過去學者對秦人來源的研究有「東來說」與「西來說」兩種觀點，近年因清華簡《繫年》中出現了秦人東來的新材料，使相關問題重新受到重視。本文亦嘗試透過這些新材料對秦人東來的問題提出新的解釋，基本從以下三個問題切入：第一，《繫年》中的秦先人「商奄之民」其性質為何；第二，《繫年》的「東來說」是否能與過去的「東來說」調和；第三，《繫年》的「東來說」的敘述立場為何。本文認為，《繫年》的「商奄之民」可以理解為被「奠」於西方的異族服屬，身分為「僕」，而從周代「封建」的角度來看，這批「商奄之民」可能是周天子挑選賜給非子的同姓族群。最後，《繫年》此種只記族群淵源的敘述立場與《史記．秦本紀》明顯不同，保存了有別於大一統帝王世系的觀點。

Past scholars proposed two perspectives about the origin of Qin people - ＂Origin in the East China＂ and ＂Origin in the West China.＂ In recent years, new materials about Qin people’s origin in the East China have been discovered from ＂Xi-Nian＂ of Qing-Hua-Jian, and relevant issues have attracted attention again. This study also attempted to propose a new explanation about Qin people’s origin in the East China according to these new materials. Basically, this study investigated the following three questions: Firstly, what is the nature of ancestors of Qin people, ＂people of Shangyan,＂ in ＂Xi-Nian?＂ Secondly, is the ＂Origin in the East China＂ in ＂Xi-Nian＂ consistent with the past ＂Qin People’s Origin in the East China?＂ Thirdly, what is the descriptive standpoint of ＂Origin in the East A China＂ in ＂Xi-Nian?＂ This study suggested that ＂people of Shangyan＂ in ＂Xi-Nian＂ can be interpreted as ＂Dian＂ enslaved by different ethnic groups in the west and their identity was ＂slaves.＂ From the perspective of ＂feudalism＂ in the Zhou Dynasty, these ＂people of Shangyan＂ might be the group with the same last name chosen by Emperor of Zhou as a gift to Feizi. The descriptive standpoint of ＂Xi-Nian＂ only focuses on the origin of ethnic groups, which is significantly different from that of ＂Basic Annals of Qin, Records of the Grand Historian＂ where the perspective of ＂all great emperors are from the same lineage＂ is preserved.