Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture
Durham University, 2019. (updated 2020)
Data copyright © Durham University unless otherwise stated
This work is licensed under the ADS Terms of Use and Access.
Primary contact
Durham University
South Road
Durham
DH1 3LE
England
Resource identifiers
- ADS Collection: 351
Hexham 01, Northumberland
| Overview | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Object Type | Cross-shaft and part of cross-head, in four pieces ('Acca's cross') [1] | Measurements | Total height as constructed: 358 cm (141 in); a (head): H 19 cm (7.5 in); W. (max.) 28 cm (11 in); D. 16.3 cm (6.5 in); b (top of shaft): H. 54.5cm (21.5 in); W. 29.7 > 27.8 cm (11.7 > 11 in); D. 19 > 17 cm (7.5 > 7 in; c (centre of shaft): H. 79.5 cm (31 in); W. 33.5 > 30.5 cm (13.2 > 12 in); D. 24 > 21 cm (9.5 > 8.5 in); d (lower part of shaft): H. 134 cm (52.75 in); W. 37.3 > 33.5 cm (14.75 > 13 in); D. (max.) 21 cm (8.3 in) | Stone Type | Sandstone | Plate Numbers In Printed Volume | 896,897,898,899,900,901,902,903,904,905,906,907,908,909 | Corpus Volume Reference | 174-176 |
| See table below for more views or larger images available for this item. Click on the thumbnail images to preview larger images. | ||
| Images | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Hexham 1a-dA (nts) (Plate no. 896) Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, University of Durham |
JPG | 706 Kb |
|
Hexham 1a-dB (nts) (Plate no. 897) Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, University of Durham |
JPG | 1 Mb |
|
Hexham 1a-dC (nts) (Plate no. 898) Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, University of Durham |
JPG | 1 Mb |
|
Hexham 1a-dD (nts) (Plate no. 899) Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, University of Durham |
JPG | 1 Mb |
|
Hexham 1a-bA (Plate no. 900) Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, University of Durham |
JPG | 993 Kb |
|
Hexham 1a-bB (Plate no. 901) Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, University of Durham |
JPG | 1 Mb |
|
Hexham 1a-bC (Plate no. 902) Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, University of Durham |
JPG | 1 Mb |
|
Hexham 1a-bD (Plate no. 903) Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, University of Durham |
JPG | 1 Mb |
|
Hexham 1dB (1:5) (Plate no. 904) Mr D. Wright |
JPG | 1 Mb |
|
Hexham 1cA (1:5) (Plate no. 905) Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, University of Durham |
JPG | 1 Mb |
|
Hexham 1dC (1:5) (Plate no. 906) Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, University of Durham |
JPG | 1 Mb |
|
Hexham 1dC/D (1:5) (Plate no. 907) Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, University of Durham |
JPG | 1 Mb |
|
Hexham 1dB/C (1:5) (Plate no. 908) Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, University of Durham |
JPG | 1 Mb |
|
Hexham 1b-cC (Plate no. 909) Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, University of Durham |
JPG | 1 Mb |
| National Grid Reference of Place of Discovery | ||
|---|---|---|
| NY935641 | ||
| Latitude | ||
| 54.971474 | ||
| Longitude | ||
| -2.103069 | ||
| Diocese | ||
| Newcastle | ||
| Present Location | ||
| South transept of abbey | ||
| Evidence for Discovery | ||
| a) bottom of shaft used as lintel of cottage in Dilston. Removed to Durham about 1867. First mentioned in 1861. b) large inscribed fragment near east end of abbey church (dedicated to St Andrew) in 1858; c) and d) top of shaft found in 1870 in foundations of warehouse near St Mary's Church. | ||
| Church Dedication | ||
| St Andrew | ||
| Present Condition | ||
| Unweathered but worn smooth by constant handling | ||
| Date | ||
| Second quarter of eighth century | ||
| Earliest Date | ||
| 725 | ||
| Latest Date | ||
| 750 | ||
| Geological Period | ||
| Unspecified | ||
| Description | ||
| Most of the head, the central portion of the shaft, and a section of the lower portion are missing. According to Haverfield and Greenwell (1899, 58) the shaft was made from two blocks of stone joined somewhere in the central part of the shaft, now missing. This difference is not now discernible. a (head): Part survives on face C, arm type B9. It is carved in the metalwork form of a flat plate surrounded by pellets and inset with studs. The top of the shaft is capped by an elaborate moulding, in which two bands of pellets are set in flat chamfered bands separated by a hollow moulding. b–d (shaft): Surrounded by fine double roll mouldings. A (broad): Most, if not all, of this face seems to have been inscribed. The two surviving sections consist entirely of inscriptions, probably in Latin and in Anglo-Saxon capitals, now mostly illegible. (a) Upper fragment (Pl. 169, 900): three lines survive, the lowest wholly illegible. ?A[—] ?S[C —] (b) Lower fragment (Pl. 170, 905): six lines of lettering are clearly visible, and there could have been two more at the top. All but the second and third of the six are now completely illegible. These may be read: ?[. NI . . —] ?[F ILI — I —] B (narrow): Nine interlaced oval medallions of plant-scroll survive, diminishing in size towards the top. The scroll is double-stranded throughout with no thickening at the intersections. (i) and (ii) Two medallions survive above the break almost too worn to be decipherable. Below the break is a trace of a knotted link with two up-pointed leaves knotted through the medallion below. (iii) The strands split half-way up; two at each side to form knots at the top, one to twist into small triangular upward pointing grape bunches. The medallion twists to form the double-stranded medallion below. (iv) At the top this symmetrical medallion sprouts two downward hanging small triangular berry bunches. It contains a pair of small plain serrated leaves and a pair of short triangular bunches on coiled stems. From its base two leaves or berry bunches on coiled stems point upwards. (v) A complex medallion. At the top it splits partly to link with the medallion above, partly to form the strands of two grape bunches which twist and link through the medallion, and partly to form the stems of two half-serrated leaves. The base of the medallion is twisted with interlinked strands, the terminations of which are uncertain. (vi) Formed of four concentric strands from the centre of which hang two small grape bunches with loose curling strands above and below. It is linked by a complex six-strand knot to the medallion below and the spandrels are filled with two triangular berry bunches. (vii) A double-stranded medallion encloses a pair of small triangular grape bunches whose twisted stems terminate in a loose curling tendril and two leaves. It is linked to the triple-stranded medallion below by a four-strand knot. (The fillings of the spandrels are lost.) (viii) This medallion encloses four small triangular grape bunches hanging one above the other on centrally twisted stems, with tiny half-serrated leaves filling the lower part of the medallion. It is linked to the medallion below by a four-strand knot. The spandrel is filled with a pair of veined triangular leaves. (ix) The outer stem of the lowest medallion splits to form the stems of four upward and downward pointing triangular grape bunches. The bottom stems sprout triangular veined leaves inside and outside the medallion, and at the bottom thicken to form a pair of roots. A fine horizontal roll moulding completes the face. C (broad): Six complete and two incomplete medallions survive, each double-stranded, and linked by simple crossings. (i) At the top, six triangular leaves or fruit bunches encircle a central four-stranded knot. The medallion is flattened at the top and tied with two leaf knots. Below, a pair of veined leaves fills the intersection with the next medallion, (ii), of which little survives. Below the break, the incomplete medallion, (iii), contains an elongated four-strand knot flanked by two triangular berry bunches, with, below, two tiny triangular berry bunches and half leaves. (iv) At the top there is a miniature internal medallion enclosing two half tree leaves. From its sides sprout leaves or bunches. In the lower half of the medallion two triangular leaves and two berry bunches hang on twisted stems. The intersection between this and the next medallion is filled with looped strands from which hang two tiny leaves. (v) The top is filled with a twist of two small leaves and the stems of the four inward pointing berry bunches below twist in a cruciform pattern. A pair of long triangular veined leaves fills the intersection between this medallion and the next. (vi) This is the largest medallion on this face and is double-stranded all round. The six berry bunches it encloses are disposed in a heart-shaped formation at the top and bottom with two central bunches filling the curves. The intersection with the medallion below is filled by two triangular veined leaves on twisted stems. (vii) A central knot divides the down-hanging bunches above from four below. The intersection with the lowest medallion is filled with pairs of long triangular leaves. (viii) The inner strands of this medallion swell at the top and bottom to form three intersecting strands and the stems of the four down-hanging grape bunches with a central upturned leaf. The space between the triangular roots is filled with a pair of leaves(?) with twisted stems. D (narrow): This face is covered by a complex form of spiral scroll in which the spiral strands are set closely together at the perimeter and crossed by strands like the spokes of a wheel. The continuing strand of the scroll is not strongly marked. The volutes above the break are indistinct. Nine volutes survive below. (i) Incomplete. Below are two volutes knotted together by leaf-tipped strands, each enclosing two long triangular berry bunches. In (ii) both bunches hang down; in (iii) the bunches are counter-pointed. Small triangular ]caves sprouting from the volutes below hook up and over the stems. (iv) encloses four short triangular bunches, with short triangular berry bunches in the intersections. (v) Almost obliterated. (vi-vii) The volutes change to triple rather than double spirals which enclose two long triangular grape bunches. The intersections between the volutes are filled by short triangular leaves or grape bunches. (viii) In the form of a ring-knot of four concentric spirals interlaced with four open loops. (ix) Another volute like vi-vii. The scroll terminates in a single root. | ||
| Discussion | ||
| The quality of carving and inventiveness of design have struck all commentators on this cross. Haverfield and Greenwell, (1899, 58-9) comment on its beauty in proportion and design, and feel that a work of such power must be that of an Italian craftsman whom St Wilfrid brought over to build this church at Hexham. Both they and Collingwood identify it with the cross described by Symeon of Durham as standing over the grave of Bishop Acca, a hypothesis they derive from Longstaffe (1861, 153). Hodges (1888, 50) actually thought that he could read the name `ACCA' at the beginning of the inscription (see face A (a)), but this has been convincingly criticized by Swanton (1970, 161-3). The latter (1970, 161) suggests that the second and third lines of inscription (b) originally read UNIGENITO FILIO DEI, and interprets this as a quotation from the Nicene Creed, but not enough letters can be convincingly read to support this. Even the purpose of this inscription, which could have been commemorative rather than didactic, must remain uncertain. Most scholars agree on the originality of the design of the cross, although whether it be Italianate (Collingwood 1927, 30-1) or Insular (Swanton 1970) in its taste is debated. The firmly modelled strands and the lively curling tendrils which bind and enlace the scroll are not found in the stiffer heavier carvings of either western Europe or England. Nor is the formula for the ornamental layout paralleled on any other cross (Introduction, p. 15). The variety of organization of leaves and berry bunches within the medallions or scrolls; the springing side tendrils; even the strange wheel-like organization of the complex spiral scroll on face D, can all be paralleled on the mosaics and plated tie-beams of the Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem (Cramp 1974, 134-5), and indeed it seems as if there is some direct middle eastern influence, either in the training of the craftsman who carved this piece or in a close application to a model. The plated head with surrounding stud-like granules of filigree which cap the shaft seems closely dependent on a metalwork model, such as one finds in the later Bischofshofen cross (Talbot Rice 1965, pl. on 252). Even the fine wiry strands are a tour de force in stone carving but more appropriate in metalwork. The only cross which approaches this technique elsewhere is Lowther (Cramp 1974, pl. 20A), which has other links with Hexham. The knotting and twisting of the stems are also found in a heavier technique at Stamfordham (Introduction, p. 16). Altogether it seems, as I have said elsewhere (Cramp 1974), that the confident virtuosity of this cross is most convincingly seen as the beginning of something new which is introduced fully developed into Northumbria and which set a new fashion. | ||
| References | ||
| Haigh 1856-7, 503; Longstaff 1861, 152-3; Wilson 1862-8, 22; Raine 1864, xxxiv and figs.; Stuart 1867, xlvi, 47-50, pls. xcii-iii; Symeon 1867, 14; Hübner 1876, 73, no. 204; Browne 1880-4b, lxxv; Allen and Browne 1885, 351; Browne 1885a, 81-2 and figs.; Hodges 1887-8b, 234-5; Hodges 1888, 50; Hodges 1890, no. D8, pp. 35-6; Boyle 1892, 342; Hodges 1893, 11; Browne 1895, 145; Hinds 1896, 181-2, fig. facing 185; Browne 1897, 257-61, fig. 17; Haverfield and Greenwell 1899, no. III, 53-9, figs. on 54-6; (—) 1900, 67-8; Conway 1912, 193; Cook 1912, 75-6; Prior and Gardner 1912, 111, 118, 121; Howorth 1914, 56; Browne 1916, 36, pls. 5, 7, and 6, 13; Collingwood 1916-18, 36, fig. 3; Howorth 1917, III, 144-7, fig. facing 146; Hodges and Gibson 1919, 73, pl. facing 72; Brown 1921, 116, 170, 274, 315, fig. 12, pl. 26; Hodges 1921, 66-8; Hodges 1921-2, 293-4; Strzygowski 1923, 239, fig. 66; Brøndsted 1924, 33-4, 43, fig. 15; Collingwood 1925, 76-8, figs. 7-8; Peers 1926, 50; Collingwood 1927, 29-32, 82, 114, 119, index, figs. 38-9; (—) 1930, 1, no. 2; Clapham 1930, 55, 57, 64-5, pl. 14; Porter 1931, 99, fig. 156; Collingwood 1932, 37-9, fig. 1; Rivoira 1933, 150, fig. 559; Gardner 1935, 33, fig. 17; Kitzinger 1936, 70; Pfeilstücker 1936, 115, fig. 35; Brown 1937, 118-19; Kendrick 1938, 132, 134-5, pl. 49; Åberg 1943, I, 51, fig. 24; Taylor 1944, no pagination, mention and pl.; Whiting 1946, 143; Honeyman 1949, 199, fig. opp. 32; Fyson 1951-6, 241; Hodgkin 1952, 438-40, fig. 56; Stone 1955, 16; Willet 1957; Fisher 1959, 67, pl. 26C; Taylor and Taylor 1961, 121-2; Mercer 1964, 268; Wilson 1964, 121-2; Cramp 1965a, 3, no. 3; Cramp 1965b, 7-8; Taylor and Taylor 1965, 305; Swanton 1970; Okasha 1971, 80-1, no. 54, pl. 52; Cramp 1974, 127-9, 134-5, 172, pls. 16-17, 18A; Bailey 1980, 148 | ||
| Endnotes | ||
| 1. The following are general references to the Hexham stones: (—) 1855-7a, 45-6; Rowe 1877, 62-3; Allen 1889, 230; Bailey 1980, 79, 81, 83. | ||
| Subjects | ||
|---|---|---|
| Monument Form: Standing Monument | ||
| Monument Type: Cross, Inscribed | ||
| Monument Feature: Head, Plant, Shaft | ||
| Monument Period (MIDAS term): Early Medieval | ||
| Horizon: Pre 920 | ||
