For details on when the east met with the west, see this webmaster's discussion on the Huns, the Yuezhi, the Tarim Mummies, the Yuezhi-Yushi misnomer, the Mongoloid-Caucasoid admixture at 2000 B.C.E., the fallacy of the Aryan bearing of the Chinese civilization, the fallacy of the Yuezhi jade trade, the Yuezhi migration timeline, as well as the location of the Kunlun Mountain, Queen Mother of the West, the legendary book of mountains and seas Imperial China blog, and the Qiang's possible routes of passage into Chinese Turkestan at http://www.imperialchina.org/Barbarians.htm which was embedded within the Huns.html and Turks_Uygurs.html pages. (Note that Western Queen Mother had the prototype in an "earth mother" deity, not related to Queen Sheba of Charles Hucker. The Mt. Kunshan jade was more likely the Mt. Huoshan jade in the Han dynasty book Huai Nan Zi, or the Mt. Yiwulv jade or the Kunlun jade that were juxtaposed together in the same book Huai Nan Zi, not related to Queen Mother of the West. http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp115_chinese_proto_indo_european.pdf provides another perspective of looking at things of the past from the perspective of language cognates. Rather believing that the Indo-Europeans ever invaded China and gave the Sinitic people the language, we could actually deduce that "Old Chinese", for its 43% correlation with the Proto-North-Caucasian, rather 23% with the Proto-Indo-European, was the source for both the cognates of the Proto-North-Caucasian and the Proto-Indo-European. This is because our cousins, i.e., the N haplogroup people, relocated to North Asia and then to Scandinavia, bringing along the Sinitic language to the Proto-North-Caucasian who in turn gave it to the Proto-Indo-European. Note our 74% correlation with Proto-Tibeto-Burman.)



Li Hui of Fudan University of China had analyzed the Asian DNAs to have derived a conclusion that the ancestors of the Asians possessed a distinctive Mark M89 by the time they arrived in Southeast Asia. About 30,000 years ago, from the launching pad of Southeast Asia, the early Asians went through a genetic mutation to marker M122. Li Hui claimed that the early migrants to the Chinese continent took three routes via two entries of today's Yunnan and Guangxi-Guangdong provinces. More studies done after Li Hui had ascertained the dates of the O1, O2 and O3 haplogroup people, with the the (O1, O2) entrants along the Southeast Chinese coast dated to have split away from the O3-haplogroup people like 20,000 years ago, much earlier than the continental peers, i.e., the Sino-Tibetans (O3a3c1-M117), Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao, O3a3b-M7) and Mon-khmers. According to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5255561/ "Y chromosome suggested Tibeto-Burman populations are an admixture of the northward migrations of East Asian initial settlers with haplogroup D-M175 in the Late Paleolithic age, and the southward Di-Qiang people with dominant haplogroup O3a2c1*-M134 and O3a2c1a-M117 in the Neolithic Age. Haplogroup O3a2c1*-M134 and O3a2c1a-M117 are also characteristic lineages of Han Chinese, comprising 11.4% and 16.3%, respectively. However, another dominant paternal lineage of Han Chinese, haplogroup O3a1c-002611, is found at very low frequencies in Tibeto-Burman populations, suggesting this lineage might not have participated in the formation of Tibeto-Burman populations." Namely, the haplogroup O3a1c-002611 Sinitic people was responsible for engendering the Yangshao and Longshan civilization, and partially with the N-haplogroup people, engendering the Hongshan civilization. (Since the O3a1c-002611 people were separated from the Northwestern cousins and Tibeto-Burmese at an early age, for it to have a part in the history of Northwestern China, the explanation would be to treat the Haplogroup O3a2c1*-M134 and O3a2c1a-M117 people as the historical Qiang and Hu barbarians, with the latter's paleo-Northwestern genes replacing the paleo-North-China and paleo-Central Plains genes of O3a1c-002611 Sinitic people by the Soong dynasty (A.D. 960-1279), that was likely triggered by the multiplication of the Tang dynasty's imperial house that had its origin from the Western Corridor. The Soong royal house, however, could be of the Shato Turks' Q-haplogroup gene. Also see this webmaster's discussion on the ethnic nature of the ancient Huns belonging to part of the epic Jiang-rong human migration of the Jiang-surnamed San-miao people and Yun-surnamed Xianyun people.)



Li Hui commented that one branch of the early Asians, over 10,000 years ago, entered China's southeastern coastline with genetic marker M119. Li Hui, claiming the same ancestry as the Dai-zu and Shui-zu minorities of Southwestern China, firmly believed that his ancestors had dwelled in the Hangzhou Bay and the Yangtze Delta for 7-8 thousand years. The people with the M119 marker would be the historical "Hundred Yue People". The interesting theory adopted by Li Hui would be the migration of one branch of people who continued to travel non-stop along the Chinese coastline to reach the Liao-he River area of today's Manchuria. Li Hui's speculation on basis of the DNA technology was an evolving process. This would be likely the O2-haplogroup people, rather than the C-haplogroup people whose historical presence in Asia could be dated 50,000 year ago, just after the earlier D-haplogroup people who were now mostly restricted in the area of Hokkaido, Japan, and known as the Ainu. The C-haplogroup people developed into what this webmaster called by the Altaic-speaking people, i.e., ancestors of the Mongols and Manchus. What likely happened was that the O2-haplogroup people first travelled along the coast to reach Manchuria, and then traced back towards the south to reach the Yangtze area about 7-8000 years ago, where they evicted the O1-haplogroup people to the Southeast Asian islands. At about the same time, the O3-haplogroup people, moving through the continent, reached today's western Liaoning at least 5000 years ago, or like 11,000 years ago on basis of the evidence of the pottery aging. See the genetical analysis conducted by Li Hongjie of Jirin University on the remains of prehistoric people extracted from the archaeological sites.

Northeast (southeastern Inner Mongolia) Niuheliang, Lingyuan, the Hongshan Culture, 5000 YBP, 4 N, 1 C*, 1 O North Yuxian County (the Sanguan site), Hebei, the Lower Xiajiadian Culture, 3400-3800 YBP, all O3 Combining Li Hui's study with the pottery excavation, we could see a clear path going north extending from around 15,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago. Refer to Yaroslav V. Kuzmin's discourse on potteries to see the path of migration of proto-Mongoloids from southwestern China (approx. 15,120+/-500 BP) to Northeast Asia (Manchuria [13,000 BP, or c. 14,000 - 13,600 cal BC] and Japan [c. 11,800-10,500 cal BC (c. 13,800 - 12,500 cal BP)]) to Siberia (11,000 BP, or 11,200 - 10,900 cal BC).



In the timeframe of about 10,000 years, developing a genetic mutation to the marker M134, one branch of people who went direct north, per Li Hui, would penetrate the snowy Hengduan Mountains of the Tibetan-Qinghai Plateau to arrive at the area next to the Yellow River bends. Owning to the cold weather environment, some physique, such as big noses, heavy lips and longer faces, developed among this group of people, i.e., ancestors of the Sino-Tibetans. Splitting out of this northbound migrants would be those who went to the east with a new genetic marker M117, i.e., ancestors of the modern Han [a misnomer as the proper term should be Sino-Tibetan, nor the later Sinitic] Chinese. We could say that our Sino-Tibetan ancestors forgot that they had penetrated northward the Hengduan Mountains from the Indo-China "CORRIDOR" in today's Burma-Vietnam. "Walking down Mt Kunlun", i.e., the "collective memory of the ethnic Han Chinese" throughout China and the Southeast Asian Chinese communities, that was echoed in Guo Xiaochuan's philharmonic-agitated epic, would become the starting point of the eastward migration which our Chinese ancestors remembered. (Li Hui grouped the 3000-year-old Chu and Qi people in the same category as the Han Chinese, albeit meeting the ancient classics' records as to the Qi statelet's lineage from the Qiangic-Tibetan Fiery Lord. According to https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1759-6831.2012.00244.x "the frequencies of the three main subhaplogroups of O3-M122: O3a1c-002611, O3a2c1*-M134, and O3a2c1a-M117 in Han Chinese are 16.9%, 11.4%, and 16.3%, respectively (Yan et al., 2011). The northward migration of haplogroup O3a1c-002611 started about 13 thousand years ago (KYA). The expansions of subclades F11 and F238 in ancient Han Chinese began about 5 and 7 KYA immediately after the separation between the ancestors of the Han Chinese and Tibeto-Burman. Haplogroup O3a1c-002611 and O3a1c1-F11 started their northward migration about 12?KYA from Southeast Asia, along with other O3-M122 lineages, and reached the upper and middle Yellow River basin. About 7?KYA, haplogroup O3a1c2-F238 originated in the ancestors of modern Sino-Tibetan populations. About 6?KYA, the Han Chinese split from the Proto-Sino-Tibetan, and started their migration to the east and south (Su et al., 2000b). About 5?KYA, haplogroup O3a1c1-F11 experienced rapid expansion, probably in the Eastern Han Chinese, with recent gene flow with surrounding populations and eventually became prevalent in different ethnic groups in East Asia.)



Li Hui then pointed out that the ancient Wu people, with M7 genetic marker, came to the lower Yangtze area about 3000 years ago. While Li Hui claimed that the M7 Wu people had split away from the northbound M134 Sino-Tibetan people, the historical Chinese classics pointed out that the Wu Statelet was established by two uncles of Zhou Dynasty King Wenwang, i.e., migrants from the Yellow River area. The general layout by Lu Hui seems to have corroborated with Scholar Luo Xianglin's claim that early Sino-Tibetan people originated from the Mt Minshan and upper-stream River Min-jiang areas of today's Sichuan-Gansu provincial borderline and then split into two groups, with one going north to reach the Wei-shui River and upperstream Han-shui River of Shenxi Province and then eastward to Shanxi Province by crossing the Yellow River. --Though, this webmaster's analysis of China's prehistory shows that the Sino-Tibetan people who moved to the eastern coast was one group, with the future Tibetans being actually the exiles to Northwest China from eastern and central China during the era of Lord Shun. Namely, the split of the Sinitic and proto-Tibetan people occurred prior and during the exile in the late 3rd millennium B.C.E. (George Driem proposed that the Sino-Tibetans had splitoffs like the Western Tibeto-Burmans and the Eastern Tibeto-Burnams, with the Eastern Tibeto-Burnams forming two groups of northern and southern, who in turn split into the Northwestern Tibeto-Burmans, the Northeastern Tibeto-Burmans, the Southwestern Tibeto-Burmans, and the Southeastern Tibeto-Burmans, with a claim that the western offshoots went all the way to the Kashmir before returning east along the northern slope of the Himalayas to have a reunion with their cousins and that the Northeastern Tibeto-Burmans were the Sinitic people.)



What Li Hui did not touch on in his earliest studies were the cousin tribes of the Sino-Tibetans, namely, the Hmong-miens and Mon-khmers. As noted at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3164178/, "A clear hierarchical structure (annual ring shape) emerged in the network of O3a3b-M7 (Fig. 2B), in which MK (Mon-Khmers) haplotypes lay at the center of the network (immediately next to the origin), HM (Hmong-Mien) haplotypes were distributed at the periphery to the MK haplotypes, and the ST (here the subfamily Tibeto-Burman) haplotypes were only found further away from the origin."