Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 January 2012
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.
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.
