395 replies to this topic

[SNK_1408]

It's all about genetic drift and there is well documented evidence that it's a highly recurring phenomenon.  When the neanderthals got pocketed into the cold wastelands of Europe and the humanoid species that followed them entered Europe they both had no choice but to interbreed in order to survive.  By that time the neanderthals were already selectively few and those that survived were going to seem least "mixed".  Fast forward millenniums into the future in China.  In populating China's north it was relatively more mixed in the beginning just like neanderthals were.  It was also a place where far northerners/northerners westerners southerners easterners collide and in these areas people are bound to mix.  Their activity creates civilization.  But after all is said and done mass migrations for whatever reason create diaspora and the genetic drift occurs again.  Northerners went in a southern direction and westerners in a eastern direction to populate and or sinicize and what happened?  The north and west drifted because those that were left in those areas were like those pocketed neanderthals that found ways to survive that others found difficult and gave up.  The only reason why those appear least mixed is because of the drift that occurs which puts a lead on what can and has survived while diminishing or putting a cap on those numbers that end up migrating elsewhere because they found it difficult to survive.

I think you're speaking from ruling class pov, yes Chinese dynasties over long period of centuries did dominated by Northerners in origin but majority of Han Chinese population were from Yangtze river areas. While atDNA of Han Chinese show common branch, yDNA of Han Chinese shows irregular patterns showing there's mixture. Cultural influence is still much Yellow river culture but language influence is very much Yangtze river. This is why "language" have become main identifier of origin for ancient people because during ancient period, early humans rarely adopt foreign spoken language because there was no schooling, it was mothers who taught their kids. But after nation was formed and education and clanship became important, more & more people learned from others.

[mohistManiac]

I think you're speaking from ruling class pov, yes Chinese dynasties over long period of centuries did dominated by Northerners in origin but majority of Han Chinese population were from Yangtze river areas. While atDNA of Han Chinese show common branch, yDNA of Han Chinese shows irregular patterns showing there's mixture. Cultural influence is still much Yellow river culture but language influence is very much Yangtze river. This is why "language" have become main identifier of origin for ancient people because during ancient period, early humans rarely adopt foreign spoken language because there was no schooling, it was mothers who taught their kids. But after nation was formed and education and clanship became important, more & more people learned from others.

I'm not talking about the dynasties just the flow of the people and the conditions which appeared as a result. People from northern China moved into southern areas continually over time either to escape some rebellious upstart or high taxation etc and this left the north with particularly fewer imprints of their collection in gene pool types.

[Rykard]

I think you're speaking from ruling class pov, yes Chinese dynasties over long period of centuries did dominated by Northerners in origin but majority of Han Chinese population were from Yangtze river areas. While atDNA of Han Chinese show common branch, yDNA of Han Chinese shows irregular patterns showing there's mixture. Cultural influence is still much Yellow river culture but language influence is very much Yangtze river. This is why "language" have become main identifier of origin for ancient people because during ancient period, early humans rarely adopt foreign spoken language because there was no schooling, it was mothers who taught their kids. But after nation was formed and education and clanship became important, more & more people learned from others.

Actually both northern Han Chinese and southern Han Chinese yDNA is almost the same. This shows that both northern and southern Han Chinese share similar ancestors and origins. As mohistManiac just said, Han Chinese moved from northern China to southern area continually.

Edited by Rykard, 21 July 2011 - 09:45 AM.

[SNK_1408]

Actually both northern Han Chinese and southern Han Chinese yDNA is almost the same. This shows that both northern and southern Han Chinese share similar ancestors and origins. As mohistManiac just said, Han Chinese moved from northern China to southern area continually.

where's that pie chart came from?
Time to time, I have came across above chart but can't determine where it's from.

Not quite same, because atDNA of Northern Han and Southern Han shows greater distance than distance between Japanese and Koreans.
I'm not saying there's huge difference between Northern & Southern Han, they're basically homogeneous but when it map against to atDNA then we can see the difference.

I have collected several atDNA distance tree diagrams. (I've found these from taiwanDNA wesbite with references)






If we take Han Chinese migration pattern from Yellow river to Yangtze river then it's already out of logic if we take your claim because how come Northern Asian tribes ended up more like Southern Asian in both yDNA and mtDNA as well as atDNA? Logically speaking, we can clearly see majority of Han Chinese were actually originated from Yangtze river delta then after arriving at Yellow river, got mixed with Northerners.

[Rykard]

where's that pie chart came from?
Time to time, I have came across above chart but can't determine where it's from.

Not quite same, because atDNA of Northern Han and Southern Han shows greater distance than distance between Japanese and Koreans.
I'm not saying there's huge difference between Northern & Southern Han, they're basically homogeneous but when it map against to atDNA then we can see the difference.

I have collected several atDNA distance tree diagrams. (I've found these from taiwanDNA wesbite with references)






If we take Han Chinese migration pattern from Yellow river to Yangtze river then it's already out of logic if we take your claim because how come Northern Asian tribes ended up more like Southern Asian in both yDNA and mtDNA as well as atDNA? Logically speaking, we can clearly see majority of Han Chinese were actually originated from Yangtze river delta then after arriving at Yellow river, got mixed with Northerners.

I don't remember the original source for those images as I only save the images url link. I have also seen your tree diagrams before, or at least something similar to it but never pay attention because if I am not mistaken, it's not about yhaplogroup.My pie chart is about yhaplogroup. In my opinion Japanese and Korean yhaplogroup show greater distance than northern Han and southern Han because Japanese has a lot of D2 while Korean has low frequencies of D2.Your tree diagram seems to be about the genome in general rather than yhaplogroup. I am not expert in genetics, but if I'm not mistaken human has 23 pair chromosomes. You cannot use the entire 23 pair of chromosomes to determine the origin of certain race as they mutate due climate or whatever the reason is or at least that is what I heard. yDNA is more reliable as they hardly mutate. That is why yhaplogroup are the most popular ancestry test.

The most popular ancestry tests are Y chromosome (Y-DNA) testing and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) testing which test direct-line paternal and maternal ancestry, respectively. DNA tests for other purposes attempt, for example, to determine a person's comprehensive genetic make-up and/or ethnic origins.

A man's patrilineal ancestry, or male-line ancestry, can be traced using the DNA on his Y chromosome (Y-DNA) through Y-STR testing. This is useful because the Y chromosome passes down almost unchanged from father to son, ie, the non recombining and sex determining regions of the Y chromosome do not change.

http://en.wikipedia....#Types_of_tests

Both northern Han and southern Han has high frequencies of o3, which suggest they share similar ancestors.

Although Haplogroup O3 appears to be primarily associated with Chinese populations, it also forms a significant component of the Y-chromosome diversity of most modern populations of the East Asian region.

http://en.wikipedia....roup_O3_(Y-DNA)

Han Chinese(sino-tibetan) are believe to be originated from yellow river before they migrate to southern area.



As for mtDNA, I'm not interested in debating about ancestor origins using mtDNA (even though I know it can be used to test maternal line) because it has high mutation rate.

Because mtDNA is not highly conserved and has a rapid mutation rate, it is useful for studying the evolutionary relationships - phylogeny - of organisms. Biologists can determine and then compare mtDNA sequences among different species and use the comparisons to build an evolutionary tree for the species examined.

http://en.wikipedia....ial_inheritance

That is why when you talk about human ancestor origin, among all those 23 pairs chromosomes, I only focus on yhaplogroup because the others mutated and therefore, it's not reliable. yhaplogroup is the most reliable one.

Edited by Rykard, 23 July 2011 - 09:15 AM.

[mohistManiac]

Han Chinese(sino-tibetan) are believe to be originated from yellow river before they migrate to southern area.

This map is just in context of language group spread and I don't see the necessary connection with genetic groups origins as the founders of these newer ethnic classifications. What time period does this map document to? Shang? Zhou? If it was before this time period wouldn't the sino tibetan arrows be pointing in the reverse?

[Rykard]

This map is just in context of language group spread and I don't see the necessary connection with genetic groups origins as the founders of these newer ethnic classifications. What time period does this map document to? Shang? Zhou? If it was before this time period wouldn't the sino tibetan arrows be pointing in the reverse?

As you can see on the upper left of the map,early neolithic of China before Shang and Zhou even exist. In western scholar community, Chinese linguists are classified under sino-tibetan while Tai-Kadai and Hmong-Mien no longer classified under Sino-Tibetan. So there is connection with genetic groups.

The Sino-Tibetan language family has also been defined, principally among some Chinese linguists, as including the Tai and Hmong-Mien languages. In the past, Vietnamese and other Mon-Khmer languages were classified under the Sino-Tibetan tree; however, their similarities to Chinese are currently credited to language contact. In the Western scholarly community, the other tonal language families of East Asia, Tai-Kadai languages and Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao), are no longer classified under the Sino-Tibetan tree either, with the similarities attributed to borrowings and areal features, especially since Benedict (1972). In the Chinese scholarly community, Tai-Kadai (actually Zhuang-Dong or Kam-Tai, which excludes i.a. the Kra languages) and Hmong-Mien have commonly been included in the Sino-Tibetan family.[1]

http://en.wikipedia....language_family

I'm not sure what you mean by arrows pointing in the reverse. You yourself even mention earlier that people from northern China migrate to southern area. Are you referring to 'Out of Africa theory'? If yes, then the map got nothing to do with it as 'Out of Africa theory' is even further back. This map do not go back that far. Please keep in mind the oldest mongoloid found in eastasia are in neolithic era.

Peter Brown (1999) of the Department of Anthropology and Paleoanthropology at the University of New England evaluated three sites with early East Asian modern human skeletal remains (Liujiang, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China; Shandingdong Man of (but not Peking Man) Zhoukoudian's Upper Cave; and Minatogawa in Okinawa) dated to between 10,175 to 33,200 years ago, and finds lack of support for the conventional designation of skeletons from this period as "Proto-Mongoloid"; this would make Neolithic sites 5500 to 7000 years ago (e.g. Banpo) the oldest known Mongoloid remains in East Asia, younger than some in the Americas. He concludes that the origin of the Mongoloid phenotype remains unknown, and could even lie in the New World.[25]

http://en.wikipedia...._of_the_concept

Edited by Rykard, 23 July 2011 - 01:08 AM.

[mohistManiac]

As you can see on the upper left of the map,early neolithic of China before Shang and Zhou even exist. In western scholar community, Chinese linguists are classified under sino-tibetan while Tai-Kadai and Hmong-Mien no longer classified under Sino-Tibetan. So there is connection with genetic groups.

I see, although the equal distribution of neolithic peoples is what's puzzling and gives no foundation for how the boundaries are derived. I'm guessing it's probably due to lack of information. The map isn't showing why these languages would spread in the directions that have been given since it shows every starting place is its own. Why does sino-tibetan for example want to cross a huge gap of no neolithic peoples and enter Burma?

http://en.wikipedia....language_family

I'm not sure what you mean by arrows pointing in the reverse. You yourself even mention earlier that people from northern China migrate to southern area. Are you referring to 'Out of Africa theory'? If yes, then the map got nothing to do with it as 'Out of Africa theory' is even further back. This map do not go back that far. Please keep in mind the oldest mongoloid found in eastasia are in neolithic era.

The significance of their migration was after there was Han civilization. It corresponds to documented history and shows particularly well why southern genetic makeup although similar shows more genetic variability. Genetic variability is simply enhanced when there are donor populations continually coming in while those that have splintered off from the northern populations sap the region of its genetic variability. So while the north came into contact with far more different populations in the periods since Shang or slightly earlier the genetic history is lost.

More like a distinct branch of the out of Africa theory. I only meant to focus on the reverse for sino tibetan although it might be worthwhile to consider tracing a reverse path for each. There is evidence of neolithic cultural remains which suitably shows very early dynastic culture coming from the southeast of China. With it probably comes the people and language. It's a kind of memoir that shows culture was effusing into the yellow river heartland from elsewhere such as the Liangzhu and Longshan neolithic areas. These two cultures whose height in civilization predates but closely follows Erlitou culture and the Shang are regarded as their cultural predecessors due to their highly similar cultural forms found nowhere else.

[Rykard]

I see, although the equal distribution of neolithic peoples is what's puzzling and gives no foundation for how the boundaries are derived. I'm guessing it's probably due to lack of information. The map isn't showing why these languages would spread in the directions that have been given since it shows every starting place is its own. Why does sino-tibetan for example want to cross a huge gap of no neolithic peoples and enter Burma?



The significance of their migration was after there was Han civilization. It corresponds to documented history and shows particularly well why southern genetic makeup although similar shows more genetic variability. Genetic variability is simply enhanced when there are donor populations continually coming in while those that have splintered off from the northern populations sap the region of its genetic variability. So while the north came into contact with far more different populations in the periods since Shang or slightly earlier the genetic history is lost.

More like a distinct branch of the out of Africa theory. I only meant to focus on the reverse for sino tibetan although it might be worthwhile to consider tracing a reverse path for each. There is evidence of neolithic cultural remains which suitably shows very early dynastic culture coming from the southeast of China. With it probably comes the people and language. It's a kind of memoir that shows culture was effusing into the yellow river heartland from elsewhere such as the Liangzhu and Longshan neolithic areas. These two cultures whose height in civilization predates but closely follows Erlitou culture and the Shang are regarded as their cultural predecessors due to their highly similar cultural forms found nowhere else.

Regarding the arrow of the map, how would you interpret it? From my interpretation, it's not necessary means sino-tibetan migrate during early neolithic as it can also means migration later in the future such as during the Han dynasty. It's the circle dot on yellow river that shows sino-tibetan is in yellow river since early neolithic. The early neolithic are actually referring to all the circles, not the arrow, or at least that is how I interpret the map when I first saw it. May I know the very early dynastic culture from southeast of China you talking about? When you said southeast of China, are you talking about Fujian and Guangdong provinces?

Edited by Rykard, 23 July 2011 - 03:31 AM.

[mohistManiac]

Regarding the arrow of the map, how would you interpret it? From my interpretation, it's not necessary means sino-tibetan migrate during early neolithic as it can also means migration later in the future such as during the Han dynasty. It's the circle dot on yellow river that shows sino-tibetan is in yellow river since early neolithic. The early neolithic are actually referring to all the circles, not the arrow, or at least that is how I interpret the map when I first saw it. May I know the very early dynastic culture from southeast of China you talking about? When you said southeast of China, are you talking about Fujian and Guangdong provinces?

I am only interpreting what the map shows. If indeed in the period of Han dynasty people from Sichuan and Gansu moved into Burma then case is rested. By what is shown the arrow just looks like its emanating from some prescribed edge boundary that appears to suggest that these were neolithic peoples spreading from a nucleated center and nowhere else that people used sino tibetan were permitted to travel to Burma. Those areas circumscribing Longshan and Liangzhu can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia....ltures_of_China My apologies for saying southeast as that was the reverse direction of the one given on the map but in reality its lower Yangtze river for Liangzhu (coined unofficially as first dynasty of China) and lower Yellow river for Longshan (highly correlated to Liangzhu). The main dynastic sites ought to be in those areas for which they were named but there is evidence to suggest like the dynasties in Shang their power was maintained by creating a greater network to throw their reach beyond their immediate frontier. I'll try to find maps.

[YummYakitori]

Hmm... I guess that its because Northern China contains alot of other countries that were previously independent like Manchuria, Inner Mongolia etc.

The China proper is more to the south. But its not exactly south. It still includes a bit of modern day Northern China and Central China.

Edited by YummYakitori, 01 October 2011 - 07:09 AM.

[mohistManiac]

No offense to any Vietnamese here, but seriously, Viets, stop prying apart China into pieces. Vietnamese are totally not Han. As Rykard's chart shows, Vietnamese share a totally different set of DNA from Northern Chinese and Southern Chinese.

I'm not going to address each of your points because quite frankly it's a waste of time. Just want to say though that I actually did go over your post.

Rykard's pie chart shows Vietnamese having the main Han component O3, not that O3 is Han if you're wondering. The only thing which physically separates them as Han is that they don't appear to have an associated Kazakh segment and they have a segment shared with Koreans. You do realize your bull would never have been able to spread beyond your own lips if it weren't for the fact that you have been eating it so well for so long yourself.

I think another thing of note that you said was that Vietnamese are trying to break apart China but then again that wouldn't make sense if they were trying to implement Han Chinese identity.

Something about Koreans being copy cats and but then after providing such colorful commentary you go about sucking up to how they actually conquered quite a bit of land. I find your tip off amusing since what you are actually saying is if Korea conquered even more land it would be even more copy cat. In this case you hardly provide a very compelling case for China if it's to be original since everything in China has also been conquered as well, in fact many times over.

Finally Mandarin has a great deal of loan words. In essence because the norms of the language have found no way to be cut off except only in terms of its rear way back into classical pronunciations.

[Eidolon]

No offense to any Vietnamese here, but seriously, Viets, stop prying apart China into pieces. Vietnamese are totally not Han. As Rykard's chart shows, Vietnamese share a totally different set of DNA from Northern Chinese and Southern Chinese.

Vietnamese believe that their ancestor is 神农 (Shennong), deity of farming, also known as Than Nong in Vietnam, is a Han Chinese, so they say Vietnamese are Han Chinese.

Here again, no offense to any Koreans here, Vietnam might just be another copycat of china like Koreans. These bloody gooks copied how china built their imperial castles, say how rich their history is, making c**p of how humans originated from Pyongyang of Northern Korea, how Tang dynasty troops were pushed by Koreans during the Koguryo Dynasty to Vietnam, when it's not true. Source: search 'Korean history' on YouTube.

The true fact is, Korean Koguryo dynasty was quite big, I agree, covering a considerable part of Manchuria. But Korea definitely did not conquer down the entire Russia, Mongolia and Northern China. And since when did Tang dynasty happen in Vietnam instead of Mainland China?

Vietnamese history, I must say, really makes me puke. With 2700 years of history, more than 1800 years belong to China. Look at China, more than 5000 years of history, starting with the Xia Dynasty. Look at Korea, 3900 years of history starting from the Gojoseon dynasty.

And I must say, your Vietnamese language is simply the lousiest language invention on earth. Why copy Chinese and use good morning as Cao Ahn. In Chinese, it's Zao An, you all think changing a few words make your language authentic? Let me tell you, NO. Look at China, Chinese words are self-invented and copied from nowhere. That's authentic.

Look at Korea, Korean alphabets are self-invented. That's authentic. Moreover, Vietnam has been conquered by Japan, France, China, Khmer countries before. So Vietnamese blood are simply a mix of **** here and there.

Vietnam is just a disgusting dog that follows it's masters, which are neighboring massive countries around it.

On this note, Fetch Vietnamese chick dog!

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

An oft-repeated quote, but an appropriate one nonetheless.

Using ethnic slurs and outright racist attacks makes you and the segment of population that you represent look even worse than those you are fighting against.

[xng]

Actually both northern Han Chinese and southern Han Chinese yDNA is almost the same. This shows that both northern and southern Han Chinese share similar ancestors and origins. As mohistManiac just said, Han Chinese moved from northern China to southern area continually.

Yes, Han chinese did migrate from North china to south china continually.


The languages of the north from different eras were preserved in the south.

Old chinese -> Middle chinese -> Modern chinese


Most people think that North China always spoke Mandarin which is not true. It is a relatively young language.

Edited by xng, 23 May 2012 - 11:13 AM.

[Corean Chinghiz]

Yes, the vietnamese were right. The original Huaxia was a bunch of really tall mandarin speaking Northern Chinese. They were really buff and and barked in Mandarin. Their first king, Qin shi huang, unified them into the Northern Chinese Mandarin empire. Then, they expand and occupy Cantonese country, occupied by the Cantonese baiyue tribes. The original Baiyue culture and modern Cantonese culture are the same so they are the same people. Qin shi Huang spoke mandarin and tried to enslave the Cantonese Baiyue using mandarin. Then Goujian, the minnan king, escaped from Jiangnan and formed his Hokkien country called Minyue, or Minnanyue....and the story of 4000 years of northern chinese mandarin imperialism continues. Minnanyue gets ocnquered by the mandarin empire. Then Cantoneseyue led by zhao tuo gets conquered by the second mandarin chinese empire led by mandarin speaker Han Wudi, who the vietnamese call the ',cruel han chinese tyrant'

By the way, viets fondly claim the ancestors of the Han Chinese are Huaxia. The viets tell me that if you are not a pure blood descendent of huaxia, you are not han chinese. Thats why the Cantonese are not han chinese. they are descended from Yue.


See kids, if you smoke crack, this is what you will hear. In other words, listening to the Vietnamese story here gets your head on drugs and you won't know anything about China,s regional development. You make think that all of China's warring states spoke Mandarin officially, even i know mandarin didn,t exist back then, lol. Today, nobody is descended from Huaxia (which WAS NOT EVEN A RACE OR ETHNICITY IN THE FIRST PLACE). Then according to the vietnamese idea of ''who is a Han chinese'', your mind will get mind molested: Nobody would have been able to qualify to be Han Chinese even though the Viets continue to insist that Northern chinese are ''real han chinese'' without much credible evidence. One thing for sure, the vietnamese can get real creative when they (and Koreans) like to pick and choose who is chinese and who is not. They are really picky. Maybe they ought to eat some healthy vegetables to be strong instead of eating and promoting weak junk material.

Huaxia means civilized society. It is a cultural marker unsymbolic of race, ethnicity, or country.

Edited by Corean Chinghiz, 23 May 2012 - 09:20 PM.