Nomadism : One of the World’s Great Mysteries

文：易華

Nomads were once awesome. They, as a group, were a force, throughout the world, to be reckoned with. Now, they quietly acquiesce to the rest of the mankind. The nomads have undergone—almost unnoticed - vast, dramatic changes during the past few centuries. Those changes have been astonishing.

The origin and destiny of nomadism and nomadsrelationship with agriculture have, for generations, been three topics that have confounded academics. The destiny of nomadism, in particular, is not just a theoretical issue, but also a practical, and tough, issue that involves both the fate and future of nomads.

Nomads throughout history have generally followed the trend from nomadic life to settled - or the modern concept of civilization—life. Western scholars generally agree nomadism is about to end. “The Nuer: A Description of the Mode of Livelihood of a Nilotic People,” ① written by E.E.Evans. Pritchard and published in 1940is widely considered groundbreaking work in the research of nomadic society and the field of anthropology. He argued, rather convincingly, that nomads have survived for generations by being able to adapt to changes in the worlds unique natural environment.

“The Tragedy of the Commons,”② by G. Hardin and published in “Science” magazine in 1968, is widely believed to have shattered most peoples romantic illusions about nomads. Hardin asserted the nomadsefforts to raise as many head of livestock as possible on the open, readily accessible grasslands depleted much-needed resources and resulted in catastrophe. That theory offered a possible partial explanation - the ecology under the nomads was vulnerable - for the periodic upheaval in nomadic society. Natural disasters and man-made calamities also disrupted the nomadsway of life. Hardin suggested the nomads, given their way of life, would caused their own demise, regardless of social, economic or climatic conditions.

In 1980, in the article “Nomadic Pastoralism,”③ published in the “Annual Review of Anthropology,” Dyson-Hudson argued, based on their extensive research, the nomadsromantic legend had been shattered, and that nomadism, as a lifestyle, was almost finished. Environmental changes were not main reason for the nomadsdemise; changes in society, throughout the world, affected the nomadic way of life. No one theory could completely explain nomadism, as the lifestyle was too unconventional and the nomads were highly adaptable. The researchers predicted nomadism would have all but died out by the end of the 20th century; that most nomads would have settled down, to some extent, before the new millennium.

With support from the McArthur Fund, Professor Caroline Humphrey, from Cambridge University, led a team of scientists from around the world in the systematic research of Inner Asias nomads. In 1999, they published their findings and conclusions - nomadsdemise suggested nomadism no longer served a purpose - in the article “The End of Nomadism?” ④

At the same time, much of the world beganrespecting cultural diversity and advocating pluralism. UNESCO spearheaded a comprehensive survey,by scholars from several countries, of the Silk Road. They reiterated in theirreport, “Cultures and Civilizations,”⑤ that cultures and civilizations vary, withoutspecifically referring to urban life, and that nomadism was a unique culture and/or civilization. A short time later, UNESCO passed the “Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity.”4 With UNESCOs support, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Indonesia and Kyrgyzstan established the International Nomadic Civilization Research Institute in Ulan Bator, the capital of Mongolia.B. Enkhtuvshin, vice-chairman of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences, was named the research institutes first director. He argued in several articles, which he wrote, that nomadism was a unique cultural system that had made various major contributions to civilization. He suggested the nomadic lifestyle remained an important part of the world, and that it was nomadism still possesses strong vitality and is worthy of systematic research, protection and development. He argued Western-style civilizations do not determine the value of a lifestyle; rather, each civilization has its own value. Interaction and dialogue between civilizations drive the development of human civilization. “Culture” and “civilization,” however, are two vaguely defined, yet synonymous, terms that have long been misused.

Literally speaking, the word “culture” relates to “cult.” Everything humans create - whether material or spiritual, good or bad—can be considered part of culture. The word “civilization” relates to “civilitas,” or “civis,” which means magnificent and desirable cultures. (It originally meant an urbanized lifestyle.) In the Chinese language, civilization can also refer to a tolerant culture. A culture that is consistent with personal ideals can be called a personal civilization; a culture consistent with human beingsideals can be called human civilization. Although everything mankind creates, including wars and waste, can be called “culture,” only a portion of culture can be called civilization. Human civilizations are mutually appreciable.

Given the fact there is a great variety of human ideals, and that humans have a hard time overcoming their prejudices, it has been virtually impossible for humans to establish a uniform standard for distinguishing between culture and civilization. While some people take pride in the achievements of civilization, others condemn the accomplishments as evil. However, one thing is irrefutable: Only those cultures that do not cause grievous harm to mankind and the Earth can help form human civilization.

Culture is not synonymous with civilization. When humans evolved from the state of nature into the state of culture, it did not necessarily mean they entered the state of civilization. Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued, rather convincingly, some years ago that the development of science and technology does not necessarily result in the progress of human morals and ethics; rather, it could result in the regression of humans. He proposed a “return to nature.” Men living in the state of nature can be sublime.

People who have settled in their societies havetraditionally considered nomads to be barbarians. From Ban Gu, a representative of early Chinese, to Denis Sinor, historians have equated Central Asias evolution and development with barbarians. Sinor, has suggested on numerous occasions that Central Asias history is synonymous with the history of barbarianism. Sinor, while chief editor of the “Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia,” reiterated those arguments in several articles. He also asserted the barbarians were driven by greed, and their contradictions with the civilized world could never be reconciled. “How could there be peace between dogs and hyenaHow could there be peace between the rich and the poorInner Asia is the opposition of our civilized world. Its history is the history of barbarians.”

We are civilized, and they are the barbarians. As a matter of fact, this is the result of the psychological “contrast between oneself and others.” We are not necessarily civilized, and they are not necessarily barbarians. “Barbarian” is a word used by one person or group to refer to another person or group - especially an ethnic group. Nobody considers himself to be a barbarian. Humans, however, are unable to see their barbaric traits. When Mongolia ruled China, during the Yuan Dynasty, the Mongolians called the Han people in southern China “Man Zi,” or That period in history might help us better understand the meaning of the word “barbarian.”

Western society, or modern industrialized society, is not necessarily a civilized society. Modern industrialized society bears many uncivilized aspects, which contradict reason and nature and run counter to humanity - in other words, human ideals. Industrialization destroys the Earth and pollutes the environment. The use of pesticides, for example, can result in the “deadly silence of spring.”

Of the worlds three major religions, only Buddhism seeks the unconditional end of violence and denounces holy wars. Politicians in the West, led by the United States, still believe in “an eye for an eye,” and in responding to violence with violence. But reprisal breeds reprisal, and it eventually becomes an endless cycle. Looking at the overall picture, humans are still in the age of violence, and have yet to enter the state of civilization.

Nomads have committed heinous crimes throughout history, but they have since been redeemed I by Buddhism. Mongolia is a land of peace. During the 20th century, Western countries were responsible for starting two world wars. Nowadays, they still seem eager to do battle. Mongolia did not get involved in those conflicts. It has no intention of joining such battles in the future. Nomads have an excellent tradition of respecting nature and protecting the environment. The holy mountains under their worship might be the worlds earliest nature reserves. Nomads live simple lives and create little waste. They neither damage nor pollute the environment. The grasslands are “Heaven” to Mongolians. Culture and civilization also differ from both society and state. O. Spengler, Arnold Toynbee and some other researchers have confused these four concepts. They have asserted human cultures and civilizations have been divided into different categories, and that each has resembled a super-organism of an organism. In fact, it is a state, or society, formed by humans that resembles a super-organism of an organism, with a process of formation, development and disintegration. Human cultures, or civilizations, are products of human organisms, which follow different rules in respect to their existence and disappearance. Ancient Egyptian kingdoms no longer exist, but their cultures, or civilizations, remain. In other words, we may have witnessed the extinction of a state, or society, but its culture will live on. Nomadic societies have either been disintegrated or transformed. Their cultures, or civilizations, however, will live forever with humans. There will always be people who cherish their memories of nomadism, and there will always be some elements of nomadic culture in the world.

As different forms of human culture, nomadism and agriculture have matched up against each other for thousands of years without a distinct winner, because they possess their respective and unique advantages. In Erdos and some regions of China, where conditions are perfect for both nomadism and agriculture, the transformation between nomadism and agriculture has occurred many times throughout history. It has been common for herdsmen to become farmers, and vice versa. Farmers and herdsmen have their own customs, and reasons to be proud. Mongolians once concluded “the Han people are of no value to our nation,” and that they intended to turn all of China into pastures. The Hans, had regarded nomadism as a sublime way to live that would eventually lead to wealth. They treated agriculture as a humble, and burdensome, WAY TO MAKE A LIVING. However, researchers have determined agriculture, as a form of culture, is older than nomadism. They have also concluded nomadism originated from agriculture, and might, in the long run, co-exist with agriculture. In the face of industrialization andmodernization, agriculture and nomadism have met unprecedented challenges. Modernization of agriculture and nomadism is a trend of the times, and, as a result, traditional agriculture and nomadism are withering away. In the face of agricultural expansion, the nomads displayed fierce resistance, and witnessed the emergence of a national hero, Gada Mcilin, who died “protecting the grasslands of the Mongolian people.” Herdsmen today, however, are eager to embrace industrialization and modernization. For example, herdsmen in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region have nearly lost their pride, and there is virtually no resistance to modernization. Herdsmen who have abandoned nomadism eulogize the vast grasslands; those who have left the vast grasslands sing the praises of nomadism. Mongolia joined the World Trade Organization in 1996, ahead of both Russia and China, and moved toward democracy and economic globalization.

The insurmountable political, economic and ideological influence of the surrounding world is the exterior factor that prompted the nomadsto begin setting down roots. Natural disasters, man-made misfortunes and the nomadic lifestyle made it impossible for the nomads to resist settling down. Although the trend is irreversible, it does not mean settling down was the only, and correct, choice the nomads had. Nor does it mean the nomads are being transformed from barbarism to citizens of civilization.

Settling down does not mean there is a happy ending for the nomads. New issues will trouble the settlers. In short, any damages to the Earth caused by nomads are minor and easily reversed; the damages to the Earth caused by agriculture are superficial, but hard to fix; and the damages to the Earth caused by industry are deep, grave and irreversible. The nomads settled, during agricultural expansion and industrialization, in the grasslands, and they no doubt caused devastating damages to the grasslands. Meanwhile, the damages to the grasslands caused by agriculture have been universally recognized. Large plots of excessively cultivated land have been abandoned. They are now wastelands unsuitable for either husbandry or agriculture. Most of the mechanized farms in Mongolia have also declared bankruptcy. Mongolia has been exporting its abandoned and old mechanical products to China. Even though agriculture has been reduced, to an extent, to restore the grasslands, it will take a very long time before the vast grasslands regain their past charm. Nomadism is not an antonym of civilization, nor is industrialization a synonym of civilization. Industrialization can boost agricultural and husbandry productivity, reduce the intensity of labor and improve living conditions. But on the other hand, industrialization can damage the Earth and destroy other cultures. The evils of industrialization will only be fully recognized by humans in the post-modern era.

Can humans coexist with nature in a harmonious manner to achieve sustainable developmentCan different cultures coexist in the long run to ensure humans live harmoniouslyThese are the major issues challenging mankind in the modern society. Humans face a dangerous future if industrialization cannot be brought under control, if humans continue exploiting the Earth in an irrational manner, and if traditional agriculture and nomadism cannot be maintained.

Different types of nature reserves have been established throughout the world in recent years, and they have played significant roles in protecting various species. Humans should take the next step and establish more cultural protection zones. The combination of the two will better ensure the variety of the Earths species and cultures. It is crucial that nomad cultural protection zones be created—and the opportunity is ripe. The simple, waste-free nomadic lifestyle has provided the world with a reference regarding the viable mode of sustainable development for mankind.

Modernization has proceeded so rapidly that traditional societies have become helpless. They have been unable to resist the trend. The only hope is that modern people, with post-modern awareness, find a way to slow modernization. In other words, only modern methods will prevent rampant modernization. Excessive modernization will have disastrous effects on animals and plants, and, thus, cannot be considered a blessing for mankind.

In general, modernization is not the only road. For some regions, it is possible, and a must, for people to make a direct transition from the pre-modern era to a post-modern era. In the post-modern era, traditional and modern elements will complement each other, the great variety of living species and cultures will be effectively protected, and humans will live harmoniously with themselves and nature. Nature worshipin the pre-modern era and environmental protection in the post-modern era, while based on different philosophies, have resulted in similar accomplishments. Nomadism may have reached its end, but it will not, and should not, disappear and be forgotten.