In church

There seem to be three later traditions about where the stone was found, and several versions of the date and circumstances of the discovery. Cutts (1849, 75) claimed that it was probably brought down from St Patrick's chapel, but other sources record that it emerged from the graveyard of St Peter's church — either in digging a grave or during alterations on the north side of the church (Whitaker 1823, II, 318–19; Nicholson 1891, 32). Lang (1984, 138) assigned the discovery to c. 1820, a date presumably calculated from Nicholson (1891, 32), who wrote that 'I was informed by a woman, 87 years of age ... that it was discovered by her father more than 70 years ago'.

Hitherto unnoticed, however, the earliest record is provided by the second edition of Clark's Historical ... Account of the Town of Lancaster, which appeared in 1811 and asserts that the stone came from St Peter's churchyard (Clark 1811, 125). Since the carving did not figure in the first edition of 1807, it is highly likely that the discovery was made between 1807 and 1811. Clark also reported that 'at the time of its discovery, there was found deposited under it, the remains of a human skeleton, and also, a piece of iron, which had apparently been the head of a spear' (ibid., 125; see also Whitaker 1823, II, 319). If this was a genuine association — and Clark must have been writing shortly after the discovery — then it is the only recorded example of a hogback being used as a grave-cover.

St Peter and St Patrick

Worn on the ridge but otherwise good

Complete hogback, type g, with a concave base. The end-beasts have large, heavily-modelled heads attached to puny bodies which are carved in low relief; each has a fore and rear limb on each face. Their mouths are represented by a long slit and their eyes by pellets; the left-hand beast on face A has a trefoil filler between its legs and there may have been a similar motif on face C. On each side of the brow are projecting horn-like ears; the upper jaws fold over the ridgeline.

A (long): This face has a worn ridge with possible traces of a cable moulding. The roof area below carries a single row of type 7 tegulae. Under the end-beast's jowl to the left are two tegulae of a second row, but this gives way to a frieze which begins with two deeply incised semi-circles, the second one bisected by a vertical line. The rest of the decoration on the roof is in low flat relief. Next to the semi-circles is an animal, facing right and carved in low relief, with short curled tail and lowered head with pricked ears. To the right of this beast is a human form, lying on his side with scratched features and arms akimbo. His feet are splayed and set towards the animal; his head is markedly flat-topped. To the right is a blank area before, first, five reversed and angular S forms and then, at the extreme right, a disorganised two-strand twist formed by stopped and median-incised strands.

The 'wall' below the recessed eaves is vertical and decorated with ornament in low relief; the eaves curve gently to the left but turn more markedly to the right. The wall decoration begins at the left with two forward-facing human figures, with feet splayed and their arms raised to touch the eaves in 'orans' position; no clothing details are shown but their facial features are scratched in. A rectangular filler is placed between the two figures. Facing them, and below the arm of the right-hand figure, is a quadruped with pricked ears and somewhat bird-like jaws on its lowered head; its long tail extends across its back and then returns to fill the space between this animal and the stag behind it, finally turning back on itself. Above this animal is a small crouching beast with open jaws and pricked ears. The running stag, also facing left, has four legs, a long neck and stubby tail; its antlers reach to the eaves level of the wall. A small quadruped leaps onto the stag's back — a triangle of ground remains between this animal and the stag's neck which has not been cut away. To the right and above the stag's rump is an elongated quadruped with curled tail, lowered head and pricked ears; he is shown inverted with feet standing on the eaves, facing to the right. Below, and separated from the reversed animal by its long tail, is another elongated beast with four legs, pricked ears and a mane; this animal faces right. There then follow two forward-facing, apparently naked, human figures similar to those at the other end of the stone. A quadruped with curly tail and beaky mouth is set vertically between them.

C (long): There are some possible traces of cable moulding on the roof ridge, whilst the tiles are represented by two rows of badly-spaced incised type 7 tegulae. To the left of the centre of the curving eaves, above the wall, there is a break in the stonework which may represent damage but in certain lights can be interpreted as a snake head, with slit mouth, facing left towards an attenuated tail.

On the vertical wall, with its slightly concave base, the carving is in low flat relief. To the left are two animals, a small one facing left which is set above the other which faces to the right. Next, reading towards the right, are two larger birds, with legs as well as fan tails and prominent necks; these are set one above the other. These latter birds face right towards a tree-like form with stiff horizontal branches. To the right of the tree is a human being, forward-facing and carved in the same manner as the human figures on face A but with his hands not reaching the eaves. Beneath his right arm, and under the lower branch of the tree, is yet another broad-tailed bird facing left. To the right of the man is a broad-bodied animal, with pricked ears on lowered head, facing left. The animal is shown with two legs, a (now damaged) tail, and a triangular protrusion on its back. Above the beast are a series of incised zigzag (tegulae-like) lines. At the end of the 'wall' to the right is a curly-tailed quadruped with lowered (now damaged) head facing to the right.

Hogback (see Chapter V, p. 38). This monument is the only example of its class which may have been associated with a burial. As one of only four such carvings south of the Cumbrian peninsula, it was clearly an unusual and prestigious memorial which asserted both the high status of the deceased and his affinity to the Hiberno-Norse groups of Yorkshire and Cumbria (see Chapter V, pp. 38–9). Like all the region's hogbacks its coastal position suggests that the person commemorated may have been a trader. In its tall and narrow proportions the hogback is typical of western forms of this monument type.

The stone has been much discussed, usually in connection with the Sigurd legend, Ewing (2003) providing the most recent of these interpretations (see Halton 1, pp. 181–2, for general Sigurd discussion). There can be little doubt about the early to mid-tenth century context of the carving. Lang's work has made clear that this is the dating horizon for this form of monument, and the parallels for both the crude figural art and its free-style animals are all to be found amongst work of the Viking period (see, regionally, Neston 3 and Prestbury 1, Ills. 207, 209, 230, 233, 236–7). Characteristic of such carvings is the manner in which various elements of the figural and human ornament are set on differing planes yet fit closely into each other (Bailey 1986).

Lang (1984, 99–100) classed this hogback amongst his widely-distributed 'Illustrative Type', noting that the four-legged form and clumsy carving of the end-beasts are characteristics also of his type II ('Extended Niche') form — the type seen at Bidston (p. 49). The other members of that group, at Gosforth, Lowther and Sockburn (Bailey and Cramp 1988, ills. 315, 444, 450; Cramp 1984, pl. 146.767–8) all share the same low relief and crowded carving, together with a tendency to leave uncut ground; none, however, are as confused, or set figures on such differing planes, as this Heysham example (Ill. 523). Nor do any other hogbacks place figural and zoomorphic motifs on the roof (Ill. 521).

Many of the decorative elements look like versions of Christian symbols. Face C (Ill. 522), for example, carries birds with peacock-like tails in association with a tree which could be identified with the paradisal Tree of Life offering sustenance to creation (Raw 1990, 176–8; O'Reilly 1987; id. 1992). And, following the same theme, it could be argued that the central figure stands in the orans position of Christian prayer. Much of this face indeed, could be read as a depiction of 'Adam naming of the animals', a subject which is illustrated on Irish sculptures (Harbison 1992, i, 188, iii, figs. 649, 651). Similarly on face A (Ills. 521, 523) the four orans figures, the 'hart and hound' motif (see Neston 3 and Lancaster St Mary 4, pp. 88, 222–3) and the miscellaneous animals would not be out of place in non-Sigurd, Christian, iconography.

But Lang (1976, 86–9; 1984, 109), and more recently Ewing (2003), have argued that the various elements of the decoration depict parts of the story of Sigurd, despite the fact that Margeson (1980, 191) had expressed strong reservations about any such interpretation. Ewing argues that, on face C (Ill. 522), the tree and birds allude to the Sigurd/Reginn story, that the pointed element on the back of a beast represents the loaded treasure carried by Grani, and that the orans figure is holding a sword with which he pierces the serpent which surrounds the scene — as in the rock carvings at Jäder and Gök in Södermanland in Sweden (Wilson and Klindt-Jensen 1966, pl. LXI). On this reading the figures on the reverse could refer to the Aesir holding up the world, and to the hunt with which Sigurd is associated. Yet, if this were the interpretation — and Sigurd's 'sword' is far from certainly present — then the manner of its representation is uncharacteristically allusive. The treasure, for example, is minimally depicted by comparison with representations elsewhere. Moreover the absence of the decapitated Reginn and the thumb-sucking, which re-appears in almost every depiction in Insular sculpture, is somewhat puzzling and must cast further doubt on this identification.

Davidson (H. 1950, 131), by contrast, favoured a Ragnarök interpretation of the stone, a theme which we know to have been exploited in Viking-age Northumbria on the Gosforth cross (Bailey and Cramp 1988, 102–3). She argued that face A shows a stag hunt involving four hunters, a pack of hounds and the emergence of 'the divine hart, the Vithar Christ'. Yet the hart is not particularly prominent and the orans position would be an usual gesture for hunters. A more likely explanation of the function of the human beings in any Ragnarök narrative would be as the four dwarves who support the firmament as described in Snorri's Gylfaginning VIII. Nordal (1978, 95–6), commenting on Voluspa XLVIII, noted that the dwarves are terrified at this point in the Ragnarök narrative and that their reaction signals recognition that the entire foundations of the universe are being undermined; if the Heysham carving does show a Ragnarök scene then perhaps something of the same notion is present on the hogback.

Whether Sigurd, Ragnarök or some other narrative is depicted here is no longer possible to establish with certainty. But one part of the stone would argue in favour of a Scandinavian-derived myth. If Ewing is correct in seeing a serpent surrounding the scene on face C then the motif has parallels on three Cumbrian hogbacks at Lowther, Penrith and Cross Canonby, where it seems to represent the notion of the world serpent encompassing the world — a monster with whom Thor was to do battle on the day of Ragnarök (Bailey and Cramp 1988, 89, 130, 138).

Tenth century

Clark 1811, 125–6, fig. E.; Ayton and Daniell 1814–25, II, 115; Whitaker 1823, II, 318–19; Baines 1831–6, IV, 585; Cutts 1849, 18–19, 74–5, pl. as frontis.; Robson 1850, 27–9; Baines 1868–70, II, 593; Allen and Browne 1885, 355; Allen 1886, 338, 340–4, fig. on 341; Browne 1886a, 124; Browne 1887a, 2–4, 11, pl. VI, figs. 1, 2; Lees 1891, 38–46; March 1891, 68–87, pls. IX–XI; Nicholson 1891, 30–8; Glynne 1893, 14; Allen 1894, 8, 9, 12, 14, 21–2, 25; Fishwick 1894, 94; Allen 1895, 146, 148, 156; (—) 1898, 404; Calverley 1899b, 245; Howarth 1899, 21; Nicholson 1899, 21; Bailey-Kempling 1903, 358; Taylor, H. 1903, 93–5, pl. facing 97; Grafton 1904, 154, pl. facing 153; Kermode 1904, 26; Garstang 1906, 267, pl. facing 268; Taylor, H. 1906, 385–7, pl. facing 385; Collingwood 1906–7, 136, 139, figs. 29–30; Collingwood 1907a, 276, 282; Collingwood 1907b, 155; Collingwood 1908, 200–1; Grafton 1909, 214, 218, 220, 224–5, pl. facing 220; Collingwood 1912a, 197–8; Collingwood 1915, 214, 285; (—) 1923, 288; Collingwood 1927a, 169–70, fig. 207; Collingwood 1927b, 177, fig. on 178; (—) 1928, 193; Collingwood 1929, 33; Hogarth 1934, 35, 37–9, pls. facing 33, 37, 39; Brown, G. 1937, 293, pl. CXVII; Wainwright 1945–6, 103; Tupling 1948, 9; Davidson, H. 1950, 131–2; Taylor and Taylor 1965, I, 314; Davidson, H. 1967, 129; Pevsner 1969b, 16, 141; Meaney 1970, 118; Taylor, H. M. 1970a, 247; Taylor, H. M. 1970c, 287; Lang 1971, 155; Lang 1972, 236, 240; Lang 1973, 21; Bu'lock 1974a, 36; Lang 1974a, 209, 219; Lang 1974b, 15–16, 21, 23, fig. 4; Lang 1976, 86–9; Bailey 1977, 70; Edwards, B. 1978a, 62; Lang 1978b, 18; Smyth 1979, 271, 274; Bailey 1980, 97, 99, 121, 236; Margeson 1980, 191; Firby and Lang 1981, 21–2, 27; Cramp 1984, 29, 143, 146; Lang 1984, 88, 89, 108, 109–10, 138, pl. on 139; Düwel 1986, 263; Bailey and Cramp 1988, 29, 131; Kenyon 1991, 124; Lang 1991, 214; Richards, J. 1991, 112, 126; Edwards, B. 1992, 59; Hicks 1993, 207, fig. 4.2; Higham, N. 1993a, 198, fig. on 192; Cramp 1994, 115, fig. 46; Potter and Andrews 1994, 104, 127, 131; Bailey 1996a, 85; Crosby 1998, 30; Edwards, B. 1998, 88, 92, 93, 95, fig. 46; Everson and Stocker 1999, 201; Noble 1999, 17, fig. 22; Trench-Jellicoe 1999b, 632; Ewing 2003, 1–20, figs. 1–3; White, A. 2003b, 6; Higham, N. 2004a, 23; Salter 2005, 4; Hadley 2006, 215; Newman, R. M. 2006, 105; Newman and Brennand 2007, 86

[1] The difficulties of distinguishing between the original provenances of sculpture from this site have been emphasised by recent excavations (Potter and Andrews 1994, 104, and fig. 2). The following list therefore combines material from both St Peter's church and St Patrick's chapel.

[2] The following are general references to the Heysham stones: Robson 1850, 28; Jackson 1889, 33; Allen 1894, 4, 8; Micklethwaite 1898, 348–9; Taylor, H. 1898, 42; Howarth 1899, 9, 21; Nicholson 1899, 21; Grafton 1904; Ditchfield 1909, 117; Grafton 1909; Farrer and Brownbill 1914, 110; (–––) 1923, 288; Curwen 1925, 30; Collingwood 1927a, 15; Hogarth 1934; Bu'lock 1972, 67; Fellows-Jensen 1985, 402, 405; Crosby 1998, 30; Higham, N. 2004a, 27; Blair 2005, 216, 218, 309, 376, 457; Salter 2005, 42; Newman, R. M. 2006, 103.

The following are unpublished manuscript references: BL Add. MS 37550, items 617–46, 735–6; BL Add. MS 37551, items 72–5; Lancaster Public Library, no. PT 7; Manchester Public Library, Hibbert Ware S. MSS: Msf 091 H21, V, 64 (no. 5), 82 (no. 1); vol. 8, 98v. For the Hibbert Ware collection see Henry and Trench-Jellicoe (2005, 239–60).