CHAPTER 27

Otu A. Ubi and Timipa Igoli

IntroductionThe main emphasis of this study is to determine the extent of Ijaw impact onthe Cross River valley and its peoples. While a great deal is now known aboutthe active part played by the Ijaw of the Niger Delta in the history of southernNigeria from the late seventeenth century through the nineteenth, the activitiesof the Ijaw in the Cross River valley during this period and thereafter have not been documented. Most of the documentation on the Ijaw has centred on theIjaw as the leading city states on the Atlantic coast. Their active role asmiddlemen between the European supercargoes and the hinterland peoples ofsouthern Nigeria has been the main thrust.

The Cross River ValleyThe Cross River valley encompasses the area between the Qua Ibo River to thewest and the Rio del Rey to the east. The area covers parts of Akwa Ibom,Abia, and Ebonyi states, and the whole of the Cross River State. It is the homeof over thirty ethnic communities. The Efik, Ibibio, Annang, Oron, Eket, andEfut occupy the coastal littoral from the Bakassi peninsular in the east to AkwaIbom state in the west, the domain of the Ibibio.

The people of the Cross River ValleyThe Cross River Valley is peopled by very many ethnic groups who havemigrated into the area in the dim past from different directions.

The following questions may be raised. What have been the historicalimpulses shaping the development of the territory? In the process, whatsignificant impact has the Ijaw brought to bear in the historical shaping of the

619

T H E I.Z O. N

A N D T H E IR N E IG H B O U R S

O F T H E C R O S S R IV E R V A L L E Y

Cross River Valley? These are the issues we will be addressing in the rest ofthis chapter.

Fig. 27.1: The Ijo and the people of the Cross River Valley

The Cross River has been used in three different geographical contexts over the

years. The first usage refers to the city states of Old Calabar. This is the sense

in which E. U. Aye’s widely read Old Calabar through the centuries (Aye,

1967) was used. This calls to mind the role of the Ijaw in city states building.

The question is, whether or not the city state of Old Calabar developed

independent of the Ijaw city states or was there exchange of ideas arising from

commercial contact?

It is in the area of Ijaw institutional developments that Alagoa made his

greatest contribution to Niger Delta studies. Before Alagoa, Niger Delta

institutions were seen as having grown out of the Atlantic trade. Alagoa saw

many of the institutions as having been in place before the start of the Atlantic

trade. Long distance trade, for instance, existed before Europeans came to the

Delta. Ijaw reasons for such internal long distance journeys were economic.

Thus, unlike Dike and Jones, Alagoa derived the House system not from the

Atlantic trade, but from the Ijaw political system. What the Atlantic trade did

was to add the canoe house—the military arm, to the House system.

620

The Cross River was a navigable waterway, and it was part of a system veryimportant in the economic history of Nigeria. A canoe could be taken fromBadagry in the west coast of Nigeria to Rio-del- Rey in the east without goinginto the open sea. The extent of commerce during the era of the city states wasfrom west of Lagos along the coast to the Camerouns and beyond. It stands toreason that the effect of commercial influence from Europeans whilstimpacting first in the Ijaw city states to the west of Old Calabar must havecontributed significantly to the economic and political development of OldCalabar.

A second conception is that Old Calabar is synonymous with the Efik. There isno doubt that the Efik are one of the most conspicuous historical groups in theCross River Valley but even at the time of Old Calabar, the Qua(Ejagham/Etung/Efut) had a strong position in the city. The Ekpe institution isindigenous to the Qua, but the Efik utilized it as a governmental institution tofacilitate coastal trade with the Europeans.

The third theory relates to the development of Efik imperialism. The conceptdeveloped following the expansion of Efik influence through trade, missionaryactivities and cultural contacts within the Cross River Valley and perhapsbeyond. With these developments, the Efik, Efut, Ejagham (Qua), Ibibio,Annang, Oron, Agwagune (Biase), Yakurr, Bahumon/Agbo, Mbembe, Etung,Ofutop, Boki, Ekajuk, Bekwarra, Yalla, Atam, Bette and Sankwala becameembodied in the concept of Old Calabar. In terms of Efik influence in the CrossRiver Valley, it has to be said that that influence did not go beyond 200 milesto the north of Calabar. The missionary influence that affected the region ofOgoja came from the west, i.e. Abakaliki. Thus, there is a marked culturaldifference between the Ikom-Calabar axis, and the Ikom-Ogoja/Obudu axis.

Was the ideal of a city state derived from outside the Cross River region? In theentire Cross River valley, the House system, a fundamental structure of the citystate concept, is to be found only in Calabar among the Efik. All othercommunities in the Cross River valley have not established the House system.

621

Within the Cross River valley, it is only peculiar and applicable to the Efik.There is no evidence that the system existed in Efik society before theintroduction of unbroken contacts between the region and the Europeans fromabout the sixteenth century. During the trade with Europeans in the sixteenthand seventeenth centuries, the Efik suddenly introduced the House systemwhich was the key to the organization of city states in the Niger Delta. TheEkpe society was adopted by the Efik from the Qua/Ejagham, also about thisperiod. The House system was, in all probability, derived from the Ijaw citystates of the Niger Delta.

Efik trading contacts with the Niger Delta preceded the House system in OldCalabar. In Old Calabar, the House system was an institution which wasdeveloped in response to the trade with Europeans. The character of the Efikhouse is slightly different from the normal features of a House as a subdivision of a family or lineage in the Niger Delta. Among the Efik of OldCalabar, the Canoe-house, according to Jones, was more compact and betterorganized for trading and fighting purposes. As Alagoa aptly expressed it, inrespect of the Ijaw, the House system was both a military, commercial andkinship unit in the city state. The implication is, that the House system did notdevelop concurrently in all the city states at the same time. Rather, the systemstarted in the Ijaw city states, and gradually found its way to the Efik of OldCalabar.

It is our considered opinion that the Ijaw developed the House system, becauseof their commercial interactions with European supercargoes, and because oftheir position as middlemen, standing between European traders and hinterlandproducers. The Efik adopted the House system following their commercialinteractions with the Ijaw. In terms of control of their hinterland markets, theEfik were not as successful as the Ijaw in the Niger Delta. Hinterland markets,especially in the middle and upper Cross River, were under the control of localpotentates such as Umon and Agwagune.

622

Umon is made up of fifteen villages, while Agwagune is made up of sevenvillages. Umon and Agwagune became very prominent throughout theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries, because they successfully controlled tradein the Middle and Upper Cross River from Umon in the south to Ogoja nearthe Benue Valley in the North. There were attempts by the Efik to breakthrough the firm control of Umon territory in order to deal directly with theupper Cross River producers. Up to 1852 there appears to have been no successin that bid. D. M Macfarlan in his book, Calabar: The C.S.M 1846-1946,(1946, 45) states:

“In 1846, the mission company had watched king Eyamba set outon an expedition to carry war into Umon country…..”

As a matter of fact, up to about 1852, the Cross River was divided up into areasof influence between the Efik, Umon and Agwagune. The Efik controlled thearea between the coast and Itu. Umon controlled the area between Itu and IkotAna, while Agwagune controlled the rest of the middle and upper Cross Riverareas. According to Afigbo, although Umon did not directly involve herself inthe purchase and sale of goods, she benefited from the trade on the CrossRiver since she successfully made the Efik and Agwagune recognize herauthority over her area of influence by extorting customs duty from them andforcing the Efik and Agwagune to use her territory as the centre of commercein the hinterland. Up to 1852 Umon was the hinterland emporium. The tradetreaty of 1852 between Consul Beecroft and Umon finally relaxed the militantposture of the Umon and so opened up trade in the Cross River to all peopleincluding the Efik and European firms.

The effect of the penetration of Efik and European firms to areas formerlyunder the exclusive control of local potentates was to render the services ofthese middlemen redundant. What applied to Umon and Agwagune soonapplied to the Efik because the Efik, too, lost their middleman position toEuropean firms, but, unlike Umon and Agwagune, the Efik picked up positionsas agents of the European firms.

The effect of the economic change that took place largely as a result of the1852 trade treaty was to force many Efik traders to develop plantations and

623

fishing settlements such as Akpabuyo and Bakassi. According to Efik oraltradition, the Akpabuyo and Bakassi became influenced by their newenvironment and profession. The city states were organized, not by consideration of kinship and descent, but

by contiguity and residence. The Efik were a republic with single trading

units/houses. Thus, whereas in the Niger Delta the term city state embraced not

only the settlements on the coast but also their colonies in the hinterland, in Old

Calabar, that was not the case. Eyo B. Ndem has argued that there was, rather,

Efik cultural imperialism within the Cross River Valley. The Efik role was the

disemination of Efik culture and system of thought, through the process of

assimilation/acculturation, and total absorption of its less resilient neighbours.

The Ijaw in the Cross River ValleyThe Ijaw have been in contact with the peoples of the Cross River Valley for

many centuries. Their interactions in the area of commerce and culture has

received scholarly attention. In this Chapter, our object is simply to locate the

Ijaw resident in the Cross River valley, notably in the Akpabuyo and Bakassi

Local Government Areas of the Cross River State of Nigeria.

In Akpabuyo Local Government Area, the Ijaw reside in twelve fishingsettlements:

(i) Akpairok (v) Esighi (ix) New Town(ii) Esuk Mba (vi) Efuta (x) Benebot(iii) Inua Esighi (vii) Efiang Camp Four (xi) Joshua Fishing Port(iv) Agamanga (viii) Agbamgba (xii) Ikang Ijo Camp

Joshua Fishing Port was formerly called Komotei Fishing Port. Komotei,

according to our informants, was an Ijaw from Korokorosei, Southern Ijo Local

Government Area, Bayelsa State. At the death of Komotei, his son Joshua, took

over the leadership of the settlement. It was discovered that the name Komotei

was resented by the Efik, from the idea that the name gave a false impression

of the ownership of the land on which the settlement stood. Joshua’s

624

succession, thus provided an opportunity to effect a change of name from

Komotei to Joshua. This happened before the Nigerian Civil War. .

In Bakassi, there are sixteen Ijaw fishing settlements:(i) Ine Iban Iban (vii) Koloni (xiii) Zion Fishing Port(ii) Bayelsa Fishing Port (viii) Ine Koi (xiv) Ine Hat Fishing Port(iii) Ine Okpo (ix) Inedu (xv) Utang Iyak(iv) Abuja Fishing Port (x) Lemet Fishing Port (xvi) Mission Fishing Port(v) Enuya (xi) Uruanyang 1,2 & 3(vi) Nwajo (xii) Kanakure 1 & 2

According to our informant, the newest, in terms of age, is Nwajo. Accordingto our informants at Nwajo, their name is not Ijo. The name is Efik, meaning,Ijo quarters. The chief of the Ijaw in Nwajo, Chief Joseph Abel, from Liama,Brass Local Government Area, Bayelsa State, told us that most of the Ijaw inNwajo were formerly residing in the Cameroun. According to this informant,by 1994, the relationship between Nigerians living in Cameroun andCamerounian gendarmes (police) became so bad that their security could nolonger be guaranteed. For instance, one day, they went out fishing. By the timethey returned, they found some of their houses pulled down. That was in 1994.They decided to migrate from Cameroun to Bakassi (Nigeria), and settled inNwajo.

Within Akpabuyo and Bakassi Local Governments, the Ijaw reside in twentyeight Ijaw settlements. The oldest of these settlements is Koloni while thenewest is Nwajo.

Ijaw Impact in the Cross River ValleyThe first major impact the Ijaw have made on the Cross River valley issocio-political. A characteristic feature of the various peoples of the CrossRiver valley, from Calabar to Ogoja and from Eket (Ibibio land) to Bakassi, isthat lineage borne out of biological descent dominate social relations. Suchrelationship could be maternal, paternal or both. In Yakurr, biological descentis both maternal and paternal. Amongst the Yakurr, maternal relationship is

625

referred to as Legimo while paternal relationship is referred to as Kepun. Thistype of biological relationship is different from the House system that came tobe established amongst the Efik. In the Efik House, many had been slaves whohad become absorbed into the house. In Yakurr, slaves were absorbed into thematernal family of their purchasers. But even with time the mark of slaverywas often indelible, since reference would continue to be made to it. Amongstthe Efik and in their everyday life, the difference between members of the samehouse is not noticeable. However, it was when an Efik Etubom or Obong is tobe picked from within a family (Etubom) or families (Obong), historicaljourneys to roots of potential nominees have to be made. In other words, evenwithin a House, some members are more equal than others in that biologicalroots do determine the status and worth of members of each House.

It would appear that the House System was first established among the Ijawcity states of the Eastern Niger Delta. On the other hand, it is also known thatthroughout the Cross River valley, originally, none of the communities had theHouse System as an indigenous political institution. During the 16th Centurytrade with Europeans, the Efik adopted and adapted the House System in itssocio-political and economic organization. The Efik also adopted the CanoeHouse as its military arm, but unlike the Ijaw, the Efik never made battle withany community. The only known attempt she made was on Umon. Thatattempt was abortive. Until the 1852 trade agreements between Beecroft andthe hinterland peoples of Umon, Agwagune, Bahumono (Ediba), Yakurr etc,the Efik did not and could not have penetrated inland beyond Itu. The statusquo of segmentalised control of the Cross River would still have persisted.What changed that scenario was the change of power, occasioned by Beecroft’streaties of 1852. Therefore, one can conclude that the House System, as foundwithin the Efik society, was the only isolated pocket in the whole of the CrossRiver Valley. The idea, apparently, came to the Efik from the Ijaw of theEastern Niger Delta with whom the Efik had been in contact over manycenturies. The Efik also picked up the Ekpe institution from their neighboursto administer the trade with the Europeans.

626

There is also an economic/occupational influence that the Ijaw have made inthe Cross River valley. In Akpabuyo and Bakassi, in locations lying east of themouth of the Cross River and near the Atlantic Ocean, are clusters of fishingsettlements occupied by Efik and Ijaw fishermen. From interviews conductedamong these peoples, it is clear that these fishing settlements were establishedby the Efik fishermen who later absorbed the Ijaw. The ethnic composition ofthe area is, however, far more complex than the Efik/Ijaw reference wouldsuggest. The ethnic composition shows diverse groups including the Ibibio,Oron, Efut, Qua/Ejagham and others. These various peoples are the riverinefishermen of the Cross River valley. These fishermen and women, too, have, inthe past, carried out their occupation of fishing and exchanged their catch withother Cross River peoples for their products, such as yams, cocoyam, meat,salt, camwood and other products. With the displacement of the Efik/IjawAfrican middlemen by the European powers, such Efik/Ijaw middlemen had tofind alternative means of meeting the impending challenges.

Consequently, the Efik began establishing new settlements and plantations. Thesettlements in Akpabuyo and Bakassi are examples. The Efik sent most oftheir former canoe men and slaves to these new settlements. Akpabuyo andBakassi are plantations and fishing settlements established by the Efik inresponse to the challenges of their dislodgement by Europeans from theAtlantic trade. But just as the Efik were battling with their resettlement, so toowere the Ijaw. Apparently, a substantial number of Ijaw fishermen migrated tosettle with the Cross River peoples in the coastal littoral settlements of Ibeno,James Town (Oron), Akpabuyo and Bakassi. These Ijaw migrants made fishingtheir fulltime occupation with consequences which have impacted greatly onthe eating habit of the Cross River peoples. Thus seafood items of crayfish,smoked or fresh fish have now become a daily ingredient of Cross River mealsfrom the coast to the northernmost parts and beyond. The domestic demandcould not be met by indigenous fishermen’s supply. The Ijaw participation inthe supply helped to satisfy it. In fact, it is now known that the Ijaw fishermensupplied net traps and other output to the market both in terms of smoked fish,fresh and other sea foods.

627

Cross River and neighbouring Igbo now travel to Calabar, Ikang, Akpabuyoand Bakassi to buy fish food items for retail in other parts of Nigeria. Thisflourishing trade in seafood now engages both the riverine and upland peoplesof the Cross River valley. The Ijaw have been and are still very useful in theCross River valley. The Ijaw undoubtedly strengthened the fishing industry inthe Cross River valley.

There is the other side to the Efik reaction to their displacement. It is theestablishment of plantations of oil palms, and kolanut trees. The initiativewhich the Efik and other local communities took to better manage their forestand tree resources helped in rural empowerment through building incomegenerating activities. In many cases the income generated from these resourcesacted as incentive for social stability, improved livelihood, thus supplementingincomes from other sources.

One other area which must be mentioned where the Ijaw have made an impactin the Cross River Valley is in the areas of dress fashion. Today, there is apattern of dress that has been developed and worn by men and women whichhas become characteristic of the Cross River valley. In fact, the style of dressand hat is a recurrent motif in the Niger Delta. A brief glance at the history ofthe Efik will bring out a few salient points. The differences in the attire of theIjaw and Efik derive, not simply from taste, but from decisive historicalchanges that have taken place within the various ethnicities of the Niger Delta.These changes which are due to historical circumstances or the ruling ideas andexpectations of the time, are reflected in the people’s attire. These two groupshave extensively borrowed from each other. The bowler hat, a big wrapper orloin cloth, and beaded neck lace which are popular amongst the Ijaw and Efikare products of historical commercial interaction. Local adaptations are foundamong the Ibibio. Such variation only show the extent of dexterity andingeniousness of the people of the Niger Delta and Cross River valley. Theform of the Niger Delta attire has now been given the appellation “ResourceControl” by local politicians. Nigerians have a flair for naming their costumesafter specific contemporary events or issues. Thus for example, hair styles

628

have been named “Nigeria drives right”, “Eko bridge”, and many more.Today, the burning issue, in the whole of the Niger Delta and the Cross RiverValley, is “Resource Control”. Consequently, the style of dressing favoured bypoliticians from the area is aptly named “Resource Control”, which consists ofan upper dress and a trouser.

ConclusionThis Chapter’s focus is on the peoples of the Cross River Valley and the rolethe Ijaw have played in their historical development. While substantialknowledge is now available about the Ijaw in the Niger Delta from the 16thcentury down to the 19th century, the Ijaw activities in the Cross River Valleyhave never been sufficiently emphasized and documented. On the other hand,with regard to the peoples of the Cross River Valley, certain conclusions whichhave been held about them require reconsideration and revision.

On the contributions of the Ijaw in the Cross River Valley, the Efik Housesystem was possibly a direct inheritance from the Ijaw. Economic activities ofCross River people, such as fishing and trading, have also benefitedsubstantially from Ijaw participation. In terms of attire, there is evidence of substantial exchange between groups and local variations. There is now aunique attire, characteristic of the Niger Delta or what is now called SouthSouth geopolitical zone of Nigeria, which is called “Resource Control”. TheIjaw have made great political, socio-economic and cultural impact in the CrossRiver Valley.

629