Still not quite ready. Am rereading some literature. A few of my earlier positions will be changed, on the basis of better source analysis. The most important change: I was doubtful of Schukin's claim that the archaeological equivalent of the Bastarnians was not just Poeneshti-Lukashovka but P/L + Zarubyntsi (=the Zarubinian culture). Apparently this is correct. The latest opus on the Zarubinian culture, written by none other than Pachkova (the best expert on Poeneshti-Lukashovka), and published in Kyiv in 2006 ("The Zarubinian culture and the LaTenized cultures of Europe" /in Russian/, nearly 400 pp.) establishes two fundamentally important facts beyond discussion (some had been mentioned before but not defended as convincingly). (1) The fibulae of the Zarubinians were developed (entirely!) from
Scordiscan models (unlike those of the Poeneshti-Lukashovka groups; about the Peucini there is no archaeological evidence as I mentioned). (2) The burial rite of the Zarubinians (and she studies this very precisely) had 62 of 78 Scordiscan markers. Her conclusion: it is the Zarubinians rather than the Poeneshti-Lukashovkans who participated in the Bastarnian Balkan campaigns of 179-168 BCE (as noted in Livy 40, 41, and 45), and whose elite could make itself understood by the Scordiscan Celts (she thinks the warriors imported Scordiscan ladies to their land). So when discussing the Bastarnians one must take into account not just Poeneshti-Lukashovka, but even more= Zarubinia... (I haven't read Pachkova directly, and am relying on a number of explanatory references in Kazakevich's 2009 article). One question comes to mind: Would Strabo's 7.3.17 text apply to this adequately? I.e. would Atmones and Sidones point to P/L and
Zar.? His information here (in any case) is about the situation of ca. 100 BCE, or generally from the time of Mithradates.