|Discovery:||in/on structure, 1900 Thomas, J.G.|
|History:||Hughes/1926, 193: `CROSS SLAB FROM HEN GAPEL, ABERAFON. -- Mr. A. Glyn Jones has sent me the reproduction of a photograph and the particulars of the history, as far as it is known, of this stone which is now in the Museum of the Carmarthenshire Antiquarian Society. It was found by Mr. J. G. Thomas, of Glyn Ifor, Burry Port, in 1900, when razing an old building... It has lately been given to the museum by Mr. R. G. Thomas. The block of the photograph here reproduced has been kindly lent by the Carmarthenshire Antiquarian Society. The drawing I have made to show the detail of the ornament with greater clearness'.|
Nash-Williams/1950, 163: `The stone is in Carmarthen Museum'.
RCAHMW/1976, 43: `found in 1900 during the demolition of a building `known as Hen Gapel which stood on Upper Court Farm', and more recently deposited at Margam Stones Museum.
 Arch. Camb., LXXXI (1926), pp. 293-7'.
|Dimensions:||0.47 x 0.33 x 0.08 (RCAHMW/1976)|
|Location:||Margam Stones Museum (Cat: no. 16)|
Knight/1999, shows that this stone is now held on the ground floor of the Margam Stones Museum.
Hughes/1926, 193: `The stone is a fragment of a sepulchral slab, on which the head and upper part of a carved cross and a few letters of an inscription are worked'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 163: `Upper portion of a roughly shaped rectangular slab, decorated and inscribed. 19" h. x 13 1/4" w. x 3" t.' RCAHMW/1976, 43: `A broken slab with carved cross and partial inscription (Plate 5)'.
|Condition:||frgmntry , poor|
|Crosses:||1: latin; interlace; expanded; expanded; lozenge; none; outer curv; ind; n/a|
Hughes/1926, 193: `The head is approximately circular, the limbs of the cross being joined by a ring. The centre is pierced by a diamond-shaped sinking enclosed by bands, intersecting, and carried on forming knot-work terminations in the head and cross-arms. The shaft is filled with four-cord plait-work, two of the cords carried forward upwards, and, after intersecting, forming the lower half of the border enclosing the central diamond sinking. The knot-terminations are not of the simple, direct character of those of early work. The stone is much weathered and it is not easy to follow the entire design from the photograph. The diagram below the drawing gives the apparent design of the knot-work filling the ends of the cross-arms. The same design seems to have been worked on the head. The correct scheme of intersections has not been absolutely regularly followed. There are hollow sinkings between the arms. Each section of the ring is filled with the simplest form of two-cord plait-work -- that of a figure 8. None of the carving is confined within a band or bead border -- an arrangement to be found almost invariably on the earlier pre-Norman carved monuments'.
Macalister/1949, 151: `It bears a cross with a simple spiral interlacement at the ends of the arms, and four figure-of-8 knots forming the circle round the head, all in cavo rilievo. The shaft of the cross, the lower end of which is broken off, bears a plait'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 163: `The face bears a carved interlacing Latin wheel-cross of Celtic type in low relief, with plain, deeply panelled centre and interspaces, interjoined double-beaded four-cord loops (?) filling the arms, and two-lobed double-beaded twists (R.A. 501) forming the arcs of the wheel; the stem (incomplete) is formed of a vertical band of three-cord double-beaded plaitwork (R.A. 502)'.
RCAHMW/1976, 43: `The equal-armed cross is formed by double-beaded but weathered cords set diagonally round a sunken centre and twisted to form expanded squared arm-ends of which the three upper ones are filled with double- beaded loops. The arcs of the ring, coincident with the arm-ends within the circular surround, are each formed of a double-beaded twist in two lobes, the inter-arm spaces being deeply sunken. The cords of the lowest arm-end merge into three-cord double-beaded plaitwork carried down in a vertical panel to form the shaft of the cross'.
|Hughes, H.H. (1926):||FEC[-- | || [T^C][-- | U[T--|
FEC[-- T[-- U[T--
Hughes/1926 193 concise discussion
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1949):||FEC[-- || | C[-- | UT[--|
FEC[-- C[-- UT[--
Macalister/1949 151 reading only
|Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):||FEC[-- || | C[-- | UT[--|
FEC[IT [--] C[RUX] [--] UT[--]
The Cross (of So-and-so. So-and-so) made it (?).
Nash-Williams/1950 163 concise discussion
|RCAHMW (1976):||FEC[-- || | C[-- | UT[--|
FEC[-- C[-- UT[--
RCAHMW/1976 43 reading only
|Position:||ind ; broad ; mixed ; undivided|
Macalister/1949, 151: `The inscription was in three lines of lettering, one on the sinister side of the cross-stem, the other two on the dexter, reading downward'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 163: `In the field on either side of the stem is a Latin inscription (fragmentary) in three lines (one to r. and two to l.) reading vertically downwards'.
RCAHMW/1976, 43: `Part of a Latin inscription on both sides of the shaft reads down the face'.
|Date:||1050 - 1099 (Hughes/1926)|
Hughes/1926, 193--197: `The design is based entirely on that of the free-standing pre-Norman crosses. The absence of surrounding bands, the double-curved knot design of the terminations of the arms, the lettering and the form of the monument---the sepulchral slab---all indicate a late date, probably not earlier than the latter part of the eleventh century.'
800 - 899 (Nash-Williams/1950)
850 - 950 (RCAHMW/1976)
|Palaeography:||Hughes/1926, 193: `The lettering is in minuscules, of a late type... The vertical strokes of the letters have bifurcated expanded ends. On the right side three letters remain--- f e c (fecit?). The upper arm of the f starts slightly below the bifurcated head, inclining considerably upwards and trailing off into a downward curve. On the left side of the shaft is part of an inscription in two lines. In the upper only one letter remains. It appears to be a t, but the horizontal stroke is doubtful; it might be c. The first letter in the second line is a distinct u. It is followed by a portion of a letter---a horizontal stroke above a curved back---the shape of a t.'|
Macalister/1949, 151: `Only the beginning of each line is preserved... Nothing can be made of this: having regard to its position, the initial fec can hardly be restored as fecit.'
Nash-Williams/1950, 163: `Round half-uncials, with forked serifs.'
RCAHMW/1976, 43: `cut in rounded half-uncials'.