THE RUTHWELL Cross. 43 
Hexham scrolls of the Spital (Fig. 4), nor even the more 
advanced scrolls of the Acca cross (Fig. 3); but they seem to 
be of Hexham origin, further developed; and the nearness of 
Bewcastle to Hexham suggests a possible influence. But if 
so, and if the names can be still read as referring to Alchfrith 
and his contemporaries of a century earlier, we have the ex- 
planation from Hackness, where a cross seems to have been 
put up, not as the gravestone of Abbess Ethelburga, but some 
time—probably a long time—after her death, as a memorial. 
The runes of Bewcastle and Ruthwell have been well dis- 
cussed by Messrs Forbes and Dickins (Burlington Magazine, 
April, 1914), with the conclusion that they are 8th century. 
As to the argument drawn from the word ungget on the 
Ruthwell Cross, Professor Cook (op. cit., 35/247) sums it 
in these words :—‘‘ The evidence favours a late period rather 
than an earlier, (1) because the only other occurrence of the 
word is in a text with late spellings, (2) because -et, the ending 
in both examples of the word, seems late, as if due to lack of - 
stress, and (3) because the sculptor makes two blunders in 
one word, showing perhaps that it was specially unfamiliar 
when he worked.’’ In Fig. 1 I give the word enlarged, near 
its place on the shaft. The blunder is apparent; the materials 
for deciding the point are slight ; whatever weight it may carry 
must be balanced against the evidence in the opposite scale. 
Any traces of a wheel to the head of Ruthwell Cross I 
have been unable to find on the original, after careful search. 
The ‘‘ three cuts ’’ mentioned by Dr King Hewison are below 
the point where a Celtic wheel would spring ; they are damage 
to the slightly projecting offset of the base of the head, which 
is still seen on the west side, but effaced in the view from the 
east. This offset is common in rather later Anglian cross- 
heads, probably originating in the ‘‘ eaves ’’ or dripstore 
moulding given to the head when it was affixed as a separate 
stone, to prevent rain from driving in and frost from prising 
off the head; from cross-heads re-used for building we often 
find this offset and the lateral arms knocked off. The restorer 
who inserted the present cross-arms did not quite understand 
the construction of a head of this type, and has given one 
pair of cusps too many. Fig. 1 shows the usual construction, 
