75 replies to this topic

[naruwan]

No, why don't you look it up for me? It's you who has made these statements and you that needs to back it up, not me who's simply asking for your source.

This is why. I feel this is pretty much common knowlege in Geneology.

It is established fact that people originated from Africa. And on their migration to Asia, they stopped at Iran first. Resulting in this one male Y Chromosome Iran, which all Far East Asians and Native American can trace back to.

You don't even need sources to deduce this from logic.

Unless you believe human race originated from Asia not Africa, otherwise it's hard to not to come to that conclusion.

If you disagree with me, perhaps you should also look up your sources in counter-arguement??

But then I am used to looking up sources. In fact I have the sources with me but then I decided maybe you should look this one up yourself. Because this is simply everywhere on google. This is actually from Gubuk's DNA testing.

Some 40,000 years ago a man in Iran or southern Central Asia was born with a unique genetic marker known as M9, which marked a new lineage diverging from the M89 group. His descendants spent the next 30,000 years populating much of the planet.

Most residents of the Northern Hemisphere trace their roots to this unique individual, and carry his defining marker. Nearly all North Americans and East Asians ahve the M9 marker, as do most Europeans and many Indians. The halogrop defined by M9, K, is known as the Eurasian Clan.

This large lineage dispersed gradually. Seasoned hunters followed the herds ever eastward, along a vast belt of Eurasian steppe, until the massive mountain ranges of south central Asia blocked their path.

The Hindu Kush, Tian Shan, and Himalaya, even more formidable during the era's ice age, divided eastward migrations. These migrations through the "Pamir Knot" region would subsequently become defined by additional genetic markers.

M175, first arose among early Siberians of the lineage M9. The haplogroup it defines, O, unitquely represents East Asia.

Siberian hunters followed the great steppes eastward, across southern Siberia, about 35,000 years ago. After these ancient migrants arrived in China and East Asia, the ice age advanced toward glacial maximum. Encroaching ice sheets and Central Asia's impassible mountain ranges effectively isolated the haplogroup in East Asia. There they evolved in isolation over the millennia.

so now, where is your sources?

Edited by naruwan, 12 December 2005 - 03:06 PM.

[warlordgeneral]

---

Edited by warlordgeneral, 31 March 2013 - 06:58 AM.

[warlordgeneral]

---

Edited by warlordgeneral, 31 March 2013 - 06:59 AM.

[naruwan]

For example, Westerners and certain Central Asians may have more ancestral lineage from Homo sapien neandertals than does the people of eastern Central Asia and East Asia, which some scientists even proposed a genetic continuity from homo erectus to homo heidelbergensis down to homo sapien sapiens, and which the skulls doesn't show Neandertal traits.

I think we don't need to argue anymore.

You obviously have a VERY DIFFERENT understanding from my own to throw out the term "Homo Sapien Neandertals".

Here is why:

For many years, professionals vigorously debated about whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. However, recent evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies have been interpreted as evidence that Neanderthals were not a subspecies of H. sapiens. Still, some scientists argue that fossil evidence suggests that the two species interbred, and hence were the same biological species.

Homo neanderthalensis <-- they are not homo Sapiens.

Same goes with Homo Erectus, or those miniture human found in Java. All DIFFERENT SPECIES. Having them mate would produce children similar to mules and ligers.

I don't see your source relating Neanderthals to some present day Homo Saipiens.

Skeletons apparently sharing Neanderthal and Cro-magnon features have been found in Portugal; it is unclear whether these are in fact hybrids of the two species, or simply extreme individuals of one or the other species. These may suggest the two species did interbreed. However, it has been speculated that these hybrid individuals could have been sterile.

It is very difficult to prove as the genetic differences between Neanderthals and Cro-magnons were far more minute than the morphological differences between the two species might seem to indicate. Tests comparing Neanderthal and modern human mitochondrial DNA show too great a dissimilarity for Neanderthals to have contributed to the human mitochondrial genome. The mtDNA indicated a split between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals occurred more than 500,000 years ago. Morphological symmetry and asymmetry often belies genetic truth in the case of these ancient Homo populations.

In anycase, this is pretty much off topic.

Funny. Using that same "logic" of yours, I could also "deduce" that "humans" stopped in Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, or Uzbekistan, and then resulted in this "one male Y chromosome". Why Iran? Again, source. Simple "logic" doesn't cut it.

you can pick bones all you like. Or you can go read the source that I provided. This topic has already been discussed in Gubuk and Rudeboy's DNA threads. If you don't know them, go read up on those existing thread.

By the way, homo heidelbergensis predates Homo Saipiens and Neandertals. It is speculated that these could be the common ancestor shared between the 2 species. It is SUPPOSED to have traits from both species to trigger such a speculation. Homo Heidelbergensis is not an example of Homo Saipiens and Neandertals hybrids.

What is "Gubuk's DNA testing"? I put that on google and no results, not even fragmented links came up. Funny, isn't it?

Google is only useful to people who knows how to use it. It is extremely funny indeed. That you would put "Gubuk's DNA testing" on google and expected to find results.

[warlordgeneral]

---

Edited by warlordgeneral, 31 March 2013 - 06:59 AM.

[naruwan]

I was well aware of the ongoing debate between classifying neandertals as homo sapiens or not. But I'm also aware of certain errors regarding the mtDNA analysis, namely the lack of clarity of how rapidly mtDNA evolves, or how exactly we should expect ancient hominids to be compared to us, which again, is subjective in the 1st place. For the sake of convenience, I simply used the classic taxonomic approach my source used, which is not one-sided and goes into detail about the debates and elaborates on the sides of both arguments, etc. The analysis of bones and skulls of modern homo sapien sapiens found in Europe that shows Neandertal traits may indicate interbreeding or may not (which an objective person would conform with the former, ie that analysis of bones does show interbreeding with Neandertals, - if you want, I can go into detail on this when I have time, but I wouldn't expect a person like you to be objective anyway), so whether or not they are homo sapiens isn't my point, but just how much they contributed to the ancestral lineage of certain modern populations is debatable. I didn't expect such a strong reaction from the likes of you.
Funny. I never claimed that homo erectus or those "miniture human found in Java" are homo sapiens.
Because that wasn't my point. The point was that genetic contributions from Africa to the lineage of East Asians may have as much weight as does local development among local populations. I brought up the evidence from Zhoukoudian to back that up, because analysis of the remains indicate local developments, ie a continuity from homo erectus to premodern forms to modern humans, and also the findings of homo erectus traits in certain East Asian populations. It means that claiming that "all Far East Asians came from Iran" is one-sided and ignores everything else that happened 40,000 years ago or other genetic contributions to the ancestral lineage of East Asians. It means that your "theory" is oversimplified and also means that you need to read more carefully next time.
LOL. And you can nitpick all you want. Your source doesn't even prove your theory at all. If any, it refutes it.
Remarkable. Never has been a false accusation driven to such elaboration. I didn't say that homo heidelbergensis is an example of a homo sapien and neandertal hybrid. I've brought up heidelbergensis finds in China, ie the one from Dali, to support the "local continuity" theory of hominid evolution in China.
It seems you copied and pasted my post on wordpad or something right when I posted it, logged off, and then replied to it without having looked at what I changed in my post. I did that in a rush because I had to get to class in a few minutes. Anyway, I've found the article here and its from National Geographic and also saw a thread on AE by "Gubruk Jangoon". So no further need to playing a smallman's game and ridicule me on this little mistake when it's clearly your own incompetence when it comes to citing your sources correctly.

mtDNA does evolve rapidly, in fact it evolves in a certain rate. That is why a time frame can be measured out of the devient from two subjects.

In this case, between the Neandertals and Humans, the time frames of the split off in species is 500,000 years.

When people are talking about human migration in regard to history, the term human, is refering to Homo Saipiens. Not the migration of Homo Erectus or Homo neanderthalensis.

In the Y-Chromosome studies, all Eurasian shared this one common father. I am not claiming there is only one human migration, or one human migration into the Far East. In fact I support the view of constant migration into Asia. But my point is the migration into the Far East moved from Central Asia into the Tarim then further Eastward. That is how the Native AMericans got to America. That is how Huang Di moved to the Yellow River area, and that is how Tungus people moved into Siberia.

There is relatively little historical indications that after moving into the Far East, people migrated from South East Asia northward. By the time Indians started to move Eastward along the coast of South East Asia, it was already recorded by history. Even the Austronesians followed the same pattern of North to South, West to East.

You kept claiming proving the relations between Homo Neandertalensis and Homo Saipiens is not your point.

Likewise my point is that people moved in this direction. And 月氏 and Tocharians might have historically lived in Bactria and still had ties with the area until it was over taken by Seleucids.

If Zhang Qian's records are as thorough as it seems, this line is what I am referring to:

康居在大宛西北可二千里，行國，與月氏大同俗。控弦者八九萬人。與大宛鄰國。國小，南羈事月氏，東羈事匈奴。

康居 is Samarkand, know by the Greek as Marakanda. People in Samarkand speaks Tajik.

Samarkand is in fact one of the oldest city in the world. By the time Zhang Qian heard of 月氏 fighting with 匈奴 and set off to to establish an allience, till the time he got to 大月氏 was less than 20 years. Yet it is said its customes and 月氏 are 大同俗 (not 大致同俗).

留騫十餘歲，予妻，有子，然騫持漢節不失。居匈奴西，騫因與其屬亡鄉月氏，西走數十日至大宛。大宛聞漢之饒財，欲通不得，見騫，喜，問欲何之。騫曰：「為漢使月氏而為匈奴所閉道，今亡，唯王使人道送我。誠得至，反漢，漢之賂遺王財物不可勝言。」大宛以為然，遣騫，為發譯道，抵康居。

Zhang Qian was captured by the Huns for about 10 years. Let say 20. Then he only took less than a mounth to get to 大宛 Ferghana. From there he probably got to Samarkand in less than a year.

When 月氏 was mentioned, it only said 月氏 is a nomad people just like the Huns (行國，與匈奴同).

So in less than 20 years, Samarkand adapted 月氏 customes? or did they share the same customes to begin with?

[Yun]

粟特 is PRC 's translation.

That is how the Sogdians were known in the Wei Shu, i.e. during Northern Wei times. However, as one source you have cited shows, there was also a 粟特康 in the Later Zhao, unless the 粟特 in his name does not mean 'Sogdian'.

Disregarding the connection because the Han translation 1 thousand years apart is not exactly the same is a little hasty don't you think?

That's not the reason why I dismissed it; rather, it first has to be disproven that the Mohe were the ancestors of the Jurchen, since the Jurchen did not look at all like Sogdians. Then it has to be shown that there are Sogdian elements in the language of the Mohe. I have also seen no similarity to the Sogdians in Tang descriptions of Mohe social customs, burial practices, and physical appearance. These are what led me to believe that Sute and Sumo are only coincidentally similar - not the 1,000-year difference.

E.V.夏富庫諾夫《東北亞民族歷史上的粟特人與黑貂之路》
V.M.瓦西裏耶夫《渤海人及女真文化中的粟特-伊朗要素》，收在《西伯利亞古代文化問題》

Are the Russian scholars the only ones who have this theory? I have certainly never seen it in English-language or Chinese-language scholarship.

However, because it is less relevant to the topic of this thread, and because the Korean members might miss this discussion, could I request that further discussion on the Sogdian-Mohe question be moved to the Bohai thread http://www.chinahist...?showtopic=2535 ? I will start that off by copying and pasting your relevant postings in that thread.

[naruwan]

That is how the Sogdians were known in the Wei Shu, i.e. during Northern Wei times. However, as one source you have cited shows, there was also a 粟特康 in the Later Zhao, unless the 粟特 in his name does not mean 'Sogdian'.
That's not the reason why I dismissed it; rather, it first has to be disproven that the Mohe were the ancestors of the Jurchen, since the Jurchen did not look at all like Sogdians. Then it has to be shown that there are Sogdian elements in the language of the Mohe. I have also seen no similarity to the Sogdians in Tang descriptions of Mohe social customs, burial practices, and physical appearance. These are what led me to believe that Sute and Sumo are only coincidentally similar - not the 1,000-year difference.
Are the Russian scholars the only ones who have this theory? I have certainly never seen it in English-language or Chinese-language scholarship.

However, because it is less relevant to the topic of this thread, and because the Korean members might miss this discussion, could I request that further discussion on the Sogdian-Mohe question be moved to the Bohai thread http://www.chinahist...?showtopic=2535 ? I will start that off by copying and pasting your relevant postings in that thread.

Yun, is the later Zhao you are talking about aka 石趙? Because that also has to do with why I thought there might be a connection.

And yes, by all means move it to the Bohai thread ^^~ it was supposed to be a side note in the first place.

[Yun]

Yun, is the later Zhao you are talking about aka 石趙?

Yes, the one founded by Shi Le. Kui An, whom you mentioned, was one of Shi Le's generals. Warlordgeneral and I have been discussing on another thread whether the Jie of the 石趙 were Sogdians, or Yuezhi descendants from Kangju.

康居 is Samarkand, know by the Greek as Marakanda. People in Samarkand speaks Tajik.

As I have mentioned on that thread, Samarkand was said in Tang sources to be the descendant of Kangju, but the actual location of old Kangju was said to be occupied by Kesh 史 during the Tang.

Edited by Yun, 12 December 2005 - 09:53 PM.

[warlordgeneral]

---

Edited by warlordgeneral, 31 March 2013 - 07:00 AM.

[qrasy]

Why don't you look that one up. Under any study of Y-chromosome for halogroup O group. This should be common enough to find.

It is established fact that people originated from Africa. And on their migration to Asia, they stopped at Iran first. Resulting in this one male Y Chromosome Iran, which all Far East Asians and Native American can trace back to.

O* seems from North. Native American does not even have O chomosome, but the brother Q, while both descended from F. see http://www.scs.uiuc....ogroupsMaps.pdf
F is a large haplogroup: it's even the ancestor of R, a common marker in Europe.

By the way, to who ever mentioned this, I do agree before Mandarin took over, 肉 had a N initiate sound. Because all R initiated words in Mandarin at 中古音 had N as initiated sound. For example, 日 Ni.

However these words had a J or Z sound attached too. So does 肉.

月 however does not have a N initated sound. It has a Y initiated sound (中古) and it also has a G initated sound (上古).

月was with 'ng' in 中古. Cantonese assimilates 'ng' into 'y' when there is an 'i' or 'ü' as a vowel glide. Compare to Sino-Vietnamese 'nguyệt'. Voiced G is Min Nan "invention", I think Min Bei does not have G in 月. 上古 also more likely 'ng'.

J/Z reading attached to 'n' in Min Nan is a literarization effect, which is from Middle Chinese sound (中古音), which was more like 'ny'/'nh' ('ñ'). This is a distinct consonant from 'n' in Middle Chinese (though they might be the same in old Chinese, just effects of vowels). The proof is that in Cantonese and Mandarin they evolve into totally different consonants.

Edited by qrasy, 13 December 2005 - 05:10 AM.

[Yihesan]

About the Tâjîks: The Turkic peoples called the Muslim Arabic invaders of Central Asia as Tezik.

[qrasy]

By the way, Tadjiks speak a kind of Iranian language.

[lifezard]

even with Lazio it still sounds a little off.

I always have a question regarding Daxia, Bactria and 月支 Bah-chi. Anxi should be Arsacid no rpoblem.

there are speculations that "月支" was pronounced something like "nguet tieg" in Han times and the etymology may be related with indo-european peoples like Goths, Geats (as in Beowulf) as well as the Guti of mesopotamia

[naruwan]

there are speculations that "月支" was pronounced something like "nguet tieg" in Han times and the etymology may be related with indo-european peoples like Goths, Geats (as in Beowulf) as well as the Guti of mesopotamia

nguet?? I think that's based on the assumption that 月 is moon. But 月 is actually another way to write 肉....