Practice of Material Support for Economically Weak Members of the Community
Communities were usually heterogeneous in social composition: they included both prosperous herders and the poor.
Often, the latter would join wealthier relatives, which allowed them to migrate and support their families. In the 19th to early 20th centuries, there was a widespread practice of material support for economically weak members of the community.
Wealthy individuals practiced transferring livestock for grazing (saan) to ordinary relatives and fellow villagers.
Prosperous households could also temporarily include several heads of livestock from less affluent community members in their herds for joint grazing. This was not a harsh exploitation based on class contradictions, as was often written during the Soviet era. Often, the impoverished individuals themselves were interested in this arrangement to temporarily acquire a horse for riding or a milking cow for milk. In such relationships, community members of different social status and wealth could participate without any coercion.
Herders who did not undertake long migrations to high-altitude alpine pastures and remained at the foot of the mountains (zhatakchy) also formed temporary communities. They had to periodically return to agricultural plots to tend to their crops. In terms of social structure, these communities were homogeneous; they disbanded with the onset of the cold season, as winter was often spent in different locations.
The campsite of nomadic communities was usually referred to as “ayil,” while the nearby pastures, where various types of livestock grazed, were called “vrush” and “zhayit.” These lands were particularly significant: most grazed livestock and had camps on the same seasonal pastures. Residents of one ayil typically combined their livestock into a common herd, group, or flock, and the alternating grazing of livestock was called kezek or kezuu. Thus, mainly poor and middle-income households grazed their livestock.
One of the features of nomadic communities that specialists note is “internal dualism,” where collective ownership of land coexists with private ownership of livestock. “They (the ayil communities - A.Zh.) included private livestock owners, united primarily by the joint use of pastures and grazing lands.
Production and appropriation of products had an individual character in the village community, while migration and use of pastures were based on communal principles” (Abramzon, 1971, p. 201). Seasonal pastures, as one type of key resource, were not owned but merely used by individual communities (Hazanov, 2002, p. 233). The real owners of this natural resource were tribal subdivisions, based on which numerous hierarchically structured communities were formed. Lands belonging to one tribe were divided among clan subdivisions and communities (Talyb Moldo, 1993, p. 527).
The specifics of pastoral farming did not allow individuals occupying high social and material positions to become large landowners (pasture owners). It is unlikely to assert that “the basis of class stratification in the Kyrgyz pasture-nomadic community was the inequality of its members concerning land, especially pastures—the main means of production” (Nurakov, 1975, p. 66). This statement underestimates the importance of livestock. Extensive pastures were only in demand when there were significant herds of animals. Moreover, a person's high status was supported by fellow tribesmen, who ensured the stability of his authority.
Each community occupying certain pastures could, if necessary (due to lack of feed, adverse climatic conditions, forced migration, etc.), migrate in search of forage on the territory of neighboring communities. Existing forms of land use and norms of customary law allowed this; “such migration from place to place on the territories of other communities, volosts, districts, and counties was possible only under communal land use. Private ownership and even household plot forms of land use excluded such possibilities” (Ilyasov, 1963, p. 206).
Cooperation among community members was also significant during the celebration of calendar holidays and rituals, life cycle ceremonies (birth of a child, circumcision, marriage, death, etc.). Community members provided material assistance in the event of a family event, brought gifts, and participated together in their preparation and conduct, sharing the joy or sorrow of any community member. It was the duty of adults to receive guests: to serve those who arrived and their transport animals. From people who came from afar, community members received fresh news, which was spread by akyns—improvisers. An important element of the holiday or ritual was the organization of a feast, which was prepared collectively. Neighbors provided each other with help almost as much as relatives. This close relationship is reflected in the popular proverb, which states: “A close neighbor is better than a distant relative.”
The community organized joint games for children, gatherings, and entertainment separately for men, women, and various age groups. On the occasion of slaughtering a fattened animal for meat preservation (sogum), members of the ayil arranged alternating feasts. After a successful hunt, part of the catch was given as gifts (shyralga), and the remainder was cooked and shared with neighbors.
Inter-community Contacts of the Kyrgyz