East end of north aisle, inside

Found in June 1896 embedded in foundations of north-west corner of north wall of nave (Parker 1896, 81)

St Mary

The stone was split vertically during recovery and is also broken and worn at both gable-ends, along base and at eastern end of side A

Hogback, type g, with curved ridge and bombé ground plan but lacking end-beasts; the gable-ends are flat, inward sloping and with a cruck-like profile.

A (long): A plain ridge moulding survives vestigially at the west end. Below are five rows of tegulation type 2c and these were once bordered laterally by a plain moulding of which fragments survive at the east end. Below the curved overhanging eaves is an unframed, lightly-incised, figural scene. To the left is a procession of (at least) fifteen warriors, set one behind the other with spears over their shoulders and shields overlapping. Traces of legs appear below some of the shields. This group faces to the right and their leader has his hand extended from the elbow. Facing this set is a second procession of (at least) eleven warriors similarly armed. Some of these warriors appear to be bearded. The leading figure in this second group carries a staff in front of him as well as a spear over his shoulder; there is a triangular pennant on the staff.

B (end): The gable-end is decorated with the worn and broken remains of a forward-facing human figure clad in a short kirtle. His left arm is bent across his chest and appears to hold a book. Below the elbow are traces of plaitwork which may connect to a strand running across the body. There is an unidentifiable vertical feature extending down from the chin; this is clearly visible across the upper half of the body and possibly extends between the legs.

C (long): As on side A there are traces both of a ridge moulding and lateral mouldings bounding five rows of tegulation type 2c. Below the overhanging eaves are groups of unframed interlace decoration. To the left is an interlocked row of five circles and one semi-circle, the flat-bands splitting and interlacing with each other at the crossing points. This ornament is linked with a complex tangle of irregular zoomorphic interlace to the right in which can be traced a contoured ribbon animal. The beast has a drilled eye and a head lappet which extends across the body. Further right are two groups of interlace set one above the other. The upper seems to be irregular; the lower seems to be a variety of ring-knot employing split bands, binding rings and (partly incised and partly cut in relief) a loose curled terminal. At the extreme right is a further variety of ring-knot with a boss placed at the centre.

D (end): The upper part of the western gable-end is occupied by the worn remains of a curled and contoured ribbon animal bound in thin strands of interlace. Details of the beast's head are now irrecoverable.

The presence of split bands, loose rings and the Jellinge beasts of sides C and D confirm the Viking-age dating of this hogback. The tall, narrow proportions and the use of figural ornament on the walls reflect north-western tastes in this form of monument. North-western also is the flat, inward-sloping form of the gable-end, for this type also recurs on Plumbland 2 and Cross Canonby 5. More important perhaps is that this shape of gable is also found on Gosforth 5, with which this stone shares exaggeratedly slim proportions and the otherwise unique occurrence of figural ornament on the gable-end.

The ring-knots at the right end of side C are closely paralleled on Scottish hogbacks at Tyninghame, East Lothian, and Govan, Lanarkshire (Lang 1972–4, 211–12) and are examples of a motif which was also very popular in Viking-period metalwork (Skovmand 1942, 51 ff.; Stenberger 1947–58, i, 41 ff.; Evison 1969, 338; Wilson 1976a; Bailey 1974a, I, 92–6, 353–4).

Warrior processions are rare in Insular art (Gilling 1937, pl. XXVI; Allen 1903, figs. 156a, 334c, 475b; Cramp 1984, pl. 201, 1133) but the Gosforth confrontation, and its near-incised carving, are closely paralleled in Cumbria on Lowther 4. Since the iconography of the Lowther stone seems to derive from Scandinavia it is likely that the Gosforth composition depends on a similar source, the figural arrangement no doubt transmitted in some perishable medium. Its significance is, of course, now irrecoverable.

The ornament on the two gable-ends is now worn and broken. It is therefore difficult to be certain about the details of the coiled beast on side D though his general disposition recalls that of Gainford, co. Durham and Folkton, Yorkshire (Cramp 1984, pl. 60, 284; Kendrick 1949, pl. LXI(2)); an analogous treatment locally is provided by Great Clifton 1. The figure on side B was initially believed to be carrying an axe and from this stems the popular Description of the stone as the 'Warrior's Tomb'. Such an interpretation of the carving is, however, highly contentious. The figure is probably carrying a book, and the vertical element, far from being the shaft of an axe, could be a staff (perhaps even a crosier like those known from Ireland – Henry 1970, pls. 55, 57) or a thin beard of the type familiar in Scandinavian art (Wilson and Klindt-Jensen 1980, pl. VIII; Davidson 1967, pls. 59, 60, 61).

Though showing links to the work of the Gosforth master, and particularly to Gosforth 5, this hogback stands apart from the other carvings at the site in its near-incised carving and its overt use of Jellinge ornament.

First half of tenth century

Parker 1896, 81–5, pls. facing 83, 84, on 85; Ferguson 1895–7, 297–9, pl. facing 298; Calverley 1897–9, 81–2; Calverley 1899a, 167, 172–4, pls. facing 172, 173, 174; Calverley 1899b, 239–42, pls. facing 240 and 241; Collingwood 1897–1900a, 34; Collingwood 1901a, 270–1, pl. facing 271; Collingwood 1901d, 317; Watson 1903, 399–401; Collingwood 1906–7a, 133; Collingwood 1907b, 155; Collingwood 1915a, 178; Collingwood 1915c, 307; Parker and Collingwood 1917, 107; Scott 1920, 104; Hughes 1921, 98; Parker 1926, 70–2, fig. on 71 and pl. facing 72; Collingwood 1927a, 149, 173, fig. 211; Collingwood 1928a, 19; Collingwood 1928b; Collingwood 1932b, 85–6; Shetelig 1933, 223–4, fig. 83; Shetelig 1948, 85, 88, 91, fig. 12; Shetelig 1954b, 130, 132; Walton 1954, 72, fig. e; Wilson 1956, 35, fig. 4; Radford 1958b; Pevsner 1967, 17, 130; Davidson 1967, 128–9; Davidson 1969, 128, pl. on 122; Schmidt 1970, 23, figs. 8 and 11; Lang 1973, 23; Schmidt 1973, 73–4, fig. 31b; Bailey 1974a, I, 289, 299, 303, 344, 348, 351–6, 358–9,II, 134–6, pls.; Bailey and Lang 1975; Lang 1972–4, 211–12, fig. 3; Smyth 1979, 275; Bailey 1980, 45, 85–6, 91, 98–9, 189, 215, 255, fig. 13, pl. 23; Bailey 1984, 13; Cramp 1984, 29; Lang 1984, 88, 99, 106, 109–10, 134–5, pls. on 135