1906] The cruciforin brooches of Norway. 153 



some brooches of this sort were made after the beginning of 

 the 5th cent. but the following period of the development must 

 have begun at the time about 400 as it ended within the 

 middle of the 5th cent. — Specimens from this first period 

 are shown as figs. 20, 23 — 27. 

 II. 400 — 500. A. D. First part of a separate development in 

 the different districts. Early Norwegian forms. The head- 

 plate becomes 1 arger and is brought into contact with the 

 side-knobs; different combinations of these two elements are 

 found; in Norway and Sweden the side-knobs are finally east 

 in one piece with the rest of the brooch. The animal-head 

 becomes a constant ornament of the foot. In Norway the 

 bow is generally made shorter than before. — Specimens from 

 this second period are shown figs. 35—40, 47, 48, 86, 88, 90. 



III. 450 — 500. A. D. Middle Norwegian forms. The knobs are 

 nearly always east in one piece with the brooch, and they 

 have often a flat underside. The first ornamental changes of 

 the form are found in the extension of the heacl-plate and 

 of the bow, though the form is on the whole fairly well pre- 

 served. Culmination of the development in Eastern Norway. — 

 The hybrid variety with semicircular foot appears though it 

 chiefly belongs to the next period. — Specimens from this 

 third period are showh figs. 41, 42, 49, 53—56, 74, 75, 77, 

 87, 106, 107. In fig. 80 is represented the transition to the 

 fourth period. 



IV. 500 — 550. A. D. Late Norwegian forms. The knobs are, 

 with very fe w exceptions east in one piece with the rest of 

 the brooch; the whole brooch has a concave underside. Cul- 

 mination of the development of Western forms and degenera- 

 tion of the type. Hybrid forms with semicircular or triangular 

 foot-plate. — Specimens from this fourth period are shown 

 figs. 43, 45, 46, 50, 57, 61—63, 67 — 72, 84, 91—98, 108. 111. 



With this fourth period the development has come to an end 

 and only a few and degenerated specimens are met with after the 

 middle of the 6th cent. 



As it will always be difficult to make out chronological que- 

 stions of the sort treated here I suppose that my conclusions will 

 be subject to future corrections. I should, at least, not be surprised 

 if more detailed comparisons will prove my periods to be too long 

 and if consequently the end of the whole development will thus be 



