Re: Praenestine fibula

The arguments are mainly related to the brooch's provenance. As I
recall, it seems to have been associated with a well-known forger.
What's interesting is that the brooch appeared at the time when such
an inscription would be 'appreciated'; before then, such an
inscription would not have been recognized as important. The
philological objection, then, is that it is too perfect.

I don't recall reading anything about scientific tests done on the
thing itself.

The fibula, then, has to be analyzed as one of those fakes a la the
Kensington [Minnesota] rune stone.

When there is a market for something of this sort, you can be sure
someone will try to fill the demand.

Mark.