D.E.K. Araenumey: The Ewe in Pre-Colonial Tiaes.
Sedco Publishing Ltd., Accra, 1986. pp.122 with map.
Price: £260.00.

In  1975, D.E.K.  Amenumey  published  an  article  entitled  'Hew
Myths  in  the History  of Ghana: Anlo-Asante Relations', in which
he  strongly  contested  what  he  considered  to  be  the  myth  of
Asante  political  and  military  domination  of  the  Anlo-Ewe,  who
are  located  in  the  south-eastern  corner  of  Ghana.  This  same
concern  about  Ewe/non-Ewe  relations  is  also  one  of  the  major
concerns of his most recent publication, and the subject of- this
review,  The  Ewe  in  Pre-Colonial  Tiaes. According  to  Amenumey,
one of  the purposes of The Ewe is to rectify  'certain ideas and
pieces  of  information  about  the  Ewe  past  [that  have  gained]
currency  in  general  works  produced  by  authors  who  have  no
special  knowledge  of  Ewe  history'1 
In  this  most  recent
publication, Amenumey  explores in greater depth than his earlier
article, the history  and  external  relations of the Anlo as well
as other Ewe-speaking communities located in Ghana and Togo.

The volume itself  is rather a slim one, having only 101 pages
of text, and  it focuses almost exclusively  on the political and
military  history  of  three  communities: the Anlo, Ge and Krepi.
Even in the discussion of the history of these areas, sources of
information  are  limited.  The  history of pre-colonial Krepi, for
example,  is  based  almost  solely  on  two  sources.  This  is  a
reflection  of  the  amount  and  focus  of  the  historical  research
conducted  on the pre-colonial Ewe up to 1978 when it appears the
author  concluded his research for the book; given this situation
- ameliorated  only  slightly  by more  recent  studies  on  the pre-
colonial  social and economic history of certain Ewe groups2 - it
is hoped by both the author and this reader, that the appearance
of this  study will  stimulate additional interest in research on
the history of the Ewe.

The  Ewe  is  organized  into  seven  chapters:  the  first  is
concerned  with  an  examination  of  the migration  of  the Ewe into
their  present  homeland,  while  the  remaining  chapters  are
concerned  with  the  political  and military  affairs  of  the three
areas mentioned  above. Organizing themes for the latter chapters
include  questions  about  the  source of disunity  and  the  lack of
large  states  among  the  Ewe,  as  well  as  the  issue  of  foreign
(non-Ewe)  intervention  in  Ewe  affairs.  In  chapter  two,  for
example,  Amenumey  examines  the  history  of  Ge,  its  military
conflicts  with  Dahomey  and  Anlo,  and  then  he  explores  the
question as to why this expansionary  state was unable to expand
by political  and/or military means to create a  single political
entity embracing most, if not all of the Ewe. Political disunity
and economic reasons are mentioned, but according to Amenumey 'a
more  crucial  factor  that was  to contribute to  the  irresolution

73

of the process of aggregation was that of foreign political and
military  intervention.'3 In chapters three and four, the history
of  the  coastal  state  of  Anlo  is  examined  in  terms  of  their
relations with Akwamu and Denmark. The disunifying  influence of
these  powers  is  also  emphasized.  Chapter  five  examines  the
history of Krepi and its relations with Akwamu, where the latter
conquered  the  former.  Chapter  six  explores  the  later
pre-colonial  history  of  the Ge  state which  was  torn  asunder by
competing political factions.

In  all  of  these  chapters, a  blizzard  of  details  about wars,
political  alliances  and  economic  relations  is  presented.  In
support,  for  example, of  h'is contentions  about  the  disruptive
nature  of  foreign  intervention  in  Ewe  affairs,  he  cites  the
following  account  by  the  late  seventeenth  century  author,
William  Bosnian.  ' [Ge  and  Anlo] were  pretty  even  in  force and
Aquanboe  (Akwamu) who would  keep  them  both  on  foot  takes care
that  neither  be  destroyed  by  sending assistance  to  the weakest
side.1  In this way Akwamu was able to thwart the expansion of
both  Anlo  or  Ge  control  over  the  lower  Slave  Coast.  Where
problems arise is when Amenumey continues with this same line of
reasoning  for  the  period  after  1730  when  Akwamu  had  been
defeated  and  had  relocated  east of the Volta  in a much reduced
position vis-a-vis the other states on the lower Gold  Coast and
upper  Slave  Coast.  He  states  that  after  1730  'the  Akwamu-Anlo
relation  was  one of a politico-economic alliance  ... Akwamu was
assured  of regular supplies of salt and dried  fish  [as well as]
the coastal markets to which she could take her  slaves for sale
... Anlo  was  assured  of military  assistance  ...'5  This assis-
tance was necessary as Anlo fought numerous wars with the Ge and

" 

*T 

To th 
*  \ 

Crf 9 *°, "T"**'  *** confllcts b<*ween «• *»* *»l0
«  °f  C O T*e t l*9  Political  and  economic
a t t««*ed  to  attain  territorial
S U Ch  *i ze as  ™»™  Provide security and power, and
e C°n O m lC  vell~i>^g'  .6  £ 
°. "*  *kw"u was  b u l"  «  political and
tO  b o th  Parties,  while  the
o ut  °f  conflicting

also  aanL 
allianceb., " 
economic  -l?*? 
hostSties  betwl8  a, *""lt 
interests  in  ht 

°, *"*  Ge  " "^ 

o t her 

w o rds,

Pfr t i 6S 

^H 

U i.  c a if4

M l«'  ^wever,  Amenumey  notes  that

possibility  of  Ewe  uSty  w he re  t'h 
political and economy h 
post-1730 Akwamu dlin If 

to
Amenumey  t a ^ e s T i ^r  ** m°h  ** i n t r« ~^  relationship.

! 
e re  aPPe a rs  to  have  been  no
taC*  ±n  his  <»i8c«*sion  of the
Akwamu domination of Krepi. He  states that  -Akwamu had

P  ^  " "^  ^ ^^ 

74

been  able to maintain  her hold  on Krepi not only because of her
superior  military  power  ...  but  also  because  of  the  lack  of
cooperation  between  the  various  Krepi  towns...  Some  like  Peki
...  actually  fought  alongside  Akwamu  to  subject  the  defiant
towns.'8  The  historical  details  are  correct,  but  the  tone  in
which they are discussed  suggests that the Peki association with
Akwamu  (like  that  of  Anlo's  association)  against  other
Ewe-speaking  communities  was  somehow  an  unnatural  one.
Ultimately,  this  interpretation  rests  on  the  idea  that  the Ewe
should  have  been  able  to  unite. But it is obvious, at least to
this reader, that people do not unite simply because they  share
a  common  language.  Rather,  they  do  so  because  they  have
interests  that  overlap,  or  one  party  is  able  to  dominate  the
other, and has a desire to do so, not for linguistic or cultural
reasons,  but  for  economic  and  political  reasons.  Amenumey
recognizes  this  when  he  discusses  the various  histories  of  the
three  Ewe  communities, but  he  is continually  drawn  back  to the
ideal  of  Ewe  unity  in  his  conclusions.  The  result  is  a
significant  discontinuity  between the historical  reality and the
implications he would like to draw from the same.

Another  troublesome  area  is  in  those  sections  in  which
Amenumey attempts to engage in a debate with some of the authors
on  whose  work  he  is  relying.  In  discussing,  for  example,  the
pre-1730  Akwamu  domination  of  Anlo,  he  notes  that  Akwamu  did
launch  an  expansionary  campaign  across  the Volta  in  1702, that
this  state  was  certainly  capable  of  conquering  Anlo, and  that
four  different  historians  state  that  Anlo  was,  indeed,
conquered.  Presumably,  these  historians were  not  creating  facts
out  of  whole  cloth.  Yet  Amenumey  states  that  'there  is  no
positive  evidence' that Akwamu did  conquer Anlo. He states this
without  investigating  for the reader, the sources of information
used  by  the  other  historians,  or  providing  additional
information  to support a reasonable doubt about the conquest. It
would  appear  then,  that  his  assertion  on  this matter  was made
not because evidence exists to support such a view, but because
other  interests  are  given  priority  over  conclusions  that  he
perhaps  finds  less palatable. This approach, evident throughout
the book,  is troubling  as  it mars what  is otherwise a laudable
effort  to  bring  to  the  general  reader,  information  about  a
people who have played and are playing a significant role in the
history of Ghana and Togo.

Sandra E. Greene.

75

HOIKS

1.  Amenumey, D.E.K. The Ewe in Pxe-Colonial Tines, p.vii.
2.  See  for  example, Sandra  E. Greene,  'Land, Lineage  and  Clan
in  Early  Anlo1,  Africa:  The  Journal  of  the  International
African Institute, 51. 1. 1981; 'Conflict and Crisis: A Note
on the Workings of the Political Economy and Ideology of the
Anlo-Ewe  in  the  Precolonial  Period',  Rural  Africana,  17
(Pall)  1983;  'The  Past  and  Present  of  an  Anlo-Ewe  Oral
Tradition1,  History  in  Africa,  12,  1985;  and  Ansa,  K.
Asamoa, The Ewe in  South-eastern  Ghana  and  Togo on  the Eve
of Colonialism. (Tema: Ghana Publishing Corporation, 1986).

3.  Amenumey, op. cit. p.29.
4.  Amenumey, op. cit. p.30-31.
5.  Amenumey, op. cit. p.34.
6.  Amenumey, op. cit. p.35.
7.  Amenumey, op. cit. p.101
8.  Amenumey, op. cit. p.77-78.