However, recent advances in the study of polymorphisms in the human Y-chromosome have produced evidence to suggest that the Korean people have a very long history as a distinct, mostly endogamous ethnic group, as male Koreans display a high frequency of Y-chromosomes belonging to Haplogroup O2b1 that are more or less specific to Korean populations. .

Above pictures are obviously faked pictures from the japanese textbooks. I don't know why chinese wants to fabricate it as if it is a south korean history textbook.

The map is pretty much the same in South Korean history books. They're cultural clusters with archaeological basis. The boundaries that surround the entire region around the Yellow Sea that includes the Korean peninsula, Manchuria and eastern China is that which is defined by distribution of dolmens in East Asia. The dotted zone that includes Manchuria and nothern Korean peninsula represents the extent of Korean bronze culture, which Korean scholars interpret as the reamins of Ancient Chosun. Funny thing though, the dolmens are found as far as the Kyushu island, but it seems to have been left out of that map.

The map is pretty much the same in South Korean history books. They're cultural clusters with archaeological basis. The boundaries that surround the entire region around the Yellow Sea that includes the Korean peninsula, Manchuria and eastern China is that which is defined by distribution of dolmens in East Asia. The dotted zone that includes Manchuria and nothern Korean peninsula represents the extent of Korean bronze culture, which Korean scholars interpret as the reamins of Ancient Chosun. Funny thing though, the dolmens are found as far as the Kyushu island, but it seems to have been left out of that map.

Absoultely joking

Korea wants to steal our China land.

But your final will be Japan in 1945.

Would you care to post the original image of these maps of Go-chosun, and Dong-yi?

Green area represents Dongyi, and the dotted area represents Ancient Chosun. Lined areas are its cultural epicenters, the one in Liaoning representing the earlier epicenter, and the one in Pyongyang representing the later epicenter. Orange area represents Chinese(Shang) culture.

It's important to note that Dongyi isn't exclusively Korean, as this cultural sphere transcended many different cultures. In other words, Koreans were a part of Dongyi, not the other way. Also, while the term itself has been derived from Chinese texts, archaeology takes precedence in its definition, strictly based on distribution of dolmens. As the Wikipedia says, many nonacademic Korean historians have been twisting words related to Dongyi, without regards to archaeology, to make some radical claims.

I think the work still remains for the interpretation of Dongyi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongyi

South Korea

"Dong-i" (colored in gray) as was taught in South Korean high schools.Some South Korean publications, including official ones, regard "Dong-i" (Korean pronunciation of Dongyi) as people in "Manchuria, the eastern littoral of China, areas north of the Yangtze River, and the Korean Peninsula" [3]. Although they do not explain what Dong-i actually were, it looks like they mix up several different historical uses of "Dongyi" in Classical Chinese and assume that Dongyi referred to a specific ethnic group though it was a general term for people in the east. South Korean official publications give "Dong-i" to the English "translation" of "eastern bowmen" although yi never means "bowmen" and Xu Shen's "big arrow" theory is defunct today.

Actually, Dongyi is used for referring to ancient Korean in Chinese history books of Hou Han Shu (後漢書). In the chapter of Dongyi (東夷列傳) [1], many ancient Korean states are explained such as Ye (濊), Goguryeo (高句麗), Buyeo (夫餘), eastern Okjeo (東沃沮), nothern Okjeo (北沃沮), Samhan (三韓)and Wa (倭). Wa is an ancient name of Japan, and the others are ancient states of Korea. There is another history book of China named with Sanguozhi that describes Korea as Dongyi. In the chapter of Dongyi (東夷傳), ancient Korean states such as Buyeo, Goguryeo, Okjeo, Eubru(挹婁), Ye, Samhan, and ancient Japan such as Wa are also categorized into Dongyi[2]. Therefore, China traditionally considers Korean and Japanese as Dongyi based on their history books.

Based on the concept of "Dong-i", some nonacademic South Korean historians make various claims that sound absurd to other people: Confucius was Korean. Chinese characters were invented by Koreans. etc. However such nationalist claims made are not accepted by mainstream Korean history.



Above pictures are obviously faked pictures from the japanese textbooks. I don't know why chinese wants to fabricate it as if it is a south korean history textbook.

I think it's undisputable that manuchuria was part of the "ancient korean empire."

no arguement there....but I know now that the native manchurian altaic tongue is dying. I wonder when the loss is, but manchurians definitely still retain altaic characteristics.

as for the parts of china's easter sea ports being part of chine. Thats a whole lot of years ago. The organized kingdom in korea is gojoseon which is 2300, about 1000 years after King Wu Ding made military expedition to the yi. Korea was at it's bronze era.

Here is a map of the first known era Go Josoen .

Just because Manchuria belongs to China now doesn't mean Koreans don't have any historical claims to the land. It is undeniable that parts of Manchuria once belonged to Korean kingdoms. No matter how hardcore of a Chinese nationalist you are, you cannot deny that. And likewise that doesn't make the Manchus a Korean tribe or even a Korean related people like some Korean nationalists like to claim. It would be like saying because there are Koreans living in China today, China has rightful claims to Korea (Oh wait Chinese nationalists already argue that route) The Manchus are much more related to the modern day Oroqen, Evenks, and Xibe peoples. It seems as though a discussion involving ethnicity and origin will always erupt into mindless bickering.

These claims are quite ridiculous. Go cry yourself a river.

If you look at the altaic theory, it says a lot about the similarity of language and the language family. linguist all disagree, but heck japanese, korean, mongolian and manchurian are all thought to be theorized as an altaic language.

Manchurian has a lot of similarities to mongolian and korean languages than the han or tibetan chinese languages.

so it's possible that linguistical ties can also mean ethnical ties as well? so at one point they must of been somehow related in some way or been part of one group of people at a point in time. And back then civilazation wasn't really there, it was probably more like tribes or nomadic peoples.

but heck old korean hardly sounds like modern korean. I mean I have a korean bible and it sounds awfully different from modern korean. and that is only 14th century korean korean. four centuries changes language a lot. even old english is way different from todays englih.

so languages evolve as time goes. so maybe it says something.

Altaic is just a very broad language classification, a very controversial one at that. It doesn't really have anything to do with ethnicity considering there was never Pan-Altaic unity. Korean and Japanese are considered distant but isolated languages in the Altaic family. Also because altaic langauges are so broad, most of them don't even sound alike. There's no way anyone in the right mind can argue that Uzbek sounds similar to say Japanese for example.

Is this your pathetic attempt at a rebuttal? You didn't even address anything I said. to your superior intellectual debate skills

If you look at the altaic theory, it says a lot about the similarity of language and the language family. linguist all disagree, but heck japanese, korean, mongolian and manchurian are all thought to be theorized as an altaic language.

Manchurian has a lot of similarities to mongolian and korean languages than the han or tibetan chinese languages.

so it's possible that linguistical ties can also mean ethnical ties as well? so at one point they must of been somehow related in some way or been part of one group of people at a point in time. And back then civilazation wasn't really there, it was probably more like tribes or nomadic peoples.

but heck old korean hardly sounds like modern korean. I mean I have a korean bible and it sounds awfully different from modern korean. and that is only 14th century korean korean. four centuries changes language a lot. even old english is way different from todays englih.

so languages evolve as time goes. so maybe it says something.

A Sprachbund (German for language union) (also known as linguistic area, convergence area, diffusion area) is a group of languages that have become similar in some way because of geographical proximity. They may be genetically unrelated or only distantly related, but where genetic affiliations are unclear the Sprachbund characteristics might give a false appearance of relatedness.

what about the mongolian blue spot.

korean people say if you aren't born with it you aren't 100% korean ethnically.

So many people have the blue spot it's not even really used to classify an ethnicity. The so called Mongolian blue spot can be found on babies all over Europe, North America, Middle East, Central Asia, various parts of Africa, and East as well as Southeast Asia. It's not unique to any specific ethnicity at all.

Sorry to butt in.

The discussion regarding the origin & diaspora of Korean people started to get interesting .... & now we get friggin' half-retards with half-baked mentality trying to bring up racial nonsense issues.

However, just because ancient Korean diaspora once included Manchuria, it stands to reasons South Korea do not have any justification towards the region. By international law, Manchuria is now part of China. Accept & deal with it ... & no more Manchuria is Korean land BS.

For historical purposes however, it really showed that ancient Korean diaspora was quite impressive, given its proximity to great China civilisation.

If there is a sparfund effect it's han chinese who spread hanja not the manchurians.

koreans have both the single eyelids the mongolian spot and long bridge noses all related to the altaic trait.

this web page says some thing about that effect:

http://efl.htmlplanet.com/korean_origins.htm

hanja is just a written language. im talking bout the linguistics as in how the languages sound. just cause manchurian and korean and japanese and mongolian sound similiar, does it mean the peoples are really that related?

also, single eyelids, mongolian spot and long bridge noses arent restricted to those in the altaic group. Lots of Han Chinese have those features as well but Han Chinese aren't in the altaic group.

thats why ive always believed that linguistics dont say much bout genetic similiarities.

The Japanese-Korean-Mongolian Connection


From my lexical analysis of the Japanese, Korean, and Mongolian languages, it appears that the Japanese language has a much closer connection to Mongolian.

Of course all three languages have EXACTLY the same grammar (same syntax; AND, all three have the same suffix-like particles), and all three have VERY similar phonological traits, such as rules regarding vowel harmony.

Yet, when I write "much closer", I simply mean that there are more words in Japanese which bear resemblance to Mongolian, but the connection is still a weak one.

The Korean-Japanese ties go way back. It has been told me that the Koreans introduced the Chinese characters to the Japanese. Whether this is true or not, is not known to me, but it seems very plausible, given the geographical situation (i.e., Korean being between China and Japan). The Japanese language, like Korean has "borrowed" a heck of a lot of words from Chinese. But, both the Korean language and Japanese languages have retained many of their "original" lexis as well. It is of this "original" lexis that I write, when I write about the connection to the Mongolian langauge.

However, due to the fact that much of the "original" lexis has fallen out of use and has become lost over the centuries, it is really difficult for linguists to "classify" the two languages.

Because the syntax and phonological features are remarkably similar to Altaic languages, it is logical to include them in the Altaic language group. However, due to lexical differences, it is difficult to place them in any specific language group.

Look at the following diagram to see what I mean:



Source

One can see where I got the above information from, however, my language map is different (and superior, in my opinion, because it shows more clearly how languages "overlap").

Important Points to consider (refer to diagram above):

1. The diagram shows how the Korean language has roots in the Tungusic Language group AND NOT THE MONGOLIAN language group. Note: Manchurian is part of the Tungusic language group, and Korean may have some roots from the Manchu language.

2. The diagram shows how the Korean and Japanese languages have been heavily influenced by the Han-Chinese language.

3. The diagram shows how the Japanese lanugage has some roots in the Mongolian language group. Hence, the lexis of "pure" Japanese is closer to Mongolian than that of the "pure" Korean.

4. The diagram shows how the Korean language has been influenced by the Austronesian language group.

5. It is not known (by me) whether the Japanese language has been influenced by the Austronesian language group or not. Therefore, I have not extended the Japanese language into that "field".

6. The funny thing is, according to genetic maps (on above SOURCE page), the Koreans and Japanese are more closely related to Tibetans than Mongolians. (see diagram below):

did you see the webpage? there are such things as the sparfund effect right? lexicology says a lot.

I mean looking at all the evidence it clearly points out the koreans have far more similarities in dna, and lexicology, and traditional beliefs such as shamanism were are things that tie the altaics together.

prior to han chinese influences koreans, were mainly shamanistic, did not wear silk, weren't buddhist, were warrior like, traditionally nomadic, largely similiar to mongolian or manchurian counterparts.

chinese civilization started along the yellow river. but before that, i think it was quite similiar. a bunch of nomadic people with shamanistic beliefs.

if you analyze the evolution of chinese characters, it has lots of shamanistic roots.

buddhism came from india and filtered over to china through trade.

i think linguistics only tell part of the picture.

the way people talk evolves/changes faster than genetic similarities.

Siberia is regarded as the locus classicus of shamanism [6]. It is inhabited by many different peoples. Many of its Uralic, Altaic, Paleosiberian (see the main article) peoples had living shamanistic practices even in modern times. Many classical ethnograpical sources of “shamanism” were recoded at Siberian peoples.

There are two main schools of thought about the Altaic theory. One is that the proposed constituent language families (Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic in the basic theory, with the addition of Korean and Japanese in extended versions) are genetically or "divergently" related by descent from a common ancestor, "Proto-Altaic." The other school rejects this theory (so it is often called the "Anti-Altaic" school) and argues that the member languages are related by convergence (mainly loan influence).

im just saying that just because linguistic similarity doesnt suggest genetic similarity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages

I believe spoken language are easily loaned to one another. I guess I fall into the "Anti-Altaic" school although I do believe koreans and japanese are related but maybe not so much with manchurians and mongolians.

are you manchurian???

I thought you were chinese?

anyhow, yes, I read that altaic theory. But the genetics tests do prove the dna of tungustic, japoanese and koreans are more closely related than the mongolians. After all language is passed down to a lineage, for years and years. So even if it's less closely related. They are more closely related to the mongolians, than say the han and tungustic chinese languages and people.

I'm sure anthropologist have enough evidence to back this up.

Only politically they are seperated.

and you never answered my question about shamanism.

Mongol invasion of China (13th century) contributed its version of shamanism to the already existing beliefs in the supernatural world

The eastern bowmen on the western coast of the Yellow Sea clashed with the Zhou people during China's period of warring states (475 B.C. - 221 B.C.). This led them to move toward southern Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula.

There were other tribes of eastern bowmen, the Yemaek on the Manchurian area and the Han on the Korean Peninsula, all of whom belonged to the Tungusic family and linguistically affiliated with the Altaic. When Yin collapsed, Kija, a subject of the Yin state, entered Tan-gun's domain and introduced the culture of Yin around the 11th century B.C.

Then came invasion of Yen in the northeastern sector of China, and Ko Choson lost the territories west of the Liao River in the third century B.C. By this time, iron culture was developing and the warring states pushed the refugees eastward.

Really? You are going to claim some Chinese land that probably was inhabitated by koreans over 2,000 years ago? Wow that is seriously retarded.

I'm not talking about 2000 years ago now am I? The Ancient Koguryo empire did stretch into modern day Liaoning province. No matter how nationalistic you are, you cannot deny that. Just like modern day Yunnan province belongs to China but the ancient Nanzhao and Dali empires once stood independent of China. I don't see why you're so upset, afterall Chinese ended up the final winners since they kept their lands be it Yunnan, Tibet, and Manchuria. But like I said the mere fact tht China ended up with all that land does not mean other ethnicites don't have historical claims to them. One day when the sinification of Tibet is complete, I'm sure there will Chinese nationalists arguing that Tibet was always a part of the Chinese cultural sphere and that the Dalai Lama himself was actually a Chinese freedom fighter

2000-1000 years give or take, doesn't make any difference. Thats history.

History or not, Korean people still have some historical claims to that land. It doesn't mean that they'll ever get that land back but to deny that there is no historical claims to begin with is historical revisionism at its finest. It's no different than modern day White Americans claiming Native American civilizations as theirs because they currently inhabit the land.

Green area represents Dongyi, and the dotted area represents Ancient Chosun. Lined areas are its cultural epicenters, the one in Liaoning representing the earlier epicenter, and the one in Pyongyang representing the later epicenter. Orange area represents Chinese(Shang) culture.

It's important to note that Dongyi isn't exclusively Korean, as this cultural sphere transcended many different cultures. In other words, Koreans were a part of Dongyi, not the other way. Also, while the term itself has been derived from Chinese texts, archaeology takes precedence in its definition, strictly based on distribution of dolmens. As the Wikipedia says, many nonacademic Korean historians have been twisting words related to Dongyi, without regards to archaeology, to make some radical claims.

im just saying that just because linguistic similarity doesnt suggest genetic similarity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages

I believe spoken language are easily loaned to one another. I guess I fall into the "Anti-Altaic" school although I do believe koreans and japanese are related but maybe not so much with manchurians and mongolians.

In cultural terms, the emerging herding societies of the early 1st millennium BC across the northern frontier shared a distinctive bronze repertoire which derived from the Eurasian steppe bronze tradition and incorporated many animal motifs. The Upper Xiajiadian culture, located in the area of the former Hongshan culture of the Bohai Corridor region, was one manifestation of this new Northern Bronze Complex. Nomadism appears to have developed about this time and is associated with a particular 'Animal Art' style of bronzes. Much has been written about the supposed Scythian affinities of this art, sugggesting continuing cultural contact and excahnge across the Eurasian steppes.

The gradual inflitration of bronzes into the Korean Peninsula and their clear derivation from Manchurian and steppe precedents have suggested to many Korean archaeologists that they arrived with an influx of Tungusic-language speakers. The Korean and Japanese langauges today are both generally thought to be related to the Altaic language family rather than the Chinese language family, even though they incorporate many Chinese loanwords.

The question is, when were the Altaic elements introduced into the Pen/Insular region? The hypothesis that the proto-Eastern Altaic languages spread into the Korean Peninsula during the early 1st millennium BC is compatible not only with the appearance of bronzes from the Northern Bronze Complex but also with the theoretical location of the Tungusic homeland being somewhere in south-central Siberia. Moreover, the Rong ethnic group, associated with the Upper Xiajiadian culture, is also thought to have consisted of Tungusic speakers. If this language group did become esbalished on the Peninsula during the Korean Bronze Age, it would have been transmitted to the Japanese Islands during the spread of rice agriculture, replacing (with some incorporations) whatever previous languages were spoken there.

The Altaic languages consist of Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic, all of which are attested in China. They are highly internally divided, so much so that some scholars claim it is not a phylum but a bundling of languages that have interacted (Janhunen 1994). The proposed macro-phylum, Macro-Altaic, remains still more controversial although most scholars accept the membership of Korean, fewer Japanese. Surprisingly, the individual members of Altaic, Turkic etc., are very undiverse and the dispersal of Turkic has largely taken place in historical time. Figure 5 shows a tree representing the Altaic and Macro-Altaic groupings.

did you see the webpage? there are such things as the sparfund effect right? lexicology says a lot.

I mean looking at all the evidence it clearly points out the koreans have far more similarities in dna, and lexicology, and traditional beliefs such as shamanism were are things that tie the altaics together.

prior to han chinese influences koreans, were mainly shamanistic, did not wear silk, weren't buddhist, were warrior like, traditionally nomadic, largely similiar to mongolian or manchurian counterparts.



also manchuria was home to a lot of nomadic tribes. and all altaic tribes or ethnicities were nomadic at one point.

and certainly charts the dna of koreans and the tungustic people are certainly related very much to the korean people.

hanulsky..you know in one of the sites you posted the guy later concludes that humans originate from bears and not from apes and that extra terestrials formed us....