Blue Bridge Lane
&
Fishergate House
Printed from the APC web site: navigation and non-essential images removed.
Please view on-line for full content (URL at end of document).
Approximately 90% of the assemblage was dateable to the medieval period. The earliest material in the assemblage was curved and flanged tile which is dated to the 11th to 13th century (Lewis 1987, 6; Betts 1985, 384) and which take a similar form to the Roman roofing system. In spite of the site's location within the precinct of St Andrew's, only six small fragments, three flanged tile fragments (including an unusual glazed example) and four curved tile fragments, were present in the assemblage and are clearly not present in sufficient quantity to suggest this roofing system was in use nearby. This may be considered surprising given that this was a preferred roofing system for high-status building and that the first construction phase of the Priory has been dated to the late 12th to late 13th century (Kemp and Graves 1996, 71).
Fabric
All fabrics were described according to Peacock (1977, 21-33) and were recorded as being from one of sixty-eight fabrics. However, since visually identifiable fragments do not necessarily reflect microscopically distinct fabrics, broad trends were used to create fabric groups within the collection. From the published descriptions of CBM from earlier excavation (Garside-Neville 1996, 294-5) it seems that the fabrics groups, recovered from recent excavations, reflect those already published.
Fabrics M20, M27, M52, and M53 were not dissimilar in appearance at x10 magnification and were grouped together. The material consisted of fine, reasonably well-sorted orange fabric with frequent quartzite and grog inclusions. Their description fits broadly with Group 1 and 2 from 46-54 Fishergate (Garside-Neville 1996, 294) and as a group represented 20.6% of the total assemblage. Fabrics M15, M16, M31 and M41 consisted of dark reddish purple fabric with frequent grog, oolites and quartzite with occasional silty bands throughout. Together, these fabrics represented 22.9% of the total assemblage. M15 in particular often had a slip coating and were frequently badly made, blown and overfired, but appeared to have been used nonetheless. Like the Group 3 fabric at 46-54 Fishergate, the slip may have been to disguise the poor quality of the tiles or to ape more expensive stone tiles. Two fabrics from each broad group were submitted for further analysis (see Fabric characterisation).
FORM
Plain and peg roof tile
Medieval plain roofing tile formed the largest part of the assemblage (c. 87% of the overall assemblage) and is broadly dated to the 13th to 16th century. Where the method of suspension was not intact tiles were defined as plain tiles. At Blue Bridge Lane 430 pegtiles were confidently identified in the assemblage and most of the fragments displayed the typical peghole placed centrally at one end, although two peg tiles had holes so close to a corner it would not be unreasonable to suggest that two-hole peg tiles were also used. Square (372), diamond (32) and circular (26) peg tiles were identified. One complete example of a square peg tile (Plate 4) and one near-complete square peg tile (Plate 5) were present in the assemblage with respective dimensions of 335 x 222 x 17mm and 327 x224 x 18mm. These are on the large size falling roughly within Betts' Type 6 and 7 from measurements taken from complete tiles from York (Betts 1985, 459). Neither tile appeared to have been used on a roof, since no evidence for erosion, frost-cracking or mortar was identified, and they may represent construction waste. Where full dimensions were present from incomplete tiles they measured between 177 to 240mm (breadth) and 6 to 28mm (thickness) which again fall within York measurements compiled by Betts (ibid). The complete peg tile has an indented border and tapers slightly towards the bottom and the hole has been struck from the upper side. The incomplete example has a knife-cut tallymark on its top edge as well as a saltaire cross executed across the body of the tile; this may be an elaborate tally or kiln-batch system. Two examples of CBM marked with religious symbols are known from East Yorkshire one with a decorated cross stamp and other stamped with a seal of Agnus Dei (Tibbles 2003, 31).
At Fishergate House 25 peg tiles were identified, although it is probable that a considerable proportion of the 417 plain tiles were also peg tiles, although they now lack the necessary diagnostic features. Square (21) and circular (4) peg tiles were identified. None of the tiles survived complete or near-complete so the original proportions could not be determined, although the thickness of the tiles (between 13mm and 17mm) suggests they fall within the York measurements outlined by Betts (1985, 459).
Plate 4
Plate 5
Glazed roof tile
Forty-one plain roof tiles also displayed glazes to varying degrees. Most displayed only splashed glaze which may suggest that the glazing was not intentional, but an accidental product of firing or proximity to deliberately glazed products, while some examples displayed glaze very similar to that on the Humberware pottery thought to have been produced at the site (Plate 6). One glazed circular pegtile was present in the assemblage and the circular peg hole was close enough to one corner to suggest the form may be a double peg type. It is thought that glazed roof tile represents a higher status product, for example, the glazed ridge and roof tile from Clarendon Palace (Robinson 1988, 174). This type of tile would have been fitting for most buildings within the claustral range, although it was not present in sufficient quantity to suggest large-scale use. Two glazed fragments were recovered from Fishergate House: one displayed some splashed glaze; the other an olive glaze on one face and side.
Plate 6
Nib tile
Only nine nib tiles were present in the assemblage. Two nib tile fragments had an applied triangular nib close to the corner of the tile may suggest the tiles at the site took the form of two applied nibs. Although applied nibs are known to have been positioned close to one corner (Armstrong 1991, 203; Armstrong 1992, 222; Potts 1996, 114) the form identified by Garside-Neville from earlier excavations suggests the Blue Bridge Lane material may derive from this form (Garside-Neville 1996, 296). This particular form of nib tile, which has two discrete lumps of clay attached to the sanded side of the tile, is dated in York to the mid-12th century onwards (ibid). As Garside-Neville suggests the presence of nib tile may represent piecemeal repairs to a roof rather than significant use of the form. One unusual fragment is part of a glazed nib tile; it has one well-fashioned knife-trimmed applied-nib intact and is covered with a green glaze. It is interesting to note that while nib tile is not common in York, it is found regularly in excavations in East and South Yorkshire and the Blue Bridge Lane nib tile almost certainly represents imported tile, possibly from East Yorkshire.
Ridge tile
Seventy-seven fragments of ridge tile were present in the assemblage. Fan-shaped crested ridge tiles are known in London from the 1190s (Dr Ian Betts, pers. comm.), but are broadly dated to the 13th to 16th century in York and complement roofs made of plain and peg tile. Seventy-two fragments were from plain ridge tile, and some displayed smoke-blackening on their underside and may have resulted from having been in position on a roof which was open to the rafters.
Five fragments of ridge tile were from ridge tiles with the form of an interrupted ridge decorated with upstanding square, triangular or trapezoidal tabs of clay (Plates 7 to 10). One fragment of plain ridge tile had a green splashed glaze which appeared to be most concentrated towards the crest of the plain ridge. Similar ridge tiles have already been found at Fishergate, York and in Southampton where they were dated to the 13th to 14th century (Garside-Neville 1996, 295; Dunning 1975, 189). In fact, Garside-Neville (ibid) suggests that the Period 6 church of the Priory may have been furnished with glazed and fan shaped crested ridge tiles. Five fragments of ridge tile were recovered from the Fishergate House site, although the form of two of these was unidentifiable. One further tile had a curved profile and two were fragments of fan-shaped crested tile, the form most common in York.
 |
 |
| Plate 7 | Plate 8 |
 |
 |
| Plate 9 | Plate 10 |
Mega ridge tile
One large and unusual piece of roof furniture was included in the assemblage at Blue Bridge Lane and has been identified as a possible finial (Plates 11 and 12) (Garside-Neville, pers.comm.). The piece has suffered some damage and is sooted but its original shape is largely intact. Its form is similar to that of a ridge tile and includes a slot underneath for positioning on the apex of a roof. The upstanding ridge however, is more squat and higher than a common ridgetile. At the top of the finial there is evidence for three upstanding crests divided by U-shaped indents but unfortunately these have been lost. Two very similar finials have been recovered from excavations at St Leonard's Hospital. Both of the St Leonard's examples are decorated; one with the impression of a seal ring, the other with the end of a key (Sandra Garside-Neville, pers. comm.).
 |
 |
| Plate 11 | Plate 12 |
Floor tile
Only four fragments of floor tile were recovered during excavation at Blue Bridge Lane, three were monochrome glazed tiles of yellow or dark green glazes and one was a fragmentary inlaid tile (Plate 13). None of the tiles were complete enough to gain any measurements as to their original size and so it was unclear as to whether they belonged to Stopford's Group A or B (Stopford 1996, 298-301). Regardless of group, the monochrome floor tiles certainly reflect those published by the York Archaeological Trust and may have belonged to pavement of alternating light and dark tile of the Phase 6b monastic church dated to the mid-14th century. The inlaid tile had a much worn top surface, but displays a partial curvilinear and foliate design, and may be part of a Gothic motif dateable to the 13th century, which is also suggested by the use of white slip inlay. Tiles of similar design are still to be found at Rievaulx Abbey, North Yorkshire. The inlaid tile is unique to the site, and its poor preservation suggests it has suffered abrasion from recycling and may have been brought onto the site in dumping episodes. It is interesting to note that no evidence for highly decorative tile pavements have been recovered from St Andrew's and this may reflect the early austerity of the Gilbertine order.
Plate 13
Brick
Two-hundred and fifty-one fragments of brick or wall tile were present in the assemblage. Such bricks were used as infill in timber-framed buildings or as hearth make-up and date from the 14th to 16th century overlapping with the use of plain tile. The make-up of a Period 8B hearth consisted of reused walltile, brick and rooftile. Five further fragments of brick were recovered from Fishergate House; most of these were fragmentary with few diagnostic features identified.
Stone roof tile
Two fragments of stone roof tile were included in the assemblage, one example had a small hole pecked through it; both are undateable in themselves. Stone roof tile from York in the medieval period is rare and the small number of fragments identified at Blue Bridge Lane reflects this.
Imprints
Fifty-three fragments of CBM from the Blue Bridge Lane site, principally plain tile, peg tile and brick, bore marks from fabric, vegetation and animals, while fourteen fragments displayed signs of fabric. Such fabric imprints are thought to have come from the tiler's clothing while carrying a batch of tiles under the arm (Walton-Rogers 1996, 117) (Plate 14).
Plate 14
The tracks of several animals were found on thirty-six fragments of plain and peg tile and included dog, possible fox, cat, pig, deer and caprovid. This is a common phenomenon and suggests that the tiles were left to dry and harden laid flat in a drying shed; no raindrops were noted on any of the tile. Earthworm imprints were found on the underside of several tiles and brick fragments, and support the evidence that some tiles or bricks were left to dry lying flat. Lastly, three tiles showed signs of straw and grass marks on their underside or side suggesting that some tiles may also have been left to dry on their sides.
One fragment of plain tile from the Fishergate House site had a possible baby's footprint lightly imprinted. The tile is broken but the mark of the heel, ball and big toe of the foot can be discerned. Although again resulting from the practice of laying tiles flat on the ground to dry this is a more unusual marking paralleled at Walmgate. Another example was found in excavations at 41-49 Walmgate (McComish 2003, 2).
Miscellanea
Nine counters or 'pot lids' were also present in the assemblage at Blue Bridge Lane; their weight ranging from 16g to 216g. Two further 'pot lids' were recovered from Fishergate House, again made from plain roof tile. A third, smaller example measuring 2.5cm in diameter, could have been used as a gaming counter. They were all made from plain roof tile. Such finds are not uncommon and may have served many purposes.
Two plain tile fragments from the assemblage at Blue Bridge Lane showed evidence for chequer board patterning; one post-firing, the other prior to firing (Plates 15 and 16). It is unclear as to why this had been done, although a similarly decorated plain tile has been recovered from Doncaster. Again, the rationale behind the decoration the Doncaster tile was not clear, but its use as a gaming board was ruled out by the author due to the irregular nature of the chequer (Ref). It does seem possible that the Blue Bridge Lane examples were used as gaming boards as the execution is reasonably measured, particularly that of the example scored post-firing.
 |
 |
| Plate 15 | Plate 16 |
Conclusion
Overall, the medieval CBM assemblage is quite typical of York and certainly reflects the nature of the assemblage recovered during excavation in the 1980s. The dominance of plain roof tile is to be expected although the relative paucity of earlier roofing systems and floor tile might be considered unusual given the probable provenance of the assemblage. The Gilbertine order was famously aesthetic and may not have sought high-status glazed and decorative roof furniture or flooring for the earlier buildings of the monastery. This ethos is certainly reflected in the mundane nature of much of the CBM recovered during excavation with the exception of the roof finial which represents an unusual find in the city, and which may reflect the burgeoning high-status tastes of the order in the later medieval period.
apc > monographs > blue bridge lane & fishergate house > artefacts & environmental > building materials
