This figure was discovered by Dr Alex Woodcock and published in the paper “A Sheela Na Gig at Worth Matravers” in the proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeology Society. (It also appears in Dr Theresa Oakley’s Phd Thesis)
It resides on the church of St Nicholas at Worth Matravers which is some 10 miles east from the similarly dedicated church at Studland. Dr Woodcock states in his article that the figure predates the Studland figure by some 30 years and so may have served as inspiration (but it would seem not the model) for the Studland figure. There are also a number of acrobatic figures on the corbel table which also seem to have served as inspiration for some of the acrobatic corbels at Studland. Dr Woodcock does not give an exact date for the church but dates the corbels to the early years of the 12th Century. He also states that despite rebuilding in the church the sheela na gig is likely to be in its original position. Unfortunately the lichen encrusting the figure has made the exhibitionist nature of the carving less obvious. See Keith Jones’ figure below which shows the vulva more clearly.
Differing Styles
Its worth noting that despite the fact that both Studland and Worth Matravers have Sheela na gig figures the execution of them differs considerably. The Worth Matravers figure is fairly naturalistic being a recognisable humanoid female figure with a small but deeply incised vulva. The Studlandfigure however has a grossly exaggerated vulva and right hand and is barely humanoid. Only the now worn face gives away the fact it is meant to represent a female human. Despite the differing styles it is obvious from the corbels at both sites that they share the same influences and would seem to originate from the same “school” of sculptors. This begs the question why is there such a difference in the execution of the motif despite the proximity and obvious shared style of carving. Perhaps this indicates a development of the motif into an exaggerated form? (A disparity of styles can also be seen in the cluster of figures in Shropshire at Holdgate, Church Stretton and Tugford). Other figures on the church however seem to share characteristics with Studland. Two goat heads have their beards carved as parallel lines on the underside. A head at Studland also has its beard represented in the same way. In addition to the sheela Worth Matravers church also has a number of acrobatic figures. Studland too also has a number of acrobatic figures one of which may be a disguised exhibitionist.
The carving on the church is obviously connected with that of nearby Studland but it is also worth noting the similarity of the style of carving on both churches to that of Stoke Sub Hamdon some 50 miles or so to the North West. The faces of figures on both churches are represented in a similar flat manner.
John Harding
Keith Jones’ photograph shows the vulva more clearly. Copyright Keith Jones 2006The position of the Sheela above a windowThe Harp Player at Worth MatraversThe Harp Player Outlined
The Oxford Sheela is housed in the old Saxon tower of the “Church of St Michael At the North Gate” in the middle of the city on the corner of North Street and Ship Street. The tower is one of the oldest buildings in the city predating the Norman conquest. The tower is mentioned in the Domesday book and appears to have been an important and comparatively wealthy church at that time. The church formed part of the north gate into the city (see below) interestingly there was also a St. Michaels at the South gate as well.
“At North-Gate and South-Gate too
St Michael guards the way,
While o’er the East and o’er the West
St Peter holds his sway”
The Sheela was originally placed on the West side of the tower high up near the belfry windows. Significantly the Sheela actually looked out over the gate itself. The Sheela is thought to be a 11thC or 12thC Norman addition to the tower. It is currently housed in the tower itself in the Treasury along with other historical artefacts belonging to the church.
As can been seen from the photograph the Sheela is not that big being around a foot square. It’s interesting that the Sheela because of its small size would not have been readily recognizable from the ground. This detracts from the notion that it would have been warning against lust… Why place a warning where no one can see it? There is also a tradition reported by Margaret Murray that the figure was shown to brides on their wedding day. However she says that the source for this was a newspaper article which she once remembers reading1. I think it would be safer to take this tradition with a pinch of salt taking into account the original position and size of the figure.
It’s placing does however fit in very nicely with the apotropaic or defensive uses of Sheelas. Here we have a sheela not only guarding a church but guarding the main gate into a city! If the reconstruction by the Oxford Archaeological Unit is accurate then the Sheela would have looked out over the very gate itself. Personally I think this is a very strong to pointer to this Sheela at least serving a protective rather than a warning function.
Side view showing the face more clearly and the slightly incised vulva
A church is recorded on this site in the Domeseday book in 1086 which mentions that St Michaels owns 2 houses. This would seem to indicate that the church was fairly wealthy at that time. The tower on which the figure resided and is now housed is thought to date from the 11thC and is Saxon in origin. There is a short history at the church’s website at http://www.smng.org.uk/see/history.htm
St Michael’s Tower as it stands today 1 Margaret Murray. Female Fertility Figures. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute Vol. LXIV 1934
The Buckland Sheela Na Gig before being paintedThe figure in 2003 with it’s new coat of paint
Much Rubbed
Images of lust reports this sheela as being “much rubbed?”. I find myself agreeing with the question mark. Unlike the Buncton Sheela this carving could have been moved to it’s current position, around 10 ft of the ground, from a more accessible position. You can see from the photograph that the stone is unlike any of the other surrounding flint nodules and much weathered. The vaginal area on the carving is a wide deep oval, fingers are lightly incised on either side stretching a fair way into the vulva. The fingers do not appear shortened or “rubbed out” in any way in fact they are rather long and stand out from the rest of the carving. If the carving has suffered from rubbing it would have happened in two ways.
1. The finger could have been rubbed up and down this would result in a deeper line within the vulva which is not present.
2. The finger could have been rubbed in a circular motion around the vulva. If this type of rubbing took place then you would expect the vaginal area to grow wider which indeed it is, however the fingers would have gradually been “rubbed out” which they most certainly are not.
From what I’ve seen of the carving it appears that the image was carved this way deliberately. It’s pretty hard to deny that the large vagina immediately grabs your attention. Jorgen Andersen in his book the “Witch on the Wall” describes the figure as being much rubbed with the fingers being re-carved at some point. I’ll leave it to you which theory you choose to subscribe to.
Indian Tradition
The comedian Mike Harding who is interested in Green Men came across a tradition of genital rubbing on Kali statues in India. The rubbing however was in an up and down motion which makes sense given the narrow vertical nature of the vulval slit. If the carving has been rubbed it has been done in quite a different way.
The carving is quite badly weathered the face is deeply cracked and the rest of the carving is badly pitted. It could do with being moved inside the church to protect it from elements. A booklet describing the history of the church can be found inside but makes no mention of the Sheela at all. Comments in the visitor book show that, at least a few people have visited the church because of the Sheela and it seems a shame that it is likely to gradually weather away to nothing through neglect. If you do visit the church please make a comment in the book that you’d like to see it conserved in some way. Unlike other carvings on the church the Sheela is fairly crude her friendly grin providing a contrast to the other victorian gargoyles which can be found on the tower and on the back of the church.
The parish of Buckland lies around 15 miles north of High Wycombe. It is very small village the houses of which crowds around the large parish church of All Saints. Buckland is very near the Lower Icknield Way one of the main roads of Celtic Britain. The history of the church stretches as far back as 1067 where it is mentioned in the Domesday Book. Interestingly another sheela also lies on the Icknield way further north at the cave in Royston
The Robbers
Jorgen Andersen in the Witch on the Wall relates a story originally from a leaflet in the Church that the sheela figure is actually one of two robbers executed at Hang Hill some two miles from the church. The leaflet also described the figure as having its arms raised (despite the fingers carved into the vulva). Interestingly the figure at Holdgate also has a tradition of being the image of an executed felon. The figure was described by the sexton in 1980 “The last man to be hanged on Hangman’s Hill” (Weir and Jerman page 151)
I finally managed to visit Binstead with my wife in June 2008.
The visit was very informative as we photographed other pieces of sculpture in the church which firmly put the sheela and animal head figure in a Romanesque context.
The church was thought to have served the workmen in the nearby quarry and from Herringbone work in the walls is thought to date from the mid 12th century around 1150.
Nearby lies Quarr Abbey, a Cistercian house dedicated to the Virgin Mary which was founded in 1131, by Baldwin de Redvers, finally being consecrated 1 June 1150.”
Due to the low status of the church and the nearness of the higher status building it would seem likely that sculpture was more likely to originally have been part of the fabric of the abbey. Only a few ruins remain of the original abbey which was dissolved in the 1500s. The present abbey building dates from 1908. As we have seen in other churches,sculpture is frequently re-used. It would seem likely that the the romanesque fragments were rescued from the abbey ruins and re-used at some point in Binstead church rather than being part of the original Romanesque incarnation.
The head on which the figure sits is definitely an animal head grasping its snout with its paws. This is a common romanesque motif and can be seen on many other churches (e.g. Penmon on Anglesey in Wales). This along with the other fragments in the church appear to be Romanesque in style. The sheela figure appears also appears to be Romanesque in style although it is very weathered. Unlike the animal headbelow it is not a corbel being carved in the round. (Compare to the Holdgate sheela na gig in Shropshire).
There are number of carved corbels inside the church along with a grotesque hunched figure on the end of the church abovethe romanesque fragments. These are thought to be Victorian although some of the interior corbels have been carved in a Romanesque style. Two of the interior corbels, which are crudely carved, appear to be pipe player which may also be an angel, while the other appears to be drummer although both are hard to make out.
John Harding
Side view of the Sheela and beast head
“The Idol” an older name
It’s worth noting that the name “The Idol” is the oldest recorded name for a sheela predating John O’Donovan’s “sheela ny gigg” by 59 years. It is mentioned in 1781 in “The History of the Isle of Wight” by R. Worsley and mentioned again in 1795 by J.Albin in “A New, Correct and Much-improved History of the Isle of Wight” (Andersen). “The Idol” name was also applied to the sheela in Lusk, County Dublin in Ireland.
The following information is from visits made by Keith Jones and Paul Sivell a local resident.
Notes from Keith Jones
A rather badly weathered sheela which is situated at the apex of an arch gate which leads into the grounds of the church. The figure appears to be seated, with her arms resting above her genitals, with a circle vaginal cavity below. She appears to be sitting on some structure with her legs bent at the knees, and widely splayed. Her face is now very badly worn, but is bald, and her large ears are still to seen. Formerly it is though that it had been placed on the church.
The figure was first mentioned in “The History of the Isle of Wight” by R. Worsley published in 1781;
‘The church is a small plain building having nothing remarkable about it, but a rude and very ancient piece of sculpture over the key-stone of the north door, representing a human figure, sitting with the feet on a kind of pedestal, resembling a man’s head; the whole is about two feet and a half high; it is vulgarly called the Idol,’ (N.B. Local tradition refers to the figure as the ‘Saxon Idol’ 1)
The head on which the sheela sits. Although the sculpture is very weathered two paws can be seen either side grasping the snout and there may also be the remnants of a bridle on the snout. Compare this to the head at Penmon This is a fairly common Romanesque motif and can be seen on many other churches.
Another writer suggested:
‘The squatting figure is seated on, and supported by an animal head, the mouth of which can be seen from below, and with paw like projections on either side of the head.’
In light of the negative attitudes towards Sheelas, it is refreshing to consider John Albin’s note in his History of the Isle of Wight published in 1795:
‘A report is related, that this figure was removed some years ago, when the church was undergoing some repairs, but that it was restored to its ancient situation on its being productive of displeasure to the inhabitants.’
Of the old church, only the chancel now remains, and the traces of herringbone stone work, suggests an early Norman, or Romanesque date. In 1844 the old nave and associated structured which were contemporary with the chancel were rebuilt. The church notes state the Sheela was originally located above the north door of the nave. The church notes claim:
‘Studies by G. E. and A. L. Hutchinson of the Isle or Wight Natural and Archaeological Society confirmed the figure as a Sheela na gig associated with pagan properties of protection, and possibly fertility’.
During my visit, I found the figure on an ornamental gate a little south east of the church. The figure which measures 36cm high, 33cm wide, sits on an animal’s head which is 31cm. High, and is 3.4m off the floor.
Although the Sheela is weathered, and covered in part by white lichen, it is still possible to make out quite a lot of detail. Her head is bald, and seems proportionally larger then her body. She has very large ears, much like the Scregg Castle Sile. Both arms come to rest in rather flat hands each side of a clear vaginal cavity. The figure has very broad hips, which contrast with rather spindly legs which suggests this is a seated figure. I would agree with the suggestion that she sits on an animals head. The animal seems to wear a muzzle, and appears to be a bear.
Notes from Paul Sivell
‘You will see that there has been some modern re-pointing and there dollops of cement mortar under each of the sheela’s feet. I don’t know if you agree but the feet appear to to curve in and it looks as though both hands & feet are being used to to pull open the vulva. I am undecided about the stone beneath. The sheela is sited above the archway to the east of the main entrance to the church. It is about 4 m up and approx 0.5m in height (excluding the base stone). It is made from Binstead/Quarr limestone. This was quarried extensively in the immediate vicinity of the site, quarrying apparently began around 300 A.D. although it was most famed during the medieval period. Winchester Cathedral, Romsey Abbey & the upper portion of the tower of London were all made from
Binstead Limestone. The sheela has always been known locally as the “Saxon Idol”. I was first shown it and told this as a child by my father in the mid 1950’s.
Romanesque Griffon. Embedded above windows at the end of the church are two Romanesque figures of a Dragon and Griffon. These appear to be voussoirs taken from arch. These along with the sheela and animal head on which it sits are thought to have come from nearby Quarr AbbeyBeast/Dragon Biting it’s Tail. Probably from Quarr AbbeyHerringbone stonework at the church
This figure can be found at the Church of St Michael in Bray in Berkshire. This gets a mention in The Witch On The Wall in the gazetteer section where it is described as “raising it’s garment so as to exhibit it’s sagging genitalia”. As you can see the figure is too weathered to be certain what it originally was. You could as easily make a case for it being a miser figure holding a sack. It’s position next to the main door of the church is a possible indication of it being a sheela but that is hardly conclusive evidence.This figure has to go in to the “too weathered” file.
John Harding
Figure on the columnThe location of the figureHorse figure outside the church
In addition to the male figure on Abson Church The Divine Hag of the Christian Celts also mentions a figure (above) on the tower as a possible sheela.
Keith Jones investigated Abson on the strength of a mention of a sheela na gig from the Erotic Traveller website, convinced that there was a sheela at the site, he came up with the figure on the tower (which from a distance could be mistaken for a sheela similar to that at Church Stretton). Keith has visited the site fairly recently with improved equipment and has begun to have doubts himself. It seems that the figure that the Erotic Traveller website was referring to was in fact the male figure. I recently re-visited the church with an improved telephoto lens on the camera and managed to get the above shot of the figure. As you can see there is nothing really to suggest that the figure is a sheela let alone exhibitionist. In fact it appears to holding a model of something possibly a building or ship. In addition the figure appears to be wearing a feather in a hat. In retrospect and with the new photo and details both myself and Keith are now of the opinion that the figure is not a sheela at all.
The Abson figure in sheela na gig literature.
This figure now appears in two books on sheela na gigs namely Jack Robert’s “The Divine Hag of the Christian Celts” and Barbara Freitag’s “Sheela na gigs : Unravelling an enigma”. What is not as well known is that this figure only got into the “Divine Hag” because of Keith’s initial mistaken visit. Jack Roberts credits Keith with the discovery in the “Divine Hag. Barbara Freitag admittedly describes the figure as dubious but I feel this one figure we can discount as being a sheela with some certainty.
The church of St Andrews at Bishopstone Sussex has Anglo Saxon origins as can be seen in the sundial above the main door of the church which bears the name Eadric.The church houses a number of Norman and pre Norman features and is thought to date from the 8th century. The church also bears on the corbel table of the tower two very worn figures which may be male and female exhibitionists. The female is the more convincing of the two with the remains of a shallow oval on the underside. The legs are practically worn away but it was likely that they were bent and the feet faced towards the wall. You can also still faintly make out the arms gesturing the groin possibly in a “hands in lap” pose. The face is faint but can still be made out in the picture above. The jaw is fairly square unlike its companion two corbels to the right who’s head is much rounder in comparison. The “male” figure, if male it be, is somewhat less convincing than its female companion. It has a similar pose with the legs arranged in the same way and what appears to be the remains of a scrotal sack. This is however open to interpretation. There does appears to be a large bulge between the legs and small worn protruberance emantes from this bulge The arms of the figure seem to be laid across the chest rather than pointing to the groin.
It’s hard to tell if both these figures were once exhibitionist due to weathering, which has probably been accelerated by the coastal location of the church. The CRSBI site mentions both figures as a “sheilanagig” sic but puts a question mark against both.
The context of these corbels i.e. on a Romanesque corbel table counts in favour of these orginally being exhibitionist but while likely it’s impossible to be sure due to the weathering. (For an example of a worn figure which has all the attributes, but is unlikely to be exhibitionist, see the Gloucester Annus Figure)
The church tower. The arrows indicate the two possible exhibitionist figures. The rest of the corbels include many common Romanesque motifs such as double heads and beasts. The main porch lies to the right of the picture.
End view of the church. Notice that the decorated tower corbels go right round the tower.
The main door of the church bears a Romanesque archway. The sundial above the door is thought be Saxon and bears the inscription ‘Eadric’ preceded by an equal armed cross.
The Easthorpe Sheela currently resides in the Castle Museum in Colchester but originally came form the small parish church in nearby Easthorpe. It was donated to the museum by the vicar of the church early in the 20th century as he thought it too “obscene” to keep in the church. The figure was originally kept above the south doorway in an alcove but also served time as an ornament in the garden rockery of the vicarage. Once again we have classic position for a sheela above or near entrances to the church, however it is possible to make too much of this positioning as the alcove may just have been a convenient place to put the carving. Interestingly this sheela has the word ELUI carved down the right hand side. The significance of this name is now lost however both Barbara Freitag and Jorgen Andersen put forward theories on the possible meaning of the name. With Andersen citing a possible connection to St Eloi and Freitag giving several possible connections. For some more conjecture click here.
The figure stands with bent knees, both hands gesture towards the oversized vulva which reaches to below the feet and seems to include a clitoral hood. The figure has faint ribs inscribed on both sides of the chest and also appears to be wearing a headdress or cap. The “ears” either side of the head are over large but could equally be part of the headdress. It’s worth comparing the headdress to those on the Ampney St Peter and Bredwardine figures as they both have a similar close fitting headdress.
The carving is made of Clunch being a form of gritty grey chalk. According to local historian A.R. West the stone is not native to the area which would mean either the stone was imported or the carving has come from elsewhere. It’s curious that it should be named after the material it was made from rather than the subject matter.
Easthorpe Church
The thorpe in Easthorpe is thought to derive from the Saxon word Thorp meaning hamlet or farm. In the time of Edward the confessor it was held by one Eadric a freeman. The Domesday book records the village as Estorp being held by Hugh an under-tennant of Count Eustace of Boulogne. The successors of Hugh held the village until the late 12th century when it was granted to the Gernon family. The church originally had a semicircular apse which was demolished in the 13th century. Much of the remaining fabric of the church is Norman and a number of windows still exist from that period. It’s difficult to say whether or not the sheela figure is an original part of the church. The carving is fairly small and highly portable and the material from which it is made is not local to the area. Other figurative carving on the church is in a different style and appears to be of a much later date. There are however fragments of dressed and molded stone work embedded in the outside walls of the church. It’s hard to say whether these came from an earlier incarnation of the church or elsewhere but the re-used round window would seem to suggest that fragments from other buildings have been incorporated into the building.
Some musings on ELUI
Though much has been written on the word ELUI carved on the side of the figure, the meaning of the word remains elusive. Here is some further speculation.
Romans they go the house – Is it Bad Latin?
The word elui is part of the conjugation of the latin verb eluo meaning to wash away as can be seen in the following quote from Cicero
“Animi labes nec diuturnitate vanescere nec omnibus ullis elui potest”
Mental stains can not be removed by time, nor washed away by any waters.
Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Legibus (II, 10)
If we take into account the theory that sheelas represent the sin of lust then a figure representing lust inscribed with an inscription commanding “wash away!” seems to make sense. i.e. Wash away your lustful thoughts. The only problem with this is that the imperative of eluo is eluta not elui so it would not seem to be a command. Easthorpe church. The round-headed doors and silm window on the right hand side of the picture are Norman and are made from re-used Roman bricks.
The Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary has the following entry for elui
II. Trop., to dispose of, remove, clear, or wash away, etc.: “ut centurionum profusus sanguis eluatur: num elui praedicatio crudelitatis potest?” Cic. Phil. 12, 6; cf.
This definition would seem to support the meaning of to dispose of/wash away/cleanse the sin of lust represented by this figure. Whether or not this 100% good Latin may well be beside the point (an example of an incorrect Latin inscription can be seen on the Iohannes Moridic stone at Llanhamlach) medieval latin scholarship was very variable. The person who requested the inscription may well have been educated enough to understand that the word means to wash away yet not use the correct form of the verb. It is also worth noting that the quote from Cicero above is used in the sense of “washing away sins” as well.
Caveat emptor
I am not a Latin scholar and I am not sure that the word “elui” would have been in use in the middle ages as it seems only to have been used in a classical context. The word however does appear in the works of Erasmus of Rotterdam 1466-1536 but he was noted for using a pure Latin style.
Carved plaster covered brick in the wall of the church
This avenue of inquiry seems to have some merit and I am surprised it has not been suggested before. If any Latin scholar would like to confirm this theory or indeed completely blow it out of the water I would be happy to hear from them.
Moulded plaster covered brick embedded in the wall of the church. The molding is still quite sharp which would seem to indicate it has not been exposed for that long. The church was renovated in 1910 so was this part of the renovation
Other meanings for Elui are:
A Hebrew September
The name Elui is also the Hebrew name given to the month of September. A medieval Romanized Hebrew inscription seems unlikely though.
Halleujah
Elui also forms the middle of Alleluia however the elui on our sheela seems to be complete with space enough left on the carving to represent the whole word.
Fragment of dressed stone embedded in church wall
Fragments of finely dressed stone work embedded in the church wall along with a re-used round window.
The Rochester figure is quite difficult to find if you don’t know exactly where to look (see below). It can be found high on the western facade of Rochester Cathedral. To the left of the main door look up until you can see two small thin windows one above the other. Look down until you come to three arches. The figure lies in the middle arch.
The genital area has been probably been chipped away, this damage is unlikely to be due to erosion because of the positioning of area at the bottom of the carving. The figure is cracked as well lending further weight to the theory.. During the civil war the two main figures on the ornately carved chapter door inside were decapitated by Cromwell’s soldiers. So if the figure was originally exhibitionist it would undoubtedly have been be a target for puritan attention as well. Unusually the figure holds two fishes, this feature may well have parallels in the carvings of double tailed mermaids found elsewhere. which hold their tails in their hands. While we can not be sure that the Rochester figure was originally exhibitionist it seems likely due to the positioning of the damage. It is also worth noting that the figures either side of this one are also damaged and appear to be of birds. The lunette on the left holds what appears to be two birds eating what may be a fish while the other holds a single bird attacking or eating a snake like object.
In addition to the carvings outside the church there are also many “green men” on the roof bosses inside the church. I was informed that there were up to 23 of them in total.
There is a older black and white picture of the figure on Anthony Weir’s website here. It’s interesting to note that the damage underneath the figure appears to be fairly recent when you compare the pictures above to the one on Anthony’s website.
Some Fishy Conjecture
The most striking and puzzling aspect of this carving are the two fish in the figure’s hands. One fish is scaly and one is smooth, the right hand fish may be smooth due to weathering however this scaly fish/smooth fish motif can be found elsewhere. One of the corbels at Kilpeck represents two fish, one scaly one smooth both pointing in the same direction. Interestingly the fishes are not thought to represent Pisces as this was more usually represented as two fish swimming in opposite directions sometimes joined at the mouth by a line. The church at Cunault-sur-Loire in France has a carving of a mermaid or Siren holding two similar fishes one scaly one smooth, the scaly one being presented to a man in a boat (see left). The author of Animal Symbolism in Ecclesiastical Architecture (1896) Edward Payson Evans interprets the fish as “the soul being held in the grip of a libidinous passion”. This description would seem to be further evidence that the Rochester figure was once exhibitionist especially with the figures rudely protruding tongue further signifying sinfulness. However we must be careful not interpret the figure to favour our own interests. There are two other carvings on a capital in the crypt at nearby Canterbury Cathedral which also hold fish and are thought to date from the roughly the same period (around 1120 for the Canterbury figures while the West door of Rochester Cathedral dates from around 1150). One side of the capital has a pair of “jugglers”, one man holds the other above his head while the man being held has his legs in a splayed position and holds a fish and a bowl. On the other side of the capital there is a monstrous chimera of figure which has the winged body of lion and two heads one of which is human while the other atop a human torso is horned and tusked. The horned figure also holds a fish and bowl like the juggler figures. Stylistically there are similarities which seem to suggest they are from the same school of sculpture as the Rochester figure. The bearded head of the splayed juggler has a similar oblong appearance to the Rochester figure, both figures have over large hands and the feet are treated in a similar way. If the Rochester figure is from the same school of sculpture as Canterbury then this may be a pointer away from the figure being overtly exhibitionist. Despite there being a number of splay legged figures in the crypt none of them are explicitly exhibitionist. Even if the figure was not originally explicitly exhibitionist then the overall symbolism does seem to suggest a sexual meaning anyway.
So is this a Sheela Na Gig?
This page used to be titled The Rochester Sheela Na Gig in fact it is listed as such in Images of Lust and a number of other books. The Romanesque context is correct for a shela but it’s similarities to the crypt figures at Canterbury may mean that it was non exhibitionist. The relevant portion of the figure which would settle the argument is now missing so ultimately we are unable to decide either way. However it is interesting that only that portion of the figure is damaged rather than worn.
This figure has been recorded as a sheela na gig on the ADS archaeological search site here.
The photos and a lot of the information about this figure have been kindly supplied by Dr Stephen Bax of Canterbury Christ Church University.
The current church is Early English in style and was built in 1230 by the monks of Christ Church Abbey. It has a large tower, the top of which holds an extensive corbel table of mainly abstract designs. There are a number of loose pieces of sculpture cemented into the buttresses on the church including the alleged sheela na gig (left). The church is also famous as the location of a alleged picture of a ghost.
The figure is very worn but appears to be a bust with a cleft at the bottom. The cleft may simply be damage but Dr Bax who has seen the figure is of the opinion that it may have been carved. There may also be the remnants of an arm which reaches down one side but the figure is so worn it is very hard to be sure what exactly the “arm” is meant to be. The figure has a headdress or hood which is unusual for a sheela and a band around the neck possibly indicating clothing. The face has a rather glum expression and looks down. The head is large and seems disproportionate to the body. Even though the figure is worn it gives the impression of being female. It’s very hard to say that this figure is a proper Sheela Na Gig. There are no obvious genitals and the cleft, whether resulting from damage or being deliberately carved its only vaguely reminiscent of a vulva. The figure also appears to be clothed which further counts against it being a sheela, doubly so given the proximity of the neckline to the cleft. The church is Early English in design, not Romanesque. However we can’t read too much into this as another Early English church at Etton holds a far more convincing exhibitionist figure. All in all while the figure is interesting I would have to say I doubt this is a sheela na gig.
Thanks go to Dr Bax and Frances Hopkins for supplying these photographs of the figure and the church.
John Harding
The figure from below
#
Eastry Church
A worn human head possibly with a lop sided mouth. This motif can be seen on quite a few romanesque and later churches.
A worn carving possibly meant to be a lion (notice the worn mane like carving at the back of the figure)
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
