Tracing the Human-Avian Relationship in Iceland

City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Theses and Dissertations Hunter College Fall 8-16-2020 Tracing the Human-Avian Relationship in Iceland Melanie Sua CUNY Hunter College How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/hc_sas_etds/628 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Tracing the Human-Avian Relationship in Iceland by Melanie S. Sua Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Anthropology, Hunter College The City University of New York 2020 August 1st, 2020 Date Thomas McGovern Thesis Sponsor August 1st , 2020 Date. Megan Hicks Second Reader ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have been possible if it was not for the support from family, friends, and faculty members. First, I would like to acknowledge my thesis advisor Professor Thomas McGovern for his supervision and the opportunity to let me work on a collection of bird bones from his prior excavations in Iceland. Professor McGovern’s assistance throughout the whole process was valuable and informative. Also, I would like to thank my second reader Megan Hicks for her assistance in helping me properly identify different bird groups and species. In addition, her supportive advice on how to structure and proceed with my thesis paper. Thanks to Jeanette Abreu for her encouragement throughout the master’s program at Hunter, she is truly a vital faculty member in the Anthropology department. I would like to thank the Anthropology teachers and students from The City College of New York: Victor Luna, Barbara Johnson, Professor Samad Matias, and Professor Diana Wall for influencing me to acquire a master’s degree. Lastly, I would like to thank my family because they continue to support my goal to pursue a career in archaeology. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................... II LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................................IV LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... VII CHAPTER PAGE INTRODUCTION A. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................... 1 B. STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................... 2 C. LAYOUT ........................................................................................................................................ 3 II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND A. DATING ......................................................................................................................................... 5 B. IMPACT OF LANDNÁM .............................................................................................................. 8 III. MÝVATNSSVEIT REGION A. LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................ 9 B. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS 1. SVEIGAKÓT ........................................................................................................................... 13 2. HRÍSHEIMAR ......................................................................................................................... 19 C. ARCHAEOFAUNA 1. RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................. 23 2. IDENTIFICATION & MEASUREMENT .............................................................................. 23 3. DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................... 26 IV. ICELANDIC BIRDS A. SPECIES OF BIRDS .................................................................................................................... 30 B. NESTING & INCUBATION........................................................................................................ 45 C. DIET….......................................................................................................................................... 51 D. SUBSISTENCE PRACTICES ...................................................................................................... 53 V. HUMAN-AVIAN RELATIONSHIP A. FOLKLORE, SAGAS, AND POEMS 1. RAVEN .................................................................................................................................. 57 2. EAGLE ................................................................................................................................... 61 3. PTARMIGAN ........................................................................................................................ 63 B. FOWLING 1. HISTORICAL MATERIALS ................................................................................................ 65 2. FOWLING INSTRUMENTS & METHODS ........................................................................ 66 3. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ...................................................................................... 69 C. FOOD SOURCE 1. HISTORICAL MATERIALS ................................................................................................ 71 2. FOOD PREPARATION ......................................................................................................... 71 3. ARCHAEOFAUNAL EVIDENCE........................................................................................ 72 D. PRODUCTS 1. FUEL ...................................................................................................................................... 75 2. EGGS ...................................................................................................................................... 75 3. FALCONRY........................................................................................................................... 78 4. FEATHERS ............................................................................................................................ 81 VI. CONCLUSION A. FUTURE RESEARCH QUESTIONS ........................................................................................ 82 REFERENCES: ......................................................................................................................................... 85 I. iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. “14C Ages and Delta 13C values for animals from domestic middens and pre-Christian burial from Mývatnssveit” from McGovern et al., 2007.. .............................................................. 7 Figure 2. “General Location map, Lake Mývatn basin area (Oscar Aldred)” from McGovern et al., 2007............................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3. “Overview of the Sveigakót excavation in 2004 showing main features” from Vésteinsson, 2004. ........................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 4. “Presents a hypothesis for the order of events at Sveigakót” from Vésteinsson, 2004. 15 Figure 5. “Radiocarbon dates from Sveigakót” from Vésteinsson, 2002; 2001. .......................... 17 Figure 6. “Top image is a key (140) and Bottom Image are tweezers (156)” from Vésteinsson, 2006............................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 7. “Calibrated dates” from Edvardsson & McGovern, 2007; McGovern et al., 2006. .... 20 Figure 8. “Low angle air photo (Arni Einarsson 2001) of the Hrísheimar site area Pre-Christian grave overlooks both farm area and the valley running northwards towards Arnarvatn. Mound R (unexcavated) is probably the main hall structure. Remains of wall lines and the set of iron smelters (A, B, C) run along the eroded ridge line to the north of the preserved Viking age deposits excavated 2001-06 (areas E, H, L, Q). Ruins of an early modern Sel or Shieling lie to the SE of the Viking age farm” from Edvardsson & McGovern, 2006. ....................................................... 21 Figure 9. “Figure 11” from Edvardsson & McGovern, 2007. ...................................................... 22 Figure 10. “Illustrates the relative percentage of migratory waterfowl, ptarmigan, and sea bird bones in the larger archaeofauna” from McGovern et al., 2009. .................................................. 27 Figure 11. Overview of Identified Bird Groups found in the Icelandic archaeofauna.. ............... 35 Figure 12. Relative proportions of Sea Birds in the Icelandic archaeofauna. ............................... 37 Figure 13. Relative Proportions of Wader birds in the Icelandic archaeofauna. .......................... 38 Figure 14. Relative Proportions for Waterfowl and the single songbird taxa in the Icelandic archaeofauna. ................................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 15. Relative Proportions for Birds of Prey (Raptorial) and Corvids in the Icelandic archaeofauna. ................................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 16. Coastal Sites by Period with grouped taxa NISP%.. ................................................... 44 iv Figure 17. Bird group relative % NISP by period ....................................................................... 44 Figure 18. An image of the Rock Ptarmigan ............................................................................... 46 Figure 19. An image of the Atlantic Puffin .................................................................................. 47 Figure 20. An image of the Razorbill ........................................................................................... 48 Figure 21. An image of the Common Eider .................................................................................. 49 Figure 22. An image of the Northern Fulmar ............................................................................... 50 Figure 23. “(a) Total solar irradiance (VSK [Schmidt et al.,2011]). (b) Global stratospheric sulfate aerosol loadings [Gao et al., 2008]. (c) Ice cap expansion dates based on a composite of 94 Arctic Canada calibrated 14C PDFs. (d) 30-year running mean varve thickness in Hvítárvatn sediment core HVT03-2 [Larsen et al., 2011]. (e) Arctic Ocean sea ice recorded in a sediment core on the north Iceland shelf [Massé et al., 2008]; heavy sea ice years correlate with anomalously cold summers across Iceland. (f) Temperature anomalies over southern Greenland (wrt 1881–1980 AD mean) from the borehole temperature inversion at DYE-3 [Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998]”. Superposed box is one sigma range of HST 5114 C14, red dotted line is Icelandic Annals report of famine in N Iceland” from McGovern et al., 2013. ...................................................................................... 54 Figure 24. “Presents the overall distribution of identified bone fragments (% NISP), which are made up mainly of fish bone but with significant numbers of domestic and wild mammals, birds and Mollusca” from Edvardsson et al., 2004. ............................................................................... 55 Figure 25. “Comparison of Early Modern Icelandic faunal collection” from Harrison et al., 2009. ....................................................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 26. An image of Odin with Huginn and Muninn from an 18th century manuscript called “Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Ísland” by Jakob Sigurðsson. ...................................................... 59 Figure 27. “An illustration of the Yggdrasil tree, image from Edda Oblongata, a 17 th century Icelandic manuscript housed in Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies”. ...................... 62 Figure 28. “A taxidermy of a Gyrfalcon with Ptarmigan prey in full winter plumage” by A.J Armistead. ..................................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 29.“Snares of different types used on the end of a long pole. The materials were of as variable material as cat’s intestine, whale baleen, and horsehair” from Petersen, 2004. .............................................................................................................................. 67 Figure 30. “Seabird Fowling on a bird cliff, a drawing from 1776. The technique involves a long pole and a snare on the end” from Petersen, 2004. ....................................................................... 68 Figure 31. “Long bone elements of Common raven from contexts [010]” from Harrison, 2010. 74 v Figure 32.“The Carta Marina” by Olaus Magnus. ........................................................................ 79 Figure 33. “Map of the Bessastaðir housing in 1751, the falcon house in the far right is marked E (courtesy of the Icelandic State Archives (ÞI. Drawing collection. Cabinet 6, nr. 4)” from Beck, 2013............................................................................................................................................... 78 Figure 34. “Figure 14 Gyrfalcon” from Harrison, 2006. .............................................................. 80 Figure 35. “Restored down house at Laufas in Eyjafjörður originally built in 1877 (courtesy of the National museum, taken by Guðmundur L.Hafsteinsson, 2005)” from Beck, 2013. ................... 81 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Bird Bone Count per Species/Family from Sveigakót.................................................... 24 Table 2. Bird Bone Count per Species/Family from Hrísheimar.................................................. 25 Table 3. Samples in this study sorted by period. .......................................................................... 32 Table 4. Bird taxa identified with NISP and Ubiquity measures (69 samples). ........................... 34 Table 5. “The mean and standard deviation of bone collagenδ34S, δ13C and δ15N values for the animals from Skútustaðir, Iceland” from Sayle et al., 2013. ........................................................ 51 Table 6. “Hrísheimar (HRH), Sveigakót (SVK), and Hofstaðir (HST) (McGovern et al., 2006, McGovern et al., 2010). as well as samples from Skútustaðir (Hicks et al., 2010) extending into modern times” from Hicks, 2019.. ................................................................................................ 73 Table 7. “Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) Counts with the Presence of Masses of Egg Shell (“Egg” above) for Birds from the Major Mývatn Area Sites” from McGovern et al., 2007.. ....................................................................................................................................................... 78 vii I. INTRODUCTION A. Overview Iceland, a volcanic island positioned near the Arctic Circle, was uninhabited until the 9 th century. Initial settlement (Landnám) was carried out by Norse settlers as part of a sea-born colonization from Scandinavia and the British Isles that has had lasting environmental and cultural impacts across the North Atlantic region (Dugmore et al., 2005). The Norse brought cultural practices and a standard set of domesticates to their new settlements including dogs, cats, cattle, goats, pigs, sheep, horses, barley, flax, and a host of accidentally imported commensuals such as mice, insects and weedy plants (Jones et al., 2012; Dugmore et al., 2005; Amorosi et al., 1997). The traditional literary narrative of the Landnám set out in the sagas and early medieval historical works suggest that the settlement of Iceland commenced along the coastal regions and then progressed inward due to the growth in population (Hartman et al., 2017). These sources also emphasized the chiefly establishment of farming and the use of domesticated animals as a means of subsistence. It was presumed that early settlers supplemented their diet with wild species until the stock of domesticated animals became large enough and could sustain the population (Sigurdsson, 2008). However, recent archaeological evidence obtained from sites closely datable to the Icelandic Landnám by volcanic ash layers (tephra, XXX) and a suite of radiocarbon dates, provide new evidence regarding early inland settlements and subsistence practices putting into question the parts of the traditional narrative of Icelandic settlement (Vésteinsson & McGovern, 2012). Growing archaeological evidence indicates that the Norse developed subsistence patterns that involved more than farming and animal husbandry, including the use of multiple wild faunal resources (McGovern et al., 2007; Dugmore et al., 2005; Vésteinsson et al., 2002). Zooarchaeological evidence shows that various early Icelandic sites depended on a multi-stranded 1 subsistence economy, balancing between domestic and marine mammals, fish, and birds (Frei et al., 2015; McGovern et al., 2007). Therefore, this thesis re-examines the traditional model of settlement in Iceland, specifically the use of wild faunal resources with a focus on birds. This master’s project combines new zooarchaeological evidence from two archaeofauna collected by the author with the large North Atlantic Biocultural Organization NABONE data records (both published and unpublished) to place these early collections in a broader Icelandic context. It also presents an overview of broader human-avian relationships drawing on literary and folkloric materials following the perspective of Historical Ecology and the multi-disciplinary model of Sigurðardóttir et al (2019). This thesis explores the span, development, and importance of the human-avian relationship from the early inland settlement sites of Hrísheimar and Sveigakót in the Mývatnssveit region and then throughout Iceland up until the 19th century. B. Study Area Recent archaeological evidence from the Icelandic Landnám shows an early and substantial human presence in inland settlements, such as the Mývatnssveit (Lake Mývatn Basin) region in northern Iceland (McGovern et al., 2007; McGovern et al., 2006; Lawson et al., 2005b). This inland lake basin was settled soon after the “Landnám tephra” (LNS) fell ca 877+/-1 and multiple sites (including both Hrísheimar and Sveigakót) were occupied when a second Viking Age V-Sv tephra fell 938+/- 6 AD (Schmid et al., 2017; Batt et al., 2015). Zooarchaeological evidence from the Mývatnssveit region shows that the early settlers established patterns of subsistence through farming, animal husbandry, and the use of various native, wild fauna as well as limited barley growing (McGovern et al., 2007; Dugmore et al., 2005; Vésteinsson et al., 2002). Norse settlers utilized an extensive amount of wild species such as coastal sea mammals, fish, sea bird colonies, and migratory nesting birds (McGovern et al., 2007; Church et al., 2005). This thesis presents new 2 data on bird exploitation from the early sites of Hrísheimar and Sveigakót in the Mývatnssveit region. These two sites are particularly suitable for an investigation of the earliest settlement period as they are both in the southern portion of the Lake Mývatn basin and date to the same time periods. Excavations (2000-2009) at Hrísheimar and Sveigakót retrieved a substantial amount of bird bones below the V-Sv 938+/-6 AD tephra. The archaeofauna of both sites was mainly dominated by bones of the Rock Ptarmigan (Lagopus muta), a non-migratory bird, but some bones and eggshell remain from migratory waterfowl were also recovered particularly at Hrísheimar (Hicks et al., 2016; McGovern et al., 2007; McGovern et al., 2006; Vésteinsson, 2003). Note that masses of eggshells were found at various sites in Mývatnssveit, indicating the seasonal collection of bird eggs that took place in the settlement period (Hicks et al., 2016). Henceforth, by adding to our knowledge of the extensive use of the rock ptarmigan in the early settlement period of Hrísheimar and Sveigakót, I will provide a better understanding of early subsistence practices, past bird use, and the development of a long-term sustainable avian resource. The research then shifts its focus to a broader analysis of Icelandic archaeofauna from the Viking age through the 19th-century. This involves the presentation of an updated survey on the archaeofauna with the use of laboratory reports from NABO and re-accessing these reports to create a current access point for information on avian resource use. Thus, this bird project will contribute a broader understanding of the utilization of birds throughout time and across archaeological sites in Iceland. In the final section, this thesis traces the development of the humanavian relationship in respect to Icelandic society, economy, cultural knowledge, religion, diet, hunting activities, species exploitation, the harvesting of birds/eggs, and methods of conservation. In an attempt to convey the full context of the human-avian relationship, this section explores the sociocultural interaction among humans and birds. Birds were integrated into various art forms in 3 Icelandic culture such as mythologies, philosophies, religious beliefs, literature, and paintings. Therefore, the use of Icelandic folklore, poems, and sagas will help display the various illustrations, representations, and symbolic value of birds in Icelandic society. By exploring the use of birds through the practicalities of hunting, egg harvesting, consumption, the exportation of wild birds, and feathers (Beck, 2013), it will display the social, economic, and political structures attached to the human-avian relationship. Ultimately, this thesis aims to display the multifaceted relationship between birds and humans in Iceland, from the Settlement period through the 19 th century. C. Layout The first section serves as an introduction, which outlines the argument and purpose of the paper. The second section opens up with information on dating techniques utilized to record the earliest Icelandic settlements, such as tephrochronology and 14C radiocarbon dating. Then I review the historical and ecological changes attached to the Icelandic Landnám and its relation to the Mývatnssveit region. The third section provides ecological and archaeological information on the early inland settlement sites of Hrísheimar and Sveigakót in the Mývatnssveit region. This includes information on the environmental condition of the region, ecology, and a general description of the geographical area. Then, I present the history of Hrísheimar and Sveigakót in addition to excavation techniques, length of digs, and noteworthy finds at the sites. Next, I elaborate on my analysis of 9th-century bird bones recovered from the farm sites of Hrísheimar and Sveigakót. I also discuss my lab work, methods applied for identifying different bird species, the size of the assemblage, measurement of bones, and the logging in of data. By studying the entire avifauna of Hrísheimar and Sveigakót, I explore the role and value of birds for the early Norse, along with the extensive utilization of the rock ptarmigan in the region. 4 The fourth section discusses the different groups of birds and species found in the Icelandic archaeofauna. The data acquired for this section includes laboratory reports from 2001-2018, attained from the North Atlantic Biocultural Organization (NABO). The materials presented can help display new avifauna patterns and proportions, the role of birds in nature, insight into landscape changes, demographic trends, migratory patterns, dietary choices, subsistence patterns, and species exploitation. The fifth section focuses on the human-avian relationship. The first portion provides traditional literature focused on the role of birds in Icelandic society, art, and religion. This collection includes folklore, poetry, and sagas about Ravens, Eagles, and the Rock Ptarmigan to further emphasize the symbolic and cultural relationship between humans and birds. Then, I present an array of historical materials that can further contextualize the Icelandic archaeological data from the 9th through the 19th century. This portion focuses on the human exploitation of birds from the different methods of hunting, meat and egg consumption, egg harvesting, fuel use, falconry, and the tradition of harvesting eiderdown. By elaborating on these topics, this section will demonstrate the economic, political, and social aspects of the human-avian relationship. The final section provides an overview of Icelandic human/bird interaction, addresses areas that need further research, and offers future research questions. II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND A. Dating The debate on the colonization of Iceland has revolved around dating the first peopling of Iceland (the ‘Landnám’ or land-taking). The chronology and settlement of Icelandic sites have been based on typology, historical documentation, radiocarbon dating, and tephrochronology (Vésteinsson & McGovern, 2012). Yet, tephrochronology has been a central form of dating the initial settlement of the Norse (Schmid et al., 2017). Numerous volcanic eruptions in Iceland 5 throughout time have resulted in the widespread fallout of volcanic ash (tephra) on two-thirds of the island (Vésteinsson & McGovern, 2012; McGovern et al., 2007). These tephra layers created chronological markers that have helped archaeologists resolve debates over the timing of human occupation in Iceland (Schmid et al., 2017; Sigurðardóttir et al., 2016). The method of tephrochronology functions by identifying these tephra deposits, correlating separate deposits from the same eruption to define isochrons, and then establishing a calendar or sidereal dates for that tephra (Schmid et al., 2017). Over time, this technique has been refined with the use of finegrained deposits, known as cryptotephras, which enhances the stratigraphic resolution (Schmid et al., 2017; Lowe & Hunt, 2001). Based on written records, the onset of Landnám has been traditionally put at around A.D 870 (Schmid et al., 2017). By implementing the dating technique of tephrochronology, archaeologists were able to date the landnám tephra by deriving annually resolved ice-core stratigraphies from Greenland, placing Icelandic settlement at A.D. 871 ± 2 (Schmid et al., 2017). The Landnám Tephra Layer (LTL) was created by the volcanic system of Veiðivötn and is recognizable for its distinctive composition. The (LTL) is composed of unique crystals caused by the interaction between the Veiðivötn and Torfajökull volcanic systems (Schmid et al., 2017). Yet in recent years, a more accurate dating method involved the use of ice core aerosols from the volcanic fallout of Vesuvius in A.D 79 as a fixed reference to the ice-core stratigraphies of Greenland. As a result, the Landnám tephra has been revised by six years to A.D 877 ± 1 (Schmid et al., 2017). Other tephra dates have been obtained with the use of lacustrine sediment cores such as the ones extracted from Lake Mývatn, named the Landnám tephra sequence (LNS) (Schmid et al., 2017). A distinctive olive-green basaltic tephra layer (V-Sv) traced in the LNS was dated using accumulation rates from nine lacustrine sediment cores in Lake Mývatn (Schmid et al., 2017). The 6 Figure 1. “14C Ages and Delta 13C values for animals from domestic middens and pre-Christian burial from Mývatnssveit” from McGovern et al., 2007. The chart below displays the radiocarbon dates from various sites in the Mývatn region. V-Sv tephra resulted from the Veiðivötn volcanic system, after the LTL and before Hekla 1158 tephra layers (Schmid et al., 2017). Therefore, the calculation of the V-Sv tephra consisted of using the sedimentation rates between the LTL and H-118, which has estimated the age of V-Sv to A.D 7 938 ± 6. This date is important because it provides a context into the human occupation of the Mývatnssveit region. Additional dating of the Mývatnssveit region was derived from calibrated radiocarbon dating as a framework for phasing sites. The radiocarbon dates from the sites of Sveigakót, Hrísheimar, Selhagi, Steinbogi, and Hofstaðir are consistent with tephra layers and the Viking Age date (McGovern et al., 2007; 2006). Radiocarbon dates from these sites were obtained from midden deposits and pre-Christian burials using samples of mammal bone collagen, as shown in Figure 1 (McGovern et al., 2007; 2006). The result of these samples indicates the human occupation of inland areas in the 9th century, contrary to old models of gradual penetration inland caused by population pressure of the coastal region (McGovern et al., 2007). The use of both tephrochronology and radiocarbon dating has provided evidence on the rapid filling of inland areas such as the Mývatnssveit region and an understanding of the use of wild resources throughout the region’s occupation. B. Impact of Landnám The early Viking age is marked by the large-scale movement of pirates, traders, and settlers from what is now called Scandinavia into areas of the North Atlantic (Brewington et al., 2015; McGovern et al., 2007). The Norse migration into the North Atlantic Islands of Greenland, Faroes, and Iceland brought with it domestic animals, crops, and farming into these regions. The first settlers shared a chiefly political organization, a well-developed seafaring tradition, and a subsistence economy centered around not just domesticated animals and plants but also the exploitation of available wild resources from both land and sea (Brewington et al., 2015; Amorosi, 1997). Yet, settlers faced several challenges on their expansion westward, especially in Iceland. For the early Norse settlers, the land had visual similarities of grasslands and heathlands that were comparable to parts of their homelands, yet the terrain and ecology were significantly different in many aspects (Dugmore et al., 2005). This included different resources, constraints, and resulted 8 in contrasting environmental impacts for the Norse and the establishment of their settlements (Dugmore et al., 2005). Prior to the settlement of Iceland, the landscape was dominated by birch, willow, and rowan trees (Smith, 1995). Yet, it is estimated that 90 % of the forest and 40 % of the soil present in the 9th century Landnám has disappeared as a result of both climate factors and early settlers impacting the landscape (McGovern et al., 2007). Even before the arrival of the Norse, Iceland’s delicate ecology was being affected by climate change from the late Holocene that caused the decline in the vegetation cover and soil erosion (Dugmore et al., 2005; Olafsdóttir et al., 2001). Consequently, settlers accelerated the ongoing degradation of vegetation and soil erosion with the use of domesticated animals and the creation of farms (McGovern et al., 2007; Dugmore et al., 2005). The clearance of woodlands to make way for farmsteads and widespread charcoal production to fuel iron smelting had different local rates of impact, but the overall pattern towards deforestation seems clear (Sayle et al., 2016). Also, the use of domestic animals combined with grazing, browsing, and rooting led to soil exposure and erosion (McGovern et al., 2007). In addition, land managers leaving flocks past the growing season in pastures caused pasture degradation and overgrazing of the landscape (Sayle et al., 2016; McGovern et al., 2007). The early inland sites of Hrísheimar and Sveigakót in the Mývatnssveit account for this type of human impact on the landscape and with the natural resources. III. MÝVATNSSVEIT REGION A. Location and Environment The Mývatnssveit region provides a better understanding of the early and continuous use of wild resources, including bird species and avian resources. The Mývatnssveit region is located in northern Iceland and centered around Lake Mývatn. The region is described as a highland wetland and classified as having a sub-Arctic/Alpine landscape (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2016; McGovern et 9 al., 2007). Due to the region’s location near the Mid-Atlantic rift, the area has been impacted by volcanic eruptions and earthquake activity, which has affected both humans and natural systems (Ascough et al., 2010). The region’s climate is drier than other Icelandic environments, with cold winter seasons, and relatively warmer summers compared to other coastal areas in the North (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2016). From 1937-76, the highest temperature ever recorded was 25.9°C and the lowest -30.9°C (Calow & Petts, 2009). The region’s geological features, the wetland environment, the various available natural resources, and rich biodiversity might have been the reason that attracted early Norse settlers to the region. Lake Mývatn is an interior highland lake that sits along the western side of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2016; Thorarinsson, 1979). The lake has a large shallow basin and one of the largest lakes in Iceland, measuring 37 km² in size, as shown in Figure 2 (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2016). Lake Mývatn stretches and drains into the Laxa River and then merges southward into the Kráká river (McGovern et al., 2007). The lake’s temperature and insulation are the result of rain shadow created by the Vatnajokull glacier causing the Mývatn region of receiving more solar radiation than areas outside the shadow (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2016). The shallowness of the lake and the heat magnifying effects of the solar radiation can cause the water temperature to reach up to 15°C in the summer (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2016). As a result, the chemistry, temperature of the spring water, and shallowness of the lake are all unique environmental factors that form Lake Mývatn’s particular environment (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2016). The name Mývatn means “Midge Lake” and refers to the robust population of chironomid and simuliid flies/midges (McGovern et al., 2007). The midge population plays a vital role in the local ecosystem and the food chain of the lake. Their population not only provides food for the waterbirds that flock the area and fish, but 10 nutrients as Figure 2. “General Location map, Lake Mývatn basin area (Oscar Aldred)” such nitrogen and phosphorus from McGovern et al., 2007. The map below shows an overview of Lake Mývatn and the sites around the lake. increase the productivity of the lake’s ecology (Sigurðardóttir et al., lake is 2016). Mývatn famous for fishing, hosting a vast number of migratory and waterfowl, rich around the hay fields lakeshore (McGovern et al., 2007). An important element pertaining to the ecology of Lake Mývatn is the variety and density of ducks species and waterfowl (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2016). The lake basin hosts up to 30,000 pairs of migratory waterfowl: ducks, geese, 11 swans, phalaropes, and divers (Hicks, 2019; McGovern et al., 2017; Gudmundsson, 1979). These birds originate in Eurasia and North America with a mix of arctic and boreal species (Hicks, 2019; Garðarsson, 1979; Jonasson, 1945). Waterfowl travel yearly to Lake Mývatn to nest, mate, and then fledge their young (Hicks, 2019). The Barrow’s Goldeneye is the typical bird of the Mývatn lake, whereas the Tufted duck (Aythya fuligula) and Ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus) are the most common in the area. An important reference for egg collecting and its role as a natural resource in the Lake Mývatn area is an account in the Jarðabók, a land register, dated 1712 (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2016). In addition, the earliest documentation on the birdlife and different bird species in the Mývatn region was by Jon Benediktsson, an Icelandic Sheriff, in 1747 (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2016). By 1822, Lake Mývatn received international recognition for being a unique breeding habitat (Faber, 1822). Given the physical environment and biodiversity of Mývatn, Norse settlers encountered a region covered with mixed vegetation of birch woods, heath, grassland, and wetland, amongst various natural resources (McGovern et al., 2007). This is confirmed by the discovery of tree root casts at the sites of Sveigakót and Hrísheimar, situated towards the south of the Lake Mývatn basin. A study on the root cast determined that the landscape was occupied with dense woods during the 9th-century, which is supported by the Landnám tephra sequence (McGovern et al., 2007). Pollen evidence from five kilometers of Mývatn, suggests that birch woodland was not immediately cleared upon settlement, but several centuries later (McGovern et al., 2007). By the early-mid 10th century, settlers burned and cleared the trees from around the farm sites (McGovern et al., 2007). Consequently, this event marked a turning point for the settlement sites of Sveigakót and Hrísheimar, as well as an environmental impact on the landscape in the Mývatn lake basin (McGovern et al., 2007). 12 B. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS 1. Sveigakót The Landscape of Settlement Project surveyed over 1,200 sites and structures in the Mývatn region such as the sites of Hofstaðir, Hrísheimar, Steinbogi, Sveigakót, and Selhagi (McGovern et al., 2007). The early settlement sites of Sveigakót and Hrísheimar are the focus of this paper to understand their internal structure, environmental impact, and utilization of natural resources. Radiocarbon dating determined that the occupation of Sveigakót and Hrísheimar dates to around the time of the Landnám tephra 877+\-1 (Schmid et al., 2017; McGovern et al., 2009). The site of Sveigakót is on a flat stretch of land, bounded on its eastern side by a barren lava field from the 3,800-year-old Laxárhraun (Vésteinsson, 2001). On the western side, flooding of the Kráká river is observable throughout the summer season (Vésteinsson, 2001). To the south and north of the site, swathes of grassland stretch further to the east called Sveigar, drawing the site’s name, meaning ‘the cottage of the swathes [of grassland]’ (Vésteinsson, 2001). The vegetation cover was considerably different when Sveigakót was a functioning farm (Vésteinsson, 2001). With time, erosion has affected the site of Sveigakót and other areas on the southeast side of the Mývatn region (Vésteinsson, 2001). Sveigakót was a relatively low-status site that achieved prosperity in the mid-10th century, declined in the 11th century, and was abandoned by the 12th century (McGovern et al., 2009). Initially, people lived in a series of sunken featured buildings, which was later replaced by a small hall in the late-10th century (McGovern et al., 2007). Sveigakót was considered a ‘somewhat marginal farm’, the reason for the site’s abandonment is partly due to the severe overgrazing on the delicate highland landscape caused by the domesticated animals (Vésteinsson & McGovern, 2012; Edvardsson & McGovern, 2007; McGuire, 2006; Simpson et al., 2004). Overall, the factors 13 that may have led to the decline Figure 3. “Overview of the Sveigakót excavation in 2004 showing main of Sveigakót was the shift in features” from Vésteinsson, 2004. The map below shows the excavation site of Sveigakót. economic and social fortunes, in addition to pasture and soil degradation around the farm (McGovern et al., 2007). In 1998, an assessment at Sveigakót took place because a variety of materials such as scattered animal bones, some charcoal, and slag were found on the surface of the southern end of a low-rise (Vésteinsson, 2001). In 1999, a trial excavation directed by Thomas McGovern exposed a sheet midden with a concentration of steatite, beads, bones, and stone instruments with Viking age characteristics (Vésteinsson, 2001). Afterward, a long trench in (Area S) Structure 1 confirmed the presence of 14 erosion, deposition Figure 4. “Presents a hypothesis for the order of events at Sveigakót” from soil Vésteinsson, 2004. The below figure is a proposal for the events at Sveigakót. phases, and the ruins of a domestic building (Vésteinsson, 2001). The use geoarchaeological of assessment and sampling rationales from sediments within the midden of (Area M) and structure (Structure 1) suggested that the olive-gray tephra sample extracted from the excavation were from the Veiðivötn volcanic system, dated to ca. 950 AD (Vésteinsson, 2001). Other midden deposits with both animal and peat-ash below the olive-green tephra were linked to the landnám tephra of 871±2 (Vésteinsson, 2001). However, with the capping of the Veiðivötn tephra, it places Sveigakót among the oldest 15 datable archaeofauna in N Iceland (Vésteinsson, 2003). The first major field campaign in Area S extended to a total of 264 m². There were seven phases associated to Area S: Phase I (Pre-structural anthropogenic deposits), Phase II (Occupation of Structures 3, 4, and 5 in the late 10th and the 11th centuries), Phase III (Abandonment and collapse of Structures 3, 4, and 5), Phase IV (Use of the domestic structure between major occupation phase), Phase V (Occupation of structures 1 and 2 in the 11 th and 12th centuries), Phase VI (Site abandonment and structural collapse in the 12th century), and Phase VII (Natural aeolian accumulation from the 12th century to the present) (Vésteinsson, 2001). Figure 4 presents a hypothesis for the order of events at Sveigakót from the settlement period to the Late 12th century with additional areas that include S (1-6), S7, T, P (1-3), MP, and MT. In 2002, excavations in unit T exposed two sunken Viking Age buildings and a concentration of mammal and bird bones, Thomas McGovern identified the bird remains as ptarmigans (Vésteinsson, 2003; 2002). Figure 5 displays radiocarbon dates taken from animal remains and various midden deposits in Sveigakót, which determined the site to be early 9th to 10th century. The archaeofauna from Sveigakót contained domestic mammal bone fragments from two analytic units (AU 1 & 2) from midden M and (AU 3) from midden T. Bones from cattle, pigs, and caprines exhibit different farming strategies throughout the three AU (Vésteinsson, 2003). The archaeofauna showed patterns of herding and dairy strategies observed through the identification of the high percentage of neonatal bones and rates of epiphyseal fusion of very young to very old animals (McGovern, 2003; Payne, 1973). The archaeofauna from Sveigakót suggests “dual-purpose” herding strategies combining wool, milk, and meat producing patterns, in addition to wild foods during the Settlement Period of Iceland (McGovern, 2003). 16 Figure 5. “Radiocarbon dates from Sveigakót” from Vésteinsson, 2002; 2001. The below figure shows the calibrated dates from both animal bones and midden deposits found at the site of Sveigakót. In 2004, the excavation area extended to 645 m², which combined areas S, N, and P with the northern part of areas T, M, and MT in the south (Vésteinsson, 2005). During the six years of excavation at Sveigakót, it was the first-time structural remains predated the V~ 950 tephra, 17 particularly the areas of (S7 and Figure 6. “Top image is a key (140) and Bottom Image are tweezers MP) (Vésteinsson, 2006). (156)” from Vésteinsson, 2006. The below images show two artifacts unearthed in Sveigakót, linked to the Viking period. Furthermore, the last phase of activity in represented Area by a S7 row was of ironworking pits at the eastern end, large quantities of charcoal, and smithing slag recovered from the pits (Vésteinsson, 2005). By 2005, the excavation site of Sveigakót was extended to 690 m² (Vésteinsson, 2006). Artifacts found throughout the excavation site contained bones, stones, clay, glass, iron, and wood. The two most abundant materials discovered in the 2005 excavation was iron and stones (Vésteinsson, 2006). There was a total of 71 stone artifacts, 69 iron objects, 46 small pebbles of all types, and one white glazed bead (Vésteinsson, 2006). Findings included a clamp artifact and two bone objects labeled 074 (a bone pin with a broken tip-head) and 075 (two gaming pieces) in Area MP (Vésteinsson, 2006). Noteworthy objects at Sveigakót consist of a complete key labeled 140, as shown in Figure 6 (Vésteinsson, 2006). Additionally, area MP2 recovered two tweezers labeled (156) and (166), a rare find in Viking age contexts (Vésteinsson, 2006). Overall, the 18 artifacts at Sveigakót are consistent with a Viking age farm, and dates between the 9th to 11th century (Vésteinsson, 2006). 2. Hrísheimar Hrísheimar is across the Kráká river from Sveigakót. Hrísheimar is known as a substantial farm and iron smelting site (Edvardsson & McGovern, 2007). The site is on a gravel ridge overlooking a small bog at an estimated elevation of about 300 m above sea level (Edvardsson & McGovern, 2007). A series of small streams near Hrísheimar join north to form Gautlandalaekur, which flows northwards to Arnarvatn and then the Laxa river (Edvardsson & McGovern, 2007). The large array of small ponds, streams, wet meadows, and lakes attract various animals like nesting birds and freshwater fish to the area (Edvardsson & McGovern, 2007; Lawson et al., 2005b). The stillextensive bog was presumably larger, wetter, and extended south to southwest throughout the site’s occupation (Edvardsson & McGovern, 2007). The direct access of water at Hrísheimar contributed to the regular production of the iron pan and ore (Edvardsson & McGovern, 2007). Hrísheimar was classified as a medium/large farm and an upper-middle status site. The site is associated with a Pre-Christian burial from the 9th century, higher status artifacts, and wealthy households with wide economic contacts (McGovern et al., 2009). Written records referred to Hrísheimar as the ‘iron farm’ because of the site’s large-scale production of iron ore (McGovern et al., 2009; McGovern et al., 2006). The abandonment of Hrísheimar predates the H1104 tephra, but the reason for the site’s abandonment is unknown. Some theories suggest that the site was probably abandoned due to the depleted iron resources caused by drainage changes (McGovern et al., 2009; Edvardsson & McGovern, 2007). Other theories suggest that iron production had passed its peak and the option to relocate would result in a favorable choice rather than see its fortune decline (Edvardsson & McGovern, 2007). Further field research of the area would assist in understanding the extent of the iron production and the reason for the site’s abandonment. 19 Figure 7. “Calibrated dates” from Edvardsson & McGovern, 2007; McGovern et al., 2006. The below figure shows the calibrated dates from tephra midden deposits and animal bones from the site of Hrísheimar. Excavations at Hrísheimar began in 2000-2001, sponsored by the FSI/NABO, as part of the Landscapes of Settlement project (McGovern & Perdikaris, 2002). In 2001, a test excavation in a farm mound with measurements 2 x 2 meters, recovered a substantial amount of archaeofauna (McGovern & Woollett, 2003; McGovern & Perdikaris, 2002). The midden deposits correlate to 20 radiocarbon dates from the 9th – 10th century, as shown in Figure 7 (McGovern & Woollett, 2003). The archaeofauna assemblage consisted of domestic mammals (c 74%), birds (c 12%), and fish (c 15%) (McGovern & Perdikaris, 2002). Additional excavations at Hrísheimar discovered a set of ruined structures, extensive stone walls, surface scatters of artifacts, smelting slag, and bones exposed due to extensive soil erosion (McGovern & Perdikaris, 2002). In 2003, archaeologists at Hrísheimar labeled the middens at the site E, H, K, J, L, N, M, P, and Q (as shown in Figure 8). Excavations continued with the finding of a pit house, and Unit H retrieved bones, animal wood charcoal, and ash Figure 8. “Low angle air photo (Arni Einarsson 2001) of the Hrísheimar site area Pre(McGovern Perdikaris, Christian grave overlooks both farm area and the valley running northwards towards & Arnarvatn. Mound R (unexcavated) is probably the main hall structure. Remains of 2002). Unit L exposed an wall lines and the set of iron smelters (A, B, C) run along the eroded ridge line to the north of the preserved Viking age deposits excavated 2001-06 (areas E, H, L, Q). Ruins of an early modern Sel or Shieling lie to the SE of the Viking age farm” from Edvardsson & McGovern, 2006. The picture above displays an aerial map from the excavation site of Hrísheimar. intact turf walled structure, and a large midden deposit of bird eggshells, birch bark, and animal 21 bones from fish, mammals, and birds (Edvardsson, 2005; McGovern & Woollett, 2003). The discovery of several furnaces at Hrísheimar indicated a large-scale production of iron throughout the site’s occupation (Edvardsson, 2005). By 2004, the site expanded and connected units L with Q, and unit H uncovered a sunken featured building (Edvardsson, 2005). By 2006, excavations in units E and L came across three structures; C (a sunken feature structure: pit house), D (a latrine), and S (a shallow depression confined by post holes) (Edvardsson & McGovern, 2007). Presently, combo C, D, and S have come adrift from its location. Three main occupational phases at Hrísheimar include Phase I (ca AD 877938), Phase II (ca AD 938-1050), and Phase III (AD 938 -1050 final occupation) (Edvardsson McGovern, & 2007). Figure 9. “Figure 11” from Edvardsson & McGovern, 2007. The above figure is a nearly complete comb with iron rivets found at the excavation site of Hrísheimar dated to The tephra deposits the Viking age. from Hrísheimar show that the site was occupied from the Settlement period to the 10 th century and abandoned around A.D 1000 and A.D 1050 (Edvardsson & McGovern, 2007). Excavations throughout the sites of Hrísheimar recovered several Viking age artifacts such as Scandinavian whetstones, steatite vessel shreds, beads, and other fragments (Edvardsson, 2005). In 2006, over 60 artifacts varied from nails to iron objects, such as a nearly complete comb with iron rivets 22 located at structure C, below the v950 tephra, as shown in Figure 9 (Edvardsson & McGovern, 2007; 2006). Additional artifacts included a multicolored glass, a small schist whetstone, and a pierce copper-alloy disk. Overall, the artifacts and animal bones found at the sites of Sveigakót and Hrísheimar correlate to the Viking age/Settlement Period (Schmid et al., 2017; Vésteinsson, 2001). C. Archaeofauna 1. Research Hrísheimar and Sveigakót share similar phases that pertain to the Settlement period of Iceland: Phase I (AD 877- 938), Phase II (AD 938-1050), and Phase III (AD 938-1050); both Phase II and III both occurred after the ca. A.D. 938. Archaeofauna from Sveigakót and Hrísheimar reflect the utilization of various resources with a focus on avian resources and birds. Throughout the excavation of Sveigakót, the avifauna consisted almost entirely of ptarmigan remains with elements from foot to skull (McGovern et al., 2007; Vésteinsson, 2001). Similarly, Hrísheimar contained masses of bird eggs shells with the majority of bird bones from the local ptarmigan, rather than the migratory Mývatn waterfowl (McGovern et al., 2006). In view of that, my research consisted of examining a small sample size of avian bones from Sveigakót (SVK) and Hrísheimar (HRH), the data obtained was later added to the Icelandic bird record. Ultimately, by analyzing the entire avifauna from the early settlement sites of Sveigakót and Hrísheimar, I attempt to explore the reasons behind the extensive use of the Rock Ptarmigan (Lagopus muta). 2. Identification & Measurement Analysis of the faunal materials took place at the Hunter College Zooarchaeological Laboratory. I sorted and compared bird bones to a larger reference collection of avian species housed at the Hunter College’s Zooarchaeological department. Bird identification followed the Cohen and Serjeantson (1996, 2nd Ed.) and the Icelandic Bird Guide by Johann Hilmarsson, which 23 assisted in the evaluation, verification, and interpretation of the avian materials. Each bone, species, and family grouping were identified and logged in spreadsheets utilizing the NABONE Zooarchaeological Database 9th Edition Recording System Codes. The avifauna collection I examined contained a total of 249 bones, with a NISP (number of identified specimens) of 148 bird bones. For the site of Hrísheimar (HRH), there was a total of 234 bones with a NISP of 137, and Sveigakót consisted of a total of 15 bones with a NISP of 11 bones. Tables 1 and 2 show the results of this identification with the total number of bones found at each site corresponding with the bird species and element. The bones that could not be identified to a species or bird group are labeled as ‘AVSP’ for indeterminate bird species, other labels included ‘LAM’ for Rock Ptarmigan (Lagopus muta), ‘LAC’ for Common Gull/Mew Gull (Larus canus), and ‘LAS’ for Indeterminate gull species (Larus argentatus). Table 1. Bird Bone Count per Species/Family from Sveigakót. 24 Table 2. Bird Bone Count per Species/Family from Hrísheimar. 25 An analysis of the entire avifauna from Hrísheimar and Sveigakót shows that the most abundant bird species at both sites was the Rock Ptarmigan (Lagopus muta). This is consistent with my examination of the small assemblage of bird bones from the site of Hrísheimar and Sveigakót. For the site of Hrísheimar, 93 bones belonged to the Rock Ptarmigan, followed by the Scaup or Tufted Duck species (Aythya sp.). Also, the bone assemblage for the site of Sveigakót consisted entirely of the ptarmigan (Lagopus muta) species. An interesting observation was that the bones that preserved well in the Landnám tephra include the tibiotarsus, coracoid, and femur. Lastly, bone measurements were recorded with the dimension of the bone fragments to the nearest centimeter with 1 for below 1 cm, 5 for 2-5 cm, and 10 for 5-10 cm (NABO, 2010). The most common measurement from the avifauna was 5, for 2-5 cm. 3. Discussion An analysis of the early phases in the Mývatnssveit region shows that from the time of settlement, the use of natural fauna played a critical role in the daily life of Norse settlers. While it is tempting to suggest that, for the Norse settlers, the landscape and ecology of Iceland resembled parts of Norway and Britain, scholars have described that potential past social dynamic as a false analogy (McGuire, 2006; Dugmore et al., 2006; Smith & Dugmore, 2006). Nevertheless, it is commonly assumed that Norse settlers followed old Norse livelihood, traditional practices, and survival strategies on the new landscape and ecosystem of Iceland. Unfortunately, in some cases, the mishandling of the land, natural resources, wild species, and animal management techniques resulted in the exploitation of certain species compared to others and the gradual destruction of the terrestrial landscape (McGuire, 2006). From the Landnám through the Late Viking period, the sites of Sveigakót and Hrísheimar practiced subsistence strategies with the bird population, particularly with the Rock Ptarmigan. The substantial remains of the Rock Ptarmigan at the two sites can potentially be explained with 26 two hypothetical concepts, which could offer insight into the extensive exploitation of the species. The first model is by Thomas Amorosi termed “settlement period signatures”. In Amorosi’s article on Icelandic archaeofauna, he identified settlement period signatures as being characterized by a greater reliance on hunting, and higher numbers of cattle than in later periods (McGuire, 2006). Archaeofauna from the Mývatnssveit region, prior to the 11th century, include a large number of fish, wild birds, and domesticated animals. Figure 10 demonstrates the extensive use of the Rock ptarmigan at Sveigakót, Hrísheimar, and Hofstaðir (Hicks, 2019). It is presumed that Norse settlers were familiar with the ptarmigan species due to its presence in other North Atlantic sites. This would suggest that the Norse would have had experience trapping the ptarmigan and brought with them fowling practices from Scandinavia (Bettina & Best, 2013). Since the Rock Ptarmigan is a Figure 10. “Illustrates the relative percentage of migratory waterfowl, ptarmigan, and sea bird bones in the larger archaeofauna” from McGovern et al., 2009. The below figure demonstrates the continual use of the ptarmigan at the sites of Sveigakót, Hofstaðir, and Hrísheimar. 27 non-migratory bird, it is easily hunted year-round in the upland heaths surrounding the Mývatn lake (Hicks et al., 2016; McGovern et al., 2007). Further references described the ptarmigan as being easily taken with snares at all seasons especially throughout the winter when they gather in their winter feeding grounds (Bettina & Best, 2013; McGovern et al., 2007; Smith, 1995; Amorosi, 1991). As a result, the accessibility of the ptarmigan in the Mývatn region allowed the bird to become a reliable food choice and under constant pursuit, which could explain the large concentration of ptarmigan remains at Hrísheimar and Sveigakót. The second model which might explain ptarmigan hunting is called the Skallagrim effect. This model can provide a potential insight into the settlement and subsistence practices implemented by the early Norse settlers in Iceland. Found in Egil’s Saga, the concept behind the Skallagrim effect develops from a passage by a chieftain named Skallagrim in Borgarfjordur (SW Iceland) (McGovern et al., 2007): ‘Skallagrim was an industrious man. He always kept many men with him and gathered all the resources that were available for subsistence, since at first, they had little in the way of livestock to support such a large number of people. Such livestock as there was grazed free in the woodland all year round ... there was no lack of driftwood west of Myrar. He had a farmstead built on Alftanes and ran another farm there and rowed out from it to catch fish and cull seals and gather eggs, all of which were there in great abundance. There was plenty of driftwood to take back to his farm. Whales beached there, too, in great numbers, and there was wildlife there for the taking at this hunting post: the animals were not used to man and would never flee. He owned a third farm by the sea on the western part of Myrar.... and he planted crops there and named it Akrar (fields)…Skallagrim also sent his men upriver to catch salmon. He put Odd the hermit by Gljufura to take care of the salmon fishery there.... When Skallagrim’s livestock grew in number, it was allowed to roam mountains pastures for the whole summer. Noticing how much better and fatter the animals were that ranged on the heath, and also that the sheep which could not be brought down for winter survived in the mountains valleys, he had a farmstead built up on the mountain, and ran a farm there where his sheep were kept….In this way , Skallagrim put his livelihood on many footings.’[Egil’s Saga, ch.29: Hreinsson 1997]. Skallagrim’s system focused on the production and minor accumulation of various resources. The system functioned by stationing individuals and shelters at specific sectors of the region to take 28 advantage of the available resources in that area, all while operating under one main head-ofhousehold. For example, there was a farm built uphill focused on sheep and a farmstead at Alftanes centered around the catch of fish, cull seals, and gathering eggs. In Vésteinsson (2002), Skallagrim’s approach consisted of creating numerous out-stations that benefited from the various environmental niches to generate an economic gain. Following the studies cited above, I suggest that the early Norse implemented Skallagrim’s system. This system involved surveying the landscape and then establishing economic structures that profited from the different environmental niches and resources of the area. Although Hrísheimar and Sveigakót were “fully established farms with resident lineages and single locations” (McGuire, 2006), both sites may have used Skallagrim’s strategies as a type of guideline to create a functional landscape. Along these lines, the Mývatn lake basin might have operated as a beneficial environmental niche for the sites of Hrísheimar and Sveigakót up until resources started to deplete and the sites were abandoned. More specifically, the site of Hrísheimar created social and economic networks with the production of iron, woodlands, livestock, marine and freshwater fish, and the harvest of eggs. Midden deposits from Hrísheimar indicated ‘the presence of patterns of regional-scale resource utilization’, consisting of a large number of animal bones, wood charcoal, ash, marine and freshwater fish, ptarmigan bones, and bird eggshells (Edvardsson & McGovern, 2006; McGovern et al., 2006). For Hrísheimar, it is possible that to conserve the annual practice of harvesting waterfowl eggs, the exploitation of the ptarmigan for meat occurred at the site. Archaeological excavations in Mývatnssveit encountered masses of bird eggshells in midden deposits, indicating the intensive seasonal collection of bird eggs that have taken place regularly since the settlement period (Hicks, 2019; Hicks et al., 2016; McGovern et al., 2006). While legal records against hunting waterfowl are not mentioned until 1281 in the Jónsbók, it does not take away from the 29 archaeofauna found at Hrísheimar. The archaeofauna from the Viking age of Mývatn suggests that waterfowl were rarely hunted, probably to protect their populations and leave them undisturbed for the seasonal collection of eggs (Hicks, 2019). The tradition of not hunting waterfowl (with some exceptions), is an example of long-term common resource management practiced very early on in Mývatn (Hicks, 2019). Based upon these findings, I infer that the use of mainly ptarmigan for meat helped conserve the adult waterfowl and the harvest of waterfowl eggs at Hrísheimar. An up-to-date bird record of both sites demonstrates that the early phases of Sveigakót had a gradual increase in the use of the ptarmigan; Phase I (877-938 CE) 49, Phase II (938-1050 CE) 71, and Phase III (938-1050 CE) 606. Whereas, Hrísheimar displayed higher numbers and a consistent pattern of exploitation towards the ptarmigan: Phase I (877-938 CE) 775 and Phase II (938 – 1050 CE) 669. The results from the bird record show that the sites of Sveigakót and Hrísheimar regularly targeted and exploited the ptarmigan population. The Skallagrim effect and Settlement period signatures are models that can help explain the sizable number of ptarmigan remains at the site of Sveigakót and Hrísheimar. IV. ICELANDIC BIRDS A. Species of Birds In Iceland, about 85 different species of birds breed and nest with about 330 species being documented since settlement (Nevins et al., 2016). Although bird remains normally make up less than 10% of any sample (major exceptions are the Settlement Period sites Herjolfsdalur in the Westman Islands and Tjarnargata 4 under Reykjavik), birds have some of the zooarchaeological characteristics of “trace taxa” (McGovern). The fullest range of species tend to be seen in the largest archaeofauna, and smaller archaeofauna are less likely to reflect the fuller range of bird use. Note also that sea bird carcasses are common strandage on beaches and may have become incorporated into some midden deposits without being consumed by humans. For this section, the 30 species of birds found in the Icelandic archaeofauna have been grouped by bird behavior and features: Seabirds, Waders, Waterfowl (freshwater), Birds of prey and corvids, Ptarmigan (terrestrial), and Domestic Fowl. An aim for this section was to generate an up-to-date bird record based on data generated from archaeological excavations in Iceland collected between 1944 to near present. This bird project consisted of reassessing several NABO laboratory reports, verifying bird species and names, establishing a specific era or phase for a site, and updating the total NISP count of birds at each site with the help of Professor Thomas McGovern and his colleagues. This data does not include archaeofaunal assemblages, which had no bird remains included but does contain some unidentified “bird species indeterminate” present. The new material obtained consists of charts that represent ratios, percentages, and proportions of different bird groups and species. An important component of this project was to establish a congruent framework for phasing, organized by the appropriate period. A total of 69 samples are included in this bird project. Some samples come from the same site but are presented as separate archaeofauna organized by phase and period. Three samples are from unstratified and thus undated deposits but are included for completeness. While some site phases extend across period boundaries, they are placed with these broad temporal boundaries: Settlement /Landnám Period (ca 877-950 CE), Later Viking Age (ca.950-1100 CE), Early Medieval (ca. 1100-1250 CE), Later Medieval (ca. 1250-1500 CE), Early Modern (ca. 1500-1850 CE), and Modern (ca. 1850-present). Table 3 represents the sites involved in the bird project, categorized by established dates, region, period, location, and recovery. The digital archive Appendix A presents the fully developed data set in MS Excel with breakdowns by period and region, and is also available on the NABO website (www.nabohome.org ). 31 Table 3. Samples in this study sorted by period. Collections List State or Phase est. dates Hrísheimar I 877-938 CE Sveigakót I 877-938 Tjarnargata 4 Stora-Seyla, Herjolfsdalur Palstoftir Undir Sandmula Undir Balabrekku Granastadir Skuggi 2 Oddstaðir 2 Hrísheimar II Sveigakót II Sveigakót III Hofstaðir I Hofstaðir II Hofstaðir I & II Hofstaðir III Skútustaðir Skútustaðir Selhagi Lower Hals Laekjargata Stora-Seyla, Stora-Seyla, Aðalbol Vatnsfjörður 1 Siglunes Hakonarstadir Skuggi 4 Skuggi 5 Oddstaðir 3 Selhagi upper Steinbogi Stora-Seyla, Gjogur 1 Akurvik 24 Period Landnám Landnám Settlement Period Landnám Pre - 950 AD Landnám Settlement Period Landnám 940-1070 L Viking Age Late 9th - Early 10th C. L Viking Age Late 9th - Early 10th C. L Viking Age 10th c. L Viking Age Mid 10th - Early 11th c. L Viking Age Late 9th - Mid 11th c. L Viking Age 938-1050 CE L Viking Age 938-1050 L Viking Age 938-1050 L Viking Age 940-1000 AD L Viking Age 1000-1050 L Viking Age 940-1050 AD L Viking Age 1050 AD L Viking Age Viking Age: 9th c. L Viking Age Viking Age: 10th c. L Viking Age Viking Age L Viking Age Viking Age L Viking Age 10th-11th c. L Viking Age 950-1000 AD L Viking Age 1000-1104 AD L Viking Age Viking Age L Viking Age Viking Age L Viking Age 10th -12th c. L Viking Age Early Medieval Early Medieval Mid 11th - 12th c. Early Medieval Mid-Late 12th c. Early Medieval c 1020 -1160 AD Early Medieval bef.1300 Early Medieval Late 12th - Early 13th Early Medieval Post - 1104 Early Medieval 1160 -1390 Early Medieval c 1150 -1270 Early Medieval Region Mývatn Mývatn Location Recovery inland sieved inland sieved Reykjavik area Skagafjord Westman Islands East Bardardalur Bardardalur Eyjafjord area Eyjafjord area Eyjafjord area Mývatn Mývatn Mývatn Mývatn Mývatn Mývatn Mývatn Mývatn Mývatn Mývatn Reykholt area Reykjavik area Skagafjord Skagafjord South Iceland West Fjords Siglufjord E Iceland Eyjafjord area Eyjafjord area Eyjafjord area Mývatn Mývatn Skagafjord West Fjords West Fjords coastal coastal coastal inland inland inland inland inland inland inland inland inland inland inland inland inland inland inland inland coastal coastal coastal coastal inland coastal coastal coastal inland inland inland inland inland inland coastal coastal sieved sieved unsieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved sieved 32 33 important Table 4. Bird taxa identified with NISP and Ubiquity measures (69 samples). Another element of this bird project was to reassess and update several reports concerning the total avian NISP and combined avian NISP of the different bird groups. The first step was to create a list of bird species found within the archaeofauna, add its corresponding Scientific (Latin) name, organize them by bird group, and then by the NISP count of archeological Table 4 each site. (above) displays the different 34 bird groups and species with identified NISP and ubiquity measures. Based on the information retrieved, the seabird group had the largest NISP count with a total of 3,606 fragments, and Waders had the lowest NISP count with a total of 17. The Ubiquity measure presents the presence/absence record to provide a sense of how the taxa were evenly spread across the collections or concentrating in single collections (e.g. Puffins were recorded in 15 of 69 collections, while Raven bones occur in only 3 collections, with the majority coming from a single phase of the site Skuggi in Hörgárdalur in N Iceland). Bird eggshell was recorded in 17 collections, mostly from the Lake Mývatn region (Mývatnssveit). Figure 11 displays the total percentages of the bird groups found in Iceland, with seabirds being the most common group followed by Rock Ptarmigan and Waterfowl, with trace presence of Waders, Birds of Prey, and Domestic Chicken. Further along in this section, the archaeofaunal evidence will elaborate on the exploitation of specific bird species. Figure 11. Overview of Identified Bird Groups found in the Icelandic archaeofauna. The below figure presents an overview of the patterning in the all-period summary in Table 4 above. 35 Sea birds spend most of their time in coastal marine habitats and obtain their food from the sea, yet they must breed on land (Ballance, 2008). Seabirds are known to colonize at coastal islands, rocks, and cliffs, particularly during the spring and summer seasons (USFWS, 2008). Seabirds have developed a range of characteristics adapted to the marine environment, such as webbed feet, salt glands, specialized feathers, plumage coloration, and adapted bills (USFWS, 2008). There are typically three orders of seabirds: tubenoses, paddle feet, and auks (includes all the Alcidae family) (Hilmarsson, 2000). Based on zooarchaeological evidence, the species of seabirds that frequented Iceland from the 9th to the 19th century includes Razorbill (Alca torda), Little Auk (Alle alle), Black Guillemot (Cepphus grylle), Common Guillemot (Uria aalge), Guillemot or Murre sp. (Uria sp.), Atlantic Puffin (Fratercula arctica), the Great Auk (Pinguinus impennis), Auk Family (Alcidae sp.), Great Black-backed Gull (Larus marinus), Indeterminate Gull sp. (Larus sp.), Northern Gannet (Morus bassanus), European Shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis), Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), Shag or Cormorant (Phalacrocorax sp.), the Great Skua (Stercorarius skua), the Arctic Skua (Stercorarius parasiticus), Black-legged Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), the Northern Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), and Common Eider (Somateria mollissima) (Cesario, 2018; Feeley et al., 2018; Cesario, 2016; Harrison, 2014; Harrison, 2012; Harrison, 2011; Harrison, 2009; McGovern et al., 2009; Harrison et al., 2008; Pálsdóttir et al., 2008; Harrison et al., 2008; Hambrecht, 2007; McGovern et al., 2006; Harrison, 2006; Amundsen et al., 2005; Edvardsson et al., 2005; Perdikaris et al., 2002). Figure 12 displays the total relative percentage of seabirds, with the auk family (Razorbill, Little auk, Guillemots, Puffin, Great Auk, and Auk family sp. Indeterminate) being by far the most common sea birds overall in all periods. Note that the Great auks are currently known only from the Settlement Period and Viking Age in the SW. Substantial seabird remains have been discovered across the following 36 archaeological sites: Hrísheimar, Hofstaðir, Westjordur (Eyri), Vatnsfjörður, Siglunes, Storaborg, Herjolfsdalur, Hornbrekka, Midbaer, Tjarnargata, Gasir, Hörgárdalur (Möðruvellir), Hörgárdalur (Myrkárdalur), Gufuskálar, Akurvik, Skálholt, Gjogur, Laekjargata, Hakonarstadir, Sveigakót, Skagafjörður (Stora-Seyla), Reykjavík (Aðalstræti), Bessastaðir, Skútustaðir, Selhagi, Undie Balabrekku, Skriðuklaustur, Eyjafjörður (Möðruvellir), Finnbogastaðir, and Oddstaðir. Figure 12. Relative proportions of Sea Birds in the Icelandic archaeofauna. The below figure presents the sea bird taxa relative % for the all-period summary. The following bird group is waders, which can be found in wetland habitats such as shorelines, mudflats, and marshes. Their physical features consist of long legs and toes, and long and sometimes curved bills (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2005). The characteristic of a long bill and legs allows the wader to dig and feed on invertebrates in shallow-water habitats such as mudflats and the bottom of ponds (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2005; Hilmarsson, 2000). In the past years, agricultural practices caused the drainage of wetlands and afforestation, 37 affecting the wader population in the lowland areas of Iceland (Gunnarsson et al., 2006). Wader species found in the Icelandic archaeofauna consist of the Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago), Phalarope species (Phalaropus sp.), Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria), and Plover Genus (Pluvialis sp.) (Harrison, 2008; McGovern et al., 2006; Perdikaris et al., 2002). Figure 13 shows the relative percentage of Waders in Iceland, with the Plover Genus and Common Snipe being the most common. Note that these are trace species and may or may not have been human prey in all cases. Archaeological sites with remains from the wader group include Hrísheimar, Reykjavik (Aðalstræti), Skútustaðir, Akurvik, and Tjarnargata. Figure 13. Relative Proportions of Wader birds in the Icelandic archaeofauna. The below figure shows the relative % of the Wader species found in the Icelandic avifauna. The next group is waterfowl (freshwater), some of which are migratory and includes a single songbird taxa. Furthermore, this precise waterfowl group belongs to the Anatidae family, which consists of ducks, swans, and geese. The subfamily of the Anatidae includes Anseranatinae, Anserinae, and Anatinae. Waterfowl are described as swimming birds that live and depend upon 38 freshwater (non-marine) habitats. In Mývatnssveit, “the lake and wetlands on the southern side of the lake are globally one of the most important breeding sites for migratory waterfowl from the North Atlantic, Eurasia, and North America” (Hicks, 2019). Waterfowl often gather in large colonies which makes it easy to exploit for egg collecting and harvesting (Owen & Black, 1990). Waterfowl species found in the Icelandic archaeofauna include the Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Duck Family (Anatinae sp.), Goose Family (Anserinae sp.), Greater Scaup (Aythya marila), Scaup or Tufted Duck (Aythya sp.), Barrow’s Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica), Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis), Eurasian Teal (Anas crecca), Whooper Swan (Cygnus cygnus), Swan sp. (Cygnus sp.), Red-throated Diver (Gavia stellata), Great Northern Diver (Gavia immer), Diver sp. (Gavia sp.), Common Scoter (Melanitta nigra), Goosander (Mergus merganser), Merganser sp. (Mergus sp.), the Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus), and the Passerine song bird (Passeriforms) (Cesario, 2016; Harrison, 2014; Harrison, 2012; Harrison, 2011; Hicks, 2010; Harrison, 2009; Harrison et al., 2008; Pálsdóttir et al., 2008; Harrison et al., 2008; Harrison, 2008; McGovern et al., 2006; Harrison, 2006; Amundsen et al., 2005; Brewington et al., 2004; Edvardsson et al., 2005). Figure 14 presents the relative percentage of waterfowl and the single songbird taxa. The most common taxa in this grouping consisted of the Goose Family (Anseridae sp), Duck family (Anatidae sp), Scaup/Tufted Duck (Aythya sp.), and the Swan species (Cygnus sp.). Note that the “goose family” peak is the result of a concentration of goose bones at the Late Medieval-Early Modern site of Storaborg on the South coast (215 specimens of 309 total) and the Late VikingEarly Medieval highland shieling site of Pálstóftir in the Eastern highlands (65 of 309). Wild and domestic goose bones are impossible to distinguish on most elements. Storaborg is thus something of an anomaly and these may be non-migratory domestic geese. One seasonal activity at the Pálstóftir shieling may have been goose and swan hunting at interior nesting areas in summer 39 (three swan bones were also reported in this collection). Archaeological sites with remains from the waterfowl include Hrísheimar, Akurvik, Palstoftir, Hakonarstadir, Skagafjörður (Stora-Seyla), Selhagi, Skuggi, Westfjords (Vatnsfjörður), Storaborg, Steinbogi, Hofstaðir, Skútustaðir, Hornbrekka, Eyjafjörður (Gasir), Hörgárdalur (Möðruvellir), Sveigakót, Siglunes, Skriðuklaustur, Bessastaðir, Gufuskálar, Hörgárdalur (Myrkárdalur), Oddstaðir, Westjordur (Eyri), Finnbogastaðir Tjarnargata, Eyjafjörður (Möðruvellir), and Reykjavik (Aðalstræti). Figure 14. Relative Proportions for Waterfowl and the single songbird taxa in the Icelandic archaeofauna. The image below shows the relative % of the waterfowl and the single songbird species found in Iceland. Note that although passerines are small birds that nest in trees and live on land, they were merged in with the waterfowl category, but due to their low NISP count it does not alter the relative percentage of the waterfowl data. Birds of prey and corvids (crow family) are another bird group, which includes hawks, eagles, and crows. In the Icelandic law books, these bird species were grouped and classified as ‘taloned birds’ or those with carrion claws, which made it illegal to either consume or hunt (Dennis et al., 2006). The behavior of these birds consists of either hunting or scavenging for food. Figure 15 40 displays the relative percentage of raptors (falcons, eagles, owl) and the Common Raven. These taxa in the Icelandic archaeofauna includes the Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus), White-tailed Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla), the Snowy owl (Bubo scandiacus), and the Common Raven (Corvus corax) (Hicks, 2010; Harrison, 2010; Harrison, 2009; Palsdottir et al., 2008; McGovern et al., 2008; Harrison, 2006; Vésteinsson, 2001). Archaeological sites with remains from both birds of prey and corvids include: Gjogur 1, Gasir (Area A), Skútustaðir, Vatnsfjörður, Storaborg, Sveigakot, and Skuggi. Note that the raven bones are almost all (41 of 44 total) from the site of Skuggi in Hörgárdalur in the North. This concentration may represent more than one individual killed at this farm for reasons unknown and in subsequent relative percentage calculations, this concentration of Raven bones is removed to better reflect overall patterns in the collections. Raptors and Ravens are exceedingly rare on most sites. Figure 15. Relative Proportions for Birds of Prey (Raptorial) and Corvids in the Icelandic archaeofauna. The figure below shows the relative % of the birds of prey (Raptorial) and corvid bird species found in Iceland. Total Raptorial and Corvid NISP % 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Gyrfalcon White-tailed Eagle Snowy Owl Common Raven 41 The following bird group is terrestrial birds. Terrestrial birds are classified as birds that spend a large portion of their time foraging and nesting on the ground. Therefore, these types of birds stay close to the ground, fly short distances, and tend to not migrate. By not migrating, these birds save their energy to forage, defend their territory annually from migratory birds, and provide parental care to ensure the survival of their young (Mayntz, 2019). For this reason, terrestrial birds have adapted to living in harsh environments, heavily camouflaged to protect them from the increased risk of predation, resourceful at finding food, and staying warm (Bjorklund, 2016). In Iceland, there are a small number of terrestrial birds due to the lack of woods and the island’s isolation (Hilmarsson, 2000). Terrestrial birds in the Icelandic archaeofauna include the Rock Ptarmigan (Lagopus muta) (Cesario, 2018; Cesario, 2016; Harrison, 2014; Harrison, 2012; Harrison, 2011; Hicks, 2010; McGovern et al., 2008; Palsdottir et al., 2008; Harrison et al., 2008; Harrison, 2007; McGovern et al., 2006; McGovern et al., 2006; Palsdottir, 2006; Edvardsson, 2005; Brewington et al., 2004; McGovern & Perdikaris, 2003; McGovern & Woollett, 2003; McGovern & Perdikaris, 2002; Vésteinsson, 2001). As Figure 11 (above) indicates, the Rock Ptarmigan is quite common (total NISP in all collections is 2383 fragments). Archaeological sites with remains of the ptarmigan include: Hrísheimar, Sveigakót, Hofstaðir, Skagafjörður (StoraSeyla), Skútustaðir, Selhagi, Westfjords (Vatnsfjörður), Oddstaðir, Siglunes, Steinbogi, Hörgárdalur (Möðruvellir), Skriðuklaustur, Hörgárdalur (Myrkárdalur), Reykjavík (Aðalstræti), Bessastaðir, and Eyjafjörður (Möðruvellir). From the entire avifauna, the largest number of bird bones corresponds to the Rock Ptarmigan, particularly from the sites of Hrísheimar, Sveigakót, and Hofstaðir. Its bones are most common on inland sites, especially in the highland Mývatn region, but Ptarmigan appear in some coastal sites in all periods as well. 42 The last bird group includes the domestic fowl, which are classified as birds raised for breeding. Thus, these species of birds are raised for the production of their meat, eggs, or both (French, 1981). In the Icelandic archaeofauna remains from the domestic fowl only consists of the Domestic Chicken (Gallus gallus) (Harrison, 2011; Hicks, 2010; Harrison et al., 2008; Palsdottir et al., 2008; Harrison, 2008). Table 4 displays that for the domestic chicken the total NISP in all collections is 35 fragments. Archaeological sites with remains of the domestic chicken include; Storaborg, Herjolfsdalur, Skútustaðir, Westfjords (Vatnsfjörður), Hörgárdalur (Möðruvellir), Reykjavik (Aðalstræti), and Eyjafjörður (Möðruvellir). Remains from the Domestic chicken is rare in the collections, with a concentration in Early Modern Storaborg suggesting active chicken raising and a few bones from the Landnám period site of Herjolfsdalur on the Westman Islands. Additional data focused on the breakdown of bird groups for the five Settlement periods. Regional and temporal patterning is evident in the available data, with contrasts in bird exploitation most evident in coastal vs. inland sites (over 10 km from the shore). Figure 16 presents the NISP % for the available coastal archaeofauna from Landnám Period (n= 6 ), Later Viking Age (n= 22), Early Medieval (n= 10), Late Medieval (n= 16) and Early Modern (n= 17), see digital data Appendix 1 for full data and breakdown. In all periods, sea birds (almost entirely Auk family) dominate the seaside collections and would seem to reflect regular hunting of these species, a pattern widespread in the Scandinavian N Atlantic (Brewington et al. 2015). Figure 17 presents the relative NISP % data for the inland sites in the same time periods. The Landnám (c. 850-940 CE) and Late Viking (c. 940-1100 CE) interior archaeofauna are dominated by Ptarmigan bones, a pattern less evident in later time periods. This patterning is in large part the result of the early period collections from Mývatnssveit which are very heavily dominated by the remains of these upland game birds (see discussion above). It is worth noting the presence of sea bird bones on 43 Figure 17. Coastal Sites by Period with grouped taxa NISP%. The below figure displays that throughout the five settlement periods, coastal sites continuously used sea birds, which was dominated entirely by the auk family. Figure 16. Bird group relative % NISP by period. The below figure shows that from the Landnám and Late Viking Period, the inland site of Mývatnssveit was dominated by ptarmigan remains. Also, the Early Medieval site of Skuggi had a concentration of raven bones and the Late Medieval to Early Modern period show the presence of domestic fowl. 44 many inland sites. While some of these are sea gulls (which can be found far inland) others are from Auk family species probably brought in from coastal hunting (as were marine fish and sea mammal bones) underlining the long-standing connections between inland and coastal farms. B. Nesting & Incubation Note that the life cycle of a bird begins in an egg followed by hatchling, nestling, fledgling, juvenile stage, and then adulthood. During adulthood, most birds take part in breeding activities, a phase that consists of copulation followed by nest-building, egg-laying, and then incubation. The incubation process entails the protection of eggs and the warming of the embryos for its development (Pietz, 2012). Therefore, this section will briefly provide general information on the species of birds with the highest percentages from Table 4, which incorporates details about their physical features, nesting selection, incubation periods, and the reason for exploitation. Although the Guillemot or Murre sp., Auk family, Indeterminate gull sp, and Goose Family have high NISP counts, emphasis is given to the following species of birds: Rock Ptarmigan (total NISP: 2,383 fragments), Atlantic Puffin (total NISP: 1,599 fragments), Razorbill (total NISP: 109 fragments), Common Eider (total NISP: 78 fragments) and Northern Fulmar (total NISP: 77 fragments). The information gathered for this section is backed by archaeological excavations and laboratory reports (Feeley et al., 2018; Cesario, 2018; Cesario, 2016; Harrison, 2014; McGovern et al., 2013; Harrison, 2012; Harrison, 2011; Harrison, 2011; Hicks, 2010; Harrison, 2010; Harrison, 2009; Pálsdóttir et al., 2008; Harrison et al., 2008; Harrison et al., 2008; Harrison, 2008; Hambrecht, 2007; Harrison, 2007; Harrison, 2006; McGovern et al., 2006; Hambrecht et al., 2006; Palsdottir, 2006; McGovern et al., 2005; Amundsen et al., 2005; Edvardsson et al., 2005; Brewington et al., 2004; Krivogorskaya & McGovern, 2004; McGovern & Perdikaris, 2003; Perdikaris et al., 2002; McGovern & Perdikaris, 2002; Tinsley & McGovern, 2002). 45 The Rock (Lagopus muta) Ptarmigan Figure 18. An image of the Rock Ptarmigan by Ultimate Upland. had the highest NISP count with a total of 2,383 fragments. The Rock Ptarmigan (Lagopus muta) is a terrestrial bird and a member of the Tetraonidae or Grouse family. A physical characteristic of the Rock Ptarmigan is that it molts its plumage three times a year. Molting occurs in three phases: (1) Breeding plumage - brown with grey flakes for males and brown with yellow specks for females, (2) Late Summer - males adopt to a greyish-brown autumn plumage, and (3) Winter plumage – white, but for the males, it includes a red comb above the eyes (as shown in Figure 18) (Hilmarsson, 2000). Since the rock ptarmigan is a non-migratory bird, it breeds and nests entirely in Iceland. During the breeding season, the brown plumage on the ptarmigan allows it to camouflage into the landscape and avoid predators. The ptarmigan tends to breed in heathlands, woods, well-vegetated lava fields, and from seashores to mountains (Hilmarsson, 2000). Nesting sites are usually near the ground in shallow depressions, and the nests are lined with grass, leaves, moss, and feathers (Brown, 2006). The female ptarmigan lays 8-10 eggs and will not start the incubation process until the last egg is laid (Hund, 2014). Archaeological sites with remains of the Rock Ptarmigan include Hofstaðir, Stora-Seyla, Skútustaðir, Vatnsfjörður, Oddstaðir, Siglunes, Selhagi, Steinbogi, Möðruvellir, Skriðuklaustur, Myrkárdalur, 46 Aðalstræti, Bessastaðir, Sveigakót, and Hrísheimar. Yet, the Mývatn region had the largest amount of ptarmigan remains, particularly from the Settlement Period sites of Hrísheimar, Sveigakót, and Hofstaðir (Hicks et al., 2016; McGovern et al., 2006). The following group of birds belongs to Figure 19. An image of the Atlantic Puffin from CN Media. the sea bird category. According to Petersen (2004), the Gannet, Fulmar, Common Brunnich’s Guillemot, Razorbill, and Puffin were consumed and used for commercial value in the North Atlantic and Arctic region. Fowlers caught the Atlantic Puffin with nets and iron hooks for its meat, eggs, and feathers. The Atlantic Puffin (Fratercula arctica) is a member of the Auks or Alcidae family. Puffins are stocky with a large head and a colorful flat-sided bill, as shown in Figure 19 (Hilmarsson, 2000). Puffins tend to breed in colonies on grassy islands, headlands to slopes above clifftops, or in screes below cliffs (Hilmarsson, 2000). Puffins prefer to nest in underground burrows, under rocks that are close to the edge of cliffs or in fissures (Hilmarsson, 2000). Puffins lay a single egg per year, and both parents are responsible throughout the incubation process. The incubation period can last from 39– 43 days, depending on factors like food scarcity or unpredictable weather conditions (Harris & Wanless, 2011; Nettleship & Birkhead, 1985; Harris, 1984). Archaeological sites with remains of the Atlantic Puffin include 47 Storaborg, Skagafjörður (Stóra-Seyla), Herjolfsdalur, Hornbrekka, Hakonarstadir, Westfjords (Vatnsfjörður), Midbaer, Tjarnargata, Bessastaðir, and Gasir. Whereas, sites with the highest remains of the Atlantic Puffin include Herjolfsdalur (Settlement Period), followed by Midbaer (c 1250-1400), and then Storaborg (Early Modern Period). The following sea bird is the Razorbill Figure 20. An image of the Razorbill by BirdsEye Photography. (Alca torda), also a member of the Auks or Alcidae family. Features of the razorbill consist of a flat-sided bill with a blackhead, neck, and back, in addition to a white area stretching from the breast to the belly, as shown in Figure 20 (Hilmarsson, 2000). Razorbills continue to migrate North, with Iceland hosting 70% of its breeders (Nuttall, 2005). The Razorbill breeds in colonies near the sea, on cliffs, or scree slopes (Hilmarsson, 2000). Nesting sites vary from fissures, crevices, burrows, or ledges (Grecian, 2004; Rowe & Jones, 2000). Razorbills lay a single egg, incubate for 32-39 days, and both parents are responsible throughout the incubation process (Nuttall, 2005; Gooders, 2001). Archaeofauna with remains of the Razorbill stretches throughout the following Icelandic sites: Storaborg, Hofstaðir, Hornbrekka, Oddstaðir, Siglunes, Gasir, Reykjavik (Aðalstræti), Akurvik, Selhagi, and Westjordur (Eyri). The earliest presence of the Razorbill dates back to the Viking 48 Age site of Hofstaðir. However, the 13th-century site of Siglunes had a substantial amount of Razorbill bones. Next, the Common Eider (Somateria Figure 21. An image of the Common Eider by Metadata mollissima) is a member of the Anatidae family. Eiders are large diving birds with a flat build, elongated head, and short tail (as shown in Figure 21) (Hilmarsson, 2000). In Iceland, fowlers would net and trap the Common Eider because it produced a valuable commodity known as eiderdown. Also, an old tradition practiced by farmers consisted of preparing the nesting sites with hay, grass or seaweed to attract more birds to the nesting grounds during the breeding season (Beck, 2013; Jonasson, 1945). Presently, Iceland has one of the largest populations of eider, with 300,000 breeding pairs (Klipi et al., 2015). Breeding season for the eider begins either in the fall or early winter, and females experience male-male competition during this period (Kristjánsson, 2016; Hilmarsson, 2000). The Common Eider can lay up to 3-6 eggs, and the incubation period lasts a total of 24-27 days (Kristjánsson, 2016; Hilmarsson, 2000). Throughout this period, the female loses 45% of her body mass (Merizon et al., 2018; Spurr & Milne, 1976; Ashcroft, 1976). Archaeological sites with remains of the Common Eider include Hofstaðir, Westfjords (Vatnsfjörður), Siglunes, Hörgárdalur (Möðruvellir), Bessastaðir, Finnbogastaðir, Westjordur (Eyri), Eyjafjörður (Möðruvellir) and 49 Eyjafjörður (Gasir). However, the 13th -14th century site of Gasir held the largest remains of the Common Eider (Harrison, 2009). Lastly, the Northern Fulmar (Fulmarus Figure 22. An image of the Northern Fulmar by Mathias Putze. glacialis) belongs to the Procellariiidae family. The Northern Fulmar is a large seabird similar to a gull, with a whitish thick neck and a bullheaded appearance, as shown in Figure 22 (Hilmarsson, 2000). The Northern Fulmar exhibits a different history of exploitation, the southern region of Iceland is known for its tradition in the harvest of the Northern Fulmar (Petersen, 2004). From 1898-1939, records show that fowlers killed an average of 42,693 fulmars (Petersen, 2004). By 1995-1999, the catch of fulmars dropped to 8,725 birds because of a pulmonary disease known as psittacosis in the Northern-Atlantic Fulmar population (Petersen, 2004). Archaeological sites with remains of the Northern Fulmar include Storaborg, Tjarnargata, Finnbogastaðir, and Siglunes. At the site of Siglunes, midden deposits from the 10 th to 14th century indicate that the Northern Fulmar visited the area, contrary to opinions of the Fulmar simply ‘nesting in the northern areas of Iceland as late as the 17 th century’ (Harrison, 2014). The information provided displayed the availability of local and regional species, as well as targeted species. 50 C. Diet Avifauna can assist in reconstructing a bird’s habitat, migratory movement, and diet. Most recently, a study conducted on the early Viking age sites of Skútustaðir and Hofstaðir used carbon (δ13C), sulfur (δ34S), and nitrogen (δ15N) isotopes to record animal movement, animal and human diet, and husbandry practices (Sayle et al., 2016; 2013). The site of Skútustaðir, located to the south of Lake Mývatn, utilized isotopes to measure various animal and bird bone collagen from remains found in midden deposits at a Viking age farmstead (Sayle et al., 2013). In general, the use of δ34S, δ13C, and δ15N measured 129 samples of animal bone collagen from domesticated to wild fauna, the different species included modern terrestrial, freshwater, and marine (Sayle et al., 2013). Table 5 displays the isotope values of δ34S, δ13C, and δ15N and its corresponding measurement to each species. Table 5. “The mean and standard deviation of bone collagenδ34S, δ13C and δ15N values for the animals from Skútustaðir, Iceland” from Sayle et al., 2013. The table below shows the calculation of bone collagen using Carbon, Nitrogen, and Sulphur isotopes values for the animal remains found in Skútustaðir. 51 Additional analysis from the site of Skútustaðir provided information about birdlife including their food web, habitat, and diet. The study used eleven bird species that consisted of the chicken (n=1), duck (n=2), tufted duck (n=1), mallard (n=2), common scoter (n=1), swan (n=3), and swan/goose (n = 1) (Sayle et al., 2013). The use of δ15N isotopes displayed that birds and pigs from Skútustaðir were omnivores, consisting of a typical mixed diet (Sayle et al., 2013). An analysis of the domestic fowls and the one chicken specimen determined that these birds consumed freshwater fish scraps (Sayle et al., 2013). At the same time, another analysis used modern samples from Lake Mývatn such as detritus, algae, pondweed, larvae, zooplankton, and mollusk to determine if there was any correlation between the bird group of the study. The results generated a parallel between 8 bird species determining that the main food supply of these birds matched the freshwater resources of Lake Mývatn. Overall, this study provided new archaeological and paleoenvironmental material by using isotopes to trace the diet of the animals from Skútustaðir (Sayle et al., 2013). In 2016, the use of isotopes helped analyze the Viking age settlement site of Hofstaðir. The study included 39 animal bones from Hofstaðir, 42 adult humans from the cemetery in Hofstaðir, and data obtained from Skútustaðir. The purpose of this project was to understand the diet and mobility of the adult residents of Hofstaðir, but consideration is given to data regarding birdlife (Sayle et al., 2016). An observation made from the midge species Tanyatarsus gracilentus, which hatches biannually in Lake Mývatn, revealed that it was an important resource for marine and birdlife of the area (Sayle et al., 2016; Ives et al., 2008; Gardarsson & Einarsson, 2004; Gudbergsson, 2004). A correlation between guano and migratory birds showed that there was a higher concentration of nitrogen (δ15N) in the nearby vegetation, especially close to the nesting 52 sites (Sayle et al., 2016). Overall, the evidence determined that the diet of the residents from Hofstaðir consisted of freshwater fish, eggs, the flesh of domestic animals, and dried marine fish (Sayle et al., 2016). D. Subsistence Practices This portion analyzes three laboratory reports to provide insight into peoples’ past subsistence practices used at a particular time and region in Iceland. The term “subsistence systems” conveys the production and methods for obtaining food for everyday survival (Smith, 2019). Different modes of subsistence include foraging (hunting and gathering), pastoralism (the practice of herding animals), horticulture (low-intensity landscape), and agriculture (intensive farming) (Howell & Paris, 2019). Subsistence practices act on adaptive codes and respond appropriately to social conditions and environmental changes such as climate change, ecological degradation, population growth, and disasters (Holden et al., 2017; Ulijaszek, 1995). As a result, subsistence strategies adjust to the depletion of certain resources in the environment. The late 13th to early 14th-century site of Hofstaðir provides insight into subsistence practices. The residents of Hofstaðir executed adaptive measures in their use of wild resources because climate change brought forth falling temperatures. Archaeofauna from Hofstaðir exhibited a reliance on domestic and marine mammals (whales, porpoises, and seals), fish, and birds. Remains from marine mammals such as the harp seal are associated with the rise of drift ice and the presence of weather anomalies like severe cooling (McGovern et al., 2013). Figure 23 shows the gradual shift in climate change from 1200-1300 in the Western North Atlantic region and supports ‘multiproxy evidence that the northern hemisphere summers of 1258 and 1259 stand out as some of the coldest in the past 1000 years’ (McGovern et al., 2013). Evidence of hard times at Hofstaðir was visible by extreme levels of pre-depositional bone from humans and dogs, linked to starvation and resource stress (McGovern et al., 2013). Dog gnawing and tooth marks were present on several 53 bones. Unfortunately, less resistant bones did not stand a chance like the remains of fish and birds (McGovern et al., 2013). Therefore, the avifauna from the site of Hofstaðir is small and consisted of (1) swan (Cygnus sp.), (1) ptarmigan (Lagopus muta), and (3) unidentified birds. Ultimately, based on archaeofauna, the immediate shift to hunting harp seals by the locals offers an excellent example of successful adaptive strategies in harsh times. Another example is from the early 18th - 19th-century Finnbogastaðir, sites of Árneshreppur, Strandasýsla, and Vestfirðir. These sites developed subsistence economies due to the cooling climate (Edvardsson et al., Figure 23. “(a) Total solar irradiance (VSK [Schmidt et al.,2011]). (b) Global stratospheric sulfate aerosol loadings 2004). The degradation of the terrestrial [Gao et al., 2008]. (c) Ice cap expansion dates based on a composite of 94 Arctic Canada calibrated 14C PDFs. (d) 30-year landscape affected the local farm, which shifted the mode of subsistence to foraging and the utilization of natural resources, such as fishing, sealing, bird running mean varve thickness in Hvítárvatn sediment core HVT03-2 [Larsen et al., 2011]. (e) Arctic Ocean sea ice recorded in a sediment core on the north Iceland shelf [Massé et al., 2008]; heavy sea ice years correlate with anomalously cold summers across Iceland. (f) Temperature anomalies over southern Greenland (wrt 1881–1980 AD mean) from the borehole temperature inversion at DYE-3 [DahlJensen et al., 1998]”. Superposed box is one sigma range of HST 5114 C14, red dotted line is Icelandic Annals report of famine in N Iceland” from McGovern et al., 2013. The image above shows that from 12001300 there was a period of climate change that induced famine in the site of Hofstaðir 54 hunting, and the collection of bird eggs (Edvardsson et al., 2004). Finnbogastaðir was marked by hardship with widespread tenantry, adverse climate, and the degradation of many terrestrial landscapes (Edvardsson et al., 2004). Paleoclimate evidence indicates cold intervals in the region from 1650-1920 A.D (Edvardsson et al., 2004). The shift in climate affected the landscape and brought forth challenges for the residents of Finnbogastaðir, especially with agriculture (Edvardsson et al., 2004; Ogilvie, 1984). Tenant farmers at the site of Finnbogastaðir faced challenges, poverty, and struggled to make ends meet. An entry in the Jarðabók provides an account of a man named Brandur Bjornsson, who managed to survive from his provisions of a single cow and five milk ewes (Edvardsson et al., 2004). Archaeofauna from Finnbogastaðir reflects a “multi-stranded” subsistence economy, which included domestic mammals, seals, birds, and fish, as shown in Figure 24 (Edvardsson et al., 2004). Intensified offshore fishing at Figure 24. “Presents the overall distribution of identified bone fragments (% NISP), which are made up mainly of fish bone but with significant numbers of domestic and wild mammals, birds and Mollusca” from Edvardsson et al., 2004. The below figure shows the extensive utilization of wild resources for the site of Finnbogastaðir. 55 Finnbogastaðir could account for seabird remains at the site such as the Guillemot/Murre species (Uria sp.), Northern Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), and Gull species (Laridae) (Edvarsson et al., 2004). The intensification of fishing and the flexibility of combining terrestrial and marine resources permitted the residents of Finnbogastaðir to cope through moments of severe cooling in the region (Edvardsson et al., 2004). Lastly, the Modern period of Eyri illustrates how the impoverished residents of West Fjords invested in the market fishery (Hambrecht, 2009). Residents relied on the daily catch of fish for market use and subsistence (Hambrecht, 2009). The midden mound in Eyri displayed a ‘mix of commercial production and local subsistence consumption’ (Harrison et al., 2008). Figure 25 shows the faunal collection at Eyri with an emphasis on the use of domesticated animals, birds, Mollusca, and fish (Harrison et al., 2008). The archaeofauna from Eyri represented the extensive Figure 25. “Comparison of Early Modern Icelandic faunal collection” from Harrison et al., 2009. The image below demonstrates the abundance of fish remains throughout the sites of Eyri, Aðalstræti, Tjarnargata, Finnbogastaðir, and Skálholt. 56 use of the gadid (cod family) with 95%, as for the bird assemblage 61% from the Murre/Guillemot (Uria sp.). Reasons for seabird remains at the site of Eyri vary from being attracted to the fishery, trapped scavenging the area, or caught by accident by fishermen (Edvardsson et al., 2004). In brief, an observation of these three case studies is that climate change and poverty became variables for the use of subsistence practices. In addition, subsistence practices led to a reliance on marine species for survival. V. HUMAN-AVIAN RELATIONSHIP A. Folklore, Sagas, and Poems 1. Raven It is important to discuss the aspect of culture to understand the social behavior, knowledge, and customs attached to a society (Tylor, 1920). The internal structure of a society can offer insight into cultural practices, popular beliefs, modes of thinking, and the origin of traditions. Throughout history, people have documented their interest in birds, symbolic value, spiritual significance, and role in everyday life (World Migratory Bird Day, 2019). Birds have played a prominent role in Icelandic society, religion, literature, customs, activities, and the arts. In Icelandic culture, some symbolic attachments to birds portray them as sacred, able to grant luck, announce a death, and spirit messengers of the Norse gods. Therefore, this portion will focus on Icelandic poems, sagas, and folklore. Folklore is a mode of cultural expression, passed down from one generation to the next (World Intellectual Property Organization, 1998). Folktales draw upon tradition and customs to express human to animal behavior, religious beliefs, superstitions, spells, cultural knowledge, and relationships to the land and other living beings. Themes range from moral to environmental messages about nature and the landscape. While, sagas are Norse prose narratives describing Nordic history, family disputes, the rise and fall of chiefs, Viking voyages, and the settlement of Iceland. Icelandic sagas mainly describe events from the 9th -11th century, a moment marked by 57 Norsemen colonizing Iceland and the establishment of a Commonwealth form of government (Short, 2015). The reference of birds within these accounts disclose information about nesting grounds, incubation periods, flight patterns, morphology, hunting locations, bird species, physical bird characteristics, and bird behavior. Henceforth, the following written accounts will focus on the Raven, Eagle, and Ptarmigan to display their cultural significance, religious attachments, and role in Icelandic society. The first documented reference of ravens in Icelandic literature is in the Book of Settlement or Landnámabók. The Book of Settlement describes the colonization of Iceland and lists the names of nearly 400 initial settlers and their genealogy. The Book of Settlement consists of five parts: Settlement, Settlement in the Quarter of the Western Firths, Settlement in the Northern Quarter, Settlement in the Quarter of the Eastern Firths, and Settlement in the Southern Firths. In Settlement, Chapter 2: The Discovery of Iceland by Floki, Floki (the son of Vilgerd) discovered Iceland with the help of ravens. A translation by Ari Þorgilsson and Thomas Ellwood (1898) states: ‘Floki took three ravens with him on the voyage. When he set the first one free, it flew back from the stern, but the second raven flew straight up into the air, and then back down to the ship, while the third flew straight ahead from the prow, and it was in that direction that they found land’ (Þorgilsson and Ellwood)’ This account demonstrates the trust and relationship Floki had with his ravens, as the third raven released helped navigate towards the coast of Iceland. On Floki’s ship, there was a Hebridean named Faxi, this could explain the use of ravens as navigational aids, which was a familiar technique to the native Scottish Island populations (Bettina & Best, 2013). As a result, Floki’s nickname became Hrafna-Floki, which translates to Raven Floki. Additional information about Floki states that he was the first Norseman to deliberately sail to Iceland and landed in Vatnsfjörður, the southwestern region of Iceland. The Book of Settlement provides the first account and cultural connection between ravens and Iceland. 58 Whereas, in Icelandic folklore, ravens are depicted as being messengers of the gods. In Iceland, the old Norse religion was polytheistic, a belief in various gods and goddesses, such as Odin. Odin is known as the god of war, poetry, death, sorcery, and divination (Bourns, 2012; Ziviani, 2012). Odin was also known as Hrafnaguð, which translates to Raven God because he relied heavily on his ravens since he sacrificed an eye for wisdom. Figure 26 illustrates Odin with his two ravens Huginn and Muninn. In the 13th century, an Icelandic historian named Snorri Sturluson produced a manuscript titled Prose Edda. In a translated version by Rudolf Simek (1993), Figure 26. An image of Odin with Huginn and Muninn” the passage about Odin and his raven’s from an 18th century manuscript called “Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Ísland” by Jakob Sigurðsson. The above image is a representation of Odin with his two ravens Huginn states: and Muninn. ‘Two ravens sit on his (Odin’s) shoulders and whisper all the news which they see and hear into his ear; they are called Huginn and Muninn. He sends them out in the morning to fly around the whole world, and by breakfast, they are back again. Thus, he finds out many new things and this is why he is called ‘raven-god’ (hrafnaguð)’. Based on the passage, Huginn and Muninn worked as Odin’s informants outside the mystical realm. It is presumed that Odin in some way projected his power and mental extension through Huginn and Muninn (Ross, 2011). Another interpretation considers Huginn and Muninn the 59 personification of Odin’s intellectual powers (Ross, 2011). An account by Lindow (2002), attached the relationship between Odin and his ravens, Huginn (thought) and Muninn (memory or mind), to Norse shamanic tradition and practices. This theory implies that Odin can send his “thought” and “mind” into a trance-state journey similar to shamans. The literature on Odin and his ravens is extensive, but I provided this account to make a general statement about the raven’s symbolic and religious significance in Icelandic society. Furthermore, the raven is known for its other qualities such as being greedy, wise, protectors, and clairvoyant. Humans have alleged that ravens possess psychic abilities (Stefansson, 1906). The raven’s mystic trait may have derived from a practice known as augury. Augury is the act of reading a bird’s flight patterns to predict the past, present, and future, announce a death or grant luck (Ziviani, 2012; Schilling, 1992). A deeper analysis of the practice of augury reveals that Icelanders participated in birdwatching activities that focused on the study of a raven’s flight movement. Additional folkloric accounts go into detail about the vices of a raven. Greed, gluttony, and a lack of self-control are behavioral traits often associated with the raven. Folktales mention that the raven is in a constant state of perpetual hunger and will hunt just about anything to satisfy its appetite (Ziviani, 2012). The quotes ‘then things come to a hard pass when ravens peck out each other’s eyes’ and ‘ravens will peck the eyes of its family members and devour its eggs’ (Ziviani, 2012; Stefansson, 1906), allude to moments of hardship, environmental constraints, food scarcity, intraspecific competition, infanticide, and even mechanisms of natural selection. The last folklore is hrafnaþing or raven assembly, defined as a group of ravens. The raven assembly is considered a semi-annual affair held at the beginning of every spring and fall term, with about 60 to 80 ravens gathering together to decide on the following guidelines for the upcoming winter and summer (Ziviani, 2012; Stefansson, 1906; Árnason, 1862). In the fall 60 assembly, the ravens divide by gender, pair up, and retreat to an assigned farm for the winter. After the assembly, the flock kills the left-over ravens, even if they try to flee or hide. People claim that the raven assembly resembles human characteristics that mimic a town meeting, or more precisely, Norse assemblies from the Commonwealth period (Ziviani, 2012). Despite the beliefs attached to the raven assembly, it is the mating systems of the raven. Ravens are the most documented bird in Icelandic literature. However, the remains of the raven are rare in the Icelandic archaeofauna because it was illegal to hunt, kill, and consume ravens (Dennis et al., 2006). The materials presented display the symbolic attachments to the raven within Icelandic culture, from Old Norse religion to the discovery of Iceland. Sagas and folklore offer a deeper insight into a raven’s behavioral and physical characteristics to the annual cycle of the species. For that reason, Icelandic literature assists in understanding the origin and construction of certain cultural beliefs, mythologies, and their religious attachments to the raven. 2. Eagle In Icelandic folklore, the eagle’s given nickname is assa and associated with prowess, strength, and manliness (Faulkes & Perkins, 2003). Birds of prey, such as the eagle, are large birds that hunt and feed off vertebrates. The eagle has a hooked beak ideal for tearing flesh and muscles (Hagge, 2011). Over time, an eagle’s hooked beak could result in a curved overgrowth, which can cause a bacterial infection and prevent the eagle from eating or opening its mouth. Folkloric accounts mention that ‘eagles depend on the kind gestures of humans to whittle down their beaks to normal size’, which would grant the person good fortune (Stefansson, 1906). This belief exposes the beak morphology of an eagle, treatments, and the trimming back of the beak to its proper shape. Furthermore, the eagle is one of the three birds of Odin, the other two are Huginn and Muninn (Facts on File, 2009). A poem in the Poetic Edda titled Grímnismál, recited by Odin, details the 61 relationship among Veðrfölnir and an eagle. A translation of Grímnismál by Jesse Byock (2005), states: ‘There is much to be told. An eagle sits at the top of the ash, and it has knowledge of many things. Between its eyes sits the hawk called Veðrfölnir [...]. The squirrel called Ratatoskr runs up and down the ash. He tells slanderous gossip, provoking the eagle and Nidhögg’. Odin mentions that an eagle sits on top of Yggdrasil, the great ash tree. Veðrfölnir, a hawk, sits in-between the eyes of the eagle. Ratatoskr, a squirrel, delivers messages to the eagle. While Nidhögg, the serpent, is at the bottom of the tree, as shown in Figure 27. The Yggdrasil tree embodies a hierarchical structure with the eagle on top and the serpent on the bottom. The eagle and serpent reflect opposing sides chthonic/celestial, Figure 27. “An illustration of the Yggdrasil tree, image from of ‘low/high, Edda Oblongata, a 17th century Icelandic manuscript housed in and death/life’ shows the Yggdrasil tree with the hawk on top and the serpent on the Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies”. The above image bottom. (Bourns, 2012). Even though eagles are common in folklore, they are rare in the archaeological records. 62 3. Ptarmigan The Virgin Mary and the Ptarmigan is a tale from the book Icelandic Legends by Jon Árnason, which reflects on the cultural relationship between the ptarmigan and falcon. The tale explains that the Virgin Mary created a series of trials to test the obedience and loyalty of the birds from the region. The ptarmigan was the only bird who did not follow Mary’s instructions at the time of the trial. The passage states: ‘When the other birds came through the fire, their feet scorched to the skin, and have remained so ever since. But the ptarmigan, the only disobedient bird, did not fare a whit better, albeit she got no scorched feet; for Mary grew angry with her, and laid upon her the curse, that she should be the greatest of faint-hearts, the most harmless and defenseless among birds, on the one side, but on the other, the most persecuted, and she should never enjoy an hour in her life free from the fear of being persecuted, save on the day of Whitsuntide. The falcon should be her worst foe and a most dangerous persecutor and constantly prey upon her flesh. But, so far had Mary mercy upon the ptarmigan, that the bird should be allowed to change color, according to the season, being white as the snow in winter, but brown-grey as the heather in summer. This curse and mercy have ever since rested upon the poor ptarmigan, by the power of the unchangeable act of Mary. The queen of heaven. The falcon, which before this sentence was passed was the brother of the ptarmigan, never remembers his kinship to his sister, till he comes to her heart. For then breaks his sorrow first forth, as it comes into his mind that he has eaten his sister’. The first theme in The Virgin Mary and the Ptarmigan is religion. Before Christianity, Norse paganism was a common belief in Iceland. Iceland became Christianized in A.D 1000, references of the Virgin Mary and Whitsuntide are religious cues, which suggest that Iceland was already a Christian nation. Other themes include molting, seasonality, and adaptation. Mary had cursed the ptarmigan by causing it to change its feathers to white in the winter and brown-grey in the summer. A physical trait of the ptarmigan is that it molts three times in a year; spring molt (a display plumage), summer molt (cryptic fall plumage), and fall molt (white winter plumage) (Pyle, 2007). From the spring to the summer, the ptarmigan molts its feathers to a grayish-brown. In the winter, the ptarmigan changes its feathers to white like the snow, and the feathers on its feet allow it to stay warm in the 63 harsh weather. Molting is an adaptation that allows the ptarmigan to disappear into the snow and serves as a survival mechanism against predators, such as the falcon (Braun et al., 1993). The last theme is the predatorprey relationship. The falcon and ptarmigan symbolize both fierceness and gentleness (Faulkes & Perkins, 2003). Mary concluded that the white plumage on the ptarmigan would make it unrecognizable to the falcon, making it prey, as shown in Figure 28. Gyrfalcons In rely NE on Iceland, the rock ptarmigan (Lagopus muta) and are known as a ptarmigan specialist (Robinson et al., 2019; Boom et al., 2008; Holder & Montgomerie, Figure 28. “A taxidermy of a Gyrfalcon with Ptarmigan prey in full winter plumage” by A.J Armistead. The above image shows the 1993). During the summer, the predator-prey relationship between the Gyrfalcon and Ptarmigan. ptarmigan composes 72% biomass of the gyrfalcon’s diet (Barraquand & Nielsen, 2018; Nielsen, 1999). The gyrfalcon’s diet involves the seasonal and annual availability of prey, such as the ptarmigan (Robinson et al., 2019). The Virgin Mary and the Ptarmigan provide information about the behavior, anatomy, and morphology of the ptarmigan. Ultimately, the Rock Ptarmigan had the largest recovered remains from any bird species in the Icelandic archaeofauna. Overall, Icelandic 64 traditional literature reflects the cultural commerce of Iceland, the influence of native traditions and Christianity, traditional practices, and the attached symbolism to birds. B. FOWLING 1. Historical Materials By exploring the relationship between birds and humans, it can provide an in-depth examination of the faunal, site, and social context of Iceland (Bettina & Best, 2013). This section elaborates on the study of ethno-ornithology. Ethno-ornithology examines the inter-relationship between birds and human culture to comprehend how birds have been perceived, used, and managed in human societies (Gosler, 2012). Ethno-ornithology helps understand avifauna, its interaction with the local inhabitants, the different forms of avian resources, and species utilization (Alves et al., 2013). From the settlement period through the 19 th century, birds became an important natural resource due to the array of commodities that can be produced such as eggs, feathers, skin, clothing, meat, fat, and oil (Hicks et al., 2016; Bettina & Best, 2013; Beck, 2013; Hanson, 2011; Smith, 1995). Henceforward, the following sections explore the exploitation of birds with the help of written records and archaeological evidence to trace the human-avian relationship. This portion examines the history of fowling, different fowling techniques, and laws implemented towards specific bird populations that were affected by fowling practices in Iceland. Fowling is the hunting of birds for meat, feathers, sport, or commercial value. Written records regarding fowling activities are located in the following books: Diplomatarium Islandicum, Grágás, Grásída, Járnsíða, and Jónsbók (Petersen, 2004). The Diplomatarium Islandicum holds documents, decrees, deeds, dates, and inventory records of Iceland. In 1143, an excerpt from the Diplomatarium Islandicum addresses how the residents of Viðey filed a complaint against their neighbors for hunting Eider around their property (Beck, 2013; Sigurðsson et al., 1857). Whereas, 65 the Grágás or Grey goose laws are rules written in the Commonwealth period of Iceland. The Grágás laws made it legal to hunt and eat ptarmigan and domestic fowl, but illegal to hunt ‘taloned birds, those with carrion claws, eagles, ravens, falcons, and hawks’ (Dennis et al., 2006). Also, it was not permitted to hunt swans, geese, ducks, and seabirds on privately owned land and prohibited to hunt near nesting sites (Beck, 2013). The Grágás laws were active from 1262-1264 till Iceland was under Norwegian rule. The Járnsíða laws replaced the Grágás laws, which spanned from 1271-1273. By 1281, the Jónsbók laws governed Iceland up until the introduction of absolutism in 1662 (Jakobsson & Halfdanarson, 2016). It is important to also add Icelandic sagas to offer an aspect of cultural knowledge to the history of fowling. For example, saga accounts about the Settlement period of Iceland describe wild birds as “unwary” and easy to catch, partly due to birds being unfamiliar to humans than (McGovern et al., 2007; Vésteinsson et al., 2002). In the Book of Settlement (Landnámabók), it mentions a region known as Alftaver, located between Kudafljot and Eyjara, where people would gather at a vast lake to hunt the large population of swans (Beck, 2013; Þorgilsson & Ellwood, 1898). In Egil’s Saga, a man named Egil Skallagrimsson, raised at Borganes in West-Iceland, would venture into the woods with his friends to shoot animals and birds (McKinnell & Anlezark, 2011). In the Droplaugarsona Saga, the narrative of two brothers, Helgi and Grimur, used the excuse of hunting ptarmigan to kill a man (Beck, 2013). With the assistance of law books and sagas, it has helped provide some aspect into the fowling activities conducted throughout Iceland. 2. Fowling Instruments & Methods Fowling instruments ranged from pole nets, clubs, hooked sticks, floating snare boards, ropes, snares, and then shifted to the use of guns by the late 18-19th century (Beck, 2013; Petersen, 2004). Yet, a focus is given to the use of snares, nets, iron hooks, and clubs. A snare is a trapping device with a noose. Figure 29 shows the different materials and types of snares found in Iceland. 66 Materials varied from Figure 29. “Snares of different types used on the end of a long pole. The willow reed, baleen bristles, hair, materials were of as variable material as cat’s intestine, whale baleen, and horsehair” from Petersen, 2004. The below image shows the diverse materials used to create a snare. horse-tail hemp, and coarser fibers of wool (Beck, 2013; Kristjánsson, 1986; Norðmann, 1946; Jonasson, 1945). Fowlers attached snares to long ropes known as vaður, which was held in front of a bird’s path with two to three snares connected, and then slipped around a bird’s neck (Beck, 2013; Bjamason, 1949; Jonasson, 1945). Also, fowlers would attach snares to a long staff with a metal hook at the end to capture seabirds nesting on cliffs (Beck, 2013). At Dyrhólaey and the Westman Islands, residents created special snare rafts for nesting sites (Beck, 2013). At breeding cliffs, the use of snares assisted in gathering adult birds, which ultimately affected the survival of many breeding colonies (Petersen, 2004). Aside from snares, nets were commonly used to capture eider, gyrfalcon, puffin, and geese. The sites of Gullbringusýsl, Rangárvallasýsla, Fljótshlíð, and Landeyjarwere report the netting of 67 about 100 to 300 geese at a single time (Beck, 2013). In the 16th century, on the southern coast of Iceland, an anonymous author documented the use of large nets to hunt the passing migrant geese (Beck, 2013; Anonymous, 1971). The large nets were strung up on poles, and the ground underneath the net baited with hay to attract the geese, then a rope would be released on top of the flock when they gathered under the net (Beck, 2013; Anonymous, 1971). Fowlers used the same netting technique on the eider duck, but with lumpfish roes (Beck, 2013). By the 18th century, the site of Dragney used nets on entire puffin colonies. This netting technique became popular and spread all over Iceland by the mid-19th century (Beck, 2013). According to Sonknalysingar’s (1952), around the mid-19th century, the residents of Stagley (Breidafjodur) captured hundreds of eider ducks with nets at Stagleyjargjögur, a natural shelter for thousands of eider ducks in the harsh winters (Beck, 2013). Figure 30. “Seabird Fowling on a bird cliff, a drawing from 1776. The technique involves a long pole and a snare on the end” from Petersen, 2004. The image below shows a type of fowling method. 68 Ultimately, the use of different fowling instruments and techniques affected the wildlife in Iceland. By 1847, a decree banned the use of floating bait traps and massive nests able to spread over entire puffin colonies (Petersen, 2004). Between 1850 and 1870, the use of nets in the Westman Islands led to the overexploitation of puffin colonies. By 1875, as a substitute, the triangular pole net from the Faroes Islands was introduced to Westman Islanders (Petersen, 2004; Kristjánsson, 1986). In 1882, The Bird Protection Act created a law that banned the use of nets because it strained the seabird population. Consequently, in 1923, the use of hooks became illegal because it was affecting the harvesting of young puffins (Petersen, 2004). By the late 19 th century, a shift to clubs made of wood, iron, or copper cylinder was used to target Fulmar chicks/adults and Northern gannets throughout the nesting season (Beck, 2013). In due course, the Great Auk was clubbed to death and over-exploited, which led to its extinction on July 3, 1844. 3. Archaeological Evidence Archaeological evidence can contextualize the historical materials presented in this section, especially with the assistance of laboratory reports from NABO. The earliest zooarchaeological evidence of fowling is supported by ‘settlement period signatures’ from the Icelandic landnám (McGuire, 2006; Amorosi, 1997). The Icelandic landnám tephra exhibited a heavy reliance on the hunting of wild fauna such as the arctic fox, migratory waterfowl, seabirds, seals, porpoises, marine Mollusca, and fish (McGovern et al., 2006; McGuire, 2006). In the Mývatnssveit region, the Viking Age sites of Hofstaðir, Selhagi, Hrísheimar, and Sveigakót had the highest number of ptarmigan remains, suggesting the use of fowling practices brought from Scandinavia (Bettina & Best, 2013; McGovern et al., 2006). Moreover, descriptions from first-generation settlers in the southwest region of Iceland described birds as “unwary” and easy to kill, which can explain why the archaeofauna included a sizable amount of wild birds (McGovern et al., 2007; Perdikaris & McGovern, 2005; Vésteinsson et al., 2002; McGovern et al., 2001; McGovern, 1999). 69 Archaeofauna from the Viking age of Vatnsfjörður and Skútustaðir contained eagle bones. Two explanations concerning the eagle remains are that people hunted them for religious practices or to prevent predation because they preyed on lambs (Hicks, 2010; Pálsdóttir et al., 2008). Avifauna from a farm midden in Stora-Seyla, dating to pre 950 – 1104 AD, contained seabird remains from the Herring Gull (Larus argentatus), Atlantic Puffin (Fratercula arctica), and the Great Black-Backed Gull (Larus marinus). Due to the farm’s location in the southern region of Langholt, a great distance from the sea, it’s assumed that the birds were either hunted by the residents of Stora-Seyla or brought through by trade networks (Cesario, 2016). Similarly, the late 9th century – mid-12th-century midden trench of Oddstaðir contained remains from the gull species, presumed killed for their foraging habits (Harrison, 2012). The archaeofauna from the site of Kotið, occupied in ca. 871 to AD 1140, contained large deposits of seabird remains. The remains of gulls and cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo) ‘could have been collected while hunting puffins or guillemots or hovered over the site’ (Cesario, 2018). Next, avifauna from Útanverðunes, a northern farm in Hegranes dated to Pre-1104 AD, identified the faunal remains from both the Atlantic Puffin (Fratercula arctica) and Common Guillemot (Uria aalge). The large amount of seabird remains at Útanverðunes suggests that the residents engaged in communal hunting and specialized sporting activities at Drangey (Cesario, 2018). Lastly, archaeofauna from the Medieval to the Modern period of Siglunes and Biskupstungur recovered sizable seabird remains from the Razorbill, suggesting the exploitation of the seabird (Hambrecht, 2009). Icelandic archaeofauna helps trace and contribute information on fowling activities and the species of birds being targeted. 70 C. FOOD SOURCE 1. Historical Materials This section uses sagas and historical records to elaborate on the use of birds as a food source, specifically the consumption of birds and eggs in Iceland. The Grettis Saga details the story of a man named Grettir from Drangey Island, he describes the site as having plenty of food such as waterfowl and their eggs (Magnusson & Morris, 1900). Drangey Island has been documented as a location visited by many people to hunt and collect eggs from puffins and guillemots. In Egil’s Saga, a man named Skallagrim acquired his provisions of fish, seal, and eggs from the westward side of Myrar (Green, 1893). In addition, the historical records from the Icelandic law book of Grágás permitted the consumption of the ptarmigan, fowl, aquatic birds, and their eggs. It was not permitted to consume carrion birds and was even punishable by law (Dennis et al., 2006), which explains the lack of raven and eagle remains in the archaeological record. Last of all, the legal codes from Jónsbók mentioned that it was legal for tenants and landowners to collect eggs, but ‘nesting birds, no man shall hunt’, a law passed in 1281 and spanned till the 18 th century (Hicks, 2019; Halldorsson, 1904). 2. Food Preparation This section provides information on past diet and bird preservation techniques. The use and trade of bird meat and eggs became a commodity for inland sites and along the coasts of Iceland. Patterns that reflected Viking age practices consisted of collecting near-term bird eggs and consuming all aspects of the fully developed chick, including bones (McGovern et al., 2009). Additionally, it was acceptable to mix eggs with dairy products (Dennis et al., 2006). Before salt had become common in the 18th-century, meat was likely smoked, wind-dried, or stored in whey to preserve the meat in soup or boiled (Beck, 2013). Seabirds were smoked, packed in salt for the winter, and their spines placed in whey for softening (Beck, 2013; Spaulding & Russel, 1914). The necks of swans were also stored in whey (Beck, 2013; Gisladottir, 1999). Even fulmar fat was 71 boiled, spiced, and used as a substitute for butter (Spaulding & Russel, 1914). According to Kristjánsson (1980), the site of Skaftafell traded salted fulmar and feathers (Beck, 2013). 3. Archaeofaunal Evidence By identifying the remains of birds, it offers information about species of birds commonly consumed, food used through time and space, and their economic importance (Bettina & Best, 2013). Archaeofauna can help provide information about past Icelandic diet and with the assistance of laboratory reports, it can trace the use of birds across archeological sites (Cesario, 2018; Feeley et al., 2018; Hicks et al., 2016; Cesario, 2016; Harrison, 2014; Harrison, 2012; Harrison, 2011; Harrison, 2009; McGovern et al., 2009; Harrison et al., 2008; Pálsdóttir et al., 2008; Harrison et al., 2008; Hambrecht, 2007; McGovern et al., 2006; Harrison, 2006; Amundsen et al., 2005; Edvardsson et al., 2004; Perdikaris et al., 2002). The consumption of bird meat and eggs played a partial role in Norse subsistence practices. Settlers who resided along the coasts and inland depended on the local and non-local bird species. The Viking age sites of Hrísheimar, Sveigakót, and Hofstaðir in the Mývatnssveit region retrieved a substantial amount of ptarmigan remains than any other archaeological site, as shown in Table 6. Based on Icelandic laws, the consumption of the ptarmigan was permitted, which would partly explain the ptarmigan having the largest collection of bones in the entire archaeofauna. Next, the midden deposits from the site of Skútustaðir, 9th century to post 1717, demonstrates the consumption of various animals from local to non-local species, such as birds, bird eggs, seals, Cetacea (whales and porpoises), marine fish, and freshwater fish (Hicks, 2010). A list of seabirds and terrestrial migratory birds from Skútustaðir include the Gull species (Larus sp.), Rock Ptarmigan, (Lagopus muta), Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator), Greater Scaup (Aythya marilla), and the Tufted/Long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis). The presence of eggshells at Skútustaðir suggests the harvesting of eggs, with no preference for a single bird species, though 72 the archaeofaunal evidence favors the waterfowl (Hicks et al., 2016; Hicks, 2010). The midden deposits from the mid-11th to the late 12th-century site of Skuggi (Hörgárdalur) displayed the consumption of domesticated animals, at the same time, supplementing their diet with birds, fish, and marine mammals (Harrison, 2010). Skuggi deposits from Phase IV (mid 11 th- mid 12th c.) contained a total of 383 bird specimens. An interesting aspect of Phase IV and Phase V (mid-late 12th c.) of Skuggi is the recovery of raven bones. It is proposed that the residents of Skuggi consumed ravens because the ‘long bones were broken/chopped’ indicative of disarticulation (Harrison, 2010). Figure 31 shows the long bone elements found in Skuggi, which suggests the consumption of the raven even though it was prohibited by law. Table 6. “Hrísheimar (HRH), Sveigakót (SVK), and Hofstaðir (HST) (McGovern et al., 2006, McGovern et al., 2010). as well as samples from Skútustaðir (Hicks et al., 2010) extending into modern times” from Hicks, 2019. The table below shows a small proportion of the Mývatnssveit archaeofauna and the extensive use of the ptarmigan. 73 The 13th- 14th-century site of Gasir Figure 31. “Long bone elements of Common raven from contexts [010]” from Harrison, 2010. The below image are reported the remains of guillemot/murre remains of the Common Raven from the site of Skuggi in Hörgárdalur. Based on the long bone elements being chopped, there is some speculation of the bird being species (Uria species) and the Atlantic consumed. puffin (Fratercula arctica). Reports explain that the puffin and guillemot were regularly eaten in Iceland and ‘much of Atlantic Europe and may have been used in the seasonally dried form’ (Harrison, 2009). Similarly, the site of Oddstaðir divides into three phases: Phase II (770980 AD), Phase III (1020-1160 AD), and Phase V (1260 – 1320 AD). All phases contained ample remains from seabirds, especially from the murre/guillemot species. Since seabirds are found along the coastal region of Eyjafjörður year around, seabirds were part of the winter diet and considered a potential seasonal food (Harrison, 2012). Lastly, the early Modern to Medieval period site of Eyri in Isafjordur, (18th-19th century), consisted of a local diet comprised of fish and birds from the region. The total NISP for fish consisted of 4,319 bones and birds 128 bones, there is an emphasis on the Guillemot Family (Uria sp.) suggesting the use of seabirds (Harrison, 2008). Icelandic archaeofauna helps understand the dietary choices of particular regions and the types of bird species used such as seabirds, waterfowl, ptarmigan, and eggs. 74 D. PRODUCTS 1. Fuel Birds offer a variety of products from meat, eggs, fat, feathers, wings, and oil. Certain birds, particularly seabirds, can produce an oily/waxy substance that helps waterproof their feathers and keeps them flexible in a marine environment (Mayntz, 2019). As a result, Icelanders used certain birds as a substitute for firewood and oil throughout fuel shortages. At Grimsey, a small Icelandic island, the residents practiced a technique known as wing turf (vœngjatorf) (Beck, 2013). Wing turf implies the use of bird heads, wings of a gull, or poor-quality fulmar chicks and placing them between ‘poor turf strips in stack piles’, which was then burnt as fuel (Beck, 2013; Norðmann, 1946). Moreover, the Great Auk had oily feathers, which functioned as kindling (Anonymous, 1936). Similarly, the feathers of the fulmar served as fuel, its skin removed to put over cuts and bruises as a cream, and its spew used as a light source (Beck, 2013; Kristjánsson, 1986; Norðmann, 1946). Lastly, people used parts of the Gannet for ointments and in oil lamps (Beck, 2013). 2. Eggs The Mývatnssveit region displays the use of sustainability practices towards the harvest of waterfowl eggs. Mývatn residents developed local management strategies with the surrounding bird colonies and wild bird eggs of the area (Hicks, 2019; Hicks et al., 2016; Brewington et al., 2015; McGovern et al., 2006). Mývatn farmers considered eggs ‘a valuable addition to their store of provisions’ and ‘a part of the local diet in the summer’ (Shepherd, 1867). Records from Jarðabók, a land register created in 1712, mentioned how the inhabitants from Mývatn depended on the waterfowl population and described it as a ‘means of livelihood’ (Gunmudsson, 1979). The Jarðabók even quoted the harvesting of duck eggs at 11 farms around Lake Mývatn. The register documented the following number of harvested eggs from the 11 farms: ‘Reykjahlíd (360 eggs per spring), Geirastadir (360 eggs), Skútustaðir (120 eggs, though these benefits decreased in years recent to 1712), Gardur (120 eggs), Kálfaströnd (1,200 eggs), Geiteyjarströnd (360 eggs), Vogar 75 (360 eggs), and Grímsstadir (900 eggs)’, Haganes (180), Syðri-Neslönd, and Ytri-Neslönd; calculating a total of 3,960 eggs each season (Hicks, 2019; Hicks et al., 2016; McGovern et al., 2009; JAM, 1990; Gunmudsson, 1979). Based on the annual egg harvest recorded in the Jarðabók, it is speculated that the numbers were understated to around 4,000 eggs, due to the fear of taxation (McGovern et al., 2009). Another explanation regarding the low numbers reported in Jarðabók could be attributed to general poverty from the preceding years or a smallpox epidemic in the early 18th century, which reduced the number of people who relied on the harvest of eggs (Hicks et al., 2016). Ultimately, by comparing the harvest records from Jarðabók to the material in Gudmundsson’s (1979), the annual harvest numbers from 1941 were ten times higher (about 41,000), than in Jarðabók (McGovern et al., 2009). Additionally, Mývatn farmers implemented strategies to conserve the thriving egg harvest. First mentioned by Shepherd in 1862, the 4-5 egg rule helped farmers to effectively manage the harvest of eggs and the duck population. The method meant leaving 4 to 5 eggs in the nest for the female to incubate because if not, the female would not return to the nest (Hicks, 2019; Hicks et al., 2016; McGovern et al., 2006; Gudmundsson, 1979; Shepard, 1867; Thienemann, 1827). Also, osteological evidence shows that adult ducks were rarely hunted, as a part of a ‘two-part conservation strategy for ensuring continued access to waterfowl eggs’ (Hicks, 2019). These factors ensured a sustainable yield with the harvest of eggs in the Mývatnssveit region (Hicks, 2019; Hicks et al., 2016; Brewington et al., 2015; McGovern et al., 2006). Hence, the Mývatn records from 1900-1950 documented the harvesting season of the waterfowl, averaging around 25,000-30,000 eggs a year (Gudmundsson, 1979). Archaeological excavations at Mývatnssveit can contextualize the historical information. The Mývatnssveit region encountered large concentrations of eggshells (Hrísheimar, Hofstaðir, and 76 Selhagi) implying management strategies towards the harvesting of duck eggs as shown in Table 7 (McGovern et al., 2009). In 2006, excavations at Hrísheimar ‘encountered a dense layer of eggshells averaging 1-2 cm in thickness, which covered a context approximately 1 x 2 meters in extent, which rested directly upon the AD 871+/-2 Landnám tephra, indicating the long history of intensive egg collection’ (McGovern et al., 2009). The Viking age site of Hofstaðir consisted of mainly ptarmigan bones and eggshells indicating a ‘wide pattern of intensive egg collection combined with only minor predation upon adult waterfowl’ (McGovern et al., 2009). More precisely, the Phase I (AD 940-1000) and Phase II (AD 1000-1050) of Hofstaðir unearthed a midden fill labeled G, which unearthed 37 egg concentrations within a 2x2 m unit, with both ptarmigan (Lagopus muta) and duck species (Anatidae sp.) (McGovern et al., 2009). Although the site of Selhagi has direct access to the nesting grounds of Lake Mývatn, the excavation retrieved only a small quantity of cream-light green eggshells, which dates back to the occupation of the site (McGovern & Perdikaris, 2003). The analysis of the bird bones and eggshells from the Mývatn district proposed that the harvest of waterfowl and ptarmigan extends back to the Landnám period (Hicks et al., 2016; McGovern et al., 2006). Zooarchaeological evidence corroborates with the long-term tradition of egg harvesting, which extends back to the early Viking age (Hicks, 2010; McGovern et al., 2006). Three key factors contributed to the long-term management of waterfowl eggs: (1) Icelandic laws protected nesting and breeding sites from being disturbed, especially throughout the incubation period, (2) the locals practiced community engagement through conservation strategies such as the 4-5 egg rule and regulations on the hunting of adult ducks to guarantee the access to the waterfowl eggs (Hicks, 2019; McGovern et al., 2006), and (3) Local and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (LTK) acquired by Mývatnssveit residents throughout time, aimed to properly 77 conserve the harvest of eggs for future generations (Hicks et al., 2016). This includes an understanding of incubation periods, the annual cycle of waterfowl species, and breeding/nesting behavior to secure the long-term success of egg harvesting. Table 7. “Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) Counts with the Presence of Masses of Egg Shell (“Egg” above) for Birds from the Major Mývatn Area Sites” from McGovern et al., 2007. The table below displays the remains of eggs shells found at sites of Hrísheimar, Sveigakót, Hofstaðir, Selhagi, and Steinbogi in the Mývatnssveit region. 3. Falconry In Iceland, the gyrfalcon was netted, caught, and exported because of a practice known as falconry. Falconry, the training of birds of prey to hunt, became an elite practice in Scandinavia, Britain, and mainland Europe (Beck, 2013). The courts of Europe received the gyrfalcon as a diplomatic gift (Potapov & Sale, 2010). As reported by Þórðarson (1957), the oldest evidence on the export of the Icelandic falcon dates back to 1169, during the reign of King Henry II (Beck, 78 2013). In 1539, a map called Carta Marina or better known as the Medieval Nordic Monster Map, created a cartographic depiction of the Scandinavian peninsula. The Carta Marina, as shown in Figure 32, represents the presence, and importance of the gyrfalcon in the Northern region of Iceland. Figure 33. “The Carta Marina” by Olaus Magnus. The image on the left is a marine map that illustrates the presence of the gyrfalcon in the Northern region of Iceland. Figure 32. “Map of the Bessastaðir housing in 1751, the falcon house in the far right is marked E (courtesy of the Icelandic State Archives (ÞI. Drawing collection. Cabinet 6, nr. 4)” from Beck, 2013. The image on the right displays the floorplan for the Bessastaðir, with the falcon house marked as E. In 1663, the town of Bessastaðir constructed a falcon house, which was kept hygienic to keep the falcons healthy, and cleaned 2-3 times a week (Beck, 2013; Þórðarson, 1957). By 1751, the falcon house at Bessastaðir became the largest running facility up until 1763, when it moved to 79 Reykjavik and then shut down in 1868 (as shown in Figure 33) (Beck, 2013). In addition to this, Iceland was split into ten ‘special trapping districts, during the Danish falcon monopoly, with one falcon hunter in charge at each district (Beck, 2013; Þórðarson, 1957). The Danish falcon trade required birds between 2-3 years of age, no broken feathers, and the use of leather hoods and foot straps during transport (Beck, 2013; Glasier, 1978; Þórðarson, 1957). From 1691-1706, the yearly export averaged 100 falcons and by 1764, the trade reached its peaks with 210 falcons (Beck, 2013; Þórðarson, 1957). By the mid-17th century, King Frederick III took charge of the Icelandic falcon trade and sent hunters overseas Figure 34. “Figure 14 Gyrfalcon” from Harrison, 2006. The above image from Denmark to Bessastaðir displays the leg bone of a Gyrfalcon from the site of Gasir. to retrieve falcons. King Frederick’s men negotiated with local falcon hunters and bought all “acceptable” falcons, those of old age or in poor condition were killed (Beck, 2013). In 1651, admiral Henrik Bjelke (seneschal of the Danish King in Iceland) protested the slaughter of falcons at Alpingi because it went against Icelandic law (Beck, 2013; Olafsson & Palsson, 1981). Moreover, midden deposits from the 13th to the 14th-century trading site of Gasir recovered two gyrfalcon elements, as shown in Figure 34. The gyrfalcon bones at Gasir suggest falcon trade, 80 rather than killing caused by old age or sickness (Beck, 2013; Harrison et al., 2008; Harrison, 2007; 2006). In any case, by 1930, the gyrfalcon became a protected species. 4. Feathers Bird feathers can provide several bedding products from mattresses, duvets, and pillows; other products vary from pens, ornaments, or decorative masks. In Iceland, the Common Eider (Somateria mollissima) became the most profitable bird for its down. Eiderdown became a popular commodity for its four unique qualities: (1) lightweight, (2) natural insulation, (3) lofting capacity, and (4) softness. Therefore, Iceland became a top exporter of eiderdown and established eider farms to manage the large colonies. The harvest of eiderdown consists of various stages, such as postmortem gathering, live plucking, collecting, and cleaning. Cold cleaning is the oldest method for cleaning down and the process involves placing the down outside to dry in the sun and removing miscellaneous materials by hand to preserve its quality (Beck, 2013; Kristjánsson, 1986; Ólafsson & Pálsson, 1981). Cleaning down Figure 35. “Restored down house at Laufas in Eyjafjörður originally built in 1877 is a messy practice (courtesy of the National museum, taken by Guðmundur L.Hafsteinsson, 2005)” from Beck, 2013. The figure above is a restored down house in Laufas. because eiders have fleas, which explains the process being conducted outside or in an outhouse 81 (hay barns or cow sheds) (Beck, 2013; Kristjánsson, 1986; Sigurðardóttir, 1985). By the 17th century, the use of down harps, a wooden sieve-like device, was introduced to Iceland possibly from England (Beck, 2013). Around the same time, Icelanders shifted to baking down in large pots for cleaning (Beck, 2013; Kristjánsson, 1986). The sites with down houses included Laufas in Eyjafjörður (as shown in Figure 35), Kerlingarfjörður in Múlasveit, and Illugastaðir at Vatnsnes (Beck, 2013). The construction of down houses facilitated the storage for large quantities of harvested eiderdown. Archaeofauna from the Modern site of Vatnsfjörður in Westfjords discovered remains from eider. Eider remains at Vatnsfjörður favored the theory of down harvesting because it was a significant source of income for Icelandic farmers (Pálsdóttir et al., 2008). Unfortunately, archives from the Icelandic Historical Statistics does not have records on the export of eiderdown until after 1733 (Beck, 2013). VI. CONCLUSION A. Future Research Questions Contrary to the traditional narrative of settlement about inland areas and subsistence patterns, the sites of Sveigakót and Hrísheimar display the long- term sustainable use of avian resources, as opposed to the notion of immediate and severe impact on wild resources. These sites demonstrate one of the first human-avian relationships in Iceland and the development of an intricate relationship with the waterfowl population for egg harvesting. An interesting observation when analyzing the avifauna from Hrísheimar was the high numbers of ptarmigan remains that grew larger throughout the two early occupational phases of the site, which could be attributed to population growth. Whereas, Sveigakót gradually used the ptarmigan throughout its three phases. Further research can help elaborate on the exploitation of the local ptarmigan in the Mývatnssveit region in addition to traditional fowling strategies and instruments. Overall, additional research in 82 the Mývatn area would help provide comparison information to further understand the interaction between birds and early settlers of Iceland. Furthermore, the updated Icelandic avifauna shows a heavy reliance on seabirds, ptarmigan, waterfowl, and eggs. In addition, a breakdown of the bird groups for the five settlement period samples displayed several contrasts between coastal and inland sites. Yet, future excavations and the discovery of more bird remains will certainly change the evolving views and data provided by Icelandic archaeofaunal evidence. This thesis intended to analyze and interpret a sufficient amount of laboratory reports and materials to bring the avian data up to date within the context of specific sites, species distribution, and provide additional insight into the human-avian relationship. Research findings provided an array of information about past interactions between humans and birds, dietary choices, climate/landscape change, past faunal distribution, and fowling activities. A continuous study on the birds that frequent Iceland can contribute further knowledge about past bird behavior, migratory bird patterns, habitat selection, diet, and seasonality. Lastly, this thesis explored a wide range of information that was able to trace the development of the human-avian relationship in Iceland from the 9th to the 19th century. A thorough investigation showed that birds played an important role in Icelandic culture, diet, economy, and daily life. The different representations of birds in traditional literature displayed their symbolic value and cultural significance in Icelandic society, among adding a cultural and social perspective to this thesis. Ethno-ornithology helped elaborate on the relationship between people and birds by exhibiting how Icelanders caught, handled, and utilized birds for commercial and economic value. The interaction among Icelanders and the bird population was more evident through the different activities practiced such as the tradition of fowling, the harvesting of eggs, the consumption and preparation of meat, falconry, fuel use, and the export of eiderdown. Furthermore, archaeological 83 evidence assisted in contextualizing the historical material with avifauna, which strengthened the framework centered around the human-avian relationship. Overall, this paper aimed to demonstrate the use of avian resources throughout time and across archaeological sites in Iceland, generating an understanding of birds as not just food but embedded in a complex relationship with humans and their everyday life. 84 REFERENCES: Alves, R., Leite, R., Souto, W., Bezerra, D., and Ribeiro, A. 2013. Ethno-ornithology and conservation of wild birds in the semi-arid Caatinga of northeastern Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. Amorosi, T. 1991. Icelandic archaeofauna: A Preliminary review. Acta Archaeologica 61: 272-84. Amorosi, T., Buckland, P., Dugmore, A., Ingimundarson, J.H., and McGovern, T.H. 1997. Raiding the Landscape: Human Impact in the Scandinavian North Atlantic. Human Ecology 25 (3), 491518. Amundsen, Colin, Sophia Perdikaris, Thomas H. McGovern, Yekaterina Krivogorskaya, Matthew Brown, Konrad Smiarowski, Shaye Storm, Salena Modugno, Malgorzata Frik, and Monica Koczela. 2005. Fishing Booths and Fishing Strategies in Medieval Iceland: An Archaeofauna from the Akurvik, North-West Iceland. Environmental Archaeology 10(1): 127-142. Anonymous. 1936. “Geirfuglinn.”, Lesbók Morgunblaðsins. Anonymous. 1971. “Gæsir á íslandi Morgunblaðið. Árnason, Jon. 1862-1864. Icelandic Legends, Vol 1. Richard Bentley. Árnason, Jon. 1866. Icelandic Legends…Translated by G.E. Powell and E. Magnusson. With…illustrations, vol 2. Richard Bentley. Ascough PL, Cook GT, Church MJ, Dunbar E, Einarsson Á, McGovern TH, Dugmore AJ, Perdikaris S, Hastie H, Friðriksson A, and Gestsdóttir H. 2010. Temporal and Spatial Variations in Freshwater 14C Reservoir Effects: Lake Mývatn, Northern Iceland. Radiocarbon. Ashcroft, R. E. 1976. A Function of the pairbond in the Common Wider. Wildfowl 27: 101-105. Ballance, Lisa. 2008. Understanding Seabirds at the sea: why and how? Marine Ornithology 35: 127-135. Barraquand, Frederic and Nielsen, Olafur. 2018. Predator‐prey feedback in a gyrfalcon‐ptarmigan system? Ecol Evol. 2018 Dec; 8(24): 12425–12434. Batt, C., Schmid, M.M.E., and Vésteinsson, O. 2015. Constructing chronologies in Viking Age Iceland: increasing dating resolution using Bayesian approaches. J. Archaeol. Sci. 62, 164–174. Beck, Solveig. 2013. Exploitation of wild birds in Iceland from the settlement period in 19 th Century and Its Reflection in Archaeology. Archaeologia Islandica 10, 28-52. 85 Bettina, Julia and Best, Jennifer. 2013. Living in Liminality: An Osteoarcheological Investigation into the Use of Avian Resources in North Atlantic Island Environments. PhD Thesis. Cardiff University. Bjamason, Þorkell. 1949. “Þjóðþættir um miðbik 19. aldar” in: Guðmundsson, Gils (ed.) Þjóðlífsmyndir, pp.7-98, Reykjavík: Iðunn. Bjorklund, Ruth. 2016. Migratory and Resident Birds Explained: Distinctions in Nature. Cavendish Square Publishing, LCC. Boom, Travis., Cade, Tom., and Clum, Nancy. 2008. Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus). In A. Poole (Ed.). The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca: Cornell Lab Ornithology; New York. Bourns, Timothy. 2012. The Language of Bird in Old Norse Tradition. Háskóli Íslands: Hugvísindasvið Medieval Icelandic Studies. Braun, C.E., K. Martin., and L.A. Robb. 1993. White-tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus leucurus). In the Birds of North America, A. Poole and F. Gill., eds. No 68. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C: The American Ornithologist Union. Brewington, S., Harrison, R., Amundsen, Colin., and McGovern, T.H. 2004. An Early 13th c Archaeofauna from Steinbogi District, Northern Iceland. NORSEC Laboratory Report No.13. Brewington, S., Hicks, M., Edwald, A., Einarsson, A., Anamthawat-Jónsson, K., Cook, G., Ascough, P., Sayle, K., Arge, S., Church, M., Bond, J., Dockrill, S., Friðriksson, A., Hambrecht, G., Juliusson, A., Hreinsson, V., Hartman., and Thomas H. McGovern . 2015. Islands of Change vs. Islands of Disaster: Managing Pigs and Birds in the Anthropocene of the North Atlantic. Ed. Arlene Rosen. The Holocene. The Anthropocene in the Longue Durée. Brown, Stephen. 2006. Arctic wings: Birds of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Braided River. Byock, Jesse. 2005. The Prose Edda. Penguin UK. Calow, Peter and Petts, Geoffrey. 2009. The River Handbook: Hydrological and Ecological Principles. John Wiley & Sons. Cesario, Grace M. 2016. Skagafjörður Archaeological Settlement Survey: The Archaeofauna from Stóra-Seyla Area C and Area D. CUNY NORSEC Laboratory Reports No 63. Cesario, Grace M. 2018. Skagafjörður Church and Settlement Survey: Archaeofauna from the 2016 Field Season. CUNY NORSEC Laboratory Report No 66. Church, M.J., Arge, S.V., Brewington, S., McGovern, T.H., Woollett, J.M., Perdikaris, S., Lawson, I.T., Cook, G.T., Amundsen, C., Harrison, R., Krivogorskaya, Y., and Dunber, E. 2005. ‘Puffins, 86 pigs, cod and barley: Palaeoeconomy at Undir Junkarinsfløtti, Sandoy, Faroe Islands’, Environmental Archaeology 10, 179- 197. Coleman, Wendi. 2019. Hrísheimar: Fish Consumption Patterns. Master’s Thesis Hunter College. CUNY Academic Works. Dennis, Andrew., Foote, Peter., and Perkins, Richard. 2006. Law of Early Iceland: Grágás I. Vol 3 of U of M Icelandic Series. University of Manitoba Press. Dugmore, A. J., Church, M. J., Buckland, P.C., Edwards, K. J., Lawson, I. T., McGovern, T. H., Panagiotakopulu, E., Simpson, I. A., Skidmore, P. & Sveinbjarnardóttir, G., 2005. The Norse Landnám on the North Atlantic Islands: An Environmental Impact Assessment. Polar Record 4, 21–37. Dugmore, A. J., M. J. Church., K. Mairs., T. H. McGovern., A. J. Newton., and G. Sveinbjarnardóttir. 2006. “An over-optimistic pioneer fringe? Environmental perspectives on medieval settlement abandonment in Þórsmörk, South Iceland.” Dynamics of Northern Societies: Proceedings of the SILA/NABO conference on Artic and North Atlantic archaeology. Ed. J. Arneborg and B. Grønnow. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark. 335-45. Edvardsson, R., Perdikaris, S., McGovern, T. H., Zagor, N., and Waxman, M. 2004. Coping with hard times in North-West Iceland: Zooarchaeology, History, and Landscape Archaeology at Finnbogastaðir in the 18th century’, Archaeologica Islandica 3, 20-48. Edvardsson, Ragnar. 2005. Hrísheimar 2004 Interim Report. Reykjavik, FSI. Edvardsson, R., McGovern T.H., and Batey, C. 2005. Hrísheimar 2004: Interim Report, Unpublished Field Report, Fornleifastofnun Islands, Archaeological Institute Iceland, FS 223– 0330, Reykjavik. Edvardsson, R and McGovern, T.H. 2007. Hrísheimar 2006: Interim Report, Unpublished Field Report Fornleifastofnun Islands, Reykjavik: Archaeological Institute Iceland, FS 223- 0322, Reykjavik. Faulkes, Anthony and Perkins, Richard. 2003. The Folk-Stories of Iceland. Viking Society for Northern Research Text Series. University College London. Facts on File. 2009. Norse Mythology A to Z. Infobase Publishing. Feeley, F., Cesario, G., Coleman, W., Crow, K., Huaylinos, A., Levasseur, J., Lysa, O., Ojeda, D., Rivers, A., and Ryan, T. 2018. The Final Report on the Archaeofauna from Context 147 at the Medieval Fishing Station at Gufuskalar, Western Iceland. NORSEC Laboratory Report # 65. Frei, Karin M., Coutu, Ashley N., Smiarowski, Konrad, Harrison, Ramona, Madsen, Christian K., Arneborg, Jette, Frei, Robert, Guðmundsson, Gardar, Sindbæk, Søren, M., Woollett, James, Hartman, Steven, Hicks, Megan, and McGovern, Thomas, H. 2015. ‘Was it for walrus? Viking 87 Age settlement and medieval walrus ivory trade in Iceland and Greenland’, World Archaeology, DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2015.1025912. French, Kenneth. 1981. Practical Poultry Raising. Peace Corps Information Collection & Exchange, 1981. Gardarsson, A and Einarsson, A. 2004. Resource Limitation of Diving Ducks at Mývatn: Food Limits Production. Aquatic Ecol 38: 285-295. Gísladóttir, Hallgerður. 1999. Íslensk matarhefð, Reykjavík: Mál og menning. Glasier, P. 1978. Falconry and Hawking, London: B.T. Batsford Ltd. Gooders, John. 2001. Birds of the British Isles & Europe. Silverdale Books. Gosler, Andrew. 2012. Ethno-ornithology: Birds, Indigenous Peoples, Culture and Society. Earthscan. Grecian, Virgil. 2004. The Effects of Physical and Biological Parameters on the Breeding Success of Razorbills (ALCA TORDA l. 1758) on Machias Seal Island. Thesis. The University of New Brunswick. Green, W. C. 1893. The Story of Egil Skallagrimsson, Being an Icelandic Family History of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries, London: Elliot Stock. Gudbergsson, G. 2004. Arctic Charr in Lake Mývatn: The Centennial Catch Record in the Light of Recent Stock Estimates. Aquatic Ecol 38:271–284. Gudmundsson, F. 1979. The Past Status and Exploitation of the Mývatn Waterfowl Populations. Oiks 32(1/2): 232–249. Gunnarsson, T.G., Appleton, G.F., Gislason, H., Gardarsson, A.R., Watkinson, A., and Sutherland, W.J. 2006. Large-Scale Habitat Associations of Birds in Lowland Iceland: Implications for Conservation. Biological Conservation 128, 265-275. Hagge, Rebecca. 2011. Building a Better Bird. Cornell. Naturalist Outreach Practicum. Halldórsson, O. (ed.) 1904. Jónsbók: Kong Magnus Hakonssons Lovbog for Island, vedtaget paa Altinget 1281 og Réttarbætr, de for Island givne Retterbøder af 1294, 1305, og 1314. Christiania: n.p. Hambrecht, G., Kuchar, P., Pallsdottir, A., and Woollett, Jim. 2006. Preliminary Report of the Archaeofauna at Skálholt, Iceland. NORSEC Laboratory Report # 23. Hambrecht, George. 2007. Preliminary Report of the Archaeofauna at Skálholt, Iceland. NORSEC Laboratory Reports No. 35. 88 Hambrecht, George. 2009. Zooarchaeology and the Archaeology of Early Modern Iceland. Archaeologies of the Early Modern North Atlantic. Journal of North Atlantic. Special Volume 1: 3-22. Hanson, Thor. 2011. Feathers: The Evolution of a Natural Miracle. Basic Books. Harris, Mike. 1984. The Puffin. T & AD Poyser, Ltd. England, 224 pp. Harris, Mike and Wanless, Sarah. 2011. The Puffin. London: Poyser. Harrison, Ramona. 2006. Interim Report of faunal analysis from the 2005 Excavations at Gásir, Eyjafjörður, N Iceland. CUNY Northern Science and Education Center. Harrison, Ramona. 2007. Interim Report of faunal analysis from the 2006 Midden excavation at Möðruvellir, Eyjafjörður, N Iceland. CUNY Northern Science and Education Center. Harrison, Ramona. 2007. The Church at Gásir, Eyjafjörður, An Interim Report of faunal analysis from the 2004 and 2006 Excavations. NORSEC Laboratory Report No. 38. Harrison, Ramona. 2008. Status Report on the faunal analysis from the 2007 Midden excavation at Möðruvellir, Eyjafjörður, N Iceland. NORSEC Status Report. Harrison, R., Alexander, E., Feeley, F., Gorsline., Hicks, M., and Mitrovic, S. 2008. Faunal Analysis from the 2005 Excavation at Aðalstræti Nr. 10 in Reykjavík, Iceland. NORSEC Zooarchaeology Laboratory Report No. 40. Harrison, Ramona., Hicks, Megan., Colligan, Paddy., and Schreiner, Amanda. 2008. Preliminary Assessment of the faunal remains from the 2007 Midden Excavation in Eyri, Westfjords. NORSEC Zooarchaeology Laboratory No.42. Harrison, Ramona. 2009. The Gásir Area A Archaeofauna: An Update of the Results from the Faunal Analysis of the High Medieval Trading Site in Eyjafjörður, N Iceland. CUNY, New York, NORSEC Laboratory Report No. 44. Harrison, Ramona. 2010. Skuggi in Hörgárdalur, N. Iceland: Preliminary report of the 2008/2009 archaeofauna. NORSEC Zooarchaeology Laboratory REPORT No. 50. Harrison, Ramona. 2011. Myrkárdalur in Hörgárdalur, N. Iceland: Brief Summary of the 2008/2009 Archaeofauna. HERC/NORSEC Zooarchaeology Laboratory report No. 57. Harrison, Ramona. 2011. Möðruvellir in Hörgárdalur, N. Iceland: General Overview of the Archaeofauna Analyzed from the 2006-08 Midden Mound Excavations. HERC/NORSEC Zooarchaeology Laboratory REPORT No.59 89 Harrison, Ramona. 2012. Oddstaðir in Hörgárdalur, N. Iceland: Report of the 2009 Archaeofauna. HERC/NORSEC Zooarchaeology Laboratory REPORT No. 58. Harrison, Ramona. 2014. The Siglunes Archaeofauna, I. Report of the Viking Age and Medieval Faunal Remains. NORSEC Laboratory Report No. 62. Hartman, Steven., Ogilvie, A. E. J., Ingimundarson, Jon Haukur., Dugmore, A.J., Hambrecht, George., McGovern, T.H. 2017. Medieval Iceland, Greenland, and the New Human Condition: A case study in integrated environmental humanities. Global and Planetary Change, Volume 156, p. 123-139. Hreinsson, Sigurdur. 1997. The Complete Sagas of Icelanders: Including 49 Tales, vol. 1. Reykjavik: Arnemagnean Manuscript Institute. Hicks, M. T. 2010. Skútustaðir: An Interim Zooarchaeological Report following the 2009 Field Season. CUNY NORSEC Laboratory Report No. 48. Hicks, M., Einarsson, H., Anamthawat- Jonsson, K., Edwald, A., Thorsson, A., and McGovern, T.H. 2016. Community and Conservation: Documenting Millennial Scale Sustainable Resource Use at Lake Mývatn, Iceland. In. C. Isendahl & D. Stump (Eds.), Handbook of Historical Ecology and Applied Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hicks, Megan. 2019. Community, Ecology, and Modernity: Faunal Analysis of Skútustaðir in Mývatnssveit, Northern Iceland. Dissertation. CUNY Academic Works. Hilmarsson, J. Ó. 2000. Icelandic Bird Guide. Bay Foreign Language Books (pub.). Holden, William., Nadeau, Kathleen., and. Porio, Emma. 2017. Ecological Liberation Theology: Faith- Based Approaches to Poverty and Climate Change in the Philippines. Springer. Holder, K and Montgomerie, R. 1993. Rock Ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus). The Birds of North America. No 51. Howell, Brain and Paris, Jenell. 2019. Introducing Cultural Anthropology: A Christian Preparative. Baker Academic. Hund, Andrew. 2014. Antarctica and the Arctic Circle: A Geographic Encyclopedia of the Earth's Polar Regions, vol.2. ABC-CLIO. Ives, A.R., Einarsson, A., Jansen, V.A.A., and Gardarsson, A. 2008. High- Amplitude Fluctuations and Alternative Dynamical States of Midges in Lake Mývatn. Nature 452:84–87. Jakobsson, Sverrir and Halfdanarson, Guðmundur. 2016. Historical Dictionary of Iceland. Rowman & Littlefield. 90 Jónasson, Jónas. 1945. Islenzkir þjóðhættir, Reykjavík: Jónas og Halldór Rafnar. Jones, E. P., Skinisson, K., McGovern, T. H., Gilbert, M. Y. P., Willerslev, E., and Searle, J. B. 2012. Fellow travelers: a concordance of colonization patterns between mice and men in the North Atlantic region, BMC Evolutionary Biology, 12, 35–43. Klipi, Mikael., Lorentsen, Svein., Petersen, K., and Einarsson, Arni. 2015. Trends and Driver of Change in Diving Ducks. Nordic Council of Ministers. Krivogorskaya, Yekaterina & McGovern, Thomas. 2004. Preliminary Assessment Report of an Archaeofauna from Eyri, Isafjord, NW Iceland. NORSEC Zooarchaeology Laboratory Report No. 25. Kristjánsson, Lúdvík. 1980. Íslenzkir Sjávarhættir I. Reykjavík. Kristjánsson, Lúðvík. 1986. Islenzkir sjávarhœttir V, Reykjavík: Menningarsjóður. Kristjánsson, Thordur. 2016. Breeding ecology of the Common Eider (Somateria mollissima) in Breiðafjörður, West Iceland. Faculty of Life and Environmental Science. Ph D. University of Iceland. Lawson I. T., Gathorne-Hardy, F.J., Church, M.J., Einarsson, A., Edwards, K., Perdikaris, S., McGovern T.H., Amundsen, C., and Sveinbjarnardottir, G. 2005b. Human Impact on Freshwater Environment in Norse and Early Medieval Mývatnssveit. Iceland, in: Jette Arneborg & B. Grønnow (eds) Dynamics of Northern Societies, Proceedings of the SILA/NABO conference on Arctic & North Atlantic Archaeology 2004, National Museum of Denmark Copenhagen, 375-383. Lindow, John. 2002. Norse Mythology: A Guide to Gods, Heroes, Ritual, and Beliefs. Oxford University Press. Lowe, D.J and Hunt, J.B. 2001. A summary of terminology used in tephra-related studies. In: Juvigne, E.T., Raynal, J.-P. (Eds.), Tephras: Chronology, Archaeology, CDERA.D. Editeur, Gaudet. 1. Les Dossiers de I 'Archeo-Logis, pp. 17–22. Mayntz, Melissa. 2019. Do all birds migrate? No! The Spruce. Online. Mayntz, Melissa. 2019. Preening: How and Why Birds Preen. The Spruce. Online McGovern, Thomas H. 1999. Preliminary Report of Animal Bones from Hofsta6ir, and Area G Excavations 1996-97. Archaeologica Islandica. 1 :35-41. McGovern, T.H., Perdikaris, Sophia., and Tinsley, Clayton. 2001. Economy of Landnám: The Evidence of Zooarchaeology. In Approaches to Vinland. Sigurdur Nordal Institute Studies, 4 A. Wawn and Thorunn Sigurdardottir, eds. pp. 154-165. Reykjavik: Sigurdur Nordal Institute. 91 McGovern, T.H. and Perdikaris, Sophia. 2002. Preliminary Report of Animal Bones from Hrísheimar, Mývatn District, Northern Iceland. NORSEC Laboratory Report No 6. McGovern, T.H. 2003. Herding Strategies at Sveigakót, N Iceland: An Interim. Reykjavik, FSI. McGovern, T.H. and Woollett, J. 2003. Midden Investigations at Hrísheimar, N Iceland 2003. Unpublished Field Report, New York, New York: NORSEC, CUNY Northern Science and Education Center, 2003/6. McGovern, T.H. and Perdikaris, S. 2003. Report of Animal Bones from Selhagi, Mývatn District, Northern Iceland. NORSEC Zooarchaeology Laboratory REPORT No.7. McGovern, T.H., Harrison, R. Brewington, S., and Kuchar, P. 2006. Report of Archaeofauna from Undir Sandmúla and Undir Bálabrekku, Bárðdælahreppur, N Iceland. CUNY NORSEC Laboratory Report # 29. McGovern, T.H., Perdikaris, S., Harrison, R., Smiarowski, K., and Manigault, N. 2006. An Interim Report of the Viking Age Archaeofauna From Hrísheimar, Mývatn District, N Iceland. NORSEC Laboratory Report No. 32. McGovern, T.H., Perdikaris, S., Einarsson, Á., and Sidell, J. 2006. Coastal connections, local fishing, and sustainable egg harvesting: patterns of Viking Age inland wild resource use in Mývatn district, Northern Iceland. Environmental Archaeology, 11 (2), 187-205. McGovern, T.H., Vésteinsson, O., Fridriksson, A., Church, M., Lawson, I., Simpson, I.A., Einarsson, A., Dugmore, A., Cook, G., Perdikaris, S., Edwards, K.J., Thomson, A.M., Adderley, Newton, A., Lucas, G., Edvardsson, R., Aldred, O., and Dunbar, E. 2007. Landscapes of settlement in Northern Iceland: historical ecology of human impact and climate fluctuation on the millennial scale. American Anthropologist. New Series 109(1): 27–51. American Anthropological Association. McGovern, T. H., Perdikaris, Sophia., Mainland, Ingrid., Ascough, Philippa., Ewens, Vicki., Einarsson, Arni., Sidell, Jane., Hambrecht, George., and Harrison, Ramona. 2009. The Hofstaðir Archaeofauna. CUNY Northern Science and Education Center. McGovern, T.H., Smiarowski, K., and Harrison, R. 2013. Hard Times at Hofstaðir? An Archaeofauna circa 1300 AD from Hofstaðir in Mývatnssveit, N Iceland. HERC- NORSEC Laboratory Report No. 60. McGuire, Erin-Lee. 2006. Archaeology in Iceland: Recent Developments. ScandinavianCanadian Studies, Vol 16 pp. 10-26. McKinnell, John and Anlezark, Daniel. 2011. Myths, Legends, and Heroes: An Essay on Old Norse and Old English Literature. University of Toronto Press. 92 Merizon, Richard., Skinner, John., and Spathelf, Miles. 2018. Movement, Survival, and Nest Monitoring of Rock Ptarmigan in Game Management Unit 13B, 2013–2017. Final Wildlife Research Report ADF & G/DWC/WRR. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2005. Wading Birds. Wildlife Habitat Management Institute. Nettleship, D.N. and T.R. Birkhead. 1985. The Atlantic Alcidae: The Evolution, Distribution, and Biology of the Auks Inhabiting the Atlantic Ocean and Adjacent Water Areas. Academic Press, Inc., London. 574 pp. Nevins, Debbie., Latif, Zawiah., and Wilcox, Jonathan. 2016. Iceland: Cultures of the World. (Third Edition). Cavendish Square Publishing. Nielsen, Ó. 1999. Gyrfalcon predation on ptarmigan: Numerical and functional responses. Journal of Animal Ecology, 68, 1034–1050. Norðmann, Rev. Jón. 1946. Menn og minjar III: Grímseyjarlýsing, Reykjavík: H.F.Leiftur. North Atlantic Biocultural Organization. 2010. NABONE Zooarchaeological Database 9th Edition Recording System Codes. Nuttall, Mark. 2005. Encyclopedia of the Arctic. Routledge. Ogilvie, A. E. J. 1984a. The past climate and sea-ice record from Iceland. Part 1: Data to A. D. 1780, Climatic Change 6, 131-152. Ogilvie, A. E. J. 1984b. The impact of climate on grass growth and hay yield in Iceland: A. D. 1601 to 1780. (In) Climate Changes on a Yearly to Millennial Basis (Eds N.-A. Morner and W. Karlen), Reidel, Dordrecht, 343-352. Olafsdóttir, R., Schlyter, P., and Haraldsson, H.V. 2001. Simulating Icelandic Vegetation Cover during the Holocene Implications for Long-Term Land Degradation. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography 84 (4), 203-215. Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography. Ólafsson, Eggert and Pálsson, Bjami. 1981. Ferðabók Eggerts Olafssonar og Bjarna Pálssonar: Um ferðir þeirra á Islandi árið 1752-1757, Volume 1, 4th ed., (translated by Steindór Steindórsson), Reykjavík: Bókaútgáfan Öm & Örlygur. Owen, M & Black, J. 1990. Waterfowl Ecology. Blackie and Son Ltd. Pálsdóttir, Albina. 2006. Archaeofauna from Skriduklaustur East-Iceland: Preliminary Report 2002 Excavation Season. CUNY Northern Science and Education Center. 93 Pálsdóttir, Albina., Gorsline, Marjorie., and McGovern, Thomas H. 2008. Archaeofauna from Vatnsfjörður, Westfjords, Iceland. NORSEC Zooarchaeology Laboratory Report. CUNY Northern Science and Education Center, New York, NY, USA. Payne, S. 1973. Kill-off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: the mandibles from Asvan Kale. Journal of Anatolian Studies 23. Perdikaris, S., Amundsen, C., and McGovern, T.H. 2002. Report of Animal Bones from Tjarnargata 3C, Reykjavik, Iceland. CUNY Northern Science and Education Center. Perdikaris, Sofia and McGovern, Thomas. 2005. King Alfred, King Knut, and the Codfish: New Evidence for the Beginning of North Atlantic Commercial Fisheries. Paper presented at the 2005 Society for American Archaeology Meetings, Salt Lake City, September 12-17. Petersen, Aevar. 2004. Traditional Seabird Fowling in Iceland. The Islands Book Trust. Pietz, P., Thompson, F., and Ribic, Christine. 2012. Video Surveillance of Nesting Birds. Volume 43 of Studies in Avian Biology. University of California Press. Potapov, Eugene and Sale, Richard. 2010. The Gyrfalcon. A&C Black Robinson, Bryce., Booms, Travis., Bechard, Marc., and Anderson, David. 2019. Dietary Plasticity in a Specialist Predator the Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus): New Insight into Diet During Brood Rearing. Journal of Raptor Research, 53(2), 115-126. Ross, Margaret. 2011. A History of Old Norse Poetry and Poetics. DS Brewer. Rowe, S and Jones, I. L. 2000. The enigma of Razorbill Alca Torda Breeding Site Selection: Adaptation to a Variable Environment? Ibis 142: 324-327. Sayle, K. L., Cook, G. T., Ascough, P. L., Hastie, H. R., McGovern, T. H., Hicks, M. T., Fridriksson, A., Einarsson, Á., and Edwald, Á. 2013. Application of 34S analysis for elucidating terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems: evidence of animal movement/ husbandry practices in an early Viking community around Lake Mývatn, Iceland. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 120: 531–544. Sayle, K.L., Hamilton, W.D., Cook, G. T., Ascough, P. L., Gestsodittir, H., and McGovern, T. H. 2016. Deciphering Diet and Monitoring Movement: Multiple Stable Isotope Analysis of the Viking Age Settlement at Hofstaðir, Lake Mývatn, Iceland. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 160: 126-136. Schilling, Robert. 1992. Augurs and Augury, Roman and European Mythologies. University of Chicago Press. Schmid, M.M.E., Dugmore, A.J., Vésteinsson, O., and Newton, A.J. 2017. Tephra isochrons and chronologies of colonization. Quaternary Geochronology, 40, 56-66. 94 Sigurðardóttir, Anna .1985. Vinna kvenna á íslandi í 1100 ár, Reykjavík: Kvennasögusafh Islands. Sigurðardóttir, R., Ogilvie, A.E.J., Júlíusson, Á.D., V. Hreinsson., and Hicks, M.T. 2016. Water and Sustainability in the Lake Mývatn Region of Iceland: Historical Perspectives and Current Concerns, pp. 155-192 in J. Shroder and G. Greenwood (eds), Mountain Ice and Water: Investigations of the Hydrologic Cycle in Alpine Environments. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Sigurðardóttir, R., Newton, A., Hicks, M.T., Dugmore, A.J., Hreinsson, V., Ogilvie, A.E.J., Júlíusson, Á.D., Einarsson, Á, Hartman, S., Simpson, I.A., Vésteinsson, O., and McGovern, T.H. 2019. Trolls, Water, Time, and Community: Resource Management in the Mývatn District of Northeast Iceland, in: Ludomir Lozny & T.H. McGovern (eds) Global Perspectives on Long Term Community Resource Management Springer Co NY pp 77-101. Sigurðsson, Jón., Þorkelsson, Jón and Bókmenntafélag, Íslenska. 1857. Diplomatarium Islandicum. Í. prentsmiðju S.L. Möllers. Sigurðsson, J.V. 2008. Iceland, pp. 571-578. in S. Brink and N.S. Price (eds), The Viking World. London: Routledge. Simek, Rudolf. 1993. Dictionary of Northern Mythology. Cambridge. D.S. Brewer. Simpson, I. A., Guðmundsson, G., Thomson, A. M., and Cluett, J. 2004. Assessing the Role of Winter Grazing in Historic Land Degradation, Mývatnssveit, North-East Iceland. Geoarchaeology 19, 471–503. Short, William. 2015. The Sagas of Icelanders as a Historical Source. Smith, K. 1995. Landnám: The Settlement of Iceland in Archaeological and Historical Perspective. World Archaeology 26, 319-347. Sóknalýsingar Vestfjarða I-II .1952. Reykjavík: Samband Vestfirzkra Átthagafélaga. Smith, K. T and A. J. Dugmore. 2006. “Jökulhlaups Circa Landnám: Mid- to late first millennium AD floods in South Iceland and their implications for landscapes of settlement.” Geografiska Annaler, Series A: Physical Geography 88: 165-76. Smith, Cameron. 2019. Principles of Space Anthropology. Springer Nature. Spaulding, Waterman and Russel, Chapman. 1914. Iceland: Horseback Tours in Saga Land. R.G. Badger. Spurr, Eric and Milne, Henry. 1976. Factor Affecting Laying Date in the Common Eider. Wildfowl 27: 107-109. 95 Stefansson, Vilhjálmur. 1906. Beast and Bird Lore. The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 19, No. 75. Sturluson, Snorri. 1992. The Prose Edda. University of California Press. Tylor, Edward Burnett. 1920 [1871]. Primitive Culture. New York: J.P. Putnam’s Sons. Tinsley, Clayton and McGovern, T. 2002. Zooarchaeology of Adalstraeti 14-16, 2001: Assessment Report of the Post-Medieval Contexts. NORSEC Laboratory Report Number 3. Thienemann, F.A.L. 1827. Reise im Norden Europas, vorzuglich in Island, in den Jarhren 1820 bis 1821. Carl Heinrich Reclam, Leipzig. Thorarinsson, S. 1979. The Postglacial History of the Mývatn area. Oikos32:17–2 Þórðarson, Bjöm. 1957. íslenzkirfálkar, Reykjavík: Hið íslenzka bókmenntafélag. Þorgilsson, Ari and Ellwood, Thomas. 1898. The Book of the Settlement of Iceland. Oxford University. Ulijaszek, Stanley. 1995. Human Energetics in Biological Anthropology. Volume 16 of Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology. Cambridge University Press. USFWS. 2004. A Blueprint for the Future of Migratory Birds: Migratory Bird Program Strategic Plan 2004-2014. Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA. 21 pp. http:/www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/mbstraatplan/mbstratplan.htm USFWS. 2008. Seabirds of the Pacific Northwest. Government Printing Office. Vésteinsson, Orri. 2001. Archaeological investigations at Sveigakót 1998-2000. Reykjavik, FSI. Vésteinsson, Orri. 2002. Archaeological investigations at Sveigakót 2001. Reykjavik, FSI. Vésteinsson, Orri. 2003. Archaeological investigations at Sveigakót 2002.Reykjavik, FSI. Vésteinsson, Orri. 2005. Archaeological investigations at Sveigakót 2004. Reykjavik, FSI. Vésteinsson, Orri. 2006. Archaeological investigations at Sveigakót 2005. Reykjavik, FSI. Vésteinsson, Orri., T.H. McGovern, and Christian Keller. 2002. Enduring Impacts: Social and Environmental Aspects of Viking age Settlements in Iceland and Greenland. Archaeologica Islandica 2:98-136. Vésteinsson, Orri and T. H. McGovern. 2012. The Peopling of Iceland. Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 45 Issue 2, pp 206-218. 96 World Migratory Bird Day. 2019. Birds. Online. World Intellectual Property Organization. 1998. UNESCO-WIPO World Forum on the Protection of Folklore, Phuket April 8 to 10. WIPO. Ziviani, Pedro. 2012. The Raven in Icelandic Folklore and Wonder Tales: Friend or Foe? ÞJÓ004G Being Iceland. 97