Comradeship or War Rivals: Asante -Dagomba Relationship over the Centuries

History is shaped by those who tell and write the story and may include dominant and marginalised narratives and perspectives. Therefore, research and contemporary historical accounts that fail to engage diverse perspectives promote and perpetuate the silencing, marginalisation and misrepresentation of certain groups and narratives. Hence, this piece explores Dagbon perspectives as a marginalised narrative in the Asante-Dagbon relationship literature. 

A conversation with my Mum, Dagbon and other historians, and griots, written accounts from some Asante, Dagomba, and other historians, and an examination of archives showed that the history I have known since childhood is not a myth but an untold and/or marginalised story in most written literature. The Asante-Dagomba relationship began due to trade. Yendi was a trade route linking the Southern forest belt to Timbuktu and Gao, present-day Northern Mali. Upon the Europeans’ arrival and introduction of Western products, the Asantes assumed the role of middlemen. They acquired captives through warfare and commerce with other merchants (e.g., relations with Samour), thereby exchanging European goods, including guns and gunpowder, for captives.  Therefore, there is a possibility of a commercial exchange between the two tribes during the slave trade.

In addition, according to Dagomba and some Asante historians, camaraderie is an attribute of the Asante-Dagbon relations. The Asantes enlisted the help of Dagbon warriors to fight alongside them as comrades, as they were tall, well-built, very good strategists and archers, and the Asantes were short people. Eventually, their relationship evolved into a marital alliance between Dagombas and Asantes; even Yaa Naa Gariba I had an Asante wife, according to oral history. Consequently, some Asantes today have ancestry from the Dagomba lineage, especially the tall ones. Therefore, the Asante-Dagomba relationship progressed from camaraderie to marital alliance.

However, the possibility of a minor tension between the two tribes stems from Yaa Naa Gariba I’s journey to Kumasi in the 18th century. While some schools of thought hold that his journey was voluntary and for diplomatic purposes, others favour involuntary capture. The reason for the journey, however, remains unclear, with diverse perspectives.  

The consistency across the two groups is that Yaa Naa Gariba I was carried by the Asante warriors as a King in a palanquin to wherever they reached, then back to Yendi. However, the fact that he did not reach Kumasi and was brought back by the Asante warriors presents a complication. Those who favour the voluntary diplomatic visits are of the view that those carrying him kept dying, and while the Asantehene continued sending more people, the death toll kept increasing, and so they had to send him back. While others hold that Naa Saalan Ziblim, the successor to Yaa Naa Gariba, reached an agreement with the Asantehene to repay the debt (i.e., slaves owed for the supply of goods, including guns and gunpowder) owed by Naa Gariba, hence his release, without reaching Kumasi. Another perspective is that Naa Saalan Ziblim contacted the Asantehene to help him get Yaa Naa Gariba I out of Yendi so that he could become the Yaa Naa, and slaves and goods were agreed on as the means of payment.  

Although there is inconsistency regarding whether Yaa Naa Gariba’s voyage was forced or voluntary, he was accorded the same respect and treatment as a royal Asante King and carried in a palanquin. Also, there were Asantes in Yendi as middlemen for commercial exchange in captives and goods in the Yendi market, and not to exact tribute. Moreover, some of the Asante warriors in Yendi chose to settle there and became known as Dagban Kambonsi (Asantes), part of the warrior clan of the Dagbon Kingdom. Therefore, while oral history supports diplomacy in Yaa Naa Gariba’s journey to Kumasi. The cause of death of the Asante warriors carrying him remains unclear, but is attributed to a cultural mismatch. The Asantes carry their Kings, the Dagombas do not. However, Naa Saalan Ziblim is possibly involved in Yaa Naa Gariba I’s voyage to meet the Asantehene and subsequently, the exchange of captives. As to whether he was a collaborator or mediator, repaying a debt of his predecessor, or his own, is uncertain.

Motariga (2024), in his book, ‘The Untold History of the Dagbamba People’, and Haas (2017), in his academic articletitled ‘A View From the Periphery: A Re-Assessment of Asante- Dagbamba Relations in the 18th Century’, show that there was no war between the Asantes and the Dagombas. The two written archival accounts, which might have insinuated this supposed war in 1744/45 and 1772, have not specifically mentioned Dagbon, though Yendi is insinuated by the writers who support the war and tribute claim. The evidence of the early 20th-century writers and supporters of the war and tribute claim came from an 18th-century document, the Kitāb Ghanjā, written in Arabic by a Gonja ulamaa in the 1750s and a reliable account of the Coast of Guinea (1760), being the memoir of Ludwig Ferdinand Rømer, a Danish merchant stationed for a time at Christiansborg Castle (which referenced the Kitāb Ghanjā).

In the Kitāb Ghanjā, ‘GhGh’ is written as a town in the north invaded and conquered by the Asante warriors, and ‘ GhGh’ is insinuated to be Yendi. However, in two sections of the same, Kitāb Ghanjā, Yandi (Yendi) is mentioned twice. The first is recorded as ‘death of the King of Yandi, Yaa Naa Zanjina,’ while the second record mentions his successor, Yaa Naa Andani – Siɣli as the next King of Yandi.  This means that when the writers want to specifically refer to Yendi, they do so explicitly as Yandi, which is recognisable and relatable in the context in which it is mentioned. So, if the writer could mention Yendi elsewhere, why rely on unclear contraction in the instance of the war and tribute? This assertion is supported by both Haas (2017) and Motariga (2024) in their studies.  Also, my visit to Salaga and conversation with the historian and cultural officer at the Salaga slave market and museum show that there was a battle between the Asantes and Gonjas at Kpembe (Kpembi) and, subsequently, payments of tribute in slaves. However, he refuted any claims of war between the Asantes and the Dagombas.  Therefore, using the Kitāb Ghanjā to claim a war and payment of tributes by the Dagombas to the Asantes is not a fact but a conjecture. 

However, this conjecture is readily promoted and accepted as a fact, perpetuating a single-sided story and marginalising other perspectives. The Dagombas, for a long time, often shared their history through griots but failed to write it down. The late adoption of Western education, as they assumed it was meant for the poor, as confirmed by Haas’s (2017) research in Dagbon from 2006 to 2014 and by Staniland (1975:54) in his article called ” The Lions of Dagbon, resulted in their adoption of Western education a century or more later, and contributes to our history being told by others, who at best misinterpret and misrepresent them or, at worst, fabricat information for socio-political interests. 

Therefore, there is no definitive evidence supporting any war between the Asantes and the Dagombas. There is more evidence highlighting their comraship or what Iliasu (1971) referred to as “politico-economic symbiosis.”  The Asantes were in direct contact with the Europeans for trade, not the Dagombas, but it did not mean they did not acquire some European goods. The provision of captives to the Asantes did occur, and it is more likely a commercial exchange rather than tribute. 

By: Huzeima Mahamadu