TerraCotta: Now--what reasons do we have of being suspicious of the Benin conquest story related by Dapper?

So, just to be clear, there isn't a "Benin conquest story" of Ijebu related by Dapper. The conquest claim comes from the Bini in later times. There is, however, a claim that the place is tributary to Benin in Dapper's book. A place being called tributary and a place being claimed to have been conquered are two different and not automatically/necessarily related things. For example, the place called "Forkado or Ouwerre" (meaning the kingdom of Warri) is listed as tributary to Benin in the same book by Dapper, but this does not mean that they (the Bini) claimed either back then or at any later time that this tributary relationship came about out of any sort of conquest of Warri. I'm not saying that the Bini back then (in the 1600s) were not claiming that they had conquered Ijebu in the past - actually, they probably were - but just pointing out what is actually stated in Dapper's book.

TerraCotta: Robin Law's exhaustive study of European sources on Ijebu agrees that the claim is probably an inflated one. Law quotes Dapper's passage and says "Dapper's statement here that Ijebu was tributary to Benin is difficult to evaluate. Although it is supported by Benin traditions claiming an early Benin conquest of Ijebu, it should be treated with reserve; since Dapper's own information was collected in Benin, it may reflect patriotic vainglory rather than political reality." (from "Early European Sources Relating to the Kingdom of Ijebu, 1500-1700: A Critical Survey", History in Africa , Vol. 13, (1986), pp. 253).

So, if one reads this quote, and one reads what Law wrote in his other article from 1983, what becomes clear is that Law is not taking a definite stance either way in both articles. What he is actually doing is introducing an alternative explanation for the claim and a rationale/justification ('patriotic vainglory') for that possible alternative explanation.

Note that in the 1983 article Law writes:

"The kingdom of Ijebu, to the north of the Lagos lagoon, had surely escaped from whatever degree of Benin control it had earlier suffered by the eighteenth century,60 and also took over control of the land to the south of the lagoon, between Benin and Lagos.61"

[60 Although still described as a 'Viceroyalty of Benin' by one observer of the early nineteenth century: Robertson, Notes on Africa, 30I. In fact, Ijebu appears to have been incorporated into the sphere of influence of Oyo from the seventeenth century onwards: cf. Robin Law, The Oyo Empire, c.16oo - c.1836 (Oxford, I977), I35-7.
61 An account of the I840s states that Ijebu had 'long since' taken over control of this area from Benin: d'Avezac-Macaya, in Curtin, Africa Remembered, 239.] - Robin Law, "Trade and Politics behind the Slave Coast: The Lagoon Traffic and the Rise of Lagos, 1500-1800" (1983)

So he doesn't rule out that there could have been some degree of Benin control in the past in the 1983 article, he just has issues with the details (such as the time of the claimed conquest) and thinks that the claim should not be automatically accepted but treated with caution/reserve.

And in the 1986 article, what he is saying, as the quote itself shows, is that it may just reflect "patriotic vainglory" rather than "political reality," not that it necessarily does just reflect patriotic vainglory or even that it likely just reflects patriotic vainglory.

In both cases, he does not take a definite stance either for or against the truth of the claim. Law's decision to treat the claim with "reserve" without strong evidence for it is certainly reasonable, but that is still a different thing from saying the claim is false or even saying that it's probably false.

TerraCotta: If you read his quote from Dapper, you'll see that Jaboe (Ijebu) is just another claimed tributary area alongside the unidentified Isago, Gaboe (probably a misreading of Ijebu but possibly also Aboh, Istanna etc). Some of these names demonstrate the problems later readers have with Dapper's accuracy, since inconsistent spellings and multilingual translations often lead to some unintentionally garbled information.

Ijebu is claimed as a tributary, yes, but it's also noted that the Ijebu kingdom is not considered military strong (along with another kingdom said in Dapper's book to be northwest of Benin called both "Odobo" and "Oedobo", which is presumably a Benin reference to the Ondo kingdom - "Odobo" being the name of a Benin military commander that Benin tradition associates with the defeat of the rebellion of the early Ondo kingdom, and Akotogbo, known originally as Eko-Odobo to the Edo, being the name of a war camp of this same Odobo) compared to places that are considered "mighty" in the wider region, such as 'Isago'. This appraisal of the military strength of different places is presumably based on the views of Benin informants, and consequently, it may or may not be accurate, depending on what assumptions one wants to make.

Isago is not really so unidentifiable, but I'll comment on Isago at greater length immediately below. First, "Gaboe" and "Istanna."

It's not the case that Gaboe is just listed as a tributary to Benin in Dapper's book. There is a bit more information in the book about Gaboe, which actually makes Gaboe quite easy to identify as Aboh. If there are professional scholars who claimed or who are claiming that they don't know what "Gaboe" refers to in that book, it's very likely that at the time those people put forward their theories/ideas about it being something else or about it not being Aboh, there was less information available to them about Aboh, so they had difficulty making the easy identification.

"Gaboe is situated near the Benin River. To reach this kingdom from Benin, it is necessary to ascend the river for eight days. It is a country of the Acori and Jasper. The Dutch acquire many slaves there. The inhabitants are friendly and rather like those of Benin." - Olfert Dapper, Description of Africa

First it says that "Gaboe" is situated near the Benin river - the first clue that it's Aboh. Then it claims that all one has to do to reach the kingdom of "Gaboe" from the Benin kingdom is to follow the Benin river for a certain number of days (eight days) to get to Aboh. Then there's a claim that beads ('acori and jasper') are prevalent there - and we know from other publications that Aboh was involved in either using or trading beads in the past (in fact, a later description of the king of Aboh from the 1800s (which can be found in the book Nigerian Perspectives by Hodgkin) mentions the numerous beads in his attire). Then it says Aboh was involved in the slave trade, which we also know to be true from other sources, although it's doubtful that they had much direct contact with Europeans in the slave trade. The perception that the people of Aboh were "rather like those of Benin" may have something to do with certain perceived cultural similarities between Benin and Aboh or it might just have been an assumption.

On Istanna, this is slightly less easy to identify (yet still easy), but there is actually only one kingdom it can possibly refer to, and like "Gaboe" there is more information that is given about the place by Dapper besides just claiming that it is a tributary of Benin. First it is claimed that this "Istanna" borders the Benin kingdom on the east. Note that the Igala kingdom is indeed northeast of the Bini, and that back then (early 17th century), when the Benin kingdom's borders were further northwards (when it was more powerful), reaching the northernmost part of the modern Edo state, the Igala kingdom would have been basically directly east of Benin's northern borders.

Second, Dapper also notes that Istanna had formerly been powerful and mighty until it was defeated by Benin and made tributary, which would perfectly match the account of Benin winning the Benin-Igala war (in the early 16th century) that one sees in the traditions collected by Egharevba in the early 20th century. But in addition to that it would also explain how the Igala kingdom went from having the power attributed to it in the era of the warrior Onoja Ogboni and the era when it (allegedly) held parts of Nupe tributary, to later being a less powerful kingdom that was tributary to the Jukun later on for a while and was not really imperial or prominent in conquests of other areas after its defeat by Benin.

And regarding the name itself, apart from the confusion of "g" and "st" in the name, "Istanna" strikes me as actually being closer to "Igala" than almost any of the other names in early written sources that certain scholars take as possibly indicating the Igala kingdom (such as the ones on maps or in documents that Thornton thinks refer to the Igala kingdom). For one thing, in this instance all of the vowels (the starting 'i' and the two 'a' sounds) are actually correct. Furthermore, regarding the consonant ('nn') in the last syllable, the change between the consonants "l" and "n" in various langauges is well known so I don't think I need to elaborate on that, and this well known variance between n and l occurs occasionally in Edo too (for example, Osanobua can also be called Osalobua in Bini land), so the "n" there is not to far from an "l" and an "l" sound may even have sounded like an "n" to a listener. So actually the n sound being there instead of the l is possibly not even some sort of error of transcription but simply what the peron that was listening thought that they heard. Really all that is wrong with the term "Istanna" is the probable transcription based error of "g' to "st", but other than that it is quite close to the real name of the kingdom it is meant to indicate. So for geographical, historical, and linguistic reasons, I think the identification of Istanna with Igala is pretty certain.

.

TerraCotta: The other thing it demonstrates is that the all-conquering claim of Benin did in fact extend deep into the interior to touch even on Oyo (possibly the 'Isago' referred to here, which may also be Nupe or a currently unknown polity).

I didn't really want to get into this issue of "Isago" (although I guess it does fit into the very general topic of the thread), so as not to have to take this conversation in even more directions than it is already branching out to (a few too many, really), but I guess I should share what I think about the mention of Isago and what was really being said about 'Isago' and attempt to allay your suspicion that some outrageous claim was really being made (I can assure you that this isn't the case, but you have to read all the paragraphs below to understand why there's nothing outlandish about the claim).

1. The "Isago" reference is to a state described in the documents as a kingdom northwest of Benin which used cavalry (Thornton, like Ryder, thinks Isago is a Nupe state, partly because of its use of horses) that Benin had defeated "some years ago", and which had been paying tribute after some war.

"The Kingdom Isago, which is tributary to Benin, borders Benin on the west. It is rich in horses, which the inhabitants use for war. Some years ago the people of Isago were emboldened to invade the city of Benin with some thousand horsemen — but their attack failed and they themselves were defeated and made tributary." - Olfert Dapper, Description of Africa

This particular quote from Dapper only mentions it being "west" of Benin, but another part of Dapper's book (see the first excerpt from Dapper used by Law in his 1986 article on Ijebu) notes that it is not only west of Benin, but specifically northwest of Benin.

So there is not just a claim that "by the way, that kingdom is tributary to Benin" in the documents but a reference in Dapper's sources to the actual defeat of that group by Benin in another part of Dapper's publication. This quote above is not right next to the part of the publication where the other tributary places are listed and it is not usually the part you see in selections/excerpts from Dapper's Description of Africa that are quoted in books, so maybe you might have missed it. So the mention there of Isago in Dapper's publication also mentions an actual recent military conflict that went in Benin's favor. Now of course, if a person wanted to, they could certainly pretend that the Benin informants were also hallucinating about having fought this other polity, but I think at that point, the person making such an argument doesn't actually strain the credibility of the Benin informants as he would like to, but actually begins to strain his or her own credibility. Most scholars (Law, Smith, Bradbury, Talbot, etc.) have not tried to pretend a conflict did not happen here, but have accepted that one did, and have tried to use that to better explain what the possible identity of Isago is.

The other thing that is not mentioned in your statement about Isago is that Dapper also notes that although, like the other places listed, the king of Isago pays tribute to the king of Benin, "Isago is itself a mighty Kingdom and respects the King of Benin the least". Another translation from the Dutch gives it that Isago "fears the King of Benin less than all the others" (all the other tributary states).

In other words, contrary to the idea that Benin was claiming to be "all conquering" far into the interior, they actually informed the Dutch that were asking about these things that although "Isago" had recently been defeated in war by Benin and made tributary, they still "respected Benin the least" out of Benin's tributaries, because unlike those other tributaries they had considerable power themselves. That they included this (seemingly unnecessary) caveat about Isago should be a clear sign that they were not just bragging blindly before Europeans who had no idea of where the place was in order to con these Europeans, but were describing their perception of how things stood between Isago and Benin - Benin had recently defeated Isago, and the king of Isago paid tribute, but showed the least deference because he was actually the ruler of what Benin considered a "mighty kingdom" among those tributary places mentioned. The specifics of what the Benin informants were claiming as far as Isago "paying tribute" but "respecting the king of Benin the least" may have been lost in the attempt to summarize what was told, but it should be clear that the caveat would have been unnecessary for a claim about being "all conquering" and in fact, they would have messed up the supposed "con" job some might think they were trying to run by admitting how much less fear or how much less respect that king (of Isago) had for the king of Benin.

2. Now what is "Isago"? Isago/Mosiaco/Lycosagou is definitely a reference to a Nupe state, and is unlikely to be anything else, notwithstanding what other claims one may come across about the place in certain publications from some scholars.

Isago is very very likely to be a Nupe state, and very unlikely to be Oyo. I left the possibility that Isago in the European documents could still have been an Oyo reference in my comments only out cautiousness and openness to other possibilities, not because I actually believe it to be true - although I once thought it was Oyo in the past, when I had only really read Robin Law's take on the name.

Law assumes that Isago is probably Oyo, based on his reading of R.E. Bradbury's analysis of Isago as possibly being some European spelling of an Edo rendering of the word "Sango" (the name of the humanized deity or deified king that is a famous king of Oyo), even though we know from other later written sources that the proper name of the kingdom (Oyo) was actually known to some other Benin informants in later accounts and even though there are no other sources which show any evidence of the Edo using the word Sango (called Esago by the Edo) to refer to Oyo. Bradbury bases his analysis on Percy Talbot's guess that it could have been Oyo (probably because of the geographical location of Isago and because of the mention of that place being powerful and using horses for war). But Bradbury didn't necessarily go along with this idea - he wrote that one more readily identifies Oyo with the "Ulkami" kingdom mentioned in Dapper's text as being a mighty kingdom northwest of Benin, and said that the link between "Isago" and Oyo was "very tenuous". Bradbury says that there is only "a very slight justification" for identifying Isago with Oyo. Talbot also preferred to identify Ulkami with Oyo, but just suggested as an additional possibility that Isago could be an additional reference to Oyo .

Now if this were really Oyo, rather than the Nupe state or a sub-nation within the larger Nupe state called "Isago" or some variant of that name, I'm not sure why Benin informants would have called it something that other than Oyo (or 'Hio', 'Awyaw', 'Eyeo', etc.) when, in other instances, later Benin informants could accurately refer to Oyo by its real name and when it's still more likely that if they didn't call Oyo by it's real name then they would have just called Oyo "Ulkami" (Olukumi) or said that it was a significant part of the larger kingdom of "Ulkami". However, the possibility does exist that there was a conflation of Oyo and Nupe even back then because of the previous Nupe conquest of Oyo or some sort of possible Nupe political influence over Oyo's area (before Oyo reconquered its territory from the Nupe) at the particular time that this "Isago" was being mentioned.

Based on Talbot's conclusion that 'Sango' may be the informants' way of referring to "Oyo", and Bradbury's analysis of this conjecture (which he viewed as 'very tenuous'), Law goes on to note that Egharevba writes of a war between Benin and Oyo during Oba Ehengbuda's time that was settled in a stalemate in the northern Ekiti area while Oyo traditions note an invasion carried out by Oyo into that area (Ekiti or Ijesha) around the same time (17th century) and another tradition from either the Ekiti or Ijesha area (I'm not sure because I'm trying to recall this from memory) claims that there was an invasion by Oyo into that area in order to "recover the true Oduduwa crown" (what that means isn't clear). Another tradition from the Ekiti or Ijesha area cited by Law (in the same part of his book on Oyo) claims that there was an invasion by the Nupe into that area around that same time. If it can be assumed that the "Oyo" that Egharevba's informants claimed was fought to a stalemate in the Ekiti area around this time is the "Isago" of the European documents and is also the same as the "Nupe" that are said in that Ekiti or Ijesha tradition to have invaded that area around that time, then this might mean that whatever this "Isago" state really was, the confusion about whether it was Oyo or a Nupe state may have existed even in the past, not just the present. However, I think it's unnecessary to assume that there is a connection between the two, and I think that that two separate conflicts - one involving Oyo and Benin that resulted in a stalemate, and an earlier conflict involving a Nupe state and Benin that resulted in Benin defeating that Nupe state - is what actually occurred.

From the information cited by Law from the traditions of multiple groups, Law builds up an interesting scenario of direct competition/confrontation between Benin and Oyo. His conclusion is that Oyo and Benin were competing for control/territory in the Ekiti area for some reason or another. Now Benin and Oyo could indeed have been competing for control and influence in that area even if one ignores the "Isago" - Benin conflict mentioned in the 17th century European document and just focuses on the traditions collected in the 19th and early 20th century in Benin and Yoruba land. But in his book Law does use the reference to "Isago" in Dapper's book in the context of analyzing this apparent Benin-Oyo competition and sees the identification of "Isago" as Oyo as plausible.

Clearly Law suspects (or suspected, I don't know if he still holds that view) that "Isago" is Oyo (which is based on Bradbury's analysis - and Bradbury's analysis (which he thought was had a very tenuous basis) is based on Talbot's guess), and sees the Oyo traditions of incursions into the Ekiti area (or Ijesha area, I'm trying to recall this detail from memory, but not really succeeding) and the Benin tradition of incursion into the Ekiti area against Oyo as evidence of this being the war between "Isago" and Benin that was mentioned by Dapper's sources.

Now there really is no reason to assume the claim of Dapper's sources that this "Isago" was defeated and then made tributary (although still "respecting the king of Benin the least" even if paying tribute) is exactly the same as claiming direct conquest of the place or its capital. If the terms of the settlement of the war were very favorable to Benin, then the description of this place (wherever it was) as "paying tribute" would not be inaccurate - this is not necessarily the same as engaging in a full and direct conquest of the place. This is basically the argument that Law makes in that aforementioned section of his book on Oyo - that some form of restitution or some payments may have been made to Benin for a while by this defeated 'Isago' side as part of the settlement/peace after their defeat and the ensuing stalemate, although he disagrees with the idea that it would be accurate to characterize this as fully being "tributary" to Benin. Of course, he disagrees with the idea that this (tributary status) would be an accurate or even possible characterization based on his assumption that this place probably really was Oyo (and not some smaller but still somewhat powerful cavalry state within the larger Nupe confederacy).

However the idea that this place really was Oyo doesn't really seem warranted to me. I once thought Oyo could be plausibly identified as Isago back when I read Law's book on Oyo, but after doing some further reading, I think this is very unlikely. I agree with Thomas Hodgkin (in his introduction to Nigerian Perspectives) and J.D. Fage (in his article on Pereira's Esmeraldo de situ orbis) on their observations that there is really no basis for assuming that "Licosagou"/"Isago"/"Mosiaco" was really a reference to Oyo.


3. What was Oyo in Dapper's book then? It was "Ulkami."

Dapper mentions "Ulkami," and locates it as being northwest of Benin in one part of his book and in another sentence, locates the kingdom in this manner:

"The mighty Kingdom of Ulkami (or Ulkuma) stretches eastward of Arder, between the kingdoms of Arder and Benijn (Benin), but does not reach the coast." - Olfert Dapper, Description of Africa

So this is a "mighty kingdom" that is east of Allada ('Arder'/'Ardrah'), and is located between Allada and Benin but doesn't touch the coast (i.e. having a more interior location - there are Yorubas at the coast, so this "Ulkami" name is not just being used as a general ethnic designation but to refer specifically to a militarily powerful interior Yoruba kingdom). This Ulkami (Lucumi/Olukumi) is obviously some large Yoruba kingdom in the interior that is considered militarily mighty, and the idea that it is said to be east of Allada and not reaching the coast at that time suggests to me that it was Oyo. Other mentions of a kingdom with the same name of "Ulkami" in later European sources claim that it is next to Dahomey and south of "Houssa," which is more reason to think it was an early reference to Oyo.

4. So, why Isago as a Nupe state? Well, the location matches (northwest of Benin), the description matches (powerful and using horses for warfare), a certain very telling statement in an important pre-colonial written document (not Dapper) matches well with the idea of it being a Nupe state, and strangely enough, the names (Isago, Mosiaco, Lycosagou) would also match up fine with a Nupe state.

I'm pretty certain that this "Isago" was the "Zitako" (also called Shitako or Zhitako) subgroup within the Nupe confederacy, but the answer may be a little more complex than just that. There are about 12 dialects of Nupe, but the "political" state of the Nupe confederacy apparently consisted of five groups:

(1) Ebe
(2) Beni/Bini
(3) Ebagi
(4) Bataci/Batache
(5) Zitako/Dibo

The Zitako/Dibo group spoke a distinct Nupe dialect which S.F. Nadel says (in A Black Byzantium: The Kingdom of Nupe in Nigeria) "differs considerably" from a few other Nupe dialects and from the dialect of Nupe spoken by most of the rest of the Nupe. Other sources consider Zitako a sub-ethnic group of the Nupe, so given this linguistic separation, the idea that they could have had a separate/distinct political state, although possibly still politically connected with or interacting greatly with the larger Nupe confederacy, is definitely plausible.

However Zitako is a smaller group within Nupe (at least nowadays, anyway) and I would suggest instead that they were probably part of a larger state (although one which did not include the entire Nupe linguistic group) but that this larger Nupe state or the alliance of Nupe groups within the confederacy that made up this state was being called by the name of one smaller subgroup (Zitako) possibly because they were the most prominent group in that state or because it was the particular Nupe sub-ethnic group out of all the ones involved in the state that was known to certain peoples further south. Or the state/confederacy could really just have been named after his particular group, and what the informants kept referring to (Isago/Mosiaco) really was a rendition of the true name of the state while it existed.

Now the written evidence from a precolonial document besides Dapper: Alonso de Sandoval notes in De Instauranda Aethiopum Salute that the kings of "Benin" (but this is actually a reference to the Beni/Bini, a known subgroup of the Nupe, which Thornton, unfortunately - and this is pretty unfortunate considering the excellence of most of his other identifications in the book Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World - confuses for the Edo of Benin, sometimes called the Bini, whose kingdom was and is frequently referred to as the Benin kingdom) and the kings of "Isago" held that the ruler of 'Agare' (i.e. Igala), was their "emperor" - so clearly the kings of the Beni/Bini subgroup of the Nupe and the king of the Isago were distinct yet connected Nupe polities within a larger Nupe political confederacy, which at one time had held the Attah of Igala as their "emperor." And this idea of parts of Nupe formerly being tributary to the Attah of Igala is well attested to in later Nupe traditions collected in the early 20th century (for example, the accounts collected by Leo Froebenius, S.F. Nadel and some others).


Now there are a few European documents in which the "Beni" of the Nupe are confused with the Benin of the Edo and some scholars have noticed this:

"There are many literary references to links between Nupe and Benin; most, perhaps, rest on a misunderstanding, since a subgroup of the Nupe people are called Beni. Clapperton was told that 'Nyffe people and those of Benin were the same people', and Moloney noted in 1890 that 'The Benin kingdom was described to me as of the same family as the Tappas' (i.e. Nupe)." - Elizabeth Isichei, A history of Nigeria, Volume 2, p. 136

Obviously, "Nyffe people" (Nupe people) and the people of Benin (Edo) were not the same, and Clapperton's Nupe informant assumed that he was referring to the Beni of the Nupe, naturally. And of course, the Beni state was "of the same family" as the Tapas (Nupes), but the Benin kingdom definitely wasn't.

Some other quotes:

"If there was a real dynastic link with Nupe this seems doubtful. It seems more probable that statements about a common heritage rest of the accidental verbal similarity between Benin and Beni. It is noteworthy that Ryder, who questioned the Ife connection and argued the case for linkages with a northern kingdom, abandoned the line of argument in his later book, Benin and the Europeans" - Elizabeth Isichei, A history of Nigeria, Volume 2, p. 137

"Muslim traders in the early nineteenth century placed Benin in southern Nupe country, apparently referring to the Beni confederacy, from which the Nupe kingdom developed." - Werner Gillon, A short history of African art, p. 251


But unfortunately Thornton doesn't notice this, and although he rightly identifies Isago with the Nupe, he misses the fact that 'Isago' is only a part of the Nupe (the same way Oyo or Ijebu or Ketu were/are only parts of Yoruba land, and not kingdoms that encompassed the entire ethnic group), also misses the fact that the "Benin" referred to there is the Beni of the Nupe confederacy, not the Edo/Bini of the better known Benin kingdom, and because of these other two errors he misses the fact that two prominent Nupe groups (the 'Isago' group of the Nupe confederacy and the Beni/Bini subgroup of the Nupe confederacy) are what Alonso de Sandoval's sources were really claiming as places that were holding the king of Igala to be their "emperor." Obviously, there is nothing in Benin tradition which views the Attah of Igala in such a light, and in fact, some Benin traditions claim the first Attah of Igala came from Benin (something which some (but definitely not all) Igala traditions collected in the early 20th century actually agree with). So far from seeing the Attah of Igala as their "emperor" he would have been held by some in Benin to have an ancestor who was a prince from Benin, and in addition, they would have held that his kingdom was later conquered by Benin when they (Igala) lost that early 16th century war. And of course, there are several publications from non-Edo sources that also state that Igala had been tributary to Benin, besides just Dapper's mention of 'Istanna' (Igala). And for more on the Nupe connection with Igala, this relationship is touched on in the article "Kingship and the Mediators of the Past: Oral Tradition and Ritual Performance in Nupeland, Nigeria" by Constanze Weise, from the book Sources And Methods In African History: Spoken, Written, Unearthed (edited by Toyin Falola, and Christian Jennings).

5. Of course, some might assume that variations on the name Nupe or on the name "Tapa" or other ethnic designations are what we should encounter in instances where we come across intended references to the Nupe in written sources, but in the same way that we encounter references to a "Geebu" (Ijebu) kingdom in written documents without indications from the writers that the people there are ethnically "Yoruba" or "Lucumi" people, and in the same way that we encounter references to "Bornu" as a kingdom and "Bornouese" people in written documents without it always being stated that these Bornu people are Kanuri, Kanembu, "Kanike" "Beriberi" etc. it is certainly possible that we could come across references to a Zitako state or a Zitako led state without it being indicated by the writer that these people are ethnically Nupe. It would have been better if there had been an additional name to use to identify the ethnicity, but an ethnic name is not indispensable to make an identification here if one takes other things into account.

6. Now taking "Isago"/"Mosiaco" as a rendition of Zitako may look problematic at first, but it's not as much of a stretch as it might seem at first glance:

That "g" can change to "k" or vice versa (Zitako ----> Zitago) in some languages is already well known to linguists, but I'm not sure which particular languages within Nigeria may have altered the consonant here. The known "g" to "k" and "k" to "g" sound change is known to be observed in European languages and, as far as I know, in that context it is a change within a language, not necessarily a corruption that occurs when speakers of one language interpret words from another language. But then again, the fact that we have a mention of "Mosiaco" (with a 'hard' c sound = a 'k' sound) in addition to "Isago" does suggest that it could have originally been a "k" sound and that one of the European sources that heard the name mentioned may have corrupted it to a "g" sound themselves or in later communication with other Europeans (for comparable examples, consider the corruption of the word "Mandinka" to "Mandinga" in numerous European sources on that ethnic group and also consider the "Guabuu" instead of "Kaabu" that Pereira records in Esmeraldo de situ orbis). But of course, the name could have been corrupted by other non-Nupe groups even before it was mentioned to Europeans instead.

Now on "t" changing to "s" (Zitago ---> Zisago) that may just be an instance of lenition, on the part of the non-Nupe people pronouncing a foreign name. But alternately, or additionally, it may have something to do with the frequent use of the diphthong "ts" in the Nupe language. There might have been a possible gradual alteration of a t sound to a "ts" sound (by lenition) and the further alteration of this "ts" sound into an "s" sound through additional lenition, by speakers of a particular Nupe dialect. But even if these things didn't happen, the possibility that the "t" sound was just misheard or corrupted to an "s" sound is also a possibility.

If we take these two minor linguistic changes (g to k and t to s) as possible, then we can see how "Zitako" could be interpreted or called "Isago". Apart from these minor differences, there is certainly an exact correspondence in the number of syllables in the two names and in all of the vowels in the two names.

7. To the best of my knowledge, Thornton's belief that Isago is Nupe doesn't seem to be based on any similarities between the name of one of the Nupe subgroups and the name in the European documents, but just on the characteristics that describe this "Isago" in the written documents - Thornton apparently thinks these descriptions match up better with Nupe than other places. But as I said, I disagree completely with the idea that Isago is a reference to the entire Nupe confederacy/kingdom, so I don't agree entirely with Thornton on this issue.

But anyway, even if one rejects this basis of Thornton's identification (the descriptions) and goes with the 'Sango' argument that Bradbury noted as being "very tenuous", there is still the fact that the actual existence of a connection of 'Sango' (whether the deified king or the humanized deity) to Nupe is well known. So even if one takes "Licosaguou"/'Mosiaco'/"Isago" as meaning "Sango" rather than taking it to refer to Zitako (the Nupe subgroup), there could still be a plausible identification of Isago with a Nupe state.


8. If we go with the (extremely plausible, in my opinion) view that it was a Nupe kingdom, was this Nupe state within the larger Nupe confederacy really "paying tribute" to Benin? Maybe. But the idea that they were does not really require that Benin be "all-conquering" and certainly it doesn't require that Benin even attempt to conquer all of Nupe, but just that Benin press this "Isago" state (a state in which the Zitako Nupes presumably played a prominent part) in the Nupe confederacy enough in the war to where they settle for a peace on terms that are quite favorable to Benin.

9. The ruler is called "Lycosagou" in Pereira's Esmeraldo possibly suggesting that "Lyco" or "Lyc" is some sort of royal or kingly prefix - or an attempt at an interpretation of such a prefix on the part of the non-Nupe informants - which precedes the name of the actual kingdom "Saguou" or "Osaguou". Since "Mosiaco" and "Isago" are the names of the state and not the names of a king's title in later sources, it's entirely plausible that this "Lycosaguou" which is given as the title of a king, rather than the name of a state, may be a kingly title or an interpretation of such a title by people who don't speak the language of the Nupe or the Zitako group of the Nupe, and that this perceived title combines the name of the kingdom with a word "Lyc" or "Lyco" which is supposed to mean "ruler of" or "king of". In that case "Lycosagou" would mean "king of Sagou/Osagaou."

Now as some further speculation, although it's not really directly related to anything we were discussing, consider the following speculative scenario/interpretation: perhaps this particular Nupe state within the Nupe confederacy (in which the Etsu was or later became the principal ruler), which was already noted as being powerful in Pereira's time, later invaded Oyo, with some assistance from other Nupe groups within the confederacy, conquered Oyo (Oyo tradition claims a temporary Nupe conquest of Oyo happened, resulting in a period of several decades of exile of Oyo's leadership and soldiers in Borgu and other places - this period of exile is discussed in Robert Smith's article "The Alafin in Exile: A Study of the Igboho Period in Oyo History" (1965)), and later pushes further south, going into the Ekiti area, then tries to go even further south to invade Benin, only to be defeated, pushed back by Benin into the northern Ekiti area, then eventually a militant arm of this Nupe confederacy's operations in the south, the state called 'Isago' - presumably led by the Zitako group - loses the war to Benin, is defeated and settles for a stalemate on terms favorable to Benin for a while after defeat (hence their being tributary, although still mighty), and then later, Oyo, starting from their base in Borgu, regroups and reconquers its original territory in Oyo, and begins expanding. Then this Nupe state called "Isago", although still a "mighty kingdom" is reduced in prominence and importance in the south, and later (after the 17th century) it completely ceases to be mentioned by anybody in the southern part of Nigeria, while mentions of "Hio", "Awyaw", "Eyeo", "Ulkami" etc as powerful and other references to Oyo become more prominent.


10. Basically, the two roots of Thornton's confusion on this issue were

a) the terms 'Agare' (a reference to the Igala kingdom - sometimes calles the Igarra, Igara, Gara, etc. by some other ethnic groups in the past) by de Sandoval and others vs. the 'Oghene/Hooguanee/Ogane' (a ruler) referenced by the Edo,

and

b) the confusion about the term "Beni" (of the Nupe) vs. the Benin of the Edo. It's an easy mistake for anyone to make - even a historian as talented and knowledgeable as Thornton - and it took me quite a bit of reading to figure out what was going on there.

That's about all I have to say on Isago. I'll finish responding to this thread either later tonight or tomorrow.

Some typing errors I've caught so far from me above:

"not considered military strong(along with another kingdom" should be "not considered militarily strong (along with another kingdom"

and in one of the quotes from Isichei's book it should be

"more probable that statements about a common heritage rest on the accidental verbal similarity"


And "important pre-colonial written document (not Dapper)" should just read "important pre-colonial document (not Dapper)" since it's obvious that the document I was referring to would be something that was written

Also,

so the "n" there is not to far from an "l"

but that should be ' so the "n" there is not far from an "l" '

So there is not just a claim that "by the way, that kingdom is tributary to Benin" in the documents but a reference in Dapper's sources to the actual defeat of that group by Benin in another part of Dapper's publication.

but the parts I crossed out should be ignored because they are repetitive


Also,

and Bradbury's analysis (which he thought was had a very tenuous basis

and

However, I think it's unnecessary to assume that there is a connection between the two, and I think that that two separate conflicts - one involving Oyo and Benin that resulted in a stalemate, and an earlier conflict involving a Nupe state and Benin that resulted in Benin defeating that Nupe state - is are what actually occurred.

and "S.F. Nadel says" should be "S.F. Nadel said"

Also,

clearly the kings of the Beni/Bini subgroup of the Nupe and the king of the Isago were kings of distinct yet connected Nupe polities within a larger Nupe political confederacy

and "Leo Froebenius" should be Leo Frobenius

and where I wrote ' In that case "Lycosagou" would mean "king of Sagou/Osagaou." ' that should read "king of Sagou/Osagou"

Also,

a reference to the Igala kingdom - sometimes calles the Igarra, Igara, Gara, etc

that should be "called"

frequent use of the diphthong "ts" in the Nupe language

That should be "consonant cluster," not diphthong. The name for joined vowel sounds came to my mind there, when I meant the term for the joined consonant sounds.


Another thing that I stated wrongly above: Alonso de Sandoval uses the name "Mosiaco" rather than "Isago" as I originally stated, but these are definitely references to the exact same name, and the point I was making about what de Sandoval was really claiming (that at least two Nupe polities within the Nupe confederacy still held the Attah of Igala to be their 'emperor') remains unchanged since Mosiaco and Isago are definitely the same kingdom. My point about the quote in de Sandoval's text is still that it's a reference to the Beni group of the Nupe confederacy (called Benin in de Sandoval's book) and the Mosiaco/Isago state (a state that was probably led by the Zitako/Shitako/Zhitako group) holding the king of the Igala as their "emperor", a relationship which fits perfectly with the Nupe identity of these polities.


I'm sure there are some other typing mistakes, and I might catch them later when I finish responding. I'm not editing the long posts, because the anti-spam bot will just hide the posts and ban me unnecessarily

Thanks to everyone who participated in this thread. It was very interesting thus far.