From livelihoods to illegality: Historical etymology and media framing of artisanal mining in Ghana

In the rich, mineral-laden soil of Ghana, gold has been more than just a resource; for centuries, it has been a lifeline. Long before modern laws or international corporations arrived, local communities practiced a form of mining that was deeply woven into their social and spiritual fabric. They called this practice galamsey, a phrase from a local dialect that simply means "gather them and sell." It was a way for families to survive, guided by traditional leaders and strict community rules that protected rivers and forests from harm. However, in recent decades, a powerful narrative has taken hold across the country and the world: that this same practice is not just unregulated, but inherently criminal. Today, the terms "artisanal mining," "small-scale mining," and "galamsey" are often used interchangeably with "illegal mining," painting the miners as environmental destroyers and criminals. This shift in language has real-world consequences, leading to harsh bans, military crackdowns, and a loss of livelihood for thousands of families who rely on the earth for their food and income.

A new study by researchers at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in Ghana seeks to untangle this confusion. The team wanted to understand how a traditional way of life became labeled as a crime and to see if the current way of talking about mining is actually helping or hurting the situation. They did not just look at the dirt and the gold; they looked at the words. The researchers gathered a massive collection of information spanning thirty-five years, from 1990 to 2025. They read hundreds of academic papers, analyzed government policies, and examined ninety news articles from major Ghanaian media outlets. Their goal was to track how the language used to describe mining changed over time and to see if the media was treating different types of mining as the same thing when they are actually quite different.

The history they uncovered reveals a clear turning point. In the past, before colonial rule and modern laws, mining was managed by local chiefs and community elders. These leaders had the power to grant permission to mine and to punish those who broke the rules, such as mining in sacred rivers or forests. The practice was sustainable because it relied on simple hand tools and was kept in check by deep cultural respect for nature. The researchers found that the term galamsey originally described this specific, traditional method of gathering gold to sell. It was not a crime; it was a livelihood. However, as the country moved toward independence and adopted new laws, the government began to view all mining through the lens of state licenses and large-scale industrial operations. A series of laws, starting in the late 1980s and continuing into the 2000s, began to criminalize mining that did not have a formal government permit. Over time, the word galamsey stopped meaning just "traditional mining" and started being used as a synonym for "illegal mining," even though the two are not the same thing.

The study's analysis of the news media shows exactly how this shift happened. The researchers found a distinct pattern in how journalists and experts spoke about mining over the last three decades. In the early years, news reports used the term "artisanal mining" to describe the work of small groups of miners. But as time went on, the use of that neutral term began to fade. At the same time, the use of the words "illegal mining" and "galamsey" skyrocketed. The data shows a clear trade-off: as the media stopped calling it "artisanal mining," they started calling it "illegal mining" almost exclusively. This was not a gradual evolution of understanding; it was a deliberate rebranding. The researchers observed that news outlets began to treat the terms as if they were identical, creating a public perception that anyone digging for gold without a license was a criminal. This framing became so strong that it influenced government policy, leading to nationwide bans on small-scale mining that punished both illegal operators and those who were trying to follow the rules.

One of the most striking findings is that the media often ignores the difference between traditional, low-impact mining and the modern, destructive practices that have emerged. The researchers point out that the galamsey of the past used hand tools and respected sacred groves, causing very little damage to the environment. In contrast, the mining that causes today's severe pollution often involves heavy machinery and chemicals like mercury, which are used by operators who have no regard for the law or the land. By lumping all these activities together under the single label of "illegal galamsey," the media and the government have created a blanket accusation that fails to distinguish between a farmer trying to feed his family and a criminal gang destroying a river. The study suggests that this confusion is dangerous because it makes it impossible to create fair policies. If the government thinks all small-scale miners are criminals, they will not try to help the legitimate ones become legal; they will only try to stop them all.

The researchers argue that the solution lies in correcting the language and the understanding behind it. They propose that we must stop treating galamsey as a dirty word that automatically means "illegal." Instead, society needs to recognize it as a historical livelihood that can be regulated and improved. The study suggests that the current approach of criminalization and military enforcement has failed to stop the environmental damage and has only pushed the miners further into the shadows. By understanding the history of the term and the difference between traditional practices and modern illegal operations, policymakers can create better rules. These rules could focus on helping miners adopt safer methods and protecting the environment, rather than simply punishing the poor. The paper concludes that the path forward requires a shift in perspective: seeing the miners not as enemies of the environment, but as people who need support to work sustainably. Only by separating the history of the practice from the current reality of illegal operations can Ghana hope to protect both its rivers and the people who depend on them.