Loose in tower space

This stone is not mentioned in the account of the discovery of nos. 1 and 3 in the restoration of 1875–6 (Allen 1885b, 273). As this account sounds authoritative, presumably the stone was not brought to light until shortly before its first mention in 1911 (Davies 1911, 3–4). It remains possible, however, that no. 2 was found in the restoration of 1875–6 and for some reason kept separately from the other two stones.

St John Baptist

Moderate. The surface is somewhat weathered and abraded.

Only one decorated surface is visible and that only to the extent that the stone protrudes or is offset south from the wall face (19 cm (7.5 in)). That decoration faces up, and has been severely weathered and pitted by dripping water. The exposed vertical face is recut, as is the stone's section that is visible in the west aspect of the quoin. The stone is rectangular in section, but since the present south face has been recut it may have been somewhat nearer to square. There is no sign of a moulding on any of the corners.

B (long): The sole visible decoration comprises a panel of interlace in a changing pattern, with a central unit of simple pattern F whose two loose strands at either end cross over within a free ring. The panel is outlined by a double border of flat section that longitudinally divides this run of interlace from the narrower field of decoration now covered by the nave quoin, and also turns across one end of the panel. At the same (east) end a third border of more rounded section and perhaps with a trace of cabling lies across the stone.

Cross-heads of this type seem to have been typical of the small graveyard markers of the tenth and earlier eleventh century throughout the area of Scandinavian influence. Indeed this cross-head form is usually said to have been an Anglo-Scandinavian introduction into England from the Isle of Man, Scotland or Ireland (Collingwood 1927, 137–9; Bailey 1980b, 70–1). Many Northumbrian ring-headed crosses of the tenth and early eleventh century exist, with arms decorated with the same simple interlace pattern as Colsterworth 2, and the cross-head type is also found around the Fenland fringe and in East Anglia, where it was documented by Fox (1920–1, 35–41). Within Lincolnshire other examples of ring-headed crosses decorated with simple interlace patterns of this sort occur on Lincoln St Mark 1, Lincoln St Mary-le-Wigford 1, Harmston 2, Bicker 1 and the Elloe Stone. The last mentioned belongs to the group of shafts here designated the South Kesteven type, and it is possible that most of the members of this group originally had heads of this form.

Colsterworth 2, therefore, is a cross-head of very widely distributed type in the Danelaw in the tenth and earlier eleventh century, which seems to have been produced at many centres. We do not believe (contra Fox 1920–1 and Pevsner and Harris 1964), however, that this cross-head comes from the same monument as the South Kesteven shaft section also at Colsterworth (no. 1 above). The two stone types are markedly different and the dimensions are difficult to reconcile. Even so it is quite possible (perhaps even likely) that Colsterworth 1 had a cross-head of similar form. Furthermore the presence of one of these monuments in the graveyard may have suggested the design of the other.

Colsterworth 2 has more in common, in terms of its stone type, with the cross-head from Lincoln St Mark (no. 1, Ills. 235–7), also a product of the Ancaster quarries. Colsterworth 2 certainly has more in common with the St Mark's example than it does with the parallels suggested by Fox (1920–1, 39) at Fulbourn, Stapleford (both Cambridgeshire), Cambridge Castle and Whissonsett (Norfolk), as in these examples the interlace in the head is not divided from the interlace in the shaft – a distinguishing feature of the Lincolnshire examples. The St Mark's cross-head, however, is a much more carefully carved piece and, in terms of accomplishment of carving, Colsterworth 2 is closer to the Ancaster product at Bicker (no. 1, Ill. 42).

Mid tenth to mid eleventh centuries

Davies 1911, 3–4; Fox 1920–1, 39; Clapham 1926, 4; Davies 1926, 10, pl. II; Pevsner and Harris 1964, 499; Stocker 1986a, 61, 65; Pevsner et al. 1989, 230