TAO11:

is that you you wouldn't accept Johnson and Crowther independent accounts because you imagined that they must have been based on legend and myth.

My statement was about possible political bias in their accounts. Once again, I don't think they were just repeating myth and legend in their accounts.

But I have demonstrated how this weak contention was in fact rendered void considering the historical fact that Oya reigned supreme over Benin during some course of history.

It just eclipsed Benin in power at one point, but "reigned supreme over" is quite unlikely.

Our digression to "rather than Ajaka" is counterintuitive. The reason for leaving Eweka according to the account is that only a son with some Edo heritage will be the best fit --- or something along that line.

The point was about the account that makes Oranmiyan the first Alafin (rather than Ajaka). I had read accounts in the past which portrayed Oranmiyan leaving Oyo and Ajaka becoming the first Alaafin, but I guess those accounts are less accepted.

MetaPhysical:


1824.
1842 is wrong!

Oh okay, just a typo.

MetaPhysical:


Credibility test is given to witnesses in court cases.

You are applying credibility test to his testimony on descent.

What that does is it calls into question his claim about what he claims Alaafin said to him.

You are conflicting your points.

Now we have an hearsay
"Alaafin said..."


Is there a corroboration from an independent source, perharps Alaafin himself?

Actually, I just said that it wasn't relevant to the initial point I made and in the later post I said that he doesn't say where he got that account from. That's all. I didn't he say he was not credible about being told that account about descent. I'm sure somebody told him; it's just not clear who.

MetaPhysical:
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!

1842? No, slightly earlier though I get your point. But anyway, the situation is, if anything, the contrary. Lots of European written sources on Oyo are very much second or third hand and a few are even clearly just rumor and hearsay. Some of these sources, despite being not being based on direct European visits to Oyo are often plausible, informative or useful to historians despite that.

There were lots of biased accounts against Benin in the decades leading up to, and immediately following the 1897 conquest by the British so I don't know what you mean by "enjoying partiality". Multiple colonial sources are explicit in their condemnation of and criticisms of Benin, so I don't see that angle at all.

MetaPhysical:


Does that negate or make the descent statement inadmissible?

It's not inadmissible. I never said it was, it's just not clear what the source is for that information, whereas the other information is attributed to an Alaafin.

TAO11:



Yes[/], he provided a suggestion for why the [b]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

This is going in circles.

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.

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.

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.

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:


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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:


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.

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.

TAO11:
In fact, if the dating of some of the older materials changed anything, Frank Willett himself would have ruled out the possibility of the site being a burial site, and he won't have named the pits burial pits.

We won't have to wait for this reinterpretation today.

Don't you think?



cc: 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.

TAO11:


You are missing my point. And nobody dated the "pits". Only some charcoal samples, etc. found at the site below surface level.

And my question is that: Could the same plot of a site be put to different use over the course of time?

Charcoal samples from the pits were dated though.

Yes, a site could be put to a different use over the course of time, but of course those burial pits aren't evidence of that, given the discrepancy in date for them.

TAO11:


For God sake my fathers burial site was once a farm.

How does that change anything?

How does it change anything? The burial pits, and the whole site, are from a completely different time (several centuries earlier) from when they could be used for what they supposedly were used for. The place is most likely something that has been reinterpreted to something different from whatever its actual historical function was.

TAO11:


Except the find of burial pits, right.

Nobody said human remains have to be found.

I never said human remains have to be found, but I think you might be missing the point that the whole site is centuries too early. That's all I was pointing out. You can conclude what you want from that.

TAO11:

You seem to want to trust the suggestion of Eisenhofer but some want to disregard the actual find of Willett which he himself called "burial pits".

I was just directing you to an academic source which had a different idea about the story, not saying I "trust it" as some sort of confirmed truth.

TAO11:


Somebody went ro hire you. Lol.

Well, not the piits particularly, but certain charcoal samples at the same site.

The datings vary. And there is nothing that suggests that a site could not have been occupied for different purposes over the centuries.

lol, no nobody "went to hire me".

The entire site is way too early. I've read the actual archaeological report years ago. There's nothing there that suggests that it was being used as some burial site for Benin Obas. It was most likely used for something else.

TAO11:


Yeah, but that's a probabilistic suggestion.

And we can't see any such antecedent anywhere in the earliest accounts.

Actually, in the article, Eisenhofer provides a suggestion of a much earlier antecedent himself, in a note on p. 159.

TAO11:
In the year 1961 the prominent archaeologist, Frank Willett began conducting archaeological excavation of a number of ancient sites in ife.

The relevant one here is his 1961-2 archaeological excavation of the Orun Oba Ado site, where he made some finds which I find to be astoundingly outstanding.

The archaeological excavations of the "Orun Oba Ado" site established that the burial pits there date to several centuries before they could possibly have been used to bury any Obas of Benin. They are dated from about 560 AD (mid-6th century) to around 900 AD at the latest.

The dates don't work at all. Probably it was used for something else for centuries then someone with an active imagination decided to portray it as a burial site of kings and the idea stuck or became some sort of tradition. It's not uncommon for traditions to arise out of myths of course.

TAO11:

Let's see how this fabricated Edo story of Ekaladerhan is being regarded in academia the world over:

It may not be that simple.

Stefan Eisenhofer (an academic, and a historian affiliated with the University of Munich and the Museum für Völkerkunde in Munich), suggested the story as possibly having earlier antecedents.

Reference: Stefan Eisenhofer - "The Origins of the Benin Kingship in the Works of Jacob Egharevba", History in Africa, Vol. 22 (1995)

TAO11:


I will deal with you until there is no Benin lie left on your tongue.



Let's see how this fabricated Edo story of Ekaladerhan is being regarded in academia the world over:

The story that a certain prince Ekaladerhan found his way to Ife and became king there under the name Odudduwa has long been debunked and trashed, by experts in academia the world over, as an over ambitious myth.

A case is point is the submission of Dmitri M. Bondarenko, of the Institute for African Studies in the Russian Academy of Sciences, who is without doubt the most prolific and (arguably) the leading authority on Benin History in the world today. He writes and I quote here:

"Finally, there are the apocryphal versions of Benin oral tradition. ... (wherein) Ekaladerhan ... Some time later ... left Gwato for Ife."

"According to other versions of the kind, after leaving Gwato, Ekaladerhan founded another settlement, Ile-Ife and became her first ruler under the name of Oduduwa."

D. M. Bondarenko wrapped up his assessment of this apocryphal account (after having combed thoroughly through its different versions) by submitting that:

"However, a student of ancient Benin might feel obliged to reject the apocryphal versions without hesitation as deliberately unauthentic. There are no their records made before the early 1970s ..."

In other words, the apocryphal and deliberately unauthentic account which states that Ekalederhan became king in Ife are non-existent before the 1970s.

Whether the Ekaladerhan story is true or not, Dmitri Bondarenko was wrong when he stated that "However, a student of ancient Benin might feel obliged to reject the apocryphal versions without hesitation as deliberately unauthentic. There are no their records made before the early 1970s ..."

R.E. Bradbury actually documented the story in the 1950s. It is in the archive of his field notes.

"They went on to discredit the palace’s assertions that the last known Ogiso-era prince, the exiled Ekaladerhan, was identical to the Ifẹ dynasty’s founder Oduduwa, a viewpoint they attributed to the late Ọba Erediauwa. While the Ọba did publicize this historical version, he was not its originator, for it had already been recorded at least as early as the 1950s, when R. E. Bradbury was researching in Benin..."

"Although Bradbury’s archives are publicly available at the Birmingham University Library, they are not digitized and therefore authors such as Bondarenko (“Advent of the Second [Oba] Dynasty, 2003, 68 and Akinola (“The Origin of the Eweka Dynasty of Benin, 1976) attribute the Ekaladerhan story to shifting political goals in the 1970s. This alternative story, however, existed at least two decades before.

Reference: Kathy Curnow - "Sensemaking in Benin Kingdom Oral Traditions: Repetitive Recall of Actual and Traditional Enmity between the Ọba and the Ogiamiẹn", Umẹwaẹn: Journal of Benin and Ẹdo Studies, Vol. 2, 2017, pp. 37 - 38

Bondarenko is on the editorial advisory board of the Umewaen journal so he most likely has already read the 2017 article by Curnow by now, and is probably aware that his statement about the story not appearing before the 1970s is not correct.