Pages: 17-32

A Comment on V.E. Eremenko’s Dissertation “The Lateneisation Process of Archaeological Societies in Late Pre-Roman Time in the Eastern Europe and Development of Zarubintsy Culture”.
K.V. Kasparova, V.E. Eremenko’s opponent, is quite positive about his work in general, though she makes a number of comments. She does not agree, in particular, with the too early date of the stage C1b in La Téne (225-190 BC); again, she is not quite convinced with an attempt to distinguish a stage on Zarubintsy sites, preceding the marches of Bastarnae to the Balakans in 179-168. She also points out a number of inaccuracies, particularly, in synchronisation of phases on the cemeteries of Poienesti, Lukashevka and Dolineni.
A Comment on the Manuscript of Article by A.M. Oblomskii “On Classification and Chronology of Zarubintsy Fibulae with a Triangular Shield”.
K.V. Kasparova is rather friendly, though quite critical about the commented article. First of all, she criticises the author for weak knowledge of modern European literature (Godłowski, 1977, 1977a; Woźniak 1977; 1979) and citation of apparently obsolete works (Hachman 1961). In particular, the initial date of La Téne D1 has been changed already; it was earlier based on the wrong dating of the fall of Celtic oppidum Manching in 15 BC. Second, for a number of inaccuracies committed in description of fibulae, statements of various researchers’ views, etc.
A Comment on L.D. Poboli’s Article “Iron Age in Belarus” (in Connection with A.G. Mitrofanov’s Review).
In this case K.V. Kasparova was asked by “Sovetskaya Arheologiya” Journal to act as a referee in debate between two researchers from Belarus: L.D. Poboli and A.G. Mitrofanov. The former published a big volume in 1983, called “Arheologicheskie pamyatniki Byelorussii: Zheleznyi Vek” (Archaeological Sites in Byelorussia: Iron Age), and the latter one made a review of the book, where he marked many inaccuracies, like one and the same site being cited under different names, while several different sites are united under one name, etc. L.D. Poboli’s response was the article, which K.V. Kasparova was asked to comment.
After studying the materials, she draws a conclusion that the reviewer was right in all the cases. Besides, she adds her own observations. The conclusion she makes is the following: it is dangerous to use L.D. Poboli’s book as a reference tool, which it pretends to be. There are too many errors and inaccuracies in it.