For generations, Nigerians have been taught to see the Yoruba and Hausa as peoples separated by geography, language, culture and history. Buried inside one of the oldest written records of Yoruba tradition however is a remarkable account that tells a very different story. There is an unconfirmed tradition that records Lamurudu as a common ancestor from whom emerged Oduduwa, the ancestor of the Yoruba, and two other royal lines associated with Gogobiri and Kukawa in the northern regions.
Is this a recent social-media invention? No.
The controversial Samuel Johnson's History of the Yorubas, first published in 1921 and subsequently reproduced and discussed in academic works invented this. Johnson writes that the Yoruba were said to have sprung from Lamurudu, whose offspring included Oduduwa, the ancestor of the Yoruba, and the kings of Gogobiri and Kukawa, described as peoples in the Hausa country.
Think about what that means.
If the tradition is read according to its own genealogy, then Oduduwa was not an only child. He had siblings. According to this particular tradition, those siblings moved northward while Oduduwa's line moved toward Ile-Ife. One branch became associated with Gogobiri, identified with Gobir in Hausaland. And another became associated with Kukawa, associated with the Bornu region.
The Yoruba founding tradition therefore contains, within itself, a story of family dispersion across West Africa.
That is perhaps one of the most fascinating and least discussed dimensions of the Lamurudu narrative.
ONE FAMILY, DIFFERENT DESTINATIONS
The tradition describes a period of upheaval and dispersal in which the descendants of Lamurudu went in different directions. Oduduwa eventually became associated with the Yoruba foundation at Ile-Ife. His brothers, according to the tradition, travelled northward and became associated with northern royal establishments.
A scholarly analysis of the Yoruba migration tradition confirms the same structure: Lamurudu is presented as the father of Oduduwa, while two other descendants became kings of Gogobiri (Gobir) and Kukawa in northern Nigeria.
This does not mean that modern Yoruba and Hausa populations can simply be declared genetically descended from one historical man. That would require evidence far beyond an oral tradition. But it does establish something historically significant: The idea of a shared ancestral relationship between the Yoruba and peoples of the northern regions is itself part of the documented Yoruba historical tradition.
And that deserves to be studied rather than dismissed.
THE FORGOTTEN CLUE
Samuel Johnson went even further.
He recorded that despite the distance separating these communities, the peoples associated with Gogobiri and Kukawa were said to share distinctive facial markings with the Yoruba, and that travellers from the respective communities could move among one another while recognising a relationship of common blood.
Whether every detail of that observation can withstand modern anthropological scrutiny is another question.
But the historical record exists.
And that is precisely why it deserves investigation.
What if some of the stories we have inherited as separate ethnic histories are actually fragments of a much older history of migration and political separation?
LAMURUDU AS A BRIDGE, NOT A WEAPON
This is where the story becomes bigger than Yoruba history. Nigeria has spent too much time asking:
"Who is different from whom?"
Perhaps we should sometimes ask:
"What did our ancestors have in common before modern ethnic boundaries hardened?"
The Lamurudu tradition provides one possible window into that question.
It places Oduduwa and northern royal traditions within the same ancestral framework. It suggests movement rather than isolation. It suggests that political kingdoms could emerge from the dispersal of one ancestral family. Most importantly, it gives us a historical tradition in which Yoruba and northern peoples are connected rather than permanently separated.
That does not erase the distinct identity of either people.
The Yoruba remain Yoruba.
The Hausa remain Hausa.
Their languages remain different.
Their cultures remain distinct.
Their histories subsequently developed along very different paths.
But distinct identities do not necessarily mean unrelated origins.
THE RESEARCH QUESTION
This is where scholarship must now take over.
Can archaeology test the migration patterns preserved in these traditions?
Can historical linguistics identify ancient contact between Yoruba and northern language communities?
Can comparative anthropology examine the traditions of facial marking mentioned by Johnson?
Can genealogical traditions preserved among Yoruba, Gobir and Bornu communities be compared systematically?
And, where appropriate, can modern population genetics test whether there are detectable historical connections?
These are legitimate research questions.
The answer should come from evidence, not ethnic pride.
The Lamurudu account should therefore neither be blindly accepted as literal history nor casually dismissed as mythology.
It should be investigated.
Because sometimes the oldest traditions preserve memories of relationships that political history later forgot.
And perhaps the most beautiful possibility contained within the story is this:
Before Yoruba and Hausa became names for distinct peoples, their ancestors may have remembered themselves as members of a much larger family.
Maybe the story of Lamurudu is not telling us that we are all the same.
Perhaps it is reminding us that we were never as separate as we sometimes imagine.
History should build bridges where politics has built walls.
Ire ooo
Alex Sewo
Post a Comment