One of the main inconsistencies between the extant assemblage and the square tiles recorded in the anti-quarian record was in the tile dimensions. All authori-ties agree on the medium sized squares being c.112mm. The large square tiles are shown by Shaw as either the same size as the medium squares or without a scale, while Ward showed them as varying between 138mm and 154mm. The 15 extant examples measure between 142–9mm but with one apparently anomalous example of design 7.82 measuring 128mm. Ward showed both the small squares and some of the designs only known on medium squares in the extant collec-tion as c.87mm across. There are only eight extant examples of the small squares but they measure 70–77mm across; it is the large letter tiles that measure c.87mm. Shaw notes that ‘great pains’ were taken in the making of Ward’s reconstruction, and that Ward used the scaled parts of Reinagle’s plans (the original surveyor) to deduce the scale of the rest. This may be what caused Ward such problems. Designs illustrated by Ward for which there are no extant examples are shown as antiquarian drawings in Figure 14.1 (designs 7.176, 7.177, 7.178) and their scale is uncertain.
Shaw describes the plain tiles that divided the blocks of 36 decorated tiles as being less than 50mm square. However, there are no extant examples of this size. The dimensions given by Shaw for the strip of tiling running through the choir suggests that these small squares and the associated triangles were about 70mm across. Large numbers of plain c.75mm tiles do survive from Jervaulx. Some of these are glazed brown or green over the body fabric, or yellow or green over the white clay, but the majority are completely worn and could have been either decorated or plain. Many Fig 14.13: Decorated Mosaic, Jervaulx Abbey: antiquarian
record of a strip of tiling, made up of small square tiles set diag-onally either side of a rectangular scroll design, running east–
west through the choir. H. Shaw 1858, after J. Ward 1845
are scored on one diagonal and split into triangles.
They could have been used to divide up the diamond-shaped sections of paving and for the roundel sur-rounds. A few plain tiles of the c.112mm size also survive from Jervaulx but are not mentioned by the antiquarians. There are no extant examples of plain large squares.
It is uncertain how many tiles from Jervaulx either Shaw or Ward actually saw. We know that Ward obtained a collection of 33 tiles from Jervaulx at some stage because he gave them to the British Museum in 1853 (Eames 1980, 1, 132). However the 33 Jervaulx tiles now in the British Museum collection include sev-eral examples of c.112mm tiles which Ward drew at c.85mm. These tiles may, of course, have been acquired by Ward after his drawings were made in
1845. Alternatively Ward may have decided to keep his copies consistent with the Reinagle originals regardless of other evidence.
Designs
As seen, Decorated Mosaic designs include:
• Shaped tile designs: 7.1–7.40 (Fig 14.1a–c).
• Large letter tile designs: 7.41–7.55 (Fig 14.1d).
• Small letter tile designs: 7.56–7.66 (Fig 14.1e).
• Rectangular letter tile designs: 7.67–7.74 (Fig 14.1f). The extant version of design 7.74 is square but there is a photograph of this design as a rectan-gle from Watton Priory (Fig 14.15).
• Small square tile designs: 7.75–7.78 (Fig 14.1g).
Fig 14.14: Decorated Mosaic Group, undecorated shapes. Scale 1:3
S.437 S.438
S.439 S.440
S.441
S.442
S.443
S.444
S.445
S.448
S.450
S.451
S.449 S.452
S.446
S.447
• Large square tile designs: 7.79–7.84 (Fig 14.1h).
• Medium square tile designs: 7.85–7.159, 7.161–7.174 (Fig 14.1i; designs in reversed colours that are not illustrated are R7.85, R7.87, R7.128, R7.132–R7.135, R7.137, R7.146, R7.158, R7.167, R7.172, R7.174; see Table 14.6).
• Others: size unknown, designs 7.176–7.178; rec-tangles, designs 7.175, 7.160 (Fig 14.1).
The practice of counter-changing the colours of designs, already seen to be a feature of the Decorated Mosaic roundels, was similarly employed with the square tile designs. Table 14.6 shows which designs are known to occur in reversed colours. In general only one version of each design has been illustrated (either light-on-dark or dark-on-light). It should be noted, however, that the two colour ways were made with two different stamps and there are often slight differences between them (see further below).
By far the most common Decorated Mosaic designs are those on the medium square tiles (totalling almost 100). Table 14.7 shows the number of medium-sized square designs common to each pair of sites. The diag-onal line, in bold, from top left to bottom right shows the total number of these designs from each site.
Table 14.7 shows that 35% of the designs at Jervaulx were also found at Kirkstall. However, only 6% of designs on the medium square tiles at Jervaulx and about 25% of designs at Kirkstall were also found at Watton. These are the sites with the largest number of designs. By contrast 85% of the designs from Lockington were also known from Watton and all six designs from Kirkham were known at both Watton and Winthorpe. A high proportion of the designs at Scarborough were found at both Kirkstall and Jervaulx. There was, therefore, little overlap between the design assemblages on medium-sized squares between Kirkstall, Jervaulx and Scarborough, on the one hand, and Watton, Kirkham and Winthorpe on the other.
Decoration: The depth of white clay was 0.5–1mm on 99% of examples, suggesting that the white clay had been applied as a slip rather than as an inlay. A total of six tiles, at Thornton, Beverley and Scarborough, had white clay of 2mm or 3mm depth. On a few tiles a ‘tide line’ of slip was visible on the sides of the tiles as if they had been dipped into the slip face down. However, on tiles from Thornton and Reedham the white clay tend-ed to stand slightly proud of the body fabric – perhaps indicative of inlay. The worn condition of one of the Reedham tiles suggested that the white clay was hard-er wearing than the body, but the white clay was also raised on some unworn examples.
The constituents of the white clay varied. That on the Jervaulx and Scarborough tiles was easily recog-nised, with lots of inclusions giving a cracked or mar-bled effect after firing. The white clay used at other sites was of much higher quality. At Kirkstall and
Thornton it was noticeably clean and white and smooth with no marbling. This clay was more prone to falling out than at Jervaulx, possibly the result of not mixing in enough red clay or other material to prevent differential shrinkage between the body fabric and the white clay during firing. The white clay at Burnham, Durham, Reedham and Winthorpe was pinkish sug-gesting a greater admixture of red clay. All this showed that the sources and preparation of the white clay varied.
The glaze on tiles from Jervaulx, Kirkstall, Scarborough and Thornton tended to fire black, dark brown or dark olive over the body fabric and dark yel-low or olive over the white clay. At Kirkham, Watton and Habrough, the glaze was a light or medium brown over the body fabric where oxidised, or olive where the body fabric is reduced, and yellow or light olive over the white clay.
Design stamps: Different stamps were used to make the light-on-dark and dark-on-light versions of Decorated Mosaic designs. This was apparent from the stamp tracings, which showed that the stamps of ver-sions in opposite colours varied, and also from exami-nation of tiles with dark-on-light designs, which sometimes had a dark border along one or more of the tile edges. This suggested that the background on the dark-on-light designs was proud, with the design cut away. A raised background on the stamp would leave a ridge of clay along any edge of the quarry that extends beyond the area of the stamp. This raised area would not be coated with white clay, but glazed and fired dark brown, just like the areas of the design left raised on Table 14.6: Decorated Mosaic designs found in reversed colours
Illustrated designs Illustrated designs Design numbers of in opposite colours versions in opposite colours,
not illustrated Also not illustrated is design 7.179, a fragment, possibly a variation on design 7.85
purpose. This unusual feature was found on both shaped tiles and all three sizes of square tiles (designs 7.9, 7.11, 7.17, 7.29, 7.78–7.79, 7.114, 7.164, 7.172 and 7.173).
Comparing the stamps used on tiles from different sites was difficult because the total number of designs was large and the sample sizes for most of the sites was small. Consequently, relatively few designs were com-mon to two or more sites. However, it can be stated with reasonable confidence that the same stamps were used on tiles of design 7.14 at Scarborough, Jervaulx and Kirkstall, also designs 7.3, 7.5, R7.85 and R7.128 at Kirkstall and Jervaulx, and 7.86 and R7.133 at Scarborough and Jervaulx. The tiles from Reedham in Norfolk were worn but two examples of design 7.155 and one fragment and one complete tile of design R7.172 suggested that the same stamps were being used as on Yorkshire sites.
Despite the large number of stamps, there were no cracked examples among the tiles of this group. This, and the number of variations found of some designs, suggested that replacement stamps were easily avail-able. Any damaged stamps were discarded.
Small stamps may have been used to make the indi-vidual letters on different sizes of tile. The letters on the shaped tiles were the same size as those on the small squares of the series and those on the large squares were the same size as on the rectangles. It is possible that the same stamp was used to make the letter L on the curved tile (design 7.40) and on the small square (7.62). The extant example of the rectan-gular tile with the letter D was identical to an anti-quarian drawing of a letter D on a large square tile (design 7.71). The letter F or P (design 7.73) on a rec-tangular tile at Kirkham and a square tile at Watton may also have been made with the same stamp.
Nail holes: None.
Firing: The majority of the extant tiles from Kirkstall, Scarborough, Thornton, Watton, Habrough, Winthorpe and Kirkham, and the single fragment from Beverley, were either partly or predominantly reduced. The Jervaulx tiles were subject to more variable firing condi-tions, with about equal numbers oxidised and reduced.
The spalled tile attributed to Durham was oxidised. At Jervaulx, Scarborough and Kirkstall some of the tiles were highly fired, with a few fired to the point of vitrifi-cation. At Thornton several of the surviving square tiles are partly distorted through over-firing (Fig 27.40).
Fabric: Visual examination of the tile fabrics suggest-ed that more than one clay source was ussuggest-ed for both the body clay and the white clay (see above). The body fabric of tiles from Scarborough and Jervaulx con-tained a variety of inclusions and fine quartz (fabric code 4; see Chapter 9 for fabric descriptions). At Watton, Habrough, Beverley, Burnham, Durham, Kirkham and Reedham the body fabric had a lower iron content, firing pink and grey rather than red and black (fabric code 2).
Treatment of tile sides: All the tiles, both shaped and square, from all the sites, had either vertical or only very slightly bevelled sides. The curved sides of the shaped tiles were trimmed in a series of planes in the same manner as the Plain Mosaic but with at most only a very slight angle from the upper to lower sur-faces. The edges of the tiles were often sharp.
Treatment of bases: The sandy bases of the tiles were not keyed.
Quality: A characteristic of the tiles at Watton, Kirkham, Winthorpe, Habrough, Beverley and Thornton was the slight pitting over the upper surface.
A characteristic of tiles at Jervaulx and Scarborough Table 14.7: A count of designs common to pairs of sites. The figures in bold give the total number of designs WA=Watton, KS=Kirkstall, J=Jervaulx, WI=Winthorpe, S=Scarborough, TH=Thornton, KH=Kirkham,
R=Reedham, BU=Burnham, BE=Beverley, H=Habrough.
was the marbling of the white clay. In general, the tiles were hard wearing and quality was good apart from over firing (particularly at Thornton). Other types of damage were recorded for 8% of the assemblage, mainly either cracked fabrics or poor colour differenti-ation between the white clay and body fabric.
Discussion
Despite a heavy emphasis on design, shape and size, comparison of the extant tiles suggested that there were other common features of manufacture at the var-ious sites. In consequence, the shaped tiles, large and medium squares and the letter tiles were all thought to have been the products of the same workshop.
Conclusions regarding the small square decorated tiles were more tentative as there are few loose survivors of this type. Two of their designs were recorded as found at Newminster Abbey in the 1920s. These are the only Decorated Mosaic designs directly paralleled at Newminster and comparison of the characteristics of the six extant examples of Newminster tiles (all types) suggested that they were not part of the Decorated Mosaic Group (see further, Chapter 15).
The characteristics of Decorated Mosaic tiles that suggested they were made by the same tilers for all sites include consistency in depth, the use of the same stamps, the technique of cutting two stamps to make designs in reversed colours and the vertical or near ver-tical sides to the tiles. Aspects that showed variation were the design assemblages, the fabric of both the tile quarries and the white clay, the glazes and firing.
Some of the distinctions varied with geographical location and there appeared to be three sub-groups of the material: (A) Jervaulx and Scarborough, (B) Kirkstall and (C) Burnham, Beverley, Habrough, Kirkham, Reedham, Watton and Winthorpe (designat-ed the Humber sub-group). The single fragment attributed to Durham may belong to the Humber sub-group. The tile from Dornoch has not been seen but description of the fabric by Christopher Norton and photograph published by Richardson suggested that it also belonged to this group (Richardson 1929, 305, fig 21; Norton 1994, 146, fig 6.6 and fn. 40). Tiles at Thornton had some similarities to both sub-groups (B) and (C).
The tiles of the Humber sub-group were distin-guished by their body fabric and white clay, and con-sequently by the colours of the glaze. They had a characteristic pitting of the upper surface and, apart from Thornton, tended to be less highly fired and made of a paler fabric than tiles from Jervaulx, Scarborough and Kirkstall. Thornton tiles had similar body fabric and white clay to the other Humber sites but were often over fired, like the sites further north and west. The assemblage of designs on the medium-sized square tiles was similar at Watton, Kirkham and Winthorpe and different from that at Jervaulx, Kirkstall and Scarborough.
These distinctions, particularly the differences in fabrics, suggested that Decorated Mosaic tiles were made in more than one location, perhaps with different production sites for Jervaulx and/or Scarborough, Kirkstall and in the area of the Humber. The tiles from the more distant sites were probably supplied by water transport along the east coast, perhaps suggesting manufacture near a port for the Humber sub-group.
The design assemblage included two large sized roundels (RS and EC), rather than the three of the anti-quarian record. The designs forming the bodies of these roundels were loosely based counter-changes in colour, one being dark-on-light (EC) and the other light-on-dark (RS). A similar counter-change in colours was prevalent in most designs on the square tiles, at least among the medium and large sizes. The widest range of tile types were found at Jervaulx, Kirkstall, Watton, Scarborough, Thornton and possibly Kirkham. Some of the types used at these sites were site specific. For example, the large squares were only known at Jervaulx and probably Scarborough, and the small square letter tiles were only found at Kirkstall. The assemblages at the sites of lesser status, at Winthorpe, Burnham, Reedham and perhaps Habrough were much more restricted with, apparently, only tiles of the medium square size represented. These medium-sized squares were also the only tile type represented at all sites. It seems likely that the more unorthodox shapes and sizes were special orders for higher status sites.
Dating
Independent dating for the use of the Decorated Mosaic tiles at individual sites is scanty (see Chapter 27 for details). The tiled floor at St Lawrence’s Church, Burnham, was thought to belong to a restora-tion of the early or mid 14th century. It is possible that the supply of Decorated tiles to this site was linked with their supply to Thornton Abbey. St Lawrence’s Church was granted to the Augustinians at Thornton by their founder William le Gros in 1139, and was held by the priory until the suppression. If the Decorated Mosaic tiles at Thornton, now re-set in the undercroft of the refectory on the south side of the cloister, had originally formed a floor in the refectory above, a sim-ilar date might be suggested here. The entire south claustral range at Thornton was rebuilt to the south of the earlier range in the first half of the 14th century.
The cloister was being built in 1322 and was roofed in 1326. Money was paid for work on the new refectory in 1327 and the refectory windows were glazed in 1331. It is, of course, possible that the tiles at both these sites were re-used in these locations.
A date after 1300 is also suggested at Reedham Church in Norfolk and at Watton Priory. If the Decorated Mosaic tiles found in the south chapel at Reedham were in their original locations, they must have been laid after about 1300, when this chapel was built. At Watton, the Decorated Mosaic tiles were
found in the chapter house floor and set into a rebate cut in the horizontal plane of the four steps leading up to the high altar in the nuns’ church (Fig 14.15).
According to Hope’s analysis of the site, the chapter house at Watton was rebuilt in the 14th century (Hope 1901a, 15). The introduction of the tiles in the pres-bytery steps, which were otherwise paved with chalk blocks, might be associated with the insertion of a tomb on the north side of these steps in the 14th century.
These 14th-century dates refer to sites of the Humber sub-group. The dating from Scarborough Castle may be earlier since the second chapel at Scarborough, with which the tiles were associated, was replaced in the early 14th century. There is, unfortu-nately, no evidence for the date of first use of the tiles at either Jervaulx or Kirkstall. The tiles in the refectory at Kirkstall were re-used in this location in the later 15th century. Kirkstall was taken into receivership in the 1280s, suffering financial difficulties at the same time as several other religious houses in the area, and
These 14th-century dates refer to sites of the Humber sub-group. The dating from Scarborough Castle may be earlier since the second chapel at Scarborough, with which the tiles were associated, was replaced in the early 14th century. There is, unfortu-nately, no evidence for the date of first use of the tiles at either Jervaulx or Kirkstall. The tiles in the refectory at Kirkstall were re-used in this location in the later 15th century. Kirkstall was taken into receivership in the 1280s, suffering financial difficulties at the same time as several other religious houses in the area, and