CULTURAL HERITAGE UNDER THE IMPERIAL ADMINISTRATIONS (BEFORE 1974)

Prior to the reign of Emperor Haile Selassie (1930–74), antiquities and art treasures were protected by the state on a case-by-case basis with the direct interest of the emperor. For example, during the reign of Emperor Sahle Selassie (1813–47), movable antiquities and art treasures of the royal house were properly documented, labeled, and stored for the “edification of posterity,” and such information was proclaimed to the future occupants of the throne of the kingdom. ^{Footnote 13} Similarly, Ethiopian monarchs such as Lalibela (circa 1185–1225), Yekuno Amlaq (1270–85), Susneyos (1607–32), Fasiledes (1632–67), Yohannes IV (1871–89), and Menelik II (1889–1913) contributed to the erection of much religious and secular architecture, which has become a major heritage attraction in modern Ethiopia. ^{Footnote 14} The imperial administrations also contributed to the renovation and restoration of much religious heritage. Therefore, the protection of cultural heritage for the benefit of future generation is not a new concept in Ethiopia.

Even though Ethiopian cultural heritage came to the attention of the international community in the late 1860s due to the fieldwork of General Napier’s surveyors at Adulis, it took another 100 years for Ethiopia to pass any form of cultural heritage legislation. The era following World War II witnessed an invigorated interest in Ethiopian archaeology due to the works of European researchers such as Francis Anfray, J. Leclant, and J.D. Clark, to name a few. ^{Footnote 15} With the establishment of the Ethiopian Institute of Archaeology in 1952, more and more sites were explored and preliminary reports were published in the journal Annales d’Ethiopie. Frequent discoveries of new sites and growing artifact collections demanded proper protection and the preservation of these antiquities. As a result, in 1966, the Ethiopian imperial government issued the Antiquities Proclamation to provide for the protection and preservation of antiquities. ^{Footnote 16} The Antiquities Proclamation states that “[a]ntiquity shall mean any construction or any product of human activity, or any object of historical or archaeological interest, having its origin prior to 1850 E.C.” ^{Footnote 17} The implication of this proclamation was that it included all antiquities, art treasures, and built heritages until the end of the Zemene Mesafint (or “the age of the princes,” 1769–1855), while overlooking the heritage of later periods.

This definition of antiquity certainly originated from the classical antiquarian perspective that flourished in Italy, Britain, and other European countries. Antiquarianism does not deal with intangible cultural heritage. Therefore, the earliest heritage legislation in Ethiopia also misses the intangible aspect of cultural heritage, and in so doing, does not recognize intangible heritage, most of which is endangered. The Antiquities Proclamation is one of the best examples of a highly centralized approach to heritage management without the consideration of the participation of local communities. It declares that all antiquities existing within Ethiopia are the property of the state, but it exempts the church from this declaration and does not require it to transfer or surrender any of its possessions. The legislation was ambiguous about the compensation for those private individuals who surrender their antiquities. As a result, antiquities were often smuggled out of the country or sold to foreign tourists.

Traditionally, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was the custodian of many antiques, including gold crowns and ornaments, priestly regalia, ecclesiastical and vernacular materials, illuminated manuscripts, and so on. The Antiquities Proclamation made it compulsory to register and supervise all historical objects that exist in any church. However, the legislation did not clarify the necessary actions to be taken in the event of the loss of registered antiquities. Due to this ambiguity and a fear of legal actions and penalties, the church authorities simply overlooked the proclamation. It is one of the failures of a “top-down” approach to heritage management in which the communities are not taken into confidence. Such an approach gives the negative impression that the protection of heritage is an exclusive responsibility of the central government.

The Antiquities Proclamation necessitated the creation of an administrative body that was responsible for the discovery, protection, preservation, and study of Ethiopian antiquities. As a result, Order no. 45 to Provide for the Creation of an Ethiopian Antiquities Administration was issued in 1966 to provide for the creation of an Ethiopian Antiquities Administration. ^{Footnote 18} Subsequently, in 1967, UNESCO dispatched an expert to Addis Ababa to advise on the organization of the Ethiopian Antiquities Administration. Order no. 45 gave the administration the power to issue regulations for the barter, transfer, or export of antiquities. Consequently, the administration issued the 1969 Export of Antiquities Regulations to regulate the export of Ethiopian antiquities. This regulation required an export permit issued by the administration to export any antiquity from Ethiopia. ^{Footnote 19}

Ethiopia also witnessed the beginning of scientific restoration projects in the late 1960s based on the modern concepts of authenticity and integrity. In 1966–1967, Sandro Angelini, an Italian architect, with the support of the Ethiopian government and the International Fund for Monuments conducted a major restoration project at Lalibela. ^{Footnote 20} It was the first restoration project in Ethiopia based on the principles of an international charter—that is, the 1964 International Charter on the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter). ^{Footnote 21} In 1971, Sandro Angelini’s “historic route” development project proposal called for the restoration and development of several major tourist attractions, including Aksum, Lalibela, Gondar, and Lake Tana. ^{Footnote 22} Even though this project was not carried out due to budgetary constraints, it became a reference work for future archaeological projects in these areas. ^{Footnote 23}

Traditionally, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has also played an important role in the protection and preservation of ecclesiastical monuments, ritual objects, and ancient manuscripts. The church museums across Ethiopia have huge collections of manuscripts mostly written in the Geez language. These manuscripts are invaluable sources of the ancient and medieval history of the country. In 1973, the church, along with its foreign collaborators, took initiatives to microfilm its many manuscripts. ^{Footnote 24}

CULTURAL HERITAGE UNDER THE DERG REGIME (1974–91)

With the fall of the Imperial Government, Ethiopian Antiquities Administration was incorporated into the Ministry of Culture in 1974. Between 1975 and 1982, the military Derg regime carried out a project entitled the Preservation and Presentation of Selected Sites and Monuments, with the financial assistance of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). ^{Footnote 25} The immediate objective of the project was to create an up-to-date inventory of sites and monuments and to provide and supervise a program of works of restoration, conservation, and presentation of these same sites and monuments. Another objective of this project was to conserve and develop cultural heritage properties along the “historic route” in order to contribute to the overall economic growth of the country through tourism.

This project necessitated the establishment of a project coordination unit. Therefore, in 1976, the Ministry of Culture and Sports Affairs established the Centre for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage (CRCCH) to coordinate various restoration, inventory, and training programs. However, the CRCCH did not have any administrative powers to control and regulate archaeological research work in Ethiopia. After a few years of activity, the CRCCH was replaced with a more powerful institution called the Authority for the Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage (ARCCH), which became the custodian of Ethiopian archaeological heritage.

In 1975, Ethiopia became a member of the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM). Between 1978 and 1982, ICCROM supervised a project to conserve the “Black Angels” painted ceiling in the Church of Debra Berhan Selassie in Gondar. ^{Footnote 26} It also provided training for several cultural heritage professionals in Ethiopia. In July 1977, the Ethiopian government ratified the 1972 World Heritage Convention, which, resulted in the inclusion of the Simien Mountains National Park and Lalibela in the World Heritage List in the following year. ^{Footnote 27}

Another major step for the protection and preservation of Ethiopian cultural heritage was taken by UNESCO in a meeting held in Nairobi in 1976. The meeting called for an international campaign to help Ethiopia better manage its cultural heritage. As a part of this campaign, the Ethiopian government announced the formation of a National Committee for the Preservation of Ethiopian Antiquities in April 1984. In the same year, the government planned a long-term national campaign to protect its cultural heritage as well as to raise the awareness of cultural heritage among its population. As a part of this campaign, the government set up a Handicrafts and Small-Scale Industries Development Agency to revive traditional crafts and indigenous industries in order to improve the economic conditions of the country’s rural areas.

After the declaration of the 1966 Antiquities Proclamation, it took more than two decades for any major cultural heritage legislation to be passed in Ethiopia. The 1987 Constitution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Ethiopia declared in Article 55(1) that “Ethiopians shall have a duty to participate in the State and the society’s efforts to safeguard, collect and use those objects that have a historical interest as well as safeguarding the national heritage and to take care of these objects.” Subsequently, in 1989, the government issued Proclamation 36/1989 on the Study and Protection of Cultural Heritage, which repealed the Antiquities Proclamation (Cultural Heritage Proclamation). ^{Footnote 28}

The Cultural Heritage Proclamation gave the term “antiquity” wider meaning and scope by explicitly specifying what constitutes antiquity. Article 3 of the proclamation declares that “[a]ntiquities may be owned by the State or by any person.” The provision of private ownership of antiquities comes with the responsibility of the owner to bear the cost of repair and restoration of antiquities. However, the act does not specify the benefits of the owners who must spend their fortune in such conservation activities. To encourage the registration of antiquities, expenses incurred thereof were borne by the government. However, the provisions for registration and ownership were not followed by the provision of rights for the owners of antiquities. Articles 12(1) and 25(4) of the law contained provisions for appropriate compensation to the owner in the event that they chose to surrender their antiquities to the central government. Under Article 12, the government also reserved the right to nationalize antiquities if they were deemed to be in danger due to negligence or misuse. Nevertheless, religious items being used in places of worship were exempted from such nationalization. Article 26(1) provided the government with the power to declare any area of archaeological importance a “reserved area,” which is the first major breakthrough in the protection of archaeological sites. Like the Antiquities Proclamation, however, the Cultural Heritage Proclamation was also silent over matters related to the loss of registered antiquities.

In January 1989, UNESCO began its International Campaign for the Safeguarding of the Principal Monuments and Sites of Ethiopia.” This campaign involved the protection of sites dating back to ancient times and included world heritage sites such as the Lower Awash Valley, the Lower Omo Valley, Aksum, the rock-hewn churches of Lalibela, Fasil Ghebi in the Gondar region, and the Tiya site. In addition to these world heritage sites, three other sites were included in the international campaign: the Rock-Hewn Church of Adadi Maryam (circa fifteenth century), the Lake Tana Churches (seventeenth century), and the monuments of Harar (seventeenth to nineteenth centuries), with the last one subsequently becoming a world heritage site.

CULTURAL HERITAGE UNDER THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION (1991 TO THE PRESENT)

Following the downfall of the Derg regime in May 1991, the dominant political party known as the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front took control of the government, under the leadership of late Meles Zenawi. On 8 December 1994, Ethiopia adopted a new Constitution and established a federal and democratic state structure. According to Article 41(9) of the Constitution of the FDRE, “[t]he State has the responsibility to protect and preserve historical and cultural legacies, and to contribute to the promotion of the arts and sports.” Article 91(2) declares that the government and all Ethiopian citizens shall have the duty to protect the country’s natural endowment, historical sites, and objects. Thus, like the Derg regime, the new federal government also recognized the general population’s participation in the protection of heritage.

Based on the provision of Article 51(3) of the Constitution, the first Cultural Policy of Ethiopia was endorsed in October 1997. ^{Footnote 29} One of the main objectives of this policy was “to enable the languages, heritage history, handicraft, fine arts, oral literature, traditional lore, beliefs and other cultural features of the various nations, nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia to receive equal recognition and respect; to preserve and conserve these and pass them over to future generations.” The 1997 Cultural Policy of Ethiopia also contained provision for new laws and regulations to implement the policy. Accordingly, in June 2000, the House of Peoples’ Representatives enacted Proclamation 209/2000 on the Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage (Conservation Proclamation). ^{Footnote 30} It repealed the Cultural Heritage Proclamation. The new legislation explicitly states that “the protection and preservation of cultural heritage has been made the responsibility of each citizen, the society and the state.” ^{Footnote 31} Even though the new law allowed for private ownership of cultural heritage, it was silent over legal matters related to the loss of registered cultural heritage.

In the Conservation Proclamation, the term “antiquity’ was replaced with “cultural heritage” to incorporate different types of intangible cultural heritage. In comparison to the “antiquity” of the repealed legislation, the “cultural heritage” of the new legislation had deep meaning and wide scope. It legally recognized and acknowledged the value of Ethiopian cultural heritage and provided a framework to protect and preserve it for future generations. Thus, for the first time, Ethiopian legislation tried to define cultural heritage as:

Intangible cultural heritage also received attention in the Conservation Proclamation. Article 3(5) of this proclamation declares that:

The Conservation Proclamation provides for the establishment of a cultural heritage authority known as the ARCCH, and it “formally” replaced the old CRCCH in 2000. The establishment of the ARCCH with “juridical personality” under the Conservation Proclamation serves to protect, conserve, preserve, and manage the cultural heritage of Ethiopia. The ARCCH is accountable to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and it comprises an Advisory Council, a director general, and the necessary staff. The objectives, powers, and duties of the ARCCH; the organization, powers, and duties of the Advisory Council, and the powers and duties of the director general are clearly defined in the Conservation Proclamation.

On 28 October 2003, Ethiopia acceded to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its first protocol through Proclamation 373/2003. ^{Footnote 34} This proclamation empowers the ARCCH to undertake all acts necessary for the implementation of the convention in co-operation with other stakeholders. The same day, Ethiopia also ratified the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property through Proclamation 374/2003. ^{Footnote 35} This ratification was in accordance with the 1997 Cultural Policy of Ethiopia, which had promised that “measures shall be taken to protect heritage from theft, illicit trafficking and illegal exchanges, expatriation and from all sorts of illegal merchandise.” ^{Footnote 36}

On 17 October 2003, UNESCO adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage at its meeting in Paris. ^{Footnote 37} On 24 January 2006, Ethiopia ratified this convention through Proclamation 484/2006. ^{Footnote 38} Following this ratification, on 19–20 October 2006, the ARCCH and the Addis Ababa office for UNESCO organized a meeting on inventorying intangible cultural heritage and established a joint work plan. As a follow-up, in 2008–2009, the ARCCH conducted intangible heritage inventories in different parts of Ethiopia. ^{Footnote 39}

Between July 2009 and December 2012, Ethiopia implemented the Millennium Development Goal Fund Joint Programme, entitled Harnessing Diversity for Sustainable Development and Social Change, with the participation of UNESCO, the UNDP, the United Nations Resident Coordinator (UNRC), the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and the Regional Bureaus of Culture and Tourism. One of the specific objectives of the program was to develop and implement policies and legal frameworks for the protection and safeguarding of Ethiopia’s natural and cultural heritage. This program claims to have generated a sense of “shared cultural heritage” among different ethnic groups in Ethiopia. ^{Footnote 40}

Until very recently, there was no formal system of classification of Ethiopian cultural heritage. The Conservation Proclamation provides for the classification of cultural heritage at the “national” and “regional” levels. Consequently, in August 2014, the Ethiopian government issued Proclamation 839/2014 on the Classification of Cultural Heritages into National and Regional Cultural Heritages. ^{Footnote 41} This proclamation has great significance in terms of the classification of Ethiopian cultural heritage, procedures for such classification, the management of classified cultural heritage, the establishment of the Cultural Heritage Classification Council, and the duties of the members of the council.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Ethiopian cultural heritage can be broadly divided into two different groups: “inherent” and “acquired.” Cultural heritage that is deeply rooted in the perceived ethnicity can be termed “inherent heritage,” whereas the heritage that has been introduced by different religions can be called “acquired heritage.” Inherent heritage includes traditional architecture, folklore, traditional music and musical instruments, dance, conventional dispute settlement systems, and so on. Acquired heritage includes religious architecture, rituals, burial rites, religious sanctions, beliefs, and customs of various organized religions. The dual nature of cultural heritage can be witnessed in many ethnic populations, such as Konso, ^{Footnote 42} Oromo, ^{Footnote 43} and Kunama. ^{Footnote 44} These two types of cultural heritage are intricately linked within Ethiopian life. For example, several ethnic groups bury their dead according to the customs of Christianity, but they still observe certain traditions such as the “rhythmic ritual wail,” the erection of funerary stelae, the depiction of memorial grave art, and so on. ^{Footnote 45}

None of the Ethiopian legislation considers the dual nature of Ethiopian heritage based on these inherent and acquired aspects. The assessment of cultural significance does not consider the degree of alteration or transformation of a particular community due to the influence of organized religions. Such alteration can be studied according to the transformed and non-transformed groups within a specific ethnicity. This analysis of cultural alteration could be a basis for the understanding of different perceptions of cultural heritage within a particular ethnicity.

If heritage is the product of collective human efforts and skills, then who should own and protect it? In traditional management systems, built heritage is generally owned by communities, religious institutions, or families. Such heritage has been protected and preserved with donations from the rulers as well as from the public. The royal treasures were protected in the state treasuries after the proper documentation of each specimen. Before 1966, the Ethiopian state did not have any legal obligation to register or protect privately owned cultural heritage. Therefore, private individuals had the right to possess and transfer cultural heritage without any legal restrictions. The 1966 Antiquities Proclamation tried to change this tradition by declaring that all antiquities, whether movable or immovable, existing within Ethiopia were to be the property of the state. Interestingly, the same legislation allowed people to export antiquities with legal permission. Even though the legislation provides for the nationalization of antiquities, attempts to nationalize various objects failed due to the ambiguities within the legislation, the uncertainty about compensation, and the non-participation of religious institutions and private individuals. The matters related to the ownership of cultural heritage became much clearer in 2000 when the federal government proclaimed that cultural heritage may be owned by the state, by an institution, or by any person. The compulsory registration of cultural heritage according to Article 17 of the Conservation Proclamation establishes the country of origin and the original ownership of any piece of cultural heritage in order to facilitate repatriation in the event of looting and illegal cross-border trafficking. According to this proclamation, the state shall be the sole owner of the cultural heritage found during any exploration, excavation, fieldwork, or other works such as mining exploration, building construction, road construction, or any other fortuitous event. This is an important legal provision that will serve to prevent treasure hunting and illegal digging for antiquities. Moreover, Article 27 of the same proclamation entirely prohibits the export of cultural heritage.

The Conservation Proclamation does not specifically define an archaeological site, although, archaeological sites and built heritage are referred to as “immovable cultural heritage” under Article 3(7). Since the proclamation fails to define the protected area, the prohibited area, and the regulated area, the protection of archaeological sites has been a challenging task for the authorities. Many archaeological sites have shrunk due to continuous encroachments and the erection of buildings in their immediate surroundings.

The Conservation Proclamation does not make any mention of the need to provide an archaeological impact assessment prior to the implementation of developmental projects. Archaeological impact assessment is conducted under the legal framework of Proclamation 299/2002 on Environmental Impact Assessment, which is concerned, inter alia, with the impacts of projects on cultural heritage. ^{Footnote 46} This legislation was formulated on the basis of the 1997 Environmental Policy of Ethiopia, which seeks, inter alia, to “conserve, develop, sustainably manage and support Ethiopia’s rich and diverse cultural heritage.” ^{Footnote 47} However, in Ethiopia, archaeological impact assessment is rarely conducted and generally only when it is required by international funding agencies such as the World Bank. At present, the ARCCH does not have any formal guidelines or policies to standardize archaeological impact assessments, which are generally conducted with meager budgets and limited human resources. Generally, a surface survey is the usual method of investigation. Archaeological impact assessments have been conducted in Ethiopia for the Megech Pump (Seraba) Irrigation and Drainage Project, ^{Footnote 48} the Gibe III Hydroelectric Project, ^{Footnote 49} the Ethiopia–Kenya Power Systems Interconnection Project, ^{Footnote 50} and the Nekempt–Bure Road Project.

Cultural heritage management in Ethiopia also requires the effective co-operation of museums, research institutions, and foreign archaeological missions. The majority of Ethiopian museums do not have any proper documentation systems or conservation laboratories. Foreign archaeological missions simply dump excavated materials in public museums without providing any contextual information. For example, the archaeological site museum at Aksum has a vast collection of excavated materials submitted by British, Italian, and American archaeologists. Unfortunately, future researchers will not be able to study these archaeological remains because there is no original site documentation associated with the excavated materials. Artifacts without proper documentation are nothing but a collection of “curiosities.”

The ARCCH needs to develop an integrated management system in which traditional and formal management systems can be brought together to better manage cultural heritage. While the traditional management system focuses on the social memory and ideological aspects of cultural heritage, the formal management system emphasizes the concepts of authenticity and integrity as inscribed in the Venice Charter and the Nara Document on Authenticity. ^{Footnote 51} This complementarity is an essential part of the integrated management system because the traditional management system often violates the concepts of structural authenticity and integrity while conserving the cultural heritage, as has happened in Lalibela. ^{Footnote 52}

The ARCCH also needs to formulate archaeological impact assessment policies and guidelines to standardize impact assessment research. The district culture and tourism offices have to be upgraded with trained staff and adequate funding. The basic salary of the staff working in these important places, which at present is very low, needs to be revised and increased. World heritage sites, national heritage sites, and archaeological site museums, which are all rich in heritage resources, need regular attention and support from the authorities to improve site conditions and visitor experiences.

The laws related to cultural heritage need to be constantly reviewed and, if necessary, revised to avoid ambiguities and to facilitate cultural heritage management more efficiently. In terms of resources, a portion of the proceeds from ticket sales at archaeological sites could be set aside for the development of archaeological site museums as well as for community projects in places where the community lives within a close proximity of the sites. Thus, the ARCCH and the regional culture and tourism bureaus should ensure local participation in the management and upkeep of cultural heritage. These measures would facilitate a people-centered heritage management strategy and a universal appreciation for cultural heritage, which is beyond the narrow boundaries of ethnicity. Finally, it is high time that Ethiopia developed a comprehensive cultural heritage management policy with regard to developmental projects and tourism.