Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:28:24.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Origins and Early Development of European Fibulae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2014

John Alexander  and
Sheila Hopkin
John Alexander
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge
Sheila Hopkin
Affiliation:
32 Newton Road, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The invention and acceptance in Europe of an ingenious metal clothes-fastener in the late second and early first millennia BC has long been known. Interest in it and its several thousand variant forms has been concentrated mainly on their importance as type fossils for chronological systems and, more recently, on how they were used, but there has been little study of how or why the ideas spread (Alexander 1973b). Here an attempt will be made to show where the inventions took place and which communities first accepted them.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , 1982 , pp. 401 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, J. A., 1959. Nin and the Jugoslav Iron Age. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Alexander, J. A., 1962. ‘Greeks, Italians and the Earliest Balkan Iron Age’, Antiquity 36, 123–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, J. A., 1963. ‘The Spectacle Fibulae of Southern Europe’, Amer. J. Archaeol. 69, 7–23.Google Scholar
Alexander, J. A., 1973a. ‘The History of the Fibula’, in Strong, D. E. (ed.), Archaeological Theory and Practice, 217–30. London: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, J. A., 1973b. ‘The Study of Fibulae (safety-pins)’, in Renfrew, C. (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, 185–94. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Annibaldi, G., 1953. ‘Reperti preistorici a Gualdo Tadina (Perugia)’, Bull. Paletnolog. Italiana NS VIII, 5, 175–85.Google Scholar
Andronikos, M., 1969. Vergina I. To Nekrotapheion ton Timvon. Athens.Google Scholar
Angeli, W., 1959. ‘Zwei Urnenfeldzeitlichen Brandgräber von Gross Mugl’, Mitteilungen der Oesterreichen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Prähistorie 88–89, 127–28.Google Scholar
Batović, Š., 1976. ‘Le relazioni culturali tra le sponde Adriatiche nell'età del Ferro’, in Suić, M. (ed.), Jadranska Obalu u Protohistoriji. Zagreb.Google Scholar
Baudou, E., 1960. Die regionale und chronologische Einteilung der jüngeren Bronzezeit im Nordischen Kreis. Stockholm.Google Scholar
Bellintani, G. F. and Peretto, R., 1972. ‘Il ripostiglia di Frattesina ed altri manufatti enei raccolti in superficie. Notizie preliminari’, Padusa VIII, 1–2, 32–49.Google Scholar
Beltz, R., 1913. ‘Die Bronze- und Hallstattzeitlichen Fibeln’, Zeitschr. für Ethnologie 45, 659–900.Google Scholar
Betzler, P., 1974. Die Fibeln in Süddeutschland, Oesterreich und der Schweiz I. Prähistoriche Bronzefunde, Abt. XIV, Bd.2. Munich.Google Scholar
Bietti Sestieri, S. M., 1973. ‘The Metal Industry of Continental Italy, 13th to the 11th century BC, and its connections with the Aegean’, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 39, 383–424.Google Scholar
Birmingham, J., 1963. ‘The Development of the fibula in Cyprus and the Levant’, Palestine Excavation Quarterly, 80–112.Google Scholar
Blinkenberg, C., 1926. Fibules Grècques et Orientales. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Boardman, J., 1964. The Cretan Collection in Oxford. Oxford.Google Scholar
Brea, L. B., 1966. Sicily. London: Thames and Hudson (2nd Edition).Google Scholar
Brunn, W. A. von, 1955. ‘Ein Grabhügel bei Osternienburg’, Jahrb. Röm-Germ. Zentralmus. Mainz 2, 76–94.Google Scholar
Brunn, W. A. von, 1968. Mitteldeutsche Hortfunde der jüngeren Bronzezeit. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carancini, G. L., 1975. Die Nadeln in Italien. Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abt. XIII, Bd. 2. Munich.Google Scholar
Castelfranco, P. and Patroni, G., 1916. ‘La Stazione Palustre di Camp Castellaro presso il Vhò di Padena’, Mon. Ant. 24, 309–44.Google Scholar
Close-Brooks, J., 1969. The Archaeology of Southern Etruria 10th–8th centuries BC. Its antecedents and foreign relations especially with reference to the evidence of fibulae. Unpublished D. Phil. Thesis, Oxford University.Google Scholar
Cremonesi, G., 1968. ‘La Grotta dell'Orsa, Sarteano: i livelli dell'età dei Metalli’, Origini 2, 247–331.Google Scholar
Desborough, V. H. d'A., 1964. The Last Mycenaeans and their successors. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Drechsler-Bižić, R., 1962. ‘Japodske dvodelne fibule tipa Prozor’ (Zweiteilige Japodische fibeln von Typus Prozor), Arheoloski Radovi i Rasprave 2, 295–312.Google Scholar
Eppel, E., 1949. ‘Das Urnenfelderzeitliche Grabfeld von Unterradl, St Pölten’, Archaeol. Austriaca 2, 33–63.Google Scholar
Fasani, L., 1966. ‘Una stazione preistorica della fine dell'età del bronzo a Mariconda presso Melara (Rovigo)’, Padusa 11, 2–3, 3–6.Google Scholar
Forrer, P., 1886. ‘Pfahlbaufunde aus der Westschweiz’, Antiqua 6–7, 123–30.Google Scholar
Goldman, H., 1956. Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus II. Princeton.Google Scholar
Gross, V., 1883. Les Protohelvètes, ou les premiers colons sur le bords des Lacs de Bienne et Neuchâtel. Berlin.Google Scholar
Hampel, J., 1887. Alterthümer der Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Budapest.Google Scholar
Hawkes, C. F. C., 1948. ‘From Bronze Age to Iron Age: Middle Europe, Italy and the North and West’, Proc.Prehist.Soc. 14, 196–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobstahl, P., 1956. Greek Pins and their connections with Europe and Asia. Oxford.Google Scholar
Kilian, K., 1975. Fibeln in Thessalien von der mykenischen bis zur archaischen Zeit. Prähistorische Bronzefunde Abt. XIV, Bd. 2. Munich.Google Scholar
Kiparissi, N., 1919. ‘Kephalliniaka’, Arkhaiologikon Deltion V, 83–122.Google Scholar
Kostrzewski, B., 1949. ‘Znaczenie Odry w pradziejach’ (La Rôle de l'Odra aux temps prehistoriques), Przeglad Archaeologiczny VIII, 2, 258–99.Google Scholar
Laux, F., 1973. Die Fibeln in Niesdersachsen. Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abt. XIV, Bd. 1. Munich.Google Scholar
Lissauer, A., 1907. ‘Die Typenkarte der ältesten Gewandnadeln’, Zeitschr. für Ethnologie 39, 785–831.Google Scholar
Lollini, D. G., 1966. ‘Monte Croce Guardia di Arcevia (Ancona)’, Bollettino d'Arte v, 210.Google Scholar
Lo Porto, F. G., 1963. ‘Leporano (Taranto) — La stazione protostorica di Porto Penrone’, Not. Scavi 8th ser. XVII, 280–380.Google Scholar
Mansfeld, G., 1973. Die Fibeln der Heuneburg 1950–1970. Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 33.Google Scholar
Montelius, O., 1895. La Civilisation primitive en Italie depuis l'introduction des mètaux 1. Stockholm.Google Scholar
Müller, S., 1909. ‘Bronzealderens Begyndelse og seldre Udvikling i Danmark, efter de nyeste Fund’, Aarbøger NS 24, 1–119.Google Scholar
Müller-Karpe, H., 1951. ‘Ein urnenfelderzeitlicher Depotfund von Reisen, Ldkr. Erding, Oberbayern’, Germania 29, 193–97.Google Scholar
Müller-Karpe, H., 1959. Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Romisch-Germanische Forschungen 22. Berlin.Google Scholar
Oldeberg, A., 1933. Det Nordiska Bronsaldersspanets Historia. Stockholm.Google Scholar
Pauli, L., 1971. Studien zur Golasecca-Kultur. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Pendlebury, J. D. S., 1937–1938. ‘Excavations in the Plain of Lasithi III: Karphi’, Annual British School of Athens 38, 57–152.Google Scholar
Powell, T. G. E., 1963. ‘The Inception of the final Bronze Age in Middle Europe’, Proc.Prehist.Soc. 29, 214–34.Google Scholar
Radimský, W., 1895. ‘Die Nekropole von Jeserine in Pritoka bei Bihac’, Wissentschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnia und Herzegovina III, 39–218.Google Scholar
Säflund, G., 1939. Le Terremare delle provincie di Modena, Reggio Emilia, Parma, Piacenza. Lund: Skrifter utgivne a Svenska Institutet i Rom VII.Google Scholar
Sapouna-Sakellarakis, E., 1978. Die Fibeln der griechischen Inseln. Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abt. XIV, Bd. 4. Munich.Google Scholar
Savory, H. N., 1968. Spain and Portugal: the prehistory of the Iberian Peninsula. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Sprockhoff, E., 1938. ‘Die Spindlersfelder Fibel’, in Sprockhoff, E. (ed.), Marburger Studien. Darmstadt: L. C. Wittich Verlag.Google Scholar
Strobel, P., 1863. Avanzi preromani raccolti nelle terremare e palafitte dell'Emilia. Fasc.I. Parmi.Google Scholar
Stronach, D., 1959. ‘The Development of the fibula in the Near East’, Iraq 21, 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundwall, J., 1943. Die älteren Italischen Fibeln. Berlin.Google Scholar
Thrane, H., 1958. ‘Ein Depotfund der jüngeren Bronzezeit von Mandemark auf Møn’, Acta Archaeol. (Copenhagen) XXIX, 110–30.Google Scholar
Točik, A., and Paulík, J., 1960. ‘Vyskum Mohly v Čake v rokach 1950–51’ (Die ausgrabung eines Grabhügels in Çaka in der Jahren 1950–51), Slovenská Archeólogia VIII, 1, 59–106.Google Scholar
Trump, D. H., 1965. ‘Adriano Irpino — a prehistoric stratigraphy for peninsular Italy’, Atti VI Congresso Internazionale della Scienza Preistoriche e protostoriche, Roma Aug–Sept 1962 11, 407–09.Google Scholar
Undset, I., 1883. ‘Se la fibula esista nella terremare’ Bull. Paletnolog. Italiana IX, 131–35.Google Scholar
Undset, I., 1886. ‘Nordische Bronzen in Italien’, Zeitschr. für Ethnologie 18, 1–11.Google Scholar
Undset, I., 1889. ‘Zu den ältesten Fibeltypen’, Zeitschr. für Ethnologie 21, 205–34.Google Scholar
Voss, A., 1898. ‘Nadel, Fibel und Gürtelhaken’, Zeitschr. für Ethnologie 30, 216–27.Google Scholar
Willvonseder, K., 1937. Die mittlere Bronzezeit in Oesterreich. Vienna.Google Scholar