Fróðskaparrit - 01.01.1998, Síða 233

239
LANDSLØGILANDNÁMSTÍÐ: FLOGSAÐFRØÐILIG OG
GRÓKORNFRØÐILIG PRÓGV AV TOFTANESI
the westernmost part, a doorway in the cen-
tre of the northerly side, and a putative byre
at the downslope (easterly) end (Stummann
Hansen, 1991).
Despite recovery from within and around
an identified building, adjacent to others,
the faunas display surprisingly little evi-
dence of the anthropogenic nature of the
context, whilst still including several taxa
which are typically anthropochorous on the
North Atlantic islands and one, Aphodius
lapponum, which could not exist on the
Faroes without the herbivore dung provid-
ed by domestic animals. Although the
Faroese synanthropic insect faunas have
been little examined (cf. Bengtson, 1981;
Dinnin et al., unpubl.), absences in the fos-
sil faunas from Structure II, when consid-
ered in relation to the amount of work upon
similar faunas across the region, must be
taken as significant. Farming on the North
Atlantic islands relied heavily upon sec-
ondary products from cattle, sheep, and
goats to provide the basis of subsistence,
and this required the acquisition of suffi-
cient fodder to overwinter successfully at
least the core stock (Amorosi et ai, 1998).
In addition, these animals, particularly the
sheep, like the humans, have a characteris-
tic ectoparasite fauna (Sveinbjamardóttir
and Buckland, 1983; Buckland and Perry,
1989; Buckland and Sadler, 1989). Al-
though preservation has some influence
upon the survival of the invertebrate re-
mains, the absence of this group, particu-
larly the heavily sclerotized ked, Melopha-
gus ovinus (L.), an ectoparasite still found
on the hill sheep of the Faroes, suggest that
neither sheep nor wool processing (idem.)
was associated with the building, or that
none of the samples effectively encapsulat-
ed the use phase of the structure. Archaeo-
logically there can be no doubt that the
building reflects the typical form of an ear-
ly Norse farm, but, given the excellent
preservation, the absence of this element in
the fossil faunas is curious.
The problem extends beyond the ec-
toparasites. The initial transport of domes-
tic animals, with hay and perhaps other
plant material as dunnage and food in the
boats provided a travelling habitat and
means of dispersal for a range of insects
and other invertebrates across the Atlantic
(e.g. Enckell et al., 1987; Sadler, 1991).
These faunas included not only soil
dwelling animals and a dung fauna, but also
a wide range of species associated with the
fungi associated with the decay of hay and
the resultant foul residues, both Coleoptera
and Diptera, as well as their predators.
These species are as much the ‘Norsemen’s
footsteps’ as the range of accidental plant
introductions. Kenward and Hall (1997)
note that hay is also likely to include some
elements in the field fauna accidently in-
corporated in storage. The material may
also have a wide range of other incidental
uses other than as fodder, and employment
as animal litter can lead to partial sterilisa-
tion of the fauna because of the amount of
urine and dung incorporated (cf. Smith,
1991). Even at the most remote farms in the
Western Settlement of Greenland, however,
at sites like the recently excavated GUS,
above the level of direct marine access, in-
sect faunas are characterized by elements
of the hay fauna, such as Enicmus minutus