What Yorùbá Tradition Is Not
Twelve widespread misconceptions about Yorùbá religion and thought, each answered with evidence, correcting hostile distortions and celebratory overclaims alike.
This file dey answer specific claims wey people dey make about Yorùbá tradition, from both sides. Some of dem come from the demonization wey dem describe for the previous file, wey make dem understate wetin dey inside the tradition. Others come from people wey dey passionately try reclaim am, wey come dey overstate am. Dem correct both types here based on the same standard, wey be evidence, because corpus wey only correct mistake from one side no go fit be something wey person go trust on top the ones wey dey come from the other side.
Each section dey state the claim, give the answer, and point go where dem treat am well.
Na devil worship e be
No devil dey inside Yorùbá cosmology at all. No be say na weak devil, or different devil, nothing like that dey. No figure dey wey be enemy to the supreme being, no place of eternal punishment dey wey that kind figure dey control, no cosmic war dey between good and evil as opposing principles, and no idea dey say dem dey find souls to damn. The dualism wey the claim assume no dey inside the system, wey mean say the claim no just be say e false for details, but the structure of the question itself no correct: e dey ask which Yorùbá figure be devil, when the system no even get space for that kind question.
The claim get origin wey dem document. Samuel Àjàyí Crowther, as e dey translate Bible go Yorùbá for the middle of nineteenth century, translate Satan as Èṣù . Èṣù for Yorùbá thought na messenger and enforcer, the one wey dey carry ẹbọ from ayé go ọ̀run, wey dey stand for junction and threshold, wey dey test and disrupt and make sure say reciprocity dey work, and person wey im participation na structural requirement for Ifá divination to function at all . Èṣù dey unpredictable and Èṣù no be evil, and for Yorùbá thought, those two na different categories. Where scholars try find comparison from Bible, the one wey dem dey pick na the figure for the Book of Job wey God assign to test man faith, wey be role dem assign based on function, no be say na opposition .
Because this identification sit down inside the Yorùbá Bible instead of to dey beside am, e stop to dey look like translator choice and start to dey look like fact about Yorùbá religion. The full history dey inside the file about demonization for this section.
The òrìṣà na demons
Same structure, same answer, with one extra point.
The òrìṣà no be spirits wey dey rebel against creator, because no rebellion dey inside the cosmology and nothing dey to rebel against for that kind sense. For the Yorùbá system, the òrìṣà occupy position wey match that of intermediaries inside hierarchy: Ọlọ́dùmarè na the source, wey dey far from daily matters, wey no get temple, no get priest and no get sacrifice, and the òrìṣà na the powers wey dem dey take relate with the world for practical life . Ìdòwú influential 1962 formulation talk say the òrìṣà na conceptualisations of attributes of Ọlọ́dùmarè, wey e call diffused monotheism, though people dey contest that reading and dem discuss am below .
The extra point na about wetin òrìṣà be. Many of the major òrìṣà na human beings wey live before and whose àṣẹ still dey, according to wetin the tradition itself talk: dem remember Ṣàngó as ruler of Ọ̀yọ́, Ògún as person wey clear path with iron, Ọ̀ṣun as one wey dey connected with specific river for specific place. Others, dem understand dem as beings wey never be human before. The tradition no put all of dem into one single category, and the line between ancestor wey get big standing and òrìṣà no sharp. Wetin this mean for practice na say the relationship between Yorùbá person and òrìṣà of their lineage get plenty things in common with relationship to ancestor, wey no be the kind relationship wey the word "demon" dey describe.
Na animism, or primitive religion
"Animism" as analytic category come from E. B. Tylor nineteenth-century evolutionary anthropology, wey arrange religions on top ladder from animism pass polytheism go monotheism with European Christianity for top. Dem build the category to put non-European religion for earlier stage of single developmental sequence, and anthropology itself don drop that sequence. To use the term no be neutral description; na nineteenth-century classification wey carry nineteenth-century judgment come.
On the matter of description, the term still no fit. Yorùbá religion no primarily focus on spirits wey dey inside natural objects. The main things wey e dey care about na destiny and character, the relationship between person and their orí, to maintain reciprocal obligation between the living, the ancestors and the òrìṣà, and to diagnose and correct person situation. E get supreme being, formal divination system with memorised corpus, hereditary and institutionally organised priesthood, developed ethical vocabulary and philosophical anthropology.
On "primitive," wetin dey historical record clear am commot. The Yorùbá dey among the most urbanised populations for pre-colonial Africa, wey organise themselves for walled cities with resident kings, palace bureaucracies, guild craft production and market systems wey women substantially dey run. Ilé-Ifẹ̀ produce sculpture for copper alloy and terracotta wey technical and naturalistic sophistication high so tey European curators when dem first encounter am talk say na Greek or Mediterranean influence cause am, because dem no fit accept say e come from Africa. Ifá na wetin UNESCO register as system wey dey use "an extensive corpus of texts and mathematical formulas" Whatever wetin "primitive" suppose mean, none of this fit be am.
E no get ethics
Na the opposite be the truth: na ethics be the organising centre of the system, no be something dem just attach to am for side.
The main concept na ìwà, wey be character. Inside Yorùbá thought, na the quality of person character as e dey show for how e dey behave to others, to the community and to the environment wey dey around am dem dey use evaluate moral life . The ideal na the ọmọlúàbí, the person wey get full moral standing, and the virtues wey dem mention inside literature include ọ̀rọ̀ sísọ, competent and truthful speech, ìtẹríba, respect, òtító, truth, ìwà rere, good character, ìwà ìrẹ̀lẹ̀, humility, akínkanjú, courage, iṣẹ́ àṣekára, diligent work, and ọpọlọ pípé, soundness of mind . The focus dey on cooperation, solidarity and interdependence, and dem describe the framework say e dey closer to virtue ethics pass rule-based or command-based morality .
Two things differentiate am from wetin the claim assume. First, the ethics no be primarily divine command. Na Ìwà be the criterion, and the Ifá corpus contain plenty verses wey dey base on the proposition say good character matter pass sacrifice, pass wealth and pass favourable destiny. Person wey do every prescribed ẹbọ and get bad ìwà dey, according to the corpus own account, for worse position pass person wey do the reverse. Second, the ethics relate directly to people: dem dey build character to maintain person standing inside community, lineage and the wider order instead of just private self-perfection .
The claim say African traditional religions no get ethics na something wey fit trace back to missionary and colonial ethnography wey hold say morality require revealed law and therefore e no fit exist without am. The cosmology section of this corpus treat ìwà, ọmọlúàbí and the ethical vocabulary with primary Ifá texts.
E no get concept of supreme being
E get am, and the name na Ọlọ́dùmarè, wey dem also dey call Ọlọ́run. The attributes wey dey inside literature na transcendence, omniscience and ultimate authority, with the specific features say Ọlọ́dùmarè no get images, no get temples, no get dedicated priesthood, and e no dey receive sacrifice, because dem no understand divine will as something wey offering fit alter . That absence of cult na wetin people dey mistake pass for absence of concept: missionary wey dey look for evidence of worship of high god no see any, and come conclude say high god no dey there, when the tradition own position na say dem no dey approach Ọlọ́dùmarè that way.
Wetin people truly dey contest na how to characterise the resulting structure. Ìdòwú for Olódùmarè: God in Yoruba Belief (1962) argue for diffused monotheism, with the òrìṣà as conceptualisations of divine attributes . Critics argue say this interpretation import Christian theological frame, and say to read the Odù make e yield monotheism na interpretive imposition instead of finding . Bewaji work on the problem of evil inside Yorùbá thought push go related direction . This corpus mark the question as contested and e no adjudicate am. Wetin people no dey contest, wey be the point against the claim, na say supreme being dey inside the system independently before missionary encounter.
Na one uniform religion
E no be so, and to treat am as one dey among the common errors inside popular literature.
Òrìṣà practice na local thing. Which òrìṣà prominent dey vary by town and by lineage. Ọ̀ṣun dey central for Ọ̀ṣogbo and marginal for other places; Ògún almost universal but with different emphases; some òrìṣà dey effectively for only single town. Festivals dey differ for date, form and content between towns wey twenty miles separate. The ìtàn, the narrative accounts, dey differ and sometimes contradict, and the tradition no dey treat that one as problem wey dem must resolve.
Structurally creed no dey, central authority no dey, council wey get power to declare practice as orthodox no dey, institution with jurisdiction over the whole no dey, and fixed closed scripture no dey. The Ifá corpus na the nearest thing to common textual reference and e open by itself, with the number of ẹsẹ "constantly increasing" inside UNESCO phrasing .
The habit of speaking about "the Yorùbá religion" in singular na partly artefact of that same nineteenth-century process wey produce "the Yorùbá" as single ethnic label. Peel argument na say Yorùbá ethnic self-consciousness form substantially during the missionary encounter of the mid-nineteenth century, through reduction of the language to single written standard, the Sàró experience of mutual recognition inside exile, Yorùbá-language print, and colonial administrative categories . That one no make the identity false, since all ethnic identities na historical construction, but e mean say the singular noun come after most of the history wey dem dey use am describe.
Sacrifice mean human sacrifice
Ẹbọ mean offering, and the overwhelming ordinary content of ẹbọ na kola nut, palm oil, water, cooked food, cloth and money, with fowl or goat inside larger cases, wey dem dey give according to wetin divination prescribe. The logic na exchange and maintenance of relationship, and e dey run continuous with how person dey deal with elders, with lineage, with host and with market. The Yorùbá word no mean killing and the practice no centrally dey about killing.
Concerning di historical question, dis corpus no dey dodge am. Human sacrifice bin dey Yorubaland for specific documented context, especially for burial of kings and rulers, and when community get big wahala, and evidence dey show say different West African societies do am for dat same period . Olatunji Ojo don study di Yorùbá case well well for eastern Yorubaland for late nineteenth century, and im analysis connect am to slavery, economic inequality, and di special privileges wey chiefs get, and e trace how e take end go di conflict between chiefs wey dey practice am and di people wey stand against am among slaves, Christians, and British officials, as di Yorùbá wars dey end and colonial rule dey enter . Di victims na mostly slaves and people wey dem capture for war, wey mean say di practice dey connected with di system of slavery, e no separate from am.
E also dey documented, according to standard scholarly work on top di matter, say European observers from fifteenth century dey go bin highlight and over-blow human sacrifice for West African societies so dat dem go fit call Africans uncivilized and use am justify how dem take conquer dem . Di two statement correct. Di practice really happen, but observers wey get reason to over-blow am blow di size pass as e be, and di honest position na to talk di two things instead of to choose one.
Two other points dey wey go help put things for proper perspective. First, di practice no be regular part of daily religious life; e dey happen once in a while and na only for specific traditional institutions; normal religious activity for ordinary Yorùbá person na kola nut e dey involve. Second, legal execution and killing for burial when rulers die na something wey dey happen for many early modern states, including European ones, and dem use di analytic category wey dem call "human sacrifice" for non-European societies in a selective way wey help push their own narrative.
E dey static and e no dey change
Na to praise dem people dey usually talk dis claim, na why e need correction. Nothing about Yorùbá religion bin static.
Di òrìṣà pantheon change as time dey go, as some òrìṣà dey gain influence and some dey lose prominence, different towns dey adopt dem from each other, and for some documented cases dem even enter di system from outside. Ifá spread; di relationship between Ifá and oda divination systems shift; di corpus grow and e still dey continue to grow, wey be why UNESCO record say di number of ẹsẹ no dey known and e dey increase . Political change cause religious change: di rise of Ọ̀yọ́ lift Ṣàngó up, and di destruction of towns plus scattering of people for nineteenth century scatter di family lineage and community institutions wey bin dey carry òrìṣà practice, wey be part of Peel explanation for why conversion to new religions quicken when e happen .
Di tradition also absorb things. Di Aládùrà churches from di 1920s build Christianity inside Yorùbá style; Yorùbá Islam develop im own forms; and for di Americas, di same material produce Lucumí, Candomblé and Trinidad Orisha, and each one take shape based on im own conditions. Tradition wey fit produce dat kind plenty variations over four centuries no be fixed inheritance wey person just preserve or lose, wey be di frame wey both people wey dey attack am and people wey dey miss di past dey assume.
Dem no dey write, therefore e no get intellect
Di premise about literacy roughly correct for di period before nineteenth century, because dem no write Yorùbá until missionaries bring am enter writing, with di first grammar and vocabulary book for 1843 and complete Bible for 1884 . Arabic writing and reading bin already dey among Yorùbá Muslims well before dis time, through Quranic schools for di northern towns, so no be say writing no dey completely for di region.
But di conclusion wey dem draw from dat premise na where di claim fail. Say something dey oral no mean say e no get system. Dem organize di Ifá corpus into 256 Odù wey get about eight hundred verses each, wey dem dey memorize for formal order during training wey dey take years, with system of signs wey dey serve as index to recall dem . Dat one na structured, indexed, and formally organized body of knowledge wey dem maintain without writing, and to maintain am without writing na harder problem pass to maintain am with writing, no be easier one at all. Di oríkì tradition dey hold family lineage, historical, and biographical material inside verse across generations. Di proverb corpus, owe, carry compressed argumentative and ethical literature wey Yorùbá speakers dey use when dem dey reason matter.
Strong argument also dey say di system dey carry formal structure inside. UNESCO description refer to Ifá as "extensive corpus of texts and mathematical formulas" Ron Eglash inside im book African Fractals (1999) treat Ifá as one of di indigenous mathematical systems wey develop pass, and e identify combinatorial reasoning inside am . Olu Longe work analyze Ifá using binary representation, Boolean algebra, and memory addressing . Wetin dis one really mean na wetin we go discuss for di next section, because na there overclaiming take dey start too.
E be di same thing as Vodou
Dem relate, but dem no be di same thing, and di difference matter for di two traditions.
Vodún na di religious system of Fon and Ewe peoples of southern Benin, Togo, and parts of southeastern Ghana, and di word mean spirit or deity for Fon language [S9]. Yorùbá òrìṣà religion na for di Yorùbá-speaking peoples for di east. Dem be neighbours wey get long and deep interaction, and di interaction go both sides: Dahomey bin dey pay tribute to Ọ̀yọ́ empire for one period, wey make am easy for Yorùbá religious material to move go west enter Fon and Ewe practice, so dat for some aspects dem don describe di two as something wey hard to separate sometimes or at least dem mix together [S9]. Di pantheons overlap reach level say dem fit recognize each other, even down to wetin dem dey offer for altar [S9].
Dem still be different-different tradition with different language, different history, different ritual structure and different institutional form. Haitian Vodou even dey far pass dat one, e form for Saint-Domingue from Fon and Ewe material together with Kongo, Yorùbá and other West and Central African element under di condition of French plantation slavery and Catholicism, and na religion of im own instead of say na variation of any of di African parent. Louisiana Voodoo still different on im own.
Di habit to pack all of dem join together into one thing na mostly wetin horror-film category "voodoo" cause, wey no even be religion at all but na American entertainment genre. To take di Yorùbá case as sub-group under am dey cover di truth about di two of dem.
E be di same everywhere for di diaspora
No be so, and di difference dem follow systematic pattern pass just by chance.
Lucumí and Santería for Cuba, Candomblé for Brazil, Orisha religion for Trinidad and di twentieth-century North American Òrìṣà movement dem come from Yorùbá practice, and different-different condition shape each of dem. Di proportion of Yorùbá compare to other African people wey arrive bin different. Di main colonial church bin different, Catholic for Cuba and Brazil, Protestant for most of Anglophone Caribbean and North America, wey change di kind way wey dey available to hide things or make connection with di church. Di time wey slavery stop bin different, wey change how much recent knowledge from people born for Africa dey ground when everything dey come together. Condition for city and village bin different. Legal status bin different, with period of serious ban for some place and tolerance for other place.
Di result dem divide for inside structure, no be only for small-small detail: which òrìṣà dey central, how dem dey arrange initiation, how di ritual calendar be, how dem dey do divination, which language dem dey use for liturgy and how much Yorùbá remain inside am, and how dem understand di relationship with Catholicism. Brazilian Candomblé still divide internally into nation dem, wey Ketu na di one wey come from Yorùbá, alongside Jeje and Angola line dem wey come from Fon and Kongo.
Active and sometimes sharp disagreement still dey between practitioners for Africa and practitioners for diaspora about authority and authenticity, especially about initiation lineage and wetin practice for Africa fit validate. Di diaspora section of dis corpus look each tradition on top im own term.
Di overclaim dem: Egypt, computing, and antiquity
Dis ones dey go di opposite direction from everything wey dey above, and na di same standard dem use correct dem.
Say di Yorùbá come from Egypt
Olumide Lucas argue for The Religion of the Yorubas (1948) say Yorùbá religion come from ancient Egyptian religion, as e bring out parallel dem for religious practice, burial rite, name dem, sacred number dem, dress, emblem and language [S10]. People criticize di argument on di ground say dem train Lucas as theologian instead of linguist or ethnologist even though e rely on dose discipline to make im point, and also say di parallel dem wey e bring out na things wey dey happen wide for many place and dem no prove any specific connection [S10].
Di evidence wey dey ground point to another place. Historical linguistics put Yorùbá inside Volta-Niger, wey dey inside Niger-Congo, and reconstruction show say dem speak Proto-Yorùbáoid for di region of di Niger-Benue confluence for present-day Nigeria [S11]. Ògúndìran synthesis of archaeology, linguistics, environmental science and oral tradition trace Yorùbá formation to di western side of dat confluence around four thousand years ago, with fast geographical expansion between roughly 300 BCE and 300 CE wey dem link to period of serious drought and di use of iron metallurgy [S11]. Dat na West African account wey stand on West African evidence, and e get better support and e dey far more interesting pass di Egyptian one.
Di reason why di Egyptian claim still dey persist na something wey good make dem mention without lookdown. Dem bring am out for one time wey people dey deny African achievement in principle, and to attach Yorùbá origin to civilization wey Europe don already agree say get achievement na way to claim recognition inside argument wey other people don already set di terms. To reject di claim no need any sympathy for dose terms. E only need make person notice say dem don abandon di terms and say di Yorùbá record stand on im own evidence.
Say Ifá na di origin of binary or of computing
Dis one get core part wey person fit defend and extra extension wey person no fit defend, and to separate di two na di main work.
Wetin get strong support: Ifá structure truly be binary. Each of di eight position for one cast dey resolve into one of two state, di figure wey come out na one of 256, and each of dose 256 Odù dey index body of verse . Dat na formally binary sign system wey dem dey use as retrieval index over big structured corpus, and e dey ground long before European formalisation of binary arithmetic. Eglash African Fractals treat Ifá as one of di indigenous mathematical system dem wey develop pass, and e identify combinatorial reasoning inside am centuries before Europe formalise di same reasoning . Longe analysis identify binary representation, Boolean algebra and memory addressing inside di system . Formal algebraic characterisation of di Ifá code dem don appear for inside mathematical literature [S12]. To describe Ifá as indigenous binary knowledge system, or as decision-support system wey coded output dey mapped to narrative data and trained practitioner dey interpret am, dey accurate .
Wetin evidence no support: say na Ifá cause, influence or be di origin of modern computing. Eglash propose say di line of transmission run from African divination through Arab geomancy and European alchemy reach Leibniz, but di evidence for dat particular transmission weak . Historians of mathematics wey dey work on Leibniz binary don check di proposed external influences on im invention of binary and dem no see any candidate wey plausible, as manuscript evidence show say Leibniz no pay attention to alternative number systems before im develop binary, na why di academic question don shift go why Leibniz invent binary instead of who im get am from . Writers wey dey careful when dem dey write about Ifá as binary system no dey claim say na im be di origin: di LSE piece wey describe Ifá as "not mystical, it's algorithmic" dey argue for recognition inside broader history of knowledge and for Ifá as alternative ethical model for system design, and e specifically no claim say Ifá na di origin of computing .
E make sense to hold dis distinction well because di true version strong pass. "One West African oral tradition develop formal binary sign system on im own wey dem take index corpus of several hundred thousand verses, wey dem maintain without writing, centuries before Europe formalise binary arithmetic" na claim wey remarkable and wey person fit defend. "Na Ifá invent computer" no be any of di two, and to claim am dey bring rebuttal wey go come pull di true claim down join.
Say di tradition old pass wetin evidence fit show
Numbers wey dey enter tens of thousands of years dey show inside popular accounts of Yorùbá antiquity, but dem no get evidentiary basis. Wetin archaeological record support for di deep past dey clearly set out inside di history section of dis corpus, with dated ranges and confidence levels wey dem state. Ògúndìran reconstruction place Yorùbá formation for roughly four thousand years before now, wey be serious antiquity wey evidence establish, and to pump di number up no dey make am better.
Di pattern
Di hostile distortions and di celebratory overclaims share di same method: dem two dey first conclude before dem treat evidence like decoration. Dem two still dey make di same practical mistake, wey be say dem dey make di actual material hard to see. Di demonic version dey block reader make e no see Ifá as formal system. Di Egyptian and computing versions dey block reader make e no see am as West African system. Di material sweet pass di two of dem, and di only way to reach am na to judge every claim with evidence, including di ones wey you for prefer make dem be true.