35 Stonemasons’ marks An underused tool to aid in the interpretation of historic buildings

Moira Greig

Introduction

While the marks of stonemasons have been recorded areas of work than others. For instance, some masons on Early Egyptian and Roman structures, in only cut and dressed simple blocks for walls, while stonemasons’ marks only start to appear in the others carved work requiring more specialist skills medieval period. However very little documentary than the ashlar blocks elsewhere. evidence appears to survive regarding the stonemasons In some buildings marks can be seen on the intricate who had once formed a strong Medieval Guild and who work, such as the foliated capitals found on pillars, or left such a built legacy in the great castles, cathedrals worked on moulded stones which would have required and churches all over Scotland and beyond. Many a template. questions have been asked over the years as to the In England and in Europe stonemasons’ marks have purpose of stonemasons’ marks, with different views been studied for some time and identified as a useful given depending on which aspect has been studied. tool to help work out different phases of building. The Unfortunately, confusion has often arisen regarding the work of Dr Jennifer Alexander, University of Warwick, actual marks of stonemasons themselves and their work in particular has raised the profile considerably. Little lodges and the link to later Masonic Lodges. has been done in Scotland in the past, hence the birth of Although there is a link connecting the early the Masons’ Mark Project in 2008. Much information masons’ lodges to the later Masonic Lodges the has been gathered and developed since the project two are separate, the former belonging to the began and slowly the issue of how stonemasons’ marks working stonemasons, or operative masons, and can be used to identify different phases of a building the latter to the speculative Freemasons, rather than is being proven. working stonemasons. The origin of the lodge lies in A few individuals have recorded marks in some stonemasons’ practice of constructing a new building, specific buildings in Scotland. A J Turner (1948a) or lodge, for the masons themselves to work and shelter recorded masons’ marks in Dalmeny Church (ngr in on arrival at any new building site. Lodges had to nt 144 766), one of the best-preserved Romanesque be wind and watertight and may also have provided a churches in Scotland, although the exact location of place where masons could rest after a day’s work. The each mark is not given (rcahms D.7. 33.dal.P). From term ‘Lodge’ was later adopted by the Freemasons as analysis of these marks it has been suggested that a term to describe both a building where meetings some of these stonemasons also worked in the Abbey took place as well as the group which met there. Church of Dunfermline in the 1140s–50s, and also at Over the years stonemasons’ marks have raised St Athernase Church, Leuchars in the 1180s. However, interest in a variety of fields but have generally to date only at St Athernase (ngr no 4554 2139) has a been dismissed as of little use by many professional full recording survey been undertaken by the Masons’ archaeologists and architectural historians. Even today, Mark Project (Greig 2018), while another is proposed when surveys of buildings have been undertaken, for Dunfermline Abbey. Until now, few other buildings masons’ marks are often either ignored, or thought in Scotland have had a systematic recording of marks to be of little importance. They are merely noted as undertaken both to try to understand them better, and being present and a few examples presented. to actually make use of them. Lately Iain Ross Wallace, Thus, although marks are often recorded on a research student at Glasgow University, has been different buildings, they are rarely used in a way that undertaking a survey of marks in Glasgow Cathedral can add information. The marks themselves are simply and the further Diocese. noted to show the different stonemasons who worked Naming an actual stonemason along with his mark, on the buildings. However, systematically recording the date and buildings he worked on is slightly more locations of marks can help to identify different phases problematic, although sometimes possible through of construction, especially in buildings which have been documentary research. Unfortunately, very few constructed over several centuries. They can also show documents which may have given some information that some stonemasons were more specialised in their on the construction of the earlier buildings from the

Tayside and Fife Archaeological Journal vol 26 2020, 35–53 36 Moira Greig medieval period now survive in Scotland. The Scottish Reformation also resulted in the destruction of many early church documents. It is not until we move into the 17th century and later that more documentation and information starts to become available. Illus 1 Masons’ marks recorded at Tolquhon Castle, Aberdeenshire. Some background to stonemasons’ marks

A stonemason’s life was hard, starting with his apprenticeship, which lasted seven years with only board and lodging provided. This was followed by a further two years in which he received board and a fee before he could become a stonemason in his own right. Only then could he choose his mark and be accepted as a full stonemason. Examples of such marks cut into the stone are recorded, for example, at Tolquhon Castle, Aberdeenshire (Illus 1). Journeymen masons were men who had finished their apprenticeship and were then free to travel if they wished and could pick up work on building projects around the country. A mason who was at the top of his trade was a master mason. The title Master Mason was also used for the person in overall charge of a building site and other master masons could work under him. Any stonemason coming to work on a site could be tested by this Master Mason, or other master masons already working on the site, to ensure that quality was maintained (Trueman 2015). During the course of several surveys a number of stones have been recorded as having two marks on them so these may be examples Illus 2 Stone showing two different marks recorded at showing this event (Illus 2). St Drostan’s Church, Markinch, Fife. There is also some evidence to suggest that the Master Mason would sometimes illustrate building construction by cutting the design into a block. This was noted at St Drostans, Markinch, Fife (ngr no 2974 0196), where a block shows his mark and what appears to be the design of ashlar blocks built together (Illus 3).

Lodge marks

There are of course several other considerations regarding marks. In some cases, a mason may have been given a set mark when he joined a site to work, or indeed the yard or lodge he joined may have had its own mark. A survey undertaken at St Drostan’s Church Illus 3 Possible building instructions given by the (Greig 2015) raised this possibility, as it was noted one Master mason at St Drostan’s Church, Markinch, Fife. mark in particular appeared a number of times but was cut in a number of different ways. This mark, on the right in Illus 2, had a very distinct, precise way of cutting with one stroke following the mason’s tooling mark. The size of his mark was always very similar, styles and skill of execution indicate these are examples and he may well have been the master mason. In other of a lodge mark rather than that of an individual. examples, although of similar appearance, each mark was cut in a different way, in that they were not so Bankers’ marks precise and did not follow the dressing marks but cut across them. Three were overcut, with one looking Since there is no direct surviving documentary evidence rather haphazard, bottom (Illus 4). These similarities for the way that medieval marks were allocated, we in the design of the mark, contrasted with the different can only speculate. However, it is generally thought Stonemasons’ marks 37

that many marks on the earlier buildings before the 17th century were ‘bankers marks’. Piece-work was frequently the normal method for payment and it is this that accounts for the use of banker-masons’ marks. Stonemasons cut their mark on the stone to let the paymaster know who had cut it to prove how much work they had done (Alexander 2007). Occasionally the method of payment was arranged differently, when a contract was drawn up for a certain piece of work, such as the plain work of walling stone, or when the masons were paid a set wage, and therefore the need to mark all the stones was not necessary. It should also be remembered that some marks were on the inward surface of a block, so are not visible and do not therefore provide any evidence either of identity of the mason or method by which he was paid.

Incidental quarry marks and assembly marks

Apart from the first rough cutting of a block of stone at the quarry, there are a number of other working marks which may be made on a stone. The first is generally the ‘quarry mark’, which can indicate which building the stone is destined for. These rarely survive as the later dressing of the stone removes them. Then there are what are called ‘assembly marks’, basically marks or lines cut on the block to help indicate where, or how stones have to be aligned. These can help greatly especially when some blocks look very similar, such as the segments, or voussoirs, of an arch. These marks can often still be seen in the middle of a built arch.

Documentary evidence

Documentary research on early masons in Scotland brought a number of interesting points to light. In particular it would appear that complaints were being made about the work of some stonemasons. At the Three United Trades in Dundee there is a reference to a document, which says that in 1480 King James i of Scotland ruled:

of wrichtes and masons – for quhy it is complained that these trades take on hand monie warke whilkis they will not fulfil at the time they hecht. Therefore it is ordained that nane tak mair wark on hand than they can do, under paine of tinsell of the price of what he cannot fulfil. And other men of the Craft may do the wark, and if they refuse they shall be punished at the King’s will. (Turner 1948b, 29–30)

However, this could not have been written by James i, as he died on 21 February 1437, so is more likely to be James iii, unless the date is wrong. It does however appear that even in the medieval period, as with some

Illus 4 Possible lodge marks at St Drostan’s Church. 38 Moira Greig builders today, there were problems with masons Town Council, appears. In the summertime he had taking on too much work and therefore unable to to work from 5 am till 8 am, when he was allowed complete some work within a set time. a half hour break, and then work on till 11.30 am. It is not known how effective this ruling was, or At that time he was allowed a two-hour rest till 1.30 how long it lasted, as by the end of the 16th century pm before returning to work until 4pm. He was then it was deemed necessary for more stringent rules to allowed another half-hour break and then back to be drawn up and applied. William Schaw, who was work until 7 pm. at that time Master of Works to James VI of Scotland, During the winter, when the light was too poor to drew up Statutes in 1598 and 1599 establishing the see at 5 am he was to work as soon as light permitted duties and structure for the Lodges, including Masonic and work on until the light failed without a meal Lodges, among other things, which became known as break or other exercise. However, for these hours The Schaw Statutes (Masonic Trowel website). There he was granted for life a fee of ‘twenty pounds also again appeared to have been some problems in Scots’ paid every half quarter. If he was injured or the Trade itself which necessitated the need for such fell ill for the space of forty days continually, his a document, as Statute 4 states: fees were to be paid during that period. He was allowed an apprentice for seven years, and as that that masons did not take on work which they were apprenticeship finished, to take another apprentice, not competent to complete’ and Statutes 8, 9 and ‘ensuring that he was not too young’. Unfortunately 10 stating that ‘Master masons were only permitted there is no record of Boiss’s mark in any of the to take on three apprentices during their lifetime surviving documents. (without special dispensation), and they would be Another similar type of document survives in bound to their masters for seven years. A further the archive of Kinnaird Castle near Brechin, Angus, seven years would have to elapse before they dated 1555 (pers comm, Lord Kinnaird). Here we are could be taken into the craft, and a book-keeping given the names of two stonemasons, John Hutton arrangement was set up to keep track of this. and William Welsh, with a description of the work they had to undertake and the payment they would Hints of an early ‘Health and Safety’ issue are also receive from Robert Carnegie of Kinnaird who covered by one of the Statutes (18) declaring: contracted ‘to pay to them the sum of 110 merks, with two bolls of meal and two bolls of malt (beer ) That all masters undertaking any work be very and two stones of cheese’, payment being made after careful to see that their scaffolding and footways be the completion of different parts of the required surely set and placed, to the end that through their work over a period of time. The two masons appear negligence and sloth no hurt or injury may come to to have been illiterate as, instead of a signature at the any person working on the work, under the penalty bottom of the document beside that of Carnegie’s, of prohibiting them thereafter from working as they have made their marks, which can be seen masters in charge of any work. carved on some blocks in the older part of the castle.

More importantly it required the recording of a stonemasons’ mark in a book when he moved into A case study: an area to work (Turner 1948b). Unfortunately, Church of the Holy Rude, few of these books appear to survive now, although there are a number of 17th-century books held The existing church, known as The Church of in the Aberdeen Masonic Temple which may be the Holy Rude, stands on a slope at c 67m asl, related to these earlier books. There is also part to the sse of (ngr ns 7920 9371). of a journeyman’s book held by Dundee University It originally consisted of the earlier church in the which has a list of masons plus their marks, with a west (originally called the Holy Rude), which was date of 1694. extended a century later by the building of the East Although the Schaw Statutes do state the duties Church, with a later 19th century transept added. and structure of lodges used by stonemasons they As the church was built in several phases over have been made much of by the Freemasons, who different centuries, with documentary evidence saw them and used them in a perceived role in early to support the building work undertaken, it was speculative Freemasonry. The original documents thought to be a good case study for the Masons’ of the Schaw Statutes are now held in The Lodge of Mark Project. There were also some areas of the Edinburgh (Mary’s Chapel) No 1, 19 Hill Street. church over which queries had arisen regarding their The Three United Trades of Dundee, consisting building date. It was hoped that some of the theories of the stonemasons, wrights (joiners), and slaters, developed by the Project might help to answer hold a number of documents from the 16th and 17th these queries and therefore support the case that centuries, for example providing an insight into the masons’ marks can be used in an informative way to life of a stonemason in 1536. Here a George Boiss, help define different building phases and different who was employed for ‘Kirk Wark’ by the Dundee methods of payment made for the work. Stonemasons’ marks 39 Plan the of Church Rude. the of Holy Illus 5 40 Moira Greig

Historical background Holy Rude then became known as the West Church, the later East Church retaining its name. The earliest recorded churches in Stirling appear While a number of altars, chapels and aisles were to have been built in the early 12th century, as two built over the years, only three appear to have survived churches were confirmed by King David i. Subsequently into later centuries. St Andrew’s Chapel, which stands at these two churches, one possibly associated with the east end of the West Church, off the north aisle, was the castle and the other called the Holy Rude, were said to have been built for a Mathew Forestar sometime confirmed to Dunfermline by King Malcolm iv in before 1483. Slightly further west, off the nw corner 1154 (ERS). Nothing appears to survive of this earlier of the north aisle, was St Mary’s Aisle, said to have church. However, a later church was certainly built, been erected by Adam Cosour about 1484 (Abstract probably in the 13th century although the precise date of the Protocol Book of the Burgh of Stirling 1469–84, of its construction is not known. We do know however 34). Another, called Bowye’s Aisle, stood off the south that a major fire was recorded on 5 March 1407, which aisle of the nave. St Andrew’s Aisle is the only one now caused extensive damage to the church, as well as to a remaining as, during the restoration of the West Church considerable part of the town (Abstract of the Protocol by James Gillespie Graham in 1818, the old south porch Book of the Burgh of Stirling 1469–84, 1896, 7, 23). of the nave, together with Bowye’s Aisle and the greater There have been some suggestions that the Holy Rude part of St. Mary‘s Aisle were removed. Graham then (the original West Church) was repaired by 1414, but converted the arched entrances into windows. He also the ers (1880, 210) records continuing payments being lowered the roof of the west church, building a false made in support of rebuilding works after this date, ceiling which covered the original 15th-century wooden so rebuilding must have taken place over an extended roof beams. He built up the original entrance to the West period, possibly between 1407 and 1451. Most of the Church, which stood beneath the tower, and enlarged the work undertaken in the 15th century appeared to be existing window above it. Fortunately, some of this later on this church. Further damage was said to have been work was removed to once again reveal the wonderful inflicted on the building in 1452. James ii granted the medieval wooden roof of the West Church. The dividing burgh the right of patronage of the hospital of St James wall between the two churches was also removed to of Stirling toward the costs of rebuilding of the church restore the church back to its earlier form. on 24 June 1456 (Stirling Council Archives, BB66/15/1) In the 19th and first half of the 20th century the with stone coming from the Ballengeich Quarry, which transept was built between the two churches with lay close by and was also used to build parts of the stone from a quarry in Northumberland. A new Castle. However, it is unknown if any masons working doorway was built in the south transept and the on the church had also undertaken any building at the organ loft in the north transept. Today the church castle. Towards the end of the 15th century, slightly stands as one large building and is known again as later than the main building of the church, James iv The Church of the Holy Rude. had the King’s Old Building at the castle constructed By the early 16th century, work started to move towards the East Church. A record of work in progress The survey on 27 April 1523 mentions a Robert Arnot, Master of Kirk Work (Stirling Council Archives, BB66/15/3). After receiving permission to work in the church, It is known that the stone for the building of the East a survey was undertaken on three days a month over Church came from Quarry, which lay where six months, from October 2015 until April 2016, to the present Stirling Fire Station now stands, just to record the surviving stonemasons’ marks. The survey the nw of the castle. On 22 August 1529 an indenture was undertaken by the Mason’s Mark Project, along was made between the provost and council of Stirling with the assistance of volunteers from the Friends of and John Kowth or Coutts, mason, who was ‘to work The Church of the Holy Rude, and others. and labour his craft of masonry and geometry on all matters pertaining to the common work’. Coutts was Method of recording to be at the command of the Master of Works for his lifetime, receiving payment of 50 merks a year (Cowan All internal and external walls, pillars, arches and and Easson 1976). ribbed vaulting on the interiors of both the West and It was not until 18 December 1555, however, that East churches, the two upper floors and the spiral stair John Hamilton, Archbishop of St Andrews, was notified within the tower at the west end of the West Church, of the completion of the East Church (Extracts from were carefully checked for marks. All visible marks were the Records of the Royal Burgh of Stirling 1887, 1, recorded by photography with an L-scale for size where 159–60). suitable, and sketches and notes taken of their locations. However, problems occurred within the congregation Each mark was given an individual number to identify in about 1656 due to the appointment of a second its location on plans and schematic drawings which , resulting in a decision to divide the building were undertaken later. The marks were subsequently into two separate churches by erecting a dividing wall checked and allotted to individual masons, who were between the nave and the choir. What was the earlier given their own id number. Stonemasons’ marks 41

All photographs were catalogued with the site round and carved pillars, arches and on the foliated identifier code cohr (Church of the Holy Rude) and friezes around the top of some pillars. His mark was a the individual mason’s allocated number, along with the very precise five dots cross, usually very regular in shape. mark number, so that its location could be identifed on However, what was also noticeable was that the schematic plans (eg cohr mason mark 0049-0306). occasionally some of the marks associated with him were cut much less precisely and the dots more widely Results spaced or slightly irregularly aligned, which could suggest that he did not cut them himself. It is therefore A total of 2070 marks, identified as belonging to highly possible that these were his yard or lodge marks. 92 different masons were recorded over the whole Another explanation is that he allowed an almost time- building. Due to some close similarities it is possible served apprentice to cut these marks, although this that one or two marks may belong to the same mason, would have been highly irregular and risky. This was but were given their own number because of slight also noticeable with some of the marks of Mason 5 differences. Some stone spalling was evident in some and Mason 16. areas and therefore not all marks were clearly visible An apprentice who had almost served his apprentice- enough to give a definitive allocation to a specific ship would certainly be capable by then of dressing the mason, although the location was still recorded. blocks. It is also possible that Mason 3 had more than one apprentice working under him since regulations to Discussion change the number of apprentices a mason could have did not come into force until the 16th century, post- Attempting to date a building by using masons’ marks dating the work in the West Church. A statute of 1551 alone is fraught with problems, as the same shape or (Schaw Statutes) confirmed that no craftsman could design of a mark can be found over a very wide time have more than one apprentice at a time or take on an period, as well as over a very wide geographical area. apprentice for a period shorter than seven years. This Fortunately at the Church of the Holy Rude there are would therefore suggest that pre-1551, masons had at least a few surviving documents that have helped to more than one apprentice training under them. give dates of the building of both the West and East During other Project surveys it has also been noted Church, as well as naming a Master of Works, Robert that a mason’s mark sometimes appeared to be cut Arnot, for the East Church. From the survey we can by another hand, occurring on a regular basis in however say that one main group of numbered masons buildings dating pre-16th century. There is therefore worked on building the West Church, originally the the possibility that this was indeed a yard mark, used Holy Rude, between 1407 and 1451 on stone that came to identify a specific yard and used by a number of from Ballengeich Quarry, which lay close by, while different masons who worked there. The use of an another group built the East Church between 1523 and apprentice of course would have helped to produce 1555 with stone from Raploch Quarry, which lay to more work and therefore bring in better payment. This the north west of the castle. This much agrees with the may be pure speculation of course but could explain the documentary evidence but there is additional evidence reason for the difference in the way the marks were cut, resulting from the survey that may not previously have even taking into consideration hasty cutting. been known. Apart from the use of apprentices there appears to be another link with Mason 3 and Mason 5, as their The West Church or original Holy Rude marks, the five dots cross, are very similar, with the addition by Mason 5 of two lines joining the dots. From the survey undertaken in the West Church it can This may mean a family connection, perhaps a son now be said that 60 masons worked on the building working with his father, or two brothers working of the main structure (Illus 6). From the number and together. Another possible explanation is that locations of the marks we can also say that they were they worked under the same master mason when paid for ‘piece work’, in other words by the number of apprentices, or with the same yard or lodge, so blocks they cut and carved. Each mason cut his own used part of that design, adding a slight difference personal identification mark into the blocks he had to make it their own. dressed for the purposes of quality control, as well as calculation of payments. We do not know if the stone Mirror images was cut and used right away, or if it was stockpiled nearby and moved as and when required. Unfortunately, Another noted feature, found in both churches, is the there is no record of the location of a working lodge. number of marks which appear to be mirror images By far the most prolific mason was identified as of each other. Twelve groups appear to be marks of Mason 3, with 399 of his marks recorded in all areas, two masons (10 groups below), possibly working apart from St Andrew’s Chapel and St Mary’s Chapel, along with a family member, or who may also have and the ground to first floor chamber spiral stair within served their time under the same master mason. These the tower. He was a very accomplished stonemason who would certainly appear to have some meaning such as could carve anything, as his mark is visible on both suggested above. 42 Moira Greig

Illus 6 Marks recorded in the West Church, the original Holy Rude. Stonemasons’ marks 43

Illus 7 The upper wall of the West Church with its original 15th-century timber roof.

Illus 8 Examples of mirror image marks in the Church of the Holy Rude, Stirling. 44 Moira Greig

However, a simpler explanation could be that these groupings were not in fact made by different masons, but by the same mason. Many masons were illiterate, and some possibly literate but dyslectic and therefore it is possible that they were not aware that they had carved the marks back-to-front. This has indeed been suggested by the work undertaken by Dr Jennifer Alexander (pers comm), where she has analysed the cutting of the stone. One argument against this is that masons were skilled craftsmen and knew how to carve Illus 9 The marks recorded only on the remains of stone and follow given shapes and patterns. If they St Mary’s Chapel. had chosen their own mark after a long apprenticeship would they not therefore instinctively remember it?

Locations in which masons worked phase (Abstract of the Protocol Book of the Burgh of Stirling, 1469–84, 1896, 34). If it was built at the By drawing up a chart showing each mark and different same time, as suggested by Fawcett (ibid) why not parts of the building one can gain a picture of the areas use the masons, such as Mason 3, 5, 6, 13 and 17, where each mason worked (see Appendices). There who were more than capable of the work, having are a few who only appeared to cut and work with the already carved pillars, arches and decorated friezes. simpler ashlar blocks, while others only worked on the One simple defence of the theory is that the donor of curved pillar blocks, and again others who only worked funds perhaps wanted his own masons to work on on the carved voussoirs of arches. This could suggest the Chapel, but this seems unlikely. that a number were more accomplished masons than Two other interesting aspects of the marks found others. There is also a small group of five masons who in St Mary’s Chapel should be noted. First is that four worked on the spiral stair, which would have been a marks of Mason 85, one of the masons working only specialised type of work. on the Chapel, were found in what was originally the Regarding roof vaulting, a note of interest is that interior of the Chapel, now outside the church as part marks were only recorded on the roof vaulting of St of a retaining wall. His mark is very similar to Mason Andrew’s Chapel and the vaulting under the tower, 3 or Mason 5, as he used the 5–dots cross but placed a but none on the vaulting of the north or south aisles single bar across the middle, joining three of the dots. of the nave or the chancel. Marks were recorded on This could suggest a relationship and therefore mean all faces of the ribs and not in one set area. that quite possibly a later generation of the same family Five masons (Masons 3, 5, 6, 13 and 17) worked was still working in the area. in almost all areas of the West Church, and of these Although three marks of Mason 3 and one of Mason five, two also worked on St Andrew’s Chapel, Mason 4 were found on the exterior north wall of the church, 6 and 17. In the excellent detailed work for A Corpus which would have been within St Mary’s Chapel, of Scottish Medieval Churches – Stirling Holy they are on blocks to the west of the arch, and would Rude Fawcett and Oram (2008) suggest therefore have been there when the wall was originally that St Andrew’s Aisle or chapel is ‘unlikely to post- built before any insertion of a later arch. date the church significantly’ due to its having the The other aspect, which should be looked into same base course as the nave. From the survey it would further, is that one of the marks found on the arch of therefore confirm that this chapel would appear to have St Mary’s Chapel, Mason 46, is also noted on Mar’s been built at the same time as the church. Lodging or Wark, adjacent to the church, which is of a Fawcett and Oram (ibid) then go on to describe later build, c 1570. It is possible that the masons were St Mary’s Aisle as also being built as part of the main connected through family, and that the mason who nave building, basing it on the similarity of the jamb built the chapel may have been a grandfather to the mouldings of the arch and the chapel base course. mason who worked on Mar’s Lodging who took the However, what does stand out quite significantly from mark over after the death of his grandfather. the survey is that no marks were recorded on the pillars or frieze on the capital and that the masons’ marks The tower recorded on the arch, five in number, Masons 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and two others on the exterior, Masons 84 While recording the marks on the exterior of the tower and 85, only worked on St Mary’s Chapel. it was noted that no marks were visible above the lowest Their marks were not found anywhere else in the stringcourse, but all marks below the stringcourse building. This does therefore suggest that the chapel belonged to masons who also worked inside the was not built at the same time as the main body of the church. This also applied to the masons who worked West Church, but at a later date. As mentioned above it on the spiral stair up to the first floor chamber of the was said to have been erected by Adam Cosour about tower, Masons 16, 17, 26, 33 and 38. Their marks were 1484, which itself does post-date the primary building all recorded on either the newel, or on the back of a Stonemasons’ marks 45

Illus 10 Marks only found in the tower Chamber.

step; none were recorded on the wall, apart from an obviously later mark, Mason 92, above the fourth step up. In the first-floor chamber only the East wall has a bottom row of dressed ashlar blocks, all the others being built of random rubble, apart from the areas around the windows and doors. Only one mark was recorded on this East wall, which would appear to date to the same as the main building of the church and the lower stairway. The mark of Mason 33 was recorded on the left side of a small cupboard on the floor level. All other marks within the Chamber (Bellringers) itself were different to marks found in the church, or on the exterior of the tower, or lower stair inside leading to Illus 11 South and North arches of the Chamber the chamber. These would certainly indicate a different on the tower. date of building for the main part of the chamber, as suggested again by Fawcett, post 1507. Only Mason 87 might be of an even later date, although this mark was not a clear one. Also noted in the first floor chamber is that, while a few marks were recorded on the relieving arch in the South wall, none were noted on the North relieving arch. The arches also look slightly different, so the North arch may have been added later to help carry the weight of the bells. No marks were found above the 74th step, which was below the level to the second floor chamber, or Bell-Chamber, where again no marks were recorded, as walls were built of random rubble, apart from around door and window recesses.

The East Church

The East Church results showed a slight difference in the building system. Here 32 different masons were recorded as working in this area. The marks were all mainly recorded on the voussoirs of the arches and around the window recesses. No marks were recorded on any of the pillars, which was slightly surprising, given that they are carved in a similar style to Pillars 5 and 8 in the West Church, although of an obviously later date, c 1520–1555. A few marks were recorded on the walls of the ne Aisle and within the Apse but very few on any other wall. This was particularly noticeable on the upper walls of the chancel. A very few marks were recorded below the stringcourse, but none above. Illus 12 Marks found in the East Church. 46 Moira Greig

Illus 13 Upper wall of East Church chancel.

This was in marked contrast to the walls above the nave later date. While we do not know the names of the of the West Church. No marks were recorded on the earlier 15th-century masons we do have the name exterior of the East Church. of the 20th-century mason, who worked on repairs This therefore points to a different system of with replacement blocks using the mark of Mason 3, payment being made for the work. Part would appear to a William Scott. However, we do not know for have been paid for piece work and the remainder under certain if he used this mark as his own, or was contract work, where there was a set rate of payment simply replacing a block that has Mason 3’s mark being made. This would explain that the more detailed on it and that Mark M18, the ‘A-shape’ was actually work of cutting and shaping the voussoirs was being his mark (Illus 14). paid for by a piece work system, as the masons were Of the total of 92 masons, 32 worked on the more skilled, hence the need to mark the stones, while East Church. We also see a marked contrast from the ashlar blocks on the majority of walls were not. the way payments appear to have been made between the West Church and the East Church. Conclusions Ashlar blocks were unmarked in the East Church, thus suggesting that much of the work was done From the survey of masons’ marks undertaken on both under contract, rather than being paid piece the West Church and East Church of the Holy Rude work, although this type of payment appeared to (Greig 2016), we can say that 92 different masons, continue with the carving of the arch voussoirs and along with their apprentices and labourers, worked on window recesses. We also know the name of the the building of both structures. Of this total number of Master of Works as Robert Arnot in 1523, and of 92, 60 of the masons worked on the West Church, five another mason, John Coutts, of the same period. of whom also worked on the lowest stage of the tower. Unfortunately, we have not recognised their marks A group of seven others only worked on the St Mary’s as yet. Chapel or Aisle, while yet another group of six masons We can also see probable family groups of only worked in the first-floor chamber of the tower of a masons working together, or from the same yards Stonemasons’ marks 47

References

Abstract of the Protocol Book of the Burgh of Stirling, 1469–84, 1896. Edinburgh. Alexander, J 2007 ‘The introduction and use of masons’ marks in Romanesque buildings in England’, Med Arch 51, 63–81. Cowan, I B and Easson, D E 1976 ‘Charters of Stirling no xxxvii,’ in Medieval Religious Houses of Scotland. London and New York. ERS. The Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, 1880, Vol 4. Edinburgh. Extracts from the Records of the Royal Burgh of Stirling, Vol 1, 1887. Fawcett, R and Oram, R 2008 A Corpus of Scottish Medieval Parish Churches: Dunblane and Dunkeld Dioceses. Stirling Holy Rude Parish Church. Illus 14 Replacement block with two marks. The lower Greig, MK 2015 ‘St Drostan’s Church, Markinch mark is the same as Mason 3, while the upper may be – a survey of stonemasons’ marks within the mark of William Scott, the 20th-century mason the Tower’. Survey report available at www. undertaking restoration work. masonsmarkproject.org.uk Greig, MK 2016, ‘Church of the Holy Rude, Stirling – Report on the survey of masons’ marks undertaken on the East and West Church (Survey report or lodges, with the similarity of some marks. available at www.masonsmarkproject.org.uk) The survey confirmed that the tower was most likely Greig, MK 2018 ‘St Athernase Church, Leuchars, Fife built in three different stages. We can also say that – a survey of stonemasons’ marks. Survey report St Mary’s Aisle was probably built at a slightly later available at www.masonsmarkproject.org.uk date than St Andrew’s Chapel and the rest of the Holy Stirling Council Archives, Protocol Book of James Rude (West Church). However, only further deeper Darrow, 1469–84, B66/1/1/1, fol 121. research might prove or disprove this latter theory, but Stirling Council Archives, Stirling Court and Council it is interesting to note that a similar mark to one on Records, 1519–30, BB66/15/1, 7 May 1524. the arch, by Mason 46, was also recorded on Mar’s Stirling Council Archives, Stirling Court and Council Wark (1560s–70s), which stands next to the church. Records, 1554–57, BB66/15/3. It is therefore possible that the same family of masons The Masonic Trowel Website: http://www. was still working in the area. themasonictrowel.com/Articles/Manuscripts/ Only by undertaking a full survey of all marks manuscripts/shaw_statutes/shaw_statutes.htm and recording their locations can more information Trueman, CN 2015 Medieval Mason. be gained. This adds to a better understanding of a Turner, A J 1948a ‘Dalmeny Church masons’ marks. building which has been added to over a number {s.l.}. rcahms Shelf Number D.7.33.DAL. of years. Turner, AJ 1948b HMC Earl of Eglington (1885).

Acknowledgements Abstract This paper considers the benefits of the recording of First and foremost, I would like to thank Jenny mason’s marks when they are present in a building. Alexander for reading my first rough draft and Using the church of the Holy Rude in Stirling and encouraging me to publish. My grateful thanks also St Drostan’s in Markinch as case studies the paper to the Three United Trades of Dundee and their shows what can be gained from their study and clerk Ally Martin, for giving me permission to use analysis. information from documents they hold. Many thanks go to the volunteers who have helped on many of Keywords the surveys that have been undertaken over the Banker’s marks years. Special thanks to Gordon Noble for reading Holy Rude, Stirling through my script and to Laurie Wedderburn for also Mason’s marks encouraging me to publish. Thanks are also due to St Drostan’s, Markinch Derek Hall, Editor of tafaj. This paper was published with the aid of an anonymous publication grant. 48 Moira Greig

Appendices Mark charts of Church of the Holy Rude, Stirling 1 Areas where masons worked in East Church, Holy Rude, Stirling Stonemasons’ marks 49 50 Moira Greig

2 Areas where masons worked West Church and tower, Stirling Stonemasons’ marks 51 52 Moira Greig Stonemasons’ marks 53