Dealing with the latter view first, one hardly considers it unfair to say that there has never been any serious evidence for such opinion. The main reason for ascribing this culture to the Arab or Portuguese origin was due, on the one hand, to a failure to study seriously the culture itself, and, on the other hand, a kind of a priori conception of the very limited potentialities of Negro peoples. Basing their opinion upon the popular conception that the Negro represented the lowest form of human development, it was thought by early critics of the culture that the Negro could not have produced objects of art capable of holding their own among the highest forms of human creations; and so in the exigencies of the situation the theories of Arab or Portuguese origin were brought to the fore. The advance of ethnological science during the last generation, the serious study of the Benin objects in an objective sense, and finally the results of Frobenius's Expedition, all combined, have not only weakened the theories of a modern Arab and Portuguese origin, but have practically destroyed them altogether.
Let us take a summary view of some of this evidence against these theories. In the first place, there might be mentioned the changing opinion regarding the supposed mental difference between so-called cultured and primitive peoples. As a result of many scientific studies, and some scientific expeditions both in Africa and Oceania, it is now practically the belief in scientific circles that there is no potential difference in quality of mind of the various races or of widely differentiated cultural groups. This removes at the outset the belief heretofore held as to the inherent limited capacity of the Negro peoples. According to this modern point of view, then, the objects above described could have been created by native blacks of Central Africa.
As a next step, Ling Roth has pointed out that as there is hardly a traveler from Africa who has not recorded the art of iron smelting among the Negro or Bantu tribes, "we may accept as a fact that the art of smelting iron is a very old one in Africa." Not only does the recent evidence point out that iron smelting per se was an old and widespread practice in Africa, but, in addition, reports a similar method of metal working as discovered in the Benin country to have been in vogue in other and widely separated parts of Africa. For example, Bowditch[54] describes a method of casting on the Volta River, where a wood core was used instead of sand, while Robinson[55] states that at Kano "there are on sale swords, spears and many other objects made of native wrought iron. The article desired is first formed in wax and from this clay model is made into which the molten iron can be poured."[56]
This, it would seem, reduces considerably the need for postulating modern influence so far as the method is concerned. And even if modern influence were responsible, it could hardly have been Arab or Portuguese, for up to date no such objects as above described have been found among the ruins of the Islamic civilization. And on the other hand, as Ling Roth has said, "we are still quite in the dark as to the existence of any such high-class art in the Iberian peninsula at the end of the fifteenth century; and we know that there was not much of this art in the rest of Europe."[57] The only serious evidence, if even it might be so called, which was ever advanced as indicating Portuguese origin for this art was the fact that on some of the plaques from Benin there were found Portuguese heads or figures. But this, instead of indicating a Portuguese origin, gives, when carefully studied, reasonable evidence to the contrary.
Let us make a brief study of one of these objects. An object described by Ling Roth[58] as the "head of the staff or wand of offices" may be used as an illustration. The design is "that of a leopard supporting a column on its back. The uppermost portion of this staff head consists of a band of engraved basket work patterns with grained open ground. This is followed by a band of fish-scale patterns ornamented at the lower corners of contact pinched indents. On this band there is an upper series of ornaments in relief. The upper series consists of four faces; that on the front being probably that of a Negro and that on the back that of a European. Both faces are boldly and clearly executed, while the two faces on either side are of Europeans, both of them flat and poorly executed, and in profile with the mouth curiously twisted into the full face. The European figures on either side of the leopard in their flatness and general crudeness are quite out of keeping with the rest of the work. "Yet," he says, "one cannot help admiring the boldness with which the leopard has been modelled, or the firmness with which its claws grasp the ground; while the vigorous way in which the tail is made to support the back of the column should be remarked. Equally admirable are the suitable proportions of the bands of ornament. The upper band is thoroughly subdued so that the faces next to it are brought more prominently into relief."
It is evident that in every feature, excepting the European faces, this object is obviously the product of a master. How, then, are we to account for the crude and archaic appearance of the European figures? It would seem either that it was done purposely out of disrespect for the European or else it was the result of an unfamiliarity with the subject on the part of the artist. If the African artist had been indebted to the European for his apprenticeship, it is highly improbable that either of the conditions present here would have been likely to occur.
In this same connection a statement by Ling Roth testifies that "the Beni almost invariably give their fellow Africans sturdy lower limbs while they do not do so invariably to Europeans. The latter of a certain type are made to stand on well planted feet, while such Europeans as are in any way about to use their guns have their legs bent and puny."
That the work of the African artist, when dealing with Europeans, was necessarily of an inferior grade must not be assumed to be the rule, however, though it does seem from the evidence that there is more unaccountable archaicness in objects of this character than in any others. Ling Roth, speaking in this same connection, calls attention to the fact that Benin was not discovered by the Portuguese until about 1472, and that by the middle of the sixteenth century (e.g., 1550) we have an almost perfect figure of a European, presumably made by a native. "It is inconceivable," he concludes, "that an introduced art could have developed at so rapid a rate that in seventy years, probably less, for this art would hardly have been introduced the first day, such a high pitch of excellence could have been attained by the natives."
If the Portuguese theory is untenable, the Arabic or Islamic theory is equally, if not more, unacceptable. In the first place, as has already been pointed out, Arabic or Islamic art shows absolutely nothing in art approaching objects of the Benin type. Furthermore, Islam itself did not appear in Central Africa until the eleventh century, and then only in the northern and western parts of the Sudan. And it was, moreover, not until the fourteenth century that it made itself a real part of the life of the northern country, and not until the eighteenth that its influence spread into Yorubaland. And then its influence was only felt in the back country.[59]
Furthermore, according to Frobenius and Ling Roth, respectively, both the Ilifian region and the Benin territory remain until the present-day non-Mohammedan in character. This would seem to indicate Islamic influence in those countries where most of these objects above described were found has been necessarily very slight; yet such a culture as the above objects represent was unquestionably a very integral part of the life of the country and could not possibly have been due to such an influence. Furthermore, if additional evidence were needed to disprove the theory, it might be cited that it is a well-known fact that one of the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith is the proscription of the representation of the human form in its art in any whatsoever. And since the height of the material side of this culture was reached in this kind of art, it appears doubtful that this culture could have arisen from such a source.