A wooden sculpture - Prampram - Ghana (No reserve price)
03
days
15
hours
41
minutes
16
seconds
Current bid
€ 7
No reserve price
Expert
Selected by Dimitri André
Holds a postgraduate degree in African studies and 15 years experience in African art.
Estimate € 450 - € 550
 | €7 | |
|---|---|---|
 | €6 | |
| €5 | |
Catawiki Buyer Protection
Your payment’s safe with us until you receive your object.View details
Trustpilot 4.4 | 143878 reviews
Rated Excellent on Trustpilot.
A wooden sculpture comprising two upright Prampram figures from the Greater Accra region of Ghana, with original/official authenticity and sold with a stand, height 34 cm and about 920 g in fair condition.
AI-assisted summary
Description from the seller
Prampram Sculpture
Origin: Greater Accra region, southeastern Ghana
Material: carved wood, coated with a light-colored finish and dark material
Date: undetermined in the absence of material analysis.
Description
The set consists of two upright human figures, carved in a very minimalist style and currently displayed on modern black pedestals. They are similar in their overall structure but not identical. The first has an ovoid head that is slightly flattened on the face, while the second has an almost spherical head. These cranial volumes, which are very large in proportion to the rest of the body, rest on long, cylindrical necks. The torsos are narrow, slightly curved, and extended by two slender, tapered legs lacking feet. The visible metal mounts around one leg and beneath the figures likely belong to the current museum display and should not be confused with original elements. The faces are rendered with extreme simplification. The eyes are indicated by small, deeply drilled circular cavities. The nose takes the form of a long, narrow, slightly protruding vertical ridge. The mouth is reduced to a small opening or a depression located at the base of the nose. On one of the figures, the face is contained within a subtly outlined oval or heart-shaped area; on the other, the features are carved directly into the round surface of the head. Lateral perforations may represent a simplified depiction of the ears, but some could also have been used to attach elements that are now missing. The shoulders are rounded and barely defined. The arms, short and slender, extend parallel to the torso, with the hands not distinguished as separate features. On the front surfaces, several small holes are arranged roughly over the chest, abdomen, and pubic region. Some appear to have been deliberately placed to indicate the breasts, navel, or other anatomical features; others may have held pins, ritual objects, or ornaments. However, the sexual organs are not depicted clearly enough to allow for the certain identification of a male and a female figure. The term "couple" may therefore refer to two associated figures rather than a gendered couple in the strict sense. The surface is dominated by an irregular white-gray coating, crisscrossed by black streaks, scuffs, scratches, and areas where the wood's natural color reappears. The marbled effect may result from the successive application of a light-colored mineral material and a black or carbon-based substance. It could also stem from subsequent cleaning, handling, or alterations. Visually, this surface gives the two figures a ghostly appearance and accentuates the geometric simplicity of their anatomy.
Scientifically Based Description
Based solely on the photographs, it is possible to identify the primary material as wood, but not to determine the specific species. The hypothesis that this is a monoxyl sculpture—with each figure carved from a single piece of wood—seems likely. However, this hypothesis would need to be confirmed by direct examination, particularly of the shoulders, arms, and legs.
The light-colored material should not automatically be identified as kaolin. It could consist of white clay, calcium carbonate, ash, a more recent coat of whitewash, or an organo-mineral mixture. The black material could be charcoal, soot, a carbon-based pigment, oxidized oil, or a modern paint layer. A reliable identification would require X-ray fluorescence, Raman spectroscopy, or infrared spectroscopy, accompanied by microscopic samples of the stratigraphy of the layers. The perforations must also be studied separately. The regular holes located at the eyes and along the axis of the torso appear to be intentional. The more irregular cavities could be the result of past attacks by wood-boring insects. X-ray or micro-CT scanning would make it possible to determine whether certain perforations communicate with internal cavities, whether they once held pegs, or whether they result from biological degradation. Wear, scratches, and variations in coloration indicate a complex material history, but they are not sufficient to date the sculptures. A heavily worn surface may result from prolonged ritual use, exposure to the elements, burial, artificial aging, or successive restorations. Carbon-14 dating could provide a timeframe for when the wood was felled, but it would not necessarily date the sculpture or its first use with precision. Scientific analysis should therefore combine the examination of the wood, pigments, organic residues, tool marks, and documentary provenance.
Historical-Artistic Analysis
The sculptural composition is based on a strong verticality: the head, neck, torso, and legs form a succession of simple volumes arranged along a single axis. The sculptor did not seek to faithfully reproduce human anatomy, but rather to preserve its essential features: a head, a gaze, a nose, a mouth, a torso, and limbs. This formal economy transforms the body into a presence rather than an individualized portrait. The emphasis placed on the head is one of the work's defining characteristics. The first head, flattened and ovoid, retains a certain frontal orientation, while the second, spherical, appears almost independent of the body. The long neck creates a distance between the head and the torso, reinforcing the impression of elevation and alertness. The pointed limbs and the absence of feet contribute to the dematerialization of the figures: they do not appear to be depicted as walking, but rather suspended between stillness, apparition, and movement. The slight tilt of the bodies gives the figures an unusual dynamic tension. They appear to be leaning forward or toward one another. This arrangement could stem from modern assembly, an ancient warping of the wood, or the sculptor's intention. In any case, it breaks with strict frontal immobility and establishes a relationship between the two figures. The contrast between the dominant whiteness and the black marks constitutes a major aesthetic element. This is not merely a superficial coloring: the applied material covers, transforms, and sometimes erases the carved details. The work thus combines two temporalities—that of the initial carving and that of subsequent interventions on the surface. In many African ritual arts, the surface is not simply a finish; it records the contacts, renewals, deposits, and manipulations that accompany the object's life.
The resemblance of these figures to certain highly simplified sculptures from northern Ghana, Togo, or Burkina Faso may be noted for comparative purposes: the same narrow bodies, oversized heads, and reduced limbs. However, this does not prove either a Moba origin or a direct migration of the type. A stylistic analogy cannot replace field-based provenance. Contemporary documentation on the "Prampram" corpus also acknowledges that certain attributions to southern Ghana and certain comparisons with northern traditions remain to be demonstrated. The historical context of Prampram is that of a coastal region engaged for several centuries in local and international trade. Archaeological research conducted in Prampram, Ningo, Kpone, and Sega shows that encounters between the Dangme people and Danish merchants—particularly between approximately 1650 and 1800—introduced new objects, materials, and practices into the local material culture. This history of exchange suggests that the region's sculptures should not be viewed as the products of an isolated or unchanging culture.
Ritual Function: Hypotheses and Limitations
The most plausible hypothesis is that these figures were originally kept in a family, lineage, or community shrine. They may have embodied an invisible presence associated with ancestors, protective powers, the memory of important figures, or forces under the stewardship of a priest or ritual guardian. However, they should not automatically be described as "statues of gods," since Dangme religious systems distinguish between spiritual powers, altars, their receptacles, and the objects that accompany them. Research by Nii Otokunor Quarcoopome shows that public Dangme altars possess both a visible and a secret dimension. Their efficacy depends not only on their appearance but also on their contents, location, consecration, and relationship to a community and an officiant. This observation allows us to view the two figures as possible components of a broader ritual system, rather than as autonomous sculptures intended for contemplation. Hugo Huber has documented purification and appeasement practices among the Dangme concerning individuals, houses, and localities, as well as shrines and certain sacred objects. Within this general framework, the repeated application of a light-colored material could be consistent with an act of purification, consecration, or renewal. However, this interpretation remains hypothetical as long as the composition of the coating and the context of its collection remain unknown. The arrangement in pairs may suggest several ideas: the complementarity of two principles, an association of ancestors, an alliance between lineages, joint protection, or a balance between two powers. None of these interpretations can be prioritized without local evidence. The figures may also have been paired after their collection due to their formal similarities. The absence of explicit sexual characteristics precludes automatically identifying them as husband and wife or as representations of fertility. The holes on the torso may have marked anatomical features considered significant, held small pegs, or served to attach perishable objects. They could also have contained ritual substances. Caution, however, dictates that we should not refer to them as "cavities for magical contents" until an internal examination has confirmed the presence of residues, stoppers, or embedded materials.
Historical and Artistic Assessment
This pair stands out for the coherence of its sculptural vocabulary: the monumentality of the head, the elongation of the neck, the reduction of the body, the omission of the hands and feet, the repetition of circular cavities, and the almost monochromatic pictorial treatment. The sculptor achieves a powerful presence with a very limited set of means. The artistic value of the pair therefore lies not in naturalism, but in the mastery of proportions, vertical rhythms, and the relationships between solid volumes and perforations. The two works should also be appreciated as objects that have undergone several stages of transformation. The carved wood represents the first stage; the white and black materials, abrasions, and any repairs constitute others. Their current appearance is the result of this cumulative history. Excessive restoration or cleaning aimed at revealing the bare wood would erase an essential part of this material memory. From a museum perspective, the set is of particular interest because it belongs to a body of work that remains poorly defined. Its documentation should therefore preserve these uncertainties rather than conceal them. The label "Prampram" is useful for classification, but it must be accompanied by the notes "proposed attribution," "undetermined function," and "field provenance to be confirmed."
Critical Bibliography
Huber, Hugo. "Adangme Purification and Pacification Rituals (West Africa)," Anthropos, vol. 53, 1958, pp. 161–191. A fundamental ethnographic study of Dangme purification rites, including a discussion of shrines and ritual objects; it also identifies Gbugbla–Prampram as one of the Dangme coastal communities
Quarcoopome, Nii Otokunor. "Thresholds and Thrones: Morphology and Symbolism of Dangme Public Altars," Journal of Religion in Africa, vol. 24, no. 4, 1994, pp. 339–357. An essential analysis of the relationships between artistic forms, altars, religious secrets, and authority in Dangme societies.
Quarcoopome, Nii Otokunor. *Rituals and Regalia of Power: Art and Politics Among the Dangme and Ewe, 1800 to Present*. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Art History, University of California, Los Angeles, 1993. A seminal study on the arts, priestly functions, and historical transformations of power among the Dangme and Ewe.
Biveridge, Fritz. "Archaeological Perspectives of the Danish-Dangbe Encounter along the Eastern Coastal Belt of Ghana and their Implications for Understanding Dangbe Culture," Ghana Social Science Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, 2016, pp. 119–156. An archaeological and historical study based in particular on research conducted at Prampram, Ningo, Kpone, and Sega.
Cole, Herbert M., and Doran H. Ross. *The Arts of Ghana*. Los Angeles: Museum of Cultural History, University of California, 1977. A general reference work that situates the sculptures within the broader history of Ghana's arts, shrines, symbols, and material traditions.
The publications mentioned serve for comparative art historical classification. They do not establish the specific cultural attribution, dating, or original use of the sculpture in question.
Copyright and Scientific Documentation
Some of the information and photographs have been generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence and are based on published sources in ethnography, archaeology, and art history. Original texts and photographs may be protected by copyright. All rights held by the respective copyright holders are reserved.
Inv. No. MAZ32704
Informant: Ouro
Height: 34 cm / 32 cm
Weight: 480 g / 440 g (incl. stand)
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
Prampram Sculpture
Origin: Greater Accra region, southeastern Ghana
Material: carved wood, coated with a light-colored finish and dark material
Date: undetermined in the absence of material analysis.
Description
The set consists of two upright human figures, carved in a very minimalist style and currently displayed on modern black pedestals. They are similar in their overall structure but not identical. The first has an ovoid head that is slightly flattened on the face, while the second has an almost spherical head. These cranial volumes, which are very large in proportion to the rest of the body, rest on long, cylindrical necks. The torsos are narrow, slightly curved, and extended by two slender, tapered legs lacking feet. The visible metal mounts around one leg and beneath the figures likely belong to the current museum display and should not be confused with original elements. The faces are rendered with extreme simplification. The eyes are indicated by small, deeply drilled circular cavities. The nose takes the form of a long, narrow, slightly protruding vertical ridge. The mouth is reduced to a small opening or a depression located at the base of the nose. On one of the figures, the face is contained within a subtly outlined oval or heart-shaped area; on the other, the features are carved directly into the round surface of the head. Lateral perforations may represent a simplified depiction of the ears, but some could also have been used to attach elements that are now missing. The shoulders are rounded and barely defined. The arms, short and slender, extend parallel to the torso, with the hands not distinguished as separate features. On the front surfaces, several small holes are arranged roughly over the chest, abdomen, and pubic region. Some appear to have been deliberately placed to indicate the breasts, navel, or other anatomical features; others may have held pins, ritual objects, or ornaments. However, the sexual organs are not depicted clearly enough to allow for the certain identification of a male and a female figure. The term "couple" may therefore refer to two associated figures rather than a gendered couple in the strict sense. The surface is dominated by an irregular white-gray coating, crisscrossed by black streaks, scuffs, scratches, and areas where the wood's natural color reappears. The marbled effect may result from the successive application of a light-colored mineral material and a black or carbon-based substance. It could also stem from subsequent cleaning, handling, or alterations. Visually, this surface gives the two figures a ghostly appearance and accentuates the geometric simplicity of their anatomy.
Scientifically Based Description
Based solely on the photographs, it is possible to identify the primary material as wood, but not to determine the specific species. The hypothesis that this is a monoxyl sculpture—with each figure carved from a single piece of wood—seems likely. However, this hypothesis would need to be confirmed by direct examination, particularly of the shoulders, arms, and legs.
The light-colored material should not automatically be identified as kaolin. It could consist of white clay, calcium carbonate, ash, a more recent coat of whitewash, or an organo-mineral mixture. The black material could be charcoal, soot, a carbon-based pigment, oxidized oil, or a modern paint layer. A reliable identification would require X-ray fluorescence, Raman spectroscopy, or infrared spectroscopy, accompanied by microscopic samples of the stratigraphy of the layers. The perforations must also be studied separately. The regular holes located at the eyes and along the axis of the torso appear to be intentional. The more irregular cavities could be the result of past attacks by wood-boring insects. X-ray or micro-CT scanning would make it possible to determine whether certain perforations communicate with internal cavities, whether they once held pegs, or whether they result from biological degradation. Wear, scratches, and variations in coloration indicate a complex material history, but they are not sufficient to date the sculptures. A heavily worn surface may result from prolonged ritual use, exposure to the elements, burial, artificial aging, or successive restorations. Carbon-14 dating could provide a timeframe for when the wood was felled, but it would not necessarily date the sculpture or its first use with precision. Scientific analysis should therefore combine the examination of the wood, pigments, organic residues, tool marks, and documentary provenance.
Historical-Artistic Analysis
The sculptural composition is based on a strong verticality: the head, neck, torso, and legs form a succession of simple volumes arranged along a single axis. The sculptor did not seek to faithfully reproduce human anatomy, but rather to preserve its essential features: a head, a gaze, a nose, a mouth, a torso, and limbs. This formal economy transforms the body into a presence rather than an individualized portrait. The emphasis placed on the head is one of the work's defining characteristics. The first head, flattened and ovoid, retains a certain frontal orientation, while the second, spherical, appears almost independent of the body. The long neck creates a distance between the head and the torso, reinforcing the impression of elevation and alertness. The pointed limbs and the absence of feet contribute to the dematerialization of the figures: they do not appear to be depicted as walking, but rather suspended between stillness, apparition, and movement. The slight tilt of the bodies gives the figures an unusual dynamic tension. They appear to be leaning forward or toward one another. This arrangement could stem from modern assembly, an ancient warping of the wood, or the sculptor's intention. In any case, it breaks with strict frontal immobility and establishes a relationship between the two figures. The contrast between the dominant whiteness and the black marks constitutes a major aesthetic element. This is not merely a superficial coloring: the applied material covers, transforms, and sometimes erases the carved details. The work thus combines two temporalities—that of the initial carving and that of subsequent interventions on the surface. In many African ritual arts, the surface is not simply a finish; it records the contacts, renewals, deposits, and manipulations that accompany the object's life.
The resemblance of these figures to certain highly simplified sculptures from northern Ghana, Togo, or Burkina Faso may be noted for comparative purposes: the same narrow bodies, oversized heads, and reduced limbs. However, this does not prove either a Moba origin or a direct migration of the type. A stylistic analogy cannot replace field-based provenance. Contemporary documentation on the "Prampram" corpus also acknowledges that certain attributions to southern Ghana and certain comparisons with northern traditions remain to be demonstrated. The historical context of Prampram is that of a coastal region engaged for several centuries in local and international trade. Archaeological research conducted in Prampram, Ningo, Kpone, and Sega shows that encounters between the Dangme people and Danish merchants—particularly between approximately 1650 and 1800—introduced new objects, materials, and practices into the local material culture. This history of exchange suggests that the region's sculptures should not be viewed as the products of an isolated or unchanging culture.
Ritual Function: Hypotheses and Limitations
The most plausible hypothesis is that these figures were originally kept in a family, lineage, or community shrine. They may have embodied an invisible presence associated with ancestors, protective powers, the memory of important figures, or forces under the stewardship of a priest or ritual guardian. However, they should not automatically be described as "statues of gods," since Dangme religious systems distinguish between spiritual powers, altars, their receptacles, and the objects that accompany them. Research by Nii Otokunor Quarcoopome shows that public Dangme altars possess both a visible and a secret dimension. Their efficacy depends not only on their appearance but also on their contents, location, consecration, and relationship to a community and an officiant. This observation allows us to view the two figures as possible components of a broader ritual system, rather than as autonomous sculptures intended for contemplation. Hugo Huber has documented purification and appeasement practices among the Dangme concerning individuals, houses, and localities, as well as shrines and certain sacred objects. Within this general framework, the repeated application of a light-colored material could be consistent with an act of purification, consecration, or renewal. However, this interpretation remains hypothetical as long as the composition of the coating and the context of its collection remain unknown. The arrangement in pairs may suggest several ideas: the complementarity of two principles, an association of ancestors, an alliance between lineages, joint protection, or a balance between two powers. None of these interpretations can be prioritized without local evidence. The figures may also have been paired after their collection due to their formal similarities. The absence of explicit sexual characteristics precludes automatically identifying them as husband and wife or as representations of fertility. The holes on the torso may have marked anatomical features considered significant, held small pegs, or served to attach perishable objects. They could also have contained ritual substances. Caution, however, dictates that we should not refer to them as "cavities for magical contents" until an internal examination has confirmed the presence of residues, stoppers, or embedded materials.
Historical and Artistic Assessment
This pair stands out for the coherence of its sculptural vocabulary: the monumentality of the head, the elongation of the neck, the reduction of the body, the omission of the hands and feet, the repetition of circular cavities, and the almost monochromatic pictorial treatment. The sculptor achieves a powerful presence with a very limited set of means. The artistic value of the pair therefore lies not in naturalism, but in the mastery of proportions, vertical rhythms, and the relationships between solid volumes and perforations. The two works should also be appreciated as objects that have undergone several stages of transformation. The carved wood represents the first stage; the white and black materials, abrasions, and any repairs constitute others. Their current appearance is the result of this cumulative history. Excessive restoration or cleaning aimed at revealing the bare wood would erase an essential part of this material memory. From a museum perspective, the set is of particular interest because it belongs to a body of work that remains poorly defined. Its documentation should therefore preserve these uncertainties rather than conceal them. The label "Prampram" is useful for classification, but it must be accompanied by the notes "proposed attribution," "undetermined function," and "field provenance to be confirmed."
Critical Bibliography
Huber, Hugo. "Adangme Purification and Pacification Rituals (West Africa)," Anthropos, vol. 53, 1958, pp. 161–191. A fundamental ethnographic study of Dangme purification rites, including a discussion of shrines and ritual objects; it also identifies Gbugbla–Prampram as one of the Dangme coastal communities
Quarcoopome, Nii Otokunor. "Thresholds and Thrones: Morphology and Symbolism of Dangme Public Altars," Journal of Religion in Africa, vol. 24, no. 4, 1994, pp. 339–357. An essential analysis of the relationships between artistic forms, altars, religious secrets, and authority in Dangme societies.
Quarcoopome, Nii Otokunor. *Rituals and Regalia of Power: Art and Politics Among the Dangme and Ewe, 1800 to Present*. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Art History, University of California, Los Angeles, 1993. A seminal study on the arts, priestly functions, and historical transformations of power among the Dangme and Ewe.
Biveridge, Fritz. "Archaeological Perspectives of the Danish-Dangbe Encounter along the Eastern Coastal Belt of Ghana and their Implications for Understanding Dangbe Culture," Ghana Social Science Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, 2016, pp. 119–156. An archaeological and historical study based in particular on research conducted at Prampram, Ningo, Kpone, and Sega.
Cole, Herbert M., and Doran H. Ross. *The Arts of Ghana*. Los Angeles: Museum of Cultural History, University of California, 1977. A general reference work that situates the sculptures within the broader history of Ghana's arts, shrines, symbols, and material traditions.
The publications mentioned serve for comparative art historical classification. They do not establish the specific cultural attribution, dating, or original use of the sculpture in question.
Copyright and Scientific Documentation
Some of the information and photographs have been generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence and are based on published sources in ethnography, archaeology, and art history. Original texts and photographs may be protected by copyright. All rights held by the respective copyright holders are reserved.
Inv. No. MAZ32704
Informant: Ouro
Height: 34 cm / 32 cm
Weight: 480 g / 440 g (incl. stand)
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
Ethnic group/ culture
Prampram
Country of Origin
Ghana
Material
Wood
Sold with stand
Yes
Condition
Fair condition
Title of artwork
A wooden sculpture
Height
34 cm
Weight
920 g
Authenticity
Original/official
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
