Forum Home > REGIONAL HISTORY > East Asia
Ancient Black Chinese
literaryClarity
Quote literaryClarity
Quote Reply 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
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.
toyomotor
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Quote toyomotor
literaryClarity wrote:
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)
Housecarl
Quote easy772
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)
Edited by easy772 - 13 Jun 2014 at 13:33
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.
Edited by literaryClarity - 13 Jun 2014 at 17:08
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!
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
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?
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 rulers" All 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)
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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, 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.
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.
WorldHistoria Master
Quote pinguin
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
Exactly, Austronesians have their admixture but easy772 has the flight response to say I said they came from northern China.
pinguin wrote:
Negro/Negroid/African.
Afaik, all ancient Africans were Negro or Negroid.
The ancient Black Chinese are said to have been of African descent.
Chinese come from Africa, just like the rest of us
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.
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."
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.
I already mentioned bottlenecks. No need to belabor on and on about how Chinese were not black Africans nor Negrito nor Australoid.
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.
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.
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.
As the author of the OP, I think that the time has come for the mods to close the thread please.
From out of Africa at 159 thousand years ago, "Ancient Black" Chinese would fall on the 30 thousand years coalescent range.
Forum Jump -- Select Forum -- Welcome Station and Community News - New Members Guide - Community News - WH Blogs - Legations & Advertising - Warnings - Banned Members - Rescindments The Tavern - The Mead Hall - Sports - Modern Culture - Gaming and IT - Historical Amusement - Members Picture gallery - From Your Own Collections Economic & Social History - General Econ & Social - Economic History - Social History - Women's History - Business History Special Focus - General Special Focus - Archaeology & Anthropology - Natural Sciences through the Ages - Natural History - Modern Arts and Architecture - Alternative History Military History - General Military History - Wars and Battles - Persons - Weapons - Modern Warfare - All Battles Project - Naval History History Travel Guide & Galleries - Historical Maps and Pictures - Historical Art & Architecture - Historical Places and Your Travels Multiple Region - Multi-Region To 1900 AD - Modern Multi-Region East Asia - Ancient EA to 900 AD - Modern EA South Asia - Ancient SA to 1179 AD - Modern SA North & Central Asia - Ancient NCA to 550 AD - Modern NCA West Asia & North Africa - Ancient WANA to 550 BC - Imperial WANA 550 BC - 622 AD - Modern WANA Australia, SE Asia & Pacific - General Australia, SE Asia & Pacific Europe - Ancient Europe to 476 AD - Medieval Europe 476 AD - 1492 AD - Modern Europe Americas - Americas to 1825 - Modern Americas Africa - Africa to 1860 - Modern Africa The Academy - Academy Intellectual discussions - General Intellectual Discussions - Linguistics - Philosophy and Theology - Literary Pursuits - Theories of Society & Economics - WH Geopolitical Institute Q&A Current Affairs - General Current Affairs Ethnicity & Genetics - General Ethnicity & Genetics The Minefield - Cyprus - Kurdish/Turkish Relationships - FYR Macedonia/Kosovo - Armenian/Azeri Massacres - Gujjar-Rajput Relations - Armenian ''genocide'' - Israel/Palestine - US Immigration - General Minefield Discussions Forum Permissions