How Ethiopian values differed - part 2

In the first article in this series we sought to consider traditional Ethiopian society, and asked how its values compared with those of modern European - or American capitalism. We examined the status of Land in historic Ethiopia , and concluded that it was scarcely a Factor of Production controlled by what economists refer to as "market forces". (On this see also my book State and Land in Ethiopian History – which has just been reprinted by Tsehai Publishers in Hollywood , California ).

What, we must now ask about, dear Reader, is how far was Labour a commodity of production in traditional Ethiopia ?

Not very far, we may answer, for production was mainly carried out by peasants - and their families – who in large measure worked their own land, and produced what they needed for their own consumption, not for sale.

Virtually unpaid, the peasantry received no wages, and their output was scarcely influenced by market prices, i.e. they did not produce more when the price was high, or less when it was low - as they should have done if they followed market considerations.

Handicraft workers for their part produced mainly for other classes, and exchanged much of their wares for other produce – but they did so in the main without monetary payment. They thus gave their pots, ironware or cloth in exchange for grain grown by the peasantry.

Peasants and handicraft workers both met the needs of the monarch, governor and aristocracy, as well as certain religious establishments. They did this by paying taxes, or their equivalent - either in kind or labour services - but they did this again virtually without monetary payment.

Many priests, and debtera, or lay ecclesiastics, as well as monks and nuns also worked the land to meet their own immediate needs.

Labour not carried out by members of the family was on many cases the work of slaves. The existence of the latter was sanctioned by the Kebra Nagast, which quoted the Biblical book of Leviticus. This declared: "Those whom you take from the people who dwell around you and the aliens who dwell among you, let them, men and women, be your slaves".

Ethiopian slavery differed from the plantation slavery of North America for example, in that it was essentially domestic. Slaves thus served in the houses of their masters or mistresses, and were not employed to any significant extent for productive purposes, Slaves were thus regarded as members of their owners' family, and were fed and clothed - but not paid any wage, either in kind or cash.

Some were inherited; either because they were born to a slave belonging to the slave-owning family, or because the master on his demise left them to his heirs. In either case the slaves in question were acquired naturally, at a virtually no expense - and entirely independently of the economists' laws of supply and demand.

Other slaves were seized in the course of warfare - which depended on the exigencies of the battlefield - again quite independently of market considerations.

Other slaves again were taken in the course of slave-raiding expeditions. Such captures were carried out at very little cost, so that they would only marginally be affected by lave prices.

Some other slaves, finally, were purchased. The price of such slaves might at first sight seem to be influenced by economic factors. This was, however, only marginally the case as the majority of slaves were captured in war or in raiding expeditions - with the consequence that the supply of slaves was in general largely independent of demand.

The Slave Trade

The Ethiopian slave trade - unlike that practised in the New World - was by no means unregulated. On the contrary, the Fetha Nagast prohibited the sale of Christians to non-believers. By the time of Emperor Susneyos, in the early 17th century, it was also established that Christians were not allowed to sell slaves of any faith - though they were allowed to purchase them.

The Fetha Nagast's restriction applied only to Christians - with the result that Muslims were entirely free to sell slaves – and had in fact a virtual monopoly in the business. Islamic paramountcy in the slave trade was reinforced by the fact that slave exports went very largely to Muslim territories, most notably Arabia, Sudan and Egypt, as well as Muslim areas of India.

The Ethiopian slave trade, like other trade, was originally carried out mainly on the basis of barter, for example the exchange of slaves for guns, or with the help of amolé, or bars of rock salt. By the early 18th century increasing use was however also made of Maria Theresa thalers, or dollars. A slave-girl on the trade route to the port of Massawa is said to have exclaimed. "Is it this what serves to purchase children and men?"

Ethiopian slavery differed from that of the West in one other important respect: The Fetha Nagast sought to control - and in a sense to humanise it: by specifying a number of situations in which the slave-owner was obliged to emancipate his or her slave. Market values were to that extent subordinated to moral considerations.

Though most labour was carried out by members of a family - or by slaves - some employment of servants also took place. Paid servants were, however, much fewer in numbers than slaves - and were remunerated mainly in kind, rather then in cash. The 17th century Portuguese Jesuit Emmanuel Barradas states that such slaves were usually paid in cloth.

The 18th century Scottish traveller James Bruce, writing of Gondar -where a monetary economy was more developed than most parts of the country, states that a male servant might receive four silver dollars a year, plus two pieces of enjara, or bread, a day. If the master was good he might also give his slave some meat, lentils or pulses. He would also on occasion give him a pair of trousers and some cloth. A maid-servant would likewise be given her food, and in addition fifteen bars of salt a year.

When servants or slaves - were employed this was largely as a status symbol rather than to meet rationally determined requirements. The middle-class German Protestant missionary Henry Aaron Stern, who came from a more monetary-oriented background, exclaimed in surprise that in the "houses of the great" in Ethiopia the number of "menials" was "literally legion", while even an ordinary respectable merchant or royal officer might employ as many as twenty men and six or seven women.

The above picture was later expanded by the early 20 th century British traveller Herbert Vivian. Astounded by the number of servants he saw in Ethiopia, he declared that "every one" had "as many retainers as possible, who go with him and eat with him as members of his family" " Every retainer", he adds, "has his own duties, and will under no circumstances consent to do any others at all. In a big household one man looks after the tej [i.e. honey wine], and nothing else, another concerns himself only with the guns, another is merely treasurer, another has charge of certain animals. In fact there is an infinite division of labour. Even a small man never goes out of doors without four retainers to accompany him. One carries his gun, another his sword, another his purse, and the fourth, like the man in the Chanson de Malbrook, carries nothing at all.

Under no circumstances will they consent to carry parcels. If you take a man with you, buy a small thing and hand it to him to carry, he calls a coolie at once. He will carry your gun, and as many cartridges as is physically possible, but not a bottle or a roll of cloth."

Palaces and churches - and many peasants' houses -were traditionally built in Ethiopia on an entirely non-monetary basis, i.e. without making any payment to the builders involved. This was noted by the early 19th century by the British traveller Nathaniel Pearce, who observed: "if a church is to be built, every Christian is ready to carry stones, clay etc. gratis. A case in point was when the ruler of Tegray, Ras Walde Selassie, decided to build a new church. He had his drum beaten in Antalo market, Pearce reports, after which he ordered every man living in Enderta to come with rope and axe to cut down the trees. Everything was done, Pearce explains, "without the assistance of any mechanical device" - and also without any kind of payment to the labourers!

Emperor Tewodros, the 19th century protagonist of modern Ethiopia , likewise built the country's first modern roads, without the use of money. "From early dawn to late at night", recalls a British eye-witness, Henry Blanc, "Theodore was himself at work; with his own hands he removed stones, levelled the ground, or helped to fill up small ravines. No one could leave so long as he was there himself; no one would think of eating, or of rest, while the Emperor showed the example and shared the hardships".

Emperor Menilek, later in the century, likewise participated in cutting down trees at Mount Managasha , and in building the churches at Entoto, and elsewhere. One foreigner who witnessed this was the British traveller Henry Savage Landor. Coming from a country with entirely different traditions - and values - he found Menilek's practice "quaint", and explained:

"If he [Menelik] wishes to put up another building, in the Palace for instance, or a church somewhere, he rides out upon his mule and picks up a stone or a piece of wood, which he carries back to the Palace, or to the spot where the erection is to be made. The thousands of soldiers who always follow him must imitate his example, so that by evening plenty of building material is at hand".

It is apparent from the above that Labour, like Land, was scarcely a factor of production subject to market forces.