| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Ancient Black Chinese
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Ancient Black Chinese

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ancient Black Chinese
    Posted: 09 Jun 2014 at 06:41
As and adjunct to another thread on this forum, I offer the following in pursuance of other statements and comments concerning ancient Black Chinese people.
Quote
 

 

BLACKS IN ANCIENT CHINA
 by 
Clyde Winters

In accordance with the oral traditions of China, the founders of Chinese civilization were Huangdi and Fu Xi. These legendary rulers like Dai Hao, were all buried in Zhiu (burial mounds). The presence of this mound culture in China supports the traditions of burial of elects in mound tombs. 

The skeletal remains from southern China are predominately Negroid. (Chang 1964, p.370) The people practiced single burials.

In northern China the blacks founded many civilizations. The three major empires of China were the Xia Dynasty (c.2205-1766 B.C), Shang/ Yin Dynasty (c.1700-1050 B.C) and the Zhou Dynasty. The Zhou dynasty was the first dynasty founded by the Mongoloid people in China called Hua (Who-aa). 

The founders of Xia and Shang came from the Fertile African Crescent by way of Iran. According to Chinese legends the first man Pan Gu, used a hammer 18,000 years ago to make man. 

The Chinese legends designate various culture heroes as the inventors of various aspects of Chinese civilization. The Chinese term for emperor is Di. Huang Di (Yellow Emperor), is the Chinese culture hero credited with introducing boats, carts 'chariots, the bow and arrow, ceramics, wooded houses and writing. 

Chinese civilization began along the Yellow river . Here the soil was fertile and black Chinese farmers grew millet 4000 years ago, and later soybeans. They also raised pigs and cattle. By 3500 B.C., the blacks in China were raising silkworms and making silk. 

The culture hero Huang Di is a direct link of Africa. His name was pronounced in old Chinese Yuhai Huandi or Hu Nak Kunte. He was supposed to have arrived in China from the west in 2282 B.C., and settled along the banks of the Loh river in Shanxi. This transliteration of Huandgi, to Hu Nak Kunte is interesting because Kunte is a common clan name among the Manding speakers. 

The Africans or blacks that founded civilization in China were often called li min "black headed people" by the Zhou dynasts. This term has affinity to the Sumero-Akkadian term sag- gig-ga "black headed people". These li min are associated with the Chinese cultural hero Yao. 

 
AND ALSO
 
An international study has found that the Chinese people originated not from Peking Man in northern China, but from early humans in East Africa who moved through South Asia to China some 100,000 years ago, Hong Kongs Ming Pao daily reported yesterday in a finding that confirms the single origin theory in anthropology.

According to the newspaper, a research team led by Jin Li (of Fudan University in Shanghai has found that modern humans evolved from a single origin, not multiple origins as some experts believe.

In China, school textbooks teach that the Chinese race evolved from Peking Man, based on a theory that humans in Europe and Asia evolved from local species.

But Jin and his fellow researchers found that early humans belonged to different species, of which only the East African species developed into modern humans.

This new finding nullifies the theory that the ancestors of the Chinese people were Peking Man who lived in northern China 400,000 years ago.

Based on DNA analyses of 100,000 samples gathered from around the world, a number of human families evolved in East Africa some 150,000 years ago, said Li Hui, a member of Jins team.

About 100,000 years ago, some of those humans began to leave Africa, with some people moving to China via South and Southeast Asia, Li said.

According to the newspaper article, it has been proven that the 65 branches of the Chinese race share similar DNA mutations with the peoples of East and Southeast Asia.

It said that the Shanghai scientists were part of an international team comprised of researchers from Russia, India, Brazil and other nations in a five-year project studying the geographic and genealogical routes related to the spread and settlement of modern humans.


PROFESSOR JIN LI - Fudan University Shanghai
 
There are many other references to "Black Chinese", and I would have thought that the existence of these people in ancient China unsurprising.
If the references are correct, the Black Chinese were the founders of the Xia Dynasty, popularly thought to have been the dynasty which "civilised" China.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 02:59
First, what do they mean by "Blacks". It is very unlikely they are referring to Bantus from West Africa (which is what people knows as "Black" in the West). It is well known that dark skinned people of Australoid stock, related to Australian Aborigines and Vedics of India, lived all over East Asia up to recent times.


A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 04:11
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

First, what do they mean by "Blacks". It is very unlikely they are referring to Bantus from West Africa (which is what people knows as "Black" in the West). It is well known that dark skinned people of Australoid stock, related to Australian Aborigines and Vedics of India, lived all over East Asia up to recent times.

 
 
What they're talking about are the descendants of the first Out of Africa people to reach China, some by the Coastal Migration route, others north and east through India.
 
I don't know how credible these people are, but what they're saying makes sense to me.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 06:40
Lol how are they scientifically accurate.  I see no analysis done on the variability of people within China for the various time periods using skin tone.  So how can they be black unless by imagination?  What their skull shapes are in various studies demonstrate more robusticity in the north.  This would make northern Chinese look more like Australoids in the sense of bigger tooth size, mandible size, doliocephalic qualities.






Edited by literaryClarity - 10 Jun 2014 at 06:53
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 06:43
Lol your Clyde Winters source said millet was grown in the Yellow River 4000 years ago.  It was grown as early as the Cishan-Peiligang period of 8500 YBP.  Where do you think Austronesians got their millet and grew it in Dapenkeng sites 6500-5000 years ago?

Archaeology/Linguistics

http://www.academia.edu/3077307/The_expansion_of_Setaria_farmers_in_East_Asia


Laurent Sagart: The expansion of Setaria farmers in East Asia

Laurent Sagart discusses how Tibeto-Burman's and Austronesian's language families were genetic and came from the same neolithic patterns of Cishan, Peiligang, and Jiahu complex which overlapped with Yangshao.  They farmed millet as their sacral crop.  Dapenkeng on Taiwan, noted for its similarities to Yangshao also farmed millet, also treated as a sacral crop, not rice.  Neither Hemudu nor Liangzhu had millet.  The Austronesians were also matriarchal.



There are still remaining, though quite few, remant matriarchs still upholding the culture of the ancient neolithic millet farmers originating in the upper Yellow River.  Most of them don't practice the culture any longer as the global village continues to grow and matriarchy is no longer taught to the next generation.

So how do we know they were matriarchal?

Analytical models based on linguistics and residence data sampling have determined the sociological underpinnings of the Austronesian expansion as being matrilocal and which fit the genetic patterns.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/02/27/rspb.2009.0088.full.pdf
Fiona M Jordan and others: Matrilocal Residence Is Ancestral In Austronesian Societies

Quote
The sex-biased dispersal model of early Austronesian matrilocality fits the predominant pattern seen in the Pacific genetics: restricted Asian-derived maternal lineages and a more diverse set of NRY variants (Hurles et al. 2002). Our results do suggest, for instance, that Y-chromosome variants from as far west as Halmahera should not be unexpected in Remote Oceanic populations.






Edited by literaryClarity - 10 Jun 2014 at 06:51
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 06:59
Or put it this way...
 
Northern Chinese have been derived from people in southern China immediately before they settled in the central plains.  The typical logic is that the more derivatives there are of a set of an intergroup of anything then that means it may be considered older.  A population with more mutations may thus be considered older.  This is how we trace human ancestry to Africa since Africa contains the most intergroup differentiation possible out of all the continental populations in the world.

So how do we look at the Chinese.  In exactly the same way.  The most intergroup differentiation comes from the southern Chinese areas where there are more diversity of the genetic haplotypes specific to east Asia.

Therefore how do we look at the northern Chinese?  If they are differentiated away from the southern Chinese there must be only one explanation, they bottlenecked and drifted away from the diversity retained within the south as well as having undergone new genetic input from source populations' genetics outside of the original intergroup.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 07:28
Literary Clarity wrote:
Quote Therefore how do we look at the northern Chinese?  If they are differentiated away from the southern Chinese there must be only one explanation, they bottlenecked and drifted away from the diversity retained within the south as well as having undergone new genetic input from source populations' genetics outside of the original intergroup.
 
What a load of balderdash, or if you like, poppycock!
 
There a number of explanations for the differences between Northern Chinese and the Southern Chinese.
 
  • Two different arrival groups=two different developments;
  • Possibility of admixture with other AMH along the migration route;
  • Coastal Migration people admix Austronesian possible-if not probable;
  • Northern people more advanced, possible influence from neighbouring northern cultures.

Read some of the sources I've provided you for an overview.

 
BTW, what about Xiangzhou, capitulated???
 
 
 


Edited by toyomotor - 10 Jun 2014 at 07:29
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 08:05


Well there are three different arrival groups if you want to talk about the O types but they all still came through the southern half of China, below the Qinling mountains.  I suppose the northern areas were more of a virgin territory that had to be "more advanced" into.  However I still stand by the papers by the Chinese researchers when they discovered that the skulls in the north were more robust, had bigger teeth and jaws, but that's really their preference isn't it?  Wink wink nudge nudge.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 08:18
LC wrote"
Quote Well there are three different arrival groups if you want to talk about the O types but they all still came through the southern half of China, below the Qinling mountains. 
 
 
I've never mentioned "the O types.
 
Where's you proof for the south of Qinling Mountains bit?
 
I think it's about time to wrap up this thread, you are very boring.


Edited by toyomotor - 10 Jun 2014 at 08:49
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 08:48
Another reference:
Quote

DNA Evidence Proves That The First People In China Were Black

http://www.kulturekritic.com/2013/12/news/dna-evidence-proves-first-people-china-black/

Added by admin on December 21, 2013.
Saved under
Life, News
Tags: African Americans, china, dna, events

 

 China is apparently finding out now what Black historians have been reporting for many years, the first inhabitants of China were in fact black.

H. Imbert, a French anthropologist said in his book, “Les Negritos de la Chine”,”The Negroid races peopled at some time all the South of India, Indo-China and China. The South of Indo-China actually has now pure Negritos as the Semangs and mixed as the Malays and the Sakais.”

Another author and professor, Chang Hsing-Lang, revealed similar information in writing “The Importation of Negro Slaves to China under the Tang Dynasty”, “Even the sacred Manchu dynasty shows this Negro strain. The lower part of the face of the Emperor Pu-yi of Manchukuo, direct descendant of the Manchu rulers of China, is most distinctly Negroid.”

These professors through their research and studies have reason to believe that a Negro Empire actually existed at the dawn of the country’s history citing evidence of substantial populations of Blacks in early China, including finding reports of a major kingdom ruled by Blacks being frequently mentioned in historical Chinese history documents. And, Chinese chroniclers report that a Negro Empire existed in the South of China at the dawn of that country’s history

The notion that blacks were the original inhabitants of China has been thwarted by white scientists and even some blacks as the result of a sweeping message of white superiority and inferiority of black Africans and their descendants spreading worldwide.

In 2005, DNA testing proved that the first inhabitants of China were black Africans. The study was conducted by a Chinese DNA specialist named Jin Li and a team of Chinese and other scientists. Li admits that he wasn’t trying to prove this fact, instead he initially wanted to prove that the Chinese evolved from hοmo erectus independently of all humans. After collecting more than 12000 DNA samples from 165 different ethnic groups, Li and his team found that early humans belonged to different species but modern humans had descended from the East African species.

One scientist on the team, Li Hui, said that 100,000 years ago humans began migrating through South and Southeast Asia into China from Africa. Their testing showed that 65 branches of Chinese all carry similar DNA mutations as the people of Southeast Asia.

Another scientist on the team, Jin Li had this to say about their findings, “we did not see even one single individual that could be considered as a descendant of the hοmo erectus in China, rather, everybody was a descendant of our ancestors from Africa.”

When asked how he felt about these findings, he responded, “after I saw the evidence generated in my laboratory. I think we should all be happy with that. Because after all, modern humans from different parts of the world are not so different from each other and we are very close relatives.”

The team of scientists participating in the 5 year study of geographic and genealogical routes tracing the spread of settlements of ancient and modern humans were from China, Russia, India, Brazil and other nations.

Richard Leaky, a well-known, Kenyan-born Paleoanthropologist who has dedicated his life to studying fossils and the past believes that we must study the past if we are to have a future. He had this to say, “If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it’s solid, that we are all African, that colour is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive, then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges.”

 
Quote

An extract:

Provisional Conclusion

Pending the discovery of decisive evidence, the following provisional conclusion has much to recommend it—namely, that the ancestors of the Chinese people came from the west, from Akkadia or Elam, or from Khotan, or (more probably) from Akkadia or Elam via Khotan, as one nomad or pastoral tribe or group of nomad or pastoral tribes, or as successive waves of immigrants, reached what is now China Proper at its north-west corner, settled round the elbow of the Yellow River, spread north-eastward, eastward, and southward, conquering, absorbing, or pushing before them the aborigines into what is now South and South-west China. These aboriginal races, who represent a wave or waves of neolithic immigrants from Western Asia earlier than the relatively high-headed immigrants into North China (who arrived about the twenty-fifth or twenty-fourth century B.C.), and who have left so deep an impress on the Japanese, mixed and intermarried with the Chinese in the south, eventually producing the pronounced differences, in physical, mental, and emotional traits, in sentiments, ideas, languages, processes, and products, from the Northern Chinese which are so conspicuous at the present day.

 So, LC, what's your response to this?

 

 



Edited by toyomotor - 10 Jun 2014 at 08:59
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 09:09
The study neither showed that the people they tested were black skinned nor had any traits of being black.  What the study intended to show was that we can trace ancestry back to Africa, not Homo Erectus or Peking Man.

Quote
Another scientist on the team, Jin Li had this to say about their findings, “we did not see even one single individual that could be considered as a descendant of the hοmo erectus in China, rather, everybody was a descendant of our ancestors from Africa.”


You are so ludicrous in your sourcing that you can even ask easy772 about this.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 09:12
 
You once again have posted text out of context, misrepresenting what was actually written. 
 
I can't see any point in continuing this thread.
 
-END-


Edited by toyomotor - 10 Jun 2014 at 09:14
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 09:23
Why haven't you responded to the slide I put up regarding the loss of original mutation as ethnic groups stepped away from the origin of network.  It obviously shows the elimination of ancestral markers the further populations moved away from their point of origin.

Human Migration through Bottlenecks from Southeast Asia into East Asia during Last Glacial Maximum Revealed by Y Chromosomes

Cai, Qin, Wen and others
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3164178/
Quote
These patterns indicate an early unidirectional diffusion from Southeast Asia into East Asia, which might have resulted from the genetic drift of East Asian ancestors carrying these two haplogroups through many small bottle-necks formed by the complicated landscape between Southeast Asia and East Asia. The ages of O3a3b-M7 and O3a3c1-M117 were estimated to be approximately 19 thousand years, followed by the emergence of the ancestors of HM lineages out of MK and the unidirectional northward migrations into East Asia.
----------
A clear hierarchical structure (annual ring shape) emerged in the network of O3a3b-M7 (Fig. 2B), in which MK haplotypes lay at the center of the network (immediately next to the origin), HM haplotypes were distributed at the periphery to the MK haplotypes, and the ST (here the subfamily Tibeto-Burman) haplotypes were only found further away from the origin. This hierarchical structure indicates bottleneck effects during the migration of O3a3b-M7 individuals from MK to HM and ST, with old haplotypes lost after population went through bottlenecks. The frequency of O3a3b is quite low in TK populations, and these individuals appeared sporadically in the network, sharing haplotypes with MK and HM. As the TK ethnic groups are located adjacent to MK and HM populations, the recent gene flow amongst the populations might have carried the O3a3b into TK populations.
----------
The annual ring shape of the network or tree is not strange in human evolutionary studies. If we transform the Y haplogroup tree [16] of the world population into a circle, we will also see a similar annual ring shape with the Africans in the center while the Europeans and Asians in the periphery, and the Americans are even peripheral. It is widely accepted that this structure resulted from the bottlenecks between the continents through which early human populations have gone. The different between the structure of the world tree and our East Asian networks is that only two clades (CF and DE) touched out of the African cluster in the world tree while more clades were observed in the East Asian networks.


Science, not psuedoscience.



Edited by literaryClarity - 10 Jun 2014 at 09:42
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 09:44
LC:
Once again you "cherry pick" passages from the source in order to prove your point.
 
Once again, you've failed.
 
You are an academic fraud.
 
A larger extract from your source says,
Quote Some have hypothesized that haplogroups C and D derived from the African exodus conducted the first northward population movement of modern humans to East Asia and became the first successful modern human colonizers of that region [3]. Previous studies have shown that the most prevalent haplogroup O-M175 accounts for at least 57% of the Y chromosomes in East Asia, standing out as the most relevant material to address the question of the origin of East Asians [4]. These studies also indicated that the three downstream haplogroups derived from O-M175 (O3-M122, O2a-M95, and O1a-M119) entered East Asia from the south [4][8], suggesting the importance of the southern entrance for East Asian ancestors migrating from Southeast Asia. The study on Hainan aborigines proved that only O1a-M119 and O2a-M95 has gone through the coastal southern entrance in the east, and there must be other entrance(s) for O3-M122 [9]. By studying more population samples and undertaking more detailed analyses of Y chromosome haplogroup subdivisions in populations at juncture of Southeast and East Asia, we might be able to generate stage by stage, a more detailed history of the emergence of East Asians out of Southeast Asians. .
 
By posting selected passages of a scientific report and using them as conclusive evidence to substantiate your points is dishonest.
 
I'm going to PM the Mod with a submission that you be banned for improper conduct.
 
 
Once again you've sneakily gone back into your post and altered it while I was researching and debunking your post.
 
Dishonest.
 
 
 
 


Edited by toyomotor - 10 Jun 2014 at 09:47
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 09:51
And what did you find out from reading that passage?  Did it reveal anything about Austronesian or Cuman? I believe the keyword was "bottle-necks" which didn't have anything to do with Africa or black Chinese.

I have a quick question why did you get banned from allempires.com?


Edited by literaryClarity - 10 Jun 2014 at 09:59
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 09:56
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

And what did you find out from reading that passage?  Did it reveal anything about Austronesian or Cuman? I believe the keyword was "bottle-necks" which didn't have anything to do with Africa or black Chinese.

I have a quick question why did you get banned from allempires.com?
 
I got banned because I wouldn't put up with crap like you post, nor would I tolerate bullying mods.
 
I will not continue to debate this topic with you.
 
You are a fraud who should be banned imo.
 
DON'T BOTHER ADDRESSING ANY FURTHER REMARKS TO ME BECAUSE I WON'T RESPOND.


Edited by toyomotor - 10 Jun 2014 at 09:57
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 10:00
Fair enough but just so we get back on topic I would put the same scenario to others.

We are talking about the formation of most of China's population from AFTER 30 KYBP which came directly out of southeast Asia, not Africa.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
easy772 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 06 Jun 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 38
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote easy772 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 20:58
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

And what did you find out from reading that passage?  Did it reveal anything about Austronesian or Cuman? I believe the keyword was "bottle-necks" which didn't have anything to do with Africa or black Chinese.

I have a quick question why did you get banned from allempires.com?
 
I got banned because I wouldn't put up with crap like you post, nor would I tolerate bullying mods.
 
I will not continue to debate this topic with you.
 
You are a fraud who should be banned imo.
 
DON'T BOTHER ADDRESSING ANY FURTHER REMARKS TO ME BECAUSE I WON'T RESPOND.

I agre with him being a fraud. He is banned from 3 other history-related sites that I know of. LOL

The best case scenario for a Sinitic origin in neolithic Zhejiang would be that these cultures heavily influenced the Yellow River cultures, but even then they would have developed independently for thousands of years after that. If at one point there was a 'shared root' between the Yue people and Yellow River Tibeto-Burmans, the isolation caused them to drift culturally and linguistically. Yellow River cultures eventually becoming the unifying element in modern Chinese that imposed on the various local cultures and kingdoms. Zhejiang was obviously not sinicized until well after the Neolithic. It wasn't the source of sinicization, it's people and kingdoms were a recipient of sinicization. Statue of a Yue state citizen in ancient Zhejiang:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yue_(state)


The Bai-Yue probably spoke many languages: Austronesian, Austro-Asiatic and Tai-Kadai etc. depending on the region. 


Edited by easy772 - 10 Jun 2014 at 21:02
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 00:42
I care about the whole picture, not Afrocentricism and miscellaneous statues featured on wikipedia.

Zhejiang having barbarians doesn't mean it was the source of barbarians.  Big difference in the ways barbarians can be situated in your hometown.  They could be migrants or even captured slaves.  Furthermore, those barbarians on the east coast were not Austronesian as Austronesian split from Tibeto-Burmans 8500 YBP and left the mainland around 6500-5000 YBP.  Zhejiang did not experience the initial split from Tibeto-Burmans in the upper Yellow River as had the Austronesians.  Zhejiang didn't farm millet.  Neither Hemudu nor Liangzhu were millet based so how can they be Tibeto-Burman or Austronesian?.  Zhejiang was home to Barnes' "late neolithic elites".

http://www.academia.edu/2775964/Stratification_in_the_peopling_of_China_How_far_does_the_linguistic_evidence_match_genetics_and_archaeology
Stratification in the peopling of China

Roger Blench
Quote
Wherever Sinitic originates within Sino‑Tibetan, there is a broad consensus that its main spread has  been north–south, from the millet‑growing to the rice‑growing areas and that it has assimilated or overwhelmed a diverse in situ population (e.g. Fitzgerald 1972; Lee 1978; LaPolla 2001). It is therefore unlikely that Sinitic can be identiied with the earliest Neolithic communities in north China such as the Péilígăng or Císhān (6500 BP onwards) and it is more helpful to think of Sinitic as one of Barnes’s (1993: 108) ‘Late Neolithic Elites’ emerging between 3500 and 2000 BC. The notable feature of the end of this period is the appearance of bronze vessels in the archaeological record and it easy  to imagine the inception of the Shang as marking the take‑off of Sinitic. Presumably, a major element in the in situ population was Hmong‑Mien‑speaking, but unless these groups were considerably north of their present location, the agriculturists of Císhān were not Hmong‑Mien either. Van Driem (1998) has canvassed Sichuān as the likely original homeland of Sino‑Tibetan (Tibeto‑Burman in his terms). A  comparable view is supported in a study of Y chromosome haplotypes reported in Su et al. (2000) who argue that proto‑Sino‑Tibetan was spoken in northern Sichuān and dispersed westwards to the Himalayas and east and south to create the Chinese dialects. However, they also argue that this nucleus was the lineal descendant of early Neolithic millet‑growers, which seems highly unlikely. There is no obvious candidate for the ethnolinguistic identity of the millet‑growers of Péilígăng and it may be that they have no linguistic descendants.



Edited by literaryClarity - 11 Jun 2014 at 01:00
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 00:46
Different branches of O1, O2, and O3 disagree in their associated matrilines, agriculture, high culture, civilization, architecture, writing, etc. when they split to different areas.  Nobody ever used the logic that O3 remained the same between Japan and China or that O1 remained the same between the mainland and Taiwan.

Indonesian Austronesians were matrilocal and mixed with local natives whom were originally speaking Papuan.



Matrilocal means it doesn't even matter if they have O1, O2, and O3.  Their expansion was in the realm of non east Asians and few males accompanied them.  Sagart was right when he said Austronesians in Dapenkeng of Taiwan developed directly out of Cishan-Peiligang but had diverged somewhat.  You can't expect every Austronesian to be the same just as you can't expect every Tibeto-Burman to be the same.  Many were overwhelmed by Barnes' "late neolithic elites", Sinicized in other words.



It does depend on where you are at.  When you are on the mainland the Direct Historical Approach pinpoints the Tibeto-Burman people whom invented facial tattooing culture and spread it to Austronesians off the mainland.  Nobody else did it that way because it was such a complete taboo for Sinitics whom were so different from those two.  Clearest indicators are the speech patterns.  Sinitic is SVO monosyllabic.  Tibeto-Burman is SOV agglutinated.  Austronesian is VSO agglutinated.

Without the Direct Historical Approach you carelessly categorize tattooed Baiyue to any ethnolinguistic affiliation you desired.  In other words there is no credibility of any kind behind your claims.  When speaking of the neolithic Chinese mainland, it was certainly not devoid of Tibeto-Burman and Austronesian but there was a limit.  Austronesian departed from the mainland around 6500-5000 YBP, never to be heard from again.

To understand the Direct Historical Approach and how crucial it is to use it correctly when applying to ethnolinguistic categorizations, read Heather Peters Tattooed Faces and Stilt Houses: Who Were the Ancient Yue?
http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp017_yue.pdf

Quote
By extending the label Yue to include both the historic and prehistoric peoples and cultures, Chinese scholars are assuming a genetic connection between the historically defined Yue groups cited in the texts, and the peoples which preceded them in the archeological record. In this regard they are using a method similar to Julian Steward's "direct historical approach" (Steward 1942). This is a recognized and legitimate approach, the main difference being that Steward began with living ethnic groups whose history was then pushed backwards in time using historical materials to that point where it overlapped with prehistory.


In other words mythical history and ad hominems in wiki articles do not equate to the actual prehistoric reality of the native people on the east coast of China whom, in light of Roger Blench's explanation, overwhelmed the in situ Tibeto-Burmans/Austronesians with their neolithic elite.

So easy772 what is your response to this?  Will you keep believing in the existence of Toyomotor's black Chinese?  Or will you keep parading the nonsense which claims facially tattooed Baiyue on the mainland spoke anything different to Tibeto-Burman?


Edited by literaryClarity - 11 Jun 2014 at 01:10
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
easy772 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 06 Jun 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 38
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote easy772 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 01:15
Quote "Wherever Sinitic originates within Sino‑Tibetan, there is a broad consensus that its main spread has  been north–south, from the millet‑growing to the rice‑growing areas and that it has assimilated or overwhelmed a diverse in situ population (e.g. Fitzgerald 1972; Lee 1978; LaPolla 2001).It is therefore unlikely that Sinitic can be identiied with the earliest Neolithic communities in north China such as the Péilígăng or Císhān (6500 BP onwards) and it is more helpful to think of Sinitic as one of Barnes’s (1993: 108) ‘Late Neolithic Elites’ emerging between 3500 and 2000 BC. The notable feature of the end of this period is the appearance of bronze vessels in the archaeological record and it easy  to imagine the inception of the Shang as marking the take‑off of Sinitic. Presumably, a major element in the in situ population was "Hmong‑Mien‑speaking, but unless these groups were considerably north of their present location, the agriculturists of Císhān were not Hmong‑Mien either. Van Driem (1998) has canvassed Sichuān as the likely original homeland of Sino‑Tibetan (Tibeto‑Burman in his terms). A  comparable view is supported in a study of Y chromosome haplotypes reported in Su et al. (2000) who argue that proto‑Sino‑Tibetan was spoken in northern Sichuān and dispersed westwards to the Himalayas and east and south to create the Chinese dialects. However, they also argue that this nucleus was the lineal descendant of early Neolithic millet‑growers, which seems highly unlikely. There is no obvious candidate for the ethnolinguistic identity of the millet‑growers of Péilígăng and it may be that they have no linguistic descendants."

Yet another distortion. The cited text does not disagree with a Tibeto-Burman origin of Sinitic. It disagrees with idea that the Peligang millet growers and Tibeto-Burman millet growers were uniform. 

Shang is descended from Longshan a Yellow River Y-DNA O3 carrying culture. The Yellow River cultures were genetically different and physically different from the Zhejiang cultures. 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/213764586/North-vs-South-Neolithic-Skulls-China

Quote northern Neolithic cultures are represented by theMajiayao, Dawenkou, Yangshao, Longshan and Qijia,while the southern Neolithic cultures are representedby the Hemudu, Majiabing, Liangzhu and Qujialing(Wang, 2005). northern Neolithic cultures are represented by theMajiayao, Dawenkou, Yangshao, Longshan and Qijia,while the southern Neolithic cultures are representedby the Hemudu, Majiabing, Liangzhu and Qujialing(Wang, 2005). 

The northern and southern Chinese populations differ in both physical and genetic studies(Zhang, 1999; Chu et al ., 1998). Southern populations are genetically more polymorphic than northern populations (Ke et al ., 2001; Chu et al ., 1998; Su et al ., 1999). Compared with northern Chinese, the morphological features of the southern Neolithic samples are closer to the Late Pleistocene human fossils (Woo, 1959; Wu, 1961; Chen, 1989)

RE: Genetics

You have no idea what your talking about. Y-DNA O consists of many subclades. Y-DNA O1 is basically "THE" Austronesian marker if there is one. You misinterpret Lansing, he clearly states O-M110, a subclade of O1 is representative of the Austronesian expansion. This paper is authored by Lansing:
Quote The third stage of colonization corresponds to the Austronesian expansions. This maritime dispersal of rice agriculturists from southern China/Taiwan, beginning between 5.5 and 4.0 ka ago, resulted in the expansion of Austronesian languages throughout the region (Bellwood 2007). We posit that it also led to the migration of haplogroups O-P201 and possibly O-M110 and O-P203 to both sides of Wallace’s line as it penetrated the Indonesian region from the north by sea
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/8/1833.full#ref-72

http://comonca.org.cn/lh/doc/A37.pdf
Quote A high frequency of O1 was found in Liangzhu Culture sites
around the mouth of the Yangtze River, linking this culture
to modern Austronesian and Daic populations

Why is the dominant paternal lineage in Sinitic speakers Yellow River associated Y-DNA O3 instead of Zhejiang associated Y-DNA O1? The rulers of societies were much more prolific in spreading their DNA



Edited by easy772 - 11 Jun 2014 at 01:42
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 02:07
I find you you lack some basic scientific knowledge so I can explain forever and you'd still find it hard to accept.  Bottlennecking and drifting are long established scientific genetic concepts for the bio diversity on earth.  Only one study suggested "linking this culture".  I never heard Sagart nor Stephan Lansing, the Austronesian authorities, speak about only O1 being the only haplogroup associated with Austronesian.  I never heard them speak about only O3 being the only haplogroup associated with Chinese.  I only heard Sagart mention Liangzhu was not millet based.  The O3 abundance could be the advancement of modern era population explosions of the rural poor in trying to make ends meet by producing more offsprings for generational security.

Africans are linked to people elsewhere in the world and vice versa.  Doesn't mean we are all ethnically African nor all our rulers were African.  Mainland developments do not concur with Taiwan nor Indonesia once civilization started in Liangzhu's patriarchal society.  Austronesian was ancestrally matrilocal, establsihed genetically, archaeologically, linguistically by independant parties.  MTDNA is always different from NRY.

Also, the spread of markers in sex specific STR mutations is not the same as the spread of genes destined to socially organize a civilization nor to rule.

Even Tianya told you the important thing to remember is random Y chromosome STR mutations don't tell you how you look.


Edited by literaryClarity - 11 Jun 2014 at 03:53
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 02:32
Easy 772: In the battle of wits, you're fighting an unarmed man. Yes-No
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 02:35
I reported toyomotor for unwanted/unwarranted ad hominem.  We can all continue the discussion.

Edited by literaryClarity - 11 Jun 2014 at 02:40
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 03:00
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

I reported toyomotor for unwanted/unwarranted ad hominem.  We can all continue the discussion.
 
 
If I have breached Forum CoC, I apologise to the mods.
 
For my part, the discussion has ended.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 08:53
Quote
The Bai-Yue probably spoke many languages: Austronesian, Austro-Asiatic and Tai-Kadai etc. depending on the region. 


If you are referring to the mainland the Hmong-Mien Baiyue had a great deal of input to the Sinitics' lingua franca.  They must have been treated as a more formidable ally of the Shang (descended from the Liangzhu) than any of the Tibeto-Burman matriarchs.  The Tibeto-Burmans were the alien group out of all of these since they spoke SOV agglutinated and were likely outcasts with their facial tattoos.  The only way I see the Zhou having been able to conquer the Shang was after they got Sinicized.  Any other way is patently absurd.

The Austronesians were non-existent and spoke VSO agglutinated as already explained by Sagart.  Nobody can detect their substratum adstratum levels.

Roger Blench, Stratification in the peopling of China
http://www.rogerblench.info/Language/China/Geneva%20paper%202004%20submit.pdf
Quote
Ostapirat (2005) has recently proposed a series of regular correspondences linking Daic with Austronesian. Ostapirat assumes a simple model of a primary split, with Daic being the Austronesians who stayed at home. But this seems unlikely as Daic looks more like a branch of proto‑Philippines and does not share the complexities of Formosan. Sagart (2005) has leshed out a proposal which has proto‑Daic speakers migrating back across from the northern Philippines to the region of Hainan island; hence the distinctiveness of Hlai, Be and Daic, resulting from radical restructuring following contact with Hmong‑Mien and Sinitic. If so, such a migration would be around 4000 BP, in conformity with current  dates for the irst incursions in the northern Philippines.


There doesn't seem to be much use in continuing to think Austronesians were on the mainland when their back migration to Hainan transformed them into the Daics by virtue of contact with Hmong-Mien and Sinitic.  So even Sinitic had already existed at this point in the deep south.


Edited by literaryClarity - 11 Jun 2014 at 08:57
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
easy772 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 06 Jun 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 38
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote easy772 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jun 2014 at 02:48
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Quote
The Bai-Yue probably spoke many languages: Austronesian, Austro-Asiatic and Tai-Kadai etc. depending on the region. 


If you are referring to the mainland the Hmong-Mien Baiyue had a great deal of input to the Sinitics' lingua franca.  They must have been treated as a more formidable ally of the Shang (descended from the Liangzhu) than any of the Tibeto-Burman matriarchs.  The Tibeto-Burmans were the alien group out of all of these since they spoke SOV agglutinated and were likely outcasts with their facial tattoos.  The only way I see the Zhou having been able to conquer the Shang was after they got Sinicized.  Any other way is patently absurd.

The Austronesians were non-existent and spoke VSO agglutinated as already explained by Sagart.  Nobody can detect their substratum adstratum levels.

Roger Blench, Stratification in the peopling of China
http://www.rogerblench.info/Language/China/Geneva%20paper%202004%20submit.pdf
Quote
Ostapirat (2005) has recently proposed a series of regular correspondences linking Daic with Austronesian. Ostapirat assumes a simple model of a primary split, with Daic being the Austronesians who stayed at home. But this seems unlikely as Daic looks more like a branch of proto‑Philippines and does not share the complexities of Formosan. Sagart (2005) has leshed out a proposal which has proto‑Daic speakers migrating back across from the northern Philippines to the region of Hainan island; hence the distinctiveness of Hlai, Be and Daic, resulting from radical restructuring following contact with Hmong‑Mien and Sinitic. If so, such a migration would be around 4000 BP, in conformity with current  dates for the irst incursions in the northern Philippines.


There doesn't seem to be much use in continuing to think Austronesians were on the mainland when their back migration to Hainan transformed them into the Daics by virtue of contact with Hmong-Mien and Sinitic.  So even Sinitic had already existed at this point in the deep south.

The Shang were not descended from the Liangzhu, they were descended from the Longshan, who were descended from Dawenkou, Yangshao or  a combination. 
Quote Inscription-bearing artifacts from the Dawenkou culture in Shandong, dating to c. 2800–2500 BCE,[31] have also been unearthed since excavations started in the 1950s,[32][33] and have drawn a great deal of interest amongst researchers, in part because the Dawenkou culture is believed to be directly ancestral[32] to the Longshan culture, which in turn is thought ancestral to the Shang, where the first undisputed Chinese writing appears. At a Dawenkou site in Shandong, one pictorial symbol has been found painted in cinnabar,[34] while at the Dawenkou sites by the Língyáng River (陵陽河) and in Dàzhū Village (大朱村), eighteen isolated pictorial symbols of eight types incised and/or painted with cinnabar on sixteen pottery jars and shards have been found, mostly from wealthier tombs.[35] Some resemble axes, and another has been variously described as resembling the sun above a cloud or fire Dawenkou symbol 1, while a third type has the latter above a fire or mountain-like element.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_signs_in_China#Dawenkou



RE: Austronesians not on the mainland






There seems to be a lot of Austronesian admixture in mainland China, or at least, a component that reaches it's highest frequency in Taiwan and northern Philippines. 
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jun 2014 at 04:45
Like toyomotor you keep bringing up nonsense sources.  Okinawan Altaic and Sino-Tibetan Daic patrilines indeed.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jun 2014 at 04:56
The only thing I agree would be that your sources do not disagree with the fact that Yangshao was Sinicized by the neolithic elites during the Longshan which began with Liangzhu.  Liangzhu first Sinicized its contemporary before it Sinicized the Yellow River.  No need to distort the Yangtze being the site of barbarian Tibeto-Burman/Austronesians with facial tattoos when they came directly out of the Yellow River farming millet and match the swadesh check list of cultural terms for 12 percent of words.  12 percent is a gargantuan find!  On the other hand Austronesian is not detected in Sinitic.  So easy772 I'm sorry to burst your bubble.


Edited by literaryClarity - 12 Jun 2014 at 04:59
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
easy772 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 06 Jun 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 38
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote easy772 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jun 2014 at 19:19
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

The only thing I agree would be that your sources do not disagree with the fact that Yangshao was Sinicized by the neolithic elites during the Longshan which began with Liangzhu.  Liangzhu first Sinicized its contemporary before it Sinicized the Yellow River.  No need to distort the Yangtze being the site of barbarian Tibeto-Burman/Austronesians with facial tattoos when they came directly out of the Yellow River farming millet and match the swadesh check list of cultural terms for 12 percent of words.  12 percent is a gargantuan find!  On the other hand Austronesian is not detected in Sinitic.  So easy772 I'm sorry to burst your bubble.

The only reason you don't like the source is because it disagrees with you and because your understanding of archaeogenetics is extremely limited. The label is inconsequential because no matter what you call it, we can see where the highest frequencies are located. In the paper they do call "blue" Sino-Tibetan/Tai-Kadai indicating it is hard to separate the two. Altaic reaches it's highest frequency in Ryukyuan japanese who have the highest paleo-Siberian admixture. Austronesian reaches it's highest frequency in Taiwan and Northern Philippines. 

The Longshan is actually widely thought to be a descendant of Dawenkou, not Liangzhu. Although you could make the case that Liangzhu culturally influenced Dawenkou. Based on the physical differences and genetic differences between the neolithic north and south which continue from the era of Dawenkou+Liangzhu into Longshan, it would seem Liangzhu did not influence the Longshan or Dawenkou genetically. Dawenkou was also one of Barnes' "Elites" 

Scholar Barbara A West agrees Dawenkou is a precursor to Longshan:
"Longshan culture has been described by many as the cultural inheritor of both the Dawenkou culture of the lower Yellow River basin and the Yangshao culture of the region slightly to the west of Dawenkou."


Scholar, Anne Hill agrees Dawenkou is the precursor to Longshan. Look at the last sentence:



Edited by easy772 - 12 Jun 2014 at 19:20
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.