Church tower, inside

Letter to J. R. Allen from Reverend M. C. F. Morris, Rector of Nunburnholme, relating to restoration of church in 1873, reads: 'There was an old, but interesting, tumbledown porch on the south side, and built into the east wall of this porch was one section of the cross, one face of which we could always see . . . Further embedded in the wall, and, if I remember rightly, quite close to the main wall of the nave and wholly hidden from view, the second section of the shaft was discovered' (Allen 1901, 99). Pattison infers from preceding account that pieces were inserted into fifteenth-century fabric of porch in eighteenth century (Pattison 1973, 210). Both pieces erected in churchyard (Brøndsted 1924, 210, fig. 158), and subsequently encased in glazed box. Recently re-erected in present location.

St James

Central part of shaft and head missing; surface patchily worn, though the deep cutting and inclined planes survive well. Some incised detail remains despite weathering.

The two pieces of shaft have been wrongly reconstructed, the upper having been turned through 180 degrees in relation to the lower. This, the present state of the monument, is shown in Ills. 709–12. Ills. 713–20 show the correct arrangement, which is followed in the description and discussion.[1]

A (broad): The broad horizontal band at the very top of fragment a is roughly dressed. Immediately beneath it is a frieze of two angels, their heads placed on each corner, and each stretching an arm diagonally down towards the arched head of the panel below. This frieze closely resembles the adjacent one on face D, except that the decorative detail is unfinished, only the pairs of bands ornamenting the sleeves being complete. The volutes of the wings are plain, like the semicircular dishes from which they spring: unfinished versions of the rosettes in this position on face D. The acanthus below the arms each has a volute at the base, but only three radial incisions as divisions. The small round ears of the angels show signs of drilling at their centres.

The edge mouldings of the arched panel are broad and flat. On the left, the pelleted transverse strip continues round from face D, where it functions as a 'capital' from which the arched head of the panel springs; but the equivalent feature on the right-hand side of this face is only roughed out with a punch. On the left, above the pelleted strip, diagonal mouldings corresponding to the strap-like features attached to the arched head of the panel at this level on face D, are also roughed out; on the right, they are matched only by an incised saltire setting-out line.

Within the arched panel is a deeply cut seated figure in profile. The cutting is in flat planes. He sits, facing left, on a small stool, set crookedly. The vertical drapery around the shins is crude, and the upper part of the figure seems to be clothed in a jacket-like garment with a strip looping the arm and the lapel. The left hand holds the hilt of a large sword with a sub-triangular pommel and straight guard. The right hand protrudes from below the chin, palm uppermost. The head has a pointed chin, round incised eye, and a semicircular hair-line. On the head is what may have been intended as a hat, with rough volute tips front and back.

The surviving sections of the edge moulding of fragment b are wide, plain and flat. At the top, the carving consists of a seated figure in profile, its upper part heavily damaged. The carving is done in a series of flat planes. He sits on a chair whose legs are lost to the centaur carving intruded below. The legs of the figure are revealed and there is an attempt at half-profile about the knees. The left hand holds a rectangle with a raised perimeter. In front of the legs is a long staff.

Within the panel at the base is a deeply modelled centaur facing right, its rump damaged and nearside legs bent. The human half faces frontally with incised features and hair made up of concentric rows of pellets. On the shoulder is another, smaller, head, inclined and with drilled eyes. This carving intrudes into the border at one side and has been cut into part of the scene of the seated figure immediately above. The lowest part of the shaft is dressed but unornamented.

B (narrow): Beneath a broad, horizontal strip at the top of fragment a, the angel frieze is complete and identical with the one on face D.

The upper fragment has broad, flat edge mouldings. Faint traces of the transverse strip roughed out on the right-hand side of face A survive on the left. Above it are two vertical strips which meet the scroll of the acanthus fan. On the right the moulding is plain up to that equivalent point.

Within the arched panel is a frontally presented figure, the feet narrow and inclined with contoured edges. The drapery on the arms and shoulders consists of thick, radial ribs. On each wrist is a pendant strip with curled end. The head is covered by two cowls which narrow at the neck. On the chest is a large rectangle whose plain frame contains three horizontal rows of pellets. Below it are two vertical strips, like a stole, with large globular terminals. The figure's hands grasp the stole.

The edge mouldings of fragment b are wide and flat. Within the panel is a beast-chain of large profile quadrupeds. Two animals survive almost completely. The upper animal faces to the right and is disposed diagonally across the panel. The hind quarters slip. In all other respects it resembles the beast below. This faces left, its fore legs erect but its hind legs collapsing and crossed. There are incised spirals on the leg-joints. The feet are hooves. The neck is long and thick, curling backwards so that the head points upwards. The ear and tail are extended, median-incised strands which fetter the torso and neck, and pass to the beast above. The snout is square-ended with closed jaws. The lowest part of the face is undecorated.

C (broad): At the top of fragment a, the broad horizontal strip is roughly dressed. The plain, flat edge mouldings extend downwards to either side.

In place of the angel frieze is a pair of confronted wyverns with drooping tails that fill the spandrels. Each has an S-shaped stance, a stumpy fore leg, and an arrised, leaf-shaped wing. The beaks of the small heads touch. Each is fettered by a narrow band. The concave base of this panel is formed by the top of the arch of the one below, the arch being formed by the same broad, flat moulding as on the edges.

Within the panel is a Virgin and Child in half-profile, but with fully frontal faces. The Virgin's skirt has roughly incised vertical folds and parallel scratches cross her large, distorted arm. The flat face has a pointed chin and incised features. A lopsided dished halo with voluted tips frames her head. The Christ-child is held across her knee by a large hand. He holds a rectangular object with a raised border, like a book. His features are incised and the hair-line clings to the forehead.

The edge mouldings of fragment b are broad and flat. Within the panel are the remains of a large figure, its head lost and its upper parts defaced by the slot for a later clamp. Its rounded shoulders support two perching, long-tailed birds, whose heads are also lost. Their wings and three tail feathers are deeply incised. The figure's legs and kirtle are enclosed by a rectangular frame. Its cupped hands enclose the scalps of two smaller human figures below. Each has bent knees and a scroll on the shoulder. Their pointed faces with incised features face outwards, and they grasp the vertical elements of the rectangular frame.

The lowest portion of this face is scabbled, and much damaged.

D (narrow): The broad, horizontal strip at the top of fragment a is roughly dressed. Below this, an angel occupies each corner, forming an almost three-dimensional frieze. Each stretches an arm diagonally downwards towards the centre of the face from the oval heads on the corners, their sleeves decorated with two pairs of incised lines, like the drapery pattern of the figure in the panel below. Above each arm is a pelta-like wing with voluted tip, springing from a half-rosette which is dished. Below the arms is a fan springing from a volute, each formed with a contoured edge and voluted tip at the base. Their hands grasp a semicircular frame, also with voluted tips, closely resembling the nimbus of the figure in the panel below.

Enclosed by the semicircular frame held by the angels, and resting on the apex of the arch of the panel below, is a modelled profile beast, with its head thrown back, adopting an S-stance. The small tail is curled and the hind leg attenuated from a pear-shaped hip to cross the torso. The fore leg is stumpy. The jaws gape, the snout has a triple nose-fold and a pigtail extends across the body. On the chest are a row of short parallel incisions.

The left-hand edge moulding of the arched panel below the S-shaped beast is lost. At the right, the moulding has a pellet strip flanked by plain bands matching the lower fragment. It forms an arch above a straight transverse element in the position of a capital. Half-way along the springing of the arch at each side a diagonal strand, identical in form with the pelleted moulding, 'suspends' the arch from the edge.

Within the arched panel is a frontally depicted saint. The dished halo has voluted tips and sharply inclined planes rising from the finely dressed background. The head is oval with a raised hair line, incised eyes, and lightly modelled nose. The shoulders are rounded and cut in high, curved relief. The drapery is in bands arranged concentrically about the elbows and marked by pairs of incised lines. The overgarment is held on the chest by a rectangle with a strip of pellets within a plain border. The figure is broken away below the chest.

On fragment b, the right-hand edge moulding is worn where it is not lost. The moulding is better-preserved on the left-hand side, and consists of a vertical run of neat pellets between plain flat-bands.

Within the panel, whose top is broken and lost, is the upper half of a frontally presented human figure. The head is damaged but its well modelled chin survives. The rounded shoulders are cut in high, curved relief, the drapery depicted by almost radial, nearly vertical bands separated by pairs of parallel incised lines with humped fillings. On the chest is a rectangular panel with a plain border surrounding a single horizontal row of pellets. The figure's right hand is cupped and holds a semicircular vessel.

The carving has been cut back below the waist in order to accommodate two confronted figures in a sitting position. On the left the profile figure sits holding a large ring in his right hand; his left is held up before his face. The figure on the right is damaged but sits. The head may have been monstrous. Between the two lower figures, carved in higher relief, are the bare feet of the large upper figure, the toes bordered by the chamfered hem of a long garment.

The uncarved base of the shaft is badly hacked away.

E (top): The top of the shaft has a fairly deep rectangular mortice hole.

This is certainly the most complex monument of the region in terms of its stylistic variety and iconography. The two most recent studies of the shaft (Pattison 1973; Lang 1977) consider the problems in some depth. See also Chap. X.

The form of the cross was composite, for the mortice demonstrates that the head had a tenon and the rough dressing around the top of the shaft suggests a flashing of lead by way of additional stability. The large mortice has a parallel in the top of the column at Masham, North Riding (Collingwood 1907, 360). The cross-head of the York Newgate shaft, which most nearly resembles Nunburnholme 1 in its motifs, fitted differently on a dowel run with lead. This carpentry technique was used by ninth-century Anglian carvers in Yorkshire.

The break in the middle of the shaft, to judge from the dimensions of each fragment, leaves a considerable amount to be reconstructed, unfortunately affecting our knowledge of its structure at this point, and of the arrangement of transverse panel mouldings. It is possible, for example, that the shaft was composite and may have had further mortice and tenon joints, like York Minster 9 and a shaft at West Tanfield, North Riding (Collingwood 1911a, 300–1, figs. c–e on 300). It is also difficult to reconcile the beast-chain panel on face B with the cowled figure above it in the light of so many comparable chains occupying the whole length of the shaft: e.g. Newgate 1, York (Ill. 343), and Minster 2 (Ills. 12–13). There is a slim case for postulating that the fragments represent two separate monuments (Lang 1977, 92), but here it is assumed that the shaft has a unity, marred only by the upper piece being placed the wrong way round.

It is certain that more than one hand carved the shaft (Lang 1977). Stylistically there are differences between various panels and the cutting techniques are equally diverse, but it is the unfinished state of parts of the angel frieze and the mouldings which clinches the evidence. The work of the First Sculptor can be identified by his modelled figures, the subtle inclined planes and angled ridges of his cutting, his use of the claw-tool chisel to dress the backgrounds and the characteristic banded drapery folds. He cut the whole of face D, except for the intrusive figures at the base, the angel frieze of face B, and the first stages of the borders and frieze of face A. The subjects of his work are exclusively ecclesiastical. It is highly competent, ordered carving. It is also aware of the fashionable art styles of the late Anglian phase, beyond the confines of Yorkshire.

The Second Sculptor carved the seated figures of face A, the whole of face C, including the wyvern frieze, the intrusive scene at the base of face D, and the beast-chain of face B. His cutting is in a series of flat planes for the most part, though he emulated his predecessor in the halo and head-gear of his figures. The drapery and proportions are cruder. His work is known to be later than the First Sculptor's because of the cutting levels and modifications made on face A's warrior panel (Lang 1977, 76–8).

A Third Sculptor cut the centaur of face A, which intrudes upon the scene above and the edge moulding. It closely resembles twelfth-century carvings on the present tower arch. Its drilled eyes also distinguish it from the incised features of the other figures.

The figure at the top of face B is difficult to attribute to any of the three identified hands. In style it is closest to the First Sculptor's figures, with rounded shoulders, and much modelling, but it is not identical. The drapery's thick ribs differ as does the rational on the chest with its greater array of pellets. Perhaps a Fourth Sculptor was involved.

There are Carolingian echoes in the First Sculptor's scheme, though he formalized the motifs enough to remove them one stage from Classical naturalism. The choice of frontally depicted saints and ecclesiastics perpetuates a long Yorkshire tradition, for example, at Otley, West Riding (Ills. 921–2), and Easby, North Riding (Longhurst 1931, pls. XXV–XXVIII), but the rigidity and symmetry imposed on the figures at Nunburnholme is individualistic, without parallels in the region's sculpture. The drapery styles can be compared with those of the Evangelists in the Gospels of St-Médard-de-Soissons of the early ninth century (Hubert, Porcher and Volbach 1970, pls. 76 and 280), and, more sculpturally, in two ivory panels now divided between Frankfurt and Cambridge (Hinks 1935, 157–8, pl. XVI, a–b; Pattison 1973, pl. LI, b), variously dated to the ninth and tenth centuries. The parabolic folds even extend to archiepiscopal coinage of the ninth century in England (Dolley 1970, pl. IX, 25; Lang 1977, 84).

Even the double-arched frames of face D, the corner angels, and the Mass scene on face D, as suggested by Pattison (1973, 230), might derive from models represented by the Frankfurt-Cambridge ivory. Some Classical elements, however, such as the pelta-shaped wings of the angels, could have been directly borrowed from Roman funerary monuments, which are numerous in York. The dished haloes can be traced back ultimately to West Yorkshire sources, like Otley (Ill. 922), though the voluted tips are a new trend which develops from interlocking hair and haloes. The progression can be traced through Collingham (Collingwood 1915, fig. d on 156) and Leeds, West Riding, to Newburgh Priory, North Riding (Pevsner 1966, pl. 9a), and Shelford, Nottinghamshire, forming a local mannerism in southern Yorkshire and adjacent counties, current from the late ninth to late tenth centuries.

The small beast of face D has many Trewhiddle-style characteristics, such as the extended hind leg and body nicks (Wilson 1961, 99–106; Lang 1977, 82), but the nose-fold and incised scroll joints prepare the way for the York Metropolitan School animals (see Chap. 9).

The Second Sculptor also looks to late Anglian sculpture, probably in the North Midlands, for some of his models. The beast-chain of face B is composed of 'Great Beasts', despite their fettering, and the diagonal slipping of the hind-quarters is reminiscent not only of Folkton 2 locally (Ills. 448–9), but of a shaft at Breedon, Leicestershire (Fig. 7a; Lang 1978b, 149, fig. 8.3B; idem 1978c, 13, 15, fig. 2B–C). The secular figure with the Viking-type sword on face A, and the liking for scrolled joints, belong to the local Anglo-Scandinavian milieu, as does the confronted fettered pair of wyverns on face C. Yet the same sculptor carves the Virgin and Child, literate personages holding books, and what could well be a Crucifixion scene. The choice of scene, despite the pacific warrior portrait, is dominantly Christian.

The Christian iconography is, nonetheless, unusual. The scene on the lower half of face C is a Crucifixion (Ill. 727) and is likely to have mistakenly inspired the carver of the Benediction scene on York Minster 2A (Ill. 6). The Crucifixion type is similar to Irish examples where Christ's large hands descend towards the heads of Longinus and Stephaton whilst winged angels rest upon his shoulders, for example, on the Castledermot South Cross, co. Kildare (Ill. 912). The Virgin and Child carving (Ill. 723) also seems to lie behind its counterpart on Sutton upon Derwent 1 (Ill. 868), even the clumsy hold being perpetuated. The same scene at Shelford, Nottinghamshire, should be compared. This group of Virgin and Child motifs is unusual in the north at this period and may look back to earlier Insular models. The Nunburnholme Christ-child looks outwards and sits as he does on St Cuthbert's coffin. The crude Sutton upon Derwent copy, however, reflects the Book of Kells position, looking up at the Virgin (Henderson 1987, 154–5). The figure on the lower half of face D represents a mass scene, with chalice and host, but the Second Sculptor recognized its significance and, indeed, glossed it by introducing the feast of Sigurð and Reginn in juxtaposition (Lang 1977, 88).

Ninety per cent of the features of the Nunburnholme shaft can be attributed to a Christian, Anglian tradition, and this includes the Second Sculptor's work. Despite the warrior panel, the monument does seem primarily an ecclesiastical product with cultural leanings towards Mercia. Scandinavian input is minimal: a sword hilt and a Germanic myth. The Leeds Parish Church shaft (Ill. 920) is of the same genus and both testify to the unbroken tradition of ecclesiastical monuments extending through the Viking Age. The 'warrior' might be the benefactor, like many a Northumbrian king, but the style and the iconography need not have been of his choosing.

Late ninth to early tenth century

Allen 1901, 98–106, figs. 1–4; Morris 1907, 83–6; Collingwood 1911a, 265–9, figs. on 267; Collingwood 1912a, 131; Collingwood 1923, 4; Collingwood 1927, 134–5; Brøndsted 1924, 210–11, 231–2, fig. 158; Saunders 1932, 19; Elgee 1933, 218, 242; Brown 1937, 258–65; Pattison 1973, 209–34; Lang 1977, 75–94; Lang 1978b, 146–7, pl. 8.3; Lang 1978c, 13, 15, fig. 3A, pl. IIe; Bailey 1980, 121–5, 156–7, fig. 37, 191, 232, 236, 253, pls. 31, 61; Cramp 1982, 15, pl. 15; Lang 1983, 186–7, pl. LXXVII, c; Cramp 1984, I, 81, 136; Bailey and Cramp 1988, 99; Lang 1988b, 23–4, 40; Lang 1989, 2–4, pl. Ic–f

1. Face A = fragment a (east), and fragment b (west); face B = fragment a (north), and fragment b (south); face C - fragment a (west), and fragment b (east); and face D = fragment a (south), and fragment b (north).