Reused in west jamb of window in south wall of west tower at c. 4m above ground

None. The tower, and so the window in which the stone has been reset, belongs to the later end of the Lincolnshire towers group, perhaps dating from about 1100. There is a sketch of the window indicating the carved figure on the jamb in Baldwin Brown's 1896 field notebook in Edinburgh University Library (MS Gen. 1924/42, f. 30).

St John Baptist

Greatly weathered

The window which lights the lower stage in the tower of Great Hale church, although of the same date as the tower, reuses at least one decorated stone of earlier date. The window is composed of three stones; two large blocks forming the jambs and a third monolithic lintel (see Great Hale no. 2, Appendix E). The eastern jamb stone is undecorated, but the western jamb stone retains the remains of a figure sculpture in low relief, although the details described here can only be seen in the most favourable light. This stone has clearly been part of a much larger sculpture. The panel is outlined on two sides by a raised moulding, possibly originally of semicircular section, which clearly indicates that a part of the width of the stone has been lost, perhaps during reuse. Within the panel stands a single figure, carved flatly, with a three-quarter stance. The outline of the body only is preserved, with very little surface detail. The head seems framed with hair or a hood, two triangular holes indicate the eyes, whilst a girdle seems to pass around the waist. At the base of the figure the folds of a hem may be discernable, as might the locations of two feet projecting downwards from beneath it. Hanging from the right shoulder the outline of a cloak behind the figure is apparent. The figure seems to have a pronounced waist and seems, therefore, female, and the head and body incline slightly to her left. An obtrusion level with the neck might indicate that she holds something upwards, or that her hands are clasped at the level of her left shoulder.

If this figure is correctly read as a female figure inclining to the left and offering her hands or an object up towards the left, it may be best to see her as the figure of Mary from a large Crucifixion group – such as those surviving in the south wall of the porch at Langford, Oxfordshire, and at Breamore and Headbourne Worthy, both Hampshire (Tweddle et al. 1995, ills. 292–3, 425–6, 448–50). It is likely that similar figures of Mary and her companion, St John, also existed accompanying the Crucifixion scenes in the east face of the porch at Langford, at Bitton and Bibury, both Gloucestershire, Muchelney, Somerset, Romsey Abbey, Hampshire, and at Walkern, Hertfordshire (Rodwell and Rouse 1984; Coatsworth 1988; Tweddle et al. 1995). At Langford and Headbourne Worthy, Mary and John, standing below the cross arms, are carved from single upright blocks of stone, as is the figure at Great Hale. At Breamore, however, both figures are carved over several blocks. At Breamore and Headbourne Worthy the figures have been defaced to the extent that they are now almost unrecognisable, but at Langford (south face of the porch) both figures survive remarkably well, and show the two saints inclining slightly to one side. At Langford it is Mary who inclines to her left (whilst John inclines to his right) and we should presume that she was originally intended to stand on the right-hand side of Christ (as one might expect, given her celestial seniority, and as she does at both Breamore and Headbourne Worthy). The Langford figures were reversed, however, when the sculpture was reset in its present position (Tweddle et al. 1995, 213).

The little we can see of the Great Hale sculpture is entirely consistent with an identification as the figure of St Mary originally set beneath the right-hand arm of a major Crucifixion group. Such roods have survived in their original locations either over the chancel arch (at Bibury and Bitton) or over the principal entry to the church (at Headbourne Worthy and Walkern). Although there are no sculpted examples closer to Lincolnshire than Walkern or Langford, the large cross over the original south doorway to the church at Barholm in south Lincolnshire (no. 2) is best seen as an example of the same iconography, only deploying in this case painted rather than sculpted figures.

If correctly identified as a figure of St Mary, this sculpture indicates the former presence of a major rood at Great Hale. Although it could have been placed over a vanished early chancel arch, the fact that this stone occurs reused in a tower which was added to the west end of an earlier church in about 1100 prompts the suggestion that the rood stood over an earlier west doorway, as at Headbourne Worthy, which was replaced by the new tower arch. Furthermore, the stone forming the eastern jamb of the tower's south window seems to retain vestigial remains of a border along its eastern edge (see Ill. 185), and it might also be suspected as having originally formed part of this important lost sculptural group, even though it is now without decoration.

Alternative origins for the Great Hale figure are not easy to identify. It seems too large to have come from a grave-cover, but it could conceivably have come from a very large standing shaft. There are, however, no tenth- or eleventh-century shafts in the East Midlands decorated with figures on this scale, even though there was a tradition of decorating local shafts with tall figures approaching this size in the ninth century (for example at Edenham (Ill. 162), and Nassington, Northamptonshire). Although the lack of surface detail makes confirmation difficult, the Great Hale figure's general form makes a pre-Viking date unlikely, with the lack of local parallels for shaft-figures in the tenth and eleventh centuries, and given the extent to which it conforms with the known rood figures from Hampshire and Oxfordshire, an explanation of the Great Hale figure as a depiction of Mary from a major rood is to be preferred.

As the figure sculpture on the western jamb stone at Great Hale was clearly reused in this tower when it was reconstructed about 1100, it must have been of some age by then. The style of the figure sculpture itself, however, suggests that it is unlikely to have been more than about 150 years old, and it was probably less. Even in its reduced state, we can say that this figure was not modelled in the round, like those at Langford and (probably) those at the other southern English sites, and the proposed Great Hale Crucifixion group was, consequently, a less sophisticated piece of sculpture. The type of flat, un-articulated figure seen here, with its large head, has greater similarities with local figure carvings, like those on the grave-cover Lincoln St Mark 5 (Ill. 242), than it does with the sophisticated modelling of the southern English rood figures. Furthermore similar flat figures are found on Anglo-Scandinavian sculpture of the later tenth and eleventh century throughout the Danelaw. The date of the southern English roods has been carefully debated (most As the figure sculpture on the western jamb stone at Great Hale was clearly reused in this tower when it was reconstructed about 1100, it must have been of some age by then. The style of the figure sculpture itself, however, suggests that it is unlikely to have been more than about 150 years old, and it was probably less. Even in its reduced state, we can say that this figure was not modelled in the round, like those at Langford and (probably) those at the other southern English sites, and the proposed Great Hale Crucifixion group was, consequently, a less sophisticated piece of sculpture. The type of flat, un-articulated figure seen here, with its large head, has greater similarities with local figure carvings, like those on the grave-cover Lincoln St Mark 5 (Ill. 242), than it does with the sophisticated modelling of the southern English rood figures. Furthermore similar flat figures are found on Anglo-Scandinavian sculpture of the later tenth and eleventh century throughout the Danelaw. The date of the southern English roods has been carefully debated (most recently in Tweddle et al. 1995, 73–9), and it seems likely that they date from the first half of the eleventh century; a similar date for the figure from Great Hale would also be appropriate from this limited independent judgement based on its style of carving.

The block has been carefully recut to preserve the figure, and its careful placement in the jamb must suggest that the sculpture was intended to remain visible in its new setting c. 1100. This looks, then, like a further example of an 'iconic' reuse of the early sculpture to put alongside examples like those at Hougham and St Mary-le-Wigford, Lincoln (Stocker with Everson 1990, 93–8).

First half of eleventh century

Pevsner et al. 1989, 330; Stocker with Everson 1990, 89; Everson and Stocker forthcoming