Volume 13: Derbyshire and Staffordshire

Select a site alphabetically from the choices shown in the box below. Alternatively, browse sculptural examples using the Forward/Back buttons.

Chapters for this volume, along with copies of original in-text images, are available here.

Current Display: Tideswell 1, Derbyshire Forward button Back button
Overview
Present Location
The shaft is built into a drystone wall on Meadow Lane, Tideswell, and cemented onto a limestone slab. A cross-base (2) is located directly below.
Evidence for Discovery
The original location of the cross-shaft and base are unknown. Nor is it known when they were rebuilt into the field boundary wall. They were first noted in this location by Tudor (1935, 80).
Church Dedication
Butterton Cross
Present Condition
The cross-shaft fragment is in very poor condition with most of its decoration missing. That which does survive is so worn that it is difficult to discern any detail.
Description

Only one face of the shaft is visible at present, the other faces being obscured by the stones forming the limestone drystone wall. The shaft is badly worn but a little decoration is discernible. This appears to form a repeated pattern comprising a series of circular or sub-circular motifs running the length of the shaft. These may represent an interlace pattern of an indeterminate number of strands. However, a number of depressions are apparent which suggest that the design may have included a series of triple leaf motifs. No edge mouldings are visible.

Discussion

The cross-shaft and base are described by the Derbyshire Historic Environment Record as ‘Medieval’ and considered to be post-Conquest, and dimensions suggest that the base is not related to the shaft, at least as far as can be discerned. The shaft, however, may be earlier than the base. What little survives of the decoration, implying the presence of an interlace pattern and foliate motifs, suggests that it can be situated within the Anglo-Saxon period. The pattern, at least for the visible face, appears to be central to the shaft and it may be that the original shaft was not much wider than the surviving fragment.

Date
Possibly tenth century
References
Tudor 1935, 80; Sharpe 2002, 41–2
P.S.
Endnotes

Forward button Back button
mouseover