SogSoCUloLnP lTaU sRcEro ZfuOlMeuBsOe 103 several centuries ago, they do not represent them directly; apart from the hump, the people depicted seem to be vigorous and even youthful; one (fig. 17) has two large lumps on his back as well as a smaller axillary mass; lastly, these male statues portray paralytics or at least disabled individuals. The most probable explanation for the physical manifestation of these attributes is tuberculosis, an infectious disease common in this part of Africa, where it is endemic and easily transmitted. One of its extrapulmonary manifestations is skeletal tuberculosis, including Pott’s disease (spinal tuberculosis, or spondylodiscitis) that often causes the collapse of vertebrae resulting in the development of dorsal hyperkyphosis (gibbosity or hunchback). Pott’s disease also leads to the formation of cold abscesses that break out along the spine and can cause paraplegia or paraparesis—that is, a total or partial paralysis affecting the lower body, in particular, the limbs. The same symptom is seen in cases of poliomyelitis (polio), which is also endemic in the region (fig. 23). The artists who made these three statues may well have been inspired by Pott’s disease in forming their figures, portraying the symptoms as a reminder of Sunjata’s original disability. In Pott’s disease, if the bone infection sets in at an early age, the deformation of the ribcage may thrust the sternum forward. In this context, it could be fair to attribute this sternal anomaly to the representation of this extrapulmonary complication of tuberculosis. Given the lumps in the right armpit and on either side of the spine represented on one of these statues (fig. 17), another extrapulmonary disease could be lymph node tuberculosis (fig. 18). Returning to the MQB figure discussed above, although CT scanning confirms that the leg at its side is part of the figure and is in the proper position (fig. 4), we challenge the two interpretations that have been put forth about it: firstly, that it is the woman’s right leg and foot, and, secondly, that the leg is in an odd position because the figure represents a dead body forced into a funerary urn.71 We believe these explanations to be erroneous for several reasons: The depiction of her firm breasts indicates that this woman is young and she presents a more than satisfactory weight status; her eyes are wide open and her head is turned in a position obviously requiring good cervical muscle tone; the diameter of the leg in question seems disproportionately small compared with that of her arm; and, lastly, unless the femur is broken or the body is exceptionally flexible, the heel is in a position that hardly seems physiologically possible, especially since the woman’s back, save for the hump, is quite straight. The logical conclusion is that although it is an integral part of the statue, the leg does not belong to the woman. To identify the leg’s owner, let us turn again to the oral tradition that describes physical characteristics of Sogolon and Sunjata. Based on the arguments put forth above, if we accept that this figure represents Sogolon, there is good reason to think that it may indeed be a rare portrait of her and her son as a maternity figure. FIG. 21 (right): Figure representing a disabled person. IND region, Mali. 13th–17th century. Terracotta with ochre/red slip. H: 40 cm. Ex Baudouin de Grunne. Private collection. © Dr. Marc Ghysels, Brussels. Photo: Frédéric Dehaen, Roger Asselberghs Studio, Brussels. FIG. 22 (below): CT scans of figure 21, opaque 3D views from two angles. © Dr. Marc Ghysels, Brussels.
T75E_web
To see the actual publication please follow the link above