The Holly Keko Style sive creators. By association, the perception of each object interacting aesthetically with the others around it evoked memories of people and events that can be transmitted to others within their historical and genealogical contexts. A Line of Master Sculptors Magnuor Pale, the son of Wibrika’s older sister, was born around 1830 in Keko, a small Teebo village located beyond the Holly marsh. Belonging to a line of Teese sculptors who had already achieved recognition in the area, he practiced the art of sculpture with his brother and his sons10 (fi g. 8). Whether it was because his clan was already famous or because of his particular relationship to Wibrika, Magnuor was given the task of creating the thilkotina commemorating Kou-Jina and his wife. He thus became the Kou clan’s thiteldara kotin (master sculptor), responsible for the creation of the objects used for the cult of the lineage and the perpetuator of the localized sculptural style. Those who commissioned these works identifi ed them as being “Holly Keko,” derived from the name of the village of Holly followed by that of Keko, where Magnuor worked until his death shortly before the beginning of the twentieth century. 11 Many families visited him to arrange commissions and, again according to Ithe’s descendants, the Holly Keko style thus became associated with the cult objects of the Birifor throughout the area southwest of Gaoua. The status of thiteldara kotin was transmitted fi rst to Gnokithe Kambou (c. 1880–c. 1950/55), Magnuor’s second-to-youngest son, and then to Bangite Sib, who died in 1995 at Bagara. The latter was the last to have offi cial title to the position and was the fi nal perpetuator of the Holly Keko style.12 Wibrika Pale’s adaptation of some of the formal aspects of the work of Kipume Youl (the offi cial Birifor sculptor from the Malba area, who had declined Kou-Jina Kambou’s offer due to his advanced age) established the early criteria for the Holly Keko style. However, it should be understood that it was Magnuor who created what was to be the reference model for the manufacture of effi gies for the Kou thilduu. These also supported the understanding of Kou-Jina as the ancestral founder of the lineage and of the village. Three fi gures in the thilduu have been attributed to Magnuor Pale’s hand. The two fi rst ones, created by him around 1870 (see fi g. 3, statues 3a and 3b) were commissioned by Ithe Da in honor of his parents, Kou-Jina Kammakes 111 it possible to date the death of village founder Kou-Jina Kambou’s parents to around 1845 or 1850, an event that required the above-mentioned creation of additional cult fi gures to commemorate them (see fi g. 3, statues 2a and 2b). Wibrika Pale (c. 1800–c. 1870), was born in an area inhabited by a Teese majority and undoubtedly assimilated the different formal characteristics of the cult objects in his environment. His carving technique refl ects infl uences of Teebo statuary, most notably in the rendering of the movement of the bent arms and the backward-leaning shoulders (fi g. 7). In the male fi gure of the couple intended to honor the memory of Kou-Jina’s parents, Wibrika reproduced the face and the elaborate yuu-jimani coiffure of the fi rst fi gure in the thilduu that had been the gift of the Teese, but these traits seem somewhat crude and angular, almost as if they had been carved with a machete. Nonetheless, through his artistic choices and his ability to bring together dissimilar formal concepts, this sculptor seems to anticipate the future role of the area’s thiteldara kotina, the master sculptors and creators of the composite styles that would become so representative of the heterogeneous nature of Lobi society. Wibrika’s stylistic adaptations were followed by many subsequent sculptors, including his maternal nephew, Magnuor Pale, who created the thilkotina dedicated to the memory of village founder Kou-Jina and of his wife, Irakua Da (see fi g. 3, statues 3a and 3b). It was only when these superb effi gies had been produced that the style developed the characteristics that would distinguish it. “Ithe Kambou,” Ontore revealed to me, “transmitted his knowledge to Kou-Jina, his maternal nephew, and that is why the latter’s power is represented by an effi gy with its head turned to one side. This is a gesture that women make when they lose a child to show that it is no longer on their back.” The Kou thilduu that held these fi gures was a particularly sacred place, since it was there that Ithe’s descendants affi rmed their dominion over Teese land each time a generation renewed the powers of its healers. In my own experience, this place was more than a place to keep the history of the lineage from being forgotten. In it, more than elsewhere, the statues were precious visual instruments revealing the style’s evolution and, through the works’ different characteristics, preserving the identities of their succes- FIG. 7 (left): Statue created around 1850 by the Teebo sculptor Wibrika Pale (c. 1800–c. 1870). Hardwood, earthen patina. H: 53 cm. François and Marie Christiaens Collection. © Hughes Dubois. FIG. 8: Statue representative of the early Teebo style of Pale of Khul. Photo: Daniela Bognolo, Keko, 1989.
T76En_internet
To see the actual publication please follow the link above