See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308550824

The ‘Heritagization’ of Konso Cultural Landscape

Thesis · December 2010

CITATIONS READS
0 8,208

1 author:

Awoke Amzaye Assoma

Hawassa University
11 PUBLICATIONS   93 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sidama (Ethiopia) ecology, subsistence, well-being and personality View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Awoke Amzaye Assoma on 24 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The „Heritagization‟ of Konso
Cultural Landscape

By Awoke Amzaye Assoma

Dissertation in Partial Fulfilment of the Degree of Masters of Science in Social Anthropology at the
London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE

Candidate Number: 21310

Program: M.Sc. Social Anthropology, 20009-2010
Department of Anthropology
London School of Economics and Political Science
Word Count: 9,946 words (body text only)
 Table of Contents
Page
Abstract ii
Acronyms iv
List of Figures v
Chapter I. Introduction 1
1.1. General Background 1
1.2. Conceptual and Historical Context of cultural Landscape 2
1.3. Aim of the Thesis 5
1.4. Research Questions 5
1.5. Methodology 6
Chapter II. Konso in Literature 7
Chapter III. Case Study: Main features of the Konso Cultural Landscape 9
3.1. Introduction 9
3.2. Identification (Isolation) of the Property 10
3.2.1. Inscription Criterion (iii) 10
A. Mora 11
B. Dhaga Dhiruma and Dhaga Khela 13
C. Olayta 14
D. Waaka 15
E. Mura Dhawura: Sacred Groves 16
F. Dhina Forest 16
G. Harda: Traditional Ponds 17
3.2.2. Description Criterion (v) 17
H. Dry Stone Terraces 17
I. Paleta: Walled Towns 18
J. Organization & Structures within towns: Kanta & Household Organization 20
3.2.3. Inscription criterion (vi) 21
3.3. The Idealization of Property 21
Chapter IV. Discussion and Conclusion 22
4.1. Discussion 22
4.2. Conclusion 25
Bibliography 26

ii
 Title: The ‘Heritagization’ of the Konso Cultural Landscape

Abstract
This essay is about the „heritagization‟ and internationalization of the Konso cultural landscape,
south-western Ethiopia. The Konso cultural landscape has been tentatively listed on the UNESCO world
heritage list in 1997 for inscription. To this end, main features of the cultural landscape has been
documented and mapped; boundary delineation and heritage site management plan has been prepared and
submitted to the World Heritage Centre. Moreover, a legal document that will „transfer‟ ownership of the
cultural landscape from the Konso people to the Ethiopian State and the world community (through the
Ethiopian government) has been prepared. As the documentation (text, picture, mapping documentation,
buffer zone and boundary delineation legislation and management plan preparation) required by the World
Heritage Centre are produced, the inscription of the Konso cultural landscape is expected to take place
soon. Thus, this thesis presents the identification, selection, isolation, documentation, shaping and
construction of the Konso cultural landscape „heritage‟ out of an undifferentiated Konso space on the one
hand, and the conflicts, contestations, and negotiations over legitimacy and authority, and the optimism
and scepticism seen during the „heritagization‟ process on the other. In doing so, I argue, „heritagization‟
and internationalization of a place play three complementary roles: at a local level, it is a struggle for
representation as well as place making to support the creation or recreation of identity. Besides it creates
economic optimism and may help to network to other communities. At a national level, it helps to
aggrandize a nation state; and it helps to build the image of the state at international level. Consequently,
this thesis aims to contribute further understanding of power relations at local, national and international
level by exemplifying the „heritagization‟ and internationalization of the Konso cultural landscape.

Key words: cultural landscape, heritage, world heritage discourse, walled towns, isolation, idealization,
valorisation, UNESCO, World Heritage Centre.

iii
 Acronyms
ARCCH Authority for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage
ARCCIKCL Association for Research and Conservation of Culture, Indigenous knowledge and
cultural Landscape
BIC Bureau of Information and Culture
CAS Center of African Studies
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
KGA Konso Gardula Area
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
SNNPRS South Nations, Nationalities and Peoples‟ Regional State (of Ethiopia)
WHC World Heritage Center

iv
 List of Figures

Fig. 1 Typical kanta mora with pafta, Dhokato Town

Fig. 2 Dhaga khela in an open mora, Mechello Town
Fig. 3 Olayta, Gamole Town
Fig. 4 Waakas of Bamale
Fig. 5 Konso dry stone terraces
Fig. 6 Map of Dhokato Town

v
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. General Background
The Konso are East Cushitic language speaking people (Watson 2009: 25) living in a small rocky
and barren hills of south-western Ethiopia. Their land lies between 700-2100m above sea level and has
shortage of rain. The Konso are highly skilled farmers and are known for their dry stone terrace
agriculture, indigenous soil and water conservation technique and walled town settlements. This is a living
cultural landscape unique in Ethiopia. In addition to this living cultural landscape, the discovery in 1991,
of the world‟s oldest Acheulian Paleoanthropological area with diverse fauna fossil remains included
hominids and abundant lower Pleistocene cultural materials (Acheulian stone tools-hand axes) has
contributed to the importance of Konso cultural landscape worth of a place in the world Heritage list.
Moreover, tremendous scholarly work and advocacy by various parties, including Friends of the United
Nations – F.U.N. (who awarded the Konso for effective traditional water and soil conservation in the 1995
„We Peoples: 50 Communities Program), publication of various postal stamps (depicting Konso waaka
and terraces) by the Ethiopian Postal Agency, tour operators‟ and various medias incessant advocacy have
all influenced and enhanced the nomination of the Konso cultural landscape onto the World Heritage list
in 1997.
This thesis is about the „heritagization‟ process of the Konso cultural landscape. Accordingly, a
comprehensive nomination file of the cultural landscape (heritage site) was prepared and submitted to the
World Heritage Centre. This included detailed documentation of the main features of the cultural
landscape (including pictures, slides, videos, inventories and descriptions), mapping and boundary
delineation (with buffer zone), site management plan preparation and legislation (a legislation that provide
legal status of the cultural landscape or a legal document that enable the state to appropriate the cultural
landscape from the local people) the cultural landscape. The nomination file has been completed and
submitted to the World Heritage Centre (WHC) in 2008; so inscription of the Konso cultural landscape is
expected to take place soon. Thus, if inscribed, the Konso cultural landscape will become part of an
imagined world heritage community or part of the world heritage-scape1.
This thesis presents the selection, shaping and construction of the Konso cultural landscape
„heritage‟ out of an undifferentiated space, on the one hand, and the contestations, negotiations, optimism
and scepticism seen during this „heritagization‟ process on the. In doing so, I argue, „heritagization‟ and
internationalization of a place (a cultural landscape) plays three interrelated roles: locally it plays
inspirational role to consolidate Konso identity besides widening economic opportunity. Moreover, by
linking the Konso community to an imagined global community it fosters a sense of global commonality.

1
I borrowed this concept from Di Giovine (2009), who in turn borrows the concept from Arjun Appadurai.

1
Nationally it enhances the state‟s bureaucratic intervention into the affairs of local communities in the
name of heritage conservation and development. Moreover, it uses to build the state‟s image and
representation internationally. Internationally, it fosters UNESCO‟s „heritage discourse‟ (Fontein 2000),
which is part of the globalization discourse, Consequently, this thesis aims to contribute further
understanding of these dynamics, conflicts and power relations at local, national and international level by
exemplifying the „heritagization‟ and internationalization process of the Konso cultural landscape.

1.2. Conceptual and Historical Context of Cultural Landscape

Cultural landscape is a new concept recently introduced by Sauer. According to Saur, landscape is
“an area made up of a distinct association of forms, both physical and cultural”, while cultural landscape is
something “fashioned from a natural landscape by a cultural group. Culture is the agent, the natural area
the medium, the cultural landscape the result” (Quoted from Sauer 1963: 343 by Reisenweber 2008: 24).
Though landscape study has been the realm of geography, art and architecture, anthropology has
also joined the field recently because “„landscape‟ has been deployed, first, as a framing convention which
informs the way the anthropologist brings his or her studies into view (i.e., from an „objective standpoint-
the landscape of a particular people) secondly, it has been used to refer to the meaning imputed by the
local people to their cultural and physical surroundings” (Hirsch1995: 1). Moreover, landscape and
especially cultural landscape study interests anthropology because it is a “distinct cultural idea and
analytical concept” (ibid: 4) denotes a „cultural process‟. As a cultural process it also denotes the present
and the past; and hence is analogous to heritage: “a product of the present, purposefully developed in
response to current needs or demands for it, and shaped by these requirements. It makes two sorts of
generational links, both of which are determined by the present” (Turnbridge and Ashworth 19996: 6).
The phrase „purposefully developed in response to current needs or demands for it, and shaped by these
requirements‟ denotes that heritage formation is a selective action determined by current political needs.
This phrase is also related to the emergence of „UNESCO‟s world heritage concept as a special
kind of modernist global political act as briefed below.
UNESCO was established on 16 November 1945 as specialized agency of the UN. The preamble
of its constitution states that “since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the
defences of peace must be constructed”; so the main purpose of its establishment was “for advancing,
through the educational and scientific and cultural relations of the peoples of the world, the objectives of
international peace and of the common welfare of mankind” (UNESCO 1945:1). It thus aims to
reconstruct the world and change the mentality of the world population whose minds were preoccupied
with war (or embedded in war mentality).

2
 These ideas were related to the memories of devastation of WWII. However, in the following
decades the education ensued by UNESCO was unable to bring the envisaged peace and stability. Let
alone to rein international peace and stability, its very existence was threatened by the Cold War, the
turbulence in the Middle and Far East and the revolutions of the 1970s in Europe (Di Giovine 2009: 75).
In this turbulent situation, the past and heritage were given a special emphasis as they were very important
instruments to invent or re-invent traditions; which Hobsbawm defines as “a set of practices, normally
governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate
certain values and norms of behaviour by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past”
(Hobsbawm 1983: 1).
However, the very existence of many of the heritages used to invent traditions was endangered
due to claims and contestations of different parties. This created an opportunity for UNESCO to intervene
into various states to protect heritages of general human interest. Suddenly “identifying and protecting
sites deemed to be of importance of the history and culture of the human race” (Di Giovine 2009: 74). So,
the general conference of UNESCO, meeting in Paris from 17 October to 21 November 1972, adopted the
World Heritage Convention (that also created the World Heritage Centre - hereafter referred to as WHC)
for “establishing an effective system of collective protection of the cultural and natural heritage of
outstanding universal value, organized on a permanent basis and in accordance with modern scientific
methods” (UNESCO 1972: 1).
Following this international „instruction‟, a lot of natural and cultural heritages have been
inscribed on the world heritage List. To date about 851 heritage site/heritages (cultural, natural, cultural
landscape) are inscribed on the World Heritage List. As it is posted on the WHC web site 660, 166 and 25
are cultural, natural and mixed respectively. 186 countries have cultural properties inscribed on the World
heritage list while 38 countries have none. Out of the 851 heritages that are inscribed as world heritage
about 416 (49 %) heritages/heritage sites are in Europe and North America. Africa, Arab States, Asia-
Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean have 74 (9%), 62 (7%), 182 (21%), 117 (14%) respectively.
As this statistics clearly shows almost half (49%) of all the heritages inscribed on world heritage
are found in Europe and North America; and most of these are monuments. This shows subjectivity in
selection, which is based on value judgment that states, “the state-parties… submit nominations of
properties of cultural and/or natural value considered to be of "outstanding universal value"[emphasis
mine] for inscription on the World Heritage List” (WHC 2008: 14). The problem, however, is that value is
dependent on the selectors taste. If we take a certain building, for example, different people will value it
differently: for an artist what is important is its design, meaning its artistic value; for an economist it is the
economic value to generate income; for a priest its religious value; for an urban architect its architectural
value as part of a town building; for a historian its association to the past; and for an anthropologist its

3
social value as public place, etc. On the other hand, value judgement is dependent on the prevailing socio-
cultural, political and ideological situation. Value is thus a reflection of power relations.
Consequently, under representation of heritages at global scale expressed power relations, which
also was a reflection of general global economic, political and socio-cultural inequality at global scale, it
raised political discontent of many state parties that constituted the global organization. Consequently, the
16th World Heritage Committee meeting of 1992 adopted a new guideline to include the non-monumental
and non-architectural heritages of the „Others‟ onto the World Heritage List; so as to settle down the
political dust. Accordingly,
...the World Heritage Committee‟s Global Strategy advocated thematic studies as a means of
obtaining a more representative World Heritage List. The Committee recognized that there was a
predominance of monuments of European and monumental architecture and Christian heritage,
and a lack of African, Asian and Pacific places. They also recognized that traditional cultures with
their depth, complexity and diverse relationships with their environment, were hardly represented
at all (Mitchell, et el 2009: 22).

The World Heritage Centre was established, together with adoption of a new of concept of
heritage- the concept of „cultural landscapes‟, as the secretariat of the World Heritage „system‟. Cultural
landscape is defined by the WHC as follows:
(Cultural landscapes are cultural properties and represent the "combined works of nature and of
man" designated in Article1 of the Convention. They are illustrative of the evolution of human
society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or
opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic and
cultural forces, both external and internal. (WHC, 2008: 14).

Besides adding a new dimension to the concept of heritage (Fontein 2000: 41-2), the adoption of
„cultural landscape‟ concept also solved the culture/nature dichotomy that has been a conceptual set back
of UNESCO‟s heritage system. Moreover, the adoption of this new concept shows that labelling of
something as „natural‟ or „cultural‟ is ultimately a cultural construction. Hence, the last categorization is
“... the most innovative in that it acknowledges that a landscape can be „cultural‟ as well as „natural‟
purely through the „cultural‟ values that people associate with it, and does not therefore require any
material manifestation of its „cultural‟ features” (ibid: 45).
Though this new approach has problems associated with integrity and authenticity of „living
sites‟/„cultures‟, it has tremendously helped to change the old perception of associating heritages with
monuments and with the past. Moreover, by accepting the „world heritage discourse of UNESCO, most
African states were able to embark on inventory and selection of many new sites for nomination onto the
world heritage list though their success is doubtful. Ethiopia alone has submitted a tentative list of three
heritages/heritage sites in the last ten or more years, including the Konso cultural landscape, for
nomination none have been officially inscribed on world heritage to this date. Whatever the case, the

4
heritagization and nomination of the Konso cultural landscape onto the world heritage tentative list was
fostered by acceptance of UNESCO‟s world heritage discourse and especially by getting advantage of the
new global development of heritage politics.

1.3. Aim of the Thesis

As manifestation of the totality of past and present, the Konso cultural landscape represents Konso
socio-economic, political and religious life. Moreover, as the Konso cultural landscape, which represents
the „combined works of nature and of man‟, is the process of heritagization and internationalization, it
becomes appropriate for anthropological investigation. Thus, one of the aims of this thesis/study is to
understand the cultural construction of landscapes and the social and political dynamics and patterns of
appropriation of local cultural systems by external agents. Moreover, this thesis aims to highlight the
heritagization process of the Konso cultural landscape; so as to contribute further understanding of the
„world heritage‟ and other related discourse and power relations at local, national and international level
by exemplifying the „heritagization‟ and internationalization process of the Konso cultural landscape.

1.4. Research Questions

In this research the following questions will be raised: How do the Konso see the „heritagization‟
and internationalization process of their cultural landscape? What are the social, economic and political
implications of the „world heritage discourse‟ at local, national, and international level? What kinds of
changes affect Konso cultural life and how do the Konso respond to these changes? How do these changes
affect the heritagization internationalization of the process of the Konso cultural landscape? How does the
heritage discourse relate to other global discourses, such as nationalist and development discourses?

1.5. Methodology
Various complementary research methods and procedures are used in this study. The basic data
used in this thesis basically comes from 2008-9 field work to which I was member. The methods used in
this study included: literature review; documentation (using pictures, videos and field notes); series of
meetings with local, regional and village government offices and communities leaders (including elders,
clan and ritual leaders, ward council and age grade representatives); mapping (including terraces, walled
towns, moras /public places, sacred groves, steles and statues, terraces, traditional ponds etc., using GPS,
Google Earth Map data, map source, and national topographic sheet); and participatory observation (at
work places, individuals‟ homes, public places and ceremonies); empirical data collection (using pre-
prepared data collection formats). Thus, the methods employed in this study combines both ethnographic
and non-ethnographic methods (such as management plan preparation, sketch drawing and preparation of

5
legislation). Generally, the literature review and the field data have been organized, analyzed and
interpreted against the research questions and the aims of the thesis.

6
 CHAPTER II
KONSO IN LITERATURE
Though the Hallpike‟s The Konso of Ethiopia (1972) was the first comprehensive ethnographic
account of the Konso, the dry terrace agriculture, the walled towns and socio-economic institutions of the
Konso attracted the attention of many scholars, anthropologists, travellers and geologists since the 19th
century. To date, more than eighty scholarly reports have been published focusing on various aspects of
the Konso. This makes the Konso perhaps one of the most thoroughly studied groups and areas, especially
of, southern of Ethiopia. The first mention of the Konso was made by Donaldson Smith who passed south
of the Konso area in 1895. Donaldson mentions gardens belonging to the Konso and trade with the Boran
in tobacco, coffee and sorghum (Smith 1969 [1897]). Report of 15 excellent photographs of Azais in
1931attracted attention of the Germens to make „The German South Ethiopian Expedition‟ in 1934-35 that
“also intended to document explicitly these monuments… A.E. Jensen and Frobenius were fascinated by
the idea of incorporating the monuments of Konso along with other products of their culture into an
intercontinental megalithic culture with stone-settings and ritual killings” (Ambron: 2002: 78). Konso
agriculture, which is most striking to a visitor (Watson 2004: 52), was described by Nowack and Darragon
in 1938 and by Ambron in 1989. Moreover, Konso market was studied by Kluckhohn in 1962 (Hallpike
1972/2008).
As these writers report, the Konso lived in many autonomous walled towns and remained
independent until the army of Emperor Menelik II incorporated them into the Ethiopian Empire in 1894.
After a short resistance they submitted and a governor was assigned for the area to collect tax and tribute
(Hallpike 2008: 6-7). Before the incorporation of Konso into the Ethiopian Empire villages may form
political alliances, but there is no overriding political authority, and the alliances change over time. As
Hallpike reports, “towns are governed by elected councils of elders, but traditionally there is no authority
which can impose its will on the towns collectively and... fighting was endemic among them” (Hallpike
1970: 258).
A lot of changes that took place in Ethiopia since the 19th century have also affected and brought
tremendous spatial, political, economic and socio-cultural changes in Konso. Thus, more recent
ethnographic studies of Konso include investigations into these changes, and the socio-economic and
political life of the Konso and land and the terraced agriculture (Ambron 1989; Watson 2004); the
settlement program and its effects in Konso (Kloos, et el, 1989); the origins and organization of the Konso
clans (Shako Otto 1994); the situation and roles of hide workers, hide working and flake tool usage in
Konso (Brandt and Kathryn 1997); the death of ritual of Konso clan leader (Tadesse 1998). Steles/statues,
formerly described by Jensen (1936), Haberland (1963) and Hallpike (1972) were reinterpreted and their
significance was described by Metasebia Bekele (1997) and later by Ambron (2002). Changes after the

7
fall of the military regime in 1991 were very profound. These post-socialist changes have also been
reported by few writers: the changing values and significance of wooden statues by Ambron (2002); the
economic reform/liberalization and its effects on Konso society was reported by Watson (1997, 2002, and
2006), Hallpike (2008) and Ellison (2006). Birgitta K. Kimura‟s archaeological excavations and research
in Konso in 2002 -3 was exceptionally valuable for this thesis because of its focus the spatial organization
and chronological history of Konso walled towns.
Generally, this scholarly exposition and advocacy has significantly influenced and shaped process
of the Konso cultural landscape heritagization and this thesis. Consequently, my participation in Konso
landscape documentation field work coupled with exposure to Konso and its literature collection were
behind my choice of the topic of this thesis.

8
 CHAPTER III
CASE STUDY: MAIN FATURES OF THE KONSO CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

3.1. Introduction
The Konso cultural landscape is characterized by dry stone terrace agriculture and walled town
settlement. Dry stone terrace agriculture and walled town life style might have been practiced for 400
years (Hallpike 2008: 83) and, as the community elders say, not much has been changed since then. The
dry stone terrace agriculture is an indigenous adaptation to the dry environment of Konso that is
mountainous, barren and rocky as explained earlier. Moreover, the cultural landscape is the result of a
strong tradition that is based on common values and practices which created the Konso culture and socio-
economic binding fabrics.
Though these features more or less characterize the whole Konso, the Konso cultural landscape in
this wrting refers to the „traditional‟ 2core Konso area (between 5°15′45″ and 5°21′15″ north and
37°20°00″ and 37°27′30″east) that is nominated for inscription onto the World heritage list in 1997. This
core Konso area, which is approximately 140km2, is defined by the intensity (and presence or absence) of
walled towns and terraces. Moreover, the Konso cultural landscape here refers specifically to only twelve
walled towns of core Konso area and their corresponding terraces that were selected for nomination.
Before selection of this core area was made, survey and inventory of the natural and cultural features of
the whole Konso (i.e., modern Administrative territory of Konso, which is much wider than the above
referred area) was made by the „Association for Research and Conservation of Culture, Indigenous
Knowledge and Cultural Landscape, ARCCIKCL’ (a local NGO). The selection of the core area (based on
the survey and inventory report) involved a series of consultation meetings between elders of walled
towns, traditional clan/regional chiefs, generation leaders, Kebele (village) and Konso Special Woreda
government offices‟ and the documentation/research team. Thus for example, agreement on „traditional‟
boundaries was problematic; so agreement on the boundaries of the nominated cultural landscape was
reached through contestations and negotiations between community elders, traditional chiefs and
government officials of villages and Konso Special Woreda. This shows that the selection, boundary
decision and agreement of the nomination cultural landscape was subjective as it does not exactly fit the
grid boundary and buffer zone definition of the WHC. On the other hand the decision was highly
influenced by the scholarly literature that fostered Konso culture and cultural landscape as unique site that

2
The term „traditional‟ core Konso area is very much contested because Konso territory has been changing over the
centuries and decades, especially at the margins. Thus the term „traditional‟ may refer to „areas of first settlement‟,
(i.e., before their neighbours), an administrative territory after Konso was incorporated into the Ethiopian Empire in
1894, overlapping or jointly used and occupied territory by the Konso and its neighbouring communities with or
without conflict. This problem manifests itself clearly when the research team tired to show „precise boundaries „of
the Konso cultural landscape on „appropriate scale map‟, a generic guideline of the WHC for nomination.

9
needed special preservation as local national and international heritage. This shows the influence of
ethnographic and non-ethnographic literature in shaping the heritagization process of the Konso cultural
landscape.
The heritagization of the Konso cultural landscape out of undifferentiated space involved a
predetermined identification, selection, documentation (including selected picturing), boundary and buffer
zone delineation and mapping, according to the WHC‟s nomination procedures, standardized guide lines,
and techniques. In other words, this process involved „de-territorialisation‟ (Di Giovine 2009) or
„disembedding‟ (Giddens 1990) of part of the cultural landscape from its social context; so as to re-
contextualize it into a new national and international context.
This could be compared to disembedding an artefact from a local socio-cultural context and
reinstituting it in a museum context as heritage. As an art material that becomes museum heritage is re-
contextualized and idealized to take a new meaning and context, a cultural landscape is disembedded from
its socio-cultural context through heritagization process and takes a new value, context and meaning (Di
Giovine 2009: 196) through disembedding and de-territorialisation.
Moreover, Di Giovine creates parallel between Victor Turner‟s three step ritual transformation
(separation, liminality and re-aggregation) and the process of transforming a certain site or cultural
landscape into a world heritage through isolation (isolating a site from its previous social context by
documentation, boundary delineation, mapping, etc), idealization (“the site idealized to better
representatively much the qualities espoused into the heritage-scapes meta-narrative claim”) and
valorisation (re-aggregation of a site into international context with a new value, status and meaning) (Di
Giovine 2009: 196-198). This isolation and idealization steps of the Konso cultural landscape are seen as
follows.

3.2. Identification (isolation) of the property

The first step of heritagization of a site starts with identification of a site. According to
UNESCO‟s world heritage inscription procedure, each state-party prepares tentative list of potential
cultural and natural heritages in its territory. Accordingly, the Konso cultural landscape was identified by
the state party who submitted it to the WHC be included in the world heritage tentative list in 1997 as
mentioned earlier. The actual and detailed identification (description) of main features of the Konso
cultural landscape was carried out. As mentioned above, this step included documentation (in note books,
with pictures and videos, legislation, boundary delineation and mapping and site management plan
preparation). The nomination file was endorsed by state officials at different administrative tiers and was
submitted to the WHC for inscription onto the world heritage list based on the following criteria.

10
3.2.1. Inscription Criterion (iii)
The first inscription criterion of the Konso cultural landscape is criterion (iii) that stated, “bear a
unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which
has disappeared”.
As repeatedly reported by many anthropologists substantiated by the documentation team, the
Konso cultural landscape is characterized by a living tradition of unique dry stone terrace agriculture,
walled town settlement and traditional soil and water conservation knowledge and technique; erection of
steles, wooden statues (waakas), generation posts etc. In this regard the following features are testimony of
‘exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has
disappeared‟.

A. Moras
Moras are multi-functional institutions with or without pafta, men‟s sleeping house. They are
places where the society discuss and solve its problems; they are also places where justice is administered.
Moreover, they are places for chatting, playing and dancing. Children stay and play at moras during the
day when their families go to farm. Travellers who are tired and need a safe place freely rest or pass nights
in moras. As moras are at junction of main avenues of the towns, old people and weavers sit or weave in
or around moras. Meantime these old people and weavers control movement of persons in the town when
adults go to farms.
Moras consist of various cultural, ritual, public and ceremonial features like pafta (big huts used as
men‟s sleeping place), dancing field, pala (large stone slabs for sitting), dhaga dhirumas (manhood or
masculinity steles) olayta trees (tall juniper posts erected to commemorate generation power transfer),
waaka (wooden statues), arumda (oval shaped stones used to sharpen ritual hunting spears), dhaga khakha
(swearing or oath taking stones), khorata stone (a stone, found in some moras, where wrongdoers and
guilty persons are fined), tomatasha (pebble and pit playing wooden board), shapa (stretcher to carry sick
people to health centres or corpse to burial places), and kawula (wooden sticks used as musical
instruments during ritual dancing).
Furthermore, moras have additional functions. Youngsters are expected not to know, hear or see
what their parents do during night, so after eating their dinner all young males go to moras (paftas, men‟s
house) to pass the night together, hence men‟s sleeping house. If some difficulty like sudden fire arises in
the town, or if a sudden enemy attack takes place, adults sleeping in the moras immediately act together to
rescue the town. Generally, in moras:
... Political negotiations are held, the harvest of a victory may be celebrated, rites of passage,
sacrifices of the land are carried out, accused persons swear oaths that they have done no harm to
the community, and if they have, cleansing ceremonies to maintain the social peace are carried

11
 out… A special effect of this multi-functionality is that people have a strong feeling when they are
in the public place that they are part of a synchronous network of relationships and thus
participating in a greater whole (Ambron 1997: 382).

Moras are of classified as common cultural moras for two or more walled towns, town/paleta
moras and kanta moras. Common moras of two or three towns are outside of the three towns, whereas
kanta moras, moras that belong to each kanta, are within the walled towns. Moras could also be classified
as „profane‟ and „sacred‟3 functionally as follows

a. Mora dhawura (sacred moras): Mora Guta (main or cultural) and mora khakha (swearing mora)
There are two types of sacred moras (mora dhawura): Mora Guta (main or cultural) and mora
khakha (swearing moras). Each town usually has one cultural mora where important public practices, like
generation initiation rites, rituals, preparation for war, victory and harvest ceremonies, etc., take place.
Mora guta of a single town is within a town. On the other hand, two or more towns often have one or two
cultural/ritual moras and are outside walled towns. Generation victory stones, dhaga khelas, and
generation memorial juniper posts (olayta) are often erected in these main moras.
Another type of sacred mora is mora khakha (swearing moras). These are moras with a swearing
stone, dhaga dhukata (stone of truth). Wrong doers also confess here to prove their innocence. These are
also special places where deleterious phenomena, like famine, drought, war, flood, etc., are cursed. There
is only one swearing mora in each town. However, two or more towns could have common swearing
moras, such as Mora Futsukisma in Olanta Town4. In some cases two or three walled towns could even
have only one common swearing mora.
People are not allowed to sleep in swearing moras because, it is believed, some malevolent spirits
that visit, it is believed, these moras at night may harm people found here. Adult women and artisans are
not also allowed to walk across these sacred cultural, ritual and swearing moras as they are believed to be
„impure‟. Of course, these people are also prohibited entering into men‟s houses, paftas Spinning cotton,
drinking or dancing are not also allowed in these sacred moras.

3
As moras often combine both the sacred and profane functions, this division is made only to enhance understanding
the various features and should not be taken as a rigid rule.
4
During the imperial times, a witness swore at Mora Futsukisma before giving testimony before the court. Also,
offenders confessed here even after denying in court.

12
 Fig. 1 Typical kanta mora with Pafta (men’s house), Dhokato Town

b. ‘Profane’ moras: Mora Tooya (watching mora) and general-purpose public moras
Mora Tooya, watching mora, is often situated on high point of a walled town. Each walled town
also has usually one watching mora. The position of watching mora depends on the presumed directions
of enemy threat. These moras are also places from where traditional astrologers watch the movement of
the moon in relation to certain constellations to predict weather and turn of other events.
Other profane moras are general purpose public moras, at main roads, that serve travellers, any
tired person that needs rest, whether he is a Konso or not. Most kanta moras are also general purpose
public moras. There are no occupational or gender discriminations to use these profane moras.

B. Dhaga dhiruma and dhaga khela

The history of Konso people was characterized by frequent wars, either between different Konso
towns or against outside enemies (Metasebia 1997; Hallpike 1972/2008). Due to this the value given for
heroism and masculinity has always been high in Konso society. Thus, to symbolize heroism and
masculinity, the Konso erected dhiruma (manhood or masculinity steles) to commemorate generation
grades or khelas, courageous fighters and heroes.

13
 Dhirumas are of two kinds: dhaga khela, generation memorial stele, and dhaga dhiruma, steles
erected to commemorate individual heroes. Dhaga khela is erected in moras or other important sites.
Elders, depending on the success and achievement of the outgoing generation, decide the site where dhaga
khela is erected. Dhaga khela are erected often, but not always, in moras whereas individual hero‟s dhaga
dhiruma are often erected at cemeteries; but sometimes also at corners of moras.
In some towns, like Idigle and Doha, dhiruma steles are also erected to commemorate the
founding fathers of the towns. Sometimes steles of defeated towns have been pulled out and taken by the
winners who erected them in their own town.

Fig. 2 Dhaga khela in an open mora, Mechello Town

Generally, the height of dhaga dhirumas is related to success of generation grades. Thus the tallest
steles belong to the most victories and successful generation-grades, whereas shortest stele represent
unsuccessful and failed generation-grades. For example, the two tallest steles (the fourth and fifth steles
from right to left) at one of Mechelo‟s mora were erected for the two most successful Hirba5 generations;
while the shortest stele, second from right, was erected for the most unsuccessful/failed (Kalkusa

5
In Karate region there generation grades known as Hirba, Kalkusa and Melgusa; where as in Takadha/Keena
region there are only two grades; Hirba and Kalkusa.

14
generation. Often also the number of dhaga khela steles might help to estimate the age of a town.
However, some khelas may not erect steles for various reasons such as drought, food shortage. On the
other hand, steles sometimes were removed from their original places; so age estimation by steles could
not be reliable. In Karate region the oldest steles have been erected to the left side; so when one moves
from the left to the right the age of the stele gets younger. In Takadha region this order is not kept.
Sometimes steles are erected in association with wooden status, waakas, and remain intact for
centuries. Thus, generally a stele “takes its place among the many other menhirs as depersonalized symbol
of the whole lineage. Classic British social anthropology, based on the ideas of Henry Maine, interpreted
lineage as corporations. Maine‟s well- known saying „corporations never die‟, is obviously applicable to
Konso” (Ambron 2002: 91).

C. Olayta: Generation Juniper Posts

Generation juniper posts, olayta, are erected to commemorate generation grade (khela) power
transfer. Often also they are planted in association with dhaga khela. Juniper trees used for olayta are cut
from sacred groves of regional poqollas; the
trees that are cut for olayta should be without
any scar. It should have uncut tips, for
handicapped trees are insult of a generation
for whom the posts are planted.
Generally also, the tallest olayta post
represents the generation grade that takes
office, while the shortest posts represent the
retiring or retired generations. This difference
has a symbolic meaning. Since the generation
that takes office is considered above
everybody, and thus the olayta of the
incumbent generation is made to be taller
than the others to symbolize authority of the
incumbent generation. Consequently, taller
posts are cut and shortened, so as to make the
new one stand taller.

Fig. 3 Olayta: generation memorial juniper posts

15
D. Waakas
Waakas are wooden statues “erected to the memory of a hero and present to the public view the
sum total of his achievements. They are never placed on graves, with the exception of those regional
poqolla, but are usually close to or in the major moora and town entrances, or on major paths” (Hallpike
2008: 231). Waakas are also erected for wealthy people though they may not be heroes or killers. Waakas
are not erected for certain men and women (even though they were killers) whose families are not allowed
to erect waakas. On the other hand, if a junior kills a game or an enemy, his trophies (including waakas),
are transferred to the lineage elder. “The transfer of a killer‟s insignia to the lineage elder, as a
representative of the institution, shows that the act of killing is a social act” (Ambron 2002: 81).
When many waakas are erected together, the central waaka represents the main hero. On both
sides of the hero‟s waaka are waakas of his wife, his brothers and children. “The representation of wives
and sons in the waaka is also a sign of probity and reproductive ability (ibid: 85). If the person was a clan
chief, poqolla, the main waaka has bracelets (on the right hand) and kalacha (a phallus shaped cultural
insignia on the forehead). Shields and spears are also seen in association with the waaka of the poqolla.
Big game animals killed by a hero lie on the front of the hero‟s waaka. Short pebbles, which show the
number of the person‟s purchased
farm plots, are planted in front of
the main waaka.
Waaka construction and
erection is a costly enterprise, so
waaka erection has been
diminishing over decades.
Moreover, the changing meaning of
heroism and the spread of
Protestantism have deterred waaka
erection.
F
i
Fig. 4 Waakas at Bamale

Waakas are erected on tombs and tombs are in individual land in Konso. So a person that does not
have land does not have a particular tomb and no waaka. Thus the haudhas (artisans) do not have waakas
because they do not own land. Landless people including foreigners are buried in dinas (forests
surrounding towns). So waakas are not only memorial statues, they are also social status markers.
Now a day waakas are not seen at open public places as before because of theft and illicit
trafficking of waakas. So individuals often keep their ancestral waakas in individual compounds to protect

16
lose. The waakas seen on fig. 4 are waakas of the late Bamale, regional poqolla of Dhokato, that are
placed in the Bamale‟s compound to protect theft.

E. Mura Dhawura: Sacred grooves

Traditionally Konso is divided in to three regions namely: Karate, Keena & Dhokato. Each region
has its own poqolla, regional ritual chief, who resides in a sacred grove secluded away from towns. There
are three regional sacred groves in Konso: Kalla, Qufa & Bamale, with an area of 196,430m2, 105,338m2,
and 45,066m2 respectively. Except for certain differences of size, location, & conservation status, all these
sacred groves play similar roles in the spiritual and cultural life of their respective communities.
For the Konso people, mura dhawra are highly respected sacred sites in that they are burial places
of their ritual chiefs (poqollas) and their respective family members. According to tradition, it is in the
midst of these sacred forests that the spirits of their ancestors keep contact with god, waaqa; contact that
assures rain to fall, peace, fertility (of humans, animals and crops) and the well being of the society in
general. So they are viewed as places where the link between the world of their dead ancestors and those
alive has been kept. Moreover, the sacred groves are also important ritual centres. For example, harvest
thanks giving ritual, tuta, of Gamole, Gocha, Mechello, and Sorobo towns takes place at Kala forest.
Generally, these sacred groves have traditionally been centres of common rituals and ceremonies,
shared interest and centre of mobilization. So they have been competitive power and authority centres.
Due to this there has always been conflict between the kebele (village) local administration and these
traditional authority centres. So the state has been working, overtly or covertly, to destroy these traditional
and competitive authority centres.

F. Dhina (Forests around walled towns)

Thick forests (dhina), which serve various purposes, surrounds every Konso walled town.
Hallpike (1972: 27) explains the purpose of keeping dhina as follows: “… Between the fields and the
town walls often intervenes a belt of dark and dense woodland, perhaps a hundred yards or more in depth,
which was intended to deter enemies by the advantage of ambush it gave the defenders.” Besides this,
these forests are buffers between the walled towns and the surrounding agricultural fields. Moreover,
dhinas serve as traditional toilet places for the towns. Most of the woods that constitute the dhinas are
euphorbia. Euphorbia tree is juicy and is used to kill sudden that arise in towns. As mentioned earlier, they
are also burial sites for artisans and foreigners.
Generally, dhina forests surrounding walled towns have been mostly destroyed due to population,
development pressures, including construction of schools, flour mills, dry toilets, new houses, churches

17
and the expansion of agricultural fields. The deterioration of cultural values also have contributed a lot for
the destruction of dhinas.

G. Hardas: Traditional ponds

Hardas are traditional ponds or reservoirs used to collect rain water in the rainy season. The water
is used communally in the dry season. Like terraces and town walls, the internal walls of hardas are
carefully constructed by interlocking small and large stones to prevent water seepage. The construction
and conservation of harda is done collectively by all active members of a concerned paleta. Sometimes it
is also done by the active generation group (khela) or traditional work parties.

3.2.2. Inscription Criterion (v)

The second inscription criterion is criterion (v) that stated, “be an outstanding example of a
traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or
human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of
irreversible change”.
The following spatial settlement pattern seen from H-J testifies the „outstanding example of a
traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or
human interaction with the environment’.

H. Dry stone terraces

As mentioned earlier, dry stone terraces are the main features of the Konso cultural landscape.
These dry-stone terraces, which contour the Konso hills, are striking examples of indigenous soil and
moisture conservation techniques. The core Konso area of terraces is “approximately 225 km2 in extent”
(Kimura 2004: 29).
The stones are easily extracted from the basaltic hills of Konso. The terraces, which Ambron
(1989) categorizes into seven types, have different length and height depending on slope of the terrain.
The height of the terraces is from 0.5m to 1.5m. The square basin, called kolba, between two terraces has
high ridges to retain and conserve rain water. Annual and biennial crops are planted in the basin; whereas
perennial plants like coffee are planted at the base of terrace walls.

18
 Fig. 5 Konso terraces

Generally, though it is difficult to determine the age of these terraces, according to Ambron‟s
estimates of genealogical age calculation, they are 400 years old (Ambron 1989: 73). Thus, though they
are „living landscape‟ (it is not unusual to see, today, the youngsters conserving the terraces in groups
organized by the kantas (wards) of the individual walled towns), they are highly valued by the Konso as
inherited heritage of their deceased ancestors though. However, like the walled towns, the terraces are also
under development pressure. For example, road constructions to every village are destroying the terraces.
In some villages, terraces have been demolished to sell the stones for construction companies, including
road companies.

I. Walled towns (Paleta)

The Konso live in walled towns (paleta) located on hill tops selected for their strategic and
defensive advantage. Often three sides of the hill tops are steep and only the fourth side is flat. This fourth
side, which is the major access to the town, is heavily defended. Because the fourth side is levelled, it is
only at this fourth side, that current development pressure, as they are presented in the form of schools,
clinics, flower mills, churches and modern burials, could be observed.
According to a survey made by Kimura in 2001-2002, a “total of 54 settlements have been
located … The distribution of stone walled settlements show that they are more closely spaced in the

19
northeast… In this region there are 12 settlements in a 4x4 km area… In other parts of Konso the density
of settlements vary between 2 and 7 per 16 km2” (Kimura, 2004:83).

Fig. 6 Map of Dhokato Town with extension walls

The walled towns (paleta) have evolved through time and with population increase. The general
picture of the multiple walled towns is as follows: located on the top of the hill, the living space within the
very central high wall is where the settlement begun. The wall here is very high. When the old walled
encircle reaches its holding capacity, the elders of each household retained the original settlement and the
cadets (kusia) had to move out of there to build their own homesteads outside of the central wall. Thus,
they dig and level the slope making flat space for their houses, defined by new walls. Through time the
new wall extension adjoins the original central wall. Thus, again through time and after a number of
generations, when the population out grow the space within the second wall, the process of having new
living space and walls continue.
As there was scarcity of rocks in some walled towns, dirt has been filled in between the sides of
the walls to widen the wall for better defense. Walls constructed on flat grounds have double or triple
stairs. This is done partly to strengthen the wall and partly to stand on, to throw spear or stones at an
20
enemy, and to step down and hide when an enemy threw against the town people. When the hill is too
sloppy, walls were not constructed on the slopes, as the sloppy hill is natural barrier.
Each walled town has a limited number of main gates, often from 1-5. The number of main gates
depended on the directions of farm or grazing land, the source of water or the presumed directions of
enemy attack. Generally, the central walls have fewer main gates compared to the outer walls.
All the main gates lead to public gathering and communication places, the moras. The walls of the
main gates are made of huge logs; the tops of which are made from big wooden lintels. In the former times
these main gates were closed at nights with large logs to hinder an enemy or wild beasts that tried to enter
the town. The pathways leading to the main gates are often zigzag to discomfort the movement of an
enemy or beasts trying to enter into the walled town. Often also, there are hyena traps near the outermost
main gates.
The area the walls cover is variable from town to town. Bigger Paletas such as Dokato (fig. 6)
have as far as five extension walls. However, the number of wall extension is not related to ward
organization.
Formerly towns were governed by elected council of elders. Membership to the town council was
by election, based on individual merit and leadership ability. The council also served as judiciary.
“Traditionally the council would call on the support of the warrior grade, Xrela [khela], arrest and punish
criminals, and to enforce their decisions. These town councils debate issues of general concern-without
being able to violate public opinion- and act as a court of justice” (Hallpike 2008: 116). This traditional
authority has been weakening since the 1974 Ethiopian socialist revolution that introduced new kind of
kebele (village) organization and administration. In spite of this, still town (and kanta-ward) councils
compete with the kebele administration and sometimes even they are complementary.

J. Organization and structures within towns: section, kanta and household organization
a. Section and Kanta organization
Each Konso town has two sections6 (Hallpike 2008: 108) that are further divided into kantas
(wards or neighbourhoods). The kanta system enables the smooth functioning of the traditional political
and socio-economic system. Each individual community member belongs to a certain kanta. The kanta
system is not bounded by the walls and members of a certain kanta can reside in another wall enclosure.
Membership to a certain kanta is purely a practical socio-economic classification.
Each kanta is divided into kanta-ibita, sub-wards, and each kanta-ibita is constituted by tightly
crowded individual household compounds. Kanta organization is very important in the social life of

6
For example the two sections of Dhokato town are called Illka and Parkuta whereas that of Busso are called
Pishmali and Sesseyta.

21
Konso. Besides being a multi-purpose social organization, “the neighbourhood gives a spatially defined
identity, but membership of the neighbourhood also depends on participation in its activities and
responsibilities. Without the social participation, the spatial identification is meaningless” (Watson 2009:
61).
As mentioned above, though these institutions have been weakened by the newly formed kebele
organization, the kebele administration still uses kanta (ward) councils to collect taxes, to organize group
works and distribute food aid.

b. Households organization
In the towns, each household has his own rectangular compound. Individual compounds, tiga, are
divided by stonewall into an upper part, Arkhayta (a living place for the family) and a lower part, Oita
(used for storage and to keep animals or the like).
Typical Konso compound has from three up to ten thatched structures used for various purposes.
Generally, the number and size of the structures in each compound depends on the size of the compound
or on an individual's economy. For example, if a person has two or three wives, he will have two or three
living houses. As mentioned earlier, if a father has many sons, the eldest son stays with his father and the
other sons will move out of their father's compound when they marry.
The organization of households provides insights into the world-view of inhabitants. This division
into arkhayta and oita is important in Konso. It was evident in all households encountered, even when the
ground was level the two areas were separated by recessed stones. Most activities could take place in both
areas, but ritual activities were only performed in the upper part (Kimura 2004: 269).

3.2.3. Inscription Criterion (vi)

The third inscription criterion is criterion (vi) that stated, “be directly or tangibly associated with
events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding
universal significance”. In this regard the association of the Konso cultural landscape with „events or
living traditions‟ are exemplified by traditional rituals and ceremonies including tuta (harvest thanks
giving ritual), kara (generation initiation ritual) and funerary ritual. The rituals performed by the poqollas
maintain the harmony and balance between nature and man. The respect for their traditionally conserved
forests, the community obligation codes in the various rituals and communal works, the ideals of the Kara
and transfer of power from generation to generation, etc., are all tangibly associated with the Konso
heritage properties that constitute the cultural landscape.

22
3.3. The idealization of the property
The documentation (isolation) process continued with endorsement of the nomination file Konso
Heritage Management Committee, Konso Special Woreda Administration, and SNNPRS. This file was
then sent to the Federal Ministry of Culture and Tourism (or ARCCH), which reviewed and officially
submitted to the WHC. The idealization process was done based on UNESCO‟s “predetermined set of
typologies, whose conceptual aphorism allows for its applicability in a variety of settings across the
world” (Di Giovine 2008: 207). Accordingly, the WHC reviewed and sent the nomination file to its two
advisory bodies (ICOMOS and IUCN) for further evaluation: to ICOMOS for evaluation of universal
value and to IUCN for evaluation of the state of preservation of the site and the management plan (and
legislation) used for future sustained preservation. As I was informed recently, a team from the two
advisory bodies have visited Konso and evaluated the universal value of the Konso cultural landscape and
the management plan aimed for future conservation and development. Thus, at this stage, the heritage is
just in the liminality stage; it has already dropped its former value, but not attained a new universal value.
Valorisation and final re-contextualization is the third and final step of the heritagization (or
ritual) process. As this re-contextualizing step is in the tube, I have to stop here and continue to discussion.

23
 CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
4.1. Discussion
As the above description of the main features of the Konso cultural landscape shows, the Konso
cultural landscape has been “produced out of complex processes that are social, political, cultural and
spiritual as well as biological, technical and economic and climatological” (Watson 2009: 17). The
immense dry stone terraces are the result of many years labour investment, which is capitalised labour
transferred from ancestors to the present generation as heritage. The core area has, in addition to terraces,
walled towns that are governed by council of elders that is contesting with modern political organization
over control of power and authority. Moreover, the cultural landscape comprise sacred groves, dina forests
that surround walled towns, traditional ponds, generation age group or individual hero memorial wooden
statues, steles and juniper posts.
Generally, the Konso cultural landscape is a living cultural tradition that forges, with the help of
particular forms of social organization and traditional leadership, culture and nature. However, it is not
something isolated or unrelated to other surrounding cultures and landscapes. On the contrary, it has many
parallels with neighbours and other Africans.
Terraces and other kinds of dry stone structures are not unique to Konso.The neighbouring Burji
and Kore (Amarro) as well as Gamo Gofa (especially Zala in Gofa) have strikingly similar dry stone
terraces. Wooden statues and steles are not either unique to the Konso. The Kore (Amarro) erect forked
memorial wooden statues and short steles on graves. As Cerulli reports, wooden statues have wide spatial
coverage as far as Wollega, western Ethiopia. The phallic and anthropomorphic steles of the Gurage,
Kembata, Hadiya, etc., of southern Ethiopia are very much related to the Konso steles (Ambron 2002).
The Yem, in western Ethiopia, has similar and comparable steles of columnar basalts. Moreover, the
Konso have other cultural values and features that it shares, especially with Eastern Cushitic language
speaking groups. For example, the Gewada, Burji, Sidama, Dassanech, Gedeo and Oromo all have clans
and councils of elders, generation grade system and hereditary ritual leaders as reported by Hallpike
(1972/2008), Jensen (1954), and Lewis (1975).
Outside Ethiopia similar land features and stone usage have been reported from Kenya, Sudan,
Tanzania and Zimbabwe. The Great Zimbabwe stone built enclosures are a comparable cultural landscape.
Elizabeth Watson also contrasts the dry stone terrace intensive agriculture of the Konso with that of
Marakwet of Kenya (Watson 2004). Moreover, the rice terrace cultural landscape of the Philippines
Cordilleras is very similar to the Konso cultural landscape. Both these traditional communities employ
indigenous adaptation techniques to cope with their surrounding environment; and in doing this have
culturally changed and reconstructed the natural world surrounding them. Though different in the style of

24
construction the stone enclosures of the Kavirondo Gulf of Lake Victoria, Kenya (Chittick 1965: 152), are
comparable structures. Generally, the Konso cultural landscape is part of this extensive undifferentiated
space, out of which only a certain part has been selected, manoeuvred and constructed to fit into
UNESCO‟s world heritage discourse. Of course, the nomination procedures (detailed textual and
photographic documentation, cartographic, graphic, legislation and management plans) are based on
European conception of heritage, gridded places, property and legal concepts, which pose some technical
problems for many African countries.
Some people argue that this selection, isolation and inscription process is based on the concept of
creates division between listed and unlisted heritages “by transferring local expressions of culture into an
externally defined translocal or global heritage, a cultural hierarchy between listed and unlisted sites is
established” (Scholze 2008: 216). But this seems unavoidable. By adopting, formerly the cultural
landscape concept and later intangible heritage concept (that is “all forms of traditional and popular or folk
culture, i.e. collective works originating in a given community and based on tradition” (Kirshenblatt-
Gimblett 2004: 53) in 1989, UNESCO has taken a wide range of heritage protection initiatives. This has
enabled African nation states to nominate many new heritages and help to fill representation gap on the
world heritage list.
This does not however mean the process of inscription is straight and easy. To mention, but few
complications, UNESCO‟s bureaucratic procedures and inscription guide lines, national and local political
and legal situations are among many fetters. UNESCO‟s generic guide lines for world heritage nomination
explicitly ask for “an appropriate scale map showing precise boundaries of the nomination site” (WHC
2008). Thus, it is up for debate what this could mean in the Konso case. Konso land use and occupancy
had been changing over the centuries and decades. Areas that were once farmed, hunted or occupied by
neighbouring ethnic groups are claimed to be Konso „traditional‟ as well as administrative territory, since
„traditional‟ is a vague term that can mean many things for many people.
On the other hand, the custodians of sacred forests, for example, are regional poqollas. The towns
are under the traditional council of elders. Acknowledging these facts is very important for future
management and protection of Konso cultural landscape heritages. Acknowledging this means, however,
acknowledging traditional authority, customary laws, traditional land tenure and property ownership and
rights. But this is politically unacceptable for the modern state. Traditional authority and customary laws
are perceived as threats and competitors the state system its law, land, etc. Thus, this opposed view and
incompatibility between the state and the local community were amongst the setbacks of the process of
heritagization of the Konso cultural landscape. Moreover, these threaten the cultural landscape protection
conservation and development.

25
 This appears to be the case of the Kala sacred grove. The Kala family and Konso customary law
are weak to protect the sacred grove from illegal logging. On the other hand, though the local government
does not overtly support illegal felling and destruction of the grove, it does not either show interest or
enthusiasm to implement the state law to protect the destruction of the grove by illegal loggers.
On the other hand, though the world heritage discourse empowers the state, traditional clan chiefs,
(the Kala family for example), also need world heritage status of their cultural landscape for it increases
their exposure to the outside world and may help them to air their voice and share their situation with other
similar persons and institutions. Thus, this is struggle to mitigate the state‟s further intervention and
appropriation of the sacred grove; it is a struggle for recognition, cultural and identity right; generally it is
struggle “over land... the legitimacy of different meanings, beliefs, rituals, roles and forms of authority”
(Watson 2009: 10).
Similar struggle and contestation has also been seen during the research, selection, isolation,
boundary delineation, and mapping the KGA Paleoanthropological sites. Just as the appropriation of
Matopos, Zimbabwe, was helped with conservation ideology and scientific interest (Ranger 1989), the
KGA sites were going to be appropriated, the local community perceived, with a similar conservation
ideology and scientific interest. So the surrounding farmers opposed the appropriation process by
ploughing and destroying important fossil localities, such as KGA10 and KGA4, though these localities
are barren and not productive for any kind of agriculture. By destroying the sites and their „scientific
value‟ the local community wanted to retain the land under their ownership. Of course, had the state given
proper attention to local issues and these sites and seriously negotiated with local farmers, these
immensely valuable sites would have been saved for science and posterity.
Moreover, though “being part of the world heritage has also become a sign of modernity and one‟s
awareness of cultural identity” (Scholze 29008: 218), nomination of the Konso cultural landscape on the
world heritage for inscription was resisted by some community members, local intellectuals, state officials
and Protestant churches. The basis of resistance was varied however.
Some local intellectuals and officials were suspicious of the process of heritagization, especially
of the walled towns, because they saw the idea as a process of establishing “a living museum for tourists”
(ibid: 226), which may restrict development activities in the walled towns.
For the “fundamentalist protestant churches from the United States [or its members who] ... look
down upon their culture (at best) with shame and disdain” (Ambron 2002: 94), registering the Konso
cultural landscape on the world heritage was seen as a menace as this might re-kindle traditional practices
and beliefs partly abolished by the expansion of Protestantism and its education system.
However, most local officials and intellectuals are supported the heritagization process because,
they say, “it is through heritage that we define ourselves and recognize others... heritage provides the

26
material means that enable one to connect with the past” (De Jong and Rowlands, 2008: 131).
Furthermore, it stamps a new Konso identity and also provides access to new networks, at national and
international arena.
The haudha (haudha is a traditional collective name for artisan and traders- potters, iron smith,
butchers, weavers and traders - now it is equivalent to biricha, meaning trader), who used to be landless
and under the farmers (edenda) oppression, sees the heritagization of the Konso cultural landscape as a
new opportunity that might help to increase tourist flow to Konso and create additional trade and income
opportunity. They also see this may empower them and help to improve their social status.
Generally, at the local level, the inscription process has been received with mixed feeling and
ambivalence.
At the regional level, most officials perceived the process of heritagization and
internationalization of the Konso cultural landscape as instrument of modernity and economic
development through heritage tourism. Few officials, who are members of the fundamentalist protestant
churches, perceived the heritagization process threat to the protestant churches and their teachings. For
example, the regional administrator neither show interest and enthusiasm nor give administrative and
official support for the heritagization process. Thus, though as regional chief administrator of the
SNNPRS he should have written a message on behalf of the regional state, he declined to do this for
unknown reasons7. But because heritage and heritagization is laden with local, national and international
politics, no official openly dared to oppose or attempted to stop the heritagization and internationalization
process of the Konso cultural landscape.
At the national level, just as “China‟s nomination of the Potala Palace in Tibet has also been
interpreted as a cynical political ploy to improve China‟s foreign image concerning the occupation of the
Tibet” (Fontein 2000:57), the inscription of the Konso cultural landscape has been seen as additional
instrument to improve the state‟s image at international arena thus „validating the ideology of nationalism‟
as Gupta says. “The nation is continually represented in state institutions ... which employ the icons and
symbols of the nation... the nation is also constituted by a state‟s external dealings with other states who
recognize these practices as belonging to an entity of the same kind as themselves, thereby validating the
ideology of nationalism” (Gupta 1992: 72-73). On the other hand, however, the state has to accept and act
according to UNESCO‟s. Failure to do this has costs as one international discourse is related to other
discourses. Thus, nation-states “must politically and economically support the ongoing efforts of
UNESCO and world heritage convention... This also induces the nation-states to conform to „modern‟
procedures and institutions that are requisite for a globally oriented country” (Di Giovine 2009: 294). In

7
As message of one official was immaterial to affect the inscription process, the nomination file was submitted
without the regional state‟s message.

27
fact, the attainment of world heritage status of the Konso cultural landscape is perceived as additional
instrument that facilitates certain actions of the state; for example, it justifies government‟s full control
over the sacred groves in the name of protection, conservation and development of the cultural landscape.
For the Ethiopian state, increasing the number of world heritage site8 is part of its development strategy. In
doing this the heritage discourse de-politicises and conceals conflicting power relations on ground and
plays the role of „anti-politics machine‟ - by way of viewing and advocating the problem of heritage
protection, conservation and development as technical problem that has to be dealt technically and not
politically and structurally (Ferguson 1990). Generally the Ethiopian State welcomes the heritagization
and documentation (the mapping, documentation, boundary delineation, legislation and management plan
preparation) as these are additional control instruments to control local communities.

8
Ethiopia now has eight world heritages.

28
 CHAPTER IV
CNCLUSION
This study provides information about the process the world heritage discourse of UNESCO and
how this is related to complex local, national and international power relations and discourse such as
globalization and development. It also showed how local people become part of the international discourse
through their cultural landscape.

Though the Konso cultural landscape is a living „heritage‟, there have never been thorough
archaeological studies that relate the material culture of the present Konso with the past. In this regard, the
only exception is that of Kimura. Beads, and other materials recovered from Kimura‟s excavation revealed
pre-1894 connection of the Konso with the Indian ocean traders and the Ethiopian Empire to the north
(Kimura 2004: ---). So there is need for empirical research.

29
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ambron, H. 1989. „Agricultural Intensification in the Burji-Konso Cluster of southwest Ethiopia‟, Azania,
XXIV: 71-83.
-------. 1997b. „The Conceptualization of Landscape in Southern Ethiopian Societies‟, in Katsuyoshi
Fukui, Eisei Kurimoto and Masayoshi Shigeta (eds.), Ethiopia in Broader perspective: Papers of
the 13th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Vol. III: 379-388. Kyoto: Shokado Book
Sellers.
-------. 2002. „Concepts in wood and stone: socio-religious monuments of the Konso of southern Ethiopia‟,
Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 127: 77 – 101. Berlin: Reimer.
Asfaw, B., Beyene, Y., Suwa, G., Watler, R.C., White, T.D., WoldeGabriel, G., and Yemane, T. 1992.
„The Earliest Acheulean from Konso Gardula, Nature , 360: 732-735.
Brandt, S. A., and Kathryn, W. 1997. „The Ethno-archaeology of Hide Working and Flaked Stone Tool
Use in Southern Ethiopia‟, in Katsuyoshi Fukui, Eisei Kurimoto, and Masayoshi Shigeta (eds.),
Ethiopia in Broader Perspective, Vol. I: 351-361. Kyoto: Shokado Book Sellers.
Cerulli, E.1956. Peoples of South-West Ethiopia and its Borderland. Ethnographic Survey of Africa.
London: International African Institute
Chirikure, S., and Pikiray, I. 2008. „Inside and outside the dry stone walls: revisiting the material culture
of Great Zimbabwe‟, in Antiquity 82 (2008): 976–993
Chittick, N. 1965. „A Note on Stone-Built Enclosures in South Nyanza, Kenya‟, in Man, Vol. 6: 152-153.
De Jong, F., and Rowlands, M. 2008. „Introduction: Postconflict Heritage‟, in Journal of Material Culture.
Vol. 13(2): 131-134
Di Giovine, Michael A. 2009. The Heritage-scape: UNESCO, World Heritage and Tourism. Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Ellison, J. 2006. „Everyone can do as he wants”: Economic liberalization and emergent forms of antipathy
in southern Ethiopia‟, in American Anthropologist. 33 (4): 665-686.
--------. 2009. „Governmentality and the Family: Neoliberal Choices and Emergent Kin Relations in
Southern Ethiopia‟, in American Anthropologist, 111 (1): 81–92.
Fontein, J. 2000. „UNESCO, Heritage and Africa: an Anthropological Critique of World Heritage‟, in CAS
Occasional Paper No. 80, University of Edinburgh.
---------. 2006. The Silence of Great Zimbabwe: Contested Landscapes and the Power of Heritage London
and Harare, University College London Press and Weaver Press
Ferguson, J. 1990. The Anti-Politics Machine. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

30
Gupta, A. 1992. „The song of the Non-aligned World: transnational Identities and Reinscription of Space
in Late Capitalism‟ in Current Anthropology 7(1): 63-79.
Hallpike, C.R. 1970b. „The Principles of alliance formation between Konso Towns‟, Man, 5(2): 258-80.
-----------. 1972/2008. The Konso of Ethiopia. A Study of the Values of Cushitic People. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Hirsch, E. 1995. „Introduction Landscape: Between Place and Space‟, in Eric Hirsch and Michael
O‟Hanlon (eds.), the Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hobsbawm, E. 1983. Introduction: Inventing of Traditions, in Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (eds.),
The Invention of traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jensen, A. 1954. Das Gada-System der Konso und die Altersklassen-Systeme der Niloten. Ethnos 19(1-4):
1-23.
Kimura, B. K. 2004. An archaeological Investigation into the History and Socio-political organization of
Konso, South-western Ethiopia. A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University
of Florida in Partial Fulfilement of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. 2004. „Intangible Heritage as Metacultural Production‟ in Museum International
no.221-222, (56) 1-2:52-65.
Kloos, H., Tufa, Abate, Asrat Hailu, and Teklemariam Ayele. 1989. „Settlement Patterns and Other
Ecological Aspects of the Konso in Relation to Resettlement and Villagization‟, in Proceedings of
the Workshop on Problems and Prospects of Rural Development in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa
University: Institute of Development Research.
Kluckhohn, R. 1962. „The Konso Economy of Southern Ethiopia‟, in Paul Bohannon and George Dalton
(eds.), Markets in Africa: 409-428. Enshede en Zonen, Netherlands: Northwestern University
Press.
Lewis, Herbert S. 1975. Neighbours, Friends, and Kinsmen: Principles of Social Organization among the
Cushitic-Speaking Peoples of Ethiopia. In Proceedings of the First United States Conference on
Ethiopian Studies, edited by Harold G. Marcus and John T. Hinnant, pp. 185-207. African Studies
Center., East Lansing: Michigan State University
Metasebia Bekele. 1997. „Notes on the megalithic sites of southern Ethiopia, with highlights on late
Palaeolithic occupation sites‟, in Katsuyoshi Fukui, Eisei Kurimoto and Masayoshi Shigeta (eds.),
Ethiopia in Broader perspective: Papers of the XIII3th International Conference of Ethiopian
Studies, Vol. I: 362-375. Kyoto: Shokado Book Sellers.
Mitchell, N., Rössler, M., and Tricaud, Pierre-Marie. 2009. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: A
Handbook for Conservation and Management. UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

31
 Reisenweber, J. 2008. „Landscape Preservation and Cultural Geography‟, in Richard Longstreth (ed.),
Balancing Nature and heritage in Preservation Practice: Cultural Landscapes. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, pp. 23-34.
Scholze, M. 2008. „Arrested Heritage, the politics of inscription into the UNESCO World Heritage List:
the case of Agadez in Niger‟, in Journal of Material Culture Vol. 13(2): 215–231.
Shako Otto. 1994. „The Nine clans of Konso‟, in Sociology Ethnology Bulletin, vol., 1(3): 80-92.
Smith, A. D.1969/1897. Through Unknown African Countries the First Expedition from Somaliland to
Lake Lamu. Greenwood Press, New York.
Tadesse Wolde. 1998. „The Death and Burial of Kalla Qäñazmach Kayoté, a Ritual Leader of the Konso
People of South Western Ethiopia‟, in Sociology Ethnology Bulletin, vol., 1(2):12-21.
Tunbridge, J. E. and Ashworth, G.J. 1996. Dissonant Heritage: the management of the Past as a Resource
in Conflict. London: John Wiley & Sons.
UNESCO. 1945. Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
----------. 1972. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
Adapted by the General Conference at its Seventeenth Session. Paris.
----------. 2004. Basic Texts of the 1972 World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO
Waston E. 1997. „Ritual Leaders and Agricultural Resources in south western Ethiopia: Poqollas, Land
and Labour in Konso‟, in Katsuyoshi Fukui, Eisei Kurimoto and Masayoshi Shigeta (eds.),
Ethiopia in Broader perspective: Papers of the 13th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies,
Vol. II: 652-699. Kyoto: Shokado Book Sellers.
----------. 2004. „Agricultural intensification and social Stratification: Konso in Ethiopia Contrasted with
Marakwet‟, in Mats Widgren & John E. G. Sutton (eds.), Islands of Intensive Agriculture in
Eastern Africa. Nairobi: British Institute in East Africa; Stockholm: Stockholm University.
----------. 2006. „Making a Living in the Post socialist Periphery: Struggles between Farmers and Traders
in Konso, Ethiopia‟, in Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, Vol. 76 (1): 70-87.
----------. 2009. Living Terraces in Ethiopia: Konso Landscape, Culture and Development. Woodbridge,
Suffolk: James Currey
WHC. January 2008. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre

32

View publication stats