kongens nytorv - cphmuseum.kk.dk · 12.1.6 levelling and activity layers 141 12.2 overall...

KØBENHAVNS MUSEUM/ MUSEUM OF COPENHAGEN/ ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT

Kongens Nytorv Metro Cityring Project KBM 3829, Øster Kvarter, Københavns Sogn Sokkelund Herred, Københavns Amt Kulturstyrelsen j.nr.: 2010-7.24.02/KBM-0017

Morten Steineke and Jane Jark Jensen

Metro Cityring – Kongens Nytorv KBM 3829, Excavation Report

Museum of Copenhagen 2017 2

Museum of Copenhagen

Vesterbrogade 59

1620 København V

Telefon: +45 33 21 07 72

Fax: +45 33 25 07 72

E-mail: [email protected]

www.copenhagen.dk

Cover picture: Kongens Nytorv excavation. Recording medieval bulwark and rampart in subarea phase 5B-2. Photo:

Museum of Copenhagen.

© Museum of Copenhagen 2017



Foreword

The excavations in connection with the Metro Cityring project have been the largest ever archaeological project in the

history of Denmark. The results have provided brand new and extensive knowledge about the history and

development of the capital of Copenhagen and the former inhabitants. The excavations at the site of Kongens Nytorv

carried out between the years 2009–2016 was one of the three main sites and were located partly within the borders

of the medieval city.

At Kongens Nytorv the archaeological results not only confirmed the knowledge from previous excavations, but also

brought to light very significant new information. The most eye-catching features from the excavations were the

discovery of the fortifications and the well preserved remains of the eastern gate to the city. The uncovering of

boundary ditches, clay lined pits, workshops and domestic buildings dating from the Early medieval period revealed

that the area was part of a settlement that was important enough to fortify, however, it was not until the Late

medieval/Post medieval period that this area developed greatly. The finds material is unique and due to the anaerobic

conditions found in the moats, the well-preserved organic artefactual reveal the more diverse side of the lives of the

inhabitants of historical Copenhagen.

The results are presented in a technical report containing the most important discoveries and a comprehensive

appendix with the descriptions of all archaeological features follows this report. In addition a cultural historical report

based on the technical report has been produced with the focus on the results in a cultural historical perspective. The

expectations are that the reports will be read both by professionals and the general public, but also used for research

and comparable material for many years to come.

Lars Ewald Jensen, Archaeological Leader, Museum of Copenhagen



Contents List of appendices (on disc) 13

Abstract 17

1 Introduction 19

1.2 Legislative framework 20

1.3 The location 20

1.4 Excavation areas 21

1.5 Framework 23

1.6 Excavation report 23

1.7 Report contributions 23

2 Administrative data 25

2.1 Builder and contractors 25

2.2 Project organization and staff 25

2.2.1 Project management 25

2.2.2 Field archaeologists, special responsibilities and archaeology students (different time lengths) 26

2.3 Excavation areas (phases) and watching briefs 26

2.4 Dates 27

2.5 Site facilities 28

2.5.1 Excavation facilities and equipment 29

2.5.2 Excavation in numbers 29

2.6 Contractors and consultants 29

2.6.1 Natural science 29

2.6.2 Finds 30

2.6.3 Finds reports 30

2.6.4 Other reports 31

3 Regional geology and topography 32

3.1 Natural geology 32

3.2 Topography 32



4 The Metro excavation 1996–1998 36

4.1 Before the fortification 1020–1200 AD 36

4.2 Medieval fortification 1200–1550 AD 38

4.3 Post medieval fortification 1550–1608 AD 41

4.4 Christian the 4th's fortification c. 1608–1647 AD 43

4.5 Other activities and buildings behind the fortification line 44

5 Other archaeological observations around Kongens Nytorv 46

6 Objectives and aims 56

6.1 Site questions 56

6.1.1 Prehistoric period 56

6.1.2 Viking Age and Early medieval period 56

6.2 Settlement areas 56

6.2.1 Constitution and changes in everyday life 57

6.2.2 Buildings 57

6.2.3 Craft and trade 58

6.2.4 Østergård 58

6.2.5 Roads and public space 58

6.3 Rampart and moat areas 59

6.3.1 The medieval fortification c. 1200–1550 AD and Valkendorf’s modernization in 1581–1583 AD 59

6.3.2 Østervold and the moat 59

6.3.3 Byens Planker and the city wall 60

6.3.4 Østerport 60

6.3.5 Byens Tårn and Kringelen 61

6.3.6 Christian 4th's fortification c. 1608–1647 AD 61

6.4 Outside the medieval city gate – the eastern parts of Kongens Nytorv 62

6.4.1 Suburban activities 62

6.4.2 Roads 62

6.4.3 Bremerholm, Holmens Kanal and Nyhavn 62



6.5 Objectives of the project in light of the project aims 63

6.5.1 Background, organization, direction and characterization of urbanization 63

6.5.2 Economic and demographic fluctuations 64

6.5.3 Cultural and social implications and consequences of city life 65

7 Methodology 66

7.1 Excavation and documentation 66

7.1.1 Initial soil removal 66

7.1.2 Excavation procedures 66

7.1.3 Night work 68

7.2 Documentation principles 69

7.2.1 Documentation procedures 70

7.3 Digital resources and computing support 71

7.3.1 Operating systems 71

7.3.2 Office applications 71

7.3.3 Survey 71

7.3.4 Database 71

7.3.5 GIS analysis 71

7.3.6 Project management 72

7.3.7 File output and data exchange formats 72

7.3.8 Security 72

7.3.9 Site-specific support 72

7.3.10 Bonn seriation & statistics 72

7.4 Excavation manual 72

7.5 Stratigraphic division and phasing 73

7.5.1 Harris Matrix 74

7.5.2 Biographical stages 74

7.5.3 Relative chronology and physical stratigraphic relationships 75

7.5.4 Terminology 75



7.5.5 Context level 76

7.5.6 Subgroup level 77

7.5.7 Group level 79

7.5.8 Land use phasing 80

7.5.10 Land use 80

7.5.11 Watching brief and excavation 80

7.6 Finds procedures 80

7.6.1 Introduction 80

7.6.2 Classification 81

7.6.3 Retrieval and on-site and finds recording procedures 81

7.6.4 Finds processing 82

7.6.5 Registration within the IntraSiS program 82

7.6.6 Basic registration 82

7.6.7 Finds subclasses 82

7.6.8 Finds recording procedures 83

7.6.9 X-ray 84

7.6.10 Conservation procedures 84

7.6.11 Liaisons 85

7.6.12 Report writing 85

7.7 Sampling and analytical procedures 85

7.7.1 Procedures and organization 86

7.7.2 Recording of bulk, monolith and core sampling 86

7.7.3 Sample recording from finds 86

7.7.4 Recording of sub-samples 87

7.7.5 Procedures for sending samples to analysis 87

7.7.6 Sampling techniques 87

7.7.7 Bulk sampling 88

7.7.8 Monolith sampling 88



7.7.9 Core sampling 89

7.7.10 Sampling from finds 89

7.7.11 Further sampling from samples (sub-sampling) 89

7.7.12 Types of analysis 90

7.7.13 Sampling – purpose, methods and strategies 90

7.7.14 Metallurgical analysis 91

7.7.15 Chemical analysis 91

7.7.16 C14 analysis 92

7.7.17 Zoological analysis 92

7.7.18 Macrofossil analysis 93

7.7.19 Pollen analysis 93

7.7.20 Dendrochronology 93

7.7.21 Wood anatomy analysis 94

7.7.22 Geological analysis 94

7.7.23 Entomological analysis 94

7.7.24 Soil micro-morphological analysis 95

7.8 Photographic records 95

7.9 Wet sieving 97

7.9.1 Staff and methodology 97

7.9.2 Results 98

7.10 Tours and press 98

7.11 Archive, storage and processing facilities 100

7.12 Source criticism 101

7.12.1 Features and preservation 103

8 Phases and chronological development 106

8.1 Phases 106

8.2 Chronological development 108

9 Finds 110



9.1 Distribution of finds 111

9.2 Conclusion 112

10 Phase 1 Moraine, salt marshes and other Quaternary observations 115

10.1 Results 115

10.2 Overall discussion and interpretation 116

11 Phase 2 Prehistoric finds and features 118

11.1 Results 118


11.2.1 Stone Age finds from central Copenhagen 121

11.2.2 A Late Mesolithic “activity spot” or camp site at Kongens Nytorv 122

12 Phase 3 Early medieval activities 1050–1200 AD 123

12.1 Results 123

12.1.1 Ditches 126

12.1.2 Clay lined pits and a so-called Grumbod 127

12.1.3 Pits 135

12.1.4 Pit house 137

12.1.5 Post- and stakeholes 140

12.1.6 Levelling and activity layers 141


12.2.1 Boundary ditches and the establishment of plots within the eastern part of the city 142

12.2.2 Østergård and Byens Tårn 145

12.2.3 Clay lined pits 146

13 Phase 4a High medieval fortification 1200–1350 AD 150

13.1 Results 150

13.1.1 Rampart 151

13.1.2 Bulwark – building material and construction details 153

13.1.3 Fence lines 165

13.1.4 Wattle fence in the 13th century moat 167



13.1.5 Stockade or part of Byens Planker 167

13.1.6 The High medieval moat 168


13.2.1 Rampart 172

13.2.2 Bulwark 177

13.2.3 Byens Planker 180

13.2.4 Wattle fence 182

14 Phase 4b Late medieval city wall 1350–1550 AD 184

14.1 Results 184

14.1.1 City wall – building material and construction details 184


14.2.1 Maintenance work and final demolition 203

15 Phase 4c Eastern gate building 1200–1600 AD 206

15.1 Results 206

15.1.1 Eastern gate building – building and construction details 207

15.1.2 Revetment and road surfaces outside the gate building 229

15.1.3 Customs- or guard building next to the gate building 234


16 Phase 4d Late medieval and Renaissance fortification 1350–1600 AD 248

16.1 Results 248

16.1.1 Bulwark 249

16.1.2 The Late medieval moat – construction, usage and deconstruction 251


16.2.1 Late medieval fortification – construction and maintenance work 259

16.2.2 The Late medieval moat and potential sea-shore plants 265

17 Phase 5. High and Late medieval features and activities 1200–1550 AD 268

17.1 Results 268

17.1.1 Buildings 272



17.1.2 Boundaries, ditches and fences 283

17.1.3 Streets and use of the area/land use 292

17.1.4 Rampart streets 296

17.1.5 Wells, possible wells and a bucket 299

17.1.6 Pits 302

17.1.7 Postholes 305

17.1.8 Dump, levelling layers and surfaces 308


18 Phase 6 Eastern gate building and Post medieval fortification 1600–1650 AD 311

18.1 Results 311

18.1.1 Østerport – additions, activities and deconstruction 312

18.1.2 Bulwark and the demolition of the gate building 316

18.1.3 Roads and pathways along Østervold 317

18.1.4 Bastion, curtain, bridge and moat 318

18.1.5 Dam with barrier tower 352

18.1.6 Temporary bridge in the Late medieval moat 363

18.1.7 Other features in the moat – revetment, sluice and part of a bulwark 368


18.2.1 Østerport 375

18.2.2 Østervold 377

19 Phase 7a Settlement and activities behind the rampart 1550–1650 AD 384

19.1 Results 384

19.1.1 Buildings in phase 2+3 387

19.1.2 Buildings in phase 1N and phase 4B 390

19.1.3 Buildings in phase 6 392

19.1.4 Other building activities 395

19.1.5 Street and pavements 396

19.1.6 Pits 398



19.1.7 Post- and stakeholes 400

19.1.8 Ditches and a water pipe 400

19.1.9 Barrel and wooden box 403

19.1.10 Activity, dump and levelling layers 405


20 Phase 7b Outside the moat. Settlement and activities 1550–1650 AD 407

20.1 Results 407

20.1.1 Buildings and stone structures 409

20.1.2 Roads and wheel ruts 436

20.1.3 Fence- and stake lines 438

20.1.4 Pits, ditches and boulder 438


20.2.1 Settlement and other activities outside the city gate 439

21 Phase 8 Kongens Nytorv 1650–1950 AD 444

21.1 Results 444

21.1.1 Lille Gjethus 446

21.1.2 Hviids Vinstue 449

21.1.3 Other building remains 450

21.1.4 Finds from Bremerholm’s Cemetry 455

21.1.5 Road and street surfaces 455

21.1.6 Wooden water pipes 457

21.1.7 Other features 460


21.2.1 Buildings 463

21.2.2 Kongens Nytorv and Krinsen 465

21.2.3 Roads and streets 466

21.2.4 The city water supply 466

21.2.5 Bomb shelters from World War II 468



22 Assessment of results 470

22.1 Site specific questions 470

22.2 Objectives of the project in the light of the project aims 471

22.2.1 Background, organization, direction and characterization of urbanization 471

22.2.2 Economic and demographic fluctuations 471

22.2.3 Cultural and social implications and consequences of city life 472

22.3 Future potential 473

Bibliography 474

Literature 474

Archaeological reports and archive material 481

Museum of Copenhagen strategy documents 490

Metro Company back ground materials 491

Internet references 491

Verbal information 492

Abbreviations 492



List of appendices (on disc)

1-12 Contextual Presentation and Grouping, Metro Cityring Excavation. Morten Steineke. Museum of

Copenhagen.

13 Architectural Elements Finds Report. Mogens Vedsø. The National Museum of Denmark. Compiled by

Mia Toftdal. Museum of Copenhagen.

14 Arms and Armour Finds Report. Karsten Skjold Petersen. The National Museum of Denmark. Compiled

by Claes Hadevik. Museum of Copenhagen.

15 Building Materials Finds Report. Claes Hadevik. Museum of Copenhagen.

16a Clay Pipes Finds Report. Mie Pedersen. Museum of Copenhagen.

16b Clay Pipes Finds Report. Appendix 1. Additional Clay Pipe Notes. Mie Pedersen. Museum of

Copenhagen.

17 Coins Finds Report. Michael Märcher. The National Museum of Denmark.

18a Combs Finds Report. Steven P. Asby. University of York. Compiled by Claes Hadevik. Museum of

Copenhagen.

18b Combs Finds Report. Finds Table. Claes Hadevik. Museum of Copenhagen.

19 Flint Finds Report. Niels Henrik Andreasen. Museum of Copenhagen.

20 Glass Finds Report. Georg Haggrén. University of Helsinki.

21 Horse Equipment Finds Report. Ed Lyne. Museum of Copenhagen.

22 Household Materials Finds Report. Claes Hadevik. Museum of Copenhagen.

23 Knives Finds Report. Mia Toftdal. Museum of Copenhagen.

24a Leather Finds Report. Vivi Lena Andersen. Museum of Copenhagen.

24b Leather Finds Report Appendix. Finds Table. Vivi Lena Andersen. Museum of Copenhagen.

25 Medieval Pottery Finds Report. Jesper Langkilde. University of Copenhagen and Mikkel Siebken.


26 Other Organic Materials Finds Report. John Howorth. Museum of Copenhagen.

27 Personal Items Finds Report. Claes Hadevik. Museum of Copenhagen.

28a Post Medieval and Modern Pottery Finds Report. Rikke Søndergaard Kristensen. Museum of

Copenhagen.

28b Post Medieval and Modern Pottery Finds Report. Finds Table 1. Rikke Søndergaard Kristensen.




28c Post Medieval and Modern Pottery Finds Report. Supplement. Rikke Søndergaard Kristensen. Museum

of Copenhagen.

28d Post Medieval and Modern Pottery Finds Report. Finds Table 2 (not all fully registrated). Rikke

Søndergaard Kristensen. Museum of Copenhagen.

29 Rope Finds Report. Charlotte Rimstad. Museum of Copenhagen.

30 Security Items Finds Report. Claes Hadevik. Museum of Copenhagen.

31 Ships and Fishing Equipment. Hanne Marie Myrhøj.

32a Stove Tiles Finds Report. Rikke Søndergaard Kristensen. Museum of Copenhagen.

32b Stove Tiles Finds Report. Finds Table. Rikke Søndergaard Kristensen. Museum of Copenhagen.

33 Textile Production Tools Finds Report. Claes Hadevik. Museum of Copenhagen.

34a Textiles Finds Report. Charlotte Rimstad. Museum of Copenhagen.

34b Textiles Finds Report. Appendix. Julie Kofod Hansen. Museum of Copenhagen.

34c Textiles Finds Report. Finds Table. Charlotte Rimstad. Museum of Copenhagen.

35 Tools Finds Report. Claes Hadevik. Museum of Copenhagen.

36 Toys and Games Finds Report. Mia Toftdal. Museum of Copenhagen.

37 Trade Items Finds Report. Claes Hadevik. Museum of Copenhagen.

38 Unidentified Items Finds Report. Claes Hadevik. Museum of Copenhagen.

39 Wall Tiles Finds Report. Rikke Søndergaard Kristensen. Museum of Copenhagen.

40 Writing Tools Finds Report. Mia Toftdal. Museum of Copenhagen.

41a-p AMS-analysis. Department of Earth and Ecosystem Science. Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory. Lund

University. Lund. Sweden and Leibniz Labor für Altersbestimmung und Isotopenforschung Christian-

Albrechts-Universität. Kiel. Germany.

42 Analysis of Kalot Slags. Michelle Taube. The National Museum of Denmark's Conservation

Department.

43 Analysis of Toy Horse Find. Mads Chr. Christensen. The National Museum of Denmark Denmark's

Conservation Department.

44 Archaeobotanical Investigations at Kongens Nytorv. Håkan Ranheden. National Historical Museums.

Stockholm.

45 Biostratigraphic Dating and Provenance Analysis of Limestones. Jan Audun Rasmussen. Natural History

Museum of Denmark.

46 Notat vedrørende analyser af formodet lipidholdigt materiale fra såkaldte lerbottnar. Jens Glastrup.

The National Museum of Denmark's Conservation Department.



47 Copper holder (apostle) found in the area of Hviid's wine bar (KBM3829). Michelle Taube. The

National Museum of Denmark's Conservation Department.

48a-l Dendrochronological Analysis. Hans Linderson. Department of Quarternary Geology. Lund University.

Lund. Sweden and Aoife Daly 2017.

49 Analyse af eventuelle madrester fra potteskår. Jens Glastrup. The National Museum of Denmark's

Conservation Department.

50a Iron Working at Kongens Nyorv. Arne Jouttijärvi (KBM3829). Heimdal Archaeometry.

50b Spor efter metalforarbejdning, Kongens Nytorv (KBM3829). Arne Jouttijärvi. Heimdal Archaeometry.

51a-f ICP-analysis of Pottery and Clay analysis of Clay Lined Pits. Torbjörn Brorsson. Kontoret för Keramiska

Studier.

52 Limestone and Stone Working Marks Report. Anders Reisnert. Malmö Museer. Malmö. Compiled by

Morten Steineke. Museum of Copenhagen.

53 Hunde/Løvehoved med mennesketænder - Overfladeanalyse og materialeidentifikation. Vibeke Rask

The National Museum of Denmark's Conservation Department.

54 Analyse af mørtler fra metrocityudgravningerne fra KGN (Østerport). Vibeke Rask. The National

Museum of Denmark's Conservation Department.

55 Osteological Report Kongens Nytorv. Inge Bødker Enghoff and Betina Magnussen. Natural History

Museum of Denmark.

56a Wood Working Analysis No 1. Karl-Magnus Melin. Knadriks Kulturbygg AB. Kristianstad.

56b Wood Working Analysis No 2. Karl-Magnus Melin. Knadriks Kulturbygg AB. Kristianstad.



Thanks to all who participated and made the excavations at Kongens Nytorv possible. Thanks to

archaeologists, collaborators (external as internal), the Metro Company and not least all the people who

showed interest in the process



Abstract This excavation report features the archaeological work undertaken at Kongens Nytorv, Copenhagen, Denmark (site

code KBM 3829) by the Museum of Copenhagen from 2009–2016. This work was conducted in association with the

main contractor Metroselskabet I/S prior to the construction of a new adjoining metro station to the present station

at Kongens Nytorv. This is a location where the existing metro line will meet the new Metro Cityring, with Kongens

Nytorv being one of 17 new stations around the Copenhagen area. The main excavations, which were carried out from

December 2009 to September 2011, also included watching briefs of relining around the square of Kongens Nytorv.

The area for the new Station Box and Guide Walls was excavated in stages in 2012, 2013 and 2014 as watching briefs

in connection to the project around the square. In autumn 2016, the remaining part of the project comprising of a

new access point to the Royal Theatre and a new Ventilation Shaft was excavated.

The main excavation zone included the areas within the medieval city and the fortification surrounding the city. These

areas were excavated to the natural substrate and all preserved archaeological remains were registered by full

excavation. The depth of the Station Box work also meant that this area was archaeologically registered down to

natural ground. This differed with the watching brief areas as they depended on the aims of the project and very few

of these were excavated down to natural substrate. All archeological remains were documented by contextual

recording, photography, surveyed and measured by total station and GPS, and in some cases, drawn. Natural science

such as radiocarbon dating, osteological analysis, dendrochronological analysis, macrofossil analysis and other

relevant methods were used when necessary.

During the medieval period Kongens Nytorv was placed in the outskirts of the medieval city, but after the expansion of

the city in the 17th

century, the square came to play a central role in the city; a role it still has today.

Archaeological observations have been made at Kongens Nytorv for the last 100 years. In 1996–1998 the first metro

station was planned at Kongens Nytorv. This led to extensive archeological excavations. These excavations revealed

whilst fortifications were the dominant feature, other remains such as boundary ditches providing settlement

evidence of the area before the fortification. This meant that expectations for the recent excavation would include

findings of both the medieval and Post medieval fortification as well as traces of earlier settlement prior to the

fortification.

An area of nearly 7000 m2 were excavated as part of the recent Metro Cityring Kongens Nytorv project and despite

the previous knowledge of archaeological remains in the area, the recent excavations exceeded expectations. The

most important new knowledge obtained from the area was the uncovering of the city’s eastern gate building

(Østerport), which was found to date from the early part of the 13th

century and part of the city wall from the mid

1300s. Important findings also include the discovery of fishing activities and boundary ditches from the Early medieval

period, which define the settlement and crafts in the area from the Early medieval period until present day. The

uncovering of settlement evidence outside the moat from the early 16th

century came as an unexpected revelation,

portraying life outside the city gates.

The archaeological remains at Kongens Nytorv were found to have been greatly affected by both historical and

modern truncations from various construction projects. The excavation of the area was quite complicated due to

logistic challenges of the overall project. This meant that the overall area was divided into multiple subareas or zones

that made the linking of the archaeological features complicated and not always obtainable. Nevertheless, the results

of the excavation at Kongens Nytorv are very significant and have contributed greatly to our knowledge of the area

and the city of Copenhagen. In particular, the topics such as urbanization and the fortification from Kongens Nytorv

are of special importance and place the excavation of national and international importance.



This report contains all results from the last 6 years of investigations at Kongens Nytorv which include the

archaeological results, finds and natural sciences reports, the overall setting of the project and the methodological

approaches undertaken. All evidence will be presented and discussed in the following pages.

Archaeological periods:

Stone Age, Viking Age, Medieval, Early medieval, High medieval, Late medieval, Renaissance. Post medieval, Late post

medieval, 20th

century.

Feature types:

Clay lined pits, ditches, pit house, “Grumbod”, pits, postholes, wells, fences, buildings, roads, rampart, bulwark,

moats, city wall, gate, dam, barrier tower, bastion, curtain, bridge, wooden water pipes, levelling deposits, backfills,

dumps, foundations, square, air raid shelters.

Key words:

Fishing activities, the Scanian market, medieval fortification, eastern gate, High medieval settlement, city gardens,

urbanization, iron smithing, Kongens boder, Renaissance, Count's Feud, Valkendorf, Post medieval fortification,

Christian 4th

, Gjethuset, cannon foundary, Bremerholm, urban waste, Kongens Nytorv, Krinsen.



1 Introduction The excavation at Kongens Nytorv took place in advance of the establishing of a new Metro station. This is a part of

the new Metro Cityring system that will provide a new transportation system to the areas of the city surrounding the

city core (Fig. 1). The Cityring is eventually going to be connected to the existing Metro system. Kongens Nytorv will be

one of two already existing stations where the new metro line will meet the old one.

The establishing of an adjoining Metro station at Kongens Nytorv would affect high potential archaeological remains

and rescue excavations were necessary in accordance with the Consolidated Act on Museums.

Fig. 1. Plan of the Metro Cityring with location of Kongens Nytorv marked.

The excavation of the main area was intended to start in December 2009 and end in May 2011. Due to changes in

time plans and logistics during the project the archaeological excavation ended in September 2011. The main area of

investigation was the location of the future access to the new metro station and in a high potential area of

archaeological interest (for further information on archaeological potential in the area of Kongens Nytorv, see Chapter

4 and 5; The Metro excavation 1996–1998 and Other archaeological observations in the area around Kongens Nytorv).

In 2012, 2013 and 2014 the excavation of the Station Box and Guide Walls was conducted under archaeological

surveillance. In 2016 an access from the Royal Theatre (Bitrappe) and Ventilation Shaft was established and again this

was conducted under archaeological surveillance. Besides the main excavation work mentioned here, some extra

work was done separately when needed outside the main area. The last extra work was done in the summer of 2015

in the basement of former Café A’Porta.



1.2 Legislative framework The Museum of Copenhagen is responsible for the archaeological work carried out in Copenhagen and Frederiksberg

municipalities and therefore conducted the archaeological work on this site. The work was carried out under Part 8 of

the Consolidated Act on Museums. This means that the contractor must finance the cost of the archaeological work

(registration, observation and documentation) in connection with destruction of archaeological remains. See link:

https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=162504

The aim of the archaeological work at Kongens Nytorv was to produce a complete, thorough and accurate set of data

of high disciplinary standard that would create an adequate foundation for future research. These standards are

stated within the document covering the overall archaeological design aspects of the project which was approved by

KUAS (present day: Agency of Culture and Palaces) in the autumn of 2009 and in June 2010 (Thomasson & Høst-

Madsen 2009). The excavations were designed to allow future research to be undertaken to enhance the

archaeological and historical knowledge that can be gained from this site and related to the development of

Copenhagen.

No research is allowed to be financed by the contractor, in this case the Metro Company. The end product of the

excavation is site reports, which contains empirical conclusions and basic cultural historical interpretations. Further

archaeological research and analysis can only be carried out under separate, additional funding. This complies with

statements in the Consolidated Act on Museums.

1.3 The location Kongens Nytorv (translates into the King’s New Square) is today a central square of the inner city, with Krinsen as the

central area. This was not always the case; the eastern city gate of the medieval fortification was placed here on the

first brick built fortification surrounding Copenhagen, but neither written nor archaeological sources so far seem to

indicate that the area was used to its potential in terms of close settlement or activities. All knowledge up to the

present day seems to indicate an area on the outskirts of medieval Copenhagen with limited activities.

The square of Kongens Nytorv was originally founded in 1688 and placed just east of the medieval city and just west to

the New-Copenhagen which was laid out by King Christian the 4th

when he expanded the city that outgrew its

medieval boundaries in the beginning of the 17th

century. The square was laid out as a baroque garden (Krinsen) by

King Christian the 5th

with an equestrian statue of himself as a central figure and the square was lined with mansions.

Two of these 17th

century buildings still stand today and the square is also home of the Royal Theatre and the oldest

existing pub in Denmark – Hviids Vinstue.

For a period between 1749 and around a hundred years after the garden was closed down and the square functioned

as a military drill ground.

Krinsen was reconstructed back to its original baroque style in 1908 after the original square. With the large mansions

surrounding the square, today’s Kongens Nytorv has preserved its original characteristics from the 17th

century (Fig.

2).

https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=162504



Fig. 2. Krinsen and Kongens Nytorv before the excavations in October 2009. Photo: Morten Steineke.

A prioritization of the large scale excavation area at Kongens Nytorv was necessary in order to keep the archaeological

budget at a reasonable level, but also according to the different types of archaeological features, that were expected

in the area, that would demand different kinds of excavation methods. On the basis of what was known about the

area from both archaeological and written sources, a plan of prioritization was laid out. Some knowledge of Kongens

Nytorv was gained from earlier archaeological excavations; in particular the excavation for the first Metro station at

the square excavated in 1996–1998 (see Chapter 4; The Metro excavation 1996–1998). From the results of this

excavation the museum knew that there would be potentially quite significant remains of the fortification surrounding

Copenhagen in the medieval and Renaissance period. At this excavation also remains from the 11th

century were

retrieved, and the potential of complicated, early medieval stratigrafical remains was also a possibility.

1.4 Excavation areas In order to prioritize the budget and the archaeological work the investigations were separated in four different areas

with different potential based on what was known about the area from historical and archaeological sources (Fig. 3).

Type 1 High potential areas with expected complex stratigraphy

The high priority area with the highest expectations of complex archaeological findings. This was the area that was

behind the medieval fortification and which was expected to contain remains from the early medieval period and

perhaps even Viking Age. This would include settlements, ditches, wells, etc. This area was fully excavated to the

geological layers and mainly by hand.

Type 2 High potential areas with less complex stratigraphy



The medieval fortification and the area just outside. This would include walls, embankments, moats, etc. Less

complicated archaeology was expected in this area due to larger and more recognizable archaeological remains. The

archaeological fieldwork in this area was often assisted by machine power due to less complex layers.

Type 3 High potential areas with limited documentation possibilities

Mostly watching briefs including the Station Box. As well as in the type 2 area, larger archaeological findings were

expected and also of primarily post medieval dating. In these areas the excavation was done by machine to the depth

needed by the contractor and surveyed by archaeologists. When archaeological remains were detected the

archaeologists registered the remains at a fairly high speed and in less detail.

Type 4 Areas with moderate potential and limited documentation possibilities

Watching brief areas where mostly less complex and larger features like levelling layers were expected. Most of the

type 4 area was on the outskirts of the Kongens Nytorv area and expected to be of a relatively young age. When

archaeological remains were detected the archaeologists registered the remains at a fairly high speed and in less

detail.

Fig. 3. Map of Kongens Nytorv with the type 1-4 areas.

For start and end dates of all archaeological work see Chapter 2; Administrative data.



1.5 Framework Different documents made the scientific and logistic base for the excavations carried out at Kongens Nytorv. They

were both for the actual archaeological work on site and also on a theoretical and organizational character.

Kongens Nytorv Method Statement for archaeological excavation KBM 3829 (Thomasson (ed.) 2010) is the main

document that provides an archaeological strategy at Kongens Nytorv for the excavation of areas type 1-4,

documentation and post-excavation work of Kongens Nytorv. This document sets out the basis of information,

including previous knowledge and documentary research about the area upon which the management and excavation

strategy has been based. It sets out the framework of objectives that define the entire Metro project and focuses on

particular relevant themes for this excavation (see Chapter 6; Objectives and aims).

It also provides a quantification of the known archaeological deposits and conditions within the site and describes the

resources needed for the project. This document should be read in conjunction with the document covering the

overall project design (Project Design 2009).

1.6 Excavation report This excavation report conforms to specific KUAS guidelines concerning report writing. No research has been carried

out on the results; only a working statement of the results and conclusions. This complies with statements in Danish

Museum law (Bekendtgørelse af museumsloven nr. 1505). Therefore, when discussing the results in context, there is

only limited reference to primary or secondary documentary sources or academic research on the subject. Full

analysis and interpretation will rely on future academic projects of which this report provides the foundation.

The report is designed to provide a full statement concerning not just the results and archaeological interpretation of

the work, but also to describe in detail the methods undertaken and some of the theoretical basis under which the

archaeology was carried out. It also critically examines and assesses the processes and procedures created to deal

with the archaeology. The aim of this report is to provide three main points of information: a guide to the data and

documentation material, especially for the IntraSiS database which will provide access for interested users, an

assessment of the results and an initial, basic cultural historical interpretation.

1.7 Report contributions The main author of this report is Field Leader Morten Steineke (all Chapters except Chapter 1, 2, 6, 7.10, 8, 9, 17, 19

and 22) who also has been responsible for Appendices 1-12; Contextual presentation and grouping, coordinating

natural science specialists and other report related work. Excavation Leader Jane Jark Jensen coordinated overall

work, the finds specialist reports and made contributions to the report.

Joakim Thomasson is the main author of project documents (see References) and some of his texts have been reused

in this report. Chapter 11; Prehistoric finds and features is mainly based on the Flint report written by Niels Henrik

Andreasen (see Appendix 19). A large part of the report dealing with the buildings outside the 17th

century moat is

based on grouping texts written by Rachel Morgan.

Report Management Jane Jark Jensen (main), Morten Steineke

Report Production Morten Steineke (main), Jane Jark Jensen

Figure Production Karen Green Therkelsen

Final Report Editing Morten Steineke

External Proofreader Donna Young



Contributions Joakim Thomasson

Contextual Grouping Rachel Morgan, Morten Steineke, Therese Ohlsson, Karen Bork-

Pedersen

Contextual Text Morten Steineke

Matrix Rachel Morgan (main), Therese Ohlsson, Karen Bork-Pedersen

Images Museum of Copenhagen unless stated otherwise



2 Administrative data This section will present the administrative data when it comes to dates, phases (areas) of excavation, contractors,

specialists, staff, organization and on-site facilities.

It is important to note that different areas of excavation on the site of Kongens Nytorv were named “phases” of

excavation (phase 1N, 1, 2+3, 4B, etc.). In the following text the areas of excavation will be referred to as phases.1

2.1 Builder and contractors The builder was the Metro Company, Metro Cityringen which is establishing an adjoining metro station at Kongens

Nytorv (see Chapter 1; Introduction).

NCC was the contractor on site through the stage of excavation and watching briefs which took place from December

2009 to September 2011. NCC serviced the archaeological excavation with machine power, removing soil,

lifting/transporting heavy-duty finds and stones and also health and safety on site. All work done in cooperation with

NCC was financed by the Metro Company. From 2012–2016 the contractor CMT serviced the archaeological watching

briefs primarily in the Station Box area and the Bitrappe. In both cases no direct coordination was done between the

contractor and the museum without the approval of the Metro Company.

Due to logistic challenges on site because of the ongoing traffic on Kongens Nytorv and need for work space, time

plans, staffing, etc. a high level of coordination went on between the site managers from the Metro Company, NCC,

CMT and the Museum of Copenhagen – mainly Excavation Leader Jane Jark Jensen and Project Leader Lene Høst-

Madsen (2009–2013). Also Field Leaders were involved in coordination of the daily fieldwork. Between 2012–2016

this task was done by temporary Excavation Leader/Field Leader Morten Steineke.

The coordinating persons and primary contact persons on site from the Metro Company were from 2010 till summer

2011 Construction Manager Vibeke Rolle. From summer 2011 till the last phase in 2014 Interface Manager Jimmy

Jørgensen, and in 2013 and 2014 also work Site Manager Ole Bellen. In 2016 the Metro Company coordinating person

responsible was Site Manager Nikolaj Nørgaard Skytte.

Coordinators from the contractor companies were from NCC – Project Leader Per Mundus Voetmann and Production

Leader Keld Brøns Nielsen from 2010–2011. From 2012–2014 the contractor was CMT and the primary coordinators

were Site Manager Nanna Krogh Lassen and Construction Manager Per Guillaume Jensen. In 2016 the coordinator was

Nanna Krogh Lassen.

2.2 Project organization and staff Not all staff was at site at one time, but at times more than 30 persons were involved in the archaeological work on

site at the same time.

2.2.1 Project management

Joakim Thomasson (Antiquarian Leader 2010–2011), Søren Bak-Jensen (Head of Archaeological Section 2011–2014)

and Thomas Roland (Head of Archaeological Section 2015–2017).

Lene Høst-Madsen (Project Leader 2009–2013), Jane Jark Jensen (Excavation Leader 2009–2016/maternity leave 2012

and leave autumn 2013), Duncan Alexander (Field Leader 2009–2013), Therese Ohlsson (part-time Field Leader 2011),

Morten Steineke (Field Leader 2009–2016/Excavation Leader temporary position 2012), Gemma Stevenson (Field

Leader 2009–2010).

1 The choice of name for these excavation areas was made before the Museum of Copenhagen became a part of the

project. These excavation areas will in the following report be named phases unlike Phases for the historical time periods.



2.2.2 Field archaeologists, special responsibilities and archaeology students (different time

lengths)

Niels Henrik Andreasen, Karen Bork-Pedersen, Lise Christensen (Student), Tina Bonde Christensen (Student), Joss

Davis, Gareth Dickinson, Mads Drevs Dyhrfjeld-Johnsen (Outreach), Brendan Fagan, Fredrik Grehn, Kirstine Haase

(Outreach), Claes Hadevik, Andreas Bonde Hansen (Student), Camilla Haarby Hansen, Jens Hansen (Student), Marc

Hauge (Student), Lars Haugesten, Chris Hawksworth, Olle Heimer (finds), John Howorth, Katarzyna Högström, Rikke

Isler, Ann Sølvia Jacobsen, Per Jansson (total station), Astrid Wolff Jensen (Student), Michael Alrø Jensen, Bo Bergreen

Jensen, Jens Winther Johannsen, Susanne Møller Johansen, Sam Keenan, Grzegorz Kiarszys, Mette Kjelstrup, Jason

Leech, Magnus Lindberg, Ed Lyne (photo 2010 and 2011), Magda Lyne, Sabina Harholm Lønskov, Alva MacGowan,

Anne-Dorthe Moesgaard-Christensen, Signe Fog Mogensen, Rachel Ceridwen Morgan, Jacob Mosekilde, Malene

Aagreen Nielsen, Therese Ohlsson (stratigraphy 2010 and 2011), Claus Rohden Olesen, Louise Melchior Rasmussen,

Christopher Reese, Maiken Ploug Riisom (Student), Charlotte Rimstad, Karin Roug (Outreach), Anthony Ruter, Mikkel

Siebken (Student), Terje Stafseth, Amanda Summerfield, Krister Tayanin, Karen Green Therkelsen, Zenon Topcagic

(Student), Karina Truelsen (Student) and Maria Louise Tvede (Student).

Also students from Lund University, Sweden and Elizabethtown College, Pennsylvania, USA participated for a limited

period of time as part of their internship/education.

2.3 Excavation areas (phases) and watching briefs Due to the contractor’s logistics and especially the continuation of the ongoing traffic at Kongens Nytorv, the affected

areas at Kongens Nytorv were split into several smaller phases (areas). The areas of excavation – type 1 and 2 areas

(Fig. 4) and some of the affected areas of the type 3 area (Fig. 5), were split into several minor excavation phases.

Fig. 4. Kongens Nytorv. The areas of excavation – type 1 and 2 areas.



Fig. 5. Watching briefs were undertaken at Kongens Nytorv including service realignments around the square, Guide

Wall phases and the excavation of the Station Box. They were all type 3 and 4 areas.

2.4 Dates Due to planning, logistics, etc. the outline of the phases and start dates were changed several times during the project

(Tab. 1). These are the dates that were the actual work phases which involved the Museum of Copenhagen.

Phase (area) Start date End date

1N October 25th

2010 August 3th

2011

1S October 29th

2010 November 17th

2010

1W October 6th

2010 November 8th

2011

2+3 April 4th

2010 July 26th

2010

3 September 27th

2010 October 11th

2010

4B June 29th

2011 August 10th

2011

45A November 22nd

2010 March 1st

2011

45B April 8th

2011 August 1st

2011

5A-1 May 7th

2010 October 20th

2010

5B-1 February 3rd

2011 March 6th

2011

5B-2 March 7th

2011 May 2nd

2011

6A-E June 30th

2010 August 30th

2011

Tab. 1. Timetable for archaeological excavations in the type 1 and type 2 areas mainly based on information in

IntraSiS.



Service alignments were done mainly in 2010 but continued all the way through the project, different watching briefs

were carried out on and off in connection with minor works outside the excavation areas. Also during the

archaeological work in 2012, 2013 and 2014 when the Station Box was dug – see below, the archaeological work was

based on watching brief work (Tab. 2).

Phases (areas) Start date End date

Service alignments/Minor works/Extra works 2009 2016

Station Box 1 May 24th

2013 June 28th

2013

Station Box 2 August 19th

2013 October 21st

2013

Station Box 3 September 12th

2014 November 1st

2014

Bitrappe and Ventilation Shaft November 3rd

2016 December 16th

2016

Tab. 2. Time table for archaeological excavations in the type 3 and type 4 areas.

2.5 Site facilities Field season 2010–2011 Museum of Copenhagen shared establishment with the contractor NCC. At the most a total of

11 cabins were set up specifically for the archaeological staff. The archaeologists had one tool storage container and

one storage container for finds and samples. Together with NCC, the museum also had one container containing first

aid material. In the office there was equipment for 12 people to work at the same time (Fig. 6). Eight of these spaces

were used on a rotation based system by the excavating archaeologists. The remaining computers were used by the

Excavation Leader, Field Leaders and the IT and stratigraphy/contextual grouping responsible person. The office

included stations for storing and charging digital equipment, and all relevant documentation material required. One of

the cabins was used for finds storage. A first registration of the finds and samples was done on site where these were

sorted and packed before being brought in to the museum for further registration.

Fig. 6. Field office work at Kongens Nytorv 2011. Some contexts sheets are more fun than others… Photo: Museum of

Copenhagen.



Field season 2012–2016 Museum of Copenhagen shared establishment with the contractor CMT and CG Jensen. This

included 3 cabins at the most. A tool shed was acquired by the Metro Company.

2.5.1 Excavation facilities and equipment

During the excavation of subarea phase 45B (the gate building), a tent was built over the site due to weather

conditions. Also a portable heating system was provided to prevent frost together with winter mats. Light was

installed in the tent as well.

General heavy equipment and staff were provided by contractors and included excavators in different sizes between

one ton and up to 14 tons. Two Trimble Total Stations S6s were used for surveying and digital cameras were used for

in situ photos at the excavation.

Equipment available included all relevant digging equipment, barrows, shovels, trowels, mattocks etc., as well as total

stations, four cameras, one metal detector and all relevant sized plastic finds and sample bags and boxes. Drawing

equipment was also used in certain situations, though archaeological features were mainly surveyed using the total

station. Standard archaeological tools were employed on site; with hand tools including smaller trowels and brushes

for delicate excavation. Safety clothing and gloves were used for everyday fieldwork. When dealing with contaminated

soil the personnel used extra safety equipment.

2.5.2 Excavation in numbers

Investigated area (m2) 6 700 m

2

Investigated volume based on an

estimated depth of c. 2.0 m (m3)

13 400 m3

Coordination system DKTM zone 3

X-coordinate 1173000

Y-coordinate 652500

Height system DVR 90

Metres above sea level 3.0-4.3

2.6 Contractors and consultants The following is a list of contractors and internal and external consultants for natural science, on site advice, finds and

finds reports.

2.6.1 Natural science

A series of specialists were involved in the project and in the post-excavation analyses of various material types. Their

work was coordinated by responsible excavation curator, Hoda El-Sharnouby 2010–2014 and in 2014–2016 by Field

Leader Morten Steineke.

Samples were extracted by archaeologists or (very occasionally) consultants on site and further sampling was

undertaken in the laboratories by consultants. For environmental remains (macrofossils) the on site advice was

received during excavation from Mette Marie Hald, National Museum of Denmark. The samples were ultimately

examined in external laboratories by consultants within the Public Procurement, and sub-sampled as necessary.

Archaeobotanical Report by Håkan Ranheden, National Historical Museums, Stockholm.



Osteological Report by Inge Bødker Enghoff and Betina Magnussen, Natural History Museum of Denmark.

University of Copenhagen.

Dendrochronology Report by Hans Linderson, Department of Quarternary Geology, Lund University. Reports

have been compiled by Morten Steineke.

Species and old-wood effect Report by Hans Linderson, Department of Quarternary Geology, Lund University.

Metallurgical Analysis Report by Arne Jouttijärvi, Heimdal-archaeometry. Virum.

Analysis of kalot slags by Michelle Taube, The National Museum of Denmark.

Ceramics Report by Torbjörn Brorsson, Kontoret för Keramiska Studier. Landskrona.

ICP Analysis Report by Torbjörn Brorsson, Kontoret för Keramiska Studier. Landskrona

Clay analyis of clay lined pits by Torbjörn Brorsson, Kontoret för Keramiska Studier. Landskrona.

Chemical analysis of clay lined pits by Jens Glastrup, The National Museum of Denmark.

Biostratigraphic dating and provenance analysis of limestones by Jan Audun Rasmussen. Natural History

Museum of Denmark. University of Copenhagen.

Mortar analysis by Vibeke Rask. The National Museum of Denmark.

Limestone lion head analysis by Vibeke Rask. The National Museum of Denmark.

Limestone and stoneworking marks by Anders Reisnert, Malmö Museer. The report has been compiled by

Morten Steineke.

Radiocarbon dating. Reports by Raimund Muscheler and Mats Rundgren. Department of Earth and Ecosystem

Sciences. Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory. Lunds University. Lund.

Radiocarbon dating. Report by Dr. Andrzej Z. Rakowski Leibniz. Labor für Altersbestimmung und

Isotopenforschung. Christian-Albrechts-Universität. Kiel.

Copper holder Report by Michelle Taube. The National Museum of Denmark.

2.6.2 Finds

X-ray and conservation work was conducted by Bevaring og Naturvidenskab, National Museum of Denmark.

2.6.3 Finds reports

Curator Rikke Kristensen: Post medieval ceramics, stove tiles and wall tiles.

PhD-student Jesper Langkilde and archaeologist Mikkel Siebken: Medieval ceramics.

PhD-student Vivi Lena Andersen: Leather.

Archaeologist Charlotte Rimstad: Textiles and ropes.

Conservator Julie Kofod Hansen: Appendix to textiles report.

Professor of Historical Archaeology Georg Haggrén: Glass.

Materials Scientist Arne Jouttijärvi: Slag and smithy waste.

Archaeologist Claes Hadevik: Household materials, textile production tools, tools, security, trade, building

materials, personal items and unidentified objects.

Curator Karsten Skjold Petersen and Claes Hadevik: Arms and armour.

Curator Michael Märcher: Coins.

Doctor Steven P. Ashby and Claes Hadevik: Combs.

Finds coordinator, Archaeologist: Mia Toftdal: Toys and games, writing tools and knives.

Field Leader and Excavation Leader (2015–2016) Ed Lyne: Horse equipment.

Archaeologist Hanne Marie Myrhøj: Ships and fishing equipment.

Archaeologist Niels Henrik Andreasen: Flint.

Archaeologist John Howorth: Other organic material.

Archaeologist Mie Pedersen: Clay pipes.

Editor Mogens Vedsø: Architectual Elements.



2.6.4 Other reports

Woodworking Report No 1 and No 2 by Karl-Magnus Melin, Knadriks Kulturbygg AB. Kristianstad.

Analysis of toy horse by Mads Chr. Christensen. National Museum of Denmark.

Analysis of content of ointment jar from Gothergade by Jens Glastrup and Mads Chr. Christensen. National

Museum of Denmark.

Food remains on pottery by Jens Glastrup and Mads Chr. Christensen. National Museum of Denmark.



3 Regional geology and topography In this sub-chapter an outline will be given of the geological and topographical background information relevant for

the Kongens Nytorv area. This will include a discussion about the general ideas that exist regarding Copenhagen’s

topography in the past, as well as information regarding what the recent excavation has revealed of the topography

locally.

3.1 Natural geology Copenhagen is situated on ground moraine gently undulating from 0 to 30 metres above sea-level (DVD90). To the

north the region is hilly and partially wooded with several large dead-ice lakes. Late-glacial gravel and sand outwash

deposits cover the hilltops to the north. To the south the region is dominated by a low open clay-till plain called

Heden. Here the region is generally flatter with fewer moraine ridges, Valby Bakke being a notable exception

(Kjersgaard 1980:14).

Geotechnical surveys around Kongens Nytorv have recorded the stratigraphy to a depth of 56 m. Danien chalk and

bryozoan limestone form the base of the sequence up to a depth of about 13 m. This is overlain by about 10 m of

alternating layers of clay till and well sorted coarse outwash sand. The post-glacial deposits are comprised of marine

silt and/or sand overlain by detritus “gyttje” and/or humified peat. In some sequences it is unclear whether the silt

and fine sand layers originated during the Littorina Transgressions or as Late-glacial Diluvium (Crone & Koch 1965:3;

Bahnson 1973b:2-3; Jeppesen 1982; Geoteknisk Institut 1993; Kristiansen 1998:41; 1999a; Moltsen og Steen

Henriksen 1998; Jacobsen 2010; Zander & El-Sharnouby 2011).

3.2 Topography The landscape around Copenhagen has risen since the last Ice Age leaving the area as flat and low lying moraine with

scattered hills. In the Middle Ages the area consisted of a natural coastal bay sheltered by the island of Amager and

the islets of Slotsholmen and Bremerholm.

The Littorina Sea existed around 7500–4000 BP and included as many as four transgression and regression cycles

producing four relative stationary shorelines during high-stands in the Late-Atlantic and Early-Sub-boreal periods. The

determination of the shoreline displacement curve and the Littorina Transgressions are based on dated material from

prehistoric settlements and graves, stray finds of flint tools together with pollen analysis, diatom analysis and

radiocarbon dating of material within and beneath the Littorina deposits. However, there is still some uncertainty

about the isostatic uplift and the eustatic ocean fluctuations. The maximum high-stand during the late-Atlantic

Transgression at 4300 BC in the Copenhagen area has been estimated to lie between DVD90 kote +3.2 and +4.1 m (cf.

Troels-Smith 1939; Digerfeldt 1975; Christensen 1981; 1995; Jacobsen 1982).

During this transgression maximum, Copenhagen was divided by a narrow strait from Øresund that extended through

the "Lake Valley" formed in the present location of Sortedamssøen, Peblingesøen and Skt. Jørgens' defensive

reservoirs. This strait connected to Kalvebod Strand near the preset location of Vesterbro Torv in the south and near

the present position of Frihavnen to the north. The paleo shoreline lie approximately where Kronprinsessegade is

today. Refshaleholmen, Plantholm (Mågeøen), Bremerholm, Strandholm (Slotsholmen), Skarnholmen and all other

islets between Zealand and Amager were all covered by water (Christensen 1963:2-3).

After the Littorina period the sea retreated gradually to the coastline we know from historical times. According to

estimations made by geologists, the shoreline around 1000 AD is believed to have been at kote +2.0 to +2.5 m with a

course just east of the Royal Theatre, northeast of Charlottenborg and through the Amalienborg area (Fig. 7). It can

not be excluded that the shoreline may have stretched to the north of Vingårdsstræde near Lille Kongensgade (cf.

Rosenkjær 1906; Crone & Koch 1965:2; Hartmann & Hartmann 1988:6; Fabricius 1999:Fig. 33b, App. 4, 266), though



as seen on Fig. 7 this suggestion is uncertain. It must be pointed out that shallow marshy areas with low relief coast,

such as Copenhagen, were frequently flooded. These floods produced a variable shoreline.

Fig. 7. Estimated shoreline around 1000 AD and previous geological and archaeological observations of peat layers

(former salt marshes) around Kongens Nytorv before the excavations in 2010.

The shoreline of the Early Middle Ages has not been completely identified as hardly any excavations have revealed

information on this matter. The early 13th

century shoreline has been ascertained from Løngangsstræde in the west

end to Højbro Plads in the east (Skaarup 1999:81). It is generally thought that marshy, shallow areas existed in many

parts of Copenhagen in these centuries, and that these may have flooded frequently, resulting in a fluctuating

shoreline.

Analyses of pollen and macrofossil samples suggest that the Copenhagen area during the 11th

century was dominated

by meadows with reed swamps and wet meadows. This environment in the upper coastal intertidal zone between

land and salt water or brackish water produced peat layers of varying thickness from 0.2 m to over 1.0 m, depending

on local depressions, stream courses etc. (cf. Rosenkjær 1906:18 et seq.; Ramsing 1910; Christensen 1963:3 et seq.).

Earlier Metro investigations proved traces of this wet meadow vegetation survived in the southern part of the

excavation area, which indicated that the land had been flooded sometime during part of the 13th

century (Kristiansen

1998:41). Pollen and macrofossil analysis has also shown that this natural, dense reed swamp changed over time to

pasture land (Rosenkjær 1906; Skaarup 1999:74 et seq.; Moltsen og Steen Henriksen 1998; Boldsen 1996; 1998; El-

Sharnouby & Høst-Madsen 2008:148).

Copenhagen's original topography has changed much during the last 1000 years. Refuse from households, livestock

and industrial production has been dumped to fill and grade the coastal terrain (Fig. 8). Debris from large fires in 1728,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertidal_zone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brackish_water



1795 and 1807, produced when the remaining ruins were demolished to provide room for new buildings, has

contributed to the construction of thick cultural layers. The city grew from a small medieval settlement on the

Kalveboden strait, sheltered by the island of Amager and former Slotsholmen and Bremerholm islets. Also, islets and

small bays have been capped and filled, and the town has broadened far beyond the original shoreline (Rosenkjær

1906:18; Ramsing 1940, bd. I; Christophersen 1985:69; El-Sharnouby & Høst-Madsen 2008:147; Zander & El-

Sharnouby 2011).

Dybet was a former strait that separated Bremerholm to the south from Zealand and that until the mid 16th

century

was the access to Copenhagen’s harbour at Gammel Strand. This strait has been demonstrated through post-glacial

marine sediments south of Kongens Nytorv where the sedimentation forms a cylindrical and snowshoe shaped east-

west orientated pool comprehensive with Holmens Kanal No. 5 and No. 7, Tordenskjoldsgade Nos. 10, 12 and 14 and

part of the Royal Theatre. The pool’s deepest part was at a line between Tondenskjoldsgade No. 10 and No. 12 and

Holmens Kanal No. 5 and No. 7. In the deepest part the post-glacial deposits reached kote c. -3.0 m. This infilling of

Dybet started during the Littorina Transgression and ended in the 17th

century when discarded ships were scuttled

here and large volumes of urban refuse dumped in to fill the strait (Crone & Koch 1965:2; Jeppesen 1982:5-6).

The present-day area of Kongens Nytorv is situated about 4.0 m above sea level and the original topography of the

area in the Middle Ages and following centuries is not known for certain, though it seems likely that sea level would

not have changed very much in that time. Recent investigations have indicated that the thickness of the paving and

cultural layers is between 3-4 m, at the most recent 17th

century moat the layers are between 5 to 6 m thick (Kongens

Nytorv borings 2012; De Nationale Geologiske Undersøgelser for Danmark og Grønland 2012). Some information has

been revealed during the excavation that suggests that the ground level at Kongens Nytorv was only a little lower in

the Middle Ages than today, being c. 2.0-2.5 m lower than present day street-level depending on type of feature, etc.

It would also appear, based on the original topsoil seen in some areas, that this, contrary to earlier accounts (cf. El-

Sharnouby & Høst Madsen 2008), was not a particularly wet or marshy area, but instead consisted of areas of

grassland over a thin layer of topsoil, which in turn rested on post-glacial sediments (see further discussion Chapter

10; Phase 1 Moraine, salt marshes and other Quaternary observations).



Fig. 8. The thicknesses of cultural layers around Kongens Nytorv based on drilling results at the establishment of the

Metro in the beginning of the 1990s and for the Metro Cityringen (cf. Rambøll. Unknown year; GEUS database). Note

the high values in the area of the estimated 17th

century moat and Nyhavn’s previous coverage.



4 The Metro excavation 1996–1998 During the first phase of the Metro development in 1996–1998 the parking east of Magasin towards Holmens Kanal (c.

1500 m2) was excavated including large parts of the fortifications and early settlement (Kristiansen 1998; 1999a-c).

The dominant feature was the city's fortification, but it also uncovered a number of different features that can be

linked to the settlement in the area before and after the fortification (Fig. 9). It was possible to divide the

constructions and structures into five main phases.

Fig. 9. Overview of Metro excavation in 1996–1998, facing west. Photo: Museum of Copenhagen.

4.1 Before the fortification 1020–1200 AD Except for a C14-dating of Hemp-agrimony (Eupatorium cannabinum) from a natural deposit dated to 7140±70 BP and

6211–5882 BC (cal 2 σ) (AAR-3739) 2, the earliest activities were represented by several north-south orientated

boundary ditches in the northernmost and western parts of the excavation area and about 10 m east of Magasin's

department store facade (Kristiansen 1998:41 et seq.; 1999a).

The ditches, which could be divided into four or five sub-phases, probably formed boundaries between a property and

the adjacent salt marshes (see Fig. 51; Chapter 12.2.1). Oldest were three ditches (named ACL, ABD = OU? and BND)

which replaced each other. After use the latest ditch was followed by an at least 11.5 m long and 0.4-0.5 m high

2 The following calibrated radiocarbon dates are presented using the 2-sigma values which account for 95.4% of the

probability of the date falling within that particular range. All dating from previous excavations has been calibrated

using OxCal version 4.2.



wicker fence and a feature interpreted as some form of boundary bank to the west, at least 0.6 m high and maximum

at 5.0 m wide. The stratigraphical relations between these two features were unclear. In the middle and southern

parts of the excavation area only one single ditch was documented (BLS) (Kristiansen 1998:41-62; 1999a:101-108).

The ditches were orientated as good as parallel with the current plot boundary at Magasin’s eastern facade with a

varied length between 6.2-29.5 m, width 0.8-5.4 m and a depth between 0.5-1.2 m, the latter based on the bottom

measurements. The sequences of the ditches profiles changed, being slightly rounded to the north and wide to flat-

bottomed with gently sloping sides to the south. South of the oldest ditch (ACL), and the extension of this, a series of

elongated pits were documented without further determination (see Fig. 51; Chapter 12.2.1).

The fill in the ditches consisted of decomposed buried soil (salt marshes) and fine washed blue to grey clay, not

naturally found in the local moraine and where the sedimentation must have happened incrementally. The mud

deposition showed that the ditches had been used over several years and that they may have been regularly cleaned.

The occurrence of silt and stagnant brackish water also showed that the ditches had not been in connection with the

sea, but flooded at regular intervals.

The fence consisted of horizontal wicker. Some of the vertical poles were still in place, but the majority had been

drawn up and the fence tipped over to the east (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10. Excavating north-south running wicker fence. Photo: Museum of Copenhagen.

A total of nine radiocarbon datings were completed in connection with the boundary ditches (Kristiansen 1998;

1999a:113 and 114). Seed (species unknown) from fill in the oldest ditch (ACL) was C14-dated to 937±25 BP or 1029–

1158 AD (cal 2 σ) (KIA 6107). Seed from one of the elongated pits (EFA) was C14-dated to 886±24 BP or 1045–1217 AD

(cal 2 σ) (KIA, without lab. number) and “gyttje” from the bottom of ditch (CDL = OU) was C14-dated to 1335±45 BP or

620–776 AD (cal 2 σ) (AAR-3740). Twigs and a wood artifact from the next phase (ditch OU) was C14-dated to 845±40



BP or 1046–1270 AD (cal 2 σ) (K-6662) (Kristiansen 1998:65 and 90; 1999a:115), but the date is highly likely to be

second half of the 12th

century/early 13th

century, partly due to CBM in a structure stratigrapically older than the ditch

and the reservoir effect on the “gyttje” sample (cf. Kristiansen 1999a:158; cf. Rud og Heinemeier 1998a).

Traces of flax retting and animal bone in ditch (ABD) could be dated to late 12th

century/early 13th

century. A bundle of

flax (Linum usitatissimum) from the same ditch was C14-dated to 915±50 BP or 1024–1215 AD (cal 2 σ) (AAR-3738)

and animal bones (Ovies aries) to 985±40 BP or 989–1155 AD (cal 2 σ) (K-6807). Collected ceramics were dated to

1100–1500 AD, 1225–1350 AD, 1315–1350 AD and as late as 1300–1700 AD and 1350–1800 AD. A later contamination

could be the case since several of the ditch fills consisted of red bricks, but without further description or information.

A branch and wood from the wicker fence (/DSY) (species unknown) were C14-dated to 1185±45 BP or 694–971 AD

(cal 2 σ) and 772±39 BP or 1185–1288 AD (cal 2 σ) (K-6816 and K-6862), where the latter dating is most likely. Twigs

and wood chips (Fraxinus, Juniperus, Fagus Quercus, Corylus and unknown) in a layer of seaweed (TB) were C14-dated

to 930±50 BP or 1021–1212 AD (cal 2 σ) (K-6806) (Kristiansen 1998:65 and C14-datings from KBM 1410. 2012).

The boundary ditches and the wicker fence were disused in the last decades of the 13th

century, and then covered by

salt marshes (/EFG) and a faeces layer (ACE) from humans and animals, where wood (unknown species and old-wood

effect) and twigs were C14-dated to 550±35 BP or 1308–1436 AD (cal 2 σ) (K-6808), 685±45 BP or 1256–1398 AD (cal 2

σ) (K-6863), 765±45 BP or 1173–1295 AD (cal 2 σ) (K-6864) and 830±30 BP or 1160–1265 AD (cal 2 σ) (AAR-4247). A

handle made of deer antler with animal ornamentation recovered from this rubbish layer could be dated to the 11th

century. After this the area was covered by the facilities of the city's fortification (Kristiansen 1998:11, 43 et seq., 65,

86; 1999a:101 et seq.; 1999b:158 and 159; cf. Rud og Heinemeier 1998b).

Due to the excavation’s orientation, the supposed settlement in the west was affected only to a lesser degree by the

survey. Some layers and observations in the NW part could be interpreted as remains of buildings consisting of floor

layers and imprints of a north-south orientated foundation belonging to a building dated to the 1200–1300s, a north-

south orientated base plate, a fireplace, pits and trenches. Three of these pits were interpreted either as postholes,

board- or erosion holes (?) (cf. Kristiansen 1998:48; 1999a:109 and 110). Activity layers registered against Magasin’s

facade in the same way as the levelling and rubbish layers over the boundary ditches indicated different types of

activities from the 11th

century, perhaps as early as the first half of the century, though this suggestion is based on

only one C14-dating (cf. Kristiansen 1998:11) and the Viking Age handle.

The osteological material was varied, consisting of sheep and lamb (Ovis aries), cattle (Bos taurus), pigs (Sus scrofa

domesticus), poultry (hens and geese), dog (Canis lupus familiaris), cat (Felis catus) and horse (Equus ferus caballus).

Fish was mainly represented by herring (Clupeidae), but cod (Gadus) and eel (Anguillidae) also exist among the bones.

In the archaeobotanical material there were traces of the salt marshes, marine material and culture specific plants

interpreted as household waste, flax retting, latrine- and stable material (Kristiansen 1999a:108 and 109; Moltsen

1998).

4.2 Medieval fortification 1200–1550 AD The medieval rampart's oldest range was documented in the western part of the excavation area approximately 10.5-

11.0 m east of the current facade of Magasin (see Fig. 73; Chapter 13.2.1). Due to the orientation of the excavation

area, the rampart and city wall were predominantly documented using profiles where different and interpreted

phases and construction details were compared. Only smaller areas were excavated contextually (cf. Kristiansen

1998:63 et seq.; 1999b).

The High medieval rampart was divided into 14 more or less identical and chronologically contemporary sequences

and could be followed for at least 75 metres with a minimum height of 1.7 m, where the top had been dug away by

modern truncations. The foot of the structure was recorded from 4.5 to 6.0 m west of the foundation of the city wall,



to the east the distance was 2.6 to 3.6 m to the edge of the moat, which made the width between 7.1-9.6 m

(Kristiansen 1998:66 et seq.; Kristiansen 1999b:156, 157, 160 and 162).

During fieldwork the rampart was suggested to consist of a “core rampart” (named /AIT and /DPZ), 2.20 m wide and

0.30-0.35 m high (cf. Kristiansen 1998:66 et seq.), but this suggestion was later reinterpreted as part of the same

embankment consisting of /AHB and /DPZ in area 1, /AIT, /AIU and /EEG in area 2 and /AIT, /DCA, /DCB, /DCE and

/EEG, /AIT in area 3 and 4. No reliable growth horizons were recorded either archaeologically or through macrofossil

analysis and the building material consisted of sub-surface material (moraine) mixed with organic material (peat and

topsoil), with the exception of /AIC that to a greater extent consisted of brick rubble (Kristiansen 1998:66 et seq.;

Kristiansen 1999b:160). Only a few finds were collected (from layer ACX, /AIC and AYR) consisting of ceramics dated to

late 13th

century, 13th

–15th

century and 14th

(15th

) –17th

century (cf. Kristiansen 1998:66, 67 and 73).

The city wall was interpreted to be contemporary with the oldest rampart, and not a later addition. The courses and

the rampart layers had been built “step by step”, where the purpose of the rampart had been to stabilize the

boulders. No part of the brick wall was preserved. The foundation of this medieval structure could in a more or less

fragmented extent be recorded in a large part of the excavation area (see Fig. 92; Chapter 14.2) (Kristiansen 1998:73

et seq.; 1999b:156-158, 161 and 162).

The High medieval rampart layers were placed up against the foundation stones, although some foundation stones

were also recorded as dug into the rampart (DAI), which the responsible archaeologist interpreted as a local

phenomenon (cf. Kristiansen 1998:75; see also discussions Chapter 13.2.1).

The city wall was preserved as three foundation courses and boulders (named ADE, /BUR?, CRS, DAI, DAL, DDZ, EDI,

MC and UZ) consisting of two rows of stones with a width between 1.1-1.7 m and a height of at least 1.4 m. The top of

the foundation was not preserved and no mortar was recorded on the stones.

Part of the city wall, consisting of a continuous remnant of a brick wall at least 1.8 x 1.2 m with medieval course (CBB),

was documented in the moat together with bricks and limestone ashlars. The remnant was interpreted as part of the

parapet. The wall had been 0.42 m thick with unfilled joints. No reused bricks were identified in this part of the brick

wall. Three thermoluminescence dates (TL-dates) from mortar connected to the remnant (/BOB) were dated to

1227±60 AD, 1255±60 AD and 1230±60 AD (R-960504, R960505 and R969506) (Kristiansen 1998:65, 77 and 78;

1999b:165 and 176).

Inclusions of smaller 16th

century bricks together with medieval bricks (“munkesten”) in the decomposition layers in

the Late medieval moat and within the new rampart in the southern part of the excavation area (see Phase 6; Chapter

18), were an indication of repairs and extensions of the wall. The interpretation was also that the city wall mainly had

been demolished in connection with Valkendorf’s work on the fortification in the late 1500s (cf. Kristiansen 1998:73 et

seq.; 1999b:162-165).

The High and Late medieval moat (CSR) could be followed the entire length of the excavation immediately east of the

city wall foundation (Fig. 11) (Kristiansen 1998:82 et seq.; 1999b:156, 168 and 169). This could, however only with

certainty be separated from a later post medieval moat phase (FAM) in the moat’s westerly part located under the so-

called BOB-rampart (see above). The moat had been cleaned up through the Middle Ages and the edge could from the

south to the north be recorded from kote c. +2.6 m – +3.6 m – +3.0 m – +2.6 m from the western extent of the city

wall foundation. Based on the height of the /BRE-sequence, the moat had been at least 1.4 m deep (Kristiansen

1998:82 and 83).



Fig. 11. Profile through Late medieval moat, facing SW. Photo: Museum of Copenhagen.

At the base and the western edge of the moat, a layer (/O) consisting of sandy and sterile fill was documented. East of

this the sedimentation consisted of different mud layers (“gyttje”) of varying thickness (0.2-0.6 m). It could not be

clarified if the erosion and the mud layers were the result of long-term sedimentation or a late stage in the moat’s life.

No datable finds were collected. Layer (IK) consisted of clean mud (“gyttje”) without inclusions of peat, which suggests

that there had been at least 0.5 m of water in the moat providing a water level at kote 0 or upwards (Kristiansen

1998:83 and 84; 1999b:168 and 169). Archaeobotanical analysis showed that the environment had consisted of

brackish, stagnant water. A weak salt effect showed that the mud had been formed before the filling up of Dybet

between the coast and Bremerholm in the 1530–1540s (Kristiansen 1998:83 et seq.; 1999b:169).

At the excavation a north-south orientated palisade used as alternative rampart reinforcement at the edge of the

moat was documented (/FT) (Fig. 75). This consisted of several pits and postholes in a row at an estimated length of

either 42.0 or 64.5 m (Kristiansen 1998:84 and 85.; 1999b:156–158 and 168).

/FT was registered both as stratigraphically younger than (/O, DFA and DFB) and cutting or lying up against (/O, DFC

and DFE) (Kristiansen 1998:84 and 85; 1999b:168). Only the lowest parts of the pits (DFA and DPD) were preserved in

natural ground (minimum kote +0.6 m), and the pits’ levels had at all places probably been dug away when cleaning

the medieval moat. /FT was in the northern 6.0 metres of the excavation area recorded as pits/postholes with pointed

bases, where as the remaining row consisted of wider (up to 0.8 m) pits with round bases. The bottom kote for /FT

was between 0 and -0.5 m.

A bigger structure (named /ABH and AHO) was recorded orientated across the rampart and consisting of two to three

courses of foundation stones and a 6.7 m long, 1.0 m wide and 1.7 m high double faced wall of edge set courses,

coated with lime mortar and with intermediate fill of mortar (AHP and AKT). Mortar from the northern side of /ABH

was C14-dated to 655±35 BP or 1276–1396 AD (cal 2 σ) (AAR-3469), bricks from the lower course in /ABH, TL-dated to



1140±70 AD (R-970502) and animal bones (species unknown) from the same context C14-dated to 910±45 BP or 1028–

1213 AD (cal 2 σ) (AAR-3737) (Kristiansen 1998:85-87; 1999b:156, 157, 169, 170 and 177; cf. Rud og Heinemeier

1998c). The construction could not be statigraphically related to the rampart and it is unknown if this was

contemporary with the medieval fortification or a later structure. The feature was, however interpreted as part of the

medieval tower Smørhætten, described in written sources in 1496 and 1523.

Other post-rampart activities in the area consisted of a brick kiln built in several phases (kiln, brick floor, two brick

benches, six heating channels and brickwork of so-called “munkesten” preserved in six courses (/BDA)). The sides

were remarkably built with lime mortar. The heating room was 6.0 m wide and 3.2 m deep (inside dimensions). In

front of the kiln, to the south, a fire pit with charcoal was recorded. The suggestion was that the brick kiln had been

used for brick production connected to the construction of the city wall and covered by a later phase of the rampart.

TL-dates of bricks in the kiln were dated to 1210±60 AD and 1310±60 AD (R960515 and R-970501). Charcoal (Fagus

silvatica and unknown with unknown old-wood effect) from the fire pit was C14-dated to 770±50 BP or 1161–1297 AD

(cal 2 σ) (K-6815) (Kristiansen 1998:65 and 93-95; 1999b:156, 157, 159, 169 and 176 and C14-datings from KBM 1410.

2012).

The rampart street (AGP) covered the foot of interpreted rampart phase (/AIU) and consisted of a regular and

compact layer of pebbles with inclusions of animal bones. Several wheel ruts were recorded. The street had been

covered by a later rampart sequence of unknown date. Animal bones (species unknown) collected from AGP were

C14-dated to 835±45 BP or 1047–1275 AD (cal 2 σ) (K-6661) (Kristiansen 1998:65, 90 and 91; 1999b:156–158, 162, 163

and 175 and C14-datings from KBM 1410. 2012).

Structure AOE and ALA consisted of a north-south orientated flat based wood reinforced ditch cut into rampart layer

/DCE and under rampart layer /AIC. The ditch had a length of 10.5 m, but could also have been as long as 60.0 m. The

total width was 5.8 m. The fill consisted of kitchen and stable waste: bones of cattle, domestic pig, sheep/goat (/Capra

hircus) and fish (herring) together with plant remains such as bog myrtle (Myrica gale), hops (Humulus lupulus) and

figs (Ficus carica). Dendrochronological analysis dated the wood to winter 1298/1299 AD (NNU-21020019, NNU-

21020029 and NNU-21020039) and a repair to c. 1303 AD (NNU-21020049) (Kristiansen 1998:65 and 91-93;

1999b:156, 157, 171 and 177).

4.3 Post medieval fortification 1550–1608 AD Under the rule of Frederik the 2

nd, the fortification underwent a major modernization along its length headed by

Christoffer Valkendorf in 1581 (Kristiansen 1998:13, 98 et seq.; 1999c:185 et seq.). The rebuilding of the fortification

could be seen as a substantial stone structure consisting of two to three courses immediately east of the foundation

of the city wall, although the relationship between this development phase and older features was unclear at several

places within the excavation area (Fig. 12).



Fig. 12. Interpreted addition to the fortification in the 1580s conducted under Valkendorf’s management consisting of

a large foundation of boulders, facing west. Photo: Museum of Copenhagen.

The suggestion of a new city wall was based on the orientation and traces of mortar fringe after a masonry with 0.42

m thickness on the foundation stones (/ACP, CAH, CAL, CAS, CZS, CU, DCI, FBA, /FBB, FBC, FBD and FBE), demolition

material and looting ditches, but it is worth mentioning that this interpretation is rather uncertain (cf. Kristiansen

1998:110).

The oldest sequence of the “new” city wall was recorded as courses of foundation stones together with demolition

material from the original brick wall. Since there were no traces of the brick wall itself, this was explained by the fact

that this could have been standing on higher placed sill courses. Suggestions that the city wall was restored at some

time (/FBB) could also be explained by functional differences within the new structure (cf. Kristiansen 1998:108-110

and 115).

The medieval city wall had probably been torn down, whereupon the demolition material of limestone ashlars, rubble

(both medieval bricks and smaller 16th

century bricks), larger pieces of the city wall (ABN, /CAK and GZ) combined with

other materials had been re-used in a new foundation front. The rampart had partially been made of peat (/AIC, /BOB,

CF, /DCF and DRF) and made taller and wider, covering at least 1.4 m of the wall base (Kristiansen 1998:108 et seq.;

1999c:188). Over the rampart (/BOB) a straw layer was documented (CPB), interpreted as remains of a growth horizon

on the rampart’s surface (Kristiansen 1998:107).

A regular paving or work surface recorded in connection with stone structure CU at a length of 16.0 m (DCI) was TL-

dated to 1430±60 AD, 1454±60 AD, 1576±60 AD and 1587±60 AD (R-960509 and R-960510). Another related layer (NI)

was TL-dated to 1480±60 AD (R-960507) (Kristiansen 1998:65, 100 and 104).



In the new phase the embankment was pushed approximate 4.0 m to 5.5 m beyond the medieval moat (Kristiansen

1998:106). The post medieval moat (FAM) could not be separated from the earlier moat (CSR), but had been

approximately 10.0 m wide, where the bottom kote lay between -1,0 to -0,5 m. The depth had not been more than

1.0 m. The sedimentation in the moat (/EFT) consisted of natural “gyttje” deposited in freshwater and swamp peat

with vegetation that thrived in low water, the latter at kote +0,4 to +0,6 (DHL, GI and GY), which proves that the

connection to the sea at this moment was interrupted. Some of the layers recorded were interpreted as cleanup

layers from the moat when still in use (FX, GB, LX, LU and LY) (Kristiansen 1998:112 and 113; 1999c:188-190).

Ditches connected to the foundations suggested a looting of the wall in the early 17th

century, but the traces were not

clear (AAL, AFI, AOT and BTP) (Kristiansen 1998:98).

4.4 Christian the 4th's fortification c. 1608–1647 AD The excavation also came to affect the city fortification from the years 1608–1647 AD. A new fortification was

constructed around the city, consisting of small bastions and the long intervening stretches of ramparts (curtains). The

excavation area included the rampart between the new Østerport and its bastion and the so-called Bastionen ved

Iskulen.

The medieval moat was filled up, while the rest of the medieval fortifications were incorporated in the new defences.

All of the work on this part of Copenhagen's fortifications was completed around 1617 AD (Kristiansen 1998:13, 82,

116 et seq.; 1999c:190 et seq.).

Based on the written sources (Rentemesterregnskaberne) the rampart at Østervold was approximately 4.4 m high with

a 1.9 m high parapet, 12.7 m wide (besides parapet and berm) including an outer “bench”. Only a few layers could be

interpreted as remains of the curtain (/EEP, EL and /FAG). A row of stone imprints was suggested as the western part

of the curtain foundation (/AZI) (Kristiansen 1998:117-122; 1999c:193).

The moat was believed to have been about 39.2 metres wide and about 3.2 metres deep. A new and navigable moat

or canal was built east of the fortification where the street Holmens Kanal is placed today. At the excavation a 40

metre long bulwark of boulders of at least three courses, orientated in a north-south direction was recorded (BIU, DBI,

DKA, DKB and KU), possibly a western reinforcement or bulwark of the new harbour (Kristiansen 1998:125 and 126;

1999c:194 and 195).

Through the curtain there was a gate, the so-called Vandporten (Fig. 13), which served as a transportation route into

the city for the goods that were unloaded from the ships in Holmens Kanal (AAP, /DDO, /DDP, EB, EI, LE and YG).



Fig. 13. Vandporten and later sewer pipe from above. Photo: Museum of Copenhagen.

The gate had been 11.6 m long with a west facade 0.8 m thick. The gate room was 5.8 m wide, the sidewalls 1.9 m

wide with the foundations slightly wider. The preserved height varied from 1.78 m to 2.75 m of an estimated total

height of 6.0 m. The foundation of the facade was 13.0 m long and stretched respectively 1.8 m and 1.5 m outside the

rest of the structure’s dimensions. In relation to the gate room’s width the facade was twice as wide based on the

total length of the structure. The foundation was partially made of reused medieval bricks and this had survived up to

street level. TL-dating of reused bricks from the gate’s facade gave the dates 1200±60 AD, 1170±60 AD and 1270±60

AD (R-960501, R-960502 and R-960503). Placed between the sidewalls there was a 14.8 m long brick sewer with

walled barrel vault built with small yellow bricks (LI) and an associated wooden water pipe (ASB). This sewer was

somewhat misleading, TL-dated to 1400±60 AD (R-960508). In the gate room’s north-eastern part traces of the paving

was recorded (ED) placed c. 0.70 m under the current street level (Kristiansen 1998:124, 130, 131 and 136; 1999c:176,

194 and 195).

4.5 Other activities and buildings behind the fortification line Building remains that may be identified in the written records mentioning buildings behind Christian the 4

th's rampart

were also identified. BFD consisted of the remains of a brick chimney C14-dated to 805±40 BP or 1163–1278 AD (cal 2

σ) (AAR-4248) (charcoal with unknown species and old-wood effect). Beside this, a foundation of boulders (/DSA),

looting ditches connected to the former city wall (AAL, AFI, AOT and BTP), ditches (DDS, DDT, DDU and DDX) and pits

(BCZ, CDE, CYO, DAR and KC) with unknown function, rows of sill stones and floor layers (/EFE) and wooden water

pipes (ASB) were recorded (Kristiansen 1998:12, 127 et seq.; 1999c:162, 197 and 198; Rud og Heinemeier 1998b).

Remnants of the demolition of the fortification consisted of looting ditches (EG), 20 wooden water pipes and one

pipeline trench (DRC) mainly orientated in a north-south direction and where two of the pipes were

dendrochronologically dated to 1618–1619 AD and 1749–1750 AD (Kristiansen 1998:13 and 137 et seq.).



The existing moat had gradually been filled up with different material (ATA, CL, /DDR, /DEY, DFF, /EOO, GD, GE, GK,

GL, HZ, PL, ZH, ZI and ZK).



5 Other archaeological observations around Kongens Nytorv Previous archaeological observations in the area around Kongens Nytorv are presented by street (Fig. 14).

Observations within plots are marked with the current matrikel number in Kortbog 1:4000 – København &

Fredriksberg 2002.

Fig. 14. Previous archaeological observations and excavations around Kongens Nytorv based on Københavns

Museum´s file numbers and other archival material.

Asylgade No. 10 (Matr. No. 435): Boulders and finely carved sandstones dated to the 17th

and 18th

century together

with fragments and frames of sandstone; a large royal crown, lion’s paws, stove plate with Frederik 3rd’s

monogram,

Copenhagen’s coat of arms, a stone with chain of the Elephant Order and the chain of the Grand Cross, three

keystones, where one had Christian 4th

’s abbreviated motto in Latin (R. F. P.), a tomb stone (1510), a pillar chapter

(1580) and several building decorations from gateways and windows. Probably reused as foundation material to

stabilize the area (Advis 1968; Archival material, Asylgade 4, AA40; Archival material, Asylgade ved Laksegade, AA41).

Bremerholm Nos. 2-18: Building structures consisting of masonry of medieval bricks, a separation wall, a base plate,

foundation stones and possibly a cellar belonging to the former Skipperbodene from the 17th

century together with

four wooden pipes. The Zealand side of Dybet, i.e. the narrow strait that divided Bremerholm from Zealand to the

beginning of the 16th

century, was recorded as an easterly directed slope with 5 metres thick levelling layers (Harholm

Lønskov 2011:22 et seq.).

Bremerholm No. 4 (Matr. No. 93): Cultural layers and wells with finds from the 16th

and 17th

century (Martens 1970).



Bremerholm No. 18: Square well with corner posts, wooden frame and a pump pipe dated to the 18th

century (Kayser

1960).

Bremerholm Nos. 18-28: Exact location unknown. Cultural layers consisting of 16th

century finds, a post medieval

stone foundation and part of a masonry structure of six courses of red and yellow bricks with north-south orientation

(Structure 1). Parts of masonry (Structure 4 and 9), a timber structure dendrochronologically dated to 1457–1590 AD

(Structure 5; see also Bremerholm No. 26 below), a timber structure (Structure 6) and piles (Structures 7, 8 and 10)

were also documented (Archival material, KBM 2246).

Bremerholm No. 24: Large faeces and rubbish layers outside No. 24 containing 17th

century finds (Bork-Pedersen

2010:9).

Bremerholm No. 26: A plank and pile construction interpreted as bulwark and dendrochronologically dated to 1525–

1526 AD together with a levelling layer dated to the 16th

century. According to the author two wooden constructions

of reused half-timber were recorded in the same area at an earlier excavation in 2001, probably from the same

structure and dendrochronologically dated to 1457–1536/1537 AD. Another wooden structure with unknown function

approximately 0.5 m further south has been dendrochronologically dated to 1583 respective 1586 AD (Bork-Pedersen

2010:9 et seq.).

Bremerholm No. 28. Wooden water pipe of pine (Bork-Pedersen 2010:12). Collected finds dated to c. 1200–1730 AD

(Søndergaard Kristensen 2010).

Bremerholm No. 29: In conjunction with diggings different types of leather material were collected, consisting of a

narrow leather belt dated to late 15th

century and Late medieval shoes (Archival material, Bremerholm 29, AA48;

Archival material, Bremerholm ved Nr. 29, AA49).

Bremerholm (Magasin’s Torv): Information about a brick wall of “munkesten” (medieval?) and a clay and brick floor

(Martens 1995).

Bremerholm at Lille Kongensgade: Without street number. At investigations in Bremerholm at the corner of Magasin,

traces of buildings after the fire in 1795 were recorded along with street cobbles from the 1600s together with a

wooden pipeline (Jark Jensen 2007:10). At a smaller excavation in the sidewalk outside Magasin nothing of

archaeological interest was observed (Summerfield 2010).

Bremerholm at the corner with Vingårdstræde: Without street number. Peat layer, cultural layers, an arch from the

18th

century over a Late medieval wooden well, stone foundations and part of a brick wall (Linvald 1955; Kayser 1966;

P. P. 1983a).

Bremerholm at Østergade: Without street number. Investigation of a masonry foundation from a former building

parallel with Østergade approximatly 0.5 m from the existing buildings (Harholm Lønskov 2011:20 et seq.).

Gothersgade No. 5 (Matr. No. 351): Stone foundations, wooden posts and levelling layers with post medieval finds

investigated in the basement (Poulsen 1998).

Gothersgade No. 8 (Matr. No. 25): Wall foundation, pavement, wooden pipe of pine together with 18th

century finds.

In conjunction with digging for pillar outside the facade organic material interpreted as rotten seaweed was recorded

(Gothersgade 8, K 1952; P. P. 1983b).

Gothersgade No. 14 (Matr. No. 644): Human bones from a plague cemetery and possible tomb stone dated to 1604

AD (Danneborg 1893).



Gothersgade No. 26 (Matr. Nr. 17): Part of former fortification consisting of Christian 4th

moat at Skt. Klaras Bastion

together with one or two building remains dated from 1660 AD and onwards together with a wooden water pipe

(Simonsen 1998).

Heibergsgade: Without street number. Skeletal remains recorded by digging in the street (Berlingske Tidende 1985).

Holmens Kanal No. 2: Immediately NW of Danske Bank at the corner of Vingårdstræde two courses of a masonry

structure (0.65 m wide) on three courses of granite boulders orientated NE-SW. Below the foundation a plank floor on

beams was documented (Kayser 1969). The interpretation of the structures being part of a tower is uncertain. A

continuation of this foundation, at least 25.0 m long, 2.15 m wide and orientated ENE-WSW, together with the

wooden structure was investigated on the occasion of the Metro construction in 1996–1997 and suggested as part of

an unknown building (Kristiansen 1998:146).

Across Vingårdstræde at the same corner as Magasin, a north-south oriented wooden water pipe has been recorded

(Lomholdt Poulsen 2004b:4).

Holmens Kanal No. 7 (Matr. No. 288): Well-preserved skeletons recorded in connection with digging in the back yard.

Outside the former Landmannsbanken remains of a bulwark and rivets belonging to the copper foreskin of ships, a

cannonball and interpreted boulders from the Naval shipyard were investigated (Ahlefeldt-Laurvig year unknown;

HMK 1968:174).

Holmens Kanal: Without street number. On the west side of the Royal Theatre at the southern part of the building

masonry from late 19th

century has been documented (Lomholdt Poulsen 1999). Peat and so-called “gyttje” layers

(moat fills?) have been recorded by drilling west of the theatre (Frederiksen 1989:54). Another digging in Holmens

Kanal between Kongens Nytorv and Niels Juels Gade did not reveal anything of archaeological interest (Lomholdt

Poulsen 2004a).

At the Metro investigations in 1996–1998 the archaeologists also recorded a number of more or less diffuse structures

and unidentified remains of buildings in Holmens Kanal where some of the recorded masonry could be part of

Eigtveds Komediehus from 1748 or a later building. A bulwark consisting of 10 piles and vertical and horizontally laid

planks, where one of the piles was dendrochronologically dated to after c. 1513s could belong to the fortification and

Holmens Kanal before the filling up of this in 1864. Some of the cultural layers were interpreted as clean-up layers of

the moat and finds in the levelling layers were dated to between the 17th

and 19th

century (Kristiansen 1998:143 et

seq.; 1999c:198).

At Holmens Kanal (drilling 73) cultural layers have been identified to kote -3.2 m, indicating that the depth of water in

this place had been 3.3 m. The upper layer consisted of mixed material with “natural” sedimentation at the bottom

(Jeppesen 1982:7).

Hovedvagtsgade No 1: North of No. 1 part of a wall, fire layers and probably remains of the medieval rampart have

been documented (Skaarup 1986a).

Kongens Nytorv No. 5: Wooden water pipe recorded in conjunction with foundation work (Rode-Møller 1992).

Hovedvagtsgade No. 8 (Matr. 362): A 3.5 m long wooden water pipe interpreted as part of a pump tube (da:

pumperør) (Skaarup 1989).

Kongens Nytorv Nos. 8–12 (Matr. No.377): Former street number. Information about a defined topsoil layer (Ramsing

year unknown).



Kongens Nytorv No. 9 (Matr. No. 267): At the building site for the Royal Theatre several skeletons including children

were documented, without coffins, which suggests that these may be connected to a plague cemetery (Berlingske

Tidende 1872).

Kongens Nytorv No. 9: Foundation of two courses of granite stones on two smaller stones, a masonry wall of medieval

bricks and boulders orientated in a north-south direction, a wooden pile, part of a sewer well (?) and levelling layers

with bricks were investigated at the NE corner of the Royal Theatre. The foundation was interpreted as part of a tower

or crane in connection with former Holmens Kanal and the pile as part of a bulwark (FA 1975; Engberg 1975).

At the SW part of the theatre and immediately north of No. 3 at least three structures of bulwark and planks were

recorded, one orientated N-S and two orientated E-W, the last ones consisted of four and seven wooden piles

(Engberg 1975; Kgl. Teater. Besigtigelse d. 6-7/5–1976). The responsible archaeologist interpreted the bulwark as

either part of the quay along Holmens Kanal, belonging to a smaller connecting channel from late 17th

century, or a

bridge.

Two parallel masonry structures consisting of foundation and facade stones of two courses together with massive

brick walls of yellow post medieval bricks with a distance of 1.35 m (total width 3.8 m) was documented in Holmens

Kanal. Under the structure wooden piles were observed. The southern wall’s sloping surface was interpreted as a form

of breakwater. The masonry structures were probably remains of the dam or road embankment to the passage over

the moat and Holmens Kanal ("Kammen"), belonging to the Christian the 4th

fortification from the 17th

century

(Archival material, KBM 418; Christiansen 1994; Engberg 1994).

Kongens Nytorv No. 13 (Matr. Nr. 428): An earlier acknowledged curtain wall belonging to a structure with a diameter

of 33 m, but unknown location in Magasin’s basement (Both 1873; Ramsing year unknown). In connection with an

excavation in the same area possible looting pits destroying this structure, boulders, peat layers and 0.8-1.0 m thick

rubbish and cultural layers dated to the 13th

and 14th

century were documented (Skaarup 1997). It should be noted

that only one of the archeological trenches (No. 4) affected the curtain wall’s interpreted location.

Further investigations in 1998 identified peat layers, cultural layers and an east-west orientated and at least seven

metres wide drainage (?) ditch with High medieval finds and C14-dated to 749±28 BP or 1223–1286 AD (cal 2 σ)

(KIA11470), and another ditch and postholes. The bottom layers contained large amounts of fish bones and one of

these deposits was C14-dated to 775±36 BP or 1188–1285 AD (cal 2 σ) (KIA11471). A foundation of boulders on the

location and curvature was interpreted as Both’s curtain wall, however dated to the 17th

or 18th

century, and thus not

of medieval origin. High medieval cultural layers were observed directly on natural ground (Poulsen 2000; Moltsen

2001).

At the establishment of the tunnel between Magasin's basement and the Metro station at Kongens Nytorv cultural

layers, paving, foundations (?), ditches (?), a cellar (?), other types of pits and wooden water pipes were documented.

The finds could be dated from the 13th

–14th

century and onwards and elder (Sanbucus sp. L) from one of the features

(A178) was C14-dated to 870±35 BP or 1044–1254 AD (cal 2 σ) (KIA16626) (Jark Jensen 2001; Grootes 2002).

Other investigations in Magasin’s basement have demonstrated a medieval stone set well, nine pillars of an E-W

orientated bulwark, traces of stone foundations, masonry, wall foundations (laid in monk bond) and well-preserved

cultural layers of High medieval origin (Danneborg 1894; Linvald & Bülow-Olsen 1952a; 1952b; Kayser 1958; Skaarup

1998b; Vingårdstræde, Foto Billedarkivet).

Kongens Nytorv No. 13: Cultural layers and a 2.1 m wide brick wall (“munkesten”) perpendicular to No. 13 facade

approximatly 30 m from Magasin (Fig. 15) interpreted as belonging to the Late medieval tower Smørhætten (Skaarup

1988), but later interpreted as part of Vandporten (cf. Kristiansen 1999c:200).



Fig. 15. Part of the brick wall in Vandporten investigated by Bi Skaarup in 1988. Photo: Museum of Copenhagen.

Observations done by Axel Christophersen in 1984 showed modern disturbances outside Magasin’s facade at the

location of Both’s so-called curtain wall about 2 metres from the building (Christophersen 1984a).

Kongens Nytorv No. 14 (Matr. No. 377): Former street number. Information about peat layer and an interpreted road

surface (Ramsing year unknown).

Kongens Nytorv No. 16: Information about a defined topsoil layer, c. 16 m and 43 m outside the facade (Ramsing year

unknown).

Kongens Nytorv No. 17: At the corner of a’Porta approximatly 15.3 m from the building there are observations of

masonry 0.86 m wide consisting of 7-10 courses of medieval bricks and limestones on granite boulders, which has

been interpreted as part of the former city wall. This was recorded together with several rubbish layers (Kayser 1961).

Kongens Nytorv No. 19: Two trenches were located in Lille Kongensgade and on Kongens Nytorv outside Hviids

Vinstue (Summerfield 2009). The remains of two red brick (“munkesten”) wall foundations and irregularly shaped

granite boulders where uncovered. The brick foundations could date back to the early 1500s at the time when the

original Lille Kongensgade was established.

Kongens Nytorv Nos. 19 and 21: In connection with the construction of a transformer station part of the rampart and

foundation stones to the former city wall were documented. The foundation appears on several images and drawings

as a c. 11.25 m long and 2.00 m NW-SE orientated line of boulders consisting of at least two courses. What the

proposed dating to 1490 AD is based on is unclear. Several wooden pipelines parallel to the facade (?) were also

recorded (Berlingske Tidende 1941; Jensen 1941). At an archaeological watching brief in the same area levelling layers

and finds from the 17th

century was registered (Kjems 2004).

Kongens Nytorv Nos. 20 and 22 (Matr. No. 212): Information about pits and defined topsoil layers (Ramsing year

unknown).



Kongens Nytorv Nos. 22: Wooden water pipe of pine oriented parallel with the facade and more than 2 metres of

cultural layers (Christiansen 1985).

Kongens Nytorv No. 2-24: Deposits from the 17th

century when the area in front of the city walls was taken into use.

The excavation also documented remains of the medieval main roads from Østerport with an associated road ditch

where seeds (species unknown) were C14-dated to 722±60 BP or 1182–1395 AD (cal 2 σ) (KIA35921). Finds were

primarily from the period c. 1550 to 1750 AD. Approximately 34 m west from the waterfront in Nyhavn, bulwarks

belonging to the former harbour and a land anchor were recorded (Poulsen year unknown; Leen Jensen 2007).

Krinsen: In the 1940s human skulls and jaws belonging to three men, aged c. 30-45, were collected while digging

shelters in Krinsen (KBM 1413; Lynnerup 1995). These may stem from the area of one of the 16 circular bunkers built

in the middle of the square and outside Hotel D’Angleterre (6) during the 2nd

World War. At the same excavation

several finds were collected consisting of well preserved iron and metal artefacts related to urban and military culture

(Bunkersudgravningen på Kgs. Nytorv 1944). Related to everyday life were padlocks, knives, scissors, tongs, a metal

tap and a carving fork, while musket forks and panzer glows, etc. were all connected with the military use. Most of the

finds represent tool types, e.g. spring scissors and pivoted scissors, used since ancient or Early medieval times.

However, a more precise date can be offered in a few cases. Thus, a clay pipe (c. 1610 AD et seq.) and a signet

belonging to the individual S’ Detleff Ratlow, dated to c. 1550 AD, are of significant value in that regard. Hence, these

typological facts combined with observations regarding the decoration and fabric of the other artefacts point towards

the second part of the 16th

century and the beginning of the 17th

century. The versatile nature of these finds does

indicate that we are dealing with waste and/or lost objects. On this basis we can assume that the finds come from the

17th

century moat or terrain levelling deposits accumulated around the time the fortification was demolished.

When digging for trenches at an earlier occasion, foundations of yellow bricks and part of the 17th

century rampart

and moat were documented close to the statue (“Hesten”) (Archival material, AA16). When drilling, stones were

located south and SE of Christian 5th

equestrian statue (Geo-Tekniske Undersøgelser 1946), which suggests complex

structures and building foundations in the area.

Krinsen: Corner of a dressed stone plinth consisting of three dressed stones and masonry of “munkesten” and lime

mortar on a foundation of boulders and demolition material from the 16th

century or later revealed in the street

outside Kongens Nytorv No. 21. The dressed stones were sloping 15-20 degrees (Skaarup 1994).

Krinsen: The outer part of the 17th

century moat with waste material, the possible foot of the rampart and part of a

marsh (stagnant freshwater) older than the fortification, although it could not be determined whether this

represented part of the peat layers (“gyttje”) in the former moat or older salt marshes (?) (Poulsen 2004; Sørensen

2004; Kristensen 2004; Moltsen 2004).

Krinsen: Approximately 17.3 m outside Hotel D'Angleterre part of the medieval rampart and city wall consisting of two

courses of granite boulders, a 1.2 m wide brick wall, lime dressed stones and the moat with 16th

century fill have been

recorded. The underlying peat layer was visible in the section (Linde 1929; Berlingske Tidende 1929; Ramsing year

unknown).

Laksegade No. 4/Vingårdstræde No. 3 (Matr. No. 435): Several house foundations of unknown date orientated both

parallel and perpendicular to the streets, a bulwark, a square wooden well and planks. Large quantities of footwear

dating from between 1550 and 1650 AD were collected during the ground digging (Ramsing year unknown; Archival

material, Laksegade).

Laksegade No. 6: Part of a wreck of a smaller ship typologically dated to the 13th

–15th

century revealed outside the

house facade in natural sand and consisting of the port side near the bow. Bottom deck and table planks of mirror

split oak and fender lists of pine (Jeppesen 1977; Bill 1993; Erichsen 1995).



Laksegade Nos. 4–14: Recent investigations have documented archaeological remains including medieval street

surfaces in the eastern part of the street together with post medieval building remains and wooden water pipes

(Hadevik verbal information).

Laksegade Nos. 9 and 11/Asylgade No. 11: Information about peat layer (Rosenkjær 1906:20).

Lille Kongensgade Nos. 3-15 (Matr. No. 428): Information about peat layers, demolition and waste layers, defined

topsoil, three square, wooden wells, a barrel with 16th

century finds, a clay pit and a suggested street surface under

current Magasin (Rosenkjær 1906; Ramsing year unknown).

Lille Kongensgade Nos. 8 and 10 (Matr. No. 11): Information about a wooden well, natural peat, cultural and a

defined topsoil layer. Coin dated to 1626 AD collected (Rosenkjær year unknown; Ramsing year unknown).

Lille Kongensgade Nos. 15 and 17: Remains belonging to the former building facades from the 16th

century to the 20th

century were documented along Magasin (Lomholdt Poulsen 1999).

Lille Kongensgade No. 18: Documented wooden water pipe with lead joints (Lomholdt Poulsen 1999).

Lille Kongensgade No. 22: Uncertain location, but probably outside No. 22 – masonry consisting of red bricks,

Flensborg stones, limestones and boulders together with two floors dated to the 17th

century (Pedersen 2009).

Lille Kongensgade Nos. 2-22: Smaller excavation from Bremerholm to Kongens Nytorv. In situ foundation stones and

layers belonging to previous facade south of Lille Kongensgade No. 20 which may have medieval origin. In the western

part remnants of a cellar foundation and walls were recorded, which in its oldest part may date to the Middle Ages.

Paving and a clay layer were documented outside No. 16. Worth mentioning are two sandstones with carved human

figures and Latin text, which were parts of porches built in front of entrances on timber framed houses during the 16th

and 17th

centuries, found between No. 16 and No. 18 (Jark Jensen 2007; Fig. 16).

Fig. 16. The two porch stones found in Lille Kongensgade 2007. Photo: Museum of Copenhagen.



Lille Kongensgade Nos. 30 and 32 (Matr. No. 430): Partly in the area where Bremerholm street is today. Recording of

a foundation of boulders, a clay floor, a stone layer, a ditch and pits together with defined topsoil, demolition and fire

layers (Ramsing year unknown).

A brick built vault was recorded c. 8.5 m beyond Magasin’s northern facade together with a brick layer in 1928

(Archival material, Kongens Nytorv). Based on the size the bricks used in the structure were not of medieval type.

By Magasin’s northern corner at Østergade (should be Lille Kongensgade), in association with excavation in the street,

part of the former city wall was visible, consisting of boulders and a brick wall of “Renaissance bricks” together with

ceramics dated to c. 1570–1580 AD and onwards (Frederiksen 1981).

Nyhavn No. 1: In the street outside Nyhavn No. 1 two wooden water pipes of pine parallel with the facade were

documented (Skaarup 1986b).

Nyhavn between Nos. 2 and 4: Masonry (c. 5 x 1 m) of unknown date was documented in 1903 at the end of

Heibergsgade (Archival material, Kongens Nytorv).

Tordenskjoldgade No. 3: Approximately 10 m north of the colonnade and perpendicular to the Royal Theatre.

Information about bulwark bound together with timber (Vedr. Besigtigelse i og omkring det Kgl. Teater 1976).

Tordenskjoldsgade No. 5: In the intersection between Heibergsgade and Tordenskjoldsgade fragments of human

skeletons were observed and interpreted as part of Holmens Kirke’s old cemetery from 1628–1666 AD (Lomholdt

Poulsen 1999). There is also information about skeletons in levelling layers with 16th

century finds along the columns

of the colonnade (Unknown 1976).

Tordenskjoldsgade No. 8 (Matr. No. 385): A coffin burial interpreted as part of Holmens Kirke’s old cemetery from

1628–1666 AD (Archival material, Tordenskjoldsgade 1967).

Tordenskjoldsgade No. 9 (Matr. No. 372): A coffin burial together with 17th

and 18th

century finds interpreted as part

of Holmens Kirke’s old cemetery from 1628–1666 AD (Als Hansen 1974).

Tordenskjoldsgade No. 10 (Matr. No. 330): A total of 12 skeletons including a child together with scattered skulls and

human bones where some of the skeletons had gunshot wounds. Other finds consisted of remains of coffins; wood

and handles. Encountered within the area of Holmens Kirke’s old cemetery from 1628–1666 AD (Hauberg 1906).

Vingårdstræde No. 1: Excavation of cultural layers, cellar foundations, dressed stone and brick walls (laid in monk

bond) from one or two supposed medieval buildings together with a wooden pipeline dated to the 1700s (Martens

1996).

Documentation of cultural layers together with remains of one or two east-west orientated buildings c. 2.5-5.0 m

north of Danske Bank. These consisted of the base of the foundations and the facades of two walls to the north

preserved to 5-9 courses and represented at least two phases. The remains could not be dated more accurately than

the time between the demolition of the fortification in 1647 and the construction of the currently standing building in

1797 (Kristiansen 1998:139 et seq.), and could be part of similar masonry documented in 1995 (cf. Martens 1996).

Vingårdstræde Nos. 1 and 3 (Matr. No. 435): In the area a 3.0-3.5 m wide and J-shaped structure of boulders limited

to the west of a NE-SW orientated bulwark, a big boulder, a pole, a wooden pipe, a wooden well and cultural layers

from the 16th

century were recorded in connection with the construction of Handelsbanken in 1927–1928. Among the

finds part of Frederik 4th

’s coat of arms in sandstone can be mentioned (Ramsing 1910:562 et seq., Fig. 8-9; Archival

material, Vingårdstræde/Laxegade; Foto Billedarkivet, Vingårdstræde). Observation of a ditch in the area was



interpreted as a circular moat surrounding the medieval tower Kringelen (cf. Ramsing 1940, Vol. III:12). The ditch has

however later been interpreted as a natural slope (cf. Fabricius 1999:123 and 143).

Hereto Ramsing examined a 10-metre-long stone foundation under Danske Bank’s north facade at Holmens Kanal

(Ramsing 1910:562 et seq.).

Vingårdstræde No. 1/Laksegade No. 2: Information about natural peat layer (Ramsing 1940, Vol. III:63).

Vingårdstræde No. 4: Small, oblong granite stones, east-west orientated together with older street pavings and the

former frontage of the buildings before 1795 documented in the middle of the street (Lomholdt Poulsen 1999). Across

Vingårdstræde between No. 3 and No. 4 several older street surfaces (8?) have been recorded, c. 1.3 metres below

today’s street level (Lomholdt Poulsen 2004b:3).

Vingårdstræde Nos. 3–7: An east-west running masonry structure interpreted as part of the former facade in

Vingårdstræde from the 16th

century (Lomholdt Poulsen 1999).

Vingårdstræde Nos. 5 and 7/Asylgade Nos. 1-5: Observation of a ditch interpreted as the south side of a trench

running along the shoreline south of Østergård (Roesdahl 1969; 1970; Fabricius 1999:123 et seq.). At the same survey

cultural layers, scattered remains of stone foundations and a curved base in Vingårdstræde Nos. 5-7 were recorded –

the latter interpreted as the remains of a tower. The report, however, does not specify the size and location. An arch

of bricks (Flensborg stones) could be followed at least 3 m out into the street. Not far away from the arch, piles,

planks, a bulwark and wooden pipelines were recorded perpendicular to Asylgade with the bulwark possibly dating to

the early 1500s (Ahlefeldt-Laurvig 1969; Roesdahl 1970; Fabricius 1999:123 et seq.).

Vingårdstræde No. 6 (Matr. No. 428): Square wooden well with corner posts and frame together with building

foundations of boulders of suggested medieval origin (Ramsing year unknown).

Vingårdstræde No. 6: A wooden well with corner posts and frames, paving and cultural layers investigated in 1932

(Archival material, Vingårdstræde 6; matr. 131).

Vingårdstræde Nos. 8-16 (Matr. No. 428): A wooden well with corner posts and frames from 1520 AD (?) investigated

in connection with the construction of the garage in Magasin 1966 (Politiken 1966).

Vingårdstræde No. 13: Across Vingårdstræde between No. 6 and No. 13 an east-west orientated masonry structure

belonging to the former frontage and dated before 1795 (Lomholdt Poulsen 2004b:4).

Vingårdstræde Nos. 14 and 16: Excavation uncovered cultural layers, two parallel walls oriented perpendicular to

Vingårdstrædets length including a 0.77 metre wide vault arch together with a wooden pipeline. The brick wall was

part of a building with an arch gate, dated to the period after the big city fire in 1728 (Christophersen 1984b). Granite

boulders, dressed stones, part of a brick foundation and rubble were also documented in the street at the corner

between Vingårdstræde and Bremerholm outside Danske Bank (Borake 2006).

Vingårdstræde: Without a street number. Approximately 3 m long, east-west orientated wooden plank with unknown

function (Kristiansen 1998:146).

Vingårdstræde: Without a street number. Rubbish layers with different finds from the 16th

to the 19th

century

(Pedersen 2009).

Østergade No. 1/Kongens Nytorv No. 26 (Matr. No. 6): Two masonries of medieval bricks and foundation stones of

granite in 3-4 courses. Approximately 0.75 m wide and parallel with Kongens Nytorv and the property’s southern end.



A brick wall was also recorded perpendicular to these. A square wooden well with corner posts and frames of oak was

investigated in the SW corner of the property. Finds consist of a spur and cornice of medieval origin (Mathiesen 1899).

Østergade No. 7 (Matr. No. 11): Investigations have encountered defined topsoil layers and possible remains of

Østertorv in form of pebbles under a layer of made ground and different cultural layers. A peat or so-called “gyttje”

layer could be seen at the bottom of the trench (Berlingske Tidende 1927; Ramsing year unknown).

Østergade No. 13 (Matr. No. 13): Remains consisting of levelling and rubbish layers dated to the 16th

century, a ditch

and a square wooden well with corner posts and frames dendrochronologically dated to 1521–1550 AD. By test

drilling one could determine that the area was within the medieval coast line, and influenced by the previous Littorina

Sea Transgression (Skaarup 2002; Sørgard Sørensen 2002). At further investigations in 2005 a 5.5 m wide and 2.0 m

deep north-south oriented ditch was documented. Saline affected peat was recorded and the bottom fill was C14-

dated to 771±30 BP or 1217–1281 AD (cal 2 σ) (KIA27387). Based on the finds the ditch went out of use in the 16th

century (Poulsen 2005).

Østergade No. 15 (Matr. 14): Two parallel masonry structures including yellow bricks orientated in NE-SW direction

with a distance of 1.52 m (Unknown 1934).

Østergade No. 16 (Matr. 72): Masonry together with several arches and a brick floor interpreted as part of a sewer

dated between 1650 and 1750 AD (Gabrielsen 1998).

Østergade No. 24 (Matr. No. 68): Wall and a paved floor interpreted as part of a cellar (Archival material, Østergade

24).

Østergade No. 32 and 34 (Matr. No. 375): Documented wooden water pipe (Archival material, Østergade 32-34).

Østergade: Near Bremerholm there are observations of house foundations with medieval origin, street levels, several

wooden water pipes and rubbish layers (Simonsen 1998). In the intersection between Østergade and Kongens Nytorv

a north-south orientated wooden water pipe was documented (Lomholdt Poulsen 2004b:5).



6 Objectives and aims The objectives of this excavation were a site specific application of the overall aims defined in the project design

(Thomasson & Høst-Madsen 2009). In this chapter, the aims and examples of questions connected to the different

areas and expected features at Kongens Nytorv are specified. They are also related to the overall project aims of the

Metro excavations which were:

Urbanization

Economics and demographics

City life and urban culture

The following is an adapted reproduction of the Objectives and aims described in the Method Statement for Kongens

Nytorv (Thomasson (ed.) 2010) and the overall assessment of these aims for the excavation will be evaluated in

Chapter 21.3; Future potential).

6.1 Site questions The questions for the excavation were aimed at the site in general, and then at the different areas with different

expected cultural historical potential. Prehistoric activities, including Viking Age, and original topography, are however

areas of interest that do not necessarily relate to the city area, and are therefore dealt with in this first sub-chapter.

6.1.1 Prehistoric period

Although it was not anticipated that there were significant remains of prehistoric date in the area, there might have

been low levels of activity in the form of residual artifacts. There might have been evidence of occupation as the site

lies in an area surrounded by wetlands/marshlands. Locations similar to these can be places of preferential activity

during the prehistoric period as they provide ample resources for hunting, fishing and foraging. Any information on

the area during this period might help to clarify how this area was used prior to the urbanization of Copenhagen.

Examples of questions:

Could the ground topography and the extension of the coast line be further established?

Could prehistoric activities be identified? What kind of activities did these represent? Could the remains be dated

and divided into phases?

6.1.2 Viking Age and Early medieval period

The earlier excavated Viking Age settlement remains (see Chapter 4; The Metro excavation 1996–1998) could also be

related to a wider context of coastal use and the urbanization of these places. Findings of remains dating to this

period, from Viking Age to Early Middle Ages, could provide opportunities to understand if there had been market

activities on the beach and how this could be related to the settlement in what became the town area.


Could settlement remains from the Viking Age and Early Middle Ages be identified? How did this relate to the

earlier known settlement from this period?

Could market activities be identified and dated on the former beach? Did these represent seasonal or permanent

activities? Was there proof of an Early medieval fish market (i.e. clay lined pits)?

6.2 Settlement areas

Settlement remains have mostly been found in the western areas in conjunction with the medieval town of

Copenhagen and the archaeological investigations inside the town limits would provide opportunities to explore the



development of the settlement. The objectives of the investigations were to contribute to new knowledge concerning

the constitution of and changes to everyday life, building culture, craft and trade. The aims are foremost related to

periods when the area emerged as a part of the town; i.e. from the Middle Ages onwards.

6.2.1 Constitution and changes in everyday life

The archaeological source material could clarify land use, not at least in the relationship between streets and public

space on the one hand, versus private space of plots and buildings on the other. By producing a thorough source

material, it would be possible to investigate changes in the interaction between public and private places in the town,

as well as changes in movement. On a more detailed level, changes in how people moved and enclosed space within

plots and houses, as well as how and where different activities were organized, also reflects the constitution of

everyday life.


How large were and which form did the plots have? Were there changes in the plot structure? How were the borders expressed in material culture? Can the plot structure be related to the Viking Age borders? (see Chapter 4; The Metro excavation 1996–1998; Chapter 12; Early medieval activities 1050–1200 AD).

How were the buildings organized on the plots? Where were dwellings and economic buildings placed? Were

there diversities in different parts of the area and in time? Can different patterns be established? How were the

buildings oriented toward the public spaces?

How were the empty areas within the plots used? Could paths and yards be identified? How were they

constructed? Which kinds of pavements were used? Could gardens be identified? What was cultivated? What

other activities could be established? Could gender patterns be identified?

Which kinds of material culture were represented in the households? Which vessels were for example used in

storing, preparation and serving food and drink? How were these designed? Are there differences between

different social and/or gender groups? Which kinds of consumer goods were present? Were there differences

over time and in different households? What was imported?

What kinds of food were consumed? How was the food prepared and organized (spatially and socially)?

Can the spatial organization in the area of Lille Kongensgade from the period before the street was laid out in the

15th

century be reconstructed?

Has there been further Early Middle Age settlement in the area and how was this organized?

6.2.2 Buildings

There were possibilities to investigate the construction and design of buildings. Observations of foundation walls,

most often not dated, one preserved brick building (King Hans Vingård) and notes of so-called “curias” in the written

record indicate the presence of stone based houses in the area. The finding of the porch stones (Danish: bislagssten)

in Lille Kongensgade certainly suggests that they may have been parts of an elaborate timber framed house, probably

built around the 16th

and 17th

centuries (Jark Jensen 2007).

A typical urban phenomenon is booths. These could have been dwellings as well as work shops, prestigious stone

architecture or petty constructions for poor people. There is mention of three rows of booths in the area: the King's

booths mentioned in 1529 and situated along the south of Lille Kongensgade (Fabricius 2006:90).


How were the houses constructed and designed? Could the layout be identified? Were there diversities in

different parts of the area and in time? Could different patterns be established?



Were there differences in construction, design and layout between dwellings and economic buildings? Were

there differences between social groups such as merchants and craftsmen?

Which kinds of house type (in relation to construction, design and layout) could be identified?

Were there differences in design between houses facing towards public space and others? Which? Were there

differences in design between houses with gables or the long side towards the public space?

Were there buildings alongside the city wall?

Could booths be identified in the areas? Where were they situated and how were they constructed? To follow up:

can remains from historically known booths in the area be identified?

6.2.3 Craft and trade

During the Middle Ages towns were the allocated spaces for trade and craft; towns had special legislation different

from the countryside making them juridical enclaves. In the early written material both merchants and craftsmen are

mentioned in the area, but are yet to be more elaborated archaeologically.


Could workshops be identified in the area? Which crafts were represented? How was production organized

(spatially and socially)? Were there differences in time?

What kind of goods was imported? To which places and/or areas were there connections? Did this differ over

time?

Could differences in use of money be identified? Were there differences in which areas or socially where money

was handled? Did this differ over time?

6.2.4 Østergård

There are clear indications that Østergård (see Chapter 12.2.2) was located in close proximity to the forthcoming

excavation site (cf. Frederickson 1999).


Finding remains and establishing existence related to Østergård.

To establish a clearer relationship with the Viking Age settlement remains.

To examining the spatial extension of the estate to the north. Did the boundary ditch found during the excavation

KBM 1410 continue to the north, and what was its chronology and morphology?

6.2.5 Roads and public space

Knowledge of older streets in Copenhagen is only based on limited written source material. Through the years some

evidence of roads has been documented archaeologically such as pebbled streets.

The stratigraphic sequences in older street environments were characterized mainly by the surviving street layers as

well as drained carrying layers.


When were the streets established? Has their location varied? Was the block/plot structure stable? Could

patterns be established (i.e. from narrow to wider streets, etc.)?

Where were streets established? What was the previous land use? In connection with plot and street regulations

in the area? Along plot borders? Detecting and dating a former rampart street (Voldgade) along the fortification?



How were the streets constructed, relating both to the degree of foundation layers and type of pavements? Were

there differences between different streets? Were there differences in time?

How was the maintenance organized? Who was responsible?

Investigate whether free standing booths existed along or on the streets.

Could Østergade (western part of present Strøget) be interpreted archaeologically as a former market street in

terms of its location at Østertorv?

Is it possible to further identify and date the medieval market place Østertorv and any features such as booths or

spatial marking stones?

6.3 Rampart and moat areas

A large proportion of the excavation areas were within the extension of the former city border. In general there were

possibilities to investigate a vital part of the city border with a long term perspective, from the Viking Age to the mid

17th

century. These circumstances implied that there were opportunities to cover relevant issues in medieval and

historical archaeology regarding the symbolism and status of the city’s borders. The finding of Viking Age settlement

remains during the 1990s excavation also suggest the spatial limitations of this can be related to the later medieval

demarcations, and revealed the later city border corresponds to an older framework. Another vital issue was trying to

define what was regarded as the beach (Danish: forstranden). Because of the extensive fill layers in the different

generations of moats, a likewise extensive finds assemblage, deposited as garbage, could be expected. This is a vital

source of knowledge regarding everyday life of the city’s citizens.

Examples of more detailed questions:

Could the chronology and morphology of the eastern part of the city border be established?

Was there correspondence between the spatial limitations of the Viking Age settlement and the later town area?

If so, was this connected to the limitations of Østergård?

Were there differences between the construction of city borders when Copenhagen was governed by the Bishop

of Roskilde and later on when the city became the seat of the royals (from the 15th

century onwards)? Can

inclusions in deposits indicate how the works were organized? If so, could this be connected to independence

versus dependence of city the council towards different kinds of lordship?

The archaeological investigations carried out beside the fortification and the moat would provide opportunities

for finding archaeological evidence of different phases.

Did the ditches and fences constitute boundary ditches and allotment fences for dividing the land behind the

former shoreline? What is the chronology between these and the later medieval rampart?

6.3.1 The medieval fortification c. 1200–1550 AD and Valkendorf’s modernization in 1581–

1583 AD

Copenhagen was one of few the Danish medieval cities to get a fortification with wall and tower. In Copenhagen's first

town privileges the city walls are mentioned (1254), but it is possible that this is a fixed expression which means

fortification rather than actual wall (Skaarup 1998a:26). The medieval fortification dating back to the 13th

century has

been demonstrated at several archaeological sites along Kongens Nytorv's western part (see Chapter 4; The Metro

excavation 1996–1998).

6.3.2 Østervold and the moat

Østervold were identified in Metro investigations in 1996–1998, where it was possible to follow the construction in

three main phases, the rampart was moved, and the medieval moat filled in (Kristiansen 1998:12 et seq.; 1999b:162).

It is not known where the ramparts end in the east and west, down to the shoreline.



Examples of detailed questions:

At the Metro investigations in 1996–1998 the medieval fortification was seen to be constructed in three phases. Could this structural division also be followed in the upcoming excavation area or were there variations as earlier archaeological investigations suggest?

Could the phases be defined more firmly? One of the objectives of the forthcoming investigations was a more

accurate dating through stratigraphical observations, finds and scientific analyses.

Documentation and interpretation of the High Middle Ages rampart had foremost been based on comparing

sections (cf. Kristiansen 1998:79). Could the rampart be investigated in larger and contiguous levels?

It has not been possible to determine the medieval fortification's relationship with the contemporary shoreline

(which should have been by the end of Vingårdsstræde in Kongens Nytorv). Could this relationship be established

in the forthcoming excavation?

To follow up: Could the construction work done during the early 16th

century, not proven at the Metro

investigations in 1996–1998, be identified? If so, how large were they? What was reinforced? Could Valkendorf's

modification be identified? Are there differences versus the area investigated in the 1990s?

Could the dimensions of the moat be clarified? Could a finer chronology be established? Was the extension stable

over time? What was the spatial relationship with the Viking Age boundaries?

Could the different fill materials be related to the settlement? What kind of finds material was deposited as

garbage in the fill? Could it be related to life circumstances in the neighbouring plots? How were the works

organized?

Was the 17th

century moat an extension and adaptation of the existing moat?

6.3.3 Byens Planker and the city wall

The so-called “Byens Planker” has not yet been proven archaeologically, probably because the rampart crown in

earlier investigations had not been preserved. The city wall has not with certainty been identified before mid year

1400. The construction of the city wall must therefore have started before this time.


Could the oldest part of the city palisade be identified? Which material was used? How was it constructed? When

was it constructed and demolished?

Could the city wall be identified? Could different phases be identified and dated? How did this correspond with

the written records? How was it constructed?

In 1929 a piece of the wall was documented in front of Hotel D'Angleterre (consisting of boulders, chalk stones

and bricks). The remains could not be dated. What was understood as remains of the city wall were uncovered at

the end of Lille Kongensgade on the corner in front of restaurant Stephan a’ Porta (cf. Kristiansen 1998:74;

1999b:157; Fabricius 1999:117 et seq.). Could the remains of these walls be detected? Could their age be

determined?

Could “Byens Tårn” and Østergård as early as the end of the 13th

century (based on an old deed from 1298; DD

2:4:284), and an additional wall ("thend gamell mantellmwr") mentioned in a deed from 1546 (KD I:288) be

identified and dated?

6.3.4 Østerport

The oldest Østerport, probably a tower gate, is known from Roskildebispens Jordebog from 1294 (the account book of

the Roskilde bishop). It was called Røde port. The gate was probably placed at the end of Østergade, but its exact

location is unknown (Christophersen 1985:109; Skaarup 1998a:38; Fabricius 1999:120).




Could Østerport be identified? Could it be dated?

The design of the gate was unknown, but in the Middle Ages it was walled in brick. How was it constructed? Could

different phases be established? Could function and usage be established?

Did a guard house or custom house exist near Østerport?

6.3.5 Byens Tårn and Kringelen

A tower near the shoreline is mentioned in the town privileges given to Johannes Krag in 1294. In 1496 a tower called

Kringelen is mentioned lying south of Østerport and east of the large area where the department store Magasin du

Nord is situated today. The tower(s) has not yet been proven archaeologically. Remains which could be interpreted as

a tower foundation were investigated below the current Magasin's south-eastern corner in 1873 (Both 1873).


Was the tower situated on the beach?

Could the existence, location and dating of "Byens Tårn" be clarified?

A dating and further understanding of the circular ring wall found in 1873 will only be achieved by further

archaeological investigations.

6.3.6 Christian 4th's fortification c. 1608–1647 AD

Compared to earlier stages of the fortification, Christian 4th

's fortification work is well elucidated through

Rentemesterregnskaberne which is a thorough book-keeping record of the government’s expenditure.

The rampart consisted by the mid 1620s of a rampart row with twelve bastions. Østerport, situated between Sankt

Klara Bastion to the north and the bastion Bastionen ved Iskulen to the south, was built in 1608, as a solid earthwork

(Westerbeek Dahl 1996). The bastion's larynx was in the immediate extension of Østerport and its two facades met

roughly where l'Amoureux’s statue of Christian 5th

stands. Østervold was moved in 1647, and the bastion was

demolished and the area was later to become Kongens Nytorv. The moat lay in front of Østerport.


Could the remains of the Østervold's curtain and bulwark (stronghold) in its different phases be detected?

Could the inner gate tower of the fortification from 1611 be identified? It should have been situated about

midway between Østergade and Lille Kongensgade.

Could remains from the outer gate connected to the drawbridge on the other side of the moat (pictured on Jan

van Wijcks prospect from 1611) be identified?

Could the moat's extension and backfilling stages be further clarified? The outer edge of Christian the 4th

's moat is

archaeologically proven to the northwest side of Kongens Nytorv and dated to the middle of the 17th

century

(Sørensen 2004; Leen Jensen 2007:5).

Could the different fill materials be related to the settlement? What kind of finds material was deposited as

garbage in the fill? Could it be related to life circumstances in the neighbouring plots? How were the works

organized?



6.4 Outside the medieval city gate – the eastern parts of Kongens Nytorv

The archaeological investigations to be carried out beyond the city rampart, would provide opportunities for finding

archaeological evidence of prehistoric settlements, craft or industrial areas, trade, suburban housing, older fields and

country roads. Such activities and buildings are likely to have been lived in by people rarely mentioned in the written

sources and to whom scant attention is given in historical accounts. This part had also served as temporary quarters

for visitors waiting for their turn to pass Østerport and get inside the city limits.

6.4.1 Suburban activities

There is very little information about the settlement and other activities outside the medieval city gate in the

archaeological sources, written records or older maps. Previous archaeological investigations carried out in close

proximity to Kongens Nytorv revealed remains of roads and a few buildings, dated to the Late Middle Ages or

Renaissance period (Leen Jensen 2007). It was suggested that evidence of similar infrastructure and scattered

buildings might be found during the excavations. It was plausible that there had been settlement outside Østerport

during the pre 17th

century period, because it is likely that contaminated, flammable, noxious and space-intensive

activities were situated in more sparsely settled and inexpensive areas; i.e. outside the city gates. It is important also

to reconstruct the topography of the area and to establish where the shoreline was situated during different periods.


Could settlement remains be identified and dated? Was it possible to determine the residents/tenants

professional and social status? Had the area been inhabited by for poor people who weren’t city’s citizens?

What characterized the land use? Were dangerous and noxious activities sited in this area?

6.4.2 Roads

The main roads that radiated from Østerport were Lille Strand Stræde, Store Strand Stræde and Bredgade. Their

extensions can fairly be based on the older Jordebøger (written source on land tax). Lille Strand Stræde started

approximately where Charlottenborg is today and Store Strand Stræde immediately east of Krinsen.


Could roads to and from Østerport from before the 17th

century be identified and dated? This applies particularly

to the road that continues into today's Store Strandstræde.

Could changes in the road pattern be established? Older roads could indirectly be used to prove Østerport's

oldest location.

How were the roads constructed? Were there differences in time? Were there differences in comparison to their

construction inside the city wall?

6.4.3 Bremerholm, Holmens Kanal and Nyhavn

The street Holmens Kanal is a former wetland that was filled up during the Middle Ages and the current Bremerholm

is named after the low-lying islet Bremerholm, situated approximately outside Vingårdsstræde. Nyhavn is still a canal,

constructed in the period 1671–1673 from the sea to Kongens Nytorv north of Charlottenborg.


The area along Holmens Kanal could determine the circumstances surrounding the earliest topography including

the coastline's development in the Middle Ages.



Confirm the pier which had gone over Holmens Kanal immediately south of Østerport.

Identification of structures and marine activities in the form of rope, wood chips and waste that had belonged to

King Hans' shipyard (cf. Jark Jensen 2006:1).

Investigation of the original area for Nyhavn through the presence of the bulwark and the dammed area.

6.5 Objectives of the project in light of the project aims

The earlier phrased site specific questions, connected to the special empirical circumstances in the area of Kongens

Nytorv, all contribute to the project aims (Thomasson & Høst-Madsen 2009). These aims related to standard urban

historical questions, but were designed to use the results from Metro excavations as a case study and to compare the

specific city of Copenhagen to the regional urban characteristics and development in general. The following

paragraphs describe how the site specific questions could contribute to the overall project aims. These questions are

however overreaching; what is in empirical focus in the different areas of the excavation could have bearing within

several perspectives covered in the project aims.

6.5.1 Background, organization, direction and characterization of urbanization

This first setting of project aims referred to the emergence and development of urban structures in a wider time and

landscape perspective. Of interest was the landscape in Copenhagen and its surroundings, from prehistoric to early

modern times. Urban structures were on this occasion defined in close connection with the town concept (cf.

Thomasson 2008); i.e. presence of:

Spatially denoted densely built up settlement, which is clearly divided into public and private space (plots vs roads

and squares).

Activities/production and infrastructure related to central authority, trade and craft; i.e. non agrarian production.

The more general questions regarding all of the four different area types at Kongens Nytorv (see Fig. 3 above), relating

to the original topography and prehistoric land use, were of course contributing. Knowledge of the physical condition,

under which the urban structures and the town grew and developed, is vital. Also, to understand the chronological

depth of the place and surrounding landscape, the diagnostics of what kinds of activities were localised to this area

were fundamental for the understanding of why “Havn“was an obvious place to establish and invest in urban

structures.

In the type 1 and 2 areas, there were great possibilities to explore the establishment and changes of plots and roads,

which in turn contribute to knowledge about public and private space. Excavations of predecessors to Lille

Kongensgade, Vingårdsstræde, Østergade, etc. (type 2 area), together with possible unknown and unexpected roads,

could for example yield information about maintenance, how it was done, if there were differences between the

roads, and thereby lead to more in depth understanding of the organization of public space.

According to the current knowledge there were no institutions relating to central authorities, other than Østergård

(perhaps Østerport could be understood as the same as well). If the possibilities were there, this give cause both to

contribute to new knowledge about the motley and disputed status of this estate, and in a more overall perspective

investigate the relations between the town and the upper societal orders.

Kongens Nytorv is situated in an area that once was a border zone. The city wall marked the difference of jurisdiction

and production. This implicated great possibilities to explore the establishment and development of the spatial

denotation of the town, and thereby one of the key parameters in the spatial structure of medieval and early modern

urbanism. The findings of Viking Age spatial structures during the last Metro excavation, and the opportunity to fill in

the gaps of knowledge regarding chronology and morphology of the later versions of town limits, were especially



interesting to follow up in the forthcoming excavations. Of interest in this circumstance was the chance to follow up

the development and construction of the fortifications, not at least relating to the making of Copenhagen as a capital.

Even if the field conditions might not be optimal (type 4 area), there could be chances to establish land use outside

the city wall. As of now, there is limited knowledge of how these areas were used. Notes in the written records are

late and influenced either by planned or occurring refurbishments. According to circumstances in other comparable

towns, areas just outside city gates, such as the case here, were used for market activities, settlement and agriculture.

Knowledge about the areas immediately outside the town could contribute to the understanding of how the town

structures reacted towards demographic and economic fluctuations (compare discussion Chapter 20; Phase 7b

Outside the moat. Settlement and activities 1550–1650 AD), as well as social stress.

6.5.2 Economic and demographic fluctuations

The essence of the second project aim related to economics and demographics. Whereas the first and earlier

discussed project aim was oriented to establish presence of non agrarian production, focus has now changed to

content and changes. Due to the source value of the archaeological material, the ability to elucidate figures about

quantity and statistics were limited.

Regarding economics, it was vital to establish knowledge about the different kinds of crafts and crafts industries

(including food producing crafts such as butchers, bakers, etc.), their organization, infrastructure and development. It

was equally important to study the means of exchange, whether it was based on a redistributive gift economy,

reciprocity or trade, and due to the close connection with production. Of significance was the development of a

consumer oriented economy, as detected in several other Nordic towns (Christophersen 1990; Carelli 2001).

In Copenhagen, it would be of special interest to focus upon the economic implications of the making of a capital; how

did craft production change, which new commodities and goods were produced, and how did domestic production

change when the merchants of Copenhagen during early modern times were given continuously positive

discrimination and trade privileges. The excavations in the Kongens Nytorv area had possibilities to contribute to these

questions. In the type 1 and 3 areas there were possibilities to find traces of workshops or trading facilities, where

possible findings of booths could yield information. Analyses of the finds material, as representatives of consumed

material culture, contain vital information regarding domestic crafts industries as well as imports, both regarding

identification and development. Finally, artefacts that could be understood as the means of trade, such as coins,

scales and weights, were of course evident as study objects.

Existence and development of agriculture and grazing in the areas just outside the town limits could be of importance.

Through macrofossil and pollen analysis in type 4 areas, it could be possible to establish such types of land use.

The investments in infrastructure, such as Kongens Nytorv, Nyhavn, Holmens Kanal and Bremerholm situated outside

the town limits (type 3 areas), were also related to the privileged status of Copenhagen as a trading town. These had

to be seen as a part of the state trying to govern the trade, through merchants acting from the capital. The

excavations could contribute information on the organization of the works, the constructions, more precise dating

through dendrochronology and finally their maintenance.

Regarding demographics, there were of course limitations in the area in question. Research on tendencies and

fluctuations in population figures during late prehistory and the Middle Ages was traditionally made from excavations

of cemeteries, often in relation to notes in the written records. But regarding settlements, the best possibilities lay in

investigations of plot sizes and how densely built these were (related to type 1 areas). Variations according to these

parameters could however be explained by other factors, such as access to land, economical and social status, etc.,

but can serve as one factor among many. Also, the earlier discussed situation just outside the town limits could be yet

another such factor.



6.5.3 Cultural and social implications and consequences of city life

The third project aim related to how people related to the urban structures and to the special circumstances of living

in a town; urban culture. In relation to the economic and demographic aims, focus had changed from established

content, towards studying social interaction and lifestyles.

Within the stipulated long time perspective of the project, a vital issue is the creation and development of a new

social order in society, the burghers. Agency relating to material culture is in this sense not just a matter for the

individual, but also occurs in a collective framework where the cultural formation of the burghers is vital. At the same

time, this class was a heterogenic composition with social hierarchies and genders with completely different life

conditions.

Lifestyle issues can be studied in traditional archaeological questions related to development of the buildings

(construction, layout, spatial organization of houses on the plots, etc.), food, household items, personal equipment,

and other kinds of material culture relating to consumption. Of interest was not least if there were changes in

lifestyles during the process from bishop town to capital, which kinds of changes could be established and their

dispositions in the different urban social groups. While the options to excavate settlement remains were most

plausible in the type 1 area, collections of finds material from all areas could contribute to knowledge regarding

consumption in general.

The extension of these topics was to establish differences and thereby development of social topography. This could

involve comparisons between Østergård as a type of manor, the socially high ranking plots surrounding the main

street Østergade, with other areas including possible settlement outside the city gate (type 4 areas).

Towns were gathering places during for example markets and religious festivals. This did not only have great economic

importance, but also meant that the urban centres were arenas of interaction between social orders and ethnical

groups. The importance of public space and monumental structures in preindustrial towns has been underlined by

several scholars (cf. Tittler 1991; Larsson & Saunders 1997; Magnusson Staaf et al. 1996; Giles 2000). Studies of

construction, development and maintenance of roads (type 2 areas; for example what kind of pavements and

foundations were used) as well as the architecture of Østerport as one of the town’s most visible landmarks, could

increase our knowledge on the importance of public space.

Finally, there were possibilities to study the social framework of production and trade. A first step was to try to

identify where on the plots these kinds of activities occurred, and how these constructions were displayed

architecturally and spatially. A second step could be to investigate if there were different organizations relating to

different crafts and their development over time.



7 Methodology

7.1 Excavation and documentation

7.1.1 Initial soil removal

Machine removal of upper levels of soil and modern overburden was necessary. An excavating machine from the

contractors, with a toothless bucket, was used to facilitate this. The machine was supervised by Field Leaders or other

appointed persons during this process, in accordance with the project methodology (similarly, the machine was

sometimes used to remove larger archaeological layers and deposits, particularly within the moat, but also under

strict archaeological supervision) (Fig. 17). It was anticipated that no contexts or deposits of archaeological interest

would be uncovered in the top 1 m below present ground level, however during the initial Guide Wall machining of

phase 5A-1, it was already apparent that in some areas this was not the case, with archaeology being encountered as

little as 0.5 m below present ground level. In general, archaeology was encountered between c. 0.5 m and 1.0 m

below the modern street surface.

Fig. 17. Machining and metal detecting. Removing larger deposits in the 17th

century moat. Photo: Museum of

Copenhagen.

7.1.2 Excavation procedures

Machine removal of upper levels was used to reduce modern soil without primary archaeological contexts and also to

reduce archaeological deposits down to the top surface of the first in situ features. This enabled sometimes over 1 m

of soil to be efficiently removed by machine. Different machines each with a toothless ditching bucket were

monitored by archaeologists during this process. Although features were visible just under the topsoil they were not

surveyed until the machining had been completed, therefore the top level (z-value) of the contexts relates to the level

of the context when first visible. The archaeological contexts and finds were then cleaned, troweled, surveyed and



identified before being recorded or excavated. All contexts received a unique identification number, generated by the

total station.

A range of timber and stone and brick structures were also encountered, and once these were documented, it was

sometimes necessary to use machinery or power tools to help in their removal, for example a chainsaw for large

timbers; i.e. water pipes, bulwarks (also for sampling them), and power hammers or excavating machines to remove

large stone and masonry structures; i.e. foundations Østerport, city wall, bridge, etc. Machines were also used to

reduce the modern disturbances between the primary contexts thus improving the efficiency and reducing the heavy

workload for the archaeologists.

All archaeological contexts were recorded according to the stratigraphical, single context method as described in

Roskams (2001). Archaeological contexts were recorded and described down to the smallest visible event that could

be identified by the archaeologist. These were then linked together to form a flow of events that happened through

time on the site. Excavation was undertaken under stratigraphical methods, excavating primary contexts in reverse

chronological order, starting with the latest (or youngest) feature first, working down to the earliest (or oldest) and

undisturbed natural ground. According to the single context methodology, this is considered the easiest and most

efficient way to interpret and recapture the activities that have taken place on a site, which is the overall aim of any

archaeological investigation. It should be stated that in practice it was found that in features such as the moat,

contexts that were very similar but separated by thin lenses of sand for example, were generally taken as being one

context, but with the context description including details of how the lensing appeared. This was in part necessary due

to the sheer scale of the moat; it was felt that the amount of individual contexts that would have been documented if

this approach was not employed would have been so great as to be counter-productive, making a meaningful

interpretation of the sequence all but impossible.

Excavation was primarily done by hand tools, shovel and mattock followed by trowel and occasionally brushes and

leaf trowels for smaller more delicate excavation (Fig. 18). Each context was excavated in order and context sheets

filled in on site. Six different types of context sheet were designed for the site; sheets for describing cuts, deposits,

timbers, stones, modern truncations and trenches.

Contexts and features were photographed, sometimes with geomarkers from a vertical view. All contexts were

surveyed, finds collected and samples taken where this was scientifically relevant.



Fig. 18. Excavating and documenting a barrel in trench phase 1S. Photo: Museum of Copenhagen.

7.1.3 Night work

Night work was completed in Bredgade (ZT7627) and in Holmens Kanal (ZT52627) on two occasions, from May 10th

-

11th

and May 19th

-20th

2010.The excavation work was carried out under constant supervision of archaeologists from

Museum of Copenhagen with limited light conditions, where features of special archaeological interest were

documented through measuring, section drawings and photography (Fig. 19).



Fig. 19. Documentation of former Lille Gjethus (cannon foundry) in present Holmens Kanal. Photo: Museum of

Copenhagen.

7.2 Documentation principles The overall methodologies that were used for the Metro project are stated in the project design (Thomasson & Høst

Madsen 2009). These specify the use of museum standards for project management and museum policies on

archaeological recording and finds handling (ibid). There are also strategy documents which describe the principles of

finds management (Finds handbook 2010) and report management (Report management 2010) together with

manuals covering how to use context sheets (Thomasson 2011). A feature typology was developed (Feature typology

2010). These were working documents however, and were changed and improved as deemed appropriate or

necessary. The methodologies were also adjusted as relevant to follow guidelines produced by KUAS.

The archaeological features and finds were first being trowelled and identified before being recorded and excavated.

All archaeological features (cuts, deposits, stone and timber structures) were recorded in writing on designated

standard forms in the field, and the feature was measured with a total station. Every feature and in situ find got a

unique identification number, generated by the total station. All information was then transferred and registered into

IntraSiS Explorer and the feature put into an overall site matrix.

The form for recording of archaeological features was divided into three parts:

• The first entails overall information and primary identification such as data about position in the field, date of

documentation and signature of excavator, as well as the identity of the feature, what kind of feature it was (cut,

ditch, pit, posthole, etc.), its dimensions and type and its nearest stratigraphical relations (younger and older).



• The second part contained a description of the feature which concentrated on the details of the types of cuts

located or details of soils present, etc. It was descriptive, and mostly multiple choice.

• The third part of the form holds the archaeologist’s interpretation of the feature – what kind of cut or deposit was it

and what can we further suggest about it? In this part all the gathered information put down in the first two sections

should be seen as grounds for the interpretation. All ended up in a basic interpretation expressed in a feature type.

These were pre-defined in IntraSiS and described in a strategy document (Feature Typology 2010).

The contexts were divided into three main categories according to their stratigraphic properties: layer/deposit, cut or

structure. Different data were assigned to, and were documented about the different categories. For layers and

deposits, recording was done on colour and substance of the soil; the degree of organic contents was noted as well as

the compactness and how easily the context could be identified from its surroundings. This information when put

together helps us to interpret how the context has come to be. Was the soil deposited in one event or over several

deposition periods; in which case, why? What kind of activity did it result from? Or, did the soil build up gradually over

a longer period of time? What activities could explain that? What did the contents suggest about the nature of the

activity? These questions related directly to the stated themes and specific questions within the project objectives.

Information about finds, images and samples was also put on the form, as well as a sketch of the feature if necessary.

The matrix is a tool used for further grouping of the features and in the work of creating land use phases for the site.

This consisted of assigning identities to groups of features, which can then be used to record the spatial and social use

of the site. Land use phases of the area have been identified, depending on available information assessed alongside

the older written material, which could identify which parts of the site were used during which historical periods and

assist in answering some of the themes and specific questions concerning the development of the city throughout its

use.

The photographic documentation has been thorough, and includes photogrammetry; where the geometric properties

of objects are determined from photographic images of features and structures using fixed points surveyed by the

total station. The recording process and results have been quality controlled on a regular basis by the Field Leaders

and Excavation Leader. All this work was done within the time frame of the fieldwork.

In addition to the excavation of man-made deposits, some assessment of any exposed “naturally deposited” levels has

been necessary, especially in cases where these are organically preserved and laid down within archaeological

timescales; for example alluvial deposits. Some cut features, such as moats and wells were excavated to a greater

depth than anticipated in the construction works, provided this was consistent with site safety, in order to adequately

date and record such features of interest.

The standard terms for recording are stated in the Field Manual (2010) and are available in the IntraSiS software;

these were conformed to during the excavation to ensure compatibility of the data throughout the excavation and

project. Particular attention was paid by the Field Leaders and Excavation Leader to the quality of recording and

understanding of the stratigraphic sequence by the archaeologists.

7.2.1 Documentation procedures

The context sheets were completed and the features were measured by the excavating archaeologist. This person also

recorded the data into IntraSiS. The attribute data was then checked by the responsible Field Leader and the person

responsible for compiling the matrix and stratigraphy. The geometric data was imported in IntraSiS by the person

responsible for the total station and IntraSiS, who also checked the quality of the measurements.

Procedure: Archaeologist measure and record context; Archaeologist attribute data IntraSiS;

Matrix/stratigraphy person check attribute data; total station/IntraSiS person geodata IntraSiS.



Basic contextual grouping (subgroups and groups) were initiated by the excavating archaeologist, but decided by the

Field Leader and the person responsible for compiling the matrix and stratigraphy. The attribute data was recorded in

IntraSiS by the Field Leader or the matrix/stratigraphy person. Templates (recording parameters as well as descriptive

narratives) for recording subgroups and groups were meant to be developed during the course of the excavation, but

because of time pressure on site this job was done after the fieldwork phase. These were discussed at milestone

meetings and groups were part of the report structure.

Procedure: Archaeologist suggests subgroups and groups; Field Leader defines subgroups and groups; Field

Leader or matrix/stratigraphy person IntraSiS.

Other contextual groupings were done after the fieldwork phase and recorded in the IntraSiS database.

7.3 Digital resources and computing support

7.3.1 Operating systems

All computers were run on Microsoft Windows XP SP3. The applications were hosted on Microsoft Windows server

2005 terminal servers and accessed via the internet through a secure SSL/VPN tunnel. The databases were hosted on

Microsoft SQL server 2005, also accessed via the terminal servers.

7.3.2 Office applications

Microsoft Office 2008 suite was used across the network and hosted on terminal servers. Microsoft SharePoint

Services were used to share documents and spread information across the different sites and departments.

7.3.3 Survey

For surveying, Trimble S6 total stations with handheld control units were used. The coordination system used is called

DKTM zone 3 and the height system used is called DVR 90. The excavation conditions were sometimes very

complicated. The site was divided into several areas and some of these areas were very small and narrow. Therefore

measuring with the total station was difficult and even impossible in some cases. Therefore the measuring sometimes

had to be supplemented with manual hand drawings.

All geometry was collected within the DKTM coordinate system. The geometrical objects were then imported into the

database.

7.3.4 Database

The IntraSiS Explorer system created by the Swedish National Heritage Board was used for the collecting, relating,

structuring and archiving of data. IntraSiS is a geographical information system designed specifically for dealing with

archaeological information and data. The archaeological database structure has been developed specifically for

archaeological data captured using the single context recording system on the specific site. In IntraSiS analysis you are

able to do different types of analyses on the collected information. For example, you can do different types of

dispersion maps, tables and plans.

The program consists of two separate parts, Explorer and Analysis. IntraSiS Explorer is a database where all collected

data are stored. In Explorer you also register all relevant archaeological information and create relations between

different objects. The system utilizes SQL server 2005 which was hosted on the terminal server.

7.3.5 GIS analysis

ESRI ARCGIS 9.3 was used for all deeper GIS analysis and for working with digital maps, geo-referencing and

transforming. All archaeological GIS analysis was done with the IntraSiS Analysis software.



7.3.6 Project management

Microsoft SharePoint Services was used as a project document sharing software.

7.3.7 File output and data exchange formats All database files were exported to MS Access standard file formats. Text descriptions were exported as .rtf files and

read in standard word processing programs. The geometry was exported as personal geo-databases in .mdb format,

or in any of the standard file formats such as .dxf, .shp, .dwg.

7.3.8 Security Backups of the entire system were done on weekly, monthly and yearly cycles, while an incremental backup was run

each night. All backup media was stored off site at the terminal server hosting company. Monthly emergency recovery

checks were done to control the recreation of selected data i.e. SQL databases. Logon to the systems was done via

SSL/VPN software and by token. The Symantec Endpoint Protection antivirus software was used to prevent malicious

code entering the systems, along with firewall solutions provided by the terminal server hosting company.

7.3.9 Site-specific support

The computing support for the project involved the provision of input and validation mechanisms for site attribute

data, digitizing programs for the planned information and word processing/desktop publishing for the production of

reports.

7.3.10 Bonn seriation & statistics

The ArchEd module of the Bonn Archaeological Statistics package allows strings of stratigraphic relationships to be

loaded and interactively checked. Inconsistent or contradictory relationships were identified and removed and a

validated Harris Matrix diagram produced as graphical output. All stratigraphic relations were exported from IntraSiS

in a .lst file format to be imported directly into ArcEd.

The stratigraphic relationships of checked site records were loaded by individual site supervisors as excavation

progresses.

7.4 Excavation manual The field manual was designed as a guide to the compilation of the archaeological site record for the Kongens Nytorv

excavation (Alexander et al. 2010). This consisted of written, photographed and surveyed contexts using a single

context recording system (where a “context” is a simple unit of record and is usually defined stratigraphically).

The manual followed the best practice from other guidance and manuals for single context recording, primarily the

MoLA site manual (Westman 1994), combined with best practice for IntraSiS documentation, where the database has

been specifically designed for this project. It covered the instructions for completing the three types of field recording

sheets and for surveying contexts using a total station, and combined it with the guidance for data entry into the

IntraSiS database.

The single context recording system creates a very large number of separate records. Creating relationships between

these records is the main way of understanding the site sequence. For this purpose the Kongens Nytorv excavation

used the Harris Matrix. This provides a simple method of relating one context to another according to their relative

stratigraphic positions.

The relationship of any one context to any other was established during excavation. Each context was planned using

the total station once it was fully exposed, and a relevant context sheet was filled out recording its stratigraphic

relationships. These relationships could be checked for accuracy in IntraSiS and a “site matrix” compiled.



If it was necessary to record the stratigraphy in section rather than plan, the section/elevation was drawn on drawing

paper with a typical scale of 1:10, 1:20 or 1:50, and incorporated into the IntraSiS database manually. A section

drawing had its own matrix diagram drawn and was cross-referenced with any known identical contexts in

surrounding areas.

Procedures for the retrieval and processing of finds, the taking of environmental samples and photography are also

described.

7.5 Stratigraphic division and phasing Archaeological excavation is a complex, collective social practice, irreducible to the individual. It demands a

standardisation of practices and systemisation of recording. Most importantly, the stages in the production of

archaeological knowledge require detailed consideration and application. The processes of reassembling the

archaeological data after excavation and of reconstructing the site’s various structures, types of activity and

chronological development, are complicated and arduous (McLees et al. 1994:10-12).

The theory and method of stratigraphic excavation and post-excavation analysis have been dealt with in many

previous archaeological texts (see Harris 1979; Harris et al. 1993). Essentially, stratigraphic excavation can be

perceived as the conceptual basis for the structuring of observations and perceptions of material culture. It is the

means by which we attain practical engagement with the material past. The method centres upon the conceptual and

physical deconstruction of the site into discrete units, namely the stratigraphic unit or “context”. It provides a means

of focusing upon the physical properties and the chronological and spatial relationships of the different components

within an archaeological site. Consequently, stratigraphic excavation facilitates the recording of three fundamental

dimensions of contextual knowledge from the bottom up. Through manipulating and analysing these various

contextual relationships it then becomes possible to reconstruct the site interpretively in terms of activity, phases of

occupation and periods of development.

The adoption of the theory and method of stratigraphic excavation requires the learning and practice of specific

techniques which are employed on a collective basis. These define the relationship between forms of excavation and

types of on-site recording, and structure the movement from site deconstruction to site reconstruction in the written

report. The differing practices employed in the use of stratigraphic excavation are not arbitrarily related; on the

contrary they are intricately linked. They need to be logically and systematically followed through if the necessary

knowledge is to be produced by which archaeology can enter and further develop the general debates on

urbanization.

In stratigraphic excavation the archaeologist follows the actual formation process of a particular site as closely as

possible (although in reverse chronological order). The formation process consists of a relative sequence of events

which constitutes the history and development of a site. These are identified and recorded as a sequence of

stratigraphic contexts. By “context” is meant an individual archaeological unit of stratification which represents a

specific processual event in a sequence. Thus, a context may consist of a backfill, a dump of construction material, a

structural element for a building, a pit or material filling a trench. Consequently the remains of a building, for example,

can consist of a number of stratigraphically associated contexts – individual flooring elements, walling elements, etc.

The stratigraphic method places equal value on each context and the relationships between them, both in terms of

the process of excavation and methods of recording (Harris 1979:73).

A stratigraphic sequence of contexts is presented graphically in the form of a matrix (or Harris Matrix). This comprises

the “archaeological reality”, Harris’s “testing pattern”, which represents in a two-dimensional form the unique

chronological sequence of site formation processes. The stratigraphic matrix is consequently the key tool for the

integrative process of site reconstruction, providing as it does the means by which the spatial and descriptive data can

be systematically organized. By progressively integrating contexts in stratigraphically and functionally defined groups



the basic processual units in the reconstruction process are formed. They are then in turn amalgamated into higher

level groupings, closely spatially and temporally correlated, and with greater interpretative significance. It is through

the identification of these interpretational units that complex patterns and sequences of cultural-historical activity

emerge. By working from the level of the individual context through to higher order interpretative groupings of

contexts, an array of qualitatively differentiated processes and activities is defined.

Manipulation of the primary data, therefore, begins with the subdivision, or sorting, of the “raw” matrix into distinct

groups of contexts. By virtue of their close stratigraphic relationships and complementary physical characteristics,

these groups of contexts, can be said to derive from the same formative process and type of activity.

7.5.1 Harris Matrix

In keeping with the principles of single context recording and the excavation methodology of the Museum of

Copenhagen, a Harris Matrix was created concurrent with the ongoing excavation to facilitate understanding of the

stratigraphic relationships between contexts across the site. This was done without reference to artefactual dating,

dendrochronology or other analyses, which were later amalgamated into the results during post-excavation work.

The subgrouping and grouping were undertaken on site as far as possible alongside the creation of the matrix, both

for expediency and to allow the first hand knowledge of the archaeologists to be incorporated into these processes.

The Harris Matrix for Kongens Nytorv was created using the program Stratify to maintain consistency across the Metro

excavations (along with Rådhuspladsen and Gammel Strand) where this program was also used.

The matrix, subgrouping and grouping were collated through the program Stratify, which was available as a free

download. This program works by compiling a database of known stratigraphic and sub-group/group relations from

which it then composes a visual depiction of a Harris Matrix. This diagram is static and cannot be manipulated by the

user to account for e.g. contexts on the same chronological level, and once a context is within a group its stratigraphic

relations are no longer illustrated – only those of the group. This necessitates the careful cross-checking of all

stratigraphic relationships across a large number of contexts so as to mitigate later errors in grouping and phasing.

The Harris Matrix was created by transferring the immediate stratigraphic relations of each context as recorded by the

archaeologist on the context sheets into the database of the Stratify program. These relationships were checked with

those of other relevant contexts, geo-objects and stratigraphic relations in the IntraSiS database, and relationships

already entered in the Stratify program, so that all cross-referencing was accurate. During the first field seasons one

person had overall responsibility to create the matrix and group contexts to minimise potential errors and maintain

consistency across the excavation, from 2012 this work was divided between Field Leader(s) and the overall

responsible archaeologist (Rachel Morgan). It was expected that this post-excavation work would be completed to

group level during the field time, but this could not be implemented due to time pressure on site.

Matrices for each subarea were created separately due to the scheduling of excavations, to avoid compound errors

and due to the integral capacity limits of the Stratify program used.

7.5.2 Biographical stages

On every object, there was a statement relating to the biography, either labelled as construction, usage or

deconstruction. The purpose of this exercise was to create conditions to understand duration, change and usage of

the objects. It also clarifies the source value of the finds material and the scientific analysis conducted. When the

biographical stage is established it is easier to understand what is dated, for example, when sending in a 14

C-sample

for analysis. It also provides tools to understand how the finds material is deposited. If this is a primary deposition,

then the scattering of the finds have a source value in relation to how the object was used. If it is re-deposited, then it

is less likely that the scattering of finds have a source value relating to usage.



The logic of stating biographical stages is that it relates to an object on the nearest level above the registered context

or object. A fill in a posthole relates for example to the deconstruction of a wall, rather than to the posthole as a cut. A

new floor layer relates, according to the same grammar, to usage of a house.

Accordingly, biographical stages can never be stated on group objects. These are the outcomes of the recorded

activities on context and subgroup levels. Group objects contain, rather than being part of, biographies.

One can divide the understanding of the cultural layers and stratigraphy in three directions:

• Construction

• Usage

• Deconstruction

After processing the archaeological material:

• Reconstruction

Construction means the activities organized/created surface of feature. Usage means the traces of activities in

progress and deconstruction involves the phase where usage has been discontinued or changed. The reorganization

involves converting the archaeological monument to the source material in the form of drawings, writing and more.

7.5.3 Relative chronology and physical stratigraphic relationships

A single layer can be affected by and superimpose several cuts and several layers and structures. The layer in turn can

superimpose other contexts. There is a difference between physical relationships and a stratigraphic relationship

(relative chronology). On this archaeological investigation, the relative chronology has been used.

7.5.4 Terminology

The basic ontological idea of the recording system at the Museum of Copenhagen was to deconstruct in order to

reconstruct. Contextual documentation is a system of recording, sorting and interpreting archaeological remains. It

consists of single context recording and the following different grouping levels.

Single-context recording clarifies, organizes and arranges chronologically. The archaeological method is based on

documenting and removing the contexts in the reverse order of how they accumulated; the archaeological sequence

deconstructed down to the smallest identifiable event that left its mark. These are called stratigraphic units or

contexts. Each layer, filling, cut, etc. will have its own ID, and thus becomes its own context. These have a separate

description and interpretation. To arrange chronologically with a stratigraphic approach is thus a form of contextual

understanding. A stratigraphic unit is the end product that has been created through various documentary processes

at different times.

Stratigraphic units influence each other in a network of relationships. A relational schema is a sequence of time

represented by the relative stratigraphic relationships of the different contexts. No event occurs as an isolated

phenomenon, but part of the series and context. On Kongens Nytorv there was a complex stratigraphic situation

because the site had lengthy continuity. The Harris Matrix is used to organize and visualize this. The material is

processed through clustering or dividing into phase or time. These steps build on each other and are processed in this

order.

The routine in this archaeological excavation meant that each context had its own ID when it was measured with the

total station. The data of the context was entered on the context sheet. Upon registration in IntraSiS a relationship

was created between the object studied and stratigraphic relationships.



Contextual grouping is an interpretive method to relate recorded activities that are parts of the same object and/or

reoccurring use. It consists of creating and structuring relations and attribute data according to defined principles. It

was a part of the museum’s aim to integrate tasks usually separated in fieldwork and post-excavation stages, enabling

both real time quality checks and contextual reflections. The aim of grouping was to take the interpretation of a

context through a recognisable chain of interpretational stages that structures the data. The grouping is also of

importance for the prioritisation of samples that were sent for analysis.

The report concerns the principles and procedures of taking site data from context to group level, and was read in

conjunction with the excavation manuals. The document contains definitions of context, subgroup and group types

that were used in the registration in IntraSiS. The process of grouping and subgrouping contexts was to a certain

extent done continuously during the fieldwork phase.

The typologies were working documents, open to additions of new types and improvements. There are five concepts

describing the different interpretive levels; contexts, subgroups, groups, land use and phase. Each level contains

objects. The biography of each object is referred to as three stages, involving construction, usage and deconstruction.

It was decided that the interpretative hierarchy on site would consist of five levels:

7.5.5 Context level The context is the base element of the single context recording system that is used at the Museum of Copenhagen (cf.

Thomasson 2011). These are to be understood as single activities that have resulted in detectable remains. There are

four types of contexts, where the recording parameters are designed to assure a consistent and quality assessed

documentation of material. These are deposits, cuts, stone/brick structures and wood structures.

The context typology relates to these as single objects, and provides them with a basic cultural historical

interpretation which is a key element in the creation of the grouping process.

Note that there is an inconsistency in how different context types are documented. While sill stones for example are

provided with a single identification number directly when recorded by using the total station, postholes are provided

with separate identification. Postholes usually have no direct physical contact, and are therefore regarded as separate

activities (even if digging a hole for a post could be regarded as the same type of activity as laying down a sill stone, or

for that sake, placing a brick in a wall). To be consistent however, spatially separate rows of sill stones must be

provided with different identity numbers. At the other end of the scale, a close-knitted row of sill stones covering all

four walls of a house, was recorded with a single identity number. Note also that there has to be a stratigraphic

analysis like sill stone rows as well. Primary and secondary parts have to be regarded as separate contexts.

The contexts are parts of the biography of a subgroup or group object. A biography has three stages, construction,

usage or deconstruction, which relates to the nearest object on the interpretive level above the context. The contexts

create the biographical narratives of subgroup and group objects.

Imprints after wagons (wheel ruts) or footprints were recorded as usage, in relation to subgroup and group objects,

such as roads, yards, etc. Imprints from constructions were recorded according to the same principles as postholes.

If the contexts in question relate to subgroups labelled as deconstruction, then these also were recorded as belonging

to the deconstruction stage on context level. This was the case when the subgrouped contexts represent the

demolition of more than one subgroup object or a group object.

The terminology is directed to describe the function of the context (not the subgroup or group). The intention with

the context typology is to provide a concluding interpretation to be recorded on the context sheets. Thereby it’s

possible to get a consequent terminology, at the same time as the documentation material is based upon equal (for as



possible) interpretive levels. The different alternatives were presented on a pick-list in IntraSiS, which limits spelling

mistakes.

The typology was defined on the basis of a functional (more or less) interpretation of common (medieval/historical)

archaeological contexts; i.e. the question to ask was why the context was created – for what purpose, and not be

labelled after content or other attribute data.

The interpretation was based on the documented parameters stated on the context sheet (empirical

recording/interpretation) and contextual observations. A cut with sloping sides can for example be interpreted as a

posthole if it was spatially situated within a row of cuts. The function of a deposit can also be determined through its

position in a stratigraphic sequence. If a layer of sandy gravel was situated directly underneath a pavement, then it

was likely that it had been deposited to work as a foundation layer to support the cobbles.

Additionally important was that the terminology was on the same interpretive level, corresponding to each other and

to the hierarchy of contextual groupings. Thereby, the terminology could be used as a tool when searching and

analysing the IntraSiS-databases, as well as making it easier to present the findings in our reports.

The following was an attempt to create a typology suitable for excavations in Copenhagen. Attributes, for example

material and content of a deposit, were not mentioned in the labelling of the typology, but stated in the description

and registration parameters, and easily extracted from IntraSiS such as Floor Level (type) and Clay (material).

Any further interpretations, on higher levels, were done as part of the contextual groupings.

This was the most basic unit of recording in the field.

Carried out by archaeologists on site this involved recording on context sheets and with the total station.

7.5.6 Subgroup level

Subgroup objects are sorting tools, providing a number of necessary levels to describe the group objects. The number

of subgroup levels relates to the complexity of the group object and/or preservation conditions. Contexts don’t have

to be subgrouped, and can be directly related to the group object.

Subgroups are objects containing contexts and/or other subgroup objects that are joined together. These represent

either parts of fragmented contexts, or constructive units that in turn are parts of group objects.

Fragmented and separate parts of what is understood as the same context is the most basic level of subgroup objects.

The subgrouping has in this case the function to connect the different parts of what once was the same entity. The

labelling of the subgroup object is then a repetition of the stated context type.

This case could for example be illustrated by a fragmented floor level, which is preserved in several different spatial

units. By subgrouping these, it is stated that these belonged to the same object. Next level of subgrouping is to relate

this subgroup to other subgroups or contexts, for example foundation layers, to create the subgroup Floor.

A second example is when the preservation conditions are good. Parts of the foundation layer (i.e. primary fill) and a

post are preserved in a posthole. The purpose of the subgrouping is to state that these contexts belong together and

were labelled Post. Next level subgrouping then relates with other subgroup objects and contexts that belonged to the

same wall.

Group objects that represent complex constructions are likely to create more subgroup levels. The path from context

to group object is longer.



Remains of houses can for example have many subgroup levels. If it has been equipped with a basement, the

basement is a subgroup object. This can in turn consist of several subgroup objects such as a floor, a wall and a cut.

The registration of stages of subgroups relates to the nearest object on the interpretive level above. It could therefore

both relate to other subgroup and group objects. The subgroup object that was recorded was part of the biography of

a greater entity.

Subgroup objects that were parts of the initial construction of the group object were stated as belonging to the

construction stage. A subgroup object that represents a secondary addition to a group object, such as a new inner

wall, was a part of the usage stage. There can be many usage stages related to one group object.

Remains that relate to the deconstruction of a subgroup object (but not the group object) were stated as parts of the

deconstruction of a subgroup object on a lower subgroup or context level. This could for example have been the case

when an inner wall was demolished (i.e. the subgroup object), and not the house (i.e. the group object), then the fills

of the postholes (contexts) were stated as deconstruction (and related to the subgroup object Inner wall).

Remains that relate to the deconstruction of the group object were related to a separate subgroup labelled as

deconstruction, because the activities relate to the group object. Consequently, these subgroup objects could also be

recorded as being part of the deconstruction stage (relating to the demolition of the group object).

Remains that relate to the deconstruction of more than one subgroup, but not the demolition of the group object,

were subgrouped and labelled as deconstruction. But the subgroup was however part of the usage of the group

object, in the sense that it was a part of a change (renovation of the house) of it, and ought therefore to be stated as

usage.

The only attribute recording that was done was the labelling of the type of subgroup. More elaborate information

about the subgroup object was given on group level. Notes ought to be stated in the IntraSiS free text field of the

subgroup object. Biographical stages were recorded in a pick list as well.

Due to the flexible character of subgroup types, it was not possible to create a pick list of possibilities and use this in

IntraSiS. It was the responsibility of the registrar to follow the given instructions.

The terminology used when creating subgroup types was as much as possible related to the intended function of the

object (contrary to the parts which were recorded as contexts). There were two forms of subgroup objects:

The first was subgroup objects that consisted of contexts that had been fragmented into two or more spatial entities.

In this case the type labelling was a repetition of the context type. In cases where a subgroup object for example

consisted of a posthole, foundation layer and remains of a post, then the object was labelled Post as it was the most

decisive term describing the function.

The second was subgroup objects that were constructive parts of group objects. Basements or walls were for example

parts of buildings, which in turn could contain other subgroup objects.

Attributes or characteristics were avoided in the labelling terminology, creating a clear and comparable terminology

and promoting interpretation (contrary to description). A wall was labelled as a wall. If it had been constructed in brick

or made of posts with wattle and daub that was stated at group level. The terminology was to strive after the most

depicting and interpretive term.

Certain types of subgroups could never constitute group objects. Among these were for example floors and

basements, which always have to have been parts of a house. In the same way, a posthole and a fill were never

regarded as a subgroup. In general, it was a constructive part of larger construction, such as a wall or a fence, and the



contexts were related to these objects. In the rare cases, when it could be established that it was the intended

outcome, then the posthole, together with the fills and other remains constituted a group object that was labelled

Post.

This was a means of reducing the numbers of contexts into more manageable small groups. These subgroups

consisted of a set of contexts related to one activity, for example a construction cut, the wall in it and the construction

backfill. Another example of a subgroup could be the three contexts that make up a posthole; the cut, the post itself

and the backfilled earth around the wood.

These subgroups were suggested by the archaeologist excavating the feature, the associated contexts box on

the context sheet allowed for this, and then verified by the Field leaders once they had been entered into

IntraSiS by the archaeologist with special responsibility for IntraSiS.

7.5.7 Group level

A group is the intended physical outcome of the (materialised) activities recorded at context level. Groups relate to

objects or structures. There are however limits, which relate to the scale of archaeological excavations. A fortification,

with moat, walls, buildings, etc., can for example be understood as the intended physical outcome if it was planned

and the works were conducted as part of one enterprise. The intention of the group definition is however adjusted to

cover smaller entities that are suitable for the archaeological scale; everything from a moat and a building to a quarry

pit. Group objects cover in any case a wide range of types, from very simple to very complex objects.

Contexts and subgroups are parts of group objects. The number of subgroup levels is dependant upon preservation

and the complexity of the group object. To identify group objects is the final part and aim of the contextual grouping

during the field phase.

Group objects contain biographical stages, defined at subgroup and context levels. Group objects are per definition

parts of the usage stage of the excavated site, and there is then no point to state biographical stages at group level.

Changes above group level are changes in usage, and are therefore parts of interpretations on land use and phase

levels done during post-excavation.

The templates in IntraSiS contain registration parameters facilitated with pick lists. These covered both attributes on

group and subgroup levels, as well as relating to the Method Statement.

The free text field in IntraSiS was used as a narrative description, which also could be used as report text. The group

level in IntraSiS was regarded as the interface between database and report.

Certain group templates are already parts of the default setting of the IntraSiS projects. If additions or completely new

group templates are needed, then a draft was presented to the archaeology management meetings and created by

the IT coordinator.

The terminology used when labelling group object types was as much as possible related to the intended function of

the object as an entity (contrary to the parts). Attributes or characteristics were avoided in the labelling terminology,

creating a clear and comparable terminology and promoting interpretation (contrary to description). Attributes were

recorded as parameters in IntraSiS. The list of group types was not settled and new types could be added

continuously.

Group types are however prioritised and vital parts of the quality assessment of the documentation material. New

types generate work to create templates in IntraSiS, which enables elaborated possibilities to create active, functional

and searchable data. The decision to define group types was an issue, as earlier stated, for the archaeology

management meeting.



In turn subgroups were clustered together with other subgroups by virtue of their stratigraphic relationship to form a

group. A subgroup post could cluster with other subgroup postholes to form a fence or bulwark which in turn could be

clustered with a timber structure such as revetment to produce a "phase". These groups also denote whole structures

within the site, for example a building, road or pit series (if they are all contemporary). These were compiled when the

subgroups, for example in the case of a building, the walls, floors and occupation layers, were associated and given a

number.

Again the archaeologists were able to make group suggestions, but the decision for grouping was taken by

the Field Leader overseeing a particular area. These too were entered into IntraSiS by the archaeologist with

special responsibility for IntraSiS.

7.5.8 Land use phasing Phase implies a near contemporaneous archaeological horizon representing "what you would see if you went back to

a specific point in time". Often but not always a phase implies the identification of an occupation surface that existed

at some earlier time. The production of phase interpretations is one of the first goals of stratigraphic interpretation

and excavation and the process of interpretation in practice will have a bearing on excavation strategies on site, so

"phasing" a site is actively pursued during excavation where at all possible.

This stage of analysis was completed after fieldwork was concluded and therefore carried out by the

Excavation Leader or Field Leader responsible for writing the report. This stage was carried out once the

groups had been checked and verified.

7.5.10 Land use

This is the overview of how a landscape changed over time. This is the level at which the report will be written where

a narrative can be constructed to tell the story of the site that has been under investigation throughout history.

This part was done entirely by the report authors as part of the publication process.

7.5.11 Watching brief and excavation

Documentation varied because of the nature of the investigation. The major areas on and around Kongens Nytorv

used the contextual approach. During watching briefs the procedure was somewhat easier and only in exceptional

cases, it was possible to dig single-context (with the exception of the Station Box). Rather it was common practice to

document sections and use the total station to survey plans or draw them from the trench limits. The preparation of

descriptions and photography became if anything more important as the archaeological remains were sometimes not

able to be documented in any other way.

7.6 Finds procedures

7.6.1 Introduction

The retrieval and registration of finds was subject to methodologies described in the finds handbook (Finds Handbook

2010).

A strict methodology was created to standardise the process of finds retrieval, processing, recording and report

writing for the Metro Cityring excavations. Finds retrieval and storage would follow methodologies derived from ‘First

Aid for Finds’ (Watkinson & Neal 1998) and assistance and education from the National Museum of Denmark. Set out

in this chapter will be methodologies that follow the finds procedure set out in Guidelines for Finds (Københavns

Museum 2010).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_horizon



7.6.2 Classification

7.6.2.1 Special finds and bulk finds

Before excavation commenced it was determined which finds were bulk finds or special finds. This was undertaken

with a view to retrieval methodology, recording methodology, surveying and storage methodology. With regular site

meetings some special finds were downgraded to bulk finds due to amount. This happened especially when

excavating the moats when large quantities of finds were retrieved (Tab. 3).

7.6.2.2 Special finds Finds classified for extra analysis which would provide extra information for sites. They are usually personal items,

dress accessories, or coins and supply a rich insight into the past. For this reason, they require special care in terms of

handling and conservation.

7.6.6.3 Bulk finds

Generally, large quantities of finds, in comparison to smaller assemblages of special finds. Examples can be seen

below. Prioritization may occur on certain types of bulk finds.

Special Finds Bulk Finds

Metal artefacts (copper alloy, iron, lead, gold, silver, pewter, tin, etc.).

Iron nails, copper alloy pins, large structural pieces of building material

Medieval and earlier glass, decorated Post medieval glass Post medieval glass (window and bottle), undecorated

Amber, ivory artefacts Undecorated stone building material. Sampling to occur after recording on context sheets

Decorated animal bone (un-decorated animal bones are registered as part of natural sciences)

Slag and kiln furniture

Decorated clay tobacco pipes Clay tobacco pipes

Textiles Worked flint

Leather items Leather waste cuts, unidentified fragments

Decorated ceramic building material (floor-, stove hearth- and wall tiles)

Non-decorated ceramic building material

Decorated wooden artefacts Daub and fired clay

Ceramic (figurines, lamps, graffiti, stamps, moulds, complete pots).

Pottery

Decorated stone material. i.e. statues, moulded fragments

Decorated shell artefacts. Shells used as finds

Tab. 3. The division of special finds and bulk finds.

7.6.3 Retrieval and on-site and finds recording procedures

The retrieval of finds was subject to methodology described in the finds handbook and according to decisions made

during the excavation.

The retrieval of finds was subject to the methodology described in the finds handbook (Museum of Copenhagen,

2010). Archaeological finds retrieved during the excavation were added into IntraSiS as Finds Units. Special finds were

measured in by total station, whereby Finds Unit identities are generated in the IntraSiS database. Finds Units for bulk

finds were created by the archaeologists. The excavating archaeologist would split the finds material collected from

the same context/excavation unit into various material types, and place it in a bag, labelled with KBM number, context

number and Finds Unit ID number if already created on site. The date and finder’s initials were noted, as well as

trench number. KBM Collections department staff were consulted and used in the lifting procedure of selected

delicate artefacts.



Regular contact and meetings between the Excavation Leader, Field Leaders, on site finds assistant and Finds

Coordinator occurred. With this contact, issues such as prioritization of finds, retrieval methodology and on site

conservation could be discussed and problems could be easily solved, and if necessary, methodology. Regular contact

also occurred with the Museums’ conservator and the Conservation Department of the National Museum of Denmark

so that standards were high, and so that delicate objects and structures could be excavated and removed in the best

possible condition.

It was decided that no artefact fragments less than 5mm long would be collected unless deemed of special

importance. Due to the large quantity of nails from the moat fills it was decided, as the excavation progressed, that

they would be counted, registered and weighed and then discarded.

Each bag was registered in IntraSiS as a Finds Unit (see instructions below). Each bag and a manilla tag were marked

with the following information:

KBM-number

Context number

Finds Unit ID

Initials of excavating archaeologist

Date

On the bag, the KBM-number was written on the top left hand side. The context number should be written in the

centre of the bag, along with the Finds Unit ID. Below, the initials of the excavator and date should be written.

The manilla tag stating the same information as recorded on the finds bag was then placed in the bag along with the

finds.

7.6.4 Finds processing

The finds were then transported to the museum, processed (cleaned, weighed, counted, placed in bags and marked)

then converted within IntraSiS from Finds Units into Finds Objects, whilst the fieldwork was on-going. Finds were

processed and stored in their appropriate preservation styles according to methodologies adopted from First Aid for

finds (Watkinson & Neal 1998) and from guidance from the conservation department from the National Museum of

Denmark.

7.6.5 Registration within the IntraSiS program

Within the documentation process, artefacts were registered in the Finds Object section of IntraSiS. In this way they

were further sorted using appropriate typologies, dated and split into function type. Through this process, information

regarding chronology, trade, wealth, and land use was discerned. This information was then obtained by the

archaeologists whilst the excavation was on-going.

7.6.6 Basic registration

The entering of information into the following fields in the “Class” section of the IntraSiS finds registration interface:

Material, Type (including subclass information in obvious cases), Date range, Weight, Number and Degree of

fragmentation.

7.6.7 Finds subclasses

The subclasses were generally classified by function using function types that are similar to categories seen in the

NORM registration and Museum of London registration systems. The artefacts that could not be identified were

placed in an unidentified section. Bulk finds were continued as separate subclasses due to specialism, as is usual (Tab.

4).



Finds subclass Examples of types of finds

Medieval pottery (c. 1060-1535 AD) Pottery dating from medieval periods from c. 1050–1535 AD

Post medieval pottery (c. 1536-1800 AD) Pottery dating from the Renaissance period (c. 1536–1660 AD) and

later Post medieval period (c. 1661–1800 AD)

Stove tiles Decorated and undecorated tiles from stoves

Leather shoes and clothes Various types of clothes (non military), shoes, slippers

Textile From clothing to household furnishings i.e. covers, curtains, etc.

Glass All types of glass vessels and window glass

Slag and other metallurgical waste All by-products of metalworking

Wall tiles Decorated and undecorated tiles from structures

Household equipment A selection containing wooden house furnishings to metal storage items, barrels, buckets and cooking and non ceramic storage objects

Arms and armour Military weapons, projectiles and armour

Coins and tokens Coins and various trading tokens

Personal finds A broad category representing finds linked to the individual, i.e. jewellery, badges, brooches, religious, buttons, etc.

Combs and comb cases Combs and comb cases from all periods from all different materials

Toys and games An assemblage of all types of toys, games, gaming boards and gaming piece fragments

Horse equipment All types of equipment for the horse, i.e. horse shoes, -nails, etc.

Tools All various craft tools and equipment linked to industry

Ships and fishing equipment Finds covering the broad spectrum of maritime archaeology and fishing equipment

Security equipment Archaeological equipment comprising various types of keys, locks and draw bars

Textile production tools Crafts persons’ equipment linked to textile production and repair, i.e. pins, needles, thimbles, needle cases, etc.

Trading equipment and cloth seals and other seals Cloth seals, trading stamps, various trading objects outside of glass and ceramic finds objects

Writing equipment Slates, pens, stylus, stylus cases, wax slates

Statues and figurines Various statues and decorated fragments of stone

Knives and cutlery Domestic knives and knife and handle fragments, table knives, spoons and forks

Flint Flint tools, gun flint and percussion flint

Clay pipe Clay pipe fragments, pipe production equipment and figurines

Rope Rope fragments

Building materials Roof-, floor-, ridge tiles, bricks and other building related materials. Decorated and undecorated

Non grouped/subclassed objects Various finds, either unidentifiable or corroded through soil conditions

Nails Nails from many periods and types of manufacture

Tab. 4. Finds subclasses and examples of types of finds.

7.6.8 Finds recording procedures Archaeological finds retrieved during the excavation was added into IntraSiS as Finds Units. Special finds were

measured in by total station, whereby Finds Unit identities were generated in the IntraSiS database. Finds Units for

bulk finds were created by the archaeologist responsible for finds. The archaeologist responsible for finds split the

finds material collected in the same context/excavation unit into various material types, and placed these with a tag in

a bag, labelled with KBM number, context number and Finds Unit ID number. KBM Collections department staff were

consulted and used in the lifting procedure of selected artefacts.



Procedure: Special finds Archaeologist measure Finds Units; Bulk finds Archaeologist retrieve by hand

selection material/bag/context Archaeologist with special responsibility Finds Units

The finds were then transported to the museum, processed (cleaned, weighed, counted, placed in bags and marked)

then transformed within IntraSiS from Finds Units into Finds Objects.

Procedure: Finds Coordinator Finds Objects Registration

Within the documentation process, artefacts were registered in the Finds Object section of IntraSiS. In this way they

were further sorted using appropriate typologies, dated and split into function type. Through this process, information

regarding chronology, trade, wealth, and land use could be discerned. This information was then obtained by the field

archaeologists and Field Leader during excavation and post-excavation work.

Appropriate specialists could further document the various material types after the excavation was completed. The

finds material was described, analysed, assessed and incorporated as chapters/sub-chapters in the site report (see

Appendices 13-41), and then the finds were returned to the museum. After the reporting and registration of artefacts

was completed, the finds were archived, some photographed and then added to the permanent collections. A new

ceramic reference collection has been created with the finds for use by members of the public, students and

specialists (T:\Collections department finds\Reference collection (constantly being updated)). Although not all

artefacts have been retained, the information they yielded has been stored on the museum database.

Procedure: Finds coordinator registered finds to specialists; specialist analysis and report to Finds Coordinator;

Finds Coordinator draft to Excavation Leader

7.6.9 X-ray Selected iron artefacts that were in a high state of corrosion and thus difficult to document were X-rayed,

concentrating on those that were selected for their preservation and ability to enhance the archaeological research

themes. Most copper alloy and silver objects were X-rayed too. Approved artefacts were photographed during

excavation.

These methods of documentation allowed an accurate record of the items that augmented the written finds

registrations and can be archived for future research. The Finds Coordinator and the Excavation Leader/Field Leader

selected which finds to be sent for X-ray. The formal decision was taken by the Collection Department Leader

(responsible for the conservation budget). The consultant (Bevaringsafdelningen in Brede, National Museum of

Denmark) together with the Finds Coordinator identified the objects and the Finds Coordinator recorded the final

identification in the IntraSiS database.

Procedure: Finds Coordinator and Excavation Leader choose finds for X-raying; Finds Coordinator finds to be X-

rayed; Finds Coordinator record data in IntraSiS

7.6.10 Conservation procedures

Conservation of finds was undertaken in various ways, either by on-site conservation or by continuous conservation.

7.6.10.1 On-site conservation

If an artefact of importance was uncovered, the Field Leader or Excavation Leader contacted the Finds Coordinator,

who then visited the excavation and assessed the situation. If possible, the find was lifted either by the Finds

Coordinator or by the archaeologists with the advice of the Finds Coordinator. If the find was of great importance,

after consultation with the Excavation Leader, the Finds Coordinator contacted the Collections Leader, who in turn

liaised with the National Museum of Denmark, conservation department to visit the site and retrieve the artefact. The



artefact/find was then transferred to Brede to be cleaned and stabilized. After the find was stabilized it was sent back

to the museum for analysis.

Procedure: Archaeologist informs Field Leader of fragile important find; Excavation Leader contacts Finds

Coordinator; Finds Coordinator lifts the artefact/contacts consultant:

7.6.10.2 Conservation in general

Throughout the excavation, there was regular contact between the Excavation Leader and Finds Coordinator to

identify finds for conservation. Meetings were undertaken between the Metro Project Leader, Excavation Leader,

Collections Leader and the Finds Coordinator concerning these finds, and the methodology to be used on these finds.

The Collections Leader then liaised with the National Museum of Denmark to collect the artefacts, and a budget was

organized. The consultant, when necessary, recorded additional information in IntraSiS and, in liaison with the

Collections Leader, sent back the finds for storage at the museum.

Procedure: Finds Coordinator/Collections Leader contacts Consultant; Consultant collect finds; Consultant

record information into IntraSiS; Consultant Finds sent back to museum

7.6.11 Liaisons

Meetings were organized between designated KBM specialists, external specialists, the Metro Project Leader,

Excavation Leader and Field Leaders during the course of the excavation (see Chapter 2.2 for the project team

structure for the site). These were in the form of quality assessment meetings or contact via telephone and e-mails.

The purpose of these contacts was to discuss excavation progress, finds processing progress and whether excavation

style and strategy needed to change. There were also quality assurance meetings at regular intervals in the schedule

to ensure the quality of the fieldwork and documentation.

7.6.12 Report writing

The specialists added further documentation on the subclasses. The material was described, analysed, assessed and

incorporated as chapters/sub-chapters in the site report (see Appendices 13-41). The finds were then archived,

photographed and added to the permanent collections.

7.7 Sampling and analytical procedures Samples for environmental and scientific analysis were collected from structures and layers on site and occasionally

from artefacts and other materials during post-excavation. This was done in order to enhance knowledge of the

archaeology unearthed and for better interpretation. An outline of the overall methodological framework of how and

why sampling for scientific analysis was undertaken will be given here.

With adherence to the Danish Museums Law, in which no research may be undertaken within the scope of contractor

financed archaeology, the majority of scientific sampling involved processing and evaluating the empirical results.

Combined with this was the retention of a high quality source material for future research. All sample related work

was agreed on by the museum together with KUAS on an ongoing basis during the excavation.

Samples were extracted by archaeologists or (very occasionally) consultants on site and further sampling was

undertaken in the laboratories by consultants. Many of the bulk soil samples were initially processed within the

museum, by museum employees, with John Howorth being responsible for this work. The samples were ultimately

examined in external laboratories by consultants within Public Procurement, and sub-sampled as necessary.

Through the tender selection process the Museum of Copenhagen assured collaboration with highly qualified

consultants. The consultants handled the analyses, and were available to provide assistance during fieldwork. They

partook in the planning and development of sampling strategies during the archaeological excavation, to varying

degrees depending on their specialism.



7.7.1 Procedures and organization Sampling was conducted according to the principles laid out in the Method Statement (2010). The archaeologist with

special responsibility for samples insured that the labeling on samples taken during fieldwork corresponded to the

information in the IntraSiS database, as well as for transportation of samples from site to the museum, and finally to

oversee and coordinate the work with connection to samples according to the principles laid out in the Method

Statement.

The Excavation Leader delegated responsibility for which samples were sent for analysis to the Field Leaders. The

formal decision was taken by the museum Science Coordinator in cooperation with the specialist and the Field

Leaders, who later informed the Excavation Leader. Each analysis and proposal was followed by a written justification,

which was related to how the results could contribute to the excavation aims (what do we want to know and why).

The procedures were established according to agreements with KUAS (Minutes of Meeting between KBM and KUAS

4th

of September 2009) and their guidelines (KUAS Vejledning 2010).

The Field Leaders and museum Science Coordinator were responsible for contacting consultants, writing requisitions,

defining timeframes as well as the scope of the analyses, to oversee that the results were recorded in IntraSiS and that

reports were done according to the given instructions (Appendix 1 in the Public Procurement). An important task was

also to provide the consultant with the written justification. The museum Science Coordinator was also in charge of

sieving and flotation of the macro samples and transportation of samples from the museum to the consultants.

The consultants were responsible for entering the results of the analysis directly into the Museum of Copenhagen’s

IntraSiS database. Templates for this purpose had been developed cooperation between the consultants and the

Museum. Each template had been developed in accordance with the various standards of the field of expertise in

question. The consultants were, furthermore, responsible for producing reports for each set of analysis. These reports

contained a description of the methodology, empirical results and basic interpretations as stated in Appendix 1 in the

Public Procurement. All procedures were stated in the six agreements within the procurement (Rammeavtal, bilag 1

2009). The sample analyses were handled according to the procedures set up for each scientific field.

The evaluation of the environmental procedures and results took place at quality assessment meetings, described in

section 7.8. in the Method Statement (2010).

Procedure: Archaeologist/consultant samples; Excavation Leader and museum Science Coordinator analysis;

Consultant record results in IntraSiS

7.7.2 Recording of bulk, monolith and core sampling

All samples taken within the fieldwork phase were measured in by total station. Sample identities were then

generated in the IntraSiS database. If the sample was analysed, it was the responsibility of the analyst to create a

sample analysis ID in the IntraSiS database.

Procedure: Archaeologist (measure) sample ID; Consultant Sample analysis ID

7.7.3 Sample recording from finds

All finds were entered and registered in the IntraSiS database according to the principles laid out in section 5.5 in the

Method Statement (2010) and in the Finds Handbook (2010). When a sample was to be taken from a find, it was the

responsibility of the Finds Coordinator to create a sample ID in the IntraSiS database. If this sample was to be

analysed, it was the responsibility of the consultant to create a sample analysis ID in the IntraSiS database.

Procedure: Finds Coordinator sample ID; Consultant Sample analysis ID



7.7.4 Recording of sub-samples It was the responsibility of the consultant to create a sample ID in the IntraSiS database, i.e. when picking out organic

material from macro samples for C14 analysis. The sample analysis ID was created by the consultant conducting the

analysis.

Procedure: Consultant Sample ID; Consultant Sample analysis ID

7.7.5 Procedures for sending samples to analysis

Mechanical sampling was conducted regarding macro analysis (sampling motivation is to found in Method Statement

(2010)). The responsible field archaeologists recorded the sample circumstances. The Field Leaders together with the

Excavation Leader had responsibility to take the initiative to assess the sample/group of samples for the analysis

potential. An analysis motivation was filled in by a Field Leader and sent to the Science Coordinator. This motivation

was related to cultural historical questions relating to the Method Statement (2010). The Science Coordinator saw to

it that the samples were assessed (cultural historical potential) by the consultant that was named on the analysis

sheet. The Science Coordinator together with the Field Leader and Excavation Leader took the decision to send the

sample for analysis.

Procedure: Field archaeologist takes sample according to directives in this document, if macro describes sample

circumstances; Field Leader cultural historical motivation for analysis; Excavation Leader Science Coordinator

order analysis Consultant

7.7.6 Sampling techniques

The sampling techniques were based on the aims of the excavation and thus they related to the types of remains

recorded in the different area types (Tab. 5). Sampling methodologies in the different areas were in accordance with

this, and corresponded to the specific methodology as described above. There was a great need for consistency

concerning the different kinds of sampling, to avoid this being randomly conducted without thought for the aims of

the excavation. On site the archaeologists responsible for overseeing the work concerning finds and samples were also

responsible for the procedures and were in regular contact with the Finds Coordinator as well as the Science

Coordinator. Sampling was carried out using a range of techniques and each technique procures samples for a variety

of scientific testing as stated in the table below.

Sampling techniques

Sampler Type of analysis Tool Size Packing

Bulk sampling Archaeologists, Consultants

Macro, zoological, wood, C14, entomology

Trowel 100% of the context or max 4 litres.

Plastic bags with a manila tag showing identification. Commonly used

Monolith sampling

Archaeologists, Consultants

Macro, pollen, zoological, wood, geological, entomology, micromor-phology

Trowel Squares 15x15x15 cm

Wrapped in cling film with a manila tag showing top layers and identification

Core sampling Archaeologists, Consultants

Pollen Auger - Wrapped in cling film with a manila tag stating top layers and identification. Rarely used

Other field sampling

Archaeologists, Consultants

Dendro, wood Trowel, axe, saw, etc.

- Wrapped in plastic with a small amount of clean water – manila tag stating identification

Sampling from finds

Consultants Zoological, metallurgical, chemical, geological, C14, dendro, wood, macro, pollen

Laboratory

- Packed to withstand transport as well as to meet the requirements of the material in question

Sub-sampling Consultants Macro, pollen, zoological, dendro, entomology,

Laboratory

- Packed to withstand transport as well as to



metallurgical, chemical, geological/ceramic, C14

meet the requirements of the material in question

Tab. 5. Sampling techniques.

7.7.7 Bulk sampling

Bulk samples were taken from a chosen context and contained only material from one context. 100% of a small

context or a maximum of 4 litres from a larger context was considered to be a sufficient amount for bulk sampling

from the rich urban layers represented in the excavations. Archaeologists or consultants on site were responsible for

extracting the samples. The material was collected by trowel and kept in plastic bags with manila tags stating

identification number and context. All samples were measured in by total station and registered on context sheets

and in IntraSiS with cross references to the relevant sample numbers and contexts. The sample type was registered as

a point in IntraSiS. As a context may differ in content from one area to another, even though it seems uniform to the

naked eye, more than one sample from the same context had unique identities. On site the archaeologist with special

responsibility oversaw the procedures and was in contact with the museum’s Finds Coordinator and Science

Coordinator.

Bulk samples were sieved at facilities in the finds basement at the Museum of Copenhagen by museum employees.

The extracted material was assessed by an archaeobotanist working for RAÄ (Riksantikvarieämbetet, Sweden) and

subsequently sent off to the relevant laboratories. Material for a variety of scientific disciplines was derived from bulk

sampling. It was primarily a technique for procuring samples for macrofossil analysis, but the samples also produced

material for C14-dating, wood anatomy, geological, entomological and chemical analysis. Material for zoological

analysis – small skeletal parts like fish vertebrae and scales, small mammal and bird bones, etc. – was derived from

bulk sampling. After discussion with the responsible specialist extra bulk samples of 5 litres were taken during

fieldwork phase (2011) for these specific purposes from several contexts. Bulk sampling was done in connection with

all excavation area types. The sampling type was closely related to single context registration and was relatively more

frequent than monolith and core sampling, described below. Bulk sampling was conducted from vertical sections as

well as horizontal surfaces.

7.7.8 Monolith sampling

Monoliths are samples taken from vertical sections/profiles, or if wished, from horizontal surfaces. The samples can

be cut out of vertical sections or horizontal stratigraphy in 15x15x15 cm squares using a clean trowel – or using

monolith tins which are available in two sizes. When the sample was taken as a cube it was wrapped tightly in plastic

film immediately after extraction. All samples were marked with top/bottom and labelled with a manila tag stating

identification number and context.

Archaeologists or consultants on site were responsible for extracting the samples. All samples were measured in by

total station and registered on context sheets and in IntraSiS with cross references to the relevant sample numbers

and context. The sample type was registered as a point in IntraSiS and each monolith had its own unique ID. On site

the archaeologist with special responsibility oversaw the procedures and was in contact with the museum’s Finds

Coordinator and Science Coordinator.

Monolith samples were taken from a single context or could contain several layers or contexts. If the sample

contained more than one identifiable context, it was clearly noted on the sample so it could be divided by the

consultant in the museum according to the archaeological interpretations of the remains, coupled with observations

made by the consultant. Separate sample units for each context were then to be created in IntraSiS by the consultant.

This sample type was always processed by consultants and was not sieved by museum employees as was the case

with the bulk samples. Analysis of monolith samples focuses on the vertical composition of the layer. However

homogeneous a deposit might seem, it may have a very diverse composition from bottom to top, including evidence

of its genesis which is lost if the material is bulk sampled, sieved and the residue sent off to the specialists. Analysis of



monolith samples included plant macrofossils, zoological, entomological, micromorphological and geological material

as well as material for C14-dating, chemical analysis and pollen analysis. This sample type was taken in connection

with all area types related to the excavation, but was of course specific to vertical sections. Monolith samples from

smaller sections of horizontal surfaces in order to gain knowledge of a structure’s use through time, and the

representation of activity/event areas across floors and streets were also taken.

7.7.9 Core sampling

Cores samples were extracted by auger. Immediately after extraction the sample was placed on a supporting plastic

board and wrapped tightly in plastic film. All samples were marked with up and down arrows and with a manila tag

stating identification number and context. Archaeologists or consultants on site were responsible for extracting the

samples. All samples were measured in by total station and registered on context sheets and in IntraSiS with a unique

ID and related to the relevant context. The sample type was registered as a point in IntraSiS and each core was given a

unique sample ID. If new layers were to be documented within the course of the analysis, it was done by the

archaeologist with special responsibility, based on the information from the consultant. On site the archaeologist with

special responsibility oversaw the procedures and contacted the museum’s Finds Coordinator and Science

Coordinator.

Core samples are often used to determine the depth and extent of structures and layers – or to obtain undisturbed

samples for a variety of analyses. Cores were taken from chosen locations or structures that may contain several

layers or contexts. The sample type was always processed by consultants and was not sieved by museum employees

as was the case with the bulk samples. Detailed vertical analysis of core samples can extract knowledge concerning

the origin and the history of a layer through time. Analysis of material from core samples included that of plant

macrofossils, zoological, entomological and geological material, while the core could also provide material for C14-

dating, chemical analysis and pollen analysis.

7.7.10 Sampling from finds

Sampling from finds involved procuring material from Finds Objects for macrofossil analysis, C14-dating, geological,

zoological, chemical, fungal and wood anatomy analysis, as well as a series of analyses which were not included in the

tenders. These analyses were ongoing throughout the fieldwork phase as well as after. Finds were registered and

stored at the Museum and were thus accessible for further analysis when needed. Analyses done in order to answer

culture-historical questions were to be handled by the Science Coordinator as described in the Introduction to this

chapter, while sampling done as a part of the conservation process was the responsibility of the Finds Coordinator.

The sampling was done by consultants in the laboratory. The Collections Department consulted the Scientific

Coordinator before forwarding the samples to the relevant consultants for further scientific analysis. When samples

were derived from Finds Objects, either as part of the conservation process or as part of the effort to answer

questions about age, composition, morphology, provenance, etc., the consultants created separate sample units for

each sample in IntraSiS. All samples were registered in IntraSiS with relation to the relevant find ID and context.

7.7.11 Further sampling from samples (sub-sampling)

Further sampling from samples includes those collected from bulk, monolith, core or other field samples. The analyses

of these were ongoing throughout the fieldwork phase as well as after. Analyses done in order to answer culture-

historical questions were to be handled by the Science Coordinator, while sampling done as a part of the conservation

process was the responsibility of the Finds Coordinator (Tab. 6 and 7). The sampling was done by consultants in the

laboratory. The Collections Department consulted the Scientific Coordinator before forwarding the samples to the

relevant consultants for further scientific analysis. When samples were derived from other samples, the consultants

created separate sample units for each sample in IntraSiS. All samples were registered in IntraSiS with relation to the

relevant find ID and context.



7.7.12 Types of analysis Contract holder Type of analysis Purpose

Nationalmuseets Bevaringsafdeling Brede. NBB

Metallurgical analysis

Determination of provenance and composition of material, technology, craftsmanship, etc.


Fungal analysis Preservation/degree of decay of wood remains


Chemical analysis Identification of a wide range of material, composites, human activity i.e. adhesives, colouring, tanning, animal husbandry, land use etc., as well as origins of amorphous organic remains not otherwise identified

Kvartärgeologiska avdelningen, Geologiska Institutionen. Lunds Universitet. KGI

C14-dating Determination of age of deposited organic material

Statens Naturhistoriske Museum Zoological analysis

Determination of species, sex, age, size, pathology etc. of deposited animal remains

Riksantikvarieämbetet. Arkeologiska uppdragsverksamheten. RAÄ

Plant macrofossil analysis

Determination of deposited plant remains

Riksantikvarieämbetet. Arkeologiska uppdragsverksamheten. RAÄ

Pollen analysis Determination of deposited pollen

1. Nationella Laboratoriet för ved-anatomi och dendrokronologi, Geo-logiska Institutionen, Lunds uni-versitet. NL

2. Dendro.dk

Dendrochronology Determination of age of in situ wooden structures or deposited wood

Nationella Laboratoriet för vedana-tomi och dendrokronologi, Geolog-iska Institutionen, Lunds universitet. NL

Wood anatomy Determination of species of deposited wood

1. Ceramic Studies, Sweden. CS

2. Nationalmuseets Bevaringsafdel-ing Brede. NBB

Geological analysis Provenance, age determination, type of geological material, assessment of geological features, site formation processes, etc.

Tab. 6. Contract holders and types of analysis within the Public Procurement nr. 2009-070118: Conservation and

natural sciences in the Metro project.

Other prioritized types of analysis

Statens Naturhistoriske Museum

Entomological analysis

Environmental conditions (i.e. wet, dry, saline, etc.)

Riksantikvarieämbetet. RAÄ

Soil micromorpho-logical analysis

Detailed stratigraphic analysis (i.e. activity layers on floors and streets)

Tab. 7. Types of analysis outside the Public Procurement.

7.7.13 Sampling – purpose, methods and strategies Sampling strategies for the site within the field of natural science had to be, as far as practicable, consistent

throughout the excavation. Standard issues within urban historical studies – related to the background, direction and

characterization of urbanization; economic and demographic fluctuations and the cultural and social implications and

consequences for city life – combined with previous knowledge of the site – were essential for the implementation of

the sampling strategies. This directed how the strategies were carried out and which sampling strategies and methods

were most appropriate for the different type areas.



7.7.14 Metallurgical analysis Purpose of analysis: Metallurgical analysis of objects and slag containing metals and corrosion products can provide

detailed knowledge on composition, provenance, mechanical properties and processing history of archaeological

metal objects.

Polished cross sections of metal samples are examined by optical and scanning electron microscopy in order to

identify the alloy and describe the mechanical property of the sample.

Chemical analyses can add further information regarding the metal value and provenance.

Sampling techniques: Samples for metallurgical analysis were predominantly collected from metal objects and slag.

These were, as Finds Objects, collected according to the principles described earlier. Samples were however, also

collected from environmental samples. In the latter instance they were collected as bulk samples or as a part of the

macro analysis.

Strategy for sampling and analyses: Metallurgical analysis on finds was predominantly done after the fieldwork

phase. The decision to conduct analysis was taken on the basis of the object, its context and its culture-historical

potential, and was carried out in order to complement the interpretations made from the analyse of other source

materials.

The identification of the different types of material use and craft can lead to knowledge of how objects were made;

i.e. craftsmanship, technological knowledge, the availability of craft material and also its provenance. The latter has

helped to pinpoint the scale of local craftsmanship, and local material versus imports.

7.7.15 Chemical analysis

Purpose of analysis: Chemical analysis can be used to identify the composition of a range of materials as well as traces

of human activity otherwise unidentified – i.e. the use of adhesives and colouring, mortars and other building

materials, practices of tanning, animal husbandry, land use latrines, etc.

Analytical techniques such as Fourier Transform Infra Red Spectroscopy (FTIR) and Common and Pyrolysis –

gaschromatography with mass spectrometry ((PY)-GC-MS) can be implemented to identify the nature and origin of

amorphous organic remains that cannot be identified through, for instance, optical microscopy. The methods are

common in forensic and analytical chemistry and are often employed in cases of analyses of fossil fuels, hallucinogens,

adhesives, paints, inks, etc., the Method Statement enabling identification of specific markers, thereby uniquely

identifying components pointing to specific materials.

Scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) is useful for characterizing both

degraded inorganic and organic materials. The method is useful for identifying components in Finds Objects, i.e.

composite textiles and corroded metal objects, as well as areas of manufacture on site.

Portable X-ray Fluorescence (PXRF) can identify remains of metal in the soil that might indicate metallurgical activities

on the site, such as spilled molten metal or glazing as well as colouring substances; i.e. pigments of coloured plasters

thus identifying areas of manufacture on site, for instance different kinds of smithies, as well as the provenance of

colouring on Finds Objects.

The identification of these substances could lead to knowledge of how objects were made; i.e. craftsmanship,

technological knowledge, the availability of craft materials and their provenance, which then again may pinpoint the

scale of trade connections versus local manufacture of goods.



Chemical analysis on material from Kongens Nytorv was requested by the museum and carried out in relation to

ceramics (ICP analysis) to establish their provenance, and in some cases analysis was carried out at the behest of

specialists as appropriate for their work, for example in relation to conservation and metalwork analysis.

Sampling techniques: Samples for chemical analysis were collected from Finds Objects as well as from bulk samples.

Strategy for sampling and analyses: Samples for chemical analysis were collected from features of special interest

which might give evidence of human activity like land use, craftsmanship (including any sort of finishing of materials

for decorative as well as utilitarian purposes), industry, etc.

Chemical analysis of Finds Objects was predominantly carried out after the fieldwork phase, according to the

principles described earlier. The decision to conduct the analysis was taken on the basis of the object, its context and

its culture-historical potential, and carried out in order to complement the interpretations made from the analyse of

other source materials.

7.7.16 C14 analysis Purpose of analysis: C14 analysis can establish the age of organic (carbon-based) remains from before the 17

th

century.

Sampling techniques: Samples were collected from chosen contexts. Material for analysis was generally extracted

from macrofossil samples or animal or human bone material, which was first identified by the relevant specialist.

Strategy for sampling and analyses: C14 analysis was carried out when stratigraphy and finds material were

insufficient to determine the age of a context or group of contexts vital for the understanding of the site. Samples

were analysed according to their cultural-historical potential during and after the fieldwork phase. C14 analysis cannot

be used on material dating from the middle of the 17th

century onwards. C14 analysis on Finds Objects is carried out

according to the principles described earlier. Dendrochronological analysis was prioritized over C14 analysis where it

was an option to use it.

7.7.17 Zoological analysis

Purpose of analysis: Zoological analysis is used for identifying animal species, age/size and pathology, as well as

determining butchering practices, thereby providing information about food consumption, animal husbandry and land

use.

Sampling techniques: Animal bones were hand collected according to procedures described in the Finds Handling

section. It was decided during the excavation however, that in the case of large deposits such as moat fills (which were

often very rich in bone material) that hand retrieval of bone would have been too inconsistent and biased towards

large bones, and instead it was decided that bone would be recovered from “big bag” bulk samples during post-

excavation sieving, and from 2 litre bulk samples in the case of very small bones such as fish bones. Bone artefacts

(such as toys or skates) were of course exceptions to this, and were retrieved during excavation if observed. In general

deposits of relevance which contained small fragmented bones (fish, bird, mammal, etc.) were bulk sampled and later

sieved (at least 50% of the volume, or 2 litres). The collection method was stated on separate context sheets, and

documented during the bone retrieval process. Animal remains found during sieving of macrofossil samples were also

collected and registered as Finds Units.

Strategy for sampling and analyses: Only zoological material from defined archaeological features was analysed in

line with the Danish Museums Law, according to which an analysis may only result in an identification of species,

determination of type of bone and weight as well as a preliminary registration of i.e. cut marks, cleaving for the

extraction of marrow and the effects of burning.



The material to be analysed was chosen during and following the fieldwork phase, according to its cultural-historical

potential and sampling was done according to the previously described procedures. The decision to conduct the

analysis was taken on the basis of the cultural-historical potential, and carried out in order to complement the

interpretations made from the analyse of other source materials. Assemblages of special interest for the project

objectives could however be analysed on an ongoing basis according to decisions made by the Excavation Leader and

the Science Coordinator.

7.7.18 Macrofossil analysis

Purpose of analysis: Plant remains can provide information on agricultural practices and food consumption, and are

also useful for reconstructing the ancient environment and land use.

Macrofossil samples were generally taken as bulk samples, as well as some monolith samples. Bulk samples either

included 100% of a smaller context or a minimum of 2 litres from larger contexts.

Strategy for sampling and analyses: Sampling for macrofossil analysis was carried out according to different

principles outlined for individual area types. The most ambitious sampling was undertaken in the areas where the

cultural-historical potential was expected to be the highest. Neither funds nor logistics would permit every context to

be sampled. In order to create a representative assemblage of source material; sampling was carried out consistently

throughout the excavation, as far as possible – though as mentioned previously, there was a change introduced during

the excavation, as the volume of samples was clearly going to greatly exceed that which could be analysed. Contexts

to be analysed were chosen according to the relevant questions for the area type.

The features sampled included activity layers, floors and streets, the rampart and moats, ditches, pits and wells. Each

sample was accompanied by a written justification stating why the sampled deposit should be analysed and how it

was of relevance to the site objectives.

Some samples were assessed initially in the museum finds basement in conjunction with a consultant, in order to

establish whether or not the sample had an organic content sufficient for analysis. Samples with no potential were

discarded. All organic remains were created as sample units in IntraSiS. Decisions to analyse samples were taken

according to cultural historical potential after the fieldwork phase.

The different sampling strategies within the various zones were carried out in consultation with the Excavation

Leader/Field Leaders and the Science Coordinator.

7.7.19 Pollen analysis

Purpose of analysis: Pollen analysis is undertaken in order to reconstruct the ancient vegetation and environment on

site. Chronological pollen profiles can be used to detect man-made changes in the vegetation, such as forest clearance

and field establishment.

Sampling techniques: The extraction of pollen samples is done by the consultant and the analysis is done according to

their recommendation. Pollen samples are ideally taken as bulk samples from vertical sections, but can also be

extracted from monolith samples in the laboratories, or in a pollen core sample, taken by auger.

Strategy for sampling and analyses: Pollen analysis was not employed on Kongens Nytorv, primarily as the analysis is

costly, and also can be somewhat problematic in terms of the information gained.

7.7.20 Dendrochronology

Purpose of analysis: Dendrochronological analysis can establish the date when a piece of timber was felled through

the analysis of the growth rings, using reference samples as a guide. The origin (provenance) of the wood can also be

established, again by examining the pattern of growth rings.



Sampling techniques: Dendrochronology samples were extracted as sections with the aid of hand or chain saw. The

width of the section was ideally not more than 15 cm and, if possible, it was important that the sample was taken

where the sapwood and bark is preserved. Knots and branch ends were to be avoided. Multiple samples from the

same piece of wood were taken if deemed necessary, and several from a given structure if possible. Archaeologists

were responsible for extracting the samples. After obtaining the sample it was important that it would not dehydrate.

This was especially important if sapwood was preserved. When the sample was extracted it was packed in a heavy

plastic bag or wrapped in plastic film, to ensure that sapwood and bark did not dislodge. The timbers were stored out

of the sun in a container on site, and as fast as possible transferred to the museum, where they were placed in a

refrigerated storage container to await analysis.

Strategy for sampling and analyses: Dendrochronological analysis was carried out when stratigraphy and finds

material were insufficient to determine the age of a feature or object vital for the understanding of the site. Samples

were analysed according to the cultural-historical potential during and after the fieldwork phase. Concerning

archaeological features from the 17th

century onwards, dendrochronological analysis was used instead of AMS as

radiocarbon dating is ineffective from the mid 17th

century onwards. Dendrochronological sampling on site was

implemented on the vast majority of in situ wooden structures such as bulwarks, bridges, etc. At least one sample was

generally taken from each defined structure including repairs and renewals. Re-deposited wood would not date a

layer in which it was re-deposited, and was not therefore analysed. The decision to carry out the analysis was taken

after the fieldwork phase and taken on the basis of the structure, its context and its cultural-historical potential, and

carried out in order to complement the interpretations made from the analyse of other source materials.

7.7.21 Wood anatomy analysis

Purpose of analysis: Wood anatomy is useful for the identification of species or types of wood present in the

archaeological layers, thus providing a picture of the types of wood available to the inhabitants of the site.

Sampling techniques: Analysis was carried out as a part of the macro and dendrochronology analyse (mainly the

latter), and was thereby guided by similar principles.

Strategy for sampling and analyses: The decision to conduct the sampling was taken on the basis of the object, its

context and its culture-historical potential, and carried out in order to complement the interpretations made from the

analyse of other source materials. In general, species identification is defined as part of the process of

dendrochronological dating, and as a standard step prior to using wood or charcoal for C14-dating.

7.7.22 Geological analysis

Purpose of analysis: Geological analysis can distinguish between natural and cultural deposits and investigate how

they were affected by later natural processes and human activities.

ICP analyses of pottery can determine the chemical composition of the clay and thereby point out the geographical

origin of the pottery. The method can also be used to identify metal remains in objects such as crucibles and moulds.

The analysis of thin sections and crystalline matter can determine how a clay pot was produced, including the type of

clay and tempering being used.

Thermal analysis can determine the firing temperature of the clay or the pot – this analysis is used to determine the

function of different types of ceramics as well as craftsmanship.

7.7.23 Entomological analysis

Purpose of analysis: Insects are often relatively habitat specific and are thus useful indicators of environmental

conditions, both natural and man-made. Water – or faeces – loving beetles, for instance, may be able to tell us about

humidity levels or the presence of manure in stable areas.



Sampling techniques: Samples for entomological analysis were collected as bulk samples.

Strategy for sampling and analyses: While insect samples were taken on site from deposits thought to be relevant, it

proved difficult in the post-excavation stage to find a suitable person to carry out the analysis. Some samples have

however been stored, and it may prove possible in the future to analyse some of these, perhaps as part of a research

project.

7.7.24 Soil micro-morphological analysis

Purpose of analysis: Soil micromorphology is useful for determining activity events on floors and streets, as the finely

laminated build-up of fill layers on floors and streets can be detected and interpreted under a microscope. The

contents of a layer, in terms of, for instance, its mineral or organic material, can be analysed, and the preservation

state of the material established. Processes of soil deposition (an in situ layer or colluvium) and human activity

(ploughing, trampling, and burning) can be observed, as well as the presence of tiny fragments of material such as

ceramics, charcoal, bones and manure.

Sampling techniques: Some monolith samples were taken on site with a view to carrying out micro-morphological

analyses, however, none of these samples were processed during post-excavation as they were not deemed likely to

provide sufficient extra information in the particular instances.

Strategy for sampling and analyses: Micro-morphological samples were taken on activity surfaces such as floors and

streets. The Field Leader was responsible for contacting the Science Coordinator when such deposits occurred. The

analysis is, however, expensive, and therefore samples were only to be taken from clearly defined contexts with high

cultural-historical potential according to decisions made by the Excavation Leader, the Science Coordinator and the

relevant consultant.

7.8 Photographic records The photographic documentation primarily consisted of rectified images of different contexts, structures and finds,

both in situ and at subsequent documentation. Additional images were taken to depict clear stratigraphical

relationships between different contexts and overall images of work on site.

The Excavation Leader and Field Leaders were responsible for ensuring that the methodologies listed below were

employed. These methodologies were implemented and overseen by the person with special responsibility to

maintain the photographic archive and manage the photography at Kongens Nytorv. The excavating archaeologist

took images, while the responsible person imported these to the database and project folder, recorded relevant data

and related the photo to the relevant context or feature.

Procedure: Archaeologist photo; Photo responsible person import to IntraSiS and project folder

A complete photographic archive was maintained throughout the excavation. Image registers were created in the

field. Recording consist of an Image number (which was cross-referenced on the context sheet together with the

camera number), context numbers, area, direction of image (facing), comments, initials and date. On the main

excavation this reflected the single context recording system being used to document the site, i.e. representative and

illustrative features were photographed. Further to this, images of larger areas and overview photographs were taken

at appropriate times to illustrate key relationships and to allow for a coherent visual examination of the site at report

stage.

Working shots were taken where appropriate; this served a number of functions, particularly to populate the site, for

future dissemination and to document the process of excavation. The photographic record was sufficiently thorough

and detailed to illustrate all significant phases, structures, important stratigraphic and structural relationships, and

individual items of interest, including artefacts. The latter were photographed in situ where deemed appropriate e.g. if



it was likely that the object may not survive the excavation process intact, or if its find location was deemed to be of

particular significance. Timber for dendrochronological analysis, wood working analysis and further recording was

photographed. This also included several bricks and limestones.

At the watching briefs the photographic archive reflects the methods employed. Excavation of these areas was not

generally carried out using the single context system, hence the photography was more general – mostly overview

images and where individual contexts did not necessarily require individual photographs.

Rectified photographs were taken of contexts and structures that were too time and work consuming to record

through measurement with the total station or drawings, such as road surfaces, part of the city wall and the Early

medieval bulwark. Some video sequences have been made showing both the work process, but also for public use

such as future exhibitions, etc. (i.e. wooden water pipes in subarea phase 45B).

At two of the subareas (phase 5B-2 and phase 45B) an image was taken every day from the same location following

the excavation from the beginning to the end (Today’s Photo).

A separate folder has been made by the Collection Department containing selected and conserved finds.

As far as possible, all images are of publication standard, with guidelines provided to all members of staff to ensure a

good degree of uniformity of composition e.g. a majority of the site photographs, except working shots, included a

photographic scale of appropriate size. Images were taken using digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) cameras (a 10.2

megapixel Nikon and a 12.2 megapixel Canon). The digital images were downloaded at regular intervals, generally

weekly or more frequently as deemed necessary. The images were renamed and catalogued according to camera

number, date taken and file number, e.g. C03_20100114_031 (representing image No. 31 taken on camera 3 on the

14th

of January 2010) using the Canon software ZoomBrowser EX.

These images were then transferred to different folders (Images 2009–2016; Working Shots; Rectified and 3D and

Today’s Photo) on the terminal server for storage and security:

T:\KBM3829_Kongens Nytorv\Images

Initially all failed photographs were deleted, but these were later saved to minimize inaccuracies at the later

registration and renaming.

A written photographic index was compiled relating site photograph number, context numbers, excavation area, date

taken, and a brief description including any other relevant information. This index was later cancelled to rationalize

the work. Scanning of photo books Camera 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 31, 32 and 116 (21) was also done by the person responsible

and transferred to the terminal server.

Furthermore, photographs deemed of sufficient importance or of key interpretive value were linked to the IntraSiS

database for the site (Images 2010 and 2011). This linking was done in relation to the particular context in question,

with the image being displayed as a thumbnail related to that particular context. This thumbnail was linked to the

original full size image in the main photographic archive. The rest of the photographs were also connected to IntraSiS,

but only by the project folder transferred to the Terminal Server, due to the size (more than 100 GB). Photographs

that were not linked to IntraSiS (i.e. Images 2012–2016, Working Shots, Today’s Photo, Films, etc.) were nonetheless

retained in the main digital site archive as part of the complete site archive and can be added to IntraSiS at a later date

if required.



7.9 Wet sieving

7.9.1 Staff and methodology

The wet sieving was carried out at Kongens Nytorv and K-Vej 19, Prøvestenen during five periods; first in September

2010, second between May 17th

and July 8th

2011, third from November 14th

to December 23rd

2013, fourth from

November 13th

to 19th

2014 and fifth from January 25th

and March 23th

2017.

The work between May 17th

and July 8th

2011 was carried out by eight different people, where some were replaced

early in the sieving process. Unfortunately a shortage of staff was a problem from May 31st

to June 9th

and again

between the 17th

and 23rd

(Fig. 20). The later work, facilitated between November 14th

and 23rd

December 2013, was

carried out by five different people, of which no-one was replaced. However, due to other obligations the shortage of

staff was a lasting matter this time.

Fig. 20. Sieving in progress at Prøvestenen 2011. Photo: Museum of Copenhagen.

It is estimated that c. 100-110 1m3 bags, collected at Kongens Nytorv, were meant for wet sieving. The main purpose

was to maximize the recovery of small items such as small shards of pottery, coins, bone fragments, flint flakes, etc.

This method allowed the quick removal of a context by machine, shovel and mattock yet allowed for a high retrieval

rate. Additionally, extensive time pressure during the excavation work, especially in relation to the work in phase 5B-

1, phase 5B-2 and the Station Box was taken into account during the sampling process. Hence most soil was collected

during phases of work that were subject to a tight time schedule.

Spoil was shovelled into big bags and later soaked on top of sieves to form a slurry. The soil was poured into a sieve

where the lumps of soil were carefully broken up and poured through a screen mesh sized either 1 mm or 5 mm.

http://www.archaeologywordsmith.com/lookup.php?category=&where=headword&terms=sieve

http://www.archaeologywordsmith.com/lookup.php?category=&where=headword&terms=soil



The equipment, which was bought at UV-Syd in Sweden, consisted of four aluminum-built sieves, i.e. frames (c. 0.7 m

x 0.5 m) onto which a 5 mm net was mounted. The frames were resting on four-legged stands. Water for the sieving

process was provided by garden hoses that were connected to a larger main hose (not high pressure). Hence, the

system made it possible for four people to work simultaneously.

However, in order to keep the opportunity to carry out more detailed sieve analysis, a 4 l bag intended for 1 mm wet

sieving and natural science (fish bones) were collected out of each sample and returned to the finds basement for

further analysis during the sieving process.

As the sampling was facilitated under massive time pressure huge loads of soil were collected. Consequently, the task

of sieving all the samples did by far exceed the resources. Prioritizing the bags was of the essence and the sampling

from the supposedly oldest deposits, i.e. usage layers from the 16th

and 17th

century moats, were prioritized, as the

fieldwork had shown that these deposits only contained a sparse amount of artifacts, therefore additional data was

desirable.

The fundamental prioritization was based on a wish to retrieve datable material. However, specific sample

motivations made by the Field Leaders could include special requests for finds retrieval, i.e. explicit focus on fish

bones.

Basically all cultural related finds were collected, but because the amount of bone material was rather extensive the

retrieval had to be dealt with in a less rigid manner than traditionally. Hence time saving was a topic during the sieving

procedures.

The samples were sieved bag-wise and the retrieved finds were sorted according to type of material and labelled

accordingly. Subsequently, the finds were handed over to the museum (finds responsible) the same day if the risk of

rapid disintegration was imminent. If not, the finds were turned in at the end of the week. The finds were stored in a

controlled environment in the finds basement.

Other work tasks were also facilitated. Hence, entering sieving data in IntraSiS was carried out by the person

responsible alongside the sieving procedures.

7.9.2 Results

Multiple finds were made, more than one thousand. However, the exact number was not recorded. The most

commonly made find category was faunal material, i.e. bones. On the other hand brick fragments in various sizes and

pottery pieces were the most common cultural remnants retrieved during the sieving procedures. Besides these bulk

finds some handfuls of more elaborate finds (special finds) were made too, i.e. a High medieval langtandskam (long

tooth comb) made of bone; three cloth seals, etc.

7.10 Tours and press The archaeological excavations at Kongens Nytorv have been the object of a lot of attention from both the public and

the media. Especially during the stages of excavation in 2010 and 2011, the Kongens Nytorv site got a lot of media

coverage. An archaeological excavation of this size had never been carried out in Denmark before, so this in itself was

a natural cause of attention. Also the location which is in the heart of current Copenhagen made the investigations

obvious to most Copenhageners and tourists.



Fig. 21. Field archaeologist Kirstine Haase doing one of the daily tours for a large crowd. Photo: Museum of

Copenhagen.

The interest from the public was huge and very positive. People were interested in the archaeologists’ work and the

findings. A lot of the archaeology carried out on Kongens Nytorv was “large scale” archaeology, which meant that

quite a lot of big structures were excavated. The fact that the medieval eastern gate and fortification had been under

the pavements of Kongens Nytorv for so many years, did in fact make a great impression on the public. The big

structures made it easier for the public to understand what the findings represented.

The huge interest from the public resulted in an agreement with the Metro Company, that the Museum of

Copenhagen did a minor public presentation outside the excavation area every day (Monday-Thursday) at 1:00 PM

(see Fig. 21 above). One of the excavating archaeologists would meet the public and give a small tour of the site and

an update on results. They would also bring a small collection of artifacts found on site to show. These daily tours took

place from the 10th

of January 2011 till the 29th

of August 2011. In the summer of 2011 tours in English were also

made for tourists. These took place from the 14th

of June 2011 till the 29th

of August 2011. Especially the tours in

Danish were an overwhelming success and some days there would be up to 200 interested listeners. This of course

made it a bit difficult to reach out to everybody who showed up, but in general it went really well.



Fig. 22. Field archaeologist Claus Rohden Olesen being interviewed by the media. Photo: Museum of Copenhagen.

The media attention was quite intense during the main excavations in 2010 and 2011 (Fig. 22). The most media

coverage was in the newspapers; national newspapers like Politiken, Berlingske Tidende, EkstraBladet, BT, Kristeligt

Dagblad and local papers like Cityavisen, Flensborg Avis, etc. Also internet news sites and scientific sites like

videnskab.dk carried stories on the excavations.

The TV media was represented by DR TV-Avisen, TV2 Nyhederne, TV2 Lorry and DK4. Also videos on Youtube.com

produced by the Museum of Copenhagen and archaeologists on site were made. The radio station P4 also made

reports from the excavation.

Separate tours of the site were made by institutions: Kulturministeriet, Slots og Kulturstyrelsen, Kultur-og

Fritidsforvaltningen Københavns Kommune, Aarhus University, Copenhagen University, the National Museum of

Denmark, the School of Conservation, the Metro Company, different archaeological museums and companies in

Scandinavia, etc.

7.11 Archive, storage and processing facilities In accordance with the guidelines issued by KUAS, site and research archives from excavations in the Kongens Nytorv area are archived at the Museum of Copenhagen (KBM). All finds and field records are processed and curated by the museum and are available for public consultation. In

addition the digital archive is stored and maintained on the terminal server in IntraSiS, Microsoft Word and images in

tiff-format at the terminal server:

T:\KBM3829_Kongens Nytorv



The archive includes all materials recovered (or the comprehensive record of such materials as referred to above) and

all written, drawn and photographic records relating directly to the investigations undertaken. This is quantified,

ordered, indexed and internally consistent and contains a site matrix (where generated), a site summary and brief

written observations on the artefactual and environmental data. Copyright of the complete written archive is vested

with the museum.

The storage and processing facilities can be summarised as follows:

All paper and digital records are initially stored under the appropriate environmental conditions at the museum’s offices at Vesterbrogade 59, 1620 København V (2016).

Following analysis and publication, the museum will store and maintain all finds and archival material.

The finds details are laid out in Chapter 7.6 and in the Finds Handbook (2010). The physical archive consists of 23 A4 folders containing paper records of the site; this includes the field context

sheets divided by subarea; phase 1N, phase 1S, phase 1W, phase 2+3, phase 3, phase 4B, phase 5A-1, phase 5B-1,

phase 5B-2, phase 45A, phase 45B, phase 6A-E, Station Box 2012–2014, Bitrappe and Ventilation Shaft 2016, MCW,

watching briefs, wet sieving and incomplete and cancelled context sheets. Two A3 folders contain mostly drawings of

sections, but also some drawings in plan.

To this is added one folder for Press material, Dissemination and Metro Drawings.

There are 22 books which contain the image register (Museumstjenesten). These books have been scanned and saved

digitally in the project folder. There are also 11 survey books with the recordings from the total stations (Survey Book

2206 and Moleskine). All books have been scanned. Some of the personal diaries have been saved.

The digital archive consists of all files in the project folder on the museum terminal server under the museum number

for the site – KBM3829. Digital copies of this report are stored in this folder.

There is also the main IntraSiS file (Project File K201001) which consists of the surveyed geo objects and the

contextual information entered from the context sheets, with associated rectified and digitized historic maps.

There are 116.06 GB of digital images from the site. A total of 16 719 images were taken on site, and with some

exceptions, all of these were saved and kept in the archive. Out of the saved and kept pictures 8 597 were registered

(630 resized) and put into IntraSiS.

7.12 Source criticism A number of source-critical aspects are current during an archaeological excavation. They can be divided into two

main types: object-related and investigation-related. The first group varies depending on what is being investigated,

how the feature is stratigraphically built up and its preservation conditions, while the second concerns excavation

conditions, the investigators' skills, equipment and strategy and weather conditions.

From an archaeological point of view, a city is a very complex case. It represents a settlement that has been localised

to a small area for a long time. There are a large number of traces and remains that, under time pressure, have to be

managed and transformed into structured and usable source material. The conditions are partly dependent on the

features’ preservation degree. These are on the other hand related to the conditions of preservation that have

existed; geological, what types of materials are included in the stratigraphic units and later deconstruction activities.

Preservation conditions in the excavation area varied. In general, they were relatively good although only if coarse

organic material was partially preserved. The surface was highly fragmented as a result of a number of truncations of

different age.



The conditions are also dependent on secondary influencing factors, i.e. the degree to which the sequence is

fragmented by later interventions. Contemporary and younger activities, such as when the plots were reorganized or

the creation of larger fortifications, have fragmented older stratigraphy or caused accelerating decomposition rates.

Degradation, or incorporation, is the result of changes to the deposit conditions by oxygen, microbiological activity or

liquid ratios.

A layer consists of an upper and a lower contact area as well as a content that constitutes its structure. As

decomposition occurs the contact surfaces will be less distinct. Definition and delimitation thus becomes more

difficult and are more time consuming for the investigator. Complexity and fragmentation also means that the

stratigraphic objects have a very large number of physical relationships that continually need to be processed to

create logically valid and usable source material.

The majority of the staff consisted of archaeologists with experience of urban archaeological excavations and the

single context method. They quickly learnt the documentation and operating procedures set up for the excavation.

The quality of documentation was high, though interpretation and grouping work could not be made continuously

during the field survey as planned, since changes and priorities in the original time schedule, together with the

archeological material meant that excavation work was given priority for the benefit of other on-site related work

tasks. Registration and IntraSiS responsible positions were held by highly experienced staff from the Museum of

Copenhagen.

The weather was mostly good through the entire period from December 2009 to December 2016, despite a cold and

snowy winter 2010–2011. An unknown number of work days were lost due to rain, snow, flooding and

contaminated/polluted soil during the field season. Especially the flooding on July 2nd

2011, which caused

considerable and extra cleanup work in the excavation areas (Fig. 23).

Fig. 23. A Field Leader’s nightmare. Subarea phase 45B after the flooding 2nd

July 2011. Photo: Museum of

Copenhagen.



7.12.1 Features and preservation With the exception of stray finds dated to the Late Mesolithic and Neolithic periods (Phase 2), the oldest

archaeological remains at Kongens Nytorv can be dated to the Late Viking Age/Early medieval period (Phase 3). From

earlier excavations such as the Metro investigations in 1996–1998 and sampling from areas close by, as well as

geological observations in the area, we know that during the Viking Age and Early Middle Ages the area was situated

considerably closer to the sea shore than today. The general notion is that the area was marshy and perhaps affected

by temporary flooding (Chapter 3; Regional geology and topography), but the proximity to the sea would have made it

an attractive area for fishing activities, pastureland and possibly limited settlement.

The Early medieval remains are naturally most affected by later activities. Since this was the site of the eastern part of

the city from the early 13th

to the mid 17th

century, huge and several truncations were made in the ground and large

stone structures were built, in order to dig moats and to create new fortifications and gates. This applies for example

to the area around the 17th

century fortification (Østervold), where the ground was levelled and prepared before

further construction.

Later on, when the area was made into a square, the area was cut through with numerous modern services,

destroying even more of the medieval features. Due to these circumstances, the remains from this period were

fragmentary and may not be representative of the full range of original medieval activities, especially in the area east

of the medieval fortification and outside Østerport. Large truncations had destroyed the ground level from the time in

large parts of this area, leaving almost only the deeper features and the deposits filling them preserved.

Even though the remains were fragmentary, the excavations provide important information about life in medieval

Copenhagen, which is previously unseen in the archaeological material from the city. Phase 3 is characterized by post-

city activities, and the stratigraphical information and spatial analysis, together with finds material and scientific

datings show a busy area within the timeframe of the phase. At least two sub-phases have been identified; mainly

based on structural evidence for boundary ditches and so-called clay lined pits, but it is difficult to prove whether

these represent a re-organization of the area.

The High and Late medieval fortifications were documented in a stretch of c. 50 m running in a north-south direction

(Phase 4). Large parts of the city wall foundations had been removed in connection with a Transformer Station in the

1940s (see Fig. 91). The Late medieval moat had been truncated both by later fortification activities and by modern

disturbances such as a large Transformer Station to the north, shoring and a large concrete structure to the south, and

the limited working space within the excavation area made the documentation difficult sometimes (Fig. 24).



Fig. 24. Not the best excavation conditions – removing Late medieval moat layers in subarea phase 5A-1, facing south.

Photo: Museum of Copenhagen.

The medieval gate building had been heavily affected by the later 17th

century Østerport being placed at the same

spot, and by the 17th

century fortification and the surrounding, modern shoring. The later version of the gate building

together with a dam, a barrier tower and five bridge foundations (Phase 6) were also heavily truncated by later robber

pits and several modern disturbances (pipe lines, shoring, Guide Walls, etc.). The latest version of the inner gate

building and one of the recorded buildings outside the moat (building No. 1) were especially heavily truncated by

robber pits, re-using the different materials for building activities around the city. The 17th

century remains of the

moat were not that heavily impacted by later activities in the area such as the establishment of the square in the mid

1600s, but at some places was truncated by modern bunkers from the 1940s, service trenches, etc.

The High and Late medieval features in Lille Kongensgade in the area behind the medieval rampart (Phase 5 and Phase

7a) had been heavily affected by modern truncations, which meant the buildings, street surfaces and other activities

in this subarea were quite fragmentary, but also difficult to interpret due to the excavation methods close to Hviids

Vinstue.

Dealing with the 17th

century structures and later features at Kongens Nytorv (Phase 7b and Phase 8) one must also

have in mind that the Station Box including the Guide Wall trenches, the Bitrappe and Ventilation Shaft (Type 3 and 4

areas; Field season 2012–2016) were watching briefs mainly using machines to expose and excavate both larger and

smaller structures, with the exception of the settlement outside the 17th

century moat including several buildings,

road surfaces and alleys (Fig. 25).



Fig. 25. Overview Guide Wall trench with part of the bastion and 17th

century moat, facing NE. In the left handside

corner – modern sand in a central heating trench. Photo: Museum of Copenhagen.

The intense usage of the area and degree of restructuring of activities had resulted in a high amount of intercutting

and re-deposition of material during the medieval and post medieval period. This is obvious in the finds material,

where later pottery is found together with, or stratigraphically below deposits and features of older date. Also, this

should be seen in connection with some of the AMS-datings, which are on the whole earlier than some finds from the

same context. These circumstances make the phasing of the activities ambiguous and therefore spatial relationships

between archaeological features have sometimes been accorded more weight than the observed stratigraphy. In

general, dating of contexts is based on a collective assessment of stratigraphy, datable finds, dendrochronological or

radiocarbon dates (where available) and spatial relationships.

It should be noted that the “absolute” dating of levelling deposits can be ambiguous, since they may consist of a

mixture of deconstruction material from several building phases, depending on the deposition history and number of

building phases at the exact spot. This is often shown in the very broad date range of the finds within what is

interpreted as the same levelling deposit.



8 Phases and chronological development The following chapters are a methodical description of all time phases excavated at Kongens Nytorv from 2010–2016.

The chapters will describe the most distinct archaeological features of every time phase and discuss and interpret the

results. A full listing of all archaeological features/groups in each time phase is presented in Appendices 1-12. The

following chapters are written in this manner to make the presentation of the overall interpretations of each time

phase more manageable.

8.1 Phases The archaeological results are presented chronologically, but in order to provide an adaptable overview, the time

phases have been sorted in areas that make sense in both time and an archaeological frame (Fig. 26).

Fig. 26. All measured features at Kongens Nytorv marked with black lines.

The presentation of the time phases has been split up into three main areas; behind the fortification, the fortification

and outside the fortification. The fortification in all its phases was the dominating feature in phases 5A-1, 5B-1, 5B-2,

45A and 45B and large parts of the Station Box including the Ventilation Shaft (Fig. 27). This means that the

distribution of the different phases is split up in time phases like this:

Phase 1 Moraine, salt marshes and other Quaternary observations: All phases.

Phase 2 Prehistoric finds and features: All phases.

Phase 3 Early medieval activities 1050–1200 AD: Phase 4B, 5B-2, 45A, 45B and Station Box.



Phase 4a High medieval fortification 1200–1350 AD: Phase 4B, 5B-1, 5B-2,45A and 45B.

Phase 4b Late medieval city wall 1350–1550 AD: Phase 4B, 5B-1, 5B-2, 45A and 45B.

Phase 4c Eastern gate building 1200–1600 AD: Phase 1N, 5A-1, 45A, 45B and Station Box.

Phase 4d Late medieval and Renaissance fortification 1350–1600 AD: Phase 1N, 5A-1, 45A, 45B and Station Box.

Phase 5 High and Late medieval activities 1300–1500 AD: Phase 1S, 2+3, 6, 4B and 45B.

Phase 6 Post medieval fortification and eastern gate building 1600–1650 AD: Phase 5A-1, 5B-1, 5A-2, 45A, 45B,

Station Box and Trench ZT1196.

Phase 7a Settlement and activities behind the rampart 1550–1650 AD: Phase 1N, 2+3, 4B, 5B-1, 5B-2, 45B and 6.

Phase 7b Outside the moat. Settlement and activities 1550–1650 AD: Station Box and Bitrappe.

Phase 8 Kongens Nytorv 1650–1950 AD: All phases.

The time phasing of the features is based on mainly stratigraphy, dating of finds, dendrochronology, C14-dating and to

a minor extent spatial relations.

Fig. 27. Excavation at Kongens Nytorv with type 1 and type 2 areas.



8.2 Chronological development As an introduction to the next chapters a short history of the site of Kongens Nytorv is presented here in chronological

order.

Before Kongens Nytorv was inhabited by people, the area was dominated by salt marshes with the original coastal

meadows that were documented archaeologically as a dark layer on top of the natural sand and clay/natural ground.

There are only a few traces of cultural influence and the area had probably been used for grazing of livestock. The

prehistoric period is represented by finds of worked flint and even though most flints occurred in secondary contexts,

it points to the presence of a fragmented near-shore settlement at Kongens Nytorv. The dating of the collected finds

points to the Late Mesolithic and Neolithic periods.

The first clear human presence documented at Kongens Nytorv is from the Early medieval periods before 1200 AD.

Ditches parallel with the present north-south line interpreted as plot markers and pits that might have been used for

storage were excavated. The most interesting features in this period are the clay lined pits and they are placed in the

mid 12th

and early 13th

century based on AMS-dating. Their function is not clear, but similar pits documented on the

coastline in Scania indicate that they have been used for storage or preparation of herrings in connection with fishing

in Øresund.

The first phase of the city fortification can be dated to the early 13th

century. This consisted of a rampart built using

material dug up in connection with establishing the moat. Traces of a probable stockade “Byens Planker” were

registered in one of the two earliest phases of the rampart as well as a 17 metres of bulwark (dated

dendrochronologically to the early 13th

century) to support the rampart on the edge of the moat.

The key feature in the fortification was the eastern gate (Østerport), of which original parts date to the time of the

first phase of the fortification in the early 13th

century. The building was maintained and remodelled several times

until it was demolished in 1608. Through the gateway several road layers with wheel ruts were preserved. Road layers

were also documented in connection with the inner gate building – both in connection with the rampart street and

outside the Late medieval moat.

Just south and in connection with the eastern gate the foundations of a customs- or guard building was excavated and

the dating of this falls in the 14th

century.

Following the interpreted outline of the “Byens Planker” a brick built city wall was erected which is difficult to date but

is likely to originate around 1350 AD. The city wall could be traced for a length of 19 metres. Remnants of the wall

found in other parts of the excavation area suggest that the city wall had merlons.

In the early 17th

century the eastern gate and the guard building are renewed and expanded in the exact same spot as

the medieval gate. The entire medieval fortification is replaced with a new and larger fortification and part of the

bastion, the curtain running along the new 17th

century moat and five of the bridge pillars across the moat were

excavated. This fortification does not last long, and by the middle of the 17th

century it is abandoned.

Behind the medieval fortification settlement and boundary ditches can be followed continuously from the 13th

century

onwards till the present day. There is evidence of permanent housing, streets, wells, pits and other traces of urban

environment. Also the remains of a forge were excavated. The findings indicate that the area was relatively modestly

used, when compared with other findings in urban Copenhagen. This can also be a result of modern disturbances.

By the middle of the 16th

century and until the final destruction of the Post medieval fortification, a settlement existed

outside of the moat. At least two buildings were excavated and also traces of possible gardens, alleys, boundary

fences and roads with wheel ruts were documented.



From the middle of the 17th

century and to the present day observations of predecessors to standing buildings around

Kongens Nytorv were observed. Also building remains from the Lille Gjethus (the cannon foundry) from 1698 were

excavated. Last, to be mentioned are two modern features, bunkers from the Second World War.



9 Finds Finds in an archaeological excavation are of great importance – for dating layers and they can also tell something

about the different kinds of activities in different areas or constructions. It is of vital importance to note that almost all

finds from an archaeological excavation come from secondary deposited layers. Only a very small percentage of the

finds come from primary layers like for instance floor layers or road layers. This is also the case with the finds from

Kongens Nytorv, where a lot of layers are secondary deposits on site. These being dump layers, levelling layers and fills

in pits or deconstructed postholes. In some cases it is more likely that the secondary layers come from the nearest

surroundings. These being fills in pits, postholes and perhaps also the moats. Larger levelling layers and fills in

boundary ditches can be moved from places further away since this kind of work would demand a larger volume of

soil or dump material. This means that using the finds for dating layers or identifying activity has to be carefully

approached.

The excavations at Kongens Nytorv did not produce as many finds as was expected before the project. The excavation

at Rådhuspladsen produced 17179 FO-numbers and Gammel Strand excavation 9689 FO-numbers3. With 11154 FO-

numbers Kongens Nytorv has fewer finds than the two other major sites at the Metro Excavations. It is important to

note in this comparison that an FO-number often contains more than one individual find (for the registration of finds

see Chapter 7.6; Finds procedures).

It makes most sense to compare the two sites Rådhuspladsen and Kongens Nytorv since Gammel Strand is a habour

front area with multiple fillings between bulwarks. Fillings that are categorized as dump layers. Rådhuspladsen and

Kongens Nytorv are both settlement areas on the edge of the city with traces of craft work, pits, roads, houses,

fortifications and moats, etc. The main difference is the dating of the settlements, which is younger for Rådhuspladsen

(dates 1050 AD –). There might also be some differences in the archaeological method on excavating the moat. At

Kongens Nytorv most of moat was dug mainly by machine and big bags of fill layers were taken out for sieving in a

sampling strategy (see Chapter 7.7; Sampling and analytical procedures). But in general the area at Kongens Nytorv

does not carry evidence of a very tight and massive settlement and the area is very much dominated by the

fortification both in the medieval and Post medieval period.

The moats generated the greatest amount of finds. Due to gradually filling up, the moats have been cleaned at several

times while in function, and this means that the finds to some degree have been moved around in the moats. The

finds have most likely been dumped in the moats – some of them one at a time – for instance a broken toy or a

drinking vessel. But it is also most likely that citizens of the city would dump larger amounts of garbage in the moats

even though this was likely forbidden by law.

In general the finds at Kongens Nytorv were in excellent condition when excavated. The moist layers in the area

caused by the nearness to the former coast line and present water canals made the circumstances excellent for finds

to be preserved in the layers. Of course finds – and primarily the organic finds – were in fantastic condition from the

moats.

The finds were prioritized for conservation, but since organic finds of bone, wood, textile and leather in such a good

state of preservation are rare and the fact that they represent unique findings (one of a kind), many of these were

prioritized for conservation. Also metal finds were fairly well preserved and therefore prioritized for conservation, but

many of these were nails or unidentifiable artifacts. Quite a lot of these were still unidentifiable after X-raying, but

some of these have been kept for future research or identification.

3 A large amount of the ceramic find units (around 50%) from this site did not get a FO-registration due to prioritation

of the material (cf. Whatley 2016:57).



Due to prioritation of the project, few finds are registered in the IntraSiS database and part of the total count of finds

but not analysed and described in the finds reports.

9.1 Distribution of finds The finds have been sorted into subclasses and classified by function using function types that are similar to categories

seen in the NORM registration and Museum of London registration systems. The distribution can be seen below (Tab.

8). Animal bones and shell-molluscs (Number of FOs 16381) are not presented in this table.

Finds Subclass Examples of types of finds Number of FOs

Medieval pottery (1060–1535 AD)

Pottery dating from medieval periods from c. 1050–1535 AD 442

Post medieval pottery (1536–1800 AD)

Pottery dating from the Renaissance period (1536–1660 AD) and later Post medieval period (1661–1800 AD)

5978

Stove tiles Decorated and undecorated tiles from stoves 515

Leather Various types of clothes (non military), shoes, slippers 550

Textile From clothing to household furnishings, i.e. covers, curtains, etc. 108

Glass All types of glass vessel and window glass 537

Slag and other metallurgical waste

All by-products of metalworking 159

Wall tiles Decorated and undecorated tiles from structure 23

Household equipment A selection containing wooden house furnishings to metal storage items, barrels, buckets and cooking and non ceramic storage objects

230

Arms and armour Military weapons, projectiles and armour 90

Coins and tokens Coins and various trading tokens 38

Personal items A broad category representing finds linked to the individual, i.e. jewelry, badges, brooches, religious, buttons, etc.

55

Combs and comb cases

Combs and comb cases from all periods from all different materials 10

Toys and games An assemblage of all types of toys, games, gaming boards and gaming piece fragments

63

Horse equipment All types of equipment for the horse, i.e. horseshoes, nails 14

Tools All various craft tools and equipment linked to industry 129

Ships and fishing equipment

Finds covering the broad spectrum of maritime archaeology and fishing equipment

18

Security equipment Archaeological equipment comprising various types of keys, locks and draw bars

11

Textile production tools

Crafts persons equipment linked to textile production and repair, i.e. pins, needles, thimbles, needle cases, etc.

66

Trading equipment and cloth seals and other seals

Cloth seals, trading stamps, various trading objects outside of glass and ceramic finds objects

26

Writing equipment Slates, pens, stylus, stylus cases, wax slates 7

Knives and cutlery Domestic knives and knife and handle fragments, table knives, spoons and forks

65

Flint Flint tools, gun flint and percussion flint 109

Clay pipe Clay pipe fragments, pipe production equipment and figurines 574

Rope Rope fragments 35

Building materials Roof-, floor-, ridge tiles, bricks and other building related materials. Various statues and decorated fragments of stone

645

Unidentifiable objects Various finds, either unidentifiable or corroded through soil 245



conditions. Also finds not subclassed.

Other Off-cuts, nails, other organic, skeleton 412

Tab. 8. Kongens Nytorv. Finds subclasses, types of finds and numbers.

9.2 Conclusion By far the largest finds category is ceramics, and in order to say something general about the finds at Kongens Nytorv

and socioeconomic status of the area it is an obvious first place to start. The medieval ceramics date from around

1100 AD and up until the start of the 14th

century there is an absence of imported pottery that is very common in this

period in other urban societies in Denmark and southern Scandinavia. The largest amount of medieval ceramic dates

to 1200–1450 AD which might indicate a higher level of activity in the area, and ceramics dating before 1200 are very

few (Fig. 177). From 1350 there seems to be an increase in ceramics that indicate a rise in status of the area suggested

by the increasing more mercantile/Hanseatic influence on the material.

45% of the total amount of the ceramics found on the site dates to 1550–1650 AD and there is evidence of local

production from 1500 onwards, but also a larger amount of imports from the Netherlands, Germany, France and Italy

(Fig. 28). The area seems at this point to be on a higher socioeconomic level with a larger diversity in the ceramic

material. Even Chinese porcelain is registered in the material before the official trade with China in 1730. That said the

ceramic material was still dominated by kitchen vessels and also trays and jugs. Things that are attached to everyday

life both at the higher and lower ends of society.

Fig. 28. Stoneware sherd from Cologne 1566 (FO206929). Photo: Museum of Copenhagen.



The mercantile influence traced in the later medieval ceramic material can only be traced to a more modest degree in

other material like glass, coins and cloth seals.

The ever-present fortification does leave some traces in the finds material. Traces of musket balls and iron

cannonballs were found, some of them had actually been used and hit a target. The conclusion from the finds

specialist is, that despite these finds, the amount of similar finds would be expected to have been larger. A collection

of children’s toys were also excavated from the moat, such as the little toy boat seen in figure 29 below, indicating

that everyday life also played a major role around the fortification.

Fig. 29. Wooden toy boat (FO200948). Photo: Museum of Copenhagen.

In general the finds from Kongens Nytorv are what to be expected from most (larger) medieval and Post medieval

urban contexts. There are signs of imported goods and artefacts, but considering the fact that Copenhagen in the Post

medieval/Renaissance period was a fortified trade town, the amount of finds from a city of this status is rather few.

There is also a limited amount of prestige finds which would have been owned by the more prominent citizens like the

bourgeoisie and courtiers that are present in the city from the Late medieval period. Instead there are traces of craft

work like the forge and finds of slags and a great amount of household equipment. This points in the direction of a

more modest part of Copenhagen with workshops and general everyday life of differing social status mostly reflected

through the ceramic material.

This might also be confirmed by the finds of military objects like gambling pieces and plates with soldiers on (Fig. 30

and 31). This could indicate an area with a more concentrated presence of soldiers, which would be obvious in

connection with the fortification being in the area, but soldiers were often quite poorly paid and would be in need of a

not so expensive place to live. The finds of used musket balls and cannonballs in the Post medieval moat could

indicate a somewhat unsteady area to live in at times.



Fig. 30. Early Post medieval, possibly German rapier. Quillon (FO501816). Photo: Museum of Copenhagen.

Fig. 31. Early Post medieval decorated bone plaque. Probably from a weapons handle (FO207364). Photo: Museum of

Copenhagen.



10 Phase 1 Moraine, salt marshes and other Quaternary observations

10.1 Results The Ice Age deposits in the Copenhagen area consist of two layers of moraine separated by transgression layers

(Bahnson 1973a). The excavation area at Kongens Nytorv is placed on the transition between areas with respectively

moraine and sand at the top of the sequence. Most of the excavation area consisted of subsoil of uniform

transgression layers in places with a regular layering of thin layers of slightly coarser sand and in some places more

compact layers of gravel and flint of different size. In the transition zone between the moraine and the transgression

layers there were locally very irregular stratifications in the moraine that do not represent truncations, but may be

due to processes associated with moving material or so-called cryoturbations. For further discussion and

interpretation about flint artifacts from these layers; see Chapter 11.2.

As shown in the figure below the transgression layers and salt marshes are mainly registered in Lille Kongensgade, in

connection with the fortification, where these layers have been protected by the medieval rampart, as well as in a

wider area to the east outside the 17th

century moat (Fig. 32 and Tab. 9).

The original coastal meadows were documented as a 0.2 m thick, dark layer on top of the natural sand and clay. The

height is somewhat different – for the salt marshes these vary from kote +0.8 to +1.4 m above current sea level.

Regarding the transgression layers, these are located between kote +0.6-2.0 m with the highest values to the north

and outside Charlottenborg.

A salt marsh is an area of marshy ground that is intermittently inundated with salt water or that retains pools or

rivulets of salt or brackish water, together with its characteristic halophytic vegetation. The salt marshes consisted of

water deposited sand with very decomposed organic material with varying contents of plant parts, leaves, stems,

roots and rhizomes, branches, buds, etc. where this represents a growth horizon formed in a moist, brackish or fresh

environment occasionally flooded by the sea (cf. Steen Henriksen 1998:7-8). Limited cultural influences can be seen

within these layers (mainly animal bones; SG-377) and no indications of human activity could be seen among the

archaeobotanical material – but this is connected with the sampling and lack of further analysis.



Fig. 32. Overview showing traces of transgression layers and salt marshes at Kongens Nytorv. The concentration of salt

marshes in the western part is directly connected to the overlying and protecting rampart. The rest of the excavation

area has been truncated by later activities, both historical and modern. In the watching brief trenches these natural

layers were not measured due to limited depth and difficult survey conditions.

Group Type of feature Subarea Basic interpretation

503046 Layers, stones and imprints Several phases Transgression layers

686 Organic layers Several phases Salt marshes

Tab. 9. Natural deposits and features at Kongens Nytorv.

10.2 Overall discussion and interpretation A survey conducted for the Metro in 1996–1998 proved that the sub-surface consisted of glacial and late glacial

deposits consisting of heterogeneous natural sand. Immediately over the moraine several layers of varying gravel,

sand and mixed clay were recorded (Kristiansen 1998; 1999a).

Transgression at 4300 BC in the Copenhagen area has been estimated to lie between DVD90 kote +3.2 and +4.1 m (cf.

Troels-Smith 1939; Digerfeldt 1975; Christensen 1981; 1995; Jacobsen 1982). During this transgression maximum,

Copenhagen was divided by a narrow strait from Øresund that extended through the "Lake Valley" formed in the

present location of Sortedamssøen, Peblingesøen and Skt. Jørgens' defensive reservoirs. This strait connected to

Kalvebod Strand near the preset location of Vesterbro Torv in the south and near the present position of Frihavnen to

the north. The paleo shoreline lay approximately where Kronprinsessegade is today. Refshaleholmen, Plantholm



(Mågeøen), Bremerholm, Strandholm (Slotsholmen), Skarnholmen and all other islets between Zealand and Amager

were all covered by water (Christensen 1963:2-3).

According to estimations made by geologists and recent archaeological investigations the shoreline around 1000 AD is

believed to have been going straight beside the contemporary Royal Theatre, northeast of Charlottenborg and then

through the later Amalienborg area. It could not be excluded that the shoreline may have stretched to the north of

Vingårdsstræde near Lille Kongensgade (cf. Rosenkjær 1906; Hartmann & Hartmann 1988:6; Fabricius 1999:App. 4,

Fig. 33b and 266), but nothing in the main excavation area or nearby trenches supported such a suggestion (see also

Fig. 32). Test drilling in Østergade No. 13 (Matr. No. 13) has also determined that the area was within the medieval

coastline, but influenced by the previous Littorina Sea Transgression (Skaarup 2002; Sørensen 2002).

It must be pointed out that the marshy area in the low-lying landscape of Copenhagen would have been frequently

flooded at high tide and during storm situations, which must have resulted in a varying shoreline.

Analyses of pollen and macrofossil samples suggest that the Copenhagen area during the 11th

century was dominated

by meadows with reed swamps. The coast, where Copenhagen was founded, was characterized by wet meadows. In

the area where the medieval town came to be, between the Rådhuspladsen and Kongens Nytorv, the salt marshes

must have been smallest. This environment in the upper coastal intertidal zone between land and salt or brackish

water produced peat layers of varying thickness from 0.2 m to over 1.0 m, depending on local depressions, stream

courses, etc. The coastal meadow has at several locations been documented as a 0.2 metres thick, dark stripe under

deposit layers (Rosenkjær 1906:18 et seq.; Ramsing 1910; Christensen 1963:3 et seq.).

At the Metro investigations during 1996–1998 there were traces of this meadow vegetation in the southern part of

the excavation area, which indicates that the area during part of the 13th

century had been washed over by the sea.

The boundary ditches and a wicker fence had been abandoned in the last decades of the 13th

century, and then

covered by the salt marshes. Pollen and macrofossil analysis has shown that this natural, dense reed swamp was with

time changed to pasture land (Rosenkjær 1906; Kristiansen 1998; Moltsen og Steen Henriksen 1998; Boldsen 1996;

1998; Skaarup 1999:74 et seq.; El-Sharnouby and Høst-Madsen 2008:148).

No traces of the so-called “rallaget” (BRE-sequence) were identified during excavation (cf. Kristiansen 1998; Steen

Henriksen 1998:8).

No further pollen analysis was conducted on the salt marsh layers, but the area has probably been used for grazing,

where the most extensive settlements from the Iron Age, with some exceptions, mainly existed in the interior. This

type of settlement localisation is also familiar from the other side of Øresund (cf. Björhem & Magnusson Staaf

2006:195 et seq.). However, AMS-dates from the Viking Age could represent fishing activities on a more seasonal basis

(see Chapter 12.2.3; Clay lined pits).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertidal_zone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater





11 Phase 2 Prehistoric finds and features

11.1 Results Processed flint and bones were collected to enable dating and typing. Other organic material for possible future C14-

analysis was also collected. In order to create a basis for a reconstruction of the local environment and changes in

human activity at the site, all deposits created by nature and re-deposited layers were documented in the same way

as other contexts.

Despite the occurrence of most flints in secondary contexts, the evidence points to the presence at Kongens Nytorv of

a fragmented, near-shore settlement or “activity spot” dating to the Late Mesolithic and to the Neolithic.

Most of the material consists of non-diagnostic debitage. Notwithstanding these limitations, the assemblage affords

important evidence of prehistoric settlement activity within the limits of Copenhagen. Also, patterns can be teased

out of this material, which have chronological import and consequently corroborates inferences drawn on the basis of

the formal tool types. The assemblage suggests that the majority of the finds derive from the later part of the

Mesolithic (Ertebølle period), but Middle and Late Neolithic material is also present.

The assemblage consists of 113 flaked lithics from a variety of stratigraphic contexts and areas across the excavation.

The principal findings of this study on the lithic material can be summarised in the following statements:

A small amount of primary debitage.

Few formal tool types.

The presence of indirect percussion technique for blade production.

A distinct lack of diagnostic Early Mesolithic components.

It is possible to identify some of the flints as likely deriving from the coast by the presence of a marine

affected cortex (white patinated) and indications of rolling.

There are 48 blades in the assemblage, of which 31 can be categorized as irregular blades. The remaining 17 regular

blades are mostly plein débitage (i.e. prismatic blades with no cortex and transversal scars) struck with indirect

percussion. They generally exhibit evidence of overhang removal and have distinct bulbs or bulbs and lips.

Examination of butts, impact rings, eraillure scars, bulbs and striking lips shows that almost all regular blades were

struck off the core by indirect soft-hammer percussion, while most irregular blades and flakes were struck by direct

percussion, most likely with a hammerstone. Hard-hammer direct percussion, used to detach blades from a core,

results in generally thicker blades and is strongly associated with the Late Mesolithic Ertebølle period (Fig. 33),

although some Ertebølle sites have a higher use of indirect soft-hammer technology.

Platform butts on both blades and flakes are with a few exceptions flat, but in 34 cases (of which 22 are blades) there

is evidence of preparation of the front of the core, while such preparation was absent in 37 cases (seven were blades).

Edge preparation work is done between striking off flakes or blades by gently tapping or rubbing the sharp, curving lip

of the core platform with the hammer stone to trim it back. This technique was used to assure an exact blow was

delivered to the striking area.



Fig. 33. Hard-hammer macroblade with usewear along both lateral edges (FO205902). Photo: Museum of

Copenhagen.

Four flakes and one coarse blade (4.4%) have more than 50% cortex present, and can therefore be described as

primary flakes, the first ones removed from corticated flint nodules. Thirty pieces had smaller amounts of cortex

present (1-50%) The cortex was described as either “fresh” (n=12) or “worn” (n=21) and was in all cases thin (c. 1

mm).

Fifteen pieces displayed evidence of retouch or shaping, and included two flake scrapers, a Neolithic sickle blade and a

polished Neolithic axe. In addition to these specific tool types there were also three truncated blades, one laterally

retouched blade (FO213324) and five “miscellaneous retouch flakes“ (MRF), these are pieces that have retouch, but

do not resemble any specific tool form. In total, 13.3% of the flint assemblage was attributed to a tool form or

identified as an MRF.

A strike-a-light is made on a very thick blade of dark, grey Danien-type flint with flakes struck off from the distal end.

Two or three broad, shallow flakes have been struck off (coincidentally?) from the blade’s steep sides. Six

unretouched blades exhibit usewear and two of these have heavy usewear.

The most notable piece in the assemblage is a complete, Middle Neolithic thick-butted axe of the Lindø-type, dated

3000–2800 BC (FO202755) (Fig. 34). The sides of the axe are partially polished, except the third towards the neck.

The cutting edge is chipped and also appears rather dull in its present state. The axe is white-patinated but there are

also areas where the patination is light grey. A few rust-spots can also be observed. It was found embedded in the

natural sand subsoil and could have been lost on the former beach in the Neolithic. It is a quite common find in

settlements of the period.



Fig. 34. Middle Neolithic thick-butted axe of Lindø-type (FO202755). Photo: Museum of Copenhagen.

A circular flake scraper (FO201169) is made with inverse, short retouch on what appears to be a blade core platform

rejuvenation flake. The scars from detached blades and evidence of overhang trimming are clearly visible on the

platform butt of the scraper. It is probably of Neolithic date. Another scraper is a flake end scraper with linear retouch

on the distal end. There is also a flake with distal, oblique retouch and a flake with lateral retouch. A flake has some

distal, steep retouch and a possible notch on one distal lateral. A retouched flake with linear, steep retouch is a

possible scraper. Finally, there is a blade-like flake with lateral retouch.

Of special mention is a bifacial, crescent-shaped sickle with a high, arched back (FO205523). These are typical for the

Late Neolithic period (2400–1800 BC), when there was a large-scale production of flint sickles of different forms. It

was a tool type that remained in use until the end of the Early Bronze Age.

Unpatinated flints (n=35) exhibit a limited colour range, with shades or mixtures of grey and brown being the

dominant colours. The remainder are a mixture of the above colours, with faint shades of yellow, green and blue

included. There are two heat-affected lithics exhibiting colour change and hairline cracks. Burning probably occurred

prior to deposition. A majority of the lithics (72%) have been subject to some degree of patination resulting in a

distinctive, chalky white colour. While most are still sharp-edged, a few appear to have experienced rolling in a marine

environment, which has smoothed and rounded their edges through erosion.

11.2 Overall discussion and interpretation The Copenhagen area comprises a rich cultural landscape with traces of human activity and habitation dating back to

10 000 BC. The vast majority of these places are situated beyond the old city and stem from the Palaeolithic to the

Bronze Age. Stone Age settlements, including submarine settlements from Kongemose culture are known at Frihavnen

and beyond the coast of Amager. There are also Ertebølle settlements by Vedbæk, in Ordrup Mose, which was then a

fjord, outside Kastrup at Amager, at Fredriksberggade and Fredriksholms quarters at Sydhavnen (Ramsing 1940, Vol.

I:38 et seq.; Kjersgaard 1980:15; Christophersen 1985:12 et seq.). Some scattered archaeological evidence of

prehistoric settlements is also to be found within the old city area. The occasional stray find has also been unearthed

in this area.



Caused by the Littorina Sea’s distribution the prerequisites for Neolithic remains are extremely limited. The Bronze

and Iron Age elements are also few, and can be interpreted as destroyed graves (cf. Christophersen 1985:12 et seq.).

The area around Utterslev, Brønshøjholm and Brønshøj is particularly rich in settlements and barrows. The clearest

archaeological evidence of Iron Age settlements and graves is also to be found here.

Archaeological investigations of the oldest historical Copenhagen have for many years held a naturally dominant

position among archaeologists working within the city. In contrast, the study and observations of the city's prehistoric

finds have been left significantly in the background. The discovery of a flint arrowhead from Rigshospitalet (the

National Hospital) testifies to the fact that people have frequented the area for more than 12 000 years, but actual

settlements seem to appear only from the later part of the Mesolithic period nearly 8 000 years ago with the finds

from Frihavnen occupying a prominent position (cf. Rosenkjær 1893, 1896; Andersen 1985).

Notwithstanding these limitations, the assemblage affords important evidence of prehistoric settlement activity

within the limits of Copenhagen. Also, patterns can be teased out of this material, which have chronological import

and consequently corroborates inferences drawn on the basis of the formal tool types.

11.2.1 Stone Age finds from central Copenhagen In 1928 an article appeared with the first full description of finds from the prehistoric period in Copenhagen, Under

Asfalt og Brostene, in which Kjær summarized the state of research at the time (Kjær 1928). In 1939, Troels-Smith

discussed in some detail a number of Mesolithic sites on Amager and their relationship to shoreline displacement

(Troels-Smith 1939). The following year, Ramsing could refer in his three-volume work Københavns Historie og

Topografi to the new discovery of a worked antler from Middlegrunden, which for many years was considered the

oldest find in Copenhagen (Ramsing 1940, Vol I:38 et seq.). Ramsing’s works continued to be central for an

understanding of the city's prehistoric development and it is only in 1985 that Knud Andersen threw new light on the

findings from Frihavnen (Andersen 1985:42 et seq.). The investigation – and subsequent fieldwork in 1991–1992

showed that there had been at least two settlements from the second half of the Mesolithic period. In 2004, trial

excavations at Amager Strandpark revealed remains of a large Mesolithic settlement (Dencker 2006). Most recently

Stensager has summarized the current state of knowledge regarding Mesolithic finds in Copenhagen (Stensager 2004).

More than 110 Stone Age find spots are currently known in the municipality of Copenhagen of which around 30 are

find spots in the central part of the city. While most are single finds, there seems to be at least one Ertebølle locality at

Nytorv/Frederiksberggade, 550 m SW of Kongens Nytorv (Københavns Sogn, Sokkelund Herred, Københavns Amt, SB

nr. 14). In 1907, a blade core and two blades were found here at a depth of app. 3.7 metres. In connection with

archaeological excavations of the old town hall (also Nytorv) by Chr. Axel Jensen in 1937, 71 pieces of flint were

collected, mainly larger blades and flakes and an edge flake from a core axe. Unfortunately, finds information is sparse

and it is likely that the flints were merely casually collected during the course of the excavation. The existence of a

settlement site at Nytorv was confirmed after the construction of bunkers just opposite the court house in 1944. On

this occasion, 88 blades and flakes were retrieved. Although none of these works documented the exact position and

context of the finds, there is little doubt that a settlement site was located on the beach under and around the later

town hall. The flints are reported as patinated. The flints would be part of a larger complex which was lost in

connection with the many conversions of the square. Other assumed settlement remains from central Copenhagen

(the medieval parts) involving lithics have been retrieved at Amaliegade 13, Farvergade 15, Gammeltorvs Apotek,

Kattesundet and Slotsholmen (Kjær 1928, 112-113; Stensager 2004). Outside central Copenhagen, a significant

assemblage from the Ertebølle period and the Neolithic period has been found at Frederiksholms Teglværk in

Sydhavnen (Larsen 1947). The Ertebølle flint was white-patinated while this was not the case for the Neolithic material

(Stensager 2004:4).



11.2.2 A Late Mesolithic “activity spot” or camp site at Kongens Nytorv

Although it is not anticipated that there are significant remains of prehistoric date at Kongens Nytorv, there are low

levels of activity in the form of residual artefacts. There may also be evidence of occupation as the site lies in an area

surrounded by wetlands/marshlands. Locations similar to these can be places of preferential activity during the

prehistoric period as they provide ample resources for hunting, fishing and foraging. Such satellite locations are well

known from Mesolithic contexts previously.

The lack of a distinct Early Mesolithic component, such as microblades, microblade cores, microburins and microliths,

suggests that most or all of the assemblage from Kongens Nytorv perhaps should be dated to the later part of the

Mesolithic and to the Middle and Late Neolithic. Finds of flint tools and debitage have indeed shown that current

central Copenhagen was visited or lived on, on several occasions during the Stone Age. The first visitors may have

arrived in the area from around 6000 BC as attested, for instance, by the find of a rhomboid core axe from

Fredericiagade, transverse arrowheads from Rådhuspladsen and the finds from Frihavnen. How the findings should be

interpreted, we can only guess. Many recovered flints are stray finds and there is often uncertainty about the

circumstances in which they have been found. This is the reason why potential settlement indicators, as fragmented

as the material may be, are so significant when found within the urban environment.

Based on the current evidence, it seems certain that hunters moved along the former Øresund coastline and perhaps

stayed at small settlements for short periods to extract food and other resources from the coastal environment, and

to knap flint. Late Mesolithic find spots show a maritime preference both in terms of elevation and location for near-

shore locations. Early and Later Neolithic find spots are located in the same areas, but generally these sites are found

at higher elevations and more inland in relation to the coastline.

The displacement of the coastline became an important aspect of life during the Late Mesolithic and would also have

affected the locality at Kongens Nytorv. It is unclear whether the flint was deposited in a settlement area with a

subsequent light rearrangement during a sea level rise or whether the flint was transported within sediment transfers

to Kongens Nytorv from a different location. A few lithics from the excavation have been found in geological layers,

with one identified as a “transgression layer” (SD93752). Lithics from these contexts are clearly patinated, which lends

support to the suggestion that at least some, if not most, lithics were originally deposited around Kongens Nytorv,

despite the fact that many of the lithics later were redeposited into secondary contexts. There are no discernible

differences in form and technology between the patinated and unpatinated flints. While no evidence of actual

habitation sites belonging to the Mesolithic have been found in the area, the flints’ marine-affected patina points to

an origin within the zone affected by the sea level rise. The current evidence therefore seems to support the

hypothesis that a Late Mesolithic “activity spot” or camp site proper at Kongens Nytorv was inundated and disturbed

on one or several occasions by marine transgression (cf. Christensen 1995:15 et seq.).

The Neolithic site's location in the beach zone along with the lack of burnt flint or charcoal argues that the activities do

not represent a main settlement and the vast majority of the worked flint belongs to this activity.

kongens nytorv - cphmuseum.kk.dk · 12.1.6 levelling and activity layers 141 12.2 overall...

Documents