Bondarenko Dmitri M. Homoarchy

76
African simple chiefdoms (see, e.g., Mair 1970/1962: 109, 119–121; Oliver
1984/1970: 317–318; Anthone 2000) and states formation (see, e.g., Mair
1970/1962: 125–137; Steinhart 1978; Oberg 1987/1940) but as for complex
chiefdoms, it seems a rare case. The first Ogisos hence were not heads of any
local, Bini chiefdom. The very institution of the supreme ruler appeared in
Benin not as institutionalization of the complex chiefdom ruler’s authority but
rather it was imposed on the Bini multiple independent communities and
chiefdoms without any genetic, organic connection with them, their social
structures and political institutions, well elaborated and acceptable enough for
the existence just on these levels of social being.. But once the institution of
the suprachiefdom supreme ruler was introduced, it was to be “filled” with
concrete people, holders of the title and the authority on this level changing
each other on the throne.
This ambivalence of the initial situation crucially determined the
course of further events. The third Ogiso probably had become the last in the
originally Ife line of rulers and after that about twenty Ogisos in fact did not
form a dynasty or dynasties 56 but initially were the heads of different Bini
chiefdoms, strongest by the moment of the supreme ruler’s change on the
throne: when the Ife line of the Ogisos left the stage of history, there remained
nobody else but Bini simple chiefdoms’ leaders to ascend the throne while all
of them had basically equal rights for claiming to it what led to permanent
struggle between the chiefdoms’ heads for the Ogiso title and to frequent
change of the dominant simple chiefdom in the political system of the Benin
complex chiefdom. Only for the last eight reigns or so a true, and originally
local, dynasty was established. It is evident that the dynastic principle’s
restoration can be estimated as a sign of consolidation processes’ growth (in
resistance to centrifugal) at the suprachiefdom level. Mainly just during this
period the conditions for stable suprachiefdom institutions’ existence in Benin
grew ripe once and for all. The fall of the non-monarchical political
experiment in the brief interregnum period and the subsequent consolidation of
the Second dynasty confirm the aforesaid (for an historical reconstruction and
historico-anthropological interpretation of the events mentioned in the
paragraphs above, see: Bondarenko 2001: 72–107, 137–167; 2003a;
Bondarenko and Roese 2001; 2004; Roese and Bondarenko 2003: 40–66).
In the course of the first attempt to establish a suprachiefdom authority
and to integrate the society, apart of other measures taken (economic,
ideological, political, military, etc. [see Bondarenko 2001: 86–105]), a number
of all-Benin titles, some of which were later incorporated into the system of
political institutions of the Second dynasty time, was introduced (for detail see
Eweka 1992; Roese 1993; Bondarenko 2001: 108–117). However, holders of
the all-Benin titles did not form an integral political apparatus. It can be
regarded as “central” only quite conditionally. Originally, the majority of such
titles belonged to the heads of chiefdoms and autonomous communities who