DIYbanter - View Single Post

[email protected]

wrote:
wrote:

URL:http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/courses/arch140/2006/Documents/Lectures/PDFs/2006%20pdfs/04Lect_ThermalMass_GB_2006%20-%20slides.pdf#search=%22climate%20data%20guadix%22

Now there are examples of semi-subternnaean homes used in northern
climes: Viking Farmhouses in Iceland, pre-celtic stone houses in the
Orkneys; and even in modern times the Norwegians and Swedes do have
turf-roof houses, but subterranean houses where it is cool and damp
don't work well without a lot of expensive work to prevent water
penetration.

The Viking farmhouses in Iceland were not underground at all and they
were built of timber, the later turf houses were also not underground
in any sense either.

Góðan dag sigvald. Coming from .is, you ought to know.

However, as I understand it, there is/was little timber in Iceland, so
as little as possible was used in construction. The method, as far as I
know, was to find a low hill and dig into it, or failing that, just dig
a hole in the ground. This was lined with stone. The above ground
walls were made of turf, as was the roof, minimising the use of timber.
The house was not fully underground - more like half, and as the wall
and roof were made of turf, it would look almost as though the house
were just a small hillock. Possibly I'm confusing farmhouses, built if
timber was more plentiful, with pit-houses, but the principle of a
half-sunk (semi-subterranean) house holds. I'm certainly not trying to
say that long-houses were half-sunk.

If I'm wrong, please do say.

Sid