THE Roman tombstone unearthed in Cirencester last week may not stay in the town it was found.

It is up to St James Place, the wealth management company on whose land it was found, where the stone will go and they are yet to confirm whether it will remain in the Cotswolds.

A spokeswoman for St James Place, said: “Unfortunately we haven’t come to a conclusion yet, we haven’t quite firmed it up.”

They did not wish to comment further.

Calls have already been made to give the stone to Corinium Museum, which is just a few hundred meters from where it was unearthed.

Amanda Hart, director of the Corinium Museum, said that she “really, really hopes” it comes back to Cirencester and Philippa Smith said on the Standard’s Facebook page: “Well I hope the Corinium Museum does get to keep it seeing as it was discovered here!”

The stone, which is now thought to date from between 125 and 175AD, was removed around midday last Thursday and taken to the Cotswold Archaeology offices in Kemble.

Archaeologists will now study the stone, along with the myriad of other items unearthed, to better understand its historical context.

Speculation about the origins of the stone has been circling all week.

Cliff Bateman, who project managed the dig for Cotswold Archaeology, said: “By the time we got back to the office I already had an email from an archaeologist in Rome.”

Before long the word had spread and experts from around the world were weighing in.

Mr Bateman said: “If I’m honest the take up on the stone has been phenomenal, we’ve had calls from America, Australia and all over Europe.

“We even had a professor of Celtic language in Aberystwyth get in touch.”

For some time, Archaeologists were confused about the inscribed on the tombstone, “Bodica”, which has been found at a location in Algeria.

There is also a “Bodiccius” found in a British regiment in Hungary, two more “Bodica”-s in Germany and three “Boudica”-s in Spain. However, they now believe the name is Boudicaca, a Celtic name of no relation to the war-like Boudicca who died 100 years before.

Suggestions have also been made that the tombstone was from Boudicaca to her husband, and not the other way round as was first supposed, especially as the body found beneath was revealed to be a male.

It is now believed, however, that Boudicaca’s body may have been in one of the other 130 burial sites found during the two digs at St James Place since 2011.

The tombstone could have fallen or been tossed aside by someone searching the graveyard.