The African E-Journals Project Has Digitized Full Text of Articles of Eleven Social Science and Humanities Journals

Home , Ahafo, Aowin

The African e-Journals Project has digitized full text of articles of eleven social science and humanities journals. This item is from the digital archive maintained by Michigan State University Library. Find more at: http://digital.lib.msu.edu/projects/africanjournals/

Available through a partnership with

Scroll down to read the article. ?! SOUTHERN BRONG-AHAFO AND NEIGHBOURING DISTRICTS

U A • •Nkaseim n Mehama

Sench^ Nobekaw.K - Kwapong.

_. _ . _ infernofionol Boundary _ -»— — Regional Boundary 30 Miles I. INTRODUCTION

PAPERS ON AHAFO LAND TENURE by Kwame Arhin

Introductory

In the colonial period, 1896-1960, the Ahafo district was also known as Asunafo Ahafo. The Western Ashanti Provincial Record Book, a sort of colonial Domesday Book^ of the various administrative areas, recorded: Asunafo-Ahafo was the southwest portion of Ashanti extending from north to south about kl miles and from east to west about 37 miles between 6 28' and 7 7s North latitude and 2 17' to 2 50! West longitude. The whole area is dense forest with small clearings around villages and farms, Asunafo-Ahafo is divided into three sub-divisions, Kukuom, Mim and Noberko, which are all subject to the Oman- hene of Ahafo who is also the chief of Kukuom.

It describes the physical features of the district as follows: The country is undulating, the watershed of the Tano and Bia River basins running through the centre of the District from N.E. to S.W. The only outstandinq heights are the Aboom hills in the S.W. and the "Obo" Fetish Hill north of Mim. The principal rivers' are the Tano, Bia, with their tributaries Goa, Subin, Awiem, Desire and Abonyere. With the exception of the Tano and Bra, all the small rivers and streams are dry between November and March, but rise very rapidly and are very swift flowing •luring the raining season,

in I960, the First Republican Constitution established the Brong-Ahafo Region and Asunafo-Ahafo became the Brong Ahafo South District of that Region. According to the I960 Census, the population increased from 23,082 in 19^8 to 81,589 In I960; 1,00^+ villages or 9*1.8% of flu; iot?'i number of villages were apparently non-existent '>n 19-JB arid haJ been f-.vfabl ished in the twelve-year period as cocoa farmers' set Li cw.ants. Be- sides Mirn town (the largest: in the district), the headquarters of the Mirn Timbers Co. Ltd., where a number of the youth are permanently employed in the timber industry, Ahafo is identified with expanding cocoa production. Besides cocoa, Ahafo is known for its kola and unusually large plantains.

The Papers in this volume were collected as the first part of a planned study of land tenure in the Ahafo district. Some acquaintance with District Commissioners' reports and with extracts from the Ashanti Court Records (collections from the Court Cases of the Ashantihene!s "clan" and "divisional" Courts) suggested that in some way the principles underlying landholding in the Ahafo district differed from those obtaining in other parts of Ashanti: that while Rattray (1929:3^0 was mistaken in characterizing the whole Ashanti land tenure system as feudal istic as Busia (1951:57) pointed out, the development of land tenure from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century had features suggestive of feudalistic developments. Both Rattray and Busia took a macroscopic view of Ashanti and so lost sight of variations from the total Ashanti pattern.

Among the AshanLi and other P!:^,as among most African peoples (Gluckrnan 1969:25>. -26^) -' fight; In \ana were derived from socio-political status, Therefore a dis- cussion of land tenure requires :•*. discuss ico. of political arrangements in Ahafo In the periods, *733~^8S6, and 18-9&- -935. Therefore to facilitate-; appreciation- of the signifi- cance of papers assembled in this voturne, this introduction will deal with (I) outUn; history of t.hr: Ahafo district including the manner in which that are? of Ashanti was acquired and the peopling of Ahafo; (II) the political organisation of Ahafo in the- relevant periods and (Iii) finally a comparison of the categories of landhoiding units irv the Ahafo district with those ov the rest of Ash- !. I.

(i) An Outline of Ahafo History 1733-1835

For the period earlier than 1896, when, as the Pro- vincial Record Book notes, the 'Independence' of Ahafo of the Kumas i Chief was proclaimed ejnd Ahafo came under a Dis- trict Commissioner, who kept records, one can only rely on oral history. The Provincial Record Book sets this out clearly. It says:

During the reign of Opoku Ware, King of Ashanti /~l720-1750 J the war which had broken out between Ashanti and Akim during the late Osei Tutu's reign was continued. Whilst Opoku was absent in Akim, the Aowins under Abirimuro, invaded and tramt ifKumasi_7. Three Ashanti chiefs, Adjai Pen in of Akwaboa, Assamoa Boadjai of Nkawie, and Kara Domisi, the Hiahene, collected their forces and pursued the Aowins th,-ouyh the Ahafo forest and attacked and uf }y defeated them at Gorosu on the Bia Rsve . Ab; s" irnuro was captured and taken prisoner i.o Cooinassie and beheaded. Opoku Ware then !'i^hjef\ to establish outposts in the Ahafo to ••it- :k chose, for this the three victor icu Ashnnti chiefs; Akwaboa formed an outpost a'{ Mim, Hia at Si'enchem, and Nkawie formed a p::»st first at Siereso, then moved westward to Kwapor:g. After this set- tiers in Ahafo neve obliged to enter through one of these three posts, they were given land and paid tribute to the /*Kumasi2 Kings. Ahafo gradually became peopled; Mim and Sienchem grew from small outposts into villages during the reign of /"Kwas i J Bodutn £\750-1764J. Kukuom was founded later during the time Osei Kojo .£^1764-1777^7 occupied the stool of £ 'KumasiJ7. Noberko came 1ater still» Ahafo settlers took part In most of the struggles between the /"AshantI ,7* and Coast tribes in the first half of the nineteenth century.5 i V.

During the campaign of General Wolseley in 1873-5874 they also fought for the £"AshantiJ7, Atta Bim, the chief of Kukuom, being killed at Yankumas i /^in the Fanti country "J.

Many small villages were now founded in Ahafo and taking advantage of the internal troubles in Ashanti, gradually^threw off the power of the /"Kumasi chiefsJT^ Agyeman Prempeh C IJ finally sent messengers to the Ahafo chiefs demanding their allegiance. This was refused by the majority of the chiefs, but Kwapong and Akodie wished to swear allegiance to the King of if Ashanti "J. The chief of Kwapong was beheaded at Kukuom, and the chief of Akrodie collected followers in his village, and after killing several people who refused to follow him, attempted to leave Ahafo and go to £*Kumasi^7. They were however pursued by the Kukuom and Noberko people and a fight took place between Aboom and Jaaso. The Akrodie people were defeated, their chief killed and the rest swore allegiance to Kukuom.

Agyeman.Prempeh now sent messengers ua-iij if Lhe^Ahafo peopleD did not. swear allegiance to him a r Kumasi army.7 would be sent against them. The people were now determined to unite and make, a stand against ZTKumasi,/. The leadership was first offered to Sienchem, then to Noberko and Mim. These chiefs all refused on various grounds, and finally Kofi Atechi, who afterwards became the first Omanhene of Ahafo, accepted the leadership of the Ahafo Army, Slaves were bartered for arms and ammunition, which were obtained from the Sefwi £"peoplej7 who had brought them into Sefwi from Ivory Coast, The Kukuom and Noberko forces gathered at Kwapong; but on the approach of the /*Kumasi«7 Army they marched by a circuitous route to Goaso, Here their women and children were left in the small hamlets in the forest; and V.

a message being received from Mim that their force would join the Kukuoms and Noberko at Akrodie, the latter marched to Akrodse. Here they awaited the /"Kumasi Army7in a position on rising ground east of the village. The £"Kumasi army 7 attacked two days later at dawn and after a battle lasting four hours, in which they had heavy casual ties,, retired i: to Tanodumase pursued by the Ahafo army. The latter state their casualties to be Kukuom 2 killed, 5 Mim, Noberko 5 and many wounded. The /""Kumasi army./ lost heavily leaving many dead in the bush. Assampaasa, a brother of Beditor, chief of Mim, was captured by the /"Kumasi armyJ7 and killed,.

The £"peop!e ofJ Ahafo feeling Insecure against CKumasl.J now sent messengers to Asibi, King of Kokofu, with whom they had always been on friendly terms, and as a result of this visit decided to send a message to the British Government asking for its protection. A mission was sent to the Coast. After the removal of Prempeh, Ahafo was granted Its independence, and Atechi granted the title of Omanhene. The Treaty was signed at Ku- kuom on the second of May. '896,

About this time Mim became Involved in a local war with Teppa, which resulted in their defeat and the massacre of their young men. This event however had no effect on Ahafo as a whole.

In 3896 shortly after the signing of the Treaty, Atechi died and was succeeded by Bramensa i« Ahafo came under the jurisdiction of the Colony (Sefwi) after signing the Treaty.

As can be seen from Papers I, 2A and 6A, both Kumasi and Ahafo traditions agree on the essential points of this out 1Ine h istor T!u::so art t.>..,= ;.. JSMII;.; other Ashanti districts the Ah,:.i ;..- virqin iort'M v/.j.> scqi.; i red by the right of conquest; thai the land was pareeHed out and given in the keeping ot" the ch ie*1- leaders of that unit of Opoku Ware!s fighting force which had defeated the Invaders of KumasF in the absence ot Opoku Ware; and that up to the time of Prempeh I's removal to Elmina and the Seychelles islands in 1896, the Ahafo district did not constitute a single political unit under a local paramount chief hut composed of various units owing allegiance to the various Kumas1 chiefs appointed as jhwesofos. caretakers, of the land by Opoku Ware.

But it was unlikely that the Ashanti seized the land from the people of Aowin. it was rather the case, as Fuller (2nd Edition 1968:26) who writes of !Eb:r!m Moro, King of Sehwi, a powerful chief tribe adjoining Denkyira, and therefore in dispute with the Ashanti and agrees with the traditions on every other essential point, that Ahafo had pre- viously formed part of Sehwi territory. It is Sehwi and not Aowin that borders immediately South of the Ahafo district. Also Bowdich (3rd Edition 1966:266) says: sThe grandfather of Arnanquatea Atooa Z'Amankwa Tia_7 conquered Sehwi. killing the King Boomancuumaf.

As the recorder of the-Provincfa! Book says, one can barely write of the period 1733-1895 in any detail. For example, it would be interesting to know how Ahafo came to be peopled in the two centuries preceding the exile of Prempeh and the dissolution of the Ashanti Kingdom, On this matter one can only speculate. In .the absence of any known population explosion in Ashanti and since Ashanti herself was not subject to Invasions other than those of the British (1874 and 1896) the only possible explanation for Increase in the populations of the hunter settlements before the Introduction of cocoa at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Is growth in the kola trade In the 19th century.. Mr. Wilks has lately suggested (1969) that with the abolition of the slave trade (180?) the Ashanti ex- panded the kola trade In the, north whose markets were alternative sources of consumer goods, cloths and particularly salt; otherwise obtainable from the European traders on the coast. Bowdich wrote1 (2nd Ed, 323-324) of V! j

Ashanti of various ranks stationing slaves to collect "fruits' in the bush for sale. Assuming that 'fruits' referred among other things to koia it is reasonable to suggest that most of Ashanti war captives who fell to the lot of the chiefs owning land in Ahafo, were planted in that district for the'purposes of gathering kola for sale In addition to hunting and snail collection, Fuller (Op.cit.) referred to Ahafo as the 'game reserve of the Ashanti Kings1, An elder of Mim startled me by stating bluntly that his own grandmother was purchased in the 19th century market-place of Nkawie, ]k miles west of Kumasi and planted, wpduaa no, at Mim.

Although it cannot be historically verified, it is highly probable that the peopling of Ahafo was closely connected with the 19th century expansion of the kola trade4 Enquiries among the elders of Mim indicated that a large, proportion of them had what was euphemistically called 'cap- tive' family background. Unlike other areas In Ashanti where matri1ineages of various depths claimed land by virtue of primary occupation, the people of Ahafo, with the exception of the kinsmen and personal attendants of the various chiefs, particularly the Akwaboahenet a subchief under the Bantama- hene (Krontihene of Kumasi), settled there In other capa- cities than those of kinsmen of the landholders, and occupied the land in return for military service and tributes' of various kinds, meat, snails and kola nuts.

1896-1935 The Provincial Record Book states that the people of the district grew restive under the Kumasi chiefs' authority as many villages were founded and that taking advantage of the internal troubles in Ashanti, (387**-1896) they gradually threw off the power of the Kumasi chiefs. This was made clear through familiar symbolic gestures, refusal to attend the summons of the Kumasi chiefs, or withholding judicial obedience to them, and refusal to participate in the Kumasi Adae festivals which amounted to assuming a position of ritual separation from the rest of Ashanti. Attendance at these occasions meant a renewal of allegiance to the Golden Stool because of its implied acceptance of the spiritual guardianship of the erstwhile occupants of the Cio-o-in .- .<-: .

The reasons for Ahci'c's reiK--,'l ior -nay be inir'errod from the larger context of Ashanti histu-y :> the years following the invasion of Kumas' by Sir Gan^t Vosseley In 1873—7^+ - That invasion, with its implied le;-:~or that, the Ashanti army was not invincible, demoralized the; Ashanti producing an acutely anomic political condition in :.he Kingdom. Most of Ashanti 's erstwhile "provinces" rebelled and within central Ashanti there were, following thr destoolment of Karikarl in 1875j recurrent succession crises in the period 187^-1888. Prempeh's own succession in 1888 was followed by civil wars in which Kumasi, with its adherents, fought Kokofu, Mampon and Nkoranza; the first two because they supported Atwere- boanah (Prempeh's rival) and the last because it desired independence of Ashanti. These recurrent crises and her consequent weakness prevented Ashant* from meeting the challenge of provincial revolt,

While not reeking a definite attempt at colonialist territorial expansion, the Governmo ">;: of the Gold Coast Colony encouraged internal dissenssior within Ashanti and also provincial revests: the iake-over of a fragmented Ashanti without a supreme rul i.nc authority and with little T capacity for mi! \z^r^ mob? • v."f ' ••• • •• -.^ -^.-l 6nv )'• :-\uc;-: expense.

The Ahafo *-evoii. v,o.s ODV;C>LJ; \t imu ! n? eu by Un- successful revolt of z'r.o neighbour, provinces. Bofh Gyaman to its norih x^o Sehw.' to '•••:^.o::i-\\ v>au HPCH success ful in their revoivs

! he underlying reasons '.or : Tvalt VJ(-:re-. tially economic, They were 3 p.-or-. .:.c.-;inst the absen tee landlordism of the Kumasi chiefs - )sc anainsr ins t rade system that Kurnas ? traders ln>oose.j f rh-.5 Ahofo rl !.»cricr.. Accord ing to DevI wson Houz con , •' V,-.-K K i l(-d the c i: :---f of Kukuorn - the •-r j i"v«'h i i e war l^adi ;i!'I Oinanhene by oc mat ion. o!" Asunai o-Ml'^fo — 1-- !6^«r;'.e people of ; st i entertainer htrcrc fec; • nnv :=; nsi the •: with Prernpeh, The peoc-ie h,h..' :on;,>' :?>-•;.'• agair.s Tore »!-. ' traders who in I896 1" r.o j ij-Jr.d .\k*--. • Ashnnti) Ashanc snd Far-. or ond S whom they considered as 'extortionists1. Before 1874, according to Davidson Houston, Ahafo trade with the northwest (Bon- duku and Kong) and the coast had either been monopolized by Kumasi traders or subject to tolls: the northern trade had been channelled through Abessim where, a 'Kumasi-sword bearer1 by name 'Kankan Mahea' had levied tolls; that of the south through Nkawie, 14 miles west of Kumasi, where another sword- bearer, Adu ifEnin.?, had levied tolls.

The aim of the revolt was to cut off the Kumasi connect- ion and remove the right of the Kumasi chiefs to levy tribute and tolls: one consequence of the revolt was that traders operating in Ahafo by-passed Kumasi and took a route connect- ing Goaso (later the Administrative Headquarters of Ahafo), Sehwi, Denkyira and western Gold Coast.

1896-1935 For the history of the period 1896-1935, one falls on the District Commissioner's Monthly, Quarterly and Annual Reports, the Provincial Commissioner's Reports and the like. The information in this outline is from summaries in the Provincial Record Book.

in brief, the history of the Ahafo district in the period 1896-1935 was one of its consolidation into a single paramountcy under the protection of the colonial administra- t ion. Davidson Houston's Treaty of 1896 confirmed Kukuom- hene!s paramount chiefship over the district by according to it the recognition of the Government of the Gold Coast. But the political and military solidarity which had been achieved for the purpose of overthrowing Kumasi rule broke down when the Ahafo people settled down under the calm of colonial administration which also meant an end to serious Ashanti threat.

There were two main sources of threats to Ahafo political unity. The major one was the rivalry of the two chiefs of Mim (one a Priest of the deity Oboo) to the Kukuomhene for the position of Omanhene of Ahafo. It is recorded in the Provincial Record Book that in 1909 the Oman- hene accused the chief of Mfm of disloyalty to him, "of try- ing to assert independence and refusing to give the Omanhene his share of oath fees". The case was settled En 1910, 'the chief of Mim publicly acknowledging his subordinate position'. In 1912, the two chiefs of Mim accused the Omanhene's clerk and spokesman, okyeame, sent to collect the Omanhene's share of oath fees, of stealing properties of the Mim Qboo deity and arrested them. SerJous disturbances, involving Mim on the one hand, and Nkassaim whose chief had given refuge to the clerk and spokesman, and Kukuom, on the other, occurred. What would have amounted to a civil war was averted only by the arrival of the Assistant District Commissioner with troops. The Mfm chiefs were fined £100 each and finally had to make a public submission to the Omanhene at Sunyani. Again in 1915 a threatening civil war over a land dispute between Mim and Kukuom and was prevented by the Assistant British Commissioner. The two chiefs were sentenced to 3 years and 1 year's imprison- ment. It argues in favour of the popularity of the two chiefs that the colonial authorities tolerated them as chiefs. It is curious, then, that the Provincial Record Book states that 'During the threatened disturbances it was subsequently ascer- tained that not a single Mim village, to whom Bed i tor ^the priest chiefJ sent, responded to his summons or approved his action'.

In 1918, according to the Ashanti Annual Report for that year Chief Beditor was exiled from Ahafo at the request of the chiefs of Ahafo. An act of insubordination by another .sub-chief to the Omanhene of Ahafo strengthens the impression that Ahafo did not easily acquire cohesion. In 1911 the chief of Kenyase was reported to have sworn the Great Oath of AshantF that he would 'serve ^Kumasi_7 direct and have nothing further to do with Mim or Kukuom1. He later also denied that *Ahafo Z~the Omanhene .7 Had any rights whatever over his lands and became defiants. He was destooled.

A second obstacle to t|ie development of Ahafo as a single traditional authority area was the interference of Kumasi chiefs in Ahafo affairs. The chiefs stFU hankered after the tributes they had received from Ahafo before 1896; Xi . with the development: of cocoa early the new century, the longing for tribute became sharper.

The Provincial Record Book reported that in 1898-99 the Kumasi chiefs endeavoured to assert their ancient rights over Asunafo-Ahafo and to collect tribute. Judgment was given as follows:

"The Governor refused to recognize any claim of the /"Kumasi J chiefs to Kukuom and its lands. Kukuom is under a separate treaty and the King (Omanhene) is the only person recognized by the Government1',

Since the decision the Z*Kumasij7 chiefs have on occasion attempted to assert authority in Ahafo rand have been checked.

The Kumasi chiefs resorted to threats and types of strategem to win over the Ahafo chiefs, They were able to induce the Omanhene, according to the latter by threats, to fight on the side of Ashanti during the Yaa Asantewa war, 1900-1901. But the Ahafo camp was split: Mim remained loyal to the Government of the Gold Coast while the chief of Akrodie (an apparently significant sub-chiefdom) fled to the Ivory Coast rather than take sides in the war, informal and familiar contacts between the Ashanti of Kumasi and those of Ahafo survived the severance of formal political connect- ion. According to the Provincial Record Book, during the 1900 Ashanti rising, 'a considerable number of disloyal Ashantis found a refuge tn Asunafo-Ahafo and the stools of /~Asebi J and Akwaboa were brought to Nkassaim and Mim'. Several Ahafo elders and chiefs were natives of Akropong and a part of the Ahafo population were refugees from Akro- pong, who promised to return there after they had 'liqui- dated their debts1. In \3\h, the Akwaboahene and a relation of a Bantama sub-chief (which could be the Adobaahene, Akom- fodehene, Akyeamehene, Baamuhene or Nsoaterehene) took up residence at Mim with the permission of the colonial authorities and the proviso that they 'behaved8.

The Kumasi chiefs also appear to have attempted sub- s version through religion, in 1913S a new Fetish Oboo was, X 1 ! under the tuition of ts ^specially lent for the purpose, "coined £"sicj* for .-,> :.-.own of Mini. The origin of Oboo Is said to be a precipitous rock burled in the Forest and never viewed by a European1.,

The Colonial Authorities and Ahafo

That Ahafo remained one traditional authority in the face of internal subversion and of Kumasi Intrigues was due to the support of the colonial authorities. In the period following Prempeh's exile, when the authorities were uncer- tain of what the Ashantl might do, it was clearly essential to their strategy to keep alive and give substance to the centripetal forces within the Kingdom, Nowhere on the Gold Coast and In Ashantl did the colonial authorities show greater assiduity in nurturing the growth of the 'baby' Ahafo ch iefdom.

Ahafo was placed in 1896 under the District Commission- er of Sehwi its southern neighbour. But in 19025, it was made, and remained thereafter, an administrative portion of Ashanti. Between 1902 and 1935 it was administered successively as part of Northwestern Province (1902) and Western Province of Ashanti (1924), In 1314 a Government station under *d Assistant' Dis- trict Commissioner was opened'at Goaso and placed under a Dis- trict Commissioner at Sunyani, the western Provincial headquarters.

The Commissioner at Ahafo was concerned with more than the normal administrative function of a District Commissioner. It was not only a matter of building roads, encouraging the production of kola and cocoa or the normal maintenance of Pax Britannica; the administration in Ahafo which Sanderson, a District Commissioner described in 1933, as 'comic*, entailed aboVe ail consolidating the chiefdom which meant settling more than the normal crop of disputes among unusually litigious Ashenti chiefs.

It was the colonial authorities who established on paper and enforced, the Ah'afo traditional administrative framework. Besides confirming1 the Kukuomhene as Qmanbene they -grouped the villages into sub-chfefdomsf appointed heads XIII..

of the sub-divisions and laid down which proportion of oath fees and tributes — of which the Kumasi chiefs had been deprived - should go to the sub-chiefs and the Omanhene. Examples were given above of how the District Commissioners dealt with rebellious postures among the chiefs and thus up- held the Ornanhene's authority.

In spite of the strains and stresses within Ahafo, it was confirmed as a Division at the restoration of the Ashanti Confederacy in 1935. The restoration did not dis- rupt political arrangements within the Division but it became a charter for reviving the old economic claims of the Ashantihene, the owner by conquest of the virgin forest, and of the caretakers, Ahwesofoo to whose predecessors of the eighteenth century, according to both Ahafo and Kumasi traditions, Opoku Ware granted portions of Ahafo lands.

(i i) The Political Organisation of Ahafo:

Before and After I696

The colonial authorities, who normally took far reaching political decisions only after detailed enquiries, made a thorough investigation Into the political organisation of Ahafo before I896. The result of the investigation was as set out in Paper 2B»

The Constitution of Ahafo as portrayed in Paper 2B, shows a political fragmentation of the district which strongly supports the substance of the tradition relating to the division and settlement of Ahafo: different villages served under the different Ahwesofoo of Ahafo lands. This arrangement is in itself an indication of the military rationale behind the original settlementof Ahafo: a version of Mini oral traditions told me by the Mimhene and his elders says that the hunters1 settlements were placed in anticipation of attempts by the people of Sehwi to reconquer the land.

Having confirmed and guaranteed the Ahafo rebellion the colonial authorities had to make the new political authority economically as well as politically viable. XIV.

After consultation with the chiefs of Ahafo, the colonial authorities decided upon the boundaries and the form that the Division should assume and the shape given to Ahafo was the usual hierarchical organisatton of an Akan chiefdom. Rather than summarize, it seems appropriate to quote the whole of the relevant extract from the Provincial Record Book. This is as follows:

Asunafo Ahafo is divided into three sub- divisions: 1. NOBERKOR with the villages Anwiem, Kwapong, Sankori, Abuom, Kwaku Numa, Asufufu.

2. KUKUOM with the villages Akrodie, Dadiasuaba, Sienchem, Mehama, Fahuyeden, Awinso.

3. MIM with the villages Goaso, Ntor- trorsu, Kenyase, Hwidiem, Nkassaim and Acherensua.

The Omanhin's oath "Yawda" should be the only native oath used in Asunafo Ahafo. Owing to some jealousy as to fees between the Omanhin and his sub-chief of Mim in 1909t a definite arrangement between the Omanhin and his sub-chiefs of Mim and Noberkor was entered into in February 1901 that:

Mim and Noberkor could try cases under this oath between their own subjects only.

That any case between a subject of Mim and Noberkor and a stranger or subject of Kukuom should be tried by the Omanhin.

That one-third of the oath fees in all cases tried by Mim, Noberkor or their sub-chiefs was due to the Omanhin.

That the Omanhin could hear any appeal from the Courts of his sub-chiefs. XV.

The Omanhin is entitled to charge a maximum of £16.0.0. in cases brought under his oath, his sub-chiefs of Mim and Noberkor a maximum of £8.0.0.

In April 1915 the above Agreement as to oath fees was revoked and a new Agree- ment voluntarily entered into by the Omanhin of KUKUOM and Chiefs of Mim and Noberkor. The Omanhin conceded his sole right to try oath cases between Mim and Noberkor subjects and strangers.

It is worth noting that Ahafo is the only Akan chief- tlom with a written constitution, the provisions regarding the settlement of disputes pointing to the strains and stresses contained in a centralized chiefdom. When these provisions are considered together with the arrangements in 2B, it becomes clear that the total effect of the Ahafo constitution was to transfer the economic and political rights of the Ashantihene exercised through the Kumasi chiefs in Paper 2B to the Omanhene. The Constitution put an end to the absentee landlordism of the Ashantihene and the Kumasi chiefs

(i i i) Ashanti and Ahafo Land Tenure To see Ahafo landholding in a more illuminating per- spectives, it is pertinent to consider it \r\ relation to the principles of landholding in Africa and in Ashanti in particular.

In his latest statement on African landholding Gluck- inan (1969, 252-265), notes that the incidence of rights over land varies with the technology of the people concerned, that among the Lozi the rule following landholding is that all the I -Hid, and its products belong to the nation through the king; 'hat the people's rights to building land, to the use of land for cultivation, to use public lands for grazing and fishing ire acquired through the King. That these rights are acquired in return for 'tribute1 and 'services' to the King; the King JS 'owner of the land1 in the sense that he is entitled to rights of allegiance, he has powers of distribution of land, he has rights to the claim of unused land, and powers of leg is- XV i

I at ion on the holding and l:h

Rattray (1929, 3^0-366) stated that: while originally the principles of Ashant: i landhold ing may have been the same as those of traditional Africa sometimes before and after about 1700, when the Ashanti established their Union, feudalism of a type peculiar to West Africa was introduced. He wrote (p.3^fl) :

It was feudalism, in the peculiar form, in which I have tried to show it existed in West Africa, that must have emphasized (for I do not think the idea was entirely new) the association of personal duties and personal privileges with the ownership of the soil. The final phase of this silent and perhaps unnoticed revolution took place when after the battle of Feyiase (about 1700 A,D.) a chief of Kumasi became for the first t irne As ante Hcne 'King of Ashanti),

Rattray says that the factors that brought about these changes were, political and economic: the supersession of the heads of the constituent chiofdoms of the Union by the Ashant ihene, and the 'advent of, at. first casual, and later, more, intensive, agricultural activities'.

Busia (1951, 42-57) disagrees with Rattray. He writes: "Kinship, reverence for the ancestors and bel ieF in the spiritual power of tho Earth have combined to give land tenure in Ashanti its peculiar character'.

Busia's analysis of the rights and duties attached to landholding in Ashanti is similar to that of Gluckman. He rejects the conquest theory o': Rattray which enabled the latter to speak of the feudal character of Ashanti land tenure. In support of his assertions, he quotes Casely Hayford, a lawyer at the Gold Coast Bar at the turn of the xvi i.

19th and 20th centuries, Casely Hayford is quoted to have written:

In all my several years' practice at the bar, I have not come across a case where title to land has been based upon a right of conquest. The usage of war amongst the aborigines would seem to be that after the conclusion of peace, the vanquished still retained their land.9

But as shown in the preceding pages, Ahafo provides an example of a conquered territory.

The difference between the basis of landholding in Ahafo and that in the rest of Ashanti is'O reflected in the difference between the number of administrators of land in the two areas. As Busia has it, the Ashantihene is only a nominal custodian of lands outside the Kumasi chiefdom over which he is paramount. The effective sovereigns of lands in such Ashanti divisions as Bekwai, Juabin, Kokofu, Mampon and Nsuta are the amanhene, divisional chiefs. No Kumasi clan chief has claims to lands under the jurisdiction of an omanhene. So that there are within a division three categories of administrators of land, the gmanhene, adekrqfo, heads of villages, and af iepanyin, heads of matr(lineages who may be called primary, secondary and tertiary nsasewura, landlords respectively. But as can be seen from paper 6A," there are four administrators of land in Ahafo if one Includes some of t*ie af'epany in: these are the Ashant Fhens, some Kumasi clan chiefs, the adekrofo and heads of matri!ineages who are re- lated to the landowning Kumasi clan chiefs and the adekrofo of the Ahafo villages.

Correspondingly, the number of shares of land revenue which in the past included annual collections of snails and venison but now land rent and payments due from timber con- cession rights — is greater: in the Ahafo area than in the XV! 1 I . rest of Ashant i. The Mdinponghene, for example has exclusive rights to such revenue In the Mampong district though a proportion of it goes to his chiefs and people through customary disbursements. In Ahafo, as is shown in Paper 6A, land revenue is shared between the Ashantihene, the respective Kumasi clan chiefs and adekrofo. And Paper 7 sets out the grounds of the various entitlements, namely, that while the Ashantihene is the owner of the land, the landholding Kumasi clan chiefs and the respective adekrofo must be rewarded for doing the jobs of administrators and caretakers.

It ought to be noted that it. is cons is Lent with the tradition that the Ahafo district was conquered that absent landlordism and the hwesofop, caretaker, category of landholding occur only in the Ahafo district in the whole of Ashant i.

Distinctive Features of Landhoiding in AhafV.

Clearly, then, landholding in Ahafo had distinctive features which were absent from the. rest of Ashant i. The mode in which the respective Kumasi clan chiefs acquired rights in Ahafo lands bears close resemblance to the acquisi- tion of tributary riqhts by Fulani officials which were described by Nadel (1942, 115-117) as 'fiefs'. The paral- lel becomes even more striking when it is realized that the largest Kumasi 'owner' of land in Ahafo, the Akwaboahene, has no territorial base in Ahafo and is purely a military office under the Bantama stool'.' The Akwaboa stool, like the other stools mentioned in the papers, was granted rights in Ahafo lands as a reward for, and in return for, military and other services. The relationship of the Akwaboa stool in particular to Ahafo lands appears analogous to that of the medieval lord to the fief. Max Weber (19^7, 3^7) writes;

A set of appropriated governing powers will be called a 'fief if it is granted primarily to particular qualified indivi- duals by a contract and if the reciprocal rights and duties involved are primarily oriented to conventional standards of honour, XIX.

particularly in .:> military content of J distinctive social group.

It was not only that the terms under which land in Ahafo was granted to the Akwaboahene and the other Kumasi chiefs were strikingly similar to those that governed feudal enfeoffment. According to Mim traditions, the conditions in which the Akwaboa people migrated from Denkyira, southwest of Ashanti, at the end of the seventeenth century and which led to the creation of the Akwaboa stool by the Ashantihene Osei Tutu (died 1"/12?) were similar to those that produced medieval feudalism in Europe.'2 With respect to the latter, it was the need for protection that primarily led to the search for lords of the various grades. Mim old men say that the Akwaboa group fled from Denkyira to seek protection under the rising Ashanti power in a period of recurrent warfare. As was the case with the medieval lord and his vassal, the Ashantihene and the subordinate landlords of Ahafo were bound together in mutual interests. The Ashanti wars of expansion of the eighteenth century required, and led to, the creation of nsafohene, war-chiefs, professional organizers of non- professional fighting men. The former were supported by the labours of settled cultivators and hunters who could also be speedily mobilized for war. Reindorf (1889, 2nd Ed. 1966, p.Ill) wrote:

The Kings of Asante do not only appoint cap- tains over the army but, in addition, they organize it, and also increase it as occasion arises. Before a captain is appointed, the King collects recruits in readiness for him to drill. They may be either captives made in a recent war, or his own subjects whom he bought as slaves Wh'en they failed to pay a certain fine imposed on them as punishment for an oath they had sworn, or they had been bequeathed to him by a deceased chief or captain,

Reindorf does not specify the areas in which the purchased and bequeathed slaves - obviously the nuceius ot a stand- ing army - were located. It is suggested here that the Ahafo virgin forest received a large number of them. In a court XX. dispute between Kenyasi and Akwaboahene (institute of African Studies, Legon, Collection of cases from the Ashantihene's office, I.A,5. Acc.N.AS/CR, 19) heard in the Kumasi Divisional Council on the 8th of January, 19^0, the Chief of Kenyasi No,I, in the Ahafo district swore the

Gre.it Oath that it was the Asantehene Nana Ppku Ware.,, who planted his ancestors on this land and when Nana Osei Kwadwo created the Hiawu'3 stool, he transferred his (Kenya- si No.l Odekro's) ancestors from the Bantama stool to the Hiawu stool with the disputed land.

The decision signed by the Ashantihene stated that 'The land in dispute i.e. Kenyasi I and II lands, is declared the pro- perty of the Stool of Kenyasi serving under the Hiawu Stool1. Also that 'The Kenyasis are hunters of the ^"Ashant ihene J, '** The court decision makes it clear that before colonial rule both land and people were in the Ashantihene's gift.

0iscussion: Feudal Elements in Ahafo Landholding

It hc*s been shown in the preceding paragraphs that the basis of landholding in Ahafo,the terms under which 'land- fords* and 'caretakers' held it, the number of 'administrators1 and therefore of the sharers of land revenue both of kind and in cash and the Ashanti conception of land 'ownership' of Ahafo lands differed from those in the rest of Ashanti and that those distinctive features of landholding in Ahafo invite strong comparisons with elements of medieval socio-political organi- stit ion.

On the question oi FEUDALISM IN AFRICA?Jack Goody (I9&3) has pointed out that sociological typologies and con- cepts-like labels — are useful only to the extent that they facilitate the understanding of other peoples' cultures while in the social sciences, there has always been an interest in unravelling the universal factors underlying all human development . Generally .Tiithropolog sc? i analysis of other cultures, that is interpret;: ion of exotic social institutions in terms of European categories of economic, political and social thought, is done by the translation of the foreign terms into equivalent or near-equivalent terms and by descriptions of the contexts in which the terms are used. One has no difficulty in showing to English readers that the Akan- Asante word ohene, means some sort of a ruler but there must be a detailed account of his activities In order to show the nature and extent of his authority. The presence of easily translatable terms in any two languages indicates comparable cultural and institutional experience.

There is no -word in Asante which can be used to trans- late any of the categories of feudal relationships. On the face of it, then, the notions oP 'feudality1, as known in European History were absent from Ashanti economic, political and social organisation. But, in view of what has been said above about landholding in Ahafo, I should say that the absence of Ashanti equivalents of notions of 'feudality' does not mean the total absence of feudal elements but that feudal development in Ahafo was embryonic and uncrystal1ized. The use of conceptual language must be a result of long and intensive experience. Ahafo was peripheral to central Ashanti and was being settled at a time when economic pursuits were not central to Ashanti collective noals.

Finally, 1 see in the rights of the Koines i clan chiefs in Ahafo the germ of the development of a type of manor ial control. Hay (196^:35) defines 'lordship of land 1 as the •possession of extensive legal anc administrative rights over land and the peasantry', in the rfghts of the Kumasi clan chiefs in Ahafo lands, one finds Max Weber's three elements of 'scignorieJ preprietorship1: 'first, landholding (territorial power), second, possession of men (slavery) and third, appropriation of political rights', it ought to be added that slaves 'planted' In Ahafo were unlike slaves bought arid incorporated Into the purchaser's matriIfneage.