_jl IL

CHAPTER VI INTRODUCTION TO THE ORNAMENTAL REPERTOIRE

INTERLACE AND GEOMETRIC the slab from Holy Tr inity, Bradfurd-on-Avon where it iscombined, not withvine-scrolls asat Britford, but with In the course of his pioneering work on the early interlinked trumpet spirals and key patterns (llis.407-9), Christian monuments of this region,most specific allyof and this could equally have reflected the fashions of (Allen 1894, and see Chapter IV), Romilly Insular manuscripts or metalwork. Allen tried to apply the terminology and types he had From the fragments which remain, the Bath, Bradford t constructed elsewhere in order to analyse the inventive, and Keynsham cross-heads (Ills. 173-4,400, 289), wih playful variations on a theme displayed in the geometric their elegant pattern E terminals,are of comparable type interlace of Northumbria and Picdand. In the event he and date, and at Bradford are combined with animal­ could only identify a few types of'geometric interlace' headed interlace. Other cross-heads such as Cattistock based on a grid, and the same problem is fo und in or Shaftesbury Holy Trinity (Ills. 46, 101) have too litde applying Gwenda Adcock's classifications as set out in surviving fo r the pattern to be identified. the GeneralIn troductionto the Corpus series (Cramp 1984, A fe w cross-shafts which have plant-scrolls as well as xxviii-xlvi; id. 1991). There is a very limited repertoire interlace, including East Stour and Gillingham, of geometric types of interlace in the south-west, in (Ills. 57-60, 66-7), and Kelston, (llis. 268-9), which rows of pattern F (figure-of-eight) or pattern C, have panels of free-flowing non-geometric interlace and both simple and encircled, together with plain plait, are fo rm an early grouping. Broad Chalke, Wiltshire (Ills. the most common. There is also however a type of free­ 429-32), however combines a type of interlaced plant­ running non-geometric interlace, such as occurs on the with panels of plain plait. shafts from East Stour and Teffont Magna (Dls. 57-60, At Glastonbury pattern C ring occur on two 517),which is composed ofloops and twists linked by pieces (Ills. 224, 232), as also on Ramsbury 3, where long diagonals, and which resembles the loops and twists they arecombined with animal ornament (Ills. 498-502), which fillthe spaces betweenthe ribbon animals on shafts a combination which is also found at Dolton (lli. 22) . such as Ramsbury 3 or Dolton (Ills. 49�7. 20-3). It is Pattern C knots also occur as the only interlace type on not as if this most ubiquitous of Anglo-Saxon pattern Keynsham 1, the Henstridge piece and the Knook shaft elements could not be mastered by the Wes sex carvers (llis. 275, 258-64, 459), and can perhaps be seen as a - much of the carving is very competent and assured popular We ssex type since it is also fo und amongst the - but it appears that its geometric interplay did not fe w interlace fragments in the south-east, as fo r example interest them. The strands of most of the interlace (with Wa ntage, Berkshire and Wherwell, Hampshire (Tweddle the exception of some pieces from Keynsham, llis. 275, et al. 1995, ills. 474-7 and 479-80). 295) are median-incised, and particularly in the eighth Rows of figure-of-eight knotsare however ubiquitous to ninth centuries, are delicately modelled. in Anglo-Saxon sculptures. In this area the slab from In one case, on the panels in the centre of jambsthe at Banwell (lli. 170) is of a type fo und in the tenth/ eleventh Britford (Ill. 416), the patterns are unique in We ssex century in the Midlands and East Anglia (see above, sculpture. Their triangular -work (Allen 1903,298, Chapter V, p. 32), but the pattern is used on earlier no. 738; Cramp 1991, fig.25) can be closely compared, monuments here, with the freer ornament, at Te ffont however, with the decoration on the panels of the arch Magna, Ramsbury or Dolton (Dls.518, 489, 20, 22), whilst supports in the Vespasian Psalter, fol. 30v (lli. 527). A on a panel from Shaftesbury Abbey a ribbon animal is variation of this triangular knot-work is also fo und on bordered by a run ofinterlinked pattern F knots (Dl. 89).

41

11 11 _jl I I_

42 CHAPTERVI

Ifit were not fo r Colyton, Devon (Tils.3-9), it could be extended elements of their variously patterned bodies, said that free interlace is only fo und cornbined with vine­ or serpentine creatures entwined with interlace, and these scroll derivatives; that the limited geometric types are to have been the subj ect of more discussion than any other be fo und either on their own or with animal ornament; group of monuments in We ssex.They comprise, within and that interlace is never fo und on monuments with the area ofthis volume, sculptures at Colyton and Dolton -type ornament. Colyton is however an (Devon), Shaftesbury (Dorset), Chew Stoke, Frame, individual monument which seems to bridge different Glastonbury, Keynsham, Rowberrow, We lls, and We st ornamental traditions, and will be further considered in Camel (Somerset), Bradford-on-Avon, Colerne, and Chapter IX {p.72) . The combination of panels offigure­ Ramsbury (Wiltshire) ; and outside the area, Little of-eight and plain plait on the narrow sides ofthat shaft Somborne, Steventon, and Winchester Upper Brook (Dls. 5-6), combined wit h interlaced ribbon animals Street (Hampshire), Abson, Deerhurst, and Gloucester (ID.7) and acanthus scrolls and sprays on the broad fa ces (), and Ten bury We lls (Worcestershire) (Ills.3--4, 8) sets it apart from any others. (see Fig. 19). Later in the series of monuments from this region are As early as the nineteenth century a number of these twogranite crosses from Devon:Copplestone and Exeter. West Saxon sculptures were identified as a distinctive The fo rmer is decorated with panels of geometric regional group and their affiliation to Hiberno-Saxon interlace including plain plait, paired ring-knots, an art noted (Alien 1894; Browne 1908). Their dating,even unusual pattern of twists and loops (Allen 1903, 215, no. from this point, divided between Browne's early eighth­ 552), as well as key patterns (lis. 10--13).This has been century date (thus identifying them as some ofthe earliest dated to around the late tenth century, by the ring knots crosses from the We ssex region), and Alien's view that and the horseman, which are Viking-age types, and seems they were much later. Brlllndsted (1924, 218), however, to represent a new influence in the area. The interlace more precisely linked the cross-hatching and contour panels are however finely carved and much more complex bands on the animal bodies to Scandinavian influence, that the little panels of interlinked loops on the Exeter and this was later supported by other scholars such as cross, with which it has been compared (Ills.26-- 9). Like Baldwin Brown (1937, 284-5), Ta lbot Rice (1952, 128--9) the key patterns, the Exeter carving is much cruder and and initially Wilson (in Wilson and Klindt-Jensen 1966), clumsier (Ills . 32-3), and has affinities with British although more recendy he has seen them as related to monuments fr om Cornwall and Wa les. Other late Midland carvings of an earlier period (Wtlson 1984, 1 08). examples of pseudo-interlace are to be fo und on two Allcurrent views, however, are fo unded on an important monuments from Cricklade (1 and 2, llls. 445--6), and study by Frank Cottrill (Cottrill 1931 and 1935) who these seem to be copying monuments outside the area. saw these beasts as a variant ofthe Hiberno-Saxon ribbon Other geometric ornament such as the spiraliform animal and provided parallels fr om eighth-century ornament on the Bradford-on-Avon slab or key patterns manuscripts such as the Barberini (Rome) Gospels have been mentioned above in passing. It is important (Alexander 1978, cat. 36). howeverto note thatthe fine key patternson the Bradford Nearly thirtyyears ago I considered these pieces (Cramp and Glastonbury slabs (Tils. 407, 251) as well as the top of 1975, 186-7; id. 1977, 230), and briefly discussed the the Codford St Peter shaft (llls. 425--8) can be paralleled group, attributing it to an interest in the animal art of in early manuscripts,and are part of a common Anglo­ south-western Mercia. I attributed the style to the ninth/ Saxon eighth-century tradition, whilst the simple key tenth centuries since many of the compositions were to patterns on the later Copplestone and Exeter shaftsseem be fo und on sculptures which did include Scandinavian­ to demonstrate new influences from stone carvings influenced compositions, such as St Alkmund's, Derby outside the area. (see Cramp 1978, fig. 1.1). The debate hasbeen developed by Tw eddle, who in 1983 was inclined to spread the dating from the eighthcentury through the ninth century THE RlBBON ANIMAL PHENOMENON1 (1983, 18--20), but in 1995 would date them late eighth to early ninth weddle(T et al. 1995, 34--40), saying that A significant number of sculptures from We ssex are the spiraljoint on animals 'virtually dropped out of use decorated with intertwined lacertine beasts with in Anglo-Saxon art by the early ninth century' (ibid., 38). Tw eddle's work on the Coppergate helmet (1992, 1 Anemiervenion of thissection will be published ina volume of 1132-1165) providesthe best recent analysis ofmetalwork essii}'S dedicated to the late AnnHamlin and entitled, 'Colerne and and sculptural parallels forthe ribbon animals.addition, In the Irishconnection'. Steven Plunkett in an unpublished thesis (1984-,I, 180--201)

11 11- _jl I I_

INTRODUCTION TO THE ORNAMENTAL REPERTOIRE 43

WALE S

• Wells Glastonbury•

N A

FIGURE 19

Distribution of sculpture with intertwined lacertine animals insouth-west

11 11- _jl IL

44 CHAPTERVI

has examined the group in detailand in particular added the two distinct animals' bodies cross and theextended two extra sites to the group, Abson and Deerhurst in pairs of front legs interlink, whilst their tails develop into Gloucestershire (ibid., 182-3) . The examples from the interlace which fillsthe area between them; nevertheless Somerset area were also discussed by Foster (1987, 53- these remain coherent animals (llis. 433-4).On Colerne 60), and the group in general terms by Bailey (1996, 20- lb a composition of two or three creatures is more 2), who concludes thatthe lateeighth century 'must be the obscure: only one is nearly complete, it is coiled back on likely datefor most of the Coleme sculptures' (ibid., 22). itself andit has legswhich penetrate the serpentine bodies Amongst this group Cottrill saw Colerne la-b which cross each other and surround it (ID. 435). The (Ills. 433-5) as primary - a position which most heads of the animals on each panel differ, those on 1 a commentators accept, as they also accept that this is a being clearly canine or leonine and, despite the joint coherent group of sculptures. Cottrill mentioned in spirals, naturalistic, whilst the body patterning of the passing that the zoomorphic decoration of the Tara creature on 1 b is varied and elaborate, with beaded brooch 'reminds one of Coleme not a little' (Cottrill chevrons on one side ofits body andhatching on another, 1935, 146; cf. Youngs 1989, 77) but Kendrick wasmost and even its ear is filled with pellets. prominent in seeing the 'Celtic' aspect ofWest Saxon art This hatching ofthe bodies on Coleme 1 a is common in 'animal-patterns inthe Hiberno-Saxon tradition', and to seventh- to eighth-century metalworkin bothIreland further says,'These animal-patterns represent a persistent and Britain, as has been discussed by Niamh Whitfield under-current in We st Saxon design of the period that (1995, 89-1 04), but there is a longer tradition in must have some connexion with the ornamental since it still persists in fine ecclesiastical pieces such as repertory of the earlier barbaric manuscripts' (Kendrick the twelfth-century Cross of Cong (Cone 1977, 1938, 189). He further says that 'this new fo ndness fo r 214-15, pl. 63). Likewise in a fe w manuscripts, such as the Ribbon Style fo rmula in animal-designwas probably the , one can also find bodies double­ a result of continued contact with the Celtic west' outlined and decorated with slashed or 'hatched' (ibid., 190). In a fo otnote to these statements he adds ornament; and in fo l. 202r (Henry 1974, pl. 1 09) not thatthe resemblance to older manuscript-types ofanimals, only are bird bodies 'hatched' but also the planHcrolls, e.g. the late eighth-century Cutbercht Gospels, fo l. 71 b, so this seems to be conceived as a ubiquitous surface bottom panels (Alexander 1978, ill. 184), is 'probably texturing. It is however of interest that the creatures in accidental'.Kendrick also comparedTen bury We lls with the and related Insular manuscripts the Barberini Gospels, fo l. 11b, right-hand border are never decorated in this way, nor are Northumbrian (Alexander 1978, ill. 178), and finally provided a linear sculptures until the . Moreover the interlace, chronology in which 'these once fiery alert creatures' and indeed the animals, are always laid out with the (such as Colerne) developed into 'smooth-flowing discipline of a grid, and the animals in Adcock's ribbon-scrawls' (Kendrick 1938, 190). 'Lindisf.une tradition'(2002) retain this characteristic as The modem work ofTweddle and Plunkettwould now well as the plain bodies into thetenth century. see the beginning of this 'school' as contemporary wit h The simple hatching, herringbone, or repetitive dot the manuscripts with which Kendrick compared them, patterningfo und in the We ssexsculptures is also different and less of a revival than a survival of Celto-Saxon fro m the surface treatment of Mercian profile beasts, in traditions. Nevertheless there is still some debate as to which the patteming emphasises the major elements of the date--5pan of these sculptures and indeed their inter­ an animal body and differentiates it from the texturing relationships. There is also the related problem as to of birds or reptiles. The Gloucester animals have why these motifS were so ubiquitous and popular in significantdiff erences in body patternsto indicate canines, Wes sex,although Gwenda Adcock's recent work (2002) birds or reptiles (llls. 543-4), although these are much has demonstrated that what she calls 'the Lindisfarne more stylised than the differences in the wing and body tradition' ofribbon animals in Northumbria was more patterns on the Gandersheim Casket creatures of the widespread and longer lasting than had hitherto been later eighth century (Webster and Backhouse 1991, 177, supposed. ill. 138). In Northumbrian sculpture body patteming is If,in consideringthe origin and affinities of theWe ssex not often used, but where it is, as on the base of the group,one accepts thatthe two panels from Colerne are Rothbury cross (Cramp 1984, pl. 215, 1224), it is only early in the series and that they are both from the same on reptiles that whole body is patterned, with lightly monument (see catalogue, p. 211), then one must note incised herringbone texture, and the bodiesare rounded that variations emerge even on the same monument. and realistic. This differs very much from the hard There are compositional differences. On Colerne 1a outlining of the We st Saxon creatures. This outlining

11 11 _j l IL

INTRODUCTION TO THE ORNAMENTAL REPERTOIRE 45

I I I I \S>v . / / b

c

d

FIGURE 20

Animals enmeshed in interlace, on stone and in manuscripts (nts)

(a) Gloucester (St Oswald) cross-shaft, Gloucestershire; (b) Glastonbury 2A, Somerset; (c) Cropthome cross-head,Wo rcestershire; (d) London, , MS Royal I. E. VI, fo l. 4r (arcade terminal) ; (e) Coleme 1aA,Wiltshire; (t) Dolton 1aD, Devon; (g) St Petersburg, Public Library, MS Cod. F. v. l. S,fol. 18r (initial L)

11 11 _jl I I_

46 CHAPTER VI

and repetitive patterning is however very frequent in be determined, but those which are more complete show metalwork, and a noteworthy example is the Coppergate considerable variety, and appear to be variations on a helmet from Yo rk (Tweddle 1992, 965-75, figs. 429- theme rather than interlinked copies. At We st Camel, 437). Here the animals on the nasal have cross-hatched fa ce A (ID.346), below a vestigial plant-scroll, is part of a and outlined bodies, with spiral hips from which spring panel containing a pair of confronted animals with spindly legs,but the heads have long extendedjaws - a limbless pelleted bodies which taper as they cross. The type fo und in so many Hiberno-Saxon manuscripts, heads are of canine appearance, with tightly closed although the canine heads with gnashing teeth which squared-offjaws showing a line of teeth, and bumpy terminate the eyebrows have many similarities with fo rehead with a back-pointed eye. Their pointed ears Colerne. The emphasis on the heads is indeed, as has develop into interlace which passesover or through their often been remarked,reminiscent of terminals in English bodies and fills the space between them with tight, metalwork and manuscripts of the eighth to ninth irregular, sharply pointed loops. The bodies arelimbless, centuries (ibid., figs. 571-4). The heads of the leonine tapering slightly as they cross, and are filled with rows of creatures on the shaftfrom St Oswald's Priory,Gloucester irregular pellets. On face B (Ill. 348) two lacertine (Ill.543), are similar to Colerne la, but the composition creatures with pelleted bodies cross and re-cross, and the t is different. The Gloucester animals remain part of an spaces between their bodiesare filled wih non-geometric inhabited plant-scroll, and their stance is explained as interlace which fe tters the bodies. At Te nbury We lls, they reach to snap at bunch of fruit,while the Colerne Wo rcestershire, the bodies of similar lacertine animals creatures stretch or writhe for no apparent reason. are decorated with pellets, or incised with triangles and In a recent article discussing the sculptures from dots (Cottril1 1935, pl. XVI; see Ill.547). At Frame part Glastonbury (Cramp 2001, 155-9), I grouped together of a panel which is difficultto decipher shows a part of Colerne 1 a,Glastonbury 2 and Dolton 1 with Mercian a serpentine beast with body outlined and fi lled with profile beasts fr om Gloucester and Cropthorne, chevrons and dots, and below, what could be an animal Wo rcestershire (ibid., fig. 4a--f; see Fig. 20) . In this case with fr ont fe et and reptilian head seen from above Colerne could be seen as at the end ofa western Mercian (ID. 222). tradition, but at the beginning of a style in which the This type of incised ornament is also shown on face A body patterns are transferred to ribbon animals. These of a shaft atRams bury (2 and 3, llls.485- 7), which has coherent profile beasts with fo relegs have more in usually been seen as late in the group,because there are common with each other than with the serpentine only theserpentine creatures and these are 'without the animals from othersites, whose leglessbodies are variously elasticity and tautness of early Ribbon Style design' patterned but most oftenby simple hatching. One might (Kendrick 1938, 212). On face A a serpentine creature however note the more canine-type heads of the ribbon with a long straight neck bites at an undulating body animals at Steventon (Tweddle et al. 1995, ill.472) and which may be its own or another's (Tils.492, 495-6). West Camel, fa ce A (ID. 346), whichset them apart from The bodies are patterned with simple incised chevrons th the purely serpentine creatures which are fo und in this and are crossed and fe ttered wi irregular interlace. On areaat Bradford-on-Avon 1 (Tils. 398--9), Colyton 1 (ID. fa ce B a single serpentine creature coils round and bites 7), Frame 1 (Ills. 221-2), Keynsham 3 and 5 (ills.274, its own body; its reptilian head with teeth is shown in 283, 287), Ramsbury 2 and 3 (Ills.48s-7, 492, 49s-7), profile (Ill. 497). The overall impression is loose and Rowberrow 1 (ID. 322), ShaftesburyAbbey 1 (Ills. 89- restless, and very different fr om the controlled 91) and We lls 2 (ID. 325). On the other hand there are geometricism of animal ornament in Northumbrian significant differences even in the profile group: as sculpture. Nevertheless it is unwise to base any discussed in the catalogue, the Glastonbury 2 animal chronology on whether one sees lack of elasticity or a (ID.228) with itsbody decorated withblocks ofhatching measure of restlessness; this monument could have been is closer to the Mercian type; the paired Dolton beasts verystriking when painted, and ifthere is a type which (ills.20- -1, 23) to southern English manuscripts of the overlaps with the fa shion fo r acanthus ornament late eighth century; and Colerne is clearly linked to the (see p. 51 below) it is the simple ribbed and rounded Hiberno-Saxon metalwork and manuscript tradition. 'serpents' which occur on Ramsbury 7 (ills. 511-12) as Moreover serpentine creatures occur together with well as Wells 2 (Ill.325) and (combined with acanthine profilecreatures on the same monuments, as for example ornament) at Chew Stoke 1-2 (Ill. 200) and Colyton Colerne 1 b (ID. 435), We st Camel (Ills. 347....S) and (lli. 7). possibly Frame (Ill. 222). Many sculptures are too Although one can see this fa shion fo r animal ornament fragmentary fo r composition or details ofhead-types to in We ssex as a parallel but related fa shion to some

11 11- _jl I I_

INTRODUCTION TO THE ORNAMENTAL REPERTOIRE 47 sculptures in the Midlands, there is sufficient that is to early ninth century' still seems to me a fe asible date distinctiveto suggest internal inspiration.This is not only fo r Colerne and the beginning of this tradition, and it is in the variety ofbody patteming, but in the fo rmulae of possible that such animals remained popular until ousted layout, in particular in what Plunk.etthas characterised by the new fa shions fo r acanthus ornament in the tenth as the 'Horseshoe-Looped Beasts',such as Rowberrow, century. In fa ct the importance of Chew Stoke (llis.200-3) Te nbury Wells, Steventon and Dolton, or the and Colyton (Ills. 3-9), where, as mentioned above, 'Asymmetrical Convoluted Beasts in Multiple serpentineanimals are juxtaposedwith newly fa shionable Compositions' and 'S-Shaped Beasts'such as Rams bury plant-scrolls, is that they demonstrate an overlap in the 3 or Ten bury We lls (Plunkett 1984, I, 194-6). fa shions fo r these different types of ornament. This is It is possible that theregion's traditional links with the also consonant with Plunkett's view that in this 'tradition Celtic kingdoms in the west, manifested in the earliest in the Celto-Saxon style ... the range from Col erne to stone monuments (see pp.63--4), the commemoration Colyton types shows a growth away from the metallic of Celtic saints at sites such as Congresbury, and the fo rms towards a simpler manner. This is best understood repertoire of other fo rms of Insular ornament such as as part of a diverse development in various media' fretpatterns at Glastonbury and Bradford-on-Avon (Ills. (Plunkett 1984, I, 194). 251, 407), fo stered the interest in this type of animal How was this fashion generated and disseminated in ornament.Indeed the fragmentarysculptures Glastonbury the west? It appears to succeed the notable monuments 5 and 10 (llls. 239, 247), as well as the more complete wit h plant-scrolls and geometric interlace in western portrait beast on Glastonbury 2 (ill.228), could well be Wes sex,fo r example at Kelston, East Stour or Gillingham the prelude to this tradition. Both manuscripts and (see pp. 48-50 below). Plunkett considered that the metalwork could have been a source of inspiration.The distribution of the ribbon-animal type could have been canine/leonine heads which snap and snarl on the through the monastic network (1984, I, 198-9). Some terminals of letters and borders of Hiberno-Saxon sites are indeed episcopal or monastic, but the status of manuscripts such as the Book of Kells, fo ls. 114v and others: Colerne, Dolton, Rowberrow, West Camel, 124 (Henderson 1987, figs.212,213), are similar in type Steventon, Little Somborne, is unknown. The strong and vigour to Colerne, but so are the terminals in the metalwork tradition could indicate secular taste; on the Barberini (Rome) Gospels with which Cottrillcompared other hand, animal ornament was also considered them (1935, 146, fig. 1). In metalwork the terminal of appropriate for liturgical metalwork in Ireland, Scotland, the Thames fitting (Webster and Backhouse 1991, ill. and the Continent. The carvers could have been trained 1 79) and indeed the rather less savage terminal of the in monastic workshops, and although there seems no Alfred Jewel (ibid., ill. 260) are comparable, and these obvious centre which links them, Glastonbury had examples span a period from the eighth to the ninth continuing contact with the Celtic west, was from time century. Despite the variety of head types fo und in the to time under Mercian control and thus possible Wessex carvings,none have the long extendedjaws with influence, and some of itssculptures, as noted above, are reptilian heads which arefo und in Anglo-Saxon and Irish closely related to the Colerne type. It is indeed possible metalwork, in a tradition which ultimately derives from that therewas an earlierinfluential monument, now lost, the Style II phase of Germanic ornament, but which which could have continued to inspire this tradition, persist in England as late as c. 800 in the interlaced bipeds and the ninth-century contacts with the art of on the nasal of the Coppergate helmet (dated 750-800 Scandinavian invaders could perhaps have encouraged by Tw eddle 1992, 1165,figs.429, 578-92),and in Ireland the use of traditional Anglo-Saxon animal ornament in throughout the ninth century. The suggestion that a competitive manner. spiralform ornament had fa llen out of fa shion by the Finally the question can be asked inrelation to animal early ninth century in metalworkand manuscripts (Budny ornament: is it, like frets or spirals, merely ornament, or and Graham-Campbell 1981, 11) need not necessarily has it some additionalsignificance? Ye t animal ornament apply to the dating of these sculptures, especially ifthe is so widespread in all media in pre-Conquest England inspiration was from Ireland or earlier Insular work. On that it is difficult to fe el that every instance carried a the other hand, the fo undation in AD 909 of the see of deep significance. As well as the paired and interlaced Rams bury to serve Wiltshire and Berkshire, and that of ribbon-animals there are beasts which exist as discrete Wells to serve Somerset, need not provide a terminuspost­ elements, such as the sprawling animal at Melbury quem fo r the sculptures there, since both places had been Osmond (ill.83) or the strange quadruped at Cranbome minsters before that and so could well have had (Ill.56), to both of which one is hard pressed to assign a cemeteries with stone monuments.A period 'late eighth symbolic meaning.

11 11- _jl I I_

48 CHAPTER VI

In contrastthe procession of animals on the columnar As Br0ndsted said perceptively in 1924, 'The image of shaft at Melbury Bubb in Dorset (Ills. 72-81) can South English art as a whole is more wavering and reasonably be consideredas having the same significances unstable than that of the North English, there are more as in late Anglo-Saxon Bestiaries (see catalogue entry, possible explanations in the separate cases as a result of p. 104). Even the animals in the plant-scrolls in Anglo­ this greater obscurity' (1924, 94). This is indeed true in Saxon art - versions of canines, bipeds and birds - relation to plant-scrolls: each monument - with the could be seen as representatives of the range of non­ exception ofEast Stour and Gillingham (llis. 57-64, 65) human Creation, in land, sea, and air,which is protected -has to be considered as an individual piece. This means in and nourished on the True Vine. One could say that that, unless they are the representatives of a largebody of the Colerne animals were like lions and the Ramsbury missing sculptures, each could be an individually beasts were certainly serpents, and that both were commissioned monument and not necessarily the struggling in their fe ttering interlace. The serpent, from products of the same or even interrelated workshops. the Book of Genesis onwards, has been identified by There is also no hint that plant-scrolls were introduced Christians as a manifestation of the fo rce of evil, and early and through the medium of sculpture, as in the specifically the devil, and this is constantly echoed in north; but where parallels can be recognised they are Anglo-Saxon literature. There may be also wider most readily fo und in relation to manuscripts and to a references in the early medieval world. In a recent lesser extent metalwork. discussion of the carved steps leading into thehypogeum Amongst the earliest group is the berried scroll, the of Mellebaude at Poitiers, the serpents depicted there ultimate inspiration of which is vine-scroll, which in are seen as part of the Germanic repertoire symbolising early Christian artand exegesis derived a symbolic power the animal from the depths of the earth,of the tomb and from the text ofStJohn's Gospel, 15. 1-5. None of the of death,but in Christian funerary monuments it can be We st Saxon scrolls are closely similar to the vine plant, assimilated to another ancient significance as a symbol but at Britford, Wiltshire (llis. 411-20), although the of immortality (Flammin 2004,4 7). This may have been scrolls are very fo rmalised, they nevertheless emphasise one significance in England also. The lion can be the fruit of the vine and are not more stylised than the interpreted in early Christian exegesisas a type ofChrist, Italian examples with which they have often been and the combat of the lion and the serpent, as it appears compared {see catalogue entry, p.206). These are organic on monuments particularly of the Viking Age, has been scrolls with alternating , and the outlined berry interpreted as a struggleof good against evil. Nevertheless bunches are clearly distinguished fr om the leaves. the roaring lion can be also a manifestation of the devil, Nevertheless, on the north pilaster of the east face, the and appears in this guise, or as a hissing serpent, in the interiors of some ofthe leaves are patternedwith acriss­ Life ofStGuthlac, as Louis Jordan has noted {1986, 290; cross ornament (Ills. 417,419), a southernEnglish idiom Colgrave 1956, 95, 115). Ifdemonic iconography was shared with animal ornament and scrolls, andthis is fOund often associated with beasts and monsters in the period outside the area as at Acton Beauchamp, Herefordshire here under consideration, then these sculptures could (Cramp 1977, fig. 61d) but manifests itself even more depict demonic fo rces controlled by the power of the firmly in the criss-<:ross decorated leaves and buds of the Cross. This would be particularlyapplicable in the period Minety fragments (llis.46 8--71). The rounded when southern England was struggling to contain the leaves clinging to the interior of the volutes at Britford power ofthe pagan Scandinavian settlers. Butit is equally are fo und with plant fo rms as early as the eighth century possible that figures of interlaced animals had, during in southern English manuscripts such as the Ves pasian their long history,become familiarand anonymous, only Psalter (lli.527), as well as in metalwork, for example on taking on specific levels of meaning when they were the fittings on the Abingdon sword {Hinton 1974, 1-7, depicted individually or in a narrative composition. no. 1), as late as the ninth century, whilst in Italy these palmette-like leaves occur on monuments dated eighth to ninth century (see Cramp 1999). Similar leaves occur PLANT ORNAMENT on the top offace A and on face D of the Codford shaft, This type of ornament has a distinction and variety in Wiltshire (Ills.425, 427), but on fa ce B there is a tantalising this region which sets it apart from other areas, but it is fragment of a loosely flowing scroll with leaf flowers, difficult to assess and to date until the appearance of the long curling leaves and small heart-shaped leaves (lli.42 6). various fo rms of acanthus-type ornament, which can be Inthe bush-scroll at Kelston, Somerset (lll. 268)-w ith compared with similar fashions in tenth-century similar heart-shaped leaves - the leaf fo rms can be manuscripts and metalwork. compared with the Fetter Lane sword pommel, dated to

11 11- _jl I I_

INTRODUCTION TO THE ORNAMENTAL REPERTOIRE 49

•

Bolton S•�'Oid Wcrt Map

• Whitcambe

N A

FIGURE 21

Distribution of sculpture with plmt ornament insouth-wcst Englmd

TABLE 2 'I}>pesof plmt ornament insouth-west England

Scrolls Scrolls andIUIIthint Amnlhint �RIIItlm�t��t Britfonl Chew Stoke Aw bury Awbury Bmad Chalke BartonSt David Codfonl. St Peter Colyton Cattistotk Littieton Drew Bath Cricklade Codfom St Peter Maperton Braunton Melbury Osmond East Stour Minety Litdeton Drew Much.clney Gilling1um Thdber Todber Nunney HangingL:mgfonl We lls Rmlsbury Kdston Rodboume Cheney Rmlsbury Whittombe West Camel

11 11- _jl I I_

50 CHAPTERVI the end of the eighth century (Webster and Backhouse how the'ribbon animal' and the early plant fashions inter­ 1991,221, no. 173). In contrast to the sculptured crosses relate (see above, p. 46). ofNorthumbria and partsofMercia there is no evidence At the important ecclesiastical site of Ramsbury in for 'vine-scrolls' (whether plain or inhabited) running Wiltshire, however, sculptures survive which use plant up the sides of cross-shafu, but the plant fo rms, other fo rms drawing on different traditions. One round-ended than at Britford, are discrete elements in tree or bush recumbent grave-slab (no. 5, Ills.506--7) is covered with fo rm, such as are fo und on metalwork or in manuscripts. interlinked leaf trails in which the long triangularleaves Nevertheless there wasa wealth ofplant fo rms available with extendedtips arereminiscent not only ofEast Stour to the We st Saxon artist in the period fromthe late eighth but also of ninth-century metalworksuch as the Pentney through the ninth century, as is well illustrated by the brooches (Webster and Backhouse 1991, fig. 187). But cross from East Stour,Dorset (llis.57--64) . The cascading there are no inhabited scrolls fo rmed from this type of berried scrolls,which arenearly obliterated on Gillingharn fo liage, and, although on Ramsbury 1 the beasts in lA (Ill. 65), are, on East Stour face A, much clearer roundels flanked by rosettes give an initial impression of (Ills. 57, 62), with clinging palmette leaves and large a scroll (ID. 488), they seem to belong to a tradition unenclosed berry-bunches sproutingothers on a smaller whereby animals are depicted as single portraits. The scale. Long curling leaves with scooped centres are to be Oriental/Merovingian influence which Br0ndsted saw found on all fa ces of the shaft, and on face B these are in West Saxon sculpture is nowhere more evident than combined with pendant leaf-flowers and pointed plant on Rams bury 1, and as he pointed out in relation to elements which can be closely compared with faces A and C (Ills.488, 491), there is a close similarity manuscripts (Ills.58, 64). The bush-scroll on face B of between the animals in roundels with squarish heads East Stour, with its segmented stem and pendant leaf­ lolling on long stalk-like necks and the animals in some flowers with flat pointed petals, can be compared with Merovingian manuscripts such as the Gelasian manuscripts such as BL Royal l.E.VI, fo l. 4r (Wilson Sacramentary, fo l. 3b or 132a (Br0ndsted 1924, 124-5, 1984, ill. 103), and in metalwork with the Poslington figs.83, 91). Rosettes are also a common occurrence in finger-ring (Webster and Backhouse 1991,237, ill. 202), Merovingian art, as well as in southern English as well as Keynsham 9 (ID. 295).Outside the area,such manuscripts such as the Vespasian Psalter, fo l. 30v artless and exotic plant fo rms are also fo und on the edges (01.527). Onone side ofthe grave-cover {no. 4) -which of the Lechmere headstone, Worcestershire, and the most probably fo rms a suite with thiscross (see catalogue, Gloucestergrave-<:over (Cramp 1975, pl.XIX;Backhouse pp. 228, 230) - are two similar animals in roundels and et al. 1984, 43, no. 24). All of these examples point to with rosettes (Ills. 503--5). One has a canine head, the dates in the early ninth century. The western Mercian other pointed jaws like the animals on Todber 1cA connection is interesting since it exists also in the animal (lli.11 0). Such creatures in roundels may have had their ornament of crosses (see above), although the prevailing ultimate inspiration in oriental textiles, but by the late orientalizing taste (most obviously reflected on face C eighth century had been acclimatised into western ofEast Stour, ID. 63),has informed all ofthe plant-scrolls European art. One may compare also the Maaseik so far discussed, and seems widely dispersed in embroideries where animals and birds are enclosed in Southumbria. The palm tree/Tree of Life and its roundels (Budny and Twe ddle 1984, 75, pl. lla) . These associated on the cross-head from Cattistock in animals lack the liveliness and spring of the confronted Dorset (Ills. 45--6) is fo r example a particularly striking canines on the paired brooches from Pentney;but one is example (see p. 98). conscious in Wessex of lacking a significant body of A less successful attempt to depict an interlaced scroll metalwork with which some of the sculpture could be with long triangular leaf-forms is to be fo und at Broad compared. Many years ago however I compared the Chalk.e,Wiltshire (Dls. 429, 432), althoughthis shaft is so ornament on the back of the AlfredJewel with the East worn that it is difficult to evaluate, and the associated Stour bush-scroll (Cramp 1975, fig. 19; see Fig. 22d), panel of interlace is very different from Gillingham and but also noted the hybridisationwhere by earlier fashions East Stour (see above). The ultimate stylisation of the of plant-scroll affect the acanthine ornament on West bush scroll is however to be fo und on West Camel, Saxon sculptures such as Maperton and Chew Stoke, Somerset, fa ce A {ID. 346), where the plant has been Somerset (Ills. 202, 304), or Colyton, Devon {Ills. 3-4) . reduced to a skeleton framework of hollow twigs and One could add to this list the later scrolls at To dber, leaves. Here other fa ces of the shaft are decorated with Dorset, which include single grape bunches and small ribbon animals, and this is a crucial piece in determining rosettes (Ills. 106, 109-10; see p. 114).

11 11- _jl I I_

INTRODUCTION TO THE ORNAMENTAL REPERTOIRE 51 ACANTHINE ORNAMENT like fo rm. The cross at Colyton, Devon (p. 80, ills.3- 9), which is closely linked stylisticallywith the fragments at The varied plant fo rms discussed above, which seem to Chew Stoke, Somerset (Dls. 200-3), has been taken by span a period from the late eighth through the ninth Steven Plunkett as the starting point for what he calls century, are succeeded by plant ornament which is 'the Colyton School', in which he analyses in detail the perceptibly more influenced by the taste fo r acanthine elements of the plant-scrolls on this cross together with ornament promoted in court circles as early as the Hrst Chew Stoke (Ill. 202), Littleton Drew, Wiltshire quarter of the tenth century, in examples such as the (Ills. 455--8), To dber, Dorset (Ills. 104-13), Nunney, Cuthbert vestments (Ills. 535--S) or the borders of the Somerset (ills. 316, 318), and Iron Acton, Gloucestershire presentation scene inCambridge, Corpus Christi College (Plunkett 1984, I, 202-12). Colyton's claim to be early MS 183, fo l. 1v (Ills. 529-34). Even here, however, as in the series is supported by the fa ct that there are also Freyhan pointed out (1956, 412-13), there is a notable panels of interlace (Ill.5) which are identicalwith those difference between the English examples and the acanthus on sculptures that are identified as part of the 'ribbon on Carolingian ivories and manuscripts. Acanthus­ animal group' such as Ramsbury 3 and Dolton (Ills. derived ornament has been in recent years most fully 498-502, 22), and on the uppermost panel of face D at analysed by Jeffiey West who, in an article published in Colyton (ill.7) there is a part of a composition ofrib ban 1993, summarizes the problems ofevaluating this in the animals of the same type as at Chew Stoke (ill.200). fo llowing telling points: 'The range of motifS and Nevertheless face A at Colyton (Ills. 3-4) has most of compositions described by the term "acanthus" betrays the elements which distinguish othermonuments which considerable variation in both fo rm and detail'; 'Few of have only fo liate decoration. There are long triangular the motifS in late Anglo-Saxon andEnglish Romanesque leaves with curling tips and outlined centres as at East art which have been described by the term acanthus Stour (Ill.63), but they are wider and more dominant bear close comparison with the acanthus ornament of and in places almost flower-like, and these are combined classical antiquity'; 'Unlike the classical repertory there with trefoil buds and leaf-flowers in which two petals is neither an established taxonomy, nor a nomenclature open to enclose a single central bud or stamen. Such fo r the fo liate motifS and compositions of late Anglo­ leaf-flowers are a fe ature of several manuscripts which Saxon and English ' (West 1993, 247). have been dated to the first half ofthe tenth century, This is not however surprising since in all ofthe English such as Bodleian Library MS Junius 27 (Temple 1976, ornament the emphasis is not on skilful repetition but no. 7, ills. 1, 20-4) or the often quoted presentation this on theme and variation.In discussion I have adopted portrait Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 183, West's useful term 'acanthine' with reference to the fol. 1 v (ibid., ills. 18 and 29;see Ill.529), as well as on the fo liage. Cuthbert stole and maniple (Ills. 535--8) which have a Inonly one instance in thisarea do we findclose-packed similar date. At Colyton the scroll is inhabited by a classical acanthus ornament in sculpture, and that is on quadruped and a bird, and this is the only sculptured the impost fromAvebury, Wiltshire (no. 2, ill. 396), which scroll in thesouth-west where the inhabitants are engaged may be compared with an impost fr agment from with the plant in the way they are fo r example in the Peterborough (West 1993, fig. 6), fragments from St base of the frame of Cambridge, Corpus ChristiCollege Oswald's, Gloucester, nos. 42, 43 and 45 (Heighwa.y and MS 183, fo l. 1v (Dls. 532-3). Bryant 1999, 170-1, figs. 4.19, 4.22), and Winchester On thebase and the head ofthe cross there are fo liage Old Minster 67,Hampshire (Tweddle et al. 1995,ill.606), sprays in which the leaves are more obviously acanthine as well as in metalwork, the Wa reham mount (Webster (Dls. 3, 8), and such self-contained fo liage sprays are also and Backhouse 1991, no. 256; and see catalogue, p. 201). to be fo und on the Sittingbourne dagger (Wilson 1984, Normally howeverthe influence ofacanthine ornament ill. 197), as well as at the head and fe et of the portraits of results in a hybridisation of plant fo rms in which fleshy the deacons Peter and Lawrence on the Cuthbert stole leaves that curl in hard angles are combined with triple (Battiscombe 1956,pl.XXXIV;see ill.537).The double­ buds or leavesand leaf-flowers {Cramp 1991,fig.12a) ­ clipped base from which the fronds spring is, like the motifS which are to be fo und not just in We st Saxon, domed side clips, a feature of this We st Saxon fo liage but also in some southern Merciansculpture such as the fo rmation which appears again and again,and is possibly external panels at Barnack church (Cramp 1975, 157-9, derived from metalwork, although the clips can be a fig. 20). differentshape, as for example on the Kirkoswald brooch Asin other plant fo rms there are twocompositions - (Kendrick 1938, pl. LXXVIII.3). Foster in her discussion a running or tangled scroll and, more frequently, a tree- of the fo liage motifS from Somerset notes in addition

11 11- _j I I I_

52 CHAPTER VI

a

g

h �r�0 �CNOCU �m� f c 1

11 11- _j I I I_

INTRODUCTION TO THE ORNAMENTAL REPERTOIRE 53

J 1

t, !' "' l ;_ �- <� t:. t. ;, !: m

k 0

FIGURE 22 Examples ofplant ornament invarious media (nUl)

(a) East Stour !B Qowor),Do"et; (b) Mapetton lA, Somerset; (c) Chew Stoke 2A, Somerset; (d) Back of the Alfred Jewel; (e) Bonierof Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 183, fo l. 1v; (f) Detail of embroidered stole fromthe coffin ofSt Cuthbert; (g) Colyton lbA (dm!), Devon; (h) littleton Drew laA, Wil1>1llre;(i) Colyton leA (base); G) Todber leD, Donet; (k) To dber leA; Q) Thdber !cC; (m) Bath 7A, Somerset;(n) Littleton Drew lbC, Wilulrin:; (o) Gloucester (St Oswald) grave-cover,Gloucesterslrin:

11 11- _jl I I_

54 CHAPTER VI

that the ' clipping fe ature' is also to be found on the border bound into the 'frame'with double domed clips on each of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 183, fo l. 1v side (lll. 1 09). In the interstices of the volutes there are (Foster 1987, 58; see ills.530, 534). tinyrosettes. The ornament on the other surviving panels The large flat curling leaves of the inhabited scroll, as is all composed in variations of the tree-scroll. On face wellas the trefoil leaves or buds, also occur in the tangled A of the lower shaftthere are two affronted animals with scrolls at Maperton (Ill. 304) and Chew Stoke (Ill.202), rosettes and large curling acanthus leaves below (Ill. 110). whilst the running scroll at Nunney is a less fluent fo rm On the narrow side 1 cD the pairs ofacanthus leaves are with sharply angled side tendrils, but here also are the locked to the straight central stem by rings, and spaces domed clips and incised buds (Ill. 316), and on face D are filled by small triple pellets (Ill. 113). The pairs of crumpled leaves which are more acanthine (Ill. 318). The large acanthine leaves facing outwards and with central crouching, craning birds on face B at Nunney (Ills. 317, buds are very like Littleton Drew, but the style of carving 319) have been compared by Plunkettwith tenth-century is markedly different. metalwork such as the Canterbury and Thames censers Aswell as on the shafts of crosses, bold floral ornament (1984, I, 21 0; cf. Wilson 1964, pis. XII-XIY,XXIV) , and of a related type is also fo und on twograve -covers within it is noteworthy that several of the tree-scrolls such as this region, at Bath and Wells (pp. 142, 176), and one Wells 1 (Ill. 324, 327) have also a harshly cut metallic outside the region at Gloucester (West 1984b, 43, no. 24; quality (see catalogue p. 176). Heighway and Bryant 1999, 168, no. 37). The plant The tree-like form has various guises:in all theexam ples ornament on the We lls 1 cover relates more to the scrolls there is a straight central stem which can be segmented at Colyton or Nunney, but with a heavy metallic or divided by cups or floral elements which provide the treatment (as noted above) in which the stems of the junctions from which the side tendrils spring. At tree-scroll are facetted and nicked with cross-bands, and Braunton, Devon (p. 79), although the details are very the trefoil leaves at the top and at thejunction of a pair worn (Ill.1 ), there is a certain amount ofspace between of side shoots are deeply scooped (Ills. 324, 327) . The the stem and side shoots in the manner of the back of lack of acanthine fe atures in this scroll has led West to the AlfredJewel or the Cuthbert embroideries (see Figs. consider that this could be an earlier piece than 22d, 22£), but it is more tangled so that the elements do Gloucester (West 2001, 488-9) and this is a reasonable not standout as they do on thejewel or the embroideries. supposition (but see catalogue p. 176). The partial grave­ Some comparison can however be made with the tangled cover from Bath (no. 7, Ills.18 3--5)has not been previously fronds sprouting from the uppermost cup on Littleton considered in relation to the Wells piece or St Osw.ald's, Drew 1 aA, Wiltshire (p. 221). This very accomplished Gloucester, with which it has more in common. The carving has on two fa ces, 1 aA and 1 bC, pairs of large crisp, close packed curling leaves are similar, but whereas acanthine leaves with single veins and curling lobed tips the Gloucester scroll includes leaf-flowers on the main which spring from the cups of the central stem (Ills.455, fa ce (West 1983, pl. XIII) and is a tree-scroll, the Bath 457), but on faces laD and 1bD delicate cascades of piece could have had two running scrolls clipped, like interlinked knotted strands with no floral elements,which To dber, by double clips to the frame, and indeed the spring in pairs from the flat central stems fo rmed by scroll filled with three curling leaves and loose pellets is interlocking cones (Ills. 456, 458). Onthe less worn side very like To dber 1 a-bD (Ill. 1 09). These fo liate scrolls it is also possible to appreciate the skill with which the could wellbe all of tenth-century date, and it is possible side knots are joined across the centre with fine arching to suggest that interest in this motifwas fos tered by the and crossing strands. There is nothing quite like this circulation ofmanus cripts amongst the episcopal centres composition,but the large paired leaves with central buds once the Sherborne diocese had been sub-divided in are also fo und on the cross-shaft at To dber, Dorset 909 (see Chapter I, p. 9). Plunkett's view that the fa shion (p. 114). This piece has most of the elements already was spread through the network of the reformed mentioned and indeed some motifS such as the single monasteries is also a possible supposition, and indeed berry bunch on fa ces 1 a-hA and D of the uppermost the influences could supplement each other. panel (Ills. 107, 109) and the circle of radial leaves on Ifthese sculptures have been inspired by manuscripts, 1a-bA which are unique. Since several of the panels are their compositions can nevertheless be very different, relatively unworn it is possible to appreciate the fo r example most acanthus leaves in the margins of competence of the deep, rather hard, carving which is manuscripts curl into the frames,whilst on the sculptures given additional emphasis by the double veining of the the leaves tend to open outwards. But in both sculptures leaves. On face 1 a-bD the plant is organised as a running and manuscripts, responses to the fa shion of the age fo r

scroll, each filled with three curling leaves and acanthine ornament are equally varied, and whereas other

11 11- _jl I I_

INTRODUCTION TO THE ORNAMENTAL REPERTOIRE 55 media can help to produce a chronological framework She considers that the acanthus was adopted as a forthe sculpture, perhaps the relationship should be seen decorative , and 'as such it represents a plant-form as reflecting a common inspiration rather than one whose existence in Anglo-Saxon art was determined by providing a model fo r the other. It has however proved the art-historical sources lying behind itsproduction: in impossible to distinguish tenth- from eleventh-century this case a renewal of Classical influences through the fo liate ornament in sculpture, and indeed this type of aegis of Carolingian and Ottonian artistic traditions' ornament continues to inspire sculptors into the later (ibid., 27 4-5). On the otherhand she seesthe vine-scroll, eleventh century,as at Knook (Ills. 556--62; see Chapter although also an import, this time from the artthe of IX, pp. 73--4). There is a problem of having taken a Roman world, as having 'the potential to function as a timescalefor theCorpus ofAnglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture complex symbol referring to life and death, to the series as against the criterion of a style as fo r the sacrament of the Christian Church, and to the salvation Romanesque corpus. It is self-evident that artists and achieved through fa ith' (ibid., 275). At an earlier date craftsmendid not cease to produce new work nor indeed Foster ( 1987, 60) suggested that the stepped bases from change their styles immediately at 1066, and also which the tree-scrolls atWe st Camel and Kelston arise 'Romanesque' styles must have been known to some were meant to suggest Calvary, and this would support influential Anglo-Saxon patrons, whether lay or the link between redemption and Christian renewal ecclesiastical, by thebeginning of the eleventh century. through the eucharist.Jeffiey We st (pers. comm.) would If motifS such as acanthus compositions appear on furthersuggest that the tree-like forms on the Braunton, Romanesque fo rms such as tympana, there seems no Gloucester and We lls grave-covers could similarly allude need to suggestthat they have been influenced by Anglo­ either to the True Cross or the Tre e of Life. Clearly the Saxon manuscripts rather than by a strong continuing potential fo r such an understanding was there, but it is tradition of stone sculpture. difficult to determine today,from the discrete examples Finally one may ask, were these sculptured plants in in We st Saxon sculpture, how far that potential was any way symbolic and meant to convey Christian realised. Hawkes herselfsums up the position which it messages to those who saw them? Jane Hawkes has seems most reasonable to adopt, 'Clearly, the extent to recently published an in-depth review of the possible which anygiven instance of the vine-scroll on a piece of symbolism in depictions ofplants in Anglo-Saxon art Anglo-Saxonsculpture wasunderstood to convey a fully (2002, 263--86), and although her sculptural examples complex set of iconographic references to Christ, his are fr om the north and the Midlands the same Church and salvation, is a question that cannot be fully considerations could apply to the We st Saxon material. answered' (2002, 279).

11 11- _jl I I_

56

Avebury • Cong=bury • Blagdon•

Wells • Codfurd StPeter Glas�onbury •

elminstcr • Y eBncklmd Copplestone Newton • Wi ntcrbourne Steepleton • • Stinsford

N A

FIGURE 23 Sites with figunlsculpture insouth-west England

TABLE 3 Typ esof figunl sculpture insouth-west Enghnd

Figures Christ Vir,gin and Child Avebury Bristol Inglcsham Buck:bnd Newton C�sbmy Langridge Codford St Peter Muchelney Copplestone Angtls Dolton Saint Bradford-on-Avon Glastonbury (pyr.unids)? C�sbmy Glastonbury? Yetminster 'Dowlish Wak e' Stimford Bbgdon Wells? Wi nterboume Steepleton

11 11-