Tocharians

The Tocharians were the easternmost speakers of an Indo-European language in antiquity, inhabiting the Tarim basin in what is now Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, northwestern People's Republic of China. Their unique culture spanned from the 1st millennium BCE to the end of the 1st millennium CE. Their language is called Tocharian.

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 BCE until finally they were assimilated by Uyghur Turks in the 9th century CE.

"Tocharian donors", possibly the "Knights with Long Swords" of Chinese accounts, depicted with light hair and light eye color and dressed in Sassanian style. 6th century CE fresco, Qizil, Tarim Basin. Graphical analysis reveals that the third donor from left is performing a Buddhist vitarka mudra. These frescoes are associated with annotations in Tocharian and Sanskrit made by their painters.There is evidence both from the mummies and Chinese writings that many of them had blonde or red hair and blue eyes, characteristics also found in present-day Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Central Asia, due to the populations' high genetic diversity. This suggests the possibility that they were part of an early migration of speakers of Indo-European languages that ended in what is now the Tarim Basin in western China. According to a controversial theory, early invasions by Turkic speakers may have pushed Tocharian speakers out of the Tarim Basin and into modern Afghanistan, India, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan."

The Tarim Basin mummies (1800 BCE) and the Tocharian texts and frescoes from the Tarim Basin (800 CE) have been found in the same general geographical area, and are both connected to an Indo-European origin. The faces on these frescos were usually vandalized in the past due to their "European" features. The mummies and the frescoes both point to Caucasian types with light eyes and hair color. There is no evidence that directly connects them however, as no texts were recovered from the grave sites.

A recent article (Hemphill and Mallory, 2004) reaches the following conclusions:

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 BC. However, another theory states that the earliest Bronze Age settlers of the Tarim and Turpan basins originated from the steppelands and highlands immediately north of East Central Asia. These colonists were related to the Afanasievo culture which exploited both open steppelands and upland environments employing a mixed agricultural economy. The Afanasievo culture formed the eastern linguistic periphery of the Indo-European continuum of languages whose centre of expansion lay much farther to the west, north of the Black and Caspian seas. This periphery was ancestral to the historical Tocharian languages. See J. P. Mallory and Victor H. Mair, The Tarim Mummies — 2000 Thames and Hudson Ltd ISBN 0-500-05101-1.

Textile analysis has shown some similarities to the Iron Age civilizations of Europe dating from 800BC, including woven twill and tartan patterns strikingly similar to Celtic tartans from Northwest Europe. One of the unusual finds with one of the mummies was a classical pointy hat, worn by some European cultures in Ancient and Medieval times, suggesting very ancient Indo-European roots for this tradition. The female mummies also wore the same kind of skirts as have been found preserved in graves from the Nordic Bronze Age.

Wooden plate with inscriptions in the Tocharian language. Kucha, China, 5th-8th century. Tokyo National Museum.

The Tocharians appear to have originally spoken two distinct languages of the Indo-European Tocharian family, an Eastern ("A") form and a Western ("B") form. According to some, only the Eastern ("A") form can be properly called "Tocharian", as the native name for the Western form is referred to as Kuchean (see below). Commonalities between the Tocharian languages and various other Indo-European language families (as with Germanic, Balto-Slavic, even Italic or Greek) have been suggested, but the evidence does not support any close relationship with any other family. The only consensus is that Tocharian was already far enough removed, at an early date, from the other eastern I-E proto-languages (Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-Iranian), not to share some of the common changes that PBS and PII share, such as early palatalization of velars.

Tocharian A of the eastern regions seems to have declined in use as a popular language or mother tongue faster than did Tocharian B of the west. Tocharian A speakers probably yielded their original language to Turkic languages of immigrating Turkic peoples, while Tocharian B speakers were more insulated from outside linguistic influences. It appears that Tocharian A ultimately became a liturgical language, no longer a living one, at the same time that Tocharian B was still widely spoken in daily life. Among the monasteries of the lands inhabited by Tocharian B speakers, Tocharian A seems to have been used in ritual alongside the Tocharian B of daily life.

Besides the religious Tocharian texts, the texts include monastery correspondence and accounts, commercial documents, caravan permits, medical and magical texts, and a love poem. Their manuscript fragments, of the 8th centuries, suggest that they were no longer either as nomadic or "barbaric" as the Chinese had considered them.

Blue-eyed Central Asian (Tocharian?) and East-Asian Buddhist monks, Bezaklik, Eastern Tarim Basin, 9th-10th century.

The Tocharians, living along the Silk Road, had contacts with the Chinese and Persians, and Turkic, Indian and Iranian tribes. They might be the same as, or were related to, the Indo-European Yuezhi who fled from their settlements in Gansu under attacks from the Xiongnu in the 2nd century BCE (Shiji Chinese historical Chronicles, Chap. 123) and expanded south to Bactria and northern India to form the Kushan Empire.

The Tocharians who remained in the Tarim Bassin adopted Buddhism, which, like their alphabet, came from northern India in the first century of the 1st millennium, through the proselytism of Kushan monks. The Kushans and the Tocharians seem to have played a part in the Silk Road transmission of Buddhism to China. Many apparently also practised some variant of Manichaeanism.

Protected by the Taklamakan desert from steppe nomads, the Tocharian culture survived past the 7th century. The Kingdom of Khotan was one of the centers of this ancient civilization.

The term Tocharians has a somewhat complicated history. It is based on the ethnonym Tokharoi (Greek Τόχαροι) used by Greek historians (e.g. Ptolemy VI, 11, 6). The first mention of the Tocharians appeared in the 1st century BCE, when Strabo presented them as a Scythian tribe, and explained that the Tokharians — together with the Assianis, Passianis and Sakaraulis — took part in the destruction of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom in the second half of the 2nd century BCE:

"Most of the Scythians, beginning from the Caspian Sea, are called Dahae Scythae, and those situated more towards the east Massagetae and Sacae; the rest have the common appellation of Scythians, but each separate tribe has its peculiar name. All, or the greatest part of them, are nomads. The best known tribes are those who deprived the Greeks of Bactriana, the Asii, Pasiani, Tochari, and Sacarauli, who came from the country on the other side of the Jaxartes, opposite the Sacae and Sogdiani." (Strabo, 11-8-1) These Tochari are identified with the Yuezhi and one of their major tribes, the Kushans. The geographical term Tokharistan usually refers to 1st millennium Bactria (Chinese Daxia 大夏).

Today, the term is associated with the Indo-European languages known as "Tocharian". Based on a Turkic reference to Tocharian A as twqry, these languages were associated with the Kushan ruling class, but the exact relation of the speakers of these languages and the Kushan Tokharoi is uncertain, and some consider "Tocharian languages" a misnomer. 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)

The term is so widely used, however, that this question is somewhat academic. Tocharians in the modern sense are, then, defined as the speakers of the Tocharian languages. These were originally nomads, and lived in today's Xinjiang (Tarim basin). The native name of the historical Tocharians of the 6th to 8th centuries was, according to J. P. Mallory, possibly kuśiññe "Kuchean" (Tocharian B), "of the kingdom of Kucha and Agni", and ārśi (Tocharian A); one of the Tocharian A texts has ārśi-käntwā, "In the tongue of Arsi" (ārśi is probably cognate to argenteus, i.e. "shining, brilliant"). According to Douglas Q. Adams, the Tocharians may have called themselves ākñi, meaning "borderers, marchers".

The Ancient Sanskrit literature refers to Tocharians as Tusharas, Tukharas, Tokharas and Tuharas etc. There are numerous references to this people in the ancient Sanskrit texts. E.g:

Atharavaveda Parisista (Ed Bolling & Negelein, 41.3.3) associates the Tusharas with the Sakas,Yavanas and the Bahilkas. (Saka. Yavana.Tushara.Bahlikashcha). Atharvaveda-Parisia also juxtaposes the Kambojas with the Bahlikas (Kamboja-Bahlika..., AV-Par, 57.2.5; cf Persica-9, 1980, p 106, Dr Michael Witzel). This shows the Tusharas probably were neighbors to the Shakas, Bahlikas, Yavanas and the Kambojas in Transoxian region.

The Santi Parva of Mahabharata associates the Tusharas with the Yavanas, Kiratas, Gandharas, Chinas, Kambojas, Pahlavas, Kankas, Sabaras, Barbaras, Ramathas etc. and brands them all as Barbaric tribes of Uttarapatha, leading lives of Dasyus (MBH 12.65.13-15).

Sabha Parva of Mahabharata (Chapters 48-50) states that kings of the Kambojas, Sakas , Tukharas, Kankas and Romakas etc had brought with them as tribute camels, horses, elephants and gold on the occasion of Rajasuya Yajna performed by Yudhisthira at Hastinapura. Later the Tusharas, Sakas and Yavanas had joined the military division of the Kambojas and had participated in the Mahabharata war on Kauravas' side (MBH 6.66.17-21; MBH 8.88.17). Karna Parva of Mahabharata describes the Tusharas as very ferocious and wrathful warriors.

At one place in Mahabharata, the Tusharas find mention with the Shakas and the Kankas (Shakas.Tusharah.Kankascha). At another place they come with the Shakas, Kankas and Pahlavas (Shakas Tusharah Kankashch.Pahlavashcha). And at other places they come with the Shakas, Yavanas and the Kambojas (Shaka.Tushara.Yavanashcha sadinah sahaiva.Kambojavaraijidhansavah) OR (Kritavarma tu sahitah Kambojarvarai.Bahlikaih...Tushara.Yavanashchaiva.Shakashcha saha Chulikaih) etc.

Puranic texts like Vayu Purana, Brahamanda Purana and Vamana Purana etc associates the Tusharas with the Shakas, Barbaras, Kambojas, Daradas, Viprendras, Anglaukas, Yavanas, Pahlavas etc and refer to them all as the tribes of Udichya i.e. north or north-west (Brahmanda Purana 27.46-48).

Puranic literature further states that the Tusharas and other tribes like Gandharas, Shakas, Pahlavas, Kambojas, Paradas, Yavanas, Barbaras, Khasa, Lampakas etc would be invaded and annhilated by King Kaliki at the end of Kaliyuga. And they were annhilated by king Pramiti at the end of Kaliyga (Vayu I.58.78-83; cf: Matsya 144.51-58).

According to Vayu Purana and Matsya Purana, river Chakshu (Oxus or Amu Darya) flowed through the countries of Tusharas, Lampakas, Pahlavas, Paradas and the Shakas etc (Vayu Purana I.58.78-83).

The Brihat-Katha-Manjari (10/1/285-86) of Pt Kshmendra relates that around 400 AD, Gupta king Vikramaditya (Chandragupta II) had "unburdened the sacred earth by destroying the barbarians" like the Tusharas, Shakas, Mlecchas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Parasikas, Hunas etc.

Rajatrangini of Kalhana attests that king Laliditya Muktapida, the eighth century ruler of Kashmir had invaded the tribes of the north and after defeating the Kambojas, he immediately faced the Tusharas. The Tusharas did not give a fight but fled to the mountain ranges leaving their horses in the battle field (RT IV.165-166). This shows that during 8th century AD, a section of the Tusharas were living as neighbors of the Kambojas near the Oxus valley.

But sixth century AD Brhatsamhita of Vrahamihira also locates the Tusharas with Barukachcha (Bhroach) and Barbaricum (on the Indus Delta) near sea in western India (bharukaccha.samudra.romaka.tushrah.. :Brhatsamhita XVI.6). The Romakas was a colony of the Romans near the port of Barbaricum in Sindhu Delta (see comments: Dr M. R Singh in The Geographical Data of Early Purana, 1972, p 26). This shows that a section of the Tusharas had also moved to western India and was living there around Vrahamihira's time.

Going out of the Iron Pass, seventh century AD Chinese pilgrim Hiun Tsang had entered Tu-huo-lo (Tushara) country which lied to the north of the great snow mountains (Hindukush), to the south of Iron Pass and to the east of Persia. During Hiun Tsang’s times, country of Tushara was divided into 27 administrative units, each having its separate chieftain. The Kumitos of Hiun Tsang's accounts (or the Kumijis of Al-Maqidisi) appear to be Kambojas who were living neigbors to the Tusharas across the Hindukush in the Oxus valley.

The tenth century AD Kavyamimamsa of Rajsheikher lists the Tusharas with several other tribes of the Uttarapatha viz: the Shakas, Kekeyas, Vokkanas, Hunas, Kambojas, Bahlikas, Pahlavas, Limpakas, Kulutas, Tanganas, Turushakas, Barbaras, Ramathas etc. (See: Kavyamimamsa, Chaper 17). This attests that the Tusharas were different from the Turushakas with whom they are often confused by some writers.

There is also a mention of Tushara-Giri (Tushara mountain) in the Mahabharata, Harshacharita of Bana Bhata and Kavyamimansa of Rajshekhar.

The Rishikas are said to be same people as the Yuezhis (Dr V. S. Aggarwala, K. D. Sethna). The Kushanas or Kanishkas are also the same people (Dr J. C. Vidyalnkara). Prof Stein says that the Tukharas (Tokharois/Tokarais) were a branch of the Yue-chi or Yuezhi. Thus, the Rishikas (q.v.), Tusharas/Tukharas (Tokharoi/Tokaroi) and the Yuezhis probably were either same or an allied people.

As I noted in post #69, the term Christ has a very specific meaning, The Anointed One. As far as Jews are considered, the current peiod of time is BC since they do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

This is your argument now, but at the beginning of the thread you said...

The use of BCE and CE provides a common measure.

So which is it? I believe you realized that you had lost the "common measure" argument and allowed your argument to change to the "it's offensive" argument. If that's your case, fine, but I want to note the shift in this position.

CE & BCE are teeth-achingly political correct terms for AD and BC, respectively. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_BCE

The Common Era (CE), sometimes known as Current Era, Christian Era, is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 (the traditional birthdate of Jesus) to the present. The notations CE and BCE (Before the Common Era or Before the Christian Era) are alternative notations for AD (anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of the Lord") and BC (Before Christ), respectively. They may also be written C.E. and B.C.E.

Personally, I think it's just another unnecessary and annoying piece of Orwellian PC jive.

>>>So which is it? I believe you realized that you had lost the "common measure" argument and allowed your argument to change to the "it's offensive" argument. If that's your case, fine, but I want to note the shift in this position.

Uh, no. If you review the thread you will see my first post, #15 stated

"Keep in mind that archaeology is an international discipline. For many of the people doing this research, Jesus is not the Christ and not their Lord. Would you expect the Jews working with Israeli antiquities to use such terminology? Do you object to physicists and chemists using the metric system?"

Tocharians are very interesting people. The red haired mummy. Ancient Chinese literature had accounts of red and blonde hairs with blue or green eyed people amongst them. They were White emperors, shamans, and generals. I would not be surprised if Koreans and Japanese have some Tocharian in them.

"Tocharians are very interesting people. The red haired mummy. Ancient Chinese literature had accounts of red and blonde hairs with blue or green eyed people amongst them. They were White emperors, shamans, and generals. I would not be surprised if Koreans and Japanese have some Tocharian in them."

I agree...they definately have Ainu genes but, I'm not sure if there is a relationship between the Tocharians and the Ainu/Jomon of Japan.

There are Chinese poems lamenting the green eyes of some of the Han emperors and the 'magic men' of the emperors were documented in Chinese literature to have had red hair.

"BTW, not all Mongoloids are the same. Most northern East Asians and indigenous North Americans (China, Korea, Japan, Siberia, Inuits, First Nations, northern Native Americans) today have Sinodonty ("Chinese teeth"), while most Southeast Asians (Taiwanese aboriginals, Philippines, Thailand, Borneo, Laos, Malaysia) have Sundadonty. Sinodonty is much newer than Sundadonty. Northern Mongoloid and Southern Mongoloid might have had very different origins."

The Sunda part of Sundadonty is derived (see Christy Turner) from Sundaland in SE Asia. The Northern Mongoloids are a split off from the Southern Mongoloids and did occur some time later.

Kennewick Man had Sundadont teeth.

The Samurai And The Ainu

Findings by American anthropologist C. Loring Brace, University of Michigan, will surely be controversial in race conscious Japan. The eye of the predicted storm will be the Ainu, a "racially different" group of some 18,000 people now living on the northern island of Hokkaido. Pure-blooded Ainu are easy to spot: they have lighter skin, more body hair, and higher-bridged noses than most Japanese. Most Japanese tend to look down on the Ainu.

Brace has studied the skeletons of about 1,100 Japanese, Ainu, and other Asian ethnic groups and has concluded that the revered samurai of Japan are actually descendants of the Ainu, not of the Yayoi from whom most modern Japanese are descended. In fact, Brace threw more fuel on the fire with:

"Dr. Brace said this interpretation also explains why the facial features of the Japanese ruling class are so often unlike those of typical modern Japanese. The Ainu-related samurai achieved such power and prestige in medieval Japan that they intermarried with royality and nobility, passing on Jomon-Ainu blood in the upper classes, while other Japanese were primarily descended from the Yoyoi." The reactions of Japanese scientists have been muted so. One Japanese anthropologist did say to Brace," I hope you are wrong."

The Ainu and their origin have always been rather mysterious, with some people claiming that the Ainu are really Caucasian or proto-Caucasian - in other words, "white." At present, Brace's study denies this interpretation.

"Ainu and Jomon are two different things. Jomon of Japan had distinctively the East Asian culture found elsewhere, like in Northern China. Toward the end of Jomon, rice paddy agriculture was already prevalent in Japan, suggesting strong influence from the East Asian mainland (wet rice farming came from China's Yangtze River Delta)."

Origins Of The Ainu

"Many archeologists consider the Ainu to be the last living descendants of the Jomon people, who lived throughout Japan from as early as 13,000 years ago. "

I don't think Ainus and Tocharians are related. I am sure they mixed though. Ainu and Tocharian language are very different. Ainu is a language isolate like Basque. I have read Ainu could be related Austranesian (Polynesian languages like Tagalog, Malay, and Javanese) or Austrasiatic (eg. Vietnamese, Khmer, Munda, etc) language family. Another theory is Ainu could be related to Burushaski and Basque.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.