Talk:Kingdom of Benin

Question

I have a question, perhaps someone can respond. I read the history of the Kingdom Of Benin, not to be confused with modern "Benin", If the Beni were the original inhabitants of the area, when did the Ogosi (referred to as "Kings from the Sky" )come to rule over them and how exactly did that happen? I have a special interest in this topic as it is said that my fmailies line goes back to the kingdom of Benin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.163.159 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 21 October 2006. I have a question (pls reply quickly I need it for an exam ) what are the dynasties of Benin?

Standards

how in the hell did this article fall so far. i reverted it back to the last version that was READABLE. Yeah I know that's insulting. Frankly, I don't care. The Benin Empire deserves a better page than what it got. I'mah keep my eye on this page. To all those offended, please see wiki's NPOV guidelines. This page was written horribly and any wiki editor worth his or her salt would agree. And the page is about the STATE not just the origin or multiple origin theories. I wouldn't be so p!ssed except that a lot of important stuff was removed. Aaarrhhhh!Scott Free 04:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ceremonial Swords

What's this obsession with everyone referring to everything from Benin, or more generally, Africa, as Ceremonial. Look up ancient African Weapons, and the curators and sellers always describe the stuff as "ceremonial" or "used as currency", as if the Africans had no potent military capabilities. What this article doesn't even begin to TOUCH is the fact that the Benin Empire could mobilize up to 35,000 bronze clad warriors in a number of days, and there's a reason for which Benin grew from being a kingdom to an Empire. Military strength. That one pic is definitely of two warriors - carrying umozos, if my terminology is correct - visit http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=964084686&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename=964084686.pdf If all they used were ceremonial swords, then what did they fight their enemies with? Their fists? This is just another attempt to depict Africans as unpractical and petty. I went on the "Capoeira" page (a martial art developed by black slaves in Brazil) and this one dude kept trying to prove that it was first developed as a dance and was not a legitimate "martial art" and described it as "Slave mock-fight dancing" - clearly a derogatory description, which is not true, as people fight and kill with it... anyhow, people are always trying to depict African achievements as petty and impotent, by downgrading their significance and practicality. The claim that a Kushite Queen fended off her Kingdom against Alexander the Great is deemed "legendary" by these famous Wikipedia scholars, the Nubian army deemed uneffective with not substantial evidence - people have made a living off of downgrading black achievements, and there are tons of them out there who live for this bs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktheconjurer (talk • contribs) 05:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

the ogisos

according to most of the information I have read about the kindom of benin, (Jacob egharevba, Paula gershick ben amos. The ogisos rule started sometime between 800 and 900ad aand ended btweed 1070 and 1370 ad. This makes the kingdom at least 200 years older that mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.176.193 (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

True, but the article is about the empire and not simply the kingdom. the start period in the table refers to when Benin became an expansionist power.Scott Free (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Date and Era information

The remark about the ogisos may be true but at any rate Benin (accoring to this article becomes an empire in the 12th century, during the middle ages. Why does it say early modern period under the historical era when it should say middle ages? the early modern period begins in the 16th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.228.155 (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Middle Ages doesn't even work, because that's a specific period to Europe.(SSJPabs (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC))

There is an African middle age according to Davidson and Collins running roughly 1000-1800 AD or 1200-1800 AD.Scott Free (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ogisos

Furthermore the article claims the 12th century date as the establishment of the "kingdom" not its emergence as an empire. making the date still innacurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.228.155 (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Flag Verifiability

Information about the flag, can be found at http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conMediaFile.436 ("Flag of Benin, captured during the Benin Campaign of 1897") and http://www.nmm.ac.uk/explore/collections/the-flag-collection/*/viewPage/3 and http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/img_200/rp74_23.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Benin_Kingdom_flag.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.170.137 (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Although, I so desperately want this awesome flag to be their flag, there is painfully little other than the text "Flag of Benin, captured during the Benin Campaign of 1897" on the National Maritime Museum website. There doesn't appear to be anything searchable on the web that doesn't refer to the NMM in attributing this flag to the Benim Empire or Great Benin. This could have been a noble's flag, a military unit flag, or any of a number of other possibilities. The footnote of a an invader really shouldn't be a sufficiently reliable citation for the flag of an Empire, especially with the deafening absense of any independent corroboration. This was only a century ago in a quite literate and metropolitan part of the world. There really ought to be a more reliable source to keep this flag on this page. –BozoTheScary (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I emailed Barbara Tomlinson, curator of the NMM about this because the link to their site provided didn't work when I tried it. She answered that although it's a genuine West African flag, it's more likely it's Itsekiri than from Benin. She explained there was a paper label attached to the flag with the word 'Kennedy' on it - Admiral F.W. Kennedy being on the 1897 Benin expedition - but the flag closely resembles three others in the museum's collection captured on an expedition 3 years earlier, also in West Africa but not against Benin. The 1894 expedition was against the ruler of the Itsekiri people, Nana Olumu. I quote from Ms Tomlinson's email:"The supposition that it is Itsekri is because it is similar in design and construction to other flags in our collection formerly belonging to Itsekri chief Nana Olomu (1852-1916) and captured on the 1894 expedition against his stronghold. These flags were designed to be used on local boats. Kennedy took part in the 1897 expedition not the earlier one."

So because the three similar flags were designed for use on boats, and the Edo people of Benin were from the interior and didn't use boats, it seems more likely that this flag too is Itsekiri, not Edo. The current description runs:

"West African flag probably Itsekri. A red wool bunting flag with a linen hoist, machine sewn with a rope halyard attached . The design is applied in white fabric with painted details, representing a naked man decapitating another with a sword. The flag was said to have been brought back by Admiral F. W. Kennedy from the 1897 Benin expedition. 'Kennedy' is inscribed on a paper label attached to the rope. The Itsekri people acted as middle men between the Edo people of Benin in the interior and the Europeans on the coast - the Edo would not cross or travel on waterways.

The Benin expedition was launched in reprisal against an attack on a British mission in the service of Niger Coast Protectorate by forces of the Oba of Benin. It was a combined naval and military operation under the command of Rear-Admiral Harry Holdsworth Rawson C.B. with local troops and carriers. The towns of Guato and Sapobar were attacked by detached forces while the main part of the expedition marched on Benin. The town was captured and accidentally burnt. Oba Overami, was exiled to Calabar where he died in 1914. The famous Benin bronzes were removed as reparations by the British."

So it looks like the NMMuseum's present position is that this historic West African flag probably originates with the Itsekiri people, not the Empire of Benin. Perhaps it should be moved to the Itsekiri page? It's a fantastic flag, it has to be displayed somewhere.

RLamb (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed article. The flag popped out at me right away as being of.... questionable nature. I read the other article about it. It makes clear that this is not an imperial flag, I don't think it is proper to include the flag till further verification can be found, if it can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.220.78 (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Map

According to [1], "At its height, the Benin empire extended from Onitsa to Ghana." Shouldn't a new map be added with the empire at its greatest extent?--189.33.9.33 (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is marred with confused facts. It wrongly educates of history so rich and revered as that of the Benin empire of old. This is my first time of reading something on Wiki that is so misleading, gives me concern on stufss read before now and how it impacts on others. 208.89.194.2 (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Anti-British Rubbish

The whole "Legions of Benin" section of this article appears to be a pile of rubbish - it is riddled with anti-British sentiment, has no citations and the title has no connection to the contents. I currently don't have time to go and do all the research required to rewrite this, so could someone else please try? This page deserves better. Anjwalker ^Talk 13:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Better map?

Can someone please find a better map. An extremely zoomed out map that includes almost all of north Africa and the subject in question occupies only 3% of the map is hardly useful to give any real information regarding the Benin Empire.207.237.208.153 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Slavery

The section discussing European Contact completely omits any mention of Benin's involvement in the slave trade, despite slaves making up a major part of the trade between Benin and Europeans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.134.37 (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the slave trade did not "make up a major part of the trade between Benin and Europeans". The article (by Dmitri Bondarenko) that you are citing has multiple errors and is very inaccurate in its claims. That article is just poor "research". In reality the slave trade constituted only a small portion of Benin's trade with Europeans, and also it only lasted for limited periods of time. Most of its trade with Europeans was in other items like ivory, pepper, and cloth. Read the article "The Slave Trade, Depopulation and Human Sacrifice in Benin History" (1965) by James Graham (https://www.persee.fr/doc/cea_0008-0055_1965_num_5_18_3035) and also read the book Benin and the Europeans (1969) by A.F.C. Ryder if you want to better understand what Benin's trade with Europeans involved. Bondarenko's article is full of errors and the sources that he cites do not even say what he portrays them as saying. For example Bondarenko's claim that "From the mid-17th to 18th centuries, however, slaves became the principal trade “goods” acquired by Europeans, and foreign male prisoners and eventually citizens of Benin itself were also sold abroad. In the heyday of the slave trade, Benin supplied 3,000 slaves a year" is incorrect. The French ship captain and slave trader Landolphe never actually acquired the "3000 slaves a year" that he had planned to acquire from the Benin-Warri area; his scheme totally fell apart and he never reached anywhere near such numbers, and it is simply untrue that slaves became the principal trade goods between Benin and Europeans from the mid-17th to the 18th century. Read A.F.C. Ryder's book for a much more accurate picture of trade between the kingdom of Benin and Europeans during this time.~~PersonablePerson — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersonablePerson (talk • contribs) 01:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Benin did take part in the slave trade though, and the article makes no mention of its end, which was achieved, according to Hugh Thomas' in The Slave Trade, with a modest amount of British pressure (since the River Benin had never been much of a slave river). This happened, he says, by 1840. I assume some payment by the British for this took place, since when Richard Burton tried the same thing in Dahomey, he was told by the king that 'No, money will not induce me… I am not like the kings of Lagos and Benin. There are only two kings in Africa, Ashanti and Dahomey: I am the king of all the Blacks. Nothing will compensate me for the [loss of the] slave trade.' I could add that in the British section (not the quote, but the end of the slave trade). LastDodo (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Benin's participation in the slave trade was extremely low in numbers and limited in duration. Have you actually read Ryder's book? Benin was nothing like Dahomey as far as participation in the slave trade. What "British pressure" are you referring to with regard to Benin specifically (the kingdom, not the "Benin river area", which was also frequented by Ijaws and Itsekiri traders who were not part of the kingdom)? The slave trade with Europeans was dead well before 1840 so what is Hugh Thomas even referring to? Can you cite any direct source (not Thomas, a generalist with no expertise on the Benin kingdom at all)? And no, the British didn't pay Benin anything to stop trading slaves with Europeans, stop making assumptions and actually read the scholarship on this. You're literally fabricating a scenario out of thin air based on assumptions made by making comparisons with an EXTREMELY different kingdom/state (Dahomey) that was nothing like Benin in a multitude of ways. PersonablePerson (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I apologize if my earlier comment above was a bit aggressive but there is this truly bizarre agenda all over the internet to make it seem like Benin was a major slave trading state when it simply wasn't and it is tiring to have to constantly address this deeply false claim over and over again. The definitive study of its trade with Europeans by A.F.C. Ryder, titled Benin and the Europeans (1969) already showed that its participation in the slave trade was very limited decades ago. Actually, Benin restricted the slave trade with the Portuguese very heavily within only a few decades of it starting (after the Portuguese arrived in the late 15th century), so that by the early 16th century that slave trade died out and the Portuguese had to go elsewhere to obtain slaves. The slave trade really only re-emerged again in the 18th century after a civil war but even then the numbers of slaves sold was very low, especially in comparison to other states in the wider region (see Ryder's book for the details about this). The truth is the slave trade was only of marginal importance to their economy at best. It simply wasn't very significant to them economically and the idea that they would have to be paid off to not trade slaves with Europeans is an idea that one could arrive at only by not actually understanding much about their economy or their state and its trade. But reading Ryder's 1969 book in its entirety could remedy that and I would recommend doing so. PersonablePerson (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I just looked at Hugh Thomas's book The Slave Trade. Specifically at p. 697 (in the 2013 edition) where he mentions the Benin river area and the 1840s. Where does he say that the end of Benin's (I am referring to the kingdom, where trade was strictly controlled; I am not referring to the Benin river area, where other groups from outside the Benin kingdom traded as well) participation in the slave trade with Europeans was achieved by "a modest amount of British pressure"? What statement in his book are you referring to because so far I don't see that in the book at all. PersonablePerson (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah it was my honest mistake. He is referring to the Benin River, which I assumed must run through the kingdom. And let me assure you I am not part of any vast internet conspiracy to malign the good image of Benin (though I suppose I would say that, wouldn't I?) LastDodo (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Most of Benin's trade with Europeans was handled at the town of Ughoton (often called "Gwatto" or "Gwato" in European documents). Not saying some non-official/unsanctioned (trade was tightly controlled in Benin) trade couldn't have taken place elsewhere at all, but it is not really the case that one can just equate the Benin river area with the Benin kingdom given the extensive number of Itsekiri, Ijaw and other non-Benin traders that were operating there. It just isn't a sort of one-to-one correspondence at all.

As for a "vast conspiracy", you seem to misunderstand what I'm getting at. I am not saying there is a conspiracy. I am saying that there is mass ignorance about the Benin kingdom's historical trade activity among the general population basically everywhere, and that the internet is helping to spread and perpetuate that ignorance and misinformation. The perpetuation/spread/promotion of this misinformation and misunderstanding of Benin's historical trading activity and the actual extent of its participation in the slave trade has now increased on the internet following the recent publication of certain books about Benin"s looted art in the last two years. Surely you're not claiming that the internet has not been important (especially in recent years) in spreading misinformation, falsehoods, and half-knowledge (while obviously also playing a significant role in spreading correct or useful information at the same time)? If anything it sounds more like a conspiracy theory at this point to claim that the internet doesn't help to spread misinformation and falsehoods.

And I don't think that Benin really has a "good image", though you're free to disagree. People admire the art, but some don't understand much about the state behind the art and often substitute their own preconceptions or speculation in place of solid or credible research, and then make the image of Benin in their minds from that. This can often be a quite negative image, and usually it is based on their own misunderstandings. PersonablePerson (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

There is mass ignorance about most things in history amongst the general population, so much so that it is almost comical to say it about something so specific as the nature of historical trade in the defunct kingdom of Benin. The internet spreads both truth and falsehood, on that we agree, but whether spreading truth about the nature of the kingdom of Benin will improve or harm its public image is not a forgone conclusion. LastDodo (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I've just read that Graham article and I see a possible source of the dispute. There was significant slave trading within the kingdom of Benin, but it was done by nominally subject peoples that were often de facto independent, sometimes not even paying tribute. That being said, Graham does say that 'There were some periods, during the four centuries of European contact when slaving operations in Benin proper were relatively more or less intensive', but that ivory, pepper and palm oil were more important. Yet if outlying subject peoples were engaged in slave-trading, clearly some of that tribute money Benin collects derives from the traffic. As for the final abolition, Graham says that the Oba accepted the (British) abolition as a fait accompli and doesn't protest about it. This does suggest that Britain was important in ending the trade, even if the trade at that point was very small. LastDodo (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Well there's some confusion here that could be cleared up by reading Ryder's book, as mentioned before. It does supersede the work of Graham but Graham's article is just what I recommend to get a baseline understanding since it is easily accessible unlike Ryder's book. I'll probably later when I am able to access my copy of the book again but for now I should note that some of these people in that area simply were not "nominally subject" peoples for long periods of time or at all. The two best examples being the Itsekiri, whose kingdom of Warri is explicitly noted as being independent of and not at all subject to Benin in David van Nyendael's report on Benin (to Willem Bosman, which is contained in Bosman's book A New and Accurate Description of the Coast of Guinea (1705)) and especially the Ijaw, who are explicitly noted in van Nyendael's report (where they are called the "robber pyrates of Usa") as not being subject to, or under the yoke of, the king of Benin, and where it is noted that they seize any man they come across and sell him into slavery. Both these groups were independent of Benin early on and it could be argued (and has been, there was a master's thesis from the 1970s or 1980s about the effect of the Atlantic trade on small states that were previously dependencies of Benin and how it made them become independent of Benin as their involvement with that trade grew. I can give the name and author of that thesis here once I recall those details again) that the Itsekiri even became independent of Benin at some point in the 16th century precisely because of the external source of wealth they were obtaining by participating heavily in the Atlantic trade with Europeans, including the slave trade. At times in the 18th century the Itsekiri and the Edo (the Benin people) were actually having skirmishes or small battles frequently (this is mentioned im Ryder's book and elsewhere) even if there was never any full campaign against the Itsekiri by Benin. And of course in the 19th century, particularly the late 19th century, those two groups (the Itsekiri and the Edo) were often at odds with one another over issues of trade (which was actually one of the main issues that led to the British planning to invade Benin). As for Benin collecting "tribute money", the issue there is that such tribute as would have been given by some ruler was some nominal symbolic amount of tribute given from one king to another, not a significant amount of money derived from trade wealth. I think your idea of what "tribute" would have consisted of is a bit off. In any case, Benin's economic activity was mostly oriented towards the interior, not the coast, and there isn't any evidence of "tribute" in the specific sense you seem to be thinking of (I guess you have in mind some kind of taxes on coastal traders from outlying tributary states or something like that? Were you thinking that Benin was getting "tribute money" based on those kind of transactions?) playing a significant role in Benin's economy or being a significant source of its wealth. As for Graham's comment about accepting the end of the slave trade as a fait accompli, I don't see how that contradicts my point that there wasn't British pressure (modest or otherwise) that induced Benin to end the slave trade with Europeans and that they definitely were not "paid off" to end slave trading with Europeans. Really what happened is that the trade with Europeans in palm oil swelled massively (palm oil was important to the industrial era, industrial machinery etc. in Europe and the West in general in the 19th century) and really took off to an extent that was much greater than whay it had beem previously while the slave trade with Europeans declined naturally in that area as palm oil took over heavily (see Ryder for more info about that). If, by citing Thomas and talking about "a modest amount of pressure", you meant British pressure on/against a few Portuguese slave traders with their ships operating in the Benin river area, then that makes more sense since that is what Hugh Thomas actually talks about or alludes to when talking about the 1840s and the Benin river area, not pressure on Benin to end slave trading with Europeans. But the way you worded it was unclear/ambiguous and honestly I thought you were either misremembering or misunderstanding Thomas because that passage on p.697 does seem to be about the British vs. Portuguese slave traders, not about the British putting any 'pressure' on Benin (which is how your initial comment seemed to read). But maybe the British vs. Portuguese slave traders is what you meant in the first place as far as talking about the role of the British in ending the small slave trade with Europeans in that area (the Benin river area) during that period, which is something I wouldn't really disagree much with, but your initial comment could easily come across as making an entirely different (and incorrect) argument. PersonablePerson (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The master's thesis from the 1970s that I was trying to remember in my comment above is the following:

A.S. Yancey - The Impact of European Contact on the Disintegration of the Benin Kingdom in Southwestern Nigeria (1976). C.W.A.S. Birmingham

It's been more than a decade since I read that so I don't remember much detail about it anymore but basically it looks at the evidence on Benin's trade, and the extent of its participation in the slave trade and it reached a similar conclusion as Graham and Ryder that Benin's participation was limited and the Atlantic slave trade was not significant to its economy. I would need to check it again at some point to confirm that the author does discuss how the Atlantic trade with Europeans made states like Warri (the Itsekiri kingdom) pull away from, and become independent of Benin, but that is the impression that had remained with me about that work long after I had forgotten the specifc details of it years ago. Of course even if that isn't in there as I thought or remembered it to be, Yancey probably isn't the only one who noticed that trend (that the Atlantic trade tended to bolster and strengthen those smaller outlying states or peoples against control from Benin, and made them independent eventually) as I encountered that observation in another work at some point even before reading Yancey's thesis. PersonablePerson (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Well one can certainly see where disputes come from. Graham gave the impression that tribute was paid sometimes and not others depending on whether Benin was strong or not. Its obviously a rather messy history. I accept the point about tribute being small (if true) but that still leaves Graham's comment about 'more or less intensive'. It also leaves open why the Oba would 'accept' the end in the trade as a fait accompli. What actually stopped the odd Benin trader from bringing a handful of slaves to the coast? Was it just the lack of buyers - a result of British pressure on the Portuguese? Did the king of Benin ban such attempts at some point? When and why? And what was the king of Dahomey referring to when he said 'No, money will not induce me… I am not like the kings of Lagos and Benin'? Please feel free to make your answer briefer than the last one! LastDodo (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Returning to Hugh Thomas, he does have a picture of Benin under which it is written 'The King of Benin, 1686, whose ancestors refused to sell men, but his descendants sold everyone'. He doesn't say more there. LastDodo (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that. The engraving/picture is taken from Olfert Dapper's book Description of Africa (from 1668; Thomas gets the date of the picture wrong, switching the 8 with the 6 that precedes it and writing 1686 instead), but Thomas's statement is phrased in a way that could mislead. Hugh Thomas did not research Benin on his own and relied on Ryder (who Thomas agrees with; if you check elsewhere in Thomas's book The Slave Trade you'll see that he emphasizes that Benin placed heavy restrictions on the slave trade and that Benin wasn't a major slave trading state; Thomas got that information from Ryder's book) but what Thomas is getting at with that statement about Benin after the late 17th century is that in the beginning of the 18th century, after a major civil war, Benin did begin selling slaves again, including males (who are what the slave traders primarily wanted in prior centuries but couldn't obtain from Benin after its restrictions on the slave trade in the early 16th century), whereas previously only a small number of women would be allowed to be sold occasionally. What Thomas leaves out with that brief statement however is that the numbers of slaves it sold even in the 18th century was quite low, as explained in Ryder's book (which is what Thomas relied upon; as mentioned he did no original research on Benin). But anyway, Thomas clearly agrees with Ryder's research overall, based on his other statements about Benin in his book The Slave Trade. I can provide the relevant quotes from Thomas's book if you haven't already seen them. PersonablePerson (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I remember that section though I guess I misunderstood, thinking Benin totally restricted the selling of slaves, not just men. If Thomas simply means Benin sold men as well as women later on, it is a rather misleading phrasing he chose. But I can't refute your intepretation, so I'll leave it be. LastDodo (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

How can it be a Empire?

How can it be a Empire if it's so small? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wiktionary's definitions of empire, namely the 1st and 3rd:

1. A political unit, typically having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations (especially one comprising one or more kingdoms) and ruled by a single supreme authority.

3. A group of states or other territories that owe allegiance to a foreign power.

Size is not the primary defining feature of an empire; rather, it's about the control of a number of states, territories, or peoples. The Benin Empire directly or indirectly governed not just their own ethnic lands, but those of other ethnicities/nations. Maabonnet (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Benin Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.edoworld.net/Tourism.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090917223644/http://deposit.ddb.de:80/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=964084686&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename=964084686.pdf to http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=964084686&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename=964084686.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Map

This map (from Heroic Africans) can be referenced to create a more precise free use map  czar 06:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Art and writing?

The article says: "Nowadays, scientists discovered that the Edo people did have a writing system, their art work which had let the scientists discover their true history." Can someone explain what this means? How was their art a writing system? Philgoetz (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Benin Empire → Kingdom of Benin – Article was originally moved in Sept 2006 [2] without discussion, and inappropriately labeled with the "minor edit" tag. A simple search on Google Books of 'Benin Kingdom' yields numerous results of books/journals with "Kingdom of Benin" and "Benin Kingdom" in their titles, including all 10 results in the first page alone [3]. However, a search of "Benin Empire" yields only two such titles dated 2014 and 2016 [4].

Most reliable sources indicate the entity as "Kingdom of Benin" or "Benin Kingdom" as does Britannica [5]. At the very least, this is a case of WP:DUEWEIGHT. At worst a case of WP:FRINGE, as it does not conform to the conventional definition of Empire and is a fraction of the size of modern Nigeria, and Wikipedia's article title may have exacerbated its use. Also refer to WP:COMMONTERM which states for title to be the "most commonly used [per] its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)." - DA1 (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UCN. This Google ngram shows greater usage of "Kingdom" in print sources. —  AjaxSmack  01:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Problem with phone version

On the phone version, the entire article appears to be stacked under the History section. All the information ranging from the architecture and military to even the references and external links are all under the history section. This has made this section too lengthy on the mobile view. Is there a way to fix this please?(Kwesi Yema (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC))

Burning of Benin in 1897 - Deliberate or Accident?

PersonablePerson, since you have access to 'Benin, The City of Blood', can you tell me what the source actually says about the burning of Benin and how you can know it was a deliberate act? I do not have access to the source. LastDodo (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Post-British conquest forced labour

The article states that after the 1897 conquest, the British 'imposed a system of forced labour in Benin, and in surrounding areas'. Is this a reference to the Native House Rule Ordinance of 1901, or some other system? Because that merely allowed native chiefs to maintain coerced labour, though the British authorities certainly used those chiefs - and therefore that coerced labour. LastDodo (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I've been busy, so I haven't had time to reply to your several questions (which do, in fact, generally require in-depth answers, not brief ones), but for now I would recommend reading Philip Igbafe's book Benin Under British Administration (1979), which discusses the imposition of forced labour by the British authorities on Benin and nearby areas after the conquest of Benin in parts of the book. It cannot be said that the British imposition of a forced labour system on Benin and surrounding areas was merely "allowing native chiefs to maintain coerced labour". At one point, even members of the palace societies were forced by the British to partake in forced labour assignments that they would not ordinarily partake in (see p. 163 of Igbafe's book for the details of that). In addition, areas that would not ordinarily have been under the authority of certain chiefs and would not ordinarily have been required to supply forced labour to those chiefs were placed under the authority of particular chiefs that the British administration used as agents to guarantee a regular supply of labour from those areas. I can add citations of specific pages from Igbafe's book to that statement later on when I get time, if you find the current citation of that other source inadequate, but it's not a priority for me right now so that might be a while from now. PersonablePerson (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi PersonablePerson. Thank you for replying. Igbafe seems like a reasonable source, in fact it is his article 'Slavery and Emancipation in Benin, 1897-1945' that I am drawing on. What he says in that article is that after the conquest there were some initial emancipatory measures taken that were primarily about cemeting British control, but after 1900 they became more about principle. In 1900 Benin became part of the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria, and antislavery proclamations were passed in 1901, 1908 and 1916. This did not end slavery however because of the Native House Rule Ordinance of 1901 which was meant to apply to the coastal cities of Calabar, Bonny, Warri and others in Southern Nigeria that ran the ‘House System’, but became applied to Benin too. This cemented the traditional obligations of Heads and members of Houses, the latter including labour. This forced labour was used by chiefs who provided the British with services, to the latter’s great benefit. This exception was removed from Benin in 1912 and the House Rule exception was abolished totally in 1915. Is there anything this summary is missing? Is there more to forced labour than the Native House Rule Ordinance? Thanks LastDodo (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Mention of "Guinea" as a region rather than a country under Description -> Military

While the quotation from unnamed foreign observers describes their military forces being "better disciplined than any other Guinea nation", the Guinea hyperlink leads to the Wikipedia entry for the modern country Guinea. It may be better to either add a note mentioning that Guinea was a description of a region of coastal West Africa at the time, or link to an article better describing that region rather than a country. Maabonnet (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Good catch but a simple fix sufficed. I sent the link to Guinea instead. LastDodo (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Found a source about the use of street lighting in Benin; how reliable is it?

Hello, LastDodo and PersonablePerson, the book was published by AHFE but I am uncertain whether it is peer reviewed or not. The source is below;

https://books.google.com/books?id=8NyVEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&dq=Benin+oil+lamp+street+light&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiY6LiDkY78AhX_UqQEHTEPAR8QuwV6BAgGEAY#v=onepage&q=Benin%20oil%20lamp%20street%20light&f=false Kwesi Yema (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid I am not an expert on Benin, I am mainly just here to try to keep PersonablePerson honest :-) S/he might be more helpful. LastDodo (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

An 1855 source is a bit dubious. Claims of early "street lighting" are a perennial area for cultural willy-waving, with medieval Islamic Cordoba being perhaps the most common - this is a useful analysis. In any case, the Benin claim doesn't seem to amount to more than the ruler lighting the approach to his palace, which is a rather different thing. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

It might be unreliable. The AHFE source cited a book published in 1903 called Great Benin. I read this Great Benin book and it doesn't mention anything about street lights. The lamps addressed in "Great Benin" were described in the 1850s and said to be lit only in special occasions near the palace. I'm yet to see verification for the claim made by the AFHE that "such lamp posts were lit on streets leading to the palace." ((Kwesi Yema (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC))