> The question is: when did the Peucini take possession of Peuce?
> GK: Exactly. I'm musing on this. Ps. Scymnos calls them "arrivals" or "arriving migrants" which is ambiguous enough. If they were there in 133-116, they must have been subjects of Skilur at that time (according to the Neapolis inscription).
Accrding to Wikipedia, the Perigesis ad Nicomedem Regem of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Scymnus
was composed around 90BCE, not 133-116.
****GK: Wikipedia gives no arguments for its date. Your earlier source (Pekkanen) offers lengthy ones for 133-116. Actually I preferred a post-Skilur date, because I felt that Pekkanen's conflicted with the data of the Neapolis inscription somewhat. But I deferred to Pek. and his authorities on this. If Bastarnians were "recent arrivals" in 133-116 they could only have been placed there by Skilur as his vassals, after the establishment of his empire to which they were subject. If they "arrived" after 110-> this would have been a part of the Mithridatian "new order" after the defeat of Palak and the loss of the Crimea by the Scythians. The Bastarnians might have been given a green light to occupy Peuca as Mithradates' allies. I don't see any hint of a Burebista expansionism in Ps. Sc. just yet. One question remains: from which are of Bastarnian settlement would these new arrivals have come? P/L, Zar., or both?*****
Given tha it was dedicated to a king in the region,I don't think P-S would have dared susbstituting actual information with the words of a century-old source (Demetius of Callatis). We thus have a terminus postquem of ca. 90 BCE (or 74 BCE,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomedes_IV 's
last year on the throne?).
Torsten