Diana Paton's history of Obeah makes an argument that reframes the whole subject rather than simply cataloguing it: what counted as Obeah was not a fixed practice the colonial legal system merely happened to notice and punish, it was substantially produced by that system's own anxieties, records and prosecutions. Colonial authorities, missionaries and later folklorists each described Obeah through the lens of what they feared or wished to reform, sorcery, poisoning, rebellion, superstition, and those descriptions shaped what later observers expected to find and therefore what got recorded as an instance of it. This does not mean Obeah was invented by its opponents. Real practitioners existed, offering real healing, protection and divination to real clients, in a lineage carrying real West and Central African spiritual technology forward. It means the category's edges, what counted as Obeah rather than as ordinary medicine, ordinary religion or ordinary fraud, were drawn as much by the people prosecuting it as by the people practicing it. Reading Obeah this way changes what a claim about its history can responsibly say: not a fixed inventory of beliefs and rites recoverable by asking what Obeah "really is," but a name whose content shifted with who held the power to define it, and whose surviving practitioners today inherit a tradition still shaped by centuries of being seen primarily as a crime.