Abstract
Many kingdoms and states were created and consolidated in Ethiopia and the Horn by conquest, but many others developed through more peaceful borrowing and assimilation of ideas and institutions from neighbors, and even through internal developments, stimulated by population growth, improved production, the need to organize and mobilize for migration, or protection against new external threats.
Introduction
The need for the study of the evolution of classes, states, kingship and systems of traditional governance in Ethiopia and the Horn are becoming contemporary questions. These things ask for a re-thinking of the region’s past, and demand answers which only the past can give. Today there are some works on kingship, systems of traditional governance, class and class relations, the economy and its impact on society, which have tried to locate political institutions within a social context. Attention has broadened to include ethnic groups, most prominently the Oromo, beyond the old Abyssinian core. In this regard, social anthropology has been engaged more systematically.
Methodologically, this paper is based on extensive literature review and field research conducted in Kefa (can also be written as Kaffa according to the Institute of Ethiopian Studies transliteration system) Zone in 2008–9. Oral information and archival materials are used, cross-checked and triangulated. As an exploration of the major sources for the study of kingship and systems of traditional governance, this paper will guide scholars for further studies on state formation, kingship and traditional governance in the Horn, in particular, and Africa in general in the future.
The findings suggest that kingship in Kefa was more or less similar to African divine kingship. In the kingdom there was little distinction between the political and religious roles of the leaders. Until the last quarter of the 19th century kings in Kefa continued to use religion as the source of political power. Yet it is not clear whether the idea of religious or divine kingship independently originated or came from other areas and people through migrations. It is more likely that it was a combination of both.
A Historical Background
With the development of food production, differences in the acquisition of wealth would arise. With population increase and more reliance on agriculture, communities came into existence. There is also increased interaction among societies with increased dimensions of contact. The need for group work (cooperation among people), particularly in situations that require such demands as basic to their survival, would likely occur. For example, irrigational and related works could have necessitated such demands.
Under such situations, sharing of various responsibilities by members of a community and the need for arbitration may arise. This in turn might have dictated the beginning of kings or headmen among certain communities. Increased production as well as increased need for improved tools, goods and others may have led to the emergence of different classes over time. On the other hand, beliefs in traditional religion gave rise to the emergence of religious leaders.
Societies create rules and laws (institutions) in the allocation of scarce resources and whoever wins in the contest of controlling the incipient government eventually finds the state. That is how all ancient states evolved. A state is a well-defined geographical area in which the population and resources are controlled by the government. A state has a variety of formal positions through which power is exercised, including the nobility, police or military, judges and others. To support the nobility and others working for the state government, a state typically collected tribute or taxes from food producers and artisans. States often developed formal writing systems. State governments are also typically centered in locations where markets, offices, courts and urban and centralized elements or urban polities with a complex bureaucracy and social classes are found. 1
In this regard, based on existing archaeological and historical evidence, the earliest states appeared in Mesopotamia and the mini-states that evolved on Tigres and Euphrates were prototypes. But the first real and nation-state was Egypt which arose around 5000–6000 years ago. Although state and class formation has such long history in the Middle East and the Nile valley, we are in shortage of data on the formation of these elements in Ethiopia and the Horn.
Advanced levels of state formation took place primarily in the Sudan and in Ethiopia. Beginning with the Christian kingdoms of ancient times, the Sudan saw the rise of the Funj kingdom (1504–1821) in the east and the Sultanate of Dar Fur (16th century to 1916) in the west. The Funj kingdom, which had dominated the historically-central riverine area of the Sudan, fell prey to the more mighty forces of Muhammad Ali’s Egypt, thereby ushering in the period known as the Turkiyya (1821–81) – so-called because of the dominant role that officials of Turco-Circassian origin played in the dynasty inaugurated by Muhammad Ali in 1805 (Legesse, 1971; 33–45; Taddesse Tamrat, 1972: 22–33; Merid Wolde Aregay, 1971: 33–45).
The Turkiyya was characterized by vigorous expansion in the south (following the course of the Nile) combined with mass conscription and enslavement of southerners. Egyptian misrule and what was perceived as their moral laxity triggered a fundamentalist movement that combined Sudanese nationalism and religious puritanism. The Mahdiyya (1881–98), even if it had scarcely any liberating effects in the South, formed the backdrop to the rise of modern Sudanese nationalism. It fell under the barrage of the British cannon in 1898, when the so-called Anglo-Egyptian Condominium (in actual fact British colonial rule) was inaugurated. Dar Fur meanwhile continued to exist in splendid isolation until it succumbed to the might of British arms in 1916 (Caulk, 1986: 702–41). 2
The Horn of Africa (today’s Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Somalia
Aksum, which is the lineal ancestors of Ethiopia, had comprised of a mix of the Cushitic peoples and Semitic colonizers of the Arabian Peninsula. In addition to these assumptions, the Ethiopian kingdom in the north was thought to have been created by a small group of Semitic immigrants from Yemen who colonized and settled on the highland regions of Ethiopia. According to this view, it was the Sabean civilization erected at the south-western corner of Arabia that served as the basis for the Sabean civilization in Ethiopia. It was expressed as ‘almost a piece of Asia on African soil’ (Serjean, 1966: 225). In line with this, therefore, Ethiopian history is associated with Arabia or even first started there in the Arabian main land (Jones and Monroe, 1970: 11; Perham, 1969: 10–11).
In spite of the aforementioned descriptions, there is emerging evidence which is contrary to these arguments and the alleged influence of the South Arabian immigrants on the evolution of states and civilization in Ethiopia. There is growing emphasis on the presence of indigenous elements, civilizations and states in the Horn in general and in Kefa in particular. The material conditions of society that induces greater social differentiation and more sharply defined division of labor might have led to the genesis of kingship, classes and states in Ethiopia. A typical case is the Kingdom of Kefa. Nevertheless, upon the local basis, there could be definitely external influences.
Northern Ethiopia, where the ancestral groups to Amharic, Tigriana, Tigre, Argoba, Harar, Gafat and Gurage had occupied, was the region of remarkable political and economic transformations. The immigrants were small in number or, in their composition, played such an extended role in the mean time. Moreover, let alone the ancient development taking place in the region, the Agaw people in Tigre had already been politically organized into units (Ambrose, 1982; Taddesse Tamrat, 1988b: 8).
Still, however, it is assumed that civilizations and states that developed in the Horn are attributed to a process of diffusion or migration from outside – particularly with Semitic migration. In this regard, there is evidence on the presence of hierarchical societies in the region southeast of the Nile valley from 4000–2000 BC. The rise of Kefa and other southern states may be attributed to Egyptian commercial activity along the Nile valley and the Red Sea from 4000–2000 BC and/or inter regional exchange circuit between the Arabia and the Red Sea world since the 7000 BC (Huntingford, 1955: 67–77).
There were a number of small political units in northern Ethiopia and one of them could have prospered economically and militarily to successfully emerge as a leader and assume royal title in the region. Towards the end of 1000 BC, the most a powerful and remarkable state, Aksum, had flourished in northern Ethiopia, and it dominated the history of the region for some subsequent centuries. Aksum is mentioned in the 1st century AD Periplus of the Erythraean Sea as an important market place for ivory and it is stated that the ruler of Aksum in the 1st century AD was Zoskales who, besides ruling in Aksum, also controlled two harbors on the Red Sea: Adulis (near Massawa) and Avalites (Assab) located in Eritrea. He is also said to have been familiar with Greek literature (Munro-Hay, 1991: 57). 3
In 4th century Aksum accepted Christianity. The introduction of Christianity was the outcome of the commercial and diplomatic relations of the kingdom with the Greco-Roman world. Its conversion to Christianity in the 4th century AD gave it its ethos and ideology. The state continued as a Christian kingdom and attained the apogee of its power in what historians of Ethiopia have come to characterize as the medieval period, 1270–1527, presaging the even more spectacular expansion of the empire in modern times under Menilek II. In the process of territorial aggrandizement the successive regimes incorporated the neighboring peoples, including the Kefa Kingdom, through a combination of force and diplomacy, mostly the former (Lewis, 1974: 77–88; Marena Project, n.d.: 89–101; Nicolas, 1976: 23–9; Taddesse Tamrat, 1972: 12–34).
Kefa Kingdom: The Political System
The political system of the Kefa Kingdom was composed of a series of hierarchically-organized clans. According to tradition, in the kingdom there were 48 clans. Of these clans, the Minjo clan was the royal clan. It constituted the apex of the structure. The kings were chosen from the Minjo. Before the coming of the Minjo clan, two other clans ruled Kefa. The Minjo took the kingship from the Matto clan, and Shullo preceded the Matto. Yet the most often repeated legend in Kefa is the Minjo’s usurpation of the throne from the Matto clan (Lange, 1982: 180).
In Kefa the king had the royal title, tato. The tato was the supreme authority. The king was the head of the judicial system. He exercised jurisdiction over foreign policy, justice, conquered peoples and strangers (mostly merchants) in the kingdom. The king had been assisted by seven councils (Mikrecho) who had an important say in all decisions. They advised the king on decisions of war and in the judgments of cases of conflicts between chiefs as well as commoners (Linel Bender, 1976: 12–16). The titles of the seven councilors (mostly derived from some place names) were: Guje Rasho of the Amaro clan (who was the senior councilor and controlled the activities of the king’s slaves); Katema Rasho of the Hilo clan (the chief councilor and commander of the kingdom’s army in time of war); Ade Rasho of the Ako (Uko) clan, Awa Rasho of the Aregpo clan, Bodde Rasho of the Argepo Clan, Arche Rasho of the Macho clan and Shode Rasho of the Matto clan. Traditionally these positions were not hereditary. They could revert from one clan to another (Legesse, 1971: 4).
The Katema Rasho could be from any clan as long as he was a good warrior and fitted the post. Among the councilors of the state, the post of the Katema Rasho had been important to the monarch. He was, for instance, commander of the army in the absence of the king. Yet, in selecting the king and helping him in national policy decisions, all members of the Mikercho equally participated. In addition, all of them dealt with disputes among warabi Showo. 4
The kingdom was divided into 12 provinces (Showo or Showu) under provincial governors, Worabi Showo. Later, in the last quarter of the 19th century, the number of provinces became a total of 18. Each province was divided further into districts under a Rasho, with a deputy: Gudo. These districts were called Rasho showu, land of a rasho. That is, the provincial chiefs were working with the Rasho Showo acting in various capacities under them. The district chiefs took their titles from the names of their districts or from the names of ancestors who had once ruled them. These positions were inherited in specific clans and were territorially based, although the king could sometimes shuffle them (Legesse, 1971: 4; Lange, 1982: 180).
In the kingdom, the aggregate of houses, gafo, had its own elder called niho who, in its general sense, was acting as an arbitrator in disputes and as a link between his gafo and that of the Warabi Showo. In fact, all of the positions lower than Warabi Showo were engaged in matters of justice. The niho was considered to be arigecho, ‘one who knows’. The tatikisho and the gudo were also in the category of ‘those who know’ and thus they arbitrated and sat in judgment in all cases affecting a gafo or sub district (personal interview, 8 May 2008). The duke niho could also been asked for his opinion. If the decision could not be accepted by either of the parties, they could appeal to the gudo. Up to this level, decisions included the division of a piece of land or compensation for damages. Next, there was the Rasho Showo who had the right to arrest people.
In general, all activities of the district as well as the kingdom, such as rising corvee labor for road building, organizing for war and collecting taxes or regular tributes for the king, were facilitated and effected by these lower officials who received orders from the Warabi Rasho. Although Worabi Showo had the power and authority in their respective provinces, the people could, theoretically at least, appeal straight to the Mikrecho. For example, if a man desired to have more land or was not getting the support of his Worabi Showo, he had the right to appeal directly to the councilors of the state. Yet the people regarded the administrators as the highest authorities of appeal for all matters, except clan warfare and murder (Legesse, 1971: 5; Lange, 1982: 180).
In the political tradition of the kingdom, the king nominated a royal successor from amongst his sons. The final selection, however, lay with the Mikrecho who might fall on the king’s nomination, or any other son. When the death of the king became imminent, all his male relatives were put in prison. It took the councilors about eight days to decide on the next king, during which time the king’s death was kept a secret. Those sons left out of consideration were exiled to the neighboring kingdoms of Kulu, Jimma and Gera (Huntingford, 1955: 120).
The factors that influenced the councilors’ choice were the probability of a long life, full growth and being free from body defects. Whenever the seven Mikrecho had to choose a new monarch, another important criterion was how much influence they could have over him. This was because, whenever there were cases of law that involved important things, the Mikrecho would bring the case to the king but after they had already decided amongst themselves what the justice of it was (Bascom and Herskovits, 1959: 34–40; Huntingford, 1955: 120).
Finally, the man chosen to be the successor was released from his chains and received the oath of fidelity from the people. This was followed by the ceremonial mourning and a formal recognition of the new king. The ceremony took place at Had, the most populous and oldest province of the kingdom. There, the provincial governor invested the king with bracelets and a ring, and asked him to tell his throne name. The new monarch confirmed his inheritance of the kingdom and possessions of his father and replied ‘I am your lord, and as such you must honor me’ (Huntingford, 1955: 120). Then, after, the senior elder of the Hini Baro clan would announce to the people their new king’s throne name. Last, the crowning ceremony took place at the hill of Shadda where the Minjo first settled. The senior elder, from the Hini Baro clan, put on his arm the golden armlet. An elder of the Amaro clan put the crown on his head and the sub-kings of the Yaro swore allegiance to him.
Essentially, kingship in Kefa was fairly typical of African divine kingship. In Kefa and some African societies, there was little distinction made between the political and religious roles of their leaders (Bohannan and Curtin, 1988: 5–8; Curtin et al., 1984). Chiefs and kings could gain political control of a state or kingdom because of their religious powers. They legitimized their religious role as mediators in the traditional religion or as guardians of the ‘spirits of the land’ (Davidson, 1991: 10–15; Diop, 1974: 55–61). Even after the 16th century, leaders in Africa continued to use religion as the source of political power, such as the religious wars or Islamic jihads in West Africa in the 18th and 19th centuries. Yet it is not always clear whether these ideas of religious or divine kingship independently originated in each group or were transferred from one group to another through migrations. It is likely that it was a combination of both, such as in the case of the Kefa Kingdom (Harris, 1988: 1–6; Falola, 2000: 77–9).
The king of Kefa was said to embody the eqqo, the spirits of the Kefa religion. One of the eqqos – Doche, the king-god – had special importance in Kefa. It was the greatest of all the eqqos. Once a year, the festival of the king’s eqqo was held. This identification with the eqqo was connected with the traditional belief that the ancestors of the royal clan Minjo were super-humans. Therefore, as a god, the king was immortal. He was regarded as symbol of unity and as defender of the kingdom. Though his body might die, his spirit was said to be a hen turtle-dove (ugge) in which it remained until the new king was chosen, when it entered his body (Huntingford, 1955: 120; Falola, 2000: 77–9).
There were many restrictions surrounding the daily activities of the monarch because of his divine nature. For example, no one was allowed to see him. He wore a veiled crown and sat behind a curtain. A cotton cloth was also spread wherever he desired to walk as he could not put his feet on the ground. He was considered holy and his glance was something to be avoided.
Various other ceremonies also surrounded the palace where the monarch led a virtually-secluded life. The royal drum, known in Amharic negarit, was beaten when the king began to eat, proclaimed laws or summons to war or went on procession (Jackson, 1990: 18–19; Legesse, 1971: 4). Similarly, He was not allowed to touch his food. He was washed and fed. Anyone who violated such restrictions was put to death. This kind of seclusion, according to many, might lead to speculation about the efficiency of the monarch as a political or judicial leader. Amnon Orent wrote:
The ministers and grandees enter the palace wearing skins on their shoulders . . . and they enter backwards. In this position they speak to the Tatino, but only through the intermediary of an eunuch . . . It is easy to comprehend that such a sovereign could not govern effectively. Therefore, it was up to the Grand Vizier (Katema rasha) together with the governors of the provinces to administer to the needs of the Kingdom. (1970: 229)
In general, traditionally the king of Kefa ruled through the spirit of Doche, known as ‘the King-god’. The monarch was both secular and ritual head of his people. Accordingly, ritually for sacrifices to the deities and lesser spirits as well as politically, he could make important decisions. Yet, if the councilors of the state could not agree with his decisions they might get rid him of. In Kefa the king was not completely free in his power as administrations were partly in the hands of the councilors. The monarch had no consistently-maintained remarkable control over the functions performed by his followers.
Yet, in the 19th century, the king became stronger than before and he removed the positions of the Ibede Goda, a high priest that officiated the traditional religion of the people. Ibede Goda was also the leader of the Dugo clan and the traditional medium of the monarchs of Kefa (Addis Zemen, 1968a: 8, 1968b: 25; Lange, 1982: 180; Lewis, 1974: 124). The king claimed that the spirit of Doche had now passed to himself and thereby he acquired a great deal of additional wealth from the sacrifices which had always been brought to Doche. In such a way, he acquired more power of spiritual sanctions.
Military and Court Tradition
The monarch had no large standing army. His councilors, provincial governors and district chiefs had kept a number of armed retainers known as Naho. In peacetime, the Naho were required to work in their employers’ households. In wartime they formed the nucleus of an army. All Kefa except Manjio, manno, Ebbo and Yoyo clans, and slaves, were liable to military service and could be called upon to fight for the king at any time. When the king gave the order, the summons to war was the responsibility of the provincial governors who were also the military commanders of their respective contingents (Huntingford, 1955: 127; Lewis, 1974: 124).
The king went to war wearing the crown and carrying two double-bladed spears. Weapons consisted of spears (gino), dagggers (qucho) and snyder rifles (nafito). On the march, the troops were formed in columns with their commanders. Behind them came the king and his entourage. In battle, the units were deployed in line and the king and his attendants stationed behind it.
All weapons captured in war became the property of the king. The cattle of the vanquished were expropriated, half of which went to the king and half to the warriors. With regard to the war prisoners, one-tenth of them were taken by the king and the remainders were distributed among the warriors as slaves. Likewise, when the king conquered people outside his frontiers, people would be treated either of two ways. The king might appoint a local chief to rule them in his name with the payment of a yearly tribute; or he might declare them slaves of the crown. In the latter case, the people would continue to live in their own country. But they were ruled by a Kefa chief and had to supply men and women as slaves for sale outside Kefa. A typical example of this kind of treatment was the case of Nao peoples. King Kaye Sherocho (Kamo) conquered and declared them as salves of the king. 5
Coupled to the military organization of the kingdom was the presence of a strong tradition of digging defensive trenches and fences. This tradition had contributed to the survival of Kefa as an independent state until the end of 19th century. In the north-eastern frontier of the kingdom, Gojeb River formed a natural defense (Addis Zemen, 1968a: 8, 1968b: 25; Lange, 1982: 180; Legesse, 1971: 4). In other frontiers, there were no natural defenses. Instead, there were deep and wide ditches defended by free-trunk palisades and crossed at intervals by narrow bridges. Along the defense, there were gates at interval. Custom duties were collected at these gates.
At points where Oromo attacks were expected the gates were manned by Manjo under a Kefa commander. At various places along the lines of defense large drums (gone), made of dug-out tree-trunks, were hung outside the villages to give the alarm in case of an attack. These gates and the royal enclosure were guarded by the Manjo clan under Kefa commanders. In their guard, the Manjo were the most faithful adherents to their overlords and governors. The Manjo were the despised submerged clans and thus could not hold any political office. Nevertheless, they had their own king Manjo tato (the Manjo king). Like the Kefa, the Manjo tato had his rasho in charge of the districts where the Manjo lived. Their authority extended over the Manjo territory only (Addis Zemen, 1968a: 8, 1968b: 25; Huntingford, 1955: 127; Lange, 1982: 180; Lewine, 1974: 57; Lewis, 1974: 124).
With regard to the court traditions, offences were dealt with legal procedures. There were four grades of judge: the head of a family or the senior elder of a clan, the deputy (gudo) of the district rasho, the district chief (the rasho) and the warabi or provincial governor. For the public hearing of cases, certain days were set apart. Although oaths (bacho) were sworn in the king’s name, bribing of judges seemed to be a recognized element in law. This made the political system of Kefa, among other things, to be corrupt at all levels of decision making, from local elders to the councilors of state.
Until 1897, offences were dealt with compensation or punishment. Compensation was paid in terms of slaves, cattle or money. Punishment included chaining, flogging, slavery, mutilation (loss of a hand, finger or toe), torture, and execution by beheading or hanging. According to the tradition, different crimes were given decision differently in accordance with the degree of the offences. For example, the wearing of gold ornaments without the permission of the king, the breach of certain taboos like the eating of fowls by women and cabbages by men of the Minjo clan (since these were believed to affect the whole people) were considered as rebellion and disloyalty. The punishment for disloyalty (treason) was execution by hanging. Magician women were punished by death and the criminal’s families were enslaved. Robbery was punished by hanging and a woman robber might be pegged down on the ground.
Theft had special legal procedure. Before taking a case of theft to a judge, it was the custom to consult a detective, who drank a mixture containing an intoxicant like ‘kat’ (Chato), or datura stramonium. There was a belief that the intoxicant would take the thief to the place where he robbed. The theft was punished with 40 or 50 strokes of the whip and the restitution of the value of the goods stolen. Similarly, cowards in war were punished by a long period of working in the king’s kitchens as a household servant (Abir, 1965: 205–19; Nicolas, 1976: 84; Taddesse Tamrat, 1972: 1–13; Trimmingham, 1952: 180; Merid Wolde Aregay, 1971: 12).
Incest (sexual intercourse between near relations) of any degree was considered shameful, but was not punished. Those being accused of qoro (the Amharic buda) – that they turned themselves into hyenas at night – were bound and taken to the hut of a priest of Dochce who declared whether the accused was guilty or not. Those found guilty were sent before the king’s council and sentenced to slavery. The only evidence accepted in such case was that of the priest which resulted in a series of injust decisions especially during the reign of the last king, Gaki Sherocho, who was summary and cruel (Huntingford, 1955: 126).
Foreign Relations and Interactions
The history of the Kefa Kingdom can also be characterized by relations and interactions with other peoples and kingdoms. This means that the Kingdom of Kefa did not have a single homogenous cultural system. The interaction was particularly strong with the kingdom of Ennarya. This close and dynamic contact of Kefa with the medieval kingdom of Ennarya can be seen in terms of royal title and religion.
Kefa got its royal title (Tato) as well as Christianity from Ennarya, which was converted to Christianity by Emperor Sertse-Dengel in 1586. According to many, Christianity was introduced to the Kingdom of Kefa at the end of the 16th century when Sertse-Dengel (Melak Sagad) undertook the conversion of Badancho and his people. The coming of the northerners (Amharas), first as a campaigning army (in 1567–8 and in 1587) and then as an infiltration of migrating peoples, facilitated the process of conversion (Asmeron Legese, 1973: 1–3; Huntingford, 1955: 126).
In this regard Nicolas argued that conversion to Christianity among the Kefa could be seen in two ways: first, it was a means to create a sharper cultural distinction between the new Kefa entity and the Oromo who were spreading north of the kingdom, on one hand, and a sort of link with the Abyssinian state on the other; second, it would dominate the traditional religions, especially keeping in check the spirit-possession cult which the Minjo had to reckon with since the days of Shonge Tato.
This seems a weak argument. According to many, before the expansion of the central state to the area, early Christianity had already been expanded by holy men. When the Christian state retreated to the north (Gondar), there was no way of appointing priests to the area (Kefa). Accordingly, Christianity had been disappearing in the period under question and thus the expansion of Christianity to the Kingdom of Kefa seems quite improbable. Yet the memories of Christianity still survived in the region (Nicolas, 1976: 84).
From the very little we know about the ancient Sidama kingdoms, which ceased to exist after the Oromo invasion, the institutions of the monarchies, their defense system, their courts, their administration and their judicial system had similarities. Yet, in the beginning of the 18th century with the decline of the oldest and powerful southern state (Ennarya) and the infiltration of the Oromo in to the region, Kefa was buffered from the northern (Christian) state and underwent tremendous development in relative isolation. It was during this period that Kefa became strong and started incorporating smaller and tributaries. The kingdom reached the height of its power in the reign of Hoti Ginoch (c1798–1882) who ruled over 38 other kingdoms (Nicolas, 1976: 84; Simoons, 1960: 6–8; Taddesse Tamrat, 1988a: 34–8).
Sources, both written and oral, clan names and vocabulary, support the presence of a great deal of interactions and relations between Kefa and other southern states as well as the central state. Still, however, one must not assume that kingship came from the north. In Kefa, kingship or the evolution of monarchy was an internal process (Nicolas, 1976: 84; Orent, 1970: 229; Taddesse Tamrat, 1988a).
Decline, Fall and Post-Incorporation Developments
The monarchy of Kefa had only a small standing army or bodyguard. He was divine king and thus the society protected and kept him as he represented the bridge between the people and god. Gradually, however, with the growth of trade in southern Ethiopia, the place of the monarchy in Kefa society had been transformed and consolidated. There was the revival of trade in the Red Sea from the second decade of the 19th century onwards and Kefa was one of the most important sources of lucrative commodities: ivory, gold, musk, slaves and the like. This trade made the monarchs of Kefa powerful economically and militarily.
This transformation also contributed in the evolution of despotism. The king of Kefa became an absolute monarch. He had the power of life and death over his subjects and could do whatever he wanted with their property. The council of advisors (the mikrecho) who had moderated the authority of the tato now did not constitute a check on his unlimited power as he could make or unmake any of the dignitaries who took part in the council. This was the culmination of a long process by which the authority of the monarchy was gradually strengthened and centralized to take the advantage of the revival of trade between south-western Ethiopia and the coast.
Accordingly, by 1890s, when the kingdom was preparing to wage a concrete struggle against the invaders, the political organization of Kefa had been highly centralized. This was resented both by the regional chiefs and the people. This grievance reached its peak during the reign of Tato Gaki Sherocho (reigned 1890–7), more remembered by his name Chinito. He ruled with an iron hand. He traveled widely in the countryside to enforce his laws but failed to deal with the growing dissatisfaction of the regional chiefs, who wanted to have greater freedom in dealing with foreign traders. He ruthlessly imprisoned people without trial and never heard the petition of his subjects.
To summarize, while the kingdom was in a state of unrest and uncertainty, Menelik’s forces, under the leadership of Fitawrari Walda-Giyorgis, conquered Kefa in 1897 after a series of fierce fights. The people of Kefa rallied in defense of their national destiny and not the kings’ person. On 3 September 1897, the Monarch was captured. With this Kefa as an independent kingdom came to an end. Tato was exiled at Ankober under Azazh Walda-Sadiq. Later he was moved to Dessie and then to house arrest in Addis Ababa. Seemingly, to avoid the rise of another claimant, Menelik ordered the crown to be removed from Kefa. It was given to Alfred Ilg to be sent to Switzerland. But, later, the crown was brought back to Addis Ababa where it remains a treasury of the ethnological museum. Chinito died while in captivity in 1919 (Bahiru Zewde, 1998: 67). 6
As a reaction for the incorporation and end of independence a number of poems were composed. One reads:
Of the Kefa great men, Cini with the golden hat, The black Hinike Bali, These have died. O, our Kefa-tato! O, our wealthy king, All of these have been lost! The wise men have been broken. (Taddesse Tamrat, 1988a: 121–54, 1988b: 5–18)
In order to ensure continuing submission and to meet the requirements of effective occupation, the conquerors initiated political and socio-economic transformations in the occupied regions. Loyal soldiers of the imperial army – predominantly from north and central Ethiopia – were rewarded with land property rights in the conquered areas, including the forest lands. Accordingly, these settlers were subsumed under the Amharic term neftegna, which translates literally as man with a rifle. The neftegna 7 were allowed to sell and exchange land titles, but – in contrast to the European concept of a freehold system – had no absolute rights, as the state could at any time confiscate and reallocate land, for example, when a neftegna fell into disgrace with the emperor. This land governance system became known as the gult.
Together with these land rights, the neftegna gained lordship over groups of local peasants – the gebbr 8 (some literature refers to the gult as the neftegna-gebar system). The neftegna obtained gebar in numbers according to their military rank; the affiliation of a gebar to a neftgna was practically hereditary (Crummey, 2000: 21–30; Curtin et al., 1984: 55–61). The landlords administrated their rights and belongings not by themselves but through an intermediary district officer, the chiquashum, who was usually of Kefa ethnicity (Taddese Asmelash, n.d.: 45–61). Goda was still the recognized leader of his people both in the secular as well as the spiritual realm in post-1941, end of Italian occupation, period. Therefore, the activities of Ibede Goda in the secular realm became stronger as he became chiquashum in the political hierarchy of imperial Ethiopia (Addis Zemen, 1968a: 8, 1968b: 25).
The chiquashum sectioned the land and allocated single plots of agricultural and forest land to the gebars, who received usage rights. Gebars were allowed to use and manage the agricultural areas according to their needs and facilities. Usage rights were given only for a certain period of time and could be easily revoked by the chiquanshum. Gebars were required to contribute a full range of in-kind services and labor, and were threatened with eviction from the land or imprisonment if they failed to do so. A peasant whose father was a gebar during imperial times recalls the specific regulations: ‘The chiquashum gave the order to give 10% of our harvest to him. For all crops we had. When we collected coffee from the forest, he got 10% also from the honey’ (personal interview 12 November 2009). This land governance system obviously went far beyond a voluntary land lease agreement and rather resembles the extractive serfdom of the European Dark Ages. The neftegna forced the gebar to extract as much economic benefit from the forest as possible. The gebar, in turn had no incentive to use and manage the forest in a sustainable way since forest land-use rights were frequently withdrawn without compensation.
Finally, in 1974, the first African classical and social revolution destroyed the ancient ‘Solomonic Dynasty’ of Ethiopia. With this, the country made a sharp break with the past. The new military government popularly known as the Derg 9 proclaimed the abolition of the gult system using the slogan ‘land to the tiller’; that is, assignment of the land tenure rights to the people who cultivate the land.
Proclamation No. 31 of 1975, which is entitled ‘Public Ownership of Rural Lands Proclamation’, refers only to the use rights of the peasant over his holdings. The law prohibits ownership of land by individuals or organizations. The land reform of 1975 can be depicted as ‘one of the most radical land reform[s] ever attempted based on the socialist model’ (Pausewang, 1990: 39). The neftegna were dispossessed, and all land holdings, where farmland, grazing land, or forests, were nationalized and came under direct possession of the state.
Many observers at the time, not only those who were leftists, considered the land reform to be a drastic but inevitable breakthrough which would effectively put an end to the age-old tenant and landlord system in Kefa/Ethiopia and provide a chance to promote agricultural productivity, social equity, and planning reliability.
Nationwide administration of land governance, including in Kefa, was vested to a newly-established Ministry of land Reform and Administration (MLRA). At the local level, peasant associations were designated as the lowest administrative bodies of the state, within which a number of village communities were grouped together. They were given full control over redistribution of land and, from 1975 on, they started to give usufruct land rights to individual peasants and to agricultural producers’ cooperatives (Gudina, 2004: 77; Marena Project, n.d.; Pausewang, 1990: 55–77). The condition for obtaining land-use rights was the peasants’ permanent physical residence in the peasant association and their capability and willingness to farm themselves and to fulfill administrative dues and obligations.
Conclusions
The earliest period of Kefa history is shrouded in mystery. Nevertheless, by at least the 17th century, it appears that we can discern the formation of a large and effective kingdom and kingship although a great deal of archaeological and historical research is still needed to provide a better understanding of the period.
Although the kingdom was essentially a centralized state much like those of the Christian kingdoms of northern Ethiopia, there was continual tension between the king and the traditional regional chiefs, as was probably endemic to all such kingdoms. Aside from political domestic matters, the kingdom of Kefa was continually attempting to expand its borders and boundaries through time at the expense of smaller kingdoms while keeping larger kingdoms at bay through royal marriages and treaties.
The kings of Kefa were never averse to the immigration of small clans composed of either political refugees or trading entrepreneurs. The kings incorporated new support and forged new links with the outside world. One of the highlights of this process occurred when one king reversed the policy of his predecessor with regard to the growth of influence of believers in the Christian rites of northern Ethiopia, primarily the Amaro clan and their adherents. King Kami (1854–70) tried unsuccessfully to do away with these influences and finally decided to allow the presence of Italian Catholic missionaries in order to offset the gains of the indigenous Christian converts.
The last of the Kefa kings (who had to deal continually with the growing dissatisfaction of the regional chiefs), whose desires for greater freedom in dealing with traders from outside was in direct opposition to the king’s interests. Added to these problems were the tremendous pressures of the encroaching Amhara-Oromo armies which were trying to consolidate the new Ethiopian borders under Emperor Menelik II in 1880s and 1890s. On 3 October 1897 after a devastating eight months of war, the last king of Kefa, Gaki Sherocho (Tchinito), was defeated by Ras Wolde-Giorgis, the general of Emperor Menilik II, and died in exile in 1919. Kefa was destroyed and became an integral part of Menelik’s empire .What remained and continued for some time was the hierarchy of chiefs and the essential structures of the lineage and the family.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to express his gratitude to the following people who helped to bring this paper to fruition: Tarekegn Alemu (University of Bahir Dar), Gedef Abawa (University of Bergen), and above all, all informants in Burkio Kebele, Bonga, Jimma, Awassa, and Addis Ababa.