Fake Antiquity: this is Julius Caesar. Really?


Well-known member
The first bust was found at the bottom of the Rhone River in France.

[Teacher on school trip:]...and this, children, is what stones would look like when resting in a river bed for a couple of years/decades:


...plus you would probably not find the (suspiciously well preserved, even immaculate) bust at the bottom of the Rhone rive in France but somewhere at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea. Sure, sure, it could have become stuck somewhere between the rocks or whatever, but stream errosion cannot be debated away. Who even makes up tales like that? Or more important - who believes them? Well I guess we all did at some point. Simply hilarious though coming across "official explanations/narratives" like this gem with "open eyes". Thanks @BrokenAgate :ROFLMAO:(y)

@Jef Demolder and others: According to the eminent Jesuit scholar Jean Hardouin (1646 - 1729), not only much of the allegedly ancient literature where forgeries, but also coins, sculptures and stone inscriptions were later forgeries, perpetrated to cement a fraudulent history created between the 13th century and his own time. I would not discard the idea of forged stone inscriptions so easily, as something like an engraving can easily be added in a stragegic manner on any monument, either by putting it on a blank spot or a monument origianlly lacking inscriptons OR you could simply replace parts of the stonework with new parts with engravings added as needed. The latter phenomenon I have encountered many a time in my own sporadic research into the topic.

Really interested in Hardouin at this point! :D

Jef Demolder

Active member
Of course inscriptions have been falsified. See the Pilate stone, or the Rosetta stone. Nevertheless, there are so much inscriptions, in so many places, and sometimes with such an unexpected content, that I hold many for authentical. What does it mean for instance that Roman funerary monuments have never a date of birth or date of death? That WE are putting years in Roman numerals on monuments, like MCMXXVIII, but that the Romans never did? It seems to me that we history critics can learn something from inscriptions. (As for Jean Hardouin, his famous Prolegomena is such a "Fremdkörper" amid his other works, and so far from his critical work on for instance the Herodians and Flavius Josephus, while the supposed first edition is untraceable, that I have started to think that the Prolegomena has been added to the works of Hardouin by anonymous (ex)-Jesuits after the death of Hardouin. But that's another story).

Similar threads