Printable View
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080514/..._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-
He looks old
Really old
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.
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....
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"
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?
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pezhetairoi
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.
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.
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)
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.
It looks like someone, but I can't say whom. Not Julius Caesar. Maybe Claudius?
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?
well, I must have been mistaken...
Dhampir: you saying that's a hoax?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaivs
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaivs
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.
Well, he certainly doesn't look like the Ceasar I know...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhampir
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.
A bald man, whose ambition is inversely proportional to the amount of facial hair he has.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhampir
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeran
That sounds argumentative but I'm not trying to argue against you, just asking a question in a provocative way.
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.
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.