A Brief History of Nomadism in Iran

Most scholars agree that nomadism in Iran is not a new phenomenon. Peyman (1967) wrote that from the time of arrival of the Indo-Aryan race to the Iranian plateau, nomadism has existed. In later centuries, nomads from other races and other lands migrated to Iran. These migrations caused sociopolitical and economic alterations in the national fabric of society and its particular patterns of life. And the numbers of people have played an important political role in the course of the nation’s history.
Afshar-Naderi (1976) stated that since ancient time, and from the time of written history, most of the many dynasties that have ruled Iran had tribal origins. Javid-Far (1976) believed that because of the geographical circumstances of Iran, nomadism has existed from the time the Indo-Aryans arrived, and that from that time on, herding and pastoralism have persisted as an economic foundation of life. The utilization of extensive pastures has been the basis for a pastoral economy, and migration is viewed as a central element of this formation. Migration is essential to reach pastoral lands during the most favorable climatic conditions for those areas. During the autumn, nomads migrate to relatively warm plateaus and plains; in the spring they move to the middle zones and mountains and valleys. This roving from place to place is dictated by basic needs: grass, food, and tolerable living conditions.

 

Oberling (1974:11), speaking of nomadism, stated that

where the land was relatively fertile and sparsely populated, as in much of Asia-Minor, the nomadic conquerors tended to settle down in the valleys and upon plains, adapting to an agricultural economy. But where the soil was arid and the few fertile valleys and plains were already densely populated, as in Persia, they clung to their nomadic way of life.

Nomadic life is a continuous struggle against nature for grass. Grass is the center of life. Cooper (1926:3) expressed the significance of the grass to nomadism in the following words:

And the grass dried up. And without grass their flocks and herds must die. And upon these animals depended both the shelter and food of the race— life itself.

And, later dramatizing, Cooper (1926:354) related:

Out to the horizon stretched green valleys, through which, in the golden sunshine, rippled silver streams feeding the luxuriant young grass. Here was the prize of the gallant fight. Here was the land of plenty. Grass! Grass and life!

There are other scholars who view the nomadic mode of life in Iran as a product of geophysical as well as geographical realities. Forough (1976) theorized that from ancient times, because of repeated earthquakes and tremors in Iran and the mountainous regions, two types of life and modes of production have flourished: rural, settled life, the pre-condition of which is a stationary home site; and migratory and nomadic, the pre-condition of which is migration and mobility. However, the author’s own insight and knowledge lead him to believe that whereas geographical conditions have a significant impact on the continuity of the nomadic system, geophysical elements such as earthquakes have little or no effect on a nomad’s decision to continue nomadic life or to settle.

The nomadic way of life is clearly distinct from other forms. Nomads constantly or seasonally migrate and are not as confined as settled people. Growing up under such circumstances develops patterns of behavior which are different from those in the cities or even in the rural villages. One’s character becomes independent and in many ways uninhibited, free from the confining rules and regulations that are plentiful in urban societies.
It is not to be inferred that the individual develops without control and cultural boundaries. In the nomadic way of life, a certain value system develops that differs from others. Human roles, in their respective societies, are often influenced and formed by the value systems prevailing.
Ir. nomadic societies, as in many other societies, individuals play specific roles. Jean and Franc Shor (1952), who spent some time in the Qashqa’i tribe, described the roles of individuals as stratified and defined. They wrote that the Qashqa’i women were never idle. In the morning, they milked
the livestock; they prepared meals, made butter and cheese, washed, swept the dirt floor of the tent, wove wool by spindle, and made carpets and other woolen cloth.

Garrod (1946:39-40) described their activities thus:

They are up from an hour before dawn until about nine o’clock at night; they milk the flocks, prepare the various milk products, put up and dismantle the tents, sew and weave, bake the bread, cook the meal and rear the children; whilst the men mostly sit around talking or smoking the communal water-pipe. The inactivity of the latter is punctuated every few days by violent outbursts of activity.

The man’s role, essentially, is taking care of the livestock. His every preoccupation is taking the herd to the grazing land and watering the herd. When it is time, they cut wool, brand the animals, break in and train horses, and in general provide security for the family. Farming work is done primarily by men. Children help with sheep herding and certain other chores. All members of the family cooperate to maintain and produce wealth. In the Qashqa’i family, as is true in many other tribes, the major and often the only source of wealth is livestock and its products, such as milk, butter, and cheese, wool, woolen cloth and carpets, and in some cases, land.

From the brief study presented by Shor and Shor (1952), one can see the importance of the family unit in a nomadic society. Formation of a family is of utmost importance. The specific task of each person in the tribal family unit makes continuity possible. In his study of the Bahmai tribe (a branch of Kuh-e-Giluyeh, a tribal group from southern Iran), Afshar-Naderi (1976) concluded that because of the existence of a division of labor in tribal society no man can continue his tribal life without a wife, because cooking, milking, making dairy products, weaving wool, and making carpets are women’s chores only.

This division of labor seems to be based on economic necessity; it also has its roots in the sociocultural fabric of tribal societies. The significant point is not a search for the root of this phenomenon but recognition of the fact that all members of the tribal and nomadic family, even small children, play a role in production, unlike members of urban families. Certain members of the family unit in urban society either play no role in production or play insignificant roles.
The nomadic and tribal family unit is a production unit; each member of the family has a prescribed role.

In her study of the nomadic and tribal family units, Restrepo-Afshar-Naderi (1977) discovered the existence of a variety of family units. She classified them into three types which seemed to be a response to particular situations and circumstances, in many respects peculiar to prevailing conditions of these non-urban settings:
1. Nuclear
2. Extended or complex
3. Multiple wives
These family types have formed because of the special needs of these societies; however, these types are not unique to nomadic and tribal family units.
Nuclear families are those composed of a man and a woman. Often the man and woman are husband and wife with or without children. At times it could be a widow and her son, brother and sister, or other such relationship. In this formation, a sexual relationship does not always exist.
In other words to form a nuclear family, marriage is not always the essential component, even though the classic definition of a nuclear family involves a man and wife, legally bound together, as the mainstay of the family.

Among nomads, it is the combination of a man and a woman which is the foundation of continuity. The first type of family, the nuclear family, is formed in the overwhelming majority of cases because of marriage and economic necessity. The man very often after marriage departs from his household, when a new nucleus is formed, the man and wife take the responsibility of setting out to start their own economic activity independent of their family members.

The second type of family, the extended or complex, exists because of other realities, often economic. When a family unit’s possessions are small, the number of the herd few, often a married son instead of dividing the herd continues to stay with the other family members. Another related reason occurs when the newly married son is incapable of providing a separate household and simply lives on with his father’s household. In the case of the death of the father, until the question of the will is decided, the married sons remain with the others. Sometimes when the bride is too young and inexperienced, the new married couple wait at the husband’s family’s or rarely at the wife’s family’s household.

In other instances when there is a need for the specific role of a woman— to perform women’s tasks— the sons get married and stay as a unit. The dominant factor for the above type appears to be economic poverty. The duration for those involved in this type— before they become nuclear— is temporary.

However, it is also found that among the well-to-do and the ruling stratum of these societies, this extended and complex type of family is a prevailing reality. These families are not directly involved in the production process. The reasons do not seem to be of an economic nature, for they do not participate in the actual work process. This type— among the ruling families— is more lasting and enduring. It is more stable because the work condition does not call for or require separation from one’s father’s household. In recent years this pattern has been affected by this class’s greater contact with the urban world, its obtaining a higher education, and non-traditional jobs in the cities and other locations.

The third pattern is small in number. Not many nomadic men take more than one woman for their wives. One major factor seems to be the need for women’s specializations.

Some men with a greater number of animals choose to take more than one wife to help with the chores. Political reasons often contribute to the growth of this type of family. Often, polygamous marriages take place among the rich rulers to enhance their power. Also, when the first wife is barren, it is acceptable to take a second or third wife. This action does not often result in divorce.
Afshar-Naderi (1976) presented another category of findings which also contributes to the understanding of other peculiar features of tribal and nomadic life. He also recognizes three forms of families in tribal societies:
1. Nomadic form
2. Settled form
3. Temporarily settled and ready to adopt nomadic form.

The determining factor in the formation of these three kinds of families also seems to be economic. The size of the herd basically determines if a family unit can continue in the nomadic form. If the size of a family’s herd surpasses a certain number, most probably that family gravitates toward nomadic life; if not, it tends to settle. There are, of course, exceptions, A family may decide not to move to the new season’s camp until the following year or settle where it is. Certain members may remain behind for a period of time. There are those members of the tribes who have been settled permanently who have chosen to follow the new ways.
In addition, there are family units who settle out of economic disparity. They do settle on a temporary basis for a duration. This duration of settlement is terminated when the size of the herd reaches a limit that is sufficient for migration; that is, when a livelihood could be sustained for a migrating family unit.

An immensely important element in tribal-nomadic society is the circle of relatives. This circle influences the social, economic, and political realities of a family unit. The members of the circle generally form a camp. A camp is made up of a group of families, friends, and relatives that migrate and herd together. The number of tents making up these camps vary. In southern Iran in some instances members of a camp number as few as two tents,
and often some camps are as large as 50 tents or more.

Barth (1965:25-26) stated that

the members of a camp make up a very clearly bounded social group. . . . a camp community of nomads can only persist through continuous reaffirmation by all its members. Every day the members of the camp must agree in their decision on the vital question of whether to move on, or to stay camped. . . . These decisions are the very stuff of a pastoral nomad existence; they spell the difference between growth and prosperity of the herds, or loss and poverty.

The camp is as essential to the nomadic way of life as are the other elements discussed. The preservation of a camp group as a social unit thus demands the constant unanimous agreement by all parties on important economic questions. Every camp generally has a head or a leader.
Communality is a fact of life for nomadism, and the degree of communalism practiced seems to be greater than that in the settled life style, at least in the case of Iran.

According to Restrepo-Afshar-Naderi (1977), the greatest poverty exists among the families which are settled. Their settlement is related to their poverty, and when they are settled, breakdowns in social relations begin. The new situation becomes affected by decrease and termination of the aid system peculiar to nomadism— that is, during times of hardship, tribal people aid each other. Decrease, discontinuity, or interruption of this intricate mutual aid system resulting from settling-and separation from clan and relatives is an element to be considered carefully in the study of transformation of nomadic life to a settled one.

A certain type of stability is still another factor that both differentiates the nomadic mode from other forms and motivates nomads to continue. The model of economic activity— herding— that the nomads are predominantly engaged in provides this stability. Peyman (1967) concluded the following in this regard: livestock and animal husbandry,  for the nomads, is a stable activity which does not require much cost, and the return–except in case of natural events—is predictable and stable. It is a firm economic foundation for nomadic family life. Other economic activities do not offer the same economic return for nomads. Agriculture does not offer the same advantages since most of the nomads do not own their own land. Some of the grazing lands are owned by tribesmen in common, but the tribal leaders— khans— owned most of the land until recent decades. Lambton (1953:284-285), speaking of the Qashqa’i, stated that

in the Qashqai different sections and individuals of the tribe appear to have traditional rights in the pastoral lands owned by the tribal leaders or khans. These rights are not registered or absolute, although they are sometimes based on documents going back 200 years or so.
The practice is for the khan to allot these pastures to his followers every year. In fact the same person is usually given the same pasture, but the formality of allotment is carried out every year in order to prevent the tribesmen acquiring an undisputed title and so that the holder can be turned out if he commits some act of insubordination.

Since her research, however, many changes have taken place in regard to the land ownership in tribal areas. As a result of the Land Reform Act of January 9, 1962, especially in the State of Fars where most of the nomadic population of Iran reside, the pattern of ownership of land has been altered.
The lands belonging to the major chiefs or the kahns have been transferred either to government ownership, peasant ownership, or tribal ownership. The lesser khans continue to own much of their lands. The impact has been great. Much of the land taken by the government has been declared a national resource, and the use of it has been denied to nomads. Some of the grazing lands have been turned into wild game preserves.

Those who rent land for cultivation have no guarantee about the duration of time that they can work the land. In addition, farming requires constant investment which is not available at all times. The return from such investments is less predictable than herding.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *