Re-mounted in two rows at the east end of the north wall of the church (interior). The lower row is 1.25m above the floor level.

They were discovered during the restoration of the church in 1888–9 when it was recorded that 'many fragments of great beauty were found during the progress of the work, and amongst them several pieces of Saxon stonework of extreme delicacy' ((—) 1889–90e, lxvii–lxviii). They were presumably discovered reused in the fabric of the south aisle of the former monastic church, which dates from the mid fourteenth century.

St Mary and All Saints

Good. There is little or no sign of weathering

Stone 1a (Ill. 342). A fragment of sculpted panel decorated in low relief. The panel is bounded by an intricate, though two-dimensional, moulded border which shows that this panel is a subdivision of a larger object, decorated with an arrangement of such panels separated by elaborate moulded borders. The small area of the surviving second panel does not retain any decoration, but in the more complete panel the decoration consists of a very finely executed foliate interlace with a double incised medial line in which a beast is entwined. A single interlace loop survives together with a three-lobed leaf, which is disposed symmetrically with the beast's paw. The paw belongs to the same beast as an eagle-like head with a finely detailed compound eye and 'beak'; apart from the head and paw the remainder of the beast is missing.

Stone 1b (Ill. 344). A fragment from a similar panel to 1a, decorated in low relief with the same border moulding along one edge. Within the single panel is a small part of a finely executed interlace pattern with added outside strand (cf. Cramp 1991, fig. 17). The strands are of semicircular section with an incised medial line.

Stone 1c (Ill. 345). A fragment from a similar panel decorated in low relief within the same border moulding as 1a and 1b above. In this panel the border moulding turns through a right angle which appears to represent the corner of the whole object. This panel is occupied by the end of a run of interlace of the same type as in fragment 1b. One terminal ends in a small rounded motif, but the other develops from the ear of a finely carved griffin-like beast, disposed along the edge of the panel. (Inexplicably, this beast has not been shown in any of the published drawings of this stone, although it is undamaged and perfectly clear in reality.) The beast is delicately carved and has a square head seen in profile with a large, well-detailed eye and further articulation on the snout. The long neck is also finely articulated and towards the edge of the fragment, where the body begins, there is what may be a folded wing between the body and the panel border.

Stone 1d (Ill. 343). A fragment from a similar panel decorated in low relief, which retains only a small fragment of border moulding, apparently of slightly different formation from those in 1a–c. Importantly, however, this fragment of border moulding appears to retain a return indicating a second adjacent panel within the same stone. The panel defined by the border is filled with a complex field of 'trumpet spirals'. The spirals are perfectly laid-out and beautifully executed, and are based around a triskele of three rounded forms, each of which develops into a second trumpet. In one corner of the fragment, unfortunately in the area of breakage along one edge, the pattern is closed against what might be a second border. If this is a second border then it seems to be at 45 degrees to the main axis of the panel. In two places, both seemingly towards the edges of the pattern, small but perfectly formed trefoils develop from the tight curves of the trumpet spirals.

Stone 1e (Ill. 341). A fragment from a similar panel with decoration in low relief. It retains a length of border moulding along one edge which is similar, but not quite identical to that in fragments 1a–c. Although the moulding itself does not survive along both edges, from the layout of the internal decoration it is clear that this fragment represents a corner section. The panel itself is decorated with a rectangular fretwork or key pattern, finely executed with well-rounded components.

Stone 1f (Ill. 340). A fragment from a similar panel to the foregoing, decorated in low relief. The panel retains a single length of border which, whilst of very similar type, is of slightly different formation to the other examples. Within the border the panel contains a second interlacing foliage pattern. The stalks have a single incised medial line and three different types of leaf terminal are represented: a single-lobed, lozenge-like, form, a trefoil form and a third, fleshy, acanthus-like type. In amongst the leaf terminals a single beast's paw, of the same type as that in fragment 1a, shows that this foliage interlace was also inhabited with animal forms.

Reconstruction It seems highly likely that all six fragments are from the same original object. From the border mouldings we can say that fragments 1a, b and c come from the same stone and, although the border moulding is slightly different, the stylistic similarities between stones 1a and f are so close that it can be suggested the latter fragment may have come from this stone as well. Fragments 1d and e also belong to a stone or stones with similar, but not identical borders, dividing the surface up into a series of rectangular panels. There is no direct evidence that these two fragments are part of the same stone, beyond the fact that they are of exactly the same stone type, but this must be a strong possibility. Consequently we can say that the six fragments represent no more than three stones. It is quite possible that they come from a single stone, though the way in which they are reset in the wall gives the impression that they are thin, which may imply that the object was made of several thin stone slabs rather than being solid and of a single stone.

It is hard to estimate the size of the slab(s) represented, but we can estimate from panels 1a–c that this slab is unlikely to have been more than 1.5m along one side. The surface of these slabs (or single stone) was subdivided into rectangular panels by elaborately moulded borders. The panels were clearly disposed across the stone(s) in a grid formation. From the evidence surviving here, the most satisfactory reconstruction would have two rows of three panels set within a regular grid formed by the moulded borders. In such a reconstruction, pieces 1a, b and c would form parts of the upper row of three panels, and 1f, d and e (in that order reading from left to right) parts of the lower three. Many different reconstructions are possible, however; for example, fragments 1b and c, and 1a and d could be parts of the same two panels, suggesting perhaps two rows of two.

It is clear, then, that although these stones cannot be reconstructed with certainty, they form parts of the same stone or of a group of closely related slabs which are decorated with a grid of decorated panels divided by border mouldings.

Function, Style and Date Two functions have been proposed for the monument represented by these stones: either a low screen or a shrine (Brown 1937, 181–2; Hawkes 1946, 92; Taylor and Taylor 1965, 365–6). Until the backs of the stones are available we do not have enough evidence to be certain about their function. The fragments represent a small object with very fine detailing, however, and these may be thought inappropriate characteristics for a screen wall. Furthermore, with the possible exception of Monkwearmouth 9, co. Durham (Cramp 1984, 126, pl. 121, 656), there is no known English parallel for a screen wall decorated with a similar grid of separate panels, or indeed in any similar fashion. On the other hand, in other media, the flanks of caskets and shrines are quite frequently divided into grids of decorated panels in this way. The most fitting parallel for such a layout is seen on the Gandersheim bone casket (Webster and Backhouse 1991, no. 138), which is also connected with the South Kyme fragments by close affinities of sculptural style (below). The Gandersheim casket has two rows of three squarish panels, divided by bold borders and filled with varying types of decoration (Ill. 487), much as we can reconstruct the fragments at South Kyme. Given the lack of parallel examples for screen walls decorated in this way, the fragments at South Kyme are more likely to represent the remains of a decorated chest, casket, or even a shrine, than they are to have adorned an architectural feature. A function such as a casket or shrine is also suggested by the exquisite, small-scale quality of the carving, which is reminiscent of metalwork finish and is most unusual in an architectural context. Such caskets could be made up either of a group of thin panels (as, for example, that at Jedburgh) or cut from a single stone (like the so-called Hedda Stone at Peterborough). Viewing the South Kyme monument as a shrine would place it squarely within what amounts to a local tradition in the East Midlands of the production of such decorated stone caskets in the eighth and ninth centuries.

The date of the South Kyme fragments has been discussed on various occasions. Clapham was keen to give the group an early date on the strength of the spiral forms on stone 1d which he discussed in the context of the Lindisfarne Gospels and consequently placed in the seventh century (Clapham 1934, 54). Hawkes expressed the concern that, whilst the inhabited interlace seemed to suggest a date in the later eighth or ninth century, the spiral forms suggested one much earlier, in the seventh. In the event he split the difference and suggested a date of c. 700 (Hawkes 1946, 92). No doubt partly because of this apparent contradiction in date between the spiral forms and the inhabited foliate interlace, these fragments have not figured prominently in other discussions of the development of pre-Viking sculpture.

The apparently conflicting dates of the types of decoration within the various panels is probably an illusion and can be reconciled by reference, again, to the Gandersheim casket, where the same range of motifs is seen in a very similar layout alongside each other (Wilson 1984, 64–7, ills. 58–60; Webster and Backhouse 1991, 176–8, no. 138). The Gandersheim casket has a panel of spiral forms of very similar type to those at South Kyme, based on the triskele and, also like South Kyme, developing little trefoils at the extremities (Ill. 487). The remaining panels on the Gandersheim casket are occupied with interlace deploying a similar range of motifs to those at South Kyme, which also envelop large beasts. At Gandersheim the heads of several of these beasts bear a striking similarity to the griffin's head on fragment 1c. Like the South Kyme beast they have long necks, articulated with the same diagonal strokes, squarish heads and snouts, and they also have interlace developing from their ears. The Gandersheim beasts also have the three- and four-toed paws seen at South Kyme (1a and f). Therefore, although it is carved in a different medium (whalebone), the Gandersheim casket not only combines the various designs of the South Kyme fragments in an overall scheme which can also be reconstructed at South Kyme, but the two artefacts also appear to have close stylistic affinities with each other. The Gandersheim casket has usually been dated to the later eighth century, even though this has meant that the spirals are said to be amongst the latest examples in Anglo-Saxon art (e.g. Wilson 1960, 142); however, the most recent work has suggested an even later date still – in the early ninth century (Webster and Backhouse 1991, 178).

The South Kyme fragments, then, are best explained as pieces from a casket or shrine which should be dated, by reference to the Gandersheim casket, to the late eighth or early ninth century.

South Kyme also has quite close similarities with the Hedda Stone at Peterborough (Cramp 1977, fig. 57c; Wilson 1984, ill. 93). The pitched roof of this shrine is also divided into rectangular panels by elaborately moulded borders within which is complex interlace inhabited by superficially similar beasts. Unfortunately the damage to the Peterborough stone makes a more detailed comparison difficult, but the two objects are clearly related in date as well as function.

Some stylistic connections can be suggested between South Kyme and other products of the 'Mercian School' at Breedon, Fletton and Castor. These sculptures share with South Kyme a similar evident experience of metal-working techniques and the willingness to combine large beasts with intricate interlace. The friezes at Breedon and Fletton also contain panels of fretwork of a generically similar type to that on stone 1e, but the beasts which inhabit the foliage scrolls have very little in common with those from South Kyme. Many of these sculptures, however, incorporate figure sculpture, which is notably absent at South Kyme, as it is on the Gandersheim casket, and the carving technique seems somewhat different (perhaps less close to the original metal-workers' skills). All these 'Mercian' sculptures, of course, are near neighbours of South Kyme in time and location (Cramp 1977; Jewell 1986), but the comparison between them and South Kyme emphasises the differences to be expected between contemporary products worked by different carvers and intended for different purposes.

Connections between South Kyme and the style and detail of the metalworking tradition evident in the Gandersheim casket appear to be stronger than those with the Witham Pins, another local object of this status and period, discovered in the river Witham about fifteen miles to the north in 1826 (Wilson 1964, cat. 19; Webster and Backhouse 1991, 227–8). The similarities between the beasts inhabiting the interlace on the pins and South Kyme are less marked than between the latter and the Gandersheim beasts, but this is partly a result of the chip-carved technique used on the pins and they are undeniably in a quite closely related style (Ill. 488). The Witham Pins are usually dated to the central or second half of the eighth century and may therefore pre-date the South Kyme fragments by a generation. Attention is sometimes drawn to the way in which leaf forms with small lobes are introduced into the inhabited interlace here (Webster and Backhouse 1991, 227–8), exactly as they are in South Kyme fragment 1f (Ill. 340). The Witham Pins have long been linked with an important group of major art works of the later eighth century including the cross-shaft from Croft, Yorkshire NR, and the Leningrad Gospels (Alexander 1978, no. 39; Wilson 1984, 88–91, ills. 33, 79, 110).

Context If the foregoing analysis of these fragments is correct, then several further questions are raised. The presence of such an object must suggest that South Kyme was the site of a church of some importance in the eighth century. There is absolutely nothing which would help identify South Kyme with the monastery of Icanho, founded c. 654 by St Botolph, although Hawkes (1946, 92) suggested that this might be the site, whilst Taylor and Taylor have put forward objections to such an identification (1965, 365–6). The site of South Kyme, in fact, is an appropriate one for a major early monastery (Stocker 1993, 112–13). It sits on an island of high ground in the peat fen, detached from the 'mainland' but only about a mile 'off-shore'. Furthermore it lies at the point at which the river Slea empties into the fen and thus would have had relatively straightforward communications by waterway inland. This physical setting is very similar in every respect to the better documented Fenland monastery sites at Crowland, Thorney and Ely. Like these sites, South Kyme became a post-Conquest monastery – a house of Augustinian canons. The tradition at the Augustinian priory, however, was that the house was founded in the mid twelfth century (Page, W. 1906, 172–3), but, even so, it could have been a re-foundation in the twelfth century of an earlier institution.

Late eighth or early ninth century

(—) 1889–90e, lxvii; Sutton 1903–4, 106–7; Davies 1911, 3; Davies 1914–15, 214; Clapham 1923, 118–21, figs. 1–2; Clapham 1926, 2–3; Davies 1926, 18–19, pl. VIII; Clapham 1927, 226; Knowles 1927, 162; Clapham 1930, 66, 74, pl. 28; Clapham 1934, 54, fig. 13; Brown 1937, 181–2, pl. XLVIII; Kendrick 1938, 171; Clapham 1946b, 171–2; Hawkes 1946, 92; Fisher 1959, 74, 92; Kendrick et al. 1960, II, 255, pl. 52e; Jope 1964, 100, 109; Pevsner and Harris 1964, 641–2; Wilson 1964, 13; Taylor and Taylor 1965, 365–6, fig. 163; (—) 1971, 8; Taylor 1974a, 297; Cramp 1977, 205, 218, fig. 54c; Wilson 1984, 81; Cramp 1986b, 101; Jewell 1986, 103; Henderson 1987, 129, ill. 187; Pevsner et al. 1989, 43, 665; Stocker 1993, 112–13; Alexander 1995, 112; Bailey 1996, 12