Viga Gyula: Népi kecsketartás Magyarországon (Borsodi Kismonográfiák 12. Miskolc, 1981)

The second chapter gives the historical sketch of the goat keeping of the Hungarians. The ethnographic investigations of earlier times held, based on linguistic data, that goat keeping was taken over from the Bulgarian-Turkish nation before occupying the home. The most recent results of the Soviet archeological investigations contradict to it proving that Ugrian population, living on the Central Volga and on the Kama, got to know the goat together with other domestic animals as early as the 2nd millenium BC. The archaeological examinations point out that it had no importance either at that time or later during the migrations, while from the time after the occupation of the territory written sources bear witness that it had decisive power on the life of our nation. The low mean value was not evenly distributed on the territory of the country. The strengthening of the feudal economic system forced the goat back from the lowlands, thus only hills on the peripheries of the country provided place for goat keeping. The third chapter describes the historical types of goat keeping. The chapter has two parts, in the first of which the types are separated according to areals as indicated by the historical forms of pasturing, manuration and forms of keeping. Such types are the lowland, the mountain one of medium height and the alpic one, with different types of buildings just like in case of pasturing. The definitive element of the traditional goat keeping was the pasturing throughout the year. Due to the wantlessness and the special biological features of the animal its keeping could preserve the extensive forms of traditional animal keeping. In the second part of the chapter the social types of goat keeping works are defined. The author separates the goat keeping of poor people dealing exclusively with goats, the peasant farms of complex works-form, that of pastures, manors of landowners, and, most recently, also that of socialist agricultural units. These social types, except the last one, correspond to the described areal types of goat keeping. The fourth chapter enumerates the tasks of goat keeping, The description of the types show that different goat types aim at different utilisation and indicate the different connections of the folk culture, too. The description of flocks of goats prove that it was an additional element to sheep farming. The flock consisting exclusively of goats was rare, they were usually added to a group of animals returning home every day. The chapter gives the order of propagation and eyeing, just like the different tasks from the birth of the animal till the end of its life. It tells about medication, consisting mainly of racional elements, in details. Shows the practise 141