tunwe: Exaggerate? There Is no exaggeration there. It could be a coincident that after such visit a name change occurred by the neighbor of the visitor. Do We know if the enlightenment they derived from the visit infleunced their neighbor or their neighbors were part of the dahomians entourage? Anyway as for your question, the relation of Edo and yorubas Is just too deep and unbroken. To have a common ancestral gods and spirits like Ogun, Olokun, Oromilla/Ifa, Sango etc indicates relationship from antiquity.

I understand your POV (point-of-view), however, the Yoruba's always acknowledge the relation/relationship - it's the Edo's who are addicted to punching above their height. Most of the gods you cited are all Yoruba gods that're part of Benin culture/tradition - however, most Benin's don't acknowledge Yoruba's for our contributions, yet they always want to lay claims to the peripheral Yoruba towns that they influenced.

Shymmex, I'll keep my response devoid of any details or elaboration, so as not to make it too long, and because this issue will be discussed at greater length back on that other thread anyway (and because I'm going to sleep soon.)

1. I honestly didn't set out to argue for the plausibility for the claim because I don't really see the point of doing so - even if I were to do so, it's not like I expect the claim to be accepted. The fact that the issue would be argued with one poster who is Ijebu and another who seems to have a sentimental outlook on things because of his strong admiration for the Ijebu, would make it even more pointless even if I was truly interested in the claim in the first place.

The issue was brought up by you (and you even asked me to tell you 'why didn't Benin just conquer Ijebu since it was right next door?'), and then by Terracotta, and I explained why I thought it was plausible because you pressed the issue, not because this conquest stuff is an aspect of African history that I like to discuss in detail. There are other people who have looked at the issue like I have, and have made their own arguments for why they think there was a Benin conquest - an example is P.C. Lloyd, who studied the Ijebu culture in some detail, and who decades ago, concluded there was a conquest. It would hardly be worth my time to write a detailed argument for a claim which I have already said is of limited interest to me, especially when it's not for professional publication and when there are already publications that make their own arguments for or against the claim.

2. The notion that the Attah of Igala at that time was a "younger brother" of the Oba of Benin is not provable and it may just refer to some general shared ancestry, not being members of the same immediate family; the notion that Igala gained its independence after the war is doubtful and doesn't seem likely. It seems more plausible that they were independent previously and then tributary for some time afterward, until a decline in Benin's power occurred. And yes, the Benin claim on Ijebu does involve claiming that the Awujale is a descendant of a king from Benin (a prince - a son of one of the Obas of Benin, apparently), placed there by Ozolua after the conquest, not unlike the claim that the first Attah of Igala was sent to Idah from Benin (although that instance doesn't seem to have involved a conquest). I'm not sure whether TerraCotta was aware of this when he brought up the Benin-Ijebu stuff, but this is stated quite clearly in at least two different publications by Egharevba, one of which (A Short History), Terracotta may have read, but forgotten some of what it stated. Anyway, I alluded to this when I brought up the "Aghuzale"/"Agusale" stuff in my response to TerraCotta. I assumed he knew what I was referring to, since he may have read some of Egharevba's work, but apparently you weren't aware of what the claim really says, or what I alluded to in my response.

3. A moat can offer only so much defense against an army, but sure, we can factor in the moat. As for cordiality, if those other places ever collected what was or what was perceived as tribute, it's easy to see how relations could be cordial. Anyway, I'm not sure I buy the idea of Benin having cordial relations with most of its neighbors during the period when the conquest is alleged to have happened, since the info from the Edo and non-Edo about that period seems to paint an entirely different picture.

4. Yeah, it's Johnson, but the statement in his book is rather distinct from any of the other mentions of such a claim. Similarly, Talbot's information is very distinct from that of Dapper and that of Robertson and it doesn't derive from an earlier printed source, but from unidentified (southern Nigerian) informants, whose credibility Talbot fails to establish. The only person I think could have taken from Dapper or from Dapper's source is Robertson, but even in his case, he has a lot of original/firsthand information in his book, so the idea that he obtained the tributary claim from Dapper is just speculation by me.

The issue of a corroboration by the group that is alleged to have been conquered is not always a sine qua non for believing in the plausibility of a conquest claim. This gets into that whole issue of political propaganda which Terracotta brought up, but I'll get into that in detail on that other thread when I resume that discussion.

5. I'm not going to get into the Ilaje and Olokun stuff, because I don't think there would be a point to arguing about that - you seem quite convinced already of your position, and I doubt I could convince you otherwise.

The point is, the notion that the conquering groups never obtain anything culturally from the conquered is a mere assumption, but not an idea that is actually true to history - there are multiple historical examples where this isn't the case. I limited my examples to Nigeria only to stay within Nigeria, but there are other examples I could use, apart from the Fulani. That said, adoption of cultural practices hardly requires any sort of conquest, since there are numerous other avenues such exchanges could go through, nor must conquest always result in substantial cultural influence, so your emphasis on cultural influence as evidence of conquest strikes me as unwarranted.

7. Part of the reason I continued the discussion with Terracotta is because I did think it was necessary to comment on the notion that it was a "wild claim" or "grandiose claim" which both you and he seem to share for some reason. So far, I haven't seen anything to suggest that there was anything grandiose or outlandish about the claim - that was one thing I was seeking a bit of enlightenment on during the discussion, but didn't find.

On the degree of Terracotta's objectivity during that discussion, and how it may have led him astray in some of his assumptions, that's something I'll discuss with him at length directly in that thread. I don't think the problem is that he didn't try to objective - I'm sure he made considerable effort, but trying and actually doing aren't necessarily the same thing.

I saw that thread where TerraCotta commented on the overblown/pseudohistorical claims by that one Ijebu poster as well, but I didn't suggest that TerraCotta accepted any and every fanciful or aggrandizing claim about the Ijebu merely because he admires them. I've corrected outlandish/aggrandizing claims on Benin myself in the past on this forum (although you might not remember that), and dismissed some of the weirder pseudo-historical aggrandizement I've seen on some sources on the internet before, but that doesn't mean I can start pretending that my background isn't an issue/obstacle as far as my objectivity in that discussion. To at least attempt to be objective, it helps to try and admit one's biases and one's obstacles to objectivity upfront.

Mayor_of_Lagos:

I believe people should know what these aliases stand for or their meaning if it has sustained these many years and became concrete to the culture. Some of the names you threw out here i never heard before. I know katunga for old Oyo and it stands for a walled city or citadel and ive heard Tapa but dont really know its meaning. I thought the alias for itsekiri was Ginuwa?

Bino is an old Nupe term for the Kanuri, Germania (Germany) is a term from the Romans, although the real meaning/origin is not known, Katunga from the Hausa, Selemo/Iselema is an Ijaw name for the Itsekiri.

And of course other groups probably had their own outside names for these groups/places as well.

PhysicsQED: Shymmex, I'll keep my response devoid of any details or elaboration, so as not to make it too long, and because this issue will be discussed at greater length back on that other thread anyway (and because I'm going to sleep soon.)

1. I honestly didn't set out to argue for the plausibility for the claim because I don't really see the point of doing so - even if I did so, it's not like I expected the claim to be accepted. The fact that the issue would be argued with one poster who is Ijebu and another who seems to have a sentimental outlook on things because of his strong admiration for the Ijebu, would make it even more pointless even if I was truly interested in the claim in the first place.

The issue was brought up by you (and you even asked me to tell you 'why didn't Benin just conquer Ijebu since it was right next door?'), and then by Terracotta, and I explained why I thought it was plausible because you pressed the issue, not because this conquest stuff is an aspect of African history that I like to discuss in detail. There are other people who have looked at the issue like I have, and have made their own arguments for why they think there was a Benin conquest - an example is P.C. Lloyd, who studied the Ijebu culture in some detail, and who decades ago, concluded there was a conquest. It would hardly be worth my time to write a detailed argument for a claim which I have already said is of limited interest to me, especially when it's not for professional publication and when there are already publications that make their own arguments for or against the claim.

2. The notion that the Attah of Igala at that time was a "younger brother" of the Oba of Benin is not provable and it may just refer to some general shared ancestry, not being members of the same immediate family; the notion that Igala gained its independence after the war is doubtful and doesn't seem likely. It seems more plausible that they were independent previously and then tributary for some time afterward, until a decline in Benin's power occurred. And yes, the Benin claim on Ijebu does involve claiming that the Awujale is a descendant of a king from Benin (a prince - a son of one of the Obas of Benin, apparently), placed there by Ozolua after the conquest, not unlike the claim that the first Attah of Igala was sent to Idah from Benin (although that instance doesn't seem to have involved a conquest). I'm not sure whether TerraCotta was aware of this when he brought up the Benin-Ijebu stuff, but this is stated quite clearly in at least two different publications by Egharevba, one of which (A Short History), Terracotta may have read, but forgotten some of what it stated. Anyway, I alluded to this when I brought up the "Aghuzale"/"Agusale" stuff in my response to TerraCotta. I assumed he knew what I was referring to, since he may have read some of Egharevba's work, but apparently you weren't aware of what the claim really says, or what I alluded to in my response.

3. A moat can offer only so much defense against an army, but sure, we can factor in the moat. As for cordiality, if those other places ever collected what was or what was perceived as tribute, it's easy to see how relations could be cordial. Anyway, I'm not sure I buy the idea of Benin having cordial relations with most of its neighbors during the period when the conquest is alleged to have happened, since the info from the Edo and non-Edo about that period seems to paint an entirely different picture.

4. Yeah, it's Johnson, but the statement in his book is rather distinct from any of the other mentions of such a claim. Similarly, Talbot's information is very distinct from that of Dapper and that of Robertson and it doesn't derive from an earlier printed source, but from unidentified (southern Nigerian) informants, whose credibility Talbot fails to establish. The only person I think could have taken from Dapper or from Dapper's source is Robertson, but even in his case, he has a lot of original/firsthand information in his book, so the idea that he obtained the tributary claim from Dapper is just speculation by me.

The issue of a corroboration by the group that is alleged to have been conquered is not always a sine qua non for believing in the plausibility of a conquest claim. This gets into that whole issue of political propaganda which Terracotta brought up, but I'll get into that in detail on that other thread when I resume that discussion.

5. I'm not going to get into the Ilaje and Olokun stuff, because I don't think there would be a point to arguing about that - you seem quite convinced already of your position, and I doubt I could convince you otherwise.

The point is, the notion that the conquering groups never obtain anything culturally from the conquered is a mere assumption, but not an idea that is actually true to history - there are multiple historical examples where this isn't the case. I limited my examples to Nigeria only to stay within Nigeria, but there are other examples I could use, apart from the Fulani. That said, adoption of cultural practices hardly requires any sort of conquest, since there are numerous other avenues such exchanges could go through, so your emphasis on cultural influence as evidence of conquest strikes me as unwarranted.

7. Part of the reason I continued the discussion with Terracotta is because I did think it was necessary to comment on the notion that it was a "wild claim" or "grandiose claim" which both you and he seem to share for some reason. So far, I haven't seen anything to suggest that there was anything grandiose or outlandish about the claim - that was one thing I was seeking a bit of enlightenment on during the discussion, but didn't find.

On the degree of Terracotta's objectivity during that discussion, and how it may have led him astray in some of his assumptions, that's something I'll discuss with him at length directly in that thread. I don't think the problem is that he didn't try to objective - I'm sure he made considerable effort, but trying and actually doing aren't necessarily the same thing.

I saw that thread where TerraCotta commented on the overblown/pseudohistorical claims by that one Ijebu poster as well, but I didn't suggest that TerraCotta accepted any and every fanciful or aggrandizing claim about the Ijebu merely because he admires them. I've corrected outlandish/aggrandizing claims on Benin myself in the past on this forum (although you might not remember that), and dismissed some of the weirder pseudo-historical aggrandizement I've seen on some sources on the internet before, but that doesn't mean I can start pretending that my background isn't an issue/obstacle as far as my objectivity in that discussion. To at least attempt to be objective, it helps to try and admit one's biases and one's obstacles to objectivity upfront.

You claim that "there are Edo Traditions" that the Benin conquered or otherwise subdued "The Ijebu"
What exactly does the word "conquer" mean in the context in which you use it and how long did this conquest last?
please share these "traditions"
I do not see the point of mentioning them if you don't have the courage to identify with and then buttress them.

What or who are "The Ijebu" and where is their space. Have the Ijebus ever been under ONE Ijebu-dom

@PhysicsQED

1). When I asked the question you quoted, I was wondering why there wasn't any popular story, or cultural influence out there that shows the Benin's conquest of the Ijebu's who are in-between two Benin vassal states (Eko and Owo). That being said; everything you have posted on here and the other thread hasn't really proved that any conquest whatsoever occured - since Benin's cultural influence on its vassal states (Eko and Owo) at that point in history are glaring and they're still there till date. However, the same can't be said about the Ijebu's

2). I referenced the assertion that the Attah of Igala during Benin's conquest from a source. I guess we'll have to agree to disgree on that since it isn't the subject for discourse.

The Awujale of Ijebu being from Benin has to be the most ridiculous claim ever!! Bwahahahahahahahaha. The Awujale has Benin ancestry, yet unlike the Eko and Warri kings who have Benin ancestry, the Ijebu king is different and there's no evidence of Benin culture in the palace or how the King performs his duties, yes? Benin's history definitely has a lot of hyperbole, hence why a lot of people are beginning to question the validity of some of the claims made by legends about its greatness - because it's now the smallest (in terms of landmass) among the great west African kingdoms of yore. I won't even bother to debate the absurd Awujale claim because it's just pointless.

3). If at all Ijebu was a Benin tributary, how come there's no proof of Benin interference in how the Kingdom was governed? At least, Oyo did choose the Awujale once - what haven't we read anything about Benin doing the same. Since it's common practice between/among tributaries and overlords? You claim Benin never had cordial relations with its neighbours, however, at the height of Benin's ascendency, it never waged any war against both Ife and Oyo - why's that?

4). How are the claims distinct when non of them never provided any trusted source(s) nor showed proof(s) to back-up their claims? Perhaps, you were referring to the different verbatism they used, however, everything was based on hear-say - which eveidently goes back to a single Benin source. But since the Ijebu's have vehemently denied it, then I'll have to go with the Ijebu version

5). The Ilaje naturally worship Ayelala, not Olokun. The Olokun worship was probably added later on, however, that doesn't change the fact that their god is Ayelala. The crux of the matter is where the Olokun worship originated from.

Cultural influences varies and there's no way a conquering group would make the gods of a conquered group part of its tradition - it just doesn't sounds right. When the Olokun worship got to Benin land, it arguably become one of the most important religion in the kingdom - and there's no way they would have acquired something like that from a people they had dominion over. However, the spread of the religion shows the Benin's rated the spirituality of the group they borrowed the belief system from


6). Honestly, you're the most pro-Benin poster on this forum. And I don't think both Bokohalal and Exotik are as partial as you when it comes to benin history vis-a-vis other groups. So, if you think both Terracotta and I are being sentimental and partial to the Ijebu's - why should we take your assertions as being "spot on" based on your antecedents? Even on this thread, you've been indirectly denying that the name "Benin/Bini" came from the Yorubas. Or should I say, discarding it as mere coincidence by citing what different groups call one another.


Ps: ignore my typo, if there's any. I'm dizzy and I'm off to bed now. I'll edit the post later today.

Shymmex, I really dislike that we keep going in circles, but I'll respond anyway.

1. I'm not sure "what popular story" you're talking about, or what you really even mean by that. The issue of cultural influence has been commented on by me already. For some reason you've made this "cultural influence" stuff the ultimate consequence of military conquest, even though I've pointed out that this is a rather naive assumption. To elaborate somewhat, influence, if it happens, and if it has something to do with a conquest, should have some proportionality to the duration of the outsiders in the society and the number of them that remain there after the initial conquest. Assuming some enduring cultural impact on a society in the wake of a conquest assumes some specific things about the activity/behavior of a military force that conquers that may not be warranted. As I said, if I wanted to go into detail (I don't, I want to keep this discussion shorter and less drawn out), I would give some historical examples, but there's not a point to stretching this discussion out much.

Moreover, as I said earlier, I don't have any interest in making a really detailed argument to attempt to "prove" some conquest happened - you're the one with a persistent interest in that topic, whereas the issue is actually boring to me. Mostly, what I've done is little more than explication and discussion of sources of information, I haven't tried to "prove" something.

2. There are all sorts of sources out there that claim this or that - you and me both have dismissed the claims from several sources, so that the 'younger brother' Attah of Igala claim comes from a certain source - Edo, Igala, other Nigerian, European, etc. - doesn't mean that it has to be taken exactly literally. I didn't say the two monarchs weren't related - they may have been - but I hardly need to explain that the claim, like so many things, isn't provable.

I think I've been over this "cultural influence stuff" before, but I guess we can go over it again with a different example. You just claimed the Attah of Igala was from Benin (Oba Esigie's supposed 'younger brother') in your previous post based on what a source stated, yet in the next response, you say that a king of another kingdom having a Benin origin is proven by "Benin culture in the palace or how the king performs his duties." The contradiction there should be obvious, but if you don't already get it, let me just point out that you shouldn't expect to see some significant "Benin influence" in the palace or duties of the Attah, even though some of the Igala (and some non-Nigerian sources) claimed a Benin origin for the Attah long ago, without any help from any Edo writers.

3. What do you mean "proof"? I described the Oyo claim from Samuel Johnson, to point out that, in fact, there didn't seem to be any way to really prove that the choosing of that Awujale had something to do with Oyo. Now you're saying the claim itself is actual "proof" - fine, if you say so. Regardless, as I already stated multiple times both now and in that other thread, the Benin claim asserted much more than just choosing an Awujale during a succession dispute. And it wasn't my intention to "debate" the Awujale claim, but merely to inform you of it, since you brought up the issue of whether there was or was not that kind of relationship.

And I said "most" of its neighbors during that period - perhaps you missed the "most".

4. There are distinct claims there - Johnson's statement in the false etymology of the name Ijebu given in his book, Dapper's tributary claim from the 1600s, Talbot's conquest statement obtained during the colonial era, etc., and anyone who actually reads the different statements can see that. That they are distinct and have different origins doesn't "prove" their validity or truth in any way, but it's hardly necessary to pretend that they are repetitions of one another or drawn from one another in order to dismiss them - as I pointed out earlier, there are other legitimate reasons one could disregard them and also disregard what Robertson wrote or what Egharevba wrote on the issue without presuming these distinct claims come from one source at one time.

5. I don't intend to discuss this at length, as I said earlier, because you've already reached a conclusion, and are obviously satisfied with what you believe. It's not of much relevance as far I'm concerned anyway, as it's way too tangential to anything I've commented on.

6. If you haven't already figured this out from the context of some of the discussions I've had on this forum in the past, the reason I may have posted some things that seem "pro-Benin" is because of the excesses of a few people who go in the opposite direction. What could possess some of these people to have so many negative opinions about the culture, or past or present circumstances of a group they know so little about and don't care to know about, I don't know - but most so-called "pro-Benin" information from me is almost invariably a response to someone else with an agenda. Sure, I may have posted some "pro-Benin" information without responding to "anti-Benin" posters before, but that's hardly my usual M.O.

The problem is with some of the statements a few people on this forum occasionally put forward (usually without providing any "substantial evidence" or "strong proof" - the things you keep rightly emphasizing) because of this or that issue involving Benin and whatever the particular ethnic group of the poster bringing up Benin happens to be.

I don't usually care about the stories/claims themselves unless they state an interesting connection between the Edo and some other group that isn't just about ethnicity but about something actually interesting in and of itself (this is rare though). However, what makes me respond to some of the claims is the incredible unwillingness (perhaps due to some sort of unintentional arrogance or laziness) of some people on this forum that have opinions about what Benin was or wasn't in this or that era to do any investigation before putting forward strange claims about this and that - there is a lot of information from different people that one could look into if the Edo interested them so much that they had to make a comment, yet often it seems this is not done. (I'm not referring to Terracotta here, by the way, just so there's no confusion, but to other posters that I've responded to in much earlier threads.)

On the "Bini" stuff, it's pretty clear that you didn't understand what I wrote about the name "Bini"/"Benin" and its origin so perhaps you should re-read it. Another poster asked about the meaning, and I pointed out that the story he alluded to (regarding Oranmiyan and the meaning) comes from the Edo. I didn't comment on the issue of which ethnic group came up with the name, but pointed out that it was an outside label - I never suggested it was indigenous or from the Edo. In earlier posts in other threads, I've mentioned the various stories, including the Oranmiyan/Ibinu story, as stories worth considering as real explanations and when other posters (such as 'prexious' in the culture section) I have discussed anything with have put forward the idea that "Bini" is a Yoruba term, I haven't objected. Yet you're suggesting that I'm "indirectly suggesting it's not of Yoruba origin," when, in fact, I wasn't making any claim about the specific ethnic origins of the term beyond saying that it was a non-Edo term. What I was clarifying was what an "exonym" really is, and how it relates to those sort of names that are extremely popular, yet are/were not used by the place/people/culture being called by that name. Why the ethnic issue (what particular ethnic group came up with the name) is of so much interest to you is not clear to me, but please don't drag me into that stuff.

I don't see what believing or not believing the Ibinu story has to do with being or not being pro-Benin, Terracotta doesn't even believe it and thinks its a bogus story - possibly because of the nature of the story itself - yet its obvious what his stance on Benin is. The reason you equate skepticism or lack of immediate acceptance of the story with somehow being "pro-Benin" (when Terracotta thinks the story has no historical worth, and may even have thought the name had some connection not to the Yoruba, but to the Nupe) is because of the same issue of misinterpreting and misrepresenting my posting that I mentioned earlier.

Finally, I stated multiple times that the problem for this discussion was the absence of objectivity on all sides - I recall stating more than once that there were problems with my objectivity, even despite my attempts at objectivity, so I never claimed you had to accept everything from me as "spot on."

PhysicsQED:

Bino is an old Nupe term for the Kanuri, Germania (Germany) is a term from the Romans, although the real meaning/origin is not known, Katunga from the Hausa, Selemo/Iselema is an Ijaw name for the Itsekiri.

And of course other groups probably had their own outside names for these groups/places as well.

It appears to me that these names were the creation from outsiders. Wouldnt you agree?

Whats the meaning of Bini, as in Bini Kingdom?

To the Yorubas who say Bini is the same as Ibinu, there are two words involved - Ibi and Inu.

How would you explain the etymology of Ibi and Inu?

Mayor_of_Lagos: To the Yorubas who say Bini is the same as Ibinu, there are two words involved - Ibi and Inu.

How would you explain the etymology of Ibi and Inu?

"here" "inside" ! I never thought of it like that. I always thought of binu - anger.

@ Shymexx & PhysicsQED

Interesting debate

According to Johnson, the first Awujale was an Ilari (envoy of the Alaafin) who was sent to settle a war over disputed land between Owu and Ife.

@ Shymexx,

The Awujale was a vassal King of Oyo just as Onikoyi, Aseyin, Timi, etc. They all broke free of Oyo when the powerful vassal kings such as Onikoyi, Timi stepped aside to let the Fulani lay seige on Oyo. There were quite a few provincial kings who were ahead of the Awujale in those days.

Mayor_of_Lagos: To the Yorubas who say Bini is the same as Ibinu, there are two words involved - Ibi and Inu.

How would you explain the etymology of Ibi and Inu?

Ibinu is not the same thing as Ibi and Inu. I don't see the need to break Ibinu into two because you get a different meaning.

naptu2:

"here" "inside" ! I never thought of it like that. I always thought of binu - anger.

Well, look at these words

Bisola - Ibi si Ola
Bisayo - Ibi si Ayo
Bidemi - Ibi Demi or Abi Demi
Binuyo - Ibi si Inu Ayo (similar Bisola)

These are describing birth of an offspring.

Bini - Ibi Inu

This is interpreted, erroneously, as anger or expression of frustration.

Consider this, "bibi inu mi" - the offspring of my seed. So when Yoruba say "mo binu" - I am upset or angry - is it descriptive of one who is producing (ibi) a gut (inu) emotion?

Why would a King name his domain, a kingdom at that, the land of emotional anger? Why would the people of the land accept such an attribute?

Which is more plausible, that the King was

a. Angry/frustrated and, himself, named the land Ibinu.

b. An offspring of someone, an "outsider", who gave the name Ibinu.


In reference of "outsiders" naming a neighbouring land. Consider that the Edos called their land Igodomigodo and that Bini was an alias, as is similarly the case for the following places. Oyo for example was called katunga or a walled city by the Hausa neighbor.

PhysicsQED: Bino is an old Nupe term for the Kanuri, Germania (Germany) is a term from the Romans, although the real meaning/origin is not known, Katunga from the Hausa, Selemo/Iselema is an Ijaw name for the Itsekiri.And of course other groups probably had their own outside names for these groups/places as well.

Katsumoto:

Ibinu is not the same thing as Ibi and Inu. I don't see the need to break Ibinu into two because you get a different meaning.

What language is Ibinu? Yoruba, am I correct? Lets go to that language and pull samples of application for the word "ibi", "bi", "abi", "obi", "ebi". In every case you will find bi is functional for offspring, product, branch, and so on.

Mayor_of_Lagos:

What language is Ibinu? Yoruba, am I correct? Lets go to that language and pull samples of application for the word "ibi", "bi", "abi", "obi", "ebi". In every case you will find bi is functional for offspring, product, branch, and so on.

My Yoruba may be weak so I may defer to you but explain this to me.

What is Ibinu? Is it a Yoruba word?

What is anger in Yoruba?

If bi is functional for something else in ALL cases as you have stated, why does Ibinu have a different meaning from Ibi and Inu?

Do you agree that there are words that have a different meaning when broken apart to when written or pronounced in whole? I fail to see the point you are making. Are you stating that Oranyan had a different intention to what has been interpreted historically?

I noticed "IBUSA" had a population of 40,000.

Katsumoto:

My Yoruba may be weak so I may defer to you but explain this to me.

What is Ibinu? Is it a Yoruba word?

What is anger in Yoruba?

If bi is functional for something else in ALL cases as you have stated, why does Ibinu have a different meaning from Ibi and Inu?

Do you agree that there are words that have a different meaning when broken apart to when written or pronounced in whole? I fail to see the point you are making. Are you stating that Oranyan had a different intention to what has been interpreted historically?

You are giving it an abstract conceptual translation. Lets look at the practical application. Yoruba as a language is complex.

Fuku is lungs in Yoruba. Inufufu is anger in Yoruba. Fuku is descriptive of a pumping action or the act inhaling/exhaling. Fufu is descriptive of an action taking place in the lungs in which a subject is experiencing a "racing" state of emotion.

Fa in Yoruba denotes all aspects of the air element. "ofe", "afefe", "fe", "ofurufu".

What happens to the lungs and air intake when a person is angry?

This is the functional interpretation for Inufufu - anger.


On the second part, yes, the direction of paternity of Bini is Ife.

If Physics says Mayor is "ibinu mi" - my offspring, he becoms the object.

If Mayor says I am "omo" Physics, the object has not changed.

The object is the PRINCIPAL. How does King of Bini adddress his throne?

PhysicsQED

I understand what you're saying, however, I'm just a firm believer in seeing proofs before taking-in any postulation. Conquest/subjugation of the Ijebu's is not really a big deal to me. But as a student of history, and someone who's still trying to learn, I just want to the mystery behind how the Ijebu's were able to keep most of their culture/traditions intact despite being surrounded by the two most imperialistic states at that point in history. I've done a comparative analysis between the Ijebu's and all the other neighbouring vassal states - of these two powerful kingdoms, and there's clearly a difference.

So the questions are:

- If at all there was any conquest/subjugation, how were the Ijebu's able to remain intact as a whole (nucleus) without outside influence after that?

- How come the conquest/subjugation isn't in any oral history of the Ijebu's by Ijebu historians and the Awujale?


If we can get the answers to those questions, then we would be able to solve the mysteries surrounding the Ijebu's. Also, according to most historians, the Ijebu's were the money/business/trade merchants a la Switzerland of that period. Perhaps, that was why no one really troubled them so as not to disrupt trade - and if at all they subjugated them, they left them semi-autonomous for the same reason.

Honestly, as a proud Ijebu guy, conquest/subjugation isn't really something to be ashamed of. Even the greatest empire ever (Egypt) was conquered and subjugated for a time. Once the first invaders conquered ancient Egypt after the 21st Dynasty - it became the playground for all types of invaders and it never recovered after that. So if the greatest empire ever could be conquered, what's special about the Ijebu's? Anyway, I just want it to be based on facts, with evidence(s) that can be proven.

Katsumoto: @ Shymexx & PhysicsQED
Interesting debate

According to Johnson, the first Awujale was an Ilari (envoy of the Alaafin) who was sent to settle a war over disputed land between Owu and Ife.

@ Shymexx,

The Awujale was a vassal King of Oyo just as Onikoyi, Aseyin, Timi, etc. They all broke free of Oyo when the powerful vassal kings such as Onikoyi, Timi stepped aside to let the Fulani lay seige on Oyo. There were quite a few provincial kings who were ahead of the Awujale in those days.

However, the Onikoyi, Aseyin and Timi never had kingdoms as big as the Ijebu's. Even Oniru, which is also an Ijebu king under the Awujale, had a bigger kingdom than the Onikoyi's.

shymexx:

However, the Onikoyi, Aseyin and Timi never had kingdoms as big as the Ijebu's. Even Oniru, which is also an Ijebu king under the Awujale, had a bigger kingdom than the Onikoyi's.

where do you get this information that Oniru or ALL Ijebu kings were under Awujale is there any evidence for this?
I am sure before the Ijebus learnt English the term "Ijebu LAND" did not exist.He was and is the AWujale of Ijebuode. Even the British found this out during the Ijebu wars he was not a king of the Ijebus.

shymexx: PhysicsQED

I understand what you're saying, however, I'm just a firm believer in seeing proofs before taking-in any postulation. Conquest/subjugation of the Ijebu's is not really a big deal to me. But as a student of history, and someone who's still trying to learn, I just want to the mystery behind how the Ijebu's were able to keep most of their culture/traditions intact despite being surrounded by the two most imperialistic states at that point in history. I've done a comparative analysis between the Ijebu's and all the other neighbouring vassal states - of these two powerful kingdoms, and there's clearly a difference.

So the questions are:

- If at all there was any conquest/subjugation, how were the Ijebu's able to remain intact as a whole (nucleus) without outside influence after that?

- How come the conquest/subjugation isn't in any oral history of the Ijebu's by Ijebu historians and the Awujale?


If we can get the answers to those questions, then we would be able to solve the mysteries surrounding the Ijebu's. Also, according to most historians, the Ijebu's were the money/business/trade merchants a la Switzerland of that period. Perhaps, that was why no one really troubled them so as not to disrupt trade - and if at all they subjugated them, they left them semi-autonomous for the same reason.

Honestly, as a proud Ijebu guy, conquest/subjugation isn't really something to be ashamed of. Even the greatest empire ever (Egypt) was conquered and subjugated for a time. Once the first invaders conquered ancient Egypt after the 21st Dynasty - it became the playground for all types of invaders and it never recovered after that. So if the greatest empire ever could be conquered, what's special about the Ijebu's? Anyway, I just want it to be based on facts, with evidence(s) that can be proven.

The premise is wrong and the conclusion therefrom must be.What do you mean by intact? how well do you actually know the Ijebus? There are riverine Ijebus and upland Ijebus.There are several differences most notable for obvious reasons in the deities they patronized and related beliefs they hold. The "waterside" Ijebus have a long standing hitory with Ijaws and other coastal tribes who were highly mobile from the coasts of Modern Cameroon to Modern Ghana.
The Issue of Yoruba,bini Ijebu ignores completely the issue of aboriginal peoples of Western/midwestern Nigeria,their anthropology and how the "modern" inhabitants came about.
If as is borne out by archaeological evidence there were people in Nigeria 10000 years ago they are unlikely to have been anything like any of the present inhabitants. Withou hard evidence we are only guessing but looking at England e.g or even ancient Rome it is clear to see that Languages can die out completely in ways that are impossible to explain satisfactorily.The fact that tow sets of people speak the same language does not mean they have the same origin conversely thos with same origins e.g Germanic may develop differently for a range of reasons.
why did the Romans die out and the Basques or Greeks survive
Ths notion of an untouched pocket of Ijebuism in some time warp kernel is just self indulgence andnothing more
Ijebus are not the only "Yoruba" group with distinct customs. In fact what is truly remarkable which no one has mentioned is the fact that in the 1891 census the people did NOT identify themselves as Yoruba but as Ijebu,Oyo etc. This has been seen elsewhere e.g in Biblical times Middle east there were several Kings with simiial cultures/language. This is equaly true of the Germanic region,the Slavic region and the British Isles where there were doxens of English kings eg Northumbria,anglia etc. They spoke mutually intelligible but distinct dialects with a fierce sence of separate identities. With empires come the rewriting of history and myth eg oduduwa,Ife etc. Western Nigeria was no different

omonnakoda: where do you get this information that Oniru or ALL Ijebu kings were under Awujale is there any evidence for this?
I am sure before the Ijebus learnt English the term "Ijebu LAND" did not exist.He was and is the AWujale of Ijebuode. Even the British found this out during the Ijebu wars he was not a king of the Ijebus.

I believe Epe and coastal (riverside) Ijebu's have always been under the Awujale. You're probably alluding to the Remo axis and Ijebu Igbo. Anyway, that's their prerogative but it was speaking about my own side of Ijebu in Epe and the other riverside Ijebu's.

omonnakoda:
The premise is wrong and the conclusion therefrom must be.What do you mean by intact? how well do you actually know the Ijebus? There are riverine Ijebus and upland Ijebus.There are several differences most notable for obvious reasons in the deities they patronized and related beliefs they hold. The "waterside" Ijebus have a long standing hitory with Ijaws and other coastal tribes who were highly mobile from the coasts of Modern Cameroon to Modern Ghana.
The Issue of Yoruba,bini Ijebu ignores completely the issue of aboriginal peoples of Western/midwestern Nigeria,their anthropology and how the "modern" inhabitants came about.
If as is borne out by archaeological evidence there were people in Nigeria 10000 years ago they are unlikely to have been anything like any of the present inhabitants. Withou hard evidence we are only guessing but looking at Englan e.g or even ancient from it is clear to see that Languages can die out completely in ways that are impossible to explain satisfactorily.The fact that tow sets of people speak the same language does not mean they have the same origin conversely thos with same origins e.g Germanic may develop differently for a range of reasons.
Ths notion of an untouched pocket of Ijebuism in some time warp kernel is just self indulgence andnothing more
Ijebus are not the only "Yoruba" group with distinct customs. In fact what is truly remarkable which no one has mentioned is the fact that in the 1891 census the people did NOT identify themselves as Yoruba but as Ijebu,Oyo etc. This has been seen elsewhere e.g in Biblical times Middle east there were several Kings with simiial cultures/language. This is equaly true of the Germanic region,the Slavic region and the British Isles where there were doxens of English kings eg Northumbria,anglia etc. They spoke mutually intelligible but distinct dialects with a fierce sence of separate identities. With empires come the rewriting of history and myth eg oduduwa,Ife etc. Western Nigeria was no different

Regardless of whatever history the waterside Ijebu's have the Ijaw's, there's little or no Ijaw influence on the waterside Ijebu culture.

All waterside Ijebu people are from Ijebu ode, including the Ijebu-Itsekir's (Ugborodo and the other Ijebu clans in Warri).

shymexx:

I believe Epe and coastal (riverside) Ijebu's have always been under the Awujale. You're probably alluding to the Remo axis and Ijebu Igbo. Anyway, that's their prerogative but it was speaking about my own side of Ijebu in Epe and the other riverside Ijebu's.

ou are entitled to believe this but do you have any facts? I certainly dispute it. DO they claim to have origins in Ijebu ode or in Ife according to their traditions?

That is the politics behind the title IJEBULAND. How many Yoruba obas include the word "land" in their title,is that traditional?
After the British sudbued the Awujale they realised he did NOT control Ijebuland.That was a falsehood then and TODAY there is nothing like IJEBULAND in power politics but it may have cultural or romatic relevance/resonance.
What seems more likely to me is much of the land was open and people came from many places and settled and quicklly assimilated the Ijebu language which probably originally did not look like Yoruba at all.
I know at least one that were clearly Ebira but are totally "IJEBU" today they were never under Awujale . In those days the land was vast and empty in many places and I am sure some settlements have Ijaw or other origins but are practically IJEBU today

omonnakoda: ou are entitled to believe this but do you have any facts? I certainly dispute it. DO they claim to have origins in Ijebu ode or in Ife according to their traditions?

That is the politics behind the title IJEBULAND. How many Yoruba obas include the word "land" in their title,is that traditional?
After the British sudbued the Awujale they realised he did NOT control Ijebuland.That was a falsehood then and TODAY there is nothing like IJEBULAND in power politics but it may have cultural or romatic relevance/resonance.
What seems more likely to me is much of the land was open and people came from many places and settled and quicklly assimilated the Ijebu language which probably originally did not look like Yoruba at all.
I know at least one that were clearly Ebira but are totally "IJEBU" today they were never under Awujale . In those days the land was vast and empty in many places and I am sure some settlements have Ijaw or other origins but are practically IJEBU today

However, that isn't exclusively an Ijebu thing. Assimilation has been happening since the beginning of time. However, the most important thing is the culture/traditions of the land they were assimilated into.

The Dawodu family from Lagos were Nupe/Ibira, but today, they're Yoruba's. The Oshodi and Obanikoro families of Lagos are from Benin, but today, they're Yoruba's. I'm sure there are tons of people who used to be Fulani, Hausa, Fon, Nupe/Ibira, Benin, Bariba - who're now Yoruba's because they were either slaves in Oyo, or settled down in Yoruba and assimilated into the culture. Same goes for Benin and other neighbouring cultures/kingdoms.

Even in England, everyone calls the English, "Anglo-Saxons" - however, Normans, Vikings, Romans etc. also settled in England. But everyone has been assimilated into the "Anglo-Saxon" tag.

That's the interesting thing about culture and history.

shymexx:

However, the Onikoyi, Aseyin and Timi never had kingdoms as big as the Ijebu's. Even Oniru, which is also an Ijebu king under the Awujale, had a bigger kingdom than the Onikoyi's.

I don't get the relevance of this comment. That Ijebu allegedly became larger than Ede, Iseyin or Ikoyi does not remove from the fact that ijebu was a vassal territory of Oyo. The British empire at its peak was much larger than the Roman empire, should we erase that part of history that provides that Britain was conquered by Romans?

shymexx:

I believe Epe and coastal (riverside) Ijebu's have always been under the Awujale. You're probably alluding to the Remo axis and Ijebu Igbo. Anyway, that's their prerogative but it was speaking about my own side of Ijebu in Epe and the other riverside Ijebu's.

This is totally false. Not all Ijebu were under the Awujale just as not all Egba were under the Alake.

shymexx:

Regardless of whatever history the waterside Ijebu's have the Ijaw's, t[b]here's little or no Ijaw influence on the waterside Ijebu culture.[/b]

All waterside Ijebu people are from Ijebu ode, including the Ijebu-Itsekir's (Ugborodo and the other Ijebu clans in Warri).

Your statements (not necessarily the writer) are arrogant and ignorant.) THE KIND OF STATEMENT THAT AN UNEDUCATED PERSON WOULD MAKE. Any educated person,really educated, is often quick to say "i don't know , tell me more or words to that effect. Nigerians lack intellectual humility and often box themselves into a corner of no retreat with arrogant declarations. There is much that we do not know about our origins and who are indeed the Autochthons of our land. We will do well to keep an open mind in most things.

I don't know where any group of people are from because I was not born and there are no verifiable records. I do know where many CLAIM to be from in their oral traditions and often it is from Ile-ife. That may or may not be so but the whole Ife or other place origin narrative is based on the assumption of empty lands we do not know this to be so
I don't know how you know that there is no Ijaw influence on the Ijebu at the same time contradicting yourself by saying Itsekiri are Ijebu. Is there no Ijaw influence on Itsekiri?
honestly you are just guessing and don't know what you are talking about

Katsumoto:

This is totally false. Not all Ijebu were under the Awujale just as not all Egba were under the Alake.

Leave him he is guessing.His knowledge is based on what he has read. Has he heard of remireke or been to Agbowa,Baiyeku Ijede Egbin,Igbogbo etc . some of the deities worshipped have more in common with Ijaws and egun than other Yorubas e.g you would expect Osun to be prominent among riverine Yorubas but this is not so in the Lekki lagoon area

shymexx:

I believe Epe and coastal (riverside) Ijebu's have always been under the Awujale. You're probably alluding to the Remo axis and Ijebu Igbo. Anyway, that's their prerogative but it was speaking about my own side of Ijebu in Epe and the other riverside Ijebu's.

Oniru has nothing to do with Epe. There were two settlers in that town, the Ijebu Epe, ruled by Oloja and the Eko Epe, ruled by Olu.

The dynasty of the Olu is the Eshilokun and is not in anyway an Ijebu blood..

The Ijebus are Great people and their contribution in Yorubaland is recognized but it appears to me you are getting a pushback. From my own observation, in matters relating to Yorubaland you always stand out to project Ijebu culture and Ijebu dominion and Ijebu circle of influence, as if Ijebu is greater than the GREATER Yoruba.. You really dont need to market Ijebu, there is no one on the land who has not one way or another, directly or indirectly, been touched by Ijebu influence.

shymexx:

However, that isn't exclusively an Ijebu thing. Assimilation has been happening since the beginning of time. However, the most important thing is the culture/traditions of the land they were assimilated into.

The Dawodu family from Lagos were Nupe/Ibira, but today, they're Yoruba's. The Oshodi and Obanikoro families of Lagos are from Benin, but today, they're Yoruba's. I'm sure there are tons of people who used to be Fulani, Hausa, Fon, Nupe/Ibira, Benin, Bariba - who're now Yoruba's because they were either slaves in Oyo, or settled down in Yoruba and assimilated into the culture. Same goes for Benin and other neighbouring cultures/kingdoms.

Even in England, everyone calls the English, "Anglo-Saxons" - however, Normans, Vikings, Romans etc. also settled in England. But everyone has been assimilated into the "Anglo-Saxon" tag.

That's the interesting thing about culture and history.

The Dawodus are not Tapa and Oshodi is not Bini. Yes Obanikoro is Bini. To know who is Tapa and who is not you should study the families in "Epe"tedo.

If you want to know who is Bini you study the family compounds in Isale Eko.

To know Idejo you study Isale Eko and Ijora/Oto.

To understand the Brazilians you go to Brazilian quarters between Tinubu/Kakawa and Campos.

To know the Hausas and Baribas you go to Lafiaji.

To know the Saros you go to Oluwole/Olowogbowo/ Apongbon.

If you need the Ijeshas/Ekitis you go to Isalegangan/Apatira

Mayor_of_Lagos:

The Dawodus are not Tapa and Oshodi is not Bini. Yes Obanikoro is Bini. To know who is Tapa and who is not you should study the families in "Epe"tedo.

Oshodi is actually Tapa.

Katsumoto:

Oshodi is actually Tapa.

Exactly!