The Corpus: Hackness 01a

East end of south aisle, inside

Found before 1848 in one of the two outbuildings of Hackness Hall (Poole and Hugall 1848, 44), but uncertain whether Low Hall (the old mansion) or the present hall is meant. According to local tradition, found in village pond. In chancel of church by 1859 (Whellan 1859, 905).

St Peter

Very damaged and worn, especially fragment b; the two non-adjacent pieces now laid one on top of the other

All faces of the shaft have a broad, flat, edge moulding.

Inscriptions Inscriptions played an unusually important role on the Hackness cross. The two battered fragments still preserve parts of five separate framed areas of damaged lettering in horizontal lines. The texts were carved in Latin lettering, in runes, in hahal-runes, and in another cryptic script. The inscriptions in Latin lettering are in Latin.

(a) (face B, fragment a; Ill. 458) The present top line was probably the opening of the text. Recognizable fragments of lettering appear on ten lines. Indistinct marks below the tenth line may possibly be the remains of up to two more lines of text, although there are no certain traces of letters. An incised horizontal line runs across the panel immediately below the space that may have contained an eleventh line of lettering. The letters in the top line are about 4.5 cm high. The letter height decreases to about 3 cm in the last two or three lines. It reads:

OEDIL[B]V[..]
[BEA]TA:[.—]
[EMPE]R[—]
[..OLA—]
[—]I
[—]
[LE—EM]
V[—S.]
[—ND—]
[—R]V

All that can be reconstructed with reasonable certainty is OEDILBVRGA BEATA [AD S]EMPER— ('Oedilburga blessed for ever—'). Collingwood's reading, which was accepted by Grosjean, seems to have been largely fanciful (Collingwood 1927, 60; Grosjean 1961). Baldwin Brown (Brown 1930, 62–3) was more circumspect and saw apparently no more than now remains. The probable use of the preposition ad with the adverb semper would not be Classical, but it is found in medieval Latin (Latham 1975–, I, 24).

(b) (face B, fragment b; Ill. 457) The panel contains the remains of five lines (only four of any length) of cryptic characters with a slight similarity to Ogham. They are formed of different numbers of straight (horizontal, vertical, or sloping) or curved lines. There appear to be no others like them in the whole of Anglo-Saxon epigraphy, and they are likely to remain uninterpreted (Collingwood 1911a, 280, fig. g).

(c) (face C, fragment a; Ill. 463) The base of the runic panel is broken away. What remains of it holds fragments of six lines of characters, though much of the bottom one is lost with the break. The first two lines have previously been read as runes, and certainly some of the letters are runic in form. Others look non-runic, while for some badly preserved forms it is hard to suggest any certain reconstruction. Lines three to five are in hahal-runes, and line six has half a line of hahal-runes, followed by three Latin capitals.

Any reading of the inscription must have a strong element of subjectivity. All that can be traced of the first two lines is:

+emc[—]rœ
gn[—] œ [.]

The text opens with an introductory cross.

It seems pointless to attempt a reading of the three-and-a-half lines of hahal-runes in view of the uncertainties involved. The last three surviving letters of the text are in Latin capitals, over 5 cm in height. They read:

[ORA]

This is presumably a derivative of the Latin verb orare (to pray), probably the imperative. The text probably continued below.

(d) (face D, fragment a; Ill. 461) Parts of eight lines survive. There was probably another line above. On the other hand, the text always ended where it does now, the second half of the last line being uncarved, and the border separating the inscription from the plant-scroll (Dii) following immediately below.

The letters of the top four surviving lines are about 5 cm high; those in the next three are about 4.5 cm high; and those in the last line are about 4 cm high. They read:

[—A]
[SE] MPE[R]
TE [M]E[N]T
[M]E[MO]R[ES]
[.]O[LM]VS[:]T[V]
[..TE]M[A]TE<[R]>
[AMA]NT[IS]
[SI]M[A]

Four words (SEMPER, MEMORES, and the phrase MATER AMANTISSIMA), are fairly certain. This would mean something like '. . . for ever . . . mindful . . . most loving mother'. This sounds like a prayer addressed to a 'mother', the final A of whose name may be the first extant letter of the text.

The probable R at the end of the sixth surviving line was added, as an afterthought, in the right-hand border. It is damaged, but the vertical and the upper part of the bow remain. The letter-cutter left gaps in the second and third surviving lines in order to avoid a flaw in the stone.

(e) (face D, fragment b; Ill. 466) Parts of four lines of lettering remain. The letter heights are about 4 cm in line one, 3.2 cm in line two, and 3.8 cm in line three. They read:

[.TREL—OS.]
[A..A.IS]SA
[OEDILBVR]G[AOR]
[ATEP.—]

There was probably an uncarved gap in the text at the end of the second line. The second line almost certainly read ABBATISSA. The surviving letters of the word before would be compatible with the reconstruction RELIGIOSA. The third and fourth lines probably read OEDILBVRGA ORATE. The following letter was P, R, or B, probably, in the context, the P of PRO. The meaning then would be '. . . religious abbess, Oedilburga, pray for . . .'. As the verb seems to be in the second person plural imperative, it is probable that one or more other names preceded that of Oedilburga.

The non-runic lettering can be judged from the better preserved inscriptions, d and e. Letters are slightly seriffed. Roman capitals are the underlying type. The following non-Classical forms occur: A with an angular cross-bar; M with vertical outer limbs; very probably square O; angular S. N is the Classical form. The small G in inscription (e) probably derives from the uncial text letter (Kendrick et al. 1960, II, 76).

==J.H., R.I.P.

A (broad): (i) At the top a tapering panel contains an S-shaped spiral scroll, its stem median-incised. Within each of the two volutes is a pendant triangular berry bunch. Drop leaves, either singly or in pairs, fill the corners and spandrels; many of them are scooped. Some are half-moon, but those in the centre are pointed. A double-ended plain node unites the two scrolls. (ii) Beneath a broad, flat, transverse moulding is the head and left shoulder of a frontally placed figure, standing out in bold relief from a flat background. There is no halo. The hair, a worn feature, hangs in a plait over the shoulder. The cheeks and nose are modelled and the chin is pointed. (iii) On the lower fragment is the bottom section of a panel containing the lower halves of a pair of confronted profile animals. Their bodies have a half-inch contoured outline, the areas within being filled with diagonal hatching. The lower halves of the hind legs lie at right angles to the vertical haunches, across the base of the panel. The shins are slender and each foot has a long toe extending from three small lobes. The tails are slender and unclear. The fore legs hang in a saltire between the animals. They have the same type of foot as the hind legs. The horizontal parts of the hind legs are each six inches long precisely. (iv) Below a flat transverse moulding matching the lateral ones is a pair of scrolls, arranged like an Ionic capital; a median-incised crescent motif lies at the centre, below symmetrical pelta-like elements. The strands are in high relief, with a flat top and sloping sides.

B (narrow): (i) An inscription, (a). There is no clear moulding separating this from the panel of plant-scroll below, but a shallow, horizontal incised line can be seen two inches above the right-hand half of the scroll (Ill. 458). Below this line are marks which may conceivably be traces of further letters. (ii) The lower panel has very damaged plant-scroll with median-incised stems. The concentric stems of the scroll are bound across a trumpet-shaped node by a continuous bar. At the top, a flamboyant spray erupts. (iii) At the top of the lower fragment are the remains of an inscription, (b). (iv) Divided from (iii) by a flat transverse border is a narrow horizontal panel of interlace, consisting of two registers of half pattern C, turned horizontally, with V-bends. A bar terminal survives on the left. The strands are median-incised and the hole points deeply sunk, inverted, triangular pyramids. The upper surface of the strands is flush with the face below, which was apparently plain.

C (broad): (i) The upper panel contains interlace, consisting of two registers and part of a third of simple pattern B, with median-incised strands. The hole points (G.I., xxix) are an inch deep with sloping, angular sides. The loops have box-pointed outer edges, but most are rounded within. (ii) An inscription, (c), in runes, hahal-runes, and Roman letters. The base of the panel is broken away, and the top begins two inches below the upper panel, with no transverse moulding separating them. (iii) The lower fragment is broken away.

D (narrow): (i) An inscription, (d). A narrow, flat, transverse moulding separates it from the panel below; it is roughly cut and not very straight. (ii) The panel beneath has an S-shaped spiral scroll, like panel (i) on face A, with scooped drop leaves in a spray at the lower end of the fragment and half-moon leaves in the interstices. The stems are median-incised. (iii) On the lower fragment there are slight traces of a flat lateral moulding. The panel contains part of an inscription, (e).

E (top): A square mortise hole survives.

All faces of the shaft have a broad, flat, edge moulding.

Inscriptions Inscriptions played an unusually important role on the Hackness cross. The two battered fragments still preserve parts of five separate framed areas of damaged lettering in horizontal lines. The texts were carved in Latin lettering, in runes, in hahal-runes, and in another cryptic script. The inscriptions in Latin lettering are in Latin.

(a) (face B, fragment a; Ill. 458) The present top line was probably the opening of the text. Recognizable fragments of lettering appear on ten lines. Indistinct marks below the tenth line may possibly be the remains of up to two more lines of text, although there are no certain traces of letters. An incised horizontal line runs across the panel immediately below the space that may have contained an eleventh line of lettering. The letters in the top line are about 4.5 cm high. The letter height decreases to about 3 cm in the last two or three lines. It reads:

OEDIL[B]V[..]
[BEA]TA:[.—]
[EMPE]R[—]
[..OLA—]
[—]I
[—]
[LE—EM]
V[—S.]
[—ND—]
[—R]V

All that can be reconstructed with reasonable certainty is OEDILBVRGA BEATA [AD S]EMPER— ('Oedilburga blessed for ever—'). Collingwood's reading, which was accepted by Grosjean, seems to have been largely fanciful (Collingwood 1927, 60; Grosjean 1961). Baldwin Brown (Brown 1930, 62–3) was more circumspect and saw apparently no more than now remains. The probable use of the preposition ad with the adverb semper would not be Classical, but it is found in medieval Latin (Latham 1975–, I, 24).

(b) (face B, fragment b; Ill. 457) The panel contains the remains of five lines (only four of any length) of cryptic characters with a slight similarity to Ogham. They are formed of different numbers of straight (horizontal, vertical, or sloping) or curved lines. There appear to be no others like them in the whole of Anglo-Saxon epigraphy, and they are likely to remain uninterpreted (Collingwood 1911a, 280, fig. g).

(c) (face C, fragment a; Ill. 463) The base of the runic panel is broken away. What remains of it holds fragments of six lines of characters, though much of the bottom one is lost with the break. The first two lines have previously been read as runes, and certainly some of the letters are runic in form. Others look non-runic, while for some badly preserved forms it is hard to suggest any certain reconstruction. Lines three to five are in hahal-runes, and line six has half a line of hahal-runes, followed by three Latin capitals.

Any reading of the inscription must have a strong element of subjectivity. All that can be traced of the first two lines is:

+emc[—]rœ
gn[—] œ [.]

The text opens with an introductory cross.

It seems pointless to attempt a reading of the three-and-a-half lines of hahal-runes in view of the uncertainties involved. The last three surviving letters of the text are in Latin capitals, over 5 cm in height. They read:

[ORA]

This is presumably a derivative of the Latin verb orare (to pray), probably the imperative. The text probably continued below.

(d) (face D, fragment a; Ill. 461) Parts of eight lines survive. There was probably another line above. On the other hand, the text always ended where it does now, the second half of the last line being uncarved, and the border separating the inscription from the plant-scroll (Dii) following immediately below.

The letters of the top four surviving lines are about 5 cm high; those in the next three are about 4.5 cm high; and those in the last line are about 4 cm high. They read:

[—A]
[SE] MPE[R]
TE [M]E[N]T
[M]E[MO]R[ES]
[.]O[LM]VS[:]T[V]
[..TE]M[A]TE<[R]>
[AMA]NT[IS]
[SI]M[A]

Four words (SEMPER, MEMORES, and the phrase MATER AMANTISSIMA), are fairly certain. This would mean something like '. . . for ever . . . mindful . . . most loving mother'. This sounds like a prayer addressed to a 'mother', the final A of whose name may be the first extant letter of the text.

The probable R at the end of the sixth surviving line was added, as an afterthought, in the right-hand border. It is damaged, but the vertical and the upper part of the bow remain. The letter-cutter left gaps in the second and third surviving lines in order to avoid a flaw in the stone.

(e) (face D, fragment b; Ill. 466) Parts of four lines of lettering remain. The letter heights are about 4 cm in line one, 3.2 cm in line two, and 3.8 cm in line three. They read:

[.TREL—OS.]
[A..A.IS]SA
[OEDILBVR]G[AOR]
[ATEP.—]

There was probably an uncarved gap in the text at the end of the second line. The second line almost certainly read ABBATISSA. The surviving letters of the word before would be compatible with the reconstruction RELIGIOSA. The third and fourth lines probably read OEDILBVRGA ORATE. The following letter was P, R, or B, probably, in the context, the P of PRO. The meaning then would be '. . . religious abbess, Oedilburga, pray for . . .'. As the verb seems to be in the second person plural imperative, it is probable that one or more other names preceded that of Oedilburga.

The non-runic lettering can be judged from the better preserved inscriptions, d and e. Letters are slightly seriffed. Roman capitals are the underlying type. The following non-Classical forms occur: A with an angular cross-bar; M with vertical outer limbs; very probably square O; angular S. N is the Classical form. The small G in inscription (e) probably derives from the uncial text letter (Kendrick et al. 1960, II, 76).

==J.H., R.I.P.

A (broad): (i) At the top a tapering panel contains an S-shaped spiral scroll, its stem median-incised. Within each of the two volutes is a pendant triangular berry bunch. Drop leaves, either singly or in pairs, fill the corners and spandrels; many of them are scooped. Some are half-moon, but those in the centre are pointed. A double-ended plain node unites the two scrolls. (ii) Beneath a broad, flat, transverse moulding is the head and left shoulder of a frontally placed figure, standing out in bold relief from a flat background. There is no halo. The hair, a worn feature, hangs in a plait over the shoulder. The cheeks and nose are modelled and the chin is pointed. (iii) On the lower fragment is the bottom section of a panel containing the lower halves of a pair of confronted profile animals. Their bodies have a half-inch contoured outline, the areas within being filled with diagonal hatching. The lower halves of the hind legs lie at right angles to the vertical haunches, across the base of the panel. The shins are slender and each foot has a long toe extending from three small lobes. The tails are slender and unclear. The fore legs hang in a saltire between the animals. They have the same type of foot as the hind legs. The horizontal parts of the hind legs are each six inches long precisely. (iv) Below a flat transverse moulding matching the lateral ones is a pair of scrolls, arranged like an Ionic capital; a median-incised crescent motif lies at the centre, below symmetrical pelta-like elements. The strands are in high relief, with a flat top and sloping sides.

B (narrow): (i) An inscription, (a). There is no clear moulding separating this from the panel of plant-scroll below, but a shallow, horizontal incised line can be seen two inches above the right-hand half of the scroll (Ill. 458). Below this line are marks which may conceivably be traces of further letters. (ii) The lower panel has very damaged plant-scroll with median-incised stems. The concentric stems of the scroll are bound across a trumpet-shaped node by a continuous bar. At the top, a flamboyant spray erupts. (iii) At the top of the lower fragment are the remains of an inscription, (b). (iv) Divided from (iii) by a flat transverse border is a narrow horizontal panel of interlace, consisting of two registers of half pattern C, turned horizontally, with V-bends. A bar terminal survives on the left. The strands are median-incised and the hole points deeply sunk, inverted, triangular pyramids. The upper surface of the strands is flush with the face below, which was apparently plain.

C (broad): (i) The upper panel contains interlace, consisting of two registers and part of a third of simple pattern B, with median-incised strands. The hole points (G.I., xxix) are an inch deep with sloping, angular sides. The loops have box-pointed outer edges, but most are rounded within. (ii) An inscription, (c), in runes, hahal-runes, and Roman letters. The base of the panel is broken away, and the top begins two inches below the upper panel, with no transverse moulding separating them. (iii) The lower fragment is broken away.

D (narrow): (i) An inscription, (d). A narrow, flat, transverse moulding separates it from the panel below; it is roughly cut and not very straight. (ii) The panel beneath has an S-shaped spiral scroll, like panel (i) on face A, with scooped drop leaves in a spray at the lower end of the fragment and half-moon leaves in the interstices. The stems are median-incised. (iii) On the lower fragment there are slight traces of a flat lateral moulding. The panel contains part of an inscription, (e).

E (top): A square mortise hole survives.

Inscriptions The five inscriptions were carefully and symmetrically arranged in relation to each other and to the other ornament (Brown 1930, fig. 5). The socket in the top of the upper stone shows that it was probably the top of the cross-shaft. The two symmetrically disposed inscription panels, (a) and (d), which start at the top of the faces B and D of this fragment, would in that case have been at the top of the shaft. The two inscriptions were of approximately the same length: ten to twelve lines and nine lines of Latin lettering respectively. On the opposite side to panel (ii) on face A, which contains the carved figure, and at the same level, is another inscribed panel, (c). On the lower fragment, the panel with cryptic script, (b), balances another inscription in Latin lettering, (e), on the opposite face. Hackness is similar to Anglo-Saxon crosses from Hexham, Northumberland, Hornby and Lancaster, Lancashire, Ripon, West Riding, and Whitby and Wycliffe, North Riding, in placing inscriptions at the top of the shaft, but its only surviving rivals in quantity of inscribed text are Hexham 1 and Ruthwell, Dumfriesshire (Cramp 1984, I, 174–6; Higgitt 1986, 130, 133).(See further Chap. 12, pp. 46-7)

The Latin inscriptions (a, d, and e) were neatly laid out and the letters were quite elegantly designed and executed. A fault or a hole in the stone on the north face of the upper fragment led to gaps being left in two lines of inscription (d). There was perhaps some carelessness in drafting and/or cutting this inscription. If MATE is the correct reading in the antepenultimate line, the R was at first omitted and then added in the right margin after the omission had been noticed (Brown 1930, 60 and fig. 6). There may also be an error in the TEMENT of the third line if, as seems probable, TENENT was intended.

Possibly a similar lack of care lies behind the miscalculation over the amount of space required for inscription (a). Here the text appears to have been at least one line longer and the letters a little shorter than on (d). It is also possible, but not certain, that this inscription carried on into the border of the foliage panel below.

Three letter forms require further comment. The Classical form of N is rare in pre-Viking inscriptions, though it is used, for example, in the Romanizing centres of Monkwearmouth and Jarrow, co. Durham (Higgitt 1979, 357–8). The form of G in inscription (e) does not seem otherwise to appear in Anglo-Saxon inscriptions on stone (Okasha 1968). Similar forms are found on one or two Welsh inscriptions of about the sixth century, but these are probably quite independent (Nash-Williams 1950, 224–5). More relevantly, the same letter underlies one of the forms of G used in the display script of the Lindisfarne Gospels (fols. 27, 95) and the Echternach Gospels (fols. 19–20) (Alexander 1978, ills. 39, 46, 51–2). Rectangular O appears in Northumbrian inscriptions from Hartlepool, co. Durham, and York, on the Ardagh Chalice, and in the display script of some Insular manuscripts, but it was not exclusively Insular (Okasha 1968, 325; Okasha 1971, pls. 46–7, 151; Gray 1986, 238–9, 241–7; see also Minster 20). Overall, the surviving lettering has a comparatively 'Roman' flavour, there being no specifically Insular forms of the sort found in inscriptions from Whitby, Hartlepool, Lindisfarne, or Ruthwell.

The opening of the runic text in (c) is marked by an introductory cross. The lack of an introductory cross at the opening of the Latin inscription, (a), may mean that this was not the opening of the text. The text may have carried on from elsewhere on the cross.

Some at least of the non-Latin texts seem to have been deliberately arcane, and the Latin texts, although probably not originally obscure, seem to have been concerned with matters primarily of interest to the ecclesiastical community that raised the cross. The texts seem private in nature.

All three of the more substantial fragments of Latin appear to relate to a venerated abbess Oedilburga. The severely damaged but profuse texts are more probably prayers addressed to someone firmly counted amongst the blessed than funerary formulae for one recently dead. She is apparently called beata, mater amantissima, and perhaps religiosa and, if the imperative ora or orate is addressed to her alone or, in the second case, to her and others, she was regarded as a potential intercessor (Grosjean 1961, 341, n. 1). Collingwood and Grosjean have suggested that Oedilburga was one of the documented saints Ethelburga (Collingwood 1927, 116; Grosjean 1961, 341). Collingwood's suggestion was very tentative but Grosjean argues quite strongly for Ethelburga, abbess of Lyminge. This Ethelburga had been married to King Edwin of Northumbria, and was therefore a close relative by marriage of Hilda, foundress of Whitby, of which Hackness was a daughter-house. Ethelburga's marriage had opened the way for the conversion of Edwin and the Northumbrians to Christianity (Bede 1969, II, 9, 162–3). It would certainly be very interesting to find an English saint from another centre perhaps linked by ties of consorority with Hackness, addressed or commemorated on a stone cross in the pre-Viking period. There are no exact parallels, although the Tower Cross at Kells, co. Meath, of the ninth century was probably inscribed with the words Patricii et Columbe crux (Higgitt 1986, 129, 135).

Some of the vocabulary is reminiscent of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica. St Ethelburga, abbess of Barking, for example, is called mater on six occasions in chapters which Bede has adapted from a lost life of the saint (Bede 1969, IV, 6, 356; IV, 7, 356; IV, 9, 360–2). He used the term of other abbesses, including Hilda, 'quam omnes qui nouerant ob insigne pietatis et gratiae matrem uocare consueuerant' (Bede 1969, IV, 23, 410). Bede uses amantissimus twice of persons in the Historia Ecclesiastica, once of the anchorite Oethelwald (Bede 1969, V, 1, 454) and once of Boisil (Bede 1969, V, 9, 476). The word also occurs in the Vulgate and so perhaps no great significance should be read into this coincidence. If religiosa is the correct reading for the word preceding abbatissa in inscription (e), it can be compared again to Bede's usage. St Hilda is religiosissima (or religiosa as a variant), and Heiu, foundress of Hartlepool, is religiosa in the same chapter (Bede 1969, IV, 23, 404, 406). Although little is definitely legible on the cross, it can still be said that what remains of the wording is compatible with the language in which Bede writes of Northumbrian monasticism.

==J.H.

Hahal-runes, found in inscription (c), are, of course, a code type where the rune is represented, not by its form, but by two numerical equivalents, the one giving the number of the rune-group in which the rune occurs in the futhorc, the other representing the rune's position within that group. These two numbers are given by the numbers of strokes running from each side of a central vertical stem. Thus the following character would give the third letter of the first group:

The problem with hahal-runes is that we do not know the full order of runes in the Anglo-Saxon futhorc (with its additional letters), nor do we know the numbering of the individual rune groups. So if a text is neither long nor clear, it is impossible to read it with confidence. In the case of the Hackness stone the surface has 'skinned' away, leaving but a few patches remaining standing proud of the surrounding surface, which has a loose, granular texture. Incisions can be traced with any certainty only where the original surface remains intact. This presents particular problems with the hahal-runes, since it is not possible to reconstruct their forms from the remaining fragments alone.

==R.I.P.

Apart from the notoriously problematic inscriptions, this shaft presents many difficulties in interpretation. It stands apart from the other Hackness pieces in its geology, being carved from a poor local stone with nodules that interfere with the cutting of both ornament and inscription. The shaft is ambitious but imperfect. A very large section is missing from the middle, judging from the taper, so one cannot be sure of the original complete scheme of panels. Their sizes and dispositions on both fragments correspond, and they are constructed on a one-inch unit of measure, the topmost panel being twenty inches long and tapering in internal width from eleven to nine inches exactly. The transverse mouldings or spacings at the beginning of the inscriptions are two inches deep. The plant-scrolls work in ten-inch registers.

The relationship between the inscribed and ornamental panels, however, is uneasy. The difference in the quality of the mouldings is striking: deeply incised for the inscriptions and cut in relief to a depth of an inch for the decoration. On face B it is conceivable that the last line of inscription (a) runs below the horizontal incised panel division, intruding upon the transverse border. If this were the case, it might lead one to speculate that the monument was made in two stages: an initial plain shaft with inscription in the manner of Whitby, North Riding (Peers and Radford 1943, pls. XXI–V), and a secondary embellishment which resorted to the fashionably deep cutting of late eighth- or early ninth-century monuments like Easby, North Riding (Longhurst 1931, pl. XXVI). Alternatively, and more probably, the decorative carving may have been accomplished by a different hand from the writer of the inscriptions, the latter ignoring the restraints of his allotted panels.

The awkwardness of the transverse panel mouldings only appears where they are adjacent to inscriptions. Face A, which has no inscription, maintains constant borders each two inches wide, separating panels of ornament. On the lower fragment of face B there is a border between the strip of interlace and the cryptic script which was evidently laid out before the inscription, since the characters of the last line are shorter than those of the preceding lines. On face B of the upper piece, the inscription may have overriden a putative, lightly defined transverse border which conforms to the overall proportions of the layout of the panels. How far developed the relief carving may have been when the inscriptions were cut is a matter for speculation.

One particular junction of interlace and runes, on face C, should be compared with cross no. 21 from Whitby (Peers and Radford 1943, 39, pl. XXVc). There the juxtaposition of an upper, deeply rendered interlace panel against an inscription with initial cross immediately below, suggests that the two shafts may have been produced by a single hand. Certainly the median-incised interlace and its resolution, together with the very deep, triangular hole points, are identical. However, the Whitby panels are separated by a double moulding, whilst those on face C abut uneasily, an unusual feature among crosses which combine inscription and modelled decoration.

Face A has the head of a figure placed in the second panel down. Since it occupies most of the width available it is likely to have been a portrait head or bust rather than a full-length figure. In that respect it more closely resembles crosses at Otley, West Riding, Easby, and Halton, Lancashire, than the earlier figures at Ruthwell, Dumfriesshire, and Bewcastle, Cumberland, (Cramp 1970, pls. 44, 47–8). Though the Hackness head has no halo, it may be a portrait of Oedilburga, who is addressed or commemorated in the inscriptions. Relief portrait heads are common elsewhere in Yorkshire in the Anglian period, at sites such as Otley and Easby (Collingwood 1915, figs. c on 225, o on 227; Longhurst 1931, pls. XXVI, 1, XXVII, 1). The ribbed or plaited hair occurs at Little Ouseburn, West Riding, to the north-west of York (Pattison 1973, pls. 26–7), on a similar bust.

The placing of the portrait below a panel of plant-scroll is unusual. At Bewcastle, Cumberland, and Ruthwell, Dumfriesshire, the inhabited and plant-scrolls do not appear on the same faces as the figure sculpture (Bailey and Cramp 1988, ills. 90–3, 683–7). That convention was preserved at Otley (Collingwood 1915, figs. a–i on 225), and extended to the early ninth century at Easby (Longhurst 1931, pl. XXVIII). The plant-scroll adopts a well-proportioned S-formation but, unlike Bewcastle and Easby, has no root to its stem. Its rather florid extensions may reflect, like those at Easby (Longhurst 1931, pl. XXVI, 2), Carolingian models in ivory (Kitzinger 1936, 70–1). The cutting is subtle, as Collingwood observed, especially in the gouged leaves and the inclined planes of the background to the plant-scroll, calculated to respond to the play of light (Collingwood 1907, 329). The pair of scrolls at the bottom of the fragment may be a crude attempt at the volutes of an Ionic capital transferred to the Insular sculptural tradition. Fragments of an Ionic capital, dating from the late seventh to early eighth centuries, were retrieved from the monastery at Monkwearmouth, co. Durham (Cramp 1984, I, 126–7, II, pl. 110, 601). Such sub-classicism, as well as the mode of plant-scroll, would fit easily into the period of Alcuin's involvement in Carolingian Europe at the end of the eighth century.

The mutilated, confronted beasts of face A are earlier than the late Anglian beasts found more frequently in Yorkshire, such as those with trailing extensions at Masham, North Riding, or Ilkley, West Riding (Collingwood 1927, figs. 55, 61–2). The double outline and hatched interiors to the tapering haunches are paralleled on an Anglian shaft at Crofton, West Riding, a monument which shares Hackness 1's scooped leaf in the plant-scroll (Collingwood 1915, figs. f–h on 161).

The shaft's plastic carving and sub-Classical echoes are unlike the accompanying monuments at Hackness. Nos. 2 and 4 would be at home in the mother-house at Whitby, and no. 3 represents an early Northumbrian phase of animal ornament. The large shaft belongs to a wider movement which was to develop through monumental pieces like Rothbury 1, Northumberland, and Easby. It looks away from Whitby in its sculpture but maintains the founding house's traditions in the placing of some of its inscriptions.

f