János Gyarmati

The Museum of Ethnography and its exotic collections. The Department of Ethnography of the Hungarian National Museum was founded in 1872, a year before the establishment of the Ethnologisches Museum in Berlin and three years before the creation of the k.u.k. Naturhistorisches Hofmuseum in Vienna. In terms of its foundation date alone, the department from which the Museum of Ethnography eventually developed did not lag behind similar Western European museums at the moment of its birth. The sad fact is that compared to major European museums, the Museum of Ethnography was at an insurmountable disadvantage from the moment it was born since it had but a single collection at the time, namely the one on which its creation was based. The Hungarian National Museum was founded exactly seven decades earlier, in 1802, from the private collection of Count Ferenc Széchényi, whose collecting activity did not extend to Hungarian peasant culture or the culture of non-European peoples. The latter can perhaps be attributed to the fact that royal collections resembling the ones in Western Europe did not evolve in Hungary, a country which for long centuries was part of the Habsburg Empire, while the emergence of aristocratic and other collections was seriously inhibited by the more modest wealth of the country’s elite, as well as by the lack of independent trade relations and overseas colonies owing to the subordination to Vienna and, even more importantly, the apparent lack of interest in the collection of artefacts from overseas regions. Even the Fejérváry Collection, one of the most outstanding private collections in Hungary created in the early 19th century, included but a handful of oriental pieces, and no more than a few American and African artefacts (BINCSIK 2005; GYARMATI 2005b). Even these items were taken out of Hungary when Ferenc Pulszky, the later director of the Hungarian National Museum, sold the collection he had inherited during his émigré years in London following the crushing of the 1848–1849 Revolution and War of Independence (GIBSON–WRIGHT 1988). The fate of Antal Reguly’s Siberian collection assembled between 1843 and 1846, during his research of the prehistory of the ancient Hungarians, is a sad illustration of this situation. Reguly’s ethnographic and archaeological artefacts arrived to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 1847.[1] The collection was displayed to the public and then taken to the Hungarian National Museum, where it remained packed in the crates in the museum’s corridors (JANKÓ 1902a:338; BALASSA 1954:50). One part of this collection became dispersed (PÁPAI 1890:117– 118) or perished. The Department of Ethnography eventually received and inventoried 58 items, of which no more than 42 can be identified today following the transfers to other museums and the deaccessions (KODOLÁNYI 1959:301).

A century and a half ago, prominent developments took place in the field of Hungarian museum affairs. Partly on home soil, partly far from the country. At that time, Ferenc Pulszky was appointed head of the Hungárián National Museum. During the 1869-1872 parliamentary term, he was not only an influential personality within the ruling party and a member of parliament, but also the speaker of the finance committee of the House of Representatives. Partly as museum director, partly due to his political weight, he worked hand in hand with his childhood friend, the Minister of Religion and Education József Eötvös, to bring the National Museum under the supervision of the Hungarian Parliament, both legally and financially. In the budget debate about this, Eötvös (1976a: 93) gave a speech in which he basically set a new direction fór the future operations of the National Museum. During the following years, Pulszky created a modern museum structure divided into departments which nőt only determined the internál structure of the National Museum, but also the nature of other museums developing from its departments. In parallel, events that significantly impacted Hungárián museums were taking place in distant parts of the world, in Ceylon [Sri Lanka], China, Japan and Southeast Asia. At that time, the frigate Donau of the navy of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy sailed around the world so that the delegation it was earrying could conclude diplomatic and trade agreements with three East Asian and four South American countries on behalf of Emperor and King, Franz Joseph. Collecting scientific objects and knowledge was integral to such trips for centuries. Until that time, however, Hungary had not had an opportunity to participate insuch expeditions alone due to its political position. This situation changed thanks to the dualistic political system created in 1867 as a result of the Austro-Hungarian Compromise, i.e. the establishment of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was then that the Mathematics and Natural Sciences Department of the Hungárián Academy of Sciences and the president of the academy, József Eötvös, seized the first opportunity that presented itself. As minister of religion and education, i.e. culture of the first Hungarian government after the Compromise, he arranged for Hungarian scientists to participate in and possibly collect during the expedition. Eötvös not only won the right for Hungarian scientific participation in the face of the government in Vienna. His role was also outstanding because, aside from the traditional focus on natural history, he initiated collection of “ethnological” objects and Information as part of the agenda. Although the acquisition scope of the Hungárián National Museum, founded in 1802, was basically limited to Hungary, the natural Sciences already began to stretch this framework by the 1830s due to their universal nature.1 Thus, even though only occasionally, cultural goods from outside Europe came into the museum’s collections, mainly as gifts. They primarily consisted of coins, bút alsó, from time to time, included Egyptian antiquities. The dividing line between the acceptance of such assemblages was basically determined by whether the ereators of the objeets in question were classified as “natural” or “cultural” peoples or from past civilizations, and whether the objeets were offered as gifts or as items for purchase. Following such antecedents, József Eötvös’ instructions to János Xántus were delivered in November 1868. According to him, Xántus should “increase the natural history, ethnographic and bibliographic collections of the Hungarian National Museum, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and the Royal Hungarian University of Science”.2 This was a clear sign of the change in the way cultural policy leaders envisioned the future of Hungarian public collections following the Compromise. In this request addressed to Xántus, a government off icer for the f irst time issued instructions to co

Báró Eötvös József, a kiegyezés utáni első magyar kormány vallás- és közoktatásügyi minisztere, egyszersmind a Magyar Tudományos Akadémia elnöke 1868 végén látszólag minden különösebb előzmény nélkül, azzal az utasítással rendelte Xántust Jánost az Osztrák–Magyar Monarchia kelet-ázsiai expedíciójához, hogy a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum és más hazai tudományos intézetek számára természetrajzi, ’népismei’, numizmatikai és könyvészeti gyűjtést végezzen. Noha a megbízás váratlannak tűnt, a megbízott személyének kiválasztása távolról sem volt az. Xántus János a szabadságharc leverését követően a magyar honvédsereg 24 éves tüzértisztjeként osztrák fogságból szökött meg, hogy egy londoni kitérőt követően az Egyesült Államokba emigráljon. Gyarmati János A gyűjtés rabszolgája című monográfiája magyar, osztrák és amerikai levéltári forrásokra támaszkodva az ő sorsát követi nyomon. Bemutatja, ahogy évtizedes amerikai tartózkodása során Xántus lelkes amatőrből elhivatott és felkészült természetrajzi gyűjtővé vált, aki százezernyi állattal és növénnyel gyarapította a washingtoni Smithsonian Intézet és a Philadelphiai Természettudományi Akadémia gyűjteményeit, miközben hazájáról sem feledkezett meg: több mint hétezer állatot juttatott a Nemzeti Múzeum számára. Ilyen előzményeket követően vált a pesti Állatkert első igazgatójává, majd adta fel ezt a posztot azért, hogy teljesítse Eötvös megbízását. A kötet második része az osztrák–magyar kelet-ázsiai expedíció létrejöttének okait, előzményeit és lefolyását tekinti át. Nyomon követi Xántus csaknem kétéves gyűjtőútját, bemutatja az expedíció magyar és osztrák résztvevői között szakításig mélyülő ellentéteket, Xántus immár önállóan végrehajtott borneói és ceyloni gyűjtőútját. Áttekinti Xántus Kelet-Ázsiából hazahozott több mint 155 000 darabot számláló gyűjteményét, az abból készített első kiállítását, a Nemzeti Múzeum Néprajzi Osztályának 1872-es megalapítását és Xántus magyarországi néprajzi gyűjtését. Rávilágít a hazai néprajzi és iparművészeti muzeológia születése körüli érdekellentétekre, eltérő fejlődési pályákra. A kötet utolsó része Xántusnak a Néprajzi Osztály élén eltöltött negyedszázadát foglalja össze, megvilágítja a „tespedés és tengődés érájának” hátterét, végül azokat az éveket, amikor a múzeum Xántus vezetése alatt a fellendülés útjára lépett, amelyet azonban már nélküle járt be.