| Distribution of HM linguistic clusters in China | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 22 2011, 01:30:50 AM (292 Views) | |
| black man | May 22 2011, 01:30:50 AM Post #1 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Overviews: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hmongic_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hmong%E2%80%93Mien_languages Hmongic: --- Bahengic: Hunan. Guizhou, Guangxi, Vietnam; the y-chromosomal sample of Cai et al. 2011 has an intermediate hg diversity when compared with the other HM y-chromosomal samples, O-M175* being the most common hg defined by Y-SNPs --- Hmu: Guizhou only(?); the y-chromosomal sample of Cai et al. 2011 is very heterogenous with O-M175+*, O-M122*, O-M95* and O-M119+* being the three major groups defined by Y-SNPs --- Jiongnai–She: the Shes said to be originally from a certain part of eastern Guangdong where most people are nowadays Hakkas; the Guangdong(?) sample of Hammer et al. 2006 and Karafet al. 2010 features less hgs than the Zhejiang sample of Cai et al. 2011, M7+ being an important mutation in both of them --- West Hmongic: Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, Vietnam, Laos; the distribution of this linguistic cluster seems to imply an accumulation of "tribes" in and/or around what is now Guizhou; y hg distributions are diverse, too (see Cai et al. 2011); e.g., some of the Bunus might be in C-M130+ in particular (Cai et al. 2011), while others seem to be predominately in O-M7+ (Chu et al. 2006) --- Qo Xiong (Kho Xiong): western Hunan; many of them seem to be in the C* and O-M122* groups which still need to be examined in detail (see Cai et al. 2011); do note that the same can be said about Hunan Tujia (see Xie et al. 2004 and Zhang et al. 2006) Mienic: --- Biao Min: Hunan and Guangxi --- Dzao Min: these are the Liannan "Miao" in the physical anthropological study of Cheboksarov; they often carry the M7+ mutation according to Cai et al. 2011 --- Iu Mien: the most wide-spread Mienic linguistic cluster, apparently mostly in Guangxi; they often have the M134+ mutation (see Cai et al. 2011) --- Kim Mun: Yunnan, Guangxi and Hainan; they often have the M134+ mutation (see Cai et al. 2011) Preliminary comments: when considered in the context of Han expansion, the distribution of HM linguistic clusters seem to more or less support the idea that their early HMs lived in what is now Hunan rather than in what is now Guizhou, Guangdong etc. Some more details about the increase of Han populations in what is now Hunan should complete the picture. Furthermore, HM y and mtDNA hg distributions and hts should be compared with those of peripheral Han in not only Hunan but also Hubei, Henan and Shandong at least. Unfortunately, peripheral Han are among those populations studied way too rarely. That way, it might become possible to trace part of the genomes of present-day HM-speakers to hypothetical "northern" and "southern" ancestors. That might help reconstructing HM ethnogeneses. That said, note that I'm not a linguist. But, as far as I understood, HM linguistic groups are derivatives of a kind of creole or composite language and might have been used on the outskirts of Chu civilisation or something like that. So I'd be interested in the question why there are differences between Hmongic and Mienic. To my knowledge, Hmongic is usually assumed to have originally been more western, whereas Mienic is supposed to have been more eastern. Moreover, there was probably a limit to HM expansion to the west because of the Ba sphere of influence approximately where there are the Tujia today. And there must have been a limit to their expansion to the east because the sphere of influence of the civlisation of the lower Yangzijiang. Therefore, part of early HM-speakers might have been genetically etc closer to something like the ancestors of the Tujias, while other early HM-speakers might have been closer to people from Jiangnan. So far, I didn't come across any physical anthropological studies which would have confirmed anything like marked TB admixtures in HMs, though. Rather, Mienic-speakers were reported to have smaller faces and heads than Hmongic-speakers. And the latter findings seem to point to something like a relatedness to coastal people, such as at least part of present-day Fujian Han. By contrast, Hmongic-speakers might be more similar to certain present-day Hunan and Guangdong Han besides certain northern MKs. Eventually, it should be mentioned that one thing seems to genetically unite Hmong-speakers with Mienic-speakers: Y-SNP M7+ is common in certain communities within both of these linguistic clusters. And considering that this important y hg marker probably spread together with patriliny in HMs, there might have been considerable contacts between early Hmongic-speakers and early Mienic-speakers. Maybe folklore studies can help reconstructing the exact nature of these contacts. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Hmong-Mien · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)


