SilverSniper:


I think I wasn't as clear as I should have been about what I was really saying. I wasn't saying that they weren't necessarily burial pits, but instead saying they were probably for (burying) someone or something else, before they were reinterpreted as having to do with burying Benin kings, since their dates don't fit at all.

No, Frank Willet himself who headed the excavation and oversaw the dating did not rule out the site as a burial site in relation to Benin kings.

Despite some of the old dating result.

TAO11:

Why will the archaeologist, Frank Willett continue to uphold the idea that the site was used for burial in relation to Benin kingdom; if truly the dating was such an issue that you want to make it today??

Could you direct me to where Willett said he upheld (i.e. believed) the idea that that was what the site was really used for before or after the excavation? Or did he just acknowledge that there was some tradition about that? From what I remember from my reading of Willet's articles, books, he doesn't seem to just accept Nigerian traditions as necessarily being factual just because they exist.

davidnazee:


If oduduwa did not establish Ife then why is he regarded as the father of Yoruba race? Why would someone be regarded as father of a race that was already established and great??
Even if you say Oduduwa did not establish Ife, he was the one that brought Ife to prominence. Before Oduduwa Ife was nothing but Edo was already an advanced society.
You won’t stop looking stupid abi.

You're gradually becoming humble

He was instrumental to a new political order that gave birthed the primacy of Ife.

Not that he gave birth to every Ife indigene. Lol





Edo advanced society that didnt wear cloth.

TAO11:


No, Frank Willet himself who headed the excavation and oversaw the dating did not rule out the site as a burial site in relation to Benin kings.

Despite some of the old dating result.

Yes, I know he didn't "rule it out", but I don't recall where he affirmed or upheld that it was demonstrated by the burial pits.

SilverSniper:


Could you direct me to where Willett said he upheld (i.e. believed) the idea that that was what the site was really used for before or after the excavation? Or did he just acknowledge that there was some tradition about that? From what I remember from my reading of Willet's articles, books, he doesn't seem to just accept Nigerian traditions as necessarily being factual just because they exist.

Yes I will direct you to where he still upheld the idea that the site was four burial in relation to Benin kings, despite finding no skulls there.

Give me a moment!

Modified
Frank Willet in "Ife in the History of West African Sculpture, Lond. 1967, p. 132" gives a personal suggestion as to why skulls were not found:

"It was perhaps not the heads of the Obas that were sent but some [other] token of the body"

Cited in G. A. Akinola, The History of the Eweka Dynasty of Benin: A Study in the Use and Abuse of Oral Traditions, Journal kf the Historical Society of Nigeria, Vol. 8. 3 (December 1979), p.33.


Clearly, if he had an interesting understanding like yours (different from mine) about some of the early date of the materials, the question of continuing to connect the pits to the Obas of Benin would have been out of the window.

SilverSniper:


Yes, I know he didn't "rule it out", but I don't recall where he affirmed or upheld that it was demonstrated by the burial pits.

Wait a minute!! Did you just say you know he didn't rule it out despite the dating result of some of the materials, when that's precisely what you've been trying to do all night??


I am confused!! Lol

TAO11:


Wait a minute!! Did you just say you know he didn't rule it out despite the dating result of some of the materials, when that's precisely what you've been trying to do all night??


I am confused!! Lol

There is a difference between saying something could still be possible (not ruling it out) even though the evidence at hand doesn't affirm it, and "upholding" (believing) something to be true. I don't think that is so confusing.

TAO11:


You're gradually becoming humble

He was instrumental to a new political order that gave birthed the primacy of Ife.

Not that he gave birth to every Ife indigene. Lol





Edo advanced society that didnt wear cloth.

If u interpret my trying to not see u as a foolish person as being humble that’s fine lol.

So you agree that Ife wasn’t a great Kingdom before Oduduwa came..
so where did oduduwa come from? Historians and scholars have all said he didn’t come from any of Yoruba villages, so where did he come from?

TAO11:


Should we just pretend that we both didn't see that your comment above on, GrandSon, GreatGrandSon, etc was ridiculously pointless?? You bungled!!


Anyways, moving on with educating you:

We are here talking about ranking of monarchies --- And from the word itself, it clearly indicates seniority.

So, whether you look at it from the obvious father's-throne (Alaafin) vs son's-throne (Oba Ubinu) angle --- Alaafin ranks superior

Whether you loou look at it from the earlier-ascension (Alaafin Oranmiyan) vs later-ascension (Oba Eweka I) angle --- Alaafin ranks superior.


Note: As I have said earlier according to Yoruba accounts, Eweka became the first Oba of Benin.

However, as at the time Oranmiyan left Benin to become Alaafin Oyo, Eweka I was just been born as a babe who is to become king years later when he grows up.

So, however you want to look at it, whether from father's-throne vs son's-throne angle; or from the earlier-ascension vs latter-ascension angle --- the Alaafin's throne (Oranmiyan) still ranks superior to Oba Ubinu's throne (Eweka I).

"The kingdom of Benin was so powerful that the Alafin of Oyo, the head of the Yoruba people, told a British governor that even his predecessors had to pay tribute to its king." - Asibong Akpan Okon, The evolution of self-government of Nigeria (1955), p. 36

Asibong Okon was referring to this:

"This Kingdom of Benin was at one time so powerful that the Alafin of Oyo, the head of the Yoruba people, told me that even his predecessors had to pay tribute to its King." - United Empire, Volume 2 (1911), p. 620

https://books.google.com/books?newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&id=AE45AQAAMAAJ&dq=predecessors+pay+tribute

Forgot the British governor's name (I looked through the United Empire book years ago, but didn't make any notes), but that 1911 quote is authentic.

You can make what you want out of the quote. From my own perspective, power relations in a political context are usually based on realpolitik and determined by the practical facts on the ground, not necessarily myths or legends.

SilverSniper:


There is a difference between saying something could still be possible (not ruling it out) even though the evidence at hand doesn't affirm it, and "upholding" (believing) something to true. I don't think that is so confusing.

Okay, let me clarify so you are clear.

He did not entertain the slightest iota of doubt regarding whether the site was in connection to the Obas of Benin, despite some dating result.

I hope that is clear.

What he introduced a "suggestion" for, on the other hand, was the actual body parts (of Benin Obas) that was buried there.

And he came up with this because he found nk skulls.


But he also admitted elsewhere that the absense of body parts is not what disproves traditions of olden burial.

TAO11:


Okay, let me clarify so you are clear.

He did not entertain the slightest iota of doubt regarding whether the site was in connection to the Obas of Benin, despite some dating result.

I hope that is clear.

What he introduced a "suggestion" for, on the other hand, was the actual body parts (of Benin Obas) that was buried there.

And he came up with this because he found nk skulls.


But he also admitted elsewhere that the absense of body parts is not what disproves traditions of olden burial.

I read Willett's articles and books years ago, including his article about the excavations and I don't recall the statement he makes affirming that the site was definitely used for burials of the kings of Benin, hence my question to you. I am just asking where he affirms or upheld that the site really was used to bury the kings of Benin. I am aware that he does not "rule it out" and stated that the absence of finds of human remains doesn't disprove a tradition but that is not the same thing as him as upholding the idea as true.

SilverSniper:


"The kingdom of Benin was so powerful that the Alafin of Oyo, the head of the Yoruba people, told a British governor that even his predecessors had to pay tribute to its king." - Asibong Akpan Okon, The evolution of self-government of Nigeria (1955), p. 36

Asibong Okon was referring to this:

"This Kingdom of Benin was at one time so powerful that the Alafin of Oyo, the head of the Yoruba people, told me that even his predecessors had to pay tribute to its King." - United Empire, Volume 2 (1911), p. 620

https://books.google.com/books?newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&id=AE45AQAAMAAJ&dq=predecessors+pay+tribute

Forgot the British governor's name (I looked through the United Empire book years ago, but didn't make any notes), but that 1911 quote is authentic.

You can make what you want out of the quote. From my own perspective, power relations in a political context are usually based on realpolitik and determined by the practical facts on the ground, not necessarily myths or legends.

So Crowther in 1856 noted the following the Yoruba:

the Yoruba "at one time ... were all tributaries to one Sovereign, the King of Yoruba ["i.e. Oyo"], inckuding Benin on the East, and Dahomey on the West."

S. Crowther to T. J. Hutchinson, 10 Sept. 1856 (C.M.S Archives, CA2/031a).

Samuel Johnson noted that:

"at the height of its power in the eighteenth century, the Oyo kingdom was bounded by the River Niger on the north and east and the sea on the south, and that 'from all the provinces included within these boundaries ... tributes were paid to Oyo."

Johnson, History p.40.

You can make what you want out of those.

And talking about mythology and stories, it pervades all cultures of the world, including Benin.

You started out well, but you've began to start making moot points.

SilverSniper:


I read Willett's articles and books years ago, including his article about the excavations and I don't recall the statement he makes affirming that the site was definitely used for burials of the kings of Benin, hence my question to you. I am just asking where he affirms or upheld that the site really was used to bury the kings of Benin. I am aware that he does not "rule it out" and stated that the absence of finds of human remains doesn't disprove a tradition but that is not the same thing as him as upholding the idea as true.

I aready cited you references above in the same comment where I noted that I will.

Again, he never sounded even slightly hesitant or probabilistic regarding whether the site was a burial site or whether it was connected to the kings of Benin.


The only point about which he sounded quite understandably hesitant, was if it was their heads or other parts of their body that was buried there.

davidnazee:


[s]If u interpret my trying to not see u as a foolish person as being humble that’s fine lol.
So you agree that Ife wasn’t a great Kingdom before Oduduwa came..
so where did oduduwa come from? Historians and scholars have all said he didn’t come from any of Yoruba villages, so where did he come from?[/s]

Oduduwa did not "came". Your skull is very thick.

Oduduwa is Yoruba. From Ife.

When political reforms were ongoing in Ife, your peeps were still swinging n@ked from one tree to another tree and hoping from one cave shekter to another.

TAO11:


So Crowther in 1856 asserted that the Yoruba at one time ... were all tributaries to one Sovereign, the King of Yoruba ["i.e. Oyo"], inckuding Benin on the East, and Dahomey on the West.

S. Crowther to T. J. Hutchinson, 10 Sept. 1856 (CMS Archives, CA2/031a).

Samuel Johnson noted that: "at the height of its power in the eighteenth century, the Oyo kingdom was bounded by the River Niger kn the north and east and the sea on the south, and that 'from all the provinces included within these boundaries ... tributes were paid to Oyo."

Johnson, History p.40.

You can make what you want out of those.

And talking about mythology and stories, it pervades all cultures of the world including Benin. It's nothing of a setback.


You started out well, but you've began to start making moot points.

I am familiar with what Crowther asserted and what Johnson claimed as well (though neither of them might be completely impartial sources). That's not new to me but my point with that quote is that one monarchy being "above" another politically in the past can't simply be determined by recollections of popular myths, legends, etc. if practical reality on the ground pointed to something different.

My own view is that at one point Benin was more powerful than Oyo, then Benin's power declined (due to civil war), then Oyo was more powerful than Benin, then Oyo's power declined (due to a civil war - an Alafin of Oyo in the early 1800s told a British explorer, Hugh Clapperton, that "he had sent to his friend the king of Benin for troops to assist him" in his attempt to defeat the rebels) and then Benin was again more powerful (though not as relatively powerful as it had been in the past), then not long after Nigeria was eventually conquered and annexed by the British.

I don't think a story like that one (in which Oranmiyan doesn't return to Ife after establishing his son Ajaka as the first Alafin - so it is actually different from variations on it that I have read in the past) that can be used to determine historical power relations.

Look, who are the mods here abeg? This thread should go on front page

This is very educative for Benins to learn.


Cc
Odumchi

Please move to front page.

SilverSniper:


I am familiar with what Crowther asserted and what Johnson claimed as well (though neither of them might be completely impartial sources). That's not new to me but my point with that quote is that one monarchy being "above" another politically in the past can't simply be determined by recollections of popular myths, legends, etc. if practical reality on the ground pointed to something different.

My own view is that at one point Benin was more powerful than Oyo, then Benin's power declined (due to civil war), then Oyo was more powerful than Benin, then Oyo's power declined (due to a civil war - an Alafin of Oyo in the early 1800s told a British explorer, Hugh Clapperton, that "he had sent to his friend the king of Benin for troops to assist him" in his attempt to defeat the rebels) and then Benin was again more powerful (though not as relatively powerful as it had been in the past), then not long after Nigeria was eventually conquered and annexed by the British.

I don't think a story like that one (in which Oranmiyan doesn't return to Ife after establishing his son Ajaka as the first Alafin - so it is actually different from variations on it that I have read in the past) that can be used to determine historical power relations.

You have to give measure to what you call "powerful".

Powerful by Olfert Dapper's standard, or powerful by conquests?

Bring the quote from Alaafin to Clapperton here. Cite it

SilverSniper:


I am familiar with what Crowther asserted and what Johnson claimed as well (though neither of them might be completely impartial sources). That's not new to me but my point with that quote is that one monarchy being "above" another politically in the past can't simply be determined by recollections of popular myths, legends, etc. if practical reality on the ground pointed to something different.

My own view is that at one point Benin was more powerful than Oyo, then Benin's power declined (due to civil war), then Oyo was more powerful than Benin, then Oyo's power declined (due to a civil war - an Alafin of Oyo in the early 1800s told a British explorer, Hugh Clapperton, that "he had sent to his friend the king of Benin for troops to assist him" in his attempt to defeat the rebels) and then Benin was again more powerful (though not as relatively powerful as it had been in the past), then not long after Nigeria was eventually conquered and annexed by the British.

I don't think a story like that one (in which Oranmiyan doesn't return to Ife after establishing his son Ajaka as the first Alafin - so it is actually different from variations on it that I have read in the past) that can be used to determine historical power relations.

Oh really!

Johnson and Crowther may not have been impartial in what they documented.

Why?
Because you think so. Or because their accounts must have been recollection of popular myths and stories

But some how Asibong Okon could not have lied about what he had reported that the Alaafin told the British. Lol

And Asibong Okon could not possibly have based his lies on Benin myths such as Oba owns all the land even up to Europe.

C'mon you should do better.

TAO11:


I aready cited you references above in the same comment where I noted that I will.

Again, he never sounded even slightly hesitant or probabilistic regarding whether the site was a burial site or whether it was connected to the kings of Benin.


The only point about which he sounded quite understandably hesitant, was if it was their heads or other parts of their body that was buried there.

That is quoting Akinola though, not Willett.

SilverSniper:


That is quoting Akinola though, not Willett.

Akinola clearly cited Willett, c'mon.

And the reference was given.

What's your excuse here? That you didn't see the reference to Willett?

TAO11:


Oh really!

Johnson and Crowther may not have been impartial in what they documented.

Why?
Because you think so. Or because their accounts must have been recollection of popular myths and stories

But some how Asibong Okon could not have lied about what he had reported that the Alaafin told the British. Lol

And Asibong Okon could not possibly have based his lies on Benin myths such as Oba owns all the land even up to Europe.

C'mon you should do better.

I think you misread the post. Asibong Okon was merely citing a British article, from the United Empire book, and he repeated what was stated in that sentence almost word for word. So he couldn't have lied about that. Maybe you think the British governor lied about what he was told, but that would be a different issue entirely (how reliable are colonial authorities, or Europeans generally, in their accounts of what they were told by African rulers).

My point about Johnson is that his pro-Oyo bias is significant enough that multiple historians have commented on it - significant enough that he promotes the idea in his book The History of the Yorubas that the Ooni of Ife was a descendant of a mere shrine keeper, rather than real royalty (a myth which had actually been prevalent in other parts of Yorubaland even before Johnson wrote his book; the historian Robin Law cites other instances of this myth about the Ooni of Ife being some kind of shrine keeper or non-royalty existing in other parts of Yorubaland dating from before and after Johnson's book was published). So Johnson was someone who could - and apparently did - incorporate myths or legends that had a sort of political angle to them into his historical account.

As for Crowther I was merely speculating or alluding to how he may not have been an impartial source since he may have simply been repeating a pro-Oyo account which was prevalent in his time.

MetaPhysical:


You have to give measure to what you call "powerful".

Powerful by Olfert Dapper's standard, or powerful by conquests?

Bring the quote from Alaafin to Clapperton here. Cite it

The Alaafin in 1911 seems to have provided his own idea of the power the kings of Benin had once held, from an African (Oyo Yoruba) perspective.

Olfert Dapper is not the only account (whether European or African) from centuries ago describing the king of Benin as very powerful, so nothing unique about Dapper's perspective - it lines up fairly well with African and European views from the past.

Anyway, the statement from Clapperton:

"In the evening we had a visit from the king, to thank me for the presents I had given him, and again to assure me of being welcolme; said that he wanted nothing, unless it was something that would speedily cause the submission of the rebels. He said that he had sent to his friend the king of Benin for troops to assist him in the war." - Hugh Clapperton, Journal of a Second Expedition Into the Interior of Africa, from the Bight of Benin to Soccatoo

SilverSniper:


I think you misread the post. Asibong Okon was merely citing a British article, from the United Empire book, and he repeated what was stated in that sentence almost word for word. So he couldn't have lied about that. Maybe you think the British governor lied about what he was told, but that would be a different issue entirely (how reliable are colonial authorities, or Europeans generally, in their accounts of what they were told by African rulers).

My point about Johnson is that his pro-Oyo bias is significant enough that multiple historians have commented on it - significant enough that he promotes the idea in his book The History of the Yorubas that the Ooni of Ife was a descendant of a mere shrine keeper, rather than real royalty (a myth which had actually been prevalent in other parts of Yorubaland even before Johnson wrote his book; the historian Robin Law cites other instances of this myth about the Ooni of Ife being some kind of shrine keeper existing in other parts of Yorubaland dating from before and after Johnson's book was published). So Johnson was someone who could incorporate myths that had a sort of political angle to them into his historical accounts.

As for Crowther I was merely speculating or alluding to how he may not have been an impartial source since he may have simply been repeating a pro-Oyo account which was prevalent in his time.

Your argument against Crowther's account and Johnson's account actually holds no water.

And evidence for that is seen in the well known historical fact (which you also admitted) that Oyo at some point in the course of its history ascended over other kingdoms including Benin.

So, you can't simply afford to contradict yourself by playing some partiality card for Johnson and Crowther.

Moreover, little Owu forced tribute from Oyo at the earliest stages of Oyo's history, and guess what it is well documented in Johnson's The History despite your exaggeration of his pro-Oyoness.

In sum, the account you cited could have been no different from the likes of Owu forcing tribute from Oyo when it was newly founded at its infancy.

United Empire said a lot...

Should its saying about power relations be regarded credible, its revelations of descendancy will equally qualify.

TAO11:


Your argument against Crowther's account and Johnson's account actually holds no water.

And evidence for that is seen in the well known historical fact (which you also admitted) that Oyo at some point in the course of its history ascended over other kingdoms including Benin.

So, you can't simply afford to contradict yourself by playing some partiality card

There is no contradiction - I never said that there was not a point when Oyo was more powerful. I questioned this idea of basing "ranking" at a point in time merely on legends and myths (or variations of myths) in the past rather than what the reality was on the ground as far as power. That said, that does not preclude the possibility of partiality or bias being present in some accounts like those of Johnson and Crowther.

MetaPhysical:
United Empire said a lot...

Should its saying about power relations be regarded credible, its revelations of descendancy will equally qualify.

Sure, it also says that, but I highlighted it in the context of what an Alaafin himself said to a British official about the past relations simply as a response to that particular statement from TAO (in the post I quoted) about the two kings. The British official doesn't say what his source is for that part of his account about descent anyway, whereas his source for his other statement is an Alaafin.

SilverSniper:


There is no contradiction - I never said that there was not a point when Oyo was more powerful. I questioned this idea of basing "ranking" at a point in time merely on legends and myths (or variations of myths) in the past rather than what the reality was on the ground as far as power. That said, that does not preclude the possibility of partiality or bias being present in some accounts like those of Johnson and Crowther.

What legend or myth

You never established anything to the effect that the independent accounts of Johnson and Crowther (that Benin paid tribute to Oyo) was based on any myth.

You only submitted your personal imagination that it must have been based on legend and myth.

And you insist that to be the case without any specific basis. Why? Because it's you who said it. Hello!!!!?

On the other hand, corroborating historical evidence (which you admit) --- of Benin being dwarfed by Oyo at some point in the course of history --- clearly supports the independent account Johnson and Crowther as not some myth or legend which you actually provided no specific basis for to begin with.

You see my point?

TAO11:


Akinola clearly cited Willett, c'mon.

And the reference was given.

What's your excuse here? That you didn't see the reference to Willett?

No, I saw the reference to Willett, but Willett was providing an alternative explanation for why remains might not be found (and hence not finding remains would not disprove the idea) and not asserting that he believed the idea about burials of the Benin kings there as being fact.

I believe if bias and partiality were put under review no kingdom in Nigeria enjoyed partiality and bias of the early explorers and colonial prejudice than Benin.

Writers who could not point to it on map or had a clue what color of people lived there or whether it was a valley or a mountain painted all sorts of Alice in Wonderland tales and packaged these as authorities on Benin.

Oyo did not receive an European visit till 1842.

Ife was never visited by an explorer till 1942.



In all practicality Benin turned out to be a village compared with Ife and Oyo.

Substance vs form!

SilverSniper:


No, I saw the reference to Willett, but Willett was providing an alternative explanation for why remains might not be found (and hence not finding remains would not disprove the idea) and not asserting that he believed the idea about burials of the Benin kings there as being fact.

Yes, he provided a suggestion for why the Benin Obas' skulls were not found.


But, he never introduced a shred of doubt as to whether the site was not for burial, or whether it was not for Benin's Obas, despite the early date of some of the materials he found

TAO11:


What legend or myth

You never established anything to the effect that the independent accounts of Johnson and Crowther (that Benin paid tribute to Oyo) was based on any myth.

You only submitted your personal imagination that it must have been based on legend and myth.

And you insist that to be the case without any specific basis. Why? Because it's you who said it. Hello!!!!?

On the other hand, corroborating historical evidence (which you admit) --- of Benin being dwarfed by Oyo at some point in the course of history --- clearly supports the independent account Johnson and Crowther as not some myth or legend which you actually provided no specific basis for to begin with.

You see my point?

The reference to "legend or myth" was strictly in reference to the whole story of Oranmiyan leaving Eweka in Benin then becoming the first Alafin (rather than Ajaka, and not returning to Ife) that you referenced in your first post that I initially quoted, and the inferences you were drawing from that about how ranking might have worked. You misinterpreted what I said there but I could have been clearer.

As for Crowther or Johnson, I simply said there was a possible issue of bias resulting in incorporation of partial accounts or political angles, that's all. I wasn't saying they were mere myth-makers.

SilverSniper:


Sure, it also says that, but I highlighted it in the context of what an Alaafin himself said to a British official about the past relations simply as a response to that particular statement from TAO (in the post I quoted) about the two kings. The British official doesn't say what his source is for that part of his account about descent anyway, whereas his source for his other statement is an Alaafin.

Does that negate or make the descent statement inadmissible?