140 Table 13.1: Sites, designs and numbers of tiles
Design no. Byland Scarborough Rievaulx Wether Cote Whitby St Mary’s, York
6.1 3 (or design 6.2) 7 1 1
6.2 1 42 4
6.3 3
6.4 6 16
6.5 3 6.6 2
6.7 3
6.8 1
6.9 48 3
6.10 2 16 1
6.11 3
6.12 3
6.13 1
6.14 re-set only
6.15 60 9
6.16 8 6.17 11
6.18 14
6.19 34 6.20 6
?6.21 1
?6.22 1
?4.12 1
re-used by the Usefleet tilers is illustrated in Chapter 12, Figure 12.2. Usefleet designs were either complete on one tile or made by setting four tiles of the same pattern together. The rectangular designs, 6.19 and 6.20, were continuous repeats. The inscription on design 6.1, thought to be a contracted form of the name JOHANNES USEFLEET, provides the dating for the group (Fig 13.1; see further below). The inscription had been carved the right way round on the stamp and therefore appeared in reverse on the tile.
The reading of a similar inscription on design 6.3, this time the right way round, is less clear but might be the same name. The other inscriptions (AVE MARIA and AVE MARIA G’ on designs 6.9 and 6.10) are the right way round and much more confidently executed.
Several of the Usefleet Group designs can be divided into two sets, with one more elaborate and the other a slightly simpler version of the designs (for example compare designs 6.9 and 6.10; 6.11 and 6.12; 6.13 and 6.14; 6.3 and 6.4) but no further distinction was iden-tified in terms of their manufacture or distribution.
Design stamps: The same stamps were used on tiles from different sites (for example on tiles of design 6.10 at Byland, Rievaulx and Whitby; those of design 6.9 at St Mary’s Abbey and Rievaulx; and those of design 6.2 at St Mary’s Abbey, Rievaulx and Wether Cote). The fact that the lettering of design 6.1 is back to front sug-gested that some kind of stamp was used to make this design. The cracks that developed across the stamps of designs 6.2, 6.10 and 6.12 suggested that the stamps were made of wood. This much was straightforward enough. However, there were several unusual features about the design stamps of the Usefleet tiles. There were marked similarities between parts of several designs within the group, so that in a number of cases it might be thought that designs were made using the same stamps, except for differences in one or two motifs. Design 6.2 was identical to design 6.1 apart from the inscription. Design 6.5 was identical to design 6.6 except for the central rosette. Design 6.4 apparent-ly occurred with two different centrepieces (6.4 and 6.8). In other cases, as noted above, there were two stamps of similar designs, where one seemed to be a simpler, less skilful, copy of the other. In addition, the high level of competence and artistry apparent in most of the stamp cutting, including designs 6.9 and 6.10 with the AVE MARIA inscriptions, contrasted with the poor quality of the inscriptions on designs 6.1 and 6.3.
Apart from the inscriptions, the stamps of 6.1 and 6.3 were well cut. Finally, some of the designs were found with circular indents in the tile surface, in areas of the design coated with white clay (designs 6.3 and 6.4).
These indents were therefore made before the slip and glaze were added, and were probably part of the design stamp.
Tracings of the stamps of designs 6.1 and 6.2 showed them to be identical, except the inscription in design 6.1 was absent in design 6.2. Usually where a design occurs with and without a motif, but is other-wise identical, it is assumed that the same stamp was used but that the motif broke or was chiselled off the wooden stamp at some point. It is possible that this was what happened here. One reason for removing the inscription from design 6.1 could have been that it was accidentally reversed on the finished tile. Alternatively, the inscription might have been added separately using a small stamp. However, its placement on the tile was identical on two extant examples. This means it is Fig 13.1: Tiles of the Usefleet Group at Rievaulx Abbey,
design 6.1 with the John Usefleet inscription (IONS USEFT) carved the right way round on the stamp and so reversed on the tiles
Fig 13.2: Tiles of the Usefleet Group at Rievaulx Abbey:
designs 6.13 (centre left) and 6.14. The tile of 6.14 at top right is decorated in counter-relief
more likely that it was part of the same stamp. The use of the same stamp, but with the inscription removed, is consistent with the fact that the crack in the stamp was found on examples of design 6.2 and not on examples of 6.1. It must have occurred after the inscription was removed.
The central rosette of designs 6.1 and 6.2 could also have been made using a small stamp. This was supported by the fact that the crack appears on two
sides of the border around the rosette, but not across the rosette itself. Again, however, the placement of the rosette in relation to the rest of the stamp was always the same, suggesting that the rosette was part of the rest of the stamp. This was particularly clear in the case of this motif as there is a slight gap between two of the petals of the rosette and this appeared in the same place on every tile. In consequence, no plausible expla-nation can be offered for the fact that the crack in the Fig 13.3: (above, facing and p.144) Usefleet Group design drawings. Scale 1:3
6.1 6.2
6.3
6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8
6.4
6.13 6.14 6.12 6.11
6.9 6.10
ellipse around the rosette does not run across the rosette as well.
Small stamps were used in other cases among the Usefleet tiles. Tracings of the stamps of design 6.5 on tiles from Rievaulx in both the British Museum and English Heritage collections showed that the stamps were identical, apart from the absence of the central rosette on design 6.6. In this case, however, the trac-ings of two tiles of design 6.5 showed that the place-ment and orientation of the rosette differed each time.
Design 6.5 was, therefore, made up using two stamps, that of design 6.6 plus a small stamp of the rosette design.
The indents in designs 6.3 and 6.4 were probably made by rivets of some kind, hammered into the raised parts of wooden stamps, to hold the stamp together.
The rivet or nail-head was then an extra dent in the quarry surface and, where tiles were slip decorated, remained lower than the rest of the surface (Fig 13.4).
It seems that an effort was being made to keep stamps in use when they were breaking up. The number of riv-ets varied on examples of the same design, apparently made with the same stamp, suggesting that the repairs continued over a period of time.
The stamps of designs 6.3 and 6.4 were similar in many respects. The base point of the designs differed, Fig 13.3 (cont’d): Usefleet Group design drawings. Scale 1:3. (Design 6.15 reproduced by courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum)
6.15 6.16
6.17 6.18
6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22
and several details of design 6.3 were missing in design 6.4, including the inscription, the motif below the cen-tral container and some foliate details. The container was also slightly smaller and less well executed on design 6.4. It is possible that the stamp of design 6.3 was cut down to make design 6.4 but the differences between the two designs may be enough to suggest that two different stamps were in use. Also, if the indents were accepted as resulting from repairs to hold the stamp together, they would suggest that two separate stamps were used. If the stamp of design 6.4 was cut down from that of 6.3, all the indents on 6.3 (one above and one below the container) would already exist and be visible on design 6.4. Some extant frag-ments of design 6.4 definitely had no indent below the central container motif. Although two stamps are like-ly in this case, it should be noted that comparisons between fragments in different collections are difficult to make, particularly where several similar designs are involved. It is possible that a stamp of design 6.3 was altered to make further tiles but that there was also another stamp, a close copy, in use.
Further alterations to design 6.4 were suggested by a single fragment in the British Museum collection (BMC/5478, BMD/2671, design 6.8), which appeared identical to design 6.4 except that the central container motif was much further reduced (Fig 13.4). The exact replication and placement of the elements of the design would suggest that this was a cut-down version of the stamp of design 6.4. However, the copying of designs 6.3 and 6.4 seems to have been so close that a further very close copy cannot be ruled out. Further finds and study of the various assemblages would be needed to clarify the adaptation and use of different stamps and the sequence of manufacture of these tiles.
Decoration: All but three Usefleet tiles were slip dec-orated or inlaid. The depth of white clay varied (0.5–2.0mm), with 60% having less than 1mm white
clay. It was often impossible to tell whether a slip or inlay was used. In a dozen cases the white clay was recorded as slightly raised, perhaps implying that it was inlaid. However, in ten cases the white clay was smeared, suggesting that a liquid slip was used.
Designs on the other three tiles (designs 6.10 and 6.13) were in counter relief with a slip coating over the whole surface. Designs 6.10 and 6.13 were also found as two-colour tiles.
The glaze over the slip fired yellow (73%) or olive (17%) or, rarely, orange (2%). The glaze over the body fabric fired olive or green (44%), brown (23%) or dark brown/black (23%).
Nail holes: None.
Firing: Most Usefleet tiles were partly reduced during firing. The record shows that 73% of tiles were largely or partly reduced but this is likely to be an under-esti-mate since a large proportion of the tiles recorded as oxidised were fragments.
Fabric: 77% of the tiles were of visual fabric code 1 (see Chapter 9 for fabric descriptions). A few tiles were recorded as fabrics 2, 3, 5 and 6. Cracks in the fabric of 5% of tiles suggested that the clay was poorly mixed. The large number of fragments making up the assemblage was probably partly a result of this weakness.
As shown in Table 13.2, 14 Usefleet tiles were included in the ICP fabric analysis (see further Appendix 1 and Fig A.1c. See also Chapters 10 and 12 for interpretation of the results in relation to the Plain Mosaic and Inlaid Groups).
The small sample of Usefleet tiles were spread over eight different fabric clusters but these clusters were all in the same ‘quarter’ of the plot, i.e. all the Usefleet tiles analysed had a fabric which fell into one of the two broad compositional divisions identified, and they were all in clusters that have been interpreted as belonging to two specific production centres. One production site was identified as at Wether Cote (clusters 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19), the other was in an unknown location where tiles of the Inlaid Group were also produced, and pos-sibly where Plain Mosaic tiles were made for Newbattle Abbey in Scotland (clusters 1, 2, 3, 21).
In general, the tiles from Wether Cote, Rievaulx and Whitby occurred in the Wether Cote production zone, while tiles from Byland and St Mary’s occurred in the other production zone (except one Usefleet tile from Rievaulx, which was assigned to cluster 1). The single Usefleet tile from Whitby (tile no. 858) that clus-tered with material made at Wether Cote might, geo-logically, be interpreted more loosely as part of a North Yorkshire Moors zone. The tiles did not, therefore, cluster by site, apart perhaps for those from St Mary’s, York, which were confined to clusters 3 and 21.
However, over-interpretation is a danger with such small numbers of tiles.
Fig 13.4: Usefleet Group, indents on tiles of designs 6.4 and 6.8 suggest that rivets were used to hold the design stamp together. The design stamp of 6.8 (top right) could have been cut down from that of 6.4 (left)
Treatment of tile sides: 68% of Usefleet tiles had vertical sides, the rest being slightly bevelled. The two triangular tiles were not scored and split but, like the rectangular tiles, were cut out before firing. Three frag-ments had a fine line scored along one or more edges of the upper surface (2–10mm from tile edges, up to 3mm deep and a hair’s breadth), perhaps marking-out lines for cutting out the quarries (tile nos 406 and 412 and BMC/5451; Fig 13.5). Surprisingly, the lines were over the white clay, though under the glaze. This would suggest that blocks of clay were stamped and slipped with several designs before cutting out.
Treatment of bases: All tiles had sand on their undersides. A proportion, 11%, had a single scooped key in the centre of the base (diameter 20–30mm, depth 10–15mm).
Quality: The tiles were generally well made with 15%
recorded as damaged during manufacture. The smear-ing of the decoration on some tiles and the cracked body fabric (apparent on two of the tiles of 6.15 in Figure 13.6) were the main faults. Other damage cate-gories were over-firing and poor differentiation of the glaze on the white clay and body fabric.
Discussion
The strong links in the physical characteristics of the tiles and the use of the same design stamps at different sites showed that the tiles were part of the same pro-duction group. The small sample size from sites other than Rievaulx did make comparison between sites dif-ficult. However, no differences in manufacture were apparent, with the same range of features present on tiles from all sites.
The methods of decoration and adaptation of the stamps of the group are not yet fully understood,
particularly in relation to the stamps with and without the John Usefleet inscriptions (design 61/6.2 and design 6.3/6.4). It is clear from repairs and adaptations that every effort was made to keep the Usefleet design stamps in usable condition. It is possible that they remained in use for some considerable time, or that they were re-used with adaptations some time after they had initially been made.
The stamps with cracks and repairs used at more than one site might indicate the order in which the var-ious sites were supplied. The crack in the stamp of design 6.10 did not appear on the Whitby tile of this design, while both cracked and uncracked examples were found at Rievaulx. The only complete example of this design at Byland was made with the cracked stamp. The Whitby tiles must, therefore, have been made before those at Byland.
The sequence of Byland and Rievaulx tiles was unclear. In some cases it seemed that the Byland tiles of design 6.4 had less indents than the Rievaulx examples, and might therefore have been earlier (unlike the tile of design 6.10, which might be thought later). However, the variations occurred on fragments from both Byland and Rievaulx and no consistent sequence could be discerned. The indents seemed to be slighter or fainter on the Byland than the Rievaulx tiles and it is possible that they were not always visible. Perhaps Rievaulx was being supplied both before and after Byland. No great reliance should be put on these comparisons. The small sample
Fig 13.5: Usefleet tile of design 6.9 showing a fine line scored along the edge of the quarry. This was made after the white clay had been applied. It is possible that these tiles were cut out from a large slab of clay after they had been stamped
Table 13.2: Usefleet tiles in the ICP analysis
ICP cluster Tile no. Site
1 890 Byland
1 447 Rievaulx
2 891 Byland
3 1055 St Mary’s, York
3 1056 St Mary’s, York
3 1058 St Mary’s, York
14 865 Whitby
16 375 Rievaulx
17 676 Rievaulx
17 929 Wether Cote
17 931 Wether Cote
17 858 Whitby
19 855 Whitby
21 1057 St Mary’s, York
sizes suggested that several of the assemblages might be more variable than initially appeared to be the case.
The appearance of design 6.1 at Whitby as well as Rievaulx (and at the production site, Wether Cote), showed that the Usefleet inscription was not restricted to use in one location.
Dating
On stylistic and typological grounds the Usefleet tiles would be dated to the later 13th century, and some
motifs popular in southern England at that period were found on tiles of the group. The only other indication of date was provided by the inscription on design 6.1.
IONS USEFT was interpreted as referring to Sir John or Johannes de Usefleet (also variously spelt Ousefleet, Ouseflet, Ousflet, Useflet or Usflet) who died in c.1304 (see further Chapter 3). Stylistically, the Usefleet designs would be old-fashioned in the early 14th century. However this might be explained by the evidence for repairs and alterations to the stamps, showing that they remained in use for a long time, or were taken back into use at a later date.
Fig 13.6: Rievaulx, Usefleet Group tiles of design 6.15
Concordance
Table 13.3: Tiles of the Usefleet Group in the British Museum
All tiles were from Rievaulx except BMC/441 and BMC/1666–1671 (designs 6.2, 6.4 and 6.10), which were from Byland. The drawing of BMD/2673 should in fact show a fragment with only one outside edge
Design BMD BMC Design BMD BMC
6.1 1448 6177–8* 6.11 2502 5427
6.2 2669 1666; 5462–5474 6.13 3062 6181*
6.4 2670 1667–1671; 5476–5477; 6.15 2648 5422–5426
5479–5482
6.5 2672 5475 6.16 2673 5483
6.8 2671 5478 6.17 1885 6137–6138
6.9 1434 5436–5461 6.18 2724 6139–6141
6.10 1435 441; 5428–35 6.19 1262 6142–6150
* small fragments.
Tile Group 7
(Figs 14.1–14.15)Much of the evidence for Tile Group 7 comes from anti-quarian records, in particular drawings of ceramic paving discovered at Jervaulx in c.1807 (Figs 14.2–14.6, 14.10–14.11, 14.13). These records are discussed in detail in entry 52, Chapter 27: Jervaulx, where a com-parison is also made between them and the extant tiles from this site. Most of the floor tiles and the original drawings of the paving uncovered in the church at Jervaulx are now lost. Copies of those drawings, attempting to reconstruct the tiles at full size, were made before 1845 by John Ward, a knowledgeable local enthusiast. Ward’s drawings are now in the Yorkshire Museum. A selection of Ward’s work, largely unaltered but not to scale, was published by Henry Shaw in 1858.
Other important antiquarian records for this group include Beaulah’s design drawings of tiles (also now lost) from Watton Priory. The loss of the tiles but sur-vival of the drawings means that there is a strong empha-sis on design and size/shape in the following analyempha-sis.
The Decorated Mosaic Group included the largest number of designs of any of the tile groups, with both shaped and straight-sided tiles having two-colour decora-tion in most cases. Some of the designs are letters of the alphabet. The main types of Decorated Mosaic tiles are:
• shaped tiles used to form large roundels with the decoration weaving between concentric bands of tiles (some shaped letter tiles were also used in the roundels; Fig 14.1a–c).
• straight-sided letter tiles (Fig 14.1d–f):
Large squares c.85mm Small squares c.43mm Rectangles c.89×63mm
• square tiles of three sizes (Fig 14.1g–i):
Small c.75mm
Large c.145mm
Medium c.112mm