Annales d'Ethiopie

Making heritage in Ethiopia / Faire le patrimoine en Éthiopie

Guillaume Blanc, Marie Bridonneau

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Blanc Guillaume, Bridonneau Marie. Making heritage in Ethiopia / Faire le patrimoine en Éthiopie. In: Annales d'Ethiopie.
Volume 31, année 2016. pp. 13-23;

doi : https://doi.org/10.3406/ethio.2016.1621;

https://www.persee.fr/doc/ethio_0066-2127_2016_num_31_1_1621;

Fichier pdf généré le 12/03/2024

Guillaume Blanc ∗ , Marie Bridonneau ∗∗

Making heritage in Ethiopia

Faire le patrimoine en Éthiopie

To study heritage, or more precisely its creation, is interesting for at least two
reasons. Inseparable from the time and space frames within which it was
produced, admired, contested, or reconstructed, heritage is not only a project
of society, but also a tell-tale of the societies that invented it to preserve it. This
special issue is therefore at the heart of research that considers heritage as an
object to be studied, but also as a means of reading social, political, cultural,
and economic transformations.
Regarding the question of heritage in modern Africa, a wide range of issues,
and sometimes even criticisms, have been pointed out and debated: the fact
that the continent is under-represented in international inventories, and more
specifically in UNESCO’s World Heritage List—a shortfall reinforced by the
over representation of natural assets to the detriment of cultural assets (Sinou,
2005; Gravari-Barbas & Jacquot, 2014); the pervasiveness of colonial heritage
in African heritage assets (Sinou, 2005); the weakness of national and regional
heritage institutions (Calas, Marcel & Delfosse, 2011), which notably reveals
that a significant share of World Heritage sites in Africa is included in the
List of World Heritage in Danger; the gap between the way heritage was
constructed around European monumentality during the 20th century and the
current-day understanding of this concept (Choay, 1992; Babelon & Chastel,
2008); and the realities of African cultures, which are more often “intangible”
(Gravari-Barbas & Guichard-Anguis, 2003), an inadequacy that UNESCO
has attempted to address since the 2000s (Smith & Akagawa, 2009) with the
“Intangible Cultural Heritage” category officially created in 2003 (Bortolotto,
2011), when UNESCO adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of
“Intangible Cultural Heritage”; and, last but not least, the present dynamism

∗
Centre Alexandre Koyré, UMR 8560 (IFRIS-SITES), Paris, France. Con-
∗∗
tact: [email protected] Université Paris Nanterre, UMR
LAVUE, Nanterre, France. Contact: [email protected]

Annales d’Éthiopie, 2016-2017, 31, 13-23

14 Guillaume Blanc, Marie Bridonneau

around the question of heritage in Africa, with heritage being more than ever
at the centre of public policies, acting as a lever for development and, more
precisely, local development (Gravari-Barbas & Jacquot, 2014).
The contemporary trajectories of Ethiopia position the country in an
original way within the field of heritage studies. Since the end of the
19th century at least, the Ethiopian society has been driven forward by singular
international relations linked to the construction of an African nation-state
on the edges of European colonisations. This country is also characterised by
the existence of a monumental heritage that extends over several centuries,
maintained and partly pampered by the Imperial public authorities. Ethiopia
also provides information on the previous state and complexity of African
heritage.
Indeed, the Ethiopian federal government is now introducing new forms
of governance to serve this ancient and very strong relationship to its legacy.
Since the 2010s, Ethiopia has experienced a structural change conceived
and executed within the framework of a developmental model, that of the
developmental state, which is characterised by both an articulation to the
global market and the maintenance of a strong public guardianship, or perhaps
rather by an authoritative constriction (Abbink & Hagmann, 2013; Lefort,
2015; Bach, 2016). Heritage serves these economic and political dynamics
while informing them at the same time. Indeed, heritage policies are part of the
articulation of a new economic policy requiring the access to foreign currencies
and a window on the international stage, and uses methods associated to
authoritarian governments that are founded on the control of the public space
and the management of territories at all levels of power (Planel, 2014).
In this context, a strong inflation of heritage classifications in Ethiopia
has been observed over the past few years. After two decades without
a single classification, this change can be seen through the inscription of
two sites on the UNESCO World Heritage List (the old city of Harar
in 2006, and the Konso cultural landscape in 2011) and the arrangement
of five submissions reported on the Tentative List at the World Heritage
Centre between 2008 and 2012. In addition, three “practices and cultural
expressions” have been added to the Representative List of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage of Humanity between 2013 and 2016, the most recent one
being “the Gada system, an indigenous democratic socio-political system of the
Oromo.” More than this increase, it is the intensification of heritage-related
commitments that seems particularly meaningful. This is carried out, on the
one hand, by an expansion of the stakeholders involved in heritage policies:
the federal authorities in charge of the protection and preservation of cultural
heritage (Authority for Research and Conservation of the Cultural Heritage)
are increasingly mobilising experts, consultants, and “heritage NGOs” that
navigate between the international community and central and decentralised
 Making heritage in Ethiopia 15

public authorities, and are entrenched in local spaces (Blanc & Bridonneau,
2015; Josse-Durand, 2015). Donors are also invited onto the heritage playing
field, as in the case of Lalibela in the framework of the ESTDP Ethiopian
Sustainable Tourism Development Plan, 2009-2015 (Bridonneau, 2014). This
multiplication of stakeholders supports a diversification of the territorial levels
of heritage (Gravari-Barbas, 2014). Heritage in Ethiopia is no longer just
national or global, it can also be local or regional, as a result of the promotion
of the ethno-federal model and the recognition of so-called “ethnic” identities
(Turton, 2006; Vaughan, 2003). In parallel and following the evolution of
global heritage frameworks, an extension of the field of assets is taking place:
intangible heritage, food heritage, and also cultural landscapes.
By mobilising this multidirectional intensification of heritage policies, the
ever-growing number of diverse stakeholders participates in new forms of
politicisation of Ethiopian heritage through very political choices of the
spaces and objects to be given heritage status, and a systematic politicisation
of discourses that leverage ways of managing heritage. Thus, while the
defenders of local, “ethnic”, and religious identities use local heritage to
assert themselves (Finneran, 2013), the developmental project invests in the
economic function of heritage through the value attributed to heritage assets
via tourism (Bridonneau, 2014).

Heritage as a project
Regarding the selective sorting of the past carried out using contemporary
criteria, heritage is above all a collective project that has long been solely a
state concern. This is why one of the first ways to trace the history of the
creation of heritage in Ethiopia, in a classic manner but also in a relatively
new way in the field of Ethiopian studies, is to consider heritage policies as
a type of support employed by the state to foster its nation-building process.
From the basis of an Ethiopian institute of Archaeology in the 1930s to the
first national museums in the 1950s (Chekroun, 2011; Guindeuil, 2016), from
the first national natural parks (Blanc, 2015) to sites included to the World
Heritage List in the 1970s (Huber, 2017: this issue), historians have identified
the reorientation of the heritage policy of Ethiopia following the Imperial,
socialist, and federal regimes. However, apart from the discovery of the
“policy of the ruins” started by Zara Yacob (r. 1434-1468) and then revised
by Menelik II (r. 1889-1913) (Hirsch & Fauvelle, 2001: 60), the genesis of the
creation of heritage still remains unknown. The forthcoming opening of the
archives of the Imperial Palace of Addis Ababa will undoubtedly help alleviate
this shortcoming (Bat, 2017).
The fact that this project is only beginning now may actually be an
opportunity: to examine, from this time onward, the “construction” of heritage
from the viewpoint of the ideological and strategical frameworks within
16 Guillaume Blanc, Marie Bridonneau

which it was thought off, but also its “formation”, through the practices and
techniques of the social stakeholders involved in its daily invention. 1 In other
words, it is necessary to understand at the same time the ferments of the
richness of heritage, the actions undertaken by (or under the authority of) the
state apparatus, and the collection of social practices that lead to the inventory,
creation, transmission, and preservation of heritage.
As André Chastel wrote, regarding French spaces of memory, “no element
of heritage has any meaning outside of its attachment to concerned societies,
an attachment where, why not say the word, a love, that manifests itself in a
instinctive way within the consciousness of areas, and, in an enlightened way,
approaches of knowledge” (Chastel, 1997: 1465). This assertion echoes the
Ethiopian case. This is evidenced by the fervour with which travellers and
foreign experts are identifying objects to be given heritage status to in Ethiopia,
as shown for the case of Lalibela (Ayalew, 2016). In the Semien mountains in
the north of the country, it is through the joint venture of American UNESCO
representatives, French researchers, and former British advisors to the East
African governments in 1969, that the first natural park of the country was
created and dedicated to the safeguarding of the endemic species walya ibex
(Girma Tayachew Asmelash, 2017: this issue).
Other stakeholders also contributed to the creation of Ethiopian heritage.
In Addis Ababa, for example, since the 1980s and the inventory by the
municipal public authorities of certain residential buildings, clergy members,
private owners, universities, and civil society associations come together as a
disparate network to combat the urbanisation of the capital (Zelalem Teferra,
2017: this issue) and to preserve, or even rehabilitate their heritage buildings
(Duroyaume, 2017: this issue). Finally, since the beginning of the 2000s,
the involvement of Ethiopian researchers in the management of heritage
sites attests to the attachment of a certain Ethiopian elite to the elements
they consider making heritage. Some try to discuss with the institutions
responsible for the scientific planning of heritage policies by identifying all
the geophysical and human factors prone to deteriorating the archaeological
and historical riches of Tigray (Yohannes Gebre Selassie, 2017: this issue), and
others analyse and denounce the shortcomings of a short-term policy seeking
to combine international understanding and regional economic development
to the detriment of the safeguarding of the heritage that they consider to be
intrinsically valuable.
The heterogeneity of these stakeholders and the reports regarding “her-
itage” assets that support them refer more broadly to relationships of time and

1
For the distinction between the “construction” and the “formation” of the
state in the Africanist scientific literature, see Berman & Lonsdale, 1992, as well
as Bayart, Mbembe & Toulabor, 1992.
 Making heritage in Ethiopia 17

territory that preside over all heritage creation. In the south of the country,
the erection of waka—wooden statues that symbolise the past lives of their
heroes—constitutes, for the Konso populations, a way of permanently inscrib-
ing their history in the everyday territories of their homeland, which has be-
come World Heritage (Metasebia Bekele, 2017: this issue). In contrast, among
the Ethiopian immigrants in Israel, the invention of a cultural heritage—
through museum and tourist projects that are supposed to consolidate an
individual and collective Ethiopian identity—is based on the imagination of
a distant territory and a past historical time (Jaffe-Schagen, 2017: this issue).
These diverse ways of saying, doing, and thinking about heritage ultimately
point to the depth of the heritage project. While the state has always been and
continues to be the central stakeholder in the creation of Ethiopian heritage,
it is far from being the only one. Though we need to assert how the state uses
Ethiopian heritages to make Ethiopian heritage, we cannot be content with
this sole “top-down” approach; it is also at the margins of state recognition
and institutions that we can fully understand the construction of discourses
and the remodelling of identities and politics.

Heritage as a mode of governance

With regards to Ethiopia, Social Sciences may have had the tendency to
essentialise power relations and the strong hierarchies of social relations
by placing them within a framework of an “Ethiopian culture of power”
(Tronvoll & Vaughan, 2003). From this perspective, state-society relations
can be seen as a “voluntary servitude” and heritage constitutes a tool for
the expression, and perhaps even the legitimisation, of state authoritarian
domination over society. At the turn of the nineteenth century, the archaeology
of the remains of churches and royal sites in Wollo, as ordered by Menelik II,
directly served the national construction of the new “Grand Ethiopia”:
the creation of a monumental historical Christian heritage that legitimised
the control of the reigning monarchy over the populations of the recently
conquered peripheral regions (Hirsch & Fauvelle, 2001: 63). A century
later, the investment of the socialist and then federal state in the Semien
mountains and the Awash valley also participated in the political and territorial
construction of the country: the heritage-status of these natural spaces served,
above all, to plant the national flag in regions that regularly resisted the
central government (Blanc, 2016). In recent years, the production of discourses
regarding the return of the Obelisk of Axum in 2005 has been further evidence
of the national sense of heritage in Ethiopia. Here, heritage supports the
writing of a national narrative (Finneran, 2013); embodies the power of the
state; and reinforces this power by recording it throughout history as well as
national territories.
18 Guillaume Blanc, Marie Bridonneau

Such an approach, which results from the reading of heritage as a political

tool used by public authorities, does not allow us, at least not any more, to
take full advantage of the richness of the “heritage” asset as an instrument
to analyse state-society relations. Owing to it being a project of society,
heritage also constitutes “the revealing, neglected, and nevertheless tell-tale
of a state of society” (Choay, 1992: 10). From as early as Menelik II,
the construction of heritage is intimately intertwined with contact with the
exterior, both materially and conceptually. While the construction of Addis
Ababa is closely linked to the arrival of carpenters and builders from the
East and Europe (Duroyaume, 2017: this issue), the invention of a Christian,
historical, and monumental heritage allowed the new national empire to be
recognised by the outside world, and consequently to assert its domination on
the inside Ethiopian world. This circulation of know-how and (preconceived)
knowledge takes on traits that are even more salient under the reign of Haile
Selassie (r. 1930-1974). In this respect, the history of the King of Kaffa’s crown
is significant (Biaso & Gerber, 2017: this issue). Once this kingdom to the
southwest of Ethiopia was conquered by Menelik II, he entrusted the crown
to one of his European advisors so that it would be protected in Switzerland.
Then, in 1954, after a negotiation conducted in Switzerland, Haile Selassie
arranged the repatriation of the crown to the premises of the new Institute
of Ethiopian Studies in Addis Ababa. The process of creative destruction
inherent to the creation of heritage reveals itself to be the product of several
scales: owing to the fact that it had been stolen and then returned to Ethiopia by
Europeans, the crown became a heritage asset, and with this title, the Imperial
authorities assumed the responsibility—that is to say, the right—to preserve it
as a national artefact of a regional past.
The circulation of heritage practices and standards is reflected by the
constitution of models marked by an inscription in the international network
that constantly forms and transforms the uses and mobilisations of heritage
as a tool. During the 1970s, the Imperial, and then socialist Ethiopian state
submitted a great number of assets for the appraisal of the World Heritage
Centre. The objective was to gain international recognition, to benefit from the
technical assistance promised by UNESCO to certain countries, to develop the
tourism sector, and to strengthen the materiality of an increasingly vigorous
nationalism. It is the golden age of Ethiopian heritage (Huber, 2017: this
issue): the discovery of Lucy and the Ethiopian origins of humanity in 1974; the
safeguarding of a part of African nature at the heart of the Semien mountains
in 1978; the valorisation of the “new Jerusalem” constructed in the 13th century
in Lalibela, at the heart of the Ethiopian highlands; the study of the stone
pillars of Tiya in the Sodo region; and the international recognition of a proto-
historic Ethiopian culture in 1980. . . This creation of heritage operates under
the stewardship of an epistemic community of network-actors that consist of
 Making heritage in Ethiopia 19

European and Eastern advisors and experts, as well as Ethiopian officials and
leaders; all of them participating in the creation of a local, national, and global
Ethiopian heritage—that is, a hybrid one.
Since then, heritage practices have become even more diverse, opening
up new heritage opportunities, and their effects, to new stakeholders. In
recent years, discourses regarding the necessary valorisation of heritage for
the development of sustainable tourism in Ethiopia have flourished (Negussie
& Asefa Wondimu, 2012), and financial projects by international donors
have followed (World Bank, 2009).With regard to international heritage
organisations, the aim is to favour the “participation of local communities”
in heritage projects that create value. Cultural diversity and, in fact, the
diversification of heritage projects, is being encouraged: at UNESCO, it no
longer seems to be the time for universality, but rather for a certain cultural
relativism, and a heritage theoretically created by the community to which it
belongs (Berliner & Bortolotto, 2013). If federal state representatives remain at
the centre of heritage creation, their practices and discourses will become more
complex in the ethno-federal context: the recent increase of regional, or even
“ethnic” museums, attests to the redefinition of the role of the federal state and
that of the regional and local authorities over the ferment of a national culture.
Thus in 2006, the federal state obtained an inscription on the UNESCO World
Heritage List for the fortified village of Harar, where the classification was
applicable locally as a recognition of the Harari identity (Bosredon, 2009), and
a local developmental opportunity.

Heritage as a commodity
The mobilisation of natural, cultural, and even “tribal” artefacts for the
purposes of tourism is not new in Ethiopia. During the 1950s, the Imperial
administration envisaged a “historic route” punctuated by the great Christian
sites of the north (Lalibela, Aksum and Gondar) in order to create a base
for touristic development. During the 1980s, several tourism agencies had
already organised tours in the south of the country for visitors in search of
“colourful” cultures established on the borders of civilisation, such as the Suri
(Abbink, 2000). However, the creation of heritage commodities is new, and it
participates to a developmental project. In certain high heritage places such
as Lalibela, it consists in enriching the product proposed to visitors in order to
extend their stay: enhancing the value of the mountainous environment and
creating an eco-trek in the area of the sacred village, enhancing agricultural
and rural practices, as well as creating a honey museum (currently under
construction), for instance (Bridonneau, 2014). This process dovetails with the
formation of a national policy for tourism development and the construction
of Ethiopia as a new flagship destination for African cultural tourism.
20 Guillaume Blanc, Marie Bridonneau

The local dimensions of this commodity creation are even more striking be-
cause they contribute to profound identity reconfigurations through discourses
and practices regarding authenticity, the staging of heritage and culture, and
its projection in international rationalities. The invention of an exclusively
commercial heritage also reveals the increasing role of local heritage actors:
new heritage assets are created, and the heritage assets created in the 1960s by
the state for economic purposes, but also, and more importantly, for political
and nationalistic purposes, have now become exclusively commercial heritage
assets (Bridonneau, 2015). Tourism is at the heart of this commercialisation of
heritage. From the Semien Mountains and the Obelisk of Axum in the north
of the country, to the Konso landscape in the south, the tourism potential of a
site depends on its methods of management: the stakeholders in charge of a site
may invest in it to the point of substituting its commemorative and historical
values with a unique value of usage. As evidenced by the contributions
(proposed as well as published) in this document, the study of tourism and
the socio-spatial commodification that results from it still remains a field to be
studied today.

Heritage as a claim
As an extremely visible element of contact between local and international
networks, heritage can also become a tool for claims pertaining to identity,
territory and memory, and even resistance against the multiplication of
development projects that lead to forced displacement, the destruction of
buildings, the expropriation of lands, and so on.
On one hand, heritage for some people is seldom that of others. Once
repatriated from Switzerland to Ethiopia, rather than strengthening a ho-
mogeneous Ethiopian identity, the Kaffa Crown more closely resembled a
contemporary narrative of military conquest for Ethiopians, and a narrative of
independence for the Kaffa populations, which resulted in a forced integration
to the domain of the Christian kings of the north (Biaso & Gerber, 2017:
this issue). This process of heritage-creation can be, in itself, contentious.
On the other hand, a certain distortion relative to ways of perceiving and
experimenting with heritage seems to oppose public authorities and local
populations. During the 1960s, the inhabitants of the Semien mountains
seemed reluctant to the idea of their everyday living space gaining heritage
status because it prohibited them from engaging in game hunting—which
then became synonymous with “poaching”—while some Ethiopian officials
and foreign visitors were allowed to continue to engage in trophy hunting.
In Axum, it is in the name of the preservation of the “outstanding universal
values” attributed to the site by UNESCO that a number of local actors have
opposed projects initiated by regional and federal institutions for nearly the
past ten years. Several phenomena must thus be interrogated: the erosion of
 Making heritage in Ethiopia 21

the state by “glocal” contact (Bridonneau & Planel: 2015); the strengthened
anchoring of state powers in Ethiopian spaces, but in an unconventional way;
and the increasing complexity of local spaces being invested in by a more and
more important number of actors. The following articles provide some first
part answers to these questions.

Bibliographie
Abbink, J., 2000, Tourism and its Discontents. Suri-Tourist Encounters in Southern
Ethiopia, Social Anthropology, 8 (1), 1-17.
Abbink J. & Hagmann T. (ed.), 2013, Reconfiguring Ethiopia: the politics of authoritarian
reform, Oxon, Routledge.
Ayalew KM., 2016, Heritage Management on the Ground Heritage. Conservation versus
Local Community in Lalibela (Ethiopia)?, Mémoire de Master 2, Université Paris I
- Panthéon Sorbonne.
Babelon J. P. & Chastel A., 2008, La notion de patrimoine, Paris, Liana Levi.
Bach J.-N., 2016, L’Éthiopie après Meles Zenawi. L’autoritarisme ethnique à bout de
souffle?, Politique africaine, 142, 5-29.
Bat J.-P., 2017, Archives secrètes du Négus, Les Collections de L’Histoire, 74, 74-77.
Bayart J.-F., Mbembe A. & Toulabor C., 1992, La politique par le bas en Afrique Noire.
Contribution à une prolématique de la démocratie, Paris, Karthala.
Berliner D. & Bortolotto C., 2013, Introduction. Le monde selon l’Unesco,
Gradhiva, 18, 4-21.
Berman B. & Lonsdale J., 1992, Unhappy valley. Conflict in Kenya and Africa, Ohio,
Ohio University Press.
Blanc G., 2016, Violence et incohérence en milieu naturel. Une histoire du parc
éthiopien du Semēn, Études rurales, 197, 147-170.
Blanc G., 2015, Une histoire environnementale de la nation. Regards croisés sur les parcs
nationaux du Canada, d’Éthiopie et de France, Paris, Publications de la Sorbonne.
Blanc G. & Bridonneau M., 2015, Conseiller, expert et consultant en patrimoine.
La construction d’une figure de l’Éthiopie contemporaine, EchoGéo, 31, URL:
https://echogeo.revues.org/14128.
Bortolotto C., 2011, Le patrimoine culturel immatériel. Enjeux d’une nouvelle catégorie
(vol. 26), Paris, Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.
Bosredon P., 2009, Habiter et aménager les centres anciens. Les reconfigurations du
rapport des acteurs à la vieille ville par le classement au patrimoine mondial: une
comparaison entre Harar en Éthiopie et Alep en Syrie, thèse de doctorat, Université
Rennes 2.
Bridonneau M., 2014, Lalibela: une petite ville dans la mondialisation, Paris, Khartala.
Bridonneau M., 2015, Usages et instrumentalisation d’un patrimoine pluriel: les
églises de Lalibela (Éthiopie), in Moisa D. & Roda J. (ed.), La diversité des patrimoines:
22 Guillaume Blanc, Marie Bridonneau

Du rejet du discours à l’éloge des pratiques, Québec, Presses de l’Université du Québec,

179-200.
Calas B., Marcel O. & Delfosse C., 2011, Patrimonialisations en Afrique. Lieux
d’exception, normes et marginalités, Géographie et cultures, 79, 5-10.
Chastel A., 1997, La notion de patrimoine, in Nora P. (dir.), Les lieux de mémoire. I,
La République, Paris, Gallimard, 1433-1469.
Chekroun A., 2011, Un archéologue capucin en Éthiopie (1922-1936): François
Bernardin Azaïs, Afriques. Débats, méthodes et terrains d’histoire, URL: http://
afriques.revues.org/785.
Choay F., 1992, L’allégorie du patrimoine, Paris, Seuil.
Finneran N., 2013, Lucy to Lalibela: heritage and identity in Ethiopia in the twenty-
first century, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19 (1), 41-61.
Gravari-Barbas M. (dir.), 2014, Nouveaux défis pour le patrimoine culturel, rapport
final d’ARP (atelier de réflexion prospective), Paris, Université Paris 1 Panthéon
Sorbonne, EA EIREST (Équipe interdisciplinaire de recherches sur le tourisme).
Gravari-Barbas M. & Jacquot S., 2014, Patrimoine mondial et développement: au défi
du tourisme durable, Québec, Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Gravari-Barbas M. & Guichard-Anguis S., 2003, Regards croisés sur le patrimoine dans
le monde à l’aube du xxie siècle (vol. 9), Paris, Presses Paris Sorbonne.
Guindeuil T., 2016, Nature, culture, même combat? Sciences et conservation sur le
campus d’Addis-Abeba (1950-1974), Études rurales, 197, 125-146.
Hirsch B. & Fauvelle F.-X., 2001, Aksum après Aksum. Royauté, archéologie et
herméneutique chrétienne de Ménélik II (r. 1865-1913) à Zära Yaqob (r. 1434-1468),
Annales d’Éthiopie, 17, 59-109.
Huber M., 2017, Developing countries and the Beginnings of Unesco World Heritage: a
Case Study of the first Ethiopian Sites, 1960-1980, PhD thesis, Humboldt University.
Josse-Durand C., 2015, Le musée Konso au cœur de l’arène: quand les courtiers en
développement (re)dessinent les contours du champ politique éthiopien, EchoGéo,
31, URL: https://echogeo.revues.org/14144.
Lefort R., 2015, The Ethiopian Economy: The Developmental State vs the Free
Market, in Prunier G. & Ficquet E. (ed.), Understanding Contemporary Ethiopia:
Monarchy, Revolution and the Legacy of Meles Zenawi, Londres, Hurst, 357-394.
Negussie E. & Wondimu G. A., 2012, Managing World Heritage sites as a tool for
development in Ethiopia: the need for sustainable tourism in Lalibela, in Albert
M.-T, Richon M., Viñals M. J. & Witcomb A. (ed.), Community development through
world heritage, Paris, Unesco, 93-99.
Planel S., 2014, A view of a bureaucratic developmental state: local governance and
agricultural extension in rural Ethiopia, Journal of Eastern African Studies, 8 (3),
420-437.
 Making heritage in Ethiopia 23

Sinou A., 2005, Enjeux culturels et politiques de la mise en patrimoine des espaces
coloniaux, Autrepart, 33, 13-31.
Smith L. & Akagawa N. (ed.), 2008, Intangible heritage, Oxon, Routledge.
Tronvoll K. & Vaughan S., 2003, The Culture of Power in Contemporary Ethiopian
Political Life, Stockholm, Sida.
Turton D. (ed.), 2006, Ethnic federalism: The Ethiopian experience in comparative
perspective, Oxford, Athènes, Addis Ababa, James Currey, Ohio University Press,
Addis Ababa University Press.
Vaughan, S., 2003, Ethnicity and power in Ethiopia, PhD thesis, University of
Edinburgh.
World Bank, 2009, Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the Amount of
SDR 23.6 Million (US$35.00 Million Equivalent) to the Federal Democratic Republic
of Ethiopia for an Ethiopia Sustainable Tourism Development Project.