and its TV spin-off will be well-versed in these luminaries. Despite their traditional reputations as bloodthirsty rapacious savages, the Vikings were turning to Christianity during this period, although how much this was to the exclusion of their traditional pantheon and how much it was as a complement is very much a matter of debate. Either way, you can see the Tree of Ygddrasil on a Christian cross at Dearham in Cumbria, the mischievous and treacherous god Loki on another at Kirkby Stephen (see bottom of page), also in Cumbria, and a whole mass of Thors and Odins in the Isle of Man, sometimes juxtaposed with images of Christ!

We do rather have the habit of conflating disparate races and tribes from this period too. Cumbria’s (and Ireland’s and Scotland’s) “Vikings” were predominantly Norsemen whereas the eastern side of England were predominantly Danes. And the Angles settled mainly in the north and east of the country (“East ANGLia”), the Saxons (“EsSEX”, “SusSEX” “ WesSEX” and “East ANGLia”) in the south. To say nothing of the Jutes (Kent) and Friesians who are cordially ignored. Don’t forget either, that the Celts did not disappear overnight. Most may have drifted west to Cornwall and Wales and “Anglo-Saxon” incursions may have seen the disappearance of the Celtic mini-Kingdoms but the Celtic people did not have their equivalent of the Long March. See Wareham St Mary for some evidence of this.

So it is not altogether surprising that sculptural traditions are not homogeneous in England nor that Yorkshire has a pretty big slice of pre-Conquest Scando-Christian art. Please do not, by the way, talk of the crosses shown here as “Celtic”. Leave the conflation of English artistic traditions to the jewellery makers!

The church itself is ancient. The tower probably dates from about AD1050, although the bell stage is Early English. The original west doorway is particularly interesting although sadly it has been somewhat  spoiled by a Norman “vesica” window  The west wall of the tower show evidence of an earlier narrower nave that predates the existing one that is delineated by its arcades. This is all very confusing. If the tower is as late as 1050, how come it was bonded to two Anglo-Saxon naves? The answer according to Taylor & Taylor’s “Anglo-Saxon Architecture” (confirming my own logic!) is that the first nave was towerless and that when the tower was built it was simply erected against the west wall with no proper bonding. Then the nave was widened by three feet either side but still without aisles. The aisles were added in the post-Conquest period by cutting through the widened Anglo-Saxon nave.  This confirms that the upper parts of today’s nave walls are themselves pre-Conquest. There is now a narrow fifteenth century clerestory

Of the two aisles, the oldest is the north which has round arches and scalloped capitals. The south is later. Still with round arches but with Transitional style capitals. The chancel is a nineteenth century rebuilding in faux Decorated style. The chancel arch is of the twelfth century.

Left: Looking towards the west through the thirteenth century Early English chancel arch to the Victorian reticulated Decorated style east window. Right: Looking towards the west. The west wall as well as the arcade walls are Anglo-Saxon. The north aisle arcade (right) is Norman and the south aisle is Transitional - an interesting study in the architectural differences over a couple of decades. The tower arch, of course, is not Anglo-Saxon and looks to be Early English. Note the small square window high up the wall. The Taylors were of the view that this was originally a doorway - a common feature of Anglo-Saxon west walls that probably gave ladder access to the upper chamber- that has been subsequently reduced. It might well have originally had a triangular head.

Left: The north arcade with Norman scallop capitals. Right: The Transitional south arcade. Note the change in capitals towards more ambitious octagonal design and the slightly smaller columns. The westernmost capital has some undercut floral carvings.. But the round arches remain.

Left: The nineteenth century chancel. The Decorated style east window is nicely done. Right: This very typical Norman “mask” is at the west of the south arcade in inexplicable isolation.

Left: A real surprise is the existence of a single fifteenth century misericord seat with a somewhat oriental-looking man. There were four, but three have been replaced by fixed seats. Right: An Anglian cross built into the west wall above the doorway. It is much earlier than the oldest surviving fabric, dating from the eighth century.

Left: The west doorway. It is Early English in style, reflecting a rebuilding of the south aisle in the thirteenth century. Although not unique, the trefoil shaped insert is a pleasing and unusual device. Centre: The filled in west doorway, very much in Anglo-Saxon style. The voussoirs (the stones making up the structure of the arch) are through stones. There would have been ten but five have been lost to the late Norman “vesica” window which, although somewhat spoiling the doorway, is of interest in its own right. “Vesica”, by the way, means “bladder”! This implies that the doorway was blocked at the same time, or had already been blocked. So it was likely that there was a Norman west doorway superseded by the Early English one. The jambs of the doorway are formed of vertical stones laid end on end with no horizontal stones. Right: The West End Mystery. As alluded to above, you can see here the very narrow course of vertical stones that would have been the unbonded junction of the slightly later tower and the original pre-Conquest nave. Then to the left you can see the quoins of the widened nave. To its left is, of course, the north aisle and this was added later in the Norman period.

Left: The tower from the south. The Taylors concluded that all of the rectangular windows are original pre-Conquest. The top section is thirteenth century Early English but interestingly the masons used a vaguely Romanesque design of bifora bell opening on this side. Note the corner stones here: massive stones laid alternately sideways and vertically. This just about qualifies, I guess, as Anglo-Saxon “long and short work” but the most striking examples have much more contrast between the two orientations of stone and with very much taller vertical ones. Centre: The north side of the tower and here we see windowless lower sections. The belfry window on this side is an Early English lancet in keeping, unlike the south side, with its EE origins. On this early church you might be forgiven for thinking that the corbels are Norman but, of course, they are supporting a battlemented parapet which is probably as late as the fifteenth century, since battlementing was illegal without royal permission until some time in the mid fourteenth century. I am guessing that this work was contemporaneous with the clerestory. Right Upper: Built into the parapets above the corbels are some badly-weathered carvings. This is the one that the Church Guide (I think) suggests is “heart-shaped”. To me it looks like two creatures facing each other but don’t quote me! Right Lower: One of the rectangular windows of the tower. Despite the lack of an arched top, you can see very easily that with its massive jamb stones, impost blocks and lintel this is indeed Anglo-Saxon.

The Pre-Conquest Cross Fragments

The cross fragments are perhaps what draw most visitors to this church - myself included. The Church Guide is proud of their being “world famous” (no hyperbole there then!) and of their being exhibited in museums in the US, Denmark as well as in the British Museum. There is no real explanation of where they came from and when; and this is common for pre-Conquest crosses. The crosses will have predated the proliferation of parish churches and some or all may have been “preaching crosses” that will have marked places where the newly converted Christians could congregate to hear the Word from some itinerant priest or Minster-based monk. Two here were found incorporated into the masonry of the tower. handily. The Church itself calls the crosses by the letters A-E and I will adopt the same convention and draw on their own descriptions.

Left: The Celebrated Cross B featuring the “Middleton Warrior”. Centre: The warrior in close-up. There has been quite a lot of conjecture about what it represents but the most convincing explanation, perhaps, is that he is a chieftain and is surrounded by the “symbols of his office”: spear, shield and (bottom right) battle axe. This last is particularly interesting as it was amongst the weaponry of any self-respecting Viking warrior. Right: On the reverse of this cross is this dragon in the “Jellinge style”. This style is characterised by animals such as these with their heads in profile and with ribbon-shaped  bodies amongst other things. Apparently there is “fierce debate” (really?) as to whether the cross is ninth or tenth century. We lesser mortals must just wonder at this early manifestation of the Viking conversion to Christianity.

Left: Cross D has a similar figure to Cross B. You might very well, as I did, think this is very similar to the Middleton Warrior. In fact in his “Viking Age Sculpture” (Collins, 1980), Richard N Bailey talks about the use of templates for carvings in this area, by the way of overlaying rubbings of the two crosses he was able to prove this conclusively for Middleton’s crosses B and D. Note that this one has a forked beard. Centre: Cross C. This one has a raised boss on the other side and is decorated with interlace work (see picture below) . Right: Cross E. Little has survived and two fragments have been fitted together. It’s not easy to see but this has a man’s face and a helmet.

Left: The front of Cross C with its boss. Centre and Right: Interlace patterns

Left: Cross A. It is a wheel cross and has elaborate decoration. This is the Hunter Cross. The man stands with his spear, top right. Below him is a stage with large antlers - better seen in the next picture. Centre: Hunter and stag on Cross C. Look at the big antlers at the hunter’s feet and then work down! See the drawing below. Right: The reverse of Cross A is no less interesting than the front. It is not particularly easy to make out in this light but if you look carefully you can see a wonderful dragon or serpent winding his was around the stone - his eye is top left. This is very much the Jellinge Style.

Left: The Warrior Cross. Drawing courtesy of S.Bollman. Centre: The Hunter Stone. Courtesy Middleton Church Guide. Right: The Loki Stone. Kirkby Stephen, Cumbria. This too is a tenth century stone. Loki was, in Scandinavian mythology, the fire god and a pretty bad lot. For crimes against the gods he was bound in a cave beneath a serpent dripping venom. His release triggered the Battle of Ragnorok, the Viking Apocalypse story. The Church Guide at Kirkby says this is the only image of him in England and one of only two in the world, but there is another in Cumbria on the famous Gosforth Cross, (coming to you on this website very soon, you lucky people!). To the Christians he was an embodiment of the devil. His arms and legs are chained here and note the downturned horns on his head. Other interpretations of this stone hold that it simply a straightforward representation of Satan and that it is not Loki. It’s Loki all day long for me, folks.