Citation
Fibulae of the Ninth through Seventh Centuries BC in Central Italy

Material Information

Title:
Fibulae of the Ninth through Seventh Centuries BC in Central Italy
Creator:
Hambleton, Jennifer
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (122 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.A.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Art History
Art and Art History
Committee Chair:
Barletta, Barbara A.
Committee Members:
Poynor, Robin E.
Graduation Date:
8/9/2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Bones ( jstor )
Bronzes ( jstor )
Elbow ( jstor )
Fibula ( jstor )
Intermarriage ( jstor )
Iron ( jstor )
Iron age ( jstor )
Serpentine ( jstor )
Spectacle ( jstor )
Violins ( jstor )
Art and Art History -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
colonization, etruria, fibula, greek, italic
Genre:
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Art History thesis, M.A.

Notes

Abstract:
This thesis addresses the development of fibulae in the region of the Italian peninsula. The fibula is a device that had been used in antiquity to fasten garments. The tradition of the Italic fibula is a small, but significant part of a much larger and older tradition within the Mediterranean region. Certain types were held in common among cultures in southern Europe, Greece, Italy, and the Near East during the 13th-11th centuries BC. These early types became the ancestors of forms that came to define the Italic sequence. This sequence benefited from these diverse influences during its maturation in the 9th through 7th centuries BC. The rise of the Italic sequence during the 9th century overlapped with the arrival of the Greeks in the 8th century at Pithekoussai in the Bay of Naples. This overlap was significant and has been troublesome to scholars in the past because certain types of Italic fibulae and Italic-looking fibulae appear at Pithekoussai, and subsequently in Sicily at the Greek colony of Syracuse. In the past, archaeologists had trouble in determining which ones were Greek and which were Italic because the rise of the Italic sequence was so close in time to the arrival of the Greeks. The types that have sparked the most debate are the knobbed serpentine, the composite leech, and the knobbed leech fibulae. The elongated catch-plate of these types has been a subject of debate, too, mainly because certain archaeologists insisted that it was Greek in origin. Their claims are not supported by secure evidence, which will be discussed in the thesis. These three types of fibulae occur in both Italic and Greek sites of the 8th and 7th centuries, including Pithekoussai and Syracuse. Some archaeologists argued for a Greek origin while others demonstrated that they had always been part of the Italic tradition. The inability to identify them as either Greek or Italic in origin seems still to be present today, but this thesis aims to present the available evidence on the knobbed serpentine, composite leech, and knobbed leech fibulae in order to make a fair assessment on the origin of these types. Apart from the controversy concerning the appearance of certain types of Italic fibulae and western Greek composite leech fibulae at Greek sites in Italy, the period of time spanning the 8th through the 7th centuries also marks the sudden increase of wealth in Etruria. Fibulae appear in luxurious materials and sophisticated techniques during the 7th century, especially in Etruria. This change is important for the information it reveals about the effects of foreign cultures in central Italy, such as the Greeks and Phoenicians. The study of fibulae is important for the information that these objects reveal about the interactions between the Greeks and the indigenous peoples of Italy. They also crucial for understanding that the Italic people were influencing the Greeks and the Greeks were influencing the Italic people as opposed to the outdated thought that culture was passing in one direction only. This direction was believed to have been from Greece to Italy. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local:
Adviser: Barletta, Barbara A.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Jennifer Hambleton.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Hambleton, Jennifer. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Classification:
LD1780 2008 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





LIST OF REFERENCES


Alexander, John. "The Spectacle Fibula of Southern Europe." American Journal ofArchaeology
69 (January 1965): 7-23.

Bietti Sestieri, Anna Maria. "Italian Swords and Fibulae of the Late Bronze and Early Iron
Ages." Italian Iron Age Artefacts: in the British Museum: Papers of the Six\ih British
Museum Classical Coloquium (1986): 3-23.
- "The Metal Industry of Continental Italy, 13th to 11 th Centuries BC and its connection
with the Aegean." Proceedings of the Pre-Historic Society (1973): 383-424.

Blinkenberg, Christian. Lindiaka VFibules Grecques et Orientales. Kobenhavn: Andr. Fred.
Host & Son, 1926.

British Museum Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities. British Museum Catalogue of
Greek Etruscan, and Roman Jewellery. London: British Museum, 1911.

Buchner, Giorgio and David Ridgway. Pithekoussai I. Rome: Bretschneider, 1993.

Buchner, Giorgio. "Early Orientalizing: Aspects of the Euboean Connection." In Italy before the
Romans, ed. Ridgway, David and Francesca Ridgway, 129-144. New York: Academic
Press, 1979.

Close-Brooks, Joanna and David Ridgway. "Veii in the Iron Age." In Italy before the Romans.
New York: Academic Press, 1979.

Coldstream, J.N. "Mixed Marriages at the Frontiers of the Early Greek World." Oxford Journal
ofArchaeology 12.1 (1993): 89-107.

Crielaard, Jan. "How the West Was Won." In Die Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums "
Interactions in the Iron Age: Phoenicians, Greeks, and the Indigenous Peoples of the
Western Mediterranean", ed. Niemeyer, 235-260. Mainz: P. von Zabem, 1996.
- "The Social Organization of Euboean Trade with the Eastern Mediterranean during the
10th to 8th Centuries BC." Journal of the Netherlands Institute atAi/,wn, (1993): 138-
145.

D'Agostino, Bruno and Patrizia Gastaldi. Pontecagnano: II. La Necropoli del Picento: 1. Le
Tombe della Prima Eta del Ferro. Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento
del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico, 1988.

D'Agostino, Bruno. Tombs Principesche dell'orientalizzanye antico da Pontecagnano. Rome:
Accademia nazionale dei lincei, 1977.

de la Geniere, Juliette. "The Iron Age in Southern Italy." In Italy before the Romans. New York:
Academic Press, 1979.

De Natale, Serenella. Pontecagnano II. La Necropoli di S. Antonio: Propr. ECI 2. Tombe della
Prima Eta delFerro. Napoli: Instituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di studi del
mondo e del Mediterraneo Antico, 1992.






















2-a _:,


2 -..:.


Figure 2-3. Spectacle fibula type II. Alexander, John. "The Spectacle Fibula of Southern
Europe." American Journal ofArchaeology 69 (January 1965):12.


2-3a









The techniques of cold-working and annealing are used together, and the combination has

proved successful for the fashioning of catch-plates, pins, and springs.74 The hammer marks on

the underside of the bow of the examples of arch fibulae suggest that this method was also used

at least for that part of the fibula.75 The leech and boat forms may have used the piece-mould or

lost-wax casting methods."6 Piece-mold casting involves producing a core for the fibula and

piercing it with a pin, which was to be inserted into prepared slits in each part of the fibula.7

Once these preparations have been made, the fibula is cast. A small support structure is built

around a wax mould of the fibula to be produced.78 The wax is heated and allowed to melt away,

leaving a hollow mould in which the fibula is cast. The support structure is broken open to reveal

the new fibula.

Toms offers these casting techniques as possibilities because of the evidence revealed in

miscast fibulae from Pithekoussai and Bologna. Apparently the piece-mould method was more

economical than the lost wax method since their moulds could have been used to make a whole

series of fibulae.79 In contrast, the lost wax method was seemingly employed to create a unique

product, and the maker might also use the lost wax process for the creation of plastic

decoration.8

As an alternative to plastic decoration, incised decoration may have been made using a

punta a stilo, a device for pushing or pulling across the metal in such a way as to render an

74 Ibid., esp. 97

75 Ibid., esp. 97-99
76 Ibid., esp. 99-101

SIbid., esp. 99

8 Ibid., esp. 100

79 Ibid., esp. 99-101

80 Ibid., esp. 101









article while discussing the possible origin and date of the knobbed serpentine and the Greek

composite leech fibula. It seems quite natural that like the serpentine type with knobs, the leech

type might have developed to display knobs as well. In this case, the appearance of the leech

type with knobs would be in keeping with the tradition of decorating the bow with knobs, which

was first seen in Italy long before the 8th century.

Summary

To recapitulate, the knobbed serpentine and knobbed leech bows do seem to derive from

the Italic sequence. The appearance of these types at Monte Finocchito and Veii along with other

Italic fibulae demonstrates that they are most likely native to Italy. Their appearance in the Greek

colonies of Pithekoussai and Cumae suggests that, like the simple arch, serpentine, leech, and

drago fibulae, they must have been adopted and worn by the peoples in both of these colonies.

These fibulae may have been imported from the mainland since they have such close parallels in

certain Italic sites. Or, they could have possibly been produced at Pithekoussai since there is

evidence that a metal working quarter existed on this island in antiquity.38 That the collection of

fibulae at Pithekoussai and Cumae "find exact parallels in the contemporary tombs of Etruria" is

evidenced by comparing the repertoire of fibulae at Veii with Pithekoussai and Cumae.39

The one type that does seem to be Greek inspired from the native tradition is the

composite leech fibula in the Greek style. After comparing the placement and style of the bone

and amber segments of composite leech fibulae found in the Greek colonies to that of those

traditionally worn by the native Italic peoples, we conclude that the Greeks were influenced by

the Italic tradition. The examination of the finds from Syracuse, Pithekoussai, and key



38 David Ridgway, The First Western Greeks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), esp. 93-100.
39 J.N Coldstream, "Mixed Marriages," esp. 91.









and Cyprus. The examination of the development and diffusion of the fibula during the 13th

through the 9th centuries is important for understanding how the development of the Italic fibula

fits into the larger historical context in the Italian region. The second and more important

objective of this paper is to trace the development of the Italic fibula specifically from the 9th

through the 7th centuries BC. A wide variety of fibulae were being produced during the six

hundred years from the 13th through the 7th centuries. In order to prepare the reader for my

conclusions, the typology of fibulae will be addressed.

Methodology and aims: An attempt has been made to collect and sort through the work of

the relatively limited number of scholars who have studied Italian fibulae. Primary sources have

been used whenever possible as the preferred method of research. These sources are books,

excavation reports, and articles carried out and written by different archaeologists depending

upon whether the material is from the Italian mainland or Sicily. One of the most helpful sources

for understanding the chronological development of the fibula is by Johannes Sundwall.1

Excavations yielding fibulae range in date, with some of the earliest carried out in the middle of

the 19th century and some of the latest in the middle 20th century. They yielded fibulae dating

from the middle of the 8th century BC to well into the 7th century BC. To clarify, all of the

material in this thesis is of a BC date so sometimes the specific century will only be referenced

throughout this paper.

The chief aim of this investigation has been to compare the original excavation reports to

the secondary literature in the fields of archaeology and art history in an attempt to deconstruct

the intricacies of the confusion. Since the original excavations, new research has been

undertaken, which questions out-dated ideas and opinions from the time of the excavations


1 Johannes Sundwall, Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln (Berlin: Gruyter and Company, 1943).









states that the disposal of many items, fibulae and otherwise, in child graves conforms to the

practices of burying children in Greece.27 The concentration of fibulae in child graves is viewed

as a result of trade. The concentration of these fibulae in child graves suggests that they

functioned as grave offerings and were not strictly functional as items of clothing. This situation

differs from Pithekoussai where they were found with women and would have been worn by

them in life.

The Greek sites of Megara Hyblaea and Gela on Sicily exhibit similar circumstances to

those of Syracuse regarding the use of the fibula. At Megara Hyblaea, pins were more common

than Italic fibulae as noted by Shepherd. When fibulae did occur, they were found in wealthy

graves of children.28 Greek pins were even more common at Gela than Megara Hyblaea, while

the deposition of Italic fibulae was very rare.29 When fibulae did occur at Gela, they were

associated with wealthy child burials similarly to Megara Hyblaea and Syracuse.30

The evidence from Ischia and Sicily serves to demonstrate the fusion of Greek and Italic

culture. The large amount of native fibulae present in the graves of adult women and children on

Ischia and the association of native fibula types with children at Syracuse highlights the

interactions of the Italic and Greek cultures in these two regions of Italy. These interactions are

seen as early as the 8th century at Ischia and continue into down into the 7th century in Sicily.

The finds from the cemeteries of the Greek colonies has been examined in order to

understand the relationship that the Greek settlers at each colony maintained with the native

peoples. The finds from Sicily demonstrate that the fibulae found there are likely better

27 Shepherd notes how sometimes the burials of children in Greece are often richer than those of adults on p. 287.
28 Gillian Shepherd, "Fibulae and Females," esp. 293
29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.
















































Figure 5-3. Etruscan sites









1. Small knobbed leech bow (Figure A-5, A-6, and A-7) The small knobbed leech type is
similar in shape to the simple leech type that does not have knobs. Short stems may project
from the sides of the fibula to terminate in small round knobs. Sometimes the knobs do not
project from the sides of the fibula on short stems, but instead take the form of simple
lateral projections. A small single or double coil spring transitions into an elongated catch-
plate. Decorative lines on the widest area of the bow may be incised between the knobs.

K. The Large Leech Bow type: The large leech bow type may have a solid, hollow, or

composite semicircular bow, a small single or double coil spring and an elongated or long

channel catch-plate that may extend as much as twice the length of the leech portion. The long

nature of the catch-plate and the compact form of the bow distinguish this type from the small

leech group. Unique geometric motifs consisting of circular and linear patterns as well as figural

compositions may be worked on the bow and catch-plate, and an articulated catch-plate and knob

may be present.

Variations of the large leech bow type include:

1. Large Leech Bow (Figures 2-27) The large leech bow may have a solid, hollow, or
semicircular shaped bow is wider in the center compared to the small leech types. A single
or double coil spring transitions into an elongated channel catch-plate, but usually the
catch-plate is a long channel. The long channel catch-plate is significantly longer than the
elongated versions. Unique combinations of geometric patterns or three-dimensional
conical elements are distributed over the entire surface or selected areas.

L. The Composite Leech Bow type19 (Figure A-8) The composite leech bow is a

semicircular bow with a single or double spring. The spring transitions into a small channel or

elongated channel catch-plate. Various accompanying materials such as amber and bone discs,

glass paste, and ivory are strung along its entire length or restricted to particular areas of the

bow. If restricted, then they may be thick in nature and either spaced evenly or located in the





19 Some scholars, such as Toms, have categorized the composite leech bow as an arch bow. The shape of the bow is
not a simple arch, but rather is leech in form. For this reason, Tom's "composite arch bow type" will be categorized
in the typology and later discussed throughout the thesis as the composite leech bow type.









CHAPTER 4
CONTROVERSIAL TYPES OF THE 8TH THROUGH THE 6TH CENTURIES BC

Serpentine fibulae with knobs on the sides, leech fibulae with bone and amber strung on

the bow, and knobbed leech fibulae have received much attention since Paolo Orsi first

conducted his excavations at Syracuse in Sicily during the course of the late nineteenth century.

All three types appeared not only at Syracuse, but also Pithekoussai and Cumae. Besides the

Greek colonies, these types have been unearthed at native sites in Sicily and the Italian mainland.

Since they have been found at both Greek colonies and Italic sites, archaeologists have long

questioned their origin. Some thought they were Italic in origin while others believed them to be

Greek. This chapter will present the locations in Sicily and the mainland where knobbed

serpentine fibulae, composite leech fibulae, and knobbed leech fibulae have been found. This

chapter will also list the other objects found in the presence of these fibulae. Understanding the

context in which these fibulae occur will help to determine their most probable origin.

The Knobbed Serpentine Fibula

Examples of the knobbed serpentine type have been found at Syracuse, Pithekoussai, and

Cumae (see Figure A-4). In the Fusco cemetery at Syracuse, they occur in graves 326 and 308

both dating to the first half of the 7th century.' At Pithekoussai and Cumae, they date to the

second half of the 8th century.2 The knobbed serpentine type also occurs at the native sites of

Monte Finocchito on Sicily,3 Pontecagnano in Campania at the necropolises of the Picento4 and



1 Hugh Hencken, "Syracuse," esp. 269.
2 Ibid., 269-270

3 D.C Steures, Monte Finocchito Revisited (Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Press, 1980). Examples of the knobbed
serpentine type appear throughout the catalogue.
4 Bruno D'Agostino and Patrizia Gastaldi, Pontecagnano: II. La Necropoli del Picento: 1. Le Tombe della Prima Eta
del Ferro (Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico,
1988).









and Calabria have yielded similar types of fibulae including the simple arch and serpentine types

during the 9th -8th centuries.3

De la Geniere also identifies the spectacle fibula, the simple arch fibula with symmetrical

channel catch-plate, the leaf fibula with, and later without, the disc-foot, the composite leech

bow fibula, the triple coil serpentine fibula, and the double-coil spectacle fibula as the types

known to exist in southern Italian graves.4 The serpentine fibula may have a symmetrical channel

or a disc catch-plate as noted by de la Geniere. The elongated channel catch-plate appears in

Sicily as early as the 11th century BC, but in southern Italy the evidence suggests that it does not

occur until sometime in the Early Iron Age, which would be 900-720 BC. The elongated channel

catch-plate appears on the knobbed serpentine type at Sala Consilina and at Torre Mordillo

during these years.

More information on early fibula types is available from Calabria, and in particular from

the native sites of Torre Mordillo, Francavilla Marittima, and Torre Galli during the ninth

through the eighth centuries BC (Figure 5-1). The spectacle, serpentine, Sicilian elbow, and

leech types appear at Torre Mordillo, but the spectacle seems to be less common than the Sicilian

elbow form.6 Eventually, the serpentine form with an elongated channel catch-plate starts to take

shape by 725 BC, and it gradually supersedes the older Sicilian elbow model.7

The four-spiral spectacle fibula with and without the lozenge-shaped plaque in the center,

the Sicilian elbow type, the simple arch bow fibula, and the composite leech bow fibula have

3 Juliette de la Geniere, "The Iron Age in Southern Italy," esp. 78-85

4 Ibid., 79-85

5 Ibid., 82 and 85
6 Maurizio Gualtieri, "Iron in Calabria in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries BC" (PhD diss., University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 1977), esp. 37-42

7 Ibid., 41









people during the 13th-1 1th centuries are not accepted as a proven explanation for the

resemblance of fibula types between Italy and the Aegean area during these centuries.

In addition to the spectacle, violin, stilted bow, and arch bow fibulae (including the

knobbed variations) MacNamara identifies the Sicilian elbow fibula as the fifth early type. She

claims that it originates from the stilted bow fibula of Italy,24 although the shape of the elbow

fibula bears no resemblance to the stilted bow type. On the other hand, Sundwall classifies the

Sicilian elbow fibula as a variation of the serpentine fibula bow type.25 However, the early

history and widespread distribution of the Sicilian elbow type across the Mediterranean merits

that it should be distinguished from the serpentine type. Not only does the Sicilian elbow fibula

have a history that starts as early as the 1 1th century and a wide distribution,26 but the elongated

catch-plate is first associated with this type as demonstrated through the research of MacNamara

and Toms. For these reasons, the Sicilian elbow fibula is classified as its own type in this thesis.

The Elongated Catch-Plate

MacNamara and Toms have recognized that the elongated catch-plate had been part of

the Italic tradition since the late 11th century BC. In Italy, there had always been a strong

tradition of utilizing an elongated or long channel foot, which was seen as early as 1000 BC on

the Sicilian elbow type.27 The elongated catch-plate appeared first in Italy on the Sicilian elbow

fibula and then was transferred to the serpentine, arch and composite leech bows by the early 8th

century BC.28 By the 7th century BC, the elongated catch-plate had been transferred to the solid


24 Ellen MacNamara, "Some Bronze Typologies," esp. 155.
25 Johannes Sundwall, Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln, esp. 137, 138, and 148

26 Ellen MacNamara, "Some Bronze Typologies," esp. 154.

27 Judith Toms, "The Arch Fibula," esp. 95. The Sicilian type appears in Sundwall on 148.

28 Ibid., 94

















































Figure 5-2. Indigenous sites in Campania
















































Figure 2-14 A ringed arch bow fibula. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die
Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 106.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

LIST OF FIGURES ................................... .. .... ..... ................. .7

A B S T R A C T ............ ................... ............................................................ 10

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... ................. ........... .............................. 12

2 T Y P O L O G Y ..................................................................................................................... 1 7

3 FIBULA TYPES OF THE 13TH THROUGH 7TH CENTURIES BC: DEVELOPMENT
AND DIFFUSION........... ...... .. .........................................49

T he E elongated C atch-P late .......................................................................... .....................53
G geographical D distribution ................................................................................ ............... 58
Fibula Types from the 13th tol lth Centuries BC............... .............................................58
Fibula Types from the 9th to 7th Centuries BC..................................... .................62

4 CONTROVERSIAL TYPES OF THE 8TH THROUGH THE 6TH CENTURIES BC...........65

T he K nobbed Serpentine F ibula ............................ ...................................... .....................65
The Com posite Leech B ow Fibula ........................................ ................... ............... 69
Italic fibulae at Syracuse, Pithekoussai and Cumae .................................... ............... 73
T he K nobbed L eech F ibula .......................................................................... ....................74
Sum m ary ......... ....... .................................. ............................ 75

5 PROVENIENCE, MATERIALS, TECHNIQUES, AND ICONOGRAPHY ......................79

S ite s ........................................... .......... ......... ..... .. ... ........................... 7 9
Ninth and Eighth Centuries in Sicily, Southern Italy, and Campania: The
Indigenous Sites ........................... ......... ........ ....... ........ 79
Etruria in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries ................... ..... ............... 83
The Greek Colonies in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries ...........................................84
Etruria and Latium in the Seventh Century ................. ..... ...............85
M a te ria ls ........................................ .. ............. ........ .. ................................. 8 7
Ninth and Eighth Centuries in Sicily, Southern Italy, and Campania.................................87
Etruria and Latium in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries............................... .................89
The Greek Colonies in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries ...........................................90
Etruria in the Seventh C century ............................................... ............................. 91
Processes and Techniques of Production.................................................................... ...... 91
Icon ography .................................................................................93









leech, four-spiral spectacle, and drago fibulae.13 The arch and serpentine types emerge before the

leech and drago types.14 The four-spiral spectacle type makes its debut after the arch, serpentine,

leech, and drago types are already present.'5 The short symmetrical channel, small spiral disc,

and small solid disc catch-plates appear earlier than the elongated catch-plate at this site.16 The

elongated channel catch-plate emerges first on the simple arch bow fibula with discs on the bow

as noted by Moser.

Finds attributed to Pontecagnano (see Figure 5-2), another site in Campania that Moser

studied, include the simple arch bow, serpentine, knobbed serpentine, simple leech, knobbed

leech, Italic composite leech, and four-spiral spectacle fibulae. Similar to the situation in Capua,

the arch and serpentine shapes with a spiral or solid disc catch-plate appear before the leech and

four-spiral types as explained by Moser. The catch-plates on these types may also be in the form

of a short or medium length channel." The long channel catch-plate materializes earlier at

Pontecagnano than at Capua, and it is found only on the leech form as observed by Moser.

A third site, which showcases the same type of fibula forms as other sites previously

mentioned in southern Italy and Campania is Sala Consilina (see Figure 5-2). This site, in

particular, has gained a reputation for keeping a representative sample of standard eighth century

forms. On this list are the arch, serpentine, knobbed serpentine, simple leech, knobbed leech,

Italic composite leech, foliated, drago, and four-spiral spectacle fibulae types.18 The catch-plate


13 Mary Elizabeth Moser, "The "Southern Villanovan" Culture of Campania" (PhD diss., University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 1982), esp. 31-94
14 Ibid., esp. 75

15 Ibid., 90

16 Ibid., 14-47

17 Ibid., 151-155

18 Ibid., 279-408









preliminary introduction to the spectacle fibula types has been made, an attempt will now be

made to distinguish them more clearly from each other.

A. Spectacle Fibula type I (Figure 2-2): Type I spectacle fibulae are made from one piece

of wire, are round in cross-section10, and have a figure eight loop in the center that joins the pair

of coiled discs. These discs form the arms of the fibula with the pin and the catch-plate slightly

unwinding from the center of each coil. The center of one coil slightly projects out to the rear to

form the pin, which hooks onto the foot projecting from the back of the opposite coil. The catch-

plate is formed in the same fashion as the pin, in that it is also an extension of the center of the

coil. The pin and catch-plate mechanism are suspended from the back of the fibula by two small

metal rods that project from the center of each coil. The pin pierces, slides behind the fabric, and

then pierces it again on the outside of the fabric to attach to the catch-plate.

The discs of type I spectacle fibulae may be decorated if the disc is not coiled. In this

case, the entire or selected parts of the surface are decorated with unique combinations of

geometric patterns. Concentric bands of incised lines and small circles are common.

Seven variations occur under this type with modifications made to the discs of the fibulae

as well as the central connecting device of the figure eight. In the first and second variations

(figs. 2-2a and 2-2b), the discs are coiled, whereas in the third and fourth the center of the coil is

left open (figs. 2-2c and 2-2d). The figure eight loop also becomes shorter and wider in the

fourth variant. (2-2d)

The closed coil remains present in variations five through seven of type I (figs. 2-2e-2-2g),

but the figure eight is no longer present. Instead, a small spring, a second smaller spiral, or a

chain of hoops may connect the two discs of the fibula. The final and eighth variant to consider


10Ibid., 8

























Figure 2-22. A triple coil serpentine fibula with a disc catch-plate. (Source in public domain)
Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 155.


Th-~-lrl -___


Figure 2-23. A triple coil serpentine fibula with a symmetrical channel catch-plate. (Source in
public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter &
Co, 1943. 143.









A short panel-like element appears on the front side of the fourth variation (fig. 2-4d),

which partially conceals the figure-eight loop. In all of the examples of this group, the panel

wraps around and holds the sides of the fibula more firmly than in those of type II. This

characteristic is especially pronounced in the fourth variation. As in variations A-3c and A-3d of

type II, the pin and catch-plate mechanism is attached to the panel of the fibula.

Spectacle Fibula type IV (Figure 2-5) The fourth type of spectacle fibula is also known

as the four-spiral type and it has four variations (figs. 2-5a, 2-5b, 2-5c, and 2-5d). Each of the

pairs of discs is made from one piece of wire, but it is dissimilar to the previous three types in

that it has four discs instead of two. The type IV fibula is essentially two type-II fibulae joined at

the center point by a rivet. The rivet may be left visible, as in the second variant of this type (fig.

2-5b) or it may be covered by a solid disc as in Figure 2-5a. The third variation (fig. 2-5c) of this

group highlights the rivet with an ornament (which is formed from looping the wire on each of

the four arms of the fibula). In the fourth variation (fig. 2-5d), wire from one pair of discs is

coiled around wire from the other pair at the center.

Although the design of the central connecting device is different in each of the variations

of type IV, their arms retain the form of the coiled disc. As a result of the nature of the four arms,

the linear panel element upon which the pin and foot mechanism attaches is not present. Instead,

the form of this mechanism is similar to that of the type I fibula in that the pin and foot

mechanism are suspended from the back of the fibula by a small metal rod.12

Spectacle Fibula type V (Figure 2-6): The fifth type of spectacle fibula has a wholly

different shape from any of the previous four types. There are four coiled discs plus one coiled




12 Examples of type IV spectacle fibulae appear in Sundwall 174-176, E II and in Bietti Sestieri 50-51.









Orsi listed all of the sites in Calabria and Campania that had produced examples of Greek

composite leech fibulae. In his study, he concentrated on ones that were in iron with an elongated

catch-plate. In Sicily, the sites include such sites as Centuripe, Grammichele, Licodia.30 In

southern Italy, they include Locri, Canneto, Taranto, and the necropolises of Piceno.31 In his

declaration he acknowledged the widespread use of the composite leech type among the

indigenous cultures of Sicily and southern Italy and the almost complete absence of them from

the Greek colonies of Megara Hyblaea and Gela.

Orsi saw the widespread appearance of the Greek composite leech fibula in iron among

the native sites of Sicily and southern Italy as a reflection of Greek cultural superiority.32 He

theorized that the Greek colonists were making these fibulae solely for the purpose of exporting

them to the Italic people. Although it is hard to believe, he must have overlooked the appearance

of this type at Syracuse, which disputes his view.

The presence of composite leech fibulae at Pithekoussai, Cumae, and the Greek colonies

in southern Italy and Sicily reinforces the fact that these fibulae were not being made simply to

be exported. Orsi did not have the knowledge of the finds from Pithekoussai and Cumae at the

time he wrote his article, but the evidence from Syracuse, the Greek sites in southern Italy, and

the Greek sites in Sicily should have prompted him to question his exportation theory. The

presence of Greek composite leech fibulae at native sites in southern Italy and Sicily is most

likely a result of dissemination of ideas or trade between the Greeks and the native peoples.


30 Paolo Orsi, "Contributi alla storia della fibula greca," Opuscula Archaeologica Oscari Montello, Septuagenario,
dicta d. ix m. sept. MCALVII (1913): esp. 201.

31 Ibid.
32 He insinuates that the main reason these fibulae were being produced by the Greek colonists in Italy was for
export to the native Italic people. He did not realize that the Greeks had actually adopted and adapted the Italic
composite leech type to suit their tastes. His view is severely outdated and typifies the time period in which he wrote
his article.









That the Italic sites welcomed goods from southern Etruria, the Aegean, Greek colonies,

and the Eastern Mediterranean permits Crielarrd to judge that a "cultural homogeneity" must

have been in effect since the Italic peoples came to espouse Greek customs. The phenomenon of

class-identification that is transpiring between Greek and Etruscan elites is foreshadowed by a

period in Greek history having communications with the eastern Mediterranean, specifically

Cyprus.53 Crielaard essentially declares that members of the Euboean aristocracy were actively

participating in friendly relations with members of the same class from Cyprus through a system

of gift-exchange.

The distinguished heroon at Lefkandi and other wealthy burials from this site include

luxury goods from the east such as small metal ornaments, vases, and faience beads. Imports of

the same quality have been discovered on Cyprus as well, which implies that members of both

cultures are identifying with each other in the sense that they "share similar life-styles," as noted

by Crielaard. The amicable and receptive rapport that the Greeks experienced with the elite

Cypriots in the east comes to the fore once again in their dealings with the Italic nobles

approximately a century later in Etruria.

The rise of the native aristocratic ranks in the 8th century BC is thought to be a result of

increasing social organization and the creation of individual settlements as opposed to the

previous lack of formal settlement structures.54 In addition to the creation of these structures,

elaborate tombs, extravagant grave goods, and the construction of ritual space55 signaled the

political and sociological change that was happening in Etruria during this time. The existence of


3 Jan P. Crielaard, "The Social Organization of Euboean Trade with the Eastern Mediterranean during the 10th to
8th Centuries BC," Journal of the Netherlands Institute atAthens (1993): esp. 141-144.
54 Carrie Roth-Murray, "A Disclosure of Power: Elite Etruscan Iconography during the 8th-6th Centuries BC,"
Papers in Italian Archaeology (2005): esp. 186.
55 Ibid., esp. 186









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Sincere appreciation is given to Dr. Barbara Barletta for her guidance throughout my years

of graduate study, but especially in researching the Italic fibula. Gratitude is expressed to Dr.

Robin Poynor for his helpful comments and suggestions on my thesis. To my family and friends

whose encouragement has meant so much, thank you. Your constant support of my education has

inspired me. I would like to express my appreciation to the library staff at the University of

Florida for their hard work in helping me to obtain items that were not readily accessible. Special

acknowledgement is given to Janice Kahler of the University of Florida interlibrary loan staff for

her effort in overseeing the delivery of items that were requested for this thesis. I want to

recognize Jennifer Testa for her help with the Italian translations. Finally, I thank Dr. Hartigan

and Dr. Eaverly, who first sparked my interest in the ancient world as an undergraduate while

studying architecture.






















2-41b


2-4c


2 4.1


Figure 2-4. Spectacle fibula type III. Alexander, John. "The Spectacle Fibula of Southern
Europe." American Journal ofArchaeology 69 (January 1965):12.


2-4A1





















Figure 2-11. A leaf violin bow fibula. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die
Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 75.


Figure 2-12. A double-knobbed arch bow fibula. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes.
Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 80.







































Figure 4-1. A serpentine fibula from Cumae. (Source in public domain) Gabrici, E. "Cuma."
Monumenti Antichi 22 (1913). Catalogue figure 3 2:3.









that, during the Early Iron Age and well into the seventh century BC, the Italic people would

have continued the tradition of decorating the bow with knobs on the serpentine fibula.

The Composite Leech Bow Fibula

This type has been briefly introduced above while explaining the origins of the elongated

catch-plate. It is accepted that the tradition of decorating the bow of leech fibulae with rings or

segments of bone and amber was a true Italic one. However certain examples of composite leech

fibulae had received special attention in the past by archaeologists because the elements

decorating the bow were in a different style compared to those traditionally worn by the Italic

people. These differences in style raised questions regarding their origin. Orsi seems to be the

first archaeologist to have recognized in the early 20th century that there were composite leech

fibulae in existence in Italy that did not resemble true Italic composite leech fibulae.

He speculated on the origin of the composite leech fibulae in the different style, but his

account was quite brief and he did not consider all of the available evidence when drawing his

conclusions on their origin. Later in the middle to late 20th century, the question of the origin of

composite leech fibulae in the alternative style once again resurfaced because more research had

been conducted on them since the time Orsi wrote his article. This new research resulted in the

classification of two types of composite leech fibulae in the alternative style, which were

distinguished from true Italic ones by J.M. Stubbings.

In order to make conclusions regarding the most likely origin of the composite leech

fibulae in the alternative style, it is necessary to contrast them to traditional Italic composite

leech fibulae. In general, true Italic composite leech fibulae have discs of amber, bronze, and/or

bone strung along the bow that may be thick in nature and evenly spaced (see Figure A-8).22


22 Judith Toms, "The Arch Fibula," esp. 93-94.









Silver would have been imported onto Ischia from the Colline Metallifere or possibly from the

Iberian coast along with gold, both of which would have been the work of the Phoenicians.44

Whether it is the Greeks on Pithekoussai or the Phoenicians in central Italy, or both, who

are responsible for the change in materials of fibula production, the question of interest is why is

an accumulation of wealth associated exclusively with the central and southern regions of Italy?

The answer to this question goes back to the middle or second half of the 8th century in Etruria,

particularly at Veii and Tarquinia. In addition to iron implements and personal objects and

ornaments, the tomb contents include "precious and exotic materials" such as gold, amber,

faience, and glass as noted by Hartmann.

This phenomenon suggests iron was valued as a rare commodity because of the "large

investment of skilled labor to produce a single artifact," and thus would have been sought after

by peoples who wished to emphasize their elevated social status.45 Hartmann associates these

tombs with an elite group people such as a warrior aristocracy due to the presence of other iron

war-like items and because they are geographically clustered within central Italy.46

Just as in the case of silver, there seems to be a few different possibilities concerning

where iron was obtained by the Italic peoples. Hartmann believes that the Greeks were voyaging

to Italy not to buy iron, but to sell their iron.47 He states that it was neither Elba nor the Colline

Metallifere that was being exploited by the Greeks for iron, but that they were transporting their

own iron from Greece to Pithekoussai to later be exported to Etruria, especially southern Etruria




44 Ivette Richard and Richard Sadow, "Etruria," esp. 88.
45 Nicholas Hartmann, "Iron-Working" esp. 163-164
46 Ibid., esp. 163

47 Ibid., esp. 179









CHAPTER 6
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FIBULAE FOR CULTURAL INTERACTIONS

This chapter will explore Italic fibulae in relation to internal and external interactions.

One issue in the development of fibulae is the question of intermarriage between the Italic

peoples and the Greek settlers at such sites as Pithekoussai and possibly Cumae. Syracuse,

Megara Hyblaea, and Gela do not display signs that indicate the occurrence of intermarriage.

Interrmarriage has been postulated at Pithekoussai since this site has produced such a large

number of Italic fibulae.

Cumae is similar to Pithekoussai in that it has also yielded an assortment of Italic fibulae,

but Cumae was founded after Pithekoussai, and thus the population there might not be first

generation Greek colonists. This situation might lead to a conclusion other than intermarriage for

the appearance of Italic fibulae at the site. Syracuse, Megara Hyblaea, and Gela are different

from Pithekoussai and Cumae because they do not exhibit as many Italic fibulae as the two

colonies from the region of Campania. The Italic fibulae at these three Sicilian colonies may thus

require a different explanation. Fibulae discovered at Pithekoussai and Cumae will be examined

first, since these two sites have yielded the most Italic fibulae.

Pithekoussai

At Ischia, 524 fibulae come from 192 graves out of the 592 graves that were excavated

by Buchner in the valley of San Montano.' As stated in chapters four and five, these fibulae

include the simple arch, the serpentine, the knobbed serpentine, the Italic composite leech, the

Greek composite leech, the knobbed leech, and the drago types. The Greek composite leech type

would have been the only type worn by the peoples of Pithekoussai that was in fact a Greek

product, although derived from the Italic repertoire.


1 Gillian Shepherd, "Fibulae and Females," esp. 296









The Greek Colonies in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries

Some Greek colonies in Italy, namely Pithekoussai, Cumae, and Syracuse are equipped

with Italic types dating to the first half of the 8th century. At Pithekoussai, the types include the

simple arch bow, the serpentine, knobbed serpentine, solid leech, Italic composite leech, Greek

composite leech, knobbed leech, and drago types.23 Cumae is situated on the coast of Campania

opposite Pithekoussai. As in the similarity between the fibulae of Veii and Tarqunia, Cumae has

a similar assemblage of fibulae compared to that of Pithekoussai.24

Cumae was excavated in the early 20th century by two different archaeologists. Pellegrini,

the first one, was responsible for excavating the Fondo Artiaco tomb in 1903 and bringing to

light its luxurious contents.25 The Fondo Artiaco tomb and its contents will be discussed shortly

in relation to the foundation of Cumae in the next chapetr of this thesis. Cumae was excavated

again in 1913 by Stevens and the fibulae were published by Gabrici. The fibulae published by

Gabrici are very similar to those found at native Italic sites.26 As noted in chapter four, the

assemblages of both Cumae and Pithekoussai are similar to those from Italic sites. The fibula

types that appear at Syracuse find parallels to the types at Pithekoussai. The types present at

Syracuse include the knobbed serpentine, the knobbed leech, the solid leech, and the Greek

composite leech forms.2 Although Shepherd states that the types at Syracuse are similar to those

at Pithekoussai, the simple arch, drago, and spectacle fibulae types do not seem to have been

popular. Most of the eighty fibulae discovered at Syracuse were excavated by Paolo Orsi in

23 Giorgio Buchner and David Ridgway, Pithekoussai I (Rome: Bretschneider, 1993)

24 Tamar Hodos, "Intermarriage," esp. 63
25 G. Pellegrini, "Tombe greche archaiche e tomba greco-sannitica a tholos della necropoli di Cuma," Monumenti
Antichi 13 (1903).
26 E. Gabrici, "Cuma," Monumenti Antichi 22 (1913).

27 Gillian Shepherd, "Fibulae and Females," esp. 278









disc radiating from one side. In profile, this additional disc is somewhat lowered, and carries the

catch-plate apparatus upon which the pin of the fibula rests.

Spectacle Fibula type VI (Figure 2-7): The sixth type of spectacle fibula is made from

one piece of wire, has one variation, and is dissimilar to types one through five in that only one

arm is present. This single arm is comprised of three spirals in a row and like types I and IV, the

panel element upon which the pin and foot mechanism attaches is not present. Instead, both of

these elements attach to the back of the fibula in a similar fashion to types I and IV.

B. The Violin Bow type: The second major type of fibula is referred to as the violin bow

because of its shape, not unlike its namesake. The bow may be slightly curved and often has two

knobs on the exposed portion. Occasionally multiple knobs may appear. It is connected with a

one-coiled spring, which may be a small channel or coil disc catch-plate. Over time, the bow

widens in the center to resemble the shape of a leaf. Decoration on this type may be in the form

of a single group or groups of incised transverse lines or chevrons on the exposed portion

between the knobs. If the bow is widened in the center, then the incised decoration usually

consists of circular and linear arrangements.

Variations within this type include:

1. Knobbed Violin Bow (Figure 2-8) The knobbed violin bow fibula has a straight bow
with knobs at equal intervals along its length. It has a one-coil spring and may have a small
channel or disc catch-plate. The disc catch-plate may be solid or spiral. Decoration usually
consists of incised transverse lines.

2. Striated Violin Bow (Figures 2-9) The striated violin bow fibula has striations along the
length of its bow. It has a one-coil spring and may have a small channel or disc catch-plate.
The disc catch-plate may be solid or a spiral wire. Decoration consists of the wire of the
exposed portion striated along its length.

3. Coiled Violin Bow (Figure 2-10) The coiled violin bow fibula is similar to the striated
violin bow fibula except that the bow is twisted instead of striated. This manipulation of
the bow gives a more three-dimensional effect to the shape of the bow compared to the
striated variation. It has a one-coil spring, and may have a small channel or disc catch-









leech bow fibula as noted by Toms. The elongated catch-plate can be seen in its most

exaggerated form, the long channel catch-plate, on the elaborate examples of leech and drago

fibulae from Etruria.

Before it was known that the elongated catch-plate was an Italic innovation, the

archaeological community believed it was a Greek invention. One reason is because of its

appearance on the composite leech fibula in the Greek colonies of Pithekoussai, Cumae,

Syracuse, and Megara Hyblaea during the 8th through the 6th centuries. The second reason is

related to the occurrence of the leech fibula at the site of Vrokastro on Crete during the 9th

century, which will be shortly discussed.

Examples of solid leech, composite leech, and serpentine fibulae with elongated catch-

plates had been found at the Fusco cemetery at Syracuse during the late 19th century by Paolo

Orsi,29 and then sixty years later during the middle 20th century when Giorgio Buchner conducted

his excavations in the San Montano cemetery at Pithekoussai off the Bay of Naples.30 Most

examples of the fibulae at Syracuse date from the middle of the 8th century down to the

beginning of the sixth century,31 and at Pithekoussai, they may date before 750 BC.32

The elongated catch-plate does not appear in Greece until the period of colonization. A

total of nearly 50 examples of composite leech fibulae with the elongated catch-plate have been





29 Hugh Hencken, "Syracuse, Etruria, and the North: Some Comparisons," American Journal ofArchaeology 62
(1958): esp. plates 56-65.

30 Many examples of the serpentine type and composite leech types with an elongated catch-plate appear in the
catalogue. The corresponding descriptions of the fibulae appear in the book with the same title that accompanies the
catalogue. Giorgio Buchner and David Ridgway, Pithekoussai I (Roma: G. Bretscheider, 1993)
31 Hugh Hencken, "Syracuse," esp. 270.
32 Ibid.































Pithekoussai


Figure 1-1. Pithekoussai and Cumae









distribution of the Sicilian type may reflect an indirect dissemination, such as through travel and

trade.62

In summary, between the 13th and 1 1th centuries the Italic fibula was influenced by those

of Greece and central and southern Europe. Italy was influencing these foreign peoples as well,

and so it is important to recognize that the contacts that were being made within this period were

reciprocal exchanges. This reciprocity is demonstrated through the wide distributions of the

spectacle, violin, and Sicilian elbow fibulae. Around the 9th century, after being left with the

imprints from other cultures, a native tradition started to develop in Italy, which led to the simple

arch bow, composite leech bow, and serpentine types.63

Fibula Types from the 9th to 7th Centuries BC

The simple arch, composite leech, and serpentine forms were the staples of the Italic

tradition during the 9th through 7th centuries. As stated above, the elongated catch-plate is

securely identified as an Italic invention. It appeared first on the Sicilian elbow type during the

11th century, but was transferred to the simple arch, serpentine, and composite leech fibulae by

the early 8th century BC.64 The composite leech bow was found at the beginning of the Early Iron

Age around 900 BC in the north.65

In Greece at this time, there was no record of the serpentine or composite leech bow

forms.66 Toms notes how simple arch bows were common in Greece, but they are noticeably




62 Ellen MacNamara, "Some Bronze Typologies," esp. 151 & 158

63 Judith Toms, "The Arch Fibula," esp. 94

64 Ibid., 94

65 Ibid.

66 Ibid., 95









(Italic) women who introduced these types to the Greeks since they were found mostly with them

and with children rather than with men.

However, one should not be quick to discount the fact that half of the fibula found on

Ischia has come from the graves of children. If the Italic fibula is an index of intermarriage, then

actual occurrence of intermarriage may not have been as commonplace as Buchner believed. He

seems to have placed all the emphasis on the appearance of the Italic fibula in the graves of

women to uphold his theory of intermarriage, when, in reality, the evidence speaks to a situation

in which children were distinguished archaeologically just as much as the women were on Ischia.

The evidence seems to indicate that intermarriage probably did exist on Pithekoussai at

some scale because the total number of Italic fibulae, which is 524 in all, found in women and

child graves together would be difficult to explain as a result of trade alone. The presence of the

Italic fibulae in the graves of women is a reflection of what they used in everyday life to fasten

their garments with, while they used them in a different manner when one of their young died at

an early age. In this case, they would have been used to honor a short life as noted by Shepherd.

The children of mixed parentage may have been honored with Italic ornaments and not Greek

ones, which gives more weight to the theory of intermarriage. The serpentine type is the only

type exclusively associated with men on Ischia, which is an influence of the Italic culture since

the serpentine type was regularly found in Italic graves of men.

Cumae

The relationship between the Greek settlers and the native peoples at Cumae is more

difficult to understand than that of Pithekoussai because the early excavation reports were not as

systematic and detailed as those of Pithekoussai, as noted by Shepherd. Regardless, the catalogue

by Gabrici at least helps to mitigate the lack of information by providing visual images of some

of the types of fibulae discovered at this mainland Greek colony. These types are closely


















Figure 2-8. A knobbed violin bow fibula. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die
Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 67.


Figure 2-9. A striated violin bow fibula with a disc catch-plate. (Source in public domain)
Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 66.


Figure 2-10. A coiled violin bow fibula with a symmetrical channel catch-plate. (Source in
public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter &
Co, 1943. 67.









and Tarquinia. 1 He sites the serpentine fibula, Italic composite leech bow fibula, and the solid

leech bow fibula among the types present at the southern Etruscan sites of Veii and Tarquinia. In

addition to these later types, Close-Brooks and Ridgway document the appearance of the simple

arch bow fibula at Veii,18 but it seems to have been present at Tarquinia as well.19

At Sala Consilina, the knobbed serpentine type is found alongside the simple arch bow,

the leaf fibula, and the Italic composite leech bow fibula.20 At Canale the situation is similar to

the other sites already mentioned, which means that the knobbed serpentine type has been found

in the presence of other Italic fibulae such as the four-spiral spectacle, the serpentine, and the

leech types.21

The evidence from Monte Finocchito, Pontecagnano, Veii, Tarquinia, Sala Consilina, and

Canale on the knobbed serpentine type reaffirms that a tradition already been old in Italy. It is

clear from the examples of violin, stilted, and arch bow fibulae of the Peschiera and

Protovillanovan periods in Italy that the Italic people had a fondness for decorating the bow with

knobs.

The knobs on the serpentine type are more three-dimensional and they project from the

sides of the bow in a different way from the knobs on the violin and arch bow fibulae of the

Peschiera period. Even though the knobs on the serpentine type are more exaggerated than those

on the violin and arch bow examples from the Peschiera period, it does not seem unreasonable


17 Tamar Hodos, "Intermarriage in the Western Greek Colonies," Oxford Journal ofArchaeology 18 (1999): esp. 63-
64.

18 Joanna Close-Brooks and David Ridgway, "Veii in the Iron Age," in Italy before the Romans, (New York:
Academic Press, 1979), esp. 102

19 Judith Toms, "The Construction of Gender," esp. 167
20 Juliette de la Geniere, "The Iron Age in Southern Italy," esp. 82
21 de la Geniere does not focus much on Canlae in her article, but she does make note of the types of Italic fibulae
that have been unearthed at this site.









CHAPTER 5
PROVENIENCE, MATERIALS, TECHNIQUES, AND ICONOGRAPHY

The body of this chapter will expound upon the historical reconstruction of the previous

chapter by examining the chronological evolution of the fibula in Italy from the years around 900

BC through the 6th century BC in relation to materials, techniques, and iconography. An attempt

has been made below to compile a wide assortment of information and make connections

between information contained in various sources. Since the information concerning each of

these criteria is scattered across disparate sources, no clear outline is available concerning the

relationship between material, techniques, and iconography of fibulae dating to the 9th through

the 7th centuries BC. Despite the lack of specific reconstructions, a general idea regarding the

time periods and the corresponding characteristics of fibulae within those periods can be gleaned

from the cumulative research on the Italic fibula. The survey below seeks to illuminate the

relationship between fibulae dating to the 9th through the 7th centuries and the respective

characteristics of each.

Sites

Ninth and Eighth Centuries in Sicily, Southern Italy, and Campania: The Indigenous Sites

The native sites ofPantalica, Dessueri, Carcarella, and Cassible in Sicily yield common

types of Early Iron Age fibulae, which include the simple arch, the elbow, and the serpentine

form.' Grave goods associated with these types include rings, buttons, and small tools such as

knives, spearheads, and razors.2 As in Sicily, the southern Italian regions of Apulia, Basilicata,


1 Robert Leighton, Sicily, esp. 200-201.
2 Ibid., 200










Cumae include bronze, iron, amber, and ivory, as at Syracuse, but silver appeared on Ischia and

Cumae before it was seen at Syracuse.6

Etruria in the Seventh Century

The leech fibula from Vetulonia is gold,68 and the examples of drago fibulae from

Marsiliana are gold, silver, or silver and gold-plated.69 The comb and bolt types from Marsiliana

chiefly occur in silver and gold.70 Many objects from the Regolini Galassi tomb are gold and

silver such as the extraordinary foliated fibula. The drago, comb, and serpentine fibulae from the

Bemardini tomb are in gold.71 There are also bowls of silver and an iron dagger in a silver sheath

from the same tomb as noted by MacIver. The comb clasps from the Barberini tomb are gold.

Gold serpentine fibulae, and objects in ivory such as cups, figurines, and masks were discovered

from the Barberini tomb as well.72

Processes and Techniques of Production

Ninth and Eighth centuries : Early Iron Age fibulae may be made in a variety of ways,

which include the piece-mold, lost-wax method, cold working, and annealing processes.73 Cold

working is simply the process of continual hammering of the bronze in order to obtain the

desired shape, whereas annealing involves heating the metal to a very high temperature, which

when cooled results in a metal that is easier to work with compared to that used in cold-working

alone.


67 Lyons, Claire, The Archaic Cemeteries, esp. 97

68 David Randall-MacIver, Villanovans, esp. 29

69 Ibid., esp. 187-192

70 Caroline Winthur, "Princely Tombs," esp. 435

71 David Randall-MacIver, Villanovans, esp. 217.
72 Ibid., esp. 267

73 Judith Toms, "The Arch Fibula," esp. 96





















MegP
iHyblae


Figure 1-2. The Sicilian Greek colonies





















Figure 2-28. A drago bow fibula. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren
Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 242.


Figure 2-29. An amorphous drago bow fibula. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes.
Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 233.









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

FIBULAE OF THE NINTH THROUGH SEVENTH CENTURIES BC IN CENTRAL ITALY

By

Jennifer M. Hambleton

August, 2008

Chair: Barbara Barletta
Cochair: Robin Poynor
Major: Art History

This thesis addresses the development of fibulae in the region of the Italian peninsula. The

fibula is a device that had been used in antiquity to fasten garments. The tradition of the Italic

fibula is a small, but significant part of a much larger and older tradition within the

Mediterranean region. Certain types were held in common among cultures in southern Europe,

Greece, Italy, and the Near East during the 13th -1th centuries BC. These early types became the

ancestors of forms that came to define the Italic sequence. This sequence benefited from these

diverse influences during its maturation in the 9th through 7th centuries BC.

The rise of the Italic sequence during the 9th century overlapped with the arrival of the

Greeks in the 8th century at Pithekoussai in the Bay of Naples. This overlap was significant and

has been troublesome to scholars in the past because certain types of Italic fibulae and Italic-

looking fibulae appear at Pithekoussai, and subsequently in Sicily at the Greek colony of

Syracuse.

In the past, archaeologists had trouble in determining which ones were Greek and which

were Italic because the rise of the Italic sequence was so close in time to the arrival of the

Greeks. The types that have sparked the most debate are the knobbed serpentine, the composite

leech, and the knobbed leech fibulae. The elongated catch-plate of these types has been a subject









plate may also be a large disc. The arch bow may be decorated with any combination of a group

or groups of incised lines, spirals, or chevrons.

Variations under this type include:

1. Spiral Bow Arch Bow (Figure A-3) The striated or carved spiral semicircular bow may
have single or double coil spring. The spring may be small or large. The fibula may have a
small or medium sized channel catch-plate or a small or large disc catch-plate. The disc
catch-plate fibula may have incised lines along the top of the bow as well as along
the perimeter of the disc. Incised lines may articulate the spiral of the disc and various
circular and geometric motifs may appear in the center.

2. Deep Ridge Arch Bow (Figure 2-13) The deep ridge arch bow presents a semi-circular
arch bow with a heavy body with deep ridges either carved in relief or cast hollow.
Because of the heavy three-dimensional articulation, no incised decoration is necessary on
this type.

3. Ringed Arch Bow (Figure 2-14) This type of fibula consists of a semi-circular arch bow,
but two or more rings are attached to the exposed portion to function as decoration. The
type usually has a small channel catch-plate. The fibula may be worn upside down, which
allows the rings to hang freely from the arch. In this case, the pin would be above the bow
when viewed from the front.

4. Large Disc Arch Bow (Figure 2-15) The large disc arch bow fibula consists of a semi-
circular arch bow with a single or double coil spring. The catch-plate consists of a large
disc decorated with a border as well as surface patterns consisting of geometric motifs.
These designs may include zig-zags, circles, squares, and linear motifs. A bar, suggesting
cattle horns perhaps, projects from the large disc. A short "foot section" projects
underneath the horns and lies perpendicular to the disc. In contrast to the short "foot
section" the "horns" of the fibula lie parallel to the disc.14

G. The Foliated Bow type (Figure 2-16): The foliated bow type fibula is very similar in

shape to the arch bow except that the exposed portion is noticeably wider. This becomes a broad,

flat surface decorated with borders and geometric patterns, suggesting a leaf form, as attested by

its name. Like the large disc bow fibula, the foliated bow of this type transitions into a large disc

catch-plate, which may or may not attach to a thin or thick decorative bar. If a bar is present, then

it is normally positioned below the bow, but above the disc-catch-plate when viewed in profile


14 Examples of the arch bow type and its variants appear in Sundwall on 78-118, B I-III. Examples also appear in
Toms on 102, 103, and 105, numbers 1-14. Bietti Sestieri offers more examples on 20-23, numbers 1-2 and 15-44.









Aegean and Italy during the 11th century BC.5 These types display the ancestral qualities of

simplicity in form, technique of manufacture, and decoration.

Bietti Sestieri notes how the knobbed violin bow transitioned into the stilted fibula with

knobs, which then transitioned into the knobbed arch bow type. The stilted fibula is similar in

shape to the arch bow fibula except that the bow is not as round as the arch bow type. Instead,

the stilted bow comes to a point at the apex of the bow. In time, this point became softened and

more rounded to form the arch bow type. The preference for decorating the bow with multiple

knobs appeared first on the violin bow fibula, but then is transferred to the stilted and arch bow

fibulae as noted by Bietti Sestieri.

Stilted bow fibulae from Sicily usually have just two knobs, while those in Tuscany,

Umbria, Abruzzi, and Latium have multiple knobs.6 Another way to distinguish between stilted

bow fibulae from Sicily and those from central and southern Italy is that those from the mainland

usually have a decorated catch-plate.' A similar development concerning knobs is seen with arch

bow fibulae in Sicily compared to those of central Italy. In Sicily, it was more common to

decorate the bow with two knobs as opposed to central Italy, where using multiple knobs was the

style.8 Eventually the knobs disappeared on arch bow fibulae from the central Tyrrhenian

region,9 but they did not go out of style in Sicily.o1





5 Ibid., 410
6 Ibid., esp. 403-404

Ibid.

8 Ibid., esp. 404-405

9 Ibid. 405

10 Ibid. 404

































To my mom for the time we spent together in Paris and our shared love of art and history.









LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1-1 P ithekou ssai and C um ae ................................................................... ........................... 15

1-2 The Sicilian G reek colonies ............................... .............. ...................... ............... 16

2-1 A diagram of an arch bow fibula ......................................... ...... .............................. 31

2-2 Spectacle fibula type I.......................... ......... .. ......... .......... .... 31

2-3 Spectacle fibula type II ............................................ ... .... ........ ......... 32

2-4 Spectacle fibula type III .................... ............................................................ 33

2-5 Spectacle fibula type IV ........................................................................... .................... 34

2-6 Spectacle fibula type V .................................... .. .. ........ .. ........... 35

2-7 Spectacle fibula type V I........................................................................... .................... 35

2-8 A knobbed violin bow fibula .................................................. ............................... 36

2-9 A striated violin bow fibula with a disc catch-plate .................................. ...............36

2-10 A coiled violin bow fibula with a symmetrical channel catch-plate...............................36

2-11 A leaf violin b ow fibula ........................................................................ ................... ..... 37

2-12 A double-knobbed arch bow fibula......................................................... ............... 37

2-13 A deep ridge arch bow fibula.................................................. ............................... 38

2-14 A ringed arch bow fibula ......................................................................... ....................39

2-15 A large disc arch bow fibula .............. ............................... ............... 40

2-16 A foliated bow fibula ......................... ........... .. .. ......... ..... ..... 40

2-17 The Sicilian elbow type fibula ....................................................................... 41

2-18 Serpentine fibula w ith a disc catch-plate ........................................ ....................... 41

2-19 Sserpentine fibula with a symmetrical channel catch-plate.................. ...... ............42

2-20 Large and small coils serpentine fibula with a symmetrical channel catch-plate.............42

2-21 Large and small coils serpentine fibula with a disc catch-plate.............................43










lavish assortment of grave goods when found in the grave of a child.20 This is reflected most

clearly in the example of tomb 428 in the Fusco cemetery since this grave contained a total of 26

fibulae of various types21 and four Greek pins.22 This tomb alone provided one third of the total

eighty fibulae that were discovered at the Fusco necropolis as observed by Shepherd.

The Italic fibula rarely was found in adult graves, and when it did occur, it was usually

accompanied by the Greek pin.23 Tombs 129 and 412 appear to provide the best examples of

graves containing only Italic types or the one type derived from the Italic tradition, the Greek

composite leech bow.24 For example, tomb 129 contained six simple leech fibulae and four silver

rings while tomb 412 contained one simple leech and one Greek composite leech bow fibula. On

the other hand, tomb 276 is a good example of what actually seems to have been fairly common

at Syracuse, which was the mixing of Italic fibulae or the Greek composite leech type with the

Greek pin in the same tomb. Tomb 27625 had two iron Greek pins and two Greek composite

leech fibulae. Shepherd notes how the Greek pin was just as popular at Syracuse as the fibulae,

and even more so as the 6th century progressed.26

What the evidence seems to indicate, then, is that fibulae at Syracuse because of their

strong association with children do not reflect intermarriage. Child burials seem to be more

abundant in metalwork, especially fibulae, than adult burials at this Sicilian colony. Shepherd

20 Ibid., esp. 287

21 Shepherd does not state the exact types of Italic fibulae that were present in tomb 428, but if cross-referenced with
Hencken's catalogue, then they include the Italic leech and knobbed leech types and also the Greek composite leech
type.
22 Gillian Shepherd, "Fibulae and Females," esp. 286
23 Ibid.

24 Ibid., esp. 286

25 Ibid., esp. 286

26 Ibid., esp. 287









the 6th centuries.4 The next four variants (figs. 2-2d-g) appeared mostly during the 9th through 8th

centuries.44 The first three variations of the Type II spectacle fibula (figs. 2-3a, 2-3b, and 2-3c)

were scattered throughout southern Europe but rare in Italy (Figure A-14). The first variant of the

type II spectacle fibula (fig. 2-3a) appeared during the mid 9th through middle 6th century while

the second variant of the type II spectacle fibula (fig. 2-3b) was found mostly dating to before the

11th century through to the middle 6th century.45 The third variant (fig. 2-3c) was found dating to

the 6th century.46

The four variations of the Type III spectacle fibula (figs. 2-4a, 2-4b, 2-4c, and 2-4d) were

thinly spread along the east coast of Italy as well as in southern Europe (Figure A-15). The first

variant (fig. 2-4a) dated mainly to the middle 9th through the middle 6th century while the second

variant (fig. 2-4b) dated to the middle 7th through the middle 3rd centuries.47 The final variants

(figs. 2-4c-d) appeared during the middle 9th through the middle 7th centuries.48

The four spiral shapes of the type IV spectacle fibula (figs. 2-5a-7d), the type V spectacle

fibula, and the type VI spectacle fibula were scattered along the western coast of Italy and in

Greece (Figure A-16). A couple of the variants of the type IV spectacle fibula (figs. 2-5b and 2-

5d) were found dating to the middle of the 9th to the middle or end of the 6th century.49 The third

variant of type IV (fig. 2-5c) dated mainly to middle of the 9th through the middle 7th centuries.50


43 Ibid., esp. 8

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.

47 Ibid.
48 Ibid.

49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.









Marsiliana.4 Like other types of fibulae, they were used to fasten garments on the shoulder, but

they work in a different manner from the usual pin and catch-plate method of all of the other

types from the Italic sequence.

These types were first described in the early 20th century in an Italian journal and then

later in the century by Strom. These accounts explain how both of these fibulae are fastened to

garments, but is very difficult to understand. Strom focuses more on the plastic decoration on

comb and bolt examples, but less on how they might have been worn. The presence of more than

one comb and bolt fibula in the specific tombs in Etruria implies that that they must have been

intended as jewelry for tomb deposition rather than practical use since it would have been

extremely awkward to wear all of them at the same time while alive.35 The presence of the comb

and bolt fibulae from Marsiliana and Praeneste (as one is known from the Bernardini tomb) serve

to reflect the surge of wealth that Etruria is experiencing during the 7th century.

The finds from the Regolini Galassi tomb (dated 650-625 BC) at Caere augment those

from Vetulonia and Marsiliana. Many items in luxurious materials have been unearthed from this

tomb, including a pectoral, bracelets, an extraordinary large foliated fibula (Figure A- 24), and a

number of leech fibulae.36 The inventory of this tomb is extensive, but other items are known

including domestic utensils such as cups and a bed as noted by Randall-MacIver.

The Bernardini tomb (dated 675 BC) and the Barberini tomb (dated 650 BC), both from

Praeneste, serve to demonstrate further the use of luxurious materials and new techniques. A

drago fibula and a comb fibula have been found in the Bernardini tomb (Figure A-25) and



34 Ingrid Strom, Problems, esp. 140-72.
35 Ingrid Strom, Problems, esp. 101.
36 David Randall-MacIver, Villanovans, esp. 195-208.









style. They exhibit a distinctly different composition of bone and amber from Italic composite

leech fibulae.28

In many of the examples from Pithekoussai the two pieces of bone are long and

cylindrical in contrast to the discs that characterize Italic composite fibulae. An example of a

Greek composite leech fibula has been unearthed from tomb 272 (see Figure A-19) on Ischia that

looks similar to the ones from Syracuse. In contrast to the Greek composite leech fibula from

tomb 272, the Italic one from tomb 599 (Figure A-20) on Pithekoussai resembles the same type

from native sites such as Veii and Pontecagnano. It is in keeping with the Italic tradition in that it

has discs of amber and bone strung evenly along the length of the bow instead of the lengthened

bone segments that characterize the Greek composite leech fibula. Examples of fibulae of Italic

type have also come from Cumae (Figure A-21) and (Figure 4-1). Comparing the Italic

composite leech fibulae from tomb 653 on Pithekoussai to the Greek example from tomb 272 on

Pithekoussai reveals the differences in style between Greek adaptations of Italic composite leech

fibulae and actual Italic composite leech fibulae.

Greek composite leech fibulae have also been found at other Greek colonies in southern

Italy, but this type was not exclusive to the Greek colonies since it has also been discovered at

indigenous sites in southern Italy and Campania. That the Greek composite leech bow fibula has

been found at both Greek and Italic sites in southern Italy, was affirmed by Orsi and later

reaffirmed by Guzzo.29




28 Pier Giovanni Guzzo, "Ipotesti Interpretativa su due Tipi di Fibula con Arco Ricoperto," Aparchai; Nuove
Ricerche e Studi sullaMagna Grecia e la SiciliaAntica in Onore di Paolo Orsi 1 (1982): esp. 55.
29 P.G. Guzzo describes the composite leech fibula found in each region of Italy and Sicily. He provides the
material, dimensions, and date (if possible) of manufacture of these fibulae. Like Orsi, he associates this type with
the colonizing Greeks in southern Italy and Sicily.











































Figure 2-13. A deep ridge arch bow fibula. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die
Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 103.









indigenous sites leads to a conclusion that had gone unrecognized by many archaeologists for

some time. This conclusion is that the Greeks were responsible for fashioning composite leech

fibulae at Syracuse and Pithekoussai that were based upon the Italic composite leech type, but in

their own style.

They adopted the Italic tradition of decorating the bow with bone and amber segments,

but made it their own by fashioning bone segments instead of discs and carefully articulating the

position of the amber and/or bone with amber inlay as the center piece. Even Blinkenberg

acknowledged that the types he designated as IX and X, which were found in Greece, had

originated in Italy (Figure A-22).40 The addition of amber and bone in the style as they appear at

Syracuse and Pithekoussai is the Greek contribution. The elongated catch-plate, which had been

thought for some time by certain members of the archaeological community to be a Greek

contribution, is not.

It is noted that once the Greeks start producing Italic type fibulae at Pithekousaai they

add special features. For example, a lowered and angular bow with lengthened bone segments

has been found on composite leech bow fibulae at Pithekoussai and at Roggiano-Prunetta in

Calabria.41 Even though there are differences in style between Greek colonial composite leech

fibulae and true Italic ones, at first glance, it would seem as if they were simply borrowing and

imitating what they had seen the Italic people fasten their garments with. However, upon closer

inspection, this situation reflects a larger sociological phenomenon that has two aspects.

The first aspect concerns the reason why the Greeks chose to borrow from the Italic

tradition in the first place instead of producing fibulae at Pithekoussai that they were accustomed


40 Christian Blinkenberg, Lindiaka VFibules Grecques et Orientales (Kobenhavn: Andr. Fred. Host & Son, 1926),
esp. 197-199
41 Pier Giovanni Guzzo, "Ipotesi," esp. 56.









Type V and VI spectacle fibulae were found dating from roughly 900-700 BC.51 At least one

variation of all six types was present in Italy by the eighth century BC with the exception of the

Po Valley in the North.52

The distribution of violin bow fibulae (including the knobbed variations) is similar to

spectacle fibulae in that they have been found throughout central and southern Europe, Greece,

and Italy, as noted by Toms.53 Sestieri's research on the metal industry in Italy during the 13th

through 11th centuries BC reflects how contacts were being made between the Greeks and Italic

people prior to the period of colonization. Stronach suggests that taste for the violin bow was

established by the 14th century in either Italy or Greece,54 but offers no evidence for why he

believes it to have originated in Greece. MacNamara claims that the violin bow fibula originated

in Italy,55 but like Stronach she offers no reason why she believes this to be true. The earlier part

of this chapter might persuade one to believe that the violin bow fibula did originate in Italy

because of Bietti Sestieri's research on the Italic metal industry.

The resemblance of Peschiera violin bow fibulae of Italy and arch bow fibulae in Greece

to specimens in the Protovillanovan hoards in Italy encourage the possibility that they are most

likely of Italic manufacture. At any rate, the type spread east to both Cyprus and Crete, where it

developed local variations.56 The violin bow has been found in Greece, Yugoslavia and Romania,





51 Ibid.
52 Ibid., esp. 7-9

53 Judith Toms, "The Arch Fibula," esp. 95
54 David Stronach, "The Development of the Fibula in the Near East," Iraq 21 (1959): esp. 182

55 Ellen MacNamara, "Some Bronze Typologies," esp. 153.
56 Ibid., esp. 153 -154









wealthy Etruscan tombs and their contents, specifically the ceremonial axe and knives, was the

result of deliberate efforts of the newly formed upper echelons of society at emphasizing their

authority. By making the functional object beautiful, Roth-Murray argues that they were able to

command more respect and distinguish themselves more sharply from the classes beneath them.

Conclusions

From the study of the fibula, it is evident that significant sociological events and changes

were taking place beginning in the 8th century at Pithekoussai and Cumae. Foremost among these

events was the incidence of intermarriage between the Greek settlers and the Italic women,

which resulted in the borrowing of ideas and traditions from one culture to the other. The

discovery of certain types of fibulae from the Italic tradition in the San Mantono cemetery on

Ischia proves that the Italic culture was influencing that of the Greeks. The examples of native

Italic fibulae from graves at the Fusco cemetery in Syracuse and the appearance of the Greek

composite leech fibula at native sites in Italy serves to further reinforce the reciprocal exchange

that was occurring between the Greek and Italic peoples.

In order to understand the development of the fibula from the 9th century through the 7th

century BC in Italy, one must consider not only the genesis of the Italic tradition, but also the

way in which other geographical areas participated in its creation by means of their influence.

These areas include pre-Greek Sicily, where one of the earliest serpentine forms is found and

central and southern Europe, which is claimed to be the birth-place of spectacle types discovered

on the Italian mainland and elsewhere in the pan-Mediterranean and Aegean countries. Viewing

the Italic sequence as a small, but significant piece of a larger and older puzzle is helpful in

comprehending the course of events that followed beginning in the 9th century BC between the

eastern and western Mediterranean.









FIBULAE OF THE NINTH THROUGH SEVENTH CENTURIES BC IN CENTRAL ITALY


By

JENNIFER M. HAMBLETON

















A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Fibulae were utilitarian and/or ornamental devices used for securing garments. They were

used by the ancient peoples of Italy, Greece, central and southern Europe, Spain, and Cyprus.

While these were not the only places that fibulae must have been used, they are the countries that

share in the development of the Italic fibulae tradition. Fibulae are made of metal, which may be

bronze, iron, gold, or a combination of gold with bronze or gold with iron. The ancient peoples

of Italy used them in a similar way to how modern people use a safety pin. In the modern world,

safety pins are small, quite simple-looking in appearance, and fairly straightforward in how they

are intended to be used. Not only are they easy to wear, but there is little differentiation in form,

if any, between them. In stark contrast to the modern era, those from antiquity are not all of the

same type, size, and weight. Some are quite large and cumbersome, which would not have

afforded the wearer the same ease of use and convenience that people today appreciate. A

number of varieties of fibulae developed over time in Italy beginning with the basic spectacle,

violin, stilted, and arch bow types. From here, they started to become increasingly more intricate

in form and decoration.

Evidence for the origins of fibulae comes from the Mediterranean area, where they were

produced as early as the 13th century BC. Fibulae continued to be made in this region into the

21st century AD, but by this time they are safety pins and no longer fibulae. Any notion of

craftsmanship and attention to detail is lost on a modern safety pin. They are strictly utilitarian

objects. Although the production of fibulae translated into the production of safety pins over a

span of two thousand years, the intent of this thesis is to look first at the development and

diffusion of the form during the 13th through the 9th centuries BC as it developed in Italy and/or

neighboring regions of Italy in its vicinity. These areas include central Europe, Greece, Spain,









in Italy through central Europe." This suggests that motivations for trade changed and Aegean

peoples or traders were now interested in obtaining not only finished goods in metal, but also

other precious metals and materials such as amber, which was available in northern Italy.18

Double knobbed stilted bow fibulae found in southern Italy, Sicily, and the Aegean

resemble each other during the Protovillanovan period as observed by Bietti Sestieri. This

resemblance reflects how the Aegean area might have been able to re-establish direct contact

with the central and southern regions of Italy.19 Or, the resemblance could also be explained

through trade, which might have been a quite complex set of exchanges.

Double knobbed arch bow fibulae dating to the end of the 11th century in central Europe

closely resemble ones found in Sicily.20 Amber beads found in central Europe are similar to ones

found in central and southern Italy.21 Bietti Sestieri maintains that an Adriatic route was still in

existence during the 1 1th century and it linked central Italy with central Europe.22 Thus, violin,

stilted arch, and knobbed arch bow fibulae appear to have been connected to a large scale-trading

operation that was transpiring in Italy between the indigenous people, peoples of the Aegean

area, and central Europeans from the 13th through the 10th centuries.23

The historical reconstruction offered by Bietti Sestieri is persuasive, but it should be

made clear that her thoughts concerning the interactions between Aegean peoples and the Italic



17 Ibid., 408

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid., 410
20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.









CHAPTER 3
FIBULA TYPES OF THE 13TH THROUGH 7TH CENTURIES BC: DEVELOPMENT AND
DIFFUSION

The date for the beginning of the history and development of the Italian fibula remains

inexact at the present time, but there is an adequate amount of evidence to support a starting date

falling sometime between the 13th and 11th centuries BC.' This evidence comes in the form of a

few select types of fibulae, which appeared in Italy and elsewhere in both the eastern and

western Mediterranean during these centuries.2

These early types had a wide distribution during the 13th through 11th centuries and they

exerted a strong influence on the development of the Italic sequence, which started

distinguishing itself during the 9th century. They were influential in that they were the ancestors

of the types that came to flourish during the 9th through the 7th centuries in Italy. Simplicity in

form, technique of manufacture, and decoration are the ancestral qualities of the violin bow and

spectacle fibulae. MacNamara identifies the violin bow fibula, including the knobbed variations,

and the spectacle fibula as two early types that appeared in the eastern and western

Mediterranean regions during 13t through 11th centuries.3

In addition to the spectacle and violin bow fibulae, Bietti Sestieri includes the double and

multiple knobbed arch bow fibulae as two types that appeared in Italy and the Aegean as early as

early as the 12th century.4 The double knobbed stilted bow is another type that appeared in the





1 Ellen MacNamara, "Some Bronze Typologies," esp. 151.
2 Ibid., 151-172

3 Ibid., 153-160
4 Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri, "The Metal Industry of Continental Italy, 13th to 11th Centuries BC and its Connections
with the Aegean," Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (1973): 407-412









But for now, the conversation will continue with the second reason why the elongated

catch-plate was believed to have been a Greek invention. Leech fibulae with short catch-plates

had been unearthed at Vrokastro on Crete, dating to the 9th century BC (Figure A-11).38

Archaeologist Sylvia Benton noted during the middle 20th century that that these fibulae were

older than any types found in Italy including those from the Greek colonies of Syracuse and

Pithekoussai.39

Although the catch-plates on the types from Vrokastro were short, she claimed that they

must have been the predecessors to those at Syracuse and Pithekoussai.40 At the time of Benton's

publications from Vrokastro, Orsi and Buchner seemed in agreement with Benton that leech

fibulae with the elongated catch-plates in the western Greek colonies and mainland sites in Italy,

especially central Italy, were a result of Greek influence.41 Benton asserted that the elongated

catch-plate itself must have been a natural progression of the short catch-plate. She was

essentially tracing the development of the elongated catch-plate back to Vrokastro and thereby

declaring that it was Greek in origin.

MacNamara's research of the elongated catch-plate and its association with the Sicilian

elbow fibula as early as the 11th century has certainly helped to clarify this thorny issue. Looking

back, it is not surprising that Benton, Orsi, and Buchner believed the invention of the elongated

catch-plate to be a Greek rather than an Italic one. They did not have the knowledge of the

Sicilian elbow type, which has shown that the elongated catch-plate occurred first on this type



38 E.H Hall, Excavations in Eastern Crete (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1913), esp. 144 and 165.
39 Hencken's summary of Benton's conclusions is noted because Benton's publication is inaccessible. Hugh Hencken,
"Syracuse,"esp. 271.
40 Ibid

41 The views of Orsi and Buchner are noted by Hencken in, "Syracuse."









CHAPTER 2
TYPOLOGY

Scholarship on the study of the fibula has been a collective contribution. Johannes

Sundwall is the authority on the Italic types from the Early Iron Age through the 6th century BC,

while John Alexander provides a survey on the distribution of the spectacle fibula.' Anna Maria

Bietti Sestieri offers limited examples of the types classified by Sundwall and Alexander,2 while

Ellen MacNamara3 and Judith Toms4 offer commentary on the history and interrelation of the

early types, namely the spectacle, arch, and serpentine fibula forms. The component parts of the

fibula regardless of type are the bow, spring, pin, and catch-plate. The catch-plate may be short,

elongated, or long channel. If not one of these three types, then it may be less commonly in the

form of a small or large disc (Figure 2-1).

The pin passes through the garment and is held in place by the catch-plate, much like a

modern safety pin. The bow is the element that is normally visible to the eye, and for this reason

a number of decorative styles of bow developed over time. In this paper, an attempt will be made

to categorize fibulae according to forms and techniques of manufacture and decoration. Fibulae

of the 9th through the 7th centuries may be made in a variety of ways, which include using the

piece-mold, lost wax method, cold working, and annealing processes. Fibulae of the 9th and 8th

century have fairly simple decoration compared to those of the 7th century, which utilize the

techniques of filigree and granulation. Some thirty-four types of fibulae may be organized into

1 John Alexander, "The Spectacle Fibula of Southern Europe," American Journal ofArchaeology 69 (January 1965)
2 Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri, "Italian Swords and Fibulae of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages," Italian Iron Age
Artefacts: in the British Museum: Papers of the Sixth British Museum Classical Coloquium (1986): esp. 20-23.

3 Ellen MacNamara, "Some Bronze Typologies in Sardinia and Italy from 1200 to 700 BC: Their Origin and
Development," in Etruria e Sardegna Centro-Settentrionale tra L 'Eta del Bronzo Finale e L 'Arcaismo: Atti del XXI
Convegno di Studi Etruschi edltalici, Sassari, Alghero, Oritano, Torralba, 13-17 Ottobre 1998, ed. Convegno di
Studi Etruschi e Italici (Pisa: Instituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali, 2002).

4 Judith Toms, "The Arch Fibula," 91-113.









indention.81 Another way to decorate the surface is by manipulating the wide edge of a chisel-

like tool, thereby creating a temolo line or ziz-zag motif.82 Richard and Sadow note that the zig-

zag and meander are associated with the Geometric Period in Greece, and these motifs may be

seen on various examples of Early Iron Age fibulae from Italy. The majority of these early eighth

century types of fibulae in Italy display the type of geometric design that is most likely the result

of the repertoire of the time.

Eighth-century decorative processes give way to the techniques of filigree and granulation during

the 7th century. Filigree manipulates metal wires formed from sheet metal in various ways to

produce ornament on jewelry.83 Granulation uses granules of metal for ornamentation.84

Iconography

The characteristic motifs on the violin, simple arch, serpentine, Sicilian elbow, and leech

fibulae of the eighth and ninth centuries in Sicily, southern Italy, and central Italy consist of

incised geometric patterns utilizing triangular, circular, and linear shapes. These geometric

motifs can be seen on fibulae from such Italic sites as Veii, Pontecagnano, Tarquinia, and Sala

Consilina. They also occur at native Sicilian sites such as Pantalica, Dessueri, Cassible, and

Monte Finocchito. The Greek colonies of Pithekoussai and Cumae have yielded examples of

Italic fibulae with geometric designs as well.

Geometric decoration combines with animal imagery during the 7th century on a leech

fibula from the tomb of the Lictor in Vetulonia as seen in figure 60.85 The animals are rendered


81 Ibid., esp. 104
82 Ibid., esp. 104-105.

83 Ivette Richard and Richard Sadow, "Etruria," esp. 197-204.
84 Ibid.

85 David Randall-MacIver, Villanovans, esp. 29.









center of the bow. Whether spaced evenly or grouped together in the center of the bow, both of

these compositions results in a bow that is leech shaped.

M. The Drago Bow type (Figure 2-28): The drago bow type fibula has a curvilinear bow

that smoothly transitions into a long pin underneath. The catch-plate may be either elongated or

formed as a long channel. An assortment of knobs, loops, discs and/or conical elements may

decorate either the bow and/or the pin.

Variations of the drago bow type include:

1. Amorphous Drago Bow (Figure 2-29) The amorphous drago bow type is distinguished by
a tall, thick bow, which transitions into a relatively thin pin underneath. The catch-plate
may be either elongated or long-channel. Unique combinations of geometric patterns and
three-dimensional elements may be worked on the pin and bow.

2. Knobbed Drago Bow (Figure 2-30 and 2-31) The knobbed drago bow type is similar to
the amorphous bow type except for the addition of spherical knobs, discs, or other three-
dimensional elements on the bow. The catch-plate may be either elongated or long-channel
foot. Geometric patterns and three-dimensional elements may be worked onto the bow
similarly to that of the decoration on the amorphous drago bow type.

3. Figural Drago Bow (Figure 2-32)- The figural drago bow type is similar in shape to the
amorphous drago bow and the knobbed drago bow types except that the overall form
usually resembles a figure of an animal. In addition to the form taking the shape of an
animal, the three-dimensional decoration of this type may be in the form of animals. The
catch-plate may be elongated or long channel.20

Exceptional varieties: The last two types to be described are the bolt and comb fibulae,

respectively. They are not listed or included in the discussion of the development of the Italic

fibula, since most scholars do not acknowledge them as belonging to that tradition. Curiously,

they are found in wealthy tomb contexts of the 7th century BC from Southern Etruria and Latium.

These tombs and the material in them will be accounted for shortly, but first the unique

characteristics of the comb and bolt fibulae types will be discussed.



20 Examples of the drago type fibula and subsequent variations appear in Sundwall on 233-253, H I-IV. Examples
also appear in Bietti Sestieri on 23, number 49.









6 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FIBULAE FOR CULTURAL INTERACTIONS.....................100

P ith ek o u ssai ............................................................................. 10 0
C um ae ........................ .............................................102
S y ra cu se ................... ...................1...................0.........5
Change in Production .................................. ... .. ...... ..... .. ............109
C onclu sions..... .........................................................114

APPENDIX: LIST OF FIGURES NOT SHOWN.....................................................................115

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ..................................................................................... ...................119

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ............................................................................... ............... ..... 122









of debate, too, mainly because certain archaeologists insisted that it was Greek in origin. Their

claims are not supported by secure evidence, which will be discussed in the thesis. These three

types of fibulae occur in both Italic and Greek sites of the 8th and 7th centuries, including

Pithekoussai and Syracuse. Some archaeologists argued for a Greek origin while others

demonstrated that they had always been part of the Italic tradition. The inability to identify them

as either Greek or Italic in origin seems still to be present today, but this thesis aims to present

the available evidence on the knobbed serpentine, composite leech, and knobbed leech fibulae in

order to make a fair assessment on the origin of these types.

Apart from the controversy concerning the appearance of certain types of Italic fibulae and

western Greek composite leech fibulae at Greek sites in Italy, the period of time spanning the 8th

through the 7th centuries also marks the sudden increase of wealth in Etruria. Fibulae appear in

luxurious materials and sophisticated techniques during the 7th century, especially in Etruria.

This change is important for the information it reveals about the effects of foreign cultures

in central Italy, such as the Greeks and Phoenicians. The study of fibulae is important for the

information that these objects reveal about the interactions between the Greeks and the

indigenous peoples of Italy. They also crucial for understanding that the Italic people were

influencing the Greeks and the Greeks were influencing the Italic people as opposed to the

outdated thought that culture was passing in one direction only. This direction was believed to

have been from Greece to Italy.






























Figure 2-15. A large disc arch bow fibula. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die
Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 113.


Figure 2-16. A foliated bow fibula. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren
Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 128.









different from Italic variations because the catch-plate often takes the form of a square or

rectangle.67

Arch bows have also been found in the Balkans, but were rare in central Europe until the

eighth century.68 Arch bows came in two main varieties according to the shape of the bows, and

they were distinguished culturally as well as geographically.69 Semi-circular arch bows were

more common in the Fossa culture areas of southern and central Italy. Fibulae with lowered arch

bows were common in the areas of Etruscan culture in Po Valley in the north as well as parts of

Campania in southern Italy.70

Those examples from northern and southern Italy display small channel catch-plates with

a small to medium double coil spring, while those in the south feature large channel catch-plates

and a single coil spring, which may have beads attached to the thread of the bow.71 During this

time, disc catch-plates first appeared on the violin bow fibula in Italy, but soon they became

limited to the central region of the country.72

New and more elaborate types emerged throughout the end of the eighth century and into

the beginning of the seventh century. They were the small and large leech, drago, and comb and

bolt types. The leech and drago types seem to have appeared throughout Italy, although elaborate

examples have been unearthed especially from the region of Etruria, dating to the 7th though 6th

centuries. In contrast to all of the types mentioned thus far in the study of the Italic fibula, the



67 Ibid.

68 Ibid., 94-95

69 Ibid., 95

70 Ibid., 95

71 Ibid.
72 Ibid.





























Figure 2-26. A small leech fibula with decoration. (Source in public domain) Sundwall,
Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 183.


Figure 2-27. A large leech bow fibula. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die
Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 201.









since this is the region that shows the most Greek contact.48 On the other hand, Markoe cites how

the Greeks have always been interested in the resources of Italy, particularly iron, and he implies

that their commercial interest in this metal was the reason why they traveled to Italy.49 The

commercial benefits that the Greeks would have gained through access and exploitation of the

Italic iron ore deposits would have been a strong factor for leaving Greece, but Crielaard has

effectively demonstrated that this was probably not the only reason they left their home. The

Euboean aristocrats were probably wanting to escape the competition that was building at home

in Greece and saw Italy as way to achieve independence and to make a profit from the iron goods

that they would have furnished to the Italic peoples.50

Curiously enough, the rise of the Italic aristocracy and the subsequent deposition of these

grave goods in the wealthy tombs of Etruria and Campania in the 8th century BC coincide with

the arrival of the Greeks at Pithekoussai and later at Cumae. Crielaard stresses the similarities of

high-status funerary ritual, which consists of urn cremation stored in a metal vase with

accompanying metal grave goods, between the first generation of tombs from Cumae such as the

Fondo Artiaco tomb and the burials from Eretria in Greece.51 This information allows one to

infer that members of the Greek aristocracy must have formed the colonizing party, and he goes

one step further by addressing the similarities of funerary rituals and grave goods not just

between Greek colonies and the motherland, but between Greek colonies and Italic sites.

Pontecagnano, Calatia, Caere, and Vetulonia are included among the Italic sites.52


48 The contact with Greece is most clearly demonstrated through Veii where the largest number of Greek-made
vessels and iron objects has been found. Ibid., esp. 174-175
49 Glenn Markoe, "In Purstui of Metal," esp. 80
50 Crielaard's thoughts on the Euboean aristocracy were summarized in the previous chapter.

51 Jan P. Crielaard, "How the West Was Won," esp. 240-247

52 Ibid., esp. 246









creating a tiered design. The decoration is located on the perimeters and centers of the disc and

on the bow. These patterns may include squares and/or triangles of incised lines, circles, and

occasionally figures. Small rings may attach to the perimeter of the bow as well.1

H. Sicilian Elbow type (Figure 2-17) The Sicilian elbow fibula bow that angles upwards

and then bends downwards to form an elbow. The elbow bow may have a small or large single or

double-coiled spring usually accompanied with an elongated channel catch-plate. Alternating

bands of incised vertical lines, along with plain or decorated areas of geometric patterns,

decorate the exposed portion. The decorated bands are on either side of the elbow, but they are

not located on the bend itself. The Sicilian fibula bow type may also consist of a curvilinear bow

upon which are two small coils. Both coils are usually the same size and the one further away

from the pin is higher than the one closer to the pin. The pin rests on an elongated channel catch-

plate.

I. The Serpentine Bow type (Figures 2-18 and 2-19): The serpentine bow type is

comprised of a curvilinear bow with a single, double or triple coil. If a double coil, then each

may be the same size or one noticeably larger than the other. If three coils exist, then they may

either be in succession along the length of the bow or two of them may be a similar size, with the

third one noticeably larger. The pin may be straight or curvilinear and it may rest on a small

channel catch-plate, an elongated channel catch-plate, or a spiral disc-catch-plate, which may be

small or large. Decoration may include incised lines in assorted geometric patterns along the bow

or in shallow relief carving.

Variations of the serpentine bow type include:




15 Examples of this type appear in Sundwall on 122-131, C I. Examples also appear in Bietti Sestieri on 23 numbers
46-47.









Animals used for apotropaic purposes were in use towards the end of the Orientalizing

period.94 Three-dimensional figures of creatures such as ducks, lions, and seated sphinxes appear

not only on fibulae but also on other objects in the tombs at Marsiliana.95 The Regolini-Galassi

foliated disc fibula, which measures approximately 12in. x 12in., deserves special attention not

only because of its size but also because of its decoration. The decoration incorporates and mixes

filigree, granulation, and plastic figural decoration over all of the surfaces of the fibula. Five

lions executed in repousse walk in different directions. Intertwining crescents are worked in

granulation on the disc. The lions on this fibula, in particular, seemingly correspond to a typical

Etruscan lion by virtue of their sturdy, compact, and almost square bodies.96 These characteristics

are applied to depictions of lions from other locales in southern Etruria, and the style is

distinguishable from the silhouette style of northern Etruria.97 The two central bars, which are

decorated in a zig-zag motif, are connected to the final portion of the fibula, which is decorated

with rows of birds in the round. Rows of animal figures in repouse with details in granulation

alternate with the rows of birds.

From the Bernardini tomb, two lions standing back-to-back occupy the center of the bar

of the comb fibula, with three flying birds on either side of them as seen in figures 62-63. A

walking lion closes the scene on both ends and a band of filigree borders the entire composition.

Each half of the comb clasp from the Barberini tomb is made from two plates, which rest upon

three curving tubes that terminate in flower buds. Twelve sphinxes in the round rest on top of

these tubes, although the same animal motif is rendered in the space in between the tubes,


94 Ibid., esp. 89

95 Ingrid Strom, Problems, esp. 104.
96 Llewellyn Brown, The Etruscan Lion, esp. 4

97 Ibid., esp. 41-43























Figure 2-19. Serpentine fibula with a symmetrical channel catch-plate. (Source in public
domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co,
1943. 149.


Figure 2-20. Large and small coils serpentine fibula with a symmetrical channel catch-plate.
(Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin:
Gruyter & Co, 1943. 143.









that are present at Syracuse include mostly small and large leech fibulae, serpentine fibulae with

knobs on the sides, and knobbed leech fibulae.35 The knobbed leech fibula will be discussed

below.

The variety of Italic fibulae at Pithekoussai includes the simple arch, serpentine, small

and large leech, composite leech, and drago types. Hodos recognizes that the types recovered

from the tombs at Cumae are similar to those from Pithekoussai, and they include the simple

arch bow, the ringed arch bow, the serpentine form, the leech fibula, and the drago type.36 Two

types appear at Cumae that were not present at Pithekoussai and Syracuse. They are the comb

and bolt fibulae. Though not known to have appeared in other Greek colonies excluding Cumae,

they have been unearthed from graves in Etruria dating to the 7th and 6th centuries. The reasons

why the comb and bolt types were only present at the Greek colony of Cumae, but had been

present in Etruscan graves, will be further explored in the final chapter.

The Knobbed Leech Fibula

The third type of fibula that has received attention in the past decades because of its

questionable origins is the knobbed leech bow (Figure A-5), (Figure A-6), and (Figure A-7).

Like the knobbed serpentine fibula and the composite leech fibula in the Greek style, this type

has appeared in both Italic and Greek sites in Italy. Examples have survived from Syracuse,

Pithekoussai, and Cumae. The type has provenances at the native sites of Monte Finocchito,

Veii, Pontecagnano, Tarqunia, and Sala Consilina. 3 It is difficult to distinguish the origin of this

type because not much literature has been produced on it. Hencken did make note of it in his


35 A brief perusal of the catalogue and the text by Hencken reveals that these are the most prevalent types at
Syracuse.
36 Tamar Hodos, "Intermarraige," esp. 63.

37 Tamar Hodos, "Intermarriage," esp. 69-70.









assertion and "self-advertisement" for the colony compared to the dedications of her peers.35

When viewed from this angle, the appearance of Greek composite leech fibulae in Greece

reaffirms how the Greeks modified the Italic composite leech fibulae and transported them back

to Greece for the important reason of promoting the independence and status of the colony. This

is in reversal of the long held idea until recently of the thought that the Greek composite leech

type was a Greek invention.

Change in Production

The second half of this chapter will focus on the second major theme of this paper, which

is the change in the production of fibulae, which starts in the last quarter of the eighth century. At

the end of the 8th century and throughout the 7th century BC, significant changes start to take

place in the production of fibula. This change is especially noticeable in Pithekoussai, Cumae,

and Etruria where the new materials of gold and silver have been detected for fashioning fibulae.

The next logical question is why did this change take place? There is no doubt that the jewelry

from these tombs reflects eastern influence and Strom considers them to be direct imports from

the Near East, either through trade or resulting from the presence of immigrant eastern craftsmen

in Etruria.36

Knowing that Ischia had an active industry in working metal and that Greeks were

familiar with working metal, Buchner hypothesized that the Euboeans might have been attracted

to the island for metals and may have been exporting these luxury items to Etruria.37 He supports

his conclusion by noting the familiarity the Greeks had in working gold as well as their

knowledge of eastern motifs. Other scholars such as Guzzo prefer to see the luxury gold items as

35 Ibid., esp. 75.
36 Ingrid Strom, Problems, esp. 205, 212, & 216.

37 Giorgio Buchner, "Early Orientalizing," esp. 137-138.














































Figure 2-21. Large and small coils serpentine fibula with a disc catch-plate. (Source in public
domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co,
1943. 144.














43









Richard, Ivette and Richard Sadow. "Etruria." In GoldJewekry: Craft, Style, and Meaning from
Mycenae to Constantinopolis, ed. Hackens, T. Louvain-la-Neuve: College Erasme, 1983.

Ridgway, David. The First Western Greeks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Roth-Murray, Carrie. "A Disclosure of Power: Elite Etruscan Iconography during the 8th-6th
Centuries BC." Papers in Italian Archaeology (2005): 186-195.

Shepherd, Gillian. "Fibulae and Females: Intermarriage in the Western Greek Colonies and the
Evidence from the Cemeteries." In Ancient Greeks West and East, ed. Tsetskhladze,
Gocha R. Boston: Brill, 1999.
- "The Pride of Most Colonials: Burial and Religion in the Sicilian Colonies." In Acta
Hyperborea 6, ed. Fischer-Hansen, Tobias. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press,
1995.

Skalsky, Randall L. "The Waterfowl of Etruria: A Study of Duck, Goose, and Swan
Iconography." PhD diss., Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, 1997

Snodgrass, Anthony. The Dark Age of Greece. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1971.

Steures, D.C. Monte Finocchito Revisited. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Press, 1980.

Strom, Ingrid. Problems Concerning the Origin and Development of the Etruscan Orientalizing
Style. Odense: Odense University Press, 1971.

Stronach, David. "The Development of the Fibula in the Near East." Iraq 21 (1959): 181-206.

Stubbings, J.M. "Bow Fibulae." In Perachora, the Sactuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia;
Excavations of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, 1930-1933, ed. Dunbabin,
T.J. and Alan Blakeway. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940.

Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943.

Toms, Judith. "The Arch Fibula in Early Iron Age Italy." In Ancient Italy in its Mediterranean
Setting: Studies in Honor of Ellen MacNamara, ed. MacNamara, E. and David Ridgway,
91-113. London: Accordia Research Institute, 2000.
- "The Construction of Gender in Early Iron Age Etruria." Italian Archaeology (1998):
157-179.

Vida Navarro, M. Carmen. "Warriors and Weavers: Sex and Gender in Early Iron Age Graves
from Pontecagnano." The Accordia Research Papers; the Journal of the Accordia
Research Centre 3 (1992): 67-99.

Von Eles Masi, Patrizia. Prahistorische Bronzefunde: Le Fibule dell'Italia Settentrionale.
Munchen: C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1986.

Winthur, Caroline. "Princely Tombs of the Orientalizing Period in Etruria and Latium Vetus."
Acta Hyperborea (1997): 423-446.

Wolters, Jochem. "The Ancient Craft of Granulation." GoldBulletin (1981): 119-127.









(including fibulae) and those of the other tombs from Cumae that are not as rich would not be

viewed as a reflection of intermarriage.

Whether or not intermarriage existed at Cumae, the question of where the Italic fibulae

from Pithekoussai and Cumae might have been produced will be examined shortly when

discussing the second major theme of this paper, which relates to the change in the production of

fibulae in terms of materials, techniques, and iconography.

Syracuse

In comparison to Pithekoussai and Cumae, the Greek colony of Syracuse has furnished a

much smaller number of Italic fibulae dating to the 8th and 7th centuries BC. At Syracuse only

eighty fibulae come from roughly 350 tombs.1 The majority of these examples are the serpentine

fibula (with small knobs on the side of the bow) and the leech fibula. It is worth noting that

although both Pithekoussai and Syracuse display similar ornaments, they appear to have been

used differently at each site. The types from Pithekoussai were mostly found singly in graves of

adult women although a considerable quantity came from female infant graves. When found with

adult women at Pithekoussai, they had the utilitarian function of fastening a garment.

Italic fibulae18 from Syracuse were primarily associated with children and several may

have occurred in one grave along with the Greek pin.19 The use of the fibula in child burials at

Syracuse was not functioning in association with a garment. As at Pithekoussai, Italic fibulae

could have been reserved to honor a pre-mature departure from earth or they could represent a




17 Gillian Shepherd, "Fibulae and Females," esp. 277
18 All of the fibulae found at Syracuse must have been Italic or in the case of the Greek composite leech type and
adaptation of an Italic type. Like the disassociation of fibula types between Pithekoussai and Euboea, Syracuse did
not yield any types that were contemporary at Corinth, which Shepherd states on p. 283.

19 Gillian Shepherd, "Fibulae and Females," esp. 286-87










1895.28 Of the eighty examples, 36 were of the Greek composite leech type. Shepherd notes how

the Greek composite leech fibula is the most common at Syracuse, and this is evident from the

graves described by Hencken. Hencken based his article and the accompanying illustrations on

the excavations by Orsi.29

Etruria and Latium in the Seventh Century

Tomb contents from the period of 725-575 BC have been surveyed by Winthur from sites

such as Tarquinia, Rome, Vetulonia, Marsiliana, Praeneste, Veii, Caere, and Populonia (see

Figure 5-3).30 The following items are included in this assortment: elaborate fibulae, warrior's

equipment, metal vases, faience objects (although somewhat scarce), and ivory items.31 The

contents from Vetulonia, Marsiliana, and Caere, and will be looked at more closely for the

examples they provide in work executed in luxurious materials and for the utilization of the new

techniques of filigree and granulation.

Two leech fibulae come from the tomb of the Lictor (dated 625 BC) at Vetulonia in

northern Etruria (Figure A-23).32 At Marsiliana during the years 675-650 BC there are a number

of drago fibulae.33 Besides the leech and drago types, two new fibula forms appear during this

period in Etruria, and they are the comb and bolt types. An example of the comb type appears at




28 Paolo Orsi, "Gli Scavi nella Necropoli fel Fusco a Siracusa nel Giugno, Novembre e Dicembre del 1893," Notizie
degli Scavi diAntichita (1895).
29 Hencken neatly summarizes the results from Orsi's excavations in his article published in 1958. He includes the
tomb number, the metal contents, their material, and the date if possible. This summarization is extremely helpful
compared to trying to sift through the 100 some-odd pages in NSc.
30 Caroline Winthur, "Princely Tombs of the Orientalizing Period in Etruria and Latium Vetus," Acta Hyperborea 7
(1997): esp. 434-441.

31 Ibid., 435-441

32 David Randall-MacIver, Villanovans and Early Etruscans (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1924), esp. 29

33 Ibid., 187-192























Figure 2-17. The Sicilian elbow type fibula. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die
Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 137.


Figure 2-18. Serpentine fibula with a disc catch-plate. (Source in public domain) Sundwall,
Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 153.









Lyons contradicts Orsi in saying that there are "numerous instances" of this type at

Megara Hyblaea.33 There is some discrepancy in the findings from Megara Hyblaea, but it is

probable that Orsi did not have all of the available evidence at his disposal to make a fair

assessment of the findings from Megara Hyblaea regarding fibulae. Based on Lyons' account it

does not seem as if there was an absence of this type at Megara Hyblaea. There may or may not

have been an absence of Greek composite leech fibulae at Gela, but at present there is no way to

tell whether or not the Geloans were using this type.

Regardless of whether or not this type was being used at Gela, it was certainly being

employed to secure garments in the communities of Syracuse and Pithekoussai. The presence of

Greek composite leech fibulae at sanctuaries in Greece reflects the other way that this type was

employed by the western Greeks, which was for dedication It has been shown that the Greek

composite leech fibula has been found not only in the Greek colonies, but also the native sites

and Italic fibula types have been found in the Greek colonies.

Italic Fibulae at Syracuse, Pithekoussai and Cumae

As in the case of the knobbed serpentine type, composite leech fibulae at Pithekoussai

and Cumae were found in the presence of Italic fibulae. The archaeological community has

recognized the close correspondence of fibula types of these two Greek colonies in particular to

native sites in Campania and Etruria. Coldstream iterates, "Right from the beginning, the Greek

colonists of Pithekoussai and Cumae used non-Greek, indigenous, personal ornaments,

especially fibulae."34 The Fusco cemetery at Syracuse did not contain as many indigenous fibula

types as Pithekoussai and Cumae, a point that relates to the social milieu of the colony. The types

3 Claire Lyons, The Archaic Cemeteries, ed. Bell, Malcolm and Christopher Moss, vol. 5 (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1996), esp. 97.
4 J.N Coldstream, "Mixed Marriages at the Frontiers of the Early Greek World," Oxford Journal ofArchaeology
12.1 (1993): esp. 91.

























Figure 2-6. Spectacle fibula type V. Alexander, John. "The Spectacle Fibula of Southern
Europe." American Journal ofArchaeology 69 (January 1965): 17.


Figure 2-7. Spectacle fibula type VI. Alexander, John. "The Spectacle Fibula of Southern
Europe." American Journal ofArchaeology 69 (January 1965): 17.










Half of the 192 graves containing fibulae are those of children.2 Some of these child

graves contain a large number of fibulae, such as tomb 652, of a baby. This tomb had been

discovered containing 22 fibulae of Italic type.3 The 22 fibulae from tomb 652 could never have

been worn by the baby of this grave. Rather, in this case and in similar cases, these fibulae

functioned as a lavish assortment of grave goods perhaps in remembrance of a short life.4 The

Greek pin is not documented from any of the graves thus far excavated on Ischia.

When not found with children, the fibulae as well as other items of jewelry were mostly

associated with women.5 The fibulae were found at the shoulders of the women, suggesting that

this was how they were used in life, which was to fasten the garment. Shepherd also notes how

fibulae were sometimes found in high numbers similarly to child burials.6 The serpentine fibula

is the only type that has been found to be associated with men.7

Buchner first proposed the theory of intermarriage because of the large amount of Italic

fibulae present in the tombs on this island and because they were associated with women.8 He as

well as other members of the archaeological community believes that it must have been the




2 Ibid., esp. 295

3 Shepherd does not specify whether the fibulae found in tomb 652 are all Italic or a mixture of Greek or Italic, but
her comments on pp. 274-275 would incline one to believe that they were all of Italic type. On these pages, she
notes how the metalwork from Greek graves on Ischia is exactly similar to metal items from contemporary tombs in
Etruria. On p. 283, she specifies how the fibulae at Pithekoussai were "not as yet matched by anything in Euboea."

4 Gillian Shepherd, "Fibulae and Females," esp. 295

5 Ibid., esp. 276
6 Ibid.

7 The association of the serpentine type with men has been widely acknowledged by the archaeological community
for sometime. de la Geniere first documented it in her review of the sites of southern Italy. Other scholars such as
Moser and Gualtieri noted the same association in their dissertations. Buchner later made mention of this type being
associated with men at Ischia too.

8 Giorgio Buchner, "Early Orientalizing: Aspects of the Euboean Connection," in Italy before the Romans, ed.
Ridgway, David and Francesca Ridgway (New York: Academic Press, 1979), esp, 135.










Iron leech forms appear at Capua during the eighth century.52 The simple arch fibula, the

serpentine, the knobbed serpentine, the simple leech, the knobbed leech, the Italic composite

leech fibula, and the four-spiral spectacle types have been discovered in bronze at

Pontecagnano.53 The only form found regularly in iron at Pontecagnano is the serpentine.54 At

Sala Consilina, the arch, serpentine, knobbed serpentine, leech, knobbed leech, foliated, drago,

and four-spiral spectacle types of fibulae all come in bronze.55 However, as seen in the previous

sites, the Sicilian elbow type continues to remain popular in iron at Sala Consilina as well,56 and

objects in amber and gold exist but not in the same number as bronze and iron objects.5

Etruria and Latium in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries

The serpentine form at Veii may be in bronze or iron.58 Hartmann recognizes that fibulae

are common iron objects during the period 900-760 BC, mostly of the serpentine form, but that

far more examples of bronze than iron serpentine fibulae have been unearthed.59 Interestingly,

the number of both iron and bronze fibulae decreases between 760-720 BC, but their ratio does

not change significantly during these years.60






52 Mary Moser, "The "Southern Villanovan" Culture" (PhD diss.), esp. 94

3 Ibid., esp. 151-242

54 Ibid., esp. 475

55 Ibid., esp. 279-408
56 Ibid., esp. 279-307.

57 Ibid., esp. 391
58 Nicholas Hartmann, "Iron-Working in Southern Etruria in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries BC" (PhD diss.,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 1982), esp. 18-24.

59 Ibid., esp. 55
60 Ibid.






















Figure 2-24. A rectangular double coils serpentine fibula with a disc catch-plate. (Source in
public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter &
Co, 1943. 159.


Figure 2-25. A small leech bow fibula with decoration. (Source in public domain) Sundwall,
Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 179.









S. Antonio,5 Veii and Tarquinia in southern Etruria,6 Sala Consilina in Basilicata,7 and at Canale

in Calabria.8

At Monte Finocchito (see Figures A-4) knobbed serpentine fibulae date to 730-650 BC,

during the main phase of occupation of the site.9 At Veii and Tarqunia, they date to 900-720

BC.'1 De la Geniere does not readily give dates for the examples from Sala Consilina, but instead

describes the objects that have been found in graves from the same period as the knobbed

serpentine fibulae. In this way, she indicates the most likely date of the knobbed serpentine

fibulae by association with other grave objects. Unless one is very familiar with Early Iron Age

grave objects, it is not possible to establish the exact date of the knobbed serpentine type in

Basilicata. If consistent with the appearance of this type elsewhere in Italy, however, it is likely

to date to the 8th or 7th centuries. At Canale, in Calabria in general the evidence allows de la

Geniere to be a little more specific about dates. She offers a date of around 700 BC for the

appearance of the knobbed serpentine type."

Hencken suggested that knobbed serpentine fibulae might be Greek adaptations of local

Italic serpentine fibulae because they were being worn by the Greeks at Pithekoussai as early as






5 Serenella De Natale, Pontecagnano: II, La Necropoli di S. Antonio-Propr. ECI (Napoli: Instituto Universitario
Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico, 1992).
6 Judith Toms, "The Construction of Gender in Early iron Age Etruria," Italian Archaeology (1998): esp. 167.

7 Juliette de la Geniere, "The Iron Age in Southern Italy," in Italy before the Romans, (New York: Academic Press,
1979), esp. 82

8 Ibid., 85

9 Robert Leighton, Sicily before History (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), esp. 242.

10 Judith Toms, "The Construction of Gender," esp. 157

1 Juliette de la Geniere, "The Iron Age in Southern Italy," esp. 85









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jennifer Hambleton received her bachelor's degree from the University of Florida with a

major in architecture and a minor in classics. On completion of that degree, she chose to stay at

the University of Florida to pursue a master's degree in art history with a focus on the art of

antiquity. She intends to pursue a career in art conservation.








Image not shown due to copyright


Figure 2-1. A diagram of an arch bow fibula. Toms, Judith. "The Arch Fibula in Early Iron Age
Italy." In Ancient Italy in its Mediterranean Setting: Studies in Honor of Ellen
MacNamara, ed. MacNamara, E. and David Ridgway, 91-113. London: Accordia
Research Institute, 2000. 93.


2-2b


2-2c


2-2d


2-2e


2-2g


2-2f 2-2
2-2h


Figure 2-2. Spectacle fibula type I. Alexander, John. "The Spectacle Fibula of Southern
Europe." American Journal ofArchaeology 69 (January 1965): 9.









APPENDIX A
LIST OF FIGURES NOT SHOWN

Image not shown due to copyright


Figure A-1. A stilted bow fibula. Bietti Sestieri, Anna Maria. "The Metal Industry of
Continental Italy, 13th to 11th Centuries BC and its connection with the Aegean."
Proceedings of the Pre-Historic Society (1973): 403.


Image not shown due to copyright

Figure A-2. A multiple knobbed arch bow fibula. Bietti Sestieri, Anna Maria. "The Metal
Industry of Continental Italy, 13th to 11th Centuries BC and its connection with the
Aegean." Proceedings of the Pre-Historic Society (1973): 402.

Image not shown due to copyright

Figure A-3. A spiral arch bow fibula. Bietti Sestieri, Anna Maria. "The Metal Industry of
Continental Italy, 13th to 11th Centuries BC and its connection with the Aegean." Proceedings of
the Pre-Historic Society (1973): 402.

Image not shown due to copyright


Figure A-4. A knobbed serpentine fibula. Numerous examples of this type appear throughout the
catalogue. Steures, D.C. Monte Finocchito Revisited. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Press,
1980.


Image not shown due to copyright


Figure A-5. A small knobbed leech bow fibula with an elongated catch-plate from Monte
Finocchito in Sicily. Hodos, Tamar. "Intermarriage in the Western Greek Colonies."
Oxford Journal ofArchaeology 18 (1999): 70.

Image not shown due to copyright

Figure A-6. Small knobbed leech bow fibulae with elongated catch-plates from Pithekoussai and
Syracuse. Hodos, Tamar. "Intermarriage in the Western Greek Colonies." Oxford
Journal ofArchaeology 18 (1999): 70.

Image not shown due to copyright

Figure A-7. Knobbed leech bow fibulae from Syracuse, Monte Finocchito, and Pithekoussai..
Hodos, Tamar. "Intermarriage in the Western Greek Colonies." Oxford Journal of
Archaeology 18 (1999): 70.










found in Greece,33 and they are similar to composite leech fibulae found at Syracuse and Megara

Hyblaea.34 The composite leech fibulae found in the western Greek colonies are in turn similar to

native Italic ones except for slight differences in style. The differences in the style of composite

leech fibulae in the Greek colonies compared to those traditionally worn by the Italic people will

be discussed in more detail below, but for now the focus will be on the origin of the elongated

catch-plate.

Since composite leech fibulae with elongated catch-plates in the western Greek colonies

are similar to native Italic types, and because they appear in Greece after the period of

colonization, it leads to the conclusion that arrival of the elongated catch-plate in Greece must

have been induced by the contacts with Sicily. The most likely explanation for their occurrence

in Greece is that the western Greeks were transporting these fibulae back to Greece from Sicily.35

Out of the 50 examples of leech fibulae with elongated catch-plates in Greece, 16 have come

from the sanctuary at Perachora.36 The rest of the fibulae have been found at other sanctuaries in

Greece, with the most Italian goods, including jewelry, being discovered at the sanctuary of

Olympia.37 The reasoning behind the western Greeks dispatching their adaptations of Italic

composite fibulae to Greek sanctuaries will be discussed more in the final chapter.





33 J.M Stubbings, "Bow Fibulae," in Perachora, the Sactuaries ofHera Akraia and Limenia; Excavations of the
British School ofArchaeology atAthens, 1930-1933, ed. Dunbabin, T.J. and Alan Blakeway (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1940), esp. 439-441.
34 Ibid., 439

35 Gillian Shepherd, "Fibulae and Females: Intermarriage in the Western Greek Colonies and the Evidence from the
Cemeteries," inAncient Greeks West and East, ed. Tsetskhladze, Gocha R (Boston: Brill, 1999), esp. 288-289.
36 J.M Stubbings, "Bow Fibulae," esp. 439.

37 Gillian Shepherd, "The Pride of Most Colonials: Burial and Religion in the Sicilian Colonies," inActa
Hyperborea 6, ed. Fischer-Hansen, Tobias (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1995), esp. 74.









in it.1 The fibulae from Cumae might be able to be explained in terms of intermarriage as at

Pithekoussai, if the Greeks who first founded the colony were first generation colonists from

Euboea as noted by Crielaard. In this way, they would have migrated to Italy and married Italic

women similarly to the events at Pitheloussai. If this is the case, then it would have been the

Euboean aristocrats who formed the first colonizing expedition to Cumae because of the similar

"high status funerary ritual in Eretria and Cumae."13

According to Crielaard's theory of the foundation of Cumae, the first generation of

aristocrats would have been spurred to sail off to Italy due to the emergence of the polis and the

increasing competition among the members of the elite society.14 In addition to the competition

between themselves, the aristocrats may have also been prompted to travel to and settle in Italy

because of the trade contacts that they would be offered by the native peoples and they may also

have been seeking larger plots of land compared to what they owned in Greece.'5

Although the graves of Cumae strongly suggest that it was the first generation colonists

who were responsible for its foundation, Coldstream has advanced a different theory on the

foundation of Cumae. This second theory relates to the Fondo Artiaco tomb. Coldstream believes

it is the tomb of a person of mixed parentage.16 His views this tomb and the other six wealthy

cremation burials at Cumae as representing the peoples of mixed parentage who migrated from

Pithekoussai to Cumae. If he is correct in his thinking, then the wealthy contents of these tombs




12 Ibid.

13 Jan Crielaard, "How the West Was Won," esp. 238
14 Ibid., esp. 240-241.

15 Ibid.
16 J.N Coldstream, "Mixed Marriages," esp. 95-96









Gabrici, E. "Cuma." Monumenti Antichi 22 (1913).


Gaultieri, Maurizio. "Iron in Calabria in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries B.C." PhD diss.,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1977

Guzzo, Pier Giovanni. "Ipotesti Interpretativa su due Tipi di Fibula con Arco Ricoperto."
Aparchai; Nuove Ricerche e Studi sulla Magna Grecia e la Sicilia Antica in Onore di
Paolo Orsi 1 (1982): 53-61.

Hall, E.H. Excavations in Eastern Crete. Philadelphia: University Museum, 1914.

Hartmann, Nicholas. "Iron-Working in Southern Etruria in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries BC."
PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1982.

Hencken, Hugh. "Syracuse, Etruria, and the North: Some Comparisons." American Journal of
Archaeology 62 (1958): 259-272.

Hodos, Tamar. "Intermarriage in the Western Greek Colonies." Oxford Journal of Archaeology
18 (1999): 61-74.

Jacobsthal, Paul. Greek Pins and Their Connexions n i/h Europe and Asia. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1956.

Leighton, Robert. Sicily Before History. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999.

Lyons, Claire. The Archaic Cemeteries. ed. Bell, Malcolm and Christopher Moss, vol. 5.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.

MacNamara, Ellen. "Some Bronze Typologies in Sardinia and Italy from 1200 to 700 BC; Their
Origin and Development." Etruria e Sardegna Centro-Settentrionale tra l'eta' del Bronzo
Finale e L'arcaismo : atti del XXI Convegno di Studi Etruschi ed Italici, Sassari,
Alghero, Oristano, Torralba, 13-17 Ottobre 1998 (1998): 150-170.

Markoe, Glenn. "In Pursuit of Metal: Phoenicians and Greeks in Italy." In Greece between East
and West: 10th 8th Centuries BC, ed. Kopcke, G. and Isabelle Tokumaru, 61-84. Mainz:
P. von Zabern, 1990.

Moser, Mary Elizabeth. "The "Southern Villanovan" Culture of Campania." PhD diss.,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 1982

Orsi, Paolo. "Contributi alla Storia della Fibula Greca." Opuscula Archaeologica Oscari
Montello, Septuagenario, dicta d. ix m. sept. a. MCMXLI (1913): 189-203.
- "Gli Scavi nella Necropoli fel Fusco a Siracusa nel Giugno, Novembre e Dicembre del
1893." Notizie degli Scavi di Antichita (1895): 109-92.

Pelligrini, G. "Tombe Greche Archaiche e Tomba Greco-Sannitica a Tholos della Necropoli di
Cuma." Monumenti Antichi 13 (1903): 201-94.

Randall-MacIver, David. Villanovans and Early Etruscans. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1924.










(Figure A-26).3 In addition to these pieces, a plaque, a serpentine fibula, bowls, and a dagger

and sheath are also included on the extensive list of objects discovered in this tomb.38A few

comb clasps come from the Barberini tomb as well as three serpentine fibulae, cups, figurines,

and masks.39

Materials

Ninth and Eighth Centuries in Sicily, Southern Italy, and Campania

Even though the 9th century traditionally marks the rise of the Early Iron Age, bronze

working was still in existence for jewelry and other items. This is true of certain sites on Sicily,

and in southern and central Italy. For example, types of fibulae from the native sites of Pantalica,

Dessueri, Carcarella, and Cassible on Sicily are of bronze.40 Although scholars agree that there

are early objects in iron from Sicily,41 it is not until the period from about 730-650 BC that iron

starts to figure prominently in the production of fibulae.42

Iron examples of the simple arch, serpentine, and spectacle fibula types were slowly

being introduced in southern Italy in the regions of Apulia, Basilicata, and Calabria during the

9th-8th centuries B.C.4 De la Geniere notices that the serpentine type occurs alongside bronze and

iron weapons, such as spearheads and razors.





7 Ibid,, esp. 217

38 Ibid., esp. 262

39 Ibid., esp. 267
40 Robert Leighton, Sicily, esp. 200

41 MacNamara and Sestieri both cite the early finds from Sicily, which include the Sicilian elbow fibula in bronze
since iron examples do not come about until the middle of the eighth century.
42 Maurizio Gualtieri, "Iron in Calabria" (PhD diss.), esp. 217.

43 Juliette de La Geniere, "The Iron Age in Southern Italy," esp. 78-85








































Galli


Figure 5-1. Indigenous sites in southern Italy









in the granulated pulviscolo or silhouette style.86 On this fibula, the silhouette style articulates the

shape of a sphinx in outline form, which results in an overall shape that is linear and unnatural.8

The tombs of Le Migliarine, which are also located in Vetulonia, contain an example of a

gold leech fibula in which the figure of a sphinx is worked in repousse at the top.88 In some

cases, the bow of the fibula may be in the form of a feline, such as a lion or sphinx.89 Also from

this tomb a gold bracelet is decorated with alternating bands of filigree and plain areas

terminating in a series of three human masks rendered in repousse.90

The drago fibulae from Marsiliana display unique designs executed in filigree,

granulation, and plastic decoration.91 The plastic decoration may be geometric in nature or

figural, there being examples with spherical balls along the curved length of the bow of the

fibula and others with a row of ducks. The duck is one of the key animal motifs appearing at the

beginning of the Orientalizing period ca. 675 BC, but it becomes less evident toward the end of

the period, as reflected in the examples below.92 The duck is believed to have functioned as a

friendly escort to the afterlife.93 The function of this motif seems to be in opposition to the

apotropaic function associated with icons such as sphinxes, chimerae, griffins, and lions as noted

by Skalsky.



86 Llewellyn Brown, The Etruscan Lion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960), esp. 44

87 Ibid.

88 David Randall-MacIver, Villanovans, esp. 151

89 Llewellyn Brown, The Etruscan Lion, esp. 44

90 Repousse is defined as metalwork decoration in relief, achieved by beating the metal from behind.

91 David Randall-MacIver, Villanovans, esp. 187-192
92 Randall L. Skalsky, "The Waterfowl of Etruria: A Study of Duck, Goose, and Swan Iconography" (PhD diss.,
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, 1997), esp. 89.

93 Ibid., esp. 124









circular or square in cross-section.8 If only a single pair comprises the arm (as in type I-III) then

the central connecting device of the two spirals may be circular or linear. Generally, these

connecting devices are in the form of a figure eight loop, a diagonal pin, or a flat panel.9

The figure eight loop in particular is a form shared by the first three types of spectacle

fibulae as it is used in combination with a thin, flat panel in types II and III. In both of these, the

bow and catch-plate mechanism is attached to the panel, which wraps around and holds both

arms of the fibula. The main difference between Types II and III that utilize the figure eight loop

is the physical relationship between the loop and the panel. In type II, the loop does not

physically engage the panel the way it does in type III, and it does not hold the two arms of the

fibula as tightly, as some of the more sophisticated variations of type III.

Local variations of types I-III exist and they will be explored in more detail below, but

eventually the early spectacle fibula with its central figure eight loop evolves into a new type.

This new type of spectacle fibula, known as the four-spiral fibula, is built upon the standard form

of types I-III but it no longer has two spirals. Instead it has four spirals, which results in two

arms. The connection devices of the four-spiral fibula are similar to the earlier types, but

innovations also appear to accommodate the second arm.

The fifth type of spectacle fibulae is different from types I-IV in that it has a fifth spiral.

Alexander sees this type as a final variation of type IV spectacle fibulae, even though it has five

spirals and not four. The presence of the extra coil sets this type apart from those in group four,

and thus seems proper to designate it as an example of type V spectacle fibulae. Although a


8 Ibid., 69
9 Ibid., 9, 12, 16, & 17









essentially creating twenty-four sphinxes in all. A few comb clasps come from the Barberini

tomb and some of them use plastic figural decoration in the form of panther-heads and birds,

filigree and granulation.98

In summary, this chronological survey seeks to illustrate the dramatic changes in

material, techniques and decoration and/or iconography from the Early Iron Age down to the 7th

century. Types such as the spectacle, arch, and serpentine fibulae are often associated with

bronze and iron and simple geometric design. By contrast, luxurious materials such as gold,

silver, and ivory may now be associated with the sophisticated techniques of filigree,

granulation, and figural decoration in relief.

One thus notes a gradual change in the production of fibulae regarding materials,

techniques, and iconography. The change encompasses the introduction of new and luxurious

materials and techniques into central Italy during the late eighth and seventh centuries. The next

chapter will question why this change in the manufacture of fibulae came about, especially in

central Italy and southern Italy in the region of Campania. The effects of foreign influences on

Italy will be examined as well the possible places of manufacture of the elaborate fibulae that

have been recovered from the wealthy tombs in the central and southern regions of Italy.















98 David Randall-MacIver, Villanovans, esp. 267.


































2008 Jennifer M. Hambleton









on the arch bow and serpentine forms may be a short or medium-length channel as noted by

Moser. If the catch-plate is not a channel, then Moser states that it may be a spiral or solid disc.

Like Capua, Pontecagnano, and Sala Consilina, the foliated, drago, and four-spiral spectacle

fibula types emerge after the arch and serpentine fibulae. The catch-plates on foliated, drago, and

four-spiral types may be an elongated or short symmetrical channel.19 At Sala Consilina, the

leech form is strongly associated with the long channel foot.20

Etruria in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries

In southern Etruria, some of the same types of fibulae that have been unearthed from

southern Italy have been discovered at the sites of Veii and Tarquinia (Figure 5-3). During the

years 900-720 BC, the simple arch, Italic composite leech, simple leech, serpentine, drago,

knobbed serpentine, and knobbed leech fibulae emerge at these two sites.21

At Tarquinia, just northwest of Veii, the fibulae types find parallels to those of Veii.22

Hodos also notes how the assemblages at other Italic sites, such as Caere and Pontecagnano, are

similar to those of Veii and Tarquinia. Thus, it is fair to conclude that the finds from Veii and

Tarquinia complement not only each other, but they also seem to augment the finds from Sicily

and southern Italy in regard to the types of fibulae present. Although the typology of fibulae in

Etruria is similar to that of southern Italy and Sicily during the Early Iron Age, by the 7th century

changes are definitely under way.






19 Ibid., 365-377
20 Ibid., 472-478

21 Joanna Close-Brooks, "Veii in the Iron Age," esp. 102
22 Tamar Hodos, "Interrmarriage," esp. 63









twelve major groups including the spectacle, violin bow, stilted bow, arch bow, foliated bow,

serpentine bow, leech and boat types, composite leech bow, the drago type, and bolt and comb

fibulae.

Bolt and comb fibulae have been defined by some scholars as being clasps although they

still categorized them under the typology of fibulae. If they were indeed functional, they clearly

did not fasten to a garment in the same way as the other types. Despite the fact that the comb and

bolt types attach differently to fabric from the other types, they will be included in the typology.

The possibility should not be ruled out that the method of attachment may have made no

difference to the ancient peoples of Italy and they may have used them as fibulae. The following

pages describe the identifying features of a wide range of fibulae beginning with the spectacle

fibula.

Alexander recognizes that the spectacle fibula type is divided into five main and twenty

sub-types based on the shape of the fibula as well as the design of the bow and catch-plate.5

Alexander categorizes spectacle fibulae into five main types, even though one example from type

IV does not resemble the other examples from this type.6 In addition to this peculiarity, he

groups together an assortment of fibulae of dissimilar shape and asserts that they all belong to

type V.7

Because of the confusion in Alexander's method of categorization, spectacle fibulae will

be sorted into six main types in this thesis. Depending on the specific type, spectacle fibulae are

easily distinguishable from other types of fibulae because of the unique shapes of their arms,

which are either one or two pairs of spirally wound wire. These pairs of wire may be either

5 John Alexander, "The Spectacle Fibula," esp. 9-17.
6 Ibid., 17

7Ibid.





















Figure 2-30. A knobbed drago bow fibula. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die
Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 244.


Figure 2-31. A knobbed drago bow fibula with decoration. (Source in public domain) Sundwall,
Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 249.


Figure 2-32. A figural drago bow fibula from Marsiliana. (Source in public domain) Sundwall,
Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 246.









The development of these three Italic types is a result of the knowledge of manufacturing

and decorative techniques that the native peoples of Italy and Sicily acquired through their

exposure to the spectacle, knobbed violin, stilted bow, knobbed arch, and elbow fibula types.

This accumulation of knowledge and the subsequent appearance of the simple arch bow fibula,

the composite leech bow fibula, and the serpentine fibula indicate that by 900 BC the local Italic

sequence was underway.

Throughout the 8th and into the 7th centuries other, more elaborate types start to emerge

such as the drago, large leech, and comb and bolt types. There are differences in materials,

techniques, and decoration between the Early Iron Age fibulae such as the spectacle, violin,

serpentine, and arch bow and those of the late 8th, 7th, and 6th centuries. The progression from

fairly simple fibulae to those with more intricate shape and decoration will be discussed more in

the next chapter.

Geographical Distribution

Fibula Types from the 13th to 11th Centuries BC

The spectacle fibula originated from the Balkan regions and central Europe, but it

subsequently appeared in both Italy and Greece.42 Some variations of the Type I spectacle fibula

(figs. 2-2a, 2-2c, 2-2e, and 2-2g) appeared in southern Europe (Figure A-12). Other variations of

the Type I spectacle fibula (figs. 2-2b, 2-2d, 2-2f, and 2-2h) appeared in southern Europe,

Greece, and they were scattered throughout Sicily and mainland Italy (Figure A-13). The first

variant of the type I spectacle fibula (fig. 2-2a) appeared during the 10th through the middle 7th

century while the next two variants (figs. 2-2b and 2-2c) appeared mostly during the 11th through





42 John Alexander, "The Spectacle Fibulae," esp. 7









the peoples of Italy were wearing them.1 Just because they were being worn by the Greeks in

Italy as early as the Italic people does not prove that they are Greek adaptations of the Italic

serpentine fibula, however.

There is a lack of literature discussing knobbed serpentine fibulae in native Italic

contexts, except for Monte Finocchito. Though the lack of evidence certainly does not help to

clarify the issue, it is unreasonable to conclude that the occurrence of these fibulae at the Greek

colonies of Pithekoussai, Syracuse, and Cumae reflects the Greeks modifying the Italic

serpentine type. They appeared with other fibulae of Italic origin at Monte Finocchito, such as

serpentine bow fibulae, leech bow fibulae, and with other indigenous jewelry such as chains,

beads, bronze and iron rings,1 which encourages the idea that they are Italic.'4 This occurrence

coupled with the absence of the Greek dress pin15 at Monte Finocchito supports the conclusion

that knobbed serpentine fibulae are Italic in origin.

As at Monte Finocchito, the knobbed serpentine type was found in the presence of other

fibulae of Italic origin at Pontecagnano, Veii at the Quattro Fontanili cemetery, Tarquinia, and

Sala Consilina. At Pontecagnano these types include the simple arch bow fibula with elongated

catch-plate, the foliated fibula, the serpentine form, the composite leech bow, and the solid leech

form.16 Hodos acknowledges the ample collection of Italic fibulae present at Pontecagnano, Veii,






12 Hencken declares that the Greeks were wearing them just as early as the native Italic peoples, but he doess not
make reference to the sites he is referring to. Hugh Hencken, "Syracuse," esp. 270.

13 Ibid.
14 Robert Leighton, Sicily before History, esp. 242.

1 Ibid.
16 All of these types appear in the catalogues by D'Agostino and De Natale.




Full Text

PAGE 1

1 FIBULAE OF THE NINTH THROUGH SEVENT H CENTURIES BC IN CENTRAL ITALY By JENNIFER M. HAMBLETON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Jennifer M. Hambleton

PAGE 3

3 To my mom for the time we spent together in Paris and our shared love of art and history.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Sincere appreciation is given to Dr. Barbara Barletta for her guid ance throughout m y years of graduate study, but especially in researching the Italic fibula. Gratitude is expressed to Dr. Robin Poynor for his helpful comments and sugges tions on my thesis. To my family and friends whose encouragement has meant so much, thank you. Your constant support of my education has inspired me. I would like to express my appreciation to the library staff at the University of Florida for their hard work in helping me to obtai n items that were not readily accessible. Special acknowledgement is given to Janice Ka hler of the University of Flor ida interlibrary loan staff for her effort in overseeing the deliv ery of items that were requested for this thesis. I want to recognize Jennifer Testa for her help with the Italian translations Finally, I thank Dr. Hartigan and Dr. Eaverly, who first sparked my interest in the ancient world as an undergraduate while studying architecture.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................7 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................10 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................12 2 TYPOLOGY...........................................................................................................................17 3 FIBULA TYPES OF THE 13TH THROUGH 7TH CENTURIES BC: DEVELOPMENT AND DIFFUSION.................................................................................................................. 49 The Elongated Catch-Plate..................................................................................................... 53 Geographical Distribution......................................................................................................58 Fibula Types from the 13th to11th Centuries BC..............................................................58 Fibula Types from the 9th to 7th Centuries BC.................................................................62 4 CONTROVERSIAL TYPES OF THE 8TH THROUGH THE 6TH CENTURIES BC........... 65 The Knobbed Serpentine Fibula.............................................................................................65 The Composite Leech Bow Fibula......................................................................................... 69 Italic fibulae at Syracuse, Pithekoussai and Cumae...............................................................73 The Knobbed Leech Fibula.................................................................................................... 74 Summary.................................................................................................................................75 5 PROVENIENCE, MATERIALS, TE CHNIQUES, AND ICONOGRAPHY ........................ 79 Sites.........................................................................................................................................79 Ninth and Eighth Centuries in Sicil y, Southern Italy, and Campania: The Indigenous Sites ........................................................................................................... 79 Etruria in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries ....................................................................... 83 The Greek Colonies in the Ei ghth and Seventh Centuries .............................................. 84 Etruria and Latium in the Seventh Century.....................................................................85 Materials.................................................................................................................................87 Ninth and Eighth Centuries in Sic ily, Southern Italy, and Campania ............................. 87 Etruria and Latium in the Ni nth and Eighth Centuries .................................................... 89 The Greek Colonies in the Ei ghth and Seventh Centuries .............................................. 90 Etruria in the Seventh Century........................................................................................ 91 Processes and Techniques of Production................................................................................ 91 Iconography.................................................................................................................... ........93

PAGE 6

6 6 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FIBULA E FOR CULTURAL INTERACTIONS ..................... 100 Pithekoussai..........................................................................................................................100 Cumae...................................................................................................................................102 Syracuse................................................................................................................................105 Change in Production...........................................................................................................109 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................114 APPENDIX: LIST OF FIGURES NOT SHOWN....................................................................... 115 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................119 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................122

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Pithekoussai and Cumae....................................................................................................15 1-2 The Sicilian Greek colonies............................................................................................... 16 2-1 A diagram of an arch bow fibula.......................................................................................31 2-2 Spectacle fibula type I.................................................................................................... ....31 2-3 Spectacle fibula type II................................................................................................... ...32 2-4 Spectacle fibula type III.................................................................................................. ...33 2-5 Spectacle fibula type IV................................................................................................... ..34 2-6 Spectacle fibula type V.................................................................................................... ..35 2-7 Spectacle fibula type VI.....................................................................................................35 2-8 A knobbed violin bow fibula.............................................................................................36 2-9 A striated violin bow fibula with a disc catch-plate..........................................................36 2-10 A coiled violin bow fibula with a symmetrical cha nnel catch-plate .................................. 36 2-11 A leaf violin bow fibula.....................................................................................................37 2-12 A double-knobbed arch bow fibula.................................................................................... 37 2-13 A deep ridge arch bow fibula.............................................................................................38 2-14 A ringed arch bow fibula...................................................................................................39 2-15 A large disc arch bow fibula.............................................................................................. 40 2-16 A foliated bow fibula.........................................................................................................40 2-17 The Sicilian el bow type fibula ...........................................................................................41 2-18 Serpentine fibula with a disc catch-plate ........................................................................... 41 2-19 Sserpentine fibula with a sy mmetrical channel catch-plate ............................................... 42 2-20 Large and small coils serpentine fibula with a symmetrical channel catch-plate ..............42 2-21 Large and small coils serpentine fibula with a disc catch-plate......................................... 43

PAGE 8

8 2-22 A triple coil serpentine fi bula with a disc catch-plate ........................................................ 44 2-23 A triple coil serpentine fibula w ith a symm etrical ch annel catch-plate............................. 44 2-24 A rectangular double co ils serpentine fibula with a disc catch-plate ................................. 45 2-25 A small leech bow fibula with decoration......................................................................... 45 2-26 A small leech fibula with decoration................................................................................. 46 2-27 A large leech bow fibula....................................................................................................46 2-28 A drago bow fibula............................................................................................................47 2-29 An amorphous drago bow fibula........................................................................................47 2-30 A knobbed drago bow fibula..............................................................................................48 2-31 A knobbed drago bow fibula with decoration.................................................................... 48 2-32 A figural drago bow fibula from Marsiliana...................................................................... 48 4-1 A serpentine fibula from Cumae........................................................................................ 78 5-1 Indigenous sites in southern Italy...................................................................................... 97 5-2 Indigenous sites in Campania............................................................................................ 98 5-3 Etruscan sites............................................................................................................. ........99 A-1 A stilted bow fibula..........................................................................................................115 A-2 A multiple knobbed arch bow fibula............................................................................... 115 A-3 A spiral arch bow fibula...................................................................................................115 A-4 A knobbed serpentine fibula, Numerous exam ples of this type appear throughout the catalogue. .........................................................................................................................115 A-5 A small knobbed leech bow fibula with an elong ated catch-plate from Monte Finocchito in Sicily.......................................................................................................... 115 A-6 Small knobbed leech bow fibulae with elongated catch-plates from Pithekoussai and Syracuse ...........................................................................................................................115 A-7 Knobbed leech bow fibulae from Syracuse Monte Finocchito, and Pithekoussai ..........115 A-8 A composite leech bow fibula.......................................................................................... 116

PAGE 9

9 A-9 A bolt fibula from the Bernardini tomb........................................................................... 116 A-10 A comb fibula: provenance unknown.............................................................................. 116 A-11 Leech fibulae with short catch -plates fr om Vrokastro..................................................... 116 A-12 Distribution map of spectacle fibula type I ...................................................................... 116 A-13 Distribution map of Sp ec tacle fibula type I..................................................................... 116 A-14 Distribution map of spectacle fibula type II. ................................................................... 116 A-15 Distribution map of spectacle fibula type III ................................................................... 116 A-16. Distribution map of spectacle fibulae types IV and V. ...................................................... 117 A-17 Greek style composite leech fi bula at Syracuse from grave 428..................................... 117 A-18 A Greek composite leech fibula from Cumae..................................................................117 A-19 A Greek composite leech fibul a from tom b 272 on Pithekoussai................................... 117 A-20 Italic composite leech fibul ae from tomb 599 on Pithekoussai.......................................117 A-21 Simple arch bow and ringed arch bow Italic fibulae from Cumae..................................117 A-22 Blinkenbergs types IX and X.......................................................................................... 117 A-23 Leech fibulae from Vetulonia.......................................................................................... 118 A-24 The Regolini-Galassi fibula from Caere..........................................................................118 A-25 Drago and comb fibulae from th e Bernardini tomb at Praeneste ..................................... 118 A-26 A detail of the scene of the Bernardini comb fibula........................................................ 118

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts FIBULAE OF THE NINTH THROUGH SEVENT H CENTURIES BC IN CENTRAL ITALY By Jennifer M. Hambleton August, 2008 Chair: Barbara Barletta Cochair: Robin Poynor Major: Art History This thesis addresses the deve lopment of fibulae in the region of the Italian peninsula. The fibula is a device that had been used in antiquity to fasten garments. The tradition of the Italic fibula is a small, but significant part of a much larger a nd older tradition within the Mediterranean region. Certain t ypes were held in common among cultures in southern Europe, Greece, Italy, and the Near East during the 13th-11th centuries BC. These early types became the ancestors of forms that came to define the Italic sequence. This seque nce benefited from these diverse influences during its maturation in the 9th through 7th centuries BC. The rise of the Italic sequence during the 9th century overlapped with the arrival of the Greeks in the 8th century at Pithekoussai in the Bay of Naples. This overlap was significant and has been troublesome to scholars in the past be cause certain types of Italic fibulae and Italiclooking fibulae appear at Pithekoussai, and subs equently in Sicily at the Greek colony of Syracuse. In the past, archaeologists had trouble in determining which ones were Greek and which were Italic because the rise of the Italic sequence was so close in time to the arrival of the Greeks. The types that have sparked the most debate are the knobbed serpentine, the composite leech, and the knobbed leech fibulae. The elongated cat ch-plate of these type s has been a subject

PAGE 11

11 of debate, too, mainly because ce rtain archaeologists insisted that it was Greek in origin. Their claims are not supported by secure evidence, whic h will be discussed in the thesis. These three types of fibulae occur in both It alic and Greek sites of the 8th and 7th centuries, including Pithekoussai and Syracuse. Some archaeologist s argued for a Greek origin while others demonstrated that they had always been part of the It alic tradition. The inabil ity to identify them as either Greek or Italic in origin seems still to be present today, but this thesis aims to present the available evidence on the knobbed serpentine, composite leech, and knobbed leech fibulae in order to make a fair assessment on the origin of these types. Apart from the controversy concerning the appe arance of certain types of Italic fibulae and western Greek composite leech fibulae at Greek s ites in Italy, the period of time spanning the 8th through the 7th centuries also marks the sudden increase of wealth in Etruria. Fibulae appear in luxurious materials and sophistic ated techniques during the 7th century, especially in Etruria. This change is important for the information it reveals about the effects of foreign cultures in central Italy, such as the Greeks and Phoenici ans. The study of fibulae is important for the information that these objects reveal about the interactions between the Greeks and the indigenous peoples of Italy. They also crucial for understanding that th e Italic people were influencing the Greeks and the Greeks were infl uencing the Italic peop le as opposed to the outdated thought that culture was passing in one direction only. Th is direction was believed to have been from Greece to Italy.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Fibulae were utilitarian and/or ornam ental devices used for securing garments. They were used by the ancient peoples of Italy, Greece, cen tral and southern Europe, Spain, and Cyprus. While these were not the only places that fibulae must have been us ed, they are the countries that share in the development of the Italic fibulae tr adition. Fibulae are made of metal, which may be bronze, iron, gold, or a combination of gold with bronze or gold with iron. The ancient peoples of Italy used them in a similar way to how mode rn people use a safety pin. In the modern world, safety pins are small, quite simple-looking in appearance, and fairly stra ightforward in how they are intended to be used. Not only are they easy to wear, but there is little differentiation in form, if any, between them. In stark contrast to the modern era, those from antiquity are not all of the same type, size, and weight. Some are quite large and cumbersome, which would not have afforded the wearer the same ease of use a nd convenience that people today appreciate. A number of varieties of fibulae developed over time in Italy be ginning with the basic spectacle, violin, stilted, and arch bow types. From here, th ey started to become increasingly more intricate in form and decoration. Evidence for the origins of fibulae comes from the Mediterranean area, where they were produced as early as the 13th century BC. Fibulae continued to be made in this region into the 21st century AD, but by this time they are safe ty pins and no longer fibulae. Any notion of craftsmanship and attention to detail is lost on a modern safety pin. They are strictly utilitarian objects. Although the production of fibulae translated into the production of safety pins over a span of two thousand years, the intent of this thesis is to l ook first at the development and diffusion of the form during the 13th through the 9th centuries BC as it deve loped in Italy and/or neighboring regions of Italy in its vicinity. These areas includ e central Europe, Greece, Spain,

PAGE 13

13 and Cyprus. The examination of the developm ent and diffusion of the fibula during the 13th through the 9th centuries is important for understanding how the development of the Italic fibula fits into the larger historical context in the Italian region. The second and more important objective of this paper is to tr ace the development of the Italic fibula specifically from the 9th through the 7th centuries BC. A wide variety of fi bulae were being produced during the six hundred years from the 13th through the 7th centuries. In order to prepare the reader for my conclusions, the typology of fibulae will be addressed. Methodology and aims: An attempt has been made to collect and sort through the work of the relatively limited number of scholars who have studied Italian fibulae. Primary sources have been used whenever possible as the preferre d method of research. These sources are books, excavation reports, and articles carried out and written by di fferent archaeologists depending upon whether the material is from the Italian main land or Sicily. One of the most helpful sources for understanding the chronological developmen t of the fibula is by Johannes Sundwall.1 Excavations yielding fibulae range in date, with some of the earliest carried out in the middle of the 19th century and some of the latest in the middle 20th century. They yielded fibulae dating from the middle of the 8th century BC to well into the 7th century BC. To clarify, all of the material in this thesis is of a BC date so some times the specific century will only be referenced throughout this paper. The chief aim of this investigation has been to compare the original excavation reports to the secondary literature in the fields of archaeolo gy and art history in an attempt to deconstruct the intricacies of the confusion. Since the or iginal excavations, new research has been undertaken, which questions out-dated ideas and opinions from the time of the excavations 1 Johannes Sundwall, Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln (Berlin: Gruyter and Company, 1943).

PAGE 14

14 concerning the relationship between the Greek co lonists and the Italic peoples. Two Greek colonies, Pithekoussai (Figure 1-1) and Syracuse (Figure 1-2), will be studied in detail to understand the intricate relationship that the Greeks and the Italic peoples maintained with each other at these two sites. The types to be presented in chapter 1 are the most si gnificant ones known from the Villanovan and Etruscan cultures of cen tral Italy and Campania in the 13th 7th centuries. Sundwalls catalogue documents fibu lae from 150 sites across Italy, with half of these sites in Central Italy.2 However, Sundwalls examples also come from southern and northern Italy as well as the Greek colonies in Si cily and mainland Italy. Examples are here provided for all of the types and their variants. The examples represent the most basic form of the type and the most basic form of each variant. This approach ha s been taken due to the overwhelming number of variants of each type. The types are grouped acco rding to the shape of the bow. The types have been placed in chronological order, as tr aced in terms of increasing complexity. As already mentioned, study of the fibula is re ally a study of cultura l interaction between the Greeks and Italic peoples. By studying the typology of the Italic fibulae as well as where the types appear geographically, it is hoped that old ideas regardi ng the development of the fibula will once again be questioned to arrive at a mo re accurate assessment of the relations between the Greeks and the Italic peoples. The one fibula type that will be discussed, but not described in the typology, is the Greek style composite leech fi bula. The typology is exclusive to Italic fibula types, and the Greek adaptations will not be listed to avoid confusion. 2 Judith Toms, "The Arch Fibula in Early Iron Age Italy," in Ancient Italy in its Mediterranean Setting: Studies in Honor of Ellen MacNamara ed. MacNamara, Ellen and David Ridgwa y (London: Accordia Research Institute, 2000), esp. 114, footnote 14.

PAGE 15

15 Figure 1-1. Pithekoussai and Cumae

PAGE 16

16 Figure 1-2. The Sicilian Greek colonies

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 2 TYPOLOGY Scholarship on the study of the fibula has been a collective contribution. Johannes Sundwall is the authority on the Italic t ypes from the Early Iron Age through the 6th century BC, while John Alexander provides a survey on the distribution of the spectacle fibula.1 Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri offers limited examples of the types classified by Sundwall and Alexander,2 while Ellen MacNamara3 and Judith Toms4 offer commentary on the hist ory and interrelation of the early types, namely the spectacle, arch, and serp entine fibula forms. The component parts of the fibula regardless of type are the bow, spring, pin, and catch-plate. The catch-plate may be short, elongated, or long channel. If not one of these th ree types, then it may be less commonly in the form of a small or large disc (Figure 2-1). The pin passes through the garment and is he ld in place by the catch-plate, much like a modern safety pin. The bow is the element that is normally visible to the eye, and for this reason a number of decorative styles of bow developed over time. In this paper, an attempt will be made to categorize fibulae according to forms and techniques of manufactur e and decoration. Fibulae of the 9th through the 7th centuries may be made in a variety of ways, which include using the piece-mold, lost wax method, cold working, a nd annealing processes. Fibulae of the 9th and 8th century have fairly simple decoration compared to those of the 7th century, which utilize the techniques of filigree and granulation. Some thirty-four types of fibulae may be organized into 1 John Alexander, "The Spectacle Fibula of Southern Europe," American Journal of Archaeology 69 (January 1965) 2 Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri, "Italian Swords and Fi bulae of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages," Italian Iron Age Artefacts: in the British Museum: Papers of the Sixth British Museum Classical Coloquium (1986): esp. 20-23. 3 Ellen MacNamara, "Some Bronze Typologies in Sardinia and Italy from 1200 to 700 BC: Their Origin and Development," in Etruria e Sardegna Centro-Settentrionale tra L'Eta del Bronzo Finale e L'Arcaismo: Atti del XXI Convegno di Studi Etruschi ed Italici, Sassari, Alghero, Oritano, Torralba, 13-17 Ottobre 1998 ed. Convegno di Studi Etruschi e Italici (Pisa: Instituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali, 2002). 4 Judith Toms, "The Arch Fibula," 91-113.

PAGE 18

18 twelve major groups including th e spectacle, violin bow, stilte d bow, arch bow, foliated bow, serpentine bow, leech and boat types, composite leech bow, the drago type, and bolt and comb fibulae. Bolt and comb fibulae have been defined by so me scholars as being clasps although they still categorized them unde r the typology of fibulae. If they were indeed functiona l, they clearly did not fasten to a garment in the same way as th e other types. Despite the fact that the comb and bolt types attach differently to fabric from the other types, they will be included in the typology. The possibility should not be ruled out that the method of attachment may have made no difference to the ancient peoples of Italy and th ey may have used them as fibulae. The following pages describe the identifying features of a wide range of fi bulae beginning with the spectacle fibula. Alexander recognizes that the sp ectacle fibula type is divided into five main and twenty sub-types based on the shape of the fibula as well as the design of the bow and catch-plate.5 Alexander categorizes spectacle fi bulae into five main types, even though one example from type IV does not resemble the other examples from this type.6 In addition to th is peculiarity, he groups together an assortment of fibulae of dissimilar shape and asserts that they all belong to type V.7 Because of the confusion in Alexanders method of categorizati on, spectacle fibulae will be sorted into six main types in this thesis. Depending on the specific t ype, spectacle fibulae are easily distinguishable from other types of fibulae because of the unique shapes of their arms, which are either one or two pairs of spirally wound wire. These pairs of wire may be either 5 John Alexander, "The Spectacle Fibula," esp. 9-17. 6 Ibid., 17 7 Ibid.

PAGE 19

19 circular or square in cross-section.8 If only a single pair comprises the arm (as in type I-III) then the central connecting device of the two spirals may be circular or linear. Generally, these connecting devices are in the form of a figure eight loop, a diagonal pin, or a flat panel.9 The figure eight loop in particul ar is a form shared by the fi rst three types of spectacle fibulae as it is used in combination with a thin, flat panel in types II and III. In both of these, the bow and catch-plate mechanism is attached to the panel, which wraps around and holds both arms of the fibula. The main difference between Types II and III that util ize the figure eight loop is the physical relationship between the loop and the panel. In type II, the loop does not physically engage the panel the wa y it does in type III, and it does not hold the two arms of the fibula as tightly, as some of the more sophisticated variations of type III. Local variations of types I-III ex ist and they will be explored in more detail below, but eventually the early spectacle fibula with its cen tral figure eight loop ev olves into a new type. This new type of spectacle fibula, known as the four-spiral fibula, is bu ilt upon the standard form of types I-III but it no longer has two spirals. Instead it has four spirals, which results in two arms. The connection devices of the four-spiral fibula are similar to th e earlier types, but innovations also appear to accommodate the second arm. The fifth type of spectacle fibul ae is different from types I-IV in that it has a fifth spiral. Alexander sees this type as a final variation of type IV spectacle fibulae, even though it has five spirals and not four. The presence of the extra coil sets this type apart from those in group four, and thus seems proper to designate it as an ex ample of type V spectacle fibulae. Although a 8 Ibid., 69 9 Ibid., 9, 12, 16, & 17

PAGE 20

20 preliminary introduction to the spectacle fibula types has been made, an attempt will now be made to distinguish them more clearly from each other. A. Spectacle Fibula type I (Figure 2-2): Type I spectacle fibulae are made from one piece of wire, are round in cross-section10, and have a figure eight loop in the center that joins the pair of coiled discs. These discs form the arms of th e fibula with the pin and the catch-plate slightly unwinding from the center of each coil. The center of one coil slightly projects out to the rear to form the pin, which hooks onto the foot projecting from the back of the opposite coil. The catchplate is formed in the same fashi on as the pin, in that it is also an extension of the center of the coil. The pin and catch-plate mechanism are suspended from the back of the fibula by two small metal rods that project from the center of each co il. The pin pierces, slides behind the fabric, and then pierces it again on the outside of the fabric to attach to the catch-plate. The discs of type I spectacle fibulae may be decorated if the disc is not coiled. In this case, the entire or selected parts of the su rface are decorated with unique combinations of geometric patterns. Concentr ic bands of incised lines and small circles are common. Seven variations occur under this type with m odifications made to the discs of the fibulae as well as the central connecting device of the figure eight. In the firs t and second variations (figs. 2-2a and 2-2b), the discs are coiled, whereas in the third and fourth the center of the coil is left open (figs. 2-2c and 2-2d). The figure eigh t loop also becomes shorter and wider in the fourth variant. (2-2d) The closed coil remains present in variations fi ve through seven of type I (figs. 2-2e-2-2g), but the figure eight is no longer present. Instea d, a small spring, a second smaller spiral, or a chain of hoops may connect the two discs of the fibula. The final a nd eighth variant to consider 10 Ibid., 8

PAGE 21

21 (fig. 2-2h) is slightly more sophisticated than th e others. Instead of a fi gure eight loop, chain of hoops or smaller spiral, the empt y space is filled by a solid disc.11 Spectacle Fibula type II (Figure 2-3): The second type of spectacle fibula is made from one piece of wire. Four variations occur (fig s. 2-3a, 2-3b, 2-3c, and 2-3d) and other than modifications made to the discs a nd structure, each is similar to those of type I in the way that they attach to the fabric. The straight line m oving diagonally from one coiled disc to the other replaces the central figure-eight as a connecting device in the four variations of this type. The centers of the coiled disc s of the last three variations of th is type (figs. 2-3b, 2-3c, and 2-3d) remain open as opposed to the solid form of the fi rst variant (fig. 2-3a). A thin, flat metal panel usually made of bronze attaches to the backside of the middle two variations (figs. 2-3c and 23d) upon which the bow and pin mechanism is affi xed. The panel is wrapped around the sides of the fibula in the third variant (fi g. 2-3c), but does do so in the last and final variant (fig. 2-3d). Spectacle Fibula type III (Figure 2-4): The third type of spectacle fibula is also made from one piece of wire. It has four variations (f igs. 2-4a, 2-4b, A-4c, and 2-4d), which are similar to type II spectacle fibulae excep t for the re-appearance of the central figure-eight loop. The panel that is present on the backside of the last two variations of the type II spectacle fibula (figs. 2-3c and 2-3d) is present on all four variations of the type III spectacle fi bula. The first variation (fig. 2-4a) utilizes the figure eigh t loop to connect the two discs of the fibula, but it does not engage the panel the way the second (fig. 2-4b) an d third (fig. 2-4c) variations do. In both of these cases, the loop engages the panel, and in th e third the panel slightly expands outward at the center. 11 Additional examples of spectacle fibulae type I and subs equent variations appear in Sundwall on 170-171, which are E I, and E IB.

PAGE 22

22 A short panel-like element appears on the front side of the fourth variation (fig. 2-4d), which partially conceals the figure-eight loop. In all of the examples of this group, the panel wraps around and holds the sides of the fibula mo re firmly than in those of type II. This characteristic is especially pronounced in the four th variation. As in variations A-3c and A-3d of type II, the pin and catch-plate mechanism is attached to the pane l of the fibula. Spectacle Fibula type IV (Figure 2-5) The fourth type of spect acle fibula is also known as the four-spiral type and it ha s four variations (figs. 2-5a, 2-5b, 2-5c, and 2-5d). Each of the pairs of discs is made from one piece of wire, but it is dissimilar to the previous three types in that it has four discs instead of two. The type IV fibula is essentia lly two type-II fibulae joined at the center point by a rivet. The rivet may be left visi ble, as in the second vari ant of this type (fig. 2-5b) or it may be covered by a solid disc as in Figure 2-5a. The thir d variation (fig. 2-5c) of this group highlights the rivet with an ornament (which is formed from looping the wire on each of the four arms of the fibula). In the fourth variation (fig. 2-5d), wire from one pair of discs is coiled around wire from the ot her pair at the center. Although the design of the central connecting devi ce is different in each of the variations of type IV, their arms retain the form of the coiled disc. As a result of the nature of the four arms, the linear panel element upon which the pin and foot mechanism attaches is not present. Instead, the form of this mechanism is similar to that of the type I fibula in that the pin and foot mechanism are suspended from the back of the fibula by a small metal rod.12 Spectacle Fibula type V (Figure 2-6): The fifth type of spectacle fibula has a wholly different shape from any of the previous four t ypes. There are four coiled discs plus one coiled 12 Examples of type IV spectacle fibulae appear in Sundwall 174-176, E II and in Bietti Sestieri 50-51.

PAGE 23

23 disc radiating from one side. In profile, this a dditional disc is somewhat lowered, and carries the catch-plate apparatus upon which the pin of the fibula rests. Spectacle Fibula type VI (Figure 2-7): The sixth type of spectacle fibula is made from one piece of wire, has one variation, and is dissim ilar to types one through five in that only one arm is present. This single arm is comprised of three spirals in a row and like types I and IV, the panel element upon which the pin and foot mechanis m attaches is not present. Instead, both of these elements attach to the back of the fi bula in a similar fashion to types I and IV. B. The Violin Bow type: The second major type of fibula is referred to as the violin bow because of its shape, not unlike its namesake. The bow may be slig htly curved and often has two knobs on the exposed portion. Occasionally multiple knobs may appear. It is connected with a one-coiled spring, which may be a small channel or coil disc cat ch-plate. Over time, the bow widens in the center to resemble the shape of a leaf. Decoration on this ty pe may be in the form of a single group or groups of incised transv erse lines or chevrons on the exposed portion between the knobs. If the bow is widened in th e center, then the inci sed decoration usually consists of circular and linear arrangements. Variations within this type include: 1. Knobbed Violin Bow (Figure 2-8) The knobbe d violin bow fibula has a straight bow with knobs at equal intervals along its length. It has a one-coil spring and may have a small channel or disc catch-plate. The disc catch-pla te may be solid or spiral. Decoration usually consists of incised transverse lines. 2. Striated Violin Bow (Figures 2-9) The striated violin bow fibula has striations along the length of its bow. It has a one-coil spring and ma y have a small channel or disc catch-plate. The disc catch-plate may be solid or a spiral wire. Decoration consists of the wire of the exposed portion striated along its length. 3. Coiled Violin Bow (Figure 2-10) The coiled vi olin bow fibula is similar to the striated violin bow fibula except that th e bow is twisted instead of striated. This manipulation of the bow gives a more three-dimensional effect to the shape of the bow compared to the striated variation. It has a one-coil spring, and may have a small channel or disc catch-

PAGE 24

24 plate. The disc catch-plate may be solid or a sp iral wire. Decoration consists of the wire of the exposed portion coiled along its length. 4. Violin Leaf Bow (Figure 2-11) The violin l eaf bow fibula consists of the central portion of the top of the bow flattened out to fo rm a leaf shape. There are double knob-like forms worked into the wire on either side of the leaf shape. The leaf shape may be decorated with a border of incised lines wh ile various circular a nd linear designs are imprssed on the flat leaf-like surface.13 C. The Stilted Bow type (Figure A-1): The stilted bow fibula is so named because the bow is triangular in shape. The bow rises to fo rm a point at the apex. The apex would then be seen as the steepest point on the bow. The stilte d bow fibula is similar to the knobbed arch bow fibula except for the triangular shape of the bow. There is usually a single spring, and the catchplate may be a small or large symmetrical channel. It may either be decorated with two knobs or with multiple knobs. There may also be geometric incised designs in between the knobs or along the entire length of the bow. D. The Double Knobbed Arch Bow type (Figure 2-12): The double knobbed arch bow is so named because the semicircular bow is formed w ith a pair of knobs at either end of the arch. It works with a single coil spring and may have a small or medium-sized channel catch-plate. Incised geometric patterns on the exposed portion may consist of triangles, chevrons, or straight lines, sometimes positioned only in between the k nobs or to the outside of the knobs as well. E. The Multiple Knobbed Arch Bow type (Figure A-2) The multiple knobbed arch bow is of the same shape and decoration as th e double knobbed arch bow, but rather than two knobs, as many as four or even up to six knobs may be worked into the exposed portion. F. The Simple Arch Bow type: The arch bow fibula consists of a semicircular bow, a single-coil spring, and small or medium sized cha nnel catch-plate. In so me examples, the catch13 Examples of the violin bow type and subsequent variations appear in Sundwall on 66-76.

PAGE 25

25 plate may also be a large disc. The arch bow ma y be decorated with a ny combination of a group or groups of incised lines, spirals, or chevrons. Variations under this type include: 1. Spiral Bow Arch Bow (Figure A3) The striated or carved spiral semicircular bow may have single or double coil spri ng. The spring may be small or large. The fibula may have a small or medium sized channel catch-plate or a small or large disc catch-plate. The disc catch-plate fibula may have incised lines along the t op of the bow as well as along the perimeter of the disc. Incised lines may ar ticulate the spiral of the disc and various circular and geometric motifs may appear in the center. 2. Deep Ridge Arch Bow (Figure 2-13) The deep ridge arch bow presents a semi-circular arch bow with a heavy body with deep ridges either carved in relief or cast hollow. Because of the heavy three-dimensional artic ulation, no incised decoration is necessary on this type. 3. Ringed Arch Bow (Figure 2-14) This type of fibula consists of a se mi-circular arch bow, but two or more rings are attached to the exposed portion to function as decoration. The type usually has a small channel catch-plate. The fibula may be worn upside down, which allows the rings to hang freely from the arch. In this case, the pin would be above the bow when viewed from the front. 4. Large Disc Arch Bow (Figure 2-15) The large disc arch bow fibula consists of a semicircular arch bow with a singl e or double coil spring. The catch-plate consists of a large disc decorated with a border as well as su rface patterns consisting of geometric motifs. These designs may include zig-zags, circles, sq uares, and linear motifs. A bar, suggesting cattle horns perhaps, projects from the larg e disc. A short foot section projects underneath the horns and lies perpendicular to the disc. In contrast to the short foot section the horns of the fibula lie parallel to the disc.14 G. The Foliated Bow type (Figure 2-16): The foliated bow type fibula is very similar in shape to the arch bow ex cept that the exposed porti on is noticeably wider. This becomes a broad, flat surface decorated with borders and geometric patterns, suggesting a leaf form, as attested by its name. Like the large disc bow fibula, the foliated bow of this type transitions into a large disc catch-plate, which may or may not att ach to a thin or thick decorative bar. If a bar is present, then it is normally positioned below the bow, but above the disc-catch-plate when viewed in profile 14 Examples of the arch bow type and its variants appear in Sundwall on 78-118, B I-III. Examples also appear in Toms on 102, 103, and 105, numbers 1-14. Bietti Sestieri offers more examples on 20-23, numbers 1-2 and 15-44.

PAGE 26

26 creating a tiered design. The decora tion is located on the perimeters and centers of the disc and on the bow. These patterns may include squares a nd/or triangles of incised lines, circles, and occasionally figures. Small rings may attach to the perimeter of the bow as well.15 H. Sicilian Elbow type (Figure 2-17) The Sicilian elbow fibula bow that angles upwards and then bends downwards to form an elbow. The elbow bow may have a small or large single or double-coiled spring usually accompanied with an elongated channel catch-plate. Alternating bands of incised vertical lines along with plain or decorated areas of geometric patterns, decorate the exposed portion. The decorated bands are on either side of the elbow, but they are not located on the bend itself. The Sicilian fibula bow type may also consist of a curvilinear bow upon which are two small coils. Both coils are us ually the same size and the one further away from the pin is higher than the one closer to the pin. The pin rests on an elongated channel catchplate. I. The Serpentine Bow type (Figures 2-18 and 2-19): The serpentine bow type is comprised of a curvilinear bow w ith a single, double or triple coil. If a double coil, then each may be the same size or one noticeably larger than the other. If three coils exist, then they may either be in succession along the length of the bow or two of them may be a similar size, with the third one noticeably larger. The pin may be stra ight or curvilinear and it may rest on a small channel catch-plate, an elongated channel catch-plate, or a spiral disc-catch-plate, which may be small or large. Decoration may include incised lin es in assorted geometric patterns along the bow or in shallow relief carving. Variations of the serpentine bow type include: 15 Examples of this type appear in Sundwall on 122-131, C I. Examples also appear in Bietti Sestieri on 23 numbers 46-47.

PAGE 27

27 1. Knobbed Serpentine Bow (Figure A-4) The exposed portion of the bow may widen slightly in the center. One or two pairs of knobs project from the center portion of the bow. The spring may be either a single or double coil and the catch-plate is usually elongated or long channel. 2. Large and Small Coils Serpentine Bow (Figures 2-20 and 2-21) The large and small coil bow is distinguished by a noticeably larger coil that serves as the spring and a smaller one that functions only as decorati on. The catch-plate may be a small to medium sized channel or a small disc catch-plate. The part of the bow between the coils may have an incised linear design. The section between the smaller coil and the catch-plate may also have the same design. 3. Triple Coils Serpentine Bow (Figures 2-22 and 2-23) The exposed portion of the triple coils serpentine bow contains three small coils two on one end, one of which serves as the spring, and the third on the opposite end. The cat ch-plate may be a small channel or a small disc. Incised linear designs may be worked between the pair of coils on one side and the third on the other. 4. Rectangular Double Coils Serpentine Bow (F igure 2-24) Although Sundwall classifies this type as serpentine16 the only feature in common with me mbers of this group is the pair of double coils along the bow. An articulated knob appears opposite th e catch-plate, and coils are located almost directly above th e knob and the pin on the disc catch-plate, resulting in a somewhat rectangular shape. Th e spring is absent in this variety, but there may be an elongated channel catch-plate, small disc catch-plate, or a la rge disc catch-plate. Groups of incised lines or shallow relief carving may be present along the length of the bow.17 J. The Small Leech Bow type18 (Figures 2-25 and 2-26): The small leech bow type may have a solid, hollow, or composite semicircular bow that resembles the shape of a leech or a gondola. The single or double coil spring is relatively small. The channel foot may be small or elongated. Decorative motifs consis ting of zig-zag patterns or ot her unique geometric patterns may be incised on the entire surface of the bow or in some cases restricted to certain areas. Variations of the small leech type include: 16 These types appear on pgs 158-160 17 Examples of the serpentine bow type fibula appear in Sundwall on 137-169, D I-IV. Examples also appear in Bietti Sestieri on 20, 21, and 23; numbers 3-14 and 45. 18 One type that will not be described in the text, but has been associated with the leech type is the boat type. The boat fibula has been associated with th e leech type because the shapes of the bows of both types are very similar with no discernable differences. For this reason, the boat fibula will not be discussed in the text.

PAGE 28

28 1. Small knobbed leech bow (Figure A-5, A-6, and A-7) The small knobbed leech type is similar in shape to the simple leech type that does not have knobs. Short stems may project from the sides of the fibula to terminate in small round knobs. Sometimes the knobs do not project from the sides of the fibula on short stems, but instead take the form of simple lateral projections. A small si ngle or double coil spring transi tions into an elongated catchplate. Decorative lines on the widest area of the bow may be incised between the knobs. K. The Large Leech Bow type: The large leech bow type may have a solid, hollow, or composite semicircular bow, a small single or double coil spring and an elongated or long channel catch-plate that may extend as much as twice the length of the leech portion. The long nature of the catch-plate and the compact form of the bow distinguish this type from the small leech group. Unique geometric motifs consisting of ci rcular and linear patterns as well as figural compositions may be worked on the bow and catch-plate, and an articulate d catch-plate and knob may be present. Variations of the large leech bow type include: 1. Large Leech Bow (Figures 2-27) The large leech bow may have a solid, hollow, or semicircular shaped bow is wider in the cente r compared to the small leech types. A single or double coil spring transitions into an elongated channel catch-plate, but usually the catch-plate is a long channel. The long channe l catch-plate is signifi cantly longer than the elongated versions. Unique combinations of geometric patterns or three-dimensional conical elements are distributed over the entire surface or selected areas. L. The Composite Leech Bow type19 (Figure A-8) The composite leech bow is a semicircular bow with a single or double spring. The spring transitions in to a small channel or elongated channel catch-plate. Various accompanyi ng materials such as amber and bone discs, glass paste, and ivory ar e strung along its entire length or restricted to particular areas of the bow. If restricted, then they may be thick in na ture and either spaced evenly or located in the 19 Some scholars, such as Toms, have categorized the compos ite leech bow as an arch bo w. The shape of the bow is not a simple arch, but rather is leech in form. For this reason, Tom's "composite arch bow type" will be categorized in the typology and later discussed throughout the thesis as the composite leech bow type.

PAGE 29

29 center of the bow. Whether spaced evenly or gro uped together in the cente r of the bow, both of these compositions results in a bow that is leech shaped. M. The Drago Bow type (Figure 2-28): The drago bow type fibul a has a curvilinear bow that smoothly transitions into a long pin underneath. The catch-pl ate may be either elongated or formed as a long channel. An assortment of knobs, loops, discs and/or conical elements may decorate either the bow and/or the pin. Variations of the drago bow type include: 1. Amorphous Drago Bow (Figure 2-29) The amor phous drago bow type is distinguished by a tall, thick bow, which transitions into a re latively thin pin undern eath. The catch-plate may be either elongated or longchannel. Unique combinations of geometric patterns and three-dimensional elements may be worked on the pin and bow. 2. Knobbed Drago Bow (Figure 2-30 and 2-31) The knobbed drago bow type is similar to the amorphous bow type except for the addition of spherical knobs, discs, or other threedimensional elements on the bow. The catch-plate may be either elong ated or long-channel foot. Geometric patterns and three-dimensi onal elements may be worked onto the bow similarly to that of the decorati on on the amorphous drago bow type. 3. Figural Drago Bow (Figure 2-32)The figural dr ago bow type is similar in shape to the amorphous drago bow and the knobbed drago bo w types except that the overall form usually resembles a figure of an animal. In addition to the form taking the shape of an animal, the three-dimensional decoration of this type may be in the form of animals. The catch-plate may be elongated or long channel.20 Exceptional varieties: The last two types to be descri bed are the bolt and comb fibulae, respectively. They are not listed or included in the discussion of the development of the Italic fibula, since most scholars do not acknowledge them as belonging to that tradition. Curiously, they are found in wealthy tomb contexts of the 7th century BC from Southern Etruria and Latium. These tombs and the material in them will be accounted for shortly, but first the unique characteristics of the comb and bolt fibulae types will be discussed. 20 Examples of the drago type fibula and subsequent variations appear in Sundwall on 233-253, H I-IV. Examples also appear in Bietti Sestieri on 23, number 49.

PAGE 30

30 N. The Bolt Fibula (Figure A-9): This type differs from all of the above types in the way it is constructed. The recognizable parts of a viol in, arch, or serpentine bow fibula is the bow, pin, and catch-plate. However, this type does not feature a traditional bow, pin, or catch-plate. Instead, the fibula consists of two se parate sets of tubes that are joined together in the center. The outermost tubes connect both sides of the fibula together. Various plastic figures in bronze, gold, and silver may adorn the fibula.21 O. The Comb Fibula (Figure A-10): The construction of the comb fibula is somewhat more intricate than that of the bolt fibula in that it consists of thr ee parts. A thin wire is soldered to the central element of the fibula, the cylinder. Metal hooks are soldered al ong the length of two metal plates and each one slides in between the strip of wi re soldered to the cylinder. Holes are punched along the length of the pl ates, so that once the plates are secured between the strips of wire they are sewn to the fabric. In this wa y, the fibula must be assembled before it functions as a dress fastener like the bolt fibula. The cylinder may display examples of filigree or granulation, or both.22 An attempt has been made to categorize the great number of ma jor types and their variants in a clear and concise way. This chapter sought to look specifically at the identifying features of the major types as well as those of their variants. The next chapter will expound upon the typology and framework thus far estab lished by addressing the important issue of geographical origin and diffusion of the types discussed in chapter two. 21 Ingrid Strom, Problems concerning the Origin and Develop ment of the Etruscan Orientalizing Style (Odense: Odense University Press, 1971), esp. 97-99, catalogue numbers 69-70. 22 Ibid., 100-101, catalogue number 71

PAGE 31

31 Image not shown due to copyright Figure 2-1. A diagram of an arch bow fibula. Toms, Judith. "The Arch Fibula in Early Iron Age Italy." In Ancient Italy in its Mediterranean Setting: Studi es in Honor of Ellen MacNamara, ed. MacNamara, E. and David Ridgway, 91-113. London: Accordia Research Institute, 2000. 93. Figure 2-2. Spectac le fibula type I. Alexander, John. "The Spectacle Fibula of Southern Europe." American Journal of Archaeology 69 (January 1965): 9.

PAGE 32

32 Figure 2-3. Spectacle fibula type II. Alexander, John. "The Spectacle Fibula of Southern Europe." American Journal of Archaeology 69 (January 1965):12.

PAGE 33

33 Figure 2-4. Spectacle fibula type III. Alexander, John. "The Spect acle Fibula of Southern Europe." American Journal of Archaeology 69 (January 1965):12.

PAGE 34

34 Figure 2-5. Spectacle fibula t ype IV. Alexander, John. "The Spectacle Fibula of Southern Europe." American Journal of Archaeology 69 (January 1965):16.

PAGE 35

35 Figure 2-6. Spectacle fibula type V. Alexander, John. "The Spect acle Fibula of Southern Europe." American Journal of Archaeology 69 (January 1965): 17. Figure 2-7. Spectacle fibula t ype VI. Alexander, John. "The Spectacle Fibula of Southern Europe." American Journal of Archaeology 69 (January 1965): 17.

PAGE 36

36 Figure 2-8. A knobbed violin bow fibula. (Source in public do main) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 67. Figure 2-9. A striated violin bow fibula with a disc catch-plate. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 66. Figure 2-10. A coiled violin bow fibula with a symmetrical channel catc h-plate. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 67.

PAGE 37

37 Figure 2-11. A leaf violin bow fibula. (S ource in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 75. Figure 2-12. A double-knobbed arch bow fibula. (S ource in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 80.

PAGE 38

38 Figure 2-13. A deep ridge arch bow fibula. (Source in public domain ) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 103.

PAGE 39

39 Figure 2-14 A ringed arch bow fibula. (Sour ce in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 106.

PAGE 40

40 Figure 2-15. A large disc arch bow fibula. (Source in public domain ) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 113. Figure 2-16. A foliated bow fibula. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 128.

PAGE 41

41 Figure 2-17. The Sicilian elbow type fibula. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 137. Figure 2-18. Serpentine fibula with a disc catch-plate. (Sour ce in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 153.

PAGE 42

42 Figure 2-19. Serpentine fibula with a symmetrical channel catch-plate. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 149. Figure 2-20. Large and small coils serpentine fibula with a symmetrical channel catch-plate. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 143.

PAGE 43

43 Figure 2-21. Large and small coils serpentine fibula with a disc catch-plate. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 144.

PAGE 44

44 Figure 2-22. A triple coil serp entine fibula with a disc catch-pl ate. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 155. Figure 2-23. A triple coil serp entine fibula with a symmetrical channel catch-plate. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 143.

PAGE 45

45 Figure 2-24. A rectangular double coils se rpentine fibula with a disc catch-plate. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 159. Figure 2-25. A small leech bow fibula with decoration. (Source in publ ic domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 179.

PAGE 46

46 Figure 2-26. A small leech fibula with deco ration. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 183. Figure 2-27. A large leech bow fibula. (S ource in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 201.

PAGE 47

47 Figure 2-28. A drago bow fibula. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 242. Figure 2-29. An amorphous drago bow fibula. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 233.

PAGE 48

48 Figure 2-30. A knobbed drago bow fibula. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 244. Figure 2-31. A knobbed drago bow fibula with d ecoration. (Source in public domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 249. Figure 2-32. A figural drago bow fibula from Ma rsiliana. (Source in pub lic domain) Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. 246.

PAGE 49

49 CHAPTER 3 FIBULA TYPES OF THE 13TH THROUGH 7TH CENTURIES BC: DEVELOPMENT AND DIFFUSION The date for the beginning of the history a nd development of the Italian fibula remains inexact at the present time, but th ere is an adequate amount of ev idence to support a starting date falling sometime between the 13th and 11th centuries BC.1 This evidence comes in the form of a few select types of fibulae, which appeared in Italy and elsewhere in both the eastern and western Mediterranean during these centuries.2 These early types had a wide distribution during the 13th through 11th centuries and they exerted a strong influence on the developmen t of the Italic sequence, which started distinguishing itself during the 9th century. They were influential in that they were the ancestors of the types that came to flourish during the 9th through the 7th centuries in Italy. Simplicity in form, technique of manufacture, and decoration are the ancestral qualities of the violin bow and spectacle fibulae. MacNamara identifies the vio lin bow fibula, including the knobbed variations, and the spectacle fibula as two early types th at appeared in the eastern and western Mediterranean regions during 13th through 11th centuries.3 In addition to the spectacle and violin bow fibulae, Bietti Sestieri includes the double and multiple knobbed arch bow fibulae as two types that appeared in Italy and the Aegean as early as early as the 12th century.4 The double knobbed stilted bow is anot her type that appeared in the 1 Ellen MacNamara, "Some Bronze Typologies," esp. 151. 2 Ibid., 151-172 3 Ibid., 153-160 4 Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri, "The Metal Industry of Continental Italy, 13th to 11th Centuries BC and its Connections with the Aegean," Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (1973): 407-412

PAGE 50

50 Aegean and Italy during the 11th century BC.5 These types display the ancestral qualities of simplicity in form, technique of manufacture, and decoration. Bietti Sestieri notes how the knobbed violin bow transitioned into the stilted fibula with knobs, which then transitioned into the knobbed arch bow type. The stilted fibula is similar in shape to the arch bow fibula except that the bow is not as round as the arch bow type. Instead, the stilted bow comes to a point at the apex of the bow. In time, this point became softened and more rounded to form the arch bow type. The preference for decorating the bow with multiple knobs appeared first on the violin bow fibula, but th en is transferred to th e stilted and arch bow fibulae as noted by Bietti Sestieri. Stilted bow fibulae from Sicily usually ha ve just two knobs, while those in Tuscany, Umbria, Abruzzi, and Latium have multiple knobs.6 Another way to distinguish between stilted bow fibulae from Sicily and those from central and southe rn Italy is that those from the mainland usually have a deco rated catch-plate.7 A similar development concerning knobs is seen with arch bow fibulae in Sicily compared to those of cen tral Italy. In Sicily, it was more common to decorate the bow with two knobs as opposed to central Italy, where usi ng multiple knobs was the style.8 Eventually the knobs disappeared on arch bow fibulae from the central Tyrrhenian region,9 but they did not go out of style in Sicily.10 5 Ibid., 410 6 Ibid., esp. 403-404 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid., esp. 404-405 9 Ibid. 405 10 Ibid. 404

PAGE 51

51 Violin, knobbed arch bow, and knobbed stilted bow fibulae had been found in hoards11 throughout Italy dating mainly to the Protovilla novan period. Bietti Se stieri quotes MuellerKarpe in dating these hoar ds to the years 1200-900 BC.12 Before this period, there was the Peschiera period in the north, which dates ca. 13-12th centuries BC.13 Fibulae do not seem to be as abundant in the Peschiera period as in the Protovillanovan period, but examples have been found in Greece and Crete of Peschiera type.14 The concentration of Mycenaean pottery in southe rn Italy (mainly Apulia) and Sicily and the occurrence of Peschiera bronzes, (mainly violin bow fibulae an d daggers) in Greece and Crete reflect the early contacts that had been made during this tim e between the Greeks and the Italic peoples.15 Strangely, the fibulae that have been found in Greece and Crete are similar to those from northern Italy, the region where th e pottery is not the most abundant as noted by Bietti Sestieri. One would expect the fibulae found in Greece and Crete to have originated from southern Italy, but their typological similarity to those in the north suggests that the Greeks came upon them in a way other than through direct contact in southern Italy. At first the Mycenaean Greeks appear to have b een motivated to travel to southern Italy and Sicily because of the opportunity to trade their pottery for Italian bronzes.16 Gradually, the pattern in traffic routes shifted and during th e Peschiera period, Greek products started arriving 11 Ibid., 402-406 12 Ibid., 384 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid., 383-384 16 Ibid., 383

PAGE 52

52 in Italy through central Europe.17 This suggests that motivations for trade changed and Aegean peoples or traders were now inte rested in obtaining not only finished goods in metal, but also other precious metals and materials such as amber, which was available in northern Italy.18 Double knobbed stilted bow fibulae found in s outhern Italy, Sicily, and the Aegean resemble each other during the Protovillanovan period as observed by Bietti Sestieri. This resemblance reflects how the Aegean area might ha ve been able to re-e stablish direct contact with the central and southern regions of Italy.19 Or, the resemblance could also be explained through trade, which might have been a quite complex set of exchanges. Double knobbed arch bow fibulae dating to the end of the 11th century in central Europe closely resemble ones found in Sicily.20 Amber beads found in central Europe are similar to ones found in central and southern Italy.21 Bietti Sestieri maintains that an Adriatic route was still in existence during the 11th century and it linked central Italy with central Europe.22 Thus, violin, stilted arch, and knobbed arch bow fi bulae appear to have been conn ected to a large scale-trading operation that was transpiring in Italy between the indigenous people, peoples of the Aegean area, and central Europeans from the 13th through the 10th centuries.23 The historical reconstruction offered by Bietti Sestieri is persuasive, but it should be made clear that her thoughts conc erning the interactions between Aegean peoples and the Italic 17 Ibid., 408 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid., 410 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid.

PAGE 53

53 people during the 13th-11th centuries are not accepted as a proven explanation for the resemblance of fibula types between Italy a nd the Aegean area during these centuries. In addition to the spectacle, violin, stilted bow, and ar ch bow fibulae (including the knobbed variations) MacNamara identifies the Sicili an elbow fibula as the fifth early type. She claims that it originates from the stilted bow fibula of Italy,24 although the shape of the elbow fibula bears no resemblance to th e stilted bow type. On the other hand, Sundwall classifies the Sicilian elbow fibula as a variati on of the serpentine fibula bow type.25 However, the early history and widespread distributi on of the Sicilian elbow type across the Mediterranean merits that it should be distinguished from the serp entine type. Not only does the Sicilian elbow fibula have a history that star ts as early as the 11th century and a wide distribution,26 but the elongated catch-plate is first associated w ith this type as demonstrated through the research of MacNamara and Toms. For these reasons, the Sicilian elbow fibula is classified as its own type in this thesis. The Elongated Catch-Plate MacNam ara and Toms have recognized that the elongated catch-plate had been part of the Italic tradition since the late 11th century BC. In Italy, ther e had always been a strong tradition of utilizing an elongate d or long channel foot, which wa s seen as early as 1000 BC on the Sicilian elbow type.27 The elongated catch-plate appeared fi rst in Italy on the Sicilian elbow fibula and then was transferred to the serpenti ne, arch and composite leech bows by the early 8th century BC.28 By the 7th century BC, the elongated catch-plate had been transferred to the solid 24 Ellen MacNamara, "Some Bronze Typologies," esp. 155. 25 Johannes Sundwall, Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln esp. 137, 138, and 148 26 Ellen MacNamara, "Some Bronze Typologies," esp. 154. 27 Judith Toms, "The Arch Fibula," esp. 95. The Sicilian type appears in Sundwall on 148. 28 Ibid., 94

PAGE 54

54 leech bow fibula as noted by Toms. The elongate d catch-plate can be seen in its most exaggerated form, the long channel catch-plate, on the elaborate examples of leech and drago fibulae from Etruria. Before it was known that the elongated cat ch-plate was an It alic innovation, the archaeological community believed it was a Gr eek invention. One reason is because of its appearance on the composite leech fibula in th e Greek colonies of Pithekoussai, Cumae, Syracuse, and Megara Hyblaea during the 8th through the 6th centuries. The second reason is related to the occurrence of the leech fibula at the site of Vrokastro on Crete during the 9th century, which will be shortly discussed. Examples of solid leech, composite leech, a nd serpentine fibulae w ith elongated catchplates had been found at the Fusco ceme tery at Syracuse during the late 19th century by Paolo Orsi,29 and then sixty years later during the middle 20th century when Giorgio Buchner conducted his excavations in the San Montano cemeter y at Pithekoussai off the Bay of Naples.30 Most examples of the fibulae at Syracuse date from the middle of the 8th century down to the beginning of the sixth century,31 and at Pithekoussai, they may date before 750 BC.32 The elongated catch-plate does not appear in Greece until the peri od of colonization. A total of nearly 50 examples of composite leech fibulae with the elongated catch-plate have been 29 Hugh Hencken, "Syracuse, Etruria, and the North: Some Comparisons," American Journal of Archaeology 62 (1958): esp. plates 56-65. 30 Many examples of the serpentine type and composite l eech types with an elongated catch-plate appear in the catalogue. The corresponding de scriptions of the fibulae appear in the b ook with the same title that accompanies the catalogue. Giorgio Buchner and David Ridgway, Pithekoussai I (Roma: G. Bretscheider, 1993) 31 Hugh Hencken, "Syracuse," esp. 270. 32 Ibid.

PAGE 55

55 found in Greece,33 and they are similar to composite leech fibulae found at Syracuse and Megara Hyblaea.34 The composite leech fibulae found in the west ern Greek colonies are in turn similar to native Italic ones except for slight differences in style. The differences in the style of composite leech fibulae in the Greek colonies compared to those traditionally worn by the Italic people will be discussed in more detail below, but for now the focus will be on the origin of the elongated catch-plate. Since composite leech fibulae with elongated cat ch-plates in the western Greek colonies are similar to native Italic types, and because they appear in Greece after the period of colonization, it leads to the conclusion that arri val of the elongated catch-plate in Greece must have been induced by the contacts with Sicily. The most likely explanation for their occurrence in Greece is that the western Greeks were tran sporting these fibulae back to Greece from Sicily.35 Out of the 50 examples of leech fibulae with el ongated catch-plates in Greece, 16 have come from the sanctuary at Perachora.36 The rest of the fibulae have b een found at other sanctuaries in Greece, with the most Italian goods, including je welry, being discovered at the sanctuary of Olympia.37 The reasoning behind the western Greeks dispatching their adaptations of Italic composite fibulae to Greek sanctuaries will be discussed more in the final chapter. 33 J.M Stubbings, "Bow Fibulae," in Perachora, the Sactuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia; Excavations of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, 1930-1933, ed. Dunbabin, T.J. and Alan Blakeway (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), esp. 439-441. 34 Ibid., 439 35 Gillian Shepherd, "Fibulae and Females: Intermarriage in the Western Greek Colonies and the Evidence from the Cemeteries," in Ancient Greeks West and East ed. Tsetskhladze, Gocha R (Boston: Brill, 1999), esp. 288-289. 36 J.M Stubbings, "Bow Fibulae," esp. 439. 37 Gillian Shepherd, "The Pride of Most Colonials: Burial and Religion in the Sicilian Colonies," in Acta Hyperborea 6 ed. Fischer-Hansen, Tobias (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1995), esp. 74.

PAGE 56

56 But for now, the conversation will continue with the s econd reason why the elongated catch-plate was believed to have been a Greek invention. Leech fibulae with short catch-plates had been unearthed at Vrokast ro on Crete, dating to the 9th century BC (Figure A-11).38 Archaeologist Sylvia Benton noted during the middle 20th century that that these fibulae were older than any types found in Italy including those from the Greek colonies of Syracuse and Pithekoussai.39 Although the catch-plates on the types from Vrokastro were short, she claimed that they must have been the predecessors to those at Syracuse and Pithekoussai.40 At the time of Bentons publications from Vrokastro, Orsi and Buchner seemed in agreement with Benton that leech fibulae with the elongated catch-plates in the west ern Greek colonies and mainland sites in Italy, especially central Italy, were a result of Greek influence.41 Benton asserted that the elongated catch-plate itself must have been a natural progression of th e short catch-plate. She was essentially tracing the development of the elongate d catch-plate back to Vrokastro and thereby declaring that it was Greek in origin. MacNamaras research of the elongated catch-pla te and its association with the Sicilian elbow fibula as early as the 11th century has certainly helped to clarify this thorny issue. Looking back, it is not surprising that Benton, Orsi, and Buchner believed the invention of the elongated catch-plate to be a Greek rather than an Ita lic one. They did not ha ve the knowledge of the Sicilian elbow type, which has shown that the elongated catch-pl ate occurred first on this type 38 E.H Hall, Excavations in Eastern Crete (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1913), esp. 144 and 165. 39 Hencken's summary of Benton's conclusions is noted beca use Benton's publiation is inaccessible. Hugh Hencken, "Syracuse,"esp. 271. 40 Ibid 41 The views of Orsi and Buchner are noted by Hencken in, "Syracuse."

PAGE 57

57 and was then eventually transferred to the le ech type. The progression of the elongated catchplate from the Sicilian elbow type to the leech ty pe makes sense because the Sicilian elbow type appears before the leech type in time and space. To summarize, the cumulative evidence proves that the elongated catc h-plate is securely identified as an Italic innova tion. It first appeared on the Si cilian elbow ty pe during the 11th century and then gradually started to appear th roughout central and sout hern Italy and Sicily during the 8th century on the serpentine, arch, composite leech, and regular leech bow types. As for the manifestation of the elongated catch-plate in the Greek colonies, it is now clear that the western Greeks adapted the Italic composite le ech fibula to suit their tastes. They chose to display the Italic elongated catch-plate on these fibulae. The appearance of Greek style composite leech fibulae with elonga ted catch-plates at sanctuarie s in Greece reflects how the elongated catch-plate was carried east and not west. Now that the story of the elongated catch-plate has been summarized, the conversation will return to development of the fibula. It ha s been shown that the spectacle fibula, double or multiple knobbed violin bow fibula, stilted bow fibula, double or multiple knobbed arch bow fibula, and the Sicilian elbow fibula were the five types of fibulae appearing in Italy and the greater Mediterranean and Adri atic countries during the 13th through 11th centuries BC. The 10th century is not discussed much in literature concerning the devel opment of the fibula, but the 9th century is continuously referred to in relation to the a ppearance of the fibula in Italy. During the years within this century, new t ypes of fibulae appeared in centra l and southern Italy and Sicily. These types include the simple arch bow fibula, the composite leech bow fibula, and the serpentine fibula.

PAGE 58

58 The development of these three Italic types is a result of the know ledge of manufacturing and decorative techniques that the native peopl es of Italy and Sicily acquired through their exposure to the spectacle, knobbed violin, sti lted bow, knobbed arch, and elbow fibula types. This accumulation of knowledge and the subsequent appearance of the simple arch bow fibula, the composite leech bow fibula, and the serpentin e fibula indicate that by 900 BC the local Italic sequence was underway. Throughout the 8th and into the 7th centuries other, more ela borate types start to emerge such as the drago, large leech, and comb and bolt types. There are differences in materials, techniques, and decoration betw een the Early Iron Age fibulae such as the spectacle, violin, serpentine, and arch bow and those of the late 8th, 7th, and 6th centuries. The progression from fairly simple fibulae to those with more intricat e shape and decoration will be discussed more in the next chapter. Geographical Distribution Fibula Types from the 13th to 11th Centuries BC The spectacle fibula originated from the Ba lkan regions and central Europe, but it subsequently appeared in both Italy and Greece.42 Some variations of the Type I spectacle fibula (figs. 2-2a, 2-2c, 2-2e, and 2-2g) appeared in southern Europe (Fi gure A-12). Other variations of the Type I spectacle fibula (figs. 2-2b, 2-2d, 22f, and 2-2h) appeared in southern Europe, Greece, and they were scattered throughout Sicily and mainland Italy (Figure A-13). The first variant of the type I spectacle fibula (fig. 2-2a) appeared during the 10th through the middle 7th century while the next two variants (figs. 2-2b and 2-2c) appeared mostly during the 11th through 42 John Alexander, "The Spectacle Fibulae," esp. 7

PAGE 59

59 the 6th centuries.43 The next four variants (figs. 2-2d-g) appeared mostly during the 9th through 8th centuries.44 The first three variations of the Type II spectacle fibula (figs. 2-3a, 2-3b, and 2-3c) were scattered throughout southern Europe but rare in Italy (Figure A-14). The first variant of the type II spectacle fibula (fig. 23a) appeared du ring the mid 9th through middle 6th century while the second variant of the type II spectacle fibula (fig. 2-3b) was f ound mostly dating to before the 11th century through to the middle 6th century.45 The third variant (fig. 2-3c) was found dating to the 6th century.46 The four variations of the Type III spectacle fibula (figs. 2-4a, 2-4b, 2-4c, and 2-4d) were thinly spread along the east coast of Italy as well as in southern Europe (Figure A-15). The first variant (fig. 2-4a) dated mainly to the middle 9th through the middle 6th century while the second variant (fig. 2-4b) dated to the middle 7th through the middle 3rd centuries.47 The final variants (figs. 2-4c-d) appeared during the middle 9th through the middle 7th centuries.48 The four spiral shapes of the type IV spectacle fibula (figs. 2-5a-7d), the type V spectacle fibula, and the type VI spectacle fibula were scattered along the western coast of Italy and in Greece (Figure A-16). A couple of the variants of the type IV spectacle fibula (figs. 2-5b and 25d) were found dating to the middle of the 9th to the middle or end of the 6th century.49 The third variant of type IV (fig. 2-5c) da ted mainly to middle of the 9th through the middle 7th centuries.50 43 Ibid., esp. 8 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid.

PAGE 60

60 Type V and VI spectacle fibulae were found dating from roughly 900-700 BC.51 At least one variation of all six types was pr esent in Italy by the eighth cent ury BC with the exception of the Po Valley in the North.52 The distribution of violin bow fibulae (inc luding the knobbed variations) is similar to spectacle fibulae in that they have been f ound throughout central and southern Europe, Greece, and Italy, as noted by Toms.53 Sestieris research on the meta l industry in Italy during the 13th through 11th centuries BC reflects how contacts were be ing made between the Greeks and Italic people prior to the period of colonization. Stronach suggests that taste for the violin bow was established by the 14th century in either Italy or Greece,54 but offers no evidence for why he believes it to have originated in Greece. MacNamara claims that the violin bow fibula originated in Italy,55 but like Stronach she offers no reason why she believes this to be true. The earlier part of this chapter might persuade one to believe th at the violin bow fibula did originate in Italy because of Bietti Sestieris rese arch on the Italic metal industry. The resemblance of Peschiera violin bow fi bulae of Italy and arch bow fibulae in Greece to specimens in the Protovillanovan hoards in Ital y encourage the possibility that they are most likely of Italic manufacture. At any rate, the type spread east to both C yprus and Crete, where it developed local variations.56 The violin bow has been found in Greece, Yugoslavia and Romania, 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid., esp. 7-9 53 Judith Toms, "The Arch Fibula," esp. 95 54 David Stronach, "The Development of the Fibula in the Near East," Iraq 21 (1959): esp. 182 55 Ellen MacNamara, "Some Bronze Typologies," esp. 153. 56 Ibid., esp. 153 -154

PAGE 61

61 central Europe, and Italy where it was most abundant in the north.57 Thus, like the spectacle fibula, the violin bow and arch bow fibulae were two additional types held in common between the east and west. The elbow fibula has Sicilian or igins, includes many variations and is another type that was held in common between the East and West.58 Like the violin bow fibula, this type spread east to Cyprus by 1000 BC, and also west to Spai n and developed into th e respective Huelva and Cypriot types.59 In particular, MacNamara sees the Huel va and the Cypriot types as part of a cycle that started in Sicily, exte nded East and West to develop local variations and then returned to Italy.60 Huelva and Cypriot typologies are outside of the limits of this discussion, but they are significant in that they are reminders that the sequence of development in Italian fibulae is but one component of a much larger sequence in the development of fibulae throughout the Mediterranean during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. The wide distribution of the Sicilian elbow type back and forth across the Mediterranean recalls the same distribution pa tterns of the spectacle and violin bow fibulae in central and southern Europe, Greece and Italy.61 MacNamara regards such wide distributions as being symptomatic of the types radiating from their resp ective locations. As with the distribution of the spectacle fibula, that of the Sicilian elbow t ype across the western and eastern Mediterranean does not necessarily reflect any direct contact between these two regions. Rather, the wide 57 Judith Toms, "The Arch Fibula," esp. 94-95 58 Ellen MacNamara, "Some Bronze Typologies," esp. 154 -156 59 Ibid., esp. 154 -155 60 Ibid., esp. 158 61 John Alexander, "The Spectacle Fibula," esp. 10, 14, 18

PAGE 62

62 distribution of the Sicilian type may reflect an indirect dissemination, such as through travel and trade.62 In summary, between the 13th and 11th centuries the Italic fibu la was influenced by those of Greece and central and southern Europe. Italy was influencing these foreign peoples as well, and so it is important to recognize that the contacts that were being made within this period were reciprocal exchanges. This reci procity is demonstrated through the wide distributions of the spectacle, violin, and Sicilian elbow fibulae. Around the 9th century, after being left with the imprints from other cultures, a na tive tradition started to develop in Italy, which led to the simple arch bow, composite leech bow, and serpentine types.63 Fibula Types from the 9th to 7th Centuries BC The simple arch, composite leech, and serpenti ne forms were the staples of the Italic tradition during the 9th through 7th centuries. As stated above, the elongated catch-plate is securely identified as an Italic invention. It a ppeared first on the Sicilian elbow type during the 11th century, but was transferred to the simple arch, serpentine, and composite leech fibulae by the early 8th century BC.64 The composite leech bow was found at the beginning of the Early Iron Age around 900 BC in the north.65 In Greece at this time, there was no record of the serpentine or composite leech bow forms.66 Toms notes how simple arch bows were common in Greece, but they are noticeably 62 Ellen MacNamara, "Some Bronze Typologies," esp. 151 & 158 63 Judith Toms, "The Arch Fibula," esp. 94 64 Ibid., 94 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid., 95

PAGE 63

63 different from Italic variations because the ca tch-plate often takes the form of a square or rectangle.67 Arch bows have also been found in the Balkans, but were rare in cen tral Europe until the eighth century.68 Arch bows came in two main varieties ac cording to the shape of the bows, and they were distinguished cultura lly as well as geographically.69 Semi-circular arch bows were more common in the Fossa culture areas of southe rn and central Italy. Fibu lae with lowered arch bows were common in the areas of Etruscan culture in Po Valley in the north as well as parts of Campania in southern Italy.70 Those examples from northern and southern Italy display sma ll channel catch-plates with a small to medium double coil spring, while those in the south feature larg e channel catch-plates and a single coil spring, which may have b eads attached to the thread of the bow.71 During this time, disc catch-plates first appeared on the violin bow fibula in Italy, but soon they became limited to the central region of the country.72 New and more elaborate types emerged throughout the end of the eighth century and into the beginning of the seventh cen tury. They were the small and large leech, drago, and comb and bolt types. The leech and drago types seem to have appeared throughout Italy, although elaborate examples have been unearthed especially fr om the region of Etruria, dating to the 7th though 6th centuries. In contrast to all of the types mentioned thus far in the study of the Italic fibula, the 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid., 94-95 69 Ibid., 95 70 Ibid., 95 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid.

PAGE 64

64 comb and bolt types appear to be localiz ed to the region of Etruria during the 7th and 6th centuries BC. The exact proveniences of the fibulae that have been discussed t hus far in this paper will be further commented on in chapter five. They will be considered in relation to tombs, materials, techniques, and iconography of the fibulae. In conclusion, the study of the Italic fibula is really a refl ection of different cultural groups within the Mediterranean, Adriat ic, and Aegean countries from the 13th to 7th centuries BC. The wide distribution of certain early type s of fibulae suggests that Greece, Cyprus, Crete, central and southern Europe, and Italy were in contact with each other perhaps indirectly though from an early date, which becomes increasingl y apparent during the ni nth century. A concise background on these early types has been provided in order to understand how and where the Italic tradition fits into the larger Mediterranean context. Un derstanding this context involves recognizing that the spectacle fi bula, violin bow fibula, stilte d bow fibula, double and multiple knobbed arch bow fibulae, and the Sicilian elbow type were the earliest participants in the historical development of the fibula. At this point, the conversation must take a slight detour to acknow ledge three types of fibulae that have received much attention because of the inability to identify them as either Italic or Greek in origin.

PAGE 65

65 CHAPTER 4 CONTROVERSIAL TYPES OF THE 8TH THROUGH THE 6TH CENTURIES BC Serpentine fibulae with knobs on the sides, leech fibulae with bone and amber strung on the bow, and knobbed leech fibulae have received much attention since Paolo Orsi first conducted his excavations at Syracu se in Sicily during the course of the late nine teenth century. All three types appeared not only at Syracuse, but also Pithekoussai and Cumae. Besides the Greek colonies, these types have be en unearthed at native sites in Sicily and the Italian mainland. Since they have been found at both Greek coloni es and Italic sites, archaeologists have long questioned their origin. Some thought they were Italic in origin while others believed them to be Greek. This chapter will present the locatio ns in Sicily and the mainland where knobbed serpentine fibulae, composite leech fibulae, and knobbed leech fibulae have been found. This chapter will also list the othe r objects found in the presence of these fibulae. Understanding the context in which these fibulae occur will help to determine their most probable origin. The Knobbed Serpentine Fibula Exam ples of the knobbed serpentine type have been found at Syracuse, Pithekoussai, and Cumae (see Figure A-4). In the Fusco cemetery at Syracuse, they occur in graves 326 and 308 both dating to the first half of the 7th century.1 At Pithekoussai and Cumae, they date to the second half of the 8th century.2 The knobbed serpentine type also o ccurs at the native sites of Monte Finocchito on Sicily,3 Pontecagnano in Campania at the necropolises of the Picento4 and 1 Hugh Hencken, "Syracuse," esp. 269. 2 Ibid., 269-270 3 D.C Steures, Monte Finocchito Revisited (Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Press, 1980). Examples of the knobbed serpentine type appear th roughout the catalogue. 4 Bruno D'Agostino and Patrizia Gastaldi, Pontecagnano: II. La Necropoli del Picento: 1. Le Tombe della Prima Eta del Ferro (Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orie ntale, Dipartimento del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico, 1988).

PAGE 66

66 S. Antonio,5 Veii and Tarquinia in southern Etruria,6 Sala Consilina in Basilicata,7 and at Canale in Calabria.8 At Monte Finocchito (see Figures A-4) knobbed serpentine fibulae date to 730-650 BC, during the main phase of occupation of the site.9 At Veii and Tarqunia, they date to 900-720 BC.10 De la Geniere does not readily give dates for the examples from Sala Consilina, but instead describes the objects that have been found in graves from the same period as the knobbed serpentine fibulae. In this way, she indicates the most likely date of the knobbed serpentine fibulae by association with other grave objects. Un less one is very familiar with Early Iron Age grave objects, it is not possible to establish the exact date of the knobbed serpentine type in Basilicata. If consistent with th e appearance of this type elsewh ere in Italy, however, it is likely to date to the 8th or 7th centuries. At Canale, in Calabria in general the evidence allows de la Geniere to be a little more specific about dates. She offers a date of around 700 BC for the appearance of the knobbe d serpentine type.11 Hencken suggested that knobbed serpentine fibu lae might be Greek adaptations of local Italic serpentine fibulae because they were being worn by the Greeks at Pithekoussai as early as 5 Serenella De Natale, Pontecagnano: II, La Necropoli di S. Antonio-Propr. ECI (Napoli: Instituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico, 1992). 6 Judith Toms, "The Construction of Gender in Early iron Age Etruria," Italian Archaeology (1998): esp. 167. 7 Juliette de la Geniere, "The Iron Age in Southern Italy," in Italy before the Romans (New York: Academic Press, 1979), esp. 82 8 Ibid., 85 9 Robert Leighton, Sicily before History (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), esp. 242. 10 Judith Toms, "The Construction of Gender," esp. 157 11 Juliette de la Geniere, "The Iron Age in Southern Italy," esp. 85

PAGE 67

67 the peoples of Italy were wearing them.12 Just because they were being worn by the Greeks in Italy as early as the Italic people does not prove that they are Greek adaptations of the Italic serpentine fibula, however. There is a lack of literature discussing knobbed serpentine fibulae in native Italic contexts, except for Monte Finocchito. Though the l ack of evidence certainly does not help to clarify the issue, it is unreasonable to conclude that the occurrence of these fibulae at the Greek colonies of Pithekoussai, Syracuse, and Cu mae reflects the Greeks modifying the Italic serpentine type. They appeared with other fibulae of Italic origin at Monte Finocchito, such as serpentine bow fibulae, leech bow fibulae, and w ith other indigenous jewelry such as chains, beads, bronze and iron rings,13 which encourages the idea that they are Italic.14 This occurrence coupled with the absence of the Greek dress pin15 at Monte Finocchito su pports the conclusion that knobbed serpentine fibulae are Italic in origin. As at Monte Finocchito, the knobbe d serpentine type was found in the presence of other fibulae of Italic origin at Pontecagnano, Veii at the Quattro Fontanili cemetery, Tarquinia, and Sala Consilina. At Pontecagnano these types in clude the simple arch bow fibula with elongated catch-plate, the foliated fibula, the serpentine fo rm, the composite leech bow, and the solid leech form.16 Hodos acknowledges the ample collection of Italic fibulae present at Pontecagnano, Veii, 12 Hencken declares that the Greeks were wearing them just as early as the native Italic peoples, but he doess not make reference to the sites he is referring to. Hugh Hencken, "Syracuse," esp. 270. 13 Ibid. 14 Robert Leighton, Sicily before History esp. 242. 15 Ibid. 16 All of these types appear in the catalogues by D'Agostino and De Natale.

PAGE 68

68 and Tarquinia.17 He sites the serpentine fibula, Italic composite leech bow fibula, and the solid leech bow fibula among the types present at the sout hern Etruscan sites of Veii and Tarquinia. In addition to these later types, Close-Brooks and Ridgway document the appearance of the simple arch bow fibula at Veii,18 but it seems to have been present at Tarquinia as well.19 At Sala Consilina, the knobbed serpentine type is found alongside the simple arch bow, the leaf fibula, and the Ita lic composite leech bow fibula.20 At Canale the situation is similar to the other sites already mentioned, which means th at the knobbed serpentine type has been found in the presence of other Italic fibulae such as the four-spiral spectacle, the serpentine, and the leech types.21 The evidence from Monte Finocchito, Ponteca gnano, Veii, Tarquinia, Sala Consilina, and Canale on the knobbed serpentine type reaffirms that a tradition alre ady been old in Italy. It is clear from the examples of violin, stilte d, and arch bow fibulae of the Peschiera and Protovillanovan periods in Italy that the Italic people had a f ondness for decorating the bow with knobs. The knobs on the serpentine type are more th ree-dimensional and they project from the sides of the bow in a different way from the knobs on the violin and arch bow fibulae of the Peschiera period. Even though the k nobs on the serpentine type are more exaggerated than those on the violin and arch bow examples from the Peschiera period, it does not seem unreasonable 17 Tamar Hodos, "Intermarriage in the Western Greek Colonies," Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18 (1999): esp. 6364. 18 Joanna Close-Brooks and David Ridgway, "Veii in the Iron Age," in Italy before the Romans (New York: Academic Press, 1979), esp. 102 19 Judith Toms, "The Construction of Gender," esp. 167 20 Juliette de la Geniere, "The Iron Age in Southern Italy," esp. 82 21 de la Geniere does not focus much on Canlae in her article, but she does make note of the types of Italic fibulae that have been unearthed at this site.

PAGE 69

69 that, during the Early Iron Age a nd well into the seventh century BC, the Italic people would have continued the tradition of decorating the bow with knobs on th e serpentine fibula. The Composite Leech Bow Fibula This type has been briefly introduced above while explaining the origins of the elongated catch -plate. It is accepted that the tradition of de corating the bow of leech fibulae with rings or segments of bone and amber was a true Italic on e. However certain examples of composite leech fibulae had received special atte ntion in the past by archaeologists because the elements decorating the bow were in a different style comp ared to those traditionally worn by the Italic people. These differences in style raised questions regarding their origin. Orsi seems to be the first archaeologist to have recognized in the early 20th century that there were composite leech fibulae in existence in Italy that did not rese mble true Italic com posite leech fibulae. He speculated on the origin of the composite leech fibulae in the diffe rent style, but his account was quite brief and he did not consider al l of the available evidence when drawing his conclusions on their origin. Later in the middle to late 20th century, the question of the origin of composite leech fibulae in the alternative style once again resurfaced because more research had been conducted on them since the time Orsi wrote his article. This new research resulted in the classification of two types of composite leech fibulae in the alternat ive style, which were distinguished from true Ital ic ones by J.M. Stubbings. In order to make conclusions regarding the most likely origin of the composite leech fibulae in the alternative style, it is necessary to contrast them to traditional Italic composite leech fibulae. In general, true Italic composite leech fibulae have discs of amber, bronze, and/or bone strung along the bow that may be thick in nature and evenly spac ed (see Figure A-8).22 22 Judith Toms, "The Arch Fibula," esp. 93-94.

PAGE 70

70 Examples of these fibulae have surfaced fr om Veii and Tarquinia in southern Etruria23 and from tombs 3214, 3248, 3266, 3276, and 3280 at Pontecagnano in Campania.24 Compared to traditional Italic fibulae, thos e described by Orsi and Stubbings as being different had a single piece of amber placed in between two pieces of bone. Stubbings acknowledges that there are two variations of com posite leech fibulae with lengthened bone segments.25 In both types, the center of the bow is d ecorated with an amber bead or a piece of ivory inlaid with amber and they both have elong ated catch-plates. The only difference between them is that one has longer bone segments than the other.26 This variant has been referred to as the trapezium form by Stubbings because of the le ngthened bone segments. The Greek styles are different from the discs of bone and amber that often times are placed close together on the bow of Italic composite leech fibulae. The composite leech fibulae in the alternative style were found mostly in the Greek colonies of Syracuse (Figure A-17), Cumae (Figure A-18), and Pithekoussai (Figure A-19). Hencken notes that at the cemetery of Fusco at Syracuse the most co mmon design was a single piece of amber or bone placed in between two pieces of bone as seen in figure 51.27 Syracuse seems to have provided the most adequate exam ples of composite leech fibulae in the Greek 23 Judith Toms, "The Construction of Gender," esp. 170 24 Examples of composite arch bow and leech bow fibu lae appear in the catalogue. Serenella De Natale, Pontecagnano II. La Necropoli di S. Antonio: Propr. ECI 2. Tombe della Prima Eta del Ferro (Napoli: Instituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di studi del mondo e del Mediterraneo Antico, 1992). Examples of composite arch bow and leech bow fibul ae appear in the catalogue. 25 J.M Stubbings, "Bow Fibulae," esp. 439. 26 Stubbings does not provide any illustra tions of the composite leech fibula that has the longer bone segments. Similarly to the case with the boat an d leech fibulae, the stylistic differences between the two variations of the composite leech fibulae are noted, but the differences in the length of the bo ne segemnts may be barely noticeable. Perhaps this is why Stubbings did not feel it was necessary to include and illustration, but he did not ignore the fact that he had seen composite leech fibulae with bone segmen ts of differing lengths by stating this in his article. 27 Hugh Hencken, "Syracuse," esp. 270.

PAGE 71

71 style. They exhibit a distinctly different com position of bone and amber from Italic composite leech fibulae.28 In many of the examples from Pithekou ssai the two pieces of bone are long and cylindrical in contrast to the discs that charact erize Italic composite fibulae. An example of a Greek composite leech fibula has been unearthed fr om tomb 272 (see Figure A-19) on Ischia that looks similar to the ones from Syracuse. In cont rast to the Greek composite leech fibula from tomb 272, the Italic one from tomb 599 (Figure A-20) on Pithekoussai resembles the same type from native sites such as Veii and Pontecagnano. It is in k eeping with the Italic tradition in that it has discs of amber and bone strung evenly along th e length of the bow instead of the lengthened bone segments that characterize the Greek composite leech fibula. Examples of fibulae of Italic type have also come from Cumae (Figure A-21) and (Figur e 4-1). Comparing the Italic composite leech fibulae from tomb 653 on Pithek oussai to the Greek example from tomb 272 on Pithekoussai reveals the differences in style betw een Greek adaptations of Italic composite leech fibulae and actual Italic composite leech fibulae. Greek composite leech fibulae have also been found at other Greek colonies in southern Italy, but this type was not exclusive to the Gree k colonies since it has also been discovered at indigenous sites in southern Italy and Campania That the Greek composite leech bow fibula has been found at both Greek and Italic sites in so uthern Italy, was affirmed by Orsi and later reaffirmed by Guzzo.29 28 Pier Giovanni Guzzo, "Ipotesti Interpretativa su due Tipi di Fibula con Arco Ricoperto," Aparchai; Nuove Ricerche e Studi sulla Magna Grecia e la Sicilia Antica in Onore di Paolo Orsi 1 (1982): esp. 55. 29 P.G. Guzzo describes the composite leech fibula found in each region of Italy and Sicily. He provides the material, dimensions, and date (if possible) of manufacture of these fibulae. Like Orsi, he associates this type with the colonizing Greeks in southern Italy and Sicily.

PAGE 72

72 Orsi listed all of the sites in Calabria and Campania that had produced examples of Greek composite leech fibulae. In his study, he concentr ated on ones that were in iron with an elongated catch-plate. In Sicily, the sites include such sites as Centuripe, Grammichele, Licodia.30 In southern Italy, they include Locri, Canne to, Taranto, and the necropolises of Piceno.31 In his declaration he acknowledged the widespread use of the composite leech type among the indigenous cultures of Sicily and southern Italy and the almost co mplete absence of them from the Greek colonies of Me gara Hyblaea and Gela. Orsi saw the widespread appearance of th e Greek composite leech fibula in iron among the native sites of Sicily and southern Italy as a reflection of Greek cultural superiority.32 He theorized that the Greek colonists were making these fibulae solely for the purpose of exporting them to the Italic people. Alt hough it is hard to believe, he must have overlooked the appearance of this type at Syracuse, which disputes his view. The presence of composite leech fibulae at Pithekoussai, Cumae, and the Greek colonies in southern Italy and Sicily reinforces the fact that these fibulae were not being made simply to be exported. Orsi did not have the knowledge of the finds from Pithekoussai and Cumae at the time he wrote his article, but the evidence from Syracuse, the Greek sites in southern Italy, and the Greek sites in Sicily should have prompted him to question his exportation theory. The presence of Greek composite leech fibulae at nativ e sites in southern Italy and Sicily is most likely a result of dissemination of ideas or tr ade between the Greeks and the native peoples. 30 Paolo Orsi, "Contributi alla storia della fibula greca," Opuscula Archaeologica Oscari Montello, Septuagenario, dicta d. ix m. sept. MCMXII (1913): esp. 201. 31 Ibid. 32 He insinuates that the main reason these fibulae were being produced by the Greek colonists in Italy was for export to the native Italic people. He did not realize that the Greeks had actually adopted and adapted the Italic composite leech type to suit their tastes. His view is severely outdated and typifies the time period in which he wrote his article.

PAGE 73

73 Lyons contradicts Orsi in sa ying that there are numerous instances of this type at Megara Hyblaea.33 There is some discrepancy in the fi ndings from Megara Hyblaea, but it is probable that Orsi did not have all of the ava ilable evidence at his dis posal to make a fair assessment of the findings from Megara Hybl aea regarding fibulae. Based on Lyons account it does not seem as if there was an absence of this type at Megara Hyblaea. There may or may not have been an absence of Greek composite leech fi bulae at Gela, but at present there is no way to tell whether or not the Gelo ans were using this type. Regardless of whether or not this type was being used at Gela, it was certainly being employed to secure garments in the communities of Syracuse and Pithekoussai. The presence of Greek composite leech fibulae at sanctuaries in Gr eece reflects the other way that this type was employed by the western Greeks, which was for dedication It has been shown that the Greek composite leech fibula has been found not only in the Greek colonies, but also the native sites and Italic fibula types have b een found in the Greek colonies. Italic Fibulae at Syracuse, Pithekoussai and Cumae As in the case of the knobbed serpentine t ype, com posite leech fibulae at Pithekoussai and Cumae were found in the presence of Ital ic fibulae. The archaeological community has recognized the close correspondence of fibula types of these two Greek colonies in particular to native sites in Campania and Etruria. Coldstream iterates, Right from the beginning, the Greek colonists of Pithekoussai and Cumae used non-Greek, indigenous, personal ornaments, especially fibulae.34 The Fusco cemetery at Syracuse did not contain as many indigenous fibula types as Pithekoussai and Cumae, a point that rela tes to the social milieu of the colony. The types 33 Claire Lyons, The Archaic Cemeteries ed. Bell, Malcolm and Christopher Moss, vol. 5 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), esp. 97. 34 J.N Coldstream, "Mixed Marriages at the Frontiers of the Early Greek World," Oxford Journal of Archaeology 12.1 (1993): esp. 91.

PAGE 74

74 that are present at Syracuse include mostly sma ll and large leech fibulae, serpentine fibulae with knobs on the sides, and knobbed leech fibulae.35 The knobbed leech fibula will be discussed below. The variety of Italic fibulae at Pithekoussai includes the simple arch, serpentine, small and large leech, composite leech, and drago types. Hodos recognizes that the types recovered from the tombs at Cumae are similar to those fr om Pithekoussai, and they include the simple arch bow, the ringed arch bow, the serpentine form, the leech fibula, and the drago type.36 Two types appear at Cumae that were not present at Pithekoussai and Syracuse. They are the comb and bolt fibulae. Though not known to have appear ed in other Greek colonies excluding Cumae, they have been unearthed from gr aves in Etruria dating to the 7th and 6th centuries. The reasons why the comb and bolt types were only present at the Greek colony of Cumae, but had been present in Etruscan graves, will be further explored in the final chapter. The Knobbed Leech Fibula The third ty pe of fibula that has received at tention in the past decades because of its questionable origins is the knobbed leech bow (F igure A-5), (Figure A6), and (Figure A-7). Like the knobbed serpentine fibula and the composite leech fibula in the Greek style, this type has appeared in both Italic and Greek sites in Italy. Examples have survived from Syracuse, Pithekoussai, and Cumae. The type has provenan ces at the native sites of Monte Finocchito, Veii, Pontecagnano, Tarqunia, and Sala Consilina.37 It is difficult to distinguish the origin of this type because not much literature has been produced on it. Hencken did make note of it in his 35 A brief perusal of the catalogue and the text by Hencke n reveals that these are the most prevalent types at Syracuse. 36 Tamar Hodos, "Intermarraige," esp. 63. 37 Tamar Hodos, "Intermarriage," esp. 69-70.

PAGE 75

75 article while discussing the possi ble origin and date of the knobbed serpentine and the Greek composite leech fibula. It seems quite natural th at like the serpentine type with knobs, the leech type might have developed to display knobs as we ll. In this case, the appearance of the leech type with knobs would be in keeping with th e tradition of decorating the bow with knobs, which was first seen in Italy long before the 8th century. Summary To recapitulate, th e knobbed serpentine and knobbed leech bows do seem to derive from the Italic sequence. The appearance of these t ypes at Monte Finocchito an d Veii along with other Italic fibulae demonstrates that they are most lik ely native to Italy. Their appearance in the Greek colonies of Pithekoussai and Cumae suggests that like the simple arch, serpentine, leech, and drago fibulae, they must have been adopted and worn by the peoples in both of these colonies. These fibulae may have been imported from the ma inland since they have such close parallels in certain Italic sites. Or, they could have possibly been produced at Pithekoussai since there is evidence that a metal working quarter existed on this island in antiquity.38 That the collection of fibulae at Pithekoussai and Cumae find exact parall els in the contemporary tombs of Etruria is evidenced by comparing the repertoire of fibulae at Veii with Pithekoussai and Cumae.39 The one type that does seem to be Greek inspired from the native tradition is the composite leech fibula in the Greek style. Afte r comparing the placement and style of the bone and amber segments of composite leech fibulae f ound in the Greek colonies to that of those traditionally worn by the native Italic peoples, we conclude that the Greeks were influenced by the Italic tradition. The examination of the finds from Syracuse, Pithekoussai, and key 38 David Ridgway, The First Western Greeks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), esp. 93-100. 39 J.N Coldstream, "Mixed Marriages," esp. 91.

PAGE 76

76 indigenous sites leads to a conc lusion that had gone unrecogn ized by many archaeologists for some time. This conclusion is that the Greeks were responsible for fashioning composite leech fibulae at Syracuse and Pithekoussai that were ba sed upon the Italic composite leech type, but in their own style. They adopted the Italic tradition of deco rating the bow with bone and amber segments, but made it their own by fashioning bone segments instead of discs and carefully articulating the position of the amber and/or bone with amber in lay as the center piece. Even Blinkenberg acknowledged that the types he designated as IX and X, which were found in Greece, had originated in Italy (Figure A-22).40 The addition of amber and bone in the style as they appear at Syracuse and Pithekoussai is the Greek contribu tion. The elongated catch-plate, which had been thought for some time by certain members of the archaeological community to be a Greek contribution, is not. It is noted that once the Greek s start producing Italic type fibulae at Pithekousaai they add special features. For example, a lowered a nd angular bow with lengthened bone segments has been found on composite leech bow fibulae at Pithekoussai and at Roggiano-Prunetta in Calabria.41 Even though there are differences in styl e between Greek colonial composite leech fibulae and true Italic ones, at first glance, it would seem as if they were simply borrowing and imitating what they had seen the Italic people fa sten their garments with. However, upon closer inspection, this situation reflect s a larger sociological phenomenon that has two aspects. The first aspect concerns the reason why th e Greeks chose to borrow from the Italic tradition in the first place instead of producing fi bulae at Pithekoussai that they were accustomed 40 Christian Blinkenberg, Lindiaka V Fibules Grecques et Orientales (Kobenhavn: Andr. Fred. Host & Son, 1926), esp. 197-199 41 Pier Giovanni Guzzo, "Ipotesi," esp. 56.

PAGE 77

77 to wearing in Greece. The second one speaks to the reason why the western Greeks were trying to differentiate themselves from the natives by producing Italic looki ng fibulae, but making it their own by changing the style. These two aspect s of relations between the Greeks and the Italic people at Pithekoussai, in particular, will be di scussed in more detail in the final chapter. On the other hand Syracuse, Megara Hyblaea, and Gela, have not yielded the same evidence that Pithekoussai has in terms of fibulae and their supposed use. Out of three Sicilian colonies, Syracuse has provide d the most amount of informat ion. The differences in the prevalence and deposition locations of Greek imitations of Ital ic fibulae at Pithekoussai and Syracuse will be compared in the last chapter. Megara Hyblaea and Gela do not provide as much information on fibulae as Syracuse does. However, the funerary practices of these three colonies reveal an important aspect of their relationship. This relationship and th e implications it had at home in Greece will also be examined in the final chapter.

PAGE 78

78 Figure 4-1. A serpentine fibula from Cumae. (Source in public domain) Gabrici, E. "Cuma." Monumenti Antichi 22 (1913). Catalogue figure 3 2:3.

PAGE 79

79 CHAPTER 5 PROVENIENCE, MATERIALS, TECHNIQUES, AND ICONOGRAPHY The body of this ch apter will expound upon the hi storical reconstruction of the previous chapter by examining the chronolog ical evolution of the fibula in Italy from the years around 900 BC through the 6th century BC in relation to materials, techniques, and iconography. An attempt has been made below to compile a wide asso rtment of information and make connections between information contained in various source s. Since the information concerning each of these criteria is scattered across disparate sources, no clear outline is available concerning the relationship between material, techniques, and iconography of fibulae dating to the 9th through the 7th centuries BC. Despite the lack of specific r econstructions, a general idea regarding the time periods and the corresponding characteristics of fibulae within those periods can be gleaned from the cumulative research on the Italic fibul a. The survey below seeks to illuminate the relationship between fibulae dating to the 9th through the 7th centuries and the respective characteristics of each. Sites Ninth and Eighth Centuries in Sicily, Southern Italy, and Campania: The Indigenous Sites The native s ites of Pantalica, Dessueri, Carc arella, and Cassible in Sicily yield common types of Early Iron Age fibulae, which include the simple arch, the elbow, and the serpentine form.1 Grave goods associated with these types incl ude rings, buttons, and small tools such as knives, spearheads, and razors.2 As in Sicily, the southern Ital ian regions of Apulia, Basilicata, 1 Robert Leighton, Sicily esp. 200-201. 2 Ibid., 200

PAGE 80

80 and Calabria have yielded similar types of fibulae including the simple ar ch and serpentine types during the 9th -8th centuries.3 De la Geniere also identifies the spectacle fibul a, the simple arch fibula with symmetrical channel catch-plate, the leaf fibula with, and later without, the disc-f oot, the composite leech bow fibula, the triple coil serpentine fibula, and the double-coil spect acle fibula as the types known to exist in southern Italian graves.4 The serpentine fibula may have a symmetrical channel or a disc catch-plate as noted by de la Genier e. The elongated channel catch-plate appears in Sicily as early as the 11th century BC, but in southern Italy the evidence suggests that it does not occur until sometime in the Early Iron Age, wh ich would be 900-720 BC. The elongated channel catch-plate appears on the knobbed serpentine type at Sala Consilina and at Torre Mordillo during these years.5 More information on early fibula types is availa ble from Calabria, and in particular from the native sites of Torre Mordillo, Francavi lla Marittima, and Torre Galli during the ninth through the eighth centuries BC (F igure 5-1). The spectacle, serp entine, Sicilian elbow, and leech types appear at Torre Mordillo, but the spec tacle seems to be less common than the Sicilian elbow form.6 Eventually, the serpentine form with an el ongated channel catch-pl ate starts to take shape by 725 BC, and it gradually supers edes the older Sicilian elbow model.7 The four-spiral spectacle fibula with and wit hout the lozenge-shaped plaque in the center, the Sicilian elbow type, the si mple arch bow fibula, and the composite leech bow fibula have 3 Juliette de la Geniere, "The Iron Age in Southern Italy," esp. 78-85 4 Ibid., 79-85 5 Ibid., 82 and 85 6 Maurizio Gualtieri, "Iron in Calabria in the Nint h and Eighth Centuries BC" (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 1977), esp. 37-42 7 Ibid., 41

PAGE 81

81 been unearthed at Francavilla Marittima and Torre Galli.8 At Francavilla Marittima the fourspiral form with the lozenge-shaped plaque in the center and Sicilian elbow forms date no later than the first half of the eighth century.9 The majority of examples of the arch fibula display the long channel catch-plate. Bone and amber segments may rest on the bow of the composite leech bow fibula.10 At Torre Galli, located on the western coast of Calabria, the Sicilian elbow fibula and the simple arch bow fibula are the predominant forms from this area with the former dating as early as the ninth century.11 Many of the arch fibulae display th e symmetrical channel catch-plate.12 While the listing of fibula types from this site is quite brief, it nonetheless reinforces which types of fibulae were in use during the Early Iron Age no t just in Calabria, but elsewhere in southern Italy and in Sicily. In Campania on the Tyrrhenian side of Italy, Moser categorizes the finds from each of the significant sites into distinct phases based upon the appearance of other archaeological artifacts. Her method of dating is similar to that of de la Geniere, which makes it difficult for one who is not an archaeologist to get an idea of the exac t time periods of the phases that she divides her evidence into. One Early Iron Age site in Campania is Capua (see Figure 5-2) which displays examples of early types similar to those of Calabria a nd Basilicata. These include the arch, serpentine, 8 Ibid., 132-148 9 Ibid., 148-151 10 Ibid., 151 11 Ibid., 189 12 Ibid.

PAGE 82

82 leech, four-spiral specta cle, and drago fibulae.13 The arch and serpentine types emerge before the leech and drago types.14 The four-spiral spectacle type makes its debut after the arch, serpentine, leech, and drago types are already present.15 The short symmetrical channel, small spiral disc, and small solid disc catch-plates appear earlier than the elongat ed catch-plate at this site.16 The elongated channel catch-plate emer ges first on the simple arch bow fibula with discs on the bow as noted by Moser. Finds attributed to Pontecagnano (see Figure 5-2), another site in Campania that Moser studied, include the simple arch bow, serpen tine, knobbed serpentine, simple leech, knobbed leech, Italic composite leech, and four-spiral spectacle fibulae. Similar to the situation in Capua, the arch and serpentine shapes with a spiral or solid disc catch-plate appear before the leech and four-spiral types as explained by Moser. The catch-plates on these types may also be in the form of a short or medium length channel.17 The long channel catch-plat e materializes earlier at Pontecagnano than at Capua, and it is found only on the leech form as observed by Moser. A third site, which showcases the same type of fibula forms as ot her sites previously mentioned in southern Italy and Campania is Sala Consilina (see Figure 5-2). This site, in particular, has gained a reputation for keeping a representative samp le of standard eighth century forms. On this list are the arch, serpentine, knobbed serpentine, simple leech, knobbed leech, Italic composite leech, foliated, drago, and four-spiral spectacle fibulae types.18 The catch-plate 13 Mary Elizabeth Moser, "The "Southern Villanovan" Culture of Campania" (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 1982), esp. 31-94 14 Ibid., esp. 75 15 Ibid., 90 16 Ibid., 14-47 17 Ibid., 151-155 18 Ibid., 279-408

PAGE 83

83 on the arch bow and serpentine forms may be a short or medium-length channel as noted by Moser. If the catch-plate is not a channel, then Moser states that it may be a spiral or solid disc. Like Capua, Pontecagnano, and Sala Consilina, th e foliated, drago, and four-spiral spectacle fibula types emerge after the arch and serpentine fibulae. The catch-pla tes on foliated, drago, and four-spiral types may be an elonga ted or short symmetrical channel.19 At Sala Consilina, the leech form is strongly associated with the long channel foot.20 Etruria in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries In southern Etruria, some of the same type s of fibulae that have been unearthed from southern Italy have been discove red at the sites of Veii and Ta rquinia (Figure 5-3). During the years 900-720 BC, the simple arch, Italic com posite leech, simple leech, serpentine, drago, knobbed serpentine, and knobbed leech fi bulae emerge at these two sites.21 At Tarquinia, just northwest of Veii, the fibulae types find parallels to those of Veii.22 Hodos also notes how the assemblages at other It alic sites, such as Caere and Pontecagnano, are similar to those of Veii and Tarqui nia. Thus, it is fair to concl ude that the finds from Veii and Tarquinia complement not only each other, but they also seem to augment the finds from Sicily and southern Italy in regard to the types of fibulae present. Although the typology of fibulae in Etruria is similar to that of southern Ital y and Sicily during the Early Iron Age, by the 7th century changes are definitely under way. 19 Ibid., 365-377 20 Ibid., 472-478 21 Joanna Close-Brooks, "Veii in the Iron Age," esp. 102 22 Tamar Hodos, "Interrmarriage," esp. 63

PAGE 84

84 The Greek Colonies in the Ei ghth and Seventh Centuries Som e Greek colonies in Italy, namely Pith ekoussai, Cumae, and Syracuse are equipped with Italic types dating to the first half of the 8th century. At Pithekoussai, the types include the simple arch bow, the serpentine, knobbed serpenti ne, solid leech, Italic composite leech, Greek composite leech, knobbed leech, and drago types.23 Cumae is situated on the coast of Campania opposite Pithekoussai. As in the similarity betw een the fibulae of Veii and Tarqunia, Cumae has a similar assemblage of fibulae co mpared to that of Pithekoussai.24 Cumae was excavated in the early 20th century by two different archaeologists. Pellegrini, the first one, was responsible for excavating th e Fondo Artiaco tomb in 1903 and bringing to light its luxurious contents.25 The Fondo Artiaco tomb and its c ontents will be discussed shortly in relation to the foundation of Cumae in the next chapetr of this thesis. Cumae was excavated again in 1913 by Stevens and the fibulae were published by Gabrici. The fibulae published by Gabrici are very similar to thos e found at native Italic sites.26 As noted in chapter four, the assemblages of both Cumae and Pithekoussai are si milar to those from Italic sites. The fibula types that appear at Syracuse find parallels to the types at Pi thekoussai. The types present at Syracuse include the knobbed serpentine, the knobbed leech, the solid leech, and the Greek composite leech forms.27 Although Shepherd states that the type s at Syracuse are similar to those at Pithekoussai, the simple ar ch, drago, and spectacle fibulae type s do not seem to have been popular. Most of the eighty fibulae discovered at Syracuse were excavated by Paolo Orsi in 23 Giorgio Buchner and David Ridgway, Pithekoussai I (Rome: Bretschneider, 1993) 24 Tamar Hodos, "Intermarriage," esp. 63 25 G. Pellegrini, "Tombe greche archaiche e tomba greco-sannitica a tholos della necropoli di Cuma," Monumenti Antichi 13 (1903). 26 E. Gabrici, "Cuma," Monumenti Antichi 22 (1913). 27 Gillian Shepherd, "Fibulae and Females," esp. 278

PAGE 85

85 1895.28 Of the eighty examples, 36 were of the Greek composite leech type. Shepherd notes how the Greek composite leech fibula is the most comm on at Syracuse, and this is evident from the graves described by Hencken. Hencken based hi s article and the accompanying illustrations on the excavations by Orsi.29 Etruria and Latium in the Seventh Century Tom b contents from the period of 725-575 BC ha ve been surveyed by Winthur from sites such as Tarquinia, Rome, Vetulonia, Marsil iana, Praeneste, Veii, Caere, and Populonia (see Figure 5-3).30 The following items are included in this assortment: elaborate fibulae, warriors equipment, metal vases, faience objects (a lthough somewhat scarce), and ivory items.31 The contents from Vetulonia, Marsiliana, and Caer e, and will be looked at more closely for the examples they provide in work executed in luxur ious materials and for th e utilization of the new techniques of filigree and granulation. Two leech fibulae come from the tomb of the Lictor (dated 625 BC) at Vetulonia in northern Etruria (Figure A-23).32 At Marsiliana during the ye ars 675-650 BC there are a number of drago fibulae.33 Besides the leech and drago types, tw o new fibula forms appear during this period in Etruria, and they are th e comb and bolt types. An exampl e of the comb type appears at 28 Paolo Orsi, "Gli Scavi nella Necropoli fel Fusco a Si racusa nel Giugno, Novembre e Dicembre del 1893," Notizie degli Scavi di Antichita (1895). 29 Hencken neatly summarizes the results from Orsi's excavations in his article published in 1958. He includes the tomb number, the metal contents, their material, and the date if possible. This summarization is extremely helpful compared to trying to sift through the 100 some-odd pages in NSc 30 Caroline Winthur, "Princely Tombs of the Orientalizing Period in Etruria and Latium Vetus," Acta Hyperborea 7 (1997): esp. 434-441. 31 Ibid., 435-441 32 David Randall-MacIver, Villanovans and Early Etruscans (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1924), esp. 29 33 Ibid., 187-192

PAGE 86

86 Marsiliana.34 Like other types of fibulae, they were used to fasten garments on the shoulder, but they work in a different manner from the usual pin and catch-plate method of all of the other types from the Italic sequence. These types were first de scribed in the early 20th century in an Italian journal and then later in the century by Strom. Th ese accounts explain how both of these fibulae are fastened to garments, but is very difficult to understand. Strom focuses more on the plastic decoration on comb and bolt examples, but less on how they might have been worn. The presence of more than one comb and bolt fibula in the specific tombs in Et ruria implies that that they must have been intended as jewelry for tomb deposition rather than practical use sin ce it would have been extremely awkward to wear all of th em at the same time while alive.35 The presence of the comb and bolt fibulae from Marsiliana and Praeneste (a s one is known from the Bernardini tomb) serve to reflect the surge of wealth that Etruria is experiencing during the 7th century. The finds from the Regolini Galassi tomb (dated 650-625 BC) at Caere augment those from Vetulonia and Marsiliana. Many items in luxur ious materials have been unearthed from this tomb, including a pectoral, bracelets, an extraord inary large foliated fibula (Figure A24), and a number of leech fibulae.36 The inventory of this tomb is extensive, but other items are known including domestic utensils such as cups and a bed as noted by Randall-MacIver. The Bernardini tomb (dated 675 BC) and th e Barberini tomb (dated 650 BC), both from Praeneste, serve to demonstrate further the use of luxurious materials and new techniques. A drago fibula and a comb fibula have been found in the Bernar dini tomb (Figure A-25) and 34 Ingrid Strom, Problems esp. 140-72. 35 Ingrid Strom, Problems esp. 101. 36 David Randall-MacIver, Villanovans esp. 195-208.

PAGE 87

87 (Figure A-26).37 In addition to these pieces, a plaque, a serpentine fibula, bowls, and a dagger and sheath are also included on the extensiv e list of objects discovered in this tomb.38A few comb clasps come from the Barberini tomb as we ll as three serpentine fibulae, cups, figurines, and masks.39 Materials Ninth and Eighth Centuries in Sic ily, Southern Italy, and Campania Even though the 9th century traditionally marks the ri se of the Early Iron Age, bronze working was still in existence for jewelry and other items. This is true of certain sites on Sicily, and in southern and central Italy. For example, t ypes of fibulae from the native sites of Pantalica, Dessueri, Carcarella, and Cassible on Sicily are of bronze.40 Although scholars agree that there are early objects in iron from Sicily,41 it is not until the period from about 730-650 BC that iron starts to figure prominently in the production of fibulae.42 Iron examples of the simple arch, serpentin e, and spectacle fibula types were slowly being introduced in southern It aly in the regions of Apulia, Ba silicata, and Calabria during the 9th-8th centuries B.C.43 De la Geniere notices that the serp entine type occurs alongside bronze and iron weapons, such as spearheads and razors. 37 Ibid,, esp. 217 38 Ibid., esp. 262 39 Ibid., esp. 267 40 Robert Leighton, Sicily esp. 200 41 MacNamara and Sestieri both cite the early finds from Sicily, which include the Sicilian elbow fibula in bronze since iron examples do not come about until the middle of the eighth century. 42 Maurizio Gualtieri, "Iron in Calabria" (PhD diss.), esp. 217. 43 Juliette de La Geniere, "The Iron Age in Southern Italy," esp. 78-85

PAGE 88

88 The spectacle fibula is found more frequently in bronze than in ir on at Torre Mordillo, although the studs in a bronze fibul a, which hold the arms of the fibula together, may be in iron.44 Whereas the spectacle form occurs largely in br onze at this site, the Sicilian elbow fibula is mostly present in iron, and Gualtieri notes that this holds true for other sites in Calabria besides Torre Mordillo.45 The serpentine fibula may be in bronze or iron and specimens of both materials may occur in the same tomb as observed by Gu altieri. The associa tion of bronze and iron serpentine forms in the same tomb suggests that the appeal of bronze di d not wane during this period, even in the presence of iron.46 At Francavilla Marittima, the four-spiral sp ectacle fibula that has a lozenge shaped plaque in the center appears mo stly in bronze, although the rivets and the bow may be in iron.47 This type dates no later than the first half of the ei ghth century here.48 The Sicilian elbow type is usually in iron.49 Bronze is the chief material of the arch fibula, and at this site the majority of examples have the long channel foot. Bone and amber segments may rest on the bow.50 The arch fibula at Torre Galli occurs chiefly in bron ze, and many examples display the symmetrical channel foot.51 44 Maurizio Gualtieri, "Iron in Calabria" (PhD diss.), esp. 39. 45 Ibid., 40 46 Ibid., 46 47 Ibid., esp. 148-149 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid., esp. 151 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid., 189

PAGE 89

89 Iron leech forms appear at Capua during the eighth century.52 The simple arch fibula, the serpentine, the knobbed serpentine, the simple leech, the knobbed leech, the Italic composite leech fibula, and the four-spiral spectacle types have been discovered in bronze at Pontecagnano.53 The only form found regularly in ir on at Pontecagnano is the serpentine.54 At Sala Consilina, the arch, serpentine, knobbed serpentine, leech, knobbed leech, foliated, drago, and four-spiral spectacle types of fibulae all come in bronze.55 However, as seen in the previous sites, the Sicilian elbow type continues to remain popular in iron at Sala Consilina as well,56 and objects in amber and gold exist but not in the same number as bronze and iron objects.57 Etruria and Latium in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries The serpentine for m at Veii may be in bronze or iron.58 Hartmann recognizes that fibulae are common iron objects during th e period 900-760 BC, mostly of the serpentine form, but that far more examples of bronze than iron serpentine fibulae have been unearthed.59 Interestingly, the number of both iron and bronze fibulae decr eases between 760-720 BC, but their ratio does not change significantly during these years.60 52 Mary Moser, "The "Southern Villano van" Culture" (PhD diss.), esp. 94 53 Ibid., esp. 151-242 54 Ibid., esp. 475 55 Ibid., esp. 279-408 56 Ibid., esp. 279-307. 57 Ibid., esp. 391 58 Nicholas Hartmann, "Iron-Working in Southern Etruria in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries BC" (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philade lphia, PA, 1982), esp. 18-24. 59 Ibid., esp. 55 60 Ibid.

PAGE 90

90 The disc catch-plate and other decorative el ements such as crystal knobs and gold tubes eventually materialize at Tarquinia.61 Similarly to Veii, the serpentine fibula is far more numerous in the earliest pha se at Tarquinia than othe r classes of objects in iron,62 and bronze examples of the serpentine type are far mo re common than the iron ones. Hartmann also observes that in the later phase s at Tarquinia, fibulae are less common than other classes of objects, although the ratio be tween iron and bronze types remains roughly the same. In addition to iron, by the middle of the 8th century at Veii and by the end of the 8th century at Tarquinia, tombs c ontain precious and exotic mate rials, such as gold, amber, faience, and glass.63 The social aspects of iron production during this time and its association with these new materials and the wealthy Etruscan class will be further explored in the final chapter. The Greek Colonies in the Ei ghth and Seventh Centuries At Syracuse, the serpentine, knobbed serp entine, leech, knobbed leech, and Greek composite leech types date to the 7th century.64 Many of them are in bronze, while iron is preferred for the Greek composite leech type,65 as noted by Shepherd.66 While bronze and iron are still in use at Syracuse by the 7th century, amber and ivory appear at this site, which has been observed by Orsi, Hencken, and Sh epherd. The materials of the fibulae at Pithekoussai and 61 Ibid., esp. 69 62 Ibid., esp. 76 63 Ibid., esp. 163-164 64 Hencken opens his article by stating the age of the objects recovered from the tombs at Syracuse. 65 Hugh Hencken, "Syracuse," esp. 259-265. 66 Gillian Shepherd, "Fibulae and Females," esp. 278

PAGE 91

91 Cumae include bronze, iron, amber, and ivory, as at Syracuse, but silver appeared on Ischia and Cumae before it was seen at Syracuse.67 Etruria in the Seventh Century The leech fibula from Vetulonia is gold,68 and the examples of drago fibulae from Marsiliana are gold, silver, or silver and gold-plated.69 The comb and bolt types from Marsiliana chiefly occur in silver and gold.70 Many objects from the Regolini Galassi tomb are gold and silver such as the extraordinary foliated fibula. The drago, comb, and serpentine fibulae from the Bernardini tomb are in gold.71 There are also bowls of silver and an iron dagger in a silver sheath from the same tomb as noted by MacIver. The comb clasps from the Barberini tomb are gold. Gold serpentine fibulae, and objects in ivory such as cups, figurines, and masks were discovered from the Barberini tomb as well.72 Processes and Techniques of Production Ninth and Eighth centuries : Early Iron Age fibulae m ay be made in a variety of ways, which include the piece-mold, lost-wax met hod, cold working, and annealing processes.73 Cold working is simply the process of continual ha mmering of the bronze in order to obtain the desired shape, whereas annealing involves heating the metal to a very high temperature, which when cooled results in a metal that is easier to work with compared to that used in cold-working alone. 67 Lyons, Claire, The Archaic Cemeteries esp. 97 68 David Randall-MacIver, Villanovans esp. 29 69 Ibid., esp. 187-192 70 Caroline Winthur, "Princely Tombs," esp. 435 71 David Randall-MacIver, Villanovans esp. 217. 72 Ibid., esp. 267 73 Judith Toms, "The Arch Fibula," esp. 96

PAGE 92

92 The techniques of cold-working and annealing are used together, and the combination has proved successful for the fashioning of catch-plates, pins, and springs.74 The hammer marks on the underside of the bow of the ex amples of arch fibulae suggest th at this method was also used at least for that part of the fibula.75 The leech and boat forms may have used the piece-mould or lost-wax casting methods.76 Piece-mold casting involves producing a core for the fibula and piercing it with a pin, which was to be inserted into prepared slits in each part of the fibula.77 Once these preparations have been made, the fi bula is cast. A small support structure is built around a wax mould of the fibula to be produced.78 The wax is heated and allowed to melt away, leaving a hollow mould in which the fibula is cast. The support structure is broken open to reveal the new fibula. Toms offers these casting techniques as possibi lities because of the evidence revealed in miscast fibulae from Pithekoussai and Bologna. Apparently the piece-mould method was more economical than the lost wax method since their moulds could have been used to make a whole series of fibulae.79 In contrast, the lost wax method was seemingly employed to create a unique product, and the maker might also use the lost wax process for the creation of plastic decoration.80 As an alternative to plastic decoration, in cised decoration may have been made using a punta a stilo, a device for pushing or pulling across the metal in such a way as to render an 74 Ibid., esp. 97 75 Ibid., esp. 97-99 76 Ibid., esp. 99-101 77 Ibid., esp. 99 78 Ibid., esp. 100 79 Ibid., esp. 99-101 80 Ibid., esp. 101

PAGE 93

93 indention.81 Another way to decorate the surface is by manipulating the wide edge of a chisellike tool, ther eby creating a temolo line or ziz-zag motif.82 Richard and Sadow note that the zigzag and meander are associated with the Geom etric Period in Greece, and these motifs may be seen on various examples of Early Iron Age fibulae from Italy. The majority of these early eighth century types of fibulae in Italy display the type of geometric design that is most likely the result of the repertoire of the time. Eighth-century decorative processes give way to the techniques of filigree and granulation during the 7th century. Filigree manipulates metal wires form ed from sheet metal in various ways to produce ornament on jewelry.83 Granulation uses granules of metal for ornamentation.84 Iconography The charac teristic motifs on the violin, simple arch, serpentine, Si cilian elbow, and leech fibulae of the eighth and ninth centu ries in Sicily, southern Ital y, and central Italy consist of incised geometric patterns utilizing triangular, circular, and linear shapes. These geometric motifs can be seen on fibulae from such Italic sites as Veii, Pontecagnano, Tarquinia, and Sala Consilina. They also occur at native Sicilian sites such as Pantalica, Dessueri, Cassible, and Monte Finocchito. The Greek colonies of Pithekoussai and Cumae have yielded examples of Italic fibulae with geom etric designs as well. Geometric decoration combines with animal imagery during the 7th century on a leech fibula from the tomb of the Lictor in Vetulonia as seen in figure 60.85 The animals are rendered 81 Ibid., esp. 104 82 Ibid., esp. 104-105. 83 Ivette Richard and Richard Sa dow, "Etruria," esp. 197-204. 84 Ibid. 85 David Randall-MacIver, Villanovans esp. 29.

PAGE 94

94 in the granulated pulviscolo or silhouette style.86 On this fibula, the silhouette style articulates the shape of a sphinx in outline form, which results in an overall shape that is linear and unnatural.87 The tombs of Le Migliarine, which are also located in Vetulonia, c ontain an example of a gold leech fibula in which the figure of a sphinx is worked in repousse at the top.88 In some cases, the bow of the fibula may be in the form of a feline, such as a lion or sphinx.89 Also from this tomb a gold bracelet is decorated with alternating bands of filigree and plain areas terminating in a series of three human masks rendered in repousse .90 The drago fibulae from Marsiliana displa y unique designs ex ecuted in filigree, granulation, and pl astic decoration.91 The plastic decoration may be geometric in nature or figural, there being examples with spherical ba lls along the curved leng th of the bow of the fibula and others with a row of ducks. The duck is one of the key animal motifs appearing at the beginning of the Orientalizing period ca. 675 BC, but it becomes less eviden t toward the end of the period, as reflected in the examples below.92 The duck is believed to have functioned as a friendly escort to the afterlife.93 The function of this motif seems to be in opposition to the apotropaic function associ ated with icons such as sphinxes, chimerae, griffins, and lions as noted by Skalsky. 86 Llewellyn Brown, The Etruscan Lion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960), esp. 44 87 Ibid. 88 David Randall-MacIver, Villanovans esp. 151 89 Llewellyn Brown, The Etruscan Lion esp. 44 90 Repousse is defined as metalwork decoration in relief, achieved by beating the metal from behind. 91 David Randall-MacIver, Villanovans esp. 187-192 92 Randall L. Skalsky, "The Waterfowl of Etruria: A Study of Duck, Goose, and Swan Iconography" (PhD diss., Florida State University, Talla hassee, FL, 1997), esp. 89. 93 Ibid., esp. 124

PAGE 95

95 Animals used for apotropaic purposes were in use towards the end of the Orientalizing period.94 Three-dimensional figures of creatures such as ducks, lions and seated sphinxes appear not only on fibulae but also on other objects in the tombs at Marsiliana.95 The Regolini-Galassi foliated disc fibula, which meas ures approximately 12in. x 12in., deserves specia l attention not only because of its size but also because of its decoration. The decoration incorporates and mixes filigree, granulation, and plastic figural decoration over all of th e surfaces of the fibula. Five lions executed in repousse walk in different directions. Inte rtwining crescents are worked in granulation on the disc. The lions on this fibula, in particular, seemingly correspond to a typical Etruscan lion by virtue of their stur dy, compact, and almost square bodies.96 These characteristics are applied to depictions of li ons from other locales in southe rn Etruria, and the style is distinguishable from the silhoue tte style of northern Etruria.97 The two central bars, which are decorated in a zig-zag motif, are connected to the final portion of the fibula, which is decorated with rows of birds in the round. Rows of animal figures in repouse with details in granulation alternate with the rows of birds. From the Bernardini tomb, two lions standing back-to-back occupy the center of the bar of the comb fibula, with three flying birds on e ither side of them as seen in figures 62-63. A walking lion closes the scene on both ends and a band of filigree borders the entire composition. Each half of the comb clasp from the Barberin i tomb is made from two plates, which rest upon three curving tubes that terminat e in flower buds. Twelve sphinxe s in the round rest on top of these tubes, although the same animal motif is rendered in the space in between the tubes, 94 Ibid., esp. 89 95 Ingrid Strom, Problems esp. 104. 96 Llewellyn Brown, The Etruscan Lion esp. 4 97 Ibid., esp. 41-43

PAGE 96

96 essentially creating twenty-four sphinxes in all. A few comb cl asps come from the Barberini tomb and some of them use plas tic figural decoration in the form of panther-heads and birds, filigree and granulation.98 In summary, this chronological survey seek s to illustrate the dramatic changes in material, techniques and decoration and/or ic onography from the Early Iron Age down to the 7th century. Types such as the spectacle, arch, and serpentine fibulae are often associated with bronze and iron and simple geometric design. By contrast, luxurious ma terials such as gold, silver, and ivory may now be associated with the sophisticated techniques of filigree, granulation, and figural decoration in relief. One thus notes a gradual change in the production of fibulae regarding materials, techniques, and iconography. The change encompa sses the introduction of new and luxurious materials and techniques into cen tral Italy during the late eighth and seventh centuries. The next chapter will question why this change in the ma nufacture of fibulae came about, especially in central Italy and southern Italy in the region of Campania. The e ffects of foreign influences on Italy will be examined as well the possible place s of manufacture of the elaborate fibulae that have been recovered from the wealthy tombs in the central and southe rn regions of Italy. 98 David Randall-MacIver, Villanovans esp. 267.

PAGE 97

97 Figure 5-1. Indigenous s ites in southern Italy

PAGE 98

98 Figure 5-2. Indigenous sites in Campania

PAGE 99

99 Figure 5-3. Etruscan sites

PAGE 100

100 CHAPTER 6 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FIBULAE FOR CULTURAL INTERACTIONS This chapter will explore Italic fibulae in relation to internal and external interactions. One issue in the development of fibulae is th e question of intermarriage between the Italic peoples and the Greek settlers at such sites as Pithekoussai and possibly Cumae. Syracuse, Megara Hyblaea, and Gela do not display signs th at indicate the occurrence of intermarriage. Interrmarriage has been postulated at Pithekoussa i since this site has produced such a large number of Italic fibulae. Cumae is similar to Pithekoussai in that it has also yielded an assortment of Italic fibulae, but Cumae was founded after Pithekoussai, and thus the population there might not be first generation Greek colonists. This situation might l ead to a conclusion other than intermarriage for the appearance of Italic fibulae at the site. Sy racuse, Megara Hyblaea, and Gela are different from Pithekoussai and Cumae because they do no t exhibit as many Italic fibulae as the two colonies from the region of Campania. The Italic fibulae at these three Sicilian colonies may thus require a different explanation. Fibulae discover ed at Pithekoussai and Cumae will be examined first, since these two sites have yielded the most Italic fibulae. Pithekoussai At Ischia, 524 fibulae com e from 192 graves out of the 592 graves that were excavated by Buchner in the valley of San Montano.1 As stated in chapters four and five, these fibulae include the simple arch, the serpentine, the knobb ed serpentine, the Ital ic composite leech, the Greek composite leech, the knobbed leech, and the dr ago types. The Greek composite leech type would have been the only type worn by the peopl es of Pithekoussai that was in fact a Greek product, although derived from the Italic repertoire. 1 Gillian Shepherd, "Fibulae and Females," esp. 296

PAGE 101

101 Half of the 192 graves containing fibulae are those of children.2 Some of these child graves contain a large number of fibulae, su ch as tomb 652, of a baby. This tomb had been discovered containing 22 fibulae of Italic type.3 The 22 fibulae from tomb 652 could never have been worn by the baby of this grave. Rather, in this case and in similar cases, these fibulae functioned as a lavish assortment of grave goods perhaps in remembrance of a short life.4 The Greek pin is not documented from any of the graves thus far excavated on Ischia. When not found with children, the fibulae as we ll as other items of jewelry were mostly associated with women.5 The fibulae were found at the shoulde rs of the women, suggesting that this was how they were used in life, which was to fasten the garment. Shepherd also notes how fibulae were sometimes found in high numbers similarly to child burials.6 The serpentine fibula is the only type that has been found to be associated with men.7 Buchner first proposed the theory of intermarriage because of the large amount of Italic fibulae present in the tombs on this island and because they were associated with women.8 He as well as other members of the archaeological community believes that it must have been the 2 Ibid., esp. 295 3 Shepherd does not specify whether the fibulae found in tomb 652 are all Italic or a mixture of Greek or Italic, but her comments on pp. 274-275 would incline one to believe that they were all of Italic type. On these pages, she notes how the metalwork from Greek grav es on Ischia is exactly similar to metal items from contemporary tombs in Etruria. On p. 283, she specifies how the fibulae at Pithekoussai were not as yet matched by anything in Euboea. 4 Gillian Shepherd, "Fibulae and Females," esp. 295 5 Ibid., esp. 276 6 Ibid. 7 The association of the serpentine type with men has been widely acknowledged by the archaeological community for sometime. de la Geniere first documented it in her review of the sites of southern Italy. Other scholars such as Moser and Gualtieri noted the same association in their diss ertations. Buchner later made mention of this type being associated with men at Ischia too. 8 Giorgio Buchner, "Early Orientalizing: Aspects of the Euboean Connection," in Italy before the Romans ed. Ridgway, David and Francesca Ridgway (New York: Academic Press, 1979), esp, 135.

PAGE 102

102 (Italic) women who introduced thes e types to the Greeks since they were found mostly with them and with children rather than with men. However, one should not be quick to discount the fact that half of the fibula found on Ischia has come from the graves of children. If the Italic fibula is an inde x of intermarriage, then actual occurrence of intermarriage may not have been as commonplace as Buchner believed. He seems to have placed all the emphasis on the appear ance of the Italic fibula in the graves of women to uphold his theory of intermarriage, when, in reality, the evidence speaks to a situation in which children were distinguis hed archaeologically just as much as the women were on Ischia. The evidence seems to indicate that interm arriage probably did exist on Pithekoussai at some scale because the total number of Italic fibulae, which is 524 in all, found in women and child graves together would be di fficult to explain as a result of trade alone. The presence of the Italic fibulae in the graves of wo men is a reflection of what they used in everyday life to fasten their garments with, while they used them in a different manner when one of their young died at an early age. In this case, they would have been used to honor a short life as noted by Shepherd. The children of mixed parentage may have been honored with Italic or naments and not Greek ones, which gives more weight to the theory of intermarriage. The serpentine type is the only type exclusively associated with men on Ischia, wh ich is an influence of the Italic culture since the serpentine type was regularly found in Italic graves of men. Cumae The rela tionship between the Greek settlers and the native peoples at Cumae is more difficult to understand than that of Pithekoussai because the early excavation reports were not as systematic and detailed as those of Pithekoussa i, as noted by Shepherd. Regardless, the catalogue by Gabrici at least helps to mitigate the lack of information by providing visual images of some of the types of fibulae discovered at this mainland Greek colony. These types are closely

PAGE 103

103 paralleled at Pithekoussai. One tomb in par ticular, the Fondo Artiaco, had been meticulously excavated and has received much attention in th e past because of the elaborate nature of its contents. This tomb dates roughly 710 BC and th e objects recovered from it include weapons and metal vases, horse bits, and possibl y the remains of a wheeled vehicle.9 Strom notes that this warriors equipment as well as his jewelr y is purely Etruscan. Th e jewelry includes an electrum (amber) bracelet and necklace, and a gold pendant. This tomb also contains five electrum fibulae, all of them being the knobbed se rpentine type, two bronze simple arch fibulae, and one bolt fibula and two comb fibulae.10 All of the nearly 52 metal ornaments discovered from this tomb are also Italic, as noted by Strom and acknowledged by Buchner and many other archaeologists. Strom noted how these fibulae ar e from the Italic (Etruscan) tradition. She postulated that this must have been the tomb of an Etruscan based on its contents and therefore their presence in this tomb is indicative of Etruscan trade. Buchner disagrees with Strom. He believes that the Fondo Artiaco tomb belonged to a member of the first generation of Euboean gent ry because the excavations at Pithekoussai and other graves at Cumae have yielded the same t ypes of fibulae dating to the second half of the eighth century, with the exception of the comb and bolt types.11 Buchner observes that if her idea was correct, all of the graves at Pithekoussai a nd Cumae containing Italic fibulae must also be those of Etruscans. Since we know this not to be the case, the only difference between the contents of this tomb and those of Pithekoussai and Cumae is the rich character of objects found 9 Jan Crielaard, "How the West Was Won," in Die Akten Internationalen Kolloquiums Interactions in the Iron Age: Phoenicians, Greeks, and the Indigen ous Peoples of the Western Mediterranean" ed. NIemeyer, N.G (Mainz: P. von Zabern, 1996), esp. 238. 10 Ingrid Strom, Problems esp. 147. 11 Giorgio Buchner, "Early Orientalizing," esp. 133

PAGE 104

104 in it.12 The fibulae from Cumae might be able to be explained in terms of intermarriage as at Pithekoussai, if the Greeks w ho first founded the colony were fi rst generation colonists from Euboea as noted by Crielaard. In this way, they w ould have migrated to It aly and married Italic women similarly to the events at Pitheloussai. If this is the case, then it would have been the Euboean aristocrats who formed the first colonizi ng expedition to Cumae because of the similar high status funerary ritu al in Eretria and Cumae.13 According to Crielaards theory of the f oundation of Cumae, the first generation of aristocrats would have been spurred to sail off to Italy due to the emergence of the polis and the increasing competition among the members of the elite society.14 In addition to the competition between themselves, the aristocrats may have also been prompted to travel to and settle in Italy because of the trade contacts that they would be offered by the native peoples and they may also have been seeking larger plots of land compared to what they owned in Greece.15 Although the graves of Cumae strongly suggest that it was the first generation colonists who were responsible for its foundation, Coldstream has advanced a different theory on the foundation of Cumae. This second theory relates to the Fondo Ar tiaco tomb. Coldstream believes it is the tomb of a pe rson of mixed parentage.16 His views this tomb and the other six wealthy cremation burials at Cumae as representing the peoples of mixed parentage who migrated from Pithekoussai to Cumae. If he is correct in his thinking, then the wealthy contents of these tombs 12 Ibid. 13 Jan Crielaard, "How the West Was Won," esp. 238 14 Ibid., esp. 240-241. 15 Ibid. 16 J.N Coldstream, "Mixed Marriages," esp. 95-96

PAGE 105

105 (including fibulae) and those of the other tombs from Cumae that are not as rich would not be viewed as a reflection of intermarriage. Whether or not intermarriage existed at Cum ae, the question of where the Italic fibulae from Pithekoussai and Cumae might have been produced will be examined shortly when discussing the second major theme of this paper, which relates to the change in the production of fibulae in terms of materials, techniques, and iconography. Syracuse In com parison to Pithekoussai and Cumae, th e Greek colony of Syracuse has furnished a much smaller number of Ita lic fibulae dating to the 8th and 7th centuries BC. At Syracuse only eighty fibulae come from roughly 350 tombs.17 The majority of these examples are the serpentine fibula (with small knobs on the side of the bow) a nd the leech fibula. It is worth noting that although both Pithekoussai and Syracuse display si milar ornaments, they appear to have been used differently at each site. The types from Pithekoussai were mostly found singly in graves of adult women although a considerable quantity came from female infant graves. When found with adult women at Pithekoussai, they had the ut ilitarian function of fastening a garment. Italic fibulae18 from Syracuse were primarily asso ciated with children and several may have occurred in one grave along with the Greek pin.19 The use of the fibula in child burials at Syracuse was not functioning in a ssociation with a garment. As at Pithekoussai, Italic fibulae could have been reserved to honor a pre-mature departure from earth or they could represent a 17 Gillian Shepherd, "Fibulae and Females," esp. 277 18 All of the fibulae found at Syracuse must have been It alic or in the case of the Gr eek composite leech type and adaptation of an Italic type. Like the disassociation of fibula types between Pithekou ssai and Euboea, Syracuse did not yield any types that were contemporary at Corinth, which Shepherd states on p. 283. 19 Gillian Shepherd, "Fibulae and Females," esp. 286-87

PAGE 106

106 lavish assortment of grave goods wh en found in the grave of a child.20 This is reflected most clearly in the example of tomb 428 in the Fusco cemetery since this grave contained a total of 26 fibulae of various types21 and four Greek pins.22 This tomb alone provided one third of the total eighty fibulae that were disc overed at the Fusco necropolis as observed by Shepherd. The Italic fibula rarely was found in adult gr aves, and when it did occur, it was usually accompanied by the Greek pin.23 Tombs 129 and 412 appear to pr ovide the best examples of graves containing only Italic type s or the one type derived from the Italic tradition, the Greek composite leech bow.24 For example, tomb 129 contained six si mple leech fibulae and four silver rings while tomb 412 contained one simple leech and one Greek composite leech bow fibula. On the other hand, tomb 276 is a good example of what actually seems to have been fairly common at Syracuse, which was the mixing of Italic fibul ae or the Greek composite leech type with the Greek pin in the same tomb. Tomb 27625 had two iron Greek pins and two Greek composite leech fibulae. Shepherd notes how the Greek pin was just as popular at Syracuse as the fibulae, and even more so as the 6th century progressed.26 What the evidence seems to indicate, then, is that fibulae at Syracuse because of their strong association with children do not reflect in termarriage. Child burials seem to be more abundant in metalwork, especially fibulae, than adult burials at this Si cilian colony. Shepherd 20 Ibid., esp. 287 21 Shepherd does not state the exact types of Italic fibulae th at were present in tomb 428, but if cross-referenced with Hencken's catalogue, then they include the Italic leech and knobbed leech type s and also the Greek composite leech type. 22 Gillian Shepherd, "Fibulae and Females," esp. 286 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid., esp. 286 25 Ibid., esp. 286 26 Ibid., esp. 287

PAGE 107

107 states that the disposal of many items, fibulae an d otherwise, in child graves conforms to the practices of burying children in Greece.27 The concentration of fibulae in child graves is viewed as a result of trade. The concen tration of these fibulae in child graves suggests that they functioned as grave offerings and were not strictly functional as items of clothing. This situation differs from Pithekoussai where they were found with women and would have been worn by them in life. The Greek sites of Megara Hyblaea and Gela on Sicily exhibit similar circumstances to those of Syracuse regarding the use of the fibul a. At Megara Hyblaea, pins were more common than Italic fibulae as noted by Shepherd. When fibulae did occur, they were found in wealthy graves of children.28 Greek pins were even more common at Gela than Megara Hyblaea, while the deposition of Italic fibulae was very rare.29 When fibulae did occur at Gela, they were associated with wealthy child burials si milarly to Megara Hyblaea and Syracuse.30 The evidence from Ischia and Sicily serves to demonstrate the fusi on of Greek and Italic culture. The large amount of nativ e fibulae present in the graves of adult women and children on Ischia and the association of native fibula types with children at Syracuse highlights the interactions of the Italic and Greek cultures in these two regions of Ital y. These interactions are seen as early as the 8th century at Ischia and cont inue into down into the 7th century in Sicily. The finds from the cemeteries of the Greek colonies has been examined in order to understand the relationship that the Greek settlers at each colony maintained with the native peoples. The finds from Sicily demonstrate that the fibulae found there are likely better 27 Shepherd notes how sometimes the buri als of children in Greece are often richer than those of a dults on p. 287. 28 Gillian Shepherd, "Fibulae and Females," esp. 293 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid.

PAGE 108

108 explained as a result of trade.31 The relationship of Syracuse, Megara Hyblaea, and Gela with each other is most clearly reflect ed in the burial rituals of these three Greek colonies and the appearance of the Greek composite leech fibula in the Greek sanctuaries, especially Olympia. At Syracuse, the normal burial practices were rock-cut fossa tombs for the low to middle class members of the society, while monolithic sarcophagia were reserved for members of the upper class.32 At Megara Hyblaea, the monolithic sarc ophagus was used by the average member of society while the hypogeic cella was reserved for the upper class. The hypogeic cella was a spacious tomb built of large cut stone blocks.33 The adoption and use of the monolithic sarcophagus at Megara Hyblaea for the average person devalues its use for the upper class at Syracuse as noted by Shepherd. This is viewed as peer competition to see who can outshine the other. At Gela the monolithic sarcophagus was also used, but then the baule, or terracotta sarcophagus, was introduced, which created a tier ed burial system similar to Syracuse and Megara Hyblaea.34 Shepherd notes how the Geloans used the monolithic sarcophagus on a scale comparable to or even greater than Syr acuse, thereby competing with her neighbor. The competition that is being observed between Syracuse, Megara Hyblaea, and Gela in terms of burial practices and self-assertion of th e colonies is seen back in Greece at the PanHellenic sanctuaries. The appearance of Italic goods including the Gree k composite leech fibula at the Pan-Hellenic sanctuaries in Greece such as Olympia instead of the mo ther city sanctuaries was just another form of competition. Shephe rd sums up the motivations behind the rich dedications in Greek Pan-Hellenic sanctuaries by stating how this wa s just another form of self 31 Tamar Hodos, "Intermarriage," esp. 73 32 Gillian Shepherd, "Burial and Religion," esp. 58 33 Ibid., esp. 56-58. 34 Ibid., esp. 60-63.

PAGE 109

109 assertion and self-advertisement for the colo ny compared to the dedications of her peers.35 When viewed from this angle, the appearan ce of Greek composite leech fibulae in Greece reaffirms how the Greeks modified the Italic co mposite leech fibulae and transported them back to Greece for the important reason of promoting th e independence and status of the colony. This is in reversal of the long held idea until recen tly of the thought that the Greek composite leech type was a Greek invention. Change in Production The second half of this chapter will f ocus on the second major theme of this paper, which is the change in the production of fibulae, which st arts in the last quarter of the eighth century. At the end of the 8th century and throughout the 7th century BC, significant changes start to take place in the production of fibula. This change is especially noticeable in Pithekoussai, Cumae, and Etruria where the new material s of gold and silver have been detected for fashioning fibulae. The next logical question is why did this change take place? There is no doubt that the jewelry from these tombs reflects eastern influence and Strom considers them to be direct imports from the Near East, either through trad e or resulting from the presence of immigrant eastern craftsmen in Etruria.36 Knowing that Ischia had an active industry in working metal and that Greeks were familiar with working metal, Buchner hypothesized that the Euboeans might have been attracted to the island for metals and may have b een exporting these luxury items to Etruria.37 He supports his conclusion by noting the familiarity the Greeks had in working gold as well as their knowledge of eastern motifs. Other scholars such as Guzzo prefer to see the luxury gold items as 35 Ibid., esp. 75. 36 Ingrid Strom, Problems esp. 205, 212, & 216. 37 Giorgio Buchner, "Early Orientalizing," esp. 137-138.

PAGE 110

110 products of workshops in central Italy,38 but Buchner highly doubts th is hypothesis. He does not see where local craftsmen would have acquired th e technical expertise or knowledge of foreign motifs to produce ornaments like these. Gold is not native to Italy and the arrival of the mature techniques of filigree and granulation in the 7th century on fibulae from Et ruria is very unlikely.39 Since gold is not native to Ital y, it may have been imported to Pithekoussai from the Iberian coast via Phoenician merchants, the other fo reign element in Italy during the period of colonization.40 Markoe affirms that the Greeks were not the only peoples voyaging to Italy and Sicily during the period of colonization.41 He notes the strong Phoenician interest in silver in central Italy, specifically the metal rich area of the Co lline Metallifere during the last quarter of the eighth through the first half of the seventh century. The Colline Metallifere area is located opposite the island of Elba in northern Etruria.42 The appearance of certain fibulae in silver such as comb, bolt, leech, and drago types could reflect Phoenician influen ce in Italy. Or the appearance of these types in silver could simply reflect the knowledge that the Etruscans had with mining silver as noted by Markoe.43 If not produced by the Phoenicians or the Etruscans in central Italy, then si lver fibulae could have been made at Pithekoussai as silver was one of the materials being imported onto the island. 38 Ibid., esp. 140 39 Ivette Richard and Richard Sadow, "Etruria," in Gold Jewekry: Craft, Style, and Meaning from Mycenae to Constantinopolis ed. Hackens, T (Louvain-la-Neuve: College Erasme, 1983), esp. 92-93. 40 Ibid esp. 88 41 Glenn Markoe, "In Pursuit of Metal: Phoenicians and Greeks in Italy," in Greece between East and West: 10th 8th Centuries BC ed. Kopcke, G. and Isabelle Tokumaru (Mainz: P. von Zabern, 1990), esp. 67-84. 42 Ibid., esp. 71-72 43 Ibid., esp. 73

PAGE 111

111 Silver would have been imported onto Ischia fr om the Colline Metallifere or possibly from the Iberian coast along with gold, both of which would have been the work of the Phoenicians.44 Whether it is the Greeks on Pithekoussai or th e Phoenicians in central Italy, or both, who are responsible for the change in materials of fibula production, the question of interest is why is an accumulation of wealth associated exclusively w ith the central and southern regions of Italy? The answer to this question goes back to the middle or second half of the 8th century in Etruria, particularly at Veii and Tarqui nia. In addition to iron implements and personal objects and ornaments, the tomb contents include precious and exotic materials such as gold, amber, faience, and glass as noted by Hartmann. This phenomenon suggests iron was valued as a rare commodity beca use of the large investment of skilled labor to produce a single ar tifact, and thus would have been sought after by peoples who wished to emphasize their elevated social status.45 Hartmann associates these tombs with an elite group people such as a warrio r aristocracy due to the presence of other iron war-like items and because they are geogra phically clustered within central Italy.46 Just as in the case of silver, there seems to be a few different possibilities concerning where iron was obtained by the Italic peoples. Ha rtmann believes that the Greeks were voyaging to Italy not to buy iron, but to sell their iron.47 He states that it was neither Elba nor the Colline Metallifere that was being exploite d by the Greeks for iron, but that they were transporting their own iron from Greece to Pithekoussai to later be exported to Etruria, especially southern Etruria 44 Ivette Richard and Richard Sadow, "Etruria," esp. 88. 45 Nicholas Hartmann, "Iron-Working" esp. 163-164 46 Ibid., esp. 163 47 Ibid., esp. 179

PAGE 112

112 since this is the region that shows the most Greek contact.48 On the other hand, Markoe cites how the Greeks have always been interested in the resources of Italy, particul arly iron, and he implies that their commercial interest in this meta l was the reason why they traveled to Italy.49 The commercial benefits that the Greeks would have gained through access and exploitation of the Italic iron ore deposits would have been a strong factor for leaving Greece, but Crielaard has effectively demonstrated that this was probably not the only reason they left their home. The Euboean aristocrats were probably wanting to escape the competition that was building at home in Greece and saw Italy as way to achieve indepe ndence and to make a profit from the iron goods that they would have furnis hed to the Italic peoples.50 Curiously enough, the rise of th e Italic aristocracy and the subsequent deposition of these grave goods in the wealthy tombs of Etruria and Campania in the 8th century BC coincide with the arrival of the Greeks at Pithekoussai and later at Cumae. Crielaard stresses the similarities of high-status funerary ritual, wh ich consists of urn cremation stored in a metal vase with accompanying metal grave goods, between the first ge neration of tombs from Cumae such as the Fondo Artiaco tomb and the burials from Eretria in Greece.51 This information allows one to infer that members of the Greek aristocracy must have formed the colonizing party, and he goes one step further by addressing th e similarities of funerary r ituals and grave goods not just between Greek colonies and the motherland, but between Greek colonies and Italic sites. Pontecagnano, Calatia, Caere, and Vetul onia are included among the Italic sites.52 48 The contact with Greece is most cl early demonstrated through Veii wher e the largest number of Greek-made vessels and iron objects has been found. Ibid., esp. 174-175 49 Glenn Markoe, "In Purstui of Metal," esp. 80 50 Crielaards thoughts on the Euboean aristocracy were summarized in the previous chapter. 51 Jan P. Crielaard, "How the West Was Won," esp. 240-247 52 Ibid., esp. 246

PAGE 113

113 That the Italic sites welcomed goods from s outhern Etruria, the Aegean, Greek colonies, and the Eastern Mediterranean permits Crielarrd to judge that a cultur al homogeneity must have been in effect since th e Italic peoples came to espouse Greek customs. The phenomenon of class-identification that is transpiring between Greek and Etruscan elites is foreshadowed by a period in Greek history having communications with the eastern Mediterranean, specifically Cyprus.53 Crielaard essentially declares that member s of the Euboean aristocracy were actively participating in friendly relations with members of the same class from Cyprus through a system of gift-exchange. The distinguished heroon at Lefkandi and other wealthy bur ials from this site include luxury goods from the east such as small metal orna ments, vases, and faience beads. Imports of the same quality have been discovered on Cyprus as well, which implies that members of both cultures are identifying with each ot her in the sense that they share similar life-styles, as noted by Crielaard. The amicable and receptive rappor t that the Greeks experienced with the elite Cypriots in the east comes to the fore once ag ain in their dealings with the Italic nobles approximately a century later in Etruria. The rise of the native aristocratic ranks in the 8th century BC is thought to be a result of increasing social organization and the creation of individual settlements as opposed to the previous lack of formal settlement structures.54 In addition to the crea tion of these structures, elaborate tombs, extravagan t grave goods, and the cons truction of ritual space55 signaled the political and sociological change that was happening in Etruria dur ing this time. The existence of 53 Jan P. Crielaard, "The Social Organization of Euboean Trade with the Eastern Mediterranean during the 10th to 8th Centuries BC," Journal of the Netherlands Institute at Athens (1993): esp. 141-144. 54 Carrie Roth-Murray, "A Disclosure of Power: Elite Etruscan Iconography during the 8th-6th Centuries BC," Papers in Italian Archaeology (2005): esp. 186. 55 Ibid., esp. 186

PAGE 114

114 wealthy Etruscan tombs and their contents, speci fically the ceremonial axe and knives, was the result of deliberate efforts of the newly form ed upper echelons of society at emphasizing their authority. By making the functional object beautiful, Roth-Murray argues that they were able to command more respect and distinguish themselves more sharply from the classes beneath them. Conclusions From the study of the fibula, it is evident th at significant sociologi cal events and changes were taking place beginning in the 8th century at Pithekoussai and Cumae. Foremost among these events was the incidence of intermarriage betw een the Greek settlers and the Italic women, which resulted in the borrowing of ideas and tr aditions from one cultu re to the other. The discovery of certain types of fibulae from the Italic tradition in the San Mantono cemetery on Ischia proves that the Italic culture was influenc ing that of the Greeks. The examples of native Italic fibulae from graves at the Fusco cemeter y in Syracuse and the appearance of the Greek composite leech fibula at native site s in Italy serves to further reinforce the reciprocal exchange that was occurring between the Greek and Italic peoples. In order to understand the devel opment of the fibula from the 9th century through the 7th century BC in Italy, one must consider not only th e genesis of the Italic tradition, but also the way in which other geographical areas participated in its creation by mean s of their influence. These areas include pre-Greek Sicily, where one of the earliest serpentine forms is found and central and southern Europe, which is claimed to be the birth-place of spectacle types discovered on the Italian mainland and elsewhere in the pan-Mediterranean and Aegean countries. Viewing the Italic sequence as a small, but significant pi ece of a larger and olde r puzzle is helpful in comprehending the course of events that followed beginning in the 9th century BC between the eastern and western Mediterranean.

PAGE 115

115 APPENDIX A LIST OF FIGURES NOT SHOWN Im age not shown due to copyright Figure A-1. A stilted bow fibul a. Bietti Sestieri, Anna Ma ria. "The Metal Industry of Continental Italy, 13th to 11th Centuries BC and its connection with the Aegean." Proceedings of the Pre-Historic Society (1973): 403. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-2. A multiple knobbed arch bow fibula. Bietti Sestieri Anna Maria. "The Metal Industry of Continental Italy, 13th to 11th Centuries BC and its connection with the Aegean." Proceedings of the Pre-Historic Society (1973): 402. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-3. A spiral arch bow fi bula. Bietti Sestieri, Anna Maria. "The Metal Industry of Continental Italy, 13th to 11th Centuries BC and its connection with the Aegean." Proceedings of the Pre-Historic Society (1973): 402. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-4. A knobbed serpentine fibula. Numerous examples of this type appear throughout the catalogue. Steures, D.C. Monte Finocchito Revisited Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Press, 1980. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-5. A small knobbed leech bow fibula with an elongated catch-plate from Monte Finocchito in Sicily. Hodos, Tamar. "Intermarriage in the Western Greek Colonies." Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18 (1999): 70. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-6. Small knobbed leech bow fibulae with elongated catch-plates from Pithekoussai and Syracuse. Hodos, Tamar. "Intermarriage in the Western Greek Colonies." Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18 (1999): 70. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-7. Knobbed leech bow fibulae from Sy racuse, Monte Finocchito, and Pithekoussai. Hodos, Tamar. "Intermarriage in the Western Greek Colonies." Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18 (1999): 70.

PAGE 116

116 Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-8. A composite leech bow fibula. Toms, Judith. "The Arch Fibula in Early Iron Age Italy." In Ancient Italy in its Mediterranean Setting: Studi es in Honor of Ellen MacNamara, ed. MacNamara, E. and David Ridgway, 91-113. London: Accordia Research Institute, 2000. 93. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-9. A bolt fibula from the Bernardini tomb. Strom, Ingrid. Problems Concerning the Origin and Development of the Etruscan Orientalizing Style Odense: Odense University Press, 1971. figure 69. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-10. A comb fibula: pr ovenance unknown. Strom, Ingrid. Problems Concerning the Origin and Development of the Etruscan Orientalizing Style Odense: Odense University Press, 1971. figure 71. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-11. Leech fibulae with short catch-pl ates from Vrokastro. Hencken, Hugh. "Syracuse, Etruria, and the North: Some Comparisons." American Journal of Archaeology 62 (1958): figure 40.1 and 2 (after Hall). Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-12. Distribution map of spectacle fibula type I. Alexander, John. "The Spectacle Fibula of Southern Europe." American Journal of Archaeology 69 (January 1965): 10. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-13. Distribution map of Spectacle fibula type I. Alexander, John. "The Spectacle Fibula of Southern Europe." American Journal of Archaeology 69 (January 1965): 10. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-14. Distribution map of spectacle fibula type II. Alex ander, John. "The Spectacle Fibula of Southern Europe." American Journal of Archaeology 69 (January 1965): 14. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-15. Distribution map of spectacle fibula type III. Al exander, John. "The Spectacle Fibula of Southern Europe." American Journal of Archaeology 69 (January 1965): 14.

PAGE 117

117 Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-16. Distribution map of spectacle fibulae types IV, V and VI. Alexander, John. "The Spectacle Fibula of Southern Europe." American Journal of Archaeology 69 (January 1965): 18. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-17. Greek style composite leech fi bula at Syracuse from grave 428. Hencken, Hugh. "Syracuse, Etruria, and the North: Some Comparisons." American Journal of Archaeology 62 (1958): figure 11. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-18. A Greek composite leech fibula from Cumae. Pe lligrini, G. "Tombe Greche Archaiche e Tomba Greco-Sannitica a T holos della Necropoli di Cuma." Monumenti Antichi 13 (1903): figure 46. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-19. A Greek composite leech fibula from tomb 272 on P ithekoussai. Buchner, Giorgio and David Ridgway. Pithekoussai I Rome: Bretschneider, 19 93. Catalogue number 272. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-20. Italic composite leech fibulae from tomb 599 on P ithekoussai. Buchner, Giorgio and David Ridgway. Pithekoussai I Rome: Bretschneider, 1993. Catalogue number 599. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-21. Simple arch bow and ringed arch bow Italic fibulae from Cumae. Gabrici, E. "Cuma." Monumenti Antichi 22 (1913). Figures 1 1:1 and 3 3:4. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-22. Blinkenbergs types IX and X. Blinkenberg, Christian. Lindiaka V Fibules Grecques et Orientales Kobenhavn: Andr. Fred. Host & Son, 1926. 99.

PAGE 118

118 Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-23. Leech fibulae from Ve tulonia. Randall-MacIver, David. Villanovans and Early Etruscans. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1924. 29. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-24. The Regolini-Galassi fibul a from Caere. Randall-MacIver, David. Villanovans and Early Etruscans Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1924. 195-208. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-25. Drago and comb fibulae from the Be rnardini tomb at Praeneste. Randall-MacIver, David. Villanovans and Early Etruscans Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1924. 217. Image not shown due to copyright Figure A-26. A detail of the scene of the Be rnardini comb fibula. Randall-MacIver, David. Villanovans and Early Etruscans Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1924. 217.

PAGE 119

119 LIST OF REFERENCES Alexander, John. "The Spectacle Fibula of Southern Europe." American Journal of Archaeology 69 (January 1965): 7-23. Bietti Sestieri, Anna Maria. "Italian Swords and Fibulae of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages." Ita lian Iron Age Artefacts: in the Bri tish Museum: Papers of the Sixth British Museum Classical Coloquium (1986): 3-23. "The Metal Industry of Continental Italy, 13th to 11th Centuries BC and its connection with the Aegean." Proceedings of the Pre-Historic Society (1973): 383-424. Blinkenberg, Christian. Lindiaka V Fibules Gr ecques et Orientales Kobenhavn: Andr. Fred. Host & Son, 1926. British Museum Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities. British Museum Catalogue of Greek Etruscan, and Roman Jewellery London: British Museum, 1911. Buchner, Giorgio and David Ridgway. Pithekoussai I Rome: Bretschneider, 1993. Buchner, Giorgio. "Early Orientalizing: Aspects of the Euboean Connection." In Italy before the Romans ed. Ridgway, David and Francesca Ridgway, 129-144. New York: Academic Press, 1979. Close-Brooks, Joanna and David Ri dgway. "Veii in the Iron Age." In Italy before the Romans New York: Academic Press, 1979. Coldstream, J.N. "Mixed Marriages at th e Frontiers of the Early Greek World." Oxford Journal of Archaeology 12.1 (1993): 89-107. Crielaard, Jan. "How th e West Was Won." In Die Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums Interactions in the Iron Age: Phoenicians, Greeks, and the Indigenous Peoples of the Western Mediterranean" ed. Niemeyer, 235-260. Mainz: P. von Zabern, 1996. "The Social Organization of Euboean Trad e with the Eastern Me diterranean during the 10th to 8th Centuries BC." Journal of the Netherl ands Institute at Athens (1993): 138145. D'Agostino, Bruno and Patrizia Gastaldi. Pontecagnano: II. La Necr opoli del Picento: 1. Le Tombe della Prima Eta del Ferro Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento del Mondo Classico e de l Mediterraneo Antico, 1988. D'Agostino, Bruno. Tombs Principesche dell'orientalizzanye antico da Pontecagnano Rome: Accademia nazionale dei lincei, 1977. de la Geniere, Juliette. "The Iron Age in Southern Italy." In Italy before the Romans New York: Academic Press, 1979. De Natale, Serenella. Pontecagnano II. La Necropoli di S. An tonio: Propr. ECI 2. Tombe della Prima Eta del Ferro Napoli: Instituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di studi del mondo e del Mediterraneo Antico, 1992.

PAGE 120

120 Gabrici, E. "Cuma." Monumenti Antichi 22 (1913). Gaultieri, Maurizio. "Iron in Calabria in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries B.C." PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1977 Guzzo, Pier Giovanni. "Ipotesti Interpretativa su due Tipi di Fibula con Arco Ricoperto." Aparchai; Nuove Ricerche e Studi sulla Magna Grecia e la Sicilia Antica in Onore di Paolo Orsi 1 (1982): 53-61. Hall, E.H. Excavations in Eastern Crete Philadelphia: University Museum, 1914. Hartmann, Nicholas. "Iron-Working in Southern Etruria in the Ninth an d Eighth Centuries BC." PhD diss., University of Pe nnsylvania, Philadelphia, 1982. Hencken, Hugh. "Syracuse, Etruria, a nd the North: Some Comparisons." American Journal of Archaeology 62 (1958): 259-272. Hodos, Tamar. "Intermarriage in the Western Greek Colonies." Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18 (1999): 61-74. Jacobsthal, Paul. Greek Pins and Their Connexions with Europe and Asia Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956. Leighton, Robert. Sicily Before History Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999. Lyons, Claire. The Archaic Cemeteries ed. Bell, Malcolm and Christopher Moss, vol. 5. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. MacNamara, Ellen. "Some Bronze Typologies in Sardinia and Italy from 1200 to 700 BC; Their Origin and Development." Etruria e Sardegna Centro-Settent rionale tra l'eta' del Bronzo Finale e L'arcaismo : atti del XXI Convegno di Studi Etruschi ed Italici, Sassari, Alghero, Oristano, Torralba, 13-17 Ottobre 1998 (1998): 150-170. Markoe, Glenn. "In Pursuit of Metal: Phoenicians and Greeks in Italy." In Greece between East and West: 10th 8th Centuries BC ed. Kopcke, G. and Isabelle Tokumaru, 61-84. Mainz: P. von Zabern, 1990. Moser, Mary Elizabeth. "The "Southern Vill anovan" Culture of Campania." PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 1982 Orsi, Paolo. "Contributi alla Storia della Fibula Greca." Opuscula Archaeologica Oscari Montello, Septuagenario, dict a d. ix m. sept. a. MCMXII (1913): 189-203. "Gli Scavi nella Necropoli fel Fusco a Sir acusa nel Giugno, Novembre e Dicembre del 1893." Notizie degli Scavi di Antichita (1895): 109-92. Pelligrini, G. "Tombe Greche Archaiche e Tomb a Greco-Sannitica a Tholos della Necropoli di Cuma." Monumenti Antichi 13 (1903): 201-94. Randall-MacIver, David. Villanovans and Early Etruscans Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1924.

PAGE 121

121 Richard, Ivette and Richar d Sadow. "Etruria." In Gold Jewekry: Craft, Style, and Meaning from Mycenae to Constantinopolis ed. Hackens, T. Louvain-la-Neuve: College Erasme, 1983. Ridgway, David. The First Western Greeks Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Roth-Murray, Carrie. "A Disclosure of Power: Elite Etruscan Iconography during the 8th-6th Centuries BC." Papers in Italian Archaeology (2005): 186-195. Shepherd, Gillian. "Fibulae and Females: Interma rriage in the Western Greek Colonies and the Evidence from the Cemeteries." In Ancient Greeks West and East, ed. Tsetskhladze, Gocha R. Boston: Brill, 1999. "The Pride of Most Colonials: Burial an d Religion in the Sic ilian Colonies." In Acta Hyperborea 6 ed. Fischer-Hansen, Tobias. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1995. Skalsky, Randall L. "The Waterfowl of Etru ria: A Study of Duck, Goose, and Swan Iconography." PhD diss., Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, 1997 Snodgrass, Anthony. The Dark Age of Greece Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1971. Steures, D.C. Monte Finocchito Revisited Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Press, 1980. Strom, Ingrid. Problems Concerning the Origin and Devel opment of the Etruscan Orientalizing Style Odense: Odense University Press, 1971. Stronach, David. "The Development of the Fibula in the Near East." Iraq 21 (1959): 181-206. Stubbings, J.M. "Bow Fibulae." In Perachora, th e Sactuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia; Excavations of the British School of Ar chaeology at Athens, 1930-1933, ed. Dunbabin, T.J. and Alan Blakeway. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940. Sundwall, Johannes. Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln Berlin: Gruyter & Co, 1943. Toms, Judith. "The Arch Fibula in Early Iron Age Italy." In Ancient Italy in its Mediterranean Setting: Studies in Honor of Ellen MacNamara ed. MacNamara, E. and David Ridgway, 91-113. London: Accordia Research Institute, 2000. "The Construction of Gender in Early Iron Age Etruria." Italian Archaeology (1998): 157-179. Vida Navarro, M. Carmen. "Warriors and Weaver s: Sex and Gender in Early Iron Age Graves from Pontecagnano." The Accordia Research Papers; the Journal of the Accordia Research Centre 3 (1992): 67-99. Von Eles Masi, Patrizia. Prahistorische Bronzefunde: Le Fi bule dell'Italia Settentrionale Munchen: C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1986. Winthur, Caroline. "Princely Tomb s of the Orientalizing Period in Etruria and Latium Vetus." Acta Hyperborea (1997): 423-446. Wolters, Jochem. "The Ancient Craft of Granulation." Gold Bulletin (1981): 119-127.

PAGE 122

122 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jennifer Hambleton received her bachelors de g ree from the University of Florida with a major in architecture and a minor in classics. On completion of that degree, she chose to stay at the University of Florida to pursue a masters degree in art history with a focus on the art of antiquity. She intends to pursue a career in art conservation.