1.1 Primary sources: Property transactions

3The primary research base is land-related property transactions and land registers recorded by professional scribes attached to churches and monasteries in northern Ethiopia, in the former provinces of Bägemǝdǝr and Goǧǧam. While many property transfer deeds are written on flyleaves or endpaper and margins of manuscripts, there are also manuscripts consisting exclusively of legal documents which are called yärest mäzgäb or “register of inheritance deeds,” which were separate from land registers usually accompanying church charters. Women and their property dealings appear throughout these manuscripts from about 1740 to 1974. Surviving texts record all forms of land-related property and social transactions one could imagine: leases, gifts, selling and buying, marriage endowments, inheritances, and legal dispute resolutions, to name but a few. Geographical coverage is limited to large towns with churches in both Bägemǝdǝr and Goǧǧam. While men appear frequently in these documents, references to women are also significant in number. These materials clearly represent a very small and privileged group of women with access to wealth and property, but they also provide material for a deeper analysis of women’s property rights. Little used as historical sources until now, these records reveal a glimpse of the lived experiences of women recorded there through which we can analyse their individual socioeconomic status. These preserved landed property records show that women were actively involved in a wide range of initiatives: they were administrators, church founders, family leaders, property owners, slave owners, bequeathers of land—all pursuits which frame the wider economic, social, and political landscape of the period under study.

Figure 24. Habtamu M. Tegegne, A folio from the Mota register (Yärest Mäzgäb, #4089)

1.2 The argument

4Despite their political subordination, women in Ethiopian society have historically held greater autonomy than has been recognised to date. This argument can be illustrated in three ways. First, evidence in the landed property records themselves demonstrates that women throughout the period of this study were secure in their rights pertaining to landholding. While legally possessing such rights does not confirm that they exercised them in all circumstances, both men and women were recognised as holding those rights equally. Second, women routinely employed the prevailing landholding system to their own advantage and fully recognised the scope of their privileges in this regard. My study identifies two kinds of land transfer or property relationship in which women particularly participated actively: inheritances, and bequests involving adoption. However, inheritance and bequests do not exhaust the business dealings of women, who are depicted as parties to all kinds of property transfers and the implied social and economic transactions. In this context, women participated in transactions taking the form of land sales and purchases. Third, women’s broad property rights mitigated their subordinate position in other areas of society in which gender inequality prevailed, thus offering them the means of acquiring economic security in old age, an independent source of money, a legacy for memorialising and spirituality, and economic independence beyond mere survival.

2.1 Women, property, and family leadership

6Ethiopian noblemen and noblewomen had developed a system of inheritance and family leadership or seniority known as the aläqenät. This system entitled one child designated as leader to inherit the majority of the family estate and/or assets, while relegating any other children to the status of dehenät, or subordinate heirs, who shared the remaining amount. The will of Däğğač* Ḫaylu Ǝšäte, a cousin of Queen Məntəwwab (1730–1769) is an interesting case involving women and inheritance (see Source 68). Records of a dispute settlement shows that Ḫaylu divided, in circa 1809, his property, including cattle in Bägemǝdǝr and Goǧǧam unequally among five heirs. His will stated that one of his two daughters, Adga, was to be married; the second, Merṣit, was to become aläqa or family leader and principal heir, receiving two-thirds of the estate. As family leader, Merṣit was also required to provide military service when called for. Ḫaylu’s son Gošu was named a lesser beneficiary; along with Adga, he was to share the remaining one-third of the inheritance. But Ḫaylu had excluded another son, Wäldä Täkle, from receiving any of his estate. Although Merṣit had been given complete control over her share and had the authority conferred by her father, a violent struggle broke out with her less-favoured brothers after their father’s death. The conflict ended with reconciliation and a settlement which radically revised the original terms of the inheritance. Elder arbiters and relatives decreed that Merṣit had to share the family estate more equitably with her brothers. This resulted in Wäldä Täkle, formerly disowned by his father, being readmitted into the family. As an instrument of potential inequality, the tradition of aläqenät* worked against the principle of impartial inheritance.

7There are many other inheritance documents whereby women are declared as universal heirs, family leaders and property managers, even though their prominence went against the strong patrilineal preferences of Ethiopian law. These women played economic and administrative roles usually reserved for men, such as providing soldiers in the case of Merṣit who became her family’s leader, or aläqa, not because there was no man to claim the title, but because her father preferred her over his sons. As a system of inheritance, aläqenät enabled Ethiopian noblemen and women to perpetuate their lineage and set rules governing the relationship between their descendants and heirs. Although Merṣit was challenged by her brothers and ultimately agreed to share her inheritance with them, her rights as Haylu’s successor and principal heir was confirmed, testifying that women’s role as family leader was taken for granted in Ethiopia at that time.

2.2 Women and illegitimate children

8Women also drew up inheritance documents in favour of their daughters, excluding illegitimate children from inheritance if they chose. The will of Sehen, daughter of däğğazmač* Ayo, governor of Bägemǝdǝr during the 1740s through 1760s, provides the best example. Dated from 1803/4, copies of her will survive in the archives of three churches in Goǧǧam. Sehen appointed her daughter Hirut Kenfu as universal heir with the power to “disinherit and establish” her siblings and manage the family property. This is most likely because Sehen owed her daughter a staggering debt of 500 wäqet (ounces) of gold, 10 mules and an unknown number of cattle. The details of this will vividly illustrate the considerable autonomy women had with regard to the disposal of their property and the choice of heirs and successors.

9Sehen ordered that her illegitimate children be excluded from the inheritance and specifically requested that they refrain from disturbing Hirut. This case affirms that although all children were theoretically entitled to share equally in their parents’ estates, parents could disinherit them at will, especially illegitimate ones. Historically, Ethiopians appear to have been generous and inclusive regarding the rights and entitlements of illegitimate children, but as the case of Sehen’s will demonstrates, this benign attitude was not universal.

10The cases of Merṣit and Hirut reveal that women, regardless of other gender and status inequalities, received property and assumed responsibilities normally reserved for men. As a whole, provisions concerning the inheritance rights of daughters and wives could be justly described as liberal.

2.3 Dowry and marriage

11In addition to testamentary bequests, the second most frequent means for women to acquire property was through marriage gifts. According to Ethiopian law, the bride’s parents provided her dowry or personal property (ትሎት). It usually took the form of livestock, slaves, real estate or agricultural land. Her trousseau (ማጫ), consisting mostly of household items, jewellery and ceremonial dress, was contributed by the groom or his parents.

12The marriage of the unnamed daughter of däğğazmač* Adäru and the unnamed son of ras* Wädajä during the first half of the 18th century is a good example of this practice. Adäru was a close relative of the famed Queen Məntəwwab and served briefly as governor of Goǧǧam during the 1750s. Wädajä was governor of Amḥara from the 1750s through the 1770s. A document listing all the properties the new groom received through his marriage to Adäru’s daughter is kept at the church of Däbrä Wärq.

13As was typical, the newlywed couple’s property comprised both moveable and permanent goods. According to the inventory, from his mother the groom received extensive lands in 25 localities across the province of Amḥara, while from his father he received 500 cows, 100 pairs of oxen, 50 weapons, 200 wäqet of gold, 10 mules, 10 horses, and 10 swords, among other items. Unfortunately, we do not have any itemised records of the bride’s dowry (or even her name). Throughout the marriage, this couple held and managed their properties jointly, as well as those they acquired over the years following their wedding.

14It is also important to note that under Ethiopian law, husbands and wives could also inherit their deceased partner’s assets. The best example is found in an early 20th-century will held at the church of Märṭulä Maryam. The husband, liqämäkwas* Lemäneh, willed his land to his wife, wäyzäro* Yewagu, showing that he acknowledged and respected her right to the land. Noteworthy too is the fact that he did not insist she remain a widow, leaving her the right to choose whether or not to remarry. Additionally, the liberal Ethiopian practice of the time was that when a marriage ended in divorce, the wife was usually given back any land received from her parents.

3.1 Women, adoption and the choice of heirs

16Women named a wide range of beneficiaries in their wills, demonstrating that they were wholly free to determine their heirs and successors. As might be expected, most women named their children as heirs, but some designated their brothers and sisters instead. Two representative examples from the first half of the 20th century are found at the church of Märṭulä Maryam. In the first, a woman named Yeneneš Gošu bequeathed all her lands to her brother, Tässäma, and sister, Yešumneš. In the second case, Terengo Kassa designated her brother Embi’alä Kassa as heir, despite the fact that her children should have been made heirs according to Ethiopian custom. Terengo even added a clause to the will disallowing her children and other siblings from inheriting any of her estate.

17In some instances, women’s heirs were their husbands, or vice versa; in other instances, the relationship between testator and beneficiary is unclear. In a will written during 1927/28 in the town of Moṭa, wäyzäro* Bezunäš registered land with her husband, Fitäwrari Imeru, and declared him her heir. Imeru in turn stipulated that Bezunäš would inherit his property, should she outlive him. The couple likely composed their wills together and then registered their lands, declaring each other heir with no stipulations, and no insistence upon continued widowhood for Bezunäš if she were to survive her husband. Naming one’s spouse (or other non-blood-related individual) as one’s heir through technically “adopting” him or her as one would do with a child, was an accepted though uncommon legal practice. It is reasonable to expect that one instance of its use would be in cases where a couple had no children to succeed them. These atypical cases show the degree of autonomy that women exerted in both inheriting and bequeathing property.

18Property was usually passed on according to general succession customs. While most women passed their property to their biological children and/or agnatic (male lineage) relatives, however, they did not do so exclusively. Legal adoption could be employed to name non-traditional heirs, thus bypassing customary inheritance practices that gave succession rights only to natural or biological heirs. By this means, adopted children and others of the testator’s choosing were not only eligible to a share in an inheritance, but could also be designated as aläqa, or family leader and principal heir. With adoption-related inheritances, the distinction between so-called “natural” and “legitimate” children became blurred. This is especially true for inheritances involving slaves, who figure in a host of testaments found in the church archives of Märṭulä Maryam, Moṭa, Däbrä Wärq and Däbrä Marqos; many of these documents were drawn up at the behest of women.

19During the early 20th century in Märṭulä Maryam, Yätämäññu Engeda first freed and then adopted her slave, Tälčakolu, as one of her children. Consequently, Tälčakolu was included as one of her heirs. In exchange, Yätämäññu required that after her death Tälčakolu would pay for annual anniversary masses and memorial feasts for her soul.

20A similar testament was written by Bezabeš Kassa, widow of the priest aläqa* Rätta. As she was childless, Bezabeš freed and then adopted her three named slaves in order to qualify them to legally inherit her land; the three received property rights and benefits without any limitations, just as biological heirs would have. Several other documents in Goğğam church archives also describe women allocating or bequeathing property to their slaves. It is revealing to find that women were predominant in cases where slaves were adopted as surrogate children in order to be declared heirs. Moreover, properties acquired and bequeathed in this manner were beyond the control of testators’ biological children and relatives.

21The example of Bezabeš and others like her demonstrates the range of practical choices and considerable personal autonomy available to women concerning property disposal and also demonstrates the flexibility of Ethiopian inheritance law at the time. The majority of women cited in the foregoing examples could be regarded as local elite individuals but not high enough in social stature to belong to the nobility. All of the documents discussed show that transferring property outside the main lines of family descent was in fact not out of the ordinary. Widows and childless women accounted for the largest range of choice concerning heirs, naming not only their blood relations, but also slaves and other non-related beneficiaries. As a whole, women were the most active adopters of non-related heirs and therefore influential as givers of land. Only in a very few cases are women identified as adoptees or receivers of bequests from non-related testators.

3.2 Purpose and timing of testamentary bequests

22The main purpose for drawing up wills was motivated by social and secular concerns, rather than religious necessity. For men and women alike, age and physical well-being largely determined the timing and content of their wills. Although there are instances of wills written when testators were still in good health and physically active, most women wrote their testaments during old age and/or times of infirmity; whether married, unmarried, or widowed, they tended to defer will-making until there was anticipation of death or incompetence. They wrote wills for a wide variety of reasons, including the pressures of debt, lack of biological heirs, and to show love and affection to their preferred successors.

23Many women categorically stated that they bequeathed their land because of debts of gratitude they owed to their adoptees and natural heirs. Two examples illustrate this motivation. The first is that of Terengo Kassa who, as seen before, left her land to an adopted brother, Embi’alä Kassa. Explaining the reasons for her bequest, Terengo stated that her brother had helped her and also acknowledged that she owed him 100 silver thalers. Likewise, the contents of Sehen’s testament, also cited above, were motivated by both debt and gratitude, especially the enormous debt owed to her daughter Hirut. In fact, the debt alone may have been the main reason for drawing up the will as a form of guaranteed settlement.

24Exclusionary wills were written when women sought to disinherit adopted children when the latter proved irresponsible, misbehaved, or failed to care for them. The 1932 will of wäyzäro* Kassayä Ali who lived in Moṭa is a case in point. Kassayä disinherited her former adopted children, aläqa Mängǝstu and Webǝ Gǝtahun; in their place she adopted an unnamed male as her child and bequeathed her property to him.

25For the most part, women used wills for the distribution of their worldly assets and settlement of material obligations. But equally important was the use of wills and testaments for religious purposes; that is, to ensure their eternal salvation. When the stated purpose of a will was religious, the major concern of such testaments was the organisation of funerals, anniversary masses and memorial feasts. An example of this form of inheritance is that of Yäwärq Wuha Wäldä Hǝr, who first adopted fitäwrari* Asfa and then bequeathed to him all the land she had inherited from her mother during the 1840s. Found in Märtulä Maryam church collections, the document of the bequest stated that Yäwärq Wuha was to be taken care of during the remainder of her long life. She also stipulated that the cost of organising anniversary masses and memorial feasts in her honour was to be paid from the assets of the inheritance, now held by her adopted child Asfa. Several other women used their testamentary gifts to honour and memorialise themselves after death through similar provisions to fund memorial feasts and masses. In a document drawn at Märtulä Maryam, for instance, we read that a testator Ṭädal Ṭedu adopted ras Ḫaylu, governor of Goğğam (1910–1932), and bequeathed her lands to him. In recompense, Ḫaylu gave her 18 silver thalers for food and clothing. Additionally, Ṭädal’s land bequest was on condition that Ḫaylu sponsor a memorial meal on the anniversaries of her death and funeral. Other women did not give particular reasons for their bequests.

4.1 Women and church landholding

26Women could also hold rim* lands distributed on behalf of churches by church founders and grantors. Although churches were always male-dominated spaces, women are also found listed among those serving the ecclesiastical establishment. Women were restricted from holding church office but found ways to work within religious and social constraints when it came to owning church-affiliated land. This role was evidently deemed acceptable by male administrators, as women appear in lists of landholders under church jurisdiction. The most important form of property women held under church jurisdiction was rim land and it would often be allocated in exchange for specific services, such as some liturgical tasks required or permitted to women. While laywomen typically did not participate personally in religious services and ceremonies, they could appoint qualified male proxies to provide those services on their behalf.

27Besides holding land from churches, noblewomen from affluent noble families took on significant roles as church founders and benefitted materially from their investment in ecclesiastical communities. In this context, ruling-class women enjoyed much of the privilege and status of their male counterparts. Affluent noblewomen availed themselves of opportunities to engage in various forms of cultural patronage and were more highly regarded for doing so. They not only established ecclesiastical institutions, but made massive sustaining grants to them, which benefitted them, their families and the communities attached to the churches they supported. Queen Məntəwwab and her daughter Wälättä Ǝsra’el offer striking examples of the influence and power that independent upper-class women wielded in establishing churches and making significant tenurial interventions in Ethiopia’s landholding system. Both women possessed substantial holdings within the lands attached to Məntəwwab’s major foundation, the church of Däbrä Ṣähay Q^wəsq^wam, founded during the 1730s and 1740s. Her daughter Wälättä Ǝsra’el granted an immense amount of property to relatives and other members of the ruling class in Goğğam and Bägemǝdǝr, as well as establishing and endowing churches that could rival royal foundations churches in their size and wealth. She commissioned the building of Moṭa Giyorgis church during the late 1760s and endowed at least five smaller convents, including donating paintings and financing the copying of liturgical books and objects. Although her foundation and grants are recorded officially as having been given by her nephew Iyo’as, Wälättä Ǝsra’el independently controlled the granting of extensive amounts of land. In this way, she and others like her were able to operate with almost as much effect and autonomy as male nobility.

4.2 Women and the land market

28As we have seen, women’s names appear throughout land transaction documents in church collections. These property records also show that women served as guarantors, usually on behalf of men rather than for other women. For the reason which is not evident in the documents themselves, women are more frequently recorded, it is interesting to note, as sellers rather than purchasers of land. As Crummey noted in his 1981 study, during the 18th and 19th centuries women chiefly sold land they had already acquired through their family connections. Crummey discovered that out of the 5,304 individuals registered in land transactions in Gondär between 1740 and 1850, 1,136 (just over 21 percent) were women. He further notes that 810 sales accounting for 42.3 percent of all the transactions “involved at least one woman.” Thus far fewer women than men were independently involved in land transactions of sale or purchase.

4.3 Women’s rights in property alienation

29The disproportionately high number of men who purchased and sold land in these records should not suggest, however, that women exercised much less freedom than their male counterparts. Although this is an issue meriting further research, I argue that the numerical underrepresentation of women in land purchase and sale documents reflects instead the weakness of available sources. Land sale documents often omitted contextual details that may have been too familiar to the participants to warrant recording them. Whether land was acquired during marriage or later, one can assume that husbands required their wives’ consent to sell, give away, or otherwise dispose of any jointly owned property. Women could thus have sales made by their husbands without their consent annulled. It is also logical to expect that many women probably recruited their sons, brothers, husbands, or other male relatives to act for them in land transactions for simple reasons of convenience and efficiency. But as we have seen, that did not preclude women acting autonomously to initiate land transactions without male approval or supervision. Women routinely went to church registration offices to exert their rights and fulfil other criteria which were the same as for men—namely, that property sales and divisions were subject to customary Ethiopian inheritance laws.