82 



Haakon Schetelig. 



[No. 8 



times been replaced by a flat plate without any details recalling it.s 



former figure. 



Such small and simple brooehes afford an illustrating example 



of a rule often referred to in tiiis 

 paper, that during a typological de- 

 velopment the large and fine specimens 

 are in a high degree subject to the 

 alterations required by taste and fashion, 

 while the small specimens, regarded 

 merely as implements, were made with- 

 out any consideration to the elegant 

 and modern form, although they cer- 

 tainly belong to the common type of 

 the time. The striking ditference be- 

 tween the tine and the cheap brooehes 

 is best seen where we compare two 

 brooehes such as flg. 91 and fig. 100; 

 in both of them all the elements of 

 the form are the same, but in the one 

 they are seen in the highest degree 

 of development. while the other re- 

 presents the greatest degeneration 

 possible. 



A similar opposition is found by 

 comparing the two following brooehes, 

 figs. 102 and 103. 1 ) 



These two brooehes also in an- 

 other respeet attract our interest. as 

 the flat part of the foot here has got 

 a rare and remarkable form which we 

 have seen in none of the brooehes 

 treated above. Probably it is a hybrid 

 form. 2 ) It is surp rising that the best 

 specimens of this sort are found in 



Eastern Norway and I am not able to explain why it should be 



so. But as the form of the upper part of these brooehes and also 



!) Fig. 102: Fen, Stokke pgd. Jarlsberg. C. 2015-4 a. Ab. 1902, p. 339, 

 no. 154, fig. 5. — Fig. 103: Kvasseim, Egersund pgd. Jæderen. Stavanger 

 Museum, 949. 



2 ) Compare Eygh fig. 254. Salin: Tliierornamentik p. 68, figs. 146 — 149, 

 though these specimens are later than the cruciform brooehes before us. 



