Áfa, the Ǹ ri-Igbo counterpart of Ifá *

[3rd draft, 28 April 2010, last updated 13 December 2011]

Victor Manfredi
African Studies Center, Boston University

Abstract
Áfa and Ifá are distant localizations of a farflung West African oracle—call it Fá—whose digital processor keys natural language text
to 256 ordered pairs of 4-bit binary arrays. As Fá was ported south and west from the Benue valley 500 years ago, its own name and
the names of its proprietary terms underwent sound change in many languages. These phonetic shifts, plus paralinguistic mutations,
remain behind as footprints on Fá’s migration routes. The texts themselves also evolved, along this branching path, as emergent élites
turned from ancient ancestral legitimation towards novel authority in the sky.

1. Not in our (federal) character

Why carry Ìgbo Áfa to a conference about Ifá, that poetic monument of Yorùbá metaphysics adorned with the scholarship of
Bascom, Verger and Abím̅ bọ́ lá? Federal character—affirmative action Nigerian style—is disqualified as an inclusive rationale by
a heritage of historic “fraud” (Akínjídé 2000), but simpler and more transparent motives exist, such as ordinary natural science,
which takes diversity as the starting point of analysis, not the goal, and which tries to explain empirical differences via abstract
regularities expressed in the format of quasi-universal laws.1
The comparative method, child of Renaissance humanist philology (Maas 1937, Pfeiffer 1976), matured in Darwin’s and
Schleicher’s modern histories of species and languages (Alter 1999). The idea is to reconstruct prehistoric unity from separate
outcomes by collating nonaccidental similarities. Differences arise whenever a mutation—be it of physiological or, in a
manuscript, scribal origin—spreads through a population incompletely. Changes propagated along horizontal (intra-generational)
pathways are called borrowing and modeled as areal waves, while those following vertical (inter-generational) routes are
described as inheritance and mapped onto trees—phylogenetic lineages or literary stemmata.2
Comparativists anticipate a global synthesis of transmission waves and trees in a historical demography of molecules and
culture (Cavalli-Sforza 2000). Juxtaposing Ifá and Áfa helps in several ways. In practical terms, it points to hitherto undocumented
innovations and exchanges between the Benue valley, the Niger Delta and the Bight of Benin, and frames new puzzles for field
research. As to theory, it shows that although Yorùbá awos excelled in mnemonic feats, the evolution of Fá is irreducible to
sociobiology’s caricature of rote-copied adaptive accidents (Wilson 1975, Dawkins 1982, Dennett 1995, Pinker 2002), on the
contrary it’s a paradigm of Lamarckian, constructive transmission (Gould & Lewontin 1979, Sperber 1999, Jablonka & Lamb
2005, Kronfeldner 2007, Koster 2008, Mufwene 2008).
The virtual reunion of Fá’s extended family also shows a human face, rekindling conversations with four colleagues who have
meanwhile become ancestors (Wọ́ n di òrìṣ à) and bequeathed intellectual eegun (re-re-re) on which to drape Fá ’s weighty
academic gown. Professors Armstrong, Nwáọ̀ ga, Ọ báyẹ mí and Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ , here is kola.

2. Dead letters and live questions

Aligning Fá terminology from seven languages of the “Kwa” zone of the Niger-Congo family (Westermann 1927, 20; Greenberg
1963, 8), Armstrong concluded that “the spread of this particular divination institution [within West Africa] was a relatively recent
historical event” (1964, 137). The paper’s French blurb clarifies the intended temporal scale:

La linguistique montre que la diffusion de ce culte sur la côte de Guinée est bien plus récente que la separation des divers langages
Kwa entre eux. [Linguistics shows that the spread of this initiation society along the West African coast is much younger than the
separation of the various Kwa languages from each other.] (1964, 143f., emphasis added)

True enough—but discussion has subsequently moved on, and can now be made more precise, in several ways:
(i) Lexicostatistics and glottochronology—quickie methods invented by Swadesh (1952)—were partially endorsed by
Armstrong in 1964, but he later declared some of their results to be “objectionable” (1983, 146) and indeed they are now
conclusively “rejected” (Campbell 1998, 186) by comparativists. Impressionistic, translation-based wordcounts may sometimes
accidentally correspond to historic linguistic relationships, but no reliable shortcut exists, either to sifting out language groups by
philological comparison, or to dating prehistoric cultures by archaeology’s even grittier techniques.
(ii) Despite strong efforts at precision (Williamson 1989), the labels Kwa and Benue-Congo eventually succumbed to
“legitimate doubts… concerning the validity of the division between them” (Greenberg 1963, 39 fn. 13, cf. Mukarovsky 1977,
240). The default option remains to combine them as a “dialect continuum” called either “Benue-Kwa” or “East Volta-Congo”
(Williamson & Blench 2000, 17f.; cf. Stewart 1976; Elugbe & Williamson 1977, 351).3
(iii) The term “diffusion” begs to know from where to where: even if Fá originally fell down from the sky, its presence can’t be
equally “recent” everywhere it’s found today. In fact, Fá’s crosslinguistic jumps left audible tracks whenever oracular terms were
caught up in regular sound changes in particular languages, and also whenever they were modified by the normal rules for
adopting phonetically exotic loans (§3). Other telltale mutations occured in Fá’s intellectual capital (§4) and in its supporting
metaphysics (§5), setting down still more evidence of evolution-in-transmission.4
 2
3. Historical Fá-netics
Adétúgbọ̀ (1967, 201) describes a pair of sound shifts in the NW Yorùbá dialect area—roughly, the Ọ̀ yọ́ kingdom—both of which
turned a voiced velar (g-like) consonant into -w- (a bilabial glide). For example, òghe > òwe ‘proverb’, àgha > àwa ‘1 pl’, the Ọ̀ yọ́
pronunciation “Ọ̀ wọ̀ ” for Ọ̀ ghọ̀ ‘[a town in On ̀dó]’; and -gwí > -wí ‘say’, -gwó > -wó ‘collapse’, ẹ̀ g wá > ẹ̀ wá ‘ten’. One or both of
these localized mutations also affected Ifá jargon.5 The Ẹ̀ dó cognate Òghoi suggests that Ọ̀ yọ́ Ìwòrì ‘◆◇◇◆’ is the outcome of
-gh- > -w- and the same rule could also be responsible for Ọ̀ wọ́ nrín ‘◆◆◇◇’ but the latter could alternatively be the product of
-gw- > -w- if we take the Ìlọ rin transcription “Gwọ́ nrín” (Clarke 1939, 255) literally rather than as an attempt to spell [ŋw ], the
regular variant of -w- in a nasal syllable (Bám̅ gbóṣ é 1966, 7).6
If Ọ̀ yọ́ develarization applied to uniquely oracular words including the array names in (1a), it follows that Ifá must have reached
Òyọ́ by the time the shifts occurred.7 But when was that? Any sound change takes at least two generations to convert from a
̣
socially restricted style to an unconscious communal norm (Labov 1963, Akéré 1982) and this intrinsic lag pads the time
reckoning with a margin of error of tens—but not hundreds—of years. Adétúgbọ̀ calls develarization “one of the oldest
characteristic differentiating factors between SEY and NWY” (1967, 201). An Ọ̀ yọ́ tradition judged to be “essentially historical”
says that “the introduction of… the cult of Ifá… from the Àwórì town of Ọ̀ tà” coincided with “Aláàfin Ajíbóyèdé’s victory” in
the late 16th century over “the Nupe threat” (Law 1976, 43f.).8 The inference that Ifá is about 400 years old in Ọ̀ yọ́ gybes with
independent evidence that NW develarization ceased to operate in later centuries, as shown for example by adoption of the
Portuguese word goiaba [gwoyáβa] ‘guava’ as gúrọ́ bà ~ gúrọ́ fà ~ gólóbà ~ gílọ́ bà (with -r- or -l- replacing -y-, and -b- or -f-
replacing [β]) not *wúrọ́ bà ~ wúrọ́ fà etc., as well as by adoption of English guava as gúọ́ fà ~ gúáfà (with -f- replacing -v-) not
*wáfà ~ wọ́ fà (Abraham 1958, 257; Awóyalé 2008).9
But although Ifá words in the NW zone are centuries older than the oldest loans from European languages, they’re still much
younger than basic Yorùbá vocabulary. (1b) lists five mundane roots whose bilabial consonants in Yorùbá have velar etymologies.
Note that these lexical items don’t obey the NWY-specific sound rules implicated in (1a), reflecting instead a much older
velar > labial shift which affected southern BK2 as a whole.10

┌───────────────────────Benue-Kwa───────────────────────┐
┌───────────BK2 ───────────┐ ┌───────────BK1 ───────────┐
┌────Y-I ────┐
Gbè NWYorùbá Igálà Nupe Ìdọ mà Àkan Ẹ̀ dó Ìgbo “Proto-Bantu”
(1a) ‘◆◇◇◆’ (W)ólì Ìwòrì Ògòlì “Gori” Ògòlì Òghoi Ògori/Òyeri
‘◆◆◇◇’11 ŋọ́ lí/Wẹ̀ lé Ọ̀ wọ́ nrín Ẹ̀ gálí “Ega” Ẹ̀ gálí Ọ̀ gháe Àgári/Àyári

(1b) ⎧‘hunger (v.)’ -wù -gùn -ŋmú -g(ḥ )ụ́ *-guid ‘seize’
⎩‘hunger (n.)’ ebi ébi ọ̀ kọ́ m ág(ḥ )ụ ụ́ /ọ́
‘journey’ ebi ezì ẹ̀ yẹ̀ íj(ḥ )è *-gend

⎧‘needle/thorn’ àbí àbẹ́ bẹ́ èkin ìgyẹ́ àg(ḥ )ịg(ḥ )á *-gua

⎩‘pierce/split/sew’ -bẹ́ -gá -chwá -gia -g(ḥ )á
‘bend/bent’ -bọ̀ -wọ́ kòtów -gọ -gọ́ *-gòb

⎧‘cowry’ hó/-wó owó ewó ígho ég(ḥ )ó

⎩‘buy’ -g(ḥ )ó *-gʊd

Two observations mark pattern (1b) as older than (1a). First, (1b) covers the whole Yorùbá-Igálà cluster, as shown in Igálà by
the -b- in ‘hunger (n.)’ versus the -g- in ‘◆◇◇◆’. Second, Yorùbá -wọ́ ‘bend/bent’ shifted in two steps, first -g- > -b- then -b- > -w-
(the latter just before back vowels), and these events were separate because -b- > -w- also affected etymological *-b-, as seen by
comparing Yorùbá ọ wọ́ ‘hand/arm’ and ewúrẹ́ ‘goat’ with eastern cognates like *-ɓọ and *-’bụ ị in Macro-Ẹ̀ dó, bọ́ k and bót in Èfịk,
bọ́ kọ̀ and bódì in “Proto-Bantu” respectively (Greenberg 1963, 33; Elugbe 1986, 102, 138-40). Overall the distributional difference
between (1a) and (1b) confirms Armstrong’s view that Fá was not yet present by the time the main BK2 units were separating
from each other. Subjectively at least, any linguist would date the phonetic split in (1b) on the order of thousands of years, versus
hundreds for the division in (1a).
The foregoing entails that the names in (1a) were already pronounced with -w- before Ọ̀ yọ́ ritualists made their 18th century trip
to Tẹ gbesu’s palace in Àgbómẹ̀ (Herskovits 1938, 104 fn. 1; Yáì 1992), and this is consistent with the fate of other Yorùbá ritual
words borrowed by Fọ̀ n presumably around the same time. Both -g- and -w- transferred intact (2a), but -k- was labialized even
though preceding a front vowel, and -b- actually weakened its labial articulation to -v- (2b).12

Fọ̀ n-Gbè < Yorùbá

(2a) ‘[òrìṣ à name]’ Gún Ògún
‘Cola nitida’ gólò górò < Hausa [gwórò]
[leadership title] duwo olúwo
(2b) ‘(type of) seed’ kwin ikin
‘oracular lots’ vo-de ìbò
 3
Working back from Fá’s arrival in Ọ̀ yọ́ , other data indicate an earlier appearance further east. In modern Ẹ̀ dó (alias “Bìní ” or
“È dó -Bìní ”), Ifá’s counterpart is called either Ìha or Òminigbọ n—the latter term apparently incorporating Ìgbọ n, the Ẹ̀ dó name
̣
for ‘the Ì[g]bo people’ (Egharhevba 1936; Melzian 1937, 84, 87, 144f.).13 The forms in (3) and (4) indicate that the appearance in
Macro-Ẹ̀ dó of the word Ìha, and probably also of the Ẹ̀ dó name for ‘◆◇◆◇’, was near in time to the separation of Ùrhobo, Ìsóko
and narrow Ẹ̀ dó from each other. This is so because the same pattern of phonetic differences across the Macro-Ẹ̀ dó cluster shows
up in the oracle words (3a) and in some basic vocabulary items (4a).14

┌────────────────────────────Benue-Kwa────────────────────────────┐
┌────────────BK2 ────────────┐ ┌────────────────BK1 ───────────────┐
┌──Gbè─┐┌── Y-I ──┐┌──N-E──┐ ┌───── Macro-Ẹ̀ dó ─────┐
Mínà Fọ̀ n Yorùbá Igálà Nupe Ebira Ìdọ mà Ẹ̀ dó Ùrhobo Ìsóko Uvbiẹ Macro-Ìgbo “Proto-Bantu”
(3a) [oracle name] Iphá Fá Ifá Ifá Eba “Eba” Ẹ̀ pa/Ẹ̀ ba Ìha “Ẹ pha” “Ẹ va” Áfa/Ápha/Ẹ́ ha
‘◆◇◆◇’15 Fú Òfún Òfú “Efu” Òfú Òhún “Ophu” Òfú/Òhú
(3b) [place name] Ifẹ̀ /Ùhẹ̀ “Ife” Úhẹ̀
(4a) ‘urinate’ -bóli -hiọ -phẹ -v̈ẹ -vbẹ
‘fly (v.)/blow [wind]’ -fò -fò -bè -hie -fé/-phé/-hé *-pep
(4b) ‘wash [cloth]’ -fọ̀ -fọ̀ -fo -họ -fọ -họ -fọ
‘breeze’ efè [ *-fẹ … ] úfère/ìhuhe *-pepo

Deducibly, the words in (3a) did not move from Yorùbá to Ẹ̀ dó either recently or long ago. Not recently, because Ẹ̀ dó fails to
change -f- to -h- in modern loans, so in Benin-City a Catholic priest is called èfadá (Melzian 1937, 28) not *èhadá. Both Ùrhobo
and Ìsóko also possess indigenous -f- and thus have no reason to alter -f- in a borrowed word. The remaining possibility is that the
items reached Macro-Ẹ̀ dó long enough ago to get caught in local sound shifts, and this is likely, but Yorùbá can’t have been the
source. The [h=ph=v] pattern in (3a) fits the ordinary correspondence set in (4a) which Elugbe (1986) reconstructs in Macro-Ẹ̀ dó
(his “proto-Ẹ doid”) as *-’p-. This is a hypothetical consonant produced with “lenis” (weak) constriction intermediate between
plain voiceless plosive -p- and voiced fricative -bh- [β].16 Now notice that the Ùrhobo outcome of *-’p- is -ph- [ɸ], as distinct
from -f- which Elugbe reconstructs as *-f- based on the [h=f=h] pattern (4b). If the words in (3a) contained -f- when they reached
any part of Macro-Ẹ̀ dó, the Ùrhobo versions should have -f- not -ph- [ɸ], and the Ìsóko counterparts should have -h- not -v-. The
facts being otherwise, the source for (3a) in Macro-Ẹ̀ dó necessarily did not contain *-f- at any time in the past, ruling out Yorùbá
as a candidate.17
Conversely, (3a) helps to narrow down the possibilities of where Yorùbá obtained the oracle terms. Yorùbá regularly shifts
foreign -p- to -b- in modern loans like bébà ‘paper’, ṣ ọ́ ọ̀ bù ‘shop’, bẹ̀ bùṣ i ‘Pepsi™’ and Bickering ‘Pickering’ (Bán̅jọ & al. 1991,
181; Awóyalé 2008, p.c.; Fálána 2001). By contrast, foreign -v- becomes Yorùbá -f- as in fídíò ‘video’ (Bánj̅ ọ & al. 1991, 287)
and gúọ́ fà ‘guava’ (see above). Occasionally, Yorùbá -f- replaced foreign [β] as in [gwoyáβa] > gúrọ́ fà, and -f- is also the likeliest
Yorùbá replacement for [ɸ] as well as for Elugbe’s hypothetical *-’p-.18 In sum, Yorùbá (and Igálà, which has the same inventory
of labial consonants) could have acquired the items in (3a) from a language that pronounced them with -f-, -v-, [β], [ɸ] or *-’p-.19
By inspection, such a language is neither Nupe nor modern Ẹ̀ dó, but it could have been another language in the Ẹ̀ dó cluster or an
older stage of Ẹ̀ dó itself—the latter possibility being enhanced by the match of nasality in the name of ‘◆◇◆◇’, and by the fact
that Ẹ̀ dó imperial “rule undoubtedly extended, at least from the 16th century” across the coastal fringe of the Yorùbá-speaking
area (Bradbury 1957, 21).20
Reconstruction of the oracle name with *-’p- as required by Macro-Ẹ̀ dó is also supported further to the northeast. In Ìdọ mà, the
doublet Ẹ̀ pa~ Ẹ̀ ba (3a) is found respectively in the Àkwéyà dialect alias Akpa (Kasfir 1989, 87 fn. 19 and p.c.) and in the Òtùkpó
dialect alias “Central Ìdọ mà” (Abraham 1951, 132; Amali & Armstrong 1968, 43). Both Akpa and Òtùkpó have indigenous -p-,
-b- and -f-. Both dialects lack -v- (Armstrong 1983, 140), but it would be strange to borrow -v- as -p-, and much less odd for *-’p-
to be heard as -p- or -b- indistinctly.21 Speakers of Ngas (“Angas”), a West Chadic (i.e. non-Niger Congo) language of the Benue
plateau, call the oracle either “Pa” or “Peh” (Danfulani 1995, 88, no diacritics in source, cf. Appendix 1, B-iv below). It’s unlikely
that the source of this name contained either -b-, -f- or -v-, because Ngas indigenously possesses all three sounds (Burquest 1973).
The foregoing points to an intriguing possibility, adopted here in the absence of an alternative: that the oracle name originally
referenced the “Jukun” culture area, whose “southern region was known as Apa” (Erim 1981, 15).22

The Ìdọ mà, Ebira and Igálà often describe themselves as being related to the Jukun, and are sometimes jointly referred to as ‘Apa
people’. …[I]t is impressive to see how much borrowing took place and how much the groups had in common in spite of differences
in languages and political organization. A particular examination of the material culture and religious institutions of the Nupe, Igálà,
Ẹ̀ dó, Ìgbo and Yorùbá on the one hand, and of the Jukun, Ìdọ mà, Igálà, Ebira and the north-east Yorùbá on the other, indicate these
complex patterns of pre-jihād interactions… (Ọ báyẹ mí 1980, 160, 162)

Historians believe that about 500 years ago, the “Jukun” were the middle Benue valley’s

…ritual overlords. …[T]hey had evolved a complex and persuasive cosmology whose physical expression was a highly developed
“sacred kingship”… This undisputed ritual sway found concrete expression in their control of the production and distribution of salt
throughout the area, and in the right of the Aku of Wukari to confirm local chiefs… The above relationship existed not only in the
Benue valley proper but penetrated into the Ogoja area… (Áfiìgbo 2005b, 71)
 4
An early colonial report portrays “Jukun” hegemony as less military than ritual—specifically, oracular:23

Their state appears to have been a theocracy of some sort, with temporal and spiritual power vested in the Asum or king. One is led
to suppose that they were not numerous, but owed their power to the possession of an oracle deemed infallible. Owing to this
superior “juju” they kept a loose hold over numbers of pagan [i.e. non-muslim] states who paid them a voluntary tribute in horses,
cattle, sheep, cloths and produce, and probably to a very small extent in slaves. (Ruxton 1907, 379f.)

Ruxton’s casual mention of “an oracle” doesn’t distinguish the mobile services of a numerological guild like Fá from fixed
judicial shrines like Chí Ukwu of Árụ̀ (“Arochukwu”, Díké & Ékèjiụ bá 1990) or Ọ̀ gwụ gwụ of Ọ kịja (Benson 2006). It is relevant
to note, however, that both oracle types coexisted in “Jukun” (Meek 1931, 276-84, 326-28), and a functional link between them
can be guessed by analogy with the contemporary, nearby state of Ǹ ri. “The basis of Ǹ ri external affairs” was the Àgbala oracle,
whose clients were recruited not only by ọ́ zọ ichí titleholders (discussed further below) serving as shrine’s itinerant “eyes and
ears”, but also by díbị̀a Áfá (numerological priests) who were “employed… as directed by the Àgbala” (Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ 1981, 142).
Ǹ ri elites collected tribute from client yam-farmers of the Ọ̀ mám̀b ala (“Anambra”) floodplain while patronizing skilled
metalsmiths of the Ọ́ ka (“Awka”) scarplands (Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ 1981, 27), as attested by a rich bronze-and-bead hoard buried in a 9th
century chiefly grave at Ìgbo Úkwu (Shaw 1970). Around the same time, Ǹ ri influence extended upstream to Igálà territory
(Oguagha & Okpoko 1984, 215).24
The relative antiquity of the oracle name—if not of the oracle itself—in the Ìgbo-speaking area can be roughly gauged from
phonetic mutations. Across dialects, the consonant of the name seems to pattern with its counterpart in basic vocabulary, for
example those in (5). I believe that the consonant of the word Áfa, as pronounced at Ǹ ri, matches the one in áfọ ‘stomach’, ọ̀ fọ́
‘ancestral staff’ and òfufe ‘worship (n.)’, all of which have [β] in the 1977 audio tape transcribed in Appendix 2. In northern
Ǹ sụ́ ká, Áfa is called Ẹ́ ha and -h- is also the consonant in the root for ‘stomach’ (Shelton 1965a, 123; 1965b, 1442). This
distribution is most easily explained if the oracle name—perhaps in its pre-oracular role as the generic label for the southern
“Jukun” cultural sphere—arrived relatively early in the fragmentation of the Macro-Ìgbo cluster. By contrast, the word for ‘◆◇◆◇’
has -h- both in Ǹ sụ́ ká and in Ǹ ri, compared to -f- in some other parts of the cluster (Ézikéojìakụ n.d., 73), which is closer to the
local sound pattern of the 3rd person plural pronoun, pronounced at Ǹ ri with -h- for example in the last sentence of Appendix 2.25

┌────────────Macro-Ìgbo────────────┐
Ágbọ̀ Ọ̀ nicha Ǹ ri Ǹ sụ́ ká Ḿ bàisén Ẹ́ hụ gbò
(5) ‘stomach’ ẹ́ fọ á[β]ọ á[β]ọ ẹ́ họ áfọ ẹ́ họ
‘stew’ ófe ó[β]e ófe óhe
‘cow’ éfi é[β]i éfi éhi

To more closely identify the external source, it would help to know how the oracle name was pronounced at the time of arrival
in the Ìgbo-speaking area. If its root consonant resembled those of ‘fly (v.)/blow [wind]’ (4a) and ‘stomach’ &c. (5), it’s relevant
that Williamson first reconstructed *-f- in Macro-Ìgbo (1973b, 30; 1983; Manfredi 1991, 50), then revised this to *-’p-
(Williamson p.c. circa 1987; Óhirí-Ànịíchè 2003). Her later view was clearly influenced by Elugbe’s dissertation which she was
concurrently supervising, nevertheless the identification of the root consonant in the oracle name with that in (4a) and (5) has
several testable consequences. First, it requires that *-’p- > -f- developments in (3a) happened several times over: once internal to
Macro-Ìgbo as part of the evolution in (5), and again in Igálà and Yorùbá. This coincidence is credible for the evolution of a
marked segment like *-’p-, although of course it raises the stakes on “lenis” reconstructions in Benue-Kwa overall.26
A second consequence of the *-’p- hypothesis is the development *-’p- > -b-. This mutation was apparently confined to the
oracle name in Ìdọ mà and Nupe: -b- doesn’t occur in the name for ‘◆◇◆◇’ even though by parallelism it might have been
expected there, if the two words had traveled together. Moreover, no phonetic bias divides Akpa and Òtùkpó that could account
for their respective choice of -p- versus -b-. Both dialects indigenously possess both sounds, as well as -f-, so the Akpa/Òtùkpó
split looks more like random normalization of the exotic sound *-’p-.27 The choice of -b- also lacks internal motivation in Nupe,
which has indigenous -p-, -b- and -f-, therefore the matching -b- outcomes in the oracle name in Nupe and Òtùkpó are more easily
explained as one event plus borrowing, than two independent events.28
A separate reason to think that the oracle name and the name of ‘◆◇◆◇’ took distinct paths through the confluence is
functional: the oracle name is public knowledge—moreso if it derives from an old ethnic label—but the 16 names of the 4-bit
arrays are esoterica, rote-learned en bloc by initiates.29 The array names’ paralinguistic status is confirmed by the phonetic flux
observed in (6) and Appendix 2 below, presenting more variation than is possible for regular vocabulary uttered by one speaker on
one occasion (see also §4). Dual transmission is also consistent with a colonial report that the Ebira version of the oracle was
“learned from the Egbo [sic] tribe south of the Benue” (Wilson-Haffenden 1927, 27).30
Other phonetic correspondences furnish more clues to the oracle’s itinerary. (6) shows that the sound written “gb” in the name
of the ‘◇◇◇◇’ array is limited to the contiguous area of Gbè, Yorùbá, Macro-Ẹ̀ dó, western Ìgbo and one variant of Ǹ ri-Igbo;
elsewhere the name either has plain -b- or is etymologically unrelated (in square brackets). Despite the 1961 Ọ́ nwụ orthography,
Ìgbo “gb” is phonetic [ɓ], a nonvelar bilabial glottalic implosive (Ladefoged & al. 1976) as signalled by the colonial
improvisations “Ibwo” and “Ib’o”. Ẹ̀ dó and Yorùbá lack indigenous implosives, and regularly borrow Ìgbo [ɓ] as labiovelar [gb],
for example in the ethnonym “Ìgbo” itself. Alternations between [b] and [ɓ] are unknown in Ìgbo grammar, yet Ǹ r i has -b- before
-i and [ɓ] before -u in the name of ‘◇◇◇◇’.31 And essentially the same geographic split in (6) recurs in (1a+), a more detailed
version of (1a), separating two variants of the names of ‘◆◇◇◆’ and ‘◆◆◇◇’, with a voiced velar stop -g- versus lenited -gh-
 5
(whose regular Northern Ìgbo allophone is -y- and whose western Yorùbá successor is -w- as seen above). For both mutations, -b-
> [ɓ] and -g- > -gh/y/w-, Ǹ ri is the point of greatest phonological diversity, therefore it is the presumptive gateway between the
two regions of oracle history so defined.32

┌─────────cluster of innovations ──────────┐

Fọ̀ n-Gbè NWYorùbá Ẹ̀ dó Ùrhobo W Ìgbo Ǹ ri-Igbo Igálà Ìdọ mà NE Yorùbá Nupe Ngas

(6) ‘◇◇◇◇’ Gbè Ogbè Ógbì Ogbi Ógbì Ógbù/Óbì Èbí Ébì [Oṣ ika] [Ṣ ikan] [Shi]
(1a+) ‘◆◇◇◆’ (W)ólì Ìwòrì Òghoi Oghori Ògoli Òyeri/Ògori Ògòlì Ògòlì “Ogori” “Gori” “Guiri”
‘◆◆◇◇’33 Wẹ̀ lé Ọ̀ wọ́ nrí Ọ̀ gháe E/Aghare Ọ̀ gá(l)í Àyári/Àgári Ẹ̀ gálí Ẹ̀ gálí “Ọ ga” “Ega” [Chiiyong]

Phonetic variants of two more array names, ‘◇◇◆◆’ and ‘◆◇◇◇’ (7a), show an intersecting wave: Ngas, Nupe and Gbè all have
-s- versus Ìdọ mà -l-, while Macro-Ìgbo, Macro-Ẹ̀ dó and Yorùbá-Igálà each internally split between -s- and -r-. Akínkugbé
analyzes the Yorùbá-Igálà pattern as the result of *-s- > -r-, so-called rhotacism (1978, 176, 545-60). In the Ìgbo cluster,
Williamson reconstructs a “voiceless tap” that “could perhaps have developed from -sh-, a sound in which the blade of the tongue
is necessarily retracted. (I have been told that such a voiceless tap occurs in some dialects not far from Ọ̀ nịcha…)” (1973b, 13).
Indeed the tap is heard in Ǹ ri as reflected in the colonial spelling “Ndri” (Jeffreys 1935).34

┌──────rhotacism area ──────┐

Fọ̀ n-Gbè NWYorùbá Ẹ̀ dó W Ìgbo Ùrhobo Ǹ ri-Igbo Igálà Ìdọ mà NEYorùbá Nupe Ngas

(7a) ‘◇◇◆◆’35 Lósò Ìròsùn Òrúùhu Ùlúshù Urhur(h)u Ùrúrù Òlòrù Òlò “Orosun” “Rusu” “Lusu”
‘◆◇◇◇’36 Sá Ọ̀ sá Ọ̀ há Ọ̀ shá Ọ rha Ọ̀ rá Ọ̀ rá Ọ̀ lá “Osa” “Esa” “Saa”
(7b) ‘seed, fruit’ èso èro
‘noonday’ ọ̀ sọ́ n ọ̀ rọ́ (ka)
‘hang/tie up’ so ro lò so
‘roast’ sun shụ́ rụ́ ro
‘drip, ooze’ sun ro

The date of rhotacism is unknown, but such a superficial change need not be more than a few centuries old. It affected a
contiguous area—counting Ùrhobo (which Yorùbá still calls “Ìsòbò”, Abraham 1958, 320) as downstream of Igálà—and occurred
after the oracle had already spread, as shown by the matching pattern in basic vocabulary (7b). It also postdates the westward
migration from the Ǹ r i kingdom across the Òrimili (“Niger”) river (Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ 1981, 9) as shown by the outcomes for ‘roast’
as well as by western Ìgbo names like Ọ̀ gwáàshi < Ọ̀ gwá Ǹ shi ‘assembly of Ǹ r i [people]’.37
Turning to vowel patterns, the root of the oracle name (3a) ends consistently in -a.38 The initial vowel is more varied and thus
would be potentially more informative about loan vectors, if not that the content of this slot is partly determined by language-
internal rules. Taking seriously the hypothesis that the oracle name is not an unanalyzable word but rather a bipartite phrase,
consisting of a clitic corresponding to a definite article, plus a nominal root [D V- [NP CV ]], entails that the root (an open-class
element) can be borrowed separately the prefix (a grammatical morpheme), so the comparative quality of the prefix can reveal
little or nothing about the root’s crosslinguistic origin. (3a) shows five different outcomes. Fọ̀ n-Gbè and Ngas have zero initial
vowel, and elsewhere there’s a front vowel with essentially all possible heights: i- (Ẹ̀ dó proper, Yorùbá, Igálà, Mínà-Gbè), e-
(Nupe), ẹ - (Ìdọ mà, Ǹ sụ́ ká-Ìgbo, Ùrhobo, Ìsóko) and a- (Ǹ r i-Igbo).39 Most or all of these treatments can be locally explained. As
seen in (2), Fọ̀ n-Gbè regularly drops the initial vowel in Yorùbá loanwords, probably due to indigenous perception of this vowel
as an inflectional clitic (Stahlke 1971, Àbọ [h] 2004, Manfredi 2004b). Conversely, many Yorùbá dialects automatically prefix
toneless (M-tone) i- to a consonant-initial noun (Awóbùlúyì 2004).40 In Ǹ ri and nearby Ìgbo dialects, initial a- substitutes for
borrowed ẹ -, so Ọ̀ nịcha pronounces Ẹ̀ dó as “Àdó” (ikmartins.5u.com, cf. Williamson 1966, 1984; Éménanjọ 1971). Nupe lacks
phonetic [ẹ ], substituting e- in initial position and -ya- elsewhere, thus Nupe egyà ‘blood’ corresponds regularly to Yorùbá ẹ̀ jẹ̀
(Kawu 2002, 111).41
As to ‘tones’ (lexicalized pitch accents), the 16 array names are near-identical across the board (Appendix 1), as is predictable
for rote-learned esoterica, but the oracle name shows complex correspondences. The prefix may be historically irrelevant à la the
preceding paragraph, but whether considering both syllables or just the root, there’s no overlap between the (H)H of Ìgbo Áfa and
the (L)L of Ẹ̀ dó Ìha, even though these languages have the same lexical inventory {H, L}. However, (L)L could easily be the Ẹ̀ dó
borrowing of (M)M, a potential source pattern which is attested in Nupe Eba (Banfield 1914, 94), or of (L)M which is found in
Ìdọ mà Ẹ̀ ba/Ẹ̀ pa. This is so because Ẹ̀ dó (like all BK1 languages) lacks a lexical M of its own, so a BK2 loan containing M
confronts BK1 speakers with a forced choice between H and L.42 Conversely the (M)H of Yorùbá Ifá excludes Nupe (M)M or Ẹ̀ dó
(L)L as a source, whereas it qualifies either as a trivial copy of (H)H if the initial syllable is not part of the input to borrowing, or
else as a minimal repair of bisyllabic HH respecting general Yorùbá rules: (i) absolute prohibition of H on the initial vowel of any
nominal expression (Ward 1952, 37) and (ii) automatic interpretation of tonelessness in a phrasal context as M (Akinlabí 1985).
While the (L)L tone of the Ẹ̀ dó name Ìha rules out an Ìgbo source for that item, the esoteric terminology is different.
Concerning the side-by-side 4-bit arrays of the Ẹ̀ dó ògúẹ̀ ga chain, Melzian remarks: “If both positions are the same, their name is
followed by n’áàbe ‘combined’…” (1937, 137, cf. Egharhevba 1936, 8). But the gloss “combined” is a folk etymology: no such
parse can be literally composed from Ẹ̀ dó morphemes, whereas n’áàbe matches the quotidian Ìgbo modifier náàbọ ‘double’,
 6
which is regularly pronounced náàbẹ (with a fronted final vowel) in many northern Ìgbo dialects including Ǹ r i.43 Moreover,
náàbọ /náàbẹ is precisely the Ìgbo díbị̀a’s term of art for any doubled 4-bit array (see Appendix 2). The counterpart expression in
Ùrhobo is cited (without diacritics) as “nabe”, and the Ùrhobo-speaking investigators frankly confess that they can’t analyze it
(Nabofa & Elugbe 1981, 9).44 Ẹ̀ dó n’áàbe is therefore further evidence that, southwest of the Niger, the oracular arrays took a
different path from the oracle’s name.
Phonetics also impacts demography by ruling out some scenarios. Shelton reports that most of Ǹ sụ́ ká’s modern Ẹ́ ha priests
claim Igálà ancestry (1971, 200-07) and this profile, read together with Igálà impacts on Ǹ ri (Jeffries 1935, 350; Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀
1981, 22), is easily explained if the oracle got to northern Ìgbo via Igálà.45 However, the reconstruction (as argued above) of *-’p-
in the earliest Ìgbo name of ‘◆◇◆◇’ contradicts an Igálà > Ìgbo path but permits Ìgbo > Igálà, consistent with older economic
influences (Oguagha 1984, 56; Oguagha & Okpoko 1984; Áfiìgbo 1997, 2005b) and with a more instrumental interpretation of
present-day Igálà descent claims in Ìgbo-speaking districts (Áfiìgbo 1977, 80). Or else, the Igálà and Ìgbo oracles could be linked
only indirectly through a common source such as Ìdọ mà.46
Direct Ìgbo > Yorùbá transmission would require contiguous populations, but there’s no phonetic evidence that such contact
existed at a relevant time. Consider two potential examples. (i) According to the Mọ rèmi saga, reenacted in the Edì festival at Ilé-
Ifẹ̀ (Fábùnmi 1969, 17f.), Oòduà’s children encountered authochthonous “Igbo” or “Ugbo” people—a word whose tone still
remains to be established.47 Áfiìgbo connects the modern ethnonym Ìgbo [LL] with “the phoneme [sic] gbó [H]… found among
the Yorùbá to be indicative of bush” (2005a, 482, tone added), but this overlooks the roots’ opposite tones (which he doesn’t
mark) as well as the anachronism of extrapolating a recent ethnic label back to the middle ages.48 By contrast, “Apa” is not a
modern ethnonym and its root exhibits M-tone variants, mediating H and L outcomes in a predictable way as discussed above:
Áfa(HH)-Eba(MM)-Ẹ̀ ba/Ẹ̀ pa(LM)-Ìha(LL). (ii) Thomas (1914a) collected a wordlist of Unùkùmi, an isolated Yorùbá variety used
as a heritage language around the town of Ùgbodu to the east of Ágbọ̀ (Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ & Òkó[h] 1981). Unùkùmi ọ rhẹ̀ ‘leg’ and
ẹ̀ rhá ‘nine’ share the trait of rhotacism with Igálà to the exclusion of Ìṣ ẹ̀ kiri and Yorùbá, cf. (7) above, but as discussed, this areal
feature probably appeared after Ifá had already passed by, so provides no reason to think Unùkùmi-speakers were in Ùgbodu early
enough to have helped the oracle move from east to west.49
In sum, reconstructed sound patterns of oracle vocabulary show that Áfa and Ifá share a common origin, mediated by a wide and
multi-stranded network which spread to the northwest, south and southwest of the Niger-Benue confluence about 500 years ago
(cf. Ọ báyẹ mí 1980, 148). Observations of a paralinguistic nature contribute further detail.

4. Paralinguistic mutation
As already noted, some oracle features are paralinguistic—autonomous of the particular language medium in which they happen
to be expressed in a given locality. That characteristic makes them easier than mundane vocabulary to borrow across language
boundaries, but conversely it exposes them to changes which are potentially more arbitrary and abrupt than the indigenous sound
rules sampled above. Oracle knowledge is more mutable, both because the guild of specialists is a smaller subculture, within the
total population of speakers, and because oracle-specific content is artificially designed and thus unchecked by the unconscious,
obligatory mental patterns of ordinary (‘natural’) human language.
For example, Ifá breaks the bounds of Yorùbá grammar to coin forms like eníyán (MHH), conventionally translated “witch”
(Abím̅ bọ́ lá 1976, 166). If this item is derived by wordplay from ènìyàn (LLL) ‘human being’ (Abraham 1958, 160), it attains the
poetic meaning ‘nonhuman in human form’ just because prosody can be symbolically segregated from the string of vowels and
consonants in a word, such as normally happens only with ideophones (Awóyalé 1978).50 Verger (1972) reviews many such
instances, by which Ifá like other magical genres applies a “coefficient of weirdness, strangeness and unusualness” (Malinowski
1935, 221f.). Thus do Yorùbá awos join their Sanskrit counterparts, the brāhman masters of Vedic verse (Staal 1986), in boosting
shamanic tradecraft (àṣ ẹ ) and the art of memory (ìsọ̀ ye).
Ifá’s top-class poetic license helps explain its compensatory emphasis on public recitative (Awórìndé 1965, Abím̅ bọ́ lá 1973,
48f.), whereas such corrective procedures are both unnecessary and ineffective in the transmission of ordinary language (Marcus
1993). But oracular authority (like all authority) cuts both ways: illicit changes can be censored for the sake of uniformity across
time and space, but conversely, approved innovations can spread faster than those which occur spontaneously and below the
threshold of consciousness.51 The DNA metaphor of blind, incremental progress can’t explain the creative burst which divided Ifá
so dramatically from its counterparts of the Niger and Benue baisins.
Any version of the oracle combines several kinds of paralinguistic information. In Ifá, an initiate needs to memorize
(i) 16 individually meaningless names for 4-bit binary arrays; (ii) a unique ordering of same; (iii) a retrieval key indexing 256
compound arrays (the 8-bit odù) to natural language texts—either directly or via links of conventionalized wordplay, illustrated
below; (iv) an open corpus of oral texts including the genres of narrative and incantation (ìtàn, ọ fọ̀ ) and (v) encyclopedic
knowledge of botanical and zoological ingredients in sacrificial and medical recipes (ẹ bọ , òògùn).52 Types (i) - (iii) are the
exclusive intellectual property of the oracle guild, while (iv) - (v) overlap with secular ‘folklore’ in the public domain. Comparing
knowledge types across localities, it’s clear that zone A (Appendix 1), including Ifá as well as the Fá of Àgbómẹ̀ (“Abomey”) and
Àlàdà (“Porto Novo”), innovated massively with respect to types (ii) - (iv).

4.1 Array names

Bascom saw that the sixteen 4-bit array names are phonetically similar, not just “throughout the Yorùbá country” but also “at
Benin [= Ẹ̀ dó] and among the Igálà, Ìdọ mà and Western Ì[g]bo” as well as “among the Fọ̀ n in Dahomey, the Èʋè in Togo and
Ghana and among the Afro-Americans in Cuba and Brazil” (1966, 421). But he also noticed two noncognates in NE Yorùbá:
 7
Oṣ ika ‘◇◇◇◇’ instead of Ogbè, and Ọ kin ‘◇◆◇◆’ instead of Ọ̀ sẹ́ (1969, 7, no tones, citing Ògúnbìyí 1952, cf. Ọ báyẹ mí 1983).
Appendix 1 shows that both of these are matched, not just in nearby Nupe, but also in faraway Ngas, therefore they’re probably
archaic relative to the southerly forms, by standard considerations of drift. This scenario is consistent with the independent
inference already reached from phonetic changes in the name of ‘◇◇◇◇’ in (6) above: the name of ‘◇◇◇◇’ with -bì (found as such
in Ìdọ mà and adjacent Ǹ sụ́ ká) was modified at Ǹ ri by glottalization of b to [ɓ] (always spelled -gb- in Ìgbo) in the back-vowel
variant -bù, then this consonant mutation was passed further along in borrowed forms as true labiovelar [gb]. The coherence of
linguistic and paralinguistic links in the transmission of the array names in (6) and (1a+) sets the stage for the more far-reaching
paralinguistic innovations of zone A.53

4.2 Strict order

Bascom (1969, 51-53) describes how Ifá answers ìbò yes/no questions, also called “casting lots” (Abraham 1958, 269), by
invoking a sequential order of the arrays. Abím̅ bọ́ lá interprets this in the idiom of “seniority”, alluding to Oòduà’s descent to earth
with 16 fellow travelers, and also to the trope—applied to everything from multiple births to ceremonial processions—that
someone who arrives earlier counts as junior to one following behind (1976, 26f., 34, see §5 below).54
Bascom notes that the recognized sequences diverge between Ilé-Ifẹ̀ (Appendix 1, A-i) and Ọ̀ yọ́ (A-ii), and styles the latter
order “dominant” on grounds of frequency. Which one is older is less clear. Hébert (1961, 151f., citing Johnson 1899, Maupoil
1943a, 414-16 and Alápínì 1952) reports a male/female classification of the arrays (Appendix 1, A-iv). In topological terms, this
gendering ‘lives-on’ pairing, which Hébert finds also in NE Yorùbá and Nupe (Appendix 1, B), Ẹ̀ dó (C-i) and Arabic Darfur
(E-iv), and both pairing and ordering ‘live-on’ still more basic geometric relations of polarity (ion the top 4 arrays in Appendix 1)
and rotation (in the bottom 12 arrays).55 In some cases, gender assignment has geometric motivation—an array’s odd or even
parity makes it male or female respectively—but this can’t distinguish two paired arrays whose extremes are identical, e.g. Ìrẹ tẹ̀
◇◇◆◇ vs. Òtúrá ◇◆◇◇ and with Òtúrúpọ̀ n ◆◆◇◆ vs. Ìká ◆◇◆◆. These are precisely the two pairs whose internal order is
reversed between Ifẹ̀ and Ọ̀ yọ́ . Note that the genders marked in (A-iv), recorded in the western part of zone A, correlate with the
western order (A-ii) such that male and female arrays alternate regularly in the list. If it were known that the same gendering
obtains in Ifẹ̀ , then Ifẹ̀ would have four anomalies: two even-numbered male arrays (Òtúrá, Ìká) and two odd-numbered female
arrays (Ìrẹ tẹ̀ , Òtúrúpọ̀ n), and this hypothetical mismatch could be explained as reordering in Ifẹ̀ , reversing Ìrẹ tẹ̀ ↔Òtúrá and
Òtúrúpọ̀ n ↔Ìká.56
Within zone A, Bascom also observed transpositions of whole pairs, 5/6↔7/8 and 11/12↔13/14, but available evidence doesn’t
suggest any historical account of this difference. Zones B-D report very divergent orders (Appendix 1), but there’s no suggestion
that these have any oracular function, and they may well be artefacts of investigation rather than intrinsic, learned features of the
local systems. This topic is a major research gap outside of zone A.

4.3 Retrieval key

Outside of zone A, the Fá key comprises 256 triplets {8-bit array, name, unique text}. Appendix 3 compares keys from Ǹ ri (D-i),
Ǹ sụ́ ká (D-ii), Ùrhobo (C-ii), Ẹ̀ dó (C-i) and Nupe (B-iii). According to the sources, the key in most of these locations returns one
or two words for each array, but in Ìha (Ẹ̀ dó C-i) the text is a proverbial “fixed sentence”, linked in turn to an entire “folktale”
(Emọ vọ n 1984, 4, 7, cf. Egharhevba 1936, 89ff.). Outside zone A, the name-to-text mapping is similar enough to prove common
origin, although available data are too fragmentary to suggest transmission paths.57
Zones B/C/D share a second general feature, probably related to the first: a degree of freedom is allowed in reading the arrays,
compensating in effect for the rigidity of direct mapping from array to text. This freedom has various forms. In Ẹ́ ha (Ǹ sụ́ ká D-ii,
Shelton 1965b), Ẹ pha (Ùrhobo C-ii, Nabofa & Elugbe 1981), Eba (Nupe B-iii, Nadel 1954, 39-55) and the Igálà version of Ifá
(B-i, Boston 1974, 351f.), the oraclist can invoke geometric permutations (rotations or inversions) of a given array, recalling to
some extent the recursive algorithms of Arabic systems like yanrìn títẹ̀ (Maupoil 1943b), hati (Nadel 1954, 55-64) and beyond
(Eglask 1997, 116). Some readings are rejected as “non-functional” (Shelton 1965b, 1451). In locations where more than two 4-bit
strings are thrown at once, there’s another option. Ìha (Ẹ̀ dó C-i) generates two compound (8-bit) arrays at once (Emọ vọ n 1984, 6)
and Áfa (Ǹ ri D-i) goes further: Appendix 2 transcribes a simulation in 1977, during which Chúkwumà the díbị̀a áfá (oraclist)
made 31 successive throws, each yielding four 4-bit strings A,B,C,D. After each throw, he called out every distinct right-to-left
pairing of these generating six 8-bit arrays AB, BC, AC, CD, BD, AD and so accessing six textual glosses from the key (Appendix
3). By ‘ringing the changes’ so to speak on each throw, the díbì ̣a effectively triples the number of possible messages before
deciding which ones to use, and which to treat as noise.58
Zone A differs in both respects: only one odù (8-bit array) appears at a time, and it returns, not a unique phrase or narrative
but—up to the limit of the awo’s memory—an open set of texts, each of which in principle is formatted in a multipart stylistic
template called ẹ sẹ Ifá (Abím̅ bọ́ lá 1976, 43-57). The awo can select among these texts, some of which may share a subjective
similarity which has been called “the character of the odù ” (Abím̅ bọ́ lá 1976, 33) although in that case the question is how this
comes about, and contributes to interpretation. On this point Verger made key observations in two Yunifẹ̀ seminar papers
delivered in 1977. He noted that the awo’s retrieval key is not necessarily a direct mapping from odù to text. Instead, the
association between a visual sign and its oral literature can take several intermediate steps, each of which has mnemonic as well as
ritual utility. Specifically, Verger documented a large number of
…verbal links between names of plants, names of the medicinal and magical action expected from them and the odù or sign of Ifá in
which they are classified by the babaláwos. Those verbal links are essential to help them to memorize notions and knowledge
transmitted by oral traditions, having so a collective character and not an individual one.
 8
We must mention first that verbal transmission of knowledge is thought in Yorùbá tradition to be the vehicle of àṣ ẹ , the power,
the strength of the words which remain ineffectual in a written text.
…A plant alone may be compared to a letter which is part of a word. Alone it is without signification; associated with other
letters it contributes to the meaning of the word.
…We must keep in mind that in [the] Yorùbá language there is often a direct relation between the name of the plant and its
qualities, and it would be important to know if the plants bear those names according to their virtues or if it is because the plants
bear those names that they have received in attribution [of] the said virtues by a kind of play on words (that again more respectfully
we could call ọ fọ̀ , incantation).
Those ‘play of words-incantations’ have an enormous importance in the oral-tradition civilizations. Being pronounced in solemn
traditional texts and incantations, they may be considered as definitions. They are often the bases on which reasoning is built up. In
the same way, they serve as conclusion and final proof in the traditional stories transmitted from generation to generation by
babaláwo, and express at the same time the philosophical point of view of the Yorùbá culture and the common sense of its people.
…Among the Yorùbá, ọ fọ̀ , the incantatory formulas accompanying the preparation of remedies and magical works are short
sentences in which very often the verb which defines the anticipated action, the ‘acting verb’, is one of the syllables in the name of
the plant or the ingredient employed.
…All the recipes and ‘works’ made with the plants are classified by the babaláwo into the 256 signs, odù of Ifá and verbal links,
which often established links between the names of the odù of Ifá, but more specifically with the second names given to each odù.
A babaláwo seldom uses the name of an odù in its original form, but [rather] a name proceeding from it phonetically with
adjunction of prefix and suffix giving them a particular signification, which helps the babaláwo to find out more easily the
symbolism and the context of the stories, ìtàn, and remedies classified into this odù… (1977a, 242f., 245, 248f., 254, 268)59

Some of the “second names given to each odù ” are cited in Verger’s published data, summarized in (8).60

(8a) Ogbè Ìwòrì → w’ẹ̀ hìn ‘look [wò] back [ẹ̀ hìn]’
→ w’ẹ̀ hìn ‘wash/cure [wẹ̀ ] back [ẹ̀ hìn]’ → ewé j’ọ́ mọ́ ruke ‘let-child-grow-well leaf, a backache remedy'61
Ogbè Òdí → dí’nà ‘block the road [ọ̀ nà]’
→ dìmú-dìmú ‘that which siezes by grasping’
Ogbè Òtúrá → hárihá ‘sheath… enveloping the maize cob’ → aláṣ ọ funfun ‘owner of white cloth’
Ogbè Òtúrúpọ̀ n → tún ọ mọ pọ̀ n ‘carry again [tún] a child in a sling [pọ̀ n]’ i.e. on the parent’s back → àwẹ̀ bí ‘birth medicine’
Ogbè Ọ̀ sẹ́ → ṣ ẹ́ ’gun ‘win the war [ogun]’ OR ṣ ẹ́ ’.tẹ̀ ‘quell the rebellion [ọ̀ tẹ̀ ]’
Ọ̀ yẹ̀ kú Ìròsùn → aláìsùn ‘without sleep’
Ọ̀ yẹ̀ kú Òtúrúpọ̀ n → Ikú jẹ́ n jó! ‘[personified] Death, allow me to dance!’ → ìdáàbòbò l’ọ́ wọ́ ikú ‘protection from death’
Ìròsùn Ògúndá → gún’dá ‘pound bush-rat [ẹ dá]’
Ìròsùn Òtúrúpọ̀ n → tútù ‘fresh’
Ìwòrì Ìròsùn → olósùn ‘owner of sleep’
Ìwòrì Ọ̀ wọ́ nrín → ẹ hín ọ mọ dé ‘tooth of a young child’
Ìwòrì Ìrẹ tẹ̀ → wèrè ‘madness’
Ìwòrì Òfún → fún ‘white’ → ewé àgbàdo ‘maize leaves’ (“used for àwúre orí ire, to have good luck”)62
Òdí Ìròsùn → ìdin ò sùn ‘maggot does not sleep’
Ọ̀ bàrà Ìwòrì → àkó’yèe ‘collecter of understanding [òye]’
Ọ̀ bàrà Ọ̀ sẹ́ → aláṣ ẹ̀ ẹ ‘owner of power’
Ọ̀ wọ́ nrín Òfún → fún ‘white’ → ewé àwẹ̀ fún ‘leaves that wash white’ (“used to wash [images of] òrìṣ à”)
Ògúndá Ogbè → egbò ọ gbẹ́ ‘ulcer of knife-wound’ → ewé p’ọ gbẹ́ -p’ọ gbẹ́ ‘leaf, antidote [pa] for knife-wound’
Ògúndá Ọ̀ yẹ̀ kú → ikú ‘death’
Ògúndá Òdí → gẹ́ ’dìí ìgbín ‘cut the base [ìdí] of snail’ (“which alludes to the notion of calm”)
Ògúndá Ìròsùn → Mo sùn ‘I sleep’
Ọ̀ sá Ìròsùn → lè sùn ‘can sleep’ OR ò lè sùn ‘cannot sleep’
[Ìrẹ tẹ̀ Ọ̀ sẹ́ ]63 → tẹ̀ ọ ṣ ẹ ‘press down on soap’ → “medicament composed of a leopard’s tail [ìrù] pounded [tẹ̀ ] with soap”
→ ẹ kùn fìrù nà’lẹ̀ ‘leopard beat the ground with its tail’ (“showing its dangerous, restless, personality”)
→ fa tútù tó yìnyín ‘as cold as a hailstone’ (“not much encouraging”)
→ alájé ‘owner of wealth’ (“things are ambivalent and …may also… have their benificent sides”)
Òtúrá mé.jì → ẹ lẹ́ jọ́ ‘litigant in court’
Ọ̀ sẹ́ mé.jì → oníjà ‘quarrelsome’ → pòpórò àgbàdo ‘cornstalk’ (used “to be victorious in wrestling”)64
Ọ̀ sẹ́ Ọ̀ wọ́ nrín → oníwọ ‘owner of poison’
Òfún Ìwòrì → wò re ‘look well upon’

(8b) Ìròsùn mé.jì → odídẹ rẹ́ ‘parrot’ (“whose tail feathers are very red”)
Ọ̀ sá Ìròsùn → elépo ‘possessing red palm oil [epo]’
Ìròsùn Ọ̀ sẹ́ → ẹ̀ jẹ̀ ‘blood’

(8c) Ogbè Òdí → káká ‘strong’

Ogbè Ìrẹ tẹ̀ → aláhéré owó ‘owner of storehouse for money’
Ogbè Òtúrá → àgbàdo súnsun ‘roasted maize grains’ → kò l’ẹ́ jọ́ ‘has no court-case’65
Ọ̀ bàrà Ògúndá → èpè tán ‘curse finished’
Òtúrá Ogbè → olójò OR eréji ‘owner of rain’
Òfún Òtúrá → ọ lọ́ mọ sọ àdá ‘parent throw cutlass’

The sample in (8a) supports Verger’s description that the “verbal link” to an alias containing a semantic cue to a medical or ritual
recipe refers mostly to the second half of the odù name. The cases in (8b) are special in that the link exploits the fact that the name
Ìròsùn has an accidental homophone in ordinary Yorùbá meaning ‘camwood’—a characteristically red substance. No link appears,
anyway at first glance, between the odù name and its alias in the examples in (8c).
 9
Setting aside the intrinsic interest of the underlying cognitive mechanisms, the patterns in (8) potentially help from a historical
angle, to explain how the oracle key became dramatically inflated in zone A, in keeping with the principle of information growth
and non-reversibilty of biological processes. Hypothetically at least, the links described above which are so useful to the awo in
retrieving texts from mental storage, could also have worked in reverse, allowing the awos to assign any given text (whether ìtàn
or ọ fọ̀ ) to a particular odù in a mnemonically friendly manner, thus allowing the existing database of odùs to be extended an oral
indexing device with which to accumulate vast botanical, zoological and biochemical knowledge as intellectual property. As
Verger emphasized in the above quotation, this process had a particular character in an oral civilization, but in a wider perspective
the Westafrican oraclists were not so different from their European contemporaries, the mystic naturalists of the late Renaissance
such as Giordano Bruno, Galileo’s forerunner who sought “[b]y applying his art of memory… to call the whole world to attention
within his head” (Rowland 2008, 138). One big difference is that the awos flourished in their research, patronized by the ọ bas of
zone A, whereas Bruno was martyred by the totalitarian monotheistic state and its efficient agent, the Holy Inquisition.
Outside of zone A, a different information retrieval dynamic was in effect. As shown in (9), based on Appendix 1, the option of
rotating the arrays was exploited in several locations. This device can be understood as a way to maximise the pragmatic
appropriateness of the more limited semantics of the oracle key which, as shown in Appendix 3, was limited to unique, short texts.
Unfortunately these rotations are thufar poorly described, confusing the secondary literature. Comparing the arrays and names
reported by Shelton (1965b) in Ǹ sụ́ ká with their counterparts in zone A, Bascom sees 12 differences with Ifá that can’t be
reconciled “unless one reads all [Shelton’s] figures from the bottom up” (1966, 420). From this correct observation, Bascom
hastily concludes that 12 of Shelton’s labels are “errors” and decides to “seriously question his description of the method” (1966,
420 fn. 1). However there’s evidence that the retrieval key in Ǹ sụ́ ká is systematically rotated by 180º, affecting all the 4-bit arrays
except for the four which display linear symmetry. First, consider that the string Shelton describes as held in the díbị̀a’s right hand
appears on the left side of the diagrams and photos to which the array names correspond (1965b, 1449ff.). This makes sense only if
the illustrations, as well as the names, represent the client’s-eye view, since díbị̀a and client face each during the oracle
consultation. Second, the same rotation appears in the Ùrhobo oracle (Nabofa & Elugbe 1981, 9, Figure 2), which would be quite
a coincidence if it’s also an error. That the “errors” belong to the system not the investigator is clearest in Ẹ̀ dó, where it’s
explicitly stated that “the reading was done from the side of the client sitting opposite the diviner” (Emọ vọ n 1984, 4f.).

asymmetric arrays rotated 180º

zone A-i C-i C-ii D-ii D-i
Ifá Ìha Ẹ pha Ẹ́ ha Áfa
◇◆◆◆ Ọ̀ bàrà Ọ̀ kan Ọ kanran Ọ kara Ọ̀ bara
(9)
◆◆◆◇ Ọ̀ kànràn ╳ Ọ̀ vba Ọ (v)baraỌ bara ╳ Ọ̀ kara
◇◇◆◆ Ọ̀ gháe Ẹ gali
◆◆◇◇
Ìròsùn
Ọ̀ wọ́ nrín ╳ Òrúhù
Aghare
Urhur(h)u Uhu ╳ Ùrúrù
Àg(h)ári
◇◇◇◆ Ọ̀ há Ọ rha
◆◇◇◇
Ògúndá
Ọ̀ sá ╳ Èghítan Ighitẹ
Oha
Ijite/Ogwute ╳ Ìjíte/Ògúte
Ọ̀ rá
◇◇◆◇ Ìrẹ tẹ̀ Ètúrẹ ̣
◇◆◇◇ Òtú(r)á ╳ Ète
Erhure
Ete
Oture
Ete ╳ Ète/Èke
Òtúre
◆◆◇◆ Òtúrúpọ̀ n Ẹ̀ ká ̣Eka Ẹ ka Àtụ́ rụ kpà
◆◇◆◆ Ìká ╳ Ẹ̀ rhóxwà Erhokpo Ẹ tụ rụ kpa ╳ Àká
◇◆◇◆ Ọ̀ sẹ́ Òhún Ophu Ohu Òsé
◆◇◆◇ Òfún ╳ Òsé Ose Ose ╳ Òhú

Consistent with rotation being internal to the system, the Ùrhobo oraclist Erivwo “says that when the [chains of] seeds are cast,
there are two ends from which the reading can be taken viz: the Àkpọ end and the Ẹ̀ rívwìn end” (Nabofa & Elugbe 1981, 8).
Nabofa & Elugbe voice “doubts about Erivwo’s explanations as regards the reading of the Ẹ pha” (1981, 6) and offer a different
interpretation of his statement, as referring to polarity switch of each binary digit in an array:
…in Ùrhobo thought forms, Àkpọ is the abode of the living—both plants and animals—and this is believed to be on the surface of
the earth. Conversely, Ẹ̀ rívwìn is the permanent [sic] abode of the dead, and it is thought to be under the earth, although the living-
dead are said to show up occasionally in Àkpọ . …When the whole divination element is read from the surface, it is then said that its
Àkpọ end is being read. However, when the diviner imaginitively goes under the earth and reads the Ẹ pha from there, it is then
regarded that its Ẹ̀ rívwìn end is being read… (Nabofa & Elugbe 1981, 10)

Nabofa & Elugbe cite symmetric Oghori ‘◆◇◇◆’↔Odi ‘◇◆◆◇’ and Ogbi ‘◇◇◇◇’↔Ako ‘◆◆◆◆’ as examples of Ẹ̀ rívwìn reversal
(1981, 10) but don’t give the Ẹ̀ rívwìn versions of the 12 arrays which have linear asymmetry. If they are correct and
Àkpọ ↔Ẹ̀ rívwìn is expressed by polarity, then the Ẹ̀ rívwìn version of Ọ kanran ‘◇◆◆◆’ is predicted to be Ighitẹ ‘◆◇◇◇’. But if it is
Ọ (v)bara ‘◆◆◆◇’, as predicted by rotation, then the pattern in (9) would be explained in part, because it means that rotation of the
key occurs in localities where rotation is also a degree of freedom allowed in decoding casts.
If the boxed localities in (9) can be considered contiguous in demographic terms, then the rotation is more likely to be a single
mutation (“error”) spread by borrowing, than several independent events. Contiguity is plausible: Ǹ sụ́ ká is in the catchment area
of the Ọ̀ mám̅ bala (“Anambra”) river, a route of north-south trade that continues down the Òrimili (“Niger”) to Ùrhobo. Ǹ ri stands
apart, on the eastern edge of the Ọ́ ka (“Awka”) plateau. Another reason to treat the boxed zone as innovative is that it complicates
the system to add the client’s view of the arrays to the oraclist’s view with its right-to-left parse; the latter is found in all known
 10
instances of Fá as well as in the (distantly-related) Arabic systems. A distinct but perhaps related mutation is the inverted casting
direction of the folded 8-bit chain in the Fá zone (A-ii), yielding from the oraclist’s perspective a ∪-shape rather than the ∩-shape
of the other zones (Maupoil 1943a, 201).
The rotation in (9) shows something else about the retrieval key: that the decoding of the visual arrays is mediated by their ritual
names. That decoding proceeds in two steps, first from arrays to ritual names and then from names to natural language text, is
verified by the fact that the extensive cross-zone semantic matches in Appendix 3 obtain only if the key is sorted by name, not by
array. For example, Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ records the Áfa (Ǹ r i) gloss of Ọ̀ rá Àghári (R◆◇◇◇ , L◆◆◇◇) as “patrilineage” (1997, 143), and
this is very closely matched in Ìha (Ẹ̀ dó), where Ọ̀ há Ọ̀ gháe (R◇◇◇◆, L◇◇◆◆) is “believed to indicate enmity from a brother by
the same father… It seems, however, that the term can also be used without any connotation of enmity, only to denote paternal
relatives” (Melzian 1937, 32f.). The correspondence continues in Ẹ pha (Ùrhobo), where “Orhaghare” (R◇◇◇◆, L ◇◇◆◆) is
glossed as “relation, brother, sister” (Nabofa & Elugbe 1981, 17). If the glosses were retrieved directly from the visual arrays
instead, the semantic match of Áfa’s Ọ̀ rá Àghári in Ìha should have been R◆◇◇◇ , L◆◆◇◇, which is Èghítan Òrúhù, glossed as
“ọ̀ hẹ́ [gift]” (Egharhevba 1936, 25).66 By inspection of Appendix 3, all the matches of asymmetric arrays are keyed by name, not
by directly by array. In this respect, Fá works like any orthography: meaning is associated primarily with an auditory sign, and
only secondarily with a visual representation; that’s why one language like Hindi-Urdu can be written in two alternative and
unrelated scripts, and why Japanese can use two unrelated scripts at once. Processing is affected, but not denotation.

5. From “underground spiritual game” to “enjoy for heaven”

These two catch phrases by Fẹ́ lá Aníkúlápò Kútì, Africa’s abàmi ẹ̀ dá ‘enfant terrible’, neatly divide the presuppositions of
geomancy and divination. The former term is conspicuously absent from Yorùbá scholarship on Ifá, but dominates in older studies
of other similar oracles in other regions, leading Binsbergen to coin the double-barreled, contradictory “geomantic divination”
(1997, 219) so as to cover both. As suggested by Verger (1966), Bám̅ gbóṣ é (1972) and Horton (1984), an evolution from the
veneration of earth spirits (ìmọ̀ lẹ̀ ) to worship of a sky-daddy (Ọ lọ́ run/Oló.dùmarè) was incomplete in West Africa before jihādic
and colonial adherents of Abraham settled the matter by force. Subsequent studies of indigenous beliefs have tended to regurgitate
an ahistorical stew of monotheism, statism and militarism, as was only too convenient for missionary apologists like Parrinder and
for nationalist converts like his student Ìdòwú. So, if ‘religion’ is mainly about the name and costume of the Supreme Being,
what’s a little conversion among friends?
Discussing the cultural uniformity or otherwise of the Yorùbá-speaking area, Prof. Ọ báyẹ mí consistently decried historians’
susceptibility to recycling ideological blowback along with primary data:67
Consensus among informants, even if widely separated in time and space, need not signify anything more than values held sacred,
sociological or ideological standpoints that need to be consistently defended from time to time and from place to place. Indeed the
might of consensus can be, and has been shown to be, the major obstacle to meaningful and systematic progress in the
historiography of precolonial contexts in the history of African peoples. …It has been my contention that the figure called Odùduwà
and all that are associated with such a figure constitute one of the most formidable obstacles to an advancement of the history of the
Yorùbá-speaking peoples. (Ọ báyẹ mí 1981, 6, 9)

Such remarks could well have been made by the founder of modern anthropology:
Ethnological phenomena… often rise into consciousness and thus give rise to secondary reasoning and to re-interpretations… which
are so common in ethnology, so much so that they generally obscure the real history of the development of ideas entirely.
(Boas 1911, 67, 71)

The risk of feedback is not specific to oral civilizations (Staal 1989, pace Goody 1986, 4f.; 1987, 303 fn. 5, Goody & Watt
1968), although the chance of inverting or telescoping a historical sequence is obviously enhanced whenever transmission of
public knowledge is limited by human memory. Thus oral history may promote a contingent, consequent event into an antecedent
cause, recoded in the ascriptive idiom of descent, whereas analysis shows the opposite mechanics: “it was the traditional
genealogies which were functions of political relationships, rather than vice-versa” (Law 1976, 129, fn. 34, cf. Aṣ íwájú 1976, 125,
fn. 45). Even the best mnemonic discipline does not avoid this pitfall, due to the sociological truism that investment in intellectual
capital tends to entrench material interest. For this reason, the variant lists of odù surveyed by Bascom (1961, 1966) and Hébert
(1961) face philological critique no less than the variant kinglists recited by the in-house chroniclers of Ifẹ̀ (Ọ báyẹ mí 1979a, 158).
There is indeed an uncanny resemblance between stories that “Oòduà descended from Heaven…with the reputed sixteen elders
and their followers” (Fábùnmi 1969, 3f.) and stories that “when the principal sixteen Odù came to the frontier gate separating
heaven from earth, they reversed their order of procession…” (Abím̅ bọ́ lá 1976, 26f.). Taking Ọ báyẹ mí’s sceptical view from the
northern Yorùbá periphery, we ought to wonder if these are not two versions of one archetypical tale, keyed to accidentally variant
names for one and the same “revisionist”, sky-born culture-hero: Odù(duwà ).68
Through many conference and seminar contributions—most of them unfortunately still unpublished—Ọ báyẹ mí emphasized the
diversity of northeastern Yorùbá culture, called Òokun, not just for its own sake (federal character again), but for its value as a
source of comparative evidence for the reconstruction of Yorùbá-internal dynamics, which have been obscured by “revisionist”
political ideologies of the ethnic center. As an ọ mọ Òokun and son of the middle belt, schooled in Árèwá, Ọ báyẹ mí was impressed
by similarity between Eba, the Nupe version of Fá, in zone B-iii, and the oracle practiced in zone B-ii comprising “Ìjùmú, Abínú,
Ìkiri, Ọ̀ wọ́ rọ̀ and Ìgbede” (1979a, 175). From his peripheral vantage point, the better-known oracle that prospered in zone A-i, in
between the poles of the Odùduwà monarchies of Ifẹ̀ and Ọ̀ yọ́ , was less a historical origin, as loudly claimed, than a point of
arrival in a much longer path. This insight is massively corroborated by the evidence examined above, some of which received its
first publication from Ọ báyẹ mí’s hand. Any Yorùbá version of the oracle was preceded by a centuries-old transmission chain, not
 11
every link of which can be reconstructed, unavoidably. As a social scientist, Ọ báyẹ mí put the evolution of Fá in political context,
as when he observed that “[i]n the north-west (Ọ̀ yọ́ ), the stories link its [= Ifá’s] introduction with the times of the exile of the
Aláàfins to Ìgbòho” (1979a, 175). From divine king to divination is not far (cf. Young 1966).
Ọ báyẹ mí’s expectation to find the truth in fragments, rather than in smooth and symmetrical wholes, suited his archaeological
training, and reminds me of an archetypical myth which exists in Yorùbá and Ìgbo versions:

Èṣ ù was Ọ bàtálá’s slave. He served Ọ bàtálá for lack of a domain of his own in the world. One says, ‘Èṣ ù kò ní ìwà’… Ọ bàtálá saw
psychic isolation as the cause of Èṣ ù’s irritability. He gave “no man’s land” to him. Èṣ ù is the ‘seventeenth’… the one who has no
land. …Ìjàpá is an extraordinarily enlightening transfiguration of Ilẹ̀ , the sacred Earth, which in the world’s myths often appears
personified as the Tortoise. But the Tortoise, who is also Èṣ ù, is wickedly comic and gruesome… Èṣ ù has no part in Olódùmarè…
He is a stranger, Aláìníbùgbé… Ọ bàtálá accepted the invitation of Èṣ ù to visit him on his farm. Èṣ ù begged Ọ bàtálá to allow him to
entertain him, as it is usual to do for a visitor. As Ọ bàtálá reclined against a rock after the meal, Èṣ ù climbed the rock and rolled it
onto Ọ bàtálá. …So it came to be—says the myth—that the strength of purity, ‘the forces of defenseless truth’ (Pasternak) were
broken up and scattered as innumerable minute entities and tiny bits all over the world… (Wenger 1983, 89f.)

Tortoise was the first person to come [to the Earth]. He said he wanted [to know] what was going on in the world. He went to collect
intelligence in his hand, took it and headed home, but one [bit] fell out. Then someone on the top of a palm tree called out to him:
‘Tortoise, do you want that intelligence should be your own and nobody else’s?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ The person then said, ‘Find a leaf
and wrap it up!’ Tortoise said, ‘Oh yeah? You say some living person is smarter that me? You say someone smarter than me exists?’ He
collected intelligence in a clay dish and threw it in the water. [Therefore] a newborn baby has intelligence, a big grownup also has it. It’s
Tortoise who scattered intelligence in the water, water that knowledge pervades. As he did so, it shows that people don’t follow
instructions. That’s what made intelligence go far and wide. If it was not for Tortoise throwing it in the water, intelligence would not be
in the mind of everyone, no matter who, like it is in the head. It’s Tortoise who caused that. (Díbị̀a Éléje Aghá, 19 June 1977)69

A very similar story appears in Ẹ̀ dó (Egharhevba 1951, 46), so it looks like a good candidate for reconstruction to the early days
of the Fá system, no matter how subversive it may strike modern authorities.
Professor Nwáọ̀ g a, the critic’s critic of African poetry, complete with Minerva’s owlish eyebrows, carried over to Ìgbo studies
the iconoclastic spirit of the Verger-inspired Yorùbá literature. His final book, The Supreme God as Stranger… radicalizes
Àchebé’s (1975) complaint that colonial translators and Ìgbo converts made a supreme creator-deity in the sky by linguistic
malapropism, baptizing it Chúkwu and Chínàékè. Nwáọ̀ ga debunks Àrị́ǹze’s claim that such a concept is old, and argues that the
Ìgbo cult of Chí Ukwu, literally ‘big chí’, previously named a physical place: the slave-trading oracle at Árụ̀ (“Arochuku”).
Nwáọ̀ ga holds on textual grounds that “[a]ny appearances of reference to the Judeo-Christian concept [in Ìgbo texts] must be seen
as accretions due to the dynamism of the oral tradition” (1984, 48).
Nwáọ̀ ga’s ethnography is consequential not only for Áfa, but also for Ifá. Starting in the Ìgbo context, the quarrel is about chí.
Àchebé gave this term the English gloss of “personal god” which Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ derides as “similar to the Christian religious idea
of guardian angel or a household god” (1997, 18). There remains a gap between Nwáọ̀ ga’s southern Ìgbo understanding of Big Chí
as a proper name denoting the sanctum sanctorum of the Árụ̀ slaving empire, and Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ ’s Ǹ ri-based translation of chí an
ordinary noun denoting the idea of “procreative force” (1997, 17f.). These views conflict, because Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ reports Ǹ ri
veneration of a proper noun “Chí Ukwu”, as referring not to the oracle of Árụ̀ Chúkwu—indeed Ǹ r i was explicitly outside the Árụ̀
sphere of influence (Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ 1981, 26-30, 59-61)—but to Ányaanwụ́ , the ‘Eye of the sun’ which is ritually paired with
Àgbala the force which “manifests some aspects of… knowledge related to prosperity, fertility, health [and] longevity known to
men through selected media and agents” (Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ 1997, 31, 78-82, 89). A second example of daylight association applies to
íchi, the facial scarification of Ǹ r i ọ́ zọ initates, which has been compared in form to solar rays (Jeffreys 1951) and which would
give the íchi men—known in the diaspora as “briche” (Ortiz 1924, 66, Edwards 1962) by reduction of the phrase ńdị gbúru ichí
‘those incised with íchi’—into illuminati literally speaking. Nwáọ̀ ga admitted that his theory of Árụ̀ origin can’t explain Ǹ ri’s
association of chí with the sky or the sun, but insists in response that the sky-god betrays its foreign origin just like any other
visitor, by its patent uselessness or irrelevance in Ìgbo ritual (1984, 61-67). Even so, however, the mystery is how an Ǹ r i fertility
concept was ever launched into the upper atmosphere.
In nonritual contexts, the noun chí means literal ‘daylight’: Chí èjígo means ‘The day has darkened’ or in effect, ‘Time to stop
work and go home’ while Kà chí foo! ‘Goodnight!’ is literally ‘Let [tomorrow’s] dawn spread out!’ (cf. Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ 1997, 88).
The same root occurs in the noun échi meaning ‘tomorrow’ (and in some southern dialects also ‘yesterday’ i.e. in effect ‘one day
removed from now’). Perhaps the identical sound of the Ìgbo nouns for ‘daylight’ and ‘procreative force’ is just a coincidence, and
the assocation of Chúkwu with the sky is just a double entendre—something babaláwos are skilled at (Verger 1977a,b citing also
Bascom 1969, 130). But alternatively the two nouns could be etymologically related through a shared root, and I’ve argued for
such an analysis, based on the finding that the terminology and pragmatics of Ìgbo male initiation explicitly refer to chí as agent of
reincarnation. Chí belongs to the small set of monosyllabic nouns, less than six in the entire language, all of which still show tonal
clues of a prefix pointing to the status of chí as the nominalization of a -CV predicate. I proposed in passing (1998, 177f.) that both
instances of the chí derive from the root -chì which means either ‘return back’ (-chì azụ́ ) or ‘replace/reincarnate’ (-nọ̀ -chi ụ wa).
Unfortunately this semantically plausible idea fails on phonetic grounds: not just the tonal mismatch (which is not insuperable) but
the stubborn fact that in aspirating (mostly southern) southern dialects the ‘return’ root is always aspirated, but neither of the
nouns ever is (Ígwè 1999, 110, 119). The only other possibility is that the association of chí with sky is pragmatic, and this is
surprisingly if indirectly confirmed in Ẹ̀ dó, where ẹ̀ h i, the spirit-double analogous to chí (Thomas 1914, 19), “is believed to be
‘with a man all the day’ ” (Melzian 1937, 51). If Ìgbo shared this belief about the same cosmological being, it would suffice to
motivate application of the noun for daylight to the metaphysical entity. It would also explain why Chí Ukwu, literally ‘Big
Daylight’ (not a bad description of the sun), would have supernatural significance.
 12
Chí also pertains to Ìgbo oracle theory, analogous to orí in Yorùbá Ifá. Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ reports that chí determines “the course of
a person’s life-history” and is represented by an ọ́ gbụ́ tree (Yorùbá akòko) planted at the birth of one’s first child, and cut down
during mortuary rites (1997, 17f.). Life-crises are blamed on a situation in which one’s chí has abandoned the human individual to
his or her own ágwụ̀ :

[E]very living being is constantly under the influence of ágwụ̀ which can take possession of a person temporarily. When this
happens, …he becomes unpredictable. His actions alternate between frenzy and calmness, disorderliness and orderliness,
destructiveness and creativeness, insanity and sanity, violence and peacefulness, ignorance and wisdom. Such personality traits are
generally described in two ways, either by using the popular concept of describing chí as ‘bad chí’[ájọ chí] or using the specific
concept of saying that ágwụ̀ has taken possession of the person’s action, ágwụ̀ atụ́ yá. Where has one’s chí gone during the period
one is under the influence of ágwụ̀ ? …When a person is defiled, for example on breaking a taboo, his chí abandons him and dwells
in the chí tree until the ritual of purification is done, after which his chí returns to him to direct him along creative lines. …
Occasionally it happens that a person remains in a state of defilement for a long time and his personality becomes… permanently
disorganized and in some extreme cases disoriented. In that case, it is believed that the person’s chí has gone from the chí tree to the
sky, ányaanwụ́ . The díbị̀a áfá must be consulted to find out why chí has abandoned the person, why ágwụ̀ has decided to act in a
negative way. …The díbị̀a áfá’s interpretation of such a state of affairs is based on the person’s past and present actions in relation
to those of his ancestors, in short his biography and history of the social structure. …The díbị̀a áfá refers him to the díbị́a àja who
specializes in the performance of all types of sacrifices to the supernaturals, in purification rituals, in exorcism of ágwụ̀ , in chaining
of ékweńsu [suicides and accidental deaths, conventionally glossed by Christians as “Lucifer” (Ígwè 1985, 157)] and à kalá-ògoli
[spirits of ‘halfway’ i.e. wasted lives], and in preparing protective charms. The client, in some extreme cases, is also referred to the
díbị̀a ọ́ gwụ̀ or the specialist in the use of herbs, roots and rocks for healing purposes. (Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ 1997, 18f.)

The díbị̀a áfá is initiated in Ágwụ̀ , “a supernatural being and also a force that reveals the secret ‘actions’ of álụ sị [spirits] and
m̀mụ́ ọ́ [ancestors] to the visible world [élu ụ̀ wa] through áfa” (Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ 1997, 13). That Ágwụ̀ is Èṣ ù’s Ìgbo cousin is
suggested by its attribute as “the embodiment of contradictions. It can be A and not-A simultaneously or alternatively” and as “a
being/force that mediates and resolves contradictions in human life and bridges the gap between known and unknown in the
universe of knowledge, in which social actions are directed” (Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ 1997, 15).
The dialogue carried out by the díbìạ on behalf of his client is explained as a mediated conversation with the client’s
ancestors—ńd ị m̀-mụ́ -ọ́ , literally ‘dead people’ (cf. -nwụ́ ‘die’ and m̀-má-nwụ́ ‘ancestral mask’). Éléje Aghá, my díbị̀a friend in
Ẹ́ hụ gbò (colonial “Afikpo”), enjoyed being greeted by his popular handle Ò-jé-la-m̀mụ́ ọ́ ‘Someone who goes to the ancestors and
returns’. Not every díbị̀a claims Ágha’s shamanic ability to travel to the dead and back, in fact the Ọ̀ jọ bụ of Ágbọ̀ demurred, but
none of them will dispute Erivwo of Ùrhobo who explained his oracle apparatus as a communication link with Ẹ̀ rívwìn, the
ancestors’ underground abode (Nabofa & Elugbe 1981, 10).
If so, then what’s a comparatist to make of the striking marginality of the ancestors to Yorùbá expositions of Ifá? The mild sky-
worshiping tendencies in Ìgbo religion which, purged of all missionary blowback leave the possibly punning residue of a verbal
association between Chí Ukwu and Ányaanwụ́ , seem to have evolved in many/most Yorùbá minds into an intrinsic connection
between ọ̀ run—a word found in the fixed phrase ojú ọ̀ run ‘sky’ (Abraham 1958, 527), the place from which Odù(duwà)
descended to earth on an (ọ̀ pẹ̀ lẹ̀ ?) chain—and Ọ lọ́ run the God of the Yorùbá monotheists (Verger 1966, 30f.), together with
Ọ̀ rúnmìlà, Ifá’s alter ego whose name the monotheists tautologically parse as “ọ̀ run ni ó mọ à-ti-là, Only Heaven knows the
means of salvation” (Ìdòwú 1962, 75).70
Verger efficiently cut this knot:

We must realise that in Yorùbá vocabulary ọ̀ run, the sky, is associated with the idea of death and the ará ọ̀ run—people [inhabitants]
of the sky—are the dead; whilst ayé means world, earth, lifetime, and the aráyé are mankind, living people. The same opposition
exists between a religion of salvation based on the expiation of individual sin and directed to preparation for a good death, and the
religion of the òrìṣ à and the àṣ ẹ , …a religion of exaltation turned toward life and its continuance. ‘Life on earth is better than life in
the beyond,’ declared Gẹ̀ dẹ̀ gbè to Maupoil.
(Verger 1966, 35, citing Maupoil 1943a, 402: “La vie terrestre, poursuit Gẹ̀ dẹ̀ gbè, est préférable à la vie dans l’au delà.”)

Maupoil—Verger’s and Bascom’s contemporary and leading student of Fá in the Gbè-speaking area—cites earlier field
observations casting doubt on an old connection between ‘Heaven’ (as the abode of the ancestors) and the sky:

The idea of heaven in the sky probably came from Egypt [to Ẹ̀ dó] via the Yorùbá… though it may be a relic of the old Roman
Catholic missionary teaching. That the dead were originally thought to dwell beneath the earth seems probable from the fact that the
entrance to this, in the old story of Ẹ́ wúarè, was by a hole in the ground. Unless badly treated in this world, all people prefer it to the
next. Life in ‘heaven’ cannot be pleasant, otherwise people would not come back so quickly—sometimes the next year—while
many live to such a great age on earth. …Bad people are punished by being kept long in ‘heaven’ and are detained there till they
‘learn sense’. Good and wise people are reincarnated very quickly. (Talbot 1926, 268, in part cited by Maupoil 1943a, 402 fn. 1)

Orientalism aside, Talbot’s account supports the view that ọ̀ run originally had no sky-connotation, only a semantic link with the
underground dead—geo-mancy and not divin-ation! This is consistent with the interpretation of the phrase ọ̀ run ẹ ni as “one’s
ancestors” (Awóyalé 2008 citing Bán̅jọ & al. 1991, 15) and by the denotation of the verb root -run “to perish” (Abraham 1958,
579) as in the following traditional lines, which Awóyalé quotes from Adéoyè (1979, 10):

Awo kìí kú, awo kìí run, awoó pa’pò dà ni

Kí awo má ṣ èdárò awo: bí ó pẹ́ títí, awo á tún rí awo he.
[An awo does not die, does not perish, but is merely transformed.
An awo should not grieve over an awo: eventually, the awo will find [the] awo again.]
 13
Here too some linguistics can be handy (cf. Akínkugbé 1978, 610):71

NW Yorùbá NE Yorùbá Igálà Ẹ̀ dó Ìgbo

(10a) ‘perish’ -run -wú -nwụ́

‘death’ ùwú ọ́ nwụ
‘sun’ oòrùn onù ólù òvẹ n, ònwẹ ánwụ

(10b) ‘neck’ ọ rùn ọ́ lọ̀ ùrhu ónu

‘four’ ẹ̀ rin ẹ̀ lẹ̀ ènẹ́ ànọ́

The data in (10) prove the etymology of ọ̀ run as stated by awo Pierre “Fátúnbí ” Verger over 40 years ago: ‘death’ itself.72
The eventual lift-off of such a literally grounded concept into empyrean vagueness did not erase all traces of its path, and is in
tune with other likely semantic developments, such as the shift of òrìṣ à from the plain meaning of ‘ancestor’ (still existing in
Ọ báyẹ mí’s town of Ìjùmú where in 1997 I saw the eégún greeted as “Òrìṣ à!”) to the more abstract, orthodox and current
interpretation of “god(s)” being distinct from “ancestors (òkú ọ̀ run)”—literally and pleonastically, ‘corpses of ọ̀ run’ (Abím̅ bọ́ lá
1976, 151). Bascom observed at Ifẹ̀ that, while

the worship of the immediate ancestors and of the compound founder are set apart from the worship of the òrìṣ às, …[n]evertheless
it should be noted that the worship of the òrìṣ às is conceptually ancestor worship, and that in many respects the elaborate Dahomean
cult of the ancestors resembles the worship of the òrìṣ às more closely than it does the Yorùbá ancestor cult. (1944, 39)

Supporting evidence is found in Samuel Johnson’s description of the “Ọ̀ run festival” in Ọ̀ yọ́ :

At this festival the King and the Baṣ ọ̀ run worship together the Orí or god of fate. The Ọ̀ run from which it appears the Baṣ ọ̀ run
derives his name and title is a curious if not rather a mystical rite. The word “ọ̀ run” signifies heaven [sic]. The title in full is Iba
Ọ ṣ ọ̀ run i.e. the lord who performs the Ọ̀ run or heavenly mysteries. The King and his Ọ ṣ ọ̀ run are often spoken of as “Ọ ba a[i]yé”
and “Ọ ba Ọ̀ run” i.e. King terrestrial and King celestial. …[T]he rite seems to deal with the affairs connected with the King’s life.
…The emblem of worship is said to be a coffin made or paved with clay in which he is to be buried. …[T]he Baṣ ọ̀ run is to divine
with kola nuts, to see whether the King’s sacrifices are acceptable to the celestials [sic] or not; if the omen be favourable the Aláàfin
is to give the Baṣ ọ̀ run presents of a horse and other valuables; if unfavourable, he is to die, he as fortfeited the right to further
existence. (Johnson 1921, 48, no tones marked in original)73

This scenario is confirmed by Morton-Williams who adds an intriguing gloss for ọ̀ run as follows:

At the annual Ọ̀ run festival, the Baṣ ọ̀ run (leader of the Ọ̀ yọ́ Mìsì) can declare, after divination, that the king’s fortune, as
symbolized by his head, would be bad and that his ọ̀ run—spirit double in the sky—no longer supports his stay on earth. Found unfit
to rule, he must poison himself and die. (1960, 364)

Moreover, in another ritual context, the Aláàfin is described as Ṣ àngó’s counterpart “on earth” (Babáyẹ mí 1973, 121). Thus a
more literal gloss of Ọ ṣ ọ̀ run/Ọ ba Ọ̀ run is ‘royal ancestral priest’ in contrast to Ọ ba ayé in effect ‘royal priest of the living’ (cf. ayé
‘lifetime’ Abraham 1957, 83; Awóyalé 2008). Law (1977, 65) adds the telling detail from Johnson’s account, that the Ifá festival
in Ọ̀ yọ́ is called “Mọ lẹ ”, an expression which depending on its correct pronunciation—no tones are marked in the published
source—most likely refers to the veneration of the earth (ilẹ̀ ).
The ends of this etymological thread tie together, unintentionally and poignantly too, in a passage from the most recent
instalment of the autobiography of Nigeria’s Nobel laureate—a volume should have been subtitled apologias instead of
“memoirs”. Here is how he ends his published account of his relationship with Verger:

Pierre died some years ago. Reconciliation with that misused scholar was one that I truly craved, but appeasement must now be
delayed until our reunion under the generous canopy of Ọ rụ̀ nmílà [sic]. (Ṣ óyín̅ká 2006, 261, typo in source)74
 14
Appendix 1: comparison of 4-bit arrays across localities. (See Appendix 3 for 8-bit glossaries from zones B/C/D)

zone A zone B zone C zone D zone E

Ifá Fá Ifá “Agbigba” Eba “Pa” Ìha Ẹ pha Áfa Ẹ́ ha Khet’t er remel (‘sand-writing’ of literate Arabs)
i ii gloss of doubled array iii iv i ii iii iv i ii i ii i ii iii iv gloss of single array
◇◇◇◇ Ogbè (1) good visitor Gbè ♂ Èbí (5) [Oṣ ika] (1) [Ṣ ikan] (6) [Shi] (1) Ógbì (1/5) Ogbi (1) Óbì/Ógbù (11) Obi (5/16) ♂ (7) (4) (1) tarik ‘road’
◆◆◆◆ Ọ̀ yẹ̀ kú (2) longevity/good journey/wives Yẹ̀ kú ♀ Ọ yẹ ku/Ákwù (13) Ọ yẹ ku (2) Eyako (5) Kum (16) Àkó (2/6) Ako (5) À(k/h)wụ (3) Akwụ (16/5) () (16) (6) (2) jemāah ‘assembly’
◆◇◇◆ Ìwòrì (3) children; ending of good luck (W)ólì ♂ Ògòlì (11) Ogori (7) Gori (8) Guiri (8) Òghoi (3/2) Oghori (10) Ògori/Òyeri (2) Ogoli (11/10) ♂ (8) (3) (5) ijitima ‘unity, meeting’
◇◆◆◇ Èdí/Òdí (4) bad visitor/avoid journey Dí ♀ Òjí/Òdí (10) Oji (8) Eji (7) [Nwa] (9) Òdín (4/1) Edi/Odi (9) Òdí (10) [ ] (10/11) ♀ (11) (11) (6) ocleh ‘deception’

◇◆◆◆ Ọ̀ bàrà (7) coming of good luck Ab(á)là ♂ Ọ̀ bàrà (2) Ọ bara (4) Bara (15) Mbara (15) Ọ̀ kan (6/11) Ọ kanran (4) Ọ̀ bala (7) Ọ kara (2/3) () (12) (12) (3) lahyān ‘bearded person’
◆◆◆◇ Ọ̀ kànràn (8) accident; honor Aklán/Akánà ♀ Ọ̀ kọ̀ nọ̀ /Ọ̀ kàrà (8) Ọ kọ na (3) Kana (16) Gina (4) Ọ̀ (v)ba (5/12) Ọ (v)bara (6) Ọ̀ kala (1) Ọ bara (8/13) ♀ (13) (10) (4) nekys ‘reversal’
◇◇◆◆ Ìròsùn (5) poverty Lósò ♂ Òlòrù (9) Orosun (15) Rusu (1) Lusu (14) Ọ̀ gháe (8/4) E/Aghare (3) Ùrúrù (5) Ẹ gali (9/12) () (10) (5) (16) nousra el khārijah ‘victory leaving’
◆◆◇◇ ̣ ̣
Òwónrín (6) longevity; slander Wòlín/Wẹ̀ lé ♀
̣ Ẹ̀ gálí (12) Ọ ga (16) Ega (2) [Chiyong] (3) Òrúùhu (7/3) Urhur(h)u (7) Àgári/Àyári (13) Uhu (12/9) ♀ (9) (2) (15) nousra el dakhilah ‘victory coming’

◇◇◇◆ Ògúndá (9) sudden trouble; double wealth Gùdá ♂ Ogwutẹ /Èjítà(14) Ogunta (14) Guta (11) Kura (13) Ọ̀ há (10/15) Ọ rha (2) Ìjíte/Ògúte (9) Oha (13/8) ♀ (15) (14) (8) atabah el kharijah ‘outer threshold’
◆◇◇◇ Ọ̀ sá (10) difficulties in work Sá ♀ Ọ̀ rá (3) Osa (13) Esa (12) Saa (2) Ìghítan (9/16) Ighitẹ (8) Ọ̀ rá (15) Ijite/Ogute (3/2) (♂) (14) (13) (7) atabah el dakhilah ‘inner threshold’
◇◇◆◇ Ìrẹ tẹ̀ (14) prosperity despite enemies Lẹ tẹ̀ ♀ Ọ lẹ tẹ ̣ /Ètè (1) Irẹ tẹ (10) Etia (14) Lete (6) Ètúrẹ (12/13) Erhurẹ (12) Ète/Èke (8) Oture (1/4) ♂ (2) (7) (13) gandele ‘solid’
◇◆◇◇ Òtú(r)á (13) peace and consensus Túlá ♂ Òtúlá (16) Otura (9) Turia (13) Toro (7) Ète (11/14) Ete/?Eke (13) Òtúre (12) Ete (14/7) ♂ (1) (8) (14) naki el khadd ‘beardless’

◆◆◇◆ Òtúrúpọ̀ n (12) accept advice Trúkpẹ̀ ♀ Átúnúkpà (4) Ọ taru (6) Rakpan (9) Matpa (11) Ẹ̀ ká (16/10) Ẹ ka (15) Àtụ́ rụ kpà (16) Ẹ ka (4/1) ♀ (3) (16) (11) bayādh ‘white color’
◆◇◆◆ Ìká (11) health and prosperity Ká ♂ Ẹ̀ ká (7) Oyinkan (5) Yikan (10) Mishpa (10) Ẹ̀ rhóxuà (13/9) Erhokpo/a (14) Àká (4) Ẹ tụ rụ kpa (7/14) ♂ (4) (1) (12) homra ‘red color’
◇◆◇◆ Ọ̀ sẹ́ (15) good wife; journey/prosperity Chẹ́ ♂ Òché (6) Ọ kin (11) Arikin (4) Kye (5) Òhún (15/8) Ophu (16) Òsé (6) Ohu (6/15) ♀ (6) (15) (10) cabdh el khariji ‘outgoing arrow’
◆◇◆◇ Òfún (16) share with friends; be alert Fú ♀ Òfú (15) Ofun (12) Efu (3) [Kapla] (12) Òsé (14/7) Ose (11) Òhú (4) Ose (15/6) ♀ (5) (9) (9) cabdh el d ākhil ‘incoming arrow’
Notes. Left side of transcription = top of array; ◇ = concave up, ◆ = concave down, corresponding to single vs. double line respectively in yanrìn títẹ̀ ‘sand-writing’. Omitted here is Èfik “Efa”, briefly mentioned by Talbot (1912, 274) as well as Southern
African “four tablet divination” (Binsbergen 1996, 21f.) which shows no relationship to the oral Niger-Benue systems in Zones A - D, and but faint similarity to the literate Arabic systems in Zone E.
[A-i] gives the array names in Ọ̀ yọ́ (Abím̅ bọ́ lá 1976) in the order recorded in Òmu-Ìlọ rin (Clarke 1939, 252) plus “Ifẹ̀ , Ìleṣ à, Èkìtì and Ìgbómìnà” (Bascom 1969a, 47). A variant of [A-i], recorded from “On ̀dó and Bìní [=Ẹ̀ dó]”, shifts Ìká/Ẹ̀ ká to the final
position in the order (Ìbiẹ́ 1986, 65). [A-ii] is the order “primarily associated with Lagos, Òdè Rẹ́ mọ … and the provinces of Abẹ́ òkúta and Ìbàdàn” plus Cuba and Brazil, on frequency grounds called “the dominant pattern” (Bascom 1969a, 47; cf. 1961,
1966). [A-ii] also occurs in Nàgó and eastern Gbè, for which [A-iii] gives names from Maupoil (1943a, 414f.) plus some variants from Trautmann (1940) and Herskovits (1938, 210f.). The glosses of double arrays (= ojú odù ‘major odu’) are summarized
from Clarke (1939, 255). Trautmann, Maupoil (1943a, 430-572), Abím̅ bọ́ lá (1976, 30f.) list more detailed semantics of single names, based on folk etymologies and/or on associated texts. [A-iv] lists the genders reported by Hébert (1961, 152 citing
Johnson 1899, Maupoil 1943a, 414-16 and Alápínì 1952). The “dzisa” tradition of the Èʋè-speaking area has a variant order of [A-ii] in which Ká is demoted to its [A-i] position: “Gbe, Yẹ ku, Woli, Di, Loso, Anlọ ẹ , Abla, Akla, Guda, Sa, Trukpẹ , Tula,
Lẹ tẹ , Ka, Tsẹ , Fu” (Kligue[h] 2001, 205, superscript diacritics omitted because they seem to be typographically garbled), whereas the “afa” tradition, also Èʋè-speaking, adopts the order of [A-i] as recorded by Spieth (1911, 201f.).
[B-i] is Igálà (Boston 1974, 352-54, significance of order not stated, approximate tones and alternate names from Bradbury p.c. to Armstrong 1964, 139). [B-ii] is Yàgbà-Yorùbá (Bascom 1969, 7 no tones, citing Ògúnbìyí 1952). [B-iii] is Nupe (Ọ báyẹ mí
1983, no diacritics); Nadel (1954, 41) gives a different order. [B-iv] is from the Angas cluster of West Chadic (Danfulani 1995, 81f., 195, no diacritics, noncognates in [square brackets]). Boston, Nadel and Danfulani cite a semantics for each 4-bit array.
[C-i] is from Ẹ̀ dó proper i.e. “Ẹ̀ dó-Bìní” (names from Egharhevba 1936, 7-10, tones from Melzian 1937, 137). The first ordering is from Egharhevba (1936, 7-10, 10-39), who notes a variant with Òsé (13), Òhún (14), Ẹ̀ rhóxuà (15); the second ordering is
from Melzian (1937, 137); Emọ vọ n (1984, 5) has yet a third. [C-ii] is from Ùrhobo (Nabofa & Elugbe 1981, inconsistent transcription, no tones, significance of order not stated). Mutation in Zone C: all asymmetric arrays rotate 180º with respect to their
counterparts in Zone A, despite the impression given by Armstrong’s chart (1964, 139). Emọ vọ n explicitly notes that this rotation is due to adoption of a perspective “as if the reading was done from the side of the client sitting opposite the diviner”
(1984, 4). Despite this, the arrays are read from the oraclist’s right to left (as in zone A). BK1 tonemarking convention applied in Ẹ̀ dó: no mark = same as previous mark.
[D-i] is from Ǹ ri-Igbo (Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ 1997, no diacritics, significance of order not stated). Transcription revised, based on 1977 recording of Díbị̀a Chúkwumà at Ágụ -Ukwu Ǹ ri (Appendix 2). [D-ii] is from Ǹ sụ́ ká-Ìgbo (Shelton 1965, unreliable
diacritics), no ordering in the source, one array not named. Mutation in [D-ii]: all asymmetric arrays rotate 180º with respect to their counterparts in [D-i], presumably for the same reason as in zone C, namely that of taking the client’s perspective
(Emọ vọ n 1984, 4), but nevertheless from the oraclist’s right to left. BK1 tonemarking convention applied in Ìgbo: no mark = same as previous mark; sequence of two H marks = downstep starting on the second H.
[E-i] before the slash is a “mathematical” order attributed to the Berber author Ez-Zenati, also found in Porto Novo (Maupoil 1943b, 5-6, cited by Hébert (1961, 155 and 156, fn. 1), in Chad (Jaulin 1957 cited by Hébert 1961, 156, fn. 2) and in “Atimi”
collected at Mẹ̀ kọ , Nigeria (Bascom 1969, 8 citing Monteil 1932, 89f., no tones). Trautmann (1940, 151). The order in [E-i] after the slash is obtained by reversing the parity of each bit (Hébert 1961, 182). The genders are given by Ez-Zenati (Maupoil
1943b, 61). [E-ii] was collected in Mauritania (Trancart 1938, via Hébert 1961, 150). [E-iii] is from Grande Comore (Hébert 1961, 146 who gives three alternate orders from Madagascar, cf. also Trautmann 1940, 153). [E-iv] and the Arabic glosses are
from Darfur (Tūnisı ̄ 1845 via Hébert 1961, 121, 188ff.). Probably coincidentally, based on geometric rotation and reversal, [E-iv] expresses the same pairings as everywhere else except [C-ii]. Jaulin (1957, 1966) documents semantic shifts in Chad.
 15
Appendix 2: Recording of Chúkwumà, díbị̀a áfá, Ǹ ri town, August 1977
Preliminary transcription; audio avalable on request. Note alternate reading patterns of the 4 strings, right to left ABCD:
“AB, BC, AC, CD, BD, AD.” [alt.-a]
“AB, BC, BD, CD, AD.” [alt.-b]
“AB, BC, BD, CD, AD.” [alt.-c]
“AB, AC, AD, BD, BC.” [alt.-d]
“AB, BC, BD, CD, AC.” [alt.-e]
“AB, AC, BC, CD, AD.” [alt.-f]
“AB, AC, BC, CA, CD.” [alt.-g]
“AB, CA, CD, DB, CB.” [alt.-h]
“AB, CB, DB, CA, DA.” [alt.-i]
“AB, CA, DA, DB” [alt.-j]
Some readings are truncated. Each adjacent, repeated 4-bit word is called either nám̀bọ or náàbọ (double) or náátọ (triple). Each pair of names is
usually pronounced with the normal, derived tones of a X + Y genitive construction meaning ‘X of Y’, but sometimes LL+L remains
unperturbed, e.g. twice in line (14), and some metalinguistic L tone appears in (23). Consonant substitutions are marked in the transcription and
annotated in this format: [t] → [k]
1. Àká Ọ́ ra, Ọ̀ rá Àwụ , Àká Àwụ , Àkwụ Otúle, Ọ̀ rá Ótule, Àká Ótule. [alt.-a]
2. Òtúle nam̀bọ , Òtúle Obì, Óbí Óse, Òtúle Óse. [AC=BC, AD=BD)]
3. Ọ̀ rá nam̀bọ , Ọ̀ rá Ète, Ógbú Ète. [alt-b truncated AD, A=B]
4. Óbì Atụ́ rụ kpà, Àtụ́ rụ kpá Áka, Àká Òyeri, Àtụ́ rụ kpá Òyeri. [truncated AD], [g] → [y]
5. Óbí Óse, Òsé Ọ̀ kala, Òsé È[k]e, Ọ̀ kalá Ète, Ógbú È[k]e. [alt-b], [t] → [k], [b] → [gb]
6. Ìjíte Áka, Àká Óhu, Òhú nam̀bo, Ìjíte Óhu. [alt-c, BC=BD, AC=AD]
7. Àtụ́ rụ kpá Áka, Àká Ò[y]eri, Àká Ógute, Ògori Ogúte. [alt-b truncated AD], [g] → [y]
[after the throw, hits tortoise shell once with ọ̀ fọ́ ]
8. Àká Òtúle, Àká Ète, Àká Obì, Òtúle Obì, Ógbú È[k]e. [alt-d ], [b] → [gb]
9. Àtụ́ rụ kpá Óse, Òsé Àkwụ , Òsé È[k]e, Àkwụ Ete, Àtụ́ rụ kpá Àkwụ . [alt-e], [t] → [k]
10. Òhú Ògori, Ògori Ọ kala, Òhú Ọ̀ kala, Ọ̀ kalá È[k]e, Ògorí È[k]e, Òhú È[k]e. [alt.-a], [t] → [k]
[hits double ògénè repeatedly with ọ̀ fọ́ stick, then throws]
11. Óbì Akwụ , Àkwụ́ Ọ́ ra, Ọ̀ rá Ùrúrù, Àkwụ Urúrù, Óbì Urúrù. [alt.-a dropped AC]
12. Òdí Óhu, Òdí Ọ̀ kala, Òhu nám̀bọ , Òhú Ọ̀ kala, Òdí Ọ̀ kala. [alt.-f plus extra AD, AB=AC]
13. Èté Óhu, Òhú Ète, Ète náàbo, Ète náátọ . [alt.-c, A=C=D]
14. Ète Atụ́ rụ kpà, Ète A[hw]ụ , Àtụ́ rụ kpá Àhwụ , Àkwụ Ete, Àkwụ́ Óhu. [alt.-g], [kw] → [hw]
15. Òdí Átụ́ rụ kpà, Òdí Ète, Òdí Óse. [alt.-d truncated last two]
16. Àtụ́ rụ kpá Ète, Àtụ́ rụ kpà A[y]ári, Àgári Ọ́ [r]a, Èté Ọ́ ha, Àtụ́ rụ kpá Ọ́ [r]a. [alt.-a dropped BC], [g] → [y], [h] → [r]
17. Ète A[hw]ụ , Àgári À[hw]ụ , Akwụ́ Óhu, Àgári Óhu. [alt-b truncated AD], [kw] → [hw]
18. Àká naàbọ , Àká Ọ̀ bala, Ọ̀ balá Óse, Àká Óse, Àká Óse. [alt-a, A=A]
19. Àgári Obì, Àgári Áka, Ọ̀ kalá Áka, Óbí Áka. [alt.-f, reversed CD, truncated AD]
20. Àká À[hw]ụ , Àká naàbọ , Àká Ò[y]eri, Àkwụ́ Áka [alt.-e, A=C], [kw] → [hw], [g] → [y]
21. Àtụ́ rụ kpá Óhu, Òhú Àkwụ , Àwụ́ Ọ̀ bala, Àtụ́ rụ kpá Ọ̀ bala. [alt.-c dropped BD
22. Ùrurú Óhu, Ùruru Ọ kala, Ọ̀ kalá Ète, Òhú Ète, Ùrurú Ète. [alt.-a dropped BC]
23. Àgári Ògúte, Ìjíte Ọ̀ bala, Ọ̀ bala Odíì, Ìjíte Odíì, Àgári Odíì. [alt.-a dropped AC]
[laughs then throws]
24. Ìjíte Ótule, Òtúle Ò[y]eri, Òtúle Ọ̀ kala, Ògeri Ọ̀ kala, Ìjíte Ọ̀ kala. [alt.-c], [g] → [y]
25. Ọ̀ kalá Ọ̀ bala, Òhú Ọ̀ kala, Òhú Úrúrù, Ùruru Ọ bala, Òhú Ọ̀ bala. [alt.-h]
26. Àká Óhu, Òhú Ọ̀ kala, Àká Ọ̀ kala, Ọ̀ kalá Óhu, Òhú nam̀bọ . [alt.-a, dropped BD]
27. Óbí Ọ̀ bala, Àká Ọ̀ bala, Àtụ́ rụ kpá Ọ̀ bala, Àká Obì, Àtụ́ rụ kpá Óbì, Àtụ́ rụ kpá Ọ̀ bala [alt.-i repeating DB?]
28. Àká Ọ̀ kala, Ọ̀ kala Otúle, Òtúle Ògeri, Àká Ótúle. [alt.-e dropped BD].
29. Ọ̀ rá Á[y]ari, Ògerí Ọ́ rá, Àtụ́ rụ kpá Ọ́ rá, Ògeri A[y]ári. [alt.-j], [g] → [y]
30. Ùrurú Àhwụ , Ùruru Atụ́ rụ kpà, Àtụ́ rụ kpà Otúle, Ùruru Otúle, Àhwụ Otúle. [alt.-a dropped BC]
31. Òhú Ése, Àtụ́ rụ kpá Óhu, Òsé Á[y]ari, Òhú Á[y]ari, Àtụ́ rụ kpá Á[y]ari. [alt.-a, dropped BC, reordered], [g] → [y]
[hits tortoise shell with ọ̀ fọ́ ]
32. Ònyé bụ̀ Okéreké bụ́ ndị à? Ń dị Ókereké dị̀kwa!
Who are these So-and-So family? So-and-So family are indeed present!
33. Òkéreké kèné òfufe! Kèdị́ ká ǹga gị́?
Mr. So-and-So should greet by worshipping! Where is your offering?
34. Ọ̀ sị́ nà ó nwère ífe jídeni gị́… ǹke ńdị ụ nọ̀ … tọ̀ gbọ́ yá nà nkị́tị!
It then says something is holding you... relating to the people at home... causing desolation!
 16
35. …gwá m̅ ife ọ bụ̀, kà ḿ gwa Òkéreké.
…tell me what it is, so that I can tell Mr. So-and-So.
35. Ọ̀ sị́ nà ọ́ bụ̀ ńdụ míli, yá ndị dị́ nà mílí, ífe a kwadobe nà mílí.
He says it is the ones of water, it’s those which are in the water, something kept in water.
36. Nà ọ́ bya nà-enyé gị́ ife ị gà-iji ebú ife ọ hụ̀ áwụ̀ sị.
That he will come and give you what you will use to pour the thing away
37. Nà í me nyá, ì mé echí.
That you should do it tomorrow.
38. Nà anyị́ gà-éjì égó, gbákọ si ifé, jèé nà mílí, wánye yá.
That we will use money, assemble everything, go in the water, submerge it in.
39. Yá bụ̀ , é were ụ bọ̀ sị́ nwerọ̀ me Eké jee nyá, ọ̀ dị́ghị́ mmá.
That is, if you go and do that on any other day than Èké (the main market and ritual day), it is not good.
40. Kèé egó jee mezi na, ị gà-afụ́ ya afụ , ị gà-afụ́ yá, nà ife kwụ ọ tọ́ , ife na-ụ́ zọ́ ǹkáná, n’ụ́ zọ̀ áka èkpe. Yá bụ̀ é mesịa, ò mé gịnị́? Ọ́ má-èrú è ká.
N’íme ife à, i mé égo.
If you divide money go and invest in it, you will surely see it standing on the left side. Then, what it is doing? It will not be too large. Then
inside this thing, you put the money.
41. Ì ríjuo afọ́ [g]ụ , àrụ́ adụ̀ á gị mmá, ị̀ dị ka ị́ nwèzína uchè.
If you have eaten belly full and your body feels OK, you still ought to think further!
42. Ì nwete ífe ụ́ mụ̀ áká gà ná-èrí? Ọ̀ fọ́ gà-adị́ mmá. Ụ́ mụ̀ áká na-èrí-ifé, mà nwóké mà nwáànya í nwère. Fáà ná-èríjuo afọ́ .
Have you got what the children will be eating? [Then] the household lineage (ọ̀ fọ́ ) will be good. Children need something to eat, whether you
have boys or girls. They just keep on eating until their bellies are full.
43. Òkéreké mà gị́ eména ji ife? Nà ádị̀ ífe a dị̀ ekwé, kà úrùú madị̀? Ónye eména ji ife, àrụ́ adị̀ ekwé yá. Òkéreké wèré nzu bàá!
Mr. So-and-So, shouldn’t you have things? That there is anything that is more appropriate that human profit? If someone should not have
things, his body will not agree. Mr. So-and-So crumble chalk (as a sacrifice)
44. Nà ọ́ bụ̀ íjé tère na ị́ byà na bé ḿ, wèé gbagha ife dị́ etu à. Màna kwọ́ aká ọ́ tọ màka Chínàékè!
It’s a long journey you came to my place and started doing something like this. Raise up your open hands to the Sky God.
[…Side discussion between Chúkwumà and Àkụ ńné about how to conclude the tape…]
45. Ífe m nà-ekwú, díbyà ḿ nà-emé, ọ màra m amá, nà mụ́ asàtara ya asatá, nà ó dùlégbu ányị, onye ọ màra, o mébe.
What I’m saying, the oracle I’m practicing, it suits me, I’ve mastered it thoroughly, it has guided us through, someone it suits, he starts doing
[it].
46. “Ète Akwụ ” bụ ńnekwu ọ̀ kụ kụ , ọ dị́rọ̀ kwa nyá? “Ète Akwụ ” ńnekwu ọ̀ kụ kụ .
Ète Akwụ is [signifies] a big hen, isn’t it so? Ète Akwụ [is] a big hen,
47. “Òghorí Ète”, áwọ ya árụ .
Òghori Ète [means] s/he has a stomach ache.
48. “Òdí Òsé”, íwe, “Àtụ́ rụ kpá Òse” ájị̀ ohwú.
Òdí Òsé [is] quarrel, Àtụ́ rụ kpá Òse is a piece of coarse wrapper cloth.
49. “Ùrúrù nám̀bọ ” ụ́ gwọ́ . “Èté Òsé”, íyi a gà-aṅụ́ .
Double Ùrúrù [means] debt; Èté Òsé [means] an oath that to be sworn [drunk].
50. “Àkwụ́ Àká”, Ǹ kwọ́ , èvínì.
Àkwụ́ Àká [means] Ǹ kwọ́ [day], a ram.
51. “Àká Òtúre”, ọ̀ wọ́ .
Àká Òtúre [means] an ọ̀ fọ́ lineage staff.
52. “Àkwụ́ Ìjíte”, ụ́ nọ̀ .
Àkwụ́ Ìjíte [means] household.
53. “Àkwụ́ Òhú” bụ̀ Chí. “Àkwụ́ Ùrúrù” yá bụ̀ nwá.
Àkwụ́ Òhú is the Chí life-force. Àkwụ́ Ùrúrù, that is a child.
54. “Ọ̀ rá Obì”, ọ̀ bị́bya.
Ọ̀ rá Obì [means] a visitor.
55. “Àká naàbọ ”, há nà-abya.
Àká naàbọ [means] they are coming.
 17
Appendix 3: External matches to the Áfa key 75
Áfa (Ǹ ri) Ẹ́ ha (Ǹ sụ́ ká) “Ẹ pha” (Ùrhobo) Ìha (Ẹ̀ dó) Eba (Nupe) Ifá (Igálà)
n=256 n=12, match=50% n=64, match=35% n=223, match=35% n=32, match=25% n=20, match=25%
Àká naàbọ run/escape, {coming} <failure/no> <destruction> [gifts] [journey]
Àká Àkwụ́ ancestors [trap/infection] old person
Àká Àgári animal sacrifice [joy] [bones of hand] blood sacrifice
Àká Ète álụ sị of water fish fish [death] [oracle spirit]
Àká Ìjíte earth force of òbú <selfishness> <profit> creator
Àká Ọ̀ bala earth force [father] [cloth]
Àká Óbì said/decided messenger [sky]
Àká Òhú chí procreative force [mother] ọ jọ (≈ Ìgbo chí )
Àká Òghori bad-death ones spirit world/the dead bad companions [mother]
Àká Ọ̀ kala illness [adultery] [bad day]
Àká Ọ̀ rá life <father, ancestor> <seniority> [household]
Àká Òsé peace <destiny> <destiny/ẹ̀ hi> [earth]
Àká Òtúre ọ̀ fọ́ staff prayer [fish]
Àká Àtụ́ rụ kpà iroko tree [relatives] [misfortune] [small child]
Àká Òdí earth force nature forces [hills]
Àká Ùrúrù ancestors [children] [ọ jọ (≈ chí )]
Àkwụ́ naàbọ bad situation corner confinement
Àkwụ́ Àká ram/Nwáńkwọ [head] hindrance
Àkwụ́ Àgári animal sacrifice ram or sheep animal sacrifice
Àkwụ́ Ète ‘big man’ [weeping]
Àkwụ́ Ìjíte domestic unit [goat]
Àkwụ́ Ọ̀ bala cow [Ìdúù shrine]
Àkwụ́ Óbì goat [multitude]
Àkwụ́ Òhú chí force [goat]
Àkwụ́ Òghori abandon home [ears/dry season] rotten crops
Àkwụ́ Ọ̀ kala meetings [bad thought]
Àkwụ́ Ọ̀ rá house house house
Àkwụ́ Òsé ambush gathering
Àkwụ́ Òtúre announce meeting
Àkwụ́ Àtụ́ rụ kpà behind iroko/big òbú [restlessness]
Àkwụ́ Òdí grave/hole in earth grave
Àkwụ́ Ùrúrù ancestors, {child} [failure]
Àgári naàbọ knife, íkeǹga [mother/victory] [death]
Àgári Àká male child [anger] [many deaths]
Àgári Àkwụ́ medicine [rich person] [Ògún/iron]
Àgári Ète vengeful one [illness] [rain/peace]
Àgári Ìjíte handcuffed [incomplete]
Àgári Ọ̀ bala white/wicked one [children]
Àgári Óbì legs/watchfulness [ruler/big man]
Àgári Òhú money money, [male child] money
Àgári Òghori child [mourning] [left hand]
Àgári Ọ̀ kala titled elder [Àkẹ́ /archery]
Àgári Ọ̀ rá dispute [weakness]
Àgári Òsé shame/billygoat shame/billygoat
Àgári Òtúre blacksmith [fortuneteller]
Àgári Àtụ́ rụ kpà useless talk [head, soul]
Àgári Òdí left moiety [illness]
Àgári Ùrúrù refusal/crazy talk mischief anger/[gifts]
Ète náàbọ accident [óyè day] [double] misfortune
Ète Àká ancient event [ants/journey]
Ète Àkwụ́ hen [words, quarrel] [evening]
Ète Àgári vendetta struggle [good relations]
Ète Ìjíte cooking tripod [thing taken back]
Ète Ọ̀ bala light/alright <{town}> <foreign>
Ète Óbì across river <forest> <forest>
Ète Òhú settled/alright [river] [early/morning]
Ète Òghori adultery/vagina [forest]
Ète Ọ̀ kala female child [kolanut]
Ète Ọ̀ rá warn delay
Ète Òsé sworn oath [destiny] sworn oath
Ète Òtúre kolanut kolanut [greatness/evening]
Ète Àtụ́ rụ kpà female child woman, wife [struggle]
Ète Òdí close door/night night [war]
Ète Ùrúrù hen <instability> <danger on road>
 18
Ìjíte naàbọ thing outside visitor highway/visitor
Ìjíte Àká ancient ones [jealousy/anger]
Ìjíte Àkwụ́ ‘big man’/buttocks [disgrace]
Ìjíte Àgári animal sacrifice animal sacrifice head of a bird [deadly attack]
Ìjíte Ète álụ sị [today]
Ìjíte Ọ̀ bala joy [palm oil] [pleading] [‘big man’]
Ìjíte Óbì stand firm [visitor]
Ìjíte Òhú chí procreative force <kaolin, joy> <kaolin, joy>
Ìjíte Òghori useless talk [oracle priest]
Ìjíte Ọ̀ kala stand firm [journey] [clan head]
Ìjíte Ọ̀ rá chí procreative force [commemoration]
Ìjíte Òsé álụ sị of peace [sorcerer] [hatred]
Ìjíte Òtúre joy [ẹ̀ hi guardian] [gifts]
Ìjíte Àtụ́ rụ kpà good adventure imminent event
Ìjíte Òdí secret [mundane]
Ìjíte Ùrúrù sorrow [gift]
Ọ̀ bala náàbọ forest difficulties trouble, war, <fire> <fire>
Ọ̀ bala Àká future event [simultaneity]
Ọ̀ bala Àkwụ́ future conflict
Ọ̀ bala Àgári future knife-cutting [do not forget] blood
Ọ̀ bala Ète animal sacrifice [illness]
Ọ̀ bala Ìjíte oracle priest/Ágwụ̀ oracle priest
Ọ̀ bala Óbì must happen [theft]
Ọ̀ bala Òhú alcoholic drink alcoholic drink alcoholic drink
Ọ̀ bala Òghori don’t close ears deception [failure]
Ọ̀ bala Ọ̀ kala crook deception
Ọ̀ bala Ọ̀ rá will escape [joy]
Ọ̀ bala Òsé prepared medicine medicine/poison
Ọ̀ bala Òtúre oracle priest [{wrong meaning}]
Ọ̀ bala Àtụ́ rụ kpà common sense wisdom
Ọ̀ bala Òdí don’t close ears [bad friend]
Ọ̀ bala Ùrúrù stop bad thoughts [unknown enemy]
Óbì náàbọ reappear/twice double doubled/repeated [smallpox]
[{make sacrifice}]
Óbì Àká go journey pleasant trip
Óbì Àkwụ́ populace/gathering [{yam}] [anxiety]
Óbì Àgári be careful [money] unlucky destiny [deaths]
Óbì Ète fowl [gift]
Óbì Ìjíte useless talk [reconciliation] [doorway]
Óbì Ọ̀ bala will be OK [outside]
Óbì Òhú unimportant talk [good luck]
Óbì Òghori copulate [from the forest]
Óbì Ọ̀ kala visitors [confusion]
Óbì Ọ̀ rá crowd
Óbì Òsé visitors
Óbì Òtúre successful talk
Óbì Àtụ́ rụ kpà gain something
Óbì Òdí coming meeting
Óbì Ùrúrù sorrow [despicable] [profit]
Òhú naàbọ suffer [joy]
Òhú Àká you have escaped victory
Òhú Àkwụ́ meeting/forest crowd, public traveling here
Òhú Àgári animal sacrifice [bad deed]
Òhú Ète sorrow {[plantain], suffering}
Òhú Ìjíte useless talk [joy]
Òhú Ọ̀ bala alcoholic drink [blood]
Òhú Óbì bad/wasted journey
Òhú Òghori villain
Òhú Ọ̀ kala òjúkwu palmtree
Òhú Ọ̀ rá dry season
Òhú Òsé eat poison poison
Òhú Òtúre suffering [freedom]
Òhú Àtụ́ rụ kpà get good things [know origin]
Òhú Òdí abomination
Òhú Ùrúrù escape
 19
Òghori náàbọ useless empty handed poverty
Òghori Àká death [quarrel]
Òghori Àkwụ́ deprival punishment quarrel
Òghori Àgári unlucky ones <animal sacrifice> [war],<bloodshed>
Òghori Ète stomach illness stomach illness
Òghori Ìjíte álụ sị of Ọ̀ gụ gụ [burden, sacrifice] [woman’s illness]
Òghori Ọ̀ bala corpse [boat]
Òghori Óbì female child child [corpse/quarrel]
Òghori Òhú óyè day [illness]
Òghori Ọ̀ kala woman
Òghori Ọ̀ rá kindle fire/illness [boat]
Òghori Òsé nighttime [stomach illness]
Òghori Òtúre tell story [woman/portion]
Òghori Àtụ́ rụ kpà female child woman
Òghori Òdí big trouble
Òghori Ùrúrù mourning
Ọ̀ kala náàbọ thing struggled for war, fight quarrel quarrel
Ọ̀ kala Àká run/escape [war, fight] [generosity]
Ọ̀ kala Àkwụ́ accident [tree] [husband]
Ọ̀ kala Àgári animal sacrifice [celebration] [menstruation]
Ọ̀ kala Ète silk-cotton tree [homestead]
Ọ̀ kala Ìjíte ọ́ zọ -titled man [medicine] [pregnancy]
Ọ̀ kala Ọ̀ bala deceit <generosity> <prosperity>
Ọ̀ kala Óbì said/decided advice, counsel messenger [quarrel]
Ọ̀ kala Òhú alcoholic drink alcoholic drink alcoholic drink
Ọ̀ kala Òghori wasted lifetime [small child]
Ọ̀ kala Ọ̀ rá refusal/disgrace false, no [joy]
Ọ̀ kala Òsé respect/avoidance [medicine]
Ọ̀ kala Òtúre truth [abundance]
Ọ̀ kala Àtụ́ rụ kpà deceit intelligence [wife]
Ọ̀ kala Òdí watchfulness heart/confidence
Ọ̀ kala Ùrúrù cleanse evil overcome evil
Ọ̀ rá naàbọ villain [sudden event] [death]
Ọ̀ rá Àká pay a fine punishment [rooster] [en route]
Ọ̀ rá Àkwụ́ taboo turn away from [oracle spirit]
Ọ̀ rá Àgári patrilineage relative/brother/sister patrilineage
Ọ̀ rá Ète sorrow tears tears
Ọ̀ rá Ìjíte patrilineal ancestors [advice]
Ọ̀ rá Ọ̀ bala bad-death ones god/sky/heaven sky god
Ọ̀ rá Óbì sibling, {visitor} sibling
Ọ̀ rá Òhú sibling <obey/careful> <prediction>
Ọ̀ rá Òghori small child [lies]
Ọ̀ rá Ọ̀ kala small child male male child
Ọ̀ rá Òsé illness worm
Ọ̀ rá Òtúre first son [advice]
Ọ̀ rá Àtụ́ rụ kpà first daughter [advice]
Ọ̀ rá Òdí left-side moiety [stubbornness]
Ọ̀ rá Ùrúrù inlaws [impropriety] [nothing happen]
Òsé naàbọ see eyes eyes
Òsé Àká odd behavior
Òsé Àkwụ́ sacrificial items in market [trouble]
Òsé Àgári sacrificial items in market
Òsé Ète thing held
Òsé Ìjíte food sacrifice [chí procreative force] [selfishness]
Òsé Ọ̀ bala joy [pale/white]
Òsé Óbì sacrificial items in market market [slave]
Òsé Òhú profiteers
Òsé Òghori waste/in vain
Òsé Ọ̀ kala álò titleholder
Òsé Ọ̀ rá you have escaped sacrifice to living [ẹ̀ rhi procreative force] [memory/heart]
Òsé Òtúre joy
Òsé Àtụ́ rụ kpà joy
Òsé Òdí anger [underworld, dead] [bad companions]
Òsé Ùrúrù caution [name of a river]
 20
Òtúre naàbọ (bad) talk, lies {beware quarrels}
Òtúre Àká abomination [rooster]
Òtúre Àkwụ́ commotion [secret]
Òtúre Àgári sworn oath [right prediction]
Òtúre Ète egg/regret humiliation
Òtúre Ìjíte rooster ‘good head’
{prominent person}
Òtúre Ọ̀ bala peaceful talk [pale/white]
Òtúre Óbì pleading request
Òtúre Òhú negotiating peace utterance
Òtúre Òghori foolish
Òtúre Ọ̀ kala said/decided [disagreement]
Òtúre Ọ̀ rá ears secrecy
Òtúre Òsé bad talk bad talk
Òtúre Àtụ́ rụ kpà regret [said]
Òtúre Òdí cannon bursts [fight]
Òtúre Ùrúrù àfọ day [death]
̣ ̣ ̣
Àtúrukpà náàbo handcuffed/in trouble [premature death]
Àtụ́ rụ kpà Àká you have escaped {difficult journey}
Àtụ́ rụ kpà Àkwụ́ wrapper cloth [planned event]
Àtụ́ rụ kpà Àgári tied down/fixed [talkative]
Àtụ́ rụ kpà Ète is living across the river [loss]
Àtụ́ rụ kpà Ìjíte ‘big men’/titled elders [disappointment]
Àtụ́ rụ kpà Ọ̀ bala ụ̀ dala fruit/peace [prince(ss)]
Àtụ́ rụ kpà Óbì accidental/premature death [multilingual]
Àtụ́ rụ kpà Òhú trouble <cloth> <wrapper cloth>
Àtụ́ rụ kpà Òghori troublesome ones [sibling]
Àtụ́ rụ kpà Ọ̀ kala firm control [health]
Àtụ́ rụ kpà Ọ̀ rá trouble {retreat/deceit}
Àtụ́ rụ kpà Òsé wrapper cloth [stranger]
Àtụ́ rụ kpà Òtúre ọ́ zọ -titled man [unpreventable]
Àtụ́ rụ kpà Òdí tied/in trouble
Àtụ́ rụ kpà Ùrúrù give me snuff
Òdí naàbọ miss the target <{food for witches}> <feed ancestors> distress
Òdí Àká burden/trouble struggle [cooperation]
Òdí Àkwụ́ anger anger
Òdí Àgári misfortune on me [make sacrifice]
Òdí Ète terrifying threats [male]
Òdí Ìjíte earth force earth force [guest]
Òdí Ọ̀ bala (grand)mother [persistence]
[{expect money}]
Òdí Óbì peace restored [food, labor] [market day]
Òdí Òhú mother, pregnancy mother
Òdí Òghori álụ sị of Ọ̀ gụ gụ [father, ancestor] [jealousy]
Òdí Ọ̀ kala firm control [m/f ancestor] quarrel
Òdí Ọ̀ rá breathe, breeze
Òdí Òsé anger/sit on stone victory
Òdí Òtúre father/patrilineage old age
Òdí Àtụ́ rụ kpà grandfather relatives
Òdí Ùrúrù maternal patrilineage [wealth]
Ùrúrù náàbọ pay a debt debt vomit back [happiness]
Ùrúrù Àká food [jealousy]
Ùrúrù Àkwụ́ food food
Ùrúrù Àgári animal sacrifice animal friendly shrine
Ùrúrù Ète cocoyam, sorrow cocoyam <kolanut> <gift>
Ùrúrù Ìjíte yam/strongminded [inquiry]
Ùrúrù Ọ̀ bala food food
Ùrúrù Óbì food [forgiveness] food
Ùrúrù Òhú food hunger
Ùrúrù Òghori bad food/poison [mourning] food
Ùrúrù Ọ̀ kala food food
Ùrúrù Ọ̀ rá hunger
Ùrúrù Òsé bad food/greed wrongdoing taboo
Ùrúrù Òtúre food [desire]
Ùrúrù Òdí bad food food
Ùrúrù Àtụ́ rụ kpà food [desire]
 21
Notes
* First draft given at the “Conference on Ifá divination in Africa & the diaspora”, Harvard University, 14 March 2008. Greetings to Prof.
J. Olúpọ̀ nà for convening that event: Ẹ kú ìtọ́ jú ọ̀ pẹ̀ lẹ̀ , ẹ kú ìtọ́ jú ọ pọ́ n! Second draft given at Grupo de Estudios Africanos e Afrobrasileiros em
Línguas e Culturas, Universidade do Estado da Bahia, 15 April 2009 at the invitation of Prof. Y. Pessoa. This (third) draft includes material
consulted at the Fundação Pierre Verger (www.pierreverger.org), Salvador, Bahia courtesy of Prof. A. Lühning. Thanks also to ’W.
Abím̅ bọ́ lá, Ọ . Àbọ [h], A. Akinlabí, A. Apter, ’Y. Awóyalé, A. Bachrach, S. Blier, P. Eke[h], O. Ẹ̀ bọ họ́ n, P. Ífeụ̀ kọ́ [r], S. Kasfir, A. Kawu, M.
Kronfeldner, I. Miller, A. Nevins, C. Óhirí-Ànịíchè, ’S. Oyèláràn, T. Ọ mọ lúabí, U. Ùsuánléle and A. Storch. I first encountered Áfa in 1976
when Prof. M. Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ (1934-2008) shared the manuscript of his dissertation and introduced me to “Ígwé” B. Àkụ nń é (1924-2006),
curator of Ọ̀ dịnanị Museum Ǹ ri. Àkụ ńné welcomed me into his household and organized the recording in Appendix 2. Dàálụ nụ̀ , ó!
1 The comparative method can also treat phenomena as analytical endpoints. When rerun “forwards in time” (Watkins 1962, 7), linguistic
reconstructions may appear to have been propelled by Hegelian teleology (Jakobson 1929), as in the case of chain shifts or other ‘global’
phonetic rules whose outputs are not blind but converge on transderivational templates (goal states). Note that my invocation of natural
science, in response to the traditional humanistic view of Ifá as literature, is intended as putting into practice Wallerstein’s (2004, 2006)
critique of the Methodenstreit which shaped European universities for much of the 20th century.
2 The division of labor between stems and waves may be no more than the difference between macro- and micro-perspectives on change
(Schmidt 1872, Meillet 1922), but the distinction between inheritance and borrowing can spark controversy in domains of ethnic competition,
for example with the classical etymologies proposed in Black Athena (Bernal 1997). During the formative period of historical and structural
linguistics, discussions of cultural heritage were loaded with Romantic/racist assumptions, against which inital concepts of areal linguistics
and cultural diffusion were explicitly directed (Boas 1940, Jakobson 1944).
3 The chart in (1) partitions Benue-Kwa into BK1/2 (Manfredi 2009) based on the theory of derivational phases (Chomsky 1986, 2001). The
historical role of syntax (Longobardi & Guardiano 2009) proves the relevance of the child’s “critical period for language acquisition”
(Lenneberg 1967, 179) in vertical transfer, and supports Meillet’s (1925) idea that all features of a language are not equally borrowable.
Absent syntax, long-distance comparison tends to yield implausibly flat structures—a problem which persists in Indo-European studies
despite the most advanced computational techniques (Ringe & al. 2002; Nakhleh & al. 2005).
4 The claim that “Ifá, Fá and ‘Sixteen Cowries’… derive directly from the Arabian prototype” (Binsbergen 1997, 230) is overstated: they share
binary numerology but show no resemblance to available descriptions of Arab sand-writing or its derivatives like Nupe hati (Nadel 1954), in
either sound-meaning or sign-translation mapping. “Indications of an Arabic origin for… the names Ifá… and Ọ̀ rúnmìlà” (Morton-Williams
1966, 407) also seem fanciful (cf. Manfredi 1991, 263). Thirdly, no recorded Fá-type system of the Benue-Niger zone shows enough
resemblance to southern African 4- or 6-bit oracles (Gelfand 1964; Binsbergen 1995, 1996, 1997) to put them on a single chain of borrowing,
though they may well all share remote Oriental influences.
5 Note on transcription in this paper. Colonial spellings are normalized if possible and Benue-Kwa data transcribed orthographically, plus tones
if known and phonetic detail if relevant. Forms preceded by * are unattested: in a synchronic context this means ungrammatical (claimed to
be impossible) and in a historical context reconstructed (claimed to have once existed). Nonroman ɛ, ɔ of Àkan and Gbè are Nigerianized as
ẹ , ọ (thus reversing the convention of Verger 1972, 6 fn. 1), and ŋ is the velar nasal. Dotless -Ch- is fricative e.g. -gh- is [ˠ], dotted -Cḥ - is
[Ch] (voiceless-aspirated or breathy-voiced). *-’C- is a hypothetical, reconstructed, weak or ‘lenis’ C (Óhirí-Ànịíchè 2003). Tonemarks:
[ ́ ] = high, [ ̀ ] = low. Tone conventions: in BK1 languages, no mark = same as preceding and a sequence of two high marks = downstep
starting on the second one; in BK2 languages, no mark = mid. For the BK1/BK2 taxonomy, see example (1) in the main text. In the
comparative tables, a blank space indicates lack of a known cognate. Transcription of binary arrays: ◆ = concave surface facing down, ◇ =
concave surface facing up, left side = top of array.
6 The nasal in Ọ̀ wọ́ nrín might be echoed in ŋọ́ lí, which is the cognate form preserved in the older “dzisa” stream which reached Gbè via the
Tádó kingdom, later joined by the (À)nàgó stream from “Àyọ́ ” i.e. Ọ̀ yọ́ (Surgy 1981, 12, 22 no tones, cf. Herskovits 1938, 104 and Kligue[h]
2001, 199). Alternatively, nasality being absent in the Ẹ̀ dó version Ọ̀ gháe, the nasals in Ọ̀ wọ́ nrín and ŋọ́ lí could be unrelated—especially if
the latter is a Gbè-internal development of *-w-, as seems possible from data cited by Capo (1991, 54).
7 “[A]n array is a data structure consisting of a group of elements that are accessed by indexing” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Array) i.e. a uniquely
ordered set.
8 The account that “the Ifá oracle was brought [to Yorùbá] by a Nupe man” (Beier 1956, 27) may telescope the Ajíbóyèdé tradition. Another
potential mixup is the gloss of tápà—a Yorùbá word which, although it often refers specifically to Nupe territory as in proverbial descriptions
of the Ìgunnu mask, can also point broadly to the savanna zone whose indigenes speak many languages apart from Nupe, including Ebira and
Igálà (Ọ báyẹ mí 1980, 158f., 1983).
9 The above is unchanged if the source for gúrọ́ bà etc. was Spanish guayaba [gwayáβa] as Abraham supposes. Adétúgbọ̀ ’s maps stop at the
Nigerian border (1967, 202) and don’t indicate whether develarization reached Àwórì Ọ̀ tà, but maybe not, if Àwórì (Àhórì) people came from
Kétu (Blair 1940 via Abraham 1958, 178). Parallel to [gwayáβa] > gólóbà, Yorùbá failed to develarize Hausa -gw- and delabialized it instead:
Hausa gwórò ‘Cola nitida’ (northern trade kola) became Yorùbá górò (Awóyalé 2008).
10 In (1a), ŋọ́ lí is Èʋè (Surgy 1981, 43) and the other Gbè items are Fọ̀ n. In (1b), all Gbè data are Èʋè except for the second form of ‘cowry’
which occurs in the Fọ̀ n compound èkwẹ́ -wó ‘cowry’ (Segurola & Rassinoux 2000, 488). The phonetic irregularity marks this as a loan, which
is semantically opaque in Gbè where wó is liable to be interpreted via folk etymology to mean ‘bleached white’ (Ọ . Àbọ [h] p.c.). The Àkan
devoicing -g- > -k-/-ch- is internally regular (Stewart 1993, 34; 2002, 219), as is the palatalization observed in the Nupe and Ìgbo reflexes of
‘journey’. The nasal stop in the Ìdọ mà form for ‘hunger (v.)’ matches the nasal prosody of the Nupe form and also the aspiration in the
southern Ìgbo form, which developed from a *-CnV- cluster (Williamson 1973a). The term “Proto-Bantu” is given in scare quotes because
it’s “impossible to draw a clear line between Bantu, however defined, and non-Bantu Niger-Congo” (Nurse & Philippson 2003, 5, cf.
Greenberg 1974; Marten 2006). Manfredi (1991, 24 fn. 15, 31) cites the tones for the “Igala” ethnonym as LHL conforming to the Nupe
pronunciation (Banfield 1914, 178), although Abraham (1958, 201) gives LHH for the Yorùbá version. Definitively, at last, Ìlọ̀ rí (2009) gives
Igálà MHL.
11 The actual 4-bit address of the Ẹ̀ dó name listed here is the 180° rotation ‘◇◇◆◆’ (see §4.3 below).
12 The forms in (2a) are from Maupoil (1943a, 218f., no tones in source). The second element in vo-de could be the root of the noun which
independently means ‘amulet’ (Höftmann & Ahohounkpanzon 2003, 143). The Ọ̀ yọ́ > Àgbómẹ̀ route does not exclude an earlier transmission
of Fá to Tádó, presumably via the Atlantic coast, see fn. 5 above.
13 Agheyisi reports that Ẹ̀ dó speakers regard the appellation Ìgbọ n as “derogatory” and “abusive” (1986, 67), and the same prejudice was voiced
to me in Ágbọ̀ [r] in the 1970’s, but this may reflect post-Biafran resentments, because no negative aspersion is recorded in Melzian (1937). In
the present Ẹ̀ dó palace, the name Òminigbọ n is interpreted as the name of the person who introduced Ìha oracle to the Ẹ̀ dó Kingdom (Chief N.
Ìsẹ khurhẹ p.c.). I've heard the Yorùbá oracle, operated by itinerant babaláwos in Benin-City, called Ọ̀ họ́ nmìla or Ọ̀ rọ́ nmìla as distinct from
 22
Ìha or Òminigbọ n. Possibly related is the term èfa, denoting a royal descent group of Earth priests (Melzian 1937, 26; Ákẹ nzùa 2008, 251).
For further discussion of Òminigbọ n’s eastern connections, see Manfredi (2011).
14 The Mínà form in (3a) is from Gaillard (1907, 119) via Maupoil (1943a, 4 fn. 2). If this “ph” is a voiceless bilabial fricative [ɸ], it has no
regular correspondence to labiodental -f- in other Gbè varieties (Capo 1991, 110). Ebira is the “Igbirra” of colonial documents; the oracle
name in Ebira is cited from Wilson-Haffenden (1927, 29, no diacritics), and the place name “Ife” in Igálà is cited from Clifford (1936, 398, no
diacritics). The “v” in Ùrhobo “Ẹ va” (Nabofa & Elugbe 1981, 15 fn. 4, no tone) is not precise between bilabial and labiodental articulations,
which contrast in Ìsóko (Elugbe 1989, 63). ‘Urinate’ (4a) has a labiodental consonant in Ìsóko but a bilabial in Uvbiẹ (Elugbe 1989, 219). In
(4b) the Macro-Ẹ̀ dó form for ‘breeze’ is Elugbe’s reconstruction in the absence of Ẹ̀ dó, Ùrhobo and Ìsóko reflexes (1989, 170). The place
name in (3b) has -h- in the NE Yorùbá version Ùhẹ̀ -Ìjùmú (colonial “Iffe-Ijumu”) whereas the NE Yorùbá version of ‘◆◇◆◇’ has -f-
(Ògúnbìyí 1952 via Bascom 1969, 7). The Macro-Ìgbo cluster is also known in the literature as “Proto-Lower Niger” (Williamson 1973b) and
“Igboid” (Manfredi 1989).
15 The actual 4-bit address of the Ẹ̀ dó and Ùrhobo names listed here is the 180° rotation: ‘◇◆◇◆’ (see §4.3 below).
16 If the placename in (3b) is originally Yorùbá, it is predicted to match the sound pattern in (4b) rather than (4a). Lenition of stops is well
described in modern Ẹ̀ dó (Wescott 1962, Ọ́ mọ zùwá 1989), and pervasive in Macro-Ẹ̀ dó and elsewhere in BK1 (Stewart 1973), thus to
reconstruct the phenomenon is plausible. In English, an analogy for the lenis feature is the realization of unaspirated voiceless stops in
noninitial position, e.g. the [’p] in spot and tops versus the aspirated [ph] in pot; the difference explains why English-speakers tend to parse
French initial lenis -p- as voiced, hearing Paul as ball. However, positing a regular series of “lenis stops” in Benue-Kwa carries the same
speculative risk run by certain Neogrammarian constructs in Proto-Indo European: (i) the “voiced aspirates” (Brugmann 1886/1922, 150)
critiqued by Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1973; cf. Ladefoged & al. 1976), and (ii) the “sonantic coefficients” (Saussure 1887) which, though
praised as “brilliant systematic fictions for the description of certain prosodic alternations” (Allen 1954, 419), stand accused of encouraging
“disdain for phonetic reality” if treated as a feature-based natural class (Watkins 1958, 389). Retreating eventually from the lenis theory,
Williamson revised *-’p- in Macro-Ìgbo to *-p(u)w- (2000, 5; 2003, 4), shifting the explanatory burden from a typologically rare segment to a
sequence of ordinary ones (cf. Greenberg 1970). What matters here is simply that either formula, *-’p- or *-p(u)w-, is distinct from *-f- and
also from plain *-p-. Another relevant comparandum is Ìgbo ọ̀ fọ́ = Ẹ̀ dó ọ̀ họ́ ‘Detarium senegalense’ (Williamson 1984a; Melzian 1937, 213).
17 If the placename in (3b) is originally Yorùbá, it is predicted to follow the sound pattern in (4b) rather than (4a).
18 Irregular substitutions occur in metalinguistic contexts, as when playful Keggites change periphery into “fèrífèrí” and ethnic satire turns a
piece of paper into “a kpís of kpékpà” (referencing the regular spelling pronunciation of Yorùbá orthographic “p”). According to Bám̅ gbóṣ é,
bilinguals who control English “p” now say in Yorùbá “pépà (not bébà) ‘conference paper’ ” (1986, 60).
19 One dialect of Nigerian Hausa (Greenberg 1941, 322) regularly borrows English -p- as -f-, e.g. silifa ‘slipper’, fasinja ‘passenger’ (Jaggar
2001, 50, 53). The Hausa language can’t be completely discounted as a historic link in the transmission of Fá terminology, if one extrapolates
backward from the 19th-century role in the Benue valley of Abakwa-riga, so-called ‘pagan’ Hausa-speaking refugees from the Fulani jihād
(Ruxton 1907, 381 via Rubin 1970, 141).
20 Independent evidence for a coastal route from Ẹ̀ dó westwards to the Èʋè-speaking area could include the L tone which is marked on the root
of the oracle name in the non-Yorùbá tradition referenced as “AFà” (Surgy (1970, 23, cited by Kligue[h] 2001), assuming that this indication
is not a typo:
Surgy pense d’abord à une origine de Fa qui se siterait à Tádó. …En effet, selon lui, AFà dzisà serait parti des Èʋè pour se répandre chez
les Fọ̀ n, dans la deuxième moité du 19e siècle, …“cette pénétration d’un AFà dzisà dahoméen fût bientot suivie de la pénétration d’un
AFà nigérian d’un peu plus loin et qui, respectant théoriquement les rites enseignés dans la ville d’Ifẹ̀ , fût qualifié d’AFà nàgó.” Il est vrai
que sur le terrain, de Porto-Novo à la Volta Region (Ghana), tous les initiés, prêtres ou non, reconnaissent l’antériorité du Fa dzisà.
[Surgy initially considered an orgin for Fa in Tádó. …For him, effectively, AFà dzisà spread from Èʋè to Fọ̀ n in the late 19th century,
…“this incursion of a Dahomeyan AFà dzisà was soon followed by a Nigerian version of AFà from a bit further away which, due to its
adherence in principle to rituals transmitted from Ifẹ̀ , was called AFà nàgó.” Nevertheless it remains the case that all the initiates in the
region between Porto-Novo and the Volta Region of Ghana), whether priests or not, recognize Fa dzisà as chronologically prior.]
21 Armstrong (1983, 142) finds no [p=b] correspondence in the Ìdọ mà cluster.
22 “Jukun” is an Hausa ethnonym (Welmers 1949, 1). Storch (2003) cites instances of ritual borrowing from “Jukun” by Chadic speakers, whose
arrival pushed the “Jukun” southwest (Rubin 1970, 201). Meek cites the autonym indifferently as “Wapâ”, “Apa”, “apa-Jukû” and “apa-
Jukun” (1931, 14-17), with the circumflex accent apparently denoting vocalic nasalization, but it may be significant that Meek never writes
*Apâ or *Apan, nor does any hint of nasality appear in citations of the ethnonym “Apa” by Boston, Erim, Ọ báyẹ mí or Áfiìgbo. Therefore if
Meek’s transcriptions are accurate and unless all the historians have conspired to ignore nasality, it seems that he erred in lumping “Wapâ”
and “Apa(-Jukun)” together as one term (cf. Yamaguchi 1974, 15). My interest is in non-nasalised “Apa” as the basis of the oracle name “Pa”
or Fá. The tones of “Apa” and “Pa” are not given in the sources; my proposal fails if either of them bears L. The tone and separability of the
a- prefix are discussed in the main text below. Igálà legend says that the “Ifá” oracle was used against “Apa” invaders (Boston 1968, 24, no
diacritics, citing Seton 1928, 270). Concerning an oríkì of “Ayagba”, the first Atá of Igálà, Boston notes that “Apa and Ichi frequently stand
for East and West in everyday speech” (1968, 200). Colonial “Itchi” (Áfiìgbo 1973, 79, 90, no diacritics) names a market town north of
Ǹ sụ́ ká which is not west of Igálà territory. Ánọ̀ ká (1979) lists three Ìgbo towns named Ìchi (LL) but none is near Ǹ sụ́ ká. If “Ichi” has HH
tone, it could refer to the Ǹ ri ọ́ zọ initiates called ńdị gbúru ichí ‘those cut with íchi’ facial incisions (Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ 1981, 164ff., cf. Edwards
1962) as portrayed in ancient Ìgbo Úkwu bronze and still seen on living Ǹ ri faces (Shaw 1970 vol. 2, plates 270-73 and 512). In that case, the
spatial opposition in the oríkì is less east/west than upstream/downstream. It’s unknown whether “Apa” in Igálà is phonetically distinct from
Colonial “Appah” (Boston 1968, 23). Áfiìgbo writes that “[t]he name Apa or Akpa is said to have been widely used to refer to the Jukun”
(1977, 137), and if his uncertainty about -p- vs. -kp- is more than fidelity to colonial confusion, it could be a hint that the root was pronounced
with lenis -’p- as hypothesized in this paper, versus -p- the plain voiceless stop.
23 Colonial “Jukun” studies inherited the orientalist (Hamitic or Egyptian) conquest theory of state formation (e.g. Palmer 1931, 1936) and in
turn saddled modern historiography with “an unwarranted extension backwards in time of 19th-century Fulani political and military
structures” (Rubin 1970, 189). Conversely, modern Ìgbo studies express anti-statist bias, thanks to the twin failures of Nigerian and Biafran
nationalism (Ọ́ nwụ mèchili 2000, Áfiìgbo 2002, cf. Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ 2001, Manfredi 2008). Both modern frames of reference tend to disregard
the possibility, in Niger-Benue prehistory, of peaceful ritual hegemony as opposed to militarism.
24 Shelton (1965a, 123) heard garbled recollections by northern Ǹ sụ́ ká people of a visit by Ǹ ri díbị̀as from 60 years before. As for the ọ́ zọ
network, I may have glimpsed its late extent at Èké market of Ẹ́ hụ gbò (“Afikpo”) one day in 1977, when my host pointed out two visitors with
íchi facemarks (see fn. 19 above) and said they’d been invited to solve a local dispute. A 1967 case of Ǹ ri intervention in a case at Ụ́ mụ̀ lérì
and Àgụ lérì is recounted by Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ (1981, 166). In 1977 I tape-recorded a brief sample of the then-obsolescent ọ́ zọ ichí initation argot,
called ólu, literally ‘neck’ i.e. concealed voice (Manfredi 1991, 269f.).
 23
25 The Ǹ ri pronunciation of the oracle name needs to be confirmed; I have no direct evidence of it but rely on memory here. The inference that -
fá arrived in Macro-Ìgbo while dialect-specific sound shifts were still in progress would be invalid if the sound shifts had remained
continuously productive, e.g. if modern Ẹ́ hụ gbò and Ǹ sụ́ ká dialects lacked an indigenous -f- and automatically converted external -f- to -h- in
modern loans. But that’s not the case: modern Ǹ sụ́ ká and Ẹ́ hụ gbò both possess indigenous words pronounced with -f-, albeit in different roots
(e.g. Ǹ sụ́ ká òfú ‘one’, Ẹ́ hụ gbò -fụ̀ ‘exit’) and Ẹ́ hụ gbò speakers for example don’t confuse farm and harm the way some Yorùbá speakers
unintentionally say shave and sheet instead of save and cheat.
26 If the Igálà and Yorùbá oracle words belong to separate transmission lineages, as suggested by (1a) and again below by (6), then their
respective outcomes in -f- match only coincidentally and were not produced by one historical event.
27 Non-uniform localization of the oracle name across the Ìdọ mà cluster could have been potentiated by skewed overall distributions of labial
consonants, e.g. 4 of the 11 varieties surveyed by Armstrong (1983) fail to contrast -p- and -f-.
28 The Ìdọ mà and Nupe-Ebira clusters are connected by river, and by open savanna between Nassarawa and the Benue. The difference between
Ìdọ mà Ẹ̀ ba and Nupe Eba is discussed below. The Okene dialect of Ebira lacks indigenous -f- though it does have -v- (Ladefoged 1968, 58),
but a more southern variety “has f or sh in place of [Okene] h” (Ladefoged 1964, 33). In Nupe, the same phonetic split between Eba and “efu”
‘◆◇◆◇’ (tone unknown) separates two tokens of one lexical root, in -bè ‘blow [wind]’ (4a) versus efè ‘breeze’ (4b), as well as dividing a
loanword àfàtà ‘Cola acuminata’ (Banfield 1914, 22) from its presumed source, Yorùbá àbàtà; the changes implied by these two items are
irrelevant to the oracle name if they ran in the reverse direction, -b- > -f-.
29 A bit is a binary digit, taking a value of either 0 or 1. For example, the number 10010111 is 8 bits long, or in most cases, one
modern PC byte. Binary digits are a basic unit of information storage and communication in digital computing and digital
information theory. ...A byte is a collection of bits, originally differing in size depending on the context but now almost always
eight bits. Eight-bit bytes, also known as octets, can represent 256 values (28 values, 0-255). A four-bit quantity is known as a
nibble, and can represent 16 values (24 values, 0-15). ...“Word” is a term for a slightly larger group of bits, but it has no standard
size. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit)
30 Ebira’s oracle vocabulary is thusfar undocumented, as is its localized pronunciation of the ‘Apa’ ethnic term.
31 In “Ógbù” [óɓù], the implosive is favored by the high back vowel. Indigenous Ìgbo words show a few cross-dialect correspondences between
plain and implosive labial stops (Manfredi 1991, 53f.), but only in a nasal context.
32 Western Ìgbo could not have been an intermediate step for onward transmission of the items in (1a) to Ẹ̀ dó, given the appearance of -g- rather
than -gh- in (1a+) in the unnamed dialect reported by Bradbury (p.c. via Armstrong 1964, 139). Western Ìgbo adoption of -gh- as plain -g- is
explained by the prior development -gh- > -y-, e.g. -ghá > -yá ‘scatter’, -ghé > -yé ‘fry’ and -ghọ́ > -yọ́ ‘sharp/clever’ (Thomas 1914b, 6,
149ff.). Eastern BK cognates of these roots have a voiceless velar onset and a nasal coda respectively: -can, -kang, -cong (www.cbold.ddl.ish-
lyon.cnrs.fr).
33 The actual 4-bit address of the Ẹ̀ dó and Ùrhobo names listed here is the 180° rotation: ‘◇◇◆◆’ (see §4.3 below).
34 Elugbe reconstructs a “lenis” palatal stop for the correspondence of Ẹ̀ dó -h- with Ùrhobo -rh- (1989, 103), note however that an -s- reflex
occurs in every branch of the cluster, therefore his hypothesis may be undermined by abstractness as described in fn. 15.
35 The actual 4-bit address of the Ẹ̀ dó and Ùrhobo names listed here is the 180° rotation: ‘◆◆◇◇’ (see §4.3 below).
36 The actual 4-bit address of the Ẹ̀ dó and Ùrhobo names listed here is the 180° rotation: ‘◇◇◇◆’ (see §4.3 below).
37 To (7b) can be added “Proto-Bantu” forms of ‘roast’ and ‘drip’ with root-initial -t-: *tumb and *ton, respectively.
38 The only known exception is Ngas “Peh” (Danfulani 1995, 88), a spelling whose phonetic content is not explained.
39 Spieth states that Ànàgó Yorùbá use the name “ofa” (1911, 190, no diacritics in source) but this is not based on direct observation.
40 The ‘weak’ status of the vowel [i] in Yorùbá is shown by its preferred elision at phrase boundaries (Bowen 1958, 6f. cited by Bám̅ gbóṣ é 1966,
163f.). Parallel treatment in Igálà shows up in the colonial report that “Igálà country… is administered by a Chief who… bears the title of Ata
Gala…” (Clifford 1936, 394).
41 Kawu (2002) does not treat Nupe e- as “epenthetic” in the sense of a predictably result of phonological underspecification, but his discussion
is limited to syllables with overt onsets. Initial e- comprises about 90% of the vowel-initial noun lemmas in Banfield (1914), even including
dozens of Arabic loans in al-, thus e- undisputably has unmarked morphological status in Nupe. More widely in Benue-Kwa, the initial vowel
of nouns shows morphological or semantic properties independent of the root. Welmers (1973) surveys number agreement and other
“vestigial noun class” behavior of a word initial vowel, and Ajíbóyè (2005, 177f., 226) shows that a so-called ‘noun’ in Yorùbá is
semantically more like a complete noun phrase, so for example it can refer to a definite entity without any deictic qualifier: in a suitable
context, Mo rí ajá (literally ‘I see dog’) can mean ‘I saw the dog(s) in question’.
42 The tones of the oracle name elsewhere in Macro-Ẹ̀ dó, e.g. Ùrhobo and Ìsóko, are unfortunately not indicated in available literature. Íhìọ́ nụ́
(1988) describes a related forced-choice scenario for a BK1 speaker adopting LH from a BK2 language.
43 Backness harmony is more general: Ǹ ri people say Kèdị́ ‘How is it!’ not Kèdụ́ , but answer Ọ́ dụ̀ ḿ má ‘It’s fine!’ not Ọ́ dị̀ ḿ má.
44 Nabofa & Elugbe hastily dismiss an Ìgbo etymology for Ùrhobo “nabe” (1981, 13, no tone) having compared it to Ìgbo àbụ́ ọ́ (ordinary
cardinal ‘two’) while ignoring a perfect match: Ìgbo náàbọ ‘double’. Another Ìgbo-ism of Ẹ̀ dó ritual vocabulary is the set ekẹ n, orie, ahọ ,
okuọ , the four market days which Egharhevba also describes as “representing the four corners/quarters of the earth” (1946, 81/1968, 82, no
tones). All four occur in identical form (modulo dialect) across the entire Ìgbo-speaking area, except that the nkw- sequence of Ìgbo ǹkwọ́ is
unpronounceable in Ẹ̀ dó and so was presumably localized to oku-. Ǹ ri tradition describes the four days as supernatural visitors who tried to
hide their identities from the priestly monarch (Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ 1997, 23; Nwáòkóyè 2008). Of the four, only èkẹ́ n is found in either edition of
the Ẹ̀ dó dictionary (Melzian 1937, 33, 48; Agheyisi 1986, 25f.), the other three having apparently been ousted in daily use by periphrastic
expressions built from Ẹ̀ dó-internal resources.
45 I myself jumped to that conclusion in the first (2008) draft of this paper.
46 Unfortunately, published basic descriptions of the oracle are still lacking in Ebira, Igálà and Ìdọ mà (cf. Ọ báyẹ mí 1980, 161-63).
47 In Ifẹ̀ , the term referencing authochthonous, pre-Odùduwà inhabitants is pronounced “Ugbo (not Igbo)” (Ọ̀ ṣ úntòkun 2004, no tones given)
which is consistent with Ifẹ̀ vowel harmony patterns (Adétúgbọ̀ 1967, 165). The Ìlàjẹ group which claims descent from these people give the
name as “Ugbò” ML (Sheba 2007). Fábùnmi cites the Ifẹ̀ tones as LL but in explicit scare-quotes ‘ “Ìgbò” ’ (1969, 17) and his normalization
of the initial vowel might betray the presence of other helpful amendments, especially as an implied identitification of these “antagonistic”
aliens of Yorùbá prehistory with modern Biafrans could have been irresistible to a “great patriot” during the Nigerian Civil War. Beier (1994,
58) confirms that official Ìgbo-phobia influenced local thinking about this: shortly after the January 1966 coup, Dúró Ládiípọ̀ defied Western
Region authorities in scripting Ifẹ̀ ’s “Igbo” indigenes to shout “Ìgbo, kwé nụ̀ !” (see next footnote below) in his Òṣ ogbo staging of Mọ rèmi. In
 24
fact the performers of this theatrical cry for reconciliation hailed not from Colonel Òjúkwu’s secessionist East, but from Ágbọ̀ (“Agbor”) in
the Midwest, recently carved from the Western Region and at the western edge of the Ìgbo-speaking area (Ògúnlẹ́ yẹ 2002, 69, cf. Beier 1957).
Even as roughly notated by Beier (1994, 160), the “Igbo” war song in the play is transparently from Ágbọ̀ : Égbú wẹ̀ díkẹ́ n, ǹdidi áwụ́ n ọ̀ jọ́ kọ̀
‘Nobody kills the brave-heart; meek endurance isn’t how he walks around’ (transcription adjusted; my translation).
48 A ‘bushmen’ etymology for the ethnic term Ìgbo (LL) is remotely possible on language-internal grounds (Ézè & Manfredi 2001, 322f.), but
even so there’s no reason to accept Áfiìgbo’s linking it either to Yorùbá igbó (MH) ‘forest’ or to Ẹ̀ dó and western Ìgbo úgbo (HH) ‘farm’. In
contemporary Ìgbo, the noun Ìgbo used in a non-ethnic context means ‘the whole community’ as in the stereotypical public exhortation Ìgbo,
kwé nụ̀ ! ‘Everybody, say YEAH!’.
49 The name Unùkùmi transparently derives from olùkù mi, a Yorùbá phrase meaning ‘my close friend’. Spelled “Ulcumí”, it was used by a
Spanish slave trader in 1728 to refer to a non-Ọ̀ yọ́ Yorùbá subgroup, but expanded in colonial Cuba to include descendants of all Yorùbá
subgroups on the island (Moliner 1992, 42f.). I find no linguistic link between Unùkùmi and Cuba, for example a word like the noun for
‘work’, pronounced iṣ ẹ́ with a palatal fricative in modern Ọ̀ yọ́ , is ichẹ́ with an affricate in Cuban Lucumí as well as in modern Ànàgó
(extreme western Yorùbá as in Togo and the former Dàhọ̀ mì), but Únùkumí has isẹ́ with nonpalatal -s- as also in NE and SE dialects like
Yàgbà and Òkìtìpupa (Adétúgbọ̀ 1967, 221; Akínkugbé 1978, 654). Given the great flux of labels coined by “Western errorism” (Manfredi
2004a), the most that can be inferred from the adoption of the ‘same’ ethnic label in the two cases, Lucumí and Unùkùmi, is that the latter may
have reached their present location in the early 18th century, which is too late to have influenced the oracle’s primary westward movement.
50 Such alterations occur in ordinary words only accidentally, as in the proverbial opposition between Sókótó (faraway headquarters of the jihād
that sacked Ọ̀ yọ́ circa 1836) and ṣ òkòtò (one’s own trousers, which are maximally nearby). During discussion of Prof. Oyèéwùmí’s paper at
the Harvard conference, Prof. Abím̅ bọ́ lá denied the paralinguistic status of the word eníyán, and he would be clearly correct to do so, if he
could point to any tokens of eníyán occurring in Ifá texts independently of ènìyàn.
51 Such considerations amplify the significance of Prof. Abím̅ bọ́ lá’s closing call, at the Harvard conference, to found an international Ifá
academy in Ọ̀ yọ́ combining regulatory features pioneered by the Congregātiō prō Doctrīna Fidei (recently headed by the attivissimo Giuseppe
Razinger) and the Académie Française.
52 “In relational database design, a unique key or primary key is a candidate key to uniquely identify each row in a table”
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_key).
53 In the unordered 16-bit cowrie oracle called ẹ ẹ́ rìndínlógún, some Yorùbá sources (Bascom 1980, 775-83) use binary names for up to 10 out
of the 17 signs, but the correspondence to the ordered 8-bit oracle is unclear in some cases. It makes a kind of sense that Èjì Ogbè should have
8 cowries facing up, but why would Ogbè Ìròsùn have 4, Ogbè Ọ̀ sẹ́ 5, Ọ̀ bàrà b’Ógbè 6, Ọ̀ wọ́ nrín s’Ógbè 11 and Òfún Ọ̀ kànràn 15?
54 Thus is ‘fashionably late’ rooted as a cultural apriori. In Gbè, Maupoil refers to “strength” as well as “seniority” (1943a, 237f.).
55 No pairing is reflected in available materials on other oracle versions such as Ùrhobo (iv-b) or Ìgbo (v-a). Nadel reports a geometrically-based
pairing in Nupe which is however incomplete, with one set “missing” perhaps due to the systems’s “arbitrariness and even haphazardness…
and often fortuitous fashion, with none of the sacred or ritual sanctions which would make for strict adherence to given rules” (1954, 43).
56 The function of odù gender is not described in the sources cited above; even if it’s an accidental byproduct of geometry, like a spandrel on a
gothic arch (Gould & Lewontin 1979), it could play a secondary, mnemonic or ritual role. In the Áfa retrieval key (Appendix 3), female
interpretations seem to cluster in arrays whose right-hand sub-array is either Óbì, Òghori, Òdí, Ọ̀ rá or Ète, but in Ifá (Appendix 1, A-iv), the
first two of these (Ogbè, Ìwòrì) are classified as male.
57 Provisionally for purposes of comparison, Appendix 3 oversimplifies the extended glosses of Ìha to simple phrases. Linkage of a single,
proverbial phrase to an extended narrative is not restricted to oracle literature, given the example of Ìgbo “wellerisms” (Éménanjọ 1989),
though it’s possible that the latter were oracular in origin. But it won’t be easy to verify Emọ vọ n’s stronger claim, that the “folktales” accessed
through the oracle key “are dependent on Òminigbọ n and [are] not told other than by a divination priest at work” (1984, 7).
58 Boston (1974, 351f.) describes a much wider set of permuted readings of the four strings in the Igálà version of Ifá.
59 This breakthrough discussion by Verger came to my attention through the summary by Souty (2007, 345ff.).
60 In (8a) the linked syllables in the odù name and alias appear in bold. Array names are capitalized to show semantic opacity, while ordinary
nouns get lower case. More data of this kind occurs in Verger’s Ifá manuscripts conserved in his personal archives in the city of Salvador,
Brazil (see footnote 70 below), as well as in Babáyẹ mí & Adékọ́ lá (eds. 1987-1991). In a 300-page typewritten libreta of Cuban Ifá texts,
consulted courtesy of I. Miller, 69 out of the 256 odù are listed with an alias of the same type as in (8), though it remains to be determined
whether these alternate names function mnemonically in a non-Yorùbá speaking environment.
61 “Of the 19 recipes I have for this oògùn [= backache remedy], 12 are classified in Ogbè [Ìwòrì→] wẹ̀ hìn.” (Verger 1977a, 273f.).
62 To explain this link, it’s relevant that the varieties of maize traditionally cultivated in Nigeria are more white than yellow.
63 The odù bracketed here is only indirectly identified in Verger’s paper, which was prepared for oral delivery; because the name is considered
“too dangerous to be pronounced”, he describes it as “formed by the fourteenth and fifteenth simple signs” (1977a, 277). Necessarily
therefore this odù has hypokoristics, as in the third and fourth lines, which are respectively of avoidance and of flattery.
64 Perhaps idiosyncratically, Verger glosses pòpórò àgbàdo as “[t]he central cob of maize… freed from the grains” (1977a, 290).
65 Association with roasted maize grains may motivate the ritual effect “to make fall in oblivion a case in court” (Verger 1977a, 292).
66 Nabofa & Elugbe (1981) do not give the Ẹ pha gloss of Ighitẹ +Urhur(h)u (R◆◇◇◇, L◆◆◇◇).
67 Oyèláràn (1977, 646) similarly finds
…a contradiction in the postulate that [the] Yorùbá institution of Ọ ba and the growth of an urban setting constitute the prerequisites for
the emergence, the promotion and the preservation of the Yorùbá civilization and culture, while at the same time suggesting that the pre-
Odùduà group… was responsible for this civilization (Ìgè 1974, 1976). If the Ọ̀ wọ́ rọ̀ , Ìdáìsà-Mànígrì and the Ìlàjẹ descended from a
Yorùbá-speaking group who had neither ọ ba nor cities, …then we may have to rest content that the pre-Odùduà Yorùbá group gave us
only the values and not the political organization that made Yorùbá civilization possible.

68 In Ǹ ri-Igbo cosmogony, “Érì was sent by Chúkwu (the Creator) from the sky to rule mankind; he came down the Ànámb[à]ra [river], near the
present site of Ágụ lerì. His first wife bore Ǹ ri the founder of Ágụ Ukwu Ǹ ri… [among others]” (Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ 1997, 29, cf. Jeffreys’ gloss of
Ǹ ri as “a Sky-Being” 1951, 93). Now the fashion is to Hebraicize Ǹ ri’s sky-claims, e.g. Nwáòkóyè (2008) rebrands Chúkwu’s emissaries, the
four personified market days, as Biblical “magi”, and plugs a “new book titled Ǹ ri Kingdom: Ìgbo, a Lost Jewish Race by Chief Ambrose
Ń nàlụ́ ẹ Òkóńkwọ with a forward by Prof. Miriam Íkejìanị-Clark (Àdá Dị́ Ọ̀ ra Ḿ má of Ǹ ri)”. The “lost tribe of Israel” shibboleth, propagated
by Rev. Basden (1938, 411-23), survives because it strokes Ìgbo literates’ “ideological feeling of oneness with the Jews, which as we have
seen goes back to the ex-slave boy Equiano” (Áfiìgbo 1981, 182; cf. Ilogu 1957, 116; Òjúkwu 1969, 221). The attraction seems to be mutual
(Perelman 2008).
 25
69 Translation abridged; full transcription at Manfredi (1991, 342), audio at people.bu.edu/manfredi/Ako.NaMini.mov. Let me yield to the
temptation to directly relate the anonymous personage “on the top of a palm tree” to the archetype of Ọ bàtálá, who succumbed to the power of
palmwine after his earth-landing was accidentally snagged in that pleasant perch (Wenger 1983, 89).
70 Àjàyí (2004) hints at Ọ̀ rúnmìlà = Odù(duwà) equivalence.
71 The NE Yorùbá form below represents pronunciations from Àkókó and “Uyere/Iyere” as cited by Struck (1911, 53).
72 The synchronic opacity of the shift in Yorùbá is eloquently, if unintentionally, witnessed by Babalọ lá (1975) who despite his famed cultural
and literary expertise considers the meaning of ọ̀ run as ‘ancestors’ to be merely “idiomatic” and has no suspicion of the fact that it is really
etymological. The Ẹ̀ dó comparanda are quite irregular and are included only as a placeholder for study of the reflexes within that cluster.
73 Heusch accidentally inverts the symbolic opposition: “Johnson nous dit que le roi et le baṣ ọ̀ run forment en quelque sort de couple, le baṣ ọ̀ run
étant en rapport avec la terre, le roi avec le ciel” [Johnson tells us that the king and the baṣ ọ̀ run form a kind of pair, with the baṣ ọ̀ run
corresponding to the earth, and the king to the sky] (1987, 120). However, this slip doesn’t undermine Heusch’s insight that a celestial claim
is implied in the office of the Aláàfin, as in other Oòduà-related sacred kingship titles in the Yorùbá-speaking area, and other monarchies
across the Benue-Kwa zone. Such claims were not, of course, sufficient conditions for state formation. Lloyd (1971, 3-8) observes that no
Yorùbá kingdom ever matched the “successful centralization” based on military “control of lucrative trade routes” and tribute, such as were
tapped by the monarchies of Ẹ̀ dó (alias “Bìní/Benin”) and Àgbómẹ̀ . For the relative stability of Ẹ̀ dó, Bradbury credits state organization itself
(1967, 31), though he also recounts instances of competition between Òvọ́ nrànmwẹ n, the last independent Ọ́ ba, and palace appointees of his
father Ádọ̀ lọ́ , on the one hand, or with independently wealthy èghaẹ vbo n’óre ‘town chiefs’ on the other. The latter division, generating
inconsistent diplomatic and military policy, handed the British a pretext to invade and sack the Ẹ̀ dó capital in 1897 (Bradbury 1968, 1969).
74 His intellectual biographer has responded with something closer to Verger’s side of the story, which deserves to be quoted here:
À Lagos, juste avant l’embarquement à l’aéroport pour retourner au Brésil, il [= Verger] est arrêté sur des motifs inventés
(trafiquant d’armes ou d’œuvres d’art, agent de l’Afrique du Sud…), dénoncé pour des motifs rocambolesques (le vol d’une
sculpture en bronze d’Ifẹ̀ connue comme la tête d’Oló.kun) par certains collègues de l’université nigériane qu’il croyait être des
amis (’Wán̅dé Abím̅ bọ́ lá, ’Wọ lé Ṣ óyín̅ ká, Ọ lábíyì Yáì), jeté en prison sans recours et ainsi humilié à l’âge de 77 ans. [FN 112:
Verger aurait notamment été dénoncé à la police en raison de la jalousie de ’Wán̅dé Abím̅ bọ́ lá (Verger avait fait une copie de tous
ses enregistrements sur Ifá pour l’Université d’Ifẹ̀ , mais Abím̅ bọ́ lá aurait souhaité accaparer l’ensemble de ses archives).
Quelques jours auparavant, Verger s’était opposé à ’Wọ lé Ṣ óyín̅ ká qui appuyait alors la thèse de l’existence d’un racisme
politique de nature génocidaire au Bresil. Deux professeurs de l’université d’Ifẹ̀ , ’W. Ṣ óyín̅ ká, futur prix Nobel de littérature et
alors à la tête du département de théâtre, et Ọ lábíyì Yáì, se rendent rapidement à Salvador et trouvent dans la maison bahaianaise
du peintre et sculpteur Carybé un copie de la tête d’Oló.kun que ce dernier a lui-même réalisée et qu’ils supposent être l’original.
Ils se ramènent au Nigeria où ils s’aperçoivent qu’elle n’est qu’une modeste copie en plâtre d’une réplique en bronze de la pièce
du British Museum, l’original (découvert par Frobenius en 1910) étant perdu. Entretien personnel; C. Nóbrega, R. Echeverria,
Verger; Um Retrato em preto et branco (2002): 270-75.] (Souty 2007, 104)
[In Lagos, immediately before boarding a flight back to Brazil, Verger was arrested on trumped up charges (arms- or art-
trafficker, South African spy…), having been accused on incredible grounds (theft of an Ifẹ̀ bronze sculpture called the Head of
Oló.kun) by certain Nigerian university colleagues whom he had regarded as his friends (’Wán̅dé Abím̅ bọ́ lá, ’Wọ lé Ṣ óyín̅ ká,
Ọ lábíyì Yáì), thrown in jail without appeal and thus humiliated at the age of 77. [FN 112: Verger had notably been reported to the
police due to the jealousy of ’Wán̅dé Abím̅ bọ́ lá (Verger had made copies of all his Ifá recordings for the University of Ifẹ̀ , but
Abím̅ bọ́ lá wanted to grab the totality of his archives). Several days before, Verger had disagreed with ’Wọ lé Ṣ óyín̅ ká who at the
time held the view that genocidal political racism existed in Brazil. Two professors of the University of Ifẹ̀ , ’W. Ṣ óyín̅ ká, future
Nobel laureate in literature and then Head of the Department of Theater, and Ọ lábíyì Yáì, dashed to Salvador [Brazil] and found
in the Bahian house of the painter and sculptor Carybé a copy of the Head of Oló.kun which Carybé had himself made and which
they believed to be the original. They returned to Nigeria where they realized that it was only a modest plaster copy of a bronze
replica in the British Museum, the original (excavated by Frobenius in 1910) having been lost.]
The same source reports more detail about Verger’s Ifá archive, citing Lühning (1999) and Nóbrega & Echeverria (2002), and
encouraging the hope of eventual publication of this world-caliber heritage, some of which I was fortunate to observe in April 2009 at the
Fundação Pierre Verger in company of Prof. ’S. Oyèláràn, thanks to the kindness of Prof. A. Lühning:
En ce qui concerne l’étude de la divination, il [= Verger] tenta sans succès de faire publier au Nigeria dans les années 1970 le
corpus d’histoires d’Ifá qu’il a recueilli. …En 1966, il déclare avoir recueilli plus de 4,000 histoires d’Ifá, “d’intérêt plus ou
moins grand, mais toutes contribuent à définir la structure et correspondances du système d’Ifá” ainsi que d’avoir enregistré,
retranscrites en yorùbá et traduites en français plus de 600 de ces histoires. [FN 71: Titres et travaux (sept. 1966), 35.] Étant
donné que plusieures histoires se chevauchent or constituent des variations proches, le corpus effectivement recueilli puis
retranscrit peut être ramené au final à environ 2,000 histoires distinctes. (Souty 2007, 106, 337)
[Regarding the study of divination, in the 1970’s Verger unsuccessfully tried to publish in Nigeria the corpus of Ifá stories which
he had collected. …In 1966, he claimed to have collected more than 4,000 Ifá stories “of more or less interest, but all helping to
define the structure and correspondences of the Ifá system”, as well as to have recorded, transcribed in Yorùbá and translated into
French more than 600 of these stories. (FN…) Given that several stories overlapped or were close variants, the corpus ultimately
collected and transcribed may have amounted to about 2,000 individual stories.]
Two Ifá poems recorded from Awótúndé Awórìndé in Òṣ ogbo in 1969 are transcribed in the appendix of Verger (1989).
75 Glosses in this table have been normalized and abbreviated, either lightly (Ǹ ri, Ùrhobo, Igálà) or heavily and much more tentatively (Ẹ̀ dó,
Nupe). The Ẹ̀ dó, Ùrhobo and Ǹ sụ́ ká glosses are aligned to Ǹ ri by array name rather than by visual array (binary address) because the latter
has been systematically rotated 180º in zones C and D-ii, as shown in Appendix 1 and discussed in §4.3. Emọ vọ n explains that this rotation is
due to the oraclist’s virtual perspectival shift “as if the reading was done from the side of the client sitting opposite the diviner” (1984, 4). The
statistics at the top of the chart indicate percentage correspondence to Ǹ ri, including partial semantic matches (‘said’ = ‘messenger’) and
translation-independent links supported by a canonical pragmatic connection (‘rooster’ = ‘good head’). Glosses not matching Ǹ ri, and thus
not counted in the scores, appear [in square brackets]. Matches excluding Ǹ ri are also not counted, but are nevertheless flagged <in angle
brackets>. {Curly brackets} indicate Ǹ ri glosses derived from Appendix 2, Ùrhobo glosses from Erivwo (1979) and Ẹ̀ dó glosses from
Emọ vọ n (1984), just when these add to or differ from those reported by Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ (1997), Nabofa & Elugbe (1981) and Egharhevba
(1936) respectively. Igálà glosses from Boston (1974). Omitted here are the Tiv data from Downes (1933, 69f.) because no semantic match
could be detected for any of the 14 arrays reported in that source.
 26
References
Àbọ [h], Ọ . [2004]. Morphosyntax of Complement-head Sequences; clause structure & word-order patterns in Kwa. Oxford University Press.
Abraham, R. [1951]. The Ìdọ mà Language. University of London Press.
———. [1958]. Dictionary of Modern Yorùbá. University of London Press.
Abím̅ bọ́ lá, ’W. [1973]. The literature of the Ifá cult. Sources of Yorùbá History, edited by S. Bíòbákú, 41-62. Oxford University Press.
———. [1976]. Ifá; an exposition of Ifá literary corpus. Oxford University Press.
Àchebé, C. [1975]. Chí in Ìgbo cosmology. Morning Yet on Creation Day, 93-103. Heinemann, London.
Adéoyè, C. [1989]. Ìgbàgbọ́ àti Ẹ̀ sin Yorùbá. Evans, Ìbàdàn.
Adétúgbọ̀ , A. [1967]. The Yorùbá Language in Western Nigeria; its major dialect areas. Dissertation, Columbia U, New York.
Áfiìgbo, A. [1973]. Trades and trade routes in 19th century Ǹ sụ́ ká. Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria 7, 77-90.
———. [1977]. Precolonial trade links between southeastern Nigeria and the Benue valley. Journal of African Studies 4, 118-39.
———. [1981]. Through a glass darkly; 18th century Ìgbo society through Equiano’s narrative. Ropes of Sand; studies in Ìgbo history & culture,
145-86. University Press Ltd., Ìbàdàn.
———. [1997]. Southeastern Nigeria, the Niger-Benue confluence and the Benue in the precolonial period; some issues of historiography.
History in Africa 24, 1-8.
———[2002/2005a]. Ìgbo énwé ezè; beyond Ọ́ nwụ mèchili and Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀. Self-published, Ọ̀ kị́gwị́, Ábị̀a State/Ìgbo History & Society; the
essays of Ádiéle Afiìgbo, edited by ’T. Fálọ́ lá, 477-94. Africa World Press, Trenton New Jersey.
———. [2005b]. The Benue valley in precolonial Nigerian history. Nigerian History, Politics & Affairs, edited by ’T. Fálọ́ lá, 63-76. Africa
World Press, Trenton, New Jersey.
Agheyisi, R. [1986]. An Ẹ̀ dó-English Dictionary. Ethiope, Benin-City. [Abridged modernization of Melzian (1937).]
Àjàyí, J. [2004]. Yorùbá origin controversy; you can’t just wake up and say Odùduwà was a Benin prince. The Punch, 16 May.
groups.yahoo.com/group/AlukoArchives/message/316.
Ajíbóyè, Ọ . [2005]. Topics on Yorùbá nominal expressions. Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Ákẹ nzùa, Ẹ . [2008]. Ekaladerhan. Inter Press, Lagos.
Akéré, ’F. [1982]. Social motivation for ongoing sound change in a Yorùbá dialect. Journal of the Linguistic Association of Nigeria 1, 1-34.
Akínjídé, R. [2000]. The amalgamation of Nigeria was a fraud. Guardian [Lagos], 9 July. www.dawodu.com/akinjid3.htm.
Akínkugbé, ’F. [1978]. A comparative phonology of Yorùbá dialects, Ìṣ ẹ̀ kiri & Igálà. Dissertation, University of Ìbàdàn.
Akinlabí, A. [1985]. Tonal underspecification & Yorùbá tone. Dissertation, University of Ìbàdàn.
Alápínì, J. [1952]. Les Noix sacrées; la géomancie au Togo. [Not personally consulted; cited by Hébert (1961)]
Allen, W. [1954]. Review of Proto-Indo European Phonology by W. Lehmann. Bulletin of SOAS 16, 418-19.
Alter, S. [1999]. Darwinism & the Linguistic Image; language, race & natural theology in the 19th Century. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Amali, S. & R. Armstrong. [1968]. Ònùgbò M̀ lòko. Insititute of African Studies, University of Ìbàdàn.
Ánọ̀ ká, G. [1979]. A Pronouncing Dictionary of Ìgbo Place Names. Ímò Newspapers, Òweré.
Apter, A. [1987]. The historiography of Yorùbá myth and ritual. History in Africa 14, 1-25.
Àrị́ǹze, F. [1970]. Sacrifice in Ìgbo Religion. Ìbàdàn University Press.
Armstrong, R. [1955]. The Ìdọ mà-speaking peoples. Peoples of the Niger-Benue Confluence, edited by D. Forde, 91-155. Oxford University
Press.
———. [1964]. Linguistic and ethnogrpahic data in Ìdọ mà and Yorùbá history. The Historian in Tropical Africa, edited by J. Vansina & al.,
127-44. Oxford University Press.
———. [1965]. Comparative wordlists of two dialects of Yorùbá with Igálà. Journal of West African Languages 2, 51-78.
———. [1967]. Comparative Wordlist of Five Ìgbo Dialects. Institute of African Studies, University of Ìbàdàn.
———. [1983]. The Idomoid languages of the Benue and Cross River valleys. Journal of West African Languages 13, 91-149.
Aṣíwájú, A. [1976]. Political motivation & oral historical traditions in Africa; the case of Yorùbá crowns, 1900-60. Africa 46, 113-27.
Awóbùlúyì, Ọ . [2004]. On the so-called genitive morpheme in Standard Yorùbá. 24th WALC, Ibadan, August 1-6. [Not personally consulted;
cited by Ajíbóyè (2005, 71)]
Awórìndé, A. [1965/1978]. Ìyẹ̀ rẹ̀ Ifá [The Deep Chants of Ifá] from a performance in the Ilé Awo of Òṣ ogbo, transcribed & translated by R.
Armstrong, V. Ọ láyẹ mí, W. Ògúnyẹ mí, R. Àwùjọ ọ la & D. Adéníji.] Occasional Publication 32, Institute of African Studies, University of
Ìbàdàn/Nigerian Cultural Records 16-17.
Awóyalé, ’Y. [1978]. On the deep structure of Yorùbá ideophones. Research Papers in the Linguistic Sciences 1, 3-37
———. [2008]. Global Yorùbá lexical database. Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Babalọ lá, A. [1975]. Further discussion on Ayọ̀ Bám̅ gbóṣ é’s article ‘The meaning of Oló.dùmarè; an etymology of the name of the Yorùbá high
god’. African Notes [Ìbàdàn] 7.2, 104-05.
Babáyẹ mí, S. [1973] Bẹ ẹ rẹ Festival in Ọ̀ yọ́ . Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria 7, 121-24.
———. [1979]. The Ọ̀ yọ́ -Ifẹ̀ -Benin relationship reconsidered. African Notes [Ìbàdàn] 8.2, 15-26.
Babáyẹ mí, S. & O. Adékọ́ lá eds. [1987-1991]. Ìṣ ẹ̀ dálẹ̀ Àwọ n Odù Ifá 1-4. Institute of African Studies, University of Ìbàdàn.
Bám̅ gbóṣ é, A. [1966]. A Grammar of Yorùbá. Cambridge University Press.
———. [1972]. The meaning of Oló.dùmarè; an etymology of the name of the Yorùbá high god. African Notes [Ìbàdàn] 7.1, 25-32.
———. [1986]. Yorùbá, a Language in Transition. Ọ dún̅jọ Memorial Lecures Committee, Yába.
Banfield, A. [1914]. Dictionary of the Nupe Language; vol. 1, Nupe-English. Niger Press, Shonga, Northern Nigeria.
Bán̅jọ , A. & al. [eds., 1991]. Quadrilingual Glossary of Legislative Terms: English, Hausa, Ìgbo, Yorùbá. Nigerian Educational Research &
Development Council, Lagos.
Bascom, W. [1944]. The Sociological Role of the Yorùbá Cult Group. American Anthropological Association, Menasha, Wisc.
 27
———. [1961]. Odù Ifá; the order of the figures of Ifá. Bulletin de l’Institute Français d’Afrique noire 23, 676-82.
———. [1966]. Odù Ifá; the names of the signs. Africa 36, 408-21.
———. [1969]. Ifá Divination; communication between gods & men in West Africa. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
———. [1980]. Sixteen Cowries; Yorùbá divination from Africa to the New World. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Basden, G. [1938]. Niger Ì[g]bos, a description of the primitive life, customs & animistic beliefs &c. of the Ì[g]bo people of Nigeria by one who
for 35 years enjoyed the privilege of their intimate confidence & friendship. Seeley, London.
Bastide, R. [1970]. Mémoire collective et sociologie du bricolage. L’Année sociologique 3, 65-108.
Beier, U. [1956]. Before Odùduwà. Odù [Ìbàdàn] 3, 25-32.
———. [1957]. The dancers of Ágbọ̀ . Odù [Ìbàdàn] 7, 41. [includes 4 unnumbered pages of plates]
———. [1994]. The Return of Ṣ àngó; the theatre of Dúró Ládiípọ̀ . Ìwàlẹ wà Haus, Bayreuth.
Benson, D. [2006]. Victims of the serialised saga. Vanguard, Lagos, 19 March.
www.vanguardngr.com/articles/2002/cover/march06/19032006/f319032006.html.
Bernal, M. [1997]. Responses to Black Athena; general and linguistic issues. Talanta 28/29, 65-98.
Binsbergen, W. van. [1995]. Four-tablet divination as trans-regional medical technology in southern Africa. Journal of Religion in Africa 25,
114-40.
———. [1996]. Regional and historical connections of 4-tablet divination in southern Africa. Journal of Religion in Africa 26, 1-29.
———. [1997]. Rethinking Africa’s contribution to global cultural history; lessons from a comparative historical analysis of mankala board-
games and geomantic divination. Talanta 28/29, 219-51.
Blair, A. [1940]. Intelligence report on Mẹ̀ kọ , Ìláàró. [Not personally consulted; cited by Abraham (1958)]
Boas, F. [1911]. Introduction. Handbook of American Indian Languages. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
———. [1940]. Race, Language & Culture. Macmillan, New York.
Boston, J. [1968]. The Igálà Kingdom. Oxford University Press, Ìbàdàn.
———. [1969]. Oral tradition and the history of Igálà. Journal of African History 10, 29-43.
———. [1974]. Ifá divination in Igálà. Africa 44, 350‑60.
Bowen, T. [1858]. Grammar & Dictionary of the Yorùbá Language with an Introductory Description of the Country & People of Yorùbá.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bradbury, R. [1957]. The Benin kingdom. Ethnographic Survey of Africa Part 13, edited by D. Forde, 18-58. International African Institute,
London.
———. [1967]. The kingdom of Benin. West African Kingdoms in the 19th Century, edited by D. Forde & P. Kaberry, 1-35. Oxford University
Press.
———. [1968]. Continuities and discontinuities in precolonial and colonial Benin politics (1897-1951). History & Social Anthropology, edited
by I. Lewis, 193-252. Tavistock, London.
———. [1969]. Patrimonialism and gerontocracy in Benin political culture. Man in Africa, edited by M. Douglas & P. Kaberry, 17-36.
Tavistock, London.
Brugmann, K. [1886/1922]. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen 1; Einleitung & Lautlehre. Trübner,
Strassburg/Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. DeGruytter, Berlin.
Burquest, D. [1973]. A grammar of Angas. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Cabrera, L. [1957]. Anagó; vocabulario lucumí; el yoruba que se habla en Cuba. Ediciones C.R., Habana.
Campbell, L. [1998]. Historical Linguistics; an introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
Capo, H. [1991]. A Comparative Phonology of Gbè. Foris/de Gruyter, Berlin.
Cavalli-Sforza, L. [2000]. Genes, Peoples & Languages. North Point Press, New York.
Chemillier, M. [2007]. Divination (1), règles de la géomancie. Divination (2), cognition. Les Mathématiques Naturelles, 159-76; 177-208. Odile
Jacob, Paris.
Chemillier, M. & al. [2007]. Aspects mathématiques et cognitifs de la divination sikidy à Madagascar. Homme 181, 7-40. [Revised as
Chemillier (2007).]
Chomsky, N. [1986]. Knowledge of Language. Praeger, New York.
———. [2001]. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale; a life in language, edited by M. Kenstowicz, 1-52. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Clarke, J. [1939]. Ifá divination. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 69, 235-56.
Clifford, M. [1936]. A Nigerian chiefdom; some notes on the Igálà tribe in Nigeria and their “divine king”. Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute 66, 393-436.
Crowther, S. [1864]. Grammar & Vocabulary of the Nupe Language. C.M.S., London.
Danfulani, U. [1995]. Pebbles & Deities; Pa divination among the Ngas, Mupun & Mwaghavul in Nigeria. Lang, Frankfurt.
Dawkins, R. [1982]. The Extended Phenotype; the gene as the unit of selection. Oxford University Press.
Dennett, D. [1995]. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea; evolution & the meanings of life. Simon & Schuster, New York.
Díké, Ọ . & F. Ékèjiụ bá. [1990]. The Árụ̀ of southeastern Nigeria, 1650-1980; a study of socioeconomic formation & transformation in Nigeria.
University Press Limited, Ìbàdàn.
Downes, R. [1933]. The Tiv Tribe. Government Printer, Kaduna.
Edwards, P. [1962]. Embrenché and ndichie. Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria 3, 401-02.
Egharhevba, J. [1934/1968]. A Short History of Benin. CMS Bookshop, Lagos/Ìbàdàn University Press.
———. [1936]. Ìha Ominigbọ n; efẹ n nokaro, nogueva, nogieha, nogienẹ , nogisẹ n kevbe nogiehan. Privately published, Benin-City. Photocopy
in University of Benin Library, Benin-City.
———. [1946/1971]. Benin Law & Custom. Privately published, Benin-City/Kraus Reprint, Nedeln.
———. [1951/1971]. Some Stories of Ancient Benin. Privately published, Benin-City/Kraus Reprint, Nedeln.
 28
Eglash, R. [1997]. Bamana sand divination. American Anthropologist 99, 112-22.
Elugbe, B. [1986/1989]. Comparative Ẹ doid; phonology & lexicon. University of Port Harcourt Press.
Elugbe, B. & K. Williamson. [1977]. Reconstructing nasals in Proto-Benue Kwa. Linguistic Studies Offered to Joseph Greenberg, edited by A.
Juillard, 339-63. Anma Libri, Saratoga.
Éménanjọ , ’N. [1971]. Aspects of the phonology & morphophonemics of Ọ̀ nịcha. B.A. thesis, University of Ìbàdàn.
———. [1989] Are Ìgbo wellerisms proverbs? Aṅu, Journal of Ìgbo Culture 5, 62-77.
Emọ vọ n, A. [1984]. Òminigbọ n divination. Nigeria Magazine 151, 1-9.
Erim, E. [1981]. Ìdọ mà Nationality 1600-1900; problems in studying the origins & development of ethnicity. Fourth Dimension, Énugwú.
Erivwo, S. [1979]. Ẹ pha divination system among the Ùrhobo of the Niger delta. African Notes (Ìbàdàn) 8.1, 21-25.
Ézè, E. & V. Manfredi. [2001]. Ìgbo. Facts About the World’s Major Languages, Past & Present, edited by J. Garry & C. Rubino, 322-30. H.W.
Wilson, Bronx, New York.
Ézikéojìakụ , P. [1984]. Ìgbo divination poetry (ábụ̀ áfá), an introduction. Nigeria Magazine 50, 37-39.
———. [1987]. [Poetry in áfa]. Nigeria Magazine 55.4, 57-65. [Title not printed on piece.]
———. [n.d., circa 1998]. The díbị̀a áfá in Ìgbo society. Igede, Journal of Ìgbo Studies [no volume, probably 1], 69-75.
———. [2001]. Discourse and pragmatic analysis of West African oral verses; the example of the oral ritual poetry of the Ìgbo. Advances in
African Languages, Literatures & Cultures; essays in memory of Ń nàbụ ényi Ùgońnà, edited by P. Ézikéojìakụ et al., 87-109. Sam Orient
Publishers, Lagos.
Fábùnmi, M. [1969]. Ifẹ̀ Shrines. University of Ifẹ̀ Press, Ilé-Ifẹ̀ .
Fálána, ’F. [2001]. How Abíọ́ lá was killed. This Day, 21 July. www.nigeriamasterweb.com/nmwpg1abiola2death.html.
Gaillard, D. [1907]. Etude sur les lacustres du Bas-Dahomey. L’Anthropologie 18, 99-125. [Not personally consulted; cited by Maupoil (1943a)]
Gamkrelidze, T. & V. Ivanov. [1973]. Sprachtypologie und die Rekonstruktion der gemeinindogermanischen Verschlüsse. Phonetica 27, 150-56.
Gelfand, M. [1964]. Witch Doctor; traditional medicine man in Rhodesia. Harvill Press, London.
Gibbal, J-M. [1994]. Genii of the River Niger. University of Chicago Press. [Not personally consulted; cited by Shain (2005)]
Goody, J. [1986]. The Logic of Writing & the Organization of Society. Cambridge University Press.
———. [1987]. The Interface Between the Written & the Oral. Cambridge University Press.
Goody, J. & I. Watt. [1968]. The consequences of literacy. Comparative Studies in Society & History 5, 304-45.
Gould, S. & R. Lewontin. [1979]. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm; a critique of the adaptationist programme.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 205, 581-98.
Greenberg, J. [1941]. Some problems in Hausa phonology. Language 17, 316-23.
———. [1963]. The Languages of Africa. Mouton, the Hague. [= International Journal of American Linguistics 29.1].
———. [1970]. The role of typology in the development of a scientific linguistics. Theoretical Problems of Typology & the Northern Eurasian
Languages, edited by L. Dezsö & P. Hajdu, 11-24. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
———. [1974]. Bantu and its closest relatives. Studies in African Linguistics Supplement 5, 115-24.
Greene, S. [2000]. Cultural zones in the era of the slave trade; exploring the Yorùbá Connection among the Aŋlɔ-Eʋe. Identity in the Shadow of
Slavery, edited by P. Lovejoy, 86-101. Continuum, New York.
Hair, P. [1976]. Some minor sources for Guinea, 1519-1559: Enciso and Alfonce/Fonteneau. History in Africa 3, 19-46
Hébert, J. [1961]. Analyse structurale des géomancies comoriennes, malgaches et africaines. Journal de la Société des Africanistes 31, 115-208.
Herskovits, M. [1938]. Dahomey; an ancient West African kingdom. Vol 2. Augustin, New York.
Höftmann, H. & M. Ahohounkpanzon. [2003]. Dictionnaire Fọ̀ n-Français avec une esquisse grammaticale. Köppe, Köln.
Horton, R. [1979]. Ancient Ifẹ̀ , a reassessment. Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria 9.4, 69-149.
———. [1984]. Judeo-christian spectacles: boon or bane to the study of African religions? Cahiers d’études africaines 96, 391-436.
Hyman, L. [1970a]. How concrete is phonology? Language 46, 58-76.
———. [1970b]. The role of borrowing in the justification of phonological grammars. Studies in African Linguistics 3, 167-205.
Ìbiẹ́ , C. [1986]. Ifism; the complete works of Ọ̀ rúnmìlà. Èfẹ́ hì Ltd, Lagos.
Ìdòwú, E. [1962]. Olódùmarè; God in Yorùbá belief. Longman, London.
Ìgè [“Igué”], O. [1974]. The role of the towns in the creation and development of Yorùbá oral literature. Papers in Yorùbá Oral Literature.
University of Ìbàdàn Press. [Not personally consulted; cited by Oyèláràn (1977)]
———. [1976]. Quelques aspects du peuplement et des populations Yorùbá en République Populaire du Bénin. Proceedings of the Conference
on Yorùbá Civilization, edited by I. Akínjógbìn & G. Ẹ kẹ́ mọ̀ dé, 74-102. Mimeo., Department of History, U of Ifẹ̀ , Ilé-Ifẹ̀ .
Ígwè, G. [1985/1999]. Ìgbo-English Dictionary. University Press Ltd., Ìbàdàn.
Íhìọ́ nụ́ , Ụ . [1988]. Towards a pedagogy of Ìgbo and Yorùbá tones. 19th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, Boston U, 18 April.
Ilogu, E. [1957]. Inside Árụ̀ chúkwu [“Arochuku”]. Nigeria Magazine 53, 100-18.
Ìlọ̀ rí, J. [2009]. Noun-plural formation in Igálà. Current Perspectives in Phono-Syntax & Dialectology, edited by G. Adika & al., 1-15.
Department of Gur-Gonja, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana.
Jablonka, E. & M. Lamb. [2005]. Evolution in Four Dimensions; genetic, epigenetic, behavioral & symbolic variation in the history of life. MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Jaggar, P. [2001]. Hausa. Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Jakobson, R. [1929/1971]. Remarques sur l’évolution phonologique du russe comparée a celle des autres languages slaves. Travaux du Cercle
Linguistique de Prague 2/Roman Jakobson Selected Writings 1; phonological writings, 7-116. Mouton, The Hague.
———. [1944]. Franz Boas’ approach to language. International Journal of American Linguistics 10, 188-95.
Jaulin, R. [1957]. Essai d’analyse formelle d’un procédé géomantique. Bulletin de l’Institute Français d’Afrique noire 19-B, 43-71.
———. [1966]. La Géomancie; analyse formelle. Mouton, The Hague.
 29
Jeffreys, M. [1935]. The divine Ụ́ mụ́ ǹri [“Umundri”] King. Africa 8, 346-54.
———. [1951]. The winged solar disk or Ì[g]bo íchi [“it∑i”] facial scarification. Africa 21, 93-111.
Johnson, J. [1899]. Yorùbá Heathenism. Townsend, Exeter. [Not personally consulted; cited by Hébert (1961)]
Johnson, S. [1897/1921]. The History of the Yorùbás from the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the British Protectorate. C.S.S. Bookshops,
Lagos.
Kasfir, S. [1989]. Remembering Ojiji; portrait of an Ìdọ mà artist. African Arts 22, 44-51, 86-87.
Kawu, A. [2002]. Variation in Nupe phonology & morphology. Dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Kligue[h], B. [2001]. Le Vodu à travers son encyclopédie la géomancie AFà [sic]. Éditions Afridic, Bagneux, France.
Koster, J. [2009]. Ceaseless, unpredictable creativity. Biolinguistics 3, 61-92.
Kronfeldner, M. [2007]. Is cultural evolution Lamarckian? Biology & Philosophy 22, 493-512.
Labov, W. [1963]. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19, 273-309.
Ladefoged, P. [1964]. Ebira notes and wordlist. Journal of West African Languages 1, 27-37.
———. [1968]. A Phonetic Study of West African Languages; an auditory-instrumental survey. Cambridge University Press.
Ladefoged, P. & al. [1976]. The stops of Òweré Ìgbo. Studies in African Linguistics Supplement 6, 146-63.
Law, R. [1973a]. The heritage of Odùduwà; traditional history and political propaganda among the Yorùbá. Journal of African History 14,
207-22.
———. [1973b]. Anthropological models in Yorùbá history. Africa 43, 18-26.
———. [1976]. The northern factor in Yorùbá history. Proceedings of the Conference on Yorùbá Civilization, edited by I. Akínjógbìn &
G. Ẹ kẹ́ mọ̀ dé, 103-32. Mimeo., Department of History, University of Ifẹ̀ , Ilé-Ifẹ̀ .
———. [1977]. The Ọ̀ yọ́ Empire c.1600-c.1836; a West African imperialism in the era of the Atlantic slave trade. Oxford University Press.
Lenneberg, E. [1967]. Biological Foundations of Language. Wiley, New York.
Lewontin R. [1970]. The units of selection. Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics 1, 1-18.
Lloyd, P. [1955]. Yorùbá myths—a sociologist’s interpretation. Odù [Ìbàdàn] 2, 20-28.
———. [1971]. The political development of Yorùbá kingdoms in the 18th & 19th centuries. Royal Anthropological Institute, London.
Longobardi, G. & C. Guardiano. [2009]. Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical relatedness. Lingua 119, 1679-1706.
Lüning, A. [1999]. Pierre Fatumbi Verger; a view from Bahia. Cahiers du Brésil contemporain 38/39, 75-95.
Mace, R. & al., eds. [2005]. The Evolution of Cultural Diversity; a phylogenetic aproach. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Malinowski, B. [1935]. An ethnographic theory of the magical word. The Language of Magic & Gardening, 213-50. [= Coral Gardens & their
Magic, Vol 2.] Allen & Unwin, London.
Manfredi, V. [1989]. Igboid. The Niger-Congo Languages, edited by J. Bendor-Samuel, 337-58. University Press of America, Lanham,
Maryland. Revised in Manfredi (1991, 30-33, 46-61).
———. [1991]. Ágbọ̀ & Ẹ́ hụ gbò; Ìgbo linguistic consciousness, its origins & limits. Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
people.bu.edu/manfredi/dissertation.pdf.
———. [1997]. Ìgbo initiation; phallus or umbilicus? Cahiers d’études africaines 145, 157-211.
people.bu.edu/manfredi/OedipousOttenberg.pdf.
———. [2004a]. Philological perspectives on the Southeastern Nigerian diaspora. Contours [1543-902X] 2.2, 239-87.
people.bu.edu/manfredi/Contours.pdf.
———. [2004b]. A toneless theory of 2-and-a-half tonemes in Gbè. Département de Linguistique, Université de Paris-7, 1 December.
people.bu.edu/manfredi/paris7.pdf.
———. [2008]. “A recurrence of structures”—Ágbọ̀ Kingdom in collapsing Nigeria. American Anthropological Association, Washington D.C.,
30 November 2007. Submitted to publication. people.bu.edu/manfredi/AAArevised.pdf.
———. [2009]. Morphosyntactic parameters and the internal classification of Benue-Kwa (Niger-Congo). Historical Syntax & Linguistic
Theory, edited by P. Crisma & G. Longobardi, 329-43. Oxford University Press. Pre-publication: people.bu.edu/manfredi/DIGS9.pdf.
———. [2011]. Before Wazobịa; Òminigbọ n and polyglot culture in medieval 9ja. people.bu.edu/manfredi/BeforeWazobia.pdf.
Marcus, G. [1993]. Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition 46, 58-85.
Marten, L. [2006]. Bantu classification, Bantu trees and phylogenetic methods. Phylogenetic Methods & the Prehistory of Languages, edited by
P. Foster & C. Renfrew, 43-55. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.
Martinet, A. [1952]. Function, structure and sound change. Word 8, 1-32.
Maas, P. [1937/1958]. Indictive errors and stemmatic types. Textual Criticism, 42-49. Oxford University Press.
Maupoil, B. [1943a]. La Géomancie à l’ancienne Côte des Esclaves. Institut d’Ethnologie, Paris.
———. [1943b]. Contribution à l’origine musulmane de la géomancie dans le bas Dahomey. Journal de la Société des Africanistes 13, 1-94.
Meek, C. [1931]. A Sudanese Kingdom; an ethnographical study of the Jukun-speaking peoples of Nigeria. Kegan Paul, London.
Meillet, A. [1922]. Les Dialectes indo-europeénnes. Champion, Paris.
———. [1925]. La Méthode comparative en linguistique historique. Aschehoug, Oslo.
Melzian, H. [1937]. Concise Dictionary of the Bìní Language of Southern Nigeria. Kegan Paul, London.
Moliner, I. [1992]. Los cabildos de africanos en la ciudad de Matanzas. Manuscript, Matanzas, Cuba.
Monteil, C. [1932]. La divination chez les Noirs de l’Afrique Occidentale Française. Bulletin du Comité d’Études Historiques & Scientifiques de
l’Afrique Orientale française 14, 27-136. [Not personally consulted; cited by Bascom (1969)]
Morton-Williams, P. [1960]. The Yorùbá Ògbóni cult in Ọ̀ yọ́ . Africa 30, 362-74.
———. [1964]. An outline of the cosmology and cult organization of the Ọ̀ yọ́ Yorùbá. Africa 34, 243-61.
———. [1966]. Two studies of Ifá divination. Introduction; the modes of divination. Africa 36, 406-08.
Mufwene, S. [2008]. Language Evolution; contact, competition & change. Continuum, London.
Mukarovsky H. [1965]. The comparative method applied to Twì. Afrika & Übersee 49, 256-69.
 30
———. [1976]. A study of Western Nigritic, 2. Institut für Ägyptologie und Afrikanistik, Universität Wien.
———. [1977]. A study of Western Nigritic, 1. Institut für Ägyptologie und Afrikanistik, Universität Wien.
Nabofa, M. & B. Elugbe. [1981]. Ẹ pha, an Ùrhobo system of divination and its esoteric language. Oríta; Ìbàdàn Journal of Religious Studies 13,
3-19. Accessible with OCR typos at: www.waado.org/UrhoboCulture/Religion/Nabofa/Divination/Epha.html.
Nadel, S. [1942]. A Black Byzantium; the kingdom of Nupe in Nigeria. Oxford University Press.
———. [1954]. Nupe Religion; traditional beliefs & the influence of Islam in a West African kingdom. Oxford University Press.
Nakhleh, L. & al. [2005]. Perfect phylogenetic networks; a new methodology for reconstructing the evolutionary history of natural languages.
Language 81, 382-420. www.cs.rice.edu/~nakhleh/Papers/81.2nakhleh.pdf.
Nóbrega, C. & R. Echeverria. [2002]. Verger; Um Retrato em preto & branco. Corrupio, Salvador, Bahia, Brasil.
Nurse, D. & G. Philippson. [2003]. Introduction. The Bantu Languages, edited by D. Nurse & G. Philippson, 1-12. Routledge, London.
Nwáọ̀ ga [Nwoga], D. [1984]. The Supreme God as Stranger in Ìgbo Religious Thought. Hawk Press, Ḿ bàisén.
Nwáòkóyè, C. [2008]. How Èké, Óyè, Àfọ [r] and Ǹ kwọ́ market days were introduced in Ìgboland. 5 July.
www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/guest-articles/how-eke-oye-afor-and-nkwo-market-days-were-introduced-in-igb.html.
Ọ báyẹ mí, A. [1979a]. Ancient Ilé-Ifẹ̀ ; another cultural-historical reinterpretation. Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria 9, 151-85.
———. [1979b]. Ifá divination and historical dates; an adventure into the chronology of Yorùbá history. Ilé-Ifẹ̀ . [Not personally consulted; cited
by Ọ báyẹ mí (1983, 87 fn. 50)]
———. [1980]. States and peoples of the Niger-Benue confluence area. Groundwork of Nigerian History, edited by O. Ikime, 144-64.
Heinemann, Ìbàdàn.
———. [1981]. The political culture of the Èkìtì and the challenge of the historiography of the Yorùbá. Staff and Post-Graduate Seminar,
Department of History, University of Ìlọ rin, 2 April.
———. [1983]. History, culture, Yorùbá and northern factors. Studies in Yorùbá History & Culture; essays in honour of Professor S.O. Bíòbákú,
edited by G. Olúsanya, 72-87. University Press Ltd., Ìbàdàn.
———. [1985]. Nine places called “Ifẹ̀ ”: history, symbols or what? Faculty of Arts Seminar, University of Ìlọ rin. Manuscript, Àkòdì-Afrika,
Uhẹ̀ -Ìjùmu.
———. [1991]. Beyond the legends: a discussion of Ẹ̀ dó-Yorùbá relation in precolonial times. Cultural Studies in Ifẹ̀ , edited by ’B. Adédìran,
33-41. Institute of Cultural Studies, Ọ báfẹ́ mi Awólọ́ wọ̀ University, Ilé-Ifẹ̀ .
Oguagha, P. [1984]. The beginnings of Ìgbo-Igálà relations up to c. 1650. Nigeria Magazine 149, 47-60.
———. [1992]. The Ìgbo and their neighbors. Groundwork of Ìgbo History, edited by A. Áfiìgbo, 360-82. Vista Books, Lagos.
Oguagha, P. & A. Okpoko. [1984]. History and Ethnoarchaeology in Eastern Nigeria; a study of Ìgbo-Igálà relations with special reference to
the Anamb[a]ra valley. Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 7. B.A.R., Oxford.
Ògúnbìyí, T. [1952]. Ìwé Ìtàn Ifá, [Agbigba], Yanrìn Títẹ̀ àti Owó Ẹ rìndílógún. Ìfẹ́ -Olú Printing, Lagos. [Not personally consulted, cited by
Bascom 1969.]
Ògúnlẹ́ .yẹ , ’F. [2002]. Preserving culture through new artistic forms; the case of Dúró Ládiípọ̀ ’s folkloric theatre. Research Review [Legon] n.s.
18, 63-71.
Óhirí-Ànịíchè, C. [2003]. Reconstruction of initial consonants of Proto-Benue Congo; insights from inter-branch comparisons. 34th Annual
Conference on African Linguistics, Rutgers University, 22 June.
Òjúkwu, C. [1969]. Biafra; selected speeches with journals of events. Harper, New York.
Ọ́ mọ zùwá, Ẹ . [1989]. Speech tempo, consonant deletion and tone in Ẹ̀ dó nouns. Studies in African Linguistics 20, 317-37.
Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ [Onwuejeogwu], M. [1974/1981]. An Ìgbo Civilization; Ǹ ri Kingdom & Hegemony. M.Phil Thesis, University College,
London/Ethnographica, London for Ethiope, Benin-City.
———. [1978/1997]. Áfa Symbolism & Phenomenology in Ǹ ri Kingdom & Hegemony; an African philosophy of social action. Dissertation,
University College, London/Ethiope, Benin-City.
———. [2001]. Ìgbo nwe ézè, Ìgbo have kings; the evolutionary development of complexities in the Ìgbo political system. Ị́ gụ́ arọ̀ Heritage
Inaugural Lecture. [Not personally consulted; cited by Áfiìgbo (2002/2005a).]
Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ [Onwuejeogwu], M. & R. Òkó[h]. [1981]. Distinctive Characteristics of Western Ìgbo Civilization; a sociocultural ideology for
Ànịọ́ ma State. Ambik, Benin-City.
Ọ́ nwụ ejìọ́ gwụ̀ [Onwuejeogwu], M. & B. [1977]. The search for the missing links in dating and interpreting the Ìgbo Úkwu finds. Paideuma 23,
169-88.
Ọ́ nwụ mèchili, C. [2000]. Ìgbo énwé ezè; the Ìgbo have no kings. Àhịajíọ kụ́ Lecture, Ministry of Information, Culture, Youth & Sports, Òweré
[“Owerri”], Ímò State. ahiajoku.igbonet.com/2000.
Ortíz, F. [1924]. Glosario de afronegrismos. Siglo XX, La Habana.
Ọ̀ ṣ úntòkun, ’J. [2004]. Ifẹ̀ -Benin relationship. Weblog post, 23 June. www.lagosforum.com/comment.php?NR=1164.
Oyèláràn, Ọ . [1977]. Linguistic speculations on Yorùbá history. Seminar Series 1, 624-51. Department of African Languages & Literatures,
University of Ifẹ̀ , Ilé-Ifẹ̀ . Delivered 30 May.
Palmer, H. [1931]. Introduction. A Sudanese Kingdom; an ethnographical study of the Jukun-speaking peoples of Nigeria, by C. Meek, xiii-
xxxiii. Kegan Paul, London.
———. [1936]. Introduction. A Nigerian chiefdom; some notes on the Igálà tribe in Nigeria and their “divine king”. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 66, 393-94.
Palmié, S. [2005]. The cultural work of Yorùbá globalization. Christianity & Social Change in Africa; essays in honor of J.D.Y. Peel, edited by
’T. Fálọ́ lá, 43-81. Carolina Academic Press, Durham.
Parrinder, E. [1949]. West African religion, illustrated from the beliefs & practices of the Yorùbá, Èʋè, Àkan & kindred peoples. Epworth Press,
London.
Peel, J. [2000]. Religious Encounter & the Making of the Yorùbá. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Perelman, M. [2008]. The I[g]bos of Nigeria: members of the tribe? Part of a trend in Sub-Saharan Africa to claim Jewish ancestry. 2 October.
www.forward.com/articles/14317.
Pfeiffer, R. [1976]. History of classical scholarship from 1300 to 1850. Oxford University Press.
 31
Pinker, S. [2002]. The Blank Slate; the modern denial of human nature. Penguin, New York.
Ringe, D. & al. [2002]. Indo-European and computational cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 100, 59-129.
www.cs.rice.edu/~nakhleh/CPHL/RWT02.pdf.
Rowland, I. [2008]. Giordano Bruno, Philosopher-Heretic. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York.
Rubin, A. [1970]. The arts of the Jukun-speaking peoples of Northern Nigeria. Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Ruxton, F. [1907]. Notes on the tribes of the Muri Province. Journal of the [Royal] African Society 7, 374-86.
Saussure, F. [1887]. Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes. Vieweg, Paris.
Schmidt, J. [1872]. Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. Böhlau, Weimar.
Segurola, R. & J. Rassinoux. [2000]. Dictionnaire Fọ̀ n-Français. Société des Missions Africaines, Kútɔnú.
Seton, R. [1928]. Installation of an Attah of Idah (Nigeria). Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 58, 255-78.
———. [1929]. Notes on the Igálà tribe, Northern Nigeria; part 1, religion and customs. Journal of the African Society 29, 42-52.
Shain, R. [2005]. The salt that binds; the historical geography of a central Nigerian regional identity. The Spatial Factor in African History; the
relationship of the social, material & perceptual, edited by A. Howard & R. Shain, 245-59. Brill, Leiden.
Shaw, T. [1970]. Ìgbo Úkwu; an account of archaeological discoveries in Eastern Nigeria. 2 Volumes. Faber, London.
Sheba, E. [2007]. The Ìkálẹ̀ (Yorùbá, Nigeria) migration theories and insignia. History in Africa 34, 461-68.
Shelton, A. [1965a]. Departure of the Ǹ shie; a northern Ǹ sụ́ ká Ìgbo origin legend. Journal of American Folklore 78, 115-29.
———. [1965b]. The meaning and method of Áfa divination among the northern Ǹ sụ́ ká Ìgbo. American Anthropologist 67, 1441-55.
———. [1971]. The Ìgbo-Igálà Borderland. State University of New York Press, Albany.
Souty, J. [2007]. Pierre Fátúmbí Verger; du regard détaché à la connaissance initatique. Maisonneuve & Larose, Paris.
Sow, I. [2009]. La Divination par le Sable; signes, symbolismes & technique d’inscription. Institut Fondamental d’Afrique Noire, Dakar.
Ṣ óyín̅ ká , ’W. [2006]. Olóríkunkun and Orí Oló.kun. You Must Set Forth At Dawn; memoirs, 213-61. Bookcraft, Ìbàdàn.
Sperber, D. [1985]. Anthropology and psychology; towards an epidemiology of representations. Man 20, 73-89.
———. [1999/2001]. Conceptual tools for a natural science of society and culture. Radcliffe Brown Lecture, 25 November/Proceedings of the
British Academy 111, 297-317. www.dan.sperber.com/Rad-Brow.htm.
———. [2000]. An objection to the memetic approach to culture. Darwinizing Culture; the status of memetics as a science, edited by R. Aunger,
163-73. Oxford University Press.
Spieth, J. [1911]. Die Religion der Eweer in Süd-Togo. Dieterich, Leipzig.
Staal, F. [1986]. The fidelity of oral tradition and the origins of science. Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van
Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks 49.8, 251-88.
———. [1989]. The independence of rationality from literacy. Archives européennes de sociologie 30, 301-10.
Stahlke, H. [1971]. The noun prefix in Èʋè. Studies in African Linguistics Supplement 2, 141-59.
Stewart, J. [1973]. The lenis stops of the Potou Lagoon languages and their significance for pre-Bantu reconstruction. Papers in Ghanaian
Linguistics 2, Research Review Supplement 4, 1-49. Institute of African Studies, University of Ghana.
———. [1976]. Towards Volta-Congo reconstruction. Universitaire Pers, Leiden.
———. [1993]. The second Tano consonant shift and its likeness to Grimm’s Law. Journal of West African Languages 23, 3-39.
———. [1994]. The comparative phonology of Gbè and its significance for that of Kwa and Volta-Congo. Journal of African Languages &
Linguistics 15, 175-93.
———. [2002]. The potential of Proto-Potou-Akanic-Bantu as a pilot Proto-Niger-Congo, and the reconstructions updated. Journal of African
Languages & Linguistics 23, 197-224.
Storch, A. [2003]. Traces of a secret language; circumfixes in Hone (Jukun) plurals. Presented at the 34th Annual Conference on African
Linguistics, Rutgers University, 18 June.
Struck, B. [1911/1912]. Linguistic bibliography of Northern Nigeria including Hausa and Fula, with notes on the Yorùbá dialects. Journal of the
African Society 11, 47-61, 213-30.
de Surgy, A. [1981]. La Géomancie et le culte d’Afa chez les Èʋè du littoral. Publications Orientalistes de France, Paris.
Swadesh, M. [1952]. Lexicostatistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts, with special reference to North American Indians and Eskimos.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96, 452-63.
Talbot, P. [1912]. In the Shadow of the Bush. Heinemann, London.
———. [1926]. The Peoples of Southern Nigeria; a sketch of their history, ethnology & languages, with an abstract of the 1921 census. Vol. 2,
Ethnology. Oxford University Press.
Temple, O. [1919]. Notes of the Tribes, Provinces, Emirates & States of the Northern Provinces of Nigeria. Angus, London.p148f.
Thomas, N. [1914a]. Specimens of Languages of Southern Nigeria. Harrison, London.
———. [1914b]. Anthropological Report on the Ì[g]bo-Speaking Peoples of Nigeria, 5; Addenda to Ì[g]bo-English Dictionary. Harrison,
London.
Trancart, A. [1938]. Sur un procédé de divination de l’Adrar mauritanien, le gzân. Bulletin du Comité d’Études Historiques & Scientifiques de
l’Afrique Orientale française 21 no. 104, 489-98. [Not personally consulted; cited by Hébert (1961)]
Trautmann, R. [1940]. La Divination à la Côte des Esclaves et à Madagascar. Le Vôdoû Fa; Le Sikidy. Larose, Paris.
Tūnisı ̄ [Tounsy], M. [1854]. Voyage au Soudan oriental, le Darfour. Duprat, Paris. [Not personally consulted; cited by Hébert (1961)]
Verger, P. [1966]. The Yorùbá high god; a review of the sources. Odù 2.2, 19-40.
———. [1972]. Automatisme verbal et communication du savoir chez les Yorùbá. L’Homme 12.2, 5-46.
———. [1977a]. The use of plants in Yorùbá traditional medicine and its linguistic approach. Seminar Series 1, 242-95. Department of African
Languages & Literatures, University of Ifẹ̀ , Ilé-Ifẹ̀ . Delivered 25 October.
———. [1977b]. Poisons (oró) and antidotes (ẹ̀ rọ̀ ): evil works (àbìlù) and protection from them (ìdáàbòbò). Stimulants and tranquilizers.
Money-wives-children. Seminar Series 1, 296-353. Department of African Languages & Literatures, University of Ifẹ̀ , Ilé-Ifẹ̀ . Delivered 15
November.
 32
———. [1989]. Dílógún; Brazilian tales of Yorùbá Divination discovered in Bahia. Centre for Black Arts & Civilization, Lagos.
———. [1995]. Ewé; the use of plants in Yorùbá society. Schwarcz, São Paulo.
Wallerstein, I. [2004]. The Uncertainties of Knowledge. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
———. [2006]. European Universalism; the rhetoric of power. New Press, New York.
Ward, I. [1952]. An Introduction to the Yorùbá Language. Heffer, Cambridge.
Watkins, C. [1958]. Review of L’Apophonie en indo-européen by J. Kuryłowicz. Language 34, 381-98.
———. [1962]. Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb 1. Institute for Advanced Studies, Dublin.
Welmers, W. [1949]. Speaking Jukun, Takum dialect—dĩyĩ ̍. Manuscript. www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/afrikanistik/down/jukun/JukunSpeaking.pdf.
———. [1973]. Functional and vestigial noun class systems. African Language Structures, 184-210. UCalifornia Press, Berkeley.
Wenger, S. [1983]. A Life with the Gods in their Yorùbá Homeland. Perlinger, Wörgl, Austria.
Wescott, R. [1962]. A Bìní Grammar, part 1: phonology. African Studies Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Westermann, D. [1911]. Die Sudansprachen; eine sprachvergleichende Studie. Friederichsen, Hamburg.
———. [1927]. Die westlichen Sudansprachen und ihre Beziehungen zum Bantu. [= MSOS 29 Beiheft]. De Gruyter, Berlin.
Williams, D. [1974]. Icon & Image: a study of sacred & secular forms of African classical art. Allen Lane, London.
Williamson, K. [1966]. The status of /e/ in Ọ̀ nịcha Igbo. Journal of West African Languages 3, 67-69.
———. [1972/1984a]. Ìgbo-English Dictionary, based on the Ọ̀ nicha dialect. Ethiope, Benin-City. 2nd edition ms. lost by the publisher and
recovered digitally at www.rogerblench.info/Language data/Niger-Congo/Benue Congo West/Igboid/IGBO Dictionary.pdf.
———. [1973a]. More on nasals and nasalization in Kwa. Studies in African Linguistics 4, 115-38.
———. [1973b]. The sound system of Proto-Lower Niger. Presented at the 4th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, Queens College, City
University of New York.
———. [1983]. Untitled [charts of comparative Ìgbo phonology]. Lecture notes, Hum 433.1, University of Port Harcourt.
———. [1984b]. Vowel merger in harmony languages. Journal of the Linguistic Association of Nigeria 2, 61-82.
———. [2000]. Reconstructing Proto-Igboid obstruents. Trends in African Linguistics 4 (= Selected papers from ACAL 28, Cornell University),
edited by V. Carstens & F. Parkinson, 1-18. Africa World Press, Trenton New Jersey.
———. [2003]. Implosives in Atlantic-Congo. Handout circulated at the 34th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, Rutgers University, 22
June.
Williamson, K. & R. Blench. [2000]. Niger-Congo. African Languages; an introduction, edited by B. Heine & D. Nurse, 11-42. Cambridge
University Press.
Wilson, E. [1975]. Sociobiology; the new synthesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Wilson-Haffenden, J. [1927]. Ethnological notes on the Kwottos of Toto (Panda) District, Keffi Division, Benue Province, Northern Nigeria,
Part 2. Journal of the African Society 27, 24-46.
Yáì, Ọ . [1992]. From Vodun to Mawu; monotheism and history in the Fọ̀ n cultural area. Sapina Newsletter 4.2-3, 10-29.
Yamaguchi, M. [1974]. Le royauté et le symbolisme dualiste chez les Jukun de Nigeria. Journal of Asian & African Studies 8, 1-29.