At the east end of the nave, north of the chancel arch

A number of the crosses now displayed in the church were found embedded in the walls in 1840 while others were found in the same period below ground, when the chancel was 'rebuilt in the Early English style' (Taylor, H. M. and Taylor, J. 1965, I, 167, who also noted a further restoration in 1870) . The discovery is first mentioned by Haigh 1856–7, 512. The number of monuments and their programmes suggests this was an important ecclesiastical site, and there are traces of the pre-Conquest church still visible in the present fabric (Taylor, H. M. and Taylor, J. 1965, I, 166–7). All the sculptures were kept 'for many years in the greenhouse at the Vicarage' (Allen 1891, 158), but by Allen's day were set up inside the church, with several pieces now considered separate cemented together. Speight (1902, 448) reported that the stones had been separated and re-assembled correctly after another restoration in 1900 (see Collingham (St Oswald) 2 below). Collingwood (1915a, 155) also says that 'since the year 1900 the early stones have been better shown in this church', confirming that the re-alignment of incorrectly joined pieces took place at this date. No. 1, however, appears always to have been set up as it is now, and Allen noted only that it was 'cracked across the middle' (Allen 1891, 160).

St Oswald

Broken in two pieces, now joined. It is incomplete at top and bottom, with areas of severe wear.

A cross-shaft of part rectangular and part sub-rectangular tapering section. Three registers of figures survive on each face. The shaft down to the lower edge of the second register has squared angles and is edged on all faces by a cable moulding, with an inner flat moulding.

Below this the shaft is still basically rectangular but there is a slight widening of the shaft and the angles are chamfered and perhaps also slightly rounded: they carry plant ornament which continues over the arches above the lowest register of figures.

A (broad): (i) In the upper panel is a worn three-quarter-length figure with a dished halo. The head covering falls to the shoulders, suggesting this may be a female figure. It is possible that this figure is sitting sideways, though with frontal head, on a round-backed chair, or the rounded feature over her left shoulder could imply the halo of the Christ child seated on her knee, but the remains, though very suggestive, are perhaps too battered for certainty on this point. (ii) Below a shallow arch, dressed flat, stands another worn three-quarter-length figure, its halo dished, its head turned slightly to the right. There are some traces of drapery below the break. The panel is edged below by a convex moulding, which separates it from the plant-decorated arch below. (iii) Within the scroll-decorated angles and arch, an inner arch, dressed flat, rests on shafts with simple wedge -like capitals. Under this arch a figure with a dished halo turns his probably bearded face to the left, and holds a book or scroll against his breast with his left hand. The panel is incomplete and it is unclear whether the figure would be full- or three-quarter length, standing or sitting.

B (narrow): (i) The upper register, incomplete at the top, has a full-length standing frontal figure. The lower part of a dished halo can be seen, but not the long curling lock of hair shown by Collingwood. The robes are quite elaborate, with folds draped over the figure's left arm, which holds a scroll. His right hand rests in front of him, as if on his lap, and the lower drapery suggest a tunic, also with folds, beneath the outer robe. The figure's turned-out feet stand on the arch of the register below. (ii) The shallow arch rests on stepped capitals, the columns of the arch represent the inner edge moulding of the panel. Within this stands a full-length robed figure, again with a longer undergarment, his head turned slightly to his right, his feet turned out and standing on the convex lower border. He has a short, cap-like hair-style, and his nose and some detail of his right eye survive. (iii) Within the inner arch is a deeply recessed but very worn figure, head turned to the right, with a deeply dished halo, holding a scroll. The panel is incomplete at the bottom.

C (broad): (i) The upper panel, incomplete at the top, holds a half or three-quarter length figure with a dished halo. He has a short, close-fitting hairstyle, a wedge-shaped nose, and drooping mouth or possibly moustache and short beard. A flat-looking robe is wrapped shawl-like over his shoulders, the right side overlapping the left. His right arm, with enlarged hand, emerges from his robe and rests on his breast with one finger pointing to his left, and possibly holding a scroll. A wide vertical V-shape beside this hand on his left could possibly be his left hand raised and seen in profile: but see panel Di, where a similar feature, better preserved, is a fold of drapery from which the left hand emerges. (ii) Below the arched upper border survives part of a large head, frontal, with an elaborate curled hairstyle. The modelled nose, eyebrows and eyes have survived. There is considerable damage to this panel below the break. (iii) Within the arch is a deeply recessed figure as on face B: frontal, but now very worn.

D (narrow): (i) At the top is a full-length frontal figure with a dished halo, on the left-hand side of which can be seen superimposed a long lock of hair extending into a curl. Nose and arched brows are shallowly carved. He holds a scroll in front of him with both hands. Some details of his robe survive, showing it draped over his arms, and also so as to show a longer tunic beneath. His feet, the right turned out while the left is shown frontally, are placed on the convex lower border. He seems to be positioned to face slightly to his right. (ii) Below is another full-length figure, this time positioned frontally. His hair has the same outward curl as in panel Di above, on both sides. His dished halo can be seen within the recessed arch. His right hand is raised in blessing, his left is possibly covered, and is holding a book. His left foot is turned out, his right is frontal. A curved area between this and the panel below is more worn, but is clearly filled with plant ornament in the same position as on faces A and B. (iii) Beneath the arch a frontal figure with a dished halo, who wears a robe draped over his left shoulder and across his right hip, holds a scroll before him in both hands. This panel is incomplete at the bottom, and this too could be a full-length figure.

The form of this cross has been much remarked upon. Collingwood (1915a, 155–6) believed the base would have been round-shafted when complete, a smaller version of the cross at Masham, north Yorkshire (Lang 2001, 168–71, ills. 597–631), which would place this cross in the late eighth to early ninth century. Kendrick (1941a, 15), like Collingwood, compared it to the so-called 'Paulinus cross', in which he included all the fragments Dewsbury 1–5 (Ills. 190–207), in effect also relating it to those staff-roods which modulate from a lower round shaft to an upper rectangular one, of which Masham could also be an example. Other pre-Viking examples include Dacre 1 and Beckermet St Bridget 1 in Cumberland (Bailey and Cramp 1988, 30). As Kendrick rightly said, however, here at Collingham the lower part of the shaft is rectangular with rounded edges. This would seem to make it a kind of 'round-shaft derivative' which together with the style of carving could suggest at least a slightly later date. Cramp (1970, 61–2) noted the difference in style between the broad and narrow faces of the shaft, with the broad faces attempting to emulate the classicising manner of Otley 1 and 2 (Ills. 552–63, 568–71), in the dignity and monumentality of the figures, the variation in facial type and posture, and deeply-cut style of carving. The narrow faces on the other hand are on a more miniature scale, with complicated drapery and heavily drilled eyes, that look towards a different figure type, which she compared with Dewsbury and Masham, and also Cundall/ Aldborough (Lang 2001, 93–7, ills. 159–84). It is notable that the figures on both broad faces are clearly half-figures, which contributes to the sense of a different scale. These comparisons seem justified, and the hardening of the drapery style, on all faces, confirms that its date is likely to be later than the crosses which inspired it. The conscious appeal to admired crosses of different styles but an earlier generation implies a later date than that suggested by Collingwood.

Lang (1993, 265–6) re-emphasised the classicising style and the dependency on Otley, especially Otley 1, but also suggested (1999, 276–9) that Collingwood's identification of the twelve surviving figures as apostles could not be certain as the shaft is incomplete at both top and bottom. He also, following Allen (1891, 160), identified one of the three-quarter-length figures, Cii, as a woman because of her 'crimped hairstyle' (Ill. 168), describing this as a Late Roman convention revived in late eighth-century Yorkshire also at Little Ouseburn. The Little Ouseburn 5 figure (Ill. 534) is almost certainly not female, however, although the Collingham figure could be. He was convinced, nevertheless, that this cross was an example of an 'Apostle pillar'. He suggested two possible reconstructions. The first distinguishes the figures on the sides from those on the broad faces, which as we have seen, relates to a difference in size and style. In this version, three more registers at the top would have given twelve full-length figures on the sides, which might then be identified as apostles. His second, apparently preferred, reconstruction allowed for two more registers below the arches with the plant-scroll, which would have given twelve apostles round the base of the cross, supporting later teachers and saints, 'as Bede says they do, acting as reliable pillars of correct teaching' (Lang 1999, 279). Clearly the shaft would have been longer at both ends, although three more registers of figures at the top of a tapering shaft seem improbable in consideration of the scale. The distinction in style between the broad and narrow faces, however, supports the idea of a difference in the significance of these faces.

The figures may well have had more identifying detail originally. The figures on the sides, all shown holding scrolls or books, are certainly witnessing/teaching figures, and could well be apostles. If it could be shown that the figure in Ai is a seated female figure, or a female figure with a child on her knee, this would be very interesting indeed, as it would suggest she is to be identified with the Virgin, either the Virgin and Child or the Virgin from an Annunciation scene: even as it is, it appears that the difference in scale signals the greater importance of the figures on the broad faces from those at the sides.

The relationship of this cross with other Yorkshire works seems very clear, and the heavier-handed style, the use of different models from the same area, and the simplification of the round-shafted form suggest that this cross belongs to the very end of the Anglian period, possibly even overlapping into the early Anglo-Scandinavian era.

Late ninth century

Haigh 1856–7, 512; Pettigrew 1864, 312; Allen and Browne 1885, 353; Allen 1890, 296, 310; Allen 1891, 160–1, no. 4; Speight 1902, 448, and pl.; MacMichael 1906, 359–60; Morris 1911, 155; Collingwood 1912, 111, 119, 128; Collingwood 1915a, 155–7, 282, 283, 292, figs. a–d on 156; Collingwood 1915b, 328; Collingwood 1916–18, 45, fig. 20; Collingwood 1923, 7; Smith 1923–4, 233; Collingwood 1927, 6, 7, 46–7, 70, 72, figs. 13(4), 87; Collingwood 1929, 22, 27; Collingwood 1932, 51; Elgee and Elgee 1933, 196; Pontefract and Hartley [1936], 16, and fig.; Brown 1937, 143, 153; Kendrick 1941a, 15; Mee 1941, 105; Kendrick 1949, 72–3; Pevsner 1959, 165–6; Cramp 1965, 12; Taylor, H. M. and Taylor, J. 1965, I, 166–7; Cramp 1970, 61–2, Taf. 47.2–3; Cramp 1977, 218, 219; Cramp 1978a, 10; Bailey 1980, 77; Cramp 1984, 108; Wood, I. 1987, 35; Bailey and Cramp 1988, 30; Lang 1990a, 12; Lang 1991, 55, 56, 106, 143, 192; Cramp 1992, 36, 61–2, pl. 13.2–3, 201, 206, 228; Lang 1993, 265–6; Lang and Wrathmell 1997, 378; Everson and Stocker 1999, 24, 135, 158–9; Farr 1999, 388; Lang 1999, 276–9, pl. 5; Hadley 2000a, 265; Lang 2001, 24, 25, 67, 168, 170, 171; Hawkes 2002a, 71; Hawkes 2002b, 344–5, fig. 17; Hawkes 2003a, 84–7, fig. 7; Hawkes 2003b, 366

[1] The following are general references to the Collingham stones: Browne 1880–4a, lxxiv; Browne 1885c, 157; Allen 1887, 85; Allen 1890, 293; MacMichael 1906, 359–60; Morris 1911, 155; Pevsner 1959, 20, 165–6; Faull 1981, 212, 218; Ryder 1991, 19; Ryder 1993, 17, 147; Cambridge 1995b, 144n, 145.