Ecology and Food Consumption of Late Medieval Tartu, Estonia (14th-15th Centuries)

Ecology and Food Consumption of Late Medieval
Tartu, Estonia (14th-15th Centuries)
Ülle Sillasoo (Tartu)
Archaeobotany in the context of food investigation
For the investigation of food of the Middle Ages, both written and nonwritten
sources are used. From the archaeological point of view, cesspits or
Iatrinesi are excellent deposits due to the !arge nurober of plant as well as animal
remains preserved. Although plants from natural habitats are also represented in
the latrines, major attention is concentrated on the investigation of edible plants,
parts of which had passed through the human stomach, or were designated as
kitchen refuse. In Iatrines, these edible plant remains are the most reasonable
field of study.
If possible, the interpretation of archaeobotanical data is carried out in
accordance with written sources. Referring to Schofield and Vince, the natural
scientific analyses in the investigations of Iatrines only produce uncertainties
and „local anecdotal information. „2 Such an impression can be explained by the
fact that frequently, when trying to reconstruct the historical picture, the results
of research in many different disciplines are insufficiently used. These auxiliary
disciplines are in our case, for example, geobotany, ecology and plant sociology,
palaeo-ecology, and ethnobotany. Ethnographie models, contemporary sources,
Settlement geography, Settlement archaeology, and experimental studies are also
to be included, as listed by Willerding.3 Nevertheless, there are good examples
of investigation of latrines from a natural scientific point of view. Knörzer
I In the archaeological context the term ‚wooden construction‘ is used. The archaeological
investigation of latrines is presented by Betty Arndt, „Methodische und interdisziplinäre
Fragestellungen bei Untersuchungen an städtischen Kloaken: Forschungsstand und
Perspektiven“ (Hausarbeit zur Erlangung des Magistergrades (M.A.) des Fachbereichs
Historisch-Philologische Wissenschaften der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, 1986),
typewritten.
2 John Schofleid and A. Vince, Medieval Towns (London: Leicester University Press, 1994),
180.
3 Ulrich Willerding, „Paläo-ethnobotanische Befunde über die Lebens- und Umweltverbält
·nisse im Mittelalter,“ in Determinanten der Bevölkernngsentwicklung im Mittelalter, eds.
Bemd Herrmann and RudolfSprandel (Weinheim: Acta Humaniora, 1987), 109-125.
6
analysed four latrines from the first to the eighteenth centuries in Cologne and
nine deposits from the nineth to the eighteenth centuries in Duisburg, producing
reasonable evidence of the proportions of various plants consumed during those
time periods.4 For instance, the ratio of cultivated and wild fruits for Cologne
was 10:1, for Duisburg 1.8: 1. Differences occur not only among the individual
constructions, but between the towns as weil, probably due to their dissimilar
size and importance. At the investigation in Kiel, a valuable spiee, meleguetapepper,
known as paradise grain in medieval cookbooks, was found in the plot
which belonged historically to a wealthy merchant and ship owner in the
sixteenth century.s However, if valuable information is to be gained,
archaeological material has to be put into its historical context in order to avoid
the „local anecdotal information“ and the misunderstandings caused by the
different approaches of the investigation methods.
Non-written sources have their advantages and disadvantages. One of the
disadvantages has already been mentioned, the question of interpretation being
different from the language used in the historical research. Moreover, there are
many complications conceming the preservation of plant material which was
used for food. In archaeological excavations, less plant species are found than
the written sources record. In Göttingen, 33 plant species are recorded in the
medieval account roll, 23 of them are archaeologically proven.6 The nurober of
plants in a low German cook book from the fifteenth centuries is 42.7 Knörzer
has outlined the main reasons why many plants cannot be preserved.S He lists:
I) the treatment of foodstuff during tbe preparation, grinding and
smasbing in mortar (crops and spices);
2) cooking or boiling (vegetables), chewing when eating;
3) digestion;
4) activity of insects who live on the faeces;
5) bacterial destruction and rotting of the material.
4 Karl-Heinz Knörzer, „Koproanalyse, ein neuer Beitrag zur Geschichte der Ernährung,“ in
Recent Developments in Palaeoethnobotany, ed. Jane M. Renfrew (Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 1991) , 39-50.
5 Julian Wiethold, „Plant Remains from Town-Moats and Cesspits of Medieval Kiel (Schleswig-
Holstein, Germany),“ in Res archaeobotanicae: Proceedings ofthe Nineth Symposium,
Kie/1992, eds. H. Kroll and R. Pastemale (Kiel: Oetker-Voges-Verlag, 1995), 359-384, as
weil as Maren Hellwig, „Paradieskörner Aframomum melegueta (Roscoe) K Schum. – Ein
Gewürz aus Westafrika im frühneuzeitlichen Göttingen,“ in ibid., 39-47.
6 Ulrich Willerding, „Ernährung, Gartenbau und Landwirtschaft im Bereich der Stadt,“ in
Landesaustellung Niedersachsen 1985, Stadt im Wandel: Kunst und Kultur des Bürgertums
in Norddelllschland 1/50-1650,Ausstellungskatalog, vol. 3, ed. Cord Meckseper (Stuttgart
and Bad Cannstatt: Edition Cantz, 1985), 569-605.
7 Hans Wiswe, ed., „Ein mittelniederdeutsches Kochbuch des 15. Jahrhunderts,“ Braunschweigsi
chesJahrbuch, 37 ( 1956), 19-51.
8 Karl-Heinz Knörzer, „Aussagemöglichkeiten von paläoethnobotanischen Latrinenuntersuchungenffhe
prospects of the palaeo-ethnobotanical exarnination of cesspits,“ in Plants and
Ancient Man, eds. W. van Zeist and W. A. Casparie (Rotterdarn: Balkerna, 1984), 331-344.
7
Different plants bave varying resistance to tbese destructive factors;
therefore, not all plants eaten are present in tbe arcbaeological material.
Nevertbeless, tbere are excellent conditions for tbe preservation of material in
waterlogged sites wbere tbe last two factors are reduced to a minimum. Tbe
information is complemented by tbe plant remains from otber types of
preservation conditions, for example, crops. Altbougb tbey usually do not occur
in latrines; tbey are perfectly preserved in a cbarred condition, and useful for
food investigation from tbe point of view of staples.
Tbe advantages of arcbaeobotanical researcb are tbat it can provide
accurate information about plant species: tbe scientific names and the stage of
domestication. In arcbaeological material wild fruits, seldom found in written
sources, are presented. Moreover, arcbaeological material provides information
in a higber concentration, wbile written evidence is often isolated and scattered
in various documents.9 The investigation also provides bypotheses about tbe
differences and similarities between towns and countryside. lt bas been
considered tbat rural people bad to be content witb tbe crops cultivated on tbeir
own Iands and gatbered from the surroundings.IO Even tben, they first bad to
accomplish the duties requested by tbeir Iandlords before adding comfort to their
own Jives.“ According to Bebre, trading in food was predominantly done
between towns or a town and several villages. Investigations bave demonstrated
tbat food in individual villages could differ more than tbe food in individual
towns as far apart as tbe Mediterranean and Nortb Germany.l2 Tbe consumption
of food in towns included goods attained by long-distance trade and by trading
in tbe market places, and therefore townspeople enjoyed a ricber selection than
people in the countryside.
Tbe investigation of medieval food based on arcbaeobotanical evidence
in medieval towns can answer similar questions as arcbaeological excavations
in general, and allows conclusions to be drawn about long-distance and local
trade, the exploitation of natural resources, and the social differentiation of the
inhabitants of tbe sites. In addition, witb tbe belp of arcbaeobotanical
investigation environmental aspects of everyday life are to be discovered,
because, beside providing information of wbat was eaten, plant remains reflect
tbe environment in wbicb they were growing.
9 Francis J. Green, „The Archaeological and Documenatry Evidence for Plants from the
Medieval Period in England,“ in Plants andAncient Man, 99-114.
10 Karl-Ernst Behre, „Die ersten Funde von Nahrungspflanzen aus dem Mittelalter Bremens,“
Bremisches Jahrbuch, 70 (1991), 207-227.
II Kerstin Griftin, „Plant Remains,“ in De arkeologiske utgravinger i Gamlebyen, Oslo [The
archaeological excavations in the Old Town, Oslo], vol. 5, ed. Erik Schia (Ovre Ervik:
Akademisk Forlag, 1988), 98-99.
12 Behre, Die ersten Funde.
8
\0
Fig. 1: The excavations of medieval latrines in Tartu
LINN
KESKAJAL
T􀋀r!ut.Dor;pattou mo􀊾en
a􀊿e
Mui 1:H.o
Fig. 1 Tartu (Dorpat) in the
Middle Ag es: 1-VIII, Churches;
IX, Town Hall; X, Public
Scales; XI, Pharmacy; XII,
Merchant Guild; XIII,
Craftsmen Guild; J, and 2,
excavation sites; a, the market;
b, the bakers‘ street; c, the
pedlars‘ street; d, the butchers‘
streets; c, street the to Public
Seal es.
Material and Method of Investigation
The archaeological excavations under consideration were carried out in
two areas in Tartu (see fig. 1). On site one (I) the work was in progress during
1988-1989 and 1991-1992, on site two (II) in 1992. Both areas were situated in
the centre of the town near the market-place, and in both of the sites, well-like
wooden constructions were unearthed. They were identified as 1atrines due to
the great amount of berry seeds in the fill material, and, on the first site, due to
the building methods which were also characteristic of them.13 The genera1
information from the sites and the preliminary ana1ysis of the constructions
were in accordance with the different approaches of the archaeologists who
worked on the sites. On the first site, the archaeological investigation of the
constructions was designed to answer questions about
1) hygiene,
2) disposal of garbage,
3) the nature of food, and
4) 1iving conditions.14
On the second site, the investigation was intended to answer questions
about
1) the possibi1ities of usage of the construction other than as a Iatrine;
2) the origin of the remains in the construction.15
I n this contribution, mainly the questions concerning the nature of food
will be answered.
On site 1,16 six constructions with eight samples ( l a, 1b, 4, 5, 6a, 6b, 7,
and 11 ), and in site II, one construction with three samples from different layers (A, B, and C) were deemed appropriate for further investigation. The dating and
the preliminary archaeologica1 analysis of these constructions were the major
determinants for making this choice. These constructions were dated back to the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.l7 The amount of the material in each sample
was 300 ml. This was presumed to be sufficient, if not for a thorough
investigation, then at least to characterise the constructions and to draw general
conc1usions. The sarnples were broken down into water, soaked, washed on
13 This cornrnent was made by Rünno Vissak, one ofthe archaeo1ogists at the site.
14 Rünno Vissak, „Tartu VII kvartali jäätmekastid suletud leiukompleksidena: Diplomitöö“
[Cesspits ofthe VII. quarter in Tartu] (Graduation work, Tartu University, 1992).
15 Toivo Aus, „Tartu Rüütli ja Küütri t. nurgakrunt. 1992. a. linna-arheoloogiliste kaevamiste
aruanne“ [Results of the archaeological excavation at the comer of Rüütli and Küütri
streets] (Tartu: The Archive of Tartu Museum, 1993), typewritten.
16 Ülle Sillasoo, „Tartu 14.-15. sajandi jäätmekastide taimeleidudest“ [Plant remains in Iatrine
samp1es of Tartu in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries], in Tartu arheoloogiast ja
vanemast ehitusloost/Zur Archäologie und älteren Baugeschichte Tartus, Tartu Ü!ikooli
Arheo1oogia Kabineti Toimetised, 8, ed. Heiki Valk (Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kiijastus,
1995), 1 16.
17 Rünno Vissak, „Der Fundstoff aus den Holzkästen des VII. Quartals in Tartu,“ TA
Toimetised, Ühiskonnateadused, I (1994), 71 -77.
10
sieve meshes of 0.5 and 1 mm aperture, and dried. The plant remains, mainly
seeds, were separated from the material and identified.
The results of archaeobotanical research of Iatrine samples
In the samples, 90 taxa of plant remains were distinguished. For the
representativeness of the nurober of taxa in the samples, see fig. 2. 69 taxa were
identified as species, and 1 3 as genera or groups of species. The rest
corresponded to other units of classification. The total number of taxa from site
I was 79, 58 of which were identified as species; the number of taxa varied
from 23 to 43 per sample. On site II, the total number of taxa found was 5 1 , 41
of which were identified as species. The nurober of taxa varied between 26 and
37 per sample.
Fig. 2: Number of taxa in the samples from site I and site II
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
I a I b 4 5 6a 6b 7 11
site I
A 8 C
site n
Predominantly, the plant remains were seeds or seed fragments in an
uncarbonised state. For further quantitative analysis the fragments were
recounted into plausible number of whole seeds on the basis of previous
practical experience. The same was done at the evaluation of amounts of seeds
which during the identification procedure were designated in some cases as
numerous, for example strawberry and poppy seeds. Consequently, the number
of seeds in the samples varied from 180 to 2266 on site I, and from 1 1 6 1 to 4463
on site II (see fig. 3).
11
Fig. 3: Number of seeds in the samples from site I and site II
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
I a 1 b 4 5 6a 6b 7 II
sit e I
A 8 C
site II
A few leaves and fruit skins of berries, and the fragments of apple
endocarps were found. For the !ist of species found in different constructions,
the number of seeds, and the detailed categorization of the findings, see table 1.18 Edible plants are shaded.
In addition to the plant remains from soil samples, a number of bigger
pips and fruit-stones were unearthed separately in the wooden constructions. In
construction # 1 , the shells of hazelnut and walnut, and the fruit-stones of
bullaces and sour cherries occurred. In construction #6 and #7, which are
considered together here, the fruit-stones of sour cherries and bullaces, the shells
of hazelnut and walnut, and the pips of apples and grapes were found. In
construction # 1 1 , the remains of sour cherry, hazelnut, and grape were
uncovered.
The state of the findings
In most cases, the seeds were in a non-carbonised state, which is to be
expected in waterlogged sites. Nevertheless, among the plant material, the
charred and half-charred remains of oats, barley, pea, sedge, meadow sweet,
timothy grass and creeping buttercup appeared. The condition of the oat and
barley seeds indicates their potential usage. They were probably meant to be in
the food prepared on the hearth, but had met with some misfortune. The fact that
timothy grass and creeping buttercup were also found in a carbonised state can
be explained in that they were weeds among the cereals. At the same time,
meadow sweet could have been dried in a warm place near the hearth in the
kitchen and had perhaps fallen down to become a part of the carbonised refuse.
ts For the English names of weed plants, see Gareth Williams and Käroly Hunyadi, Dictionary
of Weeds of Eastern Europe: Their Common Names and lmportance in Latin, Albanian,
Czech, German, English, Greek, Hungarian, Po/ish, Romanian, Russian, Serbo-Croat, and
Slovak (Budapest: Akademiai Kiad6, 1987).
12
w
Table l: Plant remains in the Tartu samples
s seeds
f fragment
sf seed fragment
shf shell fragment
sk skin of fruit
Abbreviations
ef fragments of endocarp
d diaspore
Jeaf
g glumes
p pressed
c carbonised
nc non-carbonised
hc half-carbonised
n numerous findings
Agrostemma githago L. f(6) f lc f f f 2, f-2 com cockle f F s, f-2
Alchemilla vulgaris group I common lady’s mantle S
􀂆􀃡􀂇· 􀂈“‚􀂉rm t􀂊Un:􀂋􀂌:li 􀂍􀂎“‚􀂏􀂐’l\:!“‚-G}1 . .,. …, 􀁼ü.l<ltit􀁽i ..h ::􀁾Jf, 􀇬􀁿􀂀tt􀂁· 􀂂􀂃·􀂄:d! 􀂅 Anthemis asvensis L. I com chamomile S Anthemis tinctoria L. Betonica officinalis L. (cf.) Brassica campestris L. 7 I 9 10 II 7 3, f 7, f dyer’s chamomile common betony wild twnip •• f.-1 s l,f s,F-1 .j>.
sp. 6 25 4, c 9 3 I I I sedges
���iM��mtm���Rii!li!e-�B
Centaurea cyanus L. ff 7, C C comflower s, f= I
(SO)
Chenopodium album L. 96 46 23 30 19 7 S 28 Cat·hen ’12 17 II S
Chenopodium cf. uri>icum upright goosefoot I S
L.
Chcnopodium rubrum L.
Cirsium arvcnsc L.
red goosefoot s
· crceping thistlc
Galium aparinc L. clcavcrs 12, f, p 6, C, p 3, f, p s, f-1, p
Galium sp. I bedstnlw 6 S
�·iit�ä��!BJit�SHJm!ffif�oot��g;�
GramincaciPoa sp. I grssses s, g
Gramineaelother 7 I, g I grssscs/mcadow-grsss 2 S
lp.
Hicraciwn pilosclla group I bawkweed I S 􀁇mml s
Labiatae 2
10
Lynehis llos-cuculi L.
Vl
Polygooum aviculare L. I
Polygooum Polygonum convolvulus L. I f f f f
Polygonum hydropipcr L.
Polygonum lapathifolium L. 7 7 7 6 I 6
Potcntilla anserina L. 2
Poteotilla crecta L.
Prunella vulgaris L. I 3 I I
nipplewort
coclr.ooßower
lcnotgrass
amph.ibious bistort
I 3 black-bindwcd I, f
water-pcppcr
I 2 pale pcrscarii a 3, f
silvcrwced
I tonncntil
commoo sciJhcal
I I
4 f
f
6 I
22
s
s
s
s
s
S, f-1
sf-1
S, f-.1
s
s
s
Rumex crispus I f curledlbroad-leaved I f •• f-1
LJobtusifolius L. dock
0\ Scelerantbus annuus L I Gennan knot-grass s
Scirpus sylvaticus L. 2 I 2 I wood club-rush s
Sileoe sp. I f f I S, f=l
Sinnpis arvensis L. (cf.) 2 2 charlock s
Solvia sp. (cf.) 13 s
Stellaria graminea L. l I lesser sticbwort s
Stellaria media L. 7 3 4 I 2 3 common chickw® 5 10 s
Thlaspi arvense L. I, f f I field pennycress S, f=l
Tussilago farfara L. (cf.) I coltsfoot s
Unica dioica L. I I common nettle I s
Unica urens L. 2 annual nett1e I I s
17
In tbe material, tbe fragments of many species were found. On the one
band, this is generally tbe normal state of archaeological findings deposited in
the earth during tbis relatively long period of time. On tbe other band, the state
of the seeds is probably connected with the preparation of food, for instance in
the case of dill seeds, which were recorded to be compressed, hemp seeds,
which are streng enough to be resistant to full damage, flax, com cockle,
comtlower and bazelnut. The state of the half-carbonised pea can be explained
by the treatment of tbe seeds before cooking. Com cockle and comtlower, as
weeds, were probably contained in tlour, possibly made of rye; whereas the
fragments of hazelnuts resulted when the nuts were shelled. In many cases,
though, the fragments were produced on entrance to the digestive tract of a
human being.
Numerous stones of sour cherry accompanied by fewer ones of plums and
bullaces were found separately from the soil samples inside tbe constructions. A
few nut shells were unearthed, walnut sbells usually divided in two, and
hazelnut sbells frequently intact. The other finds separate from the soil samples
were found in the surrounding earth. A few grape pips were also revealed there.
Other remains inside the constructions
In addition to seeds, several otber remains occurred in the fill material of
the constructions. They were pieces of brownish woolen clotb, fragments of
feathers, hairs, eggshells, fragments of a crayfish, fish bones and scales, leaves
and stems of mosses, spruce needles, and the manure of smaller animals. The
remains can be interpreted as the residue of food or of food preparation
(feathers, bairs, eggshells, fragments of tbe chitin crust of crayfish, fisb scales
and bones) and of bygiene ( clotb and mosses ). The examples of animal manure
prove tbe mixed function of tbe constructions, confirmed by tbe occurrence of
spruce needles, the remains of tree bark, and pieces of yarn. Insects as well were
present among tbe finds. Tbey are typical components of Iatrine material.
The frequency of occurrences of edible plants
The frequency of occurrences of edible plants in the samples was
evaluated (table 2). In tbe table, the second column (NS) shows tbe number of
samples from site I and II, in which the plant occurred, the second column (%)
shows tbeir frequency of occurrence in percents. The composition also included
some species of weed plants, wbicb are not edible, but are quite well-known in
the yields of cereals, for instance, rye (com cockle and comtlower). In the table,
the finds separate from the soil samples are incorporated. The task of the
evaluation was to examine the regularity of the potential foodstuffs in tbe
samples.
18
Table 2. Frequency of occurrences of edible plants in the samplesl9
“ “ . !lj.
fig
strawberry
cereals20
apple
opium poppy
raspberry
bilberry/cowberry/cranberry
black currant
rowanberry
corn cockle
hemp
cloudberry
caraway
hop
dill
celery
hazelnut
Ecological analysis of the material
sour cherry
cornflower
bullace and plum
walnut
red currant
blackberry
rock bramble
9 1 grape
flax
82 parsley
64 oat
55 bearberry
barley
45 millet
36 pepper
pea
1 8
9
In further analyses, the plant species were divided into anthropogenic
and ecological groups; the fonner stressing plant usage, the latter indicating
natural conditions at the sites. The division into ecological groups was made
according to Jacomet et aJ.21 The purpose of the anthropogenic analysis was to
examine the proportians of various human related plants in samples, for example
locally cultivated and imported plants, weeds, ruderals, and wild plants. Figs. 4
and 5 show that groups of edible plants fonned 38% of the plants on site I, and
52% of the plants on site li. This indicates how important it is to interpret the
finds from the wooden constructions in tenns of food. Among the other plants,
wild plants dominated on site I, while on site II both weeds, ruderals, and wild
plants were equally present. In conclusion, when ruderals, weeds, and especially
wild plants indicate the natural conditions around the constructions, then a
relatively manifold vegetation was developing on site I, while on site II the
analysis revealed only the modest importance of local vegetation. When
19 The nurnber in brackets indicates that sour cherry, bullaces and plurns, walnuts and
hazelnuts were found in not differed constructions #6 and #7; the identification of oat
species was not always clear, I is of comrnon oat, 4 are of the species of oat.
20 One ofthe cereals was identified as wheat Triticum sp., see above.
21 Stefanie Jacornet, Christoph Brombacher, and Martin Dick, Archäobotanik am Zürichsee,
Berichte der Züricher Denkmalpflege, Monographien, no. 7 (Zürich: Orell Füssli Verlag,
1989), 259-276.
19
examining the division of the number of seeds in the anthropogenie groups, the
seeds of wild fruits predominated in both sites.
Fig. 4: Anthropogenie division of speeies from site I
16’l6
•=eals
Otrui•
Dhm.
• importcd plant&
0 oil and fibs
• imported plants
7’% 0 oil and fibrc: plants
Owildfruit
􀁬-
(]) ruderals
􀁭wild plants
The objeet of eeologieal analysis was to reveal differenees in the
eomposition and the proportion of various ecologieal groups of plants (see figs.
6 and 7). Their variety may Iead to the eonclusion that wild plants did not
beleng to the local vegetation on the site only, as they were from many
ecologieal groups, but that they were introdueed to the site by people or their
domestieated animals as the traees of eonsumption. When eonsidering ruderal
plants, the importanee was more or less the same in both sites as well as the
representativeness of high sedge, shore plants, and shore pioneers, which is
related to the situation of the town on the river. Plants from high-moors, forest
20
groves, sparse mixed forests, shady forests, and forest clearings indicate the
circumstances adjacent to the town, the areas where the wild fruit were
collected. Weeds wbich occurred in the samples are related to cultivation and
the consumption of the plants, the traces of which were not discovered from
among the Iatrine material. The percentages of root-crop weeds and cereal-crop
weeds were similar on both sites. Root-crop weeds dominated over cereal-crop
weeds, whlch may Iead to the conclusion of the importance of vegetables in
food, and probably the cultivation of some of these crops on the sites. Locally
cultivated plants dominated over imported plants on both sites.
Fig. 6: Ecological division of species from site I
8%
Dhigh sedge
• high moor plants
IDD shore plants
• sparse rnixed forest
II forest clearing plants
• cultivated plants
lliJ root-crop weeds
C] ruderals of humid areas
2 1
2%2% 3%
5%
5%
15%
1.:::1 shore pioneers
eJ rniddle-zone shore plants
. 0 forest grove plants
m shady forest plants
􀀯moderate meadow plants
m imported plants
• cereal-crop weeds
• ruderals of moderate areas
Fig. 7: Ecological division ofspecies from site li
Ohigh sedge
• high moor plants
IDI shore plants
16%
• plants of sparse mixed forest
II forest clearing plants
• cultivated plants
llll root-crop weeds
Bruderals of humid areas
2% 2%
m shore pioneers
EI middle-zone shore plants
0 forest grove plants
m shady forest plants
W moderate meadow
m imported plants
• cereal-crop weeds
• ruderals of moderate areas
Plant components in food: a comparative study
In order to determine the peculiarities in tbe consumption of different
possible households, the comparison between the constructions of site I and site
li concerning plant components in food was carried out (see fig. 8). The disadvantage
of the analysis is that it is not very representative, because the number
and amount of the samples was relatively small. Nevertheless, the advantage of
tbe analysis is that it demonstrates the occurrence and possibly also the
importance of various plant components in food. One of the characteristics for
all the constructions was the remarkable prevalence of wild fruit, which was
approximately two or three times I arger than the proportion of locally cultivated
22
fruit (apples, plums, cherries). The proportion of the Iocally cultivated fruit was
in turn !arger than the proportion of imported fruit (figs and grapes), although in
some cases, for example in constructions #4 and # 1 1 of site I, these proportions
were equal. The importance of locally cultivated fruit was !arger in constructions
#6 and #7, site I, due to the nurober of fruit-stone remains which were
discovered separately from the regular samples.
Fig. 8: Groups of edible plants in the wooden constructions
100!6
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
111 114 11S 116 111 VII Total II
I
􀁤=“
􀁥 legumes
11!-.seu�>� ..
=oilplants
m imponcd aplca
Dheri»
••uu
0 wild&uit
0 ;mponod rn.;t
• cullivatcd fruit
Nuts were present in alt of the samples, apart from constructions #4 and
#5, site I; in constructions # 1 , #6, and #7, site I, both walnuts and hazelnuts were
found. In most of the cases only herbs occurred. Just in construction # 1 , site I,
locally cultivated herbs and imported spices (pepper) were equally present. The
proportion of oil plants formed an equa1 part with fruit; oil plants were absent in
construction #7. No remains of vegetables were found. These, legumes and
cerals are the most rarely found plant remains in archaeological samples.
Legumes were present only in construction #6. Cereals formed approximately
the same proportion as locally cultivated fruit in the constructions.
In a further stage of investigation, a comparison was carried out between
non-written and written sources. The only known written sources are the Town
Council protocols of Tartu from the sixteenth century which provide pieces of
evidence on the trade of a nurober of foodstuffs, including the regulations of
marketing in connection with staples.22 This source was found unsuitable for a
comparative numerical analysis, and other possibilities were looked for. Late
medieval Livonian towns experienced strong German influence to the extent that
a Livonian cook- and household-book from as late as the beginning of the
22 Enn Tarvel, „Tartu hansalinnana XIII sajandist Liivi söjani.“ [Tartu as a Town in the
Hanseatic League from the 13th c. until the Livonian War], in Tartu ajalugu [The history of
Tartu], ed. J. Pullat (Tallinn: Kirjastus Eesti Raamat, 1980), 27-60.
23
nineteenth century,23 has been claimed to contain recipes similar to the medieval
German ones.24 Street names were considered to be relevant for deciding about
German origin of the inhabitants of the plots.25 Therefore, two late medieval
German cook-books were chosen for a comparison to the archaeological remains
of food in late medieval Tartu.26 Because the subjects of interest in this current
work were plant components in food, the sources are analyzed in terms of
vegetarian food (see also table 3).
As suggested by Green, there are two possibilities for the comparison of
archaeological and historical sources. Plant species can be compared, as weil as
their frequency of occurrence.27 In this srudy, the comparison is carried out on
the basis of the percentages of occurrence of edible plants. For the
archaeobotanical finds (ARCH in figures), this means the percentage of
occurrence of plants in the constructions; for cook-books (MHG and MLG in
figures), the percentage of occurrence in recipes.28 On the one band this
comparison shows what kind of information is recorded in the cook-books, and
what is available in the archaeological material. On the other hand, although the
information which is recorded in the cook-books indicates the possibilities of
consumption, at the same time it also reflects the influences in relation to the
existence or non-existence of gardening traditions, trade connections, social
stratification, and the eating habits of the authors of the collections. The
archaeological information first of all depends on the conditions of preservation
of the material, and subsequently on the above-mentioned circumstances
regarding the cook-books. In figure 9, the importance of different plant groups
in the sources is demonstrated. A more detailed analysis is presented in the subsections
where each of the plant groups is considered separately.
23 Livländisches Koch-und Wirtschaftsbuch …. for große und kleine Haushaltungen, 2nd ed.
(Riga: Deubner, 1 8 17).
24 Helmut Birkhan, „Some Remarks on Medieval Cooking: The Ambras Recipe-Collection of
Cod. Vind. 5486,“ in Food in the Middle Ages: A Book of Essays, ed. Melitta W. Adamson
(New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1 995), 95, 97. He suggests that the Teutonic Knights
of the Livonian Order rnight have transmitted the traditions of German cookery to Livonia.
25 See also Niina Raid, „Tartu vanimad linnamüüri- sisesed tänavad/Die ältesten Tartuer
Straßen innerhalb der Stadtmauer,“ in Tartu arheoloogiast ja vanemast ehitusloost/Zur
Archäologie und älteren Baugeschichte Tartus, Tartu Ülikooli Arheo1oogia Kabineti
Toimetised, 8, ed. Heiki Valk (Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli K.iJjastus, 1 995), 12 9-140.
26 Hans Wiswe, ed., „Ein mittelniederdeutsches Kochbuch des 1 5. Jahrhunderts,“ Braunschweigisches
Jahrbuch, 37 (1 956), 1 9- 5 1 (further MLG); Hans H ajek, Das Büch von güter
spise, Aus der Würzburg- Münchener Handschrift, Texte des späten Mittelalters 8, eds. W.
Stammler and E. A. Philippson (Berlin: Erleb Schmidt Verlag, 1 958) (further MHG).
27 Frances J. Green, „Archaeo1ogical and Do cumentary Evidence,“ 99-114.
28 The nurober of recipes in the cook-books was 101 in the MHG and I 03 in the MLG cookbook,
the nurober of constructions was 7. Each of those three values wer e set equa1 to
I 00% , from which the percentage of occurrence was dependent.
24
N
V>
F Appl
F Apples (wild) 3S
F Applcs (sour) 10, 26, 27, 32a, 43, SI
F Apples
(goderlingh)
F Applcs
(vlagccppc:le)
F Apples
(moeseppelle)
F Apples (schoene) 69
F Quincc 12,68
F Peers 10, 12, 31, SO, 81,91
F Padrunghenben:n
F Chenies 1, 7
F sour chcrries 82-85
Table 3: Plant components in the MHG and MLG cook-books
Abbreviations for the groups
C cereals
F fruit
H herbs
L legumes
N nuts
0 oil plants
S spices
V vegetables
W wild fruit
I II, 14
6
0 2,3,42
0 2, 3,42
0 42
2 14, 16, 17, 103
6 3, 40, 43, 95, 103
0 7, 13
2 4, 40,47, 80
4
0
3
0
4
s
2
4
0
IV
0\
􀀞􀁌ml.!􀁍n.;niili 1Iil..-,r‘!E ··lli!iili ·􀃝rr.·�� :.;n,.J.t“.:ml􀀟lfl·· 􀀠r;·11-nl.:s;:. ttr.􀁉:• 􀀡r􀀢 _ ..Tr!J .\ll9:􀁅1E􀁆;.:.t. q!Jrr.tJrt -􀁃:􀁄 • • -ut􀁊m􀁋mr.lliE…: : „.:;-.nr •••• n ,. 􀃟ft“+W‘!!I􀃠…..- ….. • •. ·1 r. .sn􀃞.. .
,
.. , ‚J“!􀊻􀊼J -… .,.,.a.􀊽.. io . _…. „.􀊷.. … ..•..􀊸 􀊹t t. r:f!•::.•;.a 􀁶…, ..H.“. .􀊺􀁷􀁸􀁹‘!““􀁺““-􀁻::!! .. :;.􀁴 -􀁵
0 􀇫 I
F plums (spilinge) 9 I 0
F Bullaces
F Sloes 0 II
F Figs 0 3, 8, 20, 25, 44-46
F Grapcs (and raisins) 32a I I, 8, 9, 19, 20, 25,28-30,44,46, 51,54 13
F sour grapes 34 I 0
F Welsche winber 60 I 0
F Derries 0 13
W blackbaric:s 0 15
N almonds I, 3, 13, 24, 39, 55-58, 62-64, 71-74, 74a. 75-80, 83 25 I, 3, 6, 8, 25, 38, 45,48, 52,56-58,72,81, 83, 86, 100 17
N walnuts 59, 61, 80,93 4 5, 47, 53, 83
H dill 0 53
H parsley 7, 8, 15, 18, 19, 21, 35, 48,52 9 20, 33,44, 46, 64, 71, 91, 93, 94, 96, 103 II
H caraway 17, 21, 26, 27a, 31, 40,48 7 31 I
H cumin 0 31
H nutmeg Oowcr 0 31
H mustard 16,48 2 10,38 2
H sage 7, 14,15,17-19,21,34,37,52 10 51,64
H mint 21,41 2 0
H pennyroyal 21 I 0
H tansy (T. balsarnita) 0 32
H tansy (T. vulgare) 7 I 0
H agrimony 0 103
H com!Tey 0 85
H aquilegia 0 41
H roses 4 I 78,79
H hops 14
s ging er 2, 4, I S, 18-20, 23, 27a, 28, 29, 49 I I 1-6, 12-13, 16-17,21, 2S, 28-29, 4S, 47, 49-SI, S3-SS, S9, 81,101
s anis 10, 18, 19, 28, 29, 48, so 7 S4 2S
s galingale 2, 27a, 84 3 82
s cloves 2,27a 2 S9
s cardamom 0 59
s ci.nnamon 15 I 63, 65, 71
s nuttneg 0 59,82
s nubnegtrcc flowas 27a I 81
s melegucta pc:ppcr 0 81
s pc:ppcr 4, Sa, 10-12, IS, 17-23, 25-27, 27a, 29, 31, 38, 40, 48-SO, 86 2S 1-5, 9, 16, 21, 25, 31-34, 36, 42-44, 46, SO-S2, SS, S9, 64-61, 18, 80, 91, 94, 97-98, 101 34
s pc:ppcr (gelcr)
IV
0 103
-.J s pc:ppcr ( guda) 0 12, 13 2
s pc:ppcr ( scharpcr) 0 91
s pc:ppcr (schlichter) 0 7
s udoary 0 82 I
s saffroo I I , IS, 11, 20, 26-28, 31, 36, 38, 39, 42, 46-48, 80, 94, 9S 18 2, 3, 9, 16, 20, 21, 2S, 31-34, 36, 42-46, 49, SI, S2, 61, 62, 6S, 67, 70-72, 79, 83, 96, 100-101 32
0 opium poppy 0 42
0 bemp 0 52,53
L grccn bcans 31 I 0
L peas 4S I 3, 8, 20, 25, 44-46
L groen peas 0 20
C riee I , 3, SI, 3, S, SS-S8, 64, 74a, 75-77, 77a, 78, 83 17 2,6,9, 10, 12, 24,31,40,S3, 72, 81 II
c millet 47 I 0
N
00
C ryc (brcad)
C wheat(flour,brcad) 9, 10, 1 1,20,21, 22,24, 26, 31, 37,43, 47, SO, SI,6S,66, 67, 70, 74,80,82 21 4 , 9, 1S, 2S, 36,37,42, 44,S2 .,63,6S,68,69, 71, 74, 78, 84-87, 101
V root-parslcy
V garlic
V tumip
V shallot
V onions
V leck
V carrot
32, 34, 42, 49
3S
33,41
16,26
64
79
0 6
71
I 27
2
27
21
0
0
0
Fig.9: Groups of edible plants in archaeobotanical (ARCH) and written sources
(MHG, MLG)
100’16
90’16
80’11.
70’11.
60’11.
50’11.
40’11.
30’11.
20’16
10’16
0’11.
ARCH MHG MLG
P2l cmals
1>\! resuma
IIJ V<ß“tabl ..
B oil plants
0 hnporndspices
o-
. …..
[J wild fruit
0 import 60 j 50
40
30
20
10
0
ARCH MHG MLO
[] bitberry ttc,
• rowanberry
0 eloudberry
0 blockberry
8 •oeklnmbk
0 beart>my
Strawberry is apparently one of the most commonly quoted wild fruit in
medieval sources on food at all. Strawberries with sugar have been described as
a course of festive meals,36 and purchases of strawberries have been registered
in a monastic account book.37 Concerning cultivation, there are records of
strawberries grown in the gardens from fourteenth-century France, and from
sixteenth century Germany and England.38 The domestication of strawberries
has not been evidenced in late medieval Tartu. Wild fruit is mentioned as
35 MLG recipe 15. Brombeermus. They were also used for wine preparation in medieval
cookery; see Scully, The Art of Cookery, 157.
36 Cf. a meal given by the canon Job Rorbach, on June 3, 1 500, in Frankfurt; Alwin Schultz,
Deutsches Leben im XIV. und XV. Jahrhundert, 2. Halbband (Vienna, Prague, and Leipzig:
F. Tempsky, 1 892), 497.
37 Gerhard Jaritz, „Die Reiner Rechnungsbücher (1300-1477) als Quelle zur klösterlichen
Sachkultur des Spätmittelalters,“ in Die Funktion der schriftlichen Quelle in der Sachkulturforschung.
Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für mittelalterliche Realienkunde Österreichs,
I (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischhen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1 976), 193.
38 Bertsch, Kulturpflanzen, 1 52-55.
3 1
requmng due payment in the Norwegian sources. Although they were not
accounted as food, laws were issued to prohibit gathering of wild fruit from the
land which belonged to another owner.39
Jmported fruit
Fig -was a common imported fruit in the archaeological samples from late
medieval Tartu (see figure 12). A high number of seeds were preserved. Figs are
the indicators of southem trade, likewise grapes, although the goods could have
had several intermedianes before they reached as far north as Estonia. However,
figs are not present in the MHG cook-book, probably because their not crucial
roJe was conditioned by restricted trade Connections of the ecclesiastical institution.
Also raisins are missing there. In the MLG collection, figs together
with raisins were included in recipes for the preparation of stuffing, fasting
dishes, in fritter mixtures which probably required a sweetener, while in the
MHG collection, sour grapes are recorded for preparing sauces.40 Grapes probably
reached late medieval Tartu as raisins, in the case that they were not local-
Fig. 12: Imported fruit in archaeobotanical and written sources
100
90
80
70
f 60 􀁂 􀀈 50
40
gr>p<
30
20
1 0
0
ARCH MHG MLG
ly cultivated.41 Since in the samples from late medieval Tartu a low number of
grape seeds were found, there is the question of whether or not the raisins were
39 Griffin, „Plant Remains,“ 98-99.
40 MLG recipes 8. Gefollter frischer Hecht, 9. Hechtrogenwurst, 20. Großes Ei, 44.
Speisekuchen von Hechtrogen, 46. Gefol/te Eier. 51; Gefol/ter Aal (raisins only), 54.
Veilchenlatwerge (raisins only), 1. Weinheermus (grapes only); MHG recipes (32a) Wilt du
machen einen agraz (sour grapes), 34. Ein salse (sour grapes), (60.) Von krapfen (welsche
grapes).
41 Hermann Fischer, Mittelalterliche Pflanzenkunde (Munich: Verlag der Münchener Drucke,
1 929), 142. The cultivation has been considered to be developed in some areas, for ex-
32
destoned before drying. The removal of seeds from raisins is prescribed in a
recipe of a French cook-book by Master Chiquart.42
Nuts
More traces of local hazelnuts than imported walnuts were found in the
archaeological excavations in Tartu (see figure 13). In two medieval German
cook-books only walnuts are recorded in connection with fasting food, the oil
and milk of nuts, mashes and condiments.43 In medieval cookery, nuts were also
sprinkled on cakes,44 and they were steeped in honey or melted sugar to produce
candies.45
Fig. 13: Nuts in archaeobotanical and written sources
ARCH MHG MLG
Herbs
In the archaeological material from Tartu, the seeds of several herbs
were more abundantly found than in the written sources (see figure 14).
Differences appeared also in the importance of individual herbs. Parsley was the
most frequently cited herb in the cook-books: chopped parsley leaves used on
the one hand, as a colorant and, on the other band, as savoury in egg and fish
ample, Northern Gennany, England, and the Baltic countries, where they are claimed to
have grown at the southern walls of the houses.
42 „The raisins mentioned above should be carefully seeded, … „; Scully, The Art ofCookery,
224-25.
43 MLG recipes 5. Wa/nußmus, 47. Kirschtrank, 53. „Vlotkese“; MHG recipes (59., 61.)
Einen krapfen, (80.) Will du machen ein nuezzenmU.s, (93.) Einenfladen vonjleische.
44 Ibid., 204.
45 Ibid., 57.
33
dishes in particular.46 In the archaeological material, parsley seeds were found in
a modest amount. Parsley seeds, as weil as celery seeds uncovered in the
archaeological material, but not prescribed in cook-books, could have been
related to other purposes than food in late medieval Tartu, for example as
remedies. These plants, as weil as mint and violet, are listed in a thirteenthcentury
medical manuscript on herbs from Tallinn.47 Mint seeds were present in
archaeological material, but obviously mint leaves mentioned in the MHG cookbook
only, listed together with parsley, sage and caraway in a meat mixture.48 In
medieval cookery, herbs were also used to be bound into a bunch and boiled
together with meat and pottage.49 Violet seeds were present in archaeological
material, and obviously violet petals in the two cook-books. In cook-books, it is
prescribed as colorant,50 but the flowers also had other decorative purposes in
medieval cookery.5 t Caraway seeds, present in archaeological material, are
frequently recorded in the MHG cook-book in connection with preparation of
fish, pig intestines, poultry, and sauces. It appears regularly with pepper and
ginger; in the MLG cook-book caraway is recorded only in one recipe.52 Caraway
seeds were used also as remedies, steeped in honey or sugar.53
Hops, abundantly present in archaeological material, were mentioned in
the MHG cook-book in relation to beer/mead production.54 Dill was frequent in
the archaeological material, but not in the recipe coilections. lt is recorded once
in the MLG cook-book for preparing a special cheese.55 Dill seeds, found in the
archaeological excavations in Novgorod, were suggested to have originated
from pickled cucumbers in the tenth and eleventh centuries.56 The same eating
46 MLG recipes 44. Spesi ekuchen von Hechtrogen, 46. Gefo/lte Eier; MHG recipes 7. Diz sint
haselhimer, 15. Von pasteden, 18. Von frischen elen, 19. Di z is ein gut spise von eime lahs,
35. Ein agraz (sauce), 48. Ein condimentlin (sauce), (52.) Ein giJfoe/le (for stuff ing?).
47 Mihkel Tarnmet, „Some Aspects of Herbai Medical Treatment on the Example of Medieval
Reval,“ Quotidianum Estonicum: Aspects of Daily Life in Medieval Estonia, eds. J.
Kivimäe and J. Kreem, Medium Aevum Quotidianum, Sonderband 5 ( 1 996), 1 13.
48 Recipe 21. Ein gilt spise (meat mixture).
49 Scully, The Art of Cookery, 1 1 3.
50 MHG recipes 3, 77 and 79; MLG recipe 54. Veilchenlatwerge.
51 Fresh violets were scattered over the golden surface ofpudding in a festive meal; see Ann
Henisch, Fast and Feast: Food in Medieval Society (University Park: The Pennsylvania
State University Press, 1985), 1 1 1 ( originally in W. C. Hazlitt, The 0/d Cookery Books
(London: Elliot Stock, 1 902).
52 MLG recipes 31. Wildenten in Brühe; MHG recipes 1 7. Von gefuelten hechden, 21: Ein gilt
spsi e, 26. Diz ist ein giJtfoe/le, (27a.) Ein giJtfoel/e, 31. Ein spise von honen etc.
53 Scully, The Art ofCookery, 129.
54 Recipe 14. Wilt du giJten met machen.
55 Recipe 53. „VIotkese“; it is recorded as gruneme samen, a name being identified by Ulrich
Willerding, „Paläo-ethnobotanische Befunde über die Lebens- und Umweltverhältnisse im
Mittelalter,“ in Determinanten der Bevölkerungsentwicklung im Mittelalter, eds B.
Herrmann and R. Sprandel (Weinheim: Acta Humaniora, 1987), 109-25.
56 Kirjanov, „Istorija zemledelija,“ 306-62.
34
habits could have been developed in medieval Tartu, since Russian merchants,
including those from Novgorod, were frequent guests in the town.
Fig. 1 4: Herbs in archaeobotanical and written sources
60
50
40
j 5 30 !
20
10
0
AJ-heal)
􀊵 60 O oot
􀊴 50
[J borley
􀊳
Q,“ • mittel 40
30 0 r,< (comt<>elde)
20
10
0
ARCH MHG MLG
In medieval Gennan cook-books, cereal grains are rarely mentioned. Instead,
wheat bread, breadcrumbs and wheat flour for preparing dough or used as
a thickener, are recorded in the recipes.n In the MHG cook-book, rye bread73 is
mentioned, and millet porridge74 is reported in connection with the preparation
of a dish. Regarding written sources from elsewhere, porridges of wheat, oats,
rice, and millet in milk and egg yolks, eaten with sugar, or barley, cooked with
figs and honey, are considered as the typical dishes for the sick. 75 Cereals were
commonly used for staple foods and drinks for all classes, for example bread,
gruels, porridges, and beer. For producing bread, cereals were usually ground,
but there could be a bread sort, where complete grains were mixed into the
dough; complete grains among archaeobotanical material can be also the traces
ofwhole grain porridges.
In the surviving sixteenth-century town council protocols ofTartu entries
on trade in cereals dominate. This trade was mainly carried out with Russians.
On March 20, 1 553, an embargo was issued to prohibit wheat purchased from
Russians or peasants from being exported from the town.76 On April 7, 1551, the
town council reported to the bishop that the Russians were looking for rye and
72 MHG recipes 10. Ein spise von birn, 20. Diz sagt von eime stoc vische, 21. Ein güt spise,
26. Diz ist ein gütfue/le, 31. Ein spise von bonen, 43. Ein cluge spise, (51.) Ein güt spise,
(67.) Aber ein co/ rys, (70.) Ein mandelmUs, (80.) Wilt du machen ein nuezzenmUs, (82.)
Ein wisse/ mUs; MLG recipes 4. Kirschmus, 9. Hechtrogenwurst, 15. Brombeermus, 25.
Gefüllte Krebse, 42. Apfe/wecken, 44. Spesi ekuchen von Hechtrogen, 52. Han.fmus, 74.
Gefüllte Fladen, 84. Pflaumenmus, 101. Erbsenmehlbutter.
73 MHG recipe 23.
74 Recipe 47. Ein geriht.
75 Scully, The Art of Cookery, 187,188. This concems the eating habits of upper classes.
76 Tarvel, „Tartu,“ 45.
38
that they had bought barley from the town and the bishopric.77 On February 2 1 ,
1554, the Great Guild complained that some o f the citizens were employing
young joumeymen and servants to buy rye from the Russians before it reached
the town.78 Tarvel, the intetpreter ofthe passages in the town council protocols,
suggests tbat the trade in grain was closely related to the Russian binterland. In
tbe years of famine, the Russians bought grain from the town, while in the years
of surplus they sold it in great amounts to the town.79 Documentary sources also
refer to the scarce export of rye from Livonia to the West. Neigbbouring
countries such as Prussia, Sweden, and Russia (Novgorod) were the destinations
of small and occasional quantities of grain.SO Also peasants are referred
to as being involved in the trade, which may point to the local cultivation of
wheat.SI
Vegetables and misce/laneous
In the archaeobotanical material, no traces of „ordinary“ vegetables were
found. Thus, the only sources about plausible vegetables in Old Tartu remain the
records in the Town Council Protocols from the sixteenth century. There is an
entry, for example, that Russians were allowed to sell onions, horse-radish,
garlic, cabbage, and several seeds on their boats.82 Occasionally, wild and in
present sense ruderal plants could have served as vegetables for the inhabitants
of the plots, for example wild tumip, and fat-hen. Dock and sorrel could also be
collected for alternative dishes.83 Tumips were used to be prepared with the
herbal part of the plant; they were chopped and stewed or used in soups
(rüebekrut) in some cases.84 Tbis was food for mainly poor people. The best
explanation of occurrence of corn cockle and perhaps some other weed plants in
archaeological material is tbat they were eaten with dishes made of grain, for
example, with several porridges. The seeds of sheep’s sorrel and fragments of
comflower seeds, found in rather large number, could have been incorporated in
coarse bread made of rye. Many of the plants which were found in Iatrine
samples could have been related to purposes other than food, for example
meadow sweet and common benbane in medicine. It is interesting that the seeds
77 Ibid.
78 Ibid.
79 Ibid., 46.
80 M. M. Postan and Edward Miller, eds., The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, vol.
2, Trade and lndustry in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1987), 592, 593.
8 1 Tarvel, „Tartu,“ 45.
82 Ibid, 48.
83 Wemer Rösener, Peasants in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992), 36.
84 Moriz Heyne, Deutsches Nahrungswesen. Fünf Bücher Deutscher Haushaltertümer von
den ältesten geschichtlichen Zeiten bis zum 16. Jahrhundert, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Verlag von S.
Hirzel, 1901), 325.
39
of wild flowers were found in the material, for example a number of oxeye daisy
seeds from sample # I a, site I, which could not have been occasional (see table
I).
Conclusion
In ·this article, an attempt was made to reconstruct the consumption of
plant components in food in late medieval Tartu with the help of archaeobotanical
data, comparing them with two late medieval German cook-books.
These cook-books were chosen for the comparison due to the necessity of a
contemporary background, and because there was deficiency of local written
sources. One of the advantages of the cook-books is that it was possible to
present the information in the same numerical Ievel as it appeared in the
archaeological material, by summarising the data in graphs and tables. Another
advantage was that, provided that the recipes represent late medieval German
cooking traditions and eating habits, they provided illustrative supplement to the
archaeological material from the plots of obviously German inhabitants.
One disadvantage of such research is that the cook-books were from an
ecclesiastical background, while the inhabitants of the plots were probably
representatives of the rniddle classes in the town. In addition, these two German
cook-books originated from regions distant from Livonia. However, since
similar compositions of plant remains have been found from many late medieval
towns in Europe, the comparison was carried out, and the regularities and
irregularities were examined in the context ofboth ofthe sources.
The largest dissimilarities in the comparison appeared in groups of wild
fruit, spices, oil plants, and vegetables. The archaeological material did not
provide much information on spices and vegetables, excluding wild vegetables.
The written sources did not provide much information about wild fruit and oil
plants. Apparently, these are general features of the sources, because, for
example, wild fruit is the most frequently presented plant group in all these
types of archaeological material.
Concerning the social stratification of the inhabitants of the plots, an
evaluation could be completed on the basis of the data referred to in Weiss
Adamson’s article on Ryffs‘ writings.85 Most of the edible plants (see table 2)
were foodstuff for all classes, with the exemption of oat and millet as food for
the lower classes, and imported figs, raisins, and pepper which were probably
consumed mainly by middle and upper classes. In conclusion, the inhabitants of
the plots were of middle class, as it was already deduced from the names of the
streets. The plant remains did not reveal characteristics ofupper class food. With
the exception of a few imported foodstuffs, consumption was closely related to
local natural resources.
85 Weiss Adamson, Unus theutonicus.
40
MEDIUM AEVUM
QUOTIDIANUM
44
KREMS 2001
HERAUSGEGEBEN
VON GERHARD JARITZ
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG DERKULTURABTEILUNG
DES AMTES DER NIEDERÖSTERREICHISC HEN LANDESREGIERUNG
niederästerreich kultur
Titelgraphik: Stephan J. Tramer
Herausgeber: Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung
der materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters, Körnermarkt 13, A-3500
Krems, Österreich. Für den Inhalt verantwortlich zeichnen die Autoren,
ohne deren ausdrückliche Zustimmung jeglicher Nachdruck, auch in
Auszügen, nicht gestattet ist. – Druck: KOPITU Ges. m. b. H., Wiedner
Hauptstraße 8-10, A-1050 Wien.
Inhalt
From the Latrine, through the Woods, and into the Lake:
Ecologica/ Sampies from Medieval East-Central Europe
An Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………… 5
ÜJie Sillasoo, Ecology and Food Consumption ofLate Medieval Tartu,
Estonia (14th-15th Centuries) ……………………………………………………………. 6
Peter Szab6, “There Is Hope for a Tree“: Pollarding in Hungary ………………… 41
Andrea Kiss, Hydrology and Environment in the Southern Basin
ofLake Fertö/Neusiedler Lake in the Late Middle Ages …………………… 61
Andräs Grynaeus and Tamäs Grynaeus, The Geobotany of Medieval Hungary:
a Preliminary Report ……………………………………………………………………. 78
Buchbesprechungen ………………………………………………………………………………. 94
From the Latrine, through the Woods, and into the Lake:
Ecological Sampies from Medieval East-Central Europe
An Introduction
Recycling is nowadays a decisive issue in ecology. This holds true for
historical ecology in East-Central Europe as weil, albeit in a very different sense.
Whereas reusing old material is doubtlessly valuable in environmental protection,
the same is rather questionable, if the old material comprises historical sources. The
reason to put tagether and present the following four essays was to help, as far as
the authors could, recycling be back where it truly belongs.
Historical ecology is a well-established discipline in Western Europe. In
East-Central Europe, much progress has been made recently, and now many
scholarly publications appear on the subject. In other words, the methodology is
understood and applied. However, it is only in exceptional cases, such as the
climatology research in Brno, Czech Republic, or the excavations of the medieval
royal garden at Visegrad, Hungary that the methods are applied on sources, be them
written or archaeological that are freshly gathered for the topic. Historical ecology
is an essentially quantitative field of research. Before the writing process commences,
a !arge amount of data must be collected. Furthennore, the type of data we
use is atypical for fonner research. A chance mention of heavy rains in a charter, or
pieces of seeds in a Iatrine did not use to be considered significant. This may weil
be true if they stand alone; but alt occurrences of heavy rains for a hundred years,
or a/1 plant remains in a Iatrine carry otherwise unreachable information. The task,
then, is twofold: we have to collect as much data as we can, and we have to Iook
for the type of data that has not yet been searched for.
Many leamed articles on the historical ecology ofEast-Central Europe fail to
perform this task. They take what was published before and examine it from a
different angle, which, although an inevitable step, does not suffice alone.
Tbe connection between the otherwise rather diverse essays presented here is
that they all try to analyse sources hitherto unexplored. We hope that we live up to
the requirement of introducing essentially new data to the common knowledge.
Whether our analyses may also stand the test of time is for the reader to decide.
Feter Szabo (Budapest)
5