Thais & Mongols

[thaifkrlim]

It's been said the 10% of the worlds population has Genghis Khan's blood since he spent every night with different women in his conquests during early 1200's

His empire went as far as russia, eastern europe, arab and southern china, some say burma khmer and viet too

some say he spread his Y chromosome to a large percentage of the male population roughly 16 mil descendants or more living today

Since Sukhotai wasnt established yet until mid 12th century , do you think Thai people today have partial or little mongol bloodline from the north and neighbouring tribal migration

[Jogden]

Wow! I didn't know that. All the Thai's i know say that they are part Chinese. I wouldn't want to ruffle their feathers to much by calling them mongols.

[mauGR1]

Sorry, double post.

Edited August 20, 2010 by mauGR1

[mauGR1]

Uhm..According to Gavin Menzies's Book "1421", the ships of what we know as the Chinese empire were exploring the world since thousands of years.

Personally i find the theory credible enough, the travels of what we refer as "Mongolian Race" date long time before Genghis Khan, and there were not necessarily invasions, but more explorations.

Our history is quite inaccurate mostly because of lack of written documents, what was not written is often regarded as legend.

[bifftastic]

I heard that too.

There is a birth mark, a small blueish mark on the backside, like a bruise, called 'mongolian blue spot' which, in some cases, has been mistaken for a real bruise on babies.

There's a superstitious version of it's origin which says something like it's the hand print of ghengis khan but, apparently, more accurately, it's been shown to be handed down genetically and can be traced to the mongols.

This mark is not only seen in asia but in many places in eastern europe, the mongol empire was indeed huge.

It's entirely possible that large numbers of people in or around any of the regions the mongols conquered have mongol blood in general, and, given his reputation, possibly that of the great khan himself!

[DP25]

Wow! I didn't know that. All the Thai's i know say that they are part Chinese. I wouldn't want to ruffle their feathers to much by calling them mongols.

Well, the Chinese are part Mongol, so...

[bonobo]

Not specifically Thailand, but 1 in 12 Asian men have the same genetic marker as the Mongols, and presumably Temujin (Ghengis Khan).

Here is an article which explains in in layman's terms.

http://findarticles....63/ai_97997816/

The 10% of the world's population is a rather high figure, though. The real figure is closer to 0.5%.

[slapout]

Its amazing how the DNA sampling, worldwide, has opened new thinking and theories of migration, etc. A recent Discovery channel program, chronicled discovery of mummified remains and subsequent DNA analysis suggest travel along the 'Silk road' from Eurasia to China, was taking place some 1500 years earlier than thought. The search for a 'Pure race' anywhere on the planet is probably a lost cause.

Going to be a big let down for the old 'blue blood families', to find they are mutts, like the rest of us.

[Heng]

The Menzies book has been largely discredited.

[Kwasaki]

We are assuming Genghis Khan was fertile of corse !!

[Svenn]

^indeed, I also suspect there have been wealthy chinese warlords or businessmen somewhere throughout history that slept with more woman than genghis khan, if the legend about him is even true. The fact that his genes spread far also is not a unique occurrence... any individual in the remote past, who reproduces, will have his genes spread over vast numbers of descendants by the simple rules of exponential multiplication.

[wolf5370]

I heard that too.

There is a birth mark, a small blueish mark on the backside, like a bruise, called 'mongolian blue spot' which, in some cases, has been mistaken for a real bruise on babies.

There's a superstitious version of it's origin which says something like it's the hand print of ghengis khan but, apparently, more accurately, it's been shown to be handed down genetically and can be traced to the mongols.

This mark is not only seen in asia but in many places in eastern europe, the mongol empire was indeed huge.

It's entirely possible that large numbers of people in or around any of the regions the mongols conquered have mongol blood in general, and, given his reputation, possibly that of the great khan himself!

Yes my youngest had this mark - dimmed over time. In fact when we took het in to hospital to have her jabs in the UK, one doctor thought we were abusing her - it took a knowledgeable nurse to tell her that she was wrong and what it was. Its not quite on the backside, but just above - where the coxics (spelling?) begins, between the checks at the top (i.e. where the back just dispears between the bum cheeks).

Its still there (she's 9 now), but not so easy to see now. Her older sister had it too, but very light.

Aparantly its really quite common with lighter skinned asians.

[Thongkorn]

Thais are descendants of Thi, which where Chinese , they came south to get away from our man Genghis Khan,

[bonobo]

  The fact that his genes spread far also is not a unique occurrence... any individual in the remote past, who reproduces, will have his genes spread over vast numbers of descendants by the simple rules of exponential multiplication.

True point.

Because some of my ancestors were English, who tended a bit to the anal in keeping family records, I was able to trace my family back into the English royals, and from there, scholars have already done most of the work in recording those ancestors of mine.  Yet on the few occasions where I have mentioned that to other people, the response is invariably "Oh, you have ancestors going back that far?"  Well, unless there are a multitude of deus ex machina  births, all of us have ancestors going back that far, and a lot further, too.  

I always got a chuckle when Saddam Hussein always claimed ancestry to Muhammad, despite having no chain of family to back that, while both Elizabeth and Bush could all trace to Muhammad as an ancestor.  Oh, given the intervening years, it wouldn't be a stretch to guess that Hussein, along with most other Arabs could trace some linkage back to him, it is just that there is no proof for him.  

[Thongkorn]

I would be interested how you traced your family tree back , because most of the information was kept by the local churches , who collected the information on royal command to collect taxes. a lot of information was lost in the refamation, Also when a baby was born illegitimately the parents of the girl who had the baby was ether thrown out of the house in shame, or the baby was christened with the farther name only , So you would trace your name back ,then it would come to abrupt stop , because your Surname had been changed.As in my case, I could only go back 400 years , which is not that long. So how did you trace your name back to royalty.

[bonobo]

I would be interested how you traced your family tree back , because most of the information was kept by the local churches , who collected the information on royal command to collect taxes. a lot of information was lost in the refamation, Also when a baby was born  illegitimately  the parents of the girl who had the baby was ether thrown out of the house in shame, or the baby was christened with the farther name only ,  So you would trace your name back ,then it would come to abrupt stop , because your Surname had been changed.As in my case, I could only go back 400 years , which is not that long. So how did you trace your name back to royalty.

On my German, Irish, and Italian sides, my tree ends about 150 years ago.  However, on  both my mother and father's side, my English ancestors came to the Americas in the 1600's, (my mother's to Virginia and my father's to the Massachusetts Bay Colony.)   My mother's side was all English, and my father's was English/Dutch.  On both sides, coincidently, they had a common ancestor in England, and from her, that connects into the royal family back in the late 1300's.  

THere are a lot of dead ends, and a lot of times where only a first name is given for the female line, but you only need one connection and then the scholars have done all the work for you.

I am as much Irish, German, and Italian as English, but  because I was able to visit gravesites in England, because I have names, I think of myself as more English than the rest, even to the point of rooting for England in most sporting matches unless they are playing the USA. 

My father was only able to trace our family tree back about 250 years, but with teh advent of the internet, it ia a lot easier.  There are many resources out there from the commercial to the Latter Day Saints.

[Johpa]

Thais are descendants of Thi, which where Chinese , they came south to get away from our man Genghis Khan,

Ethnic Tai populations do not seem to be descended from Chinese Han populations although there is still academic debate as to the origins of the Tai languages, such as the Tai-Kadai hypothesis. It is thought that the Tai migrations southward into Southeast Asia were a result of Han migrations south across the Yangtze River, possibly as a result of Mongol pressure on the Han populations further to the north. I don't think there is much evidence showing Mongol presence south of the Yangtze.

So you have the Mongols putting pressure (the fear of death) on populations such as the Han (Chinese) who now migrate southwards causing similar pressure on many indigenous peoples living south of the Yangtze to move even further south or upwards to less desirable mountainous habitat.

[kissdani]

I always got a chuckle when Saddam Hussein always claimed ancestry to Muhammad, despite having no chain of family to back that, while both Elizabeth and Bush could all trace to Muhammad as an ancestor.  Oh, given the intervening years, it wouldn't be a stretch to guess that Hussein, along with most other Arabs could trace some linkage back to him, it is just that there is no proof for him.  

Ermm. Where is the difference that makes one claim something to chuckle meanwhile the other claim should be taken serious with a 'real' proof for direct linkage?

Can you really trace Bush and Elizabeth to Muhammad???

Both things a laughable but actually also plausible in someway without much proof needed in birth and tax registers of the past.

Everyone has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 greatgreat-grandparents and so on. If we exclude extreme inbreed and uncle-niece, cousin-cousin and similar marriages, the number of ancestors one generation back will double up, always x2. or 2ⁿ for n generations.

take an average of 4 generation per century as given it is 400 year back 16 generations 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x=2¹⁶=65536 greatgreatgreat...- grandparents.

500 years back =2²⁰= 1,048,576

600 years = 16,777,216

but you cannot avoid that at a certain point the doubling of different ancestors, it will not work out anymore and some greatgreatgreat..grandfather to the left is also the one to the right, because some family members started to marry each other. but fact is if you go enough generations back and you are related to almost everybody and share with somebody else a common grangrandgrand...ancestor what makes this other person to a cousin of xdegree. That wouldn't be much coincidently, but mathematical logically.

But what is won if you are some great^xgrandchild of somebody who is related to someone who had some impact in the history books?

Does it make you that special? Can you be sure that are you blood-related? Who knows if all these great^x-grandmother have been always faithful.

Do you share the same genes? Your number of genes is limited, you have around 3 billion base pairs. to make it easy say around 2³² base pairs, half from your father, 2³¹ pairs, 1/4 from your grand father, 2³⁰ pairs and so on.

32 generation back (800 years with 4 generation per century) your ancestor gives you only one base pair of your 3 billions base pairs of genetic information.

I always chuckle when people try hard to find some relatives amongst some religious wackos form the mayflower (would be around 0,0015% of your genetic information) or some inbreed royals of the middle ages.

If your are not coming from a family that continuously from generation to generation produce great names, but has as the last 'famous' one a royal some few hundreds of years ago what is the point in that?

I see some sense into claims from what corners of the world the family comes from and what traditions where kept from generation to generation and what stories told from grandparents to grandchildren and so on and that tradition and stories always stayed vivid in the family. But once this this line is interrupted and the memory and the knowledge of some people who lived generations ago is lost, you cannot restored a connection with a search in church registers. That is just a fad.

If your grandparents or greatgreat-grandparents didn't know anything anymore about these ancestors they are total strangers to your family. Better concentrate on the mission that the future generations of your family keep your name 'alive', instead of construct something like a meaningless bloodline into the past.

[bonobo]

I always got a chuckle when Saddam Hussein always claimed ancestry to Muhammad, despite having no chain of family to back that, while both Elizabeth and Bush could all trace to Muhammad as an ancestor. Oh, given the intervening years, it wouldn't be a stretch to guess that Hussein, along with most other Arabs could trace some linkage back to him, it is just that there is no proof for him.

Ermm. Where is the difference that makes one claim something to chuckle meanwhile the other claim should be taken serious with a 'real' proof for direct linkage?

Can you really trace Bush and Elizabeth to Muhammad???

Ermm, I chuckle because Hussein was using his claims as proof of the righteousness of his cause and that all other Muslims should support him. Yet his hated enemy leaders had verifiable proof that they were descendants of Muhammad. So what does that do to the basis of his contentions?

And yes, Elizabeth is an extremely easy trace. Bush's trace has also been reported and his family tree published.

I always chuckle when people try hard to find some relatives amongst some religious wackos form the mayflower (would be around 0,0015% of your genetic information) or some inbreed royals of the middle ages.

If your are not coming from a family that continuously from generation to generation produce great names, but has as the last 'famous' one a royal some few hundreds of years ago what is the point in that?

I see some sense into claims from what corners of the world the family comes from and what traditions where kept from generation to generation and what stories told from grandparents to grandchildren and so on and that tradition and stories always stayed vivid in the family. But once this this line is interrupted and the memory and the knowledge of some people who lived generations ago is lost, you cannot restored a connection with a search in church registers. That is just a fad.

If your grandparents or greatgreat-grandparents didn't know anything anymore about these ancestors they are total strangers to your family. Better concentrate on the mission that the future generations of your family keep your name 'alive', instead of construct something like a meaningless bloodline into the past.

What is the point even if you are "coming from a family that continuously from generation to generation produce great names?" Does that make you any better? What is the difference if you have one royal from the middle ages or a serf as an ancestor? None of that makes any real difference in who you are. Chinese of 60 years ago who were able to trace their families back thousands of years are no different than Chinese of today who can't trace back anymore due to the records being destroyed in the Cultural Revolution. You are who you are whether you know the names of 4,000 ancestors or you don't even know who your parents are.

And you are really mistaken when you assert that you can't find info in church records or such if your more immediate ancestors had forgotten their pasts. It is actually quite easy to make connections in some countries. If you know that great-great-great-+ Grandpa Hugh was born on March 20, 1624 in Kent, and that is it, then you find a church record of the birth which also named his father and mother, well you have just expanded your tree, even if Grandma Minnie, who told you about Hugh, did't know the names of his parents.

Your logic makes no sense to me. If you can acknowledge that it is interesting or useful to know from what corners of the world your family comes, then how can it be wrong to know this in more detail, that is , to know the names of individuals? So detail is harmful?

Genealogy makes no difference in who you are. But it is fun and interesting if you are able to make connections. If it weren't interesting, so you really think so many people would be spending so much money and effort to trace their family trees?

I took up the banner when my father died as that was one of his abiding interests. But I got into it myself, finding it an fascinating excursion into the past. I am an educated man, but to be honest, I didn't even know who were the Merovingians until I worked on my family tree, and I found accounts of their lives, from their homes to the food they ate to the politics which caused them to kill each other extremely interesting.

Personally, I would be more interested in knowing my more serf-type ancestors. The problem is that no one kept records on them.

So chuckle at that if you want. Your choice.

[kissdani]

What i mean is that you can not reconstruct family history with the help of some church documents. Of course you will find there names and dates but they are actually meaningless with no value. you will know nearly nothing about that persons on the past.

Compare that with a tradition or a story of your great^x grandpa Hugh that was told form generation to generation together with maybe some item like a ring, his personal dagger or a oil painting or the family bible. here you would have something like a "vivid memory", something that kept your family together over the centuries. Tradition you keep alive by practicing and not by finding some names on a grave somewhere.

Ancestry research is a fad, hyped with the internet and now a hobby horse for many, mostly WASP of the north American continent in the hope they maybe one uncle or grand ma was amongst the religious wackos on the Mayflower. For some its also a business, the professionals, getting paid to find the royals.

Once you can hop back to the old continent or even better British island (less less archive loss during th wild time of the past) it will be more or less easy to come up with a royal as your relative. That sounds impressive, but many of todays living people have similar traces in their family tree. And if there wouldn't be an archive loss in the search of TVF member Thongkorn, he would for sure also come up with some royals. easy peasy.

But Merovingians??? har, har, har. Only in America. Bigger, longer and much older. For sure. yoyo.

Okay, I understand that its fun for you, its a hobby. It is a way to dive into history. but this biographical and family tree approach is more or less para-scientific. marginal important. And something where a third person just can chuckle if someone come up with the royals and even the Merovingian dynasty.

Ermm, I chuckle because Hussein was using his claims as proof of the righteousness of his cause and that all other Muslims should support him. Yet his hated enemy leaders had verifiable proof that they were descendants of Muhammad. So what does that do to the basis of his contentions?

And yes, Elizabeth is an extremely easy trace. Bush's trace has also been reported and his family tree published.

Saddam claimed some ancestry of the state Iraq to Mesopotamia. Some nationalistic propaganda many countries would do that. I don't know if he saw himself as and great-grandson of the prophet. Saddam wasn't a religious leader, more or less the opposite. So i strongly doubt your tale.

"his hated enemy leaders" is a typical line that shows your bias. Actually Saddam was the hated enemy of the US Americans and they went to Iraq killing people over there.

Your story of Bush can trace himself to Muhammad and Saddam not is nothing else than Us-American propaganda, a narnananarna towards the enemy Saddam and the enemy Muslims to belittle them.

You forget hereby one thing. Meanwhile US-Americans don't have a long history, the history and past in Iraq is visible, the artifacts are there, the ruins are there, they are on location what was a center of the world for many centuries. From the Saddam point of view would be such genealogy fuss absolutely not necessary.

The Arab or the Muslim world still has their traditions, 3 or 4 generation of a family living in one house and the family or clans stick much more together, meanwhile in the west the postmodern individual is kinda lost and detached from their old traditions and ancestors. Families see each other only for the annual turkey meal or whatever. You miss something and that motivates you to practice ancestry research as vicarious satisfaction.

[IanForbes]

Tracing one's ancestry back is a fascinating subject. I have an ivory and silver snuff box that was passed from father to eldest son since 1637. I got it from my father and will pass it on to my son. There are now thousands in the Forbes clan that I'm probably related to.

If my family goes back directly for over 300 years it's little wonder that other families go back much farther than that.

[bonobo]

What i mean is that you can not reconstruct family history with the help of some church documents. Of course you will find there names and dates but they are actually meaningless with no value. you will know nearly nothing about that persons on the past.

Compare that with a tradition or a story of your great^x grandpa Hugh that was told form generation to generation together with maybe some item like a ring, his personal dagger or a oil painting or the family bible. here you would have something like a "vivid memory", something that kept your family together over the centuries. Tradition you keep alive by practicing and not by finding some names on a grave somewhere.

Ancestry research is a fad, hyped with the internet and now a hobby horse for many, mostly  WASP of the north American continent in the hope they maybe one uncle or grand ma was amongst the religious wackos on the Mayflower.  For some its also a business, the professionals, getting paid to find the royals.

Once you can hop back to the old continent or even better British island (less less archive loss during th wild time of the past) it will be more or less easy to come up with a royal as your  relative. That sounds impressive, but many of todays living people have similar traces in their family tree. And if there wouldn't be an archive loss in the search of  TVF member Thongkorn, he would for sure also come up with some royals. easy peasy.

But Merovingians??? har, har, har. Only in America. Bigger, longer and much older. For sure. yoyo.

Okay, I understand that its fun for you, its a hobby. It is a way to dive into history. but this biographical and family tree approach is more or less para-scientific. marginal important. And something where a third person just can chuckle if someone come up with the royals and even the Merovingian dynasty.

Ermm, I chuckle because Hussein was using his claims as proof of the righteousness of his cause and that all other Muslims should support him.  Yet his hated enemy leaders had verifiable proof that they were descendants of Muhammad.  So what does that do to the basis of his contentions?  

And yes, Elizabeth is an extremely easy trace.  Bush's trace has also been reported and his family tree published.

Saddam claimed some ancestry of the state Iraq to Mesopotamia.  Some nationalistic propaganda many countries would do that. I don't know if he saw himself as and great-grandson of the prophet. Saddam wasn't a religious leader, more or less the opposite. So i strongly doubt your tale.

"his hated enemy leaders" is a typical line that shows your bias. Actually Saddam was the hated enemy of the US Americans and they went to Iraq killing people over there.

Your story of Bush can trace himself to Muhammad and Saddam not is nothing else than Us-American propaganda, a narnananarna towards the enemy Saddam and the enemy Muslims to belittle them.

You forget hereby one thing. Meanwhile US-Americans don't have a long history, the history and past in Iraq is visible, the artifacts are there, the ruins are there, they are on location what was a center of the world for many centuries. From the Saddam point of view would be such genealogy fuss absolutely not necessary.

The Arab or the Muslim world still has their traditions, 3 or 4 generation of a family living in one house and the family or clans stick much more together, meanwhile in the west the postmodern individual is kinda lost and detached from their old traditions and ancestors. Families see each other only for the annual turkey meal or whatever. You miss something and that motivates you to practice ancestry research as vicarious satisfaction.

Your antagonism is very puzzling to me.  I will make a few comments, then leave it alone.  How you turned a question on whether Thais might be traced back to the Mongols into an anti-American flame is beyond me.

1.  Saddam publicly embraced Islam after the Kuwait Invasion and defeat.  He started becoming a huge benefactor to the Palestinian suicide bombers, he started building what was to become the second biggest mosque in the world.  I have seen the mosque, so I am not sure how this can be propaganda.  (And I am certainly not lying, as you so insinuate.) I do not think Bush ever came out touting his family tree back into the royals, but others with an interest built his family tree, just as they do of many public figures.  And most of the European royals, if not all, can include Muhammad as an ancestor.  Just as they can include Charles the Hammer, one who fought the Muslims. This has nothing to do with propaganda. Not just the royals.  I would imagine a significant percentage of the population can.  The only difference is whether it can be verified or not.

2. Saddam did not hate Bush, in particular?  He didn't try to arrange  a hit on Bush senior? He didn't vilify the US, the UK, Kuwait, and just about anyone else who was against him?  Not to say any hate is surprising.  But to assert that Saddam, the same man who could kill his sons-in-law, the same man who could kill former allies, had no hate for the leaders of the countries trying to remove him goes beyond logic. 

3.  This is the second time you wrote "religious whackos" about the Mayflower.  Do you really need to flame others based on their religion?  Does that make you feel superior?

4.  When did I ever write that tracing back one's family tree to any historical figure makes that person superior?  In fact, i pretty much wrote just the opposite.  A person is who he or she is, and their ancestors reflect no worth nor guilt on them.  The only difference between tracing back to William the Conqueror and William the Cowherd is that people kept records about the Conqueror. 

5.  But Merovingians??? har, har, har. Only in America. Bigger, longer and much older. For sure. yoyo.   OK, is that a flame against Americans?  Merovingians?  Or only me because I was not aware of them before I found them in my family tree?  Regardless, it sure looks like a flame to me.

6.  "Marginally important?"  Oh so people should give up all hobbies because they are "marginally important?"  Coin collecting, birdwatching, Hummel collecting?  To be honest, I don't know too many hobbies that have any significant importance. I personally don't give a fig about hummels, but unlike you, i am not going to ridicule someone who collects them as being "marginally important' or less. 

[thaifkrlim]

The surviving mongols swam across the pacific ocean to massachusetts bay during the late 1300's

[Payboy]

Wow, I am honored to be part of a forum that has bluebloods amongst its members.

I tried to trace my family tree, but gave up at 24 generations!

1 ME ===1

2 MY parents===2

4 grandparents===3

8 g grandparents===4

16 gg grandparents===5

32 ggg grandparents===6

64 gggg grandparents===7

128 ggggg grandparents===8

256 gggggg grandparents===9

512 ggggggg grandparents===10

1,024 gggggggg grandparents===11

2,048 ggggggggg grandparents===12

4,096 gggggggggg grandparents===13

8,192 ggggggggggg grandparents===14

16,384 gggggggggggg grandparents===15

32,768 ggggggggggggg grandparents===16

65,536 gggggggggggggg grandparents===17

131,072 ggggggggggggggg grandparents===18

262,144 gggggggggggggggg grandparents===19

524,288 ggggggggggggggggg grandparents===20

1,048,576 gggggggggggggggggg grandparents===21

2,097,152 ggggggggggggggggggg grandparents===22

4,194,304 gggggggggggggggggggg grandparents===23

[oneeye]

Not specifically Thailand, but 1 in 12 Asian men have the same genetic marker as the Mongols, and presumably Temujin (Ghengis Khan).

Here is an article which explains in in layman's terms.

http://findarticles....63/ai_97997816/

The 10% of the world's population is a rather high figure, though. The real figure is closer to 0.5%.

That is because the numbers should be 8% of Asian men, not 10% of the worlds population.

It is suggested that up to 16 million people worldwide — and 8 per cent of Asian men — were descended from Genghis Khan.

Edited August 24, 2010 by oneeye

[bonobo]

The surviving mongols swam across the pacific ocean to massachusetts bay during the late 1300's

Ah, that explains it!  

[wolf5370]

The surviving mongols swam across the pacific ocean to massachusetts bay during the late 1300's

Ah, that explains it!

They missed it the first time around, but spotted it the second - many perished though when they fell off the edge of the world which was still flat at the time