A light patina with traces of copper acetate suggests a burial patina. Vertical tattoos on the forehead feature fragments of iron inlays on the two central incisions. Further tattoos extending from the mouth towards the back can stylistically be compared to a cat’s whiskers. These were, until recently, common among the Yoruba, though they are becoming increasingly rare. These features are significant, as ethnologists put forward the claim—for which there is little evidence—that the hairstyle is an ‘Ibo’ hairstyle and therefore a head of this type is the head of a slain enemy. This description, which haunts the literature, must surely be rejected. It is reasonable to assume that some heads had such a background, but the majority of known heads are to be regarded as purely commemorative, devoid of bloodlust. See Dorina Hecht’s text on a comparable head for further details.
It is interesting to note the trend towards naturalism in the depiction. Over the centuries, this type of commemorative head gradually evolved into an increasingly abstract representation. The neck, adorned with coral, still has a simple appearance on this head. By the 18th century, royal fashion had changed and the coral collar was sometimes pulled up over the mouth. The extent to which this indicates different hierarchies has not yet been researched.
If, in the coming years, certain erroneous stylistic descriptions established by ethnological scholarship are set aside as outdated taboos, this head will be of significance to research. It is regarded as one of the oldest of its kind and can thus be seen as the archetype of a stylistic classification.
0.5% aluminium in the patina was identified by Aventis in the accompanying analysis as silicate and interpreted as a surface impurity. 0.29% aluminium in the alloy itself was still deemed harmless in 1999. The analysis did not distinguish between silicate, oxide and native aluminium, which could play a role in future research.
What is actually important here is the following fact: shortly after the analyses were carried out, the unchecked claim took hold that the presence of aluminium, in whatever form, was clear proof of the object being ‘new’. (See: Age classification by P. Herrmann) As this claim was put out into the world by a television professor, it quickly gained traction among ethnologists, whose longing for recognition was satisfied by a compliant professor in the tradition of primitive professional snobbery. Prof. Dr Ernst Pernicka, whose expert reports were rejected in several court cases in the following years, thus opposed Dr G. Feucht von Aventis. A Mr Neunteufel, who took over the dissolved Aventis laboratory, acquired their expert reports at the same time. At the start of his work, he still followed the theories of Dr Feucht von Aventis, but eventually adopted Pernicka’s claim. It remains a mystery to outsiders whether, following his U-turn, he informed clients whom he had initially certified as possessing antique items that he had been mistaken and that their items must consequently and retrospectively be regarded as ‘new’. This is, however, highly unlikely, as he would otherwise have faced the prospect of legal proceedings.
The only significant factor regarding the commemorative head, apart from Kotalla’s TL, is therefore Aventis’s expert opinion. There is a strong suspicion that Neunteufel uncritically adopted Aventis’s analysis from the firm Antiques Analytics. It must therefore be regarded merely as an early indication of his professional incompetence and was published here as an exception solely for that reason. Whereas Aventis required only a tiny drill hole at the lower edge of the base, Neunteufel brutally sawed out almost a whole square centimetre from the historically significant object, thereby causing it unnecessary visual damage. He zealously applied this unqualified method of mutilation as a trademark to all objects entrusted to him.
This exceptional head was part of a historic agreement. It was listed under archive number 433 in a joint inventory compiled by the National Commission for Museums and Monuments and René David in 2001. This head, which was explicitly exempted from the claim of national cultural heritage, is thus one of the precursors to far-reaching clarifications. Subsequently, a number of artefacts from Benin, Ife and other cultures of southern Nigeria were issued with official export documents, thereby redefining the concept of ‘national cultural heritage’. Thanks to the efforts of René and Jean David and the legal battles fought by our gallery, new legal certainties have thus emerged for the trade and collectors. The fact that such a head is once again being offered for sale in Lomé in 2014 is a rare occurrence. |
