Colonial forts and castles in twenty-first-century Ghana – spatial and functional layout in rapidly changing urban tissue

Among the 24 analysed forts, 15 were available for sightseeing to interested parties (table 1). All of these sites charge an entry fee. The price ranges from 10 to 50 cedi (GH₵). At certain sites, where the price is above 30 cedi, it includes a tour of the museum inside the fort. Organised exhibitions in the form of museums can only be found in six forts. Fourteen sites can or have to be toured while accompanied by a guide (included in the price). In certain cases, tipping the guide was also suggested. Thirteen sites (more than half of them) do not fulfil a tourist function or the tourist function is not the main one.

In 1979, UNESCO entered “Forts and Castles, Volta, Greater Accra, Central and Western Regions” on the World Heritage List (UNESCO 1979). The organisation states that the entry covers facilities that are classified into five groups (UNESCO 2024):

• three castles (in Accra, Elmina and Cape Coast);

• fourteen well-preserved forts;

• four forts, partially in ruins (in Abandze, British Komenda, Butre and Keta);

• five forts with ruins with visible structures (in Mouri, Old Ningo, Dutch Komenda, Prampram and Akwida);

• two locations with traces of former fortifications (Frederiksborg in Cape Coast and Augustaborg in Accra).

The research described herein covers all sites from groups 1, 2 and 3, as well as one from group 4 – Fort Nassau at Mouri. Therefore, the analysis covers 24 sites in total: 22 out of 28 sites that are included on the UNESCO List, and two sites not listed there.

It should be noted in particular that two of the analysed sites are not included on the List. The first is the remains of Fort Elize Carthago (figure 2), established by the Dutch in 1702, and lies near the mouth of the Ankobra River on the Atlantic coast (Marshall 2021). The site comprises the foundations of a former fort, covered by a thick forest and located on a plot of land that belongs to the German owner of a nearby hotel, Ankobra Beach Resort. Thus, the monument is private property and, so far, no measures have been taken to prevent its further degradation. The second site is Fort Kongensten, founded by the Danish in 1783, and located in the town of Ada in the western part of the country. The site has been almost completely destroyed as a result of the continuously rising sea level, although archaeological works, resulting in numerous discoveries, have been conducted there over the past few years (Aryee & Apoh 2018). In our opinion, the remaining ruins of the two aforementioned forts should be immediately added to the 1979 entry; these sites are currently in danger of being completely obliterated.

Figure 2.

The remaining ruins of Fort Elize Carthago near the Ankobra River mouth, without any protection and not included on the UNESCO List

Source: Authors’ photography, August 2022

The original function of the majority of the analysed sites was trade – first, this was in gold; then, the primary focus gradually shifted to the slave trade, in which all European empires that owned land in Africa between the fifteenth and the nineteenth century, without exception, participated to some extent. These sites were established for the purpose of trade in gold and slaves, and were – in part – defensive forts. However, from 1807, a ban on slave trading was gradually introduced for citizens of Great Britain (Berlin 2003), which established the Gold Coast colony in 1821 on the Gulf of Guinea. Officially, around 1865, the slave trade was legally prohibited across the land and at sea throughout the empire (Morgan 2007). As a result of the abolishment of slavery, forts had to be assigned new functions. In some cases, they were completely abandoned and, in extreme instances, they were dismantled to reuse the raw materials. During the nineteenth century, the functions of the forts changed completely (van Dantzig 1980). Prior to the decolonisation of the Gold Coast, the British – and, earlier, the Dutch and the Danish – utilised these relics of the bygone era in various manners. Initially, some of them continued to fulfil military and defensive functions – for example, against the attacks by Africans from the interior during the Anglo-Ashanti wars in 1823–1900. Over time, the military function became the leading one for the majority of the sites, which served as resource bases for the war waged in the interior – as warehouses, barracks or reloading stations. It was then also that the last group of forts, which were supposed to protect larger facilities, was established – for example, two of the sites covered by the analysis, located in Cape Coast, namely Fort Victoria (built in 1820 as Phipps’ Tower) and Fort William (1821).

In 1872, when the Dutch withdrew from the Gold Coast, all forts on the coast were ultimately taken over by the British. By the end of the century, the war with Ashanti and the conquest of the interior up to the borders, as determined at the Berlin Conference (1884/85), had ceased. It was then that most forts also lost their military functions and needed “a new purpose”. For example, Fort Coenraadsburg in Elmina and Fort James in Accra were transformed into prisons. Some of the sites were abandoned and, over time, settled by the local population that frequently built additional facilities there (van Dantzig 1980). However, many sites fell into disrepair. They remained in this state until the early 1950s, when these sites began to be seen as monuments deserving protection – thanks to the works of O’Neil (1951) for the Ghana Museum and Monuments Board, and a publication edited by Fage (1959) containing a list of forts, prepared for the Ghana Survey Department, followed by a publication by Lawrence (1963).

Upon the formal decolonisation of Ghana in 1957, the administration of all European fortifications along its 539 km-long coast was handed over to the new African authorities. This was another crucial game-changer in their usage. At the time, some of these sites were in a sufficiently good state, so their further use for various purposes continued. During the period between gaining independence and the field research described herein (1957–2022), these sites fulfilled a number of functions. For instance, Fort James in Accra, where Nkrumah himself was detained in 1951, remained a prison until the end of 2008, and was later turned into a museum. The Osu Castle in Accra, which had been the office of the British governor, remained the seat of subsequent presidents until 2013, including that of Jerry Rawlings (Engmann 2021). Some fortifications were turned into museums immediately or soon after decolonisation – for example, the castle in Elmina (the museum opened in 1972) (Bruku 2015; Womber 2020). Other sites were abandoned right away or over time and fell into further disrepair. Many of them, especially the most damaged ones, only gained attention after their inclusion on the UNESCO List in 1979. In his inventory of forts and castles of Ghana from 1980, Albert van Denzing mentions the functions fulfilled at that time by some of the sites we analysed:

• -

  five were described as ruins or with few traces (Fort Kongensten, Fort Amsterdam, Fort Nassau, Fort Komenda, Elize Carthago);

• -

  four were prisons at the time (Fort James, Ussher Fort, Fort William in Anomabu, Fort Prinzenstein);

• -

  three served as resthouses (Fort Apollonia, Fort Metal Cross, Fort Patience);

• -

  two were, at the time, under reconstruction (Fort Goede Hoop, Fort Batenstein);

• -

  two had been adapted as a post office and government office (Fort Saint Anthony, Fort São Sebastião);

• -

  Fort Groß Fredericksburg served as a “residence for nurses of the German hospital”;

• -

  Fort Orange served as “offices of Ghana Railway and Port Authority, lighthouse”;

• -

  Cape Coast Castle already housed the West African Historical Museum at the time;

• -

  Osu Castle was the seat of government (van Dantzig 1980).

Therefore, it would be worthwhile to examine their modern-day functions and compare them with those from previous years, immediately after Ghana gained independence.

For 11 out of the 24 analysed sites, tourism is currently the leading function. In the case of the most recognisable sites, such as the three aforementioned castles in Elmina, Cape Coast and Accra, this function is clear and generates financial profits on a daily basis. These sites generate income themselves and are recognisable brands on the market, especially as “heritage tourism” or “roots tourism” sites (Mensah 2015). They are regularly visited by scores of tourists from all over the world, while visitors frequently have access to souvenir shops, museums or tour guide services on site. The castles in Elmina and Cape Coast are often venues for “concerts, religious events, workshops and exhibits” (Lundt 2022, p. 123). Some of the tourist sites – for example, Fort Amsterdam in Abandze – are available for sightseeing purposes, but this fort is only opened after calling its custodian, who arrives, upon request, with the keys and takes interested individuals on a tour.

One of the sites currently serves as a hotel for tourists – Fort Goede Hoop in Senya Beraku, which is owned and administered by a German citizen who also lives in that facility and runs a shop there.

Importantly, as many as seven sites fulfil a residential function. These are forts intended exclusively for this role (Fort Nassau, Fort Patience) or that fulfil it in addition to another purpose (Fort Groß Fredericksburg, Fort Metal Cross, Fort São Sebastião and the aforementioned Fort Goede Hoop, as well as Fort William – formerly Smith’s Tower). The latter is simultaneously a lighthouse, just like Fort Orange in Sekondi-Takoradi, which fulfilled this sole function at the time of this research, although maintenance works were being carried out there. According to the construction workers, with whom an interview was conducted, the works had been commissioned by one of the governmental institutions and were aimed at preparing Fort Orange for tourists. Thus, another change of the site’s function can be anticipated in the near future.

Two of the analysed forts – namely, Fort William in Anomabu and Ussher Fort in Accra – fulfil an artistic as well as a tourist function. In the former, crafts workshops for women from the local community were taking place at the time of the research, while in the other, a large format painting festival was taking place (figure 3). Ussher Fort is periodically the venue of various festivals. On the other hand, Fort São Sebastião in Shama, inhabited by two families (residential function), also houses a warehouse, in which – according to its residents – voting cards used in previous elections are stored under lock and key on the fourth floor. According to the local guide, it also serves as a meeting place for the local youth.

Figure 3.

An artist working on a painting in Ussher Fort in Accra

Source: Authors’ photography, August 2022

As many as six forts are currently ruins (e.g. Fort Batenstein in Butre), while three other (e.g. Fort James in Accra), albeit well preserved, are nowadays abandoned and waiting for a new purpose.

When examining the numerous functions of the analysed sites, as well as their various changes – both historically and contemporarily – post-colonial forts can hardly be considered constant, immutable components of the spatial and functional structure. On the contrary, they are likely to undergo transformations in terms of ownership and control by individual actors – local authorities, private entrepreneurs or the local population. Their role changes over time, depending on the social and economic or political situation, both local and nationwide (see Ussher Fort in Accra), and on access to funds to allow for their renovation and the development of the tourist function. Due to the lack of such funds, some of the analysed sites have fallen into disrepair, successively losing their position and previous role in the spatial and functional structure of the analysed settlement units (e.g. Fort Nassau in Moree or Fort Batenstein in Butre).

Out of the 24 analysed forts, the overwhelming majority (13) are located in towns (T), namely small urban settlement units. Seven sites are located within the cities (C) of Accra, Sekondi-Takoradi and Cape Coast, which are simultaneously among the ten largest metropolitan areas in Ghana. Only three forts are located in villages (V) without urban features. In the case of one of the sites, it was impossible to indicate the status of the locality where it is situated. The site in question is Fort Elize Carthago, the ruins of which are barely visible in the terrain and are located in a forest at the mouth of the Ankobra River, far from any buildings.

A crucial component of the conducted research is to indicate not only the location of the forts and the locality status but also their placement within the specified settlement units. The analysis took into account the following criteria: location – by the sea (S) or inland (I), landform – flat (F) or a hill (H), surroundings – surrounded by buildings (B) or by forest (F). Determining individual attributes of the locations of the forts allowed for more precise identification of their position in the settlement tissue.

The majority of the analysed sites are located directly on the coast (15) (see, for instance, Fort Metal Cross, figure 4; or Fort Groß Fredericksburg, figure 5). They are much more prone to degradation as a result of the erosive effect of the sea. We already know examples of forts that have been destroyed by sea waves, leaving only ruins (e.g. Fort Kongensten in Ada Foah). The remaining nine sites are located inland, so the causes that may lead to their degradation primarily include urbanisation pressure, meteorological factors, mass waste, uncontrolled spread of vegetation, as well as devastation of buildings by the local population (see, for instance, Fort Batenstein, figure 6; or Fort Komenda, figure 7).

Figure 4.

The location of Fort Metal Cross in Dixcove village

Source: own elaboration

Figure 5.

The location of Fort Groß Fredericksburg in Pokesu town

Source: own elaboration

Figure 6.

The location of Fort Batenstein in Butre Village

Source: own elaboration

Figure 7.

The location of Fort Komenda in Komenda town

Source: own elaboration

The terrain has a significant impact on the process of deterioration of the forts on the one hand, and on their exposure within the landscape on the other. Fourteen of the analysed sites are situated on flat terrain, which means they are much more accessible. Reaching them by car or on foot is not a challenge, which can make tourist traffic easier. On the other hand, these sites are simultaneously the most prone to urbanisation pressure. An example of a fort located on flat terrain, which has been partially destroyed and absorbed by informal architecture, is Fort Komenda. The ten remaining sites, due to their location on hills, tower over the buildings or the coast as a clear dominant point in the landscape. Although they are better exposed, they are less accessible and frequently endangered by mass waste that occurs on hill slopes (see, for instance, Fort Groß Fredericksburg, figure 5; Fort Batenstein, figure 6; or Fort Coenraadsburg, figure 8).

Figure 8.

Neighbouring Elmina Castle and Fort Coenraadsburg in Elmina town

Source: own elaboration

A clear majority of all analysed forts (20) are surrounded by dense architecture (B). These sites are, on the one hand, subject to urbanisation pressure, and, on the other, well integrated into the settlement tissue, which makes them an important part of the landscape (see, for instance, Fort Komenda, figure 7). Typically, forts surrounded by buildings (residential, service, commercial, etc.) also play a more important role in the spatial and functional structure. It should also be emphasised that the forts themselves frequently played a settlement-forming role, with cities, towns or villages growing around them. Three of the analysed sites are surrounded by dense forest (F), limiting their accessibility to potential tourists (see, for instance, Fort Groß Fredericksburg, figure 5; or Fort Batenstein, figure 6). The location of one of the analysed sites – Fort Kongensten in Ada Foah – did not fit either of the two categories of surroundings (B or F). It comprises ruins that were surrounded by farmland but have been almost completely claimed by the sea.

Six types of forts were defined based on the discussed criteria – location, landform and surroundings – in order to classify the analysed sites (table 2). The analysis excluded the aforementioned (almost no longer existing) Fort Kongensten in Ada Foah. The most numerous type of fort was type 2 – SFB (by the Sea, with Flat landform, surrounded by Buildings). Nine sites – located on the coast, with flat land and surrounded by buildings – were classified in this category. Although these forts can be the most prone to urbanisation pressure due to their situation on flat land on the coast, they are simultaneously highly accessible to tourists, for example, and offer auxiliary infrastructure; this gives them the highest potential for the development of tourism among the analysed sites. It should be emphasised that among the nine forts classified as type 2, as many as seven fulfil a tourist function.

Four sites each were classified as types of sites that are located inland, surrounded by buildings and situated on flat land (type 1, IFB) or on a hill (type 4, IHB). Of particular note are two forts located near each other and fulfilling a similar role in the spatial and functional structure, yet classified as two different types – Elmina Castle (type 2) and Fort Coenraadsburg (type 4) (see figure 8). Types 6 (SHB), 5 (SHF) and 3 (IHF) were much less frequently represented in the analysed research sample. The number of forts assigned to these categories is, respectively: three (type 6), two (type 5) and one (type 3).