Death and Memorial in an Early Medieval Ecclesiastical Landscape in North-West England: An Appraisal...

8/8/2019 Death and Memorial in an Early Medieval Ecclesiastical Landscape in North-West England: An Appraisal of St Patrick…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/death-and-memorial-in-an-early-medieval-ecclesiastical-landscape-in-north-west 1/19

299

Death and Memorial in an Early Medieval

Ecclesiastical Landscape in North-West England: An Appraisal of St Patrick’s Chapel and St Peter’s Church,

Heysham, Lancashire.by George NashFaculty of Architecture, Spiru Haret University, Bucharest, Romania and the Museumof Prehistoric Art (Quaternary and Prehistory GeoSciences Centre), Mação, Portugal

There is a green hill far away,Without a city wall,

Where the dear Lord was crucified,Who died to save us all.

Words by Cecil Alexander (1847)

Introduction

Located south of the holiday resort of Morecombe and tucked into a small inlet overlooking the

northern part of Morecambe Bay is the early medieval settlement of Heysham. The survivingth

building stock of the old village – Lower Heysham dates mainly from the 17 century, although

there are a small number of buildings that may possess late medieval/early post-medieval

elements. Within the western part of the village, occupying a prominent rock-outcrop and an1adjoining enclosed area are the ecclesiastical centres of St Patrick's Chapel and St Peter's Church

(Figure 3). Both buildings, along with their respective cemetery precincts constitute a unique

and fossilised early medieval landscape. It is probable that at one point in their early past both

centres were linked as part of a single ecclesiastical unit; and that the two current cemetery

precincts were one, which was a common feature in the early Celtic-medieval world (Costen, M.

pers com.). Immediately to the east of both buildings is Main Street which was probably in use

during the early part of the early medieval period. These components form a section of an early

medieval planned settlement; however, the two ecclesiastical centres formed the hub of theth

community. The surviving early medieval ecclesiastic building stock dates to between the 7 andth

11 centuries and is accompanied by a number of stone objects that are associated with death,

burial and memorial including a Viking hogback stone, a cross-shaft and a series of rock-cut

graves. This paper, forming part of a much wider research project, will discuss the physical

evidence of memory that includes the two ecclesiastical centres and their respective monumental

sculptures. I will demonstrate that commemoration, memory and a communal sense of place are

essential ingredients that are replicated through architecture and monumental sculpture design

and are mnemonic devices for evoking these ingredients.

Setting and Place

Setting and place are important components when assessing archaeological landscapes (e.g.

Nash 2010). They also evoke emotive issues when dealing with landscapes associated with1

Dedications to St Patrick during the early medieval period are considered rare (Costen, M. pers com.)



300

death and burial. The physicality of place provides a focal point within a landscape and in the

case of Heysham these focal points include several prominent rock-outcrops, the bay area

(especially at low tide), the Cumbrian Mountains (across the bay) and the wind-blown sand dune

areas south of Heysham. Turning these natural spaces into places are the two ecclesiastic centres

of St Patrick's Chapel and St Peter's parish church. Over time, structures like these within such

dramatic landscapes become fixed in the memories of successive generations, forming whatWilliams refers to as technologies of remembrance (2006, 33). Along with these structures are a

number of other technologies that include artefacts, bodies, monuments/memorials and the

landscapes in which they sit. These technologies provide a linkage between the living and the

dead which assist in resurrecting the soul of the dead (ibid. 20-1). Here, the body (the cadaver)

moves and interacts through a series of physical scapes prior to being buried, mourned,

remembered and forgotten. The body is usually remembered through memorial – the grave mark

or stone. For Buckham (1999, 199) the memorial acts as a social marker and is the only voice

between the body, the [grave stone] inscription and the audience. Associated with these physical

entities are the metaphysical attributes of the past such as personality, personal histories,

ancestral pasts, stories and myths (ibid. 33); these evoke memory and commemoration. This package of physical and non-physical concepts forges personal and communal identity, as well as

strengthening and establishing histories; the acts of memory and remembering become

embellished into the buildings/structures and their settings (Rapport 1990; Hayden 1996;

Rapport 1998, 493). In order to hold on to these attributes, art and architecture become important

devices; creating a past within the present. The iconography used on the monumental sculptures

at Heysham fuse distinctive and unique representative and non-representative designs with2

memory; what is sometimes termed as mnemonics (Atkinson 1975). In the case of Heysham's

monumental sculptures, the iconography is arranged into a number of complex narratives.

Memory of the myths that are conveyed are evoked by a series of visual triggers such as artistic

grammar in the form of symmetry, subject matter and the way certain images are arranged on the

panel. The grammar and arrangement of each panel assists in recalling the names, the facts and

provenance of each narrative; the monumental sculpture becomes a device for commemoration.

The archaeological and historical record for the early medieval development of northern Britain

is sometimes sparse, this may be partly due to the low density of Roman and Post-Roman

settlement as compared with other more intensely occupied areas of Britain and it is probable that

this may have had an incidental process with Post-Roman activity along the Morecambe Bay

coastline (Newman 1996, 98). The modern day settlement of Heysham extends north, south and

east of the old village (known as Lower Heysham). Dispersed within the surrounding sprawl are

a number of historic buildings that once formed farmsteads and probably had their origins in thelate medieval or early post-medieval periods. The history of these buildings has been well-

documented and in the recent past many have been afforded statutory protection (Bu'lock 1967;

Edwards 1987; Grafton 1903-4; Hogarth 1934; Newman 1996; Romilly Allen 1886; Thomas

1971; Tomlinson n.d.; Withers 1996).

Backdrops for Memorising the Past

As suggested earlier, landscape provides an important backdrop for statementing place. The

topography and geology establish recognisable scapes that induce a sense of belonging (Tilley

2 One could also use a retrospective approach such as semiotics as a means of reading the grammar of monumental design and architecture. It is interesting to notethat both the landscape position of both ecclesiastic centres and the monumental sculptures contained within their respective precincts is arguably grammar encoded.



301

1994). Scapes become remembered and interwoven in past events, and these into myths.

Landscape can be considered as a series of components, focal points that are constructed as or

around prominent natural features rather than a homogenous entity devoid of character and

emotion. The Heysham landscape is a rich mosaic of prominent natural features set within three

distinct ecotones: estuarine, marine and terrestrial.

Either side of Lower Heysham the land is undulating and covered by a blanket of wind-blownsand. Underlying this is glacial till (boulder clay), a remnant of the last glacial episode. South-

west of the old village are the two ecclesiastical centres – St Peter's Parish church and St Patricks

Chapel (Figures 1 & 2); both have their origins in the early medieval period, probably both in use

at the same time; St Peter's Church a monastic centre and St Patrick's Chapel as a cemetery chapel

and subordinate to the church (Newman 1996, 101).

St Peters Church sits within a small sandy depression which is flanked to the south by a large

rock-outcrop. It is on this prominent natural feature that St Patrick's Chapel and its cemetery

precinct is sited (Figure 3). The rock-outcrop rises to around 30-40m above a stretch of sandy

heathland known locally as the Burrows. The westerly section of this elongated strip of land,

which incidentally extends to reclaimed land on which Heysham Power Station and Heysham

Ferry Port stands, is formed by a continuous rocky cliff-face and beyond this a jagged rock-

pavement comprising mainly sandstone and millstone grit. A clear stratigraphy of the geology is

visible within the cliff-face along Half Moon Bay, a stony stretch of beach that extends between

Heysham Head and Heysham Ferry Port. Eastward from the Burrows and south of Heysham

Village is a much larger sandstone rock-outcrop which is covered by broadleaf woodland mainly

Figure 1. The remains of the northern internal elevation of St Patrick’s Chapel, looking north.



302

Figure 2. The southern aspect of St Peter’s Church, looking north.

of beech which occupies the thin, acidic soils. This extensive out-cropping also contains

evidence of medieval and post-medieval activity in the form of a number of rock-cut features thatare randomly sited in numerous areas of the outcrop (Tomlinson n.d.).

Apart from recent historical repairs to the base and upper wall sections of St Patrick's Chapel,3

most of the fabric dates to the early medieval period. The building, constructed in two phasesth

and the associated cemetery precinct fell out of use by the 12 century with the influence shifting

to St Peter's Church. It is probable that prior to the stone buildings a series of wooden structures

may have occupied the site, further reinforcing the early history and memory of the site. Potter 4

and Andrews (1994, 73) noted that from the stratified sequence of deposits, the finds and a rare

occurrence of painted plaster (Higgitt 1990; Cramp 1994, 117-120) that the chapel probablyth

dates to the 8 century. Despite the distinct stonework from both phases, the only other clear early medieval element is a doorway incorporated into the north wall, one of three from the two

Heysham buildings (Figure 4). The doorway, from threshold to crown stands 2.38m in height

and 0.75m in width and is one of two complete casements; another was found as a series of buried

loose sections (Potter & Andrews 1994, 69, fig . 14). The masonry sections include long and

short quoins [with rebated jambs] formed either side of the door opening and supporting a semi-

circular stone block with a series of three carved linear grooves.

The surviving architecture incorporated into St Peter's Church includes two doorways, one of

these located on the western gable (Figure 5) and several wall sections and pillars that delineate a

small single celled building. This building phase occupies the western section of the church,3

Repaired in 1903.4

That included a set of radiocarbon dates.



303

Figure 3. Map showing the location of St Patrick’s Chapel and St Peter’s Church, showing their respective precincts.

incorporating the central section of the western gable end, constructed of large cut stone blocks

and measuring 9.1 x 4.7m. The early medieval church appears to have been enlarged during the

Norman period to form a long rectangular building (Potter & Andrews 1994, 94-100). The blocked-in doorway, probably the only access into the building is constructed of a series of

roughly hewn long and short quoins.

Elements of an Ancestral Past

The ruggedness of the landscape and the sometimes harsh nature of the sea provide a

temperamental backdrop for the early settlement and ecclesiastical development of Heysham.

Within this early medieval pastiche there are architectural and sculptural elements that extendth th

some 500 years (or around 15 to 20 generations), from the c. 7 to the 11 centuries (Figure 6).

Each of these generations, initially involved in establishing an early Christian presence and thenmaintaining it through often troubled times constitutes a series of histories, both personal and



304

Figure 4. A door (external view) incorporated into the north-facing elevation of St Patrick’s Chapel.



305

Figure 5. A blocked-in doorway at the western end of St Peter’s Church.



306

collective; each event becoming a focus for memory and being transmitted through a number of

authoritative media including architecture, ceremony, oral tradition, sculpture; each constituting

a memorable event. Events (or the memories of events) may have also have been relayed through

ideological or physical change such as changes to the architectural form of prominent

buildings/structures or additions to landscapes; each event, each memory, gains a mnemonic

momentum over time, eventually evoking a power of place.

The events associated with the construction and use of the two principle ecclesiastical buildings

in Heysham: St Patrick's Chapel and St Peter's Parish Church clearly define two separate

histories. Moreover, each building represents different ways in practicing Christianity. At a

primary level, both building complexes are constructed from locally quarried hewn sandstone blocks, each initially forming a single-celled unit. Window and door openings are present that

once allowed access to the principle rooms of each unit. However, building orientation, size,

visuality and landscape position (amongst others) makes both buildings different from each

other. The earliest building – St Patrick's Chapel is located on top of an exposed rock outcrop

known as Chapel Hill and overlooks the landward and seaward sections of Morecambe Bay

(Figure 7). Despite its diminutive size, compared with other buildings of this age St Patrick's

Chapel would have been a powerful place; its host rock-outcropping would have been a

prominent silhouette on the skyline, probably in view for many kilometres to the north and south5

of Morecambe Bay's coastline. Throughout the New Testament numerous references are made

to physically humbling places – the manger (Gospels of Luke [1-2] and Matthew [1-2]), the

sermon of the mount (Gospel of Matthew [5-7]) and the burial place of Jesus (The Talpiot Tomb,

in John [19]). These natural places are inherently powerful, evocative and symbolic but at the

same time austere and in terms of their prominence, insignificant. Based on this set of

contradictions, what makes a place such as St Patrick's Chapel and its precinct so important?

Legend has it that the Romano-British missionary St Patrick (AD 387 – 493) preached and

established a place of worship on Chapel Hill. However, according to Potter & Andrews (1994)th th

the earliest evidence of any religious activity in and around the chapel occurs from the 6 and 7

centuries, some 250 years after his death and the current building is believed to date from the mid-th

8 century.

Figure 6. The early medieval elements that exist within St Patrick’s Chapel and St Peter’s Church

5 There was probably intervisibility with later ecclesiastical buildings such as Cockersand Abbey, located some 8km to the south (NGR SD 4268 5355). Although thiscomplex was originally founded as a hospital of St Mary in 1184 and later elevated to an abbey in 1192, the monks would have seen and been aware of the ancestralsignificance of St Patrick's Chapel.



307

Figure 7. St Patrick’s Chapel and the 11th century rock-cut graves.

The age of the eight rock-cut graves (Figure 7), located east (E1 – E2) and west (W1 – W6) of Stth

Patrick's Chapel is unknown; however they may date from the 11 century and probably is the

6earliest cemetery activity on the site (Newman 1996, 100). This group, cut into relatively softmilestone grit appears to be unparalleled within this part of Britain and probably represents a set

of graves reserved for high status individuals (Edwards 1987). It is considered by Potter and

Andrews (1994) that the graves were too small to house adult bodies and therefore body7

preparation in the form of disarticulation may have been employed (Newman 1996, 100).

Orientated east-west, five of the six western rock-cut graves have rectangular sockets located

above the head section which originally supported cross-shafts (Potter & Andrews 1994, 74). It

has been suggested, based on antiquarian drawings that the western group was partly enclosed by

a low wall, most likely of drystone wall construction and contemporary with the use of the chapel8

(Newman 1996, 100). Similar to the visuality of the host chapel building, the rock-cut graves

would have been extremely prominent once inside the chapel precinct; the graves provide a

poignant reminder of death, through memorial. Their state of permanence would have been

visually striking compared with the discrete burials of the southern and western cemeteries.

However, their monumentality could have only been experienced once inside the chapel precinct.

Lying flush with the surface of the rock-outcrop and each covered with a slab (possibly ornately

carved) these visually striking features could not have been seen from outside the chapel precinct.

The crosses that would have once towered over the graves would have been the only visual

reminder of burial when outside the chapel's precinct.6

7

A single rectangular-cut feature, measuring 1.5 by 0.6m is also present in the former vicarage garden, located to the east of the St Patrick's set. Unlike theSt Patrick's set, this rock-cut feature without a cut head recess is oriented north-south and therefore may have once belonged to a priest or may have had a

completely different use.Costen ( pers com.) suggests that disarticulation is very unlikely. It is possible though that human remains may have originated from elsewhere and the finalresting place was the St Patrick's Chapel precinct.

8Based on chronometric dating of the burials, the chapel appears to fall out of use by the 12th century (Potter & Andrews 1994).



308

Within the grounds of St Peters Church is a clear reminder of the importance of this ecclesiastic

centre during the early medieval period. Once standing outside within the southern part of the

churchyard and now housed inside the church is the hogback stone. In addition to the hogback

stone and standing close to the south gate on a small bank is an ornately carved cross-shaft ,

referred to as the Churchyard Cross (Cramp 1994, 111). Finally, a small section of a cross-shaftth

is incorporated into the south-western wall of a 17 century porch (leading into the south aisle of

the church); revealed are several circular carved motifs similar to those found on the Churchyard

Cross shaft. Within the precinct of St Patrick's Chapel were two monumental stones: a carved

finial, reused as a headstone and a probable decorated plinth which, according to Cramp once belonged to St Peter's church (1994, 112).

These monumental stones have in the past have been described and widely discussed (Bailey &

Cramp 1988; Baldwin Brown 1903; Brown 1887; Cowen 1948; Cramp 1994; Graham-Campbell

1980; Lang 1984; Lees 1891; Nicholson 1891 & Romilly Allen 1886). Much of this discussion

has been based on typology and associations with monumental sculpture elsewhere. Arguably,

the cross-shaft and hogback stone are unique and provide tantalizing evidence for the status andth th

wealth of the two centres during the 9 and 10 centuries.

One of the sculptures, the Hogback Stone (Figure 8), informs us how early Christianity was

bound-up with the pagan ideology of Norse settlers (Cowen 1948). This stone, discoveredth

through grave digging during the early part of the 19 century, is one of the most ornately carved9

and well-preserved monumental sculptures of its age in the British Isles. It measures 2.04m in

length, 0.54m in thickness and is decorated on both faces which are flanked at either end by two10

mythical beasts, probably bears (Lang 1984, 138-9). The two faces, depicting two separate

sagas are covered by a series of interlocking zigzag lines (or triangular tegulations) representing a

roof (or a series of roofs). Similar zigzags have been used as an infill between the representative

figures. On one face the two carved faces depict the saga of Sigurd (central figure) being attacked11

by a quadruped, probably a wolf (Figure 8), whilst on the other face is the saga of Sigurd and the

Figure 8. The Hogback Stone pictorially depicting the Saga of Sigurd.

9

10

th Cutts (1849) suggests that it was originally removed from the chapel, probably during the early 19 century.

Classified in Lang (1984) as Type VII (Illustrative type).11The Saga tells the story of Sigmund, one of seven brothers, each were condemned to be eaten by wolves. Sigmund, the final victim was saved by his sister Signywhen she covered him in honey which was duly licked off by the wolf. When the wolf licked the face of Sigmund, the hero bites off the wolf's tongue and flees andSigmund's life is spared.



309

12tree of life (Yggdrasil ).

The majority of the motifs and figures present on this stone are pagan and probably originate from

Ireland or the Isle of Man where there was a strong Viking influence (Anon n.d.; Bersu & Wilson13

1966; Wainwright 1945-6). However, there are several motifs including a fish and a three-lobed14

leaf that may reflect a Christian influence, creating a hybrid narrative that bridges the old world

with the then present. Despite the clear early Christian influence as witnessed with the chapeland church, the Hogback Stone embodies not only a grave but commemorates pictorially two

sagas that would have been orally transmitted amongst the living. The artist appears to have been

concerned with an association between the deceased with the valour of legendary heroes; the

stone acting as a link between the two. The two sagas, according to Thor Ewing are in opposition;

one story – Sigmund representing the darker side of life and the Sigurd saga representing the

lighter side (Anon n.d.). This stone therefore not only venerates and elevates the deceased from

mortal to [saga] legend but also acts as a metaphor (and a warning) between virtue and

malevolence and probably applied to the dead as well as the living.

The Churchyard Cross, comprising the lower section of a highly decorative cross-shaft stands0.77m high and sits on an unrelated rectangular stone plinth (Taylor 1903, 90). This monumental

thstone, discovered through grave digging during the mid-19 century within the south-western

section of the graveyard is decorated on all four faces (Faces I-IV – Figures 9 to 12). Two of the

broad faces depict ecclesiastic scenes including a rear depiction of an early medieval building,

whilst the two narrow faces are carved with volutes of spiral foliage scrolling with

interconnecting leafs and rounded buds (Cramp 1994, 111). On the lower section of Face II is a

complex plait design which is enclosed within a knotted border. Face I comprises a haloed figure

that is enclosed within a stylised building containing an arch supported by block imposts (Figure

9). The figure is more than probably that of Christ in Majesty who is holding the Book of Life

15(ibid. 114). This depiction, according to Cramp (1994, 114) is a frequent occurrence onth th

Northumbrian crosses that dates between the 8 and 9 centuries.

On Face III is a stylistic scene that possibly depicts the entombed Lazarus or a depiction of Christ

in his tomb and surrounded by other less significant burials (Bailey & Cramp 1988; Cramp 1994),

although Nicholson (1891) has suggested that the wrapped corpse figure is that of St Philip16

(Figure 11). The story of his death and burial coincides nicely with what is portrayed on the

stone, though Cramp (1994, 114) has doubts that this story was widely known. However, the

power of orally-transmitted story-telling would suggest otherwise and it is probable that such

generic tales circulated the northern [heathen] lands of England by artisan and professional

sculptors who made story-telling part of their business, hence why this and other scenes arerepeated on other Northumbrian crosses.

It is conceivable that all four faces form a continuous narrative and that it is Christ rather than

Lazarus or Philip that is depicted on both the two broad faces. On one face Christ holding a book

is depicted as a learned man and on the other face he becomes the majesty and splendour of death.

These two scenes appear to be the antithesis of Christ the humble carpenter whose death was

violent and degrading and far from being majestic. Arguably, this contradiction is not a

12

13

This Saga includes the fight between Sigurd and an enormous dragon called Fafnir (depicted as an encircling serpent-like figure on the stone).

Classified in Lang (1984) as Type VII (Illustrative type).14

See Sognnes, this volume.

Considered to be the sign of the Trinity and St Patrick.On his death, Philip requested that a church should be built on the site where he was martyred and that his body should be wrapped in sheets of Syriac paper andpapyrus reed before being interred into the church and where blood was spilled a vine would grow (Grafton 1903-4).

15

16



310

Figures 9, 10, 11 & 12. The four faces of the Churchyard Cross



311

glorification of Christ but probably the creation of a Biblical narrative as seen through the17

mindset of an early medieval sculptor.

Although only the lower section of the Churchyard Cross shaft survives, it is quite likely that

other sections, including the cross itself were highly decorative and constructed as a series of th

interlocking sections, similar to the two 9 century stone crosses at Sandbach in Cheshire (NGR

SJ 757 607) and the repaired cross within Halton-with-Aughton churchyard, near Lancaster andthe upper section of a cross shaped to form the tree of life in St Mary's churchyard, Whalley

(Bailey & Cramp 1988; Collingwood 1927). If it is the case that the Churchyard Cross shaft was

part of a much larger cross, one can consider that further narratives or a continuation of the

surviving narrative could have been present. Furthermore, like its counterpart in Halton-with-

Aughton churchyard, this cross would have been clearly visible along with other visual religious

devices within St Peter's churchyard; in this way the chapel precinct displayed the power and

wealth of the community.

The remains of a further cross-shaft of probable early medieval date is bonded within the westernthwall of the 17 century porch that is connected to the south-western corner of St Peter's Church

(Figure 13). The stone section, forming a long quoin and measuring c. 0.18m x 0.70m by 0.20m

is carved on at least one side (exposed) and includes the worn circuits of three circles, two of

which contain inner rings. The worn decoration may be similar to the two side faces belonging to

the Churchyard Cross (see Figure 10 & 12). It is likely that further decoration exists on those

sides hidden within the fabric of the porch and moreover (based on the monumental art carved on

the Churchyard Cross) that concentric circles are carved on the opposite face (Nash & Pilkington

17 During the Italian Renaissance artists used the backdrop of late medieval buildings and landscapes in many scenes depicting Biblical and Ancient Classical narratives.

Figure 13. Possible remains of a cross-shaft forming a long quoin within the western wall of the 17th century church porch.



312

Figure 14. Possible bird’s-head finial and later headstone from the cemetery precinct at St Patrick’s Chapel (after Cramp1994, fig. 41, drawn by B. Lean).

2002). Although this piece has undergone the ravages of seasonal weathering, it has also

experienced the indignity of being incorporated into the wall of a porch as merely a useful block

of stone, metaphorically its final resting place, lying prostate and hidden rather upright andthvisible. It is probable though that prior to the 17 century construction of the porch, this cross-

shaft section stood proudly within one of the two Heysham precincts.

The final piece of monumental sculpture for discussion is a possible bird's head finial and later

reused headstone, found within Grave 16 at St Patrick's Chapel, discovered during excavation in

1977-78 (Potter & Andrews 1994). The finial measures 0.73m high by 0.37m width and 0.15m in

thickness. The carving includes the head of a bird of prey, possibly a hawk which has been partly

sculptured around the beak-section of the head (Figure 14). The carving, which occurs on only

one face, is created from a series of curvilinear and angular double lines and wide pecking. The

angularity of the pecked lines not only enhances the profile of the stylistic bird but would have

also fused with the linearity of the stone and timber that it may have once supported as either a

gable or ridge finial prior to becoming a headstone (Lang 1991, 172-3). Unlike its counterparts

elsewhere, the bird's head sculpture is only carved on one side. According to Lang (1991) there

are specific shapes and designs of finials that are regionally distinct and it is probable that the

Heysham example has its design origins in Ireland where animal and bird designs are also used.

Cramp (1994, 107) suggests that this monumental piece of carved stone may have once belonged

to a portable shrine, although one cannot rule out the possibility for a more functional use, say, as

a terminal finial in which the non-decorated face abutted an internal elevation. The counter-

argument to this is that the decoration around the neck area of the bird extends too close to the far

edge and does not allow for any part of the rear section of the stone to be comfortably inserted intoany finial-slot, unless a further rear section is missing. It could also be that the stone was mounted



313

in such a way that the beak and head section faced upwards and that it stood as a stand-alone

sculptural piece, maybe as a centre piece for a shrine or as Cramp suggests as an ornamental

section to a piece of furniture, possibly the arm rest to a ceremonial chair (ibid. 109). Judging by

the limited weathering of this piece, it is evident that it stood as an internal decorative item rather

than outside and exposed to the elements. Regarding a date for this piece, Cramp states that it is

unique and unparalleled, although one finial measuring around 1m in length stands with achurchyard at Minnigaff, Kirkcudbright, Scotland (Bailey 1996).

Tales of Memory and Commemoration

The two ecclesiastical centres occupying coastal locations west of the village of Heysham

constitute a significant early medieval resource which is probably unparalleled elsewhere in

North-west Britain. Based on the archaeological evidence, the early medieval elements for both

buildings span a period of at least 500 years, representing many generations of worshipers and

embracing a number of different approaches to commemorating the ecclesiastical past. It is more

than probable that various elements from each building complex were in use at the same time (see

Figure 6), though it is unclear however, due to the portability of highly decorated stones, where

certain items such as the hogback stone and the cross-shaft originally stood. The various

elements that collectively span the early medieval period are the result of endeavours to

immortalise the past through the power of memory and commemoration. Commemoration deals

with memorable events from a common past and in one respect, several of the monumental

sculptures could contradict the common past element. The Hogback Stone, for example,

physically commemorates a deceased individual, a mere mortal, who may have once been a

powerful member of the community. However, he or she did not possess the supernatural power

of the two characters – Siguard and Sigmund, each of whom, according to the sagas, were

physically threatened and forced to engage in combat with mythical beasts. It may be that the twonarratives, each one representing triumph over evil were metaphors for the way the living should

fight against death, the ultimate beast threatening their mortal survival, both physically and

spiritually. A more subtle metaphor is witnessed on the Churchyard Cross where two narratives,

one on each face are used to convey the strength of faith through the strength of the church.

Subordinate to these, in my view is the element of status. There is a propensity, partly based on the

post-medieval distribution of tombs in churchyards, that the rock-cut graves and the hogback

stone, being somewhat prominent within the immediate scapes of the chapel and church

precincts, are the products of status and strategic display. Indeed, the cut squared holes made

above each of the rock-cut graves within the chapel precinct clearly shows that these were socket

holes that once housed stone crosses. A visitor to this churchyard would have been constantly

reminded of the burials. But is this an abject display of status, proclaiming who one was in

society? These extreme visual reminders are contradictory as they stand within humble

surroundings, in two small single-cell buildings. It is far too convenient to suggest that

prominence through landscape position, building rank and the paraphernalia that each carries

with it, is down to merely status. I would agree that many, if not all of the monumental sculptures

discussed in this paper would have been commissioned either by the community or an individual

(or his or her family). Patronage is not uncommon and would have provided an essential income

to any ecclesiastical centre during this time. The question that I must ask is, was patronage

displayed with the correct intensions in mind? The early medieval monumental sculptures at

Heysham probably mark a zenith in artistic endeavour. It has been suggested that during the latter



314

part of this period, groups of craftspeople were possibly roaming the English countryside taking

on sculpture commissions (Thurlby 1999). Within a generation or two, both the artist and the

patron may have been long forgotten; their individual pasts hidden in the art as a series of

weathered or worn carved images that evoke wider stories and myths; each being elaborated over

time.

Concluding Remarks

Memory is a powerful mechanism when establishing a personal or communal past and is centred

on a number of essential ingredients that include events, people, objects and structures; usually a

combination of all the above. But, how are these ingredients remembered? Many myths and

stories have embedded within them certain recognisable triggers. Firstly, mythology focuses on

superhuman characters that are usually in conflict with the forces of good and evil and are

sometimes considered to be distorted accounts of actual historical events. Over time, handed-

down stories become elaborated upon to the point that the mundane becomes a memorable and

supernatural event. The myths associated with narratives on the Hogback Stone and two scenes

on either side of the Churchyard Cross follow predictable themes and are a reminder of one's past,

present and future. Generations of monks and priests and the communities they supported would

have constructed their landscape using a number of devices associated with the ancestral past and

probably the two ecclesiastic buildings that occupy the rugged coastal landscape are testament to

that. The act of carving onto rock created a permanent statement and carving certain imagery

reminded those of a mythical and mnemonic past.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank staff from Lancashire's Historic Environment Record team for their

assistance with this particularly difficult paper. Thanks also to James Pilkington, local historian

and James Athelstan Nash for good company during the fieldwork programme. Thanks to

Michael Costen, Abby George, Laurie Waite and Donovan Hawley for their patience at the proof-

reading stage. Finally, sincere thanks to Howard Williams of the University of Chester for

listening and giving me sound and encouraging advice. All mistakes are of course my

responsibility.



315

References

ANON. n.d. Thor Ewing unlocks the Perplexities

of the past as depicted on the Hogback Stone in St

Peter's Church, Heysham (unpublished ).ATKINSON, R.C. 1975. Mnemotechnics in

Second-Language Learning, American

Psychologist , 39: 821-28.BAILEY, R.N. 1996. Ambiguous birds and beasts:

three sculptural puzzles in south-west Scotland.

Friends of the Whithorn Trust.BAILEY, R.N. & CRAMP, R.J. 1988. Corpus of

Anglo-Saxon stone sculptures, II, Cumberland,

Westmorland and Lancashire North-of-the-sands,

Oxford.BALDWIN BROWN, G. 1903. The Arts of Early

England, 6 Vols., The life of Saxon England in its

relation to the arts, London.BERSU, G. & WILSON, D.M. 1966. Three Viking

Graves in the Isle of Man. Society of Medieval

Archaeology, Monograph I, London.BROWN, G.F. 1887. Pre-Norman sculpted stones

in Lancashire, Transactions of the Lancashire &

Cheshire Antiquary Society, Vol. 5, 1-18BU'LOCK, J.D. 1967. The Pre-Norman churches

of Old Heysham, Transactions of the Lancashire &

Cheshire Antiquary Society, Vol. 77, 30-7.COLLINGWOOD, W.G. 1927. Northumbrian

Crosses, London.COWEN, J.D. 1948. Viking burials in Cumbria,

Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquary Society , Vol. 48, 73-6.CRAMP, R.J. 1994. The Sculpture, in T.W. Potter

& R.D. Andrews Excavation and Survey at St

Patrick's Chapel and St Peter's Church, Heysham,

Lancashire, 1977-8. The Antiquaries Journal Vol.

LXXIV, 106-116.EDWARDS, B.J.N. 1987. Heysham - a note on the

rock-cut graves, Lancashire Archaeological

Bulletin. Vol. 11, 4.GRAFTON, E.M. 1903-4. Some notes on Heysham

church and parish. Transactions of the Lancashire

& Cheshire Antiquary Society, Vol. 19-20, 150-62.GRAHAM-CAMPBELL, J. 1980. The

Scandinavian Viking-age burials of England-some

problems of interpretation. In P. Rahtz, T.

Dickinson & L. Watts (eds.) Anglo-Saxon

Cemeteries. Oxford: British Archaeological

Reports, British Series 82, 379-83.HIGGITT, J. 1990. Anglo-Saxon lettering at St

Patrick's Chapel, Heysham. In S. Cather, D. Park &

Williamson (eds.) Early medieval wall paintings

and painted sculpture in England . Oxford: British

Archaeological Reports, British Series 216, 31-40.

HAYDEN, D. 1996. The Power of Place: Urban

Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge

Massachusetts: The MIT Press.HOGARTH, F. 1934. A History of Heysham.

Morecambe.

LANG, J.T. 1984. The hogback: A Viking Colonialmovement. In Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology

and History, Vol. III, 85-176. Oxford.LEES, T. 1891. An attempt to interpret the meaning

of the carvings on certain stones in the churchyard

of Heysham. Transactions of the Lancashire &

Cheshire Antiquary Society, Vol. 9, 38-48. NASH, G.H. 2008. The Heysham labyrinth,

Morecambe Bay, northern England. Rock Art

Research, Volume 25, No. 2, 227-29. NASH, G.H. 2010. Graffiti-art: Can it hold the key

to the placing of prehistoric rock-art? In Time &

Mind , Vol. 3: 1, 41-62. NASH, G.H. & PILKINGTON, J. 2002.

Archaeological Building Survey of the South Porch

of St Peter's Church, Heysham Village, Nr.

Morecambe, Lancashire. Unpublished Report.

Report No. 2002/29. NEWMAN, R. 1996. The Dark Ages. In R.

Newman (ed.) The Archaeology of Lancashire:

Present State and Future Priorities. Lancaster

University Archaeology Unit, 93-108. NICHOLSON, J.H. 1891. The sculptured stones at

Heysham, Lancashire. Transactions of the Lancashire & Cheshire Antiquary Society, Vol. 9,

30-8.POTTER, T.W. & ANDREWS, R.D. 1994.

Excavation and Survey at St Patrick's Chapel and

St Peter's Church, Heysham, Lancashire, 1977-8.

The Antiquaries Journal Vol. LXXIV, 55-134.RAPOPORT, A. 1998. Spatial Organisation and the

Built Environment. In T. Ingold (ed.) Companion

Encyclopedia of Anthropology: Humanity, Culture

and Social Life. London: Routledge, 460-502.RAPOPORT, 1990. The meaning of the Built

Environment , revised edition, Tucson: University of Arizona Press.ROMILLY ALLEN, J. 1886. Pre-Norman crosses at

Halton and Heysham in Lancashire. Journal of the

British Archaeological Association , 42, 328-44.TAYLOR, H. 1903. Ancient Crosses of Lancashire.

Transactions of the Lancashire & Cheshire

Antiquary Society , Vol. 21, 89-95.THOMAS, C. 1971. The Early Christian

Archaeology of Northern Britain. Glasgow.THURLBY, M. 1999. The Herefordshire School of

Romanesque Sculpture. Almeley: Logaston Press.



316

TILLEY, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of landscape.

London: Berg.TOMLINSON, E.S.A. n.d. A Guide to Heysham:

with a description of its antiquities. Lancaster:

J.M. Wigley.WAINWRIGHT, F.T. 1945-6. The Scandinavians

in Lancashire. In Transactions of the Lancashire &Cheshire Antiquary Society, Vol. 58, 71-116.

WILLIAMS, H. 2006. Death and Memory in Early

Medieval Britain . Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.WITHERS, R.W. 1996. Heysham from earliest

times (Unpublished document).

Addendum

Since the submission of the final draft, the author visited the two Heysham ecclesiastic sites inJanuary 2010 and discovered within the precinct of St Patrick’s Chapel a series of probable

prehistoric cupmarks that were carved on a small section of rock outcropping, approximately 4msouth-east of the chapel. Also discovered by the author in 2005 was a single cross located at the

base of the rock-outcrop on which the western section of the chapel precinct stands. Thecupmarks, probably Bronze Age in date and numbering six, are carved into the sandstone gritgeology. Because of the geological fine granular make-up of this rock type, the cupmarks areclearly the result of human agency. The style of the cross suggests that it was probably carved

thduring the 17 century when the chapel had officially fallen out of ecclesiastical use.

Bronze Age cupmarks gouged into the sandstone grit rock-outcropping, located within the chapel precinct.



17th century cross carved into a deep niche within the rock outcropping

that supports the chapel precinct.

Death and Memorial in an Early Medieval Ecclesiastical Landscape in North-West England: An Appraisal...

Documents

Transcript of Death and Memorial in an Early Medieval Ecclesiastical Landscape in North-West England: An Appraisal...