Climate Change- Middle East Too Hot For Human Survival

[drunkenshoe]

Turkic peoples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Turkic peoples
The countries and autonomous regions where a Turkic language has official status and/or is spoken by a majority.
Total population Approx. 140â€"160 million[1][2]
Regions with significant populations
Turkey   57,500,000â€"61,500,000[3]
Uzbekistan   25,200,000[4]
Iran   15,000,000[5]
Russia   12,300,000[6]
Kazakhstan   12,009,969[7]
China   11,647,000[8]
Azerbaijan   9,780,780[9]
European Union European Union   5,876,318
Turkmenistan   4,500,000[10]
Kyrgyzstan   4,500,000[11]
Afghanistan   3,500,000[12]
Iraq   1,500,000[13]
Tajikistan   1,200,000[14]
United States   1,000,000+[15]
Pakistan   500,000[16]
Northern Cyprus North Cyprus   298,862[17]
Australia   293,500
Georgia   284,761[18]
Ukraine   275,300[19]
Saudi Arabia   224,460
Syria   100,000â€"200,000[20]
Moldova   158,300[21]
Mongolia   106,955[22]
Macedonia   77,959[23]
Languages
Turkic languages
Religion Islam (Sunni · Nondenominational Muslims · Cultural Muslim · Quranist Muslim · Alevi · Twelver Shia · Ja'fari)
Christianity (Eastern Orthodox Christianity) Judaism (Djudios Turkos · Sabbataists · Karaites)
Irreligion (Agnosticism · Atheism) Animism, Tengrism, Shamanism, Mani

(When we say 'Turk':)

The Turkic peoples are a collection of ethnic groups that live in central, eastern, northern, and western Asia as well as parts of eastern Europe. They speak languages belonging to the Turkic language family.[24] They share, to varying degrees, certain cultural traits and historical backgrounds. The term Turkic represents a broad ethno-linguistic group of peoples including existing societies such as Altai, Azerbaijanis, Balkars, Bashkirs, Chuvashes, Crimean Karaites, Gagauz, Karachays, Karakalpaks, Kazakhs, Khakas, Krymchaks, Kyrgyz people, Nogais, Qashqai, Tatars, Turkmens, Turks, Tuvans, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, and Yakuts and as well as ancient and medieval states such as Dingling, Bulgars, Chuban, Göktürks, Khazars, Khiljis, Kipchaks, Kumans, Ottoman Turks, Seljuk Turks, Tiele, Timurids, Turgeshes, Yenisei Kirghiz, and possibly Huns, Tuoba, Wusun, and the Xiongnu.[24][25][26][27][28]

Etymology

Map from Kashgari's Diwan, showing the distribution of Turkic tribes.
The first known mention of the term Turk (Old Turkic: ð±...𐰇𐰼𐰰 Türük[29][30] or 𐰜𐰇𐰛 ð±...𐰇𐰼𐰰 Kök Türük[29][30] or ð±...𐰇𐰼𐰛 Türük,[31] Chinese: 突厥, Old Tibetan: duruggu/durgu (meaning "origin"),[32][33] Pinyin: TÅ«jué, Middle Chinese (Guangyun): [tÊ°uot-küot]) applied to a Turkic group was in reference to the Göktürks in the 6th century. A letter by Ishbara Qaghan to Emperor Wen of Sui in 585 described him as "the Great Turk Khan."[34] The Orhun inscriptions (735 CE) use the terms Turk and Turuk.

Previous use of similar terms are of unknown significance, although some strongly feel that they are evidence of the historical continuity of the term and the people as a linguistic unit since early times. This includes Chinese records Spring and Autumn Annals referring to a neighbouring people as Beidi.[35]

During the first century CE, Pomponius Mela refers to the "Turcae" in the forests north of the Sea of Azov, and Pliny the Elder lists the "Tyrcae" among the people of the same area.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] There are references to certain groups in antiquity whose names could be the original form of "Türk/Türük" such as Togarma, Turukha/TuruÅ¡ka, Turukku and so on. But the information gap is so substantial that we cannot firmly connect these ancient people to the modern Turks.[44][45][46] Turkologist András Róna-Tas posits that the term Turk could be rooted in the East Iranian Saka language[47] or in Turkic.[48] However, it is generally accepted that the term "Türk" is ultimately derived from the Old-Turkic migration-term[49] ð±...𐰇𐰼𐰰 Türük/Törük,[50][51] which means "created", "born",[52] or "strong",[53] from the Old Turkic word root *türi-/töri- ("tribal root, (mythic) ancestry; take shape, to be born, be created, arise, spring up") and conjugated with Old Turkic suffix 𐰰 (-ik), perhaps from Proto-Turkic *türi-k ("lineage, ancestry"),[50] from the Proto-Turkic word root *töŕ ("foundation, root; origin, ancestors"),[54][55] possibly from a Proto-Altaic source *t`ŏ̀ŕe ("law, regulation").[56] This etymological concept is also related to Old Turkic word stems 'tür' ("root, ancestry, race, kind of, sort of"), 'türi-' ("to bring together, to collect"), 'törü' ("law, custom") and 'töz' ("substance").[50]

The Chinese Book of Zhou (7th century) presents an etymology of the name Turk as derived from "helmet", explaining that taken this name refers to the shape of the Altai Mountains.[citation needed] According to Persian tradition, as reported by 11th-century ethnographer Mahmud of Kashgar and various other traditional Islamic scholars and historians, the name "Turk" stems from Tur, one of the sons of Japheth (see Turan).

During the Middle Ages, various Turkic peoples of the Eurasian steppe were subsumed under the identity of the "Scythians".[57] Between 400 CE and the 16th century, Byzantine sources use the name Σκύθαι (Skuthai) in reference to twelve different Turkic peoples.[57]

In the modern Turkish language as used in the Republic of Turkey, a distinction is made between "Turks" and the "Turkic peoples" in loosely speaking: the term Türk corresponds specifically to the "Turkish-speaking" people (in this context, "Turkish-speaking" is considered the same as "Turkic-speaking"), while the term Türki refers generally to the people of modern "Turkic Republics" (Türki Cumhuriyetler or Türk Cumhuriyetleri). However, the proper usage of the term is based on the linguistic classification in order to avoid any political sense. In short, the term Türki can be used for Türk or vice versa.[58]

Classification
Main articles: Turkic languages and Altaic languages

Old Turkic inscription with the Orkhon script (c. 8th century). Kyzyl, Russia
Turkish is a member of the Oghuz group of languages, a subgroup of the Turkic language family. There is a high degree of mutual intelligibility between Turkish and the other Oghuz Turkic languages, including Azerbaijani, Turkmen, Qashqai, Gagauz, and Balkan Gagauz Turkish.[19] The Turkic family comprises some 30 living languages spoken across Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Siberia. Some linguists believe the Turkic languages to be a part of a larger Altaic language family.[20] About 40% of all speakers of Turkic languages are native Turkish speakers.[21] The characteristic features of Turkish, such as vowel harmony, agglutination, and lack of grammatical gender, are universal within the Turkic family.[21]

Oghuz Turks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about a group of Turkic peoples. For other uses, see Oghuz.

Oguz Yabgu State in Kazakhstan, 750-1055
The Ghuzz or Turkmens also known as Oguzes (a linguistic term designating the Western Turkic or Oghuz languages from the Oghur sub-division of Turkic language family) were a historical Turkic tribal confederation conventionally named the Oghuz Yabgu State in Central Asia during the early medieval period. The name Oguz is a Common Turkic word for "tribe". The Oguz confederation migrated westward from the Jeti-su area after a conflict with the Karluk branch of Uigurs. The founders of the Ottoman Empire were descendants of the Oguz Yabgu State. Today the residents of Turkey, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Khorezm, Turkmens of Afghanistan, Gagauzia are descendants of Oghuz Turks and their language belongs to the Oghuz (a.k.a. southwestern Turkic) group of the Turkic languages family. According to Khazar sources, Oghuzes are descended from the seventh son of Togarmah related to Gog and Magog.[1][2][3]

In the 9th century, the Oguzes from the Aral steppes drove Bechens from the Emba and Ural River region toward the west. In the 10th century, they inhabited the steppe of the rivers Sari-su, Turgai, and Emba to the north of Lake Balkhash of modern-day Kazakhstan.[4] A clan of this nation, the Seljuks, embraced Islam and in the 11th century entered Persia, where they founded the Great Seljuk Empire. Similarly in the 11th century, a Tengriist Oghuz clanâ€"referred to as Uzes or Torks in the Russian chroniclesâ€"overthrew Pecheneg supremacy in the Russian steppe. Harried by another Turkic horde, the Kipchaks, these Oghuz penetrated as far as the lower Danube, crossed it and invaded the Balkans, where they were either crushed[5] or struck down by an outbreak of plague, causing the survivors either to flee or to join the Byzantine imperial forces as mercenaries (1065).[6]


The Old World in 600 AD
The Oghuz seem to have been related to the Pechenegs, some of whom were clean-shaven and others of whom had small 'goatee' beards. According to the book Attila and the Nomad Hordes, "Like the Kimaks they set up many carved wooden funerary statues surrounded by simple stone balbal monoliths."[7] The authors of the book go on to note that "Those Uzes or Torks who settled along the Russian frontier were gradually Slavicized, though they also played a leading role as cavalry in 1100- and early 1200-era Russian armies, where they were known as Black Hats.... Oghuz warriors served in almost all Islamic armies of the Middle East from the 1000s onwards, in Byzantium from the 800's, and even in Spain and Morocco."[7] In later centuries, they adapted and applied their own traditions and institutions to the ends of the Islamic world and emerged as empire-builders with a constructive sense of statecraft.

Linguistically, the Oghuz are listed together with the old Kimaks of the middle Yenisei of the Ob, the old Kipchaks who later emigrated to southern Russia, and the modern Kirghiz in one particular Turkic group, distinguished from the rest by the mutation of the initial y sound to j (dj).

"The term 'Oghuz' was gradually supplanted among the Turks themselves by Türkmen, 'Turcoman', from the mid 900's on, a process which was completed by the beginning of the 1200s."[8]

"The Ottoman dynasty, who gradually took over Anatolia after the fall of the Seljuks, toward the end of the 13th century, led an army that was also predominantly Oghuz."[9]

Origins[edit]
Main article: Origin of the Turks
The original homeland of the Oghuz was the Altai Mountains of Central Asia, which had been the domain of Turkic peoples since prehistory.

During the 2nd century BCE, according to ancient Chinese sources, a steppe tribal confederation known as the Xiongnu and their allies, the Wusun (probably an Indo-European people) defeated the neighboring Yuezhi and drove them out of western China and into Central Asia. Various scholarly theories link the Xiongnu to Turkic peoples and/or the Huns. The first usage of the word "Oghuz" appears to have been the title of Oguz Kaan, given in 220 BCE to the Xiongnu king Modu Shanyu (or Mau-Tun),[10][11] who founded the Xiongnu Empire. According to a controversial theory with few scholarly adherents, one transliteration of Yuezhi, as Hu-chieh, may refer to the Turkic Uyghurs.[12] However, the Yuezhi are widely believed to have spoken an Indo-European language or languages.

In later Chinese sources, the names Oghuz 乌护, Ogur 乌揭 and Huqie å'¼æ­ (a name that is generally believed to refer to the Uyghurs) were applied to peoples hostile to the Xiongnu and living immediately west of them, in the area of the Irtysh River, near Lake Zaysan.[13][14]


A bust of Dede Korkutâ€"the central character of an epic dating from the 9th Centuriesâ€"in Baku.
A number of subsequent tribal confederations bore the name Oghuz, often affixed to a numeral indicating the number of united tribes included. These include references to the Sekiz-Oghuz ("eight oghuz") and the Dokuz-Oghuz ("nine oghuz"). The tribes of the Sekiz-Oghuz and the Dokuz-Oghuz originally occupied different areas in the vicinity of the Altai Mountains.

During the establishment of the Göktürk Khaganateâ€"a region extending from east of the Caspian Sea to the east of the Aral Sea and neighbouring the Karakum Desert in the south, and similar to modern Kazakhstanâ€"the Oghuz, in the above sense, remained in northeastern areas of the Altai, along the Tula River and near the Barlyk River (in present-day northern Mongolia).

By the time of the Orkhon inscriptions (8th Century CE) "Oghuz" was being applied generically to all inhabitants of the Göktürk Khaganate.[15] Within the khaganate, the Oghuz community gradually expanded, incorporating other tribes.[16] Ibn al-Athir, an Arab historian, claimed that the Oghuz Turks were settled mainly in Transoxiana, between the Caspian and Aral Seas, during the period of the caliph Al-Mahdi (after 775 CE). By 780, the eastern parts of the Syr Darya were ruled by the Karluk Turks and to their west were the Oghuz. Transoxiana, their main homeland in subsequent centuries became known as the "Oghuz Steppe".

Mass migrations of the Oghuz into Western Eurasia occurred from the early part of the 9th Century CE onwards.[citation needed] For example, during the period of the Abbasid caliph Al-Ma'mun (813â€"833), the name Oghuz starts to appear in the works of Islamic writers. the Book of Dede Korkut, a historical epic of the Oghuz, was written during the 9th and 10th centuries.[17]

[drunkenshoe]

Migration Period

Migration Period
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about European migrations in the middle of the first millennium AD. For prehistoric migrations, see Human migration. For the 2003 Canadian film, see The Barbarian Invasions. For seasonal periods of animal migrations, see animal migration. For seasonal periods of human migrations, see seasonal human migration.

This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in German. (January 2012) Click [show] for important translation instructions. [show]
Invasions of the Roman Empire



Invasions
Time   21â€"700 AD
Place   Europe and Northern Africa
Event   Tribes invading the declining Roman Empire
The Migration Period, also known as the Völkerwanderung (German),[1] and from the Roman and South European perspective referred to as the Barbarian Invasions,[2] was a period of many migrations with or without accompanying invasions or war in Europe, with war bands or tribes of 10-20,000 people,[3] but in the course of 100 years not more than 750,000 in total, compared to an average 39.9 million population of the Roman Empire at that time. Although immigration was common throughout the Roman Empire,[4] in the 19th century it was often defined as starting from the period when it affected the Roman world, running from about the 5th to 8th centuries AD.[5][6] during the transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. This period was marked by profound changes both within the Roman Empire and beyond. The first migrations of peoples were made by Germanic tribes such as the Goths, Vandals, Angles, Saxons, Lombards, Suebi, Frisii, Jutes and Franks; they were later pushed westwards by the Huns, Avars, Slavs, and Bulgars.[7] Later invasions (such as the Viking, Norman, Hungarian, Moorish, Turkic, and Mongol invasions) also had significant effects (especially in North Africa, the Iberian peninsula, Anatolia and Central and Eastern Europe); however, they are outside the scope of the Migration Period.

Chronology[edit]
See also: Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Burgundians, Alans, Lombards, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Suebi, Alemanni, Gepids, and Vandals

A Migration Period Germanic gold bracteate featuring a depiction of a bird, horse, and stylized head wearing a Suebian knot sometimes theorized to represent Germanic god Wōden and what would later become Sleipnir and Hugin or Munin in Germanic mythology, later attested to in the form of Norse mythology. The runic inscription includes the religious term alu.
Origins of Germanic tribes[edit]
Further information: Proto-Germanic and Pre-Roman Iron Age (Northern Europe)
Germanic peoples moved out of southern Scandinavia and Germany[8][9] to the adjacent lands between the Elbe and Oder after 1000 BC. The first wave moved westward and southward (pushing the resident Celts west to the Rhine by about 200 BC), moving into southern Germany up to the Roman provinces of Gaul and Cisalpine Gaul by 100 BC, where they were stopped by Gaius Marius and Julius Caesar. It is this western group which was described by the Roman historian Tacitus (56â€"117 AD) and Julius Caesar (100â€"44 BC). A later wave of Germanic tribes migrated eastward and southward from Scandinavia between 600 and 300 BC to the opposite coast of the Baltic Sea, moving up the Vistula near the Carpathians. During Tacitus' era they included lesser known tribes such as the Tencteri, Cherusci, Hermunduri and Chatti; however, a period of federation and intermarriage resulted in the familiar groups known as the Alemanni, Franks, Saxons, Frisians and Thuringians.[10]

First phase[edit]
Further information: Roman Iron Age (Northern Europe)
The Barbarian Invasions may be divided into two phases. The first phase, occurring between a.d. 300 and 500, is partly documented by Greek and Latin historians but difficult to verify archaeologically. It put Germanic peoples in control of most areas of what was then the Western Roman Empire.[11] The Tervingi entered Roman territory (after a clash with the Huns) in 376. Some time thereafter in Marcianopolis, the escort to Fritigern (their leader) was killed while meeting with Lupicinus.[12] The Tervingi rebelled, and the Visigoths, a group derived either from the Tervingi or from a fusion of mainly Gothic groups, eventually invaded Italy and sacked Rome in 410, before settling in Gaul, and then, 50 years later, in Iberia, founding a kingdom that lasted for 250 years. They were followed into Roman territory first by a confederation of Herulian, Rugian, and Scirian warriors, under Odoacer, that deposed Romulus Augustulus on 4 September AD 476, and later by the Ostrogoths, led by Theodoric the Great, who settled in Italy. In Gaul, the Franks (a fusion of western Germanic tribes whose leaders had been aligned with Rome since the third century a.d.) entered Roman lands gradually during the fifth century, and after consolidating power under Childeric and his son Clovis’s decisive victory over Syagrius in 486, established themselves as rulers of northern Roman Gaul. Fending off challenges from the Allemanni, Burgundians, and Visigoths, the Frankish kingdom became the nucleus of what would later become France and Germany. The initial Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain occurred during the fifth century, when Roman control of Britain had come to an end.[13] The Burgundians settled in North Western Italy, Switzerland and Eastern France in the fifth century.

Second phase[edit]
Further information: Germanic Iron Age and Early Slavs
The second phase took place between 500 and 700 and saw Slavic tribes settling in central and eastern Europe (notably in eastern Magna Germania), gradually making it predominantly Slavic.[14] Additionally, Turkic tribes such as the Avars became involved in this phase. In 567, the Avars and the Lombards destroyed much of the Gepid Kingdom. The Lombards, a Germanic people, settled in Italy with their Herulian, Suebian, Gepid, Thuringian, Bulgarian, Sarmatian and Saxon allies in the 6th century.[15][16] They were later followed by the Bavarians and the Franks, who conquered and ruled most of Italy. The Bulgars, originally a nomadic group from Central Asia, had occupied the Pontic steppe north of Caucasus since the second century, but after, pushed by the Khazars, the majority of them migrated west and dominated Byzantine territories along the lower Danube in the seventh century.

During the early Byzantineâ€"Arab Wars, Arab armies attempted to invade southeast Europe via Asia Minor during the late seventh and early eighth centuries, but were defeated at the siege of Constantinople (717â€"718) by the joint forces of Byzantium and the Bulgars. During the Khazarâ€"Arab Wars, the Khazars stopped the Arab expansion into Europe across the Caucasus (7th and 8th centuries). At the same time, the Moors (consisting of Africans like the Haratin Moors of the African country of Mauritania (Mooritania), Arabs and Berbers) invaded Europe via Gibraltar (conquering Hispaniaâ€"the Iberian Peninsulaâ€"from the Visigothic Kingdom in 711), before being halted. These battles broadly demarcated the frontiers between Christendom and Islam for the next millennium. The following centuries saw the Muslims successful in conquering most of Sicily from the Christians by 902.

The Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin from around 895, and the Viking expansion from the late 8th century conventionally mark the last large movements of the period. Christianity gradually converted the non-Islamic newcomers and integrated them into the medieval Christian order.

Climatic factors[edit]
A number of contemporary historical references worldwide refer to an extended period of extreme weather during 535â€"536. Evidence of this cold period is also found in dendrochronology and ice cores. The consequences of this cold period are debated.

Further information: Bond event
Discussions[edit]
Barbarian identity[edit]
The analysis of barbarian identity and how it was created and expressed during the Barbarian Invasions has elicited discussion among scholars. Herwig Wolfram (a historian of the Goths),[17] in discussing the equation of migratio gentium with Völkerwanderung, observes that Michael Schmidt introduced the equation in his 1778 history of the Germans. Wolfram observed that the significance of gens as a biological community was shifting even during the early Middle Ages; "to complicate matters, we have no way of devising a terminology that is not derived from the concept of nationhood created during the French Revolution".

The "primordialistic"[18] paradigm prevailed during the 19th century. Scholars such as German linguist Johann Gottfried Herder viewed tribes as coherent biological (racial) entities, using the term to refer to discrete ethnic groups.[19] He believed that the Volk were an organic whole, with a core identity and spirit evident in art, literature and language. These were seen as intrinsic characteristics unaffected by external influences, even conquest.[20] Language, in particular, was seen as the most important expression of ethnicity. They argued that groups sharing the same (or similar) language possessed a common identity and ancestry.[21] The Romantic ideal that there had once been a single German, Celtic or Slavic people who originated from a common homeland and spoke a common tongue helped provide a conceptual framework for political movements of the 18th and 19th centuries such as Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism.[20]

Beginning in the 1960s a reinterpretation of archaeological and historic evidence prompted scholars (such as Goffart and Todd) to propose new models for explaining the construction of barbarian identity, maintaining that no sense of shared identity was perceived by the Germani;[22][23][24] a similar theory has been proposed for Celtic and Slavic groups.[25] This theory states that the primordialist mode of thinking was encouraged by a prima facie interpretation of Graeco-Roman sources, which grouped together many tribes under such labels as Germani, Keltoi or Sclavenoi (encouraging their perception as distinct peoples). Modernists argue that the uniqueness perceived by specific groups was based on common political and economic interests, rather than biological or racial distinctions.

The role of language in constructing and maintaining group identity can be ephemeral, since large-scale language shifts occur commonly in history.[26] Modernists propose the idea of "imagined communities"; the barbarian polities in late antiquity were social constructs, rather than changeless lines of blood kinship.[27] The process of forming tribal units was called "ethnogenesis", a term coined by Soviet scholar Yulian Bromley.[28] The Austrian school (led by Reinhard Wenskus) popularized this idea, which influenced medievalists such as Herwig Wolfram, Walter Pohl and Patrick Geary.[22] It argues that the stimulus for forming tribal polities was perpetuated by a small nucleus of people, known as the Traditionskern ("kernel of tradition"), who were a military or aristocratic elite. This core group formed a standard for larger units, gathering adherents by employing amalgamative metaphors such as kinship and aboriginal commonality and claiming that they perpetuated an ancient, divinely-sanctioned lineage.[29]

"The common, track-filled map of the Völkerwanderung may illustrate such [a] course of events, but it misleads. Unfolded over long periods of time, the changes of position that took place were necessarily irregular ... (with) periods of emphatic discontinuity. For decades and possibly centuries, the tradition bearers idled, and the tradition itself hibernated. There was ample time for forgetfulness to do its work".[30]

Viewpoints to the invasion of barbarians[edit]
Historians have postulated several explanations for the appearance of "barbarians" on the Roman frontier: weather and crops, population pressure, a "primeval urge" to push into the Mediterranean, or the "domino effect" (whereby the Huns fell upon the Goths who, in turn, pushed other Germanic tribes before them). Entire barbarian tribes (or nations) flooded into Roman provinces,[citation needed] ending classical urbanism and beginning new types of rural settlements.[31] In general, French and Italian scholars have tended to view this as a catastrophic event: the destruction of a civilization and the beginning of a "Dark Age" which set Europe back a millennium.[31] In contrast, German and English historians have tended to see it as the replacement of a "tired, effete and decadent Mediterranean civilization" with a "more virile, martial, Nordic one".[31] Rather than "invasion", German and Slavic scholars use the term "migration" (German: Völkerwanderung, Czech: Stěhování národů, Swedish: folkvandring and Hungarian: népvándorlás), aspiring to the idea of a dynamic and "wandering Indo-Germanic people".[32]

The scholar Guy Halsall has seen the barbarian movement as the result of the fall of the Roman Empire, not as its cause.[31] Archaeological finds have confirmed that Germanic and Slavic tribes were settled agriculturalists[33] who were probably merely "drawn into the politics of an empire already falling apart for quite a few other causes". The Crisis of the Third Century caused significant changes within the Roman Empire, in both its western and eastern portions.[34] In particular, economic fragmentation removed many of the political, cultural and economic forces which had held the empire together.[35] The rural population in Roman provinces became distanced from the metropolis, and there was little to differentiate them from other peasants across the Roman frontier. In addition, Rome increasingly used foreign mercenaries to defend itself. This "barbarisation" of the Empire was paralleled by changes within barbaricum. For example, the Roman Empire played a vital role in building up barbarian groups along its frontier. Propped up with imperial support and gifts, the armies of allied barbarian chieftains served as buffers against hostile barbarian groups. The disintegration of Roman economic power weakened groups that had come to depend on Roman gifts for the maintenance of their own power. With the arrival of the Huns, this prompted many groups to invade the provinces for economic reasons.[36]

The nature of the barbarian takeover of former Roman provinces varied from region to region. For example, in Aquitaine the provincial administration was largely self-reliant. Halsall has argued that local rulers simply "handed over" military rule to the Ostrogoths, acquiring the identity of the newcomers.[11] In Gaul the collapse of imperial rule resulted in anarchy: the Franks and Alemanni were pulled into the ensuing "power vacuum",[37] resulting in conflict. In Spain local aristocrats maintained independent rule for some time, raising their own armies against the Vandals. Meanwhile, the Roman withdrawal from lowland England resulted in conflict between Saxons and the Brythonic chieftains (whose centres of power retreated westward as a result). The Eastern Roman Empire attempted to maintain control of the Balkan provinces, despite a thinly-spread imperial army that relied mainly on local militias and an extensive effort to re-fortify the Danubian limes. The ambitious fortification efforts collapsed, worsening the impoverished conditions of the local populace and resulting in colonization by Slavic warriors and their families.[38]

Halsall and Noble have argued that such changes stemmed from the breakdown in Roman political control, which exposed the weakness of local Roman rule. Instead of large-scale migrations, there were military takeovers by small groups of warriors and their families (who usually numbered in the tens of thousands). This process involved active, conscious decision-making by Roman provincial populations. The collapse of centralized control severely weakened the sense of Roman identity in the provinces, which may explain why the provinces underwent dramatic cultural changes at this time even though few barbarians settled in them.[39] Ultimately, the Germanic groups in the Western Roman Empire were accommodated without "dispossessing or overturning indigenous society" and maintained a structured and hierarchical (albeit attenuated) form of Roman administration.[40] Ironically, they lost their unique identity as a result of this accommodation and were absorbed into Latinhood. In contrast, in the east, Slavic tribes maintained a more "spartan and egalitarian"[41] existence bound to the land "even in times when they took their part in plundering Roman provinces".[42] Their organizational models were not Roman, and their leaders were not normally dependent on Roman gold for success. Thus, they arguably had a greater effect on their region than the Goths, Franks or Saxons had on theirs.[43]

Ethnicity[edit]
Based on the belief that particular types of artifacts (generally elements of personal adornment found in a funerary context) are thought to indicate the race and/or ethnicity of the person buried, the "Culture-History" school of archaeology assumed that archaeological cultures represent the Urheimat (homeland) of tribal polities named in historical sources.[44] As a consequence, the shifting extensions of material cultures were interpreted as the expansion of peoples.[45] Influenced by constructionism, process-driven archaeologists rejected the Culture-Historical doctrine;[45] they marginalized the discussion of ethnicity altogether, and focused on the intragroup dynamics which generated such material remains. Moreover, they argued that adoption of new cultures could occur through trade or internal political developments rather than military takeovers.

[stromboli]

Before 881 AD three Turkic tribes rebelled against the rule of the Khagan of the Khazars, but they were suppressed. After their defeat they left the Khazar Empire and voluntarily joined the Hétmagyar confederation. The three tribes were organised into one tribe, called Kabar, and later they played the roles of vanguard and rear guard during the joint military actions of the confederation. The joining of the three tribes to the previous seven created the On-ogur (Ten Arrows),[10] one of the possible origins for the name Hungarian.

Hetmagyar confederation. The language is still Uralic, not Turkic.

[Baruch]

Hetmagyar confederation. The language is still Uralic, not Turkic.

Shoe likes to brag about her ancestor, Genghis ... though with the Mongol Horde, the officers were Mongols and the soldiers were Turks.  The Turks had already moved West 400 years earlier, as far as Anatolia.  So technically, she is part of the earlier Western Turks, who were eventually Muslim, rather than the later Eastern Turks (and Mongols) who were ultimately Buddhist.  There has been a lot of race mixing on the Steppe in the last 2000 years ... her stats refer to present day, not to historical fact.  The Khazar Bulgars ... who were part Hun, are the only tribe to convert in-mass (by choice of chieftain) to Judaism.  This is covered in the classic Jewish philosophy/fiction ... The Kuzari.  Today Palestinians claim that all Jews are Huns ... and some are.  Fact is, most Palestinians are Jewish.

My Y chromosome Alpha male is Alani ... a sub-tribe of the Sarmatians, that got to W Europe with the Germans, crossing the Rhine in 406, and ultimately ending up in W France (Roman Gaul then).  Basically all the E Indo-European folks are similar to Persians.  Within 100 years of migrating to France, King Clovis created what is now France, the Franks also being Germans originally.  That Alans and Franks were foederati to the Roman legions.  We were all trying to get away from those damn Huns ... they like to drink blood from our skulls!