(1) I am not trying to unravel what is already out there. That would be pointless.
As it stands today, I am not aware of any scientific conclusion on the origin of the Yorubas which disagrees with the fact that the Yorubas as a distinct ethnic and linguistic group of people first emerged some 6,000 years ago from a region roughly around the Niger-Benue confluence from where they continued to slowly drift southwards and westwards over thousands of years.
As I have shown in a comment above, this scientufic conclusion is in reasonable agreement with the historical gist inherent in the Yorubas' account of their own origin.
(2) The scientific point about this present day Ile-Ife (which is even agreed in the corpus of odu-Ifa to be a latter-day Ife) is not about it been the location from where "Yorubas" fist emerged as a distinct ethnic and linguistic group of people.
No, the point about this location is that it is the Yoruba settlement which first evolved a very high level of economic, political, religious, and social complexity.
Ile-Ife thus grew to emerge as a power in the West Africa forest, and from there Kingdom-founding migrations began to other parts of Yorubaland (and beyond).
The idea was to bring illumination and civilization (e.g. the concept of kingship institution, sculptural art tradition, etc.) to other Yoruba (and non-Yoruba) subgroups inhabiting other parts of the region.
So, the widespread statement among different Yoruba Kingdoms along the lines: "we're from Ile-Ife", is not understood in academia to mean that such region was necessarily desolate prior to the Kingdom-founding migration from Ife.
Rather, it is understood to mean that a group of Kingdom-founding Ile-Ife prince and his followers have common upon an aboriginal Yoruba subgroup (who also like the Ifes originally emerged from some region around Niger-Benue confluence) in order to introduce the concept of monarchy, thus founding a Kingdom in their midst.
I hope I have clarified how the migration from Ile-Ife is understood in academia, as well as what the originof the Yorubas is both from an oral-traditional Yoruba perspective and from an academic and scientific perspective.
Niger benue confluence ..lol introduce concept of monarchy.. Who are the people in Niger benue
It's been a while brother. Would like to call your attention to something that might help your perspective on what you may consider the right interpretation of the word "Sigidi".
I read it somewhere here but never want to continue on an endless tirade that's all talks no solution from the other side.
Possibly I might be the problem here. I better leave the stage for folks with the solution to put it across to all and sundry. However, I can never know this much and still be deceived.
Sigidi
Bro let's take it this way. The Yoruba call the woodcarver "agbegilere". Let's say the phrase means "one who carve wood to statue". But statue doesn't translate to "ere".
With the Yoruba interpretation on the woodcarver, we can get to the idea of the job of the artisan. The second linguistic application of this idea play out on the job "Sigidi".
I've once met this folks behind the office of Osun state broadcasting corporation on my way to Susan Wenger's garden. I interacted with them out of curiosity. Just a detour on my itinerary for Yoruba Heritage Mission at the time.
Ere is not a "statue"
I've said Ere is not a statue, but the word ere translates to "play" within Yoruba language itself. Therefore the closest meaning to the idea on the mind of the wordsmith who coined the word was "play".
But "play" in that sense doesn't imply drama, no. The perfect English equivalent of this sense of the word is "mock". The woodcarver creates the caricature of what originally exists in nature.
The caricature or the mock[ery] of what originally exists used to be the original art form among ancient cultures. That settles the ere concept. It's more like a "mock" of "the real thing".
Now not far from here is the ideology expounded in Sigidi. The woodcarver carves his log to a form by scraping off the bark and subsequent layers off the wood. That's "sigi", so to say.
Next the object takes a form. The process of transformation is reflected in the final name for the form so created: si gi di. To have this in English would give us "open wood form".
The problem however would be how an English speaker would easily assimilate what "open wood form" connotes because no two culture think out their thought the same way.
A home-run example
The other day, I struct on the idea of what the egun means by "gbeta". I readily understood this to mean ogbe-takun, eg "the fringe of the bush". This word gbeta is Egun for the diaspora.
But somehow, gbeta perfectly interpret to Yoruba's "eyin odi". Gbeta thus means "living outside", which conveys the mind of the Egun. But does this match it's Yoruba equivalent?
No it doesn't. Meanwhile, gbeta is indeed a Yoruba phrase that means 'live outside', just as "eyin odi" implies "behind the wall". Both words are Yoruba.
So, words from two different languages could target the same meaning being originally from the same parent source (gbeta, eyin odi) but takes variant orientation in their homeland.
This is because different historical realities could have remould them. The word gbeta (as in o figbe ta) maybe unintelligible in Yoruba yet it's Yoruba language, but it never meant diaspora.
Likewise, eyin odi was favoured as diaspora in Yoruba because it means "behind the wall". So what's the threat to Yoruba for having walled cities in West Africa?
Memoirs as reminder of history
The Yoruba had the memoir of city plan as being walled and gated. A city with one way inlet is called "adiikun". So they were inadvertently adhering to the original city plan with moat and ford.
Now when you pick up a Yoruba word, you pick up instructions from its manufacturer. It's good to study the manufacturer's manual rather than a repairer's acclaimed expertise.
You are walking the path of the manufacturers bro. @Olu, I salute you from here. Good sire. Knowledge don't come from corporate understanding, "awo nii gbo sofawo".
It's been a while brother. Would like to call your attention to something that might help your perspective on what you may consider the right interpretation of the word "Sigidi".
I read it somewhere here but never want to continue on an endless tirade that's all talks no solution.
Possibly I might be the problem here. I better leave the stage for folks with the solution to put it across to all and sundry. However, I can never know this much and still be deceived.
Sigidi
Bro let's take it this way. The Yoruba call the woodcarver "agbegilere". Let's say the phrase means "one who carve wood to statue". But statue doesn't translate to "ere".
With the Yoruba interpretation on the woodcarver, we can get to the idea of the job of the artisan. The second linguistic application of this idea play out on the job "Sigidi".
I've once met this folks behind the office of Osun state broadcasting corporation on my way to Susan Wenger's garden. I interacted with them out of curiosity. Just a detour on my itinerary for Yoruba Heritage Mission at the time.
Ere is not a "statue"
I've said Ere is not a statue, but the word ere translates to "play" within Yoruba language itself. Therefore the closest meaning to the idea on the mind of the wordsmith who coined the word is "play".
But the play in that sense doesn't imply drama, no. The perfect English equivalent of this sense of the word is "mock". The woodcarver create the caricature of what originally exists in nature.
The caricature or the mock[ery] of what originally exists used to be the original art form among ancient cultures. That settles the ere concept. It's more like a "mock" of "the real thing".
Now not far from here is the ideology expounded in Sigidi. The woodcarver carves his log to a form by scraping off the bark and subsequent layers off the wood. That's "sigi", so to say.
Next the object takes a form. The process of transformation is reflected in the final name for the form so created: si gi di. To have this in English would give us "open wood form".
The problem however would be how an English speaker would easily assimilate what "open wood form" connotes because no two culture think out their thought the same way.
A home run examples
The other day, I struct on the idea of what the egun means by "gbeta". I readily understood this to mean ogbe-takun, eg "the fringe of the bush". This word gbeta is Egun for the diaspora.
But somehow, gbeta perfectly interpret to Yoruba's "eyin odi". Gbeta thus means "living outside", which conveys the mind of the Egun. But does this match it's Yoruba equivalent?
No it doesn't. Meanwhile, gbeta is a Yoruba phrase that means 'live outside', while eyin odi implies behind the wall. Both words are Yoruba.
So, words from two different languages could target the same meaning being originally from the same parent source (gbeta, eyin odi) but takes variant orientation in their homeland.
This is because different historical realities could have remould them. The word gbeta (as in o figbe ta) maybe unintelligible in Yoruba yet it's Yoruba language, but it never meant diaspora.
Likewise, eyin odi was favoured as diaspora in Yoruba because it means "behind the wall". So what's the threat to Yoruba having walled cities in West Africa?
The Yoruba had the memoir of city plan as being walled and gated. A city with one way inlet is called "adiikun". So they adhere to the original plan with moat and ford.
Now when you pick up a Yoruba word, you pick up instructions from its manufacturer. It's good to study the manufacturer's manual rather than a repairer's acclaimed expertise.
You are walking the path of the manufacturers bro. @Olu, I salute you from here. Good sire. Knowledge don't come from corporate understanding, "awo nii gbo sofawo".
"It takes a master to restore a masterpiece."
Greetings to you!
Was going through this comment so I thought I should do this quick clarification which I would normally have ignored.
Yoruba language is a tonal language wherein the same permutation of letters will result in different words (i.e. different meanings) if different tones are applied.
To illustrate this with an example, consider the permutation of the letters O, K, & O in that order.
This same permutation, i.e. "Oko", if articulated with different tones will result in completely different words -- that is, completely different meanings.
(1) The Yoruba word "Ọkọ̀" [i.e. with the tone: re-do, and with its two "O's" as in the English word "Orange"] signifies "Vehicle".
(2) The Yoruba word "Ọkọ́" [i.e. with the tone: re-mi, and with its two "O's" also as in the English word "Orange"] signifies "Hoe".
Notice how far apart the words are in meaning only by applying different tones. That is a beauty of the Yoruba language.
Now applying this background to your statement where you wrote:
"I've said Ere is not a statue, but the word ere translates to "play" within Yoruba language itself."
I feel obliged to correct a misconception here by way of saying and showing that "Ere" means "Statue" and also means "Play" depending on the tone with which the permutation "Ere" is being articulated.
The tone is what eventually turns the permutation into a legitimate Yoruba word, and different tones produce blatantly different words.
(1) The Yoruba word "Eré" [i.e. with the tone: re-mi] signifies "Play", "Fun", etc.
(2) The Yoruba word "Ère" [i.e. with the tone: do-re] signifies Statue, "Sculpture", etc.
Our educational system is faulty. That we have our elites giving us a decree for history is not creating value but pushing value around.
If the notion that Yoruba migrated from the middle East was born of the outsiders, how about the names of the hero of the Yoruba culture that comes from the narrative?
Can you hold the handle of a sword and not have hold the blade by this? We are not in the era of the military where people are gagged. So, we are free to find out.
The information that Oduduwa peopled Yoruba from Ife from erudite historians is not an interesting validation of knowledge but a tendency to mystic.
Knowledge is to make us more knowledgeable. How did a man from a particular place created a population? That should be the history.
Next, there are thousands of heroes in Yoruba phanteon, the earlier historians claimed a man named Oduduwa founded Yoruba, from Ife.
Why not just make a difference and trace Yoruba to a different place and a different name from the pantheon altogether? That's creating a value.
The following is the comment on Oduduwa's origin I promised to repost here:
In a 1969 report of a preliminary archaeological survey of Ife, Paul Ozanne noted that evidence shows that many settlements have been established in the Ife country by at least the 4th century BC.
He pointed out that the Ife area lies in a high bowl (namely, the "Ife bowl" ) surrounded by hills which form a watershed for many streams flowing out through gaps between the hills. And that into this "bowl" the earliest settlers came in some unknown antiquity.
Paul Ozanne: "A Preliminary Report of an Archaeological Survey of Ife"; also "A New Archaeological Survey of Ife," Odu, new series, 1, 1969, pp.131-148.
The idea that Oduduwa's roots was in some distant foreign land is actually alien and foreign to the early Yorubas themselves.
The most remote origin atttibuted to Oduduwa in indigenous Yoruba accounts is given in the mythology of Oduduwa's descent from heaven, as well as Obatala's, et al.
And if an interpretation of this particular mythical account would not deem Obatala (and the other actors in the account) as a non-Yoruba foreigner, then there is no reason why such interpretation of the same account would deem Oduduwa a foreigner.
For the sake of completeness, I should mention that this particular myth have absolutely nothing to do with a foreign country of origin for Oduduwa or Obatala, et al.
An examination of the earliest variant of this myth of descent of heavenly beigns supplies entirely different (unknown or unpopular) names to the charcaters involved.
This myth of descent of Oduduwa, Obatala, et al. have therefore been interpreted by historians to be a later remix of the original myth. Professor S. Adebanji Akintoye writes in his "A History of the Yoruba People" in relation to this interpretation as follows:
"As for the introduction of the names Oduduwa and Obatala into these creation myths, there seems no doubt that what we have here is a conflation of very ancient myths with later known facts at some point in Yoruba history. As will be seen in subsequent chapters, Obatala and Oduduwa were not mythical, heavenly beings; they were humans who played very significant roles in a great era of Yoruba history. Without doubt, what happened was that the contemporaries or successors of Obatala and Oduduwa added these two names to myths that had existed probably very long before their time, in an attempt to accord Oduduwa in particular the very high position he deserved in the transformation of Yoruba civilization in the most significant era in early Yoruba history."
S. Adebanji Akintoye: "A History of the Yoruba People", Amalion Publishing, 2010, pp.2-3.
In fact, if anything is known for sure about the view of Oduduwa's alleged foreign origin, then it is that this view is modern and quite alien to the Yoruba peoples' history.
To be quite specific, the foreign direction of Oduduwa's origin was first initiated towards the end of the 19th century by the Reverend Samuel Johnson in his famous "The History of the Yorubas" which was completed in 1897.
Until deep into the 20th century some of the best minds in historical scholarship simply followed Johnson's lead without questioning, even as there is a deafening silence of prior indigenous Yoruba accounts on such a foreign Oduduwa's origin. They also didn't deem it necessary to examine the roots of the Johnsonian hypothesis.
To briefly examine the influences and sources of Johnson's idea concerning the supposedly foreign roots of Oduduwa, it is sufficient to quote S. Adebanji Akintoye's A History of the Yoruba People. S. Adebanji Akintoye writes:
"Samuel Johnson was educated for the service of the church. ... .At the training institution in Abeokuta, he had schooled under a German teacher named G. F. Bühler, who while training his students as church workers, gave them a very solid grounding in ancient history --- the history of Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Rome. From such beginnings, Johnson developed a strong interest in the history and mythology of the Middle East. Moreover, Johnson's Yorubaland of the nineteenth century was increasingly affected by the growth of Islam and Christianity, two world-shaping products of the Middle East. In particular with Islam came the knowledge of Western Sudanese myths and legends through the writings of Muslims of the Western Sudan ("including Hausaland" ) --- especially some of the writings of Sultan Bello of Sokoto which contained some Sudanese myths about Yoruba origins. Above all, the nineteenth century was, in Europe, the golden age of the study of the history and civilization of ancient Egypt. The ancient Egyptian writings (the hieroglyphic script) had just been deciphered, and the expanding knowledge of the wonders of ancient Egypt was creating great excitement in the world of scholarship. The writings of the emerging class of literate Yorubas were commonly laced with Egyptian and Middle Eastern references, analogies and mythology ("a practice apparently regarded then as a marker of erudition" ) --- as a reading of the Lagos newspaper of the time will abundantly show. All these influences combined to shape much of Johnson's The History of the Yorubas, and to account for his linking of all important details of early beginnings of Yoruba history to the Middle East. Thus, Oduduwa became a personage from the Middle East, and Oranmiyan's migration northward to the Niger country became a journey with the Middle East as its intended destination. Indeed, the influence of Middle Eastern mythology pervades most of Johnson's early history chapters, all the way from his preface."
Ibid., p.56.
If anything is palpably perceptible from the foregoing quotation, it is the fact that Johnson completely favoured an account of Oduduwa's origin by Sultan Bello of Sokoto, over and above an account of Oduduwa's origin by the Yorubas themselves.
In sum, he left out the Yoruba account of Oduduwa's origin in favour a heavily-Middle-East-influenced account by an Hausa.
Johnson's excitement to incorporate a Middle Eastern thesis into his treatise is clearly seen to be at play.
Contrasting Johnson's approach on his account of Oduduwa's origin with his approach on his account of Oyo's history, S. Adebanji Akintoye notes:
"In contrast, his accounts of the history of the Oyo Empire were assembled from oral evidence he collected in places like Oyo and Ibadan where memories of the disintegration of that empire were still quite fresh; while his accounts of late nineteenth century Yoruba history were products of his own eyewitness observation of many of the events."
Ibid., p.56.
Having shown that the influences and sources of Johnson's hypothesis of Oduduwa's alleged foreign origin are themselves foreign, and based more on sentiments than it can be argued to be based on any fact, it is vital then that an inward examination of the corpus of indigenous resources on the early history of the Youba people --- as well as on Oduduwa's roots particularly --- is undertaken.
In relation to this novel undertaking which didn't begin until well into the 1900s, S. Adebanji Akintoye writes:
"Fortunately, while much effort was being expended in following Johnson's ideas about the beginnings of Yoruba history, there existed all around us, in Ife and other parts of Yorubaland, an enormous wealth of traditions, as well as evidence in the Yoruba political system and surviving practices and rituals, about Oduduwa and his era. Ultimately a different direction in the study of Yoruba history developed ("as part of a more scientific study of African history in general" ) which focused on the indigenous evidence, as well as other source material, for the reconstruction of early Yoruba history. Consequent upon these efforts, we now stand able to lay aside, with respect, the Johnsonian hypothesis about the origins of Oduduwa and of the Yoruba. All who study the history of Ife and of the Yoruba people are now generally agreed that the great political changes which began in Ife in about the tenth century were indigenous in their origin, in their unfolding and in their dramatis personae. It is on the soil of Yorubaland that Oduduwa was born and raised; it is only in that soil that his roots can be found."
Ibid., pp.56-57.
Regarding the specific region of Yorubaland where Oduduwa was born and raised, and how this ties to the account of the resistance he endured from some parties in the course of his becoming king in a unified Ife:
As is to be expected, scholars --- such as Ulli Beier, et al. --- who pioneered avoiding this obvious error inherent in the Johnsonian hypothesis did indeed make recourse to the rich corpus of indigenous Ife-Yoruba accounts.
An important account which proves particularly very useful to S. A. Akintoye's identification of Oduduwa's specific roots within Yorubaland (and how that ties to the well-known account of the resistance he endured from some quarters, in becoming the ruler of unified Ife) is the popular account of the violence, conflicts, and wars between the Oduduwa's alliance on one hand, and the Obatala's alliance on the other hand. This unrest is said (by all the variant accounts) to have lasted "a very long time".
Akin Ogundiran found, after thoroughly researching and combing through the generality of the available Ife traditional accounts on this much remembered conflict, that it must have lasted over a century.
This submission then raises the question of Oduduwa's and Obatala's participation in the conflicts.
Although the traditional accounts put Oduduwa and Obatala at the very beginning of the conflicts to their very end, we know that this is extremely unlikely given the unanimously admitted very long duration of the conflict by the generality of all the traditional accounts.
Moreover, it is seen very, very clearly from the accounts that Oduduwa emerged through the conflict as king ruling over a unified Ife.
This imagery, thus, warrants the necessary logical conclusion that both Oduduwa and Obatala were simply born into a long pre-existing and ongoing conflict by parents from opposing parties to the conflict.
In relation to the account leading to this conclusion, and the conclusion itself, Professor S. Adebanji Akintoye writes:
"There is no doubt that Oduduwa and Obatala were the most prominent persons in the last stages of the wars. Neither, therefore could have been actors, or even could have been born at the beginning of the conflicts."
Ibid., p.62.
In fact, to be emphatic, the indigenous traditions note that Oduduwa himself was born in Ife to parents who had relocated there (i.e. to the "Ife bowl" ) from one of the neighbouring hills surrounding the "bowl" --- Recall my earlier reference to a 1969 report of a preliminary archaeological survey of Ife by Paul Ozanne which notes that the "Ife bowl" is surrounded by hills forming watersheds.
In relation to this indigenous tradition regarding his specific land of birth and his "parents'" relocation, S. A. Akintoye writes:
"An examination of most of the traditions fairly definitively establish that Oduduwa was born in the stranger's area of Ife to leaders of a small group that had relocated from one of the hills beyond the elu at Ife, that he grew up in the traditions of resentment in the strangers' area, and that his youth and Obatala's youth ("both of them "sons of the soil"" ) were spent in the tradition of growing conflicts in Ife. The traditional accounts put both men in the era of conflicts from its beginning to its end, obviously because of their extremely dominant roles in its latter stages. In the light of this, it is reasonably certain that the group which became popularly known as the Oduduwa group in the traditions was led to the Ife area not by Oduduwa but by his parents or grand parents."
Ibid., p.62.
In conclusion, the idea that Oduduwa has a foreign origin outside of Yorubaland, outside of West Africa, or sometimes outside of Africa has long been set aside by historians as an over-ambitious pseudo-historical narrative. It has been set aside for a realistic historical narrative which has situated him definitively to be indigenous to Ile-Ife.
I want to dice this into bite sizes starting with the earliest written records on Yoruba.
1. Samuel Johnson was not the original author of the History of Yorubas, his brother, Obadiah (I hope Im correct) was the original author. His manuscript made it to England but was never found after that. It is alleged that its dissapearance was a sabotage designed to shut down and completely obliterate the truths he revealed about Yoruba.
Why are Yoruba historians unconcerned about recovering Obadiah's copy? It seems a lot of effort is spent disreputing Samuel than finding the original manuscript of that work.
2. Latin script was not our first style of writing. Ajami script was used officially in King's courts to communicate in the period preceeding British colonialists and missionaries.
Why aren't Yoruba historians encouuraging recovery of the records?
It seems to me that these two works will help greatly to expand truths and pressentt accurate records, far more so than academic guesses.
To give perspective on why modern historical accounts are unreliable, consider that if we want to truly understand the history of rail transportation in Nigeria, we cannot begin at Ido terminal and its northbound tracks towards Abeokuta and Ibadan. We must go to Martins street and Tinubu square and dig for the tramway tracks buried underneath modern road asphalt.
Our historians have not dug up Tinubu square. The history they gave us is missing links from earlier and authentic records that are retrievable.
Obalufon: * KWA kwa people lumpup group of people old school anthropology ....we need to write our own history
I usually don't respond to you. But let me do so here, because this here is a very big problem that serves as a block to your acquisition of knowledge.
It is very simple actually, the Kwa ethno-linguistic family like any ethno-linguistic family (like Semitic ethno-linguistic family) is based primarily on linguistic evidence and the absence of any relevant indication that the speakers of the languages of this language family only adopted the language
I have stated before that, in your quest for Semitic origin of Yoruba people, you should leave language group out of it, yoruba is not a semitic language, that much is settled and dusted. The best that you can do is to show that the Yoruba abandoned their original semitic language and adopted Yoruba (a Kwa language) on arrival in West Africa through a process of language shift, acculturation and intermixing. ..that is the best you can possibly do Of course, it is left for you and those who churches have sent out with this agenda(or deceived by them) to prove that the Yoruba indeed ever spoke a semitic language in the first place...then we can move from there
I once made example of Turkish, the largest Turkic language, whose speakers are not originally speakers of a Turkic language but adopted one (turkish) by assimilation and intermixing. Or a better example, the Vikings who were from Scandinavia who on settling close to the French adopted their language and developed Norman French, which in turn would influence English (a secound Viking contribution of some sorts) Despite the influence of the language of the Vikings directly on english, english did not become a north germanic language, despite the norman descendants of the vikings who now spoke a french dialect later influence on english again, english still did not stop being a west germanic language that it always was
so get one thing clear, all of you, Yoruba language regardless of where the people actually descend from is and will always be a Kwa [Volta-Niger] language
There are Yoruba historians, so I don't know what makes you think we are not writting our own history
adee17: As you have said, they are foreign religions. Our ancestors did not know anything about Christianity or islam but isese. These two religions actually came from isese. The point is those who link Yoruba to Near East actually use our isese to decipher the code. One expert, can't remember his name now, said it is either Hebrews borrowed our isese into their religion or vice versa, or they are of the same people. Our isese actually betray and gave us away as migrants from Near East. Although we have forgotten about isese, the religion of our ancestors, and follow after foreign gods which our ancestors did not know as prophesied, we will still go back to it and rediscover ourselves.
(1) Can you please name me one Yoruba ìṣẹ̀ṣe which uniquely maps Yorubas one-to-one with Hebrews? Just one!
While you search almost endlessly for such ìṣẹ̀ṣe (and the so-called "expert" from whom you got the information), consider my second question below:
(2) Can you please name me one ancient Yoruba traditional account which indicates that the Yorubas are aboriginals (rather than some foreign immigrants) to roughly the same area of our present region?
Notice how easy it was for you to quickly come up with answers to the second question.
Was going through this comment so I thought I should do this quick clarification which I would normally have ignored.
Yoruba language is a tonal language wherein the same permutation of letters will result in different words (i.e. different meanings) if different tones are applied.
To illustrate this with an example, consider the permutation of the letters O, K, & O in that order.
This same permutation, i.e. "Oko", if articulated with different tones will result in completely different different words -- that is, completely different meanings.
(1) The Yoruba word "Ọkọ̀" [i.e. with the tone: re-do, and with its two "O's" as in the English word "Orange"] signifies "Vehicle".
(2) The Yoruba word "Ọkọ́" [i.e. with the tone: re-mi, and with its two "O's" also as in the English word "Orange"] signifies "Hoe".
Notice how far apart the words are in meaning only by applying different tones. That is a beauty of the Yoruba language.
Now applying this bacjground to your statement where you wrote:
"I've said Ere is not a statue, but the word ere translates to "play" within Yoruba language itself."
I feel obliged to correct a misconception here by way saying and showing that "Ere" means "Statue" and also means "Play" depending on the tone with which the permutation "Ere" is articulated.
The tone us what eventually turns the permutation into a legitimate Yoruba word, and different tones produces blatantly different words.
(1) The Yoruba word "Eré" [i.e. with the tone: re-mi] signifies "Play", "Fun", etc.
(2) The Yoruba word "Ère" [i.e. with the tone: do-re] signifies Statue, "Sculpture", etc.
Cheers!
Bro,
It's my pleasure having an intelligent discussant from an angle different from mine. Altogether we'll fan the embers of knowledge both ways and we will have a win win situation.
Well I agree with your claim to Yoruba being a tonal language. That's true. But in the very tone, great secrets are hidden. If you assume familiarity with the rule, you will miss the "objection" to the rule.
So, agree with me on this premises that there are objection to the rule out there.
Let's review an example: mo doko dele danimo. Permit me to hold the meaning of the sentence for now. What do you think this is saying "codedly" or figuratively?
You may not know (permit my assumption) but there's literal and figurative meaning to the sentence. We all know what the sentence means but we might not all know what "it" could mean.
Back to the subject at hand
I don't interpret randomly, I stick to relativity in the absence of the core meaning of a word or phrase in question. Ere is not a "statue" actually means that ere has a meaning of its own.
Statue stands for ere, what else could statue means in English grammar? So, sticking ere to statue limit further knowledge we could deduce from the word ere.
My take in that frame of mind is that we cannot limit Yoruba word by finding exact meaning in English that best suits the word but we must look within the Yoruba word itself, deep and deep.
So ere is not a statue because it's more than a statue, it's other tones could help tell us more about how a word was economise to serve different needs.
Ere: (Play) the relationship between ere as statue and as a play is that effigy, toy or dolls may be part of the products of the agbegilere. Here, the molding of tone fails to change the word.
My wife's phone, hmm, have to stop here. Our real life often splash on our pastime. That's how it should be. We'll discuss later when I'm on my system.
I want to dice this into bite sizes starting with the earliest written records on Yoruba.
1. Samuel Johnson was not the original author of the History of Yorubas, his brother, Obadiah (I hope Im correct) was the original author. His manuscript made it to England but was never found after that. It is alleged that its dissapearance was a sabotage designed to shut down and completely obliterate the truths he revealed about Yoruba.
Why are Yoruba historians unconcerned about recovering Obadiah's copy? It seems a lot of effort is spent disreputing Samuel than finding the original manuscript of that work.
2. Latin script was not our first style of writing. Ajami script was used officially in King's courts to communicate in the period preceeding British colonialists and missionaries.
Why aren't Yoruba historians encouuraging recovery of the records?
It seems to me that these two works will help greatly to expand truths and pressentt accurate records, far more so than academic guesses.
To give perspective on why modern historical accounts are unreliable, consider that if we want to truly understand the history of rail transportation in Nigeria, we cannot begin at Ido terminal and its northbound tracks towards Abeokuta and Ibadan. We must go to Martins street and Tinubu square and dig for the tramway tracks buried underneath modern road asphalt.
Our historians have not dug up Tinubu square. The history they gave us is missing links from earlier and authentic records that are retrievable.
Lol. Samuel Johnson left his copious notes and other materials from which his brother (Obadiah Johnson) reassembled the work and have it published in 1921.
For this reason, the 1921 work and its subsequent reprints always show Obadiah Johnson as editor, and Samuel Johnson as author.
Thought I should quickly, but respectfully, nip that misinformation in the bud.
Let's not be eager to misinform one another, rather let's be eager to read.
Olu317 claims that there are certain terms and names that are borrowed from the Yoruba language. I guess he will represent himself in that sense.
As for the new information, The Returning Queen, Kemetic symbolism and the technology used in the Obelix of Oranmiyan, Kemetic type Sun dials, well as the fact of a Yoruba mythological King who we find to have been the founding ruler of ancient Kush. I have tried to explain to the dude that Yoruba is indigenous to Africa but it seems he’s finding it hard to fathom these facts.
That shouldn’t even be up for debate.
What I want is for us to look into these terms that he claims to have been inserted into the Hebrew language and the to and fro movement of Kemet.
Can you direct me to the source of this information. i would like to read more on this "Yoruba King who founded ancient Kush"
My guy, there is nothing to look at, i am particularly interested in the subject so if there was i would have looked into the facts. Olu317 and his band have not presented any facts, what they present are imaginary ideas or already debunked old misconceptions by early Yoruba historiographers who i should add were missionary men. Can you mention one valid yoruba term that was inserted into Hebrew or vice versa? let us look at it
It's been a while brother. Would like to call your attention to something that might help your perspective on what you may consider the right interpretation of the word "Sigidi".
I read it somewhere here but never want to continue on an endless tirade that's all talks no solution from the other side.
Possibly I might be the problem here. I better leave the stage for folks with the solution to put it across to all and sundry. However, I can never know this much and still be deceived.
Sigidi
Bro let's take it this way. The Yoruba call the woodcarver "agbegilere". Let's say the phrase means "one who carve wood to statue". But statue doesn't translate to "ere".
With the Yoruba interpretation on the woodcarver, we can get to the idea of the job of the artisan. The second linguistic application of this idea play out on the job "Sigidi".
I've once met this folks behind the office of Osun state broadcasting corporation on my way to Susan Wenger's garden. I interacted with them out of curiosity. Just a detour on my itinerary for Yoruba Heritage Mission at the time.
Ere is not a "statue"
I've said Ere is not a statue, but the word ere translates to "play" within Yoruba language itself. Therefore the closest meaning to the idea on the mind of the wordsmith who coined the word was "play".
But "play" in that sense doesn't imply drama, no. The perfect English equivalent of this sense of the word is "mock". The woodcarver creates the caricature of what originally exists in nature.
The caricature or the mock[ery] of what originally exists used to be the original art form among ancient cultures. That settles the ere concept. It's more like a "mock" of "the real thing".
Now not far from here is the ideology expounded in Sigidi. The woodcarver carves his log to a form by scraping off the bark and subsequent layers off the wood. That's "sigi", so to say.
Next the object takes a form. The process of transformation is reflected in the final name for the form so created: si gi di. To have this in English would give us "open wood form".
The problem however would be how an English speaker would easily assimilate what "open wood form" connotes because no two culture think out their thought the same way.
A home-run example
The other day, I struct on the idea of what the egun means by "gbeta". I readily understood this to mean ogbe-takun, eg "the fringe of the bush". This word gbeta is Egun for the diaspora.
But somehow, gbeta perfectly interpret to Yoruba's "eyin odi". Gbeta thus means "living outside", which conveys the mind of the Egun. But does this match it's Yoruba equivalent?
No it doesn't. Meanwhile, gbeta is indeed a Yoruba phrase that means 'live outside', just as "eyin odi" implies "behind the wall". Both words are Yoruba.
So, words from two different languages could target the same meaning being originally from the same parent source (gbeta, eyin odi) but takes variant orientation in their homeland.
This is because different historical realities could have remould them. The word gbeta (as in o figbe ta) maybe unintelligible in Yoruba yet it's Yoruba language, but it never meant diaspora.
Likewise, eyin odi was favoured as diaspora in Yoruba because it means "behind the wall". So what's the threat to Yoruba for having walled cities in West Africa?
Memoirs as reminder of history
The Yoruba had the memoir of city plan as being walled and gated. A city with one way inlet is called "adiikun". So they were inadvertently adhering to the original city plan with moat and ford.
Now when you pick up a Yoruba word, you pick up instructions from its manufacturer. It's good to study the manufacturer's manual rather than a repairer's acclaimed expertise.
You are walking the path of the manufacturers bro. @Olu, I salute you from here. Good sire. Knowledge don't come from corporate understanding, "awo nii gbo sofawo".
"It takes a master to restore a masterpiece."
Hello brother! It is good to see you are well!
Olu responded to me on "Sigidi" greeting and I made note to respond but haven't had time to do so since.
The depth of what we discuss here need a different part of my spirit...the sacred part...to participate and so when I write here I know I have to commit to my beliefs truthfully, unlike in politics section where I just throw curveballs and get my Ibo brothers hot under the collar. I love them but they dont know it, because I respond in the opposite. God bless them!
Now, brother, to the Yoruba, Sigidi is representation.
Let me go into this by asking, is there a Global Consciousness?
Yes there is!
There is individual consciousness (the mind), there is family consciousness (scientifically equated to genetic hereditary), there is community consciousness (called customs), there is national consciousness (called value system). Beyond these defined scopes is there a consciousness that tie humanity across the globe together? Yes, it exists!
Part of this global consciousness is why everyhwhere in humanity we look heavenward for a supreme being. It is also the cause why we show humility by kneeling or prostrating or bowing. It is a symbol of submission to a power greater than self.
When does self recognise it is faced with a greater power? How does one recognize a more powerful force? There is a sublime cognition pre-programmed into human genes to identify and acknowledge a powerful force.
Before we started building monumental cities and became insulated from the works of nature, acts within nature itself taught man to interact with it. One of the lessons to ancient humans was the supreme force of God.
Within our modernity, living in articifical structures and virtual realities far removed from natural acts.....how do we get lessons on greater force? Through images shown to us. We see the cause and effect of acts within our plastic realities and we acquire knowledge of what greater force is by creating, examining, reproducing and distributing images.
In ancient times man everywhere looked up to God and humbled himself before him through worship by kneel, prostration, bow and so on. A global consciousness taught man to recreate an image of the force. So everywhere man existed he created for himself an awakening of God. The man in Maya did not tell the man in Egypt what to do. The man in Egypt did not tell the man in Sumaria what to do. The Sumarian did not share what to do with the Ethiopian. The Ethiopian did not tell the Roman. Yet....everyone of them did exactly same thing. They fashioned an image of what a greater force look like in their own way and circumstance.
Sigidi is that representation of a greater force. It is an image to recreate presence of a supreme power.
To your point, it is a play....a mock....a scaled manifest of metaphysical supreme force.
It is act of humility when we kneel or prostrate or bow before it. It communicates our submission to that all powerful force.
Now, because A did not communicate to B; B did not communicate to C; C did not communicate D; D did not communicate to E.....there was no uniformity between them on how they would carve and represent the force, or for that matter what rites they would practice in its worship.
Therefore anywhere you see copies of rites of worship that mimick A, it would highlight a commonality. A sort of hierarchy or family-tree consciousness or link between A and those places that are uniform with it.
Why is Yoruba in uniformity with rites of worship in old Mecca? We may not have precise historical records that attest to it....and so at beat, it is nothing but conjecture, on the surface at least.......but then we see its evidence till today in a religion that took root in Mecca. This we dont need written record or historical and academic analysis to investigate....the practice is there for all to see.
The question now is...who copied from who?
Was Yoruba rites of kneeling, prostrating and bowing before sigidi the authentic signature practiced in pre-Islamic Mecca (which now is in Islam), or was Yoruba the one in copy?
God continues to bless you my brother!
To all participants and contributors here, I wish us all wellness and God's blessings and fruitfullness, Ase Edumare!
Can you direct me to the source of this information. i would like to read more on this "Yoruba King who founded ancient Kush"
My guy, there is nothing to look at, i am particularly interested in the subject so if there was i would have looked into the facts. Olu317 and his band have not presented any facts, what they present are imaginary ideas or already debunked old misconceptions by early Yoruba historiographers who i should add were missionary men. Can you mention one valid yoruba term that was inserted into Hebrew or vice versa? let us look at it
Lol. The account Amujale seems to be referring to didn't actually say he founded ancient Kush per se.
Rather, the account mentions a certain King Chango, a king of Kush, Obba-Kouso, born at Ife.
This account (said to be found in a coptic text, and first translanted from the Arabic into French in the year 1666 in Paris) was alluded to by Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop in his "African Origin of Civilization".
Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop quotes a certain Pédrals, who himself was in turn citing a certain Morié, as follows:
"As Morié puts it, this Obba-Kouso was born at Ife, a locality with which our author is completely unacquainted. Adorned with the title, "first-born of the Supreme God," he resulted from the incestous love of Orougan, god of the south, and Yemadja, mother of Orougan, herself a sister of Agandjou, god of Space. Chango-Obba-Kouso's brothers are Dada, god of nature, and Ogoun, god of hunters and blacksmiths. He has three wives: Oya, Osoun, and Oba. It is quite evident that Orougan and Yemadja resemble the incestous couple Amon (Kham) and Mout. Their son, moreover, has the surname "King of Kush.""
Reference: Pédrals, quoted in Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization, p.148.
The above account, said to be found originally in an ancient coptic text, is so rich and detailed that its characters can not possibly be mis-identified as non-Yoruba personages.
(1) What seems to be the case here, considering the foregoing details given about this "Chango", is that he is an early Ife personage after whom the much latter Alaafin-Oyo was named.
This interpretation is in agreement with extant Yoruba traditional accounts about Ṣàngó.
Refer to time stamp 2:43 - 4:15 of the video below for a traditional Yoruba account which stresses this distinction between an early Ife personage and a latter Oyo King by this same name.
(2) Another apparently obvious conclusion from the account of this coptic text is that this early Ife personage -- Ṣàngó -- who became King of Kush must have been the leader of one of the several Kingdom-founding migrations out of Ife -- whereby Ife princes establish Kingdoms amidst aboriginal peoples in different pre-existing ancient settlements.
This interpretation also fits into the traditional Ife account in which the Ifes pride themselves as the source of all monarchies in the world.
Henry Higgins, the leader of the British agents visitng the Yoruba interior in 1886, makes note of such traditional Ife account:
"The Ifes ... boast that all crowned personages in the world including the white man's sovereign, went out originally from Ile-Ife ..."
Reference: "Report of Special Commissioners to the Lagos Interior, 1886," Enclosures in Higgins to Colonial Secretary, Jan. 1887, Parliamentary Papers 1887, C.4957.
Having said that, it may be interesting to note that S.P. Blier "suggests that Ife's current monarch is the leader of the three earliest founded surviving dynasties in the world (along with Japan (c.660 B.C.E.) and Rajasthan (c.734 C.E.)."
Reference: Suzanne Preston Blier, Art and Risk in Ancient Yoruba: Ife History, Power, and Identity, c. 1300, 2015, p.36.
1. I cant not teach or defend anything before some of you because, intellectual properties are paid for in full blown reality. So,when I am fully ready, you will have to patronise my book and appreciate the Yoruba ancestors work in Africa.
2. Are you even aware that Opa Ogun in Myth of IFe by John Wyndawn was classified as Semitic kind of structure?
3. Mind you,ideograms or pictographs that are not Hieroglyphs are found in Opa Oranmiyah,Opa Ogun, which has been classified as Semitic inscription, some inscription on Eluorogbo wall,etc . And purposely, I didn't mentioned what the nails inserted into the Ivory portrayed in ancient Semitic world ,despite the fact that amongst the Roman,Greek etc, this inscriptions mean something in each culture. Interestingly, Opa Oranmiyah inscription is a ‘Pitchfork' .
4. So, don't make it look like I conjured things without information to it before now. Seriously, your friend macof and nearly all of you have no clue over this ‘Pitchfork' inscription, which is Semitic for a long time even till now. The reason for your lack of knowledge on this thing, is because you paid no attention to it. Besides, ancient princes ,other royalty bloodline, some few priests have long died and the continuum of it died with them but their legacy is for people to have idea of their migration from their homeland.
5. According, to 1950s account, THE PATTERN OF YORUBA HISTORY Dr. SABURI BIOBAKU: Director of the Yoruba Historical Research Schzme, Nigeria
‘The Yoruba are not indigenous to Nigeria; they were immigrants from a region where they came under the influences of ancient Egyptians, Etruscans and Jews. Their original home must have been in the Near East, and it is probable that the all-Black Kingdom of Meroe in the Sudan played an important part in transmitting Egyptian influences to them. Whether it was in Upper Egypt or the Yemen, the Yoruba came under Arab influences in their old homes, and their subsequent migration was connected with Arab movements. The migrations, which occurred in waves, formed parts of well-known migrations in the Sudan, through which the culture and civilization of North Africa were diffused throughout the regions immediately to the South'
But today, we have many of them not been steady on their account because of doubts and lack of evidence they see but can't interpretate. Still, some people also believed through self conviction and through certain traits found amongst Hebrew without much evidence which made me delved into Ideograms(pictographs) learning.
6. On Meroe and beyond, ( Egypt), Hebrew; Near East culture, do acknowledged the power of ‘Ram ,which signify authority as also seen in Yoruba culture. There is a vivid example in, ‘Ceramic Spheres and Regional Networks in the Yoruba-Edo Region, Nigeria, 13th-19th Centuries Ac'. In which a piece of pottery with the relief of a ram's head (symbol of power, leadership, and royalty) in Yoruba culture.
In between, there is much in reading, about other culture so as to be well informed on what you don't have knowledge on. After all, the nails inserted into the Ivory were astonishing efforts, ceramic, Terracotta work. which is quite distinct from many part of Africa.
1. Protection of Intellectual property indeed. You have already giving away your conclusion and the whole package is clear. You have raised points from Opa Oranyan containing hebrew inscriptions to yoruba containing egyptian and hebrew words to yoruba having ram symbols of authority like the hebrews etc. All which cannot be verified If you intend to protect the contents of your book before it's release you would not tell us all what you have told already unless your book can contain other ideas that you have never mentioned here..but you have mentioned so many
What makes a good history book is that it's content can be verified outside the book. So when asked to verify the claims you make here, you don't say "oh i'm protecting my book", so the book would verify what you the same guy said here? how can you be your own source and critic?
2. Same John Wyndham insinuated a connection between Edi Festival and the Saturnalia. Are Yoruba then Romans? or you ever heard of Monotheist Hebrews who loved Saturnalia so much that would after learning it from the Romans, carry it from the middle east to west africa?
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wyndham was a fictional writer, known for fantastic stories not history No doubt he knew some yoruba myths, he was obviously interested in the yoruba culture but his format as well as parts of the content reveal that he was delivering a work of fanciful mythology rather than cultural analysis or historical account i. he writes "Aramfe" , which is not known by this rendition of the name in Ife..rather it is Oranfe ii. Aramfe is the supreme being in his writing not Olodumare iii. Whenever he actually used a Yoruba saying, he indicated meaning the rest of his work were not yoruba sayings despite his poetic pattern
3. Ok. the claims here cannot be verified though
4. How is a pitchfork a hebrew inscription? and what makes you think it was indeed a pitchfork inscripted on the Opa Oranmiyan?
5. is this the basis of your yoruba are semitic arguement? Also Tao11 already touched on this, by mentioning how Muslims so conveniently place yoruba origin to arabs and christians to hebrews.
6. This Ram's head symbol of authority you keep mentioning when asked you say you can't go into it because you are protecting your intellectual property. could it be that you are just not willing to admit that you have no basis for this claim
Nobody said "Niger-Benue confluence" introduced the "concept of monarchy", in case that was what your got.
Read, my brother, and become liberated.
Liberate me please Rather, it is understood to mean that a group of Kingdom-founding Ile-Ife prince and his followers have common upon an aboriginal Yoruba subgroup (who also like the Ifes originally emerged from some region around Niger-Benue confluence) in order to introduce the concept of monarchy, thus founding a Kingdom in their midst.. Where in Niger benue confluence . i bet the ile-ife prince met some people in the bush and rule of over them..laughing. Aba lo ma di ilu.. ile-ife land of expansion as population of ile-ife is expanding new settlement were springing up don't bring some Niger benue confluence ..Niger benue confluence people are still there , are they related to Yoruba
I hope I have clarified how the migration from Ile-Ife is understood in academia, as well as what the originof the Yorubas is both from an oral-traditional Yoruba perspective and from an academic and scientific perspective. you haven't clarified nothing
Lol. The account Amujale seem to be referring to didn't actually say he founded ancient Kush per se.
Rather, the account mentions a certain King Chango, a king of Kush, Obba-Kouso, born at Ife.
This account (said to be found in a coptic text, and first translanted from the Arabic into French in the year 1666 in Paris) was alluded to by Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop in his "African Origin of Civilization".
Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop quotes a certain Pédrals, who himself was in turn citing a certain Morié, as follows:
"As Morié puts it, this Obba-Kouso was born at Ife, a locality with which our author is completely unacquainted. Adorned with the title, "first-born of the Supreme God," he resulted from the incestous love of Orougan, god of the south, and Yemadja, mother of Orougan, herself a sister of Agandjou, god of Space. Chango-Obba-Kouso's brothers are Dada, god of nature, and Ogoun, god of hunters and blacksmiths. He has three wives: Oya, Osoun, and Oba. It is quite evident that Orougan and Yemadja resemble the incestous couple Amon (Kham) and Mout. Their son, moreover, has the surname "King of Kush.""
Reference: Pédrals, quoted in Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization, pp.148.
The above account, said to be found originally in an ancient coptic text, is so rich and detailed that it can not possibly be mis-attributed to other than Yoruba personages.
(1) What seems to be the case here, considering the foregoing details given about this "Shango", is that he is an early Ife personage after whom the much latter Alaafin-Oyo was named.
This interpretation is in agreement with extant Yoruba traditional accounts about Ṣàngó.
Refer to time stamp 2:43 - 4:15 of the video below for a traditional Yoruba account which identifies this distinction between the Ife personage and the Oyo king by thus same name.
(2) Another apparently obvious conclusion from the account of this coptic text is that this early Ife personage -- Ṣàngó -- who became King of Kush must have been the leader of one of the several Kingdom-founding migrations out of Ife -- whereby Ife princes establish Kingdoms amidst aboriginal peoples in different pre-existing ancient settlements.
This interpretation also fits into the traditional Ife account in which the Ifes pride themselves as the source of all monarchies in the world.
Henry Higgins, the leader of the British agents visitng the Yoruba interior in 1886, makes note of such traditional Ife account:
"The Ifes ... boast that all crowned personages in the"
@Amujale As this is my first time hearing this i can only speak on my first impression. But even at first impression there is alot to be noticed
In short words, we cannot possibly take this account seriously given its discrepancy...using some known fact about a person in one culture to conjure him in another culture is not as easy to get away with as it appears at first thought I mean..look at it, in order to balance the discrepancy you had to suggest that a whole different Sango must have existed before the Oyo Sango..maybe, but it is already obviously the Oyo Sango that is referred to here
(1) Can you please name me one Yoruba ìṣẹ̀ṣe which uniquely maps Yorubas one-to-one with Hebrews? Just one!
While you search almost endlessly for such ìṣẹ̀ṣe (and the so-called "expert" from whom you got the information), consider my second question below:
(2) Can you please name me one ancient Yoruba traditional account which indicates that the Yorubas are aboriginals (rather than some foreign immigrants) to roughly the same area of our present region?
Notice how easy it was for you to quickly come up with answers to the second question.
Liberate me please Rather, it is understood to mean that a group of Kingdom-founding Ile-Ife prince and his followers have common upon an aboriginal Yoruba subgroup (who also like the Ifes originally emerged from some region around Niger-Benue confluence) in order to introduce the concept of monarchy, thus founding a Kingdom in their midst.. Where in Niger benue confluence . i bet the ile-ife prince met some people in the bush and rule of over them..laughing. Aba lo ma di ilu.. ile-ife land of expansion as population of ile-ife is expanding new settlement were springing up don't bring some Niger benue confluence ..Niger benue confluence people are still there , are they related to Yoruba
I hope I have clarified how the migration from Ile-Ife is understood in academia, as well as what the originof the Yorubas is both from an oral-traditional Yoruba perspective and from an academic and scientific perspective. you haven't clarified nothing
Always have the following at the back of your mind whenever your defence mechanism kicks in:
(1) Your earlier admission of incompetence (which is perfectly fine).
(2) Your earlier promise to alway align yourself with scientific conclusions, while leaving the experts to do their job which you admittedly know nothing about.
Havings said that, I'm giving you the benefit of doubt that you're been genuine. So, I'd ask that you clarify what specifically your comment here relates to:
(a) You need more light to grasp the discourse of my comment there, or (b) You already fully understand the points I made, but you just don't agree.
If (b) is the case, then enumarete neatly and briefly, my specific points which you disagree with, and state the reasons why you disagree with each enumerated point.
Please try to make this as orderly as you possibly can.
Always have the following at the back of your mind whenever your defence mechanism kicks in:
(1) Your earlier admission of incompetence (which is perfectly fine).
(2) Your earlier promise to alway align yourself with scientific conclusions, while leaving the experts to do their job which you admittedly know nothing about.
Havings said that, I'm giving you the benefit of doubt that you're been genuine. So, I'd ask that you clarify what specifically your comment here relates to:
(a) You need more light to grasp the discourse of my comment there, or (b) You already fully understand the points I made, but you just don't agree.
If (b) is thw case, then enumarete neatly and briefly, my specific points which you disagree with, and state the reasons why you disagree with each enumerated point.
Please try to make this as orderly as you possibly can.
Yes, you're correct. And that's precisely why I continue to read.
Also, that's precisely why "my" conclusions here have been those of scholars, rather than mine.
What about you?
always use your rational mind while reading ....are you yoruba ? i mean real yoruba person not indomie yoruba person ooo that have been genetically modified by white man's vaccine
I just read through three pages and had to give up. I think both sides of this argument have valid points but it appears the goal of ascertaining Yoruba beginnings have been put aside and competition for styles and academic scholarship is everywhere. It wil be a great error to dismiss oral and authentic Yoruba customs on the excuse that the account is not affirmed by scientific exploration and, or, historical thesis. We have just concluded ramadhan, the end of fasting is authenticated by a celestial sighting, not by science or scholarship, and Im sure no one here will deny contribution of Muslim world to academy, to science, to arts, to literature, and so one must wonder why they are not using calendar to authenticate eid. Yoruba has not attained breakthroughs in the various fields of advancement like the Arabs, the Jews. The Jews still blow into an animal horn to symbolize festival of passover. They have not dismissed it as folkloric nonsense. Abi, anthropologists don go dig Egypt and found the original horn ni? So what is authentic about the horn, other than its mention in Bible? They preserve and hold on to meaningful values in their past. Let us not speak English so much and scatter our past in the ambition to impress scholarship. We are fooling ourselves. Wole Soyinka is close to grave, we have not repeated his Nobel excellence, yet we speak more grammar and articulate better English than countries that have returned multiple times to collect Nobel prize. Tread carefully brothers, tread carefully.
macof: @Amujale As this is my first time hearing this i can only speak on my first impression. But even at first impression there is alot to be noticed
In short words, we cannot possibly take this account seriously given its discrepancy...using some known fact about a person in one culture to conjure him in another culture is not as easy to get away with as it appears at first thought I mean..look at it, in order to balance the discrepancy you had to suggest that a whole different Sango must have existed before the Oyo Sango..maybe, but it is already obviously the Oyo Sango that is referred to here
I think your perception that there is some discrepancy is itself based on an assumption that there is (or must be) only one Ṣàngó in the Yoruba traditional accounts.
However, as I have demonstrated earlier, my interpretation that this coptic account speaks of an early Ṣàngó did not simply emerge from thin air.
My explanation, as I have demonstrated in the same earlier comment (I apologize if you missed it. I actually updated the comment quite late), is grounded in the Yoruba traditional accounts.
An important Yoruba traditional account which is well-known among Ṣàngó worshippers and devotees actually admit two distinct Ṣàngós -- (a) A very early Ife-born personage who was contemporary with other early god-personages in Ife, and (b) A much latter Oyo-Ile-born personage who ruled as Alaafin.
I have embedded, in my prior comment, a video link of an interview with a prominent Ṣàngó worshipper and devotee, Mr Ṣangosakin Ajala, who spelt out this information in black and white.
Another important pieces of information, which identifies the Ṣàngó of this coptic account to be a distinct personage from Ṣàngó Alaafin is found in the coptic account itself as will be demonstrated below:
Your remark that "it is already obviously the Oyo Sango that is referred to here" is quite hasty and inaccurate.
The description -- in this coptic account -- of this Ṣàngó is in very sharp contrast to Ṣàngó Alaafin.
Consider some of these sharp contrasts below:
(a) The Ṣàngó of this coptic account was born at Ife; while Ṣàngó Alaafin, on the other hand, was born at Oyo-Ile (Katunga).
(b) The Ṣàngó of this coptic account was the son of Orougan and Yemadja; while Ṣàngó Alaafin, on the other hand, was the son of Oranmiyan and Torosi (the Nupe lady).
(c) The well-know Ògún (god of iron) is one of the brothers of the Ṣàngó of this coptic account; while Ṣàngó Alaafin, on the other hand, does not have such early Ife personage as brother.
(d) The Ṣàngó of this coptic account is clearly a very early personage given those early Ife god-persons presented as his contemporaries; while Ṣàngó Alaafin, on the other hand, is a relatively much latter personage.
On the overall, it thus appears quite clearly that this early coptic account is deliberate about its very early situation of its Ṣàngó on one hand, and of his Ife birthplace on the other hand.
Although, this coptic account also presents one important information which seems to match Ṣàngó Alaafin -- i.e., the wives' names.
The fact that most of the information in this coptic account has already tilted the scale heavily in favour a relatively early Ife personage, however, explains these wives' names too to be latter borrowings (from the early Ṣàngó) into the ever-evolving oral traditions about Ṣàngó Alaafin.
This especially becomes clear when one considers the fact that it is extremely unlikely that the Osun River truly first appeared during Ṣàngó's era (i.e. c.1300); or that the Yorubas truly waited for such long millennia before they began venerating the River.
Obalufon: always use your rational mind while reading ....are you yoruba ? i mean real yoruba person not indomie yoruba person ooo that have been genetically modified by white man's vaccine
I think your perception that there is some discrepancy is itself based on an assumption that there is (or must be) only one Ṣàngó in the Yoruba traditional accounts.
However, as I have demonstrated earlier, my interpretation that this coptic account speaks of an early Ṣàngó did not simply emerge from thin air.
My explanation, as I have demonstrated in the same earlier comment (I apologize if you missed it. I actually updated the comment quite late), is grounded in the Yoruba traditional accounts.
An important Yoruba traditional account which is well-known among Ṣàngó worshippers and devotees actually admit two distinct Ṣàngós -- (a) A very early Ife-born personage who was contemporary with other early god-personages in Ife, and (b) A much latter Oyo-Ile-born personage who ruled as Alaafin.
I have embedded, in my prior comment, a video link of an interview with a prominent Ṣàngó worshipper and devotee, Mr Ṣangosakin Ajala, who spelt out this information in black and white.
Another important information, which identifies the Ṣàngó of this coptic account to be a distinct personage from Ṣàngó Alaafin is found in the coptic account itself as will be demonstrated below:
Your remark that "it is already obviously the Oyo Sango that is referred to here" is quite hasty and inaccurate.
The description -- in this coptic account -- of this Ṣàngó is in very sharp contrast to Ṣàngó Alaafin.
Consider some of these sharp contrasts below:
(a) The Ṣàngó of this coptic account was born at Ife; while Ṣàngó Alaafin, on the other hand, was born at Oyo-Ile (Katunga).
(b) The Ṣàngó of this coptic account was the son of Orougan and Yemadja; while Ṣàngó Alaafin, on the other hand, was the son of Oranmiyan and Torosi (the Nupe lady).
(c) The well-know Ògún (god iron) is one of the brothers of the Ṣàngó of this coptic account; while Ṣàngó Alaafin, on the other hand, does not have such early Ife personage as a brother.
(d) The Ṣàngó of this coptic account is clearly a very early personage given those early Ife god-persons presented as his contemporaries; while Ṣàngó Alaafin, on the other hand, is a relatively much latter personage.
On the overall, it thus appears quite clearly that this early coptic account is deliberate about its very early situation of its Ṣàngó on one hand, and of his Ife birthplace on the other hand.
Although, this coptic account also presents one important information which seems to match Ṣàngó Alaafin -- i.e., the wives' names.
The fact that most of the information in this coptic account has already tilted the scale heavily in favour a relatively early Ife personage, however, explains these wives' names too to be latter borrowings (from the early Ṣàngó) into the ever-evolving oral traditions about Ṣàngó Alaafin.
This especially becomes clear when one considers the fact that it is extremely unlikely that the Osun River truly first appeared during Ṣàngó's era (i.e. c.1300); or that the Yorubas truly waited for such long millennia before they began venerating the River.
This may derail the topic here to a Sango topic. Plus there's no need to debate on this here, however I'm very interested in this. I will mention you to a preexisting thread I have.
PS. Did you check your Pm, I sent you a link some time ago
BabaRamota1980: I just read through three pages and had to give up. I think both sides of this argument have valid points but it appears the goal of ascertaining Yoruba beginnings have been put aside and competition for styles and academic scholarship is everywhere. It wil be a great error to dismiss oral and authentic Yoruba customs on the excuse that the account is not affirmed by scientific exploration and, or, historical thesis. We have just concluded ramadhan, the end of fasting is authenticated by a celestial sighting, not by science or scholarship, and Im sure no one here will deny contribution of Muslim world to academy, to science, to arts, to literature, and so one must wonder why they are not using calendar to authenticate eid. Yoruba has not attained breakthroughs in the various fields of advancement like the Arabs, the Jews. The Jews still blow into an animal horn to symbolize festival of passover. They have not dismissed it as folkloric nonsense. Abi, anthropologists don go dig Egypt and found the original horn ni? So what is authentic about the horn, other than its mention in Bible? They preserve and hold on to meaningful values in their past. Let us not speak English so much and scatter our past in the ambition to impress scholarship. We are fooling ourselves. Wole Soyinka is close to grave, we have not repeated his Nobel excellence, yet we speak more grammar and articulate better English than countries that have returned multiple times to collect Nobel prize. Tread carefully brothers, tread carefully.
Except, Yoruba traditions and scientific/academic studies do not contradict but complement each other. One helps put the other in neat context, and the other serves as a body of primary sources and auxiliary Also there isn't much competition for academic scholarship. Most historians today are agreed on certain basic points
This may derail the topic here to a Sango topic. Plus there's no need to debate on this here, however I'm very interested in this. I will mention you to a preexisting thread I have.
PS. Did you check your Pm, I sent you a link some time ago
Got it!
Yes, I did see it. I'm quite jealous about my identity.
So, I was quite hesitant about joining right away.
Except, Yoruba traditions and scientific/academic studies do not contradict but complement each other. Also there is much competition for academic scholarship. Most historians today are agreed on certain basic points
Thanks for quickly pointing that out.
Sighs! Our people actually need to read what they will be replying to.
Everyone seem to be eager to reply, but uninterested in reading the very thing they will be replying to.
Sighs! Our people actually need to read what they will be replying to.
Every seem to be eager to reply, but uninterested in reading the very thing they will be replying to.
Honestly babaramota1980 did not understand much of the point that has been made
I actually find Yoruba customs and traditions to be brilliant, many cultures around the world cannot stand the examination of historical research but so far every so called Yoruba myth has the promise of fitting nicely into the world's history if properly interpreted and contextualised.
macof: @Amujale As this is my first time hearing this i can only speak on my first impression. But even at first impression there is alot to be noticed
In short words, we cannot possibly take this account seriously given its discrepancy...using some known fact about a person in one culture to conjure him in another culture is not as easy to get away with as it appears at first thought I mean..look at it, in order to balance the discrepancy you had to suggest that a whole different Sango must have existed before the Oyo Sango..maybe, but it is already obviously the Oyo Sango that is referred to here
The new information from TAO11 actually puts Yoruba as the founding Kings of the Kush kingdom, hold that thought for a while.
Me, Rashidi Runoko, Dr Ivan Sertima, Cheikh Anta Diop, Dr Henrik Clarke arent the first historians to suggest that there's a connection with the Nile Valley; olden day Arabians and Eurocentrics are the first to suggest this.
Below is a potrait of a Nubian silk and produce trader.
This has nothing to does with Hebrew or any other similar type of foreign culture, this is strictly African history.
Perhaps one should create a new thread for this discussion.
Is there a connection between the people of Nigeria with the Nile Valley as many of these modern historians are claiming?
Lol. The account Amujale seems to be referring to didn't actually say he founded ancient Kush per se.
You are correct, it doesnt say he found Kush per se, your source refers to the first monach and founder of the Kingdom of Kush.
He was of royal heritage as well, although such isnt about Chango/Sango as he's known in the America but another altogether different Yoruba legendary hero.
I agree with you that there doesnt have to be one Sango.
Infact Sango, existed prior to the Emperor as a divine principle that would later appear to the people of Haiti during their struggle against foreign oppression.
Sango was said to appear amongst the people of Haiti, leading them into victory against the Eurocentric warmongers.
you haven't clarified nothing