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 19, Northumberland
| Overview | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Object Type | Eight fragments of one or, less plausibly, two carved panels [1] | Measurements | Fragment 1: H. 16.5 cm (6.5 in); W. 15 cm (6 in); Fragment 2: H. 14.5 cm (5.7 in); W. 8.5 cm (3.3 in); Fragment 3: H. 12.5 cm (5 in); W. 19 cm (7.5 in); Fragment 4: H. 10 cm (4 in); W. 11 cm (4.25 in); Fragment 5: H. 19 cm (7.5 in); W. 19 cm (7.5 in); Fragment 6: H. 13 cm (5.1 in); W. 9 cm (3.5 in); Fragment 7 (un-numbered, upper): H. 5 cm (2 in); W. 5.5 cm (2.1 in); Fragment 8 (un-numbered, lower): H. 7 cm (2.7 in); W. 4 cm (1.5 in); D. Built in.; Max. depth projecting from plaster base (fragment 6) 6 cm (2.3 in); Max depth of carving (fragment 6) 5.5 cm (2.1 in). | Stone Type | Dolomite | Plate Numbers In Printed Volume | 958,959 | Corpus Volume Reference | 183-184 |
| See table below for more views or larger images available for this item. Click on the thumbnail images to preview larger images. | ||
| Images | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Hexham 19A, fragments 1-4 (1:5) (Plate no. 958) Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, University of Durham |
JPG | 2 Mb |
|
Hexham 19A, fragments 5-8 (1:5) (Plate no. 959) 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 | ||
| Display cases, specially made, against south wall of modern nave of abbey, at west end | ||
| Evidence for Discovery | ||
| Found March 1907 in hole, c. 4 ft. across, about centre of nave and near west end | ||
| Church Dedication | ||
| St Andrew | ||
| Present Condition | ||
| Broken and cut away | ||
| Date | ||
| Last quarter of seventh century | ||
| Earliest Date | ||
| 675 | ||
| Latest Date | ||
| 700 | ||
| Geological Period | ||
| Permian, Upper | ||
| Geological Group | ||
| Zechstein Group | ||
| Geological Formation | ||
| Roker Dolomite Formation | ||
| Description | ||
| A (broad): Fragments 1–4 seem to be part of a robed figure. Fragments 1 and 2 fit tightly together and were dressed back when they were in one piece. They broaden towards the top; the drapery folds also curve outwards and the edges of the relief carving are slightly rough as though they could have been wider. Fragment 3 continues the deep U-folds of the drapery above. The vertical edges of this fragment are smoothly dressed, the outer straight folds forming a sort of moulded border. Fragment 4 completes the loop of the folds; like 3 its edge is smoothly dressed and the outermost fold flares a little. Fragment 5 shows part of a pair of feet and the base of a cross, type A9. This is shown without an edge moulding and against a plain recessed background. Fragment 6 shows part of a curving flat-band moulding with, touching it, a wing tip carved with deep incised lines. There is also a fragment of a bordered angle with a shallow chamfered and curved moulding, and a straight fragment with a roll moulding. There has been some attempt to chisel away the centre of the figure. However, the surface is untouched at the edges and here a gesso base for the paint survives in the grooves and on part of the lower right surface. A paint base also survives on fragments 5 and 6. No paint survives on the feet but they are markedly polished. The sides of fragments 1–4 are smoothly dressed and seem to curve outwards. C (broad): Set in plaster in bottom of display case. | ||
| Discussion | ||
| When found the first commentators described three other fragments and considered them all to be the remains of two terracotta plaques. It seems probable therefore that more traces of red paint/pigment then survived. The fragments were interpreted as the remains of a Crucifixion scene which included fragments 5 and 6 and a piece considered to be the right arm of a cross (Savage and Hodges 1907, 42-3). This could be what I have described above as a bordered angle, or fragment 4 as Coatsworth (1974, 181) interprets it. She supports her interpretation by noting that the second plaque interpreted by Savage and Hodges as an ecclesiastic in a chasuble, possibly Wilfrid, was stated to be 11 in high, but that if fragment 4 were added then the total height would have been 15 in. It seems most convincing that fragments 1-4 belong together. Collingwood's drawn reconstruction (1927, fig. 36) puts the fragments into one unframed panel showing a draped figure of Christ with the angel to the right above his head – its wing horizontal. However Taylor (1966, fig. 5) subdivided the fragments again, putting 1, 2, 3, and 4 into a composition of an ecclesiastic in a chasuble shown as a pilaster or a boundary or junction stone for a series of panels; and fragments 5, 6 and 7 into a composition based on the Crucifixion from the Durham manuscript A.II.17, in which 5, the feet, is shown near the base of the figure and the angel with everted wing at the left above the cross. Taylor also added the lost stone described by Savage and Hodges as a cross-arm. Taylor's reconstruction with two panels was partly based on the fact that there is a difference between the relief treatment of the feet and cross-base, and that of the draped figure (I do not see this difference). Coatsworth (1974) notes the different forms of the border but inclines to the theory of a single panel. She suggests that fragments 1-4 could fit a crucified figure draped in a long tunic or colobium, which would be perfectly reasonable in the late seventh to early eighth century. She further suggests that what Savage and Hodges saw as a cross-arm (Taylor's lost fragment 7) could have been fragment 4. To my mind it is more probable that they identified the bordered angle as the cross-arm (fragment 7). On the whole these pieces seem to be best reconstructed into a single panel of a Crucifixion scene (Coatsworth 1979, II, pl. 31). Taylor's reconstruction of it as a plaque, c. 4 ft high, seems a little large, but it would nevertheless have been a monumental and important piece of carving. The deep and elegant style of carving with a smooth finish which was then painted is paralleled on 33 and on architectural fragments from Monkwearmouth (nos. 9-10). The choice of a Hartlepool and Roker dolomite for this type of interior fitment of the church is also paralleled at Monkwearmouth. This stone outcrops around Monkwearmouth (see Introduction, Fig. 5), so there is no need to postulate, as earlier writers have, that the stone came from Oundle, Northamptonshire. This piece is also comparable with Monkwearmouth in its combination of Insular with continental models. The angels attendant at the Crucifixion are paralleled, as Taylor pointed out, in Durham A.II.17 (fol. 383v), but the delicate modelling of the figure deduced from the surviving feet implies the use of a good Early Christian model. It is not possible to determine from the back of the piece whether it had been set low in a wall or was standing free. The feet are markedly polished by wear and it seems likely that at some stage the figure was venerated. This is the only known example of the occurrence of a carving in Hartlepool and Roker dolomite outside the area where it occurs naturally. The stone may have been transported to Hexham before carving, but it seems equally likely that it arrived as a finished sculpture. If so, it would indicate contact between Hexham and other monastic workshops on the Durham coast whose carvers are known to have worked in this material. Monkwearmouth or Hartlepool are the most likely sources. | ||
| References | ||
| Savage and Hodges 1907, 42-3; Collingwood 1925, 73, fig. 6; Collingwood 1927, 29, fig. 36; Taylor and Taylor 1961, 119-20; Taylor and Taylor 1965, 304; Taylor 1966; Taylor and Taylor 1966, 16-17; Coatsworth 1974a, 180-3, pl. 13C-D; Taylor 1978, 1058; Coatsworth 1979, I, 112-18, II, 27, pls. 26A-B, 28-31 | ||
| 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: Architectural | ||
| Monument Feature: Human Figure | ||
| Monument Period (MIDAS term): Early Medieval | ||
| Horizon: Pre 920 | ||
