|
|
Post by Atabeg on Jan 22, 2009 23:08:03 GMT 3
People allways talk about how the Iranian tribes expanded east and got assimilated by the Asiatic Nomads and that the Turkic Tribes migrated west and absorbed the remaining Iranian tribes. Or mongols remaining in the Khanates who got turkified
But what about the East and North?
How many Tungus tribes were assimilated by the Mongols? (manchu mabey?) what about the north? Tungus & siberian peoples
what happend their. Expansion is rarely in one direction
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 23, 2009 3:37:39 GMT 3
The problem is that, did any Tungusic people moves that much as to get assimilated by the Mongols? Never heard any.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on Jan 23, 2009 13:30:12 GMT 3
but people like the Sakha and siberian Tatars migrated more 2 the north couldn't there be native siberians
and what was the role of the Sakha in any major steppe power? Is it safe to asume that the southern Yakuts were closer to the rest of the Turks than the Norther who were more hunters & fisherman, but they had reindeers though. Even there yurts look different.
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 23, 2009 19:47:30 GMT 3
Don't forget to stick into this mix the Kettic and Samoyedic. Kets originated further south, according to their legends. The Southern Samoyeds (i.e., Mator, Karagas) were assimilated into the surrounding Turkic populations. Supposedly reindeer husbandry originates in the eastern Sayan Mountains.
Shors are apparently Turkified Ugrics.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 23, 2009 22:34:58 GMT 3
Oh well yes, the Sakha are heavily mixed with Tungusic peoples, to my knowledge. The thing is that, the Sakhas were not the original natives of their current lands. They actually migrated from a much southwards place, probably around Lake Baikal. Their language has words that are related with steppe lifestyle, which is unusual for forest peoples. It is thought that they are the descendents of the Qurïqan people mentioned in the Orkhon inscriptions. Are you sure?  Would like to hear more about this. |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jan 24, 2009 0:52:17 GMT 3
Sakhas are indeed generally divided into 2 parts.
Northern Sakhas are hunters with the life style very similar to Chukhcas and other people of the Far North (and some of them still retain this lifestyle) while southern Sakhas were kind of semi-nomadic people with yurts and horses and the life style similar to Buriats and Tuvans.
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jan 24, 2009 3:56:10 GMT 3
Are you sure? Would like to hear more about this. Trying to remember where I first saw this mentioned. It wasn't just something on the internet, but I did find this: pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ea210/Altai.htm"The modern Shor seem to be mainly the Turkicized descendants of Samoyedic, Ugric (related to Hungarian), and Ketic peoples who lived thousands of years ago in the uppermost reaches of the Yenisei River. The process whereby the Samoyedic and Ketic tribes were displaced by Turks seems to have gone on for centuries, perhaps beginning as early as the first few centuried AD, during the time of the Hunnic Confederation. Although today considered a Turkic people speaking a Turkic language, the Shor display numerous cultural and linguistic peculiarities which tie them to the Samoyedic and even the Yugrian Khanty-Mansi of Northwestern Siberia. For instance, during the bear festival, the Khanty-Mansi construct a phallic symbol out of wood (the bear being one of the sacred male symbols). This is done by the Shor, as well, although it is unknown among other Turkic tribes. Also, Samoyedic and especially Ketic place names are evident over all of the territory presently inhabited by the Shor. The Shor shaman's tamborine also shows similarity to that of the present-day Kets. There may have also been ancient Indo-European influence among the Turkic speaking peoples of the Altai and Sayan, as Shor and their neighbors seem to have fewer Mongoloid traits than the ancient Turks." |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 24, 2009 21:57:12 GMT 3
Hmm I see...
|
|
