When Historical Narratives Replace the Biography of an Object
An artwork has a history. Yet this history does not reveal itself automatically. It must be reconstructed from traces, documents, memories, material evidence, and from the many fragments that an object leaves behind during its existence.
This reconstruction is particularly challenging in the case of African art. Many objects were created in societies where knowledge was not preserved exclusively through written records. Their meanings were transmitted across generations, ownership changed within complex social structures, and their paths often led through local markets, networks of exchange, private collections, and intermediaries before they eventually entered European or international collections.
The current debate on provenance research has undoubtedly brought important questions back into focus. It has contributed to a more critical examination of colonial collections and has helped reveal the historical circumstances under which many artworks left their original contexts. However, precisely because provenance research has acquired such significance, one fundamental question must be asked:
Under what methodological conditions is it legitimate to infer the provenance of an individual object from a broader historical context?
This question is not directed against provenance research. On the contrary, it is essential if provenance research is to meet its own standards.The term “myth” in this context does not refer to a deliberate falsehood. Rather, it describes a pattern of interpretation that, through continuous repetition, gradually acquires the status of an accepted fact, even though its empirical foundation may only have been partially examined. A myth emerges when historical plausibility becomes confused with object-specific evidence. This distinction is crucial.
The history of an event is not identical to the history of an object. An object possesses its own biography. This biography does not begin at the moment when it is registered in a European museum. It begins with its creation, its original function, its use, its changes of ownership, and the various stages through which it has passed until the present day.
Provenance is an essential part of this biography. But provenance is not the entire biography.
Among the 1381 Objekten, die von DIGITAL BENIN assigns to the “event of 1897,” no explanation is provided regarding the methodology used for this classification. Instead, the discussion focuses primarily on terminology and on the linguistic relationship between historical descriptions and possible “colonial expressions.”
In my view, only an extremely small number of objects – probably no more than a few dozen – could demonstrate a consistent and verifiable connection to the events of 1897 through object-specific evidence. Investigating this question in detail would be precisely the task of a provenance research that fully deserves the designation of a scholarly discipline.
Instead, the introductory discussion surrounding “1897” focuses largely on the question of how the event should be named, in order to avoid potentially discriminatory or inappropriate terminology. While the careful examination of historical language is undoubtedly important, the methodological priority should be a different one: to determine, on the basis of transparent evidence, which individual objects can actually be connected to this specific historical event.
Provenance on DIGITAL BENIN
British Colonial Military Campaign on Benin, February 1897
Description
The term "British Colonial Military Campaign on Benin, February 1897" was chosen to link the mentions in the museum data that explicitly indicate a relationship between a particular object and the events of February 1897.
How to name the capture of Benin City** **by British Navy Forces and members of the Nigerian Coast Protectorate Forces on the 18th of February, 1897, is of course an eminently complex and indeed political question and this expression was retained here for the sake of clarity but also to avoid other expressions. Indeed, in the data and in other publications one can still find the expression "Punitive Expedition" which was not retained for the obvious reason that it is a colonial term that refers to the manner in which the military invasion of Benin City was justified.
However you will sometimes find the expression "British Expedition on Benin" which is perhaps too euphemistic to be used as a general category but which sometimes was used for the sake of simplicity. One might also argue that the best way to describe the events of 1897 is simply to use the terms "war" or "invasion", as is often the case in Benin or Nigerian historiography. Several recent publications have gone back to these events and to the history of how they have been justified, discussed and presented (Hicks, 2020[119]; Phillips, 2021[122]; Docherty, 2022[123]).”
What is missing is a detailed African provenance history for the individual works of art featured in DIGITAL BENIN. A significant proportion of all the works of art examined within the framework of provenance research are not directly linked to the colonial era. This observation raises a fundamental question: are we today actually telling the story of African works of art – or, for the most part, the story of their reception in the West?
What is missing is a detailed African provenance history for the individual works of art featured in DIGITAL BENIN. A significant proportion of all the works of art under scrutiny in provenance research do not have a direct colonial context. This observation raises a fundamental question: are we today actually telling the story of African works of art – or, for the most part, the story of how they have been received in the West?
My own field research and many years’ experience in the West African art trade make it clear that, even in recent times, high-quality works of art have left their African countries of origin with the authorisation or tacit approval of state authorities. Such observations raise methodological questions that have so far rarely been systematically addressed in provenance research. They show that the reconstruction of an object’s history must not begin with European acquisitions, but must also take into account the institutional and distributional processes within the countries of origin.
What is missing is a detailed history of African provenance for the individual works of art featured in DIGITAL BENIN. A significant proportion of all the works of art examined as part of provenance research are not directly linked to the colonial era. This observation raises a fundamental question: are we actually telling the story of African works of art today – or, for the most part, the story of how they have been received in the West?
One example illustrates this problem. In the book by Bénédicte Savoy mentioned above, the Nigerian ethnologist Ekpo Eyo is depicted alongside a Yoruba veranda post from the workshop of Agbonbiofe Adeshina (Efon-Alaye, c. 1880–1945). For several years, a sculpture by the same master, or from his immediate workshop environment, has been part of the collection of the Wolfgang Jaenicke Gallery.
Both works belong to the same artistic tradition from the Ekiti region of Yorubaland. Yet we know very little about the African history of either object. Instead, the narrative focuses primarily on the historical context of their presence in the West.
In one case, the object functions as a symbol within the restitution debate, a cause that Ekpo Eyo strongly and persistently advocated. In the other case, we are dealing with an object that entered the Western sphere only relatively recently and has since been publicly exhibited. Even the identification of the carver or workshop was achieved through comparisons with Western museum sources and existing documentation.
These examples demonstrate that the history of the transfer of African art cannot be understood exclusively as a phenomenon of the colonial period. Complex legal and illegal processes of transfer have also existed and continue to exist after independence. These processes are relevant for the reconstruction of object biographies – particularly those aspects of these biographies that have traditionally been documented from a Western perspective.
The actual biography of an object remains, at best, fragmentary.
In most cases, however, its traces disappear even earlier – often in West African port cities or, more recently, at international airports. Precisely for this reason, the greatest methodological caution is required. Where sources are absent, uncertainty should not be replaced by historical plausibility.
Here is the English translation in the same academic-essay style as the surrounding text:
Another difficulty must also be taken into consideration. Numerous important African artworks have been, and continue to be, exported with official export permits issued by African authorities and national museums. Such documents have existed for decades and are well known to provenance researchers. They are equally part of an object's biography and deserve the same scholarly attention as Western museum inventories or colonial archival sources.
A recurring methodological problem is that “African cultural systems” – despite the justified criticism of older concepts such as those associated with Frobenius – are often unconsciously measured against Western categories. As a result, conclusions are drawn that overlook fundamental cultural differences in concepts of ownership, transmission, social value, and institutional structures.
The current debate risks reducing the history of African art to its colonial encounter and its documentation within Western archives. This creates an object biography shaped primarily by Western sources, while the African history of these objects remains largely invisible.
This, precisely, represents one of the central methodological challenges: how can we reconstruct the history of African objects without allowing the surviving Western documentation to become a substitute for the much broader and often less visible African trajectories of these works?
In its strict sense, provenance research has a clearly defined objective: it seeks to reconstruct the history of a specific object through verifiable sources. It does not primarily investigate the history of an era, a political system, or a historical event. Its subject is the individual artefact.
Who owned it? When did ownership change? Through which channels did it move?Which sources support these claims? Where such sources exist, a traceable object biography can be reconstructed. Where they do not exist, uncertainty remains. This uncertainty is not a failure of research. It is an unavoidable element of historical reality. The problem begins when uncertainty is replaced by a convincing narrative.
The Benin Bronzes illustrate this challenge particularly clearly.
The events of 1897 belong to the most significant chapters of African colonial history. The British military campaign against the Kingdom of Benin resulted in the capture of Benin City, the destruction of political structures, and the dispersal of numerous artworks into European collections. This historical reality is not in question. However, the history of this event is not automatically the history of every individual object connected with Benin. A Benin object may originate from the historical environment surrounding the events of 1897. It may have changed ownership during that period. It may possibly be directly connected to the British occupation.
But it may also have entered a collection through other pathways. Between a historical event and the provenance of an individual artwork lies a methodological step. That step requires evidence. Historical probability can justify a research question.It cannot replace proof. this distinction has become increasingly blurred in contemporary discussions.
The reconstruction of a historical context is sometimes treated as if it were equivalent to the reconstruction of an individual object biography. Yet these are two different fields of inquiry. Historical contextual research asks: What happened? Which political, economic, and social forces shaped these events?Provenance research asks: What happened to this specific object? These perspectives complement one another.
But they cannot replace one another. This issue becomes particularly visible when examining digital initiatives such as DIGITAL BENIN. The global integration of museum data represents an important achievement. Information previously scattered across different institutions has become accessible, creating new opportunities for research and collaboration. Precisely for this reason, however, the methodological basis of object classifications requires careful examination.
When objects are associated with historical events such as the British campaign of 1897, it must be transparent on what basis this connection is established. The historical importance of the event is beyond dispute.
The methodological question is different:
Which object-specific sources demonstrate the connection between this particular artefact and this particular event?
This is not a question about denying colonial violence or questioning historical responsibility. It is a question about the standards required when reconstructing the biography of an individual object. If an object is described as “probably looted from the Royal Palace during the British occupation of Benin,” the basis of this probability must be visible. Which sources support it? What degree of certainty does it represent? Which independent indications confirm it?
Such transparency is essential. Because a probability presented in a public database can quickly acquire the appearance of certainty. Another fundamental problem is that many object histories begin where Western documentation begins. With collectors. With dealers. With museums. With colonial archives.
But this is not where the history of the object begins. It is only where its Western documentation begins.The African history before that moment often remains unknown.This represents one of the greatest methodological challenges of contemporary provenance research. We frequently speak of reconstructing African object biographies, while in many cases we are primarily reconstructing the Western chapter of those biographies.
The earlier stages – production, local use, social meaning, regional exchange networks, and African histories of ownership – often remain fragmentary. This is precisely why the perspective must be broadened.African artworks did not move exclusively through colonial violence.
Local markets, regional networks, private transactions, institutional decisions, and legal export processes within African states are also part of their histories. Based on many years of engagement with West African art and its markets, it becomes clear that these transfer processes are far more complex than simplified narratives often suggest.
Even after independence, artworks continued to leave African countries through various channels: through legally authorised exports, through dealers, through private transactions, and through international networks of exchange. These processes are also part of an object's biography. They cannot simply be ignored because they do not fit a familiar colonial narrative.
Particular care is also required when dealing with oral traditions. The inclusion of oral history has undoubtedly been an important development compared with research based exclusively on Western archival sources.
Oral traditions can preserve knowledge that written archives do not contain.They can provide information about families, royal institutions, social relationships, and local meanings. However, they must also be approached critically. The essential question is: How is an oral tradition connected to the provenance of a specific object? Which independent sources support this connection?
Has genuine source triangulation taken place? The value of a historical statement does not arise merely because it has been transmitted. It arises from the critical relationship between different forms of evidence. The central challenge of provenance research is therefore not to avoid historical context.Without historical context, objects cannot be understood.The challenge is to maintain a clear distinction between context and provenance.
A historical event can explain why certain developments occurred. But it does not automatically reveal the complete life history of an individual object. The future of provenance research will depend on whether it succeeds in connecting both levels: the larger history of events and the smaller, often hidden history of individual artworks. Every object possesses more than one history. It possesses the history of its creation. The history of its meaning. The history of its owners.The history of its movements. And sometimes, it also possesses a history of uncertainty.
This uncertainty should not be replaced by artificial certainty. Because the essential task of serious historical inquiry is not to tell the most convincing story. It is to reconstruct the most plausible, transparent, and best-supported story possible.