1a and 1b are two non-conjoining pieces probably from the same major cross-shaft of rectangular section.

Stone 1a.

A (broad): The west face is completely eroded, except for surviving hints of borders that suggest it was decorated in a manner similar to the other faces.

B (narrow): The south face has borders that peter out some 30 cm (12 in) above the base: they are too worn to tell whether they were originally cabled. Within them, the vertical field is divided into panels by an inner border: both panels have vestiges of cabling on the borders between them. (i) The upper panel has a four-strand plait, two of whose strands link to form a closed loop while the other two continue to form a cross-over within a free ring. This could be a figure-of-eight motif based on the 'Carrick bend' (e.g. simple pattern F – Cramp 1991, fig. 23). (ii) The lower, horizontal panel is filled with a motif of two free rings with interwoven running strands.

C (broad): The east face has similar outer borders also terminating about 30cm (12 in) above the base, and inner borders dividing the face into panels. (i) In the upper panel, a vertical central area is missing through weathering: to either side are two areas of identical simple dense plait. It is uncertain whether this represents two bands of four-strand plait on either side of a central shaft, or the two edges of a continuous mat of interlace that originally filled the panel. (ii) The lower panel is filled with a horizontal run of simple four-strand plait.

D (narrow): The north face is identical in layout to B and C, with outer borders terminating at a similar height and inner borders defining two panels. There may be traces of cabling on both borders. (i) The interlace filling the upper panel is identical to that on face B. (ii) The lower transverse panel is deeper than those on the other legible faces, so that its lower edge coincides with the lower ends of the outer borders. It is filled with a simple four-strand interlace.

E (top): The shaft has the remains of six dowel holes in its upper surface, presumably indicating a repair or alteration to the monument.

F (bottom): The lower end sits 12 cm (4.75 in) inside the socket of the base.

Stone 1b.

Parts of two decorated faces survive, and an original dressed end that suggests this is a fragment of a section of a composite rather than monolithic shaft.

A (broad): Decorated with a cabled border along the two original edges: the other edges are broken. The central panel, filled with a simple four-strand running plait, is further elaborated by two more contrasting borders. The inner is a smaller finer cabled roll, and the intermediate border is a fine raised diaper or diamond pattern.

B (narrow): Has the same triple border, but the central panel is filled with an interlace pattern of finer strands whose complete form does not survive.

The base has no original upper surface surviving. Its sides are buried. The socket hole measures approximately 52 × 40 cm (20.5 × 15.75 in).

This fragment clearly represents a large and important standing shaft. Originally it would have been nearly square in section, presuming that the cross on face A was centrally disposed. It is distinguished in several significant ways from most of the other shafts in the county. It has a tripartite angle roll, as opposed to the single roll or cable which is very much more common. The only shafts with this type of angle moulding are Brattleby 1 (Ills. 60–4, 66–7) and the pre-Viking shaft at Edenham (no. 1, Ills. 162–6). The interlace decoration on face C, where a single strand is picked out for decoration, is also an early feature, reminiscent of Viking ribbon beast decoration, and, within the county, finds its closest parallel on the grave-cover at Holton le Clay (Ill. 203) – a distinctive import into the county from the Viking kingdom of York. The development of the angle moulding into an interlace unit forming the boundary between panels (on face B) is, likewise, an indicator of a date in the early or middle tenth century and is met with occasionally on shafts of this date (e.g. at Collingham, Yorkshire WR (Collingwood 1915, 160)). Grid patterns of the sort shown on face B at Cranwell are better represented within the county, and were clearly in use well into the eleventh century, but they are rarely as well laid-out and carved as here (compare, for example, the lop-sided layout of the grid on North Witham 1, Ill. 315). Crosses within interlace patterns are also found on shafts elsewhere (e.g. at Harmston 1, Ill. 195, and perhaps at Bracebridge 1, Ill. 58), but again the quality of the carving at Cranwell is markedly superior. The early features of the Cranwell shaft, such as the border moulding, the interlace panel boundary and the parallel with the cover at Holton le Clay, must suggest that it belongs to a somewhat earlier period than the majority of crosses in the county (earlier, for example, than the members of the South Kesteven group, see Chapter V). Furthermore, it appears to be more closely related to Viking-age Northumbrian examples of the second or third quarters of the tenth century rather than to examples from its later years.

The quality of the piece is further emphasised by the striking arrowhead terminals on the free interlace strands (Ill. 108). The only parallels for these terminals are found on the large hogback type grave-cover also at Cranwell (no. 2 below). The style, layout and quality of the interlace carving on the grave-cover are so similar to that on the shaft that it seems very likely that they are products of the same workshop. Indeed the shaft and the grave-cover may together have formed a large composite monument with shaft(s) at the end(s) of the cover.