Lot Essay
This is a unique piece in our experience (though clearly there is, or was at one time, at least one other); Professor Philip Dark confirms that he has met no example of such a piece in the course of compiling his great archive of Benin art. Its uniqueness consists in the fact that it is the only known case of the use in bronze work of the well-known pattern developed by the Igbesamwan (guild of ivory-workers) for armlets in the same style as the large tusks carved with figures; see Forman and Dark, 1960, plate 53, which is also published in Read and Dalton, 1899, plate VI, fig. 3, in the form of a complete plasticine roll-out. This provides us with an excellent way to define in detail the differences between the subject matter of that ivory and this bronze. In the following concordance, each armlet is considered to have two registers which are, so to speak, dovetailed together, so that it is necessary to reverse the armlet when the description of each design complex is complete; the registers are named after the principal figures. Register of the Portuguese horseman, ivory: horseman in full profile to left with sword in belt and holding up a dagger in right hand; over, couchant to left, a leopard devouring hindquarters of a goat or antelope. Variations in the bronze: horseman's head is in three-quarter view, both eyes being visible, small barrel below horseman's feet, leopard is to right, leaf form engraved (probably in wax) next to the body of the prey, imported clay pipe engraved in horseman's mouth, small barrel engraved between reins and horse's neck, large fish upright in front of horseman, leaf form engraved in front of horseman. Register of the standing Portuguese, ivory: figure in full profile facing to right, with sword in belt and holding up a staff with both hands; over, couchant to right, a leopard (without prey). Variations in the bronze: figure's head is in three-quarter view, both eyes being visible, small barrel below figure's feet, tortoise and leaf form engraved by feet. The two registers then repeat exactly.
It will be noted that all the variations are in fact additions in the bronze, over and above the basic subject matter of the ivory. When style is considered, however, there is scarcely any point at which resemblance may be found between them. In general, the ivory style is very much more formal, while the bronze artist seems to have delighted in freedom. Partial analogues may be found in the pre-1897 rectangular wood seats (Read and Dalton, 1899, plate VIII, 4; Dark, 1962, plate XIV; Wolf, 1972, plate 32), in the coconut shells carved by small boys in the palace (Ling Roth, 1903, figs.229-232, 237-241), and possibly in an openwork bronze armlet in Dresden (Wolf, 1972, plates 26, 27). But by far the most convincing affinity with our armlet is found in the magnificently free-style altarpiece published by von Luschan, 1919, plate 92, long a source of puzzlement; it is no longer in Berlin, but was apparently disposed of before the war and is now in the Polish Ethnographical museum, Warsaw (Korabiewicz, 1966, plate 54). This fragmentary and battered bronze (described by von Luschan as a 'very thin casting') is of uncertain purpose, although possibly an altar of the hand (ikegobo), and is replete with wild animal forms including a leopard. The background is filled with stippling very similar to that of the armlet and the base is surrounded with similar rings to suspend small bells. The dominant figures have a rare and dashing panache and, given that they are all Bini rather than Portuguese, it may well be thought that it is from the same workshop, if not by the same hand, as the armlet. The date of both these pieces seems to be circa 1775-1850, to judge by the hatching of the eye borders of the horses (but not the men)
It will be noted that all the variations are in fact additions in the bronze, over and above the basic subject matter of the ivory. When style is considered, however, there is scarcely any point at which resemblance may be found between them. In general, the ivory style is very much more formal, while the bronze artist seems to have delighted in freedom. Partial analogues may be found in the pre-1897 rectangular wood seats (Read and Dalton, 1899, plate VIII, 4; Dark, 1962, plate XIV; Wolf, 1972, plate 32), in the coconut shells carved by small boys in the palace (Ling Roth, 1903, figs.229-232, 237-241), and possibly in an openwork bronze armlet in Dresden (Wolf, 1972, plates 26, 27). But by far the most convincing affinity with our armlet is found in the magnificently free-style altarpiece published by von Luschan, 1919, plate 92, long a source of puzzlement; it is no longer in Berlin, but was apparently disposed of before the war and is now in the Polish Ethnographical museum, Warsaw (Korabiewicz, 1966, plate 54). This fragmentary and battered bronze (described by von Luschan as a 'very thin casting') is of uncertain purpose, although possibly an altar of the hand (ikegobo), and is replete with wild animal forms including a leopard. The background is filled with stippling very similar to that of the armlet and the base is surrounded with similar rings to suspend small bells. The dominant figures have a rare and dashing panache and, given that they are all Bini rather than Portuguese, it may well be thought that it is from the same workshop, if not by the same hand, as the armlet. The date of both these pieces seems to be circa 1775-1850, to judge by the hatching of the eye borders of the horses (but not the men)