29 November 2021
Mason’s marks are a much-loved feature of the historic built environment. They are commonly found on the external faces of stones but can also be found, on ex situ fragments, upon the hidden beds, joints and rear faces. They are usually quite small – perhaps 40-50mm in height, but can be much larger – one of the mid-fifteenth century masons at Wingfield Manor (Derbyshire) routinely cut their mark of a Greek cross up to 300mm in height!
It is possible to sense a degree of relish in the words of churchwardens when describing them in parish guidebooks or in the spiel of tour guides as they explain the faint and mysterious marks to visitors. The most common interpretation can be outlined as follows:
- The symbols were cut so that the mason could be paid piecework for each individual stone.
- There was a mediaeval register of mason’s marks which were themselves passed down from father to son as artist’s signatures.
- The career of individual masons can be followed by tracking the locations of their mark.
This iteration has been widely repeated in various formats by authorities including the Devon Historic Graffiti Survey, the National Churches Trust and by the mediaeval historian Stephen Friar (1996, 278).
Yet there are substantial problems with the theory on how the marks functioned, as related above, which cannot be resolved to the lived mediaeval experience.
Questioning the Popular View
Much of the received wisdom on mason’s marks derives from the practices of modern stonemasons. A register of mason’s marks, maintained by the Worshipful Company of Masons, was begun in 2013. However, there was no preceding catalogue and the modern list is extremely limited. Meanwhile, there is some anecdotal evidence from contemporary masons that the design of individual marks might be influenced from master to apprentice (akin to father to son). For example, the Nottingham-based stonemason Mark Stafford has a mark in the shape of a key partly due to his own master being called John Key. Yet there is no documented mediaeval example of such a practice.
In the modern era marks are no longer routinely cut onto every single stone but are usually reserved for the most complex pieces of which the mason is particularly proud. As a result, it is possible to follow the progress of a mason, such as Mark Stafford, as his individual signature can be found at multiple sites including Newstead Abbey, Wollaton Hall and Nottingham Castle. However, this is, again, a post-mediaeval tradition.
There is some evidence that mason’s marks gradually became analogous with the artist’s signature from the mid-sixteenth century onwards. For example, the initials of the mason Robert Coxe are matched by an elaborately carved triquetra design on the 1584 tomb of Sir George Blount at St John the Baptist, Kinlet, Shropshire (Bayliss 2019, 222-23). Here the mason’s mark was proudly executed as a formal relief carving.
However, mediaeval mason’s marks are much less elaborate or prominent. They are simply and humbly incised. Neither would they have been frequently visible. In many cases this is because they were cut onto faces of the stone which were hidden during construction. Yet, even those marks on the ashlar faces of stones would have been covered over as high-status mediaeval stone buildings were routinely plastered and painted (Rosewell 2014, 7-11). The marks could not and did not function as a signature in the mediaeval era.
There is no evidence that a central register of mediaeval mason’s marks was ever kept. Mediaeval town guilds operated entirely separately of each other and although there was a fraternal understanding between them, masons were free to wander the lands in search of work (Brooks 1961, 8-9). For example, during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, Master James of St George initially operated in the Savoyard region of mainland Europe and latterly in English-controlled areas of Wales and Scotland (Hislop 2020, 5-17). The administration of trying to maintain a centralised register, across political borders, in an industry where craftspeople were highly mobile would have been deeply impractical.
There is a small amount of evidence that some master masons, including Thomas Crump and William de Malton, may have retained their mark throughout their careers (Hislop 2012, 50). However, we cannot be certain that most journeyman masons would use the same mark after they had ceased to work on a specific building. Malcolm Hislop (2012, 50) has pointed to a strong possibility that they were doled out for the limited period of the construction project by the master mason to avoid duplication. Furthermore, there is only limited evidence that the marks may have represented a need for a mason to prove that they had cut a piece of stone before they could be paid for the individual item.
The architectural historian, Jenny Alexander has made an extensive study of mediaeval and early modern banker marks. She has drawn attention to the use of marks in two broadly contemporary building projects – the upper part of the crossing tower at Lincoln Cathedral and the wholesale rebuilding of Exeter Cathedral. Alexander points out that the contract, dated 1306, for the tower at Lincoln specified that ashlar stone was costed in measured lengths whereas more complicated elements were to be paid for on a day rate. Her conclusion is that there was a proliferation of mason’s marks in this part of the cathedral because the terms of the contract demanded payments of piecework, and the banker marks were the stonemason’s way to account for the amount produced. Conversely, the rebuilding at Exeter, which took place from c 1280 to 1350, produced very few banker marks because the masons were paid salaried wages for set periods of time (Alexander 2008, 21-40).
The analysis of the working practices seems quite neat – banker marks at Lincoln because the masons were paid by the stone; no banker marks at Exeter as the masons were paid a salary. Both observations can be supported by reference to other sites. For example, the building contract for the great tower at Stafford Castle indicates that the masons were to be paid five marks per perch and each perch was to be twenty-four feet in length. Just like Lincoln, the castle has evidence for the survival of banker marks (Darlington 2001, 48, 108). However, I suspect that the reality was more complicated than masons being paid by the individual stone. Contracts, such as those at Lincoln and Stafford, usually indicate that masons were to be paid by the length of structures. This happened elsewhere at Westminster Abbey, in 1253, where the masons were paid for 2,504 feet (763.2 metres) of ashlar walling, and six years later at the adjacent palace where 3s 6d were paid out for 4½ perches of masonry (Hislop 2012, 12)
The overarching problem is that we do not have any direct archival evidence to explain what the marks were for. However, we can make archaeological observations about the nature of the marks and move towards an informed interpretation.
Mediaeval Building Practices
The clue to the probable purpose of mason’s marks can be found on a stone from the north choir aisle at Southwell Minster (Nottinghamshire). Here is a double-coded stone which features an incised butterfly mark (that can be found repeated through the building) with an X-mark immediately adjacent. Such X-marks are a common find on architectural fragments and have been recorded, by the author, on stones from sites including Arundel House (London), the Palace of Westminster and Nottingham Castle (Wright 2013; Wright 2014; Wright 2018). Stones which have a mason’s mark accompanied by an X-mark may point towards an element of quality control by master masons. The mason’s mark was probably added so that a master could assess productivity. How many stones are being cut by either an individual or a team of masons in a set period of time (a day or a week perhaps)? Is anyone slacking? Are the stones of sufficient standard? The X-mark may have then been added by the master mason as a visual marker that the job has passed muster.
Double-coded stone at Southwell Minster
We do not find mason’s marks or X-marks on every single stone, so it could be the case that only a certain number of pieces were marked up within a batch. It is also quite rare to find marks on particularly complex pieces of architectural moulding or sculpture. There is an implication here that such elements took a substantial amount of time to create therefore there was no need to count them en masse.
The archaeological value of a detailed recording of mason’s marks has been demonstrated by projects at sites such as St Mary’s Nottingham (Alexander & Monckton 2014, 39-60). Here it was found that there were a total of 270 mason’s marks visible from the ground floor of the building. In the fifteenth century nave of the church one mason, with a lower-case “d” mark, mostly concentrated on producing ashlar walling. Meanwhile, a more competent mason, responsible for at least 36 stones which were marked with a pommée cross, principally worked on windows, piers and architectural mouldings, but only occasionally on ashlar walling (Alexander & Monckton 2014, 54-55). Here, we can learn something valuable about the organisation of labour on a mediaeval building site by analysing mason’s marks. However, crucially, we cannot follow the career of individual masons beyond the specific building.
Conclusions
Mediaeval mason’s marks are routinely misunderstood. However, by trying to shave away the misconceptions which have snuck in under the cover of modern building practices we can reach an understanding. Mason’s marks seem to have been part of a system of assessing workshop productivity rather than an individual artist’s signature that was always linked to piecework payment. They will no doubt remain a popular feature for visitors to historic buildings but we owe generations of stonemasons the right to have their working class history correctly represented.
References
Alexander, J. S. & Monckton, L., 2014, ‘ ‘Excellent, New and Uniforme yn Work’, St Mary’s Nottingham, An Architectural and Archaeological Study’ in Transactions of the Thoroton Society of Nottingham Vol. 118. Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire. Nottingham.
Alexander, J. S., 2008, ‘Mason’s marks and the working practices of medieval stone masons’ in Barnwell, P. & Pacey, A.. (ed.’s) Who Built Beverley Minster?. Spire. Reading.
Bayliss, J., 2019, ‘ ‘Smooth as Monumental Alabaster’: The Alabaster Tomb Industry in England, 1560-1660’ in Murat, Z., Luxford, J. & Mittman, A. S. (ed.’s), English Alabaster Carvings and their Cultural Contexts. Boydell & Brewer. Woodbridge.
Darlington, J. (ed.)., 2001, Stafford Castle: Survey, Excavation and Research, 1978-1998. Volume I – The Surveys. Stafford Borough Council. Stafford.
Friar, S. 1996 (1998 ed.), A Companion to the English Parish Church. Sutton. Stroud.
Hislop, M., 2020, James of St George and the Castles of the Welsh Wars. Pen & Sword. Barnsley.
Hislop, M., 2012, Medieval Masons. Shire. Oxford.
Pevsner, N., 1958, The Buildings of England: South and West Somerset. Penguin. London.
Rosewell, R., 2014, Medieval Wall Paintings. Shire. Oxford.
Salzman, L. F., 1952, Building in England Down to 1540. Clarendon Press. Oxford.
Simpson, W. D., 1960, The Building Accounts of Tattershall Castle, 1434-1472. Lincoln Record Society. Lincoln.
Thompson, A. H., 1920, ‘The Building Accounts of Kirby Muxloe Castle, 1480-1484’ in Transactions of the Leicestershire Architectural and Archaeological Society. Leicester.
Wright, J., 2021, Tattershall Castle: Building a History. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Nottingham.
Wright, J., 2018, Nottingham Castle – Service Court Arches and Inner Bailey Moat Revetment: Worked Stone Assessment. Unpublished archaeological report. Triskele Heritage.
Wright, J., 2016, A Palace for Our Kings – The History and Archaeology of a Mediaeval Royal Palace in the Heart of Sherwood Forest. Triskele Publishing. London & Cheltenham.
Wright, J., 2014, Archaeological Assessment of Stonework on the River Thames Foreshore at Victoria Tower Gardens. Unpublished archaeological report. MOLA.
Wright, J., 2013, ARC12 – Worked Stone Assessment. Unpublished archaeological report. MOLA.
About the author
James Wright trained as a conservation stonemason and is an award-winning buildings archaeologist. He has two decades professional experience of ferreting around in people’s cellars, hunting through their attics and digging up their gardens. He hopes to find meaningful truths about how ordinary and extraordinary folk lived their lives in the mediaeval period.
He welcomes contact through Twitter or email.
The Mediaeval Mythbusting Blog blog is the basis of a forthcoming book – Historic Building Mythbusting – Uncovering Folklore, History and Archaeology which will be released via The History Press on 6 June 2024. More information can be found here:
