Bankoe V. Dome: Traditions and petitions in the Ho-Asogli amalgamation, British mandated Togoland, 1919-39

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

4 Scopus citations

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)243-267
Number of pages25
JournalJournal of African History
Volume46
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 8 2005
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Chieftaincy
  • Colonial administration
  • Ghana
  • Indirect rule
  • Togo

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • History

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Bankoe V. Dome: Traditions and petitions in the Ho-Asogli amalgamation, British mandated Togoland, 1919-39'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this