Christian Churches of God
Sons of Japheth Part 1A: The Sons of HN
(Edition 2.0 20120327-20140211)
The Sons of HN are a large group of the Sons of Japheth and we will take this aspect on now from the Sons of Japheth Part 1.
The Sons of Japheth Part 1A: The Sons of HN
Following on from Part 1 we see that the Appendix deals with the Asiatic distribution and attempts to isolate the Sons of HN as a tribal Group.
“Both Shem and Japheth possessed the same YDNA key at Haplogroup F. This Haplogroup was carried by all sons of Shem and Japheth, whereas the sons of Ham did not possess this link except the Yap Divide at M213. The link for Hg F is P14, M89, M213. All Haplogroups from G to R possess this lineage.
From what we see, the lineages of Shem and the tribes Shem from F produced the Haplogroups G, H, I and J. The great supergroup IJ was a combined Semitic group that formed the Hebrew peoples including all the Sons of Arphaxad as that combined supergroup. The links were found at the S2 and S22 links. The I Group intermingled with all the Western R1b and R1a.
Japheth produced Haplogroup K and all the groups coming from K are sons of the sons of Japheth.
The sons of Japheth can be identified from the YDNA chart, but the mutations are not as early as the break-up of the sons and thus some of the sons have descendants of differing Haplogroups. For example, the sons of Gomer possess both R1a and R1b combinations, as well as other Haplogroups. Some of the sons of Gomer as listed by the Bible have developed the same Haplogroups as other sons of Japheth.
A puzzle that is posed by modern science is that of the origin of the sons of HN, who split into the N and O Haplogroups. They came from Hg K and they were one line at M214, and from that ancestor or line they split into N (LLY22) and O (M175). These sons of HN produced a massive number of people.
HN was the ancestor of the Huns and the sons of Han, being the Han Chinese. The dissimilarity is only in a vowel between the two consonants, being Hun and Han. They both had the same ancestor HN at M214. What makes this most fascinating is that the Finns, another Magyar people, of N Hg as are the Huns, speak Uralic-Altaic languages. Hungarian is part of this group as is Turkic, Mongolian, Manchurian, Manchu-Tungus, Old Korean and Japanese. The Mongols and related peoples are Hamitic Group C and the Japanese are related to the Tibetans in Group D with some Group C, but fifty percent of the Japanese are also Hg O coming from the same group, as are the Tibetans. The Tibetans, who appear linked to the sons of Cush, also are predominantly Hamitic Hg D, and they are also related to Hg E through the super-group DE formed at the YAP Divide at M145 and M213, but they also have fifty percent Hg O. The Southern Han of South China are Hg O with some C and D. The Sumatrans have more than 50% O and less D (say 5-10%). The Malays have less, but some Hg C also. The Hgs. C and D are discussed in the paper Sons of Ham Part II: Cush (No. 45B).
The link with the Yap divide and the sons of Shem and Ham at Hg F is most amazing. Of all the sons of Ham the only ones to retain the link with the Hg F Semitic and Japhethite lineages are the YAP divide groups of Hgs. D and E. Thus the Japanese and Tibetans are directly linked with Japheth and Shem through M213 alone. However they are predominantly Japhethite through the intermingling with Japhethite Hg O also.
The Lapps/Sami are also Hg N, as are some Lithuanian Ashkenazim. Most Ashkenazim are Hg R1a. Ashkenaz is a tribe of Gomer. Riphath is the second son of Gomer and most of Riphath YDNA is R1b.
The only son of Gomer that could qualify as the Sons of HN is Togarmah, which occupies the uttermost parts of the North, which is what we see with the Lapps/Sami and Finns and the tribes in northern Russia/Siberia. The problem that is posed by this YDNA link is that China also has K, and the K, M and O Haplogroups extend into South-East Asia in the Malays at O with some C and D, and Borneo and Sumatra at O with some C and K. The Papuans are mostly Hg K, and the West Papuans or Irian Jayans are Hg M with a significant amount of Hamitic C. The Philippino and the North Polynesians also have significant Hg O. The Philippino have some 15% K, C and D mix, whilst the Maori are predominantly are C2, which is Cushite Hamitic. However the Maori language is related to the Malay language and at one stage they occupied an island in the Malay Archipelago before they left for the islands. That was well before the 14th century as they occupied what is now New Zealand by that time. Some 20% of Australian Aborigines and Torres Straight Islanders are also Hg K. They are thus not a homogenous group of one origin but are of three distinct tribal origins from Ham at C4 and two from Japheth at Hgs. K and RxR1basic. These are later mutations. They came in eight waves or linguistic groups to Australia (see also the paper The Genetic Origin of the Nations (No. 265)).
The history of the Huns is given as follows.
The original Huns were Hg N from M214 along with the Hg O Asians.
The Haplogroup N people in both the Finns and the Hungarians refer to themselves as Magyars. This name and the YDNA links them as the same Tribal group linked back three millennia. They are however a mixed people as we will see.
YDNA is determined from the male lineage though the Y Chromosome and mtDNA is determined through the X Chromosome. The mtDNA carried as much influence as the Y in determining characteristics, and males who marry other mtDNA females pass on to their offspring both systems and racial characteristics of the systems. Thus a Western White or Black Hun by tribe or Finn or Saami will appear different because of the European females with which they bred. Their males will still be YDNA Hg N unless they are from captives or allies. The Blue Huns that were swept away by the Mongols prior to 1215 will appear as Hg N in the males but their females will have interbred with the Mongols and the Chinese and they will appear Asiatic.
All the Uralic Altaic Language groups will be linguistically similar in origin but they will be combined of a number of YDNA systems. The group includes the Magyars and Saami in the west and Turkic in the Middle East (R1b and other Hgs), Altai, Tartars, Buryats, Neneks, Mongols (Hg. C3), Manchu/Tungus, some Siberian Eskimos, and Old Korean and Japanese (Hg O and D). They came from the same area in Central Asia around the Urals and surrounding tribes (e.g. Altai). They are however, not all the same people in YDNA and they have a number of mtDNA groups.
The known Magogite tribes are proving to be all R1b so far; however, some Hungarians claim Magogite descent and that may be true in some cases, but it is not so for the Huns. Hg. N Huns and Finns are not Magogites from all known testing to date.
The lists in the tests done to date of Hungarians are indeed interesting. Budapest in the Nineteenth century was termed Judapest by the East Europeans and it was a massive concentration of Jews. The E1, J and I in the tests found there are North African Jewish and Semites. The YDNA test allocations of tribal areas are based at the native populations as they were at ca 1500. The Khazars also came in after the Mongols swept them away in 1215. The Bulgars followed the Huns also into what is now Bulgaria. The Magyar among them and the Finns were based on N. McDonald’s maps and tests are a reference tool. The Genetic Origin of the Nations (No. 265) deals with them also.
The E1 groups in Hungary were North African Jews based from Tunisia from Phoenician contacts. Hg. E comprises over 25% of all European Jews. Hitler was an E1b Jew in his YDNA (E1b1b1) also from neighbouring Austria. The test listed as Magyar from FTDNA appears to be a test of an Hungarian Jewish population sample.
Magogite Hungarians’ claims differ from the account given by Koestler in "The Thirteenth Tribe" where he gives a detailed account of the split of the White, Black and Blue Huns and gives the names of the priests who went east in 1213 to bring the Blue Huns west to Hungary but when they got there the Blue Huns had been swept away by the Mongols who then swept into Europe in 1215 pushing the Khazars before them. The identification of Magyar YDNA is important. There may well be a distinction between Magyar and other Huns?
We know for a fact that the Huns came into Britain in the tenth century BCE and they were defeated by the Trojan British and Magogite vassals at the Humber River which was named after their king Humber. They had defeated the Germanic tribes in northern Europe and took one of the princesses as a hostage, so it was recorded. After the defeat in Britain it appears that they retreated via Scandinavia to avoid the Germans in their weakened state and on that retreat they left the Finns as a group there in Scandinavia who displaced the Laps or perhaps even took them with them.
This is recorded by Geoffrey of Monmouth and a number of other ancient British historians and also the Magogite origins are discussed in MacGeoghegan's "History of Ireland" MacGeoghegan-Mitchell, Sadlier NY 1868.
They do not appear to be lost as the Finns to this day refer to themselves as Magyar and their language is Uralic Altaic in origin and is allied to but not the same as Hungarian. They have more in common with Japanese than they do with West European languages.
The Huns went back into Asia in what is Northeast Russia and, according to Koestler, formed into three groups: the Blue, White and Black Huns. They remained in Asia in the vast area of the steppes until they came into Europe and occupied what is now Hungary in the ninth century. They were converted from paganism. The Monk Julianus went to look for them in the end of the twelfth century, according to Koestler. So the three hundred years referred to by the Hungarians in this account was over the period from the 900s to the 1200s. He found them and went back. After he had returned a party was sent to invite them to return at the beginning of the thirteenth century. When that message arrived they had been swept away by the Mongols prior to 1215. Their story is told by Arthur Koestler in the work The Thirteenth Tribe. They are the probable origin of the Hg N people in the Far East also.
The terms by Koestler regarding the "Arrows" of the Hun tribes were not refuted or developed and his terms re the White, Black, and Blue Huns were not refuted in any serious way. The Ashkenazi simply killed him because he exposed the Khazar conversion of 740 and the origins of the Ashkenazi.
So we are not aware of the Magogite connection of these early Huns.
It is also important to note that there were Magogites in the East in what is now the Urumqi area of the Uighur autonomous region. These were red haired, blue eyed Celts that are without doubt related to the Scots’ Magogites and wore similar tartans. They were in what is now western China ca 1700 BCE. The males were 6ft 6" and the females were over 6ft. The Magogites we know are of this type and are the basis of the Scythian Celts.
Howorth notes that the Huns are mentioned in Europe by Ptolemy 175-182 BCE. Ptolemy mentions them the Chunni as between the Bastarnae and Roxolani and places them on the Dneiper (Hist. History Vol. 7 pp. 45-46). They are positively identified by Dionysius Periegetes ca 200. He identifies them as borderers of the Caspian Sea in this order the Scyths, Huns, Caspiani, Albani, but these are vague references.
The first authentic history of them in Europe comes from ca 372 CE. Their then leader was Balamir or according to some MSS Balamber. They began a Westward movement on the Steppes from their home to the north of the Caspian. They subjugated a number of obscure nations such as the Alpizuri, Alcidzuir, Himari, Tincarsi, and Boisci. We assume they took their women and men as slaves. They then moved to the area of the powerful Alani or Alans between the Volga and the Don. After prolonged struggle they defeated the Alans and enlisted them in their service in the move westward. In the end the Alans and the Suevi entered Europe and settled in Spain and Portugal.
After a short interval in 374 the Huns entered the empire of the Ostrogoths (Greuthungi) ruled over by the aged Ermaneric (Hermanric) who died while the critical attack was impending (perhaps by his own hand). His son Hunimund took over and made a humiliating peace, and subsequent revolts under Withemir (Winithar) resulted in further defeat and finally in the death of the king. Witheric his son accepted the condition of vassalage to the Huns and Alans.
Balamir now directed the horde west against the Visigoths or Tervingi who acknowledge the authority of Athanaric. Athanaric entrenched himself on the Greutung-rampart and the Dneister which was the frontier with the Ostrogoths but the Huns were upon him by fording the river at night and fell upon him by surprise forcing the withdrawal to the area between the Pruth and the Danube, and he set about heightening the old Roman wall erected by Trajan in North-eastern Dacia. Before the fortifications were complete the Huns were upon him again and forced his retreat to the Danube.
As a result of this the Visigoths under Alavivus and Fritigern obtained permission from the emperor Valens in 376 to settle in Thrace. Athanaric took refuge in Transylvania and thus offered little resistance to the Huns. For fifty years the Huns remained at peace and actually assisted the Romans on some occasions. In 404-5 some Hunnic tribes under a leader Uldin assisted Honorius against the Ostrogoths under Radagaisus (or Ratigar). The Huns took part in the decisive battle against the Ostrogoths, near Florence. The Visigoths were also to finally settle in Spain, and ultimately the Vandals also in North Africa.
In 409 the Huns are said to have crossed the Danube and invaded Bulgaria under perhaps the same chief (Uldis). However, extensive desertions caused them to retreat. This now brings us to the time of Theodosius II and we can deal with the account given by Ammianus Marcellinus in the latter half of the fourth century. His account and that of Attila are important to understanding their dress and demeanour. We will see from that account that they looked nothing like the Western Magogites.
According to Ammianus Marcellinus the Huns never sheltered under a roof. They avoided houses like we avoid tombs. They have no such thing as a cabin with even thatched reeds. Their women raised their young in wagons and sewed their meagre garments made from linen and the skins of field mice. They reportedly did not change or wash their clothing nor take it off until it fell to pieces. They wore round caps and covered their legs with the skin of kids. Their shoes are not made on lasts and are unfit for walking and as a result are unsuited to infantry battles. They ride horses and rarely dismount and were often known to sleep on them. The account says that there was not a person in the whole nation that could not remain on horseback day and night. They buy and sell, eat and drink and recline on the neck of the steed. They hold all common council on horseback. They have no king but are content with the government of their nobles and under their lead force their way through all obstacles.
When provoked they fight and in battle form as a great body making exceedingly loud yells. They rely on great speed and the element of surprise. They can suddenly disperse and reform. They inflict heavy losses and then disperse in irregular formations over the plains. They avoid forts or entrenchments and are always mobile in or out of battle. They use arrows tipped with bone and when close fight with a sword without regard to personal safety and use twisted cords to entangle their opponents.
The Goths and the Vandals were effectively forced to move into Europe by the Huns but the power of the Huns was not reflected in their achievements or settled structure. They were victorious from the Volga to the Danube but their public force was destroyed by the constant discord of the independent chieftains. They were unable to form stable government except under powerful leaders like Attila. Their valour was idly consumed in obscure and predatory excursions. Ammianus Marcellinus says that they also lowered their national dignity by serving under the banners of fugitive enemies in the hopes of spoil or words to that effect.
The account of Attila says that under him they again became the terror of the world. It was under Attila that the Huns commenced what became the downfall of the Roman Empire. It was under Attila's uncle Roas or Rugilas that the Huns inserted themselves in the bounds of what is now modern Hungary as a country of hunters and shepherds. However they did not entirely remain there but what we understand as the Magyars came there again ca 894 and it is from this event that Hungary was formed. Both Finns and Hungarians claim to be Magyars. If the Magyars are distinct from Huns, then we need to look for two distinct historical movements and tribes. Also note that the Huns were distinct from the Scythians whom we know were Magogites. The Huns under Attila defeated the Scythians.
Theodosius was forced to pay the Huns a tribute of 350 pounds of gold but disguised it under title of General which he conferred on the king of the Huns. The perfidious nature of the Byzantine court did not help the instability. Also four nations subject to the Huns rebelled. One of these four was the Bavarians. The peace of the empire was broken by the death of Rugilas and he was succeeded by his two nephews Attila and Bleda. They immediately doubled the tribute to 700 pounds of gold and levied fines and crucified a number of noble young men in the territories of the empire. They then attacked Germany (Bavaria being one) and Scythia who had declared themselves independent. Bleda was forced to take his own life as Attila emerged the more dominant.
Attila son of Mundzuk claimed his noble and perhaps regal descent from the Huns that had attacked China. The description of Attila according to a Gothic historian of the time was that he bore the stamp of his national origin. He was said to have exhibited the genuine deformity of a modern Kalmuck; a large head, a swarthy complexion, small deep seated eyes, a flat nose, a few hairs in the place of a beard, broad shoulders, and a short square body, of nervous strength though of a disproportioned form. He rolled his eyes as though to instil terror but he was reputed to be approachable and was capable of pity and pardon and he was considered a just and indulgent master. He delighted in war but when he matured his head and mature disposition was instrumental in the conquest of the North (ibid., Hist. Hist. p. 49).
Attila was regarded as a Mongol and he and Genghis were classed as Scythians and both were prudent and successful generals. Attila was in the appearance of a Kalmuck which is an Asian tribe which was in the area of Dzhungaria linguistically derived from the term “Hungaria” and Western Mongolia. Their DNA is as follows. It is not C3 of the Mongols but Hg. N1 of the Westerns Finns and Magyars as we see from the following texts.
in the Kalmyks at the ethnical and tribal levels
Boris Malyarchuk, Miroslava Derenko, Galina Denisova, Sanj Khoyt, Marcin Woz´niak,Tomasz Grzybowski, and Ilya Zakharov
“The Mongolic-speaking Kalmyks currently inhabiting the steppes of the Volga region have Central Asian ancestry and are organized into the tribal groups. The genetic relationships among these tribes and their origin have remained obscure. We analyzed 17 short tandem repeat and 44 binary polymorphisms of Y-chromosome in 426 individuals mainly from three major tribes of the Kalmyks (the Torguuds, Do ¨ rwo ¨ ds and Khoshuuds). Among these tribes, the Do ¨ rwo ¨ ds and Torguuds, as well as the Kalmyks collectively as an ethnic group, showed relatively close genetic afﬁnities to each other and to the Mongols and Altaian Kazakhs, whereas the Khoshuuds were clearly separated from all of them, gathering with the Manchu, Tibetans or Evenks (depending on the algorithm used to calculate genetic distances). The genetic results also indicate that paternal gene ﬂow from East Europeans to the Kalmyks is very little, despite their cohabitation in the North Caspian Steppe during the last 380 years. The occurrence of unique cluster of N1c-Tat haplotypes in the Khoshuuds, which dates to about 340 years and is likely to have East European ancestry, is considered as a result of interethnic contacts that occurred soon after the appearance of the Kalmyk tribes in the Volga-Ural region.
Journal of Human Genetics
advance online publication, 17 October 2013; doi:10.1038/jhg.2013.108
The East European influence is probably stemming from the Hun invasions of that or earlier time.
Hun provinces under Attila extended from Thuringia which was beyond the Danube into Germany and may be included by latitude of influence. He interposed in the affairs of the powerful Franks, and one of his officers almost exterminated the Burgundians of the Rhine. He subdued Scandinavia probably by his Magyar association with the Finns and the Huns derived fur tributes from there when no others had done so. He reigned on the banks of the Volga. He subjugated the Khan of the Geougen and he sent ambassadors to negotiate an equal alliance with China. He ruled, without revolt in his life, the Gepidae and the Ostrogoths who were distinguished by their numbers, bravery and the personal merit of their chiefs. They stretched from the Danube to the Tanais
In the reign of Arcadius, father of Theodosius, a band of adventurous Huns had ravaged the provinces of the East bringing away rich spoils and innumerable captives. They advanced by secret paths on the shores of the Caspian, crossed the mountains of Armenia, passed the Tigris, Euphrates and the Halys, added the breed of the Cappadocian horses to supplement their cavalry, and occupied Cilia and Antioch. Egypt and Palestine trembled at their approach. The East remembered this raid when they were confronted with the superior forces of Attila. The Huns then invaded as far as Media and engaged the Persians in Media but were forced to withdraw.
The Vandals were maintained in Africa through the power of Attila and the Romans in Rome and Constantinople embarked on a course of recovery. Through commercial gain and treachery on the Danube the conflict was escalated and Attila advanced in a series of battles. Two early battles were on the banks of the Utus and under the walls of Marcianopolis on the extensive plains between the Danube and Mt Haemus. The Roman commander Arnegisclus was slain in the second battle. Under poor command the Romans withdrew to the Chersonesus of Thrace. In that narrow peninsular the third and final battle was fought. In that battle Attila assumed total control of the field. Without resistance or mercy, he ravaged the provinces of Thrace and Macedonia from the Hellespont to Thermopylae and the city of Constantinople. They inflicted calamity on 70 cities of the Eastern Empire. The recent earthquake and the loss of 58 towers had weakened the resolve and morale of the forces at Constantinople and they were weak and soft.
The Mongols under Genghis were actually contemplating the total extermination of the Chinese people and the pastoral pursuits of the Huns were no less barbaric. The Huns under Attila were no less tempted to wipe out what they saw as a decadent Western civilisation. It was a mandarin that persuaded the Mongols not to wipe out China and turn it into pastoral lands as they had intended. Genghis slew a total of 4,347,000 people in the capitals of Khorasan, Maru, Neisabur, and Herat. If Attila had equalled Tamerlane in his ravages it might have been worse but Attila took these captives and distributed them among his army. The Hun interaction with the Goths might also have mitigated it. The fact that the Huns were a crude populace and did not value various "civilised" skills above another meant that one might gain his freedom by the exercise of courage or loyalty and Attila thus did not kill as the Mongols and Tartars had done.
In the end the Huns were a conglomerate of Scythian nations and European and Asiatic slaves. However at their core they were Western Mongols with the core YDNA of the Kalmucks or later Kalmyks and were linked to the Buryats also and were Hg N1.
Origins of the Chinese
The Move from the West
The Chinese came in from the west and from the mountains and settled in the bend of the Yellow River. These groups also spread into the East, Northeast and South and Southeast mixing with the groups listed with the groups in the various Haplogroups that make up what is now recognised as the Chinese and the various Asian tribes or nations that are from the Hgs. listed above.
(As was written in the work Mysticism in Chapter 8 East Asia – China and Japan at http://www.ccg.org/english/s/b7_8.html)
“E.T.C. Werner was to write in 1922 in Myths and Legends of China, Graham Brash (Pte) Ltd, Singapore, 1988 reprint:
Pending the discovery of decisive evidence, the following provisional conclusion has much to recommend it - namely, that the ancestors of the Chinese people came from the west, from Akkadia or Elam (Mesopotamia or Modern Iran), or from Khotan, or (more probably) from Akkadia or Elam via Khotan, as one nomad or pastoral tribe or group of nomad or pastoral tribes, or as successive waves of immigrants, reached what is now China Proper at its north-west corner, settled round the elbow of the Yellow River, spread north-eastward, eastward and southward, conquering, absorbing, or pushing before them the aborigines into what is now South and South-west China. These aboriginal races, who represent a wave or waves of neolithic immigrants from Western Asia earlier than the relatively high-headed immigrants into North China (who arrived about the twenty-fifth or twenty-fourth century B.C.), and who have left so deep an impress on the Japanese, mixed and intermarried with the Chinese in the south, eventually producing the pronounced differences, in physical, mental, and emotional traits, in sentiments, ideas, languages, processes, and products, from the Northern Chinese which are so conspicuous at the present day (p. 17).
Early China was a comparatively small region. This:
territory round the elbow of the Yellow River had an area of about 50,000 square miles, and was gradually extended to the sea-coast on the north-east as far as longitude 119o, when its area was about doubled. It had a population of perhaps a million, increasing with the expansion to two millions. This may be called infant China. Its period (the Feudal Period) was in the two thousand years between the twenty-fourth and third centuries B.C. (p. 18).
This is the area where the modern provinces of Shansi, Shensi, and Honan join and which was extended in an easterly direction to the Gulf of Chihli, some 600 miles long by 300 miles broad. During the first two thousand years this area remained fairly constant but in the south, chou or colonies, the nuclei of Chinese population, increased in size through the conquest of neighbouring territory.
Chinese history traditionally begins with the Shang Dynasty ca 1523-1122 BCE whose capital city was An Yang in northern Honan Province. The traditional records speak of the Hsia Dynasty but nothing significant is known of it. The Chinese themselves had no record of anything preceding it. In the twentieth century it was found that another era preceded it called the Lung-Shan culture which has some pottery elements showing similarity and change. The pre humanoids such as the finds in Choukoutien Cave (disc. 1930 and excavated by Pei) of Peking man have nothing to do with the later finds mentioned by R.M. & C.H. Berndt (Aboriginal Man in Australia, 1st ed. 1965, Angus and Robertson pp. 30,32-33) of the Mongoloid, Eskimoid and the Melanesoid modern humanoids found in the same group at a much later level. (cf. An Introduction to Chinese Civilisation ed. Meskill et al.1973, pp. 4-7)
According to the Historians' History of the World, vol. XXIV, at p. 542, the first tangible monarch of the Chinese was Hwang-ti. His tomb is preserved in Shensi province. His wife's name was Empress Se-Ling-she. He allegedly reigned in the twenty-seventh century BCE; however, this early history is somewhat apocryphal. Confucius (Kung-Fu-Tse) (549 BCE) gives some historical data from the reign of Yaou allegedly from 2356 BCE, but this does not stand criticism (ibid.). He was succeeded by Shun as king. On the death of Shun, the "Great" Yu, who was employed to drain off the waters of the flood, which had visited China, became king. The calibre of the kings declined until Kee (1818-1766 BCE) was so despotic that his house was obliterated and the new dynasty Shang commenced. The ruler, Tang, was apparently just and abolished oppression. Curiously he ruled at the time of a seven-year drought. The famine of Genesis 41:54 may, in fact, actually have been in 'all' lands. In 1153 BCE the Shang Dynasty ended and the tyrant Chow ruled the 'empire'. About 1121 BCE ambassadors came from what is termed Cochin China (i.e. Southern Vietnam, formerly part of Indo-China).
From the analysis by Bernard Karlgren in A Catalogue of the Chinese Bronzes in the Alfred F. Pillsbury Collection, (The University of Minnesota Press, for the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, 1952), there appear to be four main style periods prior to the Ch'in. These are Yin-Shang (1525-1028 BCE), Early Chow (1027-c.900 BCE), Middle Chow (c.900-c.600 BCE) and Huai (c. 600-c.222 BCE). These identifications may prove of significance in identifying alteration in cultural and religious systems. The cut off point is at 1525 BCE for the forms of Bronze decor and this may also be of significance in isolating early movements from mythical time scales.
A little more than two hundred years before the Christian era, China became subject to a fourth dynasty, called Tsin (Sinnim? Or Ch'in/China). The ruler of this dynasty, who incidentally caused, by drafting every third man, the construction of the Great Wall of China to keep out the northern tribes, attempted to establish a dynasty which reigned from the beginning to the end of time by collecting and burning all known records. However, this was thwarted by the discovery of the books of Confucius and his dynasty became extinct on the death of his son (ibid., p. 543). The Han then commenced to expand the empire.
This destruction of records necessarily places great reliance on the accuracy of Confucius, but from what we know from ethno-linguistic and anthropological studies, we can construct a fairly accurate picture of the social and religious structure of the tribes of East Asia from earliest times.
In 221 BCE, all the feudal states into which this territory had been divided and which had incessantly fought with one another, were subjugated and absorbed by the state of Ch'in (supposedly hence China). The monarchical form of government, which was to last twenty-one centuries, was established (Werner, pp. 26-27).
During the first centuries of the Monarchical Period, which lasted from 221 B.C. to A.D. 1912, it had expanded to the south to such an extent that it included all of the Eighteen Provinces constituting what is known as China Proper of modern times, with the exception of a portion of the west of Kansu and the greater portions of Ssuch'uan and Yunnan. At the time of the Manchu conquest at the beginning of the seventeenth century A.D. it embraced all the territory lying between latitude 18o and 40o N. and longitude 98o and 122o E. (the Eighteen Provinces or China Proper), with the addition of the vast outlying territories of Manchuria, Mongolia, Ili, Koko-nor, Tibet, and Corea, with suzerainty over Burma and Annam - an area of more than 5,000,000 square miles, including the 2,000,000 square miles covered by the Eighteen Provinces. Generally, this territory is mountainous in the west, sloping gradually down toward the sea on the east (p. 18).
It is generally accepted that, on their arrival, the Chinese fought with the aboriginal tribes, exterminating, absorbing or driving them south. The Han Dynasty lasted from 205 BCE to 226 CE and was distinguished by its military prowess. The Chinese as late as this century were still fond of referring to themselves as the sons of Han. Between 194 BCE and 1414 CE the Chinese annexed Korea, Sinkiang (known as the new territory or Eastern Turkestan), Manchuria, Formosa, Tibet and Mongolia. Tibet was again added to the empire under Sun-che (1644-1661) at the establishment of the Manchu-tartar [Ta] tsing (great pure) dynasty. Formosa and Korea were annexed by Japan in 1895 and 1910 respectively. Werner holds that:
the Chinese 'picked out the eyes of the land' and consequently the non-Chinese tribes now live in the unhealthy forests or marshes of the south, or in mountainous regions difficult of access, some even in trees (a voluntary, not a compulsory promotion), though several, such as the Dog Jung in Fukien, retain settlements like islands among the ruling race.
In the third century B.C. began the hostile relations of the Chinese with the northern nomads, which continued throughout the greater part of their history. During the first six centuries A.D. there was intercourse with Rome, Parthia, Turkey, Mesopotamia, Ceylon, India, and Indo-China, and in the seventh century with the Arabs. Europe was brought within the sociological environment by Christian travellers. From the tenth to the thirteenth century the north was occupied by Kitans and Nuchens, and the whole Empire was under Mongol sway for eighty-eight years in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Relations of a commercial and religious nature were held with neighbours during the following four hundred years. Regular diplomatic intercourse with Western nations was established as a result of a series of wars in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (pp. 20-21).
China acquired and lost territory on numerous occasions during the course of its history. From 73 to 48 BCE "'all Asia from Japan to the Caspian Sea was tributary to the Middle Kingdom' i.e. China" (ibid., p. 27). During the Southern Sung dynasty (1127-1280) the Mongol Tartars owned the northern half of China, as far down as the Yangtze River, and in the Yuan dynasty (1280-1368) they conquered the whole country. During the period 1644-1912 it was under the rule of the Manchus.”
The Malay people established in the Southeast Asian Archipelagos and island systems holding the line at the mountains of Southern Thailand. They moved into the Philippines and on into the Northern Polynesian system, which is predominantly Hg O. They continued to the West into the Indian Ocean as far as Madagascar and also settled groups in South Africa. The conflict in Malaysia and Indonesia between the Chinese and the Malays is a legacy of the Han expansion into the South and the suppression of the Southern tribes into and expulsion from China. The same conflict exists between the Japanese, Tibetans and Koreans as well as the Manchu and Mongols and the Siberian tribes. Many of them nevertheless carry the legacy of the Hg O systems of Asia.
The question must arise as to how the sons of HN can vary so much in their colouring and hair and skin types. The answer lies in the female mtDNA and the absorption of the Asian type mtDNA of the conquered people. The female mtDNA is quite separate and distinct from the two groups in the West and in East Asia.
The evolutionist extended datings are fanciful nonsense and do not stand up to scrutiny.
The development of the trade routes into Southeast Asia extended from the Red Sea east into India and on into the Tonking ethnic system with its capital at Hanoi held sway until ca 150 CE and even after when Canton captured that role from it in the Third century (cf. F.J. Moorhead, A History of Malaya And Her Neighbours, Vol. 1, Longmans of Malaysia, 1965, p. 3).
The so-called early man in Indonesia at Flores was found to be a late degenerate form of the modern YDNA Haplogroups and little is published of the YDNA and mtDNA finds in the area.
The development of Southeast Asia trade routes were closely linked to the Indian religious developments and after the development of Buddhism the Indian shipping and trade system was able to develop free of the rigid caste systems of Hinduism that held sway under the early Indianisation of Southeast Asia and that system later gave way to the Muslim traders (cf. Mysticism Chapter 9 South East Asian Systems (No. B7_9)).
The varied mtDNA systems of the Far East took place from the high levels of background radiation from areas such as Kerala and mutations are known to occur at such a rapid rate as one per generation with grandmothers, mothers and daughters each having different mutations due to background natural radiation.
Meaning of the word Han
The word Han is not peculiar to the group called the Han Chinese. The word appears to be Uralic Altaic and forms an intrinsic part of the Korean concept of the Righteous love of God. The Koreans look upon Han as the basis of their connection with God as sons of God. This Han of the Koreans is the sense of righteous love and responsibility and the remorse that comes, after the giving of everything and all effort, from the rejection of this righteous love and responsibility. It is the feeling of the righteous sorrow of God in His rejection by mankind in the creation, and the righteous sorrow of parents in their rejection by their offspring.
Han is the endless anguish and sorrow of unrequited hope and love such as God has experienced for the creation and from His immutable love and goodness.
In this sense the Sons of HN all carry this name as a tribal marker of brotherhood as sons of God separated from God by the sins of the world in an endless longing for love and restoration with the Supreme God of Heaven. The Chinese call Him Shang Di and their main tribe see themselves as comprising the sons of God filled with Han. So also are the Magyars sons of HN as the Huns and Finns as sons of God filled with this HN as intense desire for reconciliation to God. Thus HN was a son of God as one of the descendants of Noah.
See the YDNA chart in the Appendix below.