Thread by @isaiaha1001

Hey there. I’m a Grad student at UCSB in the Archaeology program studying for my PHD. I was tasked this year with finding the origin of this statue and would like to share my findings in a thread: Origins of the Mysterious Getty Statute

I'd like to offer some quick background. The statue currently sits at the J Paul Getty Museum @GettyMuseum in Los Angeles. This piece was gifted by a private collector to the museum in 1973 and has since remained in archives.

Knowing that I was going on a dig in Rome over the summer, the curator of the Getty Museum asked me to hypothesize regarding the origin of this statue. This question of provenance ultimately stems from the museums’ curators considering repatriating the statue back to Italy.

With this in mind, here are my findings regarding the Getty Statue’s provenance:

Starting with some analysis of the statue itself, the piece was made in the round and, evidently, is similar in appearance to a Cherub. The statue depicts a young boy looking downward seated atop a column.

Much like other Roman statues, this piece depicts the child in a timeless, lively pose. His face stoops downward as his quaffed hair sits delicately on his face. His youthfulness is reinforced by his noticeably chubby legs and round cheeks.

There are several apparent symbols as well. Firstly, the symbol of the butterfly is shown directly in the middle of the column. In Ancient Rome, the butterfly symbolizes a person’s soul and was used both on ceremonial coins and on tombstones.

The symbol of the bow lays right below and is another symbol commonly found on Roman coins as well. The boy represents the vitality and self-control of the Roman condition, a concept largely applicable to both Roman art and Roman culture.

Past the symbols, the boy seems to have a noticeable indented groove on his back where an extension to the statue once belonged. Given his close comparison to a Cherub and the prevalence of wings in Roman sculptures, I am inclined to think the groove slotted a wing piece.

Having a wing would mean that the Getty Statue could itself be a Putto statue. Given common depictions of putti throughout Roman art, I think the Getty Statue could be another depiction of putti art. However, I'm getting a bit ahead of myself.

Before making conclusions, I’d like to compare the Getty Statue to a few other pieces that I analyzed while I was in Rome over the summer. After making these comparisons, I’ll hypothesize about the context of this statue and attempt to place trace its origin and context in Rome.

Firstly, I’d like to compare this statue to the Primaporta Augustus. From my travels in Rome, I’ve gathered a bit of knowledge regarding the context of this statue.

Through his deterministic pose, Primaporta Augustus conveys an image of power and success for the Roman Republic. This message is further emboldened by the imagery on Augustus’ breastplate, which largely depicts the war that Augustus, the first emperor of Rome, won.

Comparing the piece to the Getty Statue, both works are made in the round and depict their subjects in motion. Both works succeed at capturing their subjects in a timeless sense of composure.

Notably, Primaporta Augustus features a figure of a putto hanging from Augustus' thigh. This iconography is instantly comparable to the Getty statue, as the Putti hanging from Augustus' cape is very similar in composition to the Getty Statue's subject.

Comparing their context, Primaporta Augustus was meant to commemorate the greatness of the very first ruler of Rome. The statue commemorates his victory over the Parthian empire, as explained earlier. It was initially unearthed in Livia Drusilla's (Augustus' Wife) Villa.

It is believed that the Primaporta Augustus is a marble copy of a bronze statue that Livia had in her home to celebrate Augustus' life and his victory in the battle.

By comparison, the Getty Statue may have served a similar purpose. Though this child was not a figure of war victories, his subjection through the statue may represent the memory or the essence of a young boy.

The symbols on the Getty Statue also largely compare to the symbols found on Primaporta Augustus, as the symbols adorned on both pieces add to their context within Roman folklore and history.

Given these compounding factors and similarities, it may be reasonable to assume that the Getty Statue's function served to commemorate the memory of a person. Both Primaporta Augustus and the Getty use symbols and ageless effervescence, portraying the essense of their subjects.

The next piece I'd like to compare the Getty Statue to is the Statue of a Seated Girl located at the Monetemartini Museum in Rome.

Like the Getty Statue, the Statue of a Seated Girl depicts a young girl in a timeless gaze. The sculpture is in the round and, as such, holds many intricate details.

The details in the sculpture capture youthfulness of the girl. Her arm is notably pushing into her chair as she supports herself, her shoulders at an odd obtuse angle, her hair pulled back tightly to focus the gaze on her focused facial expression.

This work evokes a similar sense of livelihood and youthfulness that the Getty Statue portrays. Both figures stare intensely at the ground and their irregular body positions give both figures a unique sense of personality and movement in the space they're displayed in.

Through my guided walkthrough of the Montemartini Musuem, I learned that the Statue of a Seated Girl was meant to be placed in a garden. All of her details could be greatly appreciated in that space. As such, she may have belonged to a wealthy villa in Ancient Rome.

I do believe that the Getty Statue may have served a similar function to the Statue of a Seated Girl. Many wealthy members of Roman society had statues like those analyzed here in their villa gardens.

Additionally, both works being in the round and depicting specific subjects leads me to believe they may have been commissioned for specific buyers, rather than created initially for public display.

With this in mind, I'd like to finish my hypothesis by theorizing on the origins and context of the Getty Statue.

During my trip to Rome, I participated in a dig at a site that we called "Casavanere". After our first day at the dig, we realized that we had begun excavating remains of a Roman Villa.

At this site, another team participating in the dig found several fragments of ancient marble statues, columns and funeral reliefs. Along with this, my team uncovered this mosaic. The mosaic, buried under clear fresco roof tiles, is vividly representative of Venus.

The symbol of the Putti depicted here are in tangent with the Goddess Venus, symbolizing their religious value within Roman culture.

With this historic find in mind, along with the finds of the other teams at the site, we've generally hypothesized that the Casavenere site was some sort of religious temple.

By comparison, I learned early in my trip to Rome that ancient temples often features specific features like an altar, statues and specific building layouts with regard to placement of columns . Here is an image depicting the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on Capitoline Hill.

What is the point in connecting these to the Getty Statue, you may ask? Well, I do so to say that I believe the mystery of the Getty Statue's provenance can be solved by understanding that its, contextually, the statue slots perfectly into a Roman temple.

Circling back to this detail, the symbol of the butterfly represents spirituality and the soul after death. As such, the Getty Statue makes perfect sense being at a site focused on sacrifice and religious celebration like a temple.

The Cherub's inherent connection to Roman culture, both through religion and iconography as represented by the Primaporta Augustus give reason to connect the Getty Statue specifically with a religious context.

Connecting back to the Statue of a Seated Girl, the context of the piece existing in the Garden and viewed communally connects directly to the Getty Statue as well, as its function in a temple would do the same for religious spectators.

Finally, the understanding that my colleagues found remains of marble statues at our Casavenere site vindicates the idea that statues like the Getty Statue were present in Roman temples and places of worship.

To synthesize, I've hypothesized that the Getty Statue represents the image of the Cherub from a religious context. As such, its provenance places it in the context of a Roman temple or place of worship. With this in mind, should this piece be repatriated to Italy from the US?

In my opinion, the lack of specific contextual knowledge outside of the theory that this piece functioned within a Roman temple context lacks concreate evidence to its entire provenance.

As such, I believe that this piece should remain in the US at the Getty Museum until further concrete evidence of its provenance is uncovered that will definitely place it at a specific site in Italy.

Thank you for reading this thread! Additionally, thank you to @ UCSB_Anthro and @GettyMuseum for the opportunities this summer to dig and to work on archival records. If you'd like to learn more about my work, please follow me for more threads like this.

@UnrollHelper