[Sun]

Hi!

I m interested in the connections between Tibetians/Mongols/Japanese/Koreans and Chinese and how they actually evoled from Hans into the different races now...

Any websites to recommend or anyone can enlighten? Thks....

[qrasy]

Sun, on Oct 18 2005, 02:15 PM, said:

Hi!

I m interested in the connections between Tibetians/Mongols/Japanese/Koreans and Chinese and how they actually evoled from Hans into the different races now...

Any websites to recommend or anyone can enlighten? Thks....

Hm.. Actually they are separate very long time before "Xia" or "Han" even existed. But I think it's right to say they are "Mongoloids". Among their languages, only Tibetan and Chinese are generally considered in one family..
Perhaps these are related? :
http://www.uglychinese.org/
http://journeyofman.info/

This post has been edited by qrasy: 18 October 2005 - 10:38 AM

[qrasy]

Pluto, on Oct 18 2005, 10:07 PM, said:

I wish my statement won't disturb.

Tibetan is chinese.

Well, depending on what context of "Chinese" you are thinking. Yeah, they are Chinese because they live in P.R. of China.

Conan the destroyer, on Oct 18 2005, 10:26 PM, said:

Well, most genetic tests I have seen indicate that Tibetans and Han Chinese group closer to each other than they do to other east asians.

Perhaps there exist some ethnic minority in China that are closer to Chinese than Tibetan? Yi-zu, Bai-zu?

[Gubook Janggoon]

Sun, on Oct 17 2005, 11:15 PM, said:

Hi!

I m interested in the connections between Tibetians/Mongols/Japanese/Koreans and Chinese and how they actually evoled from Hans into the different races now...

Any websites to recommend or anyone can enlighten? Thks....

What makes you think they all evolved from the Han?

[xng]

Gubook Janggoon, on Oct 18 2005, 05:36 PM, said:

What makes you think they all evolved from the Han?

From my research, the han and the tibetan are genetically very close. They were indeed the same tribe before the time of the ancient dynasty in china. One group migrated south to tibet/burma and another group migrated east from around the huang he river. That is why their basic vocabulary are the same and their languages belong to the sino-tibetan language family.

As for the other tribes, they seem to be from the altaic mountains according to some researchers. But all these groups belong to the north mongoloid group.

This post has been edited by xng: 19 October 2005 - 09:35 AM

[DaMo]

Can the title spelling be corrected please?

[Gubook Janggoon]

DaMo, on Oct 18 2005, 10:30 PM, said:

Can the title spelling be corrected please?

Your wish is my command.

[Sun]

Gubook Janggoon, on Oct 19 2005, 07:36 AM, said:

What makes you think they all evolved from the Han?

actually i hve absolutely no idea but assuming jus bcos tibet is near to china? and the pple there looks more asians...hmm...care to enlighten?

[Karl]

Pluto, on Oct 18 2005, 10:07 AM, said:

I wish my statement won't disturb.

Tibetan is chinese.

That is just the reality. Tibetan, Mongols living in PRC, Manchus are all Chinese. They're not Hans, but no doubt Chinese.

[somechineseperson]

Han/Huaxia and Tibetans are Eastern Mongoloids. Current anthropological and historical theories suggest that the ancestors of the Han people developed complex chiefdoms in the Yellow River and Wei River valley regions by 3200 BC, and complex state societies by 2000 BC. The Tibetans did not develop a state society until the middle of the first millennium AD. Actually due to the rather large time gap between cultural/technological developments of the Han people and of the peoples around them (by 1000 BC the Han/Huaxia already had a state society for almost 1000 years but the tribes around them have not even developed into chiefdoms yet, such a large difference simply doesn't exist in the western end of Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean, where by 1000 BC a large number of state societies and chiefdoms were well-developed), some scholars have made the sometimes rather unpopular suggestion that the Huaxia (ancestors of the Han) originated as a nomadic tribe in West Asia and migrated to North China during the 3rd millennium BC.

The Han and Tibetans are relatively speaking closely related to one another, share the same language family and (according to conventional theories) can trace a common ancestry to the regions of the Kunlun Mountains (the mountain range that lies between Xinjiang and Tibet).

Mongols are Northern Mongoloid nomads originating from the Altai mountains, and speak a Altaic language. They did not form a state until Gengis Khan in the early 13th century AD.

Manchus (another Northern Mongoloid group) are descendants of another ancient group in North-eastern Asia, the Jurchen, who first formed a state in the early 12th century AD. The Jurchens and Manchus were not full nomades like the Mongols, but also practicise significant amount of low-intensity farming and fishing.

The Koreans and Japanese are a mixture of Northern and Eastern Mongoloid populations. Their language is related to the Altaic family but does not strictly speaking belong in it. Recent studies have shown a significant amount of Koreans and Japanese have Han ancestry.

This post has been edited by somechineseperson: 19 October 2005 - 06:07 PM

[qrasy]

somechineseperson, on Oct 20 2005, 07:05 AM, said:

Han/Huaxia and Tibetans are Eastern Mongoloids.

That is the first time I hear of this thing, can you explain more? Or you can also show some study related to it?

Quote

Mongols are Northern Mongoloid nomads originating from the Altai mountains, and speak a Altaic language. They did not form a state until Gengis Khan in the early 13th century AD.

AS far as I know it's not they didn't form a state, but they were separated into states. Also isn't Mongolian derived from "Mengwu Shiwei"?

Quote

Manchus (another Northern Mongoloid group) are descendants of another ancient group in North-eastern Asia, the Jurchen, who first formed a state in the early 12th century AD. The Jurchens and Manchus were not full nomades like the Mongols, but also practicise significant amount of low-intensity farming and fishing.

Just know that far Northerner do farm..

Quote

Recent studies have shown a significant amount of Koreans and Japanese have Han ancestry.

Is it related to this picture?

it's not really conclusive.

This post has been edited by qrasy: 20 October 2005 - 06:01 AM

[somechineseperson]

qrasy, on Oct 20 2005, 12:00 PM, said:

That is the first time I hear of this thing, can you explain more? Or you can also show some study related to it?
AS far as I know it's not they didn't form a state, but they were separated into states. Also isn't Mongolian derived from "Mengwu Shiwei"?

Just know that far Northerner do farm..

Is it related to this picture?

it's not really conclusive.

The three major branches of Mongolid populations:

Northern Mongoloid, mainly speaking Altaic languages, including Mongols, Manchus and some Turks.
Eastern Mongoloid, mainly speaking Sino-Tibetan languages, including Tibetans and Han Chinese.
Southern Mongoloid, mainly speaking Austro-Asiatic and Malayo-Polynesian languages, including most native South-east Asians.

Northern and Eastern Mongoloid peoples are more closely related to one another compared with the Southern Mongoloids. But Eastern Mongoloids tend to have larger eyes compared with the more slanted eyes of Northern Mongoloids. Officially the three Mongoloid populations are known as R. Tungusa (Northern), R. Sinica (Eastern) and R. Sudmongolica (spelling might be slightly wrong for this one, Southern).

Mainstream anthropological theory suggests that originally much of what is now South China was originated inhabited by Southern Mongoloid simple farming societies who spoke Austro-Asiatic languages. But the more advanced chiefdoms of Sino-Tibetan speaking Eastern Mongoloids gradually pushed them into oceanic South-East Asia and isolated them into small pockets in what is now South China, especially after the formation of the state society during the second millennium BC by the most advanced branch of all the Mongoloid peoples, the Huaxia or proto-Chinese, the colonisation of the south began in earnest and would continue until China's Tang and Song Dynasties. The Southern Mongoloids who were pushed out of Southern China by Sino-Tibetan groups in turn colonised much of oceanic South-East Asia and either pushed out or "removed" the previous non-Mongoloid populations (related to native Australians) in the area. Meanwhile, Northern Mongoloids spread across most of North Asia. They were initially primitive but after the conversion to nomadic pastoralism the Northern Mongoloid (Altaic) groups became the biggest threats to the civilisational centre of the region, namely China.


Official names for the various sub-groups of homo sapiens:

Mongoloids:

R. Sinica (Sino-Tibetan speaking East Asians)
R. Tungusa (Altaic speaking Northeastern Asians)
R. Sudmongolica (Austro-Asiatic and Malayo-Polynesian speaking Southeastern Asians)

Caucasoids:

R. Mediterranica (Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic/Semitic speaking Southern Europeans, North Africans and some West Asians)
R. Nordica (Indo-European speaking Northern Europeans)
R. Indo-Iranica (Indo-European speaking West Asians and North Indians)

Negroids:

R. Bantu (Bantu speaking Sub-Saharan Africans)
(There are a few others but I can't remember)

[xng]

somechineseperson, on Oct 19 2005, 05:05 PM, said:

The Han and Tibetans are relatively speaking closely related to one another, share the same language family and (according to conventional theories) can trace a common ancestry to the regions of the Kunlun Mountains (the mountain range that lies between Xinjiang and Tibet).

Thanks for telling us the details as I only got the summary. Is it accurate to say that the han and tibetans were actually the same tribe when they were residing in the kunlun mountain before they splitted into 2 groups ? One group migrated east, the other migrated south .

[xng]

somechineseperson, on Oct 20 2005, 06:33 AM, said:

Mongoloids:

R. Sinica (Sino-Tibetan speaking East Asians)
R. Tungusa (Altaic speaking Northeastern Asians)
R. Sudmongolica (Austro-Asiatic and Malayo-Polynesian speaking Southeastern Asians)

There are some anomalies here:

Austro-asiatic would most probably only include the cambodians and cham people.

1. Burmese are south east asian but they belong to the sino-tibetan language family and they should belong to Sinica as per your definition ?

2. Vietnamese are also south east asian but they look like the sino-tibetan group (strong debate still going on).

3. Thai (I am not sure whether they belong to sinica or submongolica as there are quite a lot of intermarriages).

What are your opinions on this ?

And do you have some URL as to the detailed ethnic groups which belong to each of these branches ?

This post has been edited by xng: 20 October 2005 - 08:29 AM