Árbók Hins íslenzka fornleifafélags - 01.01.1980, Blaðsíða 116

120
ÁRBÓK FORNLEIFAFÉLAGSINS
parasites (c.f. Pike & Biddle, 1966) could clarify this point. Girling (1977) has
identified a similar problem with bird crop pellets containing insects in ar-
chaeological deposits.
With the caveat that the plant assemblages are essentially the product of
human activity, some idea of the landscape around Stóraborg can be obtained
from the floral lists, although a much more detailed picture should emerge
when more samples have been processed. To some extent the plants can be
divided into broad habitat groupings: cultivated and broken ground, pasture-
and meadowland, wetland and heaths. The percentages of these groups in
each sample do not differ in a statistically significant sense: cultivated and
broken ground 28%, pasture and meadowland 36% and wetland and heaths
32%. It must be stressed, however, that these groupings are not mutually ex-
clusive categories but a gradational series and several of the less ecologically
demanding species may occur in all groups. Most of the plants can be found
growing close to the site today. The heathland species, E. nigrum, has disap-
peared from the improved pasture near to the site but can be found on the less
improved areas of sandur. The nearest modern record of U. urens is from
Stokkseyri, 70km north-west of Stóraborg (Steindórsson, 1957). All the
plants, however, could have been found in a transect from the disturbed
ground around the farm buildings, across the infield to the wetlands by the
Kaldaklifsá.
Many of the Coleoptera (table 3) fit into the natural environment suggested
by the plant evidence, including all the Carabids (járnsmiðaættin), several
Staphylinids Qötunuxaættin), Aphodius lapponum (taðdýfill), Hypnoidus
riparius (smellibjalla) and the majority of the weevils (ranabjölluættin). The
Icelandic fauna includes few beetles which are restricted to particular plants
and this means that few species can be added to the plant list by the presence
of their insect feeders. Only the occurrence of some Cruciferae (krossblóma-
ættin) can be inferred by the presence of Ceutorhynchus contractus in the list.
On the basis of the archaeological evidence, some of the variation between
the midden and floor samples may be explained. The large numbers of Ranun-
culus (sóley), dandelion (fífill) and Rhinanthus minor (lokasjóður) seeds in
the midden suggests a residue of hay rather than floors. This is supported by
the high frequency of the beetle Typhaea stercorea, which prefers rotting hay
residues for breeding in and is common in modern hay barns. The floor
material, as well as incidental seeds, from peoples footwear, etc., contains
large numbers of the seeds of Juncus spp. and Luzula c.f. multiflora (sefætt-
in) and these may come from plants collected for spreading on the floor,
rather than from hay. The frequency of fish-bones, other small fragments of
bone, chips of wood and other artifacts implies a living room, rather than a