TAO11:


Since you're blind.


Again The Olokun Head, The Obalufon Head.

I'm waiting for you to show me when they were EXCAVATED as you've fraudulently claimed.

It doesn't work like that, you have to prove your own claim. You can't possibly make claims and have me do the work to refute them. I don't work for you. If you make a claim, you have to provide proof.

TAO11:



I'm waiting for you to show me when they were EXCAVATED as you've fraudulently claimed.

I also hope that you realize that the only documented "ife art" you showed was excavated and the "ife head" I showed was also excavated. Up to now, nobody has shown documents of "non-excavated" ife art ! Talkless of "ife art" coming from an imaginary palace.

prolog2:
It doesn't work like that, you have to prove your own claim. You can't possibly make claims and have me do the work to refute them. I don't work for you. If you make a claim, you have to provide proof.

Oga you need sound sleep.

You kept saying "show me" like I should bring something to your house.

I have mentioned the names (because that's what you should reasonably be demanding).

Not only that I gave you reasons why the Olokun Head has always been in the Ife, and it's because the 1st excavator met them in Ife.

For the Obalufon Head it is an often repeated undisputable fact that it is always been in the palace.

see this link: https://africa.uima.uiowa.edu/chapters/ancient-africa/ife/?start=4

prolog2:
It doesn't work like that, you have to prove your own claim. You can't possibly make claims and have me do the work to refute them. I don't work for you. If you make a claim, you have to provide proof.

I also hope that you realize that the only documented "ife art" you showed was excavated and the "ife head" I showed was also excavated. Up to now, nobody has shown documents of "non-excavated" ife art ! Talkless of "ife art" coming from an imaginary palace.

Well it is not my fault that you could see in the case of the excavated examples I mentioned (i.e. The Head of Ife, and another Ife Head in a U.S.Museum) but then you became blind in the case of non-excavated examples like (The Head of Olokun and The Obalufon Head).

May whatever you serve cure your blindness in the nearest to so that you can be delivered from the yoke of Benin delusions

Your document doesn't specify where the bronze was found nor how it was found.
You are still just blowing hot air, you are still failing at the same question while giving answers which are out of topic.
Is there anything in that head of yours ?

TAO11:




Oga you need sound sleep.

You kept saying "show me" like I should bring something to your house.

I have mentioned the names (because that's what you should reasonably be demanding).

Not only that I gave you reasons why the Olokun Head has always been in the Ife, and it's because the 1st excavator met them in Ife.

For the Obalufon Head it is an often repeated undisputable fact that it is always been in the palace.

see this link: https://africa.uima.uiowa.edu/chapters/ancient-africa/ife/?start=4

prolog2:
Your document doesn't specify where the bronze was found nor how it was found.
You are still just blowing hot air, you are still failing at the same question while giving answers which are out of topic.
Is there anything in that head of yours ?

Well in English language a statement like the one found in that link i.e. that "It has always been kept in the King's palace" means that:

It has always been kept in the King's palace.


I understand that you're simply clutching at straws now.

Even I can imagine the embarrassment I'm making you pass through now

"This copper mask is also said to have always been kept in the king’s palace. "
This is not a precise information, and I just did some digging up, it appears that the person who made that claim is non other than your ooni himself. I don't want things like "it is said" I want things with no suppositions and no claims, just pure facts.
For example, Benin art: It is a fact that they were stolen by the brits in Oba palace. It is not a thing which is "said".

prolog2:
"This copper mask is also said to have always been kept in the king’s palace. "
This is not a precise information, and I just did some digging up, it appears that the person who made that claim is non other than your ooni himself. I don't want things like "it is said" I want things with no suppositions and no claims, just pure facts.
For example, Benin art: It is a fact that they were stolen by the brits in Oba palace. It is not a thing which is "said".

This guy is sick I swear...

Let me educate you on how historical information like this works.

(1) That information, as imprecise as u think it is because of the phrase "it is said that" is in fact an indication of the fact that the Europeans met it in the custody of the king even on their earliest arrival. It shows they admit they didn't excavate it from the earth, they met it on ground.

(2) The obvious next thing for the investigator is to obtain information from the custodian of the artifacts which they met on ground.

(3) The information they acquire is fact unless there is scientific evidence to the contrary.

This is how scientific inquiry (of this nature) proceeds; hence the reason why you find the information in that link making reference to the primary sources just as European experts make reference to Egharevba (a primary source) on Benin's history.

However, if you're so insecure and you want what you term "precise" information with no phrase like "it is said", then refer to Suzanne Preston Blair's "Art in Ancient Ife, Birthplace of the Yoruba" page 71 label 1 for details. She wrote In relation to the Obalufon head:

"Copper. Height:33 cm. Retained in the palace since the time of its manufacture"

Remember that you haven't put forward any evidence to substantiate your false claim that the Olokun Head was excavated.

Do I need mention that you apparently contradicted the very false claim with another claim that the same Olokun Head is fake (waiting for your evidence for this claim also).

How can it be excavated and fake at the same time? This guy is clearly a sick twisted thing.

Moreover, what do you mean by fake? That it was made by the Binis for the Ifes? or what exactly?

I'm sha patiently waiting for your respective evidences for these two contradictory claims oo.

Mind you, what remains factual and reasonably consistent is that the the Olokun Head (just like the Obalufon mask) has remained in the custody of the Ooni since its manufacture because the events of the first ever excavation in Ife shows that it has since been in the custody of the Ooni because the excavator kept asking for it and he was ultimately presented with it. He didn't excavate it

Why do you always base your talk on how best to dupe people ?
This is the precise article of Blier: http://www.academia.edu/1950150/Kings_Crowns_and_Rights_of_Succession_Obalufon_Arts_at_Ife_and_Other_Yoruba_Centers

And she clearly says that it is the ooni of ife adesoji aderemi who made that claim: she says "This life size mask was said by the king to have been kept on an altar in the omirin room ... ever since its manufacture".

And when exactly did we dive into "European experts make reference to Egharevba a prime source in Benin history" ?
I sense that you are looking for a way to create a distraction. You wrote this on purpose because then you expect me to waste my energy debunking this lie and forget about the fact that you still haven't provided documents for any non-excavated ife art.

Egharevba is an Edo who studied in a yoruba university surrounded by yoruba supremacists and who defended yoruba-centric claims in his thesis. Your trying to agrandize him in order to add more merit to your yorubacentric claims can only be described as childish. For your information, with all the notes the europeans kept in their more than 600 years of contact with Benin Kingdom, it is not a guy who is our contemporary who they would consider "a prime source of Benin history".

Now back to the topic, where are the non excavated ife art ?

TAO11:




This guy is sick I swear...

Let me educate you on how historical information like this works.

(1) That information as imprecise as u think it is because of the phrase "it is said that" is in fact an indication of the fact that the Europeans met it in the palace and they didn't excavate it on their earliest arrival.

(2) The obvious next thing for the investigator is to obtain information from the custodian of the artifacts which they met on ground.

(3) The information they acquire is fact unless there is scientific evidence to the contrary.

This is how scientific inquiry (of this nature) proceeds; hence the reason why you find the information in that link making reference to the primary sources just as European experts make reference to Egharevba (a primary source) on Benin's history.

However, if you're so insecure and you want what you term "precise" information with no phrase like "it is said", then refer to Suzanne Preston Blair's "Art in Ancient Ife, Birthplace of the Yoruba" page 71 label 1 for details. She wrote In relation to the Obalufon head:

"Copper. Height:33 cm. Retained in the palace since the time of its manufacture"

prolog2:
Why do you always base your talk on how best to dupe people ?
This is the precise article of Blier: http://www.academia.edu/1950150/Kings_Crowns_and_Rights_of_Succession_Obalufon_Arts_at_Ife_and_Other_Yoruba_Centers

And she clearly says that it is the ooni of ife adesoji aderemi who made that claim: she says "This life size mask was said by the king to have been kept on an altar in the omirin room ... ever since its manufacture".

And when exactly did we dive into "European experts make reference to Egharevba a prime source in Benin history" ?
I sense that you are looking for a way to create a distraction. You wrote this on purpose because then you expect me to waste my energy debunking this lie and forget about the fact that you still haven't provided documents for any non-excavated ife art.

Egharevba is an Edo who studied in a yoruba university surrounded by yoruba supremacists and who defended yoruba-centric claims in his thesis. Your trying to agrandize him in order to add more merit to your yorubacentric claims can only be described as childish. For your information, with all the notes the europeans kept in their more than 600 years of contact with Benin Kingdom, it is not a guy who is our contemporary who they would consider "a prime source of Benin history".

Now back to the topic, where are the non excavated ife art ?

Lol ... You know what, I acknowledge your desperation, damage control tactics and tantrums.


I have shown to you how the phrase "it is said that" is itself an indication of the fact that the Europeans met the casting on ground when they arrived for the first time for excavation.

I have explained how objective inquiry will then proceed from there by relying on primary source information having acknowledged that they met the castings on ground.

I have stroked a parallel for you of how that work in the case of Europeans relying on Egharevba (as a primary source) and not claiming that they will go back in time to find out things for themselves.

But as expected your dull and lowly esteemed self have seen my mention of Egarhevba as a way of distracting and witch-hunting you. No it wasn't boy it is a way of making you see things from your own lease perhaps you will get the point.


Now to make it clear to you. Ask yourself a similar question:


From whom (which source) did the first Europeans that visited Benin get the information from that the Benin bronzes have always been kept in the Benin palace?


You get the point about primary sources now I hope.




Olodo! boy. You exposed your naivety on the subject.

Egarhevba's "A Short History of Benin" is a primary source on Benin's History just as the Portuguese who lived in and around Benin for about 500 years (from generation to generation) form sometimes around the 15th century (i.e the 1400s) till 1960 are also primary sources on Benin's history. I cited one of the earlier in my reply to one of your kinsman.

So your new method is to redifine english ?
Now you are to tell me what "it is said" means ?
I already read and know all you know about the "obalufon head" and I probably know it better than you now.
The person you tried to misquote never said anybody met the head in the palace, it is your ooni who claimed they were in the palace and that they had always been there.
The Edo guy who defended yoruba-centric claims whom you keep quoting is not regarded in any circle as a prime source of anything (except in yorubacentric circles). As I said, the europeans have more than 600 years of contact with Benin Kingdom, they took notes and could teach our history themselves thanks to those notes. They would certainly never consider a guy of our era as a "prime source in Edo history". It just makes no sense, why would anyone consider a guy of this era a "prime source" in things which are to have taken place more than six hundred years ago ? And the worse is when you actually have notes written by eye witnesses of the era you want to study !
You need some sense.


I am still waiting for the non-excavated ife art.

Also, by the way, the british saw the Edo art in the palace while they were carting them away and they also met the art centuries before when they were emissaries visiting the Oba of Benin. All these are the reasons nothing is in doubt about Benin art. In the case of Benin, you won't see things like "it is said"...Nope, just facts.

TAO11:



Lol ... You know what, I acknowledge your desperation, damage control tactics and tantrums.


I have shown to you how the phrase "it is said that" is itself an indication of the fact that the Europeans met the casting on ground when the arrived for the first time for excavation.

I have explained to then proceeds from there by relying on primary source information having acknowledged that they met the castings on ground.

I have stroked a parallel for you of how that work in the case of Europeans relying on Egharevba (as a primary source) and not claiming that they will go back in time to find out things for themselves.

But as expected your dull and lowly esteemed self have seen my mention of Egarhevba as a way of distracting and witch-hunting you. No it wasn't boy it is a way of making you see things from your own lease perhaps you will get the point.


Now to make it clear to you. Ask yourself a similar question:


From whom (which source) did the first Europeans that visited Benin get the information from that the Benin bronzes have always been kept in the Benin palace?


You get the point about primary sources now I hope.

prolog2:
So your new method is to redifine english ?
Now you are to tell me what "it is said" means ?
I already read and know all you know about the "obalufon head" and I probably know it better than you now.
The person you tried to misquote never said anybody met the head in the palace, it is your ooni who claimed they were in the palace and that they had always been there.
The Edo guy who defended yoruba-centric claims whom you keep quoting is not regarded in any circle as a prime source of anything (except in yorubacentric circles). As I said, the europeans have more than 600 years of contact with Benin Kingdom, they took notes and could teach our history themselves thanks to those notes. They would certainly never consider a guy of our era as a "prime source in Edo history". It just makes no sense, why would anyone consider a guy of this era a "prime source" in things which are to have taken place more than six hundred years ago ? And the worse is when you actually have notes written by eye witnesses of the era you want to study !

Lool ... I have explained to you how inquiry works and hence the need to always refer to primary sources, in the case of the Obalufon head, the Ooni is an authority above any other foreign investigator who haven't even seen the mask before him.

I have given you a parallel whence I asked you a similar question:

"From whom (which source) did the first Europeans that visited Benin get the information from that the Benin bronzes have always been kept in the Benin palace?"

To which you ran away and avoided giving an answer because the question explains my position and exposes your ethnocentric bigotry.

The Ooni made the pronouncement in a National publication in 1937 that the head had always been in his custody, yet Frobenius had come earlier in 1910. Now you still want somehow want everyone to believe that Frobenius excavated it alongside some others and that the Ooni still want ahead proceed to announce years later (in 1937) that it has always been in the palace since its manufacture and experts the world over kept quiet? Please use your brain now.

Or could it be that you are suggesting that after the Ooni unveiled it made the National announcement in 1937, the already unveiled head still forms part of the 2nd ever Ife excavations of a year or two later (1937/1938)? Again use your brain now.

So, please be specific what you are saying.

Regarding Chief Egharevba (born 1893). Yes I noted that he is a primary source alongside the Portuguese who stayed in and around Benin for more than 500 years and I noted that he is relied upon by experts today as a primary source. For example: Paula Ben-Amos, Dmitri M. Bondarenko, and Peter M. Roese are actually very few names among the innumerable Western experts that makes reference to Chief Egharevba's work. In fact, hardly is there any contemporary Western scholar of Benin History that doesn't make reference to him.

And You seem to think Egarhevba has done a malicious deliberate disservice to his own folks and a service to Yorubas because of his documentation, no you are mistaken. According to the "criterion of embarrassment" he could never have done that. he was only documenting a candid account without any regard for distortion unlike what your people today wished he had done.

And you seem to think the account of the Portuguese does any different from Egharevba's. Again you're mistaken. Most of the information of this British Museum documentary (a reliable source of information) are based on primary sources like Eghrevba and the Portugeses' (at least the Portuguese's only as you would love to believe). But guess what they have repeated. They have repeated statements like.

"The kings paid homage to Ife"
"The Yorubas taught Benin metal casting"

They are just doing what professionals do ... being objective.

Moreover, I also made a late 15th century Portuguese seafarer Joao Afonse de Aveiro documenting Benin traditions about an inland kingdom [which has been identified today as Ife from evidence of the title of early Ife rulers "Oghne" (see Thornton 1988, among others)] that played a role in local enthronement rituals.

The foregoing is precisely the point the Yorubas have been repeatedly emphasizing about the influence of Ife in monarchical installation through souther Nigeria at least in the days of yore.

A reminder:

"From whom (which source) did the first Europeans that visited Benin get the information from that the Benin bronzes have always been kept in the Benin palace?"

TAO11:



Lool ... I have explained to you how inquiry works and hence the need to always refer to primary sources, in the case of the Obalufon head, the Ooni is an authority above any other foreign investigator who haven't even seen the mask before him.

So according to you, your oni is an authority in ife "history" but the Oba is not an authority in Edo history, no that honour is reserved for a yorubacentric Edo.

TAO11:



"From whom (which source) did the first Europeans that visited Benin get the information from that the Benin bronzes have always been kept in the Benin palace?"

From no source, they found the art in the palace themselves and even documented them several hundred years before finally invading and carting them away.

As I already predicted, you have totally shifted the debate. Now you want to have a back and forward debate about your yorubacentric Edo. You want a non logical debate because you can't win a logical one. Frankly I didn't read all you wrote in your last comment. This is mostly due to your technick of making bulk claims and therefor getting whomever is discussing with you tired. Make one claim at a time. Also I noticed that you once again quoted Blier, because that your alfonso, I know you never read anything written by him talking about the Oba of Benin paying hommage to ife. Do you really think that this is the first time I am discussing this with yet an other retarded yoruba ? You are quoting Blier' work once again andyou can't provide the original text which she is supposed to be quoting, nor can you even say if she is not referring to the kingdoms which make up Benin republic, the descriptionshe makes is not in any way similar to the Oba regalia. And finally she said that the ooni of ife is only a possibility among others whe talking about the so called "blabla of uhe"

It just makes no sense, why would anyone consider a guy of this era a "prime source" in things which are to have taken place more than six hundred years ago ? And the worse is when you actually have notes written by eye witnesses of the era you want to study !
You need some sense.

I am still waiting for the non-excavated ife art.

Also, by the way, the british saw the Edo art in the palace while they were carting them away and they also met the art centuries before when they were emissaries visiting the Oba of Benin. All these are the reasons nothing is in doubt about Benin art. In the case of Benin, you won't see things like "it is said"...Nope, just facts.

[quote]





Just calm down I am here to enlighten you.

The Portuguese are eye-witness to events during their time, and they're considered primary sources for that clear reason. Egharevba is also considered the indigenous primary source as I have mentioned 3 out of the innumerable number of people who makes reference to him.

He is made reference to because he was the first to have an academic documentation and analysis of the oral tradition as well as written accounts of the Portuguese chroniclers.

The oral tradition of the Benin people stretches back to long before the Portuguese chronicler and they can not possibly be eye-witness to that. In the academic study of the history of a people recourse has to be made to their oral tradition (as we can't see those event happen) because oral tradition is the corpus and repository of every preliterate people. But the tradition has to be subjected to scientific scrutiny, and not just taken without hesitation, by augmenting it with eyewitness testimony of the later Portuguese chronicler's for example.

Boy is learning ... ryt?



On your wait ... again I won't cease to spoon feed you:

The 1st Ife excavation was in 1910, and the excavator was presented with the Olokun Head. (If you know of an earlier Ife excavation, please speak up.)

On the Obalufon head.

The 1st Ife excavation was in 1910, and their is no account that Frobenius had the Obalufon head among the heads he excavated. (If you know of an earlier Ife excavation, please speak up.) ... I believe your desperation is continuously being obvious to you.

And I have demonstrated earlier that it is absurd to think the Ooni's claim would have gone without challenge from any expert the world over if it had been that they excavated it in 1910.


On your response that the British saw them in the palace and not that they excavated them ... I still repeat the question (because you didn't answer what I asked):

"FROM WHOM (which source) did the BRITISH get the information that the Benin bronzes have ALWAYS BEEN in the Benin palace?"


Also, regarding your Benin fact just fact ... yen yen yen

I haven't heard you cite one so-called Benin fact (just one) in relation to what we've been debating so far, na wa oo

TAO11:

"FROM WHOM (which source) did the BRITISH get the information that the Benin bronzes have ALWAYS BEEN in the Benin palace?"

Once again fool read well this time ! Nobody gave any such informationj to the british !!!
Nobody !!! Who would even dare to give such an information, how can a human being witness something spanning several hundred years ?
They witnessed the presence of the art for several hundred years and talked about it in their notes! Is this so hard to understand ?

So according to you, your oni is an authority in ife "history" but the Oba is not an authority in Edo history, no that honour is reserved for a yorubacentric Edo.
[quote]



Now you are gradually coming to your senses.

The Ooni and the Oba can only be an authority in a case such as this where the foreigners themselves know that they met the items and they didn't help the people with excavating it.

So, since they had no prior knowledge on anything about where it has always been b4, then have to trust whatever information they are presented with unless they have any evidence to the contrary.

I brought the cases of the Benin castings up because I know your brain should reset, and it did reset.

On Egharevba, Again the "criterion" of embarrassment" stipulates that he could not have possibly made up a lie against his own tradition except that the "demeaning account is the truth which he just wants to present as it is.

And the Portuguese accounts are not any helpful as we have seen in the accounts of Western experts echoed in BBC British Museum documentary and the documentation of the Portuguese seafarer Joao Afonse de Aveiro.

prolog2:
Once again foll read well this time ! Nobody gave any such informationj to the british !!!
Nobody !!!

So how do we then trust the Oba palace's narrative that it has always been in the palace?

(I'm using your childish weird reasons now oo ... this is not me reasoning here oo)

prolog2:
Once again fool read well this time ! Nobody gave any such informationj to the british !!!
Nobody !!! Who would even dare to give such an information, how can a human being witness something spanning several hundred years ?
They witnessed the presence of the art for several hundred years and talked about it in their notes! Is this so hard to understand ?

"Witnessed the presence of the art for several hundred of years"? what language are you speaking

Of course I'm talking about when they first saw them for the very first time.


If you meet an object some where, the best you can do is to radiocarbon-date it to know when it was manufactured. And radiocarbon dating is a mid-20th century invention. But the Europeans saw this arts in the 1897 or even much earlier.


No body SEES an object and then say with certainty: "Hmmmm, this Object has been here and around here since it was first produced".

I feel your desperation boy

prolog2:
As I already predicted, you have totally shifted the debate. Now you want to have a back and forward debate about your yorubacentric Edo. You want a non logical debate because you can't win a logical one. Frankly I didn't read all you wrote in your last comment. This is mostly due to your technick of making bulk claims and therefor getting whomever is discussing with you tired. Make one claim at a time. Also I noticed that you once again quoted Blier, because that your alfonso, I know you never read anything written by him talking about the Oba of Benin paying hommage to ife. Do you really think that this is the first time I am discussing this with yet an other retarded yoruba ? You are quoting Blier' work once again andyou can't provide the original text which she is supposed to be quoting, nor can you even say if she is not referring to the kingdoms which make up Benin republic, the descriptionshe makes is not in any way similar to the Oba regalia. And finally she said that the ooni of ife is only a possibility among others whe talking about the so called "blabla of uhe"

Yorubacentric ?... yen yen yen

Refer to the "criterion of embarrasment"


shifted the debate ...

sorry, sha answer the questions I have asked (my friend is looking for excuse to run away. hello you're stuck)


Whether it was Blair I quoted or Alfonso directly is a weak argument from you. Of course I don't read Portuguese, I have to rely on experts. That's the beauty of academia (referencing)


On Oba of Benin paying homage ... I have shown you repeatedly how the Portugese writer (Not Egharevba oo ... because I don't know who u want to trust now) showed Ife's role in enthroning monarchs in this region according to Benin's account.


Also, I showed a documentary which was not by Egharevba but a BBC British Museum documentary (with information coming indirectly to us from your friends --- the Portuguese eyewitness not Egharevba)


If she was referring to Benin republic there was no Benin republic during the time that Portugese was documenting.



Probably she didn't get the facts ryt?
It appears your problem is not with Egharevba alone. It is with anyone who says what Binis don't want to hear.



What do you say about the image of the Ooni of Ife present in the palace of the Oba of Benin?


What do you say about the fact that it was the Yorubas that civilized your people into the craft of metal casting even according to Benin admittance? "Igueghae" comes to mind?


What do you say about the fact that your people saw a horse for the 1st time when Oranmiyan rode one in?

What do you say about the fact a Yoruba man institutionalized a monarchy system (Oba dynasty) and scrapped the indeginous system (Ogiso dynasty) till today and forever?

What do you say about the fact that Your present Oba came to pay homage at the Orun Oba Ado shrine earlier this year?


What da you say? What do you say?


Please tell me one thing the Benin did for Ife. Nothing.

Instead, Ife did for itself and even assisted the less privileged (Benin Kingdom)


Let me advice you,

The day you are matured, strong, bold, courageous, objective enough to accept truth regardless of what the truth says or who says it, that is day you begin to achieve real freedom

So now you are just trying to submerge me with your lies so that I won't have the energy to reply ? What happened to making one claim at a time ? I haven't got the chance to reply one claim and you have already made five others ? you are just a fraud as I said. And as I keep noticing, you want to drive this debate into illogical territory, suddenly it is all about "oral tradition" and reputation of a yorubacentric Edo whom you keep claiming is the "prime source" and the truth teller and most knowledgeable. Then you make more claims about his reputation. But if you take a look at all your claims then you will understand that you have mistakenly claimed to be an expert not only in history but also in Edo history. And we both know that you are not. You say things like "most scholars quote him" while you haven't read any scholar. You don't have proof to present, you can't join a logical debate and I can't join an illogical one. I am not going to discuss the validity or not of "oral history" I live that to drunk people like you. I discuss only facts not rubbish ! History is the study of ancient documents. Benin has a history because such ancient documents exist which describe Benin in the medieval era. These documents were made by europeans from several different countries, not just portugal as you seem to think. But I am going to end any debate with you right here. You didn't provide any non-excavated ife art. Instead you provided distractions and tried as much as possible to turn the debate into an illogical one.

prolog2:
So now you are just trying to submerge me with your lies so that I won't have the energy to reply ? What happened to making one claim at a time ? I haven't got the chance to reply one claim and you have already made five others ? you are just a fraud as I said. And as I keep noticing, you want to drive this debate into illogical territory, suddenly it is all about "oral tradition" and reputation of a yorubacentric Edo whom you keep claiming is the "prime source" and the truth teller and most knowledgeable. Then you make more claims about his reputation. But if you take a look at all your claims then you will understand that you have mistakenly claimed to be an expert not only in history but also in Edo history. And we both know that you are not. You say things like "most scholars quote him" while you haven't read any scholar. You don't have proof to present, you can't join a logical debate and I can't join an illogical one. I am not going to discuss the validity or not of "oral history" I live that to drunk people like you. I discuss only facts not rubbish ! History is the study of ancient documents. Benin has a history because such ancient documents exist which describe Benin in the medieval era. These documents were made by europeans from several different countries, not just portugal as you seem to think. But I am going to end any debate with you right here. You didn't provide any non-excavated ife art. Instead you provided distractions and tried as much as possible to turn the debate into an illogical one.

Am I supposed to time you or something?

Youve thrown a lot have things which are not necessary here.

If something is a lie or fraud just point it out without necessarily repeating the phrase "it's a lie" and no evidence.

Oral tradition? Yes. it is the repository of preliterate people and eyewitness testimony breaks down at that point because it can't see the past. Oral tradition guided with scientific scrutiny by being augmented with observed facts of the present is what makes Egharevba also a primary source which I have mentioned contemporary scholars that have made reference to him. (I know did is too dense for you ...I know ... its deliberate )

Did I claim to be an expert? Please point out where I said that or suggested that? I think you're just being a typical Benin person that you are ... i.e. intimidated and lowly esteemed , hence the reason when y'all see facts you'll cry know that man is a liar I want mr B ... and if mr B says something which your low self esteem doesn't like Y'all cry again ... no Mr B is a liar ... he's colluding with Yoruba


And I don't have to quote a Portugese document as you have senseless requested, because it will make no sense to you and me (I believe) what is expected of me is what I have done ... namely rely on the testimony of experts in the field?


That your definition of history ehn ... If I start with you now den go say I don start anyway that's not a definition of history, that's a part definition of archaeology ... I have long seen that you don't know what you're doing ... I've only been making you not feel bad.

Whatever document whether Portugal or not cite from them now ... why are you dead scared.

You seem to be shifting away from your beloved Portugal now to other places ... if I quote another extant Eurpean now which does fit your lowness, you will scream the British has connived with Yourba oo.


Like I have said ... cast down your victim jacket and embrace truth regardless of what it says and who says it

Summary:

*"The Head of Ife" was excavated in 1938 during the 2nd Ife excavation.

*The "Head of Olokun" is not one and the same thing as "The Head of Ife" which you unfortunately claimed is the case before I exposed you.

*You had claimed that the "Head of Olokun" was excavated from Ife and you boastfully presented an "evidence" which turned out to be evidence for another head namely "The Head of Ife" excavated in 1938, thus leaving you in shame.

*You didn't know how to make a u-turn on your claim that the "Head of Olokun" was excavated from Ife (even after the humiliation), hence you kept insisting on your claim without shame.

*I still didn't mind your shamelessness, I proceeded to demonstrate to you with documentary evidence that the 1st Ife excavation was done in 1910 by Leo Frobenius, and he was shown the "Head of Olokun" which had been in the custody of the Ooni; while he (Frobenius) actually conducted excavation of other heads.

*But you still insisted (now with absolutely no basis) that it was excavated (of course you meant 'earlier' now, ryt?) despite 1910 being the 1st Ife excavation.

*As your desperation, lameness, and pettiness was becoming unbearable, I had to come down to your level (by adopting your kind of reasoning) to ask you a similar question which was that:

How are we sure that the Benin bronzes have not been excavated earlier prior to when the first Europeans will be seeing them for the first time in the custody of the then Oba of Benin?

*And your response was as expected -- laughable, because I expected it to be glaringly robed with double standard. And yes, my prediction was right.

You answered, the first Europeans saw the bronzes and knew (from just seeing them) that they had always been in the custody of the Obas of Benin since they were manufactured.

*If such stupid answer seems okay to you, then be fair in the case of the "Head of Olokun" too, by saying something similar which is that, Leo Frobenius saw the "Head of Olokun" when they showed it to him, and he knew (from just seeing it) that it had always been in the custody of the Oonis of Ife since it was manufactured.



*Regarding the Obalufon head, the sources I cited which you noted to have checked and confirmed says very clearly that the Obalufon head has been in the custody of the Oonis of Ife since the time of its manufacture.

*You protested that you won't trust these sources because these statements from them relied on a 1937 National declaration on the Obalufon head by the then Ooni of Ife.

*I showed to you that it is absurd to think that this head was actually excavated in the 1st Ife excavation (1910) conducted by Frobenius [the 2nd excavation of 1938 is out of scope here because the unveiling and declaration on the head was done a year earlier] because experts the world over would never regurgitate the Ooni's position in all their publications over and above Frobenius' position if Frobenius had excavated this head in the 1st Ife excavation.


*Having logically answered your question [of whether or not there was any bronze casting in the custody of the Ooni before any Ife excavation] completely without a shadow of doubt; it is therefore expected of me to ask you to provide the evidence for your claims that the "Head of Olokun" was excavated at some point (and that it is fake as you contradictorily claim) and also that the Obalufon head was excavated at some point as well.

*You have had no evidence to support any one of these 3 flimsy and lowly esteemed claims up till this point.

*Please also remember that you've had no contrary evidence to any of the seven evidence-backed claims I put forward in the last conversation we had a couple of days ago.


Thank you for your time, and go and sin no more ...

prolog2:
tao, you seem to be missing the very clear point and on purpose. I don't give an f about your froebenius. The question was: show me the ife art which decorated ife palace before the brits arrived. And you have failed at that, instead you have been talking about stuff which were excavated including one which is believed by archeologists to be a fake. You seem to now want to change the point and make it about your froebenius and the current location of the excavated relics.

Lajuwa head and Obalufon head and lot more .... you need to visit ile-Ife museum

Obalufon:



Lajuwa head and Obalufon head and lot more .... you need to visit ile-Ife museum

Thanks bro.

The claims of that young man reeks of ignorance, desperation, and inferiority complex.

But I was generous enough to offer him some tuition-free course on Art in Ancient Ife.

ok