In the transept, near the south door, fixed into one socket of a double-socketed base.

Found in 1892 by a Mr Unwin, in re-laying a pathway in the churchyard near the west door of the church (Lloyd 1906, 205; Innocent 1910, 90). Both stones were found broken in two. Lloyd (1906) recorded that it was set up in its present position by the vicar at the time, Dr Gatty.

St Mary

The shaft is in two pieces, now joined, with the partial gap replaced by modern stone/ concrete onto which the incised edging of the shaft has been continued. The base is also in two pieces. The ensemble is placed close to the wall so that the back of the shaft and base are not visible. The shaft is broken at the top, but in relatively good condition.

The edges of the shaft, which is of rectangular section, are slightly rounded. All faces are edged by a wavering incised outline. The carving is all outline-incised, with some modelling around the edges of the motifs in a kind of 'chip-carved' technique.

A (broad): The surface is cut back shallowly and is dressed smooth. At the top is a Latin cross (type A1) with an incised outline, set within a pattern of incised lines which partly frame it, some of which suggest a rudimentary step pattern. Below are three incised circles, inside each of which is a Latin cross within a circle, formed by removing four quarter-circles for the armpits. Only one survives above the break, on the right, but there are two below. Below this again are two rows of stepped lines partly framing another outline Latin cross, with a bar-like frame below with a reversed D-shape on its left edge. Below this, an incised circle encloses another simple outline Latin cross. Below, a wide blank area is underlined by a simple line with hooked ends and inverted D-shapes at the corners, below which are two more examples of the 'chip-carved' circled crosses. There is an incised horizontal border below these and some further lines apparently continuing the side borders but more faintly. Below this the cut-back surface ends on a straight edge without a border, and the base of the face is plain.

B (narrow): This face has an incised border on the vertical and lower edges, and is otherwise plain, with a blank area below the horizontal border.

C (broad): In its present position all that can be determined is that the face has incised borders on the vertical edges.

D (narrow): This is similar to face B, except that the vertical incised borders carry on below the horizontal border to the foot of the shaft.

The base has rolled edges on the angles of its front, upper and narrow sides; the other face cannot be seen. There is a socket for a second shaft 23 cm (9 in) to the left of the surviving shaft. This measures 31 x 23 cm (12.2 x 9 in). The base has at some time been split across its width.

This shaft has been compared with others in the region, as part of Sidebottom's 'Incised Motif' group (1994, 95–7). One of these is Cawthorne, especially no. 4 (Ills. 142–3, 146–7), but the carving is shallower and the circle crosses are not quite the same as the 'D' motif, although Ryder (1982, 110–11) saw this as appearing once or twice. He also compared it to a late hogback at Hexham, no. 45 (Cramp 1984, pl. 239.1353–4), although the encircled crosses there appear to be on a much larger scale, as well as to Penistone 1 (Ill. 631), also one of Sidebottom's group. There is a parallel nearer than Hexham on a late cross-head, Stainton 4, from north Yorkshire, however (Lang 2001, ill. 748), which has incised or raised crosses in roundels at the end of the arms of a superimposed cross.

Collingwood'saw the base as contemporary, having an 'Anglo-Saxon moulding'. The base has equal-sized sockets for two shafts only nine inches apart. This should be compared to Bolsterstone 1, which also has two closely spaced sockets (Appendix A, Ills. 803–6). Ryder (1982, 111) suggested that if both sockets were in use at the same time, the crosses would have to be of unequal height to allow room for their heads. But the heads would have to be very narrow to fit any height: possibly one or both of these shafts did not have a head.

Probably eleventh century

Kenworthy 1905, 207–9; Lloyd 1906, 205, fig. on 206; MacMichael 1906, 365, and pl.; Innocent 1910, 90; Morris 1911, 183, 549; Collingwood 1912, 121, 129; Collingwood 1915a, 172–3, 283, fig. on 172; Collingwood 1915b, 335; Collingwood 1927, 177–8, fig. 222; Elgee and Elgee 1933, 222; Brown 1937, 269–70, pl. XCVI; Mee 1941, 126; Pevsner 1959, 190; Ryder 1982, 91, 110–11, 125, fig. on 110; Sidebottom 1994, 81–2, 85–7, 156, 248, nos. 1–2, and pls.; Sidebottom 1997, 43, 46, 50–1, 52, fig. 3; Hadley 2000a, 257; Lang 2001, 200; Hey c. 2003, 47

None