Below maps were added to the http://www.imperialchina.org/Barbarians.htm which was embedded within the http://www.imperialchina.org/Huns.html and http://www.imperialchina.org/Turks_Uygurs.html pages. On basis of the new archaeological findings and historical Chinese records, this webmaster will tentatively speculate on when the east met with the west.

First this webmaster wants to debunk the fallacies in regards to the equation of the ancient Yu-shi tribe to the Yuezhi, and the speculation on the jade trade that the Yuezhi was falsely accredited with. The forged Guan Zi [管子] statement contained a reference which was a misnomer related to the 'Yu-shi' tribe, a term that was erroneously speculated by a few annotators in history, as well as scholar Wang Guowei of the early 20th century, to be the same as Yuezhi per soundex. Guo Yu, a political discourse book that was similar to Zhan Guo Ce, could be merely Han dynasty Confucian compilings, while Guan Zi, i.e., the fabled Legalist founding master, was at most a political economy book written in the late Western Han dynasty or at the turn of B.C. and A.D.

See Barbarians.htm for more discussion on the forged statements in Guan Zi [管子] (which historian Ma Feibai pierced sentence by sentence). Around the Xin (New) Dynasty (AD 6-23), there occurred a forgery movement by the Chinese scholars, possibly with the intention of substantiating the mandate of the usurper Wang Mang's dynasty. The classics which were proved to be forgeries include "Guan Zi [管子]", which historian Ma Feibai pierced sentence by sentence. Using Ma's same logic, this webmaster had found the two other books, "Yi-zhou-shu" [逸周书] or "Zhou-shu" (Zhou Dynasty [11th cen. B.C. - 256 B.C.] [abbrev. 周书] book, not the Zhou-shu [周书] from Posterior Zhou Dynasty of the South-North Dynasty time period of AD 557-581) and "Shang[1]-shu" [商书] (Shang Dynasty [16-11th cent. B.C.] book, not Shang[4]-shu [尚书], i.e., the remotely ancient book which was said to be abridged by Zuo Qiuming [Zuoqiu Ming]), to be written in the exact same style and could be forgeries by possibly the same person[s]. Discarding the forgery of Guan Zi [管子] basically eliminated the whole foundation upon which the existence of the Yuezhi and the jade trade was built, a fallacy which was widely cited in the most recent 10-20 years, i.e., the 1990s and 2000s, to the effect that the fabricated Yuezhi had lived close to the heartland of China, playing the role of bearing the Aryan civilization to China. Another school of thought, which was intended to discredit the Yellow Civilization, would be the false claim that the Sinitic Civilization "began in 3000 B.C. at Liangzhu", namely, the Yangtze River estuary --which was a taken-out-of-context judgment on the new findings from the multiple Neolithic sites and their age from across China. Still another school would be the claim that the Shang Chinese were the ancient Koreans. (A recent writing on the ancient forgeries at the imperialchina.org blog, which was not in the sense of political correctness till the later Western Han Dynasty, is available in pdf format: ImperialChinaOrg-on-forgeries.pdf.)

This webmaster never thought the people of the Central Asia or in Chinese Turkestan were an intermediary form of human evolution, which was the basis of calling the Siberian origin of the Koreans a 'moo' point. This webmaster had pointed out that in the collective memory of the Sino-Tibetans, that passed down by generations through millennia, the Sinitic Chinese had forgot that they had travelled north from today's Burma-Vietnam while claiming to have walked down Mt Kunlun. Previously, this webmaster checked into the historical context as well as the geo situation to find out about when the east met with the west, and believed that the 3rd century B.C.E. Hun-Yuezhi War could be the start of the contact between Sinitic China and the West, i.e., the trigger that led to the chain reaction of the Yuezhi attacking the Wusun, and the Wusun attacking the Scythians, and so on. With the new archeological findings, this webmaster would add that about 5000 years ago, the proto-Tibetan Qiangs had indeed penetrated into Chinese Turkestan, to the north side of Mt Tianshan, from perhaps the southeastern rim of the Taklamakan Desert, 2000 years ahead of the Hun-Yuezhi War.

Now, this webmaster made a hypothetical claim here that the Huns could have encountered the Yuezhi at the "Great Lake" ("da ze"), namely, the Juyan Lake. In the Juyan-ze Lake area, the bamboo strips (slips) were discovered, with evidence of the existence of names of the [famed] nine Zhaowu clans, 80 years or 3-4 generations after the first Hunnic attack against the Yuezhi: K'ang (Samarkand), An (Bukhara), Shih (Tashkent, i.e., Kishsh [Kashana]), Mi (Maymurgh [Penjikent]), Ts'ao (Kaputana), Ho (Kushanik [Kusanya]), Mu (Murv, ? Huoxun [Khwarezmia]), and Su (Sudi, Bilinmemektedir). Here, the likely event was that the nine clans invaded Central Asia, where they mutated their [possibly Sinitic] names to the multiple-syllable statelet names, before the descendants of the nine clans returned to the east in the subsequent half millennium. See Wang Guowei's theory of invaders coming from the East while traders from the West for understanding the nature of the nine Zhaowu clans of the Yuezhi.

Note the difference of one year in the chronicling, as seen across the history writings on the Han dynasty, which was the result of the wholesale misunderstanding of the Qin Empire's Zhuanxu-li calendar and the virtual Yin-li (Shang dynasty) calendar, something covered in this webmaster's book The Sinitic Civilization. All history books had error in the Han dynasty's reign years, including the Hunnic chronicling years. The Huns’ military activities could have happened any time between 209 B.C. and 202 B.C. Nicola Di Cosmo (Ancient China and its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History, Cambridge University Press (2002)) claimed that the attacks of Donghu and Yuezhi happened in 208 B.C. and 203 B.C, respectively. Thomas Barfield (The Perilous Frontier, Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell (1989)) stated that the Han founder-emperor's October-November 201 B.C. Baideng debacle happened in year 200 B.C., not knowing that the early Han emperors' reign years started in October of a prior year and ended in September of the consecutive year. Professor Gernet hedged himself in pinning the Hunnic-Han War, namely, Emperor Liu Bang's defeat at the Baideng mountain, to the period "201-200 B.C.", which should be November 201 B.C. when strictly observing the Zhuanxu-li calendar's ordinal months.

Click on the below picture for the enlarged map showing the first Hunnic attack at the Yuezhi possibly around the ancient Juyan Lake (later known as the Kharakhoto [Blackwater] Lake, Ejina or Juyan - before this 'West Sea' concept was applied to today's Qinghai-hu Lake by the usurper-emperor Wang Mang when he set up the Xi-hai-jun commandary using the imaginary four-seas' concept in Shan Hai Jing (The Legends of Mountains & Seas). The reason that this webmaster made this hypothesis is that the Huns were more subsequently recorded to have fought another war against the Wusun, Loulan, Hujie and etc., i.e., the twenty-six statelets of Chinese Turkestan, at the place somewhere near Yiwu in the 2nd century B.C., to the east of Turpan, which then triggered the Wusun migration to Ili where they further drove the Yuezhi towards today's Afghanistan. (See Barbarians.htm for more discussions on the Yuezhi migration timeline.)


T.O.C.; Afterword; Index	T.O.C.; Afterword; Index
Sovereigns & Thearchs; Xia-Shang-Zhou dynasties; Zhou dynasty's vassalage lords; Lu Principality lords; Han dynasty's reign years (Sexagenary year conversion table-2698B.C.-A.D.2018; 247B.C.-A.D.85)
The Sinitic Civilization - Book I is available now at iUniverse, Barnes & Noble, Amazon, Google Play\|Books and Nook. The Sinitic Civilization - Book II is available at iUniverse, Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Check out the 2nd edition preface that had an overview of the epact adjustment of the quarter remainder calendars of the Qin and Han dynasties, and the 3rd edition introductory that had an overview of Sinitic China's divinatory history of 8000 years. The 2nd edition, which realigned the Han dynasty's reign years strictly observing the Zhuanxu-li calendar of October of a prior lunar year to September of the following lunar year, also cleared this webmaster's blind spot on the authenticity of the Qinghua University's Xi Nian bamboo slips as far as Zhou King Xiewang's 21 years of co-existence with Zhou King Pingwang was concerned, a handicap due to sticking to Wang Guowei's Gu Ben Bamboo Annals and ignoring the records in Kong Yingda's Zheng Yi. Stayed tuned for Book III that is to cover the years of A.D. 86-1279, i.e., the Mongol conquest of China, that caused a loss of 80% of China's population and broke the Sinitic nation's spine. Preview of annalistic histories of the Sui and Tang dynasties, the Five Dynasties, and the two Soong dynasties could be seen in *From the Khitans to the Jurchens & Mongols: A History of Barbarians in Triangle Wars and Quartet Conflicts* (The Barbarians' Tetralogy - Book III: available at iUniverse; Google; Amazon; B&N). (A final update of the civilization series, that is scheduled for October 2022, would put back the table of the Lu Principality ruling lords' reign years, that was inadvertently dropped from Book I during the 2nd update.)

Book II - Table of Contents:
Section Seven: The Han Dynasty
Relationship with the Huns 392
Chapter XXXIII: The Hunnic Empire 409
Origin of the Huns 409
The Rong & Di Barbarians in the Context of Relation to the Fiery Thearch, the San-miao Exiles and the last Xia Dynasty King 413
The Zhou, Qin and Jinn's Zigzag Wars with the Barbarians & the Construction of the Great Walls 417
Mote's Hun Empire, the Yuezhi People, and the Early Han Dynasty 424
The Huns & the Eastern Hu Barbarians 430
The Hunnic Government Structure & the Dragon Reverence 431
Chapter XXXIV: The Han Dynasty's Wars with the Huns 435
Chapter XXXVI: The Western Expedition, The Kunlun Mountain & Shan Hai Jing 489
Han Emperor Wudi Seeking Elixir from the Immortals on the Kunlun Mountain 491
Credible Geography Book on the Mountains Possibly Expanded to Include the Legendary Kunlun Mountain 493
Unearthly Things in the Mountains' Component of The Legends of Mountains & Seas 501
The Divination Nature and Age of the Seas' Component of The Legends of Mountains & Seas 506
Chapter XXXVII: Shan Hai Jing & The Ancient Divination 520
Chapter XL: The Latter Han Dynasty's Chronological History 560
The Relation with the Southern Huns 561

On the modern map, there was a tiny sand bridge between Chinese Turkistan and China, which was the narrow strip of desert sand to the east of Hami. However, this corridor, today's Kumul line, could be a recent event. There was the historical Da-qi4 blackhole desert to the east, nowadays called by the generic name GOBI. Specifically, near today's Hohhot, there was an ancient Chinese geological name called "qi4 kou", namely, the entry point into the Da-qi4 Desert. The ancient Sino-Tibetan migration into the Tianshan Mountain could have come north from south, i.e., the Tibetan Plateau/Ruoqiang direction to the south --though this webmaster hesitated about the passibility of the "Liu-sha" [quick sand] desert between Ruoqiang and Loulan (Lop Nur), which was another tiny sand bridge noticeable on the modern map.

Judging from Han Dynasty emissary Zhang Qian's change of mind on his return trip to go home along the Hami strip rather than going straight east across the Qiang-zhong [i.e., the middle Qiang nation land], we could tell that the northern strip was perhaps the most traveler-friendly. (Could Zhang Qian had changed his mind in the hope of sneaking into the Hunnic territory to see the child he had with a Hunnic woman?) That was Han Emperor Wudi (commonly-taken wrong reign 140-87 B.C. or 140-86 B.C.; nominal Oct 141-Dec 87 B.C.; actual Jan 141-Feb 87 B.C.)'s reign of B.C. 141-87, i.e., 141 BC and later, much later than Hun-Yuezhi wars.

Now, let's talk about the human migration. There were widespread discussions of the 'Caucasoid' mummies in Chinese Turkestan, with the 'Loulan Beaty' purportedly dated 2000 B.C., while the southern 'cousins' in the Khotan area dated 100-300 B.C. The timeline suggested a move from north to south, not west to east. The 2000 B.C. Caucasoid mummies found in Loulan, in the Turpan Depression/Kumtag Desert, in-between Altaic/Tianshan Mountains and the Altun Mountain (Ruoqiang), could be the Indo-European people coming from the north of the Altaic Mountain [the Mongol Altaic Mountain of today], near the Alfaniesevo (Alfanesevo) bronze culture. Though, Yuezhi might not be of this group of people coming from north. Further diggings in the Loulan area, i.e., the ancient Salty Lake and Salty River (Peacock Rover), led to a site called by Xiaohe or the Little River, next to the Salty River (Peacock Rover), where the Mongoloid Mummies were discovered. It appears to this webmaster that there was indeed good carbon dating on the Xiaohe excavation, which stated that "The entire necropolis can be divided, based on the archeological materials, into earlier and later layers. Radiocarbon measurement (14C) dates the lowest layer of occupation to around 3980 +/1 40 BP (personal communications; calibrated and measured by Wu Xiaohong, Head of the Laboratory of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Peking University), which is older than that of the Gumugou cemetery (dated to 3800)." The article claimed that the 'Mongoloid' mtDNA had similarity to some present South Siberian population. (For details, check http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15 for the full article "Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age".)

The linking of this certain mtDNA in the Xiaohe/Loulan area to a modern Siberian population could be said to be circumvential at best since a lot of things might had happened in the past 4000 years. That is, the linkage to the Siberian population could be actually an effect, not a source. This area kind of had the same timing as the Mongoloid mummies that were discovered to the north and east of the Tianshan Mountain. More than what was found about the mtDNA at Xiaohe/Loulan, there were mummies of the Khams-Tibetan type found to the further north, in the Tianshan-Altaic mountain areas, which presented a much more convincing point that the proto-Tibetan Qiangs, from the south, had indeed crossed over the strip of the sand desert near Loulan to reach the north side of Tianshan. Possibly, the Khams [proto-]Tibetan, after reaching the Tianshan Mountain Range, moved towards Hami (Qumul) to the east, where there were the Hami (Qumul) Mongoloid mummies excavated. Note that today's Kham Tibetans were not far away from the historical Sanxingdui (three star) Excavations in western Sichuan, that was discovered by Gaway Hann (an American professor of the former Hua-xi [west China] University), a Neolithic/Bronze culture dating from about 4800 to 2800 years ago, as well as a bridge providing Southwest China's tin to the Shang dynasty and the Zhou dynasty.

This webmaster's reasoning was that the Qiangs had a dominance in the area since China's prehistory, like 5000 years ago, at least the time of the Yellow Emperor [Huangdi (? BC 2697 - 2599; reign 2402-2303 with rule of 100 years per Zhu Yongtang's adjustment of The Bamboo Annals], and they controlled the southern rim, southeastern rim and eastern rim of the Taklamakan Desert, and somehow around 2000 B.C., penetrated northward to reach the two sides of the Tianshan mountain range, while the so-called Caucasoid oases in their path, namely, the Loulan area, might have risen and fallen numerous times in history -- if they ever existed there prior to the penetration by the Khams [proto-]Tibetans. Or the other way around, the Khams [proto-]Tibetans could be speculated to have penetrated to the two sides of the Tianshan mountain range earlier than the Indo-Europeans, and subsequently encountered the Indo-Europeans near the Tianshan Mountain, and ultimately the Indo-Europeans gradually dominated over the area and eliminated the trace of the Khams [proto-]Tibetans, pressing them back to the southeastern rim of the Taklamakan Desert. (See Barbarians.htm for more discussions on the ancient human migrations.)

There could have been a striking similarity between the Mongol attack at the Tanguts in the 13th cent. A.D. and the Hun attack at the Yuezhi in the 3rd cent. B.C. Both took the desert road towards the Blackwater Lake. It kind of gives you a picture how the Huns first raided to the west against the Yuezhi, forcing the Yuezhi Major to flee west while the elderly and the children, i.e., the Yuezhi Minor, crossed the Qilian mountain to seek asylum with the Qiangs, and per Yu Taishan, continued to move on towards the southeastern rim of the Taklamakan Desert, towards Khotan where the people were recorded to be Chinese or Hua-xia-looking, throughout China's Han and Tang dynastic records, till annihilated sometime during the Islamic invasion of the Buddhist stronghold of Khotan or possibly during the earlier Turkic-Uygur conquest of the Chinese Turkistan. Note the discovery of the so-called 100-300 BC Caucasoid in Khotan, which matched with the escape timeframe of the Yuezhi Minor. (Another recent writing on Zhou King Muwang's travelogue at the imperialchina.org blog, is available in pdf format [Mu-tian-zi.pdf], exhibited the westernmost extent of the ancient Chinese kingdom to be no more than the edge of the Kumtag Desert and right at the Black Water Lake.)

This webmaster tried to reconcile Sima Qian's statement in regards to the migration of the Lesser Yuezhi, in the aftermath of the Huns' attack in the last years of the 3rd century BCE, to give the Yuezhi people some credit of living a bit further to the east, i.e., staying somewhere near the Blackwater Lake [i.e., the Ejina Lake]. By making this assumption, this webmaster assumed that the Lesser Yuezhi people, namely, the sick, the elderly and the young, climbed the Qilian-shan Mountain [today's Qilian-shan, not what Yu Taishan et al had postulated to be the Tianshan or the Heavenly Mountain Range in Turkestan] to live among the Qiangs --unless Sima Qian actually meant that the Huns had raided deep into the Chinese Turkestan in the first place, driving the Greater Yuezhi into a flee towards the Ili area to the west and the Lesser Yuezhi into a move across today's Tianshan or the Heavenly Mountain Range to live with the Qiangs in Khotan, at the southeastern rim of the Taklamakan Desert, a historical dwelling place of the Qiangs since the late 3rd millennium BCE.

In conclusion, there were two points of contact between the west and the east, one time around the 2000 BCE, and another time in the 4th century BCE (or more exactly the 3rd century BC when the Huns attacked the Yuezhi, triggering the chain reaction to the west). The demarcation point of the 4th century BCE or the 3rd century BCE was important in determining the second point of contact between the Mongoloid and the Caucasoid, after the first Mongoloid-Caucasoid mummy contact around 2000 BCE near today's Tianshan or the Heavenly Mountain, known as Bei-shan or the Northern [Turkestan] Mountain at Han Emperor Wudi (commonly-taken wrong reign 140-87 B.C. or 140-86 B.C.; nominal Oct 141-Dec 87 B.C.; actual Jan 141-Feb 87 B.C.)'s timeframe. There were widespread discussions of the 'Caucasoid' mummies in Chinese Turkestan, with the 'Loulan Beaty' purportedly dated 2000 B.C., while the southern 'cousins' in the Khotan area dated 100-300 B.C. The timeline suggested a move from north to south, not west to east. The 2000 B.C. Caucasoid mummies found in Loulan, in the Turpan Depression/Kumtag Desert, in-between Altaic/Tianshan Mountains and the Altun Mountain (Ruoqiang), could be the Indo-European people coming from the north of the Altaic Mountain [the Mongol Altaic Mountain of today], near the Alfaniesevo (Alfanesevo) bronze culture. Archaeologically speaking, the admixture mummies in Chinese Turkestan pointed to the west-east interbreeding around 2000 B.C., after an interruption of contacts for like 6,000 years, as seen in the spread of the North China microlithic stone tools to the west about 10,000 years ago, including today's Chinese Turkestan, and its replacement of the European Paleolithic bladelet tools. About 3500-2500 B.C., the proto-Indo-Europeans, with the haplogroup R1b-M269, arrived at Minusinsk where they founded the Afanasevo chalcolithic culture and bronze culture (3200-2000 B.C.). People of the Afanasevo culture spread southward to today's Chinese Turkestan with the patented grey sand-textured (coarse) round-bottom pottery jars with engraved and embossed patterns. Direction-wise, the Q-haplogroup people, i.e., cousins of the Caucasoid R-haplogroup people, likely arrived in today's Siberia heartland before the Last Glacial Maximum, while within the last 10,000 years, the C-haplogroup people pushed west and south from the northeastern direction and the N-haplogroup people pushed west and north from the southeastern direction. The patented Sinitic gourd-shaped colored and red potteries with a beam neck were seen to have penetrated to Central Asia. It could be the O3-haplogroup ancient Qiangs who brought the Sinitic colored (painted) potteries to today's Chinese Turkestan in late 3rd millennium and the early 2nd millennium B.C. While the millet and sorghum (as seen in the Begash site in Kazakhstan) could have spread westward to Central Asia with the colored potteries, the wheat products, sheep and goats, and the spoke-wheeled carts might have spread to China through this east-west contact along the two sides of the Tianshan Mountain.

The 'Tokharai' Yuezhi people, however, might not be the misnomer Indo-European as they could be part of the barbarians whom Zhou King Muwang resettled at the origin of the Jing-shui River in the 11th century B.C., among them, the later known five Rong groups of Yiqu, Yuzhi, Wuzhi, Xuyan (Quyan) and Penglu, or the later Yiqu-rong barbarians as noted in the Warring States time period --which could be the origin for the misnomer 'Indo-European' Yuezhi. The recent DNA analysis of the remains of the ancient tombs had found the trace of the Q-haplogroup people at Pengyang of Ningxia, next to the Western Yellow River Bend, and along the routes that the Yuezhi people had dwelled. According to the recent DNA studies, before the emergence of the Indo-Europeans, the proto-Indo-Europeans, who had origin in southwestern Siberia approximately 38,000 years ago, relocated to the Volga area about 28200-22800 years ago, where they split into R1a (i.e., ancestors of modern Eastern Europeans, Indians) and R1b (i.e., ancestors of Basques, Celts and modern Western Europeans). The Scythians, or the purportedly Indo-European 'Tokharai' Yuezhi, and majority stocks of the later Central Asians, belonged to the R1a offshoot.

There was the spread of North China's microlithic stone tools towards the west over 10,000 years ago. The 6000-year-old Lingjiatan piglet-bird-head jade octagram could imply an ancient transfusion of the 10,000-year-old double-head emblem to Central Asia from China. It would not be farfetched to state that the Sumerian cuneiform's speedy transformation to logophonetic, consonantal alphabetic and syllabic signs among different groups of the Central Asia and Middle Eastern people could imply the Sumerian script's likely origin as an out-of-area and imported product from let's say North China. Here, with the existence of the obscure pre-2000 B.C copper-based metallurgy in northern China, such as the controversial brass pieces of the fourth and third millennium B.C., there was no rebutting the spread of ancient metallurgy technology to China from the west. A tentative conclusion could be made in that the ancient world(s) did have some unknown form of discrete, disparate and non-continuous links between the East and West. However, this kind of East-West links were disrupted numerous times, with the consequence of loss of such links amounting to thousands of years in-between, as seen in the westward spread of the microlithic tools, the octagram, the double-head eagle emblem, the pictographic characters, and the red potteries. 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 Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Scandinavia, bringing along the Sinitic language to the Proto-North-Caucasian who in turn gave it to the Proto-Indo-European. Linguistically, the proto-Caucasian should fall under the umbrella of the Dene-Caucasian (Sino-Caucasian) Language Family that encompassed the [Proto-North-]Caucasian, Yeniseian and Sino-Tibetan languages. In 2012, Li Hongjie of Jirin University published a paleogenetic study of the ancient DNA of prehistoric people dwelling in northeastern China, northern China, and northwestern China, with the results showing that the predominant population in Niuheliang of southwestern Manchuria, Dadianzi of Inner Mongolia and Hami of northeastern Chinese Turkestan over 3000-5000 years ago, that roughly matched with the Xiajiadian Culture and Hongshan Culture's timeframe, belonged to the Y-chromosome people of the N-haplogroup type, namely, people related to ancestors of the Finnish, Sami and Hungarian people. And it would be about 2000-4000 years ago that the R-haplogroup and Q-haplogroup people began to be seen in Chinese Turkestan and northwestern China. Following this timeline, it is more plausible that people of the Xia and Shang dynasties of ancient China had the company of the N-haplogroup people, with both the Sinitic O-haplogroup and the N-haplogroup people actually sharing the same origin for over 20,000 years, and the Zhou people could be interfacing with the Q-haplogroup people towards the northwest, which implied that the northern barbarians or the Huns' composition could have changed through history. The Huns, for their position and timeline of appearance, more likely belonged to the Q-haplogroup people than the N-haplogroup people, with both groups plus the ancient Sinitic Chinese likely falling under the same proto-Borean (Northern) language family. This webmaster, possessing the amber-colored or hazel eyes with a greenish ring, had been found to possess about 15% ancient Euro-Asian hunters' gene, specifically, N1a (N-M96 (N-CTS7095, N-P189), a branch of the Finno-Ugrian people.

It would be in the 4th century BCE that Shi-zi first wrote down the sentence speculating that 2000 years earlier, at the time of the Yellow Overlord, there were the deep-eyesocket people living to the north. This brilliant piece of work by Shi-zi apparently adopted some then-current information available as of the 4th century BCE, in a similar fashion to the later forgery Guan Zi which, relying on the then-current information available as of the 1st century AD, claimed that Qi Hegemony Lord Huan'gong had crossed the 'Kumtag Desert' to conquer the Yu-shi [or misnomer Yuezhi] people. Here, mark this webmaster's words: Yu-shi, having absolutely nothing to do with the Yue-zhi people [as erudite Wang Guowei claimed --a No. 1 blunder of the most famous Chinese scholar of the 20th century], could be taken as either the western Yu [Wu] or the northern Yu [Wu] remnants from the descendant of one of the two elder brothers who 'emigrated' to the Yangtze River and the Taihu Lake 3000 years ago. (Shi-zi could be a latter-day add-on as well since half of the original texts were lost in the Three Kingdom time period, and the majority of the re-compiled texts were lost again in the Soong Dynasty. One important fact about Shi-zi that this webmaster wants to emphasize is that it could be on the same par as the classics Shan Hai Jing, i.e., the Book of Mountains and Seas, and the author or the authors of some of the contents of the two books of Shi Zi and Shan Hai Jing could be of the same origin. Note that the seas or overseas' components of Shan Hai Jing, i.e., The Legends Mountain and Sea Legends, though carrying the names of countries like in today's Korea, Chinese Turkestan and India, etc., were not about geography at all but divination. The divination materials, similar to those in Shi1 Fa, Gui-cang Yi, the Wangjiatai divination script, and the divination in Mu-tian-zi Zhuan, served the same augury purpose of the late Warring States time period, albeit possessing their separate freelance or freewheeling traits. For example, The one eyed son of Lord Shaohao in the "great northern wilderness" (Da Huang Bei Jing) section of Shan Hai Jing, like the one-hand and one-eye 'shen-mu-guo' (the deep eye socket) state in the "Northern Outer Seas" section, which was speculated to be the legendary one-eyed state Arimaspi that was described by Herodotus in Histories as located north of Scythia and east of Issedones and linked to the three-eye stone statutes of the Okunev Culture in Minusinsk, could have its source in some one-eye bird in the northern mountain range of Shan Hai Jing, and the one-eye and three-tail 'huan' foxlike animal on Mt. Yiwang-zhi-shan in the western mountain range.)