Research Article

The rock-cut churches of Lalibela and the cave churchof Washa Mika’el: troglodytism and theChristianisation of the Ethiopian HighlandsMarie-Laure Derat1,*, Claire Bosc-Tiessé2, Antoine Garric3, Romain Mensan4,François-Xavier Fauvelle5, Yves Gleize6 & Anne-Lise Goujon7

1 CNRS, Orient et Méditerranée, Paris, France2 INHA, CNRS, Paris, France3 CNRS, CFEE, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia4 TRACES, Toulouse, France5 Collège de France, Paris, France6 ANR EthioChrisProcess, INRAP, PACEA, Bordeaux, France7 University of Paris Nanterre, PreTech, Ethiopia* Author for correspondence: ✉ ml.derat@gmail.com

The monolithic churches of Lalibela are commonlyregarded as evidence for the shift of the Christiankingdom of Ethiopia from Aksum to the EthiopianHighlands during the thirteenth century AD. Recentresearch, however, has shown that the rock-cut churcheswere not created ex nihilo. New archaeological evi-dence has emerged for an earlier, local troglodyticculture, particularly at Washa Mika’el, furtherilluminating the cosmopolitan society that existedin medieval Ethiopia. This article considers the roleplayed by this troglodytic culture in the Christianisa-tion of the Ethiopian Highlands and how it attestscontinuity with its predecessors, especially in theway that sculpted decor are perpetuated and trans-formed in the frame of a new religious background.

Keywords: Ethiopia, Lalibela, Washa Mika’el, Christianisation, troglodytism, rock-cut church

IntroductionThe history of Ethiopia between the fall of the kingdom of Aksum (seventh century AD) andthe rise of the Zagwe Dynasty (eleventh to late thirteenth centuries) remains clouded inobscurity. Very little is known about the shift that drove royal power southward, or aboutthe Christianisation that occurred during this period. This gap makes questions related toLalibela—the famous complex of rock-cut churches in the central Ethiopian Highlands—all the more important. What was the significance of this southern region for the kingdom

Received: 23 January 2020; Revised: 14 July 2020; Accepted: 20 July 2020

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

Antiquity 2021 Vol. 95 (380): 467–486https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.20

467

of Aksum and the Zagwe Dynasty, and what was its cultural environment? Why was the siteof Lalibela chosen as the kingdom’s spiritual centre during the reign of the sovereign of thesame name (c. AD 1204–1225)? Was it also a royal residence?

The only extant documents from the reign of King Lalibela comprise a few land grants copiedin manuscripts and inscriptions on altar stands, which are still kept in churches at the site today(Bosc-Tiessé 2010; Derat 2018: 29–86). Thus, while these small documentary windows enableus to confirm that at least some of the site’s churches were in existence in the thirteenth century,they contribute little to answering the questions raised above. Two recent investigations, com-prising excavations of the spoil heaps at Lalibela and the study of the nearby rock-cut site ofWasha Mika’el, have illuminated the region’s pre-Christian environment, the modalities of itsChristianisation and the continuation of non-Christian elements in the region (Figure 1).Regarding this cultural ‘substrate’, it seems that rock-cutting building techniques were ofmajor importance. These two sites enable us to clarify the relationships between rock-cut andbuilt structures, and to study how different cultures occupied the landscape.

Rock-cut sites are numerous in the northern half of Ethiopia, and churches have formed aparticular focus of research (e.g. Buxton 1946; Sauter 1963, 1976; Tewelde Medhin 1970;Lepage 1972, 1973; Lepage & Mercier 2005; Phillipson 2009). These churches have

Figure 1. Map of Lalibela, Washa Mika’el and other rock-cut sites in the vicinity (map from Ege (2002: pl. 25),adapted by M.-L. Derat/Lalibela Mission).

Marie‐Laure Derat et al.

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

468

generally been interpreted through the lens of their presumed function, during the initialphase of Christianisation, for funerary purposes (Lepage 1972: 196, 1997), while otherswere for eremitical use (Anfray 1985: 33; following Matthews & Mordini 1959: 48–49).Scholars, however, have overlooked the possibility that the chambers may have been cutfor non-religious reasons. As early as the 1520s, the Portuguese priest and diplomat FranciscoAlvares evoked the troglodytic practices of “a country of pagans called Gorages”—a culturalgroup occupying the region south of present-day Addis Ababa (Beckingham &Huntingford1961: 397–98). Furthermore, in 1905, Carlo Conti Rossini observed that another culturalgroup, the Agaws, performed their cultic practices in caves, and that it was common forthem to transform such cultic sites into churches (Conti Rossini 1905: 115–17), indicatingthe Christianisation of space and possibly, initially at least, syncretic practice. Today, theAgaws, or more correctly the Agaw-speaking people, comprise groups scattered across nor-thern Ethiopia and Eritrea, namely in the Soqota region and in the Wag Hamera zoneclose to Lalibela (Appleyard 1987). The Agaws are generally considered to be “the remnantsof what must have been the original population of much of the highland region of northernand central Ethiopia” (Appleyard 2006: 1). Many historians of medieval Ethiopia believe thatthe rise of the Zagwe Dynasty, following the fall of Aksum, occurred against the backgroundof a resurgence in the power of the Agaws (Tamrat 1988).Whether the Zagwemonarchs werethemselves of Agaw ethnicity is still debated (Derat 2018: 242–56), and we must also be care-ful not to project back twentieth-century settlement patterns to the first centuries of thesecond millennium.

All this evidence draws our attention to the cultural background against which the Chris-tianisation of the Lalibela region took place, including troglodytism. Here, this term is usedto refer both to the architectural elements cut directly into the substrate and the monumentalstructures built of dressed-stone quarried from this same substrate, especially at Lalibela.Hence, the choice of rock is the defining characteristic of troglodytism, rather than the cavityitself. The interweaving between the rock and the built structures combines forms of habitatand occupation, so that it is difficult to differentiate rock-cut and built structures,subterranean and surface structures. We therefore consider troglodytism from a technologicalperspective, rather than one of cultural practice. Elaborating on the idea that medievalEthiopia was a cosmopolitan (i.e. multi-religion, multi-political and multi-ethnic) society,we examine here the intersectionality between technological and religious development.Using data obtained from both Lalibela and Washa Mika’el, this article interrogates therelationship between the pre-existing troglodytic and the incoming Christian cultures byhighlighting the transformation of the sites, the interplay of the built and the rock-cuttechniques and the forms of landscape occupation. This also enables a stratigraphic approachto understanding how the rock was worked during the different phases, from the carving ofraw rock at the initial stage to sculpting and painting at the later stages.

Lalibela before and after King LalibelaIt is now clear, from the work carried out over the past ten years (Phillipson 2009; Fauvelleet al. 2010), that the churches of Lalibela were not all cut at the same time as part of an archi-tectural programme undertaken and completed under King Lalibela. The site of Lalibela has

The rock‐cut churches of Lalibela and the cave church of Washa Mika’el

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

469

revealed several phases of cutting that pre-date the creation of the churches or the transform-ation of pre-existing structures into churches. Structures from these pre-thirteenth-centuryphases consist either of immense hypostyle chambers, galleries and subterranean roomscut into the substrate (Fauvelle et al. 2010), or of monumental architecture built in dressed-stone on the surface of the rock. Both of these construction types testify to a centuries-longoccupation of the site before its architectural transformation into a religious centre underKing Lalibela. Our landscape archaeological surveys of a large area around the site, however,show that the human impact on the region was very low until the nineteenth century (Bosc-Tiessé et al. 2014: 151–52; for a different view, see Finneran 2009, 2012). How can wereconcile these apparently contradictory observations? The apparent ‘emptiness’ of the land-scape may be a consequence of how the territory was occupied in the past—occupation thatwas centred in or around troglodytic features that are both ubiquitous in the landscape anddifficult to document due to recent disturbance, as is the case for the remains of dwellings,monolithic structures, granaries and tombs in the vicinity of rock-cut structures at Qulta,Gannata Maryam and May Maryam (Figure 1; Bosc-Tiessé et al. 2014).

The identification of the spoil heaps resulting from the cutting of the churches at Lalibelarepresents a major advance in the knowledge of the site’s transformation (Fauvelle et al.2010). Forming large mounds on each side of the rock-cut churches, the spoil heaps coveroccupation levels that pre-date the cutting. Hence, their archaeological potential for betterunderstanding the site is clear.

Previous investigations have recorded a short segment of dressed-stone wall running alongthe northern trench (itself cut during church construction) that borders the south-east groupof churches at Lalibela (Angelini 1967; Taffesse 1983). Our excavation indicates that thesame wall running beneath the spoil heaps dates to between the early tenth and early eleventhcenturies. Abundant pottery fragments and faunal remains were also recovered, attestingsecular occupation (Bosc-Tiessé et al. 2014: 156–57). Finally, other architectural featureshave provided evidence for a monumental wall that once surrounded the entire complex,as indicated by segments of the wall found in situ in various places at Lalibela (Figure 2:inset map).

Additionally, segments of a similar wall, preserved to a height of three courses, arerecorded on the roof of the church of Gabre’el-Rufa’el (see also Phillipson 2009: 146;Mercier & Lepage 2012: 227). An entryway, sculpted stairs and the remains of rock-cutwalls—evidence for a chamber hanging above the church’s rear courtyard—were alsorecorded here (Figure 2). These testify to the existence of a wall system built two centuriesbefore the transformation of the site by King Lalibela. The walls were partly destroyed inthe thirteenth century by the cutting of the churches and trenches, with what remainedcovered by the resultant debris.

Excavation of the enormous southern spoil heap associated with the south-eastern churchgroup has revealed a succession of occupation and abandonment phases from the eleventh–-thirteenth centuries to the present. Starting from the top of the spoil heap, recent com-mingled human remains were found at a depth of 1.50m below the surface, thusconfirming a pattern of reburial within spoil heaps that had previously been observed aroundthe first group of churches, in the north-west of the site (Bosc-Tiessé et al. 2014: 154).Beneath these burials, three occupation levels were recorded, the most recent of which—

Marie‐Laure Derat et al.

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

470

Figure 2. Inset map: south-eastern group of rock-cut churches of Lalibela, showing the location of wall segments along thegreat north and west trenches, and on the roof of Gabre’el-Rufa’el church (outlined in orange). Structure on the roof ofGabre’el-Rufa’el: 1) double-sided, 1.10–1.15m-thick wall, consisting of a double row of ashlar blocks; 2) shallow walltrenches dug into the natural rock; 3) traces of walls anchored into the natural rock are also observed on the roof; 4)rock-cut stairs; 5) remains of partial, rock-cut walls with off-set vertical joints; 6) partial remains of a three-coursewall of large dressed stones (illustration by A. Garric/Lalibela Mission).

The rock‐cut churches of Lalibela and the cave church of Washa Mika’el

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

471

approximately 0.50m thick—was found 1.50m below the surface, and contained the remainsof a collapsed stone house dated to between the late seventeenth and late eighteenth centuries.This building rested upon another 1.20m-thick, homogeneous occupation level dated tobetween the mid fifteenth and mid sixteenth centuries. The lowest stratigraphic level withinthe spoil heap was located between 3.20 and 4.70m below the surface, and contained severalstructures. The more recent of these were two poorly constructed alignments of basalt flag-stones (ST4) associated with a fireplace, and dated to the thirteenth century (Figure 3). Next,some 0.45m below the flagstones, was a portion of wall (ST3) built of carefully squared, bas-altic rubble. Then, below this, a third structure was found in direct contact with the naturalsubstrate, and comprised both cut and built elements, including a carved, circular groove, 9min diameter and 0.90m deep (ST1). Surrounding the carved groove was a 1m-wide wall builtof mortar and basalt (ST2), and of the same diameter as ST1 (Figure 4). Finally, a rubblepartition wall (ST5) adjoining ST2 and associated with a floor and a ceramic pot, the latterbroken in situ, was revealed. This wall covered ST1 and was dated to between the early elev-enth and the mid twelfth centuries (for the relevant radiocarbon dates, see Table 1).

Although the material associated with these structures, including the ceramics, is stillundergoing study, it is already apparent that the wall surrounding the entire complex at Lali-bela is stratigraphically associated with several construction stages that date to the mid tenth/mid twelfth centuries. Once certainly very impressive, these monumental built and carvedstructures belong to the earliest documented occupation phase at the site. These workswere covered by debris of the thirteenth-century cutting of the churches. For now, we areunable to assess the function of either the earlier, circular carved and built structures,which could have served defensive, domestic, religious or funerary purposes, and the signifi-cance of the entire walled complex of which they were part. Whatever the case, the cutting ofthe churches in the thirteenth century represented both a complete departure in terms of themorphology of the site and a continuity in terms of the technology. The transformation ofthe site of Lalibela into a fully Christian religious complex represents an entirely new archi-tectural programme that resulted in the burial of previous features under huge piles of debris,which physically effaced them from the landscape. There can be little doubt, however, thatthe technology involved in the cutting of these churches represented a continuation of localtroglodytic practice and expertise. It is therefore not possible to perceive thirteenth-centurychanges at Lalibela strictly in terms of parallel religious and cultural shifts, but rather as

Table 1. Radiocarbon dates obtained (dates calibrated by Beta Analytic using BetaCal 3.21 (BronkRamsey 2009) and the IntCal13 calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2013))

Samples Conventional radiocarbon age Dates (at 95.4% confidence)

Beta 489552-Gabriel II 2017 E1 140±30 BP 1669–1780 cal ADBeta 489553-Gabriel II 2017 E2 390±30 BP 1440–1524 cal ADBeta 489554-Gabriel II 2017 E4 930±30 BP 1025–1165 cal ADBeta 489555-Gabriel II 2017 E6 970±30 BP 1016–1154 cal ADBeta 489556-Gabriel II 2017 E7 960±30 BP 1020–1155 cal ADBeta 511802-Gabriel II 2017 E8 760±30 BP 1219–1284 cal AD

Marie‐Laure Derat et al.

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

472

Figure 3. Stratigraphic log and radiocarbon dates for ST4 in the south-east spoil heap at Lalibela. Dates calibrated by Beta Analytic using BetaCal 3.21 (Bronk Ramsey 2009)and the IntCal13 calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2013) (figure by R. Mensan/Lalibela Mission).

The

rock‐cut

churchesofLalibelaand

thecave

churchofW

ashaMika

’el

©The

Author(s),2021.Published

byCam

bridgeUniversity

Presson

behalfof

Antiquity

PublicationsLtd.

473

Figure 4. Radiocarbon dates for ST1 and ST2 in the south-east spoil heap at Lalibela. Dates calibrated by Beta Analyticusing BetaCal 3.21 (Bronk Ramsey 2009) and the IntCal13 calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2013) (figure byR. Mensan/Lalibela Mission).

Marie‐Laure Derat et al.

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

474

the intersection of a transformative, Christian architectural programme (with probable eliteideological input) and a local culture whose ethnic, linguistic and religious affiliations remainobscure, but whose defining characteristic was troglodytism.

Documenting a wider troglodytic culture around Lalibela: WashaMika’elLalibela is not unique in the local region. The cave ofWashaMika’el is cut into the interior ofan ignimbrite massif (natural caves do not form in ignimbrite) located at an altitude of3118m on the highland plateau, facing Lalibela to the north-west (Figure 1).WashaMika’el’scurrent façade exhibits carved and eroded sculptures belonging to an initial stage of cutting, aswell as evidence for later natural and anthropogenic alterations (Figure 5). The eroded sculp-tures on the façade suggest that there were other rooms in front of it, which have now entirelycollapsed. Sculpted friezes decorate the cave’s northern, southern and eastern walls (Figure 6.1–2), with the sculptures covering the full length of the northern and southern walls ( justover 2m in height and 6m in length on the southern wall, and approximately 1.50m in heightand 9m in length on the northern).

The northern wall is covered entirely in soot and one of the animal figures is damaged,while the sculptures on the southern wall are generally more eroded (Figures 7–8). Thestone on the ceiling and the lower part of the walls is flaking, with large pieces havingdetached. Certain animal figures retain traces of paint (vertical bands) and engraved linesmarking anatomical details or other patterns. The sculptures feature both adult and juvenileanimals, particularly humpback cattle, birds, giraffes, elephants, camelids and some otherpossibly feline mythical creatures. Human figures, some clearly displaying male sexual attri-butes, stand blowing horns, brandishing staves or other weapons, or straddling mounts, whileothers stand on their mounts also brandishing staves, weapons and other objects. The figuresfollow one another in single file, fighting with or fleeing from each other. The northern wallfeatures one to three registers, and the southern wall six (Figures 7–8). While such sculpturesare commonly found in the rock art sites of Ethiopia and Eritrea (e.g. Brandt &Carder 1987;Calegari 1999; Le Quellec & Abegaz 2001; Le Quellec 2003; Hagos 2011; Insoll et al. 2015;Tsehaye 2019), the iconography and technique on display atWashaMika’el are distinctive, asis the exceptional length of the carved surfaces. These sculptures date to a phase when WashaMika’el had yet to be transformed into a church.

The site opens to the exterior via three small doors to the west and north-west, which areoverlooked by three small windows (Figure 6). The interior layout is divided by three massiverock pillars and an approximately 2m-high rock wall that is surmounted by an arch, whichdemarcates the sanctuary. Other walls were built later in order to subdivide the centralspace. After the cave was converted into a church, paintings were added. These can be pre-cisely dated to between 1270 and 1285, as their inscriptions mention contemporaries ofKing Yekuno Amlak (r. 1270–1285), the founder of the so-called Solomonic Dynastythat succeeded the Zagwe (see Insoll 2021). Five icon-like paintings feature saints (SaintGeorge, Saint Cyriac/Qirqos and the Archangel Michael) and the Virgin and Child sur-rounded by archangels. Contemporaneous historical figures are also depicted, includingthe patron, Mahari Amlak (who first dedicated the church to Saint George before its

The rock‐cut churches of Lalibela and the cave church of Washa Mika’el

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

475

Figure 5. External western façade of Washa Mika’el cave church: entrance to the church and remains of animals sculpted on an earlier wall (photograph by R. Mensan/LalibelaMission, 2017).

Marie‐Laure

Derat

etal.

©The

Author(s),2021.Published

byCam

bridgeUniversity

Presson

behalfof

Antiquity

PublicationsLtd.

476

name was changed to Mika’el), Her Amlak (the scribe), and governor [seyum] Newaya Kres-tos. These figures are accompanied by inscriptions asking the saints represented in the paint-ings to pray for both these men and for King Yekuno Amlak (Figure 6: P1–5; Figure 9)(Mercier 2002; Derat 2018: 196–200).

The paintings were executed on white plaster and, when viewed in low-angled light, tracesof application by hand can be observed. Although there was no plaster present beneath thepainted remnants on the sculptures, and only a very thin layer under the painted sculpturesin Lalibela’s church of Beta Maryam, this plaster seems similar (subject to further investiga-tion) to that used in the church of Gannata Maryam built under the patronage of KingYekuno Amlak. These paintings coincide with a second floruit of Christian power in theregion, 50–70 years after King Lalibela’s patronage of the site that now bears his name.They were already located in the western bay when later paintings—the majority stylisticallydated to between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries—were added throughout the church

Figure 6. Layout of Washa Mika’el: Sc.) sculpted scenes; P) paintings; D) sculpted animal on the façade; dotted linesrepresent small galleries opening to doors and windows (figure by A. Garric/Lalibela Mission).

The rock‐cut churches of Lalibela and the cave church of Washa Mika’el

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

477

Figure 7. Northern wall of Washa Mika’el cave church (photogrammetry and orthophotography by A. Garric/Lalibela Mission 2017).

Marie‐Laure

Derat

etal.

©The

Author(s),2021.Published

byCam

bridgeUniversity

Presson

behalfof

Antiquity

PublicationsLtd.

478

Figure 8. Southern and western walls of Washa Mika’el cave church (photogrammetry and orthophotography by A. Garric/Lalibela Mission 2017).

The

rock‐cut

churchesofLalibelaand

thecave

churchofW

ashaMika

’el

©The

Author(s),2021.Published

byCam

bridgeUniversity

Presson

behalfof

Antiquity

PublicationsLtd.

479

Figure 9. Pillar facing the western entrance, with two sculpted crosses and a depiction of the archangel Michael (P4)from the time of King Yekuno Amlak (1270–1285), commissioned by Mahari Amlak. The inscription asks the saint topray for the patron (photogrammetry and orthophotography by A. Garric/Lalibela Mission 2017).

Marie‐Laure Derat et al.

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

480

interior, demonstrating a new visual investment in the space (Figure 6.P6–10). At a laterstage, and at different times, graffiti were carved or painted onto both the sculpted andpainted scenes. This activity at Washa Mika’el indicates the transformation of the spacefrom pre-Christian to Christian, mirroring the contemporaneous political and religiouschanges occurring in Ethiopia.

DiscussionThe process of Christianisation and the transformation of troglodytic space is evident inpaintings and sculptures of Lalibela and Washa Mika’el, and in their relationship with thetransformation of the caves. The pre-Christian carved animal friezes on the northern andsouthern walls at Washa Mika’el are located at shoulder height, approximately 1.30m.The inside of the artificial cave was originally no more than 2m high. In a second phase,the ground was lowered, as indicated by the water-dissolution levels on the pillars, whichformed at the original ground level. The lowering of the entire inner space of the cavemay have been carried out in tandem with its transformation into a church. Alternatively,the cave could have been first transformed into a church, and the Christian paintingsadded on the upper register; the interior was then lowered, with the result being that allthe paintings were now on the highest part of the walls. Either way, those transformingthe cave chose not to erase the extant carved animal friezes.

Further evidence of the efforts to Christianise the pre-Christian space are found on thewalls of the lowered level, which bear crosses carved in low relief over the western interiordoor and on the two pillars facing the two western entrances (Figure 9). The date of thesecrosses is unknown, but they could only have been carved after lowering of the groundlevel had enabled the transformation of the cavity into a church. Other evidence of Christian-isation is apparent through the carving of a cross onto the abdomen of one of the earlier,carved human figures on the northern wall (Figure 10). Taken together, this evidence indi-cates that the people who transformed the previous cavity into a church did not judge it neces-sary to remove the sculptures. Rather, they appropriated and lightly transformed them to fitthe new religious function of the site, with the remarkable result that Washa Mika’el nowdisplays a combination of Christian and non-Christian imagery. It cannot yet be established,however, whether the cavity was initially a secular or a religious place, such as a traditionalreligious shrine.

Other types of data can be used to contextualise the sculptures at Washa Mika’el. From atechnical point of view, the semi-flat, low-relief sculptures could be compared to those ofChabbe-Galma in the Rift Valley of south-eastern Ethiopia, which are dated to 6500–2500 BP (Le Quellec 2003: 63–64). At this unique site, however, the depth of the engravingsgives the illusion of rounded relief (Le Quellec 2003: 64), which contrasts with the low-reliefsculptures with two flat planes at Washa Mika’el. The depictions further vary with represen-tation of the body in simplified profile at Chabbe-Galma, as opposed to the rendering of fourlimbs at Washa Mika’el, which gives the illusion of depth. The types of cattle depicted alsodiffer, with humpless cattle (Bos primigenius f. taurus) at Chabbe-Galma and humpbackedoxen (Bos primigenius f. indicus) in Washa Mika’el. The introduction of humpbacked cattle,either directly from India or through the Arabian Peninsula, is believed to have occurred

The rock‐cut churches of Lalibela and the cave church of Washa Mika’el

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

481

when the region began to experience increased aridity shortly after the last wet phase of theHolocene, most likely during the third to fourth centuries AD (Brandt & Carder 1987: 207;Le Quellec 2003: 65; Lesur-Gebremariam 2009: 178). This implies that the sculptures atWasha Mika’el do not pre-date this period. Moreover, the scenes of a feline attackingother animals resemble rock paintings in northern Ethiopia and Eritrea, and are consideredto be the most recent type of representations depicted at these sites (Calegari 1999: 19).

It appears that whoever carved the Washa Mika’el’s sculptures used a similar method tothat employed in Lalibela on the bas-relief above the western porch of the Beta Maryamchurch, which hypothetically dates from the thirteenth century. While intriguing, it is never-theless premature to draw conclusions on dating based on this similarity alone. It is perhapseven more remarkable that the Washa Mika’el cave church and other early Christian sites ofthe Lalibela region display both sculptures and paintings, a combination of techniques thatdid not exist prior to the introduction of Christianity (painting being an exclusively Christianinnovation in this context), and which disappeared in later periods. Representing more thanthe mixing of non-Christian and Christian elements, this technical syncretism constitutes aninteresting fossile directeur of the moment of transition between two religious cultures.

While it is difficult to date the sculptures of Washa Mika’el, they nevertheless stronglyevoke a troglodytic culture apparent elsewhere in the region. At Lalibela, the conversion of

Figure 10. A cross carved on the extant figure’s abdomen (see Figure 7)—a sign of Christianisation (photograph byC. Bosc-Tiessé/Lalibela Mission 2017).

Marie‐Laure Derat et al.

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

482

the rock-cut monument now known as Gabre’el-Rufa’el into a church was also characterisedby profound transformations in the cutting phases. One of the pilasters in the monument’ssouthern courtyard, for example, was truncated to enable the construction of windows open-ing to the east—an essential precondition for installing the sanctuary and the altar on whichthe Eucharistic liturgy is practised (Fritsch 2008: 88). A clear clue to the timing of this archi-tectural transformation is the altar: it was made for King Lalibela, dedicated to the ArchangelGabriel and is still kept in the church today (Bosc-Tiessé & Derat 2019: 112). Sculptedcrosses on the eastern wall at the entrance to Gabre’el-Rufa’el mark the process of themonument’s conversion into a church. While nothing can objectively establish that thesealterations were contemporaneous, analysis of written evidence confirms the role of KingLalibela. There is therefore a strong probability that the transformation of the monumentinto a Christian chapel was initiated during his reign.

ConclusionsThe cultural setting of the Lalibela region, starting from at least the eleventh to twelfth cen-turies AD, appears to have been troglodytic. As a rock-cutting technology, ‘troglodytism’ canbe identified at Lalibela in the early architectural features revealed beneath the spoil heap asso-ciated with the south-eastern group of churches and in the initial church-cutting phases, aswell as in the sculptures and the rock-cut transformations at Washa Mika’el. Troglodytism isthus an indicator of cultural continuity that was instrumental in the early introduction ofChristianity and the Christianisation of previously non-Christian sites in the Lalibela region.As such, this continuity in sacred place is similar to the phenomena noted in other Africancontexts (e.g. Nicolas 1966; Abungu 1994), and in India, for example (e.g. Chakrabarti2001; Haaland & Haaland 2012).

The sites of Lalibela andWasha Mika’el are evidence of the diachronic persistence of trog-lodytism, and those who carved the rock-cut churches were the heirs of this culture. BothLalibela and Washa Mika’el testify to the growing influence of Christianity and the trans-formation of troglodytic spaces in tandem with Christianisation. The pace at which the Ethi-opian society at large became Christian remains to be determined, although excavationscarried out in the cemetery of Qedemt, to the north-east of the churches of Lalibela, offerfurther clues (Gleize et al. 2015). This cemetery saw several phases of use between the elev-enth and the eighteenth centuries. The oldest phase, between the eleventh and thirteenthcenturies (phase A), is characterised by broad variability in the orientation of the graves,which suggests that such orientation was not a distinguishing feature in marking the religionof the deceased. While some graves (41.67 per cent) were oriented east–west in accordancewith Christian rites, many others (58.33 per cent) were oriented differently and containedceramics (Gleize et al. 2015: 239–42). In phase B (thirteenth to mid fifteenth centuries),60 per cent of the graves were oriented east–west, with the remaining 40 per cent on differentorientations. In phase C (mid fifteenth to eighteenth centuries), 94 per cent were orientedeast–west, with only six per cent on a different orientation. This notable shift in favour ofan east–west orientation suggests that this became a recognisably Christian indicator.

While numerous aspects, such as the function of the subterranean spaces or the date of therock-cut caves before their transformation into churches, remain unclear, it now seems

The rock‐cut churches of Lalibela and the cave church of Washa Mika’el

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

483

difficult to reflect on the rock-cut churches of Lalibela without taking into account the trog-lodytic aspects of the earlier society that occupied the central Ethiopian plateau in the elev-enth and twelfth centuries. Continuity rather than change appears to have been key, withChristianity accommodating older ways of creating and transforming underground spaces.This certainly provides new elements for reinterpreting Ethiopian cosmopolitanism. WhileChristianity can be understood as the main agent in exposing Ethiopian societies to globalinfluences, it can also be considered a unifying factor within a social environment whosecosmopolitan nature has long been overlooked. Indeed, although modern Ethiopia is particu-larly diverse in terms of religious faiths, material culture, languages spoken, and economic andpolitical organisation, attention to troglodytism can only increase our understanding of pastdiversity in other social dimensions, such as territorial occupation and landscape exploitation.

Acknowledgements

This article is based on the results of multidisciplinary missions carried out since May2009 at Lalibela and in its vicinity, under the guidance of the Ethiopian Authority forResearch and Conservation of Cultural Heritage (ARCCH, Addis Ababa and BaherDar); the Cultural and Tourism Office; the ecclesiastical authorities of Lalibela; andthe French Center for Ethiopian Studies, based in Addis Ababa. The mission at WashaMika’el was carried out in 2008 and 2017 with the approval of the ARCCH. Kidanemar-iam Woldegiorgis Ayalew, Emmanuel Fritsch, Nafisa Valieva and Laurence Meslin werepart of our most recent field mission.

Funding statement

The fieldwork was funded by the Commission consultative des fouilles à l’étranger of theFrench Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne.

References

Abungu, G.H.O. 1994. Islam on the Kenyan coast:an overview of Kenyan coastal sacred sites, inD.L. Carmicheal, J. Hubert, B. Reeves &A. Schanche (ed.) Sacred sites, sacred places:152–62. London: Routledge.

Anfray, F. 1985. Des églises et des grottes rupestres.Annales d’Éthiopie 8: 7–34.https://doi.org/10.3406/ethio.1985.915

Angelini, S. 1967. Lalibela Project. I Fase: tapportofinale sommario. Unpublished report, FondoEtiopia di Sandro Angelini. Biblioteca Civica ‘A.Mai’ di Bergamo, Italy.

Appleyard, D.L. 1987. A grammatical sketch ofKhamtanga. Bulletin of the School of Oriental andAfrican Studies 3: 470–507.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00039471

– 2006. A comparative dictionary of the Agawlanguages. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.

Beckingham, C.F. & G.W.B. Huntingford.1961. The Prester John of the Indie: a true relationof the lands of the Prester John, being the narrative ofthe Portuguese Embassy to Ethiopia in 1520 writtenby Francisco Alvares. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Bosc-Tiessé, C. 2010. Catalogue des autels etmeubles d’autel en bois (tab̄ot et manbara tab̄ot)des églises de La ̄libala ̄: jalons pour une histoiredes objets et des motifs. Annales d’Éthiopie 25:55–101.https://doi.org/10.3406/ethio.2010.1407

Bosc-Tiessé, C.&M.-L. Derat. 2019. Lalibela, unsite rupestre dans la longue durée: histoire,archéologie et patrimonialisation, in Patrimoinemondial de l’UNESCO: enjeux et opportunités: 77–115. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose Nouvelleséditions/Hémisphères.

Marie‐Laure Derat et al.

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

484

Bosc-Tiessé, C., M.-L. Derat, L. Bruxelles,F.-X. Fauvelle-Aymar, Y. Gleize &R. Mensan. 2014. The Lalibela rock art site andits landscape (Ethiopia): an archaeological analysis.Journal of African Archaeology 12: 141–64.https://doi.org/10.3213/2191-5784-10261

Brandt, S.&N. Carder. 1987. Pastoral rock art inthe Horn of Africa: making sense of udder chaos.World Archaeology 19: 194–213.https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1987.9980034

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis ofradiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51: 337–60.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200033865

Buxton, D.R. 1946. Ethiopian rock-hewn churches.Antiquity 20: 60–69.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00019384

Calegari, G. 1999. L’arte rupestre dell’Eritrea:repertorio ragionato ed esegesi iconografica. Milan:Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali e MuseoCivico di Storia Naturale di Milano.

Chakrabarti, D. 2001. The archaeology ofHinduism, in T. Insoll (ed.) Archaeology andworld religion: 33–60. London: Routledge.

Conti Rossini, C. 1905. Noti sugli agaw, I: appuntisulla lingua Awiya del Danghela. Giornale dellaSocietà Asiatica Italiana 18: 103–94.

Derat, M.-L. 2018. L’énigme d’une dynastie sainte etusurpatrice dans le royaume chrétien d’Éthiopie duXIe au XIIIe siècle. Turnhout: Brepols.https://doi.org/10.1484/M.HAG-EB.5.114822

Ege, S. 2002.North Wälo 1:100.000 topographic andadministrative map of North Wälo zone, Amhararegion, Ethiopia. Trondheim: NorwegianUniversity of Science and Technology.

Fauvelle-Aymar, F.-X., L. Bruxelles, R. Mensan,C. Bosc-Tiessé, M.-L. Derat & E. Fritsch.2010. Rock-cut stratigraphy: sequencing theLalibela churches. Antiquity 84: 1135–50.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00067132

Finneran, N. 2009. Settlement archaeology and oralhistory in Lasta, Ethiopia: some preliminaryobservations from a landscape study of Lalibela.Azania 44: 282–91.https://doi.org/10.1080/00671990903047629

– 2012. Lalibela in its landscape: archaeologicalsurvey at Lalibela, Lasta, Ethiopia, April to May2009. Azania 47: 81–98.https://doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2011.647949

Fritsch, E. 2008. The churches of Lalibäla(Ethiopia): witnesses of liturgical changes.Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata 3a:69–112.

Gleize, Y. et al. 2015. Le cimetière médiéval deQedemt (La ̄libala ̄): données préliminaires issuesdes campagnes 2010 et 2012. Annales d’Ethiopie30: 223–58.https://doi.org/10.3406/ethio.2015.1588

Haaland, R. & G. Haaland. 2012. Landscape, inT. Insoll (ed.) The Oxford handbook of thearchaeology of ritual and religion: 24–37. Oxford:Oxford University Press.https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199232444.013.0003

Hagos, T. 2011. The Ethiopian rock arts: the fragileresources. Addis Ababa: Authority for Researchand Conservation of Cultural Heritage.

Insoll, T. 2021. The archaeology of complexity andcosmopolitanism in medieval Ethiopia: anintroduction. Antiquity 95: 450–66.https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.168

Insoll, T., T. Clack & O. Rege. 2015. Mursi oxmodification in the Lower Omo Valley and theinterpretation of cattle rock art in Ethiopia.Antiquity 89: 91–105.https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2014.31

Lepage, C. 1972. Les monuments chrétiens rupestresde Degum, en Éthiopie (rapport préliminaire).Cahiers archéologiques 22: 168–200.

– 1973. L’église de Zarema (Éthiopie) découverte enmai 1973 et son apport à l’histoire del’architecture éthiopienne. Comptes-rendus del’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles LettresJuillet-Octobre: 416–54.https://doi.org/10.3406/crai.1973.12915

– 1997. Une origine possible des églisesmonolithiques de l’Ethiopie ancienne. Comptesrendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres141: 199–212.https://doi.org/10.3406/crai.1997.15723

Lepage, C. & J. Mercier. 2005. Art éthiopien: leséglises historiques du Tigray. Paris: ADPF Éditionssur les Civilisations.

Lesur-Gebremariam, J. 2009. Origine et diffusionde l’élevage dans la Corne de l’Afrique: un état dela question. Annales d’Éthiopie 24: 173–208.https://doi.org/10.3406/ethio.2009.1393

Matthews, D. & A. Mordini. 1959. Themonastery of Debra Damo, Ethiopia.

The rock‐cut churches of Lalibela and the cave church of Washa Mika’el

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

485

Archaeologia 97: 1–58.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261340900009930

Mercier, J. 2002. Peintures du xiiie siècle dans uneéglise de l’Angot (Éthiopie). Annales d’Éthiopie18: 143–48.https://doi.org/10.3406/ethio.2002.1016

Mercier, J. & C. Lepage. 2012. Lalibela, wonder ofEthiopia: the monolithic churches and theirtreasures. London: Paul Holberton.

Nicolas, G. 1966. Essai sur les structuresfondamentals de l’espace dans la cosmologieHausa. Journal de la Société des Africanistes 36:65–107. https://doi.org/10.3406/jafr.1966.1405

Phillipson, D.W. 2009. Ancient churches ofEthiopia, fourth–fourteenth centuries. New Haven(CT): Yale University Press.

Le Quellec, J.-L. 2003. L’art rupestre de style dit‘Arabo-éthiopien’ et l’école de Chabbè-Galma.Afrique—Archéologie—Arts 2: 47–68.

Le Quellec, J.-L.&G. Abegaz. 2001. New sites ofsouthern Ethiopia rock engravings: GodanaKinjo, Ejersa Gara Hallo, Laga Harro, andremarks on the Sappé-Galam school. Annalesd’Éthiopie 17: 205–24.https://doi.org/10.3406/ethio.2001.1000

Reimer, P.J. et al. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50 000 years

cal BP. Radiocarbon 55: 1869–87.https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947

Sauter, R. 1963. Où en est notre connaissance deséglises rupestres d’Éthiopie. Annales d’Éthiopie 5:235–92.https://doi.org/10.3406/ethio.1963.1336

– 1976. Églises rupestres au Tigré. Annales d’Éthiopie10: 157–75.https://doi.org/10.3406/ethio.1976.1168

Taffesse, S. 1983. A preliminary report on trenchexcavation, Lalibela, Addis Ababa. Unpublishedreport, ARCCH.

Tamrat, T. 1988. Processes of ethnic interactionand integration in Ethiopian history: thecase of the Agaw. Journal of African History 29:5–18.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021853700035957

Tewelde Medhin, J. 1970. Introduction généraleaux églises monolithes du Tigrai, in Proceedings ofthe Third International Conference of EthiopianStudies, Addis Ababa 1966: 83–98. Addis Ababa:Haile Selassie-I University.

Tsehaye, G. 2019. Preliminary result of therock art reconnaissance carried out in Tigrairegion, Ethiopia. Semitica et Classica 12:267–80.https://doi.org/10.1484/J.SEC.5.119666

Marie‐Laure Derat et al.

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

486