| Corpus Refs: | Huebner/1876:18 Macalister/1945:465 Okasha/1993:21 |
| Site: | LIVET |
| Discovery: | first mentioned, 1872 Polsue, J. |
| History: | Okasha/1993, 138: `The stone was first mentioned in 1872, when it was `in the wall of an old thatched cottage near the parish schoolroom...In 1888 the stone was still in the wall, but by 1895 it was `Lying in the churchyard...by south porch'. Langdon...[said] that the house where it had been found was `near west end of church'. In 1925 C. G. Henderson recorded the stone in the church'. |
| Geology: | Macalister/1945, 442: `granite'. |
| Dimensions: | 0.96 x 0.34 x 0.31 (Okasha/1993) |
| Setting: | in display |
| Location: | other Okasha/1993, 138: `The stone is now inside Lanivet church, at the west end of nave'. |
| Form: | plain Macalister/1945, 442: `originally a cross shaft of granite'. Okasha/1993, 138: `incomplete pillar stone'. |
| Condition: | incomplete , poor Okasha/1993, 138--39, states that from earliest record the stone was in two pieces, now cemented back together. Upper portion only of the pillar-stone survives. From photo (Fig II.21) the top of the stone has also suffered further damage. |
| Folklore: | none |
| Crosses: | none |
| Decorations: | band Okasha/1993, 138: `Text is incised...inside a panel'. Thomas/1994, 294--295, refers to this panel as a `cartouche' and sees it as early Dumnonian `art'. |
| Macalister, R.A.S. (1945): | ANNICVF/IL[-- Expansion: ANNICV FIL[I-- Macalister/1945 442 reading only |
| Okasha, E. (1985): | ANNICV[F/IL-- Expansion: ANNICV FIL[-- Translation: Annicu(PN) son [--]. Okasha/1993 140 reading only |
| Thomas, C. (1994): | ANNICVF/IL[-- Expansion: ANNICV FIL[I-- Thomas/1994 265 reading only |
| Orientation: | vertical down |
| Position: | n/a ; broad ; n/a ; panel Okasha/1993, 138: `inside a panel on the face of the stone'. |
| Incision: | pocked Macalister/1945, 442: `pocked'. |
| Date: | 500 - 799 (Okasha/1993) 533 - 566 (Thomas/1994) |
| Language: | Latin (rcaps) |
| Ling. Notes: | none |
| Palaeography: | Okasha/1993, 138: `predominantly capital script'. Thomas/1994, 265, saw the V in the name Annicv as an error for II or I, to make Annicii or Annici. |
| Legibility: | some Macalister/1945, 449: `The inscription...is in fairly good condition'. Okasha/1993, 138: `The text is slightly deteriorated and incomplete'. |
| Lines: | 1 |
| Carving errors: | 0 |
| Doubtful: | no |