SAGA-BOOK - Viking Society Web Publications

Manx Memorial Stones 7
tenth century.P It also seems likely that this motif
was used in England earlier than in the Isle of Man. Thelate
Professor Arbman, in an unpublished lecture, suggested
that the Gosforth Cross and the crosses of Western
England which bear the ring-chain motifs were carved
before those raised by Gaut. Elsewhere he dated Gaut's
crosses to c. 930-50,16 a date which is well borne out by the
probable political situation of England at that time and
by the probable origin of the art of the Gosforth cross
series. 17
A unique element in the Manx sculptures carved or
influenced by Gaut is the tendril ornament on the righthand
panel of face A of the Kirk Michael cross, which has
no convincing precursor in Scandinavian art. 1S The
only possible contemporary parallel is found on the bellshrine
of St Mura, which has an applied panel of exactly
the same pattern as the motif so frequently found in the
Isle of Man.l" Such a parallel is of no chronological use,
because this portion of the shrine cannot be securely
dated; but it does seem reasonable to suppose that the
motif was introduced into Ireland from the Isle of Mantogether
with the ring-chain motif which is found on a
number of objects in Ireland.s" But one feature of the
tendril motif is found in Scandinavia - the semi-circular
nick in the broadest part of the stem. This is a wellknown
feature of the Mammen style of the latter half of
the tenth century is! it is also found in the ornament of the
11 I am using here dates developed in D. M. Wilson and O. Klindt-Jensen,
Viking Art (1966). Even if the dates are not completely accepted the main
tenor of the argument - which in this instance is basically Shetelig's - is still
valid.
U H. Arbman, Vikingarna (1962), 180.
17 See Wilson and Klindt-Jensen, op. cit., 106 ff,
18 Shetelig's Scandinavian parallel (SheteIig, op, cit. (note 7 above), 90) is
unconvincing. The object (ef. J. Brendsted, 'Danish inhumation graves of
the Viking Age', Acta Archaeologica VIII (1936), fig. 49) is, in any case, much
later in date.
10 This was pointed out by Shetelig, loco cit., and the shrine is illustrated by
him in fig. 16.
•• Cf. H. O'N. Hencken, 'A Gaming Board of the Viking Age', Acta
Archaeologica IV (1933), fig. 85. An unpublished bone trial piece from
Dublin also bears this pattern.
01 Ci. Wilson and Klindt-Jensen, op, cit., pl. LIII.