Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1914805
 


 



Bankoe v. Dome: Traditions and Petitions in the Ho-Asogli Amalgamation, British Mandated Togoland, 1919-1939


Benjamin N. Lawrance


Rochester Institute of Technology

August 22, 2005

Journal of African History, Vol. 46, pp. 243-67, 2005

Abstract:     
This article investigates Ewe engagement with British administrative policy via the story of a chieftaincy dispute in Ho, British Mandated Togoland, that erupted when Britain attempted to amalgamate two neighboring chieftaincies, Ho-Dome and Ho-Bankoe, by deploying a model with an ‘ethnic stamp’, that of the neighboring Akan states. Colonial-era chieftaincy has received substantial scholarly attention.

This article argues that the relationship between the models deployed to reorganize chiefly power and the roles of protagonists is just as significant as the layered conflicts within chieftaincies and their respective clans. Two responses to ‘Akanized’ amalgamation are investigated: the petitions of its opponents, and the rituals developed by chiefs, priests and peasants to herald the amalgamations.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 25

Keywords: Ghana, Togo, chiefs, chieftaincy, disputes, colonial rule, British empire, Africa, Ewe, Togoland

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: August 24, 2011  

Suggested Citation

Lawrance, Benjamin N., Bankoe v. Dome: Traditions and Petitions in the Ho-Asogli Amalgamation, British Mandated Togoland, 1919-1939 (August 22, 2005). Journal of African History, Vol. 46, pp. 243-67, 2005. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1914805

Contact Information

Benjamin N. Lawrance (Contact Author)
Rochester Institute of Technology ( email )
United States
HOME PAGE: http://www.rit.edu/cla/office_of_the_dean.php#3
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 192
Downloads: 22

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.281 seconds