A Mystery in Marble: Examining a Portrait Statue through Science and Art lisa r. brody and carol e. snow Suffering from exposure to the elements, the purchased by a French private collector who unidentified woman was wrapped in a blan- placed the statue in a Parisian garden, where ket and shipped across the English Channel it endured two more decades of outdoor to an undisclosed location in Paris, her exact exposure to urban pollutants and acid rain. age and identity unknown. Later, traveling In December 2007, the piece was shipped with a French passport, she arrived in the to Sotheby’s in New York to be sold at an United States and made her way through the auction of Greek and Roman antiquities.2 streets of Manhattan to an elegant building Looking beyond the superficial, curators on the Upper East Side. Standing in a hall- and conservators from the Yale University way there on a cold December afternoon, the Art Gallery discerned the figure’s full poten- woman’s discolored appearance and awkward tial as a fine example of Roman sculpture pose attracted little attention (fig. 1). and arranged for its final journey to New The story of the Roman marble statue Haven, Connecticut. There, the story of a woman that is the subject of this article would continue to unfold through scholarly has the plot twists and intricacies of a pop- research, scientific analysis, and a lengthy ular novel. Although the very beginning conservation treatment. remains unwritten, the ending is a happy one The six-foot-tall marble statue of a for Yale. The current chapter begins when the woman is an early Roman portrait, possibly sculpture was at an English country house from the eastern Mediterranean, made in the and considered to be an eighteenth-century first century b.c. or early first century a.d. garden statue. It was auctioned as such by The body type, the so-called pudicitia, was Sotheby’s of Sussex in 1987.1 A photograph of commonly used for female portrait statues at the statue from the auction catalogue reveals that time and was intended to express highly that the sculpture must already have been valued characteristics such as modesty, purity, displayed outdoors for many years. It was and serenity. The complex drapery patterns on this example are particularly detailed and skillfully carved, with the thicker folds of the Fig. 1. Statue of a Woman, 1st century b.c.–early 1st 15 5 tunic visible beneath the thinner mantle that century a.d. Marble, 77 ⁄16 x 30 ⁄16 x 18⅛ in. (198 x 77 x 46 cm). Yale University Art Gallery, Purchased with envelops the body (fig. 2). Elements such as the Ruth Elizabeth White Fund and Leonard C. the luxurious fringe on the mantle and the Hanna, Jr., b.a., 1913, Fund, 2007.207.1. Before conser- closed-toe shoes are individualizing features vation treatment that mark the image as a portrait, while the 31 201378.P.indd 31 12/13/10 9:25 PM Fig. 2. Detail of the statue before conservation, showing algae, and lichen that covered the surface. carving of drapery folds A veritable ecosystem was evident: traces of Fig. 3. Detail of the statue showing condition of surface plant life as well as of insect and bird popu­ before conservation, including green algae, dirt, and lations could be found on upper surfaces, iron­oxide stains undercuts, narrow crevices, and even between the individual grains of marble (fig. 3). idealized face and hair rely on strong Helle­ Standing in the conservation laboratory, nistic artistic traditions.3 Overall, the object the statue became the focus of intensive is a stunning work of art, its quality and ele­ examination sessions and discussions among gant composition merely obscured temporar­ the Gallery’s curators and conservators. Ini­ ily by issues of condition and later restoration. tial analyses were performed using the naked The statue’s first temporary home at Yale eye and a binocular surgical microscope, as was the Gallery’s off­site storage and conser­ well as ultraviolet light and X­radiography.4 vation facility. The figure, weighing in at close Over the course of the next two years, more to a ton of marble, was immediately dubbed elaborate scientific testing would be done by the “Green Lady” by Gallery staff owing to removing small samples of marble, iron, lead, the predominantly green growths of mildew, and other old restoration materials from the 32 201378.P.indd 32 12/13/10 9:25 PM statue in order to seek more information technology to manipulate its digital image about its history and provenance. Mean- (fig. 5). The ancient statue type was meant to while, the statue was featured in the Gallery’s represent a woman in a self-contained, bal- summer 2009 exhibition Time Will Tell: anced pose, and the inaccurate restoration Ethics and Choices in Conservation. Installed created an entirely different effect, distorting prominently near the entrance to the exhibi- the aesthetic poise of the composition. tion, the statue was a highlight of the show The second major phase of restoration and personified one of its primary themes: to the statue included a sloppy application of the col laborative decision-making process epoxy putty (fig. 6). Epoxy resins were devel- that is so essential for museum curators and oped in the 1930s and went into commercial conservators today. The statue impressed production in the 1940s as a strong, water- visitors with its dramatic before-and-after proof adhesive.5 This putty was used on the state of surface condition and in-progress statue to seal and conceal many cracks and treatment, effectively symbolized by the joins. It was applied in such a haphazard obtrusive wood splint still supporting the manner that the work appears more likely restored right arm (fig. 4). to have been done by the estate gardener As presented in the exhibition, the statue than by a trained restorer. At that time, had undergone at least two major phases of epoxy was also used to create crude recon- restoration before being acquired by the Gal- structions of the nose, the mantle, and the lery. In the first, marble additions were used left index finger and thumb (fig. 7). The to replace extremities that had been lost or marble replacements that had been made damaged in antiquity or burial: arm, fingers, for these body parts in the first phase of res- chin, and nose. Broken surfaces were recarved toration had since gone missing; only their to receive the marble restorations, which corroded iron pins remained. were attached with small iron pins for smaller Gallery conservators used gentle steam marble restorations and large iron pins for for initial surface cleaning of the sculpture, structural marble restorations. The large iron effectively removing years of accumulated pins were secured with lead, which provided dirt, biological growth, droppings, and debris. both physical stability and galvanic protec- Once this was complete, Gallery curators and tion of the iron. The use of lead in such joins conservators began to consider the statue’s to prevent corrosion of the iron is a technique various restorations and to discuss options known and used since ancient times. Restorers for treating them. The aesthetic and art- in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries historical advantages of removing the old frequently applied these methods to restore restorations needed to be weighed carefully fragmentary ancient sculptures, at a time against any physical risks to the statue that when completion was considered to be more might result from their removal, along with important than origin or accuracy. the historical significance and structural The right shoulder and chest of the fig- advantages of retaining them. ure were considerably recarved to receive a Numerous museums have been faced replacement right arm, but one that was with similar dilemmas in recent decades. In completely inappropriate for the portrait the 1960s and 1970s, there were many pro- type, oversize and extending down and away grams of “de-restoration,” in which additions from the body. The original right arm of the to ancient sculptures were removed. The moti- statue would have been bent sharply at the vation for this was based on principles of both elbow, with the hand raised demurely to the art history and conservation, since the resto- chin or touching the edge of the veil. Some rations not only were not original to the understanding of what the statue would have work of art but also sometimes threatened the looked like was gleaned by using computer stability of the object through deteriorating 33 201378.P.indd 33 12/13/10 9:25 PM Fig. 4. Statue installed in Time Will Tell: Ethics and Fig. 5. Digital reconstruction of the statue, showing Choices in Conservation, Yale University Art Gallery, original position of the right arm New Haven, Conn., May 22–September 6, 2009 201378.P.indd 34 12/13/10 9:26 PM 35 201378.P.indd 35 12/22/10 6:48 PM adhesives or corroding metal attachments. The situation was complicated by the fact that some of these de-restored objects were rendered unintelligible and unfit for exhibi- tion. Mette Moltesen, Curator of Ancient Art at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, in Copenha- gen, explains that “many of the statues have profited from the rigidly enforced policy of removing restorations, others have suffered, some have become ruins, and still others have come out as very harmonious fragments.”6 One example of the damaging effect of such campaigns is the Lansdowne Leda in the collection of the J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, which emerged from de-restoration as “an unexhibitable, cannibalized torso with unsightly iron pins protruding in all direc- tions.”7 In that instance and others at the Getty, curators and conservators decided to treat the previously de-restored objects with carefully considered reattachment of their eighteenth- and nineteenth-century additions so that the statues could be exhibited and understood by viewers.