Читать книгу Children of Hope - Sandra Rowoldt Shell - Страница 13

CHAPTER 3

Wealth and Status of the Oromo Captives’ Families

Scholars exploring the background and social status of the families of slave children in Ethiopia (and more broadly in Africa) have had to formulate their sometimes hazardous interpretations based on travelers’ and other third-person accounts. Records of captives, such as they are, document the experiences of slaves after capture or after manumission. This applies especially in Islamic societies, where there was no clearly defined slave class, and integration into general society was possible and even planned.¹ In the case of the Oromo captivity narratives, there is direct information on their families’ wealth and social status. Their accounts, as well as the memoir of an Oromo child written at Lovedale (see appendix D) and letters by some of the Oromo repatriates after their return home,² go some way toward answering the question and help define the range of social strata from which the Oromo children were drawn.

There are, of course, studies of the social structure of societies in which slave raiding occurred and where there was a culture of local enslavement. In his study of Senegambian society, for example, historian Philip Curtin positions slaves or captifs among the social strata, with the caveat that Senegambian slaves could not be considered as a social stratum in the Western sense. Instead, he distinguishes the social group of slaves as foreigners who were purchased or captured as spoils of war and integrated into Senegambian society.³ Curtin also examines two different types of enslavement. One, a “political” model, would constitute not an economic process but one where slaves were acquired as the spoils of a war waged for prestige and power rather than profit. Another, which he terms an “economic” model, would involve the enslaver in calculating the costs of his raiding and slaving against the potential income he could expect from a slave dealer. In this scenario, the captor would organize a raid or simply kidnap a child from a neighboring village.⁴ However, none of these studies engage with the social status of the people targeted for enslavement. The question, then, remains: What was the social status of the people who were enslaved in Ethiopia? The key to answering this lies in the first-person accounts of the slaves themselves.

GRAPH 3.1. Parental occupation by gender of child (source: Sandra Rowoldt Shell).

Parental Occupation

According to the children’s firsthand accounts, all but one of the parents were engaged in farming (see the assertion in Wakinni Ugga’s account in appendix B; narrative 63). The present analysis is rather more detailed than that broad stroke would suggest. The reason for this has been in recognition of issues of status underwriting some of the occupations—for example, where a father was a village chief, or a mother was engaged in domestic work as a slave in a household environment, or where widows were forced to find employment following the deaths of their husbands.

Just under one-fifth of the children (19.8 percent)—mostly very young or, in a few cases, mentally compromised—did not give the missionaries any details regarding their parents’ occupations. Of the rest, marginally more than two-thirds of the group (66.7 percent) indicated that their parents made their living off the land. The most striking finding is the difference between the proportion of farmers among the boys’ families (76.2 percent) and the girls’ (31.8 percent). The following double pie diagram (graph 3.1) clearly shows the predominance of agricultural endeavor, particularly in the families of the boys. Only 2.4 percent of the boys’ parents were in domestic servitude. This agricultural concentration was the natural result of the higher level of freehold tenure among the boys’ families.

The diagram shows that 18.2 percent of the girls were the daughters of village chiefs. The parents of 13.6 percent of the girls hired themselves out as cadastral laborers (plowmen, tillers, sowers, or reapers), including those widowed mothers who were engaged in manual labor in the fields after the deaths of their husbands: Damara, mother of Damuli Diso (see appendix B; narrative 49), cut wood to sell to local men who made earthenware; Dongoshe, Jifari Roba’s (narrative 57) mother, went to reap in the fields; and Dabeche, mother of Turungo Gudda (narrative 61), went into the fields to sow or reap or do any other labor required by Turungo’s uncle. One widow, Damuli Dunge’s (narrative 50) mother, became a market vendor. A total of 9.1 percent of the girls’ parents were engaged as domestic slaves. Wakinni Ugga’s (narrative 63) father, the only artisan and Matthew Lochhead’s single occupational exception, was a village tailor.

Measures of Land

In addition to occupation, the extent of a family’s immovable property is also a strong indicator of relative wealth. In their interviews with the missionaries, 69.7 percent of the children gave rough details of property size through either precise or approximate acreage. These approximations have been aggregated as follows: land the children described as “small” measured up to two acres; land the children described in approximate terms such as “some” or “a few” acres was classified as medium; and land the children described as “large” measured six acres and up. Of the 30.3 percent of the children who did not give any indication of property size, some were in nonownership circumstances, while others either did not know or could not remember.

Graph 3.2 shows the proportional sizes of property occupied by the families of the Oromo children by gender of child. All but one of the children giving the size of the family’s land were raised on freehold farms. The exception was Amaye Tiksa, whose father was a small crofter working “about two acres of land” (appendix B; narrative 4).

Most of the boys (36.8 percent) also indicated that their families owned large pieces of land. Liban Bultum, for example, reported that his father “was the owner of a large piece of land in the Ilu country” (appendix B; narrative 27). One boy, who stated that his father owned a “small piece of land” (appendix D), told an unusual story. Gutama Tarafo (see appendix D), who would have been about thirteen years old when he was captured, lived near the village of Gamoje in the Gera country. The word gamoje in general use means “the cool country.” In this case, Gamoje is the name of a small village that presumably had a climate cool enough to keep bees for the production of honey.

While fewer girls were raised on freehold farms than boys, a higher proportion (57.1 percent) were from families owning what they described as a “large” piece of land (i.e., land of six acres or more). Among these girls were four daughters of local chiefs, whose fathers appear to have had wealth to match their stations. Berille Boko, for example, gave a graphic description of her family’s socioeconomic status, saying that her father was “the chief of the village and possessed land which it would take a whole day to go round” (appendix B; narrative 46). Dinkitu Boensa’s home was in a village called Garjeda in the Gindo country. She told the missionaries that her father was the chief of Garjeda and that “he had large lands” (narrative 51). Similarly, Galani Warabu’s father was “the chief of a village” and died before she left home. Galani’s information about her homestead is skimpy, but there is a suggestion of considerable holdings, as she reported that when her father died, her uncle claimed “all his cattle and property” (narrative 53). Kanatu Danke also gave a response that implied rather than detailed her family’s circumstances. She reported that her father, who was the chief of the village of Lalo in the Sayo country, “possessed a piece of land on which he employed many labourers” (narrative 58).

In an anonymous essay—which may be classed as a small memoir, written later at Lovedale Institution—one of the Oromo children wrote about the prevalence of beekeeping and honey cultivation among the Oromo. The author of the memoir is almost certainly Gutama Tarafo, as he provided the only reference to honey and beekeeping in the narratives: “There is plenty of honey. The people don’t keep bees as in this country. They hang a kind of basket made of reeds high on a tree. When the honey is ready, the people climb the tree, and get the honey. They sell it in the markets, of which there are many” (appendix B; narrative 20). Beekeeping in Ethiopia has a long history. According to Kassaye Ayalew, cited in a study by two biologists, Gidey Yirga and Kibrom Ftwi, Ethiopians are believed to have been raising bees since 3500–3000 BC. In the same study, Yirga and Ftwi indicate that the success of box hive beekeeping is largely due to the country’s moderate climate.⁵ In recent years, Ethiopia has been responsible for almost a quarter of Africa’s total honey production.

GRAPH 3.2. Relative sizes of land occupied by Oromo families (source: Sandra Rowoldt Shell).

Gutama’s father, Tarafo, was apprehended while selling honey to a neighboring clan. Gutama does not explain why this should have been an illegal act, given the proliferation of honey production in the country, but Gutama told the missionaries that it was deemed to “have been an offence against the King of the country.” The village chief who found out about Tarafo’s honey-selling reported him to the king of Gera. The king’s response was to send his men to seize Tarafo’s land and possessions. The entire family was also seized and given as slaves to the village chief—one may assume as a reward for blowing the whistle on Tarafo’s honey-selling (see appendix B; narrative 20).

In “My Essay,” Gutama also wrote about the houses and properties occupied by the Oromo in his region:

The houses are not the same as those here. The Galla huts are [always] four or five times bigger than these Kaffir huts. I may say the Galla house has got two storeys. In the upper storey they keep corn and other things; but in the lower one the people sleep. There are two rooms in the lower storey, one is where the mother of the house does her work and the other one is for sleeping and eating. There are many kinds of grain, as wheat, barley, maize, and bishinga, that is Kaffir-corn, also pumpkins, potatoes, and other things like potatoes, beans, coffee, peas, bananas, also cabbages and tobacco and many other things which I can’t name in English. . . . The Galla people are rich in cattle and corn. Some of them have farms for cattle, and some for corn. (appendix D)

Gutama wrote about his home and homeland as he remembered them prior to his capture in September 1886. His premature departure from home predated the onset of the great drought and famine that was to blight the land after the rains failed in the summer of 1887. In Gutama’s description, the crops of the Oromo were still abundant and the cattle plentiful.

Livestock

Although as many as 61.6 percent of the children did not give any information regarding whether their families owned livestock, the remaining 38.4 percent not only reported that their families owned livestock, but followed up by identifying which types of animals they held and even, in some cases, how many head of each species. More than three times as many boys’ families owned livestock (69.7 percent) against only 30.3 percent of the girls. The double pie diagram below (graph 3.3) shows the combination of livestock species mentioned by the children tabulated by gender of child.

As the diagram indicates, cattle clearly predominate, featuring alone and in every combination of livestock mentioned by the children. As might be expected, there is a high correlation between freehold tenure and livestock ownership, so on those grounds alone there would have been an expectation of higher livestock holdings for the boys’ families than for the girls’. The boys’ families held the full range of livestock species except for the combination of cattle and donkeys: cattle only (30.3 percent); cattle and sheep (12.1 percent); cattle, goats, and sheep (9.1 percent); oxen, sheep, goats, and horses (9.1 percent); cattle and goats (6.1 percent); and cattle, horses, and sheep (3 percent). The girls’ families held either only cattle on their own (12.1 percent); cattle and sheep (6.1 percent); cattle, goats, and sheep (6.1 percent); or cattle and donkeys (also 6.1 percent).

Tolassa Wayessa’s father, for example, had “about twenty oxen, fifteen sheep, also a horse” (appendix B; narrative 38). What Tolassa does not mention is that along with the landed property and livestock, his father also owned several slaves. Many years later, Liban Bultum wrote to Lovedale from Addis Ababa to say that

Tolassa Wayessa, who returned some years ago, has a good position in the German Legation. Wayessa’s father and mother were dead before he reached Abyssinia; but he found an old woman who used to live with his parents when he was child. Through her help he has been able to recover all his father’s property with the exception of four slaves belonging to his father, which another man claims.⁶

GRAPH 3.3. Family livestock ownership by gender of child (source: Sandra Rowoldt Shell).

Slave ownership was obviously a further mark of relative wealth. Only the families of Tolassa and Bisho Jarsa (appendix B; narrative 48) are recorded as owning slaves. This was a sensitive area, however; and the fact that Tolassa did not mention his family owning slaves in his narrative may suggest that there might have been further—unspoken of—instances among the wealthier Oromo families.

Gutama continued his essay by giving details of the livestock commonly kept by the Oromo, beginning with cattle, and he also included information on the use of the plow on Oromo farms (see fig. 3.1). The Oromo were long-term users of the plow, so cattle held a special value for them both as plow oxen and as beef or dairy stock:

The bullocks in Gallaland are very big, much bigger than those in South Africa, as high as a horse. The yokes are nearly like those used in this country. It is a custom to train one of the oxen to guard the Kraal and they sharpen its horns to fight. It does no work but just keeps the kraal. The kraals in Gallaland are bigger than those here, but are made of bushes too. Many people’s cattle go into one kraal. Nearly every cow or ox has a name, and they like very much to eat salt. There are blacksmiths who make the ploughs, long narrow ploughs, and only two oxen draw them. (appendix D)

While Gutama’s nostalgia and innate pride in his country might be considered to be at work in enhancing his memory of the bullocks’ size, Oromo cattle are indeed larger than average.

James McCann, a historian, emphasizes the pivotal role played by oxen in the highland areas, describing them as the preeminent mode of capital and often the economic resource that was hardest to come by.⁷ The highland ox, larger and heavier than the norm, continues as the draft animal of choice in the highland areas because of its superior pulling power.⁸

More girls than boys responded with information about their families’ cattle—39.5 percent of girls as opposed to 23.3 percent of boys. Most families (26.7 percent) held what the children described as “a few” or “some” cattle. The rest of the girls were able to give the number of cattle their families held, ranging between one and nineteen head.

FIGURE 3.1. Oromo oxen (source: Tourist 1, no. 35 [8 April 1833]: 281).

A small number (3.5 percent) of boys reported that their families held between twenty and fifty-nine head of cattle. Among these were Fayissa Murki, who said his father owned a small piece of land and “about twenty head of cattle” (appendix B; narrative 14); Tolassa Wayessa, whose father “possessed a large piece of land and about twenty oxen” (narrative 38); and Tola Lual, whose father had a large piece of land and “about twenty ploughing oxen” (narrative 36). Tola Urgessa, who said his father “had a large piece of land of his own, with about sixty oxen” (narrative 37), was one of the 2.3 percent of the families who held between 60 and 99 head of cattle. In the same proportion, the families of 2.3 percent of the girls and 1.2 percent of the boys had more than one hundred head of cattle. Balcha Billo reported that his father held “a great many cattle” (narrative 8); and among the girls, Dinkitu Boensa said that her father, the chief Boensa, had “some hundred of cattle” (narrative 51). Both of these children fell into the final class, coded “100 plus.”

Gutama Tarafo bragged in his memoir that “the Galla horses are just the same as the Arab horses; they all look like race horses” (appendix D). The Oromo, who bred one of the world’s oldest recorded breed of horses,⁹ were a cavalry people, using horses to traverse their inhospitable territory. This lent them a natural defense against foreign, noncavalry marauders but afforded little protection against slave raiders who were fellow Oromo on horseback (see fig. 3.2). Economists Nathan Nunn and Diego Puga have argued that raids and kidnapping were the principal methods of enslavement in Africa, either by members of one ethnicity against another or within the same ethnicity. Rugged terrain provided a natural defense against slave raiders as well as providing caves in which to hide. High altitudes meant the ability to monitor incoming routes for invaders.¹⁰

Bred for its strength and agility as a mountain packhorse or workhorse, the Oromo horse’s bloodlines originated in Ethiopia and spread along the Red Sea coastline. Today, these bloodlines have been diluted to such a degree with centuries of interbreeding that the strain has almost disappeared.

Only four children reported owning one or more horses, all of them boys. Tolassa Wayessa’s (see appendix B; narrative 38) father owned one horse; and the fathers of Liban Bultum (narrative 27) and Wayessa Tikse (narrative 41) owned two apiece; while Tola Urgessa’s (narrative 37) father owned four horses. Although Tola’s was a home of considerable wealth in the context of the other families, each of these boys came from advantaged circumstances when compared with the rest of the children. One anomaly emerges: If horses were a mark of wealth, why did none of the chiefly daughters mention horses in their narratives?

Only 17.5 percent of the children mentioned owning any sheep: 14 percent owned “several,” while 3.5 percent owned “many.”¹¹ Gutama, the putative young essayist on “Gallaland,” does not mention sheep among the animals commonly farmed by the Oromo. However, his perspective could have been compromised by his youth and was likely to have been limited to his own experience, particularly if his father farmed the honey-producing bees that led to his arrest. Although Gutama’s family appear not to have owned any livestock, he explains in his memoir that Oromo women were responsible only for the domestic work within the house and had no outdoor, agricultural role: “The Gallas are not lazy people. The men never allow their wives to go and build the house for them, and they won’t allow them to go and labour in the fields all day for food, while they sit down in their huts and smoke their long pipes. The women there do not work like that but they only work in the house while their husbands till the ground” (appendix D).

The kingdom of Gera, where Gutama lived, is now one of the woredas (or administrative zones) in the Oromia region and occupies much the same territory as the old kingdom. With an altitude ranging between 1,390 and 2,980 meters above sea level, much of the land in Gera is not arable. Coffee, grain, and spices are the primary crops, but the terrain remains largely inhospitable to livestock. Gutama’s personal experience of husbandry might therefore have been scant and his knowledge of gender roles in other regions could have been skimpy. Certainly, among the Oromo children’s families in this study, some widowed mothers were forced by straitened circumstances to venture into the fields to engage in reaping or other agricultural manual labor (see mentions of widows’ field labor on pages 43, 190).

Even fewer children mentioned goats. Only 15.1 percent said their families held any goats, and of these, 10.5 percent of the boys and 2.3 percent of the girls said their families owned “several goats.” The same proportion of girls (2.3 percent) and none of the boys claimed that their families owned “many goats.”

FIGURE 3.2. Cavalry on the Wadela plateau in Ethiopia (source: Trevenen J. Holland and Henry Hozier, Record of the Expedition to Abyssinia [London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1870]).

Mixed livestock holdings would have been common, as meat and milk formed core components of the Oromo diet. However, according to Gutama’s memoir, they eschewed game, pork, and wild fowl, while most avoided poultry and eggs as well: “Gallas never eat wild animals. They don’t eat pigs in northern Gallaland; and they don’t eat any kind of birds; and few people eat fowls or eggs. But there are some tribes that live among the Gallas, that eat nearly everything” (appendix D).

When the Oromo children reached Lovedale Institution in the Eastern Cape in South Africa, the children did not take long to acclimatize to local ways. A happy discovery was that the amasi (sour milk) and mealies/mielies (corn or maize) on which they had been raised at home were part of their daily food regimen at the institution.¹²

From the details provided by the children, the relative levels of wealth and status of the Oromo families emerge as crossing all social strata, from the humblest level of servitude to the elevated thresholds of the local royal houses. Any a priori assumptions that slaves were garnered from only the poorest and humblest of Ethiopian society have to be abandoned. The trends suggested by the children’s evidence suggest that captives were acquired from a broader spectrum of social strata than hitherto suspected. The existence of slaves drawn from the more affluent strata is not unknown. Published personal accounts of slaves coming from wealthy, high-status families do exist, but these have numbered few to date.¹³ Without further first-person, eyewitness accounts, the social origins of African slaves will probably remain one of the many conundra of the first passage, but historians should not be able to assume any uniformity of wealth or status.

A convincing majority of the boys emanated from agricultural origins rooted firmly in the peasant class. They were differentiated by type of land tenure, which determined gradations of status and material wealth. The girls’ families, equally freehold and feudal (35.3 percent each), and with almost as many born into slavery (29.4 percent) at the lower end of the social ladder, ironically included four daughters of chiefs at the upper extreme. The boys had a far stronger freehold tenure representation (64.5 percent) against 25.8 percent brought up in a feudal environment and only 9.7 percent already living under servitude, with neither royalty at one extreme nor large numbers born or already absorbed into domestic slavery at the other. The majority of families with freehold tenure should, in theory, have been able to enjoy the stability of a higher standard of living and greater family security. In reality, the individualistic nature of freehold tenure—without the potential for protection by landlord or overlord—actually increased their vulnerability to enslavement. Even the demonstrated wealth of some of the boys and the chiefly status of four of the girls did not insulate them from being captured.

In sum, the families of the Oromo children were drawn from every social stratum—from the lowliest slave environment to local royalty. Captors and raiders did not seek out the lowliest as the most vulnerable. Instead, they targeted families from all strata, driven in part by the exigencies of Menelik’s invading forces to feed Oromo slaves in large numbers into the train of the external slave trade. The insights into wealth and status of the targeted families made possible by the children’s narratives may open the way to further examination in future studies. No class or group was safe from the slave raiders in Oromoland.