341 (27)

314

Dress Accessońes

site acc. no.	context	ceramic	hole diameter	number of
		phase	(mm)	beads
1569 LUD82 145B	1077	9	8	5+
Long-bone shaft fragment, probably ox-sized.
1570 LUD82 264	1060	9	8.5	6+
Long-bone shaft, possibly ox metapodial.
1571 LUD82 275 Long-bone shaft, ox-sized.	1078	9	8.5	16+
1572 BC72 2658	79	11	5	6+
Long-bone shaft, possibly distal end of ox metapodial.
1573 BC72 4371 Long-bone shaft, ox-sized.	150	11	8	12+
1574 BC72 4013	88	11	13.5	7+
Indeterminate; ox-sized (fig 207). 1575 BC72 4014	88	11	13.5	6+
Long-bone shaft, ox-sized. 1576 BC72 4370	150	11	13.5	3+
Long-bone shaft, ox-sized. 1577 BC72 4271 Long-bone shaft, ox-sized.	150	11	estd. 13-14	6+
1578 BC72 4012	88	11	14	6+
Long-bone shaft, ox-sized; long bonę shaft, probably distal posterior shaft fragment of ox metapodial.
1579 BC72 2657	79	11	estd. 21 +	3+
Indeterminate; ox-sized. (?too wide for beads) (fig 208)
1580 TL74 1198 Long-bone shaft; ox-sized.	375	12 or earlier	10	5+
1581 BWB83 6070	310	12	6	26

Long-bone shaft, ox-sized (fig 208).

The LUD82 finds listed above are from the late 13th/early 14th-century fills of the city’s defen-sive ditch, with the exception of the two from context 1042, which is interpreted as the fili of a pit dug into the materiał that had built up in the ditch (the pit fills could have reincorporated materiał dug out when the pit was cut). These items form the largest group of bonę bead-making waste from London. BC72 contexts 79, 88 and 150, all from the same late 14th-century dump, together yielded eight panels (only the first two of which may have produced beads), complemented by what appears to be an unfinished bead (no. 1554 from context 88, see above), which has come from a ąuite different kind of bonę. Appa-rent evidence for bonę bead making (the possible unfinished beads) was found in only one deposit with evidence for bead making in other materials (amber, jet and coral) - BC72 250, of the mid 14th century. Nonę of the above waste panels has such associations. It seems probable that the exotic materials, the purchase of which would have required a certain level of Capital, were worked by specialists, whereas bones from butchery or the kitchen would have been almost universally available. Comparison with the results of detailed work on the far morę extensive bonę and antler manufacturing evidence (notably of combs) from c.1000 to c.1350 excavated at Lund in Sweden would probably suggest that the London bonę waste, with a maximum of 15 pieces from any single site (Ludgate), corresponds with ‘home-craft production' (the earliest stage defined at Lund, where it has been dated to c.1000 to 1020), which is taken to have catered for a limited, undeveloped market (Christophersen 1980, English summary 221-31). The discrepan-cy depends on a number of factors, not least the interpretation of how representative the dumped materiał found in London is of the industry it stands for. Because of this, the transfer of that analytical approach to the London bonę waste