Inauthentic currency object inspired by a throwing knife, ndondo-guindza, or ngindza
In the style of the Mbugbu / Gbodo (Yakoma) / Wada, D.R. Congo / Central African Republic
Iron
Provenance unclear, but predates 2014
This piece was acquired at a reputable auction house in 2018, and came from the collection of a deceased collector who was well known in the tribal art community. There are three subtle red flags that suggest inauthenticity, and three conspicuous errors that confirm it as a fake.
Starting with the subtle clues, the butt of the stem is squared off. Second, the edges – particularly those in the center of the knife, where there is a cluster of details (points, rounded edges, and incisions), appear too sharp and uneven, suggesting they were cut from a larger piece, rather than drawn out at the forge. Third, the character of the iron doesn’t reveal any signs being drawn out. There might be a reasonable explanation for one of these inconsistencies, but not all three together.
The first significant flaw can be seen on the spur, which should be a separate piece of iron hammer-welded on to the stem. It would also be acceptable if the spur was an integral piece drawn out from the stem, (albeit a much more uncommon design), but here it appears not to have been drawn out but instead cut from a larger piece of metal.
The next significant flaw can be found in the bevel that runs along the edge of the wing, crown, and spur. There are two types of Mbugbu blades: those with this bevel, and those without. The iron on non-beveled Mbugbu blades is flat on both sides. However, the iron on beveled Mbugbus is convex on one side, and concave on the other, meaning that the bevel is visible on both sides. This blade, however, is flat on the back side, and convex on the front. The bevel being present on only one side of the blade is a detail that could easily be overlooked by Western buyers, sellers, and craftsmen interestewd in creating a copy, but would represent a glaring error to the Mbugbu.
The most significant flaw in this blade is revealed in the texture of the surface. Because the iron wasn’t drawn out at the forge and not antique, there was acid applied to the surface to give the iron some of the characteristics that might be present on an old blade made in the traditional way. The acid scarred the surface – both on the front and the back – to simulate corrosion and pitting. However, the way in which it scarred the iron is clearly different from the way that old iron corrodes. The two most important details are the patterns of corrosion and the consistency of the corrosion.
The patterns of corrosion on this blade display pooling and many rounded details, similar to patterns one sees in a river map. These are the attributes of applied liquid eating away at the iron, rather than gradual aging caused by exposure to airborne chemistry. The consistency of the corrosion is also a significant problem. Old iron deteriorates inconsistently – one part bears more pits, one part remains untouched; one side deteriorates much faster than the other from being left one side-up for years; one area corrodes galvanically, from being in contact with another piece of metal. There are innumerable, inevitable scenarios that produce a blade with uneven and inconsistent corrosion, butonly fakery produces a blade with such utterly consistent corrosion on both sides.
The process of acid-scarring a blade to simulate age has proven to be effective: there is a heavily acid-scarred blade currently being exhibited in a major traveling museum show.
11.5 in :: 29.5 cm
InventoryID #13-1210
Not For Sale
