The first generation of Roman-era archaeology in the central Hungarian Plain (the so-called Sarmatian barbaricum between Pannonia and Dacia) focused almost exclusively on the evidence of burials, as exemplified by Mihály Párducz’s three volume A Szarmatakor Emlékei Magyarországon
[Denkmäler der Sarmatenzeit Ungarns], which remains an important resource to this day. Since the
1980s, however, archaeological efforts have also been devoted to the excavation and study of settlements within the region. The modernization of Hungary’s transportation infrastructure in the
152
decades after the fall of the Iron Curtain, in particular, has led to a number of large rescue- excavations of Sarmatian settlements, most notably the site of Hajdúnánás-Fürjhalom-Dűlő in Hajdú-Bihar County,305 and the site of Üllő, located just south-east of Budapest.306 One of the most thoroughly published ‘Sarmatian’ settlements of the Roman-era Hungarian Plain is the site of Gyoma 133, located near the Körös River in south-eastern Hungary between the modern towns of Gyoma and Endrőd. The site, which was excavated from 1987 to 1992, revealed numerous domestic
structures and also produced large corpora of ceramic and osteological materials, and will serve as our entry point into a larger discussion of the region’s archaeology.307 In 2017, enough other Sarmatian sites have been excavated to suggest that Gyoma 133 is a fairly representative, if somewhat large, example of a mid-imperial (second-third centuries) settlement from the region of the Hungarian Plain. A total of 383 anthropogenic features were excavated at the site, covering several different time periods; the vast majority of the features, however, were dated to the Roman imperial period, roughly between 150 and 250 CE, based on well-established typologies of imported Roman
tableware found at the site.308 Taken together, the houses, ditches, wells, pits, ovens, and workshops of Gyoma 133 provide a detailed picture of a vibrant Sarmatian village which grew to its greatest extent and prosperity in the peaceful century following the Marcomannic Wars.
305 Márkus 2005.
306 Kulcsár and Merai 2011.
307 Vaday 1996.
308 Vaday 1996B, pp. 13-14; Vaday 1996C, pp. 65, 134. A word of warning is required regarding chronology in this
chapter. While I have tried to be as specific as possible when discussing individual sites, the reality is that most of the settlements of the Roman-era Hungarian Plain can only be roughly dated based on ceramic typologies and occasional coin finds. While some scholars (eg: Párducz and Vaday) have attempted to produce more detailed chronologies based on items of personal adornment from burials, these appear to me quite vague and unsatisfactory. Since our conversation deals mainly in broad regional and chronological strokes, I have not attempted to push these typologies too far. The problem is even worse when dealing with faunal corpora where published data almost always represents the entire collection from a given site, with no attempt at chronological division. When comparing between sites, I have had to accept that my picture can, at best, represent a general composite for the entire Roman period, that is, the first through fourth centuries CE.
153
Seventeen features at Gyoma 133 were identified as houses. These structures follow a fairly consistent architectural plan. Identified as houses by their compacted or plastered floors, all are partially subterranean, excavated 10-80 cm into the ground. Most of the houses are irregularly- oblong in plan with no indication of internal architectural divisions They are of modest size, ranging from 1.92 x 2.2 m. (appx. 4.25 m.2) to 4.3 x 6.16 m. (appx. 26.5 m.2). Some of the houses preserve internal postholes, indicating wooden ridge-pole construction; external postholes are preserved in a few instances, but the excavators acknowledge that they may be underrepresented due to the removal of the site’s upper strata by mechanical means.309 The upper architecture of the posthole houses would most likely have been wood-framed with wattle-and-daub walls and thatched roofing.310 Scattered adobe bricks were found at Gyoma 133, suggesting that some buildings may have been built with this material, but the number recovered and the prevalence of central post-holes suggest that these would have been a minority.311 Standing architecture does not survive, but the preserved footprints and postholes combine to paint a clear picture of a village largely, if not entirely, made up of so-called grubenhäuser: semi-subterranean houses known from many areas of the
European Iron Age.312 The houses of Gyoma 133 are scattered throughout an excavated area of about hectares following no observable organization scheme, although the whole ancient settlement may have been significantly larger.313 Other domestic features, such as wells, ovens, and storage pits
309 Vaday 1996C, pp. 65-66, 157. The houses are features nos. 36, 52, 65, 90, 124, 128, 164, 206, 220, 222, 229, 284, 295,
317, 349, 361, and 365. The depth of the floors below the ancient surface level appears to vary significantly, but the majority fall into the 20-30 cm. range.
310 Wells 1999, pp. 57-58.
311 Vaday 1996C, p.157.
312 Wells 1999, pp. 35-36, 57-58, 171; Cattani 1994. The excavated floors may have been partially covered with boards to
create a subterranean storage pit for food preservation.
313 Vaday 1996B, p.12. The excavation report frustratingly does not provide any definitive statistics on the size of the
inhabited area. The best data available states that the excavated area “extended 170 metres east-west and 160 metres north- south,” although based on the site plan, only about two-thirds of this rectangle was actually excavated, perhaps about
154
lie scattered throughout the excavated area with a greater overall density in the southern half of the site.314 This section also contains most of the site's industrial features: elongated ovens of uncertain function, and irregularly-excavated workshop areas, some of which revealed evidence of
metalworking.315 The overall picture is of a chaotic, nucleated settlement of fairly dense habitation. The lack of graves or identifiable agricultural lands indicates that these aspects of daily life were conducted outside the inhabited village core.