In the churchyard, outside the south porch

None, but depicted in an engraving by Gough in 1789. The lowest register (D) was at that stage buried. The shaft was subsequently raised and remounted on a modern base (Rodwell 1981, 162); its original orientation is therefore uncertain.

St Mary

Worn and eroding, broken at the top; recent lead capping is causing further damage. The shaft is a Scheduled Ancient Monument, no. 26943.

This shaft is the lower section of a composite monument, since there is a mortise slot in the top (now filled with cement and capped with lead). It is columnar and divided into four horizontal registers by encircling plain bands with prominently raised rims. The following description is ordered on these registers, from the top downwards, reading left to right from a line closest to the single figure in the topmost register (panel Ai). There are seven arcaded bays in each register, each one centred between the two bays below or above, with additional ornament in the spandrels (see Fig. 17).

Register A: The top of this register is broken and eroded away (now partly concealed by the lead capping, 8 cm high). The arches of the inhabited arcade are lost but the pillars remain. (i) A bay now on the north face contains the lower part of a single figure facing outward and wearing a long robe. The figure is seated on a throne (Hawkes 1989, I, 84, 91, contra Collingwood 1907, 364), and the drapery falls to his ankles in straight folds. The next three bays (ii, iii, iv) are identical, each holding a pair of standing figures in long narrow robes reaching the ankles. The feet of all six figures point to the left, towards the single enthroned figure. Their drapery is much worn, but there are traces of vertical folds. The next three bays (v, vi, vii) contain identical pairs of figures, whose feet point to the right, towards the single figure. Beneath this register is a plain encircling band recessed between modelled edge mouldings, top and bottom.

Register B: The second register down consists of an arcade of seven bays, 18 inches (46 cm) high. The arches are semicircular and, like the pillars, modelled. The capitals, greatly worn, are sub-triangular; the bases were swellings. In the spandrels are remains of ovoid-shaped fillers; some are lost but one (to the right of the Gaza scene) is a human head with hair-line, and another (to the right of the paired birds) a head with spread ears. None is foliate. The arches are off-set so that the pillars of the arcade of the register above align with the arch below. (i) In the first arch are two very worn standing figures facing each other. The left-hand one is the taller and reaches with lowered arm to the other. They both wear long garments, though the drapery folds are lost. The figures are thin and somewhat elongated. (ii) The second bay contains a backward-looking quadruped with slender limbs. Behind it stands a tall narrow human figure with his hand on the beast's head and one foot over the rump as though he kneels on its back. A lifted drape rises above his shoulder. (iii) In the next bay is a pair of confronted birds with folded wings, their tails linking to form a crescent-shaped feature with a very worn figure within it to the left; not happily decipherable, but possibly the remains of an urn (Hawkes 1989, I, 85, 100). (iv) The next bay is populated by a large figure at the top left, seated on a chair shown in profile with a high curved back. The figure has a long garment and plays a lyre. Before him is another seated figure on a smaller chair; he holds a triangular instrument. At their feet are two small figures, squatting or sitting, the left hand one perhaps seated at a desk. (v) Next to this is a bay with a standing figure facing left with a round-headed arch held over his shoulder with his left hand. From his wrist a short drape dangles. The bases of the arch which he carries consist of large independent bosses; the capitals match those of the arcade. His garment reaches his shins. (vi) The next bay contains two figures seated on high chairs in profile. The worn drapery lies close to their bodies. (vii) The last bay contains a pair of standing figures, the right-hand one taller than the other, perhaps a mirror image of the adjacent bay to the right. It is very difficult to interpret owing to erosion. Below this register is an identical recessed band between mouldings.

Register C: This register is badly eroded. Another arcade of seven bays contains figure and foliate carving. The arcade is of the same design as that in register B, and the same height. The fillers in the spandrels, some virtually lost, are a combination of oval forms and triple leaves. (i) The first bay has two standing figures: only the upper halves survive. (ii) The next bay also has a pair of standing figures, the right-hand one smaller than the other. The lower parts are lost. (iii) The third bay has a foliate form, very damaged, symmetrically disposed around a central upright stem. The leaf form cannot be deciphered. (iv) The next bay has a frontally depicted figure seated on a chair or throne with long posts topped with oval finials at each side. In front and low down are three squat bulbous features in line. (v) The next bay has a frontally disposed standing figure, perhaps with a halo, by the side of two vertical elements; much eroded. (vi) The adjacent bay has a foliate motif like a palmette with central stem with half-moon leaves arranged symmetrically. (vii) The last bay is too worn to interpret. Below the arcade is another recessed band between mouldings identical with the two above.

Register D: Another arcade of the same design but 19 inches (49 cm) high has seven bays, each containing animal ornament. In the spandrels are delicate foliate sprays blossoming from thin vertical stems: one has three discreet berries, two are triple leaves, and there are two miniature tree scrolls whose stems split into symmetrical loops and terminate in tight volutes. Six of the seven bays contain single animals; one a confronted pair. Details are lost owing to severe erosion. (i) In the first bay a quadruped struts to the left. Its body is stiffly horizontal and the limbs taper sharply. The neck is long, and curved, and tapers to a hook-shaped head with a small curled pigtail. At the base of the neck is a stumpy wing, and a tail sweeps up behind the head. In front of the animal there is either another trail with a three-pronged terminal, or a raised foreleg with a talon. (ii) The next bay contains a profile quadruped facing right with a proud chest, stumpy curved wing and an attenuated neck which coils in a scroll, the head being tiny. The legs are damaged. (iii) In the adjacent bay a solitary quadruped faces left: its body forms a diagonal, echoed by its thin tail which laces with the hind legs. The head is raised and filiform extensions crown it. (iv) In the next bay is a pair of confronting creatures with wings and bird-like heads surmounting long tapering necks which are lightly fettered by thin trails. The legs are extremely eroded but they appear to be quadrupeds with interlacing attenuated limbs. The pointed wings are raised. The eyes are drilled. (v–vi) The next pair of bays contain single beasts confronting as mirror images. They are quadrupeds with spindly angular legs. One foreleg is raised in salute through a delicate leafless plant with equally angular shootlets. The slender elongated neck is coiled into a scroll, and it is fettered by a series of filiform loops. The head is small with a long, tapering jowl which touches the throat. (vii) The last bay contains a rampant beast facing right. One claw is raised in salute whilst the others are enmeshed in looping extensions with berry-bearing shootlets that rise to its neck. The posture is almost rearing and the head griffin-like. It is very worn.

E (top) : The top of the shaft is broken and eroded. There is a square mortise hole in the centre, now filled with cement and hidden beneath the lead capping.

This columnar shaft is by the hand of the Uredale master (see Chapter VI, pp. 41–3). Despite its heavy weathering, enough remains of its iconography to show its sophistication in imagery and in design. The complete monument must have stood at over twenty feet, with a lost section of shaft joined by a mortise and tenon joint (cf. Cundall/Aldborough 1, Ill. 179; West Tanfield 2, Ills. 887–8). It is very likely that the cross-arm fragments, nos. 4 and 5, belong to this monument (Ills. 632–4, 635–8). Collingwood (1927a, 6–7, fig. 13.5) considered the cross to be a prime example of the 'staff rood' and its carpentry technique lends that view some support. One must assume that the lost upper shaft was rectangular in section to accommodate the cross-head fragments. If that were the case Masham 1 may have provided the model for several Anglo-Scandinavian round-shaft derivatives in the region. However, the arcaded registers and the historiated arches may have a continental source. In the Carolingian period there was considerable interest, at least in centres of real ecclesiastical influence, in the revival of early Christian and Late Antique styles and imagery. The fashion is exemplified by the columnar shaft at Dewsbury (Collingwood 1915, 162–3, figs. a–c) and also by the fragments from Reculver in Kent (Kozodoy 1986; Tweddle et al. 1995). The ultimate model for the decorative layout of Masham 1 must have been early Christian columns, like the two westernmost shafts of the ciborium over the shrine of St Mark in Venice (Demus and Forlati 1960). These have historiated arcades in registers exactly like those of no. 1. Moreover there are encircling bands between each row bearing captions for the scenes. At Masham these bands may have carried painted captions, or even engraved metal strips held between the proud mouldings. The arcades with decorated spandrels can be found on Hovingham 5 (Lang 1991, 146–8, ills. 494–9) where the narrow drapery of thin figures is reminiscent of the Uredale master's usage. Similar arcades in Mercia contain Apostles and saints: for example, the Hedda stone in Peterborough cathedral and the fragment from Castor, Northamptonshire (Cramp 1977, 213–14, fig. 57). The sculptor was clearly aware, like his Mercian colleagues, of European taste in the Carolingian world. Similarly, the fall of the garments and the lifted wisp of drapery on one figure (register B, bay ii: Ill. 612) are Carolingian in character: like Hovingham 5, which is in the same miniaturist style, it has parallels in the Palace School of manuscript art, notably in the small figures of the Gospel Book of Saint-Médard at Soissons (Hubert et al. 1970, ills. 73, 76). A manuscript parallel for the animal ornament can be found in some Mercian books, like the Codex Aureus from Canterbury (Nordenfalk 1977, 106, pl. 38), but the exotic treatment of the diminishing heads and the stick-like fronds by the legs are unique to this cross. The proportions of the creatures and their posture are characteristic of the finer carvings in Yorkshire and Mercia. Some of the beasts in the lowest register are mirror-images and it is very likely that templates were used in their construction. A template was also used to construct the panel depicting Samson carrying off the gates of Gaza (register B, bay v: Ill. 615), its match being on face A of Cundall/Aldborough 1 (Ill. 167). The template was reversed for the matching panel, in the same way as some of the animals (Bailey 1996a, 114). This is convincing evidence for Cundall/Aldborough 1 and Masham 1 coming from the same workshop.

The iconography of the historiated panels has been analysed in detail by Dr Jane Hawkes (1989, I, 80–136). The most indisputable scenes, on a very eroded monument, are three in register B, where David slaying the lion (bay ii: Ill. 612), David the psalmist with musicians (bay iv: Ill. 614), and Samson at Gaza are clear. In the register below it is possible that the enthroned figure has jars in front of him (register C, bay iv: Ill. 621) and that it represents the marriage at Cana, comparable with a scene at Dewsbury (Collingwood 1915, 164, fig. f). The other panels are too worn to admit safe identification, though an Old Testament register and a New Testament register might have been the intention. The Apostles of register A suggest that this cross was one of the 'Apostle pillars' which were erected close to rivers in the late eighth to early ninth century in Yorkshire (Lang 1999; 2000). The other example in this region is Easby 1 (Ills. 193–212), with others at Otley, Collingham and Dewsbury in the West Riding (Collingwood 1915, 224–6, fig. c; id., 155–7, figs. a–d; id., 162–3, figs. a–c). It has been postulated that this iconography is associated with the rites of baptism and the notion of the Apostles being 'pillars of the church' (Lang 1999, 272–3, 280). At Masham the paired Apostles turn to face the enthroned Christ, and are visually supported by Old and New Testament references. It is an informed and stylish monument and points to the ecclesiastical importance of Masham.

Late eighth to early ninth century

Gough 1789, 90, Vol.III.Pl.II.p.32; Gough 1806, 334, pl. XIV facing 267; Whitaker 1823, II, 102, fig. on 103; Hugall and Fletcher 1850–1, 251; Longstaffe 1852, 67; Whellan 1859, II, 118; Fisher 1865, 310–11, 430, fig. facing 310; Browne 1880–4, cxii–cxiii; Macquoid 1883, 233; Browne 1884–8, 6–7, pl. I, fig. 3; Allen and Browne 1885, 352; Browne 1886b, 166; Allen 1889, 228; Bulmer 1890, 501; Hodges 1894, 195; Bogg [1895], 278, ill. on 277; Glynne 1898, 166; Morris, J. 1904, 254, 422; Collingwood 1907, 269, 270, 274, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 283, 292, 360, figs. on 364–5; McCall 1909, 234–5; Collingwood 1912, 111, 113, 119, 122, 126, pl. VI; Prior and Gardner 1912, 124–5; Page, W. 1914, 330; Collingwood 1915, 275, 283; Collingwood 1923, 7, pl. II.5; Smith 1923–4, 239, fig. 6; Brøndsted 1924, 58, 62–3, fig. 53a, b; Bogg 1925, 81, ill. on 78; Collingwood 1927a, 6–7, 43, 114, figs. 13.5, 55; Clapham 1930, 65, pl. 19; Morris, J. 1931, 33, 255, 421; Porter 1931, 91–2, fig. 145; Collingwood 1932, 50–1; Elgee and Elgee 1933, 196, 249; Pontefract and Hartley [1936], 138; Brown, G. B. 1937, 272; Kendrick 1938, 192, 193, 195, 197, pl. LXXXVII, 2–3; Kendrick 1941b, 15; Mee 1941, 152, pl. facing 112; Kendrick 1949, 73; Rix 1960, 71, 77, 78, 79; Cramp 1965b, 9, 12; Taylor and Taylor 1965, II, 734; Pevsner 1966, 241, pl. 6b; Taylor and Taylor 1966, 39; Wright 1967, 72; Cramp 1970, 60, 61; Bailey 1972, 145–6, pl. XXa; Cramp 1972, 139; Lang 1973, 18; Cramp 1977, 224; Cramp 1978a, 9, 13, fig. 1.2 (d); Cunliffe-Lister 1978, 18, fig.; Swanton 1979, 147n; Bailey 1980, 265; Lawson 1981, 229, 232, 237–8, 241, 244, figs. 1, 2, 6a, 7g, 8c; Rodwell 1981, 161–2, fig. 78; Cramp 1982, 14; Cramp 1983, 276; Lang 1983, 185; Wilson, D. 1984, 105, ill. 131; Cramp 1986, 103; Henderson, I. 1986, 97–8, 100, 110, 111, pls. 5.8a–b; Kozodoy 1986, 89, pl. XLIb; Bailey and Cramp 1988, 17, 20; Lang 1988a, 56; Hawkes 1989, I, 80–136, 361, 417, II, 59–68, pls. 5–14, 68; Lang 1990a, 9, 13, 15; Lang 1991, 19, 29, 49, 58, 140, 147, 168, 191, 203; Webster and Backhouse 1991, 242, fig. 26; Cramp 1992, 33, 36, 60, 61, 79, 207, 226, 231, 249, 294; Lang 1993, 262; Lang 1994a, 15, 17; Mac Lean 1995, 169; Tweddle et al. 1995, 57, 156; Bailey 1996a, 6, 114; Hawkes 1996, 99, fig. 82; Hawkes 1997, 149, 153, 155–6, ill. 1; Everson and Stocker 1999, 159; Hawkes 1999a, 206–7, 208–11, 213–14, figs. 17.2, 17.4, 17.5; Lang 1999, 271, 272, 273–6, 280, pl. 4; Lang 2000, 109, 110, 112–13, 115, 116, 117, figs. 9.1, 9.4, 9.5

None