>all the Ife bronze heads were supposedly found outside of an archaeological context, without exceptionWhat are the chances of these heads being a fraud? Why does every archaeological excavation reveal only much more primitive sculptures?
> Why does every archaeological excavation reveal only much more primitive sculptures?They don't -_-
>>18613607Yes. No archaeological excavation has uncovered these realistic sculptures; they only appear when someone is digging to build something.
>>18613600Burying a hoard of artistic objects is an archeological context in and on itself. You know. There is no reason to presume these were from somewhere else.
>>18613613That's a very common way of unearthing ancient things. It's iirc how Pompeii was initially discovered. You actually have to suggest evidence for why these are fake.
Stylized art isn't primitive.Regardless, this is some genuinely embarrassing cope. The realistic sculptures and their contexts (which span a decent area) have been securely dated. Archeology and oral history is against you. Give one valid reason to doubt them both.
>>18613640Artistic prowess is still very much visible in the stylized terracotta pieces. I wonder what these guys made with wood.
>>18613640>>18613622>>18613617It is very strange that this style of sculpture has never been found in an archaeological excavation. We are talking about a school of sculpture that must have had numerous students and supposedly produced many sculptures, yet no archaeological effort has managed to uncover them. Not to mention that, simply put, no one was creating this kind of work in the 19th century when the British arrived.
>>18613660Continue coping.> 19th centuryYorubaland was deep in decline by this point. Can you at least try to not seem like a /pol/tard?
>>18613676>copingIs that the only word you can say? You really are very stupid. In that very documentary, an archaeologist states that these heads were never found in an archaeological context.https://youtu.be/QXFkB_o5vX8?si=Ryz1UtQHmtX5BB7q
Blatant troll thread.
>>18613600I imagine they are too recent to fall under the purview of "archeology", just like how medieval European buildings and items aren't found in an "archeological context"
>>18613697>>18613698Oh, sure. It’s so reliable that even they can’t decide when a piece is fake or not.https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2020/03/02/stolen-ancient-sculpture-returned-to-nigeria-is-the-kind-of-fake-you-could-buy-on-ebay-african-art-expert-says
>>18613707That is not one of the Ife heads though. That's a n another similar statue from the same region.
>>18613707This is not the same situation at all, not to mention that the piece in question looks like shit.
>>18613710>>18613714That was just an example. Here's another example.https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/sculpture-deemed-too-complex-for-africa-could-be-real-after-all-1961485.html
>>18613715>>18613714>>18613710https://webartacademy.com/is-the-olokun-head-the-real-thing
>>18613715This article literally suggests the opposite of what you're claiming, and the context would suggest that the supposed original was equal to if not superior to the fake.>>18613707This was misindentified as being authentic by a team of meximutts who also managed to produce a nonsensical date.
>>18613731This isn't even quality bait.
>>18613715>>18613721>Everyone thought this head was fake because it was too complex for the niggers (literally what you are more or less implying btw).>Further analysis (like this: https://www.academia.edu/44455446/The_Olokun_head_reconsidered) shows it likely is real, though of uncertain dating.
>>18613742There is a mystery here, but not of provenance.
>>18613742
>>18613742On the contrary, she does not state with certainty that it is original. In fact, she notes that, at most two centuries prior to the analysis, it was subjected to very high temperatures. This likely occurred at the time it was made.
>>18613749> This likely occurred at the time it was made.This was NOT said at all.
>>18613753I was the one who said that. The article didn't say that, but it also didn't state with certainty that the head is real. It merely noted that the object's corrosion is inconsistent with it having been made recently. That, in itself, means almost nothing. Where is the proof that it was made in the 13th century? There isn't any.
>>18613756It undisputably refuted the claim that it was made with modern casting techniques and not wih lost-wax casting (direct or indirect). So it can't be, as it was believed, a modern replica.
>>18613762200 years.
