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: Fragment probably of a shaft
Measurements: H. 20 cm (8 in); W/L. 56.2 cm (22.2 in); D. Built in
Stone type: Fine-grained cellular dolomitic limestone. Colour very pale brown (10YR 7/3). The fragment is heavily coated with limewash. Probably the Brotherton Formation (Upper Magnesian Limestone), Upper Permian, exposed to the west of the settlement. [J.S.]
Plate numbers in printed volume: Ills. 766-8
Corpus volume reference: Vol 8 p. 269-70
(There may be more views or larger images available for this item. Click on the thumbnail image to view.)
Collingwood (1909, 185–6) compared the pattern on face A to one on a probable impost from Kirby Hill, north Yorkshire (Lang 2001, 134–5, fig. 16, ills. 369–70), but although there are similarities in the pattern, the scale and unit measure are in fact very different. Adcock (1974, I, 231–6) grouped this cross with Addingham 2 and Waberthwaite 2 in Cumberland (Bailey and Cramp 1988, ills. 5, 8, 584–5), Hauxwell 1 in north Yorkshire (Lang 2001, ills. 311–14), and Kirkdale 8 and Hackness 1 in east Yorkshire (Lang 1991, ills. 457, 563), because of the unusually large unit measure and thin-stranded open interlace found in all. Closed-circuit elements, capricious breaks and occasional breakdowns in geometrical precision are the hallmarks of this group, for which she proposed a date in the late
Part of a moulding survives on the left (the upper side as it is positioned). Collingwood (1915a, fig. on 248) drew the piece as if it has a clear taper, but the sides are so battered this cannot be certain.
Along the visible face there is an unusual four-strand twist, in which two parallel rows of three loose double rings are threaded by double strands which lace in the centre of each ring. One pair of strands joins at the top (right-hand end); the continuation or return of the other pair at this end is not clear. Beyond the loose rings on the left is an area in which the strands cross twice in a loose lattice, and they appear to continue on beyond the end of the stone.
-Viking period, perhaps even carrying on into the tenth century. Adcock made a particularly close study of the technique of the Wakefield cross, and its patterns of wear, showing that these varied between the surviving broad face and the sides, suggesting to her that face A was only a partially completed work with the modelling unfinished, in which aspect it is comparable to some of the work on the Hackness shaft (Lang 1991, 139). She also found a difference in pattern concept along with the differences in technique: from the well-gridded and repetitive pattern on face A to the less regular patterns with their short-circuit elements on the narrow faces. She suggested that they could be explained either by the work having been begun by one craftsman and finished by another with different ideas; or begun by a craftsman copying a known monument with the use of templates, but then adding more of his own ideas.An equally interesting point is that all the decoration on this cross is interlace, in itself an unusual feature; in this respect see also the discussion of Thornhill 2, which appears to be part of the same group (p. 258, Ills. 728–31).
The double strap lacing through loose rings is found on cross-heads in the same area at Saxton and Tadcaster (Ills. 690, 722). The unusual twist at Wighill is similar in concept to that on a fragment from Thorp Arch (Ill. 723), also very close. These two pieces seem to show an attempt to emulate a more complex interlacing, perhaps in emulation of still admired works of the Anglian past.
