Agricultural settlements of the Amhara community since the 19th century

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Chapter Four Land Tenure System

Background (1865-1880)

Property rights are important factors in determining socio-economic interactions such as the productivity of the land; effectiveness agriculture and distribution produce in agrarian societies271. Rights to land and their implementation shape the security of any tenure system. It varies substantially across time, communities and individuals. In some countries, it is often governed by traditional common property systems. In this system land is controlled by the village or the clan, which allocates rights of use to individual members. In other countries, farmland is mostly privately owned, while forests, pastures and wastelands are common or state property272.
Land rights are major determinants of productivity, income, investment and effectiveness in agriculture, and are a significant feature of the political economy, distribution and welfare of rural populations. In many societies, land also has a number of important social, cultural and religious implications. In land-scarce societies, it is a major asset and a substantial proportion of household wealth is held in land. Its distribution is strongly correlated with income. In land-abundant societies, land has little commercial value and consequently does not form an important component of household wealth. In land-abundant areas, various kinds of livestock are major assets which perform many of the same functions as land does in the land-scarce communities273.
Property rights to land are a combination of different claims, such as use rights and transfer rights. For instance, traditional land tenure in different localities of Ethiopia comprised the right to cultivate the plot, to keep the full crop output, to donate the plot and sometimes to sell it within the community. However, sales to outsiders might be forbidden, or subject to approval by local authorities. Land may also be subject to seasonal variations in ownership status. In several parts of the region under study, land was farmed individually, while after harvest all land becomes part of the village‘s common property and pasture The researcher has discussed the fact that the transformation to farmlands throughout Oromo inhabited Ifat and Shäwa Méda had taken place almost by the last quarter of the 19th century. After the transformation, the right of access to these lands was one of the important factors that determined the socio-economic interactions among different communities and the relationship between the rulers and the public, besides its influence on the productivity of the farmlands. The idea of establishing means of access to land for cultivating or using products emerged, along with the agricultural settlements by the beginning of 18th century. Initially, two categories of tenure systems were created; one being termed rist and the other gasha275. At least at this early stage two types of land tenure were therefore in existence; one, rist, applied to the Amhara inhabited districts and the other, gasha, from the tool used to occupy the land of Oromo276, to the Oromo inhabited regions of Ifat and Shäwa Méda.
In Mänz and other Amhara inhabited districts access to agricultural land was granted only through parental descent as rist. An indispensable rule of rist tenure was the inalienable right of all descendants to a piece of land that could be traced back to the founding father (aqni) through either side of the family. Equally important in rist arrangements in north Shäwa was the link that existed between rist and cultivated land: only land owned and cultivated by the claimants fell under the category of rist, personally cultivable land. Forests, pasture, and bodies of water which fell outside were considered as communal property277.
It appears that the Amhara who were settled by Shäwan Chiefs after displacing the Oromo used the gasha lands in return for the provision of different services to the chiefs, such as genedäbäl, sämon, ganägäb etc. The settlers only had the right to use or cultivate this part of north Shäwa as long as they discharged the responsibilities expected from them by the chiefs, to the end of the 19th century. In fact, some of them occupied extensive areas and became powerful even at the expense of the chief or king.
It is believed that the land tenure system of the region began to be structured more clearly beginning from the time of Menilek‘s arrival in Shäwa in 1865. Therefore, it was during his early Shäwan rule that the land tenure system in North Shäwa was well established. Accordingly, the land in the region was divided among three claimants for different purposes. Hence, it was classified traditionally, in the domain of Christian rulers as ―ሲሶ ሊ ራሽ፤ ሲሶ ሇአን ጋሽ፤ ሲሶ ሇቀዲሽ”; “one third for the tiller, one third for the crown and one third for the prayer278‖. However, new regulations were proclaimed for the gasha märét (gasha land) in Shäwa Méda and Ifat on Tir 23, 1883 (January, 30, 1891). On that day Menilek made a proclamation that changed the whole of Shäwa Méda and Ifat from gasha to rist land279.
However, the land tenure system in North Shäwa was not as simple as that of the general rule mentioned above. It is a very confusing and complex system which greatly varied from locality to locality, even having the same name but varying in execution. Having the presence of these local variations in mind, the following is an attempt to discuss the general land tenure system in North Shäwa during the period under study.

Public Land or “Land of the First Settlers”280

Although it is very difficult to identify when and how the peopling of the region took place, the inhabitants of each locality developed their own myths of settlement by which they claimed that they were the first settlers. Therefore, each locality of the earlier Amhara Chiefdoms told their own stories about their settlement. They asserted that they had inherited the land from their ancestors or aqgni abbat. Though it is difficult to come by documented sources, their oral tradition about the settlement is essential in shaping one‘s understanding of the land tenure system in the socio-economic history of the region. Three sample districts: Mänz, Märhabété and Morät are selected to explain how the myth of settlement shaped their inhabitants‘ identity and served as a device to claim that the area was their ―homeland‖, inherited from their ancestors.
i) Morät – The myth of settlement in Morät, a district between Jäma and Bärsena rivers, states that the ―first settlers‖ of the Qolla region were the descendents of medieval King Dawit‘s (1430-1433) third son called Hezbenagn (Endriyas), whose town was situated on the hill of Däy in Morät. Gädelä Zéna Marqos associates the chiefs of Morät with Hezbenagn and his descendants. The Gädel frequently mentions the relationship between the king, by the name Endriyas, and the monk Zéna Marqos.
Taddäsä Tamrat was interested by this story, told for generations in Morät. He posed an inquiry that led him to the conclusion, ―There is a kernel of historical truth in the tradition‖. To reach this finding he relates the inhospitable geographical features of Morät and Märhabété districts with the despotic political behaviour of king Zärayaqob (1434-1468). Accordingly, the inhabitants of Morät associated their first settlement in the area with the descendants of Hezebnagn in their stories. The founder of the settlement was said to be a certain Chief who was assumed to be the remote ancestor of Hezebnagn, called by the name Mäzämer, along with one hunter, Amdé, and a craftsman named Yemera. Mäzämer used the skills of the craftsman in winning over his opponents282.
The present informants told the story as follows: previously Mäzämer had lived in the neighbouring districts of Wägda and Weger, to the east of Morät. Yemera‘s family had also been residing in the same area for some generations and they were well known for their technical skills. Knowing this, Mäzämer invited Yemera to a political alliance supported by political marriage. The contract entailed the possession of half of the land of Morät after the conquest, and Mäzämer‘s offering his own daughter for Yemera‘s son. Yemera accepted the offer of a marriage alliance and immediately started preparations to occupy the Morät district. He planned to frighten the previous inhabitants of the district into either peaceful submission or a disorderly retreat to neighbouring districts. Then he manufactured many little iron bells and captured a similar number of strange birds, tied the bells on their feet and let them fly in the skies over Morät. The local peoples were alarmed by the strange ringing and by the croaking cries of the birds. This allowed Mäzämer to mount an attack on the inhabitants. Many of them fled across the Jäma River to the neighbouring districts. The rest submitted to the invading forces of Mäzämer. The mission of settlement was performed not only by these two, but also with the help of a third ally, Amdé, a well known hunter, who hunted by using his clever dog. Therefore, Morät was settled by the triple alliance of Mäzämer, Yemera and Amdé. Hence the informants said These three pioneers inhabited Morät and made it the rist of their descendents. In fact, the tradition accords the status of descendant of Hezebnagn of Däy only to Mäzämer. The same attitude of the people is mentioned in the autobiography of Märsé Hazen as: ―በዚያ ም አገ ር የ ሚኖሩ
ሰዎች ሞረት ከጥደ፤ ዯብብ ከጸጋ እን ወሇዲሇን እያ ለ የ ሚመኩ ጥን ተ ክርስቲያ ን ና ቸዉ፡ ፡ ”284; ―The people who were living in Morät were early Christians and proud of being born from Tidu of Morät and Tsäga of Däbibi‖.
ii, Mänz – The myth of settlement in Mänz, a huge district between Qächiné and Mofär wuha rivers, is associated with the end of the war of Ahmed Gragn in the 16th century. It relates two important historical issues: the first being the destruction or threat that took place because of the war, with the second being how ―the resettlement‖ was carried out after the end of the war. The story was well recorded by Donald Levine several decades ago. It says the region was settled by three founding fathers: Mamama, Lalo, and Géra who were sent by one of the emperors to settle and govern that region. The emperor offered each of them as much land as he could travel in a single day. They began their journey from the Addabay River, a western boundary of present day Mänz, and galloped as fast as they could on the plateau of Mänz. Each attempted to cover as much distance as he could. The result of their long day‘s journey was the present division of Mänz into Mama Meder, Lalo Meder and Géra Meder285. It is said that, of the three brothers, Gera was able to cover the longest distance and claimed the largest territory in comparison to his brothers. The same story confirms that Géra‘s horse was the strongest, which is why Géra Meder is the largest of the three286.
Another version of this tradition states that these founding fathers were sent by Emperor Gälwdwos (1541-1559), while other versions declare that they were sent from Gondär. In one way or the other the myth underlined that Géra was the most powerful of the three, as the story of his horse indicated. He controlled most of the land of Mänz, including Afqara, a mountain fortress. He set aside a large stretch of grassland to be used by local people for grazing and providing grasses for roofs287. The grassland is not used as farmland and villages for settlements because of its cool temperature, as will be discussed in considering the tenure of common property resources. Thus, the later rist owners of Mänz asserted that they were the descendants of these three founding fathers.
iii, Märhabété – a district between Wänchit and Jäma rivers, also had its myth of settlement, mainly associated with migration from Gondär. The preserved myth is narrated among the inhabitants of Märhabété with several modifications but almost similar conclusions. Probably, the story tells of an incident that had taken place by the end of the 18th century. This is because Gondär has been mentioned time and again in the narration and the chief, by the name Wäldu, was the contemporary of Asfawäson of the late 18th century at Ankobär.
According to one of the informants, the ―founding father‖ of Märhabété was Bézanä Wäld. He said Bézanä Wäld appealed to the king at the time for the position of administrator of Märhabété, knowing that the king would appoint an excellent fighter as administrator over some of his domains. Fortunately, he deserved the position since he met this criterion and was given the appointment. After this he built his town on Korra Mountain and began to administer Märhabété288.
After the death of Bézanä Wäld, his son Bawla succeeded to the position. At the same time a man called Wäldu came from Gondär. He was a cousin of Bawla. When he asked for a place to settle he was given Weyin Amba by Bawla so that Wäldu would not come to Korra. Bawla did this because of a prophecy which foretold that if the latter were to come to Korra he would be the Chief ―Negus‖ of Märhabété in the place of Bawula. But as the story explains, Wäldu gained the position by ousting his rival, Bawla, in the absence of the latter. Bawla kept a mistress, down in the Jäma basin, and visited her frequently. Obtaining this information, Wäldu sent a spy to the town of Korra, who would smoke something as a signal if Bawla was in his court at mid day, and burn a torch at midnight if he was not there (ካሇ በቀን ጭስ አጭሱ ከላሇ በላሉት ችቦ አብሩ). The spy did accordingly so that Wäldu knew that Bawla was elsewhere. Wäldu then marched to the top of Korra and declared that from that time onwards he had overthrown Bawla. He ordered his army to guard all passes to the amba of Korra and became the ruler of Märhabété. Hence, the latter generations of rist holders claim that they are the descendants of these fathers; Bézanä Wäld being the first settler and Wäldu the law giver (ቅኝት የ ቤዛ ነ ወሌዴ፤ ቁና የ ወሌደ289.

Common Property Resources

One of the modalities of accessing the public land or ―land of the first settlers‖ was to make use of it as common property and resources. This refers to resources under communal ownership where access rules are defined with respect to membership of the community290. It comprises collectively owned and used resources such as irrigation systems, wells, forests, pasture grounds, wastelands etc. In such cases, property rights are in the hands of the tribe, the village, the clan or the ancestors291. Common property systems that once efficiently functioned throughout the Oromo of Shäwa Méda and Kärräyyu have been undermined gradually since the settlement of the area by the Amhara chiefs and their followers292. Land constituted the collective property of all the community among the Oromo293. Any part of the community‘s land was generally inhabited by those clans and their associates who had access to the rivers and streams within it, since water was also an essential resource for both the farmers and pastoralists. Forests were a very limited resource for the Oromo of north Shäwa. Pockets of hills and mountains or places of religious rituals were covered with forests or woods. For instance, Gada rules prohibited forest destruction; the cutting down of certain Trees was outlawed294.
North Shäwa was once richly endowed with rules governing common property resources amongst its diversified localities295. However, gradually, the significant common properties in the area of study were reduced to only those of water, pasture and forest. One good example of the methods of accessing common property resources in the region is the practice related to pastureland (guassa) in Mänz Gera Mider. In Mänz, the community claimed that their founding fathers (Aqgni Abat), Asbo and Gera, initiated the indigenous means of wisely using the pasture of the Guassa area in the 17th century. According to the tradition, they took note of an open piece of land in the eastern part of Mänz and demarcated it as their pastureland. Then they sub-divided it into two parcels, one for each father296. These two founders set the area aside for the primary purpose of livestock grazing and use of the guassa (Festuca) grass for other purposes. Those who belonged to this kinship group through either parent could lay claim to a share of the land for possible use. To employ the resources in the locality efficiently, the members of the land holding group developed an indigenous means of doing so. The system was known as Qero. It worked by choosing a headman (Abba Qera or Afero) who was responsible for protecting and regulating the use of each area. The parcels had one elected Abba Qera (Afero) for each. The user communities of the guassa were further subdivided at village level297.
The system provided for the protection of the guassa area from any type of use by the community for three to five consecutive years. The duration of the protection largely depended upon the growth of the grass and the demands made by the community. When the grass was ready for harvest, the date of the opening was announced to the rightful user community, either at church ceremonies, in the marketplaces, at burial ceremonies or at other public gatherings. The site would be opened to community members during the dry season, commonly in the month of February. Then every member harvests the grass and the livestock begins to graze what is left over. The community should make ready to leave the site by the first week of Hamlé; in particular, it is closed by 12 July (Hamlé Abo). This is because of the fact that the heavy summer rain becomes even heavier298.
It is understood that environmental reasons forced the inhabitants to arrange such traditional rules. More especially, the area is very cold (wurch), and neither trees nor crop cultivation yield the expected results. Hence, there was no permanent human settlement in the area. However, the guassa area played an important role in the economies and survival strategies of the communities living adjacent to it throughout their history of settlement.

“Private” Farmlands (Rist) 1891-1935)

The term rist is frequently found with the prefix Atsm in most of the sources used for study. Atsm signifies skeleton or bone. Accordingly, Atsmä-rist refers to land demonstrating some association with one‘s ancestors. Among the Christian community, it meant the land inherited from ancestors. Similarly, among the Oromo with their traditional beliefs, it was the land where ancestors were buried. It is the nature of the transfer of land from father to sons or daughters that provides emphasis in dictionary definitions of the term rist by Täsäma Habtä Mikael. In the same vein, Fiteha nägäst also gives emphasis to the possible means of inheriting rist299. Täshalä Tebäbu furnishes a further explanation of the tenure as it was both an ancestral descent claim and effective possession of land; the ancestral descent claims were much larger than the size of the effective possessions300. But in north Shäwa, the lands claimed to be effective possessions were much larger by the middle of the 19th century.
In terms of the definitions of the sources mentioned above, both the Amhara and the Oromo inhabitants of the region could claim rist land. The myths of settlement among the Amhara and the graves or ujuba of the Oromo community throughout Shäwa Méda correspond mainly with the definition by Gäbrä Wäld. In fact, the Oromo were not able to enforce this right to their rist of Shäwa Méda and Ifat after their displacement or subjugation, beginning from about 1700 AD301.
The increasing role of identity politics among the Amhara has reinforced the role of territoriality as a source of identity, that of the rist owner. In this aspect, their control of most of the region as their ―homeland‖, with strong roots in the doctrine of ―primacy of the first settler‖ through reconstructing their myth of displacement, was very important. For this reason they considered the highland plateau as the land from which they had been ―displaced‖ during the 16th century ―turbulence302. In any case, after the settlement of an area was said to have been accomplished, there was a rule about access to that newly founded farmland as rist for a member of the community.
The claim to rist possession was based on belonging to a line of descent from the initial father who happened to be the first to occupy the land as mentioned above. He was termed the aqegni abbat (founding father). The rist land was transmitted along both parents‘ line of descent. As mentioned, there was a relatively well established regulation of the rights and duties of the community who had access to the land. One of them was the process of inheriting rist land. The discussion of this process becomes more meaningful if one understands the different modalities of application among different owners of the land in the region. The lands which were owned as rist were sub-divided among the members of the community according to their different social, economic and political status; and the responsibilities they were required to discharge for the government. Broadly, there were three different kinds of members of the community recognized as rist owners: gäbbars, genedäbäls and melmels. One important point to be underlined here is that the members under the second (genedäbäl) and third (melmel) categories could only be owners of lands granted by the state during their terms of service.
The members of the first group were known as gäbbars, tax payers as regards the rist land they owned or inherited from their ancestors. The major means of accessing rist for the gäbbars was indeed by inheritance. Fiteha Nägäst described the issue as follows. The first step for the process was that of appointing an Aläqa (master). For instance, if an individual had nine children, one of them would be appointed as Aläqa. This was done by dividing the rist of the individual into ten equal parts. Then each child would take its own share by casting lots, and the Aläqa was entitled to add the tenth part303.
The additional share of the aläqa was known as yä aläqa meqdemiya (master‘s extra). The extra share of the aläqa was not always determined by lot. In many cases children who would become aläqa were given title to specific plots, guluma (private), while their parents were still alive. The extra share of the aläqa was free from taxation. In addition to the additional share of the land, the aläqa would expect to receive, usually, two qunna of flour at Easter as yätsom qolo from his siblings304.
An individual who would assume the position of aläqa upon the division of rist belonging to an aqni abbat (founding father) was known as yägend aläqa (initial master). Each sibling would then assign an aläqa of his or her own, upon dividing their share of the land among their heirs.
This secondary group of aläqa would be known as yäwägäb aläqa (Middle master). Still another group of aläqas were those of the fourth and subsequent generations, exercising authority over a vast body of land owners who were collectively known as minezer (sub-superintendent)305.
The aläqa (master) was accorded advantages since he acted or worked as the master of the siblings. Most cases of ilqina were accompanied by benefits, for which reason there were large numbers of court cases involving disputes over the office itself. He collected government taxes from them, carried out the actual division of land and performed other important duties. He had important administrative and social roles to play. The ilqina essentially derived from a position of seniority among siblings or heirs to a common ancestor. The responsibility of the aläqa ranged from distribution of land to collection of taxes from the minzer landholders. It was also the aläqa who arranged for and presided over the election of chiqashum. The aläqa was not necessarily a senior brother in a set of siblings. It was quite possible, and indeed a frequent occurrence, for a younger child to be chosen for the position of aläqa; this is why Käsatä Berähan says, ―ወይም አባ ቱ ያ ሊ ቀዉ”;“or whoever the father appointed”306. In those cases where the ancestor passed away without their properties being shared equally among their children the siblings would themselves pick one. An aläqa picked out by his siblings would not be entitled to an additional share of land upon division. An important characteristic of ilqina in this case is that it would be a rotating office. Siblings or heirs would take turns to discharge the responsibilities attached to their estate307.
The gäbbars of most of the Amhara districts such as Mänz, Märhabété, Morät, Bulga and Tägulät applied such a system for generations, up to the revolution of 1974 in the country308. Märsé furnishes a detailed account about the means of accessing rist land in his birth place Morät. His experience of rist tenure in a locality called Enjjara Mariam in Morät after the battle of Sägälé in 1916 was identical with Brehanu Täsfayé‘s experience in Mänz, as mentioned above309.
The second group of members of the community who owned rist land were termed genedäbäl (peasant army)310. They were the peasants serving the government in the court for a fixed period of time or providing special types of service during military campaigns311. They carried out many activities to do with tents. For this reason they were called after a pole (gend in the Amharic language) used to stretch tents, as genedäbäl (“wood eaters‖). They inherited rist land from their ancestors but did not pay all the taxes levied on the gäbbars who possessed lands like them. They were expected to pay only a few of these (according to the agreement they concluded with the government or their respective master). The rest of the tax was defrayed by the service they provided to the court312. This does not mean that all genedäbäls were owners of rist land inherited from their ancestors. There were genedäbäls who were donated land by the king. In this case, each specific piece of land was linked to the performance of particular duties. Such land could be inherited only as a result of the goodwill of the king, but this usually occurred when the heir assumed the responsibilities discharged by the former holder.

Table of Contents
Glossary
Acknowledgments
Declaration
Summary
Chapter One
1. Introduction
1.1. Geographical Setting
1.2 Methodology
1.3 Sources
1.4 Structure
Chapter Two  Review of Related Literature
2. Impoverishment: Causes and Consequences
2.1. Causes of Impoverishment
2.2. Consequences of Impoverishment
Chapter Three  Historical Background
3.1. Survey of Environmental History of North Shäwa (16th -19th century)
3.3 Agricultural settlements of the Amhara community since the 19th century
Chapter Four  Land Tenure System
4.1 Background (1865-1880)
4.2. Public Land or ―Land of the First Settlers‖
4.3. ―State Lands‖ (1880-1935)
4.4 Sämon (Church) lands (1880-1935)
Chapter Five  Land Taxes and Tributes (1880-1935)
5.1. Land Inventory and Measurement (1879-1880)
5.2 Taxes and Tributes (1880-1932)
5.3. Local Administrators and Systems of Taxations
5.4. Gult Rights and its Impacts on Agricultural Productivity
Chapter Six Multiple Instabilities
6.1. Political Instabilities
6. 2. Religious Conflicts
6. 3. Inter and Intra Community Conflicts
6.4. Predatory System as Consequence of Instabilities
Chapter Seven  ―Natural‖ Challenges to Peasants‘ Productivity
7.1. Monkeys, Locusts and other Pests
7.2. Land Degradations and Uncertain Weather
7.3. Famines and Health problems
Chapter Eight Socio-Cultural Systems
8.1. Agricultural Tools and Practices
8.2. Migration as way out of the Socio-economic Problems
8.3. Religion and ―Peasant Mentality‖
8.4. Social Environment that Favored Warrior-hood
8.5 The Destructive Methods ofUsing Resources
Chapter Nine  Shäwan Towns in the Neighbourhood of Farmlands
9.1 Semi-Mobile Royal Residences (1865-1881)
9.2. Depletion of Resources and Transfer of the Capital to Central Shäwa (1881-1886)
9.3. Following the Footsteps of the Capital: North Shäwans became the Majority of Addis Ababa‘s Residents (1886-1935)
Chapter Ten Population Outmigration (1881-1935)
10. 1 Causes of the Migration
10.2. Declining Opportunities in North Shäwa as Pushing Factors
10.3. Developments in the South after the Conquest as Pulling Factors
Chapter Eleven Region of the Marginalized People
11.1. Peasant Life
11.2. Royal Appointees in North Shäwa
11.3 Attempts at ―Modernization‖
11.4 Contribution to National Economy
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT