Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2005, Page 115

Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2005, Page 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
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126

x

Archaeologia Islandica

Direct Links

If you want to link to this newspaper/magazine, please use these links:

Link to this newspaper/magazine: Archaeologia Islandica
https://timarit.is/publication/1160

Link to this issue:

Link to this page:

Link to this article:

Please do not link directly to images or PDFs on Timarit.is as such URLs may change without warning. Please use the URLs provided above for linking to the website.