Start broadly
Describe what is visible before naming a region: proportions, construction, facial system, coiffure, hands, base, surface and condition. Then form several plausible hypotheses.
A robust attribution survives competing explanations.
Try to disprove each one
Ask what should be present if the figure were Oyo, Igbomina, Ekiti or another possibility, and what actively conflicts. Negative evidence is valuable: one incompatible structural habit can outweigh several superficial similarities.
State the remaining confidence
The result may be a region, a border area, a workshop circle or simply “unresolved.” Attribution is not a performance of certainty. A transparent, revisable conclusion is stronger than a precise name reached too quickly.
A wider reading
Documentation should accompany the visual argument. Record the observation behind state the remaining confidence, photograph it under neutral light and note the date of the assessment. The result may be a region, a border area, a workshop circle or simply “unresolved.” Attribution is not a performance of certainty. If the interpretation comes from a publication or another specialist, retain the exact reference and wording. Such discipline does not make collecting bureaucratic; it preserves the difference between what the object shows, what someone remembers and what a later observer has proposed.
Uncertainty is not an empty conclusion. In the context of Serious Attribution Works by Elimination, it can identify the exact point at which evidence becomes insufficient. Ask what should be present if the figure were Oyo, Igbomina, Ekiti or another possibility, and what actively conflicts. Saying ‘possibly,’ ‘related to’ or ‘attributed to the region of’ may describe the state of knowledge more accurately than a confident workshop name. Precision lies in matching the strength of the language to the strength of the evidence, not in producing the narrowest label available.
From observation to judgment
For the collector, the consequence is concrete. Before allowing try to disprove each one to influence price or desire, write down the strongest argument against the preferred interpretation. Describe what is visible before naming a region: proportions, construction, facial system, coiffure, hands, base, surface and condition. Then decide whether the object would still matter if its most prestigious label disappeared. A figure that remains compelling after that test possesses an independence that a fashionable attribution cannot manufacture.
The broader lesson is methodological rather than categorical. The result may be a region, a border area, a workshop circle or simply “unresolved.” Attribution is not a performance of certainty. No isolated rule can replace accumulated looking, and accumulated looking is useful only when examples are compared critically. Regional names are working hypotheses, and their value depends on a coherent cluster of features rather than one memorable resemblance. The aim is not to remove intuition, but to make intuition answerable to evidence. With time, this produces judgments that are both firmer and easier to revise.
One final distinction deserves emphasis. Description answers what is present; interpretation asks what it may mean; evaluation considers how well the sculpture succeeds. Ask what should be present if the figure were Oyo, Igbomina, Ekiti or another possibility, and what actively conflicts. These operations often occur at once, yet separating them for a moment reveals hidden assumptions. It becomes possible to admire a figure without exaggerating its age, to value its history without overstating its rarity, and to discuss an attribution without pretending that it is proven.