The Manchus and The Jurchens

#71
china is huge, are you sure your areas where find korean genes, is same with what my said, jurchens offsprings together areas?

no matter how to dilute, the directly offsprings always will have trace.

and what I said, have many offsprings together.
The O-M176 is found in deeper, more southern parts of China.
"Haplogroup O-M176 is found mainly in the northernmost parts of East Asia, from the Uriankhai and Zakhchin peoples of western Mongolia (Katoh 2004) to the Japanese of Japan, though it also has been detected sporadically in the Buryats (Jin 2003) and Udegeys (Jin 2010) of southern Siberia, very rarely among populations of Southeast Asia including Indonesia (Hammer 2006 and Jin 2003), the Philippines (Jin 2003), Thailand (Jin 2003), and Vietnam (Hammer 2006 and Jin 2003), and Micronesians (Hammer 2006). This haplogroup is found with its highest frequency and diversity values among modern populations of Japan and Korea and is absent from most populations in China, but it has been detected in some samples of Han Chinese from Beijing (Jin 2003), Jiangsu (Lu 2008), Wuhan (1/160),[1] and South China outside of Jiangsu, Anhui, Zhejiang, and Shanghai (1/65),[2] Daurs (Xue 2006), Hezhes (Xue 2006), Koreans in China (Xue 2006 and Katoh 2004), Manchus (Xue 2006, Katoh 2004, and Karafet 2001), and Sibes (Xue 2006)."
Haplogroup O-M176 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't even know how this quote can claim its absent from most populations in China. Probably the work of ignorant Chinese nationalists who don't know anything about statistics.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2012
1,057
#72
ps, just curious, " unified the Jurchen and laid the path for their conquest of China" , that is the reason why korean like to claim korean have same origin with jurchens or manchus?

These days, the Korean insists " The Jurchens is the Korean".
it is a lie..
it was located the southeastern part of ancient Manchurian facing the Sea of Japan,The northeastern part of current Korean Peninsula,It is a progeny of ancient race, 沃沮 Okjeo which lived in near Hamgyeong-do.
[ame=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okjeo]Okjeo ? Wikipedia[/ame]

It was a race of Wajin-line who lived by fishery and agriculture ..
then Okjeo became under  Buyeo and Khitan (mongolian line) and mixed ..
those who nomad-naize was The Jurchens

and korean call the Khitan and The Jurchens as 北狄/Oranke(barbarian)and descriminated until 1945

korean is near Tungusic peoples
 
Last edited:
Mar 2011
3,160
dragon's area
#74
The O-M176 is found in deeper, more southern parts of China.
Haplogroup O-M176 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't even know how this quote can claim its absent from most populations in China. Probably the work of ignorant Chinese nationalists who don't know anything about statistics.
thanks for your information.

unfortunately, what I said the jurchens offsprings most are not in that range.:D

^You're ignoring the genetic evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_O3_(Y-DNA)


Haplogroup O-M122 is found in over 50% of all modern Han Chinese males (with frequency ranging from 30/101=29.7% among Pinghua-speaking Hans in Guangxi (Gan et al. 2008) to 110/148=74.3% among Hans in Changting, Fujian (Wen et al. 2004c)), about 40% of Manchu, Korean,
 
Last edited:
#75
if manchus and koreans all were melted into a lot of O-M176 native people, it still possible too.

DNA still need historical flow as supplementary evidence, but one fact is there have no historical records about flow that huge korean population flow into manchus and changed manchus genes.

and I think what Cerberus said is reasonable although I am not one human molecular scientist.
Why do we need evidence that huge Korean populations flowed into Manchus? I've already said its no problem if they were already there in Manchuria somehow. Why don't you understand that it doesn't matter?

then? heishui mohe had widely active in that area.

silla obviously origin from south, but changbai mountain is north.
And your point?


"wanyan" and "wanyan hanpu" are two concepts. please don't mixed them up.

do you know what means "wanyan"?

wanyan is wanyan river's name, just is near by songhua river, the area lived one branch of heishui mohe, that had ever proved the tribe origin from heishui mohe, even before hanpu came.

hanpu is only one outsider, you failed to understand the point.
The founder of Wanyan is Hanpu.
The Wanyan clan was founded by Hanpu, who, according to the "History of the Jin" (Jinshi 金史), came from the kingdom of Goryeo at the age of sixty.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanyan"]Wanyan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

are you kidding me? there already have jurchen before hanpu come into.
Jusen (where we get the name Jurchen), is probably what the Mohe were calling themselves all along. We know there are cognates of Jusen, like Sushen and Joson, recorded in the B.C. eras.

sorry, In fact the "united the jurchen tribes" and "sent them into china" work both have nothing to do with hanpu.

wanyan tribe are very weak and small in early period. it don't unite other jurchen tribes till wu gu nai, jurchens tribes united, that main happened in Wányán Āgǔdǎ period, he is about after one century time distance with hanpu.

of course, you can say "if hanpu had born his son, may there have not wanyan aguda", but one fact is, jurchens is famous good at fighting, several tens tribes, if wanyan tribe had not united other jurchens tribes, other tribe would do it too.
Hanpu founded the Wanyan. It says it in the records. He also started reforms, and brought peace and unity to the Jurchen tribes. Give the guy some credit.

not "probably", jurchens origin from heishui mohe, that had been confirmed by history world.


"so were koreans"? please gave other korean ancestors name. in fact ,you only can list hanpu, and evern his identity still disputed.

"found" and "became one leader of one tribe that had be exist", that are two concepts, please pay attention. :)
The name Jurchen may have existed before the Heishui Mohe. You said yourself that the Khitan created the name Heishui Mohe. I think equating Jurchen to Heishui Mohe creates problems. Or you are talking about a slightly different, later Jurchen of the Jin kingdom, that primarily revolved around the Heishui Mohe.

my agenda have nothing to do with goguryeo, the discussion started from "jurchens ancestors had ever lived in goguryeo or not", I only meaned it is not possible that manchus can get korean genes from goguryeo and jurchens at all.

my point is it is not possible that manchus can get korean genes from goguryeo and jurchens at all.
Goguryeo didn't exist when the Manchu were founded, so obviously when you put it that way, its going to sound correct. But you also said the Manchus absorbed all the groups in the Northeast, whether they're from Goguryeo or whatnot.

ha, do you think china have not goguryeo family?
and it is confirmed that a lot of goguryeo people were moved into tang dynasty.
I didn't say that you

I feel headache now, I was not talking about northeastern chinese at all, no matter they are han chinese or other people.


I was talking about those rest people's offsprings of jurchens, they lived in northern china,middle china even spread into south china.

:persevere:



you should give one picture about your O-M176 area at first.

and it is obviously that I am talking those areas where have jurchens offsprings but far away with manchuria.

china is huge, are you sure your areas where find korean genes, is same with what my said, jurchens offsprings together areas?

no matter how to dilute, the directly offsprings always will have trace.

and what I said, have many offsprings together.
There are O-M176 found in far off parts of China, outside of Manchuria.

are you kidding me?

1. as far I know, historicians had a lot of dispute about hanpu's ethinic group. so worry to claim the tribe is korean descent?

2. the tribe itself is just one branch of heishui mohe(jurchen).

3. gija and wiman found Gija Joseon and wiman Joseon by themselves, wanyan aguda united jurchens tribes after 1 century of hanpu, which have more right to claim? but when did you see we chinese claim chinese built and conquered Joseon or korea and feel proud? korean history is great, it is not necessary to search proud from one ethinic group that only may have a little relations with korean.

4. all the wanyan tribe is hanpu's descents?

no matter how, it is only wanyan tribe are korean descents now, not all jurchens again , it is one good progress at least.:rolleyes:
Which historians? You're literally creating a dispute out of thin air. There is nothing to suggest that Hanpu was not Korean. Also, there are records that place Hanpu's origin in Korea.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2011
3,160
dragon's area
#76
Why do we need evidence that huge Korean populations flowed into Manchus? I've already said its no problem if they were already there in Manchuria somehow. Why don't you understand that it doesn't matter?
hmm, got it, if you think that is not one problem, it is acceptable too.
And your point?
heishui mohe have enough reason to claim their origin in north, but sillar have not.

The founder of Wanyan is Hanpu.
《jin history 》have records,

始祖至完颜部,居久之,其部人尝杀它族之人,由是两族交恶,哄斗不能解。完颜部人谓始祖曰:‘若能为部人解此怨,使两族不相杀,部有贤女,年六十而未嫁,当以相配,仍为同部。’始沮曰:‘诺。

simple translation:

hanpu arrvied at wanyan tribes, lived in there for long time. the tribe people had ever killed other tribes person, then two tribes hate to each other, always fall into attacking, the wanyan tribe people told hanpu, "if you can solve the hate for tribes, the tribe will marry the 60 years old woman to you~~~"

founder?

and pay attention, your quote clearly said that is wanyan clan, not wanyan tribe.

Jusen (where we get the name Jurchen), is probably what the Mohe were calling themselves all along. We know there are cognates of Jusen, like Sushen and Joson, recorded in the B.C. eras.
sorry, jurchen is only one word that appeared after tang dynasty.

of course near sushen is reasonable, because mohe origin from sushen, as for joson, hmm~~~


Hanpu founded the Wanyan. It says it in the records. He also started reforms, and brought peace and unity to the Jurchen tribes. Give the guy some credit.
no, I had gave the records, he only joined into wanyan tribes. and he only brought peace to wanyan tribe, (not jurchen tribes just like you said), and he didn't unity to jurchen tribes, that is agunai and aguda's work later.

sorry, no credit.


The name Jurchen may have existed before the Heishui Mohe. You said yourself that the Khitan created the name Heishui Mohe. I think equating Jurchen to Heishui Mohe is just nonsense.
come on, I had gave the original records about heishui mohe = jurchen in previous post, I think I didn't need to repeat it again.

"The name Jurchen may have existed before the Heishui Mohe".

may? that is only assume.

Goguryeo didn't exist when the Manchu were founded, so obviously when you put it that way, its going to sound correct. But you also said the Manchus absorbed all the groups in the Northeast, whether they're from Goguryeo or whatnot.
yup, I only mean it is not possible from goguryeo, no matter they have relation or not.


I didn't say that you
old tang book and new tang book all have records.

There are O-M176 found in far off parts of China, outside of Manchuria.
but not many.

Which historians? You're literally creating a dispute out of thin air. There is nothing to suggest that Hanpu was not Korean. Even genetic evidence is consistent with the claim that Hanpu was Korean, since we find Korean looking genes in modern Manchus.
I am not creating a dispute, I checked many information for discuss with you, many information list it as "dispute". they all signed hanpu come from korea, but didn't sign he must be one korean.

genetic evidence is consistent with the claim that hanpu was korean? :D

you checked hanpu? :D

I can't be sure how many jurchen geners modern manchus have, but I am very sure hanpu's offsprings didn't back homeland at all.


after jin dynasty fell down, emperor family almost were killed by mongols, and very rare rest parts run to south in china, they almost didn't back homeland (manchuria).

wanyan clan have not anything with later manchus shape at all. but you are useing the manchus genes as hanpu's enetic evidence.:D
 
Last edited:
Sep 2012
266
Beijing China
#77
come on,we all know what Korean history is(they are the rout of 4 Civilization
,so Korean always right)please stop ,and back to Manchus and Jurchens.
 
#78
The Tang dynasty is considered Han Chinese because the paternal ancestry of the ruling family of Tang was Han Chinese. However, the actual total ancestry of the Tang emperors was more Xianbei, a Mongolic tribe from north of China. Possibly as high as 7/8th's. Based on this reasoning, if the founding clan of the Jin dynasty was Korean, it is a Korean dynasty.

One can always switch to the land standard where any history on the land of China, wherever her borders happen to be, is Chinese history and a Chinese dynasty. But this is anachronistic to the extreme.
 
#79
hmm, got it, if you think that is not one problem, it is acceptable too.
There is a slight problem though. A lot of the genes that the Manchus have are lacking in Koreans. So it really doesn't look like there was even mixing in the region. So either the Manchus were once genetically the same as Koreans, or Koreans moved out and mixed with the Manchus.

heishui mohe have enough reason to claim their origin in north, but sillar have not.
It's spelled Silla. Not Sillar. What are you talking about?


《jin history 》have records,

始祖至完颜部,居久之,其部人尝杀它族之人,由是两族交恶,哄斗不能解。完颜部人谓始祖曰:‘若能为部人解此怨,使两族不相杀,部有贤女,年六十而未嫁,当以相配,仍为同部。’始沮曰:‘诺。

simple translation:

hanpu arrvied at wanyan tribes, lived in there for long time. the tribe people had ever killed other tribes person, then two tribes hate to each other, always fall into attacking, the wanyan tribe people told hanpu, "if you can solve the hate for tribes, the tribe will marry the 60 years old woman to you~~~"

founder?

and pay attention, your quote clearly said that is wanyan clan, not wanyan tribe.
Yes, it says Wanyan clan in my source. Can we really make the distinction between clan and tribe? Even if you call them clan, they are very much like a tribe, and a tribe is like a clan. So its not a big deal.

sorry, jurchen is only one word that appeared after tang dynasty.

of course near sushen is reasonable, because mohe origin from sushen, as for joson, hmm~~~
So you think Jusen and Sushen are reasonably close in sound, but not Chaoxian and Sushen, Joson and Jusen, or Jusen and Chaoxian?

no, I had gave the records, he only joined into wanyan tribes. and he only brought peace to wanyan tribe, (not jurchen tribes just like you said), and he didn't unity to jurchen tribes, that is agunai and aguda's work later.

sorry, no credit.
No. He is the founder of the Wanyan according to my source. He may have joined a group of people that became the Wanyan. But you don't credit someone with founding a tribe if it already existed.


come on, I had gave the original records about heishui mohe = jurchen in previous post, I think I didn't need to repeat it again.

"The name Jurchen may have existed before the Heishui Mohe".

may? that is only assume.


yup, I only mean it is not possible from goguryeo, no matter they have relation or not.
It seems like Jurchen and Mohe were being used simultaneously at some point. And And plus we know Jurchen has a lot of cognates that go back to B.C. times. Please try a bit harder to keep up with the facts that are being presented.

If you look at the wikipedia article for Jurchen. It makes no mention of Jurchen equalling Heishui Mohe. I think you just made that up. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurchen_people"]Jurchen people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

old tang book and new tang book all have records.
I already know China had some Goguryeo minorities, like Gao Xianshi. Wtf is wrong with you?

but not many.
You don't even understand how stupid your argument is. First you say there is an absence of O-M176 in China and that its proof that Goguryeo lacked O-M176. Which is misguided in the first place because it only means it was absent in the sample, and is not in itself proof of absence. Then when I show you that O-M176 is found in China proper, you say, but not many. Where do you even get the nerve to debate with me on this topic when you don't even have a proper grasp of logic or statistics.:notrust:

I am not creating a dispute, I checked many information for discuss with you, many information list it as "dispute". they all signed hanpu come from korea, but didn't sign he must be one korean.

genetic evidence is consistent with the claim that hanpu was korean? :D

you checked hanpu? :D

I can't be sure how many jurchen geners modern manchus have, but I am very sure hanpu's offsprings didn't back homeland at all.


after jin dynasty fell down, emperor family almost were killed by mongols, and very rare rest parts run to south in china, they almost didn't back homeland (manchuria).

wanyan clan have not anything with later manchus shape at all. but you are useing the manchus genes as hanpu's enetic evidence.:D
I think Hanpu was Korean if he came from Korea. It's also possible that the Jurchen were from Koreanic kingdoms in the first place. It's also becoming clear that Jurchen =/= Heishui Mohe.

You're also wrong about the Jin dynasty being unconnected to the Manchus, or the Mongols necessarily killing off all the emperor's family. When the Manchus entered China, a lot of Jurchen who had settled in China during the Jin dynasty joined the Manchus. Also, it is easy enough to hide from the Mongols just by changing names and hiding. Remember that a lot of the Jurchen who once fought against the Mongols later joined the Mongols in attacking the Song.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2011
3,160
dragon's area
#80
The Tang dynasty is considered Han Chinese because the paternal ancestry of the ruling family of Tang was Han Chinese. However, the actual total ancestry of the Tang emperors was more Xianbei, a Mongolic tribe from north of China. Possibly as high as 7/8th's. Based on this reasoning, if the founding clan of the Jin dynasty was Korean, it is a Korean dynasty.

One can always switch to the land standard where any history on the land of China, wherever her borders happen to be, is Chinese history and a Chinese dynasty. But this is anachronistic to the extreme.
the problem is that the founding clan think themselves as jurchens.:D

and tang dynasty's example just proved the leader's bloodline is not very important, their sense of ethinic group identity are more important.


when did you see somebody tang dynasty is xianbei dynasty only for their leader have some xianbei bloodline?

There is a slight problem though. A lot of the genes that the Manchus have are lacking in Koreans. So it really doesn't look like there was even mixing in the region. So either the Manchus were once genetically the same as Koreans, or Koreans moved out and mixed with the Manchus.
why don't accroding more O-M122?

It's spelled Silla. Not Sillar. What are you talking about?
my spell mistake. I mean that korean isn't origin from silla?

Yes, it says Wanyan clan in my source. Can we really make the distinction between clan and tribe? Even if you call them clan, they are very much like a tribe, and a tribe is like a clan. So its not a big deal.
of course that is one big deal. clan is not tribe, especially accroding jurchens culture. but you can't difference them, that is one big deal.


So you think Jusen and Sushen are reasonably close in sound, but not Chaoxian and Sushen, Joson and Jusen, or Jusen and Chaoxian?
sorry, I don't think even it is believable about "sound like" you know the language pronunciation always change in time, ancient chinese even very far different with today chinese even in same area. so how did you know sushen and jusen sound same when they have far time distance?

I like to watch korean dramas, I find there have a lot of korean words that pronuciation sound like chinese, if I can think that is one proof to prove korean and chinese are same ethinic group or not? of course I can't.

most words, you only can search their records in historical classic, then read it with today pronuciation. it is obviously that texts records are more believable than "sound like", especially the texts is chinese texts that is very stability in time.


korea 朝鲜 jusen(jurchen)女真 sushen 肃慎

these words all recorded in history, are they same?

"sound like" common means "no credit".

I gave the point "sushen and jurchen sound like close", not for only "sound close", that is for their have same records in history classics to point they have contact , then I can get the result "they sound like close for they have contact ", not "they have contact for they sound like close."



No. He is the founder of the Wanyan according to my source. He may have joined a group of people that became the Wanyan. But you don't credit someone with founding a tribe if it already existed.
so I only can say we have not same source. my source is 《jin history》, the book is orthodox history classics about jin jurchen.


It seems like Jurchen and Mohe were being used simultaneously at some point. And And plus we know Jurchen has a lot of cognates that go back to B.C. times. Please try a bit harder to keep up with the facts that are being presented.

If you look at the wikipedia article for Jurchen. It makes no mention of Jurchen equalling Heishui Mohe. I think you just made that up.
about the point, it is already confirmed. jurchen is just from mohe, especially heishui mohe.

I think that you mixed up sushen and jurchen, sushen can go back B.C times, but jurchen can't, the most early records about jurchens, is only after tang dynasty, and signed it was related with mohe.


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohe_people]Mohe people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

although wikipedia is not enough accurate and complete, it still signed jurchens from mohe, (although it can't difference heishui mohe and sumo mohe.)


You don't even understand how stupid your argument is. First you say there is an absence of O-M176 in China and that its proof that Goguryeo lacked O-M176. Which is misguided in the first place because it only means it was absent in the sample, and is not in itself proof of absence. Then when I show you that O-M176 is found in China proper, you say, but not many. Where do you even get the nerve to debate with me on this topic when you don't even have a proper grasp of logic or statistics.
sorry, I had told you, what I said area, didn't in range what you said. for example, hebei and hennan.


but if you want to blame I am not good at DNA science range, I admit.

I said "not many", only meaned "not many area, look like it didn't include hebei and henan".

I think Hanpu was Korean if he came from Korea. It's also possible that the Jurchen were from Koreanic kingdoms in the first place. It's also becoming clear that Jurchen =/= Heishui Mohe.
you think? so you want to say your basis is "you think"?

and I had said, jurchen ethinic group and hanpu are two words.


You're also wrong about the Jin dynasty being unconnected to the Manchus, or the Mongols necessarily killing off all the emperor's family. When the Manchus entered China, a lot of Jurchen who had settled in China during the Jin dynasty joined the Manchus. Also, it is easy enough to hide from the Mongols just by changing names and hiding. Remember that a lot of the Jurchen who once fought against the Mongols later joined the Mongols in attacking the Song.

1. may you noticed that I had said that rest parts.
2. these hide people main joined into han chinese.
3. joined the mongols? :D only your imagine.

mogols only accepted those jurchens who lived in traditional mongols area for long time before jin dynasty, the parts have nothing to do with jin dynasty. and the parts joined into mongols to attack jin dynasty, some melted into han people later too.

then later yuan dynasty's apartheid~~~~

what you said, most have nothing to do with emperor clan. look like you forget we are discussing it for this.

Hansaram
Even genetic evidence is consistent with the claim that Hanpu was Korean, since we find Korean looking genes in modern Manchus.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
overall, I would like accept your criticism about my knowledge in DNA science, although I think your DNA theory ignored more high rate about O-M122, just like Cerbrus said.

as for the relation about jurchens and korean, I think I am not need to say more, right? jurchens origin from heishui mohe, that is my all point, and you can't debate about history records.

I accept redpk's advice, it should be the time of jurchens and manchus, not korean.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions