schools of anglo-saxon stone sculpture in the north midlands.

468 Pages·2008·32.39 MB·English

- Contents -
4.6 The Incised Motif School . 85
4.7 The Dewsbury School . 87
4.8 The South Yorkshire Crown School 89
4.9 The ICirklees School 91
4.10 The Treescmll Group . 95
4.11 The East School . 97
4.12 The South Western Region . . 100
4.13 The South-western Regional School , 100
4.14 The West Sub-school • 103
4.15 The South Sub-school . . 104
4.16 The Sandbach Sculptures 106
4.17 The Dove Valley School . . 108
4.18 Breedon-on-the-Hill 111
4.19 The North-western Regional School . 114
4.20 North-western Regional Crossheads 120
4.21 Local Schools of the North-western Region 122
CHAPTERS: STONE USE AND PRODUCTION 124
5.1 Introduction . 124
52 The Geology of the Research Area . 125
5.3 The Use of Various Stone Types
in the Research Area . . 127
5.4 Stone Types and Schools . 130
5.5 Aspects of Production . 134
CHAPTER 6: PROVENANCE AND FUNCTION . 144
6.1 Introduction 144
6.2 Provenance . 144
6.3 Function . 154
CHAPTER 7: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOLS OF SCULPTURE AND
POLITICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL DIVISIONS . 160
7.1 Introduction . 160
72 The Relationship Between the Ecclesiastical
Provision and Schools of Sculpture 161
7.3 The Relationship Between the Secular

Provision and Schools of Sculpture 167
— Contents —
7.4 Viking Land-Divisions and Sculpture 172
7.5 Sculpture and Settlement Patterns 176
7.6 The Chronology of Schools of Sculpture 180
CONCLUSIONS 188
BIBLIOGRAPHY 194
APPENDIX 1: DISTRIBUTION OF ATTRIBUTES 205
APPENDIX 2A: SAMPLE OF SITE RECORDING SHEET 210
APPENDIX 2B: SAMPLE OF COMPUTER DATABASE RECORD 212
APPENDIX 3A: CORPUS OF DESCRIPTIONS 215
APPENDIX 3B: CORPUS OF ILLUSTRATIONS 275
— Contents —
LIST OF FIGURES

FIG 0.1: Map of the Research Area . following page 3

FIG 0.2: Map of the Sculpture Sites . following page 4

FIG 2.1: A Reconstruction of the Boundaries of the
People-divisions mentioned in the Tithal Hidage following page 47

FIG 4.0 Table of Area-concentrated Attributes Page 76

FIG 4.1 Sculpture Sites of the Peak School following page 79

FIG 4 2 Sculpt= Sites of the North Regional School following page 82

FIG 4.3 Sculpture Sites of the Calder Valley School. following page 84

FIG 4.4 Sculpture Sites of the Incised Motif School . following page 86

FIG 4.5 Sculpture Sites of the South Yorkshire Crown School following page 90

FIG 4.6 Sculpture Sites of the ICiddees School following page 94

FIG 4.7 Sculpture Sites of the East School following page 99

FIG 4.8 Sculpture Sites of the South-western Regional School following page 102

FIG 4.9 Sculpture Sites of the Dove Valley School . following page 110

FIG 4.10 Sculpture Sites of the North-western Regional School following page 122

FIG 5.1 The Geology of the Research Area and Sculpture Sites following page 125

FIG 5.2 East School Attributes in Lincolnshire following page 134

FIG 6.1 Table of Provenance Categories of Sculpture page 148

FIG 6.2 Unprovenanced Sculpture Sites following page 153

FIG 7.1 The Diocesan Arrangements following page 161

FIG 7.2 Reconstructed Tnbai Hidage Divisions . following page 170

FIG 7.3 Wapentake of Hamenstan and Peak Sculpture Sites following page 171

FIG 7.4 Distribution of Norse Place-names in relation to
Sculpture of the North-western Regional School followmg page 178
Index of Attributes shown on Distributions Maps . page 208
Maps showing Distribution of Attributes . following page 209
INTRODUCTION
'Historians and archaeologists, alert to their own Interests and armed with specialised
knowledge, could undoubtedly use the sculptures more than they have hitherto' (Bailey 1980:
236-7).
Northumbrian Crosses of the Pre-Norman Age, by W. G. Collingwood was published in 1927
(Collingwood 1927) and has arguably been the most Influential work on Anglo-Saxon stone
sculpture to date. Collingwood was not the first to study this subject but, he is responsible for the
development of the art-historical method of dating the sculpture still in use to this day. The
perpetuation of this method is at first surprising, since it relies on an evolutionary paradigm, one
which is now largely shunned by modern scholars. Unfortunately, there is little alternative
evidence for dating the monuments. There is, for example, no history attached to Anglo-Saxon
stone sculpture, no da 'bible inscriptions, nor have there been any revolutionary archaeological
discoveries so far, to transform our understanding of the monuments. Such 'monumental'
discoveries are made especially difficult since It is almost Impossible to know whether a free-
standing stone monolith when discovered is likely to be In situ or not.
CollIngwood saw the monuments In a chronological sequence, 'ancient styles as phases of a
process° (1927: preface), evolving through time and place. As such, Collingwood's work has
proved less attractive to archaeologists than it has to art historians. Subsequent preoccupations
with the refinement of the stylistic dating method has tended to overshadow any examination of
the fundamental philosophy and assumptions on which it heavily relies. An art historian is less
than eager to discover that the monuments have no art-history.
Therefore, studies of stone sculpture have stayed rather peripheral to Anglo-Saxon studies in
general. For example, unlike the monuments, the development of the early church has received
much more critical attention, and we have a more mature understanding of its interaction with
secular events (as an excellent example, see Morris 1989). However, Anglo-Saxon sculpture
appears to have been largely Immune from critical examination, although a hint of scepticism is
occasionally heard from outside the main lines of enquiry. Yet this lack of integration of Anglo-
Saxon stone sculpture with the rest of the material culture is quite dismal. It is a valuable
resource, especially as material evidence for the Viking settlement, but rarely is it seen this way.
The relative abundance of Anglo-Saxon sculptured monuments found throughout much of
England contrasts strongly with the paucity of many other forms of material evidence. In fairness,
some recent attempts have been made to revitalise the study of stone sculpture in the light of
- 2 -
present considerations, and one does not hesitate In commending the work of Richard Bailey (cf.
1980) in particular. Nevertheless, there is still a considerable way to go in relating the provision of
the sculpture, into the general scholarship of Anglo-Saxon studies.
All of this sounds like a preamble to a thesis which intends to prove that everything that has been
written before is wrong: It is not. Collingwood may indeed be right in his assumptions, but it
should be realised they are no more than this. As such, they should not be accepted as
'evidence' for the circumstances for the production of the monuments, their chronology, or even
for their true purpose, for this is largely unknown. What this research intends to do, is to remove
as many preconceptions which can influence the study of this subject, as possible. By so doing,
there is an inevitable vacuum, caused not least by the removal of the stylistic dating structure
which has been devised over the years.
One is not however, advocating a complete reappraisal of the monuments: some 'assumptions'
are accompanied by an acceptable weight of evidence. For example, is is evident from
numerous contextual discoveries, that the monuments were unlikely to have been in production
after the Norman Conquest and there is also a strong link between church sites and sculpture,
evident from numerous associations. But one should be cautious to go beyond basic 'facts' as
conveyed by the balance of evidence, and not be reliant on assumptions that are only supported
by a subjective hypothesis where there is no real 'evidence' at all. It will be necessary therefore,
to examine critically, the presumptions surrounding past studies of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture,
before proceeding onto the subject-matter of this research.
The aim of this thesis is to identify 'schools' of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture in the north
Midlands. The various definitions of the term 'schools' are given in the following chapter (sect.
1.3), but in this thesis they will be identified as regional groups of monuments sharing common
decorative elements and thus suggesting that some form of organisation was behind their
production. The mere identity of schools, does not demand a strict chronology for them and
therefore one set of subjective assumptions need not be of paramount importance. However, the
identification of schools has, in the past, been vague because there has been no truly analytical
method devised to identify them, nor has the the term 'schools' been accompanied by an entirely
rigid definition.
The main objective of this research is, therefore, to devise an analytical method for their
Identification, one which Is precise and unambiguous. Only then may it be possible to apply strict
geographical limits to the schools. If then, one can identify a series of well-defined schools,
- 3 -
occupying known geographical limits, it should be feasible to investigate the relationship between
schools and possible sources for their organisation. This requires firstly, a suitable area in which
to Identify schools where several are likely to have existed and, secondly, as much data as can
possibly be obtained from the Individual monuments themselves.
The chosen area of research is centred on the modem county of Derbyshire. However, to
synthesise data from Derbyshire alone, would not provide a large enough sample size and may
be too small to produce an adequate picture of the sculptural influences which present
themselves. Therefore, it was decided to extend the scope of the research to include ail of its
surrounding areas. This involved additional sculpture in no less than seven counties, including
Greater Manchester. Fig. 0.1 shows the extent of the research in terms of the pre-1974 counties.
It was found that if the research area was extended for approximately 25-35 km. outwards from
the Derbyshire border, then this would produce a reasonably large sample size, within a
manageable area. For example, this would include all of Nottinghamshire's known sculpture
sites, and would include most of the known sculpture sites in both Staffordshire and Cheshire.
The area chosen for the research is appropriate in several ways: it was already thought to
contain several schools of sculpture, although no objective analytical method has been used in
their identification. Recent work has been restricted to the few monuments, described as
belonging to the pre-Viking period (Cramp 1977). It is also an area relatively rich in sculptured
monuments: a total of 296 separate sculptured stones was recorded. Secondly, the area is
believed to have contained Important divisions during the Anglo-Saxon period. These include
parts of the kingdoms of Northumbria and Mercia, together with several smaller divisions of
which reconstructions can be attempted (sects. 2.2 and 2.4). There are also divisions between
three dioceses and, also in the research area, are three known major ecclesiastical houses. This
has a distinct advantage over studies which have been restricted to one major land unit:
Collingwood's work, for instance (cf. 1927), was confined to Northumbria alone. Little work has
been done on the relationship between sculpture and polities: for example, it has been apparent
for some time that there appears to be a 'Mercian' type of sculpture (Cf. Kendrick 1938), but what
does this mean In terms of the provision of schools? Perhaps schools were simply the
manifestation of a group of masons following a common style. If this was so, how were the
masons dispatched, do they simply radiate from a 'centre', or do they strictly follow an
ecclesiastical, or even secular, land division?
As Collingwood's dating method endures, so a host of other assumptions survivesas well. One
such is the notion of centralised production. The idea of a -workshops' still survives as an
YORKSHIRE
•Yo.
• Le.
--- ------- _ s
.... ...,
.
LANCS. /
%
/ 1
1
it
/. “n a.
/
•
I
•Sh.
LINCS.
DERBYS. NOT IS.
•lle. •No.
--7 STAFFS.
: •
LI st.
•sh. t
, LEICS.
t •Li RUT.
\
SALOP. 411--'
•Wo. ------- Le.
•Bi NOR F.
WARWICK
NO
WORCS.
0 30 Km.
FIG 0.1.
Map showing the extent of the research area.
KEY:
BI. Birmingham Ma. Manchester
Ch. Chester No. . Nottingham
De. . Derby Sh. (Salop) Shrewsbury
Le. (Leics.) Leicester Sh. (Yorks.) Sheffield
Le. (Yorks.) Leeds St. Stafford
LI. (Lincs.) Lincoln Wo. Wolverhampton
Li. (Staffs.) Lichfield Yo. York
- 4 -
appropriate mode of production. Much of this stems from the assumption that the monuments
were part of the monastic 'tradition' of craftsmanship, and therefore, exclusive to the church. The
idea of centralised production has been generally accepted without critical examination and only
recently have reservations been expressed (cf. Cramp 1975: 184). It is intended that evidence
for the method of production will be examined in this research: for example, do the types of stone
used for the manufacture of the monuments suggest a centralised production, or does the
evidence support local craftsmanship?
Collingwood assumed that the monuments were funereal (1927:4): others have suggested that
some may have functioned as wayside markers (Brown 1937: 93) or as preaching crosses
(Kendrick 1938: 126). Although the present consensus is that they were funereal or memorial
(Cramp 1978: 2; 1984: 5), the function of the monuments in the research area will be also be
examined.
Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to define some of the terms which will be used herein.
For example, the term "Viking period" may suggest to some a period when northern England
was under a Viking administration: to others, it may suggest a period of raiding and plundering
before the actual settlement. Similarly, "Anglo-Scandinavian° may be taken to imply some form
of hybridised identity or ethnicity, which may not have always been the case, especially before
the English reconquest. The following definitions will therefore be used in this thesis: "Viking
period" will apply to that period during which there was a Scandinavian or Hibemo-Scandinavian
settlement and administration In all or part of the research area. "Anglo-Scandinavian" is a term
reserved for an art-form which is thought to have been under a Scandinavian stylistic influence,
but confined to the British Isles. It is not an ideal term, but one which is used extensively,
elsewhere. °Anglo-Saxon" refers to the whole of period covered by this research, be it before,
during, or after the initial Viking settlement Thus, 'Anglo-Saxon sculpture refers to all sculpture
of the period made before the Norman Conquest: more specifically it may be referred to as
"Viking-period' or "pre-Viking'. The term "Anglian', which is often used for pre-Viking sculpture,
Is largely avoided as it can imply notions of ethnicity. Similarly, "British" is essentially an 'ethnic'
term, but It is used in this thesis to refer to groups of people who may have held some degree of
independence from an administration or settlement under nominal 'Anglo-Saxon' domination.
KEY TO MAP REFERENCE NUMBERS.
1. Adlington 2. Alderley
3. Aistonefield 4. Asfordby
5. Ashboume 6. Astbury
7. Aston-on-Trent 8. Bakewell
9. Barnburgh 10. Baslow
11. Birstall (Leic) 12. Birstall (Yorks)
13. Blackwell (E. Derbys) 14. Blackwell (Peak)
15. Bradbourne 16. Bradfield
17. Brailsford 18. Breedon
19. Cawthorne 20. Chapel-en-le-Frith
21. Cheadle 22. Cliebsey
23. Checkley 24. Chesterton
25. Cluelow 26. Conisborough
27. Costock 28. Crofton
29. Darfield 30. Darley Dale
31. Derby 32. Derwent
33. Dewsbury 34. East Bridgford
35. Ecclesfield 36. Eccieshall
37. Eyam 38. Femilee
39. Harston 40. Hartington
41. Hartshead 42. Hawksworth
43. Hickling 44. High Hoyland
45. Hope 46. Dam
47. Ingleby 48. Kirkburton
49. Kirkheaton 50. Kneesall
51. Leek 52. Lockington
53. Ludworth/Mellor 54. Lyme Hall
55. Lyme Handley 56. Macclesfield
57. Mexborough 58. Mirfield
59. Monyash 60. Nether Broughton
61. Norbury 62. Penistone
63. Prestbury 64. Pym Chair
65. Rastrick 66. Rawmarsh
67. Redmile 68. Repton
69. Rolleston 70. Rothley
71. Rowsley 72. Sandbach
73. Screveton 74. Sheffield
75. She'ford 76. Shelton
77. Spondon 78. Sprotborough
79. Sproxton 80. Stapleford
81. Stathern 82. Stoke-on-Trent
83. Swithamley 84. Tatenhill
85. Thornhill 86. Thryburgh
87. Two Dales 88. Whitwick
89. Wirksworth
W.Yorks
. 154•1 (312
• 033
65
. 0,9 • •
:'
0.
/
Oo
Ofi2
S . Yorks.
—Gtr:\Manchr. •
— _, • 16 O B
ors'
4. • •
02 • ."••••"*-1.1
•
Ches. 10
•
• (
71 1
lo• "•*"! Os°
87 f*–*
• • 0 \ 30 0( Notts.
72 \ Derbys. 131
SI 0 \
\ 83
"0
O.
46 •
3 •
2 • k •
61
/
Staffs. • • 80
/
• II 43L. 081 613'
68• • 2 060 ••
/018 •....•• •• 07'
e40
04
R. Virea
000
70 •
Leics. 0
<
KEY
LINE OF ROMAN ROAO
RIVERS
COUNTY BOUNDARY
OERBYSiIIRE BOUNDARY
04 SCULPTURE SITE
to Miss
0
10 Rs.
FIG. 0.2.
Map showing all of the Anglo-Saxon sculpture sites included in the reseach.
The key to the site numbers is given opposite.