PDA

View Full Version : Modern Korean paternal genes linked to Han Chinese



uygurlar
24-12-03, 03:51
I think we need to clarify the distinction between language and genes. Although Koreans and Japanese share little common with Chinese linguistically, the DNA don't lie. The psychosis among Koreans and Japanese that they are from empire-finding Mongols and Turks is erroneous. They are not nomadic descended, but they have mainly peasant farming origins like Chinese and other Asians:

http://hgm2002.hgu.mrc.ac.uk/Abstracts/Publish/WorkshopPosters/WorkshopPoster11/hgm0542.htm

POSTER NO: 542

Study of Korean Male Origins

Sunghee Hong, Seong-Gene Lee, Yongsook Yoon, Kyuyoung Song
University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 388-1 Poongnap-dong, Songpa-ku, Seoul, Korea

Population studies of genetic markers such as HLA variation and mitochondrial DNA have been used to understand human origins, demographic and migration history. Recently, diversity on the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome (NRY) has been applied to the study of human history. Since NRY is passed from father to son without recombination, polymorphisms in this region are valuable for investigating male-mediated gene flow and for complementing maternally based studies of mtDNA. Haplotypes constructed from Y-chromosome markers were used to trace the paternal origins of Korean. By using 38 Y chromosome single nucleotide polymorphism markers, we analyzed the genetic structure of 195 Korean males. The Korean males were characterized by a diverse set of 4 haplogroups (Groups IV, V, VII, X) and 14 haplotypes that were also present in Chinese. The most frequent haplogroup in Korean was Group VII (82.6%). It was also the most frequent haplogroup in Chinese (95%) as well as in Japanese (45%). The frequencies of the haplogroups V, IV, and X were 15.4%, 1%, and 1%, respectively. The second most frequent haplogroup V in Korean was not present in Chinese, but its frequency was similar in Japanese. We have tried to correlate the Y variation with surname to determine how well the clan membership corresponds to Y variation. There were 37 surnames in our sample but genetic variation structure did not correlate with surnames.

uygurlar
24-12-03, 03:54
Koreans obviously have more Han Chinese blood and genes because they were conquered by the Chinese many times in their history (ie Han, Tang, Ming Dynasties), but the Japanese also have 45% of this Chinese genes (Y chromosome haplotype which is passed on paternally). It is sure bet that Yayoi has some origins in China.

With these findings I don't think it is proper for Koreans and Japanese to look down on the Chinese. Afterall, they are all the same.

bossel
24-12-03, 05:15
This is from Cavalli-Sforza's "Genetic Distance Calculator",
Koreans, genetic distance to following populations:

1 Mongol Tungus 16
2 Japanese 22
3 Tibetan 45
4 Uralic 50
5 Ainu 57
6 South Chinese 71
7 Chuckchi 97

Source: The History and Geography of Human Genes. L. Luca Cavalli Sforza. Princeton University Press. 1994. Table 2.3.1B. p 76

I suppose, it's also dependent, which genes you take into account, but Koreans & Japanese are both definitely close to Mongol-Tungus.
They are not all the same, but I don't see why this should be a reason to look down upon each other. People should recognize & tolerate differences.

uygurlar
24-12-03, 09:52
Sforza's is the study of mtDNA (through the mother) and overall genetic distances. My sources only deal with Y chromosome haplotypes (which are paternally passed on).

overlord
27-12-03, 17:50
The Tang Dynasty never really conquered korea. With the help of the Shill kingdom they defeated two korean kingdoms Paekche and Korguryo. The Tang then broke the alliance but were beaten back by the Shilla Dynasty.

When did Ming conquer korea? I have never heard of that before.

uygurlar
27-12-03, 22:20
Korea was ruled by Chinese in Han Dynasty for nearly 4 centuries. Tang was in Korea for little over 3 decades. Ming ruled (semi) over Korea during the wars with Hideyoshi's armies. When Ming Chinese drove out the Japanese, they stayed around to pillage and plunder Koreans from what I read in Western history books. That war left the Ming bankrupt and later defenseless against internal peasant rebellions and later Manchu invasions.

Ming Dynasty was the most friendly one towards the Muslim people in China. Manchu was the most evil one.

alanta
29-12-03, 14:59
This is from Cavalli-Sforza's "Genetic Distance Calculator",
Koreans, genetic distance to following populations:

1 Mongol Tungus 16
2 Japanese 22
3 Tibetan 45
4 Uralic 50
5 Ainu 57
6 South Chinese 71
7 Chuckchi 97



Chinese a mix of many different sub-groups of Mongoloid race, there're in fact much more difference within Chinese people, I think, there must be greater genetic distance between south Chinese and North chinese rather than between Koreans and North Chinese.

As for Altaic people, Siberian Turkic people( I mean yellow Turks) share a more similar appearance with Mongols rather than Tungus( such as evenks ). I really don't think Tungus people looks like Mongols, they usually have a longer face and most Mongols and Siberian turks have a round face.

This source about genetic distance is really interesting, but where can i get the details about it, I mean, which Mongol tribes (or which part, North Mongolians<Halha>, Buryatians, or Inner Mongolians<Horchin,Ordos,Kharchin,Chahars,etc.>) and Tungus tribes "Mongol Tungus" were categorized as "1 Mongol Tungus" mentioned above to compare with Koreans? you see, even among Mongols, In fact, the different tribes have their different origins, generally say, Today's Mongolian nation is a mix of ancient Mongol tribes and Turk tribes,

alanta
29-12-03, 15:05
I think, Koreans look like Mongols ( at least the Korean people in Chinese East-North do) but Japanese, perhaps, they look much more like Siberian Tungus people or Manchus who ever ruled china a century ago.

bossel
30-12-03, 04:39
As stated above, the table I used is from
>>The History and Geography of Human Genes. L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Princeton University Press. 1994. Table 2.3.1B. p 76

Problem for me is: I don't own the book (for it is huge & expensive). It's in the university here but not in the public library, only in the institute of human genetics. I can't borrow it, I have to look there, which means I can only go during office hours. I'll try, but can't promise to do it this week.

uygurlar
04-01-04, 00:01
Even though this is kinda off topic, I noticed some similarities between Mexican and Central American girls (the Amerindian and Mextiza looking ones) and Japanese girls. They seem to have the same small body build, facial shape, teeth shape and skin tone.

Fero_Khan
21-01-04, 14:39
Merhaba uygurlar,

Yah$imising? , ben ingilizce konusim onlarda anlasinlar, mogols are allready turkish, you are saying the modern mongols are mixture of mongols and turks but mongols are allready turkish ,it's another tribe who splitted with the turks from the huns(300 BC) if you want to read more about this see this link:
http://www.allempires.com/empires/xiongnu/xiongnu1.htm

and about native indians this is a very interesting link you also know turkish so it is more interesting :
http://www.colorado.edu/iec/FALL299RW/can.html

Jean-Francois
02-02-04, 03:07
South Koreans and Japanese, in general, don't look down on Chinese from Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore. The reasons some Koreans and Japanese look down on Chinese from mainland China because they think the latter are poor, not trendy enough & etc. It has more to do with rich people look down on poor people than it has to do genes. I think it's human nature to side with the rich and stay away from the poor. In mainland China, I heard, a lot of Shanghai (the wealthier province) people look down on Hunan (poor province) people while frantically imitating Hong Kong people.

Yes, I think since China is so big, and the distance between southern China and northern China is farer than the distance between northern China and Korea, I won't be surprised if there is more resemblance between northern Chinese and Koreans than northern Chinese and southern Chinese.

stupidumboy
26-06-04, 06:32
http://www3.mahoroba.ne.jp/~npa/narayaku/image/dna_map.jpg

Map of blood type analized gene in Asia.

The originated place seems like baikal lake or mongolia.

Jopok
26-06-04, 07:03
First of all, Coreans are taught to be humble but we rarely will represent ourselves as stupid dumb boys in an international forum. This is done by somebody who thinks Coreans are stupid and dumb.

Secondly, if stupidumboy is Corean, this so-called gene map should be in Corean, not Japanese.

stupidumboy
26-06-04, 07:14
To Kara-san,
At first I stopped posting since you really lost it.

To Kara-san’s friend,

Another sneaking ploy that’s making me sick!

First of all, Coreans are taught to be humble but we rarely will represent ourselves as stupid dumb boys in an international forum. This is done by somebody who thinks Coreans are stupid and dumb.

Secondly, if stupidumboy is Corean, this so-called gene map should be in Corean, not Japanese.


Your name says it.
Jopok-means gangster.

I just could not stand silly Koreans like you spread all of the childish anti japan messages in every japan related forums on the internet.
If you want to do that,buy a web domain and create forum site for your purpose.

Jopok
26-06-04, 07:17
O.k., now you can post something in Corean to cover it up, but you already exposed yourself to all the intelligent people in this forum.

stupidumboy
26-06-04, 07:23
O.k., now you can post something in Corean to cover it up, but you already exposed yourself to all the intelligent people in this forum.

If you can find out any Korean pics that clearly show the gene spreads in Asia somehow like the one I posted,show me please.

I will change the map.
You care to very timid things here.

stupidumboy
26-06-04, 08:27
Korea was ruled by Chinese in Han Dynasty for nearly 4 centuries. Tang was in Korea for little over 3 decades. Ming ruled (semi) over Korea during the wars with Hideyoshi's armies. When Ming Chinese drove out the Japanese, they stayed around to pillage and plunder Koreans from what I read in Western history books. That war left the Ming bankrupt and later defenseless against internal peasant rebellions and later Manchu invasions.

Ming Dynasty was the most friendly one towards the Muslim people in China. Manchu was the most evil one.

Korea was never ruled by Han dynasty for 4 centuries.
Kokuryo had been defeated by han dynasty once in the battle in early time of their dynasty,but never ruled by han dynasty.
Kokuryo dynasty once occupied large part of manchu and succesfully defended themselves from Su Dynasty's large scaled invasion.

Tang dynasty allied with Sinra dynasty and took up the most part of the territory of kokuryo dynasty. Yes thats true.


Chosun dynasty was just tribunal state for ming dynasty(they just chose to become tribunal state but it was just their strategical decision)
Ming just respected all of their autonomy.I read a true book about record of the Choson dynasty and they referred about Ming's envoy visiting 韓城(currently Seoul)-the envoy could not move freely without any permission of Chosun dynasty even when they stayed in the national accomodation and going to the toilet.

The true invader of Korean peninsula was Mongolians during the Koryo dynasty only not by han chinese.


Kara-SAN

Still mad at my post which exposed you as a condescending cream of the crop who liked to post in a “foreign language” to most of the members in this forum?

From previous threads, I’m aware that you have some knowledge in the Corean language. But, by using every chance to trick me into posting in Corean will only expose further of your character as an extremely revengeful hypocrite instead of a helpful Japanese tutor.

조폭씨-

조폭처럼 굴지 말고 여기에서는 주제에 관련된 이야기를 합시다.
한국이 여전히 네쇼날리즘의 광기어린 나라이고 유교적인 구습이 아직도 가정한가운데에
자리잡고 있는 것은 댁도 한국인이면 잘 알것이오.특히나 외국에 있다가 오면 한국이 얼마나 강자가 약자들에게 횡포를 부리는 사회시스탬을 가지고 있는지는 잘알것이지요?

한국인들이 겸손을 미덕으로 배우기는 하지요. 그렇지만 대부분의 경우 특히 남자들의 경우는 허세와 기만으로 가득차게 행동하는 사람들이 많지요,사기사건도 많은 편이고.당신의 글 어디에서도 그런 겸손함이나 에절은 보이지 않습니다.. 재미교포신가요?

각설하고 어딜가나 댁같은 한국인들이 일본관련 주제 게시판에 가서 분위기 흐뜨려 놓는것을 도저히 볼수가 없었습니다.이건 한두번도 아니고 말이지요.좋은 일본인 친구들도 많은데 댁같은 한국인들도 이제 그만 있어주었으면 합니다.더이상 댓글은 안답니다. 쓸데없는 곳에 신경쓰지 말라구요.

canadian_kor
26-06-04, 08:59
O.k., now you can post something in Corean to cover it up, but you already exposed yourself to all the intelligent people in this forum.

Yeah, really intelligent for you to come on to Japanese forums and start throwing out your anti-Japanese sentiments. Don't you have better things to do? If you want to paste anti-Japanese stuff on the web, go get your own discussion forum. This forum is for people who want to learn more about Japan and have friendly discussions with people who know about the Japanese culture.

thomas
26-06-04, 11:57
Guys, I urge you to keep this thread friendly. Controversial discussions are perfectly fine, but if they get out of hand we will not hesitate to lock this thread and warn any members involved.

Thank you. :souka:

stupidumboy
26-06-04, 13:13
Yeah, really intelligent for you to come on to Japanese forums and start throwing out your anti-Japanese sentiments. Don't you have better things to do? If you want to paste anti-Japanese stuff on the web, go get your own discussion forum. This forum is for people who want to learn more about Japan and have friendly discussions with people who know about the Japanese culture.

well said. :-)

Jopok
19-08-04, 23:19
"Yeah, really intelligent for you to come on to Japanese forums and start throwing out your anti-Japanese sentiments. Don't you have better things to do? If you want to paste anti-Japanese stuff on the web, go get your own discussion forum. This forum is for people who want to learn more about Japan and have friendly discussions with people who know about the Japanese culture." - Canadian_Kor

You're the one who have nothing better to do but to kiss Japanese's ass. Take away that prefix [Canadian] and see how many Japs are willing to be close friends of a Korean!? You're ashamed to be Korean. You think being Korean is not good enough so you call yourself Canadian_Kor!

I am pround to be Corean!

canadian_kor
20-08-04, 00:33
"Yeah, really intelligent for you to come on to Japanese forums and start throwing out your anti-Japanese sentiments. Don't you have better things to do? If you want to paste anti-Japanese stuff on the web, go get your own discussion forum. This forum is for people who want to learn more about Japan and have friendly discussions with people who know about the Japanese culture." - Canadian_Kor

You're the one who have nothing better to do but to kiss Japanese's ass. Take away that prefix [Canadian] and see how many Japs are willing to be close friends of a Korean!? You're ashamed to be Korean. You think being Korean is not good enough so you call yourself Canadian_Kor!

I am pround to be Corean!

First of all, I am proud to be both Canadian and Korean. You know, you can be proud of both.

Secondly, I'm not kissing anyone's ass. Also, I'm sure many Japanese people here would could care less if I added or deleted the prefix "canadian." You don't know these people, and many of them have been respectful towards me so far.

Thirdly, if you're so superior to Japanese why do you use the derogatory term "Jap"? You're just lowering yourself by using that term. Just like a Japanese person would lower himself if he used the word "Gook" or "Chosonjin."

I'm ashamed that I belong to an ethnic group that has people like you in it. Perhaps you should change your attitude and maybe we can constructively deal with the issues you have concerns about.

lexico
21-09-05, 18:01
[W]e analyzed the genetic structure of 195 Korean males.The small sample size is enough to raise serious doubts about the reliability of the study; most genetic group studies conducted these days suffer from the same problem. Furthermore, the sampling method employed is not even defined. The Mitochodrial Eve theory that supposedly support the Out-of-Africa theory of human origin also suffer from a similar problem. Often times academic studies are hampered by such fundamental flaws lending numerous theoretical and factual errors to creep in. Academic publishing has become more an issue of competition for suvival pushing otherwise good intuitions to deteriorate into sensational hypothesising that stops at just that. The temptation to manipulate data by "weeding out" unfavourable "stray occurences" to force statistics with superficial appeal are sometimes detected, but not always. The extent to which dishonest science has become fashionable is a problem that needs to be addressed before getting too serious about any particular study result. I would say any sample below 2,000, any sampling that does not strictly follow a well defined statistical method be kept at bay by calling them hypotheses. What is more, the straight reading of historical records was obviously not observed by Uygular; some of those were corrected by hard-working posters, but it would be better to have had the first post better prepared, and not strewn with so many errors and bold, low-quality hypothsising. It is about time that we stopped relying on cheap science and cheap history telling. ;-)
There were 37 surnames in our sample but genetic variation structure did not correlate with surnames. This is not surprising; what did they expect ? :D

EdZiomek
22-09-05, 01:22
Lexico... thank you for your comments. I had not seen this particular thread till right now. Sadly, I may be the king of "cheap history telling" and "cheap science", though I don't mean to be. Having said that, let me contribute an opinion that the blood-typing graphic of "Stupidumboy" dated June 25, 2004, is fascinating, and I have never seen an example of this until now. However, I don't understand his one quote... "The originated place seems like baikal lake or mongolia." That puzzles me, somewhat.

Unquestionalby, this graphic is very valuable. Thank you very much for bringing this up top.

lexico
22-09-05, 06:22
Another interesting genetic analysis of 293 human samples is an example of a worse case in scientific hypothesising that stopped at hypothesis only. It really does not matter whether they got it right eventually; it does matter how they got to their conclusion; being in the sciences, that is the rule of the game.

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/dna.jpg

Lexico... thank you for your comments. I had not seen this particular thread till right now. Sadly, I may be the king of "cheap history telling" and "cheap science", though I don't mean to be. Hi, EdZiomek ! Thanks for taking an interest in this thread; I am also aware that you share keen interest in the relationship between human cultures, and I admire your passion for pursuing your thesis. Although I have not much to offer either in active support or in constructive criticism regarding your particular points mostly for my lack of supportive evidence, I do not think they are simply fantastic ideas that will prove untrue. To the contrary, I honestly believe quite a bit of what you have been putting forward for examination will become topics of valid, genuine academic topics up for debate if, and when studies are possible -- mostly the problem lies in finding

1) a historical (or archeological/paleontological/anthropological) context on a grander scale than is easily accessible

2) a good number of systematic matches or parallels that can withstand the criticism that they are random, stray matches. (See this post on Random Matches in Japanese (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=154056&postcount=9).)

I have no problem with ideas presented in an honest, straightforward fashion as your have been doing, but I find it problematic when ideas are presented as FACTS with a so-called SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT when all the scientists were doing was pursuing a hypothesis. Between hypothesis, a well-studied theory, and a well-established, well-accepted theory after strictly examined peer reviews lies galaxies of a distance. Whenever I detect such a huge gap between fact and experimental working hypothesis dressed up as SCIENTIFIC FACT supporting wild, debased claims such as Uygular's, I never miss my chance to point them out. It is therefore the misrepresentation of his ideas as SCIENTIFICALLY SUPPORTED FACTS that I find problems with, not his ideas themselves. Well, some of his ideas betray some strong-headed opinions that sound way to irrational to me.
I think we need to clarify the distinction between language and genes. Although Koreans and Japanese share little common with Chinese linguistically, the DNA don't lie. The psychosis among Koreans and Japanese that they are from empire-finding Mongols and Turks is erroneous.
Wikipedia on psychosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis)
Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for mental states in which the components of rational thought and perception are severely impaired. Persons experiencing a psychosis may experience hallucinations, hold paranoid or delusional beliefs, demonstrate personality changes and exhibit disorganized thinking (see thought disorder). This is usually accompanied by features such as a lack of insight into the unusual or bizarre nature of their behavior, difficulties with social interaction and impairments in carrying out the activities of daily living. Essentially, a psychotic episode involves loss of contact with reality, sometimes termed "loss of reality testing."
Having said that, let me contribute an opinion that the blood-typing graphic of "Stupidumboy" dated June 25, 2004, is fascinating, and I have never seen an example of this until now. However, I don't understand his one quote... "The originated place seems like baikal lake or mongolia." That puzzles me, somewhat... Unquestionalby, this graphic is very valuable. Thank you very much for bringing this up top. Yes, I also found the blood-type composition distribution map quite interesting although it is unclear to me how that distribution can be evidence for anything more than individual closeness between neighboring genetic group. Extracting support from the distribution information for fantastic theories are expected to fail unless properly qualified. Although I have not seen the original study the map was meant for, there seem to be a number of good standing archeological/anhtropological/paleobotanical studies about the ancient climate, flora, and fauna in the lake Baikal region.

I do find the Japanese fascination with lake Baikal area as "their place of origin" a bit understudied, yet the period under question is late-paelolithic to early neolithic -- microlithic to be more precise -- and that being before the true neolithic period, it is also expected that huge human population groups are not to be found. Any innovation either genetic, cultural (tool making and subsistence), or linguistic, would be hard to detect as the number and range of the initial innovators would have been small. When they finally became wide-spread (many studies either assume this because if the influence was not wide-spread, we would have a hard time finding much trace of anything. Yes, mildly circular logic, but this is unavoidable for now imo.) AND we have evidence on any particular trend, it is way far down into the late neolithic / historical period to make a detailed, step-by-step reconstruction of the historical process that occurred -- a very difficult task indeed.

If there was any merit to Uygular's thesis, it was to point out the fact that many Japnaese and Korean sources blindedly followed the "Out-of-Lake Baikal/Mongol Hypothesis of Japanese/Korean Origin" which has become rather popular during the 1970's in the so-called Egami's "Horserider Theory of Japanese Origin."

A discussion, Re: The Origin(s) of the Japanese (http://forum.japantoday.com/m_295882/mpage_3/tm.htm) on JapanToday forum.

lexico
22-09-05, 08:12
I believe there is a major misconception that has been pushing certain Japanese and Korean scholars to find non-Chinese origin for them to feel safe, but the source of their fear was a phatom, a propagandist claim within their neo-Confucian factions that used sinocentrist rhetoric of their times to gain unfair advantage over liberalist ideas. Here is one interesting post from a forum called ktown213 that makes a general statement free of such a fear of the Chinese phantom - one need not fight a Chinese enemy that does not exist. The great diversity of the origin and evolution of Chinese civilisation that has been gaining steady momentum should rid the need for pursuing a non-Chinese origin for there is no such thing as a single Chinese origin.

So where did Koreans originate from ? (http://ktown213.com/forumv1/viewtopic.php?p=123176)

ANyone who knows Asian history, linguistics, or culture should be able to tell that not all Asians come from China, they may have eventually mixed with Chinese but China is not really the origin. For instance, it is now thought that about 50% of Japanese genetics are most closely linked with Pacific/Indian Ocean islanders...interestingly that map also shows that Koreans may have some linkage to island people as well. Linguistically, aside from a large number of loanwords, Korean is not really related to Chinese language. And if you know about migration history, etc., you can look at countries like Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and so on, and realize that those societies aren't truly as "homogenous" as many people think, you can break down many layers of multicultural influence that have penetrated over the years. Of course, by now many countries have been influenced by China and even other countries, but that doesn't mean that China is the origin of all the people or cultures across Asia.New light thrown on origins of Chinese culture as lost civilization emerges (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18367)

Although the "10,000 years of Chinese History Project" might seem threatening to outsiders, the positive intention of self-recognition by the Chinese peoples is not to be misunderstood. As research will make increasingly clear, there were many peoples, languages, cultures, and innovations in east and south east Asia that merged into forming what we loosely understand as Chinese civilisation. A civilisation is something to be shared - not out of principle, but out of good, objective, scientific reasons. There is no cause for alarm for the History Project, for it was the converging activities of many peoples of the late neolithic period that gave rise to several major cultural trends that contributed to what we perceive as Chinese.

One point worth noting; close to one half the period of all Chinese history was dominated by non-Han Chinese language speaking peoples of mid-to mid-North Asia -- often called Altaic (not always so, for some argue the Xiongnu had spoken a non-Altaic language called Yenissei-Ostyak). These northern cultural, linguistic, gentic elements are a major part of Chinese civilisation that often go unnoticed. For example, the Xiongnu Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu) ruled over the two Han dynasties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_dynasty)(202 BCE-220 CE), only to be subjugated by the Xianbei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xianbei) (‘N”Ú, Xiānbēi / Hsien-pei) peoples who ruled norther Asia in the Eastern Han (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Han_Dynasty#Rise_and_Fall_of_Eastern_Han_D ynasty)-to Northern Wei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Wei) dynasties of the Southern and Northern Dynasties Period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_and_Northern_Dynasties) (“ì–k’© Nanbei chao, 420-589) in Chinese historiography.

According to one statistics, the 10,000 walled settlements of the neolithic-to early bronze era within Chinese borders of today merged into ca. 1,000 by the time of Shang, ca. 100 by the time of Zhou, 6 warring states by late Zhou Warring States period before Qin dynasty finally unfied most of Norther Chinese above the Yangzi River in 211 BCE. There is evidence that at least a number of those human settlements were distinct from what we might classify as Chinese as we would normally classify today.