|Discovery:||first mentioned, 1693 Lhuyd, E.|
|History:||Westwood/1879, 29: `The stone, with that figured in Pl. XVIII, had been long used as a foot-bridge on the highway near the farm called Court y Davydd before its removal to Margam chapter-house...It was described by Donovan in his Tour in Wales, vol. ii. p. 5, and figured in the opposite plate.|
 Donovan, Tour in S. Wales, ii. p. 5, describes and figures these two stones in situ employed as a bridge'.
Rhys/1899, 136, 138: `The so-called cross of Ilquici in the Chapter-house at Margam was the next stone we looked at...As to the locality from which this cross was brought to the Chapter-house, the late Prof. Westwood says, after Donovan, `that it had been long used as a footbridge on the highway, near the farm called Court y Davydd'; but as Court y Davydd is gibberish, I enquired, and found that the place is called Cwrt y Defaid'.
 The inscriptions were worn away by the feet of wayfarers, when the crosses of Ilquici and of Ilci were used as a foot-bridge at Cwrt-y-Defaid (see picture in E. Donovan's South Wales, vol. ii, p. 5)'.
RCAHMW/1976, 53: `First noted bout 1693 at Cwrt-y-defaid, and later added to the Margam lapidary collection; it is now re-set in Margam Stones Museum.
 By E. Lhuyd, Stowe MS. 1024, p. 14: `A Foot-bridge at Margam consisting of two stones of this form, which seem to have been Crosses'.
|Geology:||Nash-Williams/1950, 152: `Local Pennant sandstone'.|
RCAHMW/1976, 53: `Pennant sandstone'.
|Dimensions:||1.93 x 0.93 x 0.25 (RCAHMW/1976)|
|Location:||Margam Stones Museum (Cat: no. 12)|
Knight/1999, shows that this stone is now on the ground floor of the Margam Stones Museum, marked as no. 12.
Westwood/1879, 29: `This great sculptured stone is 6 feet high, 3 feet broad, and 1 foot thick'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 152: `Massive square-headed slightly tapering cross-slab, with moulded angles and pairs of moulded indentations in the upper sides, apparently simulating the armpits of a free-armed cross. 83+" h. x 31--6" w. x 10" t...The slab is decorated on all faces with carved and incised ornament, and is also inscribed...The slab is one of a series of cross-slabs, peculiar to Glamorganshire, all characterized by a panelled or cartwheel-like cross filling the head and a straight or slightly tapering shaft, either plain or inscribed. The distribution of the slabs suggests that they were a product of a school of monument-carving located in the Neath--Margam--Merthyr Mawr area in the final phase of the Early Christian period. The derivation of the type is uncertain, but they are perhaps distantly related to the Merovingian grave-slabs of N. Gaul decorated with the encircled Chi-Rho (for which see No. 295. Cf. also No. 262).
RCAHMW/1976, 53: `The large squared slab...standing 1.93m above the buried base and 25cm thick has slight lateral projections as though indicating the arms of a standing cross, 93cm maximum width, and is tapered slightly towards the top and the foot. All faces have carved ornament, together with traces of an inscription on one face'.
|Condition:||complete , some|
CISP: The lower part of the stone containing the inscription is very worn from when the stone was used as part of a bridge.
|Crosses:||1: equal-armed; outline; expanded; plain; circular; angular; outer curv; none; plain|
|Decorations:||boss; geometric other; geometric spiral|
Westwood/1879, 29: `ornamented on the upper part of both sides with a large plain wheel-cross with eight spokes and a raised boss in the centre, the spaces around which are filled in with irregular incised lines more like the tattooing of a New Zealander's face than the symmetrical designs commonly seen on these stones. Each of the edges of the stone has two impressions, the space below the second of which is filled on one edge with irregular incised lines...whilst the reverse of the stone has the lower part of its face marked with the outlines of a plain Greek cross.
 Not six spokes as misstated in Arch. Camb. 1861, p. 343, thence regarded as similar to Etruscan monuments'.
Macalister/1949, 159: `The upper part bears a spoked cross in the local fashion, with wavy lines and a badly designed key-pattern around it...On the other face of the stone there is a spoked cross, with a plain Latin cross underneath it'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 152: `Front. The head is filled with a large ring-cross carved in medium relief, with central raised boss, panelled arms, and sunk interspaces, giving a cartwheel-like effect. Surrounding the cross and filling the spandrels is a border of rudely incised fret-pattern, embodying ring-and-boss and spiral devices in the upper and lower angles. The shaft below bears a Latin inscription...Left and Right. Three narrow vertical panels separated by the moulded indentations -- the upper two plain, the bottom one filled with rudely incised rusticated pattern. Back. The head is filled as before with a large `panelled-cartwheel' cross, with incised rusticated and spiral pattern in the upper spandrels. The shaft below bears a large incised outline cross (cf. No. 231)'.
RCAHMW/1976, 53: `The N. face as re-set is framed by plain angle mouldings continued round the head and indented at the springing of the lateral projections. The upper half (or `head') in which the angle-moulding is doubled contains a ringed panelled cross form, the splayed arms and larger inter-arm spaces all sunk and radiating from a central boss with triple mouldings; the plain ribs (or `spokes') connect the outer moulding with the surrounding moulded ring. The space between the ring and the edge-mouldings is filled with a debased and irregular pattern of frets forming spirals in the upper spandrels and including a ringed boss in one lower spandrel. In the undecorated lower half (or `shaft') part of a Latin inscription survives...The opposite S. face has similar angle-mouldings with corresponding indentations, and the upper half contains a ringed panelled cross similar to that on the N. face except that the ring has double mouldings. Only the upper spandrels are filled with debased fret-patterns forming spirals. The lower half is plain (and partly flaked) with an incised outline cross 48cm tall, placed centrally.
On both narrow faces (E. and W.) the projecting `arm' is framed by bold edge-mouldings as a plain panel, and the panel above is similarly framed and plain. The rest of each side below the `arm' is filled with debased fret-patterns, differing as between E. and W., the latter including a pair of ringed pellets'.
|Westwood, J.O. (1879):||[--]ILQUICI | [--] | [--]|
[--] ILQUICI [--]
Westwood/1876 29 reading only
|Rhys, J. (1899):||PET.FILILQUICI | [--]GEER | [--]HAN | [--]T|
PET FIL ILQUICI [PRO ANIMA--] GE ER[EXIT] HAN[C CRUCEM--T]
PET FIL ILQUICI [PRO ANIMA CONI]GE ER[EDIS EIUS] HAN[C CRUCEM POSUI]T
Rhys/1899 137 reading only
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1928):||PETRIILQUICI | E/TT[....FE]CER | [...]ICHCHAN | C[--]T|
PETRI ILQUICI ET T[OMAS FE]CER[UNT] ICHCHAN C[--]T
Anon/1928 395 reading only
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1949):||PETRIILQUICI | [E/T]T[--]CTCER | [--]ICR[.]CHAN | [--]T|
PETRI ILQUICI [E/T] T[OME] CTCER[--]ICR[.]CHAN[--]T
PETRI, ILQUI, CI[--]T[OME] CTCER[--]ICR[.]CHAN[--]T
Macalister/1949 159--160, Plate LVII reading only
|Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):||[--]PETRIILQUICI | [--]ACER | [--]ER[--]CHAN | [CCRUCEM--]T | [--]|
[--] PETRI ILQUICI [--]ACER [--]ER[--]C HAN[C CRUCEM --]T[--]
(The Cross) of Peter (PN) (?). Ilquici (PN) ... set up this cross (? for the soul of So-and-so).
Nash-Williams/1950 152 reading only
|RCAHMW (1976):||H[E..] | [.]PETRIILQUICI | [.]E[...]ACER | [....C]E[.]CHANC | [....]U[.]T | [--]|
H[E..] [.]PETRI ILQUICI [.]E[...]ACER [....C]E[.]C HANC [....]U[.]T [--]
This is the stone of (?) Ilquici (PN).
RCAHMW/1976 53 reading only
|Position:||ind ; broad ; below cross ; panel|
Nash-Williams/1950, 152: `The shaft below bears a Latin inscription (mostly obliterated --Fig. 168) in four or more lines reading horizontally'.
RCAHMW/1976, 53: `In the undecorated lower half (or `shaft')...It is incised in at least six horizontal lines'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 152: `thinly picked'.
RCAHMW/1976, 53: `incised'.
|Date:||900 - 1099 (RCAHMW/1976)|
1000 - 1099 (Nash-Williams/1950)
|Ling. Notes:||Rhys/1899, 137: `Abbreviations such as we have here are not very common, but they occur sometimes even in Ogam, as, for instance, in the case of the Breastagh Stone reading [figure] twice for maqui'.|
|Palaeography:||Westwood/1879, 29: `there are however sufficient indications of the inscription to show that it occupied three lines, the first of which ends with the letters i q u i c i, sufficiently distinct'.|
Rhys/1899, 137: `Ilquici is pretty certain, so is er, and so is han, but the only letters that seem to fit before Ilquici are PET . FIL ., for Petrus filius, no doubt, if the reading is accepted. If we suppose the formula to have been Pet . fil . Ilquici pro anima . . . ge er[exit] han[c crucem. . . . t], we do not seem to cover the space adequately, and perhaps the following would fit better: Pet . fil . Ilquici pro anima [Coni]ge er[edis eius]han[c crucem posui]t or preparaui]t'.
Anon/1928, 395: `In the first line I read PETRI (complete) ILQUICI. The second line begins with the ordinary compendium for ET, very faint, which Rhys missed, after which is a `T', followed by a space that would hold about four letters. We may perhaps restore TOMAS. Then comes CTCER, as Rhys has read them, but I am inclined to question whether the first two letters are not FE, badly damaged -- making FECER, which would involve the supplying of UNT at the beginning of the next line, where nothing can now be read. I read the rest of the third line ICRCHAN, but have no suggestion as to its meaning. Of the fourth line nothing remains but a faint `C' at the beginning, and a very clear `T' at the end'.
Macalister/1949, 160: `The gaps are worn perfectly smooth, and there is now no hope of recovering the missing letters -- an admission which I am never willing to make. It is doubtful whether we are to begin PETRI ILQUICI (ET TOME?) or PETRI, ILQUI, CI...For the latter it may be argued that the names Elcu and Petyr appear together in a document of Oudoceus bishop of Llandaf: the name of Samson appears in the same document. Ilqui would then be another way of spelling the Ilci of the following stone'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 152: `Round half-uncials, thinly picked in rather careless style'.
RCAHMW/1976, 53: `It is...in at least six horizontal lines, of which the first (a half-line) and second are tilted upwards to the right. The lettering, in regular half-uncials, gives...with traces of letters below; the final letter of hanc is cut on the angle-moulding. The opening words may originally have read hec (est) petri (for haec est petra, `This is the stone of')'.
Westwood/1879, 29: `the face of the stone is almost worn smooth'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 152: `mostly obliterated'.
RCAHMW/1976, 53: `traces of an inscription'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 152: `On this name see AAST, 1939, p. 29, [Williams/1939] note (Sir Ifor Williams)'.
RCAHMW/1976, 53: `the spelling Ilquici (a proper name) is possibly a blunder for Ilgwici.
 Trans. Anglesey Antiq. Soc., 1939, p. 29 (Sir Ifor Williams), referring to the name Iluic occurring in the Book of Llandaf; but as is noted there (Lib. Land., pp. 74, 75) the manuscript leaves it uncertain whether the spelling was `iu' or `ui''.