Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Evidence for Late Medieval Horn Working at Goose Gate, Nottingham

2022, Transactions of the Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire

The working of horns was a trade practiced in some English towns during the late medieval period, although published evidence comes chiefly from a small number of larger towns and cities such as York, Norwich and London. Few certain sites of the industry have been identified and consequently medieval horn working is little understood. Whilst there is only scarce documentary evidence for this industry in Nottingham, an archaeological excavation at Goose Gate in 1976 revealed a horn working site dating to the second half of the 15th century or the early 16th century, which contributes towards a better understanding of this industry. This discussion of the Goose Gate excavation is focused on the form and dating of the relevant structures on the site, but it does not include detailed specialist osteological analysis of the faunal remains.

EVIDENCE FOR LATE MEDIEVAL HORN WORKING AT GOOSE GATE, NOTTINGHAM by SCOTT C. LOMAX SUMMARY The working of horns was a trade practiced in some English towns during the late medieval period, although published evidence comes chiefly from a small number of larger towns and cities such as York, Norwich and London. Few certain sites of the industry have been identified and consequently medieval horn working is little understood. Whilst there is only scarce documentary evidence for this industry in Nottingham, an archaeological excavation at Goose Gate in 1976 revealed a horn working site dating to the second half of the 15th century or the early 16th century, which contributes towards a better understanding of this industry. This discussion of the Goose Gate excavation is focused on the form and dating of the relevant structures on the site, but it does not include detailed specialist osteological analysis of the faunal remains. A SUMMARY OF THE EXCAVATION The excavation was undertaken in 1976–1977 in advance of residential development at 3–12 Goose Gate, on the northern side of the street, in Nottingham city centre (centred on National Grid Reference SK 57740 39960). Although undertaken in advance of construction work, the area excavated was confined to what is now a car park, set back from the street frontage. Fieldwork was carried out by Nottingham City Museums Field Archaeology Section, under the direction of Kevin Blockley and the management of Charles S. B. Young, as part of a programme of ‘rescue archaeology’ in and around the Lace Market area. The excavation at Goose Gate was undertaken primarily with the aim of investigating the early post-Conquest expansion of the pre-Norman burh, including the medieval town rampart/ditch and any potential intramural road, as well as medieval occupation deposits. The site lay north of the defences of the pre-Norman burh but within the area thought to have been defended from c.1100. Thus, the site was in an intramural location but was marginal within the urban landscape (see Fig. 1). Nonetheless, a number of medieval features were encountered, and these provided evidence of occupation possibly from the early 12th century onwards. No defensive structures were found, but pits and post holes represented a sequence of timber buildings dated to c.1100–1250. No full plans of buildings were identified but the evidence suggested that they fronted Goose Gate to the south. Two stone buildings with rock-cut undercrofts were thought to have been constructed in c.1275–1300, with one abandoned by the end of the 14th century and the other in use into the 16th century before being infilled by the 17th century. A stone-built domestic oven and cess pit were of similar date. Other medieval features comprised two pottery kilns (one dated c.1225–1250) and an earlier corndrying oven, a stone-built malt kiln of early to mid14th century date, and a number of pits dated to within the 12th to 14th centuries. A substantial cave system including a malt kiln was thought to have been hewn during the 13th or 14th centuries, and was partially excavated and recorded by amateur archaeologists. A row of five horn-retting vats, in which cattle horns were soaked, were also discovered, and these form the essence of this article. They were initially thought by Young to date to the 14th century, but he later revised his dating to the 15th or 16th centuries (Young 1981; Young 1982). As discussed below, this can now be confirmed by radiocarbon dates. The vats were located in a yard adjacent to 50 EVIDENCE FOR LATE MEDIEVAL HORN WORKING AT GOOSE GATE, NOTTINGHAM FIGURE 1: The location of the horncore retting vats at Goose Gate (indicated by a red star), shown on Speede’s map of Nottingham (1610). the building with an undercroft which had been in use during the 16th century, and he suggested that this building had been used as a warehouse or workshop (Young 1982). Young’s interpretation of the evidence from the site was that there was abandonment of a number of properties on the site by c.1350, with only the cave system, the building with its undercroft and the horn working features in use beyond that date (Young 1981; Young 1982). Humic soil dating to the early 17th and 18th centuries indicated that the land was then a garden, or under cultivation, but rubbish pits, a horse burial, and an elaborate double cess pit were also found, dating to the same period. The land is shown as an orchard on Badder and Peat’s map of 1744, and the map also shows properties fronting Goose Gate, to the immediate south of the excavated area. A brewery was built on the site in 1792 which utilised and enlarged the cave system, followed by late 19thcentury back-to-back houses probably re-using the brewery foundations. Post-excavation analysis was suspended due to demands from other fieldwork projects and never resumed; consequently, no site report was produced and no detailed specialist osteological analysis carried out, and only very brief summaries were published. Although detailed examination of the horncores was not undertaken, the cores were catalogued by animal bone specialist Mary Harman. The archive was consolidated and partially processed between 2012 and 2016 as part of the Origins of EVIDENCE FOR LATE MEDIEVAL HORN WORKING AT GOOSE GATE, NOTTINGHAM Nottingham project (a collaborative project between Nottingham City Museums and Galleries and Trent & Peak Archaeology, funded by Historic England). It is hoped that full post-excavation analysis and reporting of all aspects of the excavation will be undertaken. Some aspects relating to land use for the period 1300–1540 are being researched for the author’s PhD at the University of Nottingham. The full archive is held by Nottingham City Museums and Galleries, with the digitised archive available on the Archaeology Data Service website (https:// doi.org/10.5284/1029430). THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF HORN WORKING IN NOTTINGHAM Documentary references to horners working in Nottingham are rare and, for the late medieval period (which is the focus of this paper) only two individuals have been identified: William Horner in 1371/2 and George Hoton in 1484. A number of individuals in the town had the surname ‘Horner’ or ‘le Horner’, such as Peter, Roger, William, at least three Johns, Nicholas and Adam, who were mentioned occasionally between 1308 and 1452 in the borough records (see Stevenson 1882 193, 205; 1883, 41; Nottinghamshire Archives [NA] CA 1252–1339 passim). However, only one William Horner can be identified as certainly being involved in the horn working trade, and this individual will be discussed below. Most of these individuals were plaintiffs or defendants in cases brought before the Borough Court, which exist only from 1303 and have been transcribed for the period 1303 to 1455 (the transcriptions are available at: https://www. nottingham.ac.uk/research/groups/ucn/onlinesources/online-sources.aspx). Such occupational bynames must be treated with caution and are not necessarily representative of the occupations of those with such names, especially from the second half of the 14th century onwards. During the medieval period bynames were unstable, but there appears to have been a growing trend towards hereditary naming during the 14th century, in particular by the mid-14th century (McClure 1979, 168). In Nottingham some names may have been inherited in the early 14th century; for 51 example John of Parwich was described in 1325 as being the son and heir of Ralph of Parwich of Nottingham, which could be indicative of hereditary naming, although the possibility he too was born in Parwich (in the Peak District) should not be excluded (CA 1259 1324 x 1325 [1074]). John, son of William de Hamstirley was referred to as John de Hamsterley in 1328, which may also indicate that hereditary naming occurred in some cases during the 1320s (CA 1260 1327 x 1328 [1107]). A degree of instability towards bynames continued for the remainder of the late medieval period, however. In some cases, individuals changed their surnames (for example Richard Lister, who was also known as Richard Fisher in 1488/9) indicating that hereditary naming was not universal and that individuals could change their names, particularly if they changed occupation (Stevenson 1883, 459). With the growth of hereditary naming it became less likely that an individual with an occupational byname was associated with that occupation. Of course, even once hereditary naming had become the norm it could still reflect an individual’s occupation if that occupation had been passed from father to son along with the name. This may explain why individuals such as John Barber, William Barber, John Painter and Simon Waterleader all performed the trades of their bynames during the late 14th century (the first two in 1380/1, and the others in 1393 and 1397 respectively). There is, however, no evidence that the majority of those with the Horner byname worked with horn and, indeed, in 1445, William Horner worked as a labourer, and the following year John Horner was employed as a currier (CA 1334 1445 x 1446 [76]; CA 1336/II 1446 x 1447 [101]). A currier worked with tanned leather, softening it uniformly (Albarella 2003, 73). George Hoton was described as a horner in 1484, when he, and 16 other individuals (eight men of various trades and eight women), were prosecuted for keeping a brothel and for disorderly behaviour in their houses during the day and night (Stevenson 1883, 347). No information is provided about Hoton’s work as a horner, and the location of his brothel is also unknown. A tax assessment dated to between 1473 and 1479, however, listed a George Hoton among the contributors of White Friar Row and St James Lane (NA CA 8019). 52 EVIDENCE FOR LATE MEDIEVAL HORN WORKING AT GOOSE GATE, NOTTINGHAM An earlier reference of 1371/2 does, however, relate to the sale of horns by a man named William Horner. This individual pursued a case in the Borough Court against William Furbour who, it was argued, owed 6d for horns (CA 1277a 1371 x 1372 [63]). Unfortunately, Furbour’s occupation is not recorded and whilst he had a byname reflecting a trade associated with the making of and repair of armour as well as swords and knives, the earlier comments regarding bynames must be considered. It is a possibility that he was a furbisher and that the horns may have been used in the making of handles for knives, but this interpretation should be treated with caution. The very limited documentary evidence for this trade, and the identification of only two of its workers, suggests this was an uncommon occupation in Nottingham. Despite scanty documentation, the simple tools required and the low cost of the horns (Yeomans 2007, 102), evidence from London and York suggests that horners could be artisans of some prosperity. The horners in London were among those who contributed to lay subsidies in 1292, 1319 and 1332 (Yeomans 2006, 61), while in York there were 29 horners on the Register of Freemen, with the majority of these listed between 1451 and 1500 (Yeomans 2006, 39). A number of wills from York also indicate growing wealth among the horners, particularly between 1490 and 1534 (Yeomans 2006, 39). In Nottingham, William Horner had sufficient means to pursue a case at the Borough Court to recover the small sum of money owed for his horns. He brought other complaints to the court, against four individuals, between 1365 and 1376, involving cases of assault against him, and debts owed to him and his wife, further demonstrating he had some financial means (CA 1274 1364 x 1365 [325]; CA 1274 1364 x 1365 [368]; CA 1277a 1371 x 1372 [174]; CA 1279 1375 x 1376 [138]). It appears likely that the horner George Hoton was the same individual of that name who paid tax in the 1470s, further suggesting that horners could gain some wealth from their work even if they supplemented their income through other means. A possible explanation for the limited evidence for named horners may lie in the fact that horn working and leather working were, to a certain extent, allied trades. Both trades used animal remains as their raw materials, with the skins and horns having been removed from animals before butchers could make use of the edible body parts. Both horners and tanners used clay-lined vats, to soak their raw materials. It is possible, therefore, that the two trades were connected in terms of those who worked within them. It is a possibility worth considering that the currier John Horner may have been involved in horn working as well as leather working. Horn working may, after all, have been a seasonal industry, carried out for only part of the year, due to the limited demand for horn in Nottingham and its wider region, and sufficient quantities of horns may have been processed by only a small number of workers. It is possible, therefore, that horners would have had another occupation which may explain why the occupation of horner is so rarely mentioned. The towns where documentary evidence for named horners exists were the larger population centres of London, York and Norwich, where it can be expected that demand was high enough for there to be more horners, working for larger proportions of the year. Irrespective of the reasons for the sparse documentary evidence, archaeology has provided evidence of horn working processes from a number of towns in England. HORN WORKING PROCESSES Before looking at the archaeological evidence from Goose Gate, it is important to briefly outline what is known about the processes involved in horn working. The initial stage was the cutting of the horns from the animals, either by the butcher or by tanners (Weinstock 2002, 26). The keratinous sheaf of the horn was then separated from the internal core. One of the methods used during the medieval period (and the method which appears to have been used at Goose Gate) involved soaking the horns in water within retting vats for a period of weeks or a few months (the time required was dependent upon the temperature) to loosen the sheafs. The EVIDENCE FOR LATE MEDIEVAL HORN WORKING AT GOOSE GATE, NOTTINGHAM sheafs were then detached by being cut into sections or removed in their entirety (Blair and Ramsey 1991, 371). Heat could be used to accelerate the process of softening the sheaf. Excavations at a 14th-century horner’s workshop on Hornpot Lane in York revealed a number of hearths associated with clay and timber-lined pits containing a large quantity of cattle and goat horncores. The hearths, it was believed, were used to accelerate the process of rotting of the horncores (Yeomans 2006, 41). After being removed from the core, the sheaf was heat-dried and flattened, so that it could be cut and moulded (Albarella 2003, 74). The soft and malleable horn was then used in the manufacture of a number of objects including drinking horns, cups, plates, handles, combs, buttons and lantern panes (Yeomans 2006, 39). The horncore was a waste product of the separation process and was discarded because it had no functional value, but it is this discarded waste which may, with careful consideration, be evidence that horn working took place at, or near, a particular site. Horncores are found on many archaeological sites, particularly in urban environments, and assemblages consisting solely of horncores or limb extremities may point to industrial use of a site (Albarella 2003, 75). Consideration should be given to whether or not horncores could be the remnants of complete horns which have decayed in the ground. Whilst it is possible that horn sheafs may decay in soil, this seems unlikely when large numbers of horns are present in a particular feature or deposit. The separation of horns indicates they have been deliberately removed from the skull and the most likely explanation for this is so that the horns could be worked. Large quantities of horncores would therefore be consistent with horn working. Given that there was financial value in horns, it seems highly unlikely that very large quantities would be deliberately buried. The presence of horncores at a site might indicate horn working, butchery or tanning at that location, or close by (Weinstock 2002, 26). Albarella is of the view that only sawn horncores can be regarded as unquestionable evidence of horn working, because butchers did not use saws until the late post-medieval 53 period, and while cut marks may indicate attempts to remove the horn from the skull they could, Albarella argues, have been caused by skinners removing the flesh of the animal (Albarella 2003, 74). Excavations of medieval tannery sites have revealed significant numbers of horncores, such as sites in northern Europe which have been studied by Albarella and so large horncore assemblages are not always necessarily associated with horn working (Albarella 2003, 76). Indeed, he has found that cattle horncores are the bones most commonly, and abundantly, found on tannery sites (Albarella 2003, 76). In interpreting assemblages, they must therefore be looked at in their wider context, with reference to associated features and other finds, as well as the species and bone types forming the assemblage (Weinstock 2002, 26; Albarella 2003, 75). In the examples cited by Albarella, whilst horncores were the predominant component of the assemblages, other animal bones were present (Albarella 2003, 76). At the Pemberton Street site in Nottingham, a small number of horncores were recovered, with more than 5000 bones (most of which were metatarsals) representing a minimum of 1300 sheep, discarded within clay-lined pits, which were interpreted as a medieval and early post-medieval tannery (King 2021, 40–41). Eight horncores were also recovered from the Skills Hub site further west on the former Narrow Marsh, where evidence for late medieval and early post-medieval tanning was found (Higgins 2017, 23; Higgins 2018, 21). This is in stark contrast to the Goose Gate site where, it will be shown, apart from the horncores there were only very small quantities of cattle and sheep bones and these appear to be butcher’s waste, deposited after the vats had ceased to be used. The large quantity of horncores, and very small number of metatarsals, indicates that tanning is highly unlikely to be responsible for the Goose Gate assemblage. There would be no need for horners to receive animal bones other than horns, and so assemblages with an absence of skull fragments (including teeth) and feet are more consistent with horn working sites than butcheries or tanneries (Albarella 2003, 77, 85–86). Few horn working sites of the late medieval period have been investigated in England, with the most notable being in London and York (Yeomans 54 EVIDENCE FOR LATE MEDIEVAL HORN WORKING AT GOOSE GATE, NOTTINGHAM 2006), and possible/probable horn working sites identified at Bedford, Hertford, Lincoln, Norwich, Northampton and Warwick (Albarella 2003, 84– 85). The identification of additional sites such as Goose Gate in Nottingham has the potential to make an important contribution towards the advancement of knowledge of this industry. THE HORN RETTING VATS AT GOOSE GATE A total of five vats were excavated at Goose Gate, running the full length of the excavation area, forming a row, roughly orientated north to south, parallel to the plot boundary (Plate 1). One of the vats extended beyond the limits of excavation and it seems reasonable to suggest that further vats once existed, and may still survive, beyond the edge of the excavation. The five excavated vats were given feature numbers A(267), A(269), A(278), A(279) and A(283), running south to north. All vats were roughly circular in plan and were lined with red/ brown clay, with red clay floors, which contained fragments of mudstone, charcoal flecks, coal flecks and small pebbles. Impressions in the clay lining and floor were interpreted as having been formed by the presence of barrels. Each vat had a larger construction pit. Some of the horncores at Goose Gate had large pieces of skull attached but showed no signs of having been carefully cut or sawn. They appear to have been cut by an axe or cleaver, which was the method use at sites excavated in Chichester, as well as European sites including Konstanze and Leiden (Weinstock 2002, 12). The presence of attached skull demonstrated how there was a need to ensure that the whole horn was removed for soaking. Vat A(267) The most southernly vat was A(267), which measured approximately 1.2m in diameter. The vat contained a layer A(267B) of 83 complete horncores and fragments representing at least six further cores which had been crushed (Plate 2). Among the horncores were a small number of animal bones including a mandible, tibia and metacarpal, all from at least one pig, a vertebra, pelvis, tibia, humerus and phalanx, all from at least one sheep, and two ribs, three vertebrae, a fragment of humerus and a fragment of metatarsal, all from cattle. This is suggestive of deposition of butcher’s waste following the abandonment of this vat. Fragments of roof tiles formed other refuse deposited into the vat following its use for horn soaking. Above the horncores was a dark fine soil A(267A) containing a small number of very small tile fragments, as well as flecks of coal and charcoal. PLATE 1: The five horncore vats at Goose Gate, partially excavated, looking south (© Nottingham City Museums and Galleries). The horncores lay directly on the clay floor A(267F) of the feature, which had a maximum thickness of c.9cm, into which some of the horncores were embedded (Plate 3). The clay floor EVIDENCE FOR LATE MEDIEVAL HORN WORKING AT GOOSE GATE, NOTTINGHAM 55 PLATE 2: Vat A(267) during its excavation, showing a layer of horncores (© Nottingham City Museums and Galleries). was a darker red than the clay-lining and this was thought to be the result of anaerobic conditions within the vat. There were impressions in the base, A(267C), forming a circular ring (approximately 3.5-5cm wide and impressed approximately 1cm2.5cm into the clay), with patches of a very fine dark brown soil interpreted as decayed wood. Additionally, the horizontal impressions of ‘hoops’ were discernible in the clay lining of the sides of the vat A(267D). This evidence indicated a barrel or tub had been placed within the vat, and had been packed with the clay on its exterior, to aid waterproofing. The embedding of the cores in the clay base must have followed decay of the barrel. The clay-lining, which was approximately 7.5cm10cm thick was uneven towards the base of the vat, suggesting it had been applied without great care. The construction pit for this vat (A267E) was roughly square-shaped in plan (Plate 4), and contained mixed dumped material consisting of dirty redeposited natural, mid-brown soil with frequent pebble inclusions, fine dark-brown soil with fleck of coal, and a few fragments of roof tile described as having been ‘shattered’. Vat A(269) Approximately 0.6m to the north of vat A(267), was vat A(269), although the two construction pits for these vats were only a few centimetres apart. Above the red/brown clay floor A(269F), was a layer A(269G) of redeposited sandstone natural containing tile fragments, pebbles, charcoal flecks and lumps of coal. Above this was a layer of 24 horncores A(296B), suggesting the horncores had been discarded after the feature had fallen out of use (Plate 5). Overlying the horncores was a layer A(269A) of mid/dark brown loose fine grain soil with charcoal flecks, lumps of limestone, medium sized pebbles and small lumps red/brown clay. 56 EVIDENCE FOR LATE MEDIEVAL HORN WORKING AT GOOSE GATE, NOTTINGHAM PLATE 3: The clay floor and lining of vat A(267) (© Nottingham City Museums and Galleries). PLATE 4: The clay-lining of vat A(267), with the construction pit half-sectioned. Looking east (© Nottingham City Museums and Galleries). EVIDENCE FOR LATE MEDIEVAL HORN WORKING AT GOOSE GATE, NOTTINGHAM Within contexts A(269A) and A(269B) were a small number of bones including a rib, two vertebrae, a humerus, a radius and pelvis, all from cattle, a horse phalanx and a sheep ulna. This may be further evidence of deposition of butcher’s waste after the abandonment of the vat. Impressions of a barrel, and small patches of fine powdery wood A(269C), approximately 1cm-2.5cm in thickness, were present in the clay floor and clay-lining A(269D), once again indicating a barrel had been present. A(269D), which was approximately 7.5cm thick, contained inclusions of small stones, charcoal flecks, fragments of coal and pebbles. Construction pit A(269E) was roughly square-shaped in plan and its fill contained a mixture of redeposited dirty natural and mid-brown soil, with charcoal flecks, lenses of dark brown soil, fragments of roof tile and small pebbles. 57 Vat A(283) Vats A(278) and A(279) were the next two in the row and these will be discussed below. At the northern end of the excavation, extending beyond the limit of excavation was vat A(283). This was the largest of the excavated vats, measuring approximately 1.5m in diameter. Just three horncores were present in a layer A(283B) at the base of the vat, along with a metacarpal and three phalanges belonging to sheep. Also within this layer was a mixed dark brown soil containing ‘blobs’ of clay, limestone chips, small pebbles, charcoal and coal flecks. Above the horncores was fill A(283A), an approximately 15cm thick deposit consisting of mixed yellow sands and brown soil, with inclusions of small pebbles, fragments of tile, charcoal flecks, flecks of limestone and sandstone. The presence of the tile fragments suggests that once horn working PLATE 5: Vat A(269), cut by gully A(239) on its northern side, showing a layer of horncores. Looking approximately south (© Nottingham City Museums and Galleries). 58 EVIDENCE FOR LATE MEDIEVAL HORN WORKING AT GOOSE GATE, NOTTINGHAM had ceased, the vat was used for refuse. Within the clay floor A(283F), and clay-lined sides A(283D), were impressions A(283C) consistent with a barrel having once been present. The clay floor contained a large impression believed to have been formed by a large piece of wood fixed under the barrel, possibly to strengthen it (Plate 6). A fine, brown, organic-rich soil A(283C), of approximately 5cm thickness, was suggestive of degraded wood lining. The clay floor was approximately 13cm-15cm thick, and the claylining was approximately 7.5cm in thickness. The construction pit A(283E) was filled with dark brown soil mixed with patches of redeposited natural (Plate 7). Inclusions of large pebbles, clay ‘blobs’, limestone and sandstone chips, and fragments of roof tile were present, along with a single cattle tooth and a pig phalanx. Vats A(278) and A(279) Vats A(278) and A(279) were heavily truncated, with very little of them surviving due to disturbance from post-medieval development at the site and, unfortunately, through damage caused by the machining during the excavation. Nonetheless, they survived sufficiently to establish their form, with both being circular in plan, with red clay lining and a red clay floor, and were of similar size to the three demonstrable horncore vats. Being of the same character as those of A(267), A(269) and A(283), and forming a continuous row, it seems beyond reasonable doubt that the vats shared the same function as their better-preserved counterparts. There were no horncores within these two vats, with any such horncores which may have been deposited in them possibly having been removed during the previously mentioned disturbance, which PLATE 6: The partially exposed vat A(283), with clay floor, clay lining and three horncores in situ. The large impression of the split timber is just discernible, beneath the cores and extending to the section (© Nottingham City Museums and Galleries). EVIDENCE FOR LATE MEDIEVAL HORN WORKING AT GOOSE GATE, NOTTINGHAM 59 PLATE 7: Clay lining of vat A(283) and construction pit A(283E). Looking north (© Nottingham City Museums and Galleries). led to the vats being truncated down to their bases. An alternative explanation, that these vats had been emptied prior to their abandonment, cannot be ruled out. The implication of such a possibility is that the vats were used on a rotational basis, with each containing horns at different stages of soaking, and with A(278) and A(279) having been emptied ready for a new batch of horns to be soaked. The only surviving remains of A(278) were the clay floor A(278A), which had a small fragment of tile pressed into it. A distinct circular ring impression in the floor A(278B) was consistent with a barrel have been in place, with fine dark brown soil and powdery brown material, both thought to be degraded wood, present within the impression. A(279) had been significantly truncated by a wall of the 18th century brewery and so, as with A(278), only the base of the vat survived. The clay floor, A(279A), similarly had a circular, ring, impression A(279B) consistent with a wooden barrel, although due to the truncation it was less distinct. There were no remains of wood. Both A(278) and A(279) had been created at the same time, with a roughly square-shaped, in plan, construction pit A(279C) having been dug, into which both vats were sunk. Construction and setting It was apparent from the excavation that the vats were constructed in the following manner: 1) a construction pit was excavated into the sandstone bedrock; 2) a sandy silt deposit was then laid to form a levelling/make-up layer; 3) a clay floor, roughly circular in shape, was then laid down; 4) a wooden barrel was then placed on the floor and clay was plastered around the barrel to ensure it was waterproof; 5) the construction pit was then backfilled. 60 EVIDENCE FOR LATE MEDIEVAL HORN WORKING AT GOOSE GATE, NOTTINGHAM A(279) and, by inference, A(278) were created after A(283). This is known because the clay floor of A(279) overlaid the construction pit for vat A(283). Whilst A(279) was stratigraphically later than A(283) there is no evidence to suggest they were not broadly contemporary in their construction, and not contemporary in their use. The fact they were in a perfect row would corroborate the view that all five were extant at the same time. There was no evidence of hearths associated with the vats, though these may have been outside the excavated area and/or were destroyed by later development. It is also unclear whether the vats were within a structure or had any form of cover. Excavations at Hornpot Lane in York similarly failed to identify evidence for structures in which the horn retting vats were present, although it was suggested that they may have been covered by an open-sided roofed structure (Dean 2012, 262). The deposits in which the horncores were found were very dark brown/black and in vat A(267) contained four bones which were later identified as belonging to at least one frog or toad and two bones from at least one mouse or vole. The uncovered vats, left open for a period of months at a time, would have formed a suitable habitat for these types of small animals and maybe evidence of a nearby water supply. The source of water for the horn soaking at Goose Gate is somewhat unclear. The Beck watercourse was located 150m to the northeast of the Goose Gate site, on the other side of the town ditch, and so seems an unlikely source. A possible explanation is offered by two references, dating to 1489 and 1498, to a pool in the town ditch, called ‘St John’s Pole’ (Nottingham Deeds Survey reference A0295, A2096). Although this pool appears to have been located on the northern side of the town, in proximity to St John’s Hospital, it raises the possibility that there were small pools of water within the ditch which may have been partially filled at that time. A further possibility is suggested by amateur archaeological excavations of the 1930s. In that decade George Campion excavated two sites east of Cranbrook Street (one of which appears to have included part of No.1 Hockley) and found what he thought to be evidence of a large pond, although his records at Nottinghamshire Archives do not detail the nature of this evidence (NA DD/CAM). He also excavated deposits, which he attributed as being the bed of The Beck. However, the course of The Beck is known to have been 100m further east of his excavation (NA DD/CAM). If Campion’s interpretation is credible, then this would suggest there was a body of water within only a short distance of the Goose Gate horn working site, though whether it was in existence at the time of the horn working is unknown. Perhaps the most likely source of the water was a well, such as the well in the malt kiln cave complex located only 30m west of the vats. DATING THE VATS Radiocarbon dating of samples from two horncores (the samples were referenced, by the author, as GG01 and GG02) from vat A(269) was undertaken as part of this study, using the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) method (details of which can be found online at https:// c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/methods.htm). The radiocarbon measurements are shown in Table 1, with the calibrated results in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 shows that sample GG01 could be dated to 1448–1621 calAD (95.4% probability) but with the likelihood (75.5% probability) that it dated to 1448–1515 calAD, rather than only a 20% probability that the core dated to 1590–1621 calAD. Figure 3 shows that sample GG02 dated to 1455–1627 calAD (95.4% probability) but that it more likely dated to 1455–1523 calAD (59.9% confidence) than 1574– 1627 calAD (35.5% probability). TABLE 1: Radiocarbon measurements for samples GG01 and GG02 Lab Reference Sample reference δ 13C OxA-40707 GG01 –21.61 388 ± 20 OxA-40708 GG02 –22.04 372 ± 20 Age before 1950 Vat A(269) was cut by gully A(249) (shown in Plate 5), and this helps to refine the date of the horncores. The gully, approximately 3m of which was present in the excavated area contained two EVIDENCE FOR LATE MEDIEVAL HORN WORKING AT GOOSE GATE, NOTTINGHAM FIGURES 2 and 3: Radiocarbon dating calibration charts for horncores recovered from horn retting vats at Goose Gate (© Scott Lomax). 61 fills: the upper fill was a dark brown soil, containing small flecks of sandstone, flecks of tile, limestone, small stones, charcoal flecks. The primary fill was sandier, with frequent ‘blobs’ of clay and redeposited natural. Within these two fills were a small number of sherds of pottery, all thought to be of 15th or 16th century date (unfortunately the pottery was not more closely dated). This would suggest the gully dated to the 16th century at the latest, unless the pottery was residual, and would support the dismissal of the later dates of the calibration charts. DISCUSSION This study of the evidence from Goose Gate, which is believed to represent evidence of horn working in Nottingham, makes an important contribution to an industry which is poorly represented in the documentary and archaeological records, especially for provincial towns of medium size such as Nottingham. The scant documentary references, with only two clearly identifiable horners mentioned in the 14th and 15th century records, is suggestive of horn working being carried out by only a small number of individuals. Although only low levels of investment were required, the scale of the operation at Goose Gate indicates there would have been a requirement for capital expenditure as well as labour, suggesting that the horners were not at the lower end of the social ladder. The pits may have been operated on a rotational basis, with each vat containing horns at different stages of soaking, as was the case at Hornpot Lane, enabling horns to be worked over a longer period of the year in what would appear to be a reasonably large operation (Dean 2012, 207). If we are to consider the discarded cores in vat A(267), which represent the final soaking before that vat fell out of use, then it seems possible that as many as 89 horns, if not more, may have been soaked in each vat at any one time. This implies a reasonably sizeable operation and potentially a craft of greater prosperity than may be assumed from the limited documentary evidence. The horn working operation at Goose Gate appears to have taken place within a large tenement, associated with a large undercroft, which is further supporting evidence for a degree of prosperity. The full extent of horn working at Goose Gate is unknown, because only a relatively small area was excavated, and it is reasonable to believe that there were further vats outside the excavated area. It is also possible that archaeological remains of horn working exist elsewhere in the medieval town and/or have been destroyed by later development. Nonetheless, the limited archaeological evidence, and very limited documentary evidence for horners, suggests this was a seasonal industry in Nottingham during the late medieval period, with only a small market for the goods produced by it. Horners may have supplemented their income through other work, perhaps including the working of leather. Horn working was introduced to the site during the later medieval period, building upon earlier industrial activity at the site such as pottery production. It is possible that the one medieval undercroft on the site which continued into use into the 16th century, and would therefore appear to have still been in use when the horn working was being carried out, is evidence of additional industrial activity at this site. Its large size exceeded what was required for the relatively small quantities of horn to be stored and so it is a possibility that other materials were being processed on the site, or close by, such as malt from the underground malt kiln system which may have been in contemporary use, perhaps providing a second income for the horners. Excavations at Petergate and Grape Lane/ Swinegate in York revealed that horning was taking place alongside the working of leather, bone and metal (Dean 2012, 222). The horning activity at Goose Gate appears to have ended with the abandonment of the vats, probably during the 16th century. At this time there was a change in land use, with the land becoming gardens and orchards. The processing of horn was unpleasant because whilst the horns were soaking the blood and tissue would rot, creating a noxious environment. The process could be speeded up by scooping out the core, once it had softened, but the complete nature of almost all the horncores at Goose Gate, which are the remnants of the final soaking, indicates this method EVIDENCE FOR LATE MEDIEVAL HORN WORKING AT GOOSE GATE, NOTTINGHAM was not used, at least at the end of horn working at the site. Scooping the material was particularly unpleasant and so it was marginally more hygienic to leave the horns to soak. Excavations in other towns and cities, including London and York, have demonstrated that soaking of horns in vats enabled large quantities of horns to be processed, and when the vats were no longer required they were often backfilled with the horncores (Yeomans 2006, 40). As a noxious trade, as with tanning at the Marshes, the horn working was suited to a peripheral location away from densely populated areas, just 15-20m from the projected course of the medieval town ditch and approximately 30m from the 15th- and possibly 16th-century undocumented burial ground on the eastern side of Cranbrook Street (Lomax 2014). Research from York, London and Norwich has indicated that leather workers and horners carried out their trades in close proximity to one another (Yeomans 2006, 62). In Norwich both tanning and horn working took place adjacent to the river (Weinstock 2002, 26). In London horn working predominantly took place just outside the city wall, away from the main areas of occupation, and then shifted to the eastern districts of the city by the later medieval period, but a smaller group of horners worked close to the Fleet stream (Yeomans 2007, 105–106). Proximity of these trades does not, on the currently available evidence, appear to have been a feature of the urban landscape in Nottingham. In Nottingham, documentary and archaeological evidence demonstrates clearly that by the second half of the 14th century tanning took place close to the River Leen in the Broad and Narrow Marshes and became increasingly concentrated in the Narrow Marsh from the latter years of that century. The horncores at Goose Gate were from cattle, which is interesting because the substantial numbers of bones recovered from tanning pits excavated at Narrow Marsh, at the Pemberton Street site, and from possible tanning pits on the edge of the excavated area at the Lace Market Point site, as well as from a substantial late medieval layer at that same site, belonged to sheep or goats. The quantity of bones recovered from pits at Pemberton Street exceeds 5000 (the precise number 63 is unknown due to the site remaining unpublished and post-excavation analysis being incomplete) and 124 sheep and goat bones were recovered from a pit and layer at Lace Market Point (Collins 2019, 76– 77; Krawiec 2020). This may suggest that different types of animals were being processed in different areas of the medieval town although this hypothesis is based upon limited excavation data. This raises an interesting question as to why the related processes of tanning and horn working may have been undertaken in different areas of the town. At present there is no clear explanation, and it is hoped that further excavation and research may shed light on this matter. The source of the water for the pits is uncertain and again it is hoped that future archaeological fieldwork may provide insight into ground conditions and water supplies in this peripheral part of the medieval town. Although horn working appears to have been only a minor component of the economy of the town, this study provides a better understanding of one of the trades carried out in late medieval Nottingham. Given the low number of known medieval horn working sites identified in England, this study makes a valuable contribution towards knowledge and understanding of this industry, and full analysis and publication is essential to fully realise the potential of the excavation archive. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The radiocarbon dating was made possible thanks to generous funding provided by the Geoffrey Bond Research Award and the Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire. The dating was undertaken by the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit who managed to date the submitted samples on schedule, despite restrictions arising from the COVID pandemic. The excavation archive is held by Nottingham City Museums and Galleries, and the Collections Management Group are thanked for allowing the samples to be taken for dating. The radiocarbon dating and research for this paper was undertaken as part of the author’s PhD at the University of Nottingham, which is supervised by Dr Chris King and Dr Richard Goddard, both of 64 EVIDENCE FOR LATE MEDIEVAL HORN WORKING AT GOOSE GATE, NOTTINGHAM whom have provided invaluable feedback regarding the author’s interpretations of the archaeology and history of the site. REFERENCES Primary sources: Nottinghamshire Archives: Nottingham Borough Court Rolls (CA 1251a-1341). The rolls have been transcribed and are available at: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ research/groups/ucn/online-sources/online-sources. aspx Stevenson, W. (ed.) 1882. Records of the Borough of Nottingham, Volume I, 1155–1399. Stevenson, W. (ed.) 1883. Records of the Borough of Nottingham, Volume II, 1399–1485. Secondary sources: Albarella, U. 2003. ‘Tawyers, tanners, horn working and the mystery of the missing goat’, in P. Murphy and P. E. J. Wiltshire (eds.) The Environmental Archaeology of Industry, 71–86, Oxford: Oxbow Books. Blair, J. W. and Ramsay, N, 1991. English Medieval Industries: Craftsmen, Techniques, Products. London: Hambledon Press. Collins, C. 2019. The Former London Road Petrol Station, London Road, Nottingham: An Archaeological Investigation, Trent & Peak Archaeology 160/2019. Dean, G. 2012. ‘Urban Neighbourhoods: Spatial and Social Development in York c.600–1600’ (unpublished PhD thesis, University of York). Higgins, T. 2017. An Archaeological Evaluation on land at Cliff Road/Canal Street (Narrow Marsh), Nottingham, University of Leicester Archaeological Services Report No. 2017–059. Higgins, T. 2018. Archaeological Monitoring and Recording During Groundworks at Skills Hub/College, Narrow Marsh, Nottingham, University of Leicester Archaeological Services Report No. 2018–207. Krawiec, K. 2020. ‘Nottingham, Pemberton Street’ in C. King (ed.) ‘Archaeology in Nottinghamshire 2020’, TTS 124: 40–41. Lomax, S. C. 2014. ‘The Cranbrook conundrum: dating Nottingham’s unmarked cemetery’, British Archaeology: November/December 2014. McClure, P. 1979. ‘Patterns of migration in the late middle ages: the evidence of English place-name surnames’, The Economic History Review, Second Series XXXII (2): 167–182. Trent & Peak Archaeology 2015. The Origins of Nottingham: Archaeological Investigations in the Medieval Town from 1969 to 1980, York: Archaeology Data Service: https://doi.org/10.5284/1029430. Weinstock, J. 2002. The Medieval and Post-Medieval Bone Remains From Heigham Street, Norwich, Historic England Research Report 33/2002. Yeomans, L. M. 2006. ‘A Zooarchaeological and Historical Study of the Animal Product Based Industries operating in London during the Post-Medieval Period’ (unpublished PhD thesis, University College London). Yeomans, L. M. 2007. ‘The shifting use of animal carcasses in medieval and post-medieval London’ in A. Pluskowski (ed.) Breaking and Shaping of Beastly Bodies: Animals as Material Culture in the Middle Ages, 99–116, Oxford: Oxbow Books. Young, C. 1982. Discovering Rescue Archaeology in Nottingham, Nottingham City Museums.