Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2005, Side 115

Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2005, Side 115
Kúvíkur. An abandoned trading site Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Total Ceramics Pottery 12 176 440 33 661 Brick 4 8 12 5 29 Claypipe 6 - 3 - 9 Coal - 3 8 2 13 Rooftile 25 - - - 25 Slag - 1 55 32 88 Stone 1 1 2 - 4 Whetstone - - 2 1 3 Glass Bottle 1 13 22 6 42 Button - - 2 - 2 Lamp - 53 96 37 186 Mirror - - 3 1 4 Other - 2 5 - 7 Phial - 5 1 2 8 Vessel 17 7 23 7 54 Window 5 25 60 24 114 Metal Nail - 38 130 386 554 Other - 47 102 112 261 Organics Leather - 5 - - 5 Plastic - 4 - 4 8 Textile - 3 2 - 5 Total 71 215 528 619 2082 Table 1. Summary of fínds according to phases. finds from phase 1 to phase 2 of the mid- den. Phase 2 shows much more signs of activity, since there was more variety and higher quantities in the assemblage. This applies to building material such as win- dow fragments, nails and other metal objects as well as objects that can be cat- egorised as domestic. Nails and other iron building material in a midden can hardly be interpreted as anything other than waste, something that was of no use. Many of the straps were bent and have previously either been fastened together or to other objects. This can suggest rebuilding, maintenance or the tearing down of structures on site. Wood was completely absent from this phase. This could mean that it was being reused or bumt, although little signs of woodash were detected in the midden. Phase II shows a defínite increase in domestic material, mostly lamp chimneys and a few kitchen related items such as a fork, part of a tin can and bottles. Tin cans were hardly common before the mid 19th century. The number of lamp fragments seems very high when compared to other domestic material. Lamp glass is thin and fragile and could be expected to be handled with care. Even if they would break from time to time, the count should not be higher than kitchen related objects such as bottles and tin cans, which obvi- ously were present at that time in Kúvíkur. Since there is no available comparison data from the 19th century it is not possible to tell whether this is unusal or not. The transition between phase II and III does not show the same change in artefact composition as the transition from phase I. The number of objects 113
Side 1
Side 2
Side 3
Side 4
Side 5
Side 6
Side 7
Side 8
Side 9
Side 10
Side 11
Side 12
Side 13
Side 14
Side 15
Side 16
Side 17
Side 18
Side 19
Side 20
Side 21
Side 22
Side 23
Side 24
Side 25
Side 26
Side 27
Side 28
Side 29
Side 30
Side 31
Side 32
Side 33
Side 34
Side 35
Side 36
Side 37
Side 38
Side 39
Side 40
Side 41
Side 42
Side 43
Side 44
Side 45
Side 46
Side 47
Side 48
Side 49
Side 50
Side 51
Side 52
Side 53
Side 54
Side 55
Side 56
Side 57
Side 58
Side 59
Side 60
Side 61
Side 62
Side 63
Side 64
Side 65
Side 66
Side 67
Side 68
Side 69
Side 70
Side 71
Side 72
Side 73
Side 74
Side 75
Side 76
Side 77
Side 78
Side 79
Side 80
Side 81
Side 82
Side 83
Side 84
Side 85
Side 86
Side 87
Side 88
Side 89
Side 90
Side 91
Side 92
Side 93
Side 94
Side 95
Side 96
Side 97
Side 98
Side 99
Side 100
Side 101
Side 102
Side 103
Side 104
Side 105
Side 106
Side 107
Side 108
Side 109
Side 110
Side 111
Side 112
Side 113
Side 114
Side 115
Side 116
Side 117
Side 118
Side 119
Side 120
Side 121
Side 122
Side 123
Side 124
Side 125
Side 126

x

Archaeologia Islandica

Direkte link

Hvis du vil linke til denne avis/magasin, skal du bruge disse links:

Link til denne avis/magasin: Archaeologia Islandica
https://timarit.is/publication/1160

Link til dette eksemplar:

Link til denne side:

Link til denne artikel:

Venligst ikke link direkte til billeder eller PDfs på Timarit.is, da sådanne webadresser kan ændres uden advarsel. Brug venligst de angivne webadresser for at linke til sitet.