In the church

Found in a trench on the north side of the chancel during drainage operations in 1982 (Brown and Gallagher 1983, 23).

St Mary

Much of face A has been lost.

A (broad): This face carries a fragmentary figural scene, bordered to the right by a broad flat-band moulding; the border to the left has been lost. The scene contains three clothed figures, carved in flat low relief. The central figure is forward-facing, with arms stretched out across the bodies of the two flanking figures. The splayed fingers of his left hand are clearly marked. The head of the left-hand figure survives and he appears to raise one hand towards the face of the central figure in this scene.

B (narrow): There is a single sunken panel between broad flat-band moulding borders, carrying a vertical inscription.

Inscription [1] The inscription runs down one of the narrow faces of the stone. It is rather roughly incised within a slightly sunken panel framed by broad bands. The Roman capitals are between 3 cm and 4 cm high. The text reads:

The G is an angular Anglo-Saxon form. The P is placed above the horizontal of the L, either to save space or as an embellishment. Following the damaged but legible E comes an apparent dot, which may be an intentional word-divider. There is then a broken letter, with an upright and traces of a horizontal at the bottom, suggestive perhaps of an L, though certainty is not possible. The remainder of the inscription is broken away and lost.

C (broad): The two fragmentary panels on this face are flanked by broad flat-band moulding and divided horizontally by a flat moulding. At the top is the lower part of a figure, with short flared tunic and possible over-cloak, whose feet overlap the lower frame. He appears to have a ?vertical staff to his right. In the panel below is the head of an animal, facing right and with a single ear in the corner of the panel. The neck and jaws are outlined and the single almond-shaped eye is linked to the ear by an incised triangle. The extended jaws are partly open and a protruding tongue extends to form an interlace strand which passes through a ring and then moves down to the lower right of the panel. This strand is crossed within the ring by another strand which might represent the raised front paw of the beast.

D (narrow): Within broad flat borders is a run of Stafford knots (simple pattern E).

Though Austin (1999, 82) has cast doubts on this identification there seems no doubt that this is part of a shaft. The quality of the carving is mediocre but the presence of an inscription and of figural art suggests that the sculptor was relatively ambitious and that he had good models available to him.

The date of the carving is clear from both the knotwork on face D and the animal ornament on face C. Runs of Stafford knots characterise Viking-age carvings on the west coast of Cumbria (Bailey 1980, 194; Bailey and Cramp 1988, 34–40). Similarly the animal has Jellinge-phase features in the double outline and use of a binding ring. The exact composition, involving an upright beast, seen in profile, with extended tongue and raised paw, may derive from Mercian pre-Viking art (e.g. Cramp 1977, fig. 63, c, g, i; Webster and Backhouse 1991, no. 207, fig. 25) but is here given a distinctively Viking-age handling of the type seen on animals in Yorkshire, at York, Levisham, Kippax and Harewood (Lang 1991, ills. 331, 648; Coatsworth 2008, ills. 332, 426; Bailey 1986).

When originally published, Brown and Gallagher (1983, 24) interpreted the main scene as the Arrest of Christ, drawing a parallel with scenes on Muiredach's cross at Monasterboice and fol. 114r in the Book of Kells (Harbison 1992, ii, fig. 482; Farr 1997, pl. 3). This identification may be accurate but it raises complicating issues. Firstly, a study by Harbison of the Monasterboice scene — along with several other claimed 'arrest' scenes at Arboe, Ardane, Clonmacnoise, Durrow, Kells and Drumcliff — has suggested that it depicts the first or second mocking of Christ (Harbison 1992, i, 265–6, 270–1, ii, figs. 44, 255–6, iii, figs. 864, 865, 875, 878, 879). That interpretation might consequently also apply to Thornton le Moors. Indeed, among the Irish set, Drumcliff might seem particularly relevant since it shows Christ being struck in the face by one of the flanking figures, a blow which might also be represented at Thornton le Moors (Harbison 1992, iii, fig. 879). In all of these Irish scenes, however, the central figure is shown as being bound or held by those flanking him, who also usually carry weapons; these features are absent from the Cheshire scene. Comparison with Irish material thus leaves open the possibility that the Cheshire carving might have been intended as either the arrest or the mocking, but there are clearly problems with either identification.

A seemingly more fruitful approach emerges by reference to the Book of Kells depiction cited by Brown and Gallagher. This has been the subject of much recent scholarship (Lewis, S. 1980; O'Reilly 1987–8, 94–100; O'Reilly 1993; Farr 1994, 440–9; Ó Carragáin 1994, 430; Farr 1997, 104–39). These studies have suggested that the manuscript's image at that particular point within the gospel book is multi-valent: the robed orans figure, flanked by two others, suggesting the Crucifixion, Ascension, Second Coming and, indeed, Eucharistic partition. Particularly relevant for our immediate purposes is that the arm and open-hands position of both Kells and Thornton le Moors are characteristic of the Parousia or Second Coming in which Christ displays his wounds. It was Werkmeister (1963, 181–9) who first recognised this fusion of Crucifixion and Second Coming in the Durham Gospels, Durham Cathedral MS A II 17 (see also Coatsworth 1980, 60; O'Reilly 2003, 182–9), and it can be seen again on Muiredach's cross at Monasterboice and on other Irish sculptures — as suggested by Roe (1981, 33–4; see also Harbison 1992, iii, figs. 894–6). Though crudely executed, this seems the best interpretation of the Thornton scene — it would explain the stress on the open palms, the seeming lack of binding or grasping by the side figures — and their lack of weapons.

The basis of this complex multi-layered iconography lies in what O'Reilly (1987–8, 85) has defined as a 'familiar exegetical chain' reaching from St John's Gospel (XIX, 37), recalling Zachariah XII, 10 (and Daniel VII, 13–154) through to Revelation I, 7. The phrase 'they shall look upon him whom they pierced' alludes both to the Crucifixion and to the Second Coming. It also, thanks to such passages as Acts I, 11 ('this same Jesus, which is taken from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven'), invokes the Ascension. Thus Ælfric uses the physical evidence of Christ's wounds as a crucial proof of the identity of the crucified, risen, ascended and returning Lord — all elements allusively present in this Thornton depiction — and all elements in which iconographically a central figure is flanked by two subsidiary ones (see O'Reilly 1987–8, 87).

The panels on face C have not survived sufficiently to allow interpretation. The human figure could be that of St Michael or Christ (?with dragon below? — see Temple 1976, ills. 168, 259) or simply a figure of authority with staff, cross or spear; Christ is portrayed thus in the Sherborne Pontifical and St John's College, Oxford, MS 28 (Temple 1976, ills. 42, 136). Whatever the significance of the figure, the overlapping of the feet on the lower frame suggests that there was a sophisticated model lying behind this composition, because this is a characteristic device in both late antique and Carolingian art; it can be found further south in Mercia on the Deerhurst Virgin and also frequently occurs in late Saxon manuscripts (Bailey 2005, 10, 28; Temple 1976, ills. 135, 136, 286, 302).

In summary this is a Viking-age carving whose sculptural competence fell far short of the excellent models (some of them perhaps Irish) which were available to the artist.

Inscription The inscription is evidently to be construed as Old English God helpe ... 'May God help ...'. This is unique amongst Anglo-Saxon inscribed stones, but the formula is found in runic inscriptions on portable objects and elsewhere (Higgitt 1983, 28).2 A personal name presumably followed: as Higgitt notes (ibid.) [2], such an inscription need not be memorial.

Higgitt also draws attention to the vertical arrangement of the text, observing that this is unusual in England outside the north-west, and suggesting that it owes its inspiration, ultimately, to Irish ogam tradition (1983, 26–7).[3] Certainly the Viking-age rune-stones of the Isle of Man (where, however, the text usually runs from bottom to top), and one Anglo-Saxon rune-inscribed stone from Whithorn (where it runs downwards, as here: Page 1999, 21), look like relevant parallels.

There is little room for linguistic comment on such a short text. The subjunctive form helpe, rather than earlier helpÆ, confirms a date very broadly in the second half of the Anglo-Saxon period.

"

Tenth or eleventh century

Brown and Gallagher 1983, 23–5, 29–30, figs. 1–2, pls. 1–4; Higgitt 1983, 26–9; Thacker 1987, 277, 291; Higgitt 1986b, 131, 135; Okasha 1992a, 54–5, no. 206, pl. VII (a); Okasha 1992b, 345; Higham, N. 1993b, 151; Tweddle et al. 1995, 129, 222; Bailey 1996a, 80; Watts et al. 1997, 57; Austin 1999, 82; Jesch 2000a, 7; Okasha 2004, 278; Hadley 2006, 223

[1] The description and discussion of the Thornton Le Moors inscription owes much to the observations in Higgitt 1983.

[2] To Higgitt's runic example should be added that of the Mortain casket: see Page 1999, 162. See also Okasha 1992a, 55.

[3] Note that the interpretation of the Overchurch stone as a slab (above, p. 92) would suggest that it should be deleted as a parallel here.