Fake Antiquity: the bust of Julius Caesar. Why?

We normally do not think about simple things like this, but may be we should. This article is a spin off of the article titled Questionable antiquity of the "ancient" statues. I will try to keep it short. I think that our civilization has no idea who most of the ancient busts displayed in various museums, and private collections belong to. Have you ever though of what magic sources are being used by the historians to put "a name to a face"? I suggest you do. Don't just blindly accept "this is the bust of Plato". Verify why it is Plato, and not some mannequin head.

We have hundreds of the so-called "Ancient" busts/statues of various individuals. They are supposed to be close to 2,000 years old, with some being much older. Whatever museums host them provide us with something similar to the below bust of Julius Caesar. I chose this one, because it has some sort of an explanation of why this bust is supposed to be representative of Julius Caesar.

Julius Caesar... Why?

The Tusculum portrait, possibly the only surviving sculpture of Caesar made during his lifetime. Archaeological Museum, Turin, Italy.
  • The Tusculum portrait or the Tusculum bust is one of the two main portrait types of Julius Caesar, alongside the Chiaramonti Caesar. Being one of the copies of the bronze original, the bust is dated to 50–40 BC and is housed in the permanent collection of the Museo d'Antichità in Turin, Italy. Made of fine grained marble, the bust measures 33 cm (13 in) in height.
  • The portrait's facial features are consistent with those on coins struck in Caesar's last year, particularly on the denarii issued by Marcus Mettius. The bust's head is prolonged, forming a saddle shape which was caused by Caesar's premature ossification of the sutures between the parietal bone and the temporal bone. The portrait also exhibits dolichocephalia. According to several scholars, the Tusculum portrait is the only extant portrait of Caesar made during his lifetime.
  • The Tusculum portrait was excavated by Lucien Bonaparte at the forum in Tusculum in 1825 and was later brought to Castello d'Aglie, though it was not recognised as a bust of Caesar until Maurizio Borda identified it in 1940. The portrait was exhibited in the Louvre alongside the Arles bust. There are three known copies of the bust, in the Woburn Abbey and in private collections in Florence and Rome.
Above are the denarii issued by Marcus Mettius. These denarii were used to identify the above bust with Julius Caesar. Really? So we have two main busts of Julius Caesar (Tusculum and Chiaramonti), and these coins to tie them all together. Let's take a look.


Why not Napoleon?

...or Alexander the Great?
denarii issued by Marcus Mettius _Alexander_the_great.jpg

I do not know if I'm the only one seeing a whole bunch of issues here, but here is my take on this:
  • First ever bust of Julius Caesar was excavated by Lucien Bonaparte? A younger brother of Napoléon Bonaparte? Really?
  • ... copy of the bronze original. I see this phrase very often in the description of various busts, or sculptures. Where is this knowledge coming from?
  • Julius Caesar died in 44 BC. His (allegedly) bust was "discovered" in 1825. It was identified as Julius Caesar in 1940.
  • The above coin, assisted by some scientific gibberish was used to identify the bust as that of Julius Caesar.
I am not even talking about Julius Caesar looking like this back in the early 1400s. The fact that 600 years ago people could have had a much better idea of what Julius Caesar looked like can only be overshadowed by a blatant TPTB lie according to which we only learned of Julius Caesar's appearance in 1925.

Just think about it. These busts spent 2,000 years in the dirt, or wherever. There are no inscriptions on them stating that this bust indicates this, or that person. There are no documents to support these frivolous identifications. Naturally, how do we identify all of the individuals depicted in the so-called "ancient" stone? Agreed, historians "know better", why would we question them?

Why would we not question them? As a matter of fact lets do it?

Who am I?

Socrates - Why?


Socrates: 470 BC - 399 BC
A marble head of Socrates in the Louvre. How do we know that this is Socrates?

Plato - Why?

428/427 or 424/423 BC - 348/347 BC
Roman copy of a portrait bust by Silanion for the Academia in Athens (c. 370 BC). How do we know that this is Plato?

Homer - Why?

Homer: 800 BC - 701 BC
Roman bust of Homer from the second century AD, portrayed with traditional iconography, based on a Greek original dating to the Hellenistic Period. How do we know that this is Homer?

This list could be endless. As far as the above three individuals go, they lived 2400, 2300, and 2800 years ago. I can bet my left pinky finger that all of the above busts were not even "discovered" until, at least, 2,000 years after the said individuals allegedly died.

So, the question remains:
  • For thousands of years there was no information. How do we know who these busts supposed to represent?
mannequin head_1.jpg

KD: One day I will hopefully get to writing an article on Poggio Bracciolini. In my opinion he was the very first person who, around 1418, gave us the Antiquity. I am not saying that he did it on his own, but his name is attached to it like no other. Prior to his "discoveries" of the so-called "copies" of some 1500-2500 year old originals, this world had no idea about things like Ancient Greece, etc. The other person to thank would be Marsilio Ficino, assisted by Father of the Fatherland Cosimo de' Medici.

When we factor in things covered in the below mentioned articles, the issue becomes more obvious.
I think that for the reasons of replacing the true history of this world, the "Antiquity" is being forced upon us. Indoctrination of these busts could be meant to strengthen the original position by attaching faces to names. The world has to know its heroes.

The works (i.e. Odyssey), clearly exist. The question here is when they were really created: some 2,000 years ago, or around the 15th century? Would that bear any difference for us as a Civilization? I think it would.

Once again, the above is just my personal opinion. As always, do your own research, check, and double-check, and, most importantly - question, and verify for yourself.

QUESTION: When was the very first "ancient" Roman bust was discovered?
I've been going through articles on this site for a few months and I've re-read certain articles a few times and I'm struggling with some fairly basic things. To answer your question with a question, what is a Roman bust?

We've been taught Romans were toga-wearing folk but the Julius Caesar and Attendants link above would suggest their attire was more of a Medieval vibe. Added to this, the toga-wearers seemed more recent, as in 200 years ago as has been pointed out in various articles dealing with Napoleon and American presidents. I don't actually know what Roman is at this point. My belief is there is an ancient Rome, as referred to in various documents and scriptures, but that's not the same Rome (or Romans) that is depicted in art.

Another question which then arises is was the rule of the Roman empire (as we know it today) after the Medieval period? As in, were they the dominant power worldwide who could then create statues and busts of people wearing leaf crowns and togas all over the world? Those images of the senate and democracy in action were more recent than the Medieval times and I'm increasingly of the view that these paintings are not meant to be representations of the society but fan art or commissioned lies. The MSM narrative tightly controlled so I suspect art is the same and has been since the time of these paintings.

Ignoring the official date range of the Medieval period, it would seem to me what we imagine to be Roman civilization (what appears in art) existed after the Medieval period if (and it's a big if) Caesar existed in the Medieval period and those paintings of Julius and the boys wearing Togas were not in fact of Julius at all but whoever defeated Julius (NWO? Holy Roman Empire? Brutus and co.?) . I would speculate that the actual Romans of 1500 years ago are not those who claim (or perhaps not claim as they operate in secret) to be the Romans of today.

As a final point, the Roman busts being "discovered" and identified and displayed for public attention are most definitely depictions of their heroes and these people were heroes to them for reasons not shared in mainstream history.

Similar articles
Article starter Title Section Replies Date
KorbenDallas Questionable Antiquity of the "Ancient" Statues Works of Art 1

Similar articles