The most compelling arguments that suggest the removal of part of the same verse text we now have relate to the shape and character of the erasure itself. In effect, a fine sarcophagus, which was inscribed with a long and carefully executed text, is marred by a rough erasure. If the erasure was made before the new text was cut, why was more trouble not taken to smooth and prepare the stone? Moreover, why does our text start at a distance of a third of a line from the margin? It would have been easy for the mason to produce a better surface so that he could have started at the margin. The whole execution of the inscription itself is very fine and clearly not the work of an amateur. The overall impression is that no expense was spared in the layout of a large tomb and the manufacture of a magnificent sarcophagus for its first occupant.


If a short, earlier text had indeed been inscribed, there would have been no reason to write it in small letters at the very top of the ample space available on the front of the sarcophagus. It would surely have been placed more in the middle and in larger letters... Barbatus’ erasure suggests that the letters were the same size and the lines the same length as the extant text. The erasure comprises exactly the length of two of the Saturnian verses below. All these considerations strongly suggest that part of this same text was erased.
The question remains as to what was erased by a later family member... Whatever was rubbed out must have been controversial or unsatisfactory from the family’s point of view