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: Part of a cross-shaft
Measurements: H. 52 cm (20.7 in); W. 18 > 14 cm (7.1 > 5.6 in); D. 15 > 14 cm (6 > 5.6 in)
Stone type: Light olive-grey (5Y 6/1), moderately sorted, clast-supported quartz sandstone. The sub-angular to sub-rounded grains range from 0.3 to 0.7 mm across, but are dominantly 0.4 to 0.5 mm across. Millstone Grit Group, Carboniferous (C.R.B.)
Plate numbers in printed volume: Ills. 152–4
Corpus volume reference: Vol 13 p. 164-165
(There may be more views or larger images available for this item. Click on the thumbnail image to view.)
A and C have small portions of surviving edge roll-mouldings, of which a small damaged portion survives on B at its junction with C.
A (broad): This face shows one near-complete profile zoomorph above a second. The upper animal, which is quadrupedal with two legs visible, adopts an upright stance with a barrel chest, and a raised head. The top of the large head has been broken off and is characterised by a large gaping jaw with a long, pointed tongue apparently drooping from it. Its visible foreleg terminates in a clawed foot above the back of the zoomorph below; the rear leg rests horizontally across the back of this lower animal and the foot appears to grasp it. The body is decorated with what appears to be stylised plumage, and hindquarters are extended to taper away behind the rear leg as a thick tail which runs behind the lower creature. This zoomorph has a down-reaching head and curving back and neck. Its head is damaged but appears dog-like with a small eye and one ear showing. It has a small tongue which appears to touch the tail of the upper animal. Below is a raised, blank area pierced by the large (and later) hole. The surface of the blank area is curved and may represent the ground on which the zoomorphs are resting.
B (narrow): This face contains a single zoomorph in profile and in a rampant position, resting on a curving, blank area which is badly eroded. It is similar to that on A, although damage has caused much detail to be lost. It has a broad body with a barrel chest. It seems to rest on a rear leg and short tail, rearing up against the remains of the arris on the right-hand side. The visible foreleg is long and curves under its chest with the foot resting on the arris. Its head is broken off at the top but is large and has a partially open mouth with a large pellet for an eye. Its neck is fairly long and there may have been a tongue but this area is badly eroded. The stone is cracked across the centre of its body and its foreleg.
C (broad): This face contains a single zoomorph in profile and in a rampant position. It rests on a curved plain area at the base of the shaft. The top of the head is lost in the break at the top of the stone. It has a broad body with a barrel chest; one foreleg and rear leg are visible, with a tail curling down towards the ‘ground’. The feet are paw-like rather than clawed. Its back abuts the remains of the arris on the left. Its hind leg rests on the curved area of the ‘ground’, towards which the foreleg hangs down. The body appears to have been decorated with stylised plumage, the remains of which survive on the chest. It has a curving neck with a large head drooping slightly downwards. This is characterised by a pierced eye, a gaping jaw with a curled snout, and a tongue that extends from the mouth to rest on the chest.
D (narrow): This face has been dressed off and no detail of carving survives.
This stone appears to have been exposed to the atmosphere for some time as it is blackened and eroded, consistent with being in an open-air location, prior to the demolition of the church in the mid-nineteenth century. The blind hole drilled into A, suggests that it may have been reused as a building component in the old church, possibly as part of a door jamb. The decorative repertoire of the stone is repetitive in that rampant beasts are shown on each face. Those on B and C are very similar, but a template does not appear to have been used. The animal on A is slightly different and is more reminiscent of those featured on Derby 1, suggesting that, iconographically, the two stones are connected in date and genre. They might well be the product of the same phase of sculptural activity.
