Well, Kaixin tries to say about recent debate on the location of lolang.
Although the conventional theory on Lolang (Nakrang) indicates that it is likely to be in North Korea, some start to think that the original Lolang is in Liao river area and those arts and tomb in North Korea is those who were guest (oldest Chinese town? in Korea), extended people into Korea, or even sinofied Korean (this is a bit weird...but cannot exclude the possibility) later.
North Korean scholars insist that the seals found are not directly standard Han style (though it seems evident that a lot of Chinese style arts exist).
North Korean scholars think that people called the region Lolang-guk with the title of a 'country' instead 'colony' means these people were independent from Han empire, though culturally assimilated.

There is a recent book on these remains but I had no chance to look at it, sorry.
I agree that 'Lolang has played an understudied and underappreciated role in Korean history'.

Anyway this should be discussed in different discussion board. There is separate board on this issue.

Kaixin, could you tell me the ground of your argument that Wang is originated from central China? Is there only one lineage of Wang? Could be many locals who adopted the surname thinking it is fashionable and sounds nice?

It seems that there was non-central Chinese
土人 local person, his name is 王調, seems a bit strange? (quoting from Dr. Cho of Woosuk Univ.)

更始敗 土人王調 殺郡守劉憲 自稱大將軍 樂浪太守 建 武 六 年 ， 光 武 遣 太 守 王 遵 將 兵 擊 之 ․ 至 遼 東 ， 閎 與 郡 決 曹 史 楊 邑 等 共 殺 調 迎 遵 ， 皆 封 爲 列 侯 ， 閎 獨 讓 爵 ․ 帝 奇 而 徵 之 ， 道 病 卒 ․

��後漢書�� 列傳 卷七十六 循吏列傳第六十六 王景

Some individuals surnamed Wang today can trace it back to a simplification of Wanyan.

Do you mean "culturally similar" or even "culturally same"? Because assimilation implies that a different ethnicity integrated into another, and in this case, it sounds like North Korean scholars think that Lolang integrated into Han, but I thot Lolang is set up by Han?? So confused.

^There was a lot of mixing going on in northern and central Korea at that time. But, the Lolang colony was still majority native Korean peoples.

Culturally similar in North Korean explanation, but I suppose some Han people resided. The ruler of Lolang-guk had surname Choi.
Frankly, I believe that the society was composed of mixed Han-Chosun people who exploited the trade link between the local people and Han.

^They were not rulers, in the sense of inherited royalty.

They were more like military governors who had to answer directly to the Han emperors.

This is hilarious. Without much ado Kaxin thankfully auto-invalidated anything and everything he has said.(just read any reference on central and northern asians) That women had more power in nomadic societies is not the same as matrilineal rules. In fact it was Chinese who were initially matrilineal(this too is also well known).

As for the Chinese admixture into Koreans, the percentage of M95(a Y chromsome marker) among Chinese is 10-20 percent with an increasing gradient from north to south. The total number of Koreans with this marker out of the astounding 4000 samples so far is... zilch.

If you know anything about statistics it should be clear how impossible this would be if Chinese men boinked a lot of Korean women as you alleged.

Recently the DNA analysis of the speciemen near Yangtze River yielded quite a few ind. with M95 markers demonstrating the lack of genetic association between Chinese and Koreans.

And the HLA tree shown in the above is just from one class (of HLA) by one study. Most others show closeness between Koreans and Mongols.(a bit of mystery since other genetic markers do not show the same) However in all studies, HLA, autosomal STR, Y-chromsomal etc etc Koreans and Manchu cluster together even more so than Koreans and Japanese.

DNA tests have already prove they have a little more than 60% connection with China and East Asia. Only a moderate strain of their genes comes from northern Asia.
[/quote]


Could you, please, help me to some bibliographic information about the mentioned DNA tests? Thank you, damyang

?????????? ????! --- The Jurchens were a group of people who lived between Chinese and Koreans.

Let's say Hanpu (??) comes from the Korean peninsula whom eventually descended Wanyan Aguda to form the Jin (?|?) dynasty was a Goryeo person. Nevertheless, it still doesn't justify that Jin is considered as part of, or an extension of the Goryeo (??|??) entity because the quality of Jin dynasty (believes, lifestyles and culture) has already altered in distinguishable manners in comparasion to those who still lived in Korea. At the same time the Jurchens were not consider as Chinese either due to the same reason why they were not Korean.

If the Jurchen state was part of a Korean history, then the word Jin (?) in Korean wouldn't be written as ? in Korean historical documents, instead it would be written as ?, a more appropriate character that symbolizes the Goryeo nation if they knew oneday they will be using the whole 'Hanpu out-of-Korea experience' as an argument. Today a Chinese person with the surname ? (Jin) or a Japanese person with a surname ?? (Kaneshiro|????), in Korean their names would be translated as ? (geum) or ??
(geum seong).

In contrary, a Kim (?) Korean descend will write his or her surname as ? (gim). The i (?, ?) sound in Korean is consider as a positive vowel while the eu (?, ?) is consider negative, its sort of like 'i' is the dominant vowel over the 'eu'. When the Korean Shizong (??, ??) in the 15th century was designing the Korean hangul system, he decided to create a set of rules on how to to write certain things, these basic Korean principals allowed the common people to differentiate foreign and native descriptions. Now if the scholars from that time thought the Jin dynasty belong to the Korean kingdom, they would've written the Jin history (??, Jin Shi) as ?? (Gim Sah) rather than ?? (Geum Sah) because it shouldn't be a foreign history.

So now some are attempting to use the genetic's perspective to determin the true Jurchen/ Manchu ethnicity... to me its still a bit of a stretch to solidify the claim base on how little of the information (the not-yet complete DNA analysis/ insufficient genealogy reseach data) the researchers obtain. I have always wondered what took the Jurchens so long to unite (other ethnic minorities like the Orochons, Evenks...etc), and why was Aguda born near Russia when the Wanyan (??) clan orginated from the Korean peninsula that is 800+ miles down south? Wasn't the general theory of human migration is to follow the coast line rather than going into inlands? Thus... just how Korean were the Jurchens? for sure it was more than their Manchu descends.

I think the whole which nationality the Jurchens/ Manchus belong to is not as complicated as it seems. Since my ancestors ruled the land of China twice and not once in Korea, I 'assume/ tend to believe' I am more associated as being part of the Chinese culture... vice versa if it was Korea. Genetics speaking... I would say Jurchens/ Manchus are mixed between Chinese and Koreans.

Just how much are mixed is the key imho.

Korean descendants=10^14 (107,430,000 million) >>>> World population=6×10^9
that means all human beings on the Earth are Koreans, even though it is far not enough. It is obviously absurd!

you should really post some proof of this..

He had shown the whole world that he is so Korea-centric. Perhaps he is just feeling insecure in this globalised world.

Jurchens 女真
Manchus 滿洲

korean seems like to say something to claim rights which belong to china...

as those information in old books, korean MAY BE is a part of 鳥夷, (Japanese as well)
they had been forced east to korean land (and japanese land) by 周公 as he 東征.
and for sure, 燕 forced a group of 鳥夷 tirbes east to korean land in 戰國 age,
those tirbes make the anicent 朝鮮國.

女真 is the peoples who live in 山東 area, they made 金 dynasty,
女真 MAY BE a part of 鳥夷 too.
滿's people is offsprings of 女真 people, as they called themself 後金.

so you can say Korean is a branch of ancient chinese (鳥夷), and 女真 as well, another branch.
both 女真 and Korean came from 鳥夷's area long long long time ago.



鳥夷
tirbes who use birds as their totem.
商 dynasty is from by one of the 鳥夷 tirbe, 玄鳥氏.
there was other tirbes of 鳥夷 such as 鳳鳥氏, 鳩爽氏...
鳥夷 tirbes mainly live around 山東 region at first,
as many times of war, they dispersed to all directions of china,
and may be (it should be) some of them dispersed to japanese land and korean land.

Which text did you get this from? What makes you think it's "for sure"?



You mean the Shandong peninsula? What evidence is there?



That is only a modern hypothesis about what 鳥夷 means. The earliest known attempt to explain the term is by Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 in the 2nd century: 鳥夷，東北之民搏食鳥獸者。This explains the 鳥 (birds) as the main food of the 鳥夷, and not as their totem. This explanation of what 鳥夷 means, while not very convincing itself, was always accepted up to the 20th century. It is only when Chinese scholars began adopting anthropological theories about totemism from Europe and America that the bird suddenly turned from food to totem.



That is only one of several theories about the origins of the Shang. I don't think we can take the 玄鳥 aspect of the Shang origin myth as narrated in the Shiji as evidence that the Shang people were 鳥夷.





The presence of tribes and kingdoms known as Yi 夷 in the Shandong and Anhui areas during the Shang and Zhou period is well known. By Eastern Zhou times most of these had been conquered by Zhou states (e.g. Qi and Lu) or were vassals of Chu. However there is no textual evidence of them dispersing to other areas, such as Liaodong or Korea. The idea that the Korean states, Malgal, and Japanese, who were all labelled as Eastern Yi 東夷 in post-Han Chinese sources, were all descended from the Yi of the Shang-Zhou period is a modern myth that has all too readily been believed by both Chinese and Koreans.

Zheng Xuan, when explaining 鳥夷 as 東北之民, never said anything about Koreans, even though Eastern Han knowledge of the Korean peoples was quite extensive. It is clear that Zheng understood 鳥夷 to be people from the northeastern part of Jizhou 冀州, which in the 《禹貢》context covered modern Shanxi and Hebei. If the Zhou-period or Han-period scholars believed that these 東北之民 were driven into Korea by the Duke of Zhou's eastern campaign (which, in any case, attacked the Shandong-Jiangsu region and not northeastern Hebei), they would surely have said so somewhere. But they did not. There is not even a "may be" in any of the sources.

i think a starter book of chinese history is good to read for you.
顧頡剛：《中國史學入門》
mr. 顧 is a big scholar, that book is his talk's recording text,
some outline of chinese tirbe's fromation could be found in that book.

Please give me a bit more credit. I know who Gu Jiegang is, and in fact I have recently been reading a volume of his diaries, which were newly published in Taiwan. I have also read parts of his 《古史辨》and found them very interesting and refreshingly sceptical about the authority of the ancient texts. This does not mean I agree with everything he wrote.

If he said anywhere that the Koreans were descended from the ancient Yi of east China, then that is something that I would completely disagree with. I don't think he had any knowledge of archaeology in the Korean peninsula, nor was he a trained archaeologist, and such assertions about Korean origins can only be verified through archaeology.