Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ever since the use of the »clinker-built« term in the nautical terminology of the 18th and 19th c., the point
was expressly made that it denotes a specific method of hull strakes assemblage where one strake is fast-
ened to the adjacent one through overlapping. During the 20th c., the term was elevated even to a higher
theoretical ground, by being presented as a method of boatbuilding practiced within a defined region of
the world, namely N. Europe. Lately, the term was even attached to a certain »philosophy« emanating from
a perceived continuity in N.-European boatbuilding practices for more than two millennia. All this, led to
the actual widespread belief that the »clinker-built« method, from its inception, is tantamount to the Scan-
dinavian cultural element throughout its history. In a nutshell, a method of hull timber joining is regarded
as a theoretical boatbuilding concept tied to a certain ethnic group. No answers are provided, however,
about how this boatbuilding method was born, how it reflects the previous boatbuilding traditions that
precedes it, and not least, why the archaeological record about this technological transition is so poor pre-
cisely in Scandinavia?
These questions related to the appearance and development of this boatbuilding method are answered in
the following pages with a focus on the archaeological and ethnographic evidence that may illuminate the
origin of the clinker method in boatbuilding 1.
The specialist literature abounds with clinker terminology, although its usage can be strictly classified in two
categories: the first usage is related to the term understood to define a conceptual approach in historical
boatbuilding, while the second regards it as a method of plank joining in a hull. As for the first usage, the
term is tied to the building process related to the construction of a hull. To paraphrase the words of O. Crum-
lin-Pedersen (pers. comm., Roskilde 2004), the clinker method of construction »must have started with a
process that in itself created the double-pointed hull with its sweeping lines and curved bottom contour, and
which demanded internal support by symmetrical and regularly spaced elements across«. According to this
theoretical inference, the diagnostic features of the clinker boatbuilding concept are:
– double-ended hull shape with a rockered keel, visible sheer, and incurved stems;
– backbone of keel and curved stems and overlapped strakes (fastened with iron rivets);
– light framing system with floors regularly spaced and placed symmetrical against the keel;
– light, resilient hull structure.
These features are seen as »Nordic clinker construction«, meaning that the clinker method is a Scandina-
vian invention, where the concept is characterized by the existence of symmetry in both longitudinal and
transverse planes (implicitly also in the vertical plane) of a four-timber structure (keel, posts, planking, and
framing). Lightness and resiliency are properties derived from the previous characteristics, and as such, they
do not play a primary definitional role.
After setting these benchmarks for the »Nordic ship«, O. Crumlin-Pedersen (2004: 56) tries to pinpoint the
origin of the concept, but is forced to recognize that the origin of the »Nordic clinker tradition« is a difficult
In addition, there is the issue of geographic representativity. The strength of the Nordic origin theory of the
clinker concept is drawn mostly from the archaeological evidence unearthed in Scandinavia. However, the
defining characteristics of »clinker-built construction« (double-ended hull, regularly-spaced framing, sheer
line, incurving stems) are not topical to N. Europe, as they are shown by the Roman Period 2 shipwreck from
Golo, Corsica (Fig. 1). This find is unusual because it shows mortice-and-tenon joinery that resembles the
hypothetical evenly spaced mortice-and-tenon joints from the Bronze Age Uluburun shipwreck in a hull that
displays features regarded characteristic to the Nordic clinker construction, such as the regular spacing
between the frames at ca. 1 m interval 3, feature claimed to be proper only for the »clinker built« hulls.
Important to note also is that the positioning of the end framing follows the curvature of the posts, this
resulting in the skewed position of the framing from the perpendicular, feature characteristic to Viking Age
(Oseberg, Gokstad) and medieval ships (Skuldelev 1, Ellingå) from N. Europe. Without its keelson, and with
an oar propulsion, the hull e.g. of the Golo vessel resembles the Nydam-type craft built and sailed, none-
theless, far away from the Nordic clinker construction area. In spite of its uniqueness, this find can be scar-
cely regarded as a singular event, and although it could have been built in some »exotic« parts of the
Graeco-Roman world, the vessel is not the only one showing a double-ended hull concept. On the basis of
its resemblance with the textually-mentioned camara 4, L. Basch suggested it could originate from the Black
Sea (Basch 1973: 331).
One other vessel, exhibiting a double-ended hull with elegant up-curving posts is the small freighter from
Barland’s Farm, displaying similar joints between keel and posts, a double-ended hull profile, a regular
framing interval, and skewed framing in the hull ends (Nayling & McGrail 2004: 85).
If one wishes to look through a more global perspective, there is also the evidence from the Pacific, where
the ethnographically documented Kiribati canoe from the Solomon Islands displays the same features
thought particular only to Nordic shipbuilding (double-ended hull, elegant up-curving stems, regular fram-
ing etc.).
The evidence of all of the above leads to the conclusive remark that, with the notable exception of the over-
lapped planking, all the other »diagnostic« traits of the Nordic clinker construction, are present in earlier
vessels not originating in the N. countries and moreover, being part of other »non-clinker« traditions:
Summing up these and other definitions, the clinker construction as a boatbuilding method is defined by
the presence of two important features (Fig. 2):
1. the overlapping of the edges of two adjacent strakes/planks and
2. the rivets driven through that overlap.
As in the case with the other diagnostic features, these are also met in other regions and shipbuilding tradi-
tions throughout Europe. The overlapping is documented in pre-Roman and Roman European and Medi-
terranean shipbuilding, and it occurs in hulls at the
– keel joint with the post,
– floor timber joint with the keel,
– keelson joint to floor timber and the keel, and at the
– strake joints.
shows that the boatbuilder took every precaution to prevent the worst nightmare of a boat builder, which
is the opening of the seams under high dynamic stress. The shafts were square in section. No watertight
material was observed in the seam at the time of the excavation, a characteristic of watertight techniques
employed by the Mediterranean shipwrights. What is most interesting, though, is the combination of rivets
and overlapping found in the heart of Roman Gaul, far away even from the Imperial borders with Germania
Libera. In addition, the find antedates the earliest find from N. Europe claimed to exhibit overlapping and
riveting (Nydam A, dated to around A.D. 200). This shows indubitably that the two features diagnostic to
clinker construction appear together first in the Roman Europe, and then afterwards in the »Barbarian
North«. However, the tracks of these two diagnostic features have to be related to earlier finds of Mediter-
ranean shipwrecks exhibiting large rivets used to fasten two or three-element joints in their structure. These
finds seem to cluster mostly in the W. part of the sea, specifically at the mouth of the river Rhône and
around the Thyrenian Sea, and it is not precluded that the technique reached somehow the Mediterranean
shores via the Rhône or other continental tributaries. Double-clenched nails, a feature considered diagno-
stic of the Gallo-Roman shipbuilding tradition are also present in Mediterranean shipwrecks, as well as
those from Roman Britain. If these two types of fasteners are geo-referenced together with the continental
finds exhibiting overlapped strakes, one can visualize the geographical distribution area of these finds all
located within the imperial boundaries of the Roman Empire. This gives an idea of the spatial spread of
Fig. 5 Distribution of vessels displaying rivets (dotted squares), double-clenched nails (i dots), and overlapped strakes (black triangles)
within the boundaries of the Roman Empire (USG DEM background).
these fastening technologies within the imperial boundaries, and also their spatial relationship to those
finds exhibiting hulls with overlapped strakes (Fig. 5).
This situation leads inevitably to the issue of the origin of clinker construction, more precisely the roots of
such boatbuilding technique. In view of the spread of the aforementioned archaeological evidence, one
needs to question not only the interpretative aspects of existing archaeological evidence from N. Europe,
but also the theoretical basis of Humbla’s opinion about the locality of clinker construction, since it seems
quite clear that the roots of the clinker construction method are more diversified and older than the »gene-
alogical theory« he had envisaged.
The existence of identical technological solutions of plank joining and fastening methods in N., Central and
S. Europe, coupled with the absence of clear evidence about the beginnings and the origin of the clinker
construction in N. Europe, indicate that this technological method of hull construction may be the result of
a more complex process than previously thought.
All of the features claimed by the Humbla/Crumlin-Pedersen theory to be diagnostic of the clinker con-
struction, such as the double-ended hull shape, the light framing system with floors regularly spaced and
placed symmetrical in the hull, and the light, resilient hull structure, are in fact major characteristics of
hulls built from lighter materials such as skin and bark. With few notable archaeological exceptions that
have not yet been fully investigated, N. Europe has to date nothing major to present in the domain of skin
and bark boatbuilding, with the notable exception of rock-art representations and the wooden hull of Iron
Age boat from Hjortspring, Denmark (ca. 320 B.C.). Ironically, but not unexpectedly, this Iron Age hull
enshrines not the future »clinker construction« method still to come in N. Europe, but all the characteris-
tics inherited from a skin/bark boatbuilding tradition, and for this reason is to be regarded as a »backward
reflecting mirror« in the genealogical process of the clinker construction method. As the skin/bark hulls
before it, this hull is double-ended, with high, incurving ends, has a very light framing system placed regu-
larly in the hull, and most important, it is a technological hybrid showing how older boatbuilding techno-
logy transited towards the use of new building materials, such as wood. It shows how the role of the
bottom and side stringers in skin/bark hulls were taken by the cleats carved in the inner faces of the large
wooden strakes (Fig. 6), and also how the »blind« method of sewing hides in a hull translated into the
looped stitching of beveled lap joints between limetree strakes and between planking and the massive
hull ends (Fig. 7).
Lorica segmentata appeared in the 1st c. A.D. in response to the increased warfare experienced by the
Roman legions on the European fronts and by the need to increase body protection in face of more lethal
weaponry. Together with it, the rivets as main fasteners appear in the defensive apparel of the Roman
soldier, these being used to connect straps and fittings to the body armour. The best earliest examples are
the Kalkriese fragment in Germany, and the Corbridge lorica in England. Besides body armour, the rivets
were used also in weaponry, more specifically in swords, with imitations of Roman gladii from the later part
of Roman B2 period (first half of the 2nd c. A.D.) being manufactured in Germanic metal workshops. In
Denmark itself, the Møllerup gladius (Roman Early Iron Age B2; 70 to 150 A.D.) is a Germanic imitation
featuring rivets on the scabbard strap.
Round-headed rivets with profiled roves used in the construction of Early Roman period shields are typical
grave finds in Denmark and N. Germany during the B1 period (1st c. A.D.). Riveted shield bosses and straps
were also unearthed in Torstedlund (Ålborg County) and Brøndum (Viborg County), Denmark, while the
riveted shield-boss from Erritsø displayed copper rivets as principal fasteners. These and other finds all over
the Barbaricum suggest that round-headed copper or silver rivets became signs of varied and prestigious
weapon offerings in graves during the later part of the Early Roman Age (60 to 220 A.D.), and that the rivet,
as preferred fastener, has a long use-history going back to the ceremonial wagon fragments found at Sesto
Calende (ca. 600 B.C.), on the Italian peninsula. Here one can notice, the thin metal foil used to secure the
outer shape of the finial. The foil was fastened to the wood with round-headed rivets, the free end of these
rivets being hammered over the foil, a technique seen in the later ship-related find from Bordeaux.
Hammering the cut end over a rove is the final step in the process of riveting two strakes in a hull as the
experimental riveting of the Skuldelev 2 replica in Roskilde shows (Fig. 9). However, the use of low-grade
iron alloys permitted also the hammering in place of the free end of the shaft without the use of a rove. The
appearance of the rivet technology can be pushed even further back in time, when it was used in weapon
manufacture in the Greek Bronze Age LM IIIA (ca. 1400 B.C.). The swords manufactured at that time display
tang nuts in form of rivets with hammered ends. The rivets have therefore an established past in the tech-
nological know-how of both the Roman-influenced and Non-Roman Europe, and it may be assumed that
the technological resemblance of iron fasteners used in vessels from Roman and Non-Roman Europe, such
as the similarity of nail morphology (head, shaft, length, nailing interval) between Woerden 7 (A.D. 155)
and Nydam B (ca. A.D. 320) can be ascribed to a kind of cultural mimesis that started with the heavy use
of iron fasteners by the Gallo-Roman boat builders in inland shipbuilding. In the course of the process of
In chronological terms, one can construct a traceable path from the first use of rivets in 110 B.C. in the
Mediterranean shipbuilding and ending with the Nydam B vessels dated largely to the 3rd c. A.D. Through-
out this time span the two diagnostic features of clinker construction »travelled« their way northwards
through the inland shipbuilding and the rivers of continental Europe. What is of more interest here,
however, is the process reflected by this kind of »travelling«, process that may explain the genesis of the
clinker construction in N. Europe. One can also adapt to this issue, cultural transfer models, such as the
periphery influential model of P. Brun, which sets the Centre (Roman World) and the Periphery (Non-Roman
Europe) in a clear cultural relationship. The Centre would have acculturated the Periphery, represented by
the Central-European Celtic cultures in the centuries preceding our era. Afterwards, this acculturated pe-
riphery would have bridged, in cultural terms, the Roman and Non-Roman Europe. In shipbuilding terms,
this would have been translated into the adoption of rivets and the perfection of an otherwise local form
of overlapping as the culminant traits of the clinker construction method that was to become so pervasive
in N. Europe for the centuries to come.
The genesis of the clinker construction method of boatbuilding in N. Europe, thus, seems to have been a
technological syncretism of hugely temporal dimensions, involving sometimes a straight transition from
softer to harder materials, and sometimes a more complex transmission of technical traits through techno-
logical intermediaries (Plate 4, 3). The main »ingredients« of this method of boatbuilding are:
1. the symmetrical framing inherited from the »soft« boatbuilding (hide, bark etc.) coupled with a form of
element joining in the hull (bevelled lap),
2. the hull lightness from the continental expanded logboat, and
3. the full overlap and the use of iron fasteners as main strake fasteners from the continental European
cultural agents.
NOTES
1) The work presented herein was the result of a joint research 2) The boat from Golo (Mariana) is thought as being built in B.C.,
project between the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum in but until a more secure dating is offered, the boat is here treat-
Mainz and the Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde carried out in ed as an early Roman Period vestige. For pre-Roman dating cf.
2005 at both locations. Dell’Amico 2008.
5) Cf. Nayling & McGrail 2004: 52-58 on the reconstruction of the 8) The dendrochronological analysis was carried out at the Bor-
Barland’s Farm boat (ca. A.D. 300). deaux Dendrochronology Laboratory by B. Szepertyski.
6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinker_(boat_building).
REFERENCES
Basch, L., 1973, The Golo wreck and sidelights on other ancient Humbla, P. & von Post, L., 1937, Galtabäcksbåten och tidigt båt-
ships culled from Admiral Paris’ Souvenirs de marine conserves. bygger i Norden. Göteborgs Kungl. Vetenskaps- och Vitterhets-
IJNA, 2.2, 329-344. samhälles Handlingar, vol. A 6.1. Göteborg.
Nayling, N. & McGrail, S., 2004, The Barland’s Farm Romano-
Crumlin-Pedersen, O., 2004, Nordic Clinker Construction. In: F. M.
Celtic Boat. CBA, Res. Report, no. 138. York.
Hocker & C. A. Ward (eds), The Philosophy of Shipbuilding. Con-
ceptual approaches to the study of wooden ships. College Sta- Nucci, F. & Orsini, S., 2003, Les fouilles de Mariana (XII) – Informa-
tion/Texas, 37-63. tions nouvelles sur l’épave antique retrouvée près de Mariana.
Cahiers Corsica, no. 209-210.
Dell’Amico, P., 2008, Rivistazione del relitto di Golo ed alcune con-
Sibella, P., Atkins, J. & Szepertyski, B., 2006, Contributions of mari-
siderazioni in merito. Archaeologia Maritima Mediterranea, 5,
time archaeology to the study of an Atlantic port: Bordeaux and
13-22.
its reused boat timbers. In: ISBSA, 10, 290-294.
Hasslöf, O., 1970, Huvudlinjer i skeppsbyggnadskonstens tekno- Tchernia, A, et al., 1978, L’épave romaine de la Madrague de
logi. In: O. Hasslöf et al. (eds), Sømand, Fisker, Skib og Værft – Giens, Fouilles de l’Institut d’archéologie méditerranéenne.
Introduktion til Maritim Etnologi. København, 28-73. XXXIV e supplément à GALLIA. Paris.
ofi.barkai@gmail.com crumlin@c.dk
Ronald Bockius
Tomasz Bednarz Forschungsbereich Antike Schiffahrt Deborah Cvikel
Centralne Muzeum Morskie Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies
ul. Ołowianka 9-13 Neutorstraße 2b University of Haifa
PL - 80-751 Gdańsk D - 55116 Mainz IL - 31905 Haifa
t.bednarz@cmm.pl bockius@mufas.de dcvikel@research.haifa.ac.il
XXI
Aoife Daly Marc Guyon Inese Karklina
Center for Maritime Institut National des Recherches Latvijas Universitate
og Regionale Studier Archéologiques Préventive Kundzinsala 13, Linija 9-2
Syddansk Universitet 12, rue Louis Maggiorini LV - 1005 Riga
Fuglsang Alle 111 F - 69 500 Bron inesekarklina@inbox.lv
DK - 2700 Brønshøj marc.guyon2@wanadoo.fr
dendro@dendro.dk
Peter Kaute
Fred Hocker Landesamt für Kultur
Robert Domżal Vasamuseet und Denkmalpflege
Centralne Muzeum Morskie Box 27131 Dezernat Bodendenkmalpflege
ul. Ołowianka 9-13 S - 102 52 Stockholm Domhof 4/5
PL - 80-751 Gdańsk fred.hocker@smm.se D - 19055 Schwerin
r.domzal@cmm.pl stadtarchaeologie@archaeologie-mv.de
Olaf Höckmann
Taunusstraße 39 Stefanie Klooß
Anton Englert
D - 55118 Mainz Römisch-Germanische Kommission des
Vikingeskibsmuseet
u.hoeck@t-online.de Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
Vindeboder 12
DK - 4000 Roskilde Palmengartenstraße 10-12
ae@vikingeskibsmuseet.dk Karin Hornig D - 60325 Frankfurt am Main
Jacob-Burckhardt-Straße 5 stefanie.klooss@gmx.de
D - 79098 Freiburg
Thomas Förster karin.hornig@archaeologie.
Ufuk Kokaba
Deutsches Meeresmuseum uni-freiburg.de
İstanbul Üniversitesi
Katharinenberg 14-20
Edebiyat Fakültesi
D - 18439 Stralsund
Kate Hunter Taşınabilir Kültür Varlıklarını Koruma
t.foerster@imail.de
The Newport Ship Unit ve Onarım Bölümü
22, Maesglas Industrial Estate Ordu Caddesi
Damian Goodburn GB - Newport NP20 2NN TR - 34459 Laleli-Istanbul
Museum of London – Specialist Services kate.hunter@newport.gov.uk ufukk@istanbul.edu.tr
Mortimer Wheeler House
46 Eagle Wharf Road
George Indruszewski Rosemarie Leineweber
GB - London N1 7ED
Dronning Emmas Vej 6 Landesamt für Denkmalpflege
danagb@msn.com
DK - 4000 Roskilde und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt
gin88@hotmail.com Richard-Wagner-Straße 9
D - 06114 Halle
Daniela Gräf
rleineweber@lda.mk.lsa-net.de
Schierker Straße 20 Hanus Jensen
D - 12051 Berlin Vikingeskibsmuseet
danielagraef@genion.de Vindeboder 12 Christian Lemée
DK - 4000 Roskilde Bakkedraget 69
hj@vikingeskibsmuseet.dk DK - 4000 Roskilde
Frédéric Guibal
christianlemee@hotmail.com
Institut Méditerranéen d’Ecologie
et de Paléoécologie Yaakov Kahanov
CNRS, UMR 6116 Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Jerzy Litwin
Universités d’Aix-Marseille I et III Studies Centralne Muzeum Morskie
Avenue Louis Philibert BP 80 University of Haifa ul. Ołowianka 9-13
F - 13545 Aix-en-Provence IL - 31905 Haifa PL - 80-751 Gdańsk
frederic.guibal@univ-cezanne.fr yak@research.haifa.ac.il j.litwin@cmm.pl
XXII
Luc Long Nigel Nayling Irena Radić Rossi
Département des Recherches Department of Archaeology Hrvatski restauratorski zavod Odjel
Archéologiques Subaquatiques and Anthropology za podvodnu arheologiju u Zagrebu
et Sous-Marines University of Wales Cvijte Zuzoric 43
Fort St-Jean GB - Lampeter SA48 7ED HR - 1000 Zagreb
F - 13235 Marseille n.nayling@lamp.ac.uk iradic@h-r-z.hr
luc.long@culture.gouv.fr
XXIII
Giannina Schindler John Starkie Robert Van de Noort
Landesamt für Kultur und 3 Colebrook Place Department of Archaeology
Denkmalpflege Guildford Road, Ottershaw University of Exeter
Dezernat Bodendenkmalpflege GB - Chertsey KT16 1OQ Laver Building, North Park Road
Domhof 4/5 john.starkie@mouchelparkman.com GB - Exeter EX4 4QE
D - 19055 Schwerin r.van-de-noort@ex.ac.uk
stadtarchaeologie@archaeologie-mv.de
Wilfried Stecher
Im Winkel 8 Cheryl Ward
D - 21717 Fredenbeck Department of Anthropology
Patricia Sibella The Florida State University
seeteufel04@aol.com
Institut Ausonius – Maison de
USA - Tallahassee, Florida 32306-7772
l'Archéologie
cward@fsu.edu
Université Michel de Montaigne
Morten Sylvester
11, rue Turenne
Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige uni-
F - 33000 Bordeaux James Wharram
versitet Vitenskapsmuseet
psibella@hotmqail.com James Wharram Designs
Seksjon for aekeologi og kulturhist.
Greenbank Road, Devoran
N - 7491 Trondheim
GB - Truro TR3 6PJ
morten.sylvester@vm.ntnu.no
Petr Sorokin hboon@btconnect.com
Institute of the History of Material
Culture Katrin Thier Timm Weski
Russian Academy of Science Oxford English Dictionary Bayerisches Landesamt
Dvorzovaya nab. 18 Oxford University Press für Denkmalpflege
RU - St. Petersburg Great Clarendon Street Hofgraben 4
petrsorokin@yandex.ru GB - Oxford OX2 6DP D - 80538 München
katrin.thier@oup.com timm.weski@blfd.bayern.de
Maik-Jens Springmann
Darina L. Tully Julian Whitewright
Historisches Institut
Saor Ollscoil na Èireann Centre for Maritime Archaeology
Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität
1 Mayville Terrace University of Southampton
Domstraße 9a
Leslie Avenue Avenue Campus, Highfield
D - 17487 Greifswald
IRL - Dalkey, Dublin GB - Southampton SO17 1BJ
archsa@gmx.de
darinat1588@eircom.net r.j.whitewright@soton.ac.uk
XXIV