In Sankt-Petersburg in the Hermitage one can see the legacy of the remote past of Chinese Turkestan. There are fragments of wall paintings and some sculptures. It was established that they belonged to the ancient Buddhist culture in Central Asia, which disappeared in X–XI century.A library was also discovered there with the ancient manuscripts in Chinese, Sanskrit, Pali, Thangutian, Sogdian and in one then unknown language. This unknown language was called Tocharian, but it turned out that it was not connected directly to the Tocharians. (Ptolemy's Tócharoi). From this point originated so called Tocharian Problem. The development of scientific career of the Russian Asiatic scholar George de Roerich (1902–1960) related to the Tocharian Problem. He minimized his Indological studies and translations from Sanskrit and Pali and began to study the difficult theme of the history and culture of Tocharians. Prof. Roerich shifted emphasis in the study of the Tocharian Problem from Tocharian-speaking peoples to the true Tocharians, who could speak some other Central-Asiatic languages.George de Roerich had his own opinion concerning the place of Tocharians in the history of the Ancient East. In his article “The Cultural Unity in Asia” he wrote that in pre-Islamic period in Central Asia there was a continuous zone of Buddhist cultures from Aral See to Pacific Ocean. The big territories were consolidated in the united cultural area. For the history of Asia this period was of unique importance. The consolidation of the territories and peoples was achieved not through war, as under Macedonian or Genghis Khan’s rule, but as a result of the cultural expansion. The Buddha’s ideas were the main factor in forming this unity. According to George de Roerich, such a big cultural ascent was made possible in many aspects thanks to Tocharians.
1. Sverchkov L. M. Tokharians: Ancient Europeans in Central Asia. Tashkent: SMI-Aziia, 2012. — 240 p. (in Russian).
2. Roerich N. K. Altay – Himalaya. Moscow: Sfera, 1999. — 528 p. (in Russian).
3. Roerich G. N. Tocharian Problem. Narody Azii i Afriki. 1963. No. 6. Pp. 118–123 (in Russian).
4. Roerich G. N. The Memory of Tocharians in Tibet. Short Theses of the Institute of the Peoples of Asia. 1964. No. 65. Pp. 140–143.
5. Roerich G. N. A Letter to Paris University (1921). Roerich G. N. Proceedings of Jubilee Conference. Moscow: International Centre of the Roerichs, 1994. P. 9 (in Russian).
6. Roerich G. N. The Cultural Unity of Asia. Roerich G. Tibet and Central Asia. M. I. Vorob'ova-Desyatovskaya (Ed.). Samara: Agni, 1999. Pp. 20–27 (in Russian).
7. Roerich G. N. Correspondence. Vol. 1. 1919–1935. Moscow: International Centre of the Roerichs, 2002a — 352 p. (in Russian).
8. Roerich G. N. The Letter to N. K. and E. I. Roerich. 11.08.1922. Nicolas Roerich Museum, New York. Autograph. V. A. Rosov. Salad Years of George Roerich (1918–1923). Vestnik Ariavarty. 2002b. No. 2. Pp. 11–27 (in Russian).
9. Roerich G. N. Buddhism and the Cultural Unity of Asia. Buddhism and the Cultural Unity of Asia. Moscow, International Centre of the Roerichs, 2002с. Pp. 10–13. (in Russian).
10. Pelliot P. Tokharien et Koutcheen. Journal Asiatique. Vol. CCXXIV. 1934. Pp. 23–106.
11. Sieg E., Siegling W. Tocharisch, die Sprache der Indoskythen. Vorläufige Bemerkungen über eine bisher unbekannte indogermanische Literatursprache. Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin, 1908. S. 915–932.
12. Sieg E., Siegling W., Schulze W. Tocharische Grammatik. (Nur für Tocharisch A.) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931. — 518 р.