Overpaints: detailed study of the intervention areas
The Christ Carrying the Cross has undergone several overpaints, additions and alterations, examined here area by area through the study of the paint layer, X-radiography, multispectral imaging, stratigraphic analyses and craquelure, as a complement to the page devoted to the six phases of intervention.
How should this study be read?
The identification of an overpaint and its relative dating rely on the comparison of several types of evidence — craquelure, pigments, X-radiography, infrared imaging, stratigraphy and photographic states — with a varying degree of certainty. Where the chronology cannot be established with certainty, interpretations are presented as hypotheses, distinct from the material observations.
Main areas studied
- The halo: a later addition
- The crown of thorns
- The blood drops
- The beard and hair
- Christ’s robe and its borders
- The cross
- The Figure’s tunic
- The upper motif and the tunic button
- The lower motif added to the tunic
- The Figure’s right shoulder and neck
- “Smudging”: a lead-white intervention
- The black overpaint covering the Figure
- The 1960s restoration: uncovering the Figure
1. The halo: a later addition
The halo, represented by rays around Christ’s head, does not appear to belong to the Painting’s initial state. Several material observations converge in showing that it was added over an already aged paint surface.
The rays of the halo notably cover pre-existing craquelure. This superimposition is visible in raking light, macrophotography and under the microscope. A study carried out in 2024 by Conservation Cultural Heritage (Geneva) confirmed that the brushstrokes forming the halo pass over an already established network of cracks. This interpretation was also supported in 2025 by Ludovic Pauchard (Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS), a specialist in the mechanics and morphology of craquelure in old paintings.
Imaging further shows that the halo was painted over a brown veil that reduces the visibility of the wood grain of the cross. The relationship between the halo and the crown of thorns provides another chronological indication: some rays pass over elements of the crown whose underlying outlines remain perceptible in multispectral imaging.
These observations therefore indicate that the halo represents a later intervention than the initial execution. Its absolute date nevertheless remains uncertain.
→ See the detailed study devoted to the addition of the halo
2. The crown of thorns
“Dark brush strokes were added to the crown of spikes in order to enhance the contrast of the crown over the Christ figure’s forehead (see white arrows)” (M. Seracini, Repainting).
The crown of thorns, originally based on verdigris, appears to have been retouched with a dark-coloured pigment (white arrows). It should be noted that verdigris has turned brown over time.
3. The blood drops
“Original blood drops were reinforced with thin pink coloured brush strokes (see arrows). It should be observed that these new drops cover the craquelure mesh of the original paint layer underneath” (M. Seracini, Repainting, p. 4).
In the adjacent image, the overpainting of the blood drops appears orange and covers already formed craquelure. According to the analysis of sample no. 8, the blood drops, originally painted with red lake, appear to have been repainted using a vermilion-based pigment.
4. The beard and hair
Christ’s beard and hair, as well as the hair of the Figure, show characteristics indicating significant pictorial reworking. Christ’s beard was notably enlarged during the repainting phase.
Multispectral imaging highlights these three areas particularly clearly. In LAM 790 (2020), the beard and hair stand out distinctly from the rest of the paint layer. This comparable response has led to the hypothesis that they may have been reworked during the same phase of intervention.
This observation is consistent with Maurizio Seracini’s 2011 comment concerning Christ’s hair: “Notice how the hair of the later repaint phase (2) is covering the underlying layer of Christ’s flesh craquelure.” (M. Seracini, 2011). The hair overpaint is therefore later than the formation of craquelure in the underlying paint layer.
5. Christ’s robe and its borders
According to Professor Seracini, at the time of the repainting phase the red robe showed several paint losses, visible in X-radiography as dark areas. Macrophotography shows that these losses were reintegrated with a lighter, orange colour: “At the time of the repainting phase, the red robe had several paint losses […] a lighter, orange color was used to integrate the missing parts” (M. Seracini, Repainting, p. 7).
During the same phase, the lines and borders of the robe were also reworked: “During the same phase, the lines of the robe were reworked”.
6. The cross
The cross presents several localized overpaints. According to M. Seracini, certain areas are distinguished by a more pronounced reddish-brown colour and by the absence of the craquelure network visible in the older paint: “The paint layer of this part of the cross has a more reddish brown color and additionally, doesn’t show a mesh of craquelure” (M. Seracini, Repainting, p. 12).
7. The Figure’s tunic
The Figure’s tunic is one of the most complex areas to interpret. X-radiographic, infrared and stratigraphic data suggest the presence of at least two pictorial states: an underlying state corresponding to an earlier form of the garment, and a later intervention affecting some of its lighter areas.
In his 2011 study, Maurizio Seracini observed that the fine craquelure network visible in infrared reflectography in the area of the Figure did not appear in the same way in X-radiography. He inferred that the garment may have been painted when ageing cracks in the ground had already formed. He also noted that the craquelure network visible on Christ’s robe, showing characteristics similar to that of the ground, did not appear on the Figure’s garment.
This interpretation led to the possibility that the Figure was executed later than certain already aged layers of the Painting. A new reading of the images, however, calls for a more cautious conclusion. Several fissures visible in both X-radiography and infrared imaging appear to correspond to the same cracks, making the relationship between the crack network and the different paint layers more complex.
X-radiography also reveals a material containing lead white, applied thinly and irregularly over certain parts of the garment. Comparable traces are visible on the narrow pale band projecting at the neckline: brushstrokes pass over the green collar and locally appear to cover already established craquelure.
These observations therefore suggest a distinction between an earlier pictorial state of the tunic and a later intervention affecting some of its lighter areas. They do not, however, allow the exact extent of each state or their complete stratigraphic sequence to be established with certainty.
8. The upper motif and the tunic button
The geometric motif in the upper part of the Figure’s tunic also underwent several pictorial modifications, affecting both the decorative frieze and the button near the collar.
Multispectral imaging, particularly LAM 1069 (2021), clearly shows that the button was repainted and enlarged. An earlier, smaller form remains perceptible beneath its present state; the reworking mainly affects its left side and thus alters its original contour.
Analysis of the sample taken from this area identified lead-tin yellow in the button overpaint. Since the same pigment was also identified in the paint of the halo added later, this material correspondence suggests that the button overpaint and the addition of the halo may belong to the same phase of pictorial intervention.
9. The lower motif added to the tunic
The red and yellow motif visible in the lower part of the Figure’s tunic presents several indications that it was applied later over an already cracked paint layer.
Stratigraphic sample no. 6, taken in 2011 by Maurizio Seracini in this area, reveals a distinct red layer corresponding to the motif, composed in particular of red lake and red ochre. This layer lies over a layer containing lead white.
Macrophotographs further show that the red material does not remain only on the surface: it penetrates into some of the cracks. In 2026, this observation was specifically examined by Ludovic Pauchard (Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS), a specialist in the mechanics and morphology of craquelure.
10. The Figure’s right shoulder and neck
According to the Seracini report, the Figure’s right shoulder and neck were reworked during a repainting phase. This intervention is confirmed by X-radiographic analysis, which reveals an earlier pictorial state beneath the forms now visible.
Seracini states: “The right side of the shoulder and the neck of the female figure has been reworked, as confirmed by X-ray analysis” (M. Seracini, Repainting, p. 8).
11. “Smudging”: a lead-white intervention
Seracini’s 2011 study identifies a particular intervention, described as smudging, consisting of spreading paint by hand, notably with the fingertips. Several fingerprints are consequently visible in X-radiography.
This intervention uses a material containing lead white, mixed with various pigments. It is particularly visible around Christ’s mouth and chin, along the left side of his face, in the dark background, on certain fingers and along the edge of the forearm, as well as on the face of the Figure.
In the areas concerned, the smudging covers or strongly attenuates the pre-existing craquelure network and may obscure traces of brushwork. On the cheek of the Figure, this material also locally altered the contour of the face, producing the appearance of a second profile.
According to Professor Seracini, this intervention belongs to a pictorial phase later than a major campaign of overpainting.
12. The black overpaint covering the Figure
Before the restoration carried out in the 1960s, the Figure to Christ’s right was almost entirely concealed by a layer of black paint. Old photographs of the Painting document this earlier state before the Figure was uncovered.
This intervention profoundly altered the reading of the composition: the Figure disappeared into the dark background, while Christ remained almost the only visible figure. Removal of this layer revealed the Figure’s face, hair and a large part of the garment.
The date when the black layer was applied is unknown. Its appearance and integration into the aged state of the surface make it particularly difficult to identify through visual examination alone. It appears to have been an old intervention, although no precise date can currently be assigned to it.
13. The 1960s restoration: uncovering the Figure
At an unknown date, the entire background and the Figure on the right were covered by a layer of black paint. This layer was removed in the 1960s, but only from part of the Painting.
Comparison of photographs taken before and after restoration allows several observations:
- (A) The black layer covering the Figure was removed.
- (B) Remnants of this layer survive in the lower-right area. Christ’s little finger, visible before restoration, has disappeared.
- (C) The uncovering appears to have been particularly extensive and may have affected the underlying paint layer.
- (D) Removal of the black layer left a severely degraded area.
- (E) In the upper-left corner, the black layer was not removed.
- (F) Its removal revealed the underlying background.
- (G) Between the two photographs, a pictorial retouch appears in Christ’s hair; it is not mentioned in the restoration report.
The uncovering also appears to have affected part of the Figure’s curly hair and ear. Several losses of paint are visible in the background.
The report further states that the Painting was unvarnished and then revarnished. Varnish removal can affect superficial paint layers and possible glazes, but the available documentation does not allow the observed alterations to be attributed with certainty to this operation.
Conclusion
The study shows that several additions, reworkings and alterations succeeded one another over the history of the Painting.
Superimpositions, craquelure, stratigraphic analyses and X-radiographs make it possible to establish a relative chronology, without precisely dating most of the interventions.
The 1960s restoration provides a documented chronological marker, notably through the removal of the black layer concealing the Figure and a modern retouch in Christ’s hair.
Taken together, these observations lead to a proposed chronology in six phases of intervention, which may be refined by future technical examinations.