226 227

on the North Atlantic islands of the Faroes, Iceland and Greenland has also been reviewed,523 and the early arrival of the synanthropic hay and elements of the stored product fauna is evident from closely dated sites such as Holt in Eyjafjallasveit and Bessastaðir.524 Whilst much of the anthropochorous biota probably arrived in dunnage, cleaned out of beached ships after unloading of cargo, including livestock, it is possible that A. brunneus travelled to Reykholt, 25 km from the coast, in a commodity, probably sacks of grain, which had become mouldy in transport in the hold of a ship. Whilst the grain may have already been damp and infested when loaded in Europe, as post-medieval sources indicate could be the case,525 every ship would have had a resident fauna, which once established would have been impossible to eradicate, and is likely only to have been noticed when it began to inflict significant losses on cargoes.

There is documentary and pollen evidence for the cultivation of cereals, principally barley, in Reyk-holtsdalur, and the site has produced charred grains. Analysis of this material and its associated weed flora was not conclusive in determining whether the grain was indigenous or imported (see Chapter 6.2). Whatever the scale of local production, it is probable that the affluent owners of Reykholt were in a position to import grain, even if this was

523 Sadler 1991; Buckland 1988.524 Buckland et al. 1991; Amorosi et al. 1992.525 Gunnar Karlsson 2000, 142.

only essential in years when local yields were poor. It is also possible that the commodity being imported was not unprocessed grain but malted barley for the production of that very necessary drink in a chieftain-based society, ale. As a thoroughly speculative model, A. brunneus could have established itself in the warm environment of the farm’s brewhouse, having been accidentally provided with a mechanism for invasion early in the site’s history, with malt.

6.1.4 SixteenthtoEarly-Nineteenth CenturyDeposits JonP.Sadler,PhilBuckland andPaulC.Buckland

Samples were collected from the Phase 5 passageway farm complex during the excavations in 1988-89 (see discussion of these remains in Chapters 4.5 and 4.4). Most of the samples were excavated from floor deposits within the buildings, although some were taken .from deposits underlying the Phase 5 farm, from the subterranean pass-ageway and the remains of a barrel in cut [443]. The exact co-ordinates and level of each sample were recorded during excavation and sample locations are plotted onto the site plan (fig. 112). Information regarding their provenance is given in Table 17.

MethodologyThe 1988 field season included the penecontemporane­ous processing of standard (5 litre) samples for insect remains, with feedback into the excavation strategy. Although preservation varied substantially, twelve samples were analysed and these data proved useful in determining the type of fill and gave an indication as to where the next sample should be taken. Samples S20 and S38 produced only limited faunas, and have not been used in the site interpretation (Table 17). A further 20 samples, taken in the 1989 field season, were processed at the National Museum of Iceland and forwarded to Sheffield University for sorting and analysis. The suite of samples excavated from the barrel (R9S44 I-VI; R9S34; R9S35), Sample R9S41 from the subterranean passageway and

Sample R9S30 from the large hearth [99] under House 3 produced small faunas and are not discussed. In total, 14 samples from the seventeenth- to nineteenth-century passageway farm and the underlying floors in Houses 2 and 5 are used as the basis for the site interpretation. The insect faunas recovered from the samples are listed in Table 17, taxonomy following Fauna Europaea.526 The species are divided into assemblage groups on the basis of their present-day habitats. The percentage score of each assemblage group is listed by sample.

Data AnalysisA number of methods have been used by archaeologists

526 Fauna Europaea 2004.

to identify spatial patterns in their data sets. The aim has been to attempt to locate potential ‘activity areas’ on sites, and hence give an indication of function. Since the pioneering work of Whallon,527 the methods explored include nearest neighbour analysis, multivariate ana-lysis of variance and derivatives thereof, similarity co-efficients, cluster analysis, principal components analysis and correspondence analysis.528 In the present study a slightly different approach is adopted. The samples are first classified on the basis of the insects present in each sample. Classification is accomplished using the multivariate technique TWINSPAN.529 The TWINSPAN

527 e.g. Whallon 1984.528 Hietala 1984; Bolviken et al. 1982.529 Hill 1979.

Figure 111. Fossil specimen of Aglenus brunneus (Gyll.) from Reykholt alongside a drawing of the whole animal (drawing: P. Skidmore).

Figure 112. Location of environmental samples taken in 1988-89.

228 229

end groupings of samples are then used to attempt to identify any spatial patterns in the data. Once defined, the differences between the groups of samples are discussed using the percentage scores listed in Table 17.

Sample ClassificationFive sample groups have been identified by the TWIN­SPAN analysis (Table 17; Fig. 113). End Groups 1 and 2 comprise floor layer samples from Houses 1 and 2, the farm’s central passageway and a deposit below House 2 (S21) belonging to Phase 4. The TWINSPAN output suggests that the samples in these groups exhi-bit heterogeneity and are different enough to form two sample groups. For the purposes of the following discussion, however, they are dealt with together. Group 3 has two samples which are structural in nature. Sample S32 was excavated from turf in the wall and Sample S19 from a fill between the two floors in House 2. Group 4 comprises three samples from deposits below House 5. Lastly, Group 5 comprises two samples from the southern end of the central passageway. The detailed entomology of these sample groups is considered below.

Sample Groups 1 and 2The samples in these groups are very similar in their composition and are characterised by an abundance of synanthropic insect species (fig. 114). One insect in particular is especially associated with humans. The human louse, Pediculus humanus, is common in many of the samples (Table 17), but is particularly abundant in Sample S21, where 90 individuals were recovered. Unfortunately, preservation was not sufficient for the specimens to be identified as the subspecies, P. humanus capitis, the head louse, or the body louse, P. humanus humanus. Both subspecies feed on blood and spend the whole of their lifecycles on their hosts,530 and heavy infestations can cause insomnia, nervousness and anae-mia. The large numbers of lice in the samples suggest that they were a source of considerable irritation to the inhabitants of the farm. De-lousing was almost certainly a common event and would account for the concentration of the fossils in the floor deposit below House 2, which belongs to Phase 4.

530 Clay 1973; Marshall 1981.

Figure 113. Dendrogram of the TWINSPAN end groups used to interpret the Reykholt fauna.

Table17:Specieslistforsamplesfromthesixteenth-toearly-nineteenth-centurydeposits(CalculatedtoMNI).Taxonomyfollows Fauna Europaea.531

Taxa

Samples

S7 S14

S15

S19

S21

S22

S30

S32

S33

S36

R9S

1

R9S

6

R9S

9

R9S

26

ColeopteraCarabidaeNebria rufescens (Ström.) 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1Notiophilus biguttatus (F.) 1Bembidion bipunctatum (L.) 1 1 1 2Bembidion sp. 1Patrobus septentrionis (Dej.) 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 5Trichocellus cognatus (Gyll.) 1 1 3 1 1Pterostichus diligens (Sturm) 2 2 1 2P. rhaeticus Heer1 1 1Calathus melanocephalus (L.) 4 1 1 1 1 4 3 2 2 3 1 1Amara quenseli (Schön.) 4 4 2 1 1DytiscidaeHydroporus nigrita (F.) 1 1 6 1 1 1 2 1Agabus bipustulatus (L.) 1 1 1Colymbetes dolabratus (Payk.) 1CatopidaeCatops fuliginosus (Er.) 1 1 5 1 4 1StaphylinidaeOmalium rivulare (Payk.) 2 2 4 1 1 1O. excavatum Steph. 4 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 2Omalium sp. 1Xylodromus depressus (Grav.) 2 2 2 1X. concinnus (Marsham) 7 2 2 10 20 54 49 2 1 3 11 4 10Acidota crenata (F.) 1 3 1Acidota sp. 1Lesteva longoelytrata (Goeze) 2 15 1 3 1 3Stenus carbonarius (Gyll.) 2 17 3 5 2 1 3S. umbratilis (Casey) 2 3 1 2 1 1Stenus spp. 1 1 1Lathrobium fulvipenne (Grav.) 2

531 Fauna Europaea 2004.

230 231

Taxa

Samples

S7 S14

S15

S19

S21

S22

S30

S32

S33

S36

R9S

1

R9S

6

R9S

9

R9S

26

Othius angustus (Steph.) 1Philonthus politus (L.) 1 1Bisnius sordidus (Grav.) 19 1 1 1Philonthus sp. 1 1Gabrius spp. 2 40 1 5 3 2 1Creophilus maxillosus (L.) 1Quedius mesomelinus (Marsham) 1 22 3 2 1 4Q. umbrinus (Er.) 1 4Q. boops (Grav.) grp. 45 6 10 1 1 3 10 3 2 3 1Quedius sp. 2Tachinus corticinus (Grav.) 5 27 1 6 5 4 1 1 1Gymnusa brevicollis (Payk.) 1Atheta spp. 8 2 37Ocalea picata (Steph.) 1Oxypoda spp. 13Aleochara sparsa (Heer) 1 2 1 1 2 1Aleocharinae indet. 4 76 5 63 7 14 29 4 5 10 9 3 4PselaphidaeBryaxis puncticollis (Denny) 1ElateridaeHypnoidus riparius (F.) 2 1 2 1 1 1 1ByrrhidaeCytilus sericeus (Forst.) 1 1Byrrhus fasciatus (Forst.) 1 4 1 1 1 1 1SilvanidaeOryzaephilus surinamensis (L.) 1CryptophagidaeCryptophagus scanicus (L.) 1C. pilosus (Gyll.) 2Cryptophagus spp. 1 3 4 3 1 2Atomaria spp. 1 4 2 5 1 3LatridiidaeLatridius minutus (L.) (grp.) 24 2 1 45 43 88 15 15 6 6 2 34 11 10Corticaria elongata (Gyll.) 2 1 1 18 13 14 1 8 2 1 1 2 3 1MycetophagidaeTyphaea stercorea (L.) 7 1 3 3 1

Taxa

Samples

S7 S14

S15

S19

S21

S22

S30

S32

S33

S36

R9S

1

R9S

6

R9S

9

R9S

26

EndomychidaeMycetaea subterranea (Marsham) 1PtinidaeTipnus unicolor (Pill. & Mitt.) 5 1 4 9 12 52 64 2 2 1 10 3 4ScarabaeidaeAphodius lapponum (Gyll.) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1CurculionidaeOtiorhynchus arcticus (O. Fab.) 1 3 4 2 5 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1O. nodosus (Müll.) 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1Sitophilus granarius (L.) 1Rhinoncus pericarpius (L.) 1PhthirapteraPediculidaePhthiridaePhthirus pubis (L.) 3Siphonaptera indet. 1DipteraHippoboscidaeMelophagus ovinus (L.) 19 3 10 20 49 2 8 1 2 98 44 68Trichoptera indet. 29 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 2HymenopteraFormicidaeHypoponera punctatissima (Roger)

1

Leptothorax sp. 1

The presence of sheep is attested by their parasite, the ked, Melophagus ovinus (Table 17). This species feeds on blood and can cause severe irritation to their unfortunate hosts.532 As previous discussion of a fauna from a drain beneath a room at Stóra-Borg has suggested,533 its occurrence need not indicate that sheep were kept within the farmhouse. The keds spend

532 Marshall 1981.533 Buckland & Perry 1989.

the whole of their lifecycle on the sheep and die quickly when they are removed.534 One would expect losses from stalled animals to be low and their abundance at Reykholt probably relates to the processing of wool within the farmhouse rather than the stalling of animals (see Group 4, fig. 113).

The remaining synanthropes are associated with various types of decomposing material such as dung and

534 Hutson 1984.

232 233

foul plant residues, hay and grain. A large proportion of this fauna is associated with drier material such as mouldering hay (fig. 116). Insects common to this pabulum include the mould feeders, Cryptophagus spp., Atomaria spp., Latridius minutus (group) and Typhaea stercorea, and predatory staphylinids, Xylo­dromus spp., all of which are common in hay ricks, byres, stables and similar buildings in Iceland.535 The flightless spider beetle Tipnus unicolor reinforces this indication of a predominance of drier rotting material. The insect is extremely abundant in Samples S30 and S22 (Table 17) and, as has been noted above, it is frequently associated with human faeces; it is recorded from dwellings, byres and stores in Iceland.536

535 Larsson & Gígja 1959.536 Larsson & Gígja 1959.

pest in stored cereals, although this probably relates to increased damage as a result of modern harvesting and handling techniques, and in the past the saw-toothed grain beetle was more frequently a secondary associate of grain weevil infestation.538 Its recovery outside the kitchen (House 3) is probably coincidental. A record of the grain weevil Sitophilus granarius, from Sample R9S6 in House 5 is further evidence for stored grain. Whilst not included in Larsson and Gígja’s account of Icelandic Coleoptera,539 it is in Erling Ólafsson’s more recent checklist540 and there are medieval and post-medieval fossil records from Bessastaðir and Stóra-Borg.541 Fre-quently associated with stored barley and malt,542 its

538 Jones & Jones 1974.539 Larsson & Gígja 1959.540 Erling Ólafsson 1991.541 Amorosi et al. 1992; Perry et al.1985.542 Hunter et al. 1973.

origins and archaeological record have been discussed by Buckland,543 and more recently from a genetic and theoretical standpoint by Plarre.544

Whilst the hay and grain faunas are likely to have been frequently reintroduced, the larger ships of the post-medieval period provided more opportunities for accidental transport of both pest and other species. The recovery of a single individual of the ant Hypoponera punctatissima from Sample S30 in House 2 is of note since ants are not part of the indigenous Icelandic fauna. Virtually cosmopolitan at the present day, the species is largely synanthropic in Britain, where it is restricted to heated buildings, occasionally breeding outdoors in accumulations of decaying plant debris.545 There

543 Buckland 1991.544 Plarre 2010.545 Skinner & Allen 1996.

Figure 114. Percentages of the three main groups of insect assemblages recorded at Reykholt.

In common with the floor layer samples examined from elsewhere in Iceland, insects associated with fouler rotting residues, such as the species of Omalium and the Catopid, Catops fuliginosus are present in lower numbers (fig 116; Table 17). There is considerable overlap between insects found in this type of habitat and those which inhabit herbivore dung. Many of the more eurytopic staphylinids, Philonthus spp. and Quedius spp. are common to both pabula.

The single occurrence of the saw-toothed grain beetle Oryzaephilus surinamensis from Sample S33 in the passageway probably relates to stored grain, al-though it also occurs in a wide range of other stored products.537 In the present day it is the most frequent

537 Halstead 1993.

Figure 115. The ectoparasites recorded from Reykholt.

234 235

are recently-introduced colonies in the basements and ground floors of houses around Reykjavik.546 The ant genus Leptothorax includes over forty closely related species in Europe, several of which extend northwards into Scandinavia and the British Isles.547 Although not synanthropic, the example found in Sample S15 was probably introduced to the farm with the packaging of traded goods, perhaps straw packaging around wine bottles, from mainland Europe.

The remaining species are associated with environ-ments from outdoor habitats and are relatively abundant in all samples (fig. 114; Table 17). The insects could have been incorporated into the building in a variety of ways. The windows and doors of the farmhouse would be subject to the background rain of flying insects and insects carried by the wind. Constant human movement would

546 Erling Olafsson & Richter 1985.547 Collingwood 1979.

also have introduced further specimens transported in mud on footwear and clothing. In addition, as discussed above, materials such as peat, turf and hay have breeding and fossil populations of insects which become mixed with indoor faunas during storage and disposal.

The resolution of the faunas associated with peat and turf is problematic, since not only are many species common to both habitats, but there is also a continuum of habitat from bog to field and heath. Several species might have been introduced into the deposits along with peat, although the numbers are only estimates. Wetland species, such as Acidota crenata, Lesteva longoelytrata and Stenus spp. are all common inhabitants of bogs and marshes,548 and the carabids, Pterostichus rhaeticus and P. diligens are found in oligotrophic bogs.549 The aquatic species, such as larval caddis flies and the water beetle

548 Larsson & Gígja 1959; Lindroth et al. 1973.5490 Lindroth 1986.

Figure 116. Percentage scores of insects associated with rotting material and peat.

Hydroporus nigrita, are probably better indicators of the use of peat, or at least wet turves, since this provides the only pathway by which they could be consistently introduced into the house. It seems probable that there was a spread of peat on floors through Houses 1 and 2 and the passageway.

Sample Group 3This group comprises two ‘structural’ samples. S32 was taken from an internal turf wall of the central passageway, and S19 from a fill between the two floors in House 2. Sample S19 has the higher percentage of synanthropes, whereas Sample S32 has a greater pro-portion of aquatics and outdoor species (fig. 114). The majority of the synanthropes are associated with dry mouldy hay. The sample of wall turf (S32) has no ectoparasites (fig. 115).

One would expect to find a relatively high pro-portion of outdoor species in turf, and a concentration of synanthropes is at first rather surprising. Guðmundur Ólafsson,550 however, has pointed out that the lush growth of vegetation over a grazed, abandoned part of a midden would be an ideal source of structural turves, and these would inevitably incorporate elements of the faunas from house and byre thrown out onto the midden. In common with the less­trodden areas of floors, the internal walls would also have provided refuges for synanthropic species. The fill deposit is similar to the floor layers in House 2, suggesting that it is largely derived from re-worked floor deposits.

Sample Group 4The floor layer samples from House 5 are very different in terms of their species composition from those excavated from elsewhere in the farm complex. They exhibit a near total dominance of synanthropes, with very few outdoor and aquatic species (fig. 114), in terms of Coleoptera, similar to the cemetery deposit, although the faunas are less exclusively indoor. Ectoparasites of humans and

550 Guðmundur Ólafsson pers. comm. in 2003.

sheep are, however, very common (fig. 115; Table 17), and such concentrations indicate human activities such as wool processing and delousing.

It is unlikely that combing wool would produce the numbers of keds and lice present, and one is led towards a processing technique that both kills the para-sites and concentrates their corpses. As Buckland and Perry suggest,551 this might have involved gently heating the wool in a vessel of stale urine and discarding the scum that formed on the top. It is probable that some parasites would still remain in the wool after such a cleansing process and further work involving combing out remains would be necessary before spinning. This might have taken place in the other rooms, such as that belonging to Phase 4, which lies below House 2 of the Phase 5 farm, and could account for the spread of sheep parasites elsewhere in the farm. In the more extensive study of samples from the Norse farm at Gården under Sandet in the Western Settlement in Greenland, keds and sheep lice were widespread in small numbers in most rooms552 and probably reflect the processing of wool.

The high numbers of human lice, Pediculus humanus, are likely to reflect the frequent domestic activity of delousing. Whilst louse records are not infrequent from archaeological contexts, the three records of the crab louse, Pthirus pubis, are more interesting (Table 17). The latter is a first fossil record for Iceland, but the species has been found in Roman and medieval deposits in Britain,553 is noted in ancient Chinese literature and Greek and Roman sources,554 and had reached the New World in the pre-Columbian period.555 Restricted to humans – there is a closely related species on the gorilla – crab lice are sedentary in habit and infest the pubic and perianal regions, more rarely the moustache, beard and eye

551 Buckland & Perry 1989; for the widespread use of urine in the absence of commercial soaps, see also Stead 1981; 1982.

552 Panagiotakopulu et al. 2007.553 Kenward 1999.554 Hoeppli & Chiang 1940; Davies & Kathirithamby 1986; Bea-

vis 1988.555 Rick et al. 2001.

236 237

lashes.556 They are unable to survive more than 24 hours when separated from their host, and are transmitted mainly during sexual intercourse with an infested partner. The fossils are almost certainly casualties of delousing which were discarded in House 5 along with the residues from wool processing.

Sample Group 5This group comprises two samples from the floor at the southern end of the passageway. The samples have a lower proportion of synanthropes and a higher proportion of outdoor and aquatic species (fig. 114). It is tempting to see this as confirmation of the use of peat as litter in the passageway, but samples from the floor elsewhere in the passageway are dissimilar. Given the localised nature of the assemblage, an alternative explanation is that the samples are a result of collapsed turves from the wall or roof of the building.

Discussion of the Post-Medieval FarmOne of the problems of converting invertebrate faunal evidence into human environments is the paucity of objective, detailed contemporary accounts. Foreigners, particularly middle-class English and lowland Scot visitors, tend to be particularly disparaging of the homes of others whilst often turning a blind eye to what was on their own doorstep. With this caveat, however, the accounts of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century travellers in Iceland offer sources of information regarding the appearance and interior environments of Icelandic farm houses. Henry Holland, writing in 1810,557 describes the farm at Stóruvellir:

Seen externally there appears little more than nine distinct mounds of earth, or hillocks, between which there are several footpaths, and upon which grass grows with the utmost luxuriance – examined more minutely, small windows, and circular apertures for the exit of the smoke, appear in various places.

556 Clay 1973.557 Wawn 1987, 248-9.

Internally the house is a complete cavern – the passages perfectly dark, and apartments having no more light than is admitted by a single pane of glass – this even almost obscured by dust and dirt.

Barrow’s observations of 1834 describe the interior of a smaller farm:558

On stooping under the door... I immediately found myself in a narrow passage with a clay or earthen floor, on each side of which, about midway, there was a shelf some four feet from the ground. On one of these shelves was spread out what appeared to be a bed, but without protection on the side; and on the opposite one was placed a variety of articles of clothing. On the ground beneath these shelves were piled up a large quantity of dried fish, and odds and ends of all sorts thrown together in utmost confusion. At the farther extremity of the passage I entered the kitchen, in which a small fire was smothering.

Such descriptions, particularly the larger farm at Stóru-vellir, might well fit the farm house at Reykholt. There is little doubt that the samples were deposited at a time when the farm was inhabited and the insect remains offer an insight into its environment. The spatial analysis of the samples has indicated certain ‘activity’ areas within the farm. Wool processing and delousing residues occur underneath House 5, and it is likely that such activities were undertaken in that location. The concentration of synanthropes in deposits beneath House 2 suggests an accumulation indicative of human activities, most nota-bly delousing and further wool processing, an activity also indicated by substantial artefactual evidence. One can envisage, therefore, a two-stage procedure with the first cleansing stage taking place in the room excavated below House 5, after which the wool was taken to the room excavated below House 2 for further combing and spinning. This room probably represents one of the main living rooms of the farm during the Phase 4 occupation.

558 Boucher 1989, 105.

There is little doubt that a more vigorous sampling stra-tegy, particularly in Houses 1 and 3, the probable kitchen, would have yielded additional data.

As at most sites where it has been possible to sample directly from preserved domestic floors in Iceland and Greenland,559 the insects at Reykholt indicate a spread of hay and peat through all rooms and the passageway. This may have been deliberate since both hay and peat are absorbent, and would provide a softer, more comfortable walking surface than cold flags. Both the layers of flooring material in the farmhouse produced similar insect faunas. The low incidence of insects associated with foul rotting material and dung further suggests that sheep were housed outside of the farm’s main living quarters. The percentage figures (figs. 114­116) indicate that generally

559 cf. Panagiotakopulu et al. 2007.

the samples from the passageway have a lower incidence of species closely tied to indoor activities at the farm and more outdoor and aquatic taxa. This is in keeping with the passageway being the only structure of the complex with direct access to the outdoors. Several of the carabids and other predatory species may well have actively entered the building seeking prey, others may have been brought inside in mud on shoes or lived and accumulated in the less trampled areas of litter in the passageway.

Health and HygieneLice are common in earlier Icelandic deposits at Bessa-staðir and in Norse Greenland,560 and the literature of this and later periods indicates familiarity with the bite

560 Amorosi et al. 1992; Panagiotakopulu 2001.

Figure 117. Nineteenth-century farm buildings at Sauðhúsvöllur in Southern Iceland.

238 239

of a louse.561 It is unusual, however, to find such large accumulations and they may carry some implications about the levels of personal hygiene enjoyed by the in-habitants of Reykholt. Large populations of body lice are often indicative of individuals who only infrequently wash and change clothes, although head lice prefer clean hair to dirty. Whilst the pubic louse is transmitted during sexual intercourse, body and head lice are spread by contact with infested clothing and bedding and hair. Their immediate effects on a host are irritation of the scalp or skin where the bites occur. This is a minor irritation, however, when compared with the significance of lice in historical times in their role as vectors in the spread of disease.562 The body louse is known to carry a number of pathogenic micro-organisms, in particular Rickettsia prowazekii, which causes epidemic typhus.563 As well as the very real threat of louse-borne disease, lousy individuals are at increased risk from local infection at the sites of the bites, leading to septicaemia. Given the apparent high levels of infestation at Reykholt, delousing must have been a necessary and frequent event.

The Local EnvironmentThe outdoor insects offer an indication of the farm’s immediate local environment. Dry areas with short vege-tation are suggested by the xerophilous ground beetles, Amara quenseli, Calathus melanocephalus and Notiophilus biguttatus. The low number of phytophagous species in the Icelandic fauna limits information on the flora, but some indication of the type of vegetation is present. The weevils Otiorhynchus arcticus and O. nodosus are commonly associated with grassland, where they feed on a variety of herbaceous plants.564 Rhinoncus pericarpius is associated with species of dock (Rumex spp.),565 and the byrrhids, Cytilus sericeus and Byrrhus fasciatus feeds on mosses.

561 cf. Guðrún Sveinbjarnardottir & Buckland 1983.562 Busvine 1976.563 Harden 1993564 Böcher 1988; Larsson & Gigja 1959565 Morris 2008.

The Medieval FarmSpecies found predominantly within buildings are common in the medieval midden [577], many of which occur frequently in human living quarters, suggesting that a large part of the substrate derives from domestic areas of the farm, probably from the cleaning out of floor deposits. The consistent nature of the fauna within different layers suggests that this occurred repeatedly. Although the poor dispersal ability of some of these synanthropic species implies the permanent occupation of the farm, the disappearance of Aglenus brunneus suggests some significant local break in habitat continuity at the site. It is possible that A. brunneus only maintained its populations in one particular structure, or groups of structures, which was warmer than others, the species inhabiting a deep floor litter of plant debris – one is tempted to suggest a brewhouse, although this goes beyond the available evidence. Demolition of such structures, perhaps isolated from the remainder of the farm, could have lead to the extinction of a long-lived, if very local population.

The paucity of foul residue species implies that byre waste did not form a significant proportion of the deposit, and much of this, as the human waste, is likely to have been spread on the hayfields as manure.566 There is a contrast here with the later samples from the coastal farm mound at Stóra-Borg, where debris built up to a significant depth, perhaps as a result of a net deficit of labour at the farm.567 The presence of peat and/or turf in the midden is indicated by both beetle faunas and the amorphous, sometimes partly burnt fragments noted in the plant macrofossil samples, and it was probably used within habitations both as litter and fuel. In both the midden and cemetery samples, the presence of mycelial fungal feeders and their predators is significant, but the evidence for storage of hay is ambiguous due to the similarities between faunas from hay used as human litter and that stored for animal consumption. As in the

566 cf. Buckland et al. 2009.567 cf. Buckland et al. 1994.

later buildings, the occurrence of sheep ectoparasites, however, suggests the processing of fleeces and wool, and therefore domestic activity. The coleopterous carrion fauna is not well developed in medieval Iceland, although there is an extensive dipterous assemblage. The bone evidence from Reykholt indicates the transport of fish from the coast (see Chapter 6.4), and the bones of sheep and cattle, whose products would have required storage would have provided suitable habitats. An invertebrate fauna living on animal substrates would suggest the possibility of stored meat in the buildings, and it is unfortunate that the study of fossil Diptera was insufficiently advanced when much of this work was done to allow interpretation.568 Perversely, the one sample with an extensive fly fauna which has been examined (from context [465]) contains few Coleoptera. The dry open environment of the farm itself is well represented

568 cf. Panagiotakopulu 2004.

in the outdoor faunas, and species associated with meadow, heath and bog environments are also present; there remains the problem, however, of sorting out contemporary specimens from those deriving from peat as fossils.

It is interesting to contrast the Reykholt data with that from Bessastaðir.569 Grain beetles are considerably more abundant in medieval phases at the latter site, and when coupled with the other indications in the palaeoecological record, this has overtones with respect to the farm’s status. Although data pertaining to other sites are limited, first indications suggest that the farm at Bessastaðir had considerable influence over trade from the tenth century onwards, perhaps functioning as a gateway for redistribution to other farms. Other farms, such as Reykholt, seem to have acquired less in the way of imported resources, most notably grain. It would be

569 Amorosi et al. 1992.

Figure 118. Location of off-site insect analyses in the Reykholt landholding. 1: Reykholtssel; 2: BR2; 3: RHD2; 4:RHD3; 5: Faxadalur.

240 241

rewarding to ascertain whether this pattern is repeated in the artefactual record, but this will have to wait until the processing of the Bessastaðir excavation material has been completed.

6.1.5 InsectRemainsintheSurroundingArea KimVickers

In addition to the on-site insect samples analysed from the farm mound at Reykholt itself, a number of analyses have been undertaken on sequences from within the landholding of Reykholt (fig. 118). These include the off­site sequences RHD 2, RHD3 and BR2, which are located reasonably close to the farm site.570 Also sampled were sequences from close to shieling sites which belonged to Reykholt,571 and these will be discussed elsewhere (1 and 5 on the maps in fig. 118).).

The majority of the samples taken from these sites date to the pre-landnám period and provide evidence of the nature of the Icelandic environment prior to any anthropogenic influence (BR2, RHD2, RHD3). The assemblages from these samples are in general consistent with those recovered from other pre-landnám contexts in Iceland and provide a picture of damp, humus-rich woodland and bog.572 Species typical of these samples include those associated with wet vegetation such as Patrobus septentrionis and Pterostichus diligens; taxa which often live in the damp litter layer, some usually associated with woodlands, such as Lathrobium brunnipes and Bryaxis puncticollis, Quedius umbrinus, and Icelandic species of Stenus; the water beetles Hydroporus nigrita and Agabus bipustulatus, as well as species associated with relatively drier, more open areas such as Calathus melanocephalus, Otiorhynchus nodosus and Dorytomus taeniatus, the last developing on several species of willow.573

Although ubiquitous as sub-fossils in pre-landnám samples across Iceland, some of these species are rare in

570 Egill Erlendsson et al. in press; Vickers 2006.571 Egill Erlendsson et al. in prep.; Vickers & Guðrún Svein-

bjarnardóttir submitted.572 Buckland 1988.573 Lindroth et al. 1973.

the modern fauna of the island (fig. 119). For example, Lathrobium brunnipes is currently recorded from only two localities in Iceland. The restriction in distribution of this species has been attributed to increased drainage and the loss of the wet moss habitats in which it lives.574 At Holt575 and Stóra-Mörk,576 it disappears soon after settlement, whilst at Ketilsstaðir, at a site further away from human activities, it persisted at least until the sixteenth century.577 The distribution of B. puncticollis follows a similar pattern, and its decline has been attributed to woodland clearance.578

Other species, which are less typical of pre-landnám samples and rare in the modern fauna of Iceland are also present in and around Reykholt. These include the small staphylinid Gymnusa brevicollis, found in Sphagnum bogs and the wetland Stenus umbratilis, the decline of which may also be attributed to the drainage of mires.

Figure 119.Distribution of modern and fossil occurrences of species found in and around Reykholt which are currently absent or restricted in the Icelandic beetle fauna.579

574 Buckland et al. 1986b.575 Buckland et al. 1991a.576 Vickers et al. 2011.577 Buckland et al. 1986a; 1986b; 1991b.578 Buckland et al. 1991b.579 Sources: Vickers et al. 2011; Egill Erlendsson et al. 2011; Lars-

son & Gígja 1959; Lindroth 1965; Lindroth et al. 1973; Buck-land et al 1986a; 1986b; 1991a; 1991b; 1992; 1995; Buckland & Sadler 1991; Amorosi et al. 1992; 1994; Sadler & Dugmore 1995; Caseldine et al. 2004.

The range of species recovered from pre-landnám samples around Reykholt provides a useful context for the interpretation of the assemblage of outdoor beetles recovered from anthropogenic deposits at the site. As discussed above, a common problem in archaeologically-derived insect assemblages in the North Atlantic region is the incorporation of individuals as fossils from peat older than the deposits in which they are found. A comparison of the pre-landnám assemblages from the landscape surrounding Reykholt with the assemblages from the medieval midden deposits indicates that over 50% of the non-synanthropic beetle species recovered are present locally as fossils in peat, a fact that urges caution with regard to interpretation of the contemporary environment based on these taxa.

6.2 Plant and Pollen Remains

6.2.1 CharredRemainsofGrains andSeedsfromHearth[99] GarðarGuðmundssonandGordonHillman580

In 1989 a highly organic sample (R9S25) containing charred plant remains, including barley seeds, was taken from hearth [99], which belongs to the earliest occupation phase at the site. The find location is described in detail in Chapter 4.1.1. The hearth and the area surrounding it contained charcoal, peat ash and fire­cracked stones. Seeds of the barley were AMS dated, first in 1992, when one date was obtained with 14C estimates calibrated with 2 sigma falling between c. AD 875 and 1250, and subsequently on two grains with the outside calibrated estimates with 2 sigma of the two dates falling between AD 990 and 1170.581

Description and MethodsThe sample, which was taken predominantly with the

580 A fuller version of the analysis of this sample appears in Garðar Guðmundsson et al. submitted.

581 See discussion in Chapter 4.1.1; and OxA-3818, SUERC-8207 and 8208 in Tables 2 and 2.1 in Chapter 3.

aim of recovering the barley seeds, which were very visible in the hearth before sampling, consisted of just 49 ml of raw material. The sample did not need further processing, not least because of the nature of the deposit, which turned out to be remarkably rich in charred re-mains of cultivated barley and weed seeds. It was sorted and seeds identified under a Leica binocular microscope with a magnification of x6­x40. Seeds were identified by observation of surface features and patterns, size, shape and, sometimes, the seed anatomy. Comparison was also made to Gordon Hillman’s personal reference collection; the reference collection of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London and various seed atlases were consulted.582 Nomenclature follows Den Nordiska Floran,583 with revisions.

ResultsThe barley, the only domesticate in the sample, was identified as hulled six­rowed. A total of 152 charred grains were retrieved, together with occasional segments of rachis and frequent fragments of the sharp awns (see Table 18). Barley is the most climatically tolerant of any of the crops that originated in the Near East. Today, all the barley grown in Europe and the Near East is of the hulled type.

At least nine seed types that were identified are likely to have come from plants which probably grew as weeds with barley. The few fragments of oat florets, Avena sp., are likely to have been a contaminant in the crop, and some of the other species, such as Spergula arvensis, Polygonum (= Fallopia) convolvulus, Galeopsis tetrahit and Stellaria media, are archetypical weeds of cereal crops, particularly under traditional systems of husbandry. The inclusion of Carex with the weeds may be explained as infestation in a poorly drained field,584 or as residue from the burning of peat as fuel.

The results of the analysis were not conclusive in

582 Beijerinck 1947; Berggren 1969 a, b; Bertsch 1941; Körber-Grohne 1964; Martin & Barkley 1961.

583 Mossberg & Steinberg 1992.584 Hinton 1990.