ChinenyeN:
AjaanaOka lei! I am floored! I don't care if it's a thousand years after I'm dead and gone, if someone has a response they should share it and this, by far, is such a coherent response that it feels like a satisfying revelation. This makes sooooo much sense. +1 for historical linguistics. Such an invaluable tool in times like this.

Plus one for historical linguistics, indeed! Language is such a mine of historical data. It's a shame that departments of history and linguistics in our universities are sleeping on this tool. I don't know any Nigerian historian presently who is utilising it constructively in piecing together the Nigerian past. Elsewhere on the continent where it has been used, its largely been European and American scholars at the forefront.

Truthfully, you were already selling me with your explanation, but when you factored in the Ejuona part of it all, it practically sealed it for me. Excellent, excellent. It's getting to a point where we're going to have to start publishing things like this in actual text. This revelation deserves to be noted.

I've actually been giving some serious thoughts to publishing papers on this and other ideas in online journals. However, I think I lack the discipline (and quite honestly the time) to sit down and knock together a publication-worthy paper.

I'm sure I'll write a book one day though. 'Musings on the Igbo Past' or something like that.

AjaanaOka, that piece you introduced is remarkable.

So from your latter assertion you believe the isu should constitute the ezi constituent, right?

There are places in abia state where the notion of isu heritage is strong, and these places do not have ihite/ezi/ikeghe naming pattern. In fact they claim to be homogeneous and to descend from a direct ancestor. Why I'm introducing this is because a leading contributor in this thread believes isu are only united by a shared cultural marker or so.

AjaanaOka:
Plus one for historical linguistics, indeed! Language is such a mine of historical data. It's a shame that departments of history and linguistics in our universities are sleeping on this tool. I don't know any Nigerian historian presently who is utilising it constructively in piecing together the Nigerian past. Elsewhere on the continent where it has been used, its largely been European and American scholars at the forefront.

Well, that’s why people like you and I exist. Perhaps we might one day inspire a new generation of cultural anthropologists, historians and linguists within the continent that might take historical linguistics seriously.

AjaanaOka:
I've actually been giving some serious thoughts to publishing papers on this and other ideas in online journals. However, I think I lack the discipline (and quite honestly the time) to sit down and knock together a publication-worthy paper.

I'm sure I'll write a book one day though. 'Musings on the Igbo Past' or something like that.

Consider this my official pre-order request. If you ever choose to publish, just remember that my own copy is on backorder.

ANON333:
AjaanaOka, that piece you introduced is remarkable.

So from your latter assertion you believe the isu should constitute the ezi constituent, right?

Actually, no. The divisions are not group-specific. The Isu communities that follow this settlement pattern will, presumably, have Isu people in all the divisions.

There are places in abia state where the notion of isu heritage is strong, and these places do not have ihite/ezi/ikeghe naming pattern. In fact they claim to be homogeneous and to descend from a direct ancestor.

I think we'd be expecting too much if we expect every community within the cultural complex that has the Ihite/Ikenga/Ezi pattern to conform to that pattern. Things are hardly ever that neat and clear-cut.

Why I'm introducing this is because a leading contributor in this thread believes isu are only united by a shared cultural marker or so.

That leading commenter is probably me using my now-deactivated account.

I think you may have misunderstood what was said. I wasn't making the claim that all people of Isu descent have one cultural item uniting them all. What I said (based on limited information I possessed at the time) was that it appears that the settlement pattern being discussed here was an Isu innovation, and that wherever it is found, the people are either of Isu descent or influenced by the Isu. I no longer think this is the case, except for the south (the south in this context stretching from southern Anambra into Imo State), where I still think the Isu were responsible for introducing this settlement pattern.

ChinenyeN:

Well, that’s why people like you and I exist. Perhaps we might one day inspire a new generation of cultural anthropologists, historians and linguists within the continent that might take historical linguistics seriously.


Consider this my official pre-order request. If you ever choose to publish, just remember that my own copy is on backorder.

Definitely.

I know I am coming in late here unfortunately it is when I saw the thread. A pity I saw here nobody has tried to explain what Orratta is. let rt by saying that Oratta is a distinct set of Igbos and I agree on the regard their neighbors as isus.I may not be very correct in describing what Isu means in Igbo parlance but Oratta is a distinct Igbo sub-group that can be easily identified.

Let me clarify some terms clearly

First Owerri is a sub-sub group of Oratta. Owerri is part of the Alenyi group of Oratta. This group is made up of Uratta, Egbu, Emi, Awaka and Emekuku. Let me say the people in the current day Owerri municipal and Owerri North local government areas.

These days Owerri means, owerri local government areas which include owerri West, owerri Noth and owerri municipal. There is also the Owerri Zone in Imo State which includes Ikeduru, Mbaitoli, and Mbais. It is easy to determine that Mbaise is distinct from Owerri as subsets of Igbos. It is assumed that Owerri and Mbaitoli/Ikeduru are the same, but this is also wrong. Owerri (properly Oratta people) are a distinct subset. Proximity does not matter. For instance, Mbieri in Mbaitoli can share boundaries with Orji and have intermarried severally but they are still very distinct people. This cleared, who are the Oratta people, oratta people are currently in the Owerri local government areas. They include the Alenyi group and other groups who share distinct cultural, dialectical, and probably similar ancestry and include towns like Ihiagwa, Avu, uratta, Owerri, Egbu, Naze, Ihite, Obibi Ezenna etc. They will be better understood if seen as a distinct set like the, Ikweere, Ngwa, Mbaise etc.

These days with intermixing and spread of the owerri township, Ikeduru dialect ad Mabise which are ordinarily similar to the oratta dialect are now almost indistinguishable to an outsider. I am from Ikeduru, nd we share boundary with Emekuku and Uratta (Oratta people). I spent my young days in owerri explaining to people that my dialect is not Owerri ( of course my Owerri cousins will always point out the difference to me) but most people in Imo state cannot literally point out the difference.

The debate here is interesting. In my recent book (Memoire) on the Nigeria / Biafra War, I theorized about this, without even knowing that there are other Isu communities besides Isuochi, Isu Njaba and Isu-Ikwu-ato. I am fully aware that Ikwere people refer to all other Igbos as Isuama and so do Owerre people. Nevertheless, my theory of the meaning of Isu that differentiates between people that claim to be original and immigrant is correct. However, I am curious about Ifite and Ezi. I thought that Ezi na Ihite (Ifite, or Ivite or Ibite) refer to East and West. Maybe we should study the geographical locations of these communities that are referred to as such. If they are not consistent geographical locations, then the Ezi and Ifite as referred to here are correct. I am only curious as to why originals should refer to themselves as Ihite and immigrants as Ezi. In any event, Isu consistently refer to the outsider or invader or barbarian as ancient Greeks would make it.