This article is excerpted from a wider study of mediaeval masons’ marks found in the east end of York Minster Cathedral conducted in 2022. Masons’ marks are ciphers which were historically applied by stonemasons onto carved blocks in order to identify their work for quality control and payment purposes. Part of the 2022 study involved consulting with masons currently working at the York Minster Stoneyard, many of whom still use masons’ marks, and their perspective and analysis on historic and modern mark making is presented here.
The primary purpose of the study was to use masons’ marks to understand aspects of the construction process such as crew sizes, work flows, and building phases. While a comparison of stone masonry practices between the current and mediaeval periods is well beyond the scope of this article, contrasts and similarities between mediaeval and modern mark making practices became evident during the interviews, including shifts in how the masons considered historic marks over the past few decades.
The shifts in the use and design of marks today compared to the mediaeval period are the results of changing administrative approaches in the stoneyard over the centuries. The masons interviewed confirmed that historic marks were used for payroll and quality control purposes, but said that mark making today is done voluntarily by the masons who are interested in continuing the tradition. The function that marks once had is now filled by prefix marks—identifying numbers carved into the blocks—and time sheets, which record which masons have worked which blocks, and how much time each stone took to carve. One mason suggested that to a certain extent marks are still used by supervisors to keep an eye on the quality of work, but that it was primarily done as a self-motivated way for each mason to claim their work for themselves, and to intentionally contribute to the historic record of buildings like York Minster. In essence, marks are used today as a way for the masons to take active part in the craft and history of stonemasonry; to, as one mason said, “put a name and face” to each stone carved. They specifically stressed that there are no hard and fast rules to mark design and use, merely norms resulting from practical realities of stone carving plus personal preference. Most masons interviewed said that they created their marks during their training: one designed their mark upon completing their first stone, while another created theirs at masonry college.
Due to their relatively simple shapes, mark designs repeat frequently, and often the same mark will appear on buildings separated by such measures of time and space that the mark could not have possibly been left by the same mason (Alexander 2020). Thus, analysis of the marks found in York Minster focused on attempting to differentiate between different mark designs—presumably indicating work by different masons—and one mark design made in a variety of ways—indicating work by one mason.
The investigation initially focused on evaluating the number and type of lines and vertices. However, conversations with the masons shifted this study away from attempts to match exact shapes, towards a more subjective observation of the carving hand and technique, which the masons repeatedly and explicitly compared to handwriting. Each individual mason, they explained, varies their approach to mark making, with some masons creating a great deal of range within one mark and others remaining remarkably consistent. Approaching mark making as similar to handwriting also led to the suggestion that in many ways, the angle and proportion of a mark mattered much more than whether or not each point connected or overlapped. This proves useful in noting the differences between 5f2 (figure 1) and 4f1 (figure 2) which contain technically the same number of lines and vertices laid out in different proportions, indicating potentially two different masons.
A shared aspect of modern and historic mark making was an emphasis on making the marks quickly and efficiently, echoed between contemporary masons and noted by John Phillips in his study of mediaeval masons’ marks in Beverley Minster (Phillips 2016). This focus, necessitated by the context of the stoneyard, affected every aspect of mark use, from designing the marks to the application process, including elements like the tools and precision used to make each mark. A comparison between mark 5a1 (Figure 3) and mark 5a5 (figure 4) is useful here to illustrate this point. Both marks are of an isosceles triangle with an ‘x’ in the centre, but while in mark 5a1 all of the lines intersect neatly and do not overlap or extend past each other, mark 5a5 is much messier, and on the left side of the triangle a faint second line can be detected. Originally, these differences meant that the marks were considered separately, the result of two different masons using similarly shaped marks. However, when evaluated by the stonemasons, it was suggested that 5a5 was in fact a rushed and messy iteration of the 5a mark design, and it was likely that 5a1 and 5a5 were done by the same mason, who simply made one mark with less precision than the other.
When asked about analysing the marks, the masons also discussed the importance of identifying the specific tools used to make each mark, an aspect which, to them, was nearly as important as the shape of the mark itself. For masons working today, there are a range of approaches. One mason interviewed usually used the same two chisels to make their mark. Another grabbed whichever tool was closest. As a result, the same mark by the same mason could have vastly different appearances, as is the case with 2s2 and 2s4 (figures 5 and 6). 2s2 was—according to the mason the mark was shown to—made with a v cutter or lettering chisel, while 2s4 was scribed (made using a thin metal tool rather than a chisel) accounting for the mark’s relative shallowness. Using the tooling to identify which marks were made by the same mason is also particularly useful when studying historic marks which were made before modern, mass produced stone cutting tools were available, as the handmade nature of each tool meant that each mediaeval mason tended to have more unique chisels and claws when compared with the toolboxes of their peers.
As mark making in the modern day is a way for masons to claim work that they are especially proud of, marks appear more frequently on carved croquettes or gargoyles that are the result of concentrated artistic effort on the part of the masons, rather than say, a run of identical ashlar blocks. One mason specified a personal tradition of only adding marks to completed carvings, specifically and deliberately as the last step to finishing a piece, implying a more personal and in some ways emotional application of the marks, rather than using them in a strictly administrative capacity. Marks then, have transformed from a way for the accounting and administrative bodies of cathedral construction to keep tabs on the labour force, into a way for the craftsmen to place themselves into the narrative of elite architecture, voluntarily creating Facebook groups which record individual blocks, and taking note of the historic marks that they encounter in the process of repairing the work of centuries past.
Bibliography
Alexander, J. S. 2020. "Medieval Masons' Marks". University of Warwick History of Art. Available at https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/scapvc/arthistory/staff/ja/research/masonsmarks/ (Accessed: 20 March 2022).
Coldstream, N. 1991. Medieval Craftsmen, Masons and Sculptors. London: British Museum Press.
Jones, S. and T. Yarrow. 2013. "Crafting authenticity: An ethnography of conservation practice. Journal of material culture". Journal of Material Culture, 18 (1): 3–26. Available at: doi:10.1177/1359183512474383 (Accessed 05 September 2022).
Phillips, J. 2016. 'Of a Fair Uniforme Making': The Building History of Beverley Minster 1188-1736. Pickering: Blackthorn Press.
Salzman, L. F. 1992. Building in England down to 1540: A Documentary History. Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press.
Nancy Michaud studied Historic Buildings at the University of York. Their research interests include church archaeology, historic graffiti, and historic craftsmanship. They are currently based in New York City, and work as a theatrical technician and carpenter.
They can be contacted at: nancybmichaud@gmail.com.