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: Decorated stone, possibly part of cross- or marker-base
Measurements: H. 20 cm (8 in) W. 49 cm (19.25 in) D. Built in
Stone type: As Marton 1; includes also a thin (0.3mm) calcite vein
Plate numbers in printed volume: Ill. 293
Corpus volume reference: Vol 5 p. 228
(There may be more views or larger images available for this item. Click on the thumbnail image to view.)
Rectangular stone with a small rectangular recess or hole measuring 14 × 4cm (5.5 × 1.5 in) midway along one of its long sides. This is filled at the wall face by rubble walling material so that it is unclear what its depth is, and therefore whether it is a shallow recess or a deep socket. The one visible face is decorated with two deeply cut square-sectioned grooves defining rectangular borders symmetrical with the hole or recess and with three sides of the stone. The inner groove is somewhat narrower than the outer (2cm and 3.75cm); the inner border is somewhat wider than that between the grooves (6.5cm and 5cm). Both borders are plain.
The stone is plainly part of a larger monument, cut up for secondary use as building material. If, because it had been split in three or four, proportional allowance were made, the result would be a rectangular stone measuring approximately 65 or 90×50 cm with a rectangular recess or socket at its centre and outlined by plain symmetrical borders defined by grooves. This might be the upper surface of a cross- or marker-base. The size of the socket favours the latter. The majority of cross-bases are plain or decorated with borders or limited geometrical motifs. The decoration here might be seen as a two-dimensional rendering of what at Addingham or Gosforth in Cumberland (cf. Bailey and Cramp 1988, ills. 3–4, 292–5) are three-dimensional steps; or as not dissimilar in its simplicity to Bardney 2 (Ills. 11–14); or again comparable to the decoration of the cross-base shown on the Durham Cathedral crosshead, no. 5, face A (Cramp 1984, pl. 43, 205). Against this suggestion is the lack of weathering in contrast to what is common on the upper surface of bases exposed to the elements.The lack of distinctive decoration makes this piece impossible to date intrinsically; but its association with the fragments of Marton 1 and 3 in secondary use, and identical stone type, raises the possibility of its associ-ation with either or both of them also in primary function, and particularly since Marton 1 may be part of a large-headed free-standing cross or grave-marker that could have required a base. For dating, therefore, see Marton 1.
