Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T00:39:39.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parasite infection in the silk-weaving district of Realejo in Granada (Spain) in the 17th–18th century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2025

Ramón López-Gijón Open the ORCID record for Ramón López-Gijón [Opens in a new window] ,
Salvatore Duras ,
Sylvia Jiménez-Brobeil ,
Pablo L. Fernández-Romero ,
Amjad Suliman ,
Rosa Maroto-Benavides ,
Francisco Sánchez-Montes  and
Piers D. Mitchell Open the ORCID record for Piers D. Mitchell [Opens in a new window]
Ramón López-Gijón*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Hercules Laboratory, University of Évora, Évora, Portugal Research Centre for Anthropology and Health (CIAS), University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
Salvatore Duras
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Faculty of Medicine, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
Sylvia Jiménez-Brobeil
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
Pablo L. Fernández-Romero
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
Amjad Suliman
Affiliation:
Independent Archaeologist, Granada, Spain
Rosa Maroto-Benavides
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
Francisco Sánchez-Montes
Affiliation:
Department of Modern and American History, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
Piers D. Mitchell
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
*
Corresponding author: Ramón López-Gijón; Email: ramonlopez131094@correo.ugr.es
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The district of Realejo in Granada, Spain, was a renown centre for the production of fine silk cloth from the medieval period onwards. During the excavation of a building on the south side of the square of Campo del Principe, two cesspits were identified that dated to the 17th–18th century. Historical evidence suggests this building might have been associated with the guild of silk workers, or might have been a residential property. Samples of sediment from each cesspit were taken at the time of excavation. Optical microscopy identified the eggs of Ascaris sp. (roundworm), Trichuris sp. (whipworm), probable Fasciola sp., Spirometra sp. and Capillaria sp. The presence of Ascaris and Trichuris likely reflect infection of the population by these helminths, and indicate ineffective sanitation. However, the eggs of Fasciola, Spirometra and Capillaria are more likely to reflect infection of animals rather than humans. The eggs could have been deposited in the cesspit if humans ate the organs of infected herbivores (Fasciola), if the faeces of companion animals such as cats or dogs were discarded in the cesspits (Spirometra), or if rodents defecated inside the cesspits as they explored the waste discarded there (Capillaria). While we cannot be sure if those who used these toilets were involved in silk manufacturing, merchants who traded in silk, or other members of society, the pattern of parasite species recovered help provide a vivid picture of life in the people who lived and worked in the silk district of Granada 300–400 years ago.

Keywords

archaeoparasitologyAscarisbioarcheologypaleoparasitologypaleopathologyTrichuris

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , First View , pp. 1 - 9
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

The study of ancient parasites, known as paleoparasitology or archaeoparasitology (Dittmar et al., Reference Dittmar, Araújo, Reinhard and Grauer2012; Ferreira, Reference Ferreira, Ferreira, Reinhard and Araújo2014; Reinhard et al., Reference Reinhard, Slepchenko, Shin and Smith2018) can provide valuable information on the life of past populations (Le Bailly et al., Reference Le Bailly, Maicher, Roche and Dufour2021; Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2024). This discipline is based on the study of the phases of the parasitic dispersal of intestinal helminths, given their preservation in archaeological contexts (Ramírez et al., Reference Ramírez, Fabra, Xavier and Iñiguez2022; Saldanha et al., Reference Saldanha, Pucu, Chame and Leles2022). In this way, by finding geohelminth eggs (such as Ascaris sp. or Trichuris sp.), we can better understand hygiene and sanitary conditions in these populations (Dufour et al., Reference Dufour, Segard and Le Bailly2016; Ledger et al., Reference Ledger, Micarelli, Ward, Prowse, Carroll, Killgrove, Rice, Franconi, Tafuri, Manzi and Mitchell2021; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Cessford, Dittmar, Inskip, Jones and Mitchell2022), as well as the use of certain agricultural practices such as the use of human faecal matter to fertilize fields used for agriculture (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2017a; López-Gijón et al., Reference López-Gijón, Camarós, Rubio-Salvador, Duras, Botella-López, Alemán-Aguilera, Rodríguez-Aguilera, Bustamante-Álvarez, Sánchez-Barba, Dufour and Le Bailly2023a). The discovery of the eggs of zoonotic parasites is also very useful for our understanding of the presence and/or consumption of certain animals, helping to explain animal–human interactions (Ledger and Mitchell, Reference Ledger and Mitchell2022; Wang and Mitchell, Reference Wang and Mitchell2022; López-Gijón et al., Reference López-Gijón, Carnicero, Botella-López and Camarós2023b).

Paleoparasitology is becoming increasingly important in archaeological research (Gaeta and Fornaciari, Reference Gaeta, Fornaciari and Bruschi2022; Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2023) and has developed novel techniques to search for evidence of parasites in ancient populations (Jaeger and Mayo-Iñiguez, Reference Jaeger and Mayo-Iñiguez2014; Côté and Le Bailly, Reference Côté and Le Bailly2018; Wood, Reference Wood2018). These technological improvements allow analysis to be performed on a wide range of materials. Among these, the investigations commonly focus on sanitation infrastructure in which human faecal material accumulates (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2015a), such as latrines (Williams et al., Reference Williams, Arnold-Foster, Yeh, Ledger, Baeten, Poblome and Mitchell2017), cesspits (Wang et al., Reference Wang, Deforce, De Gryse, Eggermont, Vanoverbeke and Mitchell2024) sewer drains and wastewater channels (López-Gijón et al., Reference López-Gijón, Hernández-Robles, Duras, Celma, Curto, González-Ballesteros, Dufour, Le Bailly and Eiroa2025). Examination of their sediment tends to yield larger numbers of parasites eggs and parasitic species in comparison with sediment from the pelvis and sacrum of human burials (see Flammer et al., Reference Flammer, Ryan, Preston, Warren, Prichystalova, Weiss, Palmowski, Boschert, Fellgiebel, Jasch-Boley, Kairies, Rümmele, Rieger, Schmid, Reeves, Nicholson, Loe, Guy, Waldron, Machácek, Wahl, Pollard, Larson and Smith2020; Ryan et al., Reference Ryan, Flammer, Nicholson, Loe, Reeves, Allison, Guy, Doriga, Waldron, Walker, Kirchhelle, Larson and Smith2022; López-Gijón, Reference López-Gijón2023). For these reasons, these findings from sanitation infrastructure linked to faecal remains are especially useful for gaining a better understanding of the parasitic diversity of the population. This is even more helpful in arid and semi-arid geographical areas, where taphonomic issues often limit parasite egg survival (Morrow et al., Reference Morrow, Newby, Piombino-Mascali and Reinhard2016; Ramírez et al., Reference Ramírez, Fabra, Xavier and Iñiguez2022). In the case of the Iberian Peninsula, often only tough geohelminth eggs survive at archaeological sites (Cunha et al., Reference Cunha, Santos, Matias and Sianto2017; Knorr et al., Reference Knorr, Smith, Ledger, Peña-Chocarro, Pérez-Jordà, Clapés, Palma and Mitchell2019; López-Gijón et al., Reference López-Gijón, Duras, Botella-López, Sentí-Ribes, Dufour and Le Bailly2022, Reference López-Gijón, Duras, Sánchez Susí, González Recio, Rubio Salvador, Botella López and Cámara Serrano2024b).

In this paper, new paleoparasitological findings from the city of Granada in the 17th and 18th centuries are provided by studying two toilet structures. Our aim is to better understand the lives of the people who lived in the silk production district of Realejo 300–400 years ago by comparing our results with historical texts from Granada and past paleoparasitological findings from similar socioeconomic contexts.

Materials and methods

Archaeological site

The archaeological material derives from a 2023 excavation of Molinos Street no. 21 in Granada city (Figure 1). The stratigraphy of four excavation sites allows us to distinguish layers corresponding to modern, early modern, medieval and Roman periods (Suliman and Fernández-Romero, Reference Suliman and Fernández-Romero2025).

Figure 1.

Location of Molinos Street in the Dalmau’s map of Granada (Spain), printed in 1796. Map from Archivo Municipal de Granada (https://www.Granada.Org/inet/wcartografia.Nsf/fa/B8B8A4DDC35D69CCC125760A0036A6DF).

The modern layer (19th–20th centuries) comprises the excavated building, closed wastewater channels, foundation wall remains and bags of rubbish. The early modern layer (16th–18th centuries) contains the remains of wastewater channels and walls (loadbearing and partition) as well as one cesspit constructed of stone bricks and another comprising an earthenware jar recycled for this purpose; the samples analysed for this study all come from this early modern layer. The medieval layer (11th–15th centuries) corresponds to the Bab Alfajjarin necropolis (maqbara Bāb al-Fajjārīn), the largest cemetery in the eastern part of the city. Finally, the Roman phase (approx. 1st century B.C.) reveals the remnants of an olive mill pool made of opus signinum (Roman concrete) that was reutilized as a tomb in medieval times.

Historical context

The excavation site is within an area (Realejo) that had been occupied by a large Muslim cemetery known as Maqbarat Bab al-Fajjarin, which was cleared in the early 16th century (Torres Balbás, Reference Torres Balbás1995). In 1513, Christians in the city petitioned for plots of land on the site (Campo del Principe) to build homes (Archivo municipal de Granada, lib. II, fol 67 rº.).

A unitary constructive model was followed in accordance with building norms of the time, creating standardized houses that opened on to a central square and were arranged in a regular geometric form (Acale Sánchez, Reference Acale Sánchez2005). Houses constructed in the southern part of the Campo del Principe in the 16th–18th centuries were typically Casas de Vecinos (Houses of Neighbors), characterized by multiple dwellings on different floors with open corridors looking over a central courtyard.

The Campo de Principe was in the Realejo neighbourhood, a centre of silk production since Islamic times. Many craftspeople were employed in this industry, and the first craft guild was established in Realejo in 1528. The quality of their work gained international renown (Garzón Pareja, Reference Garzón Pareja1972), and the Venetian ambassador Andrea de Navagero wrote that most of the Christians were silk merchants, praising the quality of their silk, ‘perhaps better than in Italy’ (Navagero, Reference Navagero1951). Family silk workshops abounded in the area, where some street names still reflect their activity (e.g. Plegadero means ‘place for folding’).

The excavation site was one of the main buildings on the south side of the Campo del Príncipe. It was constructed in the 16th century and may be the edifice described by Henríquez de Jorquera in the 17th century as offices for ‘the higher art of silk’ around the ‘large and spacious square’ Campo de Principe (Henríquez de Jorquera, Reference Henríquez de Jorquera1987). It may therefore have been used by members of the guild, and restructured as a house of corridors, with the front of the house opening onto the square (Campo de Principe), or it may also have been one of the Casas de Vecinos built in the area (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

A) Detail of Ambrosio de Vico map printed in 1613 showing the study site. Map from Archivo Municipal de Granada (https://www.Granada.Org/inet/wcartografia.Nsf/fa/09696CD302334900C12573F0002EDE74); B) Intact earthenware jar used as cesspit found in Molinos street.

Method

Paleoparasitological analyses were conducted in sediment from the two cesspits found at the archaeological site. Samples were gathered immediately upon their opening to avoid deterioration (Fugassa, Reference Fugassa, Ferreira, Reinhard and Araújo2014), and researchers wore surgical masks and protective clothing (PPE), using new dust-free nitrile gloves (López-Gijón et al., Reference López-Gijón, Jiménez-Brobeil, Maroto-Benavides, Duras, Suliman, Fernández Romero, Botella López, Sánchez-Montes and Mitchell2024a) and plastic spoons for each sample to prevent cross-contamination (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell, Mitchell and Brickley2017b; Sianto et al., Reference Sianto, de Miranda Chaves, Teixeira-Santos, Pereira, Godinho, Gonçalves and Santos2018).

The sampling method published by Le Bailly et al. (Reference Le Bailly, Maicher, Roche and Dufour2021) was followed. Control samples were taken from the exterior of the analysed structures (Cesspit 1C.S. and Cesspit 2C.S.1), as well as from the limestone caps that closed both cesspits (1C.S.1, 1C.S.2 and 2C.S.2). Regarding the samples taken from the interior of the structures, given the uniformity of the contents, samples could not be taken based on colour change. Therefore, artificial stratigraphic units were used to obtain the samples from the top until the bottom of both structures (1S.U.1, 1S.U.2, 1S.U.3, 1S.U.4, 2S.U.1 and 2S.U.2). Between 50 and 70 grams of sediment were collected from each sample.

Each sample was placed within two sealed plastic bags, labelled with the site name, site area, cesspit number and stratigraphic unit, and was delivered to the Laboratory of Physical and Forensic Anthropology of the University of Granada (Spain) for storage in darkness under controlled temperature and humidity conditions. Laboratory analysis followed the Rehydration, Homogenization and Micro-sieving (RHM) approach (Dufour and Le Bailly, Reference Dufour and Le Bailly2013). Briefly, 5 g of sample was rehydrated for seven days in aqueous solution of 50% 0.5% trisodium phosphate (Na3PO4) and 50% 5% glycerol (C3H8O3) containing formaldehyde (CH2O) drops against fungal growth. Next, the material was crushed in a porcelain mortar, immersed in ultrasound bath for 1 min, and then passed through 315, 160, 50 and 25 μm micro-sieves under a constant stream of water. Material was taken from the 50 and 25 μm micro-sieves, and then studied under light microscopy (Olympus CX43 at 100×, 400× and 600× coupled to Olympus SC-50 camera). Twenty slides were analysed per sample (n = 220) and analysed with Olympus CellSens software. The size and morphology of eggs served to identify the parasites, using reference manuals (Thienpont et al., Reference Thienpont, Rochette and Vanparijs1986; Roberts and Janovy, Reference Roberts and Janovy2008).

The analysis of eggs per gram has not been carried out, given the actual egg numbers per gram will be impacted by the commingled nature of the faeces in this cesspit. Firstly, some users may have had few or no parasites while others may have had plenty, and so any eggs per gram calculation with at best be a mean of the values from the original users. Secondly, the amount of refuse discarded into the cesspit is unknown, and such refuse will dilute out the faecal material and so impact the eggs per gram calculations. Thirdly, the rate of destruction of parasite eggs over time, which will be dependent upon how waterlogged the cesspit sediment was and the type and number of decomposing organisms present, remains unknown. A more waterlogged site might preserve eggs better than a drier one, and the presence or more bacteria, fungi or insects that feed off such eggs will also affect egg survival.

Results

Control samples from around the cesspit and lime levels were all negative for parasite eggs, indicating that the environment surrounding the toilets was not contaminated by human faeces. In contrast, the samples from lower levels within the cesspits were positive for eggs of Ascaris sp., Trichuris sp., Fasciola sp., Capillaria sp. and Spirometra sp. (Table 1). Ascaris sp. (roundworm) eggs (n = 11) were found in samples from both cesspits, characterized by their mamillated shell (Figure 3A), oval morphology and dimensions (63.51 ± 2.26 × 47 ± 1.31 μm). There was also one decorticated Ascaris sp. egg, commonly described in paleoparasitological studies (López-Gijón et al., Reference López-Gijón, Jiménez-Brobeil, Maroto-Benavides, Duras, Suliman, Fernández Romero, Botella López, Sánchez-Montes and Mitchell2024a). Trichuris sp. (whipworm) eggs (n = 5) were found in samples from both cesspits, characterized by their thick shell, smooth surface, lemon-like morphology, bipolar protuberances (polar plugs) (Figure 3B) and dimensions (49.64 ± 1.04 × 24.98 ± 1.28 μm). One probable Fasciola sp. egg was found in cesspit 1, characterized by its thin shell, flask-shaped morphology (operculum at one end) (Figure 4A) and dimensions (149.4 × 89.8 μm). Capillaria sp. eggs (n = 5) were also found in samples from both cesspits (n = 5), characterized by their thick wall with radiating pores (minute rod-shaped structures), slightly protruding polar plugs, lemon shape (Figure 4B) and dimensions (54.93 ± 0.53 × 30.22 ± 0.06 μm). Probable Spirometra sp. eggs (n = 4), were found in cesspit 1 (Figure 4C), characterized by their flask-shaped morphology, operculum and dimensions which are smaller and slimmer than those of fish tapeworm (70.78 ± 0.78 × 35.85 ± 0.33 μm).

Figure 3.

A) Ascaris sp. Egg with mamillated coat (65.2 × 50.5 μm); B) Trichuris sp. Egg (51.6 × 25 μm).

Figure 4.

A) Fasciola sp. Egg with operculum lost (149.4 × 89.8 μm); B) Capillaria sp. Egg (55.7 × 30.4 μm); C) Spirometra sp. Egg with operculum lost (72.5 × 35.4 μm).

Table 1.

Details of the parasite eggs found in Molinos street. C.S. Stands for control sample. S.U. Indicates sediment from within each toilet feature

Discussion

In this study we found the eggs of five different helminths in the two toilet features from a 17th–18th century building in Granada. We will now consider the implications of these findings, and how it improves our understanding of the lives of those who lived and worked in the silk production district of Realejo.

Ascaris sp. and Trichuris sp. are observed in a range of mammals. In humans, we find A. lumbricoides (roundworm) and T. trichiura (whipworm), in pigs A. suum and T. suis, while dogs and foxes have T. vulpis and mice have T. muris (Roberts and Janovy, Reference Roberts and Janovy2008; Betson et al., Reference Betson, Søe and Nejsum2015). It is difficult to differentiate morphologically (Leles et al., Reference Leles, Gardner, Reinhard, Iñiguez and Araújo2012) or genetically (Alves et al., Reference Alves, Conceição and Leles2016) among Ascaris sp. while morphologic differences allow T. vulpis to be differentiated from T. suis or T. trichiura but do not allow T. trichiura to be distinguished from T. suis (Betson et al., Reference Betson, Søe and Nejsum2015). To avoid confusion, these parasites are described simply as Ascaris sp. and Trichuris sp. in this article.

Eggs of Ascaris sp. and Trichuris sp. were detected in both cesspits under study. The faecal-oral life cycle of these geohelminths involves the intake of water or food contaminated with human faeces (Vaz Nery et al., Reference Vaz Nery, Pickering, Abate, Asmare, Barrett, Benjamin-Chung, Bundy, Clasen, Clements, Colford, Ercumen, Crowley, Cumming, Freeman, Haque, Mengistu, Oswald, Pullan, Oliveira, Owen, Walson, Youya and Brooker2019; Eslahi et al., Reference Eslahi, Olfatifar, Karim, AbuOdeh, Modirian and Houshmand2022) by the lack of hand washing and other limitations to hygiene and sanitation (Fung and Cairncross, Reference Fung and Cairncross2009). These parasites are frequently present in areas with poor sanitation and polluted drinking water (Jourdan et al., Reference Jourdan, Lamberton, Fenwick and Addiss2018). They produce a very large number of eggs, up to 200 000 per day by roundworm females and 3000–20 000 per day by whipworm females (Roberts and Janovy, Reference Roberts and Janovy2008). This volume of eggs and their highly resistant shells (Wharton, Reference Wharton1980) make these geohelminths the most frequently detected parasites in ancient European material (Anastasiou, Reference Anastasiou and Mitchell2015; Gaeta and Fornaciari, Reference Gaeta, Fornaciari and Bruschi2022). The health effects of these parasites are related to the number involved in the infection, so that some individuals are asymptomatic, but others have abdominal cramps, diarrhoea, anaemia and malnutrition, with a reduction in intelligence and stunting of growth during childhood; in addition, there is a risk of intestinal obstruction in severe cases of roundworm infection (Jourdan et al., Reference Jourdan, Lamberton, Fenwick and Addiss2018). Roundworm was described by the Spanish physicians Miguel de Agustín in the 17th century and by Lorenzo Hervás y Panduro in the 18th century (Cordero Del Campillo, Reference Cordero Del Campillo1980), but none of the other parasites detected are mentioned in contemporaneous Spanish writings.

It is also not possible to differentiate microscopically among the eggs of different Fasciola sp. (Mas-Coma et al., Reference Mas-Coma, Valero, Bargues, Toledo and Fried2019), although F. hepatica is much more frequently observed in Europe. Likewise, no attempt is made here to identify specific Capillaria and Spirometra species due to the absence of characteristic morphological features (Almeida et al., Reference Almeida, Coscarelli, Melo, Melo and Pinto2016; Borba et al., Reference Borba, Gurjão, Martin, Dufour, Le Bailly and Iñiguez2025).

An egg likely to represent liver fluke (Fasciola sp.) eggs was found in one cesspit. This zoonotic parasite infects the host biliary tract, usually in herbivores (e.g. ruminants). When infected herbivore liver is consumed by humans, the eggs can pass through the body without causing harm (false parasitism); hence, their presence in faeces does not indicate human infection. However, true infection can result from the consumption of water or plants contaminated by Fasciola metacercariae (Cwiklinski et al., Reference Cwiklinski, O’Neill, Donnelly and Dalton2016; Mas-Coma et al., Reference Mas-Coma, Valero, Bargues, Toledo and Fried2019). The fact that only one egg was recovered probably indicates false parasitism rather than true human infection, and so reflects the foods consumed by those using this toilet.

Eggs likely to represent Spirometra sp. were found in one cesspit. Certain species of Canidae and Felidae are the definitive hosts of this zoonotic parasite, but humans can also be accidental hosts, largely by consuming contaminated drinking water or inadequately cooked meat from intermediate hosts, including amphibians, reptiles, birds, or even mammals (e.g. pigs). Contact with an intermediate host can also allow plerocercoid larvae to directly enter the skin or mucosa, especially through an open wound (Pampiglione et al., Reference Pampiglione, Fioravanti and Rivasi2003). The recovery of the eggs of this parasite in the toilet sediment and the considerable presence of their definitive hosts in the city of Granada (cats and dogs) indicate a potential risk of humans infections. On the balance of probability, these eggs may indicate that faeces from companion animals such as pet dogs or cats could have been discarded into this toilet, resulting in their being mixed in with the human faecal material analysed.

Eggs of Capillaria sp. were found in both the cesspits. Rodents are most frequently the definitive hosts of these zoonotic parasites, but they are detected in numerous other mammals, including beavers, cats, chimpanzees, coyotes, dogs, foxes, monkeys, pigs and wolves (Pal and Gutama, Reference Pal and Gutama2024), with rare reports of human infection, mainly by C. philippinensis, C. aerophile, or C. hepatica. In Europe, the most commonly reported human infections are caused by Capillaria hepatica. Unlike some other Capillaria species, eggs are not typically found in the stool of humans infected with C. hepatica. However, eggs may appear in the stool during spurious infections (false parasitism), which occur when a person consumes the liver of an infected animal, allowing the eggs to pass through the digestive system and be excreted (Ledger and Mitchell, Reference Ledger and Mitchell2022).

In contrast to earlier time periods, limited data are available on the presence of parasites in cesspits, latrines, or sewer drains from the early modern period in Europe. Studies on 16th–19th century faecal material have been carried out on sites in the UK (Anastasiou et al., Reference Anastasiou, Mitchell, Jeffries, Mitchell and Buckberry2012; Ryan et al., Reference Ryan, Flammer, Nicholson, Loe, Reeves, Allison, Guy, Doriga, Waldron, Walker, Kirchhelle, Larson and Smith2022), Belgium (Fernandes et al., Reference Fernandes, Ferreira, Gonçalves, Bouchet, Klein, Iguchi, Sianto and Araújo2005; Rocha et al., Reference Rocha, Harter-Lailheugue, Le Bailly, Araújo, Ferreira, Serra-Freire and Bouchet2006; Graff et al., Reference Graff, Bennion-Pedley, Jones, Ledger, Deforce, Degraeve, Byl and Mitchell2020; Rabinow et al., Reference Rabinow, Deforce and Mitchell2023; Ledger et al., Reference Ledger, Poulain and Deforce2024), the Czech Republic (Bartošová et al., Reference Bartošová, Ditrich, Beneš, Frolík and Musil2011), and France (Bouchet et al., Reference Bouchet, Bentrad and Paicheler1998). These show that roundworm and whipworm infection dominated, but some zoonotic species of parasites were also present.

The presence of parasite eggs in the environment can be considerably increased when human waste is poorly managed or when it is employed to fertilize crops, which has been a common practice throughout history (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell2015b; Dufour et al., Reference Dufour, Segard and Le Bailly2016; Knorr et al., Reference Knorr, Smith, Ledger, Peña-Chocarro, Pérez-Jordà, Clapés, Palma and Mitchell2019). Alongside poor waste management and the use of channel waters by humans and animals, these factors would have favoured the outbreak of epidemics by intestinal micro-organisms. The most severe mortality crises in Granada during the 17th century were a bubonic plague epidemic in 1679 (Jimenez-Brobeil and Al Oumaoui, Reference Jimenez-Brobeil and Al Oumaoui2002), and an earlier faecal-oral transmitted epidemic of typhus in 1648, attributed in the mortality records of some Granada parishes on contaminated watercourses (Jiménez-Brobeil et al., Reference Jiménez-Brobeil, Benavides and González2020). The severity of the typhus epidemic, exacerbated by the use in houses and vegetable plots of dirty water from irrigation canals, led to the promulgation by Granada Council of Water Ordinances (Ordenanzas de las Aguas) in 1670. Accordingly, water conduits, wastewater canals and the river had to be cleaned in March and September every year, and it was forbidden to wash clothes or fish or throw human waste or dead animals (e.g. dogs, cats or chickens) into the waters (Granada Council, 1670). Water contamination is known to be a risk factor for parasitosis due to geohelminths (Bowman, Reference Bowman2021; WHO, 2023) and liver flukes (Sabourin et al., Reference Sabourin, Alda, Vázquez, Hurtrez-Boussès and Vittecoq2018). This work together with previous results (López-Gijón et al., Reference López-Gijón, Jiménez-Brobeil, Maroto-Benavides, Duras, Suliman, Fernández Romero, Botella López, Sánchez-Montes and Mitchell2024a) shows the widespread presence of contaminated water in different parts of the city, with the different water channels analysed to date being contaminated by these parasites.

Water for domestic and public use in the Campo del Principe came from two Muslim acequias (irrigation canals), called the alquebira and the alcadí, which both entered the neighbourhood from Abahul Hill. The alcadí, which has since disappeared, was created by Mu‘ammal, the Viziar under Zirí Badis (1038–1077) and ensured the supply of water to the neighbourhood of Antequeruela, which had been inhabited since 1410 and was higher than the square (González F, Reference González F1986). In April 1517, a public basin was constructed in the Campo del Príncipe to receive surplus waters from the Alhambra (Actas Capitulares), while houses received waters from the Cenes river divide (Actas Capitulares). However, these supplies were not always clean and were often mixed with wastewater, as reflected in the names of some streets in the area, such as Alcubilla (cistern) and Darrillo sucio (dirty darrillo). In addition, the structure of the azacayuelas (water channels) was weak, and they developed leaks that exacerbated the problem of contamination. These problems had a long history, given that Granada Council issued Ordinances in 1552 to regulate the use of wastewater and avoid its contact with clean water, based on awareness of the risks of irrigating vegetable plots or washing clothes with faeces-contaminated waters.

Regarding the site previously analysed by López-Gijón et al., (Reference López-Gijón, Jiménez-Brobeil, Maroto-Benavides, Duras, Suliman, Fernández Romero, Botella López, Sánchez-Montes and Mitchell2024a) on Ventanilla Street, we also found Ascaris sp., Trichuris sp. and Fasciola sp. on Molinos Street. This demonstrates the poor hygienic conditions of the population at the time, as well as water contamination. This is evident in Granada’s different socioeconomic sectors, comprising silk merchants in the case of Molinos, and new settlers primarily linked to agriculture in the area of city expansion in the 17th and 18th centuries in the case of Ventanilla. Thus, the paleoparasitological results suggest that both populations were equally exposed to parasites associated with poor hygiene and water contamination. Furthermore, two new species (probable Spirometra sp. and Capillaria sp.) were identified in Molinos, providing a new perspective on zoonotic parasites in Granada during the 17th and 18th centuries.

Limitations of the study

Although the detection of parasite eggs in cesspits suggests the presence of parasite infection in a population, eggs found in mixed faecal material cannot be related to specific individuals. A further study limitation is the possible non-detection of taxonomic groups that might cause parasitosis in humans, due to taphonomic processes (Ramírez et al., Reference Ramírez, Fabra, Xavier and Iñiguez2022). Parasite eggs are less well preserved in dry than wet conditions (Bouchet et al., Reference Bouchet, Guidon, Dittmar, Harter, Ferreira, Chaves, Reinhard and Araújo2003), and a larger number of parasite species have been detected in more humid parts of the Iberian Peninsula (Maicher et al., Reference Maicher, Hoffmann, Côté, Palomo Pérez, Saña Segui and Le Bailly2017; López-Gijón et al., Reference López-Gijón, Carnicero, Botella-López and Camarós2023b) than in more arid areas such as the present site (Sianto et al., Reference Sianto, de Miranda Chaves, Teixeira-Santos, Pereira, Godinho, Gonçalves and Santos2018; Knorr et al., Reference Knorr, Smith, Ledger, Peña-Chocarro, Pérez-Jordà, Clapés, Palma and Mitchell2019). The preservation of eggs is also compromised in Granada by the typically high fluctuations in temperature and rainfall, which may account for the small number of eggs found (Rodrigo et al., Reference Rodrigo, Esteban‐Parra, Pozo‐Vázquez and Castro‐Díez1999). In view of the limited number of eggs with the appearance of Fasciola, Capillaria and Spirometra, the diagnosis of these parasites seems the most likely option, but they should be considered provisional rather than conclusive.

Data availability statement

All data used in this study are available from the authors on request.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to Dr Roman Kuchta for sharing his expertise in the attribution of parasitic species.

Author contributions

RLG conceptualized the study and performed laboratory analyses and data interpretation. RLG, SD and PDM drafted the initial manuscript. PLFR, SJB and FSM participated in the data interpretation. PDM contributed to data interpretation, manuscript preparation and revision.

Financial support

This research received funding from the Research Project ‘Health and diet in populations in southeast of al-Andalus’ (PID2019-107654-GB-100) of the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación. The University of Granada/CBUA contributed towards OA fees.

Competing interests

The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical standards

Not applicable.

References

Acale Sánchez, F (2005). Plazas y paseos de Granada. De la remodelación cristiana de los espacios musulmanes a los proyectos de jardines en el Ochocientos. Doctoral thesis. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.Google Scholar
Almeida, GG, Coscarelli, D, Melo, MN, Melo, AL and Pinto, HA (2016) Molecular identification of Spirometra spp. (Cestoda: Diphyllobothriidae) in some wild animals from Brazil. Parasitology International 65, 428–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PARINT.2016.05.014Google Scholar
Alves, EB, Conceição, MJ and Leles, D (2016) Ascaris lumbricoides, Ascaris suum, or ‘Ascaris lumbrisuum’? The Journal of Infectious Diseases 213(8), 1355–1355. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiw027Google Scholar
Anastasiou, E (2015) Parasites in European populations from prehistory to the industrial revolution. In Mitchell, PD (ed.), Sanitation, Latrines and Intestinal Parasites in Past Populations. Farnham: Ashgate, 2013–2219.Google Scholar
Anastasiou, E, Mitchell, PD and Jeffries, N (2012). The paleoparasitology of 17th-18th century Spitalfields in London. In Mitchell, PD and Buckberry, J (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology. Oxford: BAR publishing, 53–61.Google Scholar
Archivo Municipal de Granada [AHM] Actas Capitulares. https://www.granada.org/inet/warchislibros.nsf/fa/1877EB38B625B91B41257134003D1BC9?opendocument&highlight=0,l.00001.Google Scholar
Bartošová, L, Ditrich, O, Beneš, J, Frolík, J and Musil, J (2011) Paleoparasitological findings in medieval and early modern archaeological deposits from Hradební Street, Chrudim, Czech Republic. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica 2, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.24916/iansa.2011.1.3Google Scholar
Betson, M, Søe, MJ and Nejsum, P (2015) Human trichuriasis: Whipworm genetics, phylogeny, transmission and future research directions. Current Tropical Medicine Reports 2, 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40475-015-0062-yGoogle Scholar
Borba, VH, Gurjão, L, Martin, C, Dufour, B, Le Bailly, M and Iñiguez, AM (2025) Capillariid diversity in archaeological material from the New and the Old World: Clustering and artificial intelligence approaches. Parasites and Vectors 18, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13071-025-06715-0/TABLES/2Google Scholar
Bouchet, F, Bentrad, S and Paicheler, JC (1998) Enquête épidémiologique sur les helminthiases à la cour de Louis XIV. Medical Sciences 14(4), 463–466. https://doi.org/10.4267/10608/1064Google Scholar
Bouchet, F, Guidon, N, Dittmar, K, Harter, S, Ferreira, LF, Chaves, SM, Reinhard, K and Araújo, A (2003) Parasite remains in archaeological sites. Memórias Do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 98, 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0074-02762003000900009Google Scholar
Bowman, DD (2021) Ascaris and Toxocara as foodborne and waterborne pathogens. Research in Veterinary Science 135, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2020.12.017Google Scholar
Cordero Del Campillo, M (1980) Panorama de la Parasitología Española. Madrid: Laboratorios Sobrino, S.A. http://hdl.handle.net/10612/3575.Google Scholar
Côté, NML and Le Bailly, M (2018) Palaeoparasitology and palaeogenetics: Review and perspectives for the study of ancient human parasites. Parasitology 145(5), 656–664. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003118201700141XGoogle Scholar
Cunha, D, Santos, AL, Matias, A and Sianto, L (2017) A novel approach: Combining dental enamel hypoplasia and paleoparasitological analysis in medieval Islamic individuals buried in Santarém (Portugal). Antropologia Portuguesa 34, 113–135. https://doi.org/10.14195/2182-7982_34_6Google Scholar
Cwiklinski, K, O’Neill, SM, Donnelly, S and Dalton, JP (2016) A prospective view of animal and human Fasciolosis. Parasite Immunology 38(9), 558–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/PIM.12343Google Scholar
Dittmar, K, Araújo, A and Reinhard, KJ (2012) The study of parasites through time: Archaeoparasitology and paleoparasitology. In Grauer, AL (ed.), A Companion to Paleopathology. Oxford: Blackwell, 170–190.Google Scholar
Dufour, B and Le Bailly, M (2013) Testing new parasite egg extraction methods in paleoparasitology and an attempt at quantification. International Journal of Paleopathology 3, 199–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpp.2013.03.008Google Scholar
Dufour, B, Segard, M and Le Bailly, M (2016) A first case of human trichuriasis from a Roman lead coffin in France. The Korean Journal of Parasitology 54(5), 625. https://doi.org/10.3347/kjp.2016.54.5.625Google Scholar
Eslahi, AV, Olfatifar, M, Karim, MR, AbuOdeh, R, Modirian, E and Houshmand, E (2022) Global incidence of helminthic contamination of vegetables, cucurbits and fruits: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Food Control 133, 108582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108582Google Scholar
Fernandes, A, Ferreira, LF, Gonçalves, MLC, Bouchet, F, Klein, CH, Iguchi, T, Sianto, L and Araújo, A (2005) Intestinal parasite analysis in organic sediments collected from a 16th-century Belgian archeological site. Cadernos de Saude Publica 21, 329–332. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2005000100037Google Scholar
Ferreira, LF (2014) An introduction to paleoparasitology. In Ferreira, LF, Reinhard, K and Araújo, A (eds.), Foundations of Paleoparasitology. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Fiocruz/International Federation of Tropical Medicine, 27–41.Google Scholar
Flammer, PG, Ryan, H, Preston, SG, Warren, S, Prichystalova, R, Weiss, R, Palmowski, V, Boschert, S, Fellgiebel, K, Jasch-Boley, I, Kairies, M-S, Rümmele, E, Rieger, D, Schmid, B, Reeves, B, Nicholson, R, Loe, L, Guy, C, Waldron, T, Machácek, J, Wahl, J, Pollard, M, Larson, G and Smith, AL (2020) Epidemiological insights from a large-scale investigation of intestinal helminths in medieval Europe. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 14(8), e0008600. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008600Google Scholar
Fugassa, MH (2014) Paleoparasitological diagnosis. In Ferreira, LF, Reinhard, K and Araújo, A (eds.), Foundations of Paleoparasitology. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Fiocruz/International Federation of Tropical Medicine, 223–254.Google Scholar
Fung, ICH and Cairncross, S (2009) Ascariasis and handwashing. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 103(3), 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.08.003Google Scholar
Gaeta, R and Fornaciari, G (2022) Paleoparasitology of helminths. In Bruschi, F (ed.), Helminth Infections and Their Impact on Global Public Health. Cham: Springer, 73–103.Google Scholar
Garzón Pareja, M (1972). La Industria Sedera en España. El Arte de la Seda en Granada, Archivo de la Real Chancillería. Doctoral thesis. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.Google Scholar
González F, S-M (1986) El Realejo (1521–1630). Los Inicios de Un Barrio Cristiano. Granada: Editorial TAT.Google Scholar
Graff, A, Bennion-Pedley, E, Jones, AK, Ledger, ML, Deforce, K, Degraeve, A, Byl, S and Mitchell, PD (2020) A comparative study of parasites in three latrines from medieval and renaissance Brussels, Belgium (14th–17th centuries). Parasitology 147(13), 1443–1451. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182020001298Google Scholar
Granada Council (1670) Ordenanzas de la Ciudad de Granada. Granada: Biblioteca de la Universidad de Granada, Hospital Real.Google Scholar
Henríquez de Jorquera, F (1987) Anales de Granada. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.Google Scholar
Jaeger, LH and Mayo-Iñiguez, A (2014) Molecular paleoparasitological hybridization approach as effective tool for diagnosing human intestinal parasites from scarce archaeological remains. PloS One 9(8), e105910. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105910Google Scholar
Jimenez-Brobeil, SA and Al Oumaoui, I (2002) Health and disease in the city of Granada (Spain) during the 17th century. Journal of Paleopathology 14(1), 37–45.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Brobeil, SA, Benavides, RM and González, FSM (2020) Epidemias en la ciudad de Granada en el ciclo de 1647-1650, Revista de Demografía Histórica - Journal of Iberoamerican Population Studies 38(3), 103–124.Google Scholar
Jourdan, PM, Lamberton, PHL, Fenwick, A and Addiss, DG (2018) Soil-transmitted helminth infections. The Lancet 391(10117), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31930-XGoogle Scholar
Knorr, DA, Smith, WP, Ledger, ML, Peña-Chocarro, L, Pérez-Jordà, G, Clapés, R, Palma, MF and Mitchell, PD (2019) Intestinal parasites in six Islamic medieval period latrines from 10th–11th century Córdoba (Spain) and 12th–13th century Mértola (Portugal). International Journal of Paleopathology 26, 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpp.2019.06.004Google Scholar
Le Bailly, M, Maicher, C, Roche, K and Dufour, B (2021) Accessing ancient population lifeways through the study of gastrointestinal parasites: Paleoparasitology. Applied Sciences 11, 4868. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11114868Google Scholar
Ledger, ML, Micarelli, I, Ward, D, Prowse, TL, Carroll, M, Killgrove, K, Rice, C, Franconi, T, Tafuri, MA, Manzi, G and Mitchell, PD (2021) Gastrointestinal infection in Italy during the Roman Imperial and Longobard periods: A paleoparasitological analysis of sediment from skeletal remains and sewer drains. International Journal of Paleopathology 33, 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpp.2021.03.001Google Scholar
Ledger, ML and Mitchell, PD (2022) Tracing zoonotic parasite infections throughout human evolution. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 32(3), 553–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.2786Google Scholar
Ledger, ML, Poulain, M and Deforce, K (2024) Paleoparasitological analysis of a 15th–16th c. CE latrine from the merchant quarter of Bruges, Belgium: Evidence for local and exotic parasite infections. Parasitology 151, 1281–1289. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182024001100Google Scholar
Leles, D, Gardner, SL, Reinhard, K, Iñiguez, A and Araújo, A (2012) Are Ascaris lumbricoides and Ascaris suum a single species? Parasites & Vectors 5(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-5-42Google Scholar
López-Gijón, R (2023). La Salud y la Enfermedad en las Poblaciones del Pasado a Través de la Paleoparasitología. Doctoral thesis. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada, pp. 12–22. https://hdl.handle.net/10481/88593Google Scholar
López-Gijón, R, Camarós, E, Rubio-Salvador, Á, Duras, S, Botella-López, MC, Alemán-Aguilera, I, Rodríguez-Aguilera, Á, Bustamante-Álvarez, M, Sánchez-Barba, LP, Dufour, B and Le Bailly, M (2023a) Implications of the prevalence of Ascaris sp. in the funerary context of a Late Antique population (5th–7th c.) in Granada (Spain). International Journal of Paleopathology 43, 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpp.2023.09.002Google Scholar
López-Gijón, R, Carnicero, S, Botella-López, MC and Camarós, E (2023b) Zoonotic parasite infection from a funerary context: A Late Antique child case from Cantabrian Spain. International Journal of Paleopathology 41, 55–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpp.2023.03.003Google Scholar
López-Gijón, R, Duras, S, Botella-López, MC, Sentí-Ribes, MA, Dufour, B and Le Bailly, M (2022) Evidencia paleoparasitológica de Ascaris lumbricoides en restos esqueletizados de época romana de Dianium (Alicante, España). Munibe 73, 181–190. https://doi.org/10.21630/maa.2022.73.10Google Scholar
López-Gijón, R, Duras, S, Sánchez Susí, R, González Recio, MI, Rubio Salvador, Á, Botella López, MC and Cámara Serrano, JA (2024b) Primer hallazgo de Ascaris lumbricoides en un individuo del Calcolítico inicial en la Península Ibérica. Saguntum: Papeles Del Laboratorio de Arqueología de Valencia 56, 113–134. https://doi.org/10.7203/SAGVNTVM.56.26391Google Scholar
López-Gijón, R, Hernández-Robles, A, Duras, S, Celma, M, Curto, A, González-Ballesteros, JÁ, Dufour, B, Le Bailly, M and Eiroa, JA (2025) Using intestinal parasites to identify the utilization of archaeological structures: A 12th-13th century sewer systems from an Islamic funduq (Murcia, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 180, 106266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2025.106266Google Scholar
López-Gijón, R, Jiménez-Brobeil, S, Maroto-Benavides, R, Duras, S, Suliman, A, Fernández Romero, PL, Botella López, MC, Sánchez-Montes, F and Mitchell, PD (2024a) Parasite eggs in 16th-18th century cesspits from Granada (Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 53, 104342.Google Scholar
Maicher, C, Hoffmann, A, Côté, NM, Palomo Pérez, A, Saña Segui, M and Le Bailly, M (2017) Paleoparasitological investigations on the neolithic lakeside settlement of La Draga (lake Banyoles, Spain). Holocene 27(11), 1659–1668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683617702236Google Scholar
Mas-Coma, S, Valero, MA and Bargues, MD (2019) Fascioliasis. In Toledo, R and Fried, B (eds.), Digenetic Trematodes. Cham: Springer, 71–103.Google Scholar
Mitchell, PD Ed. (2015a) Sanitation, Latrines and Intestinal Parasites in Past Populations. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Mitchell, PD (2015b) Human parasites in medieval Europe: Lifestyle, sanitation and medical treatment. Advances in Parasitology 90, 389–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.apar.2015.05.001Google Scholar
Mitchell, PD (2017) Sampling human remains for evidence of intestinal parasites. In Mitchell, PD and Brickley, M (eds.), Updated Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains. Reading: Chartered Institute for Archaeologists/British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology, 54–56.Google Scholar
Mitchell, PD (2017a) Human parasites in the Roman World: Health consequences of conquering an empire. Parasitology 144(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182015001651Google Scholar
Mitchell, PD (2023) Parasites in Past Civilizations and Their Impact upon Health. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, PD (2024) Ancient parasite analysis: Exploring infectious diseases in past societies. Journal of Archaeological Science 170, 106067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2024.106067Google Scholar
Morrow, JJ, Newby, J, Piombino-Mascali, D and Reinhard, KJ (2016) Taphonomic considerations for the analysis of parasites in archaeological materials. International Journal of Paleopathology 13, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpp.2016.01.005Google Scholar
Navagero, A (1951) Viaje a España Del Magnífico Señor Andrés Navagero (1524–1526): embajador de la República de Venecia Ante El Emperador Carlos V. Valencia: Castalia.Google Scholar
Pal, M and Gutama, KP and Second Edition (2024) Capillariasis as an emerging foodborne helminthic disease. Encyclopedia of Food Safety 1–4, 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822521-9.00093-9Google Scholar
Pampiglione, S, Fioravanti, ML and Rivasi, F (2003) Human sparganosis in Italy. Apmis 111, 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1034/J.1600-0463.2003.1110208.XGoogle Scholar
Rabinow, S, Deforce, K and Mitchell, PD (2023) Continuity in intestinal parasite infection in Aalst (Belgium) from the medieval to early modern period (12th-17th centuries). International Journal of Paleopathology 41, 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpp.2023.03.001Google Scholar
Ramírez, DA, Fabra, M, Xavier, S and Iñiguez, AM (2022) The effects of dehydration and local soil on parasite recovery: A preliminary paleoparasitological evaluation on experimental coprolites. Holocene 32, 88–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/09596836211049981Google Scholar
Reinhard, K, Slepchenko, S and Shin, DH (2018) Archaeoparasitology. In Smith, C (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. Cham: Springer Cham, 1–9.Google Scholar
Roberts, LS and Janovy, J (2008) Foundations of Parasitology. Eighth edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Rocha, GCD, Harter-Lailheugue, S, Le Bailly, M, Araújo, A, Ferreira, LF, Serra-Freire, NMD and Bouchet, F (2006) Paleoparasitological remains revealed by seven historic contexts from ‘Place d’Armes’. Namur, Belgium. Memórias Do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 101, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0074-02762006001000008Google Scholar
Rodrigo, FS, Esteban‐Parra, MJ, Pozo‐Vázquez, D and Castro‐Díez, Y (1999) A 500‐year precipitation record in Southern Spain. International Journal of Climatology 19(11), 1233–1253. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0088(199909)19:11%3C1233::AID-JOC413%3E3.0.CO;2-LGoogle Scholar
Ryan, H, Flammer, PG, Nicholson, R, Loe, L, Reeves, B, Allison, E, Guy, C, Doriga, IL, Waldron, T, Walker, D, Kirchhelle, C, Larson, G and Smith, AL (2022) Reconstructing the history of helminth prevalence in the UK. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 16(4), e0010312. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0010312Google Scholar
Sabourin, E, Alda, P, Vázquez, A, Hurtrez-Boussès, S and Vittecoq, M (2018) Impact of human activities on fasciolosis transmission. Trends in Parasitology 34(10), 891–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2018.08.004Google Scholar
Saldanha, B, Pucu, E, Chame, M and Leles, D (2022) Back to basics: Could simple experiments resolve important parasitology enigmas? The rarity of Ascaris eggs compared with Trichuris eggs in archeology and other contexts. Acta Tropica 228, 106229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2021.106229Google Scholar
Sianto, L, de Miranda Chaves, SA, Teixeira-Santos, I, Pereira, PA, Godinho, RM, Gonçalves, D and Santos, AL (2018) Evidence of contact between new and old world: Paleoparasitological and food remains study in the Tagus river population of Sarilhos Grandes (Montijo, Portugal). Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 10, 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-016-0337-9Google Scholar
Suliman, A and Fernández-Romero, PL (2025) Informe de intervención arqueológica preventiva en Calle Molinos n°21, Granada. Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1-80. in pressGoogle Scholar
Thienpont, D, Rochette, F and Vanparijs, OFJ (1986) Diagnosing Helminthiasis by Coprological Examination. Belgium: Janssen Research Foundation Beerse.Google Scholar
Torres Balbás, L (1995) Cementerios hispanomusulmanes granadinos. Al-Andalus: Revista de Las Escuelas de Estudios Árabes de Madrid Y Granada 43, 131–190.Google Scholar
Vaz Nery, S, Pickering, AJ, Abate, E, Asmare, A, Barrett, L, Benjamin-Chung, J, Bundy, DAP, Clasen, T, Clements, ACA, Colford, JM, Ercumen, A, Crowley, S, Cumming, O, Freeman, MC, Haque, R, Mengistu, B, Oswald, WE, Pullan, RL, Oliveira, RG, Owen, KE, Walson, JL, Youya, A and Brooker, SJ (2019) The role of water, sanitation and hygiene interventions in reducing soil-transmitted helminths: Interpreting the evidence and identifying next steps. Parasites and Vectors 12, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-019-3532-6Google Scholar
Wang, T, Cessford, C, Dittmar, JM, Inskip, S, Jones, PM and Mitchell, PD (2022) Intestinal parasite infection in the Augustinian friars and general population of medieval Cambridge, UK. International Journal of Paleopathology 39, 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpp.2022.06.001Google Scholar
Wang, T, Deforce, K, De Gryse, J, Eggermont, S, Vanoverbeke, R and Mitchell, PD (2024) Evidence for parasites in burials and cesspits used by the clergy and general population of 13th-18th century Ghent, Belgium. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 53, 104394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104394Google Scholar
Wang, T and Mitchell, PD (2022) Liver fluke infection throughout human evolution. Gastro Hep Advances 1(4), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gastha.2022.02.027Google Scholar
Wharton, D (1980) Nematode egg-shells. Parasitology 81(2), 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003118200005616XGoogle Scholar
WHO (2023) Soil-transmitted Helminth Infections. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Williams, FS, Arnold-Foster, T, Yeh, HY, Ledger, ML, Baeten, J, Poblome, J and Mitchell, PD (2017) Intestinal parasites from the 2nd–5th century AD latrine in the Roman baths at Sagalassos (Turkey). International Journal of Paleopathology 19, 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpp.2017.09.002Google Scholar
Wood, JR (2018) DNA barcoding of ancient parasites. Parasitology 145(5), 646–655. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182018000380Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Location of Molinos Street in the Dalmau’s map of Granada (Spain), printed in 1796. Map from Archivo Municipal de Granada (https://www.Granada.Org/inet/wcartografia.Nsf/fa/B8B8A4DDC35D69CCC125760A0036A6DF).

Figure 1

Figure 2. A) Detail of Ambrosio de Vico map printed in 1613 showing the study site. Map from Archivo Municipal de Granada (https://www.Granada.Org/inet/wcartografia.Nsf/fa/09696CD302334900C12573F0002EDE74); B) Intact earthenware jar used as cesspit found in Molinos street.

Figure 2

Figure 3. A) Ascaris sp. Egg with mamillated coat (65.2 × 50.5 μm); B) Trichuris sp. Egg (51.6 × 25 μm).

Figure 3

Figure 4. A) Fasciola sp. Egg with operculum lost (149.4 × 89.8 μm); B) Capillaria sp. Egg (55.7 × 30.4 μm); C) Spirometra sp. Egg with operculum lost (72.5 × 35.4 μm).

Figure 4

Table 1. Details of the parasite eggs found in Molinos street. C.S. Stands for control sample. S.U. Indicates sediment from within each toilet feature