Blue Bridge Lane
&
Fishergate House
Printed from the APC web site: navigation and non-essential images removed.
Please view on-line for full content (URL at end of document).
The presence of residual prehistoric lithic material from excavations in York is relatively commonplace, but often not subject to specialist examination. The position of the area of investigation close to the morainic ridge and prehistoric route recommended the material for closer inspection, and this was rewarded with evidence for riverside activity from the Mesolithic to Bronze Age. While this broadly confirms what has been modelled for the prehistory of the York area (Radley 1974), it has suggested the presence of riverine activity, possibly exploitation in prehistory. Without regular specialist inspection of lithic material from the city, little more by way of detail can or will be added to the model. In a rural context, similar bodies of lithic material would be routinely subject to identification and distribution analysis, whereas in an urban context, they are overshadowed by the examination of later archaeology.
Within York, the distribution of prehistoric finds has been weighted towards the southwest (RCHME 1972, 38), although this may be skewed by intrusion into deposits caused by the construction of the 19th century railway system. Evidence for transient occupation on the southeastern river terrace at Fishergate is, therefore, a new contribution to the prehistoric exploitation of the area, albeit unsurprising on reflection; the Mesolithic flint in particular is an extremely rare occurrence. Interestingly, prehistoric flint distributions were noted at 46-54 Fishergate and at Six Dials in Southampton (Rogers 1993, 1316: Andrews 1997, 15), demonstrating that riverine prehistoric settlement was attracted to the same sites that were later host to wics; both required enhanced communication networks.
Analysis of the distribution of lithic material demonstrates that the majority of lithics were recovered from Period 3 pit fills. It seems possible that the curation or reuse of some lithic material took place during the Anglian occupation of the site, as opportunistic strike-a-lighting or even skin processing. Apart from the Roman boundary ditches, there were few potential deposit traps for this residual material until Period 3, when Anglian pit digging is likely to have redeposited the material. It should also be noted that Period 3 features were subject to the highest recovery levels, thereby enhancing recovery within these features.
The features and layers identified as belonging to Period 2 have allowed a surprisingly high level of landscape reconstruction, given the largely truncated state of most features. The sections of ditch that did survive betrayed a typical rectilinear field system to the east of a major road, but one which also incorporated access to the Ouse. The riverward trackway suggests that the eastern bank of the Ouse may have been busier in the Roman period than previously anticipated. The field system is likely to have been much more complex and extensive, and probably extended to the western side of the road. Excavations to the north of Blue Bridge Lane encountered 'sinuous ditches thought to relate to drainage', alongside ploughsoils, and a disturbed subsoil or tilth thought to relate to cultivation (Kemp 1996, 68). While no actual ploughmarks have been recorded anywhere, the condition of most Period 2 pottery is consistent with that of plough abrasion. The land regime has thus been determined, although the small pocket of very well-preserved Period 2 archaeology within the grounds of Fishergate House, and the position of the cremations in relation to boundaries, suggest that at least some of the rectilinear enclosures within the system were set aside for burial and possibly pasturage.
The six Roman burials, five cremations and apparently lone inhumation form a small but significant group. Not only were the cremation burials remarkably well-preserved in an intact Roman burial soil, but the similarities between the Fishergate House group and those encountered in the 19th century on the western side of the road are noteworthy. There are a range of factors which appear to argue for a similar burial rite and therefore some sort of meaningful grouping. The choice of urn may well have been dictated largely by the domestic pottery available, but the presence of two rusticated Grey Ware jars, accompanied by Ebor Ware flagons in cremations a few metres apart, may be significant. Admittedly, the similarities between the rites of Cremation 2 and 3 may seem significant within what is in fact a small group. However, the cremations recorded from the eastern side of Fishergate can be added to the assemblage, and include a remarkably similar range of vessels in the burials (RCHM 1962, 68-9). As well as the ceramic vessels, the presence of unguent bottles, not only within Cremation 3, but contained within the burial soil close to Cremation 1, as well as within the Antiquarian collection and residually in many features at Blue Bridge Lane, suggest that during burial and in graveside ceremonies, the anointing or libation that the small phials represent was also commonplace.
The most striking and objective indication of uniformity of burial rite comes from the osteological analysis. The examination of the burials at Fishergate represents the first scientific contact with the cemetery, and the profile of the individuals present is the most powerful indicator of homogeneity in the group. The four Fishergate House cremations contained the remains of juveniles (aged between three to twelve years), and two also contained the remains of Young Middle Adults; the Blue Bridge Lane burial contained the remains of an adolescent. In addition, three of the four Fishergate House cremations contained calcined pig bones in the primary cremation deposit, while the fourth contained Medium Mammal bones (which does not preclude pig). Whether these shared characteristics, both in the choice of accompanying objects and in the selected calcined remains, reflect a family plot in which the association of relatives within burials was important, a burial ground for children who are often conspicuously absent from cemetery groups, or the common habits of a burial club, must remain mere speculation, but the similarities are striking.
The truncation of Period 2 features resulted in a large body of residual Roman material in later features. Despite being redeposited, the information gained has made a contribution to the landscape model. The fused and vitrified unguentaria, fragment of mosaic glass bowl, the sherds of head vase and fragment of glass bangle all probably derive from a funerary context, and have been considered part of the cemetery collection. The disarticulated unburnt human bone in Period 2 and 3 features confirms the suggestion that the cemetery also included inhumation burial, in areas other than that of the possible Period 2 inhumation. The presence of seventy-seven fragments of disarticulated human bone from Period 3 features at 46-54 Fishergate (O'Connor 1993, 255) also demonstrates the presence of inhumation burial that far to the north. In addition, the nature of residual Roman pottery recovered there is reminiscent of that used for cremation burial at Fishergate House and it would seem that the mixed cemetery extended to 46-54 Fishergate, but had been almost completely obliterated by the intensity of later activity.
The presence of residual Roman ceramic within the current area of investigation, and its presence in excavations at 46-54 Fishergate, allows the areas used for burial and the wider landscape to be mapped (Figure 78). The finds spots of residual pottery thought to have been used in the cemetery, intact Roman burials and antiquarian contact with the cemetery suggest, unsurprisingly, that the areas favoured for burial were those along the summit of the ridge, flanking the route of the road, and on the plateau above the slope down to the banks of the Ouse. The cemetery once stretched along both sides of the road, but was subject to erosion by Roman ploughing and by increasingly intensive medieval and modern activity. The significance of this distribution lies not only in the understanding of Roman land use, but moreover, suggests hot spots of later activity, at least some of which can be surmised to be Anglian in date. In addition, areas such as the enclosure at Fishergate House, where the Roman cemetery horizon was intact, demonstrate areas into which Anglian activity did not extend in any intensity.
The material considered to have been imported in manure is typical of the domestic rubbish that was exported to extra-mural locations all around the city. Most significantly, in the present context, this material provides an indication that land use had declined significantly by the mid-3rd century, when the boundary features were levelled, since only a handful of later 3rd and 4th century pottery was recovered. The two late Roman coins found within later features at Blue Bridge Lane may be better explained as material intended for recycling during Period 3 than as coins lost casually or imported in manure during Period 2.
Also removed from its original context is the body of Roman building material, but which nevertheless denotes Romanised building nearby. This assertion is in some way supported by the intact cobbled surfaces overlain by occupation rubbish encountered towards the western side of the area of investigation. Unfortunately, few of the CBM forms were indicative of date; nonetheless, the range of forms suggest building of some sophistication. Standard tegulated roofing systems, alongside evidence for heating systems in the form of chimney pot, hypocaust and box flue tile and the fragment of opus signiniumsuggestive of high-quality wall or floor finishes are represented in the assemblage.
The site of investigation represents an unusually large area over which to examine a suburban hinterland. The range of land use identified - some occupation, a road, and an extra mural cemetery surrounded by fields - is hardly surprising. Still, the opportunity to examine them all at once on the outskirts of a major Roman city is rarely encountered.
The focus of these investigations fell to this period, since so many questions were raised by the 1980s excavations. By comparison with 46-54 Fishergate, however, the area of excavation, the concentration of features and the stratigraphic information encountered in the present excavation is inferior; nonetheless, the reasons for this may be significant and deserve further scrutiny.
Settlement expanse and layout
The examination of the Roman landscape has much to offer to the understanding of the Anglian landscape. Areas for the mixed Roman cemetery have been postulated above according to the distribution of what appears to be redeposited funerary material. The intensity of occupation encountered at 46-54 Fishergate, characterised by the trading settlement, the early church and medieval priory, provide the reason for the lack of intact burials, which were anticipated by the 1980s research agenda, but not found (Kemp 1996, 6). Just as the proven areas of cemetery disturbance provide an indication of the intensity of activity of following periods, the areas of intact burial indicate spaces not occupied with such intensity in the interim. It is perhaps for this reason that the Fishergate House Roman burial enclosure is so important.
The level of preservation within Fishergate House provided a hint that the Anglian settlement had not extended that far to the south, and may have all but petered out in this area. In addition, no preordained southern boundary to mark this change was identified, unless the route of Blue bridge Lane had removed it, to match the shifting eastern boundary of Kemp's predetermined allocation of land (Kemp 1996, 67). To strengthen this observation, it can be noted that between 46-54 Fishergate, the intensity of occupation implied by the number of features and the absence of vertical stratigraphy dies off dramatically between there and Blue Bridge Lane, becoming increasingly weak the further towards Fishergate House one travels. Admittedly, modern truncation should be considered a factor in the preservation of features such as stake and postholes, but on sheer feature distribution, it seems clear that less activity was present to the south. As discussed, some of this at least can be related to truncation of levels at Blue Bridge Lane, but the in situRoman deposits at Fishergate House would seem to suggest a genuine absence rather than subsequent loss. It seems possible that the true limit of eastward activity detected by Kemp was influenced more by the Roman thoroughfare, which may still have been in use, than by any municipal settlement planning. The pattern of decreasing activity towards the south seems much more organic and also calls into doubt the level of settlement predetermination.
Although Kemp proposed a ribbon settlement marked by nodes of occupation reaching from Fishergate to Fulford, there are still no firm indicators, in the form of spot or chance finds, for this model. Instead, the indicators now suggest a settlement representing something closer to 4 hectares, rather than 10 hectares, with a core near or at 46-54 Fishergate, and dispersing radially from this point with an eastern boundary of the relict Roman landscape. When compared to the suggested areas of comparable settlement at Southampton (44 hectares), London (60), Ipswich (50), York is clearly much smaller and does not sit so comfortably within the broader group.
Settlement organisation
Some suggestion of internal boundaries and therefore organisation may be implied by the tentatively identified aligned pits, which could betray the presence of a property boundary. This division of land into plots, however, does not prove external control or predetermination. Such alignments have been used to make the case for property boundaries at Fishergate (Kemp 1996, 24) and at Southampton, where pit alignments were identified and were thought to congregate at the extremes of a property (Andrews 1997, 179). There is an element of uniformity in the spacing and the dimensions of these pits which would suggest they are more than a perceived alignment determined only by virtue of the size of the window excavated. The aligned pits at 46-54 Fishergate are described as 'between 4.5m to 5.5m centres and ranging in size between 1.2m and c.3m in diameter and between 0.35m and 0.90m deep' (Kemp 1996, 23). These characteristics are shared by the possibly aligned pits at Blue Bridge Lane, but unlike 46-54 Fishergate, no slot was identified clearly linking the pits together. A further contrast exists between York and Southampton, where pit alignments consisted of densely intercutting pits, whereas in the Blue Bridge Lane alignment, only two intercutting pits were present. This is further indication, if any were needed, that intensity of occupation as well as settlement extent differ substantially.
In addition to aligned features, pit groups have been identified within the main excavation area at Blue Bridge Lane. The phenomenon of pit clusters is yet another shared characteristic of the northern site sample (Kemp 1996). The Blue Bridge Lane pit groups have been surmised by two apparent clusters within Intervention 15, initially on the basis of their proximity to one another, although other factors would also seem to confirm their grouping. The contents of Pit Group 1 (PG1) versus Pit Group 2 (PG2) suggest that the origin of the PG2 contents derived from more immediate domestic occupation than PG1. The reasons for this interpretation are threefold: the proportion of lost personal items is greater in PG2 than in PG1, the distribution of preserved building materials and structural features is heavily weighted towards PG2, and the numbers of small commensal mammals (house mice) and neonatal animal bones from PG2 features suggest more proximate human occupation (Figure 79).
The grouping of pits, and the distribution and concentration of certain find types would appear to be real, although some truncation, and therefore distortion, of the features and distribution should be taken into account. The insertion of concrete stanchion-bases, as well as a water tank and a small cellar, completely removed any potential for archaeological deposits and features within their footprint; other modern features tended to truncate archaeology horizontally, but not obliterate it. PG1 had suffered more horizontal truncation, through subsequent pit digging as well as by modern features, than PG2. There were also fewer pits represented (five in PG1 versus nine in PG2 excluding double pit groups). The comparison of feature numbers is grouped here ambiguously, however, since a concentration of features alone could well be seen as an indicator in its own right. Nonetheless, redeposited Period 3 finds in the area of PG1 were scarce, and it did not appear that material-rich deposits had been redeposited in later features - rather, that Period 3 personal items had genuinely been less common.
The personal items in PG2 pits included tweezers, buckles, beads, coins, dress pins, used combs and a possible ear scoop, rings and knives, and only occasionally did such finds appear within PG1. In addition, 16.5kg of daub recovered from PG2 as opposed to 136.5g from PG1, alongside the evidence of charred thatch from F402B, suggests the presence of buildings near at hand. Further, the only structural and intercutting features at the site belonged in PG2, the only secure primary feature being hearth F246B.
Phasing
Examination of the taphonomy of pit fill systems has been used in the absence of stratigraphy in an attempt to identify equivalent site-wide clearances indicative of a level of municipality detected at 46-54 Fishergate. The largest pits all appeared to have started life as cesspits, with primary cess fills accumulating slowly, accompanied by episodic collapses and an occasional trapped frog or mouse. This was a common feature of many of the deeper pits at both 46-54 Fishergate and at Hamwic (Andrews 1997, 174-179), as was evidence for subsidence. After use as a latrine pit finished, the pits then appeared to have been filled more rapidly (with less evidence for collapsing sides) with humic midden-like bone-rich material, which sometimes incorporated an element of cess. Underlying cess deposits appear to have continued settling, not only creating 'pocks' of subsidence, which were still apparently being filled in the 15th century, but also creating the distinctive dipping meniscus profiles of the primary cess deposits. Notably, in two pits (F64F and F381B), the profile of the cess deposits was so marked that they appeared to have been recut, and remarkably, the cess represented the basal primary fill of the feature, but were visible in the pre-excavation plan of the pits which measured well over a metre deep.
This pattern of cess deposition followed by rapid midden clearance may indicate a 'tidying up' episode equivalent to Period 3b to the north; it may also reflect more localised house-keeping influenced by habit more than a higher authority, and without better environmental preservation and dating evidence, this cannot be established. Evidence for seasonality was sought but not found, which was also the experience of the excavators of Hamwic (Andrews 1997, 184-187).
Anecdotally, the sequence of deposits within cesspit F381B can be compared to the Periods 3a to 3c encountered at 46-54 Fishergate. The primary deposition of cess within pit F381B was well-dated by a continental sceat dated to c.695 to c.740 (coincident with the late 7th to early 8th settlement foundation), and following use as a cesspit the pit was then filled with primary refuse deposits. Fill-system subsidence followed, and its ghost was then topped up with the large dump of daub, also well-dated by a sceat of Eadberht dated to 737 to 758AD (and therefore possibly equivalent to the later 8th century Period 3b deposit); the backfilled pit was subsequently cut by a further Anglian feature (possibly equivalent to Period 3c). This sequence could be seen to reflect the general date and nature of occupation-clearance-occupation of 46-54 Fishergate, although as an isolated and unusual group, the observation remains superficial. No feature was better dated at the site, making sequencing within the period almost impossible.
Several features at 46-54 Fishergate had not been well-sequenced, and had been allocated to a Period 3z. Some Period 3z features had characteristics which allowed them to be considered as Period 3a features; those characteristics might therefore permit most of the Blue Bridge Lane group to be considered equivalent to Period 3a. The latest coin date within the assemblage derived from the backfilling of cesspit F64F, and suggests a date of the mid-9th century for the decline of occupation in this southern area (provided by an irregular issue styca).
Craft-working
As at 46-54 Fishergate, craft-working activities were identified, albeit a comparatively limited range, and no clear patterns or concentrations were detected in intra-site finds distributions. The excavation of a new sample of the settlement, however, suggests there are broader trends that might suggest areas of specialisation or greater intensity among crafts.
Metal-working
Unlike at 46-54 Fishergate, the evidence for metal-working was largely mundane, with evidence for small-scale smithing, possibly only from repair and maintenance of existing iron tools and objects. Lead-alloy working was detected alongside a quantity of potential scrap material, particularly amorphous pieces of iron and copper alloy sheet scrap and wire. Unlike at 46-54 Fishergate, no direct evidence for precious metal-working was encountered, although it may have been obliquely referenced by the presence of the Roman intaglio from cesspit F381B. The intaglio joins a growing number of similar gemstones discarded in early medieval workshop contexts (Spall forthcoming, Ewan Campbell pers. comm., Melander 2001) and its presence is likely to relate to the trade and recycling of Roman antiques as a source of metal. It also joins a group of Roman antiquities from Fishergate, amongst which are the emerald bead and onyx gem from 46-54 Fishergate; a second intaglio is noted from Fishergate by the Royal Commission survey. Additionally, the two 4th century Roman coins found in Saxon or later deposits at Blue Bridge Lane are more likely to have arrived at the site in the 8th century than in the 4th, since contemporary Roman occupation of the period was scarce. The source of the precious metal at the site would seem to be Roman antiquities, of which there appears to have been a healthy supply.
Textile-working
Blue Bridge Lane did have strong indicators for textile-working, principally in the form of loomweights, a few spindlewhorls, needles and a highly polished thread picker. The number of loomweights recovered (over fifty) is higher than at 46-54 Fishergate, though the figure is skewed by the presence of loomweight bonfire kiln F225B. Even without the weights from this feature, the numbers are higher than at 46-54 Fishergate, where only three partially complete weights were found; the sheer presence of on-site loomweight manufacture is noteworthy. These figures, however, pale into insignificance in light of the fact that a minimum of 226 loomweights were recovered from Lundenwic (Goffin 2003, 116-222) and 200 from the Middle Saxon settlement at Flixborough (Loveluck 2001, 99). No iron comb teeth were found, however, and the number of spindlewhorls is also lower. It seems that more processing and spinning of raw wool was undertaken at 46-54 Fishergate, whereas weaving and finishing garments was the emphasis at Blue Bridge Lane, but whether even these broad comparisons would bear further scrutiny in terms of reflecting any level of craft organisation is doubtful.
Bone-working
Bone-working was also well-represented at Blue Bridge Lane and Fishergate House, although yet again, pales in comparison to the evidence from 46-54 Fishergate. Assemblages of medullary waste tissue, side-, tooth- and billet-plate blanks were recovered from most pits, with concentrations in the major cesspits F381B and F64F. Assessment of the waste demonstrated that shed antler, cattle and horse long bone and cattle horncores supplied the raw material. Clearly, bone, antler and horn were being regularly worked, and the products appear to have been mundane commodities, principally combs and possibly plain pig fibulae-type pins.
Site subsistence and trade
The following objects were items possibly derived from trade: the eight sceatta and styca; Niedermendig lavastone quern fragments, schist and sandstone whetstones, and the lump of raw amber; Ipswich, Lincoln Shelly, Northern Maxey and Badorf Ware pottery; seven sherds of glass vessels. The dearth of material of this nature is notable compared to the quantities of similar items at the other sites. The excavation area was smaller than that of 46-54 Fishergate by some measure, and by comparison with the area of Saxon Southampton, Ipswich and London, smaller still. Accumulatively though, the wealth of the material assemblage recovered from York to date suggests that the intensity of such trade does not compare with other sites, and the indicators for York being a significant commercial centre remain weak.
The similarities in the profile of the animal bone assemblage and, therefore, site economy is perhaps the only convincing similarity between York and other wic sites. The Blue Bridge Lane subsistence economy was again dominated by the presence of mature cattle brought into the settlement on the hoof and butchered on-site. The deposit of cattle bone within pit F388B was similar to a number of bone-rich assemblages encountered at 46-54 Fishergate, where large parts of individuals, with some elements articulated, were excavated and are typical of on-site butchery waste (Kemp 1996, 26). Nonetheless, some differences were detected, and slightly raised numbers of ovicaprids, domestic fowl and juvenile individuals were contained within the huge bone assemblage from Blue Bridge Lane. These differences were clearly not enough to indicate rural function, and it would seem that the Anglian settlement at York was patronised with redistributed resources, possibly food rents.
Excavations of Middle Saxon sites since the excavations of the 1980s, however, have provided more opportunities for examination of subsistence. Zooarchaeological analysis of the late 8th century animal bone assemblage from Flixborough reflects the profile of York and other sites, i.e. raised numbers of adult or sub-adult cattle slaughtered, with few juveniles represented. Significantly, Flixborough during the late 8th century was apparently a rural settlement, and the fact that craft-working evidence is strongest during this period of the Flixborough settlement is also noteworthy.
York clearly boasted a riverine settlement engaged in the production of commercial commodities during the 8th and 9th century. It had access to continental goods, though no clear evidence exists that these were not imported to more coastal destinations and redistributed radially from the ports to less marine locations. The food base reflects that of Southampton, but also Flixborough. In addition, the luxurious imports are found on a wide range of site types, such as monastic houses, Royal vills and rural settlements.
The Fishergate settlement is not sited on a territorial boundary and, therefore, ought not be considered a 'gateway' community. It is also the only inland riverine 'wic' site excavated to date, and probably belongs to one of many nodal Humber trading points. The craft-working and items of local and international trade are those that are found on many types of Middle Saxon settlement within the 'Humber zone', and are not particularly remarkable (Loveluck 2001, 95-96). Clearly, York was involved in the North Sea trade interface of the Humber region, but it certainly did not appear to dominate it or act as a redistributive portal for rare commodities. Due to the on-going reappraisal of the wic type-site and the doubt cast on its economic function or dominance, York should be considered more carefully amongst the group of wic sites to which it is so often compared.
The clearest evidence for Anglo-Scandinavian occupation was encountered in the southern area of Blue Bridge Lane in the form of Structure 1 and associated rubbish pits and hearths. This activity, which has been assigned a broad late 10th century date, demonstrates that the area was given over to occupation following the decline of the Anglian settlement, when settlement shifted towards Coppergate. The Fishergate occupation is contemporary with Period 4 at Coppergate, and although peripheral, like many Anglo-Scandinavian sites, represents the beginnings of continuous occupation of the Fishergate suburb. While activity of this date was sited predominantly within Fishergate House, at Blue Bridge Lane very few features were present. The quantity of residual Torksey Ware in later features at Blue Bridge Lane might suggest the presence of Period 4 rubbish redeposited by later activity. So few features were securely dated to Period 4 at Blue Bridge Lane, however, that the material seems more likely to have arrived at the site during the importation of soils during Period 8.
Too few features within Blue Bridge Lane could be assigned a Period 5 date even tentatively to allow many conclusions to be drawn. There were clear monastic predecessors within the 46-54 Fishergate area, allocated to Period 4 (Kemp and Graves 1996, 70), which suggests that some activity of this date may well have been present in the southern area of Blue Bridge Lane. The few features allocated to this period did not clearly belong to an Early Norman date, since pottery mixing obscured potentially clear assemblages of this date. At Fishergate House, Period 5 occupation was clearer, since occupation was not so intense and later pottery types were rarer. Nonetheless, the evidence for occupation consisted only of pit digging, suggesting continuous occupation from Period 4 located at the southernmost extreme of the area of investigation, but not more than that.
Early Monastic
During Period 6, much clearer evidence for occupation emerged in the form of Structures 2 and 3, and the more diffuse, possibly circular, structure within western Intervention 15. These buildings were almost certainly part of the wider monastic structures, although sadly, their function remains unclear. The zonation of activity laid down in the early monastic period appears to have set the scene for all succeeding monastic activity apart from the short-lived investment in pottery production to which the entire southern precinct appears to have been surrendered. To the west, the dense posthole distribution betrays structural activity in the general area, while pit digging appears generally more clustered towards the eastern area.
The contents of the rubbish pits have provided information on the Priory that had been absent from excavations of the claustral range (O'Connor 1991, 230-232). Zooarchaeological assessment suggests a high-status diet was enjoyed by the canons and their associates during the late 12th to early 14th century. In addition, the lack of scavengers within the animal bone assemblage and the absence of cess deposits identified during environmental assessment suggests a reasonably clean environment within the precinct during this period. While this cleanliness does not appear to persist, for the early monastic period, it provides a further indicator that even the far reaches of the precinct were the subject of some degree of planning, organisation and maintenance.
Artefacts belonging to this period are rare, but where present, provide indicators of the source of the rubbish, such as the iron stylus and elephant ivory comb. Combs are used during the liturgy and it seems possible that the item may have been used by a member of the priory. At Fishergate House, the iron slide key included as a grave good with Inhumation 244 is of late 11th to early 13th century date, and may have been included with the burial as an indicator of elevated status. While too distant, temporally and culturally, from the practice of including girdle-hangers as an indicator of status in Early Anglo-Saxon female graves, the key as grave equipment is interesting nonetheless.
Monastic industry
The monastic investment in industry during the 14th century is particularly noteworthy because it has presented the first remains of a medieval kiln in York to date. The structure, like so many kilns, was very poorly preserved, and even the below-ground remains had been badly damaged by modern activity. The structure appeared to have consisted of a sub-square scoop with a small firing chamber capable of small, but possibly frequent, firings, producing a basic range of vessels in the Humber Ware tradition. The associated postholes may relate to an associated division, or if the kiln form was open-topped, a shelter. Sadly, there is little more that can be gleaned of the original form and technology of the structure. The associated quarries, clay storage pit and water collector or well are interesting and find easy parallels on better preserved kiln sites. Stone-lined clay storage pits were identified during excavations of kiln sites at Lyveden, Northants and Olney Hyde, Bucks.; a clay pit was also found at the latter (Moorhouse 1981, 104).
Clearly, a high level of investment went into the production of pottery, as the spread of associated features dominated the whole southern area of the monastic precinct. Not only would the general environment of this part of the precinct have been industrial, covered in spoilheaps, clay processing and puddling areas and huge open quarries, but the pollution present during kiln firing would have rendered the area useless for other activities. Bone assessment identified greater numbers of scavengers including red kite and black rat, suggesting a decline in the environment of the area during this period. The open quarries were used for the disposal of refuse, which probably attracted the scavengers. The quarries may also have been filled with water during the winter months, presenting something of a hazard. Cases of drowning in quarry pits, presumably larger that those at Blue Bridge Lane, has been documented, strengthening the case for a single-use precinct area at this time (J.Hudson pers. comm.).
The location of a kiln at Fishergate would appear to have been a measured choice, probably influenced by the on-site presence of useable York boulder clay, a ready source of water, a local market, and transport links sufficient to provide regular fuel sources, if these were not available locally. Significantly, the vessels apparently in use within the claustral range, published as Walmgate Ware (Mainman 1993, 590), may have been produced within the monastic precinct, and at it seems that at least some of the wares produced in the precinct were for monastic use.
The Walmgate evidence consisted of a foundation of Humber Ware-type wasters and may relate to a kiln site nearby. However, documentary examples of the sale of wasters specifically for use as hardcore exist from throughout Britain ranging from wallcore material at Windsor, underpinning walls and wharf foundations and repairing ovens, also including a reference to the Vicars Choral in York selling wasters for rubble (Moorhouse 1981, 107). Thus, it seems possible that the Blue Bridge Lane kiln is the first direct contact with the medieval potting industry in York. Indeed, the comparative dearth of wasters at the site might be explained by the resale of failed pots for reuse in other contexts.
The production of tile and pottery by a monastic establishment is not surprising, and many references and excavations have provided evidence for custom-built on-site kilns, for example, Haverholme Priory, Lincs. and North Grange, Meaux, Yorks. (Eames 1992, 6, 9). Some evidence for pottery production was encountered during excavation of parts of the precinct of Bordesley Abbey (Astill 1993, 294). The presence of wasters and fragments of kiln furniture of locally sourced clay are thought to relate to the presence of a pottery kiln at the site during the late 13th century.
Priory life
The reclamation of the industrial wasteland of Period 7B involved the backfilling of the large quarries using Priory rubbish, notably a quantity of building materials. The roof tile, nails and other structural metalwork are likely to derive from alteration of buildings closer to the claustral range, if not the range itself. Other building materials took the form of painted wall plaster, painted window glass, rare examples of stone roof tiles and glazed floor tiles, as well as fragments of architectural stone reused in Period 9 features. Personal belongings from the Priory were recovered and included a cross-marked pebble, a possible item of book furniture, bone styli, two bone rosary beads, a jet rosary bead and a possible jet rosary cross pendant. Less devotional was a roof tile incised with a crude chequerboard design, probably for gaming rather than accounting.
These devotional objects were joined by some evidence for the practice of medicine within the Priory in the form of three glass urinals used in uroscopy (Tyson 2000, 149-151). The practice of uroscopy reflects knowledge of Hippocratic medicine and so would not have been commonly available, but significantly, other monastic infirmaries, such as Norwich Cathedral Priory, are known to have practised this type of medicine (Tyson ibid). This sign of an operational infirmary within the Priory is not the first, since a member of the Priory was found buried with a medical plate at the site of a knee injury (Ottaway and Rogers 2002, 2931).
Food waste associated with the rubbish dumping suggests a decline in diet during the later industrial phases, although this may relate to the members of the local community undertaking the crafts rather than the members of the Priory. Cheaper cuts of meat appear to have been consumed, alongside fish, which were mainly herring. The fish-smoking feature suggests that fresh herring were bought by the priory and then cured on site for longer-term consumption. It is likely that fish dominated the diet during this period, and contemporary documents from monastic institutions reflect this culture (Harvey 1993). The recovery of burnt grape seeds from hearth F178B represents an interesting indication of some access to fresh fruit, although perhaps unsurprising, given that some monastic institutions cultivated their own vines, and generally not for wine-making purposes (Harvey 1993, 60).
Late monastic industry
The emphasis of the later monastic industry shifts from the production of pottery to relatively small-scale metal-working. This activity is represented by a few hearths containing hammerscale and slag, probably from the repair of objects and possibly from the formation of billets from scrap iron. More commonly though, metal-working evidence comes in the form of lost metal items, which betray activities undertaken. The hoard of scrap metal found in Period 8B pit F242B included an array of items both in copper alloy and iron, the broken and incomplete state of much of it suggesting that it was intended for scrap and recycling. In addition, horseshoe nails and occasional fragments of horseshoe suggest that a farrier may also have worked in that area of the precinct. The presence of both copper alloy scrap alongside iron objects suggests that skills beyond a simple blacksmith were present in the workforce, and that composite items may have been made. Similar items of lost metalwork were recovered in association with metal-working features at Bordesley Abbey, including an assemblage of scrap iron and non-ferrous metalwork, alongside evidence for tile-based metalworking hearths and possible water-powered manufacture of tenterhooks for cloth fulling (Astill 1992, 272-288). This level of sophistication cannot be advocated for the late monastic industry at Blue Bridge Lane, although its presence in an urban context is interesting. The Bordesley industry was such that surplus production was thought to have been used to engage in the local market as well as servicing the monastic requirements. For York, this may not automatically have been the case, since excavation at St Andrewgate encountered rich evidence for a thriving metal-working quarter contemporary with the industry at Blue Bridge Lane (Finlayson 2004), and the crafts encountered here may actually have been used by the monastic community and its guests exclusively.
The organisation of feature-types across the monastic precinct laid down during Period 6 appears to have been respected, perhaps not during industrial Period 7B, but are remembered and persist until Period 8B. The western area appears to have been given over to structures, albeit diffuse. Projection of the likely medieval shoreline derived from information at 46-54 Fishergate suggests that this area of the precinct was on the shoreline, and may have been liable to periodic inundation by the Ouse. It is even conceivable that the structures relate to exploitation of the river's resources, for which the Priory was admonished during its lifetime (YCR 132). To the east, organised refuse disposal continued, interspersed with fish smoking and light industry, including farriery. The location of well F434B in Intervention 22 suggests that the choice of feature location was careful. As the only contemporary water source other than the probable potting water collector, F434B was set well away from refuse disposal areas and above likely water table contaminants, indicating that customary monastic water management was present at the site.
The identification of this cemetery and its institution is problematic, as there is little surviving in the documentation to provide clues as to the church with which the burials can be associated. Although situated directly to the south of St Andrew's Priory, the cemetery is some distance from the known burial ground associated with the monastic site, and lies outside the known boundary of the institution.
A number of further candidates present themselves, and although none can be conclusively associated with the site, since all have been located by antiquarians elsewhere, St Helen's Church emerges as the strongest contender. Of the known Fishergate churches, St Stephen's, St George's and St Andrew's have all be securely located in other areas, and can therefore be discounted, leaving All Saints', St Helen's and St Catherine's. St Catherine's is poorly documented, mentioned only indirectly in a deed describing land 'near to the chapel of St Catherine's' (Ousebridge Master's Rolls; Raine 1955, 301-2). Raine mentions that the chapel occurs in wills dating to 1445, 1468 and 1472, and therefore provides a possible candidate to be associated with the cemetery.
All Saints' is likely to have been a pre-Conquest foundation, having been granted to Whitby Abbey in the 11th century (Rollason 1998, 207). The church is documented throughout the 14th and 15th century (an anchoress dwelt in the churchyard in 1428 and 1444), and is thought to have been evacuated by Whitby in 1536. The site of the church is known to have existed on Fishergate, and has been located approximately 140m from Fishergate Bar, where in 1724, 'a large building resembling a church' was discovered (Raine 1955, 300); many burials and some stone coffins were also identified. In 1826, beneath the nearby site of the Cattle Market, more human bone was found, and again in 1855 and 1946. Since the Second World War, inhumations have been encountered on four separate occasions in the area of the earlier discoveries (YAJ 1978, 16; Medieval Archaeology 1988, 291; Medieval Archaeology 1992, 274; YAT Gaz. 1991.15). In 1265 X 1278, the community made an agreement over the diversion of water in their 'area' in Fishergate; Rees Jones (1987 I, 57) has suggested that this might indicate a location closer to the river than that which is currently suggested, but perhaps not close enough to be a real contender for the Fishergate House cemetery, particularly since this would leave the church and inhumations to the north without identity.
This leaves the final possibility of the church of St Helen, which was situated on Fishergate and documented from c.AD1100, and is therefore also one of the earlier foundations in this area. The church is considered to have been relatively small, and as one of the poorest churches in York, was taxed at the lowest rate (Raine 1955, 301). The church was demolished in the 16th century after the union of the parishes, which would concur with the latest dates of the cemetery on Fishergate.
Church of St Elene extra muros
In terms of location, St Helen's is traditionally placed on Winterscale Street, on the eastern side of Fishergate, where stone coffins are known to have been found prior to the early 18th century (Drake 1736, 250). These coffins in all likelihood belonged to the Roman cemetery in the vicinity, and there is little documentary evidence to securely place the church in this site. Drake (1736) places the church 'near the further windmill', which he actually depicts, after Horsley, on the western side of Fishergate, to the south of the site later occupied by Fishergate House. Though generally inaccurately located, this would indicate an acceptance that the church was situated in the vicinity of Fishergate House, and in the light of the lack of definite evidence to suggest otherwise, it is possible that the excavated cemetery was that dedicated to St Helen. One of the city's four leper hospitals is also known to have been associated with the church at Fishergate.
There are good reasons for questioning the accuracy of Drake's positioning of St Helen's, and the namesake church of St Helen-on-the-Walls provides an example; in many ways the life of the church and its disuse reflects what little is known of St Helen's, Fishergate. St Helen-on-the-Walls was a small, poor, but active medieval church, which was unified with another parish church in the 16th century, quickly demolished and all but lost from memory, being misplaced later by several antiquarian scholars lead by Drake in 1736 (Palliser 1980, 2). The church was closed and united with St Cuthbert's during the union of the parishes in1547 and demolition to foundation level appears to have followed promptly. The church remains were apparently not visible to Speed in 1610 and, owing only to folklore that St Helen's was where Constantine's tomb was located (St Helen was canonised as the mother of Constantine the Great), Drake positioned the church in 1736, knowing only that it stood in the parish of St Helen near Aldwark. Subsequently, Drake's proposed siting of St Helen's was reiterated by later scholars. Excavations were undertaken in advance of a development on the site of the 19th century Ebor Brewery, and a strong case was built by the excavators for the cemetery and church encountered at the site as being that of St Helen-on-the-Walls (Magilton 1980).
St Helen's Fishergate is known to have been a small church, since it was taxed at the lowest rate, suggesting a building of simple plan with few internal or external embellishments and little associated land. Like St Helen-on-the-Walls, during the union of the parishes, it was merged with another small poor parish church, that of St Lawrence, and was demolished probably soon after; again, Speed does not depict a church, which suggests that no structural remains were visible by 1610, although the area is somewhat peripheral to his plan. Drake's account of the site of St Helen's is ambiguous, and could be understood to mean that the discovery of coffins at Winterscale Street, which are likely to be Roman, prompted his location of the lost church of St Helen. Alternatively, Drake placed the church on the eastern side of Fishergate, which may actually be the site of St Helen's hospital, demolished later than the church in 1622. Drake also intimates that the Torre manuscripts contain a list of rectors of the church and testamentary burials for St Helen's.
Osteological analysis of the population sample from Fishergate House demonstrated that a typical lay population, albeit with raised proportions of children, was represented. In addition, the depth of sequence implied by the earliest furnished grave and a small handful of possibly reliable pottery suggests a cemetery of some age, as does its contraction through time. This makes it likely that the Fishergate cemetery represents a burial ground which served a small local parish church and its congregation and possibly even the associated hospital's patients. In addition, the density of burials between c.1350 and c.1450, as suggested by the pottery condition analysis, concurs with the level of prosperity throughout the medieval city during this period and the period of the Black Death. The association of St Helen with a hospital, also situated on Fishergate (Widdrington 1663) suggests a possible origin for some of the more severe cases of pathological conditions identified in cemetery analysis, particularly the confirmed case of leprosy. Hospitals were subject to rigorous strictures for the rite of burial and were often associated with a parish church where the hospital dead were buried.
The visibility of the church building, by comparison with the cemetery, has been negligible. As a small low tax church St Helen's Fishergate is likely to have been built as a small one- or two-celled building with little by way of expansion. Again, reference to St Helen-on-the-Walls might suggest a building no larger than 5.8m x 4.4m internally. In addition, the physical remains of the church at Aldwark that survived demolition were no more than cobble- and rubble-filled foundation trenches. If all that remained of St Helen's Fishergate were features of similar composition, the remains would be almost invisible, particularly to the builders of Fishergate House. Considering Fishergate House was built in 1837 and no mention of a cemetery occurred during construction, the church remains themselves are unlikely to have been mentioned if they were visible in any way.
It seems probable that the assemblage of building material recovered from the cemetery ditches, and occasionally from graves, belonged to the church building. The contrast between the ceramic profiles of Fishergate House and Blue Bridge Lane was noted for several periods, indicating the likely independent sources of material at both sites; the building material need not, therefore, be considered as having derived from the Priory. Indeed, the only length of lead came from the entire site investigation was recovered from the backfill of a Fishergate grave. In addition, three sherds of window glass, one painted, and all dateable to the 12th to 15th century, as well as structural ironwork are likely to have derived from the building itself. The large quantity of medieval plain roof tile and fragment of architectural stone recovered from just a small length of the levelling of ditch F288F, probably in the 16th century, are exciting indicators of the character of the elusive church building. Just where the church or chapel would have lain in relation to the cemetery cannot be postulated easily, although the area used for burial without evidence for structures can be roughly surmised, which provides a guide to where the building certainly was not (Figure 80).
With the exception of ditch F263F/F282F, the areas of excavation did not extend to the limits of the cemetery, but it is assumed that the cemetery extended close to ancient route of the Fishergate frontage suggested by the line of the Roman flanking ditch and medieval surfaces encountered in YAT Trench A and B (the western extent of the modern route is thought to be imposed during the 18th century, cf Jefferys 1772). To the west and the rear of Fishergate House, an archaeological evaluation in the back gardens of houses on Marlborough Grove contacted three burials within 1m 2 in a small intervention, which are undated but presumed to belong to the medieval cemetery (Inhumations 247 to 249). Archaeological investigation downslope to the west demonstrated that burial did not extend any further towards the river and may have been lost to a 1930s terracing operation, although this is unlikely to have done more than formalise the natural gradient towards the Ouse. To the north, the substantial brick-built retaining wall that flanked the southern side of Blue Bridge Lane had cut away the northern side of some burials indicating that the original northern boundary lay somewhere between the monastic precinct wall and the southern side of the route of Blue Bridge Lane.
This represents a probable area of c.1400m 2 that was given over to the cemetery (see Figure 80) and its form appears to consist of a thin strip of land aligned tangentially to the route of Fishergate to the east and the river to the west. The description of the grant of St Helen and the 'toft in front' to the monks of St Martin Marmoutier in c.AD1100 (Benson 1911, 77; Raine 1955, 302; Wilson and Mee 1998) would account for the linear shape of the associated cemetery. The apparent contraction of this toft-shaped holding in a northwards direction, and reduction of the burial area, is a phenomenon parallelled in documentary sources, which describe the disputes which arose during lay buildings encroaching on cemeteries, including punishment by excommunication (Daniell 1997, 113). The contraction at St Helen's was certainly followed by pit digging activity, which demonstrates that the pressure on urban space during the later medieval period was felt as far out of the city walls as Fishergate. As a poor church, is seems probable that St Helen's sold off a piece of land by order of Holy Trinity Priory in order to raise some capital resulting in the disturbance of the burials without the contracted area (Butler pers. comm.). Alternatively, St Helen's may have contracted the burial ground in order to erect buildings for rent as a means of creating extra income such as Lady Row at Holy Trinity Goodramgate.
The location of the small church is clearly not known and the small possible robber trench or cobble- and rubble-filled foundation trench F237F, cut by an encroaching inhumation, is the only structural feature encountered within Fishergate House, providing the only hint of a building nearby. St Helen's-on-the Walls, Aldwark, is the best comparison from York and in its early phases measured a mere c.7m x 6m externally, expanded to c.13m x 6m with walls c.0.70m wide (Magilton 1980, Fig. 5 and 6); both are dimensions which could easily have been lost beneath the footprint of the early 19th century great house. In a more westerly location the church would have been positioned close to the postulated medieval shoreline, which seems less likely, and a pull towards Fishergate, like other main routes into the city, should not be discounted. The portion of land against the Fishergate frontage has been the subject of little investigation and YAT evaluation Trench C encountered small posthole features and a possible ditch, although within a small trench these feature are difficult to interpret further.
The dogma and superstition, which prevailed in the choice of burial spot, provides some clues as to a possible site for the small building. The east end of the church both internally and externally was considered to be the high end, and preference for burials close to this area would have been the privilege of the wealthier members of the congregation. The 'special' burials, most notably the only stone coffin were encountered towards Fishergate, pushing the probable location of the east end of the church, to the west of these burials. In addition, a pan-European superstition resulted in the burial of the unbaptised and suicides on the north side of the church (Magilton 1980, 10). Intervention 2 at the northern extreme of Fishergate House was the location for a small tightly buried 'nest' of five foetuses and four neonates who were, by virtue of their age, most probably stillborn or very young at death, and therefore the least likely candidates to have received the sacrament. These glimpses of order, in the otherwise apparently random burials of the cemetery, if guided by the prescriptions of medieval burial geography, suggest the location of the church beneath the stable block footprint of Fishergate House within the projected line of the burial enclosure (see Figure 80).
The pilgrim
The find of a pierced scallop shell (Pecten Jacobaeus) in the grave of adult female Inhumation 108 provides a link between the cemetery in Fishergate and the phenomenon of medieval pilgrimage. The scallop shell is widely recognised as the badge of pilgrims who had travelled to the shrine of Santiago de Compostela in northwest Spain, and would have been instantly recognisable as such, allowing the wearers to gain alms, hospitality, exemption from tolls and general protection (Yeoman pers comm).
The scallop is known to have been symbolic of pilgrimage to the shrine of St James from at least the 12th century, although the origins of this association are unclear (Hohler 1957). These shells are known to have been sold in booths around the courtyard of Santiago de Compostela; the Archbishops had 'received papal approval of their monopoly on souvenir production, and the sale of such badges elsewhere was forbidden on pain of excommunication (Yeoman 1999, 116). Although pilgrim badges could be obtained elsewhere, this legislation, and the fact that the shell has been provenanced to the Mediterranean or the north coast of Spain, suggests that the Fishergate example may have been acquired directly at the shrine. These shells are depicted on sculpture, paintings and embroideries throughout the medieval period in western Europe, worn on the leather bags or on the hats of pilgrims. The positioning of the scallop on the skeleton of Inhumation 108 suggests that the former is more likely in this case.
Accounts of pilgrimage are common during the medieval period, and Santiago is one of the main European destinations, considered to have been second only to Rome, until political tensions of the late 14th century made such journeys more problematic. The majority of recorded pilgrims are male; females, like clergy, were not required to account for such activities, and are therefore frequently absent from documentary records. Female pilgrims were not, however, uncommon; in the early 15th century, Margery Kempe of Lynn is known to have travelled to Rome, Jerusalem and Compostela (Webb 2000, xiii, 209), and the fact that Chaucer's Wife of Bath had been to Bologne, Compostela and Cologne suggests that pilgrimage would not have been an unfamiliar undertaking for women.
Cemetery disuse
Ceramic deposition suggests that burial did not continue into the 16th century; although the lack of activity on the site (restricted to the small assemblage of pottery and a single trade token), suggests that the sanctity of the cemetery was respected following its disuse. Documentary references mentioned by Palliser suggest the cemetery land of St Helen's was rented out in 1573, but then reclaimed by Queen Elizabeth who gave the land to William Wentworth (Palliser 1974, 97). Given the lack of ceramic deposition the cemetery is likely to have been given over to open land, possibly pasture. It is unlikely that local knowledge of the site would have disappeared instantly; the accumulation of soils across the site, and eventual turfing over of existing traces of burial, would have resulted in the gradual loss of the cemetery from communal memory. Like the Priory, the church fabric is likely to have been robbed comprehensively and apparently no significant traces of the church were visible to Speed in 1610.
Period 9 features and deposits identified have provided evidence relating to the history of the site following the dissolution; in many ways, the later history of this site reflects changes within Fishergate, and for much of the period consisted of open pasture, meadow, arable land or orchards, before emerging as part of an affluent residential area of the 19th century, and developing to become a major suburb of modern York.
Arable, pasture ground, meadow or orchard
Following the dissolution of the monastery in November of 1538, excavations to the north found that the site fell into rapid decline, being swiftly robbed. The deposits identified across the Blue Bridge Lane site would seem to support the notion that the land remained unoccupied. The homogenous brown soils encountered as blanket across all but the easternmost area of the site, would have accumulated through prolonged use for agricultural or horticultural practices, which is supported by the historical evidence.
Immediately after the Dissolution, the land was held by Richard Goldthorpe (Palliser 1971, 14-15) who, in 1545, granted the site of the late priory together with the orchard to John Broxholme and John Bellowe (Cal. Pat.Rolls 1547-8, 204). Subsequent wills describe the land as 'the leas of St Andrewes' (Skaife 1872, 223n), and by 1739, when reference is made to a 1713 deed, the land on which the priory stood comprised 'all that scite of the late dissolved Priory of Saint Andrew near the city of York, and all that parcell of arable, meadow or pasture ground sometimes called the Orchard, one close of arable, meadow or pasture ground called Mudd close, one close of arable, meadow or pasture ground called Saint Andrew's and one other parcell of arable, meadow or pasture called Shoulder of Mutton' (YCA Redfearn deeds). In later documents the parcel of land known as St Andrew's is also referred to as Stone Wall Close, on which the Blue Bridge Lane site is situated.
It would appear, therefore, that much of the land within this area, depicted on maps of the late 17th and early 18th century in three closes, was enclosed and employed variously as orchard, pasture, meadow and arable land, which would account for the accumulation of soils. The fact that the land was parcelled up, and the subject of several deeds and wills, indicates that the boundaries between these closes would have been consolidated and maintained, which provides a context for the construction of property boundaries across the site. The building material itself may have derived from the priory buildings and reused in the limestone walls that delimited Blue Bridge Lane, and land within it.
From the late 18th century onwards, land to the north of Blue Bridge Lane was enclosed, and used for the construction of a small number of large houses. Fishergate appears to have become a fashionable residential area, and the size of these buildings, their layout and ancillary structures, demonstrate that they would have been home to some of the more affluent members of society.
Potentially, Period 9A wall F66B, with its flanking ditch F200B, demarcated the limits of a parcel of land that was later host to Fishergate Villa, property of John Waite. The remains of this house were not, however, encountered, and Period 9B remains predominantly relate to the layout and function of Freshfield Cottage, centrally on Blue Bridge Lane, although some features associated with Fishergate House were revealed during excavation. Features both within and without the building provide clues to the spatial organisation of the house. The Ordnance Survey maps show the entrance located to the west, and therefore the service areas might be expected to the east of the site, which was confirmed by archaeological evidence. The potential base for coppers or boilers within this area would have been used to heat water, probably obtained from well (F140B) and later from the pump, situated in the courtyard immediately outside. The courtyard appears to have been flanked by a stable block to the east, mentioned in documents of 1854, and presumably linked to the horse burial that was identified just outside it. Notably, the York Directories of the late 19th century record that a veterinary surgeon occupied Freshfield House; this may have been one of his less fortunate patients.
The 1854 deed describing the features of the property also mentions the icehouse, which is well attested both archaeologically and cartographically. Icehouses of this type are typical of late 18th and 19th century construction, and it has been estimated that in Britain, some three thousand such structures were built, primarily between 1750 and 1875 (Beamon and Roaf 1990; Buxbaum 1992). The property on Blue Bridge Lane was initially enclosed after 1794, and the structure is marked on the 1852 Ordnance Survey edition, suggesting that this icehouse also falls within these parameters. Icehouses are known primarily to have occurred in the gardens of country estates, but are also known in urban locations; grocers, confectioners, coffee houses and fisheries in particular would have employed them from an early date (Buxbaum 1992, 27).
It was important that the ground on which icehouses were built was free from damp (Buxbaum 1992, 7), which potentially provide a context for the drain (F267B), and the most popular locations are recorded to have been sloping banks of streams or ponds, which would also accord well with positioning on the sloping ground of Blue Bridge Lane. Most icehouses comprised four key elements; an entrance, a passage, a chamber and a vault (Buxbaum 1992, 7); the passage would generally have accessed the top half of the chamber. The Ordnance Survey maps show that the entrance lay to the east of the icehouse, which appears to have been mounded over, and may have been reminiscent of icehouses that occur in plans of the 1830s for London (Plate 119). In profile, many icehouses appear to have been either vertical or conical shafts; where visible, F96B appears to have near-vertical sides.
During the latter half of the 19th century, evidence from the site demonstrates a more densely occupied area; Freshfield Cottage survived, but Fishergate Villa was replaced by more than three terraced houses (Structures 6, 7 and 8). The footprint, flooring and cellars of these buildings were still in evidence, and appear to have altered little prior to their construction between 1852 and 1891. The York Directories record drapers, fish merchants, butchers, fruiterers dwelling in these houses at this time.
The development of the Fishergate frontage signals a change in the character of this area from one dominated by elite residences, to a more densely occupied area where tradesmen and merchants would have dwelt. The Rialto cinema, and also establishments such as Fishergate School, opposite the site, would have served this growing community.
The Fishergate frontage appears to have changed little throughout the early part of the 20th century; the cinema continued (although rebuilt on a number of occasions and eventually changing to a Bingo Hall), and the terraced housing appears to have remained unaltered until their demolition in the late 20th century. Fishergate also remained markedly unchanged, despite documented changes in the use of the house as offices for the Ordnance Survey, for the Army Audit Office and later as a Girls School. The prefabricated huts that were constructed during the war represent the only significant alteration, and may have been utilised as rooms for the school.
Blue Bridge Lane itself, however, appears to have changed more dramatically. Although incorporated into structures of the 1930s, Freshfield Cottage appears to have been demolished by the 1960s, when a large, concrete built structure dominated almost all of the site. During construction, much of the area appears to have been levelled, truncating some deposits, and backfilling visible features with rubble and debris derived from the glassworks site to the north. This building is known to have been occupied by Shepherd Homes, who occupied the site prior to demolition of these structures.
apc > monographs > blue bridge lane & fishergate house > archive > field report > discussion
