What's new

History of China

That doesn't make sense! If the South only possessed preliminary technologies such as planting rice in paddy fields, etc ... then what is the "Southern Barbarians" meant? Barbarians are such as "planting rice in paddy fields" people? :rofl:

You must view this in an evolved way.

in 10,000 years ago, paddy planting was advanced technology, but not so a couple thousand years ago.

Just as nobody denies G Washington was a great person, but he is still a slave owner: a criminal behavior as viewed today.

Paddy planting maybe an important part of an early civilization, but as the society evolves, it becomes less and less important. Instead, political systems, humanity development, trade, military, education, etc. take more and more weight of a civilization.

Isn't it, "barbarian" - an individual reference to a brutal, cruel, warlike, insensitive person?

Barbarian is a simplified translation of Chinese 夷, 蛮, etc. In fact one theory goes that Emperor Huang (Yellow Emperor), an ancestor of Han Chinese, was actually an Eastern 夷. As history evolves, those names were used to describe those less civilized peripheral areas.
 
Call them 鞑子 next time they do that.
I would have done it if I wasn't half Manchu. My father side is Manchu from Heilongjiang and my mother's side is from Hunan.
 
I would have done it if I wasn't half Manchu. My father side is Manchu from Heilongjiang and my mother's side is from Hunan.

So, nowadays Chineses were not pure native Chinese (Bai Yue ?) either due to the Mongolian and Machurian's invasion.
 
You must view this in an evolved way.

in 10,000 years ago, paddy planting was advanced technology, but not so a couple thousand years ago.

Do you even have any written China history recording 10,000 years back, yet to discuss about paddy planting and how advance or not it was?

Just as nobody denies G Washington was a great person, but he is still a slave owner: a criminal behavior as viewed today.

That is irrelavent!


Paddy planting maybe an important part of an early civilization, but as the society evolves, it becomes less and less important. Instead, political systems, humanity development, trade, military, education, etc. take more and more weight of a civilization.

It was not the same point of discussion from the statement: "the South only possessed preliminary technologies such as planting rice in paddy fields, etc ... "

It was the point that Central Land "中原" had viewed lands from 4 directions were: 東夷、南蠻、西戎、北狄...

Barbarian is a simplified translation of Chinese 夷, 蛮, etc. In fact one theory goes that Emperor Huang (Yellow Emperor), an ancestor of Han Chinese, was actually an Eastern 夷. As history evolves, those names were used to describe those less civilized peripheral areas.

Emperor Huang (Yellow Emperor) is a Myth. There is no fact can be proven so that he was actually an Eastern 夷or not. Therefore, your explaination is less pursuasive, however.
 
So, nowadays Chineses were not pure native Chinese (Bai Yue ?) either due to the Mongolian and Machurian's invasion.
LOL! By the end of Han dynasty, most tribes in Baiyue had become part of the Han identity. Mongols and Jurchen did not show up until 900 years later. There is no such thing as pure blood Chinese. Even Qin empire was considered to be barbarian. It's culture that unites us.

PS: 99.9% of Manchu today cannot speak their own native language. They are no different than Han, myself included.
 
LOL! By the end of Han dynasty, most tribes in Baiyue had become part of the Han identity. Mongols and Jurchen did not show up until 900 years later. There is no such thing as pure blood Chinese. Even Qin empire was considered to be barbarian. It's culture that unites us.

PS: 99.9% of Manchu today cannot speak their own native language. They are no different than Han, myself included.

Still, we are mostly the direct descendants of the Proto-Sino-Tibetan, our gene marker is predominantly O3A, which is shared by both modern Han and modern Tibetan.

Unlike other East Asians whose gene markers are mostly O2 or O1, because they are not the true descendants of the Proto-Sino-Tibetan like Han and Tibetan.
 
So, nowadays Chineses were not pure native Chinese (Bai Yue ?) either due to the Mongolian and Machurian's invasion.

The chinese identity is constantly evolving. But I'll say the changes to mogolian and manchurian part is larger, if you simply compare the population ratio.

Just like you can't really pin down what white (as in european) american stock today is really composed of.

ps. Chinese identity is cultural rather than purely racial. The day china loses her cultural heritage is when she falls apart because then people start to focus on the ethnic aspect, this won't be allowed to happen and chinese characteristics will be in everything china do. We won't simply follow anyone's system directly.
 
The chinese identity is constantly evolving. But I'll say the changes to mogolian and manchurian part is larger, if you simply compare the population ratio.

Just like you can't really pin down what white (as in european) american stock today is really composed of.

ps. Chinese identity is cultural rather than purely racial. The day china loses her cultural heritage is when she falls apart because then people start to focus on the ethnic aspect, this won't be allowed to happen and chinese characteristics will be in everything china do. We won't simply follow anyone's system directly.

The majority of the Han Chinese are still descended from ancient Proto-Sino-Tibetan stock, this is for sure.
 
Still, we are mostly the direct descendants of the Proto-Sino-Tibetan, our gene marker is predominantly O3A, which is shared by both modern Han and modern Tibetan.

Unlike other East Asians whose gene markers are mostly O2 or O1, because they are not the true descendants of the Proto-Sino-Tibetan like Han and Tibetan.

Are you sure? :laugh:

Have you read this article: "Genetic relationship of populations in China" from the Nation Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol.95 issue 20, Sep 29, 1998?

Genetic relationship of populations in China

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

Validation of the utility of microsatellites in reconstructing evolutionary history of human populations has been made not only theoretically (20–23) but also empirically; the relationships based on microsatellites are generally consistent with morphological and paleontological evidence and other types of genetic markers (8–10). However, many of such studies used distantly related populations and, therefore, the utility of such markers in the study of closely related populations is yet to be explored. The current study reflects, to some extend, a lack of resolution of microsatellites in the reconstruction of closely related populations, probably because of an insufficient number of loci and a large number of populations studied but less likely because of the insufficient number of samples for each population as demonstrated by Shriver et al. (20). This is so because the variance of the genetic distance between loci is much larger than the variance due to sampling error (20) in the estimation of genetic distance. Small bootstrap values reflect insufficient amount of information available to resolve the genetic relationship among closely related populations in the presence of strong gene flow among those populations. But the employment of a much larger number of microsatellite loci in the current analysis may not guarantee a better resolution under such a scenario. Nevertheless, it is not our primary intention to reveal the detailed genetic relationship among those closely related populations, rather we are interested in exploring the major pattern of evolutionary history of the human populations currently residing in East Asia.

In both phylogenies with different loci and populations, populations from East Asia always derived from a single lineage, indicating the single origin of those populations. It does not preclude the possibility of an independent origin of modern humans in East Asia, but its contribution to the extant populations is not detectable in this analysis. It is now probably safe to conclude that modern humans originating in Africa constitute the majority of the current gene pool in East Asia. A phylogeny with very different topological structure would have been expected if an independent Asian origin of modern human had made a major contribution to the current gene pool in Asian populations. Since the methods employed in this analysis can detect only major genetic contribution from particular sources, a haplotype-based analysis will probably detect minor contribution from an independent origin of modern humans in East Asia (24, 25).

In contrast with previous studies (2–4) where distinction between southern and northern populations was clear, our current analysis showed that northern populations belong to two different groups, although statistical support was still weak. One noticeable difference in our study is the employment in the phylogeny reconstruction of the neighbor-joining method, which is supposedly more robust in the presence of genetic admixture. The use of microsatellites, a different type of genetic markers from previous studies, and the measures of genetic distance introduced further complication. However, the northern populations in cluster N2 were sampled from the southwestern part of China, except for Ewenki, where genetic admixture with the southern population was more likely to occur. This might explain why this group of northern populations clustered with southern populations.

Another noticeable feature from this analysis is that the linguistic boundaries are often transgressed across the six language families studied (Sino-Tibetan, Daic, Hmong-Mien, Austro-Asiatic, Altaic, and Austronesian). Such a phenomenon is even more pronounced among southern populations, where populations from the same geographic regions tend to cluster in the phylogeny (see Fig. ​Fig.11B). This observation is consistent with the history of Chinese populations, where population migrations were substantial.

The current analysis suggests that the southern populations in East Asia may be derived from the populations in Southeast Asia that originally migrated from Africa, possibly via mid-Asia, and the northern populations were under strong genetic influences from Altaic populations from the north. But it is unclear how Altaic populations migrated to Northeast Asia. It is possible that ancestral Altaic populations arrived there from middle Asia, or alternatively they may have originated from East Asia.

The analyses of metric and nonmetric cranial traits of modern and prehistoric Siberian and Chinese populations showed that Siberians are closer to Northern Chinese and Mongolian than European (26, 27). The same notion holds for the facial flatness (26–28). European populations did not appear in Siberia, western Mongolia, and China until the Neolithic and Bronze Age (26, 27, 29, 30). Furthermore, cranial and dental analyses have linked the Arctic peoples, Buryat and east Asians with American Indians (31–35), which arrived through Beringia (Bering land bridge) somewhere between 15,000 and 30,000 years ago (36). These observations are generally consistent with the genetic evidence based on this research and mitochondrial DNA data (37–40). Therefore, it is more likely that ancestors of Altaic-speaking populations originated from an East Asian population that was originally derived from Southeast Asia, although the current Altaic-speaking populations undeniably admixed with later arrivers from mid-Asia and Europe (see Fig. ​Fig.2,2, thin solid lines). The possibility of early northern route migration from mid-Asia to Siberia is doubtful, given the fact that the last glacier started to recede only 15,000 years ago (see Fig. ​Fig.2,2, dashed lines).

This conclusion can be tested by using simple inductive logic. If the ancestral Altaic-speaking population was of northern origin, the genetic relationship of extant populations should follow the phylogeny presented in the bottom of Fig. ​Fig.3.3. The phylogeny generated in the current study apparently supports the upper phylogeny of Fig. ​Fig.3.3. In this analysis, Altaic populations are represented by Buryat and Yakut. Southern Chinese populations are those populations from Yunnan and Taiwan that reportedly did not have any admixture with Altaic populations. Populations from Middle Asia were not available to this study.

Figure 3

Phylogenetic relationships of worldwide populations under two hypotheses; see text for discussion.

Now that we have established that populations in East Asia were subjected to genetic contributions from multiple sources: Southeast Asia, Altaic from northeast Asia, and mid-Asia or Europe. It would be interesting to estimate relative contributions from each source. Unfortunately, the current study involved only mostly minority populations. A study involving populations across the country is necessary to reveal such a picture.
 
Are you sure? :laugh:

Have you read this article: "Genetic relationship of populations in China" from the Nation Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol.95 issue 20, Sep 29, 1998?

Genetic relationship of populations in China

It is perfectly normal that the Northern Chinese got more admixture with the Altaic population than the Southern Chinese.

However, i pointed out before that we are still the majority carriers of the O3A gene markers just like the Tibetans.

The Southern Chinese are still far more closely related to the Northern Chinese than it is to the Vietnamese.
 
It is perfectly normal that the Northern Chinese got more admixture with the Altaic population than the Southern Chinese.

However, i pointed out before that we are still the majority carriers of the O3A gene markers just like the Tibetans.

The Southern Chinese are still far more closely related to the Northern Chinese than it is to the Vietnamese.

More news for you!

Haplogroup O3 (Y-DNA) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Origins

Haplogroup O3 is a descendant haplogroup of haplogroup O. Some researchers believe that it first appeared in China approximately 10,000 years ago. The prehistoric peopling of East Asia by modern humans remains controversial with respect to early population migrations. In a systematic sampling and genetic screening of an East Asian–specific Y-chromosome haplogroup (O3-M122) in 2,332 individuals from diverse East Asian populations, results indicate that the O3-M122 lineage is dominant in East Asian populations, with an average frequency of 44.3%.

Distribution

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. Haplogroup O3 is found in over 50% of all modern Chinese males (with frequency ranging from 30/101 = 29.7% among Pinghua-speaking Hans in Guangxi[8] to 110/148 = 74.3% among Hans in Changting, Fujian[9]), about 40% of Manchu, Korean, and Vietnamese males, about 33.3%[12] to 62%[13][28] of Filipino males, about 10.5%[22] to 55.6%[22] of Malaysian males, about 10% (4/39 Guide County, Qinghai)[17] to 45% (22/49 Zhongdian County, Yunnan)[5] of Tibetan males, about 20% (10/50 Shuangbai, northern Yunnan)[24] to 44% (8/18 Xishuangbanna, southern Yunnan)[5][6] of Yi males, about 25% of Zhuang[29] and Indonesian[30] males, and about 16%[15][31] to 20%[12] of Japanese males. The distribution of Haplogroup O3 stretches far into Central Asia (approx. 40% of Dungans,[20] 30% of Salars,[18] 28% of Bonan,[18] 24% of Dongxiang,[18] 18% to 22.8%[12] of Mongolians, 12% of Uyghurs,[20] 9% of Kazakhs,[20] 6.2% of Altayans,[32] and 4.1% of Uzbeks[20]) and Oceania (approx. 25%[12] to 32.5%[22] of Polynesians, 18%[12] to 27.4%[22] of Micronesians, and 5% of Melanesians[33]), albeit with reduced frequencies of most subclades. It should be noted that Haplogroup O3* Y-chromosomes, which are not defined by any identified downstream markers, are actually more common among certain non-Han Chinese populations than among Han Chinese ones, and the presence of these O3* Y-chromosomes among various populations of Central Asia, East Asia, and Oceania is more likely to reflect a very ancient shared ancestry of these populations rather than the result of any historical events. It remains to be seen whether Haplogroup O3* Y-chromosomes can be parsed into distinct subclades that display significant geographical or ethnic correlations.

:azn:
 
Do you even have any written China history recording 10,000 years back, yet to discuss about paddy planting and how advance or not it was?

Without a written book you know nothing of 10,000 ago? :lol:

That is irrelavent!

Yes it is. It shows the evolution of human standards.

It was not the same point of discussion from the statement: "the South only possessed preliminary technologies such as planting rice in paddy fields, etc ... "

It was the point that Central Land "中原" had viewed lands from 4 directions were: 東夷、南蠻、西戎、北狄...



Emperor Huang (Yellow Emperor) is a Myth. There is no fact can be proven so that he was actually an Eastern 夷or not. Therefore, your explaination is less pursuasive, however.

You can neither disprove those identities associated with Yellow Emperor in 史记, or The Records of the Grand Historian, by Sima Qian.

Records of the Grand Historian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...

Reliability

Joseph Needham wrote in 1954 that there were many scholars who doubted that Sima's Records of the Grand Historian contained accurate information about such distant history as the thirty kings of the Shang Dynasty (c. 1600–c. 1050 BC). While many scholars argued that Sima could not possibly have had access to written materials which detailed history a millennium before his age, Needham has another conclusion. The discovery of oracle bones at an excavation of the Shang Dynasty capital at Anyang (Yinxu) matched twenty-three of the thirty Shang kings that Sima listed. Needham writes that this remarkable archaeological find proves that Sima Qian "did have fairly reliable materials at his disposal—a fact which underlines once more the deep historical-mindedness of the Chinese."[2]

In The Terracotta Warriors by John Man, the bias in Sima Qian's epic is deconstructed. Man argues that, due to personal circumstances, including his own punishment by castration, Sima wrote favorably about the preceding emperors in order to discredit the contemporary emperor, and to make that emperor's reforms seem incompetent[citation needed].

The first annal records the Five Emperors period. With the exception of a brief mention of Shennong/Yandi, Sima Qian excluded the Three Sovereigns preceding the Five Emperors as he admitted his sources were unreliable. Why he considered his sources to the Five Emperors reliable is a mystery as many earlier works such as the Book of Rites and Songs of Chu contradict each other regarding this period. Sima also removed descriptions of supernatural powers or physiology associated with these legendary culture heroes which has led to criticism[who?] that he turned deities into historical rulers.

...

Thus, Shima Qian was a very serious scholar, not like current day's big mouths that can flip tongues number of times within a short period of time. That's how his works stand for thousands of years of tests. :tup:

With the absence of other evidence that disproves Yellow Emperor an Eastern 夷, The Records of the Grand Historian by Sima Qian can be considered as "Preponderance of the Evidence", though not "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt". :agree:
 
Without a written book you know nothing of 10,000 ago? :lol:

That's why! Do you have that written book? :laugh:


Yes it is. It shows the evolution of human standards.

What're human standards, from innocent to sinful?


You can neither disprove those identities associated with Yellow Emperor in 史记, or The Records of the Grand Historian, by Sima Qian.

Thus, Shima Qian was a very serious scholar, not like current day's big mouths that can flip tongues number of times within a short period of time. That's how his works stand for thousands of years of tests. :tup:

Sima Qian did not have physical records of Yellow Emperor either.

Thus, Sima Qian was like current day's big mouths that could flip tongues number of times within a short period of time.

Prove it then, if you have any physical evidences of Yellow Emperor ...

With the absence of other evidence that disproves Yellow Emperor an Eastern 夷, The Records of the Grand Historian by Sima Qian can be considered as "Preponderance of the Evidence", though not "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt". :agree:

Like you have quoted the physical evidence of: The discovery of oracle bones at an excavation of the Shang Dynasty capital at Anyang (Yinxu) matched twenty-three of the thirty Shang kings that Sima listed. Needham writes that this remarkable archaeological find proves that Sima Qian "did have fairly reliable materials at his disposal—a fact which underlines once more the deep historical-mindedness of the Chinese."[2]

So, there is fact about Shang Dynasty. Fine. However, is there any discovery of oracle bones about Yellow Emperor? :agree:
 
I don't know where to post this, so I decided to put it here.
I've always wondered why Mongols in China tend to speak better Mandarin than some southern Han. After all, the Altaic language family has almost nothing in common with Sino-Tibetan languages, so it should be harder for the Mongols to master Mandarin than for Cantonese people. Perhaps it's because the Mongols were part of Qing ruling elites, and proficiency in Mandarin (the official language) was viewed as to "fit in" with their fellow nobilities.

I'm asking this because I'm the only Mandarin (and Min-nan) speaking Chinese in Queretaro, Mexico. I can't believe so many fellow Han would have a harder time mastering another Han dialect than some Altaic “韃子”。
 
I don't know where to post this, so I decided to put it here.
I've always wondered why Mongols in China tend to speak better Mandarin than some southern Han. After all, the Altaic language family has almost nothing in common with Sino-Tibetan languages, so it should be harder for the Mongols to master Mandarin than for Cantonese people. Perhaps it's because the Mongols were part of Qing ruling elites, and proficiency in Mandarin (the official language) was viewed as to "fit in" with their fellow nobilities.

I'm asking this because I'm the only Mandarin (and Min-nan) speaking Chinese in Queretaro, Mexico. I can't believe so many fellow Han would have a harder time mastering another Han dialect than some Altaic “韃子”。
While I'm not Mongolian, my grandmother's side of the family are Manchus, thus qualifying them as 鞑子. However, since my great grandfather, no one in the family knew a single word of Manchu language. They speak nothing but mandarin and in my case, Mandarin and Cantonese. The story told was that the family feared for their lives after the Qing dynasty was overthrown since Hans might decide to pay Manchus a little revenge, so the entire family took Han names and gave up everything Manchu.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom