From what I know circumscion was a precondition to for luhya sub tribes to make friends with nandi mostly. The smaller luhya tribes almost became assimilated..while maragoli and bukusu were belligerent because they had the numbers to defend themselves. Tirikis ,Tachonis were nearly completely assimilated .They aim was to stop nandi rustling so they gave them their women and adopted nandi culture because kalenjin don't steal from their own..Kalenjin terik definitely were luhya .The opposite happened in bungoma...where sabaot and bungoma joined bukusu to defend themselves from nandi..nandi use to attack everyone except kipsigis who they considered their cousin..kipsigis and nandi was one land.Nandi would raid keiyos, pokot,luo ,Libya...they were the best cattle rustlers...and were feared far n wide
I think you have it backwards. The Tachoni were actually previously Kalenjin who became Luhyanized. They even practiced FGM(the only Luhya group to do that) until recently. The Tirikis were also originally descended from Kalenjins. I am sure there are some Kalenjin who were assimilated Luhyas, but it's not well documented.
No..that is the popular theory but read proper history.Luhya strategy to tame kalenjin started with offering them women..more like kikuyus and maasai..and also adopting their culture including circumscion
I guess it's possible. But I don't know of any authoritative source on this question. Kenyan anthropologists have not added much to what mzungu did in terms of studying the ethnic groups. You'll find scattered opinions in books written by authors with a narrow focus, often purely on Luhya or Kalenjin or whatever subject matter they are looking at, the interaction between the ethnic groups being little more than a footnote. For instance when I look at Kipsigis, a lot of them don't look physically like other Kalenjin. To me that betrays an origin for many separate from the ancestral Kalenjin, especially when compared to a group like Marakwet. But there is little to zero in terms of authorititave analysis of why and how.