|Discovery:||recognised, 1915 Pritchard, I.M.|
|History:||First mention of the stone is in a letter to Arch. Camb. dated 7th September 1915, by the Rev. Thomas Roberts, R.N. who simply stated that `An inscribed stone has been found at Penmachno' (Anon/1915, 442).|
Rhys/1919, 201: `In the course of preparing the inventory which it is the business of the Royal Commission on the Ancient Monuments of Wales to draw up, one of our assistant inspectors, Mr. I. M. Pritchard, A.R.I.B.A., visited in May, 1915, the village of Penmachno in order to photograph and otherwise describe the little group of old inscribed stones preserved in the parish church...While at the Eagles Hotel Mr. Pritchard came to know of an old inscribed stone in one of the garden walls behind the hotel. From his reading I find that I had heard of the stone before, as a few years ago a friend kindly sent me a rubbing of an unrecorded inscription at Penmachno; but the rubbing was so unsuccesful that I could make nothing of it...I put the rubbing by with the intention of going to examine the stone. I was not able to do so till August 28'.
Macalister/1945, 369, states that this stone was found later than the others at Penmachno (PMCH1/1, /2 and /3) `in a wall of the Eagles Hotel'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 93: `Near the Eagles Hotel'.
Knight/1995, 9: `from the garden wall of the Eagles Hotel, across the road from the church'.
|Geology:||Knight/1995, 5: `slaty...with some quartz formation on its surface'.|
|Dimensions:||1.0 x 0.18 x 0.25 (converted from Macalister/1945)|
|Location:||Penmachno Church; Current location.|
Nash-Williams/1950, 93: `Inside church, against N. wall of nave at W. end'.
Macalister/1945, 372: `At the top of the inscribed surface there is a mark with no apparent meaning: and at the bottom there are some scratched lines'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 93: `Left-hand portion of a rough pillar-stone'.
|Condition:||incomplete , poor|
Macalister/1945, 372: `half the stone has been split away, carrying off the first line of the writing'.
Knight/1995, 5: `the stone...had split, carrying away the right-hand portion of the inscribed face'.
|Decorations:||no other decoration|
|Roberts, T. (1915):||IIHAVIIOKI || INTEP | IVST | CON|
IIHAVIIOKI INTEP IVST CON
Anon/1915 443 reading only
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):||FILIAVITORI || INTEP[-- | IVSTI[-- | CON[--|
FILI AVITORI IN TE[M]P[ORE] IVSTI[--] CON[--]
Macalister/1945 371--372 and Fig. reading only
|Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):||FILIAVITORI || INTEPO[-- | IVSTI[-- | CON[--|
FILI AVITORI IN TE[M]PO[RE] IVSTI[NI] CON[SVLIS]
(The stone of So-and-so), son of Avitorius (PN). (Set up) in the time of Justinus (PN) the Consul.
Nash-Williams/1950 93 reading only
|Thomas, G. (1969):||--]FILIAVITORI || INTEP[...] | IUSTI[...] | CON[...]|
--] FILI AVITORI INTEP[IDI] IUSTI[SSIMI] CON[IUX]
--] son of Avitorus (PN) (the grave of) a most loving and righteous husband.
Anon/1969 160 reading only
|Bagnall, R.S. et al. (1987):||--]FILIAVITORI || INTEPO[--] | IUSTI[--] | CON[--]|
--]FILI AVITORI IN TEMPORE POST IUSTINI CONSULIS
Bagnall/etal/1987 540W reading only
|Position:||n/a ; narrow ; n/a ; undecorated|
The inscription is on the narrow face of the surviving stone, but as the stone has been cut in half, it was almost certainly on the broad face when cut.
Nash-Williams/1950, 93: `Latin inscription in four lines (? five originally), one (two) reading vertically downwards, the others horizontally across the bottom'.
Macalister/1945, 372: `chiselled on the surface'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 93: `lightly cut'.
|Date:||540 - 540 (Nash-Williams/1950)|
Nash-Williams/1950, 93: `Justinus was consul in A.D. 540, which is therefore the date of the stone. He and Basilius, consul in 541, were the last Roman consuls to be cited on monuments in the western world, their names continuing to be used retrospectively for dating purposes as late as the early 7th century in Burgundy, where the Roman consular system of dating persisted after it had been ousted elsewhere in Gaul'.
540 - 540 (Macalister/1945)
Macalister/1945, 372: `As Rhys, followed by Nash-Williams, has shown, this inscription dates the stone to A.D. 540, the year of the consulate of Justinus'.
328 - 650 (Handley/2001)
Handley/2001, 192--194: `The relevant part of the inscription is the three horizontal lines which read IN TEPO IUSTI CON. This is most often expanded to IN TE(M)PO(RE) IUSTI(NI) CON(SULIS). It has been argued that the cited consul is that for AD 540. The reason this is seen as evidence for contact with Gaul, rather than Rome or Constantinople, where the magistracies were held, is that we have hundreds of consular-dated inscriptions from the Kingdom of Burgundy, where they continued to be erected until the 640s, over a hundred years after the last consul. Indeed the cities of Lyon and Vienne each chose something like a ‘patron consul’ in this period. In Vienne inscriptions were dated to the post-consulate of Basilius, the last consul, and in Lyon they were dated to the post-consulate of Justinus. Thus if the Penmachno stone derived its use of consular dating from Burgundy, it derived it from Lyon. But if it was derived from Lyon it could be dated to any year between 540 and 650, especially if the recent expansion of IN TE(MPORE) PO(ST) IUSTI(NI) CON(SULIS) is accepted. It is only if the consular date from Penmachno was derived from a region such as Italy, or Byzantine North Africa (as it could have been given the known trading links between Britain and the Mediterranean, and the use of consular dating in these regions), that it can provide us with a closer date. In such areas a date citing the post-consulate of Justinus would only have been used as long as the name of the following consul - Basilius - was unknown. Moreover, post-consular dates for Basilius would only have continued from 542 to 566 when the Emperor re-created the consular office for himself. If the Penmachno stone derived its consular date from Italy or Byzantine North Africa this would provide us with a date of roughly 540-542. The point must also be made that the consul for 540 was not the only one to have a name starting with Iusti-. Indeed there was a consul named Justus in 328, while the Emperor Justinian held consulships in 521, 528, 533 and 534, and another Justinus was consul in the years 519 and 524. In a place such as Britain it could easily have taken some time for the name of the new consul to come north from Rome. Thus a large part of any of the years following these consulships could easily have been designated ‘post-consular’. Given this it could be argued that the broadest possible date-range for this inscription is AD 328-650, while to use it as evidence for dateable ‘contact’ with Gaul is problematic.'
|Ling. Notes:||Macalister/1945, 372: ``IN TEP' doubtless means In te(m)pore'.|
Nash-Williams/1950, 93: `Justinus was consul in A.D. 540, which is therefore the date of the stone. He and Basilius, consul in 541, were the last Roman consuls to be cited on monuments in the western world, their names continuing to be used retrospectively for dating purposes as late as the early 7th century in Burgundy, where the Roman consular system of dating persisted after it had been ousted elsewhere in Gaul. The use of Justinus' name was limited to the monuments of Lyon and district, that of Basilius' to those of Vienne and district. The present inscription would thus seem to indicate contacts between Wales and Gaul (Burgundy) in the 6th century (cf. No. 33).
 ICG [LeBlant/1865], ii, pp. lx, lxxi'.
Handley/2001, 192--194, argues that given the continued use of consular dating in Burgundy until the mid seventh century, and the fact that many consuls of the fourth to sixth centuries have names beginning with IUSTI, the stone can, in reality, be dated no more closely than to the period AD 328-650.
|Palaeography:||Nash-Williams/1950, 93: `Roman capitals... with an abbreviation by contraction in l.2'.|
Macalister/1945, 372: `The inscription...is in good condition so far as it remains'.
Knight/1995, 5, note 9: `After the P of INTEP is the beginning of a curved letter-form, slightly obscured by a small area of abrasion or flaking on the edge of the stone, but reasonably clear in its surviving portion. This can fairly safely be restored as a short O'.