112 — Haakon Schetelig. [No. 8 
to England — is not yet confirmed by evident proofs. In ad- 
dition to dr. HritDeBraNnD I have in the previous pages tried to 
make out that the English development was at å certain point of 
time in contact with the special West-Norwegian varieties from 
which was derived a detail in the building of the foot, observed in 
nearly all the late brooches of England. But certamly the English 
development was not only of longer duration than it was in other 
countries, it was in å high degree independant of and so different 
from that in Scandinavia, that one feels inelined to divide all the 
eruciform brooches into two branehes, the 
one comprising all the Scandinavian forms, 
the other the English forms. 
Connexions between them are, how- 
ever, not wanting as it is pointed out in 
the preceding deseription, and it is very 
illustrative of the intercourse between 
Denmark and Norway on the one side 
and the Anelo-Saxons on the other during 
the Migration-Period that the Anglo- 
Saxon forms were at first derived from 
the Danish forms, and that later differences 
seem to be not so much due to the ab- 
senee of contact with the Scandinavian 
countries — influenees from Norway being 
observed from the end of the 5th cent. and 
from the first half of the 6th cent. — as to 
the gradual divergence of taste and style 
on the opposite sides of the German Ocean. 
Before finishing the description of the 
English forms, I briefly note the appear- 
ance of the flat triangular termination of 
the foot also in England,” which con- 
firms the above pronouneed conelusions about the origin of this 
form, as the supposed model of it (fig. 112) is especially numer- 
ous here. . 
VVrrOerend 
brutte LA 
1) See NEVILLE pl. 9, no. 192. Other instances are å brooch from Sleaford 
in The British Museum, and one from Fairford in The Ashmolean Museum, 
Oxford. 
