By Amik Adams Aminu

M.Sc. Social Work and Administration

Writes from Jos, Plateau State

I have deferred my PhD program. I don’t like reading too many articles like this, but you made me read this one.

Thank you for sharing this. I found it fascinating—not because it settles the debate, but because it highlights how difficult it is to reconstruct precolonial African history, where historians must weave together oral traditions, early travelers’ accounts, linguistics, archaeology, and later historical interpretations.

My reaction is that the article is well-written and well-researched in appearance, but its conclusion is stronger than the evidence it presents.

Here are my thoughts.

What I think the author gets right

The author is correct to distinguish between political identity and ethnic identity. Throughout history, the name of an empire has often become associated with its ruling people, even when the empire included many ethnic groups. That is a legitimate historical observation.

He is also right that the Kwararafa Confederacy was not ethnically homogeneous. Most historians agree that it incorporated numerous peoples and that Jukun political influence extended far beyond present-day Wukari. Therefore, questioning whether “Akpa” referred to an ethnic group, a political confederacy, or both is a worthwhile historical question.

Where I think the article becomes weaker

This is where I would exercise caution.

The article depends heavily on Dr. Okoi Arikpo’s interpretations. Arikpo was an accomplished scholar, but his work dates to the 1950s, when African historical reconstruction relied much more on oral traditions than on archaeology, historical linguistics, and genetics.

The article also quotes Sultan Bello, Hugh Clapperton, and others, but these sources do not directly prove that Akpa and Jukun were separate ethnic nations. Instead, the author uses them to construct an argument through inference.

There is an important difference between:

“The sources suggest this,” and

“The sources prove this.”

The article often treats suggestion as proof.

My biggest concern

The statement that Akpa was the original ethnic core while the Jukun were merely the ruling elite is presented as a conclusion, but the evidence is largely circumstantial.

Notice that one of the strongest pieces of evidence cited is personal communication with Ellie Yari (2026).

That is valuable as oral testimony, but it is not equivalent to peer-reviewed historical evidence.

Likewise, similarities between names such as Akpa, Atakpa, and Katakpa are interesting, but historical linguists generally caution against assuming common origins based solely on phonetic resemblance.

If I were writing an empirical response…

I would probably say something like this:

The article raises an important distinction between political and ethnic identities. Still, the available evidence does not yet establish that the Akpa constituted a separate ethnic nation distinct from the Jukun. Much of the argument rests on oral traditions and interpretive connections rather than independent archaeological, linguistic, or documentary corroboration. Until multiple lines of evidence converge, it may be more accurate to describe the Akpa as a historical identity whose precise relationship to the Jukun remains an open scholarly question rather than a settled historical fact.

Something else caught my attention

Ironically, many of the sources cited—including Meek, Clapperton, Arikpo, and Crowther—have historically been used by other scholars to support the opposite conclusion: namely, that “Akpa” was one of several names applied to the Jukun by neighboring peoples.

That does not necessarily make this article wrong, but it does mean the evidence is open to competing interpretations.

My conclusion

As a historian, I would classify this article as a thoughtful historical hypothesis rather than a demonstrated historical conclusion.

I would neither dismiss it nor accept it uncritically. Instead, I would ask:

– Is there archaeological evidence distinguishing Akpa settlements from Jukun settlements?

– Does comparative linguistics identify an independent Akpa language?

– Do multiple independent historical sources—not just oral traditions—describe the Akpa as a distinct ethnic nation?

Until those questions are answered convincingly, the relationship between the Akpa and the Jukun remains a legitimate subject of scholarly debate rather than settled history.

I actually enjoyed reading this piece. It asks important questions and assembles an interesting case, even if I think it occasionally overstates what the evidence can support. It is exactly the kind of article that invites further research rather than closing the discussion.