The Fibula Prenestina and the Art of Ancient Forgery

The Fibula Prenestina and the Art of Ancient Forgery

The story of the Fibula Prenestina (Figure 1) is one of the greatest artifact mysteries rarely told. In the suburbs of Rome in 1887, this ancient object was purported to have emerged from an unearthed elite tomb dating back to the 7th cen. BCE. Upon its publication, the fibula was declared to preserve one of - if not the - earliest examples of Latin writing ever found. The inscription, written on a small gold ‘brooch,’ reads from right to left in archaic Latin: “ꟿANIOS ꟿED FHEFHAKED NVꟿASIOI” (Gordon 1983: 75). 

Figure 1. Fibula Prenestina, a gold dragon-type fibula with archaic Latin inscription. From Latium, c. 7^th cen. BCE. Museo Preistorico Etnografico L. Pigorini, Rome. (Fibula Photo Credit: Marie-Lan Ngyuen, 2009 (CC BY 2.5)).

Though the language is archaic Latin, the script is Western Greek, in a form likely influenced by the local Etruscans (Figure 2). The inscription forms what scholars call a titulus loquens, a “speaking inscription,” because it is written in the first person as if the object itself is speaking. It says, “Manios made me for Numasios.” In contrast to classical Latin, which would read Manius me fecit Numasio, the inscription preserves Latin forms and letters previously unknown. Stranger yet, it was inscribed in retrograde, similar to the earliest types of Greek inscriptions, which start from right to left, and then turns back again from left to right (a form of writing called Boustrophedon, which means “as the plough ox goes”).

Figure 2. Side-by-side comparison of the transcribed letters on the fibula versus how they appear on the fibula itself. (Fibula Photo Credit: Marie-Lan Ngyuen, 2009 (CC BY 2.5). Image cropped to size).

When the German archaeologist, Wolfgang Helbig (1839 - 1915), published his discovery of the fibula in 1887, Theodor Mommsen, the most famous contemporary historian in the world, proclaimed: “Daß ist wirklich uraltes Latein, und glücklicherweise verständlich." Or in English, “That [inscription] is truly very ancient Latin, and fortunately understandable.” The find helped Helbig go on to become the director of the prestigious German Archaeological Institute at Rome. In the following century, however, people began to question Helbig’s astounding find. What if the inscription “FHEFHAKED” was a clue? What if, in reality, the Fibula Prenestina was “FAKED” by Helbig for fame and academic success? 

There are reasons to believe that this was the case. First, the story of the discovery kept changing. First, Helbig claimed it was discovered in 1871 in a tomb in Preneste. But there were no archaeological excavations there in 1871. Then Helbig said that he was given the artifact by a friend. If so, however, why did he keep it a secret for sixteen more years? Then in 1900, Georg Karo (1872 - 1963), the director of the Museo Nazionale Preistorico Etnografico and Helbig’s former student, told a different story. Karo said that after its initial discovery the head supervisor of the excavation at Preneste illegally sold the fibula to the international antiquities dealer, Francesco Martinetti (1833-1895). Martinetti was then revealed to be “the friend” who showed the fibula to Helbig in his original story. Karo added that Helbig meant to keep this a secret – likely due to Martinetti’s poor reputation as an antique’s dealer and forger – but decided to reveal the background to the public now that most of the participants were deceased. By 1925, it was even alleged that the forger of the inscription had been found by the scholar Giovanni Pinza (1872-1940), who wrote a series of articles questioning the validity of the famous brooch. 

The mystery, however, died down during the following fifty years, and many accepted the authenticity of the piece. It remained on display in Rome – today in the Museo Nazionale Preistorico Etnografico, with a replica also on display in the Baths of Diocletian – where it was and still is exhibited as one of the most important examples of ancient jewelry and the early Latin language. This gives it a unique place in the history of ancient art: fibulae of this kind were used in antiquity to secure garments such as the toga and cloak, and were popular in men and women’s fashion in ancient Italy. Gold fibulae were one of the most significant ways to indicate status and wealth. Many surviving fibulae from the same period as the Fibula Prenestina come from Etruria, where the Etruscans fashioned some of the most beautiful and functional fibulae in antiquity (Figures 3 & 4).

Figure 3. Gold serpentine fibula with granulation in the shape of felines. 7^th cen. BCE, Etruscan. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. (Museum Purchase by subscription, 1895.)

Figure 4. Bronze dragon-type fibula. 7^th cen. BCE, Etruscan. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. (Museum Purchase, 1896.)

As for the Fibula Prenestina, the rare combination of an early Latin script on a gold object speaks not only to status and wealth, but to the cultural practices of Latin-speaking tribes on the Italian peninsula during the archaic period. Therefore, if the Fibula Prenestina is genuine, it truly is one of the most remarkable and important attestations of cultural practice and linguistic development in Italic history. 

In the 1970s, however, the cold case of the forgery claim against the fibula was brought back to international attention by the Italian archaeologist, Margherita Guarducci. On the grounds of metallic and linguistic analysis, she declared the fibula a forgery once again (Guarducci, 1980: 469-470). Further investigation by Guarducci revealed that Helbig had been involved in undisclosed business dealings with the controversial antiquities dealer, Martinetti, in the past, which included the sale of two other forged objects “from Preneste.” At the end of her investigation, she said: “Cade, così, il mito della Fibula Prenestina, dopo aver ingannato per quasi un secolo studiosi di tutto il mondo e provocato agli studi numerosi danni.” Translated into English: “Thus falls the myth of the Fibula Prenestina, after having deceived - for almost a century - scholars worldwide and caused considerable damage to the field of study.” Guarducci, declared the “Sherlock Homes” of archaeology by one of her peers, seemed to have finally put the mystery to rest. 

In 2011, however, two scholars presented new data at an academic roundtable on the object, showing that the Fibula Prenestina and its inscription are genuine ‘beyond any reasonable doubt.’ The foremost article covering the event, published in 2012, reads: 

Specific observation by means of SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope) and consequent detailed physical and chemical analyses on the surface of small areas within the track of the incision showed the existence of micro-crystallization of the gold-surface: a natural phenomenon that can have place only in the course of centuries after the fusion. That is to say, the Fibula Prenestina as well as its inscription are genuine, and the marks and spots detected on the surface are the result of clumsy operations of cleaning and restoration realized by unskilled hands after the discovery of the jewel. There is no way that a 19th century forger could have realized such a forgery.

This has brought scholars back to the question of the historic significance of the fibula and its fascinating inscription. If has finally been accepted as authentic, what can we learn about the ancient history of jewelry in relation to ancient writing? Were such inscriptions part of the elite world of giving and receiving gifts long before Romans used the written word to record history? Furthermore, was the fibula itself inscribed by the craftsperson who made the object? Or, as most scholars believe today, was it inscribed instead by Manios, who had the fibula made for a man named Nicasios more than 2,000 years ago? This leaves a tantalizing new set of questions for future scholars to figure out. Were the two men friends? Were they equals? What did the giving of elite jewelry mean in the ancient Roman world and how does it make us re-imagine the history of jewelry today? In the meantime, the Fibula Prenestina lives on as one of the most enduring mysteries in archaeology, linguistics, and art history.

Works Referenced: 

de Simone, C. 2006. Falisco “faced” – Latino arcaico “vhevhaked”: la genuità della fibula prenestina e problemi connessi. Incontro Linguistici 29: 159-175. 

Formigli, E. 1992. Indagini archeometriche sull'autenticità della Fibula Praenestina. Mitteilungen des deutschen archaeologischen Instituts. Roemische Abteilung. Band 99: 329-343. 

Franchi de Bellis, A. 2007. La fibula di Numasio e la coppa dei Veturii. Quaderni dell' Istituto di Linguistica dell' Universita di Urbino 12. Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso. 

Gordon, A. E. 1975. The Inscribed Fibula Praenestina – Problems of Authenticity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 

Gordon, A. E. 1978. Further Remarks on the Inscribed Gold Fibula Praenestina. Epigraphica 40: 32-39. 

Gordon, A. E. 1983. Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy. University of California Press. 

Guarducci, M. 1980. La cosiddetta fibula prenestina – antiquari, eruditi e falsari nella Roma dell' ottocento. Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Memorie. Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche. Serie VIII – Volume XXIV, fascicolo 4. Rome: Accademia nazionale dei Lincei.

Maras, Daniele F. 2012. Scientists declare the Fibula Prenestina and its inscription to be genuine “beyond any reasonable doubt.” Etruscan News, 14: 1 and 20.