Just a quick question for historical purposes (No Flaming Please) but who were the earliest settlers of Northern China? By Northern China I mean people around the Yellow River Valley? Because I've been hearing and reading that it was most likely non-Chinese altaics that originally inhabited these areas before a Sinic migration from the Southeast displaced these peoples.

I think the earliest settlers in N. China are most likely people that are now in SE Asia.

And also they were absorbed by other settlers.

what makes u say that????

Nope. All human came from China.

According to the article, the first modern human being appeared in China.



Out-of-Africa' Hypothesis of Modern Human Origins Challenged




http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/127191.htm




"Chinese archaeologists said newly found evidence proves that a valley of Qingjiang River, a tributary on the middle reaches of the Yangtze River, might be one of the regions where Homo sapiens, or modern man, originated.

The finding challenges the "Out-of-Africa" hypothesis of modern human origins, according to which about 100,000 years ago modern humans originated in Africa, migrated to other continents, and replaced populations of archaic humans across the globe.

The finding comes from a large-scale excavation launched in the Qingjiang River Valley in 1980s when construction began on a range of hydropower stations on the Qingjiang River, a fellow researcher with the Hubei Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology.

Archaeologists discovered three human tooth fossils in one mountain cave in Mazhaping Village, in the Gaoping Township of Jianshi County, western Hubei Province, and found pieces of lithic technology and evidence of fire usage in Minor Cave in Banxia. There were similar findings in Nianyu Mountain and in Zhadong Cave in Banxia, all in Changyang Prefecture of the Qiangjiang River Valley.

A special research panel named the Jianshi Man research team has been set up to analyze the findings.

Zheng Shaohua, a member of the Jianshi man research team from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, confirmed the tooth fossils belonged to humans dating back between 2.15 and 1.95 million years ago.

The archaeologists also found fossils of bone implements in the cultural strata at the ruins where the human tooth fossils were discovered.

The fossilized bone implements bear traces of human beating, testifying that humans, not apes, lived inside the mountain cave, said Qiu Zhanxiang, another member on the Jianshi Man research team.

The pieces of lithic technology and traces of human fire usage found in Minor Cave in Banxia were said to date back 130,000 years, the ruins of human fire usage in Nianyu Mountain were dated as 120, 000 years or 90,000 years old, while pieces of lithic technology and traces of fire usage found in Zhadong Cave in Banxia, were dated as 27,000 years old, said Professor Zheng.

Before these latest archaeological findings, Chinese archaeologists had found fossils of what is now known as Changyang Man in 1957 under the leadership of renowned Chinese paleoanthropologist Jia Lanpo. Changyang Man represents early Homo sapiens dating back 200,000 years.

The latest archaeological findings together with the earlier discovery of Changyang Man all prove there was continuity in Homo sapiens' development in China, said Liu Qingzhu, head of the Archaeology Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

"They are also of great significance to research on Paleolithic era in China and East Asia, and theories regarding multiple origins of mankind," said Liu.

(Xinhua News Agency April 28, 2005)

Firstly,I find this kind of thread is really offensive to people like me who lives in the upper YR valley.I dont know how you interpret the "Sinic stock"? If you refer to ancient Chinese or Huaxia the answer is obvious,that is,they are from upper and mid YR valley(from the Tibetan plateau rim to east Henan province).

And what nationality are you? Why most of your post concern the origin of ancient Chinese?

and are among the world 's exporters of rice . ( Again , most likely )

Chinese are the father of all human beings.

Proof:

http://www.niu.edu/pubaffairs/RELEASES/200...mate/Nature.htm



....new evidence, consisting of multiple ankle bones from sites in central and eastern China, confirms that Eosimias is a very primitive member of the lineage that today includes monkeys, apes and humans....

interesting .....

millersdude is the best.

hey U.S.A who's your daddy? & eat this.

I strongly agree with this. I am also from North China, and couldn't be more offended by these brainless threads. All this bull$hit about Chinese are SE Asians, north chinese are Altaics, is so ridiculous, i don't know to laugh or get a offended. Not that there is anything wrong with SE Asians or altaics, but anyone with half a brain, and read a book or two, will know that the Northern Chinese from the Tibetan plateau rim area. Take most mandarin dialects of North China, and it sounds far more like Tibetan than any Altaic or Austronesian languages.

As much a problem as Northern chauvanism is, I really don't see how the Southern Chinese on here are any better. All this crap about how Tang era chinese is like Canto, or how Sino-VIet (SO. Chinese and Viet) share this bond with anceient Chinese is straight retarded. To be honest most of you southerners that lived your whole life in the West know jack $hit about Northern Chinese. I'm not even going to go into details about this. Its not even worth my time.

But it's true, Sino-Vietnamese IS closer to Tang Chinese than Mandarin is.

Might of been Protozoans.

Prove it.

Mandarin is not only limited to the Beijing dialect/Putong Hua. Pretty sure you can go find a mandarin dialect, such as the Jin, that is even closer related to Tang dialect than Yue dialect. Furthermore, Wu and Sichuan dialects can alway be argued to be closer related to Tang dialect than "Sino-Viet" , even moreso becasue they lack the mon-Khmer element than could not have existed in the Shanxi area (Tang origins).

Also, wtf exactly is a SIno-Viet? Viets are Sino. I wonder about your motive here..

Do you even know something about Chinese linguistics?

The Jin dialect is about as close to Tang Chinese as Beijing mandarin is. Both are heavily influenced by non-sinitic northern/northwestern languages, which resulted in tone loss and adoption of "foreign" words.
Mandarin dialects don't keep the p, t, k, m endings and Ng initials that Tang Chinese had. Sichuan dialects are no different in that aspect.

Well known linguists like Karlgren and Starostin reconstructed old and middle Chinese. Fujianese and Wu dialects are supposed to be close to Han (old Chinese), while Cantonese, Hakka and Gan are closer to Tang/Song (middle) Chinese.

Sino-Vietnamese are words that the Vietnamese adopted from the Chinese during the Han and Tang dynasties. These words are very close to the words Karlgren and Starostin reconstructed (far more than Mandarin). Also these 'Sino-Vietnamese' words are quite close to southern Chinese dialects. Same goes for words the Koreans and Japanese adopted. They're quite close to Wu, Fujianese, Hakka, Cantonese, but usually not to Mandarin.

Just like there are no year round warm water beaches in China ;
There are certain types of rice that can grow year round in SEA and give pretty high yields .

who gives fu-k who's speaking whose languages. Every Chinese NOW speak Manderin. It's THE official lanaguage. Other dialects will slowly die out given enough time.

Haha, I have no idea where this thread is going.

Some people are talking about North vs South (yet again), some are talking about humans originating in China, some are talking about growing rice, haha.



Hey, can you please explain how any of this paragraph has anything to do with anything being discussed here and anything to the post you are replying to? who was talking about Tang era Chinese in this thread? who brought up Sino-Viet?

Sure dude. That's why Shandong dialect has 9 tones???
Most mandarin dialects have a significant more tones than Beijing mandarin. My professor of Chinese at UCB, whose from Taiwan, told me that, so I don't need some whitey, whom often don't have a deep understanding of Chinese dialects to tell me that.

Tell me, how did the two white guys accurated reconstruct the Middle Chinese, and the ancient Chinese sound? I'm very interested in the reasons behind their methodology.



Because this thread was obviously created to insult the Northern Chinese. From the trends in this forum, my guess is Chinese from the far southern coast, or Chinese mixed with Viets. The "Tang era Chinese" and "Sino Viets" are examples of the hypocritical and insecure southerners on these boards.

ah, but why do you feel it is just the Northern Chinese that is being insulted? Didn't the Chinese migrate southwards from the north as well?

"Altaics" inhabited NE China, not the Yellow River Valley.

The mainstream theory on origin of Huaxia(Ancient Chinese) is it was mainly formed by Tribes from Qiang(Xirong- from Sino-Tibetan family) and some tribes of Dongyi.It is proved by Ancient Chinese history recordation,modern archaeology and culture research(religion,costume).However, prior knowledge to Xia-Shang-Zhou is far from sufficient,many scholars say there possiblely existed some great civilization in Southeast China according to some archaeology findings.

Some claim "Chinese" were already there before Xia,Shang,Zhou is ridiculous.The ancestor of Han Chinese is mixing of these dynasty founders.

edit:Qiang(xirong) related people belong to the nomad tribes which were formed hierachically.Many believe they are different from altaics tribes(Bei Di) who were from Siberia. But both originated from Central Esia.

Dongyi may be the most controversial,some say they come from Siberia and Central Esia speaking Altaic launguage and some say they are somehow identical with the civilization in "southeast" "China".There are many archaeological discoveries in East China and even in south China resembles the civilization in Shang's capital(East Henan).Dongyi's bronze age is earlier than those west and north tribes and their bronze products more different from the latter coming tribes,so that many scholars believe their bronze age originated from south China,however Dongyi genetically mixed with Tungus.There are many tribes in Dongyi,after Shang most dongyi call themself Huaxia and small part of them went to either southeast asia or to Korean peninsula.

Certainly the ancestors of Han Chinese is the mixing of those peoples,after Qinshihuangdi unified "China" the Huaxia starts expansion which mainly southward because the warm climate and fertile land and resulted in southern natives out of China.The sinic stock? I just confused,maybe you refer to Baiyue which was called as Nanman by Huaxia.However,it is ridiculous.The ancestor of Han Chinese has little to do with Baiyue and Beidi(altaic nomads).However,these Baiyue people enter into bronze age earlier than any tribes in "Ancient Chinese land".


Modern Chinese for certain influenced by both north nomadic culture and south native culture.Form the birth of Huaxia,there hardly saw any massive northward migration besides Han migration into Manchurian during middle Qing dynasty. However,Han Chinese had absorbed many latter coming nomads people and southern natives

They reconstructed middle Chinese based on modern Chinese dialects and Chinese loanwords in Japanese, Vietnamese and Korean. They also used the Qiyun and Guangyun rhimetables found in northern China.



According to you, northern Chinese is the purest race on earth, the rest is inferior?
Believe whatever you want.

Also, according to this website, Shandong local dialects don't have 9 tones.
http://www.glossika.com/en/dict/tones/guanhua.php#sd

I don't know if the data is reliable, but even if it wasn't. 9 tones seems a bit far fetched.

Hey...Santa TROLL aka cydevil aka oblivion38 still having fun here?



http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...mp;#entry938407

i don't think chinese were the original people of the entire world, but altaic is far-fetched, the altaics resemble sinictic stock more then any other so we know that hans came from somewhere in the beijing area, when they migrated southward they were greeted by mon-khmer and hmong mien, j/k, the mon-khmer and hmong mien of the yangtze had to migrate about 3000 years ago if what i'm reading is right, but if not for the chinese my culture would probaly be hill tribe if it was not pushed southwards, and i believe the theory because asian people all somewhat resemble, the earliest mongolic people in sea came down more then 1000 years ago, and more came when the han expanded, i am one of those that came 3000 years ago and proud of it. I know lots of people are gonna be angry, but encyclopedia brittanica say the modern mongoloid evolve in the china region. While i'm not happy that the hans took my original homeland, i'm somewhat greatful because if not indian people would not be able to influence my people and our culture would not develop~ And to make me a little more obnoxious, i can take pride in chinese culture too because i'm more then a third techieow~

When have I ever said that? Seems like you have some kind of an inferiority complex, which is probably is your motive for posts that slander the northerner.



Did they Qiang identity predate the Hua-Xia?

Haha, are you kidding me? When did I ever slander the Northerner in my posts? I just pointed out that southern Chinese dialects are much more conservative than Mandarin, which makes them closer to Middle Chinese. Many linguists, western and Chinese agree on this.

It seems that you just can't accept this. Could indicate that you have an inferiority complex though.

yeah,it was but Qiang later was named by Han.Some of them mixed with Dongyi tribes,and others didnt.

I don't know what "Dongyi" you're talking about. Dongyi, as an archaeological concept, is defined by megalithic cultures of dolmens around the Yellow Sea region, which is most numerous on the Korean peninsula, with its likely origin in western Manchuria. And bronze age in Korea is unrelated to Shang, or their "Dongyi". Korean bronze culture stems from the Northern Bronze Complex, which is quite distinct from Shang bronze culture.

Dongyi(東夷) was a Chinese word and in a Chinese pronunciation created by Han,which used in the ancient Chinese history recordation,such as <後漢書·東夷传>.It used to refer the ancient people in Shandong,Jiangsu and Anhui(east China),together with Beidi(northern "barbarian),Xirong(west "barbarian"),Nanman(south "barbarian),which were created by Racist Han supremacists. Dongyi had derogatory sense in ancient times,now it is used in literature,culture and archaeology.

Duh.....Dongyi has different meanings during different time. It started out referring to people lived in yellow river valley, then in yellow sea region, then in manchuria and korean peniusula.

The most prevailing theory is that Han's forefather Huaxia tribe （华夏）was the mix of Xirong（西戎），Beidi（北狄） and Dongyi（东夷） people. Xirong established Xia (夏)dynasty. Dongyi established Shang(商) dynasty. Then Xirong established Zhou(周)dynasty and repelled a portion of Dongyi to yellow sea region. Later this portion of Dongyi moved northeastwards towards manchuria. And some moved towards southeast China and formed Baiyue(百越) and later formed Hmong people(苗). Nobody cares if koreans and Chinese are related, don't worry.

Nice map ...where did you get that map from?

I think it's better to stick to the modern concept than the older ones.





http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/140510213...1481565?ie=UTF8

Except that this modern concept is just one of many theories. There is also concepts that theorize that the Yi are similar to today's SE asian peoples, ie cambodians. You speak as though the theory you use as example is a fact.

Either way, the "modern concept" is a flawed concept, because "Dong Yi" is a Chinese term. It was originally used to describe the people of SHandong to Shanghai. Later on, it was used to describe the people East of the North China Plain, which includes the Koreans. CONCLUSION: The Dongyi, is a "us vs. them" term. It's essentially the "black and white" of old world Asia. Chinese is always the the "us" and "Dong yi, Nan man" etc. is always the them.

Dongyi, as an archaeological concept, is defined by dolmens, real entities available for scientific observation. If you are to theorize about the "Dongyi", you should theorize on these entities, not an obscure term that had different meanings in the past. Clearly, Dongyi, a term invented and used by Chinese, stood for different cultures and people throughout time, but now those cultures and people are represented by other modern concepts defined by real entities available for scientific observation today.

If Dongyi is to be used for other meanings, I believe a specific definition should be provided.

First of all,I dont agree on that there is a distinction between Northern and Southern Chinese,of course modern northern Han Chinese in north mixed with latter coming nomads and southern Han Chinese mixed with southern natives due to the Han population constantly moving down south.But,it is not like what some people said that southern Chinese more closed to SEAs.One really knows China would consider it as gibberish,it is nonsensee. With a little knowledge on China,you could know some southern province dotted with minority municipalitis.I dont deny those minorities are closed to certain SEAs. N Han and S Han share the same cultural identity and blood-linkage.

As for Chinese Linguistics,the modern Linguistics are Synchronic rather than being Diachronic although Chinese writing language has been well recorded.However,the phonetic change of Chinese is unknown.But from historical context,it seems to be firstly influenced by ancient south native speech then by northern speech.However,if one goes down south,it is hard to him to understand the dialects of another speech communities.It means all of those theories on ancient Chinese lauguage only can be seen as assumption.

Your so called "Mandarin dialect" is contradict the Linguistical terms.It should be call regional Chinese dialect or regional Mandarin. Considering Han,Tang and Song all represent the peaks in Chinese scientific development.I doubt they didnt form a common speech community,however,there must be some isolated minor communities existed due to the geographic barriers.I think there possibly be a language tended to be intelligible by both N Han and S H,therefore I bet anything that most of south dialects expect Wu and Min are more identical with Mandarin in phonology and syntax.

As for the loan word if they originated from some Southern speech.They are different from native language if they are from different linguistic system. Vietnamese is hardly considered to be Sino-Tibetan language,so are Korean and Japanese which both are isolated language.Borrowings includes loan words,loanblend,loanshift and loan translation,itself is very complex,let alone the language similarity.

Different dialects in Sinic launguage are more related to each other. So some claims that certain sinic dialect resembles anther lauguage from different linguistic family is baseless,but maybe some phonetic coincidence.It is understandable that they went through some phonetic interchange but they are in nowhere similar because language itself is complex and systematic.

Jesus Christ you guys are knowledgeable about this stuff. Enlighten me though, I can trace my maternal ancestors for at least 300 years and they all came from Northeast Heilongjiang. Chances are, what am I?

First of all, what makes you automatically assume the thread starter is southern Chinese or even Chinese at all?

Who are the "Tang era Chinese" and the "Sino Viets"? This is the first time I have ever heard of these two terms. You do realize the term "Tangren" used by southerners DOES NOT mean anything special or differentiation from northerners right? Southerners see all Chinese as Tangren, not just the southern ones. No one uses Tangren to differentiate themselves from Hanren.

There may be some idiotic southerners who think the Hanren, Zhonguoren, and Tangren mean separate things out of ignorance or maybe they have an agenda behind it but that is not the widely-accepted point of view. As far as I am concerned Hanren = Tangren refers to ethnicity and Zhonguoren refers to nationality.

I think your prejudice makes you react pretty blindly to all southerners, like in this thread where you brought up the north and south and inferiority complexes when it was completely unwarranted at the point when you first replied.
what makes you think only northerners are offended by what is proposed here? or do you assume that because you think southerners are of another breed as you so tactly put it in this post?

Could be wrong, but you could be Manchu/tungusic, at least on your maternal side.

only borrowed doesn't make them cool or anything..

I have read earlier that cantonese and hakka are more close to T'ang era speech but who knows for sure how similarly exactly. Something about T'ang poems sounding better in cantonese or something like that. I kind of believed it at first but now I am going to rethink that position.

Certainly, if we throw in all southern dialects, there is no way that all of them are equally related to T'ang era speech because southern dialects have huge variation between them. It further complicates things that Cantonese and Hakka have regional differences in them as well, many of which do not sound alike at all.

and what exactly is T'ang era speech? T'ang China was a huge empire. Certainly, regional differences in speech existed back then as they do now. And because Chinese writing is pictorial, there is no sure way to exactly tell the evolution of the Chinese language over the years because how each word is pronounced is not recorded in writing.

Can someone please tell me the purpose of this damn thread? Just another lame attempt to de-sinify Chinese history as much as possible. This is how it is, if you are from the Northeast , you are an Altaic, if you are from the SOutheast, you are Vietic, if you are from the Southwest, you are Tibetic, if you are from the Northwest quadrant, you are a Turkic. The Chinese just somehow magically fell out of the sky 500 years ago

I am just waiting for the genetic comparisons to start rolling in because that's usually the next logical progression.

hahah lmao, north vs south. u can not say all modern man kind or whatever orginated from the chinese. do u kno how long and old human history is?? yeah scientist study and take a guess but its not fact! its theory human history is big and vast and very very very long. so dont bother arguing about the origin of modern man cuz no one will ever figure it out.

That's not the main problem. The problem is use the theory you use as if there was only one. Obviosly there are many interpretations of the Dongyi that theorize different origins.



I don't what the hell you are talking about. I never used the term "Sino-Chinese", i was only referencing what other people said. Likewise, for Tang era Chinese. I know what a Tang ren is, and I know what a Han ren is, and obviously my argument was about Southerners always trying to make a claim that they have more in common with the Northern Chinese of the Middle ages.

What exactly did I say in that thread that indicated southerners were a different race? Did I say Southerners weren't Chinese? All I said was that Southerners intermixed with Viets and Hmongs, did that not take place? Plus, this isn't really even a south vs. north thing, its more of a cantocentrist vs. north thing. Plus read that entire thread, and you'll see it was that "TaiwanGeGe" guy and crew that insulted Northerners first.

It is doubtful if "TaiwanGeGe" is even actually from Taiwan or the South. I read most of that thread when it was still fresh. I didn't believe TaiwanGeGe's post and was going to reply to it but your post (which was pretty offensive if you can't see it) pretty much cancelled anything positive I had to say so I just left it at that. My point is, don't generalize and lump everyone in the south or even cantonese in that manner because not everyone thinks that way.

what is "sino-chinese"? doesn't sino=chinese? I never used that term in my reply, you misread it. and I think the first person to bring up "sino-viet" in this thread is you, which was why I asked in the first place how it is relevant to the question being asked.



and what is "Chinese mixed with Viets"? do you use that term to describe Chinese from the far southern coast because it is pretty offensive to both Cantonese and Vietnamese. which is also why I asked how you think this thread was intended to insult Northerners only when Southerners migrated from the north over the centuries and would take equal offense to it.

1. My post in that thread was a reaction to Taiwan GeGe's. I can see how it could be offensive. If I offended anyone, I apologize.

2. I meant to say Sino-viet, "Sino-Chinese" was a typo.

3. I don't see how saying Canto's and Viets mixed with each other is offensive, unless your racist. If any Viets or Cantos take offense to that, than so be it. I'm not going to apologize because their xenophobic.

4. Saying southern chinese mixed with viets/miens is completely different than saying Northern natives were Altaics, which is basically saying Northerners are altaic at its roots, which is completely untrue and offensive. Our ancestors fought these barbaric rapists and murders for centuries. It's almost like telling a Russian, they're descended from Nazi's. Never forget the teachings of Emperor Wu.

apology accepted.



it is not intended as racist to think that way, and I am not denying that some mixing did not occur, nor am I particularly against it for any reason.

but if you think it is not offensive, what do you think about some claims that northeasterners are mixed with koreans and have close genetic similarities to them (see miss china ying hui gao thread)?

and I am not sure if you are familiar with some trolling attempts at the Cantonese about "how they are worshipping the wrong ancestors and following the wrong traditions" which is pretty annoying to read. or have Chinese posters open up threads in the Vietnamese forum asking if they see Cantonese any differently than other Chinese (answer is no btw). Sometimes, it might be why some Cantonese hold onto the Tang connection so tightly because they have to constantly deal with how they are mixed so much.

Hmmmmmmm. lets apply culture and genetics into these arguements then. Chinese culture is Chinese culture, not altaic not viet. altaic and viet and all minorities in East Asia and parts of North Asia like Mongolia copied from Chinese culture to a certain extent. End of culture discussion.
Genetically its only nature for people who live near each other to have similarities, either from genetic mutations or mixing. Since China is the center area of EA, its only nature for Chinese to have similarities with all these neighbors. But its doesnt really matter, since Chinese people are moving around a lot, sooner or later all will be mixed up like White Americans(Whites from European countries like England, France, Ireland, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portuego ect ect...... ) So yeah who cares already..... Honestly none of these really matter.... Within your race and ethnicity there are bigger variations anway. Like the stupid guy and the smart guy within the same exact gene pool. So who cares...