Seite - 223 - in The Power of Urban Water - Studies in premodern urbanism

13 Medieval andPost-MedievalUrbanWaterSupply andSanitation 223 Rubbishandgarbage When thewells fell out of use, theywere filled in, oftenwith rubbish.Archaeological evidence fromthese fillings indicate that, inmost cases,household rubbishwasused,butnot excretaor humanfaeces. Inanexample intheWeenderStraße48, it seemsthewholehousehold inventory wasdisposedof inanemptywell (thathadbeeninusesincethesecondhalfof the13thcentury), resulting in an enormous quantity of ceramicmaterial andnearly no soil infilling between the pieces.45More than240complete ceramic vessels couldbe reconstructed, includingpiecesof a Meißenporcelain tea service, plus pieces of cutlery, glass bottles and vessels and the singular find of a FrenchDijonmustard pot,which altogether showanupper-class household of about 1760with awell-off lifestyle. Nowoodenmaterialwas found, however, andnonoblemetal. It is clear thatonlyselectedmaterialwas throwninto the formerwell.Thecriteriaof this selection process, however, are to agreat extent, unknown tous.46 A smaller part of thehousehold garbagewasdisposedof also in cesspits. Originally, these were built for use as toilets, to get rid of human excreta and faeces in the narrowness of the towns. InGöttingen,mostof thesecesspitsarestonelinedandsquareorrectangular, sometimes vaulted. In the poorer areas, old barrels without a bottom and cover were also used for this purpose.47 For Göttingenwe can say that the number ofwells on private plots is significantly lower than the number of cesspits, as far as can be seen in the archaeological evidence. It is also clear that far from all rubbishwas thrown into cesspits or unusedwells. Here again, the selectionprocess thatdecidedwhichobjectwas toendup inacesspit (andwhichwasdumped somewhere else) is basically unknown to us.Maybewet and unhygienic things like potswith rotten foodweredisposedofhere,aswellasbrokensherds thatcouldpotentiallycauseharm.48 The problem of dirt and rubbish lying around in the streets was addressed by the town council inmost towns,andseveral regulationsandpenaltiesconcerning thisproblemexisted.49 InGöttingen, thedreckwagen– the rubbishcart–cameand took the rubbishoutside the town. Everybodywas supposed tohelpwith it, as the statutesof 1468makeclear:50When the rubbish cart (dreckwaghen) comes to the door in times when the rubbish is driven out, everybody shall help to put the rubbish in front of his door in heaps and load it on (the wagon). Violationwas finedwith apenalty of 6penninge (pennies). From 1458 on, a streetmaster overlooked the cleanliness of the streets. Rubbish was also classified intodifferent categories. Everybodyhad to cleanup thedirt in front ofhishouseand was not allowed to put it in front of other houses, but had to bring it outside the townwall. Dungwasnot allowed to lie longer than twodays;whena roofwas renewed, the thatchmight not lie longer than threedays (surely also toprevent fires).Woodwasnot allowed to lie in the streets at all. Slaughtering in the streets was forbidden, tanning only allowed in one’s own yard.51 To see all these regulations as a sign of ignorance about dirt and generally unhygienic conditions inmedieval towns, as is often and repeatedly stated, is clearlywrong and is seeing things in toosimpleaway.Surely,anybanonswineandcattle inside towns, forexample,could not be enforced for several reasons, so the problem of dung existed and had to bemanaged. Ruleswere imposedand the streetmasterwas installed tomake sure theywereobserved. 45 FStNr. 22/08;Arndt–Gößner 2007, 22–24. 46 Arndt–Gößner 2007, 22;Arndt 1999a, 54f. 47 Arndt 2004b, 138f. 48 Arndt 1999b, 105f. 49 Thoughts on the spreadof rubbish and its cycle inmedieval townswere expressed early byKeene 1982;more recent thoughts on rubbish, health and environmental impact can be found in Evans 2010. For Göttingen: Arndt 1999a. 50 vonderRopp 1907, 117, 7 (1420); 298 IV, 51 (1468). 51 Arndt 1999a, 58–61.