Built into the west face of the responds of the chancel arch, 1a to the north and 1b to the south

First recorded as having been built into the masonry of the church porch at some time pre-1843. It was removed and taken into the hands of a local antiquary, but recovered by the church in or by 1843 ((—) 1843, 29). Archdeacon Bonney described it as a cross 'inserted in the wall' in 1847, referring only to the face with the Crucifixion (Harding 1937, 154). It may have been drawn while lying loose outside ((—) 1850–1b, lxxviii). It was sawn longitudinally and mounted in its present location at the restoration of the church in 1863 ((—) 1863–4a, xii–xiii; Davies 1914–15, 170).

1a, excellent except for damage that has removed its lower surface; 1b, much more generally weathered, also with surface damage at top

Two stones created by splitting or sawing a single length of cross-shaft longitudinally. The dimensions of the shaft were given in 1843 as height 66 in (167.5 cm), width 18 > 16 in (45.5 > 40.5 cm), thickness or depth 9 > 6 in (23 > 15 cm).

A (broad): Stone 1a is decorated with a Crucifixion scene with John and Mary that is rather casually laid out. The cross is of a mixed type; the upper and lower cross-arms are of type B1 and the horizontal arms of type B6. The horizontal is lop-sided, lower on the left than the right. The foot of the cross is stepped inwards, with a final stem or spike like a cross fichée, which may suggest a metalwork model. Christ has long hair, perhaps bound with a fillet, rope twist or crown of thorns. His hands are nailed; the body, breasts and ribs modelled, and wearing a loin-cloth, sags on the arms: the legs are crossed, the feet nailed. Mary stands in her normal position on the left (Christ's right). She is shown facing front, doll-like and swaddled in drapery that cowls her head; her features are shown, her hands are clasped in an attitude that suggests that she is supposed to be holding something, but this is not clear or not complete. John on the right is a similarly frontal, doll-like figure. His hair and beard are shown; there is drapery modelling on the shoulder and arm and at the hem. He holds something in his right hand supported by the left; it may be a book but perhaps alternatively a flask for Christ's blood. The scene has a depth of carving up to 2cm. Below are two rows of acanthus-like leaf pattern. The leaves are quite well formed and there are interior details in the fronds but only in one are they fully finished. The pattern, by making the rows of leaves symmetrical mirror images, aims at an effect something like the medallions of the tree of Jesse on Bishop Alexander's tomb in Lincoln Cathedral (Zarnecki 1988, 93–6), but its layout is poor.

Nailhead on the angles forms a border. The marks of claw tooling are visible, and some traces of a surface finish, perhaps gesso, though no colour survives. There are the scars of two strap clamps at the top, with traces of lead and iron, for a junction with the next section of the cross. The bottom is a sawn edge, which corresponds with the documentary evidence that the surviving section is shorter than it was in the nineteenth century.

B and D (narrow): Decorated with borders formed by the nailhead on the angles. The combined evidence of their narrowness and what can be seen of the faces suggest that they were otherwise plain.

C (broad): Stone 1b has nailhead on the angles and a similar double row of acanthus-like leaf pattern to 1a. This is far less accomplished in layout and finish, however, and its carving is shallower. Allowance must nevertheless be made for the factors of stone bedding and differential weathering. There are similar scars for two strap clamps at the top and the bottom is also sawn.

Appendix G item (the continuing tradition).

Though it was not discussed in Dr Coatsworth's thesis on the Crucifixion in pre-Conquest sculpture (1979), this piece is included here because it was in Davies's first article on the county's pre-Conquest sculpture (1914–15, 170) and has been described as a cross-shaft 'of the Anglo-Saxon type' though of later date (Pevsner and Harris 1964, 317). It also provides a pertinent point of comparison for a number of items, including the Crucifixions at Harmston 1 (Ills. 195, 199) and Marton 6 (Ills. 285–6), the shaft from Digby and its analogues (Ills. 462–5), and the secondary figure on the Edenham 1 cross (Ill. 167). The only way in which this piece could itself be pre-Conquest would be if at least the nailhead were an addition to an older item. In practice the decoration as a whole is coherent and there is no indication of the nailhead encroaching in any way. As a motif on the angle, it finds some similarity with shafts at Thrybergh, Yorkshire WR (Brown 1937, 142–3, pl. XXXVIII) and Castle Hedingham, Essex (ibid., 148, pl. XL.2), with their knobs or bosses on the angles. In form, however, it is conventional nailhead used in a similar decorative way to that on the narrow faces of the shaft from Revesby (Ill. 471), almost certainly from the Cistercian abbey and therefore later than 1142 and probably of late twelfth- or early thirteenth-century date. That shaft, too, has on its broad face decoration limited to a crude acanthus-like leaf trail. This, together with the architectural treatment of its angle rolls (in the case of Revesby with capitals with foliate volutes), connects it in type and tradition with the finer but probably twelfth-century shaft from Digby. The organisation of the leaf-pattern, too, shows awareness of mid twelfth-century work at Lincoln (see above) and underlines the connection and chronological context that Butler noted (1964, 126). Furthermore, iconographical details of the Crucifixion, not least the crossed legs and nailed feet and the sagging arms, show knowledge of twelfth-century developments in the portrayal of the Crucifixion. Every aspect of the shaft therefore points to a later twelfth-century date, and shafts such as those from Digby and Revesby, and others at Binbrook and Bottesford, indicate a continuing local tradition of such monuments. In the organisation of its decoration no less than its simple figures, this piece compares interestingly with the shaft from Harmston; Minting, a century later, merely exchanged interlace for leaf patterns and cabled angle rolls for nailhead.

(—) 1843, 29, and fig.; (—) 1850–1b, lxxviii; (—) 1863–4a, xii–xiii; Davies 1914–15, 170; Cox 1924, 231; Harding 1937, 154; Butler 1964, 126; Pevsner and Harris 1964, 317; Pevsner et al. 1989, 564; Stocker with Everson 1990, 97

The following is an unpublished reference to Minting 1: Lincoln Central Library, Ross MSS vol. 9 (Gartree), illustration. Also, drawing of slab at Minting listed amongst the 'Drawings of Churches &c. contained in the large Portfolio', in the library of the Lincolnshire Architectural Society, 1851 (not traced). See (mdash;) 1850–1b, lxxviii.