Talk:Benin Bronzes

Untitled
The term "TRIBAL ART" should not be used to discuss pre-developed art techniques as the word "tribal" denotes a small group of people, and not an underdeveloped state of technology or intelligence; though many such tribes of Africans hundreds of years ago did not have as developed cultures as today's societies the term is generally accepted as derogatory in the art history world.
 * That's why the term is used in a historical sense, to describe false assumptions made in the nineteenth century. Warofdreams talk 03:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Important collections

 * Some of the books on Benin art:
 * Paula Ben-Amos: The Art of Benin, Thames & Hudson, London, 1980. (Rev. ed., British Museum Press, London and Smithsonian Inst., Washington, 1995)
 * Paula Ben-Amos and Arnold Rubin (eds.): The Art of Power/The Power of Art, Fowler Museum of Cultural History, UCLA, Los Angeles, 1983.
 * Paula Girshick Ben-Amos: Art, Innovation and Politics in 18th Century Benin, Indiana UP, 1999.
 * Robert Elwyn Bradbury: The Benin Kingdom and the Edo-speaking Peoples of South-western Nigeria, London, 1957.
 * Robert Elwyn Bradbury: Benin Studies, London, 1973.
 * Graham Connah: The Archaeology of Benin, Oxford UP a. Claredon Press, 1975.
 * Philip J. C. Dark: An Introduction to Benin Art and Technology, Oxford, 1973.
 * William Buller Fagg: Nigerian Images, London, 1963.
 * Kunst aus Benin, (Sammlung Hans Meyer), Leipzig, 2002.
 * Joseph Marquart: Die Benin-Sammlung des Reichsmuseums für Völkerkunde in Leiden etc., Leiden, 1913.
 * Augustus Henry Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers: Antique Works of Art from Benin, London, 1900.
 * Barbara Plankensteiner (ed.): Benin etc. (Wiener/Berliner Katalog).
 * Thorsten Spahr: Benin. Künste und Traditionen, Mammendorf, 2006.
 * Thorsten Spahr: Benin. Bibliography, Mammendorf, 2006.
 * Frank Willett: Ife in the History of West African Sculpture, London, 1967.


 * Annie Coombes, Reinventing Africa, Yale UP, 1994


 * Weblinks:
 * perhaps slightly confusing, much information

England has Benin collections in London and Oxford, but lost most of the loot to the continent, then to the United States: Austria (Vienna)/Netherlands (Leiden)/Switzerland /(Basle, Geneve, Zurich) and Germany (Berlin, Hamburg, Leipzig, Dresden, Stuttgart, Munich and Cologne). USA: Chicago, Field Museum (early pieces; some given to the museum by A.W.F. Fuller), Philadelphia

Felix von Luschan at Berlin was a most important early collector and writer on Benin art. Source: catalogues of recent Berlin and Vienna Benin exhibitions.--Radh (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for reference - links on collections: —Brigade Piron (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * British Museum Sold Benin Bronzes Forbes
 * Bronzed Off The Economist

Page move
I've moved the page back to Benin Bronzes after its unilateral move a few weeks back.

Yes, there are bronzes from Benin that are not plaques like the ones we deal with here, but that doesn't mean that "Benin Bronzes" is not the WP:Commonname for them. Plus, if someone searches "Benin Bronzes", 99.9 times out of 100, this is what they are looking for. The "Benin Bronze plaques" distinction just creates added and unnecessary confusion! Brigade Piron (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Benin Bronzes. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.arm.arc.co.uk/CRBBinfo4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Wording in lede re. Portugese influence
The wording in the lede about the pre-existence of Benin metallurgy -- particularly in the third paragraph -- is something less than clearly written. To wit: "Initially and naively, it appeared incredible to the discoverers that people 'supposedly so primitive and savage' were responsible for such highly developed objects. Some even concluded that Benin knowledge of metallurgy came from the Portuguese traders who were in contact with Benin in the early modern period.  Today, it is clear that the bronzes were made in Benin from an indigenous culture. Many of these dramatic sculptures date to the thirteenth century, centuries before contact with Portuguese traders, and a large part of the collection dates to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It is believed that two 'golden ages' in Benin metal workmanship occurred during the reigns of Esigie (fl. 1550) and of Eresoyen (1735-50), when their workmanship achieved its highest qualities."  Most confusing here is the way that the date of first contact with the Portugese is stated -- "in the early modern period" -- a term that carries nearly no actual meaning to most readers. In fact, the first recorded contact between the two groups was in about 1484, which is well before the two "golden ages" stated. By omitting the actual year of Portugese contact, it gives the impression that Benin metallurgy had already reached its maturity before interaction with Europeans when no such thing has been established in the lede. I would like to see someone re-craft that section to give a clearer picture of the interaction with not just the Portugese but any other possible early influences upon Benin metallurgy, such as the neighboring Igbo-Ukwu, whose own metallurgical traditions predate those of Benin. Bricology (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There's other questionably-worded passages in the article as well; for example at the end: These great Benin artisans refined that technique until they were able to cast plaques only an eighth-of-an-inch thick, surpassing the art as practiced by Renaissance "masters" in Europe. Note how the word "masters" is mockingly put in quotation marks; especially I would note that European brass plaques were produced in a much different manner (fine engraving and not sculpted high relief) and comparison is thus out of place. 188.194.235.7 (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Good quote

 * "Probably no other form of African art is as well known as the brass figures and plaques of Benin." African Mid Sculpture, p.45


 * Also there's a good section on how the bronzes were stored in the British Museum's Museum of Mankind c. 1983 in (pp. 204–205)  czar  22:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussing the repatriation debates?
The Benin Bronzes were at the center of an extended and very significant debate about the repatriation of art. I don't have the background to write that section, but I believe it's noteworthy enough to be discussed at least briefly in this Wikipedia article. Jk180 (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There's an article in the independent called 'British museums may loan Nigeria bronzes that were stolen from Nigeria by British imperialists' that could be of use in expanding this page to include the repatriation question. Not olive garden (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned, rather briefly, as is the fact (not covered by most recent press) that 30 of them were returned, for cash, decades ago. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

An article that may be of some use for this is the 'Display, Restitution and World Art History: The Case of the ‘Benin Bronzes’ article by Paul Wood. https://doi.org/10.1080/14714787.2012.641854

"discovered" in infobox
The infobox artifact has three fields, currently used on this page, relating to the "discovery" of the Benin Bronzes, which result in the following text displaying:

Discovered: From 1897 on, Royal Palace of the Kingdom of Benin (in present-day Nigeria)

Discovered by: British forces

I do not believe it is appropriate to use the term "discovered" in this context. They were never lost - they were ransacked from where they were on display. It is appropriate to say in the infobox where they were from, and where they are now. But not to imply that they were 'discovered' - that is not NPOV term in this context. Wittylama 14:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Infobox Artifact template, clearly designed for single archaeological finds, is also singularly unhelpful in this article. Even if this issue is resolved, what exactly does it add for our readers to know that they are "mainly brass" and "mainly in the British Museum, others scattered around Europe and the United States"? These vague statements can be set out far more helpfully in the opening sentences of the article. I note it was only added to the article in the last few months. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also agree. I'm also rather dubious that the pieces all "decorated the royal palace of the Kingdom of Benin" - most yes, but were there no other sites? Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Dating
Testing so far has put the earliest items at the 16th century, should this be included in the article somewhere?Halbared (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Adjusted lead. Do you have a reference foer the tests? Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, that is not the case (it may be true for the plaques specifically but not for Benin bronzes in general). You would need a reliable source (WP:RS) to include a statement like that. Skllagyook (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is this paper. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337813323_The_Dating_Game_The_Scientific_Analysis_of_Benin_Copper-Alloy_Art-From_TL_to_Pb/fulltext/5deba21a4585159aa469d94e/The-Dating-Game-The-Scientific-Analysis-of-Benin-Copper-Alloy-Art-From-TL-to-Pb.pdf. The ones from the British Museum are from "at east the 16th century." https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/british-museum-story/objects-news/benin-bronzes.Halbared (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The paper does not seem to state that the earliest items are from the 16th century. It mainly discusses issues with dating Benin objects especially in private collections and collected late (some of the objects collected after 1897 are of uncertain date/context and forgeries occur in the contemporary art market, while most in museums derive from the 1897 invasion of Benin by the British). And seems to suggest an aporoach combining stylistic and scientific analysis ("art" and science). It is generally agreed that some sculptures/metal objects from Benin predate the 16th century (e.g. some being from the 13th-15th centuries) partly due to stylistic analysis (including the two dwarf sculptures, a few of the less elaborate/more naturalistic heads, and some other objects). (Though it may indeed be the case that the majority of the bronzes, including the plaques, collected/known are from the 16th century - i.e. 1500s - and later.)
 * As the paper says:
 * the Benin pieces’ content changed from “true brass to bronze” over time. It is now generally agreed that zinc content increased with time. Zinc was not found in the earliest bronzes, pre-sixteenth century. Changes in the making of copper alloys allowed the gradual increase in zinc from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century." (Page 7)(Though, as Craddock is quoted as saying, "The variation in zinc content between contemporary objects is too great for the data to be used to date individual objects.").


 * Here also below (from the Metropolitan Museum) it discusses the chronology specifically of the Benin bronze heads (which represented past kings), which were associated with a dynasty that began in the 14th century. The smallest heads with the thinnest walls tend to come from before 1500 (14th-15th centuries). Between 1500 and 1800 heads became increasingly larger and more elaborate. (The making of the heads began somewhat before the plaques.)
 * https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/bnch/hd_bnch.htm
 * Skllagyook (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"Most of the plaques and other objects were stolen by British forces.... "
Line in current lede. I question both its accuracy and NPOV. The bronzes were taken by British Forces during a punitive expedition, in retaliation for the massacre in January, 1897 of a British party intent on visiting (and perhaps overthrowing) the King (Oba) of Benin. The British party included 250 African soldiers, but their weapons were hidden in the baggage train. In a surprise attack, Benin military forces annihilated the British-led party. Only two Britons survived. The British promptly organized a punitive military expedition, which conquered Benin City and deposed the Oba in February 1897. Atrocities by British-led forces were reported, and the British Consul George Annesley had documented knowledge of same. He was later, per our article, "quietly pensioned off:" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin_Expedition_of_1897#Aftermath

Everything that the British forces found in Benin City that appeared to have any value in Britain was looted, and the Admiralty confiscated and auctioned off much the war booty to defray the costs of the expedition. Which is how many of the Bronzes reached Continental museums, and how West African art became a fashionable influence in early Modern Art. Soldiers have taken war booty for as long as there have been soldiers, and armies, and enemies with valuables worth taking!

So. I propose substituting "looted" for "stolen" in the lede, as an NPOV and historically-accurate alternative. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I've made that change before and now I've made it again. I agree that "looted" is a better word. Srnec (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Hope it sticks. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Looting versus stolen versus spoils of war
As was decided in the previous topic, I think "looted" is a more appropriate word than "stolen". However, I'd like to see more consistency within and across articles, and particularly improvement in NPOV. This article says that the bronzes were "looted" by British forces. On the other hand, we have German Leo Frobenius "collecting" works of art.

Compare this with the article "prize of war" In which enemy property is "legitimately" "seized", U-505 and a Confederate battle flag were "captured". US museums hold Iraqi military material. The mace of the government of Upper Canada was taken by US soldiers during the war of 1812; was that trophy a legitimate prize or loot?

In the article "looting", the synonyms used are "plunder" and "pillage". The German army "looted" Poland. Iraqi soldiers "stole" from private companies and homes in Kuwait. Later "looters" "stripped" the National Museum of Iraq while US soldiers stood by. The Bush administration said "stuff happens".

My impression is that the "history is written by the winners" trope is at work, plus some subtle POV. On the subject of returning a Confederate battle flag, Jesse Ventura asked "Why? I mean, we won." Perhaps the British museum should use that approach to those trying to shame the British into returning the Benin bronzes!

I don't have answers since acquisition of enemy property in wartime is a complex subject still being debated. But I would like to see more consistency and neutrality in the terminology. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the previous section, a "discussion" involving 2 editors over 6 hours, can be said to have "decided" anything. Personally, I'd prefer "seized" which I think is the term the BM itself uses. As I understand it, at least most of the bronzes were taken "officially" by the army, the soldiers involved following orders. Imo "looting" should be reserved for soldiers or others taking stuff for themselves, while law and order had broken down. This is the way the word is normally used, during civil riots etc, & I don't see why the usage under military conditions should be any different. Thus, in WW2, the most important German depredations were official seizures under orders from the Nazi hierarchy (Nazi plunder), but in the later stages of the war there was a lot of looting by all sides, and civilians, but especially the Russians. The Summer Palace near Beijing was I think actually looted by Western armies in 1910, though the article, perhaps oddly, uses "seized" in its very terse account.


 * It's notable that both the "Looting of ..." articles we have are somewhat dubious titles, especially Looting of Battleford (no, i'd never heard of it either). The Looting of the Eastern Mausoleum by a warlord evidently began as an organized military (and police) operation, but for individual gain, with senior officers getting first pick, then eventually the rank and file. Looted art is an indiscriminate mixture of all sorts of things (not mentioning the Summer Palace at all), often including archaeology in colonial times. I think we use the word far too often, and carelessly. I don't know much about Leo Frobenius and the German Inner Africa Research Expeditions but "collecting" seems the correct word, as in fact for the great majority of objects in most collections (except they do seem to have got a deal of rock art, presumably just by chipping it out). There seems to be a feeling among know-nothing social media types that all non-Western objects in museums were acquired by force or were otherwise immoral. In fact the great majority were bought from locals, or sometimes given by them. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that "looting" should be reserved for soldiers or others taking stuff for themselves, or at least that seems to be what the term most often refers to today. That said, "loot" was the contemporary term for the Benin artefacts (see here). I think it originally was just a synonym for "booty", "plunder", "spoils of war", but has since taken on even less savory connotations. Edward M. Spiers, "Spoils of war: custom and practice", in Dividing the spoils: Perspectives on military collections and the British empire, shows that these terms (plus "prize") were used more or less interchangeably at the time.
 * I just checked and I use the term "looting" in inconsistent ways between two recent articles. In the Carolingian Epistola consolatoria ad pergentes in bellum, "looting" translates rapinas and is clearly unlawful behaviour. In Siege of Silves (1189), "loot" is synonymous with "spoils of war" and is customary and subject to agreement. I just edited it out of the latter article in light of this discussion, but trying to force consistency is probably a losing battle. Srnec (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * in my reading about the 1750 to 1820 period, the most common term by far regarding individual soldiers is "plunder". Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "loot" only entered the English language in the 19th century. Srnec (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well sort of. Per OED, the word is of Indian origin, & most early uses of the various forms relate to India (with Indians as the looters). The actual earliest is 1757: "A body of their Louchies or plunderers, who are armed with clubs, attacked the houses of the natives". Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Digital Public History
— Assignment last updated by Cliffordhist (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Metal origin: Germany and slave trade
New source available (backed by scientific article) cclaim they were produced by melting Manillas from Germany. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/05/benin-bronzes-made-from-brass-mined-in-west-germany-study-finds Hugo en résidence (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's already been added to the lede. The discovery is not particularly radical. It's not all the bronzes, but many of those made after the period of trade with the Portuguese, and those which were already known to have been made from the metal of European manilas (which were then thought to have come from The Netherlands but are now, per the new study, instead thought to have come from Germany). Skllagyook (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Which Benin Bronzes have specifically been identified as having been made before the period of trade with the Portuguese; what techniques were used to date them? The lede has the sentence "Some erroneously concluded that Benin knowledge of metallurgy came from the Portuguese traders who were in contact with Benin in the early modern period" but the cited source in turn cites a local Benin legend. Is there any actual archeological or physical evidence beyond this? If so, it should be included in the lede. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Art historians and archaeologists have estimated the oldest to date from the 13th or early 14th century. The two court dwarf sculptures (these >) are considered examples of sculptures from the 14th to early 15th centuries. Aside from the local legend, there is evidence of early contact with (the Yoruba kingdom of) Ife (whose bronzes begin before Benin's), specimens of Ife sculpture have been found at Benin, and Benin culture contained many old Yoruba influences in religion, government, and art. I added a source on Benin's art and chronology. There is also Huera 1988. And I will try to find and read a full version of Meyerowitz to see if the aforementioned is discussed. If not, I will add other sources. Skllagyook (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just making a note here in case editors have the discussion pegged (I see it took place last year). The reference cited here says that such dwarves existed in Edo culture from 15th Century, which seems to rule out the 14th. Moreover, it speculates that one the figures might be of Ewuare 1, which means the reference accepts that they may both date from the later 15th century. I notice, too, that the new German metallurgical reference notes that more or less (or actually) ALL of the bronzes in collections in the West are made of metal which came from Germany. Like @Ischemia, I wonder where is the evidence of 13th/14th century production on any scale? Two figures which could have come from somewhere else and might just about have been produced around the time the Portuguese arrived doesn't really stand as evidence. I understand that there is no evidence of zinc being traded overland to Benin so while I accept that there may be earlier work made in Benin, it does seem that there would need to evidence of artworks made of the same material as the Benin Bronzes (which contain zinc) in order for them to be considered Benin Bronzes. If there's no evidence or suitable references in respect of these points, the article should be amended accordingly. Emmentalist (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Having read the full version of Meyerowitz, a period of Benin bronze making before the Portuguese arrival is discussed, including the mention of stylistic holdovers from the older influencing tradition of Ife. (The Portuguese arrived in the 1480s and trade with them began a few years after.)
 * From Meyerowitz:
 * "The bronzes of the king of Benin's collection may be divided into three kinds; those of the pre-Portuguese period [given as from "AD 1300-1500"], those from the period of 1500-1897, and those from the British period..." (Page 249)
 * Discussing (in the section on "Pre-Portuguese" arrival bronzes), an early plaque of the God Olokun, a god of Yoruba origin (the kingdom of Ife was Yoruba) and symbol of kingship in Benin:
 * "Plate 1A is apparently of great interest to us because it gives an early version of the badge on account of its style and decorative treatment"
 * Speaking of the same piece:
 * "Significant are the ancient Ife tribal Mark's on the face of the God instead of the Bini tribal marks, an indication that the bronze casters and people of that time were still conscious of the fact that this god, and the ancestors of their kings, once came from Ife." (page 249)
 * Of another piece: "The badge of office of the Shango priests [PLATE I, B], dates probably from the same period, that is roughly between A.D. 1350 and 1450." (Page 249) Skllagyook (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Meyerowitz seems to be referring to oral tradition. That seems to be true also of the Met note earlier which refers to the views of present Benin leaders' on the lineage of Obas and their relationship with the bronzes. Is a 1943 claim of an oral tradition enough to stand something up? It might be worth a reference but should probably be balanced with a qualifier. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) Emmentalist (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Emmentalist Which reference states that one of the dwarfs might be of Eware and where? That would be surprising (as it might imply that he was a dwarf). Also, please see my reply in your new topic below (I forgot to ping you there). Skllagyook (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Dates
My edits to the dates of the Benin bronzes have been reverted. Here is my thinking. All modern sources I can find refer to the Benin bronzes as made from 16th century. All the bronzes taken in the 1897 raid are so identified; last year all were described as being made from German metal exported from the very late 15th century. If we are to describe some as coming from much earlier, there needs to be some decent sources. I edited from 13th to 16th century because the only sources cited both said that (i.e. they were cited as saying 13th but in fact the text both said late 15th and 16th). My edit has now been reverted; the old citations remain (i.e. they now contradict the claim they are cited to support). In addition, two other citations have been entered. One is from a 40 year old book in Spanish out of print. The other is to an 80 year old book by an artist, not a historian who simply repeated local oral tradition (there is no reference to the part of the Spanish book which is relevant, and the book is not in English - the least we should expect according to WP:RS is that the relevant editor provides a quote in English of the relevant passage). But in the end, these are not sufficiently strong citations in the face of many, many modern sources. If we are to claim in this article that the bronzes date from 13th century, that simply must be supported by credible sources. Otherwise, we should say 16th century until such as time as such sources might become available. IMHO.Emmentalist (talk)
 * I believe Eva Meyerowitz was an anthropologist, rather than merely an artist. As far as I know, the 13th and 14th century start dates are based on art historical analysis (see my posts in the topic above on this page) - e.g. the increasingly greater realism and similarity to the older Ife bronzes in earlier periods, along with the tradition of early Ife artistic influence and the presence of Ife art at a Benin archaeological site. But I will go through the existing sources again and look for additional ones. Skllagyook (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Emmentalist Here is a relevant recent source. It describes an Ife bronze found at a Benin archaeological site dated to the 1300s and a Benin Bronze dated to about 1420 (page 91).
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=CU4lAnmnUhUC&pg=PA91&dq=Ife+bronze+found+at+Benin&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiT9pWzn5KEAxXQF1kFHR0CAr8Q6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=Ife bronze found at Benin&f=false


 * "The report of an early mission to the court of Benin in 1485 describes cast bronze objects as symbols of kingship. ... The figure of an Ooni of Ife, found in Benin, has been dated by thermoluminescence to AD 1325...[plus or minus 60] While a Benin plaque showing similarities to Ife and Tada work has been dated by the same method to AD 1420 [plus or minus 60]." (Page 91)
 * So this source dates Benin bronzes to at least the early 15th century (before the arrival of the Portuguese). I will look for more sources.
 * Skllagyook (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Skllagyook. I've looked at those new citations. A few thoughts. There's no doubt whatever that there are Ife artworks of 13th century. A reference to a single piece of Ife artwork being found 200 miles away in Benin is hardly evidence of a separate artwork tradition there; indeed it suggests the opposite. The second reference to 1420 is plus or minus 60 years (i.e. it includes 1480) and is now 40 years old; it came before new discoveries around the earliest transport of German metal to Africa (from 1470s). It also came before the certain dating of the earliest all the known Benin Bronzes in Western museums to shortly after that date. Again, this all suggests that author was correct but that the later end of the range she suggested applies today. On Meyerowitz, she was an artist. There is no reference anywhere I can find within WP:RS to any anthropological training. In those days, people tried their hand at things as enthusiastic amateurs. She relies on local oral tradition, which is clearly stated in her (now very old) book. The issue around early Benin pieces is that it appears to rely on oral tradition passing down the best part of a thousand years, which simply isn't acceptable as WP:RS source. Can I suggest something like this in the lead (then reflected in the main)?:
 * after 'Nigeria' (line 3). 'the artworks were created from the late 15th century using brass exported from Germany then transported by Portuguese traders. Local oral tradition in Benin is that earlier artworks found in Benin should be considered Benin bronzes'.
 * What do you think? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Emmentalist The presence of an Ife Bronze at Benin is considered to support the theory of the derivation of Benin's bronze sculpture tradition from Ife (as discussed in the source) before the arrival of the Portuguese. I was not implying that it constituted a separate tradition (I'm not sure I understand that comment - my apologies). It belonged to the Ife tradition. It was not a Benin bronze. The circa 1420 bronze however, is considered a Benin bronze. The pieces attributed by Myerowitz to the 1300s, and the dwarfs, are considered Benin bronzes as well (partly in stylistic grounds). I think to suggest that they might not be Benin bronzes or come from somewhere else would require some strong sourcing explicitly arguing that. Regarding mentioning the German source of the bronze in the lede, that seems unnecessary, as it is already covered in the relevant paragraph. Also, regarding your statement that the new study finds that all Benin bronzes were made with this German metal, can you cite where this is stated? What I was able to find does not seem to come to that conclusion but states that most were. It should be remembered that the great majority of Benin bronzes DO come from the late 14-1500s and later (as has been believed for a long time). Those estimated to earlier times have always been a fairly small minority of the corpus. So if all the pieces they tested were from that date, it would not be surprising and does not preclude older Benin bronzes (it has also long been known that the metal, or most of it, after a certain time, was brought by the Portuguese - previously thought to perhaps be from the Netherlands). If they do not claim it does, to state that (and/or imply that earlier objects traditionally attributed to Benin might not be from Benin) seems like it might be WP:OR.


 * From the conclusion (of the German metal study):


 * "Millions of these artifacts [the " manillas" discussed in the study] were sent to West Africa where they likely provided the major, virtually the only, source of brass for West African casters between the 15th and the 18th centuries, including serving as the principal metal source of the Benin Bronzes. However, the difference in trace elemental patterns between manillas and Benin Bronzes does not allow postulating that they have been the only source."
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10075414/


 * Benin bronze chronologies include those of Phillip Dark and William Fagg. I believe they start in the 14th century (Dark's earliest "type I sculptures) but I am so far unable to find accessable versions of their work to cite (will keep looking).
 * There are also the excavations and analyses of archaeologist of Graham Connuh at the Benin site of Clerk's quarters found bronze (or brass) objects dated to the 13th and/or 14th centuries. The " Content Analysis" section (including Figure 4.4) at the link below, referencing his work and others', mentions bronze/brass casting in Benin by the 13th century, before the European metal trade.
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=If3vDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT89&dq=clerks+quarters+bronze+Benin&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibtZT8u5SEAxVKEVkFHZmJCIkQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=clerks quarters bronze Benin&f=false
 * and (another link that may better show the book preview - it's in chapter 4):
 * https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Lower_Niger_Bronzes.html?id=If3vDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_entity&hl=en&gl=US#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * Skllagyook (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, @Skllagyook I think discoursing on Dark's classifications or Fagg's curatorly assessments would going into WP:OR. The wikipedia article on the Benin raid refers to the bronzes as those taken during the raid, NOT to ALL bronzes ever produced in Nigeria. My simple point here is that the five citations made to support the 13th century reference (which you've now edited to 14th) do no such thing. If you have stronger references then the place to put them is in the article, not here. There are five citations (presently; 3,4,5,6,7) given. The first two refer to 15th and 16th centuries, not 13th or 14th. The others are old books. One is in Spanish and no other info is provided; the other is 80 years old and cites an European artist herself citing local oral tradition. Elsewhere, the British Museum refers to the Benin bronzes as from the 16th to 18th centuries, and other suitable sources do the same. They do this in the knowledge that there was of course earlier artwork in Nigeria. They also do so in the knowledge that Benin bronzes continue to be made today. However, the term 'The Benin Bronzes' is used exclusively by news agencies and authors across the world to refer to specific artworks made in a specific style using specific material at a specific time and which were specifically removed from Benin by the British in 1897. https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/british-museum-story/contested-objects-collection/benin-bronzes No-one understands the term to mean anything other. There is of course discourse around how the bronzes were informed by the earlier artwork before the arrival of the Portuguese, but entirely different work from before and after the Portuguese period is simply not generally considered part of the Benin Bronzes. I should say that this confusion leaks elsewhere into the article, where the Church of England is said to have handed back two benin bronzes gifted by Nigeria to Archbishop Robert Runcie. In fact, those 'bronzes' were made shortly before they were gifted in the early 1980s. If we are to consider the odd Nigerian bronze prior to the arrival of the Portuguese as truly Benin Bronzes, that requires us to also accept that the Church of England truly returned two Benin bronzes - but that is of course absurd. It did no such thing; if we regard bronzes made today as Benin bronzes without distinction from those taken by the British, then we'd be preventing people in Benin from making bronzes today. That is why referring to bronzes outside the period cited by authorities like the British museum as Benin bronzes is misleading. It is perfectly possible to write the article in a way which credits Benin for earlier work leading eventually to the bronzes while recognising that the bronzes are themselves a discrete entity. I understand what you say about Dark, but we must also consider that Dark was writing about a relatively obscure artistic matter whereas today the idea of the Benin bronzes has taken on profound international and moral importance largely owing to the way they were removed from Benin. Hence my attempt to provide a better text. Emmentalist (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Emmentalist, You wrote:
 * "I think discoursing on Dark's classifications or Fagg's curatorly assessments would going into WP:OR. The wikipedia article on the Benin raid refers to the bronzes as those taken during the raid, NOT to ALL bronzes ever produced in Nigeria."


 * I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're saying here. The works by those authors (Fagg and Dark) explicitly concern bronzes from the Kingdom of Benin, not Nigeria in general (Dark's is "Benin Bronze Heads: Styles and Chronology"). I don't see how that is WP:OR. I am not referring to all bronzes ever produced in Nigeria and never did. (I don't know how you got that impression.) Fagg and Dark's classification systems concern the bronzes taken during the raid. But those not taken (but also made in the Benin kingdom), including those recovered archaeologically, are just as much Benin bronzes. The book I linked in my last reply also explicitly mentions bronze casting in Benin prior to the Portuguese metal trade (not the whole book but the section I mentioned). The recent article tracing the Portuguese trade metal to Germany, which I quoted, also states that said metal was the "principle source in Benin" (after the arrival of the Portuguese) but can't be assumed to be the only one. That study cannot be used as a source to preclude the existence of any Benin bronzes prior to the period it treats. Skllagyook (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, @Skllagyook. It's been interesting chatting and I do respect your opinions. There's quite a lot of words above, so let me just sum up my position. I have two substantive points. First, the terms 'the Benin Bronzes' is used virtually universally to denote the now cause celebre of artwork taken from Benin in 1897 and presently mainly in collections around the world. All of these are from 16th century, without exception. The "bulk" (see article) is not "from 15th century" but from the 16th century. Here is a typical museum usage of the term which emphasises this very point (The British Museum). https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/british-museum-story/contested-objects-collection/benin-bronzes. There's a small number of earlier works from Benin; I suggest that the Wikipedia article be written to reflect this, just as the museums do ("from at least the 16th century", which implies the existence of earlier art from Benin). This affects other parts of the article which, in my view, is written to emphasise the pre-existence of art in Benin and de-emphasise the obvious European influence on the actual bronzes in actual museums across the world and actually subject to much discourse today. Second, none of the references (presently 3,4,5,6 and 7) actually support the statement in the article they are designed to support - i.e. that the Benin bronzes began production in 14th century. In the end, I think it would be best if someone else came in to this discussion and took a view. [User:Charlie Campbell 28|Charlie Campbell 28]] (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Charlie Campbell 28 The term "Benin Bronzes" has historically often been used to refer to those taken in the 1897 (initially only to those) because it was through that event that the Western world (in the 19th century) learned of Benin bronzework. But I am not aware that currently other Bronzes made there are not referred to as "Benin bronzes" (now that others, both made both before and during the time of those taken in 1897, are known). If they come from the same culture and tradition, I don't see why they wouldn't be. Perhaps it could be added to the article that Benin bronzes were initially made known to the West via the 1897 raid, but that some other specimens made in Benin (in the Bini culture) have also been found. We seem to agree that the majority of bronzes come from the expedition and date from the 16th century but also that earlier bronzes were made in Benin (for which I have linked sources in this discussion). I'm not sure what you mean by obvious European influence though (except for, for instance, works that depict Portuguese traders). Bronze production greatly increased when the Portuguese arrived because they brought metals (which they traded to the Bini) that had been rarer in Benin before. But it's subjects, usages, and style are mainly local West African and related to things like the royal court (e.g. the heads and figures), the native religion, ancestor veneration, and other Bini practices, and comes from a broader and older West African tradition of sculpture for those purposes (sometimes expressed in metal). The practice of bronze casting in Nigeria predates European contact. And the Benin bronze tradition is generally thought to have derived from, and shares some themes with, that of the Yoruba kingdom of Ife (whose bronze sculpture mostly begins earlier) and also has some similarities to the even older bronze casting tradition of Igbo Ukwu. Skllagyook (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Mate, the Benin Bronzes is ONLY ever used in significant WP sources to denote the bronzes taken in 1897. If someone, or a museum, refers to the Benin bronzes it's entirely clear what they mean. It's the raid which creates the very concept. The existence of casting in Africa before then is a marginal matter for academics. The article should reflect that. I've no idea why you're so resistant to putting appropriate references in (re 3,4,5,6,7 for example). Cheers. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not referring only to the existence of casting in Africa before then, but also the existence of casting in Benin specifically (which I have linked sources for). I am confused as to how casted bronze objects from Benin do not qualify as Benin bronzes because they were not captured in the 1897 raid. What would they be? Do you have a WP:RS stating that only bronzes captured in the raid can be considered Benin bronzes? Yes, the raid initially created the concept because it introduced the Western world (or reintroduced, since there were older accounts) to the bronzes of Benin. But a bronze that was missed by the raid, for instance, would still belong to the same cultural phenomenon (and those captured were Benin bronzes before capture).
 * And I am not resistant to adding other sources to the refs you listed (including those I linked in this discussion).
 * One source I linked (below, page 91) mentions a Benin plaque dated to the 15th century. It does not specify whether it was taken in the raid (it could have been), but it certainly predates the 16th century. It also mentions early European visitors observing bronzes at Benin.
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=CU4lAnmnUhUC&pg=PA91&dq=Ife+bronze+found+at+Benin&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiT9pWzn5KEAxXQF1kFHR0CAr8Q6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=Ife&f=false
 * Skllagyook (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, @Skllagyook. I made a hilarious rookie error there! @Charlie Campbell 28 is one of my kids; She had signed in earlier to Wikipedia on my laptop in the kitchen and I didn't pay attention. I presumed it was my own login. The Charlie Campbell posts are from me; I'm not trying to pretend another editor is supporting my arguments! I am 100% sure she has no interest whatever in the Benin Bronzes! My apologies. As for the article, I think I'm trying to make too fine a point of principle and think you're probably right (for now....). Thanks so much for all your effort! All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of title 'Benin Bronzes'
As most the the plaques are not bronze, but brass, would it make more sense to name this page 'Benin Plaques'? Twigggie (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't invent our own names, and Benin Bronzes is very well established, as is loose use of bronze and brass, two terms without definitive definitions. Museums tend to catalogue both as "copper alloy" these days. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)