Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2007, Side 37

Nails, Rivets, and Clench Bolts: A Case for Typological Clarity
the more lengthy descriptions of artifact
morphology in the catalog or detailed
study of the actual artifact.
Specific details will illustrate the
issue of descriptive consistency. The Icelan-
dic terms used to classiíy nails, rivets, and
clench bolts are ‘bátasaumur' (boat nails),
‘hnoðnagli’ (riveting-nail), ‘hnoðsaumur’
(riveting-nail), ‘naglf (nail), and ‘rónaglf
(nut- or rove- nail). Although ostensibly
defined and differentiated by their formal
meaning, these terms appear in the Ice-
landic archives as overlapping categories.
One ramification of this is the cataloging
of clench bolts in all of the aforementioned
categories, ‘bátasaumur,’ ‘hnoðnagli'
‘hnoðsaumur’ ‘nagli’ and ‘rónagli’
In Archaeological Typology and
Practical Reality: a Dialectical Approach
to Artifact Classification and Sorting
(1991), William and Ernest Adams stress
that a useful typology must consist of dis-
crete artifact types, identifiable by diag-
nostic features. There should be no pos-
sibility that an artifact belongs to more
than one type.3 Cataloging an artifact that
cannot be grouped into any of the types
within a typology should result in the
creation of a new type that stresses the
unique nature of the artifact. Adams and
Adams (1991: Ch. 4) assert that a consist-
ent system of classification provides the
foundation for artifact analysis, allowing
for the quantification and subsequent sta-
tistical analysis of artifact types. The ter-
minology used must consistently respect
the morphological differences exhibited
by the various artifact types and distin-
guish the unique functions that can be
inferred from the morphology. In an iron
collection with such similar objects as
nails, rivets, and clench bolts, a strict ter-
minological protocol would help to limit
observer bias. The widespread lack of
attention to distinguishing between nails,
rivets, and clench bolts has not led to the
adoption of such a protocol, and there-
fore, it can be suspected that collections
of small functional ironwork, in general,
have not been organized in such a way
that would meet the prerequisites for a
useful typology. The typological descrip-
tive variability observed in the Icelandic
collection support this hypothesis. A con-
sistent typology, therefore, must underlie
further scientific study of these iron arti-
facts.
In order to evaluate the artifact
types that were included in each category,
a total of 44 record entries in the National
Museum of Iceland were examined: 1)
all artifacts labeled ‘rónagli ’ 2) all arti-
facts labeled ‘hnoðnagli’ 3) all artifacts
labeled ‘bátasaumur’ 4) a selection of the
artifacts labeled ‘nagli’ Some entries, as
in the boat burials, contained as many as
500 individual artifacts. If the actual arti-
facts were available, they were examined
to determine their identity. If the artifacts
were unavailable, I attempted to identify
them as nails, rivets, or clench bolts by
their physical description and find con-
text, as recorded in the catalog.
Criteria Usedfor the Identification
ofArtifact Types
The 44 artifact entries from the National
Museum were evaluated following the
criteria for identification of nails, rivets
and clench bolts outlined here.
3 Often it may be impossible to securely determine the artifact type because the artifact may be broken or because of iron
corrosion obscuring the morphology of the find. In such a case, x-raying the artifact may be able to reveal more accurately
the original form of the find.
35