Buckland P. I. Engelmark R. Linderholm J

REPORT no. 2001-017

Environmental Archaeological

Investigation of Samples from the

Kaupang 2000 Excavations

By

Phil Buckland, Roger Engelmark, Johan

Linderholm and Pat Wagner

1. Introduction ... 1

2. Methods ... 3

2.1 Soil Chemistry ... 3

2.2 Archaeobotany... 4

2.3 Palaeoentomology ... 4

3. The Samples ... 5

3.1 Soil Chemistry and Archaeobotany ... 5

3.2 Palaeoentomology samples... 5

4 Results ... 6

4.1 Soil Chemistry ... 6

4.2 Archaeobotany... 6

Pits ... 7

Wells ... 8

Latrines ... 11

4.3 Palaeoentomology ... 13

5. Discussion ... 16

References... 18

1. Introduction

The Environmental Archaeology Lab was contracted in June 2000 to carry out palaeoenvironmental analyses on samples from the Kaupang excavation in Southern Norway. Excavation was carried out during that summer, and Pat Wagner (Sheffield University) was employed by the excavators to supervise initial sampling and teach the sampling and field processing methods. The sampled features included waterlogged deposits interpreted as wells and latrines, and deposits from pits of unknown function. Fossil preservation varied considerably, being both a function of modern conditions and the hydrological history of the deposit, and one cannot guarantee that all materials are equally preserved.

A total of 15 soil samples were submitted to the lab, all of which were to undergo macrofossil analysis, and 6 of which were, in addition, to be analysed with respect to their fossil insect assemblages. As a matter of routine all samples underwent rudimentary soil chemistry analyses. Table 1 summarises the samples and the analyses performed upon them. In addition to the soil samples received, several jars of test material floated on site were included, these were cursorily examined as a control to the soil samples, i.e. their faunas were checked against the appropriate sample to see whether any extra species were present in the jars. These samples are not listed in the results as the faunas were too small to be of real analytical value.

Context Sample

Additional

data Sediment inclusions* Analyses

PM _Exc

ava tor 's int er pr et at ion Pr of ile Phot o Phos pha te , L O I, M S Ins ec t M ac ro (P ol le n)

AL12669/A9422 12620 Latrine X X Bark, much organic X X X

A1625, lag 3 12938 Well X X Teeth, wood, burnt bone, charcoal X X X X

A1635, lag 3 13779 Well X X Teeth, bone, charcoal X X X X

A9062 15893 Well X X Teeth, wood, bone (burnt & unburnt),charcoal X X

A17015 17207 Pit Clayey, wood, charcoal, bone X X

AL24204/A20082 24231 Well Wood, bark, charcoal X X

A28480 28374 Latrine? Wood, bark, charcoal, organics X X X

A5088, lag 2 1004280 Pit X X Clay-coarse sand, bone, charcoal X X

A5088, lag 6 1004281 Pit X X Clayey, fish bone, charcoal X X

A5107, lag 1 1004282 Pit X X

Clayey, wood, burnt bone, burnt clay,

charcoal X X

A5190, lag 1 1004283 Pit X X Clayey, bone, charcoal X X

A15175 1004286 Pit X Wood, bark, bone, organics X X X

AL11611/A10135 1004288 Well Wood, bark X X

A4129 1004290 Well X Clayey, charcoal X X

A15175 1004291 Latrine Wood, bone, charcoal X X X

Jar samples excluded, but were checked as a control

"Organics" is used to signify decayed vegetation remains/dung/peat, which can look similar.

LOI = Loss On Ignition MS = Magnetic

Susceptibility

2. Methods

2.1 Soil Chemistry

The chemical methods employed here are the same as those used in the Swedish soil chemical studies following the methodological approach of Engelmark and Linderholm (1996). The parameters analysed are explained in Table 2.

Abbreviation Method Description

MS Magnetic

Susceptibility

Magnetic susceptibility measured on 10g of soil, with a Bartington MS2 system with an MS2B probe (Dearing 1994). Data are reported as SI-units per ten grams of soil, (corresponding to Xlf, 10-8m3kg-1) (Thompson & Oldfield

1986).

MS550 Magnetic

Susceptibility after burning at 550o_C

Magnetic susceptibility after 550° C ignition (units as above)

LOI(%) Loss On Ignition Soil organic matter, determined by loss on ignition at 550° C, in percent.

Pcit Inorganic phosphate content (ppm)

Extraction with 2% citric acid (corresponding to the Arrhenius method (Arrhenius 1934 and 1955)) Ptotcit Total phosphate (ppm)

(inorganic & organic)

Extraction with 2% citric acid on ignited soil P quota Ptotcit/Pcit Ratio of inorganic to total phosphate

Table 2. Soil chemistry parameters

All soil samples were subsampled (approx 150ml), dried (30° C), and homogenised with a porcelain mortar so as to pass through a 0.6 mm sieve. Extracted phosphate was subsequently determined spectrophotometrically using molybdenum blue reagent in a sulphuric acid solution (Arrhenius 1934). Arrhenius reported data as P° (phosphate degrees) as mg P2O5100g-1dried soil. In this report,

however, all phosphate data are reported as ppm P (ppm phosphorus).

By combustion at temperatures at which the soil organic matter (SOM) is oxidised (in this case 550°C), the organically bound P is released (converted to inorganic forms), and can subsequently be extracted with citric acid (cf. Bethell and Máté 1989, p 21-22, Liversage et al. 1987). An obtained value of P (in this report referred to as Ptot) does not correspond to the true total P-content, but the results achieved are reproducible and they reflect roughly the organic and inorganic fraction of P. It may be worth noting that in Sweden, where acid podsols are common, P° values generally range from 0-100 P° (0-400 ppm) for natural podsolic soils, 75-250 P° (350-1000 ppm) in soils affected by cultural activity, and >250 P° (1000 ppm) for heavily disturbed soils. Ptot/ P° values around 1,0 have been found to be associated with “dwelling sites” with high phosphate inputs, whereas in locations of animal stabling and manured fields, the ratios are higher.

From an analytical chemical point of view the analysed P isoperationally definedor defined by the extraction method as such. This means, for instance, that calcareous soils will neutralize weak acids so that less phosphate is released. Also, apatite may be formed during the combustion, which is less soluble in citric acid. As a consequence the Ptot might be less than determined inorganic-P. Similar problems may occur in Al-rich soils, where complex formation between Al, Mg and P may occur,

also resulting in lower yields regarding the total P-content compared with inorganic P-content. This means that these methods cannot be uncritically applied to any samples.

2.2 Archaeobotany

The samples for botanical analyses were processed with a combination of flotation and sieving to assure the recovery of both carbonised and subfossil plant material. A mesh size of 200µ was used only for smaller sediment volumes because of its tendency to clog. The paraffin flotation method for insects proved to be excellent for small seeds, and the samples processed for entomology were also used for seed extraction. Subsamples of the insect samples were clean water floated through 200µ sieves as a control.

The carbonised plant material has in most cases a different origin than the subfossil material. Carbonisation obviously needs fire, and plants from food preparation or plant material brought indoors may be charred in the hearth during daily household work or more occasionally in house fires. The carbonised plant material is more representative of economically valuable and useful plants. Cereal grains as well as peas and beans are almost exclusively preserved by carbonisation.

2.3 Palaeoentomology

Samples selected for complete palaeoentomological analysis were processed according to the standard paraffin floatation method (Coope & Osborne 1968), as follows. Sediments were carefully disaggregated in warm water over a 300µ sieve. Samples that proved difficult were soaked in a weak sodium hydroxide solution for a few days in order to aid separation. The cleaned sample was drained, mixed with a small amount of paraffin, and then left to settle after filling with cold water. After 15 minutes the floating/suspended proportion was poured into a 300µ sieve, and the remaining sediment stirred and re-floated. The flotation process is repeated three times, and then the contents of the sieve thoroughly washed in detergent in order to remove the paraffin. The float is then

washed with ethanol, transferred to a beaker of ethanol, and examined under a binocular microscope at x12 magnification. Identifiable (and interesting) insect fragments are picked out and placed in a tube; these are then identified by comparison with a reference collection.

Processing and sorting was performed by Phil Buckland at the Umeå Environmental Archaeology Lab (MAL), and insects were identified by Pat Wagner at the University of Sheffield. Interpretation was aided by the Bugs Coleopteran Ecology Package (Bucklandet al., 1997).

3. The Samples

3.1 Soil Chemistry and Archaeobotany

All 15 samples were processed for plant macrofossils and soil chemistry, as shown in Table 1.

3.2 Palaeoentomology samples

It was determined by the excavators that six samples should be analysed for fossil insect remains, of these, two were selected by MAL from a group of five as being the most informative of the group: Selected by the excavators:

PM28374 A28480 Riggegrop brønn (Possible latrine) PM1004286 A15175 Latrine (Christer), blåleire

PM1004291 A15175 Latrine (Christer), i latrinefyll

PM12620 A12669 Latrine (Gry)

Selected by MAL:

PM13779 A1635, lag 3 Brønn, avløp PM12938 A1625, lag 3 Brønn, avløp

The last two samples were chosen from the five suggested by the excavators for there relative abundance and preservation when compared to the others within the group. All samples were subjected to a one litre test in order to determine their viability. The test procedure followed the standard floatation procedure (as described above). No attempt to identify the preserved remains was made, but any particularly interesting occurrences were noted for incorporation into the interpretations.

4 Results

Results are summarised by method, and a combined discussion follows.

4.1 Soil Chemistry

The soil chemistry results are somewhat surprising with respect to the excavated feature

descriptions (results shown in Table 3). In particular, two of the ‘Latrines’ (A12669 & A15175) have extremely low phosphate values, which suggests that they in all probability are not latrines. The high phosphate values in human excrement would be resident in the sediments were this so. The sediments are, however, highly organic, which would explain the “dungy” character of the deposits. Additionally, the majority of the ‘Wells’ produced exceedingly high phosphate values, which do not suggest a drinkable water source. It is however, almost impossible to fully understand a feature with only one sample, and it could be that these values represent a particular infill stage of a feature that previously had a more functional purpose.

PM Anl/Lager

Excavator's

interpretation MS MS550 LOI(%) Pcit ppm Ptot cit ppm P quota

12620 12669 Latrine 4 440 45.0 182 933 5.1

12938 1625/3 Well 35 198 26.5 1595 1700 1.1

13779 1635/3 Well 20 83 21.8 2028 2238 1.1

15893 9062 Well 14 101 22.7 2304 2888 1.3

17207 17015 Pit 173 322 11.0 4262 3781 0.9

24231 AL24204/A20082 Well 54 509 20.9 3240 3420 1.1

28374 28480 Latrine? 13 256 21.0 2494 2542 1.0

1004280 5088/2 Pit 187 252 5.3 4292 3901 0.9

1004281 5088/6 Pit 144 192 5.5 3961 3691 0.9

1004282 5107/1 Pit 194 282 7.0 3961 3781 1.0

1004283 5190/1 Pit 178 363 6.2 4232 3871 0.9

1004286 15175 Pit 47 88 19.2 292 756 2.6

1004288 AL11611/A10135 Well 128 1266 22.8 1054 2199 2.1

1004290 4129 Well 44 37 3.1 1075 1288 1.2

1004291 15175 Latrine 5 262 40.9 1243 2232 1.8

Table 3. Soil Chemistry results

4.2 Archaeobotany

The results are presented in tables. The taxa are arranged alphabetically by Linnean name within a few ecological groups. Identification varies from species level to family level depending on preservation and intraspecific variability of seed morphology.Carexnutlets are easy identified to Distigmaticae, two-sided or Tristigmaticae, three-sided, and single nutlets may be identifiable to species group. These groupings have no ecological significance. Identification down to species level normally requires enough nutlets to calculate the morphological variability. The same can be argued for the grass-family Poaceae, which further more needs good preservation conditions since only the thin seed-coat is preserved. Juncus is a genus with very small seeds (~0,5 mm) of similar shape. Differentiation is based on cell structure and, due to their small size, a microscope preparation is needed for identification to the species level. This is very time consuming and must be weighed up against the indication value in each sample.

The plant groups in the tables: 1. Cultivated plants

2. Weeds and ruderals

3. Meadow and wetland plants

4. Other plants not fitting in the other groups

A group is only included if there are any plant of that group present. The distinction between weeds and ruderals is unclear. Both grow in disturbed soils, arable weeds in fields and ruderals in other anthropogenically disturbed environments. Most weeds can behave as ruderals if soil conditions are suitable. Most species of this group are annual and propagate with effective seed production, and very few are perennial (e.g. stinging nettle).

Meadow plants grow in open but not strongly disturbed habitats, normally a grass sward. Wetland plants are more restricted to natural vegetation, shores and fens. There is a diffuse border between the two groups. Some plants prefer nutrient enriched and slightly disturbed sites, such as ditches and trampled ground, and could just as well be included among the ruderals.

Grouped among the “Other plants” are trees and possibly collected plants such as berries and nuts.

Pits

Context A5088

lag 2

A5088 lag 6

A5107 lag 1

A5190 lag 1

A17015

Arter / Prøvenr (PM) 1004280 1004281 1004282 1004283 17207

Bygg (Hordeum vulgare) 1 1

Kveite (Triticum aestivum) 1

Cerealia fragment 1 1

WEEDS

Klinte (Agrostemma githago) 1

Meldestokk (Chenopodium album) 3

Klengjemaure (Galium aparine) 5

Villrot (Hyoscyamus niger) 1

Åkersvinerot (Stachys palustre) 1

Smånesle (Urtica urens) 1 8

Vikke (Vicia sp.) 2

GRASSLAND AND WETLAND PLANTS

Storr (Carex spp.) 2 8 7 2

Kattost (Malva neglecta/silvestris) Åkermynte (Menta arvensis)

Gras (Poaceae) 1 6 5

Mure (Potentilla sp.) 1

Blåkoll (Prunella vulgaris) 1

Evjesolei (Ranunculus reptans) 1

Engkall (Rinanthus sp.) 1

Småsyre (Rumex acetosella) 2 1

Smelle (Silene sp.) 1

Kvitkløver (Trifolium cf repens) 4

Kløver (Trifolium spp.) 2

Hasselskal (Corylus avellana) 5 7 7 1

Bringebær [Rubus idaeus] 1

Bjønnbær (Rubus corylifolius coll.) 1

Cereal grains are present among the carbonised material, along with a few arable weeds which do not occur in the subfossil material. The cereals are barley and wheat, but too few in number to make any further interpretation. Hazel nut shells are present in most carbonised samples and should have been a common ingredient in the diet.

The samples also contain uncarbonised seeds ofChenopodium, grass, andTrifolium, but the seeds characteristics, in terms of colour and preserved embryo, suggest them to be recent contaminants.

Wells

PM 12938, A1625, lag3

WEEDS AND RUDERALS

Meldestokk (Chenopodium album) 5

Då (Galeopsis sp.) 13

Villurt (Hyoscyamus niger) 8

Tunurt (Polygonum aviculare) 7

Vasspepar (Polygonum hydropiper) 6

Vassarve (Stellaria media) 22

Stornesle (Urtica dioica) 10

Smånesle (Urtica urens) 4

MEADOW AND WETLAND PLANTS

Storr (Carex spp.) 8

Mjødurt (Filipendula ulmaria) 4

Firkantperikum (Hypericum cf maculatum) 2

Klourt (Lycopus europaeus) 3

Gras (Poaceae) 8

Tiggarsoleie (Ranunculus sceleratus) 16

Brunnkarse (Rorippa palustre) 2

Småsyre (Rumex acetosella) 2

PM 13778, A1635, lag3

CULTIVATED PLANTS

Lin (Linum usitatissimum) 1

WEEDS AND RUDERALS

Meldestokk (Chenopodium album) 7

Åkervortemjølk (Euphorbia helioscopia) 1

Då (Galeopsis tetrahit/bifida) 11

Villurt (Hyoscyamus niger) 18

Tunurt(Polygonum aviculare) 2

Pengeurt (Thlaspi arvense) 1

Stornesle(Urtica dioica) 100

Smånesle(Urtica urens) 9

Storr (Carex Distigmaticae) 16

Storr (Carex Tristigmaticae) 6

Mjødurt (Filipendula ulmaria) 3

Gåsemure (Potentilla anserina) 1

Blåkoll (Prunella vulgaris) 2

Soleie (Ranunculus acris/repens) 5 Tiggarsoleie (Ranunculus sceleratus) 39

Småsyre (Rumex acetosella) 1

PM13779, A1635, lag3

WEEDS AND RUDERALS

Melde (Atriplex sp.) 3

Meldestokk (Chenopodium album) 10

Då (Galeopsis tetrahit/bifida) 9

Villrot (Hyoscyamus niger) 14

Tungras (Polygonum aviculare) 7

Vassarve (Stellaria media) 6

Stornesle (Urtica dioica) >500

Smånesle (Urtica urens) 11

MEADOW AND WETLAND PLANTS

Gråstorr (Carex cf. canescens) 10

Storr (Carex spp.) 4

Mjødurt (Filipendula ulmaria) 5

Hanekam (Lychnis flos-cuculi) 1

Soleie (Ranunculus acris/repens) 2 Tiggarsoleie (Ranunculus sceleratus) 20 Some of the plant material badly preservation PM15893, A9062

WEEDS AND RUDERALS

Stornesle (Urtica dioica) 2

MEADOW AND WETLAND PLANTS

Storr (Carex Distigmaticae) 5

Storr (Carex flava coll.) 6

Storr (Carex Tristigmaticae) 2

Sumpsevaks (Eleocharis cf palustris) 1

Sev (Juncus spp.) >1000

Tepperot (Potentilla erecta) 3

The sample contains a lot of bark and the plant material is heavily corroded. PM24231, AL24204/A20082

WEEDS AND RUDERALS

Villrot (Hyoscyamus niger) 1

Groblad (Plantago major) 6

Tungras (Polygonum aviculare) 1

Svinerot (Stachys palustre) 8

Storr (Carex Distigmaticae) 16

Storr (Carex Tristigmaticae) 17

Firkantperikum (Hypericum maculatum) 5 Prikkperikum (Hypericum perforatum) 1

Sev (Juncus spp.) >1000

Vill-lin (Linum catharticum) 1

Mynte (Mentha spp.) 2

Tepperot (Potentilla erecta) 3

Mure (Potentilla spp.) 3

Soleie (Ranunculus acris/repens) 3 Tiggarsoleie (Ranunculus sceleratus) 9

Kongslys (Verbascum sp.) 1

Myrfiol (Viola palustre) 1

Stemorsblom (Viola tricolor) 1

The sample is influenced by saline water and input of seaweed. Hydroid oothecae are abundant.

PM1004288, AL11611/A10135 WEEDS AND RUDERALS

Meldestokk (Chenopodium album) 10

Melde (Chenopodium cf. rubrum) 1

Groblad (Plantago major) 1

Vass-slirekne (Polygonum amphibium) 1

Tungras (Polygonum aviculare) 15

Hönsegras (Polygonum lapathifolium) 1

Vassarve (Stellaria media) 8

Stornesle (Urtica dioica) 10

Smånesle (Urtica urens) 1

Veronika (Veronica Sp.) 2

MEADOW AND WETLAND PLANTS

Storr (Carex Distigmaticae) 10

Storr (Carex Tristigmaticae) 2

Gras (Poaceae) 9

Tepperot (Potentilla erecta) 2

Mure (Potentilla spp.) 5

Blåkoll (Prunella vulgare) 2

Soleie (Ranunculus acris/repens) 1 Tiggarsoleie (Ranunculus sceleratus) 2

Soleie (Ranunculus sp.) 2

OTHER PLANTS

Hassel (Corylus avellana) 1

Bjønnbær (Rubus corylifolius) 3

Bringebær (Rubus idaeus) 1

Single hydroid oothecae indicate salt water influence. PM 1004290, A4129

CULTIVATED PLANTS

Meldestokk (Chenopodium album) 1

Stornesle (Urtica dioica) 1

MEADOW AND WETLAND PLANTS

Storr (Carex sp.) 2

Soleie (Ranunculus acris/repens) 1

Småsyre (Rumex acetosella) 1

OTHER PLANTS

Hasselskal (Corylus avellana) 3

Very few seeds, mainly wood.

The plant material from features considered wells separates into two parts. A1625 and A1635 have predominantly nitrophilous weeds and ruderals, which means that the

surroundings were heavily nutrient enriched. A possible explanation is that the features are water holes for animals. Among the subfossil plant remains a single seed of flax is found (A1635, lag3), but this is not enough to propose a flax-retting place. Features A24204 and A9062, with meadow-wetland plants dominating, and abundantJuncusare probably influenced by salt water. They would be of less importance as a fresh water supply. A10135 and A4129 are intermediate with no group dominating, although A10135 displays a slight saline influence.

Latrines

PM1004286, A15175

WEEDS AND RUDERALS

Meldestokk (Chenopodium album) 3

Knavel (Scleranthus annuus) 1

MEADOW AND WETLAND PLANTS

Storr (Carex sp.) 1

Mjødurt (Filipendula ulmaria) 1

Gras (Poaceae) 13

Sev (Juncus spp.) 25

Vill-lin (Linum cathartica) 1

Klourt (Lycopus europaeus) 2

Tepperot (Potentilla cf erecta) 1

Myrhatt (Potentilla palustre) 1

Tiggarsoleie (Ranunculus sceleratus) 40

Brunnkarse (Rorippa palustre) 14

MP1004291, A 15175

WEEDS AND RUDERALS

Tungras (Polygonum aviculare) 7

Vasspepar (Polygonum hydropiper) 5

Krushøjmole (Rumex crispus) 2

Stornesle (Urtica dioica) 5 MEADOW AND WETLAND PLANTS

Storr (Carex Distigmaticae) 1

Arve (Cerastium sp.) 1

Myrtistel (Circium cf. paluste) 1

Mjødurt (Filipendula ulmaria) 1

Paddesev (Juncus bufonius) 40

Sev (Juncus spp.) 11

Klourt (Lycopus europaeus) 6

Kjeldeurt (Montia fontana) 4

Gras (Poaceae indet.) 10

Krypkvein (Agrostis stolonifera/canina) 3 Knevererumpe (Alopecurus geniculatus) 35

Engrapp (Poa cf. pratensis) 15

Blåkoll (Prunella vulgaris) 1

Soleie (Ranunculus repens/acris) 1 Tiggarsoleie (Ranunculus sceleratus) 34

Brunnkarse (Rorippa palustre) 15

MP 12620, A12669

WEEDS AND RUDERALS

Tvitann (Lamium sp.) 1

Tungras (Polygonum aviculare) 1

Vassarve (Stellaria media) 2

Stornesle (Urtica dioica) 1

MEADOW AND WETLAND PLANTS

Storr (Carex Distigmaticeae) 11

Storr (Carex Tristigmaticeae) 3

Sumpsevaks (Eleocharis cf. palustre) 1

Mjødurt (Filipendula ulmaria) 1

Sev (Juncus sp.) 1

Klourt (Lycopus europaeus) 3

Myrhatt (Potentilla palustre) 47

Gras (Poaceae) 1

Tiggarsoleie (Ranunculus sceleratus) 1

Småsyre (Rumex acetosella) 1

COLLECTED PLANTS

Humle (Humulus lupulus) 12

PM28374, A28480

WEEDS AND RUDERALS

Meldestokk (Chenopodium album) 7

Tungras (Polygonum aviculare) 7

Hønsegras (Polygonum lapathifolium) 1

Smånesle (Urtica urens) 1

MEADOW AND WETLAND PLANTS

Vill-lin (Linum catharticum) 2

Frytle (Luzula sp.) 1

Klourt (Lycopus europaeus) 1

Groblad (Plantago major) 4

Gras (Poaceae) 11

Blåkoll (Prunella vulgaris) 3

Tiggarsoleie (Ranunculus sceleratus) 4

Småsyre (Rumex acetosella) 1

Fjøresaulauk (Triglochin maritimum) 1 OTHER PLANTS

Bjørk (Betula sp.) 12

Krekling (Empetrum nigrum) 1

The plant composition in the latrine deposit is dominated by meadow and wetland plants. Weeds, and particular the nitrophilous ones, are more or less lacking.

There is fairly the same composition in most of the samples. A number of hop seeds (Humulus lupulus) in A12669 are probably not cultivated, and may have been collected for flavouring beer or have grown naturally in the shore thicket.

4.3 Palaeoentomology

The sediments themselves were all highly organic and generally produced large floats. All samples produced reasonable to large numbers of insect fragments, although the state of preservation (i.e. level of erosion of the chitin) and the fragmentation levels varied from sample to sample and within one sample (PM13779) internally between two different groups.

Full species lists are presented in Appendix I; what follows here is a basic summary of the

environments suggested by each of the sample faunas, which will be elaborated on in the discussion. PM28374, A28480

The most striking thing about this fauna is the superabundance ofOmosita colon(L.), a beetle which is found primarily among dry bones and decaying, but dry organic matter; only Lathridiusspp, feeders on slime moulds approach it in frequency, and both tend to be more common in synanthropic situations. Several other species are indicative of dung, but the small number of true dung beetles (such asAphodiusspp. andGeotrupesspp.) and associated predators in dung suggests that animal dung was not the prime content of the refuse pit. The structure, on the other hand, is almost certainly covered or inside a building, since there are almost no Carabids (ground beetles) present. These species are highly mobile and become incorporated into almost all exposed pitfalls, and, for example, several species tend to be common on the exposed disturbed ground around human habitations. Species of Aphodiusmay be similarly mobile, tending to fly to light, although several species also are known to breed in heaps of plant debris as well as dung (Landin 1961).

Fly pupae were very abundant in the sample, as were the corresponding Coleopterous predators. A foul environment, perhaps with dried mouldy animal debris, either skins or bones, is most probable.

PM1004286, A15175

This sample produced a considerably contrasting fauna to the above. Although the diversity is reasonable, the number of individuals per species is small. There are no strong

synanthropic indicators, and the assemblage can best be described as resembling an expected background fauna. The presence of both Foraminifera and egg cases of brine shrimps

indicates a saline environment, and the PselaphidBrachygluta helferiis restricted to salt marsh and related habitats (Koch 1989). When the insects are taken into account, the environment could have been a slightly stagnant pool, which was occasionally inundated with sea water. The lack of the HydroidDynamaena pumilaoothecae, a colonial epizoote which lives attached to seaweed, suggests that the site lay beyond the normal tide line, but within reach of saline waters.

PM1004291, A15175

In contrast to the decidedly indoor fauna of PM28374, this sample firmly suggests an

outdoor location.Carabidsare found in number, as are various plant specific species such as the Curculionidae (weevils), and one individual of the rather largeCetoniacf.aurata(L.) (the Rose Chafer). The assemblage would seem to be suggesting a cleaner environment than the other samples, a little damp, or with standing, but clean, shallow water nearby, perhaps fringed withSalixspp. The spider beetlePtinus palliatusdevelops in mouldy old rotted trees. This natural interpretation is bolstered up by the relative lack of fly puparia, which are usually abundant in the foul situation which tend to occur around human occupation sites.. PM12620, AL12669/A9422

This is again a practically Carabid free sample, which suggests an indoors/covered location, with many synanthropic species present. Mouldy vegetable material is implied by the Lathridiids, and the foul rotting plant component, possibly dung, by the large numbers of Cercyonspp. andCryptopleurum minutum, Omosita colon(L.) is again present, but not super abundant. It would, however, rarely be present were it not for the presence of carrion, in particular dry bones, and the scarabaeidTrox scaberoccurs in similar habitats. Although the fauna is most indicative of a general waste pit, rather than a specific latrine, the indoor location could be responsible for the lack of true dung beetles. A pit located outdoors tends to attract these species in larger numbers, in addition to large numbers of Carabids and other predators.

Samples selected by MAL

An arbitrary preservation, abundance and fragmentation index was applied to the floats from the one litre test samples, the results of which may be interesting to other aspects of the analysis, and are displayed in Table 4.

Context Sample no. Test results (1 bad - 5 good)

Abundance Preservation Fragmentation

Insects analysed?

A1635, lag 3 PM13779 4 4 4 Yes

A1625, lag 3 PM12938 3 3 3 Yes

A9062 PM15893 1 4 5

A4129 PM1004290 2 3 2

AL24204/A20082 PM24231 2 3 1

Table 4.. Selective processing test results

PM13779, A1635, lag 3

This sample contains a wide range of Carabids, which suggests an open ground context, as well as numerous weevils (Apionspp. andCeutorhynchusspp.) and Chrysomelids, which are almost all plant feeders found in natural habitats. The anthropophilic fauna is small, but the dung fauna is well developed and suggests the presence of animals or at least their dung in the environs. An interesting aspect is that half of the specimens are severely eroded, and many of the sclerites seem to have suffered from insect attack themselves. This could indicate a period of drying out in the taphonomic history of the deposit, and might suggest relocation of the sediment. The preservation, however, makes identifications very difficult, and the faunal list includes a good number of species, which could not be identified beyond the generic level.

PM12938, A1625, lag 3

Although somewhat similar to PM13779, implying an open, largely natural habitat, with some dung and other decaying plant and animal matter, the large number of the bark beetle Leperisinus variussuggests the proximity of moribund ash,Fraxinus excelsior, or the presence of unbarked branches of this tree either in or adjacent to the pit. The beetle flies well, however, and single individuals may be found some way from their host tree. The 22 individuals of theCryptophagusgenus, along with twoQuediusspecimens are a good indication of decaying vegetation or mould, and are often classed as synanthropic species. The presence of domesticated animals is indicated by the two lice (Damaliniasp.), most probably the sheep louse (D. ovis), and these indicate human presence by way of their domesticated animals. The previously mentioned decay feeders are also often present in the slightly decaying fodder of animals.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

In a typical well fill, the period of drinking water utilisation is represented only by a small, usually laminated part in the bottom of the well. The rest of the fill consists of collapsed walls and actively dumped material. Depending on groundwater fluctuations, the preservation of organic material in this secondary fill may vary between wells. The interpretation of this material is somewhat risky since the fill is not necessary of local origin and plant material from quite different situations may be present (Engelmark 1995, Ranheden 1995). Similarly, one would expect low MS values, due to the chemically reduced environment caused by waterlogging, and lower LOI (relative to the values seen here), if the water was more or less clean drinking water. The presence of animal lice and dung beetles in two of the wells (A1625 & A1635) more suggests a watering hole frequented by domestic animals than a well for human water supply. The high LOI supports this, and the low MS similarly strengthens the suggestion of periodic drying out (at least not permanent waterlogging). That the features were not covered is almost certain due to the number of ground beetles and plant specific individuals found.

In latrine deposits, small seeds and pips from consumed berries and fruits would be expected, mosses or other material used as “toilet paper”, and furthermore nitrophilous plants which grow around the feature. The first two groups are important in differentiating latrines from refuse or waste pits. Consequently the investigated latrine fills produced no botanical evidences for their latrine status. The profile diagram for A9422 shows that the sampled context is probably part of a secondary feature cut into an earlier fill deposit, and the stratigraphy strongly suggests several successive dumping events, rather than continuous use succeeded by collapse. The sampled sediment, Layer 11, was “dungy” in character but contains no specific dung beetles, but rather insects suggesting a waste pit environment within a building, or outside but well covered, there is a very strong indication for the presence of bones or animal skins. It could be that the layer represents cleaning deposits from another area of the site, or that the pit itself was a covered refuse hole dug into an earlier feature. It is impossible to say whether this earlier feature was a latrine without looking at Layer 7, the fill of the earlier cut.

It is useful to note that very few typical latrine species are found in any of the “latrines”, and that only one of the suggested cesspit species group of Carrot and Kenward (2001) (for Medieval York) is identified (Anotylus tetracarinatus). This is not to say that further analyses of the other layers would not produce these species.

There are comparatively few carbonised cereal grains and weed seeds in the features. In a fully agrarian site carbonised grains are spread more evenly over the site area as refuse, ending up in most depressions. The Kaupang site gives no such signals. The few grains found could well be the result of products brought from other areas and processed on the site. The quantification of agrarian production from carbonised grains is however uncertain, and pollen could give more conclusive evidence of activities in the surrounding area. The complete lack of specific grain pest insects suggests that grain was not stored on the site in any large quantities (cf. Levinson & Levinson (1994), Panagiotakopulu & Buckland (1991), Buckland et al. (1992)).

The subfossil botanical material is substantial, and suggests an urban situation. Plants requiring very highly nutritious conditions and regular disturbance of the soils dominate and are tabled under Weeds and ruderals. Some species prefer warm localities and grow along the walls of buildings (e.g. Hyoscyamus niger), and others can withstand trampling (e.g.Plantago majorandPolygonum aviculare). Similarly there is a strong synanthropic fauna in at least two of the samples (latrines A9422 & A28480), which could be considered urban. The other samples where the insects were

Among the meadow and wetland plants occurring in all samples, only a few grow in pits and ditches, but the majority grow in natural habitats and must have been brought to the site either as hay for fodder or bedding or with peat or turf for roofing etc.

Some pits are influenced by saline water, and the site plans will show whether this is due to tide water influence, periodic flooding, salt water spray, or manual fetching of sea water to the site. The presence of Hydroid oothecae, brine shrimp eggs, and Foraminifera give definite indications of saline influence. In some cases these could be transported to the site in the guts of fish, but the backup of saline tolerant beetles makes this less probable.

The plant material can, unfortunately, say nothing about seasonality or duration of occupation, and only analyses of successive deposits in stratigraphic sequences have a hope of elucidating these questions. Similarly it is difficult to enter into these issues with the data from the insects. Many insects do exhibit seasonal swarming, and can be used together with the other proxies to give indications of seasonality. The number of samples here is unfortunately too few, (and the sampled features are possibly not sufficiently seasonally dependent) to provide any conclusions.

There are no indications so far of imported plants or insects, all identified individuals being known as native to the Scandinavian mainland from the Medieval period. The preservation of plant

material is so good that pips from figs and grapes would have been identified if present. Latrines are especially good features for preserving these plant remains, and further analysis is necessary if they are to be discovered.

Unfortunately single samples from complex structures cannot answer complex questions of site interpretation, they can only give useful hints towards a greater understanding. The Kaupang material is sufficiently well preserved to warrant further, more detailed study and an integrated programme in which study of the insect and plant remains would form a key part. More complete analyses of the deposits in the well and latrine features would most definitely provide more

information on their functions, and the high degree of preservation could make this one of the most important palaeoecological data sources in Scandinavia.

References

Arrhenius, O. 1934. Fosfathalten i skånska jordar.Sveriges Geologiska Undersökningar. Ser C, no 383. Årsbok 28, no 3.

Bethell, P.H & Máté, I. 1989. The use of soil phosphate analysis in archaeology: A critique. In (J. Henderson. Ed.)Scientific Analysis in Archaeology. Oxford University Committee, monograph No.19 (pp 1-29 ).

Buckland, P.C., Sadler, J. P. & Sveinbjarnardóttir, G. (1992) Palaeoecological Investigations at Reykholt, Western Iceland. In, C. J. Morris & D. J. Rackman (eds.)Norse and Later Settlement and Subsistence in the North Atlantic ,149-168. Dept. of Archaeology, University of Glasgow.

Buckland, P. I., Yuan Zhuo D. & Buckland, P. C. (1997) Towards an expert system in Palaeoentomology. In Ashworth, A.C., Buckland, P.C., & Sadler, J.P.(eds.) (1997)Studies in Quaternary Entomology - An Inordinate Fondness for Insects.Quaternary Proceedings5, 71-79. Carrot, J. & Kenward, H. (2001) Species associations among insect remains from urban

archaeological deposits and their significance in reconstructing the past human environment. Journal of Archaeological Science, Vol 28, Nr 8. 887-905.

Coope, G. R. & Osborne, P. J. (1968) Report on the Coleopterous Fauna of the Roman Well at Barnsley Park, Gloucestershire. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society,86, 84-87.

Engelmark, R. (1995) Brunnarna på Håbolandet – en pollen och makrofossilanalys. In, Eriksson, T & Engelmark R. (eds) “Om brunnar – discussion kring brunnar på Håbolandet”, 57-69.

Riksantikvarieämbetet (Stockholm).

Engelmark, R & Linderholm, J. (1996). Prehistoric land management and cultivation. A soil chemical study.Proceedings from the sixth Nordic Conferens on the Application of Scientific Methods in Archaeology, Esbjerg 19-23 September 1993. AREM 1. Esbjerg.

Koch, K. (1989a & b; 1990)Ökologie, 1-3. Die Käfer Mittleeuropas.Goecke & Evers, Krefeld. Levinson, H. & Levinson, A. (1994) Origin of grain storage and insect species consuming desiccated food.Anzieger Schädlingskunde, Pflanzenschutz, Umweltschutz,67, 47-59.

Liversage, D, Munro M.A.R, Courty M.A, & Nørnberg, P. 1987. Studies of a buried Iron Age Field. Acta Archaeologica. vol 1, (pp 55-84)

Panagiotakopulu, E. & Buckland, P. C. (1991) Insect pests of stored products from Late Bronze Age Santorini, Greece.Journal of stored Product Research,27, 179-184.

Ranheden, H (1995) Järnåldersbrunnen i Skälby – en markprocessuell diskussion. In, Eriksson, T & Engelmark R. (eds.) “Om brunnar – discussion kring brunnar på Håbolandet”, 69-82.

Appendix I

Insect species list.

Samples (PM)

28374 1004286 1004291 12620 13779 12938

CARIBIDAE (Ground beetles)

Notiophilus sp. 1

Clivina fossor (L.) 1

Dyschirius septentrionum Munst. 1 1

Dyschirius globosus (Hbst.) 6 2 2

Dyschirius sp. 1

Trechus secalis (Payk.) 1 1

Trechus fulvus Dej. 1

Trechus micros (Hbst.) 1

Trechus sp. 1

Bembidion sp. 1

Pterostichus diligens (Strm.) 1 1

Agonum sp. 1

Amara aenea (Deg.) 1

Amara sp. 1 2

Carabidae gen indet 1 1 4 3 3

DYTISCIDAE (Water beetles)

Hydroporus pubescens (Gyll.) 1

HYDRAENIDAE (in/near water)

Ochthebius minimus (F.) 2

Helophorus sp. 1 1 3 1

HYDROPHILIDAE (Water scavenger beetles)

Cercyon tristis (Ill.) 1

Cercyon analis (Payk.) 1 11

Cercyon spp. 6 10 7 11

Cryptopleurum minutum (F.) 1 21 3

Hydrobius fuscipes (L.) 1

HISTERIDAE

Paralister purpurescens (Hbst.) 1 1

PTILIIDAE (Featherwing beetles)

Ptenidium sp. 1 2 2 2

STAPHYLINIDAE (Rove beetles)

Micropeplus porcatus (Payk.) 2

Omalium excavatum Steph. 1

Lesteva longoelytrata Goez. 1 1

Lesteva sp. 1

Carpelimus sp. 3 12

Oxytelus sculptus Grav. 2 2 1

Anotylus rugosus (F.) 1 2 8 1

Anotylus complanatus (Er.) 1

Anotylus tetracarinatus Block 4

Platystethus arenarius (Fourc.) 1 1 1

Platystethus sp. 1 1 3

Stenus sp. 1 3 1

Gyrohypnus punctulatus (Payk.) 2 1 1 2 7 8

Tachinus laticollis Grav. 1

Tachinus sp. 1 1 2

Atheta spp. 2 2 2 1 2 1

Aleocharinae indet. 10 2 1 11 2

Staphylinidae spp. 9 9

PSELAPHIDAE

Bibloporus sp. 1

Brachygluta helferi (Sch.-Goeb.) 1

MALACHIIDAE

Malachius aeneus (L.) 1

BYRRHIDAE (Pill beetles)

Cytilus sericeus (Forst.) 1

NITIDULIDAE (Sap beetles)

Omosita colon (L.) 46 5 2 1

Nitidula sp. 1

RHIZOPHAGIDAE

Rhizophagus depressus (F.) 1

Rhizophagus sp. 1

CUCUJIDAE

Monotoma sp. 2

EROTYLIDAE

Triplax/Tritoma sp. 1

CRYPTOPHAGIDAE

Cryptophagus sp. 1 1 1 22

Atomaria spp. 5 7 7 2

LATHRIDIIDAE (Mould beetles)

Lathridius anthracinus Mann. 2 2

Lathridius minutus (grp.) 20 1 1 3 4 3

Dienerella filum (Aube) 1

Corticaria crenulata (Gyll.) 1 1

Corticaria sp. 2 4

Corticarina sp. 1 1

PTINIDAE (Spider beetles)

Ptinus pusillus Strm. 1

Ptinus palliatus Perr. 1

Ptinus sp. 2 2

SCARABAEIDAE (Chafers, dung beetles, etc.)

Trox scaber (L.) 1

Geotrupes sp. 1

Aphodius porcus (F.) 1 1

Aphodius lapponum Gyll. 1 1

Aphodius ater (Deg.) 1

Aphodius granarius (L.) 2

Aphodius spp. 3 1 2 1 12 12

Cetonia aurata (L.) 1

CHRYSOMELIDAE (Leaf beetles)

Macroplea sp. 1

Donacia sp. 1

Chrysolina sp. 1 1

Aphthona sp. 1

Longitarsus sp. 1

Chaetocnema hortensis (Fourc.) 1 1 2

Chaetocnema sp. 1

SCOLYTIDAE (Bark beetles)

Leperisinus varius (F.) 1 1 11

CURCULIONIDAE (True weevils)

Curculionidae indet. 6 2 7

Apion spp. 1 2 3 6

Sitona lepidus Gyll. 1

Sitona sp. 1

Lixus sp. 1

Hypera spp. 2

Limnobaris dolorosa (Goez.) 1

Ceutorhynchus erisimi (F.) 1

Ceutorhnychus timidus Wiese 1

Ceutorhynchus spp. 2 4

Rhynchaenus iota (F.) 1

Rhynchaenus (Isochnus) foliorum (Müll.) 1 1

OTHERS (Not Coleoptera)

Daphnia ephiphippa *** *** **

Foraminifera *

Hydroid ootheca 1

Louse (animal) 2

5. Discussion and Conclusions

In a typical well fill, the period of drinking water utilisation is represented only by a small, usually laminated part in the bottom of the well. The rest of the fill consists of collapsed walls and actively dumped material. Depending on groundwater fluctuations, the preservation of organic material in this secondary fill may vary between wells. The interpretation of this material is somewhat risky since the fill is not necessary of local origin and plant material from quite different situations may be present (Engelmark 1995, Ranheden 1995). Similarly, one would expect low MS values, due to the chemically reduced environment caused by waterlogging, and lower LOI (relative to the values seen here), if the water was more or less clean drinking water. The presence of animal lice and dung beetles in two of the wells (A1625 & A1635) more suggests a watering hole frequented by domestic animals than a well for human water supply. The high LOI supports this, and the low MS similarly strengthens the suggestion of periodic drying out (at least not permanent waterlogging). That the features were not covered is almost certain due to the number of ground beetles and plant specific individuals found.

In latrine deposits, small seeds and pips from consumed berries and fruits would be expected, mosses or other material used as “toilet paper”, and furthermore nitrophilous plants which grow around the feature. The first two groups are important in differentiating latrines from refuse or waste pits. Consequently the investigated latrine fills produced no botanical evidences for their latrine status. The profile diagram for A9422 shows that the sampled context is probably part of a secondary feature cut into an earlier fill deposit, and the stratigraphy strongly suggests several successive dumping events, rather than continuous use succeeded by collapse. The sampled sediment, Layer 11, was “dungy” in character but contains no specific dung beetles, but rather insects suggesting a waste pit environment within a building, or outside but well covered, there is a very strong indication for the presence of bones or animal skins. It could be that the layer represents cleaning deposits from another area of the site, or that the pit itself was a covered refuse hole dug into an earlier feature. It is impossible to say whether this earlier feature was a latrine without looking at Layer 7, the fill of the earlier cut.

It is useful to note that very few typical latrine species are found in any of the “latrines”, and that only one of the suggested cesspit species group of Carrot and Kenward (2001) (for Medieval York) is identified (Anotylus tetracarinatus). This is not to say that further analyses of the other layers would not produce these species.

There are comparatively few carbonised cereal grains and weed seeds in the features. In a fully agrarian site carbonised grains are spread more evenly over the site area as refuse, ending up in most depressions. The Kaupang site gives no such signals. The few grains found could well be the result of products brought from other areas and processed on the site. The quantification of agrarian production from carbonised grains is however uncertain, and pollen could give more conclusive evidence of activities in the surrounding area. The complete lack of specific grain pest insects suggests that grain was not stored on the site in any large quantities (cf. Levinson & Levinson (1994), Panagiotakopulu & Buckland (1991), Buckland et al. (1992)).

The subfossil botanical material is substantial, and suggests an urban situation. Plants requiring very highly nutritious conditions and regular disturbance of the soils dominate and are tabled under Weeds and ruderals. Some species prefer warm localities and grow along the walls of buildings (e.g. Hyoscyamus niger), and others can withstand trampling (e.g.Plantago majorandPolygonum aviculare). Similarly there is a strong synanthropic fauna in at least two of the samples (latrines

Among the meadow and wetland plants occurring in all samples, only a few grow in pits and ditches, but the majority grow in natural habitats and must have been brought to the site either as hay for fodder or bedding or with peat or turf for roofing etc.

Some pits are influenced by saline water, and the site plans will show whether this is due to tide water influence, periodic flooding, salt water spray, or manual fetching of sea water to the site. The presence of Hydroid oothecae, brine shrimp eggs, and Foraminifera give definite indications of saline influence. In some cases these could be transported to the site in the guts of fish, but the backup of saline tolerant beetles makes this less probable.

The plant material can, unfortunately, say nothing about seasonality or duration of occupation, and only analyses of successive deposits in stratigraphic sequences have a hope of elucidating these questions. Similarly it is difficult to enter into these issues with the data from the insects. Many insects do exhibit seasonal swarming, and can be used together with the other proxies to give indications of seasonality. The number of samples here is unfortunately too few, (and the sampled features are possibly not sufficiently seasonally dependent) to provide any conclusions.

There are no indications so far of imported plants or insects, all identified individuals being known as native to the Scandinavian mainland from the Medieval period. The preservation of plant

material is so good that pips from figs and grapes would have been identified if present. Latrines are especially good features for preserving these plant remains, and further analysis is necessary if they are to be discovered.

Unfortunately single samples from complex structures cannot answer complex questions of site interpretation, they can only give useful hints towards a greater understanding. The Kaupang material is sufficiently well preserved to warrant further, more detailed study and an integrated programme in which study of the insect and plant remains would form a key part. More complete analyses of the deposits in the well and latrine features would most definitely provide more

information on their functions, and the high degree of preservation could make this one of the most important palaeoecological data sources in Scandinavia.

References

Arrhenius, O. 1934. Fosfathalten i skånska jordar.Sveriges Geologiska Undersökningar. Ser C, no 383. Årsbok 28, no 3.

Bethell, P.H & Máté, I. 1989. The use of soil phosphate analysis in archaeology: A critique. In (J. Henderson. Ed.)Scientific Analysis in Archaeology. Oxford University Committee, monograph No.19 (pp 1-29 ).

Buckland, P.C., Sadler, J. P. & Sveinbjarnardóttir, G. (1992) Palaeoecological Investigations at Reykholt, Western Iceland. In, C. J. Morris & D. J. Rackman (eds.)Norse and Later Settlement and Subsistence in the North Atlantic ,149-168. Dept. of Archaeology, University of Glasgow.

Buckland, P. I., Yuan Zhuo D. & Buckland, P. C. (1997) Towards an expert system in Palaeoentomology. In Ashworth, A.C., Buckland, P.C., & Sadler, J.P.(eds.) (1997)Studies in Quaternary Entomology - An Inordinate Fondness for Insects.Quaternary Proceedings5, 71-79. Carrot, J. & Kenward, H. (2001) Species associations among insect remains from urban

archaeological deposits and their significance in reconstructing the past human environment. Journal of Archaeological Science, Vol 28, Nr 8. 887-905.

Coope, G. R. & Osborne, P. J. (1968) Report on the Coleopterous Fauna of the Roman Well at Barnsley Park, Gloucestershire. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society,86, 84-87.

Engelmark, R. (1995) Brunnarna på Håbolandet – en pollen och makrofossilanalys. In, Eriksson, T & Engelmark R. (eds) “Om brunnar – discussion kring brunnar på Håbolandet”, 57-69.

Riksantikvarieämbetet (Stockholm).

Engelmark, R & Linderholm, J. (1996). Prehistoric land management and cultivation. A soil chemical study.Proceedings from the sixth Nordic Conferens on the Application of Scientific Methods in Archaeology, Esbjerg 19-23 September 1993. AREM 1. Esbjerg.

Koch, K. (1989a & b; 1990)Ökologie, 1-3. Die Käfer Mittleeuropas.Goecke & Evers, Krefeld. Levinson, H. & Levinson, A. (1994) Origin of grain storage and insect species consuming desiccated food.Anzieger Schädlingskunde, Pflanzenschutz, Umweltschutz,67, 47-59.

Liversage, D, Munro M.A.R, Courty M.A, & Nørnberg, P. 1987. Studies of a buried Iron Age Field. Acta Archaeologica. vol 1, (pp 55-84)

Panagiotakopulu, E. & Buckland, P. C. (1991) Insect pests of stored products from Late Bronze Age Santorini, Greece.Journal of stored Product Research,27, 179-184.

Ranheden, H (1995) Järnåldersbrunnen i Skälby – en markprocessuell diskussion. In, Eriksson, T & Engelmark R. (eds.) “Om brunnar – discussion kring brunnar på Håbolandet”, 69-82.

Appendix I

Insect species list.

Samples (PM)

28374 1004286 1004291 12620 13779 12938 CARIBIDAE (Ground beetles)

Notiophilus sp. 1

Clivina fossor (L.) 1

Dyschirius septentrionum Munst. 1 1

Dyschirius globosus (Hbst.) 6 2 2

Dyschirius sp. 1

Trechus secalis (Payk.) 1 1

Trechus fulvus Dej. 1

Trechus micros (Hbst.) 1

Trechus sp. 1

Bembidion sp. 1

Pterostichus diligens (Strm.) 1 1

Agonum sp. 1

Amara aenea (Deg.) 1

Amara sp. 1 2

Carabidae gen indet 1 1 4 3 3

DYTISCIDAE (Water beetles)

Hydroporus pubescens (Gyll.) 1

HYDRAENIDAE (in/near water)

Ochthebius minimus (F.) 2

Helophorus sp. 1 1 3 1

HYDROPHILIDAE (Water scavenger beetles)

Cercyon tristis (Ill.) 1

Cercyon analis (Payk.) 1 11

Cercyon spp. 6 10 7 11

Cryptopleurum minutum (F.) 1 21 3

Hydrobius fuscipes (L.) 1

HISTERIDAE

Paralister purpurescens (Hbst.) 1 1

PTILIIDAE (Featherwing beetles)

Ptenidium sp. 1 2 2 2

STAPHYLINIDAE (Rove beetles)

Micropeplus porcatus (Payk.) 2

Omalium excavatum Steph. 1

Lesteva longoelytrata Goez. 1 1

Lesteva sp. 1

Carpelimus sp. 3 12

Oxytelus sculptus Grav. 2 2 1

Anotylus rugosus (F.) 1 2 8 1

Anotylus complanatus (Er.) 1

Anotylus tetracarinatus Block 4

Platystethus arenarius (Fourc.) 1 1 1

Platystethus sp. 1 1 3

Stenus sp. 1 3 1

Gyrohypnus punctulatus (Payk.) 2 1 1 2 7 8

Tachinus laticollis Grav. 1

Tachinus sp. 1 1 2

Atheta spp. 2 2 2 1 2 1

Aleocharinae indet. 10 2 1 11 2

Staphylinidae spp. 9 9

PSELAPHIDAE

Bibloporus sp. 1

Brachygluta helferi (Sch.-Goeb.) 1 MALACHIIDAE

Malachius aeneus (L.) 1

BYRRHIDAE (Pill beetles)

Cytilus sericeus (Forst.) 1

NITIDULIDAE (Sap beetles)

Omosita colon (L.) 46 5 2 1

Nitidula sp. 1

RHIZOPHAGIDAE

Rhizophagus depressus (F.) 1

Rhizophagus sp. 1

CUCUJIDAE

Monotoma sp. 2

EROTYLIDAE

Triplax/Tritoma sp. 1

CRYPTOPHAGIDAE

Cryptophagus sp. 1 1 1 22

Atomaria spp. 5 7 7 2

LATHRIDIIDAE (Mould beetles)

Lathridius anthracinus Mann. 2 2

Lathridius minutus (grp.) 20 1 1 3 4 3

Dienerella filum (Aube) 1

Corticaria crenulata (Gyll.) 1 1

Corticaria sp. 2 4

Corticarina sp. 1 1

PTINIDAE (Spider beetles)

Ptinus pusillus Strm. 1

Ptinus palliatus Perr. 1

Ptinus sp. 2 2

SCARABAEIDAE (Chafers, dung beetles, etc.)

Trox scaber (L.) 1

Geotrupes sp. 1

Aphodius porcus (F.) 1 1

Aphodius lapponum Gyll. 1 1

Aphodius ater (Deg.) 1

Aphodius granarius (L.) 2

Aphodius spp. 3 1 2 1 12 12

Cetonia aurata (L.) 1

CHRYSOMELIDAE (Leaf beetles)

Macroplea sp. 1

Donacia sp. 1

Chrysolina sp. 1 1

Aphthona sp. 1

Longitarsus sp. 1

Chaetocnema hortensis (Fourc.) 1 1 2

SCOLYTIDAE (Bark beetles)

Leperisinus varius (F.) 1 1 11

CURCULIONIDAE (True weevils)

Curculionidae indet. 6 2 7

Apion spp. 1 2 3 6

Sitona lepidus Gyll. 1

Sitona sp. 1

Lixus sp. 1

Hypera spp. 2

Limnobaris dolorosa (Goez.) 1

Ceutorhynchus erisimi (F.) 1

Ceutorhnychus timidus Wiese 1

Ceutorhynchus spp. 2 4

Rhynchaenus iota (F.) 1

Rhynchaenus (Isochnus) foliorum (Müll.) 1 1 OTHERS (Not Coleoptera)

Daphnia ephiphippa *** *** **

Foraminifera *

Hydroid ootheca 1

Louse (animal) 2