Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:12:58.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Pre-Conquest Stone Carvings in Wessex

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2012

F. Cottrill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Illustrating this paper are photographs of a number of pre-Conquest stones, probably fragments of cross-shafts, carved with conventionalized zoomorphic designs of a kind found mainly, though not exclusively, within the confines of the ancient kingdom of Wessex. A few tentative suggestions as to the date and stylistic origins of these carvings are here put forward, and a list is appended of all such stones of whose existence I am aware. The fragments at Glastonbury, Tenbury, and Shaftesbury have not previously been published, and I am indebted to Mr. A. W. Clapham and Dr. R. E. M. Wheeler for bringing them to my notice. The photographs were taken by Mr. Brian C. Clayton, whose death was a serious loss to photographic recording in the service of archaeology.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , April 1935 , pp. 144 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1935

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 145 note 1 Royal Commission Hist. Mons., Herefordshire, ii, pl. 18.

page 145 note 2 Reliquary and Illus. Archaeologist, viii, 256.

page 146 note 1 Vatican Library, Barb. lat. 570; Zimmermann, H., Vorkarolingische Miniaturen, p. 316 b (fol. 51a)Google Scholar.

page 146 note 2 Op. cit. pl. 315 a (fol. 80a).

page 146 note 3 Op. cit. pl. 321 (fol. 12 a).

page 147 note 1 Archaeologia, lxxvii, 219.

page 148 note 1 The fragment of a cross-shaft at Sutton-on-Derwent, Yorks. (Yorks. Arch. Mag. xxix, 238), cannot be called a typical example of Viking art, in spite of its probable date (c. 1000) and locality. It has many features that recall southern English work, and the very fact that it is exceptional in its own district negatives its possible use as an argument against the thesis maintained here.

page 148 note 2 Archaeologia, lxxiv, 245; Bristol and Gloucs. Arch. Soc. Trans, xiii, 122.

page 148 note 3 Early English Ornament, 218.

page 149 note 1 Cf. A. W. Clapham in Antiquity, viii, 43.

page 149 note 2 Proc. Soc. Antiq. xxvi, 65.

page 150 note 1 Clapham, A. W., Eng. Romanesque Architecture after the Conquest, pp. 139–41.Google Scholar

page 150 note 2 Roy. Comm. Hist. Mons., Herefordshire, iii, pl. 16.

page 150 note 3 Ibid. pl. 139.

page 150 note 4 There is, however, some literary evidence that such monuments existed in the south in the early eighth century (, Clapham, Eng. Romanesque Arch. before the Conquest, 61–2)Google Scholar.