The written sources left by travellers and the existing local accounts reveal that the Awi-Gumuz interaction dated back to Aksumiteera. The ruling houses of the Aksumite kingdom assigned the local Awi chiefs to collect tribute from the Gumuz community and run government activities since the second half of the third century (McCrindle, 1897:53, Taddese, 1972:28; Sergaw, 1972:28,37). The relation between these people strengthened through time after the settlement of Awi in what is today Awi Nationality Administrativeand someparts of Metekel Zones.

The archaeological excavations, oral and written sources indicated that the land presently inhabited byAwi people had been formerly occupied by the Gumuz(Melaku, 1997:87; Pankhurst, 1997:91; Getu, 1992:4). The present day Enjibara and its environs such as Mount Fudi, Gembaha, foothills of Mount Senbu in Quwaqura (near Dangila) had been the strong hold of the Gumuz. Nowadays, the place names that are closely related with the Gumuz culture are witnessed in several parts of the present day Enjibara and its surrounding environs such asየቦንጋሠፈር (villages of Bonga), የሊዊሠፈር (villages of Liwi), የመርጊሠፈር (villages of Mergi) and የፊሊሠፈር (villages of Fili). These place names seems to have derived from either the clan names or the village chiefs of the Gumuz.

On the other hand, oral source revealsthat during the settlement of seven houses of Agaws in AgawMeder and Metekel, they were said to have warmly welcomed by the famous Gumuz woman called Aduck. According to oral tradition, Aduck played very important role in the peaceful division of the land to the seven Agaw brothers and provided them protection from the attacks of the Shinasha people. Due to her great contribution, the Awi elders are thankful to Aduck and upon her death all of the founding fathers of seven houses of Agaw were said to have come together and buried her dead body in what is today west of Enjibara town, where stone ruins are currently witnessed.

In spite of the fascinating argument, however, if Aduck was either political or spiritual leader of the Gumuz people, she could not have good attitude towards the incoming Awiwho were frequently uprooting her own people [Gumuz]into the inhospitable areas of the Blue Nile. If she was influential, she could have organized her own people[Gumuz]against the incomingAwi. Instead, she might be enslaved by Awi and later became their loyal servant.

The interaction between Awi andGumuz consolidated during the Gondarine period than ever before. The successive Gondarine kings appointed the formidable Awi chiefs to collect tribute in gold and goats, and facilitate slave raid inGumuz communities (Abdussamad, 1995: 58-59; Tsega, 2006:38).For instance, Iyasu I (1682-1706) empowered an Awi chief called Chihuay to run political works in the Gumuz community.As time went on, following the incorporation of Metekel into GojjamProvince (1898), NigusTekleHaimanot (1882-1901) and later his son, RasHailu (1901-35) gave the political privilege forAwi chiefs over the Gumuz. They assigned the Awi chiefs to oversee the tax collection and the day-to-day political running in the Gumuz community (Abdussamad, 1984:4; Gebre, 2004:57). The position ofAwioverthe Gumuz worsened after the appointment of  the Awi chief, QegnazmachZelekeLiqu (later elevated to therankofFitawrari(1905-1935)overBelayaand Tumha.  He situated his power base in Belaya and exacerbated the slave raid in Metekel(Gumuz villages). Zeleke appointed his loyal officials at each custom posts traditionally called teqotataries (accountants). 

Years of ethnic policy that rulers had been applying for their political benefit left bad seeds on the fate of the future interaction between Awi and Gumuz generations. The political system narrowed the rooms for the possibility of the existence of friendly relation between two nationalities. Refusing what Awichifeswere doing in Gumuz communities, the periodic Gumuzrevoltbroke out in Metekel since 1940s to the early 1970s (Alemayehu, 2012: 91-92).

To begin with, after liberation (1941), periodic Gumuz revolt flared in Metekel. They bitterly protested the secret continuation of the slave raid by Awi masters, taxation system of the government,and the chain of their patron-client relation with Awi (Bazezew, 1990:20, Jira, 2008: 31).The illicit firearms trafficking[1] in Metekel encouraged the Gumuzof Mandura, Debati and Zigemto kill Awiand destroy their crops.

The first open Gumuz revolt against Awibroke out in 1944,following the death of GerazmachZelekeBirru, formidable Awi chief who established his power base at Sigadi (near Changnitown) (Bazezew, 1990: 20). They rejected the continuation of the early “patron-client” kind of relationship. As pretext, they refused to pay tribute to the government through Awi local chiefs.  The Gumuz of the Mandura, Dibati and Zigem expressed their resentment by killing Awi tax collectors, harassing local people on market days, setting fire on Awi houses and their crops, and trapping cattle keepers.

In 1960, the most serious and devastating Gumuz revolt happened in Madura, Debati and Zigem. The revolt was led by famous traditional Gumuz chief called Lamcha,self-appointed rebel leader who was calling himself “colonel.” (Interview with: TilahunAdal, Tufa Doyu and SewunetAmbaye). The uprising was locally called Lamcha rebellion, named after the rebel leader. The revolt was able to create sense of unity among the variousGumuzcommunities and soon, it spread throughout the entire Gumuz lands in northwestern Ethiopia including Dedessa Valley.

The government took brutal measures against the Gumuz. The government recruited local Awieqa shums in 1940s, 1950s and 1960sand assigned them toallegedly disarm the Gumuz. They disarmed the Gumuz,   andset fire on their villages inMandura, Debati, Guba, andZigem (Jira, 2008:38).  In order to bring lasting peace, the government established the garrison centers in Mantewuha, DebaÅ£i and Mandura, where the Gumuz revolt was too strong.In addition, it massively armed local Awinechlebash forces and other non- Gumuz people in the region.Berihun (2004:267-268) stated measures taken by the government against Gumuz as follows:

The earlier uprisings that occurred in 1950s and 1960s were the basis for the government to justify concerted military actions and disarming the Gumuz. The military interventions were concluded by establishing new and permanent administrative centers that were intended to oversee the Gumuz region. Among others, the police and administrative centers at Debai and Mantewuha, place located southwest of the Chagni town were conceived.

After the Gumuz revolt led by Lamcha crushed, there was popular saying among Awi. This was read in Awgni language:

ላምቻጉዚሪYouLacha fat ድኽምኽኩዜሪ፡፡Your race shale extinct Weapons collected from Gumuzwere distributed toAwi and other neighboring non-Gumuz localities aimed atchecking the security problems of the region.The governments also set out restricted laws. For instance, any kind of fabricating spears, bows and other traditional weapons[2] at local level were strictly forbidden. An attempt to produce these weapons leads to corporal punishment, property confiscation and arrest (Interview with: TilahunAdal, MengistieAsres, AmbawAgidew).

Theethnicdisturbanceadverselyaffectedthe cultivation of the crops both in Gumuz and Awi communities. When the security and the local Awi forces landed in Mandura, Dibati and Guba, the Gumuz left their village for Sudan and lowland areas of the Blue Nile and as a result, their cotton remains on field (not harvested). The effect of the Gumuz revolt on regular cultivation of their cotton productwas expressed in Awgni language as follows:

ላምቻሚፅኹጋኔሊThe evil caused by Lamcha ትቲካይጉኻካኔሊ፡፡made cotton to remain along with its stem at outside.

The Ethnic policy of the imperial regime left long lasting effects on the memory of the Gumuz. They developed strong hatreds against Awi and government that they consider killing non-Gumuz as good culture (heroism).

Throughout the years of Gumuz revolt, the government always took harsh measures against Gumuz. They were considered as problem creators. Unlike other peasant rebellion, the government did not attempt to elevate the rebel leaders. For instance, in Bale and Gojjam peasant uprising,it attempted to follow the pacific approaches and at the end, the arrear land tax was cancelled and rebel leaders were given amnesty.

This research was conducted based on the qualitative approach.Both primary and secondary sources of data are utilized. This includeskey informants, focus group discussions, document analysis and archival materials.  To begin, unstructured interviews were carried out with the intention of collecting the required data. Gumuz and Awi who are paired in agricultural work, elders and ex-regime local appointees were interviewed in depth. Focus group discussions with six to eight discussants in each group were conducted on different issues of topic under study. The selection of the discussants was made based on their nearness to social interaction, agricultural alliance, duties and responsibility of the conflict management process. In addition, letters, reports, news-papers, articles, research papers, minutes, diaries, documentary films and other manuscripts stating the nature of the relation betweenthe two communitiesare  consulted from Awi and Metekel Zones of security, agriculture, culture and tourism departments. The written documents are cross-checked against the oral sources, collected through focus group discussion and key informants. Finally, data analysis was made through interpretation, description of meanings, views and perceptions of the community elders. The collected data were critically and skeptically analyzed through narrative and document analysis approach.

From conflict to cooperation

Roads leading to peaceful co-existence and amicable relationship

The end of the old Ethiopian imperial in 1974 was the landmark in the history ofAwi-Gumuz relationship. This was because the Ethiopian revolution brought an end to the centuryold “patron-client” nature of relationship between these two peoples. Following this historic event,Derg made an attempt to elevate some Gumuz elders at local levels to run politics. In addition, series state policies of the Derg such as development through cooperation campaign, literacy campaign, adult training, agricultural cooperative, created rooms for mutual cooperationbetween Awi and Gumuz. In its cooperative agricultural policy, Derg attempted to shift traditional agricultural knowledge system from better experienced Awi to less equipped Gumuz. To this end, the Gumuz who had been poor in oxen plough, milking cows and other agricultural activities were made to be paired with Awi. In other words, the Awi farmers who had the better experience in the knowledge of traditional agricultural work were assigned to educate the techniques of oxen plough, cow milking, harvesting and management of crops to Gumuz.Though the change was not significant, at grass root level, theGumuz were made to attend adult training and literacy education together with Awi.These series of the government policies had its own role in promoting social interaction of Awi and Gumuz and changing the image of early painful relation into cooperation. Although the change was invisible, the policy became the pioneer in integrating Gumuz with Awi and changing the early history of the Gumuz society from hunting and gathering way of life into shifting cultivation and sedentary agriculture (Abebawetal, 1975: 25; Dessalegn, 2010: 71).In relation to these, Gebre (2004:63) noted that the Gumuz were encouraging the seasonal migration of the Awi into their land; since then it becomes good opportunity for them to draw the lesson of oxen plough and other traditional indigenous knowledge of crop production and management from the latter. Therefore,Awi became the apostle to transfer their working habits and indigenous knowledge system to the Gumuz community. Someone may ask why the government chooses Awi to shift their agricultural knowledge to Gumuz under the umbrella of its series of policies.  This was because Gumuz and Awi knew each other and live together for long time.In addition, as compared to other neighboring non-Gumuz highlanders, the Gumuz have relatively better friendly relation with Awi (Dessalegn, 1988: 131; Gebre, 2003: 53; Vaughan, 2007: 28). Moreover, after the 1980s, personal relationship between Awi and Gumuz consolidated (Berihun, 1996: 135). When conflict between settlers and Gumuz took place, the latter were asking for advice from the Awi. The Awi became the neutral and negotiators of the disputants. With regard to the role of the Awi in arbitration, Berihun (1996:144) stated:

in the irk, there were Agew elders who were elected as arbitrators by both groups. Then, the Agew elders killed the goat of the Gumz (on behalf of Gumuz), while the Wallo’s goat was killed by their own elders. Almost all were sharing the goat that was slaughtered by the Agew two young Gumuz men who were eating with Wallo. OneGumuz then came to the Wallo team and said “only twoGumuzWallo” i.e. only two Gumuz have Wallo inclination.

The other factor which consolidated the amicable relation between Awi and Gumuz was the need for illegal exchange of the firearms. The illicit firearm trafficking has been widely expandedat the eve of the collapse of the Derg rule to 1990s.  Numerical firearmswere left by the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party (EPRP)[1] and Derg troops distributed in Metekel and AgewMedir. During these years, Awi who largely benefited[2] from firearms left by the two fighting forces became the major supplier of the guns and bullets to the Gumuz people.  The Gumuzand Awiwho have mijim and wodajties were the major actors in the illicit firearms trafficking and trading. According to the local informants, the Awi of Chagni, Zigem, Ahiti, Mandura, DebaÅ£i, Ambela established bridges for firearms exchange with the Gumuz. They became the major recipients of firearms from the other highlandAwi and Amhara and then distributed it to the Gumuz (Interview with: Commander TewabaTefera, BelaynehWondim, commanderSimachewYihunie).

The rate of firearms exchange was high between Awi and Gumuz than between the later and non-Awi. This was because on one hand, the Gumuz had hostile relation with the settlers, where there was no safe room for firearms exchange. On the other, the settlers did not want to sell any firearms to Gumuz since; it would encouragethem for killing and crime.

The volume of firearms exchange between Awi and the Gumuz increased from the end of 1980s to 1990s. There were two main factors for the wide expansion of theillicit firearms sales between Awi and Gumuz. One was increasing the demand of the firearms among the Gumuz community because of the outbreak of the bloody ethnic conflict between Gumuz and settlers in Metekel (1992-1994). To this end, they have been usingAwi as closer advisors and firearms suppliers Secondly, following the demise of the Derg rule, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (PRDF) in collaboration with the local militiaforces were collecting the firearms left by EPRP and the former government forces particularly from Awi.[3] They were whipping and brutallytreating pro-EPRP and Derg members of Awi to return the weapons that they have received from them.Therefore, the Awi preferred to sell weapons to the Gumuz rather than returning it to the newly instituted government (Interview with: EngidaTessema, Tufa Doyu and Solomon Dereso).

Post 1991 developments:Focusing on mutual agricultural alliance and peaceful co-existence

The post 1991 political rearmament reshuffled the territory of the former AgewMedir and Metekel which is early inhabited by Awi and Gumuz. Accordingly, some Awi and Gumuz are separated from their main groups. In other words, someGumuz and Awi are left outside their respective zones, Metekel(BinishanguleGumuzNnationalRegional State) and AwiNationality (AmharaNnationalRegional State) respectively. Significant numbers of Awi are living in Metekel Zone particularly inMandura, Debaţi, Dangurworedas and other environs. Similarly, considerable numbers of the Gumuz population are living in Awi Zone such asZigem, Ankesha and Jaweworedas. According to the reports of 2007 Central Statistics Authority (CSA), among 670,847 entire population of the BenishangulGumuz National Regional State, 28, 468 (four percent) are Awi people. Similarly, out of 981,491 total population of the Awi Nationality Administrative Zone, about 13, 074 (one percent) are Gumuz. However, the geographic separation did not stop theirinteraction, rather the lowland Gumuz welcomes the seasonal Awi migrants. Regardless of the difference in administrative unit, the Awi-Gumuz interaction is characterized by the mixed settlement and cross border relations.

The friendly relation between Awi and Gumuz and greater extent of economic cooperation witnessed after 1991 political change than ever before. This happens due to rise of the need for mutual economic benefitand consolidation of individual social bonds. To promote their mutual economic benefit, they maintained social links such as angușahugni (cross ethnic adoption), abelij (Godparent relation) and wodajinet (friendship) and land rent. After 1990s, both Awi and Gumuz were eager to maintain friendshipbecause of the several developments that took place in the region. One was land shortage amongAwi, which became acute problem after 1996/7 rural land decree of the AmharaNational Regional State (ANRS). When the 1996/7 rural land redistribution program caused shortage of the farmland in Awi Nationality Zone, the Awi from highland areas migrated to the Gumuz land.As the demand for land increased, largenumbers of the Awi from densely populated areas migrated to several Gumuz lands such as Enabara, Jawi,Zigem. Better economically organized and seasonal laborers crossed their zonal boundary and maintained economic cooperation with the Gumuz ofMetekel Zone (Tadesse, 2002: 12).The Gumuz who owned virgin land emerged as the potential allies for Awi land hungerbecause the rural land redistribution did not affect them living in AwiNationality and Metekel Zones.

Secondly, raising the price of food grains in market is one of the driving elements that made Awi and Gumuz claimants eager to consolidate their agricultural alliance. As investing on agriculture becomes more beneficial, the landless youths, small-scale individual agricultural investors and even town dwellers from highland areas of Awi Nationality Administrative Zone made the seasonal migration to the Gumuz inhabited lands such as Enabara, Ambela, Zigem, Manduraand Dibati searching for land lease (mutual crop sharing).  

The Gumuz are welcoming the periodic migration of Awi and social ties with them, because they are much benefited from mutual crop sharing, draw traditionalknowledge of agricultural experiences and management of the crop production, which promotes food security. Mutual crop sharing reduced the dependence of Gumuz on hunting and gathering who were supplementingtheir diet through hunting and gathering particularly in summer season(Interview with: Tufa Doyu, AgegnehuAbie, and Solomon Dereso). 

The post 1991change also paved the way for unemployed youth migration into BenishangulGumuzNational Regional State (BGNRS). Among the newly structured regional states, BGNRS lacks the potentials of educated manpower.Awi, the immediate neighbor ofGumuz were frequently migrating to MetekelZone searching for better employment opportunities. The job opportunity in the densely populated Awi Nationality Zone is competitive. In each year, several Awi students who completed their secondary education left for Metekel Zone because of the presence of the better employment opportunity. They are working as teachers, health and agricultural expertise and other civil servants.

Assessing the outcomes of the agricultural alliance mutual understanding

The need for economic cooperation and mutual under-standing leads to the consolidation and further formation of newwodajinet (friendship). When the relationship between Awi and Gumuz began, they are calling each other wodaj, meaning friend. This leads tothe establishment of the wodajinet (friendship). Wodajinetcould be extended into mijim, meaning best friend. Mijim is strong friendship in which the individuals establish very close relationship. Mijim ties could be assumed by the succeeding generations of the Awi and Gumz even after the death of original parents. It is not easily breakable. They are helping each other in different aspects of social life. Informants described that the mijim relation between Awi and Gumuz is age-old, but relatively expanded since the postliberation period. Though theearly relation between two people was full of hostile and tension, Awi tax collectors were said to have started such relation with Gumuzvillagers (Interview with: Tufa Doyu, Solomon Dereso and EngidaTessema).

The other manifestations of the friendship relationship between these two people are angușhugni[4] (cross-ethnic adoption) and abelij (God-parent relation).Angușhugni is a kind of parent-son relation, where the claimants agreed to act as parent and son. They made an oath in front of elders and spiritual fathers to keep their relation forever. However, no biological ties (actual blood relationship) existed between the claimants. In abelij, when new baby is born, biologically unrelated guy/lady assumes the position of parenthood during baptism.

Above all, farming alliance between Awi and Gumuz paved the way for experience sharing and shift of the working habits from the former to the later. The Gumuz, who had been poor in oxen plough, milking cows, cultivation and management of crop production able to learn such techniques from Awi.  For instance, the Gumuz living in Awi Nationality Administrative and Metekel zones such as Jawe, Enabara, Zigem, DibatiandMandura are becoming settled agriculturalists and good in oxen plough and management of the crop cultivation. Among others, the Gumuz of Enabara, Zigem, Jawi and Mandura learned alternative means of plough. They are using donkey for plough when their oxen died. They found that donkey easily adapted their natural environ-ment (hot climate) and relatively costs low price in the market than ox(Interview with: Tufa Doyu, Solomon Dereso and EngidaTessema).

Nowadays, the Gumuz of Zigem and Mandura, in particular are able to learn the processes in teff cultivation, which needs repeated plough and critical traditional knowledge during sowing, winnowing, chaffing and threshing. In their history, Gumuz had been using stick to thresh the other food crops. This is time consuming and boring. In recent years, they learned the techniques of threshing crops on ground using oxen foot. In addition, the Gumuz had not been using pack animalsfor loading crops and goods rather they use traditional balancing. Surprisingly, when the two sides load failed to equally weighed, they add stone or other material on one side to make it equally weight. In recent years, they learned the technique of loading sack of grain on donkey.  The other mutual agricultural alliance is manifested in the areas of animal rearing. When the shortage of the grazing lands occurred in summer season[5], the Awi sent their cattle to Gumuzvillageswhere adequate grass is available.

Because of their closer interaction with Awi, the Gumuz also learned how to manage the annual food crops in home.  They had been too much extravagant. They do not consider their economic ability during weeding, tezikar (death memory) and other social festivals. Moreover, they sold their food crops in nearby market in winter season mainly to buy locally prepared drinking substances like areqi and tella (Interview with: Tufa Doyu, Solomon Dereso and EngidaTessema). In recent years, there are improvements in reducing the degree of the extravagancy. They are learning the habit of saving food crops than being dependent on seasonal hunting and gathering. In some areas, the Gumuz females are learning the processes of distilling local drinks like, areqiandtella and preparation of traditional food such as injera and wottfromAwi women (Ibid).

Day-to-day interaction between Awi and Gumuz also brought changes in house building among the Gumuz. In earlier periods, the Gumuz were living in simple huts. James Bruce gave his account stating that:

The Shanqellas[6] during the fair half of the year, live under the shade of tree, the lost branches of which they cut near the steam on the upper part and then bend, break them down planting the ends of the branches in the earth (Quoted in Pankrhust, 1976: 27)

As their interaction with Awi fostered and income level improves, they began to build well-roofed and walled houses. Some of the Gumuz built corrugated iron roofed houses. Several Awi friends that are economically and socially chained with the Gumuz involved in building their residential home.

Historical sources tell us that the inter relationship between Awi and Gumuz was longstanding and startedsince Aksumitekingdo. The early interaction between these two people was mainly characterized by hostile ways because of the fact that the successive Ethiopian highland kings appointed Awi local chiefs for their political benefit. This paved the way for the emergence of “patron-client” nature of relationship between Awi and Gumuz until the downfall of the imperial regime in 1974.

The Ethiopianrevolutionofthe1974relaxedthe nature of the inter-relationship between the two communities. This was because the Ethiopian revolution ended age-old patron-client relationship and Gumuz were given some degree of the political privilege. Above all, through its series of policies such as agricultural cooperative, peasant association, literacy campaign, adult training and development through cooperative campaign, Derg attempted to integrate Awi and Gumuz. The Gumuz who are poor in oxen plough and other agricultural activities were made to be paired with Awi. This was made to shift traditional agricultural work experience from the latter to the former. After 1990s the relation between Awi and Gumuz were greatly improved. The need for economic cooperation and increasing the demand for farmland among Awi created fertile grounds for agricultural alliance. The Gumuz, which had been poor in traditional agricultural works such as oxen plough, cow milking and house building learned techniques of such traditional knowledge. The day-to-day interaction and economic cooperation between Awi and Gumuz played crucial role in improving the early images of economic activity and social life of the Gumuz.  The friendly interaction between Awi and Gumuz changes not only the images of their early history but also reduces the security problems and promotes peaceful co-existence. 

The author has not declared any conflict of interests.