World Heritage and Ethiopian local realities

Most of the internationally recognised heritage sites had an overlap of national, local and international interests, impacting the livelihoods of local populations. World Heritage was conceived by a small network of professionals with a shared set of beliefs and a shared notion of validity – what Peter M. Haas has termed an “epistemic community” in a larger internationalist context. Haas developed this analytical concept to understand better the growing relevance of expert-knowledge in the policymaking process, in particular for global policies. While based on scientific principles and research experience, this knowledge is nonetheless normative, technocratic and far removed from actual sites and local contexts.366 Moreover, World Heritage was then elaborated from universalist ideas into an operational programme. As we have seen in the previous chapters, the establishment of Ethiopian national heritage and World Heritage was characterised by heavy international involvement, and by a continuous internal and external politicisation of heritage. Heritage emerged as a new political resource in a conflicted and crisis-ridden Ethiopia during the 1960s and 1970s, to underline territorial claims and cultural dominance of the political ruling class. Through UNESCO’s involvement and the presence of international experts, state heritage institutions in Ethiopia were modelled after the internationally dominating standard, encompassing more technical aspects of heritage-making (i.e. how to conserve, inventarise, etc.) as well as global norms for cultural policy. As a part of this standard, heritage has to be identified and preserved within a system of institutional governance. The attention from international researchers and conservators contributed to the commodification of heritage sites in Ethiopia. However, when looking at the impact of the internal and external politicisation of heritage as well as the impact that establishing heritage had on the ground, at the local level of the direct surroundings of the heritage sites, threats and opportunities alike arose for the population. And while a priori, local knowledge was assumed to be largely non-existent, heritage-making in Ethiopia, and in particular the making of World Heritage there, relied on locals acting as brokers and mediators of relevant knowledge. This micro-level of heritage-making suggests a degree of agency within the local communities that reflects a more multifaceted interpretation of the socio-political context of heritage-making.


Ag limpse into the role of locals forr esearch and conservation projects
Local actors were important for heritage-making as knowledge and cultural brokers. On location in the natural as well as cultural heritages ites, the local population served as go-betweens for researchers,f oreign experts and tourists through the surroundings. In at ourist booklet for the Omo region in Southern Ethiopia,produced by the ETOi nthe late 1960s or early1970s, "The Archaeologists" and the excavation sites nearK alam werelisted as one of the destinations of interest for adventurous tourists.T he photos showing the archaeologists at work alsos how an umber of Black excavation workers, some in tribala ttire, some in Western clothes. On one of the photos,aB lack man, with tribal hair and skindecoration and without clothing,and awhite man in ashirt sit opposite each other,looking down into asmall wooden crate, examining its contents. The caption identifies the couple as "Archaeologista nd Geleba ssistant sorting through findings at work."³⁶⁷ As was and is common for excavation works,i t seems thatt he archaeological excavations in Omo regularlye mployed local workers,a mong them tribesmen without af ormal education.
In this regard, the foreign interest,aswell as national prioritisation, presented an opportunity for the local population-they worked as assistants and guides and could trade their extensive knowledge of the surroundingsa nd the oral history tradition regardingt he sites as valuable information to the foreigners. Graham Hancock, in his popular science book on searchingfor the Ark of the Covenant in the late 1980s, wrotet hat to him, it waso bvious that "everyone in Aksum knows" the history of the sites and he claimed his work was reliant to a crucial extent on the strong local oral tradition.³⁶⁸ Gledhill Stanley Blatch, aBritish businessman and hobby-archaeologist who visited Axum for the first time in 1967, engaged in personal correspondence with some of the locals who had previouslya ssisted him duringh is stay. In his papers, which are held the SOAS archivesi nL ondon, are ab unch of handwritten air-mail letters which allow us to retrace these relationships.F roml etters such as thoseh er eceivedf rom H., ah igh-school student,i ti se vident that he traded for the local'sk nowledge of antiquities by offering asmall donation towards his staying in school. H.'sletters also reveal aperception of the visitor'sinterest as aconnection and resource in a situation of political turmoil and existential threat.H.insisted thatwriting those letters,i nw hich he informed Blatch about the situation in Tigray regarding the accessibility to the rock churches and other sites,put his life in danger in times of political unrest in the region.³⁶⁹ He explained thatH .n ever statedh is full name for safety reasons,ash ereported about the situation in the area and suspected all mail to be read before being shipped abroad.
In the correspondence with Yirga Endaweke, "asimple and poor teacher"³⁷⁰ in his ownwords, who worked occasionallyasatourist guide in Aksum, we learn that Yirga organised the purchase and shipment of paintingsfrom Axum to London for Blatch, and in return asked for support in the publicationofasmall tourist guidebook he had produced. Yirga hoped to advancehis professional opportunities through this publication: "So by this booklet,Ican make acquaintance with some great people like youwas my hope. Then by the help of such people, Imay getscholarship.
[…]Y our excellency,Iwant youtohelp me and to try your best for me."³⁷¹ These letters provide us with asmall and personal insight,and they help to illuminatet he role of the particulara ntiquities of international interest.I nt his regard, maintaining and establishing the sites as international heritagew as a question of securing income, at least for parts of the local population. The inhabitants of the townso fL alibela, Aksum and Gondar particularlyu nderstood the possibilityo fm aking themselvesh eard, or pursuing their particularg oals, and how they might connect directlyf rom theirl ocal level to the international level while circumventing the national government.E stablishing personal relationships with foreign experts, be it as knowledge providers or by assisting them in theirnegotiations with the local clergy in order to obtain visitor permits, would strengthen their ownp osition and agenda, especiallyi nt he years after 1974.
manpower" for heritage-making.³⁷² The intention and attempt to put conservation and related knowledge into the handso fE thiopians was articulated in all workingp lans. Officially,b uildingc apacity by training counterparts was both ar equirement and ad esired outcomef or at echnicala ssistance mission, but in practice this was often far from reality.A lthough the facilitation of national knowledge production was part of UNESCO projects,s uch as the training of staff in conservation techniqueso rt he establishment of long-term training programmes, the lack of resourcest op roperlye quip and staff institutions and the political conditions in Ethiopia hampered the long-term successful outcome of such training attempts.A dditionally, there was the difficulty in finding suitably trained people to start the specialised training in the first place.³⁷³ Regularly, the lack of skilled manpower and expertise, and the insufficient standard of academic and vocational training of Ethiopiane xperts, was useda sa na rgument to raise funds for projects and for fellowships of Ethiopians to studyi nE urope. It wasa ne xplicit project goal of ETH 74/14t o" enhance the capabilities of the ministry in the administration and surveying of sites and monuments by practical in-service training followed by international fellowships".³⁷⁴ The training of expertswas decided on an individual basis with onlyaselectfew being allowed to continue theirstudies abroad. Prior to the fellowship the subsequent position of these individuals was alreadys et,e .g.ap ainting restorer in Lalibela would restore as pecific painting for two years; or another might become director of the IES; or another the head of CRCCH. In addition to these restrictions regarding the pre-selection of candidates,a pplicants for the fellowships weree xpected to have ag ood academic track record, and they had to provide medical examination records and pass languaget ests.³⁷⁵ Sometimes the Ethiopian authorities weree venl ess convinced of their capacities than the international experts themselves. In order to conduct ap hotogrammetric survey of heritagesites, the CRCCH requested an expert mission during the project ETH 74/014.The chief architect of the project,Erik Olsen, together with the archaeologist Francis Anfray and the photogrammetry expert Maurice Gory,a ssessed the situation, and concluded thatt he Ethiopian resources were actuallys ufficient.T he CRCCH had several qualified employees who, in their eyes, required onlyf urther specialist training in order to be suitable to the task, as olution they deemed both cheaper and more sustainable. Yet, they had to work to convince the Ethiopian authorities of this fact,aprocess that took up several months. Eventuallya ni nter-agency cooperation wasl aunched and both the CRCCH and the EthiopianM apping Agencye ach sent ap hotographer on the fellowship to Europe.³⁷⁶ An additional factor inhibiting the establishment of local expertise and knowledge production was the general skills shortagewhich prevailed in Ethiopia duringthat time. Members of staff who had receivedspecialist training in an area of conservation as part of an international assistance project werenot necessarilye mployed in ap osition wheret hey could put their particulare xpertise into practice. Instead, they weregiven other assignments within the administration. Forexample, out of those having receiveds pecialist training as part of the project ETH/74/014, "onlyone of the architects […]trained […]has been engaged by the Ministry of Culture [ … ]. The person studying as ab uildingr estorer completed his thesis worka nd was supposed to go to Denmark, but was assigned to administratived uties in the Project Section of the Ministry of Culture […]".³⁷⁷ In the eyes of the UNESCO consultants evaluatingthe conservation practice in Ethiopia, such astaff policy amounted to trained experts being wasted on unrelated jobs.
The relevance of international expert knowledge for the institutionalisation of knowledge production in general, and heritage-making in particular,was concomitant with an ignorance of knowledge production at the local level. Institutionalising Western knowledge production resulted in creatings tandards and systems that werei mpossible to sustain and grow from Ethiopian national capacities alone,e speciallyi nr egards to the extensive management plans for the World Heritage sites. International involvement and training had in effect reinforced foreign control over knowledge production. An element of most expert missions was the evaluation of the national experts' work in order to ensure that they werew orkingaccordingt oE uropean standards.The ICRROM experts regularlye valuated the performance of Ethiopians taff as part of theirr estoration missions, while on the other hand the foreign experts themselvesw erer arely, if ever,evaluated. It was onlyonthe basis of complaints that particularsections of their work could be re-examined.³⁷⁸ Despite an occasional positive evaluation, such as ICCROM Director Harold Plenderleith'sassessment of the CRCCH conser- vator MammoM ugale as "well qualified to superviseo ri ndeedt oe xecute"³⁷⁹ necessary first aid restoration in Lalibela, the Western experts participatingi n the conservation projects in Ethiopia regularlys tated thatc onservation would onlyb ep ossible by continuing the practice of recruitingq ualified and experienced technicians and restorers from abroad.³⁸⁰ In contrast to this assumed hierarchyo nt he part of ICCROM, the restoration works in Lalibela werem et with criticism regardingthe diligence and site-specific knowledge of architect-restorer Sandro Angelini.³⁸¹ The Ethiopian Orthodox church acted as the guardian of all church-related, religious heritages ites, yett his was onlyo ccasionallym entioned in the correspondences or reports,a nd not once was ac oncrete contact or counterpart in the church organisation referred to or named. As ar esulta lso from the separation of church and state,the conservation effortso ft he Ethiopian Orthodox for her culturala nd natural heritager an parallel, but entirelys eparated to the national and international efforts. In Axum, for example, a2005 UNESCO monitoring mission was surprised to find that the close proximity of church and state antiquities had led to ac ontested developmento fm useum and conservation projects,i nfringingo ne ach other'sp rotection measures so gravelyt hatt he World Heritage Committeediscussed the listingofAxumonthe list of World Heritages ites in danger.³⁸² Lookinga tt he history of heritage-making institutions in Ethiopia and the role of international heritage-experts and UNESCO,inparticularinthe years between 1972 and 1978,m akes it possible to seet hese years as "boom years" for heritage-makingi nE thiopia. These years weres imultaneouslyt he preparatory years between the ratification of the World Heritage Conventiona nd the compilation of the first World Heritage List,which explains the increase in activity and funds on UNESCO'ss ide. By then, some of the central government'se fforts to- Ethiopia-The Restoration of Cultural Property-AP reliminary Report,6 .-16.12.1973,i n: UNESCO 069:72 (63) UNDP,p t. iv;t he mission'sm ain goal was apparentlyt oe xamine whether or not SandroAngelini had done damagetothe churches through his use of concrete during the restoration works in the 1960s.  Letter from Gerard Bolla to TekeaZ ere,n od ate,i n: UNESCO 069:72 (63) A1 36.  Elisabetta Bruno, "Ir estauri di SandroA ngelini in Etiopia" (Venice: Università Ca'Foscari Venezia, 2017). wards institutionalising heritage-making,w hich had started in the 1960s, had become manifest at anational scale. The involvement of UNESCO marked aturning point in Ethiopian heritage-makinga st he incipient national efforts and expertisec ould be mergedi nto projects thatb enefited from the increased international attentiona nd the new funding possibilities through UNESCO.
Funds, expertise and technical equipment for heritagep roduction could have never been provided to the samee xtent by the Ethiopian government.I n 1967, the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculturestated that "as far as possible[wildlife protection] staffwill be recruited locallyinthe areas concerned, since it is important thats uch mens hould be familiar with the country and its wildlife".³⁸³ But even when such relevance was giventolocal knowledge,the requirement for the extensive mappingand inventoryingofheritagesites,photographic documentation, drawingsa nd population counts of plant and animal species would have been impossible to fulfil without the workofinternational expertsand the funding of international technical assistance programmes. The establishment of the two government authorities, CRCCH and EWCO,with the help of foreign funds and expertise, meantt hat conservation practice wasc arried out accordingt o Western principles. From the onset,knowledge production occurred within international expert networks,albeit under the control of the Ethiopian government. As aresult, knowledge of Ethiopia circulated worldwide, contributing to the generation of an imageo fE thiopia compatible with Western historiographya nd shaped by Western ideas of Ethiopia, with Ethiopiannational heritageaforeign domaina nd an elite representation from the beginning.
The caseofthe Muslim city of Harar,which was among the sites nominated in 1978,i si nteresting because more visiblyt hana tt he other Ethiopian heritage sites,r egional authorities acted as stakeholders.I nH arar,b oth the government and the international experts encountered av ibrant and engaged tradition of heritage-makingthrough local families which collected, preserved and displayed objects in historical buildings.In1979, the EthiopianMinistry of Culture, together with the Chief Technical Advisor of ETH/74/14, undertook am ission to Harar to promotet he positive effects and intentions of NGOa nd International Organisation conservation efforts. The aim of this mission was to gain support for the cause of heritage-makinga nd conservation under the ministry'sa uthority,b ut also to familiarise local leaders with the official terms and concepts of the global  Ministry of Agriculture PlanningC ommittee, ThirdF ive-Year Development Plan,7 .H ans Hurni expressed as imilar approach towards the local knowledge of preventings oil erosion in our interview fromM ay 12,2 015 in Berne (CH). heritager egime. In Harar,t he participants had to acknowledge av ivid and engagedc ultureo fh eritage-making: Prior to the mission'sa rrivali nH arar on 26.10. 1979,i nt he afternoon arrangements were made for all planned meetings,discussions,plusadisplayofthe survey and areorganization of the small museum. The latter partlyimproved by items borrowed from citizens in the town.
[…]O nt he exhibition was shown the survey-some 80 maps filled-in with colouri ndication in accordancew ith observation and the valid legend-am ontage of photos with the theme: "ATOWN/its people/theirp laces/their houses/ITS DECAY",ahistorical outline on Harar prepared by the Elders of the town and ar emarkable studyo nt he traditional houses,t he technique and materials,w ith samples and indications where to be foundthis studywas prepared by an Hararian of the ageabove85years. The museal part covered old manuscripts,weapons,d resses,h ousehold articles etc.³⁸⁴ Although the members of the mission positively approved the heritageactivities in Harar,t hey wereu nable to negotiate ac oncept with the local authorities in Harar relatingt oh ow to integrate am asterplan for the conservation of Harar into the existing programmeso ft he Ministry.Onlyi n1 994 did Hararb ecome a World Heritage site, because after 1991 the government was open to amorecommunity-based approach to conservation.

The normativee ffect of internationalism and universalism
The international heritageand conservation activities in Ethiopia from the 1960s on were shaped by aW estern discourse and practice of conservation, one that was oftenopposed to or negated existing uses of the sites in question and practices of preservingand remembering them. The relevance of Lalibelaaspilgrimages ite, for example, and the practical implications for the conservation of the churches that entailedare curiously absent in the UNESCO conservation reports. Manyarchaeologists and conservators understood themselvesfirst and foremost as scientists or technicians in possession of objective knowledge.Their work was not typicallyi nformed by local functions or practices connected to the heritage sites.They operated on the premise of au niversalc ulture, af actw hich in their eyes was empiricallyg rounded in an objective reality.³⁸⁵ Historic Monuments and landscapes and the conservation of their authentic features form the coreo fanation'sh eritagea ccordingt ot his tradition, which  Letter from E. Olsen to Tesfaye Shewaye,14.11. 1979,in: UNESCO,UNESCO 069:72 (63) UNDP pt.i x.  Eriksen, From Antiquitiest oH eritage,5 6. emergedi nt he context of French and English romanticism and antiquarianism and resonated well with other European nationalist discourses from the late eighteenthc entury.I nc onnection to this,s cientific disciplines and specialised professions,a rt history,a rchaeology and architectural conservation, evolved and grew in relevance.³⁸⁶ The central premise of scientificc onservation was to treat culturalvalues and "authenticity" as universal and empiricallyevident categoriest hat could be observed and measured. Fort he European nation states, locating national history in heritagesites and monuments became aconstituting element.The colonial expansion of European empires set off manyp rojects for the "discovery" of treasures and sites and set off an interplayo fa rchaeology and politics, for which the extra-European territories weree xplored for monumental remains of narratives that were regarded as central to the Western history.³⁸⁷ Mark Mazower has argued that with the decline of the European empires and the emergence of an ew international order,i nternational organisations first emergeda si mperial devices to stabilise the political world order and power asymmetries.³⁸⁸ They created an ew frame of reference, and globalg enealogies. As apart of this, conceivedatthe pinnacle of the ageofempire, the international heritagediscourse can serveasanexample for how the distinctions between imperialism, colonialism and universalism are importantand useful, but also rarely clear-cut,and thatitisimportant to consider relationships on ascale of inequalities and coercing mechanisms.³⁸⁹ Internationalism and universalism werei mportant ideological frameworks for the foundation of UNESCO,d riving the activities and programmes of the organisation in the earlyy ears in particular. Within this framework the concept of universal heritage, understandingc onservation as ac ommon responsibility of the international community,w as installed as part of UNESCO'sm andate. In connectingexisting traditions and the Western discourse of heritagewith the internationalist project,UNESCO provided aplatformfor anetwork of heritage-experts and created expert organisations as institutional gatekeepers of universal heritage. This aligned with the organisation'sr ole as knowledge producinga u- Ibid., 25-26;see also Astrid Swenson'scomparative analysis: Swenson, ""Heritage", "Patrimoine" und "Kulturerbe"".  CharlotteT rümpler, ed., Das große Spiel: Archäologie und Politik zurZeit des Kolonialismus, 1860 -1940 (Köln: DuMont,2 008) and the essays and biographical notesi nt he volume. thority for the internationalist and universalist discourses,inparticular historical knowledge that was constructed as part of Western historiographya nd aE urocentric world history narrative.
The internationalist project behind UNESCO'sf oundationw as alsoc haracterised by at ype of thinking which valued awell-establishedt radition of scientific rationality as aguiding principle for political decision-making.³⁹⁰ During the founding process, the idea that UNESCO should become ac ommunity of scientists and intellectuals developing guidelines for the future would increasingly shape the structural and programmatic outline of the organisation. The proponents of intellectual cooperation had even argued against setting up UNESCO as am ember-state driveno rganisation, and giving leading intellectuals voting memberships equal to the political representativesi nt he organisational hierarchy.³⁹¹ While this concept did not fundamentallyf ind its wayi nto the constitution of UNESCO,s cientific experts and theirk nowledge were embedded in the ideological and structural foundations of UNESCO.³⁹² The internationalist and technocratic ideologies that guidedthe formation of UNESCO also explain the emergenceo fn atural and culturalc onservation as a goal under UNESCO'sm andate. Conservation of, and concern with, au niversal world heritagewas alegacyfrom the time of the LeagueofNations, and UNESCO inheritedi na ccordance the existingi nternational structures for conservation. Twok ey concepts of World Heritage-the idea of au niversal, common heritage of humankindand the common responsibility to make efforts to protect and conservet his heritage-werea lreadyc onceivedd uringt hat time.³⁹³ The idea held  Haas, "Epistemic Communities",8 ;S peich Chassé, "Technical Organizations",3 0; Lepenies, "Lernen vomB esserwisser",3 7.  Hans Heinz Krill, "Die Gründung der UNESCO", Vierteljahrshefte fürZeitgeschichte 16,no. 3 (1968): 272-73.  On ap ractical level, the political debates on whetherU NESCO should be set up as an intellectual cooperation or an intergovernmental organisation would later have very direct effects on the conservation activities.Ratification of conventions and financingofactivities as an intergovernmental organisation had am oreb indingc haracter for the member states. At the same time, both ratificationand financing werealso moreinfluencedbypolitical tendencies and subject to extensive bureaucratisation. J.P. Singh, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization):C reating Norms for aC omplex World (Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge,2 011), 7.  Sarah M. Titchen, "On the Construction of OutstandingU niversal Value: UNESCO'sW orld HeritageC onvention (Convention Concerningt he Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972) and the Identification and Assessment of Cultural Places for Inclusion in the World HeritageL ist" (Canberra, Australian National University,2 006), 22-34;A nna-Katharina Wöbse, "Globales Gemeingutu nd das Naturerbe der Menschheit im Völkerbund und den Ver-that in order to achieve the overarchingidealistic goal of world unity and peace, efforts had to include apractice of heritage, and this idea prominentlyintegrated itself into UNESCO'sf ounding process and was subsequentlye mbedded in the constitution of 1946,which states that one of the organisation'st asks was to assure "the conservation and protection of the world'sinheritance of books, works of arta nd monuments of history and science".³⁹⁴ From its foundation, UNESCO provided an important platformf or the existing academic discourse and initiativesc oncerned with conservation, fostering the gradual development of recommendations and conventions for the protection of naturaland culturalheritage. Actors from within UNESCO,namely members of the secretariat,worked on establishing new expert networks or connecting UNESCO to existing ones for natural and culturalh eritagec onservation, in order to position the organisation as strategicallycentral within the several international discourses of culturala nd natural conservation. The establishment of these international conservation organisations and policies served the purposes of gainingand maintaining control over the scientific principles and cultural values and ensuring an effective gatekeepingr ole for knowledge production.

Colonial and imperiall egacies of internationalh eritage conservation
In theory and practice, the concept of universal culturalheritageand the conservation programmesa nd projects executed under UNESCO'Sm andate had ac olonial legacy, which can be explainedi np art through the ideological origins of UNESCO and in part through the scientificp rinciples which guided the practice of conservation. The universalist thinking that was woven deeplyi nto the foundation of UNESCO was essentiallyE urocentric and colonialist.When speeches, programmes, essays and otherdocuments spoke of international or universal issues, they weref irst and foremost concernedwith European issues and arguing from aEuropean or at best North-Atlantic perspective,since the majorityofparticipants and intellectual architects of the organisation werer epresentativeso f the most influential empires in North America and Europe. The founding debates took place at atime when large parts of Africa and Asia wereunder colonial rule and manyoft he founding actors had ap asto rp resent function as colonial administrators or worked as intellectuals in an academic environment that had en- gagedi nc olonialist knowledge production for decades.They conveyed, in their debates,t he widelya ccepted naturalised notion of Europe as the place where, through progress and development,c ivilisationh ad reached its height,a nd the tenet that much of these accomplishments wereo wed to ancient traditions of empire,c olonisation and whitec ulturals uperiority.³⁹⁵ Since around 1900,s everal European countries had been in an accelerating competition for excavation rights in North Africa, the Levant and the Anatolian Peninsula. Searchingf or remnants of mythical sites such as the HolyL and in Palestine, Babylon and Mesopotamia in Iran and Iraq, Troy in Turkey or the PharaonicE gypt had developed from individual curiosity and side-projects of military exploration into amatterofnational prestige,imperial claim-staking,religious calling and collectingo ft reasures for European museums.³⁹⁶ This archaeological race, fuelled by the dynamics of colonial expansion, necessitated, for the first time, negotiations on culturalheritageand its conservation at an international, diplomatic level. At conferences such as the 1937 International Conferenceo nE xcavations in Cairo, delegates discussed the legal implications for archaeological excavations within the international order -over the heads of those who liveda nd worked in the vicinity of the heritages ites.³⁹⁷ Consequently, UNESCO provided, from its foundation on, an importantplatform for the existing academic discourse and initiativesc oncerned with conservation, effectively linking them under its umbrella.³⁹⁸ Following the destruction caused by two World Wars,m anyE uropean states werec onfronted with extensive reconstruction undertakingsf or their cities, and their culturalm onuments in particular.F or representativeso ft hese states,s ome of them keyp layers in the formationo fU NESCO,the necessity of international cooperation on at ech- nical and practical level was apparent and this produced av ery favourable climate for the existinginternational associations of architects and restorers to connect with UNESCO.³⁹⁹ Restoration architects, archaeologists and urban planners convened under the organisation'ss ponsorship and campaigned for the conservation and restoration of existing architectural heritaget of ormulate ac ounterposition to the radical modernist movement,which argued for ad emolition of old structures and the creation of new,t echnologicallya dvanced urban design.
UNESCO seemed to manyanideal platform in which to act,asanindependent international institution wherep rofessionals and experts concerned with conservation could meet governmenta nd civil society representativesi nn eed of largerscale actions. As afirst project,the International Centrefor the Conservation and Restorationo fM onuments (ICCROM or "the Rome Centre")w as foundedi n1 959u nder the supervision of UNESCO'sc ulturald epartment.T he centre'sp urpose was to facilitate the collaboration of experts, and to efficiently provide the highlys pecialisede xpertise for monuments deemed to be in need. One the one hand, ICCROM was tasked to carry out conservation projects,a nd on the other hand, it was supposed to provide an international reference point for information,r esearch, consultation and training.I CCROM, in the minds of its founders,would provide and circulatet he esteemedk nowledge and science of conservation in amore bindingmannerthrough the power of UNESCO'sbacking,inlieuoffinancial meanstoengageinconcrete conservation projects of cultural-and predominantlya rchitectural-heritage. In 1964,asecond organisation, the International Council for Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), was foundedasaninternational expert association for historic monuments. ICOMOS was supposed to constitute, in the words of its first President Piero Gazzola, "the court of highest appeal in the area of the restoration of monuments, and of the conservation of ancient historicalc entres, for the landscape and in general of places of artistic and historical importance".⁴⁰⁰ ICCROM was supposedt oa ct as the executive power of the heritager egime, by providing technical expertise and by carrying out conservation projects.
Restoration and conservation, the members of ICOMOS insisted, was ar esponsibilitythat belonged in the handsof"qualified architects"⁴⁰¹ only. ICOMOS and ICCROM weretherefore to serveasguardians with an obligation to "prevent badlyt rained conservators from undertaking restoration of important works of art."⁴⁰² Upon the creation of ICOMOS, these ambitions weref ormulated in more detail in the Venice Charter,a ni nternational code of conductf or restoration. The Venice Charter,a ccordingt oP iero Gazzola, presented "an obligation which no one willb ea ble to ignore, the spirit of which all experts will have to keep,i ft hey don'tw ant to be considered cultural outlaws."⁴⁰³ In aparallel process to the creation of these bindingstandards for conservation through established expertsi nc onservation science,t he idea of creating a "redc ross" for the conservation of monuments worldwide became more important in the cultural heritaged ivision and among members tates of UNESCO.⁴⁰⁴ Building on existing global legal instruments, such as the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Evento fA rmed Conflict, several agreements wered rafted in the following years, all written with the intention to pave the wayf or aw orldwide standard of protection, and the commitment to conservation of built culturalh eritage, binding for all members tates of UNESCO.
The idea of natural conservation was part of an emerging,m ultifaceted environmentalist discourse that was, at the time of UNESCO'sfounding, prominent but still in its earlyconceptual state. The belief that science could mend the ailments of civilisation, ac oncept central to environmentalism, however,reverberated strongly in the ideological debates duringt he founding phase of UNESCO.⁴⁰⁵ As apart of the science mandate, ecologicalendeavours and natural conservation were deriveda sa ctivities for UNESCO.U NESCO'sf irst DG Julian Huxley represented av ision of "man'sd estinya st he new director of evolution on earth",⁴⁰⁶ an evolutionary humanism as an ew science-based value system that would "supplyt he world with ac ourse correction consistent with the enhanced place of science as the sourceofexplanation in modern life."⁴⁰⁷ This position was controversial, because of its decidedlya nti-religious approach, but these technocratic and internationalist visions had manyl ike-minded actors  Jokilehtoa nd ICCROM, 12.  Petzet, International Principles of Preservation,11.  Titchen, "On the Construction",5 9.  Singh, UNESCO,5-8; Wöbse, "Globales Gemeingut",139 -40. within the sphere of international organisations.⁴⁰⁸ Julian Huxley'sp olarising positions, ranging from eugenics to delusional geo-engineering proposals,helped to publicise and mobilise the environmental discourse.⁴⁰⁹ This scientifice nvironmentalism, arguing for separation of humans and nature,toprotect the latter from the former,was boosted through the authority and networkingagency of UNESCO,particularlythrough the foundation of the IUCN in 1949.IUCN was supposed to connect existing governmentbodies rather than conduct research itself, and it wasc hargedw ith providinga nd communicatinge xisting knowledge and the rapidlyg rowingb odyo fe nvironmental research and data alike.⁴¹⁰ Despite the all-encompassing, universal claims, the environmental question duringthe 1960s and 1970swas divided along two different lines: that of protecting habitats on the one hand and that of conserving and efficiently using natural resourcesonthe other hand.The idea of protection had anarrower focus on the aesthetic value of nature and therefore argued to protect nature from human influence. Theidea of conservation was orientated around the scientific and empirical value of nature as an economical resource, and therefore aimed to integrate the protectionofhumans from natural risks with the use of natural resources for economic development.During these years, through the work of different departments, UNESCO became somewhat of alinchpin in redefining the rather narrowly-focused,s trict goal of protecting isolated species of floraa nd fauna, towards the conceptuallymore open and universallyapplicable concept of the conservation of nature, without neglectingt he aesthetic aspect.⁴¹¹ Not onlyw as the concept of conservation more open to development and change, rather than the attempt to protect astatus quo,italso permittedthe inclusion of the use of natural resources, which had been am ajor contradiction in the concept of protection to national state economic interests.⁴¹²  Conservation, 1960-1980" (Maastricht,Maastricht University,2017, 3 -37;Wöbse, "Globales Gemeingut",1 40 -42.  In particular,the notion of sustainability and biodiversity made environmentalism of interest to donors,a si tp resented the availability and conservation of natural resourcesa sabasic condition for economic development and growth. UNESCO'sM an and Biosphere Programme aimed to serveasmediator between natural diversity and the economic interest of the local population, and integrated these fields in one programme, and suggested Biosphere Reserves as a It is from this understanding that the concept of nationalp arks serving as sites of an atural universal heritagee merged. In Julian Huxley'sv iew,i tw as the emphasis on protectiono vero ther aspects of the environmental discourse that made it possible to integrate IUCN into the existingc oncept of UNESCO: Delegates askedmewhatseemed to me sillyquestions:why should UNESCO try to protect rhinoceros or rare flowers?W as not the safeguardingofgrand unspoilts cenery outside its purview?However,with the aid of afew naturelovers Ipersuaded the Conferencethat the enjoymentofn aturew as part of the culture and that the preservation of rare and interesting plants was as cientific duty.⁴¹³ In particular, there was discussion of the role of national parks as providing much needed cultural and aesthetic education for the general public.⁴¹⁴ The legal and conceptual framework of national parks, which dated back to the beginning of the twentieth century,presented the key conceptual link for the combination of natural and cultural universal heritage. In their final recommendations, the first international conference on national parks in 1961c onnected their activities to UNESCO'sr ecommendation to safeguard the beauty and character of landscapes and sites, submitted at the General Conferencei n1 962.⁴¹⁵ The nature-related activities of international organisations experienced a considerable boost from the 1960so nward, when environmentalism expanded as aglobal discourse. Seminalworks like RachelCarson's SilentSpring ,warning of the loss of biodiversity, or the Club of Rome's TheL imits to Growth,w hich alerted about the global impact of population pressure, had ab road public reception and rendered environmental protection as well as environmental crisis populara nd effectiveb uzzwords among policymakers.⁴¹⁶ In additiont ot hese new category of protectedz ones. In September 1968, the first Biosphere Conferencet ook place, and was the first international conference concerned with the relationship between environmental and development problems.S chleper, "Life on Earth",42. more theoretical and ideological positions, the Hawaiian Mauna Lao observatory'sm onitoring of ag lobal rise of atmospheric CO2,which had started in 1958, brought the concept of climate changet ot he debate and delivered an empirical underpinning for these concerns.⁴¹⁷ During the global cold war,e nvironmental concern arose as the first field of action for political international cooperation between manycountries on opposite sides of the Iron Curtain. Since they seemed capable of overcoming divisions through common concern for the greater good of the whole world, consequently, the universal dimension transformed the environmental question into as ubject of diplomacy in the early1 970s.⁴¹⁸ This "quasi-religious and ethical basis of cold war environmentalism",⁴¹⁹ characterised by pacifism, eclectic mysticism and an integratedv ision of life on earth, is an important conceptual foundation for the World HeritageC onvention and the operational guidelinesb ased on it.A tt hat time, independent from the cultural heritagee xpert community,a nd embedded within the diversified and globalisedenvironmentalist discourse, the idea of keepingasmall, select set of sites as "protected heritage",s hielded as much as possible from human intervention and exempted from available resources for good, was evolving to includecultural heritages ites as well, eventuallyr esulting in the World Heritage Convention.⁴²⁰ Hand in hand with the 1972 World Heritage Convention, it wasd ecided to provide assistance to the Convention'ss tate partiest od evelop the necessary administrative prerequisites,w hich constituted ac rucial element of heritagemaking.
The universalist prerogative had been firmly embedded in the evolution of the academic disciplines of archaeology and art history,d emonstrated by the aim to classifya nd categorise, to take stock of an imagined completei nventory of natural resources and culturalremains. Conservators,art-historians, archaeologists and architect-restorers sawt hemselvese levated to international heritageexpertsa nd viewed UNESCO as the final destination for conservation in the Western tradition, since it ennobled scientific conservation as the provider of a "universal world knowledge".⁴²¹ ThroughU NESCO,c onservators naturalised this scientific practice of applying theire xpertise to non-Western regions.L ike in Ethiopia, foreign experts named, classified and analysed heritages ites and monuments in African and Asian countries,u ndertook standardising efforts, drafted policiesa nd legal recommendations, and developedm anagement and master plans -in short,t heir influencei nd efining national heritageo ft he new nation-states was immense, especiallyont he institutional and administrative level.
During the 1960s, UNESCO manifested the scope of its internationalist conceptual underpinningsthrough operational projects in the developing world. The development paradigm, which was quicklygainingi nr elevance in the post-war and post-colonial world, caused as hift in UNESCO'srole from an intellectual to an operational one, as it put the necessary fundsi nto UNESCO'sh ands.
UNESCO provided not onlyt he institutional frameworkt os cale the discourse of as election of sites of universal heritaget oag lobal dimension, but more importantly,i tp racticallyp rovided territory to applyt he programmes and ideas, through the programme of technical assistance and later the UNDP. The conceptual parallels of heritage-making and developmentincluded continuity,inmanyaspects, with colonialist efforts, thatwas characterised by aterritorialising dimension. UNESCO'sc ultural and natural heritagea ctivities have much in common with imperial mappingpractices as defined by Matthew Edney: "Imperial mappingi st hat of territoriesa nd polities by peoples and interests removed -emotionally, morally, and spatially -from the territories and peoples mapped, who have relatively little sayi nh ow and whyt hey are mapped."⁴²² The selection criteria and the technological aspects of heritagec onservation included avariety of mappingp ractices,s uch as zoning and documentation, and supported the construction of an ownership-likea ffiliation of the international community,orU NESCO respectively,o vert he sitei nq uestion. Rendering Ethiopian historicalr emains into the legal category of antiquities also established them as sites of national interest or,inthe case of national parks, even national property.Tounderstand the politicisation of Ethiopian heritageinthe context of World Heritage,this aspect is essential. In Ethiopia, like in manyother developing countries at the time, the conservation of natural and cultural heritagew as installed as as tate domaina nd utilised to pursue government interests.

Land use conflictsa rising from claims to heritage
Respondingtothe first call for nominations for the World Heritage site, Ethiopia submittedaselection that represented the dominating historicalnarrative of the "Great Tradition" of the Ethiopiane mpire. The submission is exemplary for the political role of heritage-makingi nE thiopia in the years leadingu pt o1 978. The ancient monumental sites-Aksum, Gondar and Lalibela-werem ajor sites affiliatedw ith the narrative of the ancient and medieval Ethiopiane mpire as well as with the Christian tradition. Theh ighn umber of nominated sites are proof of ap articularlyv ivid and pro-active engagementw ith heritage-making in Ethiopia duringt he 1970s. In ac ombined effort,t he Ethiopiang overnment agencies for culturalh eritagea nd wildlife conservation had assembled as election of sites that illustratesh ow the conservation efforts weret argeted at sites that would integrate well with the overall goal of delivering aspatial and visual representation of Ethiopian national identity.W hen looking at all eleven of Ethiopia'ss ubmissions in 1978,a nd not onlya tt he seven nominations that weres uccessful in achieving World Heritage status, three of them weren ational parks. It is these parks in particular that reflectthe strategic use of heritage-making and the dominance of the "Greater Ethiopia" image. The international acknowledgement acquired by achieving World Heritages tatus was supposed to sanction the establishment of large territories of government property in the name of natural conservation.⁴²³ The national parks, and in particularthe Simien Park, due to its World Heritages tatus, demonstrate how heritage-makinga nd the international claim on the land added pressuret ot he conflicts.I nternational conservation experts deemed nationalparks to be the most appropriate instrument of wildlife conservation in Africa, as the concept was strictlytop-down and necessitatedcomplete government ownership of the protected territory in question. Rooted in acolonial and racialised understandingo fA frican wildlife conservation, the protection of nature was underpinnedb yaracial distinctiono f" white" concern and "black" threat,o re co-racism.⁴²⁴ The establishment of national parks in African states continued in manyc ases the colonial practice of materialisingg overnance over vast and undeveloped territoriesthrough conservation, acontrollingmechanism that appealed to the political elites of the independentnations.⁴²⁵ The ex- World Heritagea nd Ethiopian local realities perts of IUCN,F AO and UNESCO,i naccordancew ith international resolutions, insisted on the legal gazettingo ft he park as government property,a nd refused support or responsibility for territories not under appropriate control.⁴²⁶ This argumentationprobablyseemed favourable to the Ethiopian government,asitjustified the demandt oe stablish National Parks as national property,with direct government control. The location of other planned parks and protected zones, as shown on the maps in the 1973 guidebook "Safari Ethiopia",t hat was published by EWCO,d emonstrate thati nstalling national parks was alsoa ttempted in other politicallyr elevant regions,i np articular the South-Western border to Sudan.⁴²⁷ The history of territorial conflicts is highlyrelevant for the impact of heritage and the meaning of World Heritage for Ethiopia in the 1960sa nd '70s, as land use and ownership were such crucial and sensitive issues. The territorial claim to a "Greater Ethiopia" linked heritage-making with the internal political and military battlesofthe north-south conflict,and with reference to the official historical narrative,heritageturned into an instrument of land control in the hands of the government.Control over land held acritical relevancethatfuelled the dynamics of heritage-makinga nd its instrumentalisation.
The growingp ressureo nl and use, arising from population growth and environmental crisis, presented key demands on the internal political and social conflicts.One attempt to defuse this explosive potential was the series of forced resettlement programmes initiatedbythe government.Under Haile Selassie I, resettlement occurred mainlyasapunctualdisplacement of pastoralcommunities, because of large government-induced or approved infrastructure or agricultural developments. Yeta lreadyfrom 1966 onwards,l arge-scale resettlement schemes formedp art of the development planning in Ethiopia. Introduced as ap anacea for all development ailments, in as trategic colonisation effort,o vert en thousand households had been resettled by the time of the revolution.⁴²⁸ Following the failed attemptst om itigate the severe drought and environmental crisis, resettlement was further instrumentalised and sanctioned on anational level as well as by the international community in the context of famine relief efforts. Between 1974-1986 over half amillion people were moved, including arestructuring of existingsocial patterns and the dispersion of existing com- Walter J. Lusigia nd J.W. Thorsell, Action Strategy for Protected Areas in the Afrotropical Realm (Gland: IUCN,1987), 34,h ttps://portals.iucn.org/library/node/5886.  Map:E thiopia'sc onservation and controlled huntinga reas, in: Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organisation, Safari Ethiopia (Addis Ababa: EWCO,1973).  Alula Pankhursta nd FrançoisP iguet, Moving People in Ethiopia:D evelopment, Displacement &t he State (Oxford: James Currey, 2009), 7. munities, termed "villagisation".B eyond the proclaimed improvement of livelihood for Ethiopians affected by the drought, villagisation was an act that tried to createaconsolidated path to stronger governance and state authority in all regions and areas of administration, as well as demonstrating independence and ability to boththe nation and the international donors. The impact of villagisation was drastic for most affected and turned the existing problematic condition of land distribution, land use and livelihood, regional development and regionala ffiliation into an acute crisis wheret he geopolitical dimension of the crisis became more serious and sensitive than ever.Most communities and individuals suffered, especiallysociallyand culturally, as aresult of being broken up and isolated.⁴²⁹  Pankhursta nd Piguet,9-13.

World Heritage and Ethiopian local realities
Before the 1974 revolution, systems of land rights and land tenurehad varied widelyt hroughout Ethiopia, and the manifold nature of strongr egional traditions and systems presented one of the biggest obstacles to forging centralised government control and ac ohesive development politics in order to improve the livelihood of the weaker regions.A fter the revolution, all rural land was nationalised, and all traditional tenures abolished and replacedb yacollective, government-controlled ownership structure with management of the land by peasant associations. While in the southo fE thiopia, the tenant farmersa nd landless peasants benefittedl argely from this, at least in the first instance, the peasants and landowners of the north on the other hand largely opposed the loss of land-accessa nd usagep rivileges. Fort hem, this reform not onlyl imited the control they had formerlyh eld over their land, but more importantly also threatened the status and political power commonlyl inked to land ownership in the tenure-system of northern Ethiopia.⁴³⁰ The "territorialisedidentity"⁴³¹ of the highland communities in Ethiopia, and their system of land tenure that relied more on aconcept of relationship and hierarchyt han legallyf ixed property rights, made the installation of an ational park as government property especiallyd ifficult in the highlands. At the same time, in the light of centralisation efforts, installing government-controlled protected zones or even the legal ability to seize the property of the park in favour of the state presented ah ighlyi nteresting tool of governance and imperial expansion for Haile Selassie I. This also explains Haile SelassieI'sopenness towardsa certain colonial-minded approach to naturalconservation as championed by the formerBritish-Kenyangame-warden John Blower and the UNESCO mission of Julian Huxley of 1963. Their recommendations supported an institutionalisation of natural and wildlife conservation as well as the selection of regions for conservation that weremost likelytorepresent the symbolicpower of the state over the various categories of natural realms.⁴³² When in 1969the SimienNational Park was officiallyinstalled as one of the first Ethiopiann ational parks, more than half am illion people inhabitingt he area werer enderedah uman interference threatening the existenceo ft he park, as by definition, no human settlement was allowed in nationalp arks.⁴³³ The WWF park wardens, IUCN and UNESCO experts, in particular at eamo f Swiss geographers and zoologists who served in all threeo ft hese functions (sometimes in parallel), undertook several attempts to balance out conservation requirementswith afair resettlement politics. Based on their scientificresearch, they analysed not onlyt he environmental degradation, but also the living conditionsa nd agricultural practices of the inhabitants of the Simien mountains. They emphasised the need for an approach that would integrate conservation and development planning.⁴³⁴ In the World Heritage nomination dossier for the Simien National Park, which was drafted by Hans Hurni, then WWF Park Warden and advisor to EWCO,t his situation was elaboratedi nu nusual length and detail (when compared with other proposals of the 1978 submission round). In the section describing the history of the park, the following paragraph was added: The park was "planted" over existinghuman rights,the intention beingtoeliminate these rights at alater date. This was never accomplished; in fact the oppositehas resulted in that over the past six years the influx of humans and their livestock has continued to the present.[ The Swiss team] have supplieda tt heir cost as uccession of Swiss Co-Wardens and scientists over the past eight years and produced ad etailed contoured mapo f1 :25.000 of the area. From this practical help, [they] hope to implement ap roject which,t hrough practical demonstration of improved methods of agriculture, the people will be attracted out of the Park where their existencei se xtremelym arginal, to ab etterm ode of life in new outside areas.
In the section for the state of conservation, the final paragraph reads: "Work still required: of utmost importance is the fair and adequate resettlement of human inhabitants in areas outside the Park, then enforcingt he lawf or the complete protection of the area."⁴³⁵ Their proposals,however,remained fruitless. Instead, the inhabitants weremet with hostility and aggression, going as far as the Ethiopian military destroyingseveral villages and forcefullyexpelling over 1,200 people from the park.⁴³⁶ Under the Dergg overnment,the territory of the Simien National Park, situated at the northern edge of central Tigray,was ab attleground in the fight between the Ethiopian armya nd the forces of the Tigrayan People'sL iberation Front (TPFL). The TPLF managed to hold control over the territory of the park  Bruno Messerli and Klaus Aerni, eds., Cartography and Its Application for Geographical and EcologicalP roblems.,v ol. 1, 2v ols,G eographica Bernensia, G8(Bern: Geographisches Institut der Universität Bern, 1978).  Simien National Park, Ethiopia, Nomination Form, date received2 4.4.78,i nU NESCO CLT/ WHC/NOM1 1.  Blanc, Histoiree nvironnementale,6 9.
World Heritagea nd Ethiopian local realities in the process of the ongoingc ivil war. However,they weren ot oblivious to the international interest in the park. In 1984,the TPLF Information Office in London sent an unsolicited letter to the Horn of Africa and Aden Council and to IUCN "to alleviate the worry of the [IUCN]" and stated: The TPLF, as youknow,isfightingf or the right of self-determinationf or the peopleso fTigray,who,t ogether with other peoples of Ethiopia have been denied basic human rights. The TPLF'spolicy with regards to conservation is simple, clear and unequivocal and states that the people have the responsibility to look after their natural resources,both plants and animals,land and water.Asaresult, no trees arefelled or animals hunted without explicit permission from the people'sown local administration. It is perhaps useful for the Union to be awaret hat local administration is in the hands of popularlye lected councils in Tigray unliket he case with the Military dictatorship in the so-called socialist Ethiopia.⁴³⁷ Establishing the Simien Mountainsasanational heritagesitepresented athreat to the largerpart of the local population. All official actors involved, in particular the international experts, unanimouslydeemed it necessary to remove, if necessary by force, the people living within the confines of the park. Despite the demand for development schemesfor the local peasants, in the correspondence between the international experts, the EWCO,UNESCO and IUCN,the park'shuman population was referred to as a "problem",e ndangering the integrity of the national park.⁴³⁸ International experts contributed with their work to the politicisation of heritagesites.Simien was already, in the earlyevaluations of international experts, considered one of the most endangered conservation areas because of poaching and the "encroaching cultivation" of the local population.⁴³⁹ Fort he several thousand inhabitants in the area, conservation activities resulted in forced resettlement.Inaddition, the restrictive ban on hunting,pasturageand agriculture in the park in effect withdrew the main means of livelihood from the region. From the first moment of international involvement,when the IUCN/FAO special project first identifiedthe Simien Mountains as apotential national park, these restrictions werepart and parcel of the concept for the park.⁴⁴⁰ Despite these demands expressed in reports and similar evaluation documents, and their far-reaching and sometimes violent repercussions, the experts involved in monitoringt he park on the ground werec oncerneda bout the social  Letter from GirmayAsfawtoL ouis Fitzgibbon, 23.5.1984 in UNESCO502.7 A101 WHC (63), pt.i i.  See the draft reportso fC harles Rosetti and Ermias Bekele and the handwritten comments attached to them in UNESCO CLT/WHC/NOM 11.  Grimwood, "Conservation of Natural Resources",6 .  Blanc, Histoiree nvironnementale,164.
impact of the restrictions resulting from the establishment of the national park. Proposals for resettlement schemes that would include education opportunities, or proposals for achangeofthe delineation of the park boundaries to exclude a maximumn umber of inhabitants,w erea mong thoses uggested by several experts.⁴⁴¹ The Swiss experts involved in the conservation of the park and the World HeritageN omination process duringt he 1970s, geographer Hans Hurni and biologist Bernhard Nievergelt,i nitiatedaSwiss-based, private "Pro-Simien Foundation" in order to install ab oardingh ouse in Debark,t he major town of the Simien region,t oe nable the children of the local park wardens to visit the school in Debark.⁴⁴² The relevance of World Heritage status for nationalheritagesites in Ethiopia shows that,f rom the beginning,the impact of World Heritage appeared to have manifold effects and ostensiblye xtended beyond conservation. National heritage, as part of the question of national identity, became more ideologically chargedi naclimate of fiercec ivil war and internal struggles. In the contested Ethiopians etting,t he social implications of the question of nationalh eritage and identitygaveparticular relevancetothe role of establishing official national heritage. The involvement of an international organisation, UNESCO,i nevitably tied international conservation efforts to national conflicts and necessitateda positioning of the international expertsa nd policy implementation, voluntarily and involuntarily. Foreign experts contributed to the politicisation of heritage, since to deal with heritaget he acquisition of ap ermitw as mandatory.A ny attempt of researchers or foreign journaliststoremainneutralorunpolitical as regards heritagewould not have been possible -neither in the imperial nor in the socialist periods of Ethiopian history.
 Report Rosetti, Report Bekele in UNESCO WHC/NOM/11. Hans Hurni explained this to me in moredetail during the interview Iheld with him on May12, 2015 and how it resulted in the most recent re-drawingo fb oundaries for the park.  Messerli and Aerni, Cartography and Its Application for Geographical and EcologicalP roblems,1 :7 .S ee also the correspondencer egarding the stateo fc onservation and the Pro Simien Foundation in: UNESCO 502.7A101 WHC (63), pt.i i.