10 
Gabriel  Gustafson. 
[No.  7.. 
time  increases  the  prettiness  of  the  object.  The  square  corners 
which  form  the  transition  between  the  longer  and  shorter  part  of 
each  arm  in  the  Norwegian  "ring  puzzle",  are  roundecl  in  the 
Persian  puzzle.  That  is  probably  only  done  to  simplify  the  carving. 
The  same  object  has  been  attained  by  the  carver  of  our  ar- 
ticle, by  cutting  away  a  small  square  portion  of  the  arm.  If  we 
have  sufficiently  fine  tools  neither  method  of  proceeding  is  neces- 
sary;  on  the  contrary  they  are,  as  I  have  shown  in  my  previous 
paper,  damaging  for  the  impression  of  the  folded  article  as  a  single 
piece. 
Finally,  there  is  a  difference  in  the  medial  surface  of  each 
arm.  These,  as  we  see  from  the  figure,  run  out  in  the  Norwegian 
specimen  in  pointed  lappets.  In  the  Persian  specimen  they  are 
abruptly  cut  off.  But  there  is,  besides,  a  small  piece  between  each 
adjacent  pair  of  lappets  cut  away,  and  an  incision  of  equal  breadth 
made  in  the  eclges  of  the  lappets,  producing  tims,  a  cruciform  hole 
that  passes  right  through  the  entire  folded  article,  and  which  has 
no  correspondent  feature  in  our  specimen.  The  same  is  the  case 
with  the  small  quadrangular  hole  placed  on  each  side  of  the  cru- 
ciform middle-hole  (vide  fig.  7  a).  I  cannot  think,  however,  that 
these  holes  have  any  special  significance;  they  may,  like  the  other 
differences,  be  only  immaterial  adornments  or  developments  intended 
to  increase  the  artistic  appearance  of  the  article. 
If  that  is  agreed,  then  all  must  acknowledge  that  in  their 
principle  and  structure  both  specimens  are  perfectly  identical.  The 
maker  of  the  at  least  1300  years  old  "ring  puzzle"  from  Evebo, 
and  he  who,  in  our  times,  made  the  Persian  "puzzle",  have  evidently 
had  the  same  idea,  whatever  that  may  have  been. 
Have  they  had  this  idea  independently  of  each  other?  I  do 
not  think  so.  The  apparatus  is  sufficiently  complex  to  make  it 
inconceivable  that  it  could  have  been  producecl  in  two  different 
places  spontaneously.  A  comparison  between  fig.  5  and  fig.  6 
will  be  sufficient  to  make  that  evident,  and  still  more  obvious  does 
it  become  when  we  have  the  models  of  both  objects  before  us. 
But  how  can  we  explain  a  connection  between  two  things,. 
which  both  in  time  and  place  are  so  separated?  There  is  one 
form  of ,  explanation  which  must  immediately  be  declared  incon- 
ceivable, namely,  that  the  Persian  specimen  may  have  been  borrowed 
from  Norway.  I  mean  by  that  of  course,  that  the  original  seat  of 
the  idea  was  in  the  North,  and  that  it  had  travelled  thence  and  finally 
