Pendant mask of Ìyọ́bà Idià

LOOK AT THE OBJECT

What are we looking at?

The Metropolitan Museum of Art identifies this sixteenth-century pendant mask with the Ìgbèsànmwà ivory- and wood-carving guild artists of the Court of Benin, in present-day Nigeria. Its accession number is 1978.412.323.^[1]

IDIA AT COURT

Why honour the queen mother?

The mask is believed to have been made for Oba Esigie to honour his mother, Idia. ^[1] A face can represent a named person without giving us a record of exactly how she looked.

Alexander Ives Bortolot’s Met essay explains the title iyoba, or queen mother, as a court position Esigie created in Idia’s honour. Bortolot’s account says that her political counsel, mystical powers and medicinal knowledge were viewed as critical to Esigie’s success on the battlefield. The position carried political privileges, including a separate residence and staff. ^[2] The title therefore describes authority at court, rather than simply the king’s family relationship.

Begin with the large face. Its closed mouth and forward-facing eyes give you a relatively still centre to examine. Above it, the small heads turn that central portrait into a repeated pattern. Below the chin, the pierced carving opens the object to the space behind it. Compare these passages before attaching a meaning to every mark.

LOOK CLOSELY

Look at the carving from two directions

The small heads and the larger face

The Met identifies Portuguese merchants and stylised mudfish in the openwork tiara and collar. It connects the merchants with wealth and power. Mudfish, which live on land and in water, represent the king’s human and divine nature in the museum’s account. ^[1] Find one of the small heads in the headdress, then compare its hat and face with the larger face below it.

That is the museum’s interpretation of this courtly imagery. The looking task is simpler: see how the smaller forms frame the portrait without becoming portraits of the same scale. Return to the front view after examining a detail so that their placement remains clear.

Why the side views matter

In the front photograph, much of the headdress reads as a border around the face. From the side, its projecting parts and the curve of the face become easier to follow.

Try tracing the outer edge in each photograph. Where does a form that looks flat from the front project into space? What can the side view reveal about the carving that the front view cannot? These are different views of the same Met object, rather than different masks. No complete reverse view is shown.

The marks above the eyes

Two long dark inserts sit above the nose, with shorter carved marks above the eyes. In Bortolot’s essay, the author connects the long iron inserts with medicine-filled incisions and Idia’s attributed powers. ^[2] A photograph lets us inspect the marks, but cannot independently establish a ritual meaning.

Compare the appearance of the two eyes in the front photograph. Describe the difference you can see before returning to the face as a whole.

COLLECTING

How a court object became a museum attraction

Peter Probst discusses this Met mask in What Is African Art? A Short History. Probst describes the Museum of Primitive Art as acquiring the mask in 1958. Probst also quotes an excerpt from Robert Goldwater’s December 1957 letter to Rockefeller comparing it with an almost identical mask in the British Museum, as part of an argument for making the object a major museum attraction. ^[3]

The letter excerpt records a collecting institution’s ambitions for the object. It does not explain what the original carvers intended. Reading it alongside the carving lets us consider the later role of the object in museum display.

Probst describes the mask as having been looted by the British from Benin. ^[3]

For the ownership chronology, the Met’s archived provenance record gives a different account of the 1958 acquisition. It names Sir Ralph Moor’s removal of this object from the Royal Palace in 1897. It traces subsequent ownership through Moor and his wife, John Sparks, Charles Gabriel Seligman and Brenda Seligman, before Nelson Rockefeller acquired it in 1958. The same record lists the mask as on loan to the Museum of Primitive Art from 1958 to 1972, followed by that museum’s ownership from 1972 to 1978. ^[4]

Probst’s description of an acquisition by the museum and the Met’s record of Rockefeller’s ownership and museum loan should not be treated as interchangeable. The history of collecting belongs alongside the visual encounter. We can examine the carving closely while also asking who controlled its movement and how later institutions described it.

CHECK THE OBJECT

Distinguish the different pendant masks

The Met’s mask is not the London mask. The British Museum’s record for Af1910,0513.1 describes a separate sixteenth-century ivory pendant and records its purchase from Charles Gabriel Seligman in 1910. ^[5] Its dimensions and accession must not be applied to the Met object.

The distinction matters again for FESTAC 77, the Second World Black and African Festival of Arts and Culture held in Lagos in 1977. The British Museum’s archived record for CRS.50 explains that the London original was selected as the festival’s emblem. It records a refused loan request and the production of a resin cast in June 1977, which the Nigerian government did not request. The same record says that a bronze replica by Erhabor Emokpae was eventually used as the official emblem. ^[6]

Not shown: the London original, CRS.50 resin cast and Emokpae’s bronze replica. The museum records are linked for comparison; no photograph of those objects is presented here. The Met object and the festival-related objects remain separately identified.

Not shown

Not shown

VISITING

Where can I see the Met mask?

The current Met record listed it in Gallery 342 at Fifth Avenue when checked 6 October 2026. ^[1] Display arrangements can change, so consult the museum’s record before visiting.