History of Ethiopian Hide working

with Stone-Tools

GAMO STONE-TOOL USING HIDEWORKERS- DISSERTATION RESEARCH

KONSO STONE-TOOL USING HIDEWORKERS- CURRENT RESEARCH

ETHIOPIAN HIDEWORKERS PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Currently, southern Ethiopia is one of those rare places in the world, where people use stone-tools on an every day basis. Generally in Ethiopia crafts people, like the hideworkers, are assumed to be remnants of indigenous people, who were later incorporated into more dominate Ethiopian societies. These individuals are considered foreigners within their own culture and as such they are denied land, education, and respect (they are not allowed to eat with or marry with other social groups) in most Ethiopian societies. Despite their submerged position in society, hideworkers produce commodities that almost every household uses including: bedding, clothing, carrying bags, saddles, and chairs. They use chert, agate, quartz, and obsidian resources, which are free resources, to form scrapers for the processing of goat and cattle hides. These scrapers are utilized while socketed into wooden hafts.

It is remarkable that today people continue to make and use stone-tools in a world where mechanized industries are expanding rapidly. The traditions of stone-tool production in northern Ethiopia have already disappeared and in central Ethiopia industrially manufactured clothing is encroaching on the economic niche filled by hideworkers. Hide working with stone-tools is rapidly disappearing in southern Ethiopia, as well. It is essential that we take advantage of the activities pursued by the hideworkers to understand better the processes behind stone-tool production, use, and discard in an effort to broaden our understanding of human behavior.

Stone-tool based hideworking workshops have been identified associated with the Axumite State in Ethiopia dating to 1st century AD (Michels 1991). Although written records are associated with this early state, the earliest written descriptions of hide-working with stone-tools is associated with European travelers (Giglioli 1889; Johnston 1972 [1844]:370-374). Subsequently, German ethnographers in their descriptions of Dizi, Sidama, Gugi, and Gamo cultures illustrated their material culture documenting the variety of handle forms produced by different ethnic groups for hafting stone-tools for hide working (Haberland 1981, 1993:94; Straube 1963:22 plate.13).

Scientific studies of Ethiopian hideworkers began in the 1970s and were limited to a few days or months. These initial studies concentrated on documentation of the process (Dekker 1971); the spatial distribution of stone-tool discard (Gallagher 1974, 1977a, 1977b), stone-tool edge-wear (Clark and Kurashina 1981), access and use of raw stone materials resources (Haaland 1987), and the economic status of hideworkers (Karsten 1972). The first systematic study to concentrate on stone-tool production and use among the Ethiopian hideworkers was conducted by Gallagher (1974, 1977a,b). The focus of Gallagher's study was to determine if modern hide processing among the Gurage, Wolayta/ "Sidamo," and Oromo resembled the lithic distributions of two Late Stone Age sites in the Gurage area of Ethiopia. He concluded that there were no similarities between the types (bladelets, flakes, cortex flakes, and scrapers) and distribution of stone-tools and debitage in the ethnographic and archaeological record. He emphatically concluded that: "There is a very low degree of variability from individual to individual in terms of the manufacture and style of the stone-tools and the process of their use. This is remarkable in that the artifacts are from three separate ethnic groups" (Gallagher 1977b: 412). Clark and Kurashina (1981) subsequently studied an Oromo hideworker from the Bale area of southeastern Ethiopia. They compared 30 used scrapers to 14 unused scrapers to determine traces of the behavioral patterns of use. Microscopic analysis enabled them to identify striations on the ventral side of used and discarded scrapers in a crisscross pattern, which reflect the rotating of the working edge during scraping. They also noted the presence of polish and microscarring on the working-edge of the scraper. Most notably they quantified a significant difference between the average working edge angle between unused hide scrapers (44 degrees) and used hide scrapers (57 degrees). Lastly, they plotted the distribution of obsidian within and around a household demonstrating that archaeologists could easily misidentify midden deposits as activity areas, instead of locations of secondary discard. Haaland (1987: 66-69, 138-141) studied a Wolayta/"Wollamo" hideworker in Soddo, Ethiopia and through comparisons ascribed hide working activities to a Neolithic assemblage. She compared the microwear edge damage and discard distribution of ethnographic obsidian to Neolithic rhyolite and basalt scrapers from Sudan. Haaland also noted the presence of crushing and microscarring on the working edge on both the ethnographic and archaeological scrapers. In all these short term studies of the Gurage, Oromo, and Wolayta hideworkers (Gallagher 1973, 1974, 1977a,b; Clark and Kurashina 1981; Haaland 1987), the researchers reported the same basic pattern of tool manufacture, use, discard, style, and function.

In 1995, I was a member of Dr. Steven Brandt's (1995, et al. 1996; Brandt and Weedman 1997) Southern Ethiopian Ethnoarchaeology Project, which aimed to gain a better understanding of the geographical and ethnic distribution of southern Ethiopian hideworkers. The study supported by a Wenner-Gren grant confirmed the continued use of stone-tools for hide working among the Gamo, Gurage, Hadiya, Konso, Sidama, and Wolayta peoples. It also revealed a greater diversity in hide working practices concerning handle and scraper form, gender, and technology.

After the 1995 survey, I conducted the first long-term study of hide working in Ethiopia. I was awarded three dissertation grants, including Fulbright, National Science Foundation, and Leakey Foundation, between 1996 and 1998 to conduct ethnoarchaeological (the study of present day material culture to provide models for testing archaeological remains) field work among the Gamo hideworkers of southern Ethiopia. My two-year dissertation study (1996-1998), concentrated on whether similarities and differences in stone-tools represent style (marking the cultural identity of the maker) or function (indicating how stone-tools were used) within a cultural group.

In 2001, I and Steven Brandt (CO-PI) began working among the Konso hideworkers of southern Ethiopia. This project is funded by the National Science Foundation and our goal is to study stone-tool variability using ethnographic, ethnoarchaeological, and archaeological methods.

REFERENCES:

Brandt, S.A. 1996. The Ethnoarchaeology of Flaked Stone Tool Use in Southern Ethiopia. Aspects of African Archaeology: Papers from the 10th Congress of the PanAfrican Association for Prehistory and Related Studies, Harare, Zimbabwe, 1996, pp. 733-738 1995

Brandt, S.A., K. Weedman, and G. Hundie. 1996. Gurage Hide Working, Stone Tool Use and Social Identity: An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. In Grover, H. (ed.), Essays on Gurage Language and Culture, Harrassowitz, Verlag, pp. 35-52.

Brandt, S.A. and K. Weedman 1997. The Ethnoarchaeology of Hide Working and Flaked Stone Tool Use in Southern Ethiopia. In Fukui, K., Kurimoto, E., and Shigeta, M. (eds.), Proceedings XIIIth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Kyoto Japan.

Clark, J.D. and H. Kurashina . 1981. A Study of the Work of a Modern Tanner in Ethiopia and its Relevance for Archaeological Interpretation, in Modern Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us. Edited by R. A. Gould. M. B.Schiffer, pp. 303-343. New York: Academic Press.

Dekker, G. 1971. Obsidian Hideworking in Addis Ababa. Film shown at the 7th Pan-African Congress, Addis Ababa.

Giglioi, H. H. 1889. On a Singular Obsidian Scraper Used at Present by Some of the Galla Tribes in Southern Shoa. Internationales Archives fur Ethnographie 2:212-214.

Gallegher, J.P. 1974. The Preparation of Hides with Stone Tools in South Central Ethiopia. Journal of Ethiopian Studies XII:177-182.

_____. 1977a. Ethnoarchaeological and Prehistoric Investigations in the Ethiopian Central Rift Valley. Dissertation, Southern Methodist University.

_____. 1977b. Contemporary Stone Tool Use in Ethiopia: Implications for Archaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology 4:407-414.

Haberland, E. 1981. Die Materielle Kultur Der Dizi (Sudwest-Athiopien) und Ihr Kulturhistischer Kontext. Paideuma 27:121-171.

_____. 1993 Hierarchie und Kaste. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart.

Haaland, R. 1987. Socio-Economic Differentiation in he Neolithic Sudan. Cambridge: BAR International Series 350.

Johnston, C. 1972. [1844] Travels in Southern Abyssinia through the Country of Adaal to the Kingdom of Shoa. Books for Libraries Press, Freeport, U.K.

Michels, J. W. 1991. The Axumite Kingdom: A Settlement Archaeology Perspective. In Henok, edited by W. Yerkru, pp. 63-78. Ethiopian Research Council, Washington D. C.

Straube, H. 1963. Volker Sud-Atheiopiens. vol. 3. Kohlhammer, Verlag.

Weedman, K.J. 2000. An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Stone Scrapers among the Gamo People of Southern Ethiopia. PhD Dissertation. University of Florida.