Denne splitten som har krysset det

Denne splitten som har krysset det mørke området gjorde det enkelt å plassere fragment K2 (se Figur 12). Deler av midtkilen og forstoffet på begge sider av kilen er bevart på dette fragmentet. Fargeskillet er veldig tydelig på den bevarte delen av forstoffet til venstre for kilen. Siden kun nederkanten på kilen er bevart på dette fragmentet (og ikke noe av forstoffet), sier det dessverre ingenting om bredden på kilen nede. Når jeg plasserte fragmentet slik at nederkanten og sømmen på venstre side stemte med nederkant og søm på rekonstruksjonen, fant jeg ut at den i hvert fall må ha målt 19 cm. Hvis en tar med skråningsvinkelen på kilen lenger opp på fragmentet passer denne bredden godt, den kan i hvert fall ikke ha vært særlig mye bredere. Gjessing har også beregnet kilen til 19 cm, så en kan jo mistenke han for å ha brukt dette fragmentet i sine beregninger. Forutsatt at kofta har målt 104,4 cm ved nederkant ved forkilens isetting vil forkilen ha målt 50,9 cm (mot Gjessings 54,3 cm). Forkilen har trolig vært noe kortere enn bakkilen fordi den er satt i lavere.

Resultater (engelsk) 1:

This split that has crossed the dark area made it easy to place the fragment K2 (see Figure 12). Parts of the Middle wedge and forstoffet on both sides of the wedge is preserved on this fragment. Color the distinction is very clear on the preserved part of the forstoffet to the left of the wedge. Since only the bottom edge of the wedge is preserved in this fragment (and not any of the forstoffet), says that unfortunately nothing about the width of the wedge down. When I placed the fragment so that the bottom edge and the seam on the left side voted with the bottom edge and seam on the reconstruction, I found out that it at least must have measured 19 cm. If one takes with the slope angle of the wedge further up on the fragment fit this width, it can not have been much broader. Gjessing along has also designed the wedge to 19 cm, so one can suspect him to have used this fragment in their calculations. Provided that the Sámi clothing has measured cm at bottom edge 104,4 by forkilens isetting will forkilen have measured 50.9 cm (against Gjessings 54.3 cm). Forkilen has probably been slightly shorter than bakkilen because it is set in the lower.

Resultater (engelsk) 2:

This split has crossed the dark area made it easy to place the fragment C2 (see Figure 12). Parts of the center wedge and feedstuff on both sides of the wedge is kept in this fragment. Color distinction is very clear on the preserved part of the feedstuff to the left of the wedge. Since only the bottom edge of the wedge is preserved on this fragment (and none of the feedstuff), says that unfortunately nothing about the width of the wedge down. When I placed the fragment so that the bottom edge and the seam on the left side voted with hem and stitching on reconstruction, I found out that it certainly must have measured 19 cm. If one takes the slope angle of the wedge further up the fragment fit this width well, it could certainly not have been very much wider. Gjessing also calculated wedge to 19 cm, so one might want to suspect him of having used this fragment in its calculations. Assuming kofta measured 104.4 cm at bottom edge by interlock insertion will interlock have measured 50.9 cm (against Gjessing 54.3 cm). Interlock has probably been somewhat shorter than bakkilen because it is set lower.

Resultater (engelsk) 3:

This dichotomy that has crossed the dark area made it easy to place fragment K2 (see Figure 12). Parts of midtkilen and forstoffet on both sides of wedge is preserved in this fragmentet. Fargeskillet is very clear on the best-preserved section of forstoffet to the left of wedge. Since only nederkanten on the wedge is preserved in this fragmentet (and not something of forstoffet),Says it unfortunately nothing about the width of the wedge down. When i placed fragmentet so nederkanten and the stitching on the left-hand side matched nederkant and seam of reconstruction, i found out that the in each case, must have measured 19 cm if a take with skråningsvinkelen on the wedge longer up on fragmentet fits this width well, it can in each case, not have been much wider.Gjessing has also calculated wedge to 19 cm, so a might suspect he to have used this fragmentet in their calculations. Assuming that kofta has measured 104.4 cm at nederkant by forkilens insertion will forkilen have measured 50.9 cm (against Gjessings 54.3 cm). Forkilen has probably been somewhat shorter than bakkilen because it is set in lower.