An interpretation of biological remains from Highgate, Beverley

Journal of Archaeological Science 1980, 7, 33-51

An Interpretation of Biological Remains from Highgate, Beverley Allan R. Hall" and Harry K. Kenward"

The combined evidence from plant macrofossils and insect remains from an early medieval site at Highgate, Beverley, East Yorkshire, has been used to determine the origin and mode of formation of some enigmatic "peaty" layers. These appeared to be the result of dumping of large quantities of organic waste, interesting in view of the position of the site between town and Minster. Problems of data presentation are briefly considered, and some new methods employed.

Keywords: BEVERLEY, YORKSHIRE, EARLY MEDIEVAL, PLANT MACROFOSSILS, INSECTS, SPECIES LISTS, INTERPRETATION, PALAEO- ENVIRONMENT, RUBBISH-DUMPING.

Introduction This paper is an attempt to argue the mode of formation and implications of some stratigraphically simple yet archaeologically enigmatic deposits by investigating two available major lines of evidence, from plant macrofossils and insect remains.

The site, at 10 Highgate, Beverley (Figure 1), is located some 250 m from the Minster, in an area which offers some interesting historical problems. Excavations were carried out in 1977, under the supervision of R. A. H. Williams, to whom thanks are due for providing the information summarized below. The investigation was confined to a rectangular trench 19 × 2 m; this paper is concerned only with evidence from the lower part of the succession revealed in it. A full account of the archaeology of the site will appear elsewhere (Williams, in prep.).

The character of the lower deposits varied from clay loams to peaty silts; a diagrammatic section is given in Figure 2. Notable in this stratigraphy is the layer rich in chalky rubble. Documentary evidence suggests that this, and a layer of chalk blocks observed elsewhere in Highgate, were the result of mid-14th century consolidation of the main streets of the town (Stephenson, 1895; Robinson & English, 1979). The deposits above this layer provided evidence of intensive occupation,.whereas those below showed only a few pits and post-holes, and possibly ditches. None of these features was, however, contemporary with the layers rich in biological remains. The archaeological record thus gave only very limited evidence of the history of the lower deposits beyond a probably early medieval date, and a biological investigation was undertaken in order to determine how these deposits formed and as far as possible to reconstruct ecological conditions and human activity on and around the site as they built up.

°Environmental Archaeology Unit, Physics Block, University of York, York YOI 5DD, England.

33 0305--4403/80/010033 + 19 $02.00/0 © 1980 Academic Press Inc. (London) Limited

34 A. R. HALL AND H. K. KENWARD

Samples were taken from a column on a face of the excavated trench. A large quantity (5-10 kg) of sediment was collected from each sampling interval (Figure 2) and this was subsequently subsampled in the laboratory for analysis. Standard 1 kg subsamples were employed for the biological analyses, with additional subsamples as required to provide sufficient insect remains for interpretation (Table 3). Soil analyses were carried out by J. S. R. Hood, to whom the authors are grateful for the information provided for this paper. Insect remains were extracted by the standard method of paraffin flotation employed at the Environmental Archaeology Unit (Kenward, 1974; Kenward et al., in press). Plant macrofossils were sorted both from the paraffin riots and their residues; it is clear that the riot alone is not satisfactorily representative of the whole seed content of a sample. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to investi- gate microfossils (in particular pollen and phytoliths) from these deposits.

N

To Town ~Cenlre

~.~. Wednesday Market

Position~n~o trench

Minster

Figure 1. Sketch map showing the relationship of the Highgate site, Beverley, to the Minster, the town centre and Minster Moorgate.

Interpretative Methods Interpretation of the insect fauna was carried out using techniques designed to overcome problems presented by the heterogeneous origin of death assemblages and the presence of a transported component in them (Kenward, 1975b, 1976a). These methods allow estimation of the reliability of the ecological requirements of the recorded fauna as evidence concerning the conditions obtaining at the time of deposition (Kenward, 1978a). The difficulties involved in interpretation of plant macrofossils from urban archaeological deposits are at least as great as for insect faunas, particularly as a large

BIOLOGICAL REMAINS FROM HIGHGATE 35

part of a given assemblage is likely to have been deliberately or incidentally introduced through human agency; it is hoped that techniques parallel to those developed by Kenward (op. cit.) for insect faunas can be applied to plant macrofossil assemblages.

Excavator's M.OD Sample stratigrophic Sediment type

m

8 . 4 0 - -

8 -20 - -

8.00 --

7 . 80 - -

7 .60 --

7 . 40 - -

7-20 --

7 . 0 0 - -

8 . 80 - -

_. Dark yellowish- brown cloy loom

2 H,T with crushed chalk i._3 : : : -

4 5 G Mottled dark brown and

grey cloy loom

6 G Yellowish-brown silt

7 a

7b

8a 8b

90

9b

9 c

IOa

lob

F Dark greyish - brown clay loom

E ' ~ Very dark greyish-brown humic silt (reddish when fresh) cut-~i l ty dark grey cloy

Dark brown peat E [reddish when fresh)

Very dark grey D clay loam

Dark grey silt

Dark greyish-brown i'i2"~ A clay loam (not Sampled a - ~ g

.................... from this section)

Figure 2. Diagrammatic representation of the sample column, showing the relationship of the samples processed for biological remains to the archaeological layers.

Results of the Analyses The bulk of the biological remains was yielded by samples 7a-10a inclusive (layers F, E and upper part of D, Figure 2), the remainder of the section being virtually or totally barren. The plant records are summarized in Table 1, and the distribution of taxa and individuals in three "ecological" groupings represented diagrammatically in Figure 3. Records of the most abundant beetles are given in Table 2, which includes those species occupying the first ten ranks of abundance in any sample. Some important statistics of the insect assemblages are given in Tables 3-5, and rank order curves and some other data are summarized in Figures 4-9. All the invertebrate taxa recorded are listed in the Appendix. Apart from the Coleoptera, none was common enough to warrant detailed investigations. The abbreviated form of data presentation adopted here is discussed further on p. 46; full species lists are available from the Environmental Archaeology Unit, University of York, where the specimens and laboratory records of processing and identification are stored.

36 A . R . H A L L A N D H. K. K E N W A R D

Table 1. Complete list o f plant macrofossil taxa recorded from Highgate, Beverley. The figures give the frequencies o f occurrence hz the four samples 8b-9c hwlusive (first cohmm) and flz the nhte samples 7a-lOa and 13 (second cohnmO; thus there are maxhnum scores respectively of four and nhw. Nomen- clature follows Clapham, Tntht & Warburg (1962) and Warburg (1963) and the convention for the types of macrofossil remahls recorded is as follows: a---achene, c--carpel, car---caryopsls (pericarp), f--fruit, frst--fruitstone, m--mericarp, n--nut(let), o---oospore, s~seed

Group A Alisma sp. (e) " Bidens cf tripartita L. (a) Caltha pahtstris L. (s) Carex spp. (n) Chara sp. (o) Cyperaceae indet. (n) Eleocharis sp. (n) Hyper&um cf. tetrapterum Fr. (s) Isolepis setacea (L.) R. Br. (n) Juncus spp. (s) Luzula sp. (s) Lychnisflos-cuculi L. (s) Pedicularis pahtstris L. (s) Ranuncuhtsflammula L. (a) R. sceleratus L. (a) Rorippa sp. (s) Schoenoplectus sp. (n)

Group B Aethusa cynapium L. (n) Agrostemma githago L. (s) Anagallis arvensls L. (s) Anthemis cotula L. Ca) Aphanes m&rocarpa (Boiss & Reut.)

Rothm. (a) 3 3 Arenaria cf. serpyllifolia L. Cs) 1 I cf. Atriplex sp. (s) 3 4 Cerastium sp(p). (s) 4 4 Chenopodium album L. (s) 4 8 C. ficifolium Sin. (s) 1 3 C. Sect. Pseudoblitum (Gren.) Aschers. (s) 3 5 C. spp. indet. (s). 2 5 Daucus carom L. (m) 1 I Lamium sp. (n) 1 2 Lapsana communis L. (a) 4 4 Linum sp. (non L. catharticunO (s) 1 1 L. catharticum L. (s) 1 1 cf. Marrublum vulgate L. (n) 0 1 c f Nepeta cataria L. (n) 1 I Papaver spCp). (s) 0 2 Picris hieracioides L. (a) 1 1 Polygonum avieulare agg. (f) 4 4 Prunella vulgaris L. (n) . 4 5 Rammculus Section Ranunculus (a) 4 7 R. cf parviflorus L. Ca) 1 1 R. sardous Crantz (a) 3 5 Reseda luteola L. (s) 0 1 Rumex acetosella agg. (f) 4 4 Sonchus arvensis L. (a) 2 2 S. asper (L.) Hill (a) 4 4 cf.. S. oleraceus L. (a) I 1 Stellaria media (L.) VilI./S. "neglecta

Weihe (s) 1 3

Tripleurospermum nmritimum cf 0 1 ssp. inodorum CL.) Hyl. ex Vaarama (a) 1 I 1 1 Urtica dioica L. (a) 4 8 1 1 U. urensL. (a) 4 7 4 8 0 1 Group C 1 2 Campanulaceae indet. (s) 0 1 3 5 Carduus/Cirshmz sp(p). (a) 3 3 0 1 cf. Centaurium sp. (s) 1 1 3 7 Compositae indet. (a) 2 4 4 8 Cruciferae indet. Cs) 1 2 1 I Galeopsis tetrahit agg. (n) 2 2 I 1 Gramineae indet. (car) 3 5 1 1 Hyoso'amus niger L. (s) 1 3 4 5 cf. Hypochoeris sp. (a) 1 1 3 7 Labiatae indet. (n) 2 4 0 1 Leguminosae indet. (s) 2 2 1 1 Leontodon sp. (a) 1 1

Mentha sp(p). (n) 1 2 Polygonunz sp(p). (f) 4 4

1 1 Potentilla sp(p). (a) 3 5 2 2 Primulaceae indet. (s) 1 1 3 4 Ranuncuhts sp. indet. (a) 0 1 4 5 Rtonex sp(p) (f) 3 6

cf. Senecio sp. (a) 1 1 Solanum sp(p). (s) 1 2 Sonchus sp. Ozon S. asper) (a) 1 2 Stachys sp(p). (n) 2 2 Stachys sp./Galeopsis sp. (n) 3 3 Stellaria sp. indet. (s) 1 I cf. Trifolium sp. (s) I 1 Umbelliferae indet. (m) 2 3 Viola sp. (s) 1 1

Unplaced Betula sp. (male catkin fragment) 1 1 carbonized cereal grains 3 6 Corylus avellana L. (n fragments) 3 5 Prunus sphtosa L. first) 1 1 Quercus sp. (bud-scales) 2 3 Rubus idaeus L./R. fruticosus agg. first) 4 9 R. cf. caeshts L. first) 1 1 Sambucus n(gra L. 1 3

Mosses (all leaves and/or shoots) cf. Acrocladium cuspidatum

(Hedw.) Lindb. 1 1 Antitrichla curtipendula (Hedw.) Brid. 1 1 Camptothecium lutescens (Hedw.) B.,

S. & G./C. ser&eum (Hedw.) Lindb. 1 1 cf. Drepanocladus sp. 1 1 Hypnum cupressiforme Hedw. 2 2 Thuidium tamarischmm (Hedw.)

B., S.&G. 1 1

B I O L O G I C A L R E M A I N S F R O M H I G H G A T E 37

• ~ ~ ~

. ~ ~ . ~ ~ : ~

~. ~ ~.~ ,. ~ ~.~ - - - . ~ " ~ ~ . . ~

~. ~.~ ~'~ _~.-~,~

I1 II II I1 II 11 I1

~ o ÷ I N ~ N

~ l l ~ ~ II II II II II

II II II II II

II II II II II II II II

I , , , I~ II

I O O ~ I I ~ ~ 6 ~ 6

I ~ ~ - ~ I I -

H , , ~I , , I I .

I ~ ~ ~ 1 I ~

II II II II II

II II II

25-"

° ,

I ~ ~ . ~ I ~ ~ - ~

I - I ~ , . . ~ o o ~ I I ~

~ q . . : , . : . , ~ . . ~ ~ , . ~ I I •

i i ~ ~ o ~ o o + ~ i i ~

~ I ~ ,~ ,~ ~ °o ~ ~ ,~ ~, ~ ,~ ~ ' II II II II II II II II II 11 I1 II 11 II I I I

"~"- I ~ ~ ' ~ ° - ~ , ~ I I I

.

~ ~ ~ , . . - . ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ , ~ . . ~ ~ . ~

i ~ i ~ " - - - " ' ~ ° ° ~ _ II II II II II II II II II II I ] II

38 A . R . H A L L A N D H . K . K E N W A R D

6 I.

II II II II II

t ~ . - ,

P+l c ' ~ l "+ I '~ I"~ t"~l ,L'~I ¢'~ "~-

II II II II II II I1 II II

II

II I1

"n II ~ I

II II II I1 II II

I1 II II II II

o o ~ ~ o..t-p

II II II II II

II II II II

II

0

II

r,l ~r-I

- ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ II II II II II II II II II II II II

~ . , - . . , ~ + . - , ~ . ~ ~ + - + ~ ~ + . - , ~ ' = = = . ~

B I O L O G I C A L R E M A I N S F R O M H I G H G A T E 39

IOO

90

80

70

60

40

30

20 I0

I0 1 -

20 (o)

30

400

3oo

~ zoo Ioo

Io 20 I . -

~ 5o 4o

8b 9o 9b 9c

I I

8b 9a 9b 9c

I

8bgagb 9c

I '--I-- --I L~ ' - - 'm

A (b] B ~ (c ) C

70 7b 8a 8b 9oS~D 9c [Oo 13

{d)

50

Figure 3. Histograms for the plant macrofossil data. The upper halves of the graphs (a) to (c) show the sums of macrofossils for the three ecological groupings as percentages of the total sum in each of the samples 8b-9c. The insets are coded thus: J=Juncus spp., A=Anthemis cotula, C = Chenopodium Section Pseudoblltum, R= Ranuncuhts Section Ranunculus, S = R. sardous. These are the only taxa recorded at frequencies of more than 1 0 ~ in any sample. The lower halves of histograms (a)-(e) present the sums of taxa for the same groups and samples. Histogram (d) shows the sums of individuals (above) and of taxa (below) for samples 7a to 10a and 13. As all the samples were 1 kg in weight, the sums of individuals are also the concentrations of macrofossils. Only those taxa included in the ecological groupings A - C are used in the construction of these graphs. The groups are: A--aquatics and aquatic-marginals, plants of damp to waterlogged soils; B--weeds and ruderals, plants of waste and disturbed soils, and C-- taxa not ecologically determinate. Note that sample 13 gave a flora essentially similar to that from sample 8a, with which it was associated (Figure 2); its insect fauna was negligible and this sample is not discussed further in the text.

Table 3. Weights of samples from Highgate, Beverley processed for invertebrate remahzs, and some has& statistics of the assemblages of Coleoptera and Hemlp- tera taken from them

5 6 7a 7b 8a 8b 9a 9b 9c 10a 10b

Minimum number of individuals 3 2 3 9 58 173 " 206 234 213 151 144 3

Number of species 3 2 32 46 90 109 118 99 85 77 3 " Weight of sample processed

(kg) - 1.0 1.0 5-0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2-0 3.0 10.0 1.0 Number of individuals

per kg 3'0 2'0 7"8 19"3 86"5 103.0 117.0 106.5 50-3 14'4 3"0

40 A. R. H A L L A N D H. K. K E N W A R D

Table 4. Some hnportant statistics of the assemblages of Coleoptera and Hemiptera from Highgate, Beverley. bldex of diversity read from the nomograms of Fisher et al. (1943) and Williams (1947); the small size of the assemblages and their high diversity make accurate esthnation difficult. Outdoor species: A--certaht; B----certahz-plus-probable. Tire species hwhtded in these categories differ slightly from those used by Kenward (1978a), some species previously regarded as "probable" now behrg included as certahz (in particular, Platystethus cornutus group and Anotylus nitidulus), but the B values remain fidly comparable

7a 7b 8a 8b 9a 9b 9e 10a

Index of diversity (ct) c.80 Percentage standard error of ct c.40 Number of outdoor species (A) 9 Number of outdoor species (13) 9 Number of outdoor individuals (A) 10 Number of outdoor individuals (B) I0 Percentage of outdoor individuals (A) 25.6 Percentage of outdoor individuals (B) 25-6 Concentration of outdoor individuals

(A) (per kg) 2"0 Concentration of outdoor individuals

03) (per kg) 2.0

~100 75 90 c.95 73 80 c.70 c.30-0 c.12"5 ~12"0 c.11-5 c.12"0 c.13 c.14"0

9 30 34 46 38 29 30 9 33 39 50 41 33 32

13 50 58 84 70 44 55 13 54 64 92 76 48 58 22-4 28"9 28-2 35"9 32"9 29.1 38-2 22-4 31-2 31"1 39"3 35.7 31"8 40-3

4"3 25"0 29'0 42"0 35-0 14"7 5-5

4"3 27"0 32"0 46-0 38-0 16-0 5"8

Table 5. Aquatic attd compost-dwelling species hz the assemblages of Coleoptera and Hemiptera from Highgate, Beverley. W--aquatic arrd obligate waterside species; D--species also able, or probably able, to exploit damp ground away from open water. The latter hwludes such species as Anotylus nitidulus and Platystethus cornutus group, not hwluded ht the aquatic component in the tables of Kenward (1978a). Cw--specles t)Tically found hz foul rotthtg matter and dung. Cd--species t)Tically most abundant ht dry, sweet compost. For further comment on these categories, which are not entirely satisfactory, see Hall et al. (hz press). Tire high values for Cd ht samples 8a and 8b are accounted for by Aglenus brunneus

7a 7b 8a 8b 9a 9b 9c 10a

Number of aquatic species (W) I 1 4 7 11 11 10 5 Number of aquatic species (D) 4 3 6 5 10 7 6 6 Number of aquatic individuals (W) 1 1 . 4 8 14 16 10 6 Number of aquatic individu~ils (D) 5 7 26 26 45 34 21 28 Percentage of aquatic individuals (W) 2-6 1.7 2.3 3-9 6"0 7.5 6.6 4.2 Percentage of aquatic individuals (D) 12"8 12.1 15'0 12-1 19-2 16"0 13-9 19"5 Compost species (Cw) (number of

individuals) 3 10 20 25 29 37 23 24 Compost species (Cd) (number of

individuals) 3 8 46 40 36 25 20 11 Compost species (Cw) (percentage) 7.7 17-2 11"6 12"1 12"4 17-4 15"2 16.7 Compost species (Cd) (percentage) 7"7 13"8 26'6 19"4 15"4 11"7 13-3 7"6


t=

20 40 60 80 Rank position

Figure 4. Percentage rank order curves for the assemblages of Coleoptera and Hemiptera from samples 8a-10a. The curves all fall within the shaded area and are extremely similar. The assemblage from sample 7a is too small to be included. The vertical axis represents the percentage of the total assemblage from each sample made up by each species and the horizontal axis the order of species ranked by abundance in each sample.

250

200

150 N

IOO

50

5o S

100

5 6 70 7b 8a 8b 90 9b 9c IOa lob

Figure 5. Number of individuals (N) and species (S) of Coleoptera and Hemiptera in the series of samples from Highgate, Beverley.

120

I 80

7 4o

J I 5 617a 7b 8a 8b 90 9b 9c I0o 10b-

Somple code

Figure 6. Concentration (numbers per kg) o f Coleoptera and Hcmiptem in the series of samples from Highgate, Beverley.

42 A. R. H A L L A N D H. K. K E N W A R D

40

30 o c

20

I0

._g 2o

40 o

70 7b80 8b 9a 9b 9c IOo

Figure 7. The outdoor component in the assemblage of Coleoptera and Hemiptera from Highgate, Beverley. The histograms are based on the B value (certain-plus-probable). Above--percentage of total assemblages; below--numbers per kg.

30

o- I I '

lor .

, i I

7a 7b 8a 8b 90 9b 9':. IOa

Figure 8. Percentage of aquatic individuals in the assemblages of Coleoptera and Herniptera from Highgate, Beverley. W--aquatic and obligate waterside species; D--species "able, or probably able, to exploit damp ground away from true aquatic habitats. See also caption to Table 5.

2O

J Io

I0

,3 2O

50 7a 7b 8a 8b 90 9b 9c IOa

Figure 9. Percentage of individuals of rotting vegetation beetles in the assemblages from Highgate, Beverley. Cw--species mainly confined to foul matter or dung; Ca--species which are most abundant in fairly dry, mouldy compost. For comments on these definitions, see caption to Table 5. The high values for Ca in 8a and 8b are accounted for by a single species, ,4glenus brumleus, almost certainly imported with refuse.


Interpretation of the Evidence

The Mode of Formation of the Deposits

The mineral component appears to have originated in a very random manner throughout much of the succession, only layers 12 and 6 offering evidence of particle sorting. These two may represent natural and reworked natural deposits respectively, but the mineral component in the remaining layers was probably introduced from a variety of sources, for example by wind, trampling or human importation (Hood, pers. comm.).

The origin of the organic component is more problematic, but central to an under- standing of the early phases of the site. From field observations, it appeared that the organic-rich layers might be an hi situ natural peat ("detritus peat") since they formed extensive uniform horizontal strata, with little indication of the disturbance generally associated with peaty occupation deposits; in addition, artifacts were rare. Such an interpretation is also suggested by the town's topographic position; Stephenson (1895, p. 272) said of the site of Beverley " . . . [ i t ] . . . was undoubtedly a hollow swampy place, intersected by streams, and at certain periods of the year liable to have its lake-like character increased by the overflowing of the neighbouring river, or by the backing up of its waters by the river's tides." Indeed, the Beverley district was not drained until the early 19th century (Stephenson, loc. cir.). However, the following evidence from the macrofossils supports a very different interpretation:

(1) The plant assemblages consist of three broad groupings, namely plants of damp places, aquatic-marginals and aquatics (Group A); plants of waste ground and disturbed habitats (ruderals) and arable weeds (Group B); and plants ungrouped ecologically, either because they could not be identified to species or because they are eurytopic (Group C) (Figure 3). Many of the unidentified taxa would undoubtedly fall in one of tl/efirst two groups could they be more closely determined.

(2) Most of the plant taxa are present in rather small numbers; thus only Carex and Juncus (Group A), Anthemis cotula, Ranuncuhts section Rammcuhts and Chenopodium section Pseudoblitum (Group B) are recorded regularly at concentrations of more than five individuals per kilogramme of sample.

(3) The insect assemblages are very diverse (Table 4; compare Kenward, 1978a, tables 2-5, 7 and 9; diversity is taken here as primarily a measure of the degree of intermixture of communities). The proportion of outdoor insects is also very high (Table 4; for definition, discussion and comparison with other sites see Kenward, 1978a). This combination of high diversity and a large "outdoor" component is believed to be characteristic of insect death assemblages formed in open spaces and thus exposed to "background fauna", incorporating specimens from a wide variety of habitats at unknown distances.

(4) Three characteristics: (a) the low concentration of almost all the insect species; (b) the fact that most of the common species are.suspected on the basis of evidence from other sites to have been abundant in the early medieval background fauna (see for example Kenward, 1978a, table 1);- and (c) the absence of any clearly predominant ecological group, together suggest that no large breeding populations of insects existed at the site of deposition. In particular, there is no reason to believe that the insect assemblages formed in association with natural wetland vegetation at the site.

(5) The insect fauna includes a number of synanthropes and in general terms is very reminiscent of assemblages from medieval occupation sites at York and elsewhere (Kenward et aL, 1978; Kenward, 1979, in press; Miller et aL, in press; Hall et aL, in prep.), although it is much more diverse. Moreover, one of the few species


occurring at all abundantly in any of the samples is Aglenus brunneus, a blind, flightless species typical of medieval town deposits (Kenward, 1975a, 1976b).

How may these observations, some apparently conflicting, be tied together? The following sequence of argument is suggested:

There are seeds and fruits of a variety of plants representative of damp to waterside habitats and the deposits are, in part at least, peaty in nature. However, insects associated with such habitats are no more abundant than in indisputably terrestrial urban deposits at other sites. Therefore, either aquatic and aquatic-marginal plants grew in the absence of the associated insect community, or the plant remains were transported to the site by natural dispersal or human agency. Small numbers of insects typically abundant in urban medieval deposits are present, and the mixture of plant remains resembles, in many respects, assemblages from terrestrial urban deposits from sites where evidence for transport is very strong (Hall et al., in prep.). It is difficult to envisage a situation in which the recorded wetland plant community could exist without at least a few abundant associated insects, and without large populations of other aquatic animals such as Cladocera and Mollusca; the very few Daphnia, Ostracoda and (terrestrial) molluscs that were recorded were well preserved, indicating that their rarity is not a result of differential preservation. Thus it appears highly probable that the bulk of the organic component (and quite possibly much of the mineral component also) was transported to the site from human dwellings; in short, the site was probably a dump.

Conditions at the Site

Accepting the interpretation of the phase of the site represented by the highly organic deposits as an area used for the disposal of rubbish, it is pertinent to consider in more detail the conditions which existed there. The following argument is suggested:

The site was clearly receiving organic waste but there is no strongly represented "midden" insect community. There is a number of weeds of disturbed, nitrogen-rich waste ground and these are occasionally very abundant (for example Urtica and Cheno- podium species), but no strong post-pioneer community (grassland or scrub plants) or strong wasteland insect community is indicated at any horizon. Therefore, some mechan- ism appears to have prevented the establishment of such insect communities and plant succession. Possible explanations are: (a) that dumping was essentially continual; (b) that there was constant disturbance by animals, humans or both; or (c) that the environment was hostile in some other way; for example, the ground was, at least seasonally, completely waterlogged or there was heavily polluted standing water.

For the deposits to continue to grow, dumping must have taken place at fairly regular intervals, and the amount of plant matter deposited must have been considerable to give the recorded thickness (nearly a metre) of heavily decomposed organic build-up. The high proportion of outdoor insects and high diversity argue a gradual net build up over a long period of time.

Disturbance, other than dumping, may or may not have occurred during hiatuses. Sustained cultivation is unlikely since tillage.would surely have led to rapid decomposition of organic matter "and a very different sediment type. The ground may have been damp to waterlogged; if there was seasonal standing water it may have been too polluted with organic matter to support the usual aquatic biota. There may well have been a limited flora of weeds of disturbed, nitrogen-rich, habitats; the proportionally large counts for Chenopodium Section Pseudoblitum (probably C. rubrum) and Anthemis cotula (Figure 3) may represent single population explosions, perhaps during short periods of non-deposition, although it is possible that such numbers could be accounted for solely by accidental importation with rubbish. A few insects may have colonized in


small numbers, but the great majority were probably either "background fauna or imported with the dumped material.

Variations Within the Succession Variations in the organic content of the deposits are very great (ranging from less than 1 ~o of dry weight in sample 2 to nearly 40 ~o in sample 9b) and probably almost wholly determined by the amount of organic matter dumped on the site at different times. Variations in organic content cannot, however, be taken as directly proportional to the rate of accretion of organic matter, since for a depositional regime of this sort there will be some critical rate of deposition of organic matter, below which decomposition is effectively complete (giving, at most, a humic soil) and above which there is net accumulation of organic matter. This is, of course, of considerable general importance, since in the former situation preservation may be at best only poor, whilst in the latter, the moist, oxygen-deficient conditions which result are highly favourable to the survival of both biological remains and organic artifacts.

Variations in the observed numbers of plant and animal remains through this succession are probably related to these varying preservational conditions, decay during and after incorporation having masked any initial differences. Strong supporting evidence for this is provided by the close correlation of organic content with quality of preservation of the insect remains, and to some extent also of the seeds. The absence, or near absence, of biota from samples from the lower and upper layers (12, 11 and 6 to 1) certainly does not imply that there was no accretion of biological remains at the site during their deposition, although it is likely that local conditions changed considerably through the periodrepresented by the whole sequence.

Since only a single column has been examined from a large area of deposits, little importance can be attached to the observed variations in the whole flora and fauna. Variations in the diversity of the insect death assemblages (Table 4) are not significant, as is strikingly illustrated by the overlaid rank order curves (Figure 4), and there are no systematic changes in the abundance of groups of ecologically related species. Quanti- tative differences in the plant assemblages (Figure 3) probably reflect nothing more than random variation in the seed content of the samples but further work on fossil and modern seed assemblages is necessary to illuminate this problem. The isolated very high frequencies of certain taxa in some samples, for example Chenopodium Section Pseudoblitum in sample 9a (which, as mentioned above, may represent short-term explosive colonization) cannot necessarily be taken as evidence of a difference between the depositional environments of one layer and another. The differences in the recorded biota are no greater than can be seen between subsamples from an apparently homogene- ous deposit (Topsey et al., in prep.).

Summary and Discussion of Interpretation The lowest layer (A, sample 12) appears to be essentially natural material, with an admixture of detritus from human occupation (Hood, pers. comm.). The mineral component of the remainder of the sequence (with the exception of the lower part of layer G, sample 6), seems to have been introduced randomly, while the organic component in layer E (samples 9c to 8a) at least, represents deliberately dumped refuse. Dumping, and perhaps some other factors, appear to have inhibited colonization of the site by plants and insects except, possibly, for short-lived populations of weeds and a few open-ground beetles.

The richly organic layers (E, samples 9c to 8a) deserve further discussion in relation to the archaeological and documentary evidence. Layers which were apparently similar have been observed in nearby excavations in Highgate (lying under the road and beneath


chalk rubble as at the present site) and at Minster Moorgate, where correlation is much more tentative (Robinson & English, 1979). If, as seems likely, these peaty layers are all one stratigraphic unit, a large area of open land covered by moist rotting matter is implied. The deposits forming Layer E are almost certainly contemporary with an early phase of Beverley Minster (Robinson & English, op. cit.); a sample from layer 9a gave a radiocarbon date of ad 1030 + 70 (HAR-2736) and the evidence from the few sherds of pottery is compatible with this (Hayfield & Watkins, in prep.). Clearly the existence of such an area of rubbish close to the ecclesiastical establishment and" between it and the town markets (Highgate forming the most direct route between the two) would hardly have been desirable, although it appears to have been tolerated up to the middle of the 14th century, when chalk rubble was imported for consolidation (Robinson & English, op. cit.).

Although there appears to be nothing more than circumstantial documentary evidence, it is tempting to suggest that Beverley had a considerable population in the 1 lth century, to have produced the huge volume of organic waste recorded in the Highgate area; this was presumably in excess of that needed for manuring and of that which could be disposed of easily within the town.

The origin of the dumped organic material calls for further discussion. It has been suggested above that it was brought from human dwellings; while the evidence is not sufficient for the determination of its previous usage or, in detail, its nature, the presence of wetland plant taxa strongly suggests that the remains of sedges and rushes became incorporated into the deposits. It is not unreasonable to speculate that this material was originally used on floors or perhaps for thatch, but there can be no firm conclusion. Indeed, only when remains of vegetative parts of sedges or rushes are found with in- disputable archaeological evidence for their utilization (for example, a collapsed roof) will it be certain that, at a particular site, these plants were used for the purposes so widely attributed to them.

It is not known whether layer G was laid down as a part of the levelling or had an earlier origin; this silt was not recorded in the road excavations in Highgate, where the rubble appears to have been separated from the peaty deposits by only a layer of brush- wood and timbers (Stephenson, 1895).

Concluding Remarks It has been traditional for species lists of fossils from archaeological investigations to be published in full, and incomplete publication presents some dangers (Kenward, 1978b, p. 37; Directorate of Ancient Monuments, 1978) as well as being less convenient for other workers. However, certain factors militate against full publication of data. The problem has been discussed with respect to the archaeological record by an Ancient Monuments Board Working Party (Directorate of Ancient Monuments, 1975). The volume of data produced by even a small biological study may equal or exceed that stemming from the archaeological investigation and comprehensive integrated biological examinations of complex urban sites, such as those encountered at York, produce volumes of data which would be prohibitively expensive to publish and which would be of interest to only a fev~ specialists. As an example, the full insect and plant macrofossil data, alone, from a small site at 6-8 Pavement, York (Hall et al., in prep.), would fill well over 100 pages of the Journal of Archaeological Science. There is clearly a need for data to be presented in a form which is compact and accessible to the non-specialist and yet enables an independent judgement of their implications. The methods adopted here have the advantage of presenting the data which have been found to be of the greatest value in interpretation, and of selecting the data by clearly stated criteria. They may not be ideal, but it is hoped that they are at least useful.


The need to develop analytical techniques with which to test the validity of interpre- tations of macrofossil data is becoming increasingly apparent. Some tentative steps towards this have been made for insect remains (Kenward, 1978a, b). In the present case, these methods showed the fauna to be all, or almost all, o f transported origin; yet even this was of considerable importance in interpreting the site. It appears that a great deal of information can be obtained even with these simple objective approaches. In a number of cases, the interpretation of all or part of an archaeological site has been substantially amplified or modified. Sometimes, indeed, a major part of the interpretation may rest on the biological evidence, as, for example, at the roman grain warehouses at Coney Street, York (Hall, R. A. & Kenward, 1976; Kenward & Williams, 1979) and the lower part of the succession at the present site.

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s

The analysis of plant remains was carried out by A.R.H. and of insect remains by H.K.K. ; the text was written in concert. The authors are most grateful to Marion Berry, Pat Veilleux and Andrew Jones for preparing the material for study and for their help in various other ways, to P. M. Hammond and P. J. Osborne for certain critical identifications, to John Hood for making available results of soil analyses, and to J. B. Whitwell for supplying copies of archaeological and historical reports. R. A. H. Williams is owed a particular debt of gratitude for bringing the site to the authors' attention and for his subsequent co-operation.

• R e f e r e n c e s

Clapham, A. R., Tutin, T. G. & Warburg, E. F. (1962). Flora of the British Isles 2rid edn. Cambridge: University Press.

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.

Directorate of Ancient Monuments (1975). Principles of Publication in Rescue Archaeology. London: Department of the Environment.

Directorate of Ancient Monuments (1978). The Scientific Treatment o f Material from Rescue Excavations. London: Department of the Environment.

Fisher, R. A., Corbet, A. S. & Williams, C. B. (1943). The relationship between the number of species and the number of individuals in a random sample of an animal population. Journal of Animal Ecology 12, 42-58.

Godwin, H. (1975). The History of the British Flora 2nd edn. Cambridge: University Press. Hall, A. R., Kenward, H. K. & Williams, D. (in prep.). Environment and living conditions

at two early medieval sites. The Archaeology of York 14(4). London: Council for British Archaeology.

Hall, A. R., Kenward, H. K. & Williams, D. (in press). Environmental evidence from Roman deposits at Skeldergate. The Archaeology of York 14(3). London: Council for British Archaeology.

Hall, R. A. & Kenward, H. K. (1976). Biological evidejace for the usage of Roman riverside warehouses in York.'Britannia 7, 274-276.

Hayfield, C. & Watkins, J. G. (in prep.). The pottery. In (Williams, R. A. H., Ed.) An excavation at Highgate, Beverley, in prep.

Kenward, H. K. (1974). Methods for palaeo-entomology on site and in the laboratory. Science and Archaeology 13, 16-24.

Kenward, H. K. (1975a). The biological and archaeological implications of the beetle Aglenus brunneus (Gyllenhal) in ancient faunas. Journal of Archaeological Science 2, 63-69.

Kenward, H. K. (1975b). Pitfalls in the environmental interpretation of insect death assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 2, 85-94.


Kenward, H. K. (1976a). Reconstructing ancient ecological conditions from insect remains: some problems and an experimental approach. Ecological Entomology 1, 7-17.

Kenward, H. K. (1976b). Further archaeological records of Aglenus brunneus (Gyll.) in Britain and Ireland, including confirmation of its presence in the Roman period. Journal of Archaeological Science 3, 275-277.

Kenward, H. K. (1978a). The analysis of archaeological insect assemblages: a new approach. The Archaeology of York 19(1), 1-68, plates I-IV. London: Council for British Archaeology.

Kenward, H. K. (1978b). The value of insect remains as evidence of ecological conditions on archaeological sites. In (Brothwell, D. R., Thomas, K. D. & Clutton-Brock, J., Eds) Research problems in zooarchaeology. Institute of Archaeology Occasional Publications 3. London: Institute of Archaeology, pp. 25-38.

Kenward, H. K. (1979). The insect death assemblages. In (Ayers, B. S., Ed.) Excavations at Chapel Lane Staith 1978. East Riding Archaeologist 5, Hull OM Town Report Series 3, 65-72.

Kenward, H. K. (in press). Five insect assemblages. In (Carver, M. O. H., Ed.) Excavations at Saddler Street, Durham. Medieval Archaeology.

Kenward, H. K., Hall, A. R. & Jones, A. K. G. (in press). A tested set of techniques for the extraction of plant and animal macrofossils from waterlogged archaeological deposits. Science and Archaeology 22.

Kenward, H. K. & Williams, D. (1979). Biological evidence from the Roman warehouses at Coney Street. The Archaeology of York 14(2), 45-100.

Kenward, H. K., Williams, D., Spencer, P. J., Greig, J. R. A., Rackham, D. J. & Brinklow, D. A. (1978). The environment of Anglo-Scandinavian York. In (Hall, R. A., Ed.) Viking age York and the north. Council for British Archaeology Research Reports 27, 58-73.

Kloet, G. S. & Hincks, W. D. (1974, 1977). A Check List of British lnsects 2nd edn., parts 1 & 3. London: Royal Entomological Society.

K~Srber-Grohne, U. (1967). Geobotanische Untersuchungen auf der Feddersen Wierde~ Wiesbaden: FranZ Steiner.

Lambrick, G. & Robinson, M. (1979). Iron Age and Roman riverside settlements at Farmoor, Oxfordshire. Council for British Archaeology Research Reports 32.

Miller, N., Williams, D. & Kenward, H. K. (in press). Plant macrofossils and insect remains. In (Whitwell, J. B., Ed.) Excavations in Mytongate, Hull, 1975. East Riding Archaeologist, Hull Old Town Report Series.

Perring, F. H. & Walters, S. M. (Eds) (1962). Atlas of the British Flora. London: Nelson. Robinson, J. F. & English, B. A. (1979). Beverley Archaeology and Development. Privately

published. Stephenson, W. (1895). Beverley in the olden times. Archaeological Journal 52, 271-279. Topsey, H. W., Hall, A. R., Jones, A. K. G. & Kenward, H. K. (in prep.). The

heterogeneity of archaeological sediments and its implications in sampling and interpretation.

Warburg, E. F. (1963). Census Catalogue of British Mosses 3rd edn. British Bryological Society.

Williams, C. B. (1947). The logarithmic series and its application to biological problems. Journal of Ecology 34, 253-272.

Williams, R. A. H. (in prep.). An excavation at Highgate, Beverley. van Zeist, W. (1974). Palaeobotanical studies of settlement sites in the coastal area of

The Netherlands. Palaeohistoria 16, 223-369.

Appendix: Notes on Some Interesting Taxa

Chenopodium ficifolium Sm. Seeds referred to this taxon were recorded from samples 9c (1 seed), 10a (2), 11 (1) and 13 (1). They were determined by comparison with modern material; the criteria for identification are mentioned briefly by van Zeist (1974) and K/Srber-Grohne (1967), the most striking feature being the difference in testa sculpture on the two faces of the seed. van Zeist recorded C. ficifolium from many iron age and medieval sites along the


coast of The Netherlands (dating from about 500 BC to AD 1000), where it was associated with a variety of other weeds of nitrogen-rich soils. The records at Beverley appear to be the first for the taxon as a fossil in Britain, but the difficulty of identifying Cheno- podium seeds may have caused it to have been overlooked previously. The present distribution of the plant in Britain is centred on London and southeast England and Cambridgeshire with outliers to the north and west, though it appears to be recorded only as a casual north of the Humber (Perring & Waiters, 1962).

Tripleurospermum maritimum cf. ssp. hTodorum (L.) Hyl. ex Vaarama Although known from Hoxnian interglacial and from several full glacial sites, this taxon is here recorded (one achene from sample 9c) for the first time from the Postglacial of Britain (cf. Godwin, 1975); this is perhaps unexpected, in view of its extreme abundance in a variety of habitats throughout the British Isles today, for example as an arable weed (ssp. inodorum) Or as a colonizer of shingle (ssp. maritimunO. In particular, it might be expected to parallel Anthemis cotula, itself a frequent component of medieval urban assemblages (for example Hall et al., in prep.), which it closely resembles in both appearance and habitat preferences.

Pterostichus madidus (F.) This beetle is represented by a single, incomplete pronotum from sample 9b, clearly showing the characteristic shape and basal fovea bounded externally by a strong ridge. This is one of the commonest and generally most abundant large ground beetles in Britain, found particularly in association with man. It is surprising, therefore, that it has rarely been found in archaeological deposits, even when large numbers of ground beetles [including those often associated with P. madidus, for example P. melanarius (I11.), Calathusfitscipes (Goeze) and Harpahts rufipes (Deg.)] are recorded. Other archaeological records are given by Coope & Oxborne (1968) and Lambrick & Robinson (1979, p. 91). Its rather curious modern distribution, together with the paucity of ancient records, suggest that the beetle may have had an interesting history, perhaps becoming common only comparatively recently; its rarity in archaeological deposits suggests that the influence of man has not been the only factor affecting it (see Cooper & Osborne, 1968).

List of Invertebrates Recorded All the following records are from samples 6-10b inclusive. Determinations were made difficult by the large proportion of poorly preserved and damaged specimens. The fauna is regarded as a single unit for recording purposes and dated to the 1 lth century. The Coleoptera and Hemiptera, which have been used in interpretation of the site, are listed first. The remaining groups were uncommon or of limited value in interpretation through problems of identification. The codes following most of the taxa indicate their allocation to the ecological groupings used in the Figures and Tables; they are as follows: OA-- outdoors A; OB--outdoors B; W--aquatic and waterside species; D--waterside species believed also to be able to exploit damp places away from open water; Cw-- moist compost and dung; Cd---dry compost (see caption to Table 5 for comment). The order of species follows Kloet & Hincks (1974, 1977). The abundant Coleoptera are listed together with their frequencies etc., in Table 2.

Coleoptera Carabidae--Carabus granulatus L. OA; Blethisa multipunctata (L.) OAW; Dyschirius globosus (Hbst.) OA; Clivina ?fossor (L.) OA; Asaphidionflavipes (L.) OA; Bembidion guttula (F.) OA; B. sp. indet. OA; Pterostichus madidus (F.) OA; P. melanarius (I11.) OA; P. nigrita (Payk.) OAD; P. strenuus (Pz.) OA; P. ? versicolor (Sturm) OA; Amara


sp. OA; Harpalus sp. OA; ?Acupalpus sp. OA; Dromhls linearis (O1.) OA; Carabidae gen. et spp. indet. (none of preceding). DytiscidaeJAgabus or llybhts sp. indet. OAW; Rhantus sp. OAW; Colymbetesfuscus (L.) OAW. Hydrophilidae--Helophorusporculus Bed. group OA; H. ?grandis Ill. OAW; H. aquaticus (L.) or grandis OAW; H. sp. (small) OAW; Spaeridium bipustulatum F. Cw; Cercyon analis (Payk.) Cw; C. haemorrhoidalis (F.) Cw; C. pygmaeus (Ill.) Cw; C. terminatus (Msh.) Cw; C. unipwwtatus (L.) Cw; C. sp. indet. (none of preceding); Megasternum obscurum (Msh.); Cryptopleurum minutum (F.) Cw; Hydrobius fuscipes (L.) OAW; ?Cymbiodyta marghTella (F.)OAW; Hydrophilinae indet. (neither of preceding). OAW. Histeridae--Acritus nigricornis (Hoffm.); Onthophilus striatus (Forst.); Atholus duo- decimstriatus (Schrank); Hister sp. s. lat.; Histeridae gen. et sp. indet. (none of preceding). Hydraenidae--Ochthebh~s spp. (probably 3 spp) OAW; Hydraena sp. OAW; Limnebhts sp. OAW. Ptiliidae--Ptenidium spp. (probably 2 spp.) Acrotrichis spp. (at least 2 spp.). Leiodidae--Catops sp. Silphidae---Silpha atrata L. OB; Silpha sp. (not atrata) OB. Scydmaenidae--Gen. et spp. indet. (2 spp.). Staphylinidae--Micropeplus fulvus Er.; Megarthrus denticollis (Beck); Olophrum ? fuscum (Grav.) OA; Acrulia il~ata (Gyll.); Phyllodrepa floralis (Payk.); Omalium ?rivulare (Payk.); O. excavatum St.; O. sp. iudet. (neither of preceding); Xylodromus concinnus (Msh.) Cd; Carpelimus ?bilineatus St.; C. bilineatus or rivularis (Mots.); C. corticinus (Grav.) OAD; C. elongatuhts (Er.) OAD; C. fidiginosus (Gray.); C. cf. pusillus (Grav) OAD; Platystethus arenarius (Fourcr.) Cw; P. ?cornutus (Grav.) OAD; P. cornutus group OAD; P. nitens (Sahib.) OAW; Anotylus nitidulus (Grav.) OAD; A. rugosus (F.); A. sculpturatus (Grav.) group Cw; A. ?tetracarhlatus (Block); Oxytelus sculptus Grav. Cd; Stenus crassus St.; Stenus sp. (not crassus); Lathrobium longulum Grav.; Lathrobium spp. indet. (2 spp); ?Medon sp.; Lithocharis sp.; Astenus sp.; Rugihts sp.; Leptacinus ?pusillus (St.); Gyrohypnus fracticornis (Mull.); Xantholinus linearis (O1.) or longiventris Heer; Neobisnius villosulus (St.); Philonthus spp. indet. (at least 2 spp.); ?Gabrius sp.; Ontholestes murinus (L.); ?Heterothops sp.; Quedius sp.; 3lycetoporus sp.; Sepedophilus nigripennis (St.); Tachyporus ?h)Tnorum (F.); T. ?nitidulus (F.); Tachinus ?marginellus (F.); T. ?signatus Grav.; Cordalia obscura (Gray.); Falagria sp.; Aleocharinae gem et spp. indet. (at least 8 spp.). Pselaphidae--Euplectini gen. et sp. indet.; Bythinius or Bryaxis sp.; Brachygluta sp. Geotrupidae--Geotrupes sp. Scarabaeidae--Aphodius spp. (at least 4 spp.) OBCw; Oxyomus sylvestris (Scop.); Melolontha sp. OA. Clambidae--Clambus sp. Scirtidae--?Cyphon sp. OAD. Byrrhidae--?Byrrhus sp. OA. Dryopidae--Dryops sp. OAW. Elateridae--Gen. et sp.-indet. OB. Cantharidae--Cantharis ?tufa L. OB. Anobiidae--Anobium punctatum (Deg.). Ptinidae--Ptinus ?fitr (L.); Gen. et sp. indet. (not preceding). Lyctidae--Lyctus sp. Nitidulidae--Meligethes sp. OA. Rhizophagidae--Monotoma ?longicollis (Gyll.) Cd; M. picipes Hbst. Cd; M. ?spinicollis Aub6 Cd.


Cucujidae--Pediacus dermestoides (F.). Silvanidae--Silvanoporus fagi (Gufr.) Cryptophagidae--Cryptophagus scutellat,ts Newm.; C. spp. (2 or more); Atomaria spp. (at least 4 spp.). Phalacridae--Gen. et sp. indet. Corylophidae--Orthoperus sp. Coccinellidae-- ?Anisosticta novemdecimpunctata (L.) OA. Endomychidae--Mycetaea hirta (Msh.) Cd. Lathridiidae---Lathridius minutus (L.) group Cd; Enicmus sp. Cd; Dienerella sp.; Corti- cariinae gen. et spp. indet. (at least 4 spp). Mycetophagidae--Mycetophagus sp. Colydiidae--Aglenus brunneus (Gyll.) Cd. Tenebrionidae--Tenebrio obscurus F. Salpingidae--Rhinosimus planirostris (F.). Anthicidae--Anthicus spp. (2 spp.). Bruchidae--Gen. et sp. indet. Chrysomelidae--Donaciinae indet. OAD; Phyllotreta sp. (patterned) OA; ?Longitarsus sp. OA; ?Chaetocnema sp. OA. Apionidae--Apion ?craccae (L.); A. spp. indet. (at least 4 spp.) OA. Curculionidae--Phyllobius or Polydrusus sp. OA; Barypeithes sp. OA; Strophosomus ?melanogrammus OA; cf Barynotus sp. OA; Sitona hispidulus (F.) OA; S. sp. (not hispiduhts) OA; Hypera nigrirostris (F.) OA; H. sp. (not nigrirostris) OA; Tanysphyrus lemnae (Payk.) OAW; Notaris acridulus (L.) OAD; Cidnorhinus quadrimaculatus (L.) OA; Ceuthorhynchus sp. OA; Phytobius sp. OAD; Gymnetron sp. OA; Gen. et. spp. indet. (at least 4 spp.). Hemiptera-Heteroptera Aneuridae----Aneurus avenhts (Duf.) or laevis (F.). Pentatomidae--Aelia acuminata (L.) OA. Lygaeidae--Gen. et spp. indet. OA. Saldidae--Gen. et sp. indet. OAD. Hemiptera-Homoptera Gen. et spp. indet. (at least 4 spp.). Other h~vertebrates Annelida-Oligochaeta (egg-capsules). Mollusca: terrestrial Gastropoda; Ostrea edulis (L.) (sample 3 only). Crustacea: Cladocera, Daphnia sp. (ephippia); Ostracoda (valves). Arachnida: Pseudoscorpionida (chelicerae); Acarina (carapaces). Insecta: Dermaptera, cf. Forficula auricularia L. (cerci); Diptera (adult thorax and wing fragments, puparia); Siphonaptera (head); Hymenoptera, Chacidoidea, Proctotrupoidea, Apoidea (heads).

An interpretation of biological remains from Highgate, Beverley

Documents

Transcript of An interpretation of biological remains from Highgate, Beverley