I pass by a copy of the Augustus of Prima Porta every time I go to work at the museum.
I distinctly remember the first time I saw one of these reconstructions in person. It was in 2011 at the Vatican Museum. I was smug because up until that point my friends hadn’t believed me when I said that Augustus had been a red-head.
A previous post of mine used the term “fake” in the title. It seems to me that this is a good opening to segue into a discussion about the terminology with which we discuss dodgy objects. This is currently a challenge for me in my research, since not all objects with secondary or tertiary histories (like the sculpture in the previous post) can or should be considered “fake.” In fact, I find that the term “fake” is problematic because it, like “forgery,” brings negative connotations associated with purposeful deception, and not all cases fall under this category.
This week, I hopped on a train to Berlin to see some of the pieces that I have been studying. I think it’s always helpful to see pieces in person (if possible), and I always find museums inspiring–you never know what you’re going to discover that could help your research.
One of my pet interests is theory and authenticity. In other words, I enjoy researching and thinking about ancient and modern forgery. I wasn’t expecting to spend time thinking about this on my trip to Berlin, but, as suggested above, you never know what you’ll find in a museum that will inspire you.
Museum Archaeology 