Derby Museum and Art Gallery

Found upside-down in 1979 in excavations immediately to the east of the crypt (Repton 19), in Feature 493, an eleventh- or early twelfth-century pit (Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 1985, 233, 237–8).

St Wystan

Found broken and fragmentary; now pieced together from one large piece and five smaller fragments. The carving on A and B is weathered and battered in places, but elsewhere in good condition; that on C is partly broken away and elsewhere heavily weathered, suggesting it had been more exposed than A and B; the surface of D is completely sheared off. The edges and broken surfaces are sharp and fresh, suggesting that the shaft had stood for a considerable period before being broken up and discarded. No traces of paint were observed in even the deepest recesses.

A (broad): The remains of a slightly flattened roll moulding survive on the right, with a short length also preserved on the left. The area framed by the moulding–which presumably once ran across the top of the panel as on B–is 42.4 cm (16.7 in) wide where fully preserved and tapers upwards. The ground is recessed on average 1.2 cm (0.47 in) and dressed smooth. The carvings are separated from the ground by a groove incised around the base of the raised areas and interrupted only in a few places, for example where the ends of the rider’s moustache override it. The carved portions rise in sharp relief from the ground and towards the middle project up to 2 cm (0.8 in) beyond the roll mouldings where the stone bulges in cross-section. The depth of the carved relief is normally 2 to 2.5 cm (0.8–1 in), but where it is particularly prominent, as on the rider’s chest, it can extend to about 3.2 cm (1.25 in). The carving is thus produced in the ‘modelled technique’ where ‘the relief details are deeply carved, the upper surface is rounded and the sides are chiselled flat with a smooth ground between them’ (Cramp 1984, xxi; 1991, xxii).

The decoration consists of a figure mounted on a stallion moving to the left. Only the upper parts of the horse’s forelegs survive above the break, but they show that the right leg was forward and the left leg back, in the same position as the hind legs. Diagonal incisions are visible on both the fore and rear legs, on the chest, and perhaps on the neck. Incisions at the top of the tail suggest that the dock was bound; the tail appears carefully groomed and trimmed to a neat square end. The top of the horse’s head is broken off and erosion extends over the break, showing that the stone remained outside for some time after being broken before it was subsequently buried. The chin and cheek straps and the nose- and crown-bands of the bridle are carved in low relief; the nearside ring of the bit is clearly formed. The reins form a wide band looped over the crook of the rider’s right arm, attached to the bit by a large pendent ring, and terminate in a second ring above the rider’s arm.

The saddle (or saddlecloth) is defined as a raised area beginning high against the withers and ending flat by the croup, behind the rider. It is held in position by a strap indicated by incisions crossing the horse’s neck, and a crupper shown as a substantial raised band passing under the horse’s tail. A broad flat collar encircling the horse’s neck, passing over the saddle and behind the rider’s skirt, can probably be identified as the ornamental element known as a ‘banding’.

The rider sits astride the horse and from the waist down is presented in profile so that only the left leg is visible. Above the waist, the torso and head are turned through 90^o to face the viewer; the upper and lower parts of the body are discontinuous, the torso corpulent and swelling beyond the width of the skirt below and beyond the frames to either side of the stone. Both arms are raised: the left holds aloft a small round shield (or targe), which touches the side of the head and overlaps the roll moulding; the right, over which the reins are looped, is broken off at the middle of the forearm but presumably brandished a sword, the blade of which appears as a broad raised band over the rider’s head.

The rider’s head is oval and although most of the details are lost through damage and wear, indications of the mouth and eyes survive, and a large drooping moustache is clearly visible, the upturned ends extending beyond the groove outlining the face. The hair is close-cropped and the fringe evenly trimmed from side to side, forming a smooth band about 6 mm (0.25 in) wide across the forehead. Above this a distinct ‘crinkly’ band, also about 6 mm wide, traverses the top of the head. On the right, in a space beyond the band, is a series of diagonal incisions, distinct from the ‘crinkly’ band, indicating the hair itself.

The rider is fully clothed and beweaponed but lacks a helmet. He wears a heavily pleated kilt or skirt, the bottom edge of which is elaborately and precisely detailed in a series of small Z-shaped pleats, which would have been best seen from below. His left leg is incised with a series of diagonal ‘criss-cross’ lines which end in a line across the ankle. The foot is very worn and mostly lost in the break, but there is no sign that it was set in a stirrup. The torso is clothed in a tightly fitting, long-sleeved garment incised with a series of curved scale-like shapes. There appears to be some form of collar around the neck, immediately below the chin.

The surface of the upraised shield, surrounded by a thin plain band, appears originally to have been decorated: in raking light a pattern is revealed, but whether this represents a bird in vertical flight or some form of cross remains uncertain. The band above the rider’s head, as noted, appears to represent the blade of a long sword. Across his waist is a short sword in a sheath with a straight upper and a curved lower edge. The rounded end of the sheath lies against the moulded frame. The narrower hilt of the sword emerges from the straight mouth of the scabbard just above the third pleat of the skirt to terminate against the saddle in a relatively large rounded pommel.

B (narrow): The roll moulding survives in part on three sides. Broken off at both corners, it is wide and slightly flattened along the upper edge; it survives along the length of the left side, except at the upper corner, but is narrower and more rounded; on the right a short length is present. The moulding defines a recessed panel 28 cm (11 in) wide where fully preserved which tapers upwards. The ground is recessed on average up to 1.2 cm (0.47 in) and is dressed flat and smooth. The carving technique is the same as on A, but the depth of the relief is generally shallower, rarely exceeding 2 cm (0.8 in).

The scene contained by the frame is dominated by a large serpentine figure flanked by two smaller human figures who lean towards each other and embrace as they ‘climb’ the coils below. The central figure has a large ovoid head which touches the upper frame; large hollowed ears jut out from either side. It displays large round close-set eyes with protruding flat eye-balls, especially the left. The nose, by comparison, is in low relief, being no more than slightly modelled. The mouth forms a large gaping circular hole, the lips (notably the upper lip) strongly modelled, emphasising the nose and cheeks above and the round, clean-shaven chin below. The upper part of the body is obscured by the arms and shoulders of the two smaller figures, but it seems to have been left plain, perhaps to distinguish it from the coils below; there is no sign of any arms. The lower part of the central figure (below the arms of the two diminutive figures), continues down, bending first to the viewer’s left, then coiling back to the right before apparently coiling around on itself. Further down, a flat band with a ‘median-incised’ line might depict a further part of the coils but, more likely, represents the ground on, or from, which the central figure rises. The coils are marked along their entire length by a series of parallel and approximately equidistant incisions.

The two smaller figures have their backs towards the viewer so that only their nearer arms are visible. The body of the left-hand figure is awkwardly turned so that the lower part of the body and legs appear to face the viewer in three-quarter view; the lower part of the right-hand figure is broken away, but its stance seems to have been similar. The necks of both figures are elongated and terminate as oddly tapering stumps extending into the gaping mouth of the central figure. Their arms are crossed and wrapped around each other’s waist or back, the fingers and thumbs of each hand being clearly shown. Both figures are clothed. Although their torsos are plain, an outlined band or hem around their necks suggests they wear a shirt-like covering that seems to terminate, below and parallel to the arms, in horizontal incisions at hip level. The figure on the left wears breeches, differentiated by horizontal parallel incisions, which end in horizontal incisions. The small surviving part of the of the right-hand figure’s thigh suggests it was similarly clothed. The legs of the figure on the left are marked by a series of diagonal ‘criss-crossing’ lines which end at the ankles, suggesting gartering or a patterned textile. The feet are plain but their shape and the absence of any indication of toes suggests that they were covered.

C (broad): The upper right-hand part of the face is broken entirely away and the surface of the lower half has split off leaving a fresh broken surface in which the broken dowel hole of D is visible (see n. 1). The extant carving is heavily weathered[2]. This not only affects the carved surface, but also extends upwards over a break where the upper part of the stone must have been broken away long before it was buried. This weathering matches that of the broken and then eroded area above the horse’s head on A.

Traversing the centre of the surviving area of carving is a wide flat horizontal band with a rectangular end bearing the remains of an extended arm and hand. The modelling of the forearm is clear. It narrows towards the hand with three or four fingers extended to the left and the thumb up-turned and separated from them. The remains of a torso and lower part of the shoulder survive to the right on the vertical axis of the stone. Above the horizontal band is a circular feature, heavily weathered, with a central depression and a deeply modelled outline. In certain lighting this is revealed to be a head within a circular frame. Below the band are the remains of another rounded feature carved in deep relief, the top of which touches the lower edge of the band. Between this and the torso a raised feature rises diagonally towards the torso.

D (narrow): Large fragments have been broken off the lower two-thirds of this face leaving fresh breaks. High on the left a broken and eroded surface continues round from C; on the right, where the sword-arm of the rider on A would have been, and above the broken and eroded head of the horse, the stone has been cut away leaving clear tool marks, probably of an adze. The only extant carving is the edge of a small piece of roll moulding on the left edge of A and a small area of dressed and eroded surface towards the bottom. This bears some indistinguishable features but they indicate that this face too was once carved. The breaking of the stone has exposed the eroded remains of a dowel hole, 17.6 cm (6.9 in) deep and 5.2 cm (2 in) in diameter, pointed at its lower end, drilled down into what was the centre of the stone. The edges are weathered, showing that the stone was exposed for some time after the initial damage before being further broken and subsequently buried.

E (top): Seen from above, the top surface appears entirely broken away, particularly towards D and in the angle between C and D, but two features survive. At the top of B is the roll moulding of the frame, weathered away at both ends. Its upper surface appears to be flaked off following a period of weathering; alternatively, this feature preserves a set-back about 6 cm (2.3 in) wide, rather wider than the width of the roll moulding, at the back of which the stone originally extended upwards, but is now broken off. If this is so, there may have been set-backs on all four sides of the stone which then continued upwards to a smaller plan. At the centre is the dowel hole visible on D.

F (bottom): Broken

Known as ‘The Repton Stone’, this piece apparently formed the top of a cross-shaft with figural decoration on at least three faces. The dowel hole running centrally from the top of the stone presumably held a cross-head in position which, in view of the dowel holes with different diameters running at an angle to each other, may have been composed of more than one piece. The central dowel was probably made of a hard wood rather than metal as the hole shows no sign of corrosion. Measurement and proportions suggest (Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 1985, 251) that the original shaft may have consisted of three equal-sized tapering stones and with its cross-head was as much as 3.6 m (11.9 ft) high (see Fig. 41). The treatment of A appears to support this reconstruction: as noted, the pleats of the rider’s skirt are carefully detailed on their lower edge in such a way as to suggest they were intended to be seen from below. On the reconstruction proposed, the pleats would have been at a height of about 2.3 m (7.6 ft) from the ground, well above an observer.

The patterns of weathering and the nature of the breaks indicate that the stone was subject to a complex sequence of events following its original carving (Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 1985, 252–3). A period of weathering was followed by primary damage involving the loss of the upper part of D with adjacent parts of A and C to the extent that the cross-head cannot have remained in position. This was followed by what seems to have been a lengthy period of further weathering during which the broken surfaces were worn smooth, perhaps while the shaft remained standing with its upper parts particularly subject to erosion. Finally, the surviving monument (and presumably the other remnants) was broken up and, with some of the fragments, was buried while the new breaks were still fresh. Before this, part of the secondary damage on D was chiselled or adzed, perhaps to make the stone fit some use: in packing a scaffold-post pit like the hole (F. 493) in which it was found, for example (see further Chapter V).

The lengthy discussion of the carved faces and their possible parallels published by Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle (1985, 254–87) need only be summarised here, with the exception of C which has not been the subject of previous extended consideration. As accepted in subsequent scholarship (see e.g. Hawkes 2006; Stoner 2017a), the scheme featuring the horse and triumphant rider is derived from the well-established late antique Roman iconographic tradition of the imperial adventus, featured commonly on easily portable objects such as cameos, ivory diptyches, silver dishes and textiles, objects of a kind available in Anglo-Saxon England. In details and in general the Repton sculptor followed the source with care and élan: the hieratic full-face rider and the lively, well-groomed horse are both close to an image such as that of Constantius II on the fourth-century silver dish found at Kertch, in Crimea (Beckwith 1970, 79, fig. 61: see Ill. 651). But the image has been adapted: the unarmed, helmetless emperor, in theory always victorious, has become a warrior wearing a mail coat, brandishing a broad two-edged sword above his head, and wearing a seax at his waist, weapons of his own Germanic race and time. The rider is triumphant not of right but from personal prowess, yet validated still by imperial style and an imperial diadem, the ‘crinkly band’ details of which survive around his head. The elements are complex. The weapon-set hints at the adoption of a foreign, perhaps Frankish mode. The moustache and targe may reflect more Insular traditions. A fusion of at least three cultural traditions is the result.

The Repton rider has no nimbus and is unlikely therefore to be a major military saint. He might be a local saint with a military background, such as Guthlac (d. 714) or Wystan (d. 849), a prince, potentially a king of Mercia. As miles Christi either might be possible, but neither is a convincing candidate, not least because the Repton rider is mature. His girth, clearly portrayed, is that of a middle-aged man and his luxuriant moustache more appropriate to maturity than youth. Guthlac was twenty-four when he gave up secular life for the monastery; Wystan was presumably young when murdered. Everything that can be deduced about the Repton rider suggests that he is a king in the fullness of his power.

Moving to B, the two figures embracing across the body of the human-headed serpent are naturalistically presented, down to the details of their hands and clothing, while the central figure is more stylised. By comparison, the analogous figure depicted in the central column of the canon table on folio 1 of the Barberini Gospels (Vatican, Bibl. Apostolica, Barberini. 570; Alexander 1978, cat. 36, ill. 173), a Mercian manuscript of the late eighth or early ninth century (Brown 2001, 282–3, 285–6) is naturalistically articulated, with its large human head above a panel of confronted bird-like beasts and interlaced serpents, the heads of the uppermost pair reaching up to his mouth (Ill. 652). The lug-eared head on the early tenth-century Gainford, Co. Durham, cross-shaft (4C) is, however, more stylised although fully representational (Cramp 1984, 81–2, pl. 61.292), while that on the contemporary Sockburn, Co. Durham, shaft (6B) is reduced to a pattern where the eyes, lug-ears, and gaping mouth survive only as the uppermost ring of a median-incised ring chain (ibid. 137–8, pl. 132.721); on another early tenth-century Sockburn shaft (3D) the elements are all subsumed in the shapes and twists of the ring-chain (ibid. 136–7, pl. 130.713; see Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 1985, pl. XII). Set against these examples, the presentation of the figures on Repton 1B is mixed: naturalistic and stylised.

If meaning is sought, the most likely interpretation of 1B would be that it represents the damned being devoured by the mouth of hell, a suggestion now generally accepted in the scholarship (see e.g. Hawkes 2011b, 234–6). An Anglo-Saxon ivory panel of the Last Judgement, now in the Victoria and Albert Museum, shows the dammed huddling into hell with the head of one devoured by the monstrous head of Hades. Their attitudes are resigned, helpful, almost eager, as are those of the figures on B. This panel, datable to c. 800, appears to be the earliest known scene of the Last Judgement in western art (Beckwith 1972, 22–4, 118–19, cat. 4, ills. 1, 16; Hawkes 2011b, 232–4; Boulton 2013, 286-9, colour fig. 23.3; Smith 2015, cat. 37, figs. 3.12A, 4.74B; although see Williamson 2010, 153). The English literary, specifically Mercian, tradition is earlier still. In Felix’s Life of Guthlac probably composed under the impetus of Repton in the 730s and certainly before 749 (Colgrave 1956, 15–16), the jaws of hell are a constant leitmotif: ‘they led Guthlac to the accursed jaws of hell ... Behold! the fiery entrances of Erebus gape for you with yawning mouths ... the hot gulfs of Acheron gape with dreadful jaws’.[3] Felix’s demons are ‘ferocious in appearance, terrible in shape with great heads [and] long necks’ (aspectu truces, forma terribiles, capitibus magnis, collis longis: V. Guth. XXXI, Colgrave 1956, 102–3). Most strikingly, one demon is ‘a serpent too rearing its scaly neck’ (coluber quoque, squamea colla: V.Guth. XXXVI, ibid., 114–15). Here, before the mid eighth century, in the life of a saint who took his vows at Repton, who was in contact with the monastery until his death in 714, and who was remembered there long afterwards, are all the elements of the serpentine creature on B.

As noted, the carving on C is badly damaged and what remains is so heavily weathered that it was not understood when first published. What has since been revealed by favourable lighting demonstrates that it preserves the right arm and hand of the crucified Christ (see Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 2001, 53, fig. 4.4; Hawkes 2011b, 235), along with the right side of the upper torso and a portion of the right shoulder. There are a number of distinctive features: the plank-like cross-arm; the thumb of the hand which is raised and clearly separated from the fingers; the raised feature above the arm of the cross; and the two features below it. The plank-like cross-arm and the raised thumb are regular features of pre-Conquest representations of the Crucifixion, and the thumb separated from the fingers in the manner seen at Repton is a feature of late eighth- and early ninth-century images (e.g. Hawkes 1996). The features below the cross-arm can probably be identified as the top of a head to the left, possibly of Mary but more probably of Longinus, with the diagonal element extending towards Christ’s side being his spear. The arrangement is paralleled in the mid eighth century on Hexham 2 (Cramp 1984, pl. 173. 914) and is exactly comparable with a panel of the much-rubbed and reworked eighth-century Anglo-Saxon ivory diptych now in Musée de Cluny (Beckwith 1972, 119, cat. 6, ill. 19; Smith 2015, cat. 12, figs. 3.10, 5.16B, 5.26A, 5.27A), and an ivory of the late tenth or early eleventh century in the Victoria and Albert Museum (Beckwith 1972, 125, ill. 69; Smith 2015, cat. 37, figs. 5.73C, 6.12B, 6.15D; cf. Daglingworth 2, Gloucestershire: Bryant 2012, 155-7, ill. 102). The raised rounded element above the cross-arm is most convincingly explained as the symbol of the sun (which would have been matched by the moon on the right). The same elements are preserved in the late eighth- or early ninth-century Crucifixion scene on Bradbourne 1 (Ill. 110), which also depicts Longinus with his spear stretched up to pierce Christ’s side (accompanied by Stephaton on the other side of the cross, his sponge extended up towards Christ). This might well suggest that the Repton version of the Crucifixion can be considered part of a wider interest in the event in the region (see Chapter VI).

Of D nothing survives, but if A and C show a triumphant ruler and the Crucifixion, respectively, and B the mouth of hell, it is possible that, as suggested in 1985, D showed the Ascension or some other scheme referencing the promise of Resurrection and life everlasting (Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 1985, 279). The placing of the feet of the left-hand figure on B is very like that of the feet of Christ ascending to Heaven in a series of sculptures and manuscript illuminations based ultimately on late antique originals (Beckwith 1969, 17–20, Taf. 11, 1–2). If the Repton sculptor was influenced by such a model on B, he might have used it as his model on D, now lost.

The complex iconographic references and access to the source material lying behind the schemes featured on Repton 1 indicate (unsurprisingly) that it was the product of a high status ecclesiastical community. The monastery at Repton, as is well known, was probably founded in the last quarter of the seventh century and survived for two centuries until destroyed by the Viking great army in the winter of 873–4. Throughout its existence, the house enjoyed close connections with both the Mercian royal house and Mercian nobility (Rollason 1981; Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 1985, 234–6; id. 2001, 49–52; Kelly 2004b; Rollason 2004). Although the church was again in use in the tenth century, there is no sign of monastic life or of aristocratic, let alone royal interest in it at this point although sculptural production seems to have continued (see e.g. Repton 8, 18). If Repton 1 is the product of a world in which late antique models from the eastern Mediterranean were available, in which illuminated manuscripts were used, and concepts such as those expressed by Felix in his life of Guthlac were current, then the world of the stone lies before and not after the events of 873–4. This dating would seem confirmed by the lack of comparanda in style or subject matter in the surviving sculpture of Viking or post-Viking England. The weapon-set of two-edged sword and broad seax and the absence of stirrups may further suggest that the stone dates earlier rather than later in the period before 873–4 (see Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 1985, 281–2).

The place of Repton 1 in the development of standing crosses is difficult to define because it is exceptional; there is nothing with which it can be directly compared. As a figured, naturalistic, and representational carving, the sculpture finds a context in the second half of the eighth century, at a stage which saw the development of the large standing cross carved in deep relief (Cramp 1978, 6–7). Furthermore, the rider is an authentically Germanic figure. It may perhaps be doubted if such a figure could be a product of ninth-century Mercia, in the aftermath of Offa (d. 796). The rider is the triumphant Christian warrior, dressed in the armour of God, crowned, as Felix wrote of Guthlac, ‘with the victor’s diadem of everlasting life’ (cum triumphali infula perennis vitae: V. Guth. X, Colgrave 1956, 78–9). Such a figure is as much a part of Felix’s eighth-century world of images as the dreadful jaws of hell and the serpent rearing its ugly neck. And such a figure is also the ‘ideal warrior ruler’ of the poem Beowulf (Clemoes 1995, 58, cf. 58–67), the composition of which has itself, in a field of great controversy, been attributed to Mercian royal circles in the second quarter of the eighth century, in Æthelbald’s reign rather than Offa’s (ibid. xii–xiii, ch. 1, passim). The Repton stone certainly seems to reflect many of the elements present in eighth-century Mercia–late antique art, Germanic aristocratic society, Insular styles, and ecclesiastical influences, and the development of standing crosses in this region, so far as we understand them, suggests that a date before the eighth century is extremely unlikely. The identification of C as depicting the Crucifixion in a manner not current iconographically before the end of the eighth century, however, suggests that the apparently earlier features visible in the rider figure on A reflect the date of the models lying behind the scheme rather than the actual date at which Repton 1 may have been produced.

So imposing, so individual a figure as the rider, with his great moustache and spreading belly, both carefully emphasised, his arms, his clothing, and his diadem, invites the question: ‘Who was he?’. His appearance is too personal to be simply a type, whether a military saint or a Christian warrior. As noted, his maturity suggests that he is unlikely to represent Guthlac (d. 714) or Wystan (d. 849) and the date of the carving, as argued here, rules out the second. But if the Repton rider depicts an actual ruler, which one? Early medieval portraits dating from the later eighth and ninth centuries have little to do with actual likeness; rather, they attempt to depict the most distinctive features, such as beard and age. These are exactly the elements on which the individuality of the Repton rider rests: his moustache, shaven chin and corpulence. Of the Mercian kings known or believed to have been buried at Repton, Merewalh (d. c. 686), certainly, and Wiglaf (d. 839), possibly, would be excluded on the dating suggested here. Æthelbald, however, who was also buried in Repton–in 757–was interred after a reign of forty-one years, when he was probably at least in his fifties (Kelly 2004a). He had come to the throne in 716. By 731, according to Bede, all the kingdoms south of the Humber were subject to his rule, and a charter of 736 describes him as rex Britanniae. In Stenton’s words, ‘for nearly thirty years Æthelbald was the dominant figure in southern England. No other king had ever maintained so general an ascendency for so long’ (1971, 205). After his murder in 757, Æthelbald was brought to Repton for burial. Where is not known, but the crypt (Repton 19), first built as a baptistery in the eighth century, remodelled as a mausoleum (see Chapter V), and later re-presented, perhaps as the burial place of Wiglaf (Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 2001, 50), seems likely. Repton 1 was found discarded in a pit immediately outside the east window of the crypt. Nothing suggests that it stood exactly in this position, but there is no reason to suppose it had been moved far.

These considerations suggest that the Repton rider depicts Æthelbald in the fullness of his years and power. The cross might have been erected in his life-time to celebrate a victory or even an anniversary, in which case it would have been carved before 757; this is unlikely because of the iconography of the Crucifixion on C. It is, therefore, more likely that it was a memorial erected subsequently, perhaps by Offa at the place of his kinsman Æthelbald’s burial. The commission might well have been undertaken later in Offa’s reign, when he may have been anxious to celebrate the long reign and deeds of his predecessor Æthelbald to secure the succession of his own son, Ecgfrith. If this is correct, the ageing figure of Æthelbald on the Repton stone is the oldest-known large-scale representation of an English king; perhaps the oldest surviving non-numismatic portrait of a Germanic king north of the Alps. He is shown, as Stenton concluded, ‘as the barbarian master of a military household’ (Stenton 1971, 205).

Late eighth century; possibly early ninth

Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 1985, 233–92, figs. 2–5, pls. V–VIII, XIIb; Dickinson and Härke 1992, 43; Sidebottom 1994, 105, 149, 265 (Repton 10); Hicks 1993, 135–7, figs. 3.13, 3.14; Clemoes 1995, 58–67, frontispiece; Bailey 1996, 67–8, 71, 85, fig. 33; Webster 1997, 225, no. 63, fig. 99; Plunkett 1998, 221, 305; Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 1999, 392; Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 2001, 50, fig. 4.4; Hawkes 2002b, 344, fig. 16; Hawkes 2003a, 83; Hunter Blair 2003 [illustrated on cover]; Yorke 2003, 113; Kelly 2004a, 395; Blair 2005, 229 n.202; Hinton 2005, 106; Hawkes 2006, 107–8; Neuman de Vegvar 2008, 177, fig. 1; Hawkes 2011b, 234–6, pl. 17; Karkov 2011, 102–4, fig. 32; Bergius 2012, 17, 45, 107–8, 127, 140, 187, 194, 393, figs. 4.34–5; Bryant 2012, 104; Webster 2012, 130, ill. 84; Stoner 2017a, 183–5, 227–58, figs. 79, 86, 192, 193; Stoner 2017b, 212–14, fig. 2

[1] RF 1165 is the main piece; the four fragments fitting to A and B comprise RF 1159 d–g; RF 1165 h is a fifth fragment fitting to B and C. Stone type and condition suggest that five other fragments (Repton I.ii) found in Feature 493 belong to the same shaft; they can be fitted together to form a detached fragment which cannot be joined to the main piece. Three further fragments with no signs of carving may also belong to the same shaft (i, j and m, RF 1184, RF 1152, and RF 1162 respectively). There are in addition seven undecorated fragments each carved with parts of a socket hole or holes comparable to that set vertically on the central axis of the main piece. Three of these match exactly the hole on the main piece and could be derived from it, although they do not fit (n, p and s, RF 1154, 1157, and 1158 respectively). The holes on the other three are of different dimensions (o, q, and t, RF 1156, 1158, and 1184 respectively), and a fourth has two holes of different diameters running at an angle to each other (r, RF 1158). For details, see Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 1985, 240.

[2] Initially, what little could be said of the carving on C (Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 1985, 250) was mistaken. Photography under various lighting conditions by Malcolm Crowthers following the exhibition of the stone at the British Museum in 1986, and by John Crook in 1989 when the stone was at the studio of Museum Casts International at Market Harborough prior to casting, revealed further details (see Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 2001), leading to the description and detailed discussion of C presented here.

[3] Guthlac ad nefandas tartari fauces usque perducant ... en tibi patulis hiatibus igniflua Herebi hostia patescunt ... aestivi Acherontis voragines horrendis faucibus hiscunt (Colgrave 1956, 104–7).