A method note explaining what kind of evidence exists for Yoruba figures from the earliest traditions to 1900, why the oldest names cannot be treated as documented biography, and how this section marks the difference.
The Yorùbá wey dem quote, the proverbs, oríkì, ẹsẹ Ifá, word list headwords, Odù names and citations dey exactly as the corpus record dem, for every language.
Dis section na collection of biography, and biography dey need source. For Yoruba people wey live before roughly 1800, almost none of di kind source wey biography normally dey use dey: birth register no dey, letter no dey, and written record from dat same time wey get date no dey. Wetin dey instead na oral tradition wey pass down through king list of different dynasty, oríkì (praise poetry), ẹsẹ Ifá (Ifá verse dem), festival liturgy, and story of how town dem take start, plus archaeology wey fit give date to place and object but no fit call people name. Di result na say di earliest name dem for dis section dey real according to tradition, but person no fit verify dem as individual life story, and dis file dey explain how dem mark dat gap instead of to hide am.
Di reason to talk dis thing before di biography instead of after am na say Yoruba biography get one particular way wey e dey scatter online. Talk wey people dey talk with full chest about Òdùduwà, Ṣàngó or Mọ̀remí wey no get date and no get source dey spread across hundreds of web page wey copy each other, come add specific date wey no source support, and end up dey look like confirmed fact just because dem repeat am plenty times. Reader wey want di correct version need tool to separate dat kind thing from proper academic work, and di tool dem simple reach to give person straight.
Oral tradition. Yoruba society dem keep historical memory with plan and structure. Palace drummer dem and praise singer dem, especially di arọ̀kin for Ọ̀yọ́, hold king list dem and dynasty story as professional work . Dis one no be just ordinary folk memory wey dey loose; na trained transmission wey get institutional backing. E no still be word-for-word record. Oral tradition dey serve di community wey dey keep am, so e dey compress matter, e dey shorten generation dem, e dey use past take explain wetin dey ground now, and dem dey change am when political condition change. Robin Law main methodological point about Yoruba dynastic tradition na say na di constitutional and political interest of di time wey dem dey tell di story dey shape am, and say king list na claim about legitimacy just as e be record of di past [S2].
Archaeology. Excavation for Ilé-Ifẹ̀ and Old Ọ̀yọ́ don establish date, how far settlement reach, technology and trade connection with confidence wey oral tradition no fit give. E don also show say some traditional chronology no fit enter. Akinwumi Ogundiran synthesis of di Yoruba archaeological record na di standard reference wey dey now, and e clear well-well say archaeology dey give date to ground layer and object, no be biography of named individual [S3]. No object wey dem dig out for Ilé-Ifẹ̀ carry writing wey name any king.
Contemporary external document dem. From late fifteenth century, Portuguese, Dutch, English, and later French written document dem wey talk about di coast and Benin dey, and from eighteenth century go front European trader and missionary dem write material wey touch Ọ̀yọ́, Lagos, Badagry, and di Ẹ̀gbá. Person fit date all dis document, and na people wey get business and religious interest, wey no get full access, and wey no know Yoruba language pass through interpreter for most case, write dem.
Nineteenth-century Yoruba writing. From 1840s go front, Yoruba people demsef, mainly Sierra Leone returnee dem wey go mission school, begin write for English and Yoruba. Samuel Àjàyí Crowther, Samuel Johnson, James Johnson, John Augustus Otonba Payne and other people produce letter, journal, grammar book, history book, and directory dem. Dis one change everything about wetin person fit know, and na why di information for dis section plenty pass mark after around 1840. Dis writer dem also follow inside wetin happen: Johnson na Ọ̀yọ́ partisan and Christian pastor wey write during time wey British dey advance wey im support, and person must read im book as argument and also as record .
Yoruba dynastic king list dem dey give order of ruler dem, no be date. To turn dat sequence to calendar year dey require say make person guess average length of reign and multiply am, and di answer dey change well-well depending on wetin person assume. Law work on di Ọ̀yọ́ chronology show how dis reconstruction dem no balance at all, and how earlier confident dating of di Ilé-Ifẹ̀ and Ọ̀yọ́ dynasty dem depend on calculation instead of evidence [S2]. Di practical result na say any specific year wey dem put for Òdùduwà, Ọ̀rànmíyàn or Ṣàngó na modern estimate, no be fact wey pass down, and make person read am with dat mind anywhere e appear, including inside dis work.
Archaeology dey give independent anchor wey sometimes dey contradict di traditional sequence. Di Ọ̀pá Ọ̀rànmíyàn, wey be di granite monolith for Ilé-Ifẹ̀ wey tradition identify as Ọ̀rànmíyàn's marker, radiocarbon association don date am to period wey pass di dynasty wey e dey commemorate, wey mean say di monument either don dey ground before di person wey dem attach am to, or di attachment na later interpretation of older object . None of di two possibility dey spoil di meaning of di tradition. Di two of dem make am impossible to use di monolith as evidence for person date.
File dem here dey carry confidence: contested when scholars or Yoruba community dem get genuine dispute about whether di person really exist as single individual for history, or about di main story wey dem attach to dem. E no mean say dem dey doubt di tradition as tradition. E mean say di file dey tell reader say academic agreement on top di person as documented historical individual no dey.
File dem dey carry confidence: medium where dem document di person but big part of di standard story depend on only one source, wey usually be Johnson, without independent confirmation. File dem dey carry confidence: high where different-different independent source, wey ideally include document from dat same time, support di story.
One question wey dey always come up about Ṣàngó, Ògún, Ọbàtálá, Ọbalúfọ̀n and odas na whether dem "really" be historical people wey later become divinities, or whether na divinities dem don always be. Dis question dey carry one kind separation come wey Yoruba thought no dey make for dat same pattern. Tradition see plenty òrìṣà as people wey live, do tins for dis world, and enter òrìṣà status, and dem no dey treat dis one like say e bring dia divinity down or say na ordinary human being dem just be. Ancestors wey get heavy weight and òrìṣà dey inside one continuum instead of two sealed categories .
Even wit dat, di historical question still remain real question and historians dey ask am. Di answers dey different for each figure, and di honest position na usually say di evidence no reach to settle di matter. Where dat na di case, dis section talk am like dat instead of to pick side.
E no dey attach dates wey dem just invent. E no dey turn oral story enter biographical prose by trying to smoothen di rough places. E no dey present di version wey one town talk as di only version, where towns get different stories. Ilé-Ifẹ̀, Ọ̀yọ́, Benin, Ìjẹ̀bú, Kétu and di Ekiti kingdoms all get traditions about di founding period, and dose traditions disagree wit each oda in ways wey follow di political relationships between di places. Di disagreement on top am sef na evidence about how Yoruba polities take understand dia relations, and if pesin flatten am, dat evidence go lost.
E also no dey sort people into heroes and villains. Plenty figures for dis section trade enslaved people, plenty fight wars wey dem captives enter Atlantic slave trade, and plenty work wit British colonial power against dia neighbours. Dem state dose facts where records dey, without adding moral talk join am and without secretly removing dem from stories of people wey dem also remember for oda tins.
The kinds of evidence historians use to reconstruct the Yoruba past, what each kind can and cannot prove, and how one 1921 book shaped everything written since.
The Odùduwà traditions and the versions that compete with them, the argument over migration versus indigenous development, and what excavation at Ilé-Ifẹ̀ has actually dated.
The figure at the root of Yoruba dynastic claims, the several incompatible traditions about who or what Òdùduwà was, the conflict with Ọbàtálá at Ilé-Ifẹ̀, and what archaeology and historians can and cannot establish.
The three registers this corpus never blends, what the confidence markers mean, and why initiate-held knowledge is left as a marked gap instead of being filled in.
The narrative of the Ifẹ̀ woman who let herself be captured to learn the raiders' secret and paid for it with her only son, the Ugbo counter-tradition in which she is a traitor, and the confusion of Ugbo with Igbo that has caused lasting trouble.
The pastor at Ọ̀yọ́ who wrote the book that made Yoruba history, the manuscript's loss and reconstruction, and the generation of Lagos men who first wrote Yoruba people into the record themselves.