a (upper): Harris Museum and Art Gallery, Preston, since c. 1980.
b (lower): By cross-roads at Headless Cross (SD 619130), acting as base for a quadrangular stone carrying directional signs to Preston, Blackburn, Wigan and Bolton. These directions suggest that the shaft (or perhaps just the flat stone now affixed to it) once stood at the nearby cross-roads of the A673.

a (upper): Pre-1976 in garden of Hollowforth House, at Woodplumpton, near Preston (Edwards, B. 1978a, 76; id. 1978b, 127–8; id. 1998, 83). The house had been modified by Richard Threlfall (1804–70) who collected carved stones.

b (lower): Not known, but Edwards (B. 1998, 81) notes that, whilst the name 'Headless Cross' was recorded in the eighteenth century, local tradition believed that the shaft had once been in the possession of the first Lord Leverhulme (d. 1925), whose bungalow at nearby Rivington had a collection of carved stones. This acquisition may be connected with information recorded in a letter of 1899 from J. W. Crompton of Rivington Hall: 'There used to be a Headless Cross in Anderton, but old Mr Ridgway, of Ridgemont, removed it many years ago' (Taylor, H. 1899, 21–2). Erected in its present position by Anderton Parish Council in 1940 (Edwards, B. 1966; id. 1978a, 55; id. 1978b, 127).

The association between the two stones was first noted by Edwards (B. 1978a, 76; see Ills. 397–400). He speculated that the cross may have originally stood in Preston since the Hollowforth stone came from a garden of a house being constructed at the time of the demolition of Preston church; several carved stones from the church are apparently incorporated into its structure (Edwards, B. 1978b, 128; id. 1998, 84).

All faces are bordered laterally by a roll moulding.

A (broad): The upper fragment carries a boldly carved, but badly worn, human figure set en face with long neck and square shoulders; he holds, within his angular arms, a cross (with rounded terminals) against his chest. Small bosses to the right and left of the upper arm of the cross may represent nipples, brooches, or perhaps the sun and moon over a cross. This figure is set below a concave arch moulding, with curled terminals extending beyond the line of the lateral borders, which drops from a central vertical moulding; these curved terminals link to broad horizontal mouldings on the narrow faces of the monument. In the upper left corner are traces of a horizontal moulding; this may have formed part of a cruciform shape as on face C. All that now remains above the arched element is a three-leaved foliate motif in the upper left.
The lower fragment shows the bottom half of the human figure, clad in a short kirtle, with folds bunched towards the centre, and a small protuberance between the legs; his knees bend outwards and his splayed feet are encased in shoes, with high backs, carrying an incised decoration around their tops. The bold moulded border below has a double dogtooth ornament forming diamond-shaped cavities, but nothing now survives of the rectangular panel at the bottom of the shaft.

B (narrow): On the upper fragment, above a broad projecting moulding linked to the curled terminals on faces A and C, are traces of scroll or interlace decoration. Below this, and extending into the lower fragment, is a panel of meander pattern (a doubled variant on Romilly Allen no. 891 — Allen and Anderson 1903, ii, 332) formed by two strands which are linked at the ends. The lowest panel, underneath a bold border, seems to carry some form of key pattern or possibly a cruciform shape formed by four rectangles.

C (broad): The upper fragment is divided into four panels by a cruciform moulding; a bare single-stemmed scroll, with foliate terminals to side shoots, survives in the two lower segments. The vertical element of this cruciform division then splits below to form a concave arch whose curving terminals extend beyond the line of the lateral borders and link to the horizontal mouldings on the narrow faces.
The remaining shaft below this (which, unlike the other faces does not have a separate panel at the base) is subdivided into triangular and lozenge-shaped panels by an angular lattice moulding topped by a curved 'roof' with fleur-de-lys finial. The four central diamond-shaped panels are occupied by, respectively, a cross in relief with expanded leaf-like terminals, a plant form with side shoots and trefoil terminal leaf, and two outline relief crosses. On each side of the concave arch are two curving forms, whilst the rest of the flanking triangular panels are occupied by varieties of triangular fret motifs.

D (narrow): The upper panel of the upper fragment carries a spiralling leafless scroll. This is separated from the panel below by a broad bold border. The panel underneath is decorated with a two-stemmed crossing scroll with side-shoots emerging at the crossing point; at the top the two stems curl inwards to meet each other. Each central area thus formed carries a single bud or leaf on two stems.
The lower fragment is badly damaged at the top but sufficient remains to show that the decoration consisted of two crossing scroll-stems forming the frames for crossing internal side-shoots. The bottom of the stems curl to the left. Below another bold border is a separate panel containing a rectangular key pattern composed of two linked T-frets.

Bolton le Moors 1 and 7, together with Whalley 2, 3 and 13, provide the closest parallels for the shape and decorative repertoire of this cross (Ills. 409–12, 671–4, 675–8, 702–5; see Chapter V, p. 37, and Table 4). With one or all of those carvings it shares: bold mouldings; a 'shouldered' profile; a squared block base; curving arches acting as the base to cruciform shapes; fleur-de-lys terminals; dogtooth or chevron mouldings; a taste for meander-pattern narrow-face decoration; and isolated triangular fret motifs. The metallic origin of many of these features is discussed under Whalley 3 (p. 247). Anderton differs from the others, however, in its use of a variety of foliate scroll forms, the presence of an imposing figure carving and the rhomboid arrangement of panels on face C.

The scroll forms show familiarity with a range of traditional single and double-stemmed scrolls; their positioning next to the cruciform shape on face C is similar to that on face A of Whalley 3 (Ill. 675) where they are interpreted as a form of the Tree of Life.

The lattice-like arrangement on face C recalls that of Sandbach Market Square 2 (Ills. 273, 285). In the discussion of that cross it was recognised that such rhomboid divisions could be seen as reflecting metalwork models. Their presence here could therefore be seen as another reflex of a 'metalwork' appearance common to the whole group (see Chapter V, p. 37, and Whalley 3). The outline, or 'framed', crosses on the same face could also be interpreted as emerging from the same metalworking background; they recur in stone at Tarbat in Scotland and Irton in Cumbria but also on several pieces of Irish metalwork (Henderson and Henderson 2004, ill. 168; Bailey and Cramp 1988, ill. 361; Ryan 1983, nos. 75, 79b; Youngs 1989, nos. 46, 212). Alongside that explanation of the rhomboid organisation at Anderton, it is important to bear in mind the potential symbolic function of this distinctive frame as expressing the harmonic four-fold nature of the cosmos (see O'Reilly 1998; Sandbach Market Square 2, p. 118); cruciform and vine-scroll motifs in this setting could have functioned as aniconic representations of Christ the Creator/Logos.

The large figure on face A has no parallel on the related shafts at Whalley and Bolton. Such imposing figures are familiar on crosses and metalwork in Ireland in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries (Henry 1970, pls. 30, 34–7, 46; Harbison 1992, ii, figs. 93, 95, 205, 259, 261, 304, 367, 545, 607, 613). They are also associated with seemingly Romanesque work on carvings at Barnburgh and Thrybergh in south Yorkshire (Ryder 1982, 103, 121). But large figures have also survived, if rarely, from pre-Norman Mercia and Northumbria. Hornby 3 is one such carving from the region, and Edenham in Lincolnshire provides a ninth-century example carved in relatively low relief, whilst Warden in Northumberland and Cawthorne in Yorkshire offer eleventh-century parallels (Everson and Stocker 1999, 158–9, ill. 162; Cramp 1984, pl. 228.1286; Coatsworth 2008, ill. 142).

The figure has several puzzling attributes: bosses on the chest; a cross; and high-backed slippers. The bosses may be intended to represent brooches, as appears to be the intention of similar details on Yorkshire carvings at Pickhill and Bilton, and in Brecknockshire at Llanhamlach (Lang 2001, ill. 734; Coatsworth 2008, ill. 39; Nash-Williams 1950, no. 61, pl. LXIX). Alternatively they may be intended to represent the sun and moon over a cross. The high-ankled shoes recur again worn by a priest at Winwick and an angel at Slaidburn in western Yorkshire (Ills. 708, 715; Coatsworth 2008, ill. 696): since they are also a marker of the dress of clerics and saints on various Pictish sculptures it seems reasonable to conclude that they carry indications of sanctity when employed here at Anderton (Henderson, I. 1998, 157–8; Henderson and Henderson 2004, ills. 204, 221).

The small cross held centrally by the figure confirms this impression of the figure's holy status. In shape, with its bulbous terminals, it closely resembles the cross floating above the angel on the Slaidburn stone (Bailey 1980, fig. 68). More importantly, it seems to be a short-stemmed 'Greek' version of the symbol. Whilst figures carrying crosses are obviously a familiar feature of Christian iconography, this formulation with a short-stemmed cross held vertically on the chest is much less common in both Insular and in western European art. The only other occurrence in Anglo-Saxon sculpture appears to be at Mirfield, Yorkshire, on a Viking-age carving (Coatsworth 2008, ill. 548 — though see Cramp 1984, pl. 8.27). It is, however, a frequent composition in Byzantine or Byzantine-influenced art, where it clearly functions as a symbol of sainthood. It occurs on work of the sixth to eighth centuries in the east, and in Byzantine-influenced areas of the west, at sites like Mount Sinai, Ravenna, Rome and Cividale (Hubert et al. 1969, pls. 140, 274; Kitzinger 1976b, pls. 4, 5; Beckwith 1979, pl. 75). Later examples seem to be largely restricted to the Byzantine east (Rice 1959, pls. 98–100, 105; Buckton 1994, no. 159). Behind this somewhat crude figure therefore there lies a fascinating tale of iconographic transmission.

Dating this sculpture is difficult. Its use of meander patterns, a variety of good scroll models and links to Whalley and Bolton would all argue for a pre-Conquest date. As we have seen, the figural carving could be consonant with that period. It has been argued that the presence of a fleur-de-lys 'seems likely to be post-Conquest' (Edwards, B. 1978a, 76; id. 1978b, 128), but such terminals are familiar on building gables and building-related frames in Carolingian and later continental illumination and in tenth- and eleventh-century English manuscripts (Hubert et al. 1970, pls. 89, 94, 130, 147, 163; Carver 1986, 125, table 6, figs. 3, 13, 14; Wormald 1952, pl. 25a; Temple 1976, ills. 29, 47, 94, 248). Trefoils also occur in regional sculpture on the related Whalley 3, Halton St Wilfrid 1 and in late Anglo-Saxon Ringerike metalwork (Ills. 468, 677; Backhouse et al. 1984, no. 104). On balance, a date late in the pre-Norman period seems the most likely.