Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2007, Blaðsíða 43

Nails, Rivets, and Clench Bolts: A Case for Typological Clarity
photograph that shows only nails. A photo-
graph published in 1991 shows that the
artifacts that Norlund designated as ‘jern-
nagler’ actually include roves and clench
bolts (Nielsen 1991: 132). The National
Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen con-
tains an unpublished catalog of artifacts
from Trelleborg which also uses the inclu-
sive term ‘nagler,’ thereby perpetuating
the terminological simplification. In an
English language example from the publi-
cation Birka IV, Anne-Sophie Gráslund
(1980: 8) separates nails from rivets and
clench bolts, but employs the term ‘rivet’
to refer to both rivets and clench bolts.
This first type of typological inconsisten-
cy, in which several artifact types are
grouped into the same category, obscures
the distinct morphologies of the different
artifact types and renders it impossible to
ascertain the actual identity of the artifacts
without direct observation.
The second terminological prob-
lem, in which several terms are used to
describe a single artifact type, appears in
the publication Fyrkat II, in which Else
Roesdahl (1977) uses the Danish term
‘sam’ for nails, but applies two terms,
‘nagler’ and occasionally ‘klinknagler,’’8 in
reference to clench bolts (e.g. Roesdahl
1977: 85). In Danish, the term ‘nagle’ is
usually used to refer to a rivet, but because
Roesdahl employs this term to refer to
clench bolts, no distinct term remains for
a rivet. The practice of applying several
terms to the same artifact type leads to the
implication that identical artifacts are dif-
ferent, as well as the identification of arti-
fact types with certain terms that are more
appropriate for describing other artifacts.
As a whole, English-language
archaeological publications exhibit the
second terminological problem by using
the terms ‘rivet,’ ‘clench nail,’ and ‘clench
bolt’ to refer to the single clench bolt
artifact type. In general, when writing in
English, Scandinavian scholars tend to
refer to clench bolts as rivets (e.g. Bill
1994; Christensen 2002; Gráslund 1980;
Birkedahl & Johansen 1994). Using the
term ‘rivet’ to refer to a clench bolt is
problematic because it does not distin-
guish between the presence and absence
of a rove and thereby fails to provide
exact terms for different artifacts. Brit-
ish scholars, however, commonly refer
to clench bolts as ‘clench nails’ (e.g.
McGrail 2004; Richards 1991: 115;
Carver 1995). A clench nail is a nail that
has been bent to hold in place. The tech-
nique of clenching a nail to secure tim-
bers without the use of a rove was also
commonly employed in the Middle Ages
(McGrail 2004; Christensen 2002) and as
such is more appropriately considered as
another functional use of the nail artifact
type. The third term referring to the nail
and rove combination is ‘clench bolt,’
favored by the York Archaeological Trust
and associated researchers such as Patrick
Ottaway (1992). The term ‘clench bolt’
has the advantage of indicating the bolt-
ing function and two part composition of
the artifact type, as well as stressing the
unique nature of the artifact type as sepa-
rate from nails, rivets or bent nails.
The terms ‘rivet’ and ‘clench’
have been the source of much terminolog-
ical confusion and inconsistency, which
ultimately derives from the fact that the
two words entered modern English as
words of similar meaning from the Old
French river and Middle English cleynch
(McGrail 2004: 150). The terminologi-
8 Klinknagle is a Danish term that refers to clench bolts employed in the clinker style construction of overlapping wooden
planks characteristic of Norse ships.
41