The actual status of historiographical research concerning the Sarmatian Iazyges

within the habitat of the Danube and the Tisa (at the southern confluence with the Mures)
between the 1st and the 4th centuries
drd. Muscalu Bogdan

Throughout the time, modern historiography tackled different aspects of the Roman Empire’s
relationship with the Barbarian world. In the fervour of the study of the problems related to
Barbaricum, a considerable role belonged to archaeology. These aspects are not unilaterally studied,
but also from the barbarian world’s perspective towards the Roman Empire.
Romanian historiography regarding the Sarmatian Iazyges has dealt mainly with the ethnic
identification of the barbarian communities who lived beyond the borders of Roman Dacia. [1] Within
historical research regarding the habitat between the Danube and the Tisa, notable results were
recorded by the Hungarian historians, who made a series of monographic studies after the
archaeological research dedicated to the migrators, a main place belonging to the study of the
Sarmatians from this area, surrounded by the Danube – the Tisa and the Mureş.
At the end of the 19th century, the Society of History and Archaeology (SIA) was founded in
Banat – 1872, which encompassed the entire activity within the historical region, which would lead to
the opening of the Banat Museum – 1875. Starting from 1886, SIA becomes the Museum Society of
History and Archaeology, editing a specialty magazine, which gathered articles about archaeological
research of post-Roman Dacia and the period of migrations. [1] Renowned Hungarian historians such
as I. Berkeszi, B. Milleker and L. Böhm publish repertoires of archaeological discoveries connected
to the „Barbarian antiquity”. [2] In 1877, historian C. Gooss discusses the problem of the Sarmatians
and Bastarns in his article Einbruch der Sarmaten und Bastarner an die untere Donau, issued in Sibiu
[3]. So, the beginning of the 20th century may be characterized by the appearance of well-documented
synthesis works, among which that of Iosef Hampel [4] regarding the Banat zone.
The inter-war period is characterized by a tendency of servitude towards the Hungarian
nationalist policy, as well as the Yugoslavian one, as far as the works regarding the Sarmatians are
concerned, but, all in all, the works were a step forward in the post Roman period research, for in the
above-mentioned period there is no research in Banat and Transylvania regarding the first millenium
period.[1]
Serbian historian, N. Vulić in his work Vojvodina u rimskog doba, issued in 1939 describes all
the archaeological sites both Roman and post-Roman, with reference to the south-western area of
Romania; R. R. Schmidt completing the latter’s work with an explicative, detailed map of these sites
[1].
Hungarian inter-war historiography includes important works of some researchers C. Patsch, N.
Fettich, A. Alfőldi, K. Treidler, G. Csallány, K. Szabo [1], M. Párducz, which, although containing
nationalist ideas, bring forward a new perspective for the research of the Danube-Tisa habitat. Carl
Patsch used to consider that Banat was occupied by the Iazyges, and the Romans controlled some areas
only, through some guarding points situated on heights. The same historian states, based on Dio
Cassius’ information, that after the first Dacian war, Decebal reconquers from the Iazyges the lost
territory, and that in 106 AD, Trajan refuses its return to the Iazyges. This territory, after C. Patsch,
included Banat and Oltenia. The author states in his work the belonging of the entire Banat to the
Roman Empire, being a strategic unit defended by the Tisa and the Mureş rivers. [1] In another work
of his, the historian talks about the abandoning of the province of Dacia and the Sarmatian reign over
the Banat area, as well as the idea of living together with the Daco-Roman autochthonous population.
Gábor Csallány makes in 1936, a study regarding the New Iazyg Tombs around Szentes ,
presenting minutely the rich tomb, revealed at Kistöke, near Szentes, where they found 27 sarmatic
tombs, and later on another 28.[1]
In 1939, A. Alfőldi publishes in Berlin the book Die Roxolanen in der Walachei.[1], followed
by a retort – answer of C. Daicoviciu, named Bănatul şi Iazygii, issued in Apulum, I, 1939-1942.
Answering A. Alfoldi’s hypothesis, Daicoviciu specifies about the Tisa –Mures –Danube territory that
1
it did not belong to the Sarmatian Iazyges from the 1st century AD. The latter entered the West of
Dacia in waves, and the fact that they neighbour the Sarmatians, during Claudius’ reign, with the
Germans and the Quadi indicates their presence in the North, in the field near the Slovak Carpathians.
[1] A. Alfőldi sustained that the Iazyges entered the Hungarian Field through Muntenia and Oltenia,
being brought by the Roman emperors, and that in the 1st century AD they occupy the entire Banat, of
the Hungarian historian are meaningless, fact proved by Constantin Daicoviciu.
The most important works of the inter-war period connected with the Sarmatian Iazyges are the
monographic studies of M. Párducz and N. Fettich, based on the results of archaeological research. M.
Párducz, researcher of the sarmatian civilization, distinguishes for the 1st – 4th centuries, three periods
which are defined among important events and are characterized by modifications in the
archaeological inventory. In his opinion, the sarmatic civilization from the Danube-Tisa-Mures area, is
divided in three stages: a) from 20 AD until the end of the marcomanic wars, when the relations with
the Roxolans are renewed; b) 180-270 AD, when in the Danube-Tisa-Mures area there comes a new
sarmatian-iazyg wave, at the end of the period the Roxolans penetrate, fact attested by the bearings in
tumuli; c) 270-375, when in the studied space, the Huns penetrate [1]. In his work regarding the oldest
monuments of the sarmatic period, a growing importance belongs to the Dacians and their material
culture from the Hungarian area. Their influence can be retraced in the archaeological discoveries of
the Sarmatians, of the Huns and even those of the Avars. In the first volume, M. Párducz makes a
minute description of the tombs and of the isolated discoveries, then analyzing the presented material.
[1]
The Hungarian historian completes his work Denkmäler der Sarmatenzeit Ungarns, with the
minute analysis of some early discoveries of sarmatic origin from the Bánság area. His article is also a
response at the contesting of his chronology by C-tin Daicoviciu. For the establishment of the
chronology of the sarmatic epoch in the Alföld area, Párducz insisted of 4 important factors: types of
pearls, fibulae that accompany these discoveries, pearls, medallions and Roman coins, and finally,
pottery. All these factors helped the subdivision of the three sarmatic periods. [1]
Párducz sustains, based on archaeological evidence that the Sarmatian Iazyges penetrated north
of the Mures and east of the Tisa early, living together with the autochthonous Dacians. To sustain this
hypothesis, the Hungarian historian brings as evidence the sarmatic discoveries from the east of middle
Tisa, dated between the 1st and the beginning of the 2nd centuries. [1]
Within the sarmatic epoch discoveries from Hungary, the author individualised more types of
pearls (beads). Among these, the oldest are round, made of chalcedony and carneol, but the most
widely spread are the small, round, flat and bitronconic, of different colours. [1] These beads are
accompanied by early Roman fibulae, of Aucissa type and fibulae with thickened profile and leg in
form of a fan. Alongside fibulae and beads, in the early sarmatic inventory, they found Dacian pottery,
very rarely provincial Roman one and the discovery of a denar from the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-
161) led to a more exact dating. The same thing is to be observed for the Iazyg [1] discoveries of 2nd
century from Örvény, where there is no pottery, but the other artefacts don’t deny this thing. For the
3rd century AD, the prismatic pearls are very widely-spread, then, towards the end of the period, pearls
with granulation and pseudo-granulation, of different colours, alongside fibulae in form of crossbow,
with the leg turned backwards, being framed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries’ period. The last sarmatic
period of the Bánság area has the pottery made of fine, grey paste, of small measures, being dated for
the 4t century AD. [1]
The Hungarian historian will draw up, based on the funerary and the inventory, a chronology of
the tombs from South-East Hungary and the north of Serbia, divided into three horizons: Kiszombor –
Ernöhazay, dated between 270-350, having as characteristics: the burial of the dead flat on the back or
bent, south-north oriented and having pots, fibulae, beads as an inventory. The Bajruok – Mórahalom
horizon – 350-450, in which the dead were laid on the back, bent or sitting. Their orientation was west-
east, having pots near their heads, the inventory being made up of numerous ornaments: necklaces,
bracelets, and rarely, fibulae. The third horizon is Tápe – Malajdok, dated in the same period between
350 - 450. The deceased were laid on the back, oriented south – north. Within the inventory they found
beads, fibulae, weapons, and the pots were laid at their feet. [1] M. Párducz’s 40 years of research in
the problem of Sarmatians will be continued and upgraded by Hungarian researcher Andrea Vaday.

2
 After WW2, in Yugoslavia, there was a preoccupation concerning the post-Roman period’s
history and the history of the barbarian peoples from the Danube – Tisa – Mures area, respectively of
the Sarmatian Iazyges: Milutin and Draga Garašanin made the description of all sites from prehistory
to the late Roman period from Serbia, known until 1951. [1]
Under the editorship of S. Baraćki, a monography was issued – Nakit sarmata u Banatu, which
follows the line of research concerning the sarmatic period. The same Baraćki edited catalogues which
treat the sarmatic settlements from the historical Banat: (Sarmatski nalasi is Vrsča. [Katalog], 1961;
Nalazi Sarmata u Jushnom Banatu. [Katalog], 1972-1973. ). The Serbian historians sustain the
presence of the sarmatic population in the field area, attributing to the latter the majority of the tombs
and settlements from the 3rd and the 4th centuries. S. Baraćki sustains that this ethnical attributing is
due to the existence of a dense sarmatic population, who occasionally had contacts with the Dacian
population. [2]
In Hungary, in the last 50 years, there appeared a series of studies and monographies regarding
the military and political history of the Sarmatians, the archaeological research, the barbarian
populations’ relations within the Dunare – Tisa – Mures area with the danubian Roman provinces, as
well as the Roman Empire. In this category, we may mention the works of L. Barkóczi, M. Párducz, E.
Garam, P. Patay, S. Soproni, J. Harmatta, M. Kőhegyi, Á. Salamon, A. Mócsy. L. Barkóczi debated
the problem of the funerary rite within some tombs from Brigetio, as well as the problem of the
migration of the Iazyges, the Roxolans in the Danubian basin. [1] In a recent study, the Hungarian
historian examined the fragmented hairpins in detail, and reached the conclusion that these have been
amputated consciously, and together with the retreat of the Roman army from the Pannonic area, the
hairpins gradually disappear, in the 4th century. Á. Salamon [1] dated the hairpins of the omega type,
from the sarmatic site from Ócsa, from the second half of the 2nd c. until the disappearance of this
type of hairpin in the 3rd and 4th centuries. L. Balla makes a presentation of the Roman – Iazyg war
from 107 – 108 AD. His work being part of the series dedicated to the military history of the
barbarians from the middle and lower Danube area. He affirms that Hadrian, following his wars with
the Iazyges, due to strategical reasons, will found and organize the border of Dacia Porolissensis
province on the alignment of the Meseş Mountains. [1] E. Garam, P. Patay, S. Soproni researched the
ground walls from the sarmatic limes, pointing some references to the fortification system from the
Romanian space. [1] S. Soproni introduced the concept of limes Sarmatiae, which was erected from
ground, used as an avanpost in the Roman defensive system. He establishes a relationship of
contemporaneity between the walls from the Tisa field and those from the Romanian field. Starting
from the 5th c., sarmatic armies, under Roman rule, will defend this limes. [2]
D. Csallány researched the problem of Gepides’ penetration, in Banat a massive population of
these migrators not being attested, they having only the political power over the left coast of Tisa and
some gepidic and sarmatic enclave’s from the lower field from the north- west of Banat: Sânnicolau
Mare, Felnac, Izvin, Zrenjanin, Bela Črkva, Orşova [1] in their hands.
In the works dedicated to the Sarmatian Iazyges, J. Harmatta made research regarding their
arrival in the Danube- Tisa- Mures area and the problem of their origin, studies on their history and
their language, in the work carrying the same name. [1] Harmatta supports the idea of the migration of
the Iazyges in the space within Danube- Tisa, through the south, through Oltenia and Banat, the same
thing being supported regarding the migration of the Roxolans from the 3rd century AD. Early Iazyg
materials from the Hungarian field have correspondents in the area of Pont, wherefrom they were
probably brought by these migrators. Regarding the road of the Roxolans within their migration
towards the Hungarian space, J. Harmatta considers as a possible route The Iron Gates of Transylvania
- Mehadia – towards Porta Orientalis, then on to the valley of the Timiş river. E. Istvanovits was
preoccupied with the study of pottery found in the sarmatic settlements and tombs, but also by the
history of the Upper Tisa region. [3]
Hungarian historian M. Kőhegyi made research about the Sarmatians from Alföld and about
the sarmatic artefacts. [3]
Large monographic studies were made by A. Vaday, who makes a minute description of the
Sarmatian Iazyges and the relationships between them and the Daco-Roman population, going through
old bibliography as well as a large number of archaeological discoveries. [1] S. Soproni
chronologically presents the history of Roman defence in Pannonia and studies the ground walls
3
between the Danube and the Tisa, establishing analogies with the walls from tha Romanian field.[2] A.
Mócsy researched the relationships Roman- barbarian relationships, the periodization of the sarmatic
epoch [3], but also hypothesis on the arrival of the Sarmatians, J. Fitz’s studies being included in the
same area. [4] Jeno Fitz contributes to the knowledge of the relationships between Pannonia, Dacia
and Barbaricum, bringing economical, military and historical details about the Marcomanic Wars and
its implications over the barbarian population.
In the last 20 years, a great importance of the studies about the Sarmatians and the Danube –
Tisa Mures area, was given to the studies of A. Vaday, Zs. Visy, G. Vörös, E. Garam, E. Istvanovits.
Renowned Hungarian researcher, Andrea H. Vaday, has the merit of raising the topic of the Sarmatians
from the above-mentioned area, on a global level, including in her research the area of Romanian and
Serbian Banat.
The Hungarian researcher continues at a superior level Parducz’s historical work, including in
her works the political history of the migratory Sarmatians, the archaeological repertoire, the
historiography from the field, the comparative study of the archaeological material from Barbaricum,
the relationships between the Roman Empire and the sarmatic area, as well as the evolution of this
habitat in the post - Roman epoch, in the context of the migratory waves. [1] Eva Garam collaborated
with A. Vaday, putting together their research about the Sarmatians - Sarmatische Siedlung und
Begräbnisstätte in Tiszavalk, in Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 1990, p.171-219.
In the article mentioned above, Hungarian researchers refer to the sarmatic settlement from
Tiszavalk, for which they established analogies on the basis of archaeological material, with sarmatic
settlements and tombs from Tiszakarad and Tiszadob – Sziget.
For the area between Pannonia and Dacia, D. Gabler and A. H. Vaday gathered pottery
fragments of the type terra sigilatta. The authors consider that the presence of these pots in the
Barbaricum is due to commerce beyond the Pannonic border, province with intermediary role for the
goods arrived from Occidental provincial workshops. The comparative and procentual analysis of
some types of pots led to the conclusion that the merchandise was brought by tradesmen at order. This
trade intensified after the Marcomanic Wars, until 23 AD, when its decay starts. For the area of the
east of Pannonia, close to Dacia, the authors appreciated that only the border trade is specific.[1] the
iron trade, in flat shape, towards the Barbaricum, may be asserted on the basis of the rescue diggings
from the Gyoma area, where a dacian – iazyg field settlement was discovered, dated from the second
half of the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. More workshops and metal ovens were dug out, in a region
without iron mineral resources, which determined the Hungarian researcher to suppose that the iron
was brought in Dacia on the Mures. [2]
As far as the economical ties of the Sarmate-Iazyges from the Hungarian field and the
Roxolans from the eastern Carpathic space, privilege given after the Marcomanic Wars, A. H. Vaday
is of the opinion that there was not any economic relationship between the Iazyges and the Roxolans,
but a preventive politic-diplomatically measure of Roman authorities, to stop, by military control, an
eventual alliance. [1]
Hungarian researchers A. H. Vaday and Pál Medgyesi have brought important information
regarding the rectangular pots, hand-made pottery. These are known to us from the discoveries from
the sarmatic settlements, but mostly from the tombs from the Hungarian field. Hand-made rectangular
pots are known starting from the Neolithic and the bronze epoch. They appear in the sarmatic material
from the Tisa field, too. Such pots were discovered in the sarmatic settlement from Hódmezővásárhely
– Solt – Palé, late sarmatic settlements from Tiszaföldvár – Téglagyár, Szeged, Alsótanya,
Kenyérváróhalom, Vršac – Crvenka, Pančevo – Vojlovica, Kovačica, Sarkad – Kőröshát. [1]
For the sarmato-hunic period, Vaday observes a continuity of sarmatical existence in the
Danube – Tisa – Mures area, on a much restricted scale compared to the period of 1st – 3rd centuries
AD, as it was observed in the settlements from Csongrád – Kenderföldek, Tiszalök – Rázompuszta,
Orosháza, Szolnok, Periam. [1]
The division of the sarmatic epoch of M. Párducz is extended by A. H. Vaday, establishing as
the inferior limit the period close to the abandonment of the province Dacia, when there appeared a
new wave of Roxolans in the Tisa field, who migrated eastward, until the Hunic reign – the first half of
the 5th century. This is what Iordanes’ news mentions, when the Sarmatians are evoked as part of the
coalition led by Gepidic king Kunimund, against the ostrogoths, in 469. The Sarmatians were still
4
living in the southern part of the Danube – Tisa field. Vaday is of the opinion that, in the last third of
3rd c. and in the entire 4th c., one may observe even archaeologically a density of settlements in the
Tisa field, and in the last third of the 4th c., there still existing sarmatic „kingdoms”. [1]
A. H. Vaday, in her article Sarmatians Settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain, offers a new
methodology for analyzing the sarmatic sites, using excavation techniques. The researcher proposes a
statistic and quantitative study on the archaeological material and offers as a reference the study made
on the sarmatic settlements from Gyoma 133, Újhartyán şi Kompolt , Kistér 14, dated in the 2nd and
3rd c AD. To these, she adds two more later sarmatic settlements, from the hunic period, Endrőd 170 şi
Örménykút 52, from the Békés region. The statistic analysis on the quantity and belonging of the
ceramic fragments, on the way of making and using the paste employed, of ceramic types, of form and
ornamental motifs bring a series of useful information to research. [1]
The Hungarian researcher, Andrea Vaday, debated the problematic of barbarian peoples from
the Hungarian field – Iranians, Germans, Celts and Dacians. In her opinion, the Celts and the Dacians,
were the populations over whom the Sarmatian-Iazyges settle and who contributed to the development
of the Sarmatians’ material culture. [1] A.H. Vaday made a map of the tombs with weapons
discoveries. The most, dated in the 2nd and 3rd c. AD, are concentrated in the area between Criş and
Someş, in the Romanian space, and between Someş and Upper Tisa. In the Banat area, she mentions
only the discoveries from Vizejdia and Szeged-Pusztakömpöc.[1] For the period of the 4th – and the
first half of the 5th century, the discoveries of weapons in the tombs are concentrated near the Upper
Tisa and the habitat between The Danube and The Tisa, until the confluence with the Mureş.
Zsolt Visy was concerned with the problem of the Roman army and its connection with the
Barbarians, with the sarmatic limes, editing in 2003 an archaeological guide for Ripa Pannonica – The
Roman Army in Pannonia. An Archaeological guide of the Ripa Pannonica.
An important addition to the knowledge of the habitat inhabited by the Sarmatians in the Tisa
field was brought by Gabriela Vörös. She published the sarmatic material discovered in settlements
and tombs from Hungary, and also the articled concerning the migratory populations from this area.
[1] We also have to mention a full-of-results collaboration in the field of sarmatic research from the
Hungarian field, between Eszter Istvanovits and Valeria Kulcsár, editing studies concerning the
religion, the chronology and the contacts of the Sarmatians with the Germans from the above-
mentioned area. [2]
The Hungarian researchers state that, after the marcomanic wars, in the Hungarian field, the
first roxolanic groups penetrate, thing retraced in the funerary rite, through the appearance in the
tombs, besides the dominant orientation south – north, of an east – west orientation. The graveyards
with a dominant east- west orientation can be dated, from the second half of the 2nd century and the
first half of the 3rd century., being attested at Hajdúdorog-Szállásföldek, Kiskunfélegyháza –
Külsőgalambos, Hódmezővásárhely – Kishomok, Szeged – Alsóközport.
After this period, this type of orientation vanishes from the sarmatic funerary rite. Specific for
this eastern Hungarian area is the funeral in tumuli, common to the eastern Sarmatians as well. Authors
observed the changing of the funerary rite, within the tumuli graveyards, by digging some ditches
around the tumuli, new clothes’ ornaments based on beads and the appearance of some new ethnic
groups. [1] Valeria Kulcsár observes, after the salvation excavations from 1994-1996, the contacts
between the Sarmatians and the Suebi, respectively between the Sarmatians and the Quadi, nomads
living close to the limes, for trade exchanges. [2]
International conferences regarding the barbarians from the Carpathic basin helped to the
display of the newest research in the plain belonging to Hungarian, Romanian, Serbian, Slovakian and
Russian historians. The one to be noted is the International Conference regarding the barbarians from
Aszod and Nyiregyhaza in 1999 – International Connections of the Barbarians of the Carpathian Basin
in the 1st -5th centuries A.D, and the 18th International Congress about the frontiers of the Roman
Empire from Zalău, in September 1997. Within the first one, they presented articles about the entire
sarmatic mass, as well as ones about the Danube – Tisa area. A series of antique writers and renowned
historians sign these articles, but the ones connected to the Sarmatians are: Halina Dobrzánska,
Contacts between Sarmatians and the Przeworsk Culture community; Alexandr V. Simonenko, On the
tribal structure of some migrations waves of Sarmatians to the Carpathian Basin; Eszter Istvanovits
and Valeria Kulcsár, Sarmatians through the eyes of strangers. The Sarmatian warrior; Andrea Vaday,
5
Military system of the Sarmatians; Mihaly Kőhegyi şi Gabriella Vörös, Bestattungsbräuche in dem
sarmatischen Gräberfeld von Madaras; Igor N. Khrapunov, On the contacts between the populations
of the Crimea and the Carpathian Basin in the Late Roman Period; Sergei I. Bezuglov, „Danubian
fashion” and Tanais (The early phase of the Migration Period). Russian, Polish, Hungarian and
Romanian historians attend the Congress, in their articles mentioning both sarmatian branches, the
connections between them, rite and ritual elements, military and material aspects of this Iranian
population. [1] Eszter Istvanovits and Valeria Kulcsár identified, based on antique sources and some
monuments from the Roman Empire, the image of the Sarmatian-Iazyges and the Roxolans. The
authors draw attention upon the clothing of the Sarmatians represented on Trajan’s and M. Aurelius’
Column, and upon the sarmatian women. One can observe from these monuments the weapons and the
harness pieces. [2] Andrea Vaday uses the information from antique writers to remake the image of the
sarmatian warrior and his fight tactics. The political and military events alongside the archaeological
discoveries area enough to draw the main characteristics, both political and military, of the sarmatic
population. [3]
Ágnes Szekeres researched the sarmatic tombs from Bácstopolya – Bánkert, in which they
discovered 41 sarmatic burial tombs, which on the basis of the inventory were dated for the end of the
3rd c. and the beginning of the 4th c., analogies being retraced in the tombs from the south of the
Hungarian plain and Banat, in Panciova. [1]
Romanian research regarding post-Roman and sarmatic epochs, after WW2, was given its
rebirth. The status of this research was presented in the synthesis Istoria României, I, Bucureşti, 1960,
p. 671-682, and then again in Istoria Românilor, II (Daco-romani, Romanici, Alogeni), Bucureşti,
2001, p. 3-128. [1]
The historical study connected to the sarmatians from the Western territory of Romania had as
its basis the archaeological research and isolated discoveries, very few, having a sporadic character and
coherenceless. The main focus was on the ethnic identification of the barbarian communities from
outside the Roman Dacia. From the historical sketch of M. Macrea on the barbarian neighbors of the
Roman Dacia, the subject was no longer globally treated. [1] The work of Coriolan Horaţiu Crişan,
Dacia romană şi Barbaricum, tried to treat at a high level the relationship of the province with the
neighbor barbarian territories, as well as the history of these peoples. D. Popescu published a catalogue
of this research in Transylvania, which included sarmatic materials. [1] An important article regarding
a sarmatic discovery is that of N. Chisodan, who tackles the problems connected to this ethnic group
based on the sarmatic graveyard from Şimand. [2]
A real controversy of the 60s and the 70s was the research of the ground walls from Roman
Dacia and the neighboring provinces of the sarmatic penetration area, in which Hungarian researchers
got involved. Researches from K. Horedt, E. Dörner and V. Boroneanţ, V. Balas, S. Soproni [1] enter
this race.
After 1970 we can notice a new stage of sarmatic population studies from Western Romania,
owed to the contribution of historical and archaeological research made by E. Dörner, M. Barbu, P.
Hügel. These were made on the valley of the Mures, attesting the existence of some sarmatic enclaves
in the lower plain area close to the rivers. E. Dörner observes, in his article based on archaeological
discoveries from the Arad area, as well as from the sarmatic traces from the area of the Cris and teh
Somes, that there are no sarmatic penetrations known in the hill and intra-mountain areas from Zarand,
and the Crişul Repede corridor. P. Hügel and M. Barbu observed that in the Arad area, ethnic
separation is based on the funerary rite. The Sarmatians signaled through burial tombs are situated on
the line of the Mures and in the plain from the west of Arad. The quality of the living together between
the Sarmatians and the autochthonous population is attested through the Dacian pottery, in sarmatic
context. The living together between the two populations may be observed within the biritual tombs
from Şeitin. [1]
For the central Banat area important contributions are awarded to Marius Moga, prof. univ. dr.
Doinei Benea, prof. univ. dr. Adrian Bejan, M. Moroz-Pop, Florin Medeleţ. Marius Moga together
with N. Gudea publishes an article based on the Banat archaeological research. [1] The sarmatic
discoveries of Doina Benea and her collaborators will be comprised in the work Dacia sud-vestică în
sec. III-IV, vol. I, Timişoara, 1996, which encompasses elements of history, chronology, and
interpretations regarding the sarmatians from the south-west of the Banat area. In an article issued in
6
sequels, D. Benea tackles the problem of the Limigantes and Argaragantes sarmatians, admitting a
series of hypotheses regarding the ethnic origin of the limigantes. [1] The late historian and
archaeologist Fl. Medeleţ made some research regarding the ground walls, as well as the sarmatic
presence in Banat [2], sustaining that the latters’ presence in the Banat plain is attested by a series of
isolated tombs and discoveries. N. Gudea and I. Moţu analyzed the history of Banat in the Roman
epoch, referring to the Sarmatian-Iazyges from the west of the Roman province. In their opinion, the
presence of the Sarmatians during the province is negligible, being unable to support the occupation of
a part of the province. [1] Adrian Bejan researched, in his turn, things presented later in the work
Banatul în secolel IV-XII [1]. The same author, in another general work, referring to the phenomenon
of ethnogenesis, dedicates an entire chapter to the migrators from the Romanian space. Adrian Bejan
and Liviu Măruia offer details about the sarmatians’ history, historiographical problems and also a
division of the periods of the sarmatic epoch. [2] Within the research, we remark the publishing of the
material resulted from archaeological excavations made at Dumbrăviţa by the CSIATim team and the
Banat Museum, regarding the Roman walls directed towards the Barbaricum. [3] This study joins the
ones made by Hungarian and Arad historians. Still among synthesis works, which include the problem
of the sarmatic ethnic group, is that of Liviu Mărghitan, which treats the post Roman and early
feudalism period, appreciating that Banat was organized from 102 as a special „Military district”, in
order to answer better to a Dacian or Iazyg possible attack. [4]
Still in that same area of works, we remind those of S. Dumitraşcu Dacia apuseană and the big
synthesis of M. Mare, who tackles the sarmatic archaeological discoveries from Banat. [1] In his work,
Banatul între secolele IV-IX, the Banat historian and archaeologist, revises a short history of this area,
focusing on the main political and historical events included in the referred period of time. [2] Among
the migratory populations who show up in the Banat space, taking advantage of the internal instability
of the Empire, the first will be the Sarmatian-Iazyges, at the beginning of the 4th c.
Sporadic iazyg infiltrations are signaled before the 2nd-3rd c., in the north-eastern corner of
Banat. After 275, the area of sarmatic discoveries includes the lower southern Mures plain, towards the
south-west, towards the Serbian Banat. There is no attesting of this population in the hill and mountain
area of Banat. [1] After Mircea Mare, the Sarmatians have a well-developed material culture,
influenced by different cultures belonging to different spaces and peoples with whom the Sarmatians
get in touch. Iranian elements as well as Hellenistic Greek from the Pont area are evidenced through
the polychromes, in the artistic processing of metal, like the use of the filigree and pseudo-granulation,
the richly and beautifully ornate clothing. From the autochthonous they take on elements of material
culture (Latin and Roman provincial fibulae). [1]
Based on the latest archaeological research, contributions to the knowledge of the tombs and
the sarmatic funerary rite are brought by the Timişoara archaeologist from the Banat Museum, M.
Mare and Dana Tănase. The same authors researched a controversial problem, that of the penetration
of the Sarmatians in Banat, correlating the information already existing with the archaeological
discoveries. [1] On the basis of the ceramic inventory discovered at Timişoara – Pădurea Verde, with
analogies in the Serbian area and the Tisa plain, it was considered that in the Banat area there has been
a Roman - barbarian interference. D. Tănase sustains that the sarmatic presence in the tombs and
isolated settlements is attested in the lower plain area of the rivers, thing already seen in Bačka and the
Serbian Banat. [1] M. Mare observed that out of all sarmatic tombs in Banat and Crisana and the
isolated tombs discovered there, only a third to the period before the Aurelian retreat. So, before the
retreat, there have been penetrations in the plain area of Banat, a proof of this being also the discovery
of the sarmatic graveyard, 2nd – 3rd c. from Foeni. [2] For the 270 – 480 AD periods, the sarmatic
remains cover a large area, between the Danube and the Tisa, and at the east of Tisa they cover the
whole plain, including the confluence of the three Criş rivers until the Mureş, and southwards in the
Serbian and Romanian Banat. [3]
Within the research of late Roman and post Roman epoch there were some remarked: Gh.
Bichir, S. Dumitraşcu, J. Nemeti, Alexandru C. Matei, Gh. Lazin, C. H. Opreanu, Al. Săşianu. Gh.
Bichir made a series of studies regarding the province’s relationships with the barbarian peoples
neighboring the provincial Dacian area, as well as new hypotheses about the penetration of the
Sarmatians, the history of lower Danube sarmatians. [1] Gh. Bichir sustains, in his article, Relations
between the Sarmatians and the Free Dacians, the problem of the penetration of the Iazyges in the
7
Pannonic plain in the 1st c. AD, based on the information rendered by ancient authors and
archaeological research, which demonstrate their initial settlement in the north of the Pannonic plain,
between the Danube and the Tisa. The Romanian historian supports the idea of the penetration of the
Sarmatians in the Hungarian territory through the north, going up the Nistru, then up the Prut and not
along the Danube. [1] This fact is supported by the discoveries of isolated tombs from Moldova (38),
Muntenia (48), Dobrogea (4) and western Romania (Banat-25 şi Crişana-19), no sarmatic tomb being
retraced in Oltenia and Transilvania, belonging to the 1st and 2nd c. AD. [1] In the sarmatic tombs
from the Tisa region hand-made Dacian pottery was discovered, as well as in those from Banat and
Crisana, fact observed in the sarmatic tombs from Moldova and Muntenia. Gh. Bichir, taking over
information from ancient writers, debates the problem of the Argaragantes and Limigantes sarmatians,
sustaining the latter’s belonging to the Daco – Roman population. [2]
An interesting work is that of Rusu Mircea, Autochtones et Migrateurs (IIIe siecle – IXe
siecle), but also that of Ioana Hica Câmpeanu, Rituri funerare în Transilvania de la sfârşitul secolului
al III-lea, până în secolul al V-lea e.n. [1]
In the study of the relationships of the Roman Empire with the Barbaricum, but also the
research of the Romanian space in which the sarmatians penetrate, a special aid is brought by Sever
Dumitraşcu. Besides the mentioned work, in his articles, the historian makes reference to the western
border of the Dacia province, as well as to the barbarian population neighboring it, enumerating the
sarmatic discoveries from the regions of Arad, Crisana and Banat. [1]
I. I. Russu revises the relations and the wars with the sarmatians from 117-118, based on the
ancient and historiographical sources, using the information rendered by the military diploma from
123. Russu presents the reorganization of Roman Dacia and the founding of Dacia Porolissensis,
during Hadrian’s reign. [1]
Historian Al. Aldea researched the sarmatic discovery from Sebeş, which contained a metal
mirror of the Tamga type, the only piece discovered in western Romania [1], analogies existing in the
Prut area. On the penetration of the Roxolans and the Alans in the Romanian territory, as well as about
the Daco-Roman continuity within the migration period, Gh. Diaconu published a series of articles. [2]
Cluj historian Mihai Bărbulescu treated in an earlier article, the research of a probably sarmatic
tomb discovered in the Roman camp of Potaissa. According to D. Benea, the tomb is Germanic, and in
a monographic study about the V Macedonica legion, she presented the campaigns to which the legion
takes part against the Sarmatians. [1] Research concerning archaeological discoveries belonging to
migratory populations were made by J. Nemeti, identifying analogies between the inventory of the
burial tomb from Urziceni, Satu Mare county, Şimand and some tombs from the Hungarian plain, this
one being dated in the 3rd and 4th century. Still from the Satu Mare area, historian Gh. Lazin
published the archaeological material discovered in this area. [2]
The study of the relationships between Roman Dacia and Barbaricum reached another
dimension, with the attempt of C. H. Opreanu to make a global work regarding this type of research.
The latter researches, in some articles, the iazyg problem, the chronology of the late Roman epoch,
economic relationships between Roman Dacia and neighbor barbarians, surpassing the study made by
Al. Săşianu which stopped only at the numismatic discoveries. [2]
The historian from Cluj supports the idea of the settlement of the Iazyges in a first stint, in the
north of the Hungarian plain, in the 1st c. AD and the beginning of the 2nd c., fact proven by the
archaeological discoveries attributed to the sarmatic population, which are concentrated in the north-
eastern part of the Hungarian plain. After Coriolan Opreanu, during Trajan’s reign, the Iazyges did not
live at the south of the Partiscum-Lugio line, and so their territory in the first Daco –Roman war must
be searched in the space north of the Mures and not in Banat. According to Sever Dumitraşcu, the
earliest sarmatic discovery in Romania is the tomb from Vârşand (jud. Arad), the other 9 discoveries
from Arad and Bihor being dated in the 2nd and 3rd c. Opreanu talks about the political and military
history of the Sarmatian-Iazyges, to whom the re-establishment of the Dacian kingdom’s power in the
1st c. AD the western limit on the Tisa was established. Taking advantage of the events from 101-102,
they will temporarily set their authority over the territory from the east of The Tisa, as allies of Rome.
The military events from 107-108 and then the Iazyges’ revolt from 117-118 were unleashed probably
by the discontempt of the Sarmatians regarding the fact that Trajan refused to return them the territory
from the east of the Tisa, but also because of the cessation of the ties between the Iazyges and the
8
Roxolans, once with the organization of the Dacia province. [1] the relationships of the Dacia province
with the western Barbaricum, during the Marcomanic Wars, is minutely debated, mentioning the
political and economical consequences on the Iazyges, who obtained the right to establish trade with
the eastern space and go through the province, only with the approval of Dacia’s governor. The
historian from Cluj considers that the sarmatic bronze mirror with a Tamga type sign from Sebeş could
be a proof of the occasional transit of the Sarmatians through Dacia. [1]
A special aid was brought by the talks regarding different aspects of the relationships with
Barbaricum, from the 17th International Congress on the Borders of the Roman Empire, from Zalău,
in September 1997. [1] The volume published after this Congress is structured in five parts, the first
three being in connection with the research of the western and north-western sarmatic area. The last
part is dedicated to the barbarians from the east of Daciei Porolissensis and Apulensis, of utmost
importance being Vitalie Bârcă’s articles on the military equipment and political history of the
Sarmatians from the north – west of the Black Sea. Călin Timoc makes a possible route of the
penetration of the Sarmatian-Iazyges towards the Roman Banat at the beginning of the 2nd c. AD. In
the author’s opinion, the penetration of the Iazyges was made by crossing the Tisa, at a point situated
at the middle of its flow from the overflowing of Mures in the Danube, heading towards the centre of
the Roman camp line Lederata-Tibiscum, avoiding the areas of swamps. This is strengthened by the
defeat at Vršac of the Iazyg army and the removal of IIII Flavia Felix legion to Berzovia, the most
exposed point to barbarian attacks. [1]
Sever Dumitraşcu tackles the problem of barbarians by using ancient sources, but also
archaeological ones, regarding different migratory populations. Among these barbarians we can retrace
the Sarmatians as well, who will settle in many waves in the Danube – Tisa area and in the western
Romanian one, especially in the lower plain next to waterways. They will not live isolated from the
autochthonous populations, but will interact, reciprocally influencing each other. Because of the
autochthonous Dacian, Daco-Celtic, Daco-Roman populations, the Sarmatians will enter a process of
sedentarization. [1]
Alexandru Szentmiklosi and Călin Timoc published the archaeological material from the
supposed settlement and tomb in Foeni – Sălişte, establishing analogies of the pieces with sarmatian
settlements from Hungary and Serbia. [1]
Late archaeological research from the Serbian Banat and the Bačka area have led to some
studies which include sarmatic material, the shaping of the analogies of the pieces discovered with
those from the Hungarian plain and the Romanian space. In this category we include the works of
Sebian archaeologists: D. Batistić-Popadić, M. Djordević, S. Trifunović, C. Jorgović. Daria Batistić-
Popadić publishes the archaeological material discovered in the sarmatic tomb from Vojlovica-
Pančevo, framing it following the orientation of the majority of the bodies’ south-north-west and the
inventory of the tombs, the row of the 3rd and 4th c. AD. The pottery discovered is both Dacian,
Roman imitation and Roman provincial. On the basis of archaeological support, the Serbian historian
believes that during the 3rd and 4th c., in the researched area there was a mixed population, Dacian-
Sarmatic, practicing trade with the Roman provinces. [1]
V. Dautova-Ruševljan elaborated a study regarding the analysis of the sarmatic culture research
from the Vojvodina area. The Serbian archaeologist observes, on the basis of ancient writings, the
problem of identification of some sarmatic tribes from Bačka, Banat and the Pannonic plain. For the
1st and 2nd c. AD the Iazyges are mentioned, whereas for the 3rd and 4th the Roxolans. From the
work of Ammianus Marcelinus one can distinguish the Argaragantes, Limigantes and Amicenses
sarmatians. M. Párducz sustained that evem the tribes of Royal Sarmatians, the Ugri and the Roxolans
could be mentioned. V. Dautova-Ruševljan observes the belonging of the material culture of the
Sarmatians from Pannonia to a basis with Bosphoran-pontic elements, while the Bačka and Banat area,
within the sarmatic culture, daco-celtic and roman-provincial elements were identified. The symbiosis
of these elements formed the so-called sarmatic culture, known in the specific literature as such. [1]
Maja Djordjević published the material from the sarmatic tombs belonging to the collection of
the museums from Pančevo and Vršac, where there are objects from 30 sites from the south –west of
Banat. On the basis of the research of these sites considerations were made regarding the position of
the tombs near the plain rivers, on their terraces, and in the low hill area. Elements of sarmatic rite and
funerary ritual may be observed through the positioning of the deceased in burial tombs, the majority
9
south – north oriented. In their inventory there were ceramic objects hand- or wheel-made, personal
objects of the deceased (weapons, jewels, everyday objects), clothing ornaments (a specificity being
the large number of beads, sewn on the garments). Within the same inventory, the Serbian researcher
observes two types of objects, connected to clothing, jewels and weapons, brought by the Sarmatians
at their arrival from the Pontic area, and objects resulted from their trade with the Romans from the
neighboring provinces, mainly Pannonia. [1]
She will use in the research of the tombs from the Serbian Banat, the chronologic framing, on
horizons, made by Párducz. Ágnes Sekeres researched the sarmatic tomb from Subotica – Verušić,
where 17 toms surrounded cu circular ditches were found, out of the 67 sarmatic tombs. The
orientation of the deceased is south-north, being laid flat on the back. The majority of these tombs
were vandalized, but on the basis of the ritual and archaeological material, the tomb could be dated at
the end of the 4th c, - the beginning of the 5th c., there being analogies with the sarmatic and hunic
tombs from southern Hungary. [1] Olga Brukner analyzed the roman discoveries from the settlements
and tombs from Barbaricum – from the Bačka and Banat regions, supporting the theory regarding the
barbarians’ trade with the neighboring roman provinces and drew a map of the discoveries. A special
place in the trade between the Sarmatians and the roman provinces belonged to Pannonia. [2]
A special contribution to the study of the Danube – Tisa habitat and to the study of Sarmatians
was brought by the Slovakian and Polish researchers. A monographic study, which refers to the history
of the sarmatic population from their appearance in the European space until their disappearance from
history, was made by Tadeucz Sulimirski. In his work The Sarmatians, the Polish author makes a
presentation of the Sarmatians from the Hungarian plain and the Romanian space. Sulimirski considers
the migration of the Iazyges in the north- east of Hungary was made through Bucovina and the North
of the Carpathians, and happened immediately after 20 AD, where they would find a Daco- Celtic
population. The author reminds that the iazyg tombs contain plain monuments and are grouped in large
graveyards. They contain a poor inventory in the first period (1st and 2nd c.), mainly due to the lack of
resources, as well as the cessation of the connections with the Roxolans from the eastern – Carpathic
area, by the founding of the Dacia province. [1] The middle sarmatian period in Hungary is
characterized by their involvement in the Marcomanic Wars (166-172 d. Chr., 177-180 d.Chr.), thing
leading to the enrolment of 8,000 sarmatian knights in the Roman army. For the mentioned period,
Sulimirski observes in the inventory of the tombs, objects of Pontic origin with analogies in the area of
Low Volga and Kuban, the idea of the penetration a new sarmatian wave, perhaps the Roxolans, being
heavily supported. The late sarmatian period, within the 3rd – 5th c. AD, is characterized by a
migratory ethnic conglomerate in the eastern European area and by repeated attacks on the Roman
Empire. The Polish author reminds the military episodes from the 4th c. AD, in which the
Argaragantes and Limigantes are involved. For this period we may distinguish on the basis of
archaeological research changes in the rite and funerary inventory. [1]
Polish historian K. Godlowski researched the chronology of migrations and the barbarian
peoples from the north-west of the Carpathians, the barbarian military history with references to the
Sarmatian-Iazyges and the Marcomanic Wars. [1]
The same importance is awarded to the work of historian Halina Dobrzanska, Contacts
between Sarmatians and Przeworsk Culture comunity, which observes elements of material culture
common to both populations, on the basis of archaeological research from the tombs, including the rite
and funeral habits.[1] Vyaceslav Kotigoroško has a work regarding the Upper Tisa region, which,
alongside his articles, contributes to the study of Sarmatians and other barbarian peoples. [2]
Kotigoroško tackles the problem of stamped pottery and workshops from the Polish, Hungarian and
Romanian areas. From the acquired data including the analogous excavations, he supports the fact that
nowhere else, stamped pottery has had a larger expansion and ornamental riches on the Upper Tisa
areas, although this is known in other regions with polyethnic structure as well, like the Cerneahov
culture. [3]
L. Szanianeska analyzed the sarmatian problem in Ptolemy’s Geographia, drawing a series of
ethnic maps based on ancient information. [1] A. Kokowski [2] drew the conclusion that the first
contact between the bearers of the Pzeworsk culture and the Sarmatians took place at the middle of the
1st c. AD. Later on, during the Marcomanic Wars, the Sarmatians penetrate the area of Upper Tisa,
and starting with the end of the 2nd c. AD, elements of material culture belonging to the two
10
ethnicities may be identified within the discoveries near the Sarmatian limes. Beginning with the 3rd
and the 4th c., the Sarmatians will assimilate the material culture of those with whom they come into
contact.
Richard Brzezinski and Mariusz Mielczarek, in the study The Sarmatians 600 B.C.-450 A.D.
present the Sarmatian tribes, the military history of these migrators with reference to the Danube area
and the Roman Empire. Polish historians revise the sarmatian offensive and defensive weapons,
presenting archaeological discoveries and analogies between the Bosphoran and the Hungarian plain
areas. The authors identify influences of the sarmatian armament over the Roman cavalry. Within their
work, they try to remake the armor, the equipment and the tactics employed by the Sarmatians, attempt
based on ancient information and archaeological discoveries, especially Russian ones. [1]
Archaeological research in settlements and tombs helps to elucidate some yet unclear problems
of historiography. Archaeological research from recent years, from the Serbian Banat and the Bačka
area, Hungary and Romania has led to the development of some studies which include sarmatic
material, the shaping of the pieces’ analogies with the Hungarian plain and the Romanian area.
Among the migratory populations which appear in the Banat space, taking advantage of the
inner instability of the Empire, the Sarmatian-Iazyges are the first, at the beginning of the 4th c. Before
the retreat, massive infiltrations took place in the field area of Banat. For the period between 270-480
AD, the sarmatian remains cover a large area, between the Danube and the Tisa, to the east of Tisa
including the whole field, encompassing the confluence of the Criş rivers until the Mureş, and
southwards in the Romanian and Serbian Banat. They could observe the maximum limit of the
sarmatian penetration in the Romanian space, finding no traces in the hill and mountain regions, where
an autochthonous population continues to exist, enslaved to this barbarian people, politically only. The
peaceful living together of these two ethnicities must not be denied, for it is proved by the
archaeological discoveries and up-to-date studies.
To have a global image on the sarmatian culture, on interethnic interferences, the continuation
of these studies is necessary, the minute analysis of the archaeological material and its publishing. The
actual status of research regarding the Sarmatian-Iazyges reached a level at which synthetic works
regarding this barbarian people are an absolute necessity, which should include the discoveries of
Romanian archaeologists and their studies, as well as those of Serbians, Hungarians. The establishing
of some analogies, but also of area differences, owed to the autochthonous population, could set light
upon some yet unsolved problems. Rediscussing and reanalyzing of the material from some
settlements, only on the basis of the relative chronology of some artifacts have to be done. A regional
co-operation in the field could establish if some discoveries from Serbia and Hungary are really
sarmatian, daco-roman or if they attest a living together of both ethnicities.

11