[4.16.2016] The other Qianlong Retrospect
In early work I began to look at the ways in the Qing court historians of the eighteenth
century, and particularly under the sponsorship of the Qianlong emperor, rewrote the history of Qing origins in
the seventeenth century. The fact that there survived a certain number of documents from the seventeenth century
allows modern historians a two-pane view, with the original forms behind and the retrospect from the eighteenth
century in the foreground --a "translucent mirror" in which one sees something of the past beyond the
self-reflective, brighter recreations of it. My first interest was in the history of the
hanjun (Chinese-martial) banners which had an origin that could still be deciphered and was quite
different from the racialized, politicized representation imposed upon hanjun identity and history by the
Qianlong court.
At roughly the same time I was thinking about a different Qianlong retrospect, that
represented in the Manzhou yuanliu kao 欽定滿洲源流考, worked on
in stages after 1743 and published in 1777 (see subsequent work on this by Niu Guanjie in Central Asiatic
Journal, 2015, and additional context from Stephen Whiteman, “Kangxi's Auspicious Empire: Rhetorics of
Geographic Integration in the Early Qing" in Jeff Kyong-McLain and Yongtao Du, eds.,Chinese History in
Geographical Perspective (2013), 33-54). In it the emperor's amaneunses present a picture of political
and cultural continuity in Northeast Asia --a civilization-- that was one of the sources of the Qing empire and
its rulership. In fact it is presented as the foundation layer in Qing legitimacy. The preface, I noted, provided
a few specifics about the cultural and political legacy of the Northeast: The "Three Hans" 三韓 of
early Korea were actually three Hans 汗, which Chinese scribes had ignorantly construed as tribal names, not
as unified political orders.
其妄也若夫三韓命名苐列辰韓馬
38867;弁韓,而不詳其義意當時三國
24517;有三汗,各統其一,史家不知
27735;為君長之稱,遂以音同誤譯,
32780;庸鄙者甚至訛韓為族姓. As exemplified by the
Bohai (but, in the suggestion of the preface, tracing back to the Fuyu and earlier), these regimes had preferred
systems of multiple capitals. The 單單大嶺即 mentioned in the Hou Han
shu, the preface states, was Changbaishan, showing the continuing centrality of the mountains for the
religious and political life of the region.
The closeness of the Manchus to the cultural and
political traditions of Fuyu, Mohe, and Bohai is asserted, again with a few specifics. Among them, the customs of
the Zhenhan 辰韓 with regard to the deformation of infants heads by use of a hard surface were
identical to those of the Manchus. In addition, the political terms had included a leadership title mafa
and sound variants (瑪法,莫弗) that went back at least as far as the northern Mohe
靺鞨 of pre-Tang times, together with a term 莫弗瞞咄, which the Qianlong
scribes proceed to connect to Manchu this way: Manchu "leader" = da, "old man" = sukeda [sakda],
therefore the reference is to damafa/damofo (senior leader), and 瞞咄 is close in
sound to 滿珠, which to the emperor suggested that "Manchu" may have its origins in designation of a
leading or dominant class among the Mohe. 卷4)
Among these early Northeastern regimes, the
emperor went on to suggest, "gold" (金) appears quite early as a distinct designation, and proves that those
named "gold" --meaning, the predecessors of the Aisingioro-- had never been subordinate to any other rulers,
including the Wanyan of the imperial Jin era (this is evidently proved by the fact that at the time of the
composition of 欽定滿洲源流考 the Wanyan were all servants of the Aisingioro). The "Manchus" were the leaders among the
Northeastern peoples, and the Aisingioro were the leaders of the Manchus, since ancient times, blah blah.
This much is well known by now, but at the time I did not take the historical presumptions of the MYK
very seriously. Its ideological purposes were clear, and the developing literary connections between Qing
imperial sensibilities of the Kangxi and Qianlong courts and the developing geographical familiarity with
Changbaishan were also becoming very clear. In the seventeenth century the certain air of urgency created by
Russian ambitions in the Amur, and in the early eighteenth century by the tensions with Joseon regarding boundary
demarcations in the Yalu-Changbai region were also patent. The historiographic value of the MYK preface
seemed moot. I didn't think a great deal more about it until I recently completed an essay on the 渤海
and the "渤海" region during the Liao period.
There is a great deal of fright-wig rhetoric these days between Chinese and Korean official academic quarters regarding the spectrum from
扶余 (or even 高句麗) to 渤海, and one is hesitant to travel the
territory, but Peter Yun asked me to contribute an article to International Journal of Korean History and
渤海 had been an interest of mine every since writing my dissertation, in which I was able to touch
upon them a little bit. I had recently completed a long article on Liao and so I wondered if what I argued there
regarding so-called 漢 could work for 渤海 as well. The results were mixed; some aspects of the
argument work just fine, others must recede before the special considerations of the importance and the
exploitation of the former 渤海 territories. The details are interesting, but what I'm thinking about
just now is the fact that in my earlier work on 欽定滿洲源流考 I had assumed that since the 渤海 people had been largely dispersed during the
Liao period and their culture had disappeared (or all but), the continuities asserted on behalf of the Qianlong
emperor could not be possible, if for that reason only (there are others). But, in my own article on
渤海 I had to conclude that the old wisdom about the repatriations and subsequent disappearance of the
渤海 could not reasonably be credited. It appeared far more probable that 1) as of about 926 the
渤海 population in 渤海 territories was deeply agricultural and large, probably at least
as large as the 燕雲 population later incorporated (938) from Hou Tang, 2) the economic losses and
expenses to the Liao of repatriating a majority of 渤海 would have been prohibitive, even if
advantageous for some strange reason, and 3) a minority (but still numerically substantial) portion of the
渤海 population was in fact distributed as booty to some Kitan federations as a political strategy
primarily (as some portion of the 燕雲 population was a decade later) , and 4) for financial,
administrative and political reasons the former 渤海 administrative structure (apart from its
military) was left largely intact, along with the major part of its population. This not only helps explain the
archeology of the Russian Primorye, but also how the Jurchens of the twelfth century so rapidly and effectively
staged their revolt and subsequent destruction of Liao --they based themselves on the 渤海
foundation.
I didn’t get into this in the article, but there is a little bit of
corroboration of this from genetic studies. In 1995, a paper published by DB Goldstein, L Ruiz-Linares, L
Cavalli-Sforza and MW Feldman (here) found that haplogroups of Northeast Asia, Korea and Japan fell into two
groups. The best defined was a cluster based on the Buryat, Yakut, Uighur, Manchu, Korean, Japanese, and two
Chinese adjunct groups —one from modern Hebei and Shandong, one from Yunnan province. The second was more
loosely defined as being composed of the Evenks, Tibetans, Tujia and Hui. What is interesting in light of the
history of the Northeast is fact that the Evenks and the Manchus fell into two different clusters. Our present
understanding of 渤海 history is parallel to that (which is not to say that I think one is causally
related to the other). The 高句麗 period antecedent to 渤海 is the watershed where
粟末/松漠 Mohe 靺鞨 were those who stayed with the traditional economy while
the group becoming 渤海 were becoming agricultural and closely affiliated economically with Sui/Tang
China. If Evenks are connected to the 粟末靺鞨 ancestral population, they would
show some differentiation today from the Manchus. This is, I should say, a reflection on historical connections
that are economic and demographic, not linguistic. While Manchu is a "southern" Tungusic language and Evenk a "northern" Tungusic language, there is no evidence that either of them is more closely related to 渤海 than they are to each other; nevertheless, the Evenks and Manchus appear to me to be more closely related
linguistically than the haplogroup distribution would suggest, but there are a number of ways in which this could
be explained.
What I found the most fun in terms of considering the continuities was the persistence
and recurrence of what might be a single name. Most historians understand the dynastic titles of Liao, Jin, and
Qing as references to rivers that had figured prominently in their formative histories. In the Jin case, it was
supposed to be a reference to the Anchu (Jurchen “gold”) River, where gold was panned by local
peoples. Debates about the introduction of the name and its relationship to the actual political history of the
early Jurchen state have flourished. In the Jin shi, Aguda gives his reasons for calling his state 大金 as “gold is stronger
than iron,” which doesn’t make a lot of sense, since it is clearly not true. But this is interesting:
the inspiration was supposed to have come from a Liao 渤海 official who surrendered to Aguda and
became a valued assistant. This was the second time (at a minimum) that a 大金 state had existed in
Manchuria. The earlier had been the first state founded by the 渤海 leader 大祚榮 in 719. The state was founded in a period of
enthusiasm across eastern Eurasia for Maitreya-inspired millennial ideology, probably related to Wu Zetian’s
brief interregnum in China between 690 and 705. “Great Jin” could have been inspired by the Indian
name for China, Mahācinasthana, “Great China Place” —if so, it would indicate 大’s own pretensions to Maitreya-endorsed
rulership, and claims to have displaced China as the center of Maitreya revelation.
Use of the name
was very brief, but it appeared again when Kim Kungye seceded from Silla in 901, calling his state Later Goguryeo
and soon changing the name to Majin —a possible contraction of Mahācinasthana, a probable referent to
the earlier 大金 state of the 渤海 and an indication of Kim’s own claims to
Maitreya-linked legitimacy (you can read more about that in Richard McBride, Domesticating the Dharma,
2008). Perhaps independently, “Jin” seems to have lingered around the general vicinity of lower
Manchuria, evident not only in 大金 and Majin, but probably also in 大震 (振), the alternate name for 大祚榮’s
state of 大金, and revived in the Jin-period rebel state name of 大振
/大震 in the former Bohai territories. The monosyllable might even have stabilized the -zhen
element in nuzhen (earlier written as nudi 奴狄 and nuzhi 奴直). I
think it is also worth considering whether the first manifestation of the reference is not in the name
辰韓 —as the Qianlong emperor would have had it, the 韓 of 辰. Whether Buddhist or local in origin (we have too few Mohe or Bohai
words to know if is meant something else), the name persisted in the Jin-Zhen complex, and is evidently the Kitan
“Dan” of Dan gur and Dongdan (Liao period names, in Kitan and Chinese respectively, for the
渤海 territories). Its meaning is
not as important to us now as its signification of acknowledged political and possibly cultural continuity in
southern Manchuria, at least from the early eighth century to the end of the Jurchen Jin in the thirteenth century
—and possibly beyond, reflected in the Qing founding lineages selection of aisin [“gold”] as
part of the lineage name.
In any event, the Qianlong emperor would be unlikely to approve of the
haplogroup evidence, since his historians were inclined to insist that Evenk customs and language could be used as
guides to Manchu culture and language before the transfer to China —consistent with the Aisingioro
insistence upon a pristine, Changbaishan-oriented origin for both Aisingioro legitimacy and the early state order.
Nevertheless, the haploroup evidence, together with other evidence for the continuities in 渤海 during
the Liao period, does suggest that the 渤海 population remained largely in place. Like the broken
clock that is correct twice a day (at least in the 12-hour countries), Qianlong ideological history of the
Northeast appears to have anticipated a modern recovery --the persistence of 渤海 as a cultural and
administrative entity, as well as a population.