Six pieces built into the exterior west wall of the south aisle and forming a course of stonework at about 1m above ground level (see Ill. 289). Stone 3b is 0.75m from the south wall junction of the tower with the nave, 3e is immediately south of b, 3c is immediately south of Marton 2, 3f is next south of c, then 3a and 3d in turn south again.

No direct evidence. The south aisle if dated by its arcade is Early English, later if dated by its south door and windows. Extensive repairs to the church took place in 1867–8, 1891–2 and 1907–8 ((—) 1867–8b, lxxxii; (—) 1891–2b, lxxiv–lxxv; (—) 1907–8, lxvii–lxix). These stones are first unequivocally referred to by Davies (1914–15, 167), but an earlier reference to 'three stones shewing well-preserved specimens of early Saxon carving' revealed where plaster had fallen off may recognise their existence ((—) 1891–2b, lxxiv) and at least one of the fragments was apparently visible built into the wall fabric as drawn by Nattes in 1793 (LCL, Banks folios, vol. 3, f. 97).

St Margaret

Rather weathered and abraded. 3b and e have heavy atmospheric sooting.

Six stones, none of which are certainly conjoined, but clearly from the same monument. This has hitherto been presumed to be a cross-shaft, but because of its off-set decoration and its apparent plinth is more probably a flat-topped chest-like grave-cover. The visible faces are all similarly decorated in low relief with a simple repetitive pattern. It comprises a band of interlace evidently made up of spaced units of figure-of-eight motif between which the two travelling strands are crossed over (simple pattern F). This feature survives only on stone 3f (Ill. 299), since as a rule the monument has been split for secondary use through the cross-over point. The size of the figure-of-eight motif is generally about 18 × 11 cm (7 × 4.25 in). Parallel with this interlace and separated from it by a narrow, slightly rounded plain border is a rounded rib or fillet decorated with chevron. Both edges have a plain, flat border; that outside the chevron is consistently wider than that outside the interlace and forms the presumed plinth. Four of the stones, 3a–d (Ills. 294–7), might easily have formed parts of the same face of the monument, which would have been slightly tapering. Stones 3e and f (Ills. 298–9) could not have formed part of that face because the systematic crossings of the interlace strands would not work out. They probably are part of a second, opposed face, that also tapered slightly.

The closest and most convincing analogy to the asymmetrical decoration of this monument is the side panels of the large grave-covers of mid-Kesteven type (see discussion in Chapter V and Fig. 9). On that analogy, stones 3a–d would form parts of one side panel of a chest-like cover and 3e–f parts of the opposite side, the monument having quite typically been split for reuse lengthwise as well as across. The broader plain border, as on that monument type, would be the plinth or lower edge of the cover, the decoration should therefore be viewed as horizontal, and the taper that both sides exhibit is typical of the type.

The monument might therefore be thought of as a copy or a derivative of the mid-Kesteven type. But the decoration shares none of the detailed characteristics of that type. Rather it exhibits the repetitive patterning in interlace based on the figure-of-eight motif that is found on the Lindsey grave-covers as a class (see discussion in Chapter V and Fig. 14). The double-cabled border of group (a) of the Lindsey covers might offer a parallel to the chevroned fillet, but chevron is found also as prime decoration locally on the marker Glentworth 1 (Ill. 179). In its linear quality, combining chevron or double cabling with running interlace or arcading as bands contrasting with a plain surface, the decoration perhaps calls to mind that on the earliest fonts in the area, particularly such as that at Holton le Clay (Pevsner and Harris 1964, 275), that are not likely to be earlier than late eleventh century.

The association with Marton 1 and 2 in secondary use, and their similar stone type, raises the possibility that all were originally associated.

Later tenth or early eleventh century

(—) 1891–2b, lxxiv; Davies 1914–15, 167; Davies 1926, 16–17, pl. VIII; Pevsner and Harris 1964, 315; Taylor and Taylor 1965, 414; Taylor and Taylor 1966, 13; Pevsner et al. 1989, 560