yue10
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2013
- Messages
- 215
- Reaction score
- 0
the Lac Viet was Tai people Xi Ou was Tai tribe led by An Duong Vuong, it make more sense for 2 Tai tribes to form coexisting group then a Tai and Mon-Khmer somehow come together as brothers
Lac = prefix for Tai clans
the pure AA Annam pigs was centred in Laos and later occupied the delta during AD period, Nan Yue, Trung sisters have nothing to do with these people they are claiming the wrong ancestors. the Red River delta was belonging to Tai people and the Viet stole their homelands but somehow they come out with ridiculous idea of claiming back lost lands in Southern China
I am calling on Chinese on behalf of ethnic Daic minorities and also Lao, Thai, Shan to mobilise forces and take back lost Tai homelands from these Annam pigs
According to the related historical records, the population history of the Kinh, which we extrapolated also, conforms to the pattern of demic diffusion. In North Vietnam, the early inhabitant is the Luo-Yue of Daic family. In the Han dynasty, there was a war between the Chinese central government and the Southern Yue government, which resulted in heavy political pressure on the Yue (Daic) population, which lasted into Wu dynasty of the Three States Period. A large number of Daic populations including the Luo-Yue moved westwards to Guizhou, west Guangxi, Laos, and as far as north Thailand. It was nearly empty along Tonkin Bay, including North Vietnam and east Guangxi. In the following, the Jing dynasty and the Southern-Northern States Period, as the northern nomads invaded central China, the Chinese government ignored Tonkin Bay and left it for the growing Kinh population. Since then, the Kinh appeared in the records of north Vietnam. After a long time of development in the Sui and Tang dynasties, a country of Kinh people was founded during the China’s civil strife in the late Tang dynasty.
The geographic origin and time of dispersal of Austroasiatic (AA) speakers, presently settled in south and southeast Asia, remains disputed. Two rival hypotheses, both assuming a demic component to the language dispersal, have been proposed. The first of these places the origin of Austroasiatic speakers in southeast Asia with a later dispersal to south Asia during the Neolithic, whereas the second hypothesis advocates pre-Neolithic origins and dispersal of this language family from south Asia. To test the two alternative models, this study combines the analysis of uniparentally inherited markers with 610,000 common single nucleotide polymorphism loci from the nuclear genome. Indian AA speakers have high frequencies of Y chromosome haplogroup O2a; our results show that this haplogroup has significantly higher diversity and coalescent time (17-28 thousand years ago) in southeast Asia, strongly supporting the first of the two hypotheses. Nevertheless, the results of principal component and "structure-like" analyses on autosomal loci also show that the population history of AA speakers in India is more complex, being characterized by two ancestral components-one represented in the pattern of Y chromosomal and EDAR results and the other by mitochondrial DNA diversity and genomic structure. We propose that AA speakers in India today are derived from dispersal from southeast Asia, followed by extensive sex-specific admixture with local Indian populations
Rather, their peculiar genetic profile is better explained by a decrease in genetic diversity through genetic drift from an ancestral population having a genetic profile similar to present-day Austroasiatic populations from Southeast Asia (thus suggesting a possible southeastern origin), followed by intensive gene flow with neighboring Indian populations. This conclusion is in agreement with archaeological and linguistic information.
Lac = prefix for Tai clans
the pure AA Annam pigs was centred in Laos and later occupied the delta during AD period, Nan Yue, Trung sisters have nothing to do with these people they are claiming the wrong ancestors. the Red River delta was belonging to Tai people and the Viet stole their homelands but somehow they come out with ridiculous idea of claiming back lost lands in Southern China
I am calling on Chinese on behalf of ethnic Daic minorities and also Lao, Thai, Shan to mobilise forces and take back lost Tai homelands from these Annam pigs
According to the related historical records, the population history of the Kinh, which we extrapolated also, conforms to the pattern of demic diffusion. In North Vietnam, the early inhabitant is the Luo-Yue of Daic family. In the Han dynasty, there was a war between the Chinese central government and the Southern Yue government, which resulted in heavy political pressure on the Yue (Daic) population, which lasted into Wu dynasty of the Three States Period. A large number of Daic populations including the Luo-Yue moved westwards to Guizhou, west Guangxi, Laos, and as far as north Thailand. It was nearly empty along Tonkin Bay, including North Vietnam and east Guangxi. In the following, the Jing dynasty and the Southern-Northern States Period, as the northern nomads invaded central China, the Chinese government ignored Tonkin Bay and left it for the growing Kinh population. Since then, the Kinh appeared in the records of north Vietnam. After a long time of development in the Sui and Tang dynasties, a country of Kinh people was founded during the China’s civil strife in the late Tang dynasty.
The geographic origin and time of dispersal of Austroasiatic (AA) speakers, presently settled in south and southeast Asia, remains disputed. Two rival hypotheses, both assuming a demic component to the language dispersal, have been proposed. The first of these places the origin of Austroasiatic speakers in southeast Asia with a later dispersal to south Asia during the Neolithic, whereas the second hypothesis advocates pre-Neolithic origins and dispersal of this language family from south Asia. To test the two alternative models, this study combines the analysis of uniparentally inherited markers with 610,000 common single nucleotide polymorphism loci from the nuclear genome. Indian AA speakers have high frequencies of Y chromosome haplogroup O2a; our results show that this haplogroup has significantly higher diversity and coalescent time (17-28 thousand years ago) in southeast Asia, strongly supporting the first of the two hypotheses. Nevertheless, the results of principal component and "structure-like" analyses on autosomal loci also show that the population history of AA speakers in India is more complex, being characterized by two ancestral components-one represented in the pattern of Y chromosomal and EDAR results and the other by mitochondrial DNA diversity and genomic structure. We propose that AA speakers in India today are derived from dispersal from southeast Asia, followed by extensive sex-specific admixture with local Indian populations
Rather, their peculiar genetic profile is better explained by a decrease in genetic diversity through genetic drift from an ancestral population having a genetic profile similar to present-day Austroasiatic populations from Southeast Asia (thus suggesting a possible southeastern origin), followed by intensive gene flow with neighboring Indian populations. This conclusion is in agreement with archaeological and linguistic information.