PI: Alfredo González Ruibal| Collaborators: Worku Derara Megenassa, Juan Salazar Bonet, Álvaro Minguito Palomares, Carlos Nieto, Pedro Rodriguez, Alvaro Falquina| Project ID: 2019LG07 Location of Research: Western Ethiopia| Host Institution: Institute of Heritage Sciences, Spanish National Research Council (Incipit-CSIC), Spain
Project summary
The objective of this project was to document the entire material assemblage of five minority ethnic groups in Western Ethiopia. Due to the volatile situation and persisting conflicts in Ethiopia the target groups changed from the original plans and only two of the four planned field seasons could be carried out –in 2020 and 2021. We documented the material culture of the Aburamla (Hamaj), Banea (Gumuz), Kadallu, Opuo and Chabu peoples. They are all Nilo-Saharan speakers, except for the Chabu, originally believed to speak a Nilo-Saharan language, today considered a language isolate. Each of the groups number less than 2,000 individuals –Opo being probably the largest. Western Ethiopia is home to a dozen indigenous minority groups, about many of which, including the groups that have been the object of this project, little is known in anthropological or historical terms.
Due to their remote location in relation to the main centres of power and dominant societies, many of the groups have only experienced the influence of the modern state and globalisation during the last two decades. Development projects, including roads and schooling, resettlement schemes and expanding agribusinesses, are threatening their traditional practices and more specifically their material culture. The researchers, some of whom have been working in the area since 2001, have seen traditional handicrafts diminish alarmingly. In some villages, it is mostly elderly people that still produce traditional artefacts, whereas plastic and industrial materials, which were scarce a decade ago, are now replacing gourds, baskets and pottery. Roads, in particular, are making mass-produced items readily available even in very remote locations. In addition, the indigenous communities of Western Ethiopia and their materialities lack the tourist appeal of other indigenous groups in the country, which makes their handicrafts even more liable of disappearance as they do not have an external market that may replace local demand. As part of the project, we recorded pottery, tools, basketwork, stone artefacts, architectures and technological processes related to their production, as well as subsistence, maintenance and ritual activities, totalling some 1,317 assets for the five groups. Those assets include conventional photographs, drawings, video, 3D models, photogrammetric images, orthogonal images, plans and maps.
Fieldwork approach and equipment
The project started from the idea that objects cannot be understood in isolation and that the disappearance of specific categories of objects often entails the disappearance of others, ultimately leading to the vanishing of entire material worlds. With this in mind, we set out to record as many items and technological processes (chaine operatoires) as possible using a combination of old and new media. We applied the recording techniques commonly used in archaeology to the materialities of living communities. These include hand-made drawings of artefacts and plans of houses and domestic compounds, but also digital techniques, such as drone-generated orthogonal images of villages and domestic compounds, 3D models and photogrammetric documentation of granaries and houses. For each of the five groups studied, all material items were first identified and then photographed. A selection of items was also drawn by hand. The same was done with architectures and material activities. A map of each village was produced using a drone.
Our team was made up of a variable number of Spanish and Ethiopian researchers, not less than four at any time, plus several local assistants. These allowed us to deploy different modes of documentation simultaneously, while at the same time conducting interviews to make sense of the material. Interviews were conducted by Bïruk Gudeta, Chalachäw Simeneh and Yeabsira Kebede, led by ethnoarchaeologist Worku Derara and with the assistance of neighbours from the villages where research was being carried out. Drawings and house plans were made by ethnoarchaeologists Álvaro Falquina and Juan Salazar. House plans were accompanied by an exhaustive inventory of all artefacts present indoors. Photographs and video were made by professional photographers Álvaro Minguito and Carlos Nieto, with the support of Pedro Rodríguez Simón. Archaeologist Pedro Rodríguez Simón was in charge of the drone, photogrammetry and digital models, and also aided with the video. In the post-processing phase, he edited videos and prepared 3D models and photogrammetric illustrations. Alfredo González-Ruibal coordinated the different tasks and revised all documents.
Fieldwork was conducted in two field seasons, one in January 2020 and one in August 2021. The January 2020 field season was carried out in the Guba region (Benishangul-Gumuz) and focused on three groups: Aburamla, Kadallu and Banea, all of them speakers of B’aga (Gumuz) languages, but distinct from the Gumuz people. The August 2021 field season was carried out in Gambela and focused on two groups: Opuo and Chabu. Collective consent was always obtained at the beginning of our work. We had a meeting with village elders and representatives where the project was described and then discussed. Individual consent was obtained in those cases where we spent more time with a single individual (such as a potter or a ritual specialist).
Aburamla
The Aburamla (Abu Ramla), like the Dats’in, is a subgroup within the larger Hamaj group, extending between eastern Sudan and western Ethiopia –the Aburamla live only in Ethiopia. While the Hamaj are known in the historical record since the sixteenth century at least, the Aburamla were first identified as a coherent, self-recognised group in 2019. They speak a Gumuz language that is probably similar, though not identical, to Dats’in. The Abu Ramla live in several villages north of Guba, mostly between Abu Ramla mountain and the Dinder river. Work was carried out in two villages: Aynishimish and Amzibil. The material culture of the Aburamla people shows evident connections with the other Hamaj group whose material assemblage has been studied so far, the Dats’in. This is particularly obvious in pottery (A04) and female bodily decoration, with elaborate beadwork (A08). Regarding pottery, the key element is the beer jar. In architecture, granaries are the most remarkable element (A10). They are very different from those of neighbouring groups (Gumuz and Kadallu): they are mud-covered (unlike the Kadallu or Banea) and decorated with crosses (unlike the Gumuz, which usually have breasts). The crosses can probably be related to the Christian background of the Hamaj peoples. The two most common handicrafts still common among the Aburamla are pottery-making and basketwork. Pottery-making (A04, X01-745) is a female task; basketwork, male (as among the Gumuz) (A05, X01-746, X01-747). Men make baskets, mats and beer filters. Pots made by Aburamla potters include cooking and beer-brewing vessels. This latter technology is the most threatened due to the influx of plastics and metallic pots and most (though not all) potters are older women. The replacement of pottery by plastic jerrycans is gaining pace and can be seen in house plans and inventories (A01-002/003, A01-016-017). The pot that better resists change is the beer jar –called jara—due to their core role in Aburamla culture. Aburamla men also make furniture (A03): chairs of wood and rope, again a male technology. As among other Hamaj groups, healing rituals among the Aburamla are performed by women, called gohe (A07). They use specific objects: a gazelle-head-topped stick, a hippopotamus-hide whip and a spear.
Kadallu
The Kadallu or Kadalo were first externally identified as a group by traveller Juan Maria Schuver in 1882. They have been traditionally lumped together with the Gumuz people (also by the regional administration), but linguistic analysis of the available vocabulary lists suggest that they speak their own language (part of the Gumuz family, but different from both the Northern and Southern Gumuz languages). Interviews conducted among the Kadallu in 2019 and 2020 confirm that their languages are not mutually intelligible and that they consider themselves a fully independent group, with their own clans –separate from the Gumuz. The Kadallu from Sudan seem to have abandoned their vernacular language for Arabic. In Ethiopia, they live in two villages south of Almahal in the Guba region. Work was carried out in the village of Babshankur. The material culture of the Kadallu is similar to the Gumuz in terms of pottery and agricultural implements (C01), but shares objects with the Bertha, living further to the south, such as the barbed spear (C02-557, C02-571, C02-572) and the throwing stick (C02-554, C02-581), which are also employed by the Hamaj communities. A core element that puts the Kadallu in the Hamaj sphere is the beer jar, which is similar in shape, though not in decoration (C02-549, 583-584), and that they call burma (a Sudanese name). For their proportions, it is even closer to the Bertha beer jar, the awar. Basketwork is a female task, unlike among the Gumuz and Aburamla. Women make baskets and mats (C03). Kadallu architecture (C08) also differs from Gumuz and Bertha. While the Gumuz have large, multipurpose houses, the Kadallu have domestic compounds with smaller structures (X03-815, X04-826), often with painted façades (probably a recent introduction) and they often use sun-dried mud bricks (C04, X03-812), a technique introduced from Sudan. The granaries (C07) are different in shape and are not mud-covered or decorated like the Gumuz and Aburamla. The connections of the Kadallu with neighbouring Sudan and their proximity to the town of Almahal and the main road are important threats to their traditional material culture.
Banea
The Banea are the only people with which we have worked in Guba that accept the label “Gumuz” for themselves, despite their cultural and linguistic differences with this group, of which they consider themselves a clan. They live in several villages in-between Almahal in the north and Mankush in the south. Work was carried out in the village of Banjercha, south of the Kadallu area. The material culture of the Banea is a hybrid between Gumuz and Hamaj. Thus, they use throwing stick (B02-320), barbed spear (B02-288) and Hamaj-style beer jars (B02-291), but also raised grinding stones (B10-486), agricultural implements (B02-292) and cooking utensils (B02-314-317) identical to the Gumuz. In terms of architecture, granaries (B09) are a mix between Hamaj and Gumuz and the small houses with mud-covered entrances (B010) again situate the Banea in the Hamaj sphere. Activities documented among the Banea include rope-making and broom-making, which benefit from the abundant palm trees in the area.
Opo
The Opo (Opuuo, Opuo) live in two villages (Gwanke and Akula) in the northwest of the region of Gambela, along the border with South Sudan and in South Sudan itself. Some Opo families also live in the Komo village of Pukong, near Gambela town. Although known to the wider world since the late nineteenth century, virtually no ethnographic work has been carried among them. Research was conducted in the village of Akula. Like the Komo, they speak a Koman language and are probably the smallest of all Koman groups. While they still retain much of their traditional beliefs, they have been subjected to evangelization by Protestant missionaries. As among other Koman groups, hunting, fishing and gathering still plays an important symbolic and economic role. During our stay in the village of Akula we could document a propitiatory hunting ritual (D09) and the making and placing of fish traps (D03). Other technological processes that have been recorded include blacksmithing (D05) and the making of a grinding stone (D06) and of a beer filter (D07). The material culture of beer, which is collectively drunk from a pot using straws, as among other Koman groups, is being rapidly replaced by industrial artefacts. Radical changes have been documented between 2010 and 2021, with plastic buckets replacing pottery. The proximity of the towns of Lare and Itang, along the main road between Gambela and South Sudan, and more recently of refugee camps set up in relation to the war in the neighbouring country, have accelerated the process of cultural change.
Chabu
The Chabu (Shabo, Sabu) people live in the rainforests of southeastern Gambela. They speak a language isolate and have been traditionally hunter-gatherers, although slash-and-burn agriculture has been occupying a greater role in their subsistence for the last few decades. The expansion of the coffee agribusinesses has severely endangered their livelihood. They have been chased from their traditional lands and suffered mass killings in the hands of settlers, to which they have responded by going deeper into the forest. Work was conducted in two villages: Mashi and Gobul. Their material culture shows strong similarities with their Shekkacho (Omotic) and Majangir (Surmic) neighbours. Thus, their houses (E09) are identical to the Majangir and their pottery (E04) is influenced by both the Majangir and Shekkacho. Indeed, it is difficult to tell whether there is anything exclusively Chabu in their material culture, except the mixture itself. Their borrowing from neighbouring traditions is also found in language, which has a large percentage of loanwords. Interestingly, some objects are similar to other Koman groups, despite they not being neighbours of the Koman nor having been in the recent past. This is the case with the flour sieve, which resembles that of the Komo and Gwama (E02-1072, 1087-1088). Meaningfully, the greatest lexical similarity of the Chabu is with the Koman languages. Several practices associated with foraging were documented, including spears (E02-67-68), the preparation of traps (E03, Y01-1313), the making of expeditionary baskets (E02-1076-181; E05, Y01-1316) and beehive-making (E08, Y01-1314). With the decline in the foraging lifestyle, some of these objects will likely disappear in the near future. Resettlement, roads and plantations are corralling the Chabu and affecting their material culture.
Acknowledgements
This project would not have been possible without the support of the Authority for the Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage, the Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa University, the regional administrations of Gambela and Benishangul–Gumuz and the woreda and kebele administrations where our work was carried out. Our greatest thanks go to all the Aburamla, Kadallu, Banea, Opo and Chabu people who collaborated with us and generously shared their material and immaterial knowledge.