GreekAΓt ßη Motion

Studies ßη honour of SirJohn Boardman οη the

occasion of his 9oth birthday

ediτed by
Rui Morais, Delfim Leδo, Diana Rodriguez ΡÝτεΖ
wlth
Daniela Ferreira

AKC HAEOPRES S ARC HAEOLOGY

 John Boardman and Creek Sculpture
t am most grateful to the organizers of this conference
for inviting me to participate ßη the celebration of my
teacher's 90th birthday. l cannot even begin to enumerate
his achievements. As γου vgell know, John Boardnran has
mastered α great number of fields, from early Greek artΙ to
Chinese bronzes.' He is driven by cιιriosity, being alιvays
ready to take οη ne\ry challenges and expand his horizons.
Even though Greek gems3 and the diffusion of Greek art east
and ιvesta have been his dominant interests, his contribution
to the stιιdy and understanding of Greek sculptιιre has had
αη impact οη the field for he has brought to it αη open mind,
approaching it from α different perspective and illuminating
it ιryith his expertise ßη other art forms.
His interest ßη Greek sculpture dates from the 1970s. lt seems
to have begun ιryith α reconsideration of the problems posed
by the interpretations of the Parthenon frieze. He has left his
mark οη this as οη αΙΙ other tasks he has ιιndertaken. lt is my
special pleasure and privilege to say α feιry ι,vords about my
teacher's achievements ßη the field of Greek sculpture before
ιτε go οη asking ourselves v,ghere do \j/e go from here.
John Boardιnan first aired his thoιιghts οη the Parthenon
fτßòΖò ßη α lecture given at the lnstitute of Classical Studies
ßη London οη November 15, 1975, ,ahen it was still housed
ßη Gordon Square. I vras α gradιιate stιιdent ßη Oxford at the
time and ιηreηt dοι,ιιη to London to hear him. He νιιαò
Figure 1. Ραττhòηοη, North fτßεΖòΧΧΧγΙΙ-
Boardma η L967 ; Boardman 1 998.
Boardman 20],0.
See the contribution οf Claudia Wagner ßη this volume.
Boardman 1994; Boardman 1999; Boardman 2015.
Olga Palagia
into ne\v fields, looking α\,ναγ from early Greece ι,vhich he had
mastered to perfection, into the art of Rthens ιryhich ιryas still
considered the croιηlning glory of classical archaeology. We
have come α long \ταγ since then but those \ryere the days of
innocence. Boardman's theory ιναò highly original and it ι.ιιαò
sρτιιηg ιιροη αη ιιηsιιsρεòtßηg ιryorld.
The lecture \ryas published ßη ιg77.' The argument, however,
vvas taken υρ again and refined ßη the proceedings of the
Parthenon Congress ßη Base1.6 The frieze presents the modern
vieι,ιler with α number of riddles. Boardman focused οη tι,νο
fundamental questions. Does the frieze break the rule of
shoιving οηΙγ gods and heroes οη sacred buildings? Does it
really depict α τeΙßgßοιιò festival enacted by contemporary
Athenians as so mαηγ scholars have assunred beginning ιvith
Stuart and Revett?' And if it represents the Panathenaic
procession, ιvhere are the hoplites? \ryhy do ιη,e see so many
horsemen (rig. 1) and chariots (rig.2) instead of foot soldiers?
He pointed out that '...there is ηο parallel οη α Greek temple,
before or after, for the depiction of contemporary mortals ßη
such α setting, conducting α peaceful, non-heroic activity...
There is ηο heroic implication ßη α procession to dedicate
and sacrifice; but there is ßη the cavalcade." He ,yvent οη to
suggest that the lnilitary οη the frieze, not οηΙγ the knights
and the apobates jιιmρßηg ιιρ and do,pn their chariots bιιt
also their teenage grooms may be understood as the heroic
venturing Athenians ινhο had fought and died ßη the battle of Marathon
ξ
,q
ΧΧΧνΠΙ. London, British Museum . Photo: Olga Palagia.
υ Boardmanl977.
υ Boardman 1984.
' Stuart and Revett Ι787 , L2.
' Boardmanl984,214.