Horváth Attila – H. Tóth Elvira szerk.: Cumania 4. Archeologia (Bács-Kiskun Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei, Kecskemét, 1976)

S. Bökönyi: Szarmata lelőhelyek állatcsont leletei Bács-Kiskun megyéből

7 total Cattle 0 1 3 2 0 0 1 7 Sheep 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 9 Pig 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Horse 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 5 Dog 0 0 9 0 0 0 18 27 Total 0 17 0 0 22 48 Table 3. Whole, measurable long bones in the sites. (The same key as in Table 1.) skulls, larger skull fragments and horn-cores make the breed and type identifications possible, the whole skeletons and long bones can be very well used for the determination of the size (withers height) and body proportions of the animals. All other bones are quite fragmented, butchering marks can be often found on them demonstrating that the Sarmatian butchers did not know the anatomy of the animals well, and this caused a lot of trouble and unnecessary work for them. The long bones were generally broken up for the marrow was considered a delicacy even in those times. And finally, the dogs of the settlements also left their chewing marks on some of the bones. The result was that the number of measurable specimens was rather low among the bone fragments making the determination of infra-specific variations difficult. As Table 1 shows, the bone samples of the seven sites aren't particularly rich in species. Even the list of domestic animals isn't complete for the goat is missing in it. This is certainly strange, although, it may be the result of the small sample size. One should not think therefore that goat was not among the animals kept by the Sarmatians, however, one can rightly suppose that it was very rare in their domestic fauna. Since goat bones sporadically appear in Sarmatian bone samples of the northern, mountainous regions of Hungary, one might tend to explain the absence of goat bones mentioned above with the fact that goat as a typical animal of the mountains did not breed well on the Great Hungarian Plain. As for the other domestic animals, all species ever described from Sarmatian sites occur in these seven settlements. It is Very probable that these species were till kept in their original eastern homeland, including the hen that was taken directly from the Persians and Scythians. On the other hand, species imported from Roman Pannónia do not occur in any of the seven sites. In this respect particularly the ass, the cat and the domestic goose can come into consideration, and their absence is even more conspicuous if one thinks that these sites lie only 10 to 50 km from the Danube River which marked the Roman borders at that time. Strangely enough, the domestic cat was the species which was most often found in territories outside the high cultures of the Mediterranean in classical times. Scythian chieftains acquired it from the Greek colonial towns of the northern Black Sea coast region (Zalkin, 1964). The ass and the goose appear much more rarely in sites of the „Barbarians". It seems that the Roman species did not fit the way of life and the economy of the Sarmatians, and this was why they weren't taken over by them. This supposition seems to be strengthened by the fact that individuals of improved Roman breeds of species kept by the Sarmatians were often taken over by them (see later in detail). The wild fauna of the seven sites is rather poor, it consists of only five species, and even one of them is possibly intrusive in a pit of the site. Every wild mammal species of our sites were already described from one or several Sarmatian sites published earlier, however, it is also true that there are only two species — roe deer and brown bear — in the Sarmatian wild fauna which does not occur in these seven sites (Bökönyi, 1974). The rarity of wild species connected with the very low ratio of wild animals' bones clearly shows the small importance of hunting as food securing activity in comparison to that of animal husbandry. This was generally so in the Migration Period of Europe, at that time hunting was not so much pursued with a view to providing food but rather a festive occasion and activity (László, 1955). Although, the bone samples of the seven sites are not suitable for quantitative evaluation, some general conclusions can be drawn concerning the animal husbandry and hunting of the inhabitants from the three largest bone assemblages, those of Kunszállás—Alkotmány Tsz, Kunszentmiklós—Bak ér and Szabadszállás—Józan. The ratios of the different species of the domestic fauna (Table 4 shows the number of individuals of the domestic species) undoubtedly points to the animal hus43