12th International Congress on the Deterioration and Conservation of Stone Columbia University, New York, 2012 THE INCE BLUNDELL COMPOSITE MARBLE STATUE OF A MAN WITH AN IVY WREATH – ‘MARCUS AURELIUS’: REVISITED/ RESTORED Nicolas Verhulst1 and Lottie Barnden2 1Conservation Trainee, specialising in stone, University of Amsterdam, Ateliergebouw, Hobbemastraat 22, 1071 ZC Amsterdam, The Netherlands (contact author: [email protected]). 2Head of Sculpture Conservation, National Museums Liverpool, Conservation Centre, 1 Peter Street, Liverpool L1 6HZ, United Kingdom (supervisor of the project). Abstract In the eighteenth century Henry Blundell bought an antique over-life-sized statue of ‘Marcus Aurelius’ to add to his collection at Ince Blundell Hall, north of Liverpool. His private collection of antique sculpture became the second largest in the United Kingdom, after the Townley collection (British Museum). As a ‘composite’ sculpture ‘Marcus Aurelius’ represented the fashion of eighteenth century restoration ethics. During the condition report the sculpture was divided into three different zones: the plinth with the feet were separated from the main body and another zone existed of 58 pieces. The treatment proposal focused on a series of complex issues. A range of pins and clamps needed to be removed from lead and eighteenth century resin. After cleaning the surface dirt, the disturbing staining of the white Carrara marble by old resin needed to be tempered or removed. Considering different cleaning methods, a superficial impregnating gel worked by dissolving 4% agar in deionised water. Grey dirt layers and sulphation could be removed with a Nd:YAG laser. To reinstate the structural integrity of the statue a ‘piston fit pin sleeve’ armature was devised, besides the use of common pins. This will create an easier disassembly in the future, as the stainless steel pin slides into stainless steel sleeves that are fixed inside the holes with a bulked epoxy. For choosing the right colour fill seven adhesives with seven fillers were tested. This ‘colourfill chart’ worked as a reference and each recipe could be adjusted by adding more or less fillers when searching for the right properties. Finally a protective coating of microcrystalline wax DRAFTwas applied to protect the surface from surface dirt ingression in the future. Keywords: This paper is about a composite statue and represents ideas for the removal of pins, cramps and lead; removal of surface dirt and stains with Laser and agar; the choice of appropriate adhesives according to its function; the development of a ‘piston fit pin sleeve’ armature system, creating a colour fill to imitate white Carrara marble and the application of a protective coating. 1. Introduction The Former head of the sculpture studio at the Conservation Centre in Liverpool (UK): Samantha Sportun examined the white Carrara marble composite statue with an ivy wreath – ‘Marcus Aurelius’ (210 x 85 x 50 cm) in 1995-1996. She started with the disassembly and removal of corroded armature. Since fifteen years this project was left 1 12th International Congress on the Deterioration and Conservation of Stone Columbia University, New York, 2012 unfinished in the studio consisting of two main zones and another one about 58 fragments. Over the years surface dirt accumulated on top of the disturbing resin staining and sulphation. Under supervision of the current head of the sculpture studio: Lottie Barnden, it became the multifaceted restoration project during my conservation trainee internship in 2011-2012, as part of the University of Amsterdam. It was necessary to get familiar with the object’s background and current condition while writing a treatment proposal. Different options were considered and will be explained in the following article. An important idea that was kept in mind during the whole interdisciplinary process was that of a MINIMAL INTERVENTION AND EASE OF DISSASEMBLY. 2. Historic background 2.1 The Ince Blundell collection The antique over-life-sized statue was given the label: ‘Marcus Aurelius’ (Ince 569) by the wealthy aristocrat Henry Blundell (1724-1810), who gathered an impressive collection of antiquities in his garden temples at the Ince Blundell hall in Lancashire, situated north of Liverpool (UK). In one of the greenhouses of his estate he displayed the statue in a niche (Figure 1). He probably bought the statue at the end of his life in England after the sculpture supply in Italy dried up, around 1800. Blundell’s catalogue mentions that the sculpture was found in the yard of a sculptor. Thomas Banks (1772- 1779) is suggested, however London based sculptor Joseph Nollekens (1760-1770) also sold ‘antiques’. Blundell must have been familiar with the contemporary restoration approaches as he was aware that he had accumulated an eclectic collection of uneven quality. Most of his collection, including ‘Marcus Aurelius’ became partially alienated from its eighteenth century setting, because the contemporary owner could not safeguard his collection. He entrusted the majority of it to the city of Liverpool, where the National Museums Liverpool became responsible for its conservation and partially displays it to the public for free. 2.2 The label of ‘Marcus Aurelius’ revised Two key questions appeared to be crucial to understand the iconography of this statue: What type of statue are we dealing with and how is it possible to typecast a composite sculpture of DRAFTancient and modern pieces, with a distinction in style between body and head? By scanning through literature one could describe the ‘Ince 569’ as an over-life-size freestanding statue, with a bare torso and ‘hip mantle’ held together by his left advancing arm, which recalls the Claudian timeframe. However his stance is already inspired by the early canon from Polykleitos’ Doryphoros. His physiognomy bears more similarities with the second type of ‘Marcus Aurelius’ than the first type. But it was still uncertain whether that this portrait represents ‘Marcus Aurelius’. The scholar Fejfer considered that the ivy wreath around his head may point into the direction of a Claudian (Antonine) or Hadrianic type, maybe as part of the Liber Pater cult. 2 12th International Congress on the Deterioration and Conservation of Stone Columbia University, New York, 2012 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 1. Bartolomeo Cavaceppi, Raccolta d’Antiche statue busti bassirilievi ed altra sculture Restaurate da Bartolomeo Cavaceppi sculpture Romano, Rome, Vol. 1, 1768, Rome: Augusto, illustration 33. Figure 2. Photo of the Ince 569 at the Ince Blundell Hall, in a nice of the greenhouse, illustration by Ashmole, John, Catalogue of Ancient Marbles at Ince Blundell Hall, Oxford, 1929: 50. Figure 3. Colour scheme by Sportun, Highlights of different parts. Illustration by Samantha Sportun, History of restoration of Ancient Stone Sculptures - Papers from a symposium, October 2001, Los Angeles, 2003: 128 and 171, plate VIII: Drawing of ‘Marcus Aurelius’ figure, p. 128 based on an engraving by Bernard de Montfaucon (1655-1741), from H. Blundell, Engravings and Etchings, plate 35. 2.3 A restoration historyDRAFT backed up by its condition research From Antiquity, over the Renaissance to the end of the nineteenth century the integrity of antique fragments was often compromised drastically as the fashion of the period was not for broken fragments. As a ‘composite’ sculpture ‘Marcus Aurelius’ represents the ‘enlightened fashion’ of eighteenth century restoration ethics. One of the best-known workshops during the time was the studio of Bartolomeo Cavaceppi (1717- 1799), who wrote a three-volume work on the principles of restoration. In one of these volumes he gives an illustration of ‘Augusto’, resembling to the Ince ‘Marcus Aurelius’ (Figure 2). Some authors attributed the ‘Ince 569’ to Cavaceppi, while others think that the piece was assembled in England rather than in Rome. Similarities in some of the restored parts of drapery to the joint surfaces that were worked relatively smoothly and then chiselled with quite fine marks to anchor the adhesive may point into the direction of Cavaceppi. The ‘purist’ approach in the 1960’s and 1970’s was to remove all previous restorations, which did not happen in this case. 3 12th International Congress on the Deterioration and Conservation of Stone Columbia University, New York, 2012 The early additions to the ‘Ince 569’ represented a valuable insight into the methods and techniques of the restorers of the period and must be valued and examined as such wherever possible. Sportun was the first one to highlight the different interventions in a drawing, while discussing them in detail (Figure 3). The original parts are the face, except for the nose, the drapery and probably the central part of the torso (separated from the drapery), as is a part of the tree trunk and the right leg and ankle. The plinth, with both feet and the left leg, is supposed to be a classical repair. Eighteenth century additions are the right arm, the left arm with overhanging drapery, the left shoulder, part of the breast, the neck with the back of the head, including the right ear and the rim of the left one. Some other undated repairs are the small pieces inserted in the back of the drapery, the back of the left ankle and the front of the left knee, as a larger part of the drapery, in between the original and later addition. The back of the tree trunk and the back corner of the plinth underneath can also be attributed to this phase, according to Sportun. 2.4. Condition Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 4. Zone I in the studio after 15 years, by author. Figure 5. Zone II in the studioDRAFT after 15 years, by author. Figure 6. Zone III in the studio after 15 years, by author. 2.5 In general Research about its assembly, ‘patination’ and used resins was executed in the past. For the current condition research the statue was divided into three different zones: the plinth with the feet were separate from the main body and another zone existed of 58 pieces, plus some extra pieces that could not be located as part of the statue (Figures 4- 6).