Journal of Archaeological Science (1996) 23, 161–174 Thatch, Turves and Floor Deposits: a Survey of Coleoptera in Materials from Abandoned Hebridean Blackhouses and the implications for their Visibility in the Archaeological Record David N. Smith Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, U.K. (Received 2 October 1992, revised manuscript accepted 7 March 1995) This paper presents the results of a survey of Coleoptera in thatch, turf and floor deposits from abandoned blackhouses on South Uist, the Outer Hebrides, U.K. The potential uses of these analogue faunas and their implications for archaeo-entomology, in general, are discussed. ? 1996 Academic Press Limited Keywords: SOUTH UIST, HEBRIDES, COLEOPTERA, THATCH, TURF, ABANDONED FLOORS, BLACKHOUSES, ARCHAEO-ENTOMOLOGY. Introduction I n a largely exploratory paper, Buckland, Sadler & Smith (1993) suggest that one element of the archaeo-entomological fauna from human habita- tion are those species which inhabit roofing materials. This source has also been suggested as an important factor in the build-up of deposits at Roman and Anglo-Scandinavian York (Hall, Kenward & Williams, 1983; Hall & Kenward, 1990; Kenward, Hall & Jones, unpubl.) However, there is at present no published modern ecological work which directly outlines the nature of the beetle fauna from roofing material. This study presents the results of a survey of the Coleoptera from roofing material and abandoned floor deposits collected from Hebridean blackhouses and attempts to determine their detectability within the archaeological record. The Blackhouses The blackhouses of the Northwest Highlands and Islands of Scotland represent one of ‘‘the simplest surviving homestead[s] in Western Europe’’ (Geddies, 1955). As such, they are an invaluable source of modern comparative material for archaeologists since the materials used in their construction are similar to those expected in the archaeological record. In total, material from nine structures from five sites on South Uist, The Outer Hebrides, U.K., was exam- ined (Figure 1). A more detailed description of the blackhouses is given in Smith (1991). In shape, the roofs of the houses used in this study conform to the rounded, low, eaveless form common to these houses described by Kissling (1943), Geddies (1955), Fenton (1978). This structure is illustrated in Figure 2. The wooden rafters were covered by a layer of overlapping turves with the grass and heather facing upwards. Often the whole of the turves were coated in a thick layer of soot. Only three of the turf samples obtained had no sooting, these were from the small barns at Howmore and Askernish. Finally a thick layer of unsmoked mixed grass and barley straw was laid on the roof’s surface. The floor deposits examined here are derived from a matted layer of roof fall, mud, and sheep wool and faeces that had developed within the buildings after their abandonment. The nature of the samples is described in Table 1. Sample Preparation Two litres of the thatch samples, measured by being loosely placed into a graduated bucket, were shaken through 4 mm, 2 mm and 300 m sieves. All insect remains were removed from the flots and identified as far as practicable under a microscope. The more soil filled floor and turf deposits were soaked in a 10% solution of sodium hydroxide over- night to allow the material to disaggregate. The result- ing slurry was passed over a 4 mm sieve to remove the larger material. The remaining fraction was then paraffin floated following the methods outlined in Coope & Osborne (1968) and subsequently expanded in Kenward, Hall & Jones, (1980). The resultant large flot was placed in an oven at 50)C to dry and was then sorted under a microscope to remove the insect remains. Species lists for the samples examined are presented in Table 2. The taxonomy follows Lucht (1987). 161 0305-4403/96/020161+14 $12.00/0 ? 1996 Academic Press Limited
Transcript
Journal of Archaeological Science (1996) 23, 161–174
Thatch, Turves and Floor Deposits: a Survey of Coleoptera inMaterials from Abandoned Hebridean Blackhouses and theimplications for their Visibility in the Archaeological Record
David N. Smith
Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT,U.K.
(Received 2 October 1992, revised manuscript accepted 7 March 1995)
This paper presents the results of a survey of Coleoptera in thatch, turf and floor deposits from abandoned blackhouseson South Uist, the Outer Hebrides, U.K. The potential uses of these analogue faunas and their implications forarchaeo-entomology, in general, are discussed. ? 1996 Academic Press Limited
Keywords: SOUTH UIST, HEBRIDES, COLEOPTERA, THATCH, TURF, ABANDONED FLOORS,BLACKHOUSES, ARCHAEO-ENTOMOLOGY.
Introduction
I n a largely exploratory paper, Buckland, Sadler &Smith (1993) suggest that one element of thearchaeo-entomological fauna from human habita-
tion are those species which inhabit roofing materials.This source has also been suggested as an importantfactor in the build-up of deposits at Roman andAnglo-Scandinavian York (Hall, Kenward &Williams,1983; Hall & Kenward, 1990; Kenward, Hall & Jones,unpubl.) However, there is at present no publishedmodern ecological work which directly outlines thenature of the beetle fauna from roofing material. Thisstudy presents the results of a survey of the Coleopterafrom roofing material and abandoned floor depositscollected from Hebridean blackhouses and attempts todetermine their detectability within the archaeologicalrecord.
The BlackhousesThe blackhouses of the Northwest Highlands andIslands of Scotland represent one of ‘‘the simplestsurviving homestead[s] in Western Europe’’ (Geddies,1955). As such, they are an invaluable source ofmodern comparative material for archaeologists sincethe materials used in their construction are similar tothose expected in the archaeological record.In total, material from nine structures from five sites
on South Uist, The Outer Hebrides, U.K., was exam-ined (Figure 1). A more detailed description of theblackhouses is given in Smith (1991).In shape, the roofs of the houses used in this study
conform to the rounded, low, eaveless form commonto these houses described by Kissling (1943), Geddies
(1955), Fenton (1978). This structure is illustrated inFigure 2. The wooden rafters were covered by a layerof overlapping turves with the grass and heather facingupwards. Often the whole of the turves were coated ina thick layer of soot. Only three of the turf samplesobtained had no sooting, these were from the smallbarns at Howmore and Askernish. Finally a thick layerof unsmoked mixed grass and barley straw was laid onthe roof’s surface.The floor deposits examined here are derived from a
matted layer of roof fall, mud, and sheep wool andfaeces that had developed within the buildings aftertheir abandonment. The nature of the samples isdescribed in Table 1.
Sample PreparationTwo litres of the thatch samples, measured by beingloosely placed into a graduated bucket, were shakenthrough 4 mm, 2 mm and 300 ìm sieves. All insectremains were removed from the flots and identified asfar as practicable under a microscope.The more soil filled floor and turf deposits were
soaked in a 10% solution of sodium hydroxide over-night to allow the material to disaggregate. The result-ing slurry was passed over a 4 mm sieve to removethe larger material. The remaining fraction was thenparaffin floated following the methods outlined inCoope & Osborne (1968) and subsequently expandedin Kenward, Hall & Jones, (1980). The resultant largeflot was placed in an oven at 50)C to dry and wasthen sorted under a microscope to remove the insectremains.Species lists for the samples examined are presented
The following discussion of the species encounteredconsiders their ecology on both an individual level andas members of ecological summary groups. The group-ings used are mainly derived from the preliminaryclassification outlined by Kenward (1978). The classi-fication used here replicates that given in Hall &Kenward (1990). An indication of which group eachspecies belongs to is presented in the right hand columnof Table 2. The average percentage of ecologicalgroups for each of the three materials sampled ispresented in Table 3 and Figures 3–5.
A Live or a Dead Fauna?One of the main problems facing palaeoentomologists(indeed all palaeoecologists) is finding modern ana-
logue communities of live insects which can be com-pared meaningfully with fossil assemblages. Thisresults from the poorly understood taphonomic anddepositional history of archaeoenvironmental deposits.Material may be recycled (i.e. used for more than onepurpose or moved between differing micro environ-ments) and allochthonous elements, not primarily as-sociated with the archaeoenvironmental material, maybecome adventitiously incorporated from the back-ground rain of insects (Kenward, 1978). Furthermore,modern live faunas provide only a snapshot of thematerials history and species may subsequently havedispersed from or colonized an archaeological deposit.To some extent these problems can be avoided by
using a modern death assemblage rather than a live oneas an analogue for archaeological deposits. This may
HowbegHowmore
Askernish
South Uist
SouthLochboisdale
0 5 miles
Figure 1. Location of sites sampled.
162 D. N. Smith
be the situation with the faunas from the Hebrideanblackhouses. The insect remains in the materials exam-ined had probably collected over a considerable periodof time. All of the buildings examined had not hadtheir roofing materials replaced, or their floor depositsremoved, since their abandonment on average 40 yearsearlier. Any allochthonous species are likely to havebeen introduced to the deposits during this period.Since the majority of the specimens examined weredisarticulated (the small number of articulated speci-mens were not included in the counts), and thereforedead at the time of collection, any changes to the faunathat might have resulted from emigration should alsobe lessened.
The Coleoptera from the BlackhouseRoofing Thatch
The species present in all 10 of the thatch samples aresimilar (Table 2). There are a large number of individ-uals from a comparatively low number of species. Themajority of the species present fall into the dry ‘‘sweet’’compost ecological grouping (rd). This group accountsfor on average 49·7% of the individuals present in thesesamples (Table 3 and Figure 3). The dominance of thisecological group in the thatch deposits is not seen in
the faunas from either the turf or the floor samples. Anumber of species appear to be particularly importantto these thatch faunas and their ecology is worthy offurther comment.The species which numerically occurs most often in
this roofing matter was Mycetaea hirta (Marsh). Itsoccurrence is such that it can clearly be put intoKenward’s (1978) category of ‘‘superabundant’’ whichmay suggest the presence of a breeding population. Itsrecorded habitats suggest that it is extremely stenotopic(narrow in its ecological preferences) and, in general,strongly synanthropic. Hinton (1945) and Palm (1959)record its presence in mainly dry cellars, barns andstables and on the dry rot fungus Merulius lacrymans.Vogt (1967) agrees with this and adds that the species issynanthropic. Hunter, Tulloch & Lamborne (1973)suggest that it may favour habitats with high humidi-ties. In general, it can be seen that this species isparticularly prevalent in mouldy materials such asdecaying wood and straw in environments commonlyassociated with the activities of humans. Nothing in theabove records differs greatly from the conditions inthatch roofs. It would appear that this kind of roofingmaterial may provide optimal conditions for thisspecies.The Ptinidae are represented by two species Tipnus
unicolor (Pill. & Mitt.) and Ptinus tectus (Bieold).
Timber
Rough thatch
Turf
Figure 2. Cross section of the roof structure of a typical Hebridean blackhouse.
Coleoptera in Materials from Hebridean Blackhouses 163
These Ptinidae are familiar inhabitants of dry materialsin store houses (Howe & Burges, 1951; Coombes &Freeman, 1956; Salmond, 1957; Hunter et al., 1973).The two species seen here are believed to be the onlysynanthropic ptinids that occur outside of heatedstorehouses and are regarded as ‘‘hardy’’ (Solomon &Adamson, 1956). Both are thought to have a greatertolerance for low temperatures and dampness than theother synanthropic species from this family (Hunteret al., 1973; Coombes & Freeman, 1956).The Ptiliidae and Micropeplus species, in this case
M. porcatus (Payk.), also occur in considerable num-bers as do the Orthoperus species. Little is known oftheir ecological preferences; but from this it wouldseem that they favour damp, exposed, and moulderingmaterials.The last families present in the dry compost group
are the Cryptophagidae and Lathridiidae. In the main,these have only a small contribution to make to theassemblage when compared to their presence in faunasfrom very dry plant materials such as hay residues(Smith, 1991).In essence, this is a predominantly dry compost
fauna (Kenward’s rd grouping) with few aquatic andother outdoor allochthonous species present. However,many of the species present within this fauna appear tolie towards the damper end of this ecological grouping.Could this distinctive assemblage of beetles be used
as a ‘‘finger print’’ for the presence of thatchingmaterials in the archaeological record? To do thisbased solely on the presence of this fauna would be
difficult since it is not indicating the presence of thethatch per se but rather the micro-habitat within thethatch. It is unlikely that this micro-habit is limited tothis material alone and it may be found in many otherforms of both human made and natural accumulationsof plant remains. The presence of this fauna inarchaeological material, therefore, could only act assecondary evidence supporting more substantialsources of information such as archaeological locationor the nature of the plant macro fossil remains.
Comparison of the Blackhouse Thatch Faunaswith the Archaeological RecordMany archaeological beetle faunas, such as someof those from the Roman Colonia and Anglo-Scandinavian, York (Hall et al., 1983; Hall &Kenward, 1990), Mediaeval Shrewsbury and Stone,Staffordshire (Moffet & Smith, forthcoming) containthis range of species in differing proportions sometimessimilar to that seen above. However, although it ispossible that these beetles may have originated inthatch materials on these sites, as suggested above,they may also have come from many other types ofsweet compost or matter. Indeed, there are a numberof archaeological sites where small numbers of thesespecies occur and yet the roofing is known to be of turfand birch twigs not thatch. Amongst these sites areMediaeval Storaborg (Perry, Buckland & Snaesdottir,1985) and post-Mediaeval Reykolt, Iceland (Buckland,Sadler & Sveinbjanardottir, 1992).
Table 1. The nature of the samples from the Hebridean blackhouses
Sample Site Sample location Material Description
SLB THATCH 1 South Lochboisdale Roof surface at ridge Reed thatch Relatively dry. No evidence of sootSLB THATCH 2 South Lochboisdale Roof surfaces at eaves Thick grassy thatch Relatively dry. Some evidence of sootSLB TURF 1 South Lochboisdale Internal roof surface Thick grassy thatch Dusty, dry, very sootySLB TURF South Lochboisdale Internal roof surface Eroded turf Dusty, dry, very sootySLB TURF South Lochboisdale Internal roof surface Eroded turf Dusty, dry, very sootySLB FLOOR South Lochboisdale Internal floor deposit Heavy soil deposit Wet and humic contains shed wool and faecesHB1 THATCH Howbeg (house) Roof surface at eaves Thick grassy thatch Relatively dry. Evidence of sootHB1 TURF Howbeg (house) Roof surface at eaves Eroded turf Relatively dry. Evidence of sootHB1 FLOOR Howbeg (house) Internal floor deposit Heavy soil deposit Wet and humic contains shed wool and faecesHB2 THATCH Howbeg (Barn) Roof surface at eaves Thick grassy thatch Relatively dry. No evidence of sootHB2 TURF Howbeg (Barn) Roof surface at eaves Eroded turf Relatively dry. No evidence of sootHB2 FLOOR Howbeg (Barn) Internal floor deposit Heavy soil deposit Wet and humic contains shed wool and faecesHB3 THATCH Howbeg (Barn) Roof surface at eaves Thick grassy thatch Relatively dry. No evidence of sootHB3 TURF Howbeg (Barn) Roof surface at eaves Eroded turf Relatively dry. No evidence of sootHB3 FLOOR Howbeg (Barn) Internal floor deposit Heavy soil deposit Wet and humic contains shed wool and faecesHM1 THATCH Howmore Roof surface at chimney Thick grassy thatch Relatively dry. Evidence of sootHM1 TURF Howmore Roof surface at chimney Eroded turf Relatively dry. Evidence of sootHM2 THATCH Howmore From collapsed roof Thick grassy thatch Relatively dry. Evidence of sootHM2 TURF Howmore From collapsed roof Eroded turf Relatively dry. Evidence of sootHM2 FLOOR Howmore Internal floor deposit Heavy soil deposit Wet and humic contains shed wool and faecesHM3 THATCH Howmore Roof surface at eaves Thick grassy thatch Relatively dry. Evidence of sootHM3 TURF Howmore Roof surface at eaves Eroded turf Relatively dry. Evidence of sootAS1 THATCH Askernish Roof surface at eaves Thick grassy thatch Relatively dry. Evidence of sootAS1 TURF Askernish Roof surface at eaves Eroded turf Relatively dry. Evidence of sootAS1 FLOOR Askernish Internal floor deposit Heavy soil deposit Wet and humic contains shed wool and faecesAS2 THATCH Askernish From collapsed roof Thick grassy thatch Relatively dry. No evidence of sootAS2 TURF Askernish From collapsed roof Eroded turf Relatively dry. No evidence of sootAS2 FLOOR Askernish Internal floor deposit Heavy soil deposit Wet and humic contains shed wool and faeces
164 D. N. Smith
Table2.Coleopterafrom
theHebrideanblackhouses
SLB
THATCH
1
SLB
THATCH
2
SLB
TURF
1
SLB
TURF
2
SLB
TURF
3
SLB
FLOOR
1HB1
THATCH
HB1
TURF
HB1
FLOOR
HB2
THATCH
HB2
TURF
HB2
FLOOR
HB3
THATCH
HB3
TURF
HB3
FLOOR
CARABIDAE
CarabusproblematicusHbst.
11
granulatus(L.)
11
C.clathratus(L.)
11
11
C.spp.
1Nebriaspp.
51
11
2Elaphrusspp.
1Notiophilusbiguttatus(F.)
11
21
21
11
Loricerapilicornis(F.)
21
11
1Trechusspp.
11
1Bembidionspp.
11
11
Pterostichusstrenuus(Panz.)
21
11
13
24
P.melanarius(Ill.)
11
11
2P.madidus(F.)
11
11
2P.spp.
11
1Calathusspp.
1Amaraspp.
12
1DYTISCIDAE
Agabusbipustuluatus(L.)
11
1HYDRAENIDAE
Limnebiusspp.
1Helophorusspp.
11
31
152
33
13
HYDROPHILIDAE
Sphaeridium
spp.
12
Cercyonimpressus(Sturm)
11
C.melanocephalus(L.)
11
C.analis(Payk.)
11
C.spp.
12
32
21
14
Megasternum
boletophagum
(Marsh.)
15
12
11
SILPHIDAE
Thanatophilusspp.
11
Silphaatrata(L.)
2S.tyrolensisLaich.
2S.spp.
11
CATOPIDAE
Catopsspp.
11
25
ORTHOPERIDAE
Corylophusspp.
56
51
17
62
29
PTILIIDAE
PtiliidaeGen.&spp.indet.
81
2Acrotrichisspp.
17
72
1STAPHYLINIDAE
Micropeplusporcatus(Payk.)
25
12
3Omaliumrivulare(Payk.)
1O.caesum
Grav.
O.spp.
11
2Xylodromusconcinnus(Marsh.)
12
22
2
Coleoptera in Materials from Hebridean Blackhouses 165
Table2.Continued
SLB
THATCH
1
SLB
THATCH
2
SLB
TURF
1
SLB
TURF
2
SLB
TURF
3
SLB
FLOOR
1HB1
THATCH
HB1
TURF
HB1
FLOOR
HB2
THATCH
HB2
TURF
HB2
FLOOR
HB3
THATCH
HB3
TURF
HB3
FLOOR
STAPHYLINIDAE(Continued)
Olophrumpiceum
(Gyll.)
11
21
2Lestevalongelytrata(Goeze)
12
2Oxytelusrugosus(F.)
O.sculpturatus(Grav.)
O.tetracarinatus(Block)
22
O.spp.
11
11
1Platystethusarenarius(Fourer.)
2Stenusspp.
13
31
11
22
Lathrobiumspp.
12
Gyrohypnuspunctulatus(Payk.)
Xantholinusglabratus(Grav.)
11
3X.spp.
11
13
21
64
1Othiusspp.
15
54
11
12
32
1Philonthussplendens(F.)
P.laminatus(Creutz.)
2P.spp.
11
11
13
42
17Ocypusspp.
13
13
Quediusmesomelinus(Marsh.)
12
1Q.spp.
27
11
13
23
34
13
Tachyporuschrysomelinus(L.)
21
11
11
1T.spp.
21
11
21
TachinuslaticollisGrav.
1T.marginellus(F.)
1T.spp.
24
7Aleocharinaegen.spp.indet.
22
21
22
16
ELATERIDAE
Cteniceracuprea(F.)
12
Actenicerussjaelandicus(Mull.)
1Athoushaemorrhoidalis(F.)
11
22
15
Hypnoidusriparius(F.)
11
11
11
DRYOPIDAE
Dryopsspp.
1BYRRHIDAE
Cytilussericeus(Forst.)
1Byrrhuspilula(L.)
1NITIDULIDAE
Brachypterusurticae(F.)
1CUCUJIDAE
Laemophloeusferrugineus(Steph.)
1CRYPTOPHAGIDAE
CryptophagusdistinguendusSturm
42
C.scanicus(L.)
11
32
C.scutellatusNewm.
1C.spp.
48
53
53
45
10Atomariaspp.
15
LATHRIDIIDAE
LathridiusnodiferWestw.
13
11
11
18
21
166 D. N. Smith
Table2.Continued
SLB
THATCH
1
SLB
THATCH
2
SLB
TURF
1
SLB
TURF
2
SLB
TURF
3
SLB
FLOOR
1HB1
THATCH
HB1
TURF
HB1
FLOOR
HB2
THATCH
HB2
TURF
HB2
FLOOR
HB3
THATCH
HB3
TURF
HB3
FLOOR
LATHRIDIIDAE(Continued
Enicmusminutus(L.)
21
11
61
43
E.pseudominutus(Strand)
2Cartodereruficollis(Marsh.)
44
11
11
C.filiformis(Gyll.)
2Corticariaspp.
27
21
71
22
2MYCETOPHAGIDAE
Typhaeastercorea(L.)
ENDOMYCHIDAE
Mycetaeahirta(Marsh.)
275
51
23
391
1240
115
2610
COCCINELLIDAE
Adalia
decempunctata(L.)
1ANOBIJDAE
Anobium
punctatum(Geer)
23
12PTINIDAE
Tipnusunicolor(Pill.Mitt.)
22
11
15
21
615
20Ptinustectus(Bietold)
11
1ANTHICIDAE
Anthicusspp.
SCARABAEIDAE
AphodiuslapponiumGyll.
1A.depressus(Kug.)
11
A.sphacelatus(Panz.)
21
12A.fimetarius(L.)
11
1A.ater(Geer)
11
14
3A.spp.
11
21
11
Geotrupesspp.
11
CHRYSOMELIDAE
Donaciaspp.
2Plateumarisspp.
11
11
11
1Chrysomelastaphylea(L.)
26
C.spp.
21
Phyllotretaspp.
3Longitarsusspp.
11
1Chaetocnemaspp.
11
Psylliodesspp.
1CUCULIONIDAE
Apionspp.
11
12
2Otiorhynchusarcticus(F.)
21
21
31
11
1O.nodosus(Mull.)
O.sulcatus(F.)
32
2Phyllobiusspp.
Sitonalineatus(L.)
S.lepidusGyll.
11
24
S.sulcatusFab.
S.spp.
21
21
11
17
Notarisacridulus(L.)
1
Coleoptera in Materials from Hebridean Blackhouses 167
Table2.Continued
SLB
THATCH
1
SLB
THATCH
2
SLB
TURF
1
SLB
TURF
2
SLB
TURF
3
SLB
FLOOR
1HB1
THATCH
HB1
TURF
HB1
FLOOR
HB2
THATCH
HB2
TURF
HB2
FLOOR
HB3
THATCH
HB3
TURF
HB3
FLOOR
CUCULIONIDAE(Continued)
Hyperaspp.
1Micrelusericae(Gyll.)
1CeutorhynchuspleurostigmaMarsh.
11
C.pollinarius(Forst.)
C.spp.
23
11
11
Cidnorhinusquadrimaculatus(L.)
1
HM1
HM1
HM2
HM2
HM2
HM3
HM3
AS1
AS1
AS1
AS2
AS2
AS2
ECOLOGY
THATCH
TURF
THATCH
TURF
FLOOR
THATCH
TURF
THATCH
TURF
FLOOR
THATCH
TURF
FLOOR
CARABIDAE
CarabusproblematicusHbst.
oaC.granulatus(L.)
oaC.clathratus(L.)
1oa
C.spp.
aoNebriaspp.
aoElaphrusspp.
1oa-d
Notiophilusbiguttatus(F.)
11
2oa
Loricerapilicornis(F.)
11
oaTrechusspp.
11
11
oaBembidionspp.
aoPterostichusstrenuus(Panz.)
12
22
32
aoP.melanarius(Ill.)
22
oaP.madidus(F.)
11
oaP.spp.
oaCalathusspp.
2ao
Amaraspp.
12
aoDYTISCIDAE
Agabusbipustulatus(L.)
1oa-w
HYDRAENIDAE
Limnebiusspp.
oa-w
Helophorusspp.
12
43
oa-w
HYDROPHILIDAE
Sphaeridium
spp.
1rf
Cercyonimpressus(Sturm)
rfC.melanocephalus(L.)
rfC.analis(Payk.)
rfC.spp.
53
12
31
66
11
4rf
Megasturnum
boletophagum
(Marsh.)
rtSILPHIDAE
Thanatophilusspp.
1Silphaatrata(L.)
S.tyrolensisLaich.
1S.spp.
CATOPIDAE
Catopsspp.
21
4
168 D. N. Smith
Table2.Continued
HM1
HM1
HM2
HM2
HM2
HM3
HM3
AS1
AS1
AS1
AS2
AS2
AS2
ECOLOGY
THATCH
TURF
THATCH
TURF
FLOOR
THATCH
TURF
THATCH
TURF
FLOOR
THATCH
TURF
FLOOR
ORTHOPERIDAE
Corylophusspp.
111
11
254
4rt
PTILIIDAE
PtiliidaeGen.&spp.indet.
45
115
41
Acrotrichisspp.
STAPHYLINIDAE
Micropeplusporcatus(Payk.)
21
42
rtOmaliumrevulare(Payk.)
rtO.caesum
Grav.
1rt
O.spp.
110
rtXylodromusconcinnus(Marsh.)
11
91
1rt-h
Olophrumpiceum
(Gyll.)
12
12
oa-d
Lestevalongelytrata(Goeze)
oa-d
Oxytelusrugosus(F.)
1rt
O.sculpturatus(Grav.)
1rt
O.tetracarinatus(Block)
rtO.spp.
11
11
11
rtPlatystethusarenarius(Fourcr.)
1rf
Stenusspp.
21
32
Lathrobiumspp.
21
Gyrohypnuspunctulatus(Payk.)
1rt
Xantholinusglabratus(Grav.)
rtX.spp.
41
23
33
21
6Othiusspp.
15
91
11
rtPhilonthussplendens(F.)
2P.laminatus(Creutz.)
5P.spp.
31
12
33
311
Ocypusspp.
11
11
Quediusmesomelinus(Marsh.)
rtQ.spp.
53
42
12
11
5Tachyporuschrysomelinus(L.)
21
T.spp.
53
51
TachinuslaticollisGrav.
T.marginellus(F.)
T.spp.
11
41
Aleocharinaegen.spp.Indet.
23
12
11
ELATERIDAE
Cteniceracuprea(F.)
12
Actenicerussjaelandicus(Mull.)
oaAthoushaemorrhoidalis(F.)
11
11
11
1oa
Hypnoidusriparius(F.)
11
oaDRYOPIDAE
Dryopsspp.
11
oa-d
BYRRHIDAE
Cytilussericeus(Forst.)
1oa
Byrrhuspilula(L.)
oaNITIDULIDAE
Brachypterusurticae(F.)
oa
Coleoptera in Materials from Hebridean Blackhouses 169
Coleoptera in Materials from Hebridean Blackhouses 171
The Coleoptera from the BlackhouseRoof TurvesThe turf samples failed to produce large faunas (Table2). In the main, the majority of the species come fromthe outdoor group (oa+ob) or are unclassified. Theseinclude a wide range of Carabidae and Staphylinidae.Such species are common on, or in, the acidic vegeta-tion and turf around these settlements. Some of thesamples (particularly those from the house and thebarns at Howbeg) did contain relatively large numbersof aquatic species such as Helophorus and Dryopsspecies. It is possible that all these species are relictfossil faunas contained within the peat itself.
Comparison of the Blackhouse Turves withthe Archaeological RecordFossil insects may be introduced onto sites in peat usedfor walling, roofing and fuel. A number of authors(Hall et al., 1983; Buckland et al., 1993; Kenward &Allison, in press) have recognized the interpretationalimplications of this. It has been used to explain theoccurrence of certain Carabidae and water beetlesin deposits from, amongst others, post-MediaevalReykolt, Iceland (Buckland et al., 1992) and theRoman deposits at the General Accident and Rougier
Street sites York (Hall & Kenward, 1990) and theSkeldergate well, York (Hall, Kenward & Williams,1980).
The Coleoptera from the AbandonmentFloors in the Hebridean BlackhousesAll of the floor materials contain a similar assemblageof species. The faunal assemblages are relativelydiverse and have a high number of individuals. Theindividual species can be used to elucidate the natureand provenance of the deposits. Roof fall, importedmaterials and sheep faeces all introduce differentspecies to this complex fauna.One characteristic aspect of the floor faunas is the
relatively high proportion of outdoor species present.On average they account for 35·5% of the fauna (Table3 and Figures 3–5). The assemblage includes a widerange of Carabidae. There are also a wide range ofChrysomelidae, Curculionidae and Elateridae frommoorland environments. Additionally there is alsoa notably high representation of the unclassifiedlarger staphylinids and the carnivorous silphids whencompared to the other materials.There are a number of possible explanations for the
origins of this diverse and mainly outdoor assemblage
Table 3. The average percentage of the ecological groups present in thematerials from the Hebridean blackhouses
For explanation of the ecological codes see Table 2.
"house fauna"
51.7
l 0.28
rf 3.2 rd 49.7
rt 20.4
d + w1.6
oa + ob 13.2
Figure 3. Average percentage of ecological groups for all thatchsamples.
"house fauna"
10.8
l 0.78
rf 11.4
d + w 10.1
oa +ob 33.1
rd 10.3
rt 14.6
Figure 4. Average percentage of ecological groups for all turfsamples.
"house fauna"
35.6
l 1.65
rf 9.2
d + w5.18
oa +ob 35.5
rd 32.8
rt 7.09
Figure 5. Average percentage of ecological groups for all floorsamples.
172 D. N. Smith
of beetles. It is possible that many were adventitiouslyintroduced. Perhaps introduced to the buildings inflight, by walking or were bought in on animals. Inaddition, it seems likely that some of these specimensentered the deposit in bird pellets. The thorax of aPhyllobius from South Loch Boisdale was found to bepacked with the legs and lower body parts of thesame beetle; also a thorax of a Staphylinus from theAskernish house was found in the same condition. Thisis particularly indicative of bird crop pellets (Girling,1977).The dry compost species (group rd) account for a
relatively low proportion of the floor faunas (Table 3and Figures 3–5), when compared to the thatchdeposits. Often it is limited to single or few individualsof Mycetaea hirta, Cryptophagus and Corticaria andPtiliidae species. Additionally there is a rise in theproportions of the general (group rt) and foul compost(group rf) species such as the Cercyon and Sphaeridiumspp. and the smaller Staphylinidae. It would seemlikely that this element of the fauna has an origin asboth species breeding and living within the damprotting material on the floors.However, can the nature of this beetle fauna be used
to provide a ‘‘finger print’’ for abandonment depositsin the archaeological record? This would seem im-probable since there is no part of the fauna that canbe limited only to abandoned housing deposits. Thespecies present reflect the role of allochthony in theformation of these deposits and the micro-habitatpresent rather than the nature of the material itself.These formation processes and micro-habitat can befound in materials in a range of alternative situations.
Comparison of the Blackhouse AbandonmentFloors to the Archaeological RecordA number of surface deposits from the archaeologicalrecord have produced beetle faunas that initially ap-pear to be similar to the abandonment floors from theHebridean blackhouses. For example the buildingfloors at post- Mediaeval Storaborg (Perry et al., 1985)and Reykolt (Buckland et al., 1992), Iceland, and alsoa number of insect faunas from deep urban deposits,for example at the Roman General Accident site andthe Anglo-Scandinavian sites of Lloyds Bank andCoppergate, York (Kenward, 1978; Hall et al., 1983;Hall & Kenward, 1990), bear a superficial resemblanceto those presented here.However, the suggestion that these flooring deposits
built up as abandonment floors, or solely by theprocesses seen in the Hebridean material, can be easilydiscredited. In most of the floor samples from Reykolt,and some of the material from the York excavations,the presence of human ectoparasites would appear toindicate that they were primarily habitation deposits(Hall & Kenward, 1990; Buckland et al., 1992), alsomuch of the outdoor element at both sites has been
interpreted as having an origin in peat brought intothe site during habitation rather than as the result ofthe allochthonous introduction which was seen in theHebridean blackhouses. This is most clearly suggestedby the presence of aquatic caddis larvae at Reykolt,that could only have entered this deposit in peat(Buckland et al., 1992). It would seem from this thathabitation floors could acquire additional and outdoorelements by processes that can occur before theirabandonment. In addition, the presence of fairlysqualid materials need not result from abandonmentalone. It has often been suggested that, as a matter ofcourse, living conditions in archaeological housingmay have become less than salubrious.
ConclusionsThis study has shown that sub-fossil faunas from bulksampling of modern analogues can provide large andinformative coleopterous faunas for comparison to thearchaeological record. In addition, it has presentedbeetle faunas from previously unexamined modernmaterials such as roof thatch, roofing turves and thebuild-up on abandoned floors.However, in terms of its paleoentomological conclu-
sions it has shown that the history of deposits and theprocesses that formed them can be too complex toallow direct identification of their nature. This isbecause of the fact that the majority of the speciespresent are indicative of a specific type of micro-habitat or biotype rather than the materials in whichthey occur.
AcknowledgementsI wish to thank all of the inhabitants of South Uist, theOuter Hebrides who gave me their kind permission tosample from their properties. The field and laboratorywork were funded as part of SERC Postgraduate quotaaward to whom thanks must go. In addition, a largenumber of people, many of them the referees, havehelped with many useful comments.
ReferencesBuckland, P. C., Sadler, J. P. & Sveinbjarnardottir, G. (1992).Palaeoecological investigations at Reykolt, Western Iceland. In(C. D. Morris & J. Rackham, Eds) Norse and Later Settlementand Subsistence in the North Atlantic. University of GlasgowDepartment of Archaeology monograph series. Number 1.pp. 149–67.
Buckland, P. C., Sadler, J. & Smith, D. N. (1993). A beetle’s eye viewof the Norse Farm. In (C. E. Batey, J. Jesch & C. D. Morris, Eds)The Viking Age in Caithness Orkney and the North Atlantic.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pp. 506–527.
Coope, G. R. & Osborne, P. J. (1968). Report on the coleopterousfauna of the roman well at Barnsley Park, Gloucestershire.Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire ArchaeologicalSociety 86, 84–87.
Coombes, C. W. & Freeman, J. A. (1956). The insect fauna of anempty granary. Journal of Entomological Research 46, 399–417.
Coleoptera in Materials from Hebridean Blackhouses 173
Fenton, A. (1978). The Island Blackhouse. A guide to the Blackhouseat 42 Arnol, Lewis. Edinburgh: HMSO/SDD.
Geddies, A. (1955). Lewis and Harris. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press.
Girling, M. A. (1977). Bird pellets from a somerset levels Neolithictrackway. Naturalist 102, 49–52.
Hall, A. R. & Kenward H. K. (1990). Environmental evidence fromthe Colonia. The Archaeology of York. 14/6. London: Council forBritish Archaeology.
Hall, A. R., Kenward, H. K. & Williams, D. (1980). Environmentalevidence from Roman deposits in Skeldergate. The Archaeology ofYork 14/3. London: Council for British Archaeology.
Hall, A. R., Kenward, H. K. & Williams, D. (1983). Environmentaland living conditions at two Anglo-Scandinavian sites. TheArchaeology of York 14/4. London: Council for BritishArchaeology.
Hinton, H. E. (1945). A Monograph of the Beetles Associatedwith Stored Products. Vol. 1. London: British Museum (NaturalHistory).
Howe, R. W. & Burges, H. D. (1951). Studies on the family Ptinidae.VI. The biology of Ptinus fur (L.) and P. sexpunctatus Panz.Bulletin of Entomological Research 42.
Hunter, F. A., Tulloch, B. M. & Lamborne, M. G. (1973). Insectsand mites of maltings in the East Midlands of England. Journal ofStored Product Research 9, 119–141.
Kenward, H. K. (1978). The analysis of archaelogical insectassemblages: a new approach. The Archaeology of York. 19/1.London: Council for British Archaeology.
Kenward, H. K. & Allison, E. P. (1995). Rural origins of the urbaninsect fauna. In (A. R. Hall & H. K. Kenward, Eds) Urban-ruralConnections: Perspectives from Environmental Archaeology.Oxbow Monograph 47. Oxford: Oxbow.
Kenward, H. K., Hall, A. R. & Jones, A. K. G. (1980). A tested setof techniques for the extraction of plant and animal macro fossils
from waterlogged archaeological deposits. Scientific Archaeology22, 3–15.
Kenward, H. K., Hall, A. R. & Jones, A. K. G. (unpubl.). Turf roofsand urban archaeological build up. Archive Report. York: Environ-mental Archaeology Unit.
Kissling, W. (1943). The character and purpose of the Hebrideanblackhouse. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 73,75–99.
Lucht, W. H. (1987). Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Katalog. Krefeld:Goecke and Evers Verlag.
Moffet, L. & Smith, D. (in press). The biological remains from alate mediaeval tenement in Stone, Staffordshire. CIRCEAE: TheJournal of Association for Environmental Archaeology.
Palm, T. (1959). Die Holz-und Rinden-kafer der Sud-undMittelschwedischen laubbaume. Opuscula Entomologica Supple-mentum 16.
Perry, D. W., Buckland, P. C. & Snaesdottir, M. (1985). Theapplication of numerical techniques to insect assemblages from thesite of Storaborg Iceland. Journal of Archaeological Science 12,335–345.
Salmond, K. F. (1957). The insect and mite fauna of a Scottish flourmill. Bulletin of Entomological Research 47, 621–630.
Smith D. N. (1991). An investigation of the potential of modernanalogue faunas to act as comparisons to Palaeoentomologicalsamples from archaeological farm sites. Ph.D. Thesis. University ofSheffield, Sheffield.
Solomon, M. E. & Adamson, B. E. (1956). The powers of survival ofstorage and domestic pests under winter conditions in Britain.Bulletin of Entomological Research 46, 311–355.
Vogt, H. (1967). Family Endomychidae. In (H. Freude, K. W. Harde& G. A. Lohse, Eds). Die Kafer Mitteleuropas. VII. Krefled:Goecke & Evers.
