From: Gregory L. Eyink
Message: 5141
Date: 2000-12-21
> There are significant grounds for thinking that it is fraudulent.Second:
> The first suspicions were philological, but microscopic examination
> showed that the letters had been incised far more recently than the
> age of the fibula itself. (I think it involved amount of corrosion
> and patina and such.)
>
> There's a summary in Gordon's "Introduction to Latin Epigraphy",
> with references to the primary literature (Eric Hamp made a major
> contribution to the discussion).
> The Praenestine fibula has, in fact, been shown to be a 19thI hope people find this useful. I am leaving for my family Xmas
> century forgery. I once heard the late Arthur Gordon give a talk
> to that effect. Cf. Larissa Bonfante in her introduction to
> _Etruscan Life and Afterlife: A Handbook of Etruscan Studies_
> (ed. Larissa Bonfante, Detroit, 1986), p 4:
>
> The famous Praenestine fibula, which has for a century been
> honored as bearing the earliest Latin inscription and the best
> example of archaic Latin, "Manios med vhevhaked" ("Manius made
> me"), is now supposed by many to have been forged in collusion
> with learned scholars who conspired to pass it off as genuine.
>
> Citations: A.E. Gordon, _The Inscribed Fibula Praenestina:
> Problems of Authenticity_ (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1975);
> D. Ridgway, "Manios Faked?" _BICS_ 24 (1977) 17-30; M. Guarducci,
> _MemLinc_ 24 (1980) 415-574.