A Cross unravelled?

Part 2

On the trail of the 'Molescroft Cross' (Kipling Cotes'Cross?)

12/9/17- 17/11/17

Part 2 looks at the results of the researches by Chris Coulson and Gill Webster between the above dates. To follow these ideas it will be most helpful if the reader has read Part 1 of this investigation (see Face book entry under Chris Coulson or https://candp9.wixsite.com/website). Numerous questions can be raised about these 4 pieces of stone among which are: Is the cross in its original place or if not where did it come from? What was it's function? What did it look like? Has it been reused?

Fig 1 Showing the position of the four pieces of stone at the site. The gate is a metal field gate.

Some of these questions can be inferred from 'Medieval Wayside Cross, suggested to be the Molescroft Cross', listing 1407170, Historic England document. Historic England proposed that 'the cross' was moved from Molescroft to Kipling Cotes, it's present position, when the railway was built. The original York and North Midland Railway became the North Eastern Railway which got permission in 1862 to extend the York/Market Weighton line to Beverley through Kipling Cotes, the line opening in 1865.

Is the 'Cross' in its original place?

The quick answer to this is we don't think so but neither do we think it came from Molescroft. Numerous suggestions have been put forward as the origins of the pieces of stone at Kipling Cotes and these usually involved their relocation via the railway, built between 1862-1865.

If the 'cross' came 'from another place because of the building of the railway line, as has been suggested, where was this 'other place'? Looking at pre railway maps (1851) We couldn't find a 'cross' near to the line. One suggestion has been it could have been removed from the Molescroft/Leconfield road, now the A164, where it acted originally as a possible fourth sanctuary cross for Beverley Minster.

Given the weight of the four pieces is approximately 3.44 tons (150 lb/cubic foot), it seems a little odd to move all this to the railway line from 'Molescroft', load it (where?) then move the stone(s) about 9 miles west, unload it and move it about 200 yards down a road to use as a mounting stone, as has been suggested! A search was made of the 1855 map (surveyed 1851) to try to identify any cross on the route where the railway line would be built but none was found. However, during this search it was noticed on 1855 map there was a Bench Mark at about SE9310343982-5, very near to where the corner of the road to the station would be in the future. The height is marked at 134.1 feet. Fig 1. There is or was no other bench mark close by.

However, an intriguing and perhaps pivotal point is the Bench Mark on the bottom of the stump on the north east face of the base on the road to the station. Fig 2.

Fig 2 Base of monument showing Bench Mark - an upward arrow with a line over it.

Bench Marks, of which there are various types, were used from 1840 - 1961 but have now been superseded

On the 1855 map (surveyed 1851) there is a bench mark with declared height of 134.1 feet was sited at about SE 9309443982 to 5 (Fig 3). This is before the railway appears. It would seem that the bench mark shown in Fig 3 probably dates from the first series of Bench Marks, dated1840-60, What must be remembered is that a Bench Mark is likely to have been carved on something older than the mark so the mark at 134.1 feet in the 1851 is likely to have been carved on something in existence at the time.

Fig 3 1855 map. Bench mark of 134.1 feet in the position of the future road to Kipling Cotes station. SE9310343985. (Map courtesy National Library of Scotland)

On the 1890 map when the railway line is in place and the road to the station completed the 134.1 feet bench mark disappears but one appears at SE 9309443986 where the current monument is, the supposed Molescroft Cross. So what we have by 1890, after the railway is built, is a bench mark at SE 9309443968 at 138.6 feet appearing (Fig 4), where the current monument is now, but the one at SE 9310343982-5 at 134.1 feet disappearing (Fig 3). This strongly suggests that the building of the road to the station caused the benchmark of 134.1 feet to be moved the short distance to become the one at 138.6 feet i.e. the current position of what is termed the Molescroft Cross. Fig 4. This bench mark was missing from the Bench Mark Data Base so I added it on 9th Oct 2017 under 'Kipling Cotes'. In passing the bench mark of 174.7 feet seen in Fig 4 was also found on the station house wall and was registered as it was also missing from the data base.

Fig 4. 1890 map showing the bench mark as a dot of 138.5 at SE 9309443986. (Map by courtesy of the National Library of Scotland)

By a crude levelling system it was found that indeed from the current base to the corner where the previous bench mark was estimated to be there was a height difference of about 4.5 feet. The Bench Marks on the maps indicates this to be a little over 4 feet. This movement would be inline with the thought that it was moved 'because of the railway'. Not that it was near the track but in the way of the road to the station.

It is our contention that the base of what is currently called the Molecroft Cross could be the base of the bench mark noted on the 1855 map (Fig 3) having an elevation of 134.1 feet and that instead of it being called the Molescroft Cross it should called the Kipling Cotes Cross --if indeed it was a cross as such.

Of note in Fig 4 is a line across the road just north east from the B.M. 138.5. We have evidence that this represents a large gate.

The Cross

A question is, did these four pieces (Fig 1) form a cross? This drawing (Fig 5) can be nothing but a guess but it does throw up some very interesting questions. If indeed it is a cross piece in Fig 1 then where is the other side cross piece and stem above

them? If they existed it might suggest to accommodate such weight the base might have to be bigger. Indeed the fact there is a bench mark on it (Fig 2) suggests the structure must have been judged as very stable when the mark was put on.

Fig 5. My impression of what the Kipling Cotes Cross might have looked like if it had been a cross.

However, while it is obviously possible that there are more than the four parts at the site (or else where) the possibility exists that the structure was only made of those four pieces and it may never have been a cross but a Way-Marker of some kind. Fig 6. There are many examples of square or cylindrical stone pillars which are way-side markers

Fig 6 My impression of a Way-Marker pillar using the parts at the site.

But why a Way Marker? It seems that these were not uncommon in Roman and Medieval times. They were erected to aid travellers and indicate important junctions. There is some evidence that there was a medieval track running up Ridge Hill (Fig 3) and it is possible that there could have been a Way Marker at SE 9310343985 i.e. essentially the corner of the road to the railway station.

A structure such as illustrated in Fig 6 would use all the parts found at the site where as a cross (Fig 5) would require at least two more substantial pieces. If the construction was a Way Marker of some age it would suggest that it was used as a convenient structure on which to place a bench-mark whose height above sea level was 134.1 feet. (SE 9310343982-5. Fig 3).

Would life be that simple! Unfortunately, the dimensions of the four parts suggests that if they did indeed fit together then the marker would not look as in Fig 6 but possibly as in Fig 7 and would be about 3.4 meters high.

Fig 7 My impression of a Way Marker made from the parts found at the site with due regard to their approximate dimensions, lengths and cross sections

One difference between Fig 5 and 6 is the form of the 'cap stone'. It might also be noted that the upper section in Fig 7 is narrower than the lower section. This indeed needs to be the case if all the four stones did belong to the same structure and have to fit together. Fig 7 might be considered to be an odd shape but among the hundreds of photos of such things there are some quite odd ones. It could be suggested that in what must have been a fairly desolate area subjected to snow a stone structure with some notable configuration might have been useful as a Way Marker as it would be less likely to be confused with, say, a snow laden tree.

But why a wayside marker here? It seems there was a medieval track way that went more or less north/south crossing perhaps another track now represented by Spring Road. On the hill just to the south of the site a depression can be made out in the hill. Was this the medieval track? (Fig 8)

Fig 8 Looking approximately south from the site. A depression on the top of the hill seems to lead to one running down the hill.

It was pointed out in Part 1 of this report (see https://candp9.wixsite.com/website) what we called the 'cross piece' has been physically modified for another use or perhaps alternatively has nothing to do with the proposed structure in Fig 7 and was made originally for another purpose. It must be said that all four pieces seem to be of a similar stone and it might seem odd if they were not associated.

The main possible modifications we saw in the 'cross piece' were the three slots (10 x 7 x 7 cm deep) on one side and on the opposite side a metal latch plate. Photos are in Part 1 of this report which is easily found on https://candp9.wixsite.com/website ot under Chris Coulson on the Old Hull Facebook page. It seems that this stone which we call the cross piece has been at one time been part of the gate system indicated in Fig 4 as a straight line across the road. On post 7 the latch would have faced the road and engaged the bolt from the gate hung from post 1 (Fig 9). The slots on the opposite side of post 7 were presumably for fence rails and closed the gap between the post and the existing fence.

A note on the stone used

The literature says that the four parts are made from magnesium limestone a harder form of 'chalk' than that generally found on the Wolds. Very interestingly examination of geological maps of the area shows a north/south band of magnesium limestone outcrop just to the west of Kipling Cotes. Indeed a finger of this material runs east from the main north/south outcrop to within about 1.5 miles of Kipling Cotes. It would seem that haulage, without a train, over 1.5 miles would be much easier than taking it another 10.5 miles to Molescroft near Beverley where there seemed to be no such rock available.

Additional significant stones and modifications

In part 1 of this report there was a section about the extra (concrete) stones (posts) found at the site. For convenience they were numbered and their relative positions charted in Fig 17 of that report. Fig 9 below shows the probable arrangement and connections of these posts at the site including two (red) which are part of the original four (Fig 1) and which have been modified in some way. It is difficult nay impossible to say why the stones were mixed in this way which I am fairly sure they were save for the fact they where there and could have been reused by the Victorian engineers.

Be that as it may, and here we make an important leap, much of the following involving our original four pieces of stone depends on them being connected in terms of date and origin. If this is true then 7 and 8 (red below) which, in the past, we have called the cross piece and stem have been modified for a subsequent use. Post 8 seems to have been 'refaced' on one side by a mechanical stone saw. Was this to provide a flat face against which the gate could be held open?

Fig 9 Shows the current arrangement of concrete posts (blue) and modified stones (red) and the proposed physical connections between them. The road runs between posts 7 and 1.

It is quite clear that concrete post 1 was used to hang a large gate, probably the one across the road (Fig 4). The post 7 (modified cross piece) acted as the other gate post with a latch on the south side and fence rails on the north side. These would have joined to the east west fence which is still there. The gate would have opened down hill as indicated by the position of the hooks on post 1. It couldn't have opened up hill as it would have caught on the road and anyway would have been prevented by the way it was hung on post 1. Post 8 (the stem) could have acted as a stop with latch in it. It has the hole with leaded insert in it indicating a fitting was once attached to it. This stone may have been re-cut on one side by a mechanical stone saw (see Fig 14 Part 1 report) to allow the gate to fit snugly against it and latch. Post 2 subtends two pieces of wood and still does. These would have connected to posts 3 and 4. Post 5 held a small gate, the whole assembly acting as a 'sheep gate' (Fig 10). Post 5 and 6 were connected by fence rails. Thus this set of posts (1-8) allowed the road to be closed to roaming animals built allowed human access via the 'sheep gate'. There is one disconcerting part to this analysis and that is how post 7 was buried upright -- as the possible lower 'wooden' rail would be very low. Was it possible that the base once stood here with post 7 attached? The base has what seems to be a slot for what could be a fence rail. There are geometrical problems with this concept.

Fig 10. A reconstructed 'sheep gate' at the disused station at Enthorpe House (north of Kipling Cotes) on the Scarborough Bridlington & West Riding Junction Railway

Conclusions

In light of a better explanation is seems that what is often called the Molescroft Cross is probably a way side cross at on a medieval track way. It has probably been moved but only a matter of about 20 meters from Grid SE 9309443982/5 to Grid SE 9309443968. If this is so it should be called the Kipling Cotes cross and not the Molescroft Cross.

The two stone pieces ('Cross piece' and 'Stem') have been modified and along with the six concrete posts have been part of a gating system on the path and road to the now disused station.