Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2007, Blaðsíða 44

Davide Zori
cal debate is still lively, as evidenced by
the recently published exchange between
Seán McGrail (2004) and Arne-Emil
Christensen (2002), in which they respec-
tively provide reasons why ‘rivet’ and
‘clench nail’ are inappropriate terms. In
light of the problems inherent in ‘rivet’
and ‘clench nail,’ it is my guess that, when
the dust settles, the term clench bolt will
be found to be the most morphologically
specific and typologically useful.
V. The Interpretive Value of a Nuanced
Typology: An Example from Viking
Age Mortuary Contexts
The analytical benefits and interpretive
potential of employing a terminologi-
cally accurate and consistent typology
that recognizes the differences between
nails, rivets, and clench bolts justifies
the requisite effort needed to establish
such a typology. The foundation for the
interpretive value lies in understanding
the three artifact types as distinct from
each other in morphology and function.
Focusing on clench bolts in Viking Age
graves, this section argues that precise
artifact identification and careful analysis
of the unique functions of these artifacts
can yield new insights into a widespread
mortuary practice. Examples from cem-
eteries across northwestern Europe show
that the phenomenon of clench bolts in
burials has significance beyond the func-
tional level and suggest ritual continuity
with the pagan practice of boat burial.
Burials with clench bolts, often
arrayed in rows, appear in both pagan
and Christian cemeteries from the Mid-
dle Ages across the wider North Sea
region, including Fyrkat and Sebbersund
in Denmark, Hrísbrú and Hófstaðir in
Iceland, Birka in Sweden, and Caistor-on
Sea, Ingleby, Thorpe-by-Norwich, York
Minster, and Barton-on-Humber in east-
ern England (Birkedahl and Johansen
1995: 162-163; Byock et al. 2005;
Carver 1992: 110; Gestsdóttir 2006: 12;
Gráslund 1980: 24; Richards 1991: 115;
Roesdahl 1977: 84, 113;). Clench bolts
in burials are unlikely to derive from cof-
fins, which are more easily built with
nails. In contrast, the construction of a
box with clench bolts is cumbersome and
inefficient, necessitating more iron and
greater labor investment. Clench bolts
join overlapping planks, but cannot fas-
ten together perpendicular planks without
the use of angled mounts for the corner
joints (Figure 6). No angled mounts have
been found in any of the graves contain-
ing clench bolts. The clench bolts must
be the remnants of an object interred in
these graves other than a traditional box-
shaped coffin. This argument has been
supported through accurate identification
and careful recording of the placement
of rows of clench bolts in one grave at
the 9th-10th century cemetery at Birka
on Björkö, Sweden and two graves at the
10th century cemetery at Fyrkat in Jut-
land, Denmark. The analysis of the hard-
ware from these three graves allowed for
the reconstruction of the original shape
of a clinker built wooden object and the
resultant identification of a type of burial
in which the deceased was interred in a
wooden cart (Gráslund 1980: 24; Roes-
dahl 1977: 84, 113).
A number of burials with a dis-
tribution of clench bolts different from
that observed in the wooden cart burials
indicate the inclusion of another type of
clinker built object in graves. Roesdahl
(1977: 111) observed that a burial at
Fyrkat containing three jumbled rows of
clench bolts was different from the cart
burials. The clench bolts had remnants of
42