[tied] Re: Fibulas Almgren group VI

> > >
> > >
> > (Torsten) On the contrary. If Almgren VI is found on
> the
> > Crimea, at Rostov-on-
> > the-Don and in the Caucasus in the kingdom of Vani
> > that matches well
> > with a united Asir-Vanir people later moving into
> > Nortern Europe.
>
> *****GK: Well according to Snorri the Vanir lived on
> the lower Don and the Aesir east of them.

No. According to Snorri, the Vanir lived on the lower Don and the
Aesir east of the Don, not of the Vanir. They might have lived on
different stretches of the river.

>He knows
> nothing about a "kingdom of Vani" "in the Caucasus".
> That is your theory.

True. But remember that Snorri notes that brother-sister marriage was
permitted among the Vanir, but not among the Aesir. Herodotus thinks
that the fact that brother-sister marriage was permitted among the
Colchidians and the Egyptians alone of all peoples shows that the
former came from Egypt. The kingdom of Vani was the old Colchis.
That's a pretty distinctive trait.

>As I've already said any number
> of times, you can't just pick bits and pieces out of
> Snorri's account and reshuffle the lot according to
> your liking.


>Either there is archaeological and
> historical backing for Snorri's tale or there isn't.
> There isn't.====

Is that an example of your reasoning?

>As a corollary point.

To the above?

>By the time of
> Almgren VI, the territories around the lower Don and
> in the Crimean interior were predominantly Alanic. So
> is that your most recent reshuffle? That the "Odin
> people" were cultural Alans? But what evidence do you
> have for the arrival of substantial numbers of
> cultural Alans in Germany in the 2nd c. (there is none
> for your earlier preferred date of the mid- 1rst c.
> BC). Nothing in history and archaeology "matches well
> with a united Asir-Vanir people later moving into
> Northern Europe".

For one thing, there's the Sarmatian ring-pommeled swords in Vimose
on Fyn, which you dismissed as a "stray find".

>You keep repeating this, shuffling
> and reshuffling poor old Snorri. But when asked for
> evidence, you seem unable to produce anything at all.
> Almgren VI is not associated with a specific cultural
> group. The appearance of such fibulae in widely
> different contexts is the best possible argument
> against some identifiable people migrating.

I wonder what archaeological remains a migratory avalanche would
leave behind, if it wasn't a number of similar objects appearing in
widely different contexts? With that type of argument, future
archaeologist would be able to decree that there was no Middle
Eastern immigration to Europe in the late 20th century, since Middle
Eastern objects will be found in Europe in widely differing contexts.

>When a
> people migrates it leaves signs other than just
> fibulae: gravesites with specific inventories,
> settlements (sometimes).

Mention some Hunnic settlements in Europe. Mention traits about
Hunnic gravesite that allow us to identify them as Turkic.

>You are unable to provide any
> such evidence for your mythical "Odin people".******

In spite of your protestations that there is absolutely no connection
between the two areas, so far I've come up with (early) Almgren 67/68
in Germania and the North Pontic (although consensus says the
direction is the opposite of what I'd like), and Almgren type VI from
the North Pontic becoming the ancestor of all later Germanic and
provincial Roman fibulas, by reading two books on the subject. I
think I'll have to concentrate on grave assemblages now.


Torsten