Archaeologia Islandica - 01.01.2013, Blaðsíða 62

MAGNUS HELLQVIST
parts found. Although a large number of
samples were collected in different areas
of the excavation, the focus was on the
main sehlement area (named area D, Fig.
2) and the large trash midden (named
area E). Complete sampling contexts for
insect analysis 2002-2003 are presented
in Table 1, where also true flies and mites
are noted in the frequency of occurrence
(+=1-10, ++=10-100, +++=>100).
The soil had a good degree of
preservation and few sub-fossil insect
remains showed signs of destruction or
leaching. The diversity of the insect
assemblages was, however, problematic,
with few species and varying numbers of
individuals being present, even though the
samples were collected in different ways
both spatially and in connection with
various constructions. This raised the
issue of the taphonomy of the remains
found, both within fonner buildings and in
the trash midden.
During the excavations in 2003,
sampling was more focused and based on
the experience gained in 2002. In some
cases extant floors were sampled and
particularly those from of rooms of
unclear origin. But the main sampling
strategy was to collect material from
identifiable and interpreted rooms in the
buildings, such as stables, corridor,
kitchen, storing room, and room for
printing activities (Table 1).
The volume of sediments sampled and
processed is presented in table 1, which
only lists the samples where sub-fossil
insect remains were found. The sample
volume varied from 4 to 42 litres; the
larger volumes represented floors where
samples were collected over a larger
spatial area. Beetles (Coleoptera) were the
most common insect remains found (Table
2), but there were also some true fly
puparia (Diptera) and mites (Acaria)
(Table 1). Information on the present
geographical distribution and biology of
the taxa are presented by Jessop (1986),
Landin (1957), Larsson and Gígja (1959),
Lindroth (1985, 1986), Nilsson and
Holmen (1995) and Palm (1996). The
BugsCEP database was also used for
interpretation for biology and geographical
distribution of the subfossil insect
assemblages (Buckland and Buckland,
2006; Buckland, 2007).
Each insect assemblage was defined
by the insect taxa recorded in each sample.
The habitat preferences of the taxa
recorded in each assemblage were not
grouped by environmental characteristics
or similar, as the number of finds was low.
Interpretation of insect assemblages from
each sampled room and building was
grouped based on the information
obtained, and then compared to the
archaeological interpretation of the same
room.
Problems and possibilities
Different problems and possibilities have
to be faced when using sub-fossil insect
analysis in the samples from Hólar. The
results ffom the analysis provided varied
quality of interpretations for the sampled
buildings. One common problem in
samples from Icelandic sites, which also
manifests at Hólar, is the low diversity of
beetle species found, which may weaken
the strength of any interpretations. On the
other hand, one of the advantages of the
sub-fossil insect analysis is the quality of
60