GEORGE INDRUSZEWSKI

THE ORIGIN OF THE CLINKER HULL CONSTRUCTION

A TECHNOLOGICAL INTERCOURSE OF EUROPEAN DIMENSION

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.

CLINKER CONSTRUCTION ENVISAGED AS A BOATBUILDING CONCEPT

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

The Origin of the Clinker Hull Construction · Indruszewski 409

issue, particularly because of the missing archaeological evidence before the Roman Iron Age in Scandinavia:
»Except for the fourth-century B.C. Hjortspring boat, there is hardly any evidence of Nordic boatbuilding in
the pre-Roman Iron Age. Therefore, it is fair to focus on the boats of the Roman Iron Age and later, to see if
they can supply us with a clue to the establishing of such a strong and persistent complex of features«. Impli-
citly, the author states the fact that up to this moment, the clinker tradition seems to have started without
any transitional period, just »out of the blue«. In order to avoid this situation, which would strongly suggest
technological import into N. Europe, the author turns to the modified logboat, expanded and extended, as
the key to explaining the origin of clinker tradition.
P. Humbla had outlined this theoretical construct already in 1937, when he considered the modified logboat
as the origin and the primary link of the »evolutionary technological chain« of the Nordic clinker tradition
as a response to A. W. Brøgger’s skin-boat theory. This methodological construct has nonetheless its short-
comings. The available archaeological evidence of expanded logboats appears too thin and/or too late at
the moment to permit such an »evolutionary«, chronological ranking not to mention its use to support a
theoretical construct. On the other hand, this theory bears a fundamental contradiction by amalgamating the
Roman Iron Age logboat finds from Scandinavia with the Finnish haapio/esping, since the latter represents not
only another boatbuilding tradition, but is also located outside the Nordic region (Denmark, Sweden, and Nor-
way).
The ethnic geography becomes even more complicated, because the Nordic tradition ought to have spread
»in those areas where Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, and Normans settled«, but the technique »[…] was
also practiced by the W. Slavs […] the Sami (Lapps) and Finns […]«, and in modern times it is also found
on the Iberian Peninsula (Crumlin-Pedersen 2004: 43).
The archaeological evidence from the British Isles, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Belgium, Russia,
Finland, Poland, and other countries shows a far more complex archaeological situation than implied in the
aforementioned sentence. In summing up this theory, one arrives inadvertently to two basic assumptions
employed in its construct:
1. The sum of all four traits is perceived as the main characteristics of vessels from N. Europe over a longer
period of time, hence the tradition. There is a perceived homogeneity in hull shape and construction
method.
2. The sum of all these traits originate from a singular source: the expanded logboat, since its shape and
construction resemble a »Nordic clinker boat« in its infantile form.
From a historiography point of view, this view can be seen as an »inside Scandinavia« belief in a continuous
and unbroken tradition that first and foremost originated in one of the three »Nordic countries«, and
spread afterwards throughout N. Europe through Scandinavian migratory movements. Although this theo-
retical construct draws its robustness from its straightforwardness and a logical developmental sequence
(expanded logboat-planked boat), it does not provide the answer to several crucial questions such as:
– Why is the archaeological record so poor (in such »primary Nordic clinker vessels«) in the supposed core
area, that is Scandinavia?
– Why does the main Nordic fastener, the rivet, appear in N. European shipbuilding around A.D. 200
(Roman period) with no preceding phases?
– Why and how do hulls with overlapping planks appear in N. European contexts about the same time?
– How do these hulls with a riveted strake overlapping reflect the boatbuilding tradition that preceded
them?
– Why is there no conceptual evolution behind both the »root« – the expanded logboat – and its developed
version – the »Nordic« planked boat – for at least two millennia? Both the »root« and the developed
version have hulls whose stability is given by the hull shape.

410 Bockius · ISBSA 11

 Fig. 1 The double-ended hull and incurving stems of Golo shipwreck, Corsica (After Nucci & Orsini 2003).

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:

The Origin of the Clinker Hull Construction · Indruszewski 411

 – the double-ended hull registered in the Romano-Celtic and the
Mediterranean shipbuilding tradition 5;
– framing spaced at regular intervals was also practiced in the
Romano-Celtic and Graeco-Roman tradition;
– backbone made of keel and stems is also present in the Graeco-
Roman tradition.
On this basis, these traits cannot be considered as diagnostic for
the »clinker construction«, therefore one needs here to turn to
the issue of overlapping and plank joining as the main techno-
logical playground for defining clinker construction. This area
was already explored in the specialist literature, and is referred to
here as the second usage of the term clinker, whereas »clinker«
means specifically a method of joining planks within a coherent
hull. Its definition is illustriously contained in O. Hasslöf’s words
about clinker construction (1970: 65), who regarded it more
»strake-oriented« than »boat-oriented«: »The strakes are assem-
bled overlapped […] with nails clenched over roves from inside
Fig. 2 Diagnostic features of clinker construc-
the hull. […] This assembly method is called to clinker/clinch. This
tion: overlapping secured by rivets. working stage is thought to have given the whole process the
name of clinker construction method«.
His definition lays the basic ground for most modern encyclo-
paedic definitions of clinker construction in boatbuilding, as
shown in the following passage: »Clinker building is a method of constructing hulls of boats and ships by
fixing wooden planks, and in the early nineteenth century, iron plates to each other so that theplanks
overlap along their edges. The overlapping joint is called a land. In any but a very small boat, the individual
planks will also be joined end to end; the whole length of one of these composite planks is a strake. The
technique developed in northern Europe and was successfully used by the Vikings. The Tang (7th century
AD) and Song (9-11th century AD) Chinese developed the technique independently. The construction
method is known in some places as lapstrake« 6.

THE DIAGNOSTIC FEATURES OF »CLINKER CONSTRUCTION«

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.

412 Bockius · ISBSA 11

Overlapping was documented in continental European shipbuilding dated to the Roman Period, specifically
in the pram-type vessel from Zwammerdam (Zwammerdam 2 dated to ca. A.D. 200, Zwammerdam 3 to
A.D. 200, Zwammerdam 4 to A.D. 97, and Zwammerdam 6 dated to A.D. 200) and Woerden (Woerden 1
[A.D. 175], Woerden 3 [A.D. 200], Woerden 7 [A.D. 155]). Another barge from Belgium, Pommeroeul 1
(A.D. 100), shows a strong rail construction and a stern cabin with a roof made of overlapped oaken
boards.
Extension with an overlapped side strake is met also in logboats (e.g. the extended logboat Pommeroeul 3,
around A.D. 100) and in barge-type vessels, both belonging to inland continental craft. Overlapping, as a
convenient joining method, was also used in building up the sides of the interesting barge from Xanten-
Lüttingen (A.D. 275). All these finds point to the Lower Rhine region as the earliest region in Europe where
joining through overlapping was preferred in building up the upper sides of the hull. To these finds, one
can add the most important find from Mainz Kappelhof (Mainz 6) where the hull is shown to have an irre-
gularly-shaped sheer strake overlapped to the main side-strake on each side of the hull. Dendrodated to or
after A.D. 81, this find is the earliest from continental Europe that exhibits an overlapped sheer strake. Its
place of discovery, also on the Rhine middle course, seems to be the best indication so far, that the impe-
rial borders were in fact places of technological exchanges between the advanced technologies of the
Romans and those of the »barbarians« inhabiting Non-Roman Europe.
For comparison purposes, one should remember here, that overlapping as a method of timber joining
appears in N.-European contexts apparently around A.D. 200 (the Nydam A broken vessel) and certainly
around A.D. 320 (Nydam B oaken vessel). Afterwards, the method is met increasingly in N.-European ship-
building in
– keel scarfs (Vendel period),
– floor joint with planking, and in
– strake joints and scarfs.
The second diagnostic attribute of the clinker construction method is the use of rivets in shipbuilding.
While not physically preserved, the rivets were claimed to have been the strake joint fasteners for
Nydam B and other later finds in N. Europe. However, the rivet as a timber fastener appears for the first
time in S. Europe, most specifically in the Mediterranean realm. The rivets were documented as fasteners
between keel and floor timbers in the Dramont E shipwreck (A.D. 423; Santamaria 1995), Dramont F
(ca. A.D. 400), the Merovingian shipwreck from St. Gervais B (A.D. 612; 17 out of a total of 27 floor tim-
bers). Large rivets (bolts) were also used in fastening the keel-floor timbers-keelson bolted together (Jeze-
gou 1983). The Heliopolis A (A.D. 350) shipwreck showed even bolted scarfs (Joncheray 1997). Copper
rivets were found securing principal floors to the backbone of La Bourse de Marseille hull dated to
ca. A.D. 200 (Cuomo & Gassend 1983). The most representative example, however, comes from the
impressive shipwreck from Madrague de Giens (dated ca. 60 B.C.) showing interesting framing sections
with bolts with square roves that fasten them to the keel below. There is no contact between the two
joining elements, suggesting that the fastening occurred after the floor was inserted into the pre-assem-
bled hull (Fig. 3).
Nevertheless, the most interesting find comes not from the seawaters of the Mediterranean but from Conti-
nental Europe, more precisely from the Bordeaux estuary. The Bordeaux artefact no. 1017-1018 7 represents
reused plank fragments dendrodated to after A.D. 174 (Fig. 4) 8. The two strakes (strake width ca. 45 to
47 cm, max. preserved length: 3.74 m, plank thickness: ca. 5cm) are joined through an overlap of ca. 8 to
9 cm secured by ca. 12 cm-long rivets with a shaft diameter of ca. 0.7 to 1 cm and with an average fasten-
ing interval of ca. 21 cm. The almost round, deformed head together with the hammered free end of the
shaft locked each rivet in its place. The hammered end and the head have similar diameters, and this clearly

The Origin of the Clinker Hull Construction · Indruszewski 413

Fig. 3 Floors secured by large rivets in the 1st c. B.C. Madrague de Giens shipwreck (After Tchernia 1978).

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

414 Bockius · ISBSA 11

Fig. 4 The »clinkered« plank fragments from Bordeaux (After Sibella et al. 2006).

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,

The Origin of the Clinker Hull Construction · Indruszewski 415

 Fig. 6 Hjortspring section with a combined wood and hide skin (Drawing U. Kessel).

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.

ROOTS OF CLINKER CONSTRUCTION

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.

The skin and bark component

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).

416 Bockius · ISBSA 11

In spite of the change in building material and of the
appearances, the wooden hull of the Hjortspring
vessel was not a genuine shell-first construction,
and its assembly sequence must have started with
some form of moulding that gave and held the
initial shape of the mounted lime-tree strakes.
Again, one meets here the same principle and con-
struction sequence employed in the skin/bark boat-
building.
This is the most direct and unique evidence of the
transformation processes that made the Iron Age
wooden hulls to contain some of the »seeds« and
the technological premises of the future clinker con-
struction, and it may be that this skin and bark
component is the most local of all the technological
components of the aforesaid construction.

The modified logboat component

Fig. 7 Hjortspring seam reconstructed after Rosenberg and
Originally used by the Finno-Ugric groups in the
Alsie project (Drawing U. Kessel).
large forested regions of Siberia, the expanded
logboat »arrived« sometime during the final Bronze
Age on the E. Baltic shores becoming very popular
with the proto-Finns, the proto-Eastern Balts, and
the proto-Eastern Slavic groups. Its main characteri-
stic was an incredible lightness much appreciated by
these semi-nomad people. In its most simple form,
the expanded logboat has no added strakes, nor
framing. It simply resembles a »wooden sheath«
and this can still be seen today among the Ostjak
group populating the banks of the Middle and
Lower Obi River in N. Siberia (Fig. 8). Its elegant,
double-ended hull is sufficiently light for one person
to carry it and one can envisage that hulls of the
Hjortspring type were the result of the »meeting«
between the skin/boat skeleton and the light, resi- Fig. 8 An expanded Khanti/Ostjak logboat in the Middle Obi
lient wooden hull of such logboats. region (Photo A. Y. Filtchenko).

The fastener component

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 Origin of the Clinker Hull Construction · Indruszewski 417

 Fig. 9 Closing a rivet’s free
end over a rove in Skuldelev
2 reconstruction (Photo
W. Karrasch).

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

418 Bockius · ISBSA 11

technological transfer, the Legion camps located along the N. Frontier must have been main centres where
this transaction was negotiated (Plate 4, 1).
The review of the published material related to rivets and overlapping indicates, so far, that both diagno-
stic features of the clinker construction – strake overlapping and rivets – appear for the first time in conti-
nental Europe. Rivets seem to occur in relationship to all structural parts of a hull, and also in all instances
related to the hull construction phases. The earliest rivets used in shipbuilding are those used to fasten
internal skeleton timbers to the keel, and the evidence up to now comes, paradoxically, not from N., but
from S. Europe, specifically W. Mediterranean. The earliest overlapped strake construction comes also from
continental Europe, namely from Mainz, Germany and Pommeroeul, Belgium. It is safe, therefore, to
assume on this basis, that the rivets, as main fasteners, »returned« to the Barbarian Europe, and in the last
instance to N. Europe as the last component that brought to fulfillment the clinker construction method
(Plate 4, 2).

THE TECHNO-GENESIS OF CLINKER CONSTRUCTION

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.

The Origin of the Clinker Hull Construction · Indruszewski 419

3) Measured centre-to-centre. Nucci & Orsini (2003: 20) give an
approximate value of 0.8m between frames.
4) Tacitus, hist., 3, 47; Strabo, geogr., XI 2, 12
5) Cf. Nayling & McGrail 2004: 52-58 on the reconstruction of the
Barland’s Farm boat (ca. A.D. 300).
6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinker_(boat_building).
REFERENCES
Basch, L., 1973, The Golo wreck and sidelights on other ancient
ships culled from Admiral Paris’ Souvenirs de marine conserves.
IJNA, 2.2, 329-344.
Crumlin-Pedersen, O., 2004, Nordic Clinker Construction. In: F. M.
Hocker & C. A. Ward (eds), The Philosophy of Shipbuilding. Con-
ceptual approaches to the study of wooden ships. College Sta-
tion/Texas, 37-63.
Dell’Amico, P., 2008, Rivistazione del relitto di Golo ed alcune con-
siderazioni in merito. Archaeologia Maritima Mediterranea, 5,
13-22.
Hasslöf, O., 1970, Huvudlinjer i skeppsbyggnadskonstens tekno-
logi. In: O. Hasslöf et al. (eds), Sømand, Fisker, Skib og Værft –
Introduktion til Maritim Etnologi. København, 28-73.
420 Bockius · ISBSA 11
7) The find and its context was presented by P. Sibella and
J. Atkins at the previous ISBSA 10 conference in Roskilde,
2003. Cf. Sibella et al. 2006.
8) The dendrochronological analysis was carried out at the Bor-
deaux Dendrochronology Laboratory by B. Szepertyski.
Humbla, P. & von Post, L., 1937, Galtabäcksbåten och tidigt båt-
bygger i Norden. Göteborgs Kungl. Vetenskaps- och Vitterhets-
samhälles Handlingar, vol. A 6.1. Göteborg.
Nayling, N. & McGrail, S., 2004, The Barland’s Farm Romano-
Celtic Boat. CBA, Res. Report, no. 138. York.
Nucci, F. & Orsini, S., 2003, Les fouilles de Mariana (XII) – Informa-
tions nouvelles sur l’épave antique retrouvée près de Mariana.
Cahiers Corsica, no. 209-210.
Sibella, P., Atkins, J. & Szepertyski, B., 2006, Contributions of mari-
time archaeology to the study of an Atlantic port: Bordeaux and
its reused boat timbers. In: ISBSA, 10, 290-294.
Tchernia, A, et al., 1978, L’épave romaine de la Madrague de
Giens, Fouilles de l’Institut d’archéologie méditerranéenne.
XXXIV e supplément à GALLIA. Paris.
 LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Paul L. C.Adam (late) Maik Belasus Giulia Boetto

2, Chemin du Maine Römisch-Germanische Kommission Centre Camille Jullian (UMR 6573)
F - 17800 Pérignac c/o Landesamt für Kultur Aix-Marseille Université – CNRS
paadam@frea.fr und Denkmalpflege Maison Méditerranéenne
Domhof 4-5 des Sciences de l’Homme
D - 19055 Schwerin 5, rue du Château de l`Horloge BP 647
Béat Arnold belasus@gmx.net F - 13094 Aix-en-Provence
LATÉNIUM
gibo23@libero.it
Parc et Musée d’Archéologie Neuchâtel
Espace Paul Vouga Carlo Beltrame
CH - 2068 Hauterive Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità Bart Boon
oman@ne.ch e del Vicino Oriente Bart Boon Research and Consultancy
Università Ca’Foscari Venezia Kolonel Clarklaan 10
Dorsoduro 3484/D NL - 2111 XB Aerdenhout
John Atkin
I - 30123 Venezia bart.boon@hccnet.nl
Institut Ausonius
beltrame@unive.it
Maison de l'Archéologie
Université Michel de Montaigne
Hanneke Boon
19, avenue Prince Noir Swarup Bhattacharyya James Wharram Designs
F - 33750 Camarsac 180 Bhag Bazaar Street
Greenbank Road, Devoran
jatkin1588@aol.com IND - 700 003 Calcutta
GB - Truro TR3 6PJ
saranga_nao@yahoo.com
hboon@btconnect.com
Jens Auer
Toftsvej 30, 2 TH Jan Bill
DK - 6700 Esbjerg Lena Lisdotter Börjesson
Kulturhistorisk Museum
jensauer@gmail.com Fosen Folkehögskole
Universitetet i Oslo
N - 7100 Rissen
Postboks 6762 St. Olavs plass
insp@fosen.fhs.no
Lawrence E. Babits N - 0130 Oslo
Program in Maritime Studies jan.bill@khm.uio.no
USA - Greenville 27858-4353 Alessio Canalini
North Carolina Dipartimento di Scienze dell`Antichità
Paul Bloesch
babitsl@ecu.edu e del Vicino Oriente
Schalerstraße 1
Università Ca’Foscari Venezia
CH - 4054 Basel
Via Guido d’Arezzo 11
Rex Bangerter bloesch.bs@bluewin.ch
I - 61100 Pesaro
13 Larchfield
acunamatata90@hotmail.com
IRL - Kilkenny
Lucy Blue
Centre for Maritime Archaeology
Ofra Barkai University of Southampton Ole Crumlin-Pedersen
Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies Avenue Campus, Highfield Vikingeskibsmuseet
University of Haifa GB - Southampton SO17 1BJ Vindeboder 12
IL - 31905 Haifa l.blue@soton.ac.uk DK - 4000 Roskilde

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

Waldemar Ossowski H. Reinder Reinders

Harald Lübke Centralne Muzeum Morskie Groningen Institute of Archaeology
Römisch-Germanische Kommission des ul. Ołowianka 9-13 Poststraat 6
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts PL - 80-751 Gdańsk NL - 9712 AD Groningen
Palmengartenstraße 10-12 w.ossowski@cmm.pl h.r.reinders@rug.nl
D - 60325 Frankfurt am Main
harald.luebke@imail.de
Colin Palmer Éric Rieth
Centre for Maritime Archaeology CNRS (LAMOP, UMR 8589)
Francis Mallon University of Southampton Musée Nationale de la Marine
Sandford Close Apartments Avenue Campus, Highfield Palais de Chaillot
Apartment 2, House 2 GB - Southampton SO17 1BJ F - 75116 Paris
Sandford Close, Ranelagh c.palmer@soton.ac.uk e.rieth.cnrs@libertysurf.fr
IRL - Dublin
Henrik Pohl Eelco van Riethbergen
Gaisbergstraße 38c Spaarnwater
José Manuel Matés Luque
A - 5020 Salzburg Kempstraat 11
Agirre Lehendakari 21
henrik.pohl@gmx.de NL - 2023 ER Haarlem
Esc1 5 IZDA
spaarnwater@xs4all.nl
E - 48970 Basauri Bizkaia
j.luque@euskalnet.net Patrice Pomey
Centre Camille Jullian Michel Rival
CNRS, UMR 6573 Centre Camille Jullian
Sabrina Marlier
Université de Provence CNRS, UMR 6573
Centre Camille Jullian
5, rue du Château de l’Horloge BP 647 Université de Provence
CNRS, UMR 6573
F - 13094 Aix-en-Provence 5, rue du Château de l’Horloge BP 647
Université de Provence
pomey@mmsh.univ-aix.fr F - 13094 Aix-en-Provence
5, rue du Château de l’Horloge BP 647
michel-rival@orange.fr
F - 13094 Aix-en-Provence
marlier@mmsh.univ-aix.fr Iwona Pomian
Centralne Muzeum Morskie Jason Rogers
ul. Ołowianka 9-13 Department of Archaeology
Hadas Mor PL - 80-751 Gda sk University of Exeter
Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies i.pomian@cmm.pl 7009 Madelynne Way
University of Haifa USA - Anchorage, Alaska 99504
IL - 31905 Haifa jsr201@exeter.ac.uk
dasinka1@gmail.com Cemal Pulak
Nautical Archaeology Program
Department of Anthropology Corinne Rousse
Seán McGrail Texas A&M University École Française de Rome
Centre for Maritime Archaeology USA - College Station, Piazza Farnese 67
University of Southampton Texas 77843-4352 I - 00186 Roma
GB - Southampton SO17 1BF pulak@tamu.edu corinne-rousse@club-internet.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

Błażej Stanisławski Aleydis Van de Moortel Chiara Zazzaro

Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology Department of Classics Università degli Studi
Polish Academy of Sciences 1101 McClung Tower di Napoli »L’Orientale«
ul. Zamkova 16 University of Tennessee Piazza Nicola Amore 2
PL - 72-510 Wolin USA - Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-0413 I - 80138 Napoli
st-wski@wp.pl avdm@utk.edu c.zazzaro@exeter.ac.uk

XXIV