The Date and Provenance of the Franks Casket

Author(s): Amy L. Vandersall

Source: Gesta, Vol. 11, No. 2 (1972), pp. 9-26
Published by: International Center of Medieval Art
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/766591 .
Accessed: 03/01/2011 06:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=icma. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

International Center of Medieval Art is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Gesta.

http://www.jstor.org
 The Date and Provenance
of the Franks Casket*
AMY L.VANDERSALL
In 1857 Augustus Wollaston Franks purchased from a Paris
antique dealer a small (9 x 7 1/2 x 5 1/8 inches) rectangular
whalebone casket carved with narrative scenes and inscribed
with runes (Fig. 1). Ten years later, while Keeper of the
Department of British and Mediaeval Antiquities at the Bri-
tish Museum, Franks presented the object to the museum,
complete except for the right side, which was discovered in
the Bargello, Florence, in 1890.1 For the past century this
monument, sometimes known as the Clermont Runic Cas-
ket but most often as Franks' Casket, hence Franks Casket,
has excited considerable scholarly interest. The aesthetic
quality of the carving notwithstanding, the majority of criti-
cal studies of the casket have had two primary concerns, lin-
guistic on the one hand and literary on the other. To date
there has been no comprehensive examination of the date
and provenance of the casket in the light of art-historical
evidence.
Considering the length and number of the explanatory
runic inscriptions and the unusual representations from
northern mythology found on the casket, it is hardly surprising
to find that, among the roughly 175 items in a recent com-
prehensive bibliography of the Franks Casket,2 fully 75 per-
cent deal with linguistic and literary aspects of the carvings.
FIGURE 1. The Franks Casket, General view,
London, British Museum.
Of the remaining studies, treating art-historical matters,
only a handful can claim to offer significant information
concerning the relationship of the casket to the art of the
Northumbrian Renaissance, to which the casket is ascribed
on the basis of linguistic evidence, i.e., ca. 700, Northumbria.
Doubtless the lack of critical art-historical attention can be
accounted for by the singularity of the casket in early medi-
eval English art. First, there is, against the predominantly
Christian context of Northumbrian art, the depiction of a
single episode from the Bible (the Adoration of the Magi)
with stories drawn from Roman history and myth (Titus'
capture of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and Romulus and Remus
found by the shepherds) and from northern myth (Wayland
the Smith and two scenes, one commonly identified as an
episode from the Sigurd legend, the other as one from an
unrecorded episode of the adventures of Wayland's brother
Egill). Second, the style of the carving and the conventions
of the representations are not directly comparable to North-
umbrian art of ca. 700 unless the casket is regarded as a
unique surviving example of folk art of the period.
The purpose of this article is to present a body of visual
material that had not generally been considered in relation
to the Franks Casket and which, I believe, indicates that both
9
the traditional date and provenance of the casket are ques-
tionable on art-historical grounds and others should be con-
sidered seriously by scholars of language and literature.
Whether such an alternative time and place, as I will pro-
pose solely on the basis of art-historical evidence, can be
accommodated within existing runic and Anglo-Saxon lin-
guistic chronologies is a matter for scholars in those areas
to decide. This is not an unimportant matter, since Beowulf
is traditionally dated in the eighth, or seventh, century, i.e.,
contemporary with the traditional date of the casket, and has
linguistic forms comparable to those on the casket. The
earliest extant manuscript of Beowulf is, however, dated ca.
1000. Although I have considered the question of the rela-
tionship of the casket to the art of the Northumbrian Ren-
aissance, I have not included a discussion of that material. If
my proposal is unacceptable to scholars of Northumbrian
art, it is hoped that this study will at least elicit further dis-
cussion. Preceding the examination of the casket and the
presentation of comparative evidence, I have included a sur-
vey of the history of scholarship surrounding the casket in
order to define the problem.
The first major publication of the casket, which included
chemityped illustrations, was by George Stephens in his Old-
Northern Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and England.3
Stephens estimated on the basis of linguistic evidence that
the date of the casket was ca. 700 to 800 and that the prove-
nance was Northumbria. During the last quarter of the nine-
teenth century a large number of European scholars began
to study the inscriptions on the casket, offer identifications
of the scenes represented, and give estimates of its age.4
Thus, by the end of the century a consensus had been
reached among philologists with regard to the date and
provenance of the casket, and with the exception of certain
still enigmatic passages in the inscriptions and of obscurities
in the representations there was general agreement regard-
ing the reading of the runes and the identification of the
scenes. One of the most authoritative studies, and one often
referred to since, was that of Arthur S. Napier.5 Ralph W.
V. Elliott states in his introduction to the study of runes:
The date and provenance of the Franks casket have
been established beyond reasonable doubt by Na-
pier's linguistic analysis. The language is unmistak-
ably Anglian and certain forms limit it further to
Northumbria, and, in point of time, to the early
eighth century. On runological grounds this date
and provenance are equally acceptable; we have
seen that (the nonce runes apart, of course) all the
10
runes belong to the common Anglo-Saxon twenty-
eight-letter fuporc. Runes of the later Northum-
brian extension do not occur.6
Napier's linguistic study was, however, only one of several
important critical studies to appear around the turn of the
century. There were as well the comprehensive analyses by
Ellis Wadstein7 and Wilhelm ViCtor,8 and extensive critical
reviews by T. von Grienberger, O. L. Jiriczek, and F. Holt-
hausen.' It is interesting that both Wadstein and ViCtor,
who on linguistic grounds advance dates of not after 750 and
ca. 700 respectively, indicate that further consideration of
the date on the basis of archaeological evidence would be
useful in fixing it more precisely. Among the many philolo-
gists who have commented upon the casket since, only one
to my knowledge has seriously argued for a fundamental
change in date and provenance. In 1959 Karl Schneider pro-
posed a date of the mid-sixth century and Merovingian Gaul
as the place of origin.10 The primary concern of later phil-
ologists has been the puzzling inscription and representa-
tions on the right side of the casket, the panel now in Flor-
ence.1 Notable exceptions to this interest in the Bargello
panel are the studies of Philip Webster Souers, who between
1935 and 1943 published a series of detailed articles dealing
with the iconography of the front, left side, and lid, 12 and a
spate of very recent work.'3
In contrast to the considerable body of literary and lin-
guistic research there are few specialized art-historical con-
siderations of the casket, even though a number of scholars
have treated the casket in catalogues and general studies of
early medieval art. Art historians have relied heavily upon
the work of the philologists, accepting the date and prove-
nance as well as the identification of the scenes determined
by linguistic analysis. But despite the scantiness of art-his-
torical study a number of suggestions and queries have been
offered with regard to the visual sources of the representa-
tions. It is the variety of these suggestions that is most strik-
ing, ranging from Oriental, Coptic, Merovingian, Celtic, and
Viking to Northumbrian. The prevailing conclusion is that,
although the casket is an important historical and artistic
monument, it can be understood only as one of the most
striking examples known of Northumbrian eclecticism.1"
When J. O. Westwood published his catalogue of plaster
casts in 1876 he stated that the Franks Casket was "extrem-
ely valuable as a specimen of Northern-British or Scandina-
vian workmanship" and that because of the armor shown as
well as owing to comparisons with stone carvings of the Isle
of Man and Scotland he could not "ascribe a date earlier than
the eleventh or twelfth century."" By 1909, however, given
the weight of philological opinion, 0. M. Dalton did not
question the by then accepted date and provenance when he
treated the casket in the British Museum's catalogue of ivory
carvings."' He suggested that some of the unusual stylistic
and iconographic aspects related to either Near Eastern or
Merovingian precedent. Adolph Goldschmidt also discussed
the casket in 1918 in the second volume of his monumental
corpus of medieval ivory carvings. He gave a date of about
800 and suggested a generic relationship with tenth-century
Byzantine ivory caskets, noting that the latter were used for
storage of gold and pointing out that several of the scenes
on the Franks Casket dealt with the subject of treasures. He
stated that either the early dating of the casket must be giv-
en up in favor of a later date or else it must be assumed that
the Byzantine caskets reflect an older, no longer extant type.
The latter solution was, in his opinion, consonant with the
tendencies of Byzantine art in the period.'7 Reginald Smith,
giving the date as ca. 700 in a 1923 British Museum guide-
book, observed that the foliage on the casket was "a rare
occurrence in early Anglo-Saxon art" and that the figures
"are in strong contrast to the dismembered animals of the
pagan period."'8 In 1924 Johannes Br0ndsted denied the
stylistic relationship of the casket with Northumbrian art,
stating that there were instead strong stylistic and icono-
graphic affinities with Frankish-Merovingian art but that
because of the runes and the Anglo-Saxon into which they
transliterated he decided upon a South English provenance.
To make such an attribution he felt compelled to reject the
identification of any of the scenes on the casket as treating
northern mythological subjects.19 In 1926 M. H. Longhurst
noted the lack of ivory carvings in England during the peri-
od to which the casket was attributed. She said that the cas-
ket "usually ascribed to the first half of the 8th century can-
not be compared for beauty or accomplishment with the
stone carvings of the earlier century, of which Bewcastle and
Ruthwell crosses are the pre-eminent examples" and that
although it may be regarded as "one of the earliest and most
important examples of the introduction of Teutonic myth-
ology into the country," the carvings on the casket are "de-
graded." If regarded, however, as "patterns in light and
shade the result shows considerable feeling for decorative
composition."2' Such seeming deprecation of the artistic
merit of the casket is frequent when the work is compared
to the art of the Northumbrian Renaissance.
The most comprehensive art-historical discussion of the
casket is that of G. Baldwin Brown.21 Most of what Brown
had to say in 1930 is still valid and perceptive, and his resu-
me still serves along with Dalton's catalog entry as the best
introduction to the monument. Like most art historians
treating the casket, Brown accepted the traditional date and
provenance arrived at earlier through linguistic analysis,
even though many aspects of it, especially the episodes from
Germanic saga, seemed to him difficult to account for in the
context of Northumbria in ca. 700. The critical portions of
his study are focused about the earlier opinions of two schol-
ars, Josef Strzygowski and Br0ndsted.22 Brown agreed with
Strzygowski's notion of Coptic influence but objected to the
examples Stryzgowski cited, proposing others that were to
him more convincing. He rejected Br0ndsted's Merovingian
associations and took strong issue with his denial of Teu-
tonic iconography in the casket's representations. In refuta-
tion of Br0ndsted Brown cited the carved stones of Scandi-
navia, especially those of Gotland, as offering comparable
iconography for the mythological scenes. He regretted that
the study of these carved stones was then still in process
and thus unavailable for more detailed consideration. There
can be no doubt that Brown both understood and appreci-
ated the aesthetic merits of the Franks Casket, yet he also
stated that the artist was "technically far inferior to the clas-
sically-inspired figure sculptors of the best Northumbrian
crosses.
Although no other major study such as Brown's exists,23
it seems worthwhile to mention the opinions of several art
historians who have considered the Franks Casket briefly.
In 1931 Arthur Kingsley Porter noted, also in disagreement
with Brondsted's theory of South English provenance, that
the casket was amazingly free of Celtic elements,
so much so that were it not for the indubitable evi-
dence of the runes I should be tempted to doubt
whether it be English at all. The style of the figures
is Viking-like, although they must antedate the
Viking age. Equally disconcerting is the iconogra-
phy; side by side with Christian scenes are others
believed to be from the sagas.2'-
In 1932 0. Elfrida Saunders cited the crosses of Nunburn-
holm, Halton, and Penmon on Anglesey, which are dated
about 1000, as having a style comparable to the casket and
exhibiting some of the same Germanic iconography. These
examples, according to Saunders,
seem to suggest that the Franks Casket should be
given as late a date as is consistent with its runic
inscriptions. These are ascribed by the Palaeograph-
ical Society to the eighth or ninth century, so that
11
 FIGURE 2. The Franks Casket, Front, London, British Museum.
the box may perhaps be considered late ninth-cen-
tury work, already showing strong Scandinavian in-
fluence, and the decadenceof artistic style which set
in about that period. It certainly is hard to think of
it as contemporary with the far more accomplished
productsof the earlyeighth century.25
Frank and Harriett (Wragg) Elgee in 1933 also noted affin-
ities between the Nunburnholm Cross and the Franks Cas-
ket andwent so far as to suggest a Yorkshire provenance.26
These queries concerning the date of the casket by Porter,
Saunders, and the Elgees are tentative, although based on
specific evidence. T. D. Kendrick suggested in 1938 a possi-
ble connection with Pictish carved stones and brought for-
ward four specific examples from Northumbrian artistic
production for comparison with the casket. But Kendrick
too dwelt on the striking nature of the representations in
the context of Northumbrian art-e.g., the use of "narrative
scenes composed of groups of figures" and the unusual icon-
ography. He saw the work as "arid and incompetent." For
him, the casket "reveals only a partial acceptance of the
great art of the renaissance, and to a certain extent may be
said to offer a resistanceto it."27
In summary, the consensus of art-historical opinion is
that the Franks Casket, remarkable for its literary and his-
torical interest, is unusual, even unique in the context of
Northumbrian art of about 700. The sources for its repre-
sentations are so difficult to determine that several histori-
ans have expressed doubts about the traditional attribution
of the casket. Further art-historical examination therefore
seems appropriate.
The front panel of the casket (Fig. 2), easily identified by
the damaged rectangular area at top-center that contained
the fitting for the closure, is the only one that accomodates
two scenes. The two pictorial fields, one depicting the story
of Wayland the Smith and the other the Adoration of the
Magi, are symmetrically disposed to either side of a central
dividing element composed of a framed segment of two-
strand twist (guilloche) but united by the wide borders of
runic inscriptions and narrow guilloche frame enclosing the
panel on four sides. These borders are interrupted at each
corner by small backbiting animals and the spaces that once
contained the corner fittings. The runic inscription trans-
literatedinto Anglo-Saxon and translatedinto English reads:
The flood lifted up the fish on to the cliff-bank; the
whale became sad, where he swam on the shingle.
Whale's bone.28
12
Clearly it refers to the origin of the material from which the
casket is made. Instead of identifying the pictorial subjects, it
presents in alliterative verse a colorful account of how a
whale became stranded on the shore, making possible the
carving of the chest. In effect it adds a third, verbal story to
the two visual ones already present. One rune word reading
"Magi" is incised in the right-hand field, in marked stylistic
contrast to the relief letters used elsewhere on the casket,
but the story on the left is presented solely in pictorial terms
with no verbal hint of its subject (the only such case on the
casket). Should it be assumed that those using the casket
were thoroughly familiar with the tale?
Despite the lack of an identifying inscription, the legend
depicted on the left-hand side can be identified without
doubt as the revenge of Wayland (Volundr).29 The earliest
written source of this story is the Anglo-Saxon poem
"Deor's Lament," which alludes to the events depicted as
though the story were commonly known. The later Eddic
VolundarkviRta composed ca. 900 gives a fuller account, as
does the still later and more elaborate DiSreks Saga of ca.
1250. Parallels with representations found in Scandinavian
art confirm the identification.30
Because of his power to forge magic rings, Wayland the
Smith was captured by King Nithhad, hamstrung, and forced
to work for him. On the casket Wayland is shown on the
left before his anvil forging a golden cup from the head of
one of King Nithhad's sons whom he had murdered and of-
fering a cup to a female figure, presumably Beadohild, the
king's daughter, whom he drugged and raped. Above the an-
vil are seen a hammer and other tools of the trade, and be-
low lies the headless body of the king's son. The pictorial
account here is somewhat abbreviated, since two sons are
usually indicated. Princess Beadohild is apparently bringing
to Wayland for repair one of the magic rings her father had
previously stolen, and he is offering her the drugged potion,
the means of his second act of revenge. The figure in the
middle carrying what is perhaps a flask and set off in quo-
tation-mark fashion by plant-like forms may be either a
second depiction of Beadohild or her maidservant. To the
right a man is shown strangling birds. He is most commonly
identified as Wayland's brother Egill who, in the manner of

Daedalus, made feathered wings for the crippled Wayland
to escape from King Nithhad's wrath.
The story is composed in three parts by juxtaposing the
major elements, giving the viewer only the most telling de-
tails from which to construct the sequence of events. The
method is more evocative than descriptive. The same is
true of the style of the carving. At first glance it appears
naive and crude in its two-dimensionality. There is a simple
differentiation between foreground and background planes
with mere incisions to indicate drapery patterns and other
details. Although some of these incisions are cut at angles
of less than 90 degreees, giving a momentary impression of
plasticity and corporeal fullness, the dominant impression is
that of decorative surface pattern and of dark-light contrasts
rather than tonal modulation. Thus the figure style is equi-
valent to that of the inscriptions, which are carved as raised
letters rather than being incised. Since incised letters are far
more easily executed than relief letters, the latter represent
an aesthetic choice-and certainly a happy one, as can be
seen by comparing them with the one incised rune word,
"Magi," on the front panel.
The adoration of the Magi depicted on the right-hand
side of the front panel shows the three kings, preceded by a
large rosette star and a curious bird, approaching the Virgin
and Child from the left.31 The first king kneels, and the
three carry gifts that are very unusual in form-two have
bowls mounted on tall rodlike stems presumably containing
gold and frankincense, while the third has a long stick with
what may be protruding leaves, probably a branch of a
myrrh tree. The Virgin and Child are either inside a shrine
or seated on a high-backed throne, the representation being
too schematic to decide with any certainty. They are seen
frontally, and the Christ Child's nimbus is crossed.
Here too there is an insistence on filling up all the surface
area and a tendency to treat persons and objects as decora-
tive elements. A triquetra knot fills the corner of the field
between the third of the Magi and the frame on the left; in
front of the first of the Magi and on either side of the Vir-
gin's head there are S-shaped elements; and there are two
round pellets in the area above the arch of the Virgin's
shrine or throne. Such pellets are also found among the rune
FIGURE 3. The Franks Casket, Right side, Florence, Museo Nazionale.
letters of the border inscription where they serve no linguis-
tic purpose. The columns and arch of the shrine or throne
are made up of a series of double bars; their bases and capi-
tals, of multiple bars. The Virgin and Child are virtually re-
duced to only their heads and halos-two series of super-
imposed concentric curves.
This is the only appearance on the casket of Christian
iconography, and the composition ultimately derives from a
common early Christian formula. As Goldschmidt first ob-
served, the scene on the Franks Casket is comparable to a
scene found on one of the so-called Monza ampules, East
Christian work of the late sixth century.32 Though the over-
all composition of the ampule is symmetrical, with the
shepherds' adoration included to the right of the throne, in
many details the depictions are strikingly similar if allow-
ance is made for the schematic rendering on the casket-
specifically, in the strict frontality, a kneeling king, the type
of garments worn, the high-backed throne, and the rosette
star. However, to my knowledge there are no early Christian
parallels either for the bird that precedes the Magi or for
the form of their gifts. These remain unsolved iconographic
problems.33
Before considering the other panels, some observations
about the border should be made. In keeping with the deco-
rative, space-filling effects noted in the scenes, not only is
the pictorial field framed by the runic inscriptions but also
each portion of the inscription is enclosed in a narrow band.
The whole panel is then surrounded by a guilloche border
that, in like manner, is enclosed within plain narrow bands.
Frames thus are framed. The compulsion to enclose is even
carried over into the inscription, which begins in the upper
left corner and encircles the panel. At the bottom, where
normal reading procedure would dictate a reading from left
to right, the artist has written the rune letters backward and
thus made a continuous verbal fence by causing the line to
be read from right to left.
The right side-panel now in Florence (Fig. 3) has three
episodes within a single pictorial field similarly enclosed by
runic inscriptions, guilloche and corner animals-although
not back-biting ones. To the left a helmeted warrior carry-
ing a spear and a round shield approaches a strange com-
posite figure seated on a stone and holding a two-pronged
leafy rod. This creature has the legs of a man, a bird's body,
and a horse's head with a snake for a tongue. The central
episode shows a horse with interlace between its legs, a fly-
ing bird, a chalice, a figure inside a mound, and a standing
personage holding a rod. These elements are mingled with
13
 FIGURE4. The FranzksCasket,Back,London,British Museum.
plant forms and three rune words, wood (uudu), rush (risci),
and animal (bita)-apparently labels for what is represent-
ed. The scene to the right shows a robed figure in frontal
pose being held by two flanking profile figures wearing
hoodedcloaks.
The inscription uses arbitrary runes to denote vowels.
Though the puzzle of these cryptic signs can be solved, the
inscription itself is linguistically unclear, giving rise to con-
siderablecontroversy.Elliott gives the following as the most
plausiblereading:
Here the horse stands above the mound of woe,
It suffers tribulation; just as to her Erta appointed
anxiety,
A grave of grief, in sorrow and anguish of heart.
The panel is one of the most disputed, but generally the
scenes are interpreted as depicting the Sigurd legend.34The
horse is then Grani, Sigurd's steed, who bowed his head to
the ground when he knew his master was slain. This legend
is recordedin the Gutrunarkvi'a. Written sources for the
Sigurd legend are numerous,35e.g., the Volsunga Saga and
the Nibelungenlied, although their preserved texts scarcely
go back earlier than the thirteenth century. Even so, the
sources do not spell out an unequivocal interpretation of the
details, and the confusing inscription appears to obscure
rather than to clarify the problem. Schneider's interesting
newer interpretation constructed from material given in
Saxo's Danish History and the Eddic Gylfaginning identifies
the scene as depicting the myth of the death of Balder, who
was mourned by his wife Nanna after being killed by Ho-
ther.36Whether the subject is Sigurd or Balder, it seems
certain that no written account exists that fully parallels the
representation on the casket-a reasonable fact when the
nature of the written sources, their late date, and their place
of origin is considered in comparison with the English
provenanceof the casket.
Despite the controversy it is agreed that the scene is
drawn from the northern mythological tradition.37 This
seems acceptable on art-historical grounds because of the
relation of certain motifs to those of pagan Scandinavian
monuments (to be discussed below). Internal evidence of
14
FIGURE5. The FranksCasket,Left side, London,British Museum.
composition also points to the same conclusion. The ar-
rangement of parts bears a striking resemblance to the Way-
land scene on the front, i.e., in its units of narrative placed
side by side with minimal spatial division between them.
Each episode is read as a unit, because each has its own in-
dependent focal point. None of the other panels of the cas-
ket show this type of composition; in all other cases each
field or zone contains only one episode. The carving style of
the right side-panel, even though its inscriptions and figures
are somewhat less generously proportioned, is also compar-
able to that of the front. The same framing procedures are
used too, but instead of writing the runes of the bottom line
backward the artist has turned them upside down, accom-
plishing the verbalfence by simpler means.
The back panel (Fig. 4) depicts the historical event of Ti-
tus' capture of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Its composition is un-
usual for the casket, since the various episodes are separated
and organized by the device of two superimposed zones cut
through by a central arch. Such a composition has very close
parallels, as Brown noted, with double-register early Chris-
tian sarcophagi.38Furthermore, the runic inscription does
not fully surroundthe scene as on all the other side panels-
perhaps because of lack of space, as the letters at the top are
carved much smaller than those on the sides or elsewhere
on the casket. The inscription on the left half of the panel
reads:
Here fight Titus and theJews.
That on the right reads:
Here the inhabitantsflee fromJerusalem.
The latter inscription, however, is composed in Latin rather
than in Anglo-Saxon. Even more curious, along the top the
first part of this inscription is carved in Roman letters rath-
er than runes, then along the side the Latin word afitatores
(i.e. habitatores)is renderedin runes.39
At first sight the carving on the Titus panel seems quite
similar to that found elsewhere on the casket. There are the
same simplified forms and reduction of details to abstract
linear patterns as well as the general conception of a flat
figure silhouetted against the background plane. Yet upon
closer examination, in certain figures, most notably those
FIGURE 6. The FranksCasket,Top, London,British Museum.
wearing long cloaks, there are strong suggestions of three-
dimensional corporeality. This is effected by depicting the
cloaks behind the legs and by the use of angular cuts to ren-
der draperyfolds. The composition also shows a much more
frequent overlapping of figures and a greater variety of pos-
tures and facial views than occur elsewhere on the casket.
There can be little doubt that this is a vestige of antique il-
lusionism and spatial suggestions not yet fully translated in-
to the dominant abstract sign language of the casket, and it
is very much in the same spirit as the Latin inscription on
the panel, which is only partiallydressed in runicgarments.40
In the central arch of the panel, thought to represent the
Temple of Jerusalem or the Ark of the Covenant, there are
three pairs of animals connected by interlace. The upper
left-hand register shows the soldiers of Titus carrying
spears and wearing helments, one of them possibly with a
coat of mail; the upper right register depicts the Jews flee-
ing Jerusalem.Sliding down the curve of the arch are some
lively nude figures, doubtless refugees, though the impres-
sion theygive is quite playful.
The long inscriptions apply to the upper registers, while
the lower registers appear to be identified by two rune la-
bels appearing in the lower left and right corners below the
fitting spaces where the little animals are to be found on
the other panels. These rune words are: left-doom, judg-
ment (dom); and right-hostage (gisl).41 Accordingly, the
lower left register would be best identified as a trial scene,
and the lower right, showing persons wearing cloaks and
carryingstaffs, as a group of prisoners.
No one has yet made an iconographic study of the Titus
panel. The events portrayedappear to derive from Josephus'
account of the Jewish wars, but the details of the represen-
tation have not been satisfactorily explained, the animals of
the central arch being a case in point.42The rareness of the
depiction of Titus' capture of Jerusalem in early medieval
art seems to indicate the availability of an unusual or little
used source. As early as 1904 Strzygowski suggested that
such a model might have been an illustrated world chronicle
such as that of Theophilus of Alexandria (d. 412).43 Cer-
tainly the composition and style of the carving strongly in-
dicatea Mediterraneanmodel.
The left side-panel (Fig. 5) represents the finding of Ro-
mulus and Remus by shepherds and is composed in the
usual manner, having an encircling rune frame with upside-
down rune letters at the bottom, back-biting animals in the
corners, and a guilloche border all around. The inscription
reads:
Romulus and Remus, two brothers: a she-wolf fed
them in Rome city, far from their native land.
The she-wolf lying on her back in the center is suckling the
twins, who appear to float in from above where a second
wolf, possibly the he-wolf, is shown emerging from between
the upper branches of a tree. Approaching from either side
is a pair of men carrying spears and separated by trees with
splayed trunks and tendril-like branches that end in leaves
or knobs. These trees seem to indicate a thick undergrowth,
since the men grasp the trunks as if to part them for a bet-
ter view. They also serve to fill the space and give the tap-
estry-like effect so characteristicof the carving style of the
casket. The composition may be described as a combination
of a bird's-eyeand a side view.
There are a number of antique pictorial representations
of the story of Romulus and Remus, as Souers pointed out
in his study of the panel.44He demonstrated that the ver-
sion of the story represented on the panel is that of the find-
ing of the twins by the shepherds, one of the two pictorial
versions found in classical art. The Franks Casket seems to
be the only early medieval monument to preserve this ver-
sion,45and thus again it appears that the artist was drawing
upon a relativelyobscuresource.
Finally, there is the fragment of the lid, which may or
may not originally have had a surrounding runic inscription
(Fig. 6). It is identified only by a single rune word in the
pictorial field, reading aegili. Ingeniously arranged around a
central disk that once accommodated the handle, the scene
shows an archer inside a crenelated fortification on the right,
doing battle with eight soldiers on the left. One warrior car-
ries a spear, and the rest, swords; five have round shields;
15
one wears a helmet with nosepiece; three wear coats of mail;
and two are nude, possibly a reference to the practice of
plundering the armor of a fallen warrior.46 Inside the cren-
elated walls, behind the bowman, is an arched enclosure
containing the bust of a figure holding a sticklike object.
Above, within the arch, and below, under the shrine, are
paired heads of birds or beasts. Again the style is similar to
the other panels in its surface patterning. Pellets, triquetra
knots, and arrows are used as space fillers; they approach in
their visual appearance the forms of the rune letters found
elsewhere. The schematic formulae used for the architectural
renderings also accord with the surface pattern.
The representation is most commonly identified as an
episode in the adventures of Egill the brother of Wayland,
who made Wayland's wings and who was also a famous
archer, an early William Tell. The written sources about
Egill are the same as those for Wayland, namely the Volund-
arkvi'a and Di'reks Saga. Reviewing the question of the
identification of this scene, Souers outlined the considerable
linguistic complications of the word aegili and noted that
the accounts of Egill given in the sagas are insufficient to
explain the scene depicted.'7 This has led some scholars to
reverse the usual procedure and to reconstruct a legend un-
known in literary form on the basis of the pictorial evidence
of the casket. Although Souers felt that no identification of
the archer as Egill had been entirely convincing, it was nev-
ertheless the most satisfactory one that could be proposed.48
Schneider, however, rejected the Egill identification,
claiming that the scene is drawn from the Iliad and that the
rune word aegili is an Anglo-Saxon word for the Latin Achil-
les.-'" The notion that the lid represented an episode from
the Trojan War was first suggested by Strzygowski when he
brought forward the possibility of a world chronicle as a
source for the Franks Casket's representations.50
From the evidence offered by the depictions on the casket
it seems probable that the carver derived his material from
two major sources. A world chronicle appears to be the most
likely source for the representation of the Magi, Titus, Rom-
ulus and Remus, and the scene on the lid, if the latter be ac-
cepted as one from the Iliad. The fifth-century Greek chron-
icle of Theophilus of Alexandria survives only in a few pa-
pyrus fragments, but a Latin version from the region of
Corbie dating from the second half of the eighth century, the
so-called Scaliger Barbarus (Paris, Bibl. nat. MS. latin 4884),
provides a record of its contents. Although unillustrated ex-
cept for a small historiated initial P at folio 1, the interlace
of which Meyer Schapiro has noted as having an insular pat-
tern, 51 there are blank spaces reserved between the lines of
16
text for illustrations, and in some cases there are Latin labels
for identification of personages or activities to be drawn.
The latter are comparable to the runic words used in the
pictorial fields on the Franks Casket. The adoration of the
Magi is treated on folio 51v of the Scaliger Barbarus, Titus'
destruction of Jerusalem on folio 56r, Romulus and Remus
on folios 23V, 27V and 42r, and the Iliad on folios 20V and
24V."2 The remaining scenes from northern myth would
then derive from a second, hitherto unidentified pictorial
source, possibly a textile belonging to the tradition from
which the Bayeux Tapestry derives. This suggestion is ad-
vanced on the basis of a number of unusual decorative de-
tails that seem best explained with reference to embroidery
procedure such as is seen on the Bayeux Tapestry.5
To sum up, certain basic features of the style and iconog-
raphy of the casket can be defined, and some preliminary
conclusions formulated. The carving exhibits a relatively
consistent two-layer relief-forms are for the most part
sharply defined, simplified, and isolated like silhouettes
against the background plane, the major exception being the
Titus panel where clear vestiges of classical illusionism can
be detected. An unusual amount of narrative detail is includ-
ed, although often it is ambiguous and does not permit pre-
cise interpretation because of the simplification of forms and
sometimes also because of the filling of intervening spaces
with decorative elements. It is the continuous surface pat-
tern that accounts for the aesthetic unity of the work, and
which make possible the apparent floating of figures and
elements across the field noted frequently in the scenes. We
are not, then, dealing primarily with illusionistic space or
forms, but rather with signs. Some of the forms or compo-
sitions appear to derive ultimately from illusionistic models,
but they are for the most part transformed, leaving only
traces of the original style as in the Titus panel. In this
sense of signs the figures are equivalent to the rune letters
and vice versa, and both are an integral part of the overall
patterning. There is no conflict between word and image,
and in a sense there is no subordination of one to the other
as in the case of a caption under a picture or of a picture il-
lustrating a portion of a text. This is also evident in the way
the runes encircle the pictorial field; their inherent need to
be read from left to right is sacrificed to the demands of the
pictorial.
Iconographically the casket appears to derive from at least
two major sources, one northern and one Mediterranean.
There are two or three scenes drawn from the northern
mythological tradition, and two or three from the classical
cultural heritage. Only one scene, the Adoration of the Magi,
 FIGURE 7. Picture stone from Alskogs par-
FIGURE 8a. Picture stone from Ardre par-
ish, I, Tjaingvide, Gotland, Sweden, Stockholm,
ish, VIII, Gotland, Sweden, Stockholm, Statens
StatensHistoriska Museum.
HistoriskaMuseum.

is Christian. Given the preponderance of pagan myths,

northern or antique, and the folkloric nature of the Magi
story itself, it would seem that the Franks Casket is secular
both in origin and purpose. Very little medieval secular art
survives, and even the identification of secular themes on
religious monuments is controversial.54 Thus, with refer-
ence to early medieval art as we know it through surviving
works, the non-Christian, though not however nonethical,
complexion of the Franks Casket is quite unusual.
The narrative, storytelling aspect is, moreover, equally
unusual. The scope of the subject matter and the lavish use
of verbal comment, not to mention pictorial detail, suggest
an underlying intention to delight and entertain. This is also
indicated by the use of the rune letters, which are commonly
known to have been associated with magic practice, and by
the cryptic puzzle of arbitrary vowel runes on the right side-
panel. Perhaps even the Latin inscription of the back panel
should be seen as occult in intention or at least as a display FIGURE 8b. Painted version of Fig. 8a.
of erudition rather than simply an inadvertent error made
while copying from the model, as some have supposed. The tion. Two of these mushroom-shaped stones now preserved
casket appears to derive from a learned context, one that had in the State Historical Museum, Stockholm, can be used to
access to literary and pictorial material that was uncommon illustrate the range and nature of the parallels with the cas-
or seldom utilized in the early Middle Ages. ket.
Brown as early as 1930 suggested a relationship between The first, a fragment from the Tjiingvide farm in the par-
the Franks Casket and the picture stones from the island of ish of Alskog (Fig. 7), depicts the Sigurd legend. On the
Gotland, Sweden. Sune Lindqvist's corpus treating these lower portion of the stone there is the common ship with
monuments, published in 1941, makes available the evidence great sail, and above among other figures is a horse and rid-
for Brown's observation.55 The group of these stones that er. The most interesting detail in comparison with the
is dated to the eighth century has direct correspondences to Franks Casket, seen also on several other examples, is the
the casket, mainly to the Wayland and the Sigurd or Balder interlaced knot filling the spaces between the forelegs and
representations. Although the iconography of these memor- under the belly of the horse. The eight legs and clear sil-
ial stones still presents problems in interpretation, it is clear houette of the horse on the Tjangvide stone contrast with
that they deal with death symbolism and unquestionably de- the greater naturalism of the Franks Casket horse, but the
pict episodes from northern mythology. Versions of both equivalent triquetra knot form and the placement of the
the Wayland and Sigurd legends can be identified. More knots leave little doubt that this is a specific pictorial con-
significant are some striking parallels of pictorial conven- vention. In addition the stark contour figures and the flat

17
 FIGURE9. Ramsundstone engraving,
Jider parish, Sodermanland,Sweden.
two-plane carving style of the Gotland stones are related to
the casket, even though the latter consistently breaks up the
interiorsof the forms with incised details.
The second example, stone VIII from the church at Ardre,
is executed in the same flat, contoured carving (Fig. 8 a-b).
The depiction of the Wayland myth in the lower central
portion of the stone makes use of the tongs and hammer
and two headless bodies. To the left of the Wayland scene is
a flying bird represented with profile head and an aerial
view of its wings, and below there is a cave-like form with
persons inside, conventions found on the Sigurd or Balder
panel of the casket. The step-fret pattern employed on the
fortification on the lid of the casket is found at the base of
the cave (see Fig. 8b) and is a frequent motif on other
stones.
In addition to these conventions, the Franks Casket
shares with the Gotland stones some characteristic methods
of composition. A number of stories or episodes are juxta-
posed on the stones in a seemingly random fashion, so that
persons or narrative units appear to float, anchored in the
composition by means of the overall surface patterning.
The stone from the church at Ardre is an excellent example
of these characteristics,directly comparable to the floating
horse of the Sigurd or Balder panel, the twins and upper
wolf on the Romulus and Remus panel, and one nude war-
rior on the lid of the casket. The major difference between
the casket'sSigurd or Balder and Wayland compositions and
the representations on the eighth-century picture stones is
that the Gotland stones are more hieroglyphic, i.e., there is
less indication of sequence and action and more reliance on
pure sign to tell the story. Thus the stones are more fully
an artof evocation.
If we accept the traditional philological date given the
casket and the eighth-century date for this group of Gotland
carvings, the casket and the picture stones are contemporary.
The differences in style between the casket and the Gotland
stones can be explained by their different places of origin,
but we have little evidencnce for Scandinavian influence of
this kind on English art at this early date to account for the
shared conventions. As Kendrick pointed out, .even though
the Viking raids on the Continent and England began in the
early ninth century, Scandinavian art styles made scarcely
18
any impact upon established English art until the tenth cen-
tury, some two or three hundred years after the date custo-
marilyassigned to the casket.56
Narrative art such as that on the Gotland picture stones is
relatively rare in early Scandinavian art. There is, as one in-
stance, the small embroidered tapestry from the Oseberg
ship-burial dated to the first half of the ninth century, of
which a small portion has been reconstructed.57It is an un-
usually narrow strip measuring only 6 to 9 inches in width
showing a number of horse-drawn carts and figures and
may represent a scene from saga. Insofar as the fragment
permits us to judge, however, the only parallel with the
FranksCasket is the general one of compositional form, i.e.,
the piling up of figures so that they appear to float one
above the other, having no specified spatial or sequential re-
lationship to each other-a characteristicthat appears to be
typicalof survivingScandinaviannarrativeart.
Apart from the memorial stones, the majority of objects
surviving from the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries in
Scandinaviaare decorative and non-narrative. They are per-
sonal and utilitarian, made of wood or metal, and portable.
Common decorative motifs used are the isolated crouching
animal, the pellet filler, the triquetraknot, the guilloche, and
the step fret-all of which appearon the casket.58
Two rock engravings in Sweden, considerably later in date
than the Oseberg tapestry, are narratives and probably de-
pict the Sigurd legend. They are the famous Ramsund stone
from Jader and the Gok stone, most likely a copy of the
Ramsund stone, from Harad. The Ramsund stone (Fig. 9)
shows a number of persons, animals, and objects so irregu-
larly spaced as to appear to float over the pictorial field,
which is defined by three long ribbon animals. A runic in-
scription that indicates the memorial nature of the carving
fills the body of the lower animal, and a step fret that of the
two upper animals. The stone is traditionally assigned to the
eleventh century, for it is unmistakably in the Ringerike
style,59 as can be seen by the trilobate union of the two
beasts at the top, the tendril formations of the lappets of the
head of the animal to the right, and the filling of the body of
the animal with the runic inscription. (The Gik stone has
one animal, which interlocks with itself to complete the oval
frame, and a concentric runic inscription.) Many of the nar-
FIGURE 10a. Picture stone,
Hablingbo church,
Gotland, Sweden.
FIGURE IOb. Reconstruction Drawing of Fig.
IOa.
rative elements, e.g., tongs, headless man, horse, and bird,
have counterparts on the Franks Casket, and, more impor-
tant, the runic inscription forms the border, or rather an en-
closure,for these elements.
Runic inscriptions are found on the earlier eighth-century
Gotland stones, but they do not surround the scenes, and the
borders are composed of interlace (cf. Fig. 7, lower right and
upper left sides). The animal rune frame is characteristic of
eleventh-century memorial stones in the Ringerike style,
fine examples of which are found on Gotland. The narrative
element on the late Gotland stones is far less pronounced
than on the Ramsund or Gik stones, but, like the earlier pic-
ture stones are carved in relief rather than engraved as are
the Ramsund and Gok stones. The stone now in the church
at Hablingbo (Fig. 10 a-b), mushroom-shaped although
more squat than the eighth-century stones, depicts in the
upper field a warrior on horseback approaching a man. A
step fret divides the picture scene from the lower field
a. Front
FIGURE 11. Picture stone from
Ardre parish, III, Gotland, Sweden.
a. Front; b. Back.
b. Back
where two beasts confront one another clasped together by
the central trilobate, Ringerike form and its maze of pro-
truding tendrils. The tendrils twine around the bodies of the
animals, which flow down, out and up around the perimeter
of the stone carrying the runic inscription. In still other
stones, e.g., stone III from the church at Ardre (Fig. 11 a-b),
there is a rune frame that on one side (Fig. 1lb) forms the
whole perimeter. (A square-cross form is also employed in
these runic borders as a corner filler and stop-a device that
appears once on the Franks Casket, in the upper left corner
of the Titus panel.) Such perimetric rune frames on the
eleventh-century stones are directly comparable to those on
the Franks Casket, where the inscriptions are carved both
upside down and backwardin order to maintain a radial and
perimetricrune fence.60
Another aspect, the terminal forms of the interlaced ani-
mal bodies of the eleventh-century Gotland stones, is echoed
on the casket. Traces of the characteristic flowing tendrils
19
 a. Drawing

with knob-like terminals of the Ringerike interlace are seen

on the Romulus and Remus panel, where a few of the tree
branches are extended in curves and end in knobs (cf. Figs.
I
9-11 and Fig. 5, especially the branches around the upper
wolf). FIGURE 12. Halton Cross, Lancashire, England.
In summary, then, the Scandinavian monuments show a. Drawing; b. Detail.
that the Wayland and Sigurd or Balder scenes are found in
the Scandinavian pictorial repertory and in their earliest
known form can be dated to the eighth century, the tradi- b. Detail
tional date of the casket. Examples of narrative art are found
in Scandinavia after the eighth century, and they show, like
the earlier picture stones, loose compositions with floating
elements. The encirclement of narrative scenes with a runic
inscription is a characteristic of the late tenth and eleventh-
century Ringerike style. Finally, the two-plane relief style of
Scandinavian stone sculpture from the eighth through the f::
ffff tSf X:f05:
eleventh centuries is like that of the casket. Since we have
little evidence of Scandinavian influence on English art until
after the ninth-century Viking invasions, i.e., during the
period of tenth and eleventh-century Viking settlement in
England, the tenth and eleventh-century Ringerike elements
on the casket call into question the date of ca. 700 assigned
to the casket on linguistic grounds.
A pure example of the Ringerike style is known in Eng-
land-the tombstone from St. Paul's churchyard, London,
which has a Scandinavian runic inscription.61 This is not
surprising in light of the conquests of Canute in the early
eleventh century. In the Midlands and in northern England
there are, however, a number of late Anglo-Saxon crosses
dating from the tenth and eleventh centuries that show a
direct link with both Viking art and the Franks Casket.
These crosses are carved in a flat two-plane style more akin ures depicted in mirror image and (below) a cross flanked
to Scandinavian relief work in stone and the technique of by two figures also in mirror image. On the opposite side
the sculptor of the Franks Casket than to the earlier North- there are also superimposed arches. The upper one, which
umbrian crosses. However, they also relate to the earlier is subdivided into two fields, shows a pair of birds united by
Northumbrian crosses by virtue of their paneled composi- interlace and a scene that can probably be identified as Sig-
tion and a number of their decorative motifs. urd roasting Fafnir's heart. The lower panel appears to de-
Three are especially instructive. The first, from Halton in pict the Wayland legend. It shows a figure in front of an
Lancashire (Fig. 12 a-b), is quite weathered.62 There are anvil raising a large hammer. Below the anvil are two ob-
fields of geometric interlace, vine decoration, and paired an- jects, possibly bellows, and above it are tongs and a head-
imals as well as fields with figural subjects, both Christian less person with an interlaced knot where its head would
and pagan. On one side, under superimposed arches, can be have been. Considering the objects depicted and the mode of
seen (above) an angel hovering above a pair of seated fig- composition, there can be little doubt that the lower scene is

20

b. Detail
drawn from the northern mythological tradition and has
Scandinavian prototypes. Still more significant, however, is
the fact that the organization of the elements is far more
narrative in intent than are either the eighth-century Got-
land stones (cf. Fig. 8 a-b) or the later Ramsund Stone (Fig.
9). The smith, like Wayland on the Franks Casket, is shown
in the process of plying his trade. Floating or loosely-com-
posed elements occur, but they appear more as stage props
within a narrative episode. According to David Wilson, the
artist of the Ramsund Stone has treated the animals and
as "individual pieces of Ringerike ornament, rather than as
narrative composition."63 The artists of both the Franks
FIGURE 13. Nunburnholme Cross, East Riding, Yorkshire, England.
a. Drawing; b. Detail.
Casket and the Halton Cross appear to have moved some-
what beyond decoration and pure evocation toward narra-
tion. Before leaving the Halton Cross, its use of mirror-im-
age representations sometimes united by interlace should be
noted in comparison with the animals under the central arch
on the Titus panel of the casket.
The second cross, at Nunburnholme in the East Riding of
Yorkshire, appears to be a Viking memorial (Fig. 13 a-b).
Both W. G. Collingwood64 and Brown65 based such an in-
terpretation upon the seated figure wearing a sword that is
found on the upper portion of one of the faces. Below this
seated Viking are a pair of birds and pair of figures executed
as mirror images. The subject of the cross is enigmatic, and
its damaged and eroded condition makes study even more
difficult. It seems fairly evident that the Virgin and Christ
Child are represented, but the remainder of the scenes are
quite hard to identify. There is a curious centaurlike creature
at the bottom of one panel, and in another of the lower
panels two figures, one of which has an animal head, are
seated opposite each other.66 Each of three of the figures
has a plaque in front of his chest, which Brown suggested
may be the breastplate known as the ephod worn by the
Jewish high priest.67
Even though little can be said with any degree of certainty
about the iconography of the cross, there are some features
that show a remarkable resemblance to the Franks Casket.
The centaur, of classical derivation, and the seated figure
with an animal head bear general parallels. The plaque re-
sembles the object worn by the first figure to the right of
the arch in the upper register of the Titus panel on the cas-
ket. There is one animal with its head turned backward, and
there are others united by interlace, although the form of the
latter is not comparable to those on the Franks Casket. One
further detail seems to relate to the casket. The halos of the
figures are roughly horseshoe shape; they terminate at the
shoulder by reversing direction and forming curls. There are
two curled elements, one on either side of the Virgin's head,
on the casket that can be read either as space fillers or as a
truncated version of this type of curled halo (cf. Fig. 2).
Such a decorative treatment of the halo is not uncommon on
these crosses and can be found in more extreme form on the
last of the three crosses to be considered.68
21

FIGURE 14. Leeds Cross, West Riding, Yorkshire, England.
a. Drawing; b. View.
Preserved in the Church of St. Peter, Leeds, in the West
Riding of Yorkshire this cross was assembled from frag-
ments found in the tower masonry of the old church when
it was pulled down in 1838 (Fig. 14 a-b). Hence the condi-
tion of the surface is relatively good, permitting a better es-
timate of the relief technique. The carving is very flat, and
all elements, the vine scroll and interlace patterns of the
sides as well as the figures of the main faces, are treated in
a very ornamental fashion. The stylized vine scroll, of clas-
sical origin, has a long English history, but some of the in-
terlace designs are debased Ringerike patterns, as manifest-
ed by their multiple terminations and curled-up ends (Fig.
14a, top panel, third side from left).69 The cross may rep-
resent the four symbols of the evangelists, all in human
form but distinguished from one another by having hoofs,
claws, or hands.70 The two lowest panels of the main faces
have scenes that appear to be drawn from northern myth.
The one generally associated with the story of Wayland is
quite damaged, but a hammer and tongs can be seen in its
lower right corner, and it is usually interpreted as Wayland
wearing wings and seizing a swan maiden.71 The figure
seen on the lowest part of the opposite main face with a
bird on his back and carrying a sword is identified as Sigurd
listening to the voice of the bird. That saga and Christian
stories are found together on the Leeds Cross seems entirely
admissible given the evidence of the Halton Cross.
Although of all the late Anglo-Saxon crosses these three
present the most striking parallels to the Franks Casket, a
number of others have decorative vocabularies that parallel
22
b. View
it. The non-figural cross at Two Dales near Darley Dale in
Derbyshire has the triquetra knot, guilloche, and pellets
(Fig. 15) The use of these motifs shows that the decorative
vocabulary of the Franks Casket can be accounted for in the
context of the late Anglo-Saxon crosses.
The dates of the three crosses are accepted as tenth and
eleventh century, but, lacking precise documentary evidence,
more specific dates assigned to them are based on relative
style development and typological considerations, neither of
which are entirely satisfactory methods in establishing fine
time differences. Collingwood, whose pioneer work on the
Northumbrian crosses still serves as the corpus of these
crosses, dated them as follows: Halton, early eleventh cen-
tury; Nunburnholme, eleventh century; and Leeds, ca. 1000.72
Kendrick, however, stated that the Leeds Cross "can scarcely
be dated earlier than about 1050."73 Estimates of specific
dates thus incline to the eleventh century.
These crosses demonstrate that an artistic climate seem-
ingly more compatible with the Franks Casket than that of
Northumbria in about 700 did exist in northern England
about 1000 in the area where the kingdom of Northumbria
and the Danelaw overlap (see Fig. 16). The flat carving
style, Scandinavian stylistic and iconographic influence, and
mixture of pagan and Christian iconography are the primary
points of comparison.74 Depending on the relative weight
given the comparative evidence, a conclusion might be a
Yorkshire provenance for the Franks Casket and a date
within about 50 years of 1000.
Although it is difficult to be more specific about the place
 FIGURE15. Darley Dale Cross,Derbyshire,England.

of origin of the casket on the basis of its iconography and

history, the city of York may be considered likely, for in the
tenth and eleventh centuries it would appear to provide the
requisite cultural milieu. The history of the city during this
period is sufficiently documented to demonstrate that York
was a lively commercial center, situated as it was on the ma-
jor sea and overland trade routes; that it had a substantial
population; and, most important of all, that it had far-flung
contacts with the Scandinavian kingdoms.75 Not only Eng-
lish chronicle sources, but place names, accounts from saga,
runic inscriptions in Scandinavia, and coin hoards both in
Scandinavia and England testify to the Scandinavian pres-
ence in Yorkshire.76 The northern mythological subjects
FIGURE 16. Map of England showing the countries together with
and traces of Scandinavian style on the casket accord well
the extent of Northumbria and the Danelaw superimposed and in-
with such evidence. What does seem unusual in northern dicated by diagonal hatching (Courtesy of B. M. Boyle).
England in the tenth and eleventh centuries is the casket's
classical, Mediterranean iconography, and it is in this con- eighth century.77 Numerous misfortunes befell the city and
nection especially that York seems indicated. The city was library beginning in the ninth century with the Viking in-
one of the leading cultural centers of western Europe in the vasions, and the fire in 1069 during fighting against the
late eighth and ninth centuries. It was there that Alcuin was Normans appears to have been especially disastrous.78 Oth-
trained in the eighth century. After Bede died at Jarrow in er calamities followed in the twelfth century. J. D. A. Ogilvy
735, cultural ascendancy shifted from the northern monas- states that only a gospel book and a continental ninth- or
tic centers such as Wearmouth, Jarrow, and Lindisfarne tenth-century Alcuin manuscript are known to have sur-
south to York, which became an archiepiscopal see in the vived from the early York library.79 It is possible, however,
year of Bede's death. One of the glories of the School of that a world chronicle such as that which Strzygowski sug-
York was the library, which from Alcuin's testimony must gested as a source for most of the scenes on the casket would
have been among the finest of its day. Although his Verses have been available at York. Based on art-historical evidence
on the Saints of the Church of York is scarcely a catalogue of alone, therefore, a date of ca. 1000 and a provenance of
the library, it does give some notion of its importance in the York may well be considered for the Franks Casket.

23
 NOTES
* I wish to
acknowledge my indebtedness to Professor George Kubler
for suggesting this study and directing its initial preparation and to
Professor Sumner Crosby for his help and encouragement in countless
matters. Presented in 1963 at the Symposium on the History of Art
sponsored by the Frick Collection and the Institute of Fine Arts, New
York University, it has been refined by the suggestions of numerous
persons. I wish to thank professors Konstantin Reichardt, Helge Kok-
critz, Louis Grodecki, Walter Cahn, Edzard Baumann, Spiro Kostof,
Robert Mark Harris, Phyllis Williams Lehmann, and others who have
offered assistance. I am grateful to Erna Huber and John Davis for
help in preparing the draft. A Smith College grant-in-aid to faculty
researchprovidedmonies for photographs.
1. The right side of the casket was bequeathed to the Museo Nazionale
in the collection of M. Carrandof Lyon (A. S. Napier in An English
Miscellany Presented to Dr. Furnivall in Honor of His Seventy-fifth
Birthday,Oxford, 1901, 363-64). G. B. Brown (The Arts in Early Eng-
land, VI, 1, London, 1930, 18ff.), who gives one of the fullest accounts
of the casket's early history, states that enquiries made by Franks re-
vealed that the casket had been owned by a Professor Mathieu of
Clermont-Ferrand,at which time it was already in pieces and the right
side missing. It is reported to have come from a family in Auzon who
used it as a workbox. Supposedly the son of the family had removed
the fittings, said to have been of silver, causing the box to fall apart.
Additional enquiries made by W. H. J. Weale revealed that the casket
had originally belonged to the Church of Saint-Julien, Brioude, and
hadpossibly been looted from it during the FrenchRevolution.
2. Bibliographie der Runeninschriften nach Fundorten, I, Die Runenin-
schriften der Britischen Inseln by Hertha Marquardt (Abhandlungen
der Akademie der Wissenschaften in G;ottingen, phil.-hist. Klasse,
Dritte Folge, Nr. 48), 10-16.
3. G. Stephens, Old-Northern Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and
England, London, 1866-1901, I-11, 470-76 and 921-23; III, 200-04;
1V, 40-44. See also G. Stephens, Handbook of the Old-Northern
Runic Monuments, London, 1884, 142-47. Franks' notice of the casket
had appeared in 1859, ("Proceedings at the Meetings of the Archaeo-
logical Institute: Nov. 1848, to June 1859," Archaeological Journal,
London, 1859, 391), and the first description and transliteration of the
inscriptions was done by Daniel Haigh (The Conquest of Britain by
the Saxons,London, 1861,42-44).
4. For publications prior to 1900, many of which are merely mentions or
descriptions, the reader is referred to the Hertha Marquardtbibliog-
raphy (see note 2) and to W. ViCtor (The Anglo-Saxon Runic Cas-
ket, Marburg, 1901, 2-4). Knowledge of the casket was doubtless fur-
thered by the replication of the casket in the form of plaster casts,
which were surely available by 1876 when J. O. Westwood published
his catalogue of fictile ivories (A Descriptive Catalogue of the Fictile
Ivoriesin the South Kensington Museum,London, 1876,234-35).
5. A. S. Napier, "The Franks Casket," An English Miscellany, Oxford,
1901,362-81.
6. R. W. V. Elliott, Runes,An Introduction,Manchester, 1959,108.
7. E. Wadstein, The Clermont Runic Casket, (Skritter utgifna at K. Hu-
manistiskaVetenskaps-Samfundeti Upsali. V1.7.), Upsala, 1900.
8. W. Victor, The Anglo-Saxon RunicCasket,Marburg,1901.
9. T. von Griengerger,"E. Wadstein, A. S. Napier und W. Vietor, Schrif-
ten uiberdas ags. Runenkastchen,"Zeitschrift fur deutsche Philologie,
33, 1901, 409-21 and "Zu den Inschriften des Clermonter Runenkast-
chens," Anglia, Zeitschrift fir Englische Philologie, 27, 1904, 435-49;
O. L. Jiriczek in Anzeiger fiir Deutsches Altertum und Deutsche Lit-
eratur, 29, 1904, 192-202; and F. Holthausen, in Literaturblatt fir
germanischeund romanischePhilologie, 21,208-12.
10. K. Schneider, "Zu den Inschriften und Bildern des Franks Casket und
einer ae. Version des Mythos von Balders Tod." Festschrift fur Wal-
ther Fischer, Heidelberg, 1959, 4-20. The argument is based in large
part on the linguistic forms found in the Latin inscription rather than
24
on the Anglo-Saxon forms. Concerning this thesis see also P. Berg-
haus-K. Schneider, Anglo-friesische Runensolidi im Lichte des Neu-
fundes von Schweindorf (Ostfriesland) [Arbeitsgemeinschaft fiir
Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Geisteswissenschaften,
1341, Cologne and Opladen, 1967, 47, 55; K. Malone, "The Franks
Casket and the Date of Widsith," Nordica et Anglica, Studies in Honor
of Stefan Einarsson, ed. A.H. Orrick, The Hauge, 1968, 10-18; and H.
Beck,review of Nordicat etAnglica in Anglia, 89,1971,378-79.
11. Major studies treating the Bargello panel are (in chronological order):
G. Hempl, "The Variant Runes on the Franks Casket," TranJactionJ
of the American Philological Association, 32, 1901, 186-95 (see also
the discussion of Hempl's work by W. Vietor in Deutsche Literaturzei-
tung, 25 Jahrgang, Nr. 6, 1904, 325-27); R. C. Boer, "Uber die rechte
Seite des angelsachsischen Runenkastchens," Arkiv for NordiJk Filo-
logi, 27, 1911, 216-59; R. Imelmann, Forschungen zur altengliJchen
Poesie, Berlin, 1920, 317-41; E. G(. Clark, "The Right Side of the
Franks Casket," PMLA, 45, 1930, 339-53; K. Spiess, "Das angelsach-
sische Runenkastchen," Josef Strzygowski-Festschrift, Klagenfurt,
1932, 160-68; W. Krausse, "Erta, ein anglischer Gott," Die Sprache,
Zeitschriftfur Sprachwissenschaft,5 (Festschrift fir W. Havers), 1959;
K. Schneider, "Zu den Inschriften und Bildern des Franks Casket,"
Festschriftfiir Walther Fischer, 1959; and A. C. Bouman, "The Franks
Casket, Right Side and Lid," Neophilologus, 49, 1965, 241-49; C. J. E.
Ball, "The Franks Casket: Right Side," English Studies, A Journal of
English Letters and Philology, 47, 1966, 119-25; M. Osborn, "Two
Inconsistent Letters in the Inscription on the Franks Casket, Right
Side,"Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 72, 1971, 30-34; and idem, "The
Grammar of the Inscription on the Franks Casket, Right Side," Neu-
philologische Mitteilungen, 73, 1972, 663-71. I am grateful to Fred
Robinson for the two final references.
12. P. W. Souers, "The Top of the Franks Casket," Harvard StudieJ and
Notes in Philology and Literature, 17, 1935, 163-79; "The Franks Cas-
ket: Left Side," ibid., 18, 1935, 199-209; "The Magi on the Franks
Casket," ibid., 19, 1937, 249-54; "The Wayland Scene on the Franks
Casket,"Speculum,18,1943,104-11.
13. H. R. E. Davidson, "The Smith and the Goddess, Two Figures on the
Franks Casket from Auzon," Fruhmittelalterliche Studien (Jahrbuch
des Instituts f[ir Friihmittelalterforschungder Universitat Munster) 3,
1969, 216-26 and A. Wolf, "FranksCasket in literarhisiorischerSlcht,"
ibid., 227-43. Forthcoming is a study by K. Hauck entitled Das K.st-
chen von Auzon, Zur Rezeption spdtantiker Genealogien im Friih-
mittelalter (Miunsterschen Mittelalter-Schriften, 5), Munich, 1970
(see K. Hauck, "Vorberichtuber das Kistchen von Auzon," lFrih2mit-
telalterlicheStudien,2, 1968,415-18).
14. L.Stone, Sculpturein Britain:The MiddleAges, Baltimore, 1955, 14.
15. J. O. Westwood, Catalogue,23.4.
16. O. M. Dalton, Catalogueof the Ivory Carvings in the Britijh Museum,
London, 1909,No. 30,27ff.
17. A. Goldschnldt, Die Elfenbeinskulpturenaus der Zeit der Karolingi-
schen undSachsischenKaiser,Berlin, 1918,11,(Nos. 186-187), 56-57.
18. R. A. Smith, Guide to the Anglo-Saxon and Foreign Teutonic Anti-
quities in the Department of British and Medieval AnitiquitieJ,Lon-
don, 1923,98.
19. J. Brbndsted,EarlyEnglish Ornament,London, 1924, 134.-
20. M. H. Longhurst,English Ivories, London, 1926, 1.
21. (;.B. Brown,Arts in EarlyEngland,VI, 1, 18-51.
22. Cf. J. Strzygowski, "Die koptische Truhe von Terracina,"AlonatJhefte
fuii Kunitwissenschaft, 1, 1908, 26-3 and J. Brandsted, liEarlyIingh.lh
Ornament,13-i.
23. One possible exception is the study by Louis Br6hier (Le Coffret d'Au-
zon, Brioude, 1931). It is primarily descriptive and accepts the tradi-
tional attributions.
2 A. A.K. Porter, The Crossesand Cultureof Ireland, 1931,93.
25. 0. E. Saunders,A History of English Art in the Middle AgeJ, Oxford,
1932,19.
26. Lrank and Harrlctt Elgee, The Archaeology of Yorkshire, l.ondon,
1933,2 18.
27 T.D. Kendrick,Anglo-SaxonArt toA. D. 900, London, 1938, 121-25.
28. All translations of inscriptions are quoted from R. W. V. Elliott,
Runes, 1959,96-109.
29. For the iconography see especially P. W. Souers, "The Wayland Scene
on the Franks Casket," Speculum, 18, 1943, 104-11 and L. Whitbread,
"The Binding of Weland," Medium Aevumr, 25, 1956, 13-19. Com-
pare also the recent interpretation of H. R. E. Davidson ("The Smith
and the (oddess," Frihmiittelalterliche Studien, 3, 1969, 216-26) and
the analysis of the representation with respect to its literary parallels
by A. Wolf ("Franks Casket in literarhistorischer Sicht," ibid., 227-
-13).
30. See the discussion below.
31. Concerning the iconography see P. W. Souers, "The Magi on the
Franks Casket," Harvard Studies, 19, 1937, 249-54.
32. A. Goldschmidt, Die Elfzenbeinskulpturen, 11, 56. See A. Grabar, Am-
poules de Terre Sainte, Paris, 1958, ill. planche II.
33. Professor George Kubler has called my attention to the twelfth-cen-
tury stone baptismal font at Aakirkeby on the Danish island of Born-
holm, carved by the Gotlander Sigraf. Within an arcaded setting it de-
picts both the adoration of the Magi and flight into Egypt. The gifts
the Magi bring to the Child are usual in form. However, departing on
horseback they carry rods that sprout leaves (see L. Jacobsen and E.
Moltke, Danm2arks Runeindskrifter, Copenhagen, 1942, No. 373, figs.
869-902).
i-. For bibliography see note 11. For detailed iconographic interpretations
related to Sigurd see especially E. G. Clark (PAILA, 45, 1930, 339ff.),
K. Spiess (Josef Strzygowski-Festschrlft, 1932, 160ff.), and H. R. E.
D)avl\ids) ( lThe Smith and1tlhe (Goddess,'' Friil/iottelalterliche Studienz,
3, 1969,2 16-26).
35. See the brief summary in H. R. Ellis, "Sigurd in the Art of the Viking
Age," Antiquity, 16, 9'42, 216.
36. K Schnelider, Fle.itschrif fiir U"alther Fi cher, 1959, 4-20.
37. There has been one attempt to interpret the representation as an alle-
gory of the Passion (F. C. Walker, "Fresh Light on the Franks Casket,"
"aL.hington UniZ'ersity Studies, II, 1915, 165f.).
38. G. B. Brown, Arts in Early England, VI, 39-40. Cf. J. Wilpert, I sarco-
fagi cristiani antichi, Rome, 1929, I, pls. 86,92, 96, 122, 128, 129, 157.
39. There are other examples in early English inscriptions of Latin words
rendered in runic letters-e.g., on the crosses of Ruthwell and Bew-
castle and the coffin reliquary of Saint Cuthbert (see G. B. Brown,
Arts in Early England, V, 246 and B. Dickens' study in The Relics of
Saint Cuthbert, ed., C. F. Battiscombe, Oxford, 1956, 305ff.).
0(. Concerning such a stylistic mixture see the comments of E. Kitzinger
in ibid., 280ff.
tl. These rune words have sometimes been interpreted as the name of
the artist, first by D. Haigh (Conquest of Britain, 1861, 43) and most
recently by K. Schneider ( estJchrift fir Walther Fischer, 1959), 19).
i2. B. Dickens (quoted in Guide to Anglo-Saxon Antiquities, British Mu-
seum, 1923, 97 land again in detail by C. Singer in Legacy of IJrael,
1927, 172) suggested that the arch was the temple, inside of which is
the Ark of the Covenant with cherubim on either side and underneath
the oxen below the sea of brass (I Kings 7:t4). G. B. Brown (ArtJ in
Earl' England, VI, 1, 33-3-i) proposed that the scene depicted a leg-
end recorded by Tacitus (Hist. V, 3, 4). The Israelites in the desert
were saved by a herd of asses who led them to water, and a shrine
was therefore dedicated to the animal in the temple.
-43. Strzygowski's idea of a world chronicle, much quoted since, was first
suggested to W. Victor (see Victor's remarks in the Deutsche Litera-
turzeitung, 25, 1904, 327). Strzygowski himself mentioned it in inee
alexandrinische Weltchronik (Denkschriften der k. Akademie der
Wissenschaften in Wien, phil.-hist. Klasse, LI, 1906), 137 and 142 and
in "Das orientalische Italien," Alonatshefte fiir Kunstwissenschaft,
I, 1908, 33. The probable existence of an illustrated Josephus, specifi-
cally his Jewlish Antiquities, has been discussed by Kurt Weitzmann
("Zur Frage des Einflusses jiidischer Bilderquellen auf die Illustration
des alten Testamentes," in Mullus, Festschrift Theodor Klauser, ed. A.
Stuiber, Jahrbuch fiir Antike und Christenturn, Erginzungsband 1,
1964, 415). Concerning the knowledge of Josephus' writings in the
Anglo-Saxon period see J. D. A. Ogilvy, Books Known to the English,
597-1066 (Medieval Academy of American Publication No. 76), Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1967, 185-86.
4-i. P. W. Souers, "The Franks Casket: Left Side," Harvard Studies, 18,
1935.
-45. 'l'he suckling of the twins is found on early English coins and doubt-
less derives from Roman coinage-e.g., the schematic representation
on the anonymous sceatta coins of the seventh and eighth centuries and
the clear imprints on the silver pennies of Aethelbert and Offa at the
end of the eigth century (see G. B. Brown, Arts in Early England, III,
ch. 2, pls. V and VIII and M. Dolley, Anglo-Saxon Pennies, British Mu-
seum Pub. 1964, pl. II, 7). The Rambona Diptych, ivory tablets of
north Italian provenance dating probably from the end of the ninth
century, shows the wolf suckling the twins below a depiction of the
crucifixion (see A. Goldschmidt, Die Elfenbeinskulpturem, 1, no. 181
a-b).
16. The practice is mentioned many times in the Iliad (e.g., IV, 531; V.
164, 435 and 618; VI, 417, etc.). It is seen in archaic Greek Art-e.g.,
in the sculptural frieze of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi and on the
underside of a black-figure kylix by Exckias now in Munich (ill. in P. E.
Arias, A History of 1000 Years of Greek Vase Painting, New York,
n.d., pl. 59). It is also depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry (see Sir Frank
Stenton etal., The Bayeux Tapestry, 1957, pl. 71).
i7. P. W. Souers, "The Top of the Franks Casket," Harvard StudieJ, 17,
1935, 163-79.
i8. Ibid., 107.
49. K. Schneider, Festschrift fur Walther Fischer, 1959, 6-7. See also M.
Osborn's provocative suggestion for the meaning of the word aegili
in Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 72,1971, 34,
50. See Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 25, 1904, 327.
51. M. Schapiro, "The Decoration of the Leningrad Manuscript of Bede,"
Scriptoriumz, 12, 1958, 192.
52. :For a description of the Scaliger Barbarus and the earlier papyrus frag-
ments see A. Bauer andJ. Strzygowski, Eine alexandrinische Weltchro-
lik (Denkschriften der k. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, 51),
1906. Concerning another fragment in Berlin see H. Lietzmann, "Ein
Blatt aus einer antiken Weltchronik," Quantulacumque, Studies Pre-
sented to Kirsopp Lake, London, 1937, 339-48.
53. There are, first, general correspondences such as the long narrow for-
mat of the tapestry, its narrative and historical aspects, and the use of
decorative animals in the border. Second, there are more specific for-
mnalcorrespondences, e.g. between the asses' heads under the arch on
the Titus panel and the animal heads above the figure of Aelfgyva (cf.
Fig. - with pl. 19 in Sir Frank Stenton et al., The Bayeux Tapestry,
2nd ed., (Greenwich, Conn., 1965); between the fleur-de-lys finial on
top of the arch of the Titus panel and numerous examples in the
tapestry border (cf. Fig. i and Stenton, ibid., pls. 4 and 13, where the
tleur-de-lys practically becomes a finial for the roof of the house); be-
tween the rendering of furniture or architecture in multiple bars on
the casket and the detailing of the same elements by embroidered
stripes of varied color (cf. Figs. 2, 4 and 6 with Stenton, ibid., pl. 4);
between the casual incised zigzag on the Virgin's footstool and on the
arch of the shrine of the lid and the simple zigzag fillers in the border
of the tapestry (cf. Figs. 2 and 6 with Stenton, ibid., pl 39); and, fin-
ally, between the unusual splaying of the tree trunks on the Romulus
and Remus panel and a similar rendering on the tapestry (cf. Fig. 5
with Stenton, ibid., pl. 53).
5i. See M. Schapiro, "The Bowman and the Bird on the Ruthwell Cross
and Other Works: The Interpretation of Secular Themes in Early
Mediaeval Art," The Art Bulletin, 45, 1963, 351-55.
55. G. B. Brown, Arts in Early England, VI, 1, 18-51. Parallels with the
Franks Casket were also discussed by Lindqvist in 1940 ("Hunning-
estenen och Franks skrin," Saga och Sed [Kungl. Gustav Adolfs aka-
demiens aarsbok], 1940, 55-63) and mentioned later in his corpus
(Gotlands Bildsteine, Stockholm, 1941,85 and 102-07).
56. T. D. Kendrick, Late Saxon and Viking Art, London, 1949, 87. There
are objects of Scandinavian manufacture which include figural reliefs,
25
 as well as Saxon metalwork influenced by Scandinavian design, found 74. An additional problem that must be considered is that a portable
in the seventh-century Sutton Hoo burial excavated in 1939. The na- whalebone box differs in both purpose and medium from memorial
ture of Scandinavian influence on the casket and the casket's general stone crosses.
style and complexion, to be discussed below, appear to me, however, to 75. See F. M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford (2nd ed.), 1947, chs.
be more critical evidence for dating. Concerning Sutton Hoo see R. X-XIII and P. M. Tillott, A History of Yorkshire, the City of York,
Bruce-Mitford,"Sutton Hoo . . ," in R. Girvan, Beowulf and the Sev- (Victoria History of the Counties of England), London, 1961, 3-24.
enth Century,2nd ed., London, 1971, 84-98, and 103-04 for additional 76. See, e.g., G. Jones, Egils Saga, New York, 1960, chs. 59-61; S. B. F.
bibliography. Jansson, Swedish Vikings in England, the Evidence of the Rune
57. Concerning the tapestry, see especially B. Hougen, "Osebergfunnets Stones (Dorothea Coke Memorial Lecture in Northern Studies, Uni-
Billedvev," Viking (Tidsskrift for Norr0n Arkeologi), IV, 1940, 85- versity College, London, 11 March 1965), Edinburgh, 1966, and H.
124; ill. pl. XIXa in D. M. Wilson and O. Klindt-Jensen, Viking Art, Lindkvist, "A Study on Early Medieval York," Anglia (Zeitschrift fur
Ithaca,1966. Englische Philologie), 50, 1926, 345-94.
58. See the discussion of Viking art by D. M. Wilson and 01 Klindt-Jensen, 77. Versus de Sanctis Eboracensis Ecclesiae, 11. 1535-1561, in Monumenta
ibid. Alcuiniana, ed. W. Wattenbach-E. Dlimmler (Bibliotheca rerum Ger-
59. We are on relatively solid ground in dating the Ringerike style to the nianicarumi, VI, 1873). The inadequacies of Alcuin's list as a descrip-
late tenth and eleventh centuries, since it appears to have developed tion have been noted by numerous scholars and by Alcuin himself, who
directly from the Jellinge style. The monument from which the latter apologized for omissions occasioned by space and meter. See C. J. B.
style derives its name, the Jellinge Stone in Jutland, was probably set (Gaskoin,Alcuin, his Life and Work, New York, 1904, 39.
up by Harold Bluetooth some time after 983 (see L. Jacobsen and E. 78. See P. M. Tillott, A History of Yorkshire, 7; H. Lindkvist, "Early Med-
Moltke, Danmarks Runeindskrifter, 1942, nos. 41-42; ill. D. M. Wil- ieval York," Anglia, 50, 1926, 391 and The Victoria History of the
son and0. Klindt-Jensen,VikingArt, 1966, pls. XLVIIIand XLVIX). County of York, ed. W. Page, London, 1907,1,417.
60. It is instructive to compare this practice with the Ruthwell and Bew- 79. J. D. A. Ogilvy, Books Known to the English, 597-1066, 36.
castle crosses. On the Ruthwell Cross the rune words are broken into
segments and piled one on top of the other vertically in the narrow
borders of the vine-scroll panels. The Latin inscriptions found on the
two figure-paneled sides are read from left to right in the horizontal
borders and from top to bottom in the vertical borders, with the base
of the letters in both left and right hand vertical borders located to-
ward the left side of the cross. There is no sense of a consecutive en-
closure of the field by the letters. The Bewcastle Cross uses the con-
ventional paragraphform for its main inscription.
61. See especially the general discussions in T. D. Kendrick, Late Saxon
and Viking Art, 87-109 and D. M. Wilson and 0. Klindt-Jensen,
VikingArt, 95-146.
62. Descriptions of the Halton Cross are found in W. G. Collingwood,
Northumbrian Crosses, London, 1927, 159-62 and G. B. Brown, Arts
in EarlyEngland,VI, 2,232-33.
63. D. M. Wilson and0. Klindt-Jensen,VikingArt, 139.
64. W. G. Collingwood, Northumbrian Crosses of the Pre-Norman Age,
London,1927,134-35.
65. G. B. Brown,Arts in EarlyEngland,VI, 2,258-65.
66. Human figures with animal heads are also found on early Scottish
crosses, e.g., a relief from Murthly, Perthshire and a cross slab from
lnchbrayock(see J. Romilly Allen, The Early Monuments of Scotland,
Edinburgh, 1903, figs. 235 and 321). Other parallels found with the
casket are the suckling wolf, the man strangling birds, and the back-
biting animals (Ibid., figs. 235 and 309 and pl. LXVI). Since these
crosses are very poorly studied or dated, it is difficult to define the na-
ture of the relationship with the casket, but the kinship is for the most
part iconographicratherthan stylistic.
67. G. B. Brown, Arts in Early England, VI, 2, 262. The ephod, described
in Exodus, 28: 6 ff., appears also on the scribe Ezra in the Codex Amia-
tinus (Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, fol. 5; ca. 700), a Northumbrian
manuscriptwith an Italian prototype. Concerning the ephod, especially
its visual representation, see H. Thiersch, Ependites and Ephod
(GeisteswissenschaftlicheForschungen,VII), Stuttgart, 1936.
68. For another example see the Virgin on the cross from Shelford in Not-
tinghamshire.T. D. Kendrick,LateSaxon and VikingArt, pl. LL.
69. Cf. the stone from Vang, Valdres, Norway (D. M. Wilson and 0.
Klindt-Jensen,VikingArt, pl. LVII).
70. This is the interpretation of James Rusby, St. Peter's at Leeds, 1896,
80.
71. Ibid., 82 and G. B. Brown, Arts in Early England, VI, 2, 233. See also
W. G. Collingwood, "Anglian and Anglo-Danish Sculpture in the Photograph credits: Figs. 1, 2, 4-6 (Trustees of the British Museum); Fig.
West Riding," The Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 23, 1915, 209- 3 (Museo Nazionale, Florence); Figs. 7, 8 a-b, 9, 10 a-b, 11 a-b (K. Vitter-
18. hets Historie och Antikvitetsakademiens Bildarkiv, Stockholm); Figs. 12a,
72. W. G. Collingwood,NorthumbrianCrosses, 13-, 159 and 162. 13a, 14a (W. G. Collingwood, Northumbrian Crosses, London, 1927); Figs.
73. T. D. Kendrick,LateSaxonand VikingArt, 57. 13b, 14b, 15 (N.M. R. Crown Copyright); Fig. 12b (B. T. Batsford Ltd.).

26