Re: 40 - 70 CE -> 72 BCE; possible?

With a small correction:

> Carl-Axel Moberg
> Almgren 68, Om datering av en fibulaform från romersk järnålder
> http://fornvannen.se/pdf/1940talet/1949_119.pdf
>
> 'Summary
>
> Fibulae, type »Almgren 68» (i. e. like fig. 68 in O. Almgrens work, »Studien über nordeuropäische Fibelformen», 1897) are generally believed to belong to the first century A. D. Preidel has tried to provide a more exact dating of this type. There exist two important possibilities for establishing a chronology of these fibulae. Attention has been called to the considerable number of specimens from the Roman fortifications at Hofheim, said to have been established not earlier than 39 A. D. and finally abandoned not later than 83 A. D. However, this way of dating should be used cautiously, because the Hofheim fibulae are not quite similar to those from the lower Vistula region, where the type has been found more frequently by far. In the latter district, chronological evidence may be gained from a number of grave finds, where »Almgren 68» is accompanied by other datable objects. It seems to have been found in graves, not only from the earlier part of the Early Roman Period of Northern Europe, but also from a later date. According to the conventionally used, but very uncertain chronology, the time of »Almgren 68» would be 0-200 A. D. Finds containing no other datable objects than this fibula, should not be given a more precise dating. This shows the special difficulties in connection with dating of finds, containing only one object of chronological value. Groups of few and poor finds should be dated within wider limits, even if they contain isolated objects that seem to permit a more exact chronology.'

...

> In other words, they weren't ethnic Romans (since they were an auxilliary troop)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliaries_(Roman_military)
> That means that the whole construction that Almgren 68, and with it the transition in Northern Europe from Late LaTène to Early Roman time, belongs to 40-70 CE rests on the assumption that the Illyrian (?, but in any case non-Roman) troop did not have Almgren 68 fibulae before they entered Roman service in Hofheim. Given that that type of fibula occurs in non-Roman territory, that is a bold assumption, to say the least. If, as Moberg assumes, that fibula type had an active span of 200 years (0 - 200 CE), why not 300 (100 BCE - 200 CE), since it occurs with Late LaTène at the lower Vistula area? In that case, the troop in Hofheim would be descendants of Ariovistus' Sueui, and perhaps we should call Almgren 68 Sueuian instead of Roman; the Almgren 68 finds in the lower Vistula region would then have belonged to the stay-at-homes.

And I'll add this:
http://web.rgzm.de/283.html
'The end of the Nauheim fibula in the early Roman Principate?

Nauheim fibulae are understood as characteristic for the period La Tène D1 and are therefore dated to the time between the end of the 2nd and the middle of the 1st century BC. However, not every Nauheim fibula belongs to this time horizon. In fact, Nauheim fibulae now occur so often at sites of the early Roman Principate that it is no longer convincing to explain all of them as old pieces or dislocated finds. On the contrary, it is becoming more and more probable that after their highest popularity during La Tène D1, Nauheim fibulae were sporadically still worn by the Celtic population in the second half of the 1st century BC and until the early Roman Principate. M.S.'


Torsten