Indoeuropean Family migrations And Tochars

Naima

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
2,321
Venice
#1
The Indoeuropean peaple spread all over Europe and Central asia .

I find particularly interesting this Tree graph.

http://rbedrosian.com/Classic/sciam2.htm

This shows how the main populations of Indoeuropeans divided almoust more or less in the similar period into 4 large groups ...

1 Celto-Italo-Tocharian
2 Anatolian
3 Balto-Slavo-germanic
4 Aryan-Greek-Armenian

Of those particularly interesting is the first group and how that group stemmed one Branch of Tocharians that moved east , very east earlier than the others that probably migrated toward lower central europe , took the complete opposite direction.

group 1 went toward Europe
Group 2 toward south and Anatolia
group 3 toward north
group 4 toward south and Iran

At a certain point though from the group one splitted Tocharians that instead than west went to east , wich makes me think that that group was still not moving from the original locations of central west asia when that happened, and only after the rest of that group , the proto celtic-Italic went to east and been the first indoeuropeans to enter Europe after the Greek or contemporary to them perhaps .

The interesting thing is the finding of the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies"]Tarim basin mummies[/ame] from tocharians in modern China , showed people of European type with tartan like clothes .
Chärchän man wore a red twill tunic and tartan leggings. Textile expert Elizabeth Wayland Barber, who examined the tartan-style cloth, discusses similarities between it and fragments recovered from salt mines associated with the Hallstatt culture.
So this makes me think that the hallstat culture inherited the same culture of the proto celtic-italic-tocharians .
The recent studies shows how Those europeans inhabited the Tarim basin from at least 3500 Bc .
This most ancient europeans seem to pertain to the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasevo_culture"]Afanasevo culture[/ame] ( 3500 bc) that descend from Eurasian steppes indoeuropeans .

Later stemmings of those tocharians were identified as Yuetzi and kushans as well .

So its pretty interesting to see how Celts , Italics and Tocharians are coming from the same sub indoeuropean steppe tribe and that those people had probably used the same dressing styles , the Italics though lost those when they entered Italian peninsula and adopted the mediterranean clothes of greeks and etruscans.This is how tochars were described in ancient times , putting them closer to celts and ancient italic europeans."exceeded the ordinary human height, had flaxen hair, and blue eyes".
Interesting how also those indoeuropeans have transmitted according to Baumer, Mallory and Mair chariot warfare and bronze making to the eastern chinese nightnbouring old cultures. Sugesting so that they used chariot warfare that is also attested in ancient celtic warfare and that survived till roman times in the British isles .
 
Jul 2014
1,240
Former Corded Ware
#2
The Indoeuropean peaple spread all over Europe and Central asia .

I find particularly interesting this Tree graph.

http://rbedrosian.com/Classic/sciam2.htm

This shows how the main populations of Indoeuropeans divided almoust more or less in the similar period into 4 large groups ...

1 Celto-Italo-Tocharian
2 Anatolian
3 Balto-Slavo-germanic
4 Aryan-Greek-Armenian

Of those particularly interesting is the first group and how that group stemmed one Branch of Tocharians that moved east , very east earlier than the others that probably migrated toward lower central europe , took the complete opposite direction.

group 1 went toward Europe
Group 2 toward south and Anatolia
group 3 toward north
group 4 toward south and Iran

At a certain point though from the group one splitted Tocharians that instead than west went to east , wich makes me think that that group was still not moving from the original locations of central west asia when that happened, and only after the rest of that group , the proto celtic-Italic went to east and been the first indoeuropeans to enter Europe after the Greek or contemporary to them perhaps .

The interesting thing is the finding of the Tarim basin mummies from tocharians in modern China , showed people of European type with tartan like clothes .
So this makes me think that the hallstat culture inherited the same culture of the proto celtic-italic-tocharians .
The recent studies shows how Those europeans inhabited the Tarim basin from at least 3500 Bc .
This most ancient europeans seem to pertain to the Afanasevo culture ( 3500 bc) that descend from Eurasian steppes indoeuropeans .

Later stemmings of those tocharians were identified as Yuetzi and kushans as well .

So its pretty interesting to see how Celts , Italics and Tocharians are coming from the same sub indoeuropean steppe tribe and that those people had probably used the same dressing styles , the Italics though lost those when they entered Italian peninsula and adopted the mediterranean clothes of greeks and etruscans.This is how tochars were described in ancient times , putting them closer to celts and ancient italic europeans."exceeded the ordinary human height, had flaxen hair, and blue eyes".
Interesting how also those indoeuropeans have transmitted according to Baumer, Mallory and Mair chariot warfare and bronze making to the eastern chinese nightnbouring old cultures. Sugesting so that they used chariot warfare that is also attested in ancient celtic warfare and that survived till roman times in the British isles .
Ironically the tocharians were genetically much more related to indo-iranians(r1a) but they were also heavily mixed with east asians.Tocharians were quite different from celtic people and their language was influenced by east asian languages.Though certainly Indo-European in heritage, Tocharian shows a number of departures from its historical source. It is notable for having a reduced phonetic inventory compared to other Indo-European languages.

Yuezhi and kushan were iranian people and they spoke bactrian.There is no evidence that they were related to Tocharians.The Yuezhi and kushan were nomads and the tocharians were sedentary .Their religion and gods were iranian and their names also.Actually the name Tocharians was the name of an eastern iranian tribe who spoke an Iranian language and the name was wrongly given to this indoeuropean people in west china.This name is now thought to be a misnomer, but remains due to sheer inertia and the lack of a definitive replacement.The real tocharians settled in Afghanistan and today there still exist a region called Takhar.But they had nothing to do wit this centum-speaking "Tocharians".


It seems that Tocharians orginated in the Afanasevo culture and i think that their language is only more similar to western languages because tocharians lived isolated and preserved some archaic features.Their languages shows many similarities with anatolian,italo-celtic,germanic and even balto-slavic languages.But anatolian languages seem to be the closest relatives of Tocharian.So i don't think that they orginated from the same sub indoeuropean tribe like celtic or italic people.They were rather part of a northern indoeuropwan sprachbund but they seperated from other indoeuropeans quite early
 
Jan 2014
10
Ohio
#3
Tocharian is a great mystery. As Viraspa mentioned, some scholars don't believe the Tocharians mentioned by Uigurs or others were the speakers of the language, but other scholars disagree. In some ways it is very archaic, such as preserving the mediopassive voice and both the subjunctive and optative moods. On the other hand, it has a scaled-down noun morphology, although some scholars argue that the expanded morphology found in some languages was a later innovation. There was a great deal of borrowing into Tocharian from Iranian and Sanskrit and a lesser borrowing from Tibetan and Chinese. Scholars can't even agree whether the two varieties of Tocharian constitute dialects of the same language or two separate but closely related languages.

As far as I know, no scholar has been able to devise a satisfactory correspondence between the sounds of Tocharian and the other Indo-European languages, so it is impossible to assign it a close affinity with any other group in the family, such as Celtic or Italic. The language may have separated from the other language before Anatolian, which is, I believe, the group currently regarded as having split off from the others at the family first. Mainly, Tocharian has served to disprove theories regarding Indo-European, such as the east-west centum-satem split, but it has been reluctant to give up its secrets.

Of course, I haven't read anything about Tocharian in quite a while, so I may have missed some significant recent findings.
 

beorna

Ad Honoris
Jan 2010
17,473
-
#4
The tocharians were thought to be related with western, european people, because their language was once classified a kentum-language. But kentum is close to the originally stem. So the Tocharians did simply not participate in the satem shift of the mainly indo-iranians. With Celts and Italians or any other connection to european people are the Tocharians not closer related.
 
Jul 2014
1,240
Former Corded Ware
#5
Around the beginning of the 20th century, archaeologists recovered from oases in the Tarim Basin a number of manuscripts written in two closely related but previously unknown Indo-European languages. Another text recovered from the same area, a Buddhist work in Old Turkic, included a colophon stating that the text had been translated from Sanskrit via a toxrï language, which Friedrich W. K. Müller guessed was one of the newly discovered languages.[1]

Müller called the languages "Tocharian" (German Tocharisch), linking this toxrï with the ethnonym Tókharoi (Ancient Greek: Τόχαροι, Ptolemy VI, 11, 6, 2nd century AD) applied by Strabo to one of the Scythian tribes that overran the Greco-Bactrian kingdom (present day Afghanistan-Pakistan) in the second half of the 2nd century BC.[2] This term was itself derived from Indo-Iranian (cf. Old Persian tuxāri-, Khotanese ttahvāra, and Sanskrit tukhāra), the source of the term "Tokharistan" usually referring to 1st millennium Bactria, as well as the Takhar province of Afghanistan. The Tókharoi are often identified by modern scholars with the Yuezhi of Chinese historical accounts, who founded the Kushan empire.[3][4] These people are now known to have spoken Bactrian, an Eastern Iranian language that is quite distinct from the Tocharian languages, and Müller's identification is now a minority position among scholars. Nevertheless "Tocharian" remains the standard term for the languages of the Tarim Basin manuscripts and for the people who produced them.[1][5]

The two languages are known as Tocharian A (also East Tocharian or Turfanian, from the city of Turpan) and Tocharian B (also West Tocharian or Kuchean, from the city of Kucha).[1] 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 historian Bernard Sergent has called them Arśi-Kuči, recently revised to Agni-Kuči
Tocharians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The tocharians were quite fascinating people.They converted to Buddhism and Manichaeism and because of that we know today their language.
The earliest tocharian skeletal remains showed the greatest similiarity to caucasoid populations of the steppe-lands from the Ukraine to Siberia but later tocharians showed greater similarities with prehistoric populations of Central Asia.It seems that some indo-iranian tribes settled in the tarim basin.But tocharians also mixed with east asians and it seems that modern Uyghurs are the descendants of Tocharians
 
Last edited:

Naima

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
2,321
Venice
#6
Ironically the tocharians were genetically much more related to indo-iranians(r1a) but they were also heavily mixed with east asians.Tocharians were quite different from celtic people and their language was influenced by east asian languages.Though certainly Indo-European in heritage, Tocharian shows a number of departures from its historical source. It is notable for having a reduced phonetic inventory compared to other Indo-European languages.

Yuezhi and kushan were iranian people and they spoke bactrian.There is no evidence that they were related to Tocharians.The Yuezhi and kushan were nomads and the tocharians were sedentary .Their religion and gods were iranian and their names also.Actually the name Tocharians was the name of an eastern iranian tribe who spoke an Iranian language and the name was wrongly given to this indoeuropean people in west china.This name is now thought to be a misnomer, but remains due to sheer inertia and the lack of a definitive replacement.The real tocharians settled in Afghanistan and today there still exist a region called Takhar.But they had nothing to do wit this centum-speaking "Tocharians".


It seems that Tocharians orginated in the Afanasevo culture and i think that their language is only more similar to western languages because tocharians lived isolated and preserved some archaic features.Their languages shows many similarities with anatolian,italo-celtic,germanic and even balto-slavic languages.But anatolian languages seem to be the closest relatives of Tocharian.So i don't think that they orginated from the same sub indoeuropean tribe like celtic or italic people.They were rather part of a northern indoeuropwan sprachbund but they seperated from other indoeuropeans quite early
I think that Yuetzi and Kushans are part of the Tocharian Larger family , this is what I read around .
They migrated from the same regions inhabited by the Tochars and the chinese sources also refers to them as "western". They originally come from the Gansu and Xinjiang , just like tochars and the nmoved west again toward Sogdiana and bactria , toward the mid II century they conquered Bactria region that from that moment on in the Chinese cronicle gets referenced as Daxia or Tocaristan .
Its widely believed and its the main academical tought that Yuezhi and Tochars are the same people , just that with Tochars gets identified all of the western indoeuropean population of this language and stantial in northenr regions of actual China , while Yuezhi its a later stemming as well as kushans are indeed again a later stemming .

Also not forget that the same Iranians are indoeuropeans, and they come from the other branch of linguistics wich seems to define pretty wella also genetics and appearences of those populations .

Its obvious that when they setttle , throguth centuries , the languages and costumes do evolve , in some case if there are prechistant populations they even breed giving so new traits in their appearence .

as for your "ironical" mention , I am not sure of that but anyway it wouln't be surprisng as well , The genetic differentiations become when the populations divided and split , throught millennias they either breed with others or evolved .
Italoceltic haplogroup is R1b-L21 , the tarim mummies linked with the hallstat culture had not been tested the DNA if not wrong .The Afanasevo culture (c. 3500–2500 BCE) displays cultural and genetic connections with the Indo-European-associated cultures of the Eurasian Steppe yet predates the specifically Indo-Iranian-associated Andronovo culture (c. 2000–900 BCE) enough to isolate the Tocharian languages from Indo-Iranian linguistic innovations like satemization. The early tarim mummies were R1a1 , modern uyghurs have both r1a1 and reb-m73 . But the afanasevo culture needs to be tested yet . It might be probable that they turn out to be r1b-m73 . Its very possible that continuous different waves of indoeuropeans moved along the steppes .
this means that eventually Tocharians are part of the original split of Italo celtic tocharians , preserved their language and moved east, and in that they moved along with the balto slavic and iranian , had contacts .
but the original genetics of the proto italo tocharians might be more omogenuous than tought today to the main group of indoeuropeans from wich they stemmed, so basically the indoeuropeans originally might have all haplogroups mixtures perhaps and then later those got more selected throguht the isolation of the different migrations .

If not wrong modern uyghurs are more descendant from Mongols rather than tocharians or western , due to the ethnic cleansing and genocides perpetuated by the mongols when they moved .
 
Last edited:
Jul 2014
1,240
Former Corded Ware
#7
1901541]I think that Yuetzi and Kushans are part of the Tocharian Larger family , this is what I read around .
They migrated from the same regions inhabited by the Tochars and the chinese sources also refers to them as "western". They originally come from the Gansu and Xinjiang , just like tochars and the nmoved west again toward Sogdiana and bactria , toward the mid II century they conquered Bactria region that from that moment on in the Chinese cronicle gets referenced as Daxia or Tocaristan .
Its widely believed and its the main academical tought that Yuezhi and Tochars are the same people , just that with Tochars gets identified all of the western indoeuropean population of this language and stantial in northenr regions of actual China , while Yuezhi its a later stemming as well as kushans are indeed again a later stemming .
I dont think so and most historians consider Kushan and Yuezhi as eastern iranian people because their language and nomadic culture is clearly iranian and not "Tocharian" .There are no evidences for a connnection with tocharians.Eastern iranian also lived in the tarim basin and in west china
Kushan and yuezhi had no tocharian loanwords in their eastern iranian languages and it seems that they subjugated the tocharians in the tarim basin who adopted some iranian loanwords. Kushan and yuezhi were nomads and not like the tocharians sedentary.Also the name of Yüeh-chih in Chinese can be considered as a transcription of the name of the Scythians.The real tocharians were a iranian tribe who conquered bactria but ther name is a misnomer for the centum speaking "Tocharians" in the tarim basin.This "fake" tocharians called themself agni or kucha and not toxar which is a iranian word
Italoceltic haplogroup is R1b-L21 , the tarim mummies linked with the hallstat culture had not been tested the DNA if not wrong .The Afanasevo culture (c. 3500–2500 BCE) displays cultural and genetic connections with the Indo-European-associated cultures of the Eurasian Steppe yet predates the specifically Indo-Iranian-associated Andronovo culture (c. 2000–900 BCE) enough to isolate the Tocharian languages from Indo-Iranian linguistic innovations like satemization. The early tarim mummies were R1a1 , modern uyghurs have both r1a1 and reb-m73 . But the afanasevo culture needs to be tested yet . It might be probable that they turn out to be r1b-m73 . Its very possible that continuous different waves of indoeuropeans moved along the steppes .
the ancient remains of tocharians were tested for their y-dna haplogroups and they had only r1a and a much higher percentage of it than most indo-iranians.
They had no r1b and they were genetically a mix of steppe indoeuropeans,east asians and pre-historic central asians.So they were genetically not related to western europeans
this means that eventually Tocharians are part of the original split of Italo celtic tocharians , preserved their language and moved east, and in that they moved along with the balto slavic and iranian , had contacts .
but the original genetics of the proto italo tocharians might be more omogenuous than tought today to the main group of indoeuropeans from wich they stemmed, so basically the indoeuropeans originally might have all haplogroups mixtures perhaps and then later those got more selected throguht the isolation of the different migrations .
the centum state is more conservative than the innovative satem state of eastern indo-european languages.Tocharians are descendants of proto-indoeuropeans who preserved the archaic state and who seperated from other indoeuropeans quite early.The Tocharians did not participate in the satem shift of the mainly indo-iranians because they lived in isolated eastern regions and not because they are descendants of western europeans.
If not wrong modern uyghurs are more descendant from Mongols rather than tocharians or western , due to the ethnic cleansing and genocides perpetuated by the mongols when they moved .
the modern uyghurs are not mongols and they speak a turkish language.The turks didn't annihilated the local population and it seems that Tocharians were assimilated by a small turkish elite.Many modern uyghurs look caucasoid and have green eyes or light hair.It is also very likely that the late tocharians looked already a bit mongolid
 

Naima

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
2,321
Venice
#8
I dont think so and most historians consider Kushan and Yuezhi as eastern iranian people because their language and nomadic culture is clearly iranian and not "Tocharian" .
Sorry but what most historians ? All I read is the opposite that Most academicians do consider tocharians as indoeuropeans and yuezhi and kushans are just parts of the tocharian larger group .

Iranians are also indoeuropeans that stemmed from the main group , so I do not see the issue if eventually some mixtures did happen .

Also the naming is by historians , I am not referring to how ech person called himself but on how they are labeled in history .
the ancient remains of tocharians were tested for their y-dna haplogroups and they had only r1a and a much higher percentage of it than most indo-iranians.
They had no r1b and they were genetically a mix of steppe indoeuropeans,east asians and pre-historic central asians.So they were genetically not related to western europeans
not that I kno of if you refer to the tarim mummies . East asians were not considered from what I read they only come in after the mongolic invasions wiping out the europoid populations there.


The Tocharians did not participate in the satem shift of the mainly indo-iranians because they lived in isolated eastern regions and not because they are descendants of western europeans.
you miss the point that Western europeans are Indoeuropeans as are the tocharian , they pertain to the same proto erly language ofitalo celtic tocharian and share similituydes in not only genetics, but also linguistics .

the modern uyghurs are not mongols and they speak a turkish language.The turks didn't annihilated the local population and it seems that Tocharians were assimilated by a small turkish elite.Many modern uyghurs look caucasoid and have green eyes or light hair.It is also very likely that the late tocharians looked already a bit mongolid
mongol language is as turkc an altaic family language .

as for the Uyghur

history is divided by some historians into four distinct phases: Pre-Imperial (300 BC – AD 630), Imperial (AD 630–840), Idiqut (AD 840–1200), and Mongol (AD 1209–1600

Many modern Western scholars however do not consider the modern Uyghurs to be of direct linear descent from the old Uyghur Khaganate of Mongolia, rather they are descendants of a number of people, of which the ancient Uyghurs are but one
 

Naima

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
2,321
Venice
#9
I dont think so and most historians consider Kushan and Yuezhi as eastern iranian people because their language and nomadic culture is clearly iranian and not "Tocharian" .
Sorry but what most historians ? All I read is the opposite that Most academicians do consider tocharians as indoeuropeans and yuezhi and kushans are just parts of the tocharian larger group .

Iranians are also indoeuropeans that stemmed from the main group , so I do not see the issue if eventually some mixtures did happen .

Also the naming is by historians , I am not referring to how ech person called himself but on how they are labeled in history .
the ancient remains of tocharians were tested for their y-dna haplogroups and they had only r1a and a much higher percentage of it than most indo-iranians.
They had no r1b and they were genetically a mix of steppe indoeuropeans,east asians and pre-historic central asians.So they were genetically not related to western europeans
not that I kno of if you refer to the tarim mummies . East asians were not considered from what I read they only come in after the turkic - mongolic invasions wiping out the europoid populations there.


The Tocharians did not participate in the satem shift of the mainly indo-iranians because they lived in isolated eastern regions and not because they are descendants of western europeans.
you miss the point that Western europeans are Indoeuropeans as are the tocharian , they pertain to the same proto erly language ofitalo celtic tocharian and share similituydes in not only genetics, but also linguistics .

the modern uyghurs are not mongols and they speak a turkish language.The turks didn't annihilated the local population and it seems that Tocharians were assimilated by a small turkish elite.Many modern uyghurs look caucasoid and have green eyes or light hair.It is also very likely that the late tocharians looked already a bit mongolid
mongol language is as turkc an altaic family language .

as for the Uyghur

history is divided by some historians into four distinct phases: Pre-Imperial (300 BC – AD 630), Imperial (AD 630–840), Idiqut (AD 840–1200), and Mongol (AD 1209–1600

Many modern Western scholars however do not consider the modern Uyghurs to be of direct linear descent from the old Uyghur Khaganate of Mongolia, rather they are descendants of a number of people, of which the ancient Uyghurs are but one
 
Jul 2014
1,240
Former Corded Ware
#10
Sorry but what most historians ? All I read is the opposite that Most academicians do consider tocharians as indoeuropeans and yuezhi and kushans are just parts of the tocharian larger group
.
the real tocharians had nothing to do with the people we call today tocharians.This name was wrongly given to them by a german archaeologist and because of that mistake some badly informed historians unfortunately think that centum speaking Tocharians invaded bactria.
Also the naming is by historians , I am not referring to how ech person called himself but on how they are labeled in history .
please show me one evidence for tocharian language,culture or names in bactria.The kushan and yuezhi were eastern iranians who lived in north-west china and western mongolia.Khotan and other regions were inhabitated by iranians who spoke eastern iranian languages and tocharians lived further south(tarim basin).Tocharians were described as skilled traders but weak soldiers by ancient chinese authors.So it is very unlikely that tocharians are identical to the warlike and nomadic Yuezhi.Actually the yuezhi conquered the tarim basin and it is possible that some tocharians were absorbed by them.Later they migrated to bactria and it is also possible that some tocharians settled with them there.The kushan kings of bactria had only iranian or indian gods or names.
not that I kno of if you refer to the tarim mummies . East asians were not considered from what I read they only come in after the turkic - mongolic invasions wiping out the europoid populations there.
Tocharians were heavily mixed with east asians and their languages was radically influenced by east asian languages.The tocharians were not europeans and probably looked rather like modern pamiri people in west china or tajikistan.I dont think that someone in europe would confuse them with modern europeans ,they look quite different.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions