VĂN HÓA ONLINE - DIỄN ĐÀN THẢO LUẬN - THỨ NĂM 23 APRIL 2020
Ý kiến-Bài vở vui lòng gởi về: firstname.lastname@example.org (VănHóa Online-California)
RETURNING TO PROFESSOR LIAM KELLEY ABOUT THE CENTRALITY OF " FRINGE HISTORY "DIASPORA, THE INTERNET AND A NEW VERSION OF VIETNAMESE PREHISTORY
Hà Văn Thùy
As the author asserts, the article "fringe history" shows a very positive view of a phenomenon of contemporary Vietnamese history. In this, some individuals offer an unprecedented view of the prehistoric period of the Vietnamese people. A person who studied Vietnamese history for many years and often wrote negative stories about Vietnamese history, Liam Kelley's treatise will surely get the attention of international scholars and resonate with Vietnamese readers. However, the author's article also demonstrates an inadequate understanding of this unique phenomenon. So please discuss something
1. About Hoabinhian.
As the author recalled, the international scholar commented on Hoabinhian as follows: “In 1932, a meeting of prehistoric researchers was held in Hanoi, proposing the term Hoabinhian used to refer to the first settlements of the human was distinguished using the stone tools hewn all over the pebble (Matthews 1966: 86). Another defining feature of the Hoa Binh site is that there is no evidence of agriculture, and therefore the term Hoabinhian was later used to refer to Mesolithic sites. The Mesolithic period was an intermediate period between the Paleozoic and Neolithic periods and lasted from about 15,000 to 5,000 BCE, when people were still hunting and gathering rather than agriculture.”
This means that Hoabinhian is just a "technical complex" that produces pebbles carved around the circumference, during the Mesolithic period, spreading from South China through Indochina, Thailand to the islands of Southeast Asia.
The concept is that of 90 years ago, when science did not know who the Hoa Binh people were, who were the Yunnan people, and the Indonesian? And it is not yet understood why "like in Hoa Binh" pebbles are present in such places? But now, after nearly a century, science has confirmed that, 70,000 years ago, during the Ice Age, the sea level was lower 130 meters than today, Southeast Asia is the vast Sundaland continent.
People from Africa who followed the Southern route to migrate to Vietnam. Here they mixed blood together to born the ancient Viet. 50,000 years ago, people from Vietnam migrated to the islands of Southeast Asia. 40,000 years ago, they went up to occupy mainland China and then crossed the Bering Strait to conquer America ...
Thus, it is only possible that, following in the footsteps of the migrants, stone tools from Hoa Binh were brought to the places we find today. Another thing to be affirmed, these tools must be dispersed before sea level rise, that is, before 15,000 years ago!
Not only that, in 2012 archaeological discoveries showed that the first pottery was born in Xenran tung, Jiangxi Province 20,000 years ago and the first domesticated grain of rice also appeared there 12,400 years ago. Xianrendong is more than 100 km south of the Yangtze River, in Southeast Asia. Archeology and genetics confirmed, the owner of Xianrendong was Lac Viet, (Indonesian race), descended from Hoa Binh Vietnamese people ... (1)
A question arises: with such discoveries at the beginning of the twenty-first century, is the concept of 90 years ago still relevant? It is true that, while historian Liam Kelly cited the documents of a "dead" Hoabinhian in books, the "historians on the sidelines" as Cung Dinh Thanh, Nguyen Thi Thanh ... were born in Hoa Binh a vibrant Hoa Binh culture. It was the birthplace of the Asian population, the first place in the world, the ancient Viet made new stone tools, pottery and domesticated rice! Time and truth prove they're right! And it is clear that they transcend knowledge of the historian of the scholastic.
2. Where was the first rice growing place?
In his paper, by presenting real evidence, Liam Kelley proved that Solheim had built the theory of "Southeast Asia as the earliest agricultural center" based on false archeological data: "Thus, in the late 1970s, various scholars determined that the rice samples that Gorman and Bayard found were wild rice, not grown rice, (Yen 1980; 1982).
Today, the academic consensus among prehistoricists is the opposite of what Solheim proposed, when experts say technologies such as rice cultivation and metallurgy all move south into Southeast Asia ( Castillo 2011; Higham et al. 2015). ”
For international academics and most readers, this is really a Knock out for Solheim! Sadly, however, the work of Brunei Darussalam University associate professor is completely pointless! Also again due to the lack of updated documents. The archaeological evidence he gave is all from the 1970s, that is, half a century ago! Oh, 50 years how many things change!
Science of the new century not only discovered the first rice cultivated by Viet people from 12,400 years ago in Xianrendong then following the journey of thousands of miles, found in Jiahu culture in South yellow River 9000 years ago. Luoyue people crafted fine black pottery, planted rice, millet, enjoyed wine made by soaking rice wine with honey-hemp apple, listening to the melodious sound of the flute made with a crane's bone and then contemplating the inscriptions on turtle shell... the first letters of mankind carved on the bib of turtle
Sadly for the slow man, eight years ago, right after the excavation of Xianrendong was announced, the "amateur historian" of Vietnamese history on the sidelines confirmed that the Viet people planted rice firstly and Southeast Asia is the cradle of agriculture!
However, I sympathized with Liam Kelley because he was a historian, a profession forced to "follow" archaeological science. Many archaeologists are worse than him, like Marc Oxenham of the Australian National University. Recently in the announcement of the excavation of Con Co Ngua site was continue the unfortunate misunderstanding since 2005, saying that, 4,000 years ago, the northern farmers migrated down, becoming the first rice growers in the Southern Yangtze River! (2)
The scholar closed with Vietnamese archeology did not know that, 12,400 years ago, the people of South Yangtze River successfully domesticated rice and spread it throughout the Yangtze and Yellow River plains. The northern farmer who migrated to 4,000 years ago was not the first rice farmer in South Yangtze River but the great-grandson of an ancestor living in South Yangtze River who brought rice to the South Yellow River 9,000 years ago, when running the enemy, returns to old land, clearing unspoiled lands to grow rice! (3)
Thus, the fact shows that, based on some false archaeological evidence, but overall, Solheim's theory is completely correct. Due to the vision of genius, C. Sauer and Solheim saw far and wide at a time when human intelligence was still dim. It is fair to say that Solheim's announcement is extremely important, it is the spiritual support, the breakthrough inspiration for "the birds to call together" to find their roots, creating the team that Liam Kelley today called “fringer history.” The Vietnamese people thank them for that.
3. About the book Eden in the East,
Having said that, Oppenheimer's book initially left a deep impression on me. Together with the author, I believe and regret the brilliant civilization of Southeast Asia was sunk. But then new discoveries of genetics and archeology made me realize:
i. African migrants were not present on the islands of Southeast Asia 70,000 years ago. The population of these islands only from Vietnam to 50,000 years ago.
ii. In addition to the new stone tool Hoa Binh from Vietnam, on these islands before the water submerged 15,000 before, there could only be millet and some semi-domesticated vegetables that were not development agriculture.
iii. There is no way people from Sundaland left to make up the people of Asia. Instead, people from Vietnam came out to dominate the world. We have presented this in the treatise Out of Vietnam peopling on the world. (4) As such, Oppenheimer's book is most likely a fictional product.
4. What is the evidence?
The highlight of the article is that Liam Kelley said that the "new prehistory of Vietnamese" lacked evidence:
“While arguing that the ancestors of the Vietnamese people who founded various aspects of East Asian civilization really goes beyond the colonial viewpoint when they see Vietnam as a small China. The evidence of this argument is extremely problematic. Not based on reliable evidence.” "It is not part of the academic training I have received," "not included in the document of the Vietnamese state historian."
“Or the works of American historian Keith Taylor, whose ideas have shifted from a Vietnamese nationalist perspective to that there is too little evidence to firmly confirm a distant past, in there is no work made to suggest that Viet ancestors dominated today's China land and set the foundations of what gives us a mindset like East Asian cultural tradition.
“For anyone outside Vietnam who has studied Vietnamese history through formal academic channels, the ideas expressed here that the ancestors of the Vietnamese occupying today's area are China and establishing a cultural foundation that can now be a guide for mankind will be unfamiliar.”
The type of evidence that Liam Kelley requires belongs to the twentieth century, the knowledge that produced the concept "Vietnam is a small China" or "Vietnamese people evolved from Homo erectus" ... All of which knowledge XXI century was left behind. As Carl Sagan once said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Thanks to the wonderful connection and decoding of tons of extraordinary evidence from archeology and genetics that appeared in the first two decades of the new era, I discovered the extraordinary of Vietnamese prehistory, putting Vietnam 's human sciences at the forefront of humanity, as assessed by Dr. Nguyen Duc Hiep in the introduction of "Rewriting Chinese History" (5). Sadly, Associate Professor Liam Kelley didn't understand that?!
5. Prehistory of Viet people
There are three different perceptions of Vietnamese history: 1. People from South China were cornered into the Red River Delta into Vietnamese. 2. A migration from Africa to North East Asia born Chinese rice farmers. The northern rice farmers then migranted to Vietnam, creating the Vietnamese population
3. People from Africa who migrated only on the Southern road to Vietnam and from here ancient Viet people came out to make populations in Asia and humanity outside Africa. This shows that Vietnamese prehistory is controversial.
The first theory, popular in Eastern history books until the twentieth century, stems from the notion that the Beijing Upright (Homo pekinensis) is the ancestor of the Asian population. But in the 21st century, the discovery of Homo sapiens appeared in Africa 200,000 years ago, so this theory was rejected.
The second theory was born in the early years of the 21st century, when Spencer Wells announced: 45,000 years ago, a stream of migration from Africa through the Middle East to Central Asia. From here prehistoric people invaded East Asia (6). From this Northern Path, the concept was born: Chinese invented agriculture then brought agriculture to the South, merged with indigenous people, made up the people of Vietnam.
Ever since 2005, when I started my journey of rediscovering roots, I had to choose carefully among the documents with different concepts and then affirmed that there was no Northern road to bring African people to East Asia. This was the fatal mistake of Spencer Wells of the National Geographic Society of America. Later genetic studies also showed that there is only the Southern road leading people to Southeast Asia, particularly Vietnam. (7) However, some authors, due to the lack of updated documentation, still follow the Northern road theory, leading to serious mistakes. In the Critical Review of Vietnamese Origin of the Project "1000 Vietnamese genomes," we point out the error of this concept. (8)
We, the author of the "sidelines history", persevere the point: According to the Indian Ocean coast, Africans came to Vietnam 70,000 years ago. Here, two big races Australoid and Mongoloid mixed blood to born ancient Viet people belonging to the Australoid type group. 50,000 years ago, people from Vietnam spread to the islands of Southeast Asia and occupied the Indian subcontinent. 40,000 years ago, thanks to a warmer climate, the ancient Viet people went up to explore mainland China. Initially hunting and gathering activities, the Viet people carried stone axes so they called themselves Viet man. After domestication of wet rice, the Viet people brought millet, rice, chickens and dogs to build an agricultural culture at Jiahu Henan 9,000 years ago, Hemudo, and Yangshao 7,000 years ago. At Jiahu, the Viet people made the first hieroglyphic writing carved on the shell of turtle and animal bones. At the tomb site at Xishui, Boyang Town Henan 6500 years ago, most likely the tomb of Fuxi, there is evidence that I Ching has matured.
We also identified for the first time, 7000 years ago, in the Yangshao culture, ancient Viet Australoid mixed blood with Mongoloid people living on the North bank of Yellow River, giving birth to the South Mongoloid race, called modern Viet people. Modern Viet people increased their population and became the subjects of the Yellow basin River. In 2698 BC, the Mongols, led by Xuanyan, attacked the South Yellow River to occupy the land of the Viet people, establishing the Emperor state. The constant war led to the migration of Viet people to the Southern Yangtze River and Vietnam, transforming the southern population's genetics from Australoid to Southern Mongoloid.
This is a long-term genetic transformation that is not invasion of population replacement. The Viet people stayed in the Hanshui plain, later called as the Han people. Thus, Han people are a community born by the ancient Viet 7000 years ago and remain in the Yellow River basin. Due to such formation history, Vietnamese is the subject of Chinese language. The Viet letter is the subject of Chinese writing. The Viet culture are the subject that make up Chinese culture. That's my assertion from connecting and deciphering the latest, most reliable archaeological and genetic materials.
On July 14, 2012, during the Memorial Ceremony of the 15 years death of philosopher Kim Dinh, at the Thái học House, the Temple of Literature Hanoi, I said: “Those who master the Vietnamese Confucianism and An Vi theory will have a good day to step in and teach at the most prestigious universities in the world. ” Today, I would like to tell Associate Professor Liam Kelly that, being deeply attached to Vietnamese history, his working capacity is still abundant. If he imbued with the idea of Kim Dinh and mastered Vietnamese prehistory following the discovery of Vietnam's "fringer history", he is likely to become the leading Orientalism of Western scholar.
Saigon, April, 2020
1. Xianrendong http://archaeology.about.com/od/xterms/qt/Xianrendong.htm
2.Marc Oxenham et al. Between foraging and farming: strategicresponses to the Holocene Thermal Maximum in Southeast Asia.
3. Hà Văn Thùy. Con Co Ngua site and the Vietnamese prehistoric problem (discussion with Marc Oxenham) https://thuyhavan.blogspot.com/search?q=Di+ch%E1%BB%89+C%E1%BB%93n+C%E1%BB%95+Ng%E1%BB%B1a
4. Hà Văn Thùy. Out of Vietnam peopling on the world
5. Hà Văn Thùy. Rewriting Chinese history . Publishing House of Writers Association, H. 2016
6. Spencer Wells. The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey.
7. Hà Văn Thùy. Which path did the prehistoric people leave Africa?http://thuyhavan.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2019-04-11T02:11:00-07:00&max-results=1&start=19&by-date=false