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: Cross-base
Measurements:
H. 27 cm (10.5 in); W. 72.5 cm (28.5 in); D. 59.5 cm (23.5 in)
Socket: 26 x 12 x 27 cm (10 x 4.7 x 10.5 in)
Stone type: Medium-grained red sandstone (St Bees sandstone)
Plate numbers in printed volume: 12, 14
Corpus volume reference: Vol 2 p. 47
(There may be more views or larger images available for this item. Click on the thumbnail image to view.)
The socket hole is pierced right through the stone. Only one face (A, the upper) is decorated – with incised ornament. At each of the corners, a little in from the edge of the stone, are prominent deep punch marks, and similarly around the socket. The dots are linked by fine straight lines to form a frame and the inner and the outer corners are linked diagonally. Two apparently secondary lines bisect the divisions on the long sides.
Discussion It is difficult to see how this socket could have supported a stone cross unless it was sunk into the ground. It is possible that it was merely a framing and steadying device for a wooden or stone cross which would be driven through into the ground (Introduction, p. 13). The fine line ornament is very competently laid out, but if the socket had been long out of doors one would have expected it to be more weathered. It is possible that the base has been partially adapted as a Morris board, but it is not identical in form with any extant Morris board (Murray 1952, 37–41). R. C. Bell, in a personal communication, has postulated that the holes may have been intended as peg holes but that the total outline of peg holes was not completed. On the whole it seems most reasonable to assume that the design of the base was originally one that linked the extant holes, and that someone at a later date was struck by the fact that to add two horizontal lines from the long side would convert it to a form of Morris board. This type of socketed base is also found at Brigham (no. 9), and Beckermet St John (no. 7), and may reflect a local fashion (see Brigham 9).
It is difficult to see how this socket could have supported a stone cross unless it was sunk into the ground. It is possible that it was merely a framing and steadying device for a wooden or stone cross which would be driven through into the ground (Introduction, p. 13). The fine line ornament is very competently laid out, but if the socket had been long out of doors one would have expected it to be more weathered. It is possible that the base has been partially adapted as a Morris board, but it is not identical in form with any extant Morris board (Murray 1952, 37–41). R. C. Bell, in a personal communication, has postulated that the holes may have been intended as peg holes but that the total outline of peg holes was not completed. On the whole it seems most reasonable to assume that the design of the base was originally one that linked the extant holes, and that someone at a later date was struck by the fact that to add two horizontal lines from the long side would convert it to a form of Morris board. This type of socketed base is also found at Brigham (no. 9), and Beckermet St John (no. 7), and may reflect a local fashion (see Brigham 9).
