- 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.