Are the Chinese and the Japanese related?

We all have a common ancestor, so you'll have rephrase your question a little.

Have a look at this wikipedia article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_people

And follow the links to the Ainu

Then this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_China

I don't think there is a definitive answer but you might find what you're looking for.

reply to HIngehead's questions
Hi. The Chinese and the Japanese are members of the Mongoloid persuasion. THere are some Chinese that resemble Japanese and vice versa. Are native Chinese and Japanese related-genetically? Who in Asia are the Chinese and Japanese descendants from, and what groups of people in Asia are they related to? Did the Chinese and the Japanese descnd form the same group of people?

I read somewhere that a group of Chinese people went from China to establish themselves in what is Japan nowadays, but I don't know if it is accurate. That some Chinese persons look like some Japanese persons may just mean that they have relatives on both sides, because the Chinese and Japanese people do not look like each other.

You say that the Japanese and Chinese are members of the Mongoloid persuasion. I don't know what persuasion means in this case, but Chinese and Mongols are different people. The fact that the Great Wall of China was built was to keep the invading Mongols from Chinese territory.

Who the Chinese descend from would be difficult to say, the Chinese people have existed in China for so many thousand years, I just can't imagine they descend from someone else in Asia. But I may be wrong.

Mongoloid persuasion . . . ain't that a f*ckin' gem.

Yeah, they're related, on their mother's side of the family . . .

Even "Chinese" or what is no referred to as Han-Chinese isn't really a single "mongoloid" race/ethnic group, but is composed of an assimilation of hundreds of distinctive cultures and ethnic groups. That was until after China was united into a single country during ancient times, and during which almost everyone were forced to speak a single language and labelled as "Han", and all other existing languages and literatures were destroyed. There might be certain groups of these people who are more related to the Japanese people than others.

Although by now there's already considerable mixing between the different "Chinese" subgroups, people from different rural parts of China actually still retain certain distinctive facial features, and speak "chinese" with different dialects and practices different customs.

There is currently a school of thought among ethnologists (just read about it recently) to the effect that the modern Japanese arose after a migration from the Korean peninsula, at a time when Japan was inhabited only by old stone age people (the relict of whom are the modern Ainu).

This point of view is not only recent, but controversial. However, i believe i am correct in saying that there is archaeological evidence alleged for it, and that it can be considered to be a majority opinion among ethnologists. There has long been linguistic evidence for the relationship between the Koreans and the Japanese, but it is very controversial, and continues to be hotly contested. Korean and Japanese are Altaic languages, and are related to Mongolian and Turkic languages. Some claim this is because they are all the descendants of the first proto-Altaic tribes, and others deny this, saying that the linguistic similarities are only relational, based upon once having inhabited the same area.

So, the answer on those bases would be that if the Chinese and Japanese are related, it is not a very close relationship, and probably extends back to the dawn of modern humans.

Yes, the Chinese and the Japanese are related, and so is everybody else in the world. Everybody alive today had an ancestor in common sometime within the last five thousand years.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201908,00.html

I think those boys have outthought themselves. How do they account for the aboriginal inhabitants of Australia, who migrated there 40,000 years ago?

It's controversial mainly in Japan. Most non-Japanese ethnologists agree that the ancestors of modern Japanese came from Korea and displaced the neolithic ancestors of the Ainu. There is not only archeological evidence for this but linguistic hints and indicators as well. But most Japanese scholars are reluctant to admit any very close ties to Koreans for historic reasons.

As to the original question of this thread -- sure they're related. In the same sense that the Swedes and the Italians are related. Not very close, is it?

The Koreans ain't necessarily thrilled by the new viewpoint, either. As well, Chinese ethnologists don't necessarily agree (some Chinese ethnologists have long viewed both Koreans and Japanese are barbaric, poor relations; many of those who object that the Altaic languages descend from a proto-Altaic language of related tribes are Chinese).

Did you read the link to the Fox News article that M. Jack posted, MA? I'd be interested to know what your take on that is.

Thanks for the heads-up, Set. I hadn't looked at the Fox News article until you suggested it. (My natural tendency, whenever I see the words foxnews, is to look for the thumbs-down button. )

Now that I've looked at it, my reaction is that I'm always leery of any theory which is purely mathematical and takes no other evidence into consideration. It makes for a neat package, of course, and is devilishly difficult to refute. But there's a visceral gut reaction which says, 'this just can't be true.' I mean, can you stand the thought that you're actually related to Zippo or Gungasnake? That these are calabash cousins? Nah, I refuse to admit even the remote possibility of such a disaster.

Ah, that will be your penance in this low world!

Love the wry humor . . .



Yes, that is essentially my objection. It has other problems, though. It does not, to revert to my original objection, account for the aboriginal Australians. They arrived in the subcontinent 40,000 years ago. Their only close linguistic, genetic and cultural (as revealed by archaeology and ethnology) relations are the New Guineans and Papuans. The dingo arrived in Australia at some point between about 20,000 and 12,000 years ago. That arrival did not require intermarriage with whatever Austronesian people introduced it, but even if it had involved intermarriage, that's still well before the 7,000 year threshhold here. But more compelling is the fact that aboriginal Australians did not have any of the suite of domesticated plants, and no other domesticated animals than the dog/dingo which could have come from Austronesian people. They have no linguistic relationship to Austronesians (and even the highland New Guineans who live in areas into which the Austronesians never penetrated have loan words from one of any of the several Austronesian language family for Asian yams, or chickens, or the pottery or tool technology which diffused from the coasts). They had none of the technological artifacts of the Austronesians. They share no discernable genetic heritage with Austronesian peoples which postdate the migration to Australia of about 40,000 years ago.

The Amerindians present another problem for this thesis, as well. I could probably work up some more objections to the thesis, but given its basis, which as you point out is only mathematical, i will remain skeptical. I rather suspect that there is a great deal which they have not taken into account.

By the way, i learned for the first time recently that pottery first appears in the archaeological record 14,000 years ago, and in Japan. That is surprising, and significant. It predates the earliest evidence of the domestication of plants and animals, which was in the middle east a little over 10,000 years ago. More importantly, it means that the hunter-gatherers of Japan were sufficiently successful, and their environment sufficient provident, that they had a surplus which allowed the "leisure" to develop pottery, and to form settled villages. It should be obvious that itinerant hunter-gatherers aren't going to have any incentive to make pottery when it would just be something awkward to carry and heavy.

Be aware of terms here. Ofdtwen times a better term might be used is Mongolian..not Mongoloid (though still correct). A mongoloid can have a connotation of a defective birth.

..as in Down syndrome baby. However, mongoloid tem is considered perjorative when referring to Down syndrome baby.

My father told me a story about the origins of Japan , again this could be true and it could also be a myth . There is a Chinese folktale that long time ago during the ancient times . A Chinese emperor was so concerned about his mortality that he decided to send an expedition to look for a potion that whoever drinks this will become immortal . So he heard about a land called FUSANG from a local monk , which is located east of the Korean peninsula , but across the sea . Traditionally this is believed as the land of Japan and that the potion can be found in that island .
So , he sent an expedition of several ships with his best generals and their family ( the cream of the crop ) to look for the legendary Fusang . And to try and look for that potion , that is supposed to make the emperor immortal . The ships left and searched for the land . But all the ships never returned , reports said that the men and women settled into the new land and started their own nation which we now know as Japan .

Sounds like the pilgrim fathers when they left
Plymouth , England .

I believed so...take a look at the Tokyo train station. The traditional Chinese characters are still displayed on the train stations. Of course, over the years the Japanese have already simplified them to what we now know as "Kanji". A tour guide in Korea mentioned that the Koreans are descendants of Mongolians. So, not sure how they're all interrelated.

You're going to have a hard time explaining why the Japanese and Chinese languages are not remotely related to one another, and why the Japanese had pottery more than 5,000 years before the Chinese did. Borrowing someone's written language doesn't prove much.