PART III Nomadic Migrations Nomads and Their Origins In this book, the term "nomad" refers only to "predatory pastoralists." The reason? Only this category was engaged in a more or less constant interac­ tion with areas of high civilization and the forest tribes in the Eurasian steppe and adjacent areas. Among mobile groups only they fit within the framework of this book. Anatoly Khazanov defines pastoral nomadism as "a distinct form of food­ producing economy in which extensive mobile pastoralism is the predomi­ nant activity, and in which the majority of the population is drawn into periodic pastoral migrations" (Khazanov 1994, 17). In these societies (1) pastoralism is the main form of economic activity; (2) herds graze free-range without stables, year-round; (3) seasonal mobility is contained within a spe­ cific grazing territory (this particular characteristic does not apply to nomads of Sahara); (4) the entire population is mobile; and (5) production is geared to subsistence (16). In principle, pastoralism does not preclude agriculture, and some schol­ ars even include populations for whom herding is secondary. They call these populations "semi-sedentary" (Forde 1963, 404, in Khazanov 1994, 21), distinguishing them from semi-nomadic (for whom herding is primary). The term "herdsman husbandry" is used when only a part, often significant, of the population is engaged in cattle breeding. For the purposes of this book such distinctions are not very important, although we should keep in mind that pastoralism is a continuum. Nomadism lies at one end of this continuum. It implies no or little de­ pendence on agriculture and a predatory stance vis-a.-vis sedentary neighbors. 182 • The Role of Migration This is what distinguishes a nomad from a herder. If the herder is a pastoral­ ist who lives off his flocks, a nomad is a predatory pastoralist. Nomadism leaves little scope for specialization and the development of complex economy (Khazanov 1994, 70). Population size is limited by the carrying capacity of the pastures in the least productive period of the year (Barth 1959-60, 8, in Khazanov 1994, 70-71). AI; a mode of production, it is very conservative and prone to stagnation. According to some calcula­ tions, the number of livestock per person among the Mongols in 1918 was lower than that for the Hsiung-nu two thousand years earlier, 19 and 17.8, respectively (Egami 1956; Taskin 1968a, 41ff, in Khazanov 1994, 71). In terms of distance, pastoral migrations range from as little as 20-30 kilometers among some Turkmen (Orazov 1975, 216-17), to 150 kilome­ ters among the Mongols ofInner Mongolia (Lattimore 1967, 73, n.21), to 600 kilometers in the Gobi desert of Outer Mongolia (Graivoronsky 1979, 49), and up to 1,000-1,500 kilometers among some Kazaks (Narody Sred­ nei Azii 1963, 354) (all in Khazanov 1994, 52). The greater the distances covered in annual transhumance, the easier it was to "slide" into large-scale migrations. Nomadism originated in areas where cattle breeding offered comparative ad­ vantages over agriculture. In Antiquity, harvests in the Crimea, one of the most fertile areas in the Eurasian steppe, yielded only 30-fold, compared with Mesopotamia's three hundred-fold (Strabo VII.4.6, in Khazanov 1994, 69). Even nowadays, in many areas where pastoralism predominates, it is less labor intensive and two and a half times more profitable than cotton grow­ ing (Fedorovich 1973,218, in Khazanov 1994, 69). Since man cannot live by meat alone, nomads have to get grain somehow. They can either trade or raid, but in either case they are dependent on the agriculturalist. In a sense, they are parasitic. That is why Kroeber said that nomadism is not a culture but a half-culture or part-culture, which depends on sedentary neighbors (Kroeber 1948,278). There were several factors that favored the transition to nomadism. Cli­ mate was probably one of them. It turned increasingly arid from the third millennium B.C. A short wet period in the middle of the second millennium B.C. was followed by another dry spell in 1200-500 B.C. Almost all paleo­ climatologists accept that the second millennium B.C. was characterized by a dry climate that was at its driest at 1000 B.C. (Riabtseva 1970, 117; Sinit­ syn 1967, 150; Butzer and Twidale 1966, 135; and others). Their data are confirmed by archeology (Vinogradov and Mamedov 1975,251; Piperino and Tosi 1975, 186) (both in Khazanov 1994, 95). Opinions regarding the role of climate differ. One school believes that dur­ ing increased aridity, the steppe and semidesert could be used more effectively Nomadic Migrations • 183 as pasture for livestock (Basilov 5, in Basilov 1989). Another holds that the gradual change from the dry sub-boreal of the earlier period to the damp sub­ Atlantic turned the steppe into rich grasslands that could provide pasturage for larger herds (Sulimirski 1970, 337). This factor, and the increased use of the horse, made the development of migratory steppe pastoralism possible. Although important, the dry climate was probably the final stimulus. The transition to full nomadism coincided with the emergence of sedentary states in the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, and Middle Asia. To the nomads, these states, with their great accumulation of wealth, were an enticing target. They greatly contributed to the appearance of predatory nomadism. The transition itself was a gradual process that took several thousand years. In Khazanov's view, it was made possible by the emergence of rwo modes of production during the Neolithic revolution-cultivation and ani­ mal husbandry. Only sedentary groups with vegetable food surpluses could domesticate animals (Khazanov 1994, 89). The domestication of cattle and even horses started very early, in the fifth and fourth millennia B.C. in the southern part of eastern Europe (Tsalkin 1970,265, in Khazanov 1994, 91) and no later than the fourth millennium B.C. in south Russia (Khazanov 1994, 91). By 3000 B.C., pastoralism was predominant berween the Volga and the Urals (Zbenovich 1974, 112-14; Merpert 1974, 102-12, in Khazanov 1994, 91). But these early pastoralists were no nomads (91). The mobiliry of early pastoralists facilitated their migrations in the fourth, third, and second millennia B.C. (93). The reasons were probably the same as in later migrations: population increase, exhaustion of pastures, the attraction of more advanced agricultural cultures and civilizations. But these early migrations were gradual and proceeded slowly, especially when com­ pared to later ones (Scythians or Mongols) (94). According to Khazanov, the horse was saddled no later than the first half of the second millennium B.C., and the wheeled draft transport was bor­ rowed from the Near East still earlier (Khazanov 119, in Weissleder 1978). These and other technological preconditions for pastoral nomadism ap­ peared in the European and Kazak steppes by the middle of the second mil­ lennium B.C. But the final transformation occurred only after 1000 B.C., when agricultural settlements were abandoned, and the authors of Antiquiry started calling steppe people "drinkers of milk" and "milkers of mares." In other words, the transition was not completed for about five hundred years. Explanations can be sought either in natural (Khazanov) or cultural (Latti­ more) stimuli, but most are a matter of conjecture. Nomadization is not a one-way street. It could be-and was-reversed many times. But since sedentarization affected mostly people who had come 184 • The Role of Migration from the steppe, in areas that were located in a "bad" neighborhood, it was often interrupted. Thus, sedentarization of the Scythians was cut short by the Sarmatians. The Huns and the Avars also began to sedentarize, and this may have contributed to their destruction. The Khazars settled down be­ tween the eighth and tenth centuries and were defeated as a sedentary power by the Rus. Hungarians and Bulghars sedentarized as well, but were inte­ grated into the system of European states. In this case, sedentarization was the key to success, although both polities paid the price when confronted by Mongols and Turks. Some scholars (Burnham 1979 and Irons 1979, in Barfield 1989, 7, nn.9 and 10) argue that high mobility and low population densities slowed down or even prevented the development of hierarchies in nomadic societies. These factors rendered the appearance of state among nomadic pastoralists difficult: it developed when they were forced to deal with sedentary states on a continual basis (Barfield 1989, 7). In inner Asia, the impetus for nomadic state formation was provided by the interaction with China. Structurally, nomadic states di~play an interesting duality. In their internal structure, they were federal, and their mode of operation was consultative. Externally, however, they acted as autocratic "imperial confederacies" (8). Administratively, they had a three-level hierarchy: at the top was the em­ peror and his court; the middle level was composed of imperial governors who provided the link between the emperor and the tribes within the em­ pire; and at the tribal level, local leaders were retained and incorporated in the overall structure. Thus, the tribal structure was intact. And when the sys­ tem collapsed, local tribal leaders regained their autonomy, and the steppe reverted to anarchy (8). Tribes and clans were the building blocks of no­ madic society. Unless their members had been physically annihilated, they were indestructible. The structure accounted for the inherent instability of nomadic confederations and the ease with which they were destroyed and re­ constituted. But it also made them (the confederations) flexible and, with­ out external interference, ineradicable. The period of2000 to 1400/1300 B.C. in eastern Europe saw the expansion of the central European Corded Ware/Battle Ax people, as well as the Glob­ ular Amphorae culture (Sulimirski 1970, 244).