Select a site alphabetically from the choices shown in the box below. Alternatively, browse sculptural examples using the Forward/Back buttons.
Chapters for this volume, along with copies of original in-text images, are available here.
Object type: Top of cross-shaft with part of lower -arm [1]
Measurements: H. 33 cm (13 in); W. (shaft) 21 > 19 cm (8.2 > 7.5 in), (head) 21 cm (8.2 in); D. (shaft) 15.5 > 15 cm (6.1 > 5.9 in), (head) 14 cm (5.5 in)
Stone type: Sandstone, pale greyish-brown, coarse grained to granular, quartz rich with some feldspar evident. Quartz cemented. Upper Carboniferous, local Millstone Grit Group. [G.L.]
Plate numbers in printed volume: Ills. 395-8
Corpus volume reference: Vol 8 p. 179
(There may be more views or larger images available for this item. Click on the thumbnail image to view.)
A tapering shaft of rectangular section, with the lower arm of a cross-head of type A10. The faces and head are edged by flat mouldings.
A (broad): The head portion seems to be plain. The shaft is dominated by a figure with its arms raised in the 'orantes' position. He may hold something in his right hand, but this is by no means certain. The feature under his right arm could be a small figure, where Collingwood (1915a, 198, fig. g) drew a snake head emerging from a knot. There does seem to be a small round-backed quadruped under his left arm, but whether this is head up or down is not clear. The central figure seems to have a belt or bulky garment detail around his hips.
B (narrow): This face is no longer so clear as in Collingwood (ibid., fig. h), but could nevertheless be a crude example of ring-chain. It may not be multiple-stranded, and it is also possible that it represents an attempt at a twist or irregular interlace with a loose ring.
C (broad): The head again appears to be plain, and the shaft has the terminal of an interlace pattern with a very broad strand, the lower part now too worn for analysis.
D (narrow): Meander type 2, of which only one element survives.
The meaning of the figural composition is far from clear, though the animal, on a different plane from the human figure, could suggest another version of the hunt scene, as on Harewood 1A and Staveley 1C (Ills. 332, 714–15). The treatment of the other face and the figural style relate it to Kildwick 1.
