Three fragments which probably all originated in the same monument, although the proposed reconstruction given in Butler (1963–4, fig. 1, no. 4) is inaccurate.

Stone 3a. A section from the lower part or the end of a monument. The stone has been split longitudinally and reused as a plinth or string section, at which time three sides were trimmed back removing any original sculpture and a bold chamfer was cut on one of the newly created arrises. Much of the single surviving original face is undecorated although carefully cut. Towards the upper part of the stone, below the broken upper edge, is a panel of interlace in low relief. The panel is divided from the undecorated part of the face below by a double cable moulding, above which the angles of the face are both edged with the remains of single cable moulding. Within the panel are parts of what could be interpreted as two pattern F knots or free rings linked by a paired terminal. However, whilst the left-hand part of the interlace is decorated with a single incised medial line, the right-hand part has a double incised medial line. This discrepancy may mean that the design consisted of two independent runs of interlace.

Stone 3b. A small fragment decorated with interlace in low relief. Only one face is visible. The stone retains a single cable-moulded border within which are parts of what may be two pattern F knots or free rings linked by a pair of diagonal strands. The knots are approximately the same as on 3a, or perhaps larger. The interlace strands are decorated with double medial-incised lines.

Stone 3c. 'Another fragment from the head of this gravestone was noted loose at the west end of the nave in 1953 but is not now (1963) visible' (Butler 1963–4, 109). Its present whereabouts are unknown.

Crosses of similar technique to this piece decorate several covers at Carlby church (nos. 2, 3 and 4, above), whilst outside the county, crosses of the same formation are used at either end of a fine grave-cover at Peterborough Cathedral. It seems unlikely that the monument represented at Castle Bytham would have only had a cross at the foot end, so it can be suggested that this cover had crosses at both ends of a shaft running along the ridge. Like the Peterborough Cathedral example (and like those from Cambridge Castle and elsewhere), Castle Bytham 1 probably represents a cover with a double-ended cross. The somewhat unusual cross-head type, with rectangular arms but a splayed head, finds an exact parallel in the heads of the two subsidiary crosses on the large grave-cover from Howell (Ill. 220), and, outside the county, in the small monument from Frisby-on-the-Wreake, Leicestershire. Both A1 and B6 type crosses appear on covers which are more closely datable, and dates for such examples range between the later tenth and the early twelfth century. It is suggested below, however, that the Howell cover should be dated to the eleventh century and, by analogy, this is perhaps the best date for the Castle Bytham example.