ou t his cult ure, hecan b e non- critical and satisfied, or he can be indifferent, but he ca nn ot bu t sha reon e of these vie wp oin ts. Ther efor e his vie w is necess ari ly bu rd en ed with thecultural env iro nm en t in whi ch he had bec om e social ized . Ac cor din g to H od ge n,the per iod of the 16th and 17th cen tur ies was a time whe n the interest in cultu ralcharac te r i s t ics of inan kin d in faraw ay lands and t imes wa s i mm es ur ab lysha rpe ned . "This sixteenth - and seven teenth - cen tur y li terature, wh ich laid thef o u n d a t i o n o f m o d e r n a n t h r o p o l o g y , c o m p a r a t i v e r e l i g i o n s ,anth rop oge ogra phy , and m an y other re lated s tudies , exhibi t the em erg en ce of w ha t mus t no w be regard ed as scientific me th od in the s t u d y of cul t ure andsociety: first, in a definite transition from the motive of entertainment to that ofinquiry ; secon d, in the more or less clear state men t of que st io ns or pr ob lem s ofimp ort anc e; and third, in the choi ce of org aniz ing ideas to be em pl oy ed indeal ing with the problem of origin of man, of diversi ty of cul tures, thesignificance of simi laritie s, the seq ue nc e of high civ iliza tions , an d o f co ur se theprocess of cul tural change." (Margaret T. Hodgen, Early Anthropology in the

Sixteenth and Sev ente enth Centu ries, p.8. Philad elphi a 1971).

The first works of anthropological character are therefore from the pens oft ravel lers w h o went on jou rne ys to far w ay foreign places. I t is th us -w it h regardto the Slo ven e tradi t ion - most app ropri ate to to be gi n this sur vey with Be ned iktKur ipe i (Ben edic ten Curip eschi tz) and his t ravel bo ok publi shed in 1531without stating the name of the author or the place of printing u n d e r the titleW e g r a y s s K(n igl ich er) May(e st t ) potschaff t gen Constan t inop el zu demTrck ischen Kayser So leyman. Anno XXX - MD X X X I . The descript ion of the

jou rney t h r ough the S love nepart

of the territory is reall y shor t. ("W e we nt fromLjubljana, t h r ough Grosup lje , N o vo mes to and Metlika.") Th e reader i s ass ume dto b e famil iar with the w ay an d the pla ces alo ng it. He d esc rib es in gre ate r detailthe more distant places, in particular Bosnia, which was at that t ime unknownto the European reader. The travel book, coming from the 16th century, is theolde st descrip t ion of a jou rn ey th rough the Bal kan Penin sula and r epre sen ts animpo r tan t so urc e for an thr opol ogy , e thnogr aphy , soc io logy , topogr aphy ,hy dr og ra ph y of individ ual Balk an coun tries as from that period there are few

269


12/16

o r n o data pres erve d abo ut the cir cum sta nce s and situation in cou ntr ies t h roughwhich he was travelling (Bosnia, Serbia, Bulga ria, and Greece) .

A m o ng the nob lem en from the Slove ne territory wh o in the cap aci ty of

Austrian or Venetian diplomatic emissaries travelled either to Moscow or toConstantinople stands out for his scientific reputat ion Sigmund Herberste in. Onhis two missions to Russia (in the years 1516-27) he carefully reco rded an yt hi ngthat might be of interest to the European intellectual of his time and who knewabo ut Rus sia practically nothi ng. In 1549 he publ ished in Vie nna a bro ad- sca leddescr ip t i on of Russ ia ent i t led Rerum M osco vi t i ca rum Comentar i i , wh ichb e c a m e a bes tse ller of the time and wa s to co me out in nu me ro us transl ationsand i ssues . Th ro ug ho ut hi s desc ripti ons Herb erste in tr ied to b e rational an dimpart ial and at the sa me time as exh aus tiv e an d vivid as poss ible. Al th ou gh he

relied pr ed om in an tly o n his ow n experi ence and rational evalua tion, from hisRussian acquaintances he col lected through inquiries also information aboutregions east of Moscow, which he himself had not visited. He thus recordedinterest ing information about Siberia and the Tatars. Among his informantswe re so ldiers wh o ha d be en besi egi ng Ka zan in 1524, whi le on the region ofJugra (nort hern Ural Mt s. and a part of Siberia) he had obviously informedhimself from Russian travel guides in manuscript form.

Am on g those who voic ed praise of Herbe rste i n ' s wo rk wa s a lso the Englishemissary to Moscow George Turberville, in his Letters in Verse (1568). T h e

celebrated Theatrum orbis terrarum by Ortelius, first issued in 1571, is sendingthe reader for more information to Sigmund Heberstein. (Margaret T. Hodgen,Ear ly Ant hro pol ogy in the Sixteenth and Sevent eenth Centur ies , Philadelphia ,1971, p. 153).

Aut hor s o f t ravel l ing accou nts of Kuripecic 's and Herberste in ' s type wereoffering onl y uns yste mati c descr ipt ions of anthropolo gical phe nom ena , bu tthe y exe rcis ed a great influence on the formation of Eur op ean ide as abo ut(foreign) places and people. The interest in the differences between domesticand foreign cult ure be ca me integrated in the en de av ou rs of Eu ro pe an s to define

themse l ves as civil ized; and for that the y nee ded an anti- thesis . Ev er yw he re t he ywer e disco ver ing savages, noble one s and b ad ones .

In the 16th cen tur y there started in Slo ven ia a differentation be tw ee ntheology and philosophy, when the question of the relation between belief andreas on ca me up. Significan t here wa s the influence of Soc ini anis m, a radi calreformation movement with which a lso the most important representat ive of the Sl ov ene reformation , P rim o Truba r, wa s familiar . (J. Pog an ik, O ld erSlovene Literature ( in Slovene) , Ljubljana 1990, pp. 221-223) . According to thelogic of the differentiation mentioned, the philosophy of the period dealt withh u m a n issues and incl uded the ge rm s of anth ropo log y and e thnol ogy. Tr ub arw a s takin g an activ e interest in the cultural c haracteri stics of Slo ven es and ot herSouthern Slavs (especi ally in their lan gu age and cus tom s) and al so repor ted onthe chara cteri stics of Islam.

With the second reformer, Adam Bohori, (in the Preface to the Slovenegrammar, 1584) there is already marked scepticism that t h rough philosophy i tcould be pos sib le to dis cov er significant kno wle dg e, "becau se the h u m a n m i n dhas been made bl ind through the sin of the parents". (Poganik, p. 220) . Yet a

century and a half later there we re active a few theorists w ho un der sto odphi los oph y, s imilar l y as Saint-Simo n, as a general sc i ence integrat in g the

270


13/16

findings of other sciences (Claude-Henri de Saint-Simon, A Selection fromW o r k s ( in Croat ian) , ed .b y Mile Joka, Zag reb 1979, p. 54). Th e phi losopher J a k o bStelin w a s thus in his wo rk Spec ime n de ortu et progr essu mor um (Ve nezi a 1740)arg uin g that the moral retrogression of man kind wen t parallel with ma nki nd ' sestrangement from the nature. Franz Xaver Gmeiner (Li te ra i^esch ich te desUrsprungs und Fortganges der Philosophie, 1-2, Graz 1788-89) saw in thesatisfying of man's constantly increasing needs the motive power of h u m a nprogress. Martin Kuralt (178.3) wrote about the equality of various peoples asreg ard s the qual i ty of reaso n and abou t their inequali ty as rega rds i ts quanti ty .

S i n c e t h e 1 7 t h c e n t u r y o n w a r d s t h e n e e d f o r a s y s t e m a t i c a n dmethodological approach is tobe seen in various instructions for the collectingof pert inent information. A part iculariy notable place among these instructions

is occupied by this kind of instructions set out by the English natural scientistRober t Boyle: "Consider ing the Great Imp rov eme nts , that hav eo f late bee n ma deof Natura l His tory (the only sure Foun dati on of Natural Ph ylo sop hy) , b y thetravels of Gen tle men , Sea men , and others; And the great Di sad va nta ge ma nyIn ge ni ou s M en are at in thei r Trav els, by reason t hey kn ow no t bef ore hand ,what things are they to inform themselves of in every Country they come to, orb y wh at M et ho d they ma y ma ke Enq uir ies abo ut things to be kn ow n ther e, Ithought it would not be unacceptable to such, to have Direction in General,rela ting to all, and also in Partic ular, rela ting to Par tic ula r Count rie s, in as littleB ou n ds as possib le, pres ente d in their Vie w." (Ro ber t Boyle, General Heads forthe Nat ura l Hi sto ry of a Cou ntr y, Grea t or Small; Dr aw n ou t for the Us e ofTravel le rs and Navigators , London 1692, pp. 1-2). Boyle ' s ins t ruct ions appearedin a book form posthumously, but in manuscript versions they were in usealready earl ier on.

T h e sa me or a s imila r questi onnair e, intended for travellers , wa s used alsob y the Slovene polyhistor Janez Vajkard Valvasor. In his encyclopaedicallyconce ived work The Glory of the Dukedom of Camiola (in German) (Ljubljana1689) he offered in addition to natural specifics, topohraphical and historical

information also the first systematic presentation of the population of theCarn io la and Istria of his time. In his work he described the customs, food,clo thes , dwell ings and the economy and he outl ined also the people 's ethnicbel ong ing . Mo st of the anthr opolog ical informati on is collect ed in the sixth boo kbe ari ng the t i tt le Carni olan-S lavic langu age. Mann er s and Cu st om s in Carni ola.In the chapter on the Karst inhabitants he paid considerable attention to theext ern al ap pe ar an ce of me n and wo m en "and in doi ng that he rea che d a longw ay tow ard s m o d e m v iew s (of a kind of anth ropo logi cal or - wit h so meexa gger ati on - ' rac ial ' aesthetics)." (Novak , 14) . Va lva sor 's appr oach ma y b ecalled anthr opolog ical bec au se of his orientat ion tow ard s na tural scien ce and ofh i s ho l i s t i c pursu i t in the area where the peasant e lement remains anund issoc iab le part of the natur e.

Valvasor w a s col lect ing his infor matio n on the spot, pri mar ily so be ca us e ofhis scientifi c scep tici sm; w e wa nte d to see and v er y ev er yt hi ng with his o wneyes . His field method included also observation, inquiring, and sketching.

In view of the fact that in his instructions Boyle exp l ic i t ly men t ionsCerkniko jezero (Scherni tzer Lake) in Carniola (p. 6), th rough a description ofwh ic h Valv aso r be ca me fam ous in Eng lan d, w e ma y posit a certain con nect ion

be tw een Valvasor and Boyle and w e may conc lud e that Va lva sor as well wa s

271!


14/16

familiar with Boy l e ' s instruc tions wh en coll ecti ng the inaterial for T he Glo ry ofthe D uk ed om of Ca mi ol a. Th e wo rk is conc eive d on an except iona l ly broad scaleand represents one of the peaks of the European natural history. Among the

lear ned m en of Eu ro pe of the 17th and 18th cen turi es a part i cula r res po nse wa scalled forth by Valvasor 's description of the Schernitzer Lake. "About the latterBaron Va lv as or br ou gh t forth a fairly exte nsiv e, exact , an d c uri ous desc ripti onin his co mp re he ns iv e wo rk on the Glo ry of the duk edo in of Ca mi ol a, wh ic h onerarely finds in our libraries." ("Di quest ' ultimo il Baron Valvasori a da to alpubbl ico un a ben lunga, esatta, e curiosa desc rizi one nella sua vasta O per a sopr aLe glo rie del D uc a to della Ca m io la , che di rar o si trova ne lle nos tre Biblioteche.")(Alber to Fortis , Sa gg io d 'osse rvazi oni sopra l ' isola di Ch er so ed Ose ro, Ve ne zi a1771, p. 81).

Anton Toina Linhart publ ished a his tor iographic work ent i t led Versuche iner Ges chic hte von Krain und den brigen Lan der n der sdl ichen SlavenOesterre ichs, (Vol l, Ljubljana 1789; Vol IL 1791), where in the initial chapters hetried to out lin e the w a y of livin g of Sl ov en es in the earli est pe rio d a nd theevolutionary course of their culture. Linhart believed that also in this process,like in na tu re gener ally, there oper ate firm mle s. H e und er sto od the cultura lde ve lo pm en t as a pro ces s of separa tion from na tu re and as a process of spiritualand intel lectual growth. He dis t inuguished four basic s tages of cul turalpro gre ss. Al re ad y in the middl e of the 19th ce ntu ry a just eva lua tion of his w or k

w a s writ ten, acc or din g to wh ich h e wa s "the first Ca mi ol ia n . .. w h o with thelight of et ym ol og y and l in guist ic co mp ar iso n studied the earl iest dwe ll in gs, theearliest kinship and the social development" as well as "the first who paid to thecultura l-histor ical wor k of the pagan Sla vs at tentio n as to that activit y fromwh ic h pro ce ed legal status and poli t ical circ ums tanc es" . (V. Klu n, Ue be r dieGesch ich t s fo r schung und Ge sch ich tss ch rei bu ng in Krain, Mit th. d. hist. Ve r. f.Krain 185 7, p. 51). Linhart doubtlessly knew some of the works of the Frenchtheor ists of his t ime as reg ard s the dev el op me nt of civil iz ation. Hi s text U eb erdie Nutz bark ei t der natrl ichen Phi losophie (contained in the alm ana ch Blu me n

aus Kra in fr das Ja hr 1781, Ljubljana 1780) i s mode l led upon A. Pope ' s AnE ss ayon Man.

At the turn of the 18th to the 19th century there appeared a significant workb y the Br et on Ba lta za r Ha cq ue t relat ing his dive rse interests in natura l scie nc esan d his act ivit y to the s tudy of the way s oflife, econ omy, and peo ple ' s phys ica lcharacter is t ics and l inguist ic specific. (Abbi ldung und Beschre ibung sdwes t -und st l ichen We nd en , lUyren und Slaw en Leipz ing 1801-1808).

Gian Ri na ld o Carli , a native of Ko pe r, produ ced in the eig htie s of the 1 8th

century a s izeable s tudy Let tere Amer icane, publ is hed in Ma ga zz in o Let terar io(Firenze 1780), an d in the sai ne ye ar in b oo k form in tw o vo lu m es (F ire nz e 1780),and in an expanded edit ion (Cremona 1781-1783); here he wrote about theAztecan and Inca cultures. He was full of enthusiasm for their civic, social, a n de c o n o m i c organizat ion, and rejected the American "degenerat ion theory"adv oca ted b y Buffon, Pau w, and others .

In the f i rs t book of his work Dars tel lung der Phi losophie ohne Beynamen(Wien 180 2) Fra nz Samu el Ka rp e discus sed the field of "empiric al ps yc ho lo gy

o r anthropology". Karpe was a proponent of the theory of l inear cul turalevolut io n. He wa s prima ri ly interes ted in menta l di fferences am on gp eo pl es andin the rea so in s for the m (cliina te, food, racial featur es, social ord er, a nd the l ike).

272


15/16

In the process of the formation of American cultural anthropology asignificant plac e is occ upie d by Fri derik Bar aga, a mis sio nar y of Sl ove ne origin,wh o wa s in the yea rs 1831 -18 68 working among Indians from the tr ibes Ottawaand Ojibwa (Chippewa). He produced a monograph on their culture, basing i tmostly on his five-year stay among them on the eastern coast of Lake Michigan,a l though occasional ly he draw also upon other aut hors for informa tion. Ba ra ga' sb o o k e n t i t l e d G e s c h i c h t e , C h a r a c t e r , S i t t e n u n d G e b r u c h e d e rnor dam eri kan isc hen Indi er wa s publish ed in 1837 in Ljubljana sim ult ane ous lywith the Slove ne version A Des crip tion of Hab its and Be ha vi ou r of the India nsin midnight America ( in Slovene) and a French edition Abreg de I 'Histoire desIndi ens de 1 'Amerrique septentr i onale, pr inted in Paris . Ba ra ga 's scientific w o r kis called anthropological above all because he had drawn upon A mer icananth ropo logi cal l i terature for his mod els and init iatives. Fo r the resea rch nee dof one of the beginners of American anthropology, Henry R. Schoolcraf t , he

provided a ns we r to his co mp reh en siv e quest ionna ire ( ' Inquir ies ' ) abo ut Oji bwandian s. Bar aga was al so a collector of spe cim ens of Indian culture a nd in 1837

he don ate d to the Car nio lan Provin cia l Mu se um a coll ect ion from the are aaround the Up pe r and Mi chiga n Lakes .

Baraga ' s col lea gue Fran c Pire wa s anoth er collector and author of a book onIndians of the Ottawa and Ojibwa tr ibes (Die Indianer in Nord-Amerika, ihreLebensweise , Sitten, Geb ru che ; St. Louis 1855).

Ivan Benig ar , w ho in 1908 sett led d o wn for good in Argentina, lived amongPatagonian Indians and Araucanians and established his family there. Hestudied the concept of space, t ime, and causal i ty as unders tood by theAr au ca ni ans an d wr ote three studie s abo ut that. Th ey we re printed in Bol eti node la Junta de Historia y Numismatica in the twenties of the present century.Essent ia l ly they centre around the s tudy of the w ay of think ing and perc eiv ingthe ext ern al wor ld, and are bas ed on lingui stic ana lys is. In this co nne ct ionBen igar opp ose d to st ime of the conc lus ions of Le vy- Bru hl ' s theo ry abo utpre-logical th inking .

Ben igar ' s largest wo rk is the boo k El probl ema del hom bre am er ic an o (BahiaBianca 1921), in which he investigated the ethnogenesisof American Indians, inpart icul ar the diffusionist pacif ic o-Ainerica n theory, repres ented typically byPaul Rivet and Jos Imb ell oni. Ben iga r wa s oppo sed to con clus ion reach ed b yImbel loni and he wa s l ikewise cr i t ical of evol utio nism , to wh ic h he adm itt edvalidity in pr inciple.

By the n a tu re and the scope of his wo rk B en ig ar w as a true an th ropo log is t .His scientif ic interests span ned ove r f ields l ike l inguistics, history, arche olo gy,e thno logy , sociology, and phil osoph y; he att emp ted to integ rate them and calle dthem a "scie nce of the esse nc e of m an".

The theologian Lambert Ehriich was in the years 1920-21 specialis ing insocial anthropology with Prof. R. R. Marett in Oxford. A fruit of this s tudy w a sthe work Origin of Australian Beliefs (St. Gabriel - Mdling 1922), which is inthe author 's own words "an attempt to apply the test of Australian facts to thevar ious theo ries put forward con cer nin g the origin of religion, and en dea vou rsto give an explanation - as far as this may be possible - of Australian beliefs."W h i l e Ehrii ch wa s most closely cociperating with Wi lhe lm Schm idt and oth errepr ese ntat ives o f the Vie nes e cultural-histor ical school, as Pro fes sor at theFacul ty of Theology in Ljubljana he was active in the field of comparative

27^


16/16

rel igions. He t ook a ve ry bro ad vi ew of eth nolo gy, taki ng i t as alm ost equa l wit hcul tural or social anthropology.

Ni ko upa ni w as the fi rs t S loven e anthropo logis t o f ac ade mic rank. Th an ksto his en de av ou r the Eth nog rap hic Insti tute wa s founded in 1921 at the National

Museum. upani became its f irst principal custodian and after the founding of the Ethnographic Museum its director , as well as the editor of the journalE t n o l o g . Ac co rd in g to up ani , the mu se um had " the task to p r om ot eeth nog rap hy, ant hro pol ogy , the history of folk art, to collec t rele vant materi al ,an d to kee p it pre se rve d in its exh ibi tio n coll ect ions ". (Ni ko u pa ni , Fo r theEth nog rap hic Mu se um in Ljubl jana! ( in Slovene) ; Etnol og, No 7, Ljubl jana 1934,p . 235) .

Zupanic 's wo rk is in i ts them atic f ield ex tre me ly varied , wit h inves tigat ionreaching from linguistics, physical anthropology to the ethnic history of theB a l k a n p e n i n s u l a . {Cf. for ins tance the s t u d y Ethno log ica l Char ac t e r o f Tscherkesses in Kosovo ( in Slovene) , Etnolog, No 5-6, Ljubljana 1933, pp218-253) . Although he lived at a time when eugenics was coming to the fore inEu rop ea n fra mew orks , at the Internati onal C on gre ss foi r Scientific Stu dy of Fol kProb lems , in Berlin, up an i on Aug ust 2 9th, 19.35, presented the p a p e r OnP e o p l e ' s Rac ia l Aes th e t ics a m on g the Yu go s l av s and re jec ted the rac ia llegislature, wh ich permitte d the cont rac ting of mat r im onia l union be tw ee nAr ia ns an d N on- Ari an s sole ly on the basi s of the alre ady perform ed ster i l izationas "indecent, too humiliating and too much directed against the elementary law

of ma n and a ny nat ion". (Etn olog , No 8-9, Ljublja na 19 36, pp 62-81) . In 1940upani became the f irst Professor at the Arts Faculty holding the Chair of Ethno logy , which in due course expanded into an i ndependen t depar tmen t .

V angle ino prevedel Fane Sl ivnik

O AVTORJIH

Dr. Zmago mitek, izr. prof. na Oddelku za etnologijo in kulturno antropologijo Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani;

Dr Boidar Jezemik, docent na istemoddelku.

ABOUTTHE AUTHORS

Dr. Zmago mitek Senior Lecturer atthe Department ofEthnology and CulturalAnthropology at the Arts Faculty inLjubljana.

Dr. Boidar lezemik Lecturer at thesame department.

274

The Anthropological Tradition in Slovenia

Documents

Transcript of The Anthropological Tradition in Slovenia