In the churchyard south of the nave door, close to a bush on the west side

Standing upright on the grass in front of the socket stone when drawn by Whitaker in 1823

St Oswald

Only the shaft remains, with stump of lower arm of cross-head; slightly weathered. The cross-shaft is a Scheduled Ancient Monument, no. 24522.

A (broad, east) : There is a narrow rolled edge moulding. On the surviving lower arm of the cross-head is the rounded terminal of a lorgnette, 6.5 cm in diameter, with a domed boss, 3 cm in diameter, surrounded by interlace in narrow strand. The cross-arm is a hammer-head: type C1. Below a horizontal moulding the face is not panelled, but contains openly disposed pattern A interlace with lying strands, carved in modelled technique. The cross-joined terminals of one register of pattern A are linked to the diagonal strands below by long glides. These flank a small rectangular panel, 12.2 by 10.5 cm, with a narrow raised frame, 80 cm above the socket. It contains no visible inscription, nor any decoration. Beneath is a register of spiralled pattern A with two loose terminals, which is linked below to four registers of complete pattern A, ungridded and broader on the right side. At the base of the shaft the loose strands terminate in the corners.

Alleged inscription The rectangular panel with raised edges near the top of the east face of the shaft was perhaps designed to contain an inscription (Ill. 316). Haigh (1857, 184–5, fig. 17) read an 'almost obliterated' inscription with the help of 'impressions' sent to him by one of the rector's daughters. Some years later Browne (1884–8, 14–16, pl. II.5) reported that 'with the exception of a possible O there [was] no appearance remaining of an inscription' but that some letters 'notably the "Irish" or "Anglo Saxon" G' could be detected by rubbing. There is now no clear sign of lettering within the panel, only some slight uneven-nesses in the surface of the stone. Haigh read three lines of Latin: HAEC EST | | GACOBI ('This is the cross of St James'). Both the formula and the spelling with G are surprising. This reading was probably suggested by a romantic desire to identify Hauxwell with the 'vicus' near Catterick in which, according to Bede (1969, 206, II .20), James the Deacon most frequently lived. Nothing of this reading can now be confirmed in ordinary light conditions.

The internal dimensions of the panel are only 9 by 7.5 cm. The lettering of the text that Haigh thought that he could read would have had therefore to be very small, something like 1 cm in height. This would have been very unusual for an Anglo-Saxon inscription on stone, but there is an example of such diminutive lettering within a roundel with a raised edge on an approximately contemporary cross-head in York (St Mary Bishophill Junior 5: Lang 1991, 85–7, ill. 234).

B (narrow, north) : There is a narrow plain edge moulding. The face carries continuous lop-sided interlace, in alternating half-pattern A, with bar terminals.

C (broad, west) : The narrow edge moulding frames an unpanelled face. In the centre, between two looped elements, is a profile quadruped with a slender body, arched back, striding forelegs, and the head with its drilled eye backward-looking from a long neck. The creature is possibly bent forwards. The tail ends in a trilobate swelling. The upper part of the shaft is very worn but the interlace strand is narrow and resembles plant ornament. One of the looped elements may be the beast's tail.

D (narrow, south) : The narrow edge moulding contains alternating half-pattern D interlace, with bar terminals and narrow strand.

The tapering socket stone is undecorated.

A small slab leaning against the base and half hidden in the grass carries a nineteenth-century inscription in four lines: CRUX | SANCTI | JACOBI | AD 630.

There is no evidence on this monument for its being dedicated to James the Deacon, who served near Catterick after the departure of Paulinus. The animal in face C has close similarities to those on the lowest register of Masham 1 (Ills. 625–31), both in terms of posture and body-extensions. The use of the drill also occurs on Cundall/Aldborough 1, by the same hand as Masham 1; an unusual tool in pre-Conquest workshops in Yorkshire. The lorgnette cross is a skeuomorph of a metal appliqué and is common across the north of England, even at a later period (Chapter VI). The interlace appears loose and unplanned, but Gwenda Adcock noted that the 'jerky changes of direction of the strands at the end of each register ... indicate the use of templates' (Adcock 1974, 238).

Alleged inscription The most probable interpretation of the now blank panel on the east face of the cross-shaft is that it was intended to contain an inscription. The commonest position for extant inscriptions on Anglo-Saxon stone crosses is in a panel on the shaft of the cross (Higgitt 1986b, 129). As we have seen, both the raised frame and diminutive size of the lettering that would be necessitated by the dimensions of the panel could have been paralleled locally by St Mary Bishophill Junior 5. The nineteenth-century readings are more problematic. In the 1880s, by Browne's own admission (1884–8, 14), he was unable to see any clear indication of an inscription. The taking of rubbings and squeezes may have caused some deterioration of the surface of the stone since Haigh's reading of the 1850s but it is clear that his reading was optimistic and romantically inspired. Browne's reading was based on earlier readings for which he found confirmation in a rubbing and a squeeze. Of course, both the making and the interpretation of rubbings and squeezes of effaced inscriptions may be influenced by the convictions and wishes of those involved. Haigh's reading must be regarded as doubtful but there is a certain amount of evidence that stone crosses in the Insular world could be associated with saints and, in Yorkshire, fragmentary inscriptions on three other crosses, two in York (St Mary Bishophill Junior 5 and St Leonard's Place) and one at Hackness, could perhaps have commemorated people regarded in some sense as saints (Higgitt 1986b, 129, 135, 144–5; Lang 1991, 45, 46, 86, 109, 136–40).

Late eighth to early ninth century

Whitaker 1823, I, 323–4, fig. on 329; Longstaffe 1846, 259, fig.; Cutts 1849, 91, pl. LXXVIII; Longstaffe 1852, 111, pl.; Barker 1854, fig. facing 20; Longstaffe 1854, 215, fig. on 217; Barker 1856, fig. facing 19; Haigh 1857, 184–5, figs.; Whellan 1859, II, 428; Hübner 1876, 68–9, no. 186; Browne 1884–8, 14–16, pl. II, fig. 5; Allen 1885, 342, 343; Allen and Browne 1885, 352; Browne 1885–6, 127–8; Allen 1889, 129, 217, 218, 219, 221; Bulmer 1890, 451; Hodges 1894, 195; Browne 1896, 215–22, fig. 10; Speight 1897, 161, fig. on 170; Morris, J. 1904, 179, 420, 422; Stevens 1904, 48, 50; Collingwood 1907, 278, 287, 288, 330, figs. a–d on 321; Bogg 1908, 531; Collingwood 1912, 119, 124; Cook 1912, 249; Page, W. 1914, 249; Browne 1915, 199–200; Collingwood 1915, 266, 267, 274, 281, 283, 289; Browne 1916, 35; Glynne 1922, 277; Bogg 1925, 105, fig.; Collingwood 1927a, 97; Morris, J. 1931, 33, 180, 417, 420; Elgee and Elgee 1933, 198–9, 247; Pontefract and Hartley [1936], 135; Mee 1941, 104; Pevsner 1966, 183; Okasha 1971, 79, no. 51, pl.; Adcock 1974, 236–8, 255–6, 258n, pls. 104, 105a–b; Cramp 1984, 106, 134; Higgitt 1986b, 129, 135, 147; Bailey and Cramp 1988, 117, 122, 151; Hatcher 1990, 250; Okasha 1992, 81; Binns 1995, 262; Green n.d., 2, 3–4, fig.

[1] The following is an unpublished manuscript reference to no. 1: BL Add. MS 37552 no. XIV, item 598 (Romilly Allen collection).