Is this Greek goddess statue fake?

Jul 2018
1
Solaris
#1
Hey, I was visiting the museum and I just noticed this statue looks kinda wrong.
In description they introduced her aphrodite but I've seen enough statues to say she is NOT aphrodite. I mean look at her. The head is the head Athena and her dress is the exact same dress Hera has.
Aphrodite's name
Athena's head
And hera's dress
So my question is how this is possible? Is it fake or something?
 
Mar 2017
801
Colorado
#3
It looks Roman to me. Not as smoothly graceful as Greek statues at their peak. The Romans liked Greek artwork and made many copies, but they always seemed to come out more "static".

Roman political statues were made with replaceable heads. One of the reasons we have so MANY heads in museums. I wonder if something like that is going on.

Then again, it could be the museum reconstructors. They could've put the pieces together that were found in near proximity ... not necessarily the correct ones. The body patina looks like it was buried ... the head? Not so much.

This happens more than you think. The very first Brontosaurus had the wrong head for about 80 yrs. Now, there's no such thing: the real thing was reclassified.

I agree the iconic head doesn't look like it goes with the body.

There's a statue that was identified as Egyptian Ptolemaic queen Arsinoe II for ... 100 yrs? It's Cleopatra VII. Unmistakable by headgear. Museums make mistakes. "Aphrodite" or "Venus" can be a lazy classification for any female statue ... particularly ones that are a little revealing.
 
Last edited:

Moros

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
3,066
#4
It is a statue of Minerva at the Louvre, Paris. dated 2nd Century AD with some later restoration. It is not labelled as Aphrodite (or at least none of the on-line images do so). The body is identified as a copy of the "Hera Borghese" type (but don't be misled - this is a 17th century label of the style of dress, and not necessarily how the Romans saw it).
Minerva, Louvre Ma2225

Maybe there is a translation issue, since the statue has been loaned to the Iranian National Museum, in Tehran, Iran?

https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/france-tehran-iran-05-mar-2018-9449248a
 
Last edited:
Jul 2014
1,379
world
#5
Hey, I was visiting the museum and I just noticed this statue looks kinda wrong.
In description they introduced her aphrodite but I've seen enough statues to say she is NOT aphrodite. I mean look at her. The head is the head Athena and her dress is the exact same dress Hera has.
Aphrodite's name
Athena's head
And hera's dress
So my question is how this is possible? Is it fake or something?
I dont know much about this statue but museums are full of reproductions and fakes. I know of some fakes in metropolitan museum itself and the artist who created it.

In China fake antiques are very very prevalent. Even the auction houses are fooled.

So i would not be shocke if this piece was fake.
 
Mar 2017
801
Colorado
#6
It is a statue of Minerva at the Louvre, Paris. dated 2nd Century AD with some later restoration. It is not labelled as Aphrodite (or at least none of the on-line images do so). The body is identified as a copy of the "Hera Borghese" type (but don't be misled - this is a 17th century label of the style of dress, and not necessarily how the Romans saw it).[/IMG]
Thanks. This is entirely believable. Mislabeling of perhaps a later Roman sculpture where current custom, less Greek, maybe trumped classic interpretation (wrong clothes).

The Romans made copies of statues they liked. Modern museums do EXACTLY the same thing when they can't afford the original. I was at the Vatican and for some reason, Michelangelo's most famous Pieta was being restored (or something). A copy was on display. They don't call them "fakes" if somewhere, in tiny print, they tell you it's a copy.

I did see the Laocoon. That image burned into my mind is still clear after 50 yrs. It's provenance isn't clear, since it was lost for about 500 yrs. It could be a Greek original from the 2nd century BCE, or a Roman copy from around 70 AD. If it's a Roman copy, they did a REALLY good job. I believe the labeling chose the early date & list the original Greeks as the sculptors, when most art historians agree on the later date.

The Mona Lisa was stolen for 2 years by an Italian janitor that kept it under his bed. They had a copy on display during that time, and neglected to mention it ... so, TECHNICALLY, the Louvre displayed a fake of one of the most iconic pictures in the world.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2013
5,440
Planet Nine, Oregon
#7
...Michelangelo's most famous Pieta was being restored (or something). A copy was on display.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vatican-pieta-idUSBRE94K0KU20130521

The Mona Lisa was stolen for 2 years by an Italian janitor that kept it under his bed. They had a copy on display during that time, and neglected to mention it ... so, TECHNICALLY, the Louvre displayed a fake of one of the most iconic pictures in the world.
He could keep Mona Lisa, and I'd be okay with it, and toss in a Picasso too:cool: I'd be angry if "Girl with a Pearl Earring" was stolen..:sad:
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,527
Lago Maggiore, Italy
#8
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vatican-pieta-idUSBRE94K0KU20130521


He could keep Mona Lisa, and I'd be okay with it, and toss in a Picasso too:cool: I'd be angry if "Girl with a Pearl Earring" was stolen..:sad:

If we want to note oddities about translations or how foreigners call something from your country ... Mona Lisa is licit [Mona is a version of Monna], but no more common. In Italian it's Monna Lisa, because today "mona" is part of a Venetian say which is not exaclty kind ...
 

Similar History Discussions