The greater part of the upper shaft lies beneath the tower of Cundall church, together with a detached fragment from the top of the stone. Three fragments from the broken lower portion are reassembled in the garden of Aldborough Manor, 4 miles to the south (SE 406666). A fourth fragment there, described by Collingwood as 'a little piece of the arris of a shaft, with work similar to that of the other three stones' (1915, 133), is now missing.

(Cundall) First noted in 1823 reused as a lintel 'over the choir door' (Whitaker 1823, II, 195, and fig.; see Ill. 159). The church was rebuilt in 1854 (Whellan 1859, 549). The shaft was removed and set upright in the graveyard south of the church (Lunn [1867], 8; Morris, J. 1904, 134; Collingwood 1907, 315; Page, W. 1914, 366), but was subsequently moved inside (Morris, J. 1931, 135). Only shaft fragment (a) is shown in Whitaker's illustration, with face A outward, but fragment (b) is visible in Collingwood's drawing of the shaft in the graveyard (1907, 310). [1] (Aldborough) In the Museum Isurianum and belonging to A. S. Lawson of Aldborough Manor when recorded by Collingwood (1912, 128; 1915, 133). First noted in 1893: 'Four sections of a moss-grown runic cross have been recently placed in the museum, and are worthy of examination' (Leadman 1893, 426). By 1922 the reconstructed fragments had been set up in the garden behind the museum (Brøndsted 1924, 45–6).In 1915 G. W. Haswell of Chester suggested that the Cundall and Aldborough fragments were parts of the same shaft (Collingwood 1916–18, 39, fig. 10; Brøndsted 1924, 46–7n; Collingwood 1927a, 45, fig. 32). This was subsequently confirmed by the Rev. H. Stapleton: 'When the porch was built in the poor kind of architecture of the early eighteenth century ... this ornamental piece of stone was apparently found to be too lengthy for the purpose, and large fragments were cut off. These portions were subsequently discovered, and brought to Aldborough Manor by the late A. Lawson, Esq., where they still remain' (Stapleton 1923, 10n). According to the late Mary Lawson-Tancred, who was the repository of the Lawson-Tancred family history, there was no doubt that the Aldborough fragments had been removed from Cundall (R. Cramp, pers. comm.). But Baldwin Brown's story should also be noted: 'The shaft of this Aldborough cross ... belonged to the lords of the manor, the Lawson family, and it is said that one of these squires, stepping down from the Hall one morning, saw workmen breaking up one of the shaft sections into fragments suitable for road mending' (Brown, G. B. 1937, 207).The Cundall/Aldborough cross was evidently a composite monument in several sections, as Dr Senior's geological report below emphasises. A tenon survives at the top of the Cundall shaft (Ill. 179).

St Mary and All Saints

Cundall shaft weathered at the top but otherwise quite crisp, with traces of mortar on face C; Aldborough fragments patchily worn and joined by cement. One edge (C/D) of the Cundall shaft has been cut away for the rebate of a lintel. The top panel of face B is damaged but survives as a separate fragment. Faces C and D of the lower fragment at Aldborough are missing.

The unit of measure is 0.75 in (2 cm) throughout, as are all the mouldings.

A (broad) : There is a double roll moulding, well modelled, with transverse identical mouldings dividing the shaft into panels of varying size. The taper is noticeable. (i) The topmost panel is broken and very weathered but seems to have carried a neat horizontal open knot in modelled strand, below which is the bust of an angel with slightly dished halo. The head faces frontally, though remains of bubbly curled hair survive. The wings have vertical feathers behind rounded shoulders. (ii) The interlace below is extremely weathered, but Gwenda Adcock identified two registers of pattern F, separated by a glide, with elaborate cross-joined terminals (Adcock 1974, 110). (iii) The panel beneath has a delicate open plant springing from a central stock in the middle of the base. It has long medallion shoots with long pointed berry bunches as pendant terminals and one in the lower corner with flanking sepals. There are no leaves on the plant. An elegant canine beast whose tail helps to form part of the medallion stands on its hind legs and grasps the shoot to feed. Above it is a pair of confronted birds, within the panel, in the same tender shoots. (iv) Below the next transverse moulding is a depiction of Samson carrying off the gates of Gaza over his shoulder; he advances towards the right. The gates are an arch with sub-conical capitals and splayed bases. The spandrels each sprout a curving shoot terminating in a large ivy leaf. The base of the panel is in the point of fracture and it has been further defaced by a matrix and four drilled holes to hold a plate in place. The remaining panels of face A are on the Aldborough fragments. (v) The uppermost of these is very broken, but at the right is a plant-scroll occupied by a bird facing right perched on what may have been a medallion with an upright seed pod. The bird may have been one of a pair of adorsed profile birds with folded wing and feeding on a berry bunch. (vi) Below a fracture are a pair of standing quadrupeds of canine appearance with drilled eyes. They walk through the base of a medallion scroll. (vii) Below, the last panel contains figure carving; on the left is a standing robed figure with pointed chin; the top of the head is lost. In front of the large figure is the half-profile of a kneeling figure with curving drapery. In the bottom left-hand corner is the segment of a circle in modelled strand; within it is an oval object which is unidentifiable through erosion. On the right is a classical porch with a pedimented arch. The porch has double stepped capitals and splayed bases. Within the porch is a robed standing figure in half-profile. The hair is long and falls upon the shoulder.

B (narrow) : The mouldings are double and rolled, and a transverse one runs across the top of the face to frame the upper panel. (i) This contains a well-proportioned half pattern A knot of modelled strand, very openly arranged. It has bar terminals and a subtle ring resembling a penannular brooch form; there is some irregularity in the saltire which joins the bar terminals. (ii) The panel below the fracture is longer and contains a plant-scroll medallion rising from a central stack with two registers and shootlets bearing a pendant terminal pointed lobed leaf. A large rounded berry bunch occupies the upper medallion. Any animals are elusive. (iii) The panel below contains two alternating half pattern D loops, spiralled, with bar terminals above and below. (iv) The next panel has a plant-scroll which is inhabited by a large deer-like creature facing left which feeds from round berry bunches and pointed lobed leaves. The beast has a rearing posture and grasps the shoot below a node. The animal is kept clear of the plant, its scroll forming a roundel behind it. The next panels are at Aldborough. The top of the next fragment retains the base of this panel with a horizontal stem tipped by a heart-shaped leaf. (v) A transverse moulding separates a panel of three registers of interlace in the monument's well modelled type of strand: spiralled pattern C. (vi) The panel below is fractured but continues onto the next fragment which has animals, possibly one above (this may be a bird or even a seed pod; it is very damaged), and two below within a medallion scroll growing from a central stock. The carving of the pair of confronted quadrupeds is highly modelled. Their chests touch, their forelegs hang loosely down and one hind leg is raised to the horizontal. The twin stems of the plant are leafless and form a roundel for the beast to inhabit. A fig-shaped seed pod fills the spandrel between the necks of the creatures.

C (broad) : The double edge mouldings are rolled. (i) The topmost panel is short and contains the bust of a frontally disposed angel with dished halo and large wings with vertical feathers. The left-hand side is broken and much damaged. From a broad sleeved arm the angel holds a diagonal wand or blossom, but its upper part is worn away. In the top right is a filler, which is difficult to interpret. Below the angel the panel arrangement changes into a series of cruciform panels formed by stepped extensions of the edge moulding. Within the extensions the bases are filled by large pellets, each of them pierced: a row of three next to a single and heavily framed by the moulding. (ii) The next panel contains a bush vine growing from a pot-like stock. Its central shoot sprouts into four thin leaves and the central stem is flanked by roundels of shootlets with volute tips. The right-hand side is cut away for the rebate of a lintel. (iii) The next panel has a contorted beast staggering down the steps of the boxed moulding. Its tail has a volute tip and its head is viewed from above. (iv) The next panel has lost its right-hand edge and contains a bush vine with a thicker stem sprouting from a scrolly stock. The central stem ends in four shootlets each bearing a single round berry. The flanking shoots are more densely organised, with pattern F symmetrical loops. (v) The panel below has a quadruped, well modelled and stepping elegantly down the steps. The tail has a volute tip and the head faces out from the shaft. A pair of tendrils have no observable attachment to the beast or a plant; they have volute tips. Two flank the head and a third tapering one lies close to the chest and ends between the legs. This beast has an S-form, its anatomy is properly proportioned, and the face has lightly modelled features, with circular eyes and broad snub jowl. There are also small pricked ears. (vi) The next panel has a bush vine stemming from a shallow stock with erupting scrolls. The central stem ends in a marigold flower. From a node below it shoot symmetrical loops ending in a round berry bunch. A side branch crosses the loop with a round berry terminal. A lower pair of diagonal shoots rises across the loops. (vii) Of the next panel only the top of a canine head survives on the Cundall fragment. It faces right, and its pricked pointed ear is gouged. It has a domed brow and a large incised circular eye. At Aldborough its body faces left and is very angular and straight sided. It stands on three legs, all bent, with the fourth raised in salute. Its pendant tail ends in a volute. The legs and body are so straight sided that a diamond-shaped box is formed to contain four pierced pellets arranged in a cruciform pattern. The stone is then fractured. (viii) The next panel has a bush vine; only the lateral scrolls survive. They spring from a lost lower node and bear long pointed groups of three round berry bunches within round scrolls. From an upper ridged node straight diagonals reach up to end in a triple leaf, crossing the scrolls. (ix) The fracture has destroyed evidence of the beast panel below. A quadruped has one raised foreleg like a horse. Its other legs are fettered by a heavy loop with a bulbous round terminal.

D (narrow) : The edge mouldings are those of faces A and B; the side ones are rolled. (i) The topmost panel is filled with a twin link knot stretched laterally, pattern E. The strand is well modelled. (ii) The panel below is damaged by the lintel rebate and carries a plant-scroll of two registers with pointed leaves and twin lobes. The carving on the left is difficult to decipher. (iii) The next panel has a large biped facing left and feeding on a pointed berry bunch. The body is well modelled and it stands on a branch on long legs. Its tail tapers and hangs down, its raised tip formed by a pointed berry bunch in salute. At the base are a number of round berry bunches. The left of the panel is lost. (iv) The next panel is similarly damaged by the rebate but carries two registers of twisted loose loopwork about an axis, but less organised than other patterns on the shaft. (v) Below is a panel containing one medallion of an inhabited scroll. A bird, facing right, feeds on a berry. Its tail is long and the whole bird is naturalistic. It stands clear of any shoots, so that it is contained within a roundel. The shaft is fractured at this point. (vi) It may be the same panel's base that appears on the top fragment at Aldborough, which shows the stock of a plant-scroll beneath a rearing quadruped whose hind legs are held in an 'Anglian lock'. Its head improbably feeds from a large berry cluster almost alongside the stock. The large head has a pricked ear (or does this head belong to a different animal?). (vii) Below the fracture, the next panel contains a medallion plant-scroll, the upper register containing pendant and pointed berry bunches flanked by upright shoots tipped with oval bunches. Two crossing diagonals lie below, each sprouting round berry bunches; and reaching upwards through the shoots are the long tapering necks of a pair of affronted beasts with small bulbous heads. The stone is fractured below.

E (top) : At the top of the Cundall shaft is the remains of an oblong tenon, now split in two.

This is the work of the Uredale master (see Chapter VI), and fortunately much better preserved than Masham 1. It exuberantly displays his versatility, though the stock of motifs – inhabited plant-scroll, interlace, biblical iconography – found throughout Anglian sculpture in this region, may be conventional enough. He never repeats a pattern, and even on face C, where bush vines and quadrupeds fill the unique cruciform panels, he varies each version of the motif. Interlace patterns are stretched, and many are ingenious and unique (Adcock 1974, 109–11). The plant-scroll employed on this shaft is, as with all those works attributed to the Uredale master, full of variety in leaf, berry and seed form. But the scroll does not dominate the panels, it is worked around the distinctive beasts who inhabit it. It often only half-frames the beast, as with the creatures on face C, where tendrils curl that do not appear to be connected to any bush or vine, existing merely to frame the beast. Indeed, the distinction between scroll and animal is blurred in this work, with tails ending in a berry bunch or a volute tip as used in the vine and bush scrolls. The creatures which inhabit this scroll come from the conventional menagerie of Mercian and regional beasts, and they are contorted into fantastic forms and positions, especially within the cruciform panels of face C, which are reminiscent of contemporary metalwork. These are not quiet beasts, they rear through vine scroll (face B) and mince down steps (face C). They have proud thrusting chests and muscular haunches, and their bodies and limbs are flexed into ingenious positions framed by panels and fettering; but the carving is naturalistic and extremely competent, the contortions are not a reflection of a lack of skill on the carver's part.

Tempting as it may be to consider face C as the principal face, one should regard the two iconographic scenes of face A, Samson at Gaza (Ill. 167) and the Raising of Lazarus (Ill. 180), as making the prime religious statement through images of resurrection. The arcaded arrangement of apostles and biblical scenes on the pillar shaft of Masham 1 (Ills. 597–603) illustrate the Uredale master's knowledge of this sculptural tradition which is more common in eastern Mercia (see Chapter VI), for example Hovingham in Ryedale (Lang 1991, 146–8, ills. 494–9), and the Hedda stone, Peterborough (Cramp 1977, 213–14, fig. 57). The placing of the two arched biblical panels between inhabited vine-scroll on the shaft is another example of the Uredale master's innovative style. Bailey has demonstrated that Samson carrying off the gates of Gaza, also found on the Masham shaft (Ill. 615), was carved using a template, the template being reversed for each monument (Bailey 1996a, 114). The symmetrically confronting beasts on face B of the Aldborough fragments may also have been constructed using a template.

The origins of these motifs can be found ultimately in Carolingian and Late Antique models, accessed through Alcuin and the church at York's links with Charlemagne's court.

Late eighth to early ninth century

(Cundall) Whitaker 1823, II, 195 and fig.; Lunn [1867], 8; Allen and Browne 1885, 353; Hodges 1894, 195; Morris, J. 1904, 134, 420, 422; Collingwood 1907, 269, 274, 280, 281, 283, 284, 286, 292, 315, fig. on 310; Collingwood 1912, 111, 124; Page, W. 1914, 366; Collingwood 1915, 269, 275, 277, 289; Collingwood 1916–18, 39, fig. 10; Stapleton 1923, 9–10, fn; Brøndsted 1924, 46–7n, 56, 65, 72, fig. 48; Collingwood 1927a, 25, 45, 51, 72–3, 109, 119, fig. 32; Morris, J. 1931, 135, 417; Collingwood 1932, 50–1; Brown, G. B. 1937, 207, 210–11, pl. LXX.2; Elgee and Elgee 1933, 195, 246; Kendrick 1938, 196–9, 201, 204, pl. LXXXVIII.2; Dauncey 1941, 116–17, figs. 15a–b; Mee 1941, 68; Pevsner 1959, 76; Cramp 1959–60, 18; Cramp 1965b, 9, 12; Pevsner 1966, 133–4; Adcock 1974, 109–11, 118n, 226, pls. 24, 25, 26a–b; Cramp 1977, 207; Cramp 1978a, 9, 12, 13, fig. 1.1h; Lang 1983, 185; Cramp 1984, 125; Bailey and Cramp 1988, 17, 135; Lang 1988a, 23, 56; Hawkes 1989, I, 81, 111, 136, II, 15, 24, 33, 67n; Lang 1990a, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15; Cramp 1992, 9, 33, 36, 61, 190, 226; Bailey 1996a, 114; Hawkes 1997, 149, 151, 153, ill. 2; Muir 1997, 95; Hawkes 1999a, 206–7, 210, 211, 213, figs. 17.2, 17.6(Aldborough) Leadman 1893, 426; Morris, J. 1911, 78; Colling-wood 1912, 111, 128; Collingwood 1915, 133–5, 269, 274, 275, 277, 289, 292, fig. a–l on 134; Collingwood 1916–18, 39, fig. 10; Morris, J. 1923, 78, 549; Stapleton 1923, 10 fn; Smith 1923–4, 243, fig. 14; Brøndsted 1924, 45–7, 46–7n, 50–1, 65, 194, 224, figs. 34, 35; Collingwood 1927a, 25, 45, 72–3, fig. 32; Collingwood 1932, 50–1; Elgee and Elgee 1933, 195, 252; Brown, G. B. 1937, 122, 207, 210–11, 282, pl. LXIX; Kendrick 1938, 196–9, 201, 204, pl. LXXXVIII 1; Dauncey 1941, 116–17, figs. 15a–b; Kendrick 1941a, 4; Pevsner 1959, 75–6; Cramp 1970, 60, 61; Adcock 1974, 109–11, 118n, 226, pl. 27a; Cramp 1978a, 9, 12, 13, fig. 1.1h; Cramp 1982,14; Lang 1983, 185; Cramp 1984, 96, 125, 210; Bailey and Cramp 1988, 17; Cambridge 1989, 371n; Hawkes 1989, I, 81, 111, 136, II, 15, 17, 32, 67n; Morris, R. 1989, 138; Lang 1990a, 9, 11, 13, 14,15; Lang 1991, 147; Cramp 1992, 60, 61, 229, 231, 259; Hawkes 1997, 149, 151, 153, ill. 2; Muir 1997, 95; Everson and Stocker 1999, 329; Hawkes 1999a, 206–7, 210, 211, 213, figs. 17.2, 17.6; Hadley 2000, 257

[1] The following is an unpublished manuscript reference to the Cundall shaft: BL Add. MS 37552 no. XIV, item 541 (Romilly Allen collection).