In the Cannon Hall Museum, Cawthorne, near Barnsley. The cross-head, which had stood free on a shelf (Collingwood 1929, 46), was reported stolen from the church in June 1979. The redundant church was empty at the time, prior to being set up as activity centre for handicapped children (as the High Hoyland Activity Centre of Bretton Hall, University of Leeds). It was subsequently claimed in a newspaper report (Yorkshire Post, 4 January 1980) that the piece had been traced to the United States. Enquiries to members of the P.C.C. and to minutes of the D.A.C. at the time of the loss produced no information on either the loss or supposed discovery. Butler (2006, 92) however, stated that the cross had been located. Dr Butler confirmed that Robin Norbury, a former lecturer at Bretton Hall College, had found it in 1979 apparently neglected, and had sent it to a local museum for safe keeping. Further enquiries elicited its present whereabouts. Following the closure of the activity centre, the former church was sold for development as a private house and art gallery.

Apart from the tower, the church was rebuilt in 1904–8: the 'recent restoration' in which the pieces were found according to Collingwood (1915a, 183). First published by Innocent (1910, 91–2).

All Hallows (Now in a private house)

Broken and incomplete but in good condition

A free-armed cross-head of type B9. The cross-arm High Hoyland 1a is almost certainly part of the same head as High Hoyland 1b, the fragment with the centre and side arms. Both faces and the end of the side arm are edged by double roll mouldings.

A (broad): On 1a, the upper arm seems to have a cross-joined termination which might imply interlace as in Collingwood's reconstruction (1915a, 184, fig. d), but it also has pointed leaves or buds filling the outer corners of the arm, as on the side arms. On 1b, the centre has clearly been hacked away but appears to have had a central circle defined by a roll moulding. The side arms both have a length of simple scroll ending in a volute which terminates in a tri-lobed leaf or flower. A tendril with a more complex flower springs from the alternate curve of the scroll. Single, paired or trefoil pointed leaves spring from the scroll to fill every space, including the outer corners of the arms.

B and D (narrow): On both 1a and 1b, the sides or ends of the arms and the armpits are plain save for a double roll moulding.

C (broad): The centre of 1b has an incised circle divided into eight equal segments by incised Latin and St Andrew's crosses. Some indication of modelling implies a stylised 'marigold' design. Incised lines join the circle to the mouldings on the curve of the armpits. The arms on both 1a and 1b are plain within double roll mouldings and the surface appears to have been dressed smooth.

E (top): The upper surface of 1a is completely plain. The top of the side arms and armpits of 1b are plain within double roll mouldings.

F (bottom): The underside of the side arms on 1b appear to have been dressed away. There is a dowel hole near the centre which implies attachment to a shaft.

The plainness of the back and sides, the form of the head, and the double roll moulding immediately suggest comparison with the nearby staff crucifix, Kirkburton 1 (Ills. 416–24) . Collingwood (1915a, 202), recognising the similarity, described both as carved from 'light freestone'. The geology does not support the degree of closeness which would have been implied if the stone types had been the same, but in terms of layout and overall conception, the comparison still holds. The two heads are of a similar size, though if the upper arm fragment (High Hoyland 1a) does indeed belong to the same head as no. 1b, it lacks the projecting boss found on the upper arm of the Kirkburton head. Collingwood (ibid., 185) thought the arm probably belonged to a different cross, partly because he thought it had interlace, which I think doubtful on the evidence of the leaf terminals and the similar treatment of the back and edges, and partly because he measured it as slightly thinner than the side arm of the main piece. The last is not an insuperable objection, as the difference is slight.

The 'marigold' decoration at the centre of the head on an otherwise plain face could be an early feature (see for example Hexham 8A, 9A and 22A, Northumberland: Cramp 1984, pls. 172.910, 178.944, 182.972), and the form of the plant trail shows no trace of Scandinavian influence. Ryder (1982, 111–12) thought that the marigold suggested an earlier date than the plant-scroll, and suggested that the latter may be a secondary re-cutting. There is no evidence for this however, and while compass-drawn patterns can be very early, as on Ledsham 5 (Ills. 471–5), patterns produced in this way also occur on Ilkley 4a–b (Ills. 345, 347), also alongside plant-scroll, and there is a rather similar pattern at the centre of a cross-head, Otley 9 (Ill. 613), which has other features that suggest a late date. If the comparison with Kirkburton holds good, too, the cross could be as late as the tenth century.

Ninth to tenth century

Innocent 1910, 91–2, fig. 3; Collingwood 1912, 129; Collingwood 1915a, 183–5, 271, 272, 278, figs. a–f on 184; Collingwood 1915b, 335; Collingwood 1927, 82, 177, fig. 99a–c, d–f; Collingwood 1929, 46, figs. a–f; Ryder 1982, 93, 111, 125, figs. i a–b, ii a–b on 112; Bailey and Cramp 1988, 125; Sidebottom 1994, 83–5, 252, nos. 6–7, and pls.; Lang 2001, 200; Butler 2006, 92

[1] The following are general references to the High Hoyland stones: Collingwood 1915b, 335; Innocent 1914–19a, 248; Elgee and Elgee 1933, 218; Mee 1941, 186; Pevsner 1959, 265; Ryder 1982, 93, 125; Hadley 2000a, 270.