A Review Of Discourse On Cradle Of Ibibio Nation

Title: Ikono The Cradle Of Ibibio Nation: A Refutation

Author: Uwem Jonah Akpan, PhD

Pagination: 614 pages

Publication: Heritage Preservation Foundation, Uyo

Year of Publication: 2019

Reviewer: UbongAbasi Ise

Introduction

Ikono The Cradle Of Ibibio Nation: A Refutation is the latest of the numerous works undertaken by Uwem Jonah Akpan, a journalist and a historian, who at present lectures in the Department of History and International Studies, University of Uyo. The author has published seven historical books, co-authored one and writes over 80 articles published both in reputable local and international journals. In addition to M.A. and PhD in African History/International Studies obtained from the University of Calabar, Akpan holds a B.A. Hons. (Second Class Upper) in History and International Studies as well as National Diploma in Mass Communication. His research interests are African social, political and cultural history, including diplomatic history, development studies as well as Ibibio studies.

Having combined oral traditions with other primary and secondary evidences, the author came out with the book, Ikono The Cradle Of Ibibio Nation: A Refutation, a historical critique on the published work of David Ukpong, Martin Akpan and Nnamso Akang, who came under the aegis of Ikono-Ini Research and Documentation Committee (IRDC). These three authors were mandated by a socio-cultural group known as Mboho Ndito Ikono Ndo Ini to reconstruct the history of the peoples of Ikono and Ini local government areas in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria.  In 2001, the trio completed their assignment and came out with a publication titled, Ikono The Cradle of Ibibio Nation (Historical Origin and Cultural heritage), a treatise that would have a strong influence on the historiography of Ibibio nation for almost two decades.

Uwem Akpan, who in the course of research in January 2019 on different subject matter though related to this genre of history, could not escape the Ikono question as his attention was drawn to contestable postulations made in the work of Ukpong, Akpan and Akang, and he decided to pick up the gauntlet to challenge the IRDC writers who he describes as “non-historians with obviously narrow sense of Ibibio history and historiography”

Akpan goes at length to cite the works of prominent historians such as P.A. Talbot, Monday Noah, E.J. Alagoa, Kenneth Dike, Berry Floyd, Ini Akpan Udoka, Udo-Ekong Obio-Offong etc., to establish the position that Ibibio is the most ancient group in the southern Nigeria and amongst the oldest in Africa that have been the present neighbourhood for thousands of years. Akpan, citing works of erudite historians, points that Ibibio majorly accessed the present abode through sea from Usak Edet (Edik Afaha) in the Cameroun contrary to the submission of Ukpong, Akpan and Akang which actually emphasize the migration of Ibibio from Ibom in the present day Abia State, following Igbo-Ibibio war in 1550, to ‘Ikono Ibom Atai,’ a place said to have been lying in the axis of Ikono and Ini local government areas of the present day Akwa Ibom State.  Akpan has not ruled out the Ibom migration route but he maintains that it is the minor route of recent waves of migration of Ibibio to the present locale as Igbo-Ibibio War expedited the dispersal of the Ibibio from Ibom at about 1550 which was made possible by the use of firearms obtained by Akpa mercenaries from the Portuguese who called at Calabar coast since 1472. According to him, the Akpa helped the Aro Igbo to expel the Ibibio after years of struggles at Ibom area.

The author of this work explains that instead of the so-called Ikono Ibom Atai, it is Ikot Oku Ikono area that the migrants from Ibom converged.  Contradicting the work of IRDC, Uwem Akpan submits that there is no historical document that has ever mentioned a place known as “Ikono Ibom Atai” or describes that Ikono section in present day Ini/Ikono local government areas of Ibibio land as Ntippe Ibibio (cradle of Ibibio nation). He points out that all the literature cited by the authors in their introduction have been “rightly” silent on that area of Ibibio land as being part of the ancient route of Ibibio migration. From available evidence, Akpan confirms that Ikot Oku Ikono which is situated between Abak and Uyo and surrounded by a ring of villages, each of them the parent of a group of Ibibio villages,  such as Iman, Nsit, Etoi, Offot, Ibiono, Oku, Itak, etc., remains the dispersal centre of the Ibibio. In other words, the migrants from Ibom came to meet the population that had already been settled at Ikot Oku Ikono area for generations, which the pressure from their teeming presence would further accelerate the fanning out of the Ibibio population to other parts of Ibibio land including Ikono-Ini axis that the IRDC claims to be the cradle of Ibibio nation.

In fact to puncture the claim that Ikono is the parent of Ibibio stock, Akpan in agreement with Obio-Offiong, explains that Afaha (Ibibio) people who were the first set to migrate to the Ibibio mainland (present-day Akwa Ibom) came through Akwa Akpa (Cross River estuary). It is maintained further that a wave of the migrants came in from Uruan and some settled in present-day Ibesikpo before a section of them moved to present-day Nsit area and established Obio-Nsit, settled there and initiated their worship system with Anyang as the chief deity. Obio-Offiong states further that it was from these “clusters of little families” that “a branch” of Nsit people dispersed to be known as “Ikono”. He backs his claim with the saying in Nsit history that: Ikoono ekedo Akpan Nsit (Ikono first son of Nsit).

Since it is possible for competing societies to use a glorified history as means of exerting supremacy over the rest for political, socio-economic, and cultural advantage, Akpan believes that these three non-historians of Ikono-Ini extraction were deliberately “inventing” the “Ikono Ibom Atai” – Ntippe Ibibio (Cradle of Ibibio) theory and also fabricating, distorting and intentionally misinterpreting facts in order to foist cultural hegemony of Ikono-Ini on the rest of Akwa Ibom State for some socio-cultural advantage, hence the need to counter their claims with this refutation.

Content

Describing the work of Ukpong, Akpan and Akang as amateurish and un-research postulations, Uwem Akpan uses chapter one of his book to spell out what it takes to achieve a historical work. As he puts, history is an evidence-based discipline and there must be an indisputable reason for accepting the claims of the history as what actually happened in the past. He points out that a historian must be trained in historical methodology because history is critical and scientific since it is the product of thorough research which is conducted in accordance with laid down methodology. Uwem Akpan probably believes that the trio of Ukpong, Akpan and Akang, who were non-historians did not follow or observe the historical methodologies before arriving at their postulations as contained in Ikono The Cradle of Ibibio Nation (Historical Origin and Cultural heritage).

                Since the discourse lies in the ambit of state formation, Akpan probably keeping IRDC’s concept of “Ntippe” or cradle in view, which he interpreted to mean “to germinate,” maintains that there is no group of people that ever germinates like the mushroom from the soil as the term tends to suggest. He establishes that the Ibibio people did not germinate from the soil as he uses the chapter two of book to explore several theories of state formations, which at the end, submits that ascribing a mono-causal factor for the emergence of the state anywhere in the world is to indulge in gross misrepresentation of the obvious. He avers that most of the groups and clans that exist in Akwa Ibom State were not biologically formed but came into existence through the practice of pre-colonial diplomacy.  But this is not to place the pre-colonial diplomacy as mono-causal factor as he rightly stated in page 87 of the book that evolution of the state is a function of many variables that have integrated through a process of interaction over the ages with Nigeria and Akwa Ibom not being exception. War, trade, kinship, religion, ideas, could all constitute these variables.

                In chapter three, Uwem Akpan made a concerted effort in refuting the thesis of Ukpong, Akpan and Akang as raised in the chapter one of their 2001 work. In their submission, they attempted to locate the origin of the word, “Ibibio.” And having explored the explanations of several writers, they submit that the name “Ibibio” is Ibibio in origin, meaning children or followers of Ibom - mbio or ndito Ibom. According to them, Ibom is the father of the Ibibio who founded Ibom village in Arochukwu and occupied same long before the arrival of the Aro-Igbo. Even other history scholars such as Monday Noah, Edet Akpan Udo, and Monday Abasiattai whose works Uwem Akpan cited have also made tremendous effort in demystify the origin of Ibibio name. But Akpan is of the view that the Ibibio did not migrate with the name “Ibibio” from Usak Edet. He based his argument on the obvious fact that the names of groups in Akwa Ibom State such as “Annang,” “Eket,” “Ibeno” and “Andoni” are clearly circumstantial, and that they were accorded those names by others.

                The author of the refutation further argues that Ibom was not a human being as propagated by Ukpong, Akpan and Akang, maintaining that since Ibom was not a human being, he therefore could not have been the “biological father” of the children who later gave birth to the ancestors that formed the clans that make up Ibibio land, and indeed Akwa Ibom and the Efik group. In other words, he puts that it is not true that “Ikono was the first son of a man called “Ibom”. Rather, it would be safer to assert that the Ibom, as a phenomenon, represents a common heritage or theory that the history and culture of Ibibio and indeed Akwa Ibom people and some of her closest neighbours revolve.

                Pointing to the map on page 129 illustrating the Ibibio migrations as propounded by G.I. Jones, Uwem Akpan submits that the major waves of Ibibio migrants were sea-borne. The migrants accessed the present-day Ibibio land from Usak Edet region via the Cross River into Uruan, Ibeno, Obolo (Andoni) areas. It also shows that another set of Ibibio migrants from the Central Benue valley and Ibom came into the present-day Ibibio land from the Northern part of the state, but certainly not from present-day Ikono/Ini Local Government Areas to Ikot Oku Ikono district. Also, Jones’ illustration shows “internal migrations” of some Ibibio from Ikot Oku Ikono district to many parts of Ibibio land including the present-day Ikono local government area. It is out of the series of the “internal migrations” from Ikot Oku Ikono district to various parts of Ibibio land that the concept of “ring villages” or a scenario where all the major Ibibio clans converged around Ikot Oku Ikono district emerged. He notes that Jones did not give any attention to Ikono/Ini areas as the point of “migration” of the Ibibio people. Rather, Ikono/Ini areas had received migrants from Ikot Oku Ikono district. Uwem Akpan argues that the present-day Ikono/Ini Local Government Areas did not serve as the migratory route of the Ibibio people from where the 18 Ikono villages in present-day Uyo local gaovernment area became a sub-clan of the invented “Ikono Ibom Atai”.

Akpan puts that the fact that the Ibibio and indeed most of Annang clans settled and dispersed from Ikot Oku Ikono district has shown in the proximity of clans in Ibibio from Ikot Oku Ikono centre and the location of almost all the major deities in Ibibio land around the area. The deities found in this locale include Itina Iman, Anyang Nsit, Ukana Offot, Awa Itam, Etefia Ikono, Anantia Ibiono, Udoe Oku, Udoe Ediene, Udoe Idoro, Abam Itak, Afia Ndem Etoi etc.

The author of this refutation, however, agrees with Naoh that the permeation of Afaha is not meant to suggest that all the Ibibio people are the Afaha people from Usak Edet because no ethnic group could be considered a biologically homogenous breeding population. According to him, people do migrate, relocate and subsequently identify themselves with original settlers and become known as such. He adds that the Ibibio, perhaps the earliest settlers in the area, had every opportunity of absorbing people from different and disparate parental stocks not necessarily from the Afaha group but from those who identified themselves with the Afaha/Ibibio group, accepted Ibibio identity and became Ibibio. To him, rather than see ethnicity as static, it should be borne in mind that it has its own dynamics and is evolutionary.

In Chapter four of the work, Akpan would expose the perceived scholarly criminalities perpetrated by Ukpong, Akpan and Akang in the chapter two of their work, Ikono The Cradle of Ibibio Nation (Historical Origin and Cultural heritage). In the first place, they posit that among the Ibibio that Ikono Ibom Atai is the cradle land of the Ibibio while Ikono Ibom sub-clan near Uyo is the centre of their dispersal in South-Eastern Nigeria. According to them, information gleaned from oral tradition, historical submissions and other dependable extant sources have confirmed that the Ibibio speaking people of the present Ibibio land first settled on the land harbouring the present Ikono and Ini people including the Ikono Ibom sub-clan now being administered under Uyo local government area. But according to Uwem Akpan’s findings, clans such as Ikpe, Itak, Edienne, Ndiya, Ukpum etc found in Ikono-Ini axis are not of Ikono extraction but are distinct Ibibio groups.

Akpan expressed disappointment on how the non-historians throw caution to the wind in a bid to “build their empire” through falsehood as they misquoted Robert M’Keown in his 1912 work. The author draws readers’ attention to how Ukpong, Akpan and Akang distorted M’Keown submission thus: “Ikono clan of the Ibibio race was probably the stock native from whom most clans in the entire Ibibio land in the lower part of Cross River and Kwa Ibo have sprung.”   According to Akpan, M’Keown did not say so, but puts that “most numerous people in the country are the Ibibio. They extend from the Cross River to near the Niger. They are probably the stock natives from whom most of the small tribes in Qua Iboe and Calabar have sprung.”

Ukpong, Akpan and Akang also write that one Dr. Sterk wrote and “faithfully recorded that when the Ibibio left Ibom village, they migrated southwards and settled in a vacant land 20 kilometres, south of Arochukwu…”But the author of this refutation has not seen the book by “Dr. Sterk”, and Ukpong, Akpan and Akang have not mentioned the name of the said book authored by Dr. Sterk. In this case, Uwem Akpan confesses that he cannot clearly comment on the content because it is doubtful if any author could have made such an unfounded claim since there is no evidence to support it. 

To back up their postulation on the position of the so-called Ikono Ibom Atai, the author of this refutation notes that Ukpong, Akpan and Akang misquoted C.C. Ifemesia, a prominent Nigerian historian, as stating that “the present distribution of the Ibibio indicates early location over the area known as Ikono Ibom near Ikot Ekpene District, not far away from the West bank of the Cross River but very close to Arochukwu.” Conversely, Uwem says Ifemesia actually puts thus: “the present distribution of the Ibibio indicates an early location over an area extending from Arochukwu in the north to Ika in the west and Oron in the south. There is an area called Ikono, situated between Abak and Uyo and surrounded by a ring of villages, each of them the parent of a group of Ibibio villages.” 

Akpan avers that Ukpong, Akpan and Akang only falsified Ifemesia’s work to suit their parochial views because he was explicit on the Ikono area he wrote about, and that he did not mention the so-called “Ikono Ibom Atai” because such a term as evidently and repeatedly stated is a recent invention and has never existed in Ibibio land, until Ukpong, Akpan and Akang “fabricated” its usage in 2001.

              Setting the record straight, the author of this refutation notes that the route they mentioned as that of migration of the Ibibio from the so-called Ikono Ibom Atai is a slave trade route between the Ibibio and Arochukwu area. He quoted an erudite historian from Ini axis, Ini Udoka, who describes this route as one of the slave trade routes that connected the Ibibio hinterland with Arochukwu.

Uwem Akpan, in chapter five of his work, painstakingly discusses most of the clans in Ikono-Ini axis to prove his point that they are not of Ikono extraction but are distinct groups. According to him, villages that constitute Ikpe clan in Ini local government area migrated from various directions. Having artificially grouped together, the clan consists of many groups including the Igbo extraction. His position is supported by the evidence of Ini Akpan Udoka, a Professor of History and an indigene of Ikpe clan in Ini Local Government Area, whose detailed unpublished study on Ikpe clan entitled, “The Political Integration of Ikpe in Ikono Local Government Area: 1700-1965,” says the clan consists of 30 villages divided into four groups with some claiming to be independent of these groups making it five. Accordingly, the four main groups are: Mbiabet, Mbiabong, Ekoi and Ibam Edet. 

Countering the claim by Ukpong, Akpan and Akang which has it that subsequent migration from Mbio-Oku in Ikono Ibom Atai led to the emergence of Ikot Oku Ikono in Uyo local government area, including other Oku clans, villages and families across Ibibio, Annang and Oron land, the author of this refutation, having interviewed Eteidung Ikpe Umoh, the village head of Ikot Idaha, confirms that Ikono people inhabiting present-day Ikono local government area once lived in Ikot Idaha. According to him, one Chief Udo Okorouen , an indigene of Mbiohoku Oku Ikot Odung in Ikono Middle was coronated at Ikot Idaha which signifies that Ikono people in the present-day Ikono and Ini local government areas “disintegrated” from Ikot Idaha, after movement from their ancestral home in the present-day Ikono clan in Uyo local government area. 

        The Intelligence Report on Ikono Clan, Ikot Ekpene Division written in the early 1930s and cited by Uwem Akpan, explains in detail the cause of the forced migration of Ikono people in Ikono and Ini local government areas from their ancestral home at Ikot Oku Ikono area, linking it with a war with Ibiono Ibom, a neighbouring Ibibio group, whose ancestral home is also at Obio Ibiono quite close to Ikot Oku Ikono. It states that after being forced by Ibiono to break away from their parent stock, they pitched their new home at Ikot Idaha not too far from Ikot Oku Ikono. Ikot Idaha was accepted as the new traditional headquarters. A research conducted at Ikot Idaha by this author reveals that the migrants brought their Etefia Ikono deity to their new location from their ancestral home in Ikot Oku Ikono in present-day Uyo local government area

On Ibiaku and Ikot Abia villages linked with performing priestly functions in Ibibio traditions, Ukpong, Akpan and Akang conclude that they are of “Ikono Ibom Atai” ancestry and that they have so far given birth to Ibiaku Offot in Uyo local government area, Ibiaku Ishiet in Uruan local government area, Ibiaku clan in Ikot Abasi, Mkpat Enin, Ibiono Ibom, Ikot Ekpene, Obot Akara, Etim Ekpo local government areas and Okon clan in Eket local government area. But Akpan points that Ibiaku group in Ibiono Ibom local government area consisting of more than 30 villages, in their documented history, do not acknowledge Ikono as their ancestor neither is there any Ibiaku group in Akwa Ibom State that has ever traced its ancestry to Ikono, adding that the claim by Ukpong, Akpan and Akang that all the Ibiaku people “originated” from Ikono stock is strange. He further notes that available evidence shows that the population of Ibiaku Ntok Okpo swelled with the arrival of hired labourers from Ibiaku Ikot Edet in Ndiya group of villages in Ikono Local Government Area and Itu Udo in Ibiaku group of villages, Ibiono Ibom local government area, who were brought in by the original settlers as palm fruit tappers and farm hands. In addition, he points that Ibiaku Ntok Okpo received many Igbo migrants over time. For instance, the Okorie, Okafor, and Igwe families among others are of Igbo ancestry. These families have over the generations been assimilated and are now regarded as “indigenes” of the community. Through interview with Chief Godwin Uta, the village head-elect of Ibiaku Ikot Edet in Ikono local government area, the author learnt that Ibiaku Ntok Okpo is the youngest in Ibiaku stock.

According to the trio of Ukpong, Akpan and Akang, Nnung Ukim villages In Ikono Ibom Atai have been duplicated in Ikono Ibom sub-clan, Uyo local government area and mkpat enin local government area. But this author anchors his refutation on the primary evidence gathered during an oral interview with the current village head of Nnung Ukim Ikot Etefia, Ikono local government area, Eteidung Effiong John Akpan. Indeed, the Eteidung said Nnung Ukim Ikot Etefia was established by migrants from Ikot Mbon Ikono in Uyo Local Government Area, led by Akpan Etukudo Eka Ekpo Ekpenyong Udo Ofon, who was a hunter. After the settlement of the original migrants, other migrants from other directions came in to settle with them. That was how the community came to expand and is today a group of seven villages. 

Uwem Akpan goes on to establish that other groups in Ikono-Ini axis which include Nna Enin/Mkpat Enin/Obio Enin, Ekpene, Asanting, Nsit, Itak, Mbiabong/Ikot Obong/Nnung Obong/Afaha Obong, Ibesikpo, Ibakesi, Ibiono, Itu Mbonuso/Mbentukwa, Ediene, Ndiya,Ukwok, and Iwerre were peopled from different stocks and did not migrate from the so-called Ikono Ibom Atai to form Ikot Oku Ikono in Uyo local government area. This, he back up with evidences generated from traditional authorities.

Akpan uses chapter six of his work to further puncture claims of Ukpong, Akpan and Akang contained in the chapter six, seven, eight, nine, ten and thirteen. While the trio maintain that Annang were part and parcel of the Ibibio that arrived Ikono Ibom Atai from Arochukwu, the writer of this refutation, while citing the works of Udo Essien Udoh (although an Economist), Monday Abasiattai and Udo-Ekong Etuk Obio-Offiong to buttress his points, submits that it is obvious that while a section of the group known as Annang at present migrated from Ibom like the rest of the Ibibio but through Eket area via Cross River estuary, most of them came in directly from Usak Edet region. It was the group that migrated from Usak Edet that passed through present-day Onna local government area. On Abasiattai’s account, the segment of Annang that lived in Eket area were sea-borne Afaha Annang. He explains further that Afaha Annang left Ibeno to Ibesit, (in old Opobo Division), and from there to Abak and then to Afaha Obong, which became the major dispersal centre of Annnag people, and subsequently to Obo Annang. This became another dispersal point, where the Afaha people of Afaha Ikot Ebak and Afaha Odoro Ikot migrated further west as far as their present location in Abia State. It was in regions beyond Ibesit and Abak that Afaha Annang met with other Annang and Ibibio groups expanding from the Ikot Oku-Ikono district. According to Akpan, Annang tradition unanimously accepts Afaha Obong as the ancestral home of the Annang people who have ancestral affinity with Afaha in all parts of Akwa Ibom State. 

On Efik, Ukong, Akpan and Akang put that After the Ibibio had departed Ibom village through Arochukwu-Iwerre route, and passed through the so-called Ikono Ibom Atai. But Uwem Akpan says their claim is mere speculation and has no historical bearing. Indeed, according to him, there is no literature on Efik migration that has ever associated their movement to a place called “Ikono Ibom Atai”. If this were to be so, Edet Akpan Udo in his book Who are the Ibibio?, a book Ukpong, Akpan and Akang have copiously cited, would have mentioned it. Akpan referred to E.U. Aye in his work on Efik origin, migration and settlement, which points that Efik passed through Itu-Mbonusoh from Ibom in the present day Ini local government area. But Akpan’s argument is that Itu Mbonuso is not of Ikono stock. Their ancestors were not of Ikono stock. According to him, as the name implies and as affirmed by Edet Akpan Udo, they came from a place in Ibibio land known as “Itu,” adding that one can see that the people of Itu Mbonusoh or at least a section of them had settle at Itu before they dispersed to the present abode in the present-day Ikono/Ini Local Government Areas. 

  Uwem Akpan puts that Ukpong, Akpan and Akang are of assumption that Uruan migrated eastward from Ikono towards the Cross River and settled at Esuk Oduk Island in Uruan and began fishing and trading, two major economic activities which evolved into a market known in Ibibio as “urua” from which the term “Uruan” emerged. He notes that there is no doubt that this idea is lifted from Edet Akpan Udo’s work on Uruan migration, but like in almost all cases, Ukpong, Akpan and Akang have twisted the account of Udo to suit their pre-conceived stance. He point to Udo’s account which holds that Uruan ,from Ibom, migrated to Ikono, nine kilometers north of modern Uyo Township and they settled for a very long time, when the population grew large, they expanded to the various areas that they occupy today in Ibibio land. 

The author of this refutation also points to the attempt of Ukpong, Akpan and Akang to link Oron settlement to where he describes as imaginary Ikono Ibom Atai, noting that they uncritically examine the opinions of some authors on Oron history such as Okon Uya, Edet Akpan Udo and Monday Noah. They accepted the strand in Oron’s tradition of migration which Uya in his book, A History of Oron People of the Cross River Basin, claims to have dispersed from Ibom in Arochukwu. Akpan stress that Ukpong, Akpan and Akang were not careful to read the book in detail to derive the fact that Uya records that Oron consist of Idua, Okobo,  Ebughu, the Enwang, Effiat/Mbo group and Oron Ukpabang (originally consisting – Esu Oro (Uquong, Ibighi and Okiuso clans) and Ubuoho Ekung (Ubodung and Okpo clans). Uya was careful to mention the available tradition of origin, migration and settlements of each of the groups.

In Chapter seven, Uwem Akpan assesses Afaha factor vis-à-vis Ikono Ibom Atai theory popularized by Ukpong, Akpan and Akang. Agreeing with various positions of notable scholars such as Monday Noah, Obio-Offiong, Abasiattai, Udo Essien Udoh, U.S. Etuk, Udo and Nkpanam Ekereke, the author maintains that Afaha is the largest group in Akwa Ibom State that migrated from Usak Edet (Edik Afaha) in the Cameroun area and later moved in-land and form settlements. Okon Mkpong and Bassey Nyong as cited in Akpan’s work put that Afaha settlement lead to not less than 710 villages in present-day Akwa Ibom, Cross River, Abia, and Imo states of Nigeria. The author supports the position that Afaha is the core of Ibibio nation and pointed to the evidence of Afaha Peoples’ Union proceedings which made no mention of any Afaha village in the so-called Ikono Ibom Atai nor any prominent figure associated with the Afaha phenomenon. Akpan points that at no time was any meeting of the Union held in “Ikono Ibom Atai” – Ikono/Ini local government area except in Afaha Itak. According to him, this is because Itak is a distinct clan in Ibibio land, whose forebears were sea-borne Ibibio and not an Ikono entity. This also evidence supports the stance of his refutation that the Afaha villages in Itak and Ediene belong to the migrants that dispersed from Offot, Nsit, Iman, Ibiono and Ediene Ikot Obio Imo areas to settle in present-day Ediene and Itak clans. 

To disentangle various groups from the so-called Ikono Ibom Atai ancestry, Uwem Akpan explores available totems and deities in Ibibioland in chapter eight while emphasizing that totems link men to groups under the emblem of common totemic species and set them apart from groups claiming common origins. Following some analyses, Akpan holds that clans in Ikono and Ini local government Areas has its distinct deity and totem. Ikono people venerate Etefia Ikono as their totem. In addition, Ikono people have ebre (python snake) as their totem. He says they are categorised under the snake totemic complex whereas the other clans in Ikono local government area are categorised under animal totemic complex. Each of the clans has its distinct deity and totem. For instance Itak has Abam deity and iba (crocodile) as the totem. According to him, the case of Itak is very peculiar because some Itak villages in the diaspora now live among the Ikono communities, yet they still tenaciously venerate their Abam and maintain the Iba totem. Ukpum has Ebom Ukpum as its deity and ekpu (rat) as its totem. Itu Mbonuso and Nkari venerate Ndem Isong not Etefia. This is because they are distinct in terms of origin from Ikono, their neighbours. He also notes that a section of Nkwot clan venerates Ude Ekpe and not Etefia which shows diversity in terms of origin. Ndiya clan in Ikono Local Government Area, according to him, originally had Esinwo Eduo deity because their forebears came from Nduo Eduo lineage in Nsit clan. In Ikpe clan, Ini Local Government Area, he says Esiere deity is venerated and not Etefia, adding that respective families within Ikpe clan venerate their distinct deities.

With these evaluation, Uwem Akpan maintains that the diversity of the people currently inhabiting Ikono and Ini local government areas in Ibibio land has been established and this discredits the unfounded claim of a certain progenitor known as “Ikono” who left Ibom in 1550 with some followers as a result of the Igbo-Ibibio War to “congregate” in an imaginary location known as “Ikono Ibom Atai” which later became known as “ntippe Ibibio”.

In chapter nine, Akpan laments the role abrasive role of colonialism on the intergroup relations in Ibibio land. Agreeing with Obaro Ikime, he holds that colonial rule was something that brought Nigerian peoples together in new groupings and for new purposes pointing that the creation of administrative units involves the elimination of the separate identity of the traditional communities. Uwem Akpan notes that such developments could possibly confused Ukpong, Akpan and Akang in their description of Ikono and Ini areas. As earlier refuted, clans such as Itak, Ediene, Ukpum, Ukwok, Ikpe, Itu Mbonuso, Nkari, etc., even though these groups are part and parcel of present-day Ikono and Ini Local Government Areas, the initial process was facilitated by the colonial enterprise and its artificial orientation.

Citing the works of Monday Abasiattai and other authorities, Akpan puts in chapter ten of his work that in period “one” and “two” of migration, the Ibibio left the Central Benue between 600-200 B.C. and, after migrating south, settled at Ibom (in present Arochukwu district) and at Usak Edet (now in the Cameroon), probably by 300 A.D. On period “three” of migration, Uwem Akpan refers again to Abasiattai’s work which holds that the period was the most crucial date that has to do with early Ibibio dispersals from the Ibeno and Ikot Oku Ikono districts. It is noted in the work that oral traditions portray these dispersals as occurring concurrently, with the dispersal from Ibeno being probably the first to commence. Accordingly, dominant in the dispersals from both districts were the Afaha people (now scattered over most of Ibibio land). Uwem Akpan says the analysis has clearly shown that the Ibibio are a people of hoare antiquity, believing that their settlement in the present-day Ibibio land pre-dates the Igbo-Ibibio War at Ibom which Ukpong, Akpan and Akang state that it happened in 1550 A.D. According to him, this event occurred in “period three” of the evolution of Ibibio historical experience.

In his conclusion, the author of this refutation urges Ukpong, Akpan and Akang and their sponsors to apologise to the Ibibio race for prying into an area they do not have any business with, based on their insufficient knowledge, which leads to distortion of the long cherished and respectable antiquity of the Ibibio race as well as desecration of her heritage through deliberate falsehood and brazen ignorance combined. He reminded that when they wrote the book in 2001, two iconic Ibibio Professors of History, namely: Monday Benson Abasiattai and Monday Efiong Noah were alive, and that it would have been appropriate for these men to have scrutinise the manuscript, yet they went ahead to inject the “virus” to pollute the academic space.

Evaluation, Recommendation & Conclusion

Uwem Akpan has agreed with the position of authors that point to Usak Edet as where the Ibibio first migrated to access the present abode thousands of years before Ibom episode that sparked another wave of migration at about 1550. Given the ancienty of period the Ibibio crossed the sea from Usak Edet in the Cameroun area to the most of where is now called Akwa Ibom State, a curious reader might want to know the nature of technology that supported water transport which could have helped the ancient migrants to cross a vast body of water. This is what E.U. Okoko questions on page 226 of this refutation when when he puts that “they talk of these primitive men crossing the Cross River as if they did so by engine boat.” Since the application of material culture is an important component in reconstructing prehistoric experiences because of lack of written records, methinks presenting a comment on the naval technology of the period of migration from Usak Edet to the mainland of the present day Akwa Ibom thousands of years ago would have added more spice to Akpan’s argument while putting the thesis of Ukpong, Akpan and Akang in pale comparison with his.

The second limitation to note is that, Akpan in his refutation, has not elaborated on the role markets played in the groups' relations as affecting their pattern of movement and settlement. Notably, markets are noted in the traditional history of Ibibio land to be hub of commercial activities that were significant in intergroup relations or pre-colonial diplomacy. Having use totemic complex to connects similar groups and disconnect disparate ones, Akpan does not show in his work if the naming and distribution pattern of markets in the traditional Ibibio society had influenced migration or vice versa. 

There are common evidences in this discourse linking Ibibio proper, Annang, Oron, Eket, etc to the common cradle and direction, but effort has not been made to demystify the factor that led to dialectal valiance as some curious readers might ponder.  

A reader would have difficulty tracing the chapters and pages sought for if followed the table of content. This is because numberings in the book are of gross variance with the page numbers indicated on the table of content to help the readers locate their needed pages. 

Another problem the reader would encounter would be the missing text in some words in 66, 77,78, and 80. Also, the word in the last paragraph of page 206 is “refuting,” and not “refuted.”  On page 231, the word found in the second to the last line is “document” and not “docoment.” Again the word in the third line of the first paragraph on page 252 is “erroneously” not “errenously.” In the first line of the second paragraph of page 322, the word, “avillage” is “a village.” 

Despite the above limitations, Uwem Akpan has been able to use sufficient evidences in proving his argument against the postulations advanced by Ukpong, Akpan and Akang in their book, Ikono The Cradle of Ibibio Nation (Historical Origin and Cultural heritage). Akpan’s refutation is very rich with exciting history of not only Ibibio land but peoples of the southern Nigeria. His work, definitely, is going to reshape Akwa Ibom history, and serves as a dependable source for future research on the related area of history. This book is recommendable to scholarship and well as information source for state and national building. 

Since human societies and their variegated institutions tend to understand their past, present and perhaps future directionalities in the light of history, it is therefore believed that the work of history should carry authentic records and must not misinform, misdirect or mislead its audience into web of intractable quagmire and uncertainty. Those undertaking historical reconstruction should so do with utter reverence of facts and evidences if not for anything else, but for the sake of future.

©The Sensor Newspaper

Click here to read recent articles