A New View of Old Kilcullen

THE WEST HIGH CROSS SHAFT AT OLD KILCULLEN

BY SEÁN SOURKE – this article is just a draft – a more complete version is almost finished. The images from the Sway presentation need to be added to this also.

This presentation explores the carvings of the 9th/10th century fragmentary high cross shaft at Old Kilcullen. Possibly founded as early as the mid 5th century by a continental missionary by the name of Iserninus, Old Kilcullen is one of Ireland’s earliest Christian sites. It seems likely that the location was deliberately chosen in opposition to the pre-Christian ritual site of Dún Ailinne, which would have been active at that time. Attacked by Vikings on more than one occasion, “burnt white” in 1114, and the scene of a battle in the Revolution of 1798, all that remains of this once important ecclesiastical site, nestled on a beautiful hillside between Dún Ailinne and the west Wicklow hills, are a number of fragmentary stone cross shafts, a partial Round Tower, and the foundations of a 12th century church that once featured a Romanesque Chancel arch.

In the sections that follow, each carved panel of the cross will be presented utilising a new digital enhancement technique that greatly aids in the visual appreciation of the remaining details present on the carved stone. However, damage and weathering has affected some sections more than others and much detail has been lost forever.

As a reference and to contextualise the individual carved panels, there follows a low resolution 3D model of the cross shaft. Press the 3D Play button to load the model.

Tips: using your mouse, left click and hold to rotate; right click and hold to grab and reposition, and rotate the mouse wheel to zoom in and out (alternatively you can left click and hold + Ctrl while moving the mouse forward or backwards to zoom). In addition, you can hold the Alt key and left click and hold while moving the mouse to change the direction of the light source. These controls apply to all Sketchfab hosted models.

Contents

  • Technology
  • Old Kilcullen
  • The Cross Shaft
    • Physical description
    • History of the cross shaft
    • The problem of the base
  • West Face
    • Top partial head panel
    • Panel 1
    • Panel 2
    • Panel 3
    • Partial lower panel
  • East Face
    • Panel 1
    • Panel 2
    • Panel 3
  • North Face
    • Panel 1
    • Panel 2
    • Panel 3
  • South Face
    • Panel 1
    • Panel 2
    • Panel 3
  • Conclusion
  • Sources

Technology

Depth Enhancement Visualistion

This presentation makes use of a methodology that improves the visibility of depth in certain types of low relief sculpture. By utilising 3D models, generated through photogrammetry, to produce orthographic images, which are then subjected to a digital photographic processing technique that creates a visual enhancement based on differences in depth, it is possible to considerably improve the visual appreciation of detail in low relief sculpture.

Although the overall effect can be subjectively adjusted, in a relative manner, to best suit the specific properties of the object being documented, the methodology implements an incremental process that enhances the overall appearance of depth in an objective manner. This methodology, termed, Depth Enhancement Visualistion for Low Relief Sculpture, or (DEV-low), was devised in early 2020 by Seán Sourke, specifically to increase the visual legibility of the cross shaft at Old Kilcullen. However, this methodology has the potential to be applied to similar types of low relief sculpture elsewhere.

The affordances offered by photogrammetric imagery add an additional advantage to this technique by enabling the removal of non geometric surface detail, such as staining and other colour information, along with the mitigation of lighting bias, which cause shadows that can detract the eye from the true geometry of an object. By eliminating these potentially distracting elements of visual information, the true sculptural details and form of an object become more apparent and easier to discern.

Old Kilcullen History

Old Kilcullen Site Plan

History of the origins of Old Kilcullen and all that is known from the early middle ages. Not for the Sway presentation as it is too long

Take the intended draft short sway version (which was more or less finished ) and use it as the basis of the longer, more detailed outline draft history.

The Cross shaft

Physical Description

Base

The present base that supports the shaft is almost square in plan with slightly tapering sides along the vertical axis that make it more accurately described as a truncated pyramid. It has a gently curving profile in plan with softened edges and corners all around. It is undecorated but has slight traces of a shallow sunken inner top defined by a barely visible ledge, most discernible along the south edge, that is circa 4cm in width.

The base was described by Bradley et al. as granite (393), however, its fine grain and sandy colour contrast with the coarse grain and light grey to white colour attributes of the shaft’s granite. 

The base has a varying height due to the ground falling off to the west, however, its minimum height, along the east face, is circa 35cm. It is 93cm in length along the west and east faces, and 87cm in depth along the north and south faces (Bradley et al., 394).

Cross Shafts at Old Kilcullen

Both cross shafts (and perhaps a third – see below) at Old Kilcullen are amongst a small number of high crosses where the shafts are, more or less, square in section. The shaft of high crosses generally have wider dimensions where the ring and cross arms face east and west. Conversely, the sides of the shaft (facing north and south) are predominantly narrower than the front and back. At Old Kilcullen, the dimensions and square sections of the shafts possibly point to the original intact crosses as being very substantial. Indeed, the shaft of the south cross, despite being broken below the head, is 3 meters in height above the base as it stands today.

The West Cross Shaft

The decorated west cross shaft has north and south faces that are parallel along their vertical axis, whereas, the east and west faces taper slightly towards the top. From the remaining detail it is apparent that the ring and arms of the head were sculpted from the same stone as the shaft; or this section of the shaft if there was a lower section originally. 

On both the east and west faces, sections remain of the roll moulding that extend up the shaft and then, just above the top panels, curve inward to create the central panels. These panels would have formed around the punched holes of the ring and filled the main focal point at the centre of the head on each face. The remnants of this panel on the west face has a pair of feet that almost certainly belong to a figure representing Christ in Glory, Judgement, or a Crucifixion scene; common motifs found in the centre of high cross heads. There is not enough detail remaining on the east face to decipher what was originally represented.

Where the moulding curves inward on the west and east faces there are corresponding areas of very rough and uneven stone, suggestive of broken surfaces, just above the top panels on the north and south sides of the shaft. This is where one would expect the ring to have sprung – along the curved contracting section of the east and west faces – marking the point where the shaft transitions into the head of the cross. 

The shaft, as noted above, is of a light grey to white coarsely grained granite. From the point where it protrudes from the base to the top it measures 160cm in height. The sides are 45cm in width (Bradley et al., 394).

History of the West Cross Shaft

The first of the written references to the decorated cross shaft appear in the early 1780s when Austin Cooper and the Rev. Mervyn Archdall gave accounts of Old Kilcullen and its antiquities. Both describe the tower, the knightly effigy that was then on site (now located in Ballymore Eustace Church of Ireland), and the church’s Romanesque chancel arch (long since gone). The undecorated shaft east of the tower was also noted, along with a  ‘pedestal’ (base) of another cross, at that time located in a garden adjacent to the north boundary of the churchyard. 

Writing in his notebook in August 1782, Cooper noted, ‘a very ancient bass-relievo of course freestone, 4 feet long and about 14 inches broad; it is divided into three compartments’. This note refers to the decorated shaft that was located close to the tower door at that time. Cooper’s brief notebook description of the carvings correlate to those of today’s north face of the shaft. The manner in which Cooper described the “bass-relievo” as containing ‘three compartments’, taken together with his measurements that only define length and breadth, and the sketches he made – restricted to the upper and lower panels of the present north face – would seem to indicate that the shaft was only partially visible at that time. A possible explanation would be the burial of the shaft in a horizontal position with only one surface showing above the surface. We have no way of knowing for sure if this was the case or if Cooper only chose to describe one side.

We have better visual evidence for the shaft’s position and appearance a decade after Cooper’s visit in a drawing by Daniel Grose created in July 1792. The drawing illustrates the shaft’s position at that time as lying horizontal and supported by its present base and another stone [Fig. 1]. If placed upright as it was depicted, the present east face would have looked west. This is discernible from a second sketch Grose made of the church in which the base and shaft appear in the foreground [Fig. 2]. It was from this sketch that an engraving was created for the famous publication The Antiquities of Ireland, published in 1796 (the first image at the start of this presentation).

[Fig. 1 Daniel Grose’s 1792 drawing of the Shaft (© National Library of Ireland)]

[Fig. 2 Daniel Grose’s 1792 drawing of the Church and Round Tower(© National Library of Ireland)]

It appears that during the intervening years between Grose’s illustration of 1792 and J. Creig’s engraving of the site published in 1819, the church had been reduced to a ruin. Creig’s engraving, based on a drawing by George Pietrie, was also reproduced in Cromwell’s Excursions Through Ireland, published in 1820. It may have subsequently given rise to the speculation that the church was destroyed due to the Battle of Old Kilcullen in 1798. It was here that the local United Irishmen had their only success on the 24th of May while using the high ground of the churchyard as their base. However the church met its downfall, battle or neglect, the other antiquities luckily survived the events of that day.

[Insert the other etch by Creig here Fig. 3]

In another engraving by E. Roberts also based on a drawing by Petrie for Excursions Through Ireland, the decorated shaft was depicted in an upright position without a base and apparently supported only by earth being piled up around its lower section [Fig. 4]. 

It seems the shaft was in the same position some eighteen years later when visited by the Ordnance Survey. From a letter written by the surveyor Thomas O’Connor in 1837, we learn that the decorated shaft was located ‘a few yards’ to the south west of what the writer assumed to be its original base, and what we may assume, from his location measurements, to be its present base. It was then in an upright position without a base and the carving of ‘a bishop’ (top panel of the present north face) was facing towards the round tower to its south east (O’Connor, 191).

[Fig. 4 1819 Engraving by E. Roberts, drawing by George Petrie (Excursions Through Ireland).]

Before the turn of the twentieth century, however, the bishop, along with the cast of biblical characters and beasts also carved on the stone, had their tour of the graveyard come to an end when the shaft was finally installed in its current position. An article by Margaret Stokes, published in the Journal of the County Kildare Archaeological Society in 1899, informs us that a few years prior the Board of Works had carried out restoration of the tower and also re-erected the cross shaft into its present base (440). She records that, in the process, part of the lower panels were “chiseled away”, in order to fit the shaft into the socket of the base . A drawing by William Frazer indicates that the shaft was already secured in the base when he drew it in 1889 [Fig. 5]. However, we can be thankful that the removal of detail on the lower shaft seems to have only affected the west face. Grose’s drawing depicts no further sculpting beneath the present intact panels on the east and north faces [Fig. 1]. The south face appears to have always been blank beneath the lower panel.

[Fig. 6 Photo from 1899 (Journal of the County Kildare Archaeological Society)]

The Problem of the Base

Currently, the churchyard at Old Kilcullen contains two cross shafts supported by truncated pyramidal bases (Bradley, et al., 393-4); the decorated west shaft that was installed into its current base in the late nineteenth century, and the undecorated south shaft that appears to be in its original base – possibly since it was first erected. 

The present base in which the decorated shaft sits appears to be deeply buried (Bradly, et al., 393), but not to the extent of the south base, which only just clears the surface. Given that the west base is located directly to the west of the medieval church’s entrance, where one would expect a high cross to be situated, it may be in its original position.

Regardless of whether this base lies in its original position, there remains the question of its relationship to the decorated shaft it now holds. Is it the correct base for this shaft?

The drawing of the shaft by Cooper [Fig.1] clearly shows that the section beneath the carved panels was tapered. Although the edges look rough and broken, it is likely that this section was the remains of a tenon for fitting into a base or another lower shaft section.

The fact that parts of the shaft had to be ‘chiseled away’ in order to fit the socket of the base suggests one of two possibilities: either the shaft had two sections and the lower section that fitted neatly into the base is now missing, or, it would seem to point to the present base – undecorated and materially different in colour and granular consistency from the shaft – as not being originally paired with this specific shaft.

The question may remain unanswerable unless another base, or a lower shaft section, comes to light. An unlikely scenario given the inability for archaeological excavations at most Irish ecclesiastical sites due to their continual use as places of burial right up to the present time.

As a side note, the Recorded Monuments and Places database lists a third base [KD028-049004-] in the graveyard that is presently located about two meters to the west of the decorated shaft. Is this the ‘pedestal’ recorded in the historic descriptions of the site and is it correctly identified as a ‘base’?

The ‘pedestal’ referred to in the 1780s as being outside of the churchyard was, in 1837, still located outside the boundary to the north ‘lying in a small field’ (O’Connor,190). The term ‘lying’ implies that this pedestal was horizontal, a description that also suggests this stone had dimensions where one axis was at least one and a half times longer than the other axis. The two extent bases with shafts in the churchyard are less likely to be described as ‘lying’, no matter what their orientation, due to their form as low truncated pyramids. It seems very likely that this ‘pedestal’ is the same base [KD028-049004-] that is positioned west of the decorated shaft today; particularly given the fact that no other bases are on site. This ‘base’ has a long vertical axis and would be correctly described as ‘lying’ if in a horizontal position. It may have been relocated into the churchyard during the works carried out in the late nineteenth century. 

However, this carved stone has more the appearance of a partial shaft with a tapering tenon (possibly upside down) than that of a base. In support of this observation, it is useful to consider the generous dimensions of the other two shafts at Old Kilcullen and how they contrast in form and proportion to the two definite bases on site. The proportion of this stone [KD028-049004-], and the fact it has the exact sectional dimensions as the undecorated shaft to the south east, and dimensions that are also very close to the decorated shaft beside it, would support the assertion that this stone could be a section of a shaft rather than ‘a base and shaft carved from one block’, as described by Bradley et al. (394-5). In addition, shafts and bases of high crosses were generally carved from separate pieces of stone. This is also the case with all known high crosses in County Kildare, where more bases are extant than complete crosses or cross shafts.

West Face

The current west face of the shaft has three complete panels and two partial panels. It is possibly the best preserved face of the cross. Despite this, two of its complete panels remain unidentified.

The outer edges of this face clearly taper towards the top where the transition to the head of the cross is still clearly discerned by the presence of the central panel’s lower section. This panel would have made up the focal point at the centre of the cross’ head. The two feet carved within it likely indicate that this, the most important panel of any high cross, was originally a representation of Christ; either a crucifixion scene or Christ in judgment or glory. 

Beneath this are three complete panels that appear to be Old Testament scenes. However, only the central panel has been satisfactorily identified, though not without caveats, as Samson slaying the lion. 

The top complete panel remains unidentified. A rider is moving to the left with an unidentified object in front of his head. A small animal, possibly a dog, is situated above the rump of the horse. The style of the riders’ hair is one of the few possible dating indicators on the cross, as it is similar to other depictions of hair in Irish art of the ninth century.

The lower complete panel has unfortunately lost much of the finer detail that may have helped in identifying the intended biblical scene. What is clear is that a donkey is moving to the right with a rider on top and something to the fore.

At the bottom of the west face is a partial panel containing five heads; the rest having been carved away in the late nineteenth-century to allow the shaft to fit into the socket of the base, as mentioned above. It is curious that this panel extends much lower down the shaft than the panels on the other faces that all appear to finish on the same level; beneath which there is a subtle tapering of the shaft. Notwithstanding the fact that this panel was partially chiseled away in modern times, there is seemingly not enough room beneath these heads for standing figures. Nor is there room for the square format panel one would expect. Could it be possible that the lower details of this panel were carved on a separate lower shaft section?

West Face – Top (partial head panel)

At the top of the shaft’s west face are the partial remains of the head’s central panel that contains a pair of feet carved within. The outermost roll mouldings that extend up the full length of the shaft’s edges on each side curve inwards at the top of the shaft to enclose this panel’s mouldings; which also follow the same inward curve. These contracting panels on both the east and west faces, as mentioned in the above description of the shaft, indicate the points where the shaft transitioned into the ringed head of the cross. The central panels of a high cross are the main focal points and are surrounded by the ring and punched holes, which are the main distinguishing features of early medieval Irish high crosses.

The feet and lower legs contained within this partial panel almost certainly belong to a figure representing Christ, possibly a Crucifixion scene (Bradley et al. 393), which was the subject most typically placed on the west facing central panel of Irish high crosses (Harbison, 1994, 12).

The insert illustration that follows is an interpretative suggestion of how a typical ringed head may have related to this shaft. From the material remains it is clear that the head and shaft of this cross were carved from one piece of granite. It appears that the ring sprung from the north and south sides above the top panels and along the curve of the east and west contracting section of the central panels, just beneath the punched holes, as indicated in the illustration.

West Face – Panel 1

The panel immediately below the head is an unidentified scene that represents a figure on a horse. He is depicted as having a flat-topped hairstyle with a long curl at the back. This is a style that appears on a number of visual sources of circa 9th century origin, including the Banagher cross shaft from Co. Offaly (see: Wallace, 46). It is difficult to discern what is meant to be represented to the fore of the rider’s face. Bradley et al. interpreted the figure as blowing a trumpet. What appears to be a small animal is depicted on the rump of the horse (393-94), adding yet another esoteric element to the panel. It is one of a number of enigmatic and unidentified scenes on this shaft.

West Face – Panel 2

This panel depicts a man looking directly out at us and holding a sword in his right hand at an angle. What could be a representation of a lion is cleverly contorted into the compositional space to fill up the rest of the panel to his left. Bradley et al. interpreted the man as holding an animal by the horns (394). However, as the DEV-Low imaging makes clear, what was interpreted as horns is actually an open mouth; discernible by the representation of teeth in both the upper and lower jaws and the faint impression of an eye on the top of the head.

Another aspect of the carving made more apparent by the DEV-Low imaging is the manner by which the carver set out to portray depth. In the most basic form of low relief sculpture, termed two plane relief, all the detail is raised up from the background plane on a flat surface making up a second plane. Here, however, the sculptor was cognisant of portraying a sense of depth by placing elements within the carvings on different planes. This can be seen to great effect in this panel. The left limbs of both the animal and the man, which would be further away from us in three-dimensional space than the right limbs, have been carved on a plane deeper than the latter, thus appearing darker in the DEV-Low rendering than the forward limbs. 

Whether the man’s arm is grabbing the animal by the neck, or his arm is in the animal’s mouth (or even the possibility it is the animal’s tongue), we can not tell for sure. Stokes (445), and, in turn, Harbison (1994, 100), considered the panel to be a depiction of Samson slaying the lion. However, the biblical account in Judges, 14:6, has Samson kill the lion with his hands, implying no weapon.

West Face – Panel 3

This panel has one clearly defined feature, that of a donkey with a person on it. However, for the most part, the details are now so indistinct, due to weathering and damage in the lower right corner, that any narrative it depicts must remain a matter of speculation.

One could attempt to describe the figure on the donkey, for example, as representing a bearded man in profile with long hair and a large singular eye. But such a description would necessarily be a highly subjective reading. What can be said for certain is that some object, or figure, is represented as being in front (to the right) of the donkey, and something linear is to the rear of the rider (in the top left corner).

A biblical explanation in circulation in the early nineteenth century, as mentioned by Brewer in his, The Beauties of Ireland (50-51), connects this panel to a story from Numbers, 22:22-35, in which the donkey of Balaam is prevented from going forward by an angel standing in its way, causing Balaam to strike the donkey with his staff. Stokes confidently asserts the panel as a depiction of this Hebrew Bible story (143-145). Indeed, if it is a figure of a person (or angel) to the right of the donkey, and we interpret the linear feature in the top left as a club or staff, then the elements would appear to fit with this narrative. More recent interpretations have included, the Flight into Egypt (Bradley et al. 394), and Jesus entering Jerusalem (Bradley et al. 394; Harbison, 1994, 100); no doubt in both cases due to the presence of the donkey, which is clearly identifiable by the long ears, straight face, and short legs. These New Testament interpretations seem less likely, however, if the other two panels are representations of Old Testament episodes.

West Face – Partial Lower Panel

Five heads are all that remain of this panel, the rest being ‘chiselled away’ in the late nineteenth century in order to fit the shaft into its present base (Stokes, 440). The uniformity and level nature of the material removed, including the outer moulding on the left, is clearly visible in the DEV-Low imaging. It is indicative of modern systematic removal of material and confirms Stokes’ remarks.

Little can be said of this panel aside from the fact that the head on the right edge has been badly damaged by a gouge in the side of the shaft that also affects panel 3 above. It is not surprising, therefore, that none of the literature offers any observation on the possible significance of the five heads or any potential interpretation.

The poor level of preservation renders it hard to make any useful observation regarding the style of the heads carved on this panel in comparison with other heads carved on the shaft.

East Face

The East Face

The east face of the shaft is heavily eroded and damaged, yet, enough detail survives to clearly identify three panels that each contain four figures. This almost certainly is a representation of the twelve apostles. In extreme contrast to the abstracted and uniform representation of the apostles on the Moone high cross, here each apostle is treated individually with unique facial features. In addition, there are a range of clothing and stances represented. It is also evident that some apostles are depicted holding objects, although the present level of preservation does not allow for the identification of these objects. The panels are not uniform with the top being almost perfectly square, the bottom being slightly longer, and the middle panel being much more of a rectangle with a vertical emphasis.  

The DEV-Low imaging reveals how skillfully these panels were carved despite the hardness of the granite. The character imbued in the faces, particularly in Panel 2 where the two figures to the right are better preserved, would tend to make one speculate that another hand was at work here than elsewhere on the shaft where facial features are more simplistic and the figures are less well proportioned. 

When we consider the unforgivingly hard nature of this granite, which is not ideally suited to fine detail carving, what could have been a rather repetitive series of panels featuring twelve figures, was instead carved with numerous episodic details. It is of great regret that so much of these details have been lost due to weathering and damage.

East Face – Panel 1

The four figures represented on this top panel appear to be paired into two couples that are possibly interacting with each other.

In the pair on the left the outer figure has a short round face. His right arm (to our left) is bent at the elbow and the lower arm extends to his left towards the second figure, who possibly holds a long straight item under his right arm. It is not possible to say with certainty if this extends over the leg of the first figure. This second figure has a face that is longer than the others and this may be an attempt to represent a bearded or more senior person. An explanation may be that this represents the figure of St Peter holding an oversized key under his arm, however, that is just one possible interpretation. Petrie drew the diagonal feature over this figure’s chest as his right arm bent at the elbow and extended upwards at an angle to hold his left arm [Fig 4].

There is a clear vertical break between the left and the right pair of figures on the panel. The latter pair appear to have both their outer arms bent at the elbow with their forearms extended horizontally towards their neighbour. The figure on the right appears to have his hand extending in front of his neighbour and it is possible that they are represented as holding something together.

A thick hem is represented at the bottom of all four figures’ lower garments that stop below the knee. Their feet appear to be standing on top of the panel’s moulding but are barely distinguishable as individual feet, and, therefore, effectively form an inner moulding along the bottom of the panel.

East Face – Panel 2

All four figures represented in Panel 2 have longer faces and bodies than those in the previous panel. This is possibly only a result of this panel being longer; it is rectangular in the vertical as opposed to the almost square format of Panel 1. The expressive detail of this panel extends to the representation of hair, best preserved on the two figures to the right. All four figures here are represented as individuals and are not interacting as those in Panel 1 appear to be. However, the two on the right side of the panel appear to have similarities in how they are represented. Most obvious are the relatively smooth rectangular areas above their torso. Presumably, these were the features that Professor Harbison interpreted as books (1994, 100), and his assertion may be correct. 

If we look closely at the figure on the extreme right, however, we can identify an indentation cut into the top of the rectangular block in front of the torso. This indent is in line with the two vertical features that extend down from the shoulders. These vertical features could represent arms, or, alternatively, the upper section of a garment. The indent noted above, admittedly small, might indicate that these rectangular blocks were meant to be read as belonging to a garment in common with the vertical features above them, rather than books. Possibly an outer garment that was pulled over the head with a long open neck. The clothes of the lower bodies of these two figures are represented with a rough fur-like texture that contrasts with the smoothness of the upper body garments.

The two figures on the left are too damaged to make any useful comment.

East Face – Panel 3

This is the most damaged panel on the east face. A considerable loss of material has occurred on the left side where the outer and inner mouldings would have originally been carved. The head of each figure is badly eroded, none worse so than the first figure on the left whose face holds little detail. This figure’s upper left torso is also missing, having been broken away along a diagonal from his left shoulder to his hip.

The second figure appears to have been depicted wearing a garment with a thick collar that could be read as having a trim that extends down the garment to the waist on both sides of a central opening or join. This trim appears to continue around the bottom of the garment to the left and right. However, given the poor level of preservation, the details that remain can be interpreted in a number of ways.

The third figure from the left is somewhat similar to the pair of figures on the right in Panel 2. Again, there appears to be a rectangular form in front of the torso. Here, however, it is less well defined and seems lower down. All the aforementioned figures on this panel are depicted with very prominent hems, or, alternatively, boots tops, between their legs and feet. 

The final figure on the extreme right is depicted with both his arms in front converging with hands together at waist level. He appears to be holding something with both hands that hangs down obscuring his legs. Unfortunately the level of detail does not permit a confident interpretation, however, it is suggestive of a bell or bell shrine, or an item of similar form.

North Face

This is the most discussed and enigmatic of the panels on the cross shaft. There has been a long tradition associating this panel with Kilcullen’s patron saint MacTáil. Austin Cooper, writing in 1792, had already proposed that the iconography of the top panel may depict MacTáil. No doubt the association with MacTáil is, in great part, due to the figure having been represented as holding an axe. In the early ninth century Martyrology of Óengus it is stated that his name was Éogan and that the moniker, Mac Táil, was given to him ‘because he took the wright’s tal’, a tal being an Irish word for an adze – a form of axe (Mac Shamhráin and Breen). A note in the Lebar Brecc states that the nickname was due to his father being a wright, and therefore he was called “son of adze” (see Stokes 435).

Peter Harbison rejects the theory that this figure represents the local saint MacTáil (1992, 195). He interprets the panel as a depiction of Cain Slaying Abel and considers the representation of the axe as evidence of this assertion. He points to the Tours Pentateuch that contains an illustration of Cain slaying Abel using a type of axe [Fig. ??]. Tours Pentateuch is a late sixth century Mediterranean manuscript known to have been in the Carolingian court where famed Irish intellectual ecclesiastics, such as John Scottus Eriugena, had strong connections (Harbison, 1992, 196).

However, the axe is only one iconographic element in this panel. Three iconic liturgical early medieval Irish objects clearly point to a representation of an Irish ecclesiastic. To the right of the standing figure is the representation of a hand bell in typical early medieval Irish form. The standing figure has a crozier in his left hand, which is also typical of early medieval Irish croziers, and just above his left arm between his head and the head of the crozier is carved a raised square block. Harbison interpreted the latter as a sacrificial altar (1992, 195), whereas Stokes read it as representing a gospel book (445). 

It was not until the application of the DEV-Low method employed by this project that a possible cross enclosed in a circle was discovered carved on this raised square along with possible edging details that are orientated at an angle and are not dissimilar to stitching. This would seem to back up Stokes’ interpretation that the raised square block represents a gospel book; possibly with a cover or shrine. 

These three liturgical items had later become common relic types associated with early Irish abbots and bishops who became saints in the Irish tradition. More specifically, by the ninth century, there was a recognition of three insignia that were associated with the cult of Patrick. These were the Bachall Ísu (Staff of Jesus), Cloc ind Aidechta (the bell of the Testament), and Canóin Phádraic (The Book of Armagh); all three items were revered by the Irish church throughout the latter half of the early middle ages and continued to be right up until the reformation (Bourke). Might this panel be a representation of these items, and, therefore, an outward material expression of the affiliation between Kilcullen and Armagh mentioned above (see Swift, 103-104). The Bachall Ísu alone symbolised Armagh’s abbacy until the twelfth century (Bourke). 

In addition to Tírechán’s placing of MacTáil as an aid to Patrick, it is noteworthy that the ninth-century Bethu Phátraic, or The Tripartite Life of Patrick, mentions MacTáil as one of Patrick’s bell smiths (see Stokes 434). There is, therefore, far more in the iconography of this panel to suggest a representation of MacTáil than there is to interpret this panel as a depiction of Cain Slaying Abel. We should recall that MacTáil was credited with revenge on the Dublin Vikings in 938, a period within the possible creation date of this cross or not too long after. 

Whether or not the representation of these iconic accoutrements of high ranking early medieval Irish ecclesiastical position were intended to represent MacTáil, a connection to Armagh, or both, they do not help elucidate what is meant to be represented by the figure holding the axe over the head of a second figure lying flat and his crozier resting on the body. As Stokes has noted, little is known of MacTáil’s life or legends that could have helped explain this. She posited that it may represent a common motif in early hagiographies – the raising of the dead or curing of the sick by the touch of a saints crosier (446). Harbison rejects this as improbable, pointing to the murderous intent implied by the placement of the axe (95). However, the representation of the axe may have served purely as a signification device to identify the figure as MacTáil. Alternatively, given the uncertainty in the dating of these crosses, it is not impossible (but perhaps unlikely) that this cross was erected post 938, in which case the panel could allude to the miraculous episode in 938.

Although there has been debate around the possible representation of identifiable individuals (kings and abbots) depictions on the crosses at Clonmacnoise, no other high cross of the ninth to tenth century period has been shown to have any identifiable individuals beyond those from biblical narratives or representations of St. Anthony and St. Paul. If this panel represents MacTáil, it would be an outlier. Whether this is a good enough reason to dismiss the suggestion outright is debatable. However, the reality is that none of these hypotheses are ever likely to be proven either way and must remain pure speculation.

North Face – Panel 1

This panel, discussed at length above, has the best preserved inner moulding on the shaft and clearly shows that it emulated rope. 

Within the panel the representation of a hand bell floats independently in the compositional space, as does the possible gospel book (see above). This may indicate that these items had important symbolic meaning rather than representing items present within a pictorial space. The bell is portrayed with the typical trapezoidal outline of early medieval Irish hand bells in general, but more specifically, it bears a striking resemblance to the Cloc ind Aidechta (the bell of the Testament) reputed to be St. Patrick’s bell and now held in the National Museum of Ireland. This lends support to the hypothesis outlined above that these three liturgical items may be a deliberate reference to Patrick’s relics. In addition, the bell had a heightened significance to the legend of MacTáil, who was identified as one of Patrick’s bell smiths in the ninth-century Bethu Phátraic. 

Identified here for the first time, thanks to the DEV-Low method, is the likely portrayal of a cross inscribed within a circle on the raised square block. Although not centred (being slightly to the left) and faint, nonetheless, there are certainly carved marks present on this square and they appear to depict a cruciform symbol. Only just discernible are the possible carved lines, set at angles, that appear to run around the edge of the block. A possible intention could have been to represent a stitched book cover or the moulding of a book shrine. These features certainly lend support to the theory that this block represents a gospel book – an interpretation that seems all the more likely given the representations of the crozier and hand bell within the composition.

The figure lying down stares directly out at us and seems to be holding his left arm. It appears that his legs are bent at the knee and tucked in, in the manner of a fetal position.

North Face – Panel 2

In contrast to the previous panel, this panel needs little description or interpretation. It is a typical knotted rope interlace of a kind that appears on many early medieval Irish art objects. These designs also lend credence to the theory that the high crosses were once coloured with pigments of some sort.  Colouring would distinguish the separate strands within the interlace and enhance the visual impact of the complex knotwork. 

North Face – Panel 3

The outlines of this panel differ from the other panels on the cross shaft in that the vertices are not plumb and taper slightly towards the bottom. In addition the corners are less angularly defined and appear more rounded than any panel on the shaft.

The subject matter of this panel is undisputed. It has been confidently interpreted by Stokes and Harbison as David slaying the lion. A sheep is depicted under the lion and David is depicted on the lion’s back ripping open its mouth.

The sculptor would appear to have taken this design from a source of some kind as it is not completely unique. The compositional devices used to portray david and the lion appear on a number of other high cross panels such as the market cross at Kells, where a small panel on the end of one transom arm depicts David killing the lion in a very similar manner; however, the sheep is not under the lion but above it in what must be intended as the background. The Cross of St Patrick and St Columba, also a Kells, has the same composition repeated on the south end of the cross’ arm. 

South Face

The present south face is the most weathered face on the shaft. It has been damaged most along the edges of the bottom panel, but also along the top where the ring of the cross once sprung. The carvings on this face are the most abstracted and stylised on the shaft. This is not unsurprising as the sides of high crosses often tended to be more decorative in nature than the front and back. 

The top panel contains a motif of human interlace that, despite being very deeply carved, is barely discernible due to the level of erosion. It is a variation on a theme that appears on a number of crosses and may help to date the Kilcullen shaft if a consensus is reached on a date range for the motif.

Beneath this is a nonrepresentational panel of fine rope interlace with four circular motifs. This interlace is much more complex, tighter, and subtle than the example on the north face. It is a common motif compared to the human interlace in the panel above.

The lower panel is apparently representational, if abstracted somewhat. However, exactly what it is meant to represent is debatable, again due to the poor level of preservation. It may represent the tree of life but evidently carved in a very stylised manner.

South Face – Panel 1

This panel is a decorative motif of human interlace. The motif would be very difficult to identify, due to its poor level of preservation, but for the fact that similar designs are depicted on other high crosses, including a panel on the west face of Ahenny’s north cross. This County Tipperary cross and another very similar cross in the same cemetery were once considered to be amongst the earliest of Irish high crosses. The early dating was ascribed to them due to their skeuomorphic rendering into stone of features suggestive of wooden crosses cladded with decorative bronze plates. In addition, the structural rivets that would have held the parts of a wooden cross together were rendered in stone on the Ahenny crosses as bosses (Manning, 24, 34). The abstract interlace designs on these crosses also closely match those of eight century metal work (Richardson and Scarry 1990, 29). However, more recent interpretations have challenged the early dating and placed the Ahenny crosses’ creation closer to the middle of the ninth century (Harbison, 1994,15). Therefore, the inclusion of this design on the Old Kilcullen cross is, for the time being, of little help in the question of dating.

The pattern is hard to read, however, each figure’s body is positioned diagonally with its head placed in a corner; as is usual with this motif. The four figures are depicted with outstretched arms holding the end of their neighbouring figure’s long plaited hair. Their legs appear interwoven in the centre of the panel. In this particular version of the design it would appear that each figure is represented with their left leg (to our right) bent at the knee and their lower leg and foot extended up towards their neighbour’s body.

South Face – Panel 2

This is by far the most delicate and lightly carved panel on the cross and is, as a result, now the most faded and difficult to discern. This is particularly compounded by its placement on the present south face, which is the least well preserved face of the shaft. However, the design is still recognisable as a standard interlace pattern of interweaving lines with four main circles. Similar designs can be found on a number of high crosses, including the Bealin cross in county Westmeath, where one is to be found carved on the west face of the shaft.

The panel has lost its outer right moulding and part of its left outer moulding on the lower half.

South Face – Panel 3

The complex details of this panel are very difficult to discern. Positioned centrally is what appears to be a tree-like structure. It is possibly protected by strange creatures represented on both sides. It is unclear if these figures extend the full height of the panel or if the forms in the upper corners represent separate entities. Clear diagonal cuts dissect the upper left and right portions of the panel.

The probable representation of a trunk runs up the centre of the composition from its splayed base. This potential stylized tree has what appear to be two branches (or arms of the creatures?) extending out from the trunk at a low angle. The roughly circular motif, which is dissected in the centre by the trunk, could represent the foliage of the tree. Alternatively, it could represent the heads of the creatures on each side of the trunk – in which case the foliage is represented in a very stylized manner in the top triangular sections.

Professor Harbison described this panel as ‘a tree of life guarded by two winged quadrupeds on the bottom’ (1994, 100), and this seems to be the best possible interpretation; a styalised depiction of the cherubim guarding the tree of life and preventing mankind’s access to its fruits that represent immortality – alluding to The Fall episode in Genesis 3:24.

The panel has lost its right moulding and is also damaged on the lower left side.