From: Torsten
Message: 67460
Date: 2011-05-03
>I understand your objection, but I think there is an unspoken premise in it which does not hold. It is that of non-reseparability of merged cultures. If we use again the comparison with Eastern Europe in WWII we know that that definitely doesn't hold in real life, populations that seemed to be merged are suddenly separated, to put it very mildly. This presupposes of course that they made up separate and identifiable (to each other) layers of that seemingly merged culture.
> > Note the Hachmann quote here:
> > http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66893
>
> > The strange Jungian synchronicity between Middle German and
> > Poieneshti forms stretching into time period B and dying then in
> > Poieneshti seems to be better explained by a wholesale transfer of
> > the Bastarnae to Central Germany.
>
> ****GK: The problem with this hypothesis is that the Poieneshti
> culture only evolved in Moldavia (more precisely in the Getan
> sections conquered by the Yastorfers). The originating Middle German
> culture of the incoming Yastorfers (incl. their fibulae) was not
> Poieneshti since that did not yet exist. It doesn't seem reasonable
> to assume that this "wholesale transfer of the Bastarnae to Central
> Germany" would have been preceded by a total loss of all the "local"
> cultural elements they had developed in Moldavia. And Hachmann
> doesn't see any such in Middle Germany esp. in ceramics. Therefore
> this later time period Middle German culture cannot be (and has not
> been) interpreted as successor to the Poieneshti culture which
> existed in Moldavia until the end of the first half of the 1rst c.
> BCE. On the other hand, the late Poieneshti culture of
> Bukovyna/Galicia certainly is such a successor culture, in all
> details. It also has Kostrzewski's type M fibulae.*****