The first part of the text addresses the development of ethnography, ethnology and anthropology, respectively, as fields of study, based on the change of the research paradigm. The second part is focused on two most progressive sub-fields of the contemporary anthropology: urban and ethnic anthropology, respectively. It analyses the development of these two fields after 1989, as well as the key areas of research, especially with regard to the change of the political and social system and climate. The aim of the study is to accentuate the confusion with regard to the use of the terms ethnography, ethnology and anthropology and the development continuity of the field. In addition, it aims to underline the social bias of this field of study, even after 1989. Present-day anthropology applies the holistic approach and has remained, to a great extent, part of history. However, it would seem that its comparative scope is its weakness.
The 1950s were a period of profound changes in Czechoslovak science, both on an institutional level and with respect to its ideologization and indoctrination. These changes also applied to ethnology and ethnography. The reasons for this development are not hard to fi nd: under the new regime, the goal of any investigation of ''the people'' was to legitimise plans for the establishment of a new people’s democracy and to produce a detailed scientifi c report about the society’s historical journey towards communism. In this new environment, a totalitarian regime thus assigned these sciences a specifi c function: its goal was not only to ideologize these sciences, but also, and above all, to indoctrinate the population and to promote atheism. This contribution follows the life and work of some of the leading personages of Czechoslovak post-war ethnology and ethnography, such as Otokar Nahodil, and the careers of these sciences’ main institutional representatives, such as Otokar Pertold, the long-serving departmental head at the Charles University Faculty of Arts. Special attention is paid to the new regime’s popularisation strategies which involved post-war ethnologists and ethnographers. Mention is also made of Antonín Robek, Josef Macek, and Jiří Loukotka. The main objective of this contribution is to use a brief excursion into the development of post-war ethnography and ethnology in order to describe the phenomenon of education towards scientifi c atheism. Special emphasis is on the communication channels which the Communist leadership used to secure for its propaganda the broadest impact possible and on describing the role which scientists played in this effort.
Most of the inhabitiants of Krkonoše made their living by agriculture, brought by the colonists from the Alps in the second half of the 16th century. A demanding climate and low fertility of the soils did not make possible a cultivation of many products in higher altitudes. The local inhabitants were dependent on animal husbandry, and the animals fed mostly on hay. This commodity was of crucial importance for the inhibitants of Krkonoše and influenced, among others, their economic activities, the way of management of grasslands, and also the landscape.