1.1. By the time of the
Han dynasties (206 BCE – 220 CE), the term Xirong
or ‘Western Rong’ 西戎, was used in the very general sense of ‘the tribes
to the west of Han.’ The term once applied to a specific people from whom
a number of tribes descended, which helps explain how the more generalised
version of the name came about. It will be useful here to have a look at early
Chinese concepts of ethnicity and how they had developed by the period of the
Han dynasty:
“By
the beginning of the first millennium BC an awareness
of being “Chinese” had emerged in northern China. This identity is
intimately connected with the growth of early states, especially the Shang and
the Zhou, whose centers lay in the region of what is today Henan 河南, Shanxi 山西, and Shaanxi
陕西 Provinces. This area, known as the Zhongyuan 中原 (Central
Plains) or zhongguo 中國 (central
states), formed a nucleus around which early “Chinese” civilization
flourished.
Texts
written down by the mid-first millennium BC suggest that the people living in this area regarded
themselves as “civilized,” a concept that was closely connected to li 禮. Li is commonly translated as ceremony or
rite, as well as etiquette. In reality, the concept of li is complex and implies an entire system of behaviour and ritual
– a kind of customary law. Its principles regulated the lives of the
people living within the zhongguo.
Whoever practised li was eligible to
be regarded as a member of the Hua-Xia “We-group.” Thus, it seems
entirely reasonable to suggest, as have many (Creel 1970; Eberhard 1982;
Pulleyblank 1983), that the concept of being “Chinese” at this
early date was not fixed and static. It was a flexible category defined in
cultural and political terms, and membership expanded along with the spread of
the early Chinese state.
Some
of the earliest categorizations and perceptions of “other” people
in ancient China are found in the Zhouli
周禮 and
the Erya 爾雅, texts that
date from the latter half of the first millennium BC. What is striking in both of these texts is the classification of
groups into broad categories that set up oppositional clusters of cultural
traits. The key here is the word “broad” – the categories are
defined in such a way that individuals or groups of people could easily shift
in and out of the categories as the boundaries of “Chinese
civilization” expanded and people adopted the trappings of what the
“Chinese” perceived as “being Chinese.”
The
Zhouli (c. third century BC) defines the Chinese world in terms of “inner” (nei 內) and “outer” (wai
外).
According to this view, the world consisted of nine concentric circles
surrounding a central zone known as the king’s domain. In this schema, the
six zones closest to the king’s domain were considered neifu內府,
i.e., outside. They did not belong to the world of the king’s domain and
were inhabited by “outsiders.”
This
basic concept of “inside” vs. “outside” continues as a
constant theme in Chinese literature and is further developed in the Erya, a Han period (second century BC) text. In the Erya the
inside / outside theme is given a stronger geographical basis. The
“outsiders” were consequently subdivided into four groups
associated with the four cardinal directions – the “Four
Seas.” There were the northern Di氐, the Eastern Yi 東夷, the southern Man 蠻, and the western Rong 戎. Each of the Four Seas was further split into
“inside” and “outside.” The nei or inside groups were again dissected into sheng 生 (raw), i.e., uncivilized and hence potentially dangerous, and shu 熟 (cooked or ripe),
i.e., civilized in the sense that these groups had been tamed by the influence
of Chinese civilization (see Cushman 1970: ch. 2 for a detailed discussion of
this analysis).
The
constant sub-theme running through these texts is politics. The groups are
first defined according to categories of “inside” and
“outside.” Those groups on the inside are linked with the growing
authority and strength of the early Chinese state and are beginning to lose
their sense of differentiation. Those groups living at the peripheries of the
Chinese state are, in contrast, perceived of as “different” and are
consequently potential threats to the unity of the state.
To
sum up, while Chinese texts do provide information on how the Chinese texts do
provide information on how the Chinese distinguish between themselves and
others, the categories are not fixed or rigid. Individuals or groups could
abandon those cultural traits regarded as “raw” or non-civilized,
and adopt those used by the Chinese. In doing so, the people became
“cooked,” i.e., more civilized, and potentially less ethnically
distinct.
During
the Han Dynasty, descriptions begin to appear in texts that still reflected the
broader categories of “inner” and “outer,” and
“raw” and “cooked,” but also provided more detailed
information about what these “other,” i.e., non-Chinese, people
looked like, how they lived, and what names they were called.” Peters
(2002), pp. 83-85.
“The Sai 赛 tribes, which appeared in the valleys of the Ili and Chu rivers by
the end of the seventh century B.C. had possibly come from the east. The
precursors of the Asii, the Tochari, the Gaisani and the Sacarauli seem to have
been the Rong of the surname Yun 戎姓之允, the Daxia, the Yuzhi 禹知 (Yuzhi 禹氏) and the
Suoju 莎車 who appeared in pre-Qin records and books. In 623
B.C., Duke Mu 穆 of Qin 秦dominated the Western Rong 戎 and opened up territories which extended for 1,000
li [416 km]. This event possibly caused the Sai 赛 tribes’
westerly migration.
The Rong 戎 of surname Yun 允, the Daxia 大夏 and the
Yuzhi 禹知 (Yuzhi 禹氏) can respectively be traced back to the Shaohao 少昊, the Taotang
陶唐 and the Youyu 有虞.
The Shaohao 少昊, which has
known [sic] as the state of the surname Yun 允, originally dwelt in
the valley of the Ruo 若 River, then moved to Qiongsang 窮桑 in the north
of Lu 鲁. A branch of the descendants of the Shaohao 少昊 dwelled at
Ruo 鄀, and of them, those who moved to Guazhou 瓜州 were called
“the villains of the surname Yun 允”. Among the
“villains of the surname Yun 允”, some moved inwards (the Central Plains)
and the others went westwards. Of the latter, those who reached the valleys of
the Ili and Chu rivers became a tribe of the Sai 赛 people, but those
who remained to the west of Hami 哈密 (Kumul) were known as the Wusun 烏孫.” Yu
(2000), pp. 1-2.
There are references in Chinese literature
to a work or works by Yu Huan, the Weilue 魏略, or
“Summary of the Wei Dynasty,” and the Dianlue 典略, or “Records
of the Wei Dynasty.” The originals have long since disappeared and there
are varying accounts of how many chapters each contained or, indeed, whether
they were even separate documents.
The surviving text translated here was
quoted by Pei Songzhi in his notes to the Sanguozhi 三國志, or
“Memoir of the Three Kingdoms,” published in 429 CE. It begins
thus: “The Weilue’s Chapter on the Western Rong says: . . .
. ” For further information see: Chavannes (1905), p. 519; Pelliot
(1906), pp. 362-363; de Crespigny (1970), pp. 75-76.
“According
to the Book of History, Yu divided the world into five concentric
domains, the outermost of which was the wilderness domain 荒服. Yen Shih-ku
says, “The Jung and Ti [occupied] the wilderness domain, hence it is
said, ‘The four wildernesses.’ It says that it is a wilderness,
[where] they suddenly go and come without any regularity. The Erh-ya
says that Ku-chu [in the north], Pei-hu [in the south], Hsi-wang-mu [a place in
the west], and Jih-hsia [in the east] are called the four wildernesses.”
Dubs (1938), p. 263, n. 1.
The Rong, Qiang, and Di peoples were known
to the Chinese by Shang times [1765-1122 BCE]. ‘Rong’ was
originally used by the Chinese to refer to a people they later described as the
ancestors of the Qiang tribes. Considered a major threat, the Shang mounted
large campaigns against them.
The Rong moved into the area to the south
of the Yellow River soon after the middle of the 7th century BCE.
Although the Di are usually considered “a clearly defined national and political
grouping,” the name ‘Rong’ was commonly used in the looser
sense of “barbarian” or “bellicose.” By Han times, the
meaning of ‘Rong’ had been expanded to refer generally to
all non-Sinitic populations of the West. See: Průšek (1971), pp.
38-42, 210; Molè (1970), p. 86, n. 61; Dictionnaire Français
de la Langue Chinois. 1976: 478, No. 2486. See also the notes on the Di and
Qiang (nn. 1.2 and 1.19).
Di 氐– K. 590a: *tiər / tiei; EMC: tɛj.
The Bamboo Chronicles contain the
first historical mention of the Di referring to the capture of “twenty Di
kings” during an expedition against the Gui or Di peoples by the Zhoujing
Ji in the 12th century BCE.
“It
appears that the term Di referred to people originally of Qiang origin settled
in the Qin Ling ranges and further south. As this territory was occupied by the
Chinese, the Di became increasingly heavily influenced by that culture, though
still retaining elements of the Qiang. [Chinese records refer to a “White
Horse” (Baima) Qiang and a “White Horse” Di, both on the
frontiers of Wudu and Guanghan commanderies in northern Sichuan. These are
probably references to the same people.] See, in particular, HHS 86/76,
2359-60, and also HHS 87/77, 2898-99.” de Crespigny (1984), p.
470, n. 8. See also: de Crespigny (1977), pp. 6-7, and n. 8; Rogers (1968), pp.
4-5, and nn. 6, 9; Molè (1970), p. 83, n. 50; Holmgren (1982), p. 116;
Wu (1982), pp. 107-108; CICA: 101, n. 178.
“Earlier History of the Ti People. Of the “Five Races of
Barbarians” traditionally associated with the “Sixteen
States,” Fu Chien’s clan was affiliated with the Ti race, a
proto-Tibetan group ethnically related to the Ch’iang 羗, with whom they are
associated in the Book of Songs. [Fu Chien (Pinyin: Fu Jian),
338-385, took power in 357 and subdued all of northern China, founding the
Former Ch’in or Qin – one of the ‘Six Kingdoms’]. There
are no clearly identifiable remains of the Ti language in the Chinese sources.6
Information about the history and distribution of these people is contained in
the dynastic histories in sections specifically devoted to them as well as in
separate documents;7 of the latter, a memorial composed by Chiang
T’ung 江统 (d. 310) is especially informative.
In pre-Han times the Ti were spread principally
in the mountainous country that extended from southern Kansu to northern
Szechwan, one of their most important seats being at Ch’ou-ch’ih.
In 36 A.D. a considerable number of Ti and Ch’iang were moved into
Kuan-chung and Ho-tung, a fact which Chiang T’ung later deplored on the
grounds that the descendants of those people, having grown in numbers and
strength, oppressed the Chinese inhabitants of the areas. Eruptions of the
Ch’iang and Ti which began in 107 lasted a decade and were unprecedentedly
devastating. Chiang T’ung asserts that during the last years of the Later
Han the barbarians of Yung Province reduced Kuan-chung to desolation, and the Wei-lüeh’s
account of the activities of the Ti in Kansu, Shensi, and Szechwan tends to
confirm this. There can be no doubt that, as Chiang T’ung says, the Ti
profited substantially during the rise of the kingdom of Wei from the rivalry
between it and the state of Shu; indeed, the bargaining position which they
then enjoyed must have been of prime significance in the history of their
entrenchment in China. One episode which is of particular interest for the
history of the Fu clan was the removal in 236 of on Fu Chien, who then held the
title “King of the Ti of Wu-tu,” with his following of 400 Ti house-holds
into Kuang-tu (in Szechwan). This Ti leader is probably to be identified with
the illustrious ancestor after whom Fu Chien’s uncle, Fu Chien, was
named.”
6.
Eberhard states that the Ti could be regarded merely as more sinicized
Ch’iang, were it not for the fact that their language is said (in TT) to
have differed from that of the Ch’iang; but according to the Wei-lüeh
their language was the same as that of the Ch’iang.
7.
WS 101, SS 98, Chou-shu and PS 96. The relevant portion of the Wei-lüeh,
preserved in P’ei Sung-chih’s commentary on SKC, was translated by
Chavannes (“Wei Lio”). Its opening section is devoted to the Ti.
Rogers (1968),
pp. 4-5; 80, nn. 6 and 7.
1.3. Yi zhou 益州 [I-chou].
During the Han a zhou 州 was a territory under Chinese control, but outside
China proper. It was equivalent to a jun 郡, which is usually
translated as: ‘commandery.’ Yi zhou was established in 109 BCE by
Emperor Wu. Its administrative centre was to the east of modern Puning County,
Yunnan (Prefecture and Province). The Yi zhou of the Han must not be confused
with the Yi zhou of the Five Dynasties which corresponds with Chengdu fu of
Sichuan. See Chavannes (1905), p. 521, n. 1. Yi zhou, during the Han, included
most of modern Yunnan and southern Sichuan. It bordered on Jiaozhi (centred
near modern Hanoi) to the southeast, and modern Burma to the southwest.
1.4. Wudu Jun (Wudu
Commandery) 武都郡 [Wu-tu chün] was established by
Emperor Wu in 111 BCE to the west and southwest of Changan.
“South of
the Wei and the Tao was Wudu commandery, which had been in Yi circuit under the
Former Han, but was in Liang Province of Later Han. The commandery covered the
mountainous country of the Min Shan in present-day southern Gansu and the
borders of Sichuan, with the upper course of the Han River and of the Bailong
Jiang. In this region also, both non-Chinese and the Chinese settlements were
scattered and isolated among the mountains at the foothills of Tibet and the
base of the great ridge of the Qin Ling.” de Crespigny (1984), pp.13-14,
and the maps on pp. 92, 98.
“Han
Wu-ti decreed the establishment of Wu-tu Commandery at Ch’ou-ch’ih
in 111 B.C. (HS 28: Ti-li chih 8B. 1a; Dubs, II, 82).
Ch’ou-ch’ih was the seat of the “White Horse (Po-ma)
tribe, which is described as the strongest of the Ti tribes. Ti rebellions
against the Chinese colonists of that region were recorded for the years 108
B.C. (Wei-lüeh; Dubs, II, 93; de Groot, Urkunden, II, 198)
and 80 B.C. (HS 7; Dubs, II, 163).” Rogers (1968), p. 81, n. 9.
See also: Note 3.8, and
Chavannes (1905), p. 521, n. 2, where he mistakenly gives 118 BCE instead of
111 BCE for the establishment of Wudu Commandery. He says that its centre was
80 li to the west of Cheng County (Sub-prefecture of Jie, Gansu
Province).
1.5. “Fulu 福祿was the name
of a County (xian) of Jiuquan Commandery (now Su County, Gansu
Province).” Translated from Chavannes (1905), p. 521, n. 3.
“It was
not until the time of Emperor Wu, shortly before 100 BC, that the Han
established a military and political presence northwest across the Yellow River
and founded the commanderies of Hexi [Ho-hsi] “West of the
River”. Jiuquan [Chiu-ch’üan], Zhangye [Chang-yeh]
and Dunhuang [Dunhuang] were probably established in 104 and subsequent
years, Wuwei [Wu-wei] and Jincheng [Chin-ch’eng] in the
half-century following.
Under Later Han, the commanderies of Wuwei, Zhangye, Jiuquan and Dunhuang
stretched in that order from southeast to northwest along the present-day Gansu
corridor. On the southwest, they were backed by the Qilian Shan [= Nan Shan]
and the mountainous regions of present-day Qinghai [Ch’ing-hai].
To the north and east they faced the Helan [He-lan] Shan, the Tengger
and other deserts on the edge of the Gobi. The cities and settlements were
based on oases, supplied by the snowmelt streams which flow from the high
ground to the south and then disappear into marshes in the desert. As in the
Tarim basin of central Asia, irrigation agriculture was maintained around these
cities, and the settled farming economy was sufficient to provide a frontier
defence for the trade and communications of the Silk Road which led through the
Western Regions to India and Rome.” de Crespigny (1984), pp. 7-8.
For a discussion of the dates of the
establishment of the four commanderies, see also: Dubs (1944), p. 83 and note
23.1.
“The
ancient County of Qian was to the south of the present County of Long
(Fengxiang Prefecture, Gansu Province)”. Adapted from Chavannes (1905),
p. 521, n. 4. Qian County was approximately 180 km northwest of Changan (modern
Xian) on the Long road.
“(Shensi,
S of Lung hsien) LTYT 36a, SLKCYC 4133.2. A prefecture of Fu-feng Commandery,
Ssu-li.” Rogers (1968), p. 310.
1.7. Ancient Long 隴 [Lung] County
was to the west of Qian County, and included the strategic Long Pass which is
approximately 215 km northwest of Changan on the Long Road.
“(Shensi,
Lung hsien) LTYT 36b, SLKCYC 4137.1. Area of Lung Mountain near the
Lung-ch’eng Prefecture that lay in Lüeh-yang Commandery in
Ch’in Province. It was the western of the Four Fortresses of
Kuan-chung.” Rogers (1968), p. 324.
“Lung is
the name of a chain of mountains at the sources of the river Wei on the border
between Shen-si and Kan-su”. Molè, (1970), p. 71, n. 13.
“The main
communications route east and west along the Wei River was the Long Road, so
called from the mountain by which it passed. It seems most probable that the
ancient road generally followed the line of the modern railway from Xian along
the Wei valley, then crossed the watershed to the Tao River, and then went
north to the Yellow River near Lanzhou, where it joined the Silk Road leading
northwest into central Asia. Most of the country of eastern Gansu is rolling
loess hills, not a major obstruction to open movement and manoeuvre, but
sufficient to render attractive the silted flood-plains of the major streams,
while in the upper reaches of the Wei and about the Yellow River the terrain is
steep enough to make travel away from the valleys quite difficult.
Near Long Mountain, however, on the borders of present-day Gansu and Shaanxi,
the Wei River runs through gorges in the loess. In this region the road left
the Wei valley and crossed the hill country through the Long Pass, north of the
river. The Long Pass was a fortified barrier, and it appears also that the Long
Road itself was protected as a military highway, with patrols, garrisons,
stores and arsenals at intervals along its course.” de Crespigny (1984),
pp. 14-15.
1.8. Panhu 縏瓠 [P’an-hu].
In spite of the popular etymology recounted below, the name Panhu was
probably a transliteration of a Di name.
“At the
beginning of Chapter CXVI dedicated to the Barbarians of the South (translated
by WYLIE, Rev. de l’Extr. Orient, 1882, pp. 200-201), the Hou Hanshu
has recounted in full the legend of the dog, Panhu, who married the daughter of
Emperor Gaoxin (identified by Sima Qian with Emperor Ku), and who was the
ancestor of the Barbarians of the South. The commentary on the Hou Hanshu
quotes, on these remarks, a passage from the Weilue itself which
indicates to us a popular etymology of the name Panhu: ‘Emperor Gaoxin
had an old married woman who lived in the house of the king, and who had an
earache. While removing the problem, an object was found big as a cocoon. This
woman placed it in a gourd (hu), which she covered with a bowl (pan).
In an instant, the object transformed itself into a multicoloured dog. That is
why it is called Panhu.” Translated from Chavannes (1905): 521, n. 6.
Note: the reign of the legendary emperor Gaoxin or Di Ku is traditionally
assigned to c. 2436 BCE to 2366 BCE.
1.9. Ran Di 蚺氐 [Jan Ti]
– ‘Giant Python’ Di. Williams (1909), p. 403, identifies the
word jan as:
“A
large serpent found in southern China, described as 50 [Chinese] feet long, which
can seize deer for food; it has long teeth and a bright variegated skin which
is cured for covering guitars; it carries its head close to the ground. .
. the gall is reputed
to be useful in curing consumption; this description doubtless refers to a sort
of boa like that reported to be found in Hainan Island.”
This description of a snake up to 50 chi
[about 17 metres] is undoubtedly an exaggeration, but the description could
otherwise refer to either of two giant pythons common in Southeast Asia: the
Reticulated Python (Python reticulatus), or the Indian Python (P.
molurus).
The Reticulated Python
ranges from southern Burma to Indonesia and the Philippines and is probably the
world’s longest snake, with specimens found up to at least 9.6 metres (31
feet) long, although the Anaconda is heavier. It has been known to take deer
and even, occasionally, children.
“The reticulated python gets its name from the distinctive
color and pattern on its scales. According to Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary the word “reticulated” is an adjective
defined as “having lines intercrossed, forming a network.” It
is also known as the regal python (regal is a word that refers to a king). Its
scientific name is Python reticulatus. . . . Reticulated pythons live in tropical forests on the
continent of Asia. Their range extends from Myanmar and India, across Southeast
Asia and on many of the islands of the Philippines and Indonesia. They are at
home on the ground, in caves or in trees and they have adapted to living in
towns and cities where they hunt chickens, ducks, rats and domestic cats, dogs
and pigs. Large reticulated pythons have eaten monkeys, wild boar, deer and
even people. There are not many cases of these pythons capturing and eating
people, but it has been reported even in recent years. . . . The largest
reticulated python ever found in the wild was reported in 1912 from the island
of Celebes (now known as Sulawesi) in Indonesia. This snake measured
thirty-three feet.” Shwedick (2002).
However, ran, according to GR
Vols. III, p. 449 and IV, p. 334, refers to Python molurus bivittatus
Schlegel. It adds that it is edible and that its flesh and bile are used as
medicines. This snake, commonly known as the ‘Indian Python’, is
usually less than 4 metres but is sometimes twice that length, or about 8
metres (26 feet).
I have translated ran
as ‘Giant Python,’ as it is impossible to decide which of these two
species of python was intended in the text.
1.10. Early Chinese
accounts refer to at least two main groups of Di: the ‘Red Di’ and
the ‘White Di’. It has been suggested that this could be a
reference to geographical divisions, with the White Di to the west, and the Red
Di to the south, but it seems:
“quite
clear that the term Red Di was not a geographical one and did not distinguish
the bearers of it from Ti living in other places; it was a political and
particularly a social term, distinguishing one group of implacable enemies of
Chin from others who were tired of fighting and anxious to come to terms; it
was primarily the distinction between one aristocratic ruling group and another
subordinate group.” Průšek (1971), p. 219.
There seems to be little reason to doubt
the early claims, repeated here in our text, that the names refer to the colour
of the clothes worn by various clans or groups. “Thus explaining the
terms ‘Green Di’ 青氐, ‘White Di’ 白氐
above.” Translated from Chavannes (1905): 522, n. 2.
1.11. Hezhi 盍稚 [Ho-chih].
Ancient pronunciations:
he – K. 642n: *g’âp /
γâp; EMC: γap; he: g’âp / γâp
zhi – EMC: drih. Reconstructed pronunciations of this
word are not included in Karlgren.
1.12. Xingguo Di 興國氐 [Hsing-kuo
Ti]. Xingguo refers to the ancient state of Xing in the Hebei plain at the
foot of the Taihang Shan, which the Di conquered circa 660 BCE and was settled
by the ‘Red’ Di. See: Průšek (1971), pp. 144-145. GR
Vol. II, p. 1196 states that it refers to the ancient prefecture of Hubei which
is now known as Yangxin.
1.13. Baixiang Di 白項氐 [Pai-hsiang
Ti] literally reads: “The White Section of the Di”. Chavannes
(1905), p. 522. mistakenly gives Zi [Tzu] for the similar Bai [Pai]
(which can also be pronounced bo).
“Mr.
Chavannes always makes use of the edition of the twenty-four historians
published by the library of Tushujicheng [T’u-shu-chi-ch’eng] in
Shanghai from 1888. This edition has the advantage of being printed clearly in
a convenient format and is relatively inexpensive. It accurately reproduces the
imperial edition published in the 18th century by order of Jianlong
[Ch’ien-lung] which is authoritative in China today. Only this edition in
moving characters, generally correct for the Shiji [Shih-chi] or
the Histories of the Han which are the first and only true readings of
the dynastic histories, is quite negligent from the Sanguozhi [San
kuo chih] onwards. Moreover, Mr. Chavannes has had at his disposal the
edition of the Sanguozhi known as the Barentang [Pao-jen-t’ang](p.
550, n. 2; p. 555, n. 1) but it does not seem to have been always checked, for
in at least two cases it is unlikely that the Barentang edition gives
readings which, in the edition of Shanghai are clearly printing errors: on p.
222, “Zixiang Di” [Tzu-hsiang Ti] is incorrect for Baixiang Di
[Pai-hsiang-ti],and the correct reading is found in the xylographic edition
published by Jiangnanshuzhu [Chiang-nan-shu-chu] in 1887. It is
the same for the Weibi [Wei-pi] of p. 526, where M. Chavannes clearly sees that
it ought to be written Xianbi [Hsien-pi] and which is, in fact, correctly
written Xianbi [Hsien-pi] in the edition of Jiangnanshuzhu and, very
probably, in that of [the Barentang].” Translated from Pelliot
(1906), pp. 365-366.
“Po-ching
百頃 was another name for Ch’ou-ch’ih. It is explained as
indicating the area (100 ch’ing) of the Pond (ch’ih);
in late editions (e.g. K’ai-ming: Wei-chih 30. 1006. 2) Wei
lüeh wrongly writes Tzu-hsiang 自項, which
Chavannes in his translation (n. 7) fails to correct. Po-na (SKC 30.31a)
has Po 白-hsiang.” Rogers (1968), p. 84, n. 47.
The Chinese text of the Weilue that
I have been using (the five volume Sanguozhi published by the New China
Bookstore Publishing House, Beijing, 1975, zhuan 30: 858-863), like the Po-na
edition, also has Bai- (or Bo-)xiang 白項 [Pai- (or Po) hsiang]. This name would appear to
be correct and carries the meaning of the ‘White Section.’
This interpretation
seems to be confirmed by the description given earlier in the text of the
various sections (or clans) of the Ti peoples: “Some are called the Qing
Di (Green Di), others the Bai Di 白項氐 (White Di), and others the Ran Di (Giant Python
Di), referring to the class of reptiles in which they are placed. The people of
the Middle Kingdom name them according to the colour of their clothes, but they
call themselves Hezhi [盍稚].” See also notes 1.11 and 3.8.
“In
chapter 1 of the Wei zhi section of the Sanguozhi, one reads that
Ma Chao’s rebellion indeed broke out in 211, but it was only in 213 that
he obtained the cooperation of the Di tribes: ‘In the eighteenth Jianan
year (213), . . . Ma Chao,
finding himself at Hanyang (to the south of the County of Qingfu, Xuchou
Prefecture, Sichuan Province), began to make trouble again using the Qiang and
the Hu. The king of the Di, Qianwan, rebelled to join forces with him. (Ma)
Chao camped at Xingguo. Xiahou Yuan attacked him.’ In the first month of
the nineteenth year [29 January to 26 February, 214], Xiahou Yuan defeated
Qianwan and put him to flight. He exterminated the people of Xingguo.”
Translated from Chavannes (1905), p. 522, n. 3.
“During the Chien-an period (196-220), according to the Wei-lüeh . . . , the Ti leaders
A-kuei 阿貴 of Lüeh-yang and Ch’ien-wan of
Ch’ou-ch’ih each controlled tribes numbering more than a myriad
[10,000]. They made common cause with the rebel Ma C’hao 馬超 (176-222;
SKC 36. 6b-9a) in 213 (SKC 1, 38a; Wei-lüeh’s
211 seems to be wrong). After Ma Ch’ao’s defeat in the following
year, A-kuei and his followers were wiped out by Hsia-hou Yüan夏侯淵 (d.
219; SKC 9, 3b-7b), while Ch’ien-wan went southwest into Shu, where his
tribes all submitted to Han authority. The latter deported those whose conduct
had been equivocal, placing them in Mei-yang; at the time of the composition of
the Wei-lüeh these
were under the jurisdiction of a Protecting Army (hu-chün). Those
who had “conducted themselves wisely” were left in Nan-an and
T’ien-shui commanderies.” Rogers (1968), p. 82, n.12.
“By 214,
however, Ma Chao was finally driven into exile in Sichuan, and in the same year
Han Sui and his allies, who included the Shaodang Qiang, were decisively defeated
at the Changli River in Hanyang, identified with the present-day Hulu River,
north of Tianshui. In the winter of 214, Xiahou Yuan followed that success with
a campaign against Song Jian. Song Jian died, his capital at Fuhan was
captured, and all his officials were killed. With this victory, the whole
territory east of the Yellow River was in the control of Cao Cao.” de
Crespigny (1984), p. 165.
1.15. For a more
detailed description of these events see: Haloun (1949-50), pp. 126-130; de
Crespigny (1984), pp. 162-172. Shu 蜀 = modern Western Sichuan.
“Shu
designates the western part of presentday Ssu-ch’uan province, the Red
Basin around Ch’eng-tu, or the commandery of that name. . . . ” CICA,
p. 220, n. 829
“(Szechwan)
A state of high antiquity traditionally thought to stem from the enfeoffment of
a cadet line of the descendants of Ti-kao as Marquis of Shu. Used specifically
as an area designation for the part of Szechwan centering on Ch’eng-tu
and generally for the whole Szechwan basin.” Rogers (1968), p. 331.
“6.
(Hist. Geog.) Shu : a. Anc. name of the region
corresponding to the central part of 四川 of modern Szu-ch’uan (Sichuan). b. A
state annexed by the state of 秦 Ch’in [Qin] during the 戰國 [403-222 CE]
era of the Warring States and corresponding to the plain of 成都
Ch’eng-tu (Chengdu), in四川 modern Szu-ch’uan. Against this state a
military operation was organised by 孝公 Hsiao Kung [Xiao Gong] (381-338 BCE) of the state
of秦
Ch’in, which prepared the way for the great military expeditions of the 秦 Ch’in and
漠
Han empires. c. chün4 or commandery, under the 秦 Ch’in and
Han, corresponding to the anc. State.” GR Vol. V, No. 9891.
“Meiyang
was a county (xian) [縣] of the Commandery of you Fufeng (that is to say,
the Fufeng to the right, or west, of the capital). It is to the southwest of
the present District of Wugong (Jian County, Shensi Province).”
Translated from Chavannes (1905): 522, n. 4. Meiyang was approximately 100 km
northwest of Changan. See also: Rogers (1968), p. 82, n. 12.
1.17. Anyi 安夷 [An-i]
literally, ‘Peaceful Yi’ and Fuyi 撫夷 [Fu-i]
literally, ‘Governed Yi’.
“The I,
“barbarians of the east” settled in southern Shang-tung, northern
Kiang-su and northern An-hui, had generally faded before the Chou epoch and the
last remnants disappeared in the IIIrd century B.C. (Eberhard, Kultur und
Siedlung, p. 385ff). As is evident here, the name can only have the very
general meaning of “barbarians”.” Molè (1970), p. 86,
n. 61.
1.18. Hujun 護蕈 [Hu-chün]
= Military Protector.
“(1) HAN:
Military Protector, briefly from A.D. 1, an officer on the staff of the
Defender-in-chief (ta ssu-ma), one of the eminent Three Dukes (san
kung); rank apparently 2,000 bushels, but functions not clear; not
continued in Later Han. . . . HB:
commissioner over the army.” Hucker, No. 2775.
Professor Dubs translates hu-chün
as ‘The Protector of the Army’. See: de Crespigny (1967), p. 12. I
think it is quite clear that the title refers here to a military officer
supervising previously pacified tribes. I have, therefore, used Hucker’s
suggestion of ‘Military Protector.’
1.19. Tianshui 天水 [T’ien-shui].
“The
centre of Tianshui Commandery was to the southwest of the present Tong County
(Gongchang Prefecture, Gansu Province).” Translated from Chavannes
(1905), p. 523, n. 1.
“During
the Han period, under the arrangements of Emperor Wu, the commandery of
Tianshui was established to control the Wei valley immediately west of Long
Mountain. . . . ” It was renamed Han-yang in AD 74. de Crespigny (1984),
pp. 13, 70.
“The
commandery of Tianshui (later Hanyang), in the upper Wei valley, appears to
have been regarded as marginal territory between East and West.” de
Crespigny (1984), p. 57.
Chavannes (1905), p. 523, n. 2, places
Nanan County in Jianwei Commandery in present Sichuan. This must be a mistake.
The reference here is undoubtedly to Nanan Commandery that was established in
CE 188 to the west of Hanyang Commandery. See the map in de Crespigny (1984),
p. 148.
“. .
. the city of Nan-an
(near Kung-ch’ang). . . . ” Kung-ch’ang is to the south of
Lan-chou, near Min in the lower valley of the T’ao shui (western Kan-su).
Molè (1970), pp. 126, n. 236, and 86, n. 59.
1.21. Guangwei 廣魏 [Kuang-wei]
Commandery.
“The text
reads thus: 今之廣平魏郡所守是也 [jinzhi guangpingwei jun suoshoush ye]. But
further on, one finds the name 廣魏郡 Guangweijun, which proves
that the word 平 [ping] is superfluous here and, in fact, the introduction of
this parasite character renders the text unintelligible. Meanwhile, the name of
the Guangwei Commandery is itself very puzzling, for it does not figure in the
geographical chapters of the Jinshu (chaps. XIV and XV) and,
consequently, is not found in Li Zhaoluo’s dictionary of historical
geography which is solely based on the canonical historians. By good luck, the
geographical chapters of the Jinshu were made the object of a study by
Bi Yuan 畢沅published in 1781 under the title of 晉書地理志新補正 “The Geographical Treatise of the Jinshu
Recently Completed and Corrected”. It is in this work that we finally
find the desired solution. Indeed, we read there (chap. I, p. 4 b of the
reprint made in the Jingxuntangcong shu 竞訓堂从叢書:” Emperor Wu (= Cao Cao, who lived from 155
to 220), of the Wei dynasty, established Guangwei 廣魏Commandery.
Under the Jin, during the Taishi
period (265-274), this name was changed for the first time to Lüeyang 略陽.”
The name of Lüeyang Commandery is, in fact, raised again in the Jinshu
(chap. XIV, p. 15, b) with a commentary confirming that the name of
Lüeyang was formerly Guangwei. Li Zhaoluo’s dictionary, furthermore,
informs us that the administrative centre of Lüeyang Commandery (ancient
Guangwei), was 90 li [37 km] to the northeast of the present Qinan 秦安 County (Qin 秦Prefecture, Gansu
Province). Thus, the site occupied by Guangwei Commandery is resolved. –
We remark, incidentally, that the use Yu Huan made of the name of Guangwei,
which was only in use from about 220 to 265, is in perfect agreement with the
approximate date assigned by Liu Zhishi to the work written by this
author.” Translated from Chavannes (1905), p. 523, n. 3.
1.22. The Qiang 羌 [Ch’iang].
See note 3.1.
1.23. The Hu 胡 peoples. Hu
is a rather vague term used for northern and western peoples of non-Sinitic
origin, usually, but not exclusively, for those of Caucasian appearance. It was
commonly used for people of Persian, Sogdian, and Turkish origin, Xianbi,
Indians, Kushans and even, occasionally, for the Xiongnu (who, however, are
usually clearly differentiated from the Hu).
Pulleyblank (1991), p.
126, gives as definitions of hu 胡: “dewlap;
interrogative adverb, why?, how?; general name for horse-riding nomads (Han);
for Iranians from Central Asia (Tang); foreign, western.”
On this subject I am
greatly indebted to Thomas Bartlett of Latrobe University in Melbourne,
Australia who, in a private communication dated 14th April 2002, wrote:
“Etymologically,
the graph “hu(2)” means literally “old flesh.” According
to the Shuo-wen dictionary, this character originally meant the dewlap
– loose skin that hangs down from the neck of an ox. Later the word was
used to refer to certain central Asian peoples, perhaps because the heavy
beards of such men may have seemed to Chinese to resemble the flesh hanging
down from the necks of oxen (dewlaps). Such central Asian peoples were usually
cattle-raising pastoralists, so the classifying epithet “Hu” may
have pejoratively implied a fundamental affinity between the people and their
animals. Many ancient Chinese names for foreign peoples had such
uncomplimentary implications.
Later, “Hu”
in China became a general term for “northern barbarians,” whether
they were of central or east Asian origin. This usage apparently has less to do
with beardeness than with non-Chineseness. Thus, for example, Han period
historians refer to a certain Tungusic people as “eastern Hu.” In
the 17th and 18th centuries, one purpose of the literary inquisition carried
out in China by the Manchus, a Tungusic people not known for heavy beards, was
to remove derogatory remarks to “Hu” in extant Chinese literary
works.”
Hulsewé’s translation of hu
as “nomad” (CICA: 80, n. 71) cannot be justified, as his own
translation from the Hanshu on the state of Xiye [Hsi-yeh] shows.
Ibid. p. 101. To say that the people of a ‘land of nomads’
are ‘different from the nomads’ is meaningless.
I have translated the
word hu here as “Westerner” with considerable hesitation,
but feel that this, at least, closely represents the way it is used in the Hou
Hanshu and the Weilue.
1.24. The
‘renlu’ 衽露 [jen-lu].
Ren refers to the front of a garment, a skirt, or the lapel or flap in
front of a coat which is buttoned under the right arm, and lu means to
bless, or blessed. The ‘renlu’, therefore, is likely to have been
similar to the pang-gdan, or striped apron, which Tibetan women, to this
day, wear from the time they are married.
“The locality of Jie is mentioned
further on as adjoining the ancient Commandery of Wudu and the District of
Yinjin. It is, therefore, probably necessary to read 邽 in place of 街and to identify this
place with the District of Shanggui 上 邽which was a
dependency of the Commandery of Longxi, and which was to the southwest of the
present Secondary Prefecture of Qin 秦, in Gansu Province.” Translated from
Chavannes (1905), p. 524, n. 2. See also note 1.32.
“Ji was a
District of the Commandery of Tianshui. This is nowadays the District of Fuqiang
(Gongchang Prefecture, Gansu Province).” Translated from Chavannes
(1905), p. 524, n. 3.
Ji was also the name of the capital of
Tianshui Commandery (renamed Hanyang Commandery in CE 74), and was west of the
Long Pass on the main route to the northwest from Changan. See the map in: de
Crespigny (1984), p. 92.
“The
District of Huandao (the correct orthography is 豲道) was in the
Commandery of Tianshui. It was to the northeast of the present District of
Longxi 陇西隴 (Gongchang Prefecture, Gansu Province).”
Translated from Chavannes (1905), p. 524, n. 4.
1.28. The fiefdoms du
都
[tu]. The word is used here meaning a fiefdom. Although it often refers
to a large city or capital, it can also mean a fief granted to a prince. See,
for example, Williams (1909), p. 846; GR Vol. VI, No. 11668, 4b.
1.29. The
‘Commanderies and Kingdoms’ shaoguo 郡國 [shao-kuo].
“. .
. this term designates
the principal administrative divisions of the Chinese who had divided all their
territory into a certain number of Commanderies and Kingdoms.” Translated
from Chavannes (1905), p. 524, n. 5. Also, see the discussion in: de Crespigny
(1984), pp. 1-3.
1.30. Wudu 武都 [Wu-tu].
See note 1.4.
1.31. Yinping 陰平 [Yin-p’ing]
陰 平
“The District
of Yinping was to the northwest of the present District of Wen (Jie Prefecture,
Gansu Province.” Translated from Chavannes (1905), p. 525, n. 2.
1.32. Chavannes
interpreted this passage somewhat differently than I have, thus:
“Regarding
those who live (in the region of) Jie 街, Ji 冀, and Huandao 獂道, although
they are now under Chinese administration, they have, nevertheless, preserved
their kings and chiefs who live in their territory and among their tribes.
Besides, in the ancient region of Wudu, in the region of Yinping 陰平 and Jie 街, there are some
tribes numbering more than 10,000 men.” Translated from Chavannes (1905),
pp. 524-525. See also n. 1.25.
zi 貲 – ‘ransom,’
‘property,’ ‘valuables’ – not in K; EMC: tsia̭
/tsi
lu 虜 – ‘capture’,
‘captive’. K. 69e *lo / luo; EMC: lɔ’
The Zilu gradually grew into a powerful
state centred around (Lake) Koko Nor. They were later known to the Chinese as
the Tuyuhun [T’u-yü-hun], and to the Tibetans as the ‘A-zha.
After many years of
warfare, they were decisively defeated by the Tibetans in 663, and never
recovered their independence. Some of them fled to the Chinese, others
remained, and were gradually absorbed by the Tibetans. See: Molè (1970),
pp. 2, 30, and 73, n. 22.
xiong 匈 – ‘breast’, ‘heart’.
K. 1183d *χįung / χįwong; EMC: xuawŋ.
nu 奴 – ‘slave’,
‘dependents’, ‘wife and children’. K. 94l *no / nuo;
EMC: nɔ
“As the
Hsiung-nu empire continued to expand throughout Mongolia, Sinkiang and parts of
Manchuria, the Han rulers were forced to greater efforts to defend themselves
and garrison the silk route. During the early Han the throne had become so
weakened by internal revolts that a takeover by the Hsiung-nu would have been
possible, but the Shan-yü may have avoided the temptation in the belief
that conquest would only serve to alienate them completely and that permanent
control would be impossible. The Shan-yü may not have been quite so
astute, but all the alien powers that have gained the Chinese throne were
either forced to retreat or were eventually assimilated.
Toward the end of the
Han, the loosely organized Hsiung-nu empire fell apart through over-extension
and internal dissensions. The northern faction broke away to appear later in
the Orkhon-Selenga region, while the southern faction fled further southward.
The northerners were shortly faced with the emergence of the Hsien-pi, who
became powerful contenders for control of the northern steppes. For a time they
held their own, but eventually they were forced to retreat westward. The defeat
of the northern Hsiung-nu and their flight to Ili, the land of the Wu-sun
– whom they defeated - marks the beginning of the western Hunnic empire
and the pillaging of Europe under Attila in the fifth century AD.” Bowles
(1977), p. 260.
“The Hiung-nu headed a powerful alliance of stock-raising tribes in the
late 3rd – the early 2nd century B.C. and dominated
the eastern part of Central Asia during two centuries, laying the foundations
for the emergence of tribal alliances there in the Middle Ages. The
military-political events of Hiung-nu rule are well-known from written sources
but the origin of the Hiung-nu themselves and the early stages of their history
remain obscure to this day. It is difficult to “picture and expound
consistently” all those stages, as Ssu-ma Ch’ien, a contemporary of
the Hiung-nu, pointed out in his time. Having rounded up all the information
about that tribe, the great historiographer of old, remarked only that
“the Hiung-nu descended from Shun-wei, a scion of the Hsia rulers’
family.” The evidence of written sources alone is not sufficient to
resolve the above question.” Minyaev (1985), p. 69.
“Hsiung-nu
is the designation for the nomad tribes living to the north of China ; they
have often, but by no means certainly, been identified with the Huns ; see
Sinor (1963), p. 263 (cf. p. 220) for the literature on the point ; cf. also
Pulleyblank (1963), p. 39, for further identifications.” CICA, p.
71, n. 4.
2.3. Jincheng 金城 [Chin-ch’eng]
Commandery was to the east of the salt (Lake) Koko Nor and had its centre to
the northwest of the prefectural capital of Lanzhou (Gansu Province). See:
Chavannes (1905), p. 525, n. 7.
“It was
not until the time of Emperor Wu, shortly before 100 BC, that the Han
established a military and political presence northwest across the Yellow River
and founded the commanderies of Hexi “West of the River.” Jiuquan,
Zhangye, and Dunhuang were probably established in 104 and subsequent years,
Wuwei and Jincheng in the half-century following.” de Crespigny (1984),
p. 7.
“It is
not certain where the Silk Road from China crossed the Yellow River during Han
times, but it was surely in the region of present-day Lanzhou; and this
frontier place of early Han became the base for expansion to the west of the
river. The commandery of Jincheng was not formally established until 81 BC, but
administrative and political control had been maintained for a generation
before that time, based notably upon the garrison city of Lianju, on the Datong
River, about a hundred kilometres northwest of present-day Lanzhou. . . .
The establishment of Jincheng commandery, therefore, served two purposes:
firstly as the base for the communications line across the Yellow River which
led north through Wuwei and into central Asia; second as an area for
colonisation by the Chinese, north of the Yellow River and among the Xining
valley.” de Crespigny (1984), pp. 11-13.
“Around
60 B.C., the Han extended the name Chin-ch’êng to cover the whole region
inhabited by the Ch’iang between Huang-ho and the Kuku-nor and set up a
protectorate there centred upon present-day Lan-chou.” Molè
(1970), p. 92, n. 88.
2.4. Wuwei 武威 [Wu-wei]
Commandery was situated to the west of the Tengger Desert, its centre at what
is now modern Wuwei (seat of Liangzhou prefecture since Tang times), in Gansu
Province.
“For the
dates of the establishment of the four commanderies of the north-west, see
Hulsewé (1957), pp. 6-7, and RHA I pp. 59-60, where it is
concluded, tentatively that (i) Chiu-ch’üan and Chang-i were
established in 104, (ii) Tun-huang was established shortly afterwards, at least
before 91 B.C.; (iii) Wu-wei was probably set up between 81 and 67, although
minor administrative units had existed there previously. See also Chang
Ch’un-shu (1967), p. 748 : Chiu-ch’üan 111 B.C.; Chang-i
between 111 and 109 B.C.; Tun-huang between 101 and 94 B.C. ; Wu-wei c. 7
B.C.” CICA, p. 75, n. 40.
2.5. Jiuquan 酒泉 [Chiu-ch’üan]
Commandery was centred where modern Jiaquan is now, just to the southeast of
Jiayuguan [Chia-yü-kuan]. Situated on the main road to the west, it
also protected the approaches to the strategic Etsin Gol delta to the
northeast. See CICA, p. 75, n. 40 in note 2.4.
2.6. The Hei Shui 黑水 [Hei Shui]
literally ‘Black River;’ and the Xi He 西河 [Hsi Ho]
literally ‘Western River.’
“It
appears the Hei shui can be identified with the Dang He, or the Shazhou
[Dunhuang] river. Cf. Sima Qian, French trans., bk. I, p. 126, n. 2. The term
‘Hei shui’ designating a river, and not an administrative district.
It must be the same with the term ‘Xi He’ which cannot apply here
to the Commandery of Xi He straddling the Huang He in the north of Shanxi and
Shenxi. I therefore consider the Xi He in our text as being the western branch of
the great loop of the Huang He. The domain of the Zilu is thus bordered by
Shazhou [Dunhuang] to the west, and the Helan Shan massif to the east.”
Translated from Chavannes (1905), p. 525, nn. 5 and 6.
While I agree with Chavannes that these
are references to rivers, not administrative areas, I do not agree with his
identifications. I believe it is far more likely that they refer to the upper
and lower reaches of the Ruo Shui or Etsin Gol (Etsin River), which flows north
into two lakes, the Sogo Nur (Sokho Nōr) and the Gaxun Nur (Gashun Nōr).
The well-watered valley
of the Ruo Shui led directly southwest from the homelands of the Xiongnu would
have provided the shortest and most practicable escape route for their slaves
to reach Chinese-controlled territory.
The river which flows
from the Loulang Nanshan and Lenglong ranges across the ‘Gansu
corridor,’ through ancient Jiuquan [Chiu-ch’üan]
Commandery to the north and west of Zhangye [Chang-yeh ; formerly known
as Kan-chou], to join the river at the entrance to the Etsin Gol valley,
is known to the Chinese as the Hei He.
Still, today, it is
called the Hei He on some maps as far as the Heli Shan range where it changes
its name to the Ruo Shui. This is undoubtedly the Hei Shui of this text (the
characters shui 水 and he 河 are often used
interchangeably for river).
“The
Edsin Gol springs from two sources, in the Kan Chou and Hsü Chou oases at
the foot of the Nan Shan. After watering several minor oases, of which the
chief is Chin-t’a (the Golden Pagoda), they unite near Mao-mei, off the
southeastern extremity of the Pei Shan. Thence they flow somewhat east of
north, as the Hei Shui or Black Water, crossing the indeterminate borders of
Kan-su and entering Inner Mongolia. The Hei Shui then separates into the
Eastern and Western Edsin Gol, which, after reaching Outer Mongolia, end in two
communicating lakes or meres, Gashun Nor and Sokho Nor.” Lattimore
(1929), p. 205.
Further north, the Ruo Shui splits into
the Xi He (‘Western River’ – also known as
Mörün-gol or Ar-gol), and the Dong He (‘Eastern River’
– also known as Ümne-gol or Iké-gol), before flowing into the
two lakes. The former, the Xi He, is almost certainly the same river as the Xi
He of the Weilue. I should note here, however, another possibility: Xi
He [Hsi Ho] is also used to refer to “the eastern vertical leg of
the great bend of the Yellow River.” Rogers (1968), p. 84, n. 44.
The importance of this region, at the
junction of the main ‘Silk Route’ to the west, and the easiest, and
most direct route to central Mongolia, is hard to overestimate:
“Nature,
by affording water and grazing over a continuous line of some two hundred
miles, has at all times provided in the valley of the Etsin-gol an
exceptionally easy route for raids and invasions from the Altai region, that
true home of the Mongols and other great nomadic races, towards the line of the
westernmost oases of Kan-su. These, extending along the foot of the Nan-shan,
constitute the great natural highway between China and innermost Asia. Wide
belts of desert and barren hill-ranges stretch both to the west and the east of
the Etsin-gol. These belts, very difficult for any large bodies of men to
cross, hardy nomads though they may be, help to protect this important
‘corridor’ for trade and military operations against serious attack
from the north. But the valley of the Etsin-gol stands open, like a gate
inviting invasion. . . . It will suffice to point out that those who since the
first Chinese advance under the Emperor Wu-ti into ‘Ho-hsi’ were
concerned with the safeguarding of this indispensable passage land between
China and Central Asia, were not likely to ignore or neglect the advantage that
a cultivated area, well to the north of the great highway and yet easily
capable of support from the side of both Su-chou and Kan-chou, would
necessarily present for the purpose of a barrier whereby to close that gate
against inroads, or as an advanced base for offensive movements against nomadic
hosts.” Stein (1928): Vol. I, pp. 409-410.
“It
is here that the route of invasion from the Mongolian steppes cuts through the
ancient border line drawn by the Chinese when they first occupied the passage
land to the north of the Nan-shan. The ruined forts of imposing size and
evident antiquity which we found here on both sides of the river were, no
doubt, intended to guard the gateway for invasion here presented. One fort
built with clay walls of exceptional strength looked an exact counterpart of
the ancient frontier post of the “Jade Gate” as located by me seven
years before on the Limes in the desert west of Tun-huang.
As
we moved down by the Etsin-gol from that last outlying Chinese settlement we
found the sandy bed of the river nearly a mile wide in places but absolutely
dry at the time. Only at rare intervals could water be obtained from wells dug
in deep hollows below the low rocky spur thrown out by the Pei-shan and then
spreads out in a delta extending for some 110 miles to the north before it
terminates in a line of brackish lakes and marshes.
The
conditions brought about here by a succession of low-water seasons furnished a
striking illustration of the appearance which the Lou-lan delta may have
presented before the Kuruk-darya had finally dried up. Where river beds lined
by narrow belts of jungle had been left dry for long years, we found many of
the wild poplar trees already dead or dying. The wide stretches of ground
separating the several beds showed but scanty scrub or else were absolutely
bare. No wonder we heard sad complaints in the scattered camps of the
two-hundred-odd families of Torgut Mongols which are established in the
Etsin-gol delta, and about the increasing difficulties caused by inadequate
grazing. Yet this extensive riverine tract, limited as are its resources, must
always have been of importance for those, whether armed hosts or traders, who
would make the long journey from the heart of Mongolia in the north to the
oases of Kansu. The line of watch towers of later construction met at intervals
afforded proof that this route into Mongolia had been frequented and guarded
during late medieval times.
The
analogy thus presented with the ancient Lou-lan delta impressed me even more
when I proceeded to examine the ruins of Khara-khoto, the “Black
Town,” which Colonel Kozloff, the distinguished Russian explorer, had
been the first to visit in 1908–09. There remained no doubt for me then
that it was identical with Marco Polo’s “City of Etzina.” Of
this we are told in the great Venetian traveler’s narrative that it lay a
twelve day’s ride from the city of Kan-chou, “toward the north on
the verge of the desert; it belongs to the Province of Tangut.” All
travellers bound for Karakorum, the old capital of the Mongols, had here to lay
in victuals in order to cross the great “desert which extends forty
days’ journey to the north and on which you meet with no habitation nor
baiting place.”
The
position thus indicated was found to correspond exactly to that of Khara-khoto,
and the identification was completely borne out by the antiquarian evidence
brought to light at the ruined site. This soon showed me that through the
walled town may have suffered considerably, as local Mongol tradition asserts,
when Chingiz Khan with his Mongols first invaded Kansu from this side about
A.D. 1226, yet it continued to be inhabited down to Marco Polo’s time and
at least partially even later, down to the fifteenth century. This was
certainly the case with the agricultural settlement for which it had served as
a local center, and of which we discovered extensive remains in the desert to
the east and northeast. But the town itself must have seen its most flourishing
times under the Tangut of Hsi-hsia rule from the beginning of the eleventh
century down to the Mongol conquest. . . .
There
was much to support the belief that the final abandonment of Khara-khoto was
brought about by difficulties of irrigation. The dry river bed which passes
close to the ruined town passes some seven miles away to the east of the
nearest branch still reached by the summer floods. The old canals we traced
leading to the abandoned farms eastward are removed considerably farther. It
was impossible definitely to determine whether this failure of irrigation had
been brought about by a reduction in the volume of the Etsin-gol’s water
or had been caused by a change in the river course at canal head with which the
settlement had for some reason been unable to cope. Anyhow, there seemed good
reason to believe that the water supply now reaching the delta during a few
summer months would no longer suffice to assure adequate irrigation for the
once cultivated area. Even at Mao-mei oasis, over 150 miles farther up the
river, and with conditions far more favourable for the maintenance of canals,
serious trouble had been experienced for years past in securing an adequate
supply of water early enough in the season. Hence, much of the once cultivated
area had been abandoned.” Stein (1931), pp. 188-191.
“In one
part of this region, now known by the Mongol name of Edsin Gol, the Ruo Shui
flows past the present city of Jiuquan for more than three hundred kilometres
into the desert. Nowadays, the Edsin Gol provides little more than brackish
water and salt pans, but in the time of Han these marshes were fertile, and
abundant with wild life. The whole river system then provided a salient of
arable land stretching into the heart of the desert.
This territory, called
Juyan by the Han Chinese, was maintained and garrisoned by the empire from the
time of Emperor Wu till the last century of Later Han. Militarily, the outpost
of the Great Wall was important for two reasons: as a supply point for the
garrisons in the northwest and, perhaps more significant, as a means to deny
this prosperous region to the northern nomads. Left undefended, Juyan would
have provided an ideal route for attack against the Chinese commanderies of the
corridor itself.” de Crespigny (1984), p. 9.
2.7. Liangzhou 涼州 [Liang-chou].
“The
Liang province of Later Han was divided in two by the Yellow River, flowing
eastwards from the Tibetan massif and then north towards the desert land of the
Ordos. In this region, unlike other territories, the Yellow River was of only
minor importance as a communications route: its valley and its waters provide
some opportunity for travel upstream or down, but river transport is generally
practicable only during the high water of summer, and there were, in any case,
few places of interest or value along the stream. On the contrary, in fact, in
the time of Qin and at the beginning of the Former Han the Yellow River served
as the frontier line of the empire, and during later centuries it was a barrier
to overcome for communication between China and central Asia.” de
Crespigny (1984), p. 7.
2.8. The Xianbi or
Xianbei 鮮卑 [Hsien-pi or Hsien-pei] people.
“The Hsien-pi,
who took over control of Mongolia after the fall of the Hsiung-nu state, had
emerged as a powerful tribal union as early as the first century B.C. The main
clan of the Hsien-pi had set up their nomadic camp in south-east Mongolia and
lived along the middle course of the Liao-ho river. A large number of Hsien-pi
now settled in central Mongolia and over 100,000 Hsiung-nu families, who had
settled there earlier, adopted their tribal name. T’an-shih-huai, leader
of the Hsien-pi tribal union, in A.D. 155 established the Hsien-pi state, which
rapidly became one of the most powerful empires of its day, as powerful as the
previous Hsiung-nu Empire. The Han court considered that the Hsien-pi’s
horses were swifter and their weapons sharper than those of the Hsiung-nu, and
the Hsien-pi, too, managed to acquire good-quality iron from the border regions
of China. Their political centre, the headquarters of T’an-shih-huai, was
in the south-east near the Darkhan mountains but was later moved to the former shan-yü’s
headquarters in the Khangay mountains.
Between A.D. 155 and
166, T’an-shih-huai conducted a series of major military campaigns that
led to the extension of Hsien-pi power over the Great Steppe as far as southern
Siberia and from Ussuri to the Caspian Sea. Until the third decade of the third
century A.D. the Hsien-pi was the leading power in Central Asia.”
Ishjamts (1994), pp. 155-156.
“The
place of origin of the Hsien-pi as a political force was in the Khingan range
area of the upper Amur basin, in a region inhabited later by speakers of
Tungusic languages; for this reason it was assumed that they were also
Tungusic, but more recent research links them with the Mongols. . . .
Having defeated the
northern Hsiung-nu in AD 166, the Hsien-pi shifted to the Orkhon-Selenga basin
just west of the Amur in northern Outer Mongolia. There they formed the nucleus
of what became within a few centuries the Mongol empire. Just as the control of
Sinkiang shifted from Indo-European speakers to the Turks with the defeat of
the Yüechih-Tochari between 174 and 161 BC, so the control of Mongolia
switched from the Turks to the Mongols.” Bowles (1977), pp. 260-261
“The
histories are agreed that the manners and customs of the Xianbi were very close
to those of the Wuhuan (HHS 90/80, 2985, SGZ 30, 836, commentary
quoting the Wei shu of Wang Shen; Schreiber, “Hsien-pi”, 147
ff. and 162-163. . . .
The Xianbi are said to
have taken their name from the mountain called Xianbi, now identified as a peak
of the Great Xingan range, west of the Horqin/Khorqin West Wing Centre banner
in Kirin (Gezu jianshi, 46). It is equally possible, however, that the
mountain took its name from the tribe. . . . ” de Crespigny (1984), p.
524, n. 12.
“Initially, the socio-political institutions of the Hsien-pei centred
around Hsien-pei clan and tribal alliances, but the Hsien-pei ultimately sought
to create a nomadic “state on horseback.” As the Northern Hsiung-nu
retreated, relations between the Hsien-pei and other nomadic groups became more
volatile, with the Hsien-pei staging frequent raids to secure essential goods
and expand their grazing areas and power. “[The Hsien-pei] looted along
the [Han] border on the south, resisted the Ting-ling on the north, repulsed
the Fu-yü on the east, attacked the Wu-sun on the west, and occupied all
the old territories of the Hsiung-nu, all of which spanned [approximately] four
thousand li [1,663 km] east to west and seven thousand li [2,911
km] south to north.”39
Hsien-pei power solidified
under the leadership of Tan-shih-huai (d. 181 A.D.), and the Han dynasty viewed
their growing strength as a threat. During the reign of Emperor Huan-ti (r.
147-167 A.D.), the court responded by ordering Lieutenant General Chang Huan,
who was responsible for the supervision of the Southern Hsiung-nu, to attack
the Hsien-pei, but he failed to subdue them. The court thereupon sent an envoy
with a seal and sash to confer the title of prince on Tan-shih-huai and propose
a marriage alliance with him. Tan-shih-huai rejected the offer, and the border
intrusions and lootings worsened.40
. . . . As a
powerful nomadic force north of China during the decline of the Han, the
Hsien-pei became deeply involved in the struggle for power in China as that dynasty
disintegrated. Hsien-pei’s relations with Ts’ao Ts’ao, the
founder of the Wei dynasty (220-264 A.D.) of the Three Kingdoms period (222-280
A.D.), suggests that the pattern of interaction between the nomad and
agriculturalist courts changed very little during he middle of the third
century. The Hsien-pei leader, K’o-pi-neng, initially allied himself with
Ts’ao Ts’ao and aided him in pacifying a rebellion led by
T’ien Yin in present-day Hopei. He then joined with the Wu-huan when they
revolted against Ts’ao. K’o-pi-neng’s forces were defeated by
Ts’ao’s, and he was forced to retreat north of the Great Wall.
However, he soon sent tribute to Ts’ao’s Wei dynasty in northern
China and sought to establish peace. The Hsien-pei leader’s desire to
normalize relations suggests that he was faced with the same economic
difficulties that the Hsiung-nu had suffered. After he and his people withdrew
from close proximity to arable territory toward more remote areas, it was
difficult to acquire agricultural products, and during this time, the Hsien-pei
were not strong enough to breech and loot the powerful Wei borders.
Consequently, K’o-pi-neng was forced to negotiate peace with the Wei. The
Wei court, eager to gain the Hsien-pei as allies, granted K’o-pi-neng the
title Fu-I Wang (“Prince of Upright Subordination”), thereby
suggesting his subordinate status to the dynasty. K’o-pi-neng accepted
the title and took advantage of renewed ties with the Wei to lead three
thousand horsemen in driving twenty thousand horses and oxen to the border
markets for exchange.”42
39.
[Hou Han shu] 90, chüan 80, “Account of the Hsien-pei,”
9b.
40.
San-kuo chih, “Book of Wei,” 30, “Account of the
Hsien-pei,” 6a.
41.
Ibid., “Biography of K’o-pi-neng,” 8b-9a.
42.
Ibid., 8a.
Jagchid and
Symons (1989), pp. 34-37.
“In transcriptions of the Later Han period we begin to find cases of *kh-
and we find *th also in the transcriptions of the Chin-shu. These
my perhaps reflect increasing penetration and admixture with the Eastern Hu,
that is the Hsien-pi and Wu-yüan 烏桓 (or 丸) [should be read Wu-huan (or –wan)] M. ‧ou-h̑wan
< *‧aĥ- ĥwan = Avar, who probably spoke a Mongolian type of
language. It was the Hsien-pi who became dominant on the steppe after the collapse
of the Hsiung-nu empire in the second century A.D.” Pulleyblank (1963),
II, p. 242.
“The
Wu-huan and the Hsien-pei people, who created the most powerful nomadic states
after the Hsiung-nu decline, also traded their livestock and furs: “In
the twenty-fifth year [of Chien-wu, 4 AD], Hao-tan, the leader of the Wu-huan
on the west of the Liao [River] and others . . . admired [our] culture. They
led their people to the court and presented their tribute, male and female
slaves, cattle and horses, bows and the furs of tigers, leopards and
sables.” And again, “The Hsien-pei are a branch of the Eastern
Barbarians [Tung-hu]. . . . Their animals, which are different than those of
the Middle Kingdom, are wild horses, great horned goats, and chiao-tuan
cattle. The bow made from horns is commonly known as the chiao-tuan bow.
Besides, there are sables, na [= seals – presumably the seals from
Lake Baikal], and ermines. Their skin and hair are tender and soft and they are
known as the best furs under heaven.” Jagchid and Symons (1989), p. 167.
From the Hou Hanshu, zhuan 80, “Account of the Wuhuan”, 5a.
“When the
ruler of the Northern Hsiung-nu was beaten by Chinese forces in 91 and fled in
an unknown direction, a new people, the Hsien-pi, took the opportunity to migrate,
and settled on his territories. The remaining Hsiung-nu clans, which numbered
more than 100,000 yurts, began to call themselves Hsien-pi, and from that time
on the Hsien-pi began to gather strength.
According to
the Chinese chronicles, the Hsien-pi originated in a land of forests and high
mountains near the basin of the River Amur. Their language and customs are
described as similar to those of the Wu-huan, except that before a wedding they
first shaved their heads, then held a large assembly on the river during the
last month of spring; they feasted, and once the feasting was over, celebrated
the marriage. Wild birds and beasts not found in the Middle Kingdom of China
lived in the territories of the Hsien-pi, who made bows out of horns. There
were also sables, foxes and squirrels with soft fur, from which fur coats
renowned for their beauty were made in the Celestial Kingdom. The breeding of
cattle, sheep, goats and horses by the Hsien-pi is also mentioned and they are
said frequently to rustle each other’s herds of livestock and horses.
The Hsien-pi were described by one of the Chinese emperor’s councillors
in 117 as follows:
After the
Hsiung-nu fled, the Hsien-pi, who took over their former territories, grew in
strength. They have hundreds of thousands of warriors, they are remarkable for
their physical strength, and are more quick-witted than the Hsiung-nu. It
should also be noted that, as a result of lack of discipline at the guard-posts
on the line of fortifications, there are many ways of evading the embargo,
which robbers use to obtain fine metal and iron of good quality. The Chinese
get in [through these gaps] and become the main counsellors of the Hsien-pi,
and so they acquire keener weapons and faster horses than the Huns.
During the reign
of the Han emperor Huang-ti (146-168), an energetic leader named
T’an-shih-huai appeared among the Hsien-pi. He subjected the elders to
his authority, introduced laws, gathered large forces and defeated the Northern
Hsiung-nu around 155.
All the elders of
the eastern and western nomadic communities submitted to him. As a result of
this he looted the lands along the line of fortifications, repulsed the
Ting-ling in the north, made the Fo-yü kingdom retreat in the east,
attacked the Wu-sun in the west, and took possession of all the former
Hsiung-nu territories, which extended for more than 14,000 li [5,821 km]
to the east and the west, were intersected by mountains and rivers, and had
large numbers of fresh and salt-water lakes.
Thus the
territories of the Hsien-pi extended as far as those settled by the Wu-sun in
the Ili basin in the west, while in the north they adjoined those of the
Ting-ling alliance of tribes which occupied the Altai mountains, the basins of
the upper and middle Yenisey and the areas adjoining and to the west of Lake
Baikal.” Kyzlasov (1996), pp. 318-319.
Apparently, the “edition of the
twenty-four historians” published by the library of Tushujicheng
[T’u-shu-chi-ch’eng] in Shanghai from 1888 of the Weilue,
which Chavannes used, has mistakenly used Weibi 魏卑 here instead
of 鮮卑 Xianbi, as Chavannes himself recognised, (1905), p. 526
n. 1. See also the discussion in Pelliot (1906), pp. 365-366, quoted in note
1.13.
For an excellent French translation of the
major texts referring to the Xianbi, see: Mullie (1969), pp. 24-51.
2.9. The Dahu 大胡 [Ta-hu] people.
da, dai 大 =
‘great,’ ‘big.’ K. 317a *d’âd /
d’âi; EMC da’, dajh, dah
hu 胡 = ‘why?’ or ‘how?’ –
name for non-Chinese peoples to the west of China. K. 49a’
*g’o / γuo; EMC ɣɔ
As the name does not seem to be verified
in any other text, it is possible that Dahu 大胡 [Ta-hu]
was a simple copyist’s error for Donghu 東胡 [Tung-hu] or
‘Eastern Hu.’
“東胡 tung1 hu2 (Hist.) Tung-hu or
Eastern Hu : anc. name of the Tungus, a horse-breeding people from southeastern
Mongolia and the basin of the 遼Liao, and who, at the time of the 漠 Han dynasty (206 BCE
– 220 CE) were dominated by the 匈奴 Xiongnu. The 漠 Han dynasty (206 BCE
– 220 CE) tried to put an end to this domination, but also to control the
Donghu’s territories.” GR 11836, p. 347.
However, the Weishu states that the
Xianbi are the remnants of the Donghu – see Mullie (1969), p. 41. So, it
is rather odd to find the Weilue saying that there are Dahu (= Donghu?),
as well as Dingling and Qiang, living among the Xianbi.
It seems more likely
that the Weilue was referring here to another group of people and the
obvious similarity between the name Dahu and that of the Dahur or Daghur people
mentioned in the following quotes suggest that they may be one and the same
people. The present-day Chinese name for this Mongol people is Dawoer 達斡爾 [Ta-wo-erh].
There is, on the other
hand, a very long gap between the time of the Weilue and when the first
accounts of these people came to the notice of Western scholars, and so the
identification remains uncertain.
“Daghur,
also called DAGUR, DAHUR, or DAUR. Mongol people living in the Heilungkiang
Province of China. Their language, formerly thought to be Tungistic of a
mixture of Mongolian and Tungus, is now known to be an archaic Mongolian
dialect preserving features found in 13th-century documents. Their
own name is Daghur; the Manchu form is Dahur; the Russian form Daur occurs in
the name of the Daur mountain range.
Russian settlers in the
17th century found the Daghur well established in eastern
Transbaikalia and the Amur region. . . . Their chief occupations are
agriculture, logging, hunting, stock raising, and horse breeding. The clan
system prevails. The religion is shamanistic, although some of them are
adherents of Tibetan Buddhism.” NEB III, p. 343.
“The Tungus tribes today are divided loosely on a regional and linguistic basis into two groups: the northern Evenk and Even (Lamut) of Siberia and the upper Amur basin; and the southern Nanay (Goldi), Ulchi, Oroch (including Udege), Orok, Negidal and Solon. To these some would add the Dahur, who are generally classed with the Mongols. In a special category are the Manchu and ancient tr