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.
Object type: Cross-shaft
Measurements: H. 320 cm (126 in); W. 53 < 61 cm (21 < 24 in); D. 48 < 51 cm (19 < 20 in)
Stone type: Pale grey, coarse-grained, biotite-muscovite granite, with sparse porphyritic crystals of K-feldspar. In spite of a heavy weathering patina, and the presence of lichen, it is possible to see small, sparse aggregates of tourmaline-quartz. This granite is not typical of most of northern Dartmoor, where the predominant type is coarse biotite granite with variable abundance of K-feldspar megacrysts, neither is it representative of the leucocratic (biotite deficient) aplites of northern Dartmoor. The closest match would be the granite of the Merrivale area near Princetown, where coarse-grained biotite-muscovite granite was worked at Merrivale Quarry until recently. The muscovite (white mica) is a secondary mineral resulting from post-crystallisation pneumatolytic or hydrothermal activity, and its presence commonly renders the granite more amenable to being carved or shaped. [1]
Plate numbers in printed volume: Pls. 10-14; 31; 33
Corpus volume reference: Vol 7 p. 82-3
(There may be more views or larger images available for this item. Click on the thumbnail image to view.)
Roll mouldings round the edge are nearly weathered away. There is a band of uncarved stone at the base.
A (broad, south west): The face is divided into three panels by narrow roll mouldings. The panel at the base is clearest and has a geometric twelve-strand plait with three or four paired registers. The panel above has three registers of more widely spaced eight strands but the pattern is unclear, although it may be Romilly Allen no. 523 (Allen 1903, 207); at the top the pattern is almost weathered away.
B (narrow, south east): This face was originally divided into three panels. At the base are two panels of key pattern, Romilly Allen no. 867 (ibid., 327) arranged diagonally. Above, five registers of surrounded knots. The top panel is almost obliterated but seems to have contained interlace, cut by a secondary niche.
C (broad, north east): The face is divided into three panels with possibly a subsidiary panel for an inscription. It is very worn. At the base an eight-cord pattern, Romilly Allen no. 565 (ibid., 219). Above, two standing figures embracing. Above, possibly a panel for an inscription; and at the top a horseman shown in profile ?blowing a horn.
D (narrow, north west): This is the least weathered face, divided by roll mouldings into three panels. At the base an eight-strand plain plait. In the centre four registers of aired ring knots. At the top a curious pattern of three cords forming a series of twists and loops, Romilly Allen no. 552 (ibid., 215).
E (top): Socket for cross-head broken.
F (bottom): In a stone base which has been rebuilt (see Ill. 14).
This cross is now so worn that features such as the haloes on the figures on face C, which Way (1878) claimed to see, are now too indistinct to check, and so it is not possible to know whether this was a religious scene, for example the Visitation, or a scene showing the reconciliation of two secular figures, as for example the two figures on the York St Mary Bishophill Junior shaft (Lang 1991, ill. 216). The figure on horseback, probably blowing a horn, could well be the image of a secular ruler, such as are found on northern crosses of the Viking Age (Cramp 1984, ills. 102, 394, 745). Granite crosses such as this and Exeter 1 (p. 86) seem to represent a different type from others in the south-west area (where the interlace patterns are usually non-geometric) and are more closely akin to monuments in Wales and to a lesser extent Cornwall. The repertoire of geometric interlace is larger and more competent here than on the Exeter cross and most Cornish crosses, other than St Neot which stands out amidst the Cornish examples as having the faces divided into small panels enclosing well-designed interlace (Langdon 1896, no. 5, fig. facing 407). The simple key patterns are shared by Exeter 1 (Ills. 30–1) and a few of the granite crosses of Cornwall such as St Cleer (Langdon 1889, fig. facing 325). In Wales also, panelled crosses such as the churchyard cross at Nevern, or the roadside cross from Carew are decorated with a similar formula of panels of interlace and key patterns (Nash-Williams 1950, no. 360, 197–200, fig. 226, and no. 303, 182–4, fig. 196), and indeed the looped and twist pattern also occurs at Carew. Nevertheless the Copplestone monument has great confidence and accuracy in producing elaborate geometric patterns (in this it contrasts with Exeter 1; see Ills. 30–1) and may have been a specially commissioned monument. The horseman figure could indicate Scandinavian influence, and thus a late date, and one could see this as an example of the Scandinavian influence which is most clearly seen in Wessex in the reign of Cnut (Yorke 1995, 141–6), but here is arguably earlier.
