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.