ELAFIUS, HIS CRIPPLED SON AND ARTHUR

St. Germanus of Auxerre

Some time ago I posted a blog article on a radical idea, i.e. that the crippled boy in the c. 446-7 A.D. story of St. Germanus and Elafius , as found in Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, was a reference to Arthur/Artorius. 

But Bede got Elafius from a character found Constantius of Lyons' Vita of St. Germanus:

[21] NEC multo interposito tempore nuntiatur ex eadem insula Pelagianam peruersitatem iterato paucis auctoribus dilatari; rursusque ad beatissimum uirum preces sacerdotum omnium deferuntur, ut causam Dei, quam prius obtinuerat, tutaretur. Quorum petitioni festinus obtemperat. Namque adiuncto sibi Seuero, totius sanctitatis uiro, qui erat discipulus beatissimi patris Lupi Trecasenorum episcopi, et tunc Treuiris ordinatus episcopus, gentibus primae Germaniae uerbum praedicabat, mare conscendit, et consentientibus elementis, tranquillo nauigio Brittanias petit.

Interea sinistri spiritus peruolantes totam insulam Germanum uenire inuitis uaticinationibus nuntiabant; in tantum, ut Elafius quidam, regionis illius primus, in occursu sanctorum sine ulla manifesti nuntii relatione properaret, exhibens secum filium, quem in ipso flore adulescentiae debilitas dolenda damnauerat. Erat enim arescentibus neruis contracto poplite, cui per siccitatem cruris usus uestigii negabatur. Hunc Elafium prouincia tota subsequitur; ueniunt sacerdotes, occurrit inscia multitudo, confestim benedictio et sermonis diuini doctrina profunditur. Recognoscunt populum in ea, qua reliquerat, credulitate durantem; intellegunt culpam esse paucorum, inquirunt auctores, inuentosque condemnant. Cum subito Elafius pedibus aduoluitur sacerdotum, offerens filium, cuius necessitatem ipsa debilitas etiam sine precibus adlegabat; fit communis omnium dolor, praecipue sacerdotum, qui conceptam misericordiam ad diuinam clementiam contulerunt; statimque adulescentem beatus Germanus sedere conpulit, adtrectat poplitem debilitate curuatum, et per tota infirmitatis spatia medicabilis dextera percurrit, salubremque tactum sanitas festina subsequitur. Ariditas sucum, nerui officia receperunt, et in conspectu omnium filio incolumitas, patri filius restituitur...

Chapter XXI

Meanwhile evil spirits, flying over the whole island, made known through the involuntary prophecies of their victims the coming of Germanus, with the result that one of the leading men in the country, Elafius by name, came hurrying to meet the holy men without having had any news of them through any regular messenger. He brought with him his son who had been crippled in early youth by a grievous malady. His sinews had withered and the tendons of the knee had contracted and his withered leg made it impossible for him to stand on his feet.

The whole province came along with Elafius. The bishops arrived and the crowds came upon them unexpectedly. At once blessings and the words of God were showered upon them. Germanus could see that the people as a whole had persevered in the faith in which he had left them and the bishops realized that the fallings-away had been the work only of a few. These were identified and formally condemned.

At this point Elafius approached to make obeisance to the bishops and presented to them his son, whose youth and helplessness made his need clear without words. Everyone felt acutely for him, the bishops most of all, and in their pity they had recourse to the mercy of God. The blessed Germanus at once made the boy sit down, then felt the bent knee and ran his healing hand over all the diseased parts. Health speedily followed the life-giving touch. What was withered became supple, the sinews resumed their proper work, and, before the eyes of all, the son got back a sound body and the father got back a son...

When I read the description carefully of Elafius's son's lameness, I happened to think of the following words (from Lewis and Short's Latin dictionary):

arto (not arcto ), āvi, ātum, 1, v. a. 1. artus,

I.to draw or press close together, to compress, contract (not found in Cic.).

I. A.. Lit.: omnia conciliatu artari possunt, * Lucr. 1, 576: “libros,” Mart. 1, 3, 3; Col. 12, 44, 2: “vitis contineri debet vimine, non artari,” Plin. 17, 23, 35, § 209: “angustias eas artantibusinsulis parvis, quae etc.,” id. 3, 6, 13, § 83.—

B. Trop., to contract, straiten, limit, curtail: “fortuna humana fingit artatque ut lubet, i. e. in angustias redigit,” Plaut. Capt. 2, 2, 54 Lind.; Liv. 45, 56: “tempus,” to limit, circumscribe, Dig. 42, 1, 2; 38, 9, 1: “se,” to limit one's self, to retrench, ib. 1, 11, 2 al. —

II. In gen., to finish, conclude, Petr. 85, 4.—Hence, artātus , a, um, P. a., contracted into a small compass; hence, narrow, close; and of time, short: “pontus,” Luc. 5, 234: “tempus,” Vell. 1, 16.

artus , ūs, m. id., mostly plur. (artua, n., Plaut. Men. 5, 2, 102; quoted in Non. p. 191, 12.—Hence, dat. acc. to Vel. Long. p. 2229 P. and Ter. Scaur. p. 2260 P. artibus; yet the ancient grammarians give their decision in favor of artubus, which form is also supported by the best MSS.; cf. arcus.—The singular is found only in Luc. 6, 754; Val. Fl. 4, 310, and Prisc. p. 1219 P.).

I. A.. Lit., a joint: “molles commissurae et artus (digitorum),” Cic. N. D. 2, 60, 150: “suffraginum artus,” Plin. 11, 45, 101, § 248: “elapsi in pravum artus,” Tac. H. 4, 81: “dolorartuum,” gout, Cic. Brut. 60, 217.—Sometimes connected with membra, Plaut. Men. 5, 2, 102: “copia materiaï Cogitur interdum flecti per membra, per artus,” in every joint and limb,Lucr. 2, 282; 3, 703 al.; Suet. Calig. 28; cf. “Baumg.-Crus., Clavis ad Suet.: cernere lacerosartus, truncata membra,” Plin. Pan. 52, 5.—

B. Trop., the muscular strength in the joints; hence, in gen., strength, power: Ἐπιχαρμεῖον illud teneto; “nervos atque artus esse sapientiae, non temere credere,” Q. Cic. Petit. Cons. 10.—More freq.,

II. The limbs in gen. (very freq., esp. in the poets; in Lucr. about sixty times): cum tremulis anus attulit artubus lumen, Enn. ap. Cic. Div. 1, 20, 40 (Ann. v. 36 Vahl.); so Lucr. 3, 7; cf. id. 3, 488; 6, 1189: “artubus omnibus contremiscam,” Cic. de Or. 1, 26, 121: dum nati (sc. Absyrti) dissupatos artus captaret parens, vet. poet. ap. Cic. N. D. 3, 26, 67: “copia concita per artusOmnīs,” Lucr. 2, 267: “moribundi artus,” id. 3, 129 al.: “rogumque parari Vidit et arsurossupremis ignibus artus, etc.,” Ov. M. 2, 620 al.: “salsusque per artus Sudor iit,” Verg. A. 2, 173; 1, 173 al.: “veste strictā et singulos artus exprimente,” and showing each limb, Tac. G. 17: “artusin frusta concident,” Vulg. Lev. 1, 6; 8, 20; “ib. Job, 16, 8.—Of plants: stat per se vitis sine ullopedamento, artus suos in se colligens,” its tendrils, Plin. 14, 1, 3, § 13, where Jahn reads arcus.

artus (not arctus ), a, um, adj. v. arma, prop.

I.fitted; hence,

I. Lit., close, strait, narrow, confined, short, brief: “exierunt regionibus artis,” Lucr. 6, 120: “claustra,” id. 1, 70; so id. 3, 808: “nec tamen haec ita sunt arta et astricta, ut ea laxarenequeamus,” Cic. Or. 65, 220: “artioribus apud populum Romanum laqueis tenebitur,” Cic. Verr. 2, 1, 5: “nullum vinculum ad astringendam fidem jure jurando majores artius essevoluerunt,” id. Off. 3, 31, 111: “compages,” Verg. A. 1, 293: “nexus,” Ov. M. 6, 242: “artostipata theatro,” pressed together in a contracted theatre, Hor. Ep. 2, 1, 60: “toga,” a narrow toga without folds, id. ib. 1, 18, 30 (cf. exigua toga, id. ib. 1, 19, 13): “nimis arta convivia,” i. e. with too many guests, who are therefore compelled to sit close together, id. ib. 1, 5, 29 et saep.—Hence, subst.: artum , i, n., a narrow place or passage: “ventus cum confercit, franguntur in artomontes nimborum,” Lucr. 6, 158 Lachm.: “multiplicatis in arto ordinibus,” Liv. 2, 50; so id. 34, 15: “nec desilies imitator in artum,” nor, by imitating, leap into a close place, Hor. A. P. 134.—

II. Trop., strict, severe, scanty, brief, small: “sponte suā cecidit sub leges artaque jura,” subjected himself to the severity of the laws, Lucr. 5, 1147: “Additae leges artae et ideo superbae quasqueetc.,” Plin. 16, 4, 5, § 12: “vincula amoris artissima,” Cic. Att. 6, 2: artior somnus, a sounder or deeper sleep, id. Rep. 6, 10: “arti commeatus,” Liv. 2, 34; Tac. H. 4, 26; cf.: “in artocommeatus,” id. ib. 3, 13: “artissimae tenebrae,” very thick darkness, Suet. Ner. 46 (for which, in class. Lat., densus, v. Bremi ad h. l., and cf. densus) al.—So, colligere in artum, to compress, abridge: “quae (volumina) a me collecta in artum,” Plin. 8, 16, 17, § 44.—Of hope, small, scanty: “spes artior aquae manantis,” Col. 1, 5, 2: ne spem sibi ponat in arto, diminish hope, expectation, Ov. M. 9, 683: “quia plus quam unum ex patriciis creari non licebat, artior petitioquattuor petentibus erat,” i. e. was harder, had less ground of hope, Liv. 39, 32; and of circumstances in life, etc., straitened, distressing, wretched, needy, indigent (so in and after the Aug. per. for the class. angustus): “rebus in artis,” Ov. P. 3, 2, 25: “artas res nuntiaret,” Tac. H. 3, 69: “tam artis afflictisque rebus,” Flor. 2, 6, 31; so Sil. 7, 310: “fortuna artior expensis,” Stat. S. 5, 3, 117: “ne in arto res esset,” Liv. 26, 17.—Adv.: artē (not arcte ), closely, close, fast, firmly.

I. Lit.: “arte (manus) conliga,” Plaut. Ep. 5, 2, 29: “boves arte ad stipites religare,” Col. 6, 2, 5: “arte continere aliquid,” Caes. B. G. 7, 23: “aciem arte statuere,” Sall. J. 52, 6: “arte accubare,”Plaut. Stich. 4, 2, 39.—Comp.: “calorem artius continere,” Cic. N. D. 2, 9, 25: “artiusastringi,” Hor. Epod. 15, 5: “signa artius conlocare,” Sall. C. 59, 2: “artius ire,” Curt. 4, 13, 34: “artius pressiusque conflictari,” Gell. 10, 6.—Sup.: “milites quam artissime ire jubet,” Sall. J. 68, 4: “artissime plantas serere,” Plin. 12, 3, 7, § 16.—

II. Trop.: “arte contenteque aliquem habere,” Plaut. As. 1, 1, 63; id. Merc. prol. 64: “arte etgraviter dormire,” soundly, Cic. Div. 1, 28, 59: “arte appellare aliquem,” briefly, by shortening his name, Ov. P. 4, 12, 10: “artius adstringere rationem,” Cic. Fat. 14, 32: “abstinentiamartissime constringere,” Val. Max. 2, 2, 8.—

III. Transf.: “arte diligere aliquem,” strongly, deeply, Plin. Ep. 6, 8; so also id. ib. 2, 13.

arthrītis , ĭdis, f., = ἀρθρῖτις,

I.a lameness in the joints, gout (in pure Lat., articularis morbus), Vitr. 1, 6.

From Greek ἄρθρον, arthron "joint," from PIE *ar(ə)-dhro-, suffixed form of root *ar- "to fit together."

The reader will note that these words contain among their meanings "joint", "contract", "lameness" and the like. The lameness of the boy was due in part to the contraction of the tendons of the knee joint.

Could it not be that the author of the vita had fancifully derived his story of lameness from the name Arthur/Artorius?  These names could well have been wrongly etymologized by drawing on Latin words like artus and arto.  In this way Arthur was thought to mean a boy whose knee joint had suffered contraction of the tendons.

The idea is not as crazy as it sounds.  Professor Stefan Zimmer, in his paper ‘The Name of Arthur’, includes among the formal possibilities for explaining the name Artorius the following:

“Artorius as a genuine Latin formation may belong to the word family of ars ‘art, skill, craftmanship’, and be a derivative of artus, -ūs (masculine substantive) ‘structure, joints’, or, less likely, from artus (adjective) ‘structured, tight’. Artorius might have been a substantivized adjective meaning ‘joiner’ (not necessarily in the restricted sense of the modern English word).”

Professor Joseph Pucci, one of the world’s top experts in Late and Medieval Latin, said in response to my query on this issue:

“I think it is possible for a Latin author to connect the name Arthur to the Latin words you discuss. That sort of etymologizing, in fact, strikes me as foundational to the way early medieval thinkers on language and/or literate people thought about the relationship of words to ideas. Two sources that might be useful: Robert Maltby, A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies, which will give a sense of this sort of thinking in an earlier context (earlier for your interests); the other is a contemporary, and perhaps more immediately useful, source: Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, in many editions and several translations, including English.”

Professor Gregory Hayes, another expert in Late and Medieval Latin, added:

“Medieval writers are pretty flexible when they start etymologizing and it wouldn't surprise me to see one connecting the name Artorius with artus (noun or adj.), if there was some advantage to be gained in a particular context by doing so.”

If this confusion of the name Arthur/Artorius for the Latin artus or similar did happen, then the son of Elafius was quite possibly Arthur! 

BADON AS BATH: A FINAL PROOF

             Little Solsbury Hill, Bath

    

Just a short time ago, I wrote this piece:

          

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2026/07/sulis-of-bath-and-sulis-of-castennec.html?m=1

What I hadn't thought about was something that had been off my radar for many years - Little Solsbury Hill fort at Bath.

The name of this hillfort is believed to preserve the goddess Sulis name. She was the presiding deity at Bath.

Now, while there is some consensus that the Breton St. Gweltas may not originally have been St. Gildas, even if this were true it would be remarkable if a saint identified with Gildas in Brittany had been associated early on with a fortified Sulis hill. For such a hill would be a perfect counterpart to the British Solsbury.

It does not matter that Solsbury has so far failed to show sub-Roman use and appears to have been abandoned in the Iron Age. Any old hillfort might well have been repurposed for a single battle.

Badon and W. Caer Faddon are both Bath, linguistically speaking. They cannot be any other British or English place-name. Amateur historians who have not consulted the world's top Celtic language specialists continue to put forward new or old candidates. A good example is Mynydd Baeddan, which may derive from W. Baedd, "boar." These same amateurs are not aware of the fact that baedd has a diphthong /ai/, not the /a/ we see in Badon (Dr. Simon Rodway) or that even if we suggest that a Baedd-ON that went into Latin could have ended up Badon, ae could not come across as a. We would expect either Latin ae or Latin e (Prof. Peter Schrijver).

If we, then, finally accept Badon as Bath, we have only two problems remaining to consider. 

The first is easy to resolve, and I long ago proposed the solution. Why would Gildas, who addressed King Maelgwn prior to the latter's death in 547, call the British victory by an English name?

Surely his parents would have told him about the battle that was fought when he was born. As the AC date of 516 has to be wrong (given Maelgwn's obit and Gildas's age of 44 years 1 month), and the proper date of Badon was probably between 490 and 500, and Bath was very far to the west, it could not possibly have yet been known by its English name. 

I have suggested the work of Gildas originally had the British name, the hill of Sulis, but that at some point later a monkish copyist who found the pagan goddess name objectionable, substituted what was at his time the then English name of the place: Bathum, which regularly becomes Badon in the British.

Simple enough. Can't be demonstrated, of course, but it is a reasonable explanation.

Of more serious concern to us, of course, is the very early date for a battle against the Saxons at Little Solsbury Hill. And to that I shall return shortly.

But first, a bit on how the location of the AC's Second Battle of Badon (fought in 665) helps support my identification of the first Badon battle as an action at Bath.

The actual year entry for this Second Battle of Badon reads as follows:

665 The first celebration of Easter among the Saxons. The second battle of Badon. Morgan dies.

The "first celebration of Easter among the Saxons" is a reference to the Synod of Whitby of c. 664. While not directly mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, nor the Anglo-Saxon version of Bede, there is an indirect reference to this event:

664 … Colman with his companions went to his native land…

This is, of course, a reference to Colman's resigning of his see and leaving Lindisfarne with his monks for Iona. He did so because the Roman date for Easter had been accepted at the synod over the Celtic date.  

While there is nothing in the ASC year entry 664 that helps with identifying Badon, if we go to the year entry 661, which is the entry found immediately prior to 664, an interesting passage occurs:

661 In this year, at Easter, Cenwalh [King of Wessex] fought at Posentesburh, and Wulfhere, son of Penda [King of Mercia], ravaged as far as [or "in", or "from"] Ashdown…

The regular northern boundary of Wessex in the west was the Bristol Avon. The Thames was the northern bounday farther east. I once used Penda's Ashdown near Liddington Castle/Badbury to identify Badon with the latter. But that ignores linguistics and Bradford On Avon's significance (see below).

I've recently identified Posentesbyrig as "Pascent's Burg". Leading English place-name authority Dr. Richard Coates had this to say when I asked him if this etymology worked:

"I see no absolute barrier to Posent – Pascent. Welsh <sc> is the cluster [sk], which would be rendered in OE as “esh” since OE had no cluster [sk] before a front vowel, even in the earliest times. “Esh” would normally also be spelt <sc>, but that’s a coincidence. It’s possible for “esh” to appear very occasionally as <s>, even before the conquest, as in Ryssebroc for Rushbrooke (Suffolk) in the mid-10th century."

William of Malmesbury seems to suggest that Bradford on Avon was once called Vortigern's Burg.

From https://www.dot-domesday.me.uk/wessex.htm:

"William of Malmesbury, however, writes that Cenwalh: “totally defeated in two actions the Britons, furious with the recollection of their ancient liberty, and in consequence perpetually meditating resistance; first at a place called Wirtgernesburg [meaning “Vortigern’s stronghold”], and then at a mountain named Penne” (GR I §19). This seems to imply that Wirtgernesburg is synonymous with Bradford-on-Avon, and that the enemy was, therefore, the Britons. Æthelweard, though, in his rendition of the event (II, 7), uses the phrase “civil war”, which presumably means that he believed the battle to be an internal dispute, or, at least, against other Anglo-Saxons."

       Bradford On Avon Near Bath

As Pascent was Vortigern's son, it makes sense to see Posentesbyrig or Pascent's fort as another nickname for the Vortigern's fort that was at or immediately adjacent to Bradford On Avon.

It is now thought possible that Vortigern's fort is the Budbury Hill camp at Bradford On Avon (see https://www.bradfordonavonmuseum.co.uk/iron-age).

Obviously, given all that, the best candidate for the Second Badon is Bath.

With Bath now convincingly identified as Badon, we need to return to our consideration of the chronology problem. To state that problem in succinct form, how can we account for a battle between Britons and Saxons at Bath as early as 490-500?

What comes to mind is the Gewissei battle at Dyrham in the ASC at 577. As a result of this victory, Bath was taken in the same year.

Well, I've proven pretty conclusively that the Gewissei were Irish or Hiberno-British federates from NW Wales. As some top historians like Barbara York have recently suggested, they may have been fighting for the Britons, not the Saxons. They might  later have been co-opted by the English and converted into the founders of Wessex.

An alternative interpretation would be to see a high king at Viroconium employing both Saxon and Irish mercenaries against his fellow Britons in the South. Intertribal warfare certainly occurred once the Romans were gone.

I've also shown that the early Gewissei generations are reversed in the ASC. Ceawlin and Cynric of the ASC are to be identified with Cunedda Maquicoline and Cunorix, found on the famous Wroxeter Stone:

https://linkedopenogham.github.io/cisp-recovery/cisp/database/stone/wrxtr_1.html#i1

Cunorix/Cynric son of Cunedda Macquicoline/Ceawlin is dated 460 - 475.

My identification of Ceawlin with Cunedda goes way back, beginning with pieces like this:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-irish-cunedda-selection-from-my.html?m=1

This theory was developed more fully and correctly over several years on this blog. The end result was the published book CEREDIG SON OF CUNEDDA AND THE FOUNDING OF WESSEX:

https://a.co/d/09SegnEU

Now, if Cunorix/Cynric is dated 460-475, and we allow him to have predeceased his father, it is possible for Ceawlin to have fought at Bath c. 490-500. Or at least some member of his immediate family might have done so. Cerdic of Wessex, presented as coming before Ceawlin in the ASC, is Cunedda's/Ceawlin's son in the Welsh sources. Specifically, he is the founder of the Welsh kingdom of Ceredigion.

In this revised scenario, of course, the dates of the ASC are seriously out of whack. But if I'm right about the Wroxeter Stone, we have archaeological proof to support such a contention.

Before I conclude this essay, given that Bath does appear to be Badon and that the battle was fought a decade or two prior to the AC date of 516, might we find a way to allow Arthur to have been at least one of the victors there?

Well, the only way in the past that I managed to place Arthur in the South was to identify him with Cerdic of Wessex. There were several reasons for attempting this, but I ultimately abandoned the notion. Still, there remains a slight possibility that the crippled son of Elafus/Elaphus in the Vita of St. Germanus of Auxerre may still be a reference to Arthur. 

I refer my readers to the following old blog, advising them to ignore the references to Cerdic as Arthur:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/12/why-i-ultimately-decided-on-ceredig-son.html?m=1

And then check out this excellent study on Elafus:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23969887

If Elafus has properly been brought into connection with the ASC's Elesa, father of Cerdic, we are looking at a connection with the Gewissei. As has been known for some time (see Kenneth Sisam's Anglo-Saxon Royal Genealogies, for example), Elesa is a link inserted to bring the Wessex genealogy into accordance with northern AS genealogies. In reality, Cerdic is son of Cunedda/Ceawlin.

But it is not impossible that Elafus is someone else entirely - viz., an actual chieftain somewhere in Southern Britain.

We just can't prove his son was Arthur, and have no independent early testimony for Arthur at Badon other than the HB and AC battle lists. I'm still of the very strong opinion that as all the battles other than Badon are British place-names and all are decidedly in the North (even Camlan, if we allow for that site to be Camboglanna on Hadrian's Wall) that Badon was not originally an Arthurian battle.

Correcting Dr. Linda A. Malcor's Misstatements Regarding the Relative Size of the L. Artorius Castus Memorial Stone

Note: I have over a dozen queries regarding the following post still out to scholars whose expertise centers on Roman funeral architecture and art. As more responses from them come in, I will add to those to the end of the article.

This vitally important private communication from the late John Wilkes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wilkes_) describes his own excavation of the now famous (or infamous!) L. Artorius Castus stone:

"In the matter of historical context most people would appear to believe that a date in the reign of Commodus proposed for this career by H.-G. Pflaum (catalogue of equestrian procurators) was too early and his career better fits in the the third century AD, not least because of the use of the term dux in what one assumes to be an official description of his status in command of detachments of the legions stationed in Britain. Moreover, since there are several records of Artorii from Dalmatia, it seems probable that his military career was honoured in his native land. In 1962, in company with my old friend Tony Birley, I travelled from Split a few miles south along the coast where we located the two halves of the text still incorporated in the roadside field wall at Podstrana di Jesenice. The part of the stone with the key letters ARM[...] was buried but we managed to excavate it from the grass verge and confirm that there were no traces of further letters to be seen. Since then both parts of the stone have been removed to the Archaeological Museum in Split and subsequently there has appeared a full study of Castus and his career in the Vjesnik za Arheologiu I Historiju Dalmatinsku."

Why is this letter so important?

Because Dr. Linda A. Malcor, proponent of the ARMATOS reading for the ARM[...]S lacuna on the Castus stone, has often presented - as if it were an extant archaeological setting - an imaginary portrait of the tomb of Castus.

For example, at 5:55 in her rebuttal of August Hunt's talk (https://youtu.be/dyLHmqhN5Ak?si=00TpVia1vkEtBSwV), Dr. Linda A. Malcor says that L. Artorius Castus could not have made his stone larger because it was a memorial stone on a tomb, that is was found in a necropolis, and that the stone couldn't be bigger because it would extend beyond the roofline of the tomb.

This entire assessment of the LAC stone is wrong and based on assumptions devoid of an evidentiary context.  

To begin with, the stone (as described by Wilkes) was found built into a modern road's low wall.  There is no necropolis (a term used, in any case, for a large cemetery associated with a city; at Podstrana we are talking about a family tomb or a solitary plaque).  There is no tomb.  And we have no way of knowing how large the tomb was, so to say that its roofline had not been large enough to support a larger stone is an absurd statement.  Dr. Malcor is, literally, conjuring an edifice that we have no evidence for, whatsoever.  She has no way of determining dimensions for any of the structures affiliated with the memorial stone. 

Our first record of the LAC stone (or, rather, it's left half) is found in De' scavi di Salona, 1850, by Francesco Carrara. He is often cited for claiming that an E was ligatured to M, which will fill in part of the lacuna and more easily allow for the reading to be ARMENIOS. But his rendering of that portion of the inscription that he could make out is pretty poor:

Also, he is less than helpful in telling us what the stone was like in situ. In fact, his only reference to the find reads as follows:

"Frammento di un sarcofago, ornatissimo, in marmo bianco, presso la chiesa di San Martino di Postrana alla strada nuova di Almissa.

Fragment of a highly decorated white marble sarcophagus, near the church of St. Martin of Postrana on the new road in Almissa."

It is likely, then, that Wilkes, the excavator of both halves of the stone, preserves more reliable testimony when it comes to whether an E ligatured to the M was visible or not.

What I would like to do now for the remainder of this blog post is to list statements from several leading experts in Roman funeral architecture and art.  Fronting their statements is my original, unedited email query to them, the same query that elicited the statements.

"Dear X:

I'm assuming that sarcophagi of the Severan period in Dalmatia, and specifically in Salona, would be of varying sizes. Size may well be determined by the relative wealth of those people paying to have the sarcophagi made. Although, I imagine other factors could come into play. But, in brief, there was no standardized size?

No standard size for the memorial plaques either, I presume?

Where would a plaque such as the following one for L. Artorius Castus be placed? 

https://lupa.at/24235?query=764015336

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Most sincere best wishes, and respectfully,

Daniel Hunt"

Here is what Professor Michael Koortbojian, M. Taylor Pyne Professor of Art and Archaeology at Princeton and expert on Roman sarcophagi, had to say on the LAC memorial stone:

"No standardized size for sarcophagi. But at least big enough for a body (those for children were often small). 

Not very many sarcophagi were inscribed. The few texts we have are short. In the tomb itself, there was no standardization.

I don’t think that there is any way to know whether the Castus stone accompanied a sarcophagus. It’s a very standard plaque with a commemorative text. The body might well have been cremated. Unless you knew more about the findspot, there is no way to know for sure.

I’m not so sure the diminishing height of the inscription’s letter forms necessarily prove that it was hung up high.  The last line is a convention, and often small; the name is larger for obvious reasons. Again, I doubt it accompanied a sarcophagus.

At the same time, it would not have rested on the ground; too hard to see there. Often this sort of plaque was immured on the outside of a tomb precinct, where passersby could see it."

Prof. Jas Elsner:

"There is no standard size for sarcophagi or plaques.  The plaques are heavy and were not hung but immured — in front of tombs, or over burial spaces within tombs, or as memorials. Could be in association with a sarcophagus directly or not.  Part of the problem is that despite the numbers of such things, their archaeology as a record of specific siting and context (rather than treasure hunt for stuff) has historically been very poor, so we have much less detailed information than you’d expect."

Nino Švonja, Senior curator, Epigraphic Collection, Archaeological Museum of Split:

"The sarcophagi vary in size. This depended both on individual commissions and on the price. In Dalmatia, most sarcophagi are of local production, carved from limestone, although there were also imported examples. These were products of Attic, Roman, and Asia Minor workshops and were carved from marble. This means that they must also have been more expensive than locally produced sarcophagi.

Likewise, the stone slabs bearing other inscriptions do not have standardized dimensions, but rather depend on the wishes and means of the person commissioning them.

As for the inscription of Lucius Artorius Castus, it must have been built into either his mausoleum or the enclosure surrounding his funerary plot (hortus)."

Professor Nenad Cambi:

 "Dear colleague Hunt, there are not standardised size of sarcophagi in the whole Roman world. Normal sizes vary from specimen to specimen. There are vrious dimensions for one or more persons. Local limestone was cheaper than marble one. As concerns the fragments of Lucius Artorius Castus sarcophagus it was made of Proconnesian marble probably cut in Salona.   The bigger plaque also with the similar inscription is from local stone and it was intended for the entrance of the precinct as the main monument in the centre. It was common type of a smaller type of the luxury graveyard. That is the reason why we have two almost identical inscriptions. Anyway the costs of chests depend on the marble and the size."

Professor Carrie Weaver:

"Yes, there would be variation in the sizes of Severan sarcophagi, and much of the variation would be based on cost. A sarcophagus would be a more expensive burial container to begin with, but the greater the size and more elaborate the sculptural embellishments, the greater the cost. There wasn't much in the way of standardization, but the sarcophagi also would not have all been made-to-order. There would be mostly complete sarcophagi in a workshop, and someone could pick one of those out and then pay for additional customization, such as carving a portion onto pre-existing figures or purchasing an inscribed plaque. The plaques would also be varying sizes, so no standardization there either.

The placement of plaques could vary. Because the sarcophagi would be on display in a family tomb, the inscriptions are mostly placed in the center, but I've also seen them in the niches in which sarcophagi sit. Are you sure this is from a sarcophagus? I think it might have been on the outside of a tomb. Also, cremation was still being practiced during this period, so it could have been covering a niche that contained an urn.

Looking closer at the inscription--particularly the end--I think it's from a family tomb and not a sarcophagus. Sounds like you've been in touch with an epigrapher, but "vi/vus ipse sibi et suis [--- ex te]st(amento)" --> "Set this up for himself and his own in [his] will", is the type of statement that typically refers to multiple inhumation. Essentially, he establishes the tomb for his immediate family members and household members (i.e., enslaved people and freedmen) after his death. This was a very common Roman practice and it's commonly seen (or variations of it) in Roman funerary inscriptions."