The Real C. Julius Caesar

[Blazing141]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080514/ap_on_sc/france_caesar_bust_5


I'm sure many of you have seen the above post....just curious as to everyone's thoughts....it clearly doesnt resemble any other known sculpture of Caesar....and the article says nothing about how they know it is Julius Caesar, so I wonder if they are right....


What does everyone else think? Any one close to the area at issue? Have any thoughts? Discuss...

Bests,
T-

[russia almighty]

He looks old


Really old

[pezhetairoi]

His face looks rounder in this bust than all the other versions of JC I've seen. I'm honestly a bit doubtful as to how they and why they claim this is JC. No mention made of how they positively identified the body that the divers found. Hmm.

It'll be interesting to follow this up, though.

[Blazing141]

I agree Pez, it seems pretty suspect. The only link to Caesar is that he founded the town where this was discovered. It seems like the French Government may be trying to stimulate a tourist industry in the area?

I can't imagine why they would claim this is Caesar and not present some kind of corroborating evidence....

[Gaivs]

Hmmm, same large skull, wrinkled brow and creased eyes. Could be him, a more realistic one if it is, as later busts tended to stray from reality. Like taping a tape over and over.

Edit, i love journos who dont know what they are talking about.

"Albanel called the find "exceptional" and said that the Caesar bust is "the oldest representation known today" of the emperor"

[pezhetairoi]

It's highly suspect indeed. This bust to me, quite frankly, bears very little resemblance to the JC we've seen in all the versions known. Is the French government trying to say all the busts of JC, probably the guy with the most media/sculpture coverage in his day and age, are wrong on the basis of this one bust? Even if you get older, your face does not change in shape. And I find it unlikely that JC would look so mild, even in 'old age'. He died at the height of his power and ambition, after all.

Though of course there may be others who see a resemblance, I don't know. I'm a names person, not a face person.

EDIT: Yeah. Gaivs sees a resemblance. Hooray. Your opinions on face shape, Gaivs?

[abou]

It isn't Caesar. It definitely isn't Caesar.

The portrait that has been accepted as being the closest to the man himself is the Tusculum portrait for a number of reasons. The foremost being that it matches the Mettius denarius that was pressed during Caesar's dictatorship.

[Blazing141]

Yep, its also screwed up that the media calls him an emperor, even Augustus was careful not to call himself that.

People are ill-informed.

As to the face shape...its a total stretch...it looks very different to me.

On the other point, I don't think a bust is intended to capture the ambition and power of a person, just their likeness...and in fact they may try to make the person look more placid and welcoming.

I don't buy that this is JC until I learn more.

[Gaivs]

It's highly suspect indeed. This bust to me, quite frankly, bears very little resemblance to the JC we've seen in all the versions known. Is the French government trying to say all the busts of JC, probably the guy with the most media/sculpture coverage in his day and age, are wrong on the basis of this one bust? Even if you get older, your face does not change in shape. And I find it unlikely that JC would look so mild, even in 'old age'. He died at the height of his power and ambition, after all.

Though of course there may be others who see a resemblance, I don't know. I'm a names person, not a face person.

EDIT: Yeah. Gaivs sees a resemblance. Hooray. Your opinions on face shape, Gaivs?

Well thats the thing, the Caesar we all know had a higher forhead, stong cheeks and a somewhat straighter elongated face. Although there are resemblances, i dont think that is Caesar. He is too overweight for one thing. One possible scenario however, it could belong to his cousin Lucius Caesar, OR perhaps even the only old aged Augustus bust? As Octavian looked like Caesar, then its plausible at a stretch that this resemblence to Ceasar in the bust could be because of a relation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It doesn't look like any other depiction, anyway, if it's so realistic it should be bald. As far as calling himself "Emperor" of course he did, Imperator is all over his inscriptions, his letters, his decrees.

Why shouldn't it be?

What he didn't call himself was rex.

[Gaivs]

Um, no. Caesar never did that. If you see any inscription that says Imp. Caesar. It would belong to Octavian, as that was what he was known as before the title Augustus.

[Ibrahim]

I know who it looks like...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Caesar
I'm not sure if that's him though. I mean same round face, but the rest, I dunno. (i.e. it looks like him-but I don't think that's him)

[abou]

Definitely not Augustus. Augustus doesn't have a round face either, just high cheek bones. None of Augustus' portraiture portray him older than in his 20s either and most have this "metallic" perfection in their hard and sharp edges.

[Uticensis]

It looks like someone, but I can't say whom. Not Julius Caesar. Maybe Claudius?

[Dhampir]

Am I the only person who thinks that a piece of rock on the bottom of a river is going to get polished pretty flat over two thousand years?

[Ibrahim]

well, I must have been mistaken...
Dhampir: you saying that's a hoax?

[Dhampir]

I'm saying it's in awful good condition for being at the bottom of a river. Marble is a very resilient stone, of course. But, I look at marble statues all the time and even after less than 200 years, they're showing the wear of being rained on and buffeted by wind. It seems to me that being at the bottom of a river, having the constant abrasion of water against it for 2000 years would remove at least some of the detail.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Um, no. Caesar never did that. If you see any inscription that says Imp. Caesar. It would belong to Octavian, as that was what he was known as before the title Augustus.

Huh? Imperator simply meant 'Commander'; so I don't doubt Caesar would've called himself that way when he addressed his men or gave out whatever orders he did.

Augustus used it to give his assumed/enforced powers a more legitimate feeling to it; as an Imperator usually was appointed by the Senate.

"At the age of 19...
... and the Senate gave me Imperium"; is IIRC one of the first lines from his/the Res Gestae.

EDIT: Also, Octavian is a bit of an awkward name to use.

[Gaivs]

Yes i know all that. But Octavian actually went by the name Imperator Caesar. Julius Caesar and hundreds of others were hailed Imperators, but none used it as a name, like Octavian. Also, Imperator didnt simply mean commander, it was a title conferred upon victorious commanders.

[cmacq]

Well then?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Giulio-cesare-enhanced_1-800x1450.jpg/180px-Giulio-cesare-enhanced_1-800x1450.jpg
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080513/capt.f10a2be8584f49c7a341c39dffcc19fd.france_cesar_par801.jpghttp://www.beloit.edu/~classics/main/courses/history222/julius/JuliusCaesar(Grant--Fro)_s.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Caesar-Altes-Museum-Berlin.jpg/175px-Caesar-Altes-Museum-Berlin.jpg

It looks like a duck...

[Gaivs]

The eyes and nose a too different. Thats not Caesar.

[cmacq]

The eyes and nose a too different. Thats not Caesar.

Often a nose extends as one grows older. I would guess that a key trait proportional analysis was done, at some point? If I were to guess, which I'm not, I'd say its was commissioned early in the Gallic War period?

[M V Agrippa]

Well after looking at the bust and all the other bust of Caesar The Dictator I don't think it is him, but that it is a Julian. For my money I bet it's his cousin Lucius. Still it's cool to see them find such an old bust.

[Maion Maroneios]

Well, he certainly doesn't look like the Ceasar I know...

[pezhetairoi]

I'm saying it's in awful good condition for being at the bottom of a river. Marble is a very resilient stone, of course. But, I look at marble statues all the time and even after less than 200 years, they're showing the wear of being rained on and buffeted by wind. It seems to me that being at the bottom of a river, having the constant abrasion of water against it for 2000 years would remove at least some of the detail.

Fully agreed. But I think for it to be a hoax would be too much of a publicity disaster for the French. To speak up for them a bit, it was restored so I suppose the weathering is not so apparent.

To be fair the scientists they have on the job are probably Cold War professors conscripted into the project for lack of ancient history professors, and that they simply did a misattribution.

That, or they really believe this is Julius Caesar, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

[satalexton]

A bald man, whose ambition is inversely proportional to the amount of facial hair he has.

[Maeran]

I'm saying it's in awful good condition for being at the bottom of a river. Marble is a very resilient stone, of course. But, I look at marble statues all the time and even after less than 200 years, they're showing the wear of being rained on and buffeted by wind. It seems to me that being at the bottom of a river, having the constant abrasion of water against it for 2000 years would remove at least some of the detail.

I disagree. If buried in the mud then being at the bottom of a river is an excellent place to preserve archaeological material. Look at all the great stuff that has come out of the Thames, for example.

I haven't been to the Rhone, but I do know that Arles in the lower stretch of river and that the Rhone is a fast river, historically prone to flooding. Floods deposit soft muds in the lower stretch and surrounding floodplain (which in time gets reworked by the river, so this statue could in fact have spent 2000 years near but not in the river until erosion freed it again).

As to the identity of the bust, I cannot say, but very few of the lines and angles and proportions of the face look like any other bust of Caesar to me. So probably not him.

[Dhampir]

I disagree. If buried in the mud then being at the bottom of a river is an excellent place to preserve archaeological material. Look at all the great stuff that has come out of the Thames, for example.

I haven't been to the Rhone, but I do know that Arles in the lower stretch of river and that the Rhone is a fast river, historically prone to flooding. Floods deposit soft muds in the lower stretch and surrounding floodplain (which in time gets reworked by the river, so this statue could in fact have spent 2000 years near but not in the river until erosion freed it again).

As to the identity of the bust, I cannot say, but very few of the lines and angles and proportions of the face look like any other bust of Caesar to me. So probably not him.

If it's submerged in mud, how did they find it? They'd have to already know it was there.

That sounds argumentative but I'm not trying to argue against you, just asking a question in a provocative way.

[Maeran]

Two ways that I can think of.

It was dredged up.

It eroded out of the mud. The river will normally wash away mud, it's really only during the floods that it dumps it on the floodplain (As I said, the Rhone is notoriously fast; although it might dump more mud now because of the modern flood defenses 'taming' it). Over time rivers move sideways over the flood plain, eroding old flood deposits is some places and dropping fresh mud in quieter spots.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I just wonder how they say it "undoubtedly" is from 46 BC. Really, they pull it out of a river and date it to *exactly* 2054 years ago? And elsewhere in the article they say they are trying to find out what exactly the context was. Yeah, it might be Caesar, but so what, we have a lot of other portraits of him too. They want publicity and trumpet that it's the "earliest" and therefore "most accurate" depiction - bah! "*Our* version is the *right* one!" Whatevah.

[Uticensis]

Yeah, the best circumstances I could think of for dating the portrait would be if it were buried, say, with a coin from 46 BC. But that still only establishes a terminus post quem. It really just seems like they found a portrait of someone who looks like a Julio-Claudian near a city founded by Caesar, and just made some hasty connections and turned it into a news story.

[Gaivs]

I reckon Teleklos hit the nail on the head there. National Pride is the worst thing for decent unbiased history.

[lobf]

I just wonder how they say it "undoubtedly" is from 46 BC.

:inquisitive:



is tentatively dated to 46 B.C.

[Africanvs]

I just wonder how they say it "undoubtedly" is from 46 BC. Really, they pull it out of a river and date it to *exactly* 2054 years ago? And elsewhere in the article they say they are trying to find out what exactly the context was. Yeah, it might be Caesar, but so what, we have a lot of other portraits of him too. They want publicity and trumpet that it's the "earliest" and therefore "most accurate" depiction - bah! "*Our* version is the *right* one!" Whatevah.

I have to agree. There were many thousands of busts sculpted over the entirety of the Roman epoch of many thousands of people. The fact is, it could be anyone. Many other representations of Caesar have already been found, and they don't resemble this new find. I also have to say that depending on the artist in question, a bust would have been more or less accurate. The bottom line is, maybe it's Caesar or maybe it's not, who cares. It could just as easily not be Caesar. I'm glad they found it, but the man's contributions to history are clear; what does it matter what he looked like exactly?

[cmacq]

Some very good questions have been raised about this topic. Both Maeran and Dhampir are quite correct concerning context. It is good to see all the questions concerning the temporal placement of the artefact; both its manufacture and abandonment. I tried to research this topic further, but have not found additional information concerning the method of dating. From what I know and understand, within such a context of recovery and lacking a dated inscription, on said artefact, it is totally impossible to date it to within a single year. I'm afraid, I may know the rational for the 46 BC date, but I hope I am wrong. I would write more but I'm falling asleep. Still, very good questions everyone.

[Poulp']

fishing for info, I found this on reliable sites:

http://www.laprovence.com/articles/2008/05/14/445334-UNKNOWN-Un-buste-de-Jules-Cesar-sauve-des-eaux-du-Rhone.php

La Provence, french local newspaper. They have a good network of informants in the PACA region (Provence Alpes Cote d'Azur); from the piece of info I gathered, it seems they were the first to know about the discovery (apart from the archeologists team)

http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/actualites/communiq/albanel/cesarles08.htm

French governmental and official site. Read, official, glossy and sugar coated info.

http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites/decouverte-exceptionnelle-d-un-buste-de-cesar-a-arles/914/0/245100

http://www.lefigaro.fr/culture/2008/05/16/03004-20080516ARTFIG00111-jules-cesar-sauve-des-eaux-du-rhone.php

Le Point and Le Figaro, two nation wide newspapers.

Finally, on the 21st of May, they will air an 1h30 long program on the discovery on french TV. "Des racines et des ailes" (Roots and Wings) is a 5 year old, monthly, cultural program aired on prime time.
I mean, it's a boring program (according to the average TV watcher) that managed to stay alive for quite a long time.

If you want, I'll watch and keep you informed. Taking notes, translating them, etc...

[Poulp']

Before I begin translating those newspapers articles, a few reactions.


I agree Pez, it seems pretty suspect. The only link to Caesar is that he founded the town where this was discovered. It seems like the French Government may be trying to stimulate a tourist industry in the area?

I can't imagine why they would claim this is Caesar and not present some kind of corroborating evidence....

I'm waiting for cross examination too.
Now, boosting tourism in the region ? I can't rule it out, but it's rather unlikely; there's already a good share of "antiquities" and other attractions in the region (some ancient history museum, the Papal City, great landscapes, music festivals in the summer...).
Tourism is far more dependent on the economical good health of European countries and USA than on some statue. Acts of terrorism also have a major impact on the touristic activity.


It's highly suspect indeed. This bust to me, quite frankly, bears very little resemblance to the JC we've seen in all the versions known. Is the French government trying to say all the busts of JC, probably the guy with the most media/sculpture coverage in his day and age, are wrong on the basis of this one bust? Even if you get older, your face does not change in shape. And I find it unlikely that JC would look so mild, even in 'old age'. He died at the height of his power and ambition, after all.

Though of course there may be others who see a resemblance, I don't know. I'm a names person, not a face person.

EDIT: Yeah. Gaivs sees a resemblance. Hooray. Your opinions on face shape, Gaivs?

Unfortunately, the picture is shot full front, it flattens all the relief and facial features. I'd like to see a set; front, profile, low and high angle. Maybe on the 21st on TV...
About the French Gov's announcement; according to an article I mentionned, it seems the info was leaked and it prompted them into announcing it officially.
Stay tuned, Pez, I'll translate them ASAP.
Be patient though, it's 5 in the morning in France and I still have to go to bed.


Fully agreed. But I think for it to be a hoax would be too much of a publicity disaster for the French. To speak up for them a bit, it was restored so I suppose the weathering is not so apparent.

To be fair the scientists they have on the job are probably Cold War professors conscripted into the project for lack of ancient history professors, and that they simply did a misattribution.

That, or they really believe this is Julius Caesar, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Don't be that harsh^^. The one thing they lack is funds... and new buildings.
Just an anecdot, my mom (65) and cousin (25) both studied in the same college in Aix. The buildings haven't changed, they date back from the reconstruction. BTW, my cousin is in the History department. The world is small sometimes...


I disagree. If buried in the mud then being at the bottom of a river is an excellent place to preserve archaeological material. Look at all the great stuff that has come out of the Thames, for example.

I haven't been to the Rhone, but I do know that Arles in the lower stretch of river and that the Rhone is a fast river, historically prone to flooding. Floods deposit soft muds in the lower stretch and surrounding floodplain (which in time gets reworked by the river, so this statue could in fact have spent 2000 years near but not in the river until erosion freed it again).

As to the identity of the bust, I cannot say, but very few of the lines and angles and proportions of the face look like any other bust of Caesar to me. So probably not him.

Recovered underwater buried in the mud according to the guy who dived, Luc Long from the Drassm, "Département des recherches archéologiques subaquatiques et sous marines" (Department of Subaquatic and Underwater Archeological Researches)
Now, there's nothing unusually with finding antiques in the Rhone.


I just wonder how they say it "undoubtedly" is from 46 BC. Really, they pull it out of a river and date it to *exactly* 2054 years ago? And elsewhere in the article they say they are trying to find out what exactly the context was. Yeah, it might be Caesar, but so what, we have a lot of other portraits of him too. They want publicity and trumpet that it's the "earliest" and therefore "most accurate" depiction - bah! "*Our* version is the *right* one!" Whatevah.

Ahhh!
That's my field of work.
TA, you got that "undoubtedly" from the yahoo article, didn't you ?
From my POV, that's a mistranslation. My point is that in french, the meaning of "sans doute" is closer to "most probably". It depends on the context though. I'll keep my eyes open for such an assertive use of "undoubtedly" and "sans doute" when I'll work on the articles.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I fully agree with you there that it's unlikely this thing was 'pulled off for promoting tourism'. Mostly because of the reasons you mentioned; as well as the fact that Arles doesn't really lack much in the way of tourists. If anything, if it were for tourism the French would announce strict measures to prevent the local forests from going up in flames again... :shrug:

[Poulp']

Alright, first one !


Un buste de Jules César sauvé des eaux du Rhône

(...)

Un trésor archéologique exceptionnel mis au jour à en Arles

Un rêve d'archéologue. Trouver, à quelques mètres sous la surface de l'eau, un buste antique en marbre, c'est déjà exceptionnel. Mais lorsqu'il s'agit de surcroît du buste de Jules César, réalisé de son vivant, grandeur nature, découvert dans les eaux du Rhône à Arles, ville qu'il fondait en 46avant Jésus-Christ, là, c'est énorme. Pourtant, c'est bien la découverte que l'on doit aux services du Département des recherches archéologiques subaquatiques et sous marines - Drassm -, à l'automne dernier, à quelques mètres du quartier de Trinquetaille. "C'est un César très réaliste, marqué par le temps. On voit une calvitie naissante et ses traits sont durs", explique Luc Long, le "découvreur". "Il a probablement été jeté là après son assassinat."

(...)

Un secret bien gardé

Septembre 2007-mai 2008: les fabuleuses découvertes ont été recouvertes quelques mois, par... le limon du ministère de la Culture. Propriétés de l'État, ces sculptures (...), devaient être présentées lors de l'émission "Des racines et des ailes" (...) le 21mai (...). Sauf qu'il est difficile, même pour un ministère, de garder un tel secret (...).

Par S. Ariès et Ch. Gravez arles@laprovence-presse.fr

A bust of Caesar found in the Rhone

An exceptional archeologic treasure was brought to the light in Arles

An archeologist's dream; to find an ancient marble bust a few feet underwater is already exceptionnal. But in this time, it is a huge discovery. A real-sized bust of Julius Ceasar, made in his life time, was discorvered in the Rhone river, in Arles, the town he founded in 46BC. It was discovered by the Drassm (Department of Subaquatic and Underwater Archeological Researches) that previous fall, at some distance from the Trinquetaille district. Mr Luc Long, who found it, explains, "It's a very realistic Ceasar, marked by [the passing of] time. We can see the start of a calvitia and his features are hard". He adds, "It was probably dumped there after his assassination".

(...)

A well-kept secret

From September 2007 until May 2008, the -?- discoveries were buried under the mud of... the French Department of Culture. Yet, it is difficult, even for the French state who owns them, to kept such a secret undisclosed. The sculptures will be presented on the 21st of May, in "Des racines et des ailes".

[Poulp']

Fire fighting in Southern France is facing a wall

- Real Estate pressure. Forested natural are protected from being transformed into residential areas... but, once it has been scorched to the ground, you can lobby your way and get things done. See what I mean.

- Droughts that drag on for a few years. It barely rained last fall too; that means the vegetation is dry all year long.



I'll keep translating tomorrow/later today.
I've printed the documents and began working on them, but it's 7 in the morning and I can feel I've been to a poker night when I see the lines of text waving before my eyes.
I can't do a proper job right now.

...

well,
somehow, that morning, when they began to tear down the walls of the building that is just on the other side of the street, I knew what I could do (working on the text) and what I couldn't do any longer.


french gov's internet is failing me, I decided to skip to the third article.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yeah I know; seems to've been the same with Greece; Portugal; Spain; and ... California.

[Poulp']

http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites/decouverte-exceptionnelle-d-un-buste-de-cesar-a-arles/914/0/245100


Pictures of the archeological wonders found in Arles

The bust of Julius Caesar was stagnating in the Rhone for more that 2050 years when it was found by the diving archeologist Luc Long in Arles. It is estimated than the bust dates back from 46BC. This statue of Arles' founding father "constitutes the oldest representation of Caesar known to this day" Christine Albanel declared on Thusday, May 14th when she put an end to several months of secrecy that shrouded the major discovery of the DRASSM.

Why was the secret kept ? According to Michel L'Hour the director of the department, "we first had to secure the site of exploration and prevent looting. Then we consulted the most eminent specialists in ancient statuary to ascertain whether it was a genuine portrait of Julius Ceasar or not. They unanimously confirmed the portrait's authenticity". More acurate details were revealed about the datation method, in particular, the study of the portrait's stylistic. The curator explains, "This real-size bust is a typical instance of the serie of realistic portraits of the republican era. The facial features show his age as well as early sign of calvitia. There is every sign that the portrait was realized when the emperor was still alive".

A miraculous harvest

According to Michel L'Hour, the city of Arles probably had many statues of the roman emperor, because of the close ties between the city and her founding father. When Julius Caesar was assassinated the 15th of March, in 44BC, the archeologist supposes that "it convinced Arles' inhabitants that the statues had become too cumbersome and that they'd rather get rid of them. It could explain why they ended in the river".
The exploration took place between September and October 2007. More than a hundred pieces were pulled from the depth of time abroad the Nocibé II, a real miraculous harvest. And it seems the river still holds more antiquities, as another underwater exploration is scheduled this summer, on the very same site.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

by far, the most detailed article I've read about the bust.
It provides new pieces of information that were omitted in the other articles.
The expert's conclusion no longer comes out of the blue. The journalist hinted at the archeologists' methodology, still I'd like to know how they reached that unanimous opinion.

A hundred pieces... fragmented statues, columns, altars... Their disposition on the riverbed is not disclosed ATM...

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I just wonder how they say it "undoubtedly" is from 46 BC.

:inquisitive:



is tentatively dated to 46 B.C.

As for you, go find some other group to try to irritate and nitpick to death: the AP article has quotes where they place it "undoubtedly" from 46 BC (indeed Poulp' is right on that).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080514/ap_on_sc/france_caesar_bust

[cmacq]

Power of the Press to get it wrong, yet again?

Based on what Poulp' has uncovered, maybe the 46 BC date of the Arles foundation, was taken by the press(out of context), and they ran with it. This has happened to me several times. Beware the press. If you ever want them to maybe get something a little right, provide a written statement.

[Skullheadhq]

It isn't Caesar. His face was more skinny.
Just a stupid french idea to get more tourists!

[Poulp']

http://www.tourisme.ville-arles.fr/document/pdfs_document/plan_centre_ville_arles.pdf

a map of Arles, see the bridge in the middle ? that's Trinquetaille Bridge; according to Luc Long, the statues were found in the vicinity.


Christine Albanel, minister of Culture and Communication, congratulates her department over the exceptionnal discoveries they found in Arles. Several ancient statues have been uncovered, some of which are unique in Europe.

Some statues hold a special interest:

- a real-sized bust of an old Caesar. This marble bust of the founding father of the roman city of Arles is the oldest representation of Caesar known to this day. It is typical of the serie of realistic portraits of the republican era (calvitia, aging traits...). It probably can be traced back to the founding of the city in 46BC.

That's the translation of the official statement, and I wish to analyse it further. For TA in particular.

"It probably can be traced back...", in the original version "il date sans doute de la création de la ville d’Arles en 46 avant Jésus-Christ"

I choose to translate "sans doute" with "probably", and to modalize it even though the first half of the sentence is an assertive which states a fact in the present tense. (present of the indicative, hard truth).
Out of context, "sans doute" could have been translated using "without a doubt".
Yet I choose to ignore that possibility. My reasons are:

"a real-sized bust of an old Caesar. This marble bust of the founding father of the roman city of Arles is the oldest representation of Caesar known to this day. It is typical of the serie of realistic portraits of the republican era (calvitia, aging traits...)"
That part is just a copy pasta of Luc Long's declaration, an easy and almost no-brainer edit.

"some of which are unique in Europe"
That's half of the truth; "some of which are unique in the roman world" is far more accurate. But it would include the Near East, Lower Egypt and Turkey.
Turkey in Europe is a political issue.

"à Arles"
that's totally incorrect. And finding that mistake on official documents pisses me off.
You can't say "à Arles", "à Avignon", "à Aix", but you can say "à Aubagne".
Why ? because there's a double [a] sound, the correct saying in french is "en Arles" "en Avignon" "en Aix". "A Aubagne" is correct however since there's a [a] [o] sound.

The last point is what made up my mind.
In my opinion, the official statement was written by some lazy copy pasting clerk. In this case, who wrote the document is more important than where it is published.

[paullus]

It seems like the main reasons for the 46 BC dating are:

1- the founding of Arles

and of lesser importance:
2- pre-death realism (I really want to see a sideview...has anyone seen one?)
2b- immature features of Caesar's face that are more pronounced in (supposedly) later depictions
3- late Republican realism (though this by no means puts it within more than a broad range of years)

[lobf]

As for you, go find some other group to try to irritate and nitpick to death: the AP article has quotes where they place it "undoubtedly" from 46 BC (indeed Poulp' is right on that).

Relax. It wasn't personal. I missed the Ministry quote.

Though just because she said it doesn't make it fact of course. This is a very interesting discovery, and I can't wait to see how it pans out.

[Red_Russian13]

The first picture I saw of this bust did look like Caesar to me. The most recent picture I've seen though seems to share a only a minor (perhaps familial) resemblance to the Caesar with whom we are familiar through countless other busts.

With that being said, and not being an expert on such things, I'm not sure I would discount it being Caesar altogether. Some questions I have: Is it possible that other busts are more idealistic? Could this be a more realistic representation? What about artistic deviation? Maybe someone took artistic liberties?

I'm not asking to be contrary, but because I don't know. I don't know when the average Caesar bust was made, so I don't know if they were something made after his death and perhaps gradually shifted as copies were made.

I do agree with you folks that just because the bust was found in the city the man founded doesn't mean it's him. I also like the theory that it might be someone from his family (the cousin you mentioned).

Very interesting stuff folks. Thanks for your time.

[paullus]

it'd be nice to see a few more pics...a side-view most importantly. but off the front-view:

the nose is broken so that could be causing some of the incongruency, but its not badly broken, and looks a bit more of a Gallic nose than an Aquiline nose, not that Caesar's was a perfect Roman nose.

the hair is interesting...he has that balding look, with the M shape to his hair, and the stuff on top trying to hold on. That contrasts nicely with the immediate post-death bust/mold, which shows him more balding, and slightly later busts which show him with more hair than either.

the skull is wide, which fits.

the ear lobes seems to fit, but some other parts of ear shape do not.

while his mouth seems decently close to other representations of Caesar, most representations on sculpture or coins capture two creases along his cheek/jowl which are not seen on the Arles find, at least not as far as I can see.

The chin and strong jaw are common features, but they're common to much Roman statuary, and its worth noting that it looks like the angle towards the back of the jaw on the Arles "Caesar" is steeper than in other representations of Caesar: that is, the side of Caesar's face at his sideburns is longer in most representations than what we see in the Arles head.

[Justiciar]

It's George Bush. Evidently, the man's a Time Lord.