North High Cross, Ballymore

This cross is carved from three separate pieces of granite; the head constituting one piece, the shaft another, and this is seated into a socketed stepped pyramidal base, which is carved from a single piece that sits on undisturbed ground (King). It has been dated to the 10th century by Chris Corlett (25)

The cross is missing its pinnacle but is well preserved otherwise with only some damage to the south arm and the east face. It is distinguished from most high crosses in not having pierced holes through the ringed head. Other distinguishing features are the three bosses, a rare feature on high crosses. From the evidence presented below it is likely that the cross originally had four bosses.

The exploration of the cross set out below was enabled by a model of higher definition than the Sketchfab hosted model above.

West face of the head

The cross was apparently re-erected in 1689 and an inscription testifying to this has been carved on the west face. It reads as follows: within the ring – “IHS” a cross extends from the H; north arm: “R/NO/TH/9”; south arm: “16/89”; below the ring above the shaft: “ERECTEDBY”; top of the shaft: “BY/AM WALL”. There may be an additional inscription below the name (see the DEV-Low animation above), however, the level of preservation and the resolution of this model precludes making a definitive statement in relation to this.

East face of the head

The Depth Enhanced Visualisation video above, depicting the east face, was an experimental animation to see if applying the DEV-Low technique to the east face of the cross head and varying the calibration could reveal any traces of a boss that may have once existed mirroring the boss on the west face.

The experiment reveals that the inner disc of the head is subtly convex in a gradual manner from the outer enclosing raised ring to about midway towards the centre of the disc. It then levels out in a roughly circular pattern and with a more planar surface. This area corresponds to the dimensions of the diameter of the boss and its enclosing ring on the west face. Within this central area there are two deep indents to the right of centre that obviously represent damage to the surface due to an impact of some sort. Beneath this roughly circular area, and between it and the outer enclosing ring of the disc, is the scar of what looks like another smaller circular feature. If this mark represents the ghost of a smaller boss, it is in an unusual position and it would be expected that a corresponding boss would be found on the west face, but nothing appears in this position on the west disc. Therefore, it is hard to interpret this mark.

Beneath the ring, on the part of the head that connects to the shaft, a projecting section has been carved with a roughly scalloped edging.

Interpretation

What can be concluded from these features? It would be logical to assume that the so-called ‘wheel head’ had matching bosses on both the east and west face, particularly since the shaft has matching bosses on each of its broad faces. Moreover, other crosses with bosses have them on opposing surfaces directly opposite each other. These features are skeuomorphic representations of metal rivets, or wooden dowels, which would protruded on both side of a structure they were fastening. It is to be expected, therefore, that two bosses would be represented on both side of the cross head.

The point on the east face of the head at which the subtly convex surface changes in nature, most likely represents the scar of a boss together with its enclosing ring (mirroring the west face), both of which have been removed. The position of this scar would also lend credence to this interpretation as it corresponds to the position and diameter of the boss and ring on the west face. If this is the case, the removal of the boss was most likely carried out at the time the cross was re-erected in 1689.

An explanation for this conjectured boss removal can only be guessed at. All of the damage on the cross is restricted to the head and is located on the upper arms, the pinnacle, and the east face of the disc. It is most likely that, if the cross fell, or was toppled over, one of the bosses would have sustained damage – protruding as they do and being an inevitable point of contact with the ground if the head is detached and ends up recumbent. Prior to the twentieth century, the concept of conserving a monument of this type as it has come down to use, damage and all, was not a given assumption, as is evidence by the inscription from 1689. It is easy to imagine that a damaged boss would have been considered unsightly and removed in order to ‘tidy up’ the appearance of the cross.

It is harder to make sense of the apparent smaller circular scar on the lower surface the disc beneath where the boss was likely positioned. The circular nature of this mark is even more evident in the raking light video below. It seems unlikely to have been a boss at this position.

The scalloping of the edging where the head meets the shaft is completely uncharacteristic of high cross carving. On the other hand, it is not out of keeping with the style of Romanesque motifs. If original, it may help date the cross to the 12th century. However, it seems more likely to represent a ‘tidying up’ of a damaged area. The rough appearance on the underside surface would suggest that the latter explanation may be the case.

In conclusion, it seems that even the most cursory of surveys using these techniques has the potential to generate data that can reveal new features and produce new insights into familiar monuments.

References:

Corlett, Chris, Crosses with Bosses, Archaeology Ireland, Summer 2017, Volume 31, No. 2 Issue No. 120, 24-5

King, Heather A., 1999:357 – NORTH CROSS, ST JOHN’S, BALLYMORE EUSTACE, Kildare, entry in excavations.ie
https://excavations.ie/report/1999/Kildare/0004249/ (Accessed: October 5 2020)

Return to Ballymore Eustace Crosses