168 replies to this topic

[Karakhan]

If Kenny Bee ( 鍾鎮濤 - photo below ) is hypothetically more Yue-looking than Austronesian-looking son inlaw of Al Gore,then 95% plus of modern Viet population not Yue-origin ( because extremely few Viets look like him ) rather proto-Vietnamese have always lived in Vietnam peninsula.

you are diverting away from the question I asked.

Under what premises do you argue how one looks more "Yue" than the other?
What is a "Yue" supposed to look like? You can argue 95% of people look like Yue or not and how Viets are supposed to look like (and this alone is questionable, where's your source? or is this your based on your own speculation>).. because you haven't even set the parameters in defining what "Yue" is.

Very few people in this forum use that term to describe physical features other than a few banned members like Ricecake.
Most people here know that the term Yue was a term used by the Chinese (and later the Vietnamese onto themselves) to classify a broad range of people
living in what is now southern China. These broad range of people did not speak the same language either.
You may argue that the southern Chinese and the Vietnamese both may have some "Yue" origins, but how do you know if these are even the same "yue"?


Another flaw in your arguement is also "Austronesian" looking. There is no such thing as an Austronesian ethnic group, only a family of languages spoken by
a diverse group of people i.e Malay, Micronesian, etc. Any scholarly journal will use the term "Austronesian speaking groups", not Austronesian groups because there is a
key difference in its meaning.

[peepee]

read ....

There is a Taiwan independence website pursuing a political agenda of trying to prove that " the Han-Taiwanese are not Chinese, but were aborigines in origin', as way of justifying that Taiwanese are not Chinese, therefore Taiwan is not part of China. Therefore, I caution all to read the sources with a political-filtering eye on such revisionist post. Although I agree that quite a number of Han-Taiwanese were originally 'aborigines' (assimilated to Han) largely because some tended to look like aborigines, I don't believe 80% of Taiwanese were aborigines in origin. The Taiwanese were probably mixed with Han/aborigines.

However, historical sources I've read mentioned that alot of Taiwanese aborigines were formerly one of the Yue tribes who migrated to Taiwan long before Han-Chinese migrated over to Taiwan.

http://www.chinahist...=0#entry4950697

Edited by peepee, 28 September 2008 - 04:43 PM.

[Karakhan]

interesting that you're continue to side step the definition of Yue despite that you continue to use it many of your ethnic views. Perhaps you don't have a strong background on SE Asian history at all?

[peepee]

Perhaps you don't have a strong background on SE Asian history at all?

Give me five bro,as we both are in the same boat except you and I on the opposite sides of this argument

Edited by peepee, 01 October 2008 - 05:55 PM.

[Karakhan]

Give me five bro,as we both are in the same boat except you and I on the opposite sides of this argument

there's no boat. I've asked you two simple things.
1. explain the parameters to which you define what a Yue is
2. explain why you continue to use Yue in a generalized manner despite knowing full well that the Chinese historically used it
to a broad number of peoples.

you've continued avoiding these key questions by making nonsensical statements such as those, and posting irrelevant links.

[peepee]

Hey ... even the Japanese have 51% Southeast Asian paternal lineages.


A set of 81 Y chromosome single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) was used to trace the origins of Paleolithic and Neolithic components of the Japanese paternal gene pool, and to determine the relative contribution of Jomon and Yayoi Y chromosome lineages to modern Japanese. Our global sample consisted of >2,500 males from 39 Asian populations, including six populations sampled from across the Japanese archipelago. Japanese populations were characterized by the presence of two major (D and O) and two minor (C and N) clades of Y chromosomes, each with several sub-lineages. Haplogroup D chromosomes were present at 34.7% and were distributed in a U-shaped pattern with the highest frequency in the northern Ainu and southern Ryukyuans. In contrast, haplogroup O lineages (51.8%) were distributed in an inverted U-shaped pattern with a maximum frequency on Kyushu. Coalescent analyses of Y chromosome short tandem repeat diversity indicated that haplogroups D and C began their expansions in Japan ~20,000 and ~12,000 years ago, respectively, while haplogroup O-47z began its expansion only ~4,000 years ago. We infer that these patterns result from separate and distinct genetic contributions from both the Jomon and the Yayoi cultures to modern Japanese, with varying levels of admixture between these two populations across the archipelago. The results also support the hypothesis of a Central Asian origin of Jomonese ancestors, and a Southeast Asian origin of the ancestors of the Yayoi, contra previous models based on morphological and genetic evidence.


http://www.springerl...1g0300430k6215/

[Karakhan]

Hey ... even the Japanese have 51% Southeast Asian paternal lineages.

This thread is for Southern Chinese relations to SE Asians, not Japanese. No need to bring the same journal you keep posting in over 3 different threads. Of course
you also failed to answer previous questions about your past statements.. and in regards to that journal, how strongly you support it.

[Yang Zongbao]

Peepee, may I ask that you provide an answer on how to define a Yue person? I'm also anxious to see your parameters.

[mumbaki]

read ....

There is a Taiwan independence website pursuing a political agenda of trying to prove that " the Han-Taiwanese are not Chinese, but were aborigines in origin', as way of justifying that Taiwanese are not Chinese, therefore Taiwan is not part of China. Therefore, I caution all to read the sources with a political-filtering eye on such revisionist post. Although I agree that quite a number of Han-Taiwanese were originally 'aborigines' (assimilated to Han) largely because some tended to look like aborigines, I don't believe 80% of Taiwanese were aborigines in origin. The Taiwanese were probably mixed with Han/aborigines.

However, historical sources I've read mentioned that alot of Taiwanese aborigines were formerly one of the Yue tribes who migrated to Taiwan long before Han-Chinese migrated over to Taiwan.

http://www.chinahist...=0#entry4950697

On the other hand,indigenous Malays Indonesians Phillipinos absolutely have no blood relation to southern Yue descendants of southern China & Taiwan.

there is a link between filipinos,guangdongren and ami tribe of taiwan.
http://robertlindsay...of-mankind.html

Edited by -遙-, 08 November 2008 - 08:17 AM.

[Polynesia]

This thread is for Southern Chinese relations to SE Asians, not Japanese. No need to bring the same journal you keep posting in over 3 different threads. Of course
you also failed to answer previous questions about your past statements.. and in regards to that journal, how strongly you support it.

Hmm I'm interested in this topic - please cheack my data

There were different names for the Yue people living in different areas. From the east coast of China to the northeast of Myanmar, there were such Yue groups as Wuyue 吳越, Yuyue 於越, Ouyue 甌越 (Eastern Ou), Nanyue 南越/南粵, Xi'ou 西甌 (Western Ou), Luoyue 雒越/駱越, Yangyue 揚越, Minyue 閩越, Shanyue 山越, Kuiyue, and Dianyue 滇越. According to the information recorded in some Han Chinese Historical books,² from the early Qin Dynasty through the Wei and Jin Dynasties, different groups of Yue lived in the areas from the Huaihe River Valley, through Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Guangdong and Guangxi to Guizhou and Yunnan Provinces.

Yue was a culturally relative term for the ancient Chinese

While most Yue peoples were eventually sinicized, the Kam-Tai (Daic): Zhuang, Buyi, Dai, Sui (Shui), Kam (Dong), Hlai(Li), Mulam, Maonan, Ong-Be(Lingao), Thai, Lao, Shan, and Vietnamese peoples retained their ethnic identities. Some of these peoples also have their own nation-states today. In particular, the Vietnamese people broke free from Chinese rule in the 10th century and have their own state to this day

Which would bring us to the Daic-
and Paternal genetic affinity between western Austronesians and Daic populations.

Hui Li, Bo Wen, Shu-Juo Chen, Bing Su, Patcharin Pramoonjago, Yangfan Liu, Shangling Pan, Zhengdong Qin, Wenhong Liu, Xu Cheng, Ningning Yang, Xin Li, Dinhbinh Tran, Daru Lu, Mu-Tsu Hsu, Ranjan Deka, Sangkot Marzui, Chia-Chen Tan, Li Jin

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Austronesian is a linguistic family spread in most areas of the Southeast Asia, the Pacific Ocean, and the Indian Ocean. Based on their linguistic similarity, this linguistic family included Malayo-Polynesians and Taiwan aborigines. The linguistic similarity also led to the controversial hypothesis that Taiwan is the homeland of all the Malayo-Polynesians, a hypothesis that has been debated by ethnologists, linguists, archaeologists, and geneticists. It is well accepted that the Eastern Austronesians (Micronesians and Polynesians) derived from the Western Austronesians (Island Southeast Asians and Taiwanese), and that the Daic populations on the mainland are supposed to be the headstream of all the Austronesian populations. RESULTS: In this report, we studied 20 SNPs and 7 STRs in the non-recombining region of the 1,509 Y chromosomes from 30 China Daic populations, 23 Indonesian and Vietnam Malayo-Polynesian populations, and 11 Taiwan aboriginal populations. These three groups show many resemblances in paternal lineages. Admixture analyses demonstrated that the Daic populations are hardly influenced by Han Chinese genetically, and that they make up the largest proportion of Indonesians. Most of the population samples contain a high frequency of haplogroup O1a-M119, which is nearly absent in other ethnic families. The STR network of haplogroup O1a* illustrated that Indonesian lineages did not derive from Taiwan aborigines as linguistic studies suggest, but from Daic populations.

CONCLUSION:

We show that, in contrast to the Taiwan homeland hypothesis, the Island Southeast Asians do not have a Taiwan origin based on their paternal lineages. Furthermore, we show that both Taiwan aborigines and Indonesians likely derived from the Daic populations based on their paternal lineages. These two populations seem to have evolved independently of each other. Our results indicate that a super-phylum, which includes Taiwan aborigines, Daic, and Malayo-Polynesians, is genetically educible

----------------------------
Austronesians being the oldest language family and the root Language for most Languages brings us also into Taiwan
Yue-Peoples would Generally be All of Southeast ASIA
----------------------------

which brings us to all of EAST ASIA (that includes Koreans and Japan)

Genetic structure of Hmong-Mien speaking populations in East Asia as revealed by mtDNA lineages
Genetic structure of Hmong-Mien speaking populations in East Asia as revealed by mtDNA lineages.

Bo Wen, Hui Li, Song Gao, Xianyun Mao, Yang Gao, Feng Li, Feng Zhang, Yungang He, Yongli Dong, Youjun Zhang, Wenju Huang, Jianzhong Jin, Chunjie Xiao, Daru Lu, Ranajit Chakraborty, Bing Su, Ranjan Deka, Li Jin

State Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering and Center for Anthropological Studies, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Hmong-Mien (H-M) is a major language family in East Asia, and its speakers distribute primarily in southern China and Southeast Asia. To date, genetic studies on H-M speaking populations are virtually absent in the literature. In this report, we present the results of an analysis of genetic variations in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) hypervariable segment 1 (HVS1) region and diagnostic variants in the coding regions in 537 individuals sampled from 17 H-M populations across East Asia. The analysis showed that the haplogroups that are predominant in southern East Asia, including B, R9, N9a, and M7, account for 63% (ranging from 45% to 90%) of mtDNAs in H-M populations. Furthermore, analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA), phylogenetic tree analysis, and principal component (PC) analysis demonstrate closer relatedness between H-M and other southern East Asians, suggesting a general southern origin of maternal lineages in the H-M populations. The estimated ages of the mtDNA lineages that are specific to H-M coincide with those based on archeological cultures that have been associated with H-M. Analysis of genetic distance and phylogenetic tree indicated some extent of difference between the Hmong and the Mien populations. Together with the higher frequency of north-dominating lineages observed in the Hmong people, our results indicate that the Hmong populations had experienced more contact with the northern East Asians, a finding consistent with historical evidence. Moreover, our data defined some new (sub-)haplogroups (A6, B4e, B4f, C5, F1a1, F1a1a, and R9c), which will direct further efforts to improve the phylogeny of East Asian mtDNAs.

Mesh-terms: Asia, Southeastern; Asian Continental Ancestry Group; Base Sequence; China; DNA, Mitochondrial :: genetics; Genetics, Population; Haplotypes; Humans; Molecular Sequence Data; Phylogeny; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.; Variation (Genetics);


------------------------------

Y-chromosomal DNA haplogroups and their implications for the dual origins of the Koreans.
Y-chromosomal DNA haplogroups and their implications for the dual origins of the Koreans।


Jin HJ, Kwak KD, Hammer MF, Nakahori Y, Shinka T, Lee JW, Jin F, Jia X, Tyler-Smith C, Kim W.
Department of Biological Sciences, Dankook University, 330-714 Cheonan, Korea.
We have analyzed eight Y-chromosomal binary markers (YAP, RPS4Y(711), M9, M175, LINE1, SRY(+465), 47z, and M95) and three Y-STR markers (DYS390, DYS391, and DYS393) in 738 males from 11 ethnic groups in east Asia in order to study the male lineage history of Korea. Haplogroup DE-YAP was found at a high frequency only in Japan but was also present at low frequencies in northeast Asia, including 2.5% in Korea, suggesting a northern origin for these chromosomes. Haplogroup C-RPS4Y(711) was present in Korea and Manchuria at moderate frequencies: higher than in populations from southeast Asia, but lower than those in the northeast, which may imply a northern Asian expansion of these lineages, perhaps from Mongolia or Siberia. The major Y-chromosomal expansions in east Asia were those of haplogroup O-M175 (and its sublineages). This haplogroup is likely to have originated in southern east Asia and subsequently expanded to all of east Asia. The moderate frequency of one sublineage in the Koreans, haplogroup O-LINE1 (12.5%), could be a result of interaction with Chinese populations. The age of another sublineage, haplogroup O-SRY(+465), and Y-STR haplotype diversity provide evidence for relatively recent male migration, originally from China, through Korea into Japan. In conclusion, the distribution pattern of Y-chromosomal haplogroups reveals the complex origin of the Koreans, resulting from genetic contributions involving the northern Asian settlement and range expansions mostly from southern-to-northern China

Attached Files

•  images.jpg   2.86K   2 downloads

[Polynesia]

I think someone asked this earlier also why do so many groups in the north
enthically look so much like southern Asiatic peoples- with so many customs
similar -
my answer was the Migration North -all the Genetic and linguistic data supports
mass migrations of settlements from the south over thousands of years- it
would seem that the formation of GREAT CHINA itself cut off these mass migrations north
Political borders were enforced and the Southern Asian Migrations recently have settled in main China
and less in the North.
with Northern or North East Asian or far eastern peoples pushing north and west

In Cheng Hsüan’s commentary on the Chou-Li, the gloss 越人谓死为札“The Yüeh people call ‘to die’札” occurs.** Cheng Hsüan lived during the Eastern Han (127-200 A.D.) and there seem to be no grounds to doubt the authenticity of this gloss. According to Karlgren’s Grammata Serica Recensa the OC reading of the character was *tsă. This is Karlgren’s group II. There is good reason to believe that his reconstruction is erroneous. Tuan Yü-ts’ ai assigns this character to his group twelve, which corresponds most nearly to Karlgren’s group V.** Chiang Yu-kao places it in his 脂 group which also corresponds most nearly to Karlgren’s group V.** How do we explain this discrepancy? There are several ways to assign a given character to an OC rhyme group. It may be assigned on the basis of its occurrence in a rhymed text, but if it dose not appear as a rhyme word, then there are only two alternative methods for determining its proper membership: a few Middle Chinese (hereafter MC) rhymes all go back to a single OC category; this is the case, for example, with the MC rhyme 唐 which derives from the OC 阳 group in its entirety. For such MC rhymes, the assignment to an OC rhyme category is mechanical. Frequently, however, a given MC rhyme has more than one OC origin. This, in fact, is true of the character in question. 札 belongs to the MC 黑吉 rhyme; this rhyme derives from three different OC rhyme categories: 祭，微，and 脂 corresponding roughly to Karlgren’s II, V, and X. The only way to determine which ÓC rhyme category such words as this belong to is to examine their hsieh-sheng connections. In the Shuowen, is defined as follows: 札牒也，从木乙声. In GSR 505 a reading *•iɛt is given for; this is Karlgren’s group V. And in the Shih-ming, written by Liu His, a younger contemporary of Cheng Hsan, the sound gloss is 札，木节也(木节 *ts*，OC 脂 group).** Clearly 札 should belong to the same group as 乙; the proper reconstructions is tsɛt and not tsăt as given in GSR 280b. Tung T’ungho does not give this character in his Shang-ku yin-yün piao-kao,** but it is simple enough to place it where it belongs—viz. on page 215 in Tung’s 微 group; the proper form in Tung’s system is *tsət.

There can be no doubt that this word represents the AA word for ‘to die’: VN chết; Muong chít, chét; Chrau chu’t, Bahnar kˠcit; Katu chet; Gua test; Hre ko’chit; Bonam kachet; Brou kuchêit; Mon ch*t. More cognate forms can be found in Pinnow, p. 259, item K324f. The Proto-Austro-asiatic form has been reconstructed by Shorto as kcət,** which is extremely close to our OC form. There is even the possibility that Proto-AA* k- is reflected in the glottal initial of the phonetic 乙.

'To die' in other east and southeast Asian languages are: Chinese 死*siər; Tib. * ‘chi-ba, šhi; Lolo-Burm *šei;** Proto-Tai *tai; ** Proto-Miao *daih. ** Here Chinese goes together wit Tibeto-Burman, and Proto-Tai goes together with Proto-Miao


-----------------------------------------

According to the Vietnamese mystical history, 100 sons of Âu Cơ and Lạc Long Quân were the ancestors of the 100 Yue. The domain of Văn Lang (or Lingnan) matched the territory of the Bai Yue people.
Translation: In the beginning of the Han Dynasty, the Bách Việt (Bai Yue or 100 Viet) were divided into branches, among them are: Đông Âu (Eastern Ou), Mân Việt (Min Yue), Nam Việt (Nan Yue), Tây Âu (Xi Ou), Lạc Việt (Luo Yue) are the main branches.

1. Đông Âu (Eastern Ou) lived in the land that used to be territories of the Yue and Wu countries (nowaday is Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China)
2. Mân Việt (Min Yue) also lied in the former territory of the Yue country (Fujian province nowadays), is regarded as the ancestors of the modern Mân (Min) people of nowadays China (the people that speak the Minnan dialect).
3. Nam Việt (Nan Yue) located in Guangdong province today, later expanded into Guangxi territory and the Southern region. They are regarded as the ancestors of modern Cantonese.
4. Tây Ou (Xi Ou) located in present-day Western Guangdong and Southern Guangxi.
5. Lạc Việt (Luo Yue) located in the area of North Vietnam today, are the ancestors of modern Vietnamese peopleAnother more specific classification of the Yue tribes is dividing them into 3 branches based on their cultural traits. The three branches are:
1. Nam Việt (Nan Yue) group: distributed all over the region of Central and North Guangdong, joined with North and West Guangxi, and in the earlier time also expanded up to Fujian, Zhejiang, and Southern Jiangsu (same as the Northern branch in the two-branch classification).
2. Tây Âu (Xi Ou) group, also called Âu Việt (Ou Yue): distributed in the region of Quế Lâm (Guilin), Tây Giang (Xijiang) of Guangxi.
3. Lạc Việt (Luo Yue) group: distributed in Southwestern Guangdong, expanding to Southwestern Guangxi and North Vietnam

The Northern group (or branch), distributed all over the region of Central and North Guangdong, joined with North and West Guangxi, and in the earlier time also expanded up to Fujian, Zhejiang, and Southern Jiangsu.
+ The Southern group (or branch), distributed in an area extended from present-day Southwestern Guangdong, South and West Guangxi and Northern Vietnam
---------------------------------------
two groups Xi Ou (in the Southwest) and Luo Yue (in the Southeast) can be merged into one group when comparing to the Northern Yue branche, there are important differences between these two groups in the level of development. Geography is an important factor to explain this difference. The West was a mountainous area, transporting and communicating were difficult, local diversity could be preserved or developed in their own way. In the Southeast and the coastal areas, transporting and communicating were easier, and therefore were more open to influences. the cultural diversity in these areas had an inclination to develop into a similar culture

-------------------------------------

I can't find a good map off hand of the range of Yue-Peoples- the influence changes over a large span of time
from Cantonese, Vietnamese, and history clashs with Genetics ,in the way Genetics may find Yue peoples
closer to han - than in a historical perspective

[LongMa]

Most recent study I have seen is this:

European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication 23 January 2008; doi: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201998
A spatial analysis of genetic structure of human populations in China reveals distinct difference between maternal and paternal lineages
Fuzhong Xue et al.

Analyses of archeological, anatomical, linguistic, and genetic data suggested consistently the presence of a significant boundary between the populations of north and south in China. However, the exact location and the strength of this boundary have remained controversial. In this study, we systematically explored the spatial genetic structure and the boundary of north–south division of human populations using mtDNA data in 91 populations and Y-chromosome data in 143 populations. Our results highlight a distinct difference between spatial genetic structures of maternal and paternal lineages. A substantial genetic differentiation between northern and southern populations is the characteristic of maternal structure, with a significant uninterrupted genetic boundary extending approximately along the Huai River and Qin Mountains north to Yangtze River. On the paternal side, however, no obvious genetic differentiation between northern and southern populations is revealed.

and a earlier study

Nature 431, 302-305 (16 September 2004) | doi:10.1038/nature02878; Received 28 April 2004; Accepted 20 July 2004

Genetic evidence supports demic diffusion of Han culture

Bo Wen1,2, Hui Li1, Daru Lu1, Xiufeng Song1, Feng Zhang1, Yungang He1, Feng Li1, Yang Gao1, Xianyun Mao1, Liang Zhang1, Ji Qian1, Jingze Tan1, Jianzhong Jin1, Wei Huang2, Ranjan Deka3, Bing Su1,3,4, Ranajit Chakraborty3 & Li Jin1,3



The spread of culture and language in human populations is explained by two alternative models: the demic diffusion model, which involves mass movement of people; and the cultural diffusion model, which refers to cultural impact between populations and involves limited genetic exchange between them1. The mechanism of the peopling of Europe has long been debated, a key issue being whether the diffusion of agriculture and language from the Near East was concomitant with a large movement of farmers1, 2, 3. Here we show, by systematically analyzing Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA variation in Han populations, that the pattern of the southward expansion of Han culture is consistent with the demic diffusion model, and that males played a larger role than females in this expansion. The Han people, who all share the same culture and language, exceed 1.16 billion (2000 census), and are by far the largest ethnic group in the world. The expansion process of Han culture is thus of great interest to researchers in many fields.

http://www.nature.co...ature02878.html


Conclusion:
Based on what I know of Chinese history, Southern China was settled by the Han much later than the North and the people in the South were considered “barbarian” referred to as the various types of “Yue” (known as the 100 Yue) in later times. Eventually the people region that became Guangdong and North Vietnam were referred to as (Nan Yue, or South Viet). Most of these people were likely Austroasiatic speakers in origin (like present day Vietnamese and Cambodians). Since Northern Vietnam (Annam) was part of China on and off for over 1,000 years; and the south, by the end of Chinese colonization was controlled by Champa, a Malay people (Austronesian).

As far as I know there was a massive influx of Han Chinese into the region during the Song Dynasty due to Barbarian pressure in the north. I know assimilation was fairly complete by the Tang Dynasty as Cantonese speakers often call themselves “Tong (Tang in Mandarin) People” and talk of giving their children “Tong names”. They also still refer to their province and themselves as “Yue” to this day. I’m guessing by the Late Tang, the Sinization of the area was complete, but for Annam. Vietnam became independent from China after the disintegration of the Tang, since the “Viet or Yue” people lived in what is now Guangdong as well, I’m guessing by that time the people in Guangdong were mostly Sinized, and considered themselves Han Chinese, but most of the people further South did not.

Also, “South,” in China is the area from Shanghai down to the border of the Southeast Asian nations of Laos and Vietnam.

Other nonHan ethnicities lived in the South, such as the Lao/Thai (Tai-Kadai language group) folks also came from Central China and were pushed South by the Han, they still have relatives in modern China like the Zhuang and Dong peoples.

To wrap it up, it is not shocking that Han men (like many men before them all over the world) would move to an area and take it over, while enslaving, killing, or running off the native men using their superior technology and social organization. Then they would marry, rape, or concubine the local women. Men, historically, are not picky about who they have sexual relations with. In a desperate spot any woman (even a barbarian) will do.


This is complicated by the fact... at different times, hundreds of thousands of Han Chinese moved into Vietnam, especially in the North and around Saigon.

Those Chinese were manly from the North. I've met more than one Vietnamese person with a Han Chinese grandmother or grandfather, but many of those Han Chinese from the South already had ancient admixture with Yue people.

I'm not sure how much Chinese changed the Vietnamese gene pool, probably a lot less than Yue, Thai-related people, etc changed the Southern Chinese gene pool.

Edited by LongMa, 08 December 2008 - 06:55 PM.

[Polynesia]

Basically I think you have the first Southern Peoples that headed North establishing Cultures left and right
becoming the Areas Natives , and starting to clash with the NEW Southern peoples heading North - unable to seperate them
genetically if Southeast asia spread to all of east Asia- but in history you have a perspective of "foreign people" coming into the northern area-

which is why the other guy kept saying all Asians come from China - when actually all come Southeast Asia , which "ALSO"
include South CHINA- so he right -AND- wrong- you can actually say it different ways
you can say all are Malayo-Polynesians-Austronesians
you can say all derive from Yue-Peoples
you can say all come from Southeast Asia
you can say all come fro South China
you can say all come from Taiwan aboriginals
you can say Indonesians are Southeast Asians
you can Polynesians come from Southeast Asia
you can say Polynesians founded Southeast Asia
you can Malayo-Polynesian and Polynesian are the same people
you can say many many many things in different ways- all being true in way
all talking about the same people- ASIA

[Polynesia]

Basically I think you have the first Southern Peoples that headed North establishing Cultures left and right
becoming the Areas Natives , and starting to clash with the NEW Southern peoples heading North - unable to seperate them
genetically if Southeast asia spread to all of east Asia- but in history you have a perspective of "foreign people" coming into the northern area-

which is why the other guy kept saying all Asians come from China - when actually all come Southeast Asia , which "ALSO"
include South CHINA- so he right -AND- wrong- you can actually say it different ways
you can say all are Malayo-Polynesians-Austronesians
you can say all derive from Yue-Peoples
you can say all come from Southeast Asia
you can say all come fro South China
you can say all come from Taiwan aboriginals
you can say Indonesians are Southeast Asians
you can Polynesians come from Southeast Asia
you can say Polynesians founded Southeast Asia
you can Malayo-Polynesian and Polynesian are the same people
you can say many many many things in different ways- all being true in way
all talking about the same people- ASIA

You can also say All are Han if yue-peoples and han are more genetically similar than
other Asiatic groups which would be combining both Yue-Peoples and Han dynasty
I read that one - on HAN - the data can be interpreted different ways
it's pretty foolish to think one group was plopped in from the sky and settled east Asia
and the group next to it came from the south.

You 3 choices by basic to choose from anyway- as the oldest places of Homo-Sapien
Africa-India-or Southeast Asia

[Polynesia]

You can also say All are Han if yue-peoples and han are more genetically similar than
other Asiatic groups which would be combining both Yue-Peoples and Han dynasty
I read that one - on HAN - the data can be interpreted different ways
it's pretty foolish to think one group was plopped in from the sky and settled east Asia
and the group next to it came from the south.

You 3 choices by basic to choose from anyway- as the oldest places of Homo-Sapien
Africa-India-or Southeast Asia

I leave that one alone, I'd say the Hans study consists of the Many Yue-Peoples
Diac - etc etc etc etc etc - because if not you'd have no diversity in ethnography
"AND" and awful lot of inbreeding-
it most certainly must be that they were in fact all similar enough to be grouped together