Print Page | Close Window

Ancient Black Chinese

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: REGIONAL HISTORY
Forum Name: East Asia
Forum Description: The Far East: China, Korea, Japan and other nearby civilizations
URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=128726
Printed Date: 15 Aug 2020 at 06:27
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Ancient Black Chinese
Posted By: toyomotor
Subject: Ancient Black Chinese
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2014 at 16:41
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
 
http://www.ipoaa.com/blacks_in_ancient_china.htm" rel="nofollow -  

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.
 
 


-------------
From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.(Chief Joseph)



Replies:
Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 12:59
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


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 14:11
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.


-------------
From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.(Chief Joseph)


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 16:40
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.






-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 16:43
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" rel="nofollow - 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" rel="nofollow - 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.






-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 16:59
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


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 17:28
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???
 
 
 


-------------
From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.(Chief Joseph)


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 18:05


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


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 18:18
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.


-------------
From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.(Chief Joseph)


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 18:48
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 http://www.kulturekritic.com/author/bowatkin/" rel="nofollow - - Life , http://www.kulturekritic.com/category/news/" rel="nofollow - - African Americans , http://www.kulturekritic.com/tag/china/" rel="nofollow - - dna , http://www.kulturekritic.com/tag/events/" rel="nofollow -  

 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.”

And also from http://www.sacred-texts.com/cfu/mlc/mlc03.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.sacred-texts.com/cfu/mlc/mlc03.htm
 
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?

 

 



-------------
From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.(Chief Joseph)


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 19:09
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


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 19:12
 
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-


-------------
From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.(Chief Joseph)


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 19:23
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/" rel="nofollow - 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 ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3164178/figure/pone-0024282-g002/" rel="nofollow - 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 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3164178/#pone.0024282-Karafet1" rel="nofollow - [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.



-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 19:44
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 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024282#pone.0024282-Shi1" rel="nofollow - [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 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024282#pone.0024282-Shi2" rel="nofollow - [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 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024282#pone.0024282-Shi2" rel="nofollow - [4] – http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024282#pone.0024282-Wen2" rel="nofollow - [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 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024282#pone.0024282-Li1" rel="nofollow - [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.
 
 
 
 


-------------
From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.(Chief Joseph)


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 19:51
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?


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 19:56
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.


-------------
From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.(Chief Joseph)


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2014 at 20:00
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


Posted By: Gonads
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 06:58
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. 


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 10:42
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" rel="nofollow - 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.



-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 10:46
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" rel="nofollow - 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?


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: Gonads
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 11:15
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 ( http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/8/1833.full#ref-4" rel="nofollow - 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



Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 12:07
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.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 12:32
Easy 772: In the battle of wits, you're fighting an unarmed man. Yes-No

-------------
From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.(Chief Joseph)


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 12:35
I reported toyomotor for unwanted/unwarranted ad hominem.  We can all continue the discussion.

-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 13:00
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.


-------------
From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.(Chief Joseph)


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 18:53
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" rel="nofollow - 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.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: Gonads
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2014 at 12:48
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" rel="nofollow - 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  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawenkou_culture" rel="nofollow - Dawenkou culture  in  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shandong" rel="nofollow - Shandong , dating to c. 2800–2500 BCE, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_signs_in_China#cite_note-Qiu_2000.2C_p.33-37" rel="nofollow - [31]  have also been unearthed since excavations started in the 1950s, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_signs_in_China#cite_note-Woon_1987.2C_p.27-38" rel="nofollow - [32] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_signs_in_China#cite_note-39" rel="nofollow - [33]  and have drawn a great deal of interest amongst researchers, in part because the Dawenkou culture is believed to be directly ancestral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_signs_in_China#cite_note-Woon_1987.2C_p.27-38" rel="nofollow - [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  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinnabar" rel="nofollow - cinnabar , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_signs_in_China#cite_note-40" rel="nofollow - [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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_signs_in_China#cite_note-41" rel="nofollow - [35]  Some resemble axes, and another has been variously described as resembling the sun above a cloud or fire  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dawenkou_suncloud.svg" rel="nofollow">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. 


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2014 at 14:45
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


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2014 at 14:56
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.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: Gonads
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2014 at 05:19
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:



Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2014 at 09:04
Your slide highlights that Liangzhu basically Sinicized it's contemporary Dawenkou.  Dawenkou had millet and teeth pulling etc.  Longshan was connected into Liangzhu, not the other way around.  That's what the text is saying otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to bring things which have no relation into the discussion of Liangzhu.

-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2014 at 09:14
There are many Longshans, and the point your slide made was what was the start.  Who made the Chinese possible?  Obviously not Tibeto-Burmans/Austronesians in Cishan-Peiligang.  There are many modern/western style governmental applications/democracies.  The point is going to be the same when you are trying to talk about what started it.

So sorry easy772, to burst your bubble, Sinitic is not the same as Tibeto-Burman/Austronesian.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2014 at 11:45
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Your slide highlights that Liangzhu basically Sinicized it's contemporary Dawenkou.  Dawenkou had millet and teeth pulling etc.  Longshan was connected into Liangzhu, not the other way around.  That's what the text is saying otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to bring things which have no relation into the discussion of Liangzhu.
 
I think you've got your threads mixed up.
 
This thread is about Black Chinese, not Liangzhu.


-------------
From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.(Chief Joseph)


Posted By: Gonads
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2014 at 13:25
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Your slide highlights that Liangzhu basically Sinicized it's contemporary Dawenkou.  Dawenkou had millet and teeth pulling etc.  Longshan was connected into Liangzhu, not the other way around.  That's what the text is saying otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to bring things which have no relation into the discussion of Liangzhu.

I don't think "Sinitic" existed until the Zhou imposed it's language on Bai-Yue. What you're referring to would be a non-sinitic language that may have influenced the Zhou (or their ancestors) prior to their "sinicization" of the Bai Yue. 

I think what you're trying to say is one of the Liangzhu passed it's language to the Dawenkou who passed it to the Longshan etc. IF this is true, which is possible I guess, they likely didn't pass on genes. As I've mentioned the physical phenotype of the Zhejiang and Yellow River neolthic differed greatly as did their paternal and maternal DNA. 

Y-DNA O3 seems to have spread out of the Southwest of China northward initially then exploded out of the northwest:
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/12/ancient-east-asian-y-dna-maps.html

Neolithic (before 4000 BP)
You can see here that Y-DNA O3 is concentrated in the west at this time, while Y-DNA O1 is concentrated in the east. 


Metal Ages (After 4000 BP)
You can see here that O3 in the metal ages is intruding into other regions from west to east.




This is completely in line with the findings of Yan et al (2013)



Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2014 at 17:00
Nobody cares since haplotypes don't infer a distinct patriline when they were the result of small matriarchal village posts like those which expanded from Cishan-Peiligang.  If a village of 40 people half O and half C which had remained stable for hundreds of years suddenly experienced food shortage and all but 1 C were wiped out the idea that the group underrepresented C would be irrelevant as to the regards of C's ethnolinguistic identity.  The group began with equal amounts and mixed thoroughly but time passed and drift was experienced.  That's why to anyone belaboring the point of an underrepresented Liangzhu, which developed out of eastern China's neolithic elite, is really no cause for concern because their genes would have been introgressed through time being selected for throughout their period of Sinitic expansion via rice agriculture. It thoroughly discounts the idea that O1 haplotype can be addressed by its specificity to any ethnolinguistic identity apart from the Sinitic, when on the mainland.

Just because their patriline was not expressly consigned to every neolithic niche hardly induces the notion that Chinese civilization wasn't already created by Liangzhu.  Their genes would have certainly made their way into the population at large over time.



So I'm sorry easy772 but the answer is still no.  East China =/= Philippines.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: Gonads
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 05:42
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Nobody cares since haplotypes don't infer a distinct patriline when they were the result of small matriarchal village posts like those which expanded from Cishan-Peiligang.  If a village of 40 people half O and half C which had remained stable for hundreds of years suddenly experienced food shortage and all but 1 C were wiped out the idea that the group underrepresented C would be irrelevant as to the regards of C's ethnolinguistic identity.  The group began with equal amounts and mixed thoroughly but time passed and drift was experienced.  That's why to anyone belaboring the point of an underrepresented Liangzhu, which developed out of eastern China's neolithic elite, is really no cause for concern because their genes would have been introgressed through time being selected for throughout their period of Sinitic expansion via rice agriculture. It thoroughly discounts the idea that O1 haplotype can be addressed by its specificity to any ethnolinguistic identity apart from the Sinitic, when on the mainland.

Just because their patriline was not expressly consigned to every neolithic niche hardly induces the notion that Chinese civilization wasn't already created by Liangzhu.  Their genes would have certainly made their way into the population at large over time.



So I'm sorry easy772 but the answer is still no.  East China =/= Philippines.

RE: Village scenario

 Right but we'd still easily be able to discern what type of people they are from their physical remains. There is no evidence of the same admixture in the majority of ISEA populations. The scenarios you put forward don't make a lot of sense given the actual data. They are wishful and highly imaginative. They do nothing to discount the connection of Liangzhu Y-DNA O1 to modern ISEA O1. The subclades of O1 found in Liangzhu are more common in Taiwan than in China btw. 

RE: Sino-Platonic paper

Also I finally got around to skimming the sino-platonic paper and it supports what I've been saying this whole time! 
Quote Would these diverse yet similar cultures have spoken a common language? Well, no one 
really knows, but it seems most unlikely.22 The shifting patchwork of settlements over this vast 
area, during the last several thousand years, would allow room for Laurent Sagart’s hypothetical original Austronesians, perhaps originally speaking a sister-tongue of Old Sinitic’s ancestors, to spread southeast over to Taiwan, and thence across the Pacific


Quote
Old Sinitic, as nearly all agree, has its genetic taproot in the Tibeto-Burman (TB) family.9
 TB languages have their center of maximum diversity in the 
Central Himalayan highlands. From there, TB speakers apparently fanned out southwest into 
northern India, southeast into Burma, and northeasterly, either into Tibet proper, or along the 
great river valleys eastward into, no doubt, Yunnan and Sichuan
http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp202_old_sinitic_roots.pdf

EDIT: I'm not sure what posting an illustration showing alcohol tolerance levels proves. Somehow that is relevant research when a morphological and genetic similarities are not? 


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 10:04
There's no use telling me what I already know.  The STAN linguistics indeed shows Austronesian to be a sister tongue of Tibeto-Burman.  You're just repeating what I had said.  Doesn't mean Tibeto-Burman/Austronesian was patrilocal and remained to become a part of the proto Sinitic, presumably Baiyue.



I already know the Hemudu were people which were not a sister group of the Austronesians.  Notice that the passages detail how the Liangzhu were related to the Longshan of Dawenkou, not the Dawenkou areas which contained Tibeto-Burman/Austronesians farming millet.



I already know the Tibeto-Burmans were matriarchal, it says so because tha Qiang added their populations to the Han and lost their effective population numbers.  Another page not listed here, the Qiang root word has the "female" logogram for its construction.



What was not included within these populations were people in Taiwan and Philippines.  So you can deny all you want but the Philippines is not a part of glorious China.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: Gonads
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 10:22
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

There's no use telling me what I already know.  The STAN linguistics indeed shows Austronesian to be a sister tongue of Tibeto-Burman.  You're just repeating what I had said.  Doesn't mean Tibeto-Burman/Austronesian was patrilocal and remained to become a part of the proto Sinitic, presumably Baiyue.



I already know the Hemudu were people which were not a sister group of the Austronesians.  Notice that the passages detail how the Liangzhu were related to the Longshan of Dawenkou, not the Dawenkou areas which contained Tibeto-Burman/Austronesians farming millet.



I already know the Tibeto-Burmans were matriarchal, it says so because tha Qiang added their populations to the Han and lost their effective population numbers.  Another page not listed here, the Qiang root word has the "female" logogram for its construction.



What was not included within these populations were people in Taiwan and Philippines.  So you can deny all you want but the Philippines is not a part of glorious China.

You realize that the papers you quoted actually support the Tibeto-Burman origin of Sinitic right? It says specifically "Sinitic as it emerges through history is then the result of a subsequent process of assimilation of the lingua franca of the subject population towards the Sino-Tibetan speech of their rulersAll you did was highlight the technical linguistic jargon while ignoring the actual conclusion reached by the expert. 

In your second cited paper it says the Shang were originally a nomadic "Dong Yi" (Eastern Barbarian) tribe who settled Shandong and conquered the "Nine Lands" from there. This is consistent with Dawenkou being precursor to Longshan and then Shang. 

RE: Philippines part of China

I was never trying to say that. I don't think Malayo-Polynesian languages even existed until Austronesians settled the Philippines. Whatever late Pre-AN, Pre-Tai language the Zhejiang neolithic cultures spoke could very well have influenced various modern populations. Aren't there a lot of Tai loanwords in Chinese languages and even a Tai substrate? I'd say this is more likely actually. 

Also, you seem to be under the impression that there was only 1 route of Austronesian colonization of Insular Southeast Asia. There is evidence mounting to support at least one other route. 
(Li et al 2008)




Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 12:01
In light of how the author was speaking of Zhou's incorporation of unique structures in Sinitic into Tibeto-Burman as a result of contact with the Shang it means the "pure" Sino-Tibetan of Zhou was not the true Sinitic.  The genetic correspondance of linking Sinitic into Tibeto-Burman itself was acquired during the Zhou, limited to pronouns and relict morphologies.  Zhou, whom had already been Sinicized by the Shang, spoke the lingua franca but were adamant about speaking their native Tibeto-Burman.  That's why the paper mentions a "diglossic" situation.  The lingua franca of Shang was not replaced with Sino-Tibetan Zhou but with a heavily Tibeto-Burmanized version of the lingua franca.  So Sinitic lost it's original genetic signatures.

There actually existed a lingua franca before Tibeto-Burmanization and it obviously wasn't Tibeto-Burman or Austronesian.  Tibeto-Burman/Austronesian was not even part of the areal distinctions of the native languages.

The passage related Liangzhu to Longshan of China but Liangzhu was the earlier.  The Shandong Dong Yi were originally nomadic meaning they came from other areas into Shandong.  The Zhou were obviously going to count Dongyi as barbarians.  The passage itself didn't mention barbarians nor Dawenkou conquering Liangzhu but I know you were trying desperately to smear China with Afrocentrist claims of the Philippines.  Your irrelevant interpretations do nothing to discount the "restricted" east Asian lineages of the Austronesians from Cishan-Peiligang.

Austronesian was genetic from Tibeto-Burman and it came from the Yellow River.  Your new map merely shows directionality of migration from one area to the next.  Obviously the arrows have to point out of the shores if Austonesians were to travel across an ocean. Also the issue of Daic was already addressed by Sagart whom I concur with in that Daic was a backflow of Austronesian from Malayo-Polynesian into Hainan which was actually filled with Hmong-Mien/Sinitics.

Authors aren't studying linguistic groups to make a judgement about the haplotypes.  You don't study the Sinitic languages to say "O3 must be a monosyllabic marker" <--- It has no meaning.  Authors are studying their network behaviors to make a judgement about the linguistic groups.  They study O1 O2 and O3 to say "These occur in Sino-Tibetan, Austronesian, Austroasiatic, Daic, Hmong-Mien, and Altaic.  It appears there are many Y subgroupings present within major haplotypes common to Austronesian territories.  Studying Austronesian must encompass more than just a few types so we must be studying a matrilocal group.  O3 has many old subclades in the eastern Himalayas.  Qiang is a small tribal population whom settled in the range but did not necessarily find expansion.  As time went on they retained diversification highly similar to Austronesian populations whom settled and preferred not to move on.  The increasing patrilineal signature of O1 dominance on the east coast appears to corroborate Sinitic expansion of "late neolithic elites".  This is real talk, not fake talk.  Take it to Doraemon she'll set you right.

Lansing's study on Indonesia would begin by labeling everything Indonesian but then studying a while the labeling would be haplogroup O1 O2 O3 M S K C etc.  After studying a while longer the labeling would become O as the ingroup.  After studying a while longer the picture becomes clear, male dominance was never the issue during the early neolithic of Austronesian expansion.  After a while even the spread of negrito MTDNA E becomes highly relevant.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: Gonads
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 13:57
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

In light of how the author was speaking of Zhou's incorporation of unique structures in Sinitic into Tibeto-Burman as a result of contact with the Shang it means the "pure" Sino-Tibetan of Zhou was not the true Sinitic.  The genetic correspondance of linking Sinitic into Tibeto-Burman itself was acquired during the Zhou, limited to pronouns and relict morphologies.  Zhou, whom had already been Sinicized by the Shang, spoke the lingua franca but were adamant about speaking their native Tibeto-Burman.  That's why the paper mentions a "diglossic" situation.  The lingua franca of Shang was not replaced with Sino-Tibetan Zhou but with a heavily Tibeto-Burmanized version of the lingua franca.  So Sinitic lost it's original genetic signatures.

There actually existed a lingua franca before Tibeto-Burmanization and it obviously wasn't Tibeto-Burman or Austronesian.  Tibeto-Burman/Austronesian was not even part of the areal distinctions of the native languages.

The passage related Liangzhu to Longshan of China but Liangzhu was the earlier.  The Shandong Dong Yi were originally nomadic meaning they came from other areas into Shandong.  The Zhou were obviously going to count Dongyi as barbarians.  The passage itself didn't mention barbarians nor Dawenkou conquering Liangzhu but I know you were trying desperately to smear China with Afrocentrist claims of the Philippines.  Your irrelevant interpretations do nothing to discount the "restricted" east Asian lineages of the Austronesians from Cishan-Peiligang.

Austronesian was genetic from Tibeto-Burman and it came from the Yellow River.  Your new map merely shows directionality of migration from one area to the next.  Obviously the arrows have to point out of the shores if Austonesians were to travel across an ocean. Also the issue of Daic was already addressed by Sagart whom I concur with in that Daic was a backflow of Austronesian from Malayo-Polynesian into Hainan which was actually filled with Hmong-Mien/Sinitics.

Authors aren't studying linguistic groups to make a judgement about the haplotypes.  You don't study the Sinitic languages to say "O3 must be a monosyllabic marker" <--- It has no meaning.  Authors are studying their network behaviors to make a judgement about the linguistic groups.  They study O1 O2 and O3 to say "These occur in Sino-Tibetan, Austronesian, Austroasiatic, Daic, Hmong-Mien, and Altaic.  It appears there are many Y subgroupings present within major haplotypes common to Austronesian territories.  Studying Austronesian must encompass more than just a few types so we must be studying a matrilocal group.  O3 has many old subclades in the eastern Himalayas.  Qiang is a small tribal population whom settled in the range but did not necessarily find expansion.  As time went on they retained diversification highly similar to Austronesian populations whom settled and preferred not to move on.  The increasing patrilineal signature of O1 dominance on the east coast appears to corroborate Sinitic expansion of "late neolithic elites".  This is real talk, not fake talk.  Take it to Doraemon she'll set you right.

Lansing's study on Indonesia would begin by labeling everything Indonesian but then studying a while the labeling would be haplogroup O1 O2 O3 M S K C etc.  After studying a while longer the labeling would become O as the ingroup.  After studying a while longer the picture becomes clear, male dominance was never the issue during the early neolithic of Austronesian expansion.  After a while even the spread of negrito MTDNA E becomes highly relevant.

Nothing you said makes sense here, first you're saying that mtDNA E is Negrito when it's ancestors are from North China. Also if Austronesian expansions were based on "super matriarchs" that didn't let their men mate, but stole all the foreign men, Austronesian matriline should be perfectly preserved. 

 Next you continue to cite Lansing without really understanding what he's talking about. You speak of an "O as an ingroup" but I've already showed specifically which subclades of O he was talking about. One of them was Y-DNA O1. All of what your saying is speculative and not based on concrete data. You can continue to invent complex and speculative scenarios all you want, but at the end of the day they don't fit the facts. 

The actual data seem to support the assimilation of the local Zhejiang cultures into the incoming Han population, but the Liangzhu are almost certainly not the primary patrilineal ancestors of modern Han anywhere in China, even within the geographical limits of the Liangzhu culture. I think it is important for you to consider these data, Toohoo, since you always have adamantly opposed any hypothesis but a "Sinitic origin" in Liangzhu. The fact is, even in the sources you cite, Sinitic is the result of Zhou imposing it's language on Bai Yue. Your theory is basically like trying to claim Mexicans founded Spain, it doesn't make sense because Spain predates Mexico just like Sinitic didn't come into fruition until the Zhou dynasty. "Old Sinitic", again even by your source, is widely believed to be Tibeto-Burman




Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 13:59
Actual data, not interpretations by easy772 actually say Sinitic is SVO non agglutinated.  Tibeto-Burman/Austronesian agglutinated and SOV or VSO respectively.  My sources do not lie.  They do not posit a negrito homeland for the Chinese.

-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 14:05
I fear that this thread is irretrievably off topic, which is Ancient Black Chinese.
 
There are quite a number of scientific papers which recognise the ancient existence of Black Chinese, and in fact, bearing in mind that we all descend from Africans, it's not too difficult to accept that the first people in China were of Negro appearance.
 
LC has decided to refute this, but keeps posting passages of text relevant to Liangzhou, which in itself is the topic of another thread. No mention of Liangzhuo is made in the OP. There is no inference that the Ancient Black Chinese lived in Liangzhou, nada, nix, zip.
 
The only time that DNA becomes relevant in this thread is when or if there is ancient DNA which either links some Chinese with Africa, or, obversely, places the ancient roots as having originated elsewhere.
 
The theory of man originating in several different places has now been thoroughly discounted, and so Peking Man is not the original ancestor of all Chinese as once believed.
 
LC has not posted any information which actually refutes the ancient existence of Black Chinese, he repeatedly misquotes his own posts, and shows a misunderstanding of the OP. He has been unable to thwart the line projected by Easy 772, and in fact still continues to misquote his own information sources.
 
As the thread seems to be going nowhere and no middle ground can be agreed, Mods may as well close the thread, imo.
 
 


-------------
From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.(Chief Joseph)


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 14:20
Han is supraethnic even by the superficial reckoning of Sino authors not using actual carbon dating and updated linguistic/genetic data/archaeological data.

Same source of the earlier slides with green highlighted text

Plurality and Unity in the Configuration of the Chinese People
FEI XIAOTONG
THE TANNER LECTURES ON HUMAN VALUES
Delivered at
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
November 15 and 17, 1988

Quote
Archaeological finds of Neolithic cultures in the middle and lower reaches of China’s two great rivers, regions whose ecological conditions were almost identical, proved the fact that the ancestors lived in separate groups over vast areas to create their respective cultures, each with characteristics of its own, during the dawn of human civilization between 5000 to 2000 B.C. This was the starting point of the pluralistic configuration of the Chinese people.


Quote
Archaeological data for the coastal areas between southern Zhejiang and Guangdong are inadequate. However, the discovery of Shixia culture in Guangdong has suggested to archaeologists that this culture was in constant contact, directly or indirectly, with the primitive cultures in the mid-lower basin of the River Gan, the mid-lower basin of the Yangtze, and even down to the coastal regions of Shandong; that there was mutual influence between them; and that these ties became more extensive and profound as time went on. All this suggests that the coastal regions have been closely related to each other throughout the ages (Archaeological Institute, Archaeological Finds, p. 166).


Now we know the second passage to be a bunch of nonsense as the areas introduced were in direct relation to the Austronesians which came out of the Cishan-Peiligang region and whom migrated to the east coast in chase of supplementation to their sacred millet diet but the first passage has its own merit in the sense of the chaotic dynastic history of China.

 I don't pretend to know the exact location of where Han dynasty would emerge but where it does I understand people would like framing that as the homeland of Han people, but I am certain the Sinitic was what started the civilization of the Han Chinese, not Tibeto-Burman/Austronesian.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 14:27
Again, none of this is relevant.
 
I know I wrote that I wouldn't be posting on this again, but LC continues to post material not germane to the OP.
 
This thread could be enhanced if only LC could produce some relevant and scientific evidence which refutes the OP.
 
To date, he has not.
 
 


-------------
From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.(Chief Joseph)


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 14:30
Never said MTDNA E is from north China.  MTDNA E of negritos in Philippines becomes necessary and valid as a matriarchal paradigm of the Austronesian expansion.



There is no use trying to smear China with factless negrito basis when the negrito situation arrives into Austronesian lands via ancient Sundaland routes and stops short of China.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 14:34
Again, what do you mean by "Negro" in appearance? As far as I know, Bantus never left Africa before the slave trade. The dark skinned people of Asia and Oceania aren't Bantus (so called Negros) but Australoid and Austronesian peoples which by genetics are more distant to Bantus, than Europeans to Africans.


-------------
A point of view from the antipodes


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 14:39
Exactly, Austronesians have their admixture but easy772 has the flight response to say I said they came from northern China.

-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 14:43
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Again, what do you mean by "Negro" in appearance? As far as I know, Bantus never left Africa before the slave trade. The dark skinned people of Asia and Oceania aren't Bantus (so called Negros) but Australoid and Austronesian peoples which by genetics are more distant to Bantus, than Europeans to Africans.
 
Negro/Negroid/African.
 
Afaik, all ancient Africans were Negro or Negroid.
 
The ancient Black Chinese are said to have been of African descent.


-------------
From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.(Chief Joseph)


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 15:04
Quote
Chinese come from Africa, just like the rest of us
Posted: Thursday, May 12, 2005
CNA, HONG KONG
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/ancient-black-chinese-from-east-africa-by-prof-jin-li-2/
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 Kong’s 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 Jin’s 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.
Quote
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/black-chinese-and-other-asiatics-presented-by-malibudusul/
“Founded by King Tang or Ta, the earliest documented rulership of China was the Shang Dynasty (or Chiang) c. 1500-1000 B.C., which is credited with bringing together the elements of China’s earliest known civilization. The Shang were given the name Nakhi (Na-Black, Khi-man). Under the Black dynasty, the Chinese established the basic forms of a graceful calligraphy that has lasted to the present day.
In 100 Amazing Facts About The Negro, J.A. Rogers reports that in 1923, Europeans first discovered “a hitherto unknown Negro race, the Nakhis, 200,000 in number, in Southern China.”
AND
Quote
http://www.china.org.cn/china/2009-11/24/content_18944317.htm
Professor Jin Li of the Research Center of Contemporary Anthropology at Shanghai Fudan University (RCCASFU) says he has proved modern Chinese people originated in Africa. His research, based on DNA testing techniques that have transformed the study of human evolution, supports the global scientific consensus that all modern humans are descended from people who migrated from Africa tens of thousands of years ago. The so-called "out-of-Africa" theory is the current scientific consensus and seems to be based on convincing genetic data.
But archeologists have spent decades studying the fossil remains of ancient populations of hominids that lived in China long before the African migrants arrived. The question arises – what happened to these early humans? Were they killed off by the newcomers? Is it possible that the two populations interbred, and would that help explain some puzzling physical differences between modern East Asians and people in Africa and elsewhere? Despite the DNA evidence, some Chinese archeologists continue to defend a multi-regional theory of human evolution – in which different populations around the world evolved from local hominids independently.
All modern humans are descended from a 200,000-year-old African woman
Professor Jin published first his research in 2001, but he was not the first to reach essentially the similar conclusions. In 1987 the New Zealander Allan Charles Wilson and Rebecca Cann published a study of mitochondrial DNA that supported the "African Eve" theory – that all human beings living today are descendents of a single woman who lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago. According to Wilson and Cann descendents of this "African Eve" migrated around the world and later evolved into the different varieties of modern humans.
Since then more and more genetic evidence has accumulated, all supporting the view that modern humans, including Chinese people, originated from a single population in Africa. In 1998, Chinese scientist Chu Jiayou and his team analyzed the DNA microsatellites (also known as simple sequence repeats) of northern and southern Chinese, both those of Han and ethnic minorities. Chu concluded that the ancestors of the modern Chinese had migrated to China from Africa via South Asia.
As the mutation rate of DNA microsatellites is high, it is not the best method available for researching ancient human migration and the evolution process. Su Bing and other scientists from the Kunming Institute of Zoology proposed an alternative approach using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the Y-chromosome (Y-SNP). This was the approach used by Prof. Jin Li and associate professor Li Hui.


-------------
From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.(Chief Joseph)


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 15:48
I already mentioned bottlenecks.  No need to belabor on and on about how Chinese were not black Africans nor Negrito nor Australoid.

-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: Gonads
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 17:02
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Han is supraethnic even by the superficial reckoning of Sino authors not using actual carbon dating and updated linguistic/genetic data/archaeological data.

Same source of the earlier slides with green highlighted text

Plurality and Unity in the Configuration of the Chinese People
FEI XIAOTONG
THE TANNER LECTURES ON HUMAN VALUES
Delivered at
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
November 15 and 17, 1988

Quote
Archaeological finds of Neolithic cultures in the middle and lower reaches of China’s two great rivers, regions whose ecological conditions were almost identical, proved the fact that the ancestors lived in separate groups over vast areas to create their respective cultures, each with characteristics of its own, during the dawn of human civilization between 5000 to 2000 B.C. This was the starting point of the pluralistic configuration of the Chinese people.


Quote
Archaeological data for the coastal areas between southern Zhejiang and Guangdong are inadequate. However, the discovery of Shixia culture in Guangdong has suggested to archaeologists that this culture was in constant contact, directly or indirectly, with the primitive cultures in the mid-lower basin of the River Gan, the mid-lower basin of the Yangtze, and even down to the coastal regions of Shandong; that there was mutual influence between them; and that these ties became more extensive and profound as time went on. All this suggests that the coastal regions have been closely related to each other throughout the ages (Archaeological Institute, Archaeological Finds, p. 166).


Now we know the second passage to be a bunch of nonsense as the areas introduced were in direct relation to the Austronesians which came out of the Cishan-Peiligang region and whom migrated to the east coast in chase of supplementation to their sacred millet diet but the first passage has its own merit in the sense of the chaotic dynastic history of China.

 I don't pretend to know the exact location of where Han dynasty would emerge but where it does I understand people would like framing that as the homeland of Han people, but I am certain the Sinitic was what started the civilization of the Han Chinese, not Tibeto-Burman/Austronesian.

Again you're seeing "Neolithic Elite" and tunnel-visioning Zhejiang neolithic. There were plenty of other neolithic elites. Zhejiang is by far the worst candidate. When I get back from my trip, I will skim over the paper and I am certain I will find that you are distorting as usual. 

RE: mtDNA-E 

Only someone who knew nothing about genomics would assume E was Negrito or Papuan. mtDNA E's ancestors come from Northern China. 
Quote A Taiwan origin for the expansion of the Austronesian languages and their speakers is well supported by linguistic and archaeological evidence. However, human genetic evidence is more controversial. Until now, there had been no ancient skeletal evidence of a potential Austronesian-speaking ancestor prior to the Taiwan Neolithic ∼6,000 years ago, and genetic studies have largely ignored the role of genetic diversity within Taiwan as well as the origins of Formosans. We address these issues via analysis of a complete mitochondrial DNA genome sequence of an ∼8,000-year-old skeleton from Liang Island (located between China and Taiwan) and 550 mtDNA genome sequences from 8 aboriginal (highland) Formosan and 4 other Taiwanese groups. We show that the Liangdao Man mtDNA sequence is closest to Formosans, provides a link to southern China, and has the most ancestral haplogroup E sequence found among extant Austronesian speakers. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis allows us to reconstruct a history of early Austronesians arriving in Taiwan in the north ∼6,000 years ago, spreading rapidly to the south, and leaving Taiwan ∼4,000 years ago to spread throughout Island Southeast Asia, Madagascar, and Oceania.

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of "Old SInitic" originating in Tibeto-Burman populations or at least Yellow River cultures. 


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 18:10

Quote

mtDNA haplogroup E in Southeast Asia

Mol Biol Evol. 2008 Mar 21 [Epub ahead of print]

Climate Change and Post-Glacial Human Dispersals in Southeast Asia.

Soares P, Trejaut JA, Loo JH, Hill C, Mormina M, Lee CL, Chen YM, Hudjashov G, Forster P, Macaulay V, Bulbeck D, Oppenheimer S, Lin M, Richards MB.

Modern humans have been living in Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) for at least 50,000 years. Largely because of the influence of linguistic studies, however, which have a shallow time depth, the attention of archaeologists and geneticists has usually been focused on the last 6000 years - in particular, on a proposed Neolithic dispersal from China and Taiwan. Here we use complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) genome sequencing to spotlight some earlier processes that clearly had a major role in the demographic history of the region but have hitherto been unrecognised. We show that haplogroup E, an important component of mtDNA diversity in the region, evolved in situ over the last 35,000 years and expanded dramatically throughout ISEA around the beginning of the Holocene, at the time when the ancient continent of Sundaland was being broken up into the present-day archipelago by rising sea levels. It reached Taiwan and Near Oceania more recently, within the last approximately 8000 years. This suggests that global warming and sea-level rises at the end of the Ice Age, 15,000-7000 years ago, were the main forces shaping modern human diversity in the region.


I'm sorry easy772 but I've had enough of your lies.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm



Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2014 at 18:39
As the author of the OP, I think that the time has come for the mods to close the thread please.

-------------
From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.(Chief Joseph)


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2014 at 05:53


From out of Africa at 159 thousand years ago, "Ancient Black" Chinese would fall on the 30 thousand years coalescent range.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net