This item is only available as the following downloads:
NOMADIC PASTORALISM IN MONGOLIA'S AGE OF THE MARKET BY JAMES WILLIAM BIRMINGHAM A Thesis Submitted to the Division of Social Sciences New College of Florida in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of Arts Under the sponsorship of Dr. Anthony Andrews Sarasota, Florida May 2010
! "" This thesis is dedicated to my Uncle and Godfather: Alan Robert Rollish April 26, 1961 July 23, 2008
! """ Acknowledgements My mother, Nancy Birmingham for providing the bedrock I needed to attend college in the first place and for providing support throughout my undergraduate career. My father, John Birmingham for giving me a love of learning and moral support. The members of my baccalaureate committee: Dr. Anthony Andrews, Dr. Uzi Baram and Dr. Erin Dean. Dr. Andrews has been more than generous with his time and patience and I could not have made it through this process without him. Dr. Baram has been a constant mentor and f riend throughout my time at New College. Dr. Dean has also been invaluable and without her expertise and guidance in the tutorial on pastoralism I did with her this thesis would not be possible. Though not on my committee, the insight and kindness of Dr. Maria Vesperi was also invaluable to the completion of this thesis. I'd also like to thank Dr. James W. Lett, who introduced me to anthropology at Indian River Community College. My partner Katie McAuley for help with editing and understanding toleranc e of my long nights of typing and shuffling through books.
! "# Table of Contents Dedication ii Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents iv List of Figures v Map of Mongolia vi Abstract vii Chapter One Introduction 1 Chapter Two Background and History of Research 5 Chapter Three History of Mongolia 21 Chapter Four The Economic Context of Modern Mongolian Pastoralism 37 Chapter Five Modern Pastoralism, the Commons, and Private Property 47 Chapter Six Conclusions 53 Bibliography 61
! # List of Figures Map of Mongolia vi Pastures near Ulaan Lake comparison 49
! #" (Adapted from Rossabi 2005: xxi)
! #"" Nomadic Pastoralism in Mongolia's Age of the Ma rket James William Birmingham New College of Florida, 2010 Abstract The pastoralists of Mongolia have recently gone through a dramatic shift in their economy and government one arguably even more challenging to their traditional subsistence economy tha n the Soviet era that preceded it. Mongolian nomadic pastoralism is now dealing with global capitalism. This thesis will analyze this transition's effect on the nomadic pastoralists of Mongolia. It will focus on the tension between the traditional metho ds of the pastoralists and the capitalist policies that are being employed in modern Mongolia. ___________________________ Anthony P. Andrews Division of Social Sciences
! $ Chapter 1 Introduction The pastoralists of Mongolia have recently g one through a dramatic shift in their economy and government one arguably even more challenging to their traditional subsistence economy than the Soviet era that preceded it. Mongolian nomadic pastoralism is now dealing with global capitalism. This the sis will analyze this transition's effect on the nomadic pastoralists of Mongolia. It will focus on the tension between the traditional methods of the pastoralists and the capitalist policies that are being employed in modern Mongolia. Several terms ar e critical to the discussions in this thesis. Nomadism refers to the practice of a community or people to move from place to place rather than settle in an area permanently. Pastoralism refers to the practice of raising and using livestock as the primary food source and/or economic product and resource. Nomadic pastoralism is, as could be expected, the synthesis of the two the practice of living off and with pack animals that one herds
! % from place to place with the movements of the community as a whole. Pastoralism is more rigorously defined and discussed in chapter 2. Capitalism will be denoted in this thesis as a state of economic affairs primarily identified by two qualities: the private ownership of land and property and the production of goods wit h the primary intent of selling them for a profit. Many of the more traditional nuts and bolts defining characteristics of capitalism will not readily apply pastoralists because the pastoral economy is quite different than the agricultural or industrial s ystems that are the focus of the majority of analyses and theories concerning capitalism. Private property refers to things (tangible or intangible) owned by an individual or business. Public property refers to ownership by the government or community. The commons refers to property (in the context of this thesis almost exclusively land) that is collectively owned' by everyone (and thus by no one in legalistic terms) it is property free of enclosure. Nomadic pastoralism has been the foundation of th e economies of Central Asia for centuries, along with a varied set of related social, economic, and political
! & institutions that represent well established environmental adaptations to rugged terrains that offer limited resources. Owing to its extreme clim ate and hostile environment, Mongolia has been more dependent on nomadic pastoralism than other Central Asian nations, and has few other resources to fall back on. It has also been the most isolated, as it was a remote and neglected satellite of the So v ie t Union during most of the 20 th century, and had few opportunities to interact with the outside world, and diversify its economy. The basic issue addressed in this thesis is the impact of the post soviet, global economy on the main way of life of the new independent republic of Mongolia. Can nomadic pastoralism survive in the modern economy? If so, what adjustments will need to be made? If not, what does that mean for the future of the Mongolian economy and its people? What economic alternatives are th ere, and do they provide realistic prospects for future survival and/or prosperity? In summary the thesis will provide the background needed to address the subject in depth. This background will include a history of the research, a history of Mongolia, e conomic data, and theory and analysis relevant
! to the situation. It will end with conclusions about the effects of capitalism on pastoralism in Mongolia and ultimately address the potential futures of Mongolian pastoralism.
! ( Chapter 2 Background and History of Research Pastoralism Pastoralism is a subsistence strategy that uses the products of domesticated animals as the primary source of direct and/or indirect subsistence. The primary and secondary products are included under direct subsistence;' the primary products include: meat, milk, blood, wool, hair, hides and the like; secondary products include: butter, cheese, yogurt, cloth, rugs and the like. Indirect subsistence refers to subsistence through particip ation in a market economy (Spooner 1973: 3). The term carries the connotation that these animals are raised and herded on natural' pasturelands that is, lands that are not directly altered or improved by human intervention. By "natural" it is meant th at the pasture is open range and the flora on it was not directly planted by the pastoralists themselves this is in contrast to the raising of animals involving fodder, pens and sheds. Of course, the term "natural" is a loaded one the pastures
! ) used by pastoralists are often the result of humans whether through deforestation (accidental or purposeful), lumbering, or exhaustion of land once used for farming (Salzman 2004: 2). Pastoralism is almost always combined with nomadism in some degree or anothe r. Unlike other natural resources, animals can move and because fresh pastures are needed once the usable flora is used up, the movement of animals and the people that tend them is necessary for the strategy to succeed. Water, temperature, disease and predators also factor in on the need for the animals to maintain mobility. (Salzman 2004: 3 5) Pastoral societies that utilize permanent or semi permanent settlements exist, but the variety of pastoralism this paper will focus on is a nomadic one. Ther e are many societies and peoples that are characterized as pastoralist; they include: the Andean herders of alpaca and llamas (Browman 1990; Orlove 1977, 1981), the Fulani cattle breeders of West Africa (Stenning 1959; Dupire 1970; Riesman 1977), the Tuare g camel pastoralists of the Sahara (Bernus 1981, 1990; Nicolaisen 1963), the Maasai cattle herders of East Africa (Spencer 1965; Spear and Waller 1993), the Somali camel raisers of the Horn of Africa (Lewis 1961), the Saami reindeer herders of Northern Eur ope (Ingold 1980; Beach 1990; Paine 1994),
! the cattle breeders of mountainous Europe (Kavanagh 1994), the sheep herders of the Mediterranean (Angioni 1989; Ravis Giordani 1983; Salzman 1999; Schweizer 1988), the Bedouin of the Arabian and neighboring deser ts (Lancaster and Lancaster 1990; Lancaster 1997; Shoup 1990; Abu Rabia 1994; Chatty 1996), the sheep herders of the Zagros in Iran (Barth 1961; Beck 1986, 1991; Garthwaite 1983), the yak herders of Tibet (Ekvall 1968), and the Nuer of East Africa (Hutchin son 1996) just to name a few. The focus of this work is on the nomadic pastoralists of Mongolia, but first a more general discussion of pastoralism itself is called for. The definition drawn from Spooner at the beginning of this section is a more narro w definition than the one I will be using (it does however seem to be the most widely used one). Drawing from Claudia Chang and Harold A. Koster I will use the more broad definition they provide: pastoralists are those who keep herd animals and who define themselves and are defined by others as pastoralists (1994: 8). They cite Salzman's article "Baluchi Nomads in the Market" pointing out that Baluch herdsmen that own as few as ten goats are still ideologically, culturally and socially still Baluch herdsm en. This definition divorces pastoralism from the strict economic definition Brian
! + Spooner provides and opens it up to groups that are (still) pastoralist in realms other than the economic. This new definition is not without its problems what about tho se who no longer possess animals or whose animals begin to be primarily fed fodder rather than roam on open range? In discussions with Erin Dean she informed about the Maasai she studied in Tanzania who still consider themselves pastoralists, but are cons idered to no longer be pastoralist by other Masaai due to no longer having proper herds of cattle. If a group no longer possesses herd animals but still identify as pastoralists, are they pastoralists? This is a question I cannot answer in this work and I am reluctant to address it in this work due to space one could not go about discussion of this topic without delving into the vast philosophical quagmire of <
! social factors leveling the social field so there is little or no social differentiation (Chang and Koster 1994: 11). First of all let me echo a point I've made and have h eard made by others many times egalitarianism as it is used in most anthropological literature is not equality; ageism, sexism, patriarchy and economic discrimination are pretty common qualities of so called egalitarian societies, including pastoral ones And not all pastoralist societies are egalitarian (using the word as it is in most anthropology) but the idea seems to be that pure' pastoralism is both nomadic and egalitarian. Asad points out: "The assumption seems to be that inegalitarian nomadic societies represent a deviation from the norm. Such deviations are usually explained in two ways: it is proposed that certain processes essential to the structure and functioning of pastoral systems have been blocked or distorted (due to internal or exte rnal pressures); or it is pointed out that the society in question is not a purely pastoral regime, but combines sedentary practices and institutions" (Asad 1979: 419 420). Chang and Koster refute this assumption and point to pastoralist societies in Gree ce and other parts of Europe in which social hierarchy, stratification and inequality have been integral to the functioning of the pastoral lifestyle and strategy
! $! of the society (1994: 11). In accordance with the definition of pastoralism I have chosen to adopt and in recognition of the problems with positivistic notions of pure forms' and the reality of globalization and post Fordist capitalism, I will not consider egalitarianism as an inherent, fundamental, or integral element of pastoralism or nomadism I will only address the issue of egalitarianism when the relation of the pastoral nomads to or from it seems to have been shifted by the transition to capitalism in Mongolia. The area of research in and around pastoralism that I will be primarily dra wing from is the challenges to pastoralism presented by outside societies and influences the State and capitalism being the obvious big two. The raising of animals as a subsistence strategy doesn't have any inherent tensions with governance or the marke t. However, the nomadic quality of many pastoralists presents an adversarial quality for the State and many entities of Big Business and the global marketplace. "States always prefer to settle pastoralists so that they can be better controlled and taxed. Such settlement, or course, is often not compatible with continued pastoralism. Commonlands, collectively held, have not been popular in those societies with capitalist leanings. Productivity and enterprise are
! $$ believed to come from private property Population increase presses every scrap of land into agricultural use, so pastureland is appropriated and pastoralists are displaced" (Salzman 2004: 15). It is important to not frame pastoralism and capitalism as completely separate entities in conflict. Pastoral peoples (and indeed the nomadic pastoralists of Mongolia; see Weatherford 2004) have played a fairly large role in the development and spread of capitalism. Many authors have argued that pastoralists were the original capitalists due to their en trepreneurial relation with trade routes and markets and their reliance on the increase of their herds as "natural capital" (These authors include: Paine 1971; Lewis 1975; H. K. Schneider 1979, 1980a, 1980b; Hart and Sperling 1988). These claims continue to spark spirited debate (See: Ingold 1980: 228 35; Rigby 1992: 9) (Chang and Koster 1994: 2 3). I will not argue that capitalism per se and pastoralism cannot peacefully (or otherwise) coexist; I will instead examine the relation between contemporary pos t Fordist capitalism in Mongolia and its effects and influences on the nomadic pastoralists of that country this thesis will not attempt a systematic analysis of the relations between capitalism and pastoralism in all locales or eras. It should also be noted that although certainly related in
! $% many cases, capitalism private property. One of the primary issues in this thesis is the appropriation of the commons and/or collectively held land into private property. The circumscription and boundaries that arise with the creation of private property have undeniable effects of the mode of pastoralism that a group can choose to employ. Interacting with entities that own private property is not the same as having the lands you used to share with others become unavailable to you. There are some clear differences between the "animal capital" of the pastoralists and more traditional forms of capital (such as land, water, minerals, etc). The most notable difference is that animal capital is self reproducing a nimals mate and create more of themselves they cannot be produced in any other way. Because herds are made of individual animals, animal capital is also partible it can be split into partitions allowing a great flexibility in "off taking" and "cashing in" value. Livestock is mobile, which allows spatial flexibility. Livestock in contrast to many other forms of capital resources are particularly vulnerable to theft, predators, and disease. The need for security accounts for the rabid militancy of man y pastoral peoples; indeed, the nomadic pastoralists of Mongolia were skilled in warfare as a
! $& result of the regular use of weapons and tactics being so necessary for survival. The problem of disease is another factor in the need for so many pastoralists t o have some degree of nomadism and/or mobility. Livestock as a resource is also dependent on two other resources, water and pasture -two more factors in the need to remain mobile. Livestock's ability to create products other than themselves is also imp ortant a herd of animals can self reproduce and expand the base animal capital while producing products such as milk, cheese, blood, and wool or hair (Salzman 2004: 104 5). Because they do not have to be used up in a one to one ratio (resource to produc t), they are in some sense a sustainable resource (divorcing them from the global carrying capacity or the limits of available land). In summary, the research of pastoralism and pastoralists has historically focused on the sort of classic description o f people X who live in place X' and the sociopolitical organization of pastoral societies with a focus on egalitarianism and social stratification. More recently research has centered on the survival' of pastoral peoples and their relation to globalizati on, development, and world politics. As more anthropologists and other scholars focus on groups that are marginalized,
! $' the mechanics of that marginalization are better understood. Anthropologists have often studied marginalized groups but increasingly the focus has been on the nature, structure and relationship of the marginalization itself, rather than a detailed descriptive entry on the marginalized group itself. The "subaltern" (Spivak 1988), "the people at the bottom" (Orlove 1989), the "people wit hout history" (Wolf 1982), the "hidden transcript" (Scott 1990), etc. are all theoretical categories that are receiving more attention. The anthropological research of the impact global capitalism has had on peasants and proletarians has been far more tho rough than its effect on pastoralists. This thesis hopes to be a small contribution to body and spirit of research of marginalized groups. I believe that the sociopolitical organization, relationship to the land, and spatial qualities and needs of nomadi c pastoralists has much to teach us about the nature of property private, collective or common.
! $( History of Research in Mongolia The early research in Mongolia focused on either the Mongols as the free roaming noble subsistence based cowboys as di scussed above or the later imposition of a Soviet government and economy on the country. Some of these early scholars include: Roy Chapman Andrews, Owen Lattimore and Christopher Dawson. Andrews was an employee of and later director of the American Muse um of Natural History, he conducted a series of expeditions to Mongolia and the Gobi Desert from 1922 to 1930. Andrews is probably best known for being the first person to discover fossilized dinosaur eggs he dealt primarily with paleontology, but becau se much of his fieldwork was done in Mongolia his writings on his encounters with the people there contributed to the literature dealing with Mongolian nomads. Andrews is said to have been the model for the character of Indiana Jones and is credited with m aking 'Outer Mongolia' a popular metaphor for any far away or remote place. Some of his major works inc l ude: Across Mongolian Plains (1921), On The Trail of Ancient Man (1926), and The New Conquest of Central Asia (1932).
! $) Lattimore was an educator, auth or and scholar of Central Asia and the editor of Pacific Affairs in the 19030s. Lattimore's most influential book, The Inner Asian Frontiers of China (1940) used environmentally determinist, ridged materialist, and biologically racist theories to promote a history of East Asia driven by a dialectic relationship between two civilization types: settled farming and pastoralism. Lattimore's work that is most relevant to pastoralism is Nomads and Commissars (1962) the tone and style of that work and other li ke it framed the popular perspectives on nomadic pastoralism, most prominently the framing of nomadic pastoralists as individualist, rugged, Eastern cowboys. Owen Lattimore emphasized the importance of the oasis in geography and resulting economy for the e volution of Inner Asian steppe nomads. He hypothesized that early domestication was possible in areas where the natural environment was equally favorable to agriculture and to animal husbandry. In the steppe oases, where large herbivores captured in the st eppe could be kept and fed, people gradually learned how to use them, and eventually moved out into the open steppe, thus becoming "specialized pastoralists." Lattimore attributed the causes that ignited this process and "pushed" the rst nomads into th e steppe to an economically more ef fi cient
! $* adaptation to the natural environment of the steppe. Although Lattimore's displacement theory is not supported by archaeological evidence, archaeologists have emphasized the importance of agricultural production in the oases, which could also spark revolutionary changes in economic patterns, social organization, and cultural development (Di Cosmo 2004, 22). Dawson was an independent scholar with degrees in economics, history and sociology from England who wrote o n history and Christianity his book The Mongol Mission (1995) provides description and analysis of the religious and spiritual beliefs of Mongolian pastoralists in 1955. The basic organization of pastoralism in Mongolia under Soviet rule is known, but th e details and numbers are vague and/or unreliable due to falsification by Soviet politicians and a lack of outside scholarship on the subject during the Soviet era. Academics such as Sneath and Jeffries have reconstructed the practices and policies of the official Soviet system to the best of their ability given the available literature. In the early 1990's, owing no doubt due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the events and access that came with it, a sudden interest in pastoralism and
! $+ land us e in Mongolia developed and scholarship in these areas began. Because of this shift in focus it appears that one of the biggest challenges facing scholars researching Mongolian pastoralism is how the subsistence strategy operated in Soviet and earlier t imes. Scholars such as Maria Fernandez Gimenez, Dornod Sumber, Svat Soucek and Paula Sabloff have made the current conditions of and challenge to nomadic pastoralism themes in their work. Fernandez Gimenez works within the Renewable Natural Resources D epartment at the University of Arizona and her relevant work focuses on property rights and resource management on common property grasslands in Mongolia in the 90's. The principal works of hers that I will be using are "Sustaining the Steppes: A Geograph ical History of Pastoral Land Use in Mongolia" (1999), Spatial and Social Scales and Boundaries: Implications for Managing Pastoral Land use in Mongolia" (n.d.), and Spatial and Social Boundaries and the Paradox of Pastoral Land Tenure: A Case Study from Postsocialist Mongolia" (2002). Sumber is a journalist whose contributions to The Economist have often focused on the economic pitfalls that pastoralists in Mongolia have encountered since their transition into capitalist framework. In his article The
! $, best place las t" (2002) Sumber leans left of the usual discourse in The Economist and concludes: As Mongolia shows, nomadic pastoralism and private land just don't mix." Soucek works in the Oriental division of the New York Public Library and is a pro lific historian of Central Asia. His primary work of interest in regards to this thesis is A History of Inner Asia (2000). Sabloff is a political anthropologist who worked at the University of Pennsylvania her work provides some of the most current dat a on modern day Mongolia and its people. Her most recent and relevant work is Modern Mongolia: Reclaiming Genghis Khan (2001). This thesis hopes to connect the facts and ideas of the work of these scholars, update them, and synthesize the whole into one concise overview and assessment of the status of Mongolian pastoralism. While there is some data on the official mechanics of the system in the Soviet era, the nuts and bolts of pastoralism in earlier times hadn't really been delved into which makes com parison of the current state of affairs with the past difficult. In the chapters that follow I will attempt to piece this together by gleaning through the journals of those searching for
! %! clues of early man or dinosaur fossils, written and oral histories, archaeological information, and works focusing on life in Mongolia during the Soviet era.
! %$ CHAPTER 3 HISTORY OF MONGOLIA This chapter will situate this thesis and the arguments within it temporally. It will focus on the history of Mong olia from prehistory to December 1, 1911 -when Outer Mongolia proclaim ed independence from China -to the present. While a general sense of Mongolian history should be communicated through the chapter it will focus on events that directly affected past oral nomadism. In order to have a horse people you first need the horse. We do not know when domestication of horses began in Mongolia, but considering how deeply horses are woven into Mongolian culture, I think it is safe to assume it was quite early. T he earliest confirmed date we have for horse domestication is 4000 BC in Dereivka, Ukraine. However; "it is nearly impossible to distinguish between the bones of wild and domesticated horses" (Bunzel Drke 2001: 4). It was once assumed that horses were p robably domesticated in one location and then spread to the rest of Eurasia. Genetic evidence suggests that it is far more likely that horses were independently domesticated in various locales.
! %% "We analyzed mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region seque nces of 191 domestic horses and found a high diversity of matrilines. Sequence analysis of equids from archaeological sites and late Pleistocene deposits showed that this diversity was not due to an accelerated mutation rate or to an ancient domestication event. Consequently, high mtDNA sequence diversity of horses implies an unprecedented and widespread integration of matrilines and an extensive utilization and taming of wild horses" (Vil, et al. 2001: 474). Przewalski's horse is the wild species most l ikely to have been captured, tamed, and eventually domesticated by the peoples of the Steppes. The horses used by the Mongols are often referred to as ponies, due to their short stature and stockiness. They are noted for their speed, vitality, agility, a nd versatility. "It could dig out grass from under a blanket of snow, run across the rocks like a goat, and race up to 60 miles (100 kilometers) a day when it was well fed and well rested" (Roux 2003: 62). It wasn't uncommon for a horse to be put down w hen its master died, to be interred
! %& with him. The connection a Mongol felt to his horse was immense, and theft of someone else's was one of the highest crimes. In Mongolia, even today most children learn to ride a horse by 10 years of age. Without the h orse the empire of Genghis Khan could have never come about, as the horse was vital to their military campaigns. Humans inhabited the southern Gobi by between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago, during the Late Lower and Middle Paleolithic period of the Middl e Pleistocene epoch. They left behind typical chopper stone and pebble tool technologies. Delicately worked blades and arrowheads have been found from the post glacial era, and cave paintings have been discovered in the Kentei Mountains that also belong to this period (Christian 1998: 48). Delicately worked blades and arrowheads have been found from the post glacial Holocene era, and cave paintings in the Kentei Mountains also belong to this period (Christian 1998: 48). Bronze working people lived in Mon golia by the mid fourth millennium BC and iron weapons appear by the third century BC. By the eighth century BC Mongolia was peopled by Indo European speakers, most likely Scythians (another noted "horse people") or their kin. Tribes that were primarily Mongol in their ethnologic characteristics
! %' were scattered throughout the area as well (Worden and Savada eds. 1991: 5 6). The cultural and biological links between the Mongols and Scythians are murky and no concrete link has been found. There are no dire ct archaeological links between them and the association of the two is founded primarily is historical assumption. Graves in Mongolia dating to 1000 BC contain bronze pots, axes, daggers, arrowheads, and horse bits that appear to have a Scythian aesthetic to them. These graves also had goods from China, India and the Mediterranean reflecting the extent of cultural and material exchange in the steppes by this time (Christian 1998: 129). Pastoral cultures appeared rst in the western Eurasian steppes, we st of the Urals, in the mid third millennium b.c. These pastoral communities are identied by their distinctive mound burials (kurgan). From the mid third millennium b.c., the northern regions of Central Eurasia, east of the Urals, were transformed by the shift from an economy of predation to an economy of production. The steppe regions became populated with diversied communities of Neolithic hunters and shermen as well as Bronze Age pastoralists and agriculturalists. Possibly because of a climatic desicc ation that affected soil productivity, a
! %( general transition to more pronounced forms of pastoralism occurred in the steppe and semidesert areas of Eurasia (Di Cosmo 2004, 23). One of the first groups in the Mongolia area that have been linked to pastoral ism is the Afanasevo (or Afanasievo). Most archaeologists date the Afanasevo culture to the mid third millennium, but some radiocarbon dating evidence suggests it may have appeared around 3500 BCE and survived until approximately 2500 BCE. Most of the si tes are burials, and the shortage of settlement sites suggests that they practiced nomadic pastoralism, the traditional Mongolian subsistence strategy in use to this day. Artifacts from this culture include copper tools and hunting implements. The Afanase vo people were almost certainly of European origin as their cultural remains show close resemblance to the pit grave' cultures of the western steppes. This hints at pastoralism spreading into the steppes from the west and moving into the eastern steppes by the second millennium BCE (Christian 1998: 101). This sort of inference is partially made due to a lack of remains we know people were living in this area at this time, but the small amount of settlements and remains
! %) corresponds with the nomadism and low population density associated with traditional nomadic pastoralism. The centuries that followed saw the emergence of numerous historic tribal groups that settled in the region around what is today Mongolia; these include the Hsiung nu 1 Xianbei, Don ghu, Toba, Ruruan, Uighur, Kitan, Jurchen, and Turk (Worden and Savada 1991: 7 12). These groups remained more or less distinct, but shared a sort of Pan Central Asian Regional Culture a sort of Pan Central Asian Regional Culture Nomadic pastoralism spre ad across the land. In analyzing the cultural evolution of the early nomads, we should keep in mind that the development was not linear and that it had a vast range of regional variations based on each people's adaptation to different ecological conditions (Di Cosmo 2004: 36). Metal objects played a critical role in the material culture of the early nomads. By the eighth century BCE. metalwork achieved a high degree of similarity across Central Eurasia. From the eighth seventh century b.c. onward, a large r and more varied inventory of weapons !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! $ Mongol scholars have long maintained that the Hsiung nu were proto Mongolic people and trace the origins of the historical Mongols back to them. The majority opinion is that they were of Mongol stock, but this point remains controversial. (Di Cosmo 2004: 166)
! %* dominated funerary assemblages. Common features signifying the prestige of the deceased were the design of horse harness articles, artifacts in the animal style tradition, weapons, bronze cauldrons, and mirrors. Among the weapons, the most common were the bow and arrow, although few bows have survived. Arrowheads were divided into two main categories, tanged and socketed; other weapons included daggers, swords, and spearheads. At the time, horse gear included bits, che ek pieces, bridle cockades, girt buckles, and strap plates; bits were made of bronze and had joined mouthpieces, and cheek pieces were made of bronze, bone, and horn (Di Cosmo 2004: 41). The material culture and social organization of the early pastoral nomads of Eurasia have impressed researchers for their high degree of similarity across an immense territory. Archaeologists and art historians have stressed in particular the ritual and social signi fi cance of the horse, the abundance of weapons, and the a rtistic vocabulary dominated by the "animal style." T he formation of early nomadic cultures cannot be disassociated from technological advances, especially with respect to the horse and chariot, which increased the nomads' mobility and made nomads militari ly superior to their settled neighbors.
! %+ Their upbringing in a pastoral setting, where they acquired riding and shooting skills, and their social need to organize themselves into military l ike parties for seasonal migrations and hunting, made pastoral noma ds into natural warriors (Di Cosmo 2004: 42). As hit and run mounted archer warfare techniques became the norm of the area, and eventually Genghis Khan succeeded in uniting many of these tribes into the Mongol Empire at the beginning of the thirteenth ce ntury. The cultural similarities of the various tribes aided Genghis' conquest, the peoples he encountered across most of Central Asia understood his people's ways, and were more easily incorporated into the horde. When Genghis Khan created the Mongol emp ire 800 years ago he consolidated the states under one system and opened them up to trade and cultural exchange. He is considered responsible for giving Mongolia a uni fi ed ethnic identity (Jeffries 2007: 14). The pastoral culture of Mongolia has survived with relatively minor changes since the time of Genghis Khan. As early as the 13 th century land, livestock, and people were organized or at least conceived as constituent elements in a socio political domain under the jurisdiction of a "noble" the stere otype of the free ranging, fiercely
! %, independent Mongol nomad is more a creation of Hollywood than a fact, and certainly there were complex political systems in place before the Soviets got involved. The pastoralists were nomads in practice, but this nomad ism did not carry with it the sort of isolation and individualism that is often associated with the word nomad.' Diffuse sanctions and sociotechnical systems kept nomadic pastoralism working without the need of bureaucrats. By the end of the 17 th centu ry Mongolia was divided into districts called banners (khoshuu) led by a hereditary prince or Buddhist monastery (Sneath 1999: 230). The subsequent transition from khoshuu to negdel pastoralist collectives, in the 1930s -was a relatively easy one. T he more recent transition to kompan -company' as in a corporation, in the 1990s -did not go so smoothly. On December 1 st 1911 Outer Mongolia proclaimed independence from China, and by December 28 th of that year they established an autonomous theocr atic government. On November 3 rd 1912 Russia declared support for Mongolia's separation from China, but on November 5 th of the next year a Sino Russian agreement recognized Chinese suzerainty over Mongolia. In 1918 Chinese troops occupied Outer Mongolia In 1920 The Mongolian People's Party was formed and
! &! established links with the Communist International and the Soviets; by November 25 th 1924 with Soviet military aid the Mongolian People's Republic (MPR) was proclaimed (Worden and Savada 1991: xvi xix). The political climate in Mongolia was heavily influenced, if not outright dictated by the USSR and China, and their disputes. With the Cultural Revolution of 1966 relations between the USSR and China became more hospitable, but before that Outer Mo ngolia served as a buffer zone between Russia and China, and, during WWII, between Russia and the forces of Japan. Over the years the Soviet Union enacted inconsistent policies in regard to China and Outer Mongolia that were apparently designed to achieve several different goals, including: 1) using the MPR as a buffer state to demilitarize and protect the USSR's border with China; 2) to link Soviet and Mongolian forces to oppose Japanese expansion in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia; and, 3) to support the Co mintern's policy of supporting East Asian revolutions as that of China that would inevitably' lead to "World Revolution" (Boikova 1999: 107). The Bolsheviks defeat of the White Russians in 1917 allowed communism to spread into Outer Mongolia China was unable or unwilling to control anti Bolshevik activity in
! &$ Outer Mongolia, so the Red Army invaded in 1921, and established a "revolutionary government" that remained in power until 1925 (Rupen 1979: 24 6). Khorloghiyin Choibalsan became the leader of the newly formed Mongolian army, and eventually the head of a communist state, and a "cult of personality" was formed around him, in the style of Stalin. By the 1920s the USSR's principle of building "socialism through non capitalist development" was pro claimed the official state policy of the MPR (Boikova 1999: 107). The constitution of the MPR was ratified in 1940 and was very similar to the USSR constitution of 1936. Mongolia became increasingly dependent on Moscow, but it should be noted that past oral nomads, especially in the West of the country, felt very little pressure and didn't have much supervision. Collectivization of livestock was a major part of policy in the USSR and MPR. The Russians imposed rapid collectivization on the Mongols agai nst their will pushing for collectivization despite sometimes violent Mongolian opposition and tremendous loss of livestock. This rapid collectivization ravaged the livestock of the pastoralists, the livestock total fell from 23 million in 1930 to 16 mi llion in 1932 (Rupen 1979: 56). The
! &% abandonment of the rapid collectivization policy in late 1932 dramatically reversed the decline half the losses were made up by 1933 and all of them by 1936. This change in policy did not reflect a change in ideology the Soviet officials simply believed that they had implemented the policy too soon, it was the timing, not the policy, that was at fault in their eyes. There was heavy political pressure to increase livestock totals; Stalin remarked that there should b e 200 million head of cattle in Mongolia by 1951 (a realistically unattainable goal). During the Soviet exploitation of Mongolia during World War Two the population significantly decreased due to violence and oppressive conditions and the Buddhist Church was crushed; there is little data, but it is assumed that livestock numbers decreased during this time. Despite the propaganda proliferated by the Soviets concerning the importance of forming a proletariat and industrialization, the Russians did not aid t he Mongols in any significant way in order to bring about this progress.' The traditional Mongolian economy was basically left unchanged despite Soviet propaganda on the importance of a proletariat no significant industrialization took place under Sovi et rule this left traditional pastoralist strategies in place. Mongolia provided many of the raw materials and resources
! && that fueled industrial buildup in the USSR, but reaped little of the benefits. To the USSR, Mongolia was a strategic military buffe r zone and provided for the arms and stomachs of their armies; the Marxist ideological precepts did not apply in policy to Mongolia it was simply a land to milk (Rupen 1979: 56 7). In the era of state socialism the pastoralists of Mongolia were divided i nto approximately 310 collectives (negdel) or state farms ( sangiin ajakhui ), each located in a district only about 50 of these were large scale agricultural centers, almost all of the others were nomadic pastoral in nature, their seasonal movements and r aising of livestock supervised by state planning (Sneath 1999: 223). A couple hundred households lived on and practiced intensive crop based agriculture in the State Farms but several hundred to a thousand households remained nomadic and pastoralist in nature. This collective method was in some ways more confining (due to regulation) than the traditional' pastoralists system, but it brought many advantages as well: mechanical vehicles, hay provisions, veterinary support, and the like these support sy stems ended with the transition to capitalism and the decollectivization of the system with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. On
! &' the 28 th of November 1991 parliament decided to change the name of the country from the People's Republic to simply the Rep ublic of Mongolia, this becoming law when the new constitution was introduced on February 12, 1992. The constitution stressed political democracy and the market economy (Jeffries 2007: 14). The decollectivization of the Soviet era system began in 1991 whe n the assets of the collective farms were privatized the livestock and equipment became the private property of the members of the collectives through share coupons (tasalbar) with which the members could "buy" their share by 1993 this process was comp lete and negdels became kompan (companies) (Sneath 1999: 226). Currently in Mongolia 60% of the population lives in urban areas and 25% of the total population live in the capital. Almost half the people live in rural areas and some 40% of the entire popu lation relies on tens of millions of livestock raised through pastoralist methods for their livelihood One third of Mongolia's population live below the poverty line on less than $10 a month and a United Nations study conducted in 1999 found that more tha n half of the population had too little to eat (Jeffries 2007: 96). The GDP is rising but the standards of living are going down
! &( what accounts for this discrepancy? With the collapse of the USSR and thus the end of Soviet Aid, Mongolia needed a new s ource of aid to keep its economy afloat. Reluctant to become reliant on China, the newly formed parliamentary republic turned to the West. Much of the country wanted erase all the traces of the previous planned economy and move to a free market capitalis t system. In 1991, the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and Asian Development Bank all admitted Mongolia as a member, viable for loans and grants. The aid of these organizations came with a requisite number of reforms aimed at dismantling the commu nist economy and replacing with a liberal capitalist system. The reforms included: liberalization of prices, elimination of government subsidies, a balanced government budget, privatization of state assets and of banking, local money linked to a convertib le currency, tight credit policies to preclude what these agencies considered to be the great evil of ination, and elimination or reduction of restrictions on foreign trade. Private entrepreneurs would replace government managed industries, and thus the f ormer communist system would be abolished (Rossabi 2005: 37). The transition to a free market system began in the 90's
! &) and is still in process today. There are political organizations in Mongolia opposed to the reforms, but the terms of the financial as sistance provided by the IMF, World Bank, and others are still under effect in the country. In the chapters that follow I will argue that this process and the subsequent impact of the dawn of the "Age of the Market" has caused and is still causing econo mic crises and lower standards of living.
! &* CHAPTER 4 The Economic Context of Modern Mongolian Pastoralism Mongolia covers a territory of 1,564,116 km 2 and its climate is mostly desert like with large daily and seasonal temperature ranges. It i s comprised of mostly arid plains and grassy steppe with mountains in the west and southwest and the Gobi Desert in the south central of the country. In 2003 less than 1% of the total land was arable, of which 840 km 2 was under irrigation (CIA World Factb ook 2005). Mongolia is divided into four vegetation zones, which run almost parallel to each other from east to west t he southernmost part is a desert zone, which is succeeded, going north, by a desert steppe belt. North of this is a dry steppe zone to t he east and, to the west, a continuation of the desert steppe belt in the lower elevations and, in the higher elevations, a mountain steppe and forest steppe zone alternating with patches of dry steppe. The northernmost zone is heavily forested, with alp ine meadows that provide excellent pastures, interspersed with areas of Siberian taiga. The southern Gobi extends from western Inner Mongolia to eastern Sinkiang; to the north the Gobi
! &+ occupies Mongolia's southern half (Di Cosmo 2004: 17). The estimated p opulation of Mongolia is 2,996,081 as of June 2008. Life expectancy for men is sixty two years and for women sixty seven years. It has a labor force of 1.052 million (2007) with 37.7% in agriculture, 12.9% in industry, and 49.4% in services (2007). Ulaanb aatar is home to 750,000, which is almost a third of the total population. Most suburban residents raise domestic animals; in 1990, Ulaanbaatar livestock census counted 76 thousand head of private livestock, in 1998 this number increased up to 301 thousan d head (Jeffries 2007: 12). The GDP is $9.792 billion with $3,300 per capita (2008 est.). 20.6% of the GDP comes from agricultural products, mainly wheat, barley, vegetables, forage crops; sheep, goats, cattle, camels, and horses. Approximately 60 per cent of the country has never been subject to a proper geological survey. The nation also has substantial proven coal reserves, most often used for steam and electricity generation. Further potential exists in oil exportation, as the oil eld in the Gobi r egion has allowed for crude oil exportation to China. Mining, the most important industry in Mongolia, represented 18 per cent of the economy and 76 per cent of exports in 2005 (Jeffries 2007: 9 10).
! &, The new Constitution of Mongolia enacted on January 2 3, 1992, created many new social features including the right to own private land for the first time in Mongolian history (Tumenbayar 2000: 1). The Mongolian legal concept of property ownership operates with Roman law categories of property rights and spec ifies 1) a right to own ( umchleh erh ) a right to use one's property within the limits of law; 2) a right to dispose ( zahiran zarzuulah erh ) a right to change a form and substance of the property ( abusus ), eliminate it, or transfer to others all or some of the property rights; 3) usus fructus ( ezemshih erh ) a right to possess and use a property belonging to someone else or to rent it to others and capture benefits from it, but not to sell or change its quality; 4) usus ( ashiglah erh ) a right to actua lly possess and use a property belonging to someone else. The land related provisions of the Constitution, Civil Code, and Land Law are based on these concepts. Exactly corresponding with the Roman concepts of usus fructus and usus the Land Law specifies only 2 types of land contracts "land possession contract" (contractor may sub lease his land to others) and "land use contract" (Tumenbayar 2000: 2 ).
! '! The Constitution further states that the land and subsoil and other natural resources shall be the pro perty of the State, except the land given to the citizens of Mongolia for private ownership. The State may grant private ownership of land -with the except io n of pastures and areas under public common utilization and special state needs, only to the citi zens of Mongolia. Citizens are banned from transferring their private lands to foreign citizens by way of selling, bartering, donating, or pledging, or by way of transfer to others for use, without permission from competent state authorities. The State re tains the right to hold landowners responsible in connection with the manner the land is used, to exchange or take it over with compensation for the special state needs, or confiscate the land if it is used in a manner adverse to the health of the populati on, the interests of environmental protection, or national security. Article 16 of the Constitution declares the right of citizens to fair acquisition, possession, and inheritance of movable and immovable property and prohibits illegal confiscation and req uisitioning. If the State and its bodies expropriate private property on a basis of special state needs, they shall do so with due compensation and payment (Tumenbayar 2000: 6).
! '$ Under the Land Law effective since 1994, Mongolian citizens, businesses, and organizations may be granted the right to lease state owned land for up to 60 years with the possibility of extensions for 40 years each. Not all types of land are covered forestlands or some of the State special needs lands may not be individually posse ssed. Also, it is provided that the initial term for a lease of farming land (i.e. arable as opposed to pastoral land) may not exceed 25 years. The law considers inheritance, but does not permit either the transfer of landhold rights to others without perm ission of relevant state authorities for the sale and pledge. The Law allows lease of land by foreign citizens (up to 5 years with possible extensions), and by legal entities (up to 60 years). Fees for the lease of land are established according the La w on Land Fees first enacted in 1997, and estimated from a value of land determined by the Cabinet based on the land's utilization purpose. The law does not provide exact figures of land fees, but formulas and ratios to fix them. The Land Law regulates Land management and contracting issues, property rights are stated in 18 detailed articles of Chapter 7 of the Civil Code The Code recognizes such rights as common use, which needs no authorization, possession ( usus fructus ) tenured, life
! '% time, inherita ble, divided and undivided group, use ( usus ) contracted, servitude, tenured and for indefinite term, etc. Though the property rights of owner, possessor, and user are detailed and well defined, the government still reserves a strong proposition to protec t its absolute ownership rights by excluding citizens from the existing legal concept of "land owner": "Until regulations on ownership of land by citizens of Mongolia are enacted by law, the "land owner" named in this chapter shall be understood as the "S tate" (Article 100 4 of the Civil Code) In rural areas, where grazing is extensively practiced, authorization by the Land Law grants temporary decisions of local Governor to play certain role in release of grazing pressure or allotment of pastures and wi nter quarters. The land laws pose various restrictions on the land rights that are understandable in Mongolian historical and cultural context, but obviously inconsistent with the new market oriented economy. For example, limits of the Land Law on maximum size of leaseholds per family and businesses vary according to each type of land; layered administrative permits, or shorter term s of lease of farmland, challenge the objective to promote investment and create an efficient economic structure. Another exa mple is a bundle of
! '& provisions of the Land Law that make restrictions on changing the utilization/purpose of a particular land type. Clearly, by this limitation the law attempts to achieve the most efficient use of each type of land and prevent land degrad ation. In addressing such economic and environmental concerns the differential taxation, land market prices, and other market mechanisms would serve better than administrative permits, sanctions and penalties, or threat of expropriation. These limitations of land rights will be subject to reevaluation against their appropriateness to the principles of market and objectives of land reforms. (Tumenbayar 2000: 7) None of provisions of the land laws and regulations recognizes the traditional land rights of her ders the most common and continuous users of land in Mongolia. Though the Government supports herders by exempting grazing fees and aid in health insurance, the lack of formalization of property rights or recognition by the Government makes this social group most vulnerable during land reforms, as they may loose their lands to non herding practices. Any question of compensation or further development of the land is contingent on having a legal document, which would show their land rights. "Such recogniti on is rare" in domestic laws of other countries, but "effective resource management
! '' at the local level is impossible without it. Until nation states grant legitimacy and protection of [traditional] regimes, they will not advance" (Lynch 1995). In July of 1991, it was announced that Mongolia was going to allot its assets on an equal opportunity basis. Vouchers were distributed to every citizen; these vouchers were used to bid in auctions for ownership of both small and large state owned enterprises (Simps on 2001: 3). Privatization was made legal in 1990, however, 95% of the country's assets remained under State and/or cooperative control. Under the new program it was proposed that the State give up 100% of its equity in small enterprises and 80% of all S tate assets by September of 1993. The total number of small businesses to be privatized was 3,750 which accounted for 25 million head of livestock (Simpson 2001: 3). In October of 1991, Mongolia announced it would open Central Asia's first stock exchan ge, despite having few non state companies, limited telecommunications with the rest of the world, and no stockbrokers. In April of 1993 Mongolia's first independent newspaper was launched. By May of 1993 the government recognized the severe food shortag es caused by the privatization process and declared 1993 the year of food town dwellers were encouraged to grow vegetables on small plots of land (no doubt to counter
! '( the loss of foodstuffs provided through traditional pastoralist economy) (Simpson 2001: 3 5). Towards the end of 1994, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, said that Mongolia needed exceptional food assistance. The World Food Program commenced an emergency operation (Simpson 2001: 7) The number of animals increased f rom 25.9 million in 1990 to 31.3 million in 1997. This followed the privatization of livestock production in 1991 9 2, the traditional lifestyle was seen to provide a reliable subsistence consumption level and some insulation from the collapse of the econom y. Urban to rural migration was reected in the decline of the urban share of Mongolia's population from 57 per cent to 52 percent. Even within the cities there was a reversion to traditional lifestyles as families vacated their poorly maintained and erra tically heated ats to live in gers with private stoves (Jeffries 2007: 47). In July 1992 the prime minister said that 60 percent of total livestock, 40 percent of state enterprises and almost 100 per cent of retail trade and services had been privatized. The centralized distribution and state procurement systems for agricultural products had been dismantled (Jeffries 2007: 52) By 2007 over 90% of livestock had been privatized. Livestock privatization
! ') sparked an explosion of economic activity in Mongolia 's pastures. That and the near collapse of the economy in many of the country's counties prompted tens of thousands of Mongolians to "return to the land". According to government statistics, there were 147,508 herdsmen in Mongolia in 1990, compared with t hree times as many in 1999. In 1990 Mongolia supported more than 33 million live stock a number that had jumped more than 30 per cent. The ood of new herdsmen into the market, along with the collapse of government services, created enormous stresses on the environment. Many of the herdsmen had no experience of raising livestock or understanding of nomadic life (Jeffries 2007: 82). Mongolia joined the World Trade Organization in 1997, and sought to expand its participation and integration into Asian regi onal economic and trade regimes. Mongolia's entry into international trade has been a mixed success. Tourism has certainly had a positive impact on the economy, but exports of the products of pastoralism have diminished, which I examine in greater detail later on in this document. Mongolia itself does not seem destined too sink too far into poverty ; however the future of nomadic pastoralism is certainly in peril.
! '* CHAPTER 5 Modern Pastoralism, the Commons, and Private Property The 1990's brought reforms that sought to create a competitive market economy based on private property to Mongolia. These reforms included the wholesale privatization of the pastoral economy and the dissolution of collective and state farms (Sneath 2 000). The IMF and World Bank suggested these policies based on the notion that the economy had to be emancipated from the state and be allowed to assume its natural form, i.e. a private property based market. However, the private ownership of land doesn' t mesh well with the mobile systems of pastoral land use employed on the steppes; these policy recommendations ignored the fact that the Soviet system did not drastically differ from the historical land use practices of nomadic pastoralists, which was base d on centuries of indigenous technical knowledge and practice. Historically, extensive pastoralism in Inner Asia has entailed flexible access and use of large areas of pasture absolute individual ownership was unheard of. The idea that land could be bo ught and owned outright by individuals (particularly outsiders or foreigners) is a deeply emotive issue to the nomadic pastoralists (Sneath 2000). In the
! '+ traditional Mongolian worldview the economic and political spheres are inherently linked. The term f or government' is zasagiin gazar zasag is the same term that was used for the lord of the banner, this is the socioeconomic level in which the notion of governance was located the unit of pastoral land management. The Mongolian term for economy' is ediin zasag zasag (lord, prince, ruler, government) and ed (possessions, thing, article, item) thus economy' in Mongolian can be literally translated as governance of property.' Hence the very definition of the economic depends on the notion of poli tical control this was not an exogenous Soviet concept, rather it is the traditional worldview of Mongolian pastoralists (Sneath 2000). Conflict with traditional work organization and worldview are not the only problems encountered in the privatizatio n of land in Mongolia. Environmental concerns are also on the table. The geography of Mongolia makes it susceptible to ecological collapse it has a high elevation, sparse vegetation, severe climate, and thin/light cover soil. When you combine these na tural factors with overgrazing, chaotic roads, and poor land cultivation you get land degradation as much as 95% of the country's total area is considered to be highly vulnerable to desertification (Tumenbayarn 2000: 7). The
! ', primary anthropogenic causes of land degradation in Mongolia are the changes in the traditional land use practices effected over the last half century. These began with the slight changes made in the collectivization period of the 1960's 19 80's which caused moderate degradation. However, the damage caused by the reforms of the last 20 years, in the "Age of the Market," has been far more drastic. The traditional Mongolian pastoral operation was not aimed at producing a marketable surplus. Instead it focused on subsistence, b y creating herds of livestock that supplied a regular amount of food to a family while at the same time maintaining a reserve that could sustain the family in times of unusually high predation and natural disasters (like droughts and the harsh winters in t he early 2000's).
! (! With modernization, the economic priorities have changed. The current regulations and reforms have created a situation in which mere subsistence is no longer the only goal pastoralists in Mongolia are now producing animals in orde r to have a surplus of goods that they can make a profit on this sharp increase in the number of livestock is destroying the relative ecological balance that the traditional practices created. The resulting land degradation problem is not limited to the remote rural Mongolian plains. The suburban residents of Ulaanbaatar have also traditionally raise domestic animals for subsistence, and it is in this area that the ecological damage is most pronounced. In 1990 the Ulaanbaatar livestock census counted 76,000 head of private livestock; in 1998 this number increased to 301,000. The population of Ulaanbaatar has not increased significantly enough to account for the jump in numbers it is the creation of a capitalist market situation that has caused the i ncrease in the numbers of animals. The lands surrounding the urban area of the city are being heavily overgrazed and eroded, and this is creating a very serious air dust pollution problem in the city. In fact, the land problems around Ulaanbaatar have d eteriorated to such a degree that in February of 1998 the Mongolian Parliament created an ad hoc
! ($ committee to examine the possibility of moving the current capital city to the ancient one (Hara Horin), nearly 200 km to the southwest (Tumenbayarn 2000: 10 ) Additionally, the creation the new market economy has increased exports in other industries. Most notably among these are a sharp increases in mining and logging, which have destroyed pastures and changed the flow of river streams. The new mining and logging properties are also infringing on traditional pasturelands, creating more boundaries for the pastoralists and forcing them to become more sedentary. The traditional nomadic pastoralism of Mongolia is a method of production that developed in adapt ation to the social, climatic, and geographic conditions of Mongolia. The land use policies of capitalism and privatization are not compatible with the practices of traditional nomadic pastoralism they destroy the pasture and the social fabric a socia l fabric that has been woven for thousands of years and is dependant on the mobility and economic relations of traditional pastoralism. The climate has also taken its toll on Mongolia's herds. Due to droughts and extreme winters between 1999 and 2001 a n estimated 9 million animals were killed due to starvation, exposure, and other weather related ailments (Jeffries 2007: 88). The Mongolian term for this sort of
! (% weather phenomenon is dzud which means drought followed by severe cold and deep snow.' The dzud in 2001 killed about 3.3 million livestock which left over 7,360 families without livestock the weather itself also killed 33 families outright (Jeffries 2007: 89). The direct links between this sort of extreme weather (the 1999 2001 winters were the worst in 25 years) and global climate change are not concretely established. Air pollution is an increasingly serious problem in Mongolian cities. Since 1994 the concentration of noxious pollutants has exceeded safety standards, its main causes bein g the ger communities which have no direct heating systems. Due to the extreme cold and the need to provide adequate heating they burn wood and coal. Another cause of air pollution is the rapid growth in the use of vehicles that do not burn fuel ef fi cientl y (Jeffries 2007: 89). About 1/3 of the total population (roughly 1 million people) is considered the labor force. Of this demographic 34% are employed via agriculture and only 5% are empl o yed by industry. The other 61% are employed in services (CIA Wor ld Factbook 2008). The mining sector is Mongolia's single largest industry, accounting for 55% of the nation's industrial output and 46% of its total foreign direct investment (Jeffries 2007: 10).
! ( & CHAPTER 6 Conclusions During the 20 th century Mongolia shifted from the Buddhist monastic paternalism of pre revolutionary Mongolia to the modernist Soviet system to capitalist market liberalism. In the first two systems property was still held in common or publically and though there was some conflict, th ese systems adapted and adjusted to the needs of the traditional nomadic pastoralist system. However, the postsocialist market oriented reforms are markedly different. The complex integrated pastoral system that had had evolved over millennia has been at omized into different groups pastoral producers, consumers and subsistence oriented groups. This disintegration has been primarily caused by the conversion of publicly held communal holdings to private property. Tools like trucks and hay cutting machin ery that were once shared were atomized and unable to fulfill the functions they once served. Moreover, large scale systems of nuanced, shared extensive land use decayed, and left pastoral populations ill suited to the extremes of the Mongolian environmen t (Sneath 2004: 179). Privatization has had a substantial impact on pastoralists. Within two years, in 1991 and 1992, the
! (' pastoral collectives had been abolished, and 224 joint stock companies emerged from the 255 negdels. Animals, not land, were privati zed, but no individual or agency regulated rights to grazing land. Without institutions to regulate land usage and rights to water in wells, lakes, and rivers, disagreements have occurred, because some households have trespassed on the customary pasturelan ds of other herders (Rossabi 2005: 120). Livestock numbers have risen but the efficiency of the pastoralism itself has declined dramatically. By 1998 survival rates of livestock offspring fell 10% and livestock totals only increased because the consumpti on and marketing of the livestock decreased by 20%. The exports of livestock and their products collapsed and incomes, public services, and living standards plummeted. A young herder feared the growing disparity in wealth if privatization proceeded too r apidly and without some controls: "In the market system the more capable will do well and take advantage of it and become rich, and those who are less capable will become poor. We have to watch out that we don't return to the past feudal system." The overl y rapid privatization left most herders with barely sufficient animals for their needs. Various authorities estimate that a household requires from 100 to 125 animals (and some offer a fi gure as high as 200) to
! (( survive and to market their products (Rossabi 2005: 121). Families with fewer than 75 head have had to slaughter animals for food, and found it increasingly difficult to replenish their herds. By the mid 1990s, about one third of herding families, hardly any of whom owned the requisite number of anim als, lived below the poverty line (Rossabi 2005: 121). The number of people living below the poverty line increased from almost 0 in 1989 to over 33 percent in 1998 (Sneath 2004: 162). There have been some pastoralists who have made out very well with th e reforms, but the majority recall the relative wealth, security, and convenience the collective period offered and contrast it with the low buying power and precarity of the "age of the market" (Sneath 2004: 162). As of 2002, 601 herding households, a tin y percentage of the population, owned more than 1,000 head a piece. Out of the total number of 243,000 households in Mongolia, 166,000 had fewer than 100 head, which is not a commercially viable number; many are limited to a barely self sufficient herding style and do not produce for the market. The wealthy not only had more animals and a higher per capita number of animals but also had more vehicles and camels to facilitate mobility, access to better seasonal pastures, and transport to markets. In additio n, they had more laborers in their households and
! () greater access to shelters for the animals (Rossabi 205: 121). As mentioned in the previous chapter, privatization also brought about an increase in the number of people who relied on herding to survive. The primary catalyst for this urban to rural migration was an increase in unemployment with the collapse of factories and industries under the Soviet system. The herder population in 1990 amounted to about 147,000, but, because of the stresses in the Mon golian economy (the aforementioned unemployment due to the Communist collapse), it had more than doubled by 1993 and had tripled by 1998. Many of the traditional herders resented the newcomers, fearing the additional burden on the pasture lands and they cl ashed over land use rights and other resources with the newcomers (Rossabi 2005: 121). The dissolution and weakening of the pastoral system under privatization can be clearly seen with the harsh winters of 1999 2001. Without the support systems in plac e under collective ownership livestock was devastated. Over these few years, 6 million livestock were lost, an estimated 20% of the national herd more than 2000 households saw their entire herds wiped out. Losses like this could have been greatly softe ned by the social and
! (* technical networks that operated under the collectivist systems, but they didn't exist in the new "age of the market." These harsh winters caused the newcomer herders' to fall even further under the poverty line and ultimately many abandoned the pastoralist lifestyle and fled en masse to the capital. The mass exodus into the capital caused a tremendous burden on the economic and social fabric of the city. Figures indicate a 25% increase in Ulaanbaatar's population from 1997 to 2002 (Rossabi 205: 122). Before the "age of the market," the state paid pastoralists for animals and brought them to market. With privatization, they were on their own the state no longer guaranteed purchases or provided transportation of the animals and animal products to market. Pastoralists who herded in pasturelands far from towns were forced to sell to middlemen because they had no way to get their goods to market. The middlemen often took advantage of this and paid the pastoralists in sums exploit atively under the fair market value.' The state does not provide information through the media about market prices, so a basis for bargaining did not really even exist (Rossabi 2005: 122). To get around the middlemen many pastoralists moved their herds to areas closer to urban centers this caused the land surrounding these areas to be overgrazed
! (+ and led to the erosion that is causing the dust problems in the capital as discussed earlier. Because of the need to be so close to market brought about with privatization, land that used to be used seasonally has begun to be used year round. The new market economy also made single species herding too risky and the advantages of expertise that many pastoralists once had were lost. The new banking system did not favor pastoralists for loans or credit as their income tended to be seasonal and their collateral (livestock) were not seen as reliable, as they were vulnerable to weather and disease (Rossabi 2005: 123). The lack of access to currency has led to her ders bartering their animals directly for goods and this sort of exchange precludes taxation and thus reduces government revenues. Plummeting market demands for many of the products pastoralists produce has also taken a heavy toll. In 1980 (before the collapse of the USSR), meat exports amounted to 45,900 tons a year by 2003 that figure had declined to 14,000 tons. Russia and Western Europe also began creating new standards in the quality of the meat that could be imported (due to outbreaks in hoof and mouth disease) this led to a decline in Mongolian meat exports to foreign markets (Rossabi 2005: 123). This decrease in the frequency of slaughter means that the average number of
! (, animals that are alive in herd has increased. There were about 25 mi llion sheep, goats, yaks, camels and horses in Mongolia in 1990; this increased to 33 million by 1999 (Rossabi 2005: 123). The increased animal population has caused even greater ecological pressures on the pasturelands. Dairy and leather products shared similar fates. In 1990 Mongolia's output of butter amounted to 4,400 tons by 2002 the figure was negligible. Before 1990 Mongolia produced 50 million liters of milk by 1999 Mongolia actually had to import about 875 tons of milk products, an absurd si tuation for a country with such a large number of dairy animals 2 (Rossabi 2005: 125). Leatherworking and boot factories simply shut down. The collapse of the negdels also affected the social fabric of women in pastoral households. Without the assistan ce of other women as was traditional in the cooperative system of the negdels, burdens on individual women have increased. They not only cook, sew, wash, produce butter, yogurt, and cheese, and care for children, but also milk animals, cure hides, and mak e boots, among other chores. All of these tasks were once communal !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 During the rapid transition to the market based economy in the 1990s, the dairy industry collapsed and by 2002 most of the processed milk sold in urban areas was imported. The industry is characteri z ed by obsolete infrastructure and technologies, a chronic shortage of trained people a nd consumer concern about the quality and safety of Mongolian milk and milk products." M ongolia M ilk P roduction P rocessing C onsumption And O utlook T o 2010 Bill Dugdill and Tsetsgee Ser Od ??
! )! (Rossabi 2005: 124). With the collapse of communism also came the collapse of state funded veterinary care, health insurance, well digging, and fodder provisions. Nomadic pastoralism in Mongolia cannot survive as a viable lifestyle under the onus of privatization and capitalism. While it may continue to exist in Mongolia for years to come it will be further pushed to the margins and the majority of the pastoralists will sink further int o poverty Unless major reforms are made to the current policies regarding property and land use, traditional Mongolian nomadic pastoralism will wither away to a skeleton of its former self.
! )$ Bibliography Abu Rabia, Aref 1994 The Negev Bedouin and Livestock Rearing Berg, Oxford. Andrews, Roy C. 1921 Across Mongolian Plains : A Naturalist's Account of China's "Great Northwest." D. Appleton and Co., New York. 1926 On The Trail of Ancient Man Garden City Publishing Co mpany, New York. 1932 The New Conquest of Central Asia : A Narrative of the Explorations of the Central Asiatic Expeditions in Mongolia and China, 1921 1930 The American Museum of Natural History, New York. Angioni, Giulio 1989 I pascoli erranti: Antro pologia del pastore in Sardegna (Wandering pastures: The anthropology of shepherds in Sardinia). Liguori, Naples. Asad, Talal 1978 Equality in Nomadic Social Systems? Critique of Anthropology, 11:57 65. Barfield, Thomas J. 1993 The Nomadic Alte rnative. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
! )% Barth, Fredrik 1961 Nomads of South Persia Oslo University Press, Oslo. Bates, Daniel G. 1971 The Role of the State in Peasant Nomad Mutualism. Anthropological Quarterly, 44: 109 31 (special issue on "Comparative Studies of Nomadism and Pastoralism.") Beach, Hugh 1990 Comparative Systems of Reindeer Herding. In The World of Pastoralism (J. G. Galaty and D. J. Johnson, eds.): 255 98 Guilford Press, New York. Beck, Lois 1986 The Qashqa'i of Iran Yale University Press, New Haven. 1991 Nomad: A Year in the Life of a Qashqa'i Tribesman in Iran. University of California Press, Berkeley. Bernus, Edmond. 1981 Touregs Nigeriens (The Tuareg of Niger). Editions de l'Office del la Recherche Scientifiq ue et Technique Outre Mer, Paris. 1990 Dates, Dromedaries, and Drought: Diversification in Tuareg Pastoral Systems. In The World of Pastoralism (J. G. Galaty and D. L. Johnson eds.): 149 76. Guilford Press, New York.
! )& Boikova, Elena 1999 Aspects of So viet Mongolian Relations, 1929 1939. In In Mongolia in the Twentieth Century: Landlocked Cosmopolitan (S. Kotkin and B. Elleman, eds.): 107 21. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York. Browman, David L. 1990 High Altitude Camelid Pastoralism of the Andes. In Th e World of Pastoralism (J. G. Galaty and D. L. Johnson, eds.): 323 52. Guilford Press, New York. Bunzel Drke, M. 2001 Ecological substitutes for Wild horse ( Equus ferus Boddaert, 1785 = E. przewalskii Poljakov, 1881) and Aurochs ( Bos primigenius Bojanus 1827). In Natur und Kulturlandschaft Hxter/Jena 2001, Band 4: WWF Large Herbivore Initiative, Jena. www.wisente rothaargebirge.de/pdf/substitu.pdf Central Intelligence Agency 2006 World Factbook 2006. Mongolia. [https://www.cia.gov/cia/publicati ons/factbook/geos/mg .html] Chang, Claudia, and Harold A. Koster 1994 Pastoralists at the Periphery: Herders in a Capitalist World. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Chatty, Dawn. 1996 Mobile Pastoralists. Columbia University Press, New York. Christ ian, David 1998 A History of Russia, Central Asia, and Mongolia Blackwell Publishers, Malden, Maine.
! )' Dawson, Christopher 1955 The Mongol Mission Sheed and Ward, New York. Di Cosmo, Nicola 2004 Ancient China and Its Enemies : The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Dupire, Marguerite 1970 Organisation sociale des Peul (Fulani social organization). Plon, Paris. Ekvall, Robert B. 1968 Fields on the Hoof: Nexus of Tibetan Nomadic Pastoralism Holt, Rine hart and Winston, New York. Fernandez Gimenez, Maria E. 2002 Spatial and social boundaries and the paradox of pastoral land tenure : a case study from postsocialist Mongolia. Human Ecology 30 (1; March): 49 78. 1999 Sustaining th e Steppes: A Geographical History of Pastoral Land Use in Mongolia. The Geographical Review 89 (3): 315 42. n.d. Spatial and Social Scales and Boundaries: Implications for Managing Pastoral Land use in Mongolia. www.indiana.edu/~iascp/Drafts/gimenez. pdf
! )( Galaty John G., Dan Aronson, and Philip Carl Salzman 1981 The Future of Pastoral Peoples International Development Research Centre, Ottawa. Garthwaite, Gene 1983 Khans and Shahs: A Documentary Analysis of Bakhtiyari in Iran Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hart, Keith, and Louise Sperling 1988 Cattle as Capital. Ethnos, 3 4: 324 38. Hutchinson, Sharon E. 1996 Nuer Dilemmas: Coping with Money, War, and the State. University of California Press, Berkeley. Ingold, Tim 1980 Hunters, Past oralists, and Ranchers Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Jansen, Jorg 1998 Nomadism in Post Communist Mongolia. Paper presented at the International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Williamsburg, VA. Jeffries, Ian 2007 Mon golia : A Guide to Economic and Political Developments Routledge, New York.
! )) Kavanagh, William 1994 Villagers of the Sierra de Gredos: Transhumant Cattle Raisers in Central Spain. Berg, Oxford. Khazanov, Anatoly M. 1994 Nomads and the Outside World 2nd ed. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Lancaster, William 1997 The Rwala Bedouin Today 2nd ed. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights. Lancaster, William, and Fidelity Lancaster 1990 Desert Devices: The Pastoral System of the Rwala Bedu. In The World of Pastoralism (J. G. Galaty and D. J. Johnson, eds.): 177 94 Guilford Press, New York. Lattimore, Owen 1940 Inner Asian Frontiers of China American Geographical Society, New York. 1962 Nomads and Commissars : Mongolia Revisited Oxford Univ ersity Press, New York. Lewis, I. M. 1961 A Pastoral Democracy: A Study of Pastoralism and Politics Among the Northern Somali of the Horn of Africa Oxford University Press, London. 1975 The Dynamics of Nomadism: Prospects for Sedentarization and Social Change. In Pastoralism in Tropical Africa (T. Monod, ed.): 426 42. Oxford University Press, London.
! )* Lynch O.J., Talbott K. 1995 Balancing Acts: Community Based Forest Management and National Law i n Asia and the Pacific World Resource Institut e Washington, D.C. Nicolaisen, Johannes 1963 Ecology and Culture of the Tuareg National Museum, Copenhagen. Nomadic Peoples 1993 Special Issue on "Pastoralism in Mongolia." Vol. 33. Orlove, Benjamin S. 1977 Alpacas, Sheep and Men. Academic Press, N ew York. 1981 Native Andean Pastoralists: Traditional Adaptations and Recent Changes. In Contemporary Nomadic and Pastoral Peoples (P. C. Salzman, ed.): 95 136. Studies in Third World Societies, no. 17. Department of Anthropology, William and Mary Col lege, Williamsburg, Virginia. 1989 Room to Maneuver: A Review of the Regions. In State, Capital, and Rural Society: Anthropological Perspectives on Political Economy in Mexico and the Andes (Ben Orlove, Michael Foley, Thomas Love, eds.): 301 10. Westvie w Press, Boulder. Paine, Robert 1971 Animals as Capital: Comparisons among Northern Nomadic Herders and Hunters. Anthropological Quarterly, 44: 157 72.
! )+ 1994 Herds of the Tundra: A Portrait of Saami Reindeer Pastoralism Smithsonian Institution Press, Wa shington, D.C. Ravis Giordani, Georges 1983 Bergers corses (Corsican shepherds). EDISUD, Aix en Provence, France. Riesman, Paul 1977 Freedom in Fulani Social Life University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Rigby, Peter 1992 Cattle, Capitalism and Class Temple University Press Philadelphia. Roux, Jean Paul 2003 Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire. Discoveries. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers, New York. Rossabi, Morris 2005 Modern Mongolia: From Khans to Commissars to Capitalists University of Ca lifornia Press, Berkeley. Rupen, Robert 1979 How Mongolia is Really Ruled : A Political History of the Mongolian People's Republic, 1900 1978. Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, California.
! ), Sabloff, Paula W. (ed) 2001 Modern Mongolia. Reclaiming Geng his Khan University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Salzman, Philip Carl 1999 The Anthropology of Real Life Waveland Press, Prospect Heights. 2004 Pastoralists: Equality, Hierarchy, and The State. Westview Press, Boulder. Sanders, Alan J. K. 1987 Mongolia Frances Pinter Publishers, London. Schneider, Harold K. 1979 Livestock and Equality in East Africa: The Economic Basis for Social Structure University of Indiana Press, Bloomington. 1980a The Pastoralist Development Problem. In Change and Development in Nomadic and Pastoral Societies ( J. G. Galaty and P. C. Salzman eds.): 27 32. E. J. Brill, Leiben. 1980b Livestock as Food and Money. In The Future of Pastoral Peoples (J.G. Galaty, D. Aronson, P.C. Salzman, eds.): 210 13. Internatio nal Development Research Centre, Ottawa.
! *! Schweizer, Peter 1988 Shepherds, Workers, Intellectuals: Culture and Centre Periphery Relationships in a Sardinian Village Stockholm Studies in Social Anthropology, no. 18. Department of Social Anthropology, University of Stockholm, Stockholm. Scott, James C. 1990 Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts Yale University Press, New Haven. Shoup, John 1990 Middle Eastern Sheep Pastoralism and the Hima System. In The World of Pastoralism (J. G. Galaty and D. J. Johnson, eds.): 195 215. Guilford Press, New York. Simpson, John L. 2001 Communism to Capitalism in Mongolia: Privatisation in the First Seven Years. Curtin University Economics and Finance Working Paper No. 2001 8. Where published ? Sneath, David 1999 Mobility, Technology, and Decollectivization of Pastoralism in Mongolia. In Mongolia in the Twentieth Century: Landlocked Cosmopolitan (S. Kotkin and B. Elleman, eds.): 223 36. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York. 2000 Changing Inner Mo ngolia: Pastoral Mongolian Society and the Chinese State Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2004 Proprietary Regimes and Sociotechnical Systems: Rights over Land in Mongolia's "Age of the Market." In Property in Question: Value Transformation in the Glo bal Economy (K. Verdery and C. Humphrey, eds.): 161 84. Berg, Oxford.
! *$ Soucek, Svat 2000 A History of Inner Asia Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Spear, Thomas, and Richard Waller, eds. 1993 Being Maasai James Curry, London. Spencer, Paul 196 5 The Sambaru Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Spivak, Gayatri 1988 Can The Subaltern Speak? In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (C. Nelson and L. Grossberg, eds.): 271 313. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Spooner, Brian 1973 The Cul tural Ecology of Pastoral Nomads. Addison Wesley Modular Publication in Anthropology, no. 45. Stenning, Derrick J. 1959 Savannah Nomads Oxford University Press, London. Sumber, Dornod 2002 The best place last. The Economist December 21 London. h ttp://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_ TQRSQJJ
! *% Tumenbayar, N. 2000 Land Privatization Option for Mongolia. Vil, Carles, Jennifer A. Leonard, Anders Gtherstrm, Stefan Marklund, Kaj Sandberg, Kerstin Lidn, Robert K. Wayne, and Hans Elle gren. 2001 Widespread Origins of Domestic Horse Origins. Science, 291 (10): 474 77. Weatherford, Jack 2004 Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. Crown Publishers, New York City. Wolf, Eric 1982 Europe and the People Without History Univer sity of California Press, Berkeley. Worden, Robert L., and Andrea Matles Savada (eds.) 1991 Mongolia: A Country Study Area Handbook Series 2 nd edition. Federal Research Division, Library of Congress. !