TURKOMANS BETWEEN TWO EMPIRES: THE ... - Bilkent University

in tribal or sub-tribal societies because of two major reasons that reinforce intra-tribal
cohesion: one pertains to economic base and the other comes from the very nature of
nomadic mode of life. In terms of economy, the fundamental productive base of
nomadic society is formed by a pastoral mode of subsistence, in which the ownership
relations are quite different from that of sedentary societies. The economic relations in
nomadic societies are based on two important foundations: private ownership of
livestock and corporate ownership of pastures. 139 So, above all, corporate ownership of
pastures forces nomads to act and behave collectively. 140 Although every family has its
own properties, such as herd, tent, several tools etc., it is not sufficient to stand alone. As
Roger Cribb has made the point clear, though being autonomous in terms of decision
making and disposal of some sources, “pastoral household can not stand alone.” 141 It
needs other households to fulfill the full economic cycle and migratory operations. Thus
communal ties are more advanced with regard to sedentary societies. And these
communal ties usually, if not always, are based on kinship and affinality. 142
In addition to economic constraints, the very nature of nomadic life also forces
individuals to knit to one another - at the first stage between the members of family and
139 Barth observed in the Basseri case that the pasturelands of each tira and oulads, that are intermediary
sub-tribal units, are assigned by the chief. A member of oulad has by birth the right of grazing on the
pastures of his oulad without any limitation. The movements of man is restricted by the limits of oulad or
section with whom he shared inherited pasturelands. But in the limits of pastureland of oulad he is totally
free to move from one camp to other. See Barth, Nomads of South Persia, pp. 54-60. For a broader
analysis of ownership relations in nomadic societies see Khazanov, Nomads and the Outside World, pp.
123-25.
140 For an analysis of ‘collective behavior’ see Dennis Brissett, “Collective Behavior: The Sense of
Rubric”, The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 74, no.1, 1968, pp. 70-78.
141 Roger Cribb, Nomads in Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, p. 39.
142 Furthermore, nomadic families are relatively small and that the workforce required by the household is
not only insufficient for the labor, but is subject to seasonal variations as well. As a rule, Khazanov says, it
is impossible, or at least very difficult, for one nomadic household of average prosperity to accomplish a
complete productive cycle on its own. Thus cooperation within a group by families is necessary.
Consequently, economic structure endorses, or arguably enforces, social solidarity and collective actions
in nomadic communities. See Khazanov, Nomads and the Outside World, pp. 130-31.
52