Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

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

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

25 Pages Posted: 24 Aug 2011  

Benjamin N. Lawrance

University of Arizona

Date Written: August 22, 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.

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

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: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1914805

Benjamin N. Lawrance (Contact Author)

University of Arizona ( email )

Tucson, AZ 85721
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
37
Abstract Views
550