Han anslår at kilen har hatt en bre

Han anslår at kilen har hatt en bredde på ca 22,5 cm nederst, men jeg mener at ca 18 cm er et bedre anslag. Det er viktig å understreke at godt over halvparten av kilen er borte, så et anslag kan kun baseres på den utviklingen som kan sees på den bevarte delen. Forutsatt at koftelengden også på baksiden har vært 104,4 cm vil bakkilen ha vært 56,4 cm lang (mot Gjessings anslag på 60 cm).

Resultater (engelsk) 1:

He estimates that wedge had a width of about 22.5 cm at the bottom, but I believe that about 18 cm is a better estimate. It is important to emphasize that well over half of the wedge is gone, so an estimate can only be based on the development that can be seen on the preserved section. Assuming that the koftelengden also on the back have been 104,4 cm will bakkilen have been 56.4 cm long (to the Gjessings estimate of 60 cm).

Resultater (engelsk) 2:

He estimates that the key had a width of about 22.5 cm at the bottom, but I think that about 18 cm is a better estimate. It is important to emphasize that well over half of the wedge is gone, so an estimate can only be based on the development that can be seen on the preserved part. Assuming kofte length also at the rear has been 104.4 cm will bakkilen have been 56.4 cm long (against Gjessing estimate of 60 cm).

Resultater (engelsk) 3:

He estimates that wedge has had a width of approximately 22.5 cm bottom, but i think that the ca 18 cm is a better estimate. It is important to emphasize that well over half of wedge is away, so that a prediction can only be based on the development that can be seen in the preserved section. Assuming that koftelengden also on the back has been 104.4 cm will bakkilen have been 56.4 cm long (against Gjessings estimates on 60 cm).