Select a site alphabetically from the choices shown in the box below. Alternatively, browse sculptural examples using the Forward/Back buttons.
Chapters for this volume, along with copies of original in-text images, are available here.
Object type: Inscribed shaft
Measurements: H. 195 cm (77 in); W. 45 > 34 cm (17.8 > 13.5 in); D. 18 > 16.5 cm (7.2 > 6.5 in)
Stone type: Extensively lichen encrusted and difficult to find a fresh face. Yellowish grey (5Y 7/2), coarse-grained, megacrystic granite. Small, white feldspars megacrysts up to 4 mm across form about 20% of the rock; clear and milky quartz up to 5 mm across and a few scattered flakes of white mica are set in a medium-grained matrix. Bodmin Moor Granite. For the relationship between this stone type and that of Lanteglos by Camelford 2, see below.
Plate numbers in printed volume: Ills. 131-5
Corpus volume reference: Vol 11 p. 164-6
(There may be more views or larger images available for this item. Click on the thumbnail image to view.)
Shaft of rectangular section, broken at the top. The shaft is neatly shaped and dressed with a socket in the top, 4.5 cm in diameter and now 3 cm deep; since the top of the shaft is broken, the socket could originally have been deeper. The shaft contains an inscribed text but no decoration. The text is incised in four lines reading downwards with the letters facing left. The first two and the fourth lines are incised on face A, the third on face D. The text is rather deteriorated but probably complete. The last few letters of each line are now at or beneath ground level. The script is predominantly capital and the letters measure between 7 and 10 cm in height.
A (broad): The top of the face contains a large blank area, 62 cm in length, and then a small Latin cross which is set centrally between the first two lines of text on the face. The text reads:
B (narrow) and C (broad): Undecorated
D (narrow): The top of the face contains a large blank area, beneath which is set the text. The text reads:
The texts read together as: ǢLSEL[Ð] 7 GENE[RE.] WOHTE þYS[.E] [SYB–] FOR ǢLWYNEY[S] [SO]U[L] [7] [FOR] H[–] (Ills. 134, 135). Earlier drawings and photographs suggest that the text can be reconstructed as: ǢLSEL[Ð] 7 GENE[REÐ] [WROHTE] þYS[NE] [SYBSTEL] for ǢLWYNEY[S] [SO]UL 7 [FOR] HEY[SEL], 'Aelsel[ð] and Gene[reð] made this ?family-stone [or ?place of peace] for Aelwine's soul and for ?themselves [or ?Hey[sel]]'. The language seems to be early Middle English, possibly of the late eleventh or twelfth century, and the names are all of English origin. For a fuller linguistic discussion see Okasha 1993, 144–5.
Although it is clear that the use of vertically-placed inscriptions allies this monument with the early Christian memorial stones, there are other, more compelling, reasons for seeing it as the shaft of a cross, made of several parts socketed together. The reasons are firstly, that the stone has a mortice in the top, indicating that it was intended to have another stone fixed to the top. Secondly, illustrations show that it has a tenon on the bottom, and although that is not now visible, this is again a feature generally associated with crosses, allowing them to be secured into a base (the base would have been especially important in giving stability to a top-heavy monument like a wheel-headed cross). Finally, the stone has a well-cut, tapering shaft of rectangular section, whose proportions have more in common with a well-cut cross-shaft than with an inscribed stone. The lost cross-shaft from St Ewe (p. 145), which was apparently undecorated except for its inscribed texts, forms a parallel.
Despite apparently conflicting references to the location where the shaft was first found (Okasha 1993, 141), an association with Lantgelos church site can be assumed: Castle Gough (or Goff as it is now known) Farm is close to Lanteglos church at SX 085 824 and it is possible that a long piece of granite like this could have been taken from the church site for building purposes.
Although it cannot be definitively proved, it is likely that the stone recorded here as Lanteglos by Camelford 2, and elsewhere as the Rectory cross-head, was originally the head of this shaft, for the dimensions and style match well (p. 166, Ills. 136–7). Geologically, the two are not identical: although the stone for each could have been obtained from the same outcrop, they were not carved from the same block. This need not be significant, however, since granite can vary locally. Stylistically, the main reason for uniting the two stones is that combined, they share features with the similarly-dated stone at Tintagel, Tintagel 1 (Trevillet, Ills. 224–8). The Tintagel stone is on a different scale and is more ornate, but like the Lanteglos stones it has a wheel- or disc-head bearing a cross with arms, a thin, tapering rectangular shaft, and inscriptions on the shaft commemorating an individual with an English name (p. 201). The remainder of this discussion therefore assumes that the two Lanteglos stones were originally part of the same monument.
The suggested date-range for the inscriptions on this cross is of great importance since it helps in dating a significant stage in the development of medieval cross-carving in Cornwall. This cross can be seen to be bridging the transition between pre-Norman and Norman sculpture in Cornwall (Chapter IX, p. 97). Like the pre-Norman crosses, the monument has a wheel-head with a ring, but unlike them, the spaces between the cross-arms are not pierced. Like some of the pre-Norman crosses, it has four bosses to go with the four cross-arms, but here they are placed between the arms, not on them. In most of the later Cornish wayside crosses, although the central boss may occasionally survive, the other bosses are lost. A further feature which likens this cross to the earlier monuments is the inscription. Many of the pre-Norman crosses have an inscription, although they are usually considerably shorter and in Latin, not English. Most striking here is the fact that the inscription is placed vertically on the shaft rather than horizontally, perhaps because it was copying a nearby example. The Long Cross in St Endellion, 11 km away, and the Slaughter Bridge Stone, 4 km away, are now the nearest examples (Okasha 1993, 232–5, 333–7) but Lanteglos is in a part of Cornwall where early Christian inscribed stones occur and it is quite possible that there was another surviving closer to Lanteglos at the time the latter was carved. None of the later Cornish wayside crosses have inscriptions; nor, like the Lanteglos shaft, do they have any decoration.
Although it has not a name in *lann (Lanteglos is *nant-eglos, 'church valley': Padel 1976–7, 22–3), the location and Celtic dedication of Lanteglos are suggestive of an early medieval origin. By the eleventh century if not earlier, it was associated with the important manorial centre of Helstone. Its name, derived from Cornish hen-lys, 'ancient court' (Padel 1988, 96) suggests a native administrative centre (Preston-Jones and Rose 1986, 137–9) which became the core of an Anglo-Saxon manor. At the time of Domesday Book, Helstone was a demesne manor of the Count of Mortain, the major Norman landowner in Cornwall (Thorn and Thorn 1979, 5,1,4). Later, Helstone became a principal manor of the Earls and then Dukes of Cornwall and the church lay on the edge of their deerpark. It is possible that the stone commemorates a steward of this manor.
The language of the text suggests a date in the late eleventh or twelfth century, and this is supported by the style of the monument.
