110 



blue ones having delicately-worked stars with scarlet centres. 

 The framework at the sides is of very peculiar structure, con- 

 sisting of a yeUow-coloured enamel dotted all over into a pleas- 

 ing but irregular pattern by metallic (?) points. 



With regard to this ornament we would here refer to Aker- 

 man's Archselogical Index, where, at plate 5, f. 46, we appear 

 to have an enamel of the like kind, which is referred to as 

 follows : — 



" 46. — Handle of a dagger, ornamented with minute brass pins 

 in a very elaborate and tasteful manner. From a barrow in 

 North Wnts."* 



Now we are not quite sure that the points here described are 

 in our specimen of brass, or, indeed, that they are metal at all 

 though, unless metallic, it would be difficult to decide what it 

 is.t 



These notes then are intended to support the two following 

 points. 



1st. — This is not a buckle, or a fibula. 



2nd. — The work is not Eoman though ajDparently found with 

 Eoman remains, as Samian Pottery, and the like. 



1st. — The four eyelet holes, and the two buttons seem to point 

 to the fact that this was a pendant meant to be fastened both by 

 buttons and sewing to some terminable strops, and hence it was 

 doubtless a pendant either to some personal ornament or pro- 

 bably to some elaborate horse gear ; as there is no notion of a pin 

 it could not bo a brooch — or fibula — and as, again, no sign of a 

 tongue is joi'esent, it could hardly be called a buckle. 



2nd. — It seems to us not to be of Eoman work as it is really 

 of copper, and not of bronze, this, however, alone would not be 

 sufficient to decide the question, neither is it enough to say that 

 it was found on a Eoman site. 



The whole work appears to us so different from that of 

 Eoman that we cannot help thinking it is a case of the same 

 * Archreological Index, p. 54. 

 t Wo nre unwilling to submit the specimen to the rigid tests required to 

 settle thia question. 



