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/

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.

Well, depending on what context of "Chinese" you are thinking. Yeah, they are Chinese because they live in P.R. of China. Perhaps there exist some ethnic minority in China that are closer to Chinese than Tibetan? Yi-zu, Bai-zu?

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.

Can the title spelling be corrected please?

Your wish is my command.

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?

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

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.

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)

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 .

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 ?

The english/germans are different from the south europeans like italian, spanish having lighter hair color and lighter eye color. And they are also different from the nordic/swedish people with blond hair and blue eyes or very light brown eyes.

Why are the english/germans/dutch grouped together with the north europeans ?

Cham language is usually classified in Austronesian languages. The languages of Wa-zu, Bulang-zu and Deang-zu are Austroasiatic.

The word mostly means some groups do not really match the description. It's Sud (south) not Sub (below). Many Thai look strange as if they are mix of Chinese and Malay.

Actually I can't find any detailed info about "Eastern Mongoloids". The theory seem aged (from 1950 or so). I wonder why it does not seem very common to me.

As far as I know 'Nordic' includes Englander. Probably because their hair is blond. The Germans I met also have blond hair.

oops...i tink i m kinda confused....jus to get tis straight...Caucasoids and Negroids are in no way connected to Mongoloids correct? you are just putting them together cos they all belong to the generic grp Homo Sapians right? by the way wats the definition of homo sapians? according to the definiton of Mongoloids above, looks like many SE asians are in fact originated from Mongoloids??

I have created a new topic on anthropology as we are digressing from the original topic which asked about tibetans etc.

First I wonder where did you get the information that the three, Korean, mongolians and Japanese are tribes of Han ethnic.They are different ethincs from Han ; Korean and mongolians are like brothers and Japan started developing when one Korean Imperial family moved to the Japanese islands around 5C so Japan has a strong blood tie with Korean too.
Han that are considered as one developed from Jin dynasty doesn't have blood tie with the three people and when it was Jin dynasty, Jin was so small country in its territory and its political power, it was not like the present one...... Then the greatwall even didn't exite. There was a wall but it was much shorter and it was stationed in far north part of Chinese continent ; and in Mying dynasty The greatwall was completed. Till before Mying dynasty it was not 'Greatwall'

Koreans are neither Han nor Mongols. Infact genetic tests show that Mongolians are very genetically distinct from most east asians, including Koreans.

BTW, you should know that Koreans, Mongols and Japanese have nothing to do with Dongyi.

" The word mostly means some groups do not really match the description. It's Sud (south) not Sub (below). Many Thai look strange as if they are mix of Chinese and Malay."

I remember hearing somewhere that the Thai ethnic group was a southern Chinese group that mixed with the locals

Modern Thailand has a large Chinese population that mixes with Thais, so many Thais have Chinese relatives.

Tell me what you know about DongYi.


According to the genetic research, Mongolians and Koreans rate 90% in boold tie and Japanese 70%,

and in Korea Manchurian is known as pure Korean blood too. Just till Ching dynasty (Manchu), the two people were brothers, people say.
Actually I don't have much things to explain this thing right now ; I need to study more.
But let me offer a few evidences to explain about the blood tie between the two people and no tie between Chinese and Koreans.

What I read on a Korean history web-site, both, Koreans and Manchus admire Baek-doo-san(mountain)(白頭山) as a symbol of spirit of the ethnicity. In Ching Dynasty, Ching disposed guards at the entrance of Beak-doo-san to protect its spirit and to prevent descendants of Mying from entering Beak-doo-san ; but Koreans were able to enter Beak-doo-san freely even from part of Ching territory as they considered they were brothers.

Chinese don't call the mountain Baek-doo-san. They call it another name. Beak-doo-san is spirit of ethincity of Korea but nothing for Chi-na . According to these evidences how can Koreans be a tribe of Chinese(Han 漢)?

Another thing about the relation between Korean and Manchu, people here say that Ching was built by Korean 'Kim'(金) who lived in North part of Korea ; that most North Koreans say 'YES' about this matter.

金 is not necessarily Korean surname. Some Chinese also have that surname, though very rare.
The "Gold" dynasty was made by the Jurchens; well you can say they are brothers but Jurchens were not descended from Koreans.

Actually, you are completely wrong. I'm trying to locate the genetic study I've found showing that Mongolians are very distinct from Koreans.

The records do state that the Jin dynasty , not the Qing dynasty, was indeed founded by a man from Goryeo.

Tianzhuwoye has affirmed this for us.

Are you sure you're reading the write sources? Last time I checked, it was Nurhaci who helped along with his sons to found the Qing dynasty.

Yes Koreans and Manchus are the same except for the fact that they spoke different languages, practiced different cultures, and had different identities for themselves. If the Koreans and Manchus are one in the same as you say, then why wasn't Korea attached to the Qing empire? Wouldn't it make sense for supposed blood brothers to rule over an empire together especially since the Manchus were a consolidation of many different tribes to begin with? Just to letl you know, Korean genetic relations to the Manchus are no more significant than their genetic relations with the Mongols or Northern Chinese genetic relations to the other groups as well. They are still different people.

i think there is some connections between tibetians mongolians and japanese and also koreans with the chinese due to interaction with the chinese people or even migrations....
i read in an article that tibetian have two paternal ancestors one are from yangshou people in the yellow river which migraterd to the himalayas continiously througout thousands of years.. koreans are said to have dual origins one from china during historical occupation or refugee from the collapses of dynasties.I think mongolian may have chinese link due to chinese occupation in the ming and qing ...
sino tibetian language is unique to any east asian language due to the isolation from the rest of the world .. some scientists suggest that the origin of chinese is from the south during the last ice age but migrated north in different steps.Whereas the koreans have part ancestors migrating from the siberia.
Japanese is tricky .. the yayoi i think were collective of people both from different directions of china and also korea,.. there were southern chinese from the jiangsu and zhejiang area (yayoi skull had teeth missing) and matched the jiangsu findings genetically. In the book of liang it also described one of the states as having tatoos in faces and teeth missing and carrying babies in their back which resembled the natives of the jiangsu area! And these people claimed to be descended from the chinese natives of the jiangsu areas.
But undoubtfully there were also migrations of koreans , chinese through korea and into kyushu where these ancient kingdoms formed their bases in.
The findings of remains in the yixi area of the shandong pronvince of 2 different periods one from 2500 years ago and one from han dynasty showed that the 2500 years old is genetically closer to western europeans and that the han dynasty one is itemediate between the central and eastern asians.However further reseach suggest that the yixi people shared links with north east asians and south east asians.
therefore suggesting that the people were genetically diverse.

Let's review this excerpt folks!

Y chromosomal DNA variation in east Asian populations and its potential for inferring the peopling of Korea.

Kim W, Shin DJ, Harihara S, Kim YJ.

Department of Biology, Dankook University, Cheonan, Choong-Nam, Republic of Korea. wookkim@ansco.dankook.ac.kr

We have examined variations of five polymorphic loci (DYS287, DXYS5Y, SRY465, DYS19, and DXYS156Y) on the Y chromosome in samples from a total of 1260 males in eight ethnic groups of East Asia. We found four unique haplotypes constructed from three biallelic markers in these samples of East Asians. The Japanese population was characterized by a relatively high frequency of either the haplotype I-2b (-/Y2/T) or II-1 (+/Y1/C). These dual patterns of the distribution of Y chromosomes (I-2b/II-1) were also found in Korea, although they were present at relatively low frequencies. The haplotype II-1 was present in Northeast Asian populations (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Mongolians) only, except for one male from the Thai population among the Southeast Asian populations (Indonesians, Philippines, Thais, and Vietnamese). The Japanese were revealed to have the highest frequency of this haplotype (27.5%), followed by Koreans (2.9%), Mongolians (2.6%), and mainland Chinese (2.2%). In contrast, the frequency of the haplotype I-2b was found to be 17.1% in the Japanese, 9.5% in Indonesian, 6.3% in Korean, 3.8% in Vietnamese, and 2.7% in Thai samples. These findings suggested that the chromosomes of haplotype I-2b were likely derived from certain areas of Northeast Asia, the region closest to Southeast Asia. Phylogenetic analysis using the neighbor-joining tree also reflected a general distinction between Southeast and Northeast Asian populations. The phylogeny revealed a closer genetic relationship between Japanese and Koreans than to the other surveyed Asian populations. Based on the result of the dual patterns of the haplotype distribution, it is more likely that the population structure of Koreans may not have evolved from a single ancient population derived from Northeast Asians, but through dual infusions of Y chromosomes entering Korea from two different waves of East Asians.

PMID: 10721667 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

The distribution of Y-chromosomal variation surveyed here reveals significant genetic differences among east Asian populations. Haplogroup DE-YAP (the YAP+ allele) was present at high frequency only in the Japanese and was rare in other parts of east Asia (Table 2, Fig. 2). This result is consistent with previous findings of YAP+ chromosomes only in populations from Japan and Tibet in east Asia (Hammer and Horai 1995; Hammer et al. 1997; Kim et al. 2000; Tajima at al. 2002). However, haplogroup DE-YAP is also found at low frequencies in all the other northeast Asian populations sampled here (2.4% overall, excluding the Japanese; 9.6%, including the Japanese), but only in two of the southern populations (0.8% overall), suggesting that the Korean YAP+ chromosomes are unlikely to have been derived from a southeast Asian source. The prevalence of the YAP+ allele in central Asian populations suggests a genetic contribution to the east Asian populations from the northwest, probably from central Asia (Altheide and Hammer 1997; Jin and Su 2000; Karafet et al. 2001).

Haplogroups C-RPS4Y711 and K-M9 were widely but not evenly distributed in the east Asian populations. Haplogroup C-RPS4Y711 appears to be the predominant northeast Asian haplogroup, with high frequencies in Mongolians (Buryats, 37.3%; Khalkhs, 42.9%) and Manchurians (22.7%; Table 2, Fig. 2). The moderate frequency of haplogroup C-RPS4Y711 Y-chromosomes in Korea (15.0%) implies a genetic influence from northern populations of east Asia, starting possibly in east Siberia. Su and Jin (2001) suggest that the RPS4Y711-T chromosome originated in east Asia, probably in the southeast, and then expanded to the north (Siberia), based on the genetic diversity of Y-STR markers. However, the observed low Y-STR diversity of haplogroup C-RPS4Y711 chromosomes in their surveys of Siberian and central Asian populations compared with east Asian populations could also be explained by a more northern (Mongolian and/or Siberian) origin followed by genetic drift resulting from small effective population sizes (Pakendorf et al. 2002). Recently, Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman (2003) have suggested that haplogroup C-RPS4Y711 expanded both through a southern route from Africa (e.g., India) to Oceania, and a northern one to Mongolia, Siberia, and eventually to northwest America. Further genetic surveys are required to test these hypotheses, with additional markers and more samples from diverse regions of Asia.
In contrast, M9-G Y-chromosomes show an opposing distribution to those carrying RPS4Y711-T in east Asia: they are more frequent in southern populations than in northern ones, showing a clinal variation from about 90% to 60% (Table 1). The haplogroups carrying the M9-G mutation and additional sublineages of M9-G in Korea appear to be at an intermediate frequency (81.9%) between southeast and northeast Asian populations. This result implies that the Korean population may be influenced by both the northeast and southeast Asian populations. Even within haplogroup O, the most frequent Korean STR haplotype (23-10-13 with the markers DYS390-DYS391-DYS393, 19% of haplogroup O; Table 3) is the most frequent in the Philippines (27%), whereas the second most frequent Korean haplotype (24-10-12, 16%) is the most frequent in Manchuria (45%). Thus, the distribution of haplogroups K-M9 and C-RPS4Y711 may reflect dispersals from both north and south. The settlement of each region at different times needs to be considered in order to understand the peopling of east Asia. Recently, Karafet et al. (2001) have noted that realistic explanations for the peopling of east Asia have to accommodate more complex multidirectional biological and cultural influences than earlier models have allowed.

In this study, the Koreans appear to be most closely related overall to the Manchurians among east Asian ethnic groups (Fig. 2), although a principal components analysis of haplogroup frequencies reveals that they also cluster with populations from Yunnan and Vietnam (Fig. 3). The genetic relationship with Manchuria is consistent with the historical evidence that the Ancient Chosun, the first state-level society, was established in the region of southern Manchuria and later moved into the Pyongyang area of the northwestern Korean Peninsula. Based on archeological and anthropological data, the early Korean population possibly had a common origin in the northern regions of the Altai Mountains and Lake Baikal of southeastern Siberia (Han 1995; Choi and Rhee 2001). Recent studies of mtDNA (Kivisild et al. 2002) and the Y-chromosome (Karafet et al. 2001) have also indicated that Koreans possess lineages from both the southern and the northern haplogroup complex. In conclusion, the peopling of Korea can be seen as a complex process with an initial northern Asian settlement followed by several migrations, mostly from southern-to-northern China.

this is interesting finding...the best explanation i have found for this is that the shang dynasty nobility in fact originated in west Asia... they were possibly related to Indo-European nomadic peoples... there are also many traces of people from western origin in many northeast asian peoples (inc. Tibetan, Mongols, Koreans, Manchurians, Japanese)... the ainu in japan are probably one of their descendants...

>The findings of remains in the yixi area of the shandong pronvince of 2 different periods one from 2500 years ago and one from han dynasty showed that the 2500 years old is genetically closer to western europeans and that the han dynasty one is itemediate between the central and eastern asians.However further reseach suggest that the yixi people shared links with north east asians and south east asians.
therefore suggesting that the people were genetically diverse.
[/quote]

The Ainu have nothing to do with Indo-Europeans.. their relation to caucasoids stemmed largely from early European observations in which due to their hairyness, was assumed to be descended from Indo-Europeans. However both pictures and genetic tests done show that they have roots with Austronesian groups as well as varying admixtures from Tungusic people's from the mainland.. with the Sakhalin Ainu being more Tungusic than Kuril and Hokkaido Ainu.

true...ainu are not descended from indo-europeans...but at least a part of their genes are traceable to west asia/europe from before the indo-european expansion...

Wrong, as Karakhan stated, the Ainu have been found to be related to Australian aboriginals, which explains why they are so hairy.

the australoids probably reached Japan very early by a coastal route...well before the last Ice Age... in fact it is now believed that they were the first to reach the Americas...

Not really, the Jomons were relatively homogenous. Also at the time of migration, (during the Paleolithic period) Japan was connected to the mainland by Ice.

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/Japanese...thic_jomon.html

DNA study proves Tibetan and Han share closest blood tie

by:Sophia Zhang

Tibetan and Han nationality share the closest blood tie among
China's 56 nationalities, a DNA study by Life Sciences School of
Fudan University in Shanghai shows recently. For another time, the
study proves that Han and Tibetan people have the same ancestors.
Fudan University Life Sciences School is the only institution in
East Asia and Southeast Asia designated to do research on human
races' migrations. Since 1997, this school started to collect DNA
samples for China's 56 nationalities. After analyzing about 20,000
DNA samples, researchers concluded that before 50,000 years, our
forefather started from northeast Africa via Middle East, south Asia
and Southeast Asia to arrive in China's Yunnan and Guangxi about
30,000 years ago. Thousands years later, different nationalities in
China came into being. Research shows that Tibetan and Han
nationality are the latest two nationalities to branch out from
others, so "Han and Tibetan people have the same ancestors".

I think a more accurate statement is that the founder of Jin Dynasty's (Wanyan Aguda) great great great great grandfather came from goryo. The records state that Hanpu (no surname) was already in his sixties when he went to the Wanyan clan.

Guys, anyone know where is human come from ?
Issit from Africa ? India or China ?
If they are derive from the same group, then we are all related and no longer need to ask the origin of who and who.. hahaa

according to the latest genetic research...they all came from Africa...

the Australoids were one of the earliest inhabitants of the Asian continent...most likely reaching Asia well before 50 kya... the Ainu are actually admixed between the original Australoids and paleo-Siberians who reached Japan from Siberia... there are still many traces of Ainu-like peoples in Siberia and northeast Asia...

Not really more Ainu, just more southern (meaning smaller in height and build, bigger eyes etc...)

show me a pic of an Ainu guy

The Ainu don't look like arabs at all.


As you can see, they are much closer to this.

Than this.
http://www.foxnews.com/images/133989/30_24...04_aref_350.jpg

Hehe, those Ainu guys don't look like Arabs at all. They have heavier browridges, shorter faces, lower nose bridges, smaller eyes, probably lighter skin and the second Ainu has a depression in his upper nasal area.

I've seen Ainu-like Chinese, with heavy browridges etc. Never seen a Korean with these features though.

they look hindu to me.

Those Indians you see that look like Ainu probably have australoid admixture.

I have a question. It is said by many Chinese that Japanese or Korean have evolved from Han, Chinese, why many Chinese claimed this? I have read that Japanese genetically is not close to Chinese some Japanese looks Caucasoid or Polynesian and if more than 40% of that race is not looking Chinese, then does the claim of identity in east Asia still hold?

No one claim Japanese/Koreans "evolved" since everyone has already came down with the fact that all three groups of people belong to the same species. The closest thing said is that "Japanese and Korean culture evolved from Chinese culture". Japanese people did come from mainland China though WAY before recorded history.

australoids are basically those peoples who settled in coastal Asia and Oceania after leaving Africa...
mongoloids are descended from peoples who moved inland from south/south-east Asia...probably related to australoids...

western groups are descended from another branch that probably left Africa after Australoids...

Why you say Ainus look caucasoids? I think they are closer to aboriginals. So I heard in the Japanese population only 50 percent of the Japanese look similar to chinese and Korean. The other 40 percent is of Ainu/Jomon descendant and 10 percent is polynesian. So if more than 40% of that race is not looking chinese, then does the claim of identity in east asia still hold?



Do you have links to where you got these information from?