a-b, Monks' Dormitory. Durham cathedral, catalogue no. XXIV; c-f, in situ in west wall of nave, inside; g-u and w-ac, in show-cases, north aisle; v, Bede Monastery Museum, Jarrow Hall; ad, Sunderland Museum, no 43-1973/95; ae-ai, Mill Museum, Department of Archaeology, University of Durham. See also 8 a-b.

a-b, found in c. 1829-30 on removing loose stones and rubble in tower. On eastern side of tower a vault, which Raine (1854, xxxii) describes as `too confined in space for a grave, more resembling a recess or closet, cut out in the wall. On each side of the aperture was a short pillar or baluster of magnesium limestone'. Balusters supported on a clearly medieval stone, so unlikely to have been their original position. c-f: first noticed 1866; g-ac: found in archaeological excavations at Monkwearmouth between 1962 and 1964 (ad no MK.64.AA (1); ae, no MK.64.VE (32); af, no. MK.64.UV (30); ag, no MK.64.WE (36); ah, no. MK.64.WR (41); ai, no. MK.62.FO (61)).

St Peter

a-b and 8a-b, whole; c-f, m, q, a and y probably preserve complete profiles. The others are fragments.

The profiles can be grouped into sixteen types (c–d and e–f unobtainable):

Type i (Fig. 6): a–b, and perhaps also ag and ah

Type ii (Fig. 6): 8a–b (see above)

Type iii (Fig. 7): m

Type iv (Fig. 7): g, ai

Type v (Fig. 7): o

Type vi (Fig. 7): y

Type vii (Fig. 7): ac

Type viii (Fig. 7): ad

Type ix (Fig. 7): p

Type x (Fig. 7): v (variant)

Type xi (Fig. 8): q (variant)

Type xii (Fig. 8): h, j, u, and perhaps also k (all variants)

Type xiii (Fig. 8): x

Type xiv (Fig. 8): i, s, t, w, z, ab, and perhaps also aa and af (all variants)

Type xv (Fig. 8): l

Type xvi (Fig. 8): r, and ae (variant)

In both scale and decoration the free-standing balusters from Monkwearmouth are very varied. a and b (type i, Fig. 6) which are in the Durham cathedral collection are of similar height to the two pairs, 8a–b (type ii, Fig. 6), in situ at Monkwearmouth. a and b have shallow holes in the centre of each end and each has been cut with a sharp angular groove from top to bottom (Haverfield and Greenwell 1899, 71 and fig.). There are turning marks on the ends which are almost certainly caused by lathe turning, and the grooves are obviously a secondary phase of this turning. This pair of balusters is unweathered.

8a–b are very badly weathered but they are closely similar in profile and groove formula. The profiles are drum-like but swell slightly above and below the central band of close-set deep grooves. There are shallow grooves in threes, and deeper more sharply angled grooves in twos, and these match exactly within the pair (type ii, Fig. 6).

The pairs of half balusters, c–f, which were discovered turned face inwards in the west wall of the church in the 1866 restoration are not necessarily in situ. They belong to a type intermediate between those on the exterior and the other examples displayed in the church. It is difficult to be certain of the forms of c–f, but they appear to be carefully paired in each window. Of the twenty-two others displayed in the church no two complete examples have identical groove formulae. On the whole, these lack the rounded and chamfered mouldings of a and b, and are more angular. However, several such as r, s, t or z have holes at the end presumably for lathe turning. Some like o, g or z appear complete in themselves with projecting bands at the top and bottom and swelling curved outlines in between. Withers like l, x or t, although apparently complete, are not symmetrical. Those with fine closely spaced grooves such as v, p, m, and h are possibly lathe-turned also. It is possible, however, that some were shaped in a different way with a chisel which formed a profile with flattened rectangular mouldings, as against those which are sharply chamfered – such as i, l, r, t and s. Several have been cut away at the back, leaving a three-quarter rounded section, perhaps to set against a wall or window (as c–f).

The great variety of groove formulae in these pieces is puzzling, but the near conformity of the pairs which are complete and have been found together does indicate that these pieces could be turned out to a formula whether from a template attached to a lathe or from a chisel and template. The many other fragments (not included here) which were found in recent archaeological excavations on the monastic site indicate that such baluster shafts were a relatively common architectural feature. How they were used is difficult to decide. The only pair in situ flank an opening, and it is possible that such balusters could have flanked openings into side chambers or could have formed part of a balustrade or canopy around and above an altar. The grooves in a and b could be original features if they slotted into a low screen.

The diversity and the smaller scale of the Monkwearmouth pieces in comparison with those from Jarrow possibly indicate that they could have had a variety of functions. The origins of such lathe-turned shafts could, as has been postulated in the Introduction (p. 24), be seen in the wooden furniture of the barbarian Germanic aristocracy. However, stone prototypes exist in Gaul at Nouaillé and Poitiers, and, since these pieces have, like ab and 8a-b, fine incised lines in bands, the conception of stone balusters could have been imported by Gaulish masons. Wither sites in the north, such as Hart (no. 10) and Whitby (pl. 263, 1423), have produced balusters of drum-like type. It is possible therefore that the fashion, having been introduced there, spread to other centres. Moreover, it is possible that those pieces in which the profiles are flatter, such as types x-xii and xv (Figs. 7-8), could have been carved with a chisel at a later date in imitation of the lathe-turned earlier pieces.

Last quarter of seventh century

Raine 1854, xxxii-iv; (—) 1862-8c, 3-4, 7; Greenwell 1862-8, xlii-iii; Boyle 1882, 252; Boyle 1886, 51; Browne 1886b, 8; Boyle 1892, 543; Hodges 1893, 147; Haverfield and Greenwell 1899, no. XIV, 71-3 and fig.; Hodgson 1906-11b, 170-2 and fig.; Howorth 1917, II, 282-6 and fig.; Brown 1921, 66; Brown 1925, 257-8 and fig.; Colgrave 1944-53, 193; Pevsner 1953, 187; Fisher 1962, 90; Wilson and Hurst 1962-3, 315; Colgrave and Cramp 1965, 25-6; Cramp 1965b, 4

1. See also 8a-b.