[tied] Re: Fibulas Almgren group VI

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh
> > <gknysh@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > from
> > > > Ion Ionit,â, Ias,i:
> > > > Die Fibeln mit umgeschlagenem Fuss Almgren
> > Gruppe
> > > > VI,1
> > > > in
> > > > 100 Jahre Fibelformen nach Oscar Almgren,
> > Wünsdorf
> > > > 1998
> > > >
> > > > abstract:
> > > > "
> > > > The single-piece fibula with inverted foot and
> > chord
> > > > in high position
> > > > (A VI, 1a; pl VII) developed from the La Tène II
> > > > fibula. They were
> > > > produced in North Pontic workshops in the first
> > > > century AD, and soon
> > > > spread to the lower Volga, the Caucasus, and the
> > > > Central Dniepr
> > > > (Zarubineck Culture).
> > >
> > > GK: There is a page in the standard work on
> > the
> > > Zarubinian culture (by Maksimov) which reproduces
> > 17
> > > types of fibulae found in Zarubinian complexes
> > from
> > > the 3rd c. BC through the end of the 2nd c. AD
> > [these
> > > complexes are dated independently of the fibulae
> > by
> > > reference to pottery types]. Could you scan
> > Almgren
> > > VI,1 for us, or , alternatively, mention which
> > > specific Zarubinian site(s)Ionita points to? That
> > > would help me to identify the fibulae in question
> > > (Maksimov uses a different nomenclature).
> > >
> > Ionit,a mentions finds in the Zarubinian culture
> > only in the sentence
> > above, and another one, which I've also quoted (look
> > for C^aplin). It
> > must be the same finds (C^aplin) Boosen mentioned
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/31959
> > Another loaner requisitioned Boosen, so to get it
> > back to obtain
> > further details would take some time. Almgren
> > himself (Studien über
> > nordeuropäischen Fibeln, 1923) which I have now does
> > provide a list
> > of finds (rather dated, of course), but he does not
> > seem to use the
> > term Zarubinian (how old is that?). I don't find
> > C^aplin on his list,
> > I'm afraid.
>
> *****GK: That's because Chaplin wasn't thoroughly
> studied before Tretyakov's 1959 work. In any case,
> there is no doubt that the Chaplin fibulae referred to
> by Ionita are those of the 2nd c. AD. Generally such
> fibulae are consistently dated as of the second half
> of the 1rst c. to the end of the 2nd c. AD. Those of
> Chaplin are viewed as "2nd c." because of their
> correlation to the pottery types of the burials in
> which they were found. I suppose it isn't necessary to
> triple check this. The dates are firm. And if Ionita
> considers these fibulae to be Almgren type VI then
> that would be the date of Almgren type VI in the
> Zarubinian culture (Late). Almgren would not have
> known this nomenclature, which did not become
> prevalent among archaeologists until the 2nd half of
> the 20th c. Perhaps the earlier name was something
> like the "culture of the burial fields" (you could
> check it out in Reinecke).******
>

It seems that if I still want to pursue the idea that there are real
events behind Snorri's account of a Germanic founder migration out of
the North Pontic area, I have two options:

1) Accept that Almgen group VI is late 2nd century and contemporary
with the Marcomannic wars. To back that up there is the idea that
the "Odin" figure is a conflation of several historical figures (Saxo
has several king Dan's). In this case I'd need at least two, one to
lead an invasion into Scandinavia at the end of the last century BCE,
and another one around 160-180(?) to lead a people from the Nortn
Pontic area to Germania (and an attack by the Danes on the Heruli in
Denmark?). The latter gentleman would match the genealogy that makes
Odin the great-great-grandfather of Horsa.

2) Try to move the dating of Almgren group VI. Ionit,a says everyone
since Almgren has accepted his dating, which is based on the single
argument (as I read him) that these fibulas are found together with
usually several Roman coins of which none are older than Marcus
Aurelius (except for few baffæling cases), thus, so Almgren, these
fibulas cannot have appeared in the North sooner. In principle, I
can't see why not, if these people arrived as the result of a
migration they might not have owned a Roman coin until after the
Marcomannic wars. Second, with the traditional dating, there is a 100
year gap between the Pontic and the North European versions of A
group VI. Ionit,a does not accept the transitional forms proposed by
Almgren, since they are spread over too large an area, but that, I
would suggest, is what you'd expect from a migrating group.

It should be noted that Almgren points out that the group VI wityh
its North Pontic origin is the ancestor of _all_ later Germanic _and_
provincial Roman fibulas. That should be taken into account before
one condemns Snorri's account as pure fiction.

Torsten