An initial study of the group in 1986 suggested that the new fragment removed from the belfry was the lower part of Stone 2. The match was suggested by the fact that the two fragments appeared to share the same taper and shaft thickness as well as the same type of decoration on Faces B and D. There were apparent iconographic links too, with hunting or fighting apparently shown in three registers on Face C, while Face A appeared to show a stag hunt, an embracing couple, and an angel (White 1988, plates 1 and 2).
At the time, detailed study of the pieces was not easily achieved and the hypothesis remained untested. However, it has become apparent from further work by Professor Richard Bailey and independent work by the author that this reconstruction is impossible.
The key to this conclusion was a detailed analysis of the border decoration rather than the main faces of the slabs. This detailed examination was made possible by a visit to the stones to take measurements in situ and by making use of three-dimensional laser scans of the stone obtained by the Conservation Technologies unit of the National Conservation Centre in 2007 (White 2013).
Comparison of the stones demonstrated significant differences between the slabs despite the identical patterns. On Stone 3, Face D, seven elements of the step pattern can be counted. Measured from the bottom of the stone, each element is 87, 88, 88, 78, 107, 104, and 95 mm. The median value of these is 93.5 mm. Face D on Stone 2, however, has only two surviving units of the step pattern but these are carved in a significantly different fashion. The short upright is slightly slanted rather than upright as on Stone 3 of Face D, rendering the elements more stretched in comparison to the other stone: 151 and 145 mm (Figure 12.4a).
This stylistic difference alone is enough to rule out these two patterns being from the same sculpture, as it is improbable that the carver would have so radically changed the style of the step pattern in the relatively small interval represented by the missing part of the stone. On Face B, further stylistic differences can be seen. The pattern here is more complex to measure, consisting of a ring encircled twist with a lengthening (‘glide’) between the rings. On Stone 3, the full length of one element of the pattern is 240 mm. The three surviving knots are 103.4, 92, and 93 mm and the measurement from the base of the complete pattern to the top of the stone is 144 mm.
Not enough of the pattern survives on Stone 2, Face B to enable a complete comparison to be made, but the surviving knot is smaller—88mm (Figure 12.4b). This discrepancy may be explained by the tapering space available at the top of the shaft. However, from the regularity of the patterning, it can be estimated that the missing element of the ring must be around 42 mm in the case of Stone 2 or 192 mm on Stone 3. However, when one aligns the two stone fragments so that their edges line up with each other (which can be done accurately through the laser scans), the amount of stone missing can be calculated as 85 mm on Face B and 60 mm on Face C.
It should also be noted that the close examination of the stones and scans clearly demonstrated that the cable borders of the stones also differed in the angles of cutting, again demonstrating that they could not be from the same monument. One final measurement was discovered. Stone 2 preserves an arc of the circle head and from this arc it was possible to calculate its diameter as 231 mm. This dimension was found to exactly match that of Chester St. John’s Cross 2 (Bailey 2010, illustrations 81-84).
World History
