一件青铜雕塑 - 匾 - 贝宁 - 尼日利亞

08
21
小時
26
分鐘
47
開始競投
€ 1
未及拍賣品底價
Julien Gauthier
專家
由Julien Gauthier精選

在歷史兵器、盔甲及非洲藝術領域擁有十年經驗。

估價  € 6,400 - € 7,100
沒有出價記錄

Catawiki買家保障

在您收到物品前,我們會妥善保管您的付款。查看詳情

Trustpilot評分 4.4 | 136095 則評論

Trustpilot獲得極佳評等。

來自尼日利亞貝寧的青銅牌匾,描繪以中央高階戰領袖為核心的戰鬥場景,周圍有侍從與樂器,尺寸高48 cm、寬41 cm、重10.5 kg,狀況為一般。

AI輔助摘要

賣家描述

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

賣家的故事

沃尔夫冈·雅尼克的对非洲艺术的参与并非在田野调查或市场交易中开始,而是在一个更安静、内在的空间里——在他父亲留下的文件、书籍与物件之间。关于德国前殖民地的档案并非按照单一故事来编排;它暗示着多种可能。它更鼓励审视,而非崇敬,并早早教会雅尼克:物件从来不是沉默的。它们内部包藏时间——以同一种形式承载断裂与连续——并且请人像解读文本一样去读它们。 在二十多年里,雅尼克一直以收藏家、经销商与中介的身份工作,尽管这些称谓都未能真正捕捉到他实践的形态。那些曾经被随意地归在“部落艺术”范畴下的事物,在他看来从来不是一个封闭的、历史性的类别。它反而是一套活着的传统,不断在当下进行协商。他的学术训练——民族学、艺术史、比较法——提供了一种语法。语言本身则是在别处学到的。在马里、喀麦隆、科特迪瓦、布基纳法索、多哥和加纳,知识是通过反复接触逐步显现,这些接触逐渐发展为关系,并通过信任在多年里逐步建立。 马里成为这一经历的引力中心。2002年至2012年间,雅尼克在巴马科和塞古生活与工作,经营Tribalartforum——一间俯瞰尼日尔河的画廊。这个空间抗拒简单的年代顺序。雕塑与陶器与摄影作品共同占据同一个房间,马利克·西迪贝的作品——70年代马里青年自信而狂放的形象——与更古老的仪式形式并列悬挂。其效果并非让人怀旧,而是使人澄清:过去与现在并非彼此排斥,而是彼此锋利。 2012年的战争突然终结了这一篇章,像战争常有的那样。但它并未消解这项工作。与阿吉博·卡马特一起,雅尼克在洛美重新集结,地点更靠近许多物件的来源地以及它们仍在穿越的路线。自2018年起,柏林成为这张地图上的另一个点。Wolfgang Jaenicke画廊现对着夏洛滕堡宫对面,由一支专业团队支援。画廊特别聚焦西非青铜器与陶土器、材料由土壤与火、以及抗拒轻易翻译的记忆形式所塑成的物件。 雅尼克的实践之所以独特,不仅在于它的地理范围,更在于其内部的张力。现场考察与出处研究并行;商业活动被视为与责任密不可分。画廊与博物馆、学术机构合作,将流通框定为一种道德过程,始终未完结。目标并非将物件从世界中移除并封存,而是让它们在世界中保持可解读的状态——允许它们继续发声,即使发声的条件在变化。 ------------ Galerie Wolfgang Jaenicke是一家位于柏林的画廊,专注于西非雕塑、青铜器、陶土器、面具与当代非洲艺术。由沃尔夫冈·雅尼克掌舵,他的工作融合收藏、经销、出处研究、田野工作与档案文献整理。 据画廊自述,雅尼克 studied ethnology、art history 与 comparative law,在非洲艺术领域工作超过二十五年。他的活动在马里、喀麦隆、科特迪瓦、布基纳法索、加纳和多哥等国的长期参与中发展起来。他并不把非洲艺术呈现为一个封闭的历史范畴,而是描述为被生活共同体与不断变化的历史情境共同塑造的持续文化传统。 他职业生涯一个特别重要的阶段在马里,约在2002年至2012年之间,在巴马科与塞古生活与工作,经营Tribalartforum——一个将历史非洲雕塑与当代非洲摄影结合的画廊,其中也包含马利克·西迪贝的作品。2012年的马里政治与军事危机导致这一阶段的活动结束。 后来,与阿吉博·卡马特一起,雅尼克继续在洛美工作,随后在柏林靠近夏洛滕堡宫建立画廊。画廊格外强调西非青铜器、陶土器、与本恩(Benin)及伊夫(Ife)相关的作品、诺克(Nok)雕塑、洞贡(Dogon)艺术、鲍勒(Baule)雕塑、塞努福(Senufo)物件及约鲁巴(Yoruba)材料。 雅尼克公开立场的一大鲜明特点,是他反复强调出处透明与归还辩论。在多份公开的物件记录中,画廊明确讨论出口文件、联合国教科文组织公约、所有权历史以及与学者和归还研究者的沟通等问题。这些表述反映了当代关于非洲文化遗产流通、合法性、收藏史及博物馆收购实践的更广泛讨论。 画廊维护着庞大的在线档案与目录,记录着数百件非洲物件,包括本安与伊夫青铜器、诺克陶土、洞贡雕塑、鲍勒人像、冯(Fon)物件、莫巴(Moba)人像,以及其他西非材料。 对于研究非洲艺术贸易历史的学者而言,雅尼克代表了比约翰·J·克莱曼等人群体的后期一代经销商。克莱曼属于二战后1950s–1970s的纽约市场,而雅尼克的工作则受到当代对田野记录、出处研究、归还讨论、数字档案以及直接与西非网络与艺术家互动等关注所塑造。 本文本基于AI信息
由Google翻譯翻譯

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

賣家的故事

沃尔夫冈·雅尼克的对非洲艺术的参与并非在田野调查或市场交易中开始,而是在一个更安静、内在的空间里——在他父亲留下的文件、书籍与物件之间。关于德国前殖民地的档案并非按照单一故事来编排;它暗示着多种可能。它更鼓励审视,而非崇敬,并早早教会雅尼克:物件从来不是沉默的。它们内部包藏时间——以同一种形式承载断裂与连续——并且请人像解读文本一样去读它们。 在二十多年里,雅尼克一直以收藏家、经销商与中介的身份工作,尽管这些称谓都未能真正捕捉到他实践的形态。那些曾经被随意地归在“部落艺术”范畴下的事物,在他看来从来不是一个封闭的、历史性的类别。它反而是一套活着的传统,不断在当下进行协商。他的学术训练——民族学、艺术史、比较法——提供了一种语法。语言本身则是在别处学到的。在马里、喀麦隆、科特迪瓦、布基纳法索、多哥和加纳,知识是通过反复接触逐步显现,这些接触逐渐发展为关系,并通过信任在多年里逐步建立。 马里成为这一经历的引力中心。2002年至2012年间,雅尼克在巴马科和塞古生活与工作,经营Tribalartforum——一间俯瞰尼日尔河的画廊。这个空间抗拒简单的年代顺序。雕塑与陶器与摄影作品共同占据同一个房间,马利克·西迪贝的作品——70年代马里青年自信而狂放的形象——与更古老的仪式形式并列悬挂。其效果并非让人怀旧,而是使人澄清:过去与现在并非彼此排斥,而是彼此锋利。 2012年的战争突然终结了这一篇章,像战争常有的那样。但它并未消解这项工作。与阿吉博·卡马特一起,雅尼克在洛美重新集结,地点更靠近许多物件的来源地以及它们仍在穿越的路线。自2018年起,柏林成为这张地图上的另一个点。Wolfgang Jaenicke画廊现对着夏洛滕堡宫对面,由一支专业团队支援。画廊特别聚焦西非青铜器与陶土器、材料由土壤与火、以及抗拒轻易翻译的记忆形式所塑成的物件。 雅尼克的实践之所以独特,不仅在于它的地理范围,更在于其内部的张力。现场考察与出处研究并行;商业活动被视为与责任密不可分。画廊与博物馆、学术机构合作,将流通框定为一种道德过程,始终未完结。目标并非将物件从世界中移除并封存,而是让它们在世界中保持可解读的状态——允许它们继续发声,即使发声的条件在变化。 ------------ Galerie Wolfgang Jaenicke是一家位于柏林的画廊,专注于西非雕塑、青铜器、陶土器、面具与当代非洲艺术。由沃尔夫冈·雅尼克掌舵,他的工作融合收藏、经销、出处研究、田野工作与档案文献整理。 据画廊自述,雅尼克 studied ethnology、art history 与 comparative law,在非洲艺术领域工作超过二十五年。他的活动在马里、喀麦隆、科特迪瓦、布基纳法索、加纳和多哥等国的长期参与中发展起来。他并不把非洲艺术呈现为一个封闭的历史范畴,而是描述为被生活共同体与不断变化的历史情境共同塑造的持续文化传统。 他职业生涯一个特别重要的阶段在马里,约在2002年至2012年之间,在巴马科与塞古生活与工作,经营Tribalartforum——一个将历史非洲雕塑与当代非洲摄影结合的画廊,其中也包含马利克·西迪贝的作品。2012年的马里政治与军事危机导致这一阶段的活动结束。 后来,与阿吉博·卡马特一起,雅尼克继续在洛美工作,随后在柏林靠近夏洛滕堡宫建立画廊。画廊格外强调西非青铜器、陶土器、与本恩(Benin)及伊夫(Ife)相关的作品、诺克(Nok)雕塑、洞贡(Dogon)艺术、鲍勒(Baule)雕塑、塞努福(Senufo)物件及约鲁巴(Yoruba)材料。 雅尼克公开立场的一大鲜明特点,是他反复强调出处透明与归还辩论。在多份公开的物件记录中,画廊明确讨论出口文件、联合国教科文组织公约、所有权历史以及与学者和归还研究者的沟通等问题。这些表述反映了当代关于非洲文化遗产流通、合法性、收藏史及博物馆收购实践的更广泛讨论。 画廊维护着庞大的在线档案与目录,记录着数百件非洲物件,包括本安与伊夫青铜器、诺克陶土、洞贡雕塑、鲍勒人像、冯(Fon)物件、莫巴(Moba)人像,以及其他西非材料。 对于研究非洲艺术贸易历史的学者而言,雅尼克代表了比约翰·J·克莱曼等人群体的后期一代经销商。克莱曼属于二战后1950s–1970s的纽约市场,而雅尼克的工作则受到当代对田野记录、出处研究、归还讨论、数字档案以及直接与西非网络与艺术家互动等关注所塑造。 本文本基于AI信息
由Google翻譯翻譯

詳細資料

土著物品名稱
Plaque
族裔/文化
Benin
原產國
尼日利亞
物料
青銅色
Sold with stand
不是
狀況
狀況一般
藝術品標題
A bronze sculpture
Height
48 cm
Width
41 cm
重量
10,5 kg
德國已驗證
6417
已售物品
99,48%
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

類似物品

中的精彩好物

非洲與部落藝術