Hello Fellow Enthusiasts!

Welcome to the Diogenes Research blog. Please jumpn and give us your thoughts!

This entry was posted in The Chinese Origin Of The Age Of Discovery. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Hello Fellow Enthusiasts!

  1. PumaRachel says:

    Thanks for the useful information. Need to add your blog to bookmarks

  2. This is a very good tips especially to those new to blogosphere, brief and accurate information… Thanks for sharing this one. A must read article.

  3. GulliverFredrich says:

    I am very confused about the Turkic peoples, there are lots of Turkic peoples that look like White Europeans; there are even potraits of Mamluk Turks and Ottoman Sultan Turks being depicted and pictured as Northern European looking. Yet people seem to be confusing them to be of “Mongoloid stock”, what do you say to this confusion?

    I was researching the Tang dynasty, since you mentioned that the Tang was run was one of the most cosmopolitanism and one of the major Chinese dynasties that was run by and had major Eurasian Siberian bloodlines and figureheads and bodies running it; I found some interesting figurines from that period:

















    These all eerily look like White Europeans to me! And they aren’t “foreign merchants” from the Tang period either!

    I also found some interesting information about the Zhou dynasty and the origins of the Zhou tribe. It seems as though the Zhou had a lot of common practices that indicates that they were a branch of the Indo-European peoples of Central Asia; they had many traditions that were similar to the later Germanic tribes, they had a belief system similar to Arian christanity that the Goths adopted en masse, that is the mandate of heaven and the emperor being the son of a supreme deity, created by said supreme deity but a separate being subordinate to the supreme deity.

    They had a tradition of passing land titles and land and possessions to the eldest son just like the Germanic tribes in Europe, and they instituted a feudal system in early China that was similar to the feudalism that the Germanic tribes set in Europe when they settled there en masse.

    But one of the biggest clues as to the INDO-EUROPEAN origins of the Zhou tribe, were the fact that they ORIGINATED FROM THE REGION NORTH OF CHINA, NORTH OF THE YELLOW RIVER IN THE REGION OF NORTHERN ASIA AND SIBERIA!

    They were said to be “nomadic” and had “nomadic barbarian foreign origins” compared to the Xia and Shang, and they came into China from a region where you postulated that the Proto-Indo-European homeland was, which was in Siberia/Northern Asia and eastern Central Asia, as opposed to the Pontic caspian steppes; judging by the clues offered to us about them in the texts I uncovered so far.

    Eurocentric historians tell us that, the Indo-Europeans peoples were one of first peoples to domesticate the horse in Central Asia, and used it for MILITARISTIC PURPOSES; they tell us that the Indo-European peoples were ONE OF THE FIRST TO PIONEER AND INVENT MOUNTED CAVALRY WARFARE ON THE STEPPES OF EURASIA!

    And yet, from what I have uncovered, Chinese texts tell us that the Zhou were one of the first Chinese dynasties and tribes in general, to utilize the chariot and horse cavalry, FOR MILITARISTIC AND WARFARE PURPOSES JUST LIKE THE EARLY INDO-EUROPEANS PEOPLES IN EARLY CENTRAL ASIAN HISTORY!

    And the Zhou also allied themselves with what seemed to be Indo-European Eurasian tribes from Central Asia, during their various military incursions and skirmishes. They also appeared in China, near the time of when the Aryans migrated to the India region, from OUTSIDE of China near where your postulated PIE homeland region is. They too, like the Aryans in India, used the Eurasian horse and chariots, to subjugate and take over Ancient China.

    The first Zhou king, was said to have foreign and Western/North-Western origins, which again gives a clue, as to them having an Indo-European tribal origin, FOREIGN to the Ancient Xia/Shang civilizations at the time, and especially when you take all the above hints into account…

    What do you say to all this?

    BTW THANK YOU! THANK YOU ALOT! You are one of the most sane and polite and critically thinking and honest persons I have across so far. You discuss and analyze the whole PIE homeland issue and the origins of the Indo-Europeans in a sane and calm and analytic manner, very much free of biases and agenda’s and personal interests. You have no idea just how bad these discussions are on mainstream anthro-forums these days and the arrogance and falsity that is displayed when it concerns this topic since no one wants to admit the truth.

    The whole PIE issue is one of the most important topics and subjects in history, in my opinion, and it’s not given the right type of research and unbiased look that you give; because your theory of the PIE being in Northern Asia/Siberia/Eastern Central Asia as opposed to the Pontic steppes, makes MUCH MORE, MUCH MORE sense then the pontic theory that the eurocentrist’s keep repeatedly babbling ad nasuem. Eurocentrists are intentionally trying their best to ignore and neglect Ancient Chinese accounts of Ancient Indo-European tribes near their borders, because they know that these accounts refute and neutralize their BS pontic steppe origin theories.

    Eurocentrists want to deny that Indo-Europeans have deep origins and roots DEEP in Asia as far as Siberia BEFORE they settled Europe, despite all the evidence proving so; the pontic theory is a scheme to place their origins as close to Europe as possible, which is why they are intentionally neglecting research into the Central Asia area and Siberia area and their possible roots in those two regions AS OPPOSED TO IT BEING CLOSE TO EUROPE! Because they don’t want to really see what they might uncover in this sort of research, since they are going to end up finding evidence and clues that throws their entire origin theories of themselves out the window, as well as their supposed “roots” in “Europe”.

    However your divulging and research of Ancient Chinese accounts of Indo-European tribes, refutes and provides evidence that the Indo-European peoples had a DEEP Siberian/Northern Asian origin as opposed to the Black sea region area. And this conclusion, is something that I have sort of come to before I read your blog independently. The region of Siberia and Northern Asia proper, is BIGGER THEN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES LANDMASS WISE!

    So it’s really suspicious why Eurocentric researcher are not looking more into this region and the rest of Central Asia in general, considering all this and the histories of this region; combined also with the fact that written records and accounts from INSIDE these regions by parties INSIDE these regions EARLY IN HISTORY ARE SCARCE as opposed TO OUTSIDE PARTIES, like the Ancient Chinese and Greeks.

    Thank you once again for sharing us your research! I appreciate it alot!

  4. GulliverFredrich says:

    Professor Chein, I would really appreciate a response and feedback, as well as your thoughts and analysis on what I wrote above!

    Your hypothesis about the PIE homeland being in Northern Asia and Siberia and not the Pontic steppes is correct and makes more sense then the eurocentric pontic steppes theory.

    First of, if the Xianbei, Di, Jie, Xiongnu, Zhou, Hu, Wusun, Yuezhi, etc steppes Indo-European like peoples on the Eurasian steppes, appeared in Northern China near Siberia and Central Asia, then it means the PIE homeland was near there.

    Geographically this makes sense, because the land area of China was historically surrounded by formidable natural geographic barriers which played a role in isolating China from the rest of the world and which made China a difficult place to invade and take over. One of the key open entrances to China was through an open passage away in Siberia to Eastern China. The Mongols and Imperial Japanese to the Manchu’s, used this Siberian entrance to take over China and circum-navigate around China’s physical geographic barriers.

    So if we have Indo-European peoples, like the Zhou people, the Xianbei, the Wusun, the Yeuzhi, the Jie, the Di, etc etc appearing in Northern China near the Siberian border areas; it means that Indo-Europeans had to have known this Siberian entrance all along, in a region the size of the U.S (Siberia) TO CHINA IN THE FIRST PLACE! And the only way they had to have known that THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO WHEN MODERN TECHNOLOGY AND TRANSPORTATION WAS AROUND, WAS IF THEY HAD BEEN IN NORTHERN ASIA AND SIBERIA ALL ALONG!

    Hence the only conclusion is that the PIE homeland was indeed in Siberia and Eastern Central Asia….

    • GulliverFredrich says:

      Modern technology and transportation was NOT around*

      I would appreciate any feedback and input and responses to my posts from anyone!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *