The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Public conflicts in the post-reform Adyghe aul (1860 - 1880)



ISTORIYA of the PEOPLE of DON AND NORTH CAUCASUS

UDC 94 (470.67)

PUBLIC CONFLICTS IN the POST-REFORM ADYGHE AUL (1860 - 1880)

© 2010 of Yu.D. Anchabadze

Istinut ethnology and anthropology of RAS, Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology RAS,

Leninsky Ave., 32a, Moscow, 119991, Leninsky Ave, 32a, Moscow, 119991,

info@iea. ras. ru info@iea. ras. ru

The public conflicts were not an unusual occurrence in social life of the Adyghe aul. As the most frequent reasons of their emergence served land disputes, unfair distribution of public duties, opposition of local authorities and social activists, violations of traditional behavioural norms.

Public conflicts were not rare events in the social life of the Agyg aul. The most frequent reasons of the conflicts were land arguments, injustice distribution of the social obligations, opposition between local authorities and peasants, violation of the traditional norms of behavior.

The country community draws attention of researchers long ago as the main social cell within which life of most of the population of pre-revolutionary Russia proceeded. Primary interest was concentrated first of all on studying an economic role of community while its cultural and community features remained out of sight of experts. The claimed nowadays anthropological approach to historical material updates the new sides of a problem connected with studying ethnocultural, standard and behavioural, mental and psychological and other aspects of daily life of the communal world.

Public life of the post-reform Adyghe aul was regulated by three standard systems. At a boundary of 1860 - the 1870th "The provision on aulny societies in the mountain population of the Kuban and Tersky regions and their public management" was enacted. With some subsequent changes which had private character, this Situation defined administrative and judicial life of aulny societies up to 1917. On the other hand, in public life the obychnopravovy (adatny) norms which are deeply implanted in national consciousness were very strong. At last, the known role was played by sharia establishments. In general these standard systems held community in a functional framework, ensuring the intra communal peace. However realities of everyday life often blew up wordly daily occurrence, generating the conflict situations threatening a normal current of public life in the aul.

The most frequent conflicts were connected with the land questions, first of all with distribution of sites and also the haying, forest and other general

stvenny ugodyev. Emergence of the conflicts was promoted also by ideas that the right of use of the benefits of the territory and its resources belonged only to indigenous natives. Strangers were allocated with this right seldom as society is extremely jealous, and at times and aggressively treated the facts of transfer of "the" earth to hands of not aboriginals.

So, in the 1880th Top Kozhokovo lodged in the settlement "the inhabitant of the Balkar Society" certain Kazakov. By the time of the event three years as he located in this place were executed, got family there and respectively began to apply for receiving a share of a land share. Verkhnekozhokovtsa resolutely refused to meet his requirements, referring to the fact that in the settlement there is no enough the earth, and therefore Kazakov as alien "cannot be allocated with any land destinies at all". Moreover, on July 2, 1886 verkhnekozhokovets addressed the chief of the Nalchik district with the application in general to move Kazakov from the aul [1].

The similar conflict happened also to the villager of Babukov Umar Shakushev. Without being Babukov's native, it appeared in the village together with the owner Kambot Babukov. The last arrived to this aul, apparently, after very long absence. However as the local native moreover the representative of privileged estate Kambot was unconditionally accepted on Wednesday the former fellows villager. But then Kambot was moved to the Kuban region. Umar remained in Babukovo where along with other villagers used forest, arable and haying lands. At the beginning of 1886 the babukovets decided to make repartition of allotments, and concerning Shakushev decided that it in Babukov "absolutely others", and therefore is not subject to an allotment [2, l. 144].

Sadly Shamaf Kushkhov's fate was. In young years he was "lackey" uzdenya Dudorov who sold it to the prince Ismail Conov to the settlement of Konovo. Subsequently Kushkhov replaced again the owner as "Conov transferred me uzdenyu Shipshe-va" which took away recently acquired soul to itself(himself) to the settlement of Shalushka. After release ("when the Sovereign Emperor Alexander II selected all peasants in 1869 from misters") Kushkhov returned to Kono-vo where, apparently, life to it very much attracted. However, as Shamaf wrote the chief of the Nalchik district in the complaint, "residents of the settlement of Konovo do not consider me the permanent resident in the environment, and consider temporarily living, and do not give me the followed plot both the earth under plowing, and haymakings". Kushkhov asked the addressee to dispose "about the offer to society of the settlement of Konovo to write down me in the general posemeyny list of inhabitants and to give out to me on an equal basis with inhabitants of a ground". Kushkhov finished the sad story a phrase that he is not guilty that "me sold from hand to hand as the cattle" [2, l. 122].

On memoirs of the famous Krasnodar historian M.G. Autlev, the village assembly of its native Adygei aul of Hakurinorkhabl refused to his mother widow allocation of an additional land share on the only juvenile son as the father of future scientist was from other aul where the child could receive the lawful share [3, page 22]. Ethnographer M.-K. Remembers Z. Azamatov that her father and uncles were not aboriginals of the aul of Adamy. Nevertheless Zachery Azamatov together with brothers Magomchery and Moussa submitted the application to the aulsky authorities about acceptance them on residence and transfer to a plot - eaters. However on a descent only a part of participants voted for acceptance Azaopaque, and the others voted against, proving that the earth is divided for a long time [4, page 37 - 38].

The community so jealously watched the grounds that attempts of strangers to use the aulsky earth generated the counteraction developing sometimes into the serious conflicts. So, Ashabov's inhabitants often had conflicts with the skotovladelets overtaking the herds on Zolsky pastures. Often during a high water of Mulka the herds had no opportunity to be transported on other coast, forcedly beginning to be grazed on public asha-bovsky lands. Ashabovtsa demanded material satisfaction, in case of refusal of collision of ashabovets and skotovladelets often came to the end with fights [5].

For communal consciousness the idea of ravnodolny participation of all community members in execution of public duties was important. The last were often very heavy therefore at an opportunity everyone strove to get rid of them. However the community watched closely a fair deal in execution of this burden. Rather merciful in necessary cases, she showed rigidity and obstinacy in situations when, according to community members, there were no reasons for sniskhozh-

deniye. So, on March 2, 1897 residents of the Kabardian settlement of Misostovo considered the application of "odnoselets" of Tkhakumakhov "to save it from execution of public duties allegedly on poverty of the state". The descent established that the last is not true as Tkhakumakhov "has the state consisting in a cattle and horses and as he it is so equal and his brother both are capable to work and receive a share". For this reason the descent refused to Tkhakumakhov his application [6, l. 25].

Society did not wish to be reconciled with an unequal deal of public duties and in other cases, for example at departure someone from one-aultsev. In February, 1893 the group of residents of the Adygei settlement Bzhegokay got permission to go to a hajj on a descent. However in the sentence the descent stipulated that "for the period of their absence in public and monetary natural duties members of their families" will leave [7].

Public tranquility in the Adyghe auls sometimes was shaken by the conflicts arising between the local, communal government which was represented by the foreman, and residents of the aul. Many documentary materials which testified that they could act as opponents of the foreman as certain members of community, and sometimes the whole aulny society remained. Foremen who authoritatively ran the auls often got into conflict situations, belittling a descent role in development of joint decisions. So, in April, 1897 the residents of the Kabardian settlement of Tokhtamyshevo filed a complaint to the chief of the Nalchik district that their foreman "does not allow to gather in rural board for discussion of some questions concerning society" [8, page 149].

In other case the resident of the Adygei aul Koshe-habl Tata Zekhov addressed on August 15, 1910 the chief of the Kuban region with the complaint to the foreman of the aul Kubatov. The last was accused that systematically abused the power for the enrichment and support of the relatives, pursues those who do not agree with it and oppose his crimes. Summarizing the claims, the author especially allocates that circumstance that Kubatov "does not consult in anything on society" [9, page 292]. Many claims were to foremen who, according to community members, exceeded the authority, or did not carry out the direct duties. So, the resident of the Kabardian settlement of Atazhukino 2 Umetov complained on June 6, 1899 to the chief of the Nalchik district of the foreman who, according to him, incorrectly took away from him "two daggers and one of them in a silver frame and an Asian gun". Umetov considered it unfair as he "was never noticed in anything reprehensible" [10]. On October 21, 1890 the inhabitant Doksho-kovo Sagid Dzuganov complained to the chief of the Nalchik district of the dokshokovsky foreman Magomet-Murz Tlogurova concerning "lack of distribution" to them the copy from the decision of rural court on a land dispute between the applicant and neighbor Daut Narbiyev [11]. Zhi-

a tel Top Kozhokovo Biberd Aydebulov complained on October 8, 1902 to the chief of the Nalchik district that the foreman for the reasons not known to the applicant does not issue it the ticket, and for this reason Aydebulov had no opportunity "to leave on a market for sale of the products" [12]. Konovets Ibrahim Zhegupov complained in February, 1896 of the foreman as that did not issue him the copy of the resolution of rural court in the claim it "to an odnoselets the Big-head Dudarova". Zhegupov claimed that he "daily asked the foreman about issue of the copy, but my requests are left without any attention" [13].

It is interesting that the similar claim to the foreman was also at the Big-head Dudarova who also complained of the foreman of the settlement which refused to it issue of the required reference. Dudarov wrote in the application addressed to the chief of the Nalchik district that he considers himself "extremely offended foreman, first, because he does not wish to satisfy my lawful request concerning issue of the copy to me from the court verdict, and secondly, oborantovat at me a bull already seven days ago and I was left without plowed land" [14].

Oborantovaniye of the cattle was very effective measure of the foreman against the guilty community members, but this measure caused often the most rough protests and the conflicts, especially, when community members considered that the foreman of the sanction imposed incorrectly. So, the inhabitant Kaysyn-Anzorovo Uraza Shikhanayev complained on April 8, 1897 to the chief of the Nalchik district of the foreman of the settlement. The essence of the conflict was that in repayment Uraza Shikha-nayeva Tali Kerefovu is long the foreman "without court oborantovat the only couple of bull-calves and a subcalf at Shikhanayev and reported this cattle to Kerefov". Shikhanayev did not refuse a debt, but the act of the foreman considered illegal, and therefore asked orders about return of the selected bull-calves to it [6, l. 106].

The foreman could cause displeasure and some other actions. So, spring of 1910 the serious conflict began to be about to happen in the settlement of Zhankho-tovo where the group of inhabitants protested against actions of the foreman who discharged of effenda quarter Temryuko Karov's position. Zhankhotovtsa complained that "five months the foreman, we do not know owing to what reasons, Karov's effendiya to the mosque for departure of spiritual and religious service does not allow ours". At the same time zhankhotovets wrote that they wish to have the Karov's effend, "who the simplicity, knowledge of business and responsiveness to the people deserved full respect". Though actions of the foreman from the formal point of view were lawful (the conducted inquiry allegedly confirmed that it of an effenda "drinks hot drinks and smokes"), but zhankhotovets decided that it is personal intrigues of the foreman against respected effend as in the settlement there are people who "strongly concern the people", and "led by them the foreman costs" [15, l. 8].

In general to the foreman it could not be become stronger strongly, especially under cargo of those charges which the community could show to the rural head who disappointed their hopes. So, Haptsevo's inhabitants, having gathered for a descent

On July 14, 1883, made to the foreman Miso-st Boriyev a number of a serious complaint among which there were charges that he was under court "for exchange of the false credits", of murder "in a quarrel because of garden vegetables", in theft from the Sunzha Cossacks of four bulls, "which were found at it in the stable for what was under court", in theft of one horse from the Ingush which, misleading society, gave as "bought from the abrek Dzhansitov" and also in concealment of public money. If the conflict went too far, and the parties remained irreconcilable, then community members usually demanded removal of the foreman from a position. The same haptsevets in the application to the chief of the Nalchik district (whom they, according to them, perceived "as our lawful defender") asked, in view of "disorder of public tranquility" in the settlement, to discharge the foreman Boriyev of a position and to charge to the assistant it until legal investigation to assume government of the settlement [16].

the Serious conflict between the foreman and rural society arose in the Adygei aul of Egerukhay. On November 23, 1889 its inhabitants gathered near board and demanded from the foreman B. Makhoshev, "that he handed over a position to the assistant his Eshev as the population does not wish to have it at the told position". The local chief a Cossack captain Mikhalev took the foreman under protection. At a meeting of residents of the aul he accused being present at illegal actions and demanded unconditional obedience. However the Cossack captain did not make great success. There was an open collision of peasants with representatives of the authorities which ended with Makhoshev's removal from the foreman's position.

Having learned about the incident, the ataman of the Maykop department personally arrived to Egerukhay for explanation to its inhabitants of "illegality of an image of their actions and Makhoshev's recovery as the foreman". The ataman called a descent and demanded submission to the authorities. But on a descent the peasants said that they cannot agree that Makhoshev causes offenses not only to "certain residents of the aul", but "all aulsky society" [8, page 150].

The authorities extremely disapprovingly treated similar excesses. Foremen, as a rule, were a support of the Tsar's administration on places, personifying in fact the power and the idea of its firmness, and therefore usually enjoyed full support of the administration which in case of the conflict with the aul steadily took the their part. Aulchanam it was known and caused additional irritation. So, Hakurinokhabl's inhabitants sent on October 8, 1914 the complaint to the chief of the district in which wrote that the former foreman of the aul of Zhemogukov had to be discharged of this position on demand aulchan, but now is a ruler of the destiny of the aul only because it "enjoys unlimited confidence of the ataman of department of the colonel Logunov" [9, page 306].

Discharging in case of need foremen of a position, tsar's authorities did not consider for themselves not -

convenient to put the person necessary to them to this position. However in this case the administration could face resistance aulchan. In one archival document it was noted that "the mass of complaints arises when choosing foremen about abnormality of their choice". Other documents demonstrate that residents of many auls of the Ekaterinodarsky County "refused to recognize as foremen of persons not them the elite" [9, page 295, 305].

Very serious conflicts arose because of violations of the standard standards of behavior. According to traditional standard installations the public communication of people had to be quiet, measured, valid. Manifestation of roughness, mutual sharpness were not allowed, unreasonable altercations, especially impetuous abuse were condemned. So, in March, 1874 the residents of the settlement of Lafishevo expostulated the odnoselets Kartula Unacheva, Kasayu Mozzhokova and Kurmanali Chorova for the fact that on one of descents which discussed very important issue of an order of plowing of the earth they "handled society roughly, were put indecent into words". The special public censure in which lafi-shevets notified the administration on these "troublemakers and nepovinovitel of the power of the Russian law" and most obediently asked "to punish as an example for others them resettlement to what other place at discretion was about it made" [17, page 81, 82].

The defiant, loud, noisy behavior also did not keep within traditional norms and if who allowed demonstrative violation of the last, risked to draw upon itself penalties from society acting through its village assembly. Especially annoying could separate from public life, in particular, to deprive for a certain term of their right to be present at aulny descents. So, residents of the Kabardian settlement of Shalushka decided to prohibit Hazheli Apazheva to attend village assemblies. However, in this case this measure did not conceive due influence as Hazheli "after all continues to interfere with public affairs and to stir up society" [15, l. 16].

Following to religious (Islamic) instructions, in particular in the behavioural sphere was an important component of the social standard in the Adyghe aul. All deviations in this question were unconditionally condemned, causing hostility and aspiration to liquidate this anomaly. So, residents of the settlement of Kuchmazukino chose special entrusted who were sent to the Nalchik mountain verbal court with the complaint to the Magomet Hap-shokov's odnoselets and with the requirement to make him responsible. The reason of displeasure was clear: Hapshokov, as it was approved in the complaint, "years three or more ago as does not execute our any Mohammedan ceremonies and never holds hurrah-zy though and the Mohammedan. Without taking a detached view even of the numerous societies of admonition and even penalties imposed on it he to leave the pove-

the deniye in the religious relation also does not think, and opposite, continues to break it in more sublime look why our society does not wish to have at itself among the low and almost absolutely receded from religion person and authorized us entrusted to ask from all society mountain verbal court on the basis of Sharia to attract Magomet Hapshokov for non-execution of the religion" [18]. Society especially biased watched that rules of Islamic behavior were followed during religious holidays. So, Magomet Hapshokov the fact that he during an uraza smoked in the afternoon a cigarette was especially blamed. That offense took place complainants had no doubts as Hapshokov was called to the mosque where he confessed to the shocking act.

The condition of public deanery concerned also the Adygei auls. So, at a general meeting in Bzhe-gokaysky community on August 27, 1883 it was said that "residents of the aul evade from performance of duties on religion among it the fact that many on Friday, our holiday, work personally and with supplies". The sentence of a descent was very severe: "From everyone who will permit to himself to work personally itself and with supplies on Fridays, that pays in favor of society in the public sum a penalty for every time on 1 ruble" [19].

Societies of many Kabardian settlements were occupied by a problem of penetration into alcohol life. Babukovtsa on the descent on December 30, 1905 accepted tough penalties against sellers and buyers of vodka, considering - and it is probably quite fair, - that "eradication of this evil" will become an effective measure "for deduction of youth from vicious bents, violences, fights, poraneniye and other". Not the best situation was in Kogolkino. Locals complained to the foreman that "nearly an every night the youth of the village of Kogolkino walks about on the settlement in a state of intoxication, do different excesses and an outrage as that is broken by wattle fences, dragging them on the earth and so forth." as well as the woman-kovtsy, Kogolkino's inhabitants were sure that "private dealers in state monopoly" against which activity they urged to take measures [20, l are guilty persons. 121; 21, l. 11].

One of the taken measures consisted in imposing on guilty a fine. In April, 1909, for example, the resident of the settlement Hatu-Anzorovo Kalage-ry Shkhashamyshev was fined for secret trade in wine. Punishment by ruble seemed an effective measure of impact on a situation and in the settlement of Babukovo. Quite so here decided to fight against distribution in the village of vodka and "for deduction of youth from vicious bents, violences, fights, poraneniye and other". On December 30, 1905 the public descent of babukovets recognized to forbid residents of the settlement to sell vodka for the benefit. This resolution noticed in violation waited for a penalty in income of the public sum "for the first time 25 rub, for the second time of 30 rub, for the third time of 50 rub." also the buyer could undergo penalties. "Who ku-

vodka pitas in the settlement it will also be caught, - it was said in a descent sentence, - the penalty in a social income 3 rubles is imposed on that". However, in this situation there was a chance to cause a stir and, on the contrary, to receive the beseeming remuneration. "To volume, - babukovets settled, - who will find sale of vodka and will prove it actually, to issue a reward from the public sums of 5 rub" [20, l. 165; 21, l. 11].

The situation disturbing community members developed in the Kabardian settlement of Kogolkino. Having received numerous complaints to the dealers in "monopoly" who located in the village from the odnoselets, the rural foreman decided to take drastic measures. Judging by the protocol made on March 9, 1908, the foreman, having taken witnesses and policemen, went on houses of the known "dealers in monopoly". Raid proceeded not without difficulties, konfliktno. So, Kombot Murzayev flatly refused to unlock a door where, according to the foreman, "monopoly" was kept. The foreman had to use the power. "I, - recorded in the protocol the actions the foreman, - forced the lock where there was a room similar to shop on which walls, i.e. regiments, ware with monopoly is placed". In the same way "monopoly" was found in Hits Hogurov, Tlekhugov and Inaloko Bzhedugov's houses. In general "catch" of the foreman was rich: 26 pieces of semi-bottles of vodka, 14 pieces of shkalik of alcohol and 13 bottles of beer were withdrawn ". Besides, 70 pieces of semi-bottles and 6 pieces of spirits shkalik of empty ware" [20, l. 120, 120 about.].

In conclusion it is possible to draw a conclusion that the public conflicts were not an unusual occurrence in social life of the Adyghe aul. As the most frequent causes of conflict situations served land disputes, unfair distribution of public duties, opposition of local authorities and community members, violations of traditional behavioural norms. However the society interested in maintaining inner world and an order sought to repay immediately razgo-

Came to edition

the rummaging conflict. Working within two standard complexes - the traditional adatny and Russian administrative legislation, the society stopped the erupting conflicts, without stopping sometimes before very drastic measures in relation to violators of an intra communal order.

Literature

1. Central state archive of Kabardino-Balkar Republic (CGA KBR). T. I-6. Op. 1. 102.

T. 2. L. 117.

2. In the same place. T. 1.
3. M.G. Autlev. History of my contemporary. Krasnodar, 2004.
4. AzamatovaM. - K.Z. Ethnographic etudes. Maykop, 1997.
5. CGA KBR. T. I-6. Op. 1. 699. T. 1. L. 193.
6. In the same place. 411. T. 1.
7. State archive of the Republic of Adygea (HECTARE of RA). T. 21. Op. 1. 118. L. 5.
8. B.M. Dzhimov. Social and economic and political development of Adyghe in the 19th century Nalchik, 1986.
9. B.M. Dzhimov. Economic and social situation and revolutionary fight of workers of Adygea in 1901 - 1917//the Collection of articles on the history of Adygea. Maykop, 1976.
10. CGA KBR. T. I-6. Op. 1. 496. L.5.
11. In the same place. 498. L.113.
12. In the same place. 582. T. 2. L. 102.
13. In the same place. 364. T. 2. L. 25.
14. In the same place. T. 1. L. 62.
15. In the same place. 829.
16. In the same place. 25. T. 2. L. 359, 359 about.
17. Karov A. Psykhurey in documents and destinies. Nalchik, 1999.
18. CGA KBR. T. I-6. Op. 1. 2705.
19. HECTARE of RA. T. 21. Op. 1. 114. L. 14.
20. CGA KBR. T. I-6. Op. 1. 735. T. 1.
21. In the same place. T. 2.

On June 11, 2009

Phyllis Parker
Other scientific works: