Talk:Tocharians

Question

Where did these supposedly Tocharian samples come from? I'm just curious.

I thought that we only had DNA samples from the Tarim Mummies, who were thought to be their potential ancestors at some point, and maybe they still are thought to be so.

I asked this because I simply can't wrap my head around the depictions of them with either blond hair or red hair, while they also happen to be heavily East Eurasian on a level similar to some Turkic groups in the data seen in the article. 81.109.56.193 (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Genetic origin of Tocharians in the Tarim Basin

The current Genetics section says: "There have been two major hypothesis regarding their origin: the “Bactrian oasis hypothesis” suggesting an origin from the Oxus civilization, and the "steppe hypothese" suggesting an origin from the Afanasievo and the Andronovo populations moving from the Altai–Minusinsk regions.[139] Current DNA research suggests that the "steppe hypothese" [sic] is the most likely.[139]".

This claim is dubious, and relies on a 2009 study, whose results have been superseded. A more recent study by Zhang et al, Nature (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04052-7 clearly demonstrates that "Our results do not support previous hypotheses for the origin of the Tarim mummies, who were argued to be Proto-Tocharian-speaking pastoralists descended from the Afanasievo or to have originated among the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex or Inner Asian Mountain Corridor cultures. Instead, although Tocharian may have been plausibly introduced to the Dzungarian Basin by Afanasievo migrants during the Early Bronze Age, we find that the earliest Tarim Basin cultures appear to have arisen from a genetically isolated local population"

In other words, there is some evidence of Afanasievo migrations to Dzungaria, which is north of the Tarim Basin. But there is clear evidence against a Steppe ancestry for the Tarim basin Tocharian settlers. Sridharan Devarajan (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sridharan Devarajan: You are apparently confusing Tarim mummies and Tocharians, but they are genetically separate. The second study (2021) is about the Tarim mummies, who are unrelated to the Tocharians, and essentially have ANE ancestry. But according to both papers (2009 and 2021), the Tocharians were indeed likely derived from Afanasievo ("steppe hypothese"). पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

ANE not a vector of P.I.E.

@पाटलिपुत्र Hello, can you elaborate on why you say ANE was definitively not a vector of P.I.E.?

EHG samples 80%+ ANE and is a serious candidate for PIE, so archaeogenetics might actually challenge linguistic theory dogma (like Kurgan Theory) rather than archaeogenetics having to conform to linguistic theory

Its very possible, in my opinion likely, that Tarim Basin were PIE related. I do agree with you that its a leap to conclude that definitively, but I think its also a leap to conclude it the other way around.

Would you be interested to explain your reasoning? Idris Shirazi (talk) 06:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Either way the safest approach for the article imo is to stick to the study which isnt disproving PIE but is definitively disproving Tocharian Idris Shirazi (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Idris Shirazi:. We just follow as precisely as possible what reliable sources say, independently of our opinions. I don't think I have ever seen a reliable source claiming that ANE ancestry for the Tarim Mummies (which is confirmed) could have involved a Indo-European language. Indo-European is associated with later migrations from the central steppes, specifically Afanasievo or Andronovo, which are the likely source of the Tocharians. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article. Detail belongs in the body. Then again, this article is about the historically-attested Tocharians, not the Tarim mummies, so details of the latter's genetic makeup don't belong in this article at all.

The reason to mention the mummies here is the earlier theories linking Afanasievo, the mummies and Tocharians. The contribution of Zhang et al is to produce evidence against the Afanasievo–mummies link, and also to link EBA populations in Dzungaria with Afanasievo. They make no definitive statement about the Tocharians, and indeed lament the lack of data on them. Kanguole 18:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kanguole: Zhang et al. do write: "Although Tocharian may have been plausibly introduced to the Dzungarian Basin by Afanasievo migrants during the Early Bronze Age, we find that the earliest Tarim Basin cultures appear to have arisen from a genetically isolated local population that adopted neighbouring pastoralist and agriculturalist practices, which allowed them to settle and thrive along the shifting riverine oases of the Taklamakan Desert." ... they seem to consider the Tocharian-Afanasievo link as plausible (likely), which I think is also the consensus. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You are emphasizing a side remark, when the focus of the paper is Afanasievo, Dzungaria and the mummies, and that is what it should be cited for. They are clear that they have no genetic data on the Tocharian-speakers – "plausibly" in such a context is more like "reasonably" or "possibly" than "likely". They also say their results "leave unanswered the question of whether the Bronze Age Tarim populations spoke a form of proto-Tocharian."

The claim you want to make is better supported by Kumar et al (2022). Kanguole 22:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm, the claimed quote

"Genetically the Tocharians Tarim originated from the Afanasievo culture, but with the contribution of other populations such as Bmac, Baikal HG and Yellow farmer, this gene influx was received from these populations during the Bronze and Iron Ages."

does not seem to occur anywhere in Kumar et al (2022). It seems to have been synthesized from Figure 2B. Kanguole 23:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Keyser et al (2009) is about Siberian populations, and only tangentially mentions the Tarim mummies but not the historical Tocharians. Moreover their speculations on the mummies seem to be invalidated by Zhang et al (2021). Kanguole 10:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Tocharians DNA.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)