<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides, Chinese people tend to be of very light colour (naturally more so in their North). Especially when compared to Indians. They could have just as easily had an AIT foisted on them to explain their skin-colour. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, Euros have certainly tried to pose "white-skinned nomads" as the progenitors of China's culture (eg, europeans introduced horses into China, etc), despite the fact that the nomadic culture is most synonymous with Mongolians. in fact, the mongolians are known to have introduced the stirrups to Byzantine ME and Europe.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The missionaries are well capable of that, except linguistically they might have found barriers to creating such a theory for China.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Chinese are neither stupid nor naive enough to believe that their major neolithic centres starting at 10K could have ever entertained a catastrophic language shift in the middle of their development.
In fact, many now agree that southern Han Chinese identity was politically manufactured during the Han dynasty and that there was never any major Northern Population movements to the South. This opens up the possibilty that the languages of northern neolithic centers did indeed develop in the South where there is a .. diversification crucible in the form of tibeto-burmese and other southern languages. The situation is analogous to Sanskrit in India's major neolithic centers developing from a Dravidian base - as also supported by the genetic evidence of North Indians diversifing from South Indians.
Well, Euros have certainly tried to pose "white-skinned nomads" as the progenitors of China's culture (eg, europeans introduced horses into China, etc), despite the fact that the nomadic culture is most synonymous with Mongolians. in fact, the mongolians are known to have introduced the stirrups to Byzantine ME and Europe.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The missionaries are well capable of that, except linguistically they might have found barriers to creating such a theory for China.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Chinese are neither stupid nor naive enough to believe that their major neolithic centres starting at 10K could have ever entertained a catastrophic language shift in the middle of their development.
In fact, many now agree that southern Han Chinese identity was politically manufactured during the Han dynasty and that there was never any major Northern Population movements to the South. This opens up the possibilty that the languages of northern neolithic centers did indeed develop in the South where there is a .. diversification crucible in the form of tibeto-burmese and other southern languages. The situation is analogous to Sanskrit in India's major neolithic centers developing from a Dravidian base - as also supported by the genetic evidence of North Indians diversifing from South Indians.