Today, the shaft is located in an area of the former churchyard that forms part of an informal park focused on the monument, near the east gates of St Helen's churchyard. When the cross was returned here, this ground was merely at the edge of the churchyard, but it is now somewhat separated from it by modern planting. The shaft is set within a base, part of which is discussed under Stapleford 2 below. However, the cross and its base have moved about quite a bit in the last two centuries (see below)

The earliest antiquarian reference to the Stapleford shaft confirms that the shaft once lay in the churchyard and was rehabilitated by setting it within a base at the crossroads 50m to the south east of the church. Stretton, writing in 1818, says 'there was formerly standing in the usual place in this churchyard a lofty runic or Danish cross which was taken down by some wise churchwarden at the beginning of the last [i.e. the eighteenth] century and placed upon a flight of steps in the town street' (Robertson 1910, 54–5). This is where Throsby saw it (1790b, 197), but Scattergood says that this removal took place around 1760 (1884, 92). Arthur Barratt, visiting in 1887, cites the same date of 1760, when — as he says — 'the shaft and base lay in the churchyard and about that time it was set up in its present position' (Nottinghamshire Archives Office, DD/ TS 14/32/1, p. 75), thereby importantly identifying the base, Stapleford 2, as part of the monument in its earliest known form. The reference by Stretton to the cross standing 'in the usual place' is interesting. There is widespread agreement that many churchyard crosses were originally sited to the south of the nave and to the east of the path to the south door. Is that what Stretton was implying? In which case there is a reasonable prospect that the cross had served as a medieval churchyard cross, and may even have been originally erected as such in this location.

When set up at the crossroads in the eighteenth century, the cross was equipped with a skirt of 'five or six' stone steps (Scattergood 1884, 92). According to the same authority, when it was originally set up, the shaft was topped by another large block, '20 inches to two feet high' on which 'curious carving' could be seen and within which a weather-vane was mounted. However, the steps were apparently becoming worn away and the weather-vane served as a target for missiles thrown by the village children, so the steps were stood upright to make the tall sub-base on which the shaft was re-mounted and remained until after the First World War (Scattergood 1884, 92). Apparently the upper block and the weather-vane it contained were kept in a nearby 'Stockingers' shop for some years, but they could not be found in 1887 (Stapleton 1887b, 53; 1903, 93). A stone ball was added to the top on a spike in 1830 (Nottinghamshire Directory 1844, cited in Stapleton 1911, 141). Both the location and this top are carefully recorded in a dimensioned outline drawing in the Romilly Allen collection dated 26 September 1889, and it is clear that at this date the shaft both had its pyramidal base and was oriented with the figured face to the south, as now (BL, Add. MS 37552, f. 230; see Ills. 193–4). The ball disappeared before the shaft was moved to its present location: 'One stormy night in the first quarter of this century [i.e. 20th] the ball which capped the top was blown off and damaged ... the ball was never repaired and replaced. Miss May Davis, a former headteacher at schools in Trowell and Edwalton, remembers the damaged ball being placed in Stapleford police station yard. ... She said the ball stood in the yard unrepaired for years and suddenly disappeared' (Miller 1994, 7–8).

Great controversy was aroused when, following a visit of the Thoroton Society in 1906, a proposal was put forward to restore the shaft to the churchyard. Eventually this proposal was defeated by a narrow majority in a specially convened meeting of the Parish Council, though Nottinghamshire County Council (using powers under the 1900 Ancient Monuments Protection Act) placed a row of metal spikes around the base in 1909 (Stapleton 1911, 142–3). In 1928, however, the entire monument was moved to its present location (Walker 1935, 207; Taylor, R. 1983, 40). The monument has undergone recent conservation: 'in 1989 architects from the Nottinghamshire County Council Monuments Division organised the cleaning of the cross following a request from Stapleford Town Council. It was discovered however that little corrosion or crustation [sic] had accumulated on the cross as a result of fallout over the centuries from the Stanton Iron Works and other foundries in the locality. All that was required was for the monument to be washed down with soapy water' (Miller 1994, 8). It was given a replacement ball on top in 2000.

St Helen

The shaft is well weathered, but the stone is hard enough to ensure that, even so, the detail is relatively legible. The weathering is quite evenly spread on all faces. Nevertheless, signs of the vicissitudes to which the shaft has been subjected are visible today. First, it has evidently been truncated at the base, as the interlace pattern disappears downwards without being resolved, and one would anyway expect a plinth of some sort before the base. The same is true of the upper part of the shaft: the interlace patterning at the top is also truncated, and this (as well as the overall proportions of the stone) suggests that the shaft may be missing as much as 50 cm (20 in) from its upper part. There is also a careful rebate in the lower part of the shaft (now facing east). On the south-facing section of the lower storey there has been substantial damage to the interlace pattern through abrasion. This wear pattern is quite distinctive, and does not appear to be due to weathering. Probably it results from blade sharpening on this most accessible part of the shaft, presumably in the post-medieval period. Finally, the standing figure on the south face has been subjected to careful iconoclasm, through the upper surface of the sculpture having been removed. This feature is discussed further below.

The early cross-shaft at Stapleford, much the largest surviving in Nottinghamshire and one of the best known, is a substantial example of the so-called 'round-shaft derivative' type (Cramp 1991, xiv, fig. 1, g–h), which have a circular, or in this case sub-rectangular lower column which is transformed into a shaft of square section by means of a moulded collar and four semicircular facets or 'swags' which adapt the round section into a square one (Ills. 125–8). The lower part of the Stapleford shaft is tall and, unusually, it is highly decorated with complex interlace patterns in low relief. This lower, circular, section of the shaft is divided into two registers by a bold 'collar' moulding consisting of two rolls of sub-semicircular section.

Because it is a round-shaft, description of this monument is most clearly and conveniently organized through the successive zones in which the decoration is arranged, from the lowest upwards, rather than conventionally according to the shaft's faces (see Ills. 125–8).

Zone 1 (the round shaft beneath the double collar moulding)
The decorative interlace within Zone 1 is divided into at least two panels by simple thin vertical uprights at the junction between the north face and the east face and between the east face and the south face; and probably between the west face and the south face also. At any rate, it is clear that the interlace on the west face does not continue comfortably onto the south face, whether there was a defined border or not. Furthermore, what can be made out (through the damage noted above) of the decoration on the south face (D) does not look like the tight geometrical pattern seen on the other three faces. Probably, then, this face was divided from the interlace on both sides by a boundary, and that within that boundary a different type of low-relief decoration was to be found. The shadowy swirls visible today suggest something more akin to inhabited plant-scroll than to the complex geometric interlace of the other three faces; but, without a closer scrutiny than is currently possible or better imagery than is currently available, we should be cautious about describing it as such. It is worth noting, however, that this panel is also on the same face as the winged figure higher up, perhaps suggesting that this was the aspect that originally contained a more meaningful iconography.

The remaining three faces of this zone are decorated with three fearfully complex interlace patterns.

A (east): Decoration on the east face has suffered along its southern edge from some of the abrasion affecting the south face, but its northern parts survive well and show it to be rows of 'free-rings' interlinked by running strands (closed circuit pattern A: Cramp 1991, fig. 24). The rows are not level and, no doubt partly as a result, the return strands at the top of the panel appear not to connect tidily, leaving loose ends. That at the top right gives the impression of being finished as a leaf. The decoration in this lower part of the eastern face is clearly truncated as it disappears into the current shaft base. The decoration on this face terminates against the thin vertical panel boundary between it and the north face.

B (north): At the top of the zone on this face, thicker strands form a complex unit of turned pattern F which is 'spiralled or surrounded' (Cramp 1991, figs. 15 and 18). Below this unit is a large grid of interlace, which appears relatively un-complex. It perhaps features two similar pattern F interlace units turned to run up and down the shaft, side-by-side and cross-linked; though areas of later damage towards its bottom eastern corner make this unclear. Like all of the other panels in this zone, this interlace too has been truncated at its base.

C (west): The interlace strands from the north face evidently do not pass round onto the face currently to the west. Here there is a single, apparently 'encircled' pattern, akin to Cramp 1991, fig. 15e (turned pattern E), though with the fine strands sometimes doubled. Along the top of the major unit runs a frieze of interlinked 'Stafford knots' (simple pattern E). However, along its base is a more complex pattern, though its details are difficult to work out. It is clearly truncated, however, as the shaft disappears into its base.

D (south): As noted above, the decoration on the south face in this zone is so compromised by abrasion that it is hardly possible to assess it. But, in contrast to the other three faces of this zone, the decoration appears to be structured around a broad fillet curving first to the west and then apparently returning to the east. With the eye of faith, one can see frond-like shapes attached to this 'stalk' at one end and curling away to fill the panel at the other.

Zone 2 (the round shaft above the double collar moulding)
In contrast to Zone 1, the complex interlace in this second zone is not divided into sections by vertical fillets, but neither does it resolve itself into a single pattern. There are breaks within it, where one series of motifs transforms into another, but strands from one always carry over into the next. Nevertheless one pattern dominates. It occupies the whole of the south and east faces at this level, and laps over the angles of the shaft onto both the west and north faces (Ill. 123). It is based on an encircled pattern C motif (Cramp 1991, fig. 19) forming three rows, with strands doubled. The overall effect is of a very fine, dense but well-organised patterning. A transformation occurs off-centre on the western face. To the north the strands form a more open, spiralled version of turned pattern A (Cramp 1991, akin to figs. 15 and 18), still forming three rows and still in a form of encircled motifs, but with the units extending horizontally (turned pattern A). This pattern continues round onto the north-facing section. The dense, encircled pattern C extends from the junction on the west side already noted, across both the south- and east-facing sides of the shaft (on both of which it delivers a line of encircled motifs aligned centrally to the face), towards a meeting with the open pattern A. But the resultant gap is too narrow for a repetition of either of these patterns to fill. Instead, one and a half units of a different but related double-outline pattern (possibly half pattern A) is introduced, set up and down the shaft to fill the gap and skillfully linked into its different neighbours in each direction. It even forms a pattern roughly central to this face of the shaft in this zone.

The 'round-shaft' element of the monument terminates at a second collar below the squared section of the shaft. This collar is very similar to that which divides the zones in the 'round-shaft' section below, except that it is composed of three sub-semicircular roll mouldings.

Zone 3 (the square shaft, lower)
Above the second collar the monument is more-or-less square in section and is decorated with a single panel on each face, which, as the shaft is currently set up, accord to the compass points. The panels are formed by a bold border composed of a flat fillet to either side of a pronounced cable-moulding. Much of the cabling has weathered away, though it is still clearly visible at the junction between the east and south panels, at the foot of the east-facing panel and of the west panel. The mouldings run up the angles of the square section of the shaft and terminate below in broad swags in the usual way with this shaft type, leaving blank spandrels in the enclosed segments.

A (east): The panel is decorated with two vertical and addorsed runs of interconnected 'Stafford knots' (Cramp 1991, fig. 23, simple pattern E). The strands are doubled to maintain the rich surface texture that is such a feature of the monument, however. There are three tiers of two knots each within the surviving panel.

B (north): The panel is filled with a fine, fleshy plant-scroll. The stalk curves upwards from the base of the panel and includes a pair of small split leaves with rounded ends, before erupting into a large complex whorl in the centre of the panel. The whorl throws off further leaves as it spirals inwards to terminate in a large flower looking a little like a pansy with a deep hollow centre and six 'petals'. The stalk then sways the other way within the panel, and throws off a second somewhat smaller whorl, which also throws off secondary leaves and also ends in a 'six-petalled' flower. Between the two whorls, and arising from the joint with the lower whorl, is a smaller stalk carrying at least one pair of leaves with rounded tips. The stalk itself terminates in another pair of similar leaves above the second whorl and below the panel's upper frame.

C (west): The panel is filled with interlace which starts at the base in a rather constrained pair of 'free rings' and loose ends, but then resolves itself into a regular design of five tiers with three 'free rings' in each, with passing strands linking the whole design together (Cramp 1991, fig. 24, closed circuit pattern A). An intriguing design detail is the two scrolling 'buds' that depart from the uppermost passing strands in the manner of plant-scroll, to fill spaces at the top of the design. This may be the intention, too, at the top of the free-ring panel in Zone 1, described above, where the detail is much less well-preserved.

D (south): This panel contains the only figure sculpture on the Stapleford shaft (Ill. 136). The entire panel is occupied by a single, forward-facing figure standing on a fillet of rectangular section at the base of the panel. To left and right, two arrangements of what is apparently drapery hang down to either side of the figure, and are in a three-dimensional sculptural style, compared with the otherwise completely flat surface of the figure. Within the figure's head area, there are a couple of crudely scratched or gouged holes approximately where one might expect eyes, and a similarly incised 'mouth'. But these putative eyes are set too close together and do not appear convincing, and the 'mouth' beneath them is a similarly lop-sided and incompetent gash.

The lack of surface coupled with the incompetence of the 'eyes' and 'mouth' – especially when compared with the sophistication of the sculpted 'sleeves' (or whatever they are) that hang below – strongly suggests that the figure's present appearance results from its surface detailing having been carefully planed off. A cogent confirmatory reason for thinking that the entire figure above the drapery has been removed is that, although the surface is entirely flat, tooling is nevertheless visible through the weathering. Long, careful horizontal lines, created with a broad blade, are visible across the flat surface; and the 'eyes' and the 'mouth' apparently cut into this tooling. We are looking here, then, not at a figure carved in a very flat style (which has previously been taken as a stylistic and sculptural trait), but rather at the outline of a standing figure, the original surface of which has been completely removed.

Within the stone's original surface, and the subject of comment since scholars started writing about the monument, the figure has bold projections to left and right of the body. They must be wings as they rise too high above the neck to represent shoulders. The figure appears to be wearing a collar, which lies in the same plane as the 'drapery' to either side of the figure's legs, and is therefore not planed away, but is rounded and articulated. The collar supports an overlarge 'head', but this has been planed flat. To either side of the head, previous commentators have seen two lateral projections to each side and interpreted them as 'horns' (identifying in consequence the 'cow-headed figure of St Luke'). In fact, there are not two projections but only one on each side, and this consists of a fillet extending inwards from the frame and then curving round and touching the 'head' shape to terminate in a rounded terminal. The space above the head and beneath the panel's border is deeply sunk but appears to be undecorated. A bold gash or straight channel runs diagonally across the figure from the lower tip of his left 'wing' to the upper tip of the right 'wing'.

What is described above as a rectangular fillet beneath the figure's feet actually has two pairs of two supports below it, as if legs to a long horizontal body. And in the fields to either side of the figure, below the wings, sinuous curving features suggest the raised extremities – head to the right, tail to the left – of a beast being trampled by the figure.

Zone 4 (the square shaft, upper)
Above this zone of four panels on the square section of the shaft, yet another collar runs around the stone. This one is of protruding square section, like the shaft around which it binds. It is decorated with interlace, which survives in moderately good condition on all sides except that facing south. On the west, where it is clearest, the interlace appears to be no more than a plait, whilst to the north the plait develops to include encircled forms. There is considerable erosion around the current north-east corner, but further south on the east face the pattern apparently includes a free ring. The south face of the collar is greatly eroded, but circular forms remain visible, even if the detail is not resolvable. Despite the effects of erosion, there seems no sign that these panels had borders.

Above the final surviving collar are the lower parts of four more panels, defined with similar moulded borders to those below. They disappear beneath the material that looks like 'Roman cement', which provides a platform beneath the pyramidal capstone. Within each of these panels is carved yet more interlace, but at this level the shaft does not survive well, and the interlace is extremely difficult to read, even in digitally rectified and enhanced imagery (Ills. 125–8).

A (east): This upper tier immediately below the capstone survives relatively well on the east-facing panel, where it appears to be a large and complex enclosed pattern set over, in the lower tier, a pair of linked 'free rings'.

B (north): The panel on this aspect is also divided into two tiers: the lower contains at least one 'free ring' motif, whilst that above is so damaged as to be virtually illegible.

C (west): The panel lies in two interlinked registers and consists of a short run of plait beneath a different horizontal pattern that includes a loop.

D (south): This panel is again divided into two tiers: the lower seems to have deployed a pair of circular patterns, though the detail is too far gone to say any more than that, whilst the upper evidently had an interlace pattern, though how it was resolved is not comprehensible.

The original shaft ends at this point. The top of the shaft was clearly truncated and uneven before the capstone was put in place in 1830 (above). On the present north face, some new stone was inserted to support it, and the actual top of the stone itself seems to have been leveled-up using a material that looks like 'Roman cement'. Above that is a stone pyramid, apparently of 1830, covered in lead-work. The stone ball which was set on an iron spike emerging from this capstone went missing in the early twentieth century (above), but it was replaced in 2000. When it was first set up at the village cross-roads in the eighteenth century, the shaft had a different capping, being topped by a large block, '20 inches to two feet high' on which 'curious carving' could be seen and within which a weather vane was mounted (p. 189). This could well have been the remnant of the original cross-head, but no drawings were made and the stone has not been seen since the second quarter of the nineteenth century.

The large cross at Stapleford is certainly the most impressive and best-known of Nottinghamshire's early monuments amongst the general public. Yet, despite all the attention it has received, it remains one of the least clearly understood. Its date has proved controversial, to the extent that it has been allocated to every century between the seventh and the eleventh. So, too, has its iconographic meaning and sculptural context.

It is perhaps easiest to start with the distinctive shape of the monument. Crosses of this form, with a round shaft which then transforms into a square shaft through a complex geometrical transition, represent a well-recognized tradition. The type was identified by Collingwood (1927, 5–9) and was considered further by Kendrick (1941, 10–17). Between them they identified something like 25 examples, which, though scattered from Cumbria to Nottinghamshire and from Denbighshire to the East Riding, nevertheless have a concentration in the south-western Pennine fringes, in Cheshire and Staffordshire. In terms of date, they are considered to extend from the eighth century through to the eleventh.

The Stapleford example stands on the extreme south-eastern edge of the distribution pattern of this monument type. It is also a marginal monument in a number of other respects. First, it is carved in a very hard gritstone, not at all like the soft red sandstones of which many of these monuments are made. This must have made the production of its complex interlace time-consuming and costly. Secondly, its interlace decoration is unusual when set against other members of the group. On the whole, the lower 'round' part of such monuments is rarely decorated and, where it is, the decoration tends to be of isolated motifs, as seen on examples at Leek and Ilam (Staffordshire) and Stanwick (Yorkshire North Riding) (Collingwood 1927, figs. 13.8, 14.9, 14.10). Stapleford's deployment of figure sculpture also stands out. The bold, hieratic figure on the south face of the square shaft is notable for standing in a dedicated panel, in the manner of the early examples of such figures at Collingham, Masham and Dewsbury (ibid., figs. 55, 87, 90). Amongst the Anglo-Scandinavian examples of this monument type, figure sculpture is rare, and may be confined to the strange figure carved below the collar at Brailsford (Derbyshire), which could not be more different in conception and execution from that at Stapleford (Routh 1937, pl. IX,b). Other aspects of the decoration at Stapleford also seem to relate it to early sculptures and to place it relatively early in this tradition of cross-making. Kendrick pointed out that the impulse to cover every surface of the cross with a fine, intricate, interlace patterning, including some 'vinescroll' elements, seems to hark back to Carolingian-inspired and undoubtedly pre-Viking monuments such as the Wolverhampton shaft in Staffordshire (Kendrick 1941, 13; Rix 1960, pl. X,b). That remarkable monument, however, is a re-cycled Roman monumental column in red sandstone, believed to be recovered from a public building at Wroxeter. Talbot Rice placed Stapleford even earlier, associating it with the Hedda Stone at Peterborough Cathedral and other Medehamstede sculptures (Rice 1952, 88 n.1). Kendrick also picked up and developed Baldwin Brown's pertinent observation that the interlace decoration on the Stapleford shaft runs horizontally around the shaft, even within the vertical panels of the square section, where it would be expected to run vertically, as it does in just about all other Viking-age examples (Brown, G. B. 1937, 273; Kendrick 1949, 71–2 — but, exceptionally, see the 'basketwork' decoration on the shaft at Follifoot, Yorkshire West Riding: Coatsworth 2008, 151, ills. 252–5). This characteristic, too, might be an indication of an early date, and relate the monument to shafts such as those at Wolverhampton or Dewsbury or Masham, where the interlace is organized in horizontal registers.

These indications might suggest placing Stapleford in the ninth century, perhaps; either before or after the Viking incursions, but at a period before the full impact of the Hiberno-Norse from York was felt in the Trent valley, and at a time when the traditions of the Mercian kingdom were still considered worthy of commemoration. That is, in simple, local terms, this monument belongs to an entirely different cultural tradition to the fine shaft at Shelford (Shelford 1, p. 152, Ills. 88–91), and is perhaps likely to be earlier in date than it. More recently, Bailey and Cramp (1988, 30–1, 33–8, 54–7) included Stapleford within their discussion of shaft no. 2 at Beckermet St Bridget (Cumberland), saying that it is the only other example of a 'swag' above a triple moulding apart from Gilling West 2 (Yorkshire North Riding: Lang 2001, ills. 266–9). This comparison, if valid, would certainly suggest a Viking-period date for Stapleford in the tenth or early eleventh century. But it is hard to say how convincing this parallel is, or what relevance it might have to Stapleford. Stapleford is clearly not a Cumbrian product and the remainder of Bailey's discussion about the 'spiral-scroll school' emphasizes how regional it is to the Solway area. By contrast, in his consideration of the round-shaft monument that is Sherburn 4 (Yorkshire East Riding), Jim Lang started to push the date of similar monuments, including Stapleford, somewhat earlier in the Viking period, suggesting that they could perhaps date from the later ninth century (Lang 1991, 204, ills. 772–5).

The truth of the matter is that Stapleford was in both cases being added to a list of round-shaft derivatives in these discussions without taking into account how different it really is. There is almost no point of comparison, in fact, between Stapleford and either Beckermet St Bridget 2, Gilling West 2 or Sherburn 4. And, although the shaft at Leek (Staffordshire) almost matches it for size (Pape 1945–6, 34–5), there is also no comparison between the decoration on Stapleford and that on any of the other Staffordshire/Cheshire/Derbyshire group of round-shafts either. Stapleford is an entirely different scale of monument in a different stone type and decorated in an entirely different manner.

A better approach in narrowing the date for Stapleford is through considering its single figure sculpture (Ill. 136). Both Trollope and Scattergood thought it a monstrous 'bird' and associated it with Odin's raven (Scattergood 1884, 92; Stapleton 1887b, 52–3). Once it is accepted that this is not a crude 'silhouette', however, but a much more accomplished figure, of which we have lost the entire upper surface (as proposed above), we are left asking what form can more justly be discerned in the surviving outline.

The principal previous identification of the figure has been as the bull-headed symbol of St Luke; and we should consider how such an identification has arisen, and whether it has any validity. The suggestion seems first to have been made by George Forrest Browne in 1885 (Browne 1885, 258; 1884–8, lxxii; Stapleton 1889, 209; 1903, 93–4), and was popularized by its quotation by Cornelius Brown, first in his account of Bishop Browne's lecture in the Nottingham Guardian (as reported by Stapleton 1889, 209) and then in his History of Nottinghamshire (1896). It was evidently based on reading the two projections either side of the Stapleford figure's head as 'horns' and turning this into a figure of a man with the head of a bull. This could only be St Luke, but in a very rare iconography seen in certain early English Gospels, but in sculpture only at Ilkley (Coatsworth 2008, 168, ills. 337, 340) and Halton (Bailey 2010, 184, ill. 476; the other examples listed by Clapham (1930, 70) have all been disproved. Unfortunately however, as described above, the projections to either side of the head are not 'horns' in any meaningful sense. They look more like an elaborate stone frame for an inserted metal halo, set within the deep, and very square-cut, hollow that surrounds the figure's head area. Such metal inserts into standing crosses are quite well known and a number of English examples have been catalogued, notably (for example) on the larger of the two Sandbach crosses (Bailey 1996, 8, 103). Particularly relevant to the Stapleford case, perhaps, is the evidence for the fixings for a metal halo round the head of Christ at Breamore (Hampshire) and, in the same county, the large votive image of Christ by the south door of the priory at Romsey also wore a metalwork crown (Rodwell and Rouse 1984; Tweddle et al. 1995, 252, 261). No drill holes are visible from the ground at Stapleford, and without closer access to the figure, a metal insert within the frame provided by the 'projections' either side of the head cannot be confirmed. Nevertheless, an explanation of this sort would seem to make much more sense than an interpretation of the figure as St Luke in isolation, for which there would be no obvious context and no iconographic parallel.

The figure clearly stood in a balanced, full-frontal pose and it had wings. In its pose, therefore, it is part of the tradition of large hieratic figures that originates in English sculpture in the seventh century and continues through to the eleventh century. The three-dimensional features beneath the wings to either side, possibly to be interpreted as sleeves hanging down behind (above), were thought by Arthur Mee to be the remains of a 'serpent' (1938, 276–8). This is a shrewd observation by one who knew the shaft extremely well, in all lighting conditions. If that were correct, and could be confirmed, then — with wings and serpent — the figure could only represent St Michael. An interpretation as St Michael would also offer an explanation for the long diagonal gouge across the figure's body, which would then become the seating for a second metal insert representing a spear piercing the serpent's head by the saint's left foot. Indeed, whether these fugitive details represent a serpent or merely a pair of hanging sleeves, the figure might still represent St Michael, as he is the only angel whose cult was sufficiently developed for him to appear in iconographic isolation. The fine carving of an angel/cherubim occupying a panel at nearby Shelford (Ill. 93) does not contradict this proposition since that image occurs on a shaft dedicated to the Virgin and thus plays a supporting role. The Stapleford angel is, importantly, in isolation.

The cult of St Michael is known to have been important in England in the second half of the first millennium (Jones, G. 2007, 67–80) and Stapleford is located on the eastern edge of the notable concentration of dedications to St Michael in Derbyshire (ibid., pls. 7 and 8). Furthermore, there is a notable hill to the north east of the church in Stapleford parish, Stapleford Hill, which offers wide views along the Erewash valley. It is also the location of a bizarre geological formation known as the 'Hemlock Stone', which is surrounded with folklore and mythology (e.g. Morrell 1986; id. 1987; Weir 1991, 2; Brooke et al. n.d.). The cult of St Michael is famously associated both with dramatic hills and with the locales of folk religion (Jones, G. 2007, 79–80). In these circumstances, St Michael might be a credible identification for the figure on the Stapleford shaft, though it has to be said that documentary evidence for a notable cult of St Michael in this part of Nottinghamshire is completely lacking.

Whether the proposal that the Stapleford figure might represent Michael can be used in a consideration of the contested date of the shaft is also unclear. St Michael dedications are common enough to occur at many different moments in the pre-Conquest period. St Michael was venerated in England from at least the seventh century (Johnson 2005, 36–7) and may have been promoted by those, like Alcuin, with strong contacts within the Carolingian empire, for which the cult of St Michael became especially important (ibid., 41–50). But in fact, depictions of St Michael occur throughout Anglo-Saxon and Anglo- Scandinavian art, and there is nothing distinctive about the Stapleford figure that might indicate a specific date. If the figure is correctly identified as St Michael, however, it does suggest that the shaft probably stood in the churchyard from the time of its erection. One of St Michael's most important roles is conveying souls from earth to heaven and in overseeing the process of their judgment. As a consequence there is a strong association between the archangel and churchyards, with sculpture and architecture organized to confirm the relationship (Johnson 2005, chaps. 4 and 5; Stocker and Everson 2006, 82–91).

Ninth century, perhaps first half?

Throsby 1790b, 197; Scattergood 1884 & plate; Browne 1884–8, lxxii; Allen and Browne 1885, 356; Browne 1885, 257–8; Browne 1885–6, 126; Stapleton 1887b, 52–3; Brooksbank 1888, 6–7; Browne 1888, 4, 9; Allen 1889, 228; Stapleton 1889, 209; Stapleton 1891, 35–8; Brown, C. 1896, 234–5; Browne 1897, 240, 284–7, fig. 22; Gill 1901, 13–14 & plate; Gill 1903, 19–21 & plate; Stapleton 1903, 91–6, illus.; Hill 1906a, 23–5 & plate; Mellors 1906, 7–8 & plate; Fellows 1907, 24; Mellors 1908, 318–19 & plate; Robertson 1910, 54–5; Stapleton 1911, 141–3 & plates; Stapleton 1912, 31–2 & plate; Cox 1912a, 6–7, 196; Hill 1916a, 203–4 & plate; Collingwood 1923, 10; Guilford 1927, 36, 187; Clapham 1930, 67, 70, 134 n.2; Walker 1935, 206–7 & plate; Brown, G. B. 1937, 273; Mee 1938, 276–8 & plate; Kendrick 1941, 10, 13, 15, pl. Vd; Pape 1945–6, 42; Wood 1947, 18, 33 & plate; Kendrick 1949, 68, 71–2, pl. XLVI.4; Pevsner 1951, 14, 175, pl. 34 (a); Rice 1952, 88 n.1; Fisher 1959, 83–4, pl. 31b; Pevsner and Williamson 1979, 18, 336 & plate; Train 1981, not paginated & plate; Taylor, R. 1983, 40–2 & plates; Thorold 1984, 163; Stafford 1985, 174; Weir 1986, 2 & plate; Kaye 1987, 28 & plate; Bailey and Cramp 1988, 56; Lang 1988, 56; Lang 1991, 204; Weir 1991, 11 & plate; Billson 1994, 3, 18 & plate; Miller 1994, 7–8, plates on 8, 10 & front cover; Sidebottom 1994, 142, 149, 270 & plates; Laing and Laing 1996, 190; Everson and Stocker 1999, 27–8, 114, 159; Strange-Walker et al. 2011, illus.

[1] The following are unpublished manuscript references to Stapleford 1: Nottinghamshire Archives Office, DD/TS/14/32/1, p. 75 ('Notes on churches visited No. I' by Arthur Barratt of Lambley); BL, Add. MS 37552, f. 229–247, illustrations (Romilly Allen collection).