Reconstructed, with missing areas replaced by modern stone, at the east end of the south aisle, south of the chancel arch.

First mentioned in (–––) 1874, 226, in which the fragments are said to have been found 'with the knees of the figure and other excrescences on it broken off so as to make the stones suitable for lying in a wall', when the chancel was pulled down. (The chancel was rebuilt in 1850; the note is a report of an address to the British Archaeological Association by Fairless Barber.)

All Hallows

Incomplete, but with the surviving fragments in good condition

Fragments of a slender cross-shaft of tapering rectangular form, with a head of type B9 with a rounded boss-like projection on the upper arm. All faces are edged with a double roll moulding. The background is smoothly dressed. The right arm of the head (face A) is a modern reconstruction, as are a section of the neck of the cross above Christ's loincloth, a section of interlace between fragments c and d, and another below fragment d with continuation of the interlace panel and a long plain base.

A (broad): The cross-shaft and head are dominated by the slender figure of the crucified Christ, which fills the head and must have extended at least half-way down the shaft. It is represented on fragments a, b, c. He stands out against the cross as if applied to it, as would a metal or ivory figure applied to a metal cross. His head and body are erect and frontal. His head mostly fills the upper arm of the cross-head. His smooth hair frames his face and curls outwards at the ends. His eyebrows are arched but little other detail of his face survives, or of the upper part of his body, which is partly defaced. His shoulders slope down to fit the curve of the upper armpits of the cross. His arms extend to the ends of the side arms, his hands held straight, palm open: they fill the ends of the arms and overlie the borders of the cross. The end of the right arm is a reconstruction. The left arm was drawn by Collingwood (1915a, 202, fig. a) as unbroken and complete, but it now shows three breaks. The waistband of the loincloth, clearly visible on fragment b, shows a carved loop or knot on c, and the end of the tie of the loincloth is visible lying over Christ's right leg. His legs are shown straight and close together, his feet turned out and down to frame the top of the interlace which fills the rest of the face. The legs are somewhat defaced. The long loincloth shown in Collingwood's drawing (ibid., fig. g) is probable: there is a line in higher relief above the feet, and traces of other folds above. The interlace below, with its fine median-incised strands, which survives on fragments c and d, has been completed by a modern artist. The reconstruction, while close in some respects to the reconstruction drawing by Collingwood (ibid., below figs. g and j), is not the same, especially in its lower half. What actually survives on fragment d suggests a variation on complete pattern A with outside strands. The outside strands join and terminate in a loop formed by a single twist between Christ's feet.

B and D (narrow): These faces are completely plain apart from the double edge mouldings on both head and shaft.

C (broad): The perimeter of the cross-head (fragments a and b) is outlined by a double roll moulding, dividing it from the shaft, and a plain flat boss ringed by a triple roll moulding fills the centre of the head. The shaft is plain apart from the double edge mouldings.

E (top): The upper edges of the side arms appear to have been flanked by double roll mouldings like the narrow faces. The top of the upper arm is plain, apart from the oval boss projection at the centre.

Cross-heads treated like crucifixes are not found very early in the Anglo-Saxon period: possibly their earliest appearance is at Rothbury, Northumberland in the first half of the ninth century (Coatsworth 1979, I, 200–7; Cramp 1984, 217–21). The cross designed like a metalwork cross to be seen from one side only had already been developed, however, as on a cross from Hoddom, Dumfriesshire with the Lamb in the centre of the head (Collingwood 1927, 40, fig. 51).

This example from Kirkburton cannot be dated on the physical representation of the figure of Christ, since the upright frontal figure can be very early and is found in all periods, but there are some features of his presentation, such as the head and hands of the figure overlying the edge mouldings, which link it to works from the ninth to the eleventh centuries, including three-dimensional works in metal and ivory (Coatsworth 1979, I, 242–3, 275–306). The very long loincloth, however, is a very rare feature, for which I have been able to find only one parallel, though a very close one, from a miniature in a psalter hymnal from St Germain-des-Près of c. 1030–60 (Dodwell 1993, 211, pl. 203).[1] It is probable that a more ample loincloth than that usually depicted was a late tenth- to eleventh-century fashion (Schiller 1972, pls. 381, 384, 386).

Collingwood (1915a, 202–3) first dated this crucifix to the late Anglian, pre-Viking period, but later (1927, 102, 177) placed it in the eleventh century. The difficulty arises because in its relatively modelled style, its rolled edge mouldings, and its use of interlace patterns, it stands clearly in an Anglian tradition. The twisted loop at the top of the interlace on face A, however, while echoing pre-Viking designs in both manuscripts and sculpture (see, for example, on a piece of church furniture from Bamburgh, Northumberland, and a probable reading desk from Jarrow, co. Durham, no. 22 : Cramp 1984, 115–17, 162–3, pls. 99.528, 100.534, 158.816), is equally comfortable as an interlace terminal in Viking-age sculpture, as on Leeds 1 (Ills. 489–90). There is also some evidence from the tenth and eleventh centuries for the placing of staff crosses behind altars when they were not in use as processional crosses (Coatsworth 1979, I, 83–107), and such a practice could well have inspired the evolution of the Kirkburton type of staff crucifix.

Tenth to eleventh century

(–––) 1874, 226; Allen and Browne 1885, 354; Allen 1887, 148; Allen 1890, 293; Allen 1891, 169–70; Phipps 1905, 185; MacMichael 1906, 362; Innocent 1910, 90–2, fig. 2; Collingwood 1912, 121, 130; Collingwood 1915a, 202–3, 269, 271, 281, figs. a–l on 202; Collingwood 1915b, 334; Morris 1923, 294, 549; Collingwood 1927, 87, 102, 177, fig. 125; Collingwood 1929, 40–2, figs. a–l on 41; Elgee and Elgee 1933, 198, 222; Pontefract and Hartley [1936], 14; Mee 1941, 208; Pevsner 1959, 286–7; Coatsworth 1979, I, 241–5, II, 30, pls. 109–10; Cramp 1984, 96; Bailey and Cramp 1988, 85; Lang 1991, 159; Ryder 1991, 32–3; Harbison 1992, I, 323; Ryder 1993, 24, 162; Sidebottom 1994, 81–2, 83–5, 254–5, nos. 1–4, and pls.; Lang 2001, 200

[1] Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Lat. 11550, fol. 6.