Radoillo: I only joined Nairaland towards the end of last month, Physics. Before that, 'Nairaland' was just a name that used to pop up on my google searches. Why do u ask that?

Ok. I asked only because your posts reminded me strongly of the posts of another NL poster.

Radoillo, I have a question for you.

Are you actually a new poster to this forum (NL), or are you a poster who has been posting here previously but is now using a new (or an additional) moniker?

I ask only because your overall posting style, the content of some of your posts, your interests, and the tone and voice of your writing is strongly reminiscent of that of another poster that was already posting on NL before you registered.

This is just something I had wondered about. If you've never actually posted on NL before registering as "Radoillo," then accept my apologies in advance for the question.

tpia@:


you support looking at language as evidence of contact between peoples, here, but speak against the same thing elsewhere.

Perhaps my post (that you quoted just now) wasn't clear enough - I may have been wrong in thinking that it was so let me give some detail.

My post was basically about this:

a) Speakers of non-Bantu 'Niger-Congo' languages and speakers of Bantu languages share the same "recent" (several thousand years ago) origins in the distant past

b) Therefore, going by (a) it seems probable that there might be a few remaining shared words from the time when they spoke the same language (before separating and diversifying)

c) Hence, even without any contact between the modern ethnic groups from those Bantu language speaking and non-Bantu language speaking groups, there could be words that could be very similar between some Bantu and non-Bantu languages, without these being borrowed in much more recent times (And some non-Bantu languages could have more shared words with Bantu languages than others - even without borrowing.)

One can extend this idea even more widely to include other linguistic groups on the continent (like Nilo-Saharan and Afroasiatic, for example), but of course in those cases one is liable to find even fewer shared but un-borrowed words since the languages one is comparing are going to be even more different from one another. (And of course it does seem possible that some non-Bantu 'Niger-Congo' languages could have more shared words with some Nilo-Saharan or Afroasiatic languages than others - even without borrowing or recent contact).

shymexx:
However, aren't Igbo's proto-bantu and how come their "umu" has the same roots as the rest who aren't proto-bantu? That also shows that a lot of their words are also borrowed/loaned. So it's plausible.

Even if Igbos were "proto-Bantu" (I'm not convinced that there's any validity to that idea) it's possible that there would be a few words that would be common between some Bantu and non-Bantu languages even without borrowing - at least that should be the case if one believes in a common origin for speakers of Bantu and non-Bantu African languages in the very distant past.

MetaPhysical: Physics and Radoilo,

Before reading the suggested book, in response I would like to say that these correspomdences are far too close in spelling, meaning and sense to be dismissedbas "accidental". These are evidences of functional contacts in an ancient past not attributable to trade or religious adventure of Europeans on African coast.

Gelede is a cult in Yorubaland, but it also a theatrical play. If you screenwrite the drama andstory of Gelede and its counterpart Efe and you put on stage it could be mistaken for a borrowed Greek theater play. I point tobthis to illustrate that its not just words and sounds and letters but even in cultural rites.

I will readvand respond onbthe book and more on whatvyou said later.

Based on other information in his book, I'm sure Bowen would have agreed with you (regarding the statement about cultural rites), were he alive - although of course he probably would have opted for the (much simpler) explanation of saying that these resemblances and functional contacts were brought about by a few Semitic adventurers, rather than suggesting that the Yoruba migrated en masse from somewhere outside of Africa. But of course I am not really convinced by his arguments, and not in any way endorsing his arguments. I'm only pointing out that, in the course of his analysis of actual and supposed linguistic correspondences, Bowen inadvertently reveals something about this linguistic correspondence game - if one wants to, one can even find correspondences (in spelling, meaning and sense) with words used by groups as far off as Scandinavia, India and the Americas. This makes it obvious that this word correspondence approach probably isn't the most useful one to take to find "evidence" of the alleged non-African roots of the Yoruba culture or language. Constructing a convincing narrative where Semitic & Mediterranean word correspondences are proof of Middle Eastern or other non-African origins seems more difficult once one considers that one can find the same word correspondences with much further away and (more obviously) culturally distant linguistic groups - if one has the knowledge and time to do so.

To everybody who has been posting continually in this thread, I recommend reading from page 269 to page 273 of the 1857 book Central Africa: Adventures and Missionary Labors in Several Countries in the Interior of Africa, from 1849 to 1856 by Thomas Jefferson Bowen. The book is easily findable online for reading or download with a simple search. I recommend reading that section because it might become clearer after reading some of the linguistic "correspondences" that Bowen describes between the Yoruba language and random words from an array of very diverse languages that most of the apparent linguistic connections you guys have been putting forward are mere coincidences, and that one could do the same thing that you guys have been doing (finding some corresponding words) with other languages that are not in any way "Semitic", "Afro-asiatic", Greek, or Latin, if they had sufficient knowledge and time to do so.

Although Bowen takes a stance that is somewhat similar to that of some posters on this thread (but his stance is colored by racial biases and a racially based "Hamitic hypothesis" view of Africa) about non-African origins for some aspects of Yoruba societies, when one ignores that author's bias/outlook, and looks at some of the far flung examples he gives of correspondences on their own merits, I think it becomes obvious that many of these correspondences are mere coincidences that have no deep linguistic significance, and are not evidence of a real/significant connection. I'm not saying that there aren't a few legitimate/real correspondences - there probably are - but it seems that most really are just coincidences. In that small section of his book, Bowen did much of what is now being done on this thread, but he extended his gaze over a wider selection of languages than only Semitic, Afroasiatic and Mediterranean ones and was still able to find the same kinds of supposed linguistic "correspondences" and "connections" merely by trying hard enough.

That said, while several of the ideas/claims discussed in this thread come across as somewhat outlandish (just my personal opinion, I mean no offense), some of them are intriguing regardless and the thread has been an interesting read.

Radoillo: Oh, I might be wrong about the Bini attire then.

You are.

I never said the attire and linguistic influence are evidence that there was some 'interbreeding'.

I guess you didn't mean to say that, but the way your post was written, it comes across as if that is what you were saying. But thanks for clarifying.

So yes, I think there was some interbreeding. On a very small scale though.

I don't doubt that there was a little bit of that, but wearing a European hat (all sorts of objects obtained in trade were worn by some groups without any "interbreeding" being necessary) or borrowing a European word isn't evidence of that. Even some of the usage of European names has completely different origins than one might think (I'm not saying that some of these names aren't due to "interbreeding" - some of them are - but others were adopted for different reasons).

Radoillo: Europeans came to parts of Nigerian Coast between 15th and early 19th centuries to trade in slaves. There's evidence that there was some 'interbreeding'. Some Kalabari and itsekiri people among other groups carry portuguese, dutch, french and british blood from that era. Portuguese Catholic influencence is still evident in the attire of the Bini nobility. Portuguese words still occur in the Itsekiri language. The Ijaws and the Efiks still bear Anglicanized names from that Period. Briggs and Blue-jack. Pepple and Allison. Duke and Henshaw. Bassey and Cobhams. European hats are still ubiquitous throughout the Delta as part of the traditional dress.

Now imagine that someone assembles all these 'evidence' and postulates that the Nigerian Coast was peopled from Europe between the 15th and the early 19th centuries. Would that someone be correct?

Regarding the part in bold about the "attire of the Bini nobility", that's actually a recent (early 20th century) development and has nothing to do with the 15th to 19th centuries. You can't find any evidence of Edo titleholders wearing exactly the same sort of outfits as those particular ones that you're referring to prior to the early 20th century. There's an interesting 1995 article by Aisien and Nevadomsky that comments on the clothing that you're referring to and they clarify the date that that exact type of clothing started being worn (during the colonial era) near the end of that article. Their article is easily findable and readable online so I won't post a link. Thinking that any group adopting any Portuguese clothing or taking a few loan words or wearing European hats would be signs of "interbreeding" is also very strange, by the way.

Oma (Itsekiri) is from the same root as Omo, Oma (Igala), Umu (Igbo), etc. Whether some use oma and some omo wouldn't have anything to do with borrowing in that instance. The Olu of Itsekiri's title is Ogiame (which was recently renounced and then un-renounced by the present Olu), not Atuwatse. Atuwatse is a name, like Ginuwa or Orhogbua or Ajaka.

If there are any Ga that ever used or presently use "omo" I haven't seen any evidence of that, but I'm not saying it's impossible, just highly implausible, since it's very doubtful that the word for child would be loaned/borrowed. But I guess you're looking at it from the perspective of some of them having actual ancient Nigerian ancestry and not just geographic origin, hence the difference in opinion.

^

I'm not Ga and did not claim to be. My point was that contrary to what alj harem stated, there's no evidence that they used it now or in the past and that's what I wanted to make clear. As for plausibility, people can have different views of what is or isn't plausible. It doesn't seem plausible to me that the Ga claiming any southern Nigerian geographic origin shows that the word for "child" could ever have been loaned to Ga speakers. Maybe other words could have been borrowed by them at some points in the past, but the word for something as fundamental as "child"? Highly implausible to me.

^

There isn't any evidence that the Ga do use it or even that they used it in the past though.

Osa does not mean ocean or sea in Edo so I guess that's a completely different word. Thanks for telling me what it means in Yoruba. Which particular Yoruba dialect uses osa to mean ocean/sea?

I talked about this in another thread, but apart from the fact that fundamental words for "father" "mother" "child" etc. in languages are not borrowed, there are obvious signs that "iye" "iya" etc. developed from a root word in a language ancestral to some modern southern Nigerian languages - there are cognates for this word among different nearby ethnic groups.

Thinking "omo" is exclusive to Yoruba makes no sense. There's a very similar word (very similar in appearance and meaning) "umu" used by a linguistic group to the east (Igbos), and to the north-central, there's a group, Igala, that use "oma" to mean the same thing, and all the Edoid groups (including those in Bayelsa) in between Yoruba and Igbo and Igala use "omo" to mean child/descendant. All these words (omo,oma,umu) clearly have the same origin, and it doesn't make sense to claim that because the Edoid and Yoruboid forms of the word settled on the same variant ('omo') that this means that one particular ethnic group originated the word when it's clear that the words just didn't diverge enough from one another among those groups (Yoruboid and Edoid groups) to take different forms.

The Ga language does not use "omo" for child.

See here:

http://archive.org/details/agrammaticalske01zimmgoog

('A grammatical sketch of the Akra- or Gã-language' (1858))

Look through p. 80 of that book. The word for child in Ga is "bi." A daugher is "biyei" and a son is "bihi."

Anyone using "omo" to mean child or son who claims to be a Ga has direct ancestry from somewhere in southern Nigeria.

^

I know iye is used in a few parts of Yorubaland, but my point is that iye is the word for mother in Edo - there isn't some other word and it is not borrowed from any outside group (basic parental terms are not the sort of words groups borrow). There are some words that are going to be shared between some nearby linguistic groups that aren't borrowed and iye is one of these words. Alj harem also wrongly tried to suggest that "omo" is borrowed when omo has never been exclusive to Yorubas. These words have more to do with a proto-language ancestral to some modern southern Nigerian languages than they have to do with any specific modern ethnicity.

^
I was wondering, are you the poster "Chyz" that used to post here? Or are you somebody else?

^

Iyoba is "Iye-Oba." Iye is the Edo word for mother - there isn't some other word for mother in the Edo ('Bini') language. 'Omo' is used by most - if not all - of the groups that speak 'Edoid' languages - Etsako, Urhobo, Isoko, Engenni, Degema, etc. Not sure why you thought it was exclusively Yoruba.

What does 'osa' mean in Yoruba? Just wondering.

bigfrancis21: @Radoillo, PhysicsQED

Since the Edo empire covered parts of Ibo land, is it also likely that some Ibos were among the 83 slaves purchased in Benin city?

If that's the case, then Ibo slaves were not only taken from the Bight of Bonny. A small percentage could have also been smuggled out from the Bight of Benin.

What are your thoughts on this?

It's possible. However, the references I came across mentioning slaves in Benin where the ethnicity is actually specified only mention the Urhobo. And these are only references to certain slaves that were kept within the kingdom. I haven't seen the specific ethnicity of any of the slaves that were sold mentioned in any documents.

I don't know with any certainty what the exact ethnic composition of the slaves that were being sold was so I can't really give a detailed or satisfactory answer on this issue.

Radoillo:
Are u also saying Edo women fought battles? Queen Idia took to the field in person? I thought it was a slave (male slave) of the queen who fought on her mistress's behalf.

This account comes from Egharevba's most important publication (A Short History) where he mentions that she sent troops from Uselu, captained by her head slave, to fight in a very important war. Egharevba is rightly held in high esteem by the Edo (and some non-Edo) for his lifelong work recording Edo history, culture, customs, etc., but one of the minor drawbacks of his work, is that there are occasional (infrequent) issues of consistency. Egharevba actually made it clear in another publication that she took part in direct combat, was a warrior, and he quoted an Edo praise song about Queen Idia that extolled her as a warrior. What one believes in that regard would probably depend on what particular account of Egharevba's one chooses to go with - he may have obtained differing accounts and decided that they were both worth recording since one could be true instead of the other.

But you are correct that Edo women did not fight in battles generally, even if one accepts that Idia did. Samstradam's assumption that women fighting in battles was a particularly "Edoid" cultural characteristic doesn't seem to have a basis to me.

^

Yes, you did not state that Equiano was Edo or Edoid, you only implied that much of the culture that he was describing was in some way Edoid. I misread you there.

I read where you stated that some scholars believe he was born in South Carolina and I was already well aware of this theory, but I did not comment on that because I don't have much interest in his background. I commented on the scarification, the issue of women fighting in wars, and the religious stuff only because you kept referencing this stuff as being "Edoid" based on the description, because of a few misconceptions you had.

I don't have any interest in whether he was or was not from South Carolina, but you should probably refrain from centering much of your argument about his true background on what you think does or does not seem Edoid.

addicted268:

I was told that this iyoba was the mother of the oba and she was a warrior.

She is often held to have been a warrior, yes.

I was also told that those things on her head represent d skulls of the white men she killed when they tried to invade d benin kingdom.is this true?

No. Both the queen and her son, Oba Esigie, were closely involved with trade with the visiting Portuguese - some of whom were allies - and this association was memorialized in the art and in oral traditions.

Edit: I see the typo was corrected, so no need for this comment now.

@ Samstradam

Equiano was not Edo. I don't see where you're getting that idea from. The text makes it quite clear that he was Igbo.

The "ichi" marks that some Igbos had and which Equiano directly referenced by name are not the same as the Edo tribal marks by any means - they look quite different. The ichi marks were many small lines/grooves all over the forehead in diagonal and vertical patterns, while the Edo tribal marks were generally a few small marks above each of the eyebrows. The two big vertical marks which one can see on the queen Idia mask and on several other pieces of art from Benin are not depictions of tribal marks but an artistic emphasis/exaggeration of the two biggest creases/lines in the area between one's eyebrows when a person makes a very serious expression on their face. The purpose of those marks in the art was to show that the person represented was a determined/serious person.

Having fights, skirmishes, or full-blown wars, etc. was not exclusive to any ethnic group in the past, and with the likely exception of queen Idia, women generally did not take part in actual physical combat in the past among the Bini - at least there's no evidence of that which I know of.

Esu was never considered the main God or creator God of the Edo or any other group in Nigeria. Wherever that "pipe smoking god as the supreme deity" idea came from, it's doubtful that it was obtained from an Edo person.

Wow @ what this thread became. Please guys, put away your e-fists, lessen the antagonism and try and calm down.

And to the non-AA posters in the thread, please, have a little more sensitivity. This thread was started by a Nigerian (who I don't think posts on this forum anymore - I think it was EzeUche under a different username) to better inform NL members about a terrible period in AA history, because of his sympathy for what their ancestors went through, but now the thread is going very far in the opposite direction of what was intended. And to 'bigfrancis21' in particular, there's a certain quote that seems apt: "There is no respect for others without humility in one's self." Try and have a little humility - only unnecessarily arrogant people have great difficulty addressing and treating others respectfully.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mayor_of_Lagos:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^
Alright. I'll read it and respond tomorrow. I've got to get some sleep right now. Later.

Mayor_of_Lagos:

Is there some likeness in my manners and negros? Who was it, someone asked same question earlier this week, actually yesterday. Id love to know.

I saw your response to shymexx on Bini/Ijebu. Coincidentally he also mentioned chief negro and i think dudunegro. Are you Bini?

So whats the correct etymology of the word, independent of naptu's and egharevbas?

Well, there is some similarity in the writing style and the general content of your posts, and he does seem to be in a phase where he's expanding the number of his usernames, so it seemed reasonable enough to ask if you were him. I thought you were him, but he already knows that I'm Bini so I guess you're different people.

And I doubt that anyone knows the real etymology of that word - there are some words that are just like that, unfortunately.

Mayor_of_Lagos: Naptu, i see that they renamed in 1990/91 from Dahomey to Benin.

They new name was attribute of Bight of Benin which came from Kingdom of Benin which was so given by Oranmiyan.


Now, Binis always have their own palace version of history so lets wait and hear how Binis will respond to explain the meaning of Bini.

This part in bold comes from the "Bini" (Edo) - Egharevba was trying to figure out the origin of the exonym, and someone in Benin told him this story and he accepted it and published the story. Hence the endless repetition of that story in a variety of later sources.

Are you Negro_Ntns (now going by 'Metaphysical', it seems)? I ask, only because, like him, you seem to place an exaggerated importance on that exonym.

Mayor_of_Lagos:

What does this Benin mean?

It's merely a popular nickname used by outsiders, like "Tapa" (Nupe), "Bino" (Kanuri), "Germany" (Deutschland), "Katunga" (Old Oyo), "Phoenicia" (Chanani, i.e, Canaanites), "Selemo/Iselema" (Itsekiri), etc.

Why that particular name was chosen as the nickname isn't entirely clear (although there are some popular Edo myths surrounding its origin, one of which you already posted earlier in this thread), but, like "Germany" (for Deutschland), the name is far too popular for its use to ever die out.

ShymmexLion: PhysicsQED

You still haven't provided any substantial proof of the conquest of Ijebuland by Benin.

Did I in fact, set out to "prove" that conquest? Not really. I just found the arguments against the claim somewhat weak in some areas, and elaborated on these weaknesses, while saying that the claim seemed entirely plausible to me.

In some cases "substantial proof" isn't going to be obtainable for the simple reason of a lack of direct documentation and a lack of willingness of another side to corroborate such a claim. I do intend to discuss this particular issue at length with TerraCotta when I return to that thread.

At least, if Benin sujugated the Ijebu's at one time or the other, in the past, there should be elements of Benin culture (Even if not Benin crown in the case of Eko and other Benin colonies) in Ijebuland,

It does not necessarily follow that "elements of Benin culture" have to be in every place that Benin conquered (for example: Idah), and the presence of elements of Benin culture in places Benin never conquered (such as Onitsha, which had some migrants from Benin, but was never conquered or anything like that), suggests that influence isn't always the best way of accounting for the places that were conquered.

- and same with the elements of Yoruba culture Oyo have in all its conquered territories.

This isn't true either, but I intend to mention this issue of elements of culture and acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement of claims of militaristic states like Oyo at greater length in the other thread in the culture section with TerraCotta.

Yes, Ijebu's did use a few Benin mercenaries - just as it used Ibadan and other Yoruba subgroup's mercenaries. However, by your conclusions, one would assume that Ibadan and all these other Yoruba subgroups also subjugated the Ijebu's. However that wasn't the case.

I wasn't suggesting that one group using mercenaries from another group meant that other group conquered the first group. I was saying that I don't see what is outlandish or controversial about thinking that a militaristic state could have at one point conquered a place which was acknowledged not to have a strong military.

I was saying that as far as plausibility goes, the idea that the claim was something outlandish or improbable makes little sense to me so far.

Also, as Terracotta pointed out on the other thread, the claim of Ijebu subjugation by the Benin's only came from one source, in the Benin palace.

Well, no. This isn't actually true. There is an allusion to such a thing from another source - an early Yoruba source - but I repeatedly left out any mention of this source during my discussion with TerraCotta because (1) the way it is stated in that source is offensive (to the Ijebu) and (2) that allusion could instead be reasonably interpreted as an attempt by a member of one Yoruba group (non-Ijebu) to put down another Yoruba group (Ijebu) rather than being a remnant of a historical memory of a Benin conquest.

I assumed throughout my discussion with TerraCotta that he was already aware of that allusion, but was ignoring it precisely because of reason (2) - that the statement was, in his view, most likely just an attempt to denigrate the Ijebu by somebody from another group. I'm not sure if that's the exact reason he ignored it, or if he just thought that particular claim (which the author of that book mentioned) sounded like a fanciful story/claim, but in any case, there is an allusion to the alleged "subjugation" of the Ijebu by Benin in a Yoruba source which was published before any Edo source made the claim. There is a book on the Ijebu by a history professor that I have already mentioned in the thread where me and TerraCotta were having that discussion, where the author notes this claim about the Ijebu and Benin in that early Yoruba source and speculates on what it might mean.

As far as the European sources go, apart from the mention of it by Dapper, which is presumably sourced from a European who obtained the claim in Benin, there is also a mention of the Benin-Ijebu dominion claim by G.A. Robertson, in his book Notes on Africa. Robertson's description of the Ijebu in his book is glowingly positive and there are aspects of his description which match up well with other information on the Ijebu, but he also claims Ijebu was tributary to Benin - a claim he could not have obtained directly from Benin, as he never went to the Benin kingdom.

However, whether Robertson's information about the relationship between Ijebu and Benin is really either (a) firsthand or (b) directly from African informants as he claimed all his information (unless stated otherwise) was, is an issue. I think he might have obtained the claim from a publication which derived its information from Dapper - although, it does seem in his book that he states explicitly when he is dealing with any information from a European source. But even if he didn't get the claim from Dapper's book, there are a few other claims about which states were tributary to other states in Robertson's book that are extremely unlikely and implausible (despite the informativeness of the book in general), so this particular claim in Robertson's book isn't necessarily proof of outside corroboration to me - I'll elaborate more on this on the thread where I was having the discussion with TerraCotta, when I return to that discussion in a week or two.

Also, there is a mention of the alleged conquest by Percy Talbot in his section on the Ijebu, in his great anthropological study The Peoples of Southern Nigeria. This is the only mention by a European of a conquest of Ijebu by Benin - the other statements by Dapper and Robertson are only stating that Ijebu was tributary to Benin. However, somewhat typically for Talbot, he neglects to tell us what the exact source of this information (about a conquest of Ijebu by Benin) was.

On this issue, one can indeed discount the European sources (Dapper, Robertson, Talbot), and discount what Egharevba wrote, and discount what that early Yoruba source claimed, for various legitimate reasons. But as I stated above, it's unlikely that one can obtain strong proof for all the claims of conquests or dominion of empires of the past, and assuming mutual acknowledgement of all claims or the existence of substantial proof for all claims does seem a bit naive to me.

Same with the Ijebu subjugation by Oyo. However, none has been able to provide substantial proofs for this. And the Ijebu's have vehemently denied that it happened.

The basis for the Oyo claim on Ijebu doesn't seem to be a claim that Oyo conquered Ijebu or greatly influenced Ijebu, but that Ijebu acknowledged Oyo overlordship and in accordance with their acknowledgement of that overlordship, the Ijebu agreed to the Alaafin's choice of who would be the next Ijebu king during a certain succession dispute in the Ijebu kingdom. Law goes over this claim in some detail on his book on Oyo and it would seem that the person claimed in Oyo's traditions (as recorded by Samuel Johnson) as the Alaafin's choice, is acknowledged in Ijebu tradition and kinglists to have indeed been the person selected as the next Awujale. But of course, this isn't proof of anything, since they could have chosen that man as the next Awujale on their own, without doing so because of any alleged outside interference from Oyo.

Ijebu's can also claim that it subjugated the Benin's in the past by laying claims to the worship of Olokun by the Benin's. The only two riverine/coastal groups close to the Benin's who worship Olokun are the Ijebu's and Itsekiri's. And with the Itsekiri's, the Ijebu group which formed part of today's Itsekiri group took the Olokun worship to Warri. The other groups that are part of the Itsekiri's (Ilaje's, Ijesa's and Igala) have never at any point in their history worshipped Olokun. So evidently, we can say the Olokun worship got into Benin via the Ijebu's.

Just for the record, the Ilajes did/do in fact worship Olokun - there are a plethora of sources that show this, so I won't get into this in detail. But as I said earlier, saying that cultural influence necessarily comes from or with a conquest is merely an assumption (which may not necessarily be warranted) and there can be simpler explanations for the adoption of cultural practices (as TerraCotta and I both agreed on in that thread), and in any case, both those who are conquered and those who do the conquering can be influenced by the other group - a good example is the Fulanis adopting aspects of the cultures of some of those they conquered.

I've seen people claim that Benin empire got to present day Togo and Ghana,

From what I've seen, the person making the Togo claim is not Edo, and the extent of his knowledge about Benin is limited. As for Ghana, the claim (as I have seen it stated in the few Edo sources that mention it) is about migration, not conquest or invasion and the claim is in accord with the claims of some of the actual people of a section of Ghana who are well known to have been making the same migration claim repeatedly on their own and even before the Edo made any such claims. In fact, they seem to have been making the same sort of claim not just in the late 19th and early 20th century, but even in the mid 18th century. The events that generated this migration claim from both sides are obscure, and probably can never be recovered for history beyond mere speculation.

and that the name for Benin (country) came from Benin empire. However, every student of history knows that these are bogus assertions which have no place in the history books.

The name for Benin (country) came indirectly from the name of the Benin empire. The bight of Benin was named after the Benin kingdom, and the modern country was named after the bight.

PS: Terracotta isn't Ijebu, he's most likely from the Oyo/Ibadan axis. And he also vehemently disagreed with the Oyo claims that it subjugated the Ijebu's in the past. He's the most objective on this subject-matter. Yes, he admires the Ijebu's, just as a lot of people including, Chief Negro_ntns/Dudu_negro, does. However that doesn't negate his objectivity since he also argued against the claims made by his own Yoruba group. Ijebu's have a great history and culture - and it's only right that tons of people admire the exploits of the Ijebu's and what they contributed to African history.

Shalom!

I haven't in any way suggested that TerraCotta is Ijebu - I read where he stated clearly that he isn't Ijebu and if I thought he was Ijebu then I would have simply said that his background might be in the way of his objectivity, the same way I admitted that my own background is a problem for my own objectivity on the issue. I simply pointed out that if he had a particular admiration for that culture, as he acknowledged himself, then his objectivity might be clouded somewhat by some degree of sentimentality.

I haven't seen where he stated what specific area he's from, but even if he is from the area you mentioned, the issue I referenced earlier of sentimentality because of a strong admiration for a certain culture would still be a factor.

ShymmexLion:

The Ijebu's were never under Oyo. Even when others were breaking away, the Ijebu's were already independent. That was the same way PhysicsQED was trying to claim that Benin subjugated Ijebu based on some lies before Terracotta busted the lies. It seems everyone wants to claim Ijebu subjugation without any proof(s). Damn!!! The great Jebusites!

You do like controversy don't you? I don't think you should misrepresent my posting just because something I might have stated doesn't sit well with you.

I wasn't going to comment in this thread even with the multiple mentions of Benin and Bini here and there, but since I'm being called out by name for no reason , I might as well say something to clear up this claim against my username.

I have never brought up the issue of Benin and Ijebu on this forum. It has only ever been brought up by other people to me (first by you in an older thread, then later by TerraCotta in another thread, for reasons which aren't entirely clear to me). In your case, you literally asked me something very much like, "if Benin took over Lagos, why didn't they ever conquer Ijebu, which was right next door" to which I responded that Benin tradition held that, in fact, they conquered Ijebu long before they established the war camp at Lagos. As far as TerraCotta and the Ijebu claim, he brought it up, and I told him that the arguments that I had seen for the claim being false were rather weak, and that we would have to find stronger arguments to actually dismiss the claim easily so that the claim that keeps being repeated in the academic literature is understood to have no basis. He then proceeded to present different arguments from the ones I said were weak, but all of these arguments he presented were based on serious misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Unfortunately, in both instances, it doesn't seem to me that those bringing up the issue have taken enough time to try and understand the plausibility of the claim itself or the background of some of the sources in which the claim occurs before criticizing it.

As far as "busting" the "lies", I have to say that although the basis of his Pereira vs. Dapper criticism was rather weak (I suspect it was based on Saburi Biobaku's misunderstanding of Pereira as a source vs. Dapper as a source, as expressed in Biobaku's 1973 book), I don't actually have much of a problem with his objection to what Dapper's sources claimed. Even though the length of my response on that Dapper/Pereira stuff may not make it look that way, his dismissal of that part of Dapper's description is not much of an issue for me in the context of our discussion. I would certainly accept his conclusion (dismissing what Dapper wrote on Ijebu and Benin) as acceptable, even if the basis of his actual argument was very weak, simply because I don't consider works like Dapper's free of error.

On the other hand, although there are obviously errors in Egharevba's work, the content of his criticism of Egharevba and Egharevba's statement of the claim of conquest of Ijebu is highly inaccurate and misleading overall. I haven't really commented on that yet because there's more to correct there, so there will be a bit too much to type up without taking up too much of my time and getting in the way of more important things.

There are more incorrect or misleading statements in what TerraCotta wrote as a response to me besides the ones that I already commented on but I left the thread alone because I've had other concerns, so it would be a distraction to comment at length on the rest of what he wrote. Unfortunately, it usually takes more effort to correct inaccurate, incorrect, or misleading statements than it does to come up with those arguments/statements.

Also, I should say that it seems that neither me or TerraCotta is capable of real objectivity on that issue - in my case, my background would be in the way, and in his case, he has already stated his strong admiration for the Ijebu people/culture, so the problem of approaching the issue with a little too much sentimentality is clearly an obstacle for him.

Finally, please attempt to look at the issue a bit more rationally: in the past few days, in your "Yorubas after the fall of the Oyo empire" thread in the culture section, you have posted various articles on the various Yoruba groups. One of these articles, on the Ijebu, states near the end of the article, that the Ijebu did not have a strong military compared to some of their neighbors:

ShymX:
Unlike other Yoruba towns and kingdoms, Ijẹbu did not have strong military; rather it relied on “mercenaries”.

http://yorupedia.com/subjects/yoruba-from-19th-to-date/after-the-fall/

https://www.nairaland.com/1408443/yorubas-after-fall-oyo-empire#17615298

Now there's a book, Yoruba Warfare in the Nineteenth Century, by J.F. Ade Ajayi, where the author mentions (citing a published source) that among the outside mercenaries hired by the Ijebu during the 19th century wars were mercenaries from Benin. Whether or not that particular claim in Ade Ajayi's book is exactly true could be debated, of course. But assuming that there were even a bit of truth to it, I think it wouldn't hurt to ask, between the state that was supposedly exporting mercenaries even when in decline (in the 19th century), and the state that supposedly "did not have a strong military" and had to import mercenaries, why is it so controversial to think that the former state could have conquered the latter at some time? If you believe what you've been posting, why would it be so difficult for you to believe that the conquest of a kingdom which supposedly did not have a strong military by another kingdom is some sort of highly implausible scenario?

Regardless of what your conclusion on the Benin-Ijebu stuff eventually is, don't think I "want to claim Ijebu subjugation without any proof." If I was interested in doing so, I probably would have at least mentioned the issue at some point before you or other posters did.

Something about this seems highly condescending, though I can't put my finger on what it is exactly.