Talk:Tocharians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

Tadjiks preseve many physical characteristics in common with European while their language has more in common with the Indo branch of the Indo-European language family. The reason for this contradiction is supposed that they are descendants of the European language family group called Tocharians but who over time were linguistically Aryanised.

They are probably the "purest" descendants of peoples whose mummies were found in the Taklamakan desert. They have intermixed much with Turkic peoples who surround them and thus contributed to the special Eurasian physical features of such tribes.

Whether the Yuezhi were an intermediate stage of this development is not an established fact.

-Kaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.252.193.190 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 5 September 2003 (UTC)

The same archaeological work that discovered the original Tokharian documents also discovered a town and harbour works. While the Tokharians may have ended up as nomads, it seems likely that they were lakeside dwellers, (farmers, fishers or townspeople) in earlier times before the Tarim Lake dried up. -- Derek Ross 19:00, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Judging dead people by appearance is not always accurate

mtDNA of Scytho-Siberian skeleton Human Biology 76.1 (2004) 109-125

Genetic Analysis of a Scytho-Siberian Skeleton and Its Implications for Ancient Central Asian Migrations

François-X. Ricaut et al.

Abstract The excavation of a frozen grave on the Kizil site (dated to be 2500 years old) in the Altai Republic (Central Asia) revealed a skeleton belonging to the Scytho-Siberian population. DNA was extracted from a bone sample and analyzed by autosomal STRs (short tandem repeats) and by sequencing the hypervariable region I (HV1) of the mitochondrial DNA. The resulting STR profile, mitochondrial haplotype, and haplogroup were compared with data from modern Eurasian and northern native American populations and were found only in European populations historically influenced by ancient nomadic tribes of Central Asia.

...

The mutations at nucleotide position 16147 C→A, 16172 T→C, 16223 C→T, 16248 C→T, and 16355 C→T correspond to substitutions characteristic of the Eurasian haplogroup N1a (Richards et al. 2000). The haplotype comparison with the mtDNA sequences of 8534 individuals showed that this sequence was not found in any other population.

...

The N1a haplogroup was not observed among the native American, east Asian, Siberian, Central Asian, and western European populations. The geographic distribution of haplogroup N1a is restricted to regions neighboring the Eurasian steppe zone. Its frequency is very low, less than 1.5% (Table 6), in the populations located in the western and southwestern areas of the Eurasian steppe. Haplogroup N1a is, however, more frequent in the populations of the southeastern region of the Eurasian steppe, as in Iran (but only 12 individuals were studied) and southeastern India (Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh territories). More precisely, in India haplogroup N1a is absent from the Dravidic-speaking population and is present in only five Indo-Aryan-speaking individuals, four of whom belonged to the Havik group, an upper Brahman caste (Mountain et al. 1995).

...

The absence of the Eurasian haplogroup N1a in the 490 modern individuals of Central Asia (Shields et al. 1993; Kolman et al. 1996; Comas et al. 1998; Derenko et al. 2000; Yao et al. 2000; Yao, Nie et al. 2002) suggests changes in the genetic structure of Central Asian populations, probably as a result of Asian population movements to the west during the past 2500 years.

AAPA 2004

East of Eden, west of Cathay: An investigation of Bronze Age interactions along the Great Silk Road.

B.E. Hemphill.

The Great Silk Road has long been known as a conduit for contacts between East and West. Until recently, these interactions were believed to date no earlier than the second century B.C. However, recent discoveries in the Tarim Basin of Xinjiang (western China) suggest that initial contact may have occurred during the first half of the second millennium B.C. The site of Yanbulaq has been offered as empirical evidence for direct physical contact between Eastern and Western populations, due to architectural, agricultural, and metallurgical practices like those from the West, ceramic vessels like those from the East, and human remains identified as encompassing both Europoid and Mongoloid physical types.

Eight cranial measurements from 30 Aeneolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age and modern samples, encompassing 1505 adults from the Russian steppe, China, Central Asia, Iran, Tibet, Nepal and the Indus Valley were compared to test whether those inhabitants of Yanbulaq identified as Europoid and Mongoloid exhibit closest phenetic affinities to Russian steppe and Chinese samples, respectively. Differences between samples were compared with Mahalanobis generalized distance (d2), and patterns of phenetic affinity were assessed with cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and principal coordinates analysis.

Results indicate that, despite identification as Europoid and Mongoloid, inhabitants of Yanbulaq exhibit closest affinities to one another. No one recovered from Yanbulaq exhibits affinity to Russian steppe samples. Rather, the people of Yanbulaq possess closest affinities to other Bronze Age Tarim Basin dwellers, intermediate affinities to residents of the Indus Valley, and only distant affinities to Chinese and Tibetan samples — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.8.35 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 29 April 2005 (UTC)

A craniometric investigation of the Bronze Age settlement of Xinjiang American Journal of Physical Anthropology (Early View)

Horse-mounted invaders from the Russo-Kazakh steppe or agricultural colonists from western Central Asia? A craniometric investigation of the Bronze Age settlement of Xinjiang

Brian E. Hemphill, J.P. Mallory

Numerous Bronze Age cemeteries in the oases surrounding the Täklamakan Desert of the Tarim Basin in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, western China, have yielded both mummified and skeletal human remains. A dearth of local antecedents, coupled with woolen textiles and the apparent Western physical appearance of the population, raised questions as to where these people came from. Two hypotheses have been offered by archaeologists to account for the origins of Bronze Age populations of the Tarim Basin. These are the steppe hypothesis and the Bactrian oasis hypothesis. Eight craniometric variables from 25 Aeneolithic and Bronze Age samples, comprising 1,353 adults from the Tarim Basin, the Russo-Kazakh steppe, southern China, Central Asia, Iran, and the Indus Valley, are compared to test which, if either, of these hypotheses are supported by the pattern of phenetic affinities possessed by Bronze Age inhabitants of the Tarim Basin. Craniometric differences between samples are compared with Mahalanobis generalized distance (d2), and patterns of phenetic affinity are assessed with two types of cluster analysis (the weighted pair average linkage method and the neighbor-joining method), multidimensional scaling, and principal coordinates analysis. Results obtained by this analysis provide little support for either the steppe hypothesis or the Bactrian oasis hypothesis. Rather, the pattern of phenetic affinities manifested by Bronze Age inhabitants of the Tarim Basin suggests the presence of a population of unknown origin within the Tarim Basin during the early Bronze Age. After 1200 B.C., this population experienced significant gene flow from highland populations of the Pamirs and Ferghana Valley. These highland populations may include those who later became known as the Saka and who may have served as middlemen facilitating contacts between East (Tarim Basin, China) and West (Bactria, Uzbekistan) along what later became known as the Great Silk Road.

...

It appears that neither Han Chinese nor steppe populations played any detectable role in the initial establishment or subsequent interregional biological interactions of Bronze Age Tarim Basin populations.

...

This research confirms that populations from the urban centers of the Oxus civilization of Bactria played a role in the population history of the Bronze Age inhabitants of the Tarim Basin. Yet these Bactrian populations were not the direct, early colonizers envisioned by advocates of the Bactrian oasis hypothesis (Barber, [1999]). None of the analyses document the immediate and profoundly close affinities between colonizers and the colonized expected if the Tarim Basin experienced substantial direct settlement by Bactrian agriculturalists.

...

This study confirms the assertion of Han ([1998]) that the occupants of Alwighul and Krorän are not derived from proto-European steppe populations, but share closest affinities with Eastern Mediterranean populations. Further, the results demonstrate that such Eastern Mediterraneans may also be found at the urban centers of the Oxus civilization located in the north Bactrian oasis to the west. Affinities are especially close between Krorän, the latest of the Xinjiang samples, and Sapalli, the earliest of the Bactrian samples, while Alwighul and later samples from Bactria exhibit more distant phenetic affinities. This pattern may reflect a possible major shift in interregional contacts in Central Asia in the early centuries of the second millennium B.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.215.188.11 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 1 June 2005 (UTC)

...

"However this books is some what dated since J.P Mallory in the 2004 article above seems to have a more well formed view.In his previous book he does not favour a single theory but states a number of possible theories for the origin of these mummies.Genetic tests on the Y chromosome of the mummies have been done, but not yet published.However recent studies of Central and South Asian populations have shown that "European" markers I,E and Alantic Modal haplotype (AMH ,which accounts fo 60% of Western Europeans males) are completly absent.(See Aryan Invasion Theory for Refs).The physical appearance of individual populations ,especially over thousands of years,is likly to alter,particularly when there is a mixing of populations,(note the presence of "European" female genes in current Turkish and Mongal populations)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.123.16 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 9 June 2005 (UTC)

Both theories remain valid. If you wish to dispute the book or the article, please take it up in this discussion only.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grognardo (talk • contribs) 17:50, 9 June 2005 (UTC)

A linguistic argument for Tocharian origins...

I once read somewhere that Tocharian langauges, at least linguistically speaking, seemed to form a family with Hittite...

I only just now did a brief comparison of very short (< 200 words) glossaries for each language, courtesy of wordgumbo.com, and for the very few English meanings that do appear on both lists, I believe I came up with some resemblances that are a little too close and too many to be called coincidence... to wit:

• Fire: Hitt paḫur; Toch A por, B puwar; Greek pyr; English fire
• White: H ḫarki-; TA ārki, B ārkwi; Greek argos
• Tall: H parku (high)?; TA pärkär (long); German berg (mountain, high place)
• Much: H mekki; TAB māk ; Greek megas; English much
• Blood: H ešḫar; TA ysār; Greek ear
• Bones: H ḫaštai; T asta (? TA is āy); Greek osteon
• Illness: H (i)štark- (fall ill); TA särk
• Famine: H kašt- "hunger"; TA kašt
• Extinguish: H kišt?; TA käs
• Drink: H eku-; TA yok-; cf. Latin aqua (water)
• New: H newaḫ- (renew); TA ñu; Greek neos; English new
• Foot: H pata?; TA pe, TB pai; Greek pous; English foot
• Knee: H kenu- [gi.e.nu]; TA kanweṃ; Greek gony; English knee

History: Hittite (native "Nesili") was spoken in the Hittite Empire (Anatolia), that was finally overrun by Phrygians and Sea Peoples circa 1200 BC. After that, apart from a few remnants, Hittites and their language are never heard from again in the area.

My hypothesis: With so much shared vocabulary, it is logical to assume that, when the Phrygians and Sea Peoples overran their empire, many of the Hittite speakers packed up and hoofed it into Central Asia some time around 1200 BC...

Codex Sinaiticus 3 July 2005 01:38 (UTC)

While some words in your list bears a similarity between Tocharian and Hittite, some words, though not as many, also bears the same similarity to English. This is to be expected since the words in the list were handpicked to show resemblances between Toch. and Hitt. and not English. One could (and has) construct similar list to show relationsships between all Indoeuropean languages. So, on linguistics grounds, your theory doesn't hold water. -Asdfgl 19:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added in a handful of the other IE cognates to demonstrate why the writer's approach doesn't work. I've also corrected the Hittite and Tocharian citations, where I could, and added A and B to identify the languages. The cognates look good, if not always formally exact, for the most part, except for (i)štark-:särk which at first glance looks doubtful. It would be possible to construct a rather longer list of Tocharian words that are cognate with various other Indo-European languages and not Hittite. But not much point to it.

no, your argument just proves that both are IE. To show a closer relationship of Anatolian and Toch, you'd need to show common innovations. dab (ᛏ) 19:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

This whole debate reminds me of the Anatolian hypothesis by Renfrew. However, language data suggests a Indo-Hittite division at ~6700BC, which would place the Tocharians in a very unlikely position: a language of the Hittite branch "teleported" to the other end of the Indo-European realm, right beside the main Indo-Aryan branches. Not to mention the fact that Tocharians were not reported at any time contemporary to the Hittite civilization. All of this looks very unlikely, especially for a language written in an alphabet derived from the Brahmi alphabet. An Indo-Aryan origin for Tocharian makes more sense; the Tocharian groups were probably north-bound, scattered remains of the defunct Kushan empire. Hugo Dufort 00:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

People using pointed hats in history

This piece of information seems off-topic:

Similar hats were traditionally worn by women of Lapland, and perhaps coincidentally, the Mi'kmaw people of Atlantic Canada. Pointed hats were also worn in ancient times by Saka (Scythians),and shown on Hindu temples and Hittite reliefs.

The subject at hand is the existence of pointed hats among women. If any information here is really relevant, please explain how.--Wiglaf 11:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The point about pointed hats is that they where not unique to Europe.This article continues to imply that the Tocharians where europeans.By including just the 'whitches hats of Europe' re-affirms this white supremist attitude.I therefore have replaced the old entry.212.85.12.211

I disagree with your accusations of white supremacist attitude in this article. You should read assume good faith, and you should also explain this in the text. Moreover, the connections with western Europe are based on textiles and language and not on pointed hats.--Wiglaf 14:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

how about a pointy hats and the Aryan nation article? seriously, how about pointed hats? There could be some interesting results in comparing them (ok, so that's OR). dab (ᛏ) 14:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Again the point is that scythians had pointed hats who where Iranians? so why should we associate these textiles with Tocharians at all, they could equally be associated with Iranians not Tocharians.Unless one is trying to impose the idea this mummies originate from Europe for which evidence is lacking.212.85.12.211

Oooh, I see. Your main interest in Wikipedia is to combat the theory that any cultural influences, or people, may have spread from Western Europe in pre-historic times. Unfortunatly, you will have to abide to the same cite sources as the rest of us.--Wiglaf 14:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I base my evidence on current Genetic research, not on European Nationalist dogma.Also you have just proved my point ,your aim is to prove they were.I am on a losing streek here ,since I don't have time to argue ,but just to add the Hittite hats is a valid entry, even in this article a contributer has made a link with Hittite/Tocharian languages.Also the removal of Hittite/Hindu/Scythians hats weakens your argument of Indo-European origin.

I could not care less about European nationalist dogmas. I do care about the quality of Wikipedia articles and your POV-pushing has only done the article damage. Cite sources!--Wiglaf 16:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

you base your evidence on Genetic research... soo... you add the Hittite pointy hats? Do you even realize how weird that is? Why the hell would you bother with the shape of their hats if you have conclusive genetic evidence? I would be very interested in these Genetic analyses of the mummies, please do discuss them! dab (ᛏ) 15:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's a link [1].This supports mallory's recent work above.Theres no Y chromsome data yets,soon to be published.For y chromosome I refer you to the above and this paper[2];notice in this paper that haplogroup I only accounts for 1.5%of central asians (its probably due to russian influence or even Roman).

Frankly, due to the fact that most migrations have been led by warbands/armies, i.e. men, your link has little value. By the same logic most of Latin America was never colonized by Spain, since most of the mtDNA is indigenous.--Wiglaf 16:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

agree & looking forward to the Y data. But let's do a pointy hat article, Wiglaf! Beginning with the golden hats dab (ᛏ) 16:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Great article on the golden hats Dab! I will check my copy of Barber's book and see what I can find later tonight.--Wiglaf 19:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating. If that is really a hat, it can only be so in the sense the Crown of St. Edward is a hat, i.e., a weighty, topheavy thing used only in a ritual context, and just maybe, like St. Edward's Crown, for a coronation. --FourthAve 10:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

indeed, there was much uncertainty whether they had actually been worn as hats, and for some time they were just referred to as 'gold-sheet cones' (Goldblechkegel). But there seems to be a general consensus now, that they were indeed ceremonial priestly hats, see the four extensive German articles I have linked by interwiki... Obviously, they have been linked with the pointy witches' hats of folklore, but that is evidently anybody's guess. dab (ᛏ) 10:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

since we're being offtopic, I was wondering about Snorri's "Age of Burning" now referenced at Menhir (Iron Age) because of the standing stones mentioned. Can that comparison be extended to Urnfields? After all, the Tumulus culture seems to have buried their dead, not burned them, while the Urnfields show cremation, but I don't know about a connection with menhirs. The Urnfields are a conspicuous aberration from the usual 'Kurgan' burials, and if tumuli were re-introduced with the Iron Age, wouldn't that hint at migration rather than just evolution (i.e. the Proto-Celts spread from the East (Hallstatt) from about 800, replacing the cremating people with funny golden hats, and re-introducing kurgans)? In this case the golden-hats people wouldn't be pre-Proto-Celts, but a different IE branch altogether, either completely unknown, or maybe the pre-Proto-Italians? did the Italic people practice cremation? Or the pre-Proto-Germans? dab (ᛏ) 10:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

That is a difficult question, as burial traditions could vary, within the same culture. Stone circles, ship graves, stone ships, solitary menhirs and barrows were constructed in Sweden during the Age of Burning. But, IIRC, Denmark, including southernmost Sweden used inhumation, at this time, and still the Swedes and the Danes spoke the same dialect.--Wiglaf 11:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess the question should be asked as

• when and where did cremation begin (1300 BC? Urnfield? Note that Patroclus is also cremated, at about the same time)? Is there significantly earlier evidence of burning?
• when and where did cremation end. Not in the North, it would appear, since the Vikings burned their dead down to the time of Ibn Fadlan. Are there Celtic cremations, however? Italic?

All I know is that the Beaker people (and the Tocharians/Tarim people, to make a tenuous connection to this talkpage) did not cremate, down to ca. 1900. If cremation arose among the post-PIE tribes, its spread would give priceless information as to migration and cultural influence. People don't change from inhumation to cremation on a whim, there needs to be some significant paradigm shift underlying the change, I imagine. dab (ᛏ) 12:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a very interesting lead.--Wiglaf 13:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Patroclus was cremated, along with some noble Trojan youths, dogs, etc, the ashes gathered up, put in an urn, then buried in a tumulus, i.e., a Kurgan. But also note that the Mycenaean kings were presumably buried. Also note that the Romans followed both customs, depending on family. I suggest an absorbed substrate is at work; they might become assimilated in just about everything except for a few religious items, of which burial/cremation is certainly one of them. --FourthAve 14:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • yes, but where is the substrate? afaik, beaker, funnelbeaker, vinca, they all inhumate. is there a neolithic 'ghost' culture somewhere, invisible to us because nobody was ever buried? dab (ᛏ) 14:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• • This is way off topic; perhaps we should cut/paste the whole conversation to Urnfield talk. The appearance of cremation has something to do with this horizon. My suspicion is that it has something to do with religion. --FourthAve 15:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

For y chromosome I refer you to the above and this paper[3];notice in this paper that haplogroup I only accounts for 1.5%of central asians (its probably due to russian influence or even Roman).212.85.12.211

Well, this article states that the Central Asians are a pool of populations from Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgystan. This covers a huge area and it would be strange if they could find many Tocharian genes in that mix. Show me a Y-chromosome analysis of the mummies and I may start to take your racially motivated theories seriously.--Wiglaf 13:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

section copy-pasted to Talk:Pointy hat. dab (ᛏ) 16:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well until then here is another paper[4].Notice that uigher only contain 2% (M170 is the same as haplogroups I)they also lack R1b (M173).It seems your nordic males spent 2000 years in the Tarim ,but failed to reproduce.

*sigh*. NO ONE has talked of "Nordic Tocharians".--Wiglaf 15:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Allegedly deliberate vandalization

The faces on these frescos were usually vandalized in the past due to their "European" features.

What exactly is the evidence for this claimed motivation? --SohanDsouza 11:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC) I wont say about vandalisation but Europid guy in the bezelik drawing has a brakisephal skull that no indo-european speakers(but assimilated turks and circassians) have and the indo-european speakers of asia are from indo-iranian stock with dark hair light skinç This drawing is simillar to people called Yörüks in Turkey who are the descending from Oguz, who are the hearth of Turkic Aristocrasy.

Lord Shiva??

Would the Hindu god..Shiva be one?? I know about mythology..and planetary worship.. what i'm asking is... his image of him being fair skinned or "golden" very tall..with red or yellowish hair and light eyes since China is right next to India.. his holy place is said to be the Himalayan mountains. is it possible that Shiva like Buddha was once a human man.. or the Hindus ran into a Tocharian man and thought of him as a god.. much like the natives of the Americas towards the white Spaniards. --Mari — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.29.240 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tocharians in Indian Literature

This section, I think, is a bit doubful, because it is far from certain that the historical people known as the Tocharians (presumably the ones referred to here, and mentioned by Ptolemy), are indeed the same, or were a part of, the people who spoke the Tocharian languages, who seem to be the primary subject of this article. JamesFox 17:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Us Whitebreads respond

All of the Cavalli-Sforza stuff is ever-interesting but of minimal importance: you have to have a VERY large sample, backed up with legitimate geneologies to really gain any conclusions. Luis Alfonso, heir-male to Hugh Capet, and all of his very noble relatives should submit their DNA just to demonstrate who is really descended from Charlemagne's wife: but they haven't.

Why is my hair still yellow at age 55? --while my previously red beard is now gnarly gray? Why are my eyes blue? Why are there no racist jokes about Scandinavians in English? In fact, why is there no real ethnic humour about Scandinavians?

Ethnic Scandinavian humor. Beyond the Ole and Lena jokes, and the 'drunk Norwegian in the ditch' and the 'dumb Swede' bits, there are no jokes in English that put down Scandinavians. Gawd, I'm so whitebread Scandinavian. [ User:FourthAve [5]

You forgot Swedish Chef. Chocolate moose, anyone? --Jpbrenna 03:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Beyond the Ole and Lena jokes, and the 'drunk Norwegian in the ditch' and the 'dumb Swede' bits, oh, and "Swedish chef", "chocolate moose", "bloody Vikings" ... nope, not a single joke making fun of gloomy suicidal terminally drunk depressed unstable unemployed or fake invalid Northerners in the English language! Your point, and the relevance to a Yamna relationship of the Tocharians being... what? dab (ᛏ) 11:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You forgot, there exist no jokes about blonde women. Wandalstouring 17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Tocharians

The Tocharians were Aryans. They belonged to the Indo-Scythian groups who spoke unlike other aryans a centum language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.13.115 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

European features vandalized due to ...

Just to let you know: those frescos were definitely not vandalised because they exhibited people with european features. They were vandalized by iconoclasts and other folks deeply into superstition since the islamisation of that region's population. Usually the eyes in those fresco images were carved off to prevent magic since these were considered heathen (pre/non-muslim). Islamic fundamentalists and the like consider the visual depiction of humans sin by the way. The person who wrote "due to their European features" and kept reverting this when corrected by someone (two times by myself within a matter of minutes) is trying to create some sort of racist myth. People who inhabit the region that Tocharians lived in - Uyghurs most of all - sometimes though rarely have more european looking features, facial characteristics, even combined with lighter hair and coloured eyes because their ancestors were partly Tocharian who were assimilated. They are usually proud of it too. Please people stick to facts and don't use Wikipedia to falsify facts and history! Don't spread hatred. 134.100.32.213 08:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the logic that the frescos were damaged because of their European features those people from East-Turkestan/Xinjiang wouldn't survive a minute: like the man in the middle on this picture, see [6], or look at that man first from the left [7] 134.100.32.213 08:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Tocharians in Indian literature

This section needs major work to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. I have made quite a number of corrections and given some proper references - but much work needs to be done yet - and I cannot spare the time at the moment. Can someone please help here sorting out the mass of references (not all completed or accurate) and to shorten the whole section and make it readable? Cheera, John Hill (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to Satbir Singh

Dear Satbir Singh: It seems we are getting into an "edit war", something I would very much like to avoid. You have already noticed the many edits I have been making to your work on the "Tocharians in Indian Literature" section - and, as I know well, this is always an uncomfortable experience - I am sorry about this - but feel that to bring this section of the page up to Wikipedia standards we need a proper rigorous account with full and reliable references.

Now, I am in agreement with you on many points but, it seems to me, we need to provide the reader with a brief account of the references in Indian literature which may refer to "Tokharians" which allows for the great uncertainty that exists regarding the identification of almost all these ancient peoples. It is fine to say that some scholar believes that, say, the Asiani (of the Western sources) = the Wusun (of the Chinese sources) - or that the Tochari = the Yuezhi, but it should also be pointed out that these identifications are not accepted by many other scholars and so, in fact, must remain in doubt.

Also, some of the references you have given are not complete (for instance, not including the author's name, etc) and you have obviously taken romanised Chinese names from various authors who have used different (and usually now defunct) systems of romanisations - so I have been changing them to Pinyin, which is the most common system used today - and the one preferred for the Wikipedia. However, please do not think I am being critical - I am really just trying to be helpful.

On more minor issues, it is not usual to include an author's title in a reference - therefore one might refer to Victor H. Mair, but would not normally refer to him in a reference as Professor (or Prof.) Victor H. Mair. I believe this is Wikipedia policy as well.

I am going away for about 3 weeks and will at times be out of internet contact. Though I will check for new notes when I can - I may not have the time or opportunity to reply until I return home early next month.

Finally, I am very pleased to see that the references in Indian literature are being dealt with - and I do hope that together (and with help from others) we can make a really useful, accurate and interesting contribution to this page. I will contribute further whenever I can spare the time. All best wishes for the New Year. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John that this section is insane clutter and without relevance to this article. The material should be exported to Tushara Kingdom, and then cleaned up for relevance and accuracy. dab (𒁳) 10:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dab, I think you are the same Dab or Debachman whom Blockinblox (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC) has already mentioned on some other page. Cheers and have a good day!

Satbir Singh (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Any genetic studies

on the people of the Tarim basin today and whether they posses the genetic markers the ancient Tocharians likely carried R1a? Manic Hispanic 03:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a link between the high R1b percentage in the populations of Xingjiang and the rather unique Tocharian culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.84.36 (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Blonde Chinese known to Rome?

I ran into this book. Pliny speaks of blonde Chinese. Could he be refering to the Tocharians? I presume their presense in China was not well known in 1981 when this book was written?--Sloppy diplomat (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

While the most implausible theory can stay in wikipedia, why not the one makes more sense?

Mr.Hills, I saw your translation of chinese documents, it is a great work!. But I am strongly disagree your position on your views on Tocharian and Uighurs. In this whole article, you and others keep talking about Tocharians without any mention to Uighurs. Apparently you also supporting the extreme chinese view that "uighur expelled" the tocharians . Where did you find that evidence? do you have any slightest proof?. As you and other chinese scholars translated , the chinese monk Xuanzang saw Kashgarian's with green eyes. The mongolians called Uyghurs as "colored eyed people" . 11th century's respected Uyghur turkolog Kashgarli Mahmud called kashgar the city of Turan, and wrote kashgar is the ancient homeland of his forefathers. He never mentioned any mass genocide or expelling you referring to.

Today you still can see mostly caucasion looking kashgarian and khotense Uyghurs (see these pictures

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/4778/2314836332e36b2ac7b8bpv5.jpg , http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/3121/22430775076281cb598bcg6.jpg). Do you honestly believe these people came from Mongolia??. For me and so many scholar, tocharian and turkic(hun) mixture of local population makes more sense and more plausable. While most implausible theory can stay in wikipedia, why not the one makes more sense Thanks @@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by FACT NEEDED (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled and would like an apology please

Dear "FACT NEEDED": I am even more puzzled now than I was before to find your comments on this page on the Tocharians (above) which I have already replied to on your Talk Page and mine on the 22nd of April and which you have not answered. I would be very grateful if you would answer my reply to your (false) accusations and stop spreading them around the Wikipedia. Here is the reply I sent to you on 22nd April. Would you please let me know why you keep saying that I claim the Uighurs expelled the "Tocharians" when I have never said such a thing? Please find a copy of my original reply to your unfounded accusations below. Yours, John Hill (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear "FACT NEEDED": I am very puzzled by your comments above. There appears to be some misunderstanding. First of all, I am not sure which article you are talking about. As far as I can remember, I have never said that Uighurs expelled "Tocharians" from anywhere. If you are talking about my draft translations of the 'Chapter on the Western Regions' from the Hou Hanshu and the Weilüe which can be found on the Silk Road Seattle website hosted by the University of Washington, these deal with events which happened well before the first historical reference to the Uighurs during the Wei dynasty (386-534 CE). Please let me know what I have written that upsets you and where you found it so I can try to answer any criticisms you may have. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Hill,

I am so sorry, I concede for my mistake. My comment was about tocharians. Actually that statement was written by somebody else. The view I was talking about were these: "According to a controversial theory, early invasions by Turkic speakers may have pushed Tocharian speakers out of the Tarim Basin and into ancient Soghdian where they became assimilated in the population". This statement implicitly imply Uyghur's Turkic ancestors expelled Tocharians.

Another point I want to argue was, Whatever the mixture, Uyghurs should be considered decendents of ancient original indo-europian inhabitants of Tarim Basin. Mixing with Turks and Mongolians would not make them irrelevant to their ancestors. We can find so many evidences(culturally , historicly and geniticly) that modern Uyghurs are related to original indo-europian inhabitants which includes tocharians. Unfortunately whole "tocharian" article only mentions Uyghur once.

Once again , I am extremely sorry for the confusion. By the way, I learned a lot from your translation!!. Great work!! FACT NEEDED (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the clarification

Dear FACT NEEDED: Thank you so much for your apology I have just discovered on my Talk Page - it is totally accepted. I know only too well from my own experience how easy it is to make such mistakes in the Wikipedia. As we say here in Australia, "no worries, mate!"

Also, thanks so much for you praise of my work - I am glad you found it useful - even though the early drafts available on the Silk Road Seattle site are now well out of date and contain (I am ashamed to say) a number of errors - some serious. Most of them I have now corrected - but I am still working on it constantly. I hope to make a much revised, corrected and updated version available later this year. However, in the meantime, if you have any queries, please do not hesitate to write to me. All best wishes, John Hill (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC) PS. I agree with you that modern Uighurs are almost certainly descended from a variety of early peoples including the early, basically Caucasoid, tribes of the region.

Piece of information that would be better moved to another page

At some point, there's written:

Tocharian A is also known as East Tocharian, or Turfanian (of the city of Turfan), and Tocharian B is also known as West Tocharian, or Kuchean (of the city of Kucha)

Since the first part of this claim, whether it's an established fact of not, can not be found in the page about Tocharian languages which is where it more properly belongs to, I suggest that the claim itself as a whole is moved there: it is somewhat contradictory that the page about Tocharians contains a more detailed piece of information about Tocharian languages than the page dedicated to them. --Blazar.writeto() 22:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the evidence

Looking at the mummies Tarim mummies they could be Turkman,Pakistani, Iranian or Indians (not all Indians look like Gandi).What does the word europoid mean, are they slavs, finns. I`ve read Mallorys` book and he only describes one as blond ,then later describes it as brunnete.He also,in my opinion, uses the words Europoid ,caucasoid and caucasian as meaning the same ,or is he sitting on the fench. What evidence is there that there are Indo-European (2500 years is along time,are White/Black Ammerican descended from the Apache,they have both been found in the same area in the last 2500 years)).I think the Beauty of Kroran looks like by mum (yes she looks that bad),David looks like my dad (but fater).Oh yes ,Im not white ,I`m light reddish brown caucasoid ,except when I ended up in A&E,the doctors said I looked very pale,something to the lack of blood to the skin,thankfully I got my color (US spelling) back.Ur david looks very pale to me,lost some blood over the past 4000 years I expect,you`d expect he would be darker considering the time he has spent in the sun,must have got bleached by the sand blasting.Quick,hide the pictures its the Police.

Why does one assume that the presence of "europeans?" gave civilisation to whoever,they could have just been economic migrants;the largest civilisation in ancient times just happened to be over the mountains eg the indus valley ,and don`t forget the BMAC.Does one assume that the chinese,africans,south asian in britain/ammerica gave english to the local population, if 4000 years from now we found negroid skulls in London .The age of these skulls would coincide with a massive production of english writing ,massive industrial and economic growth.It is also possible the the middle east had more `blondes` than it does now, since the arab invasion probably effected local appearance.Why do we assume all blondes came from europe.The Irish and Basques are paleolithic europeans, yet most have dark hair.

Here is a picture of a kalash girl that live Pakistan [1] [8]. The Kalash are unique in that the male genes are no different from other pakistanis,but their female dna consists almost completly of haplogroup J.J originates from the middle east and is wide spread in europe(supposed to have spread with farming).

--"Based upon haplogroup frequencies, 65-88% Greek admixture was estimated for the Kalash, consistent with a Greek origin for a significant proportion of Kalash Y chomosomes."

[Q. Ayub, A. Mansoor, A. Mohyuddin, K. Mazhar, S. Siddiqi, M. Papaioannou, C. Tyler-Smith, S.Q. Mehdi Biomedical and Genetic Engineering Division, Dr. A.Q. Khan Research Laboratories, P.O. Box 2891, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan, Unit of Prenatal Diagnosis, Center for Thalassemia, Laiko General Hospital, Athens, Greece, CRC Chromosome Molecular Biology Group, Department of Biochemistry, University of oxford, Oxford, UK]

--Seems to support this article quite a bit...

On the mountainsides of the Himalayas and the Indian Caucasus and under Pakistani and Afghanistan jurisdiction lives a tribe whose people call themselves Kalash. They claim to be the descendants of Alexander the Great’s soldiers who for various reasons were left behind in the depths of Asia and could not follow the Great General in his new conquests. Having no contact with the outside world for almost 23 centuries, they are quite different from any other neighboring nations. Light complexioned, and blue eyed in the midst of dark skinned neighbors, their language, even though it has been affected and influenced by the many Muslim languages of nations that surround the Kalash tribe, still incorporates vocabulary and has many elements of the ancient Greek language. They greet their visitors with "ispanta" from the Greek verb "ασπάζομαι" (greetings) and they warn them about "heman" from the ancient Greek noun "χειμών" (winter). These indigenous people still believe in the twelve Olympian gods and their architecture resembles very much the Macedonian architecture (National Herald, “A School in the Tribe of Kalash by Greeks", October 11, 1996).

Also note European Genes are a subset of those found in Central Asia and Middle East,hence the first blondes would have originated from these areas with positve selection in europe increasing the frequency of blonds.

--The presence of certain Europid features in modern Middle Eastern and Central Asian populations is due to the fact that at numerous points in history, Europids populated those regions, thus genetic assimilation occurred at various times during invasions and migrations. European genes are not a subset of any modern ME/CA peoples, as it is actually the other way around.

I hope they publish the genetics tests on these mummies soon.I'll be a monkey's uncle and eat my hat (pointed or otherwise)if they find Haplogroup I or AMH.(Just in case,where's that alka seltzer)

"Europids"? To avoid using such a barbarism I would willingly substitute quite a long phrase. I might even be willing to alter my conceptual structure, if "Europids" came too often within hearing distance. --Wetman 06:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you're just a tad bit uptight. Maybe the term 'honkey', 'cracker', or 'whitebread' would suffice, or does it really matter?

Watch yourself, Wetman, there's Boreio-Noto-Meso-Dutico-Anatolico-Europid within earshot! (Haha, I'm putting that the next time it asks "Race" or "Ethnicity" on a test or census form ;) --Jpbrenna 07:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With reference to "europeans being a genetic subset of ME,Central asia",I Include in this group Pakistanis and Turks (Turkey).Take for instance R1b,this marker accounts for about 60% of european males.The diversity of this marker is higher in Turks and Pakistanis (and Indians) than europeans;in fact most Western (French,British,Spanish) is a subset R1b3 (I think this is the correct name),this is because during the last Ice age european R1b was 'modulated' resulting in an expansion of R1b3 from Iberia.The Only marker that is unique to europe is male haplogroup I and female V these have not found in South Asia or in eastern Iran.I will not deny much later admixture in central asia eg Roman,Russian etc.However central asians have western female haplogroups in plenty,from Mongols,Turks, Tajiks.The only controversy is with the origin of R1a,which seems to have originated somewhere between the volga to the Indus.Also as far as I am aware the presence of R1b in Turkman(central Asia) does not contain the AMH which is very common in europe.Much of southern Europe consists of haplogroup J and E these originate from spread of farming(J and E in europe)into europe from central turkey/middle east.Hence Blondes in Asia does not imply blondes from europe.[9][10]

The term europid ,Caucacasoid ,I beleive the authors would like to use the term White,but this would be politically incorrect.These tocharians if they are Indo-Europeans should be referred as Proto-Indoeuropeans not europoid since we do not know their origin or destination.The term Europoid implies they have some connection with Europe,they may have never visited europe at all.A number of population movements have occurred in Central Asia over thousands of years,partly due to the change in climate. There is clear evidence of european admixture in South Ammerica,Afro-Ammmericans,Greenlanders;this can not be said for Central of South Asians,except in relation to females.

The Idea that the Kushans where tocharians is nonsense,all evidence points to an Iranian (bactrian)speaking population eg Coins.see [11].Although I believe these late indo-european tribes were a mix even proto-germanic/slavs;Iranian being used for administration since the Iranian were historically the dominate power,just like the use of English in India today.According to chinese/roman histories the Kushans united 5 tribes ;Iranian,proto-germanic,slavic,turk and tocharian ?.

Also european 'historians' often point out migrations into south asia,yet they have never been able to identify these people in South Asia.So if these Tocharians did enter Afganistan ,pakistan etc who are these people now.If they did enter South Asia then these people should be refered to as Proto-Indic not Europoid.Nordics where often referred to as typically European yet they are one of the most genetically diverse populations in Europe.Norwegians even contain Haplogroup Q which is typical of siberian (Altai) populations.

As far as Nordics are concerned, they had pretty much slavery during their Viking age and frequently sex+offspring from their slaves. This is widely believed to be the reason for this genetic diversity. for comparison take the native population of Tanger, Algier or Tunis. Wandalstouring 17:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Haplogroup Q preceeds the existence of the Viking culture, also Tangiers, Algeria and Tunis are not areas focused under the Haplogruop Q "Triangle". Nice try, but I guess you wanted to make it sound like the Vikings were too good and powerful to volunteer their genes thus "bred" with their subserviant slave girls who weren't "Nordic". --208.179.153.163 (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed titles as per Wikipedia Manual of Style

I have just been through the article removing the proliferation of academic titles as per the "Wikipedia Manual of Style" - see: [12]. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article with a different view

See [13] Prehistoric ‘Europeans’ in Xinjiang? A Case for Multiple Interpretations by C.P. Thornton & T.G. Schurr, who also wrote (2004) Genes, language, and culture: An example from the Tarim Basin. Oxford J. Archeol. 23(1):83-106 20:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)dougweller (talk)

Easternmost Indo-european Language?

Wouldn't Bengali or Assamese be the easternmost Indo-European Language?59.164.18.115 (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Nice to see some sources added. However, the 2006 piece from The Independent, while perhaps useful in the one instance, gets quite a bit wrong about the Tocharians, among other things claiming they were 'Celtic.' [14]They were nothing of the sort. They were most likely, judging from the Y-Dna evidence, early Indo-Europeans, as evidenced by the R1a1 findings of the mummies. MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think newspapers are ever a good source for something like this, particularly not 4 years on, when there should be academic sources. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers are not at all a good source regarding this subject. The supposed "Celtic" connections regarding the Tocharians/Tarim mummies are a product of shoddy research and a general lack of understanding. It's mostly based on assumptions regarding the textiles, but in light of actual historical and genetic evidence (and the subjects being labeled as "caucasoid"), but such claims are ridiculous. Tocharians probably have more in common with early Indo-European speakers (as stated before), ancient Iranian tribes in particular. AlecTrevelyan402(Click Here to leave a message)

Language

This statement: "Their nearest linguistic relative appears to be Hittite, used in Asia minor from ca. 1600 BC to 1100 BC. "

Was removed because it is dead wrong. Tocharian is not more closely related to Hittite than to other Indo-European languages (a consideration of the geography should point out how implausible this idea is) and some Indo-Europeanists hold (with opposition) that Hittite is less closely related to all of the other I-E languages than they are to each other.

We've already been through this before... Tocharian's nearest relative has been shown to be Hittite time and again, there are numerous references to this fact, just look at the vocabulary charts, and I can come up with plenty of citations if you like. Also, your edit claims of 'consensus' but it looks more like a POV to me. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is linguistically weak. Of course Tocharian shares some cognates with Hittite; both are Indo-European languages! But those cognates it shares with Hittite it also shares with other Indo-European languages, rendering the probative value of those cognates (for establishing an especially close link between Hittite and Tocharian) nil. As for your bogus claim of POV, what are you affirming? That Tocharian does share crucial early sound changes, like palatalization of the velars and the RUKI rule, with Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian? That's demonstrably false, as is shown by such words as TA känt "hundred", ākär "tear", TB okso "cow, ox".

Yes, Hittite is believed to be a childless cousin of Proto-Indo-European according to David Anthony in The Horse The wheel Language. Tocharian split off from PIE much more recently around 2000 BC. The original PIE split being about 3300BC. Hittite was even earlier than that and thousands of years before the Tocharians. A query I have is that the similarity between the word Tocharian and Turk cant be a coincidence. There is no Etymology for Turk as yet. The Turks are believed to be half asian/european ancestors of the Tocharians, and inhabit the area around the Tarim Basin today.--92.4.93.20 (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet, Turkish as a language is not even remotely Indo-European, nor are any of the other languages in the Turkic family. The name Turk might be attested as early as 1328 BCE. Unless the name Tocharian was itself borrowed from proto-Turkish, it seems unlikely that the two words are at all related. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ethnonym of the Tocharians? Any Ideas?

Is there any information on the self-designative name of these people?

I've only found one link online, from the University of Texas, regarding the native name of the Tocharians, derived from the scrolls found in the Tarim Basin: [15] Due to their geographic separation; Tocharian A seems to have bore the ethnonym Arsi while Tocharian B seems to be related to the Kusi (possibly derived from the Kushan Empire).

Is this worthy of inclusion? Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes - I definitely think these theories are worthy of inlcusion - but do please note that that the quoted article is very careful to qualify them as they have not been "proven," nor are they universally accepted - they are merely theories. Normally I would be happy to write this section but I am travelling and have limited time online. There are other theories which, if I get the time after I return home, I will try to add in. Best wishes, John Hill (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++ these people were ancestors of Uighurs, i sense some anti Turkic rant in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.164.122.96 (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

wrong references and vandalism

the reference number 3 does not say any thing like "they got out and Uighurs came", the author tries to deny that Tocharian people were ancestors of Uighurs and the Uighur language (known as oldest Turkic language) is actually an evolute version of Tocharian language. also as always they try to introduce all central Asian white people as Iranic (???) while in no references there has never been any thing like Iranian race or language, its Persian vandalism along side their false propaganda to put themselves as Aryan. because of the Zprrpstrian religion brought to current Azerbaijan by Scythians some of the words of their language got borrowed by Persians, now these loan words have become the only evidence they can represent for their propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.164.120.94 (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Tocharians were not easternmost speakers of Indo-European in ancient times

The article as of February 28, 2012 states:

"The Tocharians were the Tocharian-speaking inhabitants of the Tarim Basin, making them the easternmost speakers of Indo-European languages in antiquity."

"The Tarim mummies suggest that precursors of these easternmost speakers of an Indo-European language may have lived in the region of the Tarim Basin from around 1800 BC until 2nd century BC, when they were largely driven out by the proto-Turkic Xiongnu."

The Tocharian languages are attested in the Tarim Basin beginning in the 3rd century AD. Regions farther to the east were settled by Iranian and Indo-Aryan peoples in ancient times:

1. Scythian tribes occupied the Ordos Desert between the 6th to the 2nd century BCE. See Ordos culture. Tocharians are defined as speakers of Tocharian languages. While they may have occupied the Tarim Basin before the 3rd century AD, their presence is only ascertained by attestation of their language or historical records. Unfortunately, evidence of their presence only start with attestations of their language in the 3rd century AD.

2. The north-eastern part of India, which lies at a more eastern longitude than the eastern border of the Tarim Basin, was settled by Indo-Aryans by the late Vedic period, which is commonly estimated to have ended about 500 BCE.

I removed the references to "easternmost" in the article.

Kbih67 (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Problems with File:QizilDonors.jpg

Hallo, I recognized that the data which was given to this picture is based on wrong information:

• 1.:The term "Sassanian style" was used in the wrong context.

What have been described is the wrong picture. The right one is Fig.1 on page 8 in this document: http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp084_mummies_central_asia.pdf

The "Tocharian" Colour Plate on page 9 is not fiting to the description of Fig.1. So, the description is wrong. We need a correction of the information given in this document. I've informed the User Per_Honor_et_Gloria about this problem.

- Maikolaser (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2012 (CET)

Discussion at [16], so it won't be fragmented. --Cold Season (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Uyghurs are mostly euporian race

According to the article below Uyghurs are 60% "europian" origin. http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/fulltext/S0002-9297%2808%2900166-3

Copyright 2008 The American Society of Human Genetics. All rights reserved. The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 82, Issue 4, 883-894, 20 March 2008

doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2008.01.017

Article Analysis of Genomic Admixture in Uyghur and Its Implication in Mapping Strategy

Shuhua Xu1,2,Wei Huang3,Ji Qian2andLi Jin1,2,Go To Corresponding Author,

1 Chinese Academy of Sciences and Max Planck Society (CAS-MPG) Partner Institute for Computational Biology, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 200031, China 2 Ministry of Education (MOE) Key Laboratory of Contemporary Anthropology and Center for Evolutionary Biology, School of Life Sciences and Institutes of Biomedical Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China 3 Chinese National Human Genome Center at Shanghai, Shanghai 201203, China Corresponding author

The Uyghur (UIG) population, settled in Xinjiang, China, is a population presenting a typical admixture of Eastern and Western anthropometric traits. We dissected its genomic structure at population level, individual level, and chromosome level by using 20,177 SNPs spanning nearly the entire chromosome 21. Our results showed that UIG was formed by two-way admixture, with 60% European ancestry and 40% East Asian ancestry. Overall linkage disequilibrium (LD) in UIG was similar to that in its parental populations represented in East Asia and Europe with regard to common alleles, and UIG manifested elevation of LD only within 500 kb and at a level of 0.1 < r2< 0.8 when ancestry-informative markers (AIMs) were used. The size of chromosomal segments that were derived from East Asian and European ancestries averaged 2.4 cM and 4.1 cM, respectively. Both the magnitude of LD and fragmentary ancestral chromosome segments indicated a long history of Uyghur. Under the assumption of a hybrid isolation (HI) model, we estimated that the admixture event of UIG occurred about 126 [107146] generations ago, or 2520 [21402920] years ago assuming 20 years per generation. In spite of the long history and short LD of Uyghur compared with recent admixture populations such as the African-American population, we suggest that mapping by admixture LD (MALD) is still applicable in the Uyghur population but 10-fold AIMs are necessary fora whole-genome scan.

http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/fulltext/S0002-9297%2808%2900166-3 FACT NEEDED (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

They are a turkic ethnic group. Visibly so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.252.127.105 (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Chinese forms of the name

The modern Chinese forms of the name are perhaps marginally relevant, as the places where the Tocharians lived are now part of China. But is there any evidence this name was used in the periods corresponding to Middle Chinese or Old Chinese? Kanguole 19:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Uighur and Tocharian connection

Please read this study which explains their Tocharian and Uyghur connection. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790568/

" Historical records indicate that the present Uyghurs were formed by admixture between Tocharians from the west and Orkhon Uyghurs (Wugusi-Huihu, according to present Chinese pronunciation) from the east in the 8th century CE. "

Uighur partial western eurasian connection is undeniable. 28.6% had R1a1 (the most common haplogroup in the uyghurs which is clear connection with Tocharians which means that they have aboriginal connections to their territory. I know this is out of topuc but denying this connections which they have would also mean that Uighur have no right to claim to their territory of East Turkistan.--- 94.175.118.39 19:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I want to mention a similar related discussion at Talk:Tarim_mummies#genetic_data. There is also no mention of Tocharian in the refs in the earlier edits, and the link that the user gave above merely states "Historical records indicate", which the user seems to use as OR for this genetic connection claim. --Cold Season (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You've now provided 3 sources. The third is a self-published website, and thus not a reliable source. The second and third do not mention Tocharians or the Tarim mummies at all. The first mentions them only briefly in speculative remarks after the main study, attributing "present Uyghurs were formed by admixture between Tocharians from the west and Orkhon Uyghurs" to Mackerras (1972) and a "northern European" appearance of the Tarim mummies to Mair (2000), but it also says "We do not know the genetic constitution of the Tocharians". So these studies are about Uighurs; none of them has anything to say about the genes of Tocharians (or the mummies from two millennia earlier). Perhaps Mackerras (1972) might be usable if you could get hold of it. But the sources to not support a link between the Tocharians and the discussion of haplogroups. Kanguole 09:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The first article shows historical record connection between Uyghurs and Tocharian. The second article shows their west Eurasian mtDNA which is 42.6% but still more East Asians, proving them to be like the Tarim mummies. The third self published website has information that based on the "Testing the hypothesis of an ancient Roman soldier origin of the Liqian people in northwest China: a Y-chromosome perspective." Journal of Human Genetics 52:7 (2007): pages 584-591" . But the study also included uyghurs. http://www.scribd.com/doc/94101179/Testing-the-Hypothesis-of-an-Ancient-Roman-Soldier-Origin-of-the-Liqian-People-in-Northwest-China-A-Y-Chromosome-Perspective

BUT IF IT'S UNCLEAR FORGET THAT STUDY AND LOOK AT THIS ONE.

"Male demography in East Asia: a north-south contrast in human population expansion times."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1456369/

Haplogroup Genetic table

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1456369/table/tbl1/

Maybe I should posted this as an possible connection. The third article mentions Uyghurs have R1a which is an Indo-European marker DNA found in Tarim Basin mummies and should prove their genetic connection with Indo-European speakers like Tocharian. If the Tarim mummies were tested to be R1a and Tocharian language is Indo-European than that must means they must have an connection. The fact that Uyghurs also have high frequencies of R1a including East Asian paternal Dna C3, O3, N, D ,Q and historical records showed they intermixed and assimilated with Tocharian should support this theory, at least DNA and historical connection shows this, the only problem is nobody knows what language those Tarim mummies spoke since there is no evidence but it could because they had nothing to write on. --- 94.175.118.39 12:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the first article makes a passing reference to Mackerras (1972) on a historical connection; the original source should be used. All the haplogroup material is about Uighurs, with no reference to Tocharians or Tarim mummies (and as you acknowledge, there's no proof that those two are connected either). Kanguole 13:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It was Chinese records that showed Uyghurs invaded East Turkistan and assimilated the Tocharian. Mackerras (1972) didn't just made up this theory for nothing.

I would prefer to edit an possible connection on wikipedia, at least in terms of 'some' genetic similarity.

" In comparing the DNA of the mummies to that of modern day Uyghur peoples, Victor H. Mair's team found some genetic similarities with the mummies, but "no direct links", concluding that the mummies are Caucasoid, and that "the Uighur peoples arrived after the collapse of the Orkon Uighur Kingdom, largely based in modern day Mongolia, around the year 842." (Please note: he mentioned no link but mentioned genetic similarity means there was an genetic connection)

There are several more articles that makes connection between Uyghurs and Tocharian

http://www.uyghurensemble.co.uk/en-html/uy-history1.html

" The ancestors of the Uyghur includes the nomadic [Gaoche] People and possibly the [Tocharian] peoples of the [Tarim] Basin. "

http://001yourtranslationservice.com/translations/jobs/Tocharian.html

" The modern Uyghur population now found in the Tarim Basin are said to be descendants of the nomadic Turkic tribes (the Turks ruling the area for a thousand years), the Tocharians who lived there, and those Uyghurs who left Mongolia " . --- 94.175.118.39 3:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So find out what Mackerras (1972) says about the Tocharians. As you say, the mummy-Uighur link is speculative, and doesn't mention Tocharians. You need to find out exactly what is being claimed, rather than fudge it with weasel words like "possibly". The additional source you propose are self-published websites, the first of which is a copy of a Wikipedia article.

Yes, we know the Uighurs moved into the area in the 9th century, so some mixed ancestry is quite plausible, but you'll need hard information and better sourcing. The material on haplogroups purports to put all this on a rigorous footing, but actually makes not connection with Tocharians. Kanguole 08:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

@94.175.118.39: Why are you quoting wikipedia content? Those are not sources. Genetic similarities hold little value if no direct link is established. Anyway, do you have a cite for that your claim that Victor Mair concluded that? I'd like to check, but I keep ending up to uncited or falsly-attributed info at wikipedia articles, namely at Tarim mummies and Uyghur people respectively. --Cold Season (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, I found the exact quote where it is derived from at the mis-attributed source:

• (QUOTE) Professor Mair acknowledges that the political dimension to all this has made his work difficult, but says that the research shows that the people of Xinjiang are a dizzying mixture. "They tend to mix as you enter the Han Dynasty. By that time the East Asian component is very noticeable," he says. "Modern DNA and ancient DNA show that Uighurs, Kazaks, Kyrgyzs, the peoples of central Asia are all mixed Caucasian and East Asian. The modern and ancient DNA tell the same story," he says. [17]

I find that very misleading... how it is paraphrased into wikipedia articles, changing the meaning... since he is talking about ancient and modern uyghurs, and no one else. --Cold Season (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of it goes back to The Mummy Congress (2001, ISBN 9780786865512, excerpt) and an AFP story from April 2005. Kanguole 10:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What happened here?

Why the wholesale change here? What happened, for example, with the link to Yuezhi and their history (it's not just in Shiji, it's also in Hanshu), what's the rationale here? Also are people certain that Tushara has nothing to do with Tocharians? Hzh (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is generally accepted that Müller was mistaken in connecting speakers of Tocharian languages with Ptolemy's Tócharoi. No trace of those languages has been found outside the Tarim Basin (except for possible loans in Old Chinese to the east). And we can't base the article on editors' interpretations of ancient Chinese histories in the light of 20th century archaeological discoveries. We need to rely on modern scholarship. Kanguole 09:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You are making an argument that doesn't make sense. Whether Müller is wrong or not has got little to do with whether Tocharians are Yuezhi or not. Chinese sources give reasonably good accounts of the people living in the Tarim Basin, and there are plenty of people who associated the Tocharians with Yuezhi based on Chinese sources. I don't see you giving a reasoned refutation of that idea, therefore I don't see the rationale for deleting that. Hzh (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Which authors associate Tocharians with Yuezhi? The only source given for that was the Shiji. Kanguole 11:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Shiji doesn't say Yuezhi are Tocharians. The association of Yuezhi with Tocharians comes from later scholarship, from studies of Chinese sources such as Shiji, accounts of Zhang Qian and Xuanzang etc. I'm pretty sure someone can give a better account of the scholarship involved, and there are plenty. Perhaps it might be impossible to prove that Tocharians are Yuezhi, but you have to provide serious challenge to the idea to remove that. Hzh (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's the other way round: it's the claim of a connection between the Yuezhi and Tocharians that needs support to be included. On the other hand any work discussing Tocharian languages will explain that they're not connected with the Bactrian people known to the Greeks as Tócharoi, to Xuanzang as 覩貨羅 Dǔhuòluó and in Sanskrit as tukhāra, despite being named after them. Kanguole 15:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaking the people with the language. If the Tocharians moved to Bactria and chose to speak their language (and that happens all the time when people moved), that is neither here nor there as far as the designation of the people as Tocharian goes. Please give serious scholarship that suggests the Yuezhi can't be Tocharians. Hzh (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Tocharians and their language got called that name by modern European scholars who mistakenly identified them with the people in Bactria. That is the limit of the connection. It is not necessary to produce scholarship showing that the Tocharians weren't the Yuezhi or anyone else. On the contrary, per WP:BURDEN, the claim that they were needs support if it is to be included. Kanguole 16:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, that's neither here nor there as far as the people goes. You haven't shown that Yuezhi are not Tocharians. If it not for you to decide what the scholarship is, so far as I have read, scholars agree that Yuezhi are likely to be the Tocharians. We just write what the general opinion of the scholars are, and so far, I haven't seen you providing any serious scholarship on that issue. You are making judgement that is unwarranted, you are putting your opinion here and not the scholars. Hzh (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could identify the scholars supporting the position you wish to include. Kanguole 16:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

How would that help? You are the one making the bold claim without any evidence, and I'm not saying anything that's different from what can be glean from any book, so it is for you to provide the evidence, not me. And so far you haven't given any evidence to support your assertion that Yuezhi can't be Tocharians. If other people are mistaken that the Tocharians weren't spoken in Bactria (and I say "if"), that is irrelevant to the people who were already given that name. Perhaps you should invite someone who might know something about this to edit the page, someone like John Hill who I suspect is the same one who wrote the book "Through the Jade Gate to Rome" which has some discussion on the Tocharians and Yuezhi, and Bactria and Daxia (and where you might find the names of the scholars you want). Hzh (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN. Kanguole 17:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Many of those entries you removed were sourced, so WP:BURDEN doesn't apply. Hzh (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The citations were a mix of links to Watson's translation of the Shiji, a self-published book and links that didn't support the assertions. The material copied from Tushara Kingdom had citations, but none of them connected the topic with the Tocharians. If you wish to restore the material, it will need appropriate sources. Kanguole 18:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Only if you don't accept the link to Yuezhi, and you haven't provided any evidence to support your claim. It's really quite extraordinary that you make a wrong-headed assumption and start deleting what's perfectly valid, then demand that others fix it. Next time learn to use the citation needed tag. Hzh (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Kanguole is correct. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hzh, you're rather missing the point. The article already mentioned identification of the Chinese Yuezhi and Greek Tókharoi. What is generally regarded as mistaken is the identification of the Tocharians with the Tókharoi. You quote (rather too literally) Beckwith arguing that the Yuezhi switched from speaking Tocharian to Bactrian, but he is quite clear that his view is in the minority, making the point by quoting the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture:

"evidence for the identification of the Tokharoi with the 'Tocharians' is meager though not wanting altogether but the identification is more usually than not rejected. However, in the absence of any better name, the designation has stuck." (p.509)

One finds this expressed across a range of works on the subject:

"Research and newly discovered documents have proven this identification to be untenable. The language of the Indo-Scythians is now termed Bactrian, and this language has left a number of loanwords in the languages now termed Tocharian. Tocharian, however, seems not to have left any linguistic traces in Bactrian, so these two cultures were likely never in direct contact." – Tocharian Online

"While this history does not take us quite up to the time of our documents in the sixth through eighth centuries, it is clear that there was no mass migration of Tokharoi back east from Tokharistan or north from India, since any such movement would have been noted by Chinese historians, who took a lively interest in eastern Central Asia. Therefore a simple equation of those who spoke the 'Tocharian' languages and the Yueh-chih/Tokharoi is impossible. As a result, most investigators have followed Levi's early lead in rejecting Sieg and Siegling's identification though, paradoxically, the name has stuck." – Douglas Q. Adams (1988). Tocharian historical phonology and morphology, ISBN 9780940490710, p.4.

"Who the Tocharians were is still enshrouded in mystery and considerable debate. They left behind no texts about themselves, and it is unclear which of the ethnonyms preserved in contemporary Classical and Central Asian sources refers to them. The designation Tocharian refers to the theory, now no longer accepted, that the Tocharian languages were spoken by a Central Asian people called the Tókharoi in Greek sources." – Benjamin W. Fortson (2011). Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, ISBN 9781444359688, 17.3.

The article should present the majority view that identification of the two is no longer accepted, while mentioning that a minority of scholars argue for a more remote connection. But this is ancillary to the topic of this article, which is the Tocharian-speaking culture of the northern Tarim Basin in the 6th to 8th centuries CE. Kanguole 12:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, you make assertion but doesn't give a link to back up the assertion. Give a link that say that this is the majority view (and they are other people that say different from your quote), otherwise it cannot stay. If it disputed, then say disputed. The question is not whether they spoke Tocharian in Bactria, but whether the Tocharians were Yuezhi. The only quote you have provided has the qualifier "a simple equation". Hzh (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought the quote from the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture made it clear this was the majority view. Indeed Beckwith quotes it to demonstrate that his contrary view is in the minority.

You also don't seem to get that the equation that the majority rejects is between Tókharoi and Tocharians. Without that, no amount of evidence for a connection between Tókharoi and Yuezhi will establish a connection between Yuezhi and Tocharians. Kanguole 20:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Beckwith says his book that it is quite clear that the Yuezhi are the Tokharians (not just Tókharoi), speaker of the Indo-European language. He apparently no longer thinks that the evidence is meagre. Hzh (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've acknowledged his view. On the question of whether the article should say that most scholars do not accept the equation of the Tocharians with the Tókharoi, the relevant point is that Beckwith says that his is the minority view. Kanguole 23:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how much things have changed since he wrote that, or if he still holds that view. What irked me originally was that you get large-scale deletion without giving a clear explanation (apart from the assertion that they weren't Tocharians), and all opinions were swept aside. For something that is still controversial and far from settled, better explanation is necessarily. I certainly didn't want to edit this page that involves significant changes to the content, that's best left to someone who is far more knowledgeable then me about the subject, which is why I thought someone else should be invited to edit it. You can say anything as long as it is back by good reasoning, but you certainly can't just delete things so that the whole page fits neatly into one idea about the Tocharians. The fact that I can so easily find a counter argument to the Bactrian-speaking issue shows that whatever that forms the basis for your reasoning, it isn't a very strong one. In a case like this, the controversy needs to be addressed. While I acknowledge that there is a plethora of theories about the Tocharians so they can't all be mentioned, the main ones, like the Yuezhi, should. Hzh (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Beckwith's book was published in 2009. It is not for us to be doing reasoning about evidence; we should be reporting the views of mainstream scholarship, while also mentioning significant minority views. Now that we've established that most scholars reject the identification of the Tocharians with the Tókharoi, I hope you'll stop removing that statement. Regarding the content of this article, we should follow other treatments: some people have suggested links between the Tocharians and the Tarim mummies or the Yuezhi, which we should mention, but they are not the core topic of this article. Kanguole 13:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I would just say that you haven't actually shown that what the current majority opinion about Yuezhi and Tocharians is. Beckwith certainly appears to have changed his position significantly on at least some issues since he wrote that Encyclopedia entry. You cannot quote someone who appears to have changed his position without clarifying what has changed, so you should cite someone else. It appears to be an actively researched area and the issues are still argued over, neither you nor I know what the current position is. I can point to someone else who claims that the majority opinion goes the other way, but of course you may not accept the source. There are plenty of wiki articles whose content I don't agree with, but I don't change them. Same here. Hzh (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Beckwith didn't write the Encyclopedia entry — he quoted it to show that his view wasn't accepted by the mainstream. If you have a citation that says the majority opinion is different, please produce it. Kanguole 15:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread that. And I just checked, and it says most scholars believe that the Tókharoi and Yuezhi are the same which is not what your point, and I apologize for arguing over that point. It's what happens when I get irked and become involved in articles outside my own expertise. Hzh (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks for eventually getting these two points. Kanguole 11:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Iranian???

what is Iranian people?? IRAN is a recently adopted name and there has never been anything called Iranian race, tribe language, people or such, the area called Iran has always been the path way of various different nations, these propaganda and vandalism is made by some well known fascism group which are highly active here at wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.80.136.171 (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I know that these people are paid by their governments in order to feed people manufactured information. Unfortunately history is crippled at its current state because of works of racist clergymen from the past and it seems like nobody is aware of this still.Ancalimonungol (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

a new reference

please include the book Craig G.R. Benjamin "The Yuezhi", Brepolis, Turnhout [2007] ISBN 978 2 503 52429 0 as another source. It answers many questions, gives many references and makes many discussions here obsolete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.155.69 (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedias as sources

Although this has been disputed, I don't believe that generalist encyclopedias are reliable sources for specialist articles. See for instance the discussion at [18]. Because of this I've removed it as a source. IF one of the authors is a known expert on the subject, then I'm happy to have it replaced so long as statements are attributed to the author and due diligence has been made to make sure there are not equally reliable sources contesting the statement and not reflected in the article. For history and archaeology (at least) I think we should always be using academic works. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but these edits have other problems:

1. They present speculative identifications of the Tocharians with the Afanasevo culture, the Tarim mummies and the Yuezhi as if they were established fact. We have no evidence for the language of the first two, and we know that the Yuezhi spoke Bactrian at the time they burst into history. The Britannica articles cited do not support these identifications either.
2. This material is being put into the lead, which should summarize the body of the article, not introduce new material. Indeed there should be no need for citations in the lead at all if it is a balanced summary of the properly supported material in the rest of the article.

So there is a need to engage with the detail already present in the body of the article before adding to the lead. Kanguole 12:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was concentrating just on sources and I agree that the material needs to be discussed in the body of the article also. Go ahead and do what you think is best to fix this. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Kanguole is correct w,r,t, #1 point. The problem is even "experts" like Mallory and D Anthony make the very same wide leaps that general encyclopedias do (in fact no doubt the latter followed the experts). This article [19] is very good at pointing out the inconsistencies and hypocrisy encountered by Euro-western scholars in constructin a "European" even "Celtic" identity for these mummies and speculating their Tocharian language despite the fact that there is a gap of two thousand years or so between the mummies and first attestation of "Tocharian' Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No matter your personal convictions, Mallory and Anthony are real experts, and as Yuezhi notes, the connection with Tocharians is not even limited to the Mallory/Mair/Anthony gang by any means. History always deals with probabilities, not absolute certainties. None of these scholars represents the connection between Tocharians and the Afanasevo culture, the Tarim mummies and Yuezhi as plainly fact; it's a plausible conjecture, no more and no less. Also, the identification of Tocharians, the Tarim mummies or any Asian ethnic group as "Celtic" is only journalistic confusion, not from Mallory, Mair, Anthony or any scholar worth their salt, much less a relevant expert. However, the (at least partly, in the paternal line) European origin (not identity!) of the Tocharians – and the mentioned groups usually thought to be connected with them – is as certain as anything can be in prehistory, as we have various lines of evidence and strands of argument converging on the same startling conclusion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"Indo-European" nationalists need control its desire to be Chinese

Practically all ancient mythologies of the world had a solar deity, and goddess of the dawn of the Proto-Indo-Germanic-Graeco-Roman-Judeo-Christian is a copy of the Sumerian Aya. Its the civilizations that influence primitive barbarian peoples, not the other way around. That is why when the Germanic barbarians invaded and stolen Western Roman Empire, they adopted their culture and identity, while the Romans adopted nothing of the Celts(only killed, enslaved and raped them).

So please, stop claiming that ancient China was created by "indo-european(or should I call Indo-Germanic, the original term?)". "Sino-Platonic" is not a credible website and is desperately trying to connect China with the Mediterraneans Greek(which were not considered "western" until the 19th century).

Barbar03 (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Barbar03: you haven't done your research, have you? Sino-Platonic Papers is an academic source, not a "fraudulent website" as you claim. The rest of your post is more appropriate to a forum, article talk pages are solely for discussion of the article itself, not its subject, Doug Weller talk 10:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Weeping lady mural

Mural from Shikshin, K-9e

The mural at right has been added as a representation of a "Tocharian lady". However, according to this article by the curator of the exhibit in which it features,

• Elikhina, Julia (2013). "The Renovated Central Asia Exhibit in the State Hermitage Museum" (PDF). The Silk Road. 11: 154–171.

this mural (fig. 10 there, captioned "Weeping lady" or "Weeping noble woman") is from the Uighur period. Kanguole 13:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, seems correct. Useful PDF! Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The mural is indeed from the Uyghur period but the lady depicted is Tocharian, according to the label in-situ of the exhibited item. Using this mural to illustrate the Tocharian article is still not unvalid. See photo here [20] Sgnpkd (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Connecting this image to the Tocharians needs a source that discusses the matter in more depth, given that this is after the Tocharian period. Kanguole 20:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I have provided the museum label to the mural image which clearly states the lady depicted is Tocharian. What else source do you need? This is an article on the ethnicity of the depicted subject, not the style or historical period ( ie. a Roman statue of a Gaul soldier would be a good illustration of an article on Gallic people) so I suggest to not remove it unless you provide any other source that states otherwise. Sgnpkd (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, it is for the person who wants to add disputed material to provide adequate sourcing. I have given grounds to challenge the illustration: you need more than a word in the title given to the work by the museum, such as a source that discusses the image. Kanguole 17:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

In fact, Elikhina mentions the mural in connection with murals depicting Uighur donors. Kanguole 14:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop doing original research

Asia history, Wikipedia policy on sources require the sources to actually match with the content. You are using a genetic study on modern Uyghurs which says they have Europoid and East Asian contributions to their gene pool, but says zero about which ethnicities contributed to that gene pool. Then you are using this same study and using it to link Tocharians and Uyghurs. The source has to actually say Tocharians contributed to the gene pool of modern Uyghurs in order for you to use it in that matter. Read WP:OR. You need to find a reliable source which says Tocharians contributed to the modern Uyghur gene pool and use that. Stop edit warring. The genes could come from Sakas and other Indo-European peoples which is why you need a source which says its from Tocharians. Most modern Uyghurs live in the southwestern corner of the Tarim Basin where the Saka Kingdom of Khotan was located. Tocharians lived in the northern rim of the Tarim Basin.Rajmaan (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Kansas Bear Nlu Zanhe Can someone help explain to Asia History that he can't revert for no reason and draw conclusions not found in the source? The edit warring is already reached 3 reverts and Asia History is not being cooperative or responding here. His latest revert had no edit summar.Rajmaan (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "related": the spurce does indeed only say:

"Xinjiang, China has been a contact zone of the peoples from Central Asia and East Asia. In particular, the presence of a Tocharian (an extinct Indo-European language)-speaking population during the first millennium, the discovery of mummies with European features dating from 3,000–4,000 YBP (Years Before Present), and the existence of West Eurasian mitochondrial-DNA lineages clearly indicate the influence of populations of European descent in this region," [21]

It does not say that the Tocharians contributed to the gene-pool of the Uyghurs, even less that the Uyghurs are related to the Tocharians. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the very necessary remark! However, we urgently need here results for the genetic relationship of reliably (!) Tocharian (!) corpses! HJHolm (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: were Balalyk Tepe and Kafir-kala (Tajikistan) also Tocharian-speaking areas? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The only places documents in Tocharian have been found are in the northeast Tarim Basin. Kanguole 08:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

"Caucasoid"?

I noticed that the section of the article on the Tarim mummies describes them as "Caucasoid", but the internal link to the page "Caucasian race" says that Caucasian/Caucasoid is an outdated and scientifically incorrect category. I'm not a frequent Wikipedia editor so I'm not very knowledgeable about Wikipedia style but is there a reason for using that word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.203.166 (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)