Leiden University Student Repository

Lange, Pieter de (2026)

Faeces are not waste: Comparison of the contribution of different archaeobotanical methodologies applied to 14th- to 17th-century Leiden ‘cesspit’ deposits to assess people’s wealth

Research master thesis | Archaeology (research) (MA/MSc)

For this thesis, four samples from three 14th- to 17th-century multipurpose pits from Haarlemmerstraat 101-111/Stille Rijn 8-9 (Leiden, the Netherlands) were subjected to palynological and plant macrobotanical analysis. The results of these plant micro- and macroremain analyses were utilised to evaluate to what extent and why the palynological signals differ from the macrobotanical signals within and between the samples and what these signals can indicate about the wealth of the pit users. Meanwhile, the thesis addresses methodological considerations regarding (sub)sampling, identification, taphonomy and preservation. The major reasons why differences between palynological and macrobotanical signals prevail in terms of level of identification, composition and quantity within and between the analysed samples concern identification, taphonomic and preservation factors and consumption and disposal behaviours of the pit users. Notably, pollen and plant macroremains are different kinds...Show moreFor this thesis, four samples from three 14th- to 17th-century multipurpose pits from Haarlemmerstraat 101-111/Stille Rijn 8-9 (Leiden, the Netherlands) were subjected to palynological and plant macrobotanical analysis. The results of these plant micro- and macroremain analyses were utilised to evaluate to what extent and why the palynological signals differ from the macrobotanical signals within and between the samples and what these signals can indicate about the wealth of the pit users. Meanwhile, the thesis addresses methodological considerations regarding (sub)sampling, identification, taphonomy and preservation. The major reasons why differences between palynological and macrobotanical signals prevail in terms of level of identification, composition and quantity within and between the analysed samples concern identification, taphonomic and preservation factors and consumption and disposal behaviours of the pit users. Notably, pollen and plant macroremains are different kinds of plant parts. Therefore, comparing their signals—a ground-breaking, challenging and time-consuming approach—is not comparing ‘like with like’. Plant life and sexual strategies, like the sexual system, life cycle strategy and fruit, seed and pollen dispersal and productivity influence what plant remains could be represented and in what quantity. Given that most remains probably arrived in the pits due to the disposal of faeces containing the remains and of rubbish (containing plant remains and/or with remains attached to it), the signals include anthropogenic biases. Dissimilarities in consumption and disposal behaviours amongst the pit users caused differences in signals. Different consumed plant products can leave different archaeobotanical traces. Differences in preservation, product preparation and chewing further affect the potential of a plant taxon to be recorded. Also, differences in product provenances could influence archaeobotanical signals. Pollen may have entered the pits due to people consuming honey too. Identification uncertainties of most palynological remains and many macroremains hinder determining what taxa are exactly represented. Furthermore, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Ambiguities in interpreting the uncovered archaeobotanical spectra also arise because it is unknown how the pits and backyards in which they were situated looked like; the morphology of the pits and backyards can namely also affect the taxonomic representation. Nevertheless, the remains give clues about some consumption and disposal behaviours of some pit users. Additionally, this thesis assesses what the generated palynological and macrobotanical datasets can indicate about the wealth of the pit users, by examining diversity, rarity and exclusivity and quantity of plant products as reflected in the micro- and macroremain assemblages. However, these criteria focussing on availability and accessibility of plant products do not offer conclusive insights into the wealth of the pit users, particularly given identification uncertainties regarding the plant remains. Some hints of wealth of the pit users might be seen in Samples 312.1, which could be associated with a wealthy brewery family and contained crab/lobster remains probably indicative of wealth, 580.1 and 588.1. It is impossible to reconstruct the full diversity and quantity of plant products exploited by the pit users. Further to this, direct correlations between a large diversity and/or quantity of plant products including rare and exclusive products signalled archaeobotanically and wealth of the pit users are not necessarily causative. Multidisciplinary approaches could provide more insights into the wealth of the pit users.Show less

Author

Lange, Pieter de

Faculty

Faculty of Archaeology

Specialisation

Archaeobotany

Supervisors

Field, M.H.

ECTS Credits

35

Evaluation

Recommended

Language

en