British Museum, London (acc. no. M&LA 1868, 10–43)

After its discovery during excavations in St Mary's churchyard in 1807, the carving was reported as being 'near the vicarage house' (Clark 1807, 81). Though there is a record of its presence in the churchyard in 1831 (Lewis 1831, iii, 21), it was subsequently removed to Todhunters Museum in Kendal and then, after that museum was dispersed in 1835, it came to Dr Edward Holme's house in Manchester. On his death in 1837 it was presented to the Manchester Natural History Museum by his residual legatees (University College, London). In 1868 it was given to the British Museum. (For the later part of this history see: Hamper 1832; Kemble 1842, 76; Just 1849, 124; Roper 1892, 5; Taylor, H. 1903, 45–6.)

St Mary

One horizontal arm missing and terminal of the other damaged; broken and repaired across lower arm; otherwise good.

A (broad): Cross-head of type A10, with two complete panels, together with part of a third, surviving from the shaft. At the centre of the head, which is surrounded by an arris moulding, is a low flat boss set within a ring; the boss carries a drilled hole. Similar smaller bosses, with drilled holes but lacking the encircling ring, are set in the upper and right arms of the cross. Loose and irregular knotwork fills the ground and terminates in the lower arm in an inverted beast head. Two Stafford knots (simple pattern E) are visible to the lower left and in the upper right corner. A further Stafford knot occupies the upper left corner though it is so badly laid out that it resembles a ring-encircled crossing. The animal has long prehensile jaws with a small curled terminal to the nose on the upper jaw. The eyeball is elliptical, with central hole, and is set within a raised forehead; a sub-triangular feature above and behind the eye (but within the neck line) is probably a form of scrolled terminal. The oblong element of the lower arm is overlaid by a panel which is of the same dimensions as the shaft. It is decorated with a horizontal moulding contained within an oblong inner frame which, in turn, is set within the border moulding of the panel.

The two surviving complete panels on the shaft are flanked laterally by the arris moulding and divided from each other by a further border moulding. In the upper panel is a three-line runic inscription which is described below.

Below this inscription is a panel containing two linked Stafford knots. Nothing is now visible in the panel below.

Inscription An inscription in Anglo-Saxon runes is cut in three lines in a sunken rectangular panel. The text reads:

The end of the third line is worn or broken away. After the final clearly legible 'e' there is a stave with marks to its right which could possibly be consistent with either 'c' or 'h': the context demands a form of the name Cuđberht, perhaps spelled Cuþbereht or Cuþberect.

B and D (narrow): No decoration

C (broad): The only decoration visible on this face, apart from the border moulding formed by an incised line, is a low relief (near-incised) circular moulding at the centre of the head. Inside the circle is an incised equal-armed cross with wide-curved arms (type E10). A further incised circle is set at the centre of this cross and this encloses a miniature version of the same form of cross, carrying a circular depression at its centre. Both crosses are set slightly askew to the horizontal. As on face A the surviving remains suggest that the rectangular element of the lower arm was treated as a separate ornamental area to the rest of the cross-head.

This is a very accomplished and ambitious piece of carving, clearly designed to make its impact from one side only; in eastern Northumbria this seems to be an early feature (Cambridge and Williams 1995, 111). The form of the head (A10) with squared terminals and narrow curved armpits, is one which was well established in early Anglian carvings (e.g. Carlisle 1 and 2, Auckland St Andrew 1, Hexham 8, Whitby 2 — Bailey and Cramp 1988, ills. 200, 202; Cramp 1984, pls. 3.7, 172.910; Lang 2001, ill. 900); it had, however, a late revival in Durham and also occurs in seemingly late contexts elsewhere, including the local example of Lancaster St Mary 9 (Ills. 600–1; Cramp 1983, 276; id. 1984, pl. 44.206). The squared terminal of the lower arm extends beyond the breadth of the shaft below, thus emphasising the characteristic 'greek' form of Anglo-Saxon cross-heads (Kelly, D. 1993), but it is here treated as a separate ornamental zone, which gives it the collared appearance of shafts like Hexham 1 and Nunnykirk in England or Arboe and Clones in Ireland (Cramp 1984, pls. 169.900–3, 208.1193–4, 209.1195–6; Harbison 1992, ii, figs. 36, 126).

The multi-framed horizontal moulding in the lower arm is analogous to the arm decoration of crosses from Jarrow, Hexham and Ripon, and perhaps also Halton St Wilfrid 8 (Ills. 496–8, 500; Cramp 1984, pl. 93.497–8; Cambridge and Williams 1995, figs. 33, 34; Coatsworth 2008, ill. 637). These, however, all have concave sides. By contrast — and closer to the Lancaster version of the motif — the roadside slab at Aberlemno has straight-sided rectangular forms in the arm of its cross (Henderson and Henderson 2004, ill. 218). All of these examples, together with Lancaster St Mary 1, almost certainly reflect rectangular metalwork settings for jewels or glass of the type seen on the Bologna shrine and Monymusk reliquary (Henderson and Henderson 2004, ills. 167, 320). What differentiates its use at Lancaster is that, unlike any other cross in Northumbria, it is employed to distinguish the lower arm of the cross from the rest of the head. The impact of metalwork is also seen in other aspects of the decoration of this face such as the flat-topped bosses and interlace (see Chapter IV, p. 25).

In general in northern English sculpture, zoomorphic-headed interlace belongs to the late Anglian or Viking periods (e.g. Cramp 1983, 278; Lang 2001, ills. 119–20) — as do animal forms which have curled nostrils; examples from Viking-age Cumbria could be cited at Beckermet St John and Gosforth (Bailey and Cramp 1988, ills. 68, 76, 304). But, significantly, zoomorphic terminals to interlace have a much longer history in other media, particularly in metalwork (Wilson, D. M. 1964, fig. 40; Webster, L. 2000, 68). Similarly the triangular eye extension which turns into a scroll form is well established in eighth- and ninth-century metalwork art: witness such well-known examples as the York Coppergate helmet, St Ninian's Isle chapes, Thames scabbard fitting and Alfred jewel (Bailey 2005, 5–7 with references; Tweddle 1992; Webster and Backhouse 1991, nos. 178, 179; Hinton 1974, no. 23). The curled lip of the Lancaster beast, though it becomes a feature of Viking-period sculptural art, also has a long history in Insular metalwork and manuscripts (Mac Dermott 1955, 92–3). Most pre-Viking Insular examples come from an Irish milieu and are in metalwork, though the Ribchester boss shows that the form was already present in eighth-century Lancashire (Garstang 1906, pl. facing 260; Bu'lock 1975b), and the zoomorphic scroll terminal on Sandbach Market Square 1 demonstrates that this particular form of lip had been adopted into regional sculpture by the period around ad 800 (Ill. 272).

The incised ornament on the reverse also has its metalwork parallels. Leslie Webster has kindly reminded me that many metalwork pieces have scratched ornament on their less-seen sides (e.g. Sutton, Isle of Ely, brooch: Wilson, D. M. 1964, no. 83, pl. XXXII). More importantly perhaps, it is relevant to note that a diamond shape, with curved sides and set within a circle, is a popular motif on ninth-century pins and brooches, and that forms very close to this are also found incised on ninth-century strap-ends (Webster and Backhouse 1991, nos. 187, 189, 248 (e); Wilson, D. M. 1964, pls. XIX (21), XL (124, 125), XLIII).

Collingwood (1927a, 126) set this cross in a chapter entitled 'Anglo-Danish', arguing that it represented a change in animal drawing in an area which was not part of the initial Danish settlement; he therefore assigned it to the late ninth century. Given all the evidence reviewed above, the carving could clearly be earlier than he suggested. The inscription is one of several at Lancaster and elsewhere in the Lune valley (see Chapter IV, p. 20).

Inscription The text is in Old English, to be divided as Gibidæþ foræ Cynibalþ Cuþbere–, the first part of which translates simply as 'Pray for Cynebald', where Cynebald is a straightforward Anglo-Saxon masculine personal name. The import of the second masculine personal name, a form of Cuđberht, is unclear. Kemble (1842, 78) suggested that the name may have been followed by a patronymic suffix, as Cuđberhting, indicating the 'son of Cuđberht'. This is possible, but it runs into two objections: (1) that the construction, though found in some Old English texts, is not found elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon inscriptions, and (2) that it seems unlikely from the point of view of layout — just to fit the remainder of the name into the rest of the third line would seem challenging without adding a further syllable. It may be more probable, therefore, that the second personal name was uninflected. If so, two possible interpretations suggest themselves, though both are rather allusive. Perhaps both Cynebald and Cuđberht were to be commemorated and the conjunction 'and' has been omitted; alternatively, perhaps the text can be read as elliptical, in the context of the wider group of Northumbrian memorial inscriptions, and the sense was 'Pray for Cynebald; Cuđberht [set up the memorial]'. Similar uncertainties attend other memorial stones in the Anglo-Saxon corpus where two personal names appear: cf. Cramp (1984, 99, 203–4) on stones from Hartlepool and Lindisfarne; also Page (1999, 139–41, 143) on the type.

For the verbal construction gebiddan fore, which tends to relate this inscription to others in the region, see above, p. 93.

With regards to linguistic forms and date, it is notable that the inscription preserves earlier Old English unstressed vowels in gi-, foræ and Cyni-. There is another possible indication of an early date in -balþ for standard Old English -bald: this is a feature of some of the earliest, late seventh- and eighth-century texts (Campbell 1959, § 414). Together these features certainly suggest a date earlier than the tenth century, and apparently more likely eighth than ninth, though the precise linguistic chronology is not clear, and the possibilities of conservative local dialect or of archaizing in a memorial inscription must be borne in mind.

For variation between -d- and -dd- in the imperative plural of gebiddan (compare 'gibidæþ' here with Overchurch '-biddaþ') see Page 1962, 902–3 [1995, 99–100]. The final, epenthetic, vowel in Cuþbere[ht] is discussed in Page 1999, 231.

Late eighth century

Clark 1807, 81–2; Whitaker 1823, II, 229–30, fig. on 229; Lewis 1831, III, 21; Baines 1831–6, IV, 490, 523–5, fig. on 524; Hamper 1832, fig.; Kemble 1840, 347; Kemble 1842, 76, pls. XI, XII; (—) 1846, 72–3, fig. on 72; Cutts 1849, 91, pl. LXXVIII; Just 1849, figs. on 125, 126; Charlton 1855, 62; Haigh 1856–7, 520; Haigh 1861, 42, pl. II, fig. 7; Harland 1866, 62–8; Stephens, G. 1866–7, xxviii, 345–7, figs. on 376; Baines 1868–70, II, 552–3, 565, fig. on 552; Haigh 1869–70, 196, 216; Knowles 1876, 28; Croston 1884a, 3; Croston 1884b, 2; Stephens, G. 1884a, 184; Stephens, G. 1884b, 124–5, figs. on 124; Allen 1885, 341; Allen and Browne 1885, 355; Sweet 1885, 128; Allen 1886, 328; Browne 1887a, 6–7, pl. III, figs. 9, 10; Stokes 1887, 125; Jackson 1889, 33–4, pl. facing 33; Roper 1892, 5; Allen 1894, 8, 9, 17, 26, fig. on 26, pl. 2; Roper 1894, pl. as frontis.; Chadwick 1894–9, 129, 169; Allen 1895, 139–40, 152, 162, figs. on 140, 162; Viëtor 1895, 23–8, 30–1, 34, 37, fig. 16; Browne 1896, 205; Hempl 1896, 176, col. 351; Stone, J. 1896, 292; (—) 1898, 397; Howarth 1899, 21; Nicholson 1899, 21; Chadwick 1901, 83; Collingwood 1903b, 257; Taylor, H. 1903, 45–9, figs. I, 1 (a–b); Garstang 1906, 266, pl. facing 266; Taylor, H. 1906, 337–41, fig. facing 337, pls. facing 338, 339, 476; Ditchfield 1909, 116, pl. facing 116; Partington 1909, 122; Collingwood 1915, 132, 139, 193; Collingwood 1916–18, 48; Smith, R. 1923, 123–4, fig. 157; Collingwood 1926b, 379; Collingwood 1927a, 126, fig. 137; (—) 1930–4, 6; Dickins 1932, 18; Ross 1932, 377; Tupling 1948, 6; Elliott 1959a, 86–7, 89, pl. XIV; Elliott 1959b, 145; Marquardt 1961, 87–9; Pevsner 1969b, 16; Page 1973, 5–6, 25, 30, 34–5, 134, 136, 146, 157, 219, 221, pl. 3; Edwards, B. 1978a, 64; Bailey 1980, 53; Higgitt 1986b, 133, 147; Edwards, B. 1987b, 46; Bailey and Cramp 1988, 31–2, 85; Edwards, B. 1988a, 205; Okasha 1990, 144, fig. 22; Edwards, B. 1992, 58; Page 1995, 40, 91, 97, 250, 254, 298, 307, 310; Bailey 1996b, 35, 41, fig. 4b; Noble 1999, 26, fig. 37a; Page 1999, 5–6, 25, 29, 34–5, 130–1, 142, 143, 153–4, 229, 231, fig. 46; Bailey 2003, 229, 232–3, 235, fig. 12b; White, A. 2003a, 8; Parsons, D. N. 2008, 81, 144, ill. 847

[1]Though all the Lancaster sculptures may have originated at the priory church site, the carvings are here divided into three groups which reflect their find spot. See also Capernwray Hall 1 (p. 169).

[2] The following are general references to the Lancaster stones: Taylor, H. 1898, 42; Farrer and Brownbill 1914, 3, 22; Fellows-Jensen 1985, 273, 402, 405; Higham, N. 2004a, 27, 167, 206; Blair 2005, 216, 309; Salter 2005, 49.

The following are unpublished manuscript references: BL Add. MS 37550, items 666–98, 734 (Romilly Allen collection).