Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Vietnam's history

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Vietnam's history
    Posted: 02-May-2009 at 16:59
He is the map of Ancient Nanyue. One can see that it mostly consisted of the territories of the modern Guangxi and Guangdong provinces of China.
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
souther View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 05-Sep-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
  Quote souther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Sep-2009 at 14:49
Originally posted by evilbu

Well, yeah, I have a questionEmbarrassed...

it is my perception that the south of vietnam used to be predominantly khmer, and that vietnamese settled there in the last thousand years and eventually gained an overwhelming majority, while they themselves come from the guangxi and guangdong province, which is now taken over by ethnic han chinese (so in essence : both groups moved south)

How much of this is correct?Confused

Partially correct. As far as Vietnamese migrating from Guangdong and Guangxi this is not true. Guangdong and Guangxi is the native land to all Tai speaking people. The Tai speaking people are the largest minority group in China concetrated in Guangxi and Guangdong.
Back to Top
souther View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 05-Sep-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
  Quote souther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Sep-2009 at 15:05
 
 
Originally posted by Pebbles

]
There was no " Proto-Vietnamese ' in southern China !
 
The indigenous Bai Yue bloodline is an undisputed genetic component of modern day Han-Chinese in Guandong & Guangxi,however,there have been recorded massive migrations from northern China so today's population is a mixture of northern Han ( of Sinitic origin ) and various indigenous Bai Yue groups ( Austronesian & Austro-Asiatic origins ).
 
 
Quote: " genetic evidence does not support an independent origin of Homo Sapiens in China ".The phylogeny also suggested that it is more likely that ancestors of the populations currently residing in East Asia entered from Southeast Asia." from the abstract, and "Now that we have established that populations in East Asia were subjected to genetic contributions from multiple sources: Southeast Asia, Altaic from northeast Asia, and mid-Asia or Europe. It would be interesting to estimate relative contributions from each source.Unfortunately,the current study involved only mostly minority populations.A study involving populations across the country is necessary to reveal such a picture"
At the conclusion,what I see is that the study is more of Chinese minority groups than the larger Han Chinese majority.It seems to suggest and enforce Li Hui theory of at least one of the 3 streams of transmigratory routes taken by Chinese peoples,the stream of genetic marker M119 ( where the Viets belong ) whose path was through northern SE asia into China and they contain Bai Yue and other minorities like Dai but not Han Chinese.So it sort of confirm " the current study involved only mostly minority populations " in the article on PNAS and they " entered from Southeast Asia " ( not the Han Chinese, mind you).
 
Li Hui asserts that Han Chinese are M117 genetic marker and Viets & Bai Yue are M119. Viets do not share the M122 genetic marker with the Han-Chinese. M117 and M7 stemed from M122,which the Viet ethnic is not.

I read the other article on PNAS, and quote

"Usually, most Chinese immigrants to the U.S. ( and to other countries, like Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, etc. ) come from southern China, and this is certainly true of the cell lines from California residents from China born in the mainland, collected by Louise Chen and Alice Lin at Stanford and used in our surveys (2, 7, 8). Han-Chinese living in the south of China mostly came originally from the North, but they did so at very different times, and thus had different times for gene flow from the earlier settlers,that is the minorities"

The statement sort of confirm Han Chinese from south China " mostly came originally from the north ", which substantiate Li Hui theory of one of his 3 streams where in one stream the peoples passed through tibetan plateau to arrive in North China were ancestors of the Han-Chinese and Tibetans, carrying the genetic marker M117.PNAS site states that "Han-Chinese living in the south of China mostly came originally from the north, but they did so at very different times".

Virtually all Han Chinese share the same paternal and maternal lineage except for few southern groups that had Austronesian maternal ancestors.The many migrations ( referenced Tang & Song history chronicles ) into southern China have diluted the bloodlines.
 
The fact is that the Han Chinese majority and ethnic Vietnamese didn't share a common root.Any culture similarity,language similarity and genetic similarity in the south are due to chinese expansion to the south,and cultural diffusion, and mixing with the local people but not by common root. its simple as that.It is a fact that Vietnamese culture shares similarities with Chinese culture is due to Chinese influence like how Chinese influenced Korean and Japanese,not by common root.Another fact that the northern Han-Chinese migrated southward in large numbers and some have mixed with the locals and that's the reason they are genetic related ( same scenario with both Chinese & Japanese or Chinese & Koreans because their ancestors originally from Asia continent which is today's China excluding Russian Far East Territory & outer Mongolia ).

Series of civil warfare, rebellions, famines and barbarian invasions in Northern China led to mass migrations of Chinese people from devastated Northern China to the fertile and peaceful Southern China. An estimated 20 million people migrated from Northern China to Southern China from 800AD – 1250AD, to flee from prosecution and escape from the destitute and war-ridden Northern China.Through these waves of migrations to the south,Middle Chinese language was brought into Southern China.Eventually evolved into several dialects,a major one of these dialects is Cantonese.

Vietnamese is an Austro-Asiatic language,not Austronesian.Thus the language is related to that of the Khmers and Mons.The negrito people of Malaya (Asli people) also speak this language.In this latter case,it is likely they were a mixed race adopting the language of the dominant group). We should also note that the original speakers of Austro-asiatic (and for that matter, Austronesian) are also Mongoloids.The differences in features only indicate the amount of negrito blood in them due to intermarriage. Paleolithic Negrito people (who look like the Australian Aborigines) lived in most of Southeast Asia and South China prior to the big migration of Mongoloids southwards, which displaced these peoples. Other contribution of course also include climate and diet.

 
It is a fact that Vietnamese language has at least 60% of Chinese loanwords due to Chinese cultural influence and dominance,50% of Chinese loanwords in Korean and Japanese languages,again not by common roots.
 
 
 
Hi Pebbles, Li Hui asserts that M119 belongs to Viet not Vietnamese/Kinh. When Li Hui mentions Viet he is referring to the Tai-Kadai/Austronesian speaking people who are the carriers of M119. Among Chinese scholars Bai-Yue or Yue people is believed to be Tai-Kadai/Austro-Tai people. 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Sander - 05-Sep-2009 at 21:59
Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
  Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Sep-2009 at 19:12
Welcome to the forum, souther.
 

To my understanding " Yue " was a generic name for various non-Chinese people  that lived in Southern China before Chinese  expansion from the north. 

 
The  Chinese  name "Yue" is “Viet " in  Vietnamese. Nowadays,   "Viet" is  associated with  the Vietnamese Kinh in Vietnam,  but  in ancient times "Yue " was used  in broader sense. 

Among Chinese scholars Bai-Yue or Yue people is believed to be Tai-Kadai/Austro-Tai people.

 
Ancient language distribution in pre Han southern China  supports that. Thai kadai in the south- east. Austro-asiatic  more to the west ( Yunnan )
 


Edited by Sander - 06-Sep-2009 at 00:38
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 06:57

Originally posted by pebbles

Originally posted by lirelou

By the way, Vietnam is culturally East Asian, just as China, Korea, and Japan are. Geographically, SEA makes sense, but Historically and Culturally, it is East Asian. 
Vietnam is also SE Asian culturally & linguistically,native cuisine is similiar to Thai and their language sounds like Thai.
 

The Thai, Lao, Nung (Zhuang), Hmong in Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand were from Southern China.

LOL, Vietnam is culturally East Asian.  

One word:  CONFUCIANISM.

A phrase:  1000 years of Chinese domination.   That is, Vietnam was a  Chinese province for half of the last 2000 years.  (Also, keep in mind that for most of Vietnamese history going a back to 700 BCE, prior to the Han arrival, Vietnam (Van Lang, Dai Viet, Dai Co Viet, etc.) was only, geographically speaking, a fraction of what is is now, i.e. it was just the Red River Delta region.

A dude:  Lee Kwan Yew, who is an informal advisor to Hanoi on economic matters, lumps Vietnam in with East Asia.

Although the Thai are from China, they were Indianized along with the Chams and Khmers.  (Champa, like Nam-Viet was originally started by a rogue Chinese general.)

Yes, food wise, Vietnam is SE Asian.  But what do you mean by culturally?  The Japanese, Koreans, Mongolians (non confucians), Tibetans (non confucians), etc. all have their own distinct cultures.  Anyway, confucianism is THE FOUNDATION for not just China, but Japan, Korea, and Vietnam.  Everything else comes in a distant second.

Or maybe I should say a distant third, since ancestral worship is also paramount.  But then again, it is a key element of confucian filial piety.



Edited by TranHungDao - 09-Oct-2009 at 07:23
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 07:43

Originally posted by Sarmat

Historically speaking one can say that current inhabitants of Guandong and Guanxi are Sincized descendants of "Prto-Vietnamese."

I don't think one can state this nor it's negation conclusively.  The ancient Vietnamese were the people of the Red River Delta.  This much is true.  But how they relate to the people of pre-Han Southern China is not clear. 

EDIT:  Let me clarify that the ancient people Guangdong and Guanxi are indeed not proto-Vietnamese, however, the relationship between the two is not altogether clear.  Genetically, the two groups are very similar.  Linguistically, the Vietnamese language, while still officially considered Mon-Khmer in most circles, is still being debated.  There's still many lingering questions as to whether Vietnamese is it's own linguistic isolate, or if it is a Tai language.  The concensus is still far from over.

Some say Cantonese was orinally a Tai language.

The Red River Delta was at the center Dong Son Culture, which was quite vast in territory, i.e. much of now Southern China, all of mainland SE Asia, and even beyond in the SE Asian seas.

As a side note, Chinese scholars often mistakenly claim there are more bronze Dong Son drums found in S. China than in N. Vietnam.  But they conviently forget that Gen. Ma Yuan conficated a boatload of such drums when hi conquered Nam-Viet so he could melt them down for other purposes.

Chinese archaeologists have also gone out of their way to conceal bona fide Vietnamese cultural artifacts found in S. China dating back to Han and pre-Han times.  About two years ago, they revealed some such artifacts to the delight, as well as irritation, of Vietnamese archeologists.



Edited by TranHungDao - 09-Oct-2009 at 08:10
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 08:01

Pebbles,

I see a likely contradiction in two of your statements.  Please clarify.

Originally posted by pebbles

The indigenous Bai Yue bloodline is an undisputed genetic component of modern day Han-Chinese in Guandong & Guangxi,however

Originally posted by pebbles

 
Li Hui asserts that Han Chinese are M117 genetic marker and Viets & Bai Yue are M119. Viets do not share the M122 genetic marker with the Han-Chinese. M117 and M7 stemed from M122,which the Viet ethnic is not.

So, that "undisputed genetic component" contributed by the Bai Yue to the mondern Hans does not contain M119, then? 
-----------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by pebbles


The statement sort of confirm Han Chinese from south China " mostly came originally from the north ".
 Lol, "sort of"?  
Many other genetic studies contradict this.

Originally posted by pebbles


Virtually all Han Chinese share the same paternal and maternal lineage
Again, other genetic studies contradict this.
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 11:28
Originally posted by pebbles

Li Hui asserts that Han Chinese are M117 genetic marker and Viets & Bai Yue are M119. Viets do not share the M122 genetic marker with the Han-Chinese. M117 and M7 stemed from M122,which the Viet ethnic is not.
Pebbles, 
It appears you have very bad data, interpretation, and combinations thereof.
I'll cite wikipedia since I've come across a number of other blogs, links, sources that say pretty much the same thing.  (Also, wiki articles sometimes have great sources too, i.e. bona fide scholarly stuff.  And this one summarizes things clearly.)
Origin
Haplogroup O3 is a descendant haplogroup of haplogroup O. Some researchers believe that it first appeared in China approximately 10,000 years ago. However, others believe that the high internal diversity of Haplogroup O3 indicates a Late Pleistocene (Upper Paleolithic) origin in South China or Southeast Asia of the M122 mutation that defines the entire O3 clade, while the common presence among a wide variety of modern East and Southeast Asian nations of closely related haplotypes belonging to certain subclades of Haplogroup O3 is considered to point to a recent (e.g., Holocene) geographic dispersion of a certain subset of the ancient variation within Haplogroup O3. The spread of these particular subsets of Haplogroup O3 is conjectured to be closely associated with the sudden agricultural boom associated with rice farming.
Distribution
Although Haplogroup O3 appears to be primarily associated with Chinese populations, it also forms a significant component of the Y-chromosome diversity of most modern populations of the East Asian region. Haplogroup O3 is found in over 50% of all modern Chinese males (ranging up to over 80% in certain regional subgroups of the Han ethnicity, with frequency ranging from 30/101 = 29.7% among Pinghua-speaking Hans in Guangxi[5] to 110/148 = 74.3% among Hans in Changting, Fujian[22]), about 40% of Manchurian, Korean, and Vietnamese males, about 33.3%[9] to 62.3%[10][23] of Filipino males, about 10.5%[20] to 55.6%[20] of Malaysian males, about 10.3% (4/39 Guide County, Qinghai)[14] to 44% (22/50 Zhongdian County, Yunnan)[15] of Tibetan males, about 20%[15] to 32.6%[4] of Yi males, about 25% of Zhuang[24] and Indonesian[25] males, and about 16%[12][26] to 20%[9] of Japanese males. The distribution of Haplogroup O3 stretches far into Central Asia (approx. 40% of Dungans,[18] 31% of Salars,[16] 24% of Dongxiang[16], 18% to 22.8%[9] of Mongolians, 12% of Uyghurs,[18] 9% of Kazakhs,[18] 6.2% of Altayans[27], and 4.1% of Uzbeks[18]) and Oceania (approx. 25%[9] to 32.5%[20] of Polynesians, 18%[9] to 27.4%[20] of Micronesians, and 5% of Melanesians[28]),
The numbers in the brackets are scholarly sources, but I have yet to verify the numbers.
So 40% of Vietnamese have M122 and 50% of Han have it.  Not a big deal if you ask me.
-------------------------------------------------
The National Geographic page says likewise, but doesn't give such precise numbers:
It's a flash embed so you'll have to click on the right buttons.  Needless to say, this website is vigilant about keeping up with the latest studies.


Edited by TranHungDao - 09-Oct-2009 at 11:32
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 12:16

chauduyphanvu, 

Here's an interesting article....

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118547174/PDFSTART 


Language and Linguistics Compass 1/6 (2007): 727–749,


The Languages of Vietnam: Mosaics and
Expansions


Jerold A. Edmondson and Kenneth J. Gregerson
The University of Texas at Arlington


The rise of the Mon Khmer (MK) Vietnamese majority can be tracked back with cladistic study of their DNA and the names of plant and animal species to the remote Austro-Asiatics (AA), the ancestor of the MK and ultimately the Vietic branch populations (Diffloth 2005). For instance, by studying the genetic material from contemporary Vietnamese, we can determine from what place and at what time they arrived in Vietnam (their origin and development, i.e. their biogenesis). Archeology informs us about the development and evolution of Vietnamese culture (culturogenesis) and linguistic reconstruction (linguo-genesis) can uncover language structures from past times. All these fields use contemporary data to tell us about things long past (Bellwood 2006) (see Note 1 for more details about cladistic, phylogeographic, and archeological studies). In the case of many minority peoples of Vietnam genetic and artifactual research is still quite incomplete.


The AA peoples of Southeast Asia, as determined from studies of India’s tribal populations, are descended from a common male line originating in the Mundari peoples, who are thought to be the oldest population group of India and first AA’s (Kumar et al. 2007). Some of the Mundari men, perhaps on hunting or war expeditions, intermarried with women of contiguous areas of Southeast Asia in contemporary Myanmar. Links from these pioneers to the contemporary Vietnamese using phylogeographic analysis were established by Ballinger et al. (1992), who has shown that the Vietnamese populace possesses – of all Southeast Asian people groupings – the greatest genetic diversity in its maternally transmitted mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). This diversity is the product of regular but random mutations over the last 25,000 years obligatorily passed on from mothers to sons and daughters up to contemporary generations. Thus, these mtDNA patterns determine a set of distinctive genetic ‘fingerprints’ that fixes the source and arrival times of the protopopulations of Vietnam from MK forbearers. Ballinger et al. (1992: 5) observed that the great diversity among the Vietnamese is mirrored in great diversity of the aboriginal populations of Malaysia, including certain modern MK-speaking aboriginals, for example, the Temiar and Semai. Thus, the pre-Vietic and the Orang Asli people of Malaysia appear to be among the oldest within Southeast Asian MK peoples and may have constituted a physical population unity in the deep past of the Malay Peninsula (cf. also www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic, specifically the mtDNA haplogroup F).


So following this proposed model, perhaps 17 millennia bp people with these shared genetic features moved up the Malay Peninsula as far as northern Vietnam near Hòa Bình to dwell in rock shelters and caves where the French archeologist Madeleine Colani first discovered this Hoabinhian Culture of 15,000–5000 bp and noted that its unique features extended throughout the region (Colani 1927). Later these populations mixed with the inhabitants of Bac SÒn near the Red River in Bac Thái and Lang SÒn Provinces. Bacsonians possessed tools that were made of ground and polished stone, a significant improvement over Hòa Bình tools and pottery. During this same period, there was another culture called Quynh Van, whose inhabitants occupied the coast of north central Vietnam, largely living from fishing (cf. http://www.bvom.com/resource/vn_history.asp?pContent=Pre-History). They were followed in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age by people of the Phùng Nguyên Culture of Vietnam, who were wet rice farmers and who lived in sedentary villages on the Hòng (Red), Ðà (Black), and Lô Rivers 2000–1500 bc. In further triangulation of the peopling of Vietnam, we know from linguistic comparison that pre-Vietics also have a connection to groups of north-central Vietnam found today in Nghê An, Hà Tính, and Quàng Bình Provinces near the Lao border where some Vietic people still live. Perhaps some 4500 years ago a portion of these Vietic people groups appear to have arrived in the Red River Valley, and prospered. Later still they established a joint kingdom – known in Chinese records as Âu Lac – at Co Loa near Hanoi together with the indigenous Kra-Dai (Tai-Kadai) peoples (cf. Section 2). Li Hui et al. (2006) have analyzed comparatively palm prints, fingerprints, and sole prints between Kra-Dai and MK and decide for an MK genetic heritage.


But the reign of the kingdom of Âu Lac was destined to be short-lived. In 221 bc an invasion force from the north under General Zhào Tuó with an army of 100 000 took northern Vietnam in the name of the emperor of China, and it remained a province of the Middle Kingdom until ad 939 with much mixing of genetic, linguistic, and cultural features. Then subsequently, free from the Chinese yoke, Vietnam prospered under the institutions and a written tradition it had inherited and was able to fend off periodic attacks from Chinese authority. In ad 1471 they succeeded in a final conquest of the kingdom of Cham-speaking people of Vietnam.

The paragraph immediately above makes the annoying mistake of not even mentioning Kingdom of Nam-Viet.

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

Below is a paper which likewise posits that the original Viets of the Red River Delta may have been in fact Tai-Kadai speakers but were somehow colonized by a small number of nomadic Mon-Khmer speakers.  This would be analogous to how a small band of Indo-European speakers were able to colonized, linguistically anyway, both much of India and nearly all of Europe.  (The orginal European languages were not Indo-European.)

http://www.geocities.com/malves98/Alves_Vietnamese_linguisticaffiliation.pdf

THE CURRENT STATUS OF VIETNAMESE GENETIC LINGUISTIC STUDIES


Mark J. Alves
Montgomery College

(Presented at the Pan-Asiatic Conference held in Ho Chi Minh City in November 2000. It is unpublished and a draft to be cited only with the author’s permission.Embarrassed

INTRODUCTION


Throughout the twentieth century, controversy surrounded the origins of the Vietnamese language. Currently, there are several primary schools of thought, in which Vietnamese is
considered to be an Austroasiatic, Tai-Kadai, or Austronesian language. In another approach,
Vietnamese is considered to be a 'mixed' language which either cannot be shown to belong to
any particular group or can be shown to have a less obvious linguistic substratum. The dominant
and most well supported hypothesis so far--based on solid lexical and phonological evidence--
has been that Vietnamese is a language of the Mon-Khmer branch of Austroasiatic. However,
even to the end of the twentieth century, there are those who still consider Mon-Khmer to be a
kind of superstratum and think that deeper exploration reveals a Tai or Austronesian base.


This paper explores these issues, summarizing available evidence for each viewpoint,
using primarily phonological and lexical evidence, though other factors (typology and historical
feasibility) are considered as well. The conclusion reached in this paper is that, though some
provocative evidence exists showing possible ancient connections with Austronesian and Tai-
Kadai, Vietnamese is nonetheless a Mon-Khmer language,
particularly in light of recently
collected data from Minor Vietic languages as well as other language contact issues. This paper
first discusses the methods used to determine genetic linguistic affiliation. Then, for each of the
three main hypotheses (that Vietnamese is Mon-Khmer, Tai-Kadai, or Austronesian in origin),
previous work is discussed, diachronic stages of linguistic development are hypothesized, and a
general summary is given.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS


For the basic Mon-Khmer vocabulary seen in Vietnamese to be dismissed would require
the exclusion of basic comparative methodologies. Furthermore, in most cases, the evidence
linking Vietnamese origins with language groups other than Mon-Khmer is not well supported in
light of the criteria proposed in this paper. Indeed, it cannot be proved conclusively that
Vietnamese shift to a Mon-Khmer language did not occur,
but then that could be the case with
ANY language.

One aspect that must be considered in positing genetic linguistic origins is the feasibility of those claims based on existing data. Existing evidence shows that Vietnamese definitely had initial consonant clusters even just a few hundred years ago, and several hundred years ago, Vietnamese probably had more clusters and possibly presyllables. Data from Minor Vietic languages show the likelihood that Vietnamese went through a four-tone stage in its tonal development. This accounts for perhaps the past thousand years. Before that, say from one to two thousand years ago, Vietnamese must have had its core Mon-Khmer vocabulary since during that time, historical records suggest contact primarily with Chinese, Cham, and Tai peoples.  Thus, we enter the prerecorded history and the three possible genetic linguistic sources: Mon-Khmer, Tai-Kadai, and Austronesian. For the latter two hypotheses to work, there would have to have been a period in which the ancestors of modern Vietnamese speakers were in an extremely socially subordinate position. Such terminology is potentially inflammatory, however, that would indeed have to be the case. Angry


Were Vietnamese Tai-Kadai or Austronesian, perhaps a small group underwent some kind of relexification. There are some historical gaps into which we could fall, such as the question of the 100 Yue and whether or not Austroasiatic peoples lived in modern day Southern China (Mei and Norman 1973), though neither would clearly determine what the origin of the Vietnamese language is.


The Mon-Khmer hypothesis could be described as follows. A group of Mon-Khmer speakers settled in the north central region of Vietnam. Austroasiatic phonation had already been part of the sound system of Vietnamese (see Diffloth 1989). Some 'Vietnamese' speakers in the region of the red river valley came into contact with the Chinese. There was probably some contact between them and Tai peoples to the northwest, but this contact would have been restricted by mountain ranges. The language contact with Chamic, spoken by those who had arrived in Southern Vietnamese after the Han dynasty, and with whom the Vietnamese typically had an unfriendly political relationship at best, would have been fairly minimal.

Bravo!  Clap

Not that I whole heartedly agree with it or anything. Ermm

I initially found this paper on a pay/subscription website.  I just copied-pasted the title, googled, and instantly found a copy on some dude's personal website just like that, for free! Cool



Edited by TranHungDao - 09-Oct-2009 at 12:25
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 19:49
Originally posted by TranHungDao

So 40% of Vietnamese have M122 and 50% of Han have it.  Not a big deal if you ask me.
Actually, I take it back.  It is a BIG DEAL, for it reaffirms the South to North migration theory, which the National Geographic Genographic Project maintains:
---click on "Genetic Markers" button, then the "M122/O3" button.
Vietnamese legend holds that a righteous dude whom the Chinese call Chennong was a Vietnamese guy. IIRC,  Chennong, according to Chinese legends is one of the fathers of modern Hans.  He taught the Chinese wet rice cultivation, or perhaps just rice cultivation in general.  Prior to wet rice cultivation, Chinese grew wheat.
The Red River Delta is of course the prime place for wet rice cultivation to have emerged.  It has been continuously inhabited for at least 10 millenia.  And according ancient Han census data, it was one of the most densely populated areas in the world 2000 years ago.  The then surrounding areas from modern day Cambodia to ALL of now Southern China paled in comparison.
It is well known that wet cultivation is what allowed China's population to explode in the last 4-5 millenia.  Whether Chennong is Vietnamese or not is not the point:  This most important of  agricultural technics came from the South.
But then again, the Genogrphic Project says M122 has a Southern origin.  
By the way, O3-M122 is Y chromosomal DNA.  It's a guy thing.  Only men have this genetic marker. With respect to human migration theory, this is paramount since men have always been far more mobile than women.  It's a guy thing.  Ermm


Edited by TranHungDao - 09-Oct-2009 at 19:57
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 03:08
Originally posted by pebbles

Li Hui asserts that Han Chinese are M117 genetic marker and Viets & Bai Yue are M119. Viets do not share the M122 genetic marker with the Han-Chinese. M117 and M7 stemed from M122,which the Viet ethnic is not.
Actually, m119 is not common to Viet nor Bai Yue males at all.  It's really an Austronesian marker. And even then it occurs less than 23% of the time.  
.
About 15% of Southern Han males have m119.  Compare...
---------------------------------------------------
Southern Han    15.34%
Northern Han      4.36%
Hmong-Mien        2.41%
Tibeto-Burman    4.20%
Daic                    10.67%
Austro-Asiatic      3.18%
Austronesian     22.34%
.
----------------------------------------------------
This 2005 article does not mention Vietnamese specifically, but it couldn't be all that high.  Note how the numbers for m122 are also a little different from the wiki figures I quoted above which in turn come from other studies.
.
I think the smart thing to do would be to take anyone individual study and then tac on +/- 10% for any given result.   Cite all the available literature out there, rather than just one.  And, as a general rule, the more recent the study, the more reliable.
.
It's never a good idea to cherry-pick data, real or ficticious, based on one's political motives.  Wink




Edited by TranHungDao - 10-Oct-2009 at 03:14
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 03:54

As for marker m117 (03a5a2) itself...

It's seems to be about as common in the northern half of Vietnam as it is in China.  Recall that central and southern regions of Vietnam were annexed only within the last 300-500 years, where as the Vietnamese have been in the Red River Delta for Millenia.

Here's a nice little study from 2005:

Y-Chromosome Evidence of Southern Origin of the East Asian–Specific Haplogroup O3-M122, by Hong Shi et al

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8JDD-4RH3CKK-8&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4cd3978a14f99eedc0bf0e98ce227c79

See (click on) Figure 4, which is a density map, and look at the m117 box on the bottom left.  It's a big pic with six density maps.  I've cropped the one for m117D (03a5a2) and here it is:

As you can see, the m117 density "blob" completely obscures the northern half of Vietnam pretty much to the same degree as it does China.  Look at the original one too, for in the other boxes corresponding to different markers/haplotypes, you can see that the same exact map is used.

Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 26-Mar-2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 528
  Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 10:06
This is all very interesting, but I'd like to make several points.

First, until we have all had our blood samples added to the data base, everything written on Dna results will remain hypothetical, based upon the extrapolation of results in a test group which may or may not reflect that of the general population. But it is a start.

Second, several posters write of the 'Kinh' as if they were a single homogenous group. Perhaps 2,500 years ago, they were. But they are not presently. Kinh groups from the North, Central, and South all differ in their genetic makeup. The old "Bac Ky", "Trung Ky", and "Nam Ky" stereotypes were based upon visibly perceived genetic and cultural differences between the three.

Finally, on the South. It was a Chinese, Mac Cu'u, who brought the Vietnamese into  the Mekong River Delta, which prior to the 1700s had very few Vietnamese indeed. And it was still being partially governed by Cambodia right up until 1947. (I base this on the fact that the Cambodian Royal government ordered a battalion of troops drafted from "Kampuchea Krom" in Long Xuyen, Soc Trang, and Ha Tien in 1946, and that draft order was promulgated and carried out.) As for Champa, which Vietnamese histories (rewritten on orders of Minh Mang in 19th Century) claim ceased to exist after 1471, the fact is that some Cham city-states were allowed to exist as vassals of the Nguyen Lords right up until 1832, when Minh Mang ended that. (Li Tana, "Nguyen Cochinchina", Cornell University Press SEAP, 1998)

So, start off with the idea that if genetics were simple, North Vietnamese Kinh would show a higher percentage of "Chinese" markers (North, South, whatever), Central Vietnamese Kinh would show a higher percentage of Cham markers, and South Vietnamese Kinh would exhibit a higher percentage of Khmer- later Chinese markers. BUT, some Cham were forcibly relocated to the Hanoi area
, Lao and Thai occasionally invaded parts of Central and South Vietnam. Northern Vietnamese refugees were often relocated to Central and South Vietnam.  And Central Vietnamese were used to settle the South. Nguyen and Thai princesses were routinely married of to Khmer kings, thereby involving Vietnam and Thailand in Khmer affairs. All this before 1954!

As you can see, 'Kinh' thus becomes a cultural tern, rather than any guarantor of genetic purity.  And yes, culturally, Vietnam is East Asian. Perhaps someday, some study will demonstrate that its political culture is an East- Southeast Asian blend. I base this on the fact that alone among Asia and Eurasia's Communist dictatorships, it managed to avoid the imperial cult of personality, at least while Ho Chi Minh lived.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 10:19

When examing the origins of the Vietnamese people, geneticists intentionally focus on the Kinh of northern Vietnam, the Red River Delta, the craddle of Vietnamese civilization.  This is for obvious reasons.  

Now if you want to examine all modern Kinh, then you have to take into account the Kinh of the central and southern regions, their history, migration patterns, intermarriage with Chams, Khmers, Chinese loyal to the Ming who went down to southern Vietnam to serve the Vietnamese emperor, and other ethnic groups.

Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 20:37

And here's the contour map for m7 haplotype-frequency distribution.  

Note that is far more common in the northern half of Vietnam than it is in China.  We know from the data (as well as the other contour maps) that samples from all over China were taken.  But I'm not sure if any samples were taken from the southern half of Vietnam.  After all, this study is about the origins of NE Asians, and Chinese in particular.

Again, it's cropped from figure 4, from one of the sources cited above:

http://www.scienceY-Chromosome Evidence of Southern Origin of the East Asian–Specific Haplogroup O3-M122direct.com/science?_ob=MiamiCaptionURL&_method=retrieve&_udi=B8JDD-4RH3CKK-8&_image=fig4&_ba=4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=43612&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9c25e38c171ba9056d85c2ff94f59a21

Y-Chromosome Evidence of Southern Origin of the East Asian–Specific Haplogroup O3-M122, by Hong Shi et al



Edited by TranHungDao - 10-Oct-2009 at 20:40
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 20:42

Ok, it's abundantly clear this horse has been beaten to death.  Dead

.

.

.

.

.

.

Wink

Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Oct-2009 at 05:01

Originally posted by lirelou

This is all very interesting, but I'd like to make several points.


First, until we have all had our blood samples added to the data base, everything written on Dna results will remain hypothetical, based upon the extrapolation of results in a test group which may or may not reflect that of the general population. But it is a start. 

Eh.  This is way more than just "interesting".  Linguists, historians, archaeologists all know they must contend with what the geneticists say, granted the geneticists cross t's, dot i's, j's, and mind p's & q's.  They must always be vigilant when doing good population sampling.  This why Linguists, historians, archaeologists increasingly cite the literature in genetics.

While it is true one should never wholly rely on a single genetic study as though it were the HOLY TRUTH, much less make atrocious interpretations, deliberately or not, on any one study/result, however, over time the genetic body of evidence will be the most reliable if one has a keen eye.  Yes, more so than the historical "evidence".  DNA can clear an innocent man of murder, even when everyone involved is 100% certain he did the dirty deed.

"History" is not written in stone.  LOL, even the stuff which literally was, e.g. cuneiform tablets and whatnot.  "History" is not "facts" and "truth", but rather, what is the best argument at the time, based on the best evidence currently at hand.  History is constantly being written and rewritten when new and/or better evidence emerges, for example, the (re)emergence of ancient manuscripts, artifacts, and dare I say it?  Spanking new DNA lab results.

To me, linguistics is a real crap shoot, particularly for languages which are difficult to classify.  It's guiding principles and techniques seem a bit loosy goosy to me, such as how they figure out tonogenesis by phony, eh, I mean phonological methods. 

There are many possibilties concerning the Vietnamese language.  Some were enumerated in the two articles I cited above:

1.  Vietnamese is Mon-Khmer, a branch of the Astroasiatic language family.  This is of course currently the general consensus, the most popular theory...  In other words, currently the "best argument" on the market.  Mind you, the "best argument" is not necessarily The HOLY TRUTH. Again, history is rewritten when newer and more reliable evidence (re)emerges. 

2.  Vietnamese is Tai-Kadai, since as Mark Alves puts it:  ""Mon-Khmer [is] a kind of superstratum and...  that deeper exploration reveals a Tai or Austronesian base."

3.  Vietnamese is Austronesian.  See Alves quotation in #2 above.

4.  Vietnamese is its own languistic isolate, or as Alves says:  "Vietnamese is... a 'mixed' language which either cannot be shown to belong to any particular group or can be shown to have a less obvious linguistic substratum."

5.  Vietnamese was orginally Tai-Kadai, but a small band of nomadic (Mon-Khmer) Vietic speakers came along and colonized the Lac Viets of the Red River Delta millenia ago, in a scenario analogous to what happened to both Europe and India with proto-Indo-European nomads, or for that matter very similar situations all over the world.  Linguists know of countless such examples for the genetists tells them so, i.e. neighboring groups with entirely different genetic ancestries speaking the same damn language family.

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

6.  Here's my own nifty little hypothesis:  Vietnamese is not Mon-Khmer, but Mon-Khmer is Vietic. (The Vietnamese, or Lacs/ Lac Yueh, were in the Red River Delta long before the Khmers came to what is now Cambodia.  And certainly the proto-Vietnamese were present millenia prior to  that.)  The various Tai speakers of Southern China lost their original Vietic languages to become Tai in the same way the Cantonese, Fujianese, etc., lost their original Yue languages morphing into Sino-Tibetan.  (BTW, some scholars believe Cantonese was originally Tai.)  What do I base my hypothesis on?  Three things:

a.  2000 year old Han census data:  There may have been more Vietnamese concentrated in the Red River Delta than there were people collecively in the surrounding areas of the vast Dong Son world, which the Red River Delta was the center of, and which included Southern China, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, etc.  Dong son was not advanced, but it was geographically HUGE.  What ever the case, the population density of the Red River Delta was spectacular.  For such census data, see Keith W. Taylor, The Birth of Vietnam.

b.  Genetics:  i.  Vietnamese have some of the oldest mtDNA (maternal ancestry) in all of Asia, i.e. the gene pool shows relatively few outsiders coming in over the past millenia, or at the very least, the number of female outsiders coming in were very small.   ii.  m122 Y-haplotype theories on southern origins of East Asians and the spread of rice cultivation all over both E and SE Asia.  Proto-Vietnamese seed, both rice and otherwise Wink, spread out from Southern China or to me, more likely from the Red River Delta.  But since we already have some of the oldest mtDNA in Asia, making us everyone's mommy, m122's southern origin may also mean we're everyone else's daddy too. Confused  No matter what, I'm not paying child support.  Disapprove

(Recall wet rice cultivation is related to the spread of m122.  Both are said to have originated in Southern China or SE Asia.  Again, look at the old Han census data; the Red River Delta was the center of the Dong Son world which Southern China most certainly belonged to.  Besides, deltas are wet, are they not?  Hint:  "WET RICE CULTIVATION".  Personally, I think people who claim m122 orginates in southern China are making inherently political claims.  The Genographic Project also say m122 very likely originates in S. China, but that is likely due to ignorance and/or the scholarly desire to be polite to the researchers by echoing their conclusions.) 

c.  Mainland SE Asian History:  The Vietnamese were in the Red River Delta  long before the Khmers arrived in Mainland SE Asia.  The Khmer empire began in 802 CE, it's predecessor Funan began in 68 CE.  (Funanese were not Khmer, but were probably a "Mon-Khmer" speaking people.)  The earliest known Viet kingdom (read: accepted by Western scholarship) was Van Lang, which began around 700 BCE, or 1100 years before the arrival of the Khmers.  And of course, the Red River Delta has been continuously inhabited for millenia by proto Vietnamese in relatively large numbers.  (Wet rice cultivation, due to its high rate of production, is invariably the reason why such large numbers existed in the first place.  And further, this is likely why proto-Viets loitered around in the Red River Delta for aeons upon aeons.  It was a fertile place.)

Maybe the Vietnamese are a little stubborn.  They didn't change to "Mon-Khmer" as both the 2000 Alves and  2007 Edmondson/Gregerson articles postulate, nor were they Sino-Tibetan as the pre-Maspéro and pre-Hadricourt scholars once falsely believed.  (Like I said, history is constantly being written and rewritten.)  Using Alves' own logic, shouldn't have the "extremely socially subordinate" Vietnamese who's volcabulary is now over 60% Chinese in origin morph their language into Sino-Tibetan, the same way they morphed from Tai to "Mon-Khmer"?

Again, my equally (or perhaps more so) nuanced reasoning rests on the new genetic evidence, the old Han census data, and the history of Dong Son and mainland SE Asia.  Question:  Is it easier for a small band of nomads to change the language of small groups they conquer or big groups they conquer?

There's been over 2000 years of Chinese influence in Vietnam:  Over 60% Chinese volcabulary, Chinese script for over 2000 years (latin alphbet wasn't adopted until around 1945, 1954???).  And don't forget about the 1000 years during which Vietnam existed as a Chinese province.  If Vietnamese didn't morph into Sino-Tibetan under those those extreme conditions, then maybe it never morphed into Mon-Khmer either.  The (mtDNA) gene pool was stable:  Foreign influences came in, but only relatively few foreign speakers.  Maybe this is why the language didn't become Sino-Tibetan.  (I'm not saying small bands of militarily superior nomads cannot change the languages of large groups they conquer, I'm just saying its far more difficult than to change the languages of small groups they conquer.)

Maybe the proto-Viets were never conquered in the first place by Mon-Khmer nomads in the way the Lac Viet were conquered by the Han millenia after, since the "Mon-Khmer" classification is a misnomer to begin with?  The Vietnamese were in mainland S.E. Asia long before the Khmer were.  If anything, it is very likely it was their seed, both rice and otherwise, which spread both North and South.

Genetics:  Learn it, live it, love it.  Ermm

Well, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.  Ouch



Edited by TranHungDao - 11-Oct-2009 at 08:22
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 26-Mar-2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 528
  Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Oct-2009 at 08:15
Esteemed Emperor, A really thoughtful and detailed reply. Thank you. I particularly like the fact that you used the term 'proto-Vietnamese'. Peoples, like individuals, are works in progress. The proto-Vietnamese are ancestors of today's Vietnamese, but they were not necessarily completely identical in culture or language. I am reminded of Goguryo controversy between China and Korea. Certainly the governing caste of Gogoryo (Goguryeo) was ethnically 'Korean', however many modern Koreans I speak to envision a Gogoryo whose language, culture, etc was completely identical to today's Koreans. The Romanized Script (Quoc Ngu) developed in the 17th Century had been in wide use since the late 19th Century, but received its biggest boost with Ho Chi Minh's 1945 decree that everyone would learn the "national script". His movement needed to be able to communicate with the masses to gain their support. It was an interesting move in that HCM's father, as a mandarin of his time, would have been opposed to the 'Quoc Ngu' in favor of the Chu Nom. And, it had the added advantage of erecting a cultural border control point between written Chinese and Vietnamese. An interesting historical parallel is Hangul, the Korean script developed in the 15th Century. It too did not spark much interest until the rise of late 19th Century Korean nationalism, and was not in widespread use until independence in 1945.

Here's a question: When and where did the Vietnamese begin raising rice as a cash crop? The Red River Delta under-produces the Mekong Delta in rice tonnage and crops per year, and Professor Li mentions the Vietnamese adaptation to the cultivation of rice as a cash crop as key to the Nguyen Lords' settlement of the Mekong Delta (versus the Khmer, who were subsistence rice farmers). When did North Vietnam/Dang Ngoai begin producing rice for export as a cash crop? (I assume that some surplus of rice was shipped as taxes, and that Vietnam, as a vassal of China right up until 1885, periodically shipped rice their to assist famine efforts in the 'elder brother's' realm.) 

Interesting to note that one of your posts refers to the "Hmong-Mien" group. As you and I know, 'Mien' is Vietnamese for "Khmer". I wonder if the term is a hold-over from a much earlier period, prior to the rise of Khmer kingdoms. Or, a term for a more Northern people that they siumply took South. There must be a comprehensive and respected Vietnamese dictionary somewhere that includes the etymology of words.


Edited by lirelou - 11-Oct-2009 at 08:23
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 277
  Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Oct-2009 at 13:03
Originally posted by lirelou


Here's a question: When and where did the Vietnamese begin raising rice as a cash crop? The Red River Delta under-produces the Mekong Delta in rice tonnage and crops per year, and Professor Li mentions the Vietnamese adaptation to the cultivation of rice as a cash crop as key to the Nguyen Lords' settlement of the Mekong Delta ....

Sorry, this type of stuff is never on my radar.  It's quite nitty gritty (rather esoteric and detail laden) and not easy to look up either.  

Like most people on AE, I'm just an arm chair historian.  I only pay attention to things that are sexy like the Vietnam War or Mongol invasions and so on.  

Back to Top
asianguy View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 18-Jan-2010
Location: Saigon, Vietnam
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
  Quote asianguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jan-2010 at 13:44

Hello everybody, I am a new member of this forum, I live in Vietnam. It's very interesting when reading these databes about Vietnamese history. Most of Vietnamese in here were from America, but you are knowleghes about Vietnamese history from 15th, 16th, 17th century; better than me. ^^ 

As I know, Mac Cuu was a Chinese and discover a part of the South ( CochinChina); French came to Vietnam in 1858 and divide Vietnam into three regions; Tonkin, Annam, CochinChina (Bắc Kỳ, Trung Kỳ, Nam Kỳ in Vietnamese). Most of Chinese live in Vietnam were from Nam Viet (Nan Yue in Chinese, Quandong and Quangxi), Most of them have lived in Cho Lon, District 5, HCMC. Nan Yue people and modern Vietnamese have a mutual forfather - Bach Viet clan. Bach Viet clan have many small clans as Au Viet, Nam Viet, Au Viet, Lac Viet. Modern Vietnamese is Lac Viet. In present, People in South China as Quandong, Quangxi ...v..v provinces haven't been more loyal to Central Chinese Comminst Party than the North.

 
 


Edited by asianguy - 20-Jan-2010 at 13:56
Giang hồ đẫm máu anh không sợ, Chỉ sợ đường về vắng bóng em.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.