| Corpus Refs: | Macalister/1949:1004 Nash-Williams/1950:260 RCAHMW/1976:884 |
| Site: | PRTT3 |
| Discovery: | in/on structure, 1869 workmen |
| History: | Richards/1925, 424: `Mr. J. E. Jones...has recently entrusted to the care of the local Historical Society a very early inscribed cross amd a twelfth century piscina revealed in 1869, when an old farmstead bearing the name `The Croft', was demolished'. Macalister/1949, 152: `now in the National Museum of Wales'. RCAHMW/1976, 42: `It was discovered in 1869 in the demolition of The Croft, a farmstead formerly near Aberafan (now Port Talbot), possibly the site of a medieval chapel,[1] and was deposited ultimately in the National Museum of Wales. [1] Arch. Camb., LXXX (1925), p. 424; (see also p. 21)'. |
| Geology: | Richards/1925, 425: `slab of the local Pennant variety common to the district'. Nash-Williams/1950, 161: `Local Pennant sandstone'. RCAHMW/1976, 42: `Pennant sandstone'. |
| Dimensions: | 0.28 x 0.25 x 0.1 (RCAHMW/1976) |
| Setting: | in display |
| Location: | National Museum of Wales (Cat: 25.505) Macalister/1949, 152: `now in the National Museum of Wales'. |
| Form: | name-slab Richards/1925, 425: `The stone is a recumbent slab...It measures 10 3/4 in. x 11 in. x 3 1/4 in.. There is no evidence of dressing; two of the surfaces are as taken from the quarry'. Nash-Williams/1950, 161: `(Pl. XXIII and Fig. 176[3])...Upper portion of a roughly rectangular pillar-stone. 10 3/4" h. x 11" w. x 3 1/2" t. [3] With the final `N' omitted'. RCAHMW/1976, 42: `Part of squared slab (Plate 5), with incised cross and inscription, probably originally recumbent...The fragment, 28cm by 25cm in width and 10 cm thick...but is split in two pieces'. |
| Condition: | incomplete , good Macalister/1949, 152: `the bottom of the stone broken away'. RCAHMW/1976, 42: `Part of squared slab...split in two pieces'. |
| Folklore: | none |
| Crosses: | 1: latin; linear; straight; expanded; plain; none; none; ind; n/a |
| Decorations: | Macalister/1949, 152: `It bears a simple cross with expanding ends, and two inscriptions'. Nash-Williams/1950, 161: `Deeply picked linear Latin cross with splayed arm-ends (cf. Fig. 6, 11)'. RCAHMW/1976, 42: `The face bears an incised Latin cross (Fig. 7, a) 25cm by 14cm, with slightly enlarged terminals (almost wedge-shaped)'. |
| Macalister, R.A.S. (1925): | CRU | X | || {XPI} ||| GELUGUI | N Expansion: CRUX XPI GELUGUIN Macalister/1949 152 reading only |
| Richards, A.J. (1925): | CRU | X | || {XPI} ||| GELUGUI | N Expansion: CRUX XPI GELUGUIN Richards/1925 426 concise discussion |
| Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950): | CRU | X | || {XPI} ||| GELUGUI | N: Expansion: CRUX XPI GELUGUIN Translation: The Cross of Christ. Geluguin (PN) (? made it). Nash-Williams/1950 161--163 reading only |
| RCAHMW (1976): | CRU | X | || {XPI} ||| GELUGUI[-- | N Expansion: CRUX XPI GELUGUI[--]N RCAHMW/1976 42 reading only |
| Orientation: | mixed directions |
| Position: | ind ; broad ; mixed ; undivided Richards/1925, 425--426: `It bears two inscriptions -- one horizontal and the other vertical'. Nash-Williams/1950, 161: `Latin inscription in five lines, three in the field to l. reading horizontally and two in the field to r. reading vertically'. |
| Incision: | pocked Richards/1925, 426, note 1: `pecked'. Nash-Williams/1950, 163: `coarsely picked'. |
| Date: | 725 - 775 (Richards/1925) Richards/1925, 428: `As to the date of the stone, it must be later than the group of inscriptions which follow on the departure of the Romans, and which still maintain the Roman custom of writing in capital letters. On the other hand, the cross is of a simple and primitive type, which would incline me to date it early among slabs using the more cursive or minuscular character. A very similar cross is to be seen on the small slab commemorating Abbot Snedriaghail of Clonmacnois, who died in 781 A.D.. This inclines me to date the stone to about the middle of the eighth century, and in the present condition of knowledge that is as near as we can get'. 600 - 899 (Nash-Williams/1950) 700 - 899 (RCAHMW/1976) |
| Language: | celtic and latin (rbook) |
| Ling. Notes: | Nash-Williams/1950, 163: `XPI is derived from the early Greek abbreviation for the name of Christ (cf. No. 125). This is the earliest instance of the use of the formula Crux Christi, which characterizes a small but distinctive group of Glamorganshire cross-slabs (cf. Nos. 211, 261) and appears also on certain of the Glamorganshire crosses (Nos. 231, 233). The formula is Irish,[1] possibly with Merovingian or even earlier (? N. African) antecedents.[2] [1] ... It also occurs in the I. of Man (MC, pp. 112, 122 [Kermode/1907]). [2] Cf. IGG [LeBlant/1865], ii, pl. 85 (No. 506); NR [LeBlant/1892], pp. 3, 211'. |
| Palaeography: | Richards/1925, 426--427: `Horizontally we have CRUX XPI, and vertically `Gelugui | n'. The lettering bears a striking remsemblance to that of the `Enniaun' Cross at Margam, which is the only other stone in the district bearing the CHI RHO. In the latter case, however, there is the sign of contraction over the `P'; this is missing in the `Geluguin' stone. A photograph and rubbing of the stone were submitted to Dr. Macalister [who states] `the text presents some curious features. The first thing that calls for notice is the combination of vertical and horizontal lines of writing. This is very rare; the nearest parallel that I can recall is one of the Penmachno stones, but that belongs to a different class, as it is written in Roman capitals. The second noteworthy thing is the solitary `N' forming a second line all to itself in the vertical part of the inscription. These two points suggest to me that the stone is of the nature of a palimpsest. I take it that originally it bore nothing more than the cross and the words `CRUX XPI'. At this stage the stone was identical in type with the slab at Llangyfelach, which also bears a cross and nothing more than the same words `CRUX XPI'; but the cross in the latter example is more ornate, and evidently later than the very simple and primitive Port Talbot example. These crosses are to be considered rather as devotional than as commemorative...By some accident, I take it, the Port Talbot stone was broken, after which it was re-appropriated for the purpose of commemorating the person named on the other inscription. That is my explanation of the change in the direction of the lines; had the two inscriptions been contemporary I feel sure that they would have been written in parallel lines.[1] I am inclined to think that we have the whole of the second inscription, and that it was intended to read GELUGUIN. Had the line of writing been much longer, we should have expected the superfluous `n' to have been written, for the convenience of the reader, under the last rather than under the first letter. Moreover, the proportions of the surviving part of the cross suggest that there is not a very great length of the stem lost, and as the cross would most likely occupy as much as possible of the space available, I do not suppose that the slab was ever very large, or that there was room upon it for many more letters -- not enough to make another word. Impressions are, of course, very fallacious, but certainly I derive from the photograph an impression of an inscription that has just fitted into the space which the present size of the stone allows''. Nash-Williams/1950, 163: `Round half-uncials, coarsely picked in good style. Some of the letters are lightly clubbed'. RCAHMW/1976, 42: `rounded half-uncials'. |
| Legibility: | good |
| Lines: | 5 |
| Carving errors: | 0 |
| Doubtful: | no |
RCAHMW/1976, 42: `GELUGUI[ / N... probably incomplete, word presumably names the person commemorated as on comparable Irish slabs (but cf No. 886)'.