China syndrome: Why China is different from Middle East

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
The ancestors of almost all Han-Chinese in the south of CHina came from Yellow River valley in North China,including Cantonese.

For Example, I am one Hakka. But According to the pedigree of clans , the ancestor of my family came from Xuzhou city in North CHina long ago.

The aborigines here are quite rare in South CHina. They had been marginized thousands of years ago.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
To JustForLaughs, the genetic study does indicate that the Northern Hans invaded Southern China and "Fathered" most of the Children, who form the present day Cantonese(?).
For Ray, what does this have to do with CCP and present day China - please get to the point.
If you had been following the discussion, you would have understood the point.

One swallow does not a Spring signifies!
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
The ancestors of almost all Han-Chinese in the south of CHina came from Yellow River valley in North China,including Cantonese.

For Example, I am one Hakka. But According to the pedigree of clans , the ancestor of my family came from Xuzhou city in North CHina long ago.

The aborigines here are quite rare in South CHina. They had been marginized thousands of years ago.
The Aryans came to India from Europe as per some theories.

Since Wikipedia is being used to indicate all Chinese being Han, here is what Wikipedia says about Indians

Models of the Indo-Aryan migration discuss scenarios of prehistoric migrations of the proto-Indo-Aryans to their historically attested areas of settlement in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent. Claims of Indo-Aryan migration are primarily drawn from linguistic[1] evidence but also from a multitude of data stemming from Vedic religion, rituals, poetics as well as some aspects of social organization and chariot technology.

Indo-Aryan language derives from an earlier Proto-Indo-Iranian stage, usually identified with the Bronze Age Sintashta and Andronovo culture north of the Caspian Sea. Their migration to and within Northwestern parts of South Asia is consequently presumed to have taken place in the Middle to Late Bronze Age, contemporary to the Late Harappan phase (ca. 1700 to 1300 BCE).

This period is marked by a gradual and continual shift of the population to the east, first to the Gangetic plain with the Kurus and Panchalas, and further east with the Kosala and Videha. This Iron Age expansion corresponds to the black and red ware and painted grey ware cultures.....

Most scholars assumed a homeland either in Europe or in Western Asia, and Sanskrit must in this case have reached India by a language transfer from west to east, in a movement described in terms of invasion by 19th century scholars such as Max Müller.
So, most of the Indians are Europeans! :becky:

Not that such a classification is anything to be proud of!!

The above theory of Indo Aryan migration is hotly challenged these days.

As far as Chinese are concerned, the migration. the forced assimilation in all the manner accounted and hoary accounts of who did what and where one came from and went makes it a maze.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
This is not from Wikipedia, but from a Scientific study from The National Academy of Sciences



Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

PNAS is one of the world's most-cited multidisciplinary scientific serials. Since its establishment in 1914, it continues to publish cutting-edge research reports, commentaries, reviews, perspectives, colloquium papers, and actions of the Academy. Coverage in PNAS spans the biological, physical, and social sciences. PNAS is published weekly in print, and daily online in PNAS Early Edition. The PNAS impact factor is 9.432 and the Eigenfactor is 1.681 for 2009. PNAS is available by subscription.

1. J. Y. Chu a , b,
2. W. Huang b , c,
3. S. Q. Kuang c,
4. J. M. Wang c,
5. J. J. Xu d,
6. Z. T. Chu a,
7. Z. Q. Yang a,
8. K. Q. Lin a,
9. P. Li e,
10. M. Wu f,
11. Z. C. Geng g,
12. C. C. Tan g,
13. R. F. Du d, and
14. L. Jin g , h , i

+ Author Affiliations

Institute of Medical Biology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Kunming, People's Republic of China; cRui-Jin Hospital, Shanghai Second Medical University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China; dInstitute of Genetics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, People's Republic of China; eDepartment of Biology, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, People's Republic of China; fInstitute of Cancer Research, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, People's Republic of China; gInstitute of Genetics, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China; and hHuman Genetics Center, University of Texas-Houston, Houston, TX 77225



Contributed by Jiazhen Tan


Genetic relationship of populations in China

The phylogeny based on 30 microsatellites (Fig. 1 A) revealed a clear distinction between southern and northern Chinese populations, although the number of Chinese populations included in this phylogeny is small. Three northern Chinese populations clustered with the Japanese and Korean as expected. The southern populations in this phylogeny are not representative because three of the five southern populations are Taiwanese Aborigines speaking Austronesian languages. However, this phylogeny provides validation for our current approach, given the fact that the relationship among worldwide populations is identical to that presented in Bowcock et al. (8). The latter was derived by using a completely different set of markers, but some populations analyzed in this study were included in Bowcock et al. (Cambodian, Karitiana, Mayan, Australian, New Guinean, Italian, Zaire Pygmy, Central Republic Pygmy, and Lissongo). Populations from East Asia form a distinctive cluster indicating a common ancestry shared among those groups. Taiwanese Aborigines populations derived from the southern population cluster from the continent, indicating the probable origin of those populations and probably Polynesians.

The distinction between southern populations and northern populations was noticeable but far less clear when 16 more Chinese populations were added, producing the phylogeny presented in Fig. 1 B. The number of loci was reduced to 15 due to incomplete data for some loci. Again, the populations from East Asia were derived from the same lineage.

In Fig. 1 B, two clusters for the northern populations are discernible. Altaic language-speaking Buryat, Yakut, Uyghur, and Manchu clustered with the Korean and Japanese, two language isolates but closely related to Altaic. Two Han populations, one from north China and the other from Yunnan, also contributed to this cluster (cluster N1). Another Altaic language-speaking population, Ewenki, formed a cluster (cluster N2) with Tibetan, Tujia, and Hui, all of which were originally derived from the northern populations though currently living in the western part of China (21).

Populations of southern origin formed three clusters. [B]In the first south cluster (S1), Blang, an Austro-Asiatic population, grouped with Deang, Aini, Lahu, and Dai, all sampled from the southwest part of Yunnan. This lineage then clustered with three populations from Taiwan (Paiwan, Atayal, and Yami), probably reflecting the origin of Taiwanese Aborigines and thus Polynesians from Southeast Asia. The fourth Taiwanese aboriginal population, Ami, forms a separate cluster with Han Chinese of southern origin living in the U.S. before they joined the previous cluster to form cluster S1.[/B]

The second southern group consists of three Daic populations (Li, Dong, and Yao from Jinxiu) all from Guangxi or Hainan, two Hmong-Mien populations (She and Yao speaking Punu), Cambodian (a Austro-Asiatic population), Yi and Han from Henan (cluster S2).

The second northern lineage (cluster N2) consists of mostly western populations derived from this southern group except Ewenki. Jingpo and Wa formed the third southern lineage (cluster S3). In this phylogeny, populations in East Asia can be divided into two groups: a northern group consisting of populations in cluster N1 and a southern group including all southern populations (clusters S1, S2, and S3) and the second cluster of northern origin (cluster N2). This relationship was not strongly supported by the bootstrap values among major clusters most of which were small. However, a phylogeny with 17 Chinese populations and 8 worldwide populations based on 26 loci presented a topology very similar to that of Fig. 1 B, and the bootstrap value supporting the separation of the first northern cluster and the southern clusters being 13% and the bootstrap value supporting the second northern lineage being 19% (data not shown).
The measure of genetic distance, Dc (19), was used in this study because it generally outperformed other measures in obtaining correct topology for microsatellite markers in an extensive simulation study (15). The neighbor-joining method tends to be less affected by the presence of admixture occurring among populations in recovering the correct topology compared with the unweighted pair-group method of averages (UPGMA) and therefore became the method of choice in this analysis (17). Phylogenies using UPGMA were also constructed but not included because the relationships of worldwide populations are different from those in Bowcock et al. and other studies using microsatellites (8–10). Other measures of genetic distance such as Dsw, Rst, and (Δμ)2 were also used in the analysis (20–23), but they lead to less sensible results inconsistent with known ethnohistory of the populations studied (15–17).


CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

Validation of the utility of microsatellites in reconstructing evolutionary history of human populations has been made not only theoretically (20–23) but also empirically; the relationships based on microsatellites are generally consistent with morphological and paleontological evidence and other types of genetic markers (8–10). However, many of such studies used distantly related populations and, therefore, the utility of such markers in the study of closely related populations is yet to be explored. The current study reflects, to some extend, a lack of resolution of microsatellites in the reconstruction of closely related populations, probably because of an insufficient number of loci and a large number of populations studied but less likely because of the insufficient number of samples for each population as demonstrated by Shriver et al. (20). This is so because the variance of the genetic distance between loci is much larger than the variance due to sampling error (20) in the estimation of genetic distance. Small bootstrap values reflect insufficient amount of information available to resolve the genetic relationship among closely related populations in the presence of strong gene flow among those populations. But the employment of a much larger number of microsatellite loci in the current analysis may not guarantee a better resolution under such a scenario. Nevertheless, it is not our primary intention to reveal the detailed genetic relationship among those closely related populations, rather we are interested in exploring the major pattern of evolutionary history of the human populations currently residing in East Asia.

In both phylogenies with different loci and populations, populations from East Asia always derived from a single lineage, indicating the single origin of those populations. It does not preclude the possibility of an independent origin of modern humans in East Asia, but its contribution to the extant populations is not detectable in this analysis. It is now probably safe to conclude that modern humans originating in Africa constitute the majority of the current gene pool in East Asia. A phylogeny with very different topological structure would have been expected if an independent Asian origin of modern human had made a major contribution to the current gene pool in Asian populations. Since the methods employed in this analysis can detect only major genetic contribution from particular sources, a haplotype-based analysis will probably detect minor contribution from an independent origin of modern humans in East Asia (24, 25).

In contrast with previous studies (2–4) where distinction between southern and northern populations was clear, our current analysis showed that northern populations belong to two different groups, although statistical support was still weak. One noticeable difference in our study is the employment in the phylogeny reconstruction of the neighbor-joining method, which is supposedly more robust in the presence of genetic admixture. The use of microsatellites, a different type of genetic markers from previous studies, and the measures of genetic distance introduced further complication.

However, the northern populations in cluster N2 were sampled from the southwestern part of China, except for Ewenki, where genetic admixture with the southern population was more likely to occur. This might explain why this group of northern populations clustered with southern populations.


Another noticeable feature from this analysis is that the linguistic boundaries are often transgressed across the six language families studied (Sino-Tibetan, Daic, Hmong-Mien, Austro-Asiatic, Altaic, and Austronesian). Such a phenomenon is even more pronounced among southern populations, where populations from the same geographic regions tend to cluster in the phylogeny (see Fig. 1 B). This observation is consistent with the history of Chinese populations, where population migrations were substantial.

The current analysis suggests that the southern populations in East Asia may be derived from the populations in Southeast Asia that originally migrated from Africa, possibly via mid-Asia, and the northern populations were under strong genetic influences from Altaic populations from the north. But it is unclear how Altaic populations migrated to Northeast Asia. It is possible that ancestral Altaic populations arrived there from middle Asia, or alternatively they may have originated from East Asia.

The analyses of metric and nonmetric cranial traits of modern and prehistoric Siberian and Chinese populations showed that Siberians are closer to Northern Chinese and Mongolian than European (26, 27). The same notion holds for the facial flatness (26–28). European populations did not appear in Siberia, western Mongolia, and China until the Neolithic and Bronze Age (26, 27, 29, 30). Furthermore, cranial and dental analyses have linked the Arctic peoples, Buryat and east Asians with American Indians (31–35), which arrived through Beringia (Bering land bridge) somewhere between 15,000 and 30,000 years ago (36). These observations are generally consistent with the genetic evidence based on this research and mitochondrial DNA data (37–40). Therefore, it is more likely that ancestors of Altaic-speaking populations originated from an East Asian population that was originally derived from Southeast Asia, although the current Altaic-speaking populations undeniably admixed with later arrivers from mid-Asia and Europe (see Fig. 2, thin solid lines). The possibility of early northern route migration from mid-Asia to Siberia is doubtful, given the fact that the last glacier started to recede only 15,000 years ago (see Fig. 2, dashed lines).


Figure 2

Hypothetical ancestral migration routes to the Far East. Refer to Table 1 for names of the numbered populations.

This conclusion can be tested by using simple inductive logic. If the ancestral Altaic-speaking population was of northern origin, the genetic relationship of extant populations should follow the phylogeny presented in the bottom of Fig. 3. The phylogeny generated in the current study apparently supports the upper phylogeny of Fig. 3. In this analysis, Altaic populations are represented by Buryat and Yakut. Southern Chinese populations are those populations from Yunnan and Taiwan that reportedly did not have any admixture with Altaic populations. Populations from Middle Asia were not available to this study.

Figure 3
Phylogenetic relationships of worldwide populations under two hypotheses; see text for discussion.

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.

Acknowledgments
We thank the people whose DNA was provided by L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, J. Kidd, M. Hsu, S. Q. Mehdi, and J. Bertranpetit. Informed consent was obtained for the newly collected Chinese samples. This project was completed under the organization of Z. Chen and B. Q. Qiang and funded by the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China. We also thank P. Watkin and P.
http://www.pnas.org/content/95/20/11763.full
 
Last edited:

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
I am one Hakka. But According to the pedigree of clans , the ancestor of my family came from Xuzhou
yes Hakka everywhere across China and worldwide. Fujian is a "cradle" of Hakka. Actually most Chinese in India (Calcutta) are Hakka.

Hakka the word literally means "Guest", as migrants from the north since ages.

IMO, ethnic identification / recognition has more to do with 'culture' than DNA or genetics (unlike Indians who identify themselves more with "religion" or "caste". Southern Han may carry more "Yue" features as Yue loosely referred to clans/tribes galore scattering all over Southeast China, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Fujian... down south. But so long as the unifying bond of culture stays Hakka or Cantonese or Shanghai-ese are Hans though varying in possibly appearance or subcultures. Many other ethnic groups carry on the line of Yue too like Zhuang, She, or Li and even Vietnamese.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
yes Hakka everywhere across China and worldwide. Fujian is a "cradle" of Hakka. Actually most Chinese in India (Calcutta) are Hakka.

Hakka the word literally means "Guest", as migrants from the north since ages.

IMO, ethnic identification / recognition has more to do with 'culture' than DNA or genetics (unlike Indians who identify themselves more with "religion" or "caste". Southern Han may carry more "Yue" features as Yue loosely referred to clans/tribes galore scattering all over Southeast China, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Fujian... down south. But so long as the unifying bond of culture stays Hakka or Cantonese or Shanghai-ese are Hans though varying in possibly appearance or subcultures. Many other ethnic groups carry on the line of Yue too like Zhuang, She, or Li and even Vietnamese.
Indians do not identify themselves with caste or religion.

Indians identify themselves within the Indian ambit by their subnationalism.

For instance, a inhabitant of Bengal is a Bengali. His caste and religion is immaterial. A Muslim from Bengal with Bengali as the mother tongue is a Bengali, and so is a Hindu, Christian, etc.

Likewise, a Muslim from Tamilnadu is a Tamil and so is the Tamil Hindu or a Christian. Eg. Chidambaram our Home Minister is a Chettiyar by caste, but a Tamil and so is our ex and illustrious President Dr Abul Kalam, a Muslim but a Tamil all the same.

Our friend and Moderator, Yusuf of DFI is now in Bangalore and is a Muslim but he is still a Gujarati since he hails from Gujarat.

As far as China is concerned I have appended many a scholarly papers and tomes to indicate that while the original roots of some communities have been wiped out by the Han expansionism be it to any point of the compass in China, it is a dubious exercise to say that 97% are undiluted Hans in China or that magic figure of 87% is required in the blood to be a Han and all have that magic figure of 87% and none have 86.999%.

Notwithstanding, I agree with OHimalaya that culturally it is correct that people have been assimilated, through various means, to claim to be Hans in a cultural way of identity as Chinese. OHimalaya is closer to the reality than fanciful and forceful claim that there all are originally Han having that fanciful magic figure of 87% in their blood (a claim not substantiated by a link or otherwise).

Further, if all are of the same genetic stock, then why are the features and bone structure so distinctly different from region to region?

For instance, in India, there are distinct feature dissimilarities that can suggest the area from where a person belongs.
 
Last edited:

JustForLaughs

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
190
Likes
0
To JustForLaughs, the genetic study does indicate that the Northern Hans invaded Southern China and "Fathered" most of the Children, who form the present day Cantonese(?).
For Ray, what does this have to do with CCP and present day China - please get to the point.
yes. there are groups that have been forcefully assimilated by Han, but Cantonese are not among them.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
OHimalaya,

If Hakka means 'Guest', then obviously the local population would have been larger than the 'Guests' or Hakka.

If the 'Guests' were the larger in numbers then they would not be 'Guests' any longer.

Or would they?

Are they still called Hakka?

Why is there a difference between Cantonese and Hakka if they are from the same region?
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
My question above is prompted by the discussion between two educated (one is Dr Li) Chinese gentlemen on the issue

Dear Dr. Li,


Thank you very much for your mail. i am sorry that you still cannot catch
my point.

>Our difference is in that I include Yue as part of Chinese.

No, Our difference lies in the evaluation of Yue, Cantonese and Hakka. My
equation is Yue is different from Cantonese and Hakka, but your evaulation
is Yue is the ancestor of cantonese, but DIFFERENT FROM HAKKA. Otherwise I
agree with most of your points.

http://www.asiawind.com/pub/forum/fhakka/mhonarc/msg01788.html
If the Chinese themselves interpret it differently, then I am afraid one should not get too worked up if a non Chinese remains bewildered!
 
Last edited:

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
Here is my take --

Both Cantonese and Hakka (and many other Han subgroups in the South) came into being as a result of massive southward migration. But
1) they migrated and spread over the South at different time, waves after waves, driven by wars (conquests) or famines etc. etc.
2) Cantonese was a fusion with Yue. In comparison Hakka (Guest) is relatively "pure" (as evidenced linguistically by their dialect)
3) Hakka as "latecomers" had to settle down on some infertile or rough or mountainous lands, sometimes in animosity with earlier settlers.
4) Hakka are widespread over China due to continuous migration (even as far as West China - Sichuan Prov.)
5) Their dialects can both be tracked to ancient Chinese (our "Sanskrit")

I tell from my personal experience + readings, also based on demography in my home province
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
OHimalaya,

Thank you for your analysis.

It was possibly the best analysis in simplistic terms.

What is the difference in the Hakka type of Chinese cuisine and the Cantonese type?

The Chinese students in India feel that the Indian Chinese food, even in Indian Chinese homes, are not similar and have in fact no resemblance to the food they have in China. They feel Indian Chinese have too spicy a food.

Could you throw more light on this?

Of the Chinese food served in India, the Sichuan or Schezwan is what is enjoyable for the Indian palate.

I have never had a Bird's Nest soup, which I believe is made of a real Bird's Nest. I think it is banned in India. How does it taste and how is it made?

Nor have I had a Shark Fin's soup. How is it?

I have had a snake during my training. It was too rubber like. I find squid also very rubber like.

Notwithstanding, Chinese cuisine is a real delight and I love it.
 
Last edited:

ace009

Freakin' Fighter fan
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
1,662
Likes
526
The Aryans came to India from Europe as per some theories.

Since Wikipedia is being used to indicate all Chinese being Han, here is what Wikipedia says about Indians


So, most of the Indians are Europeans! :becky:

Not that such a classification is anything to be proud of!!

The above theory of Indo Aryan migration is hotly challenged these days.

As far as Chinese are concerned, the migration. the forced assimilation in all the manner accounted and hoary accounts of who did what and where one came from and went makes it a maze.
To Ray,
I have been reading the whole post and that is why I asked the question. A countries genetic decent is not a cause of it's political system. Both are results of their history, which is heavily influenced by their geographic location (read Guns Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond).
To all,
for India's genetic composition, and relatedness, try this article published in a renowned scientific journal by one of the best Human Geneticists in India.
It is more authentic than Wikipedia ...
 

Attachments

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
If one looks at China, genetics and cultural swamping plays an important part in their identity.

Thanks for the att for it adds to my knowledge.
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
I happen to have lived in Chengdu of Sichuan and Guangdong (Canton) for a few years. And Hakka is populous in west/inland of my province. So I can talk about their cuisines a bit. Sichuan food is quite spicy with pepper and zanthoxylum (the latter only used in Sichuan cuisine), whereas Cantonese food tastes mild (also famous for seafoods). Hakka flavor is kind of mildly spicy. Most coastal Chinese are not used to Sichuan spice but prefer Cantonese style. Personally I love Sichuan cuisine. the "Indian Chinese food", perhaps has been "improved" to cater for Indian taste.

Bird's nest actually is sparrow's spit in nesting. Bird's nest or Shark Fin is neither nutritious nor environmentally friendly.


If interested in Hakka culture pls click below
Fujian Hakka tulou, China's national treasures viewed by Foong Thim Leng

 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Thanks for the info.

Do give some links to Sichuan and Hakka cuisine (authentic Chinese) if you find some.

Bird's Nest if of spit, then that would not affect environment, or would it?

Sharks fin, I agree, will.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
OHimalaya,

If Hakka means 'Guest', then obviously the local population would have been larger than the 'Guests' or Hakka.

If the 'Guests' were the larger in numbers then they would not be 'Guests' any longer.

Or would they?

Are they still called Hakka?

Why is there a difference between Cantonese and Hakka if they are from the same region?
well, you should look into the case how Maori became the minority in New Zealand. the same happened to "local people" after Hakka came to south China.

Hakka and Cantonese are both the descendent of immigrant from North CHina. the difference is that either of them came to different areas in South China in different time .

Ancient Han CHinese migrate southward wavy by wave. either of Cantonese and Hkka is one of those "many waves",as well as Han speaking Wu dialects and other dialects.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Thanks.

Wu has a very interesting history or so it appears.

The country of Wu is in many respects even more interesting ethnologically than that of Ts'u. When, a generation or two before the then vassal Chou family conquered China, two of the sons of the ruler of that vassal principality decided to forego their rights of succession, they settled amongst the Jungle savages, cut their hair, adopted the local raiment, and tattooed their bodies; or, rather, it is said the elder of the two covered his head and his body decently, while the younger cut his hair, went naked, and tattooed his body. The words "Jungle savages" apply to the country later called Ts'u; but as Wu, when we first hear of her, was a subordinate country belonging to Ts'u; and as in any case the word "Wu" was unknown to orthodox China, not to say to extreme western China, in 1200 B.C. when the adventurous brothers migrated; this particular point need not trouble us so much as it seems to have puzzled the Chinese critics. About 575 the first really historical King of Wu paid visits to the Emperor's court, to the court of his suzerain the King of Ts'u, and to the court of Lu: probably the Hwai system of rivers would carry him within measurable distance of all three, for the headwaters almost touch the tributaries of the Han, and the then Ts'u capital was in touch with the River Han. He observed when in Lu: "We only know how to knot our hair in Wu; what could we do with such fine clothes as you wear?" It was the policy of Tsin and of the other minor federal princes to make use of Wu as a diversion against the advance of Ts'u: it is evident that by this time Ts'u had begun to count seriously as a Chinese federal state, for one of the powerful private families behind the throne and against the throne in Lu expressed horror that "southern savages should invade China ," by taking from it part of modern An Hwei province: as, however, barbarian Ts'u had taken it first from orthodox China, perhaps the mesne element of Ts'u was not in the statesman's mind at all, but only the original element,--China. An important remark is made by one of the old historians to the effect that the language and manners of Wu were the same as those of Yiieh. In 483, when Wu's pretensions as Protector were at their greatest, the people of Ts'i made use of ropes eight feet long in order to bind certain Wu prisoners they had taken, "because their heads were cropped so close": this statement hardly agrees with that concerning "knotted hair," unless the toupet or chignon was very short indeed. 'There are not many native Wu words quoted, beyond the bare name of the country itself, which is something like _Keu-gu,_ or _Kou-gu:_ an executioner's knife is mentioned under the foreign name _chuh-lu,_ presented to persons expected to commit suicide, after the Japanese harakiri fashion. In 584 B.C., when the first steps were taken by orthodox China to utilize Wu politically, it was found necessary, as we have seen, to teach the Wu folk the use of war-chariots and bows and arrows: this important statement points distinctly to the previous utter isolation of Wu from the pale of Chinese civilization. In the year 502 Ts'i sent a princess as hostage to Wu, and ended by giving her in marriage to the Wu heir: . A century or more later, when Mencius was advising the bellicose court of Ts'i, he alluded with indignation to this "barbarous" act. In 544 the Wu prince Ki-chah had visited Lu and other orthodox states.
[Illustration: Map of the Hwai system and Valley

1. The two lines indicated by...............to the north are the River Sz , from Confucius' birthplace, and the River I . After receiving the I, the Sz entered the Hwai as it emerged from Lake Hung-t&h; but this Hwai mouth no longer exists; the waters are dissipated in canals.
The Wu fleets coasting up to the Hwai, were thus able to creep into the heart of Shan Tung province, east and west.
2. The Yang-tsz had three branches: northern, much as now; middle, branching at modern Wuhu, crossing the T'ai-hu Lake, and following the Soochow Creek and Wusung River past Shanghai; southern, carrying part of the Tai-hu waters by a forgotten route , to near Hangchow.
3. The three crosses mark the capitals of Wu and Yiieh . The modern canal from Hangchow to Shan Tung is clearly indicated. Orthodox China knew absolutely nothing of Cheh Kiang, Fuh Kien, or Kiang Si provinces south of lat. 300.]

In recognition of this civilized move on the part of an ancient family, Confucius in his history grants the rank of "viscount" to the King of Wu, but he does not style Ki-chah by the complimentary title Ki _Kung-tsz_, or "Ki, the son of a reigning prince"; that is, the king's title thus accorded retrospectively is only a "courtesy one," and does not carry with it a posthumous name, and with that name the posthumous title of Kung, or "duke"' applied to all civilized rulers. Yet it is evident that the ruling caste of Wu considered itself superior to the surrounding tribes, for in the year 493 it was remarked: "We here in Wu are entirely surrounded by savages"; and in 481 the Emperor himself sent a message through Tsin to Wu, saying: "I know that you are busy with the savages you have on hand at present." In the year 482, when the orthodox princes of Sung, Wei, and Lu were holding off from an alliance with Wu, the prince of Wei was detained by a Wu general, but escaped, and set to work to learn the language of Wu. The motive is of no importance; but the clear statement about a different language, or at least a dialect so different that it required special study, is interesting. When Ki-chah was on his travels, he explained to his friends that the law of succession is: "By the rites to the eldest, as established by our ancestors and by the customs of the country." In 502 the King of Wu was embarrassed about his successor, whose character did not commend itself to him, His counsellor said: "Order in the state ceases if the succession be interrupted; by ancient law son should succeed father deceased." Thus it seems that the ancient Chou rules had been conveyed to Wu by the first colonists in 1200 B.C., and that the succession laws differed from those of Ts'u. Ki-chah's son died whilst he was on his travels, and Confucius is reported to have said: "He is a man who understands the rites; let us see what he does." Ki-chah bared his left arm and shoulder, marched thrice round the grave, and said: "Flesh and bone back to the earth, as is proper; as to the soul, let it go anywhere it chooses!" This language was approved by Confucius, who himself always declined to dogmatize on death and spirits, maintaining that men knew too little of themselves, when living, to be justified in groping for facts about the dead. At first sight it would appear strange that a barbarous country like Wu should suddenly produce a learned prince who at once captivated by his culture Yen-tsz of Ts'i, Confucius of Lu, Tsz-ch'an of Cheng, K'u-peh-yu of Wei, Shuh Hiang of Tsin, and, in short, all the distinguished statesmen of China; but if we reflect that, within half a century, the greatest naval, military, and scientific geniuses have been produced on Western lines in Japan , at least we find good modern parallels for the phenomenon.
When Wu, after a series of bloody wars with Ts'u and Yiieh, was in 473 finally extinguished by the latter power, a portion of the King of Wu's family escaped in boats in an easterly direction. At this time not only was Japan unknown to China under that name, but also quite unheard of under any name whatever. It was not until 150 years later that the powerful states of Yen and Ts'i, which, roughly speaking, divided with them the eastern part of the modern province of Chih Li, the northern part of Shan Tung, and the whole coasts of the Gulf of "Pechelee," began to talk vaguely of some mysterious and beautiful islands lying in the sea to the east. When the First August Emperor had conquered China, he made several tours to the Shan Tung promontory, to the site of the former Yueh capital , to the treaty-port of Chefoo , to the Shan-hai Kwan Pass, and to the neighbourhood of Ningpo. He also had heard rumours of these mysterious islands, and he therefore sent a physician of his staff with a number of young people to make inquiry, and colonize the place if possible. They brought back absurd stories of some monstrous fish that had interfered with their landing, and they reported that these fish could only be frightened away by tattooing the body as the natives did, The people of Wu, who were great fisherfolk and mariners, were also stated to have indulged in universal tattooing because they wished to frighten dangerous fish away. The first mission from Japan, then a congeries of petty states, totally unacquainted with writing or records, came to China in the first century of our era; it was not sent by the central King, but only by one of the island princes. Later embassies from and to Japan disclose the fact that the Japanese themselves had traditions of their descent both from ancient Chinese Emperors and from the founder of Wu, i.e. from the Chou prince who went there in 1200 B.C.; of the medical mission sent by the First August Emperor; of the flight from Wu in 473 B.C. of part of the royal Wu family to Japan; and of other similar matters--all apparently tending to show that the refugees from Wu really did reach Japan; that a very early shipping intercourse had probably existed between Japan, Ts'i, and Wu; and that, in addition to the statements made by later Chinese historians to the effect that the Japanese considered themselves in some way hereditarily connected with Wu, the early Japanese traditions and histories themselves separately repeated the story. One of the later Chinese histories says of Wu: "Part of the king's family escaped and founded the kingdom of Wo" : the temptation to connect this word with Wu is obvious; but etymology will not tolerate such an identification, either from a Chinese or a Japanese point of view; the etymological "values" are Ua and Gu respectively.
As in the case of Ts'u, there is no really trustworthy evidence to show of what race or races, and in what proportions, the bulk of the Wu population consisted; still less is there any specific evidence to show to what race the barbarian king who committed suicide in 473 belonged; or if those of his family who escaped were wholly or partly Chinese; or if any pure descent existed at all in royal circles, dating, that is to say, from the ancient colonists of the imperial Chou family in 1200 B.C.
So far as purely Chinese traditions and history go, the cumulative evidence, such as it is, needs careful sifting, and is, perhaps, worth a more thorough examination; but as to the Japanese traditions and early "history," these, as the Japanese themselves admit, were only put together in written form retrospectively in the eighth century A.D., and throughout they show signs of having been deliberately concocted on the Chinese lines; that is, Chinese historical incidents and phraseology are worked into the narrative of supposed Japanese events, and Japanese emperors or empresses are fitted with posthumous names mostly copied from imperial Chinese posthumous names. By themselves they are almost valueless, so far as the fixing of specific dates and the identification of political events are concerned; and even when taken as ancillary to contemporary Chinese evidence, except in so far as a few Chinese misprints or errors may be more clearly indicated by comparison with them, they seem equally valueless either to confirm, to check, to modify, or to contradict the Chinese accounts, which, indeed, are absolutely the sole trustworthy written evidence either we or the Japanese themselves possess about the actual condition of the Japanese 2000 years ago.
Meanwhile, as to Wu, all we can say with certainty is, that there is a persistent rumour or tradition that some of its royal refugees who escaped in boats eastward, may have escaped to Japan; may have succeeded in "imposing themselves" on the people, or a portion of the people ; and may have quietly and informally introduced Chinese words, ideas, and methods, several centuries before known and formal intercourse between Japan and China took place.

Wu
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
Hakka cuisine (authentic Chinese) if
Authentic? How would it sound like if one says Punjabis are 'authentic" Indians? What abt other Indian ethnic groups (despite different origins)?

Bird's Nest if of spit, then that would not affect environment,
Sparrows spitto glue their nest like in the season of mating and breeding . Once their spits are collected their nests are damaged. So sparrow parents have to spit again for another nest. The quality of their nests downgrades after repeated collection of their spit (even with blood finally). That's quite a threat to the species. In that sense it's bad for biological diversity or ecological balance. Chinese import "nests" from SE Asia mostly (collected from remote islands of Thailand and Indonesia).


and Hakka Cuisine
Cantonese Cuisine
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
This also interesting.

Ancient China Foreign Blood
The history of China may be for our present purposes accordingly summed up as follows. The pure Chinese race from time immemorial had been confined to the flat lands of the Yellow River, and its one tributary on the south, the River Loh, the Tartars possessing most of the left bank from the Desert to the sea. However, from the beginning of really historical times the Chinese had been in unmistakable part-possession of the valleys of the Yellow River's two great tributaries towards the west and north, the Wei and the Fen . Little, if any, Chinese colonizing was done much before the Ts'in conquests in any other parts of Tartarland; none in Sz Ch'wan that we know of; little, if any, along the coasts, except perhaps from Ts'i and Lu , both of which states seem to have always been open to the sea, though many barbarian coast tribes still required gathering into the Chinese fold. The advance of Chinese civilization had been first down the Yellow River; then down the River Han towards the Middle Yang-tsz; and lastly, down the canals and the Hwai network of streams to the Shanghai coast. Old colonies of Chinese had, many centuries before the conquest of China by the Chou dynasty, evidently set out to subdue or to conciliate the southern tribes: these adventurous leaders had naturally taken Chinese ideas with them, but had usually found it easier for their own safety and success to adopt barbarian customs in whole or in part. These mixed or semi-Chinese states of the navigable Yang-tsz Valley, from the Ich'ang gorges to the sea, had generally developed in isolation and obscurity, and only appeared in force as formidable competitors with orthodox Chinese when the imperial power began to collapse after 771 B.C. The isolation of half-Roman Britain for several centuries after the first Roman conquest, and the departure of the last Roman legions, may be fitly compared with the position of the half-Chinese states. Ts'u, Wu, and Yüeh all had pedigrees, more or less genuine, vying in antiquity with the pedigree of the imperial Chou family; and therefore they did not see why they also should not aspire to the overlordship when it appeared to be going a-begging. Even orthodox Tsin and Ts'i in the north and north-east were in a sense colonial extensions, inasmuch as they were governed by new families appointed thereto by the Chou dynasty in 1122 B.C., in place of the old races of rulers, presumably more or less barbarian, who had previously to 1122 B.C. been vassal--in name at least--to the earlier imperial Hia and Shang dynasties: but these two great states were never considered barbarian under Chou sway; and, indeed, some of the most ancient mythological Chinese emperors anterior to the Hia dynasty had their capitals in Tsin and Lu, on the River Fên and the River Sz.
It is not easy to define the exact amount of "foreignness" in Ts'u. One unmistakable non-Chinese expression is given; that is _kou-u-du_, or "suckled by a tigress." Then, again, the syllable ngao occurs phonetically in many titles and in native personal names, such as _jo-ngao_, _tu-ngao_, _kia-ngao_, _mo-ngao_. There are no Ts'u songs in the Odes as edited by Confucius, and the Ts'u music is historically spoken of as being "in the southern sound"; which may refer, it is true, to the accent, but also possibly to a strange language. The Ts'u name for "Annals," or history, was quite different from the terms used in Tsin and Lu, respectively; and the Ts'u word for a peculiar form of lameness, or locomotor ataxy, is said to differ from the expressions used in either Wei and Ts'i. So far aspossible, all Ts'u dignities were kept in the royal family, and the king's uncle was usually premier. The premier of Ts'u was called _Zing-yin,_ a term unknown to federal China; and Ts'u considered the left-hand side more honourable than the right, which at that time was not the case in China proper, though it is now. The "Borough-English" rule of succession in Ts'u was to give it to one of the younger sons; this statement is repeated in positive terms by Shuh Hiang, the luminous statesman of Tsin, and will be further illustrated when we come to treat of that subject specially. The Lu rule was "son after father; or, if none, then younger after eldest brother; if the legitimate heir dies, then next son by the same mother; failing which, the eldest son by any mother; if equal claims, then the wisest; if equally wise, cast lots": Lu rules would probably hold good for all federal China, because the Duke of Chou, founder of Lu, was the chief moral force in the original Chou administration. In the year 587 Lu, when coquetting between Tsin and Ts'u, was at last persuaded not to abandon Tsin for Ts'u, "who is not of our family, and can never have any real affection." Once in Tsin it was asked, about a prisoner: "Who is that southernhatted fellow?" It was explained that he was a Ts'u man. They then handed him a guitar, and made him sing some "national songs." In 597 a Ts'u envoy to the Tsin military durbar said: "My prince is not formed for the fine and delicate manners of the Chinese": here is distinct evidence of social if not ethnological cleaving. The Ts'u men had beards, whilst those of Wu were not hirsute: this statement proves that the two barbarian populations differed between themselves. In 635 the King of Ts'u spoke of himself as "the unvirtuous" and the "royal old man"--designations both appropriate only to barbarians under Chinese ritual. In 880 B.C., when the imperial power was already waning, and the first really historical King of Ts'u was beginning to bring under his authority the people between the Han and the Yang-tsz, he said: "I am a barbarian savage, and do not concern myself with Chinese titles, living or posthumous." In 706, when the reigning king made his first conquest of a petty Chinese principality , he said again: "I am a barbarian savage; all the vassals are in rebellion and attacking each other; I want with my poor armaments to see for myself how Chou governs, and to get a higher title." On being refused, he said: "Do you forget my ancestor's services to the father of the Chou founder?" Later on, as has already been mentioned, he put in a claim for the Nine Tripods because of the services his ancestor, "living in rags in the Jungle, exposed to the weather," had rendered to the founder himself. In 637, when the future Second Protector and ruler of Tsin visited Ts'u as a wanderer, the King of Ts'u received him with all the hospitalities "under the Chou rites," which fact shows at least an effort to adopt Chinese civilization. In 634 Lu asked Ts'u's aid against Ts'i, a proceeding condemned by the historical critics on the ground that Ts'u was a "barbarian savage" state. On the other hand, by the year 560 the dying King of Ts'u was eulogized as a man who had successfully subdued the barbarian savages. But against this, again, in 544 the ruler of Lu expressed his content at having got safely back from his visit to Ts'u, i.e. his visit to such an uncouth and distant court. Thus Ts'u's emancipation from "savagery" was gradual and of uncertain date. In 489 the King of Ts'u declined to sacrifice to the Yellow River, on the ground that his ancestors had never presumed to concern themselves with anything beyond the Han and Yang-tsz valleys. Even Confucius, declared his admiration at this, and said: "The King of Ts'u is a sage, and understands the Great Way ." On the other hand, only fifty years before this, when in 538 Ts'u, with Tsin's approval, first tried her hand at durbar work, the king was horrified to hear from a fussy chamberlain that there were six different ways of receiving visitors according to their rank; so that Ts'u's ritual decorum could not have been of very long standing. The following year a Tsin princess is given in marriage to Ts'u-- a decidedly orthodox feather in Ts'u's cap. Confucius affects a particular style in his history when he speaks of barbarians; thus an orthodox prince "beats" a barbarian, but "battles" with an orthodox equal. However, in 525, Ts'u and Wu "battle" together, the commentator explaining that Ts'u is now "promoted" to battle rank, though the strict rule is that two barbarians, or China and one barbarian, "beat" rather than "battle." In 591 Confucius had already announced the "end" of the King of Ts'u, not as such, but as federal viscount. Under ordinary circumstances "death" would have been good enough: it is only in speaking of his own ruler's death that the honorific word "collapse" is used. All these fine distinctions, and many others like them, hold good for modern Chinese. These childish gradations in mere wording run throughout Confucius' book; but we must remember that his necessarily timid object was to "talk at" the wicked, and to "hint" at retribution. Even a German recorder of events would shrink from applying the word haben to the royal act of a Hottentot King, for whom hat is more than good enough, without the _allergnädigst._ And we all remember Bismarck's story of the way mouth-washes and finger-bowls were treated at Frankfurt by those above and below the grade of serene highness. _Toutes les vices et toutes les moeurs sont respectables._
In 531 the barbarian King of Ts'u is honoured by being "named" for enticing and murdering a "ruler of the central kingdoms." The pedants are much exercised over this, but as the federal prince in question was a parricide, he had a _lupinum caput,_ and so even a savage could without outraging orthodox feelings wreak the law on him. On the other hand, in 526, when Ts'u enticed and killed a mere barbarian prince, the honour of "naming" was withheld. This delicate question will be further elucidated in the chapter on "Names."
It will be observed that none of the testimony brought forward here to show that Ts'u was, in some undefined way, a non-Chinese state is either clear or conclusive: its cumulative effect, however, certainly leaves a very distinct impression that 'there was a profound difference of some sort both in race and in manners, though we are as yet quite unable to say whether the bulk of the Ts'u population was Annamese, Shan, or Siamese; Lolo or Nosu; Miao-tsz, Tibetan, or what. There is really no use in attempting to advance one step beyond the point to which we are carried by specific evidence, either in this or in other matters. It has been said that no great discovery was ever made without imagination, which may be true; but evidence and imagination must be kept rigidly separate. What we may reasonably hope is that, by gradually ascertaining and sifting definite facts and data touching ancient Chinese history, we shall at least avoid coming to wrong positive conclusions, even if the right negative ones are pretty clearly indicated. It is better to leave unexplained matters in suspense than to base conclusions upon speculative substructures which will not carry the weight set upon them.
Link
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Authentic? How would it sound like if one says Punjabis are 'authentic" Indians? What abt other Indian ethnic groups (despite different origins)?
Apparently I have not been able to explain it adequately.

When I wrote 'authentic Chinese' (cuisine), I meant to convey 'as eaten in China'.

As you are aware, Chinese food is served all over the world and the ingredients and maybe even they manner of cooking is not the same as in China and instead adapted to the local ingredients and local tastes.

What I wanted avoided was recipes from US or Indian links since they would not be 'authentic Chinese'.

An article in Telegraph Kolkata on problems of the Chinese (Mainland) students in Kolkata was basically related to food. They could not adjust to Indian food and they also said that the Indian Chinese (Chinese settled in India) food had very little resemblance to the food they ate in China. In other words, the food eaten by the Chinese settled over years in Kolkata was nowhere near to 'authentic Chinese' cuisine.

Hence, my query on recipes of authentic Chinese cuisine so that I could get authentic Chinese ingredients when my friends or relatives visit China when I wanted to make Chinese food at home based on the recipes from Chinese cooking link from the Mainland.


Sparrows spitto glue their nest like in the season of mating and breeding . Once their spits are collected their nests are damaged. So sparrow parents have to spit again for another nest. The quality of their nests downgrades after repeated collection of their spit (even with blood finally). That's quite a threat to the species. In that sense it's bad for biological diversity or ecological balance. Chinese import "nests" from SE Asia mostly (collected from remote islands of Thailand and Indonesia).
Thanks.

This was an education for me. I did not know this and the negative effect on the environment. I, till the interaction with you, was under the impression that it was made of a real Bird's Nest, having never seen or tasted the Bird's Nest Soup.


Thanks for the wikipedia explanations.

I was looking for recipes - authentic Chinese recipes as explained above my me.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
JBH22 India's China Syndrome Defence & Strategy 0
Galaxy Indian armed forces have China Syndrome Foreign Relations 3
Yusuf The China Syndrome China 4
skywatcher China's Heavy Attack Helicopter China 1

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top