Museum Trip Report

The piece that captured my attention was an ivory armlet that dates to the 16^th century. Despite the museum’s rather small stature, the piece stood out for its exceptionality. It was the only piece whose craftsmanship actually wowed me the moment I saw it.

The armlet was very complex. The craftsmanship was remarkable, with loopholes here and there, and intricately carved crocodiles adorning each side. The simple fact that it is more than 400 years old and yet is so exquisite amazes me. Also its good condition speaks to the dry climate it must have resided in until its discovery. Obviously the use of ivory begets a commentary on the hunting of elephants and their shrinking numbers, but I’m sure that wasn’t an issue in the 16^th century.

The markings on the armlet suggest the importance of hunting to the Yoruba peoples. (the people the museum attributed the armlet to) The armlet was a celebration of great kills, by both man and beast. This can be seen in the crocodiles biting the mudfish, and the hunters tracking the other animals on the armlet.

The museum caption offered an opinion that the armlet’s meaning was a tribute to the god that shapes the human form in the womb, but I didn’t really buy it. While I certainly discount my credibility on the subject with the fact that I have no experience with Africa or art critiques (in general) whatsoever, I still think that the argument that simply because the armlet was made of ivory, that it must be a form of tribute to the god “Obadala” (the god who shapes the human form in the womb) is shaky at best. Additionally, the caption the museum offered said that the hunchbacks on the armlet were another reason it might be a tribute to the god “Obadala.” I don’t buy this either, since the figures might not have been hunchbacks, and nobody will ever know the artist’s actual intention. There were plenty of other figurines in the museum which were barely of a recognizable human form, so I think this argument is particularly baseless.

The major theme of the piece is definitely a celebration of the hunt; the use of ivory shows that the person who commissioned the piece must have been very wealthy, (due to ivory’s extreme scarcity) and the choice of scenes demonstrate the weight given to a successful hunt and hunter.

The artwork of the piece does not show a particular cultural difference in economic or political status, but rather the mere existence of the piece demonstrates the aforementioned. As stated previously, the commissioner of the piece must have been wealthy, whether in power (as royalty) or in game. (due to many successful hunts) The piece suggests money and power, and any that wore it would have been guaranteed an impressive portrayal of either.