British Museum, no. 1967, 4 - 4, 1

Larger section of shaft, (b), reputed to have come from Lowther churchyard '. . . not far from the raised mound called the Quale burial-ground . . .' (Simpson 1874, 11). Royal Commissioners illustrated only this section, and did not commit themselves as to its derivation (R.C.H.M. 1936, pl. 6). Smaller fragment, (a), may have been one of those described by Commissioners as then present at Lowther Castle collection (ibid., lxv, 160). b) bought by J. Hunt in Lowther Castle sale in 1947 and acquired from him by British Museum in 1967. According to British Museum records: 'At the time when the present owner [i.e. Hunt] acquired it, he identified at Lowther in a rockery a small fragment [i.e. a] of the same shaft. This is now set in plaster in its correct relative position above the main block' (R. L. S. Bruce-Mitford, report to trustees, 17 March 1967). (This reconstruction taken apart in August 1984 in British Museum conservation laboratories)

St Michael

Damaged but unweathered

A (broad): a: Edged by a double roll moulding which encloses three curving strands, presumably the strands of a double medallion scroll and the stem of some internal feature. Between this and the strands of what seem to be the double strands of the medallion below is an upward-pointing triangular leaf. There are traces of mortar. b: Edged by double roll mouldings. Four complete interlaced medallions of a scroll which is incomplete top and bottom survive. Each medallion is differently composed. (i) A misshapen medallion in which the strand is double on one side only. From the base on the right springs up a split leaf with hollowed fronds. The other half is filled by a large, veined, triangular leaf with detached lobes. A pair of similar leaves divide this from (ii) on the left and a single leaf on the right. The stalks of these leaves split off from the base of (ii) forming the inner strands of the medallion. It is filled by a pendent leaf and rounded berry bunch, the medallion intersections being filled by long, veined, triangular leaves which spring up from the base of (iii). (iii) This is filled by a pair of split leaves, as on (i), and there is a small, short, triangular leaf at the base. The stalks of paired, veined, triangular leaves form (iv) and the medallion is filled with a rounded berry bunch and a short, veined, triangular leaf which is suspended from a tightly spiralled stem.

B (narrow): a: Dressed flat. b: A split-stemmed trail with four and a half side tendrils which diminish in scale towards the top, each one composed of a central volute enclosing a small rounded berry bunch. (i) A triangular veined leaf with detached lobes sprouts from the top of the volute and a similar leaf is suspended from it on a tightly curled tendril; there are also rounded buds with sunken centres between the berry bunch and suspended tendril on (ii–iv).

C (broad): a: A double roll moulding survives on the right and encloses two strands, presumably of a volute. In the spandrel at the top is a short triangular leaf; at the base a plain half-moon leaf. b: Five volutes of a spiral scroll, each containing a rounded or fan-shaped berry bunch. Each volute is divided on one side by a pair of plain, half-moon leaves and on the other a drop leaf of the veined triangular type. The leaves on (i) spring from tight tendrils; those on (iii) and (iv) have detached lobes.

D (narrow): a: Flat band and inner roll mouldings enclose traces of a volute which, on the left, seems to form a coil with a drop leaf. The leaf has detached lobes. On the right sprout a rounded bud on a long stalk and a short triangular leaf which springs from the volute below. b: A trail of the same type as B. The details are identical save that in the centre of the shaft one tendril sprouts two berry bunches as well as two leaves.

E (top): a: Broken away. b: Part of a rectangular dowel-hole survives.

The decision of the British Museum to separate the two parts of this shaft has provided the opportunity to look again at the reconstruction and to consider whether they are plausibly part of the same monument and if so, whether they were originally conceived as two blocks dowelled together, or whether the upper section is a repair. Crosses composed of several pieces are not unknown in Northumbria. The head of Rothbury 1, Northumberland, was dowelled to the shaft and one arm was also dowelled to the head (Cramp 1984, pls. 211, 1208; 213, 1217). At Ruthwell, Dumfriesshire, the lower portion of the shaft was joined by a stone tenon to the upper. [3] At Ruthwell, as at Lowther, the ornament on the upper and lower stones is not identical and at Ruthwell is enclosed by its own frame (Ills. 686–7).

At Lowther the ornament on the two stones can be reconstructed as continuous, even though there is not a very exact 'fit' between the two sections. There are minor stylistic details of the upper stone which cannot be matched on the lower, such as the edge mouldings on face D; the lack of serration on any of the leaves; the lack of an identifiable split stem; and the inclusion of the bud motif, could all point to the work of a different carver, although not to a different date for the composition. The subsequent history of the upper fragment which had been reshaped as a building-block also could have altered its appearance. On the whole it seems reasonable to accept that these fragments were part of the same monument in the pre-Conquest period.

The carving of this shaft is delicate and distinctive in its sharply cut fine detail and in the use of an open well smoothed background which sets off the scroll. This feature is paralleled on no. 2, which otherwise has a very different repertoire of ornament. The group of sculptures with split stems and curling side tendrils, as on faces B and D, have been discussed in the Introduction and compared with Italian and probably Byzantine influenced art (p. 16). Plant scrolls with curling pelta-like tendrils and drop leaves are also to be found on Carolingian manuscripts, as for example BL MS. Harley 2788, fol. 6v ((—) 1965, pls. I–IV), or the Godescalc Gospels (Paris Bib. Nat. MS. Lat. 1203, fols. 2r, 3r–v, 4r); although in none of them are the berry bunches as prominent as at Lowther, and it is possible that this is an Insular feature. Both the continuous medallion scrolls and the spiral-scrolls with drop leaves, as on faces A and C, have a long tradition in Northumbrian sculpture which is usually seen as deriving from Hexham (Collingwood 1927a, 29–38). Nevertheless, this western group is distinctive, with this shaft perhaps the most elegant and competent of a group which spans an area from Lancaster through Kendal and Heversham to Lowther. The split stems and tightly coiled side tendrils are most closely paralleled at Kendal and Heversham (no. 1). The medallion scroll is more unusual in the west. A medallion scroll in which some of the medallions are filled with leaves is found on a nearly contemporary monument at Otley, Yorkshire, though in a totally different style of cutting (Cramp 1970, pls. 42–3). The long scooped leaves are much more like Italian carvings (Introduction, p. 16).

Late eighth to early ninth century

(—) 1862–8, xlv; Simpson 1874, 11; R.C.H.M. 1936, lxv, 160, pl. 6; Cramp 1965b, 7, pl. 11; Edwards 1966, 148; Cramp 1970, 57; Bailey 1974a, I, 20, 23–4, 35, II, 188–9b, pls.; Bailey 1974b, 14; Cramp 1974, pl. 20a; Cramp 1977b, 269, figs. 4(c–e), 5(d); O'Sullivan 1980, 305–7; Cramp 1984, 15, 107, 176; Wilson 1984, 77

1. A name runcrosbanc is recorded in 1286 in this parish (Smith 1967, II, 187).

2. I am grateful to Dr. I. Freestone for identifying the stone type.

3. Unpublished letter, dated 14th July 1913, from J.W. Dodd to J.K. Hewison, including a sketch of the dowel, interleaved in a copy of Hewison 1914 now in the National Museum, Edinburgh. I am grateful to Ian Fisher for drawing this to my attention.