| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Sinitic Civilization began in 3000 BC in Liangzhu
  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.


Sinitic Civilization began in 3000 BC in Liangzhu

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
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: 07 Jun 2014 at 07:03
Toyomotor you missed nothing.  He had his moderator status revoked because it didn't suit the forum for a person to be arguing against members as often as he did and be moderating at the same time.  It would make a moderated forum completely biased.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4935
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 07:25
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Toyomotor you missed nothing.  He had his moderator status revoked because it didn't suit the forum for a person to be arguing against members as often as he did and be moderating at the same time.  It would make a moderated forum completely biased.
LC: (Or any other member)
  1.  Would you like to comment of the Forgotten People of China, those for whom no written history remains, if it ever existed, and any impact that could have had on the "civilisation" of China?
  2. What about the people who were in, for instance the Yellow River region when the first Chinese, (or if you prefer, Sinitic people) arrived?
  3. There is a theory that the first people to civilise China were in fact of Tibeto-Burmese stock, could that be correct?
  4. Or could they have been of Mongol stock?
  5. Is it possible that there could have been a Caucasian influence at work in Northern/Central China at the time?

I pose these questions after having read almost endless references to the Sinitic Civilisation over the past week or so. Some of the sources argued with each other as to the Xia, Liangzhu and other areas, some posited a Mongol/Caucasian admixture in early Chinese-and drew clear distinction between who we now call the Chinese and the Austronesian people who lived closer to the coast line. These "southerners" were the Barbarians referred to in some Chinese writings.

If I've read correctly, the suggestion is that the so-called barbarians were from an earlier migratory group than the tribe which civilised China, and that they looked different and spoke different languages.
 
I'd be pleased to read any comments.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: 07 Jun 2014 at 07:47
You already mentioned that in the posts on the first page.  I didn't care for the miscellaneous Black Chinese, Cuman at the bend of the Yellow River, Xiongnu as the oldest Chinese, Siberians/Eskimos of the original Chinese demographic, Native American, or AMH theories.  It's a jumbled unscientific mess as far as I can tell.  The only thing you've added now are the Tibeto-Burmese and the Mongolics which although admittedly forming part of the Chinese trinity in terms of linguistic/dynastic cultural influences form its secondary and tertiary branches of what can be deconstructed as Chinese civilization.  The roots are still largely Sinitic if you are talking about the scientific scope of what it means to have civilization in China.  There was never any native Tibeto-Burman nor Mongolic script.


Edited by literaryClarity - 07 Jun 2014 at 08:49
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: 4935
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 08:05
Whether or not you "care" for my comments on various potential occupants of Ancient China, is not relevant. What is relevant is that you have no evidence with which to refute the claims, and when someone comes along with facts to overcome your claims, you get personal and start spreading tales of their past activities. If you hope to discredit Easy772 with these claims, you're wasting your time, as far as I'm concerned. I'll make my own mind up as time progresses.
 
Nevertheless, those theories are out there, and come from some very intelligent people.
 
But if you don't feel able to comment, that's OK. Maybe Easy772 has some ideas!
 
And I don't consider people like Mair and Anthony as fiction writers.
 
If one accepts the position that the Xia people were the ones who developed civilisation in China, and then were later overthrown by the Shang, one must also accept that civilisation came later than 3000BC.
 


Edited by toyomotor - 07 Jun 2014 at 08:17
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: 07 Jun 2014 at 08:23
I don't care for it in the sense that it's being twisted just like some might like twisting the fact that Tibeto-Burmans were the native occupants whom created civilization in China when it was only a dynasty they've created which served as another stream of influence into the original Sinitic civilization started in Liangzhu.  Sure there might be a Cuman here or there.  Sure there might be a Native American type.  Sure they may have created a kingdom here or there.  But are these significant in the sense of what Sintic CIVILIZATION means?  SHOW me the Cuman writing, the Siberian writing, the AMH writing, the writing of Black Chinese, etc etc.  SHOW ME




Edited by literaryClarity - 07 Jun 2014 at 08:26
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: 4935
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 08:40
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

I don't care for it in the sense that it's being twisted just like some might like twisting the fact that Tibeto-Burmans were the native occupants whom created civilization in China when it was only a dynasty they've created which served as another stream of influence into the original Sinitic civilization started in Liangzhu.  Sure there might be a Cuman here or there.  Sure there might be a Native American type.  Sure they may have created a kingdom here or there.  But are these significant in the sense of what Sintic CIVILIZATION means?

You know that I can't produce Cuman writings, and I've never referred to any such in my posts. Do your own research if you want to find out about the Cumans, the Black Chinese etc. Stop trying to be a smart alec, because you're failing in that too. 
 
I'm certainly not "twisting facts". I've presented extracts from works by credible people who are experts in their fields. I've posed some questions of my own, for my own education and/or clarification.
 
As they relate to the Sinitic Civilisation, which incidentally is said to have originated in the region of the Big Bend in the Yellow River, when another group of people is mentioned as having lived in that region, and that they were phenotypically different to the Chinese, I'm curious as to where those people came from, and how long they lived in China. There could obviously be potential for them to have had some influence on Chinese civilisation, if they had have been living there at the relevant time.
You say that civilisation started in Lianzhu, experts have said that it started in the Yellow River region. I'll take their word on that, as you've produced no proper evidence to the contrary.
 
And I didn't mention Native Americans as being in China. Although I can understand why some of the people who later became Native Americans, rather than trek into the cold climate of Siberia, decided  to head south to China.
 
Do us all a favour, read back through the posts carefully, and then if you can find evidence in rebuttal, and I mean evidence, not your own ramblings, then present that evidence so that the rest of use can peruse it.
 
And please don't present your Path 1 or Path 2 as proofs, they're not.
 
The more you say, the less people remember.
 


Edited by toyomotor - 07 Jun 2014 at 08:43
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: 07 Jun 2014 at 08:45
I'd love to see the Cuman writing or what have you some time Worship
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: 4935
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 08:49
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

I'd love to see the Cuman writing or what have you some time Worship
 
Did you even read my last post?
 
I would think not, or if you did, you clearly didn't understand it.
 
PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE!!!
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: 4935
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 08:55
LC: On second thoughts, don't bother. You haven't produced the goods so far, and I can't see that you will in the near future.
 
I don't intend to respond to you again on this thread.Moon
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: 07 Jun 2014 at 13:29
Produce the evidence?  Is that any kind of response to give after being considerately introduced to various archaeological and linguistic discoveries, which insurmountably encapsulate Liangzhu as the original Sinitic element, and other essential direct historical data, which irrefutably deny other areas surrounding it (such as Yangshao) absurd claims to formulating Chinese civilization?

Quote
[What is relevant is that you have no evidence with which to refute the claims...]


Nobody is called to prove a negative.  The whining drone of "You can't prove unicorns don't exist" is not the method by which rational people come to agree that unicorns don't exist.  Unicorns don't exist because the people stating they do can't come to demonstrate anything plausible to support their existence.

Where are the Tibeto-Burman's and Austronesian's native handwritings?  Where are the Mongolic's native handwritings?  I don't care if these people came into China and settled and spread their relict lexical morphologies and pronouns during their rule, from western Zhou and onward.  I'm talking about what the majority had actually spoken, written, and abided by since the time of a Chinese cultural sphere.  Are we to believe the Potala palace of the Tibetans constitutes the form of palatial architecture that was seen in ancient Han palaces of Chang'an or Luoyang?  Are we to believe the formulation of Beijing, with historical attestation of yurts within the inner city complex, was anything other than the work of Khitans Jurchens Mongols?  Are we to believe that the millet sites of Yangshao culture, thematically similar and coeval with Dapenkeng archaeological sites in Taiwan 6500 YBP, without anything as sophisticated as Chinese ritual forms in jade and pottery, constituted what we eventually think of to be Chinese?

Questions which aim to shed light on the problematic presumption for a northern origin of Sinitic are posed by anthropologists/linguists, like Roger Blench, whom for all their expertise find it extremely unlikely that the Sinitic can be traced to the earliest settlements of the Yellow River despite the erroneous claims by people blindly following traditional mythological accounts.

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 - 07 Jun 2014 at 13:49
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: 07 Jun 2014 at 14:11
I can't believe I haven't done this earlier but I'm going to link you guys to the Shanghai Archaeology Forum site.  SAF was the initial basis of the live recording that I've linked to in my signature.  Their international selection committee awarded the Liangzhu discoveries as being tantamount to the discoveries in Egypt, being placed fifth.

In English and Chinese:

http://121.199.37.213/index.php/saf-2013/2013saf_projects/ - Index for the various recognition awards for 2013

http://121.199.37.213/index.php/liangzhu/ - The Liangzhu project
http://121.199.37.213/index.php/tanyuan/ - This is also important as it is a multidisciplinary program aimed at resolving civilizational origin in China and gives a cursory overview of Liangzhu's importance




Edited by literaryClarity - 07 Jun 2014 at 14:12
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: 07 Jun 2014 at 18:07
Even the sources he uses he's distorting. A Chinese friend of mine says the video posits that Chinese civilization was influenced by many neolithic cultures, Yellow River cultures are still primary however. Not only were Liangzhu genetically dissimilar, they were physically dissimilar (according to skeletal structure and craniofacial features)

Zhejiang (where Liangzhu is) and Yellow River sites (Where Sino-Tibetan speakers are from) were physically very different in terms of craniofacial featurs:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/213764586/North-vs-South-Neolithic-Skulls-China

There's a site called Ranhaer where an enthusiast (similar to Dienekes) has analyzed the skeletal structure of different Neolithic cultures and compared them to modern ones. Liangzhu did not cluster with Yellow River cultures or modern Chinese either (although I don't speak Chinese, it's what my friends have told me:



Edited by easy772 - 07 Jun 2014 at 18:40
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: 07 Jun 2014 at 18:39
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

LC: On second thoughts, don't bother. You haven't produced the goods so far, and I can't see that you will in the near future.
 
I don't intend to respond to you again on this thread.Moon

I'm not going to respond to him either. He's been indefinitely banned on eastbound88, but he keeps making sockpuppets to draw me here. Instead of endlessly engaging him, I'll just post the information directly to you guys. 
 

Also more evidence for you guys to use on this site, he claims that Y-DNA O1 is not Austronesian according to Lansing et al. In actuality this is yet again another distortion of a scholars views. 

Another inconsistency I had a problem with was him using Lansing's work to claim O1 was not a marker of the Austronesian expansion. According to Lansing it was (in his paper from 2005). I also recently read a paper published by him in 2010. It holds that O1a1 was a Paleolithic East Eurasian marker and O1a2 was an Austronesian marker!

The 4 phase model Lansing proposes is: 

-"Southeast Eurasian" or "Australoid" immigration into Indonesia: Y-DNA C, K, C2, M and S about 45kya

-Paleolithic "East Eurasian" immigration to Indonesia: Y-DNA O1a1, O3, and O1a* dated to about 13kya (this agrees with what Razib had been saying for years based on Linguistics just for the record)

-Austronesian expansion: Y-DNA O1a2 (O-M110) and O3-P201 dated ~5kya

-Historical immigrations: Y-DNA R, H etc. dated very recently.. Indian and Chinese immigrants

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/8/1833.full#ref-72
(CNTRL +F a four-stage)


This is from a paper authored by Karafet et al (of which Lansing was a part of) O-M119 is O1:
http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/humbiol/vol77/iss1/8/

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: 07 Jun 2014 at 18:58
Btw, my "arguments" are all directly cited from actual scholars. Instead of copy/pasting all of the sources individually I'll just link to my profile on eastbound88 where I've done so already


Origin of Sinitic:
http://www.eastbound88.com/entry.php/274-Origin-of-Sinitic

Origin of Austronesian:
http://www.eastbound88.com/entry.php/175-Proto-Austronesian-Origin-Mainstream-theory-directly-supported-by-scholarly-works
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: 07 Jun 2014 at 21:29
Easy772 You give notice of your withdrawal but keep coming back to argue nonsense because you take your flawed approach personally.  For example, you settle for O1 being Austronesian when Austronesian heritage is linguistically inherited off matrilineal descent.  Professor Lansing talks about this and which is why he never mentions O1 in his lectures.  He mentions O.  The implication isn't that there is a question of whether O1 can be Austronesian, the implication is that there isn't a question of whether O2 and O3 are also Austronesian.  Here is video proof:

 - Lansing never utters O1 so I'm sorry to disillusion you to the fact that Austronesian is anthropologically more than O1.  I think it is surprising given that you even cited O3 as being richly embedded within Austronesian populations.

Skipping to 20 minutes into the video, Lansing states:
Quote
This is haplogroup O. *A slide appears with the X-Axis marking % Haplogroup O*


Now unless you are deaf and dumb you would probably see the lecture in the same way I did.  I didn't hear Lansing utter O1 nor present a slide showing O1.  He said and showed O, which means that there could have been any number of types hes was talking about, the most notable of which would have been O2 for although that wasn't shown either.


(Neither does he mention craniofacial studies to discern what is Austronesian or not.)

----------------------------------

In the end Austronesian requires one to look at mtDNA sequences, not YDNA sequences.  Get over it.  Research teams in UK, among others, do not study Austronesian mtDNA for nothing.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/02/27/rspb.2009.0088.full.pdf

Matrilocal Residence Is Ancestral In Austronesian Societies

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.

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.


If you are perceiving Liangzhu as being Austronesian just because they have O1 that's basically saying Japanese are natively Tibeto-Burman speakers or Han because they have a ton of D or O3, take your pick.

----------------------------------

Liangzhu was patrilineal.  No linguistic/civilizational researcher worth their salt cares if a skull exhibited variation outside of another region.  Their lavish burials were for kings, warriors and male priests.  When we analyze whether people had civilization we don't analyze how they look.  Your arguments about bones analysis fails miserably here just as your arguments about favoring a millet based expansion of Peiligang by using La Polla's conjectures fails miserably since Peiligang was not associated with Barnes' "late neolithic elites."  They were Tibeto-Burman/Austronesian and farmed millet.  Liangzhu didn't have millet.

----------------------------------

To summarize, your contention all this time is based on O1 being Austronesian.  Your fullest attempt at creating some link between Austronesians to the east coast of China is through citing professor Lansing, but whose views you've misappropriated and improvised.  Lansing himself lectures about the Austronesians being based on matrilineal expansion, SOLELY.  He never usefully analyzed O1 dominance for the recognition of Austronesians.  Just like nobody ever usefully analyzed O3's relationship to Han people.  Isn't it a curious thing that O3 are in fact much more highly evident in groups outside of Hans and O2 is actually a more dominant haplotype of Austronesian admixtures and expansion.  Like I said, nobody isolates identities to haplotypes to the exclusion of other associated identities unless they are asking to be ridiculed.

Case in point,

We directly see Dulongs or Derungs (matrilineal Tibeto-Burman people ancestral to Austronesian) have near 100 percent O3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_O-M122

Austronesians in Indonesia harboring significantly more amounts of O2 than O1.

http://dna.xyvy.info/country-national-haplogroup-chart-dna/indonesia

----------------------------------

As toyomotor requested, one must produce the relevant evidence.


Edited by literaryClarity - 08 Jun 2014 at 00:12
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: 07 Jun 2014 at 22:42
This is why I request for easy772 to work on his reading comprehension instead of pointing fingers all the time.  His own slide presents the view that there were diverse Y Chromosome arrangements of 3 haplogroups O-M95, O-M122, and O-M119.  Highlighting O-M119 doesn't magically erase the presence of O-M95 and O-M122.  Interesting how he thought it was an easy task to highlight just ONE of the haplogroups presented but not the other TWO. LOL


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: 07 Jun 2014 at 23:00
Quote
There's a site called Ranhaer where an enthusiast (similar to Dienekes) has analyzed the skeletal structure of different Neolithic cultures and compared them to modern ones.


easy772, the day enthusiasts are published is the day I will award you with the scholarly merit you deserve but until then I'm just going to side with people that actually know what they are talking about and do it professionally.  BTW your friends must have given you the runaround.  The distance map you gave didn't feature any Liangzhu population.



From left to right the red are as follows, Malaysian Indonesian - Zhuang - Fujian Han - Korean - Huabei Han - Inuit - Mongolian.  I didn't see Liangzhu within any of the populations compared.

Edited by literaryClarity - 08 Jun 2014 at 00:44
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: 4935
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2014 at 02:43
Easy 772 wrote:
Quote I'm not going to respond to him either. He's been indefinitely banned on eastbound88, but he keeps making sockpuppets to draw me here. Instead of endlessly engaging him, I'll just post the information directly to you guys. 
 
It's much easier to ignore him than keep prodding him with a hot iron, although the latter could prove entertaining.
 
Have you noticed that he never answers direct questions put to him?
 
As I said, I'm not responding to him again.
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: 08 Jun 2014 at 03:31
But you always say that.  I'm still looking for the Cuman's writings and I need help toyomotor.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
Alpha NOVA Omega View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 02 Jun 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Alpha NOVA Omega Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2014 at 04:10
SINITIC POWER!
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: 08 Jun 2014 at 04:15
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Easy 772 wrote:
Quote I'm not going to respond to him either. He's been indefinitely banned on eastbound88, but he keeps making sockpuppets to draw me here. Instead of endlessly engaging him, I'll just post the information directly to you guys. 
 
It's much easier to ignore him than keep prodding him with a hot iron, although the latter could prove entertaining.
 
Have you noticed that he never answers direct questions put to him?
 
As I said, I'm not responding to him again.

Yeah. I am also ignoring him. The IP ban is broken on eastbound88 so he's making multiple sockpuppets per day to post thread despite being permanently banned LOL

Regarding Y-DNA O2 in ISEA. It's presence there is associated with Austro-Asiatics who inhabited Malaysia and possibly Java before the Austronesian expansion. Here you can see this illustration represents overall ancestry you can see Java and Malaysia have substantial Austro-Asiatic ancestry as well as Austronesian:

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: 08 Jun 2014 at 05:05
I only got banned because people thought I was being offensive but then I got reprieved.  There was a thread in which people felt you were the annoying one and wanted Yellow Peril's resignation.  But you're right I wouldn't want to reinstate my membership because there's no point when distortionists like you are on there posting skull shapes for linguistic classification purposes.  How embarassing it must be to associate with those types.

Edited by literaryClarity - 08 Jun 2014 at 05:09
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: 4935
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2014 at 05:39
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

I need help toyomotor.
 
 
I know.
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: 4935
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2014 at 05:43
Originally posted by Alpha NOVA Omega Alpha NOVA Omega wrote:

SINITIC POWER!
 
Apropos  of precisely what?
 
A well  presented, thought out,and informative post.Ermm
 
CHOI OI?


Edited by toyomotor - 08 Jun 2014 at 07:16
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: 08 Jun 2014 at 06:57
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

I need help toyomotor.
 
 
I know.

So what do Cuman writings look like? I need to know.
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: 08 Jun 2014 at 07:11
BTW I hope everyone isn't put off by the dubious source easy772 put up as the excuse for Austronesians being mostly O-M95.  The ethnolinguistic/genetic index he showed us is profoundly inaccurate.  He would have us believe Ryukyuan is Altaic, Mlabri is Sino-Tibetan, and Han is Daic.
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: 4935
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2014 at 07:23
Easy 772:
In any case, you've gone off topic with the DNA aspect, it simply isn't relevant to the date and place of Sinitic Civilisation.
 
Don't be sucked in by Literary Clarity.
 
I've questioned his reasoning on the date and place, but he can't provide the answers.
 
I maintain my belief that Chinese civilisation was accomplished in the Yellow River region and spread south to the people described by the Chinese as barbarians, who may have been, at least in part, Austronesian peoples.
 
 
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: 08 Jun 2014 at 07:27
Where's the Tibeto-Burman writing?  Where's the Mongolic writing?  What examples of Tibeto-Burman palatial architecture?  What examples of Mongolic architecture?
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: 4935
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2014 at 08:51
Easy 772:
The following from
http://nell-rose.hubpages.com/hub/The-White-Tribes-of-Ancient-China is provided for your comments.
 
It's just another account of the Tarim Basin mummies, but, the points for consideration are:-
  1. The skeletons are about 4000 years old, before the time which the OP claims China was civilised;
  2. The skeletal remains are of Caucasian origins;
  3. Who were these people? and
  4. What, if any influence did they have on the civilisation of China?

 

Quote

4,000 YEAR OLD LOST TRIBE

One of the most fantastic finds in the last half of the twentieth century, has to be the discovery of a Northern European tribe found in the north east corner of Xinjiang province, near the Celestial mountains and the Taklimakan Desert. This is situated on the edge of the Gobi desert.

The story starts in 1978 when the Chinese archaeologist, Wang Binghus, began searching for ancient sites. He began by following stream beds, and asking the locals if they had ever come across any broken pots and artifacts. He eventually came across a few people who pointed out that there was a place called Qizilchoqa, or, as the local people called it, Red hill. Here he made the most amazing discovery, the first of the mummies. It had been placed in a grave on the side of the hill.

It was a simple site, rush mats were on the floor, and some of the bodies were buried in the foetal position. In effect, the mummies were not what you would call real mummies, in the sense that they were not embalmed. They had been preserved in an amazing way. They had been placed in the ground, which had been subjected to a very unique weather system. Heat, aridity, and bitter winter cold, mixed with a salty soil, had preserved them better than other mummies found around the world. Even the clothing was still perfectly recognisable.

The bodies were excavated and taken to the museum in the city of Urumqi. There were 113 bodies taken from the site. At the time the Chinese government did not have enough funds to excavate the find. Wang eventually discovered three more burial sites.

The faces of the mummies were very well preserved, so, on closer examination, they could see that the were not chinese. They had blonde hair , big eyes, and European noses.

At that time, Chinese tradition had always shown the fact that they believed china had developed independently from the rest of the world. Because of this, the government was reluctant to bring the finds to the public attention.

The most extraordinary thing about the mummies, was the fact that their clothes were in such good condition. A jacket belonging to one man, over three thousand years old, still had a crimson edge. And the women had artificial extensions in their hair.

This tribe was obviously very advanced for it's day. On one of the mummies, there is a scar which shows they had rudimentary skills at operating. It had been sown up with horses hair.

When the West was eventually allowed to visit the mummies , Dr Victor Mair, who was Professor of Chinese at Pennsylvania university, took a tour around the museum. Imagine his surprise when he saw these amazing mummies, which had been kept in a dark room, in glass topped boxes.

At this time, the Chinese authorities were still a bit reluctant to let anybody know about them, so it has taken quite a long time for the the west to be able to study them properly.

eventually in 1993, they were allowed back with a team of geneticists from Italy. And this is when they began to study them properly. They used the most up to date technology of the time to confirm the date of the mummies. They now believe that they are about 4,000 years old, and the youngest about 2,000. There are probably many more to be found, possibly in the same region of china, but it is also possible they could have settled anywhere across China, as long as the conditions were suitable to live in.

These people were from the Bronze age, they were Caucasian, and it is possible that they interacted with the indigenous people at that time. The local people probably taught them their traditions, and the Caucasians most likely introduced them to their way of life as well.

There were two cartwheels found at the burial sites, very similar to what you might find in Russia, or nearby countries. These amazing people were probably Scandinavian or German, it is amazing to think that they trekked across China all the way from Europe, 4,000 years ago, taking their traditions and language with them. How many other tribes were there? who knows.

I think that one of the most fascinating things about this story is that the local people, even today, that live in the area where the bodies were found, speak a language called Tocharian, the most eastern branch of Indo-European. This language is closely related to German and Celtic. I think the other most amazing thing about these people is that they walked all the way across China, taking with them their families, and a mixture of animals, probably goats and sheep. Feeling the cold, and the heat, catching diseases that they didn't know anything about, Not sure whether they would survive the different climate. Babies were born, people died, and all the time not knowing whether they would be safe or if the indigenous people would accept them. Their lust for adventure and discovering new places gave them strength and determination to survive. They were amazing people, and I hope that soon we will be able to see these wonderful discoveries, and learn more about these courageous human beings that came from the beginning of history.

and

The Tocharians or Tokharians (/təˈkɛəriənz/ or /təˈkɑriənz/) were inhabitants of medieval oasis city-states on the northern edge of the Tarim Basin (modern Xinjiang, China). Their Tocharian languages (a branch of the Indo-European family) are known from manuscripts from the 6th to 8th centuries AD, after which they were supplanted by the Turkic languages of the Uyghur tribes.

Tocharians 2

Some scholars have linked the Tocharians with the Afanasevo culture of eastern Siberia (c. 3500 2500 BC), the Tarim mummies (c. 1800 BC) and the Yuezhi of Chinese records, most of whom migrated from western Gansu to Bactria in the 2nd century BC and then later to northwest India where they founded the Kushan Empire.

and

The Afanasevo culture is the earliest Eneolithic archaeological culture found until now in south Siberia, occupying the Minusinsk Basin, Altay and Eastern Kazakhstan.

Conventional archaeological understanding tended to date at around 20002500 BC. However radiocarbon gave dates as early as 3705 BC on wooden tools and 2874 BC on human remains. The earliest of these dates have now been rejected, giving a date of around 3300 BC for the start of the culture.

The culture is mainly known from its inhumations, with the deceased buried in conic or rectangular enclosures, often in a supine position, reminiscent of burials of the Yamna culture, believed to be Indo-European. Settlements have also been discovered. The Afanasevo people became the first food-producers in the area by breeding cattle, horses, and sheep. Metal objects and the presence of wheeled vehicles are documented. These resemblances to the Yamna culture make the Afanasevo culture is a strong candidate to represent the earliest cultural form of a people later called the Tocharians.

The culture became known from excavations in the Minusinsk area of the Krasnoyarsk Krai, southern Siberia, but the culture was also widespread in western Mongolia, northern Xinjiang, and eastern and central Kazakhstan, with connections or extensions in Tajikistan and the Aral area.

 
and
 

J. P. Mallory and Victor H. Mair argue that the Tocharian languages were introduced to the Tarim and Turpan basins from the Afanasevo culture to their immediate north. The Afanasevo culture (c. 3500 2500 BC) displays cultural and genetic connections with the Indo-European-associated cultures of the Central Asian steppe yet predates the specifically Indo-Iranian-associated Andronovo culture (c. 2000 900 BC) enough to isolate the Tocharian languages from Indo-Iranian linguistic innovations like satemization.

 
The point I'm making here, is that there were non Chinese people in Northern China, Xinjiang, before when LC claims civilisation emerged in China.
 
If they were there ~5000years BCE these people could have had an influence of the development of civilisation.


Edited by toyomotor - 08 Jun 2014 at 10:50
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: 08 Jun 2014 at 09:15
OP said 3000 BC, so yeah.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
  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 0.094 seconds.