Theories Regarding the Origin of the Boston Throne



"A very clever sculpture from the end of the 19th Century." F. Baroni, 1961.

"The date (of the Boston Throne) is controversial...the late 5th Century BC is nevertheless the most probable." H. Prueckner, 1968.

"If it is in some ways odd for the fifth Century, it is still too good... to convince as a piece of 5th Century BC art imagined by a late Victorian."
 M. Robertson, 1975.




Whilst the Ludovisi Throne has been linked convincingly to Greek Art in general, and specifically Locri in South Italy, the origin of the Boston Throne, left, is questionable. Many critics have stressed an opinion on the function and origin of the Boston Throne. It should be noted that until 1996 the Thrones had never been seen side by side. Most critics have therefore judged the Boston Throne
by photographs.

The main theories regarding the origin of the Boston Throne are:

1. The Boston Throne is a 5th Century BC Greek original by the same artist as the Ludovisi Throne.
However, the difference in the rendering of the figures and drapery disputes this.

2. The Boston Throne is a 5th Century BC original by a different artist than the Ludovisi Throne, made as a companion piece at the same time or slightly later.
 The similarity of design and dimensions( and damage) would support this, but the Boston Throne does not fit easily into the Greek sculptural tradition, and its representation of myths is problematic.

3. The Boston Throne is a classicizing work of the 1st Century AD, made as a companion to the Ludovisi Throne after it was taken to Rome.
 The representation of Eros would support that it was from a Roman workshop, as would the tools used in the production of the throne.
However, the Boston Throne has been shown to be made of the same marble as the Ludovisi Throne.

4. The Ludovisi Throne is a 1st Century AD copy of a lost or damaged original.
 Again, it could be from a Roman workshop but it is made from the same marble as the Ludovisi Throne.
If it was a true copy, why does it not fit into the Greek sculptural tradition, and the tradition of the representation of Greek myth?

5. The Boston Throne is a modern forgery.
The deposits on the throne have been shown to be ancient.
The marble the throne is made from is from the same area as that of the Ludovisi Throne. A Victorian forger would have no way of identifying the type of marble used to be able to match it with their sculpture.
There are no signs of a Victorian influence on the design of the throne. If it is a forgery, it is a very good one.

6. The Boston Throne is a modern forgery carved by a forger on the end of an ancient sarcophagus, hence the ancient deposits and stone.
 The tooling inside the throne is similar to the Ludovisi Throne. If it were an ancient sarcophagus the inside would have been hacked away, and the surface would be rough, unlike the inside of the Boston and Ludovisi Thrones.
There are no modern marks where the floor of the sarcophagus would have been cut away.

It has been suggested that 12th Century Metopes on the Cathedral at Modena are very similar to the Thrones, and that this would indicate that they were above ground at this point. Although not impossible, this is a very subjective viewpoint.

Both the Ludovisi Throne and the Boston Throne have similar damage and it has been suggested that they must have been together when this was carried out.

All of the above theories are possible, and none have ever been completely discounted.



Page constructed and maintained by Melissa M.Terras
Date last modified: 18th April 1997.