sign in sign up
<<
Home , Mummy

The technical study and conservation treatment of four 2nd century AD Romano- Egyptian portraits at the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge,

Lucy Wrapson, Paintings Conservation Intern Hamilton Kerr Institute University of Cambridge Whittlesford CB2 4NE United Kingdom

Tel: +44(0)1223832040 Fax: +44(0)1223837595 Email: [email protected] ICOM membership no.: 40001

Abstract This paper presents the technical study and conservation treatment of four Romano- Egyptian portraits of the 2nd century AD now in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge. One of the portraits is still attached to its mummy, one of around thirty surviving red-shrouded mummies. This project is part of a massive conservation program based around the redevelopment of the Fitzwilliam Museum’s Egyptian Galleries. Conservation of the portraits and the shroud was undertaken in order that they could be placed back on display. The materials and techniques used in the making of the paintings and shroud were identified using a variety of analytical techniques and the paintings placed within the context of other mummy portraits. The sophisticated use of a fairly narrow range of inexpensive materials was established.

Cet article présente une étude technique et la conservation de quatre portraits de momies égyptiennes de l’époque romaine du 2ème siècle de notre ère, appartenant à la collection du musée Fitzwilliam à Cambridge. Un de ces portraits est encore attaché à la momie et c’est un des trente portraits environ du type linceul-rouge en existence. Ce projet fait part d’un programme de conservation et de rénovation des nouvelles galeries égyptiennes du musée, et la conservation des portraits et du linceul a été effectuée avant la réouverture des galeries. Les matériaux et techniques utilisés pour la fabrication de ces portraits et du linceul ont été identifiés utilisant une variété de techniques analytiques et les peintures ont été placées dans le contexte des autres portraits funéraires. L’utilisation sophistiquée d’un choix assez restreint de matériaux peu couteux a été établie.

Keywords: conservation, Fayum portraits, mummy portraits, technical examination, encaustic, beeswax, Egypt

Introduction Parlasca lists one thousand and twenty eight known surviving painted portraits and fragments from Roman Egypt, from a period spanning roughly from the 1st- 4th centuries AD (Parlasca 1969-2003)[1]. He includes full-length painted shrouds/funerary hangings, tondos, portraits incorporated into aediculae, wood or canvas portraits still

1 attached to mummies, as as portraits separated from mummies. The dating of mummy portraits has traditionally been based around knowledge of Roman hairstyle, and dress, mainly through comparison with classical (Petrie 1889, Parlasca 1966, Borg 1996). . The first mummy portraits to be discussed in the west appeared in 1615, brought by Italian voyager Pietro della Valle, probably from Saqqara (Shore 1962). Often termed Fayum portraits, the paintings come mainly from that region of Egypt. However, examples of mummy portraits have been found elsewhere in Egypt, at Saqqara, Antinoopolis and el-Hibeh, among other places. The survival of this substantial body of small paintings on wood and is highly significant. Mummy portraits are the only body of paintings of individuals to survive from antiquity, although it is known that portraits existed from Classical sources such as Pliny the Elder’s Natural History and from occasional surviving portrait wall paintings such as that of a married couple in Pompeii (Doxiadis 1995). However, mummy portraits have traditionally been rather ignored by scholarship, considered too late by most Egyptologists and too Egyptian for most Classicists (Corcoran 1995). That the portraits are from life and are to a degree meant to be likenesses is indicated by several sources. Likenesses are well attested to in Greek and Roman literature. The portraits are certainly stylised and have common, consistent patterns of depiction, such as the tilt of the body, the exaggerated large eyes and the standard costumes of both men and women.

It is clear that portraits were not necessarily always created at the point of death for the sole purpose of . Petrie was the first to suggest an above ground usage for mummy portraits (Petrie 1913). The mummies seem likely to have spent a considerable time in the homes of relatives before burial, and some portraits seem to have had some independent function prior to being incorporated into . During his excavations in the 1888 season, Petrie found a fragmentary portrait image in a frame with a fitting indicating its mounting on a wall, dating from the 2nd century AD ((Walker and Bierbrier et al. 1997). Furthermore, the majority of portraits depict young adults in their prime. This does not always tally with the age of death of the people themselves, often older at the time the mummy ensemble was made (Corcoran 1995).

Corcoran (1995) has highlighted the need to view portraits in conjunction where possible with their mummies stating that there has been an over-emphasis on the portraits viewed alone in previous research. However, Walker (1997) points out that the ‘veristic’ style of the portraiture is a Roman import stating the paintings were ‘(all too-) detachable inserts’. The truth is probably somewhere between the two. On the one hand, the portraits and the mummy wrappings form an ensemble which is part of the same multicultural milieu, comprising the Egyptian, the Roman and the Hellenistic traditions; to the people concerned they represented a coherent religious worldview. On the other hand, they are not a single artistic expression but instead mark two separate creative campaigns which we can perceive as having appreciable stylistic and technical differences.

A majority of portraits have been cut down at the corners and sides. This typically crude cutting happened at the point at which the portrait was bound into the mummy. In

2 addition, gilding, symbolising eternal life, was often added once the portrait had been bound into the wrappings. Both the corner trimming and the gilding processes were often perfunctory and not part of the initial production of the portrait. This is visible on the face panel of the red shroud mummy, particularly where the gold is applied to the background (Figure 1). Most probably it was during the preparation of the mummy’s decoration that the thinner portraits were bent into a convex curvature to fit the face.

Physical histories The Fitzwilliam paintings are all portraits on wood which have been affixed to mummies. The portrait and mummy are intact in one case. In the others, fragments of linen and remain on the reverse of the paintings from burial and remnants of resin and imprints of linen wrappings frame the face, confirming their use as funerary portraits. The portrait of a man (Fitzwilliam E.2.1888), portrait of a woman (E.102.1911), portrait of Didyme (E.5.1981) and red-shrouded portrait mummy of a man (E. 63.1903) can be seen sequentially before recent treatment in Figures 1-4.

Parlasca (1969/1977) dates the woman to the turn of the 1st-2nd century and the man to the end of the Antonine period, c.190 AD. The portrait of the man is dated slightly earlier, early to mid 2nd century AD by the Fitzwilliam. Both portraits were found by Petrie at Hawara, but while the man was discovered in the 1888 campaign, the woman was found in 1911. They were each donated to the Fitzwilliam Museum shortly after excavation, but after paraffin wax consolidation by Petrie (Petrie 1889, Petrie 1911). Petrie reports his technique: I gently rubbed, or rather rolled, off the grains of sand and dust, by small circular movements of the fingers, which did not disturb the film of paint; and then placing the portrait beneath a wire brazier of red-hot charcoal, I watched a spot of melted new wax placed on it, and so soon as that began to spread I plied the panel with spoonfuls of melted wax until it was all covered. If left too long melted, the old colour began to redissolve and flow; if heated too much, it began to roast; and if tilted too sharply in draining it, the run of fresh wax carried off the surface of the paint (Petrie 1889).

While it is easy to be critical of this application of wax to wax given the difficulty of reversal, it has served to stabilise fragile paint. It has been said that Petrie portraits have fared better than those bought through Viennese dealer Graf which were not consolidated (Streeton 2003). The wax has however, left an obscuring layer over the surface of the paintings, either appearing glossy and dark or, where it is no longer saturating the surface, looking (Figure 3). As well as the heating technique described, Petrie also records having applied a viscous ‘butter’ of wax dissolved in ‘benzine’ and facing the most vulnerable portraits with paper (Petrie 1911, Jaeschke and Jaeschke 1988).

Both portraits have undergone additional restoration since having been in the museum collection. The paintings have a number of splits in their veneer-like supports; including a total disjoin in the portrait of a man. Following an earlier restoration to join the splits, the panels had been glued to plywood backings, probably shortly after photographs taken by

3 Budde in the early 1960s. There is also an area of retouching to the large loss in the face of the man, already evident in that photograph.

The portrait of Didyme was left as a bequest to the Fitzwilliam Museum in 1981 and was formerly in the collections of C. Seltman and Professor A. B. Cook. The wood thickness (1.2-1.5cm), type (sycomore fig), style of the portrait, and the manner of trimming all indicate Antinoopolis as provenance. Parlasca (2003) dates Didyme to the second half of the 2nd century AD. A date range of 130-150 AD is given in Walker and Bierbrier et al. (1997) and the Fitzwilliam dates it 180-200 AD. Antinoopolis itself is known to have been founded in 130 AD providing a terminus post quem for mummy portraits found there.

The portrait of Didyme is unusual and has sparked much debate. The painting bears an inscription in Greek stating, ‘I am Didyme, aged 7’. There are thirty two surviving inscriptions on mummy portraits or related shrouds; twenty seven names survive (Corcoran 1995). Didyme is a female name, meaning twin, and yet the purple clavi stripes and white tunic in this painting are more typical of the clothing worn by a boy. A comparison of the portrait of Didyme with other portraits of children from Antinoopolis indicates that the hairstyle is in keeping with portraits of girls and boys (Walker and Bierbrier et al. 1997). The male garb and lack of earrings make the female name unusual. Corcoran (1995) has suggested that the inscription may have been wrongly transcribed, having meant to be Didymos, the male version of the name. This is not the case; technical examination clearly shows an eta, Η, at the end of the name. Parlasca (2003) and Walker (1997) have suggested that the portrait was intended for another, male child, the inscription and necklace serving to clarify identity. This may be the case, though there is no specific technical evidence to confirm that the painting was altered at a later stage as has been suggested by Nicholls in an unpublished piece in the Fitzwilliam archives, an idea picked up by Parlasca (2003). As Nicholls states, both the inscription and the necklace were indeed added to the composition at the last stage. However, such details would typically be painted at the final phase of painting. The portrait of Didyme is in fine condition; the only recorded treatment a small amount of consolidation undertaken in the late 1990s. There is no physical evidence of other restoration.

The red-shrouded mummy was found by Grenfell and Hunt at el-Hibeh in 1903 with another red-shrouded mummy of a woman ( CG 33217) (Grenfell and Hunt 1906). The mummy is recorded as Antonine (c.161-180 AD) by Doxiadis (1995) following Parlasca (1977). However, there is discrepancy over the dating of red shroud decoration. Corcoran dates six red-shrouded mummies, including that found with the Fitzwilliam mummy, to the first quarter of the 2nd century AD. The stylistic and technical proximity of the Fitzwilliam red-shrouded mummy to examples at the Getty (mummies of Herakleides 91.AP.6 dated c.150 AD and Isidora: 81.AP.42 dated 100-110 AD) and in Basel [2] has implications for dating of both shroud and portrait. The mummy is presently dated 100-150 AD in the Fitzwilliam display.

The supports

4 Caroline Cartwright of the has identified the wood types of three of the four portraits (Cartwright 1997). The two Hawara origin panels are on 2mm thick veneer boards of a tilia species, lime or linden, with vertical grain. Saw marks are visible on the surface of the woman’s portrait where there is paint loss and on the reverse of the man’s portrait. The panel of Didyme is considerably thicker, about 1.2-1.5cm and is on a single panel of sycomore fig, again with vertical grain. Both of these woods were available in 2nd century Egypt, but whether they were obtained natively or imported is unknown. Sycomore fig is commonly found in the Egyptian archaeological record. The panel on the mummy has no end grain or unpainted wood visible but may well be a lime species panel given its thinness (c.2mm). There are also two boards which run inside the wrappings of the mummy, supporting the body, visible only through Computed Tomography (CT) scan.

The ground and paint layers Only one of the portraits, that of Didyme, has a pigmented ground of charcoal chalk/calcite and earth applied to the whole of the panel. There is no evidence on the other portraits of a pigmented ground layer applied throughout the panel.

Around 2% of the portraits have undergone some degree of analytical study [3]. The inorganic components of mummy portraits have tended to be examined rather than their more complicated medium. Furthermore, inorganic components of the mummy portraits are generally fairly few in number. Table 1 details the pigments found during this study. The portrait of Didyme was examined using X-ray fluorescence as well as polarised light microscopy (PLM) and scanning electron microscopy/energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (SEM/EDX). The other paintings were examined using PLM and SEM/EDX [4]. A total of twenty three samples were taken from the portraits and shroud, from damaged areas which best typified the pigments used. It was only possible to take one sample from the red-shrouded mummy’s portrait given the superb condition of the paint film. The results for that painting are therefore necessarily limited.

The Fitzwilliam paintings are characteristic in that they contain relatively few, inexpensive pigments. The use of a fairly simple palette, a slightly augmented tetrachromy in the Hellenistic tradition, does not imply an unsophisticated painting technique. The medium is used with skill to great effect. Colour and texture are cleverly modified through the to medium ratio. Layers which appear on the painting and in cross section to be distinct are often composed of the same pigment mixtures. Sometimes the components are in comparable proportions, differing only in the quantity of medium. There is considerable use of white or colourless materials commonly thought of as extenders such as gypsum, chalk/calcite, glass/quartz, bone white, and various alumina. These pigments are used in addition to lead white, which was found on three out of four portraits. Most probably it is also present on the red-shrouded mummy’s portrait from which only one sample was taken. There is also great diversity in the size of pigment particles. This may well be varied for particular effect in the wax medium (Figure 5). This sample also demonstrates the thickness of the paraffin wax layer applied by Petrie. The pronounced orange fluorescence of the red lakes used in the paintings indicates a probable use of madder lake (Figure 6).

5 Medium of the paintings Nearly six hundred of the surviving mummy portraits appear to have been painted in a wax-based medium. Parlasca lists a further twenty or so as having been painted using a combination of ‘tempera’, probably gum based, and encaustic (Parlasca 1969-2003). There is much contention over the varying media used in paintings of this type. Published organic analysis has been undertaken only on a handful of paintings [5]. Encaustic painting in antiquity is mentioned by several authors including Dioscorides, Pliny the Elder and Seneca. Pliny’s is among the fullest accounts describing a variety of metal used in the process, as well as the Punic wax medium, a saponified beeswax. It can be seen in all these paintings that both brushes and metal tools were used. The use of a spatula-like is particularly visible in the flesh paint on the portrait of Didyme (Figure 4).

Medium analysis was undertaken by Catherine Higgitt and David Peggie of the National Gallery, London using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy. So far, samples from three of the paintings have been analysed; the red mummy remains to be examined. The areas of original paint from the backgrounds of the three portraits studied all contain beeswax and lead soaps. No oils or have been found. It has not yet been possible to ascertain whether the saponification has occurred over time due to the presence of lead, or whether the beeswax was deliberately saponified with an alkali such as natron, as described by Pliny the Elder and termed Punic wax. Further tests of areas of the paint film which do not contain lead pigments may help to ascertain whether the beeswax was deliberately saponified before use [6].

Painting technique The painting technique is similar in the portraits from Hawara and that of the red mummy. None have pigmented grounds and they follow the same system of build up starting with the grey background. In all of them, the background and clothes appear brush applied whereas the flesh is highly impasted, using a thicker paint and applied with a tool. The portrait of Didyme differs slightly as it has a lean ground of which the medium is as yet unknown. Other Antinoopolis portraits with a similar dark ground have been found to have an -glue based ground (Asensi Amorós and Colinart et al. 2001). Drips of the fluid paint used for the ground are visible along the untrimmed edges, indicating that the layer was applied while the painting lay flat. Otherwise the build up of the portrait is much the same as the other paintings. In X-radiographs, a thicker border around the shape of the heads and shoulders of the figures is discernable indicating that figure outlines were first marked out before the rest of the composition was filled in (Figure 7).

Materials and techniques of the shroud The shroud is made of several large pieces of linen gathered and stuck at the top using resin. There is a pronounced fluorescence in ultraviolet light throughout the shroud which must be associated with this resin, although perhaps also with resin incorporated into the wax-based paint itself (as yet unconfirmed by analysis). An opening was specially

6 designed to allow the portrait to be visible and the layers of linen at the bottom part of this have been stitched together to ensure neatness.

The body itself has been examined in X-ray (Bourriau and Bashford 1980) and CT scan, the full results of the latter will be forthcoming. The CT scan revealed that the body had been in an advanced state of at the time of wrapping. This precludes a comparison of the portrait to the mummy; it is impossible to glean whether the individual possessed a beard. The CT scan also revealed that the body was laid on two planks of wood in order to give the mummy rigidity.

Judging by the layers of thick wax-bound paint, which has dripped along the edges, the mummy was painted as it lay on its back. Three or four coats of red paint were applied, mainly to the front. There are small fragments of what appears to be a reed brush visible throughout the paint film. Materially, the shroud red consists of red lead, calcite/chalk and charcoal. Once the red had been applied, designs were laid out in a grey fluid paint. The designs were executed in a free manner, often leaving the grey underdrawing visible and uncovered. Some designs were coloured in purple and green and gold leaf applied to others. Some gilded motifs were then bordered in black. The gold leaf has a considerable copper component, visible in normal light and confirmed in SEM/EDX. The gilding was mordant applied but there is no discrete layer of mordant visible in cross section.

Three other red-shrouded mummies, the example in Basel and the two at the Getty, display significant technical and stylistic similarities to the Fitzwilliam mummy. They share many of the same iconographic motifs, decorative patterns such as the gold leaf lozenges framing the portrait, and from visual examination seem to have the same layer build up and colours. That the materials used are likely to be the same is indicated by the comparable degradation processes; the Basel mummy and Herakleides both display a white bloom like that found on the Fitzwilliam mummy and the green on all the mummies has discoloured to a similar brown. Marie Svoboda and Marc Walton at the Getty are presently studying the mummy of Herakleides and investigations so far confirm the proximity of materials and techniques to those of the Fitzwilliam mummy [7].

Conservation The four paintings have undergone a variety of treatments. The portrait of Didyme was surface cleaned and consolidated using 4176 Medium for Consolidation, but required no further treatment [8]. The Lascaux consolidant has excellent flow properties and works well on waxy surfaces. Furthermore, it was possible to achieve consolidation without causing staining.

Where the shroud of the mummy was delaminating from layers beneath, it was consolidated using Klucel G in IMS, applied to an interface of acid-free Japanese tissue. Pieces of tissue were torn to the correct shape, the consolidant applied and then the pieces slotted between the delaminating layers and held until the bond was made. Loose paint on the shroud was consolidated using Lascaux 4176. The mummy was lifted upright by five conservators in order to examine the technique and condition of the wrappings and take

7 photographs. The portrait was surface cleaned, but needed no other treatment due to its excellent condition.

As mentioned, the two portraits from Hawara had been glued to plywood backings. The glue had been placed around the edges, but the restraint was causing buckling on both portraits. In addition, it was possible to see in X-radiograph that a lot of material associated with the burial was adhered to the reverse of the panels and was at that time invisible. The backings were removed mechanically and the fragile paintings then held cushioned in trays.

These two paintings excavated by Petrie had been covered in paraffin wax consolidant which could not be separated from the paint surface safely using solvents. Given the possible risk, mechanical cleaning was favoured (Jaeschke 1997). On the portrait of a woman complete removal of wax applied by Petrie was not possible. The painting had been overheated during the application of the wax and the two layers had fused in some locations. Where the layers were not fully separable, the Petrie wax was thinned.

The Hawara portraits required structural treatment of their fragile supports which had many splits along the grain, the portrait of a man having totally separated. The importance of the maintaining the integrity of the material on the reverse of the paintings meant that the addition of wooden buttons to support the joins on the reverse was discounted. It was also evident that it would not be possible to join totally the most serious split on the portrait of the woman. It was decided to rejoin the top 7-8cm where it was possible to align the split. This facilitated easier handling of the painting as well as improving its visual appearance. The splits were glued using Resin W® and a fill material comprising Resin W mixed with coconut flour and phenolic microballoons (Young and Ackroyd et al. 2002) [9]. The large split on the portrait of the woman was additionally supported using small patches of nylon gossamer affixed with sturgeon glue. The portrait of a man was treated using the same methods.

No retouching or toning was done, in accordance with the paintings’ archaeological status. New perspex mounts have been made for safe handling. In the case of the portrait of a woman, the conservation treatment has revealed hitherto invisible features, such as the remnants of a pearl necklace (Figure 8).

Acknowledgments Heartfelt thanks to Alan Barker, Spike Bucklow, Julie Dawson, Nichole Doub, Catherine Higgitt, Ray Marchant, Ian McClure, Régine Page, David Peggie, Christina Rozeik, Lucy Skinner, Marie Svoboda and Marc Walton. Photographs taken by Chris Titmus and Chris Hurst, Hamilton Kerr Institute.

Endnotes 1. Borg’s date range for the portraits is narrower, between the 1st century AD and the second quarter of the 3rd century. For discussion on dating see Borg 1996; Parlasca 1997. 2. The Basel mummy is probably Corcoran red-shrouded mummy no. 23.

8 3. Alexopoulou-Agoranou and Kalliga et al. 1997, Asensi Amorós and Colinart et al. 2001, Borg 1996, Buck and Feller 1972, Colinart and Aubert et al. 1998, Colinart and Grappin-Wsevolojsky 1999, Freccero 2000, Ramer 1979, Sack and Peters et al. 1981, Shore 1962, Streeton 2003. 4. XRF: Professor Brunetti, University of Perugia, SEM/EDX: Spike Bucklow, Hamilton Kerr Institute, University of Cambridge. 5. Two from the Petrie Museum (White 1979); Several from the Louvre and Dijon (Asensi Amorós and Colinart et al. 2001); two from the Benaki Museum (Alexopoulou- Agoranou and Kalliga et al. 1997); three from Munich (Kühn 1960). 6. Such results perhaps bring into question past discoveries of Punic wax and possible confusion with lead soaps, a phenomenon only researched relatively recently (Boon, J. J. and van der Weerd, J. et al. 2002.). A more wide-scale study of ancient waxes would be rewarding. 7. Communication with Marie Svoboda. 8. Lascaux Medium for Consolidation 4176 is an aqueous dispersion of an acrylic copolymer developed specially for use in conservation. 9. Resin W is a polyvinyl acetate emulsion. Phenolic microballoons are a lightweight synthetic fill/bulking material.

References Alexopoulou-Agoranou, A. and A-E. Kalliga, et al. 1997. Pigment analysis and documentation of two funerary portraits which belong to the collection of the Benaki Museum, In Bierbrier, M. et al. (eds.), Portraits and Masks: Burial Customs in Roman Egypt. London: British Museum Press, 88-95. Asensi Amorós, V. and M. Colinart, et al. 2001. Survivre au-delà de la mort: les portraits funéraires égyptiens du muse des Beaux-Arts de Dijon. Technè, 13/14, 119-130. Boon, J. and J. van der Weerd, et al. 2002. Mechanical and chemical changes in Old Master paintings: dissolution, metal soap formation and remineralization processes in lead pigmented ground/intermediate paint layers of 17th century paintings. Preprints of the 13th triennial meeting of the ICOM Committee for Conservation. Rio de Janeiro, 401- 406. Borg, B. 1996. Mumienporträts: Chronologie und kultureller Kontext, Mainz, von Zabern. Bourriau, J. and J. Bashford. 1980. Radiological examination of two mummies of the Roman era", Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology Journal (Mummification Supplement) 1(6), 168-171. Bierbrier, M.1997. Fayum and their Portraits. In Bierbrier, M. et al. (eds.), Portraits and Masks: Burial Customs in Roman Egypt. London: British Museum Press, 16-18. Buck, R. and R. Feller. 1972. The examination and treatment of a Fayum portrait: Analysis of pigments in the Toledo Fayum portrait. International Institute of Conservation, Conservation of Paintings and the Graphic Arts, Lisbon Congress, 801- 807. Cartwright, C. 1997. Egyptian Mummy Portraits: Examining the Woodworkers’ Craft. In Bierbrier, M. et al. (eds.), Portraits and Masks: Burial Customs in Roman Egypt. London: British Museum Press, 106-111.

9 Colinart, S. and R. Aubert, et al. 1998. Peinture à l’encaustique: un portrait du Fayoum. Technè 7, 45-48. Colinart, S. and M.-F. Grappin-Wsevolojsky, et al. 1999. La cire punique: étude critique des recettes antiques et de leur interprétation-application aux portraits du Fayoum. Preprints of the 12th triennial meeting of the ICOM Committee for Conservation. Lyon, 213-220. Corcoran, L. 1995, Portrait Mummies from Roman Egypt (I-IV centuries A.D.). The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization: no. 56. Doxiadis, E. 1995. The Mysterious Fayum Portraits: Faces from . London: Thames and Hudson. Freccero, A. 2000. Fayum portraits: documentation and scientific analysis of mummy portraits belonging to the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm. Göteborg Studies in Conservation 7, Göteborg: Acta Univeristatis Gothoburgensis. Grenfell, B. and A. Hunt, 1906. The Hibeh Papyri: Part 1. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. Jaeschke R. and H. Jaeschke 1988. Early Conservation Techniques in the Petrie Museum. In Watkins S. and Brown, C. (eds.), Conservation of Ancient Egyptian Materials. London: United Kingdom Institute for Conservation Archaeology Section, 17-23. Jaeschke, R. 1997. Mechanical Cleaning and the Conservation of Portraits in the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology. In Bierbrier, M. et al. (eds.), Portraits and Masks: Burial Customs in Roman Egypt. London: British Museum Press, 96-99. Kühn, H. 1960. Detection and identification of waxes including Punic wax, by infra-red spectrography. Studies in Conservation 5(2), 71-80. Nicholls, R. (undated). Little Tomboy Didyme, typed in Fitzwilliam Museum archives. Parlasca, K. 1966. Mumienporträts und Verwandte Denkmaler. Wiesbaden: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Parlasca, K. 1969, 1977, 1980, 2003. Ritratti di mummie. In Adriani, A. (ed.), Repertorio d’arte dell’ Egitto greco-romano, Vol. 1. : Banco di Sicilia. Vols. 2-4. Rome: L' Erma di Bretschneider. Parlasca, K. 1997. Mummy Portraits: Old and New Problems. In Bierbrier, M. et al. (eds.), Portraits and Masks: Burial Customs in Roman Egypt. London: British Museum Press, 127-130. Petrie, W. 1889. Hawara, Biahmu and Arsinoe. London: Field and Tuer. Petrie, W. 1911. Roman portraits and Memphis (IV). London: University College. Petrie, W. 1913. The Hawara Portfolio: Paintings of the Roman Age. London: School of Archaeology in Egypt. Ramer, B. 1979. The , examination and conservation of the Fayum portraits in the Petrie Museum. Studies in Conservation 24(1), 1-13. Sack, S. and T. Peters, et al. 1981. A Technical Examination of an Ancient Egyptian Painting on Canvas, Studies in Conservation 26(1), 15-23. Shore, A. 1962. Portrait painting from Roman Egypt. London: Trustees of the British Museum.

10 Streeton, N. 2003. Mummy portraits from Roman Egypt in the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology: materials, treatment histories and the consequences of conservation. MA dissertation, University College London. Walker, S. and M. Bierbrier, et al. 1997. Ancient Faces: Mummy Portraits from Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press. White, R. 1978. The application of gas-chromatography to the identification of waxes. Studies in Conservation, 23(2), 57-68. Young, C. and Ackroyd, P. et al. 2002. The Mechanical Behaviour of Adhesives and Gap Fillers for re-joining Panel Paintings, National Gallery Technical Bulletin 23, 83-96.

Materials Lascaux 4176, acrylic copolymer aqueous dispersion Kremer Pigmente GmbH & Co. Hauptstrasse 41-47, D-88317 Aichstetten Tel. + 49(0)75651011

Klucel G, hydroxypropylcellulose Conservation By Design Timecare Works 5 Singer Way Woburn Road Industrial Estate Kempston Bedford MK42 7AW United Kingdom Tel: +44(0)1234853555

Phenolic microballoons Marinestore Chandlery Shipways Yard North Street Maldon Essex CM9 5HN United Kingdom Tel: + 44(0)1621874490

Resin W, polyvinyl acetate emulsion Evode Ltd Common Road Stafford ST16 3EH United Kingdom Tel: +44(0)1785272727

11

Table 1: Pigments found during analysis of the four portraits and shroud

Colour Pigment/ Didyme Man Woman Red shroud mummy material Portrait Shroud White/colourless Chalk/calcite X X X X Lead white X X X X Gypsum X X X Dolomite X X Quartz/glass X X X Bone white X X Alum X Alumina X Black Charcoal X X X X Lamp black X Yellow Yellow ochre X X X X X Green Green earth X Red Red lake X X X Red lead X X Iron oxide red X X X X X Gold Gold leaf X (shroud X decoration)

Figure 1: red shroud mummy of a man, face before recent treatment

12

Figure 2: portrait of a man, before recent treatment

Figure 3: portrait of a woman, before recent treatment

13

Figure 4: portrait of Didyme, before recent treatment

Figure 5: cross section from the woman’s necklace: a) Petrie wax; b) necklace layer, silicates, earth pigments, charcoal; c) flesh paint, earth pigments, lead white, charcoal

14

Figure 6: Didyme in ultraviolet light

15

Figure 7: Didyme, X-radiograph

16

Figure 8: portrait of a woman after recent treatment

17