Asen and methodology in art history

The short article on asen by Edna Bay (African Arts vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 6-8), after her analysis of Suzanne Blier's contribution to a catalogue, is, in fact, an invitation to give careful thought to methods used in art history in general and to how we, as art historians, use data collected from the field, in particular. My contribution to this dialogue will focus on four main points, based on my reading of Edna Bay's text:

Art History and History

The present dialogue gains in focus if we first situate it in its global context. As far as I can understand and based on the few pages I have read over the years, there is no formal wall between our science and history, since art history is primarily concerned with creativity, a human process targeting a whole range of expression throughout history. One should, therefore, admit art history as part of general history. As such, most of the methods used by historians are useful to art historians, all of whom are obliged to admit diachrony and synchrony. The relation of art history to time and dating is, therefore, critical and all the efforts of colleagues to find out who fathered a piece of art, or which workshop it came from, seek to find a legitimate answer to the issue of dating. As we all know, this is not an easy task in African arts, and one can understand tiptoeing, hesitation, and possible mistakes or errors until scientific consensus is reached. And this with the caveat that even such consensus can change with new discoveries. History teaches that any source must be criticized and this is valid in art history as well. Our quest for truth justifies this sound attitude of mind.

Oral Source Data in the Abomey Area

The former kingdom of Danhome in general and the Abomey area in particular constitutes one of the most researched sites in Benin. All disciplines find a broad body of existing studies on this zone, allowing a better definition of issues and more quickly reached conclusions. This is certainly a privilege, but it is also a threat; almost everyone pretends to be an expert on this area and it is rather easy nowadays for most local "informants" to have access to written sources they present as their own data and contribution to science. This makes the situation more confusing for research and it definitely requires the researcher to be particularly careful. But no matter how careful you are, no matter how critical and rational you can be, there comes a time where you are compelled to use your sources, and the only guarantee you have is to provide all the information available about your data collection, although you will always be responsible for its presentation and the conclusion you draw from it. The passage of time and the critiques offered by colleagues will help to improve accuracy.

Style and Authorship

This point is linked to the first. African art pieces most often lack precise attribution to physical authors. Up to now, some progress has been made, mainly in Congo and Nigeria. Still, there is a need to continue documenting pieces of art. It will certainly be a long process, with probably many errors. The error noticed by Edna Bay may he one, and it may not be the last one. What is most important is to continue refining the hypotheses offered here and there by different specialists. This debate, as one can see, is largely rooted in history. The determination of style as well as the attribution of authorship cannot be "a once and for all" action. It can be questioned at any time by other researchers.

The Invention of Asen: A Quest to Be Continued

Discussing the invention of asen might require a reference to its other name, sinuka, or 'calabash to drink'. An asen is supposed to have, at least in its central part, this global shape, although it is transformed to some extent nowadays. Oral sources recall that "in the past" the libation for ancestors was poured using this device. Tidjani Abdou Serpos (1951:59) gives a summary of the evolution from the vegetal device to the metal one, which concords roughly with the information conveyed by oral sources I collected in Abomey some thirty years ago. It is not absurd to think that the desire to have an everlasting device led to the usage of iron to shape it. From the available iconography, Yoruba culture has not elaborated asen to venerate its ancestors and so far, I do not know of any Yoruba people erecting asen for their ancestors: Egungun--which literally means 'bones'--are meant to show the presence of the ancestors, and their altar is known as Oju Ori. Asen then might be thought of as a Fon invention, although the ritual staffs for the Yoruba god Osanyin show some formal resemblance. Is this the inspiration source for the Fon asen? I cannot yet make this assertion.

Is the asen an invention of the court? I do not have any evidence for this. It would, however, be astonishing that a device from the court be returned immediately to the whole population; the royal ancestors are not the only ones entitled to have an asen erected for them. Any ancestor in the Gbe-speaking area has this right and nowadays, you find asen on display for purchase on market places. Since when is a question which I cannot answer yet, I therefore would look first in the direction of religion for the origins of asen and only afterwards to the court.