Gallo-Scythians (Basternae) from Ukraine (Ancestors of Serbs?)

[Bosniensis]

Term bastardisation came from Bastarnae.

According to ancient authors Bastarnes mixed with Slavs and from that mix were created inferior people than pure Bastarnae. According to authors Bastarnae were superior race towards the Slavs. This sounds like nazi theory about superior Germanics and unferior Slavs.

To me, that what is written in Historia Augusta is the most important, and that Gallo-Scythians (Celto-Slavics) that have been moved by Aurelius Probus, Diocletian (2nd, 3rd century) South of Danube in numbers of several hundred thousands.

Those people are no other than Serbs who later mixed with Greeks, Illyrians (like myself) or they didn't they remained what they are.

[Bosniensis]

It doesn't specify if they were brought to Moesia inferior (Bulgaria) or Moesia superior (Serbia). "Thrace" seems to suggest Bulgaria.

It doesn't have to matter... since after that Bulgaria, Serbia were part of the same Empire for hundreds of years, people moved from Serbia and Bulgaria up and down numerous times.

[Pribislav]

Reconstrution of Bastarnae. They looks Germanic.

[Bosniensis]

Reconstrution of Bastarnae. They looks Germanic.

No.

Germanics look like Celts, for Celts were Space Marines in comparison with Germans who were barely naked, uneducated, primitive cave people.

Don't ever compare Celts with Germans, Germans learned to talk in 5th century A.D. and became literate in 10th century A.D.

Celts were gods in comparison to average German in 2nd century A.D.

[Moje ime]

Reconstrution of Bastarnae. They looks Germanic.

I think they can pass in Serbia.

[Ayetooey]

Reconstruction of a Basternae woman.

[Moje ime]

Reconstruction of a Basternae woman.

Baskid

[Ayetooey]

Baskid

Interesting. This is from a burial from Pelczyska.

[Pribislav]

Reconstruction of a Basternae woman.

Reconstrution which I posted is from archeological museum in Krakow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastar...terial_culture

[MagnusDark]

Bastarnae were originally Celts and described as such, some theorise they were partially Germanised later on, before becoming slavicised. But they were originally Celtic people.

I wouldn't put too much stock in those assumptions. Even ancient writers weren't exactly sure. They were referred to as "Celt/Germanic Like". We also should remember that material culture is not always indicative of ethnic make up. For instance many proposed Slavic cultures are referred to as non-Slavic due to some Celtic/Germanic nature of artifacts. However, we already know that Balto-Slavs were similar in certain aspects to both Celts and Germanics. Actually especially Celts(at least where it concerns religion). There was evidence of a Bronze Age Globalization and collapse. trade of culture and ideas was already happening. It is likely there was much that made neighboring peoples and tribes similar as opposed to differentiated with the modern advent of Nationalism in the last 300 years. The problem is many of us interpret the past with a modern lens. Also almost everything about the migration narrative rests on the interpretation of German writers(last 300 years wink wink), based on writings that were themselves off the shoulders of prior accounts. The only one that I think wrote about the Sclavenes from personal experience was Jordanes, and he assumed/or was convinced they were the descendants of the Getae. Much of what was included in Illyricum, were not genetically or even linguistically "Homogeneous".

Take the Pannoni. Before being defeated by Rome and included into Illyricum, they were called Celt/Illyrian like but "neither". Their leader was named "Bato". Wrap your head around that lol. I think writers were just as misinformed about those they wrote about just as modern writers(in the techy age no less) can't distinguish between Balkanites.