Feature Article : "The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of Modernghana.com."

Cameron Duodu concludes his series on Prof Adu Boahen's demolition of English historical "authorities" on the history of Ghana. A son of the soil had spoken. No one who wanted to study Ghana's past seriously relied upon the British historians after that.

It will be recalled from my earlier articles that I told the story of how a young Adu Boahen, only seven years after returning to the University of Ghana from his PhD studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, was able, very boldly, to confront the members of the historical establishment of Great Britain, at the Royal Commonwealth Society in London, at a lecture in 1966 and inform them - in so many words - that the three British historians they all relied upon as "authorities" on the history of Ghana, had been very poor indeed at their job.

Now, such exercises are frowned upon in the academic world as "hatchet jobs" and they are not to be undertaken lightly, as they can ruin one's academic career. Boahen knew this very well, yet under the chairmanship of the professor who had taught him at SOAS. Roland Oliver, a Briton like those Boahen was demolishing, he went about his business with careless abandon. It is an unparalleled example of academic courage and sheer brilliance. Even if Oliver did not agree with Boahen's approach, he would have awarded him full marks for his fortitude.

Any scholar or reader who asked for a general survey of the history of Ghana (Boahen pointed out), was almost always referred to these historians and their works: W. V. Claridge and his book, A History of the Gold Coast and Ashanti (first published as far back as 1915 and reprinted by Frank Cass in 1964). The second was the History of the Gold Coast by W. E. F. Ward written in 1940 and published in 1948, with a new edition published in 1958 under the title A History of Ghana. The third was a very brief study by Prof J. D Fage, under the title Ghana, An Historical Interpretation, which was published in 1961.

The works of these "authorities" on Ghanaian history were unsatisfactory, Boahen said, because they had, on the one hand, been too concerned about what the Europeans who first came to trade m the "Gold Coast" in the 15th century did - their activities, their interactions with one another as well as with the Ghanaians they encountered. On the other hand, they had shown too little concern with what was on the ground when the Europeans arrived.

Boahen then waded into the historians for misleading their readers even on such relatively easy-to-ascertain matters as the way the Asante kingdom was built up into the powerful entity that it became. He was especially scathing about the dates the historians had given as marking the reigns of the various kings who guided Asante into glory.

Boahen conceded that the later period of Ghanaian history, especially the 18th century, had been dealt with in much greater detail and in a more balanced way by the three "authorities". But even here, he had to reveal that the 18th century was also the period in which recent research had revealed what he called "gross abuses of fact as well as inaccurate interpretation" by the erstwhile "authorities".

Boahen declared: "Owing partly to their Euro-centred approach and partly to the fact that they all relied mainly on published accounts of the 19th century, particularly those by Bowdich, Dupuis, Cruickshank and Ellis, Claridge, Ward and Fage have not only got most of their facts wrong but have left many questions either wrongly answered or unanswered altogether. In the first place, recent research based tin 18th century unpublished material not only in Enghsh but also in Dutch and Danish has revealed that all the dares given tor the reigns of the 18th century kings of Asante are wrong.
"Osei Tutu didd not die in 1731 but 1717; Opoku Ware did not come to the throne in 1731 but in 1720 and he died in 1750 and not in 1742; Kusi Obodum reigned from 1750 to 1765 and not from 1742 to 1752; Osei Kwadwo came to the throne neither in 1753 (Claridge) nor 1752 (Ward) nor 1770 (Reindorf) but in 1764 and he reigned for 13 years and not 28 or 11 years and so on.

"No satisfactory, or at least complete solution has been given to the problem of the rise of the Asante Empire. Some historians have seen it solely as the effect of the Atlantic slave trade while others have attributed it to the activities of Osei Tutu.

"The rise of the Asante Empire seems to me to be due first to the economic forces operating not only on the coast as Claridge. Ward and even Fage tend to imply, but also operating in the north as [Ivor] Wilks has pointed out [in his book, Asante In The Nineteenth Century]; secondly to the political conditions in the forest region (namely the existence of numerous states and tiny principalities within about 30 miles radius of Kumasi, and their oppression by the Denkyira people); thirdly to the social organisation, particularly the matrilineal clan system of the Akan peoples - a factor which [none of the three historians] has ... taken into account, and finally to what Metcalfe has correctly described as the 'state-building genius' not only of Osei Tutu (as Metcalfe himself thinks) but also of [Osei Tutu's] immediate predecessor, Obiri Yeboah and [Osei Tutu's] immediate successor, Opoku Ware."
Boahen continued; "In view of the revision of the dates for the various reigns, it seems that our ideas about the rate of expansion of the Asante Empire, and of the roles of Osei Tutu and Opoku Ware in this, need revision. It is clear that the conversion of the essentially Oyoko confederated stares into the Asante Empire was the work of Opoku Ware rather than Osei Tutu...

"How was this empire governed? Here again almost all the three historians are silent on the central system of administration, while Claridge's view, dutifully adopted by Ward, 'that though the Asantes could conquer, they could not govern, in fact they never made any serious attempt to do so', needs drastic revision.

"Not only did Osei Tutu and especially, Opoku Ware, evolve some system of provincial administration, namely the 'Adamfo' system described by [the anthropologist [R.S.] Rattray, but the rulers after them, especially Osei Kwadwo (1764-1777) and Osei Bonsu (1801-1824) did introduce such fundamental changes in this system by their appointment of resident district and regional commissioners in the provinces, and by their abolition of most of the hereditary stools at the centre, that we are now beginning to talk even of a 'Kwadwoan Revolution' in government." )i.e. a revolution in governance spearheaded by Asantehene Osei Kwadwo.)

Boahen pointed out further that though both Claridge and Ward paid a great deal of attention to the Asante wars, neither of the two discussed the military organisation of the Asante - the square formation of the van, the rear, the left and the right.

"Finally, the view prevalent among all these historians, that the Fante and the Asante had never before come into contact nor fought each other until [some time in the 19th century] was wholly inaccurate. Envoys started going to and fro between the two peoples from the second decade of the 18th, while the Asante attacks on the coastal states began at the same time.

"In 1712, 1714-15, 1721-22 and 1726-27 the [Asantes] attacked and conquered Nzima and Aowin; in 1742 they defeated Akyem and the Ga, and an Asante contingent actually entered Accra in that year, and finally, in 1765, the Asante invaded the Fante and camped in Abusa. [So] the Asante drive to the coast began during the first two decades of the 18th and not in the 19th century.

"By 1750," said Adu Boahen "the Asante had conquered all the states of modern Ghana, except the Fante, whose rise and expansion have so far not been really dealt with, and the period between 1750 and 1807 was marked by a fascinating political chess game between these two states with the Asante tributary states such as Wasa, Twifo, Denkyira, Assin and Akyem as the main pawns - a game hitherto totally ignored by all [he aforementioned] historians.

"The motive for the Asante drive to the coast was not only economic, as most historians tend to think, but also political - that of ensuring the expansion and survival of their Empire by obtaining a regular supply of ammunition."

Turning his attention to developments in northern Ghana in the 18th century, Adu Boahen revealed that all that could be gathered from the existing history books, was that the states of Dagomba, Gonja and Krachi, were all conquered by Asante and reduced to tributary states. But recent studies have shown that these states did, in fact -- in Adu's view - "benefit from the Asante period of rule."
It was during the 18th century that Islam was accepted as an official "cult" both in Dagomba, Mamprussi and even in Mossi, and the rulers of all these states busily engaged themselves in working out a modus vivendi between their subjects and the growing Islamic communities.
"It seems clear that Islamic culture and influence also began to percolate to Asante during this century - an aspect of Asante history totally ignored by virtually all historians of Ghana, and that the Muslim communities in Kumasi grew steadily large and influential, as is evident from the accounts of Bowdich and Dupuis.

"Commercially, the 18th century was the golden age of Salaga in particular, and eastern Gonja, Dagomba and north-eastern Asante in general, mainly because of their trade with the Hausa states and Bornu."

How had the 19th century history of Ghana been treated by the three "authorities"?, Boahen wondered. This century was clearly the main concern of Claridge and Ward. The main themes these historians dealt with were the Anglo-Asante wars and the steady growth of British jurisdiction and rule in Ghana.

Claridge discussed the causes of each of the Asante-coastal wars and gave details about each of the campaigns, the outcome and consequences. Indeed Claridge devoted the first 193 pages of [his] second volume to the Anglo-Asante war of 1874 alone! Ward, on the other hand, did not appear to do more than merely summarise Claridge.  Continued    Source: Cameron Duodu

"The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of Modernghana.com." To have your articles publish, please submit them to editor@modernghana.com.

Other Articles by Cameron Duodu