Talk:Ogiso monarchy

What’s up?

@Dolpina I earlier reverted your edit and as a courtesy, even without me telling you, I expected you to open a talk page discussion here and make your points. But then you took a different move and made attempts which aren’t accurate as well. I will go ahead and revert your edits again and I’m using this thread to ask you to discuss your opinion here. The maintenance tags you also put up on the article is technically not correct because this article does not “rely excessively on primary sources”, the sources aren’t primary, let alone relying excessively on one. Kindly discuss here your opinion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

One of the repeated source used that I quaried is from a 2013 article written by a random person. That isn't a relevant source enough for some of the claims it makes. This article is filled with instances like that and a lot of one-sided "information" with dubious origins and sources.You will need stronger sources to prove some of these opinions made. Also please don't edit away content I put with sources there. Dolpina (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

While I don't think the Osawe 2013 article should be completely discarded, I agree with @Dolpina that it should be given significantly less weight than other, more academic sources. This article explicitly discusses the traditions that Osawe supports, and suggests that they were invented in the 1970s by Bini intelligentsia as part of a political project to resist Yoruba domination of Nigerian politics. They don't seem to have much basis in real oral history.

This page would probably benefit from an explicit discussion of and comparison between different versions of the story. Catjacket (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi.There are some edits I will be making with sources added. Some content here should be removed for Dubious claims if it can't be verified by authoritative sources.

Hello @Vanderwaalforces I will be making some edits with academic sources. Please do not removed verified source content. By the way, contents that are not from a reputable source can be removed, if no other source can be brought to back it up, like the source put here by someone that is an article's opinion piece. Dolpina (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Fixing the page.

I SAW THAT THIS PAGE NEEDED SOME CREDIBLE SOURCES AND CITATIONS...i have found sources and i will add them. History Of Yoruba (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Origins

I copied some content from Igodomigodo and rewrote some of the origins section using tertiary sources. Bondarenko's theory seems to have gained little traction as it wasn't mentioned by any of the tertiary sources, and we shouldn't base the whole narrative around it. I think the status quo is fair to it, the wording still lends it credence Kowal2701 (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Good call. There seems to be a lot of confusion between this page and Igodomigodo. A lot of the content here belongs there instead, since this page is really just about the Ogiso dynasty, not the history of the realm as a whole. The infobox also needs to change to reflect that.

Also, what tertiary sources are you talking about that don't mention Bondarenko's theories? Catjacket (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Nice to see you again.

• Benin (Edo city-state) (2016), Wiley's Encyclopedia of Empire is probably our best source here as it balances various POVs rather than presenting one narrative, but doesn't mention Bondarenko's theory
• Shillington's Encyclopedia of African history only gives the northeastern origin tradition
• General History of Africa: Volume 3 (1988) (obviously written before Bondarenko's theory published in 2001) says (emphasis mine)

  Both Yoruba traditions of origin and archaeological evidence suggest at least that it was in the area of Ife that Yoruba peoples began to show undoubted evidence of having achieved ethnic identity. These and other historical sources indicate that Ife is the earliest so far known ancient Yoruba settlement, ruled by onis who exerted a spiritual power over a wider area for a very long time. In addition Ife settlements served as dispersal points for the subsequent founding of Oyo and five other major Yoruba towns, as well as for the replacement of a former native dynasty at Benin around the fourteenth to fifteenth century.

• Unfortunately Oxford Research Encyclopedias doesn't have an entry on Benin, however in Precolonial Yoruba States they don't mention Bondarenko's theory about Udo, only the Yoruba origin for the Oba
• There's also Empires to be remembered: chapter: The West-African Kingdom of Benin, a bit less reputable, which gives the heavens tradition, but says

The capital was first called Edo, later Benin. The inhabitants were called Bini, they were related to the Yoruba and a common founder-father.

Strangely it quotes Bondarenko 2001 but doesn't actually provide his overall argument:

Roese and Bondarenko define this period of “semi-mythical kings” as a “legendary time”. They assume that “for the Binis, all of the Ogisos reigned in times before memory, before the sun and the moon appeared, prior to the social creation of the world, i.e. before the establishment of the Oba dynasty.” In other words “the linear concept of time accompanied by attributing dates for reigns, begins with the establishment of the second dynasty, that of the Obas.”

Kowal2701 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey! We might want to rethink the relationship between Benin and Igodomigodo, because we seem to be confusing the origin of the Edo people, the Oba, and the Ogiso dynasty. They could, in theory, all be the same, or they could all be different. Many of the tertiary sources you cite seem to all be talking about Benin, and don't mention Igodomigodo, even tho they talk about the Ogiso. This implies that Igodomigodo is just an earlier name for Benin, a la Upper Volta becoming Burkina Faso, and the Ogiso and Oba are simply 2 dynasties that ruled the same polity. Therefore it's not surprising that these tertiary sources don't mention Bondarenko's theories, because they're not talking about where the first dynasty ruled or originated from. They're talking about where the people of the Benin Empire and/or the Oba originated from, and just skipping over the question of where the family that ruled as Ogiso came from.

So basically I think that we have 2 options: discuss Bondarenko's theories on a separate Igodomigodo page (at least until we have something else that directly addresses the question of where the Ogiso come from), or make Igodomigodo a section on Benin Kingdom with a passing reference to Bondarenko like you what you've done here.

In a vacuum, I would prefer to have a separate Igodomigodo page. But considering most sources (or maybe all sources) treat Igodomigodo/Ogiso as a part of Benin's history, we should strongly consider merging them. Catjacket (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

They all talk about the origins of Benin and the Ogiso. As I understand it, we don't have a name for the first state (think Igodomigodo just refers to the Edo homeland named after the first Ogiso, Igodo or Obagodo), sources mostly just discuss the 'Ogiso era'. So when they're talking about the Ogiso, they're also talking about that state. Practically speaking, Igodomigodo is the same as Benin, just different dynasties. The heavens origin myth ties the origin of the earth to the Ogiso, as they are divine kings, rather than sacral kings. The word Benin is said to derive from Oranmiyan at the time of the dynasty switch, hence why it'd be anachronistic to use it to refer to the first dynasty, but sources still do this sometimes.

Imo Kingdom of Benin should have an origins section which gives background and briefly summarises the Ogiso, and then goes into the dynasty change. Personally I wouldn't give Bondarenko any more than a note in that section. I sort of want to come back to this at a later date though, as I've other pages on the agenda and @Vanderwaalforces (really sorry for pinging you so much) is going to do some work on the Ogiso articles surrounding the dynasty change Kowal2701 (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Bondarenko's work should be minimised here. I just want to point out that I didn't highlight his work in previous posts to say that he is always right, but that neutral and academic work specifically on the Ogiso are very scarce. With these pages being on that specific topic, it wouldn't make sense to dismiss his comparatively voluminous body of work on the issue. Sohvyan (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not convinced Bondarenko is the neutral outsider that one might expect, as the implications of his theory are massive, and potentially quite dangerous for community relations in Nigeria. The paucity of evidence and speculation involved in the theory make me very sceptical. I don't think it's a coincidence that he also happens to be the harshest critic of the Ekaladerhan tradition (I'd expect criticism but his words are very strong). From an ethical point of view, I'd be more inclined to give Edo tradition primacy, especially on something as sensitive as origins, just like if I were writing Yoruba history I'd likely prioritise Yoruba POVs. Bondarenko is still a very reputable source and he should obviously be included, but given the lack of traction of this theory, I wouldn't prioritise it. It should still be presented fairly and with credence. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Criticism of the Ekaladerhan tradition is almost universal in academia, and it's why most scholars refer to the Oba dynasty as a Yoruba dynasty instead of a continuation of the 'native' Ogiso lineage (as the newer Ekaladerhan tales insist). It would be hard not to criticize the Ekaladerhan tale when you assess the way those traditions came about. You'd likely see me as biased on the issue, but to me it's not that Bondarenko specifically hates the Ekaladerhan tradition more than other people, it's more so that he's done more work on the Ogiso than others, and with Ekaladerhan being related to the Ogiso, it would naturally be under his microscope to a greater extent. Sohvyan (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

That makes more sense. We all have biases, it’s why collaboration is so important. I’m not unbiased Kowal2701 (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like we're basically in agreement. Bondarenko's theory should be discussed in a sentence or two, but the fact that it is only a theory should be made clear. Catjacket (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

(But I only learned of Bondarenko today, I’m probably completely wrong) Kowal2701 (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed regarding the overlap with this page and Igodomigodo. Tbh I have difficulty understanding the scope of dynasty articles, as they tend to just give a history of rulers' reigns and thus a history of the state Kowal2701 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Aight I'll try to take care of it while avoiding that pitfall, and move content that isn't actually about the dynasty specifically to Igodomigodo. Catjacket (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)