In 1980 the Auckland Institute & Museum received a bequest which included a small oil painting, “The Music Lesson”, noted as by Jan Steen, a Dutch artist active in the mid-17th century. However, there was doubt about this attribution, with the possibility the painting was by a contemporary or a 19th century pastiche of the 17th century Netherlandish style. With attribution of the painting unresolved, a technical art history survey of the painting was undertaken to inform understanding of when, where and who executed the painting. This included pigment analysis of the paint and dendrochronological analysis of the oak panel. Attribution of “The Music Lesson” to Jan Steen could not be refuted, but several hypotheses remain open, requiring further investigation of the artistic style. However, the use of specific pigments not used after AD 1700 and a terminus post quem date of AD 1623 for the oak panel provide clear indication of mid-seventeenth century Northern Europe in the period and place of manufacture. This aligns well with the composition, costume, and subject matter and rules out the likelihood of the work being a 19th century pastiche.

I te tau 1980 i whiwhi a Auckland Institute me te Whare Taonga ki tētahi waihotanga, me tētahi toi whakaahua hinu kei roto e kīia ana, “The Music Lesson”, e whakatau ana nā Jan Steen, tētahi ringa toi nō Hōrana i te puku o ngā rau tau 17, i mahi. Heoi anō, kāore i whakamanugia taua whakatau, ākene hoki he whakaahua o nāianei, he tāwhaitanga nō te rau tau 19 o te tātaitanga Hōrana i te rautau 17. Nā te mea i te tārewa tonu te whakataua o te whakaahua, i whakahaerehia tētahi rūri i te tinana o te whakaahua kia mōhio ai ki te wā me te wāhi i ahu mai ai te whakaahua, ki te tangata hoki nāna i mahi. Kei roto i tēnei mahi ko te āta mātai i te peita, me te mātai i ngā rīngi rākau i tōna mata ōki. Nā te tārewa tonu o te whakataua o te whakaahua ki a Jan Steen, i mate ki te rangahau anō i te tātaitanga o te ringatoi. Heoi anō, nā te whakamahinga o ētahi tae kāore i whakamahia i muri i te 1700, ā, nō te 1626 kē te ahunga mai o tōna mata oki, i whakaatu mai nō te puku o ngā rau tau tekau mā whitu i Uropi ki te Raki te ahunga mai o te whakaahua. E hāngai ana tēnā ki te hanganga, ki te kākahu, ki te tauira hoki, nā konā i kore ai e taea te kī he toi horihori nō te rautau 19.

Dendrochronology, Dutch painting, Jan Steen, material analysis, pigment, Quercus sp. panel, technical art history

In 1980, an ‘oil painting by Jan Steen, Music Lesson’ was accessioned into the Auckland Museum collection as part of a larger bequest of ceramic and art objects in 1979 by Miss Annie Tower Hay Boyd Cumming (1907–1987)¹ (Fig. 1). The small oak (Quercus sp.) panel painting (299 × 425 × 9 mm) depicts an interior scene of men and women playing instruments and socialising. The attributed artist, Jan Steen (c. 1626–1679) was seventeenth-century Dutch painter. In 1646 he left university and in 1648 paid a contribution as an apprentice to the newly formed Leiden Guild of St Luke (Chivers 2009; RKD Netherlands Institute for Art History 2024). He generated a large body of work and is most noted for his domestic and festive scenes, often with a wry, humorous element (Chapman et al. 1996; Smith 1883). The style, composition, and costume of “The Music Lesson” is similar to other paintings attributed to him. To the authors’ knowledge there are no other paintings by Jan Steen in public collections in New Zealand, making this a rare example of a significant artist of the mid-17^th century Dutch Golden age of painting in New Zealand.

There is a problem, however. The origin of the attribution of “The Music Lesson” to Jan Steen is unknown, based only on a note in the list of items bequeathed to the museum. And, as one of many items donated at once by Miss Cumming, it does not appear that further provenance for the painting was obtained at the time it was accessioned into the museum. More recently, research into the painting and enquiry abroad has raised further doubt about the attribution. One suggestion is that rather than being by Jan Steen, the painting is by a contemporary, as several other artists of the Dutch School also favoured such scenes of merriment. For example, a work by artist Anthonie Palamedesz (1602–1673; “Music Making Society” (Musizierende Gesellschaft) private collection), shows a similar style, setting and costume to “The Music Lesson” (Fig. 2). Alternatively, the painting could be a 19^th century pastiche of the 17^th century Dutch style.

Figure 1. 

Artist Unknown, “The Music Lesson”, from the Tamaki Paenga Hira Auckland War Memorial Collection. Courtesy of Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tāmaki, Senior Photographer, Jennifer French, 08-08-2023.

Figure 2. 

Anthonie Palamedesz (1602–1673), “Music Making Society (Musizierende Gesellschaft”), private collection. https://www.wikiart.org/en/anthonie-palamedesz/music-making-society#.

Why does the attribution of this small oak panel painting matter? For art historical paintings, verifying authenticity and artist attribution enables curators to distinguish between paintings executed by a specific artist (and their workshop), representative of a particular school and period, from copies ‘in the style of’ which were completed at a (much) later date, or from forgeries. It also enables accurate placement in a temporal sequence, demonstrating how the object illustrates or contributes to understanding of artistic, societal, and cultural change. In short, it affects the social, cultural, and economic value of the painting. And as Tummers and Erdmann (2022) show, authenticity and attribution also strongly influence a viewer’s perception of the work.

Determining authenticity falls within the art history discipline of ‘connoisseurship’, involving ‘the evaluation of the characteristic qualities, the dating and the attribution of works of art’ (Tummers and Edrmann 2022). Visual stylistic or characteristic features are commonly used to determine authenticity and attribution, but increasingly technical art history is also part of the process. This involves comparative analysis of the painting and investigation of the materials and processes used in creating the artwork, employing scientific techniques such as X-ray imaging, chemical analyses of paint and pigments, and dendrochronology. These approaches can provide independent evidence of the time period, method and place of manufacture. Several scientific approaches were employed to study the materials: Microscopy of the paint surface and samples to resolve paint layers, Scanning Electron Microscopy with Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) for identification of pigments using elemental spectral analysis; and dendrochronological dating of panel boards.

Further details of these techniques are given below. While common overseas (e.g., Klein 1998; Fraiture 2009), such detailed technical surveys of art historical paintings have rarely been published in Aotearoa New Zealand and, until this analysis, tree-ring dating of oak panel paintings had not been previously undertaken in NZ. The findings from this novel research aids placement of the painting within the broader cultural history of Netherlandish art and informs its socio-cultural value as part of the Museum collection.

How “The Music Lesson” came to be in New Zealand is uncertain. The donor, Miss Annie Cumming was from Dunedin, South Island, New Zealand. She was born in 1907, to James (1868–1946) and Mary Cumming (1868–1948). Both her parents were Scottish. Her father was a Professor of Theology who had emigrated to New Zealand circa 1892. He married Mary in 1895 and in the same year, Alexander Cumming (1895–1966), Annie’s brother, was born in Dunedin. Annie’s middle names (Tower Hay Boyd) link to her paternal grandmother Mary Cumming nee Boyd (1800–1875) and her great-grand parents, George Hay Boyd (1796–1838) and Mary Tower (1800–1875). George Hay Boyd was a Scot who died in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and was buried in the Dutch Reformed Church graveyard in Galle (Lewis 1913).

We know little more of Annie’s life except that she qualified to become a teacher in 1925 (NZ Gazette 1925) and at the time of her bequest to the Auckland Museum & Institute in 1979, was relocating to a retirement home. The full bequest was of a China cabinet, ceramics, jewellery, antiques and “items of historical value” (AIM 1979–1980). When B.D. Muir, Curator of Applied Arts, inspected the cabinet it was found to contain a range of art items including five miniatures, a silhouette, a bronze figure of Mercury, a portrait of Alexander Tower, a set of Derby porcelain, ebony jewel box and jewellery contents, a bound volume of engravings, and “The Music Lesson”. It is possible that the painting was passed through the Boyd-Cumming family and came to New Zealand from Scotland, maybe via Sri Lanka, although further evidence is needed to support this hypothesis. The only other mention of any pictures was a bequest of ‘all family portraits’ (Cumming 1977) to her niece Janet Flora Moes (nee Cumming). It is likely the portrait of Alexander Tower noted in the cabinet contents was part of this bequest as it does not appear in museum records.

In the first part of the survey, the construction of the panel and preparation of the surface for the image was studied, and samples of the paint were analysed using a Scanning Electron Microscope Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) to identify the layer structure and pigments. The layer structure provides information on how the panel was prepared while pigment analysis identifies elements used to make the paint. Paint recipes change through time as pigments come into or fall out of use, therefore, pigments are time-specific helping to constrain the period when a painting was created.

The painting was executed on a support made from two oak boards joined together, which were processed with hand tools leaving visible marks on the verso of the panel (Fig. 3). The join between the two boards had opened slightly, with some loss of wood due to collapsed insect channels and evidence of previous intervention by a conservator or restorer.

The painting, in oil on a white ground layer, was covered in a thick degraded natural resin varnish. Observation of the layer structure indicates that the panel had been prepared with a very thin layer of size, containing chalk, then a pigmented brownish preparation layer, likely applied to provide a smooth surface for the paint application. The pigments included chalk, iron oxides and a very small amount of lead white. In some areas there were impressions in the ground layer which look like the print of a palm suggesting the preparatory layer may have been applied with the palm or heal of the hand.

The panel’s preparation including the cut marks and preparation layers are indicative of mid-seventeenth century practice which we see in both works of the period and treatise documents from the period (Beauers 1692, cited in van Hout 1998; Kirby 1999):

“on the panel one applies a ground with a weak glue paint mixed with chalk; to cover the grain of wood. Having finished this, the chalk has to be scrapped clean and the panel made even and smooth, taking care however that the grain stays filled. Then one grinds umber and lead white very thick with oil, and one applies this first on the panel with a knife, then one smooths it with the hand three or four times depending on how even one wants it and thus it is suitable for a painter of an image, but for a landscape painter one takes black and mixes it with lead white” (Beauers, cited in van Hout 1998).

SEM-EDS analysis on selected pigments used in the painting identified lead white, lead tin yellow, vermillion and copper containing green (likely a Verdigris) and blue (likely azurite) (Fig. 4). For the purposes of dating, three pigments are of note as they have known terminus dates (Fig. 5). Lead tin yellow does not appear in paintings executed after 1750 and was not rediscovered as a pigment until the 19^th century. Although still used, azurite was largely replaced by indigo and Prussian blue post-1700 and is seldom seen after 1800. Verdigris is very seldom identified in paintings after 1700 (Ashok 1993). Collectively, the use of these pigments indicate that the painting was executed before 1750 and very likely before 1700.

Figure 3. 

The verso of “The Music Lesson” showing the saw marks running vertically across the upper plank (a) and the lower plank (c) A woven textile patch (b) covers the join between the planks. Courtesy of Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tāmaki, Senior Photographer, Jennifer French, 08-08-2023.

Figure 4. 

Paint analysis: a. Undertaking SEM-EDX analysis at the Auckland University; b. A small sample of paint taken from the feather at edge of loss, prepared as a cross section; c. Elemental Spectra from blue pigment indicating the presence of copper, indicating this pigment is likely azurite.

Figure 5. 

Frequency pattern of select pigments in European Easel Painting, after Herman Kuhn, AHVT I 005 (reprint, z r. 1973) translated by J. Tomaek, accessed on technologia artis 1/8/2019.

The second part of the survey focused on tree-ring analysis (dendrochronology) of the oak panel in order to provide specific information on the date and geographic provenance of the wood. Dendrochronology is based on matching patterns of tree-ring growth that are temporally unique but common to trees from a region that have grown at the same time and experienced similar conditions. It can provide exact calendar dates for the tree-rings in a wooden object, and because environmental conditions change with latitude and longitude, dendrochronology can also be used to identify the provenance of the wood through comparison of ring width series to reference tree-ring chronologies from different regions.

In Britain and Europe, art-historical dendrochronology is an integral part of interdisciplinary projects investigating paintings and artists (Fraiture 2009). There is good understanding of the Northern European timber trade and the geographic sources of oak used in panel paintings from the fourteen to seventeenth centuries (e.g., Bauch 2002; Eckstein and Wrobel 2007; Fraiture 2009, 2017; Wazny 2005; Daly and Tyers 2022) and dendro provenancing has been used by various researchers to identify wood of Baltic origin imported and used in the Netherlands and Britain (Hillam and Tyers 1995; Daly 2007; Fraiture 2009). Therefore, it was hoped that tree-ring dating of “The Music Lesson” could determine the age of the oak planks and indicate the likely provenance of the wood used to make the panel.

Panels used in paintings are usually constructed from boards of wood with the growth rings visible on two edges of the panel, in this case the left and right edges with the grain running horizontally. High resolution images of the panel edges were produced by the Auckland Art Gallery photographers (Fig. 6). Tree-ring widths were measured directly from the digital images using an on-screen measurement program WinDendroTM (Regent Instruments 2014). Insect damage on TML001 (repaired) and TMO002 initially suggested sapwood may survive on the panel but the presence of tyloses in the cells of the very outermost growth rings on both panels is diagnostic of heartwood only. This implies that the part affected by wood carvers may correspond to sapwood inclusion, also known as “moon rings”. Board 1 (TML001) had 188 measurable growth rings and board 2 (TML002) had 58 measurable rings. The outer (= most recent) 20 rings of each board were unmeasurable as they were affected by insect damage.

Crossmatching between the ring-width series showed near identical patterns, indicating that the boards were cut from the same tree (Fig. 7a). The series were averaged to create a 188-year two-timber sequence, which was calendar dated to AD 1410-1597 against a regional composite master chronology (Baltic3) and independent art historical tree-ring chronologies (Fig. 7b; Table 1).

It should be noted that the end date of AD 1597 does not correspond to the year the parent tree was felled. To get closer to the true felling date, the 20 unmeasurable rings and an estimate of the minimum number of sapwood rings expected to be present need to be added to the end date. The comparison of “The Music Lesson” two-timber sequence to a range of other art historical tree-ring chronologies shows high agreement with a group of oak chronologies referred to as ‘Baltic3’. This is oak sourced from a region probably to the southeast of current Lithuania (Daly and Tyers 2022). In this region, the minimum number of sapwood rings expected on a tree equals 6 (Sohar et al. 2012). Therefore, 26 years were added to the end date, indicating that parent tree was felled after AD 1623.

The trade in Baltic oak was extensive and it was exported to most countries in Europe (Wazny 2005). However, it is notable that no Baltic3 type timber has been dated to after the AD 1650s, when the timber trade was impacted by shifting geo-political situations across Europe, including outcomes of the Thirty Years War and the Polish-Swedish war of AD 1655–1660 (Zunde 1998–1999; Daly and Tyers 2022). This constrains the time of felling and the shipping of the panel wood to the Netherlands to a 28-year period between AD 1623 and 1650.

Figure 6. 

Composite image of the edge of both boards forming the panel (a). The boards were labelled TML001 and TML002 prior to ring width measurements (b). The white arrows indicate the direction of growth for TML001 (left) and TML002 (right). The orientation of medullary rays and growth rings was slightly tangential or oblique to the flat edge of the planks. Note the repair on TML001 and insect damage on TML002. The scale is cm.

Figure 7. 

a. Common period of overlap between TML001 and TML002 demonstrating similarity between the ring width sequences (t = 8.3; see the Table 1 caption for description of this statistic). The dotted line (TML) is the average of TML001 and TML002. b. Crossmatch between TML and Baltic3 (2021BLT2; Daly and Tyers 2022) across the common period of overlap (1410–1597 CE).

The painting “The Music Lesson” presented something of a mystery regarding its attribution. Was it really a work by the 17^th century Netherlandish painter Jan Steen, as was indicated when the painting was gifted to the museum. Or was it by a contemporary of Jan Steen’s or even a later 19^th century work in the style of a Dutch Golden age painting? The technical survey presented here provides three lines of independent evidence that sheds light onto these questions.

In the first instance, the scientific evidence rules out the likelihood of the work being a 19^th century pastiche. The paint analysis and tree-ring dating of the oak panel clearly indicate that the place and period of manufacture of “The Music Lesson” was mid-17^th century Northern Europe. The dating evidence aligns well with stylistic features of the painting, including the composition, costume, and subject matter.

This leaves the question of attribution. As indicated above, technical survey alone cannot prove attribution, requiring visual analysis of the painting (Tummers and Erdmann 2022). The scientific findings presented here do not wholly rule out Jan Steen. It could be, for example, an early work by this artist or potentially a later work, executed on a panel made from wood stored for a long period. Alternatively, it could be the work of a younger or contemporary painter. Fully resolving the question of attribution would require detailed investigation of the painting characteristics, which is beyond the scope of the research presented here.

Although in this study, we are not able to determine accurately the attribution of “The Music Lesson”, there are two positive outcomes from this research. First, we now know much more about the painting itself; not just of the painted surface, but also the elements from which it has been made. Each material used has its own source and history and related social political environment, which together enrichen our understanding of the time and place in which this painting was created. There is even a tantalising glimpse of the (possible) unknown artist’s handprint in the preparation of the panel. The second outcome is that this type of technical survey, combining analyses of paint and tree-ring analysis of the wood has not been previously undertaken in New Zealand. This makes our study of “The Music Lesson” a ‘first’ for New Zealand, demonstrating the potential of this approach for enhancing our understanding of such paintings held in our national collections and their social and cultural value.

With thanks to: Catherine Hobbis, Senior technologist, Faculty of Engineering, University of Auckland; Ian Tyers, Dendrochronological Consultancy Ltd, England, for testing the oak ring-width series against European art historical chronologies; Jennifer French, Toi o Tāmaki Auckland Art Gallery, for technical photography; Auckland Museum Collection Managers, Martin Collett, Manuscripts, for genealogical research; Anna Beazley, Applied Arts and Design, for access to the Cumming collection of jewellery; Rebecca Loud, Pictorial, for logistics; and to other museum and gallery staff, Harry Ricket, Bev Moon, Sarah Hillary, Mary Kisler. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments which helped improve the quality of the paper.

Auckland Museum Title Documentation Files

Tyers I (2019a) The tree-ring analysis of a panel painting: Winter Skating Scene. Dendro Co Rep, 1114.

Tyers I (2019b) Tree-ring analysis of American Art. European Decorative Arts & Sculptures & European Paintings from the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Dendro Co Rep, 1077.