Lucca’s Holy Face: An Ancient Crucifix Finds Its Colors

The sculpture is assembled from a walnut body and separate arms. The body is hollowed behind; several wooden pins attach it to the cross. Its materials include paint, gilding, textile and glass-paste eyes. Conservation therefore asks how several different substances have aged together, rather than treating the work as a single untouched block. [SRC-01]

Looking at this construction does not make the image less arresting. The hollow interior, joins and painted surfaces bring the anonymous workshop into view. The object required skilled choices about weight, structure and expression, and later caretakers inherited the responsibility of keeping those choices physically stable. [SRC-01]

The cathedral’s account attributes the narrative to the deacon Leobino. Nicodemus supposedly carved the body but dared not fashion the face, which was completed by divine agency. After centuries hidden in Palestine, the image traveled on an uncrewed ship; Lucca’s bishop was guided to receive it. The account gives 742 for that voyage. [SRC-04]

The Gospel places Nicodemus at Jesus’ burial, bringing spices. It does not describe him carving a crucifix. The later legend connects a beloved image with a named person close to the Passion; it is a devotional origin story, not a contemporary workshop record. [SRC-07; SRC-04]

INFN’s laboratory tested three wood samples and a fragment of textile used in preparing the sculpture’s surface. The textile yielded 770–880 CE at 68 percent probability, and the wood results were compatible. The laboratory explained why textile matters: wood can be older than the moment an artist uses it. [SRC-02]

Radiocarbon measures surviving carbon in once-living material. It does not detect a sculptor’s name or the day a chisel struck. Here, comparing materials from different parts of the work helped test whether the ancient age belonged to its construction rather than an isolated reused piece. The result supports an early medieval object without turning the legend’s calendar into a laboratory finding. [SRC-02]

In September 2025 the Opificio delle Pietre Dure announced completion of the restoration. It reported that the combined diagnostic work supported the ninth century, including tree-ring investigation of the associated cross. It also identified Roman glass reused to make the eyes—a history of old material receiving a new artistic purpose. [SRC-03]

The earlier project record describes radiography, microscopic paint studies and analysis of surfaces among the tools used. These methods answer complementary questions: structure, layers, materials and deterioration. Their convergence matters more than attaching an exciting age to one sample while ignoring how the complete object was assembled. [SRC-01]

Archbishop Paolo Giulietti’s 2025 interpretation emphasizes the Christus triumphans: Christ victorious, presented alive upon the cross. The recovered color helps make that theological reading perceptible again. It is the archbishop’s explanation of the image’s meaning, distinct from the conservation institute’s dating conclusions. [SRC-03]

The Catechism explains that veneration of sacred images reaches toward the person represented; it is not worship of the material itself. A Catholic can therefore contemplate Christ through a humanly crafted crucifix. Attribution to an apostolic witness is not required for the image to lead the viewer toward the Incarnation and redemption. [SRC-06]

Our reflection here is on the care needed to see hope without erasing suffering. The open eyes and clothed figure invite attention to a crucified Lord whose life is not exhausted by the instrument of his death. This is an interpretation offered for prayer, not a new historical claim about the sculpture. [SRC-03; SRC-06]

The restoration project reported the crucifix’s movement back into Matteo Civitali’s tempietto in May 2026, followed by the June announcement that visitors could again see it there from June 19. A tempietto is a small architectural shrine: here it gives the great figure a distinct place within the cathedral. [SRC-05]

That return is the latest stage in a much longer custodial life. The project’s dated notices let a visitor distinguish a photograph taken during treatment from the subsequent installation. For actual access, consult the cathedral’s current information; a historical account of the return should not become an indefinite opening-hours promise. [SRC-05]

The early medieval date conflicts with a literal first-century carving by Nicodemus. Yet it also overturns the once-prevalent view that the surviving image was a twelfth-century replacement. A careful account can register both changes and allow the object’s real antiquity to surprise us. [SRC-02; SRC-03; SRC-04]

Further specialist review of the complete sampling record, tree-ring analysis and paint chronology remains worthwhile. The public institutional findings already establish why the work deserves close attention: several investigations illuminate a surviving early medieval crucifix, whose subsequent layers are themselves part of a long history of devotion. [SRC-01; SRC-03]