Appendix 6 – Insect Remains

Appendix 6 – Insect remains

Eileen Reilly

Botany Department, Trinity College Dublin, College Green, Dublin 2

137

Appendix 6: Contents

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 140

LIST OF TABLES...... 141

1 INTRODUCTION...... 142

2 METHODOLOGY...... 143

3 ANALYSIS...... 147

4 DISCUSSION. 149

139 List of Illustrations

6.1 Graph of habitat groups indicated for all insects identified – raw counts and percentage presence of each habitat group (source: created by BUGSCEP) . 144 6.2 Summary data – total number of species, individuals and sum abundance per sample for insect remains identified (source: created by BugsCEP)...... 146 6.3 NMS ordination showing 1-axis solution for samples examined from insert remains ...... 149 6.4 NMS ordination showing 1-axis solution for species distribution...... 150

140 List of Tables

6.1 Species list for insects (source: nomenclature follows Lucht 1987). 152

141 1 INTRODUCTION

Six samples were selected for insect analysis. Insect Samples for insect analysis were selected from analysis is just one strand of a multidisciplinary the pre-ditch ground surface, possible old stream approach being taken to understand the local envir channel and fills from two phases of the medieval onment of the area, which also includes pollen, bone, ditch (see Section 3 below for full description). mollusca, wood and plant-macrofossil analyses.

142 2 METHODOLOGY

Samples were 10 litres in volume. Sub-samples of time, in the case of stratified sequences, or spatial 4–5 litres were analysed. The remaining material analysis in the case of dispersed archaeological was retained for potential future use. samples. The package uses 22 EcoCodes derived All samples were subject to the paraffin flotation from the work of various authors (Kenward 2001; method of extracting insect remains from archaeo- Ponel 1995; Robinson 2001) and the ecological codes logical deposits, devised first by Coope and Osborne assigned by Koch (1989–92). Each taxon (or individ- (1968) and later modified by Kenward (1980), ual) may be assigned to more than one habitat but with further refinements by Kenward et al (1986). will only be assigned to one ‘indicator’ class, where The samples were disaggregated using water and appropriate. Illus 6.1 shows two EcoGraphs, one dis- washed over a 300µm sieve. The retent in the sieve playing the raw counts per habitat group and the was then treated with paraffin and cold water added. other the percentage presence of each habitat as a The paraffin concentrates the insects by adhering to proportion of the total number of taxa (‘environmen- the waxy cuticle of the insect exoskeleton. The flot tal representations’) in that sample. Illus 6.2 shows was then poured through a 300µm sieve, washed the summary statistics for the data. The analysis with detergent in hot water to remove the excess and discussion (Sections 3 and 4) are based on the paraffin and stored in 70% ethanol. Processing took results of these graphs. place at the flotation facility of Margaret Gowen and The index of diversity for the assemblages was Company Ltd, Merrion Square, Dublin 2. also calculated (see Section 4 below). Fisher’s alpha Flots varied in size between 100 and 200ml. All is a mathematical model used to measure diversity were fully sorted and insect sclerites extracted in ecological communities (Fisher et al 1943). onto wet filter paper. Identifications were carried In addition, NMS (non-metric multi-dimensional out using published keys and the writer’s own scaling) ordination of the data was carried out, using reference material. Table 6.1 details the full species PC-Ord 5.0 (McCune & Grace 2002). Ordination is list. Species marked with ‘?’ indicate identifications used to summarise complex relationships, extract- that require further checking. The species list was ing one or a number of dominant patterns from an then entered into Bugstats, part of BugsCEP, the infinite number of possible patterns ibid( ). It is used Coleopteran Ecology Package devised by Philip and here to examine underlying variance/similarities in Paul Buckland (Buckland & Buckland 2006). This the insect assemblages between deposit types (illus allowed for analysis of the insect data by producing 6.3 & 6.4). NMS is well suited to data that are non- a multi-sample environmental summary diagram normal or on arbitrary, discontinuous, or otherwise using coded habitat data. This diagram should aid questionable scales, particularly data sets that have identification of environmental changes through upwards of 70% zeroes.

143 Sample Standing water Open wet Wetlands/ Pasture/ Heathland & Wood and trees Dry dead wood Disturbed/ Sandy/dry Dung/foul Mould beetles Dung Numbers Aquatics habitats marshes Halotolerant Dung Meadowland moorland arable disturbed/ habitats Carrion Synanthropic arable S67 S86 S68 raw counts per habitat group S56/55 S110

05101520 0 5101520 0 5101520 0 5 101520 -1 0 0 5 101520 0 5 101520 0 5 101520 0 5 101520 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 101520 0 10 20 0 5 101520 0 5 101520 0 5 101520 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

Standing water Open wet Wetlands/ Halotolerant Dung Pasture/ Heathland & Wood & trees Dry dead wood Disturbed/ Sandy/dry Dung/foul Mould beetles Synanthropic Samples Aquatics Meadowland arable disturbed/ Carrion habitats marshes Dung moorland habitats arable S67 S86 S68 % representation per habitat group S56/55 S110

0 5 1015 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 1015 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 -1 0 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15

Illus 6.1 Graph of habitat groups indicated for all insects identified – raw counts and percentage presence of each habitat group (source: created by BUGSCEP)

144 Sample Standing water Open wet Wetlands/ Pasture/ Heathland & Wood and trees Dry dead wood Disturbed/ Sandy/dry Dung/foul Mould beetles Dung Numbers Aquatics habitats marshes Halotolerant Dung Meadowland moorland arable disturbed/ habitats Carrion Synanthropic arable S67 S86 S68 raw counts per habitat group S56/55 S110

05101520 0 5101520 0 5101520 0 5 101520 -1 0 0 5 101520 0 5 101520 0 5 101520 0 5 101520 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 101520 0 10 20 0 5 101520 0 5 101520 0 5 101520 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

0 5 1015 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 1015 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 -1 0 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15

Illus 6.1 Graph of habitat groups indicated for all insects identified – raw counts and percentage presence of each habitat group (source: created by BUGSCEP)

145 Sum representation of individuals Sample Abundance (raw counts) Number of species in all habitat categories Numbers

S67

S86

S68

S56/55

S110

-1 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 25 50 75 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175

Illus 6.2 Summary data – total number of species, individuals and sum abundance per sample for insect remains identified (source: created by BugsCEP)

146 3 ANALYSIS

Samples are analysed in chronological order. (Limnebius sp., Helophorus sp.) and one possible indicator of flowing water, Oulimnius sp., present. The latter beetle is generally found under stones or 3.1 Context [142], sample 110 on moss in fast-flowing, shallow streambeds (Koch 1989–92) and is one of the few species present that Context 142 is described as a blackish-brown peaty suggests the presence of a stream in the locality. A deposit, gritty and organic. The clay and charcoal number of species present suggest that, once again, content was high. Animal bone and shellfish were dung/foul-indicating habitats prevailed. The carrion visible during processing. feeder Necrophorus humator was identified, as well This produced an interesting, albeit small, assem- as Aphodius spp., Anotylus tetracarinatus and A. blage (MNI = 41, illus 6.1 & 6.2, Table 6.1). Many complanatus. These beetles probably represent the of the sclerites were fragmented and identifica- beginnings of accumulated rubbish associated with tion past genus level was not always possible. This the growth of the medieval town. In addition, the resulted in a mixed signature within the assemblage, disturbed waste ground and/or arable signature with many species assigned to multiple habitats. present in context [142] is also visible in this assem- However, generally, foul habitats/dung/pasture blage through species such as Otiorhynchus sulcatus, indicators were very common, as well as wetland/ Chrysolina sp. and Phyllotreta sp. (Table 6.1). O. marsh indicators. The most commonly encountered sulcatus (the ‘vine’ weevil) is generally closely asso- beetles were Helophorus spp., generalist water ciated with humans (Morris 1997). Along with other beetles found in a wide variety of aquatic environ- beetles identified in this assemblage, such asPtinus ments, and Aphodius luridus, a dung beetle found in fur, it suggests the beginnings of a synanthropic sheep, horse and cow dung in both open and shaded (ecologically associated with humans) element in the (wooded) locations (Jessop 1986). A small number local insect fauna (also vaguely suggested in context of arable/disturbed ground species also occurred [142]), prior to the digging of the town ditch. including Harpalus affinis, a generally xerophilus ground beetle found in weedy, agricultural ground and dry grassland (Lindroth 1985; Luff 1998) and 3.3 Context [090], samples 86/68 Ceutorhynchus erysimi, which occurs on Shepherd’s Purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris) (Bullock 1993). Context [090] is described as blackish-brown silty There were no indicators of moving water or specific clay with wood, marine molluscs, land/freshwater indicators of wetland plant communities (except one molluscs, plant macrofossils and animal bone undiagnostic fragment of Plateumaris spp.), which present. A small silt and charcoal component was might have been expected in an in-filled stream- visible during processing. This is the primary fill of channel. Overall, the assemblage represented damp, the original medieval ditch cut. foul ground conditions with occasional representa- Two samples from context [090] were analysed tions from nearby agricultural (both pasture and for insect remains, sample 86 and sample 68 (see arable) land. illus 6.1, 6.2 and table 6.1). Both produced large species-rich assemblages. The most frequently occurring species were Helophorus spp., Megaster- 3.2 Context [070], samples 55/56 num obscurum, Ceutorhynchus contractus, Ophonus rufibarbis, Philonthus spp. and Phratora vugatis- Context [070] is described as mid-grey silty clay, sima. This mix of species is indicated in the habitats with lots of pebbles and small stones. It was highly represented in illus 6.1, with general aquatics, inorganic with few insect remains observed during wetland/marsh, pasture/dung and disturbed/arable processing. Lots of small charcoal fragments and (combined) dominant. Also well represented is wood/ a small plant-macrofossil component were also trees, for example, P. vulgatissima generally occurs observed. on willow and poplar (Bullock 1993). Two samples were submitted for insect analysis There are also a number of ground beetles within from this deposit. Unfortunately, sample 55 produced the assemblages that can be indicative of carr only three identifiable fragments, while sample 56 woodland, such as Leistus spinibarbis, Trechus was similarly poor at just sixteen identifiable insects. rubens and Pterostichus madidus. However, many This was due primarily to the inorganic nature of of these species are equally likely to occur in humus- the deposit. For the purposes of illus 6.1–6.4, these rich soils in pasture/cultivated land (Lindroth 1974) samples are combined. The assemblage indicated and the wet ditch fill may have provided an ideal mixed origins, with a small number of water beetles habitat. Other beetles and one fly species recorded

147 in the assemblages suggest that wood/leaf litter may generated by the digging of the ditch but may reflect have formed part of the fill, possibly fuel or fodder the landscape surrounding the town at this time waste. Species such as Phyllobius oblongus, P. pyri, also. Cryptocephalus sp. and Dorytomus sp. occur on the The fauna associated with material thrown into leaves of a variety of tree and shrub species. The the ditch generally indicates foul origins. In particu- puparia of Minettia ?lupulina, a leaf miner in alder lar, the dipterous (fly) fauna, along with elements of and fruit tree species (Smith 1989), were recorded in the beetle fauna, such as carrion and dung feeders, moderate numbers from sample 68. suggests that fermenting food waste, animal dung/ In addition, Rhizophagus sp., which occurs under manure and remains of carcasses ended up in the bark, and some unidentifiable fragments of Anobids ditch. (‘woodworm’ beetles) were present but in very small numbers. This is somewhat surprising for the fill of a medieval ditch, where species associated with 3.4 Context [089], sample 67 wooden buildings might expect to become incorpor ated into ditch fills. The ‘synanthropic’ element of Context [089] is described as blackish-brown silty the fauna is generally very small (no more than 8% clay, with visible wood, animal bone, plant macrofos- of the overall assemblage in each sample). Typical sils, land/freshwater molluscs and frequent stones. species of this habitat group, such as Cryptophagus Pottery fragments were also recovered. This deposit dentatus, Ptinus fur, Tipnus unicolor, Mycetaea overlay [090]. hirta, Atomaria spp. are present but in small While not as numerically rich as either sample numbers. These species are common in medieval 86 or sample 68, sample 67 proved to be just as house floor layers and pit fills of this periodHall ( & species-rich. It contains a similar habitat range Kenward 1995; Reilly 2003). Along with the lack of as the earlier fill, but with a proportionally structural wood pests, it suggests that waste from smaller synanthropic element. Dung/pasture and houses was not the primary material making up the foul (including carrion) habitats are again well- ditch fill. represented, with a number of species of Aphodius An interesting dry/disturbed/arable ground fauna present, as well as common ‘cess-pit’ species like is present in the assemblages. Species indicative Oxytelus sculptus, Megasternum obscurum and of weeds include Sitona sp., Rhinoncus sp., Chaeto Xylodromus concinnus. In addition, puparia of flies cnema concinna and Chrysolina fastuosa. The digging such as Sepsis spp., Drosophila spp. and Musca of the ditch would have caused significant ground domestica clearly indicate the presence of dung, disturbance that probably eventually resulted in a including human excrement/urine, fermenting diverse weed-plant community growing locally, on vegetables/fruit and general decaying animal and which many of these beetles are to be found. Two plant matter (Smith 1989). curious finds, Batophia rubi and Byturus tomen- The disturbed ground/arable indicators are again tosus, occur on raspberry and blackberry and may well-represented in this deposit. Ophonus rufibar- indicate the presence of brambles growing in close bis, Pterostichus madidus, Phyllotreta undulata, proximity to the ditch. However, it is the ground Sitona sp. and Ceutorhynchus sp. all suggest locally beetle (Carabidae) fauna indicative of disturbed open/disturbed ground with associated weeds. In ground that is particularly interesting and diverse. addition, there is a proportionally larger represen- Species such as Ophonus rufibarbis, Harpalus tation of species associated with heath/moorland. affinis, Pterostichus madidus, Anchomenus dorsalis, These include the ground beetle Amara lunicollis, Amara familiaris and A. equestis all point to mixed which only occurs in this deposit and is generally local ground conditions from dry, disturbed, sandy indicative of heath (Lindroth 1986). Dumped peat ground to cultivated ground/garden soils. The ditch or turf used for roofing or fuel may possibly be the probably acted as a large pit-fall trap, resulting in source for such beetles in the ditch fill. diverse ground beetle fauna becoming incorporated The woodland/dead wood element of the fauna is into this fill. Undoubtedly, many of these species proportionally similar to [090], with a similar range were attracted to the disturbed ground surface of species present.

148 4 DISCUSSION

4.1 Diversity and ordination ditch fills contain a similar range of species, and there is more overlap between these three assem- Three of the six samples examined, the ditch fills, blages and the assemblage present in Context [142] produced rich, diverse insect faunas. The wet than in Context [070]. nature of ditches, the associated ground distur- Very few contemporary sites in Edinburgh, or bance, the fact that ditches were regularly used Scotland as a whole, have been analysed for insect for dumping and the ‘pit-fall trapping effect’ of remains. A number of medieval-dated sites in open-cut features means that ditch fills tend to Aberdeen (Hall et al 2004; Kenward & Hall 2001) be species-rich. The index of diversity (Fisher’s will be referred to below but otherwise compari- alpha) for the ditch fills was between 44–60, which sons are mainly with Iron Age to medieval-dated is extremely high (Kenward 1978). 12th–13th sites with prominent cut features in other parts of century midden deposits at Gallowgate Middle Britain and in Ireland. School, Aberdeen produced similar high diversity indices ( Hall et al 2004). The least species-diverse deposit was context [142] (sample 110) with an 4.2 Local and wider environment alpha value of only 23. The ordination of the samples produced an inter- 4.2.1 Dry/disturbed/arable ground and esting pattern with the three ditch fills clustering dung/pasture together (illus 6.3). The species diagram (illus 6.4) suggests that the clustering is not due solely to There is some overlap between these groups and numerical or species richness but species diversity those of ‘meadowland’ and ‘heathland/moorland’. and relatedness between the deposits. The three Numerically, species belonging to these groups make

Ditch fills

Illus 6.3 NMS ordination (1-axis solution) for samples examined from insect remains, St Patrick’s Church, Cowgate, Edinburgh

149 Illus 6.4 NMS ordination (1-axis solution) for species distribution in samples from St Patrick’s Church, Cowgate, Edinburgh up the largest part of the ditch-fill assemblages and have many species in common with the ditch-fill form a large proportion of the Context [142] assem- assemblages at the Cowgate, including Harpalus blage. It is not unusual for enclosing ditches of affinis, Amara familiaris, A. lunicollis and dung settlement sites to contain a large ‘outdoor’ element beetles like Aphodius luridus. In addition, common in the assemblage. Ditches by their nature are an ruderal plant feeders like Ceutorhynchus concinna, interface between the settlement space and the sur- Rhononcus spp. and Ceutorhynchus contractus, C. rounding landscape. Therefore, both allochthonous ersymi and C. hirtulus were recovered from Iron and autochthonous insects will generally be rep- Age, Roman and medieval ditch, pit and well fills resented. Sources of the disturbed ground/arable at Sutton Common (Roper & Whitehouse 1997) and dung/pasture species, however, can be mixed Bancroft, Buckinghamshire (Pearson & Robinson with insects being introduced directly (ie by pitfall- 1995), Chichester (Girling 1989), Piddington trapping effect) or indirectly in fodder residues and (Simpson 2001) and Aberdeen (Kenward & Hall manure (Hall & Kenward 1998). 2001). Curiously, the most common ground beetle Similar faunas, rich in ground beetles, weed/ indicative of disturbed/dry ground encountered in meadow plant feeders and dung beetles are present the ditch fills, Ophonus rufibarbis, does not appear in the ditches of Iron Age sites like Mingies Ditch, to have been recorded before from a British pre- Oxford (Robinson 1993), Fisherwick, Stafford- historic or medieval site. It is generally confined to shire (Osborne 1979), and Roman-age sites like coastal locations in Britain and Ireland today (Luff Alchester (Robinson 1975) and Drayton (Robinson 1998). 2003). Equally, many Roman well sites produce similar mixed signatures and have a similar pitfall- trapping effect, particularly for many xerophilous 4.2.2 Foul habitats and the ‘human factor’ ground-dwelling beetles (ie species that would not usually be found in wet ditches). Roman wells such Analysis of all deposits suggested the presence of as Appleford, Oxford (Robinson 1981), Rudston, ‘foul’ conditions at all times in the past but this Yorkshire (Buckland 1980), Dragonby, Lincolnshire was particularly clear from the ditch fills. This (Buckland 1996), Dalton Parlours, Yorkshire (Sudell is unsurprising as ditches regularly fulfilled the 1990) and Wheatpieces, Tewkesbury (Tetlow 2006a) role of unofficial rubbish dump for medieval town

150 residents. Even after the ditch went out of use, the Novgorod at the site of a possible leather workshop excavation revealed a large midden of material had (Reilly 2008a). built up in this part of the old town of Edinburgh, on top of which later post-medieval structures were built (Jones 2007). 4.2.3 Further afield? Haleotolerant and heath/ The pre-ditch ‘foul’ element of the old stream moorland indicators channel was made up primarily of indicators of wet decaying vegetation, which probably represented in Two other interesting elements of the fauna are situ decay rather than dumped material. The synan- species indicative of coastal/salt marsh environments thropic element of the fauna was very small, again and heath/moorland (see Section 3). Given the coastal suggesting autochthonous sources for the foul indi- location of Edinburgh, some halaeotolerant beetles cating beetles. However, the puparia of the fly genus are to be expected in the deposits. In particular, Scathophaga sp. were frequently encountered in this marine shell was recorded in Context [090] (primary sample and suggest the presence of dung, human ditch fill) and the presence of seaweed is suggested by excrement and carrion (Smith 1989). It is possible the finding of Cafius sp. in sample 86. Seaweed may that animals grazed this area prior to the digging of also have been brought into the town for use as either the town ditch, which would account for the puparia animal fodder or manure. Salt-tolerant species were and the presence of Aphodius luridus (Section 3). also noted in a number of Dublin sites by the author The foul element in the ditch fills is likely to and others (Reilly 2003; Whitehouse 2007). come from two main sources – the ground condi- As discussed in Section 3, the presence of the tions prevailing within the ditch itself and dumped ground beetle Amara lunicollis and a small group or slowly accumulating debris. Ditch fills from sites of other beetles is suggestive of heath or moorland. like the Bronze Age-dated enclosure at Chancellors- Their presence in the ditch fills may be due to the land, Co. Tipperary (Reilly 2008b), Iron Age-dated use of turf in floors, roofs or for fuel within the town. Haughey’s Fort, Co. Armagh (Anderson 1989) and However, the range of species is more limited than Mingies Ditch, Oxford (Robinson 1993) and Roman that identified from midden deposits in Galloway period Alchester (Robinson 1975) generally have Middle School, Aberdeen (Hall et al 2004) or from this feature in common. Ditches regularly cut the 17th-century pit/latrine fills in Newmarket, Dublin water table and permanently hold water at the (Whitehouse 2007). In both these cases, the presence base so that both slow accumulating autochthonous of peat appeared to be indicated by the range of water plant matter and dumped organic material are well beetles, plant feeders and ground beetles present as preserved. Surprisingly, the synanthropic element well as the plant macrofossil evidence. The evidence of the ditch fills is very small. ‘House fauna’ often is somewhat more tentative in the Cowgate due to makes up a significant proportion of deposits in cut the fact that many beetle species are not identi- features, like pits and wells, in Roman and medieval fied beyond genus. Bugstats assigns such genera to sites due to their location within the settlement multiple-habitat categories to reflect the full range (Girling 1989; Kenward and Hall 1995; Reilly 2003). of habitats they may potentially represent. This can However, analysis of fills from Roman wells in Wheat- lead to an over-representation of some habitat cat- pieces, Tewkesbury (Tetlow 2006a) and Piddington, egories in the final graph (illus 6.1). Northhamptonshire (Simpson 2001) produced quite restricted synanthropic faunas. Tetlow (2006a) suggests that the well at Wheatpieces, in common 4.3 Conclusions with pit and ditch features examined at Heathrow Airport (Tetlow 2006b), may not have been used The four contexts examined for insects cover the for deliberate dumping and were set in a largely period prior to the digging of the town ditch and pastoral landscape. the primary and secondary phase of ditch use. The While the Cowgate has a similar range of pasture/ insects reflect the change in environment from wet disturbed ground indicators in the ditch fills to that of in-filled stream channel, with its limited fauna Wheatpieces, it is clear from archaeological evidence largely indicative of the decaying accumulating veg- that the ditch location was the site of deliberate etation and surrounding pasture/arable landscape, dumping. However, the quantity and range of dung to inorganic water-deposited clay layer, to the rich beetles, meadow plant indicators, carrion feeders, diverse communities of the ditch fills, reflecting both and fly species indicative of dung and carcasses the surrounding landscape and the dumped waste suggests that the dumped material was waste from of the urban environment. The poor synanthropic agricultural and/or butchering activity, rather than element in the assemblages suggests household domestic activity. Of course, the line between these waste was not the primary source of the ditch fills. types of activity may have been somewhat blurred Rather, the assemblages are reflective of fouler in a medieval town. Similar assemblages indicative material, such as butchery waste, animal dung and of very foul conditions were noted from midden and rotting vegetables/fruit, suggesting market/indus- floor deposits in the heart of the medieval town of trial rather than domestic sources.

151 Lucht 1987 ) RDB notable B Varied status Varied RDB Notable B Varied status Varied Common Locally abundant Local (esp. in Scotland) Local (esp. Generally common Common Common Distribution status in Great Britain (Red Book Status if known) Varied status Varied , heaths, moors heaths, , Northern distribution Open ground, cultivated soils etc.Open ground, Common U sually upland bogs Dry heath, sandy ground Dry heath, Damp litter near water Sandy, dry disturbed ground Sandy, Humus-rich soils, gardens, woodlands gardens, soils, Humus-rich Common Disturbed/arable ground Woodland litter, cultivated soils litter, Woodland Eu Grassland, woodland Grassland, Disturbed ground, prefers dry placesDisturbed ground, Common 2 Aquatic (various) 11 tolerant water open ground, Damp litter, Common Eu 1 water-tolerant Disturbed ground, Common 3 generally dry ground moors, Heaths, local Very 1 Eurytrophic (ie occurs everywhere) Common 1 woodland Damp meadowland, 4 woodlands Disturbed/arable ground, Common 2 Eu 3 prefers dry places Disturbed ground, Locally abundant above [090] Fill of ditch Fill 1 1 1 1 1 ditch 3 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 5 2 1 1 9 3 Primary fill of midden 1 Accumulated (Syn = ‘synanthropic’: in close association with humans/human habitation) ‘synanthropic’: (Syn = 1 2 1 110 55 56 68 86 67 Habitat 142 70 70 90 90 89 deposit Table 6.1 Species list for insects from St Patrick’s Church excavations, Cowgate, Edinburgh (nomenclature after Cowgate, Church excavations, 6.1 Species list for insects from St Patrick’s Table Dysticidae Hydroporus spp. T. quadristriatus (Schrank) T. obtusus (Er). T. Bembidion sp. Patrobus assimilis (Chaud.) Patrobus A. cf. equestris (Duft.) cf. A. Trechus rubens (F.) Trechus Amara lunicollis (Schiödte) familiaris (Duft.) A. Nebria brevicollis (F.) globosus (Hbst.) Dyschirius (Pont.) dorsalis Anchomenus Carabus sp. Leistus spinibaris (F.) P. madidus (F.) P. sp. Pterostichus Context No. Description of context Genus/Species Peaty Carabidae Carabidae (indet.) Carabus cf. violaceus (L.) Carabus cf. Ophonus rufibaris (F.) Pterostichus niger (Schall.) Pterostichus Sample No. Harpalus affinis (Schrank) Harpalus sp.

152 Varied status Varied Varied status Varied Widespread Widespread Common Varied status Varied Common Varied status Varied Common Common Varied status Varied Distribution status in Great Britain (Red Book Status if known) Dung/foul habitats Generally in decaying vegetation (some Generally in decaying Syn) Generally associated with carrion status Varied Carrion All kinds of aquatic environments Common Carrion Dung, decaying vegetation, carrion (Syn) vegetation, decaying Dung, Common carrion (Syn) vegetation, decaying Dung, RDB notable vegetation decaying Dung, Dung, decaying vegetation decaying Dung, All kinds of aquatic environments status Varied Aquatic (various) All kinds of aquatic environments Common All kinds of aquatic environments Common 1 Generally foul habitats 3 vegetation decaying Dung, 1 etc.) (ditches standing water Aquatic, Common 1 Generally foul habitats 5 All kinds of aquatic environments status Varied 1 Aquatic (various) above [090] Fill of ditch Fill 1 1 1 1 1 ditch 2 1 1 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 Primary fill of 1 11 1 5 1 5 midden Accumulated 1 1 7 2 110 55 56 68 86 67 Habitat 142 70 70 90 90 89 deposit Omalium sp. Staphylinidae Phyllodrepa sp. Catopidae Catops sp. Thanatophilus sinuatus (F.) Thanatophilus Cercyon sp. Megasternum obscurum (Marsh.) Hydrobius fuscipes (L.) Laccobius minutus (L.) Histeridae indet. Histeridae sp. Siliphidae Necrophorus humator (Gled.) C. unipunctatus (L.) C. atricapillus (Marsh.) C. analis (Payk.) C. Cercyon impressus (Sturm) Limnebius sp. Hydrophilidae Helophorus spp. Ochthebius sp. Ochthebius Hydraenidae minimus (F.) Ochthebius Context No. Description of context Agabus bipustulatus (L.) Peaty sp. Agabus/Ilybius Sample No.

153 RDB rare Common Varied status Varied Very local Very Varied status Varied Widespread Varied status Varied Common Varied status Varied Common Common Common Common Common Very local Very Distribution status in Great Britain (Red Book Status if known) Common Eu (generally decaying vegetation/foul)Eu (generally decaying status Varied Eu (generally decaying vegetation)Eu (generally decaying status Varied Woodland litter, heath/moor litter litter, Woodland (dung/carrion) Dung, carrion, foul habitats carrion, Dung, wetlands/woodland Tidal debris, under seaweed debris, Tidal Generally dung/foul habitats Generally dung/foul habitats Dung/foul habitats, decaying vegetation decaying Dung/foul habitats, Common Generally dung/foul habitats Dung/foul habitats, wet environmentsDung/foul habitats, status Varied Meadows, woodland, marshes woodland, Meadows, Dung, plant and animal debris Dung, Dung, carrion, foul habitats carrion, Dung, Dung/foul habitats environments Damp locations, mosses, foul habitats mosses, Damp locations, status Varied 2 Many species indicative of foul habitats status Varied 1 Plant debris/foul habitats in 1 under bark litter, Woodland 2 dung vegetation, Damp decaying Common 11 damp vegetation, decaying Dung, carrion Dung, 1 heaths in plant debris marsh, Wetland, Common 1 Open wet habitats in moss 2 Dung/foul habitats (Syn) above [090] Fill of ditch Fill 3 1 1 1 1 3 ditch 3 3 6 6 2 2 2 1 2 2 4 2 1 2 1 10 Primary fill of 1 1 2 1 1 1 midden Accumulated 1 1 3 2 1 1 110 55 56 68 86 67 Habitat 142 70 70 90 90 89 deposit spp. Tachyporus/Tachinus ?Atheta spp. (poss. Cafius) (poss. Philonthus spp. Tachinus rufipennis (Gyll.) Tachinus Quedius spp. Philonthus politus (L.) Atrecus affinis (Payk.) ?Cafius sp. Xantholinus sp. Gyrohypnus sp. Gyrohypnus leibei (Scheer.) Leptacinus sp. Rugilus sp. Stenus spp. Oxytelus sculptus (Grav.) Platystethus arenarius (Geoff.) A. tetracarinatus (Block) A. A. sculpturatus (Grav.) A. A. complanatus (Er.) A. Geodromicus nigrita Carpelimus sp. Anotylus rugosus (F.) Context No. Description of context Xylodromus concinnus Peaty (Marsh.) Olophrum piceum (Gyll.) Sample No.

154 O. Generally rare (except O. tuberculatus ) Common Varied status Varied Varied status Varied Varied status Varied generally rare status, Varied Distribution status in Great Britain (Red Book Status if known) Common . In Rubus spp., esp. raspberry, blackberry raspberry, esp. In Rubus spp., Common On U rtica spp In fast-flowing water, bare streambeds water, In fast-flowing Wetlands, woodlands on flowers/shrubsWetlands, Varied status On flowers, shrubs, bushes, in woodland bushes, shrubs, On flowers, Common flowers – disturbed herbs, On trees, ground/arable Carrion, foul habitats (O. colon often Syn) foul habitats (O. Carrion, status Varied Wide range of foul habitats (often Syn)Wide status Varied On flowers, shrubs (eats pollen) On flowers, especially water 1 disturbed ground meadow, Woodland, status Varied 3 Eu 1 rotting material in fungi, At sap, status Varied 1 under bark Predatory on other insects, 1 Sparganium near standing Typha, On 1 but not obligate) Plant debris (typical Syn, Common above [090] Fill of ditch Fill 1 1 ditch 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 Primary fill of 2 1 3 2 midden Accumulated 3 110 55 56 68 86 67 Habitat 142 70 70 90 90 89 deposit Byturidae ?Byturus tomentosus (Deg.) Brachypteridae urticae (F.) Brachypterus Athous sp. Dryopidae Oulimnius sp. Elateridae Athous haemorrhoidalis (F.) Cantharidae Cantharis ?nigricans (Müll.) Cantharis sp. Epuraea sp. Omosita sp. Rhizophagidae Rhizophagus sp. Cryptophagidae sp. Telmatophilus Cucujidae Monotoma sp. Context No. Description of context Crataraea suturalis (Mann.) Peaty sp. indet. sp. Aleocharinae Nitidulidae Meligethes sp. Sample No.

155 Common Local in Scotland (RDB notable B) notable B) Scotland) Generally widespread Common Generally widespread Common Very local Very Varied status Varied Varied status Varied Varied status Varied today Distribution status in Great Britain (Red Book Status if known) Varied status Varied Dung, open habitats Dung, Horse/sheep dung, shaded habitatsHorse/sheep dung, local in Scotland (RDB Very Cow/sheep dung, shaded habitatsCow/sheep dung, common in Common (v. Cow/horse dung, pasture Cow/horse dung, Dung, pasture Dung, Plant and animal debris (often Syn) Common nests birds’ Carrion, Plant/wood debris (obligate Syn) Plant debris, fungi (generally Syn)Plant debris, Dead wood Locally abundant In wood/plant debris, mould, fungi (often mould, In wood/plant debris, Syn) Plant debris, in fungi (often Syn)Plant debris, local Very In mould, fungi (many spp. Syn) fungi (many spp. In mould, 1 pasture Dung, 2 pasture Cow/horse dung, 1 open habitats (dry) Cow/sheep dung, Locally common 3 in fungi (generally Syn) Plant debris, but RDB rare Widespread 2 fungi (often Syn) In mould, above [090] Fill of ditch Fill 2 1 1 2 1 ditch 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 4 21 1 1 1 2 2 2 Primary fill of 2 midden Accumulated 6 1 1 110 55 56 68 86 67 Habitat 142 70 70 90 90 89 deposit A. contaminatus (Hbst.) A. A. paykulli (Bedel) A. A. conspurcatus (L.) A. A. rufipes (L.) A. A. luridus (F.) A. depressus (Kug.) A. (L.) fossor A. Apodius erraticus (L.) Ptinus fur (L.) Scarabaeidae scaber (L.) Trox Ptinidae & unicolor (Pill. Tipnus Mitt.) Endomychidae Mycetaea subterranea (M.) Anobiidae Anobidae indet. Lathridiidae (L.) Lathridius minutus grp. Corticaria sp. Atomaria spp. Context No. Description of context Cryptophagus dentatus grp. Peaty (Hbst.) Atomaria nigripennis Sample No.

156 Varied status Varied Varied status Varied Common Common Common Varied status Varied Common Common Very local Very Very local Very Generally rare Probably widespread Common Varied status Varied Varied status Varied Varied status Varied Very local (common in Very Scottish Highlands) Distribution status in Great Britain (Red Book Status if known) ground On leaves of various tree species On leaves On leaves of various tree species On leaves On leaves of various tree species On leaves On roots/leaves of various plants, of various plants, On roots/leaves disturbed ground (Syn) Various ground herbs Various Leaves of various herbs/trees, disturbed of various herbs/trees, Leaves ground Leaves of various herbs/trees, disturbed of various herbs/trees, Leaves ground On leaves of wide variety ground herbsOn leaves status Varied of various wetland plantsOn leaves Widespread On ground herbs, various environmentsOn ground herbs, Generally common weedy locations brambles, On Rubus spp., spp. (hemp nettle), heath/ (hemp nettle), On Galeopsis spp. marshes moor, spp. On Populus/Salix spp. On Populus/Salix Disturbed/arable ground on Brassica spp. Leaf beetles in wide variety of trees/shrubs Wetland plants Wetland Sheep/deer dung, uplands Sheep/deer dung, 3 disturbed ground herbs, Vetch, Clover, 2 meadow plants of marsh, 1 On leaves status Varied 3 2 3 Dung above [090] Fill of ditch Fill 1 1 1 1 2 ditch 1 2 1 3 1 5 2 1 2 1 Primary fill of 1 1 1 1 midden 2 1 1 1 Accumulated 1 1 1 1 1 110 55 56 68 86 67 Habitat 142 70 70 90 90 89 deposit Sitona sp. Phyllobius sp. P. oblongus (L.) P. Phyllobius pyri (L.) Otiorhynchus cf. sulcatus (F.) cf. Otiorhynchus Curculionidae Apion sp. Chaetocnema sp. Chaetocnema concinna (Marsh.) Chrysolina sp. Phaedon sp. Prasocuris phellandri (L.) Chrysomela sp. Phratora vulgatissima (L.) Phyllotreta undulata (Kuts.) Phyllotreta sp. ?Batophila rubi (Payk.) Chrysolina ?fastuosa (Scop.) Cryptocephalus sp. Chrysomelidae Plateumaris spp. Aphodius sp. Context No. Description of context lapponum (Gyll.) A. Peaty Sample No.

157 Distribution status in Great Britain (Red Book Status if known) Common Varied status Varied Common Varied status Varied Varied status Varied Distribution status in Great Britain (Red Book Status if known) Varied status Varied Leaf miners in various tree species On wetland/disturbed ground herbs RDB notable B excrement , disturbed/ , On Capsella bursa-pastoris damp ground On various Crucifereae spp., disturbed spp., Polygonum On Rumex, ground On various wetland plants Populus/Salix spp. On Populus/Salix * human All types of dung including * * 2 On various ground herbs 1 above [090] Fill of ditch Fill 1 ditch ** ** 2 5 6 2 1 1 Primary fill of * midden 3 16 152 108 77 Accumulated 1 110 55 56 68 86 67 Habitat 142 70 70 90 90 89 41 110 55 56 68 86 67 Habitat 142 70 70 90 90 89 deposit Context No. Genus/Species flies) Diptera (True Diptera indet. Lauxaniidae ?Minettia lupulina (F.) Sepsidae Sepsis spp. C. hirtulus (Germ.) C. sp. Ceutorhynchus Total Other Insect Orders Hemiptera Bugs (nymphs?) Siphonaptera Flea body parts Sample No. Sphaeroceridae C. erysimi (F.) C. Ceutorhynchus contractus Ceutorhynchus (Marsh.) Rhinoncus spp. Context No. Description of context Dorytomus sp. Peaty sp. ?Pelenomus Sample No.

158 Distribution status in Great Britain (Red Book Status if known) Cow/horse dung, human excrement Cow/horse dung, substances meat waste animal cadavers, Human, (blow fly) carrion human excrement, Dung, * fly) carrion (‘house’ dung, Refuse, above [090] Fill of ditch Fill * ** * fermenting Rotting fruit/vegetables, * 1 (head) ditch ** * Primary fill of midden Accumulated * ** 110 55 56 68 86 67 Habitat 142 70 70 90 90 89 deposit Non-Insect Sclerites (spiders) indet. Arachnid Context No. Description of context ?Coproica vagans (Hal.) Peaty Drosophilidae Drosophila spp. Calliphoridae Calliphora vicina (Rob.)/ vomitoria (L.) Scathophagidae Scathophaga sp. Muscidae Musca domestica L. Sample No. Each * represents up to five individuals Each

159