Nagy Gyula: Parasztélet a vásárhelyi pusztán (A Békés Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei 4. Békéscsaba, 1975)

Idegennyelvű kivonatok, képaláírások, képek

they are strongly rational and their emotional life is more restricted. Contrasting with them those who had come from Hódmezővásárhely are more extroverted, their habit of life is easier, their understanding is quick and good, they are more open handed, occasionally able for significant achievments but their work is not so steady and resolute. Their meals and dressing doesn't express thriftiness so much as the people from Orosháza. The later is regarded as miserly not only by the farmers from Hódmezővásárhely but also by the begging gipsies. There are smaller differences in the decoration of houses, dresses they wear, kinds of meals and the running of the farm. These differences — well noticable till now — are deeply rooted in the dissimilar historical past of the populations and coloured by biologic and religious differences too. The significant dialectic variants are detailed in an other chapter. To understand the working system and the habit of life as a whole the next two subchapters are very important. The features discussed here are characteristic not only of this area but generally for all the sporadic settlements of the Alföld. A young couple lives together with the parents for a while but strives to be independent as soon as possible. So they can inherit or buy or rent a farm. The woman is an emancipated partner of her husband. Their occupation is strictly separated. The income of poultry-keeping and milking was the woman's. It was quite significant here. At the beginning they made every work themselves but as soon as they were strengthening economically employed a child for pasturing. When the family got more numerous all the members had their definite work by reason of their age and sex. The working activity had a settled rythm during the year. Maize hacking was one of the most intensive working period when they commenced work at 3 a.m. At 8 o'clock they had a short rest for breakfast and to feed the horses. It was the same at 12, and this was a plentyful meal. At sunset they finished working. Women made cooking and looked after the animals. They bred a lot of ducks and turkeys besides chicken and these were not only grazed on the fields but also fed at home. Having finished the evening works the family went to bed about 9 o'clock. On their large maize-fields the hoeing machine had been used from the beginning of the 20

th century. The hightime of the fieldwork was that of the harvest's when people set out to work at 2 a.m. Till the foundation of agrarian cooperations usually several people worked together with the scythes. Even so it took about a week to finish the harvest on a smaller farm. During this period they didn't go either to the market nor to the church. The author gives a detailed description on the process of harvest on a farm of 35—40 acres. Thrasher was introduced here at the beginning of our century. So the treading out was succeeded by it. Thrasher workers, a group of specialists went with the machine from farm to farm. Their working process, organisation and rites are described. An other collective work was the ingathering of the maize. One can obtain an insight into the schedule of work on the market days as there was a significant commodity production. Also, the description of Sundays and holidays can be found here. Division of work deiffers a lot in winter and summertime but feeding and taking care of the animals took about 6—8 hours a day even in the winter months. This was devided between 5—8 a.m. and 3—6 p.m. Rarely several married children lived together with the parents for a short period. A man would have moved to the house of his father-in-law only in that case if the bride had had no brother. In that case if more generations lived and run the farm together the old farmer had the role of direction and he worked only at home, around the house. The youngsters had to go out and work the fields. The whole income got to the hands of the old farmer and he alone disposed of it. More frequently the old parents left their married child on the farm and they themselves moved into their house being in the town. So the young couple became quite independent but they had to pay a rent or give 50% of the produce as leasehold to the parents. Later this rent should have been atlered so, that the 633