As you may well know, Qinshihuang (Ying Zheng 嬴政) is the 1st emperor of China. He was credited for unifying China into the 1st Imperial empire.

Probably, we will know that the region of what's called Qin state (today's Sha'anxi province) was also known as "Western Rong 西戎" and the tribes/ethnicities living in that region seemed to be called "Quan Rong 犬戎". This suggested that Qinshihuang could probably be of "Quan Rong" ethnicity (in blood origin), since he himself was the king of Qin state during warring states period.

But I was touring the Qiang village in China recently and the tour guide told me that Qinshihuang was of "Qiang ethnicity 羌族", an ancient chinese ethnic minority. Not sure if this is true.

Now, I'm confused. Does anyone know the true ethnicity of Qinshihuang?

Qin (秦) was a branch of Qiangic tribes, I think Qin Shi-Huang can be considered as a Qiang. Since Zhou (周) was also Qiangic, Qin probably was the most Sino-Tibetan successor for Zhou dynasty in Warring States.

By the way, might you be interested in Qin Shi-Huang's accent more than 2000 year ago, check this thread http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...c=21554.

These are theories about the origins of the Zhou and Qin kings that are frequently stated as fact, but are really only speculative. The Zhou and Qin people may have had a common ancestry with the Guanzhong peoples known as Rong 戎, but they also may not. Certainly their origin myths as recorded in the Shiji give us no certainty.

A lot has been made of Jiangyuan 姜嫄, the name of the supposed mother of the Zhou progenitor Houji 后稷, and the etymology of Jiang 姜 being possibly the same as Qiang 羌. But this is not sufficient to establish a link between Jiangyuan and the peoples known in Shang sources as Qiang, and Wang Ming-ke has even questioned whether the Jiang=Qiang etymology is even accurate in the first place (although he still accepts the idea that the Zhou people were originally Rong). The ethnic group that the PRC government classified as Qiang in the 1950s now proudly claims, with the support of historians, that all the Rong and Qiang tribes of ancient history were part of a single large ethnic group, from which it is descended (hence the tour guide's claim to GZ). That is a modern myth. The peoples labelled as Rong and Qiang in ancient times were much more diverse than the common labels suggest, and the modern Qiang ethnic group in Sichuan has no proven descent from them.

Similarly, a lot is made of the fact that in the Warring States period, the eastern states belittled the Qin rulers as having the customs and morals of the Rong tribes among whom they had lived for centuries (and who had ultimately all been conquered by Qin). However, Yuri Pines and Gideon Shelach have shown that this identification of the Qin people with the Rong was new propaganda created by the eastern states, and that the Qin rulers actually adopted this same propaganda and used it to their own advantage to create a new non-Zhou identity for their subjects. In reality, part of the territory of Qin was formerly the heartland of the Western Zhou kingdom, and there is no evidence that the Qin lords were regarded as Rong in Western Zhou times. The heartland was occupied by Rong tribes after 770 BC (and the Zhou capital moved east to present-day Luoyang), but the Qin lords were able to recapture most of it in the name of the Zhou king. The Qin lords were never on the same side as the Rong, so there is no strong reason to assume they shared an ethnic identity with the Rong tribes.

Another common theory is that the Qin lords were descended from eastern Yi 夷 from the Shandong region. This is mostly based on the Qin lords' surname Ying 嬴 also appearing among certain Yi states in Shandong, and the bird-egg origin myth of the Qin that is recorded in Shiji. 20th-century Chinese scholars noticed that the Shang kings had the same kind of origin myth (we won't consider for now the valid problem of whether Sima Qian was recording origin myths that truly existed among the Shang and Qin people, and how old these myths really are), and they also believed it had something to do with a bird-totem culture that they had begun to associate with the eastern Yi. So they arrived at the inference that the Shang and Qin rulers were all descended from eastern Yi. Is this inference supported by any recorded statements of the Shang or Qin kings, or any archaeological typology, or any evidence of Yi, Shang, and Qin linguistics? Not as far as I know.

So my tenative answer to GZ's question is that the Qin kings (including the future Qin Shihuang) do not seem to have had any Rong or Yi ethnic identity. My own opinion at this point is that the Qin lords originally had a 'Zhou' ethnic identity, but eventually had an ethnic identity of their own that was simply 'Qin'.

I don't like to mess with Rong (戎) and Qiang (羌). The word Rong is transferable to Yanyun (猃狁) which means Rong was more likely of Xiongnu (later name) origin. In this sense, Rong was rather close to Di (狄) not Qiang. From Chunqiu (春秋) era, Rong and Qiang was already distinguishable, though West Rong could also be used to generally refer western normads. The origin of early Qin was obscure, might be of Zhou origin. However, the contact between Qin and Rong was significant. There were conflicts and assimilations. The later Qin was already a country famous of horse breeding which was a typical Xiongnu trait. So Qin may contain some Rong components, but the majority could still be still of Zhou origin. The problem is whether Zhou was Qiangic enough or not.


Jiang (姜) and Qiang (羌) wrote same in oracle bone script, which means at least in Shang era they were not distinguishable. Though the ruling class of Zhou might be of early Sinicised Huaxia (华夏) origin, their joint with Jiang tribe (major force against Shang) already made early Zhou Qiangic enough. As to the modern Qiang people in west China, I think they can claim as one direct descendant of ancient Qiangic tribes. However, this does not means they are more close to ancient Qiang than other Chinese ethnic groups. In fact, modern Qiang are more close to Khampas (康巴) and Dangxiang (党项). If they claim Qin Shi-Huang was Qiangic, very likely I will agree with them. Supposed Qin was totally Sinicised before Chunqiu, I will prefer to call Qin Shi-Huang a Qin.



The surname Ying (嬴) is of Dong-Yi (东夷) origin, which is very plausible. Besides the etymology, there are many similarities between Qin and Shang, like burial custom. There are many side support showing that Dong-Yi (Longshan (龙山)-Liangzhu (良渚) culture) people migrated westwards in pre-Shang era. One example is Sanxingdui (三星堆) culture, another is the Yi (彝) history which has mixed origin both from Qiang and Dong-Yi. However, after Huaxia formed in Xia era, the surname Ying did not mean a people more close to Dong-Yi anymore, they could be very Sinicised as Shang-Zhou nobles. Qin Shi-Huang bearing this surname did not make him less Zhou or Qiang. If Qin Shi-Huang happened to be Lü Buwei's (吕不韦) son, the situation will be very different if we only consider the surname origin.

The idea that the Xianyun 猃狁 were later called the Xiongnu appeared relatively late in Shiji commentarial traditions, as a misinterpretation of Sima Qian's (probably erroneous) claim that before the Xiongnu arose on the steppe, there were Xianyun and Mountain Rong living there. Actually, what little we know of the Xianyun from Western Zhou sources suggests they lived in the Gansu Corridor and not in the northern steppe. The Xiongnu themselves never claimed any relation to the ancient Xianyun.

A recent book by Li Feng of Columbia University, about Western Zhou history, argues that the Xianyun came to be known as Quanrong 犬戎 in Eastern Zhou times, based on the canine connotations of 猃. That said, there is no evidence that the Quanrong were ethnically or linguistically akin to other tribes of Rong in the Shaanxi-Gansu region, or to the 'Mountain Rong' (or 'Northern Rong') of northern Hebei and Shanxi. As I said, the Rong label creates an illusion of homogeneity where there was actually much diversity.

BTW, I don't believe that the Di 狄 peoples were closely related to the Xiongnu either, but we have had that disagreement on another thread before.



Isn't it too simplistic to assume that horse-breeding was a uniquely Xiongnu trait? The Shang and Zhou probably bred horses for their chariots, and some have even suggested that horse domestication spread to China via Central Asia and Gansu long before there was any nomadism on the northern steppe. Besides, the association of Qin with horse-breeding arises from the Shiji's account of the very origins of the Qin state, when the first Qin lord was supposedly enfeoffed by the Western Zhou king Xiao (Ji Pifang, c. 891-886 BC) and given the surname Ying as a reward for his skill in breeding horses for the Zhou court.



My oracle bone script dictionary (by Wang Benxing, Beijing 2006) shows that they were written slightly differently. 姜 was a kneeling human figure with ram's horns, while 羌 was a standing human figure with ram's horns, sometimes holding a stalk of grain. In fact, the oracle script for 姜 was quite similar to the right side of the script for Ji (the surname of the Zhou kings), except that the kneeling figure in Ji had a sort of topknot between the ram's horns.



I would question whether using such terms as Sinicized and Huaxia makes much sense in the Zhou context, when there was still no fixed 'Sinic' culture and no concept of 'Huaxia' as an ethnic identity. In fact, throughout the Zhou and Qin-Han periods there is not one piece of evidence from the sources that shows that the people of the Zhongguo region referred to themselves as Huaxia. 'Xia' yes, 'Hua' yes (in the Zuozhuan/Zuoshi Chunqiu), 'Zhuxia' yes, but never 'Huaxia'.



That it was used by eastern Yi does not mean it could not have been adopted by members of other groups. Indeed the Shiji gives a coherent explanation for why the Qin lords had the Ying surname: the Zhou king supposedly gave the surname to the first Qin lord as an allusion to one of the sage-king Shun's ministers, who had received the surname Ying as a reward for raising many livestock.



I have never seen evidence that the Yi of Yunnan had anything to do with the Qiang or eastern Yi. Could you show me some?

As for Sanxingdui, I have only seen arguments that Liangzhu-type items found there indicate trade with communities in the Lower Yangzi. No one argued that this alone could be evidence for eastern Yi migration to Sichuan.

Well, I think I agree with you that many ancient Chinese name for the minorities were disputable and many were not homogeneous ethnical groups.


I got your point. The subtle difference between the oracle bone characters of 羌 and 姜 is just gender. 羌 is a ram horn on the top of a man figure, 姜 is a ram horn on the top of a woman figure, which can mean that the 姜 tribe was a slavery society or matriarchal society. However, as a tribal symbol, I see the high similarity between them.


I used the term "Sinicised" to refer the not-so-marginalised states which begun to share the common national psyche and lose their original tribal traits through out Xia-Shang-Zhou period. I find a single word like Xia or Shang or Zhou can not meet this meaning.


As to the origin of Yi (彝) or so called Xinan-Yi (西南夷), it is mixed with myth and reality. Yes the similarity between Sanxingdui and Liangzhu does not mean there were actually a stock exchange, could just be a cutural exchange. Yi language is Sino-Tibetan, very close to modern Qiang. The current Yi origin is believed as an migrated ancient Qiang tribe mixed with locals. Yi is believed related branch of ancient Shu (蜀), and the origin of Shu is also a myth. Especially after the discovery of Sanxingdui (believed as an ancient Shu culture), a lot of common element of Wu (巫) culture between Yi and ancient Shu. Beside some jade articles show the affinity between Sanxingdui and Liangzhu, a lot of common worships of bird, fish and tree, etc, are also found closely related to the eastern culters like ancient Chu (楚) and Wu-Yue (吴越). Another stunning burial custom xuan-guan (悬棺, hanging coffins) had been found throughout southwest China to southeast China, even to Vietnam and Philippines. The time sequence shows that the xuan-guan appeared early in southeast China and then branched into southwest China and southeast Asia. This means the were indeed stock exchange between southwest China and southeast China along the Yangzi river reach. However, it is arguable whether those eastern tribes could be considered as Yi (夷) or Yue (越). One interesting thing might show the evidence of eastern emigration is that Yi people still keep very ancient Wu (巫) rituals like Shang people, like burning the tortoise shells and bones. The Yi script has also been found sharing high similarity with Shang oracle bone script. Another interesting thing might show the evidence of northern emigration is that the creation story in Yi legend says there were one-eye men (独目人) or verticla-eye men (纵目人). Similar notations can also be found in Qiang and Naxi legendaries. However, this one-eye men myth was typical Scythian-Altaic myth called Arimaspi, was mentioned by ancient Greeks and possibly by Chinese in Shan Hai Jing (山海经). Those evidence coincides with the hypothesis that ancient Qiangic tribes lived as north as Kunlun Shan-Tian Shan-Altai Shan region and they had contacted and mixed with proto-Scynthians (Tocharians) and migrated into southwest China region. High Europid phenotype concentration has been found in southwest ethnicities like Yi (especially Hei-Yi (黑彝, black Yi, the ruling class of Yi people), Qiang, Naxis and Tibetan. The one-eye men or vertical-eye men legend also passed down to local Sichuan legendary of Erlang Shen (二郎神) later.

I just read a 2006 article by the senior Hong Kong scholar Rao Zongyi 饒宗頤, in which he takes the appearance of the term 西戉 in Shang oracle bone inscriptions, together with certain place names like 湔, 戈, 邛, and 徙 which he identifies as being in Sichuan, as evidence that the Yue 越 peoples spread as far west as Sichuan. He writes: "古代越人勢力已深入四川，金沙之巨大玉琮，及蜀地玉琮出現之多，可斷殷代越人勢力已及於西蜀， 良渚文化之遠被。"

So Rao Zongyi is clearly taking the jade cong 琮 of Sanxingdui and Jinsha as evidence of actual Yue migration to Sichuan, rather than just trade. He even goes further to suggest that the Western Han empire's Yuexi 越雟 prefecture (near present-day Xichang 西昌 in southern Sichuan) was named after western Yue immigrants living there, at the edge of the Yunnan plateau!

I am very sceptical of such arguments, for the following reasons:

1. It is not at all clear that 戉 in Shang sources had anything to do with the Zhejiang region that produced the Liangzhu culture and that would later be identified as Yue 越 in the late Eastern Zhou period.

2. It is simplistic to assume that all the peoples or places labelled as 越 by the Western Han empire (e.g. 百越，南越，駱越，閩越，or even 越雟) were culturally or ethnically connected with the Yue kingdom of Zhejiang.

3. Migration is not the only way to account for the presence of Liangzhu-type jade implements at Sanxingdui and Jinsha.

Qin Shihuang was heavily rumored to have been the illigetimate son of Lui Buwei. He might not even be of Qin ethnicity if this is true.

'Ethnicity' is not the right word to use here, since in anthropological terminology, one's ethnicity is defined primarily by one's identity and not one's ancestry. If Ying Zheng identified himself as a Qin man, then he was ethnically Qin even if his real father had a different ethnic identity.