The realisation that the proposed Neston Cross reconstruction is not possible now restores the surviving group as comprising two non-figural fragments from a head and shaft and three figured shaft fragments giving a total of four or five crosses (the head fragment could conceivably belong to one of the other four crosses represented so there is still a minimum of four crosses represented). The three figured crosses form the focus of discussion here with a view to determining their subject matter and hence suggesting their potential purpose within the community.
Interpretation of the three fragments is unclear, with perhaps one exception: Stone 1. This clearly shows the figure of a priest in full vestments and, importantly, holding aloft a chalice. The other upraised hand is missing but from the wrist dangles a maniple, strongly suggesting that the other hand held a consecration wafer. The scene depicted is thus clearly the high point of the mass: the elevation of the consecrated host when the priest presents the body and blood of Christ to the assembled congregation immediately before Communion is taken. Whilst there can be no doubt of the religious significance of the symbolism, why is it depicted in this way on a cross shaft?
These stones were always assumed to function as grave markers rather than preaching crosses although this is impossible to prove since none was found in situ. If this is the case, then we may be looking at nothing more complicated than the commemoration of the role of a buried priest rather than the presentation of a didactic message about the role and importance of the mass to the community.
Two other two stones carry much less obvious Christian symbolism despite the depiction on Stone 2 of (apparently) an angel flying horizontally across the stone’s face. The significance of this figure is difficult to determine due to the loss of the rest of the stone but perhaps the angel hovered protectively over figures depicted below, although other possibilities can be suggested (Bailey 2010, pp. 86-87). J. Romilly Allen’s suggestion that this fragment is part of the same monument as Stone 1 has been ruled out on geological grounds (Bailey 2010, p. 85) but can also be deemed improbable since it would be unlikely to combine the interlace pattern on Face C of Stone 1 with the figural scene on the same face of Stone 2 that depicts two men fighting.
As noted in the author’s earlier discussion of these stones (White 1988, p. 52), the subjects are often said to be Jacob and the Angel although the iconographic parallels are weak and ignore the clear depiction of knives in the assailant’s hands which mean that wrestling is unlikely to be portrayed. In any case, if that scene were intended, one of the figures should have had wings.
Other possibilities have been suggested by Bailey albeit without certainty (2010, pp. 87-88), including depictions of the fights of Cain and Abel and/or David and Goliath. Against the former is the fact that both men are armed; against the latter is the fact that both figures are the same size, which undermines but does not rule out these identifications.
As Bailey notes, it is not impossible that a secular interpretation is to be preferred here. For the moment, it is worth noting that both figures are of the same size, are clothed, and carry triangular blades, presumably knives. Physical contact is also evident: they grab each other’s hair as one treads on the other’s foot. This is clearly a violent fight, perhaps mortal combat, and may simply be a depiction of a battle scene (not necessarily biblical) or some kind of martial contest.
The more iconographically complex Stone 3 offers greater hopes for understanding the purpose of these stones since it is nearly complete. Indeed, it could be argued that all the pictorial elements of one side, Face A, are complete although even this is impossible to prove. This face depicts two figures, clearly a man and woman from their clothes, standing with their arms embracing each other.
Their closeness rules out the usual interpretation of a male and female confronted figure: a woman offering a drinking horn to a deceased man as seen beneath the crucifixion on the Gosforth cross (Bailey and Cramp 1988, illustration 304; Bailey 1980, pp. 130-131). The natural interpretation suggested by the encircling arms is an embrace, with the implication perhaps of a depiction of a couple; the cross from St. Mary Bishophill Junior, York shows a similar, if earlier, image (Lang 1991, pp. 83-84, illustration 216).
The restoration of the Neston cross for the 2009 exhibition (see below) demonstrates clearly that there would only be enough space on this face if reconstructed to incorporate the couple’s heads, perhaps leaving the field behind and above the woman clear (Figure 12.7). This small area may have been dressed flat to carry a painted inscription to the deceased.
The remainder of the face below the couple is filled with a depiction of what appears to be the final stage of a stag hunt. The stag has been brought to bay by a hound that grips it by the throat. Above and behind, a standing man thrusts a spear that seems to pass through the animal. The spearhead appears
FIGURE 12.7 Reconstruction of Neston Stone 3, Face A based on digital scan incorporating outline of Stone 2 and modified head of Chester St. John’s Stone 2.
Under the stag’s belly, piercing the ground line. While hunting was the pastime par excellence of the elite at the time, Christian interpretations of the pursuit can also be used to demonstrate that these images have a spiritual purpose (Bailey 2010, p. 89).
The upper panel on Face 3 shows one animal chasing another—possibly another hunt scene. The lower scene on Face 3 is much more unusual, depicting two mounted horsemen apparently conducting a joust. While mounted cavalrymen are known from other monuments of the period, as was discussed in my original article (White 1988, pp. 53-55), these depictions of riders are not close parallels. This scene appears to match in all respects the idea of jousting, and the only missing elements are shields. Since the 1988 article was written, a biblical parallel has been suggested to the author by Professor Jane Geddes based on an illustration in the St. Alban’s Psalter (Geddes 2013).
Folio 72 depicts two armed horsemen riding toward each other. Their lances have been broken from their first encounter and they are drawing swords to re-enter the fray. This is clearly not quite the same image but the text refers to the holy war on earth in the church carried out by holy figures, armed in a manly spirit, are made friends of Christ and heavenly athletes (Folio 71), an interpretation that Bailey elaborates and supports (2010, p. 89). While there is clearly space for a third scene at the top of the shaft, we have no clue as to what this might have been; it is idle to speculate so the space was left blank on the reconstruction (Figure 12.8).
While each individual element of Stone 3 can be interpreted in isolation for its significance, it is important not to forget that the monument was an integral whole and intended to be interpreted collectively rather than piecemeal. Similarly, it is also the case that these monuments may to a degree cross-refer to each other or at least celebrate parallel themes since they were all created at around the same time by the same artist(s) for patrons living in the same community.
In seeking parallels for Stone 3, we can turn to the wider Irish Sea context and specifically to Sandulf’s Cross at Kirk Andreas, Isle of Man (Kermode 1907, pp. 194-195). Whilst not a close parallel stylistically, this complete cross exhibits similarities to the Neston example: a stag hunt with a hound jumping
FIGURE 12.8 Reconstruction of Neston Stone 3, Face C based on digital scan incorporating outline of Stone 2 and modified head of Chester St. John’s Stone 2.
On the animal’s back rather than at its throat, while a horseman rides in pursuit. On the other face is another mounted figure, presumably a depiction of the deceased whose name is given as Arinbjorg in the accompanying inscription. Individual domestic and wild animals are depicted flanking the central cross.
An even closer parallel is offered by the Hilton of Cadboll stone, in Easter Ross, Scotland (James et al. 2008). Its main surviving face depicts a woman riding side-saddle above a stag hunt. The stag is chased by hounds, one at its hindquarters and another at its flank, tearing at its shoulder. A spear passes diagonally through the stag’s back while two armed horsemen ride above and behind the scene. Two trumpeters standing behind the riding woman complete the panel.
In discussing this scene, Isabel Henderson notes the numerous parallels for representations of a stag hunt with hounds and mounted riders including scenes at Burghead, Aberlemno, Kirriemuir, and Meigle (2008, pp. 178-189). Her lengthy consideration of the iconography of the hunting panel in the light of the whole monument specifically rules out interpretation in an entirely secular light as a Pictish woman enjoying the hunt. Rather, Henderson concludes with the suggestion that the prominent woman is either a depiction of Mary or a metaphor for the virtuous life (ibid., p. 189).
Neston Stone 3 may thus represent the embracing couple as a metaphor for the virtues of married life within the body of the Christian church. Equally it may be simply a representation of the patrons of the monument, which would fit a general trend in the Anglo-Scandinavian era for secular portraiture (Lang 1991, p. 84). Neither interpretation is mutually exclusive, of course, and thus the stone may depict a layered message conveyed to those who knew the couple commemorated in stone (if that is indeed what is depicted) as well as a metaphor for Christian marriage.
Both the Pictish and Manx parallels demonstrate clearly that the sculptors of these monuments worked from a common source of symbolism circulating within the region and thus Neston must be considered to be within this context. The decoration on Face C of Neston stone 3 can thus be viewed in same manner.
The scenes presumably allude to Christian themes but do so in a way that can be interpreted at a number of levels. They represent the triumph of Christianity and the hope that it brings to the believer but do so in ways that directly identify with motives that celebrate the lives and achievements of those they commemorate. This interpretation would work too for the stone representing the priest. The work graphically demonstrates the potency of the church and also celebrates the key role and significance of the parish priest in the newly Christianised settlement.
Other elements such as the knife fight are less clearly indicative of Christian symbolism but presumably must be interpreted in the same manner: a contemporary representation of the struggle of the believer against evil and sin. Equally, however, it is likely that at another level these scenes reflected the contemporary lives of the people they commemorate. The stones are, after all, personal monuments whose imageries were selected presumably to reflect the lives and beliefs of the deceased.
Thus the scenes of conflict could be reflections of the endemic warfare of the period that allowed the participants to establish their importance and roles in secular society. These people may have been pious Christians, but they were also warriors and the assertion of their martial prowess on their grave monuments alongside other elite activities such as hunting is an equally valid interpretation of these scenes, reinforcing their status and roles in a wider society.
World History
