|Discovery:||first mentioned, 1697 Lhuyd, E.|
|History:||Rhys/1873, 8: `Two inscribed stones belonging to an old chapel stand near the house of Mr. Nicholl'.|
Westwood/1879, 15--17: `This stone, which doubtless originally supported a cross on its top, stands in the garden of the mansion of J. C. Nicholl, Esq., at Merthyr Mawr, about two miles from the Bridgend Station...Edward Lhwyd thus speaks of this stone in a letter dated from Cowbridge, Sept. 25, 1697, preserved in the Tanner Collection, Bibl. Bodl., Oxford -- Arch. Camb. 1861, p. 231:-- `The inclosed is an old Crosse on ye bank of ye river Ogwr at Merthyr Mawr, a small village of this county...I have been favoured by J. C. Nicholl, Esq., of Merthyr Mawr, with the sight of two manuscript readings and sketches of this and the other cross at that place, made by the late E. Williams (Iolo Morganwg) and Dr. Petrie, the latter of whom visited Merthyr Mawr during the meeting of the Cambrian Archaeological Association at Cardiff in 1849 (Arch. Camb. 1849, p. 318)...This stone formerly stood in a hedge within a yard of a stile on Whiting Farm, by the foot-path from Merthyr Mawr to Laleston, before the Merthyr Mawr property came into the possession of the Nicholl family'.
Rhys/1899, 158: `In the grounds of Merthyr Mawr, and close to the other cross, stands now another stone which was once doubtless surmounted by a cross: it is said to have formerly stood in a hedge on Witney Farm between Merthyr Mawr and Laleston'.
Macalister/1949, 162: `According to Evanson, this stone formerly stood at a place in the village called Croft Daniel, `now a plantation between the cottage and the mill-race'.
It was removed to the grounds of Merthyr Mawr House about the same time as No. III [MMWR3/1].
Nash-Williams/1950, 57: `On ye bank of ye River Ogwr'.
RCAHMW/1976, 56: `First recorded by Lhuyd in 1697 as standing on the river bank at Merthyr Mawr, subsequently preserved in the grounds of the mansion and recently re-set within the remains of St. Roque's Chapel there.
 Stowe MS. 1024, fo. 42 (456--7 of original numbering); Arch. Camb., 1861, p. 232.
 At SS 8886 7808'.
|Geology:||RCAHMW/1976, 56: `sandstone'.|
|Dimensions:||1.22 x 0.56 x 0.34 (RCAHMW/1976)|
|Location:||St. Roque's Chapel; |
RCAHMW/1976, 56: `St. Roque's Chapel'.
|Form:||Cramp shaft B|
Westwood/1879, 15: `It is 4 feet high, 2 feet broad, and varies in thickness from 14 to 12 inches'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 154: `Quadrangular shaft (? of a free-standing pillar-cross similar to No. 240 below), with the top fractured away. 51 1/2+" h. x 22 1/2" w. x 12-10" t.. The shaft is decorated with carved patterns in low relief (partly defaced by weathering), and is also inscribed'.
RCAHMW/1976, 56--57: `It lacks the cross-head sketched in 1697, of expanded flat-topped form with a cross patée [sic] on one face and (probably) sunk inter-arm spaces on the other (Fig. 15). The sandstone four-sided block surviving is 1.22m above the buried base, 56cm wide and 34cm in thickness at the base, tapering to 29cm.
Plain angle-mouldings frame the faces, much eroded in part. The N. panel (originally facing E.) is almost filled by an inscription in eleven lines, framed by a plain roll-mould between deep chaces and divided (five and six) by a horizontal chace'.
|Condition:||inc , some|
|Decorations:||geometric ribbon interlace|
Westwood/1879, 17: `The reverse of this stone as well as its narrow edges have been ornamented with interlaced ribbon patterns interspersed with small raised knobs. The designs are much defaced and do not appear to have been so carefully drawn as in many of the Welsh stones'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 154: `Front. Moulded vertical panel, divided by a transverse incised line into two unequal halves, containing a Latin inscription...Right. Vertical panel filled with a debased double-twist with interspersed pellets, merging below into a four-cord plait also pelleted (cf. R.A. 517 and 519). Back. Moulded vertical panel containing a plain eight (? ten)-cord pelleted plait (? R.A. 506), edged above with a narrow band of straight twist (? R.A. 501 or 887). Left. Vertical panel filled with a plain pelleted five-cord (?) plait (? R.A. 504) with irregular breaks'.
RCAHMW/1976, 56: `The E. panel contains six-cord plaitwork merging into irregular knotwork towards the base with pellets at the edges. On the S. face a row of pellets (partly fractured away) marks the neck border; the panel below, framed by a single-beaded moulding, is filled with tight interlace beginning as knotwork but continued as a ten-cord plait with pellets at the edges. The W. panel contains a nearly symmetrical pattern of loose interlace, twisted twice and plaited at the foot, with pellets interspersed singly and clustered'.
|Westwood, J.O. (1879):||--]NBELANI | POSSUITHANC | CRUCEMPRO | ANIMAEIUS | SCIGLIUISSI | HERTE[I]BOE/T | FRATRISEIU | SE/TPATE/R | EIUSAME | PREPARA | TUS+S[T^C]IL[G]OO|
--]NBELANI POSSUIT HANC CRUCEM PRO ANIMA EIUS SANCTI GLIUISSI HERTE[I]BO E/T FRATRIS EIUS ET PATER EIUS A ME PREPARATUS + STILGOO
Westwood/1876 16 concise discussion
|Rhys, J. (1899):||--]ONBELANI | --]OSSUITHANC | CRUCEMPRO | ANIMAEIUS | SCITLIUISSI || | HERTTANE/T | FRATRISEIU | SE/TPATE/R | EIUSAME | PREPARA | TUS+SCILOC|
[CO]ONBELANI [P]OSSUIT HANC CRUCEM PRO ANIMA EIUS SCITLIUISSI HERTTAN ET FRATRIS EIUS ET PATER EIUS AME PREPARATUS + SCILOC
Rhys/1873 158--160 substantial discussion
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1949):||--]NBELANI | --]OSSUITHANC | CRUCEMPRO | ANIMAEIUS | SCIGLIUISSI || NERTTANE/T | FRATRISEIU | SE/TPATE/R | EIUSAME | PREPARA | TUS+SCILOC|
[CO]NBELANI [P]OSSUIT HANC CRUCEM PRO ANIMA EIUS S[AN]C[T]I GLIUISSI! NERTTAN! ET FRATRIS EIUS ET PATER EIUS A ME PREPARATUS + SCILOC
Macalister/1949 162 concise discussion
|Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):||--]NBELANI | --]OSSUITHANC | CRUCEMPRO | ANIMAEIUS | SCI[G]LIUISSI || NERTTANE/T | FRATRISEIU | SE/TPATE/R | EIUSAME | PREPARA | TUS+SCILOC|
[CO]NBELANI [P]OSSUIT HANC CRUCEM PRO ANIMA EIUS SANCTI [G]LIUISSI NERTTAN ET FRATRIS EIUS ET PATER EIUS A ME PREPARATUS + SCILOC
Conbelan (PN) placed this cross for his (own) soul (and for the souls) of Saint Glywys (?) (PN), of Nerttan (PN), and of his brother and his father. Prepared by me, Sciloc (PN).
Nash-Williams/1950 154 concise discussion
|RCAHMW (1976):||--]NBELANI | --]OSSUITHANC | CRUCEMPRO | ANIMAEIUS | SCI[G]LIUSSI || | NERTTA[N]E/T | FRATRISEIU | SE/TPATE/R | EIU[S]AME | PREPARA | TUS+SCILOC|
[CO]NBELANI [P]OSSUIT HANC CRUCEM PRO ANIMA EIUS SANCTI [G]LIUISSI NERTTA[N] ET FRATRIS EIUS ET PATER EIU[S] A ME PREPARATUS + SCILOC
Conbelan(i) (PN) erected this cross for his soul, for Saint Glywys (PN), Nertta(n) (PN) and his brother and his father. Prepared by me, + Sciloc (PN).
RCAHMW/1976 57 concise discussion
|Position:||ind ; broad ; below cross ; panel|
Macalister/1949, 162: `The inscription...[is] on the present eastern face...The inscription is in eleven lines divided by a horizontal stroke after the fifth'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 154: `Front. Moulded vertical panel, divided by a transverse incised line into two unequal halves, containing a Latin inscription (Fig. 169) in eleven lines, fairly carefully set out, reading horizontally'.
Macalister/1949, 162: `The inscription was pocked'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 154: `coarsely picked'.
|Date:||1000 - 1099 (RCAHMW/1976)|
1000 - 1099 (Nash-Williams/1950)
|Ling. Notes:||Rhys/1899, 160, 163: `In point of bad Latin this inscription goes with the cross of `Samsoni Apati', and not with that of Houelt, but it may be older than either. A study of the non-Latin vocables in it cannot help us to any chronological precision, but it leads to an important conclusion of a somewhat different kind...However that may be, the fact of our finding two or three of the proper names in the inscription, together with the technical name of an office or vocation, to have been Goidelic, proves that we have here indubitable traces of the presence of a Goidelic community, whose language at the time of setting up the cross was still probably Goidelic. All this only makes one feel the more keenly what a pity it is, that we cannot fix the date; but, if my guesses as to the names which the inscription contains should prove well-founded, it must date, before the Irish glosses of the ninth or eighth century'.|
Macalister/1949, 162: `The interjected invocations of St. Glywys and of the Personage called Nerttan (`Strengthener') are explained with the help of the following stone [OGMOR/1]: the elucidation of these words is due to Prof. Ifor Williams'.
Williams/1932, 237--238: `Rhys at first (Cymmrodor, XVIII, 50--3) read it as follows:--
l. [Co] nbellini
2. [p] ossuit hanc
3. crucem pro
4. anima eius
7. fratris eiu
8. S. et pater
9. eius a me
11. tus + SCILOC.
Later (Arch. Camb., 1899, p. 159) he offered an amended version: l. 1, Conbelani; l. 6, Herttan et. Macalister agrees (Arch. Camb., 1928, 369) but adds Scitoc in l. 11. Rhys explains the weird Scitlivissi as `tale-teller, spy', and translates the whole, `C. this cross erected for the soul of his spy, even Herttaid his brother; and his pater was prepared by me, Sciloc'. Macalister, with reason, doubts the `spy', and comments very fairly, `Even to the writer of dog-Latin like this, it would be natural to put the `eius' after scitlivissi if he intended any such meaning. There is precedent at Llantwit for PRO ANIMA EIUS instead of PRO ANIMA SUA; and I would interpret the inscription more simply: `C. placed this cross for his [own] soul: for the soul of Scitliuissus [a proper name]: of Herttan [another]: and of his brother and father''.
Westwood, Lap. Wall., 16, read the fifth line as scigliuissi; l. 6, herte(i ?) bo et, and mentions that it has been read Nertido et. In the photograph given in Arch. Camb., 1899, p. 159, the fourth letter seems very like T; it is quite different from the usual t in this inscription, but may be taken as a Hiberno-Saxon g, of a similar form to the character read g (genti) by Macalister in l. 2 of the inscription on the back of our Ogmore Castle stone (see Nash-Williams's drawing, Arch. Camb., 1930, p. 400). If this reading proves to be the correct one, we are well rid of Scitliuissi, and can explain SCI. GLIUISSI, as Sci, the usual abbreviation for Sancti, and Gliuissi, the Latinised genitive of Glywys. The stone, it seems to me, had first of all just this simple genitive, `[The Cross, or Stone] of St. Gliuis', cp. Iltuti on the Llantwit cross. Underneath the name a groove was cut across the face of the stone, and below this comes a word beginning with either NERT- or HERT-. As we have Nertat mentioned immediately after Gliguis in our stone, it seems a fairly safe assumption that his name also followed Sci. Gliuissi on the other, though the state of the lettering mow makes it difficult to do more than guess what letters followed Nert-. The initial N is fairly certain to my mind: Rhys read it as h, but says that the top is turned backwards. Was this an attempt to imitate the hook at the top of a minuscule n? I suggest that Nertati or Nertiati was the second inscription.
Omitting lines 5 and 6, the rest would read `C. placed this cross for his [own] soul, and for that of his brother, and for that of his father', -- taking pater in l. 8 as a slip for patris -- `It was prepared by me, Sciloc (or Scitoc)'. My theory is that these words were added later, in the space left blank above and below the names of Glywys and Nertat, which naturally occupied the centre position.'
Nash-Williams/1950, 154: `The loose syntax is characteristic of these late inscriptions'.
|Palaeography:||Westwood/1879, 16--17: `On its front face it bears an inscription tolerably legible, except the first, fifth, sixth, and last lines, which unfortunately contain the proper names of different persons commemorated by the stone; the top line has in fact the commencement broken off. The remainder reads, so far as a very careful examination of the stone in situ and a number of rubbings enable me to decipher it --|
et fratris eiu
s et pater
eius a me
tus + st(c?)il(g?)oo
The first of these lines has been read `conbelini', `convetini', `conboleni', and `conbellini'; the fifth line `scitliuissi' and `sat.....uissi', the sixth line `Nertido et' and `hertibar', and the last line `tus + scio III'. It will be noticed that the two portions of the inscription end with a word commencing alike.
Edward Lhwyd [states]: `The first word I read Conbelini, ye same name with Cunobelin, which was ye Roman way of writing the word we call Kynvelin. But I can proceed no further than `Conbelini posuit hanc crucem pro anima ejus'. I have sent ye Vice-Chancellor an other stone [i e.? an account of another stone] from Kaerphilly Castle for ye Museum, but that (I fear me) was more intended for an inscription. I am, Sr yours heartily, whilst E. Lhwyd'.
The former [J. C. Nicholl] read
the first line as convetini
the fifth line Sat...uiffi
the sixth line heR...
the eighth line S...
the ninth line eius a
the tenth line PRePaRam
the eleventh line vits...SUA
Dr. Petrie's reading agrees with mine in
the first line...nbelani
and gives the fifth line as sciThvIffi
the sixth line neRtibaR
the ninth line eiUs ama
the eleventh line tus + stiloo
It may be suggested that the four dots in the last line should read [-:-] which is the Anglo-Saxon contracted form of the word est.
 In Edw. Lhwyd's letter of the 20th December, 1702, to the Rev. Humphrey Foulkes, we find the first word spelt differently, probably being a lapsus calami. (It is however to be observed that the stone clearly shews two strokes between the l and n, so that the word must have been either conbelani, as read by Petrie, or conbeloni, or conbellini.) The writer remarks, `I have observed that the Romans and ancient Britains (sic) expressed Kyn in the British names by Cuno, but towards the eighth century both the Brittans and Irish rendered it Con: for the British name Kynvelyn was written by the Romans Cunobelinus, and I found it on an old crosse in Glamorganshire Conbolini: and that (according to their skill in grammar) in the nominative case' (Coll. of W. W. E. Wynne, Esq., copied in Arch. Camb. 1859, p. 248.)'.
Rhys/1899, 158--160: `The beginning of the first line is gone, and the p of second line is damaged; but there is the statement of Ed. Lhwyd's, that he read Conbelini posuit hanc crucem pro anima ejus. On my previous visit I read what remains of the first line as nbelini; but, on examining it very carefully again, I have come to the conclusion that Westwood's reading (Lap., p. 16) is the right one. The inscription is a curious mixture of minuscules and somewhat debased capitals, `so that it is hard to say whether u is to be represented as V or as U, and the phases of the R are also impossible to produce exactly in type; but, on the whole, it is the capital R, with a tendency of the last limb to assume a horizontal or even an upward position, while both the T and the L in Scitliuissi are, I should say, rather capitals than not : the three points after this vocable are somewhat doubtful. The C of hanc is rather angular, and so is the first c of Sciloc, which has been sometimes taken for a t. The n's vary considerably : that of hanc has its first perpendicular prolonged somewhat below the level of the other, while the n of anima looks somewhat like an h; but what I have read as h, in Herttan differs from both, as the top is turned backwards. What I have read tan in Herttan requires notice, as it is partly faint or damaged : I think the first letter a t, and the next letter is imperfect, as there are small breakages which extend from the groove; but I cannot make either b or d of it, though the cracks make it look somewhat like those letters at first sight. It is, I believe, an a, just as the next letter is not an o. This last now looks an oblong, which to my thinking will make nothing but a damaged n. The et is everywhere a conjoint character. The e of ame is doubtful and peculiar, but I think it looks more like e than a; the second a of prepara is also somewhat strange in its form. Lastly, I do not suppose [four dots] is meant to be read est as Westwood supposed : he abstained from suggesting how he construed the whole. For my part, I should regard what follows the points as the name of the man who got the cross ready or designed it, and carried out the work; I am only sorry that I cannot be absolutely certain of his name, but I am decidedly inclined to regard it as Sciloc. According to these guesses the whole would mean : Conbelan posuit hanc crucem pro anima ejus scitlivissi Herttan et fratris ejus et patris ejus: (lapis est) a me preparatus, Sciloc +.'
Macalister/1949, 162, `The inscription is...divided by a horizontal stroke after the fifth [line]. This has no apparent meaning: it breaks the sense.'
Nash-Williams/1950, 154, `Round half-uncials, coarsely picked in good style, with the normal compendium for et.'
RCAHMW/1976, 56, `The Latin inscription, cut in irregular half-uncials...The missing initial letters of the first two lines are provided by Lhuyd's drawing, and though some letters in lines 5--6 are uncertain the forms of the names given here are suggested by their occurrence on the Ogmore stone (No. 926); et is given as a manuscript abbreviation.'
Macalister/1949, 162: `in good condition'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 154: `Sciloc is apparently the name of the craftsman who carved the cross'.