Conclusion

By 1833 the first stage of adaptation in the Molochna region was over. The river basin was crowded with sheep, the flood plain was crowded with villages, and the settlers were about to face the new challenge of how to adapt the economy that they had built on the basis of inexhaust­ible availability of land to a landscape that was becoming increasingly exhausted.

Nogai were the least prepared for the looming challenge. Only a small economic elite had participated in the transition to sheep breed­ing and this group, which owed its prosperity to Mennonite subsidies, possessed no claim to the leadership of the Nogai majority. Indeed, their success, based as it was on the use of public land for private gain, at once undermined traditional Nogai administrative structures and threatened the economic welfare of the entire Nogai community. By 1833 there was no sign of the organic development of a new self-admin­istrative system to legitimize economic differentiation and ensure sub­sistence for the poor.

If Orthodox state peasants were in better shape than the Nogai, it was not by dint of good planning. They too had expanded the size of their herds as fast as they could, and although the growth rate was slower than that of Nogai, this was likely only because Nogai had the advantage of greater experience with pastoralism. Like the majority of Nogai the Orthodox peasants had shown little interest in commercial husbandry, ignoring the transition to merino sheep that markets de­manded. With the full occupation of all viable crown land looming on the horizon, Orthodox peasants would soon also face the problems of land shortages and economic differentiation. They too lacked a tradi­tion that legitimized economic differentiation, and any attempt to rein­state their traditional system of obshchina authority over land was bound to face opposition from wealthy landowners.

Sectarians faced the new challenges from a position of strength. Molokans, who held the poorest land allotment in the Molochna re­gion, had never had the luxury of relying on extensive agriculture, and they were already shrewdly employing their limited resources to pros­per as market gardeners and speciality horse breeders. Doukhobors controlled disproportionately large tracts of the Molochna flood plain and had shown their good commercial sense by investing early in the transition to merino sheep. They had never abandoned communal con­trol of property and consequently had well-established provisions for the general welfare of their community, while the appearance of a wealthy minority, which provided a ratchet to the economic develop­ment of the whole community, was legitimized by a religiously based internal administrative system. What could go wrong?

Foreign colonists, whether German broadly speaking or Mennonite, also seemed well prepared for the new challenges. Their land was held in indivisible allotments, so demographic growth posed no threat to the viability of their agricultural economy. However, the indivisibility of allotments also meant that, unlike other settlers who were guaranteed a portion of land either by the state or by their community, the colonists were faced with growing numbers of landless people. In 1833 this prob­lem had been partially avoided in the German settlement by distribut­ing surplus land, but at some point in the not too distant future it would have to be faced. In the Mennonite settlement landlessness was already a serious problem. Unlike the Doukhobors, Mennonites had no traditional system to sanction economic differentiation and protect the welfare of the landless, and the congregational system had Iitde flexibil­ity to adapt to new demands. The conflicts that loomed for Mennonites posed a fundamental challenge to their beliefs, but at least it was a challenge that progressive Mennonites were conscious of and prepared to address head-on.