Select a site alphabetically from the choices shown in the box below. Alternatively, browse sculptural examples using the Forward/Back buttons.
Chapters for this volume, along with copies of original in-text images, are available here.
Object type: Upper part of cross-shaft and lower part of -head [1]
Measurements: H. 31 cm (12.25 in); W. 36 > 27 cm (14 > 10.5 in); D. 14 cm (5.5 in)
Stone type: Pale red (5R 6/2), medium- to coarse-grained (0.3 to 0.6 mm, but mostly medium-grained between 0.4 and 0.5 mm), sub-angular to sub-rounded, clast-supported, quartz sandstone. A few scattered pebbles; the larger pebbles sub-angular and composed of fine-grained sandstone. Chester Pebble Beds Formation?, Sherwood Sandstone Group, Triassic
Plate numbers in printed volume: Ills. 200-5
Corpus volume reference: Vol 9 p. 86-7
(There may be more views or larger images available for this item. Click on the thumbnail image to view.)
Where surviving, the lateral borders of the shaft are formed by bold cable mouldings.
A (broad): A curved cable moulding defines the upper boundary of the shaft panel. Above it, on the surviving fragment of head, are traces of relief decoration. The shaft panel carries a winged figure standing horizontally on the left border with feet set at right angles. The facial features are well marked and the head is surrounded by a halo. The wings have deep grooves to represent feathers, and the figure is dressed in a short kirtle with carefully-delineated pleats.
B (narrow): Ring-encircled twist with wide glide between rings.
C (broad): The curved upper division between shaft and cross-head is marked by a step pattern, type 1, within narrow border mouldings. The surviving shaft panel carries the worn remains of two human figures, apparently dressed in short kirtles, fighting each other. The figure to the right has his left hand raised behind him clutching an object which, in some lights, appears to be hollow-centred and narrows to a point; with his right hand he pushes on his opponent's face. The other figure has his right hand raised over his head and also holds a pointed object; his other hand pushes against his opponent's face. His lower parts are lost except for one leg placed on his antagonist's foot.
D (narrow): Step pattern, type 2
The fragment is probably part of a circle-head, face C carrying a decorated circle (see Chapter V, p. 31). Other members of the Cheshire group of circle-heads do employ line patterns instead of the more usual bosses in their circle decoration: a meander on Hilbre Island 1, and, less certainly, a plait on Chester St John 2 and 5 (Ills. 81, 83, 97, 172, 174). They do not however, as here, combine this form of circle with another face carrying a simple cable moulding.
White (R. 1986, 53) argued that this fragment was probably part of the same monument as the shaft Neston 3. This suggestion was attractive. Not only do the two pieces share similar patterns on their narrow sides but the linking recognised the fact that both fragments have figural carving on the two main faces — unlike Neston 1 — which produces a series of panels with two confronting or processional elements. More recently, however, he has noted (in lit.) that the cable mouldings on nos. 2 and 3 are very different from each other; the suggestion must therefore be abandoned. Nevertheless both carvings seem to share comparatively short, rapidly tapering and slab-like shafts which are close to the forms seen on Chester St John 1 and 3 (Ills. 77–80, 85–8).
The angelic figural carving on face A poses several problems (Ill. 204). The first is to explain why he is shown standing sideways — an explanation which might have been more apparent if the total scene had survived intact. At Gosforth in Cumberland (Bailey and Cramp 1988, ill. 303) a figure stands in an identical manner on the border-moulding to confront monsters in a long narrow composition which could not be represented horizontally because of the dimensions of the shaft. Similar explanations have been invoked for changes in plane on work as various as the late eighth–century Rothbury cross and Viking-age carvings on the Isle of Man (Hawkes 1996, 86; Kermode 1907, nos. 103, 105). It may however have been the intention to represent the figure as hovering over a scene. Equally it should be recognised that many Viking-age carvings in England show elements standing on different planes for no rational reason (e.g. Harewood, Middleton and Staveley in Yorkshire — Bailey 1986, pl. I; Lang 1991, ill. 671; Coatsworth 2008, ills. 332, 714–15).
Angels are a regular element in numerous iconographical compositions (see inter alia: Harbison 1992, i, 422; Mayr-Harting 1998; Hawkes 2007b). In view of the position of the angel at the top of the shaft — as it is on Hornby 1 (Ill. 549) — it is worth noting Hawkes's (2007b) analysis of sculptural angelic depictions in which, drawing upon the work of Gregory the Great, she emphasises the role of angels as both protective beings and as intermediaries between the world of God and man. I see no reason to follow Collingwood's identification of this figure with Volund (Collingwood 1907a, 293).
The two fighting figures (Ill. 205) cannot be easily paralleled or identified, though Insular sculpture offers many scenes in which two figures embrace, wrestle or fight each other. Examples can be found in Scotland, Wales, England and Ireland (Allen and Anderson 1903, iii, fig. 396; Fisher 2001, 144; Nash-Williams 1950, no. 111, fig. 89; Cramp 1984, 59, pl. 28.147; Lang 2001, 153, ill. 463; Harbison 1992, i, 237–8, iii, figs. 784, 789, 790). The majority of these, in the past, have been interpreted as showing Jacob wrestling with the angel, though more recently other possibilities have been canvassed including St John's recognition of Christ and Judas' kiss. For this Neston scene we can probably rule out the possibility that this is Jacob's encounter with the angel (Allen 1894, 31; Bailey 1980, 155). One would have expected, in that case, that the figures would be unarmed and that the angel would probably be winged (Haney 1986, 82–3). Cain's slaughter of Abel might seem a more likely possibility. This is certainly a scene which is popular in Irish carvings of the period; weapon forms can vary in their depiction and, in the Ashburnham Pentateuch, Cain is even grasping Abel by the hair in a movement which might be seen as related to the face-pushing of Neston (Harbison 1992, i, 194–7, iii, fig. 673). But in none of the early medieval depictions of this scene do both men carry weapons. On the same grounds we can probably also reject the suggestion that the scene shows Peter cutting off the ear of Malchus — a scene attested in Ireland and on other early medieval work (Harbison 1992, i, 264–5, iii, figs. 863, 864, 876, 877).
Perhaps the most plausible interpretation is that the carving shows David slaying Goliath, particularly since the hollowed object carried in the raised hand of the figure to the right could be interpreted as a sling (compare Harbison 1992, i, 217–20, iii, figs. 735–41). Irish carvings show that the two figures can be shown as of similar stature (Armagh or Drumcliff: Harbison 1992, ii, fig. 46, iii, fig. 741); eastern versions of the scene also give the two the same height (Haney 1986, 20, 87). Admittedly one would expect Goliath to carry a shield but that is not always present and the gesture of grasping hair or head ready to decapitate the giant is one found in MS St Petersburg [Leningrad] Cod. Q. v XIV. 1 and on the Drumcliff cross, Co. Sligo (Harbison 1992, iii, figs. 739, 741). If this identification is accepted, then it should be noted first, that there is possibly a very different representation of the two figures on Lancaster St Mary 7 (p. 227, Ill. 594) and, secondly, that medieval commentaries, particularly those on the psalms, recognised this episode as prefiguring Christ's victory over Satan — an identification made clear by St Augustine in commenting on Psalm XXXIII, 1, when he observes that 'in figura Christi David, sicut Golias in figura diaboli' (Dekkers and Fraipont 1956a, 276; in general see also Openshaw 1992; Hourihane 2002, 128–48; Hawkes 2005, 266–7).
All that said, however, it would perhaps be wise not to reject too readily a secular interpretation, analogous to the isolated encounter of two axe-wielding men on a slab from Glamis, Angus (Henderson and Henderson 2004, ill. 33).
