Caesar Has Been Sleeping With the Fishes
Tuesday, December 1, 2009 
There is still a debate raging as to whether or not they actually found a bust of Julius Caesar in the muck and the mud of the Arles river:
Dredged up from the murky depths of the Rhône River, beneath a heap of wrecked cars, rotting tires and more than 20 centuries of silt, the statue’s white marble visage was plain as day.
“My God, it’s Caesar!” Luc Long remembers shouting after his team of archaeologists and divers discovered the statue in 2007.
The marble bust that is believed to be Julius Caesar
The Roman appears with little hair, a wrinkled forehead, a prominent Adam’s apple and features that, for Mr. Long, “seem carved in human flesh.” But Mr. Long did not realize at the time that he had discovered what he said was “the first portrait made of Caesar when he was alive.” The bust, which France’s Culture Ministry now dates from 46 B.C., is thought to be the only known surviving statue of Julius Caesar carved during his lifetime.
Historians say images of a contemporaneous Caesar are rare — they are generally idealized versions, produced after his assassination two years later, in 44 B.C. — so the sudden news of the bust’s emergence led some of them to question its authenticity.
Christian Goudineau, a French historian who lectures on Julius Caesar at the prestigious Collège de France in Paris, was caught off guard when Mr. Long told him of the discovery. “I was bewildered,” he recalled.
Some colleagues, he said, have suggested that the Caesar found in the Rhône does not resemble the Caesar usually shown, and that the statue might more likely portray a noble from Arles, a city founded by the Romans. One skeptic, Mary Beard, a classics professor at Cambridge, pointed out in her blog for Times Online, affiliated with The Times of London: “This style of portraiture lasted for centuries at Rome. There is nothing at all to suggest that it came from 49-46 B.C.”
Checking the quality, you have to wonder if a noble would be so brilliantly depicted:
Mr. Goudineau said that he thought the bust showed the same face as that of the Caesar on Roman coins; he dismissed the arguments presented by those who questioned the bust’s depiction. “Which noble from Arles would order a bust of himself made in the best, the most expensive and rare marble, and ship it by boat?” he asked.
Now, that’s a bit of academic smackdown for you. The statue depicts a naked man—is he thus a God? A man equal to the Roman Gods? Idealized in some way?
What struck me was the idea that, all over Europe, the course of rivers hasn’t changed that much. To think that there are such treasures in the water, waiting to be retrieved, is mind-boggling. All you have to do is match the old Roman military maps to the present maps of Europe, get a shovel and someone to work the air machine while you’re underwater, and voila. Instant notoriety and fame.



















Reader Comments (4)
No. There is no debate. It's just archaeologists who want more funds, so they *say* that there's a debate. But all major scholars, not only Mary Beard (and I've also asked a few), agree that this is not Julius Caesar. Caesar wasn't even the colony's founder. He was in Africa at the time.
Well, you could very well be correct Mr. Saenz. I'm amazed that something of such high quality can just be pulled up out of the mud of the Rhone--it's a great discovery and a fantastic piece from that era, don't you think?
In and of itself, I thought the bust was remarkably well done.
I agree. Even if it's not Caesar (which is probable), it's still a great find. We don't really know when the bust was made, but scholars mostly assume the early principate (i.e. Augustus). The bust could be a portrait of the colony's actual founder, Tiberius Claudius Nero, but that's merely conjecture.
Excellent points, thank you.