SAGA-BOOK - Viking Society Web Publications

Manx Memorial Stones 9
possible that he also carved crosses like the Truian cross
II8 (92). His style may well have developed in the course
of his life-time and his repertoire may well have been
larger than the motifs found on the few crosses which
bear his name. Such a thesis, however, cannot be proved
and one must treat the other crosses in groups or
individually.
A cross which bears Gaut's ring-chain pattern but which,
by the different techniques used and by the clumsiness of
the design cannot be attributed to Gaut, is the cross at
Bride 124 (97). This cross exhibits crude spiral patterns,
various types of frets and interlaces, and a wealth of
mythological scenes which may be drawn from Norse
sources. One of the scenes, however - the hare-andhound
motif - is commonly found in Ireland and in
north-western Englands" and has Christian significance.
The same motif is found on the Sandulf cross at Andreas
131 (103), on the Mal Lumkun cross at Kirk Michael 130
(104) (which may indeed be by the same hand), on the
cross at Maughold 97 (66), possibly on the Jurby stone
125 (98) - which I consider to be rather later - and
possibly on the so-called Roolwer Stones" at Maughold 98
(72). The latest example of the scene occurs on the JoaHr
slab at Kirk Michael 132 (105). Perhaps carved by the
same hand as Bride 124 (97) is Maughold II4 (91), which
has a double-contoured version of Gaur's ring-chain motif
but no zoomorphic characteristics, apart from a rather
doubtful snake's head at two places in the ring. All these
stones were almost certainly not carved by Gaut but must
be very close in date to some part of his career. Likewise
it would seem reasonable to assume that four crosses,
Ballaugh 106 (77), Jurby 125 (98), Kirk Michael 126 (100)
and Jurby 134 (107), which bear many of Gaut's motifsthe
ring-chain and the tendril pattern, for example - must
.. F. Henry, La sculpture irlandaise (1933), pls, 36 and 46, Wilson and Klindt­
Jensen, op. cit., pl. XXXIXc.
2. Identified by Kerrnode, op. cit., 142, as the memorial stone of Bishop
Roolwer, There is no evidence to support the theory.