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: Lower arm of cross-head [1]
Measurements: H. 15 cm (6 in); W. 22 cm (8.5 in) [tenon: 14 cm (5.5 in)]; D. 8 cm (3 in)
Stone type: Yellowish grey (5Y 7/2), poorly sorted, clast-supported, quartz sandstone. The sub-angular to sub-rounded clasts range from fine-grained (0.2 mm) to granular (2.5 mm), but are mostly medium- to coarse-grained in the range 0.4 to 0.9 mm. Millstone Grit, Carboniferous
Plate numbers in printed volume: Ills. 640-4
Corpus volume reference: Vol 9 p. 237
(There may be more views or larger images available for this item. Click on the thumbnail image to view.)
The fragment represents the lower part of a cross-head of type A10.
A (broad): Surrounded by a roll-moulding frame, the decoration consisted of a badly laid-out Stafford knot terminal (simple pattern E).
B and D (narrow): No decoration survives.
C (broad): A groove echoes the outline of the head shape, forming a border. No other decoration survives.
Cross-heads of this form, which Collingwood (1927a, 83) described as 'coarsened pectoral' are strongly represented among pre-Viking period sculptures in Northumbria. They can be found among the early material from Whitby (Lang 2001, nos. 2, 9, 10, 22, 26, 27 and 29) as well as Hexham 8 in Northumberland and Irton 1 and Carlisle 3 in Cumberland (Cramp 1984, pl. 172.910; Bailey and Cramp 1988, ills. 207–12, 359). In this region the type can be seen on the ninth-century Lancaster St Mary heads nos. 1 and 9 (Ills. 562, 564, 600–1). An example from Aberford in Yorkshire, however, demonstrates that the form was also used in the Viking period (Coatsworth 2008, ills. 9–11). Nevertheless the use of fine-line interlace here suggests that we are probably dealing with work of the Anglian period.
Edwards (B. 1987b) suggested that a fragment of a tenon was preserved at the base of the fragment. This seems a plausible explanation when seen from face A but, when viewed in section on the narrow sides, the broad faces of the 'tenon' do not seem to be sufficiently recessed to function in this manner. The lower arm of the head may simply have been broader than the adjacent shaft, of which the 'tenon' may be a fragmentary survival (e.g. Lancaster St Mary 1 and 2: Ills. 562–4, 567–72). For general discussion of Northumbrian sculptural tenons, stressing the manner in which the tenon is usually downward facing, see Mac Lean (1995, 167–75).
The discovery of this fragment, together with Ribchester 1 and a styca, at the Anchor Hill site, might suggest that the ecclesiastical settlement was, like Ripon, polyfocal (Hall and Whyman 1996).
