This paper is divided into four problem areas: some conceptual ambiguities; recasting the debate; the text and the critic; the nature and context of discourse. The aim is to focus on how the debate on Benin-Ife relationship mirrors the problem of historical knowledge. It begins by clarifying some conceptual ambiguities in the historical writings on the relationship between Benin and Ife, in particular, the accounts which have been patchily written and interpreted. The paper then proceeds to challenge notions of which text in the politics of representation might seem suitable objects of critical attention. In recasting the debate, the paper argues that the shortage of theories in the constitution of knowledge in precolonial Nigerian history, to serve as a reference point for empirical work and applied research has encouraged the divergence of perspectives by Yoruba, Benin, and non-African writers, which has also led to some contradictions in the discourse.

In a sense, the nexus of textual encounter in the nature and context of discourse reveals the influences on writing within a genre shaped by contemporary Nigerian politics, albeit in the construction of ethnic identity. This paper also points out how the complexity of the issues further reveal the competing interests in the various accounts. Nevertheless, the emphasis of this paper on the argument for understanding the dynamics likely to have an impact on Benin-Ife inter-group relations, is to address some false representations, for example, in the link of Oranmiyan with the begining of Benin history. The paper concludes that attempts to draw convincing inferences from the debate so far has been frustrating due to the dearth of archaelogical data, and further complicated by the acceptance of one account by scholars and the denial of another.