macof:

Olu317 and his band have not presented any facts, what they present are imaginary ideas or already debunked old misconceptions by early Yoruba historiographers who i should add were missionary men.
Can you mention one valid yoruba term that was inserted into Hebrew or vice versa? let us look at it

That is a question for Olu317.

macof:

Can you direct me to the source of this information. i would like to read more on this "Yoruba King who founded ancient Kush"

Kindly follow the link here and we can continue that discussion.


https://www.nairaland.com/5878535/yoruba-nile-valley-heritage#89894192

Amujale:



The new information from TAO11 actually puts Yoruba as the founding Kings of the Kush kingdom, hold that thought for a while.

Me, Rashidi Runoko, Dr Ivan Sertima, Cheikh Anta Diop, Dr Henrik Clarke arent the first historians to suggest that there's a connection with the Nile Valley; olden day Arabians and Eurocentrics are the first to suggest this.

Below is a potrait of a Nubian silk and produce trader.

This has nothing to does with Hebrew or any other similar type of foreign culture, this is strictly African history.

Perhaps one should create a new thread for this discussion.

Is there a connection between the people of Nigeria with the Nile Valley as many of these modern historians are claiming?

New trend would be a good idea

But to that picture... Ask yourself, A nubian from Tunesia?

macof:

New trend would be a good idea

But to that picture... Ask yourself, A nubian from Tunesia?

Kindly follow the link here and we can continue that discussion.


https://www.nairaland.com/5878535/yoruba-nile-valley-heritage#89894192

MetaPhysical:


Hello brother!
It is good to see you are well!

Olu responded to me on "Sigidi" greeting and I made note to respond but haven't had time to do so since.

The depth of what we discuss here need a different part of my spirit...the sacred part...to participate and so when I write here I know I have to commit to my beliefs truthfully, unlike in politics section where I just throw curveballs and get my Ibo brothers hot under the collar. I love them but they dont know it, because I respond in the opposite. God bless them!


Now, brother, to the Yoruba, Sigidi is representation.

Let me go into this by asking, is there a Global Consciousness?

Yes there is!

There is individual consciousness (the mind), there is family consciousness (scientifically equated to genetic hereditary), there is community consciousness (called customs), there is national consciousness (called value system). Beyond these defined scopes is there a consciousness that tie humanity across the globe together? Yes, it exists!

Part of this global consciousness is why everyhwhere in humanity we look heavenward for a supreme being. It is also the cause why we show humility by kneeling or prostrating or bowing. It is a symbol of submission to a power greater than self.

When does self recognise it is faced with a greater power? How does one recognize a more powerful force? There is a sublime cognition pre-programmed into human genes to identify and acknowledge a powerful force.

Before we started building monumental cities and became insulated from the works of nature, acts within nature itself taught man to interact with it. One of the lessons to ancient humans was the supreme force of God.

Within our modernity, living in articifical structures and virtual realities far removed from natural acts.....how do we get lessons on greater force? Through images shown to us. We see the cause and effect of acts within our plastic realities and we acquire knowledge of what greater force is by creating, examining, reproducing and distributing images.

In ancient times man everywhere looked up to God and humbled himself before him through worship by kneel, prostration, bow and so on. A global consciousness taught man to recreate an image of the force. So everywhere man existed he created for himself an awakening of God. The man in Maya did not tell the man in Egypt what to do. The man in Egypt did not tell the man in Sumaria what to do. The Sumarian did not share what to do with the Ethiopian. The Ethiopian did not tell the Roman.
Yet....everyone of them did exactly same thing. They fashioned an image of what a greater force look like in their own way and circumstance.

Sigidi is that representation of a greater force. It is an image to recreate presence of a supreme power.

To your point, it is a play....a mock....a scaled manifest of metaphysical supreme force.

It is act of humility when we kneel or prostrate or bow before it. It communicates our submission to that all powerful force.


Now, because A did not communicate to B; B did not communicate to C; C did not communicate D; D did not communicate to E.....there was no uniformity between them on how they would carve and represent the force, or for that matter what rites they would practice in its worship.

Therefore anywhere you see copies of rites of worship that mimick A, it would highlight a commonality. A sort of hierarchy or family-tree consciousness or link between A and those places that are uniform with it.

Why is Yoruba in uniformity with rites of worship in old Mecca? We may not have precise historical records that attest to it....and so at beat, it is nothing but conjecture, on the surface at least.......but then we see its evidence till today in a religion that took root in Mecca. This we dont need written record or historical and academic analysis to investigate....the practice is there for all to see.

The question now is...who copied from who?

Was Yoruba rites of kneeling, prostrating and bowing before sigidi the authentic signature practiced in pre-Islamic Mecca (which now is in Islam), or was Yoruba the one in copy?

God continues to bless you my brother!

To all participants and contributors here, I wish us all wellness and God's blessings and fruitfullness, Ase Edumare!

WOW that's breathtaking post there. Just the same reason I drew the examples of the Yoruba/Fon for "the Diaspora".

Both tribes cannot fathom how they come to have a word in common for certain ideas. Sometimes Fon word is rooted in Yoruba and unrecognizable in Yoruba until it's brushed a little.

But Yoruba have her own version of words for any idea that crosses the mind or impressionable. Another example I've shared somewhere is Fon for paki, ege or gbaguda: fenyineh.

Fenyineh is a sentence in Yoruba meaning "show your teeth". It's unknown to the Fon that the word could be Yoruba. The item was so called for apparent reason: cassava is white within.

But who manufacture this word? Someone versed in both languages, who left no trace of the event because he's not awed by his own history. You can't get tripped by your own inventions.

By this token, a man is not a slave to his history. Yoruba ancestors were not slaves to their history and their past. They would only recall by "memoirs" from the rustic past.

Understanding two indigenous languages could be very helpful when studying the tradition of a related people. It's a beacon for grey areas that many devout enthusiasts may never reach.

So what's applicable between Yoruba and Fon for instance explain what's the issue with Yoruba and Hebrew or Hebrew and Arabic. Why is Hebrew not Arabic, why is Yoruba not Egun?

The same question,

Why did the Yoruba lost her language if she has been Hebrew from beginning? Just like why Odion is not Odiyan in Edo and Yoruba respectfully. Yet they were both related words from related languages addressing the same phenomena.

While at it, people break forth with their languages. Irrespective of where they are coming from, language births with distance. But you will always come across "memoirs" from the previous language, art and culture.

Idle gold mine

Sometimes we needed an idle idea to struct an ageless secret. People don't struct on secrets, it has to be someone's idea and then threads can be connected to that.

I always respect your contributions for how far the wine has been and how golden that such could be sometimes. I never had any orientation on the idea of the tribal marks.

However, your contribution in that direction generated the spark of discovery. There's always benefits accruing to getting it right, I pray right perspectives will always come our way.

Enjoy the bliss of the sallah.

absoluteSuccess:


Bro,

It's my pleasure having an intelligent discussant from an angle different from mine. Altogether we'll fan the embers of knowledge both ways and we will have a win win situation.

Well I agree with your claim to Yoruba being a tonal language. That's true. But in the very tone, great secrets are hidden. If you assume familiarity with the rule, you will miss the "objection" to the rule.

So, agree with me on this premises that there are objection to the rule out there.

Let's review an example: mo doko dele danimo. Permit me to hold the meaning of the sentence for now. What do you think this is saying "codedly" or figuratively?

You may not know (permit my assumption) but there's literal and figurative meaning to the sentence. We all know what the sentence means but we might not all know what "it" could mean.

Back to the subject at hand

I don't interpret randomly, I stick to relativity in the absence of the core meaning of a word or phrase in question. Ere is not a "statue" actually means that ere has a meaning of its own.

Statue stands for ere, what else could statue means in English grammar? So, sticking ere to statue limit further knowledge we could deduce from the word ere.

My take in that frame of mind is that we cannot limit Yoruba word by finding exact meaning in English that best suits the word but we must look within the Yoruba word itself, deep and deep.

So ere is not a statue because it's more than a statue, it's other tones could help tell us more about how a word was economise to serve different needs.

Ere: (Play) the relationship between ere as statue and as a play is that effigy, toy or dolls may be part of the products of the agbegilere. Here, the molding of tone fails to change the word.

My wife's phone, hmm, have to stop here. Our real life often splash on our pastime. That's how it should be. We'll discuss later when I'm on my system.

Thanks.

Thanks for being courteous!

Please take your time to read this carefully. It may make all the difference.

First, the sentence "mo doko dele danimo" is an everyday Yoruba saying which may be translated loosely or metaphorically as: "I've gotten myself eventually caught-up in an unpleasant terminus".

I am not sure what you intend to do with an English translation of this saying though; or how this ties-in to the correction I made earlier of your inaccurate assertion that "ère" does not mean "statue".

But trust me, any connection you see between the Yoruba words "ère"(meaning: "statue", "sculpture", etc.) and "eré" (meaning: "play", "fun", etc.) is superficial and fictitious -- It is all in your head. Yes, you invented it by the power of your own imagination. Some are difficult to invent though.

These two Yoruba words are as completely and radically different from (and unrelated to) each other as the English words, say, "boy" and "soup" are different from (and unreletad to) each other. Lol.

These words themselves being Yoruba words actually have absolutely nothing to do intrinsically with the Latin characters that have come to be borrowed to graph them into writing.

And it is this specific identical Latin characters which graph them that would first naturally trigger such thought of their supposed relatedness in the minds of the unacquainted layperson.

The following definition describes the intrinsic, core, and essential connotations of these respective Yoruba words:

(1) "Ère" --> (noun). An absolutely still or motionless, but not unconveyable, 3D representation of a human or an animal, etc.

(2) "Eré --> (noun). (i) A fun activity. (ii) Race.

In the light of the foregoing connotations of these respective Yoruba words, any quest for a potential relationship between these words must then do so within the confines of these intrinsic, core, and essential connotations of these words themselves -- without adding or subtracting any word or idea.

This broken down illustration should help to illustrate my point that these two Yoruba words (although may have been graphed into writing by identical Latin characters) have absolutely nothing in common by any legitimate stretch of the imagination.

To illustrate this even further, consider the following Yoruba words and their respective intrinsic, core and essential connotations.

(1) "Ọba" --> (noun). The one who reigns supreme.

(2) "Olú" --> (noun). (i) The distinguished one. (ii) Mushroom.

Notice how it gets very smooth and easy to figure out that there is indeed a connection between these two Yoruba words [i.e. "Ọba" and "Olú" (i)] by simply doing the needful -- that is, by considering their respective intrinsic, essential, and core meanings without any additions or subtractions.

I hope this comparative framework will prove helpful to you in identifying potential relationship between words -- either in the same language, or across different languages.

Cheers!

macof:


Except, Yoruba traditions and scientific/academic studies do not contradict but complement each other. One helps put the other in neat context, and the other serves as a body of primary sources and auxiliary
Also there isn't much competition for academic scholarship. Most historians today are agreed on certain basic points

*edited

Your response is unimpressive. I will clear your thoughts. Yoruba has existed over 1000yrs. The lens through which you are now looking at Yoruba is less than 200yrs old. Britain took over our affairs in 1861, we did not immediately acquired written knowledge proficiently until in 1910s, and those who could read and write and translate between Yoruba and English were in missionary works and very few. If we are talking of skills in historical investigation itself our pioneer entry into the field of academic history is less than 100yrs old. Compare that to a long line of heritage and legacy in family lineages who served as official custodians of royal and Yoruba history, and have committed to memory events and accounts spanning into thousands of years. Thats Yoruba national record. What do they say? Bring their accounts here.

TAO11:


Thanks for quickly pointing that out.

Sighs! Our people actually need to read what they will be replying to.

Everyone seem to be eager to reply, but uninterested in reading the very thing they will be replying to.

You write beautifully and you take time to be thorough and arrange your points chronologically. However, all the ideas you present are foreign soundbites from Blier, Smith, and others. Their familiarity of 200yrs old or less cannot be equated, nor be more acceptable and authoritative than accounts in posession of official record keepers of Yoruba history and antiquity. I gave example with Jew blowing horn on passover. This practice was not widely accepted nor observed in their sojourn in the caucasian belts and years pre-dating the holocaust. After holocaust they found meaningful and tangible customs to build nationality. Thus shofar became a household observance to mark passover. Europeans told Jews by their facial features, particularly the hooked nose. After holocaust they found and instituted attributes that are narrated in Bible. Things like circumcision, marriage and birth rights for nationhood, shofar and blowing the horn on passover and so on.

If Yoruba were to nationalise today what would our historical attributes look like? Are we going to rely on Blier and Smith and historical works of 100yrs old to tell history of 1000yr culture? I went back further in these pages to get scope of what direction this thread has taken. You have given a lot of quotes, references, which as I said is good. It is time you leave those writers to the side and submit your own authentic ideas and theories. Even the historians you quote build up their work using theories and then they stress test the theories to weed out and eliminate outliers before arriving at acceptable submissions. We are discussing Yoruba here, not history of Yoruba. Yoruba encompasses more than history.

TAO11:


Thanks for being courteous!

Please take your time to read this. It may make all the difference.

First, the sentence "mo doko dele danimo" is an everyday Yoruba saying which may be translated loosely or metaphorically as: "I've gotten myself eventually caught-up in an unpleasant terminus".

I am not sure what you intend to do with an English translation of this saying though; or how this ties-in to the correction I made earlier of your inaccurate assertion that "ère" does not mean "statue".

But trust me, any connection you see between the Yoruba words "ère"(meaning: "statue", "sculpture", etc.) and "eré" (meaning: "play", "fun", etc.) is superficial and fictitious -- It is all in your head. Yes, you invented it by the power of your own imagination. Some are difficult to invent though.

I am courteous, vituperations is not my stock in trade. I appreciate your efforts to help me realize that the connection were invented by me. And kindly mind your language bro just as I've done with you earlier.

My take on the sentence is that you have to give accurate meaning, word for word so as to match my own interpretation of the same sentence with yours and see how it goes.

These two Yoruba words are as completely and radically different from and unrelated to each other as the English words "boy" and "soup" are different from and unreletad to each other. Lol.

These words themselves being Yoruba words actually have absolutely nothing to do intrinsically with the Latin characters that have come to be borrowed to graph them into writing.

We are not dealing with this kind of comparison here bro, your example is too loose and comical. Are you for real? We are definitely dealing with homophone in the same language.

You are spending extra effort to say the same thing here. You have similar examples in English grammar: cover (a lid) cover (verb). I am of the opinion that my point there is like saying opposite and oppose have semantic connection.

And it is this specific identical Latin characters graphing them that would first naturally trigger such thought of their supposed relatedness in the minds of the unacquainted layperson.

The following definition describes the intrinsic, core, and essential connotations of these respective Yoruba words:

(1) "Ère" --> (noun). An absolutely still or motionless, but not unconveyable, 3D representation of a human or an animal.

(2) "Eré --> (noun). (i) A fun activity. (ii) Race.

We write in Latin, but do we speak Latin? No. So I think you may be confusing it all bro. One word of the same pronunciation in Yoruba help us understand the other poetically: "eo jere, eo fere' j'eko" for instance.

In the light of the foregoing connotations of these respective Yoruba words, any quest for a potential relationship between these words must then do so within the confines of these intrinsic, core, and essential connotations of these words themselves -- without additing or subtracting any word or idea.

This broken down illustration should help to illustrate my point that these two Yoruba words (although may have been graphed into writing by identical Latin characters) have absolutely nothing in common by any legitimate stretch of the imagination.

Tikobasi se, ise kii dede se. Do you see the combination in this? By any legitimate stretch of the imagination, can there be a matter without a root where it spring to life all without correlations?

Ere from ire oko, ere for ewa, this has semantic connection. Ere as in profits, ere as in drama. You are meant to classify the ones with similar semantic attributions in the same family.

To illustrate this even further, consider the following Yoruba words and their respective intrinsic, core and essential connotations.

(1) "Ọba" --> (noun). The one who reigns supreme.

(2) "Olú" --> (noun). (i) The distinguished one. (ii) Mushroom.

Bro, you are by this definition a "contextual" person. By your interpretation, it's literally like "king, noun, one who reign supreme". You are thinking "English". No"history" for the word in question.

That's why I said ere is not "statue" earlier. English is not an "authorization" of the Yoruba language. You failed to realize Oba has some elements of content, and related to baba, Iba, etc.

So if I know about this extra content that eludes you, must I discard what I know and adopt or settle for less? For instance Oba appears in Obakan, meaning "same father," does that also imply reign supreme too?

Notice how it gets very smooth and easy to figure out that there is indeed a connection between these two Yoruba words [i.e. "Ọba" and "Olú" (i)] by simply doing the needful -- that is, by considering their respective intrinsic, essential, and core meanings without any additions or subtractions.

I hope this comparative framework will continue to help you in identifying whether or not there is any relationship between words -- either in the same language, or across different languages.

Cheers!

Bro, there should be examples of words pronounced the same way in Yoruba that have different meaning for your illustration, not synonyms. We are dealing with homophones not synonyms.

My idea is that if you must demand impeccable results from anyone, you should be capable of an impeccable examples yourself.

You are very detailed about my input, but you are quite convinient at yours. You are very particular about the outward meaning of the word you are giving, you are not keen about their inward meaning.

Oba?
Olu?

BabaRamota1980:


You write beautifully and you take time to be thorough and arrange your points chronologically. However, all the ideas you present are foreign soundbites from Blier, Smith, and others. Their familiarity of 200yrs old or less cannot be equated, nor be more acceptable and authoritative than accounts in posession of official record keepers of Yoruba history and antiquity. I gave example with Jew blowing horn on passover. This practice was not widely accepted nor observed in their sojourn in the caucasian belts and years pre-dating the holocaust. After holocaust they found meaningful and tangible customs to build nationality. Thus shofar became a household observance to mark passover. Europeans told Jews by their facial features, particularly the hooked nose. After holocaust they found and instituted attributes that are narrated in Bible. Things like circumcision, marriage and birth rights for nationhood, shofar and blowing the horn on passover and so on.

If Yoruba were to nationalise today what would our historical attributes look like? Are we going to rely on Blier and Smith and historical works of 100yrs old to tell history of 1000yr culture? I went back further in these pages to get scope of what direction this thread has taken. You have given a lot of quotes, references, which as I said is good. It is time you leave those writers to the side and submit your own authentic ideas and theories. Even the historians you quote build up their work using theories and then they stress test the theories to weed out and eliminate outliers before arriving at acceptable submissions. We are discussing Yoruba here, not history of Yoruba. Yoruba encompasses more than history.

The following are some of the relevant tools of the historian (indigenous and non-indigenous) in relation to the issues here:

(i) Some of the earliest known oral traditional accounts of the people themselves.

(ii) Linguistic evidence from phonology, lexicostatistics, etc.

(iii) Archaeological evidence and other material artefacts.

... and more.

(1) None of these tools point to Yoruba people being "200" years old or "100" years old -- I'm not sure what sources you've been consulting, or if you've simply made those numbers up as a strawman argument.

(2) Also, none of these tools find us to be foreign migrants into this region.

(3) In sharp contrast, however, all of these tools point to Yoruba people being some 6000 years old as one ethnic and linguistic group.

(4) Also, all of these tools show us to be aboriginals to this region.

What precisely do you then find confusing about the foregoing points?

Having said that, I am not sure what problem you have with historians like Blier, Smith., et al.

You dislike the fact that an European should also be a historian?

Will you be consistent with this attitude for any field of scientific inquiry, including medicine & surgery -- even if you were directly in need of the service?

Even if we pretend that you will be consistent, such attitude is in no way logical or rational.

And even if you choose to remain adamant about your "fear" of light skinned and high-nose people, why not go, then, with the conclusions of the indigenous scholars who actual have formed the major bulk of my material references?

Or they too can't be trusted as they've been "westernized" -- as said by someone earlier? Lol.

And if this is your position too, then it may be that you actually do not trust our indigenous "westernized" doctors, surgeons, et al. too. Lol.

If I may ask, what is actually at stake for them (or for you) that would possibly make all historians in the world dive into some grand conspiracy against you?

Doesn't this sound like some paranoia already?

absoluteSuccess:


I am courteous, vituperations is not my stock in trade. I appreciate your efforts to help me realize that the connection were invented by me. And kindly mind your language bro just as I've done with you earlier.

My take on the sentence is that you have to give accurate meaning, word for word so as to match my own interpretation of the same sentence with yours and see how it goes.



We are not dealing with this kind of comparison here bro, your example is too loose and comical. Are you for real? We are definitely dealing with homophone in the same language.

You are spending extra effort to say the same thing here. You have similar examples in English grammar: cover (a lid) cover (verb). I am of the opinion that my point there is like saying opposite and oppose have semantic connection.



We write in Latin, but do we speak Latin? No. So I think you may be confusing it all bro. One word of the same pronunciation in Yoruba help us understand the other poetically: "eo jere, eo fere' j'eko" for instance.



Tikobasi se, ise kii dede se. Do you see the combination in this? By any legitimate stretch of the imagination, can there be a matter without a root where it spring to life all without correlations?

Ere from ire oko, ere for ewa, this has semantic connection. Ere as in profits, ere as in drama. You are meant to classify the ones with similar semantic attributions in the same family.



Bro, you are by this definition a "contextual" person. By your interpretation, it's literally like "king, noun, one who reign supreme". You are thinking "English". No"history" for the word in question.

That's why I said ere is not "statue" earlier. English is not an "authorization" of the Yoruba language. You failed to realize Oba has some elements of content, and related to baba, Iba, etc.

So if I know about this extra content that eludes you, must I discard what I know and adopt or settle for less? For instance Oba appears in Obakan, meaning "same father," does that also imply reign supreme too?



Bro, there should be examples of words pronounced the same way in Yoruba that have different meaning for your illustration, not synonyms. We are dealing with homophones not synonyms.

My idea is that if you must demand impeccable results from anyone, you should be capable of an impeccable examples yourself.

You are very detailed about my input, but you are quite convinient at yours. You are very particular about the outward meaning of the word you are giving, you are not keen about their inward meaning.

Oba?
Olu?

I am honestly not sure how any of your replies here relate to, let alone, address each of my comments you've directed them to.

I see two possibilities here, viz.

(1) That you couldn't fully grasp the points I made, and for some personal reasons, you wouldn't seek clarification.

(2) That you get the gist (or you think you do), but you must muster a come-back in order to give a public impression of replying.

But whichever one of these foregoing two it is, I wish you good luck in your endeavour -- but I must, at the same time, be honest enough to tell you that what you're doing here does not fit anywhere in linguistics, anywhere in the world.

TAO11:


I am honestly not sure how any of your replies here relate to, let alone, address each of my comments you've addressed them to.

I'm sorry if I've not been able to reach out to you in the way you could have understood. No love lost. Sometimes we disagree to agree, but that may not be immediate but periodic.

I see two possibilities here, viz.

(1) That you couldn't fully grasp the points I made, and for some personal reasons, you wouldn't seek clarification.

Well I am of the opinion that for any reason, we don't digress away from the very kernel idea that's the bone of contention, from a word in Yoruba language (ere) which could have denotative and connotative meaning.

My take is making that very word the subject of the formula. But I lost you when you compare the variants of the same sound as radically different as boy and soup in another language entirely.

I would easily relate with a comparative Yoruba oriented differentiations such as we have in witty lines such as "Oba ranni nise, odo oba kun: ise Oba kosee maje, odo oba kose fo."

I hope you'll agree Oba and oba differs but have same sound. Albeit if you traces oba, it takes you to iwo, and the river might be named after an ancient king in the people's tradition.

(2) That you get the gist (or you think you do), but you must muster a come-back in order to give a public impression of replying.

I should do that from the reserves of my knowledge without borrowing from public opinion. As such, my input are my best interpretations of your ideas, not of public opinion.

Every intelligible individual should be viewed as knowledgeable, with average grasp of the idea on their minds to an extent before we begin the job of the master teacher.

But whichever one of these foregoing two it is, I wish you good luck in your endeavour -- but I must, at the same time, be honest enough to tell you that what you're doing here does not fit anywhere in linguistics, anywhere in the world.

God bless you more.

If so, I think I've got what I've always wanted: to create value and not to push value around. Knowledge could be challenging and difficult at first, but it gets easy as we go.

The world is obliged to learn from me.

BabaRamota1980:


Your response is unimpressive. I will clear your thoughts. Yoruba has existed over 1000yrs. The lens through which you are now looking at Yoruba is less than 200yrs old. Britain took over our affairs in 1861, we did not immediately acquired written knowledge proficiently until in 1910s, and those who could read and write and translate between Yoruba and English were in missionary works and very few. If we are talking of skills in historical investigation itself our pioneer entry into the field of academic history is less than 100yrs old. Compare that to a long line of heritage and legacy in family lineages who served as official custodians of royal and Yoruba history, and have committed to memory events and accounts spanning into thousands of years. Thats Yoruba national record. What do they say? Bring their accounts here.

Again, you fail to understand the post you are quoting.
You should ask for clarity where you have none and not just rush to reply

absoluteSuccess:
@Metaphysical, howdy?

It's been a while brother. Would like to call your attention to something that might help your perspective on what you may consider the right interpretation of the word "Sigidi".

I read it somewhere here but never want to continue on an endless tirade that's all talks no solution from the other side.

Possibly I might be the problem here. I better leave the stage for folks with the solution to put it across to all and sundry. However, I can never know this much and still be deceived.

Sigidi

Bro let's take it this way. The Yoruba call the woodcarver "agbegilere". Let's say the phrase means "one who carve wood to statue". But statue doesn't translate to "ere".

With the Yoruba interpretation on the woodcarver, we can get to the idea of the job of the artisan. The second linguistic application of this idea play out on the job "Sigidi".

I've once met this folks behind the office of Osun state broadcasting corporation on my way to Susan Wenger's garden. I interacted with them out of curiosity. Just a detour on my itinerary for Yoruba Heritage Mission at the time.

Ere is not a "statue"

I've said Ere is not a statue, but the word ere translates to "play" within Yoruba language itself. Therefore the closest meaning to the idea on the mind of the wordsmith who coined the word was "play".

But "play" in that sense doesn't imply drama, no. The perfect English equivalent of this sense of the word is "mock". The woodcarver creates the caricature of what originally exists in nature.

The caricature or the mock[ery] of what originally exists used to be the original art form among ancient cultures. That settles the ere concept. It's more like a "mock" of "the real thing".

Now not far from here is the ideology expounded in Sigidi. The woodcarver carves his log to a form by scraping off the bark and subsequent layers off the wood. That's "sigi", so to say.

Next the object takes a form. The process of transformation is reflected in the final name for the form so created: si gi di. To have this in English would give us "open wood form".

The problem however would be how an English speaker would easily assimilate what "open wood form" connotes because no two culture think out their thought the same way.

A home-run example

The other day, I struct on the idea of what the egun means by "gbeta". I readily understood this to mean ogbe-takun, eg "the fringe of the bush". This word gbeta is Egun for the diaspora.

But somehow, gbeta perfectly interpret to Yoruba's "eyin odi". Gbeta thus means "living outside", which conveys the mind of the Egun. But does this match it's Yoruba equivalent?

No it doesn't. Meanwhile, gbeta is indeed a Yoruba phrase that means 'live outside', just as "eyin odi" implies "behind the wall". Both words are Yoruba.

So, words from two different languages could target the same meaning being originally from the same parent source (gbeta, eyin odi) but takes variant orientation in their homeland.

This is because different historical realities could have remould them. The word gbeta (as in o figbe ta) maybe unintelligible in Yoruba yet it's Yoruba language, but it never meant diaspora.

Likewise, eyin odi was favoured as diaspora in Yoruba because it means "behind the wall". So what's the threat to Yoruba for having walled cities in West Africa?

Memoirs as reminder of history

The Yoruba had the memoir of city plan as being walled and gated. A city with one way inlet is called "adiikun". So they were inadvertently adhering to the original city plan with moat and ford.

Now when you pick up a Yoruba word, you pick up instructions from its manufacturer. It's good to study the manufacturer's manual rather than a repairer's acclaimed expertise.

You are walking the path of the manufacturers bro. @Olu, I salute you from here. Good sire. Knowledge don't come from corporate understanding, "awo nii gbo sofawo".

"It takes a master to restore a masterpiece."

Except, Sigidi is not made of Igi (wood) but clay.

And this your Èrè (profit), Eré (Play), Ère (statue) connection is quite funny
Are we to imply that Ìlú (city) and Ìlù (drum) are the same words?

PS. You talk of no solution from me and tao, interestingly, there isn't a problem that needs solutions. You are the one creating problems for yourself

macof:


Except, Sigidi is not made of Igi (wood) but clay.

And this your Èrè (profit), Eré (Play), Ère (statue) connection is quite funny
Are we to imply that Ìlú (city) and Ìlù (drum) are the same words?

PS. You talk of no solution from me and tao, interestingly, there isn't a problem that needs solutions. You are the one creating problems for yourself

baba sigidi is in ife .he turned to stone

Obalufon:
baba sigidi is in ife .he turned to stone

LOL Bro,

you no go kee person this sallah time ooo.



Esie is another place with plenty ere, some great collections made of soapstone I think.

macof:


Except, Sigidi is not made of Igi (wood) but clay.

And this your Èrè (profit), Eré (Play), Ère (statue) connection is quite funny
Are we to imply that Ìlú (city) and Ìlù (drum) are the same words?

PS. You talk of no solution from me and tao, interestingly, there isn't a problem that needs solutions. You are the one creating problems for yourself

Ere from Esie are made from soapstone or carved from rocks. They were called ere, evidently from "Esie elere ajobo". Also, the doll often made for twins when one of them departs is called ere-ibeji. Its a doll made from wood and the same is called ere. So we can see that its either way round.

Sigidi is expected to be an early form of the art because people had the wood before the stone[age] and then their iron smelting. You can argue it whichever way you find convenient for you. Its not funny to imply that a doll is a "plaything" that the other twin can play with instead of his or her dead sibling as not to feel depressed or what have you.

In the other variants of the word i offered here, Im trying to give you what the same latin character could mean, your response is like me mocking you for listing ilu with ilu, it has no orientation with what we are talking about, but rather other implications of the same sound with different stress pattern to make a word.

Move on if I'm giving you problem sir.

macof:


Except, Sigidi is not made of Igi (wood) but clay.

And this your Èrè (profit), Eré (Play), Ère (statue) connection is quite funny

Are we to imply that Ìlú (city) and Ìlù (drum) are the same words?

PS. You talk of no solution from me and tao, interestingly, there isn't a problem that needs solutions. You are the one creating problems for yourself

I wonder o (at bolded).

I actually went an extra mile to break it down that two Yoruba words are related not by virtue of the identical Latin characters graphing them, but strictly by virtue of their similar/identical meanings.

I never realized until some hours ago that "ignorance" and "prejudice" are just as powerful as "knowledge".

Their different and respective inherent powers manifests when they're tapped into.

In fact, the conclusion that expert linguists, the world over, will soon begin to learn linguistic from him eventually helped everything make sense to me.

Sighs! How about we start living in the real world?!

.

absoluteSuccess:


Ere from Esie are made from soapstone or carved from rocks. They were called ere, evidently from "Esie elere ajobo". Also, the doll often made for twins when one of them departs is called ere-ibeji. Its a doll made from wood and the same is called ere. So we can see that its either way round.

Sigidi is expected to be an early form of the art because people had the wood before the stone[age] and then their iron smelting. You can argue it whichever way you find convenient for you. Its not funny to imply that a doll is a "plaything" that the other twin can play with instead of his or her dead sibling as not to feel depressed or what have you.

In the other variants of the word i offered here, Im trying to give you what the same latin character could mean, your response is like me mocking you for listing ilu with ilu, it has no orientation with what we are talking about, but rather other implications of the same sound with different stress pattern to make a word.

Move on if I'm giving you problem sir.

I never said Ère cannot be made of wood.

Here are the two points you made
1. Sigidi is made of wood
2. Ère means mock/Play

And here are my points
1. Sigidi is made of clay, not wood, not metal but clay
2. Ère being connected to Eré(play) and Èrè (profit) is quite funny as what do we do about Ìlú and Ìlù?


And Sigidi is a plaything? You really believe that?
If we are to assume that Ère indeed has some old meaning like "toy" and "mock" which evolve to "statue"
(Which is not the worst idea you've had) you have not demonstrated how that can even be possible for you to be taken seriously

You are giving yourself problems, and trying to involve the entire Yoruba nation into.
You said you are looking for solutions, solutions to what problems that concern the entire Yoruba?

Obalufon:
baba sigidi is in ife .he turned to stone

And baba sigidi (the person) is not what MetaPhysical was talking about but sigidi (the statue used in different altars)
But good thing you said stone not wood

macof:

I never said Ère cannot be made of wood.

Here are the two points you made
1. Sigidi is made of wood
2. Ère means mock/Play

And here are my points
1. Sigidi is made of clay, not wood, not metal but clay
2. Ère being connected to Eré(play) and Èrè (profit) is quite funny as what do we do about Ìlú and Ìlù?



And Sigidi is a plaything? You really believe that?



If we are to assume that Ère indeed has some old meaning like "toy" and "mock" which evolve to "statue"
(Which is not the worst idea you've had) you have not demonstrated how that can even be possible for you to be taken seriously

You are giving yourself problems, and trying to involve the entire Yoruba nation into.
You said you are looking for solutions, solutions to what problems that concern the entire Yoruba?

The bolded is a prove that you are not a Yoruba man. Your intentions betrayed you right there.

absoluteSuccess:


The bolded is a prove that you are not a Yoruba man. Your intentions betrayed you right there.

Is sigidi a plaything?
Answer it, for clarity sake because your previous post implies that

Yoruba man that doesn't know what sigidi is made of, declaring who is Yorùbá and who is not.
Abegy, gfoh if you can't answer the simple question

macof:


Is sigidi a plaything?
Answer it, for clarity sake because your previous post implies that

Yoruba man that doesn't know what sigidi is made of, declaring who is Yorùbá and who is not.
Abegy, gfoh if you can't answer the simple question

Go back and read the post gently without a crushing euphoria of a lifetime to "get him at last on this one".

The word Sigidi is a lifetime discovery that you have to employ to prove your cutting edge understanding of the Yoruba history.

Good, give your etymology of the word Sigidi. Let me give you that of ilu (drum) and ilu (town). Let's make a switch or get lost already.

Homophone

There are words that are written or pronounced the same way, but have different meaning. Such linguistic phenomena is known as homophones.

Examples of homophone includes Ere, (play), Ere (statue), Ere (profits), Ere (speed) and Ere (beans).

These are variant interpretation of the word in question depending on it's phonology. The difference is typified with diacritics.

Yoruba synonymous homophones

Certain Yoruba homophones derived from an earlier form stretched a bit to accommodate an intellectual meaning. A good example of this is to be found in the wisecrack

"tikobasi se ise kii dede se".

This line translate thus: if there's no cause, the caused won't just break". I restrict myself to just a word for the interpretation of the Yoruba word.

The three homophones se, ise and se have different interpretation of their own. But nonetheless, all are surreal synonyms.

Let's check out the individual meaning: ise, the Yoruba use this for source. But as used in the wisecrack, it implies 'cause'.

The second ise (caused) derived from the first cause. It's the same word for poverty in Yoruba. But it means 'offshoot' or breakout.

Se, which is the last word implies the event of the the prior happening that spiralled to record, report or experience. These are synonymous homophones.

Antonymous homophones

Certain Yoruba words are often formed from the same sound, pronounced the same way or so close in pronunciation but nevertheless means different things.

The second part of the wisecrack above comes to mind. Poverty and the ise in the sentence are pronounced the same way.

A more clearer examples of antonymous homophone is ilu (town) and ilu (ilu). The two words never meant the same thing.

Etymology of antonymous homophone

Etymology is the study of the root meaning of a given word or phrase. Closeness or similarities in sounds or writing never meant sameness.

Ilu, meaning town derived from two syllables, namely i/lu. This connotes a route, bypass, pathway or more aptly, throughfare.

By this etymology, the Yoruba alluded to travelogue to coin the word for 'town'. And how veritable could such an etymology be?

It should be self-evident in visible harmony between word to it's meaning as claimed right here. I like to stop here.

Knowledge is meant to be clear as crystal, imponderables should not be further steeped in mystic academics or linguistic paraphernalia.

Knowledge should teach us to create value, and not to push value around. Knowledge never needed to clinch to titles to shine forth.

Ilu, meaning town derived from two syllables, namely i/lu. This connotes a route, bypass, pathway or more aptly, throughfare.

Does anyone else find it to be a bogus claim that lù, lu, or lú (not sure which one of these different words is intended by our 'author') means route, bypass, pathway, or thoroughfare?

It is perfectly okay not to know. Such position is more noble than making claims that is known to be absolutely off.

Things we read on this thread. Sighs!

TAO11:


The following are some of the relevant tools of the historian (indigenous and non-indigenous) in relation to the issues here:

(i) Some of the earliest known oral traditional accounts of the people themselves.

(ii) Linguistic evidence from phonology, lexicostatistics, etc.

(iii) Archaeological evidence and other material artefacts.

... and more.

(1) None of these tools point to Yoruba people being "200" years old or "100" years old -- I'm not sure what sources you've been consulting, or if you've simply made those numbers up as a strawman argument.

(2) Also, none of these tools find us to be foreign migrants into this region.

(3) In sharp contrast, however, all of these tools point to Yoruba people being some 6000 years old as one ethnic and linguistic group.

(4) Also, all of these tools show us to be aboriginals to this region.

What precisely do you then find confusing about the foregoing points?

Having said that, I am not sure what problem you have with historians like Blier, Smith., et al.

You dislike the fact that an European should also be a historian?

Will you be consistent with this attitude for any field of scientific inquiry, including medicine & surgery -- even if you were directly in need of the service?

Even if we pretend that you will be consistent, such attitude is in no way logical or rational.

And even if you choose to remain adamant about your "fear" of light skinned and high-nose people, why not go, then, with the conclusions of the indigenous scholars who actual have formed the major bulk of my material references?

Or they too can't be trusted as they've been "westernized" -- as said by someone earlier? Lol.

And if this is your position too, then it may be that you actually do not trust our indigenous "westernized" doctors, surgeons, et al. too. Lol.

If I may ask, what is actually at stake for them (or for you) that would possibly make all historians in the world dive into some grand conspiracy against you?

Doesn't this sound like some paranoia already?

I read more pages on the thread. I forgot this thread has been around for so long. Time flies.





Tao, are you same person as terracota? I see you are a recent face here but you both have same style of enslavement to authority of written books, however irrelevant the claims supported by it. Anyway sha, I will ask Babaloke to intervene, help you see things outside books and appreciate them just as passionately. I enjoy learning things here that are new and educative. It is in my interest that both sides contribute genuinely so i can gain from your inputs. I can pick and read book just as you can. But i cant read thoughts this is why i want to hear ideas. Someone very articulate and cogent like you will be a very solid outlet for ingenuity. Why are you quoting and repeating what i can capture on my own from online library? Why? Edumare will intervene and help you see what you have not seen about yourself. Baba will grow you and make you useful to Yoruba. Hopefully you are around again next year ill be back and read and learn and comment.

Macof, i think you dont like me because you think im opposite to your position. Only God knows what we don't. This Yoruba history get as e be. It is confusing. I like this thread because i learn in here. I learn from you, i learn from absolutsucces, i learn from obalufon, obalufon III, i learn from metaphysical, i learn from olu13. So you guys dont even know that you are influencers. . How many obalufon dey here sef? . I go come back and read again in 2021. I want some good stuff, not fight and ijogbon. One day when im well equipped me sef go be ogbologbo and can join and talk Yoruba history with solid and firm convinction.

BabaRamota1980:

I read more pages on the thread. I forgot this thread has been around for so long. Time flies.

Tao, are you same person as terracota? I see you are a recent face here but you both have same style of enslavement to authority of written books, however irrelevant the claims supported by it. Anyway sha, I will ask Babaloke to intervene, help you see things outside books and appreciate them just as passionately. I enjoy learning things here that are new and educative. It is in my interest that both sides contribute genuinely so i can gain from your inputs. I can pick and read book just as you can. But i cant read thoughts this is why i want to hear ideas. Someone very articulate and cogent like you will be a very solid outlet for ingenuity. Why are you quoting and repeating what i can capture on my own from online library? Why? Edumare will intervene and help you see what you have not seen about yourself. Baba will grow you and make you useful to Yoruba. Hopefully you are around again next year ill be back and read and learn and comment.

No, TerraCotta is another person whom I repect so much. He his one person who will not allow his emotion hinder his leaning towards sound judgement.

I have explained why your position is untenable, but the most argument you can muster for a come-back is a subtle insult.

Just so you know, I always think it's a sign of success on my part when the best "argument" my interlocutor could reply with is insults -- especially when such is unwarranted.

It's hightime you considered my comments here carefully from the beginning with an open mind, and then ask genuine questions.

TAO11:


No, TerraCotta is another person whom I repect so much. He his one person who will not allow his emotion hinder his leaning towards sound judgement.

I have explained why your position is untenable, but the most argument you can muster for a come-back is a subtle insult.

Just so you know, I always think it's a sign of success on my part when the best "argument" my interlocutor could reply with is insults -- especially when such is unwarranted.

It's hightime you considered my comments here carefully from the beginning with an open mind, and then ask genuine questions.

I will never knowingly insult my people especially when they are engaged in efforts to improve knowledge. Forgive me my sister if my words were insultive.

TAO11:

(1) Your comment here is obviously and largely a continuation of your repitition of S. Johnson's account on the origin of the Yorubas/Oduduwa, as well as a continuation of your listing of the subsequent vareity of followings in the foot step of S. Johnson.

But the bigger issue you've avoided, as I have demonstrated above, is the apparent big question marks around the source of S. Johnson's account, and the conspicuous and absolute absense of such account among the Yorubas themselves prior to S. Johnson.

(2) Regarding your comment on Leo Frobenius' remark, refer to my penultimate reply to Obalufon where I dealt with that in some very clear details.

(3) Having said that, the aspect of your continued comment here which particularly interests me is where you cited S.P. Blier's "Art in Ancient Ife".

Your quotation of S.P Blier's words is actually from page 81, and your quotation is accurate.

However, the conclusion you've drawn from the quotation is unfortunately and terribly mistaken.

Your conclusion is that the early Ife radiocarbon date of c.350 BC, "as being speculated", is an assumption that has "been rejected in the scholarly world".

Interesting! Lol.

First of all, the c.350 BC date can not be a radiocarbon date and still be an assumption at the same time. You have to make up your mind here.

Secondly, the actual issue being discussed here which seems to have eluded your grasp is clarified in two things, namely: (1) The endnote to the same statement you've quoted from S.P. Blier, and (2) P. Ozanne's interpretation of the radiocarbon date of the archaeological finds.

Beginning with P. Ozannes' interpretation of the date. First, no scholar denies that the c.350 BC date was the result of radiocarbon dating of finds from Ife.

No there is no such denial in case you're thinking along that line. The actual issue here which F. Willett instead sees (and which S.P. Blier has simply echoed) is the seemingly extreme extent to which P. Ozanne took the date -- that is, what he took it to mean.

"According to Paul Ozanne, there were many settlements established there [in the Ife bowl] by the fourth century century BC."

P. Ozanne, 1969 cited in S.A. Akintoye, "A History of The Yoruba People", p.14.

The very issue which Willett sees here is not about whether there wasn't any artifact/find that have indeed been radicarbon dated to c.350BC.

Rather, the issue he sees here is that these dated finds are so little and so scanty to reasonably and sufficiently warrant the conclusion that "many settlements" have been established in the Ife bowl by that date.

The following endnote from S.P. Blier makes this contention even clearer. In relation to her agreement with F. Willett on this, she notes in endnote 37 that:

"As important as the Pre-Florescence Era appears to have been in Ife, we have little by way of scientific or material evidence from related excavations, much of this data coming instead from undated local artifacts, regional excavations, and Ife oral histories."

In sum, there is no such thing as your self-contradictory conclusion that the radiocarbon date of c.350 BC has being rejected in some "scholarly world". Lol.

No, what F. Willett and S.P. Blier reject instead is not the c.350 BC radiocarbon date -- that will be an absurd thing to do.

Rather, what these two reject is the idea that the radiocarbon date of c.350 BC (for very few archaeological finds from Ife) necessary leads to the conclusion that many settlements have flowered in Ife by that date.

In fact, other scholars have considered these "little" c.350 BC archaeological finds in the light of other corroborating scientific evidence (such as linguistic evidence and many collateral archaeological data from other parts of Yorubaland), thus leading them to continue to uphold P. Ozanne's conclusion that many settlements have indeed flowered in the Ife bowl by that date.

Some of such scholars (that I'm at least aware of) who considered other scientific evidences too include: Robin Horton (1979), Akin Ogundiran (2002), Henry J. Drewal (2009), and S. Adebanji Akintoye (2010).

(4) Just to give this reply a light feel and to give you something interesting to respond to, I noticed the Arabic texts in your comment and I couldn't help but smile.

You obviously have no idea what's wrong with those supposedly Arabic words present in your comment.

This blunder quickly gives you away as merely lifting your replies mindlessly from elsewhere without much clue as to what's going on, and usually without addressing what you wish to reply to.

The Arabic words in your comment are so badly pasted that instead of showing the original you copied, they show a mirror image of the original, reflected accross the y-axis (or the line "x = 0" ). Lol.

Had you known the slightest thing about Arabic, your comment wouldn't have been flooded with such bungles.

Let me clearly posit here that, I will respond as time permits.

Therefore, as regard your submission, which says, ‘ According to Paul Ozanne, there were many settlements established there [in the Ife bowl] by the fourth century century BC." P. Ozanne, 1969 cited in S.A. Akintoye, "A History of The Yoruba People", p.14.

The very issue which Willett sees here is not about whether there wasn't any artifact/find that have indeed been radicarbon dated to c.350BC.

Susan Blier's(2012) statement and Gurstele(2015) didn't support your view as stated accordingly on iron ore, activities on Ileife lande etc.

In Susan Blier's account, she says, ‘Yoruba archaeologist Akin Ogundiran (2001:27–28, 2003) provides a more scientifically grounded chronology for Ife and the broader area. His overview of artifact remains and other sources contributes to my own Ife chronology, one that combines archaeological with stylistic, oral historical, and other data.

For some periods, however, I employ different terms and distinguishing features than does Professor Ogundiran.

Most significantly, I have simplified this chronology into three main periods (with subgroupings) using the term

Florescence (cultural “flowering”) for the period of Ife’s major artistic and cultural innovation, along with periods prior to

*(pre-Florescence)* {bone of contention}

and following (post-Florescence) this era.

An early Ife date of c. 350 bce. purportedly based on radiocarbon (Folster in Ozanne 1969:32), cited by both Ogundiran (2002, p.c.) and Drewal (2009:80), has been rejected by Frank Willett (2004) and others for lack of supporting scientific evidence. I concur with this assessment.

The main art-producing era of early Ife, what I define as the

a. Florescence Period (Ogundiran’s Classical Period) is distinguished by both roulette- and cord-decorated ceramics.


Within a relatively short time span in this period, what I identify as Ife’s High Florescence, most of the early arts appear to have been made. One can date this period to c. 1250–1350 ce based on a range of factors, including the thermoluminescence tests of key metal works and the likely reign era of Obalufon II as delimited in Ife oral histories and king lists. It is this era that appears to mark the beginning of the “Odudua” or second dynasty of Ife. Associated with this High Florescence era are arts not only in “bronze” and stone, but also terracotta.

The above time frame is consistent with the dating for Ife and its arts by Peter Garlake (1977:72), based on his excavations at the Obalara’s Land and Woye Asiri sites, both of which are closely linked to King Obalufon II whose descendant and current priest is Chief Obalara. From work Garlake undertook at the Obalara Land site, he would publish five radiocarbon dates reflecting three likely phases. The first is an initial occupation period of circa the twelfth century ce. The second phase constitutes a c. fourteenth century occupation period identified with the laying of the pavements, the creation of an array of sculptures, along with the site’s eventual fourteenth–fifteenth century abandonment. The third and final phase at the Obalara Land site consists of Post-Florescence era finds subsequent to the main site occupation and abandonment.


Furthermore, you pointed out that ,

‘ Rather, the issue he sees here is that these dated finds are so little and so scanty to reasonably and sufficiently warrant the conclusion that "many settlements" have been established in the Ife bowl by that date'.

Curious Questions

1.Who owned the settlers within the *Ife bowls* without any Identify ? Clarify

2. What religion did they practised as at that 350bce or 4bce you claimed was when settlement were established?

3. Since it is accepted amongst the scholars that the oldest Yoruba dialects resides with Eastern Yoruba's. So, what language did these earlier occupants spoke at that period in time around 350bce or 4bce ?

4.Did any of these scholars such as Robin Horton (1979),Henry Drawel(2009), A Adebanji Akintoye (2010) have any clue of these hamlets that a unique ghost like group with kingly lineage subjugated and became unified ?


These are the following information, subjugating your view because, the Yoruba people, despite, meeting people were importers and producers of weaponry, iron ore, Artistic in nature, scientific, clothing mortals etc.

Andrew Gustele, ‘The House of Oduduwa: An Archaeological Study of Economy and Kingship in the Savè Hills of West Africa:

Archeological Perspective in West Africa :
The intense interests in diffusion, technology, trade, and political systems in the kingdoms of Atlantic Africa mirror the interests of early archaeologists who worked to reconstruct ancient societies. Early archaeological methods were oriented toward the taxonomic identification of technologies, facilitating explanations of societal change based on diffusion.

To Childe (1950, 1951), ancient societies were connected by expansive communication networks through which innovations could spread. The accumulation of innovative technologies leads to transformations in society, though particular institutions and agencies within a society may try to (pg 15)
halt or slow the deployment of new technologies. Though Childe (1951) promoted the diffusion of technologies as a means for identifying change in the archaeological record at all social scales, he used technology as potentially useful for broad comparisons of societies, later archaeologists eschewed the trait list definition of states as inadequate to explain the processes of state formation (e.g. Binford 1964: 425). Still, the features of states described by Childe are more applicable as a general model of the institutions in early states (Smith 2009: 22). That such features can be recognized in complex societies from varying geographies and distant times is what requires explanation. However, archaeologists no longer turn to the diffusion alone as the causal mechanism for societal change. There is enough cultural variability and potential for innovation as to not presuppose that any distinctive features of a society, such as those described by Childe, must come from some original source (Rowe 1966: 366). Even when diffusion does seem to adequately describe the distribution of some feature, it is not itself an explanation, as it does not elucidate its internal articulation (Childe 1951: 46). Similarly, the presence of trade and technologies that allow dense populations and state institutions do not explain their deployment (Wright & Johnson 1975). Instead, explanation must come from the analysis of human agency and structures. The cultural systemic approaches that developed to explain social process focused on how structures within societies emerge and change (e.g. Flannery 1972). This emphasis on large processes and impersonal forces meshed well with earlier historical inquiry into African political and economic institutions (Robertshaw 1990).

Archaeology has extended the search for the development of West African states in time and in space. The region has had a long involvement in trade, stemming from trans-Saharan connections established well before the Atlantic economy (Posnansky 1973).

Even trade networks connected West Africa with the rest of the continent, and beyond to the Mediterranean, the Near East, and South Asia (Mitchell 2005; Kelly 2013; Leone & Moussa 2013). While this research has shown the time depth of the technological flows between West Africa and the rest of the world, archaeology has made much more substantive contributions to the comparative study of states. West African societies show a great deal of variability in how they negotiated economic networks and political centralization (Posnansky 1982: 352; McIntosh 1999; Stahl 2004; Monroe 2013)


Complimenting Susan Blier's view on Yoruba's Ileife history is Andrew Gustele;

One of the best studied cases of early political centralization in West Africa is Ile-Ife, an early urban settlement and what is considered by many present-day Yoruba peoples as the foundational site of the Yoruba ethnicity. The city was first mentioned by Europeans in the mid19th century, though oral histories from Ife and surrounding kingdoms claim a much deeper history (Smith 1988: 16; Blier 2012).

Futhermore, he says, ‘ Archaeological research at Ile-Ife has largely corroborated these claims, demonstrating a history of occupation dating back to at least the 10th century CE (Willett 1971)'. Monumental sculpture, such as the Opa Oranmiyan megalith, is associated with the foundation of royal dynasties (Smith 1988: 21).


Surprisingly, I had thought, you and others claimed claimed there were no connection between West Africa and the Near East or Mediterranean etc in ancient times ?

Suzanne Preston Blier says,

‘ O. Werner and F. Willett have published the results of spectographic analyses of several Ife castings ("The Composition of Brasses from Ife and Benin," Archaeometry, xvii, 1975, 141-163), which suggest, however, that the metal may have come from Lower Saxony (in the Harz region) in Europe, where mines producing related ores were being worked during the 12th and 13th centuries. (Corresponding evidence of copper being transported by caravan across the Sahara in the 11th or 12th century [1090 A.D. ? 1081 has been found in Mauritania; Theodore Monod, "Majabat al-Koubra," Bulletin de lInstitut Francais dAfrique Noire, xxvi, 1964, 1394-1402).

During this period, the African Berbers (Almoravid and Almohad Moslems) controlled much of the Western Sa- hara, the Mediterranean, and Spain. Presumably it was through them that metals were traded into this area, either by way of Spain (which, as R. W. Southern notes [The Making of the Middle Ages, New Haven, 1953, 42], had trade contracts at this time with eastern Germany) or through Sicily (and the Holy Roman Empire) both of which benefited from trade ties with the Moslem world.
Kings, Crowns, and Rights of Succession: Obalufon Arts at Ife and Other Yoruba Center.


Andrew W. Gurstele says, Archaeology has extended the search for the development of West African states in time and in space. The region has had a long involvement in trade, stemming from trans-Saharan connections established well before the Atlantic economy (Posnansky 1973).

Even trade networks connected West Africa with the rest of the continent, and beyond to the Mediterranean, the Near East, and South Asia (Mitchell 2005; Kelly 2013; Leone & Moussa 2013). While this research has shown the time depth of the technological flows between West Africa and the rest of the world, archaeology has made much more substantive contributions to the comparative study of states. West African societies show a great deal of variability in how they negotiated economic networks and political centralization (Posnansky 1982: 352; McIntosh 1999; Stahl 2004; Monroe 2013). Again,‘The House of Oduduwa: An Archaeological Study of Economy and Kingship in the Savè Hills of West Africa .

Question:

If Paul Ozanne book is well accepted within the scholarly work on Radiocarbon era, why is such, not cited in 2015 but cite (Willet: 1971) as acceptable?

Note: Don't jump into conclusion in most cases. Ten reason, that some information credited to some writers are only cited , out of Afrocentrism.

Olu317:


Let me clearly posit here that, I will respond as time permits.

Therefore, as regard your submission, which says, ‘ According to Paul Ozanne, there were many settlements established there [in the Ife bowl] by the fourth century century BC." P. Ozanne, 1969 cited in S.A. Akintoye, "A History of The Yoruba People", p.14.

The very issue which Willett sees here is not about whether there wasn't any artifact/find that have indeed been radicarbon dated to c.350BC.

Susan Blier's(2012) statement and Gurstele(2015) didn't support your view as stated accordingly on iron ore, activities on Ileife lande etc.

In Susan Blier's account, she says, ‘Yoruba archaeologist Akin Ogundiran (2001:27–28, 2003) provides a more scientifically grounded chronology for Ife and the broader area. His overview of artifact remains and other sources contributes to my own Ife chronology, one that combines archaeological with stylistic, oral historical, and other data.

For some periods, however, I employ different terms and distinguishing features than does Professor Ogundiran.

Most significantly, I have simplified this chronology into three main periods (with subgroupings) using the term

Florescence (cultural “flowering”) for the period of Ife’s major artistic and cultural innovation, along with periods prior to

*(pre-Florescence)* {bone of contention}

and following (post-Florescence) this era.

An early Ife date of c. 350 bce. purportedly based on radiocarbon (Folster in Ozanne 1969:32), cited by both Ogundiran (2002, p.c.) and Drewal (2009:80), has been rejected by Frank Willett (2004) and others for lack of supporting scientific evidence. I concur with this assessment.

The main art-producing era of early Ife, what I define as the

a. Florescence Period (Ogundiran’s Classical Period) is distinguished by both roulette- and cord-decorated ceramics.


Within a relatively short time span in this period, what I identify as Ife’s High Florescence, most of the early arts appear to have been made. One can date this period to c. 1250–1350 ce based on a range of factors, including the thermoluminescence tests of key metal works and the likely reign era of Obalufon II as delimited in Ife oral histories and king lists. It is this era that appears to mark the beginning of the “Odudua” or second dynasty of Ife. Associated with this High Florescence era are arts not only in “bronze” and stone, but also terracotta.

The above time frame is consistent with the dating for Ife and its arts by Peter Garlake (1977:72), based on his excavations at the Obalara’s Land and Woye Asiri sites, both of which are closely linked to King Obalufon II whose descendant and current priest is Chief Obalara. From work Garlake undertook at the Obalara Land site, he would publish five radiocarbon dates reflecting three likely phases. The first is an initial occupation period of circa the twelfth century ce. The second phase constitutes a c. fourteenth century occupation period identified with the laying of the pavements, the creation of an array of sculptures, along with the site’s eventual fourteenth–fifteenth century abandonment. The third and final phase at the Obalara Land site consists of Post-Florescence era finds subsequent to the main site occupation and abandonment.


Furthermore, you pointed out that ,

‘ Rather, the issue he sees here is that these dated finds are so little and so scanty to reasonably and sufficiently warrant the conclusion that "many settlements" have been established in the Ife bowl by that date'.

Curious Questions

1.Who owned the settlers within the *Ife bowls* without any Identify ? Clarify

2. What religion did they practised as at that 350bce or 4bce you claimed was when settlement were established?

3. Since it is accepted amongst the scholars that the oldest Yoruba dialects resides with Eastern Yoruba's. So, what language did these earlier occupants spoke at that period in time around 350bce or 4bce ?

4.Did any of these scholars such as Robin Horton (1979),Henry Drawel(2009), A Adebanji Akintoye (2010) have any clue of these hamlets that a unique ghost like group with kingly lineage subjugated and became unified ?


These are the following information, subjugating your view because, the Yoruba people, despite, meeting people were importers and producers of weaponry, iron ore, Artistic in nature, scientific, clothing mortals etc.

Andrew Gustele, ‘The House of Oduduwa: An Archaeological Study of Economy and Kingship in the Savè Hills of West Africa:

Archeological Perspective in West Africa :
The intense interests in diffusion, technology, trade, and political systems in the kingdoms of Atlantic Africa mirror the interests of early archaeologists who worked to reconstruct ancient societies. Early archaeological methods were oriented toward the taxonomic identification of technologies, facilitating explanations of societal change based on diffusion.

To Childe (1950, 1951), ancient societies were connected by expansive communication networks through which innovations could spread. The accumulation of innovative technologies leads to transformations in society, though particular institutions and agencies within a society may try to (pg 15)
halt or slow the deployment of new technologies. Though Childe (1951) promoted the diffusion of technologies as a means for identifying change in the archaeological record at all social scales, he used technology as potentially useful for broad comparisons of societies, later archaeologists eschewed the trait list definition of states as inadequate to explain the processes of state formation (e.g. Binford 1964: 425). Still, the features of states described by Childe are more applicable as a general model of the institutions in early states (Smith 2009: 22). That such features can be recognized in complex societies from varying geographies and distant times is what requires explanation. However, archaeologists no longer turn to the diffusion alone as the causal mechanism for societal change. There is enough cultural variability and potential for innovation as to not presuppose that any distinctive features of a society, such as those described by Childe, must come from some original source (Rowe 1966: 366). Even when diffusion does seem to adequately describe the distribution of some feature, it is not itself an explanation, as it does not elucidate its internal articulation (Childe 1951: 46). Similarly, the presence of trade and technologies that allow dense populations and state institutions do not explain their deployment (Wright & Johnson 1975). Instead, explanation must come from the analysis of human agency and structures. The cultural systemic approaches that developed to explain social process focused on how structures within societies emerge and change (e.g. Flannery 1972). This emphasis on large processes and impersonal forces meshed well with earlier historical inquiry into African political and economic institutions (Robertshaw 1990).

Archaeology has extended the search for the development of West African states in time and in space. The region has had a long involvement in trade, stemming from trans-Saharan connections established well before the Atlantic economy (Posnansky 1973).

Even trade networks connected West Africa with the rest of the continent, and beyond to the Mediterranean, the Near East, and South Asia (Mitchell 2005; Kelly 2013; Leone & Moussa 2013). While this research has shown the time depth of the technological flows between West Africa and the rest of the world, archaeology has made much more substantive contributions to the comparative study of states. West African societies show a great deal of variability in how they negotiated economic networks and political centralization (Posnansky 1982: 352; McIntosh 1999; Stahl 2004; Monroe 2013)


Complimenting Susan Blier's view on Yoruba's Ileife history is Andrew Gustele;

One of the best studied cases of early political centralization in West Africa is Ile-Ife, an early urban settlement and what is considered by many present-day Yoruba peoples as the foundational site of the Yoruba ethnicity. The city was first mentioned by Europeans in the mid19th century, though oral histories from Ife and surrounding kingdoms claim a much deeper history (Smith 1988: 16; Blier 2012).

Futhermore, he says, ‘ Archaeological research at Ile-Ife has largely corroborated these claims, demonstrating a history of occupation dating back to at least the 10th century CE (Willett 1971)'. Monumental sculpture, such as the Opa Oranmiyan megalith, is associated with the foundation of royal dynasties (Smith 1988: 21).


Surprisingly, I had thought, you and others claimed claimed there were no connection between West Africa and the Near East or Mediterranean etc in ancient times ?

Suzanne Preston Blier says,

‘ O. Werner and F. Willett have published the results of spectographic analyses of several Ife castings ("The Composition of Brasses from Ife and Benin," Archaeometry, xvii, 1975, 141-163), which suggest, however, that the metal may have come from Lower Saxony (in the Harz region) in Europe, where mines producing related ores were being worked during the 12th and 13th centuries. (Corresponding evidence of copper being transported by caravan across the Sahara in the 11th or 12th century [1090 A.D. ? 1081 has been found in Mauritania; Theodore Monod, "Majabat al-Koubra," Bulletin de lInstitut Francais dAfrique Noire, xxvi, 1964, 1394-1402).

During this period, the African Berbers (Almoravid and Almohad Moslems) controlled much of the Western Sa- hara, the Mediterranean, and Spain. Presumably it was through them that metals were traded into this area, either by way of Spain (which, as R. W. Southern notes [The Making of the Middle Ages, New Haven, 1953, 42], had trade contracts at this time with eastern Germany) or through Sicily (and the Holy Roman Empire) both of which benefited from trade ties with the Moslem world.
Kings, Crowns, and Rights of Succession: Obalufon Arts at Ife and Other Yoruba Center.


Andrew W. Gurstele says, Archaeology has extended the search for the development of West African states in time and in space. The region has had a long involvement in trade, stemming from trans-Saharan connections established well before the Atlantic economy (Posnansky 1973).

Even trade networks connected West Africa with the rest of the continent, and beyond to the Mediterranean, the Near East, and South Asia (Mitchell 2005; Kelly 2013; Leone & Moussa 2013). While this research has shown the time depth of the technological flows between West Africa and the rest of the world, archaeology has made much more substantive contributions to the comparative study of states. West African societies show a great deal of variability in how they negotiated economic networks and political centralization (Posnansky 1982: 352; McIntosh 1999; Stahl 2004; Monroe 2013). Again,‘The House of Oduduwa: An Archaeological Study of Economy and Kingship in the Savè Hills of West Africa .

Question:

If Paul Ozanne book is well accepted within the scholarly work on Radiocarbon era, why is such, not cited in 2015 but cite (Willet: 1971) as acceptable?

Note: Don't jump into conclusion in most cases. Ten reason, that some information credited to some writers are only cited , out of Afrocentrism.

Your replies often remind me of the saying that you can only wake someone who is asleep, but not someone who is pretending to be asleep.

I'm still searching for the refutation in your long reply.

In as much as I hate to say this, I must be frank enough to tell you that your reply was full of redherring and strawman arguments.

For the most part your ideas in this reply are in-explicit, undefined, and convoluted. I suspect you were strategic about it just to give the impression of replying.

Having said that, for the umpteenth time you need to always take your time to digest the very content you want to reply to.

Otherwise, your reply will continue to be as misdirected as the one here.

The reply to your long comment here lies in the very comment you're replying to.

You just have to be eager to read too, as much as you're eager to reply too.

Again, see below for the point I made earlier which already answered your ressurected contention:

(3) Having said that, the aspect of your continued comment here which particularly interests me is where you cited S.P. Blier's "Art in Ancient Ife".

Your quotation of S.P Blier's words is actually from page 81, and your quotation is accurate.

However, the conclusion you've drawn from the quotation is unfortunately and terribly mistaken.

Your conclusion is that the early Ife radiocarbon date of c.350 BC, "as being speculated", is an assumption that has "been rejected in the scholarly world".

Interesting! Lol.

First of all, the c.350 BC date can not be a radiocarbon date and still be an assumption at the same time. You have to make up your mind here.

Secondly, the actual issue being discussed here which seems to have eluded your grasp is clarified in two things, namely: (1) The endnote to the same statement you've quoted from S.P. Blier, and (2) P. Ozanne's interpretation of the radiocarbon date of the archaeological finds.

Beginning with P. Ozannes' interpretation of the date. First, no scholar denies that the c.350 BC date was the result of radiocarbon dating of finds from Ife.

No there is no such denial in case you're thinking along that line. The actual issue here which F. Willett instead sees (and which S.P. Blier has simply echoed) is the seemingly extreme extent to which P. Ozanne took the date -- that is, what he took it to mean.

"According to Paul Ozanne, there were many settlements established there [in the Ife bowl] by the fourth century century BC."

P. Ozanne, 1969 cited in S.A. Akintoye, "A History of The Yoruba People", p.14.

The very issue which Willett sees here is not about whether there wasn't any artifact/find that have indeed been radicarbon dated to c.350BC.

Rather, the issue he sees here is that these dated finds are so little and so scanty to reasonably and sufficiently warrant the conclusion that "many settlements" have been established in the Ife bowl by that date.

The following endnote from S.P. Blier makes this contention even clearer. In relation to her agreement with F. Willett on this, she notes in endnote 37 that:

"As important as the Pre-Florescence Era appears to have been in Ife, we have little by way of scientific or material evidence from related excavations, much of this data coming instead from undated local artifacts, regional excavations, and Ife oral histories."

In sum, there is no such thing as your self-contradictory conclusion that the radiocarbon date of c.350 BC has being rejected in some "scholarly world". Lol.

No, what F. Willett and S.P. Blier reject instead is not the c.350 BC radiocarbon date -- that will be an absurd thing to do.

Rather, what these two reject is the idea that the radiocarbon date of c.350 BC (for very few archaeological finds from Ife) necessary leads to the conclusion that many settlements have flowered in Ife by that date.

In fact, other scholars have considered these "little" c.350 BC archaeological finds in the light of other corroborating scientific evidence (such as linguistic evidence and many collateral archaeological data from other parts of Yorubaland), thus leading them to continue to uphold P. Ozanne's conclusion that many settlements have indeed flowered in the Ife bowl by that date.

Some of such scholars (that I'm at least aware of) who considered other scientific evidences too include: Robin Horton (1979), Akin Ogundiran (2002), Henry J. Drewal (2009), and S. Adebanji Akintoye (2010).

And even with your poor job on this one, there are other points as well as whole comment I made that are yet to be touched by you. Lol.

Cheers!