Re: The uselessness of "discussions" with Torsten

>
>
> > Wouldn't it be easier just to answer the question? Did the
> > Bastarnae live in the area east of the Carpathians, ie Moldova, in
> > the period 3rd cent BCE - 3rd cent. CE, yes or no?

> ****GK: Wouldn't it be easier to remember that I had already
> answered that question countless times in previous posts?***

Yes, you did, and in the affirmative, as I recall. That's where they lived.

> > What are all those inhumation graves doing in the area where the
> > Bastarnae lived, if the Bastarnae supposedly knew only cremation?

> ****GK: Because they were Geto-Dacian in the 4th to 1rst cs. BCE,
> "Free Dacian" in the 2nd c. CE, or Gotho-Dacian in the 3rd c. CE,
> depending on the sources Niculita cites.  Because the Bastarnians
> invaded a Getic area and coexisted with them for centuries, but did
> not adopt any form of inhumation for their own culture there
> ("Poeneshti-Lukashovka") as has been demonstrated in all
> archaeological literature published so far afaik.*****

Yes, but couldn't you give me the names of some of all those publications? I'm getting rather curious.
 

>  The fact that Niculiţa doesn't mention the Bastarnae can hardly
> change the fact that this is where they lived?

> ****GK: They lived intermixed with the Getae, but in their own
> communities, and did adopt a number of Getic cultural markers, esp,
> in ceramics. Not, howevewr in their burial rite.*****

Niculiţa:
http://arheologie.ulbsibiu.ro/publicatii/ats/ats6.1/07/niculita_east.pdf
'Both incineration and inhumation burials were discovered in the tumular necropolises or flat inhumation graves. There are cases when in one tumulus there are both incineration and inhumation burials.'

So the Getae mixed their burial rite with themselves, but the Bastarnae stayed apart?

> > Note that also Hachmann seemed to waver in his assignment of
> > traces of the Ariovistus invasion to Eastern Germanic provenance.
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/55551

> ****GK: If Przeworsk part of this (as it is) there should be no
> problem in making the assignation.*****

The reason I mention it is a suspicion I have that Hachmann's wavering and Niculiţa's non-mentioning of Bastarnae in a context where they should have been present might have had the same cause, namely that the shunned alternative might have supported an unwanted idea of an invasion from the east?

> Who are those good archaeologists (and historians) you refer to who
> give us reliable information about the Poeneşti-Lukaševka culture
> of the Bastarnian communities?
>  
> *****GK: Why should I repeat myself?

Please do.

> Check my previous posts and if
> you need more specific references ask for them.*****

I checked your previous posts but I didn't find any of those references. I would like to know what those references are which are not in your posts, but I don't know what they are, which makes it difficult.
All I can find is Tacitus' Germania 46:
'The Peucini, however, who are sometimes called Bastarnae, are like Germani in their language, manner of life, and mode of settlement and habitation. Squalor is universal among them and their nobles are indolent. Mixed marriages are giving them something of the repulsive appearance of the Sarmatians.'
Which is why I am keen to know about references which said they didn't mix. Of course it is also possible that they were no more mixed than that they disentangled on arrival in Przeworsk after the defeat by Burebista.

> P.S. I am going to start another thread on the Bastarnae, checking
> out an alternate theory of their identity and history. Or at least
> of some of them. Comments and criticisms welcome. (GK)

 
That sounds exciting. I am looking forward to that.


Torsten