The Manchus and The Jurchens

Mar 2013
75
china
#81
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?



why don't accroding more O-M122?



my spell mistake. I mean that korean isn't origin from silla?



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.




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."





so I only can say we have not same source. my source is 《jin history》, the book is orthodox history classics about jin jurchen.




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.


Mohe people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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




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".



you think? so you want to say your basis is "you think"?

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





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.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
how professional you are!
you must be professor,am i right?lady
 
#82
the problem is that the founding clan think themselves as jurchens.:D
Jusen more accurately, which is a cognate to Joson, the earliest known Korean kingdom.
and tang dynasty's example just proved the leader's bloodline is not very important, their sense of ethinic group identity are more important.
They had no Han Chinese identity back then. They were simply Tang people.

when did you see somebody tang dynasty is xianbei dynasty only for their leader have some xianbei bloodline?
The mother’s side were Xianbei clans.


why don't accroding more O-M122?
O-M122 doesn’t belong to China. I don't rely on it more because it's not as distinctive in East Asia as the O-M176.


my spell mistake. I mean that korean isn't origin from silla?
Korea’s origin is old Joseon.


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.
A clan and a tribe are not that different and can often be used interchangeably.

A tribe is viewed, historically or developmentally, as a social group existing before the development of, or outside of, states. Many anthropologists used the term tribal society to refer to societies organized largely on the basis of kinship, especially corporate descent groups (see clan and kinship).
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe"]Tribe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
In different cultures and situations, a clan may mean the same thing as other kin-based groups, such as tribes, castes, and bands.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan"]Clan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

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."
The Jusen tribes and Joseon kingdom have overlapping territories and matching names. This suggests they are related. Genetic evidence also tells the same story.




so I only can say we have not same source. my source is 《jin history》, the book is orthodox history classics about jin jurchen.
But that’s just your translation, and it contradicts my sources. I also don't find you very reliable.

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.


Mohe people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

although wikipedia is not enough accurate and complete, it still signed jurchens from mohe, (although it can't difference heishui mohe and sumo mohe.)
The anthropology or classification skills back then are not up to modern standards. We can try to base our understanding off of their work, but we can’t assume it’s always accurate. Since there are earlier cognates for Jusen (Jurchen), in Chinese writing, for tribes in the same region, we can conclude that either the records are inaccurate, or that you were making a classification error when you said, “Jurchen=Heishui Mohe”.

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 know what “not many” means. Your whole argument was shown to be BS. Now you’re moving away from it and making pointless statements.:notrust:


you think? so you want to say your basis is "you think"?

and I had said, jurchen ethinic group and hanpu are two words.
Yes, I think. Otherwise, can you justify a different basis? Is there some sort of legitimate authority on this?

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.
Even if the entire Wanyan clan/tribe died, it still does eliminate Manchu ties to Korea. There is still the Manchu DNA to consider.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
A lot of those O-M122 may not have originated from China. Passing through Korea first, they would have been assimilated into the Korean population.

I am using the O-M176 as a tracker, nothing more. These markers don’t actually do anything for your phenotype. But it helps us track population movements. You've probably noticed that O-M122 carrying populations in the far south look different from Koreans who also carry O-M122.
 
Last edited:

Wenge

Ad Honoris
Apr 2011
10,428
Virginia
#83

Jusen more accurately, which is a cognate to Joson, the earliest known Korean kingdom.
They had no Han Chinese identity back then. They were simply Tang people.

The mother’s side were Xianbei clans.


O-M122 doesn’t belong to China. I don't rely on it more because it's not as distinctive in East Asia as the O-M176.


Korea’s origin is old Joseon.


A clan and a tribe are not that different and can often be used interchangeably.

Tribe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Clan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Jusen tribes and Joseon kingdom have overlapping territories and matching names. This suggests they are related. Genetic evidence also tells the same story.




But that’s just your translation, and it contradicts my sources. I also don't find you very reliable.

The anthropology or classification skills back then are not up to modern standards. We can try to base our understanding off of their work, but we can’t assume it’s always accurate. Since there are earlier cognates for Jusen (Jurchen), in Chinese writing, for tribes in the same region, we can conclude that either the records are inaccurate, or that you were making a classification error when you said, “Jurchen=Heishui Mohe”.

I know what “not many” means. Your whole argument was shown to be BS. Now you’re moving away from it and making pointless statements.:notrust:


Yes, I think. Otherwise, can you justify a different basis? Is there some sort of legitimate authority on this?

Even if the entire Wanyan clan/tribe died, it still does eliminate Manchu ties to Korea. There is still the Manchu DNA to consider.

A lot of those O-M122 may not have originated from China. Passing through Korea first, they would have been assimilated into the Korean population.

I am using the O-M176 as a tracker, nothing more. These markers don’t actually do anything for your phenotype. But it helps us track population movements. You've probably noticed that O-M122 carrying populations in the far south look different from Koreans who also carry O-M122.
You said to fanmgqingming: quote, "I know what “not many” means. Your whole argument was shown to be BS. Now you’re moving away from it and making pointless statements."

Please be careful in how you describe people's posts. BS may only be letters of the alphabet but they have a clear meaning.
 
Mar 2011
3,160
dragon's area
#84

Jusen more accurately, which is a cognate to Joson, the earliest known Korean kingdom.


ancient time have not english name in east-asia, most was recorded in chinese texts, of course you can tangle in which english name is more accurately, but it is clearly in original records.

They had no Han Chinese identity back then. They were simply Tang people.
The mother’s side were Xianbei clans.
when you even can't understand what is "hua" concept in tang dynasty, why you keep to discuss with me about tang's identity?


O-M122 doesn’t belong to China. I don't rely on it more because it's not as distinctive in East Asia as the O-M176.
but you claimed O-M176 as korean genes. althouth that rate lower than O-M122.

double standard.


A clan and a tribe are not that different and can often be used interchangeably.
just like I had said, you even can't understand how jurchens surname came, but still keep to discuss about clan and tribe with me.

The Jusen tribes and Joseon kingdom have overlapping territories and matching names. This suggests they are related. Genetic evidence also tells the same story.
sorry, matching names are not in original record. the original records clearly signed how jurchens name was changed from heishui mohe to jurchens.

reason lead to result, not result lead to reason.

you always were claiming about manchus genes, but now you are claiming to day genetic evidence tell the same story about jurchens.


But that’s just your translation, and it contradicts my sources. I also don't find you very reliable.
may you saw I had listed the original record with chinese texts, then translated it.

if you want to say even <jin history > are not reliable, I have not word to say.

The anthropology or classification skills back then are not up to modern standards. We can try to base our understanding off of their work, but we can&#8217;t assume it&#8217;s always accurate. Since there are earlier cognates for Jusen (Jurchen), in Chinese writing, for tribes in the same region, we can conclude that either the records are inaccurate, or that you were making a classification error when you said, &#8220;Jurchen=Heishui Mohe&#8221;.
han four couties in same region with whole northern and middle korean peninsula too, what your modern standards proved? korean= chinese?

which tell you there are earlie cognates for jurchen in chinese writing? I had told you that are different words in chinese writing bettween joseon &#65292;sushen and jurchen(jusen).

I know what &#8220;not many&#8221; means. Your whole argument was shown to be BS. Now you&#8217;re moving away from it and making pointless statements.
the fact is the point didn't influence our discussion, because I had said that your area didn't include areas what I said.

and please explain "BS".


Yes, I think. Otherwise, can you justify a different basis? Is there some sort of legitimate authority on this?
I don't need, because I only said that is dispute.
as for your believe, you can back to check how holes in our previous discussion about your believe.


Even if the entire Wanyan clan/tribe died, it still does eliminate Manchu ties to Korea. There is still the Manchu DNA to consider.
sorry, didn't.

and you had forgot your korean bloodline (even if we assume that is really korean bloodline )only limited in wanyan clan.


A lot of those O-M122 may not have originated from China. Passing through Korea first, they would have been assimilated into the Korean population.
in same situation, you claimed O-M176 as korean genes.

and "may"? I can list many manchus whose ancestors are han or mongols, can you list manchus whose ancestors are korean?

not originated from china, that is only your assume.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
overall, your basis is only your believe or assume, most is contradictory with real history records.

and sorry, I will not reply about these discussion with you, when one person even deny <jin history>, how can I discuss about jurchens history with him?
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
1,018
#85
This is not an agenda. Perhaps you have an agenda since you blindly offer support to your side without even knowing what the source is.

Koreans also have about 30-40% O-M122. So it's possible that the Manchus got a lot of their O-M122 from Korea, not China.
You don't see the contradictions? Yes, Koreans have 30-40% O-M122. So why isn't their O-M122 from Chinese? After all, we know O-M122 began in the mainland and then spread to Korea. We know that its % is a lot higher among Han Chinese than among Koreans and Manchus. We know that its primary distribution within linguistic and cultural groups is among Sino-Tibetans. We have better evidence that O-M122 is Chinese / Sino-Tibetan than that O-M176 is Korean simply by virtue of O-M122 reaching ~50-60% among Chinese while O-M176 only reaches ~30% among Koreans and <20% among Manchus. Towards which end, why is your argument - Manchus and Koreans share a huge portion of their ancestry, see: M176, but not - Koreans / Jurchens and Han Chinese share an even bigger portion of their ancestry, see: M122?

All this talk about O-M176 being a diagnostic marker of Korean population admixture is useless when you have no evidence whatsoever that O-M176 spread due to Korean population expansion. You don't have that evidence because you don't know - and it's not just you, but geneticists at large - when / how O-M176 spread in Northeast Asia. To show that O-M176 among Jurchen populations came from Koreans, you first have to show that the Haplotype distribution of Jurchens prior to this spread did not contain O-M176, and then provide evidence for the spread from people who are accepted to be Koreans. Otherwise, there is no way for you to counter the argument that O-M176 was present in the Jurchen population from the very beginning, and thus had nothing to do with Korean admixture.

Further, even were we to accept your premise that O-M176 in Jurchens is the result of Korean admixture, it still does not validate calling Jurchens Korean descendants, because that is not how they saw their primary line of descent, which was recorded to be from the Mohe. No one opposes the idea that there is Korean ancestry among the Jurchens. What they oppose is your attempt to make this their primary line of descent using fallacious genetic logic.

Thus, you accuse others of being biased but the bias is very obviously your own when you insist on using haplotype data selectively and apply separate standards. On a macro level, shared haplotypes exist between all East Asians, yet for you the only thing that matters is M-176, which you think shows Koreaness even though it is not the majority haplotype among Koreans and emerged thousands of years before Koreans came into existence.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2012
266
Beijing China
#86
Hansaram:The history of Chosen:

1.&#21476;&#26397;&#40092; GuChosen:
1.1 Qizi Chosen(BC1122-BC194), Qizi,one of Shang dynasty Imperial family.
&#12298;&#20070;&#32463;.&#27946;&#33539;&#12299;&#65306;&#8220;&#21608;&#26082;&#20811;&#27575;&#65292;&#20197;&#31637;&#23376;&#24402;&#65292;&#27494;&#29579;&#20146;&#34394;&#24049;&#32780;&#38382;&#28937;&#12290;&#31637;&#23376;&#36848;&#12298;&#27946;&#33539;&#12299;&#20061;&#31609;&#12290;&#8221;&#21608;&#27494;&#29579;&#20197;&#24072;&#31036;&#20107;&#31637;&#23376;&#65292;&#19981;&#20197;&#31637;&#23376;&#20026;&#33251;&#65292;&#26159;&#25925;&#23553;&#20110;&#26397;&#40092;&#20351;&#20854;&#33258;&#27835;&#12290;

1.2 Weiman Chosen BC195-BC108,Weiman was a general of Yan state.It's destoyed by Han Wu Di.

1.3 Han 4 state(BC108-313AD),Han wuDi destoied Weiman Chosen and set Han 4 state,it's recorded in SimaQian's Historical Records.

Early map of Han 4 state:


QiziChosen or Weiman Chosen or Han 4 state,They were &#26397;&#40092; Chosen, it's a Chinese name,the king or ruler were Chinese.Today Korean most were from the south sam Han trible. The place where Sam Han trible activity were not controled by any Weiman Chosen or Han state. Chinese knew not much about Sam han trible in Han 4 states period.But the Koguryo had more relation with Guchosen.Koguryo destoyed Han 4 state in 313AD.

Chosen or Koguryo include so many ethnic groups,Mohe , Koguryo , Fuyu ,Han Chinese,were ethnic groups.



After Koguryo destoyed the Han 4 states,The goverment of Han 4 states was destroyed,but the people still here,they were include :Mohe,Koguryo,Fuyu ,and Han Chinese,there were controlled by Koguryo.

And later Shila and Tang dynasty destroyed Koguryo in 7th,its record that most people of Koguryo were moved to Han Chinese place. Shila finally outspread to north .But shila never controlled any land of north Peninsula before that.

In Ming dyansty, Ming emperor Zhu Yuan Zhang named new Korea kingdom as Chosen.Chosen were choosed ,because Emperor wanted to let people know this kingdom was a Vassal state like GuChosen,though they were not Han Chinese,but there were with much influence by Han Chinese culture,they were not Barbarians like manchus .Because GuCHOSEN was just such a good place.
 
Last edited:
#87
You said to fanmgqingming: quote, "I know what “not many” means. Your whole argument was shown to be BS. Now you’re moving away from it and making pointless statements."

Please be careful in how you describe people's posts. BS may only be letters of the alphabet but they have a clear meaning.
Thanks for pointing that out. I realize now that it's basically the same as saying a swear word, and I am sorry.
 
#88
You don't see the contradictions? Yes, Koreans have 30-40% O-M122. So why isn't their O-M122 from Chinese? After all, we know O-M122 began in the mainland and then spread to Korea. We know that its % is a lot higher among Han Chinese than among Koreans and Manchus. We know that its primary distribution within linguistic and cultural groups is among Sino-Tibetans. We have better evidence that O-M122 is Chinese / Sino-Tibetan than that O-M176 is Korean simply by virtue of O-M122 reaching ~50-60% among Chinese while O-M176 only reaches ~30% among Koreans and <20% among Manchus. Towards which end, why is your argument - Manchus and Koreans share a huge portion of their ancestry, see: M176, but not - Koreans / Jurchens and Han Chinese share an even bigger portion of their ancestry, see: M122?

All this talk about O-M176 being a diagnostic marker of Korean population admixture is useless when you have no evidence whatsoever that O-M176 spread due to Korean population expansion. You don't have that evidence because you don't know - and it's not just you, but geneticists at large - when / how O-M176 spread in Northeast Asia. To show that O-M176 among Jurchen populations came from Koreans, you first have to show that the Haplotype distribution of Jurchens prior to this spread did not contain O-M176, and then provide evidence for the spread from people who are accepted to be Koreans. Otherwise, there is no way for you to counter the argument that O-M176 was present in the Jurchen population from the very beginning, and thus had nothing to do with Korean admixture.

Further, even were we to accept your premise that O-M176 in Jurchens is the result of Korean admixture, it still does not validate calling Jurchens Korean descendants, because that is not how they saw their primary line of descent, which was recorded to be from the Mohe. No one opposes the idea that there is Korean ancestry among the Jurchens. What they oppose is your attempt to make this their primary line of descent using fallacious genetic logic.

Thus, you accuse others of being biased but the bias is very obviously your own when you insist on using haplotype data selectively and apply separate standards. On a macro level, shared haplotypes exist between all East Asians, yet for you the only thing that matters is M-176, which you think shows Koreaness even though it is not the majority haplotype among Koreans and emerged thousands of years before Koreans came into existence.
I made a mistake of calling the Manchus half Mongols. More precisely, they are half Evenk/Yakut. We don't really find the Koreanic O-M176 in these Tungusic speakers up north. We also don't find in Koreans, the Yakut-Evenk markers that we find in Manchus. This implies that the mixing happened very recently. If Manchuria were a place where Koreans and Yakut-Evenks mixed for thousands and thousands of years since before civilization, we should see a sort of genetic spectrum where Yakut-Evenk components gradually spread into Korea. But we don't. So it shows that population movements were restricted, and this means kingdoms and ethnic identities were already established before the mixing occurred.

It could be that the Yakut-Evenk invaded Manchuria very recently. But many of the recent states in Manchuria were Korean. If the Yakut-Evenk components already existed in the Korean kingdoms that extended from Korea into Manchuria, it should have been free to diffuse into the Korean peninsula. But that doesn't seem to have happened. I understand that there are O-M176 carriers that aren't Korean. But if these O-M176s were part of Korean kingdoms, doesn't that make them part Korean? I think it does.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
1,018
#89
I made a mistake of calling the Manchus half Mongols. More precisely, they are half Evenk/Yakut.
Why? The primary Y haplotype among Yakuts is N-M231, which isn't found in large quantities among Manchus. Evenks have C-M217, but C-M217 is found mainly in Mongolic groups.

We don't really find the Koreanic O-M176 in these Tungusic speakers up north. We also don't find in Koreans, the Yakut-Evenk markers that we find in Manchus. This implies that the mixing happened very recently. If Manchuria were a place where Koreans and Yakut-Evenks mixed for thousands and thousands of years since before civilization, we should see a sort of genetic spectrum where Yakut-Evenk components gradually spread into Korea. But we don't. So it shows that population movements were restricted, and this means kingdoms and ethnic identities were already established before the mixing occurred.
Small, isolated groups such as the Yakuts/Evenks are not necessarily relevant for deciding the population admixture of other Tungusic groups. They exhibit what is known in genetics as a founder's effect - ie a small group of clans being the only ancestors of the entire group due to population isolation. Thus, the lack of O-M176 in Yakuts/Evenks does not say that Tungusic groups and Koreans have not been mixing for thousands of years. Rather, it says that the Yakuts/Evenks were simply not involved in these events.

It could be that the Yakut-Evenk invaded Manchuria very recently. But many of the recent states in Manchuria were Korean. If the Yakut-Evenk components already existed in the Korean kingdoms that extended from Korea into Manchuria, it should have been free to diffuse into the Korean peninsula. But that doesn't seem to have happened.
I don't think 'Yakuts-Evenks' were the specific bearers, but why do you think it is irrelevant that upwards of 17% C-M217 are found in Koreans? This doesn't exactly corroborate the argument that the Korean peninsula was not subject to migrations from the north.

I understand that there are O-M176 carriers that aren't Korean. But if these O-M176s were part of Korean kingdoms, doesn't that make them part Korean? I think it does.
First, answer my question from the previous post - are Han Chinese part Mongol simply by being in the Mongol Empire?
 
#90
Why? The primary Y haplotype among Yakuts is N-M231, which isn't found in large quantities among Manchus. Evenks have C-M217, but C-M217 is found mainly in Mongolic groups.



Small, isolated groups such as the Yakuts/Evenks are not necessarily relevant for deciding the population admixture of other Tungusic groups. They exhibit what is known in genetics as a founder's effect - ie a small group of clans being the only ancestors of the entire group due to population isolation. Thus, the lack of O-M176 in Yakuts/Evenks does not say that Tungusic groups and Koreans have not been mixing for thousands of years. Rather, it says that the Yakuts/Evenks were simply not involved in these events.



I don't think 'Yakuts-Evenks' were the specific bearers, but why do you think it is irrelevant that upwards of 17% C-M217 are found in Koreans? This doesn't exactly corroborate the argument that the Korean peninsula was not subject to migrations from the north.
The Manchus speak a Tungusic language which relates their origins more closely to the Evenks. O-M176 is missing in the Evenks, but present in the Manchus.

First, answer my question from the previous post - are Han Chinese part Mongol simply by being in the Mongol Empire?
No. I think they also need evidence of Mongolic descent and most Han Chinese do not.

I'm going to have to back up since its no longer clear that O-M176 and C's mixed recently (as in later than the Korean kingdoms in Manchuria).
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions