![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Benin Bronzes appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 October 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article contains a translation of Bronces de Benín from es.wikipedia. |
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.
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Benin Bronzes. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
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 {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) (pp. 204–205)
czar
22:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)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
[1].
Not olive garden (
talk)
15:29, 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
References
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. Witty lama 14:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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:" /info/en/?search=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)
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)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Cliffordhist (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Cliffordhist ( talk) 17:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Benin Bronzes appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 October 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article contains a translation of Bronces de Benín from es.wikipedia. |
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.
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Benin Bronzes. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
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 {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) (pp. 204–205)
czar
22:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)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
[1].
Not olive garden (
talk)
15:29, 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
References
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. Witty lama 14:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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:" /info/en/?search=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)
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)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Cliffordhist (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Cliffordhist ( talk) 17:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)