The Real C. Julius Caesar

[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.

[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?

[Justiciar]

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