Buryats

Buryats

ᠪᠤᠷᠢᠶᠠᠳ буряад buryaad
Flag of Buryatia
A Buryat-Mongol wrestling match during the Altargana Festival
Total population
556,000
Regions with significant populations
Russia	460,053
Buryatia	295,273
Irkutsk Oblast	74,746
Zabaykalsky Krai	65,590
China	10,000-70,000
Mongolia	43,661
Languages
Buryat (L1); Russian, Mongolian
Religion
Buddhism, Orthodox Christianity, Mongolian shamanism
Related ethnic groups
Other Mongolic peoples and Indigenous peoples of Siberia

The Buryats are a Mongol ethnic group whose historical homeland is centred on the Lake Baikal region and adjoining areas of southern Siberia and Mongolia. They speak Buryat, a Central Mongolic language closely related to Mongolian. Historically, the Buryats formed part of the wider Mongol cultural and political world while retaining numerous clan and tribal identities, including the Bulagad, Ekhirid, Khori, Khongodor and Barga.

Most Buryats today live in Russia, principally in the Republic of Buryatia, Irkutsk Oblast and Zabaykalsky Krai. Substantial Buryat communities also live in northern Mongolia, while the Shenehen Buryats and related communities live in the Hulunbuir region of Inner Mongolia, China.

Traditional Buryat culture developed within the wider Mongol cultural sphere and included mobile and semi-mobile pastoralism, clan-based social organisation, the use of gers, Mongol shamanic traditions and, among many communities, Tibetan Buddhism. Although contemporary Buryat society is predominantly settled and increasingly urban, the Buryat language, clan traditions and connections with other Mongolic peoples remain important elements of ethnic identity.

The vitality of the Buryat language varies considerably between communities. UNESCO's 2010 Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger described Buryat varieties as endangered to differing degrees rather than assigning a single uniform status to the language as a whole.

History

The Mongol Empire c. 1207

Ethnogenesis and Mongolic origins

The Buryats are a Mongolic people whose principal historical communities developed in the region surrounding Lake Baikal, including the basins of the Angara, upper Lena, Selenga and rivers of Transbaikalia. The main tribal and clan groups that participated in the formation of the modern Buryat people included the Bulagad, Ekhirid, Khori, Khongodor, Barga, Ikinad, Ashabagad and numerous related communities.

The historical population of the Baikal region was diverse. Smaller Tungusic, Turkic, Samoyedic and other groups were incorporated into larger Mongolic-speaking tribal associations over time. These processes contributed to differences between local clans and communities, but the language, principal tribal traditions and wider cultural identity of the resulting Buryat people were Mongolic.

Some scholars have associated particular Buryat groups with earlier peoples recorded in Chinese, Turkic and Mongolian sources, including the Bayirku and the Kurykans. Their linguistic affiliation remains disputed: some researchers have interpreted them as Turkic-speaking, while others have argued that they included or represented early Mongolic populations. Such hypotheses do not establish a simple direct descent of all modern Buryats from a single ancient tribe.

Ethnonym

The origin of the ethnonym Buryat is disputed. A name conventionally transcribed as Buriyat appears in The Secret History of the Mongols, where it is listed among the northern forest peoples brought under Mongol authority by Jochi in 1207.

The medieval reference does not necessarily denote all the communities that later formed the modern Buryat people. It also does not demonstrate that Buryat was already a common self-designation among the Bulagad, Ekhirid, Khori, Khongodor and other Mongolic groups of the Baikal region.

Before the spread of a common ethnonym, inhabitants of the region generally identified themselves through particular clans, tribes, uluses and territorial associations. Names such as Bulagad, Ekhirid, Khori, Khongodor, Ikinad and Ashabagad remained important forms of identity into the early modern period.

Several explanations have been proposed for the origin and later spread of the ethnonym. One hypothesis connects it with names such as Püryüt, Büryüt or Pyrat, recorded among the Turkic-speaking peoples of the Minusinsk Basin. A Khakas clan known as Püryüt or Büryüt has been compared by some researchers with the ethnonyms Burut and Buryat. This name originally referred to a Turkic clan or population and was not a collective designation used by the Bulagad, Ekhirid, Khongodor, Khori and other Mongolic-speaking communities of the Lake Baikal region.

According to this reconstruction, a related form may have reached Russian Cossacks through neighbouring Siberian populations and been interpreted or recorded as brat. Russian sources subsequently used expressions such as braty, bratskie liudi and bratskie mongaly as broad external designations for numerous Mongolic-speaking communities brought under Russian rule. The people so classified continued to identify themselves primarily by their own tribal and clan names.

The Russian administrative designation should therefore not be projected backwards as the ancient collective self-name of all Buryat tribes. Its possible connection with the Khakas clan name remains a hypothesis, and the precise route by which the term entered Russian usage has not been conclusively established.

Other hypotheses derive the ethnonym from Mongolic words connected with forests, from the name of the Barga, or from Turkic and Mongolic words associated with the wolf. The precise origin of the name, its earliest bearers and the route by which it became a collective ethnonym remain disputed.

Forms related to Burat, Buraad and Buriyad were recorded among the Indigenous population and neighbouring peoples during the early modern period. The broader name gradually spread among related Mongolic-speaking communities around Lake Baikal. The adoption of a common ethnonym was therefore a process of political and ethnic consolidation rather than the creation of an entirely new population.

Mongol Empire and post-imperial period

In 1207, Genghis Khan sent Jochi north to establish authority over the forest peoples. The Secret History of the Mongols lists the Buriyat together with the Oirats, Barga and several other northern groups. This campaign incorporated communities of the Baikal region into the political and tributary system of the Mongol Empire.

The medieval forest peoples were not identical in composition to the modern Buryat nation. During the centuries following the Mongol conquests, communities divided, merged and migrated across the Baikal region and the wider Mongol world. The Barga and Khori-Tumad maintained particularly close connections with central and eastern Mongolia, while other Mongolic clans were organised in local tribal confederations around the Angara and upper Lena.

During the Northern Yuan period, Baikal Mongol and Barga groups participated in changing alliances and conflicts involving the eastern Mongol rulers and the Oirats. Some populations moved southward into Mongolia and present-day Inner Mongolia, while other clans migrated northward toward Lake Baikal.

The Bulagad, Ekhirid, Khori, Khongodor and other groups did not constitute a centralised state under a common Buryat name. They nevertheless remained part of the wider Mongol linguistic, political and cultural world.

Within the Khalkha Mongol political order

By the beginning of the 17th century, the principal communities that later formed the Buryat people were not politically isolated or fully independent tribes. Mongolic populations throughout the Baikal region participated in political and tributary relations headed by Khalkha Mongol rulers.

When Russian explorers first obtained information about the Mongolic communities of the Angara and upper Lena in 1609, the Bulagad and Ekhirid confederations were paying fur tribute to Khalkha rulers. At the same time, these confederations themselves collected tribute from dependent Ket, Samoyedic and Evenki communities along the Kan, lower Angara and neighbouring territories.

The territories controlled by these communities extended toward the regions of modern Nizhneudinsk, Verkholensk and Bratsk. The Bulagad occupied much of the Angara and Oka basins, while many Ekhirid uluses were concentrated along the upper Lena. They maintained marriage alliances and could cooperate militarily.

The Mongolic populations of the Selenga basin, Transbaikalia and territories east of Lake Baikal were likewise connected to the domains of the Tüsheet Khan, Setsen Khan and other Khalkha nobles. The Selenga region also contained Khatagin, Sartuul, Tsongol, Tabangut and other clans with close ties to Khalkha Mongolia.

Local tayishas, zaisangs, shulengas and clan leaders retained authority over particular uluses, seasonal migrations, tribute collection and internal disputes. Their local authority did not make these uluses sovereign states. They functioned within a broader Mongol political hierarchy in which Khalkha rulers claimed authority over tributary populations, pasturelands and trade routes.

The degree of direct control varied according to location and political circumstances. Individual uluses could resist tribute demands, transfer allegiance or seek the protection of a competing ruler. Such changes were common in Inner Asian frontier politics and do not demonstrate that the Baikal Mongol communities existed outside the political order of Mongolia.

Russian conquest and resistance

Russian Cossack detachments began advancing into the Angara and Baikal regions in the late 1620s. Their objectives included the construction of forts, the seizure of valuable fur-producing territories and the transfer of local tributary populations to the authority of the Russian tsar.

The Russian advance entered lands whose inhabitants already participated in Mongol political and tributary relations. Russian demands for tribute therefore challenged the authority of Khalkha rulers and created competition over subjects, pasturelands, hunting grounds and trade routes.

The Bratsk ostrog became one of the principal bases for Russian expansion into the Angara region. Cossack detachments conducted armed tribute expeditions, took hostages and attempted to register local men as subjects of the tsar. Buryat-Mongol communities responded by refusing tribute, attacking detachments and forts, moving their settlements and appealing to allied Mongol groups for military support.

Resistance was initially organised by individual uluses but later involved larger tribal alliances. In 1644–1646, Ekhirid and Bulagad forces cooperated against Russian expansion and at one point assembled approximately 2,000 warriors. They besieged Verkholensk but were defeated; armed resistance nevertheless continued during the following decades.

Russian documents recorded repeated attacks on Cossack detachments, refusal to pay tribute and the destruction or abandonment of Russian positions. They also recorded abuses committed by tribute collectors, including seizures of horses and livestock, violence against inhabitants and the taking of property beyond officially assessed tribute.

The conflict was not limited to confrontations between Cossacks and separate local clans. Khalkha rulers regarded Russian expansion as an intrusion into territories and tributary populations within their political sphere. Some Buryat-Mongol communities sought military assistance or refuge in Khalkha-controlled territory.

From 1666, Khalkha military detachments operated as far west as Bratsk and Ilimsk, as well as around Yeravninsk and Nerchinsk. Other Mongol forces attacked or besieged Russian positions along the Selenga. These interventions formed part of a wider conflict between the expanding Russian state and the Khalkha political order over control of northern Mongol territories and populations.

Individual communities followed different strategies. Some resisted Russian forces, some migrated into Khalkha Mongolia, and others temporarily accepted Russian authority to avoid immediate military violence or competing tribute demands. Such shifts of allegiance were characteristic of a contested frontier and should not be interpreted as evidence that the communities had previously been politically independent.

The Oirat invasion of Khalkha under Galdan Boshugtu Khan in 1688 weakened the ability of Khalkha rulers to oppose Russian expansion. It also caused additional population movements toward Russian-controlled territory.

Russian authority was consolidated gradually rather than through a single act of annexation. The Treaty of Nerchinsk of 1689 and the Treaty of Kyakhta of 1727 established borders between the Russian and Qing empires. These borders separated many Baikal and Transbaikal communities from the wider political territory of Mongolia.

Yasak and colonial extraction

Russian rule in the Baikal region was initially based on the collection of the yasak, a compulsory tribute usually paid in valuable furs. Payment of yasak was treated not merely as a tax but as formal recognition of submission to the Russian sovereign.

The imposition of yasak redirected tribute that many communities had previously paid to Khalkha rulers and Mongol nobles. During the first decades of Russian expansion, some uluses faced competing demands from Russian officials and Mongol authorities.

Siberian furs were a major source of state revenue and foreign trade for the Russian Tsardom. Tribute and taxes collected in fur have been estimated to have provided approximately one tenth of total state revenue during the main period of the Siberian fur trade and possibly as much as one third during parts of the mid-17th century. Claims that yasak supplied 60 percent of the entire Russian state budget are not supported by these estimates.

Yasak was assessed on individual adult men or collectively on an ulus. The number and quality of required pelts varied according to locality and the decisions of officials. As sable became depleted, collectors could demand other furs, money, livestock, provisions or transport services.

Collection was enforced by armed Cossack detachments based in forts and winter stations. Russian officials also used amanats—hostages taken from prominent families or communities—to ensure regular payment and discourage resistance. Hostage-taking made tribute collection an instrument of political and military control.

Although official instructions sometimes ordered collectors to avoid unnecessary cruelty, the assessed tribute was frequently accompanied by unofficial exactions for the personal benefit of voivodes and Cossacks. These could include livestock, food, horses, labour and other property.

A petition submitted by yasak-paying Buryats in 1658 accused the Cossack commander Ivan Pokhabov and his men of seizing property and committing violence against local inhabitants. Following these abuses and the resulting conflict, a large part of the population registered at the Balagansk fort abandoned Russian-controlled territory and migrated toward Mongolia.

The yasak system affected both the economy and mobility of Buryat communities. Households were required to devote labour to hunting for tribute, while the depletion of fur-bearing animals made later payments more difficult. Resistance included concealing population, refusing to appear at forts, attacking collectors and migrating beyond Russian control.

Yasak was therefore one of the principal mechanisms through which Russian sovereignty was imposed, Indigenous resources were extracted and the Baikal Mongol population was incorporated into a colonial administrative system.

Migrations and redistribution of clans

The present distribution of Buryat clans does not correspond directly to their places of residence at the beginning of the 17th century. Russian conquest, resistance, warfare, changes in allegiance and movements into and out of Khalkha Mongolia caused extensive population redistribution.

In the middle of the 17th century, a substantial part of the population affected by Cossack expansion left the Angara and Baikal regions and moved into Khalkha territory. Some migrants were incorporated into existing Mongol administrative and tribal structures. Descendants of some of these groups became known in Mongolia as Khariad.

Migration did not occur in only one direction. During the Mongol conflicts of the later 17th century, some groups returned from Khalkha to the Baikal region, while others remained in Mongolia or settled elsewhere. Studies of the Bulagad record the return of some migrant communities while preserving their broader tribal identity.

Individual clans moved between the upper Lena, Angara basin, shores of Lake Baikal, Selenga valley, Barguzin valley and Transbaikalia. Ekhirid and Bulagad clans, for example, are now found in both Irkutsk Oblast and the Republic of Buryatia. Modern geographical location therefore does not necessarily indicate a clan's earlier homeland.

The Russian–Qing frontier separated closely related communities between different empires, but connections continued through migration, marriage, trade, pilgrimage and religious education.

For these reasons, geographical descriptions such as “communities then living west of Lake Baikal” or “communities then living in Transbaikalia” refer to a specific historical period. They should not be treated as permanent ethnic divisions between fixed western and eastern branches of the Buryat people.

The modern Buryat identity developed among these mobile and interconnected Mongolic communities from the 17th through the 19th century. Russian administration increasingly placed different clans and uluses within common legal and territorial structures, while interaction, intermarriage and shared political experiences strengthened the use of a collective ethnonym.

Russian rule did not create the population from unrelated peoples or unite two clearly separated ethnic branches. It incorporated into a new imperial framework a network of Mongolic clans and tribes that had previously belonged to the broader Mongol political and cultural world.

Under the Russian Empire

After the establishment of the imperial frontier, Russian settlement and agricultural colonisation expanded in the Baikal region. Land used for migration routes, pasture and hunting was increasingly transferred to settlers, state institutions and Cossack communities.

The Russian government generally administered the Buryat population through existing clan leaders. Uluses and tribal administrations were headed by officials with Mongol titles, including taisha, zaisang, shulenga and darga.

The reforms of Mikhail Speransky in 1822 reorganised Indigenous government in Siberia. Buryat clan administrations were grouped into steppe dumas, which distributed taxes, maintained population records, applied customary law and acted as intermediaries between local communities and imperial officials.

The degree of cultural and religious change differed according to locality. Russian settlement, agriculture, Orthodox missionary activity and Russian-language education had a particularly strong influence in districts close to Irkutsk and other colonial centres. Clan institutions and shamanic traditions nevertheless continued.

Tibetan Buddhism spread through Mongolian religious networks, especially among communities in the Selenga, Khori and Aga regions. Mongolian and Tibetan literature, education and monastic institutions maintained connections with the broader Mongol and Tibetan Buddhist worlds.

In 1741, the Russian government formally recognised the Buryat Buddhist establishment. In 1764, Damba Darja Zayaev became the first officially recognised Pandito Khambo Lama. High-ranking lamas subsequently participated in local administration alongside clan leaders.

By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a Buryat intellectual movement had developed. Scholars, teachers, lamas and political activists promoted secular and Buddhist education, cultural reform, Buryat-Mongol unity and various forms of political autonomy. Important figures included Agvan Dorzhiev, Tsyben Zhamtsarano, Mikhail Bogdanov and Elbegdorj Rinchino.

First World War and forced rear labour

The First World War placed significant economic demands on Buryat communities through requisitions, taxes, donations, the supply of horses and other forms of wartime mobilisation.

Although many Indigenous inhabitants of Siberia were not initially subject to ordinary military conscription, Buryat men were mobilised for the construction of defensive positions, military communications, railways and port facilities in the rear and near the operational army.

Between 9 August 1916 and 28 March 1917, six railway transports delivered 6,131 requisitioned workers to Arkhangelsk. Most were Buryats from Irkutsk Governorate and Transbaikal Oblast, although the contingents also included members of other Indigenous populations.

The workers were employed in the severe northern climate at military construction projects, transport routes and the port of Arkhangelsk. Poor accommodation, inadequate clothing, unfamiliar food, exhaustion and infectious disease caused widespread illness and deaths. A precise total death toll has not been established.

The Buryat Hospital No. 245 in Petrograd was established with donations from Buryat communities. It initially treated wounded soldiers, but its work increasingly focused on Buryat labourers suffering from illness and injuries. Between January and June 1917, the hospital treated 218 sick Buryats; nine patients died there.

The forced labour mobilisation, its high human cost and fears of further requisition contributed to migration into Mongolia. The episode became an important collective memory of imperial wartime exploitation.

Revolution, autonomy and Civil War

The collapse of the Russian monarchy in February 1917 created an opportunity for Buryat intellectuals and local representatives to demand self-government, cultural rights, the restoration of land and the unification of Buryat-populated territories.

Buryat political activists had developed plans for autonomy before the Bolsheviks took power. In 1917, congresses and representative bodies established Buryat national self-government institutions combining local ulus administration with modern territorial autonomy.

The Russian Civil War fragmented the region among Bolshevik, White, Cossack, nationalist, Mongolian and Japanese-supported forces. Buryat political leaders attempted to preserve autonomous institutions while dealing with competing military governments.

Buryat participation was not uniform. Some supported Bolshevik organisations, others joined White or Cossack forces, and still others supported Buryat autonomy or broader pan-Mongolian projects. Legal distinctions created under the Russian Empire between civilian Buryats and Buryat Cossacks continued to influence political allegiance during the war.

The Civil War brought violence, requisitions, economic collapse and repeated changes of government. Large numbers of Buryats fled to Mongolia and China. The descendants of refugees who crossed from the Aga region into Hulunbuir from 1918 became the Shenehen Buryats of China.

The fighting and population displacement caused deaths from military violence, disease and hunger. No reliable unified figure exists for Buryat losses during the Civil War.

Early Soviet autonomy

After the Bolshevik victory, Buryat territories were initially divided between the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Far Eastern Republic. Separate autonomous regions were established before being united on 30 May 1923 as the Buryat-Mongol Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.

The republic formally recognised the Mongolic character of Buryat identity and brought many Buryat-populated districts into a single autonomous unit. The 1920s initially saw the expansion of Buryat-language education, publishing, scholarship, theatre and administrative institutions.

The traditional Mongolian script was used during the early Soviet period. The literary language was transferred to a Latin-based alphabet in the early 1930s and then to Cyrillic in 1939.

The early Soviet period was also marked by major cultural and political debate. Some Buryat intellectuals promoted a literary language close to Khalkha Mongolian and greater cultural unity with the wider Mongol world. Others supported the development of a more separate Buryat literary standard.

Collectivisation, hunger and mass repression

From the late 1920s, Soviet policy changed from limited cultural autonomy to forced economic and social transformation. Private herds and farms were incorporated into collective and state farms, while households classified as wealthy were dispossessed, deported or deprived of political rights.

Collectivisation disrupted pastoral migration, clan-based land use and household livestock ownership. It forced many formerly mobile or semi-mobile communities into permanent settlements and reorganised work, housing and family life.

Confiscation, excessive procurement demands, loss of livestock and administrative disruption contributed to severe food shortages. Hunger and disease accompanied collectivisation in parts of Buryatia, while additional families fled to Mongolia or other regions.

Resistance included slaughtering livestock rather than surrendering it, leaving collective farms, concealing property, attacking local officials and crossing the international border. Soviet authorities classified much of this opposition as “kulak”, nationalist or counter-revolutionary activity.

The claim that a single 1929 Buryat uprising resulted in 35,000 deaths is repeated in some popular publications but is not supported by reliable archival scholarship. The human losses of collectivisation, hunger, deportation and repression should not be compressed into that unverified figure.

Anti-religious campaigns intensified alongside collectivisation. Buddhist monasteries were taxed, deprived of property and progressively closed. Lamas were disenfranchised, arrested, exiled or executed. By 1938, all functioning Buryat datsans had been closed, and much of their religious art, manuscripts and material culture had been confiscated or destroyed.

The Great Purge particularly affected Buryat intellectuals, political officials, teachers, writers and Buddhist clergy. Accusations of pan-Mongolism, nationalism, Japanese espionage and counter-revolutionary activity were used to arrest and execute people who had participated in the cultural and political development of the republic.

Thousands of Buryat herders, lamas and members of the educated elite were executed, imprisoned or deported to labour camps and settlements in other parts of the Soviet Union. Repression also extended into Mongolia, where Buryats were targeted during the Lkhümbe affair and the Mongolian purges of the 1930s.

Deaths during this period resulted from executions, prison and camp conditions, deportation, hunger and disease. Surviving research does not provide a single reliable total for all Buryat victims, but the combined demographic, religious and cultural losses were substantial.

In September 1937, the Soviet government divided the Buryat-Mongol ASSR. The Aga territory was transferred to Chita Oblast, while the Alar, Bokhan and Ekhirid-Bulagad districts were transferred to Irkutsk Oblast and later formed the Ust-Orda autonomous district. The division placed major Buryat population centres outside the remaining autonomous republic.

Second World War and late Soviet period

During the Second World War, Buryats served throughout the Soviet armed forces and worked in agriculture, industry and transport. The war caused further demographic losses and placed heavy demands on rural households.

The Soviet government permitted a limited restoration of Buddhist religious life during the war and immediate post-war period. The Ivolginsky Datsan opened in 1946 and became the principal officially authorised Buddhist institution in Buryatia.

Post-war industrialisation and urbanisation transformed the republic. Increasing numbers of Buryats moved to Ulan-Ude and other towns, entered higher education and worked in professional, industrial and administrative occupations.

On 7 July 1958, the word “Mongol” was removed from the official name of the republic, which became the Buryat Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. The change occurred within a wider Soviet policy that discouraged pan-Mongolian political and cultural identification.

Russian became increasingly dominant in administration, higher education and urban life. Buryat-language schooling and intergenerational language transmission declined, particularly in towns and in districts outside the autonomous republic.

At the same time, the Soviet period produced a large Buryat professional and cultural intelligentsia. Writers, scholars, artists, musicians and educators developed modern Buryat literature, theatre, academic institutions and secular education.

Post-Soviet period

During the political reforms of the late 1980s, Buryat cultural, religious and political organisations re-emerged. Buddhist monasteries and shamanic institutions were restored, while interest increased in genealogy, traditional culture, Mongolian script and historical connections with Mongolia and Inner Mongolia.

In 1990, the Buryat ASSR declared state sovereignty. In 1992, it adopted the name Republic of Buryatia, and in 1994 the republic adopted a new constitution. Buryat and Russian were recognised as its official languages.

The post-Soviet period has been marked by continuing efforts to preserve the Buryat language, restore religious institutions and maintain relations among Buryat communities in Russia, Mongolia and China. Urbanisation, migration and the predominance of Russian nevertheless continue to weaken the transmission of Buryat in many families.

Since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, independent investigations have reported disproportionately high military casualties in Buryatia and several other economically disadvantaged ethnic-minority regions of Russia.

The partial mobilisation announced in September 2022 also caused another movement of Buryats across the border into Mongolia. Researchers have compared this migration with earlier periods in which war, conscription and political repression forced Buryat communities to seek refuge elsewhere in the Mongol world.

• 
  Settlement of Buryats in the Siberian Federal District according to the 2010 census
• 
  Buryat-Mongol Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic in 1925
• 
  Buryat-Mongol ASSR in 1929
• 
  Buryats depicted on a 1933 “Peoples of the Soviet Union” stamp
• 
  Buryat ASSR in 1989
• 
  Autonomous Buryat territories before 2008: the Republic of Buryatia, Agin-Buryat Autonomous Okrug and Ust-Orda Buryat Okrug

Culture and traditions

Two men of Buryatia carrying load on pole between their shoulders

Traditional wooden hut of Buryatia

Traditional Buryat dress

Relationship with nature

Buryat national tradition is ecological in origin, as the religious and mythological ideas of the Buryat people are grounded in a theology of nature. The environment has traditionally been deeply respected by the Buryats owing to their nomadic way of life and religious culture. The harsh climatic conditions of the region have in turn created a fragile balance among humans, society and the environment itself. This has led to a delicate approach to nature, oriented not towards its conquest but rather towards harmonious interaction and equal partnership. A synthesis of Buddhism and traditional beliefs that formed a system of ecological traditions has thus become a major attribute of Buryat eco‑culture.

Kinship and marriage

Prior to the Russian advance, the Buryats lived in semi‑nomadic groups scattered across the steppes. Kinship was of paramount importance in Buryat society, both in spiritual and in social terms. All Buryats traced their lineage to a single mythical figure, although the particular ancestor varied according to geographical region. Kinship also determined physical proximity, since neighbours were almost invariably related. Groups of relatives who occupied the same pastureland organised themselves into clans on the basis of genealogy. Although coalitions between clans did occur, they were infrequent and commonly rested on looser interpretations of kinship and affinity.

Marriages were arranged by the family, sometimes when the parties were as young as one or two years of age. A distinctive feature of traditional Buryat marriage was the kalym, an exchange that embraced both bride‑wealth and a dowry. In the kalym arrangement, a husband delivered an agreed number of cattle in return for his bride, while the bride's kin furnished a dowry consisting of a yurt and the other essential household goods. If the prospective husband lacked sufficient cattle, a period of bride service would be set. Polygamy was permitted, but only men of considerable wealth could meet the cost of multiple wives. The marriage ceremony included rituals such as the bride stoking the fire in the groom's tent with three lumps of fat and sprinkling fat on the clothing of the groom's father.

The arrival of the Russians brought a radical transformation of the kalym system. Money became a prominent element of the exchange. As time passed, the price of a bride rose steeply, so that "in the 1890s, bride price involved '400 to 600 rubles' in addition to 86–107 head of livestock, when seventy years earlier only the wealthiest Western Buryats gave 100 head (of cattle)." As the burden grew heavier, many men entered multi‑year work contracts with wealthy herd‑owners, who in return undertook to help them obtain a wife. Subsequently, the kalym system fell into decline and was replaced by marriages founded on courtship and romantic attachment.

Religion

See also: Buddhism in Buryatia

Religious affiliation in the Republic of Buryatia today is principally divided among Russian Orthodoxy, Buddhism and those professing no religion. Shamanism has undergone a revival in rural areas, although it remains small in scale. Those who practise it follow either Yellow shamanism, Black shamanism, or a combination of the two. Buddhism has likewise experienced a revival among the Buryats, with growth evident in the construction of monasteries, the training of monks and an increase in popular piety.

Shamanism (Tengrism)

Buryat shaman of Olkhon, Lake Baikal

The Buryats traditionally practised shamanism, also referred to as Tengrism, with an emphasis on the worship of nature. A central concept of Buryat shamanism is the “triple division” of the physical and spiritual world. The spirit world is divided into three realms: the tengeri, the bōxoldoy, and the lower spirits. These correspond, respectively, to the supreme rulers of mankind, the spirits of commoners, and the spirits of slaves. Running in parallel to this is the belief that the human being is itself divided into three parts: the body (beye), the “breath and life”, and the soul. The soul is further subdivided into three: a first, a second, and a third soul. The first soul is held to reside within the entire physical skeleton, so that any injury to the bones harms the soul. For this reason, rituals that involve animal sacrifice take great care to avoid damaging the bones, lest the deity to whom the offering is made reject it. The second soul is believed to possess the power to leave the body, to transform into other beings, and to be stored in the organs. The third soul is similar to the second, differing only in that its departure marks the end of life.

The number three, together with its multiples, is held to be deeply sacred among the Buryats. Examples of this numerology include the three major annual sacrifices, the practice whereby shamans prolong the life of the sick by three or nine years, the total of 99 tengeri, and a great many other instances.

Shamans fall into two categories: “great” shamans of the Arctic regions and “little” shamans of the taiga. Shamans are often associated with nervous disorders, and in some cases are prone to seizures. A further division is between “White” shamans, who invoke benevolent spirits, and “Black” shamans, who call upon malevolent ones. Yellow shamanism denotes shamanistic practices that have been heavily influenced by Buddhism. The function of the shaman is to heal, particularly in cases of psychological illness. Buryat shamanism is not necessarily hereditary, and other members of the kin‑group may receive the calling; nevertheless, shamans do preserve records of their lineage, and a descendant is preferred. Shamans were capable of both controlling spirits and being controlled by them.

Beliefs and practices vary among different traditional groups, so that no single consensus exists. Western Buryats who dwell along the Kuda river, for example, hold a belief in the reincarnation of the third soul, very likely a consequence of their exposure to Buddhism.

Buddhism

Ivolginsky Datsan is a monastery complex consisting of seven Buddhist temples

The majority of Buryats are adherents of Buddhism. They converted to Tibetan Buddhism in the early eighteenth century under the influence of Tibetan and Mongolian missionaries.

Other religions

A small minority of Buryats have converted to Christianity. The earliest Orthodox mission was established in Irkutsk in 1731. Some Buryats adopted the faith for material gain, while others were forcibly converted. Despite its presence in the region, Christianity is not regarded as a “Buryat” religion.

Subsistence

Traditionally, the Buryats were semi‑nomadic pastoralists. Buryat nomads tended herds of cattle, sheep, goats and camels, and they depended heavily on local resources to supplement their diet. Following Russian colonisation, pastoralism was steadily supplanted by agriculture. The majority of Buryats today pursue arable farming, yet most of those living in the countryside still concentrate on raising livestock as their principal means of subsistence.

The Buryats of Siberia continue to be largely pastoral, a consequence of the short growing season. They rely mainly on dairy cattle and the cultivation of berries to sustain their diet, and some communities also grow various species of trees as well as cash crops such as wheat and rye. On the slopes of the Sayan and Altai Mountains, there are communities whose way of life centres on breeding reindeer.

The Mongolian Buryats also farm, but they are typically semi‑sedentary. They construct sheds and fences to contain their livestock and use hay as the principal fodder. The Buryats of Buryatia, on the other hand, are more oriented towards arable cultivation than towards stock‑raising.

Traditional medicine

Buryat healing practices combine indigenous shamanic traditions with Tibeto‑Mongolian medicine. Before the adoption of Buddhism, the Buryats relied on shamanic rituals to halt or cure pain and illness, which were attributed to malevolent spirits. With the conversion to Tibetan Buddhism, they incorporated Tibetan medical practices into their healing repertoire. Medical schools were soon founded, where Buryat students studied diagnostic and prescription techniques and received training in both treatment and diagnosis. Buryats themselves soon contributed to the expansion of Tibeto‑Mongolian medical literature.

Traditional Buryat medicine places particular weight on the use of mineral and thermal springs for healing. A balanced diet, consisting of meat, offal, plants and herbs, together with sound nutrition, was prescribed to cure illness. The medicinal use of herbs was limited by the sparse vegetation of the semi‑deserts and dry steppes. Buryat healers were, nevertheless, regarded as skilled in wound treatment, the management of head trauma, midwifery and bone‑setting. In the modern era, a number of practices derived from Buryat folk medicine have been adopted in contemporary medical settings.

Cuisine

Buuz, a steamed meat dumpling, is probably the most iconic dish of Buryat cuisine

Buryat cuisine bears a close resemblance to Mongolian cuisine, with which it shares many dishes, among them buuz and khuushuur. Dairy products form a central part of the diet, and traditional dishes are generally hearty and plain. Most main courses are meat‑based, though fish such as omul is common, particularly in the region around Lake Baikal.

Genetics

Mitochondrial DNA haplogroups

The Buryats possess a diverse array of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages. Approximately 83.7% (247 out of 295) of their mtDNA belongs to haplogroups of Eastern Eurasian origin or affinity, while the remaining 16.3% (48 out of 295) is associated with Western Eurasian haplogroups. Among the Eastern Eurasian component, the most prevalent mtDNA haplogroups in contemporary Buryat populations are D4 (comprising roughly 29% of the total Buryat sample), C (approximately 16.6%), and G2a (about 11%). On the Western Eurasian side, the most frequently observed haplogroups are H (around 6.8%) and U (approximately 5.4%).

A separate mtDNA study focusing on Buryats found that 24% (6 out of 25) of their maternal lineages are of West Eurasian origin.

Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups

Lell et al. (2002) analysed a sample of thirteen Buryat males collected in the village of Kushun, Nizhneudinsk District, Irkutsk Region, representing the Buryat population of the Sayan–Baikal upland. The Y-chromosomes of these individuals were assigned to the following haplogroups: 6/13 (46.2%) O‑M119; 3/13 (23.1%) N‑Tat; 2/13 (15.4%) N‑DYS7Cdel(xTat); 1/13 (7.7%) C‑M48; and 1/13 (7.7%) F‑M89(xK‑M9). This sample completely lacks haplogroup C‑M407 and instead exhibits a high proportion of O‑M119. Consequently, it appears markedly different from published Y‑DNA samples collected from Buryats east of Lake Baikal.

Derenko et al. (2006) tested a sample of 238 Buryat males and found the following Y-DNA haplogroup distribution: 4/238 = 1.7% P*-92R7(xQ-DYS199/M3, R1-M173), 2/238 = 0.8% R1*-M173(xR1a-SRY1532b), 5/238 = 2.1% R1a1-M17, 3/238 = 1.3% N*-LLY22g(xTat), 45/238 = 18.9% N3-Tat, 152/238 = 63.9% C-RPS4Y/M130, 4/238 = 1.7% F*-M89(xG-M201, H-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9), 1/238 = 0.4% G-M201, 1/238 = 0.4% I-M170, 21/238 = 8.8% K*-M9(xL-M20, N-LLY22g, P-92R7). Boris Malyarchuk, Miroslava Derenko, Galina Denisova, et al. (2010) retested 217 of these 238 Buryats and found that they were 148/217 (68.2%) haplogroup C-RPS4Y711/M130, including 117/217 (53.9%) C3d-M407, 18/217 (8.3%) C3∗-M217(xC3a-M93, C3b-P39, C3c-M77, C3d-M407, C3e-P53.1, C3f-P62), and 13/217 (6.0%) C3c-M77. Fourteen of the 217 Buryats (6.5%) had STR haplotypes belonging to the "star cluster" in C3*, from which it might be inferred that they most likely belonged to C2a1a3-P369/M504.

Karafet et al. (2006) tested a sample of 81 Buryat males and found that they belonged to the following Y-DNA haplogroups: 45/81 = 55.6% C-M217(xM86), 4/81 = 4.9% C-M86, 1/81 = 1.2% G-M201, 1/81 = 1.2% J-12f2, 2/81 = 2.5% N-P43, 23/81 = 28.4% N-M178, 2/81 = 2.5% O-LINE, 3/81 = 3.7% R-M207. Karafet et al. (2018) retested the same sample of Buryat males (minus the G-M201 singleton) and found that they belonged to the following haplogroups: 4/80 = 5.0% C2a1a2a-M86, 5/80 = 6.3% C2a1a3-P369, 40/80 = 50.0% C2b1a1a1a-M407, 1/80 = 1.3% J2a1-P354(xJ2a1a-L27), 2/80 = 2.5% N1a2b1-P63(xP362), 23/80 = 28.8% N1a1a1a1a3a-P89, 2/80 = 2.5% O2a1b-JST002611, 1/80 = 1.3% R2a-M124, 1/80 = 1.3% R1a1a1b1a-Z282, 1/80 = 1.3% R1b1a1b1a1a2-P312(xL21).

Kim et al. (2011) reported the following Y-DNA haplogroup distribution in a sample of "Mongolians (Buryats)": 16/36 = 44.44% C2-M217, 1/36 = 2.78% D1a1a-M15, 1/36 = 2.78% F-M89(xK-M9), 9/36 = 25.00% N-M231, 1/36 = 2.78% O1b2-SRY465(x47z), 1/36 = 2.78% O2a-M324(xO2a1b-JST002611, O2a2-P201), 6/36 = 16.67% O2a2-P201, 1/36 = 2.78% R-M207.

Buryat women

Kharkov et al. (2014) examined blood samples obtained from a total of 297 ethnic Buryats, separated into eight geographical groups according to the location of sample collection: Okinsky district (N = 53) (southwest of the Republic of Buryatia, ethnoterritorial group of Oka Buryats); Dzhida (N = 31) and Kyakhta (N = 27) (south, ethnoterritorial group of Selenga Buryats); the Kizhinga (N = 64) and Eravninsky (N = 30) regions (east, ethnoterritorial group of Khorin Buryats); Kurumkan village (N = 23) (north, ethnoterritorial group of Barguzin Buryats); Ulan-Ude and Khuramsha (30 km west of Ulan-Ude) (N = 26) (ethnoterritorial group of Kudarinsk Buryats); and Aginskoe village (N = 44) (Agin–Buryat Autonomous Region of Chita, Agin Buryats). For the statistical treatment, samples from Ulan-Ude and Khuramsha village were united into one group designated as "Ulan-Ude". The authors found significant differences among eastern Buryats (Khorin Buryats from Kizhinga and Eravninsky districts of Buryatia plus Agin Buryats from Agin-Buryat Okrug of Zabaykalsky Krai), southern and central Buryats (Selenga Buryats from Dzhida and Kyakhta plus Kudarinsk Buryats from Ulan-Ude and Khuramsha), and southwestern and northern Buryats (Oka Buryats from Okinsky district of Buryatia plus Barguzin Buryats from Kurumkan village). Similar to the Buryat samples examined by Malyarchuk et al. (2010) and Karafet et al. (2018), the southwestern and northern Buryat samples of Kharkov et al. (2014) exhibited an extremely high frequency of haplogroup C2-M407: 48/76 = 63.2% C3d-M407, 14/76 = 18.4% N1c1-Tat, 4/76 = 5.3% O3a3c*-M134(xM117), 3/76 = 3.9% C3*-M217(xM77, M86, M407), 2/76 = 2.6% C3c-M77/M86, 2/76 = 2.6% O3a3c1-M117, 2/76 = 2.6% R1a1a-M17, 1/76 = 1.3% N1b-P43. In contrast, the eastern Buryat samples of Kharkov et al. (2014) exhibited an extremely high frequency of haplogroup N-Tat: 102/138 = 73.9% N1c1-Tat, 19/138 = 13.8% C3d-M407, 5/138 = 3.6% C3c-M77/M86, 4/138 = 2.9% E, 3/138 = 2.2% C3*-M217(xM77, M86, M407), 2/138 = 1.4% R1a1a-M17, 1/138 = 0.7% O3a*-M324(xM7, M134), 1/138 = 0.7% O3a3c1-M117, 1/138 = 0.7% R2a-M124. The southern and central Buryat samples of Kharkov et al. (2014) exhibited a significant proportion of C3*-M217(xM77, M86, M407), which may be related to Y-DNA subclades that often have been observed among Mongols in Mongolia, while also exhibiting both N-Tat and C-M407 with moderate frequency: 26/84 = 31.0% N1c1-Tat, 19/84 = 22.6% C3d-M407, 16/84 = 19.0% C3*-M217(xM77, M86, M407), 8/84 = 9.5% R1a1a-M17, 7/84 = 8.3% R2a-M124, 4/84 = 4.8% C3c-M77/M86, 4/84 = 4.8% O3a*-M324(xM7, M134).

Haplogroup N-M178 is found mainly among the indigenous peoples of northern Eurasia (e.g. Yakuts, Sami). Among Buryats, haplogroup N-M178 is more common toward the east (cf. 50/64 = 78.2% N1c1 in a sample of Buryat from Kizhinginsky District, 34/44 = 77.3% N1c1 in a sample of Buryat from Aga Buryatia, and 18/30 = 60.0% N1c1 in a sample of Buryat from Yeravninsky District, every one of which regions is located at a substantial distance east of the eastern shore of the southern half of Lake Baikal, versus 6/31 = 19.4% N1c1 in a sample of Buryat from Dzhidinsky District, which is slightly south of the southwestern end of the lake, and 2/23 = 8.7% N1c1 in a sample of Buryat from Kurumkansky District, which is slightly east of the northeastern end of the lake), and it mostly belongs to a subclade (N-F4205) that reaches its maximal frequency among Buryats, but which also has been found in some other Mongolic peoples as well as in Siberian Tatars, Tsaatan, Tuvans, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, and Poland. N-F4205 is estimated to share a common ancestor with N-B202, which has been found in many present-day inhabitants of Chukotka, approximately 4,600 (95% CI 3,700 <-> 5,500) years before present.

Haplogroup C3d (M407) is found mainly among the northern and southwestern Buryats, Barghuts, Hamnigans, Soyots, Kazakh Khongirad, and Dörbet Kalmyks.

Nuclear DNA genetic history

A large-scale genetic study from 2021 shows that the Buryats, along with other Mongolic ethnic groups such as the Mongols, possess an almost exclusively East-Eurasian (East Asian-related) genetic ancestry, estimated at 95–98%. This ancestry can be largely traced back to Neolithic millet agriculturalists from Northeast Asia, as well as to Paleo-Siberian populations and to Yellow River farmers from the Yellow River region of northern China. Genetic evidence indicates that Northeast Asian–like ancestry expanded westward in several waves during the Bronze Age and Iron Age. Although the Buryats are genetically closer to their Mongolic and Tungusic-speaking neighbours than to other populations, among the major East Asian ethnic groups they are most closely related to Koreans, followed – in order of increasing genetic distance (as measured by FST statistics) – by Northern Han, Japanese, and Southern Han.

Subgroups

Mongol states in the 14th to 17th centuries

According to the Buryat creation myth, there were originally eleven Buryat tribes, or clans. The myth relates that all eleven are descended from a man and a mysterious, beautiful being who took the form of a swan by day and a woman by night. After the two were married, the man asked her to give him her wings so that she could no longer become a swan. It is said, however, that after some time the woman begged for the return of her wings and, upon receiving them, flew away, never to return. Today, a number of distinct Buryat tribes, or clans, still exist.

Major tribes

• Bulagad – Alagui, Gotol, Sharaldai, Bubai, Khogoi, Erkhidei, Kholtubai, Onkhotoi, Ongoy, Bulut, Barai, Yengut, Buin, Olzoy, Murui, Khulmenge, Khurkhut, Soyot, Noyot, Kharanut, Ashabagat, Abaganat, Buzgan, Dalakhai.
• Khongodor – Ashkhai, Ashata, Kholsho, Uta-Baima, Dasha, Naidar, Nashan, Badarkhan, Boldoy, Terte, Shoshoolog.
• Khori-Buryats – Galzut, Sharait, Khubduut, Gushit, Khuatsai, Khargana, Batanai, Bodonguut, Khudai, Sagaan, Khalbin.
• Ekhirid – Shono, Khengelder, Abzay, Bayanday, Olzon, Segenut, Galzut, Kharbyat, Khaital.
• Sartuul Buryats – Khorchin, Khirid, Khatagin, Saljiud, Batod, Atagan, Khorlid, Onkhod, Khoit, Uriankhai, Khereit.
• Songol

Other tribes

• Dzungar origin – Galzut, Segenut, Ikinat, Bukot, Zamot, Khaital, Zungar, Khuramsha.
• Atagan
• Khamnigan Buryats
• Darkhat
• Khangin
• Khorchin

Notable people

For a more comprehensive list, see List of Buryats.

• Valéry Inkijinoff, French actor
• Balzhinima Tsyrempilov, Russian archer
• Yuriy Yekhanurov, former Prime Minister of Ukraine
• Agvan Dorjiev, Buddhist monk, tutor of the 13th Dalai Lama
• Dashi Namdakov, sculptor
• Irina Pantaeva, model
• Yul Brynner, actor
• Ōrora Satoshi, sumo wrestler
• Rōga Tokiyoshi, sumo wrestler (half Buryat)
• Dorzhi Banzarov, academic
• Grigory Mikhaylovich Semyonov, Cossack ataman.
• Damba Ayusheev, Russian Buddhist monk

See also

• Buddhism in Russia
• Far Eastern Republic
• List of indigenous peoples of Russia
• Shamanism in Siberia
• Buryat nationalism

Further reading

• Ethnic groups — Buryats
• J.G. Gruelin, Siberia.
• Pierre Simon Pallas, Sammlungen historischer Nachrichten über die mongolischen Volkerschaften (St. Petersburg, 1776–1802).
• M.A. Castrén, Versuch einer buriatischen Sprachlehre (1857).
• Sir H.H. Howorth, History of the Mongols (1876–1888).
• The film A Pearl in the Forest (МОЙЛХОН) illustrates the heavy price paid by the Buryats in the 1930s during the Stalinist purges.
• Murphy, Dervla (2007) "Silverland: A Winter Journey Beyond the Urals", London, John Murray
• Natalia Zhukovskaia (Ed.) Buryaty. Moskva: Nauka, 2004 (a classic general description).
• Derenko, MV; Malyarchuk, BA; Dambueva, IK; Shaikhaev, GO; Dorzhu, CM; Nimaev, DD; Zakharov, IA (December 2000). "Mitochondrial DNA variation in two South Siberian Aboriginal populations: implications for the genetic history of North Asia". Human Biology. 72 (6): 945–73. PMID 11236866.
• Anthology of Buryat folklore, Pushkinskiĭ dom, 2000 (CD)
• Vyushkova, Maria. "Sending North Koreans Disguised as Buryats to Ukraine. The Moscow Times, November 14, 2024. — The role of Buryats in the Korean War and the Russian invasion of Ukraine are two episodes of the same story: an Indigenous minority being exploited in imperial wars by an imperial power. — "... in the Ukrainian public discourse [about the Russo-Ukrainian War], "Buryat" became a collective term for any Asian-looking Russian troops, no matter their actual ethnicity."

External links

• Media related to Buryat people at Wikimedia Commons