Animal mobility, human mobility: A geopolitical of sheep in Armenia

Abstract

Abstract The ethnographic mission to Armenia carried out by the NHASA International Associated Laboratory (LIA France-Armenia) was established to observe the pastoral practices of Yezidi and Armenian herders in a territory affected by the 1988 earthquake, the collapse of the USSR and the period of independence, and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The political and geographical stakes prevailing in this country at the beginning of the 21st century describe a drunkenness of statehood, a culture of mobility, the persistence of the family plot among Armenian villagers, inherited from the Soviet Union, and finally, a geographical situation of double enclavement characterized by the absence of a coastline, and 80% of the border line blocked by its Turkish-speaking neighbours. In this context, we wanted to study the mobility practices of herds and men in their seasonal movements in search of grass or in the systems of guarding, but also those related to commercial routes, from collection to import and export movements. The results show several strong points. First, In the midst of the global crisis of pastoral communities and pastoralism, Armenia offers an exception: rich high pastures that are not exploited due to historical events and cultural and geopolitical circumstances. The possibility of expanding its pastoral domain in a context where it is shrinking everywhere else is one of the strong points of our survey. While sedentarization is becoming the norm in many pastoralist communities, Armenia offers an example of herders taking the road backwards, moving towards semi-nomadism. There are two types of pastoralism in Armenia: “nearby” and “remove”, which could be described as “patriotic”. They both respond to a territorial injunction (the protection of the integrity of the national territory) and have as their underlying aim the fixation of the population of the Armenian state in the countryside, in marginal zones and in territories occupied before the crisis of Nagorno-Karabakh by Azeris. Large mobile pastoralism, called “remove”, could be described as “opportunism”. This pastoralism is favoured by a culture of mobility, a geographical promiscuity but also by the expansion and challenges of the meat market in the Middle East and the GCC (including the Iran-Saudi Arabia rivalry), the status quo maintained by Russia on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and at least by the climate crisis. It offers the example of informal transnational transhumance, but also of possible future relocated transhumance. This pastoralism is affected by the workings of globalisation (professional mobility and transnational multilateral issues), but also by fundamental movements. Intensive livestock farming, the marketing of live animals and the health risks associated with their transport and slaughter are increasingly criticized throughout the world. The continuation of extensive livestock farming, the construction of standard slaughterhouses and the development of the chilled meat market are preparing Armenia for this paradigm shift. The “nearby” village pastoralism with its system of collective guarding, probably inherited from the plot system during collectivism, offers a good example of management of common property. It is a form of social resilience in the face of economic, emotional and psychological shocks due to the multiple crises of today s world. It is also a strong reminder of the centuries-old pluriactivity of the people of mountains and their tendency to have a double life. Multi-activity becomes a response as much as an injunction to ensure both the means of subsistence, but also a network that constitutes in this context a purse of opportunity.