Loose at west end of nave

None. The stone appears to be first mentioned in 1889 ((—) 1889–90a, x) where reference is made to fragments of a Saxon churchyard cross. There is no evidence, however, that any more than the surviving stone survived into modern times.

St Michael

Very greatly weathered

This is the lower part of a standing shaft which must originally have been 5 or 6 metres high. The foot of the stone retains the tenon by means of which it would have fitted into a socket in a cross-base. The tenon is a crudely cut, rather irregular rectangular projection which is now approximately 10 cm in depth but may originally have been greater. All four angles of the shaft are decorated with a moulding consisting of a nibbed roll with a smaller flanking roll to either side. These mouldings form the frames of panels which die into the base of the shaft. All four faces carry decoration in low relief. It is now hard to appreciate the status of the sculpture on this shaft, but the intricacy of the design of the interlace along with the apparent competence of the modelling of the standing figure suggest that this shaft was a work of great quality.

A (broad): The base of the surviving panel is bowed upwards to resemble a mound on which stands a full-length frontal male figure missing only his head. His feet are turned outwards, and to either side of each toe is disposed a small spray of foliage, each of which carries a single heart-shaped leaf. The figure is nimbed and holds a book in the upturned palm of his left hand which is further supported by his right hand, the right arm extended over the chest. The figure wears an ankle-length gown, detailed with many straight folds in its lower part below a belt or wrap around the waist. The long sleeves, which hang to either side of his legs are also delineated with many folds and end in finely executed circular folds.

B (narrow): The panel is decorated with a complex interlacing foliate stem. The stem is ornamented with a pair of incised medial lines and winds in and out of itself in an unconventional manner, forming a series of pattern A loops. The stem bifurcates each time it reaches the panel border and a small undeveloped bud (like those on faces C and D) is placed in the saDedication deleted.e formed at each bifurcation. The trail terminates with a loose end near the rounded base of the panel.

C (broad): The main panel is occupied with the remains of a complex unit of encircled pattern C interlace placed above a 'vandyke'. The vandyke itself, however, does not terminate the decorated panel, as one might expect, but is contained within the rectangular panel created by the angle mouldings of the shaft itself. This arrangement creates two triangular panels outside the vandyke, which are decorated with foliage trails developing from the junction between the tip of the vandyke and the base of the panel. These foliage trails each have underdeveloped buds like those on faces B and D and also two leaves. These leaves are elongated heart shapes with curling tips. The lower pair are split around the stem which they curl back across and thus resemble beasts' heads biting the tendrils they encounter. Leaves of a similar sort are found on Edenham 2a (Ill. 168). Only the lower part of the lowest motif of what must have been a very elaborate run of interlace survives within the vandyke. The pattern was a complex one of encircled motifs, perhaps of four strands (cf. Cramp 1991, fig. 19C). The termination of the interlace within the triangle of the vandyke is somewhat uncomfortable as the design narrows to fill the awkward space.

The space between the base of the main panel and the bottom of the shaft is greater in face C than in face A, although (as on face A) the base of the panel is bowed upwards. On face C this additional space has been used for further decoration. At this point is an upright figure executed in a deeply recessed style, which is quite different from the remainder of the sculpture on the cross (Ill. 167). The figure represents a standing or semi-seated female wearing a robe and cowl. She holds her right arm across her waist and grips a flask-like object in both hands. To the right of the head is a curious, but very deliberately incised, irregular oblong panel.

D (narrow): The decoration is contained in a panel with an irregular base shaped like a ship's prow. Within the panel the field is occupied by a foliate trail. The base of the trail incorporates a tendril but otherwise the trail has rather indistinct bud-like flowers at each bifurcation, and more developed, almost circular, flowers on secondary stems as it steps from side to side of the field.

The tradition of tall standing crosses decorated with large full-frontal figures has its origins in Northumbria in the seventh century and continues until the eleventh, and the Edenham shaft must be seen as a member of that tradition. Clapham (1930, 70) identified the figure on face A as St John, understanding the figure to be half man and half bird. Along with the Taylors (1963, 6) we cannot see the evidence for giving the figure any bird-like characteristics and so have no reason to suggest that the figure represented is St John specifically. The facts that he is nimbed and carries a book, however, are probably good grounds for identifying him as an Evangelist. Full-length figures of Evangelists are quite commonly depicted on standing shafts from the seventh to the eleventh centuries.

The Edenham shaft probably belongs near the middle of this tradition of major crosses with standing figures. The floreate trail on face D has poorly defined botanical features, a point which may favour a late date, whilst the trail on face B is almost an abstract interlace which has almost lost any botanical reference whatsoever. This transition from purely botanical forms to purely abstract interlace forms which we see at Edenham is usually associated with the end of the eighth and the first half of the ninth century and is seen, for example, on the fragments from Norham, Northumberland, which must be dated to the second decade of the ninth century (Cramp 1978, 11–13). At Norham also there is a fine example of a shaft with a tangled vine-scroll which provides an approximate parallel for the decoration on face B (ibid.). There are similar examples of vine-scroll developing into interlace on several other ninth-century shafts, at Brompton-in-Allertonshire, Yorkshire NR, for example (Lang 1978c, pl. Id), and at Collingham, Yorkshire WR, where a mid ninth-century shaft not only has this type of transitional vine-scroll but also has a similar elongated leaf form (Collingwood 1915, 155–7, fig. a–d). Closer to home, one of the shaft fragments at Asfordby, Leicestershire (twenty-two miles to the west), which also shares with these examples similar 'tangled' interlace, has leaves of very similar elongated form to Edenham and must be closely related in date. A similar elongated leaf form is found on the other side of Mercia on a grave-cover at Ramsbury, Wiltshire, which is also usually dated to the ninth century (Kendrick 1938, 213, pl. XCIX).

A date in the mid ninth century would also suit the pure abstract interlace on face C, whose forms, based on enclosed circular motifs, would look somewhat out of place at any earlier date. The distinctive leaf-forms are similar, for example, to those on several of the brooches from the Pentney hoard, Norfolk (Ill. 490), currently thought to belong to the first third of the ninth century (Webster and Backhouse 1991, 229–31), and they are also found in manuscript art in, for example, the copy of Bede's Ecclesiastical History in the British Library (Cotton Tiberius C. ii), which is also dated to the same period (ibid., 215–7). Very similar leaf forms also occur on the Fuller Brooch, although this is usually thought to belong to the second half of the century (ibid., 280–1). Finally, the occurrence of vandykes at Edenham must suggest a familiarity with the pre-existing 'staff-rood' shafts, with square shafts set above round bases, from which this decorative feature is thought to have developed (Collingwood 1927, 5–9). The earliest of these putative staff-roods date from the early ninth century (Masham, Dewsbury etc.), although the tradition of vandykes continues into the eleventh century even in cases where their original purpose of managing the transition between round shafts and square ones is no longer required (Bailey 1980b, 185–9). It is also possible that the rounded base to the decorative panel on Edenham face A is derived from the upper panels of these composite shafts, as the lowermost panels on the square upper sections frequently have rounded bases at the point at which they join the circular shafts below. The occurrence of a vandyke at Edenham, then, would imply a date no earlier than the early ninth century, and the other details in the interlace suggest that a date in the central part of the century rather than much later is appropriate.

The stance and (to some extent) the drapery of the Edenham figure can also be seen as evidence for a ninth-century date. In particular the distinctive long sleeves with curled tips are found in illustrations from the Book of Cerne of the early or mid ninth century (Webster and Backhouse 1991, no. 165), though such sleeve extensions are also seen in the somewhat earlier figures at Breedon and Peterborough. The rather hieratic stance of the Edenham figure, however, with feet turned outwards, facing full to the front, seems to have more in common with the later ninth-century Northumbrian figure carving than with the sophisticated Mercian figure sculpture of the late eighth century at Breedon and Fletton, where the full figures are depicted in three-quarter view (Cramp 1977, figs. 55–8).

There are few local parallels to put alongside the Edenham cross-shaft to provide it with much regional context. The quite close similarity with the interlace forms on one of the shaft fragments at Asfordby, Leicestershire, has been mentioned, but, if a mid ninth-century date is correct, then the Edenham monument is probably roughly contemporary with the north Mercian shafts in Derbyshire at Eyam and Bakewell (Routh 1937) and with outliers of this group such as at Stapleford, Nottinghamshire, and Rothley, Leicestershire, both of which are within thirty-five miles. Although face C at Edenham shares with these shafts similar interlace motifs, there is no obvious relationship between the tangled vine-scroll on faces B and D and the more geometrically organised vine-scroll of the north Mercian group. Similarly there are no great hieratic standing figures in this north Mercian group to compare with the Evangelist on Edenham face A. The similarity between these north Mercian monuments and Edenham is at best only partial. It is likely that this cross-shaft is derived from Northumbrian as well as more local models.

Closer at hand, however, there are some similarities between Edenham and the shaft fragment at Nassington, Northamptonshire, sixteen miles south (Coatsworth 1988, pl. IIA). This cross-shaft, like Edenham, had tiers of figural scenes on one broad face, including at least one single figure which has a somewhat similar treatment of the gown and a pair of feet turned outwards. This standing figure, however, is placed over a Crucifixion scene. The rear face of Nassington is decorated with interlace composed of similar circular units to those at Edenham, but the sides of the shaft are much less comparable – one has a straightforward figure-of-eight interlace, whilst the other has a debased foliate trial. The most recent analysis of the Nassington cross-shaft (ibid., 171) places it at the end of the ninth century and, therefore, it would appear to be later in date than that suggested here for Edenham, and the possibility that Nassington was inspired by it may be worth exploration.

The shaft at Edenham now represented only by this one section was obviously a major monument of pre-Viking art which was probably carved in the mid ninth century. It must be viewed alongside the equally remarkable architectural sculpture still in situ within the church at Edenham (nos. 2a–b below). In particular, roundel 2a contains four elongated leaves with spiral tips which intersect their own stems in a similar and equally unusual manner as those on face C of the shaft (Ill. 168). This unusual and distinctive feature is likely to connect the shaft with the construction of the building in which the roundels were set. We cannot now know its original site relative to the church: the shaft might have been inside the building, as at Reculver, but the tenon on the foot may suggest that it stood on a tall cross-base which is easier to envisage outside. Certainly the very great weathering exhibited suggests that the shaft stood outside for a long period in its history. If the shaft did have an external site originally then this might have been an example of the single graveyard cross of which we occasionally hear in documentary sources.

The date and identity of the small figure on face C is uncertain. There can be little doubt that the figure is a later insertion as it of quite different style and has clearly been squeezed in between the base of the original frame and the base of the shaft face. The traditional interpretation of the iconography of a woman carrying a flask (as this woman appears to) would be Mary Magdalene, and Magdalenes do occasionally appear on early monuments – on the Ruthwell cross for example and the slab from Wirksworth, Derbyshire (Wilson 1984, ills. 70, 95). However, in neither of these cases does she appear carrying a flask, indeed this attribute does not appear commonly until well into the post-Conquest period. The exact date which should be ascribed to this little figure is not easy to assess. The figure has the doll-like simplicity of the figures standing to either side of the cross at Minting (Ill. 460) and appears to wear a similar full-length gown with cowl to the figure of Mary on that shaft. If this is a valid parallel then the inserted figure at Edenham may have been cut during the twelfth century. At this time, evidently, the shaft was still standing, presumably in its original position. This uncertainty over her identity might have been resolved originally if the recessed panel to the right of the figure's head were intended for a painted inscription. No evidence for such a use survives but it is hard to think what other purpose this panel might have served.

Mid ninth century

(—) 1889–90a, x; Davies 1912–13, 139, pl. facing 129; Cox 1924, 122; Clapham 1926, 3; Davies 1926, 13, pls. V, VI; Clapham 1930, 70, pl. 21; Kendrick 1938, 176; Gardner 1951, 38; Rice 1952, 88 n. 1; Taylor and Taylor 1963, 6–10, pl. II, 1–3; Pevsner and Harris 1964, 26, 522; Taylor and Taylor 1965, 227, pl. 460; Taylor 1974a, 298; Stocker 1986a, 59; Pevsner et al. 1989, 43, 268; Gem 1993a, 47–8