133
Fig 12.1: Rievaulx Abbey, tiles of the Inlaid Group re-set in the infirmary kitchen. Comparison between the 1964 photo-graph by Whittle (left; reproduced by kind permission of The Dalesman) with that photophoto-graphed in 1988 (right) shows that the tiles have been re-set but also that their condition has deteriorated and much of the decoration has been lost
Table 12.1: Sites, designs and numbers of tiles
Sites Designs Nos of tiles
Byland Abbey 4.2, 4.7, 4.12 12 Gisborough Priory 4.2, 4.4, 4.7 24 Rievaulx Abbey 4.1–4.16 124
Whitby Abbey 4.2, 4.12 4
York, St Mary’s Abbey 4.2 3 York, site of Bedern Chapel 4.2, 4.7 8 Helmsley Castle (trial piece) 4.7 1 [?Wether Cote kiln site 4.12 1]
Total 169
using the same design stamp as other tiles of design 4.12 in the Inlaid Group. However, the upper surface measurement is 163mm, rather than the c.125mm of the Inlaid tiles, and ICP analysis links it with Plain Mosaic and Usefleet tiles, and away from the other Inlaid tiles. See further below, Chapter 13: Usefleet Group.
Several of the Inlaid Group designs are only repre-sented in the extant assemblage by a few tiles and sometimes these are re-set on site. Designs 4.3, 4.5, 4.9–4.11, 4.13 and 4.14 are each represented by four tiles or fewer.
In addition to the decorated tiles in the loose col-lection listed in Table 12.1, there are 16 plain or worn tiles of this group from Byland and c.100 from Rievaulx. There are c.50 other examples re-set in the church and chapter house at Rievaulx, and an area of
less than 1m × 1.5m re-set in what is thought to have been a 15th-century cupboard in the infirmary kitchen at Rievaulx (Fig 12.1).
The condition of the tiles is generally good with 96% of the Inlaid Group having at least one complete upper surface dimension. All fragments (10) are graded B or C, which means that they are larger than a quar-ter tile in size. 52% of loose tiles are graded wear 1 or 2 (i.e. unworn or only slightly worn) and 19% are wear grade 4 (very worn).
Shape, size: Square, measuring about 125mm across (117–128mm), with a depth of 31–40mm. Some examples were scored and split diagonally into two tri-angles (eleven examples), or cut at right-tri-angles into two rectangles (two examples). One example of design 4.7 at Gisborough has been scored and split on two Fig 12.2: (above and facing) Inlaid Group design drawings. Scale 1:3
4.1 4.2 4.3
4.4
4.7 4.8 4.9
4.5 4.6
sides, showing that the tile was divided into four trian-gles. The fragmentary piece of rolled out but uncut clay from Helmsley Castle, with impressions of design 4.7, was anomalous in both shape and size, with a depth of 26mm.
Designs: The sixteen designs (4.1–4.16; Fig 12.2) are simple geometric and foliate patterns that would have looked effective in a floor. The patterns were either complete on one tile or made by setting four tiles of the same design together.
The small number of more widely distributed tiles were decorated with the best drawn and most skilfully cut stamps of the group and were probably all made by the same hand (designs 4.2, 4.4, 4.7 and 4.13). Many of the other designs are copies, possibly for use as replacements or as additional stamps. The most copied
designs were 4.2 and 4.13 (designs 4.3, 4.5 and 4.6 are similar to design 4.2; 4.13 and 4.14 are similar to design 4.12). Further, poorer quality, copies of the Inlaid designs are discussed separately below (Inlaid Copies, Group 5).
Decoration: The tiles were decorated with white clay, the depth of which varied widely, from 0.5 to 5mm.
40% were thought to be inlaid, 27% were thought to be slipped, with 33% unknown. Of the unworn examples, 14% had white clay slightly raised above the level of the body fabric. There is no correlation between decorative technique and either design or site. The piece of uncut clay from Helmsley Castle, with impressions of design 4.7, was also anomalous in decorative technique, with the whole surface having been coated in slip and glazed in the manner of counter relief decoration.
4.10 4.11
4.12 4.13 4.14
4.15 4.16
The white clay used on these tiles appears very white, exactly like that found on many Plain Mosaic tiles. Almost all the tiles are glazed yellow and brown where the fabric is oxidized and greenish-yellow and olive where it is reduced. The reduction of the body fabric to a grey colour is not entirely responsible for the greenish colour of the glaze, however, and in one or two cases, the glaze has fired to a strong green. In a few others there are green patches or specks. The plain tiles of the group were glazed yellow or greenish-yellow and dark green or black.
Design stamps: The same stamps were used on tiles at different sites. Tiles of design 4.2 at Rievaulx, Gisborough, Whitby and those which could be from St Mary’s Abbey, York, were all made using the same stamp, as were tiles of design 4.12 at Rievaulx, Whitby and Byland. At Rievaulx and Gisborough, tiles of design 4.7 were probably made with the same stamp.
Tiles of design 4.4 vary slightly. Examples at Rievaulx have a central dot, while the tiles of this design from Gisborough may not (see Knight and Keen 1977, fig 20) but all extant examples are fragments or triangles in which the centre of the design is unclear.
Tiles of design 4.2 were found at all sites. Two stamps of this design were in use but one of these became cracked. Tiles at Byland were made before it cracked. Tiles at Rievaulx, Gisborough and those pos-sibly from St Mary’s Abbey, York, were made both before and after the stamp was cracked. The one example from Whitby was made with a cracked stamp.
Nail holes: None.
Firing: All examples were partly reduced during fir-ing, having oxidised lower surfaces and sides but with the core and much of the upper surface reduced.
Fabric: The results of ICP analysis on Inlaid tiles are given in Table 12.2 (see further, Fig A.1b and Appendix 1).
The tiles of all sites except Gisborough grouped closely together in clusters 1, 2 and 3. These clusters are interpreted as representing the output of a single production site but using different batches of clay. The Inlaid Group tiles from Gisborough cluster separately (cluster 10). They have the same chemical fingerprint as Plain Mosaic tiles from Gisborough and Meaux. For the Plain Mosaic tiles, this cluster is interpreted as rep-resenting the output of the kiln site at Meaux (see Chapter 10, pp.120–1). However no Inlaid Group tiles are known to have been found at the Meaux kiln site and tiles of this type are not known to have been used at Meaux Abbey. It seems that either there is simply an absence of evidence for Inlaid tile production at Meaux, or the clay sources used at Meaux were also used for Inlaid tile production at another kiln site, or some of the assumptions made in interpreting the ICP analysis are incorrect.
More generally, however, there is a clear contrast in the results of ICP for the Plain Mosaic and Inlaid Group tiles. Plain Mosaic was made at a number of dif-ferent kilns, which served individual abbeys in some cases, while Inlaid Group tiles at several sites were made of the same clay (certainly Byland, Rievaulx and Whitby). These Inlaid tiles are therefore interpreted as the products of the same tilery. Tiles thought to be provenanced to St Mary’s Abbey, York, may also have been from this production site.
The tile from Wether Cote, with Usefleet charac-teristics but an Inlaid Group design, was assigned to Cluster 17 with all the other tiles from the Wether Cote kiln site (see further, Usefleet Group).
Visual fabric recording assigned 63% of the tiles to fabric code 1 (see Chapter 9). A few tiles were record-ed as fabric codes 2, 3, 5 and 6.
Treatment of tile sides: The sides of 73% of Inlaid tiles were slightly angled down to the base, while 26%
had vertical sides. The corners of three of the eleven extant triangular tiles (from Byland and Gisborough) had been cut right through when the surface was scored. This unusual technique was also found on Plain Mosaic tiles.
Treatment of bases: The undersides of the tiles were sandy and 55% had a single key (20–30mm in diame-ter and 10mm deep) scooped out of their bases, just like square tiles of the Plain Mosaic series.
Quality: The tiles appear solid and well made but 20% were recorded as faulted during manufacture in some respect. Damage categories included cracked fabric, inlay fallen out, glaze flaked off and undifferen-tiated glaze colour over the body fabric and white clay.
Table 12.2: Results of ICP-AES analysis of Inlaid Group tiles
1 583 4.12 Rievaulx
1 852 4.12 Whitby
17 929 4.12 Wether Cote kiln
Discussion
Common features of the tiles are their size, designs/stamps, inlaid decoration, keyed bases, green-ish glaze, firing and fabrics. Although all tiles in the group do not have all the characteristic features, sever-al features are found on most examples. There is some correlation between the tiles that do not have keys (26%) and tiles which may be slip decorated rather than inlaid (37% of the total and 80% of those without keys). There is a further correlation between the tiles without keys and cracking of the tile body fabric (all ten of these examples were without keys).
The same stamps were used to decorate tiles at dif-ferent sites (Rievaulx, Gisborough, Whitby and St Mary’s, York). Sites with tiles stamped with both cracked and uncracked stamps are likely to have been supplied not only from the same source but also with tiles made over the same period of time. These very close links in manufacture are supported by the results of ICP analysis which showed that in several cases the tiles were made using the same clay (Byland, Rievaulx, Whitby). The ICP results suggest that the Gisborough tiles were made using clays already exploited to make Plain Mosaic tiles for Gisborough and Meaux. As the Gisborough tiles were made with the same stamps as the other sites and shared the same range of manufac-turing characteristics they seem certain to have been made by the same tilers. It would appear that more than one tilery was used. The Usefleet quarry with the Inlaid design on it at the Wether Cote kiln site might suggest either that Inlaid tiles were also produced here, or that Inlaid design stamps were re-used by the Usefleet tilers. The uncut piece of clay from Helmsley Castle, which was stamped more than once with design 4.7 and slipped and glazed before firing, was interpret-ed as a trial piece of counter relief decoration. Counter relief decoration is a characteristic of some tiles of the Usefleet Group and, less convincingly, of the Inlaid Copies (Group 5, see further below).
Similarities in several aspects of the manufacture of Inlaid and Plain Mosaic tiles may indicate some links or continuity with Plain Mosaic production.
Dating
There is no independent dating evidence for the Inlaid Group. The tiles were used at some sites with large-scale
schemes of Plain Mosaic paving. At Rievaulx, where a few examples are re-set in what might be near their original locations, they are in the nave chapels. If this were seen as subsequent to paving the east end of the church, it would suggest that the Inlaid tiles were made after the Plain Mosaic tiles. Plain Mosaic at Rievaulx is dated c.1235.
Similarities in the manufacture of Inlaid and Plain Mosaic tiles might indicate that manufacture of the Inlaid tiles was coeval with some Plain Mosaic tiles, or else that not much time had elapsed between the end of Plain Mosaic production and the manufacture of the Inlaid tiles.
On typological grounds the use of inlay on tiles in the north of England would traditionally be given a date after the mid 13th century, perhaps in the third quarter of the 13th century. It was thought the tech-nique was introduced into southern England from France, with royal usage an important factor in this process, before spreading to other areas (see further Chapter 8). However, the use of the inlaid technique in Plain Mosaic pavements in the north shows that there was a separate source of knowledge and inspiration in this region. The dating of the Inlaid Group remains highly speculative but might be c.1250.