Can we say that the modern day "Han" ethnicity is a mix of Xianbei, original Han, Qiang, etc.?

No because we can't be sure that every Han (or even a significant number of Han) have mixed with Xianbei, Qiang... etc.

Let me rephrase my question: does today's "Han" population contain the bloods of Xianbei, original Han, Qiang, etc.?

You are essentially talking about the possibility of 1.1 - 1.3 billion people with some having interbred with neighboring ethnic group within the past 5,000 years? The answer is that it's very likely but to get any kind of specific numbers would require a large-scale, expensive research...

Let's just say that none of the ethnic groups in the Shiji and Hanshu exist in the same form today, including the ethnic group Sima Qian and Ban Gu belonged to. But to find out more would require extensive comparison of DNA from ancient peoples (including the "Han") with a very large base of Chinese citizens in the present day.

Is it safe to say, though, that the bloods of the Xianbei, original Han, etc, circulate in today's Han's popluation?

Han and Xianbei can be very different depending on their ancestral location, most Han from the South have negrito/sub-mongoloid admixture, while the Han in the west can have more Caucasian admixture, those in the East could be related to the 'Indonoid' sub-race, and Xianbei can have traces of Paleo-Siberian(related to Caucasians).

Many "ethnic Han" in the south might not have Xianbei etc previously nomadic tribe blood but intermixed with the Xi, Yue and other southerners instead.

Don't start about whether they are Han or Tang, many are quite comfortable being listed as ethnic Han or calling themselves Han-ren.

I don't know why you guys are making this so difficult. I didn't ask if every Han Chinese today have Xianbei blood. I didn't ask which region's Han Chinese have Xianbei blood. All I'm asking is, within the multitude of Han Chinese today, in ANY Han Chinese individual, is there any blood of Xianbei, original Han, Qiang, etc?

Again, out of the 1.1 - 1.3 billion Hans today, the chances of SOME Hans having SOME blood of Xianbei, "original Han" and Qiang is obviously very very VERY likely...

Well, that's not quite the only way to interprete what you said when you last posted


But I think your answer was posted even before that.
SO ... what exactly is the question that you keep refining?

Yes

(See, UrofPersia gives straight answers)




Actually Han as an ethnicity is not defined by 'race' or rather genetics. It is defined by cultural heritage. Thus an attempt at the above may be barking up the wrong tree.

Thank you, Urofpersia. I love yes and no answers to straight questions. What can I say, I'm pre-law.

From the Huangdi-Yandi-Chiyou legend, it can be said that the Huangdi's group already have "Qiang" (assumed related to Yandi's tribe) and "Yue" blood (assumption: related to Chiyou's tribe Jiuli).

Northern nomads e.g. Xiongnu, Xianbei, Tujue etc. seem to come into sight later, but their genes might be found in South, who knows?

Is the green birth mark called "Mongolian spot" regularly seen in the North?

It may be said that modern "Han" ethnicity is not quite well defined, more like "union of some Mongoloids". Not defined by genes but quite constrained by genes.

Han ethnicity is a mixture of the original Hua-Xia tribe, Qiang, Miao, Yi, Yue, and many other ethnic groups. Han as a whole is not a homogeneous group, but the original han or rather Hua-Xia itself is.

How do we know whether the 'original' Xia or Hua (let's say, in 2000 BC) were homogeneous? And what kind of homogeneity are we talking about: genetic, linguistic, cultural, or in terms of ethnic identity (i.e. they all called themselves 'Xia')?