Stolen Roman bust found in Goodwill shop

[guy]

This undated photo shows a marble bust that a Texas woman bought for about $35 from a Goodwill store that is temporarily on display at a San Antonio museum after experts determined it was a centuries-old sculpture missing from Germany since World War II. The bust, which art collector Laura Young found at Goodwill in 2018, once belonged in the collection of King Ludwig I of Bavaria, according to the San Antonio Museum of Art, which is temporarily displaying the piece until it is returned to Germany next year. (San Antonio Museum of Art via AP) (San Antonio Museum of Art)

An early Roman bust, believed to be stolen, was bought for $34.99 at a Goodwill thrift shop in Austin. It is speculated to represent Drusus Germanicus or Sextus Pompey, the son of Pompey the Great.

Bust on its way home after purchase at the Goodwill store, price tag on its cheek.

Bust taking necessary COVID precautions while its origin was being investigated.

The bust is on temporary loan at the San Antonio museum and will be returned to Germany next year.

 

https://www.local10.com/news/weird-news/2022/05/06/goodwill-find-in-texas-turns-out-to-be-ancient-roman-bust/?outputType=amp

 

 

Edited April 29 by guy

[guy]

Here’s a recent video on the marble head:

 

 

[caesar novus]

That last video has such a wretched AI style, but I wish AI would enumerate logical possibilities beyond we-are-thieves stereotype morality tale. For my perspective, I have read German memoirs of 1930's and 40's over 1000's of hours which should have been consumable to AI in a couple seconds.

Looted by whom, let's consider possibilities that could and did occur. Maybe looted by the original museum in 1920s, or by a Nazi official taking it in exchange for an exit visa for a wealthy Jewish family in 1930s. Or liberated post bombing by a starving German family to trade for food other than the fare of decaying shrapnel-ridden horses. There was frantic such foraging towards the end, and why would a valuable sit available from bombing until later occupation? Finally maybe formally registered 1945 as war booty by a US soldier, who was allowed to request silverware, cameras, jewelry, weapons, etc.

I think the last two likely and while the latter stretches certain ideals, compare organized looting by German henchmen, sometimes for public display. For instance Hitler unlike Goering paid for every artwork, which he aimed to install in a hometown Austrian museum. These US soldiers who may have stretched war booty rules were pretty altruistic about what they risked their lives to accomplish. They put a stop to tough adversaries who on average killed 7 to 11 victims per German soldier (I forget which, but Japanese soldiers killed 7-11 mostly Chinese civilians each, and German soldiers killed 7-11 mostly Russian civilians each).

Edited April 29 by caesar novus

[Crispina]

I'd like to know how the identity of such busts are made and by whom?  

[guidoLaMoto]

"stolen?"...Where did King Ludwig get it?

ID-- sometimes a bust has an inscription, but more usually identified by its location and associated objects/context.

Busts (Imago or effigies in Latin) were a status symbol in Rome, displayed in homes to show prominent, powerful family associations. Wax death masks & busts were an important part of the funeral procession tradition.

[guy]

4 hours ago, Crispina said:

I'd like to know how the identity of such busts are made and by whom?  

Interesting question. My reading of this story doesn’t provide a definitive identity for this bust. It is only a guess, since there is no ancient inscription or reference.

In my first post, I noted that it was only speculated that the bust was of Sextus Pompey (son of Pompey the Great 67-35 BCE) or Drusus Germanicus (38-9 BCE). Stylistically, at least, it resembles similar busts from the early 1st century AD, likely from the Julian-Claudian period:

Here is someone’s opinion (based on stylistic features):

 

“The bust is dated to the early 1st century CE because it exhibits all the hallmarks of the Julio‑Claudian portrait style: short, softly carved waves of hair, smooth facial planes with a hint of realism, and uncarved eyes without drilled pupils. These features place it before the deep‑drilled textures and more expressive faces that appear later in the Flavian and Antonine periods.

Its clean, undecorated bust truncation and the restrained, almost Augustan sense of idealization point to a private portrait rather than an emperor. Taken together, the hair, the eyes, the toolwork, and the overall “calm classicism” make specialists confident it belongs to the reign of Tiberius, roughly 10 BCE–40 CE. The bust is dated to the early 1st century CE because it shows all the hallmarks of Julio‑Claudian portrait style: short, softly carved waves of hair, smooth facial planes with just a hint of realism, and uncarved eyes without drilled pupils. Those features place it before the deep‑drilled textures and more expressive faces that appear later in the Flavian and Antonine periods.

The clean, undecorated bust truncation and the restrained, almost Augustan sense of idealization point to a private portrait rather than an emperor. Taken together, the hair, eyes, toolwork, and overall “calm classicism” make specialists confident it dates to the reign of Tiberius, roughly 10 BCE–40 CE.“

 

 

Well, I don’t know if I fully agree with the paragraphs above. In answer to your question, I think it is still anyone’s guess. There is no associated inscription or findspot context.

As a note, some busts are identified by numismatic evidence and share similar features. In this case, such evidence is lacking, making it unlikely that the identity of this bust is a member of the ruling elite.

 

Edited April 29 by guy