Talk:Uyghurs/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Uyghurs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Neutrality dispute tag by 128.253.229.29
Without providing any explanation, 128.253.229.29 (on 1 August and then again on 7 August) seems to have tagged the article as having disputed neutrality, disputed accuracy, and as needing clean-up. Two of the three tags have since been removed, but the neutrality dispute tag is still there. Since there is no explanation of this anon user's rationale, and no apparent discussion of the so-called neutrality dispute, should the tag be removed? —Wookipedian 06:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Having just read through the article, I didn't find anything overtly lacking neutrality. I would contend that the tag for disputed neutrality should be removed until either 129.253.229.29 decides to return to us with an explanation of his or her perception of the need for the tag, or until someone else decides to look into whatever minor or nuansical changes may be necessary in order to bring about a more neutral article. Paradokuso 05:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Uighur vs Uyghur
Uigur is Not just another romanization of huihe! The word Uygur means easily uniting and this is clearly turkic word! --Anon
Edit the text directly so people know the correct formation. For example, what is the origin of the name "Uygur" and how it became the name of a race ?.User:kt2
There are 30,000 Google entries for "Uyghur" and 101,000 for "Uighur". Why was this name changed? RickK 00:47, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- The spelling "Uyghur" better reflects the phonology and Turkic orthographies of the Uyghur language. The spelling "Uighur" is not possible in Uyghur or in most of Turkic languages because it breaks the rules of vowel harmony. Most of the websites expressly dedicated to Uyghur issues use the "y" spelling; the "i" is a legacy spelling of different origin. "Uyghur" is the correct spelling, even if it doesn't get the most Google hits. Finally, the "Uighur", "Uygur" and "Uigur" article names should be properly redirecting to these article names now, and these alternate spellings are provided at the top of the various "Uyghur" articles. - Gilgamesh 01:04, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
To Gilgamesh - I would say original Uighur spelling as well as Turkic phonology and orthography is not an argument in _English_ part of Wikipedia. Otherwise chinese language should be put under kanji-named article and English word "chinese" should be put as a Variant. As far as I know and simple web serch confirms it "Uighur", not "Uyghur", is most common spelling in English. As I did for many other languages, I would propose to have most common i.e. "Uighur" variant as Article name and put other spelling as variants. Uighur (Uighur Latin and all other Uighurs if available) spelling can be put after English one together with chinese one. User:Vassili Nikolaev 2004-aug-27
- Ignorance of the standard English usage is no excuse. --Wetman 19:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- All four spellings are used in English pages, but The spelling with "y" is preferred by Uyghurs themselves who write in English. There is no one standard spelling for English, but four, all of which are acceptable in Standard English of any country. In this case I yield respect to the ethnic group's own preference when speaking English. Besides, most news sites, etc. that I have found mentioning the Uyghurs know little about them. If they live in "China", most people would assume they are "Chinese", when they are not, so they aren't in a good position to make the judgments about spellings they know little about. They are "Uyghur", "Uighur", "Uygur" and "Uigur", but "Uyghur" is most proper, just as "Hawai‘i" is more proper than "Hawaii", and "Turkistan" is more proper than "Turkestan". That's just the way it is. - Gilgamesh 04:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Naturally, the most accurate way to spell "Uyghur" is in the Arabic script. However, if we're resorting to an English spelling, since, of course, this is the English wikipedia, I would wager the most accurate decision would be to use the spelling form that corresponds faithfully to the originally spelling in the Arabic script, and the one that is preferred by the Uyghurs themselves. Incidentally, both of these standards choose "Uyghur" as the best spelling. There is a relatively standardized romanization of the Uyghur language, which can be seen at Omniglot.com's Uyghur entry. Using this system, if you take the Arabic script and romanize it charachter by charachter, it results in "Uyghur." Also, as has been mentioned, the Uyghurs themselves prefer the spelling of Uyghur, and there is a drive for this spelling to be standardized. Consequently, Uyghur should be the standard spelling for this article, just as Chinese preference and phonetic faithfulness has elected "Beijing" over the once-more-common "Peking," and just as the Saudis now are trying to push the spelling of "Makkah" over "Mecca." --Entropy Rising 15:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Uyghur vs. Uighur-----------------
I haven't weighed in to date on the Uighur versus Uyghur issue, partially since I've considered it a question of fairly minor importance, and partially since I have no strong preference myself either way. Since the question doesn't seem to have died down, however, I've thought about it a bit and have decided to send along my own proverbial two cents' worth, in the hopes that I won't make any permanent enemies thereby.
Although normally somewhat of a traditionalist and thus fairly sympathetic to Michael's position, I also find the spelling "Uighur" to be particularly unattractive, and even un-English, regardless of its historical pedigree, and believe as well that the "Uyghur" rendering is in fact supplanting it fairly rapidly in common usage among scholars and linguists working in the field. No matter how well-established "Uighur" may be in certain writing on the Central Asian area, it seems to me that it has not really penetrated the active or passive vocabulary of most well-read native speakers of English, unless they be specialists on the area.
Looking at recent publications on the language per se, I see that Reinhard Hahn entitled his book "Spoken Uyghur", while Michael Friedrich entitled his (in German) "Uyghurisch". Henry Schwarz also used "Uyghur" for his dictionary. The relevant sections in the compendium "The Turkic Languages" (again written by Hahn) uses "Uyghur", while Anne Lee's translation of the Hamit Tomur grammar is entitled "Modern Uyghur Grammar". Indiana University's Center for Languages of the Central Asian Region uses "Uyghur", Radio Free Asia uses "Uyghur", the Uyghur Dictionary Projects uses "Uyghur", etc. There thus seems to be a trend in the recent Western writing on the language and people itself toward "Uyghur", although the traditional spelling of "Uighur" obviously continues to be widely used as well.
Given that most of the Turkic languages and peoples are not that well known to most English speakers, it strikes me as only natural that, at least in some cases, there may be in time a trend away from the more traditional spellings to ones that more closely resemble their actual native pronunciations. This is especially the case when sovereign states weigh in to have the English versions of their names changed. "Tartar" gave way some time ago to "Tatar", "Turkoman/Turcoman" has largely given way to "Turkmen", "Kirghiz" to "Kyrgyz" (no matter how strange the latter looks to English speakers), etc. "Sinkiang" is, I believe, the traditional spelling for the geographical region inhabited by the Uyghurs/Uighurs, but given the ascendancy of Pinyin these days, I suspect that few of us are still using that earlier spelling, and that it will eventually take on the patina and associations of an earlier age, just as "Hindoo" does for "Hindu", or "Mahometan" for "Muslim".
If I'm not mistaken, the Chinese government also prefers the "Uyghur" spelling, which regardless of the tradition in English will also, I suspect, eventually lead officials and others in the wider world to adhere to that spelling over time. So although Michael is indeed correct, in my view, in saying that "Uighur" has an established place in English, it strikes me that this place is considerably less safe than it would be if the word were commonly used in English, which it is manifestly not. Given this situation, I believe that alternative renderings by interested writers, whether English-speakers or not, will likely impact the matter, and that "Uyghur" thus may well continue to compete with, and perhaps eventually win out over, "Uighur". Traditionalists may not like it, and it may indeed introduce some confusion (such as, for instance, in searching for one version or the other in databases and not coming up with documents using the other version, etc.), but it does seem to me that, judged on recent writing, there is a trend in the direction of "Uyghur" that may be irreversible.
Conclusion: It is better to use "Uyghur". (Note: Author unkown)
Recommendation for the English transcription
Recommendation for the English transcription of the word “ ئۇيغۇر ” /《维吾尔》
The constant advances of the reform and opening policy and the growing trade and telecommunications exchanges between people in all sectors and the outside world, as well as increased activities in publication, news reporting and international affairs have for some time renewed the need for a uniform and normalized ethnonym for the major nationality of Xinjiang, known in its own language as [ujγur].
At present, there is utter confusion on how to render and use in English the name of that nationality, with no fewer than seven different spellings attested: Uyghur, Uygur, Uighur, Uighuir, Uiguir, Uigur and Weiwuer. This situation causes a number of problems in our work and daily lives. Therefore, the Terminology Normalization Committee for Ethnic Languages of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region based on research and consultations with relevant experts on this issue recommends that the spelling Uyghur, corresponding to the pronunciation [ujγur], be used as the English transcription of the word.
Government organizations and individuals are invited to conform to the present notice.
The Terminology Normalization Committee for Ethnic Languages of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region
October 11, 2006
Ref: http://www.xjyw.gov.cn/han/YWGZDT/wwesiyingwenzhuanxie.htm
Uyghurs and Huis
Were the Uyghurs and Huis differentiated in Dr Sun Yat-sen's idea of five nationalities? — Instantnood 08:22, January 27, 2004, UTC
- I don't know about Sun Yat-sen's specific views, but according to Dru Gladney in Xinjiang: China's Muslim Borderland (ISBN 0765613182), under the KMT's five nationality policy, Uyghurs were included "under the general rubric of 'Hui Muslims', which referred to all Muslim groups in China at that time." (pp 104) --MC MasterChef 17:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Uyghurs of Western China
Hello, I am looking to organize a WikiProject focusing on creating and expanding articles relating to the Uyghurs, including their history, cultural life (including Islamic practices), politics (separatist movements past and present, overseas disapora, etc), as well as information about the Xinjiang area more broadly. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so any help interested parties can offer on this undertaking would be much appreciated, thanks! --MC MasterChef 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Pronunciation?
What's the correct pronunciation of the word Uyghur? I only know how to say Weiwu'er in Mandarin. Answer: Uyghur is pronunced 'Weiwu'er' in Chinese,but must be pronunced "uighur" or as File:D:\ss.jpgin international transcription
In English, is it pronounced "weeg-hurr"? Which syllable is emphasized?
In English the standard pronounciation is "Wee-grr" with the accent on the first syllable. --Entropy Rising 15:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Answer: In English Uyghur is two syllables, 1st Uy Which is I am sure you can pronounce Hui(In Turkik languages called Tun`gan or Dun`gan) or you heard about this people group, just do not pronounce H is correct,Uy is /ui/ , 2nd syllable is French & German has this kind voice but English does not have so you can say gur, but not ger. just like the English word put, u pronounced /u/
"Notable Uyghurs"
This section has sprawled rapidly recently with several edits from User:69.105.58.88. I don't know enough Uyghur history to judge who qualifies as "notable", exactly, but many of these new article links are either broken or just lead to stubs. I'm also not clear as to whether these are correct transliterations of the names or not, but I think some sort of clean-up is neccessary here. --MC MasterChef 16:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
turkic
it is confusing to use the term turkic to the reader. Turkic represents a linguistic and cultural group not an ethnic group whereas turkish represents an ethnic/racial group. Most of my students get extremely confused over this. Ethnically, the Uighurs are east asian, or mongoloid but have a turkic linguistic backgroup. Kennethtennyson 02:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Nomads races in the steppes cannot be simply classified like those settled. Without strong leadership, tribes of different origin were lived peacefully. However when a strong leader stepped on a stage, he would conquest other tribes and make them subject tribes. And an empire would be formed. This strong empire would organise its subject tribe to trade or attack the surrounding civilisations and get goods they want. The civilisations were fear of the military attacks of nomads and willing to supplied them many goods. The subject tribes could get wealth in this way under strong leadership and these wealth stablised the empire. Although subject tribes were of different origin, they usually were proud to recognise themselves to strongest tribe at the time. When Hsiung-nu was the strongest, they were Hsiung-nu. So were Hsien-pi, Turks, Uyghurs, Mongols and several others.
- Uyghurs are special that they had moved away from the steppe and settled in the area Xinjiang in China. The area was known as Western Territory from Han Dynasty where many races built their civilisation. After settled, Uyghurs also built the civilisation of their own.
- Back to Turkic. Turkic is an adjective of Turks(in Chinese: 突厥), a tribe once united all tribes on the steppe and found an empire north of China and Central Asian. Uyghurs was a subject tribe at that time. The Turkic Empire had a strong culture influence to other tribes. That is why nowaday we refers many Central Asian as Turkic people. Uyghurs defeated the second Turkic Empire and brought Turkic culture into the settled area in Central Asia.
- Mongols swept from East Asia to Europe seeding another wave of islamisation and turkification in Central Asian. Mongols destroyed many civilisations and forced many Turks went west. Mongols stayed outside Mongolia later adopted Islam and Turkic culture.
I think, there is misleading information in this section on the Uighurs. You know, that there are 4 different types of Uighurs? You are right, one has East Asian features, but there are other three distinct groups of the Uighurs: Indo-European (I would say Persian or Indian-looking people), so-called "Yellow Uighurs" (with green eyes and red hear). Besids that there is a type of the Uighurs, who look just like Europeans (white skin, blue eyes). I am an Uighur (100%) and even within my family, we have two types: my father and I are Indo-European, while my mother and my brother are mongoloid-type.
Dear Kenneth,
Uyghur is not an east asian race as you imagined. If you do 30 minut internet research, you will see that. I strongly disaggree with your claim of 'turkic is not an ethnic group'; ---History_asia
Dear Kenneth,
As a person coming from Turkey I don't belive neither that Turkish is a racial group. Turkish is more of an etnic group with its Turkic language called Turkish. But this language was "created" by purifying the language from the overwhelming arabic and persian incluence and restructuring it in late 1930s . This was done to enforce racial/ethnic distinction of Turkey's "Turks" from other racial/ethnic groups in the surrounding region. Although it was quite successful to create a well structured Turkish language and "Turkish Nation" within Turkey, the fact is Turkey's Turks are a quite mixed people with not much "Turkic genes". That is quite clear from their appareance. And me myself ,a Turkish "Turk" from central Anatolian city Called Kayseri(Ceserea in roman times), have ancestors from northern Greece as well as northern Syria.--- [Arminas2-01/06/06]
I don't know whether or not you are 100% uighur as you have claimed but if you read the history of uighurs in any encyclopedia or look at the numbers - the vast majority of uighur's reside in china - 8 million and the vast majority look east asian. Of course, in central asia, there are a diverse groups of people in relation to physical characteristics and not all uighur's look east asian. Most books and encyclopedias in English and the Western wold are very shy in regards to a Turkic ethnic group. Turks in Turkey are very adament to stating that there is a turkic pan-ethnic group but the only thing that connects this supposed "ethnic" group is language. the Turkic speaking peoples in China (uighur's) share less in common with the Turks of turkey than they do with the surrounding mongolians and chinese in terms of physical characteristics and culture. The turks in turkey are physically more similar and culturally share more in common with middle eastern people than they do with the kazakhs or krgyz. Read the Encyclopedia Brittanica on Uighur - let us compromise and speak of uighur's as turkic-speaking peoples as the encyclopedia brittanica has done. Kennethtennyson 03:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Kenneth, I am an Uighur man born in Aksu-Xinjiang , migrated to Turkey after the age of 18, educated in Turkey, working with a multinational company, travelling around the world. I do speak Uighur language very well and my family living in Urumqi. I had a change a observe all different nations you mentioned on your comments. If you live deep culture of both Uighur and Turks, it is increadebly similiar. What you are writing sounds to me very artificial even funny. There is no similiarity between Mongol and Uighur. Regards, Dilsat
Kenneth,
I just care for the facts. I know most of the Uyghurs look Caucasian. As I said, please do more research before you make assertive statement about other people. In my understanding Uyghurs are a mixed race, your seeing one East Asian looking Uyghur does not mean all Uyghurs look East Asian. Please check out this scientific paper if you have a time. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/9/1396
I am sure that there are a lot of Uyghur historians who know their history far better. By the way, if both Uyghurs and Turkey Turks say their ethnic kin’s, why other people
worry about that much! As you know, the word Russians created “Turkic”.
---History_asia
Actually, I think the whole idea came about as western historians tried to codify the people in central asia. Not all Uighurs came kinship with Turks. The whole concept of pan-turkic peoples is a turkish concept. The term "turk" has been loosely used in history just as the term "Hun" has been usely used in history. If you really want proof, just look at the link to the Uighur American Association and the leadership board of that group. They all look east asian (mongoloid) except for 1 or 2 people. Secondly, look at the current Uighur leaders in china who are protesting the chinese rule. As for the MBE paper that you speak of, I've seen that paper. It is interesting but is flawed in that the sample size is so small for each group. As you can see the two groups of Kirghiz in Figure 4: 11: Kirghiz (Talas); 12: Kirghiz (Sary-Tash) are very far apart suggesting that if you sample small numbers of Uighur like they did, you could receive dramatically different results within the Uighur group depending on which geographic group you sample (ie. Uighurs in china versus southwest asia). And most Uighur's reside in Xianjing (East turkistan). What would be interesting if there was a paper that sampled a large number of Uighur in proportion to the population that resides in China currently and the surrounding countries and then compared it to the turkish people and east asians.
If you read the paper and accept the data based on the flawed sample size, what that paper does show is that Uighur's/Mongolians are close to what the linzi population in China was like 2000 years ago. Turks/ Fins/ Germans are closer to what the Linzi population was like 2500 years ago. However, if you look at figure 3, turkish people and uighurs are farther apart distance wise genetically than uighurs and mongol/kirghiz (prototypical east asian or mongoloid peoples). However, data like this changes dramatically depending on sample size.
However, this is an interesting discussion as central asians seem to be in a "crossroad" as you will with europe, the middle east, south asia, and east asia. 136.142.20.137 06:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
genetic analysis
Guys, if you would allow me to join in. I am a British Han Chinese, 100% or so I like to think of myself, although my mother had skin that was so white that it was almost transparent. I am also a keen observer of human morphology and I challenge myself to see whether I could work out people's ancestry by looking at their form. Why is this interesting, because unlike animal studies, we cannot for ethical reasons deliberately breed traits in humans for experiments as we do with animals; so we could only observe what happens naturally. Amongst the East Asians, I think I am successful at spotting the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Thais, Malays, etc about 80% of the time, higher if the subjects were 'pure'. When in doubt, the person is probably 'Chinese', as the so called 'Han' race characteristics are much broader, and more hetereogenous. The uncertainties often lie when people are from the border regions, for example Chinese-Vietnamese mix, Thai-Chinese mix, which are quite commonly encountered. Even this is not a problem as far as classification is concerned, because these people do actually look somewhere in between, and the skill is in figuring what proportion of each is in the subject. Sometimes people describing themself as one, has strong characteristics of another, and I ask myself whether there was a marriage, a bit of rape and pillage, or infidelity, or adoption in the subject's recent or distant genetic past- questions of course that could not be asked or answered.
Now to the question of the Uyghurs. If the human race were to be divided into Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Negroids, Australoids, etc, then from an anthropological form, the Uyghurs look undoubtedly more typical of the Mongoloids, or East Asians as some of you describe them to be than Caucasoid. However, I would say that they do not look 100% East Asian, but about 75% to 90% East Asians depending on the individual. The Uyghurs do not resemble any peoples of 'pure' European stock, be they Swedish or Portuguese, and indeed the Uyghurs do not resemble the modern day people of Turkey, who are of mixed European Mediterranean/ Middle Eastern in appearance.
It may well be that the remaining features of Uyghurs are that of Caucasoids, but it could also have come from Middle-Eastern ancestry (Semitic), which some may argue is Caucasoid.
There is a feature among Caucasoids that is quite interesting, and that is the juvenile features change quite dramatically in adulthood. For example, babies and infants with blond or even white hair end up with dark brown or even black hair in adulthood; and blue eyes in infants go progressively darker into adulthood.
It may be that Uyghur juveniles look more different than Mongoloid juveniles than the adults of these populations.
A very distinct Mongoloid feature is that their ear-wax is hard and dry; whereas for Caucasoids and Negroids, their ear-wax is oily. So if the Uyghur lady here has dry solid ear-wax, she is Mongoloid, and not Caucasoid.
The question has to be asked why if the Uyghurs do not want to be classified as Mongoloids (against overwhelming physical evidence of appearance), why would they then want to be classified as Caucasoids and not Middle-Eastern? They share a religion with people of the Middle-East and a similar skin colour. I think the answer is one of psychology. They think it is better for them to identify with Europeans, even though the Uighurs now look nothing like Europeans.
Another question is then, did the ancestors of the modern Uighurs look European? Well, that would depend on what you mean by ancestors. The present day Uyghurs look about 3 quarters Mongoloid, so obviously a lot of their ancestors were Mongloids. Recently half the male population of Moscow and the Ukraine were identified to have the Mongoloid alcohol dehydrogenase gene, no doubt courtesy of Ghenghis Khan's people. These populations look White European, so does having a Mongol gene make them modern day Mongols? No, it means that somewhere in their genetic history, they had a Mongolain ancestor. Sometimes you can still see some remnant features- take Boris Yeltsin for example, take a look at the shape of his eyes and nose, they are more Mongolain than European.
Another example is that native Finns also have Mongolian genes (and language). I observe that a lot of Finns have blond hair, but brown eyes, and smaller noses than other Europeans, although their skin is quite white. It also turns out that a lot of them are lactose intolerant, just like the Mongolian people. The Finns were mixed with the Scandinavians, and a significant propertions of these people are also lactose intolerant.
So this is sort of interesting, as within the Eurasian continent, there are people of 'pure' races, and people who appear to be of a 'pure' race, but are genetically hybrids, just as you would expect for a continuous land-mass. The Uyghurs are not really that unusual.
Yours
JC
- Well, I think that I have been beaten to the punch on this one. Unfortunately, my knowledge of genetic analysis is only somewhat good. However, what the user 136 seems to be stating is true from what i can read from the paper. It looks like in figure 3, uighur is in one branch and turkish is in another genetic branch.Kennethtennyson 06:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I found this article also:
Tissue Antigens. 2004 Aug;64(2):180-7. Human leukocyte antigen-A, -B and -C alleles and human leukocyte antigen haplotypes in Turkey: relationship to other populations.
In this study, we present, for the first time, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class I allele and haplotype frequencies at the DNA level in a sample of 142 donors from Turkey. HLA typing was performed by medium-to-high resolution polymerase chain reaction sequence-specific oligonucleotide probes method. The most frequent HLA alleles at class I locus were A*0201(0.257), -B*35(0.204) and -Cw*04(0.173). A*0201-B*35-Cw*04(0.056) was the most common three-locus haplotype. Allele and haplotype frequency comparisons and neighbour-joining dendrograms, constructed using DA genetic distances and correspondence analysis using HLA-A, -B and -C, and -DRB1 allele frequencies, revealed similarities with other Mediterranean and European populations, but not with Mongol populations. These results agree with previous studies and confirm that the present day Turkish population is genetically more similar to its geographic neighbours than its historical neighbours in central Asia. The comprehensive HLA data on the Turkish population at the DNA level including up to six-locus putative haplotypes generated in this study will be useful for further studies.
Hum Hered. 1998 May-Jun;48(3):126-37.
Genetic relationships among Japanese, northern Han, Hui, Uygur, Kazakh, Greek, Saudi Arabian, and Italian populations based on allelic frequencies at four VNTR (D1S80, D4S43, COL2A1, D17S5) and one STR (ACTBP2) loci.
The genetic polymorphism at four variable number of tandem repeats (D1S80, D4S43, COL2A1, D17S5) and one short tandem repeat (ACTBP2) loci was assessed by polymerase chain reaction analysis of genomic DNA obtained from blood samples of eight human populations (Japanese, Northern Han, Hui, Uygur, Kazakh, Saudi Arabian, Greek, Italian). Allele frequencies at all loci were in the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium for each population. With the exception of ACTBP2, the allelic distribution patterns for these loci revealed a marked genetic divergence among the eight populations. A dendrogram constructed by the neighbor-joining method based on the allele frequencies of the five loci suggested that the five Asian populations (Japanese, Northern Han, Hui, Uygur, and Kazakh) formed one cluster, whereas the two European populations and one West Asian population (Italian, Greek, and Saudi Arabian) formed another. The genetic relationship among these populations may have been greatly influenced by admixture as a result of the migration of individuals along the Silk Road throughout history. Kennethtennyson 07:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Kenneth,
Judge by yourself,Please look at the picture, 2 closest genetic group to Uyghur are Turkish(turkey) and ancient white Linzhi people. Did you see the distance between east easian Japanese and Uyghur????? (distance shows genetic distance there ), do you still need more argument?! http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol17/issue9/images/medium/mbev-17-09-12-f03.gif
Do you think it is scientific to use sources you like and discard the rest! I can post tons of materials but it may not work. because I afraid some people are biased to start with. You claimed some Uighurs look east asian, maybe true , how about mojority ? I invite people who interested to visit these websites and findout themselves. Everbody, we are living an information age!!!!!! , check out yourself, let the fact talk itself. more and more people are doing the genetic research, facts will revealed. Wait and see! http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol17/issue9/images/medium/mbev-17-09-12-f03.gif http://www.dagen.no/img_art/6685_advokat1.jpg http://www.meshrep.com/Children/uighur_school2.JPG http://www.theorientalcaravan.com/images/silk_road/Uighur_man_Kashgar_Market2.jpg http://www.westwood-church.org/images/Outreach/Uighur.gif http://www.leguide.be/mediastore/sporever/0I5XENEH.JPG.jpg http://www.uygurworld.com/userfiles/gallery/unnamed/images/aksakal2.jpg
- I think that you are misreading the genetic analysis for that one figure in MBE. You need to measure the total horizontal length from one point to the other. If you measure that length for Uighur and compare it between the Uighurs vs. Mongols and the Uighurs vs. Turkish you will find that the distance between the Uighurs and turkish is much greater. Further, don't you think that there is a reason why they separated the Uighurs and the Turkish into two different arms of the graph? If the Uighurs and the Turkish were so close, wouldn't they have put the Uighurs and the Turks on the same arm?
Regardless, as to your picture, I hate to tell you this, but as an Anglo living in America the pictures that you have shown me are to my eyes and to most of my friend's eyes - people who look physically closer to East Asians than to Caucasians. Black hair, epicanthal folds, light skin, high cheekbones, east asian characteristics generally. That one particular picture of the young Uighur gentleman giving a speech looks Japanese or perhaps Korean to me. The old man, looks sort of like a geriatric Japanese or Korean. Regardless, as I have stated, let us compromise and use what the Encyclopedia brittanica has done since we are on the ENGLISH portion of wikipedia. Let us describe Uighurs as Turkic speaking peoples as they have done (the first paragraph of encyclopedia brittanica is free online.)Kennethtennyson 04:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I know that the whole East turkistan/China thing is very contentious in the Uighur community, but if you remember, the Vietnamese and Koreans have a long history of oppression under chinese rule. However, they do not deny that they are East Asian. Uighurs to some degree are east asian in physical characteristics - at least to mine eyes when you gave me the images to me and to the studies that you have present and that I have presented.Kennethtennyson 04:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, how about these links... from reputable sources. http://www.theallineed.com/news/0503/187558.htm Kadeer,leader of the Uighur cause in china http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1748801.stm BBC http://www.time.com/time/asia/features/xinjiang/photoessay/4.html Time Asia magazine
Kennethtennyson 05:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Kenneth,
Who is misenterpreting these images, you or me? Why you do not talk about the distance between japanese and Uyghur? . I am not trying to say being east asian is bad, just trying to be factual. Point I am trying to prove is: Uyghurs are an mixed race, at least half of the population is of caucasion origin. Tocharians are one of the ancestors of modern Uyghurs . Let Victor Mair publish the report, then you will see it. Do you think these people look Korean to you?!, Oh my God!! , never heard this kind of statement before! why other whites visited Uyghurs do not think that way? why do not you go say that in turkish or Uyghur websites!? , I am sure you will get appropriate responce. I got an impression ,as though you are ruling the wikipedia , so I do not want waste my time discussing with you.
- There is little evidence that half the Uyghur population is of caucasian origins. Can you provide evidence of that? Uyghurs are a mixed race, but they are similar to their neighbours in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent Uzbekistan. There is no way of knowing if Tocharians are ancestors of modern Uyghurs. It is somewhat unlikely, but possible. And Victor Mair is unlikely to say anything to the contrary. Look at his academic work. Yes some Uyghurs look Korean. Some are unquestionable of part Chinese descent. The racist feelings of the Net-based Uyghur community is neither here nor there. Lao Wai 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Kennethtennyson , Wai and members: Please read the following article, Here is the answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I found it. Fact is fact...
History_asia
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/12/2265
Different Matrilineal Contributions to Genetic Structure of Ethnic Groups in the Silk Road Region in China Yong-Gang Yao*,1, Qing-Peng Kong*,{dagger},{ddagger},1, Cheng-Ye Wang*,{ddagger}, Chun-Ling Zhu* and Ya-Ping Zhang*,{dagger}
- Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Evolution, and Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, China; {dagger} Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Bio-resource, Yunnan University, Kunming, China; and {ddagger} Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Correspondence: E-mail: zhangyp@public.km.yn.cn.
Previous studies have shown that there were extensive genetic admixtures in the Silk Road region. In the present study, we analyzed 252 mtDNAs of five ethnic groups (Uygur, Uzbek, Kazak, Mongolian, and Hui) from Xinjiang Province, China (through which the Silk Road once ran) together with some reported data from the adjacent regions in Central Asia. In a simple way, we classified the mtDNAs into different haplogroups (monophyletic clades in the rooted mtDNA tree) according to the available phylogenetic information and compared their frequencies to show the differences among the matrilineal genetic structures of these populations with different demographic histories. With the exception of eight unassigned M*, N*, and R* mtDNAs, all the mtDNA types identified here belonged to defined subhaplogroups of haplogroups M and N (including R) and consisted of subsets of both the eastern and western Eurasian pools, thus providing direct evidence supporting the suggestion that Central Asia is the location of genetic admixture of the East and the West. Although our samples were from the same geographic location, a decreasing tendency of the western Eurasian-specific haplogroup frequency was observed, with the highest frequency present in Uygur (42.6%) and Uzbek (41.4%) samples, followed by Kazak (30.2%), Mongolian (14.3%), and Hui (6.7%). No western Eurasian type was found in Han Chinese samples from the same place. The frequencies of the eastern Eurasian-specific haplogroups also varied in these samples. Combined with the historical records, ethno-origin, migratory history, and marriage customs might play different roles in shaping the matrilineal genetic structure of different ethnic populations residing in this region.
Key Words: mtDNA • haplogroup • Silk Road • ethnic group • migration • admixture
New genetic studies edits
The first reference (the Mergen paper) is a study of Anatolian mtDNA. The authors make no attempt at investigating which populations the Uyghurs most closely resemble, and none of the evidence presented in the article leads to any conclusion on this point.
The second reference (the sample report by DNA Tribes) follows the same pattern. It purports to show the closest genetic matches to a hypothetical person from Turkey. The Uyghur are one of the populations that show a medium-strength match to this hypothetical person from Turkey (along with Israeli and Italian populations), but there are two problems: first, conclusions about the genetic similarity of two populations CAN NOT be drawn from a sample of one (which this report represents), much less a sample of unknown providence; and second, it is erroneous to conclude that because one Anatolian's DNA somewhat resembles an Uyghur population that the Uyghurs closest genetic relatives are Anatolian. Vineviz 21:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Today I clarified the article so that it better reflects the conclusions of the sources it cites. The two genetic studies cited, one on mtDNA and one of the Y chromosome both found admixtures among the Uyghur people reflecting both western and eastern Eurasian populations. The admixture levels were different for the mtDNA and Y chromosome, but this is not at all unusual. Vineviz 16:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
hold on
Hey, hold on a second now... first of all, east asian refers to all people who look east asian not just the Japanese. As the previous anonymous fellow on the 136 IP website stated, you can only use the genetic analysis to a certain point due to small sample size. as to why i picked mongolian, i guess you could say that they are the prototypical east asian people since the racial classification that is currently in use and created by the Europeans (though flawed) classifies east asians as "Mongoloid." Hence I used "Mongolians." Regardless, I am just trying to tell you what most people who are white in the US will state when looking at the images you gave me. Secondly, the Turkish people who are in turkey now do not look at all like their previous ancestors from Central Asia. This is a known fact in most "Turkic" circles. And who knows what the Tocharians really looked like. Anyways, I agree with you that the Uighurs have a mix of Caucasoid features, but I do not believe that it is the predominant feature of most Uighurs. I mean, just look at the Time magazine article of the Uighurs in Xianjing! Every one of them look East asian in some way. I am not ruling wikipedia - I'm just trying to straighten some articles out that are obviously POV or factually incorrect. I actually enjoyed this discussion, however, so please don't get upset.
As I stated earlier, this is the English site of Wikipedia and if you want to, you can read what the encyclopedia brittanica has written about Uighurs and what they have written about the whole concept of "Turkic." I'm not sure if you really are Uighur, but we really need to avoid POV ideas. I mean, if I really wanted to push my POV, I would state that Clinton was a really great president. But that's an opinion...Kennethtennyson 06:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello all,
First of all, can you explain me, to an uneducated (in Wesern terms) 100 % Uighur girl, what is POV? Second, let's consider a case in which the Uighurs would look at the pictures of Caucasian people? I am sure, for most of them, Scandinavians would look almost the same as Basks, that I have seen some this summer. The problem is, then you are outside the community, everything looks the same, as for the first European researchers who came to Central Asia and tried to identify, classify, and count all Eastern people. I think, any claims based on visual perception, are misleading, since they depend too much on the visual experience. If one day you had traveled to Central Asia and lived for a while over there, dear Kenneth, you would definitely see the differences between Uighurs, Kazakhs, Mongolians, Uzbeks, Tatars, Tajics, Chechens, Osetinians, Kyrgyz, Japanese, Han-Chinese, etc (you would see the different color of the sceen, eyelids, type of hear...); and you would definitely see the European features in the pictures of Uighurs given by "Asian_history" Another point on previous discussion: for me, any info about the Uighurs, written in the West, including so praised by Kenneth Encyclopedia Britanica, is always of great surprise! Why? because I am more familiar with the discorse on Uighurs written by the Russian or Uighur scholars from Cetral Asia, which defers greately from anything I have read here. So, my point is, usually Encyclopedias are not the final and the only true view on a subject, since they present (sometimes even derogatevely) information accepted by the state and research community of this particular state. Have you read an entry on Uighurs in French Encyclopedia (La Russe) of 1980s? Uighurs are still "tribes" in there; while the same Enc. of 2000 describes Uighurs as "people". Huge difference, ah?
On Tocharians (or any ancient people) and their features: to some extent, you can rely on materials found on ancient frescos and sculptures. Of coulrse, you can argue, that these matierials might be imagined and drew by ancient people according to the aesthetic standards created at a particular time and say that human images on frescos are fantasies. However, I would present a counterargument based on my conclusion drawn from experience of travel to Korea. I visited a lot of Buddhist temples over there (like you, Kenneth, I am interested in Buddhism), and I saw many-many Korean Buddhas, most of whom looked just like any Korean guy on the street. I don't know, why I am writting all this... Oh, probably because I want to present my last point for today. If you what to know more about the Uighur facial features of the past, check out the frescos and sculptures of Kyzil, Beziklik, Don-Huan (to certain extent), Khotan, Turfan, etc, and PLS, DO NOT DO 'A PRIORI' STATEMENTS ON SUBJECTS THAT YOU ARE NOT THAT FAMILIAR ABOUT!
ISSIS
- While there are clear differences between populations as a whole in Asia, there is also vast overlap. You can't look at one person and tell if they are Korean, or Japanese, or Chinese. Or Uyghur for that matter. On average you may get lucky, but you can't be sure for each and every case. Many Uyghurs adopted and married Chinese girls. Of course some of them look Chinese. I have trouble believing any ecyclopedia refered to the Uyghurs living in tribes because they are a relentlessly non-tribal Turkic people and there are not many of those. The Tocharians are irrelevant to a discussion of modern Uyghurs whose ancestors came to Xinjiang either in the 10th or 13th centuries. Finding out what Tocharians looked like will only tell you what Tocharians looked like. Lao Wai 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Mr(Ms) Lao Wai, I did not want to involve on these discussions, but you are forcing me to speak, what a world ,people who have no sense or no understanding about Uyghur history are ruling the discusssion! Are you saying Uyghurs came to modern xinjiang in 10th-13th century, and chinese and Uyghur do not have too much difference in facial characterstics?? You should visit the land before making such a assertive claim. For your information Idiqut kingdom was estublished in 850 AD. Are you claiming Uyghurs estublished another powerful county in foreigners territory in the matter of years? ! You are right, find out what Tocharians look like before you make big statements about other nations. Here, in the United States, people care for the facts, made up version of history may not sell well here.
History_asia
- I would be disappointed if you did not get involved in this site. Please let me encourage you to do so. But the Uyghurs used to live in Mongolia. If you believe that the Uyghurs of modern Xinjiang are descended from those Uyghurs then clearly they only arrived after the Kyrghyz destroyed the Uyghur state. There are some scholars who claim that they came later as part of the Mongol settlement of Central Asia (and hence that they are basically Uzbeks who live in China). What they are not is Tocharians. Now perhaps there is some intermixture, perhaps not. Who knows? On average Han and Uyghurs have facial differences, but only if you look at populations not at individuals. It is impossible to be sure for any one person. Some Uyghurs look like Han, some Han look like Uyghurs. Some Han are of part Uyghur descent after all. Actually made up versions of history sell very well in the United States - look at all the interest in claiming the Tocharians were blond and had blue eyes! Lao Wai 11:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Lao Wai,
It is true, most of the literature on Uighurs is focused on the period of Mongolian ruling of Central Asia, but it does not mean that the Uighurs did not live in Eastern Turkestan before the 10th century. You are presenting one of the widely accepted point of view (POV, I got it!) on Uighur history. But it is not the only one and not the only accepted POV. Archeologists in Central Asia (my father was one of them) have discovered while ago that the Turkic people lived in Central Asia (including East Turkestan) from at least 3rd century BC! If you have doubts about French Encyclopedia “Le Petit LaRousse Illustre,” you can check it on your own. Go to the bookstores and compare different publications. It is as simple as that! I am NOT creating this out of my wild imagination, since when I came to the West I started looking for the “good” dictionaries and “good” Encyclopedias and what I had to face is that the Uighurs are the “tribes” or at least what they were thought of some 20 years ago! Unfortunately, since the Uighurs don’t have an independent state, any scholar from more powerful nation recreates, imagines, fantasizes their history without having any serious political/social/academic circumstances. Easy field, easy money, easy academic name and status! This is the case of all subjugated nations, not only the Uighurs. If you like reading post-colonial studies, I can refer you to good material about it. For proper sources on Uighur history I would strongly suggest you to read Julius Klaproth, Tableaux historique de l’Asie (Paris, 1826) who, according to Chinese chronicles, draws the maps of Central Asia from 5th century BC; M. Chavannes, Documents sur les Tou-kiue occidentaux. Recueillis et commentes par Edouard Chavannes (Saint-Pétersbourg, Académie Impériale des Sciences, 1903); E. Bretschneder, “The Uighurs,” in Medieval Researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources: Fragments towards the Knowledge of the Geography and History of Central and Western Asia from the 13th to the 17th Century,” vol. 1 (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co. Ltd., 1888). ISSIS (19.08. 2005)
- Actually it kind of does mean that the Uyghurs did not live in Xinjiang until then. At least not in any meaningful sense. It is not the only one, but it is the only competently sourced one. Exactly how do archaeologists prove that Turkic people lived in Xinjiang in the 3rd Century BC? What is the evidence? People who don't read and write much do not leave many clues as to the language they speak. You're offering me a children's encyclopedia as proof?! In Mongolia the Uyghurs were undoubtedly tribal, but they are not to any great extent in modern Xinjiang and have not been for a long time. Your accusations against Western scholars are irrelevant and anyway it is better to study history to make a name than to rewrite history to justify modern nationalism. You mean you are telling me to read some of those colonial Orientalists as opposed to anyone more modern? Why - if those horrid Orientalists used to lie so much? Much has happened in the world of scholarship since 1826. Lao Wai 10:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
When you say that many Uighurs have adopted and married Chinese girls, do you mean during the Tang Dynasty or later? Yes, there are sources in The Chronicles that Uighur Kaqhans took for marriage Chinese princes as a sign of allies with the Hans (since the Hans have asked the Uighurs to help them to fight with other Turkic people of the border), but it by no means suggests that the Uighurs and the Chinese were mixed to the point that you are trying to promote. About the link between the Tocharians and the Uighurs you should probably know that one of the ancient Uighur scripts was based on Tocharian; plus, if you read ancient Uighur scriptures, you would probably be aware that many words in ancient Uighur are borrowed from Sanskrit and Tocharian. Read S. E. Malov, Pamyatniki drevnetyurkskoi pis’mennosti. Texty i issledovaniya [The Monuments of the Ancient Turkic Script. Texts and Studies] (Moscow: The Academy of Science Press, 1951). After close reading of DIFFERENT sources on the Uighurs, this link does not sound so unobvious to me as it sounds to you. See also definition of Tocharian in this Wikipedia: Tocharian is one of the most obscure branches of the Indo-European language group. It consisted of two languages, Tocharian A (Turfanian, Arsi, or East Tocharian) and Tocharian B (Kuchean or West Tocharian). These languages were spoken roughly from the 6th to 8th centuries, before they became extinct, their speakers being assimilated by the expanding Uighur tribes. Both languages were once spoken in the Tarim Basin in Central Asia, now the Xinjiang province of China. The name of the language is taken from the Tocharians (Greek: Τόχαροι, "Tokharoi") of the Greek historians (Ptolemy VI, 11, 6). These are sometimes identified with the Yuezhi and the Kushans, and the term Tokharistan usually refers to 1st millennium Bactria. A Turkic text refers to the Turfanian language (Tocharian A) as twqry. Interpretation is difficult, but F. W. K. Müller has associated this with the name of the Bactrian Tokharoi.
ISSIS (19.08. 2005)
I mean consistently. There is ample evidence from the 19th century right up to 1945 that the Uyghurs adopted Chinese girls and married them when they hit puberty. I agree that the old Uyghurs also married Tang princesses but I doubt that affected their genes much. Uyghurs and Han are simply mixed to the extent I claim. Look at Wuer Kaixi. I disagree about Uyghur script being based on Tocharian and if it is so what? Vietnamese is written in a script based on Latin. I am sure that the old Uyghurs borrowed terms from Sanskrit and perhaps Tocharian. Again so what? English has borrowed words from Latin, Inuit, Chinese and Arabic. The article on the Tocharians obviously needs a lot of work. Lao Wai 10:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Lao,
It seems to me that you don’t understand the difference between cultural-linguistic borrowings that are made today, at the age of globalization when everything is available almost instantly, and the borrowings in the past, when information usually traveled very slowly. If some cultural and linguistic borrowings happened even couple of centuries ago, it meant that there were close and sometimes long connections between these people. In this respect, your example of the Vietnamese 20th-century script based on Latin seems to me slightly inapt. Most of the borrowed words from English are the new words that did not exist in other languages before the 20th century anyway; as well as most of the borrowed words in English are the words that did not exist in English until recently (for instance, there are as many as 20 words in Inuit that describe different types of snow. Since the English did not have such long experience with snow, they took some of the original Inuit vocabulary). It think, any linguist would agree with me if I say that there is a huge difference between the borrowings in the past and in the present.
I would like to know where your “ample evidence” about the Uighurs marrying Chinese girls comes from. If it is not too much work for you, could you write me the reference?
Yes, I agree with you, that it is better to study history rather than write sometimes blind, new and imagined nationalist representation of the past, BUT all studies have to be UNBIASED and must represent as many POV’s and researches as possible. It seems to me, though, that most of the Western research on the Uighurs is limited by the information written in in China during the Communist era or the 20th century; and I just simply feel that the Uighur case is often misrepresented because of that. That is why I bring up the sources from different languages and try to convince you to study different approaches. It is, of couse, MY POV, as a reseracher! MODERN does NOT necesserely always mean THE BEST, as you try to put it, since one has to consider what are the forces and agencies behind information presented at a particular time and place. There is enough info on hermeneutics and on interpretation of facs which you can read today, so I think, you need to consider those sources carefully before you start to sweep out all past. I am referring to the old sources because, if you know, the information had changed pritty much after the Chinese Nationalist Party Gomindang came to power in 1911. All info coming from China about its minorities started presenting information that was in agreement with Chinese nationalist interests. This is not my opinion, read an excellent source on that: W. Eberhard, China’s Minorities: Yesterday and Today (1982); and you can find many more sources on the shift in representation of Chinese minorities in the 20th century in MODERN literature (Dru Gladney, for instance). Of course, after Said’s Orientalism, it is hard to convince people to pay attention to the European literature about the East written in the 19th-century. However, if you closesy read it (and try to read, as we say, ‘between the lines’), you will find not only the passages of steriotype-based and prejorative description of Exotic Other.
With best regards, ISSIS, 20.08.2005
- Actually Inuit does not have 20 words for snow. This is an urban legend. And of course the English were well aware of snow, being from England and coming from Germany, before they met the Inuit. I think Anorack is an Innuit word. But anyway, it remains the case that borrowing a word does not imply a genetic relationship. In whatever century. I can certainly look up a few references to Uyghurs adopting Chinese girls. Just off the top of my head you might like to look at Cable, Mildred and French, Francesca, Through Jade gate and central Asia: an account of journeys in Kansu, Turkestan and the Gobi desert, 11th ed, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1947. But that is only my recollection. I'll check. I think we can agree on the problems of modern nationalism and we may be able to agree on modern history. I don't think it is necessarily the best, but anyone who reads what is known and adds more is usually (but not always) going to make a contribution. History is an expanding area of knowledge. I do like some of Dru Gladney's work and of course Wolfram Eberhard. I'm with you on Said and the older historians - in general. But Xinjiang was simply an area they knew little about and also the location of Aryan fantasies. So you do have to be careful. Lao Wai 11:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I did not state that borrowing words mean "generic" relationship, but rather said that in the past they meant much more that they mean for us today; and certainly, if there were many borrowed words in certain languages, it meant that there were cultural contacts between these people(Uighurs and Tocharians or Sogdians, for instance).
ISSIS 21 Aug, 2005
Hello Wai, After searching for couple days, I finally found the article can answer your question, here is the evidence you asked: researchers Yong-Gang Yao and Qing-Peng Kong from China proved my point: Uyghurs have high proportion of caucasoid gene. Unless we assume ancient turks are originally white race, western europian blood from Uyghur comes from Tocharians. I am glad....I highly doubt your claim of uyghur's adopting chinese girls. History_asia
- I am not sure this is what the article is saying. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it saying that the Uyghurs are just Uzbeks, who in turn are closely related to other Central Asian people. And somewhat distantly they are related to Europeans and even more distantly they are related to Han Chinese? The word "caucasoid" has to be used with caution. And there is not really any evidence the Tocharians were Western Europeans, nor is there much evidence that the Uyghurs are related to Western Europeans at all - as your article seems to be saying. Western Eurasian presumably means Middle Eastern. Doubt away. Lao Wai 11:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Different Matrilineal Contributions to Genetic Structure of Ethnic Groups in the Silk Road Region in China
Yong-Gang Yao*,1, Qing-Peng Kong*,{dagger},{ddagger},1, Cheng-Ye Wang*,{ddagger}, Chun-Ling Zhu* and Ya-Ping Zhang*,{dagger}
- Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Evolution, and Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, China; {dagger} Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Bio-resource, Yunnan University, Kunming, China; and {ddagger} Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Correspondence: E-mail: zhangyp@public.km.yn.cn.
Previous studies have shown that there were extensive genetic admixtures in the Silk Road region. In the present study, we analyzed 252 mtDNAs of five ethnic groups (Uygur, Uzbek, Kazak, Mongolian, and Hui) from Xinjiang Province, China (through which the Silk Road once ran) together with some reported data from the adjacent regions in Central Asia. In a simple way, we classified the mtDNAs into different haplogroups (monophyletic clades in the rooted mtDNA tree) according to the available phylogenetic information and compared their frequencies to show the differences among the matrilineal genetic structures of these populations with different demographic histories. With the exception of eight unassigned M*, N*, and R* mtDNAs, all the mtDNA types identified here belonged to defined subhaplogroups of haplogroups M and N (including R) and consisted of subsets of both the eastern and western Eurasian pools, thus providing direct evidence supporting the suggestion that Central Asia is the location of genetic admixture of the East and the West. Although our samples were from the same geographic location, a decreasing tendency of the western Eurasian-specific haplogroup frequency was observed, with the highest frequency present in Uygur (42.6%) and Uzbek (41.4%) samples, followed by Kazak (30.2%), Mongolian (14.3%), and Hui (6.7%). No western Eurasian type was found in Han Chinese samples from the same place. The frequencies of the eastern Eurasian-specific haplogroups also varied in these samples. Combined with the historical records, ethno-origin, migratory history, and marriage customs might play different roles in shaping the matrilineal genetic structure of different ethnic populations residing in this region.
Key Words: mtDNA • haplogroup • Silk Road • ethnic group • migration • admixture
- So this seems to be saying the Uyghurs and Uzbeks are closely related. Fair enough the languages are more or less the same (before Stalin worked them over anyway). The Kazaks have a similar distribution of these genes so they are probably close relations too. Fair enough. Central Asian nomads and all that. I can explain this without any reference to Western Europe or Tocharians. The Uyghurs are really Uzbeks. The Uzbeks settled in a region without any Tocharians, but with a large Persian population. They intermarried with said Persians and some came to Xinjiang. Hence they have a larger Western Eurasian genetic background than the Hui. Simple really. Lao Wai 11:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Way,
Did you remember seeing a persian person with blue eyes and blond hair?. For Uyghurs, seeing blue eyed and blond uyghur is not suprising , and Uyghurs are relatively whiter than normal persians.
History_asia User:History_asia 15:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi guys Tang dynasty era, inter marrage is possible, because Tang is more turk blood than Han, And his father Sui also. Please read Shiji written by Si Maqian.
Error in logic
You might be making the wrong conclusions from reading that paper. First of all, all that paper states is that there are some european genes in 42% of the Uygur population, it does not state how many. It could be that out of all of the Uygur genes, 1% of the genes is caucasian and 99% could be mongoloid and that this frequency occurs in 42% of the population. We just don't know from that paper. That is why most geneticists try to use comparisons and see how close one group (uygur) is to another (mongol) and compare it to another (european), like the previous authors in the papers that I gave above did. If they were to do the reverse, and look at east asian genes in the Uygur population , they might find that 90% of all uygurs have some mongoloid genes in them. It's difficult to make any conclusion from that paper. Almost all of the papers that make the comparison between ethnic groups suggest that the Uygurs are closer to mongoloids than caucasoids. Kennethtennyson 03:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I am seeing serious error in your logic, why you make randam assumtions ? (90% asiatic gen etc). Read the paper , author just talking about "western europian gene" , they are not talking
about eastern europian, Sytian, baktirian, iranian , and arab influence to Uyghur gene pool. Can you give me your references about "All paper" which states Uyghurs are "Eastern Asian"?. If you can
give papers not published china would be the best. You know some people make assumptions instead of research. For your information mongolians are NOT pure asian race either, according to the paper they have 14.3 "Western europian gen" , in the same time chinese has none. That is the reason mongolians are between Uyghur and chinese. In the end, I hope you walk outside and visit the world, visit central asia, then write about other people. Because no information is better than wrong information(assumptions).
History_asia 05:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- The paper does not seem to be talking about Western Europe at all to me but Western Eurasia. That is the Middle East. No one is saying the Uyghurs are Eastern Asian but that they have some level of genetic contribution from East Asia. Lao Wai 11:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, you are misreading my comments. I'm not stating that 90% of Uyghur genes are East asian (mongoloid) - i'm trying to make the point that you can not tell from that paper what the contributoins are. anyways , read below for my comments.Kennethtennyson 19:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Origin
Following article was published by prestigious American Journal of Human Genetics. This paper further adds proof to argument: UYGHURS are mostly CAUCASOID RACE. is there any way I can paste this picture? please click open the following link, see Uyghurs location there. One picture is better than talking whole day.
History_asia
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v63n6/970820/fg3.h.gif http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v63n6/970820/fg2.h.gif
Genetic Distances
Genetic distances (not shown) between central Asian populations and eastern Asian, Indian, western Asian, and European populations were calculated as described in the Material and Methods section. The four central Asian populations presented the shortest genetic distances among themselves, and Mongolians are the population genetically closest to these central Asian groups. If African populations are added to the analysis, they present large genetic distances to all other populations. It is interesting to note that Turks present shorter genetic distances to the British than to central Asians, even though the central Asian populations' samples in the present study speak Turkic languages. A neighbor-joining tree was built as described in the Material and Methods section, with the genetic distances estimated on the basis of the mismatch-intermatch distance. The robustness of the tree was assessed by means of 1,000 bootstrap replicates (Efron 1982; Felsenstein 1985), a consensus tree was built, and bootstrap supports >50% have been represented on its nodes (fig. 2). It is evident that central Asian populations occupy a position intermediate between the eastern Asian (Chinese, Korean, and Ainu) and the Western (Middle Eastern, British, and Turk) populations. Not surprisingly, the most robust nodes are those that cluster together the eastern Asian populations on one end and the Western populations on the other end. No robust branches subdivided the central Asian populations.
- Ok, now for the analysis. We seem to be running around in circles. First of all, East asian is not a racial group, but more of an ethnic group. When I'm speaking of East asian, I mean Mongoloid, which although imprecise, is the racial term that includes east asians. Then there is caucasoid, which is the term that includes Europeans. Now, what groups constitute Mongoloid? without a doubt the Mongolians are considered Mongoloid - they have epicanthal folds, black straight hair, and facial characteristics that look mongoloid. The europeans named a whole racial group after the mongolians. The Chinese have it, and the koreans have it. As you can see from your papers, the Uyghur are closer to Mongolians than they are to mideastern and turks. the turks seem close to the british. All this states is that they are closer - it doesn't mean taht they are only mongoloid. Further, these trees should not be used for racial identification but I guess many people like to do that. they never were meant to be used in that way because race is a physical description, not a genetic one. As you can see, the Ainu (eskimos) are considered by most people to be mongoloid but they are farther apart from the chinese than the uighurs are from the british. all this tells you is that the eskimos separated from the chinese/koreans when they came to america earlier than the uyghurs and chinese have been separated. Regardless, if you read your graphs, the Uyghurs are still closer to the mongolians (who are mongoloid) than they are to the british (caucasoid) or mideastern (considered to be partly caucasoid). And the turks are close to the british. of course, like that person said earlier, it all depends on sample size. Maybe they sampled turks who had some british blood. Kennethtennyson 19:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Can you read the paper again. Do you have a something you can measure the distance? print the picture then measure the distance between Uyghur , turkish, british , chinese japanese ect. Among central asian turkic people , Uyghurs are among the one closer to turkish(biritish). It is apparent Uyghurs are in the middle and one of the group closest to the turkish and british. I see mongols and turkish have about the same distance to Uyghur. I would not be surprised if mongols are close to Uyghur(turk), since mongols were mixed with Uyghurs in 13 century. Did you see the distance bt chinese, korean , japanese and Uyghurs?, did not you see the distance between Uyghur to biritish is much closer than to these groups? . For your information(I am not sure you would care!)Uyghurs in the south are more caucasoid than Uyghurs in north, so the sample from Kazakistan not necessarity more caucasoid than south. I know that whatever evidence I presented to you, you see you still deny the reality(I do not know why). Do you know how can I paste a picture, so that everybody can see it, I am sure a lot people see it differently from you nd Wai.
It is evident that central Asian populations occupy a position intermediate between the eastern Asian (Chinese, Korean, and Ainu) and the Western (Middle Eastern, British, and Turk) populations. Not surprisingly, the most robust nodes are those that cluster together the eastern Asian populations on one end and the Western populations on the other end..........
History_asia
- I see the picture just as easily as you. Look at figure 2 with the single line graph. Figure 3 is a graphical representation that is a little more difficult to judge. I believe that the scale is a log scale and not linear for figure 3. Like I said earlier, you can't make statements on race from genetic distances. The authors are very careful in stating that Uighurs lie between east asians and turks/british. However, remember they make no statements on what racial group the Uighurs are in. Race is a physical description. As such, if everyone is willing to state that mongolians are the prototypical mongoloid group, then Uighurs are closer to mongoloids than they are to the british who you could say are the prototypical caucasoid group with middle eastern being the eastern end of the caucasoid group. I'm not saying that all Uighurs are like this, just that the ones they measured. Remember, 90% or so of all uighurs now reside in the xianjing province of china. However, i'm not stating that uighurs are 100% mongoloid (or sinoid - i like that term better - no medical connotations with down's syndrome) just that they are closer to the mongolians - that is all. anyways, this has been an interesting discussion. But it is quite funny that you showed me pictures that you thought represented caucasoid uyghurs and that I thought looked east asian (japanese or korean). This is a common occurence. A lot of japanese will state that they have certain facial characteristics that distinguish them from the chinese but it is very difficult for a white american to differentiate. The same can be said in reverse. Europeans can differentiate themselves somewhat but most middle eastern and east asians can not tell the difference between one european group and another (ie. french and british).Kennethtennyson 04:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, OK, The fact that most Uighurs reside in China does not mean that they have to belong to one generic group or the other. But this is not what I was planning to say. I think, that one important issue that we are missing in this discussion is that of cultural, ethnic and national identity that most of the time has little to do with the blood people consist of. Although, I think now everybody is convinced, the case is not straightforward, as it seemed to be at the beginning, when Kenneth stated that the Uighurs are East Asians, in discussion of the Uighurs the issue of what they look like is not the most important. Counting drops of blood would not help us in understanding an essential difference between the East Asians and the Uighurs. In order to get a little sense of the Uighurs, one must learn more about Uighur culture, tradition, language, way of thinking, philosophy, socio-historical development, etc., and not only reduce this discussion to what these people look like (all these reminds me 19th-century anthropological research of subjugated people and, honestly, I feel I have nothing to learn from this page).
Best regards,
ISSIS 26.08.2005
Abstract of the article, you probably already read this , but I still paste it , others may read. See how researchers think.
....but the most plausible would involve extensive levels of admixture between Europeans and eastern Asians in central Asia.......
User:History_asia 16:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v63n6/970820/970820.html
Trading Genes along the Silk Road: mtDNA Sequences and the Origin of Central Asian Populations
David Comas,1,2,* Francesc Calafell,1,3,* Eva Mateu,1 Anna Pérez-Lezaun,1,4 Elena Bosch,1 Rosa Martínez-Arias,1 Jordi Clarimon,1 Fiorenzo Facchini,5 Giovanni Fiori,5 Donata Luiselli,5 Davide Pettener
1Unitat de Biologia Evolutiva, Facultat de Ciències de la Salut i de la Vida, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona; 2Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki; 3Department of Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven; 4Center for Human Genetics, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia; and 5Dipartimento di Biologia e.s., Unità di Antropologia, Università di Bologna, Bologna
Received December 12, 1997; accepted for publication September 25, 1998; electronically published December 2, 1998.
Summary
Central Asia is a vast region at the crossroads of different habitats, cultures, and trade routes. Little is known about the genetics and the history of the population of this region. We present the analysis of mtDNA control-region sequences in samples of the Kazakh, the Uighurs, the lowland Kirghiz, and the highland Kirghiz, which we have used to address both the population history of the region and the possible selective pressures that high altitude has on mtDNA genes. Central Asian mtDNA sequences present features intermediate between European and eastern Asian sequences, in several parameters—such as the frequencies of certain nucleotides, the levels of nucleotide diversity, mean pairwise differences, and genetic distances. Several hypotheses could explain the intermediate position of central Asia between Europe and eastern Asia, but the most plausible would involve extensive levels of admixture between Europeans and eastern Asians in central Asia, possibly enhanced during the Silk Road trade and clearly after the eastern and western Eurasian human groups had diverged. Lowland and highland Kirghiz mtDNA sequences are very similar, and the analysis of molecular variance has revealed that the fraction of mitochondrial genetic variance due to altitude is not significantly different from zero. Thus, it seems unlikely that altitude has exerted a major selective pressure on mitochondrial genes in central Asian populations.
Hi everyone. I'm new to this talk, and my interesting in the Uyghurs is by way of Tocharian, and, alas, I too am interested in the so-called Caucasoid features of many Uyghurs and whether this is due to any ancient Indo-European population within the Tarim basin. After combing the web for pictures of Uyghurs, most if not all definitely look much less "East Asian" than Han Chinese, of course. But I found a few that are particularly striking, and I was just wondering if any of the Uyghurs in this talk, or people who have been to the area, could confirm whether or not there are modern Uyghurs with such strikingly Caucasian features. Here are a couple I found:
Uyghur girls - The girl in the middle, despite the slight epicanthic folding, looks very Caucasian.
Uyghur photos - the two girls on the bottom row of photos are particularly striking
Of course I can't vouch for the fact that the people I mention are actually Uyghurs. The first photo in particular is of Uyghurs in the US, so that makes an authentic claim less likely. In any case, this is interesting stuff, and just goes to show how arbitrary racial classifications can be, and that it all is really a continuum of features.--Joshyoua 04:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
They are all Uyghurs. Certainly pure Uyghurs History_asia
I think their apperance doens't mean anything about their origin.
What was written below is a load of rubbish. Kong Zhi was Han. The Ainus are not white, but Australoids. The so called 'white' people were probably not 'white' but 'brown', ie people who looked like Indians (of the North), the so-called 'Aryans', given the cultural exchanges between the Chinese and Indians. Many 'white' people of Europe are not 'white' but 'brownish' for example the Portuguese and Spaniards, Greeks, South Italian etc who are a lot darker than a lot of Chinese. 15 April 06
In fact it's common for Turks or other tribes to intermarriage for the gaps between nations is not so clear at that time. Some Hui Chinese are in fact Turkish or Mongolian origin, but they were still counted as Hui for their customs. Scientist also discovered that the people living in Shandong province before are in fact white people,that means maybe the famous Chinese philosopher Kong Zhi was white. In fact lots people and barbarians living to the north and west of China maybe white people just like the Ainu living in Japan. The Han Chinese is a mixture of different people itself. The white from the North, the Malay from the South, the Yanhuang from Huanghe area.
Famous Uyghur in the 1989 democracy movement?
I remember reading somewhere that the Uyghur people were really proud that one of the students who led the pro-democracy movement in 1989 was a Uyghur. Does anyone know who that would be? Does he have an article? pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuer_Kaixi. Not really a Uyghur to be honest even though technically he is one. A member of the "Fourteenth" minority. Lao Wai 16:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Min kao Han? pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Turkey and Uygurs
Hello I am from Turkey. As I have read as the last sentece of 8 paragraph of History title, it says that Uyghurs are closest Turks and then the reference ,at the end, which is a proof of this statement shows us a kind of DNA analysis results of one single person we don't where he is from. I guess this should be corrected I don't know how. I can't just go and delete it.
Another issue, if you take it serious or not since I am neither a historian nor a biologist, I should say that there are very few people who looks likes as Asians(east or west) in Turkey. I know, however, that asians among themselves can most probably able to distinguish each other but for me or any other westerner on this sense that difference is really vague. And that not being able to distinguish asians from each other forces westerners, I guess, to put them more or less in the sama category, in general Asians. Therefore if you go to Turkey I can assure you that you will find a big mixture of people such as turks,greek,armenian,persian,arab,caucasian,mezopotamian,kurds and many others. However, the outcome of this mixture is not uniform since north,south,west and east have different kind of pysical features each.
The majority of the people in Turkey ,however, still think(the ones that cannot identify themselves with distinctive traditions from the rest of the people)that they are somehow descendants of people coming from Central Asia, namely asian Turks. And this becomes a politicaly hot topic in the times of increasing ethnic or nationalistic views. The reason for that is the description of the "Turk" by the state's establisher K.Ataturk,intellectuals of his time and the tradition of maintaining this idea. The description and myths are mostly based on Turkic myths,Turkic languages and legendary wars and etc.., and again based on ignoring all kind of different peoples used to live in today's Turkey. In fact at the and of the WWI whoever fell into the today's frontiers of Turkey and were muslims were taken as TURKS. And imposing of the "Turk Tarih Tezi"(theory of turkish history) and "Gunes Dil Teorisi"(sun language theory) they all had their "legendary" history and superior language. [Arminas]
Dear Arminas, please read the following article: http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83No1/039.pdf
History
The first paragraph in the History section refers to a Turkic Empire, then later there is a reference to the Second Turkic Empire. This implies a centralized state under an emperor. Is this, then, an accurate statement? Do the "empires" in question correspond to the Gokturk empires noted in the maps to the right of the section? --Eddylyons 20:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Uygur population is basically European with some Asian admixture
- My reading of your link is different. I would quote from the conclusion of the study that you cited:
- "Asian populations (Japanese, Northern Han, Hui, Uygur, and Kazakh) formed one cluster, whereas the two European populations and one West Asian population (Italian, Greek, and Saudi Arabian) formed another at a genetic distance of 0.068. The geographically neighboring populations were closely related according to this approach. These genetic relationships among these neighboring populations may have been substantially influenced as a result of admixture through migration along the Silk Road."
- It means that Uygurs are more closely related to other Asian peoples than to Europeans and Arabs. The closest relationship is with Kazakhs. Tankred 21:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello there,
Finish the whole article , read the sections related to Uyghur. These are exact words from the author. Being close to Kazak does not mean Uyghur is close to E. asians.
Not quite good enough yet
I read the history section (and then the entire article) to find out three things, and the article did not tell me either. What, and when, and where was the earliest occurance of an identifiably Uyghur ethnicon. I know now that the usages Wéiwú (維吾), Wuhu (??), Weihu (??), Huihe (??), Huihu (回?), all exist and that the name of the Huíhuí (回回) derives from theirs. However, I still have no idea about which of the usages is the earliest, and where it was written. Neither do I know exactly where they were located. Neither do I know the sequence in which the above terms were used and whether there was any movement or whether they were continually in the same place. I could go on, but lets see some foundation groundwork first please. Thank you. 86.140.13.205 10:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- mtDNA passes on through the female line, i.e. from mother to daughter. I am not surprised to find Turkic speaking people with high European mtDNA as throughout the ages it was the East Asians (Huns, Turks, Mongols, Manchus, Han Chinese, Tang Chinese and the like) that migrated westward, and undoubtly they would intermixed with local population who were European and West Asian (Iranian, Greeks in ME East, Arabs). The Euraian Continent is like a big spectrum, prior to the modern age, you would found pure East Asian lineage in Eastern tip (Japan, Manchuria, Korea, Kamchtka) and European lineage in the Western tip (British Isles, Iberian Peninsula, Scandinavia). Hui is historically related to Uygurs and no one on earth would think they are Europeans, even though there are quite a few who look Central Asians with a high-rise nose and deep eye sockets.---------------Karolus 2006/09/26
article is unsourced; accuracy disputed
The article is totally unsourced; most of the text is copied from other Wikipedia articles - of course unsourced and poorly copy-edited.
Given references are misinterpreted; scientific papers about genetics are not explained correctly (for example: the genetic similarity of Uyghurs with Turks in Turkey is NOT based on a common Turkish background, but rather on the NON-Turkic Mediterrainian population of Anatolia and the Iranian Plateau. Both the Turks of Turkey and the Uyghurs are mostly descendants of NON-Turkic, usually Indo-European populations accross Central- and West-Asia.)
Tājik 22:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- This person's comments are heavily biased against Turks in general, and Uyghurs in particular, probably because of the age-old animosity between Iran (Persian, Tajik) and Turan (Turkic) people. - Anonymous
unverified claims
Suspicious of Weasel Words
- many human rights organizations are concerned that this is being used as a pretext to crack down on ethnic Uyghurs - who are these organisations?
- Most Uyghur exile groups today claim their cultural rights are being suppressed... - again, who?
- Often the Chinese government refers to general East Turkestan to refer to terrorists - source?
-- drybittermelon (talk．contribs) 07:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Orthography Suggestion
Recommendation for the English transcription of the word "ئۇيغۇر" / 《维吾尔》
The constant advances of the reform and opening policy and the growing trade and telecommunications exchanges between people in all sectors and the outside world, as well as increased activities in publication, news reporting and international affairs have for some time renewed the need for a uniform and normalized ethnonym for the major nationality of Xinjiang, known in its own language as [ujγur].
At present, there is utter confusion on how to render and use in English the name of that nationality, with no fewer than seven different spellings attested: Uyghur, Uygur, Uighur, Uighuir, Uiguir, Uigur and Weiwuer. This situation causes a number of problems in our work and daily lives. Therefore, the Terminology Normalization Committee for Ethnic Languages of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region based on research and consultations with relevant experts on this issue recommends that the spelling Uyghur, corresponding to the pronunciation [ujγur], be used as the English transcription of the word.
Government organizations and individuals are invited to conform to the present notice.
The Terminology Normalization Committee for Ethnic Languages of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region
October 11, 2006
Source: http://www.xjyw.gov.cn/han/YWGZDT/wwesiyingwenzhuanxie.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed4linda (talk • contribs) 14:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
THIS IS NOT ABOUT GENETICS OR SPELLING
- if you are following the intense genetic and spelling polemics on this page than this thread is not for you.
that being said, there are some serious problems with the internal logic of the history section. the relaionship between the political/tribal entities: tiele, xiongnu, turk, uyghur, and gaoche is very unclear. I plan on making a few changes
update: my changes are still under construction, but I there is now at least a structure which can be expanded, I'm not sure if Famous scholars statements should be grouped under culture of not. I think a lot ofthe redundany and misorganization of history has been fixed by moving some items to the identity section which I think should be called ethnography instead.