The Chinese Intruders

Implications for Vietnamese

by dchph

The story of Chinese civilization is often told as one of continuity and indigenous development. Yet a closer examination reveals a more complex reality – one shaped by waves of intruders who entered the Yellow River basin and left indelible marks on language, culture, and identity. Among the most provocative claims is that of Terrien de Lacouperie, who argued that the Bak tribes from western Asia were not native to China but cultural outsiders whose arrival transformed the foundations of early Chinese society.

This intrusion hypothesis reframes Chinese civilization as a hybrid construct, formed through centuries of contact with Yue, Altaic, and Turko‑Tartaric groups. The implications extend beyond China itself: Vietnam, situated at the crossroads of southern migration and imperial expansion, inherited a layered linguistic legacy in which Yue substrata and Sinitic borrowings coexist.

I) Why "Intruders" matter

The concept of intrusion is not merely historical – it is existential. It challenges the notion of a pure, self‑contained Chinese identity and instead highlights the plural origins of both Chinese and Vietnamese languages. Features such as SVO word order, classifiers, and tonal development reveal the imprint of Mon and Taic languages on early Chinese. These same features later shaped Vietnamese, demonstrating how intrusion produced continuity across regions.

By foregrounding the role of outsiders, The Chinese Intruders seeks to illuminate the politics of linguistic identity. Just as dynastic histories often obscured the contributions of non‑Chinese peoples, modern scholarship has sometimes minimized the Yue and Austroasiatic dimensions of Vietnamese. This article argues that only by acknowledging these intrusions can we fully understand the hybrid nature of Vietnamese etymology.

This article reassesses the origins of early Chinese civilization and its expansion into southern territories, including present‑day Vietnam. Drawing on Terrien de Lacouperie and subsequent scholarship, it argues that the foundational Chinese population, Bak tribes from western Asia, were cultural intruders rather than indigenous to the Yellow River basin. Alongside Altaic and Turko‑Tartaric groups, they gradually infiltrated southern China, displacing or assimilating native Yue populations. The resulting fusion of peoples and traditions laid the groundwork for early dynasties and shaped the trajectory of the Chinese language, itself a hybrid formed through centuries of interethnic contact. This hybridity extended into Vietnam through successive waves of migration and imperial expansion.

China has long stood as both neighbor and counterpart to Vietnam, a presence that is at once formative and contested. To ask what China represents, and how its people should be understood in relation to Vietnam, is to confront questions of identity, inheritance, and resistance. The historical and linguistic bonds between the two civilizations run deep, yet the degree to which Vietnamese has been shaped by Chinese traditions remains a source of unease. For many Vietnamese speakers, acknowledging this influence seems to challenge the strength of national identity, even as the evidence of shared linguistic and cultural strata is undeniable.

Vietnam’s past cannot be disentangled from its long and intricate entanglement with China. Efforts to construct a purely independent narrative by selectively emphasizing certain cultural elements risk obscuring the fuller truth. This chapter therefore approaches the subject through three interwoven themes: identity, as nations define themselves in relation to one another; language, as a record of contact, borrowing, and adaptation; and power, as conquest and resistance leave their imprint on speech as well as on history.

A credible account of Vietnam’s origins must rest not on romanticized legends of an unbroken 4,000‑year lineage, but on rigorous, evidence‑based scholarship. By examining the linguistic record alongside historical testimony, this chapter seeks to illuminate how Vietnam’s voice emerged from centuries of dialogue, conflict, and exchange with China, a voice at once distinct and deeply marked by its closest neighbor. (1)

In parallel, the Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer theory of Vietnamese‑Khmer affiliation has largely been constructed on lexical comparisons drawn from southern vocabulary. While this framework has gained considerable traction, its foundation rests on a relatively narrow subset of linguistic data, and thus warrants closer scrutiny and reevaluation within a broader historical and comparative context. (2).

This survey extends prior research by integrating historical documentation with linguistic evidence to reassess the development of the Vietnamese language. It cautions that when the historical complexities embedded in etymological studies are overlooked, younger scholars risk retracing familiar paths without advancing the discourse. Persistent methodological challenges, within both traditional and modern frameworks, continue to shape interpretation, often allowing ideological bias to color claims of objectivity.

In this chapter, the author approaches the central questions from a historical vantage point, presenting evidence to support several key assertions:

• Geo‑political dynamics have contributed to the neglect and distortion of historical and linguistic records, largely as a result of nationalist resistance to Chinese influence.

• Enduring antagonism toward perceived Chinese hegemonism has compromised impartial analysis of Vietnamese linguistic origins, particularly in their earliest stages.

• Vietnamese etymology, when evaluated against a Sinitic framework, reveals a dominant Chinese imprint that continues to shape the language’s evolution and must be taken seriously in any theory of affiliation.

If advocates of the Austroasiatic Mon‑Khmer theory ground their claims in speculative reconstructions of events thousands of years past, then counterarguments rooted in historical and anthropological evidence deserve equal weight. One such perspective draws on Darwinian principles of natural selection: the presence of core Chinese linguistic elements in Vietnamese may reflect a long‑standing process of racial and cultural intermingling. This includes intermarriage between indigenous Vietnamese populations and successive waves of northern settlers, namely the Chinese. Such interactions, extending back to prehistoric times, have left a profound and enduring imprint on the Vietnamese language.

Language, like biology, follows its own evolutionary trajectory. To fully understand Vietnamese, it is necessary to theorize the origins of the Yue people and to trace the development of Chinese languages and their subfamilies, whether Sinitic within the Sino‑Tibetan family or Mon‑Khmer within Austroasiatic. In the 18th century, Sir William Jones famously identified structural and lexical commonalities among Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, leading to the formulation of the Indo‑European language family. His mastery of 28 languages enabled him to recognize that these similarities were not coincidental but inherited from a shared ancestral source, Proto‑Indo‑European (Merritt Ruhlen, The Origin of Language, 1944 [1994], p. 27).

As Merritt Ruhlen later observed, Jones’s insight that languages evolve through descent with modification anticipated Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory by more than seventy years. This parallel between linguistic and biological evolution underscores the importance of comparative methodology in tracing language origins and affiliations (Ruhlen, ibid., p. 28).

Darwin himself later affirmed that linguistic classification, like biological taxonomy, hinges on shared vocabulary and structural features. In The Descent of Man (1871), he noted that if two languages exhibit extensive similarities in words and construction, they are likely to have originated from a common source, even if they differ in some respects. Unfortunately, this foundational principle has been largely overlooked by historical linguists in recent decades.

Today, interdisciplinary studies – linking genetics, linguistics, archaeology, and evolutionary biology – offer promising avenues for understanding the origins and spread of human languages. Ruhlen emphasized Darwin’s foresight in The Origin of Species (1859), where he envisioned that a genealogical map of humanity would provide the most accurate classification of world languages. If extinct languages and transitional dialects were included, such a map would be not only ideal but necessary.

Guided by this evolutionary framework, the next section will explore the theorization of the Yue as cultural and linguistic predecessors to the pre-Chinese populations of ancient China, drawing from both anthropological and linguistic evidence to illuminate their role in shaping the Vietnamese language.

II) Bak tribes and early Chinese civilization

Terrien de Lacouperie’s "Sino‑Babylonian" thesis proposed that the Bak tribes, originating from western Asia, migrated eastward and settled in the Yellow River basin. Far from being indigenous, these groups were cultural intruders whose arrival reshaped the foundations of early Chinese society. Their influence was not marginal – it extended to agriculture, metallurgy, and the symbolic systems that later defined Chinese civilization.

Archaeological and textual evidence suggests that the Bak carried with them Mesopotamian cultural elements, including calendrical knowledge and proto‑writing practices. These intrusions merged with local traditions, producing a hybrid civilization that would later be codified under the Shang and Zhou dynasties. The Huanghe valley, long seen as the cradle of Chinese culture, thus became a meeting ground of indigenous Neolithic communities and incoming Bak migrants.

This hybrid origin explains why early Chinese civilization exhibits features that resonate with non‑Chinese traditions. The Shang dynasty (c. 1600-1046 BCE), for example, developed bronze technology and pictographic writing systems that bear traces of external influence. The Zhou dynasty (1046-221 BCE) further integrated these elements, embedding them into a framework of ritual and philosophy that would later be identified as "classical Chinese culture".

For Vietnamese studies, the Bak intrusion thesis is crucial. It demonstrates that Chinese civilization itself was never monolithic, but a layered construct shaped by outsiders. This recognition reframes the relationship between Chinese and Vietnamese: if China was hybrid from the start, then Vietnam’s linguistic and cultural borrowings from China must also be understood as part of a broader pattern of intercultural fusion.

In The Languages of China Before the Chinese (London, 1887; reprinted Taiwan, 1966), Terrien de Lacouperie proposed a provocative theory regarding the origins of the early Chinese civilization. He suggested that the foundational Chinese nucleus was composed of approximately a dozen Bak tribes originating from western Asia, specifically southwest of the Hindu Kush. These Bak leaders, according to Lacouperie, were more culturally advanced than the nomadic horsemen of the northern steppes, who are now recognized as belonging to the Altaic Turco-Mongolic lineage (see Peter A. Boodberg, 1979.)

Influenced by the civilizations of Susiana, an offshoot of Babylon, the Bak tribes had acquired knowledge in the arts, sciences, governance, and early forms of cursive writing. Around 2300 B.C., they migrated into the Yellow River basin, accompanied by Altaic groups from the north, and encountered indigenous southern populations. For centuries, these early settlers established themselves in what is now Gansu and Shaanxi provinces, particularly near the latitude of Taiyuan City. Their southward expansion was initially blocked by entrenched northern forces, notably the Jung tribes and the Xiongnu (匈奴), described in Chinese records as formidable barbarians. This period coincides with the reign of King Shun (舜, 2043-1990 B.C.), who inherited southwestern Shaanxi from his predecessor, King Yao (堯, 2146-2043 B.C.).

Upon arrival, the pre-Chinese groups gradually dispersed across the region, infiltrating aboriginal communities and asserting control over vast territories. Simultaneously, northern infiltrators continued to push southward, sometimes allying with indigenous tribes in rebellion or under nominal allegiance to the emerging Celestial authority. Resistance to assimilation was met with suppression or displacement, often forcing native groups further south.

Unlike the isolated tribal populations found along the Tibetan frontier, in Taiwan, or the Philippine archipelago, the majority of inhabitants in the Indo-Chinese peninsula were originally from China proper. As Lacouperie noted, "The ethnology of the peninsula cannot be understood separately from the Chinese formation", a reciprocal relationship that shaped both linguistic and cultural development. The Chinese language, while dominant, absorbed elements from aboriginal tongues, which were distinct from the Altaic or Turko-Tartar dialects of earlier northern occupiers. Instead, the early Chinese linguistic lineage aligned more closely with the Western or Ugric branch of the Turanian family, particularly with dialects such as Ostiak.

During the Xia Dynasty, around 2000 B.C., the language of the conquering Chinese began to intermingle with that of the indigenous populations as they advanced southeastward toward the Yangtze River Delta. This fusion marked a critical phase in the evolution of Chinese linguistic identity, shaped by both conquest and cultural exchange.

"[..]The aboriginal tribes, of the Flowery Land, with whom the Chinese Bak tribes, advancing through the modern Kansuh to South Shensi, fell into contact, did not receive them all in the same way. Some were friendly from the beginning, others objected to their advance, and the same thing occurred over and over again in the course of their history. Small and unimportant at first, the Chinese had no other superiority than that of their civilization. In their advance they had to make their way through the native settlements, either by amicable arrangements and interminglings, or, in case of need, by war and conquest, with the help of the friendly tribes. They used to establish advanced posts and military settlements, around which their colonists could take shelter when required by the hostile dispositions of the native populations among which they were interspersed. As a rule, in the history of their growth and development, the advance of their dominion was preceded by the settlements, always increasing, of colonists in the coveted region. It was their constant practice to drive away their lawless people, outcasts and criminals, who with the malcontents and the travelling merchants paved the way to the future official extension. The non-Chinese communities and states were in this way always gradually saturated with Chinese blood. This policy was never long departed from, even when in later times their power was sufficiently effective to permit a more effective way of bringing matters to a short conclusion.

Under the pressure of the Chinese growth by slow infiltration or open advance, the Pre-Chinese populations gradually retreated southwards; some of them were absorbed by intermingling; others, satisfied with the Chinese yoke, lost slowly their individuality, and formed part of the Chinese nation. Others were entrapped to the same end by the insidious process of the Chinese government, which, bestowing on their chiefs titles of nobility and badges of office, thus made them, sometimes against their secret will, Chinese officials. Light taxes and a nominal recognition of the Chinese suzerainty were only required from them as long as the government of the Middle Kingdom did not feel itself strong enough to ask more and overcome any possible resistance. But those of the Pre-Chinese who objected altogether to the Chinese dominion were thus gradually compelled to migrate away, either of their own will and where they chose and could, or, as was the case in later times, in such provinces or regions left unoccupied by the Chinese for that very purpose. Numerous were the tribes who were gradually led to migrate out of China altogether, as we have had many occasions to show in the course of this work.

The gradual submission of the Pre-Chinese was a very long affair, which began with the arrival of the Chinese Bak tribes, and has not yet come to an end, though the finish is not far at hand. For long the Chinese dominion was very small, and later on, when very large on the maps and in appearance, it was, as a matter of fact, effective only on a much smaller area. The advanced posts on the borders of the real Chinese domain used to give their names to regions sometimes entirely unsubdued, though the reverse has long seemed to be the case, because all the necessary intercourse between the independent populations and the Chinese government passed through the Chinese officials of these posts, specially appointed with great titles of office, for that purpose."

(Lacouperie. Idbid. pp. 106-108.)

Table 1 - The Chinese intruders

It is not one of the least interesting results of modern researches in oriental history and philology that the Chinese should now be known as intruders instead of aborigines in their own country. This blunt statement must, however, be qualified, as the modern Chinese are a hybrid race, and their speech is a hybrid language. both of which are the outcome of interminglings between the immigrants from the north-west and north and the previous occupiers of the soil belonging to different races, and especially to the Indo-Pacific ones.

This better knowledge, for the benefit of the philosophy of history, was brought about by a closer examination of their early traditions, a rigorous identification of the geographical names mentioned, therein and in the course of their history, and the study of many historical statements and disclosures about the non-Chinese races actually settled within the borders of China proper, clumsily arranged under the heading of foreign nations, in the Chinese Dynastic Annals.

The early Chinese intruders and civilizers were the Bak tribes, about sixteen in number, who arrived on the N.W. borders of China not long after the great rising which had taken place in S.W. Asia at the beginning of the twenty-third century B.C. in Susiana. Their former seat was within the dominating influence of the latter country, as they were acquainted with its civilization, a reflex of the Babylo-Assyrian focus."

(Lacouperie. Ibid. pp. 113-114)

III) Other intruders and dynastic shifts

The Bak tribes were not the only outsiders to leave their mark on early Chinese civilization. Successive dynasties reveal a pattern of intrusion and integration, where external groups reshaped the cultural and linguistic landscape.

• Shang Dynasty (c. 1600-1046 BCE): The Shang are remembered for their oracle bone script and bronze technology. Yet archaeological evidence suggests that their cultural base was not purely indigenous. Contacts with neighboring Taic and proto‑Altaic groups introduced new ritual practices and phonological features, laying groundwork for tonal development in Chinese.

• Zhou Dynasty (1046-221 BCE): The Zhou consolidated power by absorbing diverse tribal groups into their feudal system. Their adoption of non‑Chinese ritual vocabulary and calendrical systems reflects the ongoing hybridization of Chinese civilization. Philosophical traditions such as Confucianism and Daoism emerged in this context of cultural fusion, not isolation.

• Qin Dynasty (221-206 BCE): The Qin unified China politically, but their military expansion relied heavily on techniques borrowed from nomadic neighbors. The standardization of script and measurement systems was itself an act of integration, blending regional practices into a centralized model.

• Han Dynasty (206 BCE-220 CE): Often celebrated as the golden age of Chinese civilization, the Han were deeply influenced by Turko-Tartaric and Central Asian contacts. The Silk Road brought not only goods but also linguistic and cultural borrowings. Han texts record Yue and Taic words embedded in everyday vocabulary, evidence of ongoing intrusion.

This succession of dynasties demonstrates that Chinese identity was never static. Each ruling house absorbed elements from outsiders, weaving them into the evolving fabric of civilization. The so‑called "Middle Kingdom" was, in reality, a meeting ground of cultures.

Table 2 - The other intruders

"Numerous were the tribes and races who, for the same reasons as the Chinese Bak tribes, or attracted by the wealth and civilization of the latter, forced their way into China, imperiling the existence of its government, often superseding it altogether over a part or over the whole of the country, and afterwards disappearing, not however without leaving traces of their sway in the civilization, the language, and the population.

The Jungs, who had partly preceded the Chinese, the Teks, the Kiangs, etc., have been already mentioned in this work as having contributed to swell the ranks of the malcontents and banished Chinese families, as well as those of the aboriginal tribes, in pre-Chinese lands. Now we must refer more particularly to those of the intruders who have exercised an influence of some importance either politically or in civilization.

The oldest intruders of this class were the Shang 商, whose name suggests that they were traders, while their traditions indicate a western origin near the Kuen-lun range, and perhaps a parentship with the Jungs. They appear on the N.W. of the Chinese settlements since the beginning of and in the sixteenth century [B.C.]; they upset the Hia dynasty, took possession of the parts of Shensi, Shansi, and Honan then occupied by the Chinese, driving the Hia [廈 Xia] towards the coast.

The Tchou 周, formerly Tok, who drove away the Shang-Yn dynasty [殷 Yin], established their brilliant rule over the Middle Kingdom in 1050 B.C. ; some of them had lingered on the Chinese borders in Shensi for several centuries. They were, most probably Red-haired Kirghizes, and were not apparently without Aryan blood among them. It seems so, from the fact that they were acquainted with some notions derived from the Aryan focus of culture in Kwarism, which they introduced into China, and that several of the explanations added to the Olden texts of the Yn-King by their leader Wen-wang were certainly suggested by the homophony of Aryan words.

The Ts'in 秦, or better Tan [ SV "Tần" ], as formerly pronounced, formed an important state on the west of the Chinese agglomeration. It grew from the tenth century to the third B.C., when, having subdued the six other principal states of the confederation, its prince founding the Chinese Empire, declared himself Emperor in 221 B.C. Their nucleus was not Chinese, and made of Jung tribes who absorbed gradually many Chinese families from inside, and also Turko-Tatar tribes from its outside borders, the limits of which are not well known. This state was a channel through which passed, or a buffer preventing the passage of, any intercourse of the west with the Middle Kingdom."

(Lacouperie. Ibid. pp. 123-125)

 

IV) Languages before the Chinese

Long before the consolidation of a “Chinese” identity, the Yellow River basin was a mosaic of Mon‑Taic substrata and diverse speech communities. These languages left deep imprints on early Chinese phonology and syntax, shaping features that later became hallmarks of Sinitic.

• Syntax and Word Order: The prevalence of SVO word order and the use of classifiers in Chinese reflect Mon‑Taic influence. These structures are not native to Indo‑European traditions but resonate with Southeast Asian typologies.
• Tonogenesis: The emergence of tones in Chinese parallels developments in Mon‑Khmer and Tai languages, suggesting a substratal contribution rather than an isolated innovation.
• Lexical Borrowings: Everyday vocabulary in early Chinese texts often reveals non‑Chinese origins, camouflaged within glossaries and commentaries.

A. Early lexicons as evidence

Two classical works preserve traces of these substrata:

• Erya 爾雅 (SV Nhĩnhã) – Compiled during the Qin or early Han, the Erya is the earliest surviving Chinese lexicon. It organizes words into categories and provides glosses that often reveal non‑Chinese etyma embedded in Zhou texts.

• Fangyan 方言 (SV phươngngôn, VS phươngngữ, 'regional speech') – A Han‑era compilation of dialectal expressions, the Fangyan documents local vernaculars across China. Many entries preserve Yue, Tai, and other substratal forms that later merged into the Sinitic lexicon.

B. Vietnamese as hybrid legacy

Vietnamese today embodies the layered legacy of intrusion and borrowing. Its lexicon reveals a deep intertwining of Yue substrata and Sinitic overlays, producing a language that is neither purely Austroasiatic nor purely Chinese, but a hybrid construct shaped by centuries of contact.

• Yue roots: Everyday vernacular terms such as tía (‘dad’) and nạ (‘mom’) reflect kinship vocabulary inherited from Yue traditions. These words persist in colloquial speech, anchoring Vietnamese identity in southern substrata.

• Sinitic borrowings: Core vocabulary – được ('okay'), đúng ('correct'), xong ('done') – aligns with Chinese cognates 得 dé, 中 zhòng, 成 chéng. These borrowings entered Vietnamese during prolonged imperial rule, becoming naturalized in daily usage.

• Hybrid expressions: Idioms and ritual terms like ănTết ('celebrate Lunar New Year') mirror Chinese 過節 guòjié, while retaining uniquely Vietnamese phrasing. Such expressions illustrate how cultural practices were linguistically adapted.

Together, these works demonstrate that Chinese was never monolithic. Its earliest dictionaries already acknowledged diversity, recording words that betray southern and western origins.

V) Implications for Vietnamese studies

For Vietnam, these dynastic intrusions are critical. They show that the Sinitic elements embedded in Vietnamese are themselves products of centuries of hybridization. When Vietnamese borrowed from Chinese, it was not borrowing from a monolithic source but from a language already layered with Yue, Altaic, and Taic influences. This recognition strengthens the case for a Sinitic‑Vietnamese paradigm that acknowledges hybridity as the norm, not the exception.

For Vietnamese studies, this substratal evidence is crucial. It shows that when Vietnamese borrowed from Chinese, it was not borrowing from a "pure" language but from one already layered with Mon‑Taic and Yue elements. Thus, Vietnamese etyma such as đúng ('correct') or xong ('done') align with Chinese forms that themselves carry traces of non‑Chinese ancestry.

This recognition reframes Vietnamese as part of a shared hybrid continuum – a language shaped by Yue roots, Mon‑Taic substrata, and Sinitic overlays.

This hybridity cited above demonstrates that Vietnamese is not an isolate but a language forged through layers of intrusion and adaptation. The Yue substrata provide the emotional and cultural core, while Sinitic borrowings furnish administrative, ritual, and scholarly vocabulary. Together, they form a Sinitic‑Vietnamese paradigm that challenges nationalist narratives of purity and instead embraces historical complexity.

This article delves into the historical foundations of the preceding hypothesis, offering a preliminary review of key evidence that supports the author's argument regarding the development of Sinitic-Vietnamese etymology. The aim is to trace how historical events and cultural interactions contributed to the linguistic formation of both Chinese and Vietnamese.

One focal point is the documented contact between ancient China and the BáchViệt (百越 BaiYue), a collective term for the Yue peoples, referred to by Lacouperie as "all the outside-borders" populations. These interactions date back to the Yin Dynasty (殷代, known in Vietnamese as ĐờiÂn), specifically during the period between 1718 B.C. and 1631 B.C., when hostilities between the Yin and the Yue were recorded.

By this time, the Yin civilization had already diverged from its earlier Tibetan-Bak roots and had begun resettling in the northwestern regions of present-day Gansu and Shaanxi. Archaeological discoveries, including findings from excavations as recent as August 2016, have substantiated the historical existence of the Xia (廈) and Shang (商) dynasties, successors to the Yin, suggesting that the Yin may have already been a fully established state during this era. (3)

Figure 1 - Yin-Xia-Shang-Zhou timeline

The findings in the journal Science may help rewrite history because they not only show that a massive flood did occur, but that it was in 1920 B.C., several centuries later than traditionally thought.

This image highlights the variable timelines for the start of the Xia Dynasty according to traditional Chinese culture, the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project and the flood that was newly identified and dated by Wu et al. (Credit: Copyright © Carla Schaffer/AAAS)

From an etymological perspective, the interchangeability of the phonetic initials /d-/ and /j-/ in Old Chinese (OC) vocables provides compelling linguistic support for the Vietnamese legend of Thánh Gióng (Saint Gióng). This heroic figure, said to have led an army against Yin invaders, is recorded in Chinese historical texts under the name 董 (Dǒng, SV Đổng). The Vietnamese forms Gióng or Dóng (/jɔŋ⁵/) are phonetically cognate with the Old Chinese pronunciation of Dǒng (/toːŋʔ/), suggesting a shared linguistic ancestry.

This appellation may reflect remnants of proto-Taic speech patterns once spoken by descendants of the ancient Yue peoples who inhabited southern China prior to the rise of the Chinese dynasties. While the term could be extended to imply Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer affiliations, such a linguistic interpretation risks misrepresenting the historical and phonological context. Instead, the name Gióng may serve as a linguistic artifact, preserving traces of pre-Sinitic vernaculars that shaped early Vietnamese identity.

Following the decline of the Xia and Shang dynasties – successors to the Yin – the Zhou Dynasty (周王朝) emerged, ushering in a new era shaped by ethnolinguistic fusion. China North (華北) saw the integration of Rong (Jung) and Turko-Tartaric nomadic tribes, who established states such as Zhao (趙), Wei (衛), Liang (梁), and Liao (遼). These populations, along with subjects from the Central Plains vassal states, Qin (秦), Lu (魯), Qi (齊), Yan (燕), and Han (韓), formed the demographic foundation of a unified China under Qin rule in 221 B.C.

Prior to unification, interstate communication relied on Yayu (雅語), a lexicon of regional dialects, and Wenyanwen (文言文), or classical Chinese, as diplomatic tools. It is important to note that linguistic uniformity did not exist; northern and southern states spoke markedly different languages. 

 Southern polities such as Chu (楚), Wu (吳), and Yue (越), along with other historical polities like XiYue (西越), DongYue (東越), MinYue (閩越), WuYue (吳越), LuoYue (雒越), Ou Yue (毆越), and Yuechang (越常) are believed to share a common linguistic ancestry rooted in what this study refers to as the Taic family. This proposed lineage stands in contrast to the modern Sino-Tibetan classification, which, by design, encompasses contemporary Chinese lects.

The Yue linguistic sub-family, as hypothesized here, runs parallel to the Austroasiatic Mon-Khmer branch in terms of structural and historical development, though it diverges notably from the Daic-Kadai classification. This distinction invites a reevaluation of linguistic affiliations in southern China and mainland Southeast Asia, particularly in light of historical migration patterns and cultural convergence.

In the early 20th century, Western linguists grouped southern languages under the Austroasiatic family, including Mon-Khmer languages spoken across Southeast Asia. However, archaeological and linguistic evidence from southern Indochina suggests that these languages, such as Chamic, were unrelated to the Annamese newcomers who arrived after the 13th century. By then, the Annamese were already speaking a Yue-derived language heavily infused with Chinese elements, likely resembling vernacular Mandarin more than any Mon-Khmer tongue. This analysis is grounded in historical records, not prehistoric speculation.

As the Spring and Autumn Warring States period (770-221 B.C.) came to an end, many defeated populations fled southward. Among them were Yue peoples – recorded in Chinese texts using characters such as 鉞, 粵, 越 – who had long established their own states. Northern Chinese elites often referred to these groups derogatorily as NamMan (南蠻), or "Southern Barbarians." Over time, the Yue tribes evolved into modern ethnic minorities such as the Dai (傣), Zhuang (壯), Yao (瑤), Miao (苗), and Mon (猛 or 毛南), each with distinct linguistic trajectories.

The Chu State (楚國), notably, was populated by people of Taic descent (原始 傣族). After its defeat by Qin, its population was absorbed into the Qin Empire. In 208 B.C., the Yue states from MinYue (閩越) to northern Vietnam’s Giaochỉ (交趾) came under the rule of King Zhao Tuo (趙佗, SV Triệu Đà), a former Qin general. These territories later formed the NamViệt Kingdom (南越 王國), which lasted nearly a century before being annexed by the Han Empire in 111 B.C.

The Han Empire’s demographic landscape was shaped by diverse populations originating from the former Chu and Qin states, along with the annexed Nam Việt territories. Consequently, the Han people inherited a notable Yue ethnic influence. It is particularly significant that Liu Bang (劉邦), the founding emperor of the Han Dynasty, and many of his key officials were once subjects of Chu. This historical detail is reiterated to highlight the ethnic and regional foundations of the Han Empire and its broader societal makeup.

Following the Han annexation of NamViệt, portions of what is now northern Vietnam were reorganized as Jiaozhou Prefecture (交州). During the Tang Dynasty, this region came to be known as the Pacified Southern Protectorate (安南都護府, Annam Đôhộphủ). As Han influence expanded, indigenous Viet-Muong communities – descendants of the Luo Yue (雒越 SV LạcViệt) – resisted cultural assimilation. Many Muong retreated to mountainous areas, while those who remained in the Red River Delta gradually formed the Kinh (京族, Jingzu) majority. The Kinh identity emerged through intermarriage between Yue-influenced Han settlers and local aboriginal groups. The character "京" (Kinh), meaning "metropolitan people," has long reflected their self-perception and cultural continuity.

From 208 B.C. onward, the Qin language (秦, Tần) began influencing the indigenous Vietic tongue, contributing to the formation of early Sinitic-Vietnamese vocabulary. Later, in 186 A.D., Viceroy Sĩ Nhiếp (士攝) mandated the use of Han Chinese over the native Yue language, deepening the linguistic integration. Continued dynastic shifts and colonial policies, especially during the Ming occupation in the 15th century, further shaped Middle Vietnamese. Over time, the linguistic divergence between Muong and Kinh grew so pronounced that they became mutually unintelligible.

In sum, the linguistic legacy of northern intruders and pre-Chinese settlers in southern China profoundly shaped both Chinese and Vietnamese language histories. As Lacouperie aptly concluded, their impact cannot be overstated.

"The influence of the Turko-Tatar races has been considerable. Several of them [...] belong to olden times. For several centuries after the Han period, ignorant Tatar dynasties have ruled over parts of Northern China. The Sien-pi, cognate to the Coreans, have produced the dynasties of the Former Yen, 303-352 A.D.; the After Yen, 383-408 A.D.; the Western Yen, 385-394 A.D.; the Southern Yen, 398-410 A.D.; the Southern Liang, 397-414 A.D.; the WesternTsin, 385-412 A.D.

The Hiung-nu Turks have produced the dynasties of Northern Liang, 397-439 A.D., of the Hia, 407-431 A.D. in W. Shensi (to be distinguished from the later Si-Hia), and afterwards the Northern Han, in 951-799 A.D.

The Tchao Turks produced the dynasties of the Former Tchao, 304-329 A.D., and After Tchao, 319-352 A.D.

The Si-fan have produced the dynasties of Tcheng in Szetchuen, 301-346 A.D. ; of the Former Tsin, 390-395 A.D., After Tsin, 384-417 A.D., both in Shensi. The Tobat Tatars, who produced the great dynasty of the Northern Wei, 386-532 A.D., belonged to the same group. They were apparently acquainted with the Syriac writing, at least about 476-500 A.D., and they had a court language of their own, in which their ruler Wan-ti at that time (in 486 A.D.) ordered that a translation of the Hiao king or 'Book of filial piety' should be made. Its use was not abolished before 517 A.D.

The rule of the Northern Wei extended over the whole of Northern China, with a few regional exceptions in the proximity of the Yang-tze Kiang. Later on, that of the Mongol dynasty of the K'itan or Liao, 907-1202 A.D., was restricted in the north-east. In the north-west, the Si-Hia or Tangut dynasty ruled from 982 to 1227, until it was swept away by the Mongols. [..] The Kin or Jutchih, the ancestors of the present Mandshu dynasty, ruled over a larger area than the N. Wei, from 1115 to 1234 A.D. The Mongol Yuen dynasty established by Kubila'i-Khan in 1271, and which lasted until 1367, was the first to rule over the whole of China; its great power did more for the homogeneity of the Middle Kingdom than any previous effort. And at last, in 1644, the Mandshu Ta Tsing dynasty established its sway all over the Empire[..]

These various dynasties brought each of them their own language, as their names suggest, and restricted as it was in its use to the court and soldiery, its influence was in every case limited, though by no means unreal, as shown by the alteration of pronunciation and the introduction of words in the official dialect. With regard to the [..] Maudshus, their presence has hurried on the phonetic decay of the Peking Mandarin dialect, now the official language, on the path of hissing and hushing the sounds, where it had entered since the days of the Yuen Mongols. Their small number, and their habit of living somewhat apart from the population, restrict the influence of the soldiery, which is felt only in the proximity of the post-towns over the empire, by the introduction of a few terms in the vernaculars."

(Lacouperie. Ibid. pp. 127-129)

Regarding the Taic linguistic roots spoken by the subjects of the ancient Chu State – including King Liu Bang (漢高祖 劉邦), founder of the Han Dynasty, and the generals who helped establish the Han Empire, as previously discussed – the foundational vocabulary of Sinitic-Vietnamese reveals notable connections to the Daic-Kadai language family. This family includes dialects still spoken today by the Tày ethnic groups in northern Vietnam. The linguistic survey presented here highlights the author’s recent findings, alongside earlier discoveries, which point to glossarial remnants of proto-Taic elements embedded in pre-Sinitic language, predating even Archaic Chinese. These elements are particularly evident in the Minnan dialects of the MinYue (閩越) region, corresponding to modern-day Fujian Province, and show clear affiliations with core vocabulary from the Yue aboriginal language. (Refer to What Makes Chinese So Vietnamese - Chapter 7 for the Tày word list.)

Conclusion

The narrative of Chinese and Vietnamese civilization cannot be told as one of purity or isolation. From the Bak tribes to the Shang, Zhou, Qin, and Han dynasties, the record shows a continuous pattern of intrusion and integration. Each wave of outsiders reshaped the cultural and linguistic landscape, leaving traces that endure in both Chinese and Vietnamese today.

For Chinese civilization, this hybridity is evident in the Mon‑Taic substrata preserved in early lexicons like Erya 爾雅 (SV Nhĩnhã) and Fangyan 方言 (VS phươngngữ, 'regional speech'). Syntax, classifiers, and tonal systems all bear the imprint of southern languages. For Vietnamese, the Yue substrata provided the cultural core, while Sinitic borrowings supplied administrative, ritual, and scholarly vocabulary. Together, they formed a hybrid continuum, a language and identity forged through centuries of contact and contestation.

The intrusion thesis reframes both Chinese and Vietnamese as products of intercultural fusion, not monolithic entities. It challenges nationalist narratives that seek to isolate Vietnamese from Chinese influence or portray Chinese civilization as self‑contained. Instead, it insists that hybridity is the historical norm.

Recognizing this reality has profound implications. It allows scholars to move beyond ideological distortions and to ground etymological inquiry in historical fact. It also opens space for a more nuanced understanding of Vietnamese identity, one that acknowledges the deep entanglement with China while affirming the distinctiveness of Vietnamese cultural expression.

Ultimately, The Chinese Intruders argues that intrusion is not a weakness but a defining feature of civilization. It is through the encounter with outsiders that languages evolve, cultures adapt, and identities are forged. Vietnamese, like Chinese, is a testament to this process – a living archive of intrusion, adaptation, and survival.

References

Primary Chinese historiography

• Sima Qian. Shiji (史記, Records of the Grand Historian).

• Sima Guang. Zizhi Tongjian (資治通鑑, Comprehensive Mirror to Aid in Government).

• Han Dynasty records on Jiaozhi 交阯 / 交趾 and Jiaozhou 交州.

• Tang Dynasty records on Annam Đôhộphủ 安南督護府 (‘Protectorate General to the Pacified South’).

Foundational linguistic studies

• Haudricourt, A. G. (1954). De l’origine des tons en vietnamien. Journal Asiatique.

• Karlgren, B. (1957). Grammata Serica Recensa. Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities.

• Ferlus, M. (2012). Trade routes and sound change patterns in Vietnamese cognates across Southeast Asia.

Historical and comparative scholarship

• Terrien de Lacouperie. (1887; reprinted 1966). The Languages of China Before the Chinese. London.

• Peter A. Boodberg. (1979). Philological Notes on Turko‑Mongolic Influences in Early China.

• Merritt Ruhlen. (1994). The Origin of Language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue.

• Charles Darwin. (1871). The Descent of Man. London.

Vietnamese scholarship

• Nguyễn Ngọc San. (1993). Tìm hiểu về Tiếng Việt Lịch sử. Hanoi: Nhà xuất bản Giáo dục.

• Bình Nguyên Lộc. (1972). Nguồn gốc Mã Lai của dân tộc Việt Nam. Saigon.

• Phan Hữu Dật. (1998). Nhân học Việt Nam. Hanoi.

Modern historiography

• Ben Kiernan. (2017). Việt Nam: A History from Earliest Times to the Present. Cambridge University Press.

• Bo Yang. (1993). The Ugly Chinaman and the Crisis of Chinese Culture. Vols. 69–71.

Lexical and glossarial sources

• Erya 爾雅 (SV Nhĩ Nhã) – Qin/Han‑era lexicon preserving non‑Chinese terms.

• Fangyan 方言 (‘regional speech’) – Yang Xiong’s Han‑era compilation of dialectal vocabulary.

FOOTNOTES

---

(1)^ See Kelley, Liam C. (2012). The Biography of the Hồng Bàng Clan as a Medieval Vietnamese Invented Tradition. Journal of Vietnamese Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2: 87-122, published by: University of California Press.

This paper critically examines an account called the "Biography of the Hồng Bàng Clan" in a fifteenth-century text, the Arrayed Tales of Selected Oddities from South of the Passes (LĩnhNam Chíchquái Liệttruyện). This account is the source for the "historical"" information about the Hùng kings. Scholars have long argued that this information was transmitted orally from the first millennium B.C. until it was finally written down at some point after Vietnam became autonomous in the tenth century. In contrast, this paper argues that this information about the Hùng kings was created after Vietnam became autonomous and constitutes an invented tradition."

(2)^ Journeymen in the field will understand why the Sino-Tibetan hypothesis of linguistic wave-theory is being shunned by the hard-cored Vietnamese nationalists, let alone the traditional family-tree one (Bloomfield, 1933. pp. 317, 18).

(3)^ "The findings in the journal Science may help rewrite history because they not only show that a massive flood did occur, but that it was in 1920 BC, several centuries later than traditionally thought.

This would mean the Xia dynasty, led by Emperor Yu, may also have started later than the period that Chinese historians have thought. Read more at: First evidence of legendary China flood may rewrite history"

More information: "Outburst flood at 1920 BCE supports historicity of China's Great Flood and the Xia dynasty,"