The material world of late 16th- and 17th-century Amsterdam, encapsulated in a waste-made landscape

Summary

In the 16th and 17th centuries, the Dutch city of Amsterdam underwent four large-scale extensions. These were massive land-reclamation projects, raising and improving the City’s location in a marshy peatland that was subject to soil compaction. Over 65 years of archaeological research has created a rich dataset, opening a window on the methods, means, and processes which created Amsterdam’s waste-made landscape. In addition, pottery assemblages encapsulated in the land-reclamation dumps provide tightly-dated reference groups for the study of late 16th- and 17th-century ceramics with a global perspective.

INTRODUCTION

Amsterdam is built in a reclaimed landscape, created by mass depositions of dredging spoils, sods of peaty and clay sods, urban waste, and construction rubble. Modifying the soggy peat landscape was a basic requirement to form a platform for urban development. The continuous process of raising land and channelizing water runs like a thread through Amsterdam’s spatial development from the late-12th century up to the present, and archaeological research has produced a rich dataset chronicling these works. This paper focuses on the spatial development of the city in the 16th and 17th centuries, when Amsterdam undertook four urban extensions. It examines what new insights archaeology offers in combination with documentary evidence into the development of the city. In addition, the process of the reclaimed landscape has provided tightly dated archaeological contexts with invaluable data for understanding ceramic usage in The Netherlands and beyond.

SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT OF AMSTERDAM

Amsterdam began developing about c. 1175 where the mouth of the Amstel River empties into the IJ, an elongated waterway leading to the Zuiderzee, the former interior body of water that connects to the North Sea. The settlement started along dikes on the Amstel, which were connected by a dam in the third quarter of the 13th century. The first half of the 14th century saw the beginning of the process of land reclamation in the floodplain of the river Amstel. Sods of clayey and peaty earth were deposited on the riverbanks and over time the riverbed was reduced in width from c. 170 to 90 m. By about 1500, land reclamation in the river and the IJ, along with large-scale landfill behind the dikes, had resulted in an urban area of c. 80 hectares, or roughly 198 acres. This was enclosed by a brick city wall, built in the 1480s and 1490s, and running along present-day Singel, Kloveniersburgwal, and Geldersekade (Fig. 1).¹ By the 16th century Amsterdam was overcrowded, and all available building plots were developed,² but the city government remained reluctant to undertake an urban extension. Nonetheless, outside the city wall a harbour area (Lastage, Fig. 1:1) flourished. At the same time, large tracts of pasture to the west and south of the city were being illegally transformed into suburbs by raising individual lots for dwellings and workshops (Fig. 1:2).

FIG. 1 Urban development in Amsterdam, in 1575 with the Lastage harbour area (1) and development in the pasture (2) outside the city wall; in 1600 after completion of the Second Urban Extension with the islands of Uilenburg (3), Marken (4), Rapenburg (5) and Vlooienburg (6), in 1625 after completion of the Third Urban Extension, with the pasture on the IJ-shore (7) where the 1660 land reclamations would take place, and in 1675 after completion of the Fourth Urban Extension with the islands of Kattenburg (8), Wittenburg (9) and Oostenburg (10) (maps, Thijs Terhorst, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam).

From the mid-16th-century Amsterdam underwent an economic growth that would be crucial for the centuries to come. Amsterdam began long-distance trade by the late-12th century, based on archaeological finds of ceramics from the German Rhineland and Belgium’s Meuse region.³ From the 14th century—as indicated by historical evidence—Amsterdam merchants had ties to North Germany and the Baltic. Bruges was the foremost international market in the Low Countries, but in the 1490s lost that position to Antwerp. By 1550, Antwerp remained the centre of the economic landscape, but Amsterdam had become the most important northern gateway in the coastal regions of the Low Countries. The Dutch Revolt against the Spanish Crown (1568–1648) marked the biggest turning point of Amsterdam’s development. In 1585, Spanish forces captured Antwerp. Refugees poured into the Northern Netherlands—and especially Amsterdam.⁴ At the same time, Amsterdam became the centre of exploration by sending ships out to new trading routes through the Strait of Gibraltar, and into Asian waters. After the Alteration of 1578, when Protestants took over the City government, new administrators oversaw four large-scale extensions within a century. This started in 1585 with the First Extension, continued in 1592 with the Second Extension, expanded further in the 1613 Third Extension, and was concluded with the 1660 Fourth Extension.

In 1585–1586 the urban area was extended to a new earthen rampart with bastions, running along the present-day Herengracht and the Oudeschans, and including the old harbour. This had hardly been completed when the aforementioned influx of immigrants and increased maritime activities triggered the Second Extension of 1592 (Fig. 1:3–5). The Second Extension, an exceptionally ambitious piece of civil engineering, focused on the land between the sea dike (Sint-Anthoniesdijk) and the open water of the IJ. Using both dredging and fill, the wetlands and low-lying pastures were carved into a new maritime district of quays and dockyards, with the artificial islands of Uilenburg, Marken and Rapenburg.⁵ The decision to turn marginal wetlands and pastures into a new maritime quarter proved a far-sighted and crucial investment, propelling Amsterdam into the foremost economic power in the 17th century, overshadowing most cities in the (western) Netherlands. Residential land was also added in 1595–1597/1601, by creating the island of Vlooienburg in the bend of the river Amstel (Fig. 1:6). New defence works wrapped around the eastern perimeter of the new maritime district, bringing it inside the City walls.⁶

The 1613 Third Extension expanded Amsterdam’s western perimeter, adding a wealthy residential area with three new canals: the Herengracht, Keizersgracht, and the Prinsengracht.⁷ For this development, all existing structures were cleared and the surface was raised with fill, some of which came from cutting the new waterways. Beyond the most-western canal, the Prinsengracht, a zone was designated for tanneries and other noxious-smelling industries. Before its transformation, this new zone consisted of pre-urban lots defined by ditches, and these old boundaries were primarily left intact, although some became streets or canals. This industrial area became known as the Jordaan. Here, as both documentary and archaeological evidence revealed, the original pre-urban surface was often maintained without significant fill, creating a difference in elevation between the built-up canal lots and the lower-lying Jordaan. North of these areas, the three new maritime islands of Realeneiland, Prinseneiland, and Bickerseiland were created, opening on the IJ. The new urban area of the Third Extension was enclosed by earthen fortifications with 11 bastions.

The 1613 Extension had been somewhat haphazard in building up the surface in the canal zone but not the Jordaan. By contrast, when the Fourth Extension began in 1660, the area was expropriated, existing buildings were demolished, and the entire surface was raised to the desired elevation. This development took place in the wetlands and pastures on the city’s south-eastern perimeter (Fig. 1:7) and, with the creation of the maritime islands of Kattenburg, Wittenburg and Oostenburg (Fig. 1:8–10), added new quays and dockyards on the IJ. The 1613 Extension had also ended abruptly on the south-western edge of the city, at present-day Leidsegracht. The 1660s Extension excavated new canals east from that point, crossed the Amstel, and wrapped around to the north. This connected to the new maritime quarter with Kattenburg, Wittenburg, and Oostenburg on the IJ, completing the semi-circular groundplan of Amsterdam, which was then enclosed in fortifications.⁸

LANDSCAPE AND WATERMANAGEMENT

The basic geological stratigraphy in Amsterdam is as follows. Surfacing at c. 12 m below Amsterdam Ordnance Datum (NAP) is sediment of Aeolian sand dating to the last glacial period ending c. 10,000 BC. This layer is sealed by an originally c. 1 m thick basal peat layer, followed by greyish blue lagoonal sediments of the Naaldwijk Formation with its surface at c. NAP −5 m. On top of this is an originally c. 5 m-thick layer of so-called ‘Holland’ peat that started to grow from c. 3500 BC. At around 1000 BC the streambeds of the present-day Amstel and IJ estuary were embedded in the peat landscape, for a part following the gullies of a prehistoric tidal system.⁹ The surface of the peat landscape at around 1000 AD, prior to draining and cultivation, can be reconstructed at around NAP +2–2.5 m. In the archaeological record, as a result of soil compaction, this surface is nowadays to be found at NAP −1 to −2 m.

Amsterdam’s location, a low and marshy landscape cut by waterways, dictated that raising and reclaiming of land was a basic requirement for the City’s urban development. As a result of ongoing soil compaction, this process frequently had to be repeated. Cross-referencing archaeological stratigraphic data with documentary records details the nature and extent of soil compaction resulting from the massive filling. The degree of settling depended on several factors, the first being the inevitable compaction of the underlying peat, and second, the nature of the fill. Dumping loads on the saturated surface temporarily raised the land above the flood line, but at the same time, its weight accelerated the process of compaction.

In the 16th century the aforementioned Lastage harbour area played a major role in disputes related to soil compaction and land raising. Lastage lay in the field of fire for the city defences, and in 1545, the city government prohibited raising its land or the construction of any permanent buildings in this area. The inhabitants of the Lastage continued building up their property, explaining to the city inspectors that the surface was settling and needed to be raised from time to time.¹⁰

On the basis of archaeological evidence, it is possible to reconstruct the surface of the 16th-century pasture land around the walled city—except for the Lastage harbour area—at around 0.0 m NAP. The archaeological record shows this surface settled to a depth of NAP −2 m. In the middle of the 16th century, the surface of the harbour area stood at c. NAP +1.25 m, a fraction higher than the streets in the city. The artificial islands on the outer shores of the IJ from the 1592 city extension were all raised to a comparable level. The islands of the 1613 and 1660 city extensions were raised to approximately the level of the sea dikes, NAP +2 m. In 1682, the dike along the Amsterdam waterfront on the southern bank of the IJ was rebuilt and given a standardized height of 2.68 m above NAP, sufficient to hold back even the most-exceptional of spring high tides.¹¹

A comparison between the depth of archaeological surfaces and ordnance datum records from the 17th and 18th century indicates that there has been no change in the level of the streets and the houses built on 12 m-long piles, but the soil underwent a compaction of 2 m. The Oostenburgervoorstraat, for example, is still at the same level as recorded in around 1780—at NAP +2 m. But the archaeological record revealed that to keep this street—and in general the whole of Amsterdam—at its required level necessitated periodic raising of the sinking soil, just as it does today (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 The stratigraphy on Oostenburgervoorstraat (OBV-site) with the land reclamation dumps of the 1660–1661 creation of Oostenburg, the first surface, the minimum height of the surface preceding the construction of houses on the street c. 1700 and the street at the time of the excavation (2013). The level of the present-day street has remained unchanged since the 18th century, but soil compaction was compensated by raising the surface (drawing, Ranjith Jayasena, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam).

ORGANISATION AND LAND-RAISING TECHNIQUES

In the 16th century land reclamation could be undertaken by the owners of individual lots, or as centrally directed policy by the city government. The city’s increasing involvement in large-scale land reclamation followed a reorganisation of the city’s public works.¹² The city also invested in infrastructure, increasing public spaces and connecting the Dam square with outlying areas by creating new streets, alleys, quays, and jetties. The groundwork involved dredging and filling, requiring the construction of new revetments, as well as the renovation of the existing ones. These large-scale urban engineering projects were undertaken by the ‘Stadsfabrieksambt’, the municipal building company, initiated in 1524 and predecessor of the 19th- and 20th-century Public Works Department.¹³ In the course of the 16th century the ‘Stadsfabrieksambt’ developed into a highly professional organization, with in-house expertise in the whole range—from urban planning to the practical spade- and mud works. The wealth of surviving records documents the systematic procedures of the ‘Stadsfabrieksambt’ in planning and administrative processes.¹⁴

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE BACKGROUND

In this paper, three case studies will be examined concerning the methods of land making, and the information that the refuse in land-making dumps offers to our understanding of urban ceramic use in 16th–17th-century Amsterdam (Fig. 3). These three case studies are the Waterlooplein site (WLO), Oostenburg-Wiener & Co site (OBV), and the Valkenburgerstraat sites (VAL4, VAL5).

FIG. 3 Amsterdam with sites discussed (map, Thijs Terhorst, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam; vectorised 1832 cadastral map Fryske Akademy).

The archaeology of the Waterlooplein site started in 1972, with the construction of Amsterdam’s first metro line, including a tunnel crossing the two northern blocks of Vlooienburg. Archaeological research was conducted by means of watching briefs during the construction of the tunnel. The residential island of Vlooienburg was created in the Second Extension of the 1590s. In 1602, four blocks of houses were built on the rectangular island of Vlooienburg, and in 1626 a further extension into the Amstel created additional space for more houses. Vlooienburg developed into a multicultural neighbourhood, and the centre of Amsterdam’s Jewish Quarter. In 1882 the two canals on the land side of Vlooienburg—the Leprozengracht and the Houtgracht—were backfilled and renamed Waterlooplein. World War II marked the dramatic end of a once lively neighbourhood, with most of its population deported and killed and its houses left to fall into ruin. In 1954 this area was designated as the location of a new City Hall and in the 1970s the remaining Vlooienburg houses were cleared. In 1981–1982, archaeological excavations were carried out prior to the construction of the new City Hall and opera house (Stopera). The archaeology consisted primarily of an area excavation, which completely exposed the two southern blocks of Vlooienburg, documenting the remains of 100 houses and 95 cesspits.¹⁵ In addition, these archaeological data detail the land-making techniques of the period, as well as the 1590s material culture of the city, as revealed in the massive dumps of city waste.

The work in the second case study, Oostenburg, begins with the 1982 excavation of 18th-century houses and cesspits on the southern sub-island.¹⁶ Work continued in 2000, and since then, research has documented several locations on the former sub-island that was once a VOC shipyard. Archaeology exposed land-making dumps, a warehouse, workshops, and slipways.¹⁷ In 2013 and 2014, work at the Wiener & Co. site, on the southern sub-island, documented land-making strata from the Fourth Extension and recovered material culture dating from 1660 to 1661. This excavation mapped the remains of the city bargemaker’s wharf, along with 18th-century houses and cesspits.¹⁸

In the third case study, Valkenburgerstraat, archaeological excavation at several locations exposed the land-making engineering to make the 1592s Extension islands. Also recorded were subsequent phases of wharfs, housing, and private land reclamation on the Uilenburgergracht, the canal separating the islands of Marken and Uilenburg. In particular, the VAL4 site, excavated in 2011, will be discussed.¹⁹

CHRONOLOGY AND DATING OF STRATIGRAPHY AND POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

The islands of Uilenburg, Marken, and Rapenburg were created in 1592–1593, and in December 1593 the first house and wharf lots were auctioned on Uilenburg.²⁰ In November 1595 the city ordered the creation of the island of Vlooienburg, explicitly stating in the resolution that materials were on hand and that the work was therefore not to take too long.²¹ In 1597 the island was depicted in the city map by Pieter Bast, indicating most of the work had been done by then. In 1600, the city concluded that the newly-created land had not settled enough, and further work had to be done before auctioning the house lots.²² In October 1601 the work on Vlooienburg was completed and in 1602 the first lots were auctioned.²³ For archaeological dating, from city resolution to city map, the strata date between 1595 and 1597/1601, with a definite closing date after final work in 1600–1601.

Oostenburg was created in an area that originally consisted of open water, wetlands, and pastures. After its conversion, it comprised five sub-islands (Fig. 4). One functioned as a residential area but included the city bargemaker’s wharf, while the other four were used by the Dutch East India Company (VOC). Following the VOC’s purchase of the to-be-reclaimed part of Oostenburg, on the shore of the IJ, the land reclamation was apparently undertaken by both city and VOC. By September 1661, the groundwork was completed. At that time the original 1658 masterplan by city surveyor, Cornelis Danckertsz de Rij, was annotated with information on the measurements of the completed islands. This provides a terminus ante quem dating to the creation of the islands, as well as for the artefact assemblages in their fill. These dimensions also show the engineering project had been carried out exactly following its original design.

FIG. 4 Design for Oostenburg in the 1658 map by Cornelis Danckertsz de Rij, projected onto the topography at the time. This shows the old dike on the shore of the IJ (11), the projected rampart (12), and the five sub-islands of Oostenburg. They are: 13. residential area with City bargemaker’s wharf (18), 14. central warehouse of the VOC (Zeemagazijn), 15. specialised workshops, 16. wharf island with slipways and four workshops, 17. rope-yard. (Amsterdam City Archives, edited Monuments and Archaeology, detail of 010033000081). 

LAND-MAKING PRACTICES ON THE ISLAND OF MARKEN, VLOOIENBURG, AND OOSTENBURG

Archaeological research at these Amsterdam sites revealed that by the end of the 16th century, the Stadsfabrieksambt employed a systematic method for creating land. This work was undertaken in three phases. To begin, the surface had to be consolidated. Archaeological excavation revealed this was done on the island of Marken by covering the surface with layers of twigs and small branches. In raising the island of Vlooienburg in the bend of the Amstel (1595–1597/1601), portions of the river and adjacent wetlands were filled with a massive dump of city refuse (Fig. 5:19). The next step was to dig canals, channelizing the water and providing transportation corridors. The spoils excavated from the canals were dumped ashore, further raising the land (Fig. 5:20). Finally, the surface was capped with a layer of clay (Fig. 5:21). In 1660, Oostenburg was raised in much the same way as Vlooienburg in 1595–1597/1601 (Fig. 6). Comparing the data from these multiple archaeological excavations illustrates the systematic methods the municipal engineers employed for large-scale land-making during the 16th- and 17th centuries.

FIG. 5 Cross-section through the land reclamation deposits of Vlooienburg (1595-1597/1601), showing (19) the stratum of sand with city refuse [WLO-155], sealed by (20) the deposit of clay and peat chunks, capped with (21) clay. (drawing, Ranjith Jayasena, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam). 

FIG. 6 Phases of fill used to make the land under the city bargemaker’s wharf at Oostenburg in 1660–1663: (22) top of the stratum of sand with city refuse, sealed by (23) the deposit of clay and peat chunks, capped with (24) clay (photograph, Ranjith Jayasena, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam). 

LAND-RETAINING STRUCTURES

The timber revetments of the Amsterdam waterfronts were post-and-plank structures, with the earliest examples dating to the 1380s.²⁴ Their construction consisted of squared piles with plank sheathing on the landward side (Fig. 7). Mortise and tenon joints on top of the piles tied them into a capping beam. Revetments could be reinforced by front braces or regularly-spaced tie-backs, consisting of long beams buried in the fill and anchored with a cross-timber sleeper at the end. Tie-backs were used in the 17th century, but did not become common practice until the 18th century. Whenever a revetment was rebuilt, the old tie-backs were detached and new replacements mounted.

FIG. 7 Revetment from c. 1602 at the shore of the Uilenburgergracht (left) and the design for a new timber revetment on the shore of the IJ in 1682 (photograph, Ranjith Jayasena, MenA; drawing, Amsterdam City Archives, entry 5028, inv. nr. 604). 

The design of land-retaining structures, varying from revetments to crib constructions, follows a general practice employed both in the Netherlands and abroad from the Roman to the post-medieval period.²⁵ A line of revetments was built and then fill was dumped on the foreshore from the existing revetment, building up the land with a variety of materials, such as sand and clay mixed with rubble and domestic or city garbage. Another practice was to build cribs—pile-and-plank enclosures—out from existing revetments, then fill these to the desired elevation.

In 1645 a rectangular island, designated for housing, was created in the IJ, the Waalseiland.²⁶ This was Amsterdam’s first island to be reclaimed in open water, as the previous land reclamation had been done from existing pasture land. An account by the 17th-century city historian O. Dapper says that the revetments were constructed first, followed by infilling of the enclosed area.²⁷

Over time, revetments had to be rebuilt or increased in height to compensate for soil compaction. Before the late16th century, builders used only oak in Amsterdam and the rest of the Western Netherlands. In the late 16th century, construction began using pine, and pine in revetments became common practice.²⁸ In the 17th century, mainly on city-initiated projects, for reasons of durability contracts and ordnances required oak piles and pine planking under the water level, with oak planks above water level.²⁹ This practice has been confirmed by archaeological excavation. For private projects, such as on the shore of the Uilenburgergracht, improvisation was typical for both the timber structures and the fill. In many cases revetments were constructed by using a variety of timber, including recycled wood.³⁰ The first really durable quays were built with brick walls, and these began appearing sporadically in the 15th century. It was not until the end of the 16th century that the city started building these on a regular basis.³¹ Nonetheless, when the dike along the southern bank of the IJ was rebuilt in 1682, standard post-and-planking revetment was used.³² Although a prestigious project initiated by burgomaster Johannes Hudde, this revetment was already in need of repair in 1703. Archaeological evidence indicates that the city replaced it with brick in the first half of the 18th century.³³ Despite the superiority of brick, wood still accounted for 50.6% of all quays in Amsterdam in 1854, in total measuring 41.4 km.³⁴

WASTE MANAGEMENT IN AMSTERDAM

To understand refuse patterns, it is necessary to look at waste management in Amsterdam from the 15th century onwards. First mentioned in 1475, Amsterdam had public waste bins on streets and canals, which were emptied by city sanitation workers.³⁵ These were meant to solve recurring problems with refuse being illegally dumped on the streets and in canals. City regulations against this, the oldest dating to 1413, were renewed and tightened frequently.³⁶ The regulations had little effect due to a lack of enforcement, and overall policy left individuals responsible for the proper disposal of their own waste.

In the 16th century, the city recognized that waste had value, and selling the contents of the bins was delegated to the city orphanage, which received the income. When the city began remaking itself with the 1585 First Extension, vast quantities of fill were needed. Waste management was taken away from the orphanage and transferred back to the city. It controlled the collection of garbage during the periods of the 1592 and 1613 extensions, and until 1626.³⁷ By that time, the Third Extension had been completed, reducing the need for fill. Builders had also come to prefer dredge spoils from the harbour and canals, a fill material readily available in 17th-century Amsterdam. From 1626 to 1673, the city rented its waste bins to private concerns. When groundwork began for the Fourth Extension in 1660, garbage once again became a major source of fill. A city ordinance dated 23rd November 1663 states that no city waste was to be collected from the heaps of garbage, as this was needed for ‘raising the new urban area’.³⁸ From 1673, waste collection was organized by the Almshouse, the ‘Aalmoezeniersweeshuis’.

Domestic refuse was often dumped into privies, along with bodily waste. Because of their stench, privies were usually at the rear of a house. As a result of this disposal pattern, cesspits can represent a unique record of domestic refuse from subsequent households at a specific address. The completeness of these assemblages depends on how often, and how well, they were cleaned. This was the job of ‘night workers’ hired by the owners of a cesspit, and required to follow strict city sanitation regulations.³⁹ The archives indicate cesspits in Amsterdam were not emptied at regular intervals. A 1758 entry shows two houses on Martelaarsgracht shared a cesspit cleaned 7 years earlier, while a 1746 record on a Weesperstraat house noted its cesspit had been serviced in 1724 and 1737, but was in need of cleaning again.⁴⁰ From other Dutch cities there is information with regard to regular cleaning of cesspits, such as every four years in Breda.⁴¹ There was local variation in the process, depending on organizational, economic and geographic circumstances.⁴² Archaeological evidence from Amsterdam demonstrates that this could vary, from incidental cleaning to none at all. The processes and disposal of the waste were regulated by city ordinances, but this still did not prevent the ongoing pollution of streets and canals. These ordinances were often updated, and ultimately, required night workers to be appointed by the city.

CITY REFUSE AS LAND-RECLAIMING MATERIAL

The use of city refuse for the purpose of raising land was specifically ordered in the 1595 city resolution to create the island of Vlooienburg. The archaeological remains of this dump—a closed context—provide a unique cross-section through the material culture of Amsterdam in the last decade of the 16th century. The city resolution is a rare example of documentation for the use of refuse as fill, but archaeological excavation indicates the practice was widespread in Europe and its overseas settlements between the 16th through 18th centuries.⁴³ Canada’s Québec City is another example of a port, like Amsterdam, that undertook large-scale land reclamation to build quays and defence works. In addition to archaeological evidence for this late-17th- and early-18th-century development on the St. Lawrence River, there is 1710 ordnance by the French colonial administration. This ordered residents to dump their garbage at a specific location on the waterfront, to raise the surface for a shore battery.⁴⁴

Archaeology on Oostenburg further illustrates the extent to which the city could rely on its stockpiles of municipal refuse. This material was not only used for conversion projects organized by the city, but also for the earthen ramparts of the city walls. This benefit was not available to private developers who often had to buy fill from the city. Archaeological excavation on the parts of Oostenburg developed by the VOC revealed that the Company used a variety of materials, including canal spoils, sand, rubble, and random refuse Fig. 3, site OOST4.

POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES AS REFLECTION OF URBAN MATERIAL CULTURE

Because they follow fashion and were quickly broken in use, ceramics are valuable sources of information on time, function, and space. In landfill groups, the aspect of time generally refers to the historical context date known from contracts and other records. Such closed assemblages give insight into the material culture of the city at a specific point in time. Well-dated groups give information on the period of introduction, general use, and disappearance of different types of poorly-documented, everyday objects in Amsterdam. Ceramic function can be clustered into two main groups: ceramics for household use and those for commercial production and/or shipment. The commercial group also provides information on artisanal activities in the city. The spatial information is twofold. It deals with the city as a whole, and at the same time, with the geographical origins of the city’s material culture. Archaeologically-recovered ceramics are the best source of material remains from Amsterdam’s trade. What is most readily apparent in the landfill assemblages is that the large-scale urban extensions—from 1585 onwards—were coinciding with a globalizing city.

Key to the interpretation of pottery assemblages is to take site formation processes into account. It is necessary to establish the primary or secondary nature of the deposits, in combination with other post-depositional processes through which the artefact assemblages were formed.

To facilitate comparative studies, it is standard archaeological procedure in Amsterdam that the ceramics from both landfill contexts and other contexts such as cesspits are quantified by both Minimum Number of Vessels (MNV) and Estimated Vessel Equivalents (EVE). The MNV method defines the minimum number of vessels present by counting individually-distinctive fragments such as rims and bases. The EVE method uses rim fragments to estimate the percentage of completeness of each vessel in the assemblage. This value is an important parameter for the reconstruction of its discard. A local (primary) deposition would be implied by a larger value of completeness, in comparison to a dump of mixed urban refuse (secondary deposition). To establish the completeness of the vessels in an artefact assemblage, the total of the EVE-values is divided by the number of vessels represented.⁴⁵ For ease of calculation it is essential that each EVE value in the artefact database represents only one vessel, consisting of either a single rim fragment or multiple rim fragments of the same pot. The total number of vessels in an assemblage is the total number of EVE records in the database. In addition to quantification and establishing completeness, assemblages from the landfill contexts were compared to artefact groups from cesspits, which are primary records of the material culture of occupants at a specific address. The completeness of vessels from cesspits can only have been altered by post-depositional processes such as regular or occasional emptying.⁴⁶

A comparison of 10 cesspits assemblages revealed that the values of estimated completeness of the vessels ranged between 30% and 45%, and in some instanced up to nearly 80% (Table 1).⁴⁷ These examples imply that even regular cleaning could leave a benchmark of at least 30%, whereas the completeness of ceramics from a cesspit that had never been emptied could go up to almost 80%.

TABLE 1 Pottery assemblages of 10 cesspits, breakdown by rims, EVE, sherd count (N), Minimum Number of Vessels (MNV), brokenness and completeness.

Cesspit	Rims	EVE	N	MNV	Brokenness	Completeness (%)
WA24-2 (1600-1700), Warmoesstraat 10	430	192.7	3900	276	20.33	44.8
HAP-53 (1633-1675), Haarlemmerplein 26	133	91.3	1559	166	17.1	68.7
WLO-8 (1675-1725), Zwanenburgwal 35	1093	353.7	4563	757	12.9	32.3
OZV9, BP1 (1675-1800) Oudezijds Voorburgwal 40	1005	771.4	20396	1145	26.44	76.7
OBV-35 (1700-1800), Oostenburgervoorstraat 19	6	2.6	74	29	28.46	43.3
OBV-34 (1700-1800), Oostenburgervoorstraat 23	130	46	1914	192	41.6	35.4
OBV-47 (1725-1800), Oostenburgervoorstraat 9	167	70.3	5572	235	79.26	42.1
OBV-46 (1725-1800), Oostenburgervoorstraat 15	7	3.3	121	24	36.67	47.1
OBV-33 (1725-1800), Oostenburgervoorstraat 25	45	35.8	1947	159	54.38	79.5
OBV-27 (1725-1800), Oostenburgervoorstraat 27	32	13.45	260	39	19.33	42

From the 1660 to 1661 Oostenburg ceramic assemblage, two samples were taken from the stratum of sand and city refuse blanketing the entire site. The fact that the layer covered the entire area proved refuse was an integral part of the process the city used to create this area of Oostenburg. The analysis of the ceramics revealed the homogeneity of the fill from both sample units. These are almost identical, with vessel completeness averaging 14% (Table 2). The only difference is seen in the number of sherds, but that appears skewed by fragment size. This averages out when the pottery is quantified by weight. A breakdown by vessel types indicates that the range of vessels is comparable to other Amsterdam artefact assemblages from the 16th and 17th century, such as cesspits (Table 3).⁴⁸ Consequently, it appears the city’s waste management process did not select specific types of refuse for use as landfill. Instead, the entire range of refuse is represented in the assemblage.

TABLE 2 Ceramic assemblages of 11 land reclamation dumps, breakdown by rims, EVE, sherd count (N), brokenness and completeness. 

Pottery assemblage	Rims	EVE	N	Brokenness	Completeness (%)
WLO-155A (1595-1597/1601)	2856	503.31	10941	21.73	18
WLO-168 (1626)	272	39.1	1119	28.61	14.37
OBV-72 en 94 (1660-1663)	947	133.2	3578	26.86	14.06
OOST4 (1660-1663)	219	23.95	893	37.28	10.9
VAL4-S 220 (1650-75)	18	3.4	147	13.82	18.9
VAL4-S 118 (1625-50)	97	36.07	2584	71.63	37.18
VAL4-S 216 (1650-1700)	160	35.85	160	14.4	22.4
VAL4-S 159 (1650-75)	48	10.9	148	13.6	22.7
VAL4-S 158 (1650-75)	66	11.75	296	25.2	17.8
VAL4-S 122 (1700-50)	171	46.42	402	8.7	27.1
VAL4-S 123 (1700-50)	135	57.8	306	5.3	42.8

TABLE 3 Ceramics breakdown by EVE comparing the 1660 Oostenburg land reclamation dumps (OBV, N = 77.63) to the landfill deposits at the VOC wharfisland (OOST4, N = 34.73), two private landfill dumps at Valkenburgerstraat (VAL4 S 158, N = 12.95; VAL4 S 159, N = 12.2), and the cesspits of Warmoesstraat 10 WA24, N = 192.31) and Haarlemmerplein 26 (HAP-53, N = 91.33). 

Comparing assemblages from primary deposits in cesspits produced averages of completeness ranging from 30% to 45%, with an outlier of almost 80%. Completeness from secondary landfill strata varies between 10% and 20%, with exceptions surpassing 40% (Table 2). This archaeological data leads to the conclusion that the city building company did not randomly dispense fill directly from its waste bins. Although previously unknown, it seems almost certain that measured proportions of refuse and soil were mixed to create a standard construction fill with a specific density and compaction.

Amsterdam pottery assemblages are catalogued using the standards of the Classification System for Late- and Post-Medieval Ceramics and Glass, commonly known as the Deventer System.⁴⁹ Object codes are composed of one- or two-letter abbreviations of the fabric (r for red earthenware, s1 for stoneware without surface treatment, etc.), the vessel shape (bor for plate, kan for jug) and a type number. For reasons of comparison the Deventer System fabric types are assigned specific colour schemes for presenting pottery assemblages.⁵⁰

ARTEFACT ASSEMBLAGES VLOOIENBURG (1595–1597/1601)

The material culture related to the construction of the island of Vlooienburg was retrieved from two contexts: the infilling of a ditch (WLO-370) and the overlying layer of fill (WLO-155). Both contexts will be discussed for an integral overview of the pottery types (Table 4). As the fill stratum blanketed the entire site—and beyond the excavation area—control samples were taken for analysis. General finds were recorded as WLO-155, while the two sample units were WLO-155A and WLO-155B. In this paper the pottery assemblage of WLO-155A is discussed. For comparative purposes, objects from the other units will also be presented.

TABLE 4 Breakdown of ceramic types in the 1595-1597/1601 assemblages from the land reclamation dumps of Vlooienburg (WLO-155, left) and the fill of the ditch (WLO-370, right) by EVEs (WLO-155A, EVE = 503.31, WLO-370, EVE = 43.9). The types of ceramics are classified by Deventer system pottery codes and colour schemes: unglazed stoneware (s1), saltglazed stoneware (s2), Black pots / jydepotte (jy), red earthenware (r), white earthenware (w), German white earthenware (wd), French white earthenware (wf), Italian red earthenware (ri), red earthenware from Ochtrup (dw), Werra ware (wa), Weser ware (we), Netherlandish majolica (m), Spanish majolica (sp), Italian tin-glazed ware (i), Portuguese tin-glazed ware (po) and Chinese porcelain (p). 

The ceramics from the ground-reclaiming dump of Vlooienburg are made up of the following types, classified by Deventer System pottery codes and colour schemes: unglazed stoneware (s1), saltglazed stoneware (s2), Danish Black pots/‘jydepotter’ (jy), red earthenware (r), white earthenware (w), German white earthenware (wd), French white earthenware (wf), Italian red earthenware (ri), German red earthenware from Ochtrup (dw), Werra ware (wa), Weser ware (we), Netherlandish majolica (m), Spanish majolica (sp), Italian tin-glazed ware (i), Portuguese tin-glazed ware (po), and Chinese porcelain (p) (Fig. 8).

FIG. 8 Selection of the city waste (artefact assemblage WLO-155) that was used to raise the island of Vlooienburg in 1595-1597/1601 (photograph, Ron Tousain, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam). 

Stoneware accounted for 10% by EVEs and consisted of jugs from Frechen, Raeren and Siegburg. Typical for the Raeren potters, these late-17th century finds were panel jugs (Fig. 9). Sometimes dated, the midgirth of these vessels was decorated with a moulded frieze illustrating a variety of motifs, such as ‘the peasant dance’, ‘the Seven Electors’ and stories from the Bible, including ‘Susanna’. In addition, the assemblage includes pear-shaped jugs from Raeren and Frechen (Fig. 10) with medallions, in some instances bearing a date. From the ditch, a Frechen jug was retrieved decorated with the coat of arms of Amsterdam and the date (15)94 (Fig. 10:31). Frechen was the foremost producer of Bartmann jugs but the city refuse also included fragments of a Siegburg Bartmann jug (Fig. 11:34). Among the drinking vessels were tankards (Schnellen) from Siegburg and Raeren, dating to the last quarter of the 16th century (Fig. 11:36). A Siegburg funnel beaker was also found (Fig. 11:35). The vessels with dates consisted of the aforementioned 1594 Frechen jug with Amsterdam arms, and Raeren panel jugs all dated to the 1580s.

FIG. 9 Raeren stoneware panel jugs from WLO-155 and WLO-370 assemblages (1595-1597/1601): peasant dance, dating to (15) 85 (25. WLO-370#053); Susanna (26. WLO-370#054, 27. WLO-370#055, 29. WLO-370#058), one dating 1584 (26), archangel Gabriel (28. WLO-370#056), peasant dance, dating to (15) 90 (30. WLO-155-271) (photographs, Wiard Krook, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam). 

FIG. 10 Pear shaped stoneware jugs from Frechen (30. WLO-370-29) and Raeren (31. MW8-1). The Frechen jug, with a medallion showing the Amsterdam coat of arms and dating (15) 94, was retrieved from the 1595-1597/1601 Vlooienburg land reclamation dump, the Raeren piece can most likely be related to the same context and was excavated during the construction of the metro line at the Waterlooplein site in 1972. (photographs, Wiard Krook and Ron Tousain, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam). 

FIG. 11 Siegburg stoneware from the land reclamation dump of Vlooienburg (1595-1597/1601), 33. jug (WLO-155-273), 34. Bartmann jug (WLO-155-274), 35. funnel beaker (WLO-155-444), 36. tankard (WLO-155-270), 37. beaker (WLO-155-442) (photographs, Wiard Krook, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam). 

Red earthenware accounts for 71% of the assemblage. In late 16th-century Amsterdam the majority of redwares were produced in the Western Netherlands. Cooking wares of red earthenware consisted of tripod pipkins, frying pans, lids, strainers, and dripping dishes. Tableware included dishes and plates. Objects for lighting and heating were oil lamps, chafing dishes and fire covers. German- (Hafner) and Dutch-produced white earthenware only accounted for 4% overall and included an assortment of vessels similar to red earthenware.

The commercial ceramics included red earthenware syrup-collecting jars and sugar cone moulds, used in sugar refineries (Fig. 12). Syrup-collecting jars were internally lead-glazed high-shouldered pots with a collar rim, placed on either a footring or tripod feet. Examples of the latter were excavated from Amsterdam contexts dating to as early as the first half of the 16th century.⁵¹ Sugar refining was a new industry; with the first historically-known sugar refiner leaving Antwerp to settle in Amsterdam in 1579. From that date, the industry grew and the number of sugar refiners increased steadily.⁵² Other industrial ceramics in the fill were crucibles, which were—and still are—produced in Großalmerode in the German Weser region.⁵³

FIG. 12 Ceramics for industrial use, a sugar cone mould (38. WLO-370#406) and the fragment of a syrup collecting jar (39. WLO-155#1805) (photographs, Ron Tousain, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam). 

Werra and Weser wares accounted for respectively 1% and 11% overall (Figs. 13–14). Werra slipwares, produced along the Werra River, were often dated, and the latest in the Vlooienburg fill is 1598. Weser slipwares were produced along the Weser in the area historically-known as ‘Pottland’. Duingen, Bad Münder, and Coppengrave were the foremost production places. Werra and Weser wares were transported on the Weser River to Bremen, and from there to various destinations in the North Sea region, including the Western Netherlands. Among the imported ceramics from the Vlooienburg fill Weser was the largest group, accounting for 47%. A rare example of Weser earthenware is a barrel-shaped beaker with a handle, covered by a dark brown glaze (Fig 14:48). Another model is a Schnelle, imitating stoneware versions in red slip-decorated earthenware (Fig. 14:47)

FIG. 13 WLO-155 (1595-1597/1601): Werra slipware from the land reclamation dump of Vlooienburg (1595-1597/1601), 40. dish (WLO-155-103), 41. bowl (WLO-155-276), 42. bowl (WLO-155-277) (photographs, Wiard Krook, drawings Ron Tousain, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam). 

FIG. 14 WLO-155 (1595-1597/1601): Weser slipware dishes (43.WLO-155-106, 44. WLO-155-107), bowls (45. WLO-155-108, 46. WLO-155-109), tankard (47. WLO-155-278), mug (48. WLO-155-281) and cup (49. WLO-155-144) (photographs, Wiard Krook, drawings Ron Tousain, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam). 

Relatively scarce red earthenware came from Ochtrup in the German Steinfurt district (Fig. 15). Slightly resembling the slip techniques of Weser wares, the red body and sharp-edged footrings are distinctive for Ochtrup. The distribution pattern of Ochtrup earthenware, on the basis of archaeological evidence, covers mainly the north and east of The Netherlands.⁵⁴ The bowl from the Vlooienburg assemblage (Fig. 15:50) WLO-155-229) is the earliest known example of Ochtrup earthenware in Amsterdam. Ochtrup earthenware has also been retrieved from a city moat backfilled in 1614, several land-reclamation dumps in the Uilenburgergracht, and from fill deposits on Oostenburg dating to 1660 (Fig. 15:51).⁵⁵

FIG. 15 Red earthenware from Ochtrup, Germany. A bowl (50. WLO-155-229) from the land reclamation dumps of Vlooienburg (1595-1597/1601), and a dish from a mid17th-century land reclamation in the Uilenburgergracht (51. VAL4-149#084) (photographs, Ron Tousain, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam). 

Italian tin-glazed earthenware comprised only 2% of the overall assemblage, but accounted for 9% of the imported ceramics (Fig. 16). The appearance in The Netherlands of Italian tin-glazed earthenware peaked in the last quarter of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th century. Liguria accounted for 86% of the Italian tin-glazed wares, followed by Montelupo (1%) and wares from Faenza, Pisa, and Venice all made up less than 1% of the assemblage. Ligurian Berettino ware, with a dark blue decoration on a light blue background, was represented by dishes, plates and bowls.⁵⁶ The assemblage included a polychrome Montelupo tin-glazed earthenware lobed dish and a dish with a Chinese-inspired border decoration (Fig. 15:54).⁵⁷ Faenza is represented by a compendiario style faience bowl, characterized by a largely white vessel decorated with simple blue, yellow, and orange designs, is painted with a centre decoration of a putto and a foliage border (Fig. 16:55).⁵⁸ North Italian marbled slipware included a bowl that is the earliest known example of this earthenware in the Netherlands (Fig. 16:56).⁵⁹

FIG. 16 WLO-155 (1595-1597/1601): Italian tin-glazed Berretino plate from Liguria (52. WLO-155-561), dish (53. WLO-155-437) and lobed dish from Montelupo (54. WLO-155-528), Faienza Compendiario bowl (55. WLO-155-374), and a North Italian marbled polychrome bowl (56. WLO-155-489) (photographs, Wiard Krook, drawings Ron Tousain, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam). 

In the last quarter of the 16th-century a flourishing production of majolica developed in the Northern Netherlands (Fig. 17). Majolica is a tin-glazed ware and has an opaque tin-glazed surface, and an undecorated lead-glazed surface. The Antwerp immigrants Carstiaen van Abeele and Adrian Jansz Bogaert were the first-documented majolica potters in Amsterdam in 1580.⁶⁰ The Vlooienburg assemblage included a variety of Dutch-made majolica dishes, bowls and apothecary jars. The dishes were decorated with geometrical and floral motifs (Fig. 17:57–60). Examples with a decoration on a blue background underline the influence of Ligurian Berettino wares on local earthenware production (Fig. 17:62–63). The apothecary jars were painted with abstract strokes: dots, zigzag lines and stripes (Fig. 17:66–67).

FIG. 17 WLO-155 (1595-1597/1601): Netherlands majolica dishes (57. WLO-155-193, 58. WLO-155-397, 59. WLO-155-198, 60. WLO-155-195, 61. WLO-155-194, 62. WLO-155-190, 63. WLO-155-191, 64. WLO-155-192), bowl (65. WLO-155-352) and ointment jars (66. WLO-155-187, 67. WLO-155-186) (photographs, Wiard Krook, drawings Ron Tousain, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam). 

French imports consisted of whitewares from Saintonge and Beauvais. The ceramics from Saintonge are known for a greenish brown glaze and abundant decorations. The fragment of a dish from Beauvais was decorated in a combination of slip and sgraffito (Fig. 18:72). The imports into the Netherlands of ceramics from Beauvais peaked in the 16th century, whereas Saintonge wares continued into the 17th century.⁶¹

FIG. 18 WLO-155 (1595-1597/1601): frying pan of Danish ‘jydepotter’ earthenware (68. WLO-155-95), salt vessel of Portuguese faience (69. WLO-370-33), Iberian olive jar (70. WLO-155#1927), dish of Spanish lustreware (71. WLO-155-65), and a plate of white earthenware from Beauvais, France (72. WLO-155-438) (photographs, Ron Tousain, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam). 

Black pots, unglazed greyware also known as ‘jydepotter’ from West Jutland in Denmark accounted for less than 1% in the pottery assemblages and included tripod pipkins, a (milk)bowl and a frying pan (Fig. 18:68).⁶² Archaeological evidence suggests this Danish earthenware came to Amsterdam from the 1560s onwards, by shipping from Jutland, most likely as a by-product.⁶³ In Denmark, these pots were used for preparing milk and porridge, especially in lower social classes. It is likely that these ‘jydepotter’ were shipped as containers for certain—as yet unidentified—foodstuffs, as these were undoubtedly considered old-fashioned by Dutch households at the time. Evidence for the shipping of ‘jydepotter’ to the Netherlands is provided by 18th-century toll records. At that time Amsterdam and Harlingen were the most important destinations of shipping from Jutland.⁶⁴

The fill of the ditch and the ground reclamation dump include the earliest known pieces of Portuguese tin-glazed earthenware in the Netherlands. These consisted of small undecorated containers for salt, with tin-glazed interiors and unglazed exteriors (Fig. 18:69). Comparable salts are known from waster material excavated at the site of one of the first faience workshops in Lisbon.⁶⁵ In the first half of the 17th century, dishes and plates of blue and white decorated Portuguese faience were available throughout the Western Netherlands, primarily at locations connected to either maritime trade or Portuguese Jewish communities.⁶⁶

Iberian ceramics included one fragment of a Late-Valencian Lustreware dish (Fig. 18:71).⁶⁷ Furthermore these imports included olive jars (accounting for 0.2% overall), that were most likely the products of Seville (Fig. 18:70). With only rim and body fragments surviving, and the fact that these vessels were constructed from two parts with the neck parts being consistent, it is not possible to tell whether these jars represented rounded or carrot-shaped types.⁶⁸ Olive jars were used as containers for the transport of various goods, including olive oils and wines. The distribution of olive jars in the Netherlands is for the most part limited to the western, maritime-trade-oriented provinces, with the harbour towns of Hoorn, Enkhuizen, Amsterdam, Middelburg, and Vlissingen, as well as Bergen op Zoom and the hinterland.⁶⁹

Chinese porcelain, comprising 0.1% and 0.3% in both assemblages, consists of the earliest-known examples yet excavated in Amsterdam (Fig. 19). These finds, together with porcelain from other parts of the Western Netherlands, indicate porcelain was available—as a result of indirect trade, buying from the Portuguese—in the Netherlands in the late 16th century. Traditionally, the large-scale introduction of Chinese porcelain to the Dutch market has been dated to the auctions of captured Portuguese carracks São Tiago and Santa Catarina in 1602 and 1604.⁷⁰ The Vlooienburg fragments are typical examples of Chinese porcelain dating to the 1570s and 1580s, including a bird-on-rock motif ‘crow’ cup Fig. 19:77 and a dish with the deer-in-a-landscape motif, bordered by lotus and herons.⁷¹ Similar pieces come from the Spanish galleon San Filipe, wrecked off the coast of Mexico in 1576.⁷²

FIG. 19 WLO-155 and WLO-370 (1595-1597/1601): Chinese porcelain dishes (73. WLO-155-104, 74. WLO-155-105, 75. WLO-370-25, 76. WLO-370-28), and bowls (77. WLO-155-236, 78. WLO-370-30) (photographs and drawings, Ron Tousain, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam). 

The ground reclamation dumps contained one white-ball-clay tobacco pipe, a first-generation model with a small bulbous bowl (Fig. 20).⁷³ The American-Indian habit of smoking tobacco pipes reached Europe in the late 1580s, and the form appears to have been adapted from Siouan pipes collected in the Roanoke River valley.⁷⁴ The Vlooienburg example is one of the few excavated examples of late-16th-century European clay pipes in The Netherlands. At Southwark, London, comparable pieces dating to c. 1580–c.1610 were excavated at the site of the Rose and Globe playhouses.⁷⁵ Another, dating to c. 1600, was retrieved from the 1614 backfill of the city moat at present-day Nieuwmarkt.⁷⁶

FIG. 20 First-generation clay tobacco pipe from the land reclamation dumps of Vlooienburg, predating 1595-1597/1601 (WLO-155-235) (photograph, Ron Tousain, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam). 

ARTEFACT ASSEMBLAGE OOSTENBURG (1660–1661)

Red earthenware accounts for 56.3% overall, followed by Dutch faience (22.1%), white earthenware (14.3%), stoneware (10%), and Dutch majolica (6%) (Figs. 21–22, Table 5). French faience and Chinese porcelain, both account for less than 1%. Excluded in the EVE counts for the absence of surviving rims are Hafner earthenware, Italian and Portuguese tin-glazed earthenwares, Weser ware and amphoras—including olive jars—from the Iberian Peninsula.

FIG. 21 The wide range of ceramics from the land reclamation dumps of Oostenburg, 1660–1661 (photograph, Ron Tousain, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam). 

FIG. 22 Overview of the ceramic groups from the land reclamation dumps at Oostenburg, 1660–1661, showing stoneware from Frechen (79. OBV-97#011), Duingen (80. OBV-72#173), red earthenware dish (81. OBV-72#237), a red earthenware tripod pipkin from Bergen op Zoom (82. OBV-72#386), and a syrup jar (83. OBV-92#001), Dutch majolica dishes with blue-and-white and polychrome decoration (84. OBV-72#165, 85. OBV-94#032), an apothecary jar (86. OBV-111-1), a variety of Dutch faience plates (87. OBV-94#014, 88. OBV-94#021, 89. OBV-72#024, 90. OBV-94#024, 91. OBV-94#025) and a cup (92. OBV-95-8), a lobed dish of Italian faience from Montelupo (93. OBV-94-1), and Chinese porcelain (94. OBV-72) (photograph, Ron Tousain, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam). 

TABLE 5  OBV-72 en OBV-94, breakdown of ceramic types by EVEs (N = 133.2).

Among the group of red earthenware is a distinctive group of cooking wares from Bergen op Zoom. This town in the southern province of Brabant was one of the foremost earthenware production centres in the Western Netherlands, and this earthenware was widespread in 17th- and 18th-century Amsterdam. The most common tripod pipkins from Bergen op Zoom were characterized by a bulbous body and an everted rolled rim with rilling at the base (Fig. 22:8).

Redwares for industrial activities consisted of syrup-collecting jars and sugar cone moulds. Since the 1579 arrival of the first sugar refiner from Antwerp, the process had grown into a flourishing business in Amsterdam. Initially raw sugar came from Portuguese settlements in Brazil, but from the second quarter of the 17th century the Dutch began to exploit sugar in Brazil, followed by Surinam from the 1680s onwards. The work on the plantations was done by enslaved labourers, a system introduced by the Portuguese, and maintained by the Dutch, who in order to safeguard labour at the plantations would become a major player in the transatlantic slave trade.⁷⁷ In addition to the jars and sugar cone moulds, the 1660–1661 Oostenburg assemblage contained thick-bodied jugs that are generally been interpreted as syrup jars, most likely as packaging for syrup (Fig. 22:83).⁷⁸

Dutch-made white earthenware accounted for 10.7% of the pottery assemblage. In the mid-17th century white earthenware was mainly produced in the Netherlands, with Alkmaar and Gouda as known production centres.⁷⁹ This group consisted of tripod pipkins, a frying pan, strainers and a chafing dish, bowls and cups, jugs, chamber pots, oil lamps, and a fire cover.

Stoneware accounted for 9.8% overall and consisted mainly of jugs and pitchers from Frechen and Westerwald. The stoneware vessels ceramics had been relatively new by the time of deposition, dating to c. 1625–1660. Only a few pieces of stoneware—statistically insignificant—dated to the 16th century, such as mid-16th-century Cologne jugs characterized by sprigged oakleaf motifs with acorns and 1570s–1580s Raeren panel jugs. Frechen Bartmann jugs had, in comparison to the 1590s Vlooienburg assemblage, evolved from high-quality, finely-decorated pieces into more crude examples, with detailed bearded faces having turned into stylized masks. But at the same time, quotidian useage of Bartmanner had moved from a visible serving function at the dining table—replaced by glass bottles—to storage containers out of sight in the kitchen or basement.⁸⁰ Stoneware was further represented by a barrel-shaped chamber pot. In the 17th century stoneware that was available in Amsterdam was almost exclusively of Rhineland origin. An exception is the fragment of a stoneware beaker with a dark brown glaze that most likely was produced in Duingen in the Weser region (Fig. 22:80).⁸¹ A comparable piece was excavated from a dump in Enkhuizen from the period 1590 to 1650.⁸² This is yet another example of Weser wares—like the aforementioned redwares—that even after the main imports had dropped still made its way to Amsterdam on a small scale.

The relatively small percentage of Chinese porcelain in the artefact assemblage, accounting for only 0.3%, was likely the result of the scarcity of porcelain in the middle of the 17th century on the Dutch market, and thus in Amsterdam households, following a civil war in China from the 1640s, that was in transition from the Ming to Qing Dynasty, resulting in an almost standstill of the export of porcelain (Fig. 22:94). Majolica accounted for 5.9% of the pottery assemblage. Majolica was represented by dishes and apothecary jars. In the first half of the 17th century, majolica was produced in a number of towns in the Western Netherlands, with Haarlem as an important supplier for Amsterdam (Fig. 22:84–86). The dishes were often decorated in Chinese Kraak and Italian styles. The apothecary jars were decorated with blue concentric and zigzag lines in combination with dots. These apothecary jars belong to a group of second generation Dutch majolica apothecary jars, dating to the mid-17th century (Fig. 22:86).⁸³

From c. 1620, faience was introduced, as a more refined tin-glazed alternative to majolica. Whereas majolica has an opaque tin-glazed surface, and an undecorated lead-glazed surface, faience is completely tin-glazed and may be plain or decorated. The faience plates and dishes from the Oostenburg assemblage account for 16.5% overall and are representative of the assortment of Dutch faience dating to the second quarter of the 17th century. Mid-17th-century majolica and faience were often decorated in Chinese Kraak or Transitional style. The assemblage contained a high-quality Delft copy of a porcelain crow cup, with a bird on a rock depiction and on the exterior a Dutch bird motif (Fig. 22:92). In addition, faience was decorated with a variety of animal, landscape and floral motifs, often on both the centre and the border, but from c. 1650 a white border became popular. Some of the faience dishes and plates can possibly be attributed to the Haarlem workshops of Willem Jansz Verstraeten and his son Gerrit Verstraeten.⁸⁴ Around 1650 plain white faience was introduced, initially only as a by-product of potters in Delft, Rotterdam, Haarlem and Harlingen.⁸⁵ It is assumed that plain white faience was inspired by faience from Italy and France. With the development of a large-scale faience industry in Delft overshadowing the other production places, blue and white and plain white faience—Blue Delft and White Delft—became equally important counterparts in the assortment of Delft potters.⁸⁶ Archaeological evidence for the presence of White Delft in Amsterdam before 1660 comes from the Oostenburg assemblage, where this group accounts to 47.4% of the total group of faience. In addition it shows the wide variety of plain white faience: dishes, bowls, cups, chamber pots, lobed dishes, barber’s bowls, and ointment jars.⁸⁷

French faience accounts for 0.3% overall and is characterized by a red to hard-fired yellow fabric and a thick creamy tin glaze.⁸⁸ Italian tin-glazed earthenware is lacking from the EVE count. One of the earliest pieces in the assemblage is a lobed dish from Montelupo, dating to 1590–1620 with the decoration of a cat-like creature and a border with floral motifs. A similar piece was retrieved from the Vlooienburg fill. Portuguese faience is also lacking from the EVE-count, but is represented by plate fragments. To conclude the pottery types, Iberian olive jars were represented.

The Oostenburg dumps also contained clay tobacco pipes of the elongated, bulbous type, varying from cheap unpolished to the more refined versions. A small group of artefacts consisted of window glass, case bottles, beakers, goblets, and roemers. Metal objects included production waste and everyday living goods. A relatively rare find is a cast-iron cooking pot.⁸⁹ Furthermore, this group consisted of pewter and silver spoons, pewter screw lids for glass case bottles, a pewter thumb piece of a lid, a copper tobacco box lid, a variety of clothing accessories, book clasps, and mounts, lead styli, a spur, weights, various small finds, sewing accessories, and lead seals.⁹⁰ An Amsterdam-made silver spoon was dated to 1638.⁹¹ The coins ranged in date from 1578 to 1660, with 40% dating to the 1650s. As with the 1590s Vlooienburg fill, these dates show the city building office also used relatively recent refuse for the 1660s Oostenburg landfill.⁹²

ARTEFACT ASSEMBLAGES OF PRIVATE LAND-RECLAMATION DUMPS

On the shore of the Uilenburgergracht, a land-reclamation dump dating to 1625–1650 consisted of a secondary deposit of highly fragmented ceramics and a primary dump of relatively complete Spanish olive jars (completeness values of respectively 10.1% and 98.3%). These amphorae hint at connections between the landowner and the Dutch West India Company (WIC), with its wharf on the neighbouring island of Rapenburg. Between 1621 and 1647, an official Spanish-Dutch trade embargo was in effect and the WIC captured hundreds of Spanish ships in the Caribbean. This conflict seems most likely as the source of the excavated jars, which had merchant’s marks stamped on their rims, that have also been recovered from Spanish colonial sites in the Americas, indicating they were made for Spanish transatlantic trade. Ending up at the WIC wharf and having lost their economic value once emptied, the jars would have been easily obtained by the landowner, as suitable material for his land-reclamation project.⁹³

In the period 1700–1730, another lot on Uilenburgergracht was enlarged by two massive dumps of Dutch coarse red earthenware of the type primarily used in sugar refineries, such as sugar-cone moulds and syrup-collecting jars (Fig. 23). Usually, waste from sugar refineries ended up in the vicinity of the workshop, and often in the water directly in front of the workshop.⁹⁴ For the interpretation of these deposits, it was the question of whether they represented a single dump of sugar-refining earthenware, or an accumulating deposit from a sugar refinery. A single dump would be implied by a larger value of completeness, in comparison to a dump of mixed refuse spanning a long period of time. The two subsequent deposits covering the bottom of the canal and the second fill on top of this give EVE values of respectively 42.2% and 27.1% of the original vessels. The homogeneity of both ceramic assemblages and the high value of completeness suggest a single dump. This is comparable with waster material from the workshop of a potter specializing in sugar refining vessels on Overtoom/Schoolstraat.⁹⁵ These data indicate that the sugar-refining vessels in the Uilenburgergracht can be considered a primary context. There is no documentary evidence for a sugar refinery housed at this lot, but it does hint at the existence of nearby sugar refineries. One of these had, through its ownership, a direct relation with sugar plantations in Surinam.⁹⁶ Based on the high EVE value of completeness, it seems likely the pottery came from a nearby refinery and probably one of the two known facilities. In that scenario, it seems probable the owner of the lot acquired a load of broken vessels to reinforce his land-reclamation dump.

FIG. 23 Land reclamation dumps in the Uilenburgergracht, c. 1700–1730 (95) containing predominantly sugar cone moulds and syrup collecting jars (96) (photographs, Ranjith Jayasena and Ron Tousain, Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam). 

DISCUSSION

The ground beneath Amsterdam has been sinking for almost a millennium. Around 1175 the first inhabitants of the area at the mouth of the river Amstel encountered marshy peatland that was subject to soil compaction. This process had started with the peat cultivation, when the peat was drained causing the soil to settle and the land to subside. The only way to counter this problem was to raise the land, but this put extra pressure on the settling ground and as a result accelerated the process of subsidence. Many of the common contemporary techniques for land reclamation originate in late-medieval traditions. With the development of a systematic approach of the groundwork at the end of the 16th century, the foundation was laid for raising land in the present age. With the ‘Stadsfabriekambt’ and its successor, the Public Works Department, the city of Amsterdam demonstrated its ability to combine technical innovations with a pragmatic approach. This was crucial, as the issue of unstable, compacting subsoil is a problem that keeps coming back on the agenda, both in the existing city and in the new areas that are currently being developed. This shows that the challenges of the present-day Amsterdam city government are not as new as one would think, but merely a modern approach to an age-old concept.

In the 17th century it was already known that understanding the subsoil was essential for building the city and maintaining its liveability. In 1605—in a search for fresh water—it took city well driller Pieter Ente twenty-one days to drill a borehole up to a depth of 65.67 m. His description gives evidence of Ente’s knowledge of lithostratigraphy, for example when referring to the depth of the Aeolian sand as the layer Amsterdam’s foundation piles were driven into.⁹⁷ In the 1880s and 1890s, the land reclamation of two islands in the IJ—the Central Station island and the Zeeburgereiland—saw unexpected and unexplainable subsiding for the engineers involved. Today we know that these islands were built right on top of the 25 m-deep gully of the aforementioned prehistoric tidal system, the so-called Oer-IJ. The sediments of sand and clay that filled this inactive estuarine channel left a zone of compacting sediments in Amsterdam’s subsoil that over time proved to be disastrous for land reclamation and subsequent building.⁹⁸ Extensive mapping of the Oer-IJ gully in the last decades now provides substrata data to be incorporated into the construction process. Consequently, for the 21st-century land reclamation of IJburg in the IJ the sub-islands are positioned around instead of on top of the gully, thereby reducing risks of extreme soil compaction to a minimum.

Archaeological finds from the landfill layers of Vlooienburg (1595–1597/1601) and Oostenburg (1660–1661) give solid evidence for the influence of the globalization of Amsterdam on the increasing diversity of ceramic types appearing on the table and in the kitchen of Amsterdam households. These artefact assemblages provide hard evidence of historically known trade networks. The ceramics from the Vlooienburg assemblage, in relation to other assemblages, draws the following image of ceramics in Amsterdam at the end of the 16th century.

Shipping down the rivers from the German Rhineland brought a continuous supply of stoneware that, via Dordrecht as a staple market, made its way to Amsterdam. Stoneware in late 16th-century Amsterdam is typical for the production in Frechen, Raeren, and Siegburg in that time period. Pieces dating to the 1580s and early 1590s indicate that relatively new objects found their way into a landfill layer.

Werra and Weser wares were produced along the eponymous rivers and transported to the port city of Bremen for shipments to various locations in the North Sea region, including the Low Countries. The most recent Werra dishes in the assemblage bear dates of 1597 and 1598. Weser slipwares formed the largest group of imported ceramics in the coastal area of the Netherlands in the period 1575–1625. The distribution of ceramics from the Werra and Weser areas, and French white earthenware from Beauvais in the western part of the Netherlands was connected with the short route navigation between Hamburg, the British Isles and Rouen.⁹⁹ Its heyday—based on archaeological evidence—was in the period 1575–1625. Weser wares were the largest group of imported ceramics in Amsterdam and the West Friesland area at around 1600.¹⁰⁰

The Vlooienburg assemblage of Italian and Portuguese tin-glazed earthenware shows that the Dutch merchant shipping through the Strait of Gibraltar to the Mediterranean, starting around 1590, had left a significant material footprint in Amsterdam as early as 1601. Archaeological evidence demonstrates that in the period before 1600, imports of Italian tin-glazed wares in the Netherlands were dominated by Berettino monochrome faience from Liguria, with a dark-blue decoration on a light-blue background, a distribution pattern that is clear in both Amsterdam and the rest of the coastal area of the Netherlands.¹⁰¹ In the first quarter of the 17th century, Ligurian faience dropped to just a quarter of the Italian ceramic imports. This trend is evident in the ceramic assemblages of Vlooienburg and Oostenburg. Salt was imported from Portugal and—as a by-product—possibly the Portuguese tin-glazed earthenware salts in the artefact assemblage that comprise the earliest known examples of Portuguese faience in the Netherlands. The spatial distribution of archaeological finds of 17th-century Portuguese faience in the (western) Netherlands suggests a strong maritime connection, in combination with the goods belonging to Portuguese-Jewish immigrants.

Olive jars from the Iberian Peninsula were used primarily in the Spanish transatlantic trade, but also reached Amsterdam by merchant shipping and privateering.¹⁰² Also linked to merchant shipping, are the imports to the Dutch Republic from Jutland of Danish greyware ‘jydepotter’.

The porcelain finds from the Vlooienburg assemblage give evidence for the availability of porcelain in late-16th-century Amsterdam. These pieces of early Chinese porcelain, predating the massive imports from 1602 onwards, add to current insights into the introduction of Chinese porcelain in the Northern Netherlands.¹⁰³

The Oostenburg assemblage reflects how, in the third quarter of the 17th century the flourishing Dutch faience production resulted in the end of the imports of Italian and Portuguese faience. Majolica is already overshadowed by the more refined faience ware in the c. 1660/61 contexts. In the third quarter of the 17th-century, Delft developed into the country’s foremost producer of faience. This is clearly reflected in the pottery assemblage of Oostenburg that not only yielded the blue and white decorated examples, but also the undecorated ‘White Delft’ that appeared on the market shortly before 1660.

The closely-dated Amsterdam pottery assemblages are important reference groups for the analysis of ceramic finds from 17th-century settlements in the Netherlands, as well as major West European port cities, the Americas and the Indian Ocean. The range of ceramics in the 1595–1597/1601 Vlooienburg land-reclamation dumps has striking similarities with pottery assemblages excavated in other major port cities such as London, with examples from a maritime site in Limehouse and theatre sites in Southwark as well as in English settlements in the New World that were initially supplied largely through London.¹⁰⁴ The colonial assemblages in Virginia consist of German stonewares, Werra and Weser wares, Portuguese and Ligurian faience, Iberian olive jars, earthenware from Northern France, North-Italian marbled slipware, and tin-glazed earthenware from Montelupo. Chinese porcelain appeared in contexts as early as 1610.¹⁰⁵ At Dutch colonial sites in North America, the Cape and on the island of Mauritius the most common ceramic groups consisted of German stoneware, Dutch majolica and faience, and Chinese porcelain. Nearly absent in the Indian Ocean territories, the settlements in present-day New York were further provisioned with Dutch red earthenware, including the cooking vessels produced in Bergen op Zoom.¹⁰⁶

In conclusion, the pottery assemblages of Vlooienburg and Oostenburg are connected to the world by means of goods that reached the Dutch Republic from areas where the VOC and WIC were operating. At the same time, these assemblages reflect the masses of ceramics that, aboard Dutch ships, went from Europe to overseas settlements in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. The pottery assemblages encapsulated in Amsterdam’s waste-made landscape therefore provide reference groups for the study of late 16th- to 17th-century ceramics with a global perspective.

RECORD OF ARCHIVE DEPOSIT

The site archive of the excavations, including the finds, is deposited at the office for Monuments and Archaeology, City of Amsterdam.

SUMMARY IN FRENCH, GERMAN, ITALIAN AND SPANISH

FRENCH

Le monde matériel d’Amsterdam à la fin du XVI e et au XVII e siècle, encapsulé dans un paysage composé de déchets

RÉSUMÉ : Aux XVI e et XVII e siècles, la ville hollandaise d’Amsterdam a connu quatre extensions de grande envergure. Il s’agissait de projets importants de bonification des terres, qui ont permis de rehausser et d’améliorer le site de la ville celle-ci étant implantée sur une tourbière marécageuse sujette au compactage du sol. Plus de 65 ans de recherches archéologiques ont permis de livrer un riche ensemble de données, ouvrant une fenêtre sur les méthodes, les moyens et les processus qui ont participé à la création du paysage composé de déchets d’Amsterdam. Dans une perspective globale, les assemblages de poteries encapsulés dans les décharges de bonification des terres livrent des groupes de référence finement datés pour l’étude des céramiques de la fin du XVI e et du XVII e siècles.

GERMAN

Die materielle Welt Amsterdams im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, offenbart in durch Abfall entstandener Landschaft

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Im 16. Und 17. Jahrhundert hat die niederländische Stadt Amsterdam vier große Erweiterungen ihrer Fläche erlebt. Sie beruhen auf massiver Landgewinnung, wobei die Stadt, die auf Marsch- und Torfland gebaut war, welches massiver Bodenverdichtung ausgesetzt war, in ihrer Lage angehoben und gefestigt wurde. Über 65 Jahre archäologischer Forschung haben eine Fülle von Datenmaterial erbracht, das uns Einsicht gewährt in Methoden, in Mittel und in Vorgehensweisen, welche die der durch Hausmüll erschaffene Landschaft Amsterdams zu Grunde liegen. Zusätzlich geben Ansammlungen von Töpferei- und Keramik, eingebettet in Materie für die Landgewinnung, klar datierte Referenzbezüge für Studien von Keramiken aus dem späten 16. Und 17. Jahrhundert mit einer globalen Perspektive.

ITALIAN

La cultura materiale nella Amsterdam del tardo XVI e del XVII secolo racchiusa in un paesaggio formatosi grazie ai rifiuti

RIASSUNTO: Durante il XVI e il XVII secolo, la città olandese di Amsterdam visse quattro ampliamenti di vasta scala. Si trattò di progetti estensivi di recupero della terra, consistenti nel rialzare e migliorare il luogo dove sorgeva la città, una zona acquitrinosa con terreno torboso soggetta al cedimento e alla compattazione del suolo. Oltre 65 anni di ricerca archeologica hanno creato una ricca serie di dati, aprendo una finestra sul metodo, sul significato, e sui processi che hanno portato alla creazione del paesaggio di Amsterdam grazie ai rifiuti. I contesti ceramici racchiusi negli scarichi creati per ampliare la superficie della città, forniscono inoltre nuclei di reperti dalla datazione cronologicamente circoscritta, utili allo studio della ceramica tra il tardo XVI e il XVII secolo in una prospettiva globale.

SPANISH

El mundo material de la Amsterdam de finales del siglo XVI y XVII, encapsulado en un paisaje hecho con desechos

RESUMEN: La ciudad holandesa de Amsterdam experimentó en los siglos XVI y XVII cuatro grandes ampliaciones. Estos fueron proyectos masivos de reclamación de tierras, elevando y mejorando la ubicación de la ciudad en una turbera pantanosa que estaba sujeta a la compactación del suelo. La investigación arqueológica realizada durante más de 65 años ha amasado un conjunto muy rico de datos que nos permite observar los métodos, los medios y los procesos que crearon este paisaje a base de vertidos de Amsterdam. Además, los grupos de cerámica encontrados en los vertederos de la tierra reclamada representan grupos de referencia muy bien fechados para el estudio de la cerámica de finales del siglo XVI y XVII dentro de una perspectiva global.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This article is based in part on my Ph.D. research at the University of Amsterdam, completed in 2019, during which I received the generous assistance of a number of individuals and institutions. In the first place I would like to thank Jerzy Gawronski and especially Gabri van Tussenbroek for their guidance. Tremendous assistance also came from my other colleagues on the archaeology team of the City of Amsterdam, and I thank—in alphabetical order—Ronald Klein, Peter Kranendonk, Jort Maas, Thijs Terhorst, Ron Tousain, Jørgen Veerkamp, Bart Vissers, and Eddie de Vlugt. Special acknowledgement is due Ab Lagerweij, who was always prepared to share his insights, his enthusiasm, and his help in digging through decades of excavation records. I thank Thijs Terhorst for his GIS work, and the production of the maps illustrating the City’s spatial development from its very beginnings. For their help with the pottery assemblages, I am indebted to Nina Jaspers, Sebastiaan Ostkamp, Sem Peters (†) and Aleike van de Venne. For issues related to water management, I thank Kees Hogenes. For their comments and editorial work, I am indebted to Maarten Hell, Taft Kiser, and Bly Straube, as well as the two anonymous peer reviewers. Needless to say, the responsibility for any remaining errors is mine.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 Medieval city size, Van Tussenbroek 2018, 6.

2 North of the Oudekerksplein (OKP1-site, 1997) the first brick buildings built on 14th-century landfill deposits dated to the 1530s.

3 Jayasena 2020, 54-55.

4 Lesger 2006; Gelderblom 2013, 20-37.

5 City Archives Amsterdam, Entry 5025, inventory 8 (30th May 1592).

6 De Fremery 1925, 91.

7 Abrahamse 2010, 34-118.

8 Abrahamse 2010, 119-216.

9 De Gans 2015, 361-373; Kranendonk, Kluiving & Troelstra 2015, 333-352.

10 De Fremery 1925.

11 City Archives Amsterdam (Stadsarchief Amsterdam), 5028 (Archief van Burgemeesters), inv. nr. 604 (stadswater IA, 17 mei 1682).

12 Van Tussenbroek 2018, 9-12.

13 Van Essen 2011, 138-270.

14 Van Essen 2011.

15 The analysis of these cesspits, as sources of information on material culture and diet of the multi-ethnic population of 17th- and 18th-century Vlooienburg, is part of the ongoing research project Diaspora and Identity, funded by the Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), and undertaken in a cooperation between the City of Amsterdam, the University of Amsterdam and the Jewish Historical Museum.

16 Baart, Krook and Lagerweij 1986.

17 Gawronski & Jayasena 2011a; Gawronski, Jayasena & Terhorst 2017a.

18 Gawronski, Jayasena & Terhorst 2017b.

19 Gawronski & Jayasena 2016.

20 City Archives Amsterdam, Entry 5039, inventory 550, pp. 71r-77v (16th December 1593).

21 City Archives Amsterdam, Entry 5025, inventory 8, pp. 182-183 (13th November 1595), 186-187 (20th November 1595).

22 Jansen 1968, 307 and City Archives Amsterdam, Entry 5025, inventory 8, 27th November 1600.

23 Jansen 1968, 307; Van Eeghen 1953, 17-23.

24 Archaeological site Prins Hendrikkade 34-37 (PH), 1988.

25 Sarfatij 2007, 62-71; McDonald 2011, 42-67; Mackinder 2015; Ayre and Wroe-Brown 2002.

26 Abrahamse 2010: 111.

27 Dapper 1663:225.

28 The oldest known building in Amsterdam where pine was used in the timber frame is located at Oudezijds Voorburgwal 98 and is dating to 1605 or 1606, see Van Tussenbroek 2012, 176-177.

29 For example when expanding Vlooienburg in 1626: Amsterdam City Archives, Archives of Notaries, no. 720, folio 32, 26th January 1626, Not. Pieter Carels, abstract published in Van Dillen 1933, 190.

30 Gawronski & Jayasena 2016; Jayasena, Terhorst & Maas 2020.

31 From 1591 it became the city’s policy to build brick quay walls whenever quays were renewed and in 1595 the first were constructed (Abrahamse 2010, 284-285). In 2014, the grid foundation of a quay wall of the Oudezijds Voorburgwal 206-222 was dendrochronologically dated to after 1591. It’s the oldest archaeological evidence for the petrification of the Amsterdam quays, see Gawronski and Veerkamp 2017, 30-33 (MenA AAR 93).

32 City Archives Amsterdam (Stadsarchief Amsterdam), 5028 (Archief van Burgemeesters), inv. nr. 604 (stadswater IA, 17 mei 1682).

33 Terhorst & Veerkamp 2021.

34 City Archives Amsterdam, 5180 Inventaris van het Archief van de Secretarie; Afdeling Publieke Werken, inv. 11235, Staat van de grachten- en kadewallen in de stad, 1854.

35 Oldewelt 1942, 149.

36 Breen 1902.

37 Oldewelt 1942, 150-151.

38 Noordkerk 1748, 749. The refuse was needed ‘tot verhoginge van de nieuwe uytlegginghe’.

39 Noordkerk 1748, 1012-1014.

40 City Archives Amsterdam, NA 11935/192, KLAB05923000100 of 27th May 1758, and NA 10235/147, NOTB00037000600 of 9th March 1746.

41 Historical evidence from the city of Breda indicates four-year intervals (Hupperetz 2010, 279-283).

42 Van Oosten 2017, 41-56.

43 A few examples in The Netherlands: Enkhuizen: Schrickx & Duijn 2016; Duijn 2011, 21-27; Medemblik: Schrickx 2013,53; Hoorn: Schrickx & Duijn 2010, 61-67. London: Mackinder 2015; Jarret 2004; Quebec: Moussette and Moss 2010, 63-64.

44 Bibliothèque et Archives Nationales du Québec, 03Q_E1,S1,P661: "Ordonnance de l’intendant Jacques Raudot qui oblige tous les habitants de la basse-ville de Québec de porter ou faire voiturer toutes leurs ordures, vidanges et démolitions dans l'emplacement du feu sieur Aubert de la Chesnaye dont on a tiré la terre pour faire des batteries. 16 avril 1710".

45 Orton, Tyers & Vince 1993, 178.

46 For this discussion, see Gawronski, Jayasena & Terhorst 2017, 95-97.

47 Oostenburgervoorstraat: Gawronski, Jayasena & Terhorst 2017, 71; Zwanenburgwal 35: Lovegrove Pereira 2015; Oudezijds Voorburgwal 40: Ostkamp 2017, 37.

48 Sites: Oostenburg, OBV (Gawronski, Jayasena & Terhorst 2017); Oostenburg, OOST4 (Gawronski and Jayasena 2011), Warmoesstraat 10 (WA24, 2014), Valkenburgerstraat 130-146 (VAL4, 2011-2012: Gawronski & Jayasena 2016).

49 Clevis, Kottman 1989.

50 Jaspers 2011, 89-100.

51 Contexts DIJ and WLO-146, both MNV = 1 (Jayasena 2020, 132-133 and 248).

52 Van Dillen 1941, 7, fol. 7.

53 Stephan 1995.

54 Bartels 1999, 178-179; Van Gangelen & Lenting 1993, 177-178 (Fig 30), 197 (Fig. 104), 202 (Fig. 121). Originally it was assumed this earthenware originated from Dwoberg, near Bremen, hence the dw code. Nowadays it’s believed to come from the area around Ochtrup (examples from Ochtrup: Broel 1998, 128-135).

55 City moat: Gawronski, Van Tussenbroek, Derksen and Jayasena 2017, 53-59; Valkenburgerstraat: Gawronski & Jayasena 2016, 60 (Fig. 65a), 63, 138 (cat. 7, dw-bor-1, 1650-1700).

56 Jaspers 2009, 3.

57 Berti 1998, 197-198.

58 Jaspers 2009, 12.

59 Jaspers & Ostkamp 2019, 214.

60 Van Dam 1982, 10.

61 Jaspers 2010, 135. Similar pieces were excavated in a 1591 ground reclamation dump in Enkhuizen (Duijn 2011, 60-61).

62 Bowl: WLO-155-100, pan: WLO-155B-95.

63 Amsterdam: Gawronski & Jayasena 2011, 36: black pots: Guldberg 1999.

64 Van Reenen & Jensen 2009, 318-320.

65 Jaspers & Ostkamp 2014, 12-13.

66 Jaspers & Ostkamp 2014, 10-29; Stolk 2018, 101-120 (link between Portuguese ceramics and Sephardic immigrants).

67 WLO-155-65. For a comparison, see Hurst et al. 1986, 50.

68 Busto-Zapico 2020, 42-59.

69 For Olive jars in Amsterdam, see Terhorst 2012.

70 Viallé 2014, 37-51; Ostkamp 2014, 59-63.

71 Dishes of border type IIa (Rinaldi 1989, 76-77).

72 Ostkamp 2015, 457.

73 WLO-155-235.

74 Kiser & Luckenbach 2020, 139-140.

75 Duco 1987, 28-31; Pearce 2009, 175-180.

76 Gawronski, Van Tussenbroek, Derksen & Jayasena 2017, 59.

77 Sint Nicolaas 2021, 106-121.

78 Heidinga 1969, 174-185.

79 Alkmaar: Bitter 1995, 93-113. Ostkamp 1998, 70; Gouda: Van der Meulen & Smeele 2012.

80 Van Hees 2002, 50-65; Ostkamp 2023, 427-428.

81 Stephan 2012, 58-69.

82 Jaspers and Ostkamp 2006, 27.

83 Ostkamp 2019, 54.

84 The pieces by Willem Jansz Verstraeten are decorated with grotesques. For armorial dishes attributed to Verstraten, see Korf 1981, 228-229.

85 Ostkamp 2013, 89-90.

86 Ostkamp 2013, 101.

87 For examples from Delft, see Ostkamp 2013, 101, 104.

88 Ostkamp, 2013, 84-85.

89 OBV-111#004 (Gawronski and Jayasena 2017, 62, Fig. 60).

90 Gawronski and Jayasena 2017, 62-64.

91 Silver spoon, object OBV-111-2 (Gawronski & Jayasena 2017, 63).

92 Gawronski & Jayasena 2017, 64-65.

93 Terhorst 2012, 90.

94 Gawronski & Kranendonk 2018, 24-25.

95 Gawronski & Veerkamp 2014, 30.

96 Owned by Nicolaas and Hendrik van Hoorn, who had major shares in the sugar production in Surinam.

97 Commelin 1694, 153; Abrahamse & Feiken 2019, 36-39. A damaged 17th-century iron well drill of the same type Ente used – and had patented in 1605 – was uncovered during North South metro line excavations in 2005: Gawronski & Kranendonk 2018, 199, cat. 4.4.1 (NZD1.00602MTL001).

98 De Gans 2015, 370.

99 Claeys & Jaspers 2010, 463-464. In addition to French whitewares, in Amsterdam a flask of stoneware of Martincamp, Normandy, was excavated (WLO-376-6, s6-fle-1; see Gawronski 2012, 180, cat. 370).

100 Schrickx 2016, 77-79.

101 Outside Amsterdam, in other Dutch coastal places this group in general consisted of three quarters of the Italian tin-glazed earthenware. See Jaspers 2009, 3.

102 Terhorst 2012, 89-90.

103 Ostkamp 2003, 14-29; Ostkamp 2014, 53-85; Duijn 2011.

104 Jarrett 2005, 34-35 in Killock & Meddens 2005, 1-91 and Whittingham 2009, 180-185.

105 Straube 1999, 35-57: Straube 2001, 51-52; Fuchs 2019, 49-57; Gardiner 2018, 20-40; Outlaw 1990, 111-112.

106 New York: Bradley 2007, Huey 1991; Cape: Klose & Schrire 2014, 101-141, Jordan 2014a, 143-163; Jordan 2014b, 165-179; VOC fort Frederik Hendrik, Mauritius: Floore & Jayasena 2010, 320-340.