ON THE CHING TRIBUTARY SYSTEM 155 Eliminating the first seven adjacent states and those entries which appear to be duplicates,there are some 50 tributaries communicating by sea (of which about 15 remain unidentified so far as we know). A dozen of these states are recorded as sending tribute before the period of the great Ming expeditions under CHeNG Ho (c.1403-1433). But only half a dozen are recorded as doing so after 1433 (Java 1443 ff., Samudra 1435,Malacca 1459,Bengal 1438,Ceylon 1459,Philippines 1576,-an exception,concerned with a reward for the seizure of pirates).Moreover,with the exception noted,not one of these mari- time tributaries is recorded as arriving after 1460. Turning to the tributaries communicating by land,if we pass over the Mongols and others on the north,and the western frontier dis- tricts such as Hami,we find a list of 38 tributaries of the western region which are said to communicate via Hami.These are listed without comment and are almost the same list,item for item,as that given in the Ming History (Cf.BRETSCHNEIDER 2.314-15),also with- out comment.Almost half of these places are of doubtful identity, so far as we are aware,and the entire list,so closely and yet not exactly copied later in the Ming History,seems like a hand-me-down,- a traditional roll-call without validity for our purposes;perhaps its origin can be found in some work of an earlier period.By contrast, the dozen western places which conclude the list,and concerning which details are given,are plainly of historical importance,par- ticularly Turfan,Samarkand,Rum,and Arabia.These four places, plus Ilibalik and the two obscure items at the end,appear to be the chief"tributaries"which functioned independently via Central Asia, all the others being grouped under Hami.They seem well suited to serve as the alleged or actual sources of merchants in caravan trade. It is significant that their tributary activity appears regularly estab- lished at the beginning of the Chia-ching period after 1522. These observations warrant the hypothesis that the chief activity in the sending of tribute embassies under the Ming shifted from the period and a great number of the entries are for aboriginal or border tribes or places really within the confines of nineteenth century China. Another work,.the Ta-mng-t'ung chih大明一統志ch.89-90,一used by BRer- scHNEIDER,-gives a list of 56 tributaries,all of which are included in the list given above.BRETSCHNEIDER 2.176-315 chiefly from the Ming History sections on foreign countries (Ming-shih wai-kuo chiian,ch.329-332),lists 43 tributaries plus 38 smaller places (29 via Hami)all of which had intercourse with China from the west by land; a score of these are not in the list above,half of them being very obscure items
ON THE CH'ING TRIBUTARY SYSTEM 155 Eliminating the first seven adjacent states and those entries which appear to be duplicates, there are some 50 tributaries communicating by sea (of which about 15 remain unidentified so far as we know). A dozen of these states are recorded as sending tribute before the period of the great Ming expeditions under CHERNG HO (c. 1403-1433). But only half a dozen are recorded as doing so after 1433 (Java 1443 ff., Samudra 1435, Malacca 1459, Bengal 1438, Ceylon 1459, Philippines 1576,-an exception, concerned with a reward for the seizure of pirates). Moreover, with the exception noted, not one of these maritime tributaries is recorded as arriving after 1460. Turning to the tributaries communicating by land, if we pass over the Mongols and others on the north, and the western frontier districts such as Hami, we find a list of 38 tributaries of the western region which are said to communicate via Hami. These are listed without comment and are almost the same list, item for item, as that given in the Ming History (Cf. BRETSCHNEIDER 2. 314-15), also without comment. Almost half of these places are of doubtful identity, so far as we are aware, and the entire list, so closely and yet not exactly copied later in the Ming History, seems like a hand-me-down,- a traditional roll-call without validity for our purposes; perhaps its origin can be found in some work of an earlier period. By contrast, the dozen western places which conclude the list, and concerning which details are given, are plainly of historical importance, particularly Turfan, Samarkand, Rum, and Arabia. These four places, plus Ilibalik and the two obscure items at the end, appear to be the chief " tributaries " which functioned independently via Central Asia, all the others being grouped under Hami. They seem well suited to serve as the alleged or actual sources of merchants in caravan trade. It is significant that their tributary activity appears regularly established at the beginning of the Chia-ching period after 1522. These observations warrant the hypothesis that the chief activity in the sending of tribute embassies under the Ming shifted from the period and a great number of the entries are for aboriginal or border tribes or places really within the confines of nineteenth century China. Another work, the Ta-ming i-t'ung chih *a-ta,> ch. 89-90,-used by BRETSCHNEIDER,-gives a list of 56 tributaries, all of which are included in the list given above. BRETSCHNEIDER 2. 176-315 chiefly from the Ming History sections on foreign countries (Ming-shih wai-kuo chiian, ch. 329-332), lists 43 tributaries plus 38 smaller places (29 via Hami) all of which had intercourse with China from the west by land; a score of these are not in the list above, half of them being very obscure items
156 J.K.FAIRBANK AND S.Y.TENG southern sea-routes to the northwestern land-routes after the middle of the fifteenth century,just as the capital had been shifted from Nanking to Peking in 1421. This general hypothesis is supported by reference to the lists of tribute embassies recorded at the end of each annual section in the annals of the Ming History (Ming-shih pen-chi).For analytical purposes we have constructed a chart of these embassies as recorded for the period 1369-1643.Publication of so voluminous a document does not seem feasible,particularly when there are so many problems of identification and the like still unsolved;but certain observations may be based upon it.Judging by the completeness with which the embassies from the Southern Sea and the Indian Ocean were recorded during the period of the great maritime expeditions,20 this record given in the annals may be considered complete enough for survey pur- poses.31 1.First it is worth noting again that embassies from Southeast Asia began to come to the Ming capital from the very beginning of the dynasty,years before the first of the maritime expeditions under CHENG Ho were sent out.This is not surprising in view of the long growth of Chinese trade with this region and the Mongol expeditions which had already sailed through it.Thus in the period from 1369 to 1404 (CHENG Ho's first expedition occupied the years 1405-1407) tribute is recorded from Java (Chao-wa)in 11 different years,from Java (She-p'o)in 1378,from Brunei (P'o-ni)in 1371,from Pahang (P'eng-heng)in 1378,from Samudra (Hsui-wen-ta-na)in 1383,from Palembang (San-fo-ch'i)in Sumatra 6 times,and from Chola (So-li) on the Coromandel coast of India in 1372.This agrees with the dates given in the Collected Statutes and noted above. In this period embassies from states adjacent to China,-Korea (Kao-li,Koryo),Liu-ch'iu,Annam,Champa,Cambodia,Siam,Tibet (Wu-ssu-tsang),-are comparatively regular and frequent.It is note- a0 PELLIor (1)317n.states that all the South Sea embassies in the period of the Ming expeditions were recorded in the Ming-shih pen-chi.In the case of Central Asian embassies the Hui-tien seems to refer to some not recorded in the Pen-chi.This is not unexpected,judged by the example of the Ch'ing records analyzed in part 6 below.On the other hand nearly all the references to XV century embassies from Java and Champa collected by FERRAND 14.5-11 are included in the Ming History. 31 The annals (Chung-hua shu-chu edition)list some 36 tributaries arriving in the period 1369-1404,some 55 in the period 1405-1433,some 16 in 1434-1500,and some 14 in the long period 1500-1643
156 J. K. FAIRBANK AND S. Y. TENG southern sea-routes to the northwestern land-routes after the middle of the fifteenth century, just as the capital had been shifted from Nanking to Peking in 1421. This general hypothesis is supported by reference to the lists of tribute embassies recorded at the end of each annual section in the annals of the Ming History (Ming-shih pe'n-chi). For analytical purposes we have constructed a chart of these embassies as recorded for the period 1369-1643. Publication of so voluminous a document does not seem feasible, particularly when there are so many problems of identification and the like still; unsolved; but certain observations may be based upon it. Judging by the completeness with which the embassies from the Southern Sea and the Indian Ocean were recorded during the period of the great maritime expeditions,30 this record given in the annals may be considered complete enough for survey purposes.31 1. First it is worth noting again that embassies from Southeast Asia began to come to the Ming capital from the very beginning of the dynasty, years before the first of the maritime expeditions under CHERNG HO were sent out. This is not surprising in view of the long growth of Chinese trade with this region and the Mongol expeditions which had already sailed through it. Thus in the period from 1369 to 1404 (CHENG HO'S first expedition occupied the years 1405-1407) tribute is recorded from Java (Chao-wa) in 11 different years, from Java (She-p'o) in 1378, from Brunei (P'o-ni) in 1371, from Pahang (P'eng-heng) in 1378, from Samudra (Hse-wen-ta-na) in 1383, from Palembang (San-fo-ch'i) in Sumatra 6 times, and from Chola (So-li) on the Coromandel coast of India in 1372. This agrees with the dates given in the Collected Statutes and noted above. In this period embassies from states adjacent to China,-Korea (Kao-li, Koryo), Liu-ch'iu, Annam, Champa, Cambodia, Siam, Tibet (Wu-ssui-tsang),-are comparatively regular and frequent. It is note- 30 PELLIOT (1) 317 n. states that all the South Sea embassies in the period of the Ming expeditions were recorded in the Ming-shih pen-chi. In the case of Central Asian embassies the Hui-tien seems to refer to some not recorded in the Pen-chi. This is not unexpected, judged by the example of the Ch'ing records analyzed in part 6 below. On the other hand nearly all the references to XV century embassies from Java and Champa collected by FERRAND 14.5-11 are included in the Ming History. 31 The annals (Chung-hua shu-chii edition) list some 36 tributaries arriving in the period 1369-1404, some 55 in the period 1405-1433, some 16 in 1434-1500, and some 14 in the long period 1500-1643
ON THE CHING TRIBUTARY SYSTEM 157 worthy,however,that relatively few are recorded from Central Asia: Samarkand 3 times,Bashibalik once,and but few others. 2.During the much-studied period of the maritime expeditions up to 1433,when tribute embassies from the Indian Ocean graced the court frequently,the activity of embassies from Central Asia steadily increased.Beginning in 1421 the Wa-la (Oirats)are recorded in al- most every year up to 1453.Meanwhile Badakshan,Shiraz,and Ispahan are recorded for 1419,Herat in 1415 and later,Ilibalik from 1426;and,most important,Hami,the funnel for Central Asian trade, begins to be regularly recorded in 1415,as does Turfan also. 3.During the remainder of the sixteenth century after the end of the maritime expeditions in 1433,Tibet and the other countries ad- jacent to China are recorded with a good deal of regularity with the exception of Korea (Chao-hsien)which appears in the record only a few times after 1397(perhaps because it could be taken for granted), while Japan is recorded half a dozen times.Of the many countries from the Indian Ocean and the South Sea,only Java and Malacca (recorded 10 times between 1439 and 1481)continue with much regularity,Ceylon (Hsi-lan-shan)being recorded along with Malacca in 1445 and 1459.Meanwhile tribute embassies from Hami are noted in more than half the years of the period (1434-1500),Turfan and Samarkand less frequently,about one year in four,and Ilibalik half a dozen times.Thus there is a marked shift of tributary activity from the maritime south to the continental west. 4.During the sixteenth century there is a thinning out of the number of embassies noted in the annals.Liu-ch'iu appears 50 times, every other year on the average.Annam,however,appears only 19 times;Siam,only 9;Champa,4 (to 1543);and Japan,7.By way of contrast,the embassies recorded from Central Asia remain relatively numerous:Tibet,26;Hami,19;Turfan,24;Samarkand,16;Arabia (T'ien-fang),13;and Rum (Lu-mi,in Asia Minor),6. 5.In the last years of the dynasty,1600-1643,the embassies from Central Asia wither away like those from elsewhere:Liu-ch'iu,15; Annam,7;Siam,9;Tibet,9;Turfan,3;Hami,3;Samarkand,Arabia, and Rum,each once (in 1618,with Hami and Turfan). Certain implications of these data are discussed below in section 6
ON THE CH'ING TRIBUTARY SYSTEM 157 worthy, however, that relatively few are recorded from Central Asia: Samarkand 3 times, Bashibalik once, and but few others. 2. During the much-studied period of the maritime expeditions up to 1433, when tribute embassies from the Indian Ocean graced the court frequently, the activity of embassies from Central Asia steadily increased. Beginning in 1421 the Wa-la (Oirats) are recorded in almost every year up to 1453. Meanwhile Badakshan, Shiraz, and Ispahan are recorded for 1419, Herat in 1415 and later, Ilibalik from 1426; and, most important, Hami, the funnel for Central Asian trade, begins to be regularly recorded in 1415, as does Turfan also. 3. During the remainder of the sixteenth century after the end of the maritime expeditions in 1433, Tibet and the other countries adjacent to China are recorded with a good deal of regularity with the exception of Korea (Chao-hsien) which appears in the record only a few times after 1397 (perhaps because it could be taken for granted), while Japan is recorded half a dozen times. Of the many countries from the Indian Ocean and the South Sea, only Java and Malacca (recorded 10 times between 1439 and 1481) continue with much regularity, Ceylon (Hsi-lan-shan) being recorded along with Malacca in 1445 and 1459. Meanwhile tribute embassies from Hami are noted in more than half the years of the period (1434-1500), Turfan and Samarkand less frequently, about one year in four, and Ilibalik half a dozen times. Thus there is a marked shift of tributary activity from the maritime south to the continental west. 4. During the sixteenth century there is a thinning out of the number of embassies noted in the annals. Liu-ch'iu appears 50 times, every other year on the average. Annam, however, appears' only 19 times; Siam, only 9; Champa, 4 (to 1543); and Japan, 7. By way of contrast, the embassies recorded from Central Asia remain relatively numerous: Tibet, 26; Hami, 19; Turfan, 24; Samarkand, 16; Arabia (T'ien-fang), 13; and Rum (Lu-mi, in Asia Minor), 6. 5. In the last years of the dynasty, 1600-1643, the embassies from Central Asia wither away like those from elsewhere: Liu-ch'iu, 15; Annam, 7; Siam, 9; Tibet, 9; Turfan, 3; Hami, 3; Samarkand, Arabia, and Rum, each once (in 1618, with Hami and Turfan). Certain implications of these data are discussed below in section 6
158 J.K.FAIRBANK AND S.Y.TENG 3.THE LI FAN YUAN (COURT OF COLONIAL AFFAIRS)UNDER THE CH'ING. The inauguration of the Manchu dynasty led to a thorough re- shuffling of the relations between China and Central Asia.The Manchus therefore divided their inheritance of tributaries from the Ming into two categories,those from the east and south,who con- tinued to be under the Reception Department (Chu K'o Ssu)of the Board of Ceremonies,and those from the north and west,who were put under a new agency,the理藩院Li Fan Yuan..Since this article is concerned primarily with the former,among whom were included the maritime nations of Europe,we shall take only brief note of the Ch'ing tributaries to the north and west. The tributaries of the north and west were primarily the Mongols. So important were Mongol relations that a special department of the Manchu administration,a Mongolian Office (Meng-ku Ya-men),was set up,some years before the entrance into China.In 1638 this Mon- golian Office was changed into the Li Fan Yuan,32 the so-called Court of Colonial Affairs or Mongolian Superintendency,3 which continued as an important part of the government of China under the Ch'ing dynasty. It is worth noting first of all that the Li Fan Yuian managed Manchu- Mongol relations through the forms of the ancient tributary system.s4 s In the sixth month of1638;cf.Chim-ting l-tai chih-luan pia0欽定歷代職 (Table of offices and officials of suecessive dynasties),compiled by CHI Chin 粑昀ctal,Kuang-ya shu-chi廣雅書局edition,.l7.i. as Although the term "Colonial"seems unfortunate,we favor the translation of BRUNNERT (a)because some sort of translation is necessary for non-sinologists and (b)for the sake of conformity to a manual of titles.MAYERs 188 gives a descriptive translation,"The Mongolian Superintendency ..which has sometimes been called the Colonial Office."P.HoANG,Melanges sur I'administration (Varietes sinologiques no.21,Chang-hai 1902)135 gives a more literal version,"Cour supreme de l'admini- stration des Vassaux."Dr.H.B.MoRse and many others have followed MAYERs. HsIEH Pao-chao (The Government of China 1644-1911,Balt.1925)322,under American influence,uses "Department of Territories." s+Here as everywhere the reader must remember that tribute was a substitute for more forceful domination,rather than an expression of such domination.In actual fact,as Owen LATrIMORE puts it,"control was by manipulation rather than by decree"(The Mongols of Manchuria,N.Y.C.1934,50). HsIEn Pao-chao,op.cit.,not only thoroughly misrepresents the nature of the tributary system (pp.235-7)but also fails to indicate its use in the government of Mongolia and Tibet (pp.321-341)
158 J. K. FAIRBANK AND S. Y. TENG 3. THE Li FAN YtAN (COURT OF COLONIAL AFFAIRs) UNDER THE CH'ING. The inauguration of the Manchu dynasty led to a thorough reshuffling of the relations between China and Central Asia. The Manchus therefore divided their inheritance of tributaries from the Ming into two categories, those from the east and south, who continued to be under the Reception Department (Chu K'o Ssut) of the Board of Ceremonies, and those from the north and west, who' were put under a new agency, the M-11K Li Fan Yuan. Since this article is concerned primarily with the former, among whom were included the maritime nations of Europe, we shall take only brief note of the Ch'ing tributaries to the north and west. The tributaries of the north and west were primarily the Mongols. So important were Mongol relations that a special department of the Manchu administration, a Mongolian Office (Meng-ku Ya-men), was set up, some years before the entrance into China. In 1638 this Mongolian Office was changed into the Li Fan Yuan,32 the so-called Court of Colonial Affairs or Mongolian Superintendency,33 which continued as an important part of the government of China under the Ch'ing dynasty. It is worth noting first of all that the Li Fan Yuan managed ManchuMongol relations through the forms of the ancient tributary system.4 32In the sixth month of 1638; cf. Ch'in-ting li-tai chih-kuan piao JI1KKR, O* (Table of offices and officials of successive dynasties), compiled by CHI Chun Cft et al., Kuang-ya shu-chii , Qe edition, 17.5. 3 Although the term " Colonial " seems unfortunate, we favor the translation of BRUNNERT (a) because some sort of translation is necessary for non-sinologists and (b) for the sake of conformity to a manual of titles. MAYERS 183 gives a descriptive translation, " The Mongolian Superintendency . . . which has, sometimes been called the Colonial Office." P. HOANG, Melanges sur l'administration (Varietes sinologiques no. 2-1, Chang-hai 1902) 135 gives a more literal version, " Cour supreme de l'administration des Vassaux." Dr. H. B. MORSE and many others have followed MAYERS. HSIEH Pao-chao (The Government of China 1644-1911, Balt. 1925) 322, under American influence, uses " Department of Territories." 34 Here as everywhere the reader must remember that tribute was a substitute for more forceful domination, rather than an expression of such domination. In actual fact, as Owen LATTIMORE puts it, "control was by manipulation rather than by decree" (The Mongols of Manchuria, N. Y. C. 1934, 50). HSIEH Pao-chao, op. cit., not only thoroughly misrepresents the nature of the tributary system (pp. 235-7) but also fails to indicate its use in the government of Mongolia and Tibet (pp. 321-341)
ON THE CH'ING TRIBUTARY SYSTEM 159 The K'ang-hsi edition of the Hui-tien introduced this new department in these rapturous terms:35 "When our Dynasty first arose,its awe-inspiring virtue (te) gradually spread and became established.Wherever its name and influence reached,there were none who did not come to Court. As to the leaders of the Mongolian tribes,those who first tendered their allegiance all submitted to our jurisdiction and are regarded as of one body (with the Manchus).Those who came later were a vast host;and all of them coming with their whole countries or with their entire tribes happily tendered their allegiance.Since the land was extensive,the people were numerous.Thereupon they were ordered each to preserve his own territory,and in the years for audience to present a regular tribute.The abundant population and the vast area,-from ancient times down to the present there had been noth- ing like them!Therefore,outside the Six Boards,there was estab- lished the Court of Colonial Affairs (Li Fan Yiian)..." Thus the origin of tribute is affirmed to lie,as usual,in the all- pervading virtue of the Son of Heaven,while the cognate principles of imperial compassion and reverent barbarian submission are ex- pressed in another introductory passage,on Court assemblies:ae "Among the 49 banners,from the princes on down,annually or seasonally there must be some who come to the capital.They are made to divide the years (of their attendance)to represent each other, in order to save them labor and weariness,and hay and grain are given them,in order to relieve their exhaustion and fatigue.Thus the system of visiting (the Court)for audience and the benevolence (of the Emperor)in soothing and guiding them are both accomplished." The general nature of the administration exercised by this new agency will appear from a recital of the main divisions of the K'ang- hsi Statutes concerning it.Successive sections dealt with the Ranks of Nobility among the Mongolian princes;the Assemblies,held tri- ennially and concerned with judicial matters,fines being exacted for non-attendance;the Registers of Males,including all between 18 and 60,with penalties for false report;the Postal Transmission system, with regulations for the use of post-station horses and facilities;the system of Guard Houses,with prohibitions of unannounced movements, unauthorized trips to Kuei-hua to sell horses,overstepping of tribal boundaries,or use of others'pasture,and the like;a set of Strict Pro- a5 K'ang-hsi hui-tien 142. Ibid.,143.1
ON THE CH'ING TRIBUTARY SYSTEM 159 The K'ang-hsi edition of the Hui-tien introduced this new department in these rapturous terms: 35 " When our Dynasty first arose, its awe-inspiring virtue (te) gradually spread and became established. Wherever its name and influence reached, there were none who did not come to Court. As to the leaders of the Mongolian tribes, those who first tendered their allegiance all submitted to our jurisdiction and are regarded as of one body (with the Manchus). Those who came later were a vast host; and all of them coming with their whole countries or with their entire tribes happily tendered their allegiance. Since the land was extensive, the people were numerous. Thereupon they were ordered each to preserve his own territory, and in the years for audience to present a regular tribute. The abundant population and the vast area,-from ancient times down to the present there had been nothing like them! Therefore, outside the Six Boards, there was established the Court of Colonial Affairs (Li Fan Yuan)... Thus the origin of tribute is affirmed to lie, as usual, in the allpervading virtue of the Son of Heaven, while the cognate principles of imperial compassion and reverent barbarian submission are expressed in another introductory passage, on Court assemblies: 36 "Among the 49 banners, from the princes on down, annually or seasonally there must be some who come to the capital. They are made to divide the years (of their attendance) to represent each other, in order to save them labor and weariness, and hay and grain are given them, in order to relieve their exhaustion and fatigue. Thus the system of visiting (the Court) for audience and the benevolence (of the Emperor) in soothing and guiding them are both accomplished." The general nature of the administration exercised by this new agency will appear from a recital of the main divisions of the K'anghsi Statutes concerning it. Successive sections dealt with the' Ranks of Nobility among the Mongolian princes; the Assemblies, held triennially and concerned with judicial matters, fines being exacted for non-attendance; the Registers of Males, including all between 18 and 60, with penalties for false report; the Postal Transmission system, with regulations for the use of post-station horses and facilities; the system of Guard Houses, with prohibitions of unannounced movements, unauthorized trips to Kuei-hua to sell horses, overstepping of tribal boundaries, or use of others' pasture, and the like; a set of Strict Pro- 3 K'ang-hsi hui-tien 142. 36 Ibid., 143. 1