Mcclain Mounuments in The Later MA S 2010

This is a repository copy of Cross slab monuments in the late Middle Ages : patronage,
production, and locality in northern England.
White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/68755/
Version: Submitted Version
Book Section:
McClain, Aleksandra Noel orcid.org/0000-0001-8201-3806 (2010) Cross slab monuments
in the late Middle Ages : patronage, production, and locality in northern England. In:
Badham, S. and Oosterwijk, S., (eds.) Monumental Industry. Shaun Tyas , pp. 37-65.
Reuse
Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless
indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by
national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of
the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record
for the item.
Takedown
If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by
emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.
[email protected]
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/
Badham5:Harlaxton 21/10/10 11:04 Page 37
Cross Slab Monuments in the Late Middle Ages:

Patronage, Production, and Locality
in Northern England
ALEKSANDRA McCLAIN
When the commemorative practices of the later Middle Ages are considered, the
stone cross slab grave marker is rarely the monumental form that first springs to
mind. Rather, the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries are manifestly associated with
the establishment of brasses and sculpted effigies as the premier products of the
medieval funerary monument industry. It is perhaps understandable, especially
given the art historical nature of much commemorative scholarship, that studies
of the elaborate and evocative figural representations of the medieval populace
have taken precedence. Nevertheless, the aesthetically unassuming cross slab has
much to reveal, not only about the production, distribution, and consumption of
commemorative monuments in the fourteenth century, but also about the
medieval social milieu which drove their creation and utilisation.
This paper will explore the production and use of late-medieval cross slab
grave covers through a detailed typological study and spatial analysis of the mon-
uments of the North Riding of Yorkshire in the fourteenth century.1 The patterns
of distribution and stylistic features of monuments from the sample area will be
contextualised through comparison with contemporary cross slab data from other
northern counties, and with what is known of brasses and effigial sculpture in the
region. The systematic, archaeological approach undertaken here emphasises
that the value of monuments is not as anecdotal examples or isolated pieces of art,
but as a corpus of data that can be examined over time and space, at large and small
scales, and at regional and local levels. The monuments must be considered in the
context of the churches, settlements, and localities in which they were erected,
and with reference to the political, economic, and social developments of the
period. As active, dynamic, and communicative components of material culture,
cross slabs would have been equally significant to prestigious figural brasses,
1
A. N. McClain, ‘Patronage, Power, and Identity: the Social Use of Local Churches and
Commemorative Monuments in Tenth to Twelfth-Century North Yorkshire’, unpub-
lished PhD thesis (York, 2005); A. N. McClain, ‘Medieval Cross Slabs in the North Rid-
ing of Yorkshire: Chronology, Distribution, and Social Implications’, Yorkshire
Archaeological Journal (hereafter YAJ), 79 (2007), pp. 155–93.
37
ALEKSANDRA McCLAIN
tombs, and effigies in the social and spiritual life of medieval England. Indeed, in
northern regions of the country they can be argued to have had an even greater
impact, as they were in use over a longer period of time, were located at consid-
erably more sites, and would have been patronised, engaged with, and understood
by a wider range of social groups.
The Definition and Development of Medieval Cross Slabs

Definitions
The term ‘cross slab grave cover’, while in general scholarly use, is actually a some-
what simplified appellation for a monumental form which in reality encompasses
a remarkable range of shapes, styles, and motifs. They can be recumbent or stand-
ing, large or small, coped or flat, incised or carved in relief, and decorated with a
variety of abstract or representational designs, but ‘cross slab’ has become the
common designation because the vast majority of these monuments are recum-
bent, non-effigial, and decorated with a central cross. Almost 80% of the monu-
ments in the North Riding precisely fit this description, but 12.5% of the
monuments included in this survey have no cross at all. Of these, some slabs are
blank or just have simple mouldings, some feature geometric patterns, some amal-
gamate aspects of the cross with other motifs, and on some the cross has been
replaced entirely with another emblem. Also, in a few cases the boundaries are
blurred between grave slabs, effigial sculpture, incised slabs, and brasses. Some
monuments feature crudely carved heads or even low-relief bodies in addition to
their crosses and other motifs, and others display a brass inscription plate or inlaid
letters in addition to the otherwise conventionally carved cross design.
For the purposes of the analysis undertaken here, fully sculpted effigies have
not been included in the dataset, nor have monuments which are solely brasses or
brass indents, even if in the shape of a cross. This distinction has been drawn
because, quite apart from stylistic differences, there appears to be a fundamental
distinction in the modes of production between cross slabs and other monuments
in northern England. In Yorkshire, brasses do not occur in considerable numbers
until the second half of the fourteenth century, around three hundred years after
the cross slab tradition begins.2 Similarly, the earliest full effigies in Yorkshire
appear long after cross slabs were established. The earliest is the imported Purbeck
marble monument of Archbishop Walter de Gray (d. 1255) in York Minster, which
dates from the early 1260s, but the earliest locally produced effigies emerge at least
2
S. Badham, Brasses from the North East: a Study of Brasses Made in Yorkshire, Lin-
colnshire, Durham, and Northumberland in the Pre-Reformation Period (London,
1979); S. Badham, ‘Monumental Brasses: the Development of the York Workshops in
the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries’, in C. Wilson (ed.), Medieval Art and Archi-
tecture in the East Riding of Yorkshire, British Archaeological Association Conference
Transactions, 9 (Leeds, 1989), pp. 165–85, at p. 166.
38
CROSS SLAB MONUMENTS IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES
twenty years later.3 Also, semi-effigial slabs in the north generally date to the late
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries or later, generally post-dating the introduc-
tion of full effigial sculpture. They are therefore the result of the amalgamation of
established effigial motifs with the cross slab form, rather than serving as a transi-
tional type in a linear chronology between cross slabs and sculpted effigies.
Furthermore, when the brass and effigy industries did develop, they con-
trasted substantially with the rural, small-scale, and highly localised production
which broadly characterises northern cross slabs.4 Brass workshops were an
almost entirely urban industry, with York the primary production centre in the
north.5 While effigy production was probably rural in nature, workshops were
often based at major quarries (e.g. near Tadcaster) or monastic sites, where the
highly skilled masons needed for such carving would be in demand.6 In the North
Riding there is some evidence for rural or small-scale production of effigies out-
side major workshops, but it is not substantial. There is a knightly effigy in the Salt-
marshe chapel at Howden dating to c.1320, which ties in with no other known
workshop series, and seems to have been commissioned in a gap between major
York workshop production phases.7 There is also a larger group of ten mid-four-
teenth-century monuments based around Ingleby Arncliffe, with a small distribu-
tion network primarily in the rural north-east of Yorkshire. Although the larger
group of monuments and the distribution pattern suggest it could be an estab-
lished provincial workshop, it is more likely that the monuments, which were all
produced over a very short period of time, can be attributed to travelling masons
who were temporarily stationed at nearby Gisborough Priory.8 On the whole,
there is little evidence to link the production of cross slabs in northern areas with
the same workshops that produced either brasses or effigies.9
3
M. J. Sillence, ‘The Two Effigies of Archbishop Walter de Gray (d. 1255) at York Min-
ster’, Church Monuments, 20 (2005), pp. 5–30, at p. 13; S. Badham and G. Blacker,
Northern Rock: the Use of Egglestone Marble for Monuments in Medieval England
(Oxford, 2009), p. 23.
4
N. Saul, English Church Monuments in the Middle Ages: History and Representation
(Oxford, 2009), p. 62.
5
Badham and Blacker, Northern Rock, pp. 27–28.
6
Saul, English Church Monuments, p. 65; Badham and Blacker, Northern Rock, p. 24.
7
S. Badham, B. Gittos, and M. Gittos, ‘The Fourteenth-Century Monuments in the Salt-
marshe Chapel at Howden, Yorkshire: Their History and Context’, YAJ, 68 (1996), pp.
113–55, at p. 126. Mark Downing has noted that the effigy may not be local. It could be
a product of out-of-county sculptors, as it has parallels to work on military effigies at
Calder Abbey (Lancashire): see p. 73 of this volume.
8
B. Gittos and M. Gittos, ‘The Ingleby Arncliffe Group of Effigies: a Mid-Fourteenth Cen-
tury Workshop in North Yorkshire’, Church Monuments, 17 (2002), pp. 14–38, at pp.
14, 26.
9
S. Badham, ‘Evidence for the Minor Funerary Monument Industry 1100–1500’, in K.
Giles and C. Dyer (eds), Town and Country in the Middle Ages: Contrasts, Contacts
and Interconnections, 1100–1500 (Leeds, 2005), pp. 165–95, at p. 184.
39
ALEKSANDRA McCLAIN
More difficult to classify are those monuments which have been traditionally
identified as ‘incised slabs’, as – like most cross slabs – they are recumbent and do
not feature sculpture in the round.10 Indeed, many of F. A. Greenhill’s earliest
‘incised slabs’ would be categorised simply as cross slabs in this survey. Similarly,
a number of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century slabs, classed by Sally Badham and
Malcolm Norris as belonging to the London-based Ashford and Basyng series of
incised slabs, are essentially later versions of the Purbeck marble cross slabs that
had been produced by the Corfe workshops from the second half of the twelfth
century. However, they also feature incised lettering which ties their production
to the monumental brass workshops of London.11 In the late-medieval period, the
distinction between cross slabs and incised slabs becomes somewhat clearer, pri-
marily because of the introduction of effigial representations. Incised slabs of this
period are mostly very large, elaborate floor slabs that feature effigies, inscriptions,
canopies and other architectural embellishments, and they bear little typological
resemblance to cross slabs of any period. Furthermore, their production in some
areas is closely affiliated with major brass and alabaster workshops, rather than
with local production.12
Nevertheless, there are some notable exceptions to this rule. In West York-
shire and Lincolnshire, there are a number of fourteenth- and fifteenth-century
incised slabs with crosses that are only distinguished from ‘normal’ cross slabs by
the fact that they are almost always finely carved, have exceptionally elaborate
head designs, and have an inscription panel, which is most often similar to the
marginal inscriptions found on many effigial incised slabs.13 In addition, a relatively
crude fifteenth-century incised slab from Tickhill (West Riding of Yorkshire) has
recently been discovered, which features a fine cross with two awkwardly drawn
effigies and simple canopies. Peter Ryder has argued that the good workmanship
of the cross, as well as stylistic links to cross slabs at two nearby churches, indicate
that the sculptor was used to working on cross slabs, and that some incised slabs
may have been produced by local cross slab sculptors, independently of work-
shops.14
10
F. A. Greenhill, The Incised Slabs of Leicestershire and Rutland (Leicester, 1958); F. A.
Greenhill, Incised Effigial Slabs: a Study of Engraved Stone Memorials in Latin Chris-
tendom, c. 1100 to c. 1700 (London, 1976); F. A. Greenhill, Monumental Incised Slabs
in the County of Lincoln (Newport Pagnell, 1986); S. Badham and M. Norris, Early
Incised Slabs and Brasses from the London Marblers (London, 1999).
11
Badham and Norris, Early Incised Slabs, pp. 8, 24–26.
12
Badham and Norris, Early Incised Slabs, p. 13; J. Crease, ‘“Not Commonly Reputed or
Taken for a Saincte”: the Output of a Northern Workshop in the Late Fourteenth and
Early Fifteenth Centuries’, this volume, pp. 154–56, below.
13
Greenhill, Incised Slabs in the County of Lincoln, pls 28, 29, 44; Ryder, West Yorkshire,
pp. 13, 43, 47.
14
P. Farman, P. Hacker, S. Badham, and P. Ryder, ‘Incised Slab Discoveries at Tickhill,
Yorkshire’, Transactions of the Monumental Brass Society, 17 (2008), 521–49.
40
The ambiguity inherent in trying to categorise incised slabs is illustrative of

the sheer variety in medieval commemorative form, and the difficulty in attempt-
ing to impose strict classifications. To maintain clarity, in this paper ‘incised slabs’
will refer solely to the large, late, elaborate monuments which have either effigies
or no cross. These monuments are very rare in the North Riding of Yorkshire,
undoubtedly due to its distance from the main production centres, and the few
examples that are known (e.g. Middleham/Jervaulx Abbey, Yarm) have not been
included for the purposes of this study (Pl. 1).
Dates and Locations

Cross slabs were used in a variety of locations, including cathedrals, monasteries,
hospitals, and castles, but the vast majority are associated with burial in parochial
churches and chapels. They were in use throughout England between the later
eleventh century and c.1600, and they are present in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales
as well, although their origins in these regions seem to be later.15 Cross slabs are
primarily a product of the post-Conquest period, although there is no doubt that
they were at times directly influenced by the Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Scandinavian
sculptured grave markers which preceded them. In the north, they can be con-
sidered part of an overarching stone sculpture tradition that spans the Conquest.16
The northern counties feature examples of unusual ‘transitional’ monuments
encompassing both pre- and post-Conquest motifs and forms, and Jim Lang has
demonstrated clear links between hogback stones and coped twelfth-century
cross slabs in the Tees Valley.17 Even at the large twelfth-century cross slab work-
shop of Barnack (Cambridgeshire), where the Anglo-Saxon monumental tradition
was not as strong as in the north, there is evidence of pre-Conquest influence. The
characteristic double-omega feature of Barnack cross slabs appears to derive from
a pre-Norman motif.18 Although cross slabs only appeared in force after the Nor-
15
B. Gittos and M. Gittos, ‘Irish Purbeck: Recently Identified Purbeck Marble Monuments
in Ireland’, Church Monuments, 13 (1998), pp. 5–14; C. A. Gresham, Medieval Stone
Carving in North Wales: Sepulchral Slabs and Effigies of the Thirteenth and Four-
teenth Centuries (Cardiff, 1968); D. Maher, Medieval Grave Slabs of County Tipper-
ary, 1200–1600 AD, BAR British Series, 262 (Oxford, 1997); J. W. Rodger, ‘The Stone
Cross Slabs of South Wales and Monmouthshire’, Transactions of the Cardiff Natu-
ralists’ Society, 94 (1911), pp. 24–64; S. Tarlow, ‘Reformation and Transformation:
What Happened to Catholic Things in a Protestant World?’, in D. Gaimster and R.
Gilchrist (eds), The Archaeology of Reformation, 1480–1580 (Leeds, 2003), pp. 108–
21, at p. 113.
16
McClain, ‘Medieval Cross Slabs’, p. 186.
17
J. T. Lang, ‘Some Early Medieval Coped Grave Covers in County Durham’, Transactions
of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, 3
(1974), pp. 101–6, at p. 105.
18
L. A. S. Butler, ‘Medieval Gravestones of Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, and the
Soke of Peterborough’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 50 (1957),
pp. 89–100, at p. 90.
41
ALEKSANDRA McCLAIN
man Conquest, they were by no means a foreign importation, or an artistic tradi-

tion that arrived in England fully formed. More work needs to be done to fully
explore Continental commemorative forms, but it seems that the monuments and
motifs that developed in England were very much the product of an Anglo-Nor-
man milieu.
From the surveys that have been carried out, in all areas of England cross slab
use declined sharply in the fifteenth century, and they generally fell out of use
completely after the Reformation, although post-medieval persistence is occa-
sionally encountered in the north.19 For example, in Northumberland there are
four examples with inscriptions dating as late as the 1630s.20 Specific peaks and val-
leys of production seem to vary widely depending on the region of the country. In
some areas, the late-medieval decline in use occurred much more rapidly. Cross
slabs in Norfolk were all but replaced by brasses after the mid fourteenth century,
for example. This more prestigious monumental form seems to have been fairly
widely available in East Anglia from an early date, perhaps because the region’s
waterways expedited the delivery of brasses from workshops in London and the
Continent.21 In the Cambridgeshire region, the shift of the Purbeck marblers to
brass production and a recession in the Barnack quarries caused a similar four-
teenth-century decline in cross slab provision. However, unlike Norfolk, which
had no suitable freestone of its own, the rich stone resources of the Soke of Peter-
borough enabled small-scale Cambridgeshire masons to fill part of the void cre-
ated by the loss of the major workshops.22
In stark contrast, in northern areas cross slabs seem to have retained con-
siderable social currency in the later Middle Ages, even after the introduction of
alternate forms of commemoration. In the north, cross slabs not only coexisted as
a viable monumental option alongside effigies, tomb chests, incised slabs, and
brasses, but in many cases were still the dominant monumental form in the region.
The table of statistics derived from available county studies clearly illustrates this
north-south dichotomy (Fig. 1). From Nottinghamshire northward, nearly half of
all churches contain at least one medieval cross slab, and there are on average over
three slabs per site. In Durham a remarkable 81% of medieval churches still fea-
ture cross slabs, and the mean density in Northumberland is over eight slabs per
19
P. F. Ryder, Cross Slab Grave Stones in West Yorkshire (Wakefield, 1991), p. 5.
20
P. F. Ryder, ‘Medieval Cross Slab Grave Covers in Northumberland, 1: South West
Northumberland’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th series, 28 (2000), pp. 51–110, at p. 60; P.
F. Ryder, ‘Medieval Cross Slab Grave Covers in Northumberland, 2: Newcastle and
South East Northumberland’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th series, 30 (2002), pp. 75–137,
at p. 82; P. F. Ryder, ‘Medieval Cross Slab Grave Covers in Northumberland 3: North
Northumberland’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th series, 32 (2003), pp. 91–136, at p. 101.
21
J. Finch, ‘Commemorating Change: an Archaeological Interpretation of Monuments in
Norfolk before 1400’, Church Archaeology, 4 (2000), pp. 27–41, at p. 28.
22
Butler, ‘Medieval gravestones’, pp. 94–96.
42
Sites with slabs Total no. slabs Avg. slabs/site Source

Northumberland 87 (64%) 730 8.4 Ryder 2000–03
Durham 75 (81%) 550 7.3 Ryder 1985
Cumbria 118 (69%) 526 4.5 Ryder 2005
N. Riding Yorks. 138 (54%) 703 5.1 McClain 2007
W. Yorkshire 49 (45%) 185 3.8 Ryder 1991
E. Riding Yorks. 41 (22%) 153 3.7 Gittos and Gittos 1989,
Morris 1906
Nottinghamshire 86 (40%) 272 3.2 Butler 1964
Leicestershire 47 (15%) 87 1.8 Butler 1964
Rutland 16 (32%) 36 2.3 Butler 1957
Cambs / Hunts. 97 (40%) 221 2.2 Butler 1957
Bedfordshire 32 (25%) 85 2.6 Butler 1987
Herefordshire 25 (18%) 30 1.2 Butler 1987
Norfolk (part) 25 (25%) 54 2.2 Finch 2000
Fig. 1: Comparison of county cross slab surveys.
site. In these areas, cross slabs were surely once a feature of every church and
churchyard. In southern areas of the country, it is far less certain that this was the
case. The East Riding of Yorkshire appears to deviate slightly from the northern
norm, and certainly has the fewest slabs of any of the Ridings. The relative lack of
freestone in eastern Yorkshire may well have had an influence on commemora-
tion in the region, but as no full catalogue has yet been published for the East Rid-
ing, further work needs to be done to clarify the spatial and chronological patterns
of provision of cross slabs in that part of the county.23 In most of the Midlands and
south east, cross slab numbers are consistently lower. Only Cambridgeshire and
Huntingdonshire challenge the general trend, although this might be explained
by the prodigious but chronologically limited production of the Barnack work-
shop in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
It is tempting to chalk up the striking provision of cross slabs in northern
counties to a regional ‘fashion’, but that would imply a deliberate region-wide con-
sciousness, and suggests the existence of a deep-seated affinity between locations
as far apart geographically and politically as Nottinghamshire and Northumber-
land. It is important to emphasise that this ‘fashion’ was not a fortuitous, mono-
lithic occurrence, but the result of consistent and deliberate choices over a very
long period of time, which were bound up with far more complex and perhaps
quite specific religious, economic, cultural, and political issues that underpinned
the commemorative strategies of patrons. The remarkable prevalence and dura-
tion of cross slab use in northern areas is a real pattern, but our explanations
should move beyond traditional, generalising frameworks. It demands more thor-
ough analysis, so that we may better elucidate the relationship between monu-
mental provision and particular geographical and social contexts.
23
Badham and Blacker, Northern Rock, p. 16.
43
Fig. 2: Basic cross slab head styles: (1) bracelet and bracelet-derivative crosses; (2)
straight-arm crosses; (3) splayed-arm crosses; (4) wheel-head and interlaced-diamond
crosses; (5) geometric patterns and crosses; (6) emblem-only slabs
(Illustration: Aleksandra McClain, after Peter Ryder).
Styles, Motifs and Emblems

Cross slabs exhibit a great range of form, design, and detail, and they vary both
regionally and chronologically. Nevertheless, general stylistic trends and basic pat-
terns are traceable, particularly in the styles of cross heads. There are a number of
standard cross designs which occur in all parts of the country, including straight-
arm crosses, bracelet and bracelet-derivative crosses, expanded-arm crosses, and
wheel crosses (Fig. 2). Although the majority of cross slabs can be broadly placed
in one of these categories, the range of variation and idiosyncrasy within the styles
is remarkable. The consistency of certain stylistic features throughout the coun-
44
try, such as the late-twelfth- and thirteenth-century ‘round-leaf bracelet’, indicates

that standard copy books or templates must have been available in many cases.24
However, the great number of individualistic variations on these widespread
motifs, as well as the many examples of crudely carved attempts to emulate well-
known styles, indicate extensive local and provincial modes of production.
The most common style from the late twelfth century onward is the ‘bracelet’
cross and its derivatives, which became ever more ornate and floriated in the thir-
teenth and fourteenth centuries. In its simplest form the bracelet cross features
four broken circles forming a stylised cross head with expanded terminals and
curved armpits. Yet by the late thirteenth century, this design could consist of as
many as eight bracelets in a single cross head, and the cross terminals, bracelet
ends, and even at times the cross shafts were elaborated with foliate motifs. The
practice of overlapping or interlocking pseudo-bracelet shapes into a complex pat-
tern eventually formed an entirely separate stylistic category in the late thirteenth
century: the interlaced diamond cross. Conventional and decorated straight-
armed crosses are also prevalent throughout all periods in which cross slabs were
in use, although in their simplest forms they are most commonly associated with
the eleventh and twelfth centuries, or the late fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth
centuries.
From the twelfth century onward, a distinctive feature of many grave slabs is
the presence of one or more carved emblems supplementing, or sometimes
replacing, the central cross. The emblems are generally agreed to be signifiers of
a chosen identity or attribute of the commemorated person, be it in terms of occu-
pation, rank, or gender. They too are a particular feature of the counties of north-
ern England, where as many as one-third to more than three-quarters of cross slabs
have them. Further south, however, the numbers decline dramatically. Notting-
hamshire has forty-seven slabs with emblems, but Leicestershire, Rutland, Cam-
bridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, and Bedfordshire have only between one and
three slabs with emblems in their total provision, and Hertfordshire has none at
all.25 It has been suggested that localised, small-scale production, which was more
common in northern regions, allowed for greater specification and personalisa-
tion of the monuments, and thus the proliferation of emblems.26 This hypothesis
is supported by Lawrence Butler’s East Midlands survey, where only a few slabs
from the large Barnack or Purbeck workshops featured an emblem, and those
appear to have been added after delivery, carved in a different style and hand.27
24
P. F. Ryder, The Medieval Cross Slab Grave Covers in Cumbria (Oxford, 2005), p. 13.
25
L. A. S. Butler ‘Symbols on Medieval Memorials’, Archaeological Journal (hereafter
Arch. J.), 144 (1987), pp. 246–55, at p. 247.
26
Ryder, West Yorkshire, p. 61.
27
L. A. S. Butler, ‘Minor Medieval Monumental Sculpture in the East Midlands’, Arch. J.,
121 (1964), pp. 111–53, at p. 134.
45
ALEKSANDRA McCLAIN
The range of emblems featured on slabs varies considerably, but the most
common are swords, shears, chalices, books, and various trade or tool symbols.28
Swords, which are generally thought to represent men of some social standing, far
outnumber other emblems, sometimes by as many as two to one. In the early cen-
turies of cross slab use, the use of the sword emblem may have been more effec-
tively socially restricted to the knightly and lordly classes, but this was not the case
throughout the medieval period. From the thirteenth century onward, trade
emblems sometimes appear alongside swords, such as examples with blacksmith’s
or carpenter’s tools, and in County Durham even with the apparently ‘low-status’
emblem of a plough-share.29 The number of monuments and the range of
emblems indicate that cross slab use by the late-medieval period was widespread,
but they did not become a commoner’s monument, as has sometimes been
argued.30 For instance, full excavations of medieval churchyards have demon-
strated that the vast majority of burials would not have been marked by any stone,
much less a carved grave slab.31 The cross slab evidence demands that we recon-
sider the complexity of the manorial hierarchy, the degree of social mobility that
was accessible to relatively wealthy tradesmen and labourers, and the assumption
that an identity associated with agriculture must necessarily be that of the lower
‘peasant’ classes. By the later Middle Ages, wealthy farmers could possess signifi-
cant amounts of land and expendable cash, would have hired labourers to work
under them, and would undoubtedly have been a force in the local community.32
The emblems of chalices, books, patens, and croziers are indicative of
priests, abbots, or other clergymen, and excavated finds of lead and pewter
eucharistic vessels included with the bodies of ecclesiastics demonstrates that the
carved emblems on the slabs may in some cases have been representations of
actual grave goods.33 Although their meaning has long been debated, the very
prevalent shears and the far less common keys seem to be the emblems of women.
Strong evidence now aligns with the view of shears representing female burials:
they are often present opposite sword emblems on double-cross slabs, probably
indicating a husband and wife, and when they are accompanied by inscriptions the
28
Ryder, West Yorkshire, p. 61.
29
P. F. Ryder, The Medieval Cross Slab Grave Cover in County Durham (Durham, 1985),
pl. 45.
30
C. Platt, The Parish Churches of Medieval England (London, 1995), p. 44.
31
J. D. Dawes and J. R. Magilton, The Cemetery of St Helen-on-the-Walls, Aldwark, The
Archaeology of York, 12/1 (London, 1980), p. 16; G. Stroud and R. L. Kemp, Cemeter-
ies of the Church and Priory of St. Andrew, Fishergate, The Archaeology of York, 12/2
(York, 1993), p. 153; S. Mays, C. Harding and C. Heighway, Wharram, a Study of Set-
tlement on the Yorkshire Wolds, Vol. XI: the Churchyard (York, 2007), pp. 271–94.
32
J. Bolton, ‘“The World Upside Down”. Plague as an Agent of Economic and Social
Change’, in M. Ormrod and P. Lindley (eds), The Black Death in England (Stamford,
1996), pp. 17–78, at p. 47.
33
D. M. Hadley, Death in Medieval England (Stroud, 2001), p. 115.
46
Fig. 3: Deaneries of the North Riding of Yorkshire (illustration: Aleksandra McClain).
text invariably names women. These symbols may have their origins in the com-
mon tools of the medieval housewife, but the reason behind the shears’ emer-
gence as the standardised element representing the feminine gender is somewhat
obscure.34
Trade and occupation emblems are not uncommon, particularly in the
north, but they occur on many fewer slabs than swords, shears, and priestly sym-
bols. They also seem to enter the vocabulary of cross slab iconography later than
other emblems, being associated with monuments of thirteenth-century date or
later. A variety of occupations are represented, including most commonly black-
smiths, masons, and huntsmen or foresters. Although secondary emblems do not
appear on all cross slabs, they are of particular interpretative value as they not only
give us a firmer idea of who the patrons of cross slabs were, but also allow a glimpse
into the personal identities which the commemorated patrons and their surviving
families thought it valuable to enshrine in a permanent medium. They also demon-
strate the closely intertwined nature of medieval secular and religious identities,
even for those below the levels of the nobility. Indeed, the fact that some grave
slabs featured secular emblems without a cross at all indicates that the social
necessity or benefit of projecting secular identity through commemoration may at
times have taken precedence over the spiritual symbolism and function of the
monument.
34
Ryder, Cumbria, p. 18.
47
Fig. 4: Chronology of medieval cross slab production in the North Riding of Yorkshire
(illustration: Aleksandra McClain).
Fourteenth-Century Cross Slabs in North Yorkshire

The North Riding of Yorkshire has 254 medieval parish churches and chapels, and
138 of these sites feature cross slabs. A total of 703 grave slabs, dating from the
eleventh to the seventeenth centuries, have so far been found.35 This section will
examine those cross slabs produced in the ‘long’ fourteenth century, from c.1275
to c.1400, and compare their numerical and spatial distributions with the earlier
and later monumental production in the Riding, as well as with monuments of the
period in the other northern counties. Much of the analysis will be broken down
into rural deaneries, of which there are five entirely and two partially in the North
Riding. They have been chosen as analytical groups as they represent fairly even
and manageable numbers of parishes, and encompass distinct geographical
regions (Fig. 3). For the purposes of analysis, the two churches in Boroughbridge
deanery have been joined with those in Bulmer, and the eight in Dickering have
been joined with Ryedale.
Numerical and Spatial Distribution
As can be seen from the chronological distribution graph of medieval cross slabs
in the North Riding, the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries represent
the peak of monument production in the region, although the thirteenth century
as a whole is the period with the highest overall rates of provision (Fig. 4). Every
deanery in the Riding apart from Ryedale, which reached its peak in the early thir-
teenth century, produced the majority of its cross slabs from c.1275–1325. The
apparent decline in monument production in the mid thirteenth century is likely
35
48
to be due to the vagaries inherent in stylistic dating, which is required due to the
ex situ nature of most cross slabs. Stylistic conservatism is evident in cross slabs
throughout Yorkshire and the north, especially in the persistence of the simplest
bracelet styles, and may well explain the anomaly.36 Unless otherwise diagnostic
features are present on the monument, such as fleur-de-lis or ogee arches, bracelet
crosses of later periods might be almost indistinguishable from those of c.1200. It
is very likely that some of the monuments assigned to the late twelfth/early thir-
teenth century category actually date to later in the century, and production in the
thirteenth century probably remained fairly even until an upturn c.1300.
In contrast, the sharp drop in provision after the early fourteenth century
seems more likely to be a genuine pattern, given the overall trend of falling pro-
duction. As noted above with bracelet crosses, it is likely that the styles popular in
the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries persisted for some time, and the
discrepancy between the early and later periods of the fourteenth century is prob-
ably not so pronounced as it appears on the graph. Nevertheless, it seems that the
production and consumption of North Riding cross slabs began a late-medieval
decline after c.1350. As shall be discussed in more detail below, this is not a trend
isolated to the North Riding, but one that is seen across the northern counties,
although it differs in intensity depending on the area. By the end of the late-
medieval period, cross slabs are extremely scarce in the Riding, with only twenty-
three of the 703 monuments (3%) dating to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
The fact that nearly a quarter of the North Riding’s cross slabs (152/703, 22%) are
undateable is unfortunate, but the highly fragmentary nature of many surviving
monuments often results in the loss of diagnostic features. Given the evidence
from the Riding as a whole, it is probable that the majority of these monuments
originated in the period from c.1150 to c.1350, and even if they had been more
specifically dateable, they are unlikely to drastically shift the overall proportions of
commemoration illustrated here.
In the North Riding, there are 189 cross slabs which date from c.1275 to
c.1400, and they appear at seventy-five separate church sites (Figs 5–6). Of those
138 churches in the Riding which have a cross slab, just over half feature a monu-
ment that was produced in the fourteenth century. Despite the lower provision
overall in comparison with production in the thirteenth century, fourteenth-cen-
tury monuments are still found in all parts of the North Riding, and there are some
areas where they are heavily concentrated, particularly the deaneries of Richmond
and Cleveland. As can be seen on the map, the vast majority of the North Riding
sites (76%) have between one and three fourteenth-century monuments,
36
B. Gittos and M. Gittos, ‘A Survey of East Riding Sepulchral Monuments before 1500’,
in C. Wilson (ed.), Medieval Art and Architecture in the East Riding of Yorkshire,
British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions, 9 (Leeds, 1989), pp. 91–
108, at p. 93.
49
Fig. 5: Map of fourteenth-century cross slabs in the North Riding of Yorkshire

(189 monuments at 75 churches) (illustration: Aleksandra McClain).
No. of 14th-c. No. of churches Avg. density

cross slabs with 14th-c. slabs of slabs/site
Bulmer / Boroughbridge 11 8 (14%) 1.38
Catterick 37 15 (38%) 2.47
Cleveland 53 21 (31%) 2.52
Richmond 62 18 (47%) 3.44
Ryedale/Dickering 26 13 (25%) 2.00
N. Riding 189 75 (100%) 2.52
Fig. 6: Table of fourteenth-century cross slabs in the North Riding, by deanery.
although fifteen churches (20%) have between four and seven monuments, and
two have even more than that. All of the churches that feature more than three
monuments, except for the Ryedale parishes of Amotherby (four slabs) and
Slingsby (five), are in Richmond, Cleveland, and Catterick deaneries. The two
highest single provisions are found in the neighbouring Richmond churches of
Wycliffe and Forcett, which have eight and eleven monuments, respectively. As a
whole, the deaneries of Ryedale/Dickering and Bulmer/Boroughbridge have not
only fewer sites with fourteenth-century cross slabs, but far fewer monuments as
well as a lower average density of slabs per site.
This pattern is replicated in the number of churches with only a single four-
teenth-century cross slab. In both Bulmer (63%) and Ryedale (54%), over half of
the sites have only one slab of the period. In comparison, only five sites in Catter-
ick (33%) and five in Richmond (28%) have a single monument dating to the
period. Unusually, Cleveland has the highest number of sites with fourteenth-cen-
50
Fig. 7: Map of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century cross slabs in the North Riding of Yorkshire
tury monuments, and the second-highest average density, but also nearly half of
its sites (48%) have only one fourteenth-century cross slab. In northern and west-
ern regions of the North Riding, particularly Richmond, it is clear that the four-
teenth-century monument industry was substantial, and that cross slabs were a
popular, valued, and accessible monumental form. In Ryedale and Bulmer, how-
ever, while cross slabs were certainly available and in use over this period, they
were not as common a mode of commemoration.
This geographical trend is even more pronounced if the monuments of the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries are considered (Fig. 7). The distribution pattern
by this time is almost entirely concentrated in the north and west of the Riding,
with only three Ryedale churches having monuments of this date. By the fifteenth
century, no cross slabs at all were being produced in Bulmer, Boroughbridge, or
Dickering deaneries. There was a great reduction not only in the geographical cov-
erage of the monuments, but in the number of slabs that were being commis-
sioned. Over the whole of the Riding, there are only twenty-three monuments at
seventeen sites, and fourteen of these sites feature only one cross slab of the
period. Of those with more, Barningham and Hauxwell each have two monu-
ments, and Kildale has five. All of these multiple examples are idiosyncratic mon-
ument groups with no direct parallels elsewhere, which were almost certainly
produced by very locally based carvers. Barningham has a pair of extremely large,
tapering slabs with rounded corners, large edge mouldings, high-relief carving,
51
ALEKSANDRA McCLAIN
and simple straight-armed crosses with bulging terminals. Hauxwell’s pair are both
small, late monuments with straight-armed crosses and inscribed initials; they pos-
sibly commemorate members of the Brough family, who held the manor of East
Hauxwell in the sixteenth century.37 At Kildale, four of the five slabs are a stylisti-
cally cohesive group of fifteenth-century monuments, all of which are likely to be
for members of the Percy family, as indicated by heraldic devices on two of the
slabs.
Late 13th/early 14th c. Mid/late 14th c. 15th/16th c. Total slabs
Bulmer / Boroughbridge 10 1 0 11
Catterick 32 5 4 41
Cleveland 37 16 11 64
Richmond 48 14 5 67
Ryedale / Dickering 20 6 3 29
North Riding 147 42 23 212
Fig. 8: Chronological distribution of late-medieval cross slabs.
Fig. 8 enumerates the chronological distribution of late-medieval slabs across

the various deaneries of the North Riding. The decline in cross slabs after the
period of the late thirteenth/early fourteenth century is clear across all deaneries.
By the later fourteenth century, there was around one-third of the monumental
provision that there had been c.1300, and even in deaneries with strong concen-
trations of late-medieval monuments the provision had been halved. This amount
was almost cut in half again during the fifteenth century. The geographical and
chronological breakdowns of monument provision demonstrate that while high
levels of late-medieval cross slab production were a feature of the North Riding as
a whole in comparison with other counties, it was not a homogeneous practice
across the Riding.
At least part of the explanation for the disparity in fourteenth-century mon-
uments between deaneries may lie with the growth of the brass and sculptural
monumental industry around York during this period.38 The increased production
of brasses and sculpted effigies in the area may have drawn the interest of patrons
in nearby Bulmer, Boroughbridge, and Ryedale. Brasses are more prevalent in the
central Vale of York and eastern Ryedale than in other parts of the North Riding,
and the Vale of York was also one of the most agriculturally prosperous regions of
the North Riding.39 Thus, in addition to the greater availability of brasses and effi-
gies, patrons may also have had more money to spend on them. In contrast, Cleve-
37
Victoria County History, The Victoria History of the County of York: North Riding, 1
(London, 1914), pp. 246–47.
38
Badham, ‘Monumental Brasses’, p. 165–66; Gittos and Gittos, ‘East Riding’, p. 96.
39
Badham, Brasses from the North East, p. 14; I.S. Maxwell, ‘Yorkshire: the North Riding’,
in H. C. Darby and I. S. Maxwell (eds), Domesday Geography of Northern England
(Cambridge, 1962), pp. 85–163, at pp. 115, 121.
52
land, Richmond, and Catterick all lay some distance from York, and access to the
monumental workshops of the city would have been far less feasible for many
patrons, resulting in a reliance on local production throughout the medieval
period. Provincial carvers in these regions would have become a far more devel-
oped industry from early on in the Middle Ages, resulting in patrons who not only
had easy access to a thriving local trade, but who had also developed a strong affin-
ity for cross slabs, even when other, more prestigious monumental forms could
be acquired.
Fourteenth-Century Cross Styles
The five main cross slab styles of the fourteenth century in the North Riding are
enumerated in the table below, but the illustration of fourteenth-century slab
examples demonstrates the extent to which variation was possible within those
broad types (Figs 9 and 11). Variations on the straight-armed cross are the most
common, with particularly common features being a simple Latin cross with fleur-
de-lis or clustered foliate terminals, as well as the presence of cusps on the cross
arms. The second most common type is the bracelet or bracelet-derivative cross,
which featured on the vast majority of cross slabs throughout the thirteenth cen-
tury. This type, while still prevalent, began to give way in the fourteenth century
to variations like the wheel and interlaced-diamond crosses, as well as the straight-
armed cross, which becomes almost the sole form used in the fifteenth and six-
teenth centuries. The extremely wide range of variation in the bracelet and
straight-arm crosses in this period makes them difficult to group together, and
there are no obvious stylistic ‘schools’ in the fourteenth-century sample.
The most distinctive styles of the fourteenth century in the North Riding are
the wheel-head and interlaced-diamond head crosses. They are two related styles
which were introduced in the late thirteenth century and used throughout the
fourteenth century, and which form coherent stylistic groups and geographical
distributions. They are scattered across twenty-three churches in the northern
part of the study area in Richmond, Cleveland, and northern Catterick deaneries,
but they are extremely concentrated in Richmond, in the northwest of the Riding
(Fig. 10). Of the forty-five examples of these two types of cross slab, thirty are
found in Richmond, and there is only one interlaced-diamond slab in Bulmer and
one wheel-cross in Ryedale. In Richmond and Catterick, the concentration of this
style is particularly strong: at twelve of the fifteen sites featuring these monument
styles, there is more than one slab of either type. In contrast, at every site in Cleve-
land, Ryedale, and Bulmer, there is only one wheel or interlaced-diamond cross
slab per church.
Within the regional grouping, there are a few examples of slab collections
that are very similar, and which might be indicative of small workshop production.
The very elaborate interlaced-diamond cross slabs found at the neighbouring Cat-
terick and Richmond churches of Bolton-on-Swale, Scruton, Ellerton Priory, and
53
Fig. 9: Examples of North Riding cross slabs dating from c.1275 to c.1400. Clockwise from
top left: (1) Kirby Ravensworth 9, interlaced diamond cross with fan terminals; (2) Kirby
Ravensworth 31, cusped straight-armed cross, forester/ huntsman emblems; (3) Ormesby
10, bracelet-derivative cross with oak-leaf terminals; (4) Hudswell 2, 8–arm wheel cross
with linking circle and fleur-de-lis terminals, fleur-de-lis shaft sprigs, ogee base, sword
emblem; (5) Allerston 2, bracelet derivative with round-leaf terminals, ogee base; (6)
Forcett 4, 8–arm wheel cross in incised circle with fleur-de-lis terminals, shears emblem;
(7) Melsonby 1, semi-effigial slab with saltire cross, stylized foliate terminals and shaft
sprigs (illustrations: Peter Ryder).
54
Fig. 10: Map of wheel-head and interlaced-diamond crosses in the North Riding
Bracelet/ Straight- Wheel Interlaced Semi- Other Diag. Total

Derivative Arm Cross Diamond Effigial Features Slabs
Bulmer / Boro’ 3 5 0 1 0 2 11
Catterick 16 8 5 4 0 4 37
Cleveland 15 27 1 3 0 7 53
Richmond 4 18 15 15 2 8 62
Ryedale / Dick’ 9 8 1 0 2 6 26
North Riding 47 66 22 23 4 27 189
Fig. 11: Distribution of cross slab styles in the fourteenth century.
Middleton Tyas are the most convincing example (Pl. 2).40 They are all very similar
monuments dating to the late thirteenth century, carved in fine high relief, with
their most distinct feature being the elaborate foliage scrolls on either side of the
cross shaft. The high quality of the carving on all the slabs suggests sculptors of
particular proficiency, although the Middleton Tyas slab has somewhat stiffer
foliage and a slightly more stilted and irregular vine scroll, which may indicate a
painstaking copy by a less experienced mason.41 None of the other many inter-
laced-diamond monuments in the area are as fine as these, and the vine scroll
40
P. F. Ryder, ‘Four Medieval Cross Slabs from North Yorkshire’, YAJ, 58 (1986), pp. 33–
36, at p. 33.
41
Ryder, ‘Four Medieval Cross Slabs’, p. 35.
55
ALEKSANDRA McCLAIN
motif does not feature on other North Riding examples, so the monuments are
almost certainly related. These may mark the introduction of the interlaced-
diamond type in the region, perhaps originating from Ellerton Priory, which would
have had the means to support a small workshop of sculptors of considerable skill.
The other, less accomplished examples might be later variations carried out by
parochial sculptors, after the establishment of the style in the region.
A slightly more complicated example is the more wide-ranging group of
‘Scruton-type’ wheel crosses, which feature a head of six arms in a sunken panel,
fleur-de-lis terminals, a linking wheel with an incised line, an incised cross arm
below the head, and an incised shaft (Pl. 3). The highest concentration of these
monuments are the three six-arm wheel crosses at Scruton, in Catterick, which are
almost identical and must be by the same sculptor. There is also a pair of six-arm
crosses at Wycliffe, in Richmond, which are almost identical to each other, and
quite similar to the Scruton slabs, but with the addition of foliate sprigs on the
cross shaft. There are more wide-ranging variations on the type at the Richmond
parishes of Wycliffe, Kirby Ravensworth, and Marske, and there are eight-armed
versions at Easby, Gilling West, and Hudswell. Unlike the interlaced-diamond
examples discussed above, where very close stylistic connections are found on
monuments at different, nearby sites, the multiple wheel crosses at each site are
more similar to each other than to the examples at other churches. They may
therefore be examples of parochial sculptors working in a well-known regional sty-
listic idiom, rather than a workshop or group of workshops producing a variety of
wheel-cross monuments.
Although crosses that can be classified to the interlaced-diamond or wheel
type appear outside Richmond and Catterick, they do not bear the same stylistic
features, and they are very localised themselves. For example, the interlaced-
diamond slabs at Appleton Wiske and Whorlton, two nearby parishes in Cleveland,
are very similar to each other and were perhaps made by the same sculptor, but
they bear almost no resemblance to the examples found in the northwest of the
Riding, nor to the single interlaced-diamond example in Bulmer deanery. At first
glance, the heavily concentrated northwestern distribution and outlying North
Riding examples of both interlaced-diamond and wheel-cross types might seem to
suggest a provincial workshop distributing these monuments at least across the
region, and maybe throughout the county. However, a closer analysis of the sty-
listic groupings has demonstrated that there was certainly no single workshop
working in the northwest, and even smaller production centres were probably
extremely localised, working at the level of a single parish or several neighbouring
parishes. Certainly, if there was ‘workshop’ production in the North Riding, it was
far from the type we have come to know from the Barnack and Purbeck examples,
where fairly standardised monuments were centrally produced and sent out
widely throughout the region.
56
Emblems
Secondary emblems are a relatively common occurrence on North Riding cross
slabs, particularly from the thirteenth century onward, with 34% of slabs featuring
them overall (Fig. 12).42 In the fourteenth century, of the 189 monuments of this
date, a total of seventy-two (38%) have a secondary emblem of some sort. The
table summarises the distribution of emblem types over the late-medieval period,
as well as those slabs with emblems that are undateable. In the table, a cross slab
can be counted more than once if it features emblems of more than one type.
Therefore, a fifteenth-century monument with both a sword and shears, such as
the double slab East Harlsey 1, appears once in the military emblems and once in
the female emblems columns.
Late 13th/ Mid/late 15th/16th Uncertain Total of

early 14th c. 14th c. centuries date emblem types
Miltary emblems 30 17 8 30 85
Female emblems 12 2 5 7 26
Priest emblems 7 2 6 6 21
Trade emblems 4 7 1 8 20
Crosses/roundels 2 0 2 0 4
Total emblems 55 28 22 51 156
Fig. 12: Distribution of late-medieval secondary emblems by date.
The overall trajectory of emblem frequency mirrors the prevalence of cross

slabs across the late Middle Ages in the North Riding, with the peak coming in the
period c.1300. Military emblems, particularly the sword, dominate all other
emblem types in frequency throughout the late-medieval period, suggesting that
men of at least minor elite status were the most frequently commemorated
patrons of later-medieval cross slabs. Female, priest, and trade/occupation
emblems are relatively even in distribution throughout the late-medieval period,
but their chronological trajectory is interesting. All of the primary secular emblem
types decline in use from the peak of c.1300, except for emblems of trade.
Although they do not make up a large proportion of emblems, the increase in
occupation emblems in the later fourteenth century, even as cross slabs them-
selves become less common, is noteworthy.
The trend certainly seems to reflect a rise in the fortunes of some members
of the craft and trade classes, perhaps due to a change in their tenurial situation
from bond service to cash payment, as is known to have happened in the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries.43 Indeed, the crafts that are most often represented by
42
43
P. D. A. Harvey, ‘Non-Agrarian Activities in Twelfth-Century English Estate Surveys’, in D.
Williams (ed.), England in the Twelfth Century (Woodbridge, 1990), 100–11, at p. 111.
57
ALEKSANDRA McCLAIN
cross slab emblems might indicate those trades that were particularly valuable to
elite culture, and the tradesmen might have acquired elevated social standing in
conjunction with any financial advancement. The combination of swords with
trade emblem types on late-medieval monuments indicates that the symbols of the
elite could be adopted by the non-knightly classes. Swords feature in combination
with blacksmith’s tools on Hutton Magna 1; with a hammer on Barningham 1; with
forester’s emblems on Romaldkirk 1, Bowes 6, and Kirby Ravensworth 31; and pos-
sibly with carpenter’s tools on Marton-in-Cleveland 1 and Whorlton 13. The sword
sometimes represented a strictly defined social rank, but could also signify a desir-
able ethos of status, especially as aspiration, emulation, and social mobility com-
plicated the ranks of the high middle classes and lesser elite in the later Middle
Ages.44 Socially mobile tradesmen may have seen elite use of cross slabs as worthy
of emulation, and, by demonstrating an understanding of higher-status modes of
commemoration, they could use cross slab monuments to strengthen their fam-
ily’s newly attained position, or move closer to the ranks to which they aspired.
The appearance and rise of trade emblems on cross slabs suggests a widen-
ing of the strata of society who could commemorate in stone, and it has been
argued that this necessitates a concomitant late-medieval devaluing of the cross
slab form by elite patrons. In this scenario, cross slabs would no longer have been
the arbiters of status that they had been in the past, when fewer elite monument
types were available.45 However, the consistent popularity of military emblems in
the North Riding throughout the late Middle Ages can help to refine this idea. Even
if some knightly patrons or manorial lords did move away from cross slabs towards
more elite monuments, there was no abandonment of the form. Quite apart from
the great number of sword emblems, there are examples of late-medieval cross
slabs that explicitly commemorate members of the knightly class. They bear iden-
tifiable heraldry, as on East Harlsey 1, Liverton 1, Sockburn 2, and the Kildale
group, or feature obviously knightly emblems, such as the horse head on Gilling
East 2 and a glove and hawk on Barningham 1 (Pl. 4). It is clear that some of the
gentry still viewed cross slabs as an appropriate and viable medium for expressing
and maintaining this level of social status, and below this level it is certain that cross
slabs remained an esteemed form of funerary patronage among the complex hier-
archy of lesser landholders and middling elite.
Other Monumental Forms
In the late-medieval period, other monumental forms provided patrons with
choices beyond the cross slabs which had become the standard funerary type in
the region, but this availability did not result in a wholesale shift away from cross
slab monuments. Although detailed published data is unavailable for Yorkshire, it
44
Bolton, ‘The World Upside Down’, p. 47; J. A. Raftis, Peasant Economic Development
within the English Manorial System (Stroud, 1996), p. 99.
45
Saul, English Church Monuments, p. 38.
58
is thought that some 240 medieval effigies survive for the whole of the county and
York.46 Undoubtedly some patrons shifted to brasses, but not in any great amount
prior to the fifteenth century, and they did so more commonly in York and the East
Riding than further north. Yorkshire as a whole features only thirty-seven brasses,
letter fragments, indents, or known lost slabs dating prior to 1350, of which about
half were found at monastic sites or at York Minster and Beverley Minster. The
North Riding has only nine of these early brasses, of which three are related to
monastic sites.47 In all three Ridings of Yorkshire excluding the city of York, there
are around 300 known medieval brasses, indents, and lost brasses dating to the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, as well as 115 undateable inscription indents,
of which most are likely to be of the same period.48 Comparatively, even an incom-
plete survey of Yorkshire cross slabs, which is missing almost all of the West Rid-
ing as well as the churches of the city of York, the Minster, and many religious
houses, results in a comparable amount of over 300 cross slab monuments dating
to these centuries.49 In the city of York, however, the brass industry seems to have
dominated the late-medieval monument market. Although there are only some
forty brasses now surviving in the city, from antiquarian notes we know of 470
brasses that once existed, of which at least 250 were in York Minster alone.50
Although the cross slab lost out to the prolific brass industry in urban areas, it is
clear that in rural Yorkshire it remained a frequently used, highly valued, and influ-
ential commemorative form.
Comparisons with the Northern Counties

Even more so than Yorkshire, it appears that the other northern counties did not
have a particularly rich tradition of high-status monuments to challenge the cross
slab industry. If the extant brasses, indents, and records of lost brasses for the
county of Durham are considered, there are only nineteen brasses dating to the
fourteenth century, and a total of eighty-seven brasses that are likely to be
medieval. Of these, the cathedral at Durham accounts for twenty-five monuments,
and over half of the fourteenth-century ones. An additional eighteen inscription
indents are undateable, but could be medieval.51 Even including all of the uncer-
46
Badham and Blacker, Northern Rock, p. 22.
47
J. Blair, ‘English Monumental Brasses before 1350: Types, Patterns and Workshops’, in
J. Coales (ed.), The Earliest English Brasses (London, 1987), pp. 133–74, 180–215, at
pp. 213–14.
48
Badham and Blacker, Northern Rock, p. 30, with inscription indent data courtesy of
Patrick Farman.
49
Gittos and Gittos, ‘East Riding Sepulchral Monuments’; McClain, ‘Medieval Cross
Slabs’; Ryder, West Yorkshire.
50
Badham and Blacker, Northern Rock, p. 30, and from Sally Badham’s unpublished
work.
51
W. Lack, H. M. Stuchfield and P. Whittemore, The Monumental Brasses of County
Durham (London, 2002).
59
ALEKSANDRA McCLAIN
tain indents, there are just half as many late-medieval brasses as cross slabs in
County Durham, and we cannot account for lost cross slabs as we are able to for
some brasses. The far northern and western counties have even fewer brasses than
Durham, and do not seem to have availed themselves of York workshop products
in the same manner.52 Cumberland and Westmorland are the only other northern
counties that have been fully surveyed for brasses, and respectively they have
twenty-four and eight brasses or indents that are likely to be medieval. Cumber-
land has only two fourteenth-century brasses, while Westmorland has none at all.53
Incomplete surveys of Northumberland and Lancashire indicate only five and two
fourteenth-century brasses, respectively.
The lack of early brasses in the north is in stark contrast to the areas around
the Thames Valley, East Anglia, and even as far north as Lincolnshire, where the
provision of late-thirteenth- and fourteenth-century brasses was much more sub-
stantial.54 Even considering the whole of the Middle Ages up to c.1550, the num-
ber of brasses in the north is comparatively low.55 In Northumberland,
Cumberland and Westmorland, effigies are far more common than brasses, and in
County Durham there are nearly as many surviving effigies as lost and extant
brasses (sixty-three to eighty-seven). Significantly, effigies in the region tend to be
primarily of local character and stone, and there are only a few major monuments,
such as the tombs of the earls of Westmorland at Staindrop and Brancepeth, and
those at Durham Cathedral to commemorate the fifteenth-century bishops.56 In
these counties, even more so than Yorkshire, patrons heavily favoured cross slab
monuments in the late Middle Ages, and even their more elite monuments were
primarily locally produced.
The other counties of northern England bear similar patterns overall to the
North Riding in terms of cross slab production and distribution, although there are
some clear distinctions between the regions. Fig. 13 summarises the late-medieval
monument provisions across the counties. The comparison demonstrates the per-
sistence of cross slab use in the northern counties until the end of the Middle Ages,
but a slowing in production after the fourteenth century is also visible across all
areas, and in Durham and the North Riding it is particularly pronounced. These
two are a remarkably similar pair in terms of fourteenth and fifteenth-century pro-
duction and consumption, as are Cumbria (encompassing Cumberland and West-
morland) and Northumberland. The close relationship between Durham and the
52
Badham and Blacker, Northern Rock, p. 29; Saul, English Church Monuments, p. 43.
53
W. Lack, H. M. Stuchfield and P. Whittemore, The Monumental Brasses of Cumberland
and Westmorland (London, 1998).
54
Blair, ‘English Monumental Brasses’, p. 135.
55
M. Stephenson, A List of Monumental Brasses in the British Isles (London, 1926), pp.
78–79, 392–93, 527–28; Lack, Stuchfield and Whittemore, County Durham; Lack,
Stuchfield and Whittemore, Cumberland and Westmorland.
56
60
North Riding is even less surprising when the geographical distribution of the
North Riding’s fourteenth-century monuments is considered. The northern
deaneries of Richmond and Cleveland, which border County Durham, are partic-
ularly strong in monument provision in the period, and the Tees Valley has been
noted as a remarkably prolific area in terms of cross slab production.57 The region
is certainly the focus of the fourteenth-century production of interlaced-diamond
and wheel-head cross types, which appear on thirty-six Durham slabs in addition
to the forty-five found in the North Riding.
Total no. of 14th-c. 15th/16th-c. Total late-medieval
medieval slabs cross slabs cross slabs cross slabs
Cumbria 536 90 33 123
Durham 550 179 14 193
Northumberland 730 94 39 133
N. Riding Yorks 703 189 23 212
W. Yorkshire 185 33 29 62
Fig. 13: Northern county comparisons
The drop in production in the fifteenth century is least apparent in West

Yorkshire, perhaps because compared to the other northern counties the monu-
ment industry had already slowed considerably there by the fourteenth century.
The number of slabs dating to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in West York-
shire is nearly identical to those of the fourteenth century. This is partly due to the
prevalence of late cross slab floor stones in the region, a characteristic the region
seems to share with South Yorkshire. In comparison, there is only one such mon-
ument in County Durham and there are fewer than ten in the North Riding. Of
those in West Yorkshire that can be dated precisely, the earliest is dated 1445, and
a few date to the mid sixteenth century, so they are clearly a very late style.58
The conspicuously high levels of cross slab production and consumption in
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in West Yorkshire may be due to the flour-
ishing of the textile trade in the region, which also resulted in a number of
churches being comprehensively rebuilt in the fifteenth century.59 This prosperity
is in stark contrast to evidence from elsewhere in Yorkshire and the north, which
suggests a marked recession during that time.60 The economic downturn may have
57
Ryder, County Durham, p. 13.
58
Ryder, West Yorkshire, pp. 58, 60.
59
P. F. Ryder, Medieval Churches of West Yorkshire (Wakefield, 1993), p. 57.
60
J. Hatcher, Plague, Population, and the English Economy 1348–1530 (London, 1977),
p. 31; J. Hatcher, ‘The Great Slump of the Mid-Fifteenth Century’, in R. Britnell and J.
Hatcher (eds), Progress and Problems in Medieval England (Cambridge, 1996), pp.
237–72; A. J. Pollard, ‘The Characteristics of the Fifteenth-Century North’, in J. C.
Appleby and P. Dalton (eds), Government, Religion and Society in Northern England,
1000–1700 (Stroud, 1997), pp. 131–43.
61
ALEKSANDRA McCLAIN
affected late-medieval cross slab patronage outside of western Yorkshire, espe-

cially of the floor slab monument type, which probably originated from workshops
based at the magnesian limestone quarries, rather than parochial modes of pro-
duction.61 Interestingly, the prevalent styles of the fourteenth century in the North
Riding and Durham are not seen in West Yorkshire. There are only two wheel-head
crosses in the county, and no instances of interlaced-diamond crosses.62 Both West
and South Yorkshire appear to display a much closer relationship to the monu-
ment production and styles of the Midlands in this period than to their northern
neighbours, with fewer cross slabs, but more availability of a range of other mon-
uments, including alabaster incised slabs. The similar slowing of cross slab patron-
age in the East Riding after the thirteenth century indicates that its monumental
industry may also have looked to more southern models in the late-medieval
period, while the North Riding was decidedly part of the northern cohort.63
Conclusions
It is debatable whether the lack of diversity in the commemorative market in the
northern counties is primarily a cause or an effect of the region’s remarkable cross
slab industry. In his authoritative survey of medieval funerary monuments, Nigel
Saul has very rightly pointed out the great number of practical factors that influ-
enced commemorative choices, including the availability of materials, the accessi-
bility of communication networks, particularly over water, and proximity to major
production sites.64 He argues that the dominance of the cross slab and the lack of
variety in the northern monumental industry points primarily to the limited wealth
in the region, and thus an inability to afford transport of elite monuments from the
distant major workshops. Furthermore, he contends that continued use of the
cross slab indicated a lack of sharp social differentiation in the region, and less inter-
est or necessity in communicating status through commemorative patronage.65
It is certain that the northern counties were less prosperous. Also, the wide
availability of local stone, and the costs and difficulties of acquiring and transport-
ing brasses and effigies, undoubtedly played a major role in the composition and
character of the northern monument industry. These factors, for instance, are a
very likely influence in the clear disparities in late-medieval cross slab commemo-
ration between the south-eastern and north-western regions of the North Riding.
Nevertheless, it does not necessarily follow that patronage of cross slabs indicates
a lack of awareness or interest in hierarchy and status, or that these monuments
were less effective in communicating and negotiating subtle social distinctions or
61
Ryder, County Durham, p. 5; Ryder, West Yorkshire, p. 58.
62
Ryder, West Yorkshire, pp. 32, 45.
63
Saul, English Church Monuments, pp. 46–47.
64
Saul, English Church Monuments, pp. 42–43.
65
62
personal and familial identities. This underestimates the complexity and diversity
of the region, as well as the communicative power of the cross slab. The argument
also reduces northern commemorative action to a primarily functional, economic
choice, rather than one that held meaning for the patron and was structured and
informed by his social milieu. Following a purely functional line of reasoning, we
might equally assert that the patrons of Norfolk chose brasses solely because they
could easily acquire them from London, as it was too expensive to import cross
slabs from the production centres of the north.
The patrons of the northern counties actively perpetuated the cross slab
industry, and the style, form, material, and location of the monuments held spe-
cific and deliberately chosen meanings for the commemorated person, their fam-
ily, and the people of the parish and village. By the peak of production in the early
fourteenth century, three hundred years of prolific cross slab commemoration
meant that they had become part of the long-established and standardised vocab-
ulary of memory, piety, and social display. They would have been a familiar and
widely understood material presence in the local church and settlement, and thus
had a resonance and efficacy in northern England that transcended the mere finan-
cial value or artistic accomplishment of the monument. In the north, a strong affil-
iation with the local – in terms of production, consumption, and the eventual
choice of location and display – was a primary strength of the cross slab as a social
agent, and undoubtedly part of its lasting appeal in the region. It is traditionally
assumed that the most effective definitions of status were carried out on a supra-
regional or national level, through the audiences available in cities, monasteries,
and cathedrals, rather than on the local level to the audience of the parish, the
manor, or the immediate district. This assumption has resulted in the marginali-
sation of cross slabs in academic discussions of commemoration and social signif-
icance. The national audience may have been necessary or desirable to members
of the nobility, but it has also been recognised that the local sphere of influence
was key even for national players, and it was absolutely essential to the construc-
tion of authority and social standing for manorial lords and the lesser lay and reli-
gious elite.66
The later Middle Ages was a time of increasing importance of gentry and
knights in the county community, as the minor lords holding localised estates and
political offices grew in influence. These men were identified with their shire, and
were listed county by county in several fourteenth-century documents.67 The value
of utilising the local sphere to establish social standing would not have been lim-
ited to the lordly classes, especially as traditional feudal ties weakened, and a
66
C. Given-Wilson, The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages: the Fourteenth-Century
Political Community (London, 1987), p. 175.
67
N. Saul, Knights and Esquires: the Gloucestershire Gentry in the Fourteenth Century
(Oxford, 1981), pp. 30, 260.
63
ALEKSANDRA McCLAIN
degree of instability was injected into the late-medieval social ladder.68 In these
conditions, there was not only increased opportunity for advancement among the
gentry classes, but also for those who may not have been members of the tradi-
tional elite, but who wielded power, wealth, or influence in the community. For
these groups, cross slab monuments would have been one accessible and tangi-
ble means of displaying membership of the local elite, and physically reinforcing
the patron’s legacy in the community and the maintenance of his or her family’s
position.
The general lack of inscriptions on cross slabs is one stylistic choice that
speaks volumes about their local audience, and the wide variety of social levels on
which the monuments needed to function. In the North Riding, secondary
emblems outnumber inscriptions by 234 to nineteen, demonstrating a deliberate
choice to promote visual and symbolic modes of communicating identity over tex-
tual ones, thus ensuring that even illiterate strata of society could effectively
engage with the monument. Cross slabs were not intended only as shows of social
standing and identity for other members of the elite, but for the entire manorial
community, from which the patrons drew their authority, wealth, and influence.
This lack of inscriptions compared to emblems also suggests that, in some social
spheres, symbols proclaiming membership of group identities could be more
important than discrete identifiers such as inscribed names. Use of a name on a
monument may even have been somewhat superfluous in the tight social circles
of the village and parochial communities where cross slabs were generally com-
missioned and displayed.
To understand the true effectiveness of cross slabs as memorials, they must
be considered in the context of the parish churches in which they were displayed,
and in light of the significance of the geography of commemoration. The erection
of a stone monument made a claim on place and space that was as important as
the memorial itself. The case of Ralph Hamsterley, who in the early sixteenth cen-
tury commissioned five brasses for himself, to be placed at each church with which
he was affiliated, is an extreme but illustrative example of the value placed on
establishing an association with specific churches and locations.69 A family accu-
mulating monuments in a church over time was a means of establishing a physical
manifestation of lineage, and asserting social standing or power in the commu-
nity.70 In the northern milieu, cross slabs undoubtedly accomplished memoriali-
sation and the vital claiming of place as effectively as more costly monuments.
Indeed, they were perhaps even more effective at expressing ties to a manor,
parish, or place, as they were created out of and imbued with the material
68
Saul, Knights and Esquires, p. 104.
69
70
64
resources, traditions, relationships, and social structures of the locality in which

they stood.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Peter Ryder for sharing his unpublished work on cross slabs
in Yorkshire, as well as for the use of his illustrations. I would also like to thank
Sally Badham for sharing her unpublished data on brasses in northern England,
for her help with obtaining photographs of the Middleham and Gilling East mon-
uments, and for her comments on this paper.
65

Mcclain Mounuments in The Later MA S 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mcclain Mounuments in The Later MA S 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mcclain Mounuments in The Later MA S 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This is a repository copy of Cross slab monuments in the late Middle Ages : patronage,

production, and locality in northern England.

White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:

Version: Submitted Version

Cross Slab Monuments in the Late Middle Ages:

The Definition and Development of Medieval Cross Slabs

CROSS SLAB MONUMENTS IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES

CROSS SLAB MONUMENTS IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES

The ambiguity inherent in trying to categorise incised slabs is illustrative of

Dates and Locations

man Conquest, they were by no means a foreign importation, or an artistic tradi-

Sites with slabs Total no. slabs Avg. slabs/site Source

Fig. 1: Comparison of county cross slab surveys.

Styles, Motifs and Emblems

CROSS SLAB MONUMENTS IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES

try, such as the late-twelfth- and thirteenth-century ‘round-leaf bracelet’, indicates

Fig. 3: Deaneries of the North Riding of Yorkshire (illustration: Aleksandra McClain).

Fourteenth-Century Cross Slabs in North Yorkshire

CROSS SLAB MONUMENTS IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES

Fig. 5: Map of fourteenth-century cross slabs in the North Riding of Yorkshire

No. of 14th-c. No. of churches Avg. density

Fig. 8 enumerates the chronological distribution of late-medieval slabs across

CROSS SLAB MONUMENTS IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES

Bracelet/ Straight- Wheel Interlaced Semi- Other Diag. Total

CROSS SLAB MONUMENTS IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES

Late 13th/ Mid/late 15th/16th Uncertain Total of

Total emblems 55 28 22 51 156

Fig. 12: Distribution of late-medieval secondary emblems by date.

The overall trajectory of emblem frequency mirrors the prevalence of cross

CROSS SLAB MONUMENTS IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES

Comparisons with the Northern Counties

CROSS SLAB MONUMENTS IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES

Fig. 13: Northern county comparisons

The drop in production in the fifteenth century is least apparent in West

affected late-medieval cross slab patronage outside of western Yorkshire, espe-

CROSS SLAB MONUMENTS IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES

CROSS SLAB MONUMENTS IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES

resources, traditions, relationships, and social structures of the locality in which

You might also like