ARTICLES 

32,

ACADEMICISM  IN  SOCIAL  ANTHROPOLOGY

by  Eric  O.  Ayisi

Academicism  by definition  is the  reduplication  of  the achieve
merits of accepted masters  in  the art.  Most social anthropologists  have
fallen  victims  to  the Aristotelian  fallacy  of  regarding  social  systems as
natural  entities  which  could be classified according  to  certain  ineluctabl
principles  and features,  and  in  this way,  they are no  less misguided than
those artists  who are  firmly  fixed  in  the  orthodoxy  of academicism.

e

The Aristotelian  tradition  was revived by  Emile  Durhkeim  from

whom the early  anthropologists .drew-their"inspiration.  Durhkeim  affirmed
that  social  systems should be  treated as  'things1 and consistent with  this
idea  Radcliffe-Brown  laid a  foundation  for social  anthropology  which  Is
mainly  concerned with  the description  of social  structure.  Social  structure,
according  to  Radcliffe-Brown  and his colleagues and followers,  'is  like a
living  organism  (whose entire  existence would be spent  in  responding  in an
appropriate  manner  to external  stimuli  or  to utilitarian  needs1/.

In morphology,  certain  characteristics are used as criteria

\f  is  in  this manner  that  Radcliffe-Brown  approached his studies of
primitive  societies.  He regarded  primitive  societies as consisting of  natural
entities,  whose  features were amenable  to classification  or  typological
arrangement. 
for classification,  and  Radcliffe-Brown  therefore  selected arbitrarily  certain
obvious  features of  his society,  the Andaman*, as paradigms  for all  that he
had to  say  in social  anthropology  and about  primitive  societies.  Dr.  Leach
has discussed some aspects of  the question  I am about  to  raise  in  this  paper.
He says that  "Radclrffe-Brown  maintained  that  the objective  of  social
anthropology  was the  comparison  of  social  structures1.1  In explaining  this
he asserted  that when we distinguished and compared different  types of

* 

1. 

Dr.  Eric  O.  Ayisi  is a  Research  Fellow  in  Sociology.

Sociology  and  Philosophy:  Emile  Durkheim,  p . l.

ARTSCi

33,

social  structure  wo were doing  the some thing  as when we distinguished
different  kinds  01" sea sheil  according  to their  every  structural  type.
According  to  Leooh,  ''comparison  is a matter  of  butterfly  collecting  . ..
of  classification  of  the arrangement of  things according  to  their  types
and sub-fypes.  The followers  of  Radcliffe-Brown  are  anthropological
butterfly  collectors  and their approach  to their  data  has certain  conse-
quences.  For example,  according  to  RadcIiffe-Brown's  principles,  we
ought to think  of Trobriand society  as a society  of a structural  type.
The classification  might  proceed thus:

MAIN  TYPE:
SUB-TYPE:
SUB-SUB-TYPE:

societies  composed of unilinea!  descent groups",
societies  composed of  matrilinea!  descent groups,
societies  composed of  matrilinea!  descent groups
in which  the married males of  the  matrilineage
live  together  in one place and apart  from the
females of  the matrilineage, "*

He went  on to give  examples of  how this method was maoipuiated

by  Radcliffe-Brown  and subsequently  his followers.  He quoted the case
of  Dr.  jock  Goody's  hypothesis of  the  two societies  he studied  In  Northern
Ghana,  the  toWHfi  and the  LoDagaba, 
My  cof league  Dr,  Jack  Goody  has gone to great  pains to distinguish as
types two adjacent  societies  In the  Northern  Gold Coast which he calls
LoWIIii  and  LoDagaba.  A  careful  reader of  Dr.  Goody's works  will
discover,  however,  that- these two  'societies' are simply  the way  that
Dr.  Goody  lias chosen to describe  the fact  that  his  field  notes from two
neighbouring  communities show some curious discrepancies, 
if  Dr,  Goody's
methods of analysis were  pushed to the  limit  we should be able  to show that

'This  is not  josr a hypothesis.

1.  Radcliffe-Brown  -  An Appraisal  of Anthropology  Today,  Chicago

1953.

2.  E.R.  Leach,  Rethinking Anthropology,  London, 1961  p,3.

3. 

Ibid  p . 3.

ARTK •

every village  '-cmmun^y  throughoc1 fh-.* <v~.fM rnnsil.-jr--  -> ,: M:<u
society which  i*, dfctinrjuislioble  a? n type  from a??v ;-{K--: .'"  <G:  t/
I956M.1

t e o c l ri  contention  seems  to  bv  tnai 

thr  h>a;.  »••'  vhi  •!;  v.

uses  o$  paradigm,;  for  dlstinguishfr.ii  c-nt  •ioc.f!/  t'or,  ;<  .•  t>',<n> •>>>•  •
trary  ond  have  no  relevance  U« ts-o  --^cl.ii  rt-,iii!y  .-,»! ti>«  <.n-'e«.,*'  :•
sfudiedl 
Irs  i o c fr  wKa*  Leach  Is  fryiriy  to  scy  ss i^af  *h»»:••;•  *;  -,-  '•(,;
menfejf  differorjce  befween  the  *v/o  (>eif<hbo-i';i^i  7-~>mnn;"~,.i\*-  •.>?;•"'  I
the  difference  so  established  n  m  Goody's  r-Krd  »>>••'  >*  ,-s  ;i«r<'.\;-t-
a r t i f i c i a l.  1 do  not  wanJ  to  take  side:  "'>, (h»s  di^pi't<»,  bef  S dt-! D>
much  if  Goody  wa$  treating  fhis  'hesi"  «;  a  SOC'MJ  -i%of>;v  «-•;•/  **<•.; o
heuristic  device  fo  *how  cortain  dijsimi'crJSic,  !-i  >( c-  > • •• r--""C'r> ••_•
communitio'j,  w i th  u  r.oiinr-i 
on  wfiich  I ho  ^'ho'f*  fhosii  is  erected  is  '•''>'  "«u;"*  cii  • t ^»i.» 
quarre!  w i th  Loach  obaui  (his  o;  i  ran  n-->t ';«spDv  or?MI"  •'•» 
But  th*?  pith  o*"  LPOCII'*.  IOOIR  dpvo^iofirtn  sifklur^-' 
arguments: 
k i n d.  An  obvious  example  is  Ihe  coipnoiy  opix>'.;f:o!-  cc i>-!'!«•!».• „-'
t v er  sii:c.c  Morgan  beqes^  <vr;. JC,.-J  ,-,t  lr,£  K i v i ' f ' i . .,  ""  !\-  ;
m a t r i i l n e a f, 
been  customo>y  for  aoihiopoioassf'S  in  dti>f,nc<jKn  _<>.<'iV,-i>e.  <-r;,u-  -  ~f.-

"Sociof  onth'opolopy  it  pr>ch'-tf  w*0*  in  nlro1!'':-.'.  t.-f  l'i»r.

• "M •*  '  ••
i-,-\.j ;  ,-
IJH<
•>• *'  ••* i

fypoaraphicnj  cr  r« 

.  t- 

'Pi-/

.•ny>"!f

\iv 

sociefles  from  m a ! n ^ n e o!  socseiipt,  T!'---*r,  caffy-flc-1  r.—,-- ^c-s-~ 
- s •*•
rudimentary  and  obvious  tha*  it  fs  exfrnmefy  dtfficuM  to  \-r<*alc j<»(  '«iow
the  s t r a i g h t - j a c k et  of  thought  w h i ch  the  cniocj^rKvi  e'ie?n-ck'ts  f.v-  ?-f. 

"

The  opposing  categories  pa^rlf>neai/irra><*!ln»'a:  r,(,v;t  cb-'-r^c

inevitable  postulates  in  onthropology. 
w h i ch  does  not  embody  these  posiuioies,  o<ni  ihsr* 
\<-<ihfr  •!•. >oais'
who  does  no*"  include  tNise  »n his  studies  of  Tt).  j-orfeiy 
start  by  first  and  forpmort  determining  H»P tvrw  d  soci°>v  f h ry  c»rr» .i^c-rf

Theifi  Is  no  werl.  <r  •"'nihroc^J'-'oy
;.  >"<c  tc-^h'-'.r.cio^^t

1 ,  The  ?CH:II<J Qtiar. ration •*'1" thr  i.eWni

\  -*

2. 

Ibid,  Ref-h^nktftg Anthropology,  p.3.

ARTICLES

35,

to  study  and  they  fix  the  appropriate  labei,  ofhK"-  :r,-af si lineal  or
pafrfllneafy  and  the  rest  Is  taken  for  grnnf-?rr«  hc^c  I agree  with
Leach's  objection, 
choose  one  frame  of  reference  rather  thar-  s,'>e of her  '"

"for  the  typology  nakius  never  explain  why  they

There ore  certain  problems  which  confronted  eminent-  anthro-

pologists  like  Dr.  A.  Richards  and  Profesr.rt  Paris: ,  Tlieje  anthro-
pologists  were  aware  of  the  theoretical  ci?iicie':i>  !;-. using  the
typological  method.  Though  Leach  appears  no!  -n  •-.•> fascinated  by
their  efforts,  at  least  I  fee!  that  they  oVservc  '.of«f  «•*.rerifi.  Dr.  Audrey
Richards  compared  and described  in  her  sluHtV*  of  Bcmba the  function  •
of  affinal  ties  as opposed  to  descent  Hes one! sfr^  curved  al  the  conclusion
that  the  apparent  ambivalent  situation  rrer.lod  ir>  *he  social  system  for
Individuals  In  relation  to  rights  over  children  ->• c  r-?irloge  in  a  mafrfffneal
society,  like  the  Bemba,  is modified  betctt»:e  .-.•  i'u=-  iac<  that  both  the
woman's  husband  and  her  brother  possess  riqhrs  !-i  nv:  woman's  c h i l d r e n . . .,
This  fact  I should  Imagine  was a  -  priori,OPi'y  t;,odo 'nsigifflcant  because
of  the  way  anthropologists  have  chosen  ?o ivt.'u  s\  pr:tr:ffive  societies.
Professor  Fortes  meets  the  probfem  hi  a  difi-'^.if  lljut. 
does  not  mean  the  same as  Radcliffe~Srav">\  detin.iio:).  He  found  thaf
his  two  societies  had  certain  features  w b H;  <ir  ••„•:!  ,;'rfrnr  him  fo  label
them  barely  malrlllneal  or  paJrilineai,  Ko  »»i*c<o:t  demised a new
concept,  •complementary  f 1 {iotlonf,  fo  makv  op  i'-v-:  obvious  deficiency
In  the  former  and  conventional  way  of  fc-a'-ony  ."-  -•••;rir--*ye  socfefles.
But  In  this  cose  too, 
He  attacked  these new  concepts  by  saying:

teach  did  not  see anv  men!  i/> his  efforts.

Tc  him  uniffneaffy

"The  case  of  Professor  Fortes  illusrr-'os  tuh  --ome point  In
a  rather  a  different  way.  His qucs4  >«. stot  so much  for  types
as for  prototypes. 
It  so happens  Aa?  the  two  cociaMes  of
which  he  has made a  close  study  hove  certain  similarities

ARTICLES 

36.

of  structural  pattern  for,  while  the  Tallensi  are pairi™
lineal  and the Ashanfl matrllinea!^  both Tallensi and
Ashanfl  come unusually  close  to having a system of
double  unilineal  descent.  Professor  Forles had devised
0 special  concept,  'compleme  tary  filiation',,  which
helps him  to describe  this double unllineal  element  In
the Tallensi/AshantI  pattern while  rejecting  the notion
that  these societies actually  possess double  unilinea!
systems (Fortes,  1953,  p.33;  1959b").1

Fortes answered the strictures of  Leach In an  Essay on kinship which
ne^onfrfEuted~to  a collection  of other  essays on kinship,
"The second part  of  this hypothesis  raises theoretical  issues that are
too  large for discussion  in  the present  context*  But the empirical
generalization  advanced  in  the  first  part of  It,  has an  immediate
application  to  the Ashanti system.  It gives a clue  fo the structural
regularity  that  underlies what  looks soperficialiy  like arbitrary  and
irregular  practices f  attitudes and manoeuvres of  individuals.  1 have
one  reservation.  Leach gives  the  impression that  Individual  choice
and  initiative  are  in some way antithetical  to  insriruHonalizarion.
In the Ashanti  system,.  I think,  they  can be shown to be congruent
with  the  institutional  structure. 
In other words,  they  follow  customary
patterns and are kept  in  Sine with  the norms and sanctions of  thft  total
system of  kinship and descent.  They are not at variance with  Institut-
ional  prescription  but are contained hy  !r;  and this  Is brought1 about by
a mechanism of  com pi em er, fa ry  redress that  Is rooted  in the  complementary
conjunction  at  the structural  level  of  mafrllatera! and patrflateral  princi-
ples  in status definition,  and at  the  jura!  level  of  legal and morai sanct-

1 . 

Ibid,  p.4.

2.  Studies  in  Kinship and lvterrlage7  p.61, ed,  i,  Schapera,  1963.

ARTICLE?

37,

Fortes maintains  in the above statement  that  the distinction  Is
consistent1 with  the  customary  practices and for this reason If  Is rooted
In the structure  n* ;!<« society.  This  is to me another  indication  of
Arlstofelfanism.  We are  not sure however whether  the practices are
the  result of  the social  structure or vice  versa.  What  the dichotomy,
matrflfneal/patrilmecii,.  does is to fell  us that c  certain society  is
labelled  "mcfrillneai" because members of  this society  piece more
premium on  the  relationship  which  exists between other members
belonging  to  this group by virtue  of  common descent, 
building exercise and the  information one gets from this model Is
rather  limited. 
"Mainliny  confers status  In the politio-jura! domain,
patrifillation  only  in  the domestic  domain,"  But  Fortes with  his wide
knowledge  of  the Ashcnri  material  at  once  realizes  the  inconcluslveness
of  this assertion and so enters  in a caveat  to modify  this assertion,

If  Is a model-

"A  chief  has responsibilities  for sister's sons, but  he does fiot  trust them,"
"Sons," he continued, !bre different.  You desire sons above everything.
They will  be your  most  trusted supporters for  they  havs no stake  In your
office  and their we!f-being  depends on you alone,  That1 h why  chiefs
appoint  sons and sons' sons to  certain  court  offices  that are  Intimately
connected with  their  daffy  life  and routine."' 
this  point  by using my Akwapim material,

I want  fo  illustrate

The  Internal  Structure  of  Hie Paramoynfcy  -

There ore  three  types of  Infernal  structures that go to make up the social
structure of  the  paramounfey.  S  describe and distinguish  them by the
following  terms: 
structures.  This  Is so named in order to distinguish the various groups
which make up the  core of  the paramounfey.  The  following  are members
of  the dispersed  internal  siructure:-

proximate,  contiguous,  and dispersed  . ..

1. 

ibid,  p.62.

ARTICLE

38.

I . 

2. 

3, 

Abur  (Vfankracfo  or  Asomoryaw,  who  Is  also ;h«~
chief  -~.f the  sons of  chiefs  dead and 

'tli\c

Ahwerease  Mankrado

Ahenease  Monkrado

!  am  not  sure  rhof  fhe  soie  motive  fo.- appointing  sons of  -chiefs  ia
court  offices  cs. adumbrated  <n the  above  statement,  :s V*>oily  j;oivect-
The  object1  is SAemplIfled  by  certain  offices  wiiich  are  w;cceeded  to  through
paternal  line. 
In Aburi,  Akwaptm  'Ahenmchene'  the  chief  o*  fhe  sons  of
chiefs,  both  fhe  current-  and  the  dead,  should  oe  'the eldest  son  oi  o  dead
chief,  and  fhe  relcrionship  is  complicated  when  fhe  son who  h  fhe  chief,
combines  this  office  with  another  derived  fV*m mcfrilmeai  conr>ec'.ions.
In  fact  this  Is  'the present  situation  In Abur»»  The  chief  of  th?  sons of
chfefe  Is aiso  rhe  'Amankrado'  or  'Asomanyov1.  ho  belongs  to  tl,e  'Asona
:4* fhe  paromountcy8
clan",  and  he  h  -a member  of  tlie  internal  structure' 
of  the  Akwapim  state,  His  »oy£|fyfij2LanG*  foremosf  rer.h, with  the  eiar,
and  the  members  of  the  clan  OT)3nhls~pla*ces  Sin;  it- or  ambivalent  position
vis-a-vis  his  relationship  with  his  father,  the  c h i e^  in  whose  court  he  serves
and  the  paramount  chief  at  Akropong,  with  wborr.  he  has common  clan.
In  all  events^  bi'oiogicai  affinity  creates  a-i  emotional  attachment  with  de —
facto  obligctfor.s  vis-a-vis  parent  -  child  fetaffonsSisp,  which  fhe  ;ndfv(duo!
can  never  extricate-  himself  from  even  If  the  rules  of  descent  impose  on  him
a  de  jure  obficjct<cr  in  respect  of  h;s  sister's  children,  the  emotional  racfore
weigh  heavily  against  rhe  soda!  forces 
instead  of  reci'ving  less attention  In  a  TiGtrtilpanf  system,  compete;
favourably 
for  nttenrion  w;th  social  paternity  Elements  of  dual  descent-
system  seem  tc  emerge  therefore  in  societies,,  which  hove  been  labelled
unilfneal  systems.  This  view  reinforces  Leach's  assumptions. 
fortes  has devJsed o  special  concept,  'complementary 

Therefore  biological  paternity,

Professor

filiation*,  which

1 ,  Unpublishec  thesis.  The  basis  of  politico!  autborlly  cf  fhe  Akwa-

pims  pop--  214,  Daragraph  2,  D . 2 1 6,  poropraph  2,

2. 

Ibid,  p. T«

ARTICLES

39,

holps him to ck-scril.'t  liii;  double  onrltnea! ofrme!.:  i.i  'fallen*!/
Ashanti  while  >ejocfinc. that  these societies  uc ;uoiiy  possess double
unilinca!  systems (Fortp?  1953  p.33;  1959h>.  ! propose  to  look more
closely  mm  ihis  question  of  the  conferment  of  po!JHco-%H<s*oI right on
sons In mainlined!  systems,  Recenf- researr-.  icvco!',  fnaf  in AshanM
since  1742  'potnlint-a!  stools'  have existed sim:iShi->eous'y  with matrl-
(Ineal  sfoofs.

• wc:i:> to  fitusfraf-e my thesis by glvinij  r«n a>.osr,f)!e of  paternal

succession  in a marrilifieal  system.  Akyeanipiin sioc-l 'Jay  history  reveals
that  ihe offlre  is succeeded 
by sons, and l-horeforc,  if  I:-  a  pafrillneal
sfool.  "(he.  itoo!  is called  'Sabin1 and  'Afriye'  sfooi* because of  its
historical  origin*.  Every occupant  of  this sfoos ewe?, aiiepionce  to the
Golden  Sfno! ond foi  this  reason,  If  is repuico" to be-, one of  the  important
stools  In Ashant-J,  1 his special  political  sfu'us  Is cxeinpfified  in  the type
of sword that  the rlurf  uses when swearing  to the" Asar.tehenc  on special
ceremonial  occasions.  The sword with v/Mch h;* Sv^ears allegiance  *"o the
Golden  Stool  is called  !Mponponsuo! Sword,  TH-'> '.wc-rd is used by all  the
important  chiefs of  llu» Ashants-Union  in ?wearinp {illegtonce  to  the Asante-
hene.  The or^upont  of  the Akyeampim  Stoo!  h «'«tso 'he iseod Clan chief of
the  Kyidot*  and Oorrrolkv/a  Division  part of  'he  Ashcnri  Ar^a,  According
to Akysornpim  Stoo'  history,  this stool  wo; ••.n'ai^.d  hr  o^e of  the Ashonf?
kingSj  Kirg  Obiri  Yeb-jah,  Obiri  Ye boa h Hod croat'sn Domatkwa Benkum
Stool with  a wide  jurisdiction  comprising :

Bole
Sewa
Amoako
Krapa
Akyereforom
Adense
Gyanyaase.

ARTICLES 

40.

Obiri  Yeboah  insisted that  the  Akyeampim  Stool which  he subsequently
created should have  political  pre-emince  over  the whole of  the Domaikwa
Benkum  Division,  and therefore  the original  designation  'Domaikwa Ben-
kum Stool1 was changed  into  'Akyeampim  Stool1,  a patrilineal  stool  with
many subordinate  matrilineal  stools.  The story surrounding  the  creation
of  this stoof  is that  Obiri  Yeboah  in  his old age decided  to give  his son,
Oheneba  Sabin,  a title  and therefore  created this stool  for him. 
It  is a
patrilineal  stool  'Mmamma  Dwa1. 
It  is exclusively  for sons and grand-
sons of  the  Golden  Stool,  that  is the Asantehene.  Oheneba  Sabin,  it  is
believed,  was given  this  title  in  recognition  of his filial  piety  demonstrated
during a critical  time when his father  was engaged  in a fierce battle at
Suntresu,  a town  in Ashanti.  This battle  is described as 'Dromaa War1  in
the  historical  records of Ashanti.

In the  heat of  this battle  it  is believed  that  all  the  important
chiefs who were  fighting  for  the king  were  routed, and the king sus-
tained a  fatal  injury.  Sabin was with  his father at  the time and when
aM the chiefs were vanquished,  he alone  struggled to stand by his
wounded  father,  the king.  After  the death of  Obiri  Yeboah,  Osei
Tutu,  his grand nephew,  it  is believed,  was at  Akwamu and the elders
of  the electoral  college  of  the kingdom  of Ashanti  decided to appoint
the  Kenyasehene,  Nana  Fredua Agyeman, a nephew of  the  late  King,
Obiri  Yeboah,  because the heir-apparent,  Ose? Tutu,  was a minor.
The  Kenyasehene  however  declined  the offer  to become the next  king,
so the  nobles who constituted  the electoral  college sent  for  Ose? Tutu
to  return  to  Kumasi to succeed his grand uncle,  Obiri  Yeboah.  When
Osef  Tutu was returning  to  Kumasi, Ansah Sasraku, the Akwamuhene,
provided  the Asantehene designate with a body-guard,  about  thirty
strong men.  Other sources maintain  that  there were three  hundred or
more men.

When Osei  Tutu came back  to  Kumasi he was formally

installed  Kumasihene.  Oheneba  Sabin,  the Akyeampimhene^did
homage to  the new  King along with  other  chiefs.  As first  generation

41 .

Akyt'i.ir.pimhene  he  had  to  be  introduced  to  the  new  king  and  his  status
explained  to  the  new  king  since  this  stool  was a  departure  from  the
mainstream  of  descent  and  succession  regulations  in  Ashanti.

Oheneba  Sabln  was  killed  in  another  war  and  he  was  succeeded
bv  Ohe.ieba  Owu$u  Afriyler  the  son  of  Osei  Tutu.  This  means  that  the
jxiietnoS  succession  to  this  stool  was  maintained  by  Osei  Tutu.  Oheneba
Ov/usy  Afriyie  died  as a  result  from  battle  wounds  in  the  battle  against
rhe  oroplo  af  leebiman,  and  he  was  succeeded  by  Oheneba  Osei  Kuffuor.

11.or"  is not  very  much  said  about  the  period  of  OseS  Kuffuor,

;  .,  ,•.,.;;.-,  !,,-•  died  he  wo,, succeeded  by  Oheneba  Owusu  Kuffoor.
* .•"•> i'i  iy-  "' vusu  Kuffuor  died  In  a  battle  and  he  was succeeded  b/
*.'•  ..- >i 

-•••.• Sei  Kra.  V/hen  Oheneba  AcJu Sel  Kra  died  he was

O> ennhn  Owusu  Ansah.  When  Oheneba  Owusu  Ansah
••>>•••  \i>.'-.P8ded  by  Oheneba  Qwusu  Koko  during  rhe  reign  of

i5  ,<  • -"••>•-'•>  f..»r>ii'  Panyin,  svhc wos  known  03 Nona  Osei  Tutu  Kwo?ne
'• 
•. 
• . '•. 

,'."'',  ->i\o  cf  rhe  great  kfnqs  of  Ashanti.  Oheneba  Ovwsu
• •-. i,-i  'warrior  and  lift  cccomponled  his  father  N010  Osei

. • 

•, 

•--•• l"-i<\  t-'hfi  Fr,nt< sjnd  Gyomon  weirs, 

in  th>~  latter  wot  J-Ke

k li

ieJ  by  fhe  A*!ton'is.  After  o

<,i'.i,'<ng  flu-  reigr.s,  '<f  three  kings  he  d>c?j  o.i

-.-AT-

V c . t ' j bu  '•sutsri^ 

I h li  v/os  during  ihe  'ftf-^i,

o 

.  He  remained  on  fhe  stool  at  fs»e fiVss ."»f
-..-•  -,|  ^-hiic  Uvvak • O'-oh,  cfta-.  King  ?r'Mtipf»i'  %  jnd  tie
••,"»IK?  wirS  >hv  Kir.cj,  ir,  lt"«^6.  White  Ohenebo  M»I->'»
'-,'>•?•  «,v!fh tho  Xing,  i*rempen  «  .  O'*>ertebo  Kwesi  Adobo

,. 

•  .  <"i-v  .-•  his  ploce  as iho  Ak'/eampimhene,  He  *as  followed
•'. 
-;'C  O>:-i  Fytu  when  Kwaku  Adabo  died  an un<!n>e!y  death.
.;  ,.ji-:;  s  renod  wos one  of  rhe  most  peaceful  periods  in  the  Ashatui
.:iv_  i'o)  rhere  was  cessation  of  hostilities  between  I he  Ashonfis
i-f.c  iv-iriih  of-  this  time,  however  short-lived  this  state  of  affairs

Whan  rhe  King  returned  from  the  Seychelles  in  1924,

ARTICLES 

42.

Oheneba  Kwaku  Dua  who  succeeded  Oheneba  Osei  Tutu  was  still
on  the  Akyeampim  stool.  He  saw  part  of  the  reign  of  the  present
Asantehene  ! lp but  he  was  destooled  for  an  act  of  conspiracy  against
the  present  monarch.  Owusu  Afriyie  !l  was appointed  in  his  stead.
Owusu  Afriyie  h  a  grandson  of  the  stool  in  patrilineal  line  and  he
was  also  destooled  for  malpractices.  When  Oheneba  Afriyie  was
desiooled  the  present  Akyeampimhene  was  installed  in  his  stead,  his
name  is  Oheneba  Boakye  Dankwa  . . .. 
maintained  paternal  succession  for  such  an  important  stool  as  the
Akyeampimhene.

This  stool  has  consistently

1st  Chief: 

2nd  Chief: 

3rd  Chief: 

4th  Chief: 

5fh  Chief: 

6th  Chief: 

7th  Chief: 

8th  Chief: 

9th  Chief: 

10th  Chief: 

11th  Chief: 

Oheneba  Sabin  Panyin

OHeneba  Owusu  Afriyie  -  entered

Christianborg  1742

Oheneba  Osei  Kuffuor

Oheneba  Adu  Osei  Kra

Oheneba  Owusu  Koko

Oheneba  Subire

Oheneba  Kwasi  Adabo

Obeneba  Osei  Tutu

Oheneba  Kwaku  Duah  (destooled)

Oheneba  Owusu  Afriyie  (destooled)

Oheneba  Boakye  Dankwa  (the  present
Akyeampimhene  -  enstooled  1947)

is  quite  >,.:- 

,i  ••  M

,.-;-!  hhtc-.y  !hut 

r  AihanH  sr-i-,,

n-iv 

, 

. 

•",! ' f ' l i l On  of  S i l th  '"'*"'[•""?.-

' C!. 

"•{"••••<.e"  I i.  K i n s h ip  a nd

• " !-

t  H I, '•  ».  --c.irr 

,>  ,»  [>'.

-<V|"',"  t

^  ;o

r«nc!  •,-'  j  i i \.

v  .•  ,  *  !  (•

f
t he

»'  •  ,,?tr j tf 
. 

!-».>•,  T-r-vOy  t . i a ' r e t j. 

!"r;^  r'tc<ric.r<  *^  ' • > !. p wt  i i c c,  b e c a u se 
/*«.•  "••  r'u-  -.  ,  >  -n,»osi'-> 
;"  ,* i  - ,'  >• 

.,  ,<>', ,iion 

'  > -. 

in  t he

•.-lyredienfs  of

>  >'•  v*'  Q>'4 efnrr.snHe  ur.f.iicafIon', and

t H"f  •'  one  caiiH'  prt.'ents  itself

.V '  f.^i , 
. •  .'•-,-•;  '••  5,  ••(  < -CMGI  ! ifr-nt  -:ri.»fr<but"ory
- 

v  •,.;;  •> i - ^ ' i n c jj  -•  .;**!"  orr.

.i-,.'  *• 

. !,'.->< 

•  , 

,'  <;•  •.  •;> 
• 
,, 
:  • - .
.< i."  ,' 

. 
•  f  >; i.'ti  *.u.i'r. 
-i 

>i  .',  . >  -c 
ii  ij ;<|;o'fi{J/. 

•  me  ••  e j t i al
' f hf  b a s ic

; •. 
'-•,*.  » N !t< liitit  p.irr'iMve  poop!**

-y 

<hk  1> .'  ! >gicai  result'

, " • •' 

(,--.;  *•'*rra  ore  >/>ed  to  describe

!> ••to!i"  ,t.J-.  t).'/>.-  u l f f C fl  ii  Jock  Cv p r t-
'•>.i-*:>iJ 
;•"•  ' i j fi  'i  « .-  'wo  ersi1'  N> t i x e m p l i f y,  In
I,---,  j-sirvf)!.'  ; •  i no  liiff-'fpficftfc  between
O U M I- 

'*-«i<  tin  iystems  of  Kinship
'  (••  ^jntO  term  Abusuo  Is  used

'< c  «ing!i»  somofo  ancestress

i  ,  t  tf.»-s 
,•!•  'ip  f - r t v o nw 
»..!?.". >c % is  "!<"n.*iuily  '. lairned.''  Busla  in  his
!  r,  :fi<>  iv'Vvio-r, PoiiHcnf  ^yitprr.  of  AshnnM",
''*i 
,  , 
"•:«!..' 

' i  oo  .•• no!  "i.'d  c-r  l<*'kc  anything  away
'.•>  ; , . *.  4,-  ;..;. o  f v p ti  i My by  spelling  ft

'  'V,-  rX.ury  of- nrocreaHon held  In

ARTICLES

Ashanr:  is trni  c  human being  :s compounded of  fwo  principles:  the
Kb!ood'  (rrsogy.:),  which he  inherits  from the  mother,  and the other
'spirit'  (:^roro; which  is derived  through  his father.  For  political
purposes  the  nafnHneei  bovtd  b  more significant  . . ." 
two,  F'j.i'es-Bt'iU-!,  ^cnernenis  together  and  juxtaposing  them by
"i\'l*.!r.;,::x  deo.li with  in  connection  with  certain  offices  occupied by
;i£ople  whoie  links with  there  stools are  patrilineal  in  content,  and
since  there are  many of  such offices  nor  only  in Ashanti  but  even  in
Akropong  and Aburi,  Akwapim,  both  matrilineal  societies,  one begins
to wonder  whether  the hypotheses  put  forward by  Fortes and Busia are
sustainable  in all  situations.

Taking the

I  now want  to discuss these  two concepts  'abusua' and'ntoro1
;o-:-pof.!-ively.  Acrording  to  Busio  the  term  "abusua1 refers to members
of a merri lineage,  and signifies  common blood ties,  and eponymous
ancestress.  He does not  however  tell  us what  term  is used for agnates.
I  say thi"; because similar  situation  is found to exist  among the  Nuer
of  the  Eer-f-em Sudan,  Consistent  with  the  tradition  in vogue Sn
anthropological  studies at  the  time,  Professor  Evans-Pritchard dis-
tinguished nrsd described  two  types of  Kinship  ties by  the  terms  'buth1
and  'Mar1. 
'Buth is always an agnarit:  relationship  between groups
of  persons,  and only  between  oersons by virtue  of  their  membership
of  groups. *3u?h'agnation  is to be distinguished  from kinship  in the
sense of  relationshio  between  persons  e.g.  between a man and his
father's  brother  cmd mothers  brother.  Cognation  in  this sense the
Nuer  rail  'mar1.  Any  person  to whom a man can trace any  genealo-
gical  i<nk  whether  through  male or  females  is mar to him1.

"A  man's mar are  consequently  all  his father's kin  and all  his

mother's k'n,  and we call  fins  cognatic  category  his kindred.  In
normal  usage Hie word  refers  to c;iase  relatives  only.  Therefore, as
mar  includes agnates, 

the  word Buth  Is used only  in  reference  to

ARTICLES 

45.

distant agnates". 
"Buth" then  refers to only  distant  relatives who
are agnates,  and  "mar"  refers  to both  relatives  either  on the mother's
or  father's  side.

Two terms have been devised  to shew the difference  in  this
case.  There  is however a concealed attempt  to distinguish  between
sociological  paternity  and biological  paternity,  the  'ghost'  of  typo-
logical  modelling  is seen manifesting  itself  even  in his analysis.
But  I want  to go back  to  the two  terms used by both  Fortes and Busia
as basis of  their  classification  matrilineal/patrilineal  societies,
Ashanti  being  matrilineal  because of  its descent  system with  its  jural-
politicoand  social  concomittanrs.  Mr.  A . C.  Denteh,  an associate
fellow  of  the  Institute  of African  Studies,  University  of  Ghana, has
thrown a flood  of  light  on these two concepts  (cf. 
In the  Research
Review of  1967 Vol.3  Lent Term  Issue,  p.91).  He writes as follows:
"The two sociological  terms,  Ntoro and Nton  in Akan,  have been
summarily  treated as though  they were one and the same thing. 
It has
been suggested that  'synonymous  terms for  Ntoro  are  Nton,  Sunsum, or
bosom1;,  but a  further Study of  Ntoro  has revealed  that  Ntoro  is not
synonymous with  Ntcn.  The writer  of  the statement quoted above must
have been  led  into  that error by a previous writer  whose definition  of
Ntoro was not explicit  enough. 
In that definition,  an example under
one of  the various  meanings was given as follows: 
*Me nton or me
ntoro  n i ',  and the meaning vaguely  given was  'we are of  the same
ancient  family,  worshipping  the same fetish.*  This writer's  difficulty
can be appreciated as his  informants  must have confused him by stating
that  "in Akuapem,  Ntoro  is both  patnlineal  and matrillneal. "*

Denteh maintained authoritatively  that  there  had been great

confusion surrounding  these terms*  He says further that  the term refers
to  the spirit  and other  totemic  spirits which are generally  transmitted
from father  to son or daughter.  The concept seems to me to be the way

1. 

Evans-Pritchard,  E.E.,  The Nuer,  Oxford  1956.

2.  Research Review,  Vol.3  1967,  p.91.

ARTICLES

46.

the  Akans describe  their  cosmologica!  ideas.  A  close examination  of
available  evidence  reveals  that  the  individual,  instead of  being com-
pounded of  blood and spirit  which  is interpreted  'ntoro'  and  'mogya1
according  to  Busia and  Fortes,  has also got  other  spirits  which seem
to be quite  different  constituents  of  the  individual's  personality.  What
we are  never  sure of  is fhe  use of  such an exercise which  involves the
introduction  of  ideas  into  the  social  structure  to make  it  look  what  it  is
not  in  reality.  The Akans  lay  more emphasis on the  part  played by male
partners  in  the  procreation  of  childien,  and this  is exemplified  in the
procedural  arrangements  preceding  marriages.

Let me quote  from unpublished  thesis  "The  Basis of  Political

Authority  of  fhe Akwapims",  page  163,  E.O.  Ayisi.  "Marriage  in
every  case  is approached with  great  caution,  and utilitarian  motives.
Parental  consent  is the  prerequisite  of every  good marriage.  Before
parents give  their  consent  to any  marriage,  case histories  of suitor or
future  son-in-law  are  collected  in a clandestine  way by  the woman's
people., 
It  is a common belief  among the  Akwapims  that  peculiarities
and temperaments  of  the  individual,  particularly  those of  the male
partner,  are  transmitted  to  the off-spring.  This of  course  is consistent
with  scientific  knowledge  in genetics.  Geneticists  maintain  that  certain
female  genes produce  certain  pecvliarities  of  the  individual  while  the
male genes are  responsible  for  other  peculiarities.  By this  same token
the Akwapims  believe  that  an  individual  is compounded of both genes
from the  parent?.  Any anri-socia!  tendencies  in any of fhe  parents may
manifest  ihemseives  in  the  off-spring,  for  H-.ls  reason marriage  should
be  carefully  screened and vetted,  According  to  Fortes the  individual's
desfsny,  ana,  in  fact,  whole  fife  IJ dominated by his parental  influences,,
arm' thus both  the  male and  female  partners are equally  important.
Fortes quotes  Boscon  in  his book  "West African  Religion". 
Iwck  and his success  in economic  and other affairs  is also a matter  of

i!A  person's

ARTICLES 

47

destiny  (ayanmope,  ayanmo)  or  fafe  (iwa)  which  is also known as  'to
kneel  and choose'  (akunleyan).  Before  a child  is born  its soul  is said
to  kneel  before  a deity".  He goes on to explain  the spiritual  forces
which  guide  and direct  the  life  of  the  individual  in all  matters.  The
point  I want  to make  is that  both  parents are  important  in  this  matter.

In mortuary  rites  among the Akwapims,  it  is the children  who

provide  the coffin  and perform all  the  important  rites. 
If  the deceased
is a chief  the  children are  the  first  persons to know of  this before any-
one,  even  before  the  father's  sister's  children  who have vested  interest
in  the office  in a matrilineally  structured  society.

Certain  ideas about  incest  indicate  that  the Akans believe  that
the mother does not  provide  the blood exclusively,  an  important  cons-
tituent  of  the  individual. 
the blood.  Here  if  I understand  it  rightly,  it  may be presumed that
semen is regarded as blood by  the Akans.

Incest  is  interpretted  'Mogyafra' mixing  of

"The  classification  of  societies  into  patrilineal  and  matrilineal

There  is a mixing  of blood  if  sexual  intercourse  occurs between
close  relatives.  The  practices  of  the  Akans  in many ways are  not cons-
istent  with  these  categories  matri I ineal/patri lineal.  Some eminent  social
anthropologists  are  rather  equivocal  about  this conceptual  arrangement,
and  even  Professor  Raymond  Firth  in  his book, 'We  the  Tikopia1,  page  298
writes: 
would  have  no meaning  if  by  that  were  implied an exlusive  concentration
in all  social  affairs  on one or  the  other  line  to  the  total  neglect  or  rigid
repression  in  the  other. 
It  is now  recognized  that  in all  communities  the
kin  o(  the  mother  and  those of  the  father  have  each  a  role  to  play.  They
supplement  each  other,  sometimes  occupying  reverse  positions  in  dif-
ferent  cases,  but.necessary  integral  part  of  the  social  mechanism1.
The designation  of a  community as patrilineal  or  matrilineal

means no more,  therefore,  than  that  the  most basic  criterion  of  social
status,  membership of  kinship group,  is determined  through  the  male
or  female  line  respectively". 

I am not sure that  the meaning  given  to

ARTICLES

4 8.

!  fee!  that  Leac'^s  position  in  this  rnaffer  is  gaining
i  listenrv.)  io  Dr.  L.  Leach's  lecture  on  this  subject,

this  concept  agrers  wirn  the  connotation  which  the  term  has  acquired
over  the  years. 
some  support., 
one  ot  rhe  i'>",\  ;,<:rses ot  the  Malinowski's  Memorial  Lectures,  At  the
t'^if:  i  rhoughf  Leach's  lecture  was  thought-provoking,  he  wcsj cs bit
heretical.  Two  days  after  I  had  hea-d  him  !  revised  my  view  ond  I
wrote  to  ask  him  a  few  questions  which  S  wanted  clarified.

!  had  a  iong  and  an  interesting  letter  from  him.  The  sub-

Stance  of  this  letter  was  that  the  procedures  of  research  and  discussion
of  ail  anthropological  problems  necessarily  entailed  the  setting  up  of
categories  and  by  this  he  meant  classification;,-  but  he  maintained  that
ve  must  re\ect  any  tendency  to  think  in  Aristofaiean  terms.  The
categories  are,  according  to  Dr.  Leach,  temporary  expedients,  and
they  do  not  correspond  ro  "natural  entities1'. 
that  anthropologists  musr  constantly  go  through  'the  routine  of  question-
ing  the  value  and  utility  ot  currently  accepted  categories.  Orthodoxy,
he  further  maintained^  was  nurtured  when  the  vested  interests  of  Profes-
scr-i  were  different  ond  are  now  out  of  date  and  unless  we  reject  the
Professors'  categories  now  we  shall  find  it  difficult  to question  the
flogic'  of  their  argument  which  flows  from  the  categories'. 
developed  this  thesis  in  his  book  'Rethinking  Anthropology',  The
difficulty  is  how  to  break  away  from  these  categories  without  shaking
the  foundations  of  the  whole  discipline.

*:or  this  reason  be  urged

Leach has

ARTICLE

1 ,

2.

3.

5.

6.

7.

The  N - j ct  ,  M e y er  Fortes  Ox-for.;  t1 

(-,.<

h . E.  b/cms-Priichard.  Ox top]  U 
!!•>»  web  of  kinship  amonn  ttv 

ix-.-rii-, 

!-,v 

; 

; - - j.

j>if''••"•  ; '• •c  -m  '.  ••'•.•fi1,1.' y

We  the  Tilcopia.  Kinship  In  Primiiiv-  Po;,-n
Firth  . 

1957  e d i t i o n.

. .i  L"«  Kuyinond

Tor-  Position  of  the  Chief  in  the  'V. 
Ashanti  by  K . A.  Busia.

i  -'-i  ;-"':ii

M>"-ni  o!

Man and Culture.  An  Evaiua!i on
Edited  by  Raymond  F i r t h.  Routchc:"  :  c,-\i  ",'<•-!.:  Pi-ci  19.*'"/.

*>i M oi <

A f r i c an  Systems  of  Kinship  and  M a r p o - i r.  L•.;':•-•<!  !:y  P c r y i!
f o r d e,  1956  e d i t i o n.

Studies  in  Kinship  and  M a r r i a g e, 
iVdiCL-'^j  '••--  ';,>.,<  )v. 
Selignuan  on  her  80th  'birthday,  Edited  !.>,-  '• *  i c h a p e i c.
Royal  Anfh'opologicaf 

Institute  of  Qu;o'  Bti-','••'  or.d  Irelar-j  1963,

i,

Rethinking  Anthropology  by  London  Scboos  ,./ 
monograph  on  social  anthropology  by  E.R. 

lc;s>:li-.

;.-onomics