But in actual fact, were they? Sorry for the tangent on an otherwise excellent thread.

lol ropeheads, why did they call them that. serious question (the eytomology of ethnic/racial slurs has always fascinated me)

I think only a professional historian or archaeologist might be able to say with greater confidence.
So far, the accounts from the historical and archaeological findings point to Zhou being not as developed as the Shang, when looking at the designs of the settlements, the potteries, the inscriptions etc.

I read these from a book about Western Zhou and its origins.
It recounted the legend of the founder being a baby almost abandoned to die, and then narrated about how the Zhou people travelled west until they settled down in the Shaanxi.

While the Zhou people were still in the process of settling down, clearing the lands for farmings etc., the Yin people were already quite settled and established the Shang Dynasty, engaging in other activities like cultural development and warfare against their neighbours etc.

If there is any interest in this, perhaps we should continue this particular discussion in the relevant folder.

Because they kept pigtails in Xiongnu fashion, unlike the other Xianbei tribes who only shaved the top of their heads (you can see how a combination of these styles would make the Manchu hairstyle).



OK, I have just encountered one use of Huaxia 华夏 in Jiang Tong's 江统 famous "Proposal to Expel the Barbarians" 《徙戎论》 from the Western Jin. However, a more common term in his proposal was Hua 华 by itself, Huaren 华人, zhuxia 诸夏 (Xia peoples), or zhuhua 诸华 (Hua peoples). Indeed, I am reaching the conclusion that it is more appropriate to use Huaren 华人 than Hanren 汉人 as a name for the majority ethnicity of the Central Plains in early imperial times up to the Sui dynasty. They called themselves Huaren, and 'Han' seems to have been used in a more derogatory sense in the Northern Qi by Xianbei who were hostile to them. Even the Sui and Tang dynasties used 'Huaren' rather than 'Hanren' ('Tangren' was also popular during the Tang).

'Zhongguo' 中国 was of course always being used, but to refer to a (gradually expanding) cultural/civilizational sphere rather than to an ethnicity or a political state.

What are the characters?
[and actually I believe that there is another term since those 2 terms do not refresh my memory....]

I just know that 晉-ese called themselves 華/夏.
But why 華? Flower ? Or because 華 was similar to 夏?

I can think of another case of a name given by others which later regularly used to refer to themselves.....

I've just added them to the post. Two other terms are Rong 戎 and Di 狄, but they refer only to 'barbarians' from the steppe or the far west.



I think it would be great if you looked into the origin of the term Hua 华/華 in our other thread on Huaren and Zhongguoren. You are right to say that 华 and 花 (flower) were originally interchangeable. For example, the 华严经 (Flower-Garland Sutra) in Buddhism.

I've read that the character Hua 華 had conotations of brightness/civilized as well.

i think you guys are way too hung up on terminology

Yun's posts on the origins of the various terms are extremely fascinating from a historical point of view but everyone else rambling about the proper term or how "Han" didn't exist or whatever is pretty pointless

its just a term to denote ethnic Chinese and differentiate them from minority ethnic groups.

whether or not the term existed at a certain point is not relevant. it is clear that Chinese had an ethnic identity both from a self prospective as well as an outsider prospective (IE from the prospective of "non-Han")

and really, just because Chinese absorbed a bit here and there of other ethnic groups is also irrelevant. all ethnic groups have a bit of something else in them. i don't hear Brits saying "no, i'm not english I'm Celto Briton-Anglo Saxon-Norman"

its an umbrella term just like "white protestant" is in the United States.

outside the PRC, the term "Han" is meaningless. if you say you're Chinese, nobody is lame enough to make a follow up question and ask "are you uighur Chinese" or something like that

Huaxia is no more an "umbrella" term than "Han", or "British".



We know they shared essentially the same written language. 周原甲骨文 is essentially the same as 殷墟甲骨文, so the Zhou used 甲骨文 before they overthrew the Shang. In addition, during the early Western Zhou period, the script and the artistic styles of bronzeware essentially remained the same.

Also from a political perspective, the Zhou state was a member of the Shang polity (I have history sources that show this if you must know), unlike the Qiang or Yi who were considered foreigners.

The earliest usage of the term "Huaxia" that I know of is actually in the Shang Shu (尚书), used by King Wu of Zhou (周武王) in his "Oath of Battle Muye".

予小子既获仁人，敢祗承上帝，以遏乱略。华夏蛮貊，罔不率俾。

我小子姬發得著仁人義士的協助，愿意順從上帝的命令，率領軍隊去製止暴亂。華夏和四境的少數民族聽到這個消息，無不前來加盟。

This "little man" Ji Fa [i.e. King Wu of Zhou] has received the help from benevolent and honourable people, I wish to follow the Decree of God, and raise my army to stop the turmoil. Of the people from both the Huaxia and the "barbarian" regions none have not joined our cause.

- 《尚书/周书/武成》

So the term Huaxia dates back to at least the Western Zhou Dynasty, more than 3000 years ago.

The earliest usage of the term 中国 also dates back to the Shang Shu.

皇天既付中国民越厥疆土于先王。

皇天上帝将中国版图及其人民赐给先时的圣王。

The Supreme God of Heaven had given the land of Zhongguo and its people to the sage-kings of antiquity.

- 《尚书/周书/梓材》

Etymologically "Hua" means "splendid, cultured, beautiful", "Xia" means "great, powerful". "Hua Xia" together means something like "splendid people of a great nation". From the very beginning the Chinese Civilisation was led by the ideal of combining Culture with Martial Might.

Why is "Han" or "British" not umbrella terms?

In China, one can be an ethnic Han whose antecedents could be a Qiang or a XianBei or a Xi any other ethnic group identified in historical records.

British is a nationality. A British could be a Scots of Pictish descent, a Welsh whose ancestors were Briton, an English whose ancestors were Normans, an Irish of Celtic descent, or someone from the West Indies, or descended from migrants from HK.

The HuaXia as an umbrella term covered the people from the tribes whose legendary leaders were Huang, Yan, Chi You etc., and then later grew to encompass more and more other tribes.


Yes, but how do we ascertain the following to be true.
(1) Did the Zhou people use the same scripts or spoken language right from the beginning of their existence or did they learn it from the Shang sometime later during their development?

Just because the ancient Koreans and Japanese also used the Han scripts did not indicate they were the same people with the Chinese. In addition, the study of Han scripts and language was the preserve of the social elites while the common folks had their own original languages but not written scripts to be recorded for posterity.

Now, I am not actually denying that the Shang people and Zhou people were the same. What I am saying is these evidence also require the application of certain assumptions which is not provable at this point in time.


I too am aware that the Zhou state was a vassal of the Shang.

But there was no evidence to indicate that the Zhou state/people were member of the Shang polity from the beginning of their existence.

Their being considered not-as-foreigners would occur when some time during their development, they accepted the suzerainity of the Shang, and adopted from the Shang cultures. From that point onwards, from a cultural point of view, one might be able to consider them as being the "same" rather than "foreign".

Consider this: the Shang was supposed to be vassal of Xia, a member of the Xia polity.
In Chinese history, the Xiong Nu were thought to be descended from the Xia people too.
But culturally, the XiongNu were considered as foreign.

I am aware that claims of XiongNu being descendants of Xia people is not actually proven (correct if I'm wrong), but my point is the umbrella term HuaXia cannot be considered to be based on genetics but on whether a particular group accepts the culture.

Fair enough, umbrella terms or not, "Han" and "British" are in a common usage, so can Huaxia.

Actually the legends of Yan and Huang appeared much later. The Shang Shu only goes back to Yao and Shun. Confucius and Mozi only mentioned Yao and Shun, never Yan or Huang, let alone Chiyou.

Well there are very few archaeological records in China that are older than about 1400 BC, even in the heart of the Shang domain itself, there are no oracle bones older than 1400 BC, this does not mean there was no writing, for the oracle bone script is a very well-developed writing system and cannot just appear out of thin air. It is likely that as a form of divination the "oracle bone system" was only invented around 1400 BC, and written records earlier than that date were simply not preserved for they were written on perishable material.

As for the Zhou, how do we even know they were a seperate people to start with? Maybe the Zhou was a branch of the Shang people that went westwards and colonised the Wei river valley?

What we do know for sure is that during the last few centuries of the Shang Dynasty, the Zhou state was a domain within the Shang polity and essentially shared the same culture. These facts make the claim that the Zhou were "foreigners" who "conquered" the Shang unjustifiable. One simply cannot "conquer" an empire if one is originally a part of that same empire.



Not just a "vassal state" (like Korea was a vassal state of the Ming Dynasty), but according to the historical sources I have read, the Zhou was actually an integral part of the Shang state that was no different politically from the other major administrative regions of the Shang Dynasty.

Well we don't know they were "seperate" at the beginning anyhow, and even in the heartland of Shang China there is virtually no archaeological evidence that are older than the 14th century BC.



The claim that the Xiongnu was a branch of the Xia is no more than a legend. But the claim that the Zhou state was an integral part of the Shang polity is not.

I agree the Huaxia ethnicity is not primarily based on genetics, for the Chinese nation is primarily based on culture not race. There is no such thing as a "pure race" anyway.

This is fascinating to me. I was under the impression to commonly call oneself and one's people as Huaren 华人 or just hua 华 is a more recent development.

What of the Northern to Southern Song? Did the people term themselves as Huaren? Obviously Tangren has survived down the ages. But did people address themselves as Songren 宋人? And why did it not supplant Tangren among the Southern Chinese? I have a conjecture of my own but would like to hear from others.

From the Daoyi Zhilue, written by a Yuan traveller named Wang Dayuan, in a passage describing Longyamen (at Singapore): "The local men and women live mixed together with Zhongguoren."

From the Mingshi account of Trengganu (Dingjiayi): "When Huaren go there to trade, the transactions are conducted with much fairness."

So Zhongguoren and Huaren seem to have remained the most common terms in late imperial times. In the Qing dynasty, there was an administrative need to distinguish between the Manchu and the ethnic majority in China, so the term 'Hanren' became useful. Even then, people were used to referring to themselves culturally as 'Zhongguoren' and not ethnically as 'Hanren'. 'Han' seems to have been more commonly used in a colloquial sense to refer to any adult male, e.g. 'Hanzi' or 'Haohan'. It was the anti-Manchu revolutionaries who popularized the term 'Hanren' as a basis of Chinese national identity.

So, was the term "Han-zu" derived from some term in Qing age?
["Han-ren" was rather derogatory in Yuan age, so I don't think people in Ming age would use that term.. it should be once discontinued]

i think that the han ethnicity is an concept model from the kings of the han dynasty which created a very advance civilisation and any people which lived in their kingdom are hanren unless they do not like to be considered as part of something much bigger and is fond of their own cultures.
The han people genetically indeed means the natives of central areas of china (south of mongolia) but many people became hanized such as the dongyi which hanized earlier. The han people really included many from all over china as many many got hannized but some just got hannized earlier than others.

As I have explained elsewhere, the population of the Han dynasty were called 'Hanren' by other ethnic groups (e.g. the Xiongnu) in a political sense, but there is no evidence they generally called themselves 'Han' either during or in the centuries after the dynasty. Instead, 'Hua' and 'Xia' seem to have been their usual terms for themselves, and these terms were not so much ethnic as ideological/cultural, implying 'civilized people'. Hence the term was always used in opposition to an Other which was barbaric and living outside the 'Hua' sphere.

The first use of 'Han' as an ethnic label was made in a derogatory sense by some Xianbei aristocrats and ministers in the Northern Qi, who probably found using 'Hua' (civilized) to be too respectful towards a Confucian culture that they despised.

The next such use was by the Mongol Yuan dynasty, to refer to the non-Mongol population of north China, including not only 'Hua' but also Khitan, Jurchen, and Tangut. The people of south China were not included in this 'Han' category.

The final and decisive use of the term 'Han' in an ethnic sense was by the Manchu Qing dynasty. Again, 'Hua' was too pregnant with ideological meaning, and 'Ming' implied an identity based on loyalty to the dynasty conquered by the Qing. So 'Han' was chosen.

So the ethno-cultural group may have existed for quite some time indeed, but the use of 'Han' as a name for it is relatively recent.

Huaxia does not just mean "civilised people". There is an ethnic element in this term as well, which dates back to at least the Western Zhou Dynasty.

I agree that strictly speaking Huaxia is probably not a racial term. But the concept of race is certainly not the same as the concept of ethnicity.

Ethnicity is determined by three main factors:

1. Ancestry. 2. Culture. 3. Self-identification

In all three criteria there is some degree of fluidity. (This does not imply that it is completely fluidic however)

Even "ancestry" can be fluidic to some degree. Basically our traditional Chinese definition of "ethnicity" (which is not exactly the same as the Western one) sees the Huaxia nation as an extended family. Everyone with Huaxia clan names (百家姓) can be considered to be a part of this extended family. However, it is not absolute because a significant minority of Huaxia people today actually have originally non-Huaxia ancestry. Their ancestors adopted Huaxia clan names at some point in history. But adopting Huaxia clan names is a sign that they were willing to be adopted into the Huaxia extended family, just as if I adopt your surname now and abandon my own, I am willing to become a part of your family, and "adopted sons and daughters" should be considered just as much a "son and daughter" as "sons and daughters by blood".

Is anybody assuming that well-defined ethnicity is genetically consistent/homogenous and don't cross with other ethnicities??


Ethnicity is not same as, but limited within a "race". (well, this actually depends on how you define a "race".)
to most of non-Chinese, the diversity of Huaxia counts little, due to comparison with "other race".

????

We chinese are Han people (Han Ren) ?? How bout Hua Ren ? Tang Ren ?
What is the different ??
Is Han Ren for people in the Han Dynasty and Tang Ren for Dynasty Tang??

Cantonese? Not really. Hakka and Fujianese in overseas have the same term Tong Ngin and Tng Lang respectively...

Hua and Han is nothing alike. Hua simply means civilized, the Qing even called itself hua and its neibours the Yi. There were terms like 外夷、海夷、and 远夷，during the Qing dynasty to describe people outside of China.

i'm not too too sure what you guys are talking about, but it sounds interesting. kinda.

most "ethnicities" in this world arent all that well-defined. north african arabs are mostly arabized berbers as opposed to arabs of saudi arabia, yet iranians still call themselves persians even if they are somewhat "arabized" as well; french are probably a mix of celts, romans, and germans (franks) but celt/german mix of belgium think of themselves as belgians. and need i mention "americans, "aboriginals" etc...

"ethnicity" in and of itself is more a sociological than a scientific designation. so if you are determined to designate "han chinese" as a result of some sort of wacko propaganda, then insisting on being "scientific" about this whole concept of "han chinese" will most likely get you where you wanna be. it can be handy too. i've seen many TWese use this to support their TI agenda. (there are other tricks of course, but you get the idea.)

but let's be fair. "race", "ethnicity" has always existed in this world for as long as history goes, even if it may have been known under a different name, even if people may not have been emotionally charged about it as we are today. greeks were so strict about it that macedonian king had to produce evidence that they were greek in descent to join the olympic games.

although the concept itself has no single unifying trait that binds it together, roughly speaking it's probably a mumbo-jumbo mix of race/genes, common/similar spoken or written language, "common culture" and common history. it's this thread, imperfect as it may be, that "tang ren" claimed to be descended from "han ren", "song ren" from "tang ren", "ming ren" from "song ren", and "han zu ren" from all of the above, despite that genes were changing, languages were adapting, revolutions were occurring.

so is it really that surprising when "han chinese" answered the call of sun wen, declaring themselves as more than just a nationality, but a culture, a language, a people, and most assuredly, an ethnicity distinct from the rest of the world?

No Huaxia and Han are linked in the sense that originally Huaxia was an ethnic label used during the Zhou dynasty and the Han ethnicity is historically speaking the direct descendant of the Zhou/Huaxia ethnicity.

I do not deny that Hua or Huaxia is a cultural or even ideological label, but it is not just such a label. There is an ethnic element in this term as well.

During the Qing the term Hua was used as a supra-ethnic label for both Han and Manchu, since the Manchu elite adopted many elements of Han culture (e.g. Confucianism, Daoism, etc). So Hua was still an ethnic label, but broader than the term Han. The use of Hua during the Qing dynasty in the ethnic sense is similar to the use of 中华民族 in PRC today.

I introduce here the concept of supra-ethnicity. 汉族 and 满族, and 华夏族 in the original Zhou sense are ethnic groups, but 中华民族 in PRC today and 华 during the Qing dynasty are supra-ethnic groups.

I agree there is some degree of fluidity in the concept of ethnicity, but it is not completely fluidic.

The traditional Chinese definition of ethnicity is like a very large extended family or clan, so of course there is some degree of fluidity, as extended families/clans are themselves fluidic.

But can we therefore say there is no extended family/clan at all?

It's better to not go from one extreme (ultra-nationalism) to the other (ethnic nihilism).

Historical records show it is much more of a cultural term. The Wu was also the descendent of the Zhou, but its still considered a Yi nation. Even the Xiongnu are recorded to be descended from Xia, but it is certainly not a hua state.

As far as ethnicity is concerned, an amused story always comes out. It is reported that when Prof. Tang Degang mentioned the ethnicities in Yunnan & Guizhou, even Mr. Li Zongren did not know such things. If this story was true, then the current system of ethnicity was established after independence of PRC.

Only for a few of the smaller ethnicities, not for the larger ones like Han, Manchu etc.

Actually the whole Yi nationality/ethnicity in Yunnan was constructed by the PRC, down to its name. See this: http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=8518

As I said, I do not deny it is a cultural term, but it is not just a cultural term. During the Zhou dynasty it was used as an ethnic label as well.

Ethnicity is not just about ancestry. There are three crucial attributes in the definition of ethnicity:

1. Self-identification
2. Culture
3. Ancestry

Just having "ancestry" is clearly not sufficient. Ethnicity is not the same thing as race. Some groups might originally have Zhou ancestry but if they identify themselves as non-Huaxia and reject Huaxia culture, then by definition they are no longer a part of the Huaxia ethnicity.

Also, there aren't any Zhou records which say the Xiongnu was descended from the Xia. If I remember correctly, it was Sima Qian who first mentioned this theory in his Shiji. I am skeptical about this claim. I doubt the Xiongnu really had Huaxia ancestry. Furthermore, we are not certain about the existence of the Xia dynasty either.

Furthermore, usage of the term 华夏 as an ethnic label during the pre-Han era is recognised by PRC scholars. For example, my mainland textbook on the classical Chinese language says:

绪论

一 什么是古代汉语

古代汉语是与现代汉语相对而言的，顾名思义，它是古代汉族人民群众的语言。汉代以前，也就是古华夏族人民的语言。

《古代汉语》（上），郭锡良，李玲璞 主编，语文出版社，第1页

Excellent! Since I do not identify myself as Han, and their are doubts on whether Hakka are Han people I can therefore say I am not Han!

Thank you SCP.

But you know the Chinese language and Chinese culture. Does that then make you a 'sinicized barbarian'?



I doubt that textbooks can be taken as an authority on this question. After all, the textbooks in China persist in using the term 'Hanhua' to refer to 'sinicization' in the Age of Fragmentation, despite the fact that there was no ethnicity or culture known as 'Han' at the time.

Neither do I identify myself as "Han".
But the Hakkas are assumed to be Han in P.R. China. (what doubts are there?)

The term "Han" was used as an ethnic label from the Han dynasty onwards (though not exactly in the modern sense of "Han ethnicity") and it was certainly a cultural label as well. Some originally non-Chinese rulers in North China, such as 北魏孝文帝, did initiate "sinisation" policies. 孝文帝 himself ordered the Toba Wei royal house and aristocrats to adopt Han surnames, adopt Han customs and institutions, and intermarry with the Han elite. Therefore it is not incorrect to label such a policy as "汉化" (Hanhua).

Note that Emperor Xiaowen never once used the word 'Han' when ordering these reforms. He seldom used any name for the 'civilization' he wanted to emulate, but when he did the word was 'Hua'.

I have already argued that I can find no evidence of 'Han' being used as an ethnic label by the people of the Han dynasty or subsequent dynasties until the Northern Qi. The Xiongnu of the Eastern Han dynasty referred to 'Han people' in a political sense, but when Liu Yuan rebelled during the Western Jin, he referred to the non-Xiongnu people of the Western Jin as 'Jin people'. Shi Le referred to them, after he had conquered them, as 'Zhao people'. They generally referred to themselves as 'Hua' or 'Xia'.

So why adopt an anachronistic term like 汉化?

Wow, you mean now I can actually legitimately call myself a Barbarian?!

You have no idea how much I always wanted to a muscle-strewn Barbarian since reading Conan, the Barbarian. (minus the muscle part, the voluptous women and the slaying of wizards are in though) My childhood dream is now fulfilled.


Ur, the Barbarian

I think its less because the term is anachronistc but more because it is inaccurate and misleading, wouldn't you say?


Ur, the Barbarian

Adopting terms like 汉化 is only a modern label to describe the past, in fact any term such as "Sinology", Chinese, and the like are nothing but modern anthropological terms applied to history. When modern books talks about how the Chinese ruled as foreign races or were ruled by foreigner races are all modern concepts. Nationalist romanticism of viewing history as struggles between different nationalities is a thing of the 19th and 20th century, the Europeans themself has largely got over it, so why are the Asians still clinging so closely to nationalistic history?

I think the Han refers to the people live as China during th Han Dynasty and their descendants.

Hai,

I am an Indian,married to a Taiwanese lady. she told me, she is a Han and she showed her little toe nail and I found two nails. She told me this is the way to indentify a Han.

I like to know more about this matter

Ronnie

^ In that way, you'll find that other neighboring ethnicities will also have the same feature. (even Vietnamese)
We already have the discussion about this: http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...wtopic=9871&hl=

Thanks for your answer,

My wife,thinks that Vietnames may have some links with han people of china. Actualy,I don't have any idea.

Qlittlelemon:

As many have already suggested, to be civilized with internet etiquette, you need not typing in cap letters to emphasize your emotional response.

I understand that you and couple others are having this so called chauvinistic view, which I would consider as outright racist at times. As I've stated many times previously, the issue of genetic connection among the Viet & Han Chinese is merely a scientic issue when one is looking back to identify their root. There are other people who share much closer genetic traits such as the Koreans & Japanese or the Jews & Arabs but they wouldn't identify themselves as the "same" people anyway.

Again, you know what you know, and I would welcome any opposing/different contention directly from you or others, which needs to be substantiated by objective facts but need not to be subjective or childish emotional response in public or private emails. Welcome to share as a mature netter, Glittlelemon!

Beside Dr. Li Hui's report regarding the origin of the Han, I would repost here other relevant reports for you to re-examine over Glittlelemon.

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

Phylogeographic Differentiation of Mitochondrial DNA in Han Chinese

Yong-Gang Yao,1 Qing-Peng Kong,1 Hans-Jürgen Bandelt,2 Toomas Kivisild,3 and Ya-Ping Zhang1

1Laboratory of Molecular Evolution and Genome Diversity, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, Yunnan, China; 2Fachbereich Mathematik, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg; 3Department of Evolutional Biology, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, Tartu University and Estonian Biocentre, Tartu, Estonia

Received September 20, 2001; accepted for publication December 4, 2001; electronically published February 8, 2002.

To characterize the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation in Han Chinese from several provinces of China, we have sequenced the two hypervariable segments of the control region and the segment spanning nucleotide positions 1017110659 of the coding region, and we have identified a number of specific coding-region mutations by direct sequencing or restriction-fragmentlengthpolymorphism tests. This allows us to define new haplogroups (clades of the mtDNA phylogeny) and to dissect the Han mtDNA pool on a phylogenetic basis, which is a prerequisite for any fine-grained phylogeographic analysis, the interpretation of ancient mtDNA, or future complete mtDNA sequencing efforts. Some of the haplogroups under study differ considerably in frequencies across different provinces. The southernmost provinces show more pronounced contrasts in their regional Han mtDNA pools than the central and northern provinces. These and other features of the geographical distribution of the mtDNA haplogroups observed in the Han Chinese make an initial Paleolithic colonization from south to north plausible

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

Y-chromosome haplotype distribution in Han Chinese populations and modern human origin in East Asians

We investigated the distribution of Y-chromosome haplotype using 19 Y-SNPs in Han Chinese populations from 22 provinces of China. Our data indicate distinctive patterns of Y chromosome between southern and northern Han Chinese populations. The southern populations are much more polymorphic than northern populations. The latter has only a subset of the southern haplotypes. This result confirms the genetic difference observed between southern and northern ethnic populations in East Asia. It supports the hypothesis that the first settlement of modern humans of African origin occurred in the southern part of East Asia during the last Ice Age, and a northward migration led to the peopling of northern China.

Population structure and history in East Asia
Yuan-Chun Ding*, Stephen Wooding, Henry C. Harpending, Hang-Chang Chi, Hai-Peng Li, Yun-Xin Fu

Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Evolution, Kumming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kumming 650223, People's Republic of China: Department of Anthoropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake city, UT84112

Archeological, anatomical, linguistic, and genetic data have suggested that there is an old and significant boundary between the populations of north and south china. We use three human genetic marker systems and one human-carried virus to examine the north south distinction. We find no support for a major north south division in these markers: rather, the marker patterns suggested simple isolation by distance...

Disregard the intermixing first. M122 (and descendants) are dominating in Vietnamese and Chinese; as far as I know it is about 10.000 years old (close genetic ties between East Asians). I think that's way before modern linguistic groups arose, before people identified as Chinese built civilization between Yellow river and Yangtze River.

I believe that with the constant improvements of the genetic field, within the next few years we would have more conclusive studies to prove connection not only among various people but other agriculture products and domesticated animals as well. Now aday, it would cost merely $300-550USD, anyone could obtain a fairly elaborate personal report regarding our individual connection to our very own root!

Sorry, read this belatedly.

I was going by SCP's standard of course. As for how the PRC wishes to classify their own ethnicities they may do so as they wish.

Some folks are saying Hakka are really a sinicised tribe, rather than of Huaxia Lineage (I use Huaxia very loosely here) I think this issue has been discussed on CHF before although no conclusion was reached.

Ur, Scholar-Barbarian of the School of Negotiations

Please clarify your point or contention, Glittlelemon! All I see is a bunch of mumble, jumble, word salads that didn't make much sense or explain anything in specific. It's not that difficult to say what you mean by the virtue of addressing the fact unless one is trying so hard to make things up! Your persistency of typing in cap wouldn't help to emphasize your emotional all that good either. Perhaps this could express it better though!

Ouch, chauvinistic attitude would hurt my feelings, especially for those who are already living in America!

Glittlelemon:

Pls stay on track regarding relevant topic; it would help to make your case by staying objective and substantiate your contention with factual information. Regarding psychological or mental well being, it's not relevant here but I'm quite certain that with your English skills and exhibition of your emotion, it would be way insufficient for you to venture into such arena though.

Pls stick to real history instead!