Pictorial and Symbolic Graffiti at Rochester Cathedral

47 PICTORIAL AND SYMBOLIC GRAFFITI AT ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL jacob h. scott This article summarises reports on many months’ recording and analysis by the members of the Rochester Cathedral Research Guild and of knowledgeable advisors from around Kent and further afield. Formed in September 2016 and comprising a small group of volunteers, the Guild supports the work of the Cathedral Archaeologist and the Surveyor of the Fabric in researching the extraordinary past of England’s second-oldest cathedral and recording the building’s architectural and artistic features to aid their interpretation and conservation. In doing so it provides invaluable backup to these professional advisors, and carries out recording and analytical work that the Cathedral Chapter could not realistically commission in any other way within its limited resources. The Guild collates the cathedral’s historical, archaeological and architectural documentation and researches the many buildings, artefacts and persons featuring in the long history of the site. Archive reports are made available on the Guild’s website: www.rochestercathedralresearchguild.org Graham Keevill Cathedral Archaeologist Rochester Cathedral is rich in surviving examples of most categories of graffiti outlined in Matthew Champion’s Medieval Graffiti, an overview of recent research in the field (Champion 2015a). Champion draws upon Violet Pritchard’s English Medieval Graffiti (1967) and the recent work of the Norfolk Medieval Graffiti Survey. These identifications of common graffiti types have been used in cataloguing and interpreting the collection at Rochester. The corpus recorded to date comprises a thirteenth-century decorative scheme containing over 100 human and animal figures, 178 arc, circle and multifoil graffiti, thirty-five cross and crucifix, 15 votive ships and a diverse array of other heraldic and pictorial designs, 127 possible examples of cult marks, 117 inscriptions featuring a decorative border and a plethora of other dates, names, symbols and text. Analysed en masse this corpus can provide insight into the art, rituals and beliefs of the worshippers at the site over the last 800 years. Here the word graffiti is used to refer to all forms of intentional marks except the large figurative decorative scheme and the cathedral’s collection of masons’ marks, both of which can be viewed as planned sequences which require separate JACOB H. SCOTT 48 analysis, although both can also be correctly described as graffiti. The word graffiti was coined in the late nineteenth century to describe marks or incisions on a solid surface, but soon after it seems to have gained its familiar negative connotations (Champion 2017). There is, however, no evidence that creating earlier inscriptions was frowned upon at the time of their creation by any party. Most of the designs recorded at Rochester have been created in what would have been very public areas of the building and could only have been created with the sanction of the cathedral authority. That so many have survived the purges and restorations of the intervening centuries seems to attest to their continued acceptance and interest. There is one instance at the cathedral where a heavily graffitied medieval or early modern wooden beam in the roof spaces seems to have been intentionally preserved during nineteenth-century restorations. Early estimates from these recent surveys suggest some three thousand graffiti survive at Rochester Cathedral in total, dating from the mid-twelfth to the twentyfirst centuries. The pictorial and symbolic graffiti described here comprise about a quarter of this corpus, masons’ marks around another quarter, and names, dates and text comprise the remaining half. Whilst occasionally dates and initials are used to suggest a context for the pictorial and symbolic graffiti analysed here, a full description and interpretation of these forms will follow in separate reports. It has been a central aim of the surveys at Rochester to develop a robust methodology that can be replicated in the recording of graffiti elsewhere. Photographs of every individual graffito have been taken with a Canon EOS 100D with kit lens at 18mm focal length. An EOS 6D at 24mm has been used for the wide-angled shots featured here. A physical photo scale is used in all images which includes a colour-balance patch and a circular target to aid in readjusting perspective in postprocessing. Photograph files are saved simultaneously in RAW and JPG format. During identification and photography, a consumer-end LED white light has been used to illuminate the surface of the stone and provide better contrast between this and the shadow cast over pits and scratches, a technique known as raking light. Many graffiti are virtually invisible to the naked eye without such specialised light. Photographed and recorded graffiti are plotted on a floor-plan and the height from the floor of the lowest scratch of each graffito is recorded. Photographs are rectified in post-production to remove perspective and barrel lens distortion. A high-contrast negative image is then created from the photo file, often bringing to attention more incisions than can be seen in the original image. All records are then digitally traced. Tracings to date have been produced using Microsoft Paint, although it is appreciated that vector graphic software would be preferable. It is hoped that the scenes will be retraced in this format in the near future. In archive reports, made freely available online, an unedited JPG photograph, its highcontrast negative and the digital trace are shown alongside each other in separate images for ease of comparison. Much interpretation here relies on the analysis of clustering of particular forms of graffiti, making their accurate recording on floor plans essential. Due to the limitations of print, these floor plans have not been reproduced in full here, but are available within their respective archive reports. Difficulties with defining the absolute extent of graffiti clusters has meant that a complete breakdown of their composition must follow in a separate report. PICTORIAL AND SYMBOLIC GRAFFITI AT ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL 49 Whilst much of the external stone facing of the Cathedral has been renewed over the post-medieval and modern periods, substantial parts of the medieval walling survive inside the structure. However, these internal walls, piers and other architectural features are of different varying dates, particularly those of the nave arcades. From a structural point of view the cathedral can be divided into five parts: the nave, the east end with its crypt, the quire, the nave transepts and the western half of the original extent of the Lady Chapel, which also included the south nave transept before twentieth-century modification of its wooden screen. The dates of the fabric are often the only terminus post quem that can be identified for anonymous pictorial and symbolic designs. These dates are used alongside contemporary records of altars and shrines to provide an estimate of date for the clusters of graffiti. The date of the nave has long been debated. At one time, it was regarded as surviving from the time of Bishop Gundulf’s episcopate, 1077-1108. William St John Hope put forward the view that it had been rebuilt during the episcopate of Bishop Ernulf 1114-1124 (1898, 218). Canon Livett (1889) suggested John, c.1139-1142, and Colin Flight thought Ralph d’Escures, 1108-1114 (1997, 193- 195). The most recent work by Philip McAleer has suggested the 1140s, after the fire of 1137 (1996, 158). There now appears to be a broad measure of agreement amongst architectural historians that McAleer is correct. The east end, with the crypt, is regarded as dating from c.1180 to c.1200, the quire from c.1200 to c.1220, the nave transepts from c.1220 to c.1240, and the Lady Chapel to the early sixteenth century (McAleer 1996). The south face of the south nave arcade appears not to have been redecorated alongside the north. It has been suggested that this may have been due to an altar or shrine having been in the south aisle in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. As discussed below, clustering of certain forms of graffiti in the nave and south aisle appears to support this interpretation. The thirteenth-century figurative decorative scheme The most artistically impressive of Rochester’s graffiti are undoubtedly the elements of the large figurative decorative scheme (Fig. 1) adorning the medieval fabric of the nave, west facade, crypt and sanctuary. By far the largest of Rochester’s graffiti, they range in size from a few centimetres to almost two metres. An overview of scenes within the scheme interpreted to date has been provided (Table 1) and ground floor and crypt plans show their general distribution (Fig. 2). The first published mention of this scheme in any literature seems to be a short article by G.M. Livett, published in a Rochester Diocesan Chronicle in the early twentieth century, but currently of unknown date. Livett briefly describes figures ‘in almost every part of the Cathedral not later than the thirteenth century – in nave, choir, and crypt’. Livett was a precentor at the cathedral and mentions discussing a date for the graffiti with William St John Hope, agreeing on the thirteenth century on stylistic grounds. An article later published in an early Friends of Rochester Cathedral Annual Report by the then Dean of the cathedral, Ernest Blackie (1939), independently identified several medieval figurative engravings depicting biblical scenes in the nave and crypt. In 1979 Professor M.J. Swanton provided an analysis and tracings of about JACOB H. SCOTT 50 Fig. 1 Some surviving portions of the thirteenth-century figurative decorative scheme on nave piers S4 and S5. TABLE 1. INTERPRETED SCENES WITHIN THE THIRTEENTH-CENTuRy FIGuRATIVE DECORATIVE SCHEME, SHOWING RECuRRING IMAGES INTERPRETED SCENE OCCuRRENCE LOCATIONS Condensed Last Supper 5 Crypt x 2, nave pier S4, sanctuary x 2 Condensed Tree of Jesse 5 West nave arcade x 3, nave pier N4, sanctuary Eagle emblem of St John 3 Nave piers S4 x 2 (parts of Tetramorph) Christ in Majesty 2 Nave piers N4, S4 (part of Tetramorph) west facade Baptism of Christ 2 Nave pier N3, west facade Angel emblem of St Matthew 2 Nave pier S1, S4 (part of Tetramorph) St Mark at the writing desk 2 Nave piers S1, N5 Lion emblem of St Mark 1 Nave pier N5 Ox emblem of St Luke 1 Nave pier S4 (part of Tetramorph) Palm Sunday 1 West facade Flight into Egypt 1 Nave Pier N1 Note: for clarity, we have numbered the piers in the north and south nave arcades from west to east (Fig. 2, i and ii). This table does not include unidentified scenes. PICTORIAL AND SYMBOLIC GRAFFITI AT ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL 51 thirty scenes from the nave and crypt, offering a detailed interpretation both of content and style but dating them to the twelfth century (Swanton 1979). Swanton suggested a possible motivation for the scheme could be the preservation of mural paintings after a documented fire in 1179 (1979, 134-135). The east end of the building, however, construction of which began around 1180 (Draper 2005), is too late for their creation to have resulted from this event. There has been no medieval fire recorded in the sanctuary or the crypt where many of the graffiti have been recently identified. The remains of this scheme are extensive enough to suggest that they covered almost every surface below two metres inside the thirteenth-century nave, sanctuary, crypt and the lower portions of the exterior of the west facade. The central placement of the majority of the figurative scenes within their respective piers or walls and their being located within areas that would have been accessible to either parishioners or pilgrims and those exclusive to the monastic community suggests their creation was either sanctioned or actioned by the cathedral authority. With the use of raking light and digital tracing of photographs of the Norman fabric, twenty-four more of these scenes have recently been identified: five more in the crypt, ten in the nave, four in the sanctuary, and five fragmentary remains on the west facade of the building (Fig. 3), with potentially several more yet to be deciphered or completely obliterated in the responding blind arcades (Scott 2016a). The four scenes in the sanctuary are located in the north-east corner (Fig. 2, v) and the east wall (Fig. 2, vi). The two in the central bay mirror each other and replicate the two scenes in the crypt interpreted as a Eucharist scene (Fig. 4, Fig. 2, ix), which is also present on nave pier S4. The figures and scenes in the crypt are spread across seven areas of the main body in such a distribution as to suggest that they were once present on almost all areas of available ashlar. Five scenes recently identified on the west facade have escaped the attention of all previous writers (Fig. 3, Fig. 2, i and ii). They comprise a head in the north window arch (Fig. 3, A), possibly once a standing figure which was cut by a small door in the creation of an oratory in 1327 (Hope 1898, 274-275). A single surviving line down the left side of the face may represent a headdress and thus the Virgin Mary, as can be seen depicted in other images in the sequence, or else is perhaps a condensed representation of the Tree of Jesse, present in the nave and sanctuary. There are two heads in the second north blind arch (Fig. 3, B), likely to have once been standing figures, now completely eroded. Their posture, with the right face forward and the left turned slightly to the former, resembles two images of the Baptism of Christ in the nave. The head of another, again possibly part of a standing figure now obliterated, sits at the top of a shaft to the south of the great west doors (Fig. 3, C). An eagle emblem of St John resides on the area of wall immediately to the south of the doors (Fig. 3, D). In the south window arch, a figure riding a horse or donkey has been deciphered, likely to be a Palm Sunday scene (Fig. 3, E). Livett tentatively suggests an interpretation of the scenes featuring Christ with two disciples at his breast and elements of a Eucharist around them (Fig. 4) as a ‘gross attempt to suggest the two natures of the Second Person’. Swanton interprets this scene as a Supper at Emmaus. However, it now seems likely, based on similar scenes at Canterbury, that these represent a condensed image of the Last Supper. In Swanton’s other suggestions as to the content of the biblical scenes, however, 52 Fig. 2 Simplified ground floor and crypt key plans showing distribution of thirteenthcentury figurative decorative scheme and major clusters of pictorial and symbolic graffiti labelled by their possible associated features. For key plans detailing the location of individual graffiti see Scott (2017a, b, d, e and f) and Graham and Scott (2017a and b). Graphic design: Alan Minnerthey. 53 JACOB H. SCOTT 54 Fig. 3 Fragmentary remains of the thirteenth-century figurative decorative scheme on the west facade Fig. 4 Thirteenth-century figurative graffito possibly representing a condensed Last Supper. Two large curving lines beneath the image may represent a carpet, rather than a road as suggested by Swanton. PICTORIAL AND SYMBOLIC GRAFFITI AT ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL 55 little fault has been found. Several recently identified images match Swanton’s described examples, such as a recurring scene of three busts arranged vertically thought to represent a condensed Tree of Jesse. Along with the scenes of the Last Supper this image is the most numerous within the scheme, recorded on the inside west arcade of the nave, nave pier S4 and in the sanctuary (Fig. 2, v). Some complexity to interpretation is provided by the apparently condensed depictions of certain scenes. Care is also required in interpreting scenes in which a much smaller figure is seen amongst taller ones. This is a common means of signifying the presentation of a person’s soul to Christ, rather than a depiction of a child amongst adults. The difference in size in this context is representing their relative spiritual significance. A study of the medieval wall paintings of the cathedral was produced as a Master’s thesis by Beverley Jacobs (2005). Red ochre accompanying several of the figures was identified, although it was not possible to discern whether it is associated with the thirteenth-century scheme (2005, 9-11). The recent photographic surveys have not much remedied this uncertainty, although two figures on the south nave arcade do appear to show some colouring from demonstrably later schemes. The incisions of a standing figure on nave pier S5 are filled with a red ochre (Fig. 5). This is clear evidence that the red ochre is of a later date. This red has been Fig. 5 Overlaying of the thirteenthcentury figurative decorative scheme on nave pier S5 with a later red ochre of uncertain date. Fig. 6 Overlaying of the thirteenthcentury figurative decorative scheme with a St Christopher of c.1340 on nave pier S1. JACOB H. SCOTT 56 thought to be the remains of a Norman paint scheme (Jacobs 2005, 8), perhaps suggesting the scheme described here belongs to the earlier part of the thirteenth century. As with any paint associated with the scheme itself, ongoing photographic surveys of paint fragments may yet provide a firmer estimate of dating. As no colouring or even darkening has been found on any other examples from Rochester to date, it appears that the majority at least were never coloured, either by design or perhaps lack of funds. The areas in which the decorative scheme survives would have likely been painted polychrome after their construction, as was typical in the middle ages. The incisions of the graffiti would have cut through the paint to reveal the pale stone underneath. As such the scheme would have been far easier to see when this polychrome was still present, perhaps not necessitating any colouring. However, soft darkening with substances such as charcoal or light ochre has yet to be ruled out. The dates for the construction of the sanctuary provide a terminus post quem for this graffiti. Swanton suggests most of those in the nave dated to the episcopate of Ernulf 1114-1124 (1979, 134); however, at Swanton’s time of writing it was still considered that Ernulf had rebuilt the nave. That rebuilding is now considered to be a generation later and hence the scheme must be later too (McAleer 1996, 158). Other than the distribution of the scheme around the building and the possible cut of the small west door of 1327 there is little evidence for a firmer estimate of date. Nave pier S1 features an angel, likely to be an emblem of St Matthew, overlain with a large painting of St Christopher. The St Christopher clearly post-dates the engraving and has been dated stylistically to the late thirteenth century (Fig. 6) (Whaite 1929, 17). Although extensive, the images at Rochester are of a similar enough style that one artist may be at work, particularly the manner in which figures, noses and eyes are composed. However, some isolated examples do suggest separate artists. A bust on the west face of nave pier S4, for example, possibly represents a bishop, and is much cruder stylistically than the other images. Two images of Christ in Majesty are reflected across nave piers N4 and S4, within one or two bays of the early nave rood screen and presumed altar in the centre aisle. The Christ in Majesty on nave pier S4 is surrounded by the four emblems of the evangelists in a scene known as a Tetramorph. Here the eagle emblem of St John has been emphasised by enlarging it some three times the size of the other emblems. There also appears to be other marked emphasis on St John in other representations of the eagle emblem in the scheme. From the thirteenth century, the use of the four evangelists surrounding a Christ in Majesty began to decline, as a new scene showing the wounds of the Passion came into use (Male 1914, 35-37). In most areas, modern ‘cleaning’, erosion from human touching or efflorescence has worn the scenes. Damage can be seen to have occured even since Swanton’s tracings in the 1970s, making them an immensely useful record. The most fragile of the recently identified graffiti is so degraded that any contact or significant gust of air would likely destroy its central surviving figure (Fig. 7). The face of a standing figure behind the high altar, as yet unidentified, has worn away entirely even though efflorescence damage to the surrounding stonework is mininal. Destruction of carved stone heads and grotesques at Rochester in proximity to the high altar and in the nave can be seen. unlike the other images here this may PICTORIAL AND SYMBOLIC GRAFFITI AT ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL 57 have been visible to those standing at the centre of the sanctuary, and was perhaps intent-ionially defaced on iconoclastic grounds. Similar and extensive graffiti survives on Norman fabric at Canterbury Cathedral (Turner 1967). Five unidentified figures and an eagle of identical style to those at Rochester have been recorded on the piers of the Norman crossing tower of St Clement’s Church, Sandwich (Fig. 8) (Scott 2017b). On a pier in the quire of St Mary the Virgin, Newington, is a scene identical to those at Rochester interpreted as the Last Supper, above which is an eagle emblem of St John and below are standing figures (Fig. 9) (Scott 2017b). The then Abbey Church of St Alban in Hertfordshire contains an eagle emblem in the north porch of the west facade and a lion emblem of St Matthew to the south of the inside of the Great West Door that are also very similar (Dean et al. 1998). It seems possible that these schemes may have been created by the same artist at work at Rochester Cathedral. It also seems likely that other similar schemes elsewhere have been lost, covered or await identification. Heraldic and pictorial graffiti The only other form of graffiti which had previously attracted any academic interest before recent surveys is a cluster of medieval votive ships on nave pier S4 Fig. 7 Close-up of recently identified scene high on nave pier S5, possibly representing a Baptism of Christ, nearly completely eroded by efflorescence. At the centre of the image a figure stands with forearms raised. Two standing figures either side have already been destroyed, and are identifiable only by their legs and the outline of their robes. JACOB H. SCOTT 58 (Fig. 10) (see overview in Jones-Baker 1987). Fifteen examples ranging from 2cm to 35cm in size have been identified to date, twelve from this pier and three on the north face of the pier to the north of the Ithamar Chapel entrance in the crypt (Fig. 2, ix) (Scott 2017a). Champion provides an overview of ship graffiti recorded around the country up until 2015, largely by the efforts of the Norfolk Medieval Graffiti Survey (Champion 2015b). Most examples, although not all, are found in coastal churches. Rochester’s relatively numerous fifteen examples reflects the proximity of the cathedral to the River Medway and the vital role that ships played in the local economy. The Diocese of Rochester also contains a long string of parishes on the even busier Thames up to Deptford, a significant shipbuilding place in medieval times. As with those elsewhere, Rochester’s ships are thought to have been created by their crew members and captains within proximity to an altar, image or shrine dedicated to St Nicholas, the patron saint of those in peril on the sea (Champion 2015b, 347). At times of trouble on a sea voyage, such as a storm, a vow could be made to St Nicholas that if one survived a votive offering would be made in thanks, sometimes in the form of a model ship of wax or wood. Some of these models survive in coastal churches today (Champion 2015b, 345). At Rochester, the nave was occupied by the parishioners of St Nicholas until a separate church was built for them to the Fig. 8 One of five figurative graffiti located on the four Norman piers at St Clement’s Church, Sandwich, of an almost identical style to those at Rochester. Fig. 9 Identical figurative scenes to those at Rochester on one surviving Norman pier at the church of St Mary the Virgin, Newington. PICTORIAL AND SYMBOLIC GRAFFITI AT ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL 59 north of the cathedral in 1423 (Hope 1898, 286). All recorded designs on nave pier S4 are located on the south face, so maybe this indicates the temporary position of the altar or shrine to St Nicholas in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries whilst reconstruction was carried out on the north arcade. The interpretation of this ship graffiti as ex-voto in nature is important in our interpretation of other forms of graffiti to be found clustered around medieval altars and shrines. The remaining three of Rochester’s examples, recorded from the crypt (Fig. 2, ix, K), provide a challenge in interpretation. An altar to St Nicholas has never been recorded as being situated in the vicinity, although six or seven altars were situated here until the reformation (Hope 1898, 325-328). A bird, possibly a chicken or pigeon, appears on the same face of the pier as the ships. Perhaps this indicates the proximity of a previously unidentified medieval altar or shrine towards the centre of the crypt. The height of these ships from the ground, ranging from 44cm to 110cm, suggests that they were created from a kneeling height. Church pews and benches were not introduced to English churches until the fourteenth century, becoming commonplace in the fifteenth (Viola and Barna 2008, 35), although likely only for the wealthy until a much later date. The areas immediately surrounding earlier altars and shrines would have seen congregations and worshippers kneeling, sitting and even lying prostrate on the floor. This could provide a useful means of suggesting a date for earlier clusters of graffiti. Eight rather crude faces have been identified around the building, almost all depicted in profile. On nave pier N4 two 45cm-tall human figures stand in profile Fig. 10 Ship graffiti on the south face of nave pier S4, within proximity to the location of the twelfth-century altar or shrine to St Nicholas. JACOB H. SCOTT 60 with what appear to be hoods and beards (Fig. 11), possibly the only recorded image of monks from Rochester (Scott 2017c). The figures are opposite the pier featuring the ex-voto ships on the south arcade. A 6cm hand with an index finger raised is located on the west face of the pier and slightly to the south resides a 19cm-long four-legged beast, possibly a dragon. As with the ex-voto ships these images were potentially left in the vicinity of the altar of St Nicholas when it was situated near this point in the nave from c.1080-1230, with the rebuilding or alterations to the nave in the 1140s providing a terminus post quem. These images were also created from a kneeling height and thus potentially are of a votive nature, although the motivations behind the monks and the four-legged beast are perhaps harder to discern. Other examples of pictorial graffiti recorded to date include a leg with a shoe on the south face of nave pier S5, also possibly of a votive nature. Seventeen graffiti in the shape of a heraldic shield (Fig. 12) have been identified mostly on the piers of the nave arcades and likewise created from a kneeling height, although they do not appear to cluster in any way. One example is located on the wall to the north of the altar of St Peter in the south quire transept and some fragmentary remains next to these may indicate that more were once present. Two designs are located on the north arcade of the Lady Chapel in amongst a cluster of marks described below. As with many heraldic inscriptions recorded in other buildings most of these designs appear so crude or stylised that identification of the heraldry would be impossible, even at the time of their creation (Champion 2015, 113-114). Fig. 11 Graffito of standing figures in profile on nave pier N4, possible featuring hoods and beards. Perhaps the only known surviving image of monks from Rochester priory. PICTORIAL AND SYMBOLIC GRAFFITI AT ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL 61 Just three other examples of pictorial graffiti from Rochester, not including those in the thirteenth-century decorative scheme, depict animals or beasts; a 10cm stag stands in profile on the west face of nave pier S3 and a small 5cm head and upper limbs of what may be a dragon sits on the south face of the pier dividing the east and west areas of the south quire transept. What may be a 10cm elephant is on the south wall of the transept. Only thirty-five graffiti in the form of a cross or crucifix have been recorded to date (Scott 2017b). Elsewhere these forms have traditionally come to be known as pilgrim crosses, although this relative paucity at Rochester, a cathedral on the major pilgrimage route in England, perhaps supports Champion’s suggestion that these may not have had such a close association with pilgrimage (2015a, 63-69). It could be that a significant number of the simpler cross designs could consist of incidental marks. Aside from the clear crucifix designs a more positive identification has been achieved at Rochester for those which consist of four drilled holes connected by two incised lines forming the cross, but still only twelve such designs have been identified to date. They do not appear to cluster at any location in the building and few seem likely to have been created from a kneeling height. Arc, circle and multifoil graffiti This section of the report constitutes the first known publication of an analysis of the symbolic graffiti at Rochester. 178 examples, about a third of all graffiti Fig. 12 Heraldic shield with a possibly associated stylised VV or W in the late fifteenthcentury Lady Chapel. JACOB H. SCOTT 62 recorded to date within the building that feature no letters or numbers, are those described throughout Europe as ‘daisy wheels’, ‘compass-drawn designs’ or ‘hexafoil’. However, the data from Rochester, as elsewhere, seems to suggest that none of these terms are appropriate to describe the entirety of recorded examples. Concentric circles, sexfoil, hexafoil and more intricate designs are all represented in some number. Here the word ‘multifoil’ has been used to refer to all designs more complex than those composed of individual arcs or a single circle. Both simple and complex designs appear across all clusters, confounding typological analysis. The large number of examples seems to support Champion’s suggestions that these were created with what would be better described as medieval shears, a more common tool than compasses in the middle ages (Champion 2015a, 39). The arc, circle and multifoil graffiti in particular appear in enough numbers that clustering around spiritually significant areas within the building can be observed. Six such clusters have been identfied to date. Some thirty examples have been recorded in proximity to the earlier site of the altar to St Nicholas in the nave between its original construction until c.1240. This latter date perhaps provides a terminus ante quem for this cluster. The ashlar piers on which this cluster resides were recased or rebuilt in the 1140s, offering a terminus post quem. St John Hope’s conjectural plan of the Romanesque building suggests the rood screen was located across nave piers N5 and S5. Although relatively spaced out, this cluster sits primarily on the pier also featuring the images of monks, the four-legged beast and hand. These were likewise created from a kneeling position. A note of caution is required when assessing the distribution of graffiti in this part of the nave, however. The two piers upon which most examples are located provide one of the most prominant surfaces in the nave due to its quatrefoil section and slowly curving surface. This may skew the distribution of graffiti in favour of these two piers. The later site of the altar to St Nicholas (further west in the nave than before) also features a cluster of some thirty arc, circle and muiltifoil graffiti. The altar was moved from its prior position c.1240 and was placed here until the creation of St Nicholas Church to the north of the cathedral in 1423 (Hope 1898, 215). Hope suggests the possible site of an altar of St Peter to the east of the south quire transept (Hope 1898, 300) which also features a small cluster of nine circles and multifoil (Fig. 2, E). The altar likely resided here from the creation of the east end until the Reformation, before being variously reinstated and removed since the rekindled interest in the medieval layout of the building in later centuries. Although yet to be fully recorded and deciphered there is also a collection of medieval text, presumed to mainly consist of names, and a number of bordered inscriptions in close proximity to this cluster. There is a very significant cluster of arc, circle and multifoil graffiti on and near nave pier S1 (Fig. 2, F, Fig. 13). In contrast to all other clusters of this form identified within the building, other than those above the stone bench close to William of Perth’s shrine described below, these were created from a standing height. The radiuses of these designs is also much larger than those in other clusters at Rochester. There are several interpretations that could be suggested for this. Perhaps the feature to which these designs were created near was of a different nature than those of other clusters and so were created with a different intention. Alternately, they could have been created with different tools. PICTORIAL AND SYMBOLIC GRAFFITI AT ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL 63 Champion describes an observed relationship between apparently apotropaic arc, circle and multifoil designs and fonts (2015a, 39-42). Apotropaic symbols are those created with the intention of warding-off evil spirits and bad luck. Baptism in the middle ages was seen as physical removal of sin and bad spirits, which would then need to escape the church. Some churches still leave the north door of the church open during baptism ceremonies for this purpose, the supposed preferred exit for such spirits (Champion 2015a, 41). Arc, circle and multifoil designs would then serve as a means of protection from these spirits, presumably for the family members and assembled congregations. Given this relationship between these designs and baptism elsewhere, this cluster may have been created in proximity to the site of the medieval and early modern font (Fig. 13). Much caution is required in interpreting the source for this cluster, however, as the Bishop’s consistory court was located at the west end of the south nave aisle from 1681 (Holbrooke 1994, 23) until 1742 (Holbrooke 1994, 114), when it was moved to the Lady Chapel until the nineteenth century. Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century consistory courts dealt largely with matrimonial and probate cases. An interesting further avenue of investigation would be whether arc, circle and multifoil or other apotropaic graffiti exist around the known sites of other early modern consistory courts and thus whether such cases were of an emotionally or spiritually charged enough nature to warrant such protection. Another consideration is the large St Christopher on the north face of nave pier S1 Fig. 13 Cluster of votive geometric designs, created from a kneeling position, possibly in proximity to the site of the medieval font. JACOB H. SCOTT 64 dating to the late thirteenth century, a popular saint for pilgrims and worshippers. Paintings of St Christopher survive near to the west doors of many cathedrals and churches and were apotropaic in a sense themselves, in that even a glance through a doorway in passing was thought to protect an individual throughout that day. However, the majority of the arc, circle and multifoil being on the south-west face rather than below the St Christopher on the north perhaps indicates this is unlikely. A final challenge in interpreting this cluster is presented by the apparently common custom of inscribing graffiti on the furthest west pier of the south nave arcade in other churches or cathedrals. However, as the majority of this cluster is located on the south-east face of this octagonal pier it may indicate the source for this graffiti was something located in the bay furthest west in the south nave aisle; either the medieval font or the early modern consistory court, or else that the congregations or public primarily stood in this bay whilst the font or court was nearby. The shrine to William of Perth was situated in the north quire transept from the mid-thirteenth century until the Reformation and eighteen arc, circle and multifoil graffiti have been recorded in its vicinity to date (Fig. 2, D, Fig. 14). It may be that this cluster is associated instead with the chancel of John de Sheppey, although the cluster appears to be denser on the fabric closest to the shrine. No other pictorial designs, symbols or text have been recorded within this cluster. The average height of the arcs, circles and multifoil from the modern floor of the quire, not thought to be significantly different from the medieval level in this location, is 124cm. This differs from the trend in earlier clusters being created from a kneeling position, Fig. 14 Cluster of arc, circle and multifoil graffiti, possibly created in proximity to the shrine of St William of Perth before its destruction after the Reformation. PICTORIAL AND SYMBOLIC GRAFFITI AT ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL 65 taken here to be below about 1m in height. However, the majority of designs in this cluster have been identified above the stone bench surrounding the pier in the centre of the arcade separating the east of the transept. Perhaps then this cluster was created by seated individuals, or at least demonstrates the need to avoid the stone below the seat which is of a harder material and more difficult to inscribe. There is a small cluster of arc, circle and multifoil designs at kneeling-height on the east face of the pier towards the north of the the south quire transept (Fig. 2, E), in proximity to where the aforementioned altar to St Peter was possibly located in the middle ages (Hope 1898, 300). There are also what appears to be medieval inscriptions on this pier, yet to be fully deciphered, and a relatively low number of inscribed border graffiti on the pier’s east face. No pictorial graffiti has been recorded in the vicinity. A challenging cluster to interpret is that on the east wall of the south quire aisle where it has not yet been possible to identify any recorded altar or other feature (Fig. 2, G). undated names that are stylistically possibly of a medieval origin are spaced amongst the cluster of multifoil, several surrounded by a border which may be of some significance, discussed below. Most graffiti in this cluster seems to have been created from a kneeling position and includes the only example of any arc, circle of multifoil graffiti within the building located on a wooden surface; a small circle resides on the easternmost post of the painted oak screens in the south quire aisle. The screens have been dated to the thirteenth century (Tracy and Hewett 1995, 17). Cult marks, stylised letters and symbols Within and amongst the many hundreds of text and name graffiti recorded throughout almost all fabric of the building, 127 examples of stylised letters have been recorded to date; almost exclusively variations of an A, C, I/J or W/VV (Fig. 15). These have been analysed in isolation to identify those common to forms of Fig. 15 Variations of stylised letters recorded at Rochester Cathedral to date. JACOB H. SCOTT 66 graffiti which have been widely described elsewhere as cult or ritual protection marks. Challenging our analyses is that many of these stylised letters are identical to those resulting from trends in writing styles over the last few centuries. It appears that separating isolated marks from those included within words, names and initials may be of use in identifying genuine cult marks within this collection. The letter W does not exist in Latin and so this has been thought for many years to represent two overlapping V letters: the initials of a Latin name for the Virgin Mary Virgo Virginum, thus constituting a form of cult mark. However, its apparent longevity means the intention behind this mark is more than likely to have changed over time (Champion 2015a, 55). In this setting, any genuine cult marks would fall under the broad category of votive. However, it is readily apparent that this same form of overlapping V letters is also a relatively standardised way of writing a W in the early modern period and beyond, as can still be observed in some typefaces today. Ninety-two of these W/VV letters have been recorded to date throughout the building. Thirty-nine of these are included within names and three are dated; 1617, 1695 and 1735. Eight are inverted into an M shape (Fig. 15, E) and one is on its side (Fig. 15, B). Sixteen are included within single-line borders and only six are below 1m in height from the floor. Another example has been recorded high on the exterior of the south wall of the nave, next to a dated inscription 1664; thought to be the date of its last reconstruction (Holbrooke 1994, 10-11). The use of the VV symbol and other apotropaic designs has been well documented from domestic roofs and wooden structures and it appears that carpentry and other craftsmen had a particular affinity with many of these apotropaic designs (Easton 1999). Roofs and fireplaces would have been a particularly high fire risk in the middle ages and it is thought that many of these designs were created with the intention of warding off events such as lightning strikes. A W/VV symbol does indeed survive in the roof spaces, on the beam mentioned previously which seems to have been intentionally preserved during nineteenth-century restorations (Fig. 16). Perhaps it is for this apotropaic function that the beam was preserved and the symbol added to the 1664 inscription recording the south nave wall reconstruction. Fifteen stylised A letters in total have to date been recorded within the building in four variations; four examples with a single bent lower horizontal line and an extra horizontal line above (Fig. 15, C), eight with a single straight lower horizontal line (Fig. 15, B) and two with two straight lower horizontal lines. Two examples feature a bent lower horizontal line but no upper (Fig. 15, A). All other stylised A letters appear within the nave alone; however, they are not numerous enough for any other pattern to be discerned in their distribution and thus allow further investigation of any votive characteristics. Seven of these A symbols are included within initials, but none are dated. This perhaps indicates that many of these predate the mid seventeenth century when adding a date to insciptions became more commonplace. However, only two are below 1m in height suggesting they were mostly created from a standing position and so possibly after the fourteenthcentury introduction of pews. Twenty-four examples of what can be considered today to be stylised letter I or J have also been recorded and analysed to date during the wider survey of stylised letters (Fig. 15, H). The letter J can be seen to resemble or match the letter I in much early script, such as frequently in the Christian cypher IHS or IC, the PICTORIAL AND SYMBOLIC GRAFFITI AT ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL 67 name of Christ. All examples consist of a typical modern letter I with a horizontal line across its centre. However, as almost all of these are included within names, words or initials it is not considered here to be of any ritual significance by itself, although the suggestion that these may have intentionially been stylised in order to closer resemble a crucifix has not been ruled out. All but four are above 1m in height from the floor and three are dated: 1716, 1735 and 1760. Other examples of stylised letter graffiti that have been recorded only a few times throughout the building include a stylised C (Fig. 15, H). Only three have been recorded to date, always within initials and all of an identical form. Pentangles appear to be represented in relatively low numbers, mostly in the nave with two in the quire. Other star-shaped designs exist: two resembling the Star of David and a few more complex designs. Champion interprets pentangles as apotropaic symbols (2015a, 45-52). Identifying examples of this form, however, is complicated by a number of identical mason’s mark on the nave arcades. In addition to the stylised letters, there is a diverse array of what seems likely to be a mixture of monograms and logograms, typically in the style of later inscriptions from the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries. Bordered inscriptions Photographic surveys of the enormous collection of inscribed, pen or pencil text Fig. 16 Graffiti on a beam from the roof spaces which appears to have been intentionally preserved during nineteenth-century rebuilding. JACOB H. SCOTT 68 and names and dates graffiti are very much ongoing, although one category of inscriptions has been completed. Name and initial graffiti featuring a border, possibly in the style of a memorial plaque or wall monument, has been suggested to be of a commemorative nature (Fig. 17). The border has been thought an attempt at a small and inexpensive replica of wall monuments, appearing for the upper and middle classes from the later medieval and early modern periods. The marker of a family member or friend of a loved one who otherwise may have gone completely unrecorded (Champion 2015a, 203). Although often difficult to decipher, many if not most of these designs include a second set of different initials outside the border. One challenge to this interpretation is that often only one date or year is included, although suggestions can be made as to why this may be the case: friends or even some family members may not necessarily know for certain the departed’s year of birth. However, the complete exclusion of two dates in all examples from Rochester seems more likely to indicate a one-event commemoration. Another challenge to this interpretation seems to be the three well-formed examples in which a clear attempt to depict a tiled roof can be observed, perhaps suggesting these inscribed houses may have some association with dwellings or domestic life rather than mortuary rites, particularly in these examples. Some speculative thinking wonders if some of these inscribed houses may have more to do with domestic settings, such as a married couple’s first home and/or the blessing of a building. Alternately, they could be a depiction of God’s house and therefore Fig. 17 High-contrast negative photo of inscribed initials within a decorative border, resembling a house with flags flying from its roof. PICTORIAL AND SYMBOLIC GRAFFITI AT ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL 69 be commemorative in nature after all. Care should of course be taken in suggesting the motivations of many unrelated individuals over several centuries. Virtually any graffito that could be interpreted as commemorating a death can easily be interpreted as a visiting worshipper, pilgrim or tourist leaving an inscription as a record of their visit and providing a means of distinguishing it from the thousands of other names and text. One hundred and seventeen of these inscribed borders have been recorded to date at Rochester. Twenty-eight of these contain dates, ranging from 1595 to 1956 with six from the seventeenth century and eight from the eighteenth. Only four are below 1m in height. Sixty-six examples feature only a single-line border with no canopy/roof. Twenty-two include simple two or three-line roofs and four are of a more elaborate nature with depictions of tiles. Six include small flags and one has two crucifix protruding from its roof. Only two of the more elaborate designs are dated, 1642 and 1731. Several feature irregular shaped borders: three triangles, two lozenges, a heart symbol and a twentieth-century clear imitation of a frame/ plaque. Sixteen include the stylised letter W discussed above. Only two contain complete forenames: one crude example with an apparent couple Kate and Will and the other, resembling a medieval inscription, John. Nine contain surnames but unfortunately none of these are dated, perhaps hampering attempts somewhat at future geneaological research. Clustering can also be observed in these designs: on the north wall of the Lady Chapel (Fig. 2, L), in proximity to the tomb of John de Bradfield dating to c.1283 (Fig. 2, H) and possibly in association with the tomb of Hamo de Hythe dating to c.1352. The majority of the bordered inscriptions within these clusters appear to be far more recent than the dates of the tombs. A small fragmentary cluster can be seen on the east face of the pier opposite to the altar of St Peter in the south quire transept. Ongoing work: names, text and masons’ marks Numbers and letters present by far the biggest challenge in decipherment and it seems likely that many inscriptions will never be fully understood, particularly those of medieval origin. Of the majority of inscriptions not featuring a date it is generally possible to attempt an estimate of its era by the style of handwriting or the palaeography of stylised letters. Although some text can be seen to cluster around the sites of altars and were undoubtedly created from a kneeling height, most inscriptions are likely to be tagging of a territorial nature, akin to a signature, as most graffiti is today. Over 750 examples of some thirty forms of masons’ mark have been recorded within the cathedral to date (Fig. 18). These are symbols inscribed by the masons on decorated and dressed pieces of stone to identify their work. At Rochester they are located almost exclusively on twelfth- and thirteenth-century fabric. Five forms of mark occur only once or twice throughout the entire building. Fourteen forms are recorded across the contemporary crypt and quire and twenty-six from the nave, perhaps representing the larger or more complex building project. Full analysis of the pictorial and symbolic graffiti is ultimately reliant on the completion of these surveys, particularly when there are areas of overlap such JACOB H. SCOTT 70 as the cult marks or bordered inscriptions. Similarities between certain masons’ marks and other symbols also make it difficult to discern their nature. It is hoped that upon completion of such an in-depth survey of masons’ marks, analysed alongside information from former and subsequent reports on the types of building stones and decoration found throughout the building, data can then be provided for analysis of the construction phases of the site and subsequently on Norman and later medieval building techniques. High or harder to access dressed stone has yet to be fully surveyed and thus their analysis will follow in future publications. Conclusions In our analyses of graffiti in medieval buildings, particularly those of much altered ecclesiastical sites, it is possible that only a fraction of the graffiti which has ever been created at the site survives. Many areas of the cathedral such as the north and south nave aisle walls, the nave transepts and quire aisles have seen much rebuilding, plastering or whitewash. Almost all wooden screens and furnishings from the middle ages, which may have been a more attractive target for some forms of graffiti, have been lost. The ashlar surfaces of the nave arcades, crypt, quire transepts and sanctuary, however, reveal nearly a millennium of surviving decorative schemes and graffiti. At Rochester Cathedral a thirteenth-century figurative decorative scheme can be deciphered, possibly by the same team or individual artisan as created those elsewhere in the South-East and maybe as far as St Albans. Ongoing graffiti surveys Fig. 18 Numerous masons’ marks on a pier in the crypt. PICTORIAL AND SYMBOLIC GRAFFITI AT ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL 71 at Canterbury will allow further analysis of this relationship. As no paint or ochre can be identified in the pits of the scratches in the vast majority of images in the scheme it has to be concluded that this constitutes either a design that was never carried out or that it was not thought necessary to paint. Ongoing photographic surveys of paint fragments may yet reveal such colouring. The presence of the scheme on the west facade of the building is particularly significant and may indicate this being a common means of decorating west fronts in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Fifteen examples of ex-voto ships have been recorded and several other pictorial examples also seem to have been votive in nature. Few graffiti have been interpreted as representing a cross or crucifix, many of those that have may be incidental marks, perhaps suggesting that they do not have such a close association with pilgrimage as has traditionally been thought. A plethora of other pictorial graffiti survive which can be divided into a number of distinct forms. unfortunately, none of these forms contain enough examples for conclusions to be drawn as to their motivations. Care must be taken not to overgeneralise these almost entirely anonymous designs, created by many individuals over several centuries. The arc, circle and multifoil designs have been recorded in enough numbers at Rochester that clustering around the known or suspected locations of medieval altars and shrines can be observed. The designs in these clusters are almost exclusively created from a kneeling height, appearing to support an interpretation of a ritual function. An apotropaic function has been ascribed to this form of graffiti in many contexts elsewhere such as in domestic settings, although the need for spiritual protection of shrines and altars does not seem likely. In view of the fact that ship graffiti at Rochester, where this clustering and creation from a kneeling height is also observed, has been interpreted as ex-voto in nature, perhaps the arc, circle and multifoil designs can be described as broadly votive. The shrine of St William of Perth would have been one of the most popular with pilgrims at Rochester and it is in close proximity to this altar that one of the more dense clusters of these designs are found. The clustering of arc, circle and multifoil graffiti recorded in the nave reflects the complex construction history. The graffiti appear near the earlier and later sites of the centre aisle altars and also close to the likely site of a shrine or altar to St Nicholas in the south nave aisle. The clustering in proximity to medieval altars and shrines at Rochester seems to suggest that whilst the location of these designs was important, the necessity for them to appear within line-of-sight of the altar or shrine was not. Variations of stylised letters A, I/J and W/VV have been recorded at the cathedral to date. The nature of some of these forms is likely to match those elsewhere described as cult marks, although many, probably most, are simply once-fashionable ways of writing letters. A full analysis of these designs will only be possible once wider surveys of names, dates and text graffiti are completed. Even then many questions will likely remain. It has been suggested that inscriptions featuring a border of some description, ranging from a simple single-line box to more elaborate designs featuring roofs and flags, are representations of wall monuments and plaques. Rochester features many such inscriptions and clustering can be observed in relation to the tombs JACOB H. SCOTT 72 of Hamo de Hythe and John de Bradfield, as well as a few other sites perhaps of mortuary significance yet to be identified. However, some of the more elaborate designs more resemble houses with tiled roofs, rather than tombs or monuments with architectural canopies. There are very few examples of graffiti at Rochester created out of reach of standing height. However, two or three of such examples may have been created from individuals standing on box pews, located in the quire crossing in the early modern period. No significant clusters of graffiti have been identified in the crypt, but there are three circle and multifoil designs in proximity to the known site of a medieval family or guild altar, above which the vaulting is adorned with elaborate paintings. There are also three ships and a bird graffito on the north side of the piers featuring the thirteenth-century Eucharist scenes. Perhaps this indicates the proximity of a previously unidentified medieval altar or shrine toward the centre of the crypt. Systematic survey of graffiti at large ecclesiastical sites can provide a new dataset with which to interpret some of the most long-lived landmark sites throughout Christian Europe. Analysis is likely most fruitful on a site-by-site basis and is highly context dependent. It is only by rigorously recording all examples of graffiti within the building that observations such as clustering can be attributed. The use of photo scales and appropriate file formats means reasonably accurate measurements of graffiti can be taken from the photographs alone, aiding the preservation of this dataset. Whilst most designs are anonymous and undated, analysis of clusters of graffiti en masse can inform us of how generations of worshippers have related to the building and its features. It seems possible that they can even be used to suggest the nature of previously unknown extinct features. Historic graffiti are a finite and diminishing resource and deserve recording appropriately. It has been within this project’s list of ongoing aims to build a robust yet manageable methodology that other groups of archaeologists and volunteers can use within their own buildings and sites, so that the data within these corpora is not lost entirely. acknowledgements Much work on the thirteenth-century figurative decorative scheme was undertaken by Beverley Jacobs in a Master’s thesis in 2005 and Beverley works within the Guild and library volunteers today. Dr Jayne Wackett, Rochester Cathedral Librarian and Historian, has also advised on interpreting the content of the thirteenth-century figurative decorative scheme, as has Matthew Champion. Dan Graham has conducted much of the photographic surveys of the text, names and dates graffiti and particular thanks also need paying to Graham Keevill, the Cathedral Archaeologist, for continued advice and supervision of the Guild’s work, Alan Minnerthey for graphic design of the Guild’s report drawings and Joseph Miller, Dr Christopher Monk, Dr Ruth Nugent, Sarah Taylor and Alan Ward for their patient editing of the many drafts of this report. Thanks are also extended to all the volunteers, staff and friends of the cathedral, without whom the Guild’s ongoing research would also not be possible. PICTORIAL AND SYMBOLIC GRAFFITI AT ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL 73 references All Guild archive reports are available online at www.rochestercathedralresearch guild.org Blackie, E., 1939, ‘Graffiti’, Friends of Rochester Cathedral Annual Report 1939, 29-31. Champion, M., 2015a, Medieval Graffiti: The Lost Voices of Britain’s Churches, London: Ebury Publishing. Champion, M., 2015b, ‘Medieval Ship Graffiti in English Churches: Interpretation and function’, The Mariner’s Mirror, 101:3, 343-350. Champion, M., 2017, ‘The Priest, the Prostitute, and the Slander on the Walls; Shifting Perceptions Towards Historic Graffiti’, Peregrinations: Journal of Medieval Art & Architecture, Vol. VI, No. 1. Dean, D. et al., 1998, A Short Graffiti Tour of St Albans Abbey, Alban Link Occasional Papers: New Series. Draper, P., 2006, ‘The Late-Twelfth Century East End at Rochester Cathedral’, in Ayers, T. and Tatton-Brown (eds), Medieval Art, Architecture and Archaeology at Rochester. Easton, T., 1999, ‘Ritual Marks on Historic Buildings’, Weald & Downland Open Air Museum. Flight, C., 1997, The bishops and monks of Rochester 1076-1214, Kent Archaeological Society Monograph VI, Stroud: Sutton Publishing. Graham, D. and Scott, J.H., 2017a, A photographic survey of bordered inscription graffiti at Rochester Cathedral, Rochester Cathedral Research Guild archive report rcl17r10. Graham, D. and Scott, J.H., 2017b, A photographic survey of cult mark graffiti at Rochester Cathedral, Rochester Cathedral Research Guild archive report rcl17r11. Holbrooke, D., 1994, ‘A record of maintenance, repair, alteration, restoration, decorat-ion, furnishing and survey of the fabric’, vol. 1, 1540-1799. Available at: www.rochester cathedralresearchguild.org/bibliography/1994-01 Hope, W.H.S., 1898, ‘The Architectural History of the Cathedral Church and Monastery of St. Andrew at Rochester’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 23.15, 194-328. Jacobs, B.D., 2005, The Medieval Wall Paintings of Rochester Cathedral. Available at: www.rochestercathedralresearchguild.org/bibliography/2005-01 Jones-Baker, D., 1987, ‘Medieval graffiti’, The Friends of Rochester Cathedral Annual Report 1987, 13-15. Livett, G.M., 1889, Foundations of the Saxon cathedral church at Rochester, Archaeologia Cantiana, xviii. Male, E., 1914, The Gothic Image: Religious Art in France of the Thirteenth Century, London: Collins. McAleer, P., 1996, ‘The Medieval Fabric’, in yates, N and Welsby, P. (eds), Faith and Fabric; A History of Rochester Cathedral 604-1994, Rochester: Boydell and Brewer, Friends of Rochester Cathedral. Pritchard, V., 1967, English medieval graffiti, Cambridge: Cambridge university Press. Scott, J.H., 2016a, A photographic survey of a thirteenth-century figurative decorative scheme at Rochester Cathedral, Rochester Cathedral Research Guild archive report rcl16r01. Scott, J.H., 2016b, A photographic survey of fragments of thirteenth-century figurative decorative schemes at St Clement’s Church, Sandwich: with a similar fragment at the church of St Mary the Virgin, Newington, Rochester Cathedral Research Guild archive report rcl16r02. Scott, J.H. 2017c, A photographic survey of ship graffiti at Rochester Cathedral, Rochester Cathedral Research Guild archive report rcl17r06. Scott, J.H., 2017d, A photographic survey of cross and crucifix graffiti at Rochester Cathedral, Rochester Cathedral Research Guild archive report rcl17r07. JACOB H. SCOTT 74 Scott, J.H., 2017e, A photographic survey of arc, circle and multifoil graffiti at Rochester Cathedral, Rochester Cathedral Research Guild archive report rcl17r08. Scott, J.H., 2017f, A photographic survey of heraldic, pictorial and symbolic graffiti at Rochester Cathedral, Rochester Cathedral Research Guild archive report rcl17r09. Swanton, M.J., 1979, ‘A Mural Palimpsest from Rochester Cathedral’, The Archaeological Journal, 136, 1. Swanton, M.J., 1989, ‘The decoration of Ernulf’s nave’, Friends of Rochester Cathedral Report for 1989-1990, 11-18. Tracy, C. and Hewett, C., 1994-95, ‘The early thirteenth-century choir-stalls and associated furniture at Rochester Cathedral with drawings and carpentry notes’, Friends of Rochester Cathedral Annual Report 1994-95. Turner, J.H., 1967, ‘Medieval graffiti of Canterbury Cathedral’, Canterbury Cathedral Chronicle 1967. Viola, F. and Barna, G., 2008, Pagan Christianity? Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices’, Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers. Whaite, H.C., 1929, St Christopher in English Mediaeval Wallpainting, London: E. Benn.