| Corpus Refs: | Davies/etal/2000:M6 |
| Site: | LCOAL |
| Discovery: | first mentioned, 1825 Mahe, J. |
| History: | Davies et al/2000, 221--22 `This striking stone ... was noted by the Abbé Mahé and Cayot-Delandre [CayotDelandre/1847: 509--10] recorded that it had been knocked over and re-erected during the French Revolution and that subsequently, since it stood in the path of the (new) road, it was shifted to the edge of the road. Keranflec'h first published a description of the stone in 1857, noting the careful workmanship, supplying a reading of the second line shortly after and an improvement on this reading the following year [Keranflec'h/1857: 105, Kernaflec'h/1858: 337]. Subsequent 19th-century discussion focussed on whether or not the commemorand was the wife of Pascwethen, Breton count then ruler in the 870s, and whether or not the stone marked her place of burial. The monument was discussed (with associated photograph) by Bernier, who also stated that it marked the limit of the priory of St Gutual (Goal) on the island and observed that it was known (as was another local stone) as men er menah, the monk's stone. The site was visited by members of the CISP team in May 1997 and June 1999'. |
| Geology: | Davies et al/2000, 222: `granite'. |
| Dimensions: | 2.2 x 1.98 x 0.0 (Davies/etal/2000) |
| Setting: | in ground |
| Location: | on site Davies et al/2000, 221: `This striking stone stands beside the salt marsh in Mendon, just before the bridge to the island of Locoal, in fact a tidal island'. |
| Form: | megalith Davies et al/2000, 222: `The stone appears to be a re-used Iron-Age stele, given that its form is closely paralleled by stelae from Plounéour-Trez and Roz-an-Trémen'. |
| Condition: | complete , good Davies et al/2000, 222: `Although almost completely covered by lichen, it is largely in good condition; however, at the top a part of the decorative ring is missing and there is heavy weathering on the northern part of the chevron band'. |
| Folklore: | none |
| Crosses: | 1: equal-armed; outline; expanded; plain; square; none; none; none; plain |
| Decorations: | band; frame; geometric key pattern Davies et al/2000, 222--24: `The carving is deep and substantial and is clearly visible. A fat roll, c.5cm wide, runs round the top of the stone, whose tip projects c.13cm above this ring; below the ring is a band of chevrons, c.8cm wide, its lower edge defined by a groove, from which extend two sloping parallel-sided `key-pattern' panels for 58cm, on the south-east (9cm-wide) and north-west (8cm-wide) faces; each panel contains two L shapes separated by seven rectangular S-shaped motifs. … The cross (croix pattée) is 24cm long and 23cm wide, on a 29cm shaft displaced to the left, with a 3cm tenon below. There is a second cross on the south-west face, of the same form but larger, 27cm long, 23cm wide, on a 34cm shaft with a 4cm tenon'. |
| Keranflec'h, C. de (1858): | CROVXX | PROSTLON Expansion: CROVXX PROSTLON Keranflec'h/1858 337 reading only |
| Bernier, G. (1982): | CROVXX || PROSTLON Expansion: CROUXX PROSTLON Bernier/1982 173 reading only |
| Davies, W. et al. (1999): | CROUX || PROSTLON Expansion: CROUX PROSTLON Translation: Prostlon's(PN) cross Davies/etal/2000 225 reading only |
| Orientation: | vertical down |
| Position: | n/a ; broad ; beside cross ; separated Davies et al/2000, 224: `As presently disposed, there are two lines of text on the north-east face, reading vertically downwards, on either side of the shaft of a cross'. |
| Incision: | pock+rub Davies et al/2000, 224: `The carving technique … is pocked and smoothed'. |
| Date: | 800 - 899 (Bernier/1982) 850 - 900 (Davies/etal/2000) Davies et al/2000, 228: `Palaeographic and linguistic considerations indicate a date between the 7th and 10th centuries (inclusive) for the inscription, and parallels for the use of the word crux on inscribed stones would preference a date later rather than earlier in the period'. Also see below (under Name) for the possible identification of this Prostlon with a known woman who died some time before 876. |
| Language: | Latin (rbook) |
| Ling. Notes: | Davies et al/2000, 225--26: `CROUX. Use of the word crux is notably paralleled on Insular and Breton inscriptions of 9th- to 11th-century date. ... The apparent hesitation between the standard Latin crux and the Vulgar or Brittonicized crox may be significant. Latin Saxo: 'Saxon, Englishman', gives OB Saus, Modern Saoz. Therefore, croux could reflect a pronunication /krows/, with the same treatment of Latin x'. |
| Palaeography: | Davies et al/2000, 225: `The inscription is in half-uncial. The initial C is plain and rounded with the lower arm conjoined to the following half-uncial R. This R has an elongated ascender that continues upward beyond the rightward stroke, and which also tapers downward to a point. The almost straight rightward stroke is conjoined to the following O. The U has a flattish bottom and two slight extensions to the left from the top of the ascenders. The final X of the first line is particularly `wayward' with the top right arm horizontal. The R of the second line is again half-uncial, this time with a curved rather than a straight rightward stroke. The T, S, and N are also half-uncial, with the S vertical and the N H-shaped. The L is curved rather than angular and the two Os are each smaller than the other letters. The lettering on the stone is not sufficiently distinctive to provide a diagnostic date: the use of half-uncial simply suggests that the inscription was carved within the period of the 7th to 10th centuries'. |
| Legibility: | good Davies et al/2000, 224: `The letters are large (maximum height 9cm), deeply and thickly cut, and well preserved, although the original surface is obscured by lichen'. |
| Lines: | 2 |
| Carving errors: | 0 |
| Doubtful: | no |
As to date, Old Celtic unstressed syllables have fallen, a development reflected in spelling from c. 550 onwards. From 900 onwards, the spelling *Prostlun would be possible and would have become common by c. 1000, although, even then, still side-by-side with Prostlon. The absence of a Latinizing genitive ending (i.e. *Prostlone) favours a date later than 600'.
Davies et al/2000, 228--229: `The name `Prostlon' on this stone has long been thought to refer to Prostlon, the wife of Pascwethen, a man who was extremely active as count in eastern Brittany in the 860s and was subsequently joint ruler for a short period following the death of the princeps Salomon in 874 (e.g. CR nos. 240, 242, 243, 247, 256, 261). Prostlon was buried at the monastery of Redon, sometime before 876 (CR no. 260). While it is indeed possible that it is this Prostlon who is commemorated on the Pen Pont stone (the name does not appear to have been common in the 9th century, for there are no other occurrences in the 6,000 citations of the Redon cartulary), there is no way of verifying the suggestion ... however by demonstrating that the island of Locoal housed a religious foundation with substantial appurtenant lands by the early 11th century, the charter [CR no. 373] certainly increases the likelihood that there had been notable patronage of a religious foundation on the island by rulers in the 9th or 19th centuries and therefore increases the likelihood that it is indeed the 9th-century Prostlon who is commemorated on the stone'.