A bronze sculpture - Plaque - Benin - Nigeria
07
days
18
hours
55
minutes
25
seconds
Current bid
€ 1
Reserve price not met
Expert
Selected by Julien Gauthier
A decade of experience in historical arms, armour, and African art.
Estimate € 6,400 - € 7,100
14 other people are watching this object
 | €1 |
|---|
Catawiki Buyer Protection
Your payment’s safe with us until you receive your object.View details
Trustpilot 4.4 | 136165 reviews
Rated Excellent on Trustpilot.
A bronze plaque from Benin, Nigeria, depicting a central high-ranking warrior unhorsing an opponent with attendants and musical instruments, measuring 48 cm high by 41 cm wide, weighing 10.5 kg, in fair condition.
AI-assisted summary
Description from the seller
The Benin bronze plaque presents a tightly composed martial scene in which a dominant central figure, likely a high-ranking war leader, has unhorsed his opponent and delivers a decisive sword strike. The fallen figure’s vulnerability is emphasized by his lower position and the forward thrust of the victor’s weapon, suggesting the imminence of death. Surrounding them are smaller attendants, rendered in hierarchical proportion, some bearing weapons, others musical instruments, underscoring the ceremonial as well as violent dimensions of warfare in the Benin Kingdom. The horse, whose head projects beyond the relief plane, heightens the dramatic immediacy and demonstrates a sophisticated manipulation of spatial illusion within the medium of cast brass. Please note that without thermoluminescence test, the attribution and datation are given for reference only, based on our knowledge in the field. The piece remains subject to authentication.
Technically, the plaque stands among the most accomplished examples of Benin relief work. The controlled variation in relief depth, the articulation of regalia, and the integration of figural and animal forms attest to the mastery of court guild casters working under royal patronage. Its preservation, aside from minor dents, allows for an unusually clear reading of surface detail and compositional intent.
Within the corpus accessible through Digital Benin, only a limited number of plaques display comparable narrative intensity and compositional cohesion. The scene foregrounds violence not merely as historical record but as a structuring principle of royal imagery. As Britta Hauser-Schäublin has noted in a widely discussed essay, such works invite reflection on the entanglement of aesthetic achievement and histories of violence, a perspective that resonates uneasily with interpretations of the Benin Expedition of 1897 and subsequent historiographic debates..
In her FAZ article, Brigitta Hauser-Schäublin argues against what she sees as an overly simplified moral interpretation of the Benin Bronzes and their restitution to Nigeria. Her central point is that the bronzes should not be viewed only as victims of European colonial looting, because they were themselves produced within a historical system shaped by warfare, slavery, and court violence in the Kingdom of Benin.
She describes the Kingdom of Benin as a powerful royal state whose wealth depended partly on military expansion and participation in the slave trade. According to her argument, the famous bronze plaques and sculptures were court artworks created to glorify royal authority and political power. For this reason, she claims that “blood sticks to the Benin plaques,” meaning that the objects are historically connected not only to colonial violence but also to earlier forms of violence within the kingdom itself.
A major concern in the article is the question of who actually receives the objects after restitution. Hauser-Schäublin criticizes the idea that the bronzes are simply being “returned to the Nigerian people.” Instead, she argues that many objects may ultimately come under the control of the present Oba of Benin, whose monarchy historically profited from the same systems of warfare and enslavement that produced the court’s wealth.
She also criticizes German cultural politics and the broader restitution debate for becoming highly moralized and symbolic. In her opinion, colonial guilt alone is used as the main framework for discussion, while the complex historical realities of African kingdoms are often ignored. She calls for more detailed provenance research that includes both colonial looting and the internal political and economic structures of the societies where the objects originated.
The article caused strong reactions. Critics accused her of relativizing British colonial violence, especially the violent British expedition against Benin City in 1897, during which thousands of artworks were looted. Others defended her position as an attempt to make the debate more historically nuanced and less politically simplified.
Hauser-Schäublin, Brittain der FAZ erschien am 12. Januar 2022.
In her FAZ article, Brigitta Hauser-Schäublin develops a fundamental critique of Germany’s restitution policy regarding Nigeria and the so-called Benin Bronzes. The starting point of her argument is the observation that the public debate has become heavily moralized, while historical complexity increasingly disappears behind symbolic political gestures. In political and media discourse, the return of the bronzes is often presented as a straightforward act of postcolonial justice. Her article challenges precisely this interpretation.
Hauser-Schäublin describes the historical Kingdom of Benin as a militarized court society whose economic and political power was closely connected to warfare, the taking of captives, and participation in the slave trade. The bronzes themselves are interpreted as representational court art created for a ruling elite that maintained its wealth and sacred authority through systems of violence. When the objects are discussed today exclusively as “looted art,” she argues that one must also consider the historical conditions under which they were originally produced. Her provocative statement that “blood sticks to the Benin plaques” refers to this entanglement of artistic production, political power, and human exploitation.
A central aspect of the article concerns the question of ownership after restitution. Hauser-Schäublin points out that many returned objects may ultimately fall under the influence of the present-day Oba of Benin rather than becoming broadly accessible public heritage. She therefore questions the assumption that restitution automatically represents a democratic return of cultural property to “the Nigerian people.” In her view, restitution can also reinforce existing dynastic or political structures and become part of contemporary identity politics.
The article further criticizes German cultural policy and the moral tone of the restitution debate. According to Hauser-Schäublin, symbolic acts of repentance increasingly replace nuanced historical scholarship. Provenance research, she argues, should not focus exclusively on colonial looting, but must also investigate the internal systems of violence, enslavement, and power that shaped the societies from which these objects originated.
The article provoked strong controversy. Critics accused her of relativizing colonial violence and reproducing argumentative patterns historically associated with colonial justifications. Supporters, however, regarded the text as an attempt to reintroduce historical complexity into a debate that had become politically and morally polarized. The intensity of the reactions demonstrated that the Benin Bronzes today function not only as artworks, but also as symbols within broader struggles over memory, guilt, ownership, and historical responsibility.
Hauser-Schäublin, Brittain der FAZ erschien am 12. Januar 2022
Selected literature
Hauser-Schäublin, Brittain der FAZ erschien am 12. Januar 2022
Hauser-Schäublin, FAZ-Artikel Mai 2023. „An den Benin-Platten klebt Blut“ bezieht,
Paula Girshick Ben-Amos, The Art of Benin
Barbara Plankensteiner (ed.), Benin: Kings and Rituals
Dan Hicks, The Brutish Museums
Kathy Curnow, “Benin Court Style and Iconography”
Digital Benin Project Database
Wolfgang Jaenicke, blog: "History, Restitution, and the Politics of Moral Retrospection"
CA45930
Text created by AI
Seller's Story
Wolfgang Jaenicke’s engagement with African art did not begin in the field or the marketplace but in a quieter, more inward space—among papers, books, and objects that belonged to his father. The archive on Germany’s former colonies was not arranged to tell a single story; it suggested many. It invited scrutiny rather than reverence, and it taught Jaenicke early on that objects are never mute. They carry time inside them—fracture and continuity held in the same form—and they ask to be read as carefully as texts.
For more than a quarter century, Jaenicke has worked as a collector, dealer, and intermediary, though none of these terms quite captures the shape of his practice. What used to be grouped, too casually, under the heading of “Tribal Art” has never appeared to him as a sealed or historical category. It is, instead, a set of living traditions, constantly negotiating the present. His academic training—in ethnology, art history, and comparative law—provided a grammar. The language itself he learned elsewhere. In Mali, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Togo, and Ghana, knowledge emerged slowly, through repeated encounters that hardened into relationships, and through trust built not all at once but over years.
Mali became the gravitational center of this experience. Between 2002 and 2012, Jaenicke lived and worked in Bamako and Ségou, where he ran Tribalartforum, a gallery overlooking the Niger River. The space resisted easy chronology. Sculptures and ceramics shared the room with photography, and works by Malick Sidibé—images of Malian youth in the 1970s, self-assured and exuberant—hung alongside older ritual forms. The effect was not nostalgic but clarifying: past and present did not cancel each other out; they sharpened one another.
The war of 2012 ended this chapter abruptly, as wars tend to do. But it did not dissolve the work. Together with Aguibou Kamaté, Jaenicke regrouped in Lomé, closer to the places where many of the objects originated and to the routes they continue to travel. Since 2018, Berlin has become another point on this map. Galerie Wolfgang Jaenicke now operates opposite Charlottenburg Palace, supported by a small team of specialists. Its focus rests, in particular, on West African bronzes and terracottas—materials shaped by earth and fire, and by forms of memory that resist easy translation.
What distinguishes Jaenicke’s practice is not only its geographical range but its internal tension. Fieldwork is paired with provenance research; commerce is treated as inseparable from responsibility. In collaboration with museums and scholarly initiatives, circulation is framed not as extraction but as an ethical process that remains unfinished. The aim is not to remove objects from the world and seal them off, but to keep them readable within it—to allow them to continue speaking, even as the conditions of their speech change.
------------
Galerie Wolfgang Jaenicke is a Berlin-based gallery specializing in West African sculpture, bronzes, terracottas, masks, and contemporary African art. It is directed by Wolfgang Jaenicke, whose work combines collecting, dealing, provenance research, fieldwork, and archival documentation.
According to the gallery’s own account, Jaenicke studied ethnology, art history, and comparative law and has worked in the field of African art for more than twenty-five years. His activities developed through long-term engagement in countries including Mali, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Ghana, and Togo. Rather than presenting African art as a closed historical category, he describes it as a continuing cultural tradition shaped by living communities and changing historical contexts.
A particularly important phase of his career was in Mali, where he lived and worked between roughly 2002 and 2012 in Bamako and Ségou. There he operated Tribalartforum, a gallery that combined historical African sculpture with contemporary African photography, including works by Malick Sidibé. The political and military crisis in Mali in 2012 led to the closure of this phase of activity.
Later, together with Aguibou Kamaté, Jaenicke continued working from Lomé, Togo, before establishing a gallery presence in Berlin near Charlottenburg Palace. The gallery places particular emphasis on West African bronzes, terracottas, Benin and Ife-related works, Nok sculpture, Dogon art, Baule sculpture, Senufo objects, and Yoruba material.
One distinctive aspect of Jaenicke’s public position is his repeated emphasis on provenance transparency and restitution debates. On several published object records, the gallery explicitly discusses issues surrounding export documentation, UNESCO conventions, ownership histories, and communication with scholars and restitution researchers. These statements reflect broader contemporary debates about the circulation of African cultural heritage, legality, collecting history, and museum acquisition practices.
The gallery maintains extensive online archives and catalogues documenting hundreds of African objects, including Benin and Ife bronzes, Nok terracottas, Dogon sculptures, Baule figures, Fon objects, Moba figures, and other West African material.
For researchers interested in the history of the African art trade, Jaenicke represents a later generation of dealers compared with figures such as John J. Klejman. Whereas Klejman belonged to the postwar New York market of the 1950s–1970s, Jaenicke’s work has been shaped by contemporary concerns with field documentation, provenance research, restitution discussions, digital archives, and direct engagement with West African networks and artists.
This text is based on AI Information
The Benin bronze plaque presents a tightly composed martial scene in which a dominant central figure, likely a high-ranking war leader, has unhorsed his opponent and delivers a decisive sword strike. The fallen figure’s vulnerability is emphasized by his lower position and the forward thrust of the victor’s weapon, suggesting the imminence of death. Surrounding them are smaller attendants, rendered in hierarchical proportion, some bearing weapons, others musical instruments, underscoring the ceremonial as well as violent dimensions of warfare in the Benin Kingdom. The horse, whose head projects beyond the relief plane, heightens the dramatic immediacy and demonstrates a sophisticated manipulation of spatial illusion within the medium of cast brass. Please note that without thermoluminescence test, the attribution and datation are given for reference only, based on our knowledge in the field. The piece remains subject to authentication.
Technically, the plaque stands among the most accomplished examples of Benin relief work. The controlled variation in relief depth, the articulation of regalia, and the integration of figural and animal forms attest to the mastery of court guild casters working under royal patronage. Its preservation, aside from minor dents, allows for an unusually clear reading of surface detail and compositional intent.
Within the corpus accessible through Digital Benin, only a limited number of plaques display comparable narrative intensity and compositional cohesion. The scene foregrounds violence not merely as historical record but as a structuring principle of royal imagery. As Britta Hauser-Schäublin has noted in a widely discussed essay, such works invite reflection on the entanglement of aesthetic achievement and histories of violence, a perspective that resonates uneasily with interpretations of the Benin Expedition of 1897 and subsequent historiographic debates..
In her FAZ article, Brigitta Hauser-Schäublin argues against what she sees as an overly simplified moral interpretation of the Benin Bronzes and their restitution to Nigeria. Her central point is that the bronzes should not be viewed only as victims of European colonial looting, because they were themselves produced within a historical system shaped by warfare, slavery, and court violence in the Kingdom of Benin.
She describes the Kingdom of Benin as a powerful royal state whose wealth depended partly on military expansion and participation in the slave trade. According to her argument, the famous bronze plaques and sculptures were court artworks created to glorify royal authority and political power. For this reason, she claims that “blood sticks to the Benin plaques,” meaning that the objects are historically connected not only to colonial violence but also to earlier forms of violence within the kingdom itself.
A major concern in the article is the question of who actually receives the objects after restitution. Hauser-Schäublin criticizes the idea that the bronzes are simply being “returned to the Nigerian people.” Instead, she argues that many objects may ultimately come under the control of the present Oba of Benin, whose monarchy historically profited from the same systems of warfare and enslavement that produced the court’s wealth.
She also criticizes German cultural politics and the broader restitution debate for becoming highly moralized and symbolic. In her opinion, colonial guilt alone is used as the main framework for discussion, while the complex historical realities of African kingdoms are often ignored. She calls for more detailed provenance research that includes both colonial looting and the internal political and economic structures of the societies where the objects originated.
The article caused strong reactions. Critics accused her of relativizing British colonial violence, especially the violent British expedition against Benin City in 1897, during which thousands of artworks were looted. Others defended her position as an attempt to make the debate more historically nuanced and less politically simplified.
Hauser-Schäublin, Brittain der FAZ erschien am 12. Januar 2022.
In her FAZ article, Brigitta Hauser-Schäublin develops a fundamental critique of Germany’s restitution policy regarding Nigeria and the so-called Benin Bronzes. The starting point of her argument is the observation that the public debate has become heavily moralized, while historical complexity increasingly disappears behind symbolic political gestures. In political and media discourse, the return of the bronzes is often presented as a straightforward act of postcolonial justice. Her article challenges precisely this interpretation.
Hauser-Schäublin describes the historical Kingdom of Benin as a militarized court society whose economic and political power was closely connected to warfare, the taking of captives, and participation in the slave trade. The bronzes themselves are interpreted as representational court art created for a ruling elite that maintained its wealth and sacred authority through systems of violence. When the objects are discussed today exclusively as “looted art,” she argues that one must also consider the historical conditions under which they were originally produced. Her provocative statement that “blood sticks to the Benin plaques” refers to this entanglement of artistic production, political power, and human exploitation.
A central aspect of the article concerns the question of ownership after restitution. Hauser-Schäublin points out that many returned objects may ultimately fall under the influence of the present-day Oba of Benin rather than becoming broadly accessible public heritage. She therefore questions the assumption that restitution automatically represents a democratic return of cultural property to “the Nigerian people.” In her view, restitution can also reinforce existing dynastic or political structures and become part of contemporary identity politics.
The article further criticizes German cultural policy and the moral tone of the restitution debate. According to Hauser-Schäublin, symbolic acts of repentance increasingly replace nuanced historical scholarship. Provenance research, she argues, should not focus exclusively on colonial looting, but must also investigate the internal systems of violence, enslavement, and power that shaped the societies from which these objects originated.
The article provoked strong controversy. Critics accused her of relativizing colonial violence and reproducing argumentative patterns historically associated with colonial justifications. Supporters, however, regarded the text as an attempt to reintroduce historical complexity into a debate that had become politically and morally polarized. The intensity of the reactions demonstrated that the Benin Bronzes today function not only as artworks, but also as symbols within broader struggles over memory, guilt, ownership, and historical responsibility.
Hauser-Schäublin, Brittain der FAZ erschien am 12. Januar 2022
Selected literature
Hauser-Schäublin, Brittain der FAZ erschien am 12. Januar 2022
Hauser-Schäublin, FAZ-Artikel Mai 2023. „An den Benin-Platten klebt Blut“ bezieht,
Paula Girshick Ben-Amos, The Art of Benin
Barbara Plankensteiner (ed.), Benin: Kings and Rituals
Dan Hicks, The Brutish Museums
Kathy Curnow, “Benin Court Style and Iconography”
Digital Benin Project Database
Wolfgang Jaenicke, blog: "History, Restitution, and the Politics of Moral Retrospection"
CA45930
Text created by AI
Seller's Story
Wolfgang Jaenicke’s engagement with African art did not begin in the field or the marketplace but in a quieter, more inward space—among papers, books, and objects that belonged to his father. The archive on Germany’s former colonies was not arranged to tell a single story; it suggested many. It invited scrutiny rather than reverence, and it taught Jaenicke early on that objects are never mute. They carry time inside them—fracture and continuity held in the same form—and they ask to be read as carefully as texts.
For more than a quarter century, Jaenicke has worked as a collector, dealer, and intermediary, though none of these terms quite captures the shape of his practice. What used to be grouped, too casually, under the heading of “Tribal Art” has never appeared to him as a sealed or historical category. It is, instead, a set of living traditions, constantly negotiating the present. His academic training—in ethnology, art history, and comparative law—provided a grammar. The language itself he learned elsewhere. In Mali, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Togo, and Ghana, knowledge emerged slowly, through repeated encounters that hardened into relationships, and through trust built not all at once but over years.
Mali became the gravitational center of this experience. Between 2002 and 2012, Jaenicke lived and worked in Bamako and Ségou, where he ran Tribalartforum, a gallery overlooking the Niger River. The space resisted easy chronology. Sculptures and ceramics shared the room with photography, and works by Malick Sidibé—images of Malian youth in the 1970s, self-assured and exuberant—hung alongside older ritual forms. The effect was not nostalgic but clarifying: past and present did not cancel each other out; they sharpened one another.
The war of 2012 ended this chapter abruptly, as wars tend to do. But it did not dissolve the work. Together with Aguibou Kamaté, Jaenicke regrouped in Lomé, closer to the places where many of the objects originated and to the routes they continue to travel. Since 2018, Berlin has become another point on this map. Galerie Wolfgang Jaenicke now operates opposite Charlottenburg Palace, supported by a small team of specialists. Its focus rests, in particular, on West African bronzes and terracottas—materials shaped by earth and fire, and by forms of memory that resist easy translation.
What distinguishes Jaenicke’s practice is not only its geographical range but its internal tension. Fieldwork is paired with provenance research; commerce is treated as inseparable from responsibility. In collaboration with museums and scholarly initiatives, circulation is framed not as extraction but as an ethical process that remains unfinished. The aim is not to remove objects from the world and seal them off, but to keep them readable within it—to allow them to continue speaking, even as the conditions of their speech change.
------------
Galerie Wolfgang Jaenicke is a Berlin-based gallery specializing in West African sculpture, bronzes, terracottas, masks, and contemporary African art. It is directed by Wolfgang Jaenicke, whose work combines collecting, dealing, provenance research, fieldwork, and archival documentation.
According to the gallery’s own account, Jaenicke studied ethnology, art history, and comparative law and has worked in the field of African art for more than twenty-five years. His activities developed through long-term engagement in countries including Mali, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Ghana, and Togo. Rather than presenting African art as a closed historical category, he describes it as a continuing cultural tradition shaped by living communities and changing historical contexts.
A particularly important phase of his career was in Mali, where he lived and worked between roughly 2002 and 2012 in Bamako and Ségou. There he operated Tribalartforum, a gallery that combined historical African sculpture with contemporary African photography, including works by Malick Sidibé. The political and military crisis in Mali in 2012 led to the closure of this phase of activity.
Later, together with Aguibou Kamaté, Jaenicke continued working from Lomé, Togo, before establishing a gallery presence in Berlin near Charlottenburg Palace. The gallery places particular emphasis on West African bronzes, terracottas, Benin and Ife-related works, Nok sculpture, Dogon art, Baule sculpture, Senufo objects, and Yoruba material.
One distinctive aspect of Jaenicke’s public position is his repeated emphasis on provenance transparency and restitution debates. On several published object records, the gallery explicitly discusses issues surrounding export documentation, UNESCO conventions, ownership histories, and communication with scholars and restitution researchers. These statements reflect broader contemporary debates about the circulation of African cultural heritage, legality, collecting history, and museum acquisition practices.
The gallery maintains extensive online archives and catalogues documenting hundreds of African objects, including Benin and Ife bronzes, Nok terracottas, Dogon sculptures, Baule figures, Fon objects, Moba figures, and other West African material.
For researchers interested in the history of the African art trade, Jaenicke represents a later generation of dealers compared with figures such as John J. Klejman. Whereas Klejman belonged to the postwar New York market of the 1950s–1970s, Jaenicke’s work has been shaped by contemporary concerns with field documentation, provenance research, restitution discussions, digital archives, and direct engagement with West African networks and artists.
This text is based on AI Information
Details
Indigenous object name
Plaque
Ethnic group/ culture
Benin
Country of Origin
Nigeria
Material
Bronze
Sold with stand
No
Condition
Fair condition
Title of artwork
A bronze sculpture
Height
48 cm
Width
41 cm
Weight
10.5 kg
Sold by
GermanyVerified
protop
Rechtliche Informationen des Verkäufers
- Unternehmen:
- Jaenicke Njoya GmbH
- Repräsentant:
- Wolfgang Jaenicke
- Adresse:
- Jaenicke Njoya GmbH
Klausenerplatz 7
14059 Berlin
GERMANY - Telefonnummer:
- +493033951033
- Email:
- w.jaenicke@jaenicke-njoya.com
- USt-IdNr.:
- DE241193499
AGB
AGB des Verkäufers. Mit einem Gebot auf dieses Los akzeptieren Sie ebenfalls die AGB des Verkäufers.
Widerrufsbelehrung
- Frist: 14 Tage sowie gemäß den hier angegebenen Bedingungen
- Rücksendkosten: Käufer trägt die unmittelbaren Kosten der Rücksendung der Ware
- Vollständige Widerrufsbelehrung
