Urumchi: The Ancient Nordic Mummies of China

[Vesuvian Sky]

Tocharian is an exonym. Allegedley their endonym would have been something more like this:

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.[6]

[Proto-Shaman]

I am presently bored and would like to hear more of this theory/view point.

Could you expand on this and perhaps provide a source or two?

PSEUDO-TOKHARA:
The point is that "Tocharian A" is a philological euphemism for Turfanian, Arsi, or East Tocharian; no relation to Tochars or Tokhars, Yuezhi, Bactrian, or Tokharistan! "Tocharian B" is a philological euphemism for Kuchea or West Tocharian; no relation to Tochars or Tokhars, Yuezhi, Bactrian, or Tokharistan!

The euphemisms were invented in great drive for locating Indo-European Urheimat, to tie Indo-European languages to known horse nomadic conqueror tribes, and are recognized misnomers. Euphemisms do not belong to science, they are a tool of politicians. Tokhars - presumably "highlanders", from "tau" - mountain and "ar" - people, tribe; their known Türkic names are Tuhsi, Dügers, Digors; they became known from the work of Strabo. [...]. Both names, Tokhars and Hephthalites, are exploited by protagonists of Indo-European racial theory as a bridge for creation alternative history and introduction of Indo-Europeans in the history of Central Asia, and creation of scientific controversy and muddling up the history. Both tribes are known as members of the Eastern Hunnic state; the Chinese name Yuezhi is routinely used in the scientific and popular literature to refer to Tokhars. Very rarely the esteemed authors note that “Tokharian/Tocharian” is a misnomer for the Kuchean and Tarim languages, and even rarer are noted disclaimers that “Tokharian/Tocharian” has nothing to do with the language of Tokhars/Yuezhi/Θαγοθροι/Tuhsi/Düger/Duger/Digors.

Sources:
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...inguistics.htm
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...LanguageEn.htm

If they were Turkic, as many of Turkic were discovered throughout Altai and surrounding regions, westerners would not be interested in the discovery. The mummies are in western press for quite a while now. From what I gathered clothing preserved on mummies resembles that of early Celts. Plus mumies are Caucasoid with red hair which your Turkic ancestors 4,000 years ago were not.

Fist of all 4,000 years ago Turks were completely Caucasoid. Even in 400-200 BC chinese sources described Turkic tribes with reddish/blond hair and green eyes.

[Vesuvian Sky]

The point is that "Tocharian A" is a philological euphemism for Turfanian, Arsi, or East Tocharian; no relation to Tochars or Tokhars, Yuezhi, Bactrian, or Tokharistan! "Tocharian B" is a philological euphemism for Kuchea or West Tocharian; no relation to Tochars or Tokhars, Yuezhi, Bactrian, or Tokharistan!

The euphemisms were invented in great drive for locating Indo-European Urheimat, to tie Indo-European languages to known horse nomadic conqueror tribes, and are recognized misnomers. Euphemisms do not belong to science, they are a tool of politicians. Tokhars - presumably "highlanders", from "tau" - mountain and "ar" - people, tribe; their known Türkic names are Tuhsi, Dügers, Digors; they became known from the work of Strabo. [...]. Both names, Tokhars and Hephthalites, are exploited by protagonists of Indo-European racial theory as a bridge for creation alternative history and introduction of Indo-Europeans in the history of Central Asia, and creation of scientific controversy and muddling up the history. Both tribes are known as members of the Eastern Hunnic state; the Chinese name Yuezhi is routinely used in the scientific and popular literature to refer to Tokhars. Very rarely the esteemed authors note that “Tokharian/Tocharian” is a misnomer for the Kuchean and Tarim languages, and even rarer are noted disclaimers that “Tokharian/Tocharian” has nothing to do with the language of Tokhars/Yuezhi/Θαγοθροι/Tuhsi/Düger/Duger/Digors.

Sources:
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...inguistics.htm
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...LanguageEn.htm

It seems like much of this debate regards the question of what exactly did Proto-Turkic groups looks like:

Were they Mongoloid or Caucasoid?

Also, Do we lump Turkic in with the Altaic language family or treat it as its own unique language group?

[ALL]

...

[Pallantides]

The Ancient Nordic Mummies of China

....
Wow I had no idea they were natives of Scandinavia, I guess they spoke a Nordic language as well.
Also what sort of Nordic cultural characteristics did they have?

[ALL]

...

[Vesuvian Sky]

Facial reconstruction of "Loulan Beauty":

[ALL]

...

[ALL]

...

[Vesuvian Sky]

....or, were these people migrants from further west on the steppes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasevo_culture

The burials bear a remarkable resemblance to those much further west in the Yamna culture, the Sredny Stog culture, the Catacomb culture and the Poltavka culture, all of which are believed to be Indo-European in nature. In this interpretation, the Afanasevo culture is a strong candidate to represent the earliest cultural form of what was later called the Tocharians.[3] Kozshin (1970) has identified perforated horn pieces as riding bits, but this claim has been disputed.

The Afanasevo culture was succeeded by the Karasuk culture. Its relationship to the later, more westerly Andronovo culture is difficult to characterize.