Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Commonalities and Disparities in the Iconography of Opón Ifá and Ìróké Ifá in Òyó, Sábe, and Ifè-Ana Yorùbá Communities

2020; UCLA James S. Coleman African Studies Center; Volume: 53; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1162/afar_a_00527

1937-2108

Abiodun Akande,

African history and culture studies

all photos by the authorScholars abound in the study of Ifá divination and its worship artifacts. The present study, however, focuses on the transfer of these artifacts from Òyó-Yòrùbá—their community of origin—to other parts of West Africa: Sábe-Yòrùbá in the Benin Republic and Ifè-Ana Yòrùbá in the Atakpame region of Togo (Fig. 1), especially the variations in iconography that have arisen over time. Ifá is a popular divination system in Yòrùbá communities, carried out by a babaláwo who throws sixteen palm-nuts (ikin Ifá), whose permutations result in any of the available 256 odù,1 or divination poems, of Ifá. These poems or storylines will shed light and proffer a solution to the problem of the babaláwo's client. Among the Yòrùbá, Ifá divination is carried out for a wide range of reasons, from attempts to know the esèntáyé/àkosèjáyé (destinies) of newborn children to finding out the reasons for the untimely deaths of sovereigns and the likely outcome of certain journeys or, generally, to foretell the future or know the likely outcome of events. The popularity of Ifá divination indeed led, in 2005, to UNESCO proclaiming it an intangible cultural heritage of humanity and listing it on the organization's Representative List in 2008.2 Traditional wooden artifacts of the Yòrùbá religion used in the worship and divination of Ifá include opón Ifá, ìróké Ifá, and agéré Ifá.Opón Ifá and ìróké Ifá are selected in this study as cultural traits found in three Yòrùbá communities located in different geographical contexts. They were chosen with the aim of identifying shared commonalities and points of divergence in their iconography. Elsewhere, I established that some traditional Yòrùbá religious artifacts in wood have travelled from the west (Nigeria) to the east (Benin Republic, Togo), and even farther in West Africa (Akande 2015). I maintained that many of these artifacts have continued to maintain their archetypal model in their new environment. I further observed that these carved wooden paraphernalia (opón Ifá, ìróké Ifá, agéré Ifá, and Èsù, osé Sàngó, and Gèlèdé masks) are resilient because they have retained their iconographic features outside their original geographical locale, despite their displacement in time and space and the presence of extant autochthonous cultures of their new "worlds." Furthermore, they have metamorphosed into cultural icons in their own right. The present study is a continuation of this work, focusing on the iconographic similarities and disparities in Yòrùbá opón Ifá and ìróké Ifá in Òyó-Yòrùbá, Sábe-Yòrùbá in the Benin Republic, and Ifè-Yòrùbá in Togo.The Yòrùbá, one of the major cultural groups in Nigeria, are found mostly in Lagos, Òyó, Kwara, Èkìtì, Kogí, Òsun, Òndó, and Ògùn states in the southwestern region of the country. The 2006 population and housing census (the last actual counting) records them as constituting about 23.8% of the total population of Nigeria (National Population Commission of Nigeria, 2017).3In times past, the Yòrùbá built large, strong empires and kingdoms. These expanded beyond their immediate domain to distant lands. For various reasons, ranging from war to dispute to economic and social reasons, large groups of Yòrùbá people moved from the central group to form communities of their own; that is, many from the core Òyó-Yòrùbá in Nigeria travelled to other lands to form independent Yòrùbá communities (Ojo 2017), including the two communities in this study. At its establishment, the Sábe-Yòrùbá community was simply an extension of the Òyó-Yòrùbá community. Unfortunately, during the imperialist colonial rule of the British, these two Yorùbá communities were partitioned into different geographical countries for administrative and ownership reasons.According to scholars, Sábe-Yòrùbá people dispersed mainly from the Òyó-Yorùbá, westward, in the course of the expansionist wars of the Old y empire.4Morton-Williams (1966), Akinjogbin (1966, 1976), and Law (1975) have written extensively on the sixteenth to eighteenth century expansionist wars of Old Òyó toward the Benin Republic. In Morton-Williams' 1966 account, the Yorùbá armies from Old y attacked and subdued Dahomey (Benin Republic) around 1730 in order to gain access to the coast in a bid to expand its slavery business.The account of the movement of the Ifè-Ana Yorùbá group from Ilé-Ifè (Nigeria) to Ifè-Ana (Togo) has been mostly oral and mythologized. Ajayi and Akintoye (1984) narrate a tradition that tells the story of the dispersal of the Yorùbá from Ilé-If to Togo and other parts of West Africa: When Odùduwà, the progenitor of the Yorùbá, became old and blind, he called his children together and ordered them to go and found kingdoms of their own, giving each one a royal scepter. The founding of all Yorùbá groups in and outside Nigeria is unceremoniously tied to this unsubstatiated account.However, Gayibor (1992) and Odji (1997: 14–21) applied a plausible approach by chronologically collating a series of historical events in the oral traditions of the Ifè-Ana Yòrùbá people to arrive at a possible period of arrival in their present location and their possible place of origin. They conjectured that the people are from a quarter of Ilé-Ifè (Nigeria) and that their migration to their present location happened in two phases. The first phase, they believed, likely took place between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries ad.Odji, in his account, indicates that in the first phase, the people moved from Ilé-Ifè through Òkè-Òyán (Nigeria), a presently unknown location, to Ifita, a region of Savalou, Benin Republic. At Ifita, Fon warriors incessantly raided the Ifè-Ana people, selling them off as slaves. Gayibor and Odji believed that this was the menace that made them move further, to their present location in the Atakpame region of Togo, around the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries (Odji 1997).It is important to note that the entire people of Ifè-Ana Yòrùbá in Togo agree with the claim that they are from Ilé-Ifè, Nigeria. One compelling fact that resoundingly buttresses their claim is that, despite their long distance from the Òyó and Sábe-Yorùbá communities, they still speak a strong but seemingly archaic form of the Yorùbá language. Their Yòrùbá can be understood, to a large extent, by other Yòrùbá communities. Much more, they still have some Yòrùbá deities within the register of their pantheon. From this, we can safely say that the historical and cultural connection between the three Yòrùbá groups is substantial.The Yorùbá migrants took their religion with them to their new communities. And they continued the worship of their gods and goddesses, such as Sàngó, Ifá, Egúngún, Gèlèdé, Ògún, Èsù, and Obalúayé, using the same ceremonial artifacts in their worship. Over time, these communities built up a corpus of religious artifacts, large enough to be compared and interrogated from several viewpoints.From this scope of art objects, I focus on the iconography of opón Ifá and ìróké Ifá, two woodcarved paraphernalia of Ifá worship transferred from Òyó-Yòrùbá to Sábe-Yòrùbá and Ifè-Ana Yòrùbá. They were chosen in particular because of the remarkable iconographic variation observed in their characteristic features in the three communities. The third primary paraphernalia of Ifá, the agere Ifá, is left out because it has been a subject of extensive discussion by Roache (1974), Rowland Abiodun (1975, 1989, 2014), Drewal and Drewal (1983), and many other scholars.In gathering data for this research, selected worshipers of Ifá—six in Òyó, four in Sábe, and three in Ifè-Ana—who use opón Ifá and ìróké Ifá were interviewed. A Focused Group Discussion (FGD) was organized in each of the communities. The FGD aimed to crosscheck the reliability of the information gathered from individual respondents and comprised leaders of Ifá worship, traditional rulers, and selected stakeholders in the Yòrùbá religion. Master woodcarvers (three in Òyó and two in Sábe) who carve opón Ifá and ìróké Ifá were also interviewed and video recordings and photographs of woodcarvings were made. The interviews were content-analyzed and the formal and iconographic analyses of the woodcarvings were done with the use of the video clips and photographs taken during the fieldwork.This research is grounded in the iconography theory articulated by Anne D'Alleva in 2013. This theory—based on extensive knowledge of the Yòrùbá culture of woodcarving and its processes of image-making from oral interviews and literature (Carroll 1967; Drewal, Pemberton, and Abiodun 1989, 2014; Abiodun, Drewal, and Pemberton 1994)—engages the established characteristic features of traditional Yòrùbá religious artifacts in wood in Òyó and compares them with those of Sábe and Ifè-Ana. D'Alleva observed that iconology takes up where iconography leaves off. Iconology, she explains, is more of an in-depth study of how and why particular images or forms are chosen over others in the context of its user's culture. In employing D'Alleva's theory, this study highlights typical formal features of traditional Yorùbá religious wooden artifacts transferred in the process of interaction between Òyó, Sábe, and Ifè-Ana. It also enumerates associated implicative contextual iconology of such artifacts in their original homeland and in later, diasporic communities.On the other hand, the diffusion theory is articulated in the present study as a form of mass movement of people and their art from Òyó to Sábe and Ifè-Ana at a specific time in history. Contrary to E.L. Jones's diffusion theory in The European Miracle (1981), where the pattern of dispersal is described as one from "superior" ideological and cultural Europe (Eurocentricism) to "lesser cultures," the present study considers the three Yorùbá communities at par. Jones's definition of Eurocentricism presupposes Europe as a quintessential culture from where the "very best" obtains and is dispersed to the rest of the world (Jones 1981: 113). The present study recognizes that two (Sábe and Ifè-Ana) of the three communities originated from the other one (Òyó), and as stated previously, they all remain culturally one and are all authentic Yorùbá people. It is only the geographical locations and the virtue of Òyó being the source for the others that make the difference. It is equally important to bear in mind that members of the Sábe and Ifè-Ana communities agree that they were originally from Òyó-Yòrùbá stock, and they, indeed, speak the Yòrùbá language (although in different dialects). On the other hand, Òyó-Yòrùbá people and their history testify to the existence of Sábe and Ifè-Ana as Yòrùbá communities outside Òyó.Despite the fact that the three communities were all originally from the same stock, it must be noted that they have existed as independent communities, in different geopolitical and religious space, for centuries. It is the premise of their independent existence over time and space that forms the fundamental basis of the comparison of their religion paraphernalia, which is what this study sets out to address. The premise is further pinned on the possibilities of the influence of extant autochthonous cultures that may have influenced or affected these artifacts in Sábe and Ifè-Ana.This paper also intrinsically hinges on the theoretical postulations of Rowland Abiodun (2014), in his extrapolations of the applicability of Yoruba visual, performative, and verbal oríkì5 as a source for Yòrùbá aesthetic dialogue. He advocated that this is a means of realizing the complete essence of Yòrùbá artifacts. Before that, Abiodun (1990) had conjectured that the skill of aesthetic appreciation for Yoruba art objects requires the possession of Ìfarabalè (calmness), ìlutí (teachableness), ìmojú-mora (sensitivity), tító (steadfastness), ojú inú (insight), and ojú onà (design consciousness)—characteristic qualities of the critic. All these qualities, he observed, can help to draw out a complete contextual appreciation of the ewà and, invariably, ìwà of Yorùbá artifacts. Akin (1988) definedìwà as "the most significant goodness in a person." In art, and in the present study, this definition may well be turned on its own conceptual pivot when the principle is applied to an object of art to infer the most significant goodness of such an object. In his own argument, Abiodun (2014: 245) stated that "ìwà deals with the full recognition and proper appreciation of the things in itself, the unique qualities of a specific object, as totally distinct from the generalized kind of which it is a part." In line with this premise, this study recognizes "the generalized kind of which an object is a part" [italics mine] of Abiodun's statement as the shared commonalities of opón Ifá and ìróké Ifá from Òyó, Sábe, and Ifè-Ana, and "the unique qualities of a specific object" as the peculiarities of opón Ifá and ìróké Ifá from Òyó, Sábe, and Ifè-Ana. This study serves to draw out an unbiased ewà: the very essence of the ìwà (being) of the artifacts, within their contexts of existence from various Yoruba verbal arts, visual arts, and mythology. However, because Ìfarabalè, ìlutí, ìmojú-mora, tító, ojú inú, and ojú onà, as highlighted by Abiodun, are intrinsic personal qualities of a critic rather than aesthetic terms, these qualities have not been brought to the fore in the process of critiquing, but serve as residual background knowledge with which this research was carried out.According to Adegbindin (2017), "Ifá is a system of geomancy, one of the divinatory techniques used by the Yorùbá to gain knowledge of their complex cosmos and understand the intellectual configuration of the human universe." The history of Ifá worship as recorded by scholars (such as Johnson 1921, Clarke 1939, and Abimbola 1977: 1)6 is, like that of many other Yorùbá deities, shrouded in mythology and is mostly in oral form. An uncommon tradition among the Ifè-Ana people narrated by Chief Olubuku, the Ariba7 of Atakpame, is worth citing: The 256 Ifon8 or Ifá ikpori9 was revealed to Ifon, a mythical personage, in a dream. Ifon was said to communicate with signs, as did his trained followers, the Ifè-Ana babaláwos, who were able to interpret his gestures and signs. A common feature of the traditions of the origin of Ifá in Òyó and Ifè-Ana is that both accept that Ifá divination has existed in their communities from time immemorial. All the myths of origin feature no recent event or occurrence.This section discusses the Yorùbá ìróké Ifá and opón Ifá found in Òyó, Sábe, and Ifè-Ana, starting with an all-encompassing dialogue on the deity, Ifá, with whom the wooden object is associated and who is worshipped, followed by discussion of the iconography of the artifacts. The details of the iconography are derived from information gathered from existing literature and from worshippers of Ifá in Òyó, Sábe, and Ifè-Ana during the fieldwork. Examples of selected ìróké Ifá and opón Ifá from each community are analyzed and each artifact's conformity and points of departure from their archetypal models are identified and discussed. Iconographic features of the artifacts established by the worshippers and scholars are referenced as standards of measure for their iconographic conformities and disparities.In our discussion of the iconography of opón and ìróké, two major aspects of their ewà10 were simultaneously engaged: their ewà òde (outer beauty) and ewà inú (inner beauty) (Lawal 1974). In our analyses of opón Ifá and ìróké Ifá in this paper, the ewà inú of the artifacts are the semiotic or implied connotations of forms and features of opón Ifá and ìróké Ifá. Also considered with ewà inú are the surrounding cultural connections and context of the artifacts. On the other hand, ewà òde deals with the iconography of the graphics and plastic qualities of the artifacts. The two (ewà inú and ewà òde) are closely interwoven and interrelated, combining to allow them to function as one complete paraphernalia of connection between the visible and the invisible worlds. The paraphernalia is mundane as well as sacred. William Fagg (1973) had long observed the need for multifaceted dimensions in the study of African art objects. He noted that to truly understand and do justice to the study of African art, its plastic properties must be studied alongside its cultural and religious contexts. Further supporting this position are the words of the sovereign ruler of Òyó, the Alaafin Oba Lamidi Adeyemi III,11 in a recent interview, where he repeatedly pointed at the importance of the concept of "duality" in Yòrùbá cosmology. He cited such examples as the dualities of ikú and ìyè (life and death), ako and abo (male and female), ire and ibi (good and bad), and sánpónó and olòwò (mundane and sacred) to reinforce the importance of examining art and performance in Yòrùbá-land from two angles. This concept of duality strongly applies to the paraphernalia of Yòrùbá religion, such as the ones we discuss in this paper.It is the possession of the dual properties of the sacred and the profane by opón and ìróké Ifá that qualifies them to serve as religious paraphernalia with àṣẹ (their potency to make prayers and supplications "come to pass"). Àṣẹ, according to Abiodun (2014: 53), is the "effective energy" and "life force" characteristic of Yòrùbá visual and performative arts. It is in the bid to study the two capacities of African art objects that Abiodun suggested further search into traditional oral and perfomative arts that encapsulates Yòrùbá oríkí. He observed that, due to modernity and the lack of formal methods of recordkeeping, original meanings of the very essence of Yòrùbá arts have been long lost to history and can be mostly retrieved through the many Yòrùbá oral and performative arts. Henry Drewal (2016) also discussed the several dimensions (visual and sensory) of African art and how the development of a "sensiotic" (moving and intuitive) approach to the study of African art can help to ensure a deep understanding of the culture. The present study, therefore, at necessary junctures interrogates Yòrùbá aphorisms, odù of Ifá, mythology, and more in order to holistically debrief the commonalities and disparities of Yòrùbá opón Ifá and ìróké Ifá in Òyó, Sábe, and Ifè-Ana.Although elsewhere Pogoson and Akande (2011: 15–41) graphically described an Ifá divination session and the typical features of opón Ifá, it is again necessary to discuss these in the present study. Opón Ifá is usually carved in wood and is commonly circular or rectangular. Sometimes it may be shaped in both forms, like the Ulm opón Ifá, which Ezio Bassani (1994) pointed to as a model for later iconography. Opón Ifá is usually carved with a large, slightly sunken center surrounded by raised friezes. These friezes are generally between 2–6 inches wide. Ìyèrósùn (divination powder) is poured and spread in the sunken center of the tray to make visible the marking results of permutations from the four castings of the ikin Ifá (divination palm-nuts) and each casting is duly recorded. The raised frieze is decorated with low-relief patterns and forms.According to Drewal, Pemberton, and Abiodun (1989), a typical Yorùbá opón Ifá can be divided into nine sections, with eight sections on the border, while the center of the opón (àárín opón) forms the ninth. On the friezes are ojú opón ("face of the tray") located directly opposite the diviner, and esè opón ("foot of the tray") located downwards, directly opposite ojú opón. To the right-hand side of the tray is onà ògánrán ("straight path"), the left is onà múnu ("direct path"). The interval between ojú opón and onà ògánrán, upper right, is alábàlótun ("one who proposes with the right") and the interval between ojú opón and onà múnu, upper left, is aláselósì ("one who implements with the left"). The lower right interval between onà ògánrán and ese opón is called alílétépowó [sic]12 ("early riser who sits down and prospers"). Between onà múnu and esè opón is afùrùkèrèsayò [sic]13 ("one who has a diviner's flywhisk and is happy"). The sunken center of the tray, which is the àárín opón, is also called eríládé opón ("the center of the tray has the crown").Usually, the frieze of the opón Ifá is decorated with relief carvings depicting anthropomorphic and zoomorphic forms. According to Chief Fatokun Morakinyo,14 Oba Edu of Isale Òyó, the carver (gbénà-gbénà) has the freedom to improvise the shapes and images carved on the opón Ifá, except in cases where the babaláwo (Ifá diviner) instructs the carver what to carve. Morakinyo said that because many babaláwos buy their opón Ifá from carvers readymade, they may not have a say over the forms depicted on the tray. As distinct and seemingly unrelated as the forms on the borders of the tray may appear, it must be said that they are carefully chosen from a limited and accepted corpus of images that relate to the diviner, divination, and the cosmos within which the Ifá divination and the diviner exist. In the description of the iconography of opón Ifá, it will be observed that there is ètò.15 When the arrangement pattern on "opón bá wà l'étò ètò" (follows the prescribed order), it then qualifies to be an object "tí a fise àpónlé Ifá" (object in honor of Ifá), thus an object with àṣẹ.Pogoson and Akande (2011: 15–41) submitted that it is only the ojú Èsù, usually located at the ojú opón, that appears fixed among all other decorations on the tray's border. All other decorative forms and patterns are left to the discretion of the carver and the specification of the user. The ojú Èsù is symbolic of the mythical association between Èsù and Ifá. Clarke (1939) traced the source of Ifá divination powers and origin to the phallic god Elegba (Èsù). According to Clarke, Èsù passed the divination powers to Ifá on Ifá's promise to give him a portion of all offerings made by those who consult him. Bolaji Idowu (1962: 19), in his own account, recorded that at the time of creation, Olodumare assigned duties to the divinities, and Èsù was the universal policeman and keeper of àṣẹ (divine power of being). All these and much more make the representation of oju Èsù an important feature of opón Ifá. It is the representative of àṣẹ on the opón, without which the ewà of the opón would be incomplete.Chief Fatokun Morakinyo,16 the Oba Edu of Òyó town, cited odù ògbèfún to corroborate the close association that exists between Ifá and Èsù. The odù further supports the substantiated graphical representation of oju Èsù on opón Ifá. The odù runs thus:According to this odù, there was a point in time in history when Èsù and Òrúnmìlà were very close friends and indeed they shared secrets. It was in the process of their friendship that Èsù bequeathed the divination powers to Òrúnmìlà on the agreement to remain a shareholder in the business of divination. It was said that it was for this reason that the ojú Èsù located at the top central position on opón Ifá is placed there, to represent Èsù's interest as a principal shareholder in the divination process. It is only to this consciousness of power and communion that àṣẹ can be ensured. Èsù is also the deity that has the power of àṣẹ. It is, therefore, understandable why the ojú Èsù remains the only constant feature of opón Ifá. Having established typical iconography of opón Ifá, we shall proceed to the analysis of selected opón Ifá in Òyó, Sábe, and Ifè-Ana with the aim of identifying their iconographic conformity with and points of departure from archetypal models.The opón Ifá in Figure 2 belongs to Taiwo Abimbola17 of Ile-Titun, Òyó. In an interview, Taiwo made it known that the opón was carved for him many years ago by a woodcarver from Iseyin (another Yorùbá town about 40 km north of Òyó), but he could not recall the carver's name. At the time of my fieldwork (2009–2017), this opón Ifá was the main one Taiwo used for divination. The carvings on the border are of animals and human beings. The oju Èsù is positioned at the ojú opón, directly opposite the sitting position of the diviner. Between the ojú opón and onà ògánrán (upper right interval), the board has depictions of a tortoise and a chameleon. On the opposite side, between the ojú opón and onà múnu (upper left interval), there are representations of a woman who appears to be dancing and another woman who is standing upright with her palms clasped in front of her. Next to the standing woman is a carved lizard. The lower left interval, between onà múnu and esè opón, depicts two human figures; the one at the top carries a pot on its head while the other, a male, appears to be masked and is probably dancing. On the lower right interval, between onà ògán-rán and esè opón, is the representation of a female figure with a baby on her back. Generally, representations of women with babies in Yòrùbá art symbolize ìkúnlè abiamo (travails of childbirth), one of the most emblematic forms in Yòrùbá art. It is believed by the Yòrùbá that it is at the point of birth that a child chooses its destiny. Yòrùbá people, therefore, consider both this moment and its depiction as notable and worth representing. The moment is so highly reverenced that its pictorial representation is thought to befit the deities. Still, on Figure 2, there is also a beaked bird with long legs. Birds can be symbolic of quite a number of things. Wild birds are used to depict witches (Filani 2012), while the domestic chicken represents meekness and the benevolence of Ifá. Witches are believed to be stakeholders, with deities such as Ifá and Èsù, in the maintenance of ontological balance in Yòrùbá cosmology.Fabunmi (1972: 3), in the process of invoking spiritual forces, acknowledged the attendance of witches within the recognized supernatural forces in the Yòrùbá world. He refers to them as eleye (owners of birds). In the ensuring àyájó,18 Fabunmi gives ìbà (ìjúbà)19 to the eleye. The àyájó runs thus:According to Taiwo Abimbola, all the animals (lizard, chameleon, tortoise, and others) depicted on his tray are sacrificial animals of Ifá. He also pointed out that the images on this board are prototypes of the ones found on other boards used by diviners in Yorùbáland. It is observed that Taiwo Abimbola's divination tray possesses the characteristic features of a Yorùbá opón Ifá. It has the nine sections, as noted by scholars. Its center is slightly depressed for divination markings, its edges have zoomorphic representations, and the Èsù head is located at the top central position, opposite the diviner. The several humans and animals applied at the border tell independent stories but can be associated; this is what Drewal and Drewal (1987) discussed succinctly when they stated that "no narrative links these diverse depictions, rather they convey the myriad autonomous forces operating in the Yòrùbá cosmos and those affecting the diviner and his client" (Drewal and Drewal 1987: 246–47).Figure 3 is an opón Ifá from Fiditi, an Òyó-Yòrùbá town about 19 km south of Òyó. The tray belongs to Bartholomew Obaniyi Fakorede of Ile-Alagbaa compound, Fiditi. According to the owner, he inherited this board from his father, who, in turn, inherited it from his father. Fakorede said he has jealously kept this board from thieves who steal artifacts and sell them to foreigners. In his estimation, the age of the board may be more than 100 years. At the time of this research, this was the board he used for divination. The decorative patterns on the edges of the board are not deeply cut but the center (àárín ọpn) is deeply sunk, making the edges appears higher than they really are. The Èsù head is represented at its usual top central position in high relief. The cheek of the Èsù head appears unusually robust and has pélé facial marks, and it extends, a little bit, to the center of the tray. The ọnà gánrán, ọnà múnu, and ẹs ọpn are decorated with checkered patterns, and the other upper intervals to the left and right are embellished with interlocking triangles. This divination tray, just like the one discussed previously, conforms perfectly with the archetypal iconographic standard of Yòrùbá divination trays.We shall now examine an example of opón Ifá from Sábe, Benin Republic. The Fadupe of Ijalumo Area of Sábẹ are the principal diviners for Onisabe, the sovereign ruler of Sábẹ. One of the family's ọpn Ifá is shown in Figure 4. It is round in shape, with linear and geometric decorations around its edge, leaving the center (àárín ọpn) for divination. At the top central position is the ojú Èsù, which here occupies a large portion of the upper part of the board. The face has large eyeballs, a flat nose, and two raised horizontal stubs representing the mouth/lips. The face is confined within the border band; it does not extend to the middle of the board. The upper left and right intervals are embellished with criss-cross lines and triangular forms. The ẹs ọpn (Drewal, Pemberton, and Abiodun 1989; Pogoson and Akande 2011) is left plain. The ọnà múnu and ọnà gánrán both have criss-cross and triangular decorations. This board is painted with light blue, red, white, ocher, and black enamel paint. The àárín ọpn is painted red, while the Èsù face is light blue. This board is still in use.The Èsù face, observed to be confined within the border of the board, is similar to those found in Òyó and Osogbo by Hans Witte (1994). Indeed, the decorative motifs on this board bear similarity with the one owned by the Ojebode family from Oroki, Isale-y, Nigeria, as discussed by Pogoson and Akande (2011). This iconographic similarity stands to confirm the continuous connection between y and Sábẹ Yorùbá people.Figure 5 is the ọpn Ifá of Baba Awo Arifájogun of Jabata, Sábẹ. The width of the border-band of this ọpn Ifá, on which the decorations are carved, is narrow compared with the ones from Isale-y and Fiditi. The Èsù head is positioned at the usual ojú opón. However, the form of the head of Èsù on this board is rather sketchy and not el