发热西 Fārèxī – A Look at China’s Muslim Hui Community, its Iranian Origin and Vernacular

Written by Afsheen Sharifzadeh, a graduate of Tufts University focusing on Iran and the Caucasus. The goal of this article is to familiarize the reader with the Iranian origins, history, and language of the Hui community of China.

The author (right) and companion observe the Eid al-fitr proceedings at Ox Street Mosque (牛街礼拜寺 Niú jiē lǐbàisì; c. 1443 AD), Beijing (2017)

At greater than 10.5 million souls, the Hui people (回族 huí zú) compose the largest Muslim community and second largest “ethnic minority” in the People’s Republic of China. The Hui are the descendants of 13th century Persian-speakers who were deported thither following the Mongol conquest of Persia, Transoxiana, Khurāsān, and Khwārezm (the eponymous 回回國 huíhuí guó first referenced in a Ming Dynasty translation of the Mongolian chronicle 蒙古秘史 The Secret History of the Mongols). This means that after the Han Chinese (~1.3 billion) and the Zhuang (~18 million; whose homeland lies in the remote mountains bordering Vietnam), the descendants of Persian immigrants are the third largest ethnic community in China and are distributed broadly in nearly all of her major urban centers. Despite their importance, little international media attention has been devoted to their existence, perhaps due to the precarious conditions faced by smaller minorities such as Tibetans and Uyghurs in the country’s peripheries.

Much effort has been undertaken through the use of deliberately ambiguous language and, in some cases, pseudoscientific acrobatics, to assign Arab, Turkic, and even Indic identity to the ancestors of the Hui, but these attempts have fallen short of providing any compelling evidence towards those ends. The extant inscriptions and texts throughout China, Hui dialectical data as well as official Chinese dynastic accounts reveal without ambiguity that the Hui were originally a monolingual Persian-speaking community whose domestic, communal, and even spiritual life was conducted in Persian, while their Islamic faith necessitated knowledge of Arabic for access to their liturgy.

The Persian Muslims’ deportation to China was not in isolation, as they were originally accompanied in great numbers by Persian Jews (主鶻回回 zhǔhú huíhuí “Jewish Huihui”; zhǔhú being a phonetic transliteration of colloquial Persian جهود juhūd “Jew”) whom they had lived alongside in their homeland, and whose descendants are today referred to in loose terms as “Kaifeng Jews” (開封猶太族; Kāifēng Yóutàizú). Both of these groups preserved vernacular Persian for hundreds of years in diaspora, but were eventually faced with targeted assimilation pressures under the ensuing Ming dynasty (1368–1644) that resulted in their shift to local Chinese languages. Thereafter, for obvious reasons Arabic and Aramaic/Hebrew retained their currency as vital instruments in religious life, but Persian enjoyed a robust status in the arenas of both secular and religious literature, sermons, poetry, social institutions and diplomacy among Hui Muslims, Jews, and even the Chinese administration (discussed below). Today, the Persian language remains an important fixture in the Hui Muslim and Chinese Jewish identities. The Hui have even retained the endonym for the language of their forefathers, 发热西 Fārèxī (lit. “fever west”, a phonetic transliteration of فارسى fârsi) in a manner not dissimilar to the dissemination of the word “Farsi” in lieu of “Persian” by 20th century Iranian immigrants to the Occident–while standard Mandarin uses the historic Chinese allonym 波斯语 Bōsī yǔ “language of Persia”, from 波斯 Bōsī “Persia” first attested in the The Book of [Northern] Wei (Wèi-shū 魏書; composed in 551-54 AD).

The gravestones of two founding Imams (ahōng 啊訇، from Persian âkhond آخوند “imam”) with the nisbahs البخارى al-Bukhārī and القزوينى al-Qazwīnī، revealing their places of origin, are interred here. Beijing’s Ox Street Mosque also includes a commemoratory stele erected at the end of the 15th century in Mandarin and Persian. (2017, photos by Afsheen Sharifzadeh)

On the Origins of the Hui
Insofar as it is possible to generalize about the origins of all the people in China who are classified as Hui, it seem likely that “the origins of most of them are in the thousands of mainly Persian speaking Central Asian Muslims recruited or conscripted by the Mongol armies which took control of China in the thirteenth century” (Dillon, p. 156). This fact at first seems unbewildering, since at its acme the Mongol Horde did not succeed in conquering India, the core of the Arabic-speaking world, Southeast Asia, Byzantium, or any “European” society west of Kievan Rus. The roughly contiguous Chinese and Iranian ecumenes (the Sinosphere 汉字文化圈 and Persosphere ايران بزرگ “Greater Iran; Iranian World”) were the two chief sophisticated urban civilizations that the Mongols succeeded in subjugating, and whose cultures were sufficiently advanced enough to be adopted wholesale by their conquerors (the Golden Horde lived in proximity to, but not among, the eastern Slavs). The popular depictions of plunder, destruction and massacre wrought by Chingis Khan–borne primarily from coeval Persian and Christian missionary sources–are in fact almost exclusively referring to Greater Iranian cities. After all, it was under the pretext of revenge for the Khwārazmshāh‘s execution of a Mongol merchant convoy at Otrār (فاراب Fārāb) that Chingis Khan chose to invade Central Asia and Persia. Minhāj al-Sirāj Juzjānī, a 13th century Persian historian who authored a synchronic commentary on the Mongol conquest of the Khwarezmian Empire from the safety of his refuge in Delhi, laments:

Alas, how much Muslim blood was spilled because of that murder! From all sides poured torrents of pure blood, and this movement of anger brought about the ruin and depopulation of the earth. (55 Levi, 2010, p. 127.)

The ruins of Merv (Persian: مرو, Marv; Chinese: 木鹿 mù-lù), an Iranian metropolis in modern-day Turkmenistan once famed as Marv-i Shāhijān “Merv the Great”. A center of scholarship, silk textile production, fruit cultivation, riches and faith, the city possessed at least ten “grand libraries” and a renowned astronomical observatory where Omar Khayyām studied. Merv was razed to the ground and its entire population of ~500,000 slaughtered by the Mongol Horde in 1221 AD, making it one of the bloodiest captures of a city in world history. The other metropolises of Khurāsān, Khwārezm and Transoxiana faced a similar fate, however some of their inhabitants were deported to China.

Chief among the contemporaneous Persian sources is the account of another historian and later Mongol state official, Atā-Malek Juvayni, entitled “History of the World Conqueror” (تاریخ جهانگشای Tārīkh-i Jahān-gushāy; c. 1260 AD). Indeed, Juvayni writes that after the fall of Samarkand and the massacring of its inhabitants,

…the people who had escaped from beneath the sword were numbered; 30,000 of them were chosen for their craftsmanship, and these [Chinggis Khan] distributed among his sons and kinsmen, while the like number were selected from the youthful and valiant to form a levy.

As Huíhuí (referring to both Persian-speaking Muslims and Jews) spread throughout Yuan China, it was craftsman and artisans (工匠 gōngjiàng) who were most prominent after conscripted troops:

Many of the more than 30,000 craftsmen captured by Chinggis Khan’s forces in the 1220 Samarkand campaign, were specialists in delicate work who were enlisted in the official government crafts bureau, the guanju. This might include producing Central Asian style brocades or silks or the manufacture of cannons. All the artisans brought to China by the Mongols were pressed into the official quasi-military system under which the Yuan dynasty employed craftsmen and were not permitted to operate privately. (Dillon, Michael. China’s Muslim Hui Community, p. 23)

Audience with Möngke Khaqan (蒙哥可汗 Ménggē kèhán; منگوقاآن Mangū Qā’ān), illustration from the Persian language work تاريخ جهان گشاى جوينى Tārīkh-i Jahāngushāy-i Juvaini (c. 1260 AD) – BNF Supplément persan 206, fol. 101

Juvayni provides similar accounts of the odious fate that befell the people of Bukhārā, Merv, Nisā, Kāth, Gurganj, Termez, Balkh, Nishāpur, Tūs, Herāt and other major urban centers in the medieval Iranian World. For example, following the conquest of Gurganj, the capital of Khwārezm, Juvayni relates that artisans and others with valuable skills such as merchants, scholars and physicians–said to number over 100,000 (certainly hyperbole)–were separated from the rest and deported to China where they lived in diaspora:

‘To be brief, when the Mongols had ended the battle of Khorazm and had done with leading captive, plundering, slaughter and bloodshed, such of the inhabitants as were artisans were divided up and sent to the countries of the East [China and Mongolia]. Today there are many places in these parts that are cultivated and peopled by the inhabitants of Khorazm’ (Juvayni/Boyle 1952) p. 128

Notably, the en masse deportation of Huíhuí artisans from conquered territories in Central Asia is corroborated multiple times in the Secret History of the Mongols (蒙古秘史 Ménggǔ mìshǐ) as well as the official dynastic history of Mongol rule in China (Yuán Shǐ 元史; c. 1370 AD):

‘Hasana, a Kerait, transported 3,000 Huihui artisans from Samarkand and Bukhara and other places and put them in Xunmalin [near Kalgan/Zhangjiakou] in the reign of Ogedei.’ (Yuanshi 122; Leslie (1986) p. 79.

‘In the Yuan period, the Hui-hui (from Samarkand) spread over the whole of China. By the Yuan dynasty the Muslims had extended to the four corners [of the country], all preserving their religion without change.’ (Mingshi 332; Leslie (1986) p.79)

Lanzhou beef noodle soup (兰州拉面 Lánzhōu lāmiàn), originally a popular breakfast dish among Hui Muslims in Gansu, has become a common staple throughout China. The dish consists of carved beef, radish slices, red chili oil, garlic sprouts and hand-pulled noodles served in a broth of boiled lamb’s and cow’s liver. Hui cuisine (清真菜 qīngzhēn cài, lit. “pure and true [halāl] food”) is manifestly an iteration of local Gansu cuisine that developed in accordance with halāl dietary laws, however dishes such as 烤羊肉串 kǎo yángròu chuàn “grilled mutton kababs” and 馕 náng bread (from Persian نان nān) link the Hui cuisine with Central Asia.

In the following centuries, Chinese sources make mention of prominent Persian Muslims and Jews in the administrative and mercantile spheres of Chinese society. Many of these individuals hailed from the primary Huíhuí cadre which had been conscripted and deported overland from Central Asia and Persia during the Mongol conquest of those regions. For example, the Persian Sayyed-e Ajall Šams-al-Dīn ʿOmar Boḵārī (d. 1279), a native of Bukhara, was appointed governor of Yunnan province by Qubilai Khan, and together with his son Nāṣer-al-Dīn was responsible for the spread of Islam in southern China (Persian: ماچين Māchīn “Greater China”; rarely منزى Manzī, from Chinese 蠻子 mánzi “southern barbarians; non-Sinicized southerner” > 南蠻 Nánmán via Mongolian). His great-great-great-grandson, the famous Iranian-Chinese mariner, explorer, diplomat, and fleet admiral Zhèng Hé 郑和 (born 马和 Mǎ Hé) commanded the largest and most advance fleet the world had ever seen to Java, Malacca, Siam, Ceylon, India, Persia, Arabia and the Horn of Africa during seven expeditions between 1405 to 1433. Zheng He presented gifts of silk, porcelain, gold, and silver, and China received such novelties as ostriches, zebras, camels, and ivory from the Swahili Coast in return. The giraffe that he brought back from Malindi was considered to be a 麒麟 qílín and taken as proof of the Mandate of Heaven (天命 tiānmìng) upon the administration.

While the Huíhuí nucleus (Muslim and Jewish Persian-speakers) was predominantly located in the northwest, center and southwest of China where they had been brought overland from Central Asia and Persia by the Mongols, by that period China had also established maritime contacts with merchants from the Persian Gulf, a limited number of whom were permitted to settle in port cities along the East China Sea. Chinese documents do not contain information on the ethnic origins of officials in the foreign quarters of the port of Zaiton (泉州 Quánzhōu; زيتون Zaytūn), however Ibn Baṭṭūṭa mentioned several prominent Persians: Kamāl-al-Dīn ʿAbd-Allāh Eṣfahānī, šayḵ-al-Eslām (dean of Muslim religious leaders) from Isfahan; Tāj-al-Dīn Ardawīlī, qāżi’l-Moslemīn (Muslim judge) from Ardabil; the prosperous merchant Šaraf-al-Dīn Tabrīzī of Tabriz; and Borhān-al-Dīn Kāzerūnī of Kazerun, a shaikh of the Sufi Kāzarūnīya order. While smaller in number, there was also mention of a community of Arabian merchants in Quanzhou that had arrived along the same maritime route as the Persians. Notably, it was through the Persians that the Chinese had first come to know of Arabia and the Arabs (大食 Dà-shí “Arab” < Persian تازى Tāzī “Arab”, referring to Arabs of the tribe of طي Ṭaī). The presence of Arabian merchants in a limited number of port cities where Persian-speakers still seem to have constituted a plurality and oligarchy among Muslims–compounded by the facts that the two coreligionists are usually not differentiated in Chinese historical documents and that Arabic is the liturgical language of both people–has lent false credence to a popular claim among those eager to influence China’s Muslims that the Hui are predominantly descendants of (1) Arabs, (2) Turks or, the deliberately ambiguous option, (3) an unknowable mixture of peoples.

A map showing the modern distribution of the Hui Muslim population in the People’s Republic of China. Each red dot represents 1,000 people. The traditional epicenters of the Huihui (Persian-speaking Muslim) community from the Mongol Yuan period were Gansu, Ningxia, Beijing, Henan, Hebei, and Yunnan as they had been deported overland from Persia and Central Asia and settled primarily in peripheral regions and important economic zones. Few smaller communities persist in port cities on the East and South China Seas, having arrived there historically from Persia and Arabia by maritime route.

The Hui Under the Yuan, Ming and Qing Dynasties
The three officially recognized languages of Yuan administration and education were thus Chinese, Mongolian, and Per­sian; the terms 回回文 Huí-huí-wén (lit. “language of the hui-hui,” the term referring to Persian-speaking Muslims of Central Asia), 铺速蠻字 pù-sù-mán-zì (“Muslim language”, from Persian مسلمان musalmān), and 亦思替非文 yì-sī-tì-fēi-wén (“chosen language”, possibly < Ar. اصطفاء eṣṭefāʾ “choosing, selecting,” referring to the “chosen,” or “Islamic,” language; Yuan-shi LXXXVII, p. 2190; Huang, pp. 85-86) encountered in the documents of the period probably all refer to Persian (Chenheng, 2000 “Literature of Northwest China”; although it has been proposed that at least in some instances the third term refers to the language of the Qur’an). The Yuan administration opened a Persian language school called 回回國子學 Huíhuí guózi xué which is considered to the earliest foreign language school in China (Han Rulin, 1982; Fu Ke, 2004 “History of Chinese Foreign Teaching”).

During this period, Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, who was visiting China in the mid-14th century, mentions the son of a Mongol khan who was especially fond of Persian singing; apparently on one occasion he ordered his court musicians to sing several times a poem by Saʿdī Shīrāzī, which had been set to music (ibn Baṭṭūṭa, tr. Mowaḥḥed, II, p. 750 n. 2). Ironically, Saʿdī (1210-1292 A.D.), who himself had been cast into a life of itineration by the Mongol invasions, could barely restrain himself from lamenting at the ruin wrought by Chingis Khan, likening the destruction of Samarkand to the Arabian destruction of the Sassanid Persian capital of Ctesiphon six centuries earlier. Apparently, the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II even recited Saʿdī’s forlorn couplet as he ambulated through the decrepit Mega Palation of Constantinople two centuries thereafter in 1453:

پرده‌داری می‌کند در قصر قیصر عنکبوت; بوم نوبت می‌زند بر تارم افراسیاب
Parde-dāri mikonad dar qar-e Qayar ankabūt; būm nowbat mizanad bar tāram-e Afrāsiāb

“The spider is curtain-bearer in the palace of Khosrow [Ctesiphon]; the owl calls the watch shifts in the towers of Afrasiab [Samarkand]”

(1) The prayer hall of the Ming-era Ox Street Mosque (牛街礼拜寺 Niú jiē lǐbàisì; c. 1443 AD), Beijing (2) Hui Muslims on the mosque grounds (3) Entrance to a gǒng-běi (拱北 – “a small Muslim shrine”, from Persian گنبد gonbad “dome”) (4) An incense burner (香爐 xiānglú) used by Muslims (5) the author inside Ox Street Mosque, Beijing (photos by Afsheen Sharifzadeh)

Under the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), the Sì-yí-guǎn (四夷館, “Office for the four barbarian [nations]”) was established to train translators to provide official translations of books and diplomatic documents. Since Persian was one of the main diplomatic languages used by the Ming to communicate with Tibet, Ceylon, Cambodia, Champa, Java, Malacca, and the Timurid Empire, numerous Ming-era Persian language inscriptions have been discovered in these territories, including the trilingual Tibetan, Chinese and Persian language inscriptions at Tsurphu monastery in Tibet. The first Ming emperor, Tai-zu 太祖 (r. 1368-97), apparently ordered a group headed by Ma-sha-yi-hei (probably مشايخ Mašāyeḵ) to trans­late several Persian books, including one on astronomy, into Chinese, and in 1407 Ming Cheng-zu (r. 1403-25) issued an edict in Chinese, Mongolian, and Persian for the protection of Islamic minorities. Additionally the Huí-huí guǎn yì yǔ (回回館譯語 “Textbook for Translation from Huihui [Persian]”), com­piled by the Sì-yí-guǎn, was a textbook for teachers and translators; one extant copy includes a Persian-­Chinese vocabulary of 1,010 words. Other Chinese Muslim scholars of the Ming period who taught Persian, translated Persian works into Chinese, or integrated ma­terial from Persian works into their own books in Chinese were Chang Zhi-mei (1610-70) and Liu Zhi (ca. 1660­-1730).

In the mid-­16th century madrasas (schools of Islamic law, jīng táng 经堂, lit. “hall of doctrinal texts”) were established in China. Some Muslim scholars taught Islamic books in Persian in their homes and annotated both Arabic and Chinese texts with Persian, but, as time went on, it appears only Arabic was used in religious education, though in a few mosques there was instruction in both languages. Persian continued to be spoken and read among Muslims through­out the period, but by the end of the Ming period Chinese had become the primary spoken language among the Hui. However the Persian language was still taught in several Muslim schools that were established in the 1920s or later. Ha De-chen (1887-1943) and Wang Jing-zhai (1879-1948) were among the most noted Chinese translators from Persian under the National Republic of China. The latter translated Saʿdī’s Golestān گلستان as Zhēn-jìng huā-yuán 真境花园 (“Ethereal Garden”, published by Beijing Muslim Press, 1947).

Today, Beijing alone is home to at least 72 mosques, and visitors can encounter innumerable madrasas and perhaps dozens to hundreds of Hui restaurants with their idiosyncratic façades of crescent-shaped arches, serving traditional dishes such as 烤羊肉串 kǎo yángròu chuàn “grilled mutton kababs”, 手抓羊肉 shǒu zhuā yángròu “grabbing mutton”, and 馕 náng bread (from Persian نان nān).

Sayyed-e Ajall Šams-al-Dīn Boḵārī (Persian: سید اجل شمس‌الدین عمر بخاری; Chinese: 赛典赤·赡思丁 Sàidiǎnchì Zhānsīdīng; 1211–1279), a Persian from Bukhara, was appointed as Yunnan’s first provincial governor during the Yuan dynasty. His descendant, the celebrated Admiral Zheng He 郑和 commanded seven expeditionary treasure voyages to Java, Malacca, Siam, India, Persia, Arabia and the Horn of Africa from 1405 to 1433. The giraffe that he brought back from Malindi was considered to be a 麒麟 qílín and taken as proof of the Mandate of Heaven upon the administration

Hui Chinese Dialects
In the religious sphere, the Hui have inherited terminology from the Persian substrate of their forefathers, however Arabic terms derived from the Qur’an or their Chinese translations are also used today. For example, 木速蠻 mù-sù-mán “Muslim” (from Persian مسلمان mosalmān, first attested as 铺速蠻 pù-sù-mán in Yuan sources, meaning “Persian”; note 穆斯林 mù-sī-lín from Quranic Arabic muslim مسلم is also used today); 別安白爾 bié-ān-báiěr “prophet” (from Persian peyḡambar پيغمبر; cf. Arabic nabī نبي), the Persian term for the Prophet Moḥammad (first attested as 别安白尔皇帝 bié-ān-báiěr huángdì “Emperor prophet” in Xuanzong’s 赛氏总族牒 “Sai’s General Clan Sutra)”; 答失蛮 dá-shī-mán “learned man; scholar” (from Persian dānešmand دانشمند; cf. Arabic ‘ālim عالم); 迭里威士 dié-lǐ-wēi-shì “member of a Sufi order” (from Persian darvīš درويش); 乃瑪孜 nǎi-mǎ-zī “prayer” (from Persian namāz نماز; cf. Arabic alāt صلاة); etc. Many of them (e.g., dá-shī-mán and bié-ān-bái-ěr) were also fash­ionable in the writings of non-Muslim Chinese literati. Words like 多災海 duō-zāi-hǎi “hell” (from Persian dūzaḵ دزاخ); (Mathews, nos. 6421, 6939, 2014) and 榜达 bǎng dá “morning” (from Persian bāmdād بامداد) are still common among Muslims in Beijing. In addition to incorporating a great many Persian words in their daily religious rituals, Beijing Muslims also hear sermons in Persian, and at evening prayer during the month of Ramażān they recite poems of praise in Persian (Yu Guang-zeng, p. 9).

Hui Muslim restaurants abound throughout China, particularly in Beijing and other historic Hui centers. The Hui are distinguished from the Han Chinese by their round skullcaps and headscarves (戴斯达尔 dài-sī-dá’ěr, from Persian dastâr دستار) , although only sported by some members of the community (Photos by Afsheen Sharifzadeh)

The evening prayer 阿夫他卜—府罗夫贪 Ā-fū-tā-bo fǔ-luō-fū-tān (from آفتاب فرورفتن āftāb forū-raftan) recorded in “Glossary of the Huihui Language”, Ming Dynasty (1368-1644)

Not surprisingly, the names of all of the five Islamic prayers still in use among the Hui are from Persian rather than Arabic. These are: 榜达 bǎng dá “prayer at dawn” (from Persian bāmdād بامداد), 撇石尹/撇申/撇失尼 piē shí yǐn/piē shēn/piē shī ní “prayer at midday” (from Persian pišin پيشين), 底盖尔 dǐ gài ěr “afternoon prayer” (from Persian digar ديگر), 沙目 shā mù “prayer at sunset” (from Persian shām شام), 虎夫贪 hǔfū tān “night prayer” (from Persian khoftan خفتن). We encounter another term 阿夫他卜—府罗夫贪 Ā-fū-tā-bo fǔ-luō-fū-tān “sunset prayer” (from Persian آفتاب فرورفتن āftāb forū-raftan “sunset”) in the Persian language glossary entitled 回回館譯語 Huíhuíguǎn Literacy Primer from the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644).

Additionally, the names for the days of the week in Hui are retained from Persian: 牙其閃白 yá qí shǎnbái “Sunday”, 都閃白 dū shǎnbái “Monday”, 歇閃白 xiē shǎnbái “Tuesday”, 查爾閃白 chá ěr shǎnbái, 潘值閃白 pān zhí shǎnbái “Thursday”, 主麻 zhǔ má “Friday”, 閃白 shǎnbái “Saturday”. Of note, the Ming-era Persian-Chinese glossary Huíhuíguǎn Literacy Primer also records the Persian celebration of the winter solstice 捨卜夜勒搭 shě bo yè lēi dā (شب يلدا šab-e yaldâ), which must have been celebrated among the Hui historically.

The Shab-e Yalda (捨卜夜勒搭 shě bo yè lēi dā) festival recorded in the “Seasonal” section of the Persian Language Work “Glossary of the Huihui Language” in the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644)

The Hui thus bare the mantle of Persislamic civilization, with persisting use of Persian words for an array of domestic, social and religious matters in lieu of the language of the Qur’an, which would only occur among a community that used Persian as its mother language. While many Arabic terms are also used in the realm of religious vocabulary, this is expected since it is the liturgical language of all Muslims. As Michael Dillon notes:

Arabic words are used in connection with religious observance and, since the Qur’an is read and studied in Arabic, this is not surprising. More interesting is the persistence of Persian vocabulary which has social and historical as well as religious connotations. (“China’s Muslim Hui Community”, p. 154)

Hui Words Derived from Persian
A selection of Hui terms pertaining primarily to the religious sphere and their Persian roots are listed below (list composed by Afsheen Sharifzadeh):

湖達 hú-dá – “God; Allah” (from Persian خدا khodâ(y))

別安白爾 bié-ān-báiěr – “prophet [Muhammad]” (from Persian peyḡambar پيغمبر; cf. Arabic nabī نبي)

夏衣马尔旦 xià-yī-mǎ’ěr-dàn – lit. “King of mortals” (from Persian شاه مردان šâh-e mardân)

阿斯曼  ā-sī-màn – “God, sky, heaven” among Qinghai muslims (from Persian آسمان âsemân “sky”)

頓亞 dùn-yà – “world, Earth” (from Persian دنيا dunyâ)

答失蛮 dá-shī-mán – “[Islamic] scholar; learned man” (from Persian dānešmand دانشمند; cf. Arabic ‘ālim عالم)

阿訇 ā-hōng“imam, mullah” (from Persian آخوند âkhond)

木速蠻 mù-sù-mán – “Muslim” (from Persian مسلمان mosalmān)

戴斯达尔 dài-sī-dá’ěr – “turban; cloth wrapped around head of Muslims” (from Persian dastâr دستار)

别麻日 bié-má-rì – “sick; ill” (from Persian bimâr بيمار)

依禪 yī-chán – “He, they” [referring to religious notables in place of 他们 tā-men “they”] (from Persian išân ايشان “they”)

肉孜 ròu-zī – “religious fasting during Ramadan” (from Persian roze روزه; cf. Arabic awm صوم)

阿布代斯 ā-bù-dài-sī – “ablution; Islamic ritual washing of head, forearms, feet before prayer” (from Persian آبدست âbdast; cf. Arabic وضوء wuḍūʾ)

达旦 dá-dàn – “willing to marry [the woman’s term for marriage]” lit. “to give” (from Persian دادن dâdan)

卡宾 kǎ-bīn – “marriage portion; dowry” (from Persian كابين kâbin)

古瓦希 gǔ-wǎ-xī – “matchmaker, marriage broker” (from Persian گواهى guvâhi “witness”)

掃幹德 sǎo-gàn-dé – “swear, oath” (from Persian سوگند sogand)

虎士努提 hǔ-shì-nǔ-tí – “like, satisfied” (from Persian خشنود khošnud)

麻扎 má-zhā – “Muslim grave” (from Persian مزار mazâr “tomb”)

乃瑪孜 nǎi-mǎ-zī – “[Islamic] prayer” (from Persian نماز namâz, cf. Arabic صلاة alāt)

古尔巴尼 ěr-bā-ní – “Eid al-Adha; sacrifice” (from Perso-Arabic قربان ghurbân, عيد قربان Eid-e ghurbân; cf. Arabic ضحي ḍaḥiy “sacrifice”, whence عيد الأضحى ʿEid al-aḍḥa)

班代 bān-dài – “servant, slave [of God]” (from Persian بنده bande)

朵斯提 duǒ-sī-tí – “friend or Muslim friend” (from Persian دوست dôst; note the irregular plural 多斯達尼 duō-sī-dá-ní, from Persian دوستان dôstân “friends”)

牙日 yá-rì – “friend, companion” (from Persian yâr يار)

拱北- gǒng-běi – “a small Muslim shrine” (from Persian گنبد gonbad “dome”)

邦克 bāng-kè-adhan; Muslim call to prayer” (from Persian بانگ bâng; cf. Arabic اذان adhān)

náng – “flatbread” (from Persian نان nân “bread”; cf. Arabic خبز khubz, Turkic ekmek, çörek)

郭 什 guō-shén – “meat [used by Hui to refer specifically to beef and mutton]” (from Persian گوشت gosht)

古纳罕 gǔ-nà-hǎn or 古纳哈 gǔ-nà-hā – “sin” (from Persian گناه gunâh)

哌雷 pài-léi – “fairy, genie” (from Persian پرى pari)

哈宛德 hā-wǎn-dé – “master, leader” (from Persian خاوند xâvand)

睹失蛮 dǔ-shī-mán – “adversary, enemy” (From Persian دشمن dušman)

貓膩 māonì (Beijing dialect)- underhanded activity; something fishy; trick (from Perso-Arabic معنی‎ ma’ni “meaning; subtext or underhanded activity”),  borrowed through the language of Hui

牙其閃白 yá qí shǎnbái “Sunday” (Persian يكشنبه yakšanbe), 都閃白 dū shǎnbái “Monday” (Persian دوشنبه dušanbe), 歇閃白 xiē shǎnbái “Tuesday” (Persian سهشنبه sešanbe), 查爾閃白 chá ěr shǎnbái (چاهارشنبه châhâršanbe), 潘值閃白 pān zhí shǎnbái “Thursday” (Persian: پنجشنبه panjšanbe), 主麻 zhǔ má “Friday” (Persian جمعه jum’a), 閃白 shǎnbái “Saturday” (Persian: شنبه šanbe)

榜达 bǎng dá “morning prayer” (from Persian bāmdād بامداد), 撇石尹 piē shí yǐn “prayer at midday” (from Persian pišin پيشين), 底盖尔 dǐ gài ěr “afternoon prayer” (from Persian digar ديگر), 沙目 shā mù “prayer at sunset” (from Persian shām شام), 虎夫贪 hǔfū tān “night prayer” (from Persian khoftan خفتن)

Remarkably, some conservative Hui dialects, such as the vernacular in Linxia county of Gansu known historically as 河州话 Hézhōuhuà, demonstrate Persian substratum in syntax. Of note, these dialects feature verb-final syntax, as in Persian, in contrast to standard Mandarin:

PersianHui Chinese (Hezhou)Standard Mandarin English
نماز خواندى؟ Namâz khândi?乃瑪孜做了没有?
Nǎimǎzī zuòle méiyǒu?
做礼拜了没有?Zuò lǐbàile méiyǒu?Have you performed [Muslim] prayer? 

A Persian hymn that has long been circulated among the Hui people in China called 五时赞 Wǔ shí zàn “Five Seasons Praise” or 乃玛兹芭莎 Nǎi mǎ zī bā shā”, revering the five daily Islamic prayers with archaic Persian names (پيشين، ديگر، شام، خفتن، وتر) The handwriting of Imam Zhang Guangyu (张广玉) in Cangzhou

References:
“CHINESE-IRANIAN RELATIONS viii. Persian Language and Literature in China” https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/chinese-iranian-viii

Dillon M. China’s Muslim Hui Community: Migration, Settlement and Sects. Routledge; London, UK: New York, NY, USA: 2013.

Ford, G. (2019). The Uses of Persian in Imperial China: The Translation Practices of the Great Ming. In N. Green (Ed.), The Persianate World: The Frontiers of a Eurasian Lingua Franca (1st ed., pp. 113–130). University of California Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvr7fdrv.10

Peering at the Tocharians through Language: A Window to the Ancient Europoid Folk of Western China

Written by Afsheen Sharifzadeh, a graduate of Tufts University focusing on Iran and the Caucasus. The goal of this article is to present the Tocharian narrative in a broad linguistic framework, with a focus on affinities to earlier Proto-Indo-European. 

beauty
Europoid-type “Tarim Mummies” discovered in Xinjiang, China, circa ~1800 BC. The Tocharians are described as having full beards, red or blond hair, deep-set blue or green eyes and high noses and with no sign of decline as attested in Chinese sources for nearly a millennium. The mummies, particularly the early ones, are frequently associated with the presence of the Indo-European Tocharian languages in the Tarim Basin, although Mallory and Mair attribute the later mummies to the Iranian Saka (Scythian) people who settled later in the western part of the basin.

Introduction

What do Englishmen, Sicilians, Spaniards, Bengalis, Kurds, Russians, Welshmen, Germans, Pashtuns, Lithuanians, Armenians, Australians, Persians, Irish, Greeks, Swedes, Punjabis, Albanians, Brazilians, Icelandics, Romani, Ossetians, and many other peoples all have in common? Astonishingly enough, we all speak languages derived from a single Mother Tongue. This fact is especially poignant amidst contemporary political conflicts over seemingly irreconcilable ethnic identities.

But this Mother Tongue was not a monolith. And neither was it ever recorded or attested to, to the modern linguist’s dismay. Variations of it were spoken for a span of roughly two thousand years between 4500 BC and 2500 BC, as it underwent regional transformations and passed through defining bottleneck events. All the while, its daughters were splitting and differentiating via mass migrations of peoples throughout Eurasia, sometimes losing and regaining contact with each other after centuries or millennia of separation. In the absence of written attestation to any of these prehistoric vernaculars, linguists have used the comparative method of language reconstruction to produce an extensive albeit fragmentary list of words once used in daily speech. These registers have been applied in synergy with archaeological evidence to paint a compelling narrative for one of the most important ethno-linguistic progenitors of modern human civilization.

800px-Khost_children_in_2010
Pashtun children in the village of Khost, Afghanistan. Pashto is an Eastern Iranian branch language, and shares a common ancestor with languages such as English, Russian, Italian, Welsh and Hindi, in the form of the Proto-Indo-European language, spoken between ~4,500-2,500 B.C.

The Mother Tongue is known to linguists as Proto-Indo-European. But where did the progenitors of all these modern languages, the Proto-Indo-Europeans, live? After all, they were not some obscure race of language-producing humanoids roaming aimlessly on a primitive Earth, but rather, a pluralistic people who lived fairly recently with families, communal responsibilities, ambitions and concerns like you and me, speaking an adaptive language with which they sang, joked, loved, lamented and prayed, in a world populated by many different language families but theirs came to include roughly half the world’s population by the modern era.

The Tocharians as Indo-Europeans

The answer to that question has been the subject of heated debate among archaeologists and linguists for over a century. In the opinion of this author, the preponderance of archaeological, philological, and chronological evidence points to a Pontic-Caspian Urheimat (homeland)  for the speakers of Proto-Indo-European. This so-called “Kurgan Hypothesis” posits that in the riverine steppe lands darting from southern Ukraine deep into the Ural Mountains of Russia lived a semi-nomadic, mortuary mound-building (called kurgans, from Turkic), animal-sacrificing, cannabis-smoking, pastoralist, glory-inspired people whose commitment to ceremony and client-host tradition coupled with their militaristic ingenuity served as a franchising incentive for the widespread adoption of their languages by subject peoples. In archaeology, our conjectured Proto-Indo-Europeans are said to have composed the early mesolithic Yamna culture. This phenomenon, wherein language shift occurs due to emulation of an intruding but more powerful minority, is called Elite Dominance; a process that also explains, for example, the later extinction of various Iranian languages in Central Asia and Azerbaijan beginning in the in the 11th century AD upon the arrival of a minority of Turkic-speaking peoples.

Kurgan_expansion
The Kurgan hypothesis postulates a Pontic-Caspian steppe homeland for the speakers of Proto-Indo-European (pink). The black arrows represent the various branch splittings of neolithic PIE-speaking peoples between ~4,500-2,500 B.C.

The Yamna culture (early Proto-Indo-Europeans) was in a turn a collection of semi-nomadic, pastoral tribes which more or less could understand each other, probably pulled to the Russian steppe (Samara and Khvalynsk) from the northeast Black Sea basin by adverse climatic changes. As such, we might better conceive of Pre-Proto-Indo-European (the stage of linguistic development before the Yamna horizon) as a group of related dialects which evolved from one group, Indo-Uralic (connecting Indo-European to Uralic languages like Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian, and Mari), of another [Uralo-Siberian] group of an earlier [Eurasiatic] group of the proposed primitive Nostratic language macrofamily. Vladislav Illich-Svetych suggested that the Nostratic language was an incredibly remote ancestral language to Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Semitic, Kartvelian, and disputably other families, spoken by bands of foragers near the end of the last glacial period some 13,000 years ago. If such a conjecture were to have any baring in reality, then Indo-European languages would have remote genetic affinities to modern languages like Mongolian, Arabic, Ainu, Turkish, Somali, Nivkh, Georgian, and Korean. The implications of such a theory are earth-shaking for modern social constructs of “ethnicity” throughout the world.

Centum_Satem_map
Centum-Satem isogloss between Indo-European branches descended from splitting events of neolithic pastoralists migrating out of the Pontic-Caspian Indo-European homeland. Centum languages (blue) departed first and share a number of archaic phonological features that were later innovated in the Satem (red) languages that stayed behind (Indo-Iranian, Baltic, Slavic, Armenian; Albanian has incongruities). The hypothetical area of origin of satemization happens to also be in the range of the Sintasha/Abachevo/Srubna cultures (dark red). Tocharian, the easternmost Indo-European language spoken in the Silk Road caravan cities of the Tarim Basin in northwestern China, also lacked the Satem and Ruki innovations, so it likewise seems to have departed prior to the Satemization phenomenon.

When the first wheel-driven wagons rolled into the Pontic-Caspian steppe via the Caucasus piedmont from the ancient urban civilizations in the Near East around 4,500 BCE, the new invention spurred what archaeologists refer to as the Yamnaya horizon. This horizon transformed the Yamna culture (Proto-Indo-Europeans) into a mobile, expansive economy. Many migrations (especially the Corded Ware cultural horizon that stretched from the Netherlands to the Volga) coincide, as reflected in their Indo-European lexicons, with the new revolutionary technology of the wheeled wagon. Over the millennia, the combination of push and pull factors—perhaps a combination of tribal conflicts, climatic changes, and economic incentives—spread the speakers of PIE throughout Europe and Asia, and gave raise to a number of distinct and innovative cultural horizons (TRB/Globular Amphora culture, Funnel Beaker, Pit-Grave/Poltavka, Catacomb-Grave, Abashevo-Fatyanovo-Balanovo, Andronovo, Timber-grave, Usatovo, etc.) that interacted with and often displaced many Proto-Uralic and Paleo-European speaking cultures (prehistoric European languages of unknown provenance, such as the language of the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture. A modern survivor is Basque). The speakers of Proto-Indo-European then pioneered the chariot using a technology from the Fertile Crescent, and it wasn’t until a millenium later that wagon chariots appear in China. The Beijing Chinese word for wheel is KuLu, which bares an interesting resemblance to the nearby Repin Centum derived Tocharian Kokale (from PIE *kwel-/ *kwol).

Andronovochariotsm
The Proto-Indo-Europeans were the first to domesticate the horse and develop chariotry. The Mitanni dynasty ruled over a Hurrian-speaking (non-Indo-European; likely related to Urartian and to modern Northeast Caucasian languages) population in what is today northern Syria between 1500 and 1350 BC, but likely was founded by Old Indic-speaking mercenaries, perhaps charioteers, who usurped the throne–a common pattern in Near Eastern and Iranian dynastic histories. The Mitanni rulers regularly made references to the hymns and deities of the Rig Veda to the east, including Indra, Varuna, and the Nasatyas or Divine Twins. The Mitanni military aristocracy was headed by the “maryanna” (from Indic “marya”: “young man”, employed in the Rig Veda to refer to the heavenly war-band assembled around Indra.) All Mitanni Kings, first to last, took Old Indic throne names, such as Tvesa-ratha (“having an attacking chariot”), and in the oldest surviving horse-training manual in the world, a Mitanni horse trainer used many Old Indic terms for technical details, including horse color and number of laps.

At some point around 3,700-3500 BCE, a mass migration took place from the central zone of the Yamna culture, around a site called Repin between the Don and Volga. The push factors for this Trans-Ural exodus are unknown, but it may have been encouraged by the new opportunities for social and economic expansion offered by the novel mobile economy discussed above, or perhaps it was due to a conflict event. The migrants settled on virgin land on the contact zone with Siberian foragers (hunters and gatherers; perhaps Proto-Altaic-speaking) a startling 2000 km to the east of their starting point, and this area developed into the Early Bronze Age Afanasievo culture. It is to the Afanasievo cultural horizon that supporters of the Kurgan Hypothesis ascribe a Pre-Tocharian pedigree.

Tracking Tarim Mummies - books - archeaology.org - Map
The projected Pre-Tocharian migration from the Eastern dialects of PIE accross the Ural Moutain range and into the Altai region around 3,700-3,500 B.C., where the migrants likely interacted with speakers of Proto-Uralic and Proto-Altaic before migrating southward into the Tarim Basin.

At the time of this hypothetical Pre-Tocharian split from the eastern dialects, Proto-Indo-European was still in an early stage of its development. Pre-Germanic and Pre-Italo-Celtic would split several centuries later into the Danube valley, around 3,300-3,000 BCE, but from the western and central dialects respectively. Pre-Armenian, Pre-Albanian, Pre-Phrygian, and Pre-Greek split later yet with PIE transhumance into the Balkans, but their origins are conflicting and their affinities with each other are problematic for a number of reasons that are outside the scope of this article (such as incongruities in Satemization and Centum superstrate; see Middle Dnieper multi-ethnic “vortex” culture for more reading). Even later, Pre-Baltic and Pre-Slavic split off probably from the northwestern dialects of PIE probably around 2,800 BCE, and finally Pre-Indo-Iranian between 2,500-2,300 BCE from the northeastern group. Tocharian was probably closest of kin to the PIE dialects that were ancestral to the later Thraco-Phrygian and Armenian, but similarities with Italo-Celtic suggest an extended period of contact following an initial separation event.

Pre-Anatolian split first of all the daughters, perhaps half a millennium before Pre-Tocharian around 4200 BCE, from archaic Proto-Indo-European, which lacked grammatical gender, complex verbal tenses (Anatolian only has present and perfect), the dual case for nouns, and major phonemic and lexical shifts that would be passed down to the rest of her daughters. As such, for some Indo-Europeanists these traits suggest that the Anatolian branch did not develop from Proto-Indo-European at all but rather that the two evolved from different geographic dialects of a Pre-Proto-Indo-European ancestral dialect continuum, termed “Indo-Hittite” by William Sturtevant. For example, whereas almost all modern Indo-European languages have inherited PIE *do- “to give”, this root originally meant “to take” in archaic PIE around the time of the Pre-Anatolian branch splitting. It later underwent a semantic shift probably in the context of the mesolithic Proto-Indo-European client-host gift-offering tradition in the steppe, so Hittite (Anatolian branch) has instead the archaic *Pai- “to give”. Pre-Anatolian then differentiated into Lycian, Hittite, Luwian, and the poorly attested Palaic, among other languages, in the ensuing millennia, all of which are now long-extinct but were once spoken for thousands of years in modern-day Turkey.

Picture of The Lion Gate - Hittite Capital Hattusa 6
The Lion Gates at the ruins of Hattusha, Turkey. Hattusha was once the capital city of the Hattians, who are now believed to have been remote relatives of the Proto-Northwest Caucasian-speaking peoples. Beginning in the 4th millennium BCE the Hattic language was gradually displaced by archaic Indo-European languages, most likely archaic Anatolian branch languages Luwian and Hittite, and the Hattians were ultimately absorbed and assimilated into Indo-European-speaking society after nearly two thousand years of coexistence by the end of the 2nd millennium BCE. However, the latter adopted the former’s self-designation (<Hatti; which in the opinion of this author, is likely also the root of the Armenian self-designation Հայ Hay).

The Tocharian Language

Despite her early separation from PIE, Tocharian still shares a striking number of cognates with her sisters in her core vocabulary. If we indulge ourselves for moment, we can imagine there was once a young Tocharian girl on a farm in western China who called out the ñem (Swedish namn, Kurmanji Kurdish nav, French nom) of her older procer (Dutch broeder, Persian barâdar, Russian brat) to käm (English: come, Kurmanji Kurdish: gav, Afrikaans: kom) help her mälka (German melken, Albanian mjel, Latin mulgere) the tri (Spanish tres, Lithuanian trýs, Pashto dre) kews (English cow, Armenian kov, Persian gâv) in the pen at nighttime under the lyuks (English light, Latin lux, Armenian luys) of the beautiful stars and meñe (Danish måne, Sorani Kurdish mang, Ukrainian misjac’), while her macer (Armenian mayr, Phrygian matar, German Mutter)  and pacer (Italian pater, Hindi pitr, Persian pedar)  were preparing the misa (English meat, Gothic mats, Armenian mis) of a yekwe (Latin equus, Hittite ekuus, Irish Gaelic each) for dinner and fetching fresh war (Hittite wa-a-tar, Belorussian vadá, West Frisian wetter) to wash it down.

English Tocharian B Ancient Greek Middle Persian Portuguese Proto-Indo-European
name ñem ónoma nâm nome *h₃néh₃-m̥n
eight okt oktṓ hašt oito *h₃eḱtéh₃(u)
mother macer mḗtēr mâdar mãe *méh₂tēr
foot paiye poús pây *pṓds
wolf walkwe lúkos gurg lobo *wĺ̥kʷos
new ñuwe néos nōg novo *néwos
star śre astḗr stâr estrela *h₂stḗr

Language comparison chart prepared by the author illustrating a few readily recognizable cognates between Tocharian and a few extant/extinct Centum and Satem members of the Indo-European family, including English (Germanic), Ancient Greek (Hellenic), Middle Persian (Iranian; Satemization and Ruki rule reflected in the register for “eight” = “hašt”; labial to velar shift and *r/*l merger reflected in “wolf” = “gurg”) and Portuguese (Italic).

As the second major branching-off event of PIE, Tocharian maintains a number of archaisms that are absent in later branches. For example, Tocharian is the only geographically “eastern” Centum language, as it split before the Satem shift occurred in PIE (the Satem group merged Proto-Indo-European palatovelars *ḱ, *ḱʰ, *ǵ, *ǵʰ. and plain velars *k, *kʰ, *g, *gʰ, yielding plain velars only, but retained the labiovelars as a distinct set. For example, *ḱ became Sanskrit ś [ɕ], Latvian, Avestan, Russian and Armenian s, Lithuanian š [ʃ], and Albanian th [θ] but k before a resonant.) As such, it does not feature the subsequent innovation of Ruki sound law (*s >  / {*r, *w, *K, *y}). However, some Indo-European tribes (dialects) maintained tribal-linguistic contact—often via assimilated substrate—prior to their various distinct Proto-stages, including Pre-Greek Catacomb and Pre-Tocharian Don-Repin. The Volga Uralic Mordvin languages (Erzya/Moskha) have loanwords from early Indo-Iranian, East Baltic, and a Tocharian-like Ural-Volga area Repin Centum language, inferring another contact period probably whilst en route to Afanasievo.

Documents from the 6th to 8th centuries identify two Tocharian languages which probably split in the first millennium B.C. Tocharian A (Turfanian) is distributed along the eastern part of the Silk Road, while Tocharian B (Kuchean) is centered in the northern part. Tocharian A and Tocharian B were strikingly different languages with radical divergence in their plural markers, case system and verbal system, although it is unclear whether they were mutually intelligible. Tocharian A was more archaic and used solely as a Buddhist liturgical language, while the Tocharian B corpus includes documents that are both secular and religious in nature, suggesting that it may have been the spoken language of the entire area (discussed below). Alternatively, the lack of a secular corpus in Tocharian A could simply be an accident; the result of a fragmentary preservation of texts. Lastly, Tocharian C is only attested to in about 100 words in Prakrit documents, conceptualized by linguists who reconstructed these loanwords and attributed their origin to some unknown sister of Tocharian A and B.Moksha_girls
The Mordvin people centered in the middle Volga region of Russia speak languages belonging to the Uralic macrofamily (includes Finnish, Hungarian, Estonian, Saami, Mari etc.), whose proto-language homeland was probably in the birch-pine forest zone on the southern flanks of the Ural Mountains. Linguistic evidence suggests that Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European likely shared two kinds of linkages; one kind, revealed in the similarity of pronouns, noun endings, and shared basic vocabulary, could be ancestral: the proto-languages probably shared some quite ancient common ancestor, perhaps a broadly related set of intergrading dialects spoken by hunters roaming between the Carpathians and the Urals at the end of the last Ice Age (Joseph Greenberg calls this language stock “Eurasiatic”, perhaps ultimately descended from Nostratic). The second link is cultural; proto-Uralic foragers interacted through trade with the neolithic Proto-Indo-European tribes migrating out of the homeland who introduced them to agriculture and the wheel, and again much later with Indo-Iranian and Tocharian migrants trekking eastward out of the PIE homeland.

On the relationship of Tocharians A and B, George Lane, an authority on Tocharian, concludes: “at the time when the extant materials in dialect A were written it was purely a liturgical language in the monasteries of the east, and had been so preserved for several centuries at least…. it had long since ceased to be a vernacular [as a result of Turkic immigration into the area]… whereas Tocharian B was clearly the vernacular of a comparatively rich and flourishing culture [to the west and better protected by the mountains and the desert from the influence of the Turks].”  It is very likely that B was also the language of everyday monastery life in the east, existing side by side with the liturgical form of A. Lane concludes: “the two Tocharian dialects A and B have gone through a long period of independent development… anywhere from five hundred to a thousand years…they are, in my estimation, no longer mutually intelligible.”

800px-Tocharian
Wooden tablet with an inscription showing Tocharian B in its Brahmic form. Kucha, China, 5th-8th century (Tokyo National Museum)

The Decline of the Tocharians
Following their Trans-Ural exodus by over a millennium, the Tocharians interacted with and borrowed extensively from the Indo-Iranians, their distant Indo-European cousins unbeknownst to them at the time. The most recent linguistic influences upon Tocharian were Iranian and Sanskrit, as a result of extensive missionary activity from Iran and India which coincides with the Tocharian’ adoption of Buddhism. The primary effect of these languages upon Tocharian was in loanwords into the lexicon, especially in religious terminology. There was also a notable Manichaean minority, again of Iranian provenance. The Europoid-type residents of Turfan and Kucha were first noted by the Chinese in the Han-shu in the first century BC. as one of the barbarian kingdoms in their western region which had been involved in many wars with the Chinese, along with the Hsiung-nu (Mongolian nomads), Turks, and Tibetans. The Chinese sources refer to the fair, red-haired inhabitants of the Tarim basin as Yuezhi. Ultimately, the Tocharians appear to have emerged as a devoutly Buddhist and mercantile people, serving as middle-men between the more advanced civilizations of early Imperial China, Southwest Asia, and the various Iranian peoples to the west.

Central_Asian_Buddhist_Monks
9th century fresco of two Buddhist monks from the Bezeklik Thousand Buddha Caves, near Turfan, China. The figure on the left is believed to be either a Tocharian or Sogdian (Iranian). As a result of Iranian Buddhist proselytic activity, the Tocharians adopted Mahayana Buddhism and served as an important conduit for the spread of Buddhism into China and the East.

As such the footprint of the speakers of Tocharian languages remains blurred, as we can only observe them through the lens of Buddhism. Tocharians are represented iconographically, wherein they present themselves as Buddhists dressed in north Indian clothes, or as warriors dressed is Sassanian Iranian dress. Together with East Iranian peoples, such as the Bactrians, Kushans and Khotanese, the Tocharians seem to have played a role in the Silk Road transmission of Buddhism to China. Exactly when Buddhism was introduced to Tocharia from India by Middle Iranian-speaking peoples is unknown since there are no historical records describing such a transmission. Nevertheless it is likely to have been around the beginning of the Common Era, as there were already Kuchean missionary Buddhist monks in China beginning the third century AD.

Although details surrounding the social and political undertakings of the Tocharians remains shrouded in mystery due to lack of attestation, it seems that their culture lasted up until the end of the first millenium of the Common Era, after which time they were either assimilated into the growing Turkic-speaking population in the area or simply died out. This means that the Tocharians composed a distinct ethno-linguistic grouping within Indo-European for nearly three millennia–in turn providing quite a considerable window for study–but their own scant literary productions (mostly monastic and mercantile in nature) coupled with those of their neighbors fail to provide us with any substantive account regarding their existence. In general, therefore, the Tocharian evidence, due to the rather late date of the extant documents, its geographic isolation from other IE languages, and the influence of non-IE languages, has not been as helpful in reconstructing PIE as, for instance Sanskrit, Greek, or Hittite have been. However, we can learn from Tocharian about the effect that a long migration and contacts with members of other language families can have on an IE language and, as Winter says, “below the rather forbidding surface of our Tocharian data there are some real treasures to be found.”

Sources

Anthony, David W. “The Horse, The Wheel and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World.” Princeton Review Press: 2007.

Dickens, Mark. “Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Tocharian.” http://www.oxuscom.com/eyawtkat.htm

Excerpt from Virdainas: a Jatvingian-Sudovian Dictionary. Jos. Paskha 2012.
http://suduva.com/virdainas/proto.htm