Presidential Address: Reenvisioning the Qing: The Significance of the Qing Period in

Chinese History
Author(s): Evelyn S. Rawski
Source: The Journal of Asian Studies , Nov., 1996, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Nov., 1996), pp. 829-
850
Published by: Association for Asian Studies

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2646525

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2646525?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Association for Asian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of Asian Studies

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Presidential Address:
Reenvisioning the Qing: The
Significance of the Qing Period
in Chinese History

EVELYN S. RAWSKI

T HIRTY YEARS AGO, Association for Asian Studies President H

the state of Qing studies in his address, "The Significance of the Ch'ing Period in
Chinese History" (Ho 1967). Since that time, there have been major shifts in scholarly
perceptions of the nature and significance of Qing rule that bear directly on
contemporary issues of nationalism and ethnicity. I will survey the recent secondary
literature, compare current formulations of Qing history with those enunciated by
Professor Ho, and appraise their implications for our understanding of China.
Although the Qing state conducted its official business in both Chinese and
Manchu, many scholars ignored the documents written in Manchu, arguing that they
merely duplicated materials found in the Chinese-language sources. This assumption
was challenged by Beatrice Bartlett, whose investigation of the Grand Council's
archival inventories led her to conclude that "many unique Manchu documents, never
translated into Chinese, were produced in the middle and even the late Ch'ing"
(Bartlett 1985, 26).
The new scholarship has demonstrated that Manchu-language documents were a
vital part of an early Qing communications network that frequently bypassed Han
Chinese officials. Until the Jiaqing reign (1796-1820), the court required banner
officials, generals commanding armies in the north and west, and Manchu officials
receiving edicts written in Manchu to write in Manchu to the throne. These Manchu-
language palace memorials, court letters, and other central government documents
are important primary sources that have not yet been fully exploited (Qu 1989; Wu
Yuanfeng 1991; Crossley and Rawski 1993).
The recent scholarship has been stimulated by improved access to the archival
materials in the Manchu language for the entire Qing dynasty, held in the Number
One Historical Archives, Beijing, and the National Palace Museum, outside Taipei
(Chen, Chieh-hsien 1988). The National Palace Museum's publication in 1977 of the
Manchu-language palace memorials for the Kangxi reign (1661-1722) marked a
significant advance in scholarly access (KCZZ). Although their counterparts for other

Evelyn S. Rawski is University Professor of History at the University of Pittsburgh.

This article was originally presented as the Presidential Address to the 48th Annual
Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies, Honolulu, Hawaii, 12 April 1996.

TheJournal of Asian Studies 55, no. 4 (November 1996):829-850.

?) 1996 by the Association for Asian Studies, Inc.

829

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
830 EVELYN S. RAWSKI

reigns remain unpublished,1 these materials in the Beijing and Taipei archives have
been available to scholars since the 1980s. New analyses of the circumstances under
which the materials were created have provided historians with the necessary context
in which to place the documents (Guan 1988; Zhao Zhiqiang 1992; Qiao 1994).
Catalogues of Manchu-language holdings around the world2 include materials from
the scattered Manchu-language archives of various banners. New Manchu-Chinese
dictionaries (MHDC 1993), and recent Chinese translations of selected texts (see
Crossley and Rawski 1993) have also eased the researcher's task.
Chinese-language sources for studying Qing history have also become more
accessible in recent decades. The dynasty's Collected Regulations (DQHD) and the
Veritable Records (DQSL) have been reprinted in both Taiwan and the PRC, as have
many of the "diaries of rest and repose" which complement the Veritable Records
(QDQZ; KXQZ; YZQZ). Chinese-language palace memorials compiled by the First
Historical Archives in Beijing (KCHZ; YZHCC; QLHZZ) incorporate the archival
materials held in Taiwan (GDZZ) and open new windows into the process of decision
making at the highest levels. Archival materials concerning the palace workshops
(Yuanmingyuan 1991) and the medical treatment accorded Empress Dowager Cixi and
the Guangxu emperor (Chen Keji 1986) have been compiled and reproduced.
Additional supports for Qing studies are the reprints of important printed sources
concerning banner history (BQTZ; BQMST), contemporary memoirs such as
Zhaolian's Xiaoting zalu, and palace history (GCGS; Zhang Naiyan 1990).
A number of organizations have also encouraged Manchu studies. There is a
Manchu Association of Taipei, founded in 1981 (Crossley 1990a, 216), which brings
together individuals of Manchu descent. In the PRC the Society for Manchu Studies
(Manzuxue yanjiu) publishes a bimonthly journal (Manzu yanjiu). Japanese scholars
in the Seminar on Manchu History, Toyo Bunko, have compiled important banner
texts (Kanda et al. 1972, 1983), and the Manchu Historical Society (Manshufshi
kenkyufkai) of Japan publishes a newsletter. Several European periodicals, notably
Zentralasiatische Stuidien and Central Asiatic Journal, regularly feature articles on
Manchu literature, religion, and history. American scholarship finds many outlets,
including the journal Late Imperial China, first issued as a bulletin in 1967 by the
Society for Ch'ing Studies under the title Ch'ing-shih wen-t'i. Articles on the Qing
appear frequently in the periodical Gugong bowuyuan yuankan, published by the
National Palace Museum, Beijing; Lishi dang'an, the historical archives journal; and
Forbidden City (Zijincheng), a journal published from the 1980s through the early
1990s. Several presses, notably the Forbidden City Press (Zijincheng chubanshe), the
Liaoning People's Press, and the Jilin wenshi chubanshe, have large numbers of Qing
titles in their book lists.
The new interpretations of the Qing period rest on a large body of secondary
literature published in the last two decades. New works have advanced our knowledge
of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, when Nurgaci (1559-1626) and
Hongtaiji (1592-1643) unified the tribes of northeast Asia by force and laid down
the foundations of Qing power (Zhou Yuanlian 1984, 1986; Wakeman 1985; Wang
Zhonghan 1988; Zhang and Guo 1988). Accounts of the creation of the banner
nobility, based on archival sources, have filled an important gap in the literature (Yang

'See also QLSY, the "Grand Council Record Books" for the Qianlong reign (1736-95),
published recently by the Number One Historical Archives and briefly described by Bartlett
1991, 213.
2For a listing of these catalogues, see Crossley and Rawski 1993, n. 4.

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 831

and Zhou 1986). Studies of the pre-1644 capitals (Shenyang 1987; Yan 1989, 365-
93) supply concrete examples of the ways in which these political centers blended
Sinic and northeast Asian political elements, a theme repeated in analyses of the Qing
capitals of Peking and Rehe (Zhou Suqin 1995; Steinhardt 1990; Foret 1992).
We now know a great deal about the individual rulers of the Qing dynasty, thanks
to book-length biographies of every emperor and of notables like Dorgon, Empress
Dowager Cixi, and Prince Gong (QDLZ). Studies of the Qing mausolea (Yu 1985;
Chen Baorong 1987) and the demographic history of the Qing imperial lineage (Lee
and Guo 1994) have produced new information about the life expectancy and living
conditions of Qing rulers. Other investigations of palace ladies, imperial princes, and
the imperial guards provide an unprecedented array of information concerning the
Qing court (QDGT), including the lives of its eunuchs (Xu and Li 1986; Dan 1989;
Yang Zhengguang 1990). Further perspectives on life in the Qing capital come from
reminiscences by contemporary descendants of Mongol and Manchu princedoms (Jin
1988, 1989a; Jin and Zhou 1988), while studies of the distribution of banner families
in Peking (Jin 1989b) and analyses of the Manchuization of Peking dialect (Chang
Yingsheng 1993) and Peking place names (Zhang Qingchang 1990) remind us of its
non-Han history.
Nor has scholarly output been confined to the view from the capital. Academic
institutes in the former peripheries of the Qing empire-the northeast provinces,
Inner Mongolia, Qinghai, Xinjiang, and Tibet-have since the 1980s also published
many historical articles, based on Chinese, Tibetan, Mongolian, Uighur, and Manchu-
language materials, which focus on Qing relations with these localities. These studies
have introduced new perspectives and interpretations into scholarly discourse (Ahmad
1970; Millward 1993; Wang Xiangyun 1995). We know a great deal more about the
Qing court's interaction with non-Han minorities than ever before.
Publications of oral legends collected by folklorists have significantly expanded
our understanding of Manchu culture and the cultures of other Tungus and Mongol
peoples (Fu 1990; Fu and Meng 1991; Stuart and Li 1994). Daur stories about
intrigues in Mugden (Mukden) and Sibo Mongol recitals of the exploits of the great
Kangxi emperor testify to the Manchu impact on the northeastern peoples (Stuart,
Li, and Shelear 1994; Pang 1994). Variations of the creation myth still circulating in
oral form in the northeast have been compared to the Qing written version that became
part of Manchu identity (Tong 1992; Chen Huixue 1991; Crossley 1985). Scholars
studying the Manchu-language shamanic code, hesei toktobuha Manjiusai wvecere metere
kooli bithe, printed in 1778 (Di Cosmo forthcoming; Tao 1992; Wang Honggang
1988) have looked at the impact of this compilation on popular practice in order to
understand the effect of Qing policies on northeast shamanism.
Qing scholars today agree with Ho that the Qing was "without doubt" "the most
successful dynasty of conquest in Chinese history" (Ho 1967, 191). The Qing empire
laid the territorial foundations of the modern Chinese nation-state. What is at issue
is not the magnitude of the Qing achievement, but Ho's statement that "the key to
its [Qingl success was the adoption by early Manchu rulers of a policy of systematic
sinicization" (Ho 1967, 191). The new scholarship suggests just the opposite: the key
to Qing success, at least in terms of empire-building, lay in its ability to use its
cultural links with the non-Han peoples of Inner Asia and to differentiate the
administration of the non-Han regions from the administration of the former Ming
provinces.

Interpretations of Qing history lie at the foundations of contemporary Chinese

nationalism. When Ho Ping-ti wrote about the Qing period as a milestone along the

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
832 EVELYN S. RAWSKI

developmental path of China as a nation-state, he expressed an academic consensus

which is being reevaluated in response to scholarly trends and new research. Many
scholars today would contest the conflation of "Qing" and "China" in twentieth-
century discourse. Research on Qing history also raises important questions
concerning the role of non-Han peoples in the creation of what we call Chinese culture
and points to a future research agenda to which I will later return.

Separate and Unequal: The Conquest Elite

The sinicization thesis expressed by Ho echoed the theme of Franz Michael's

pioneering study of the formation of the Qing state (Michael [19421 1979). The new
research presents a Manchu rather than Han-centered perspective with analyses of the
formation of pre-1644 policies (Zhang and Guo 1988; Li 1995; Crossley 1990a, 223-
28): the state-sponsored invention of the Manchu written language (Chase 1979), the
identification of the unified northeast tribes as Manchu (Stary 1990), and the creation
of an origin myth (Crossley 1987; Chen Huixue 1991; Li 1995; Qiao 1994).
In contrast to the view that the Han Chinese literati dominated Qing governance,
recent work identifies a separate conquest elite, composed of banner nobles and
imperial kinsmen, that was superimposed upon the Han Chinese bureaucracy.
Analyses of the banner troops garrisoned at strategic sites throughout the empire
(Elliott 1993; Im 1981; Dray-Novey 1981) have deepened our understanding of the
military organization that existed alongside the civilian bureaucracy. Banner nobles,
whether of Manchu, Mongol, or Han descent, were part of a privileged hereditary
elite whose titles and favored access to office stemmed from the achievements of their
ancestors during the conquest period (Yang and Zhou 1986). Eunuchs, who had
dominated palace administration during the preceding dynasty, were supervised
during the Qing by bondservants registered in the upper three banners, who staffed
the Imperial Household Department (Spence 1966; Torbert 1977). Qing rulers used
members of the conquest elite to check the civil service and to staff administrative
posts in the peripheral regions of the empire.
Banner nobles and banner officials sat on the Deliberative Council (Du 1986), the
major policy-making body during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.
Beatrice Bartlett's study of the origins of the Grand Council points to the "Manchu
preponderance in government" (Bartlett 1991, 25-26) in the Shunzhi (r. 1644-61)
and Kangxi (r. 1662-1722) reigns. The Yongzheng emperor (r. 1723-35) created
new inner court organs and staffed them with his own appointees. By employing
inner-court agencies to manage the military campaigns against the Mongols, Qing
emperors evaded the bureaucratic constraints on imperial power and confined their
deliberations to a very small group of personal favorites. Although the "outer court"
bureaucrats were eventually able to expand (and thus dilute) the power of the inner-
court agencies and to institutionalize the Grand Council, they never succeeded in
controlling appointments to the Council from outside the regular bureaucracy. The
Qianlong emperor frequently appointed banner nobles who were linked to him
through marriage to the Grand Council: the number of Manchus on the Grand Council
exceeded Chinese in 73 percent of the sixty years of his reign (Bartlett 1991, 178).
The conquest elite continued to participate in the highest councils of state into
the nineteenth century. A study of the decision-making process during the period
1835-50 argues that the Opium War was the product of a stalemate between a reform-

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 833

minded Manchu-Mongol faction and an adventurist group of Han Chinese officials in

south China, who blamed the Manchu generals for the British victory and wished to
mobilize the citizenry to fight the British (Polachek 1992). Decrying the "class
chauvinism" of the literati faction which won the debate, Polachek suggests that the
policy of the "Manchu clique" might have been a less destructive alternative.
Early Qing rulers developed specialized channels for dealing with Mongol allies
and Tibetan prelates. The Office of Sutra Translation, housed in the northwest corner
of the Forbidden City, was the first to specialize in Tibetan Buddhist affairs (Wang
Jiapeng 1991). Tibetan Buddhism was an important vehicle for extension of Qing
control over the Mongols (Zhang Xixin 1988). High prelates like the Qianlong
emperor's spiritual tutor, Rol pa'i rdo rje (1717-86), the ICang skya Khutukhtu,
negotiated on behalf of the throne over the successor to the seventh Dalai Lama ( 1757),
and persuaded the Jebtsundamba Khutukhtu, spiritual leader of the Khalkha
Mongols, to remain neutral during the 1756 Chingunjav revolt (Wang Xiangyun
1995).
The conquest elite also dominated Qing administration of the northeast,
Mongolia, Tibet, and Turkestan, the "New Territory" (Xinjiang). For most of the
dynasty, these territories were not incorporated into the framework of provincial
administration that was under the Six Boards: Xinjiang became a province only in
1884, and the northeastern provinces of Fengtian, Jilin, and Heilongjiang were created
in 1907. Neither Mongolia, Qinghai, nor Tibet was ever converted into provinces
during the Qing. Qing documents referred to these newly acquired peripheral regions
as the "outer" (wai) domains, which were thus classified apart from the "inner" (nei)
domains made up of the former Ming territory. While the civil service bureaucracy,
dominated by Han Chinese, dealt with provincial administration within China Proper
(the territory within the Great Wall), the Court of Colonial Affairs (Lifanyuan) and
banner officials supervised Qing ritual and administrative relations with the non-Han
territories (Chia 1993; Zhao Yuntian 1995).
Of course, the conquest elite was not a monolithic group. There are many studies
of the factional politics within the Manchu ruling elite during the first decades of
Qing rule (Kessler 1976; Oxnam 1975; Yan 1983; Zhou and Zhao 1986), of debates
on the Yongzheng succession (S. Wu 1979; Yang Zhen 1993), and of the struggle
between the banner lords and the emperor, which culminated in their subjugation to
the imperial will (Hosoya 1968; Feng 1985, chap. 8). Imperial kinsmen became pillars
of the dynasty, serving in the imperial guards and performing a variety of diplomatic,
military, and security functions for the throne (Chang and Li 1993) during the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Rulership in a Multiethnic Empire

A Manchu-centered perspective is particularly important in reassessing the Qing

empire. The territorial expansion which culminated in 1759 with the incorporation
of the Tarim Basin and Zungharia occurred within a larger context of multistate
rivalry, first between the Manchus and Mongols, and thereafter between the Russians
and the Qing, for control of Inner Asia (Khordakovsky 1992; Bergholz 1993; Millward
1993). The most important factors influencing Qing expansion came from outside
the Great Wall and not from within the political arena dominated by Han Chinese
literati.

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
834 EVELYN S. RAWSKI

The new research forces us to focus more sharply on the ability of the Manchus
to bind warriors from a variety of cultural backgrounds to their cause. Manchus
constituted only a fraction of the banner forces that swept south of the Great Wall to
conquer the Ming territories (Fang 1950). The Manchu conquest of the Ming lands
was achieved with a multiethnic force, including a mixture of sinicized Manchus,
Mongols, and Chinese "transfrontiersmen" living in northeast Asia (Wakeman 1985).
We might ascribe the Jurchen/Manchu skill in coalition-building to the geohistorical
conditions of their homeland in northeast Asia. Stretching eastward from the Great
Mongolian plateau north to the densely forested taiga and south to the fertile Liao
River plain, the northeast's three different ecosystems (Lattimore 1940, 105, 113-
14), brought nomads, hunting/fishing peoples, and sedentary agriculturalists in close
cultural contact.
By the middle of the sixteenth century, Jurchen living in the northeast were
divided into three tribal groupings which approximated the ecological divisions. The
"wild" Jurchen lived as hunters and fishers in the far north; along the Nen and Hulan
Rivers, the Haixi Jurchen lived alongside Mongols (Lattimore 1934, 171-73), and
the Jianzhou Jurchen who resided in the south were exposed to commercial and
cultural influences from Korea and the Ming (Rossabi 1982). But sinicization does
not adequately describe Jianzhou Jurchen culture during Nurgaci's time. Sedentary
agriculturalists, they also raised livestock, prized horsemanship and mounted archery,
and loved hunting.
Mongol allies were vital to the Manchu conquest. Since these alliances were
usually cemented by marriage exchanges, early Qing emperors claimed Mongol as
well as Manchu ancestry (Hua 1983, Rawski 1991). Mongolian and Manchu were the
primary languages during the crucial conquest decades before 1644 (Li 1995, 85;
Guan 1988, 54). Several of Nurgaci's sons and nephews bore Mongolian names or
were given Mongol honorific titles (Liu 1994, 172-73). The many shared roots of
Manchu and Mongolian words relating to livestock, livestock rearing, riding
paraphernalia, and even agriculture reflect the close historical interaction of Jurchen
and Mongols in this region (Liu 1994). The Manchus borrowed heavily from the
Mongols in creating their famed banner organization, while many Chinese elements
in the pre-1644 Manchu state were actually filtered through the Mongols (Farquhar
1968, 1971).
Earlier Chinese generalizations concerning the sinicization of the Qing emperors
relied heavily on the official Chinese-language records. The determination of the rulers
to present themselves to their Chinese subjects as Confucian monarchs is evident in
their acquisition of Chinese, their acceptance of the Confucian canon as the foundation
for the civil service examinations, their patronage of Chinese art and literature, and
the Confucian content of their decrees. The rulers also modified Jurchen marriage
practices and switched from cremation to burial to conform to Chinese prejudices
(Rawski 1991, 1988). Filiality was developed to new heights as an essential
prerequisite for rulership (Rawski 1996). No one can deny that the Manchus portrayed
themselves as Chinese rulers. What is at issue is whether this was the complete
imperial image. The archival materials strongly support the argument that the
Manchus disseminated different images of rulership to the different subject peoples
of their empire.
The ideologies created by the Manchu leaders drew on Han and non-Han sources.
The earliest title claimed by Nurgaci was the title of Kundulen khan (han in Manchu),
meaning "Venerated Ruler" in Mongolian. As Pamela Crossley (1992) has explained,
the concepts underlying the khanship differ significantly from those supporting the

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 835

Chinese emperorship. After Chinggis, the title "khan of khans" or supreme khan
(kaghan) was the ultimate political goal sought by ambitious tribal leaders in the
steppe world. But the "khan of khans" was not a Chinese emperor. His power was
based on the much more loosely integrated tribal confederations that emerged from
time to time in the steppe world and was conditional on the acquiescence of tribal
chieftains. This title-and the political conditions it implied-formed the political
context of Nurgaci's Later Jin dynastic rule. Mongols throughout the Qing dynasty
referred to the Qing emperor as "Great Khan" (bogdo kaghan).3
Tibetan Buddhism provided the symbolic vocabulary for further refinements of a
non-Han model of rulership directed at the Mongols and Tibetans. The cakravartin
or Buddhist king emerged in China after the fall of the Han dynasty (202 A.D.). The
cakravartin is a world conqueror, a universal ruler. In the fourteenth century,
cakravartin kingship was modified by the incorporation of the Tibetan notion of
reincarnated lines of spiritual descent (Wylie 1978). In what we might interpret as
an adaptation of the Confucian idea of an "orthodox line of descent" which linked
legitimate dynasties to one another in a continuous genealogy of rulership (zhengtong)
(Wechsler 1985, 136; Chan 1991), we have after the fourteenth century a Buddhist
"orthodox line of descent" which identified a line of reincarnated cakravartin rulers
that began with Chinggis and continued through Khubilai.
In 1635, a year before he proclaimed the establishment of the Qing dynasty,
Hongtai ji received the yi-dam consecration and thus the powers of the deity Mahakala,
a seven-armed warlike god known as a Protector of the (Buddhist) Law (Grupper
1980). Later Qing rulers were depicted as Manjusri, the bodhisattva of compassion
and wisdom, whose cult was centered on the temples at Wutaishan in north China
(Farquhar 1978). Thangkas depicting the Qianlong emperor as Manjusri were
produced in the palace workshops in Beijing; one now hangs in a chapel in the Potala
in Lhasa, Tibet (Lin 1991).
Concepts of emperorship changed after 1644 as the empire expanded. Using
Manchu-language sources, Pamela Crossley (forthcoming) argues that the eighteenth-
century Qing concept of universal emperorship differed significantly from Chinese
precedents. Whereas Confucians assumed that their principles were universally
applicable, the core of the Qing policy was a universal rulership based on the
submission of divergent peoples, whose cultures would remain separate. The Qianlong
emperor (r. 1736-95) identified himself as the ruler of five peoples: the Manchus,
Mongols, Tibetans, Uighurs, and Chinese (Crossley 1985). Under his reign, the Qing
tried to preserve the cultural boundaries separating these five peoples, while
attempting to sinicize the ethnic minorities living in south and southwest China. The
languages of the "five peoples" were officially enshrined as the languages of the empire,
and the emperor commissioned translations, dictionary compilations, and other
projects to promote each language. The emperor himself, as the crucial link uniting
these diverse peoples, learned Manchu, Chinese, Mongolian, Uighur, and Tibetan (Jin
1992, 78).
Despite his rhetoric, the Qianlong emperor and other Qing rulers could not help
but have a profound impact on the societies and economies of the peripheral regions.
Eliminating opponents and rewarding allies had the effect of restructuring the social
hierarchies of the "outer territories." The Qing successfully eroded autonomous sources

3Pozdneyev 1896, 331ff. The same biography of the rJe btsun dam pa Khutukhtus, the
highest Tibetan Buddhist prelate of the Khalkha Mongols, has been translated and annotated
by Charles Bawden (1961).

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
836 EVELYN S. RAWSKI

of power and prestige to establish themselves as the source of all secular authority.
Mongol nobles now bore Qing titles which could not be passed to descendants without
the emperor's approval (Chia 1992). Qing patronage of the dGe lugs pa sect ensured
its continued dominance in Tibet and among the Mongols, but the price for imperial
favor was the assertion of the imperial authority to recognize rebirths and approve
appointments of high prelates (Petech 1973). In the Muslim-dominated Tarim Basin,
the court put new regulations in place that eroded the power of the begs, local notables
descended from a sedentarized steppe aristocracy, by removing their hereditary right
to office and limiting their authority (Miao 1987). Mongol, Muslim, and Tibetan
leaders above a certain rank were summoned to the Qing capitals for audience on a
rotating schedule and provided with gifts and honors reaffirming their high status.
Qing bureaucratic administration broke down the traditional life-styles of pastoral
populations in the peripheries. Emperors incorporated hunting/fishing peoples like
the Daur, Ewenk, and Oroqen into the banners and moved them into garrisons to
defend the northeast against Russian incursions (Xu 1992). Mongol pastoralism was
profoundly altered when the Qing allocated pasturelands to tribes, organized them
into banners and leagues, and assigned amban (high officials) to adjudicate tribal
disputes. After annihilating the Zunghars, the Qing established a military
government with its headquarters in Urumqi. They shrewdly moved Dong'an
Muslims from northwest China into Turkestan and used them against the Turkic-
speaking Muslims, and one sect against another (He and Wang 1989; Togan 1992).
Qing policies also significantly altered the cultures of the peripheries. During the
Qing large amounts of literature were written in the languages of the periphery, and
more people living in these regions became literate. Banner schools educated the sons
of the ruling local elites in several languages. Northeastern peoples like the Daur,
who had no written language of their own, learned Manchu and began to write their
own literature using Manchu script (Badarongga 1993). Classified as "new Manchus"
(ice manju) in the seventeenth century, the Daur, Ewenk, and Oroqen were culturally
"Manchuized." Banner schools taught Mongols to read and write Mongolian, and
imperial patronage made Peking an important center of Tibetan Buddhist printing
in Mongolian (Heissig 1954). Imperially commissioned multilingual dictionaries in
the five official languages contributed to the gradual standardization of languages
that, in their spoken form, were highly diverse.
Trading contacts with the peripheries grew during the Qing and significantly
changed many peripheral economies. Iron implements stimulated the expansion of
agriculture in the northeast; the rifle, introduced through Russian and Qing trade,
ultimately supplanted the bow and arrow and weakened the communal basis of
traditional hunting practices, while the court's demand for marten skins and other
northeast products led to the commoditization of the hunting economy (Daur 1987;
Ewenk 1983; Oroqen 1983). By promoting free trade between its "inner" domains
and Xinjiang in order to help provision their troops, the Qing stimulated Han Chinese
mercantile migration into the region and provided support for the conversion of the
region to provincial status in 1884 (Millward 1993).

Non-Han Conquest Regimes

The revisions of Qing history described above are consonant with the recent
scholarship on earlier conquest states (Franke and Twitchett 1994). Owen Lattimore's

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 837

classic analysis (Lattimore 1940) of the nomadic relationship with China was
challenged in 1989 by Thomas Barfield, who argued that the relationship between
the nomads and China was not confrontational but symbiotic. Cycles of unification
and dissolution within China and the steppe were closely tied to one another, because
"ultimately the state organization of the steppe needed a stable China to exploit"
(Barfield 1989, 131). The most efficient method for nomads to obtain Chinese textiles
and other products was to ally with Chinese rulers and obtain these goods by treaty.
Chinese states, for their part, also learned that a more effective (and cheaper) alternative
to fighting the nomads was to co-opt them with subsidies in exchange for military
aid. This was the strategy adopted by the Uighur kaghan who preserved the Tang
dynasty after the An Lushan uprising (755 A.D.).
Barfield also pointed to the centrality of the mixed ecological zones found in
Turkestan and Manchuria in the development of conquest regimes capable of ruling
the sedentary agricultural society of China. Whereas the steppe environment could
only support the nomad confederacy, a loosely organized coalition of tribes which
dissolved without a continual flow of resources, what Barfield called "Manchurian"
states which shared important cultural elements from both worlds were more
successful in integrating the steppe and agrarian societies.
Recent studies of the conquest regimes which ruled north and northwest China
from the tenth to the fourteenth centuries partly affirm but also partly challenge
Barfield's thesis. Under Khitan, Tangut, Jurchen, and Mongol rule, "Chinese-style
bureaucratic governance became the political norm . . . and was adopted and adapted
by regimes outside Chinese control and beyond what had been traditionally Chinese
territory" (Franke and Twitchett 1994, 2). These were hybrid regimes that displayed
new capabilities for ruling sedentary as well as nomadic peoples. Yet, although the
Khitan and Jurchen were indeed "Manchurian" states, the Tanguts and Mongols
originated in the steppe.
Like the Qing, the political skills of the Xixia, Liao, Jin, and Yuan dynasties were
developed through interactions with other emerging states within a multistate
context. Each ruling group combined parts of East Asia and Inner Asia into
multiethnic empires that included nomads and agriculturalists. All employed non-
Han as well as Han Chinese officials and created administrations that were
differentiated by the ethnicity of the regional population. Different laws applied to
different peoples. The non-Han ruling houses were eclectic in their political
institutions. Thus the Khitan used Turkic titles of offices (Twitchett and Tietze 1994,
46); Jin rulers, like Chinggis, may have borrowed from the Liao (via the Uighurs)
when they reorganized their followers into decimal units. The concept of universal
emperorship, which was raised to new heights by Chinggis Khan, owed as much to
Uighur as to Chinese influence (Franke 1978). Chinggis should thus be seen as the
heir to a multigenerational process by which Mongols adapted to the political
demands of an empire-state.
Although the Liao, Jin, Xixia, and Yuan regimes employed Han Chinese in
government service, each resisted sinicization. All four governments created their own
national scripts. The Khitan large script (920) and small script (925) were the basis
for the Jurchen large and small script devised in the twelfth century. Mongol writing,
created in the same period, borrowed the Uighur script, which was itself borrowed
from the Sogdians. Unlike Khitan, Jurchen, and Tangut, which were neither
alphabetic nor phonetic, the early Mongol script (and Manchu, which was based on
the Mongol script) was alphabetic.

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
838 EVELYN S. RAWSKI

All of these conquest regimes pursued bilingual or multilingual language policies.

The Jin retained the small Khitan script even after they had invented a Jurchen
writing system: Khitan continued to be used in the Jin bureaucracy until the last
decade of the twelfth century. Khitan, Jurchen, Tangut, and Mongol dynasty coins
had bilingual inscriptions. The rulers had Buddhist, Confucian, and other works
translated into their own national languages.
The Qing dynasty represents the culminating phase of the unification of Inner
and East Asia. Many aspects of Qing history parallel those of the border regimes of
the tenth to fourteenth centuries by conscious design: the founder of the Qing ruling
house claimed descent from the Jurchen rulers of the Jin, and his successors attempted
to perpetuate this historical link in their own policies. Like the Jin, the Qing first
created state structures in northeast Asia. After they entered the Ming capital, Beijing,
and performed the Confucian rituals that enabled them to become "Sons of Heaven,"
i.e., Chinese emperors, they established a summer capital in Rehe, which they believed
to be the site of an earlier Jin capital. The Manchu rulers followed the custom of their
non-Han predecessors in moving between winter and summer capitals. At Mulan, the
huge hunting park created north of Rehe, they brought together their Mongol and
other Inner Asian allies in annual hunts. Living in Peking, surrounded by the
splendors of Han Chinese culture, they developed in the eighteenth century a
definition of Manchu identity that stressed mounted archery and fluency in the
Manchu language.
The Qing dynasty also followed the precedent set by the Liao, Xixia, and Mongol
regimes in adopting Tibetan Buddhism as a symbolic language of rule. Their
incorporation of Inner Asian and Chinese ideological themes into a new kind of
rulership was, we would argue, precisely the key to their extraordinary achievements:
not only the conquest of a vast territory spanning the nomadic and sedentary worlds,
but the ability to create a stable empire that lasted for several centuries. The
permanence of the Manchu achievement is evident in the contemporary shape of
China. The modern Chinese state which exists today is a product of the long historical
interaction of Inner and East Asia that has been outlined above.

Qing History and Chinese Nationalism

Qing history is directly relevant to the continuing tensions between ethnic

nationalism and the creation of a multiethnic nation state (Townsend 1992). Shortly
after the Revolution of 1911 ended the Qing dynasty, Sun Yat-sen and other
nationalist leaders rejected a definition that would have made the Chinese nation-
state coterminous with the Han Chinese people who constitute the majority of the
population. The Provisional Law of the Republic (1912) specifically identified
Mongolia, Tibet, and Qinghai as integral parts of the nation, even though these
territories were historically recent additions to the empire created by the Manchus.4
By its omission of the many ethnic minorities residing in China's south and southwest
regions, Sun's discussion of the ethnic issue in terms of the "five peoples" identified
by the Qianlong emperor two hundred years earlier highlighted his geopolitical
concern with the attempts of the Mongols, Muslims, and Tibetans to form their own
autonomous states.

4Xinjiang and the northeast were not cited because they had already been administratively
transformed into provinces.

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 839

From the outset the new republic struggled with a fundamental contradiction
between Han nationalism and the desire to retain all of the Qing territories in the
new nation-state. The creation of a "Han" identity, which today encompasses 92
percent of the population of the PRC, dates from the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries. According to scholars, the earliest self-identifications found in
Chinese-language texts refer to the "Hua" and "Xia" as "civilized" people, in contrast
to the barbarians (Dow 1982; Han and Li 1984). The term "Han" emerged in the
context of a discussion framed by Social Darwinism and Chinese nationalism, when
scholars like Liang Qichao responded to the European notion of race by claiming that
the yellow race was dominated by the Han people, who "were the initiators of
civilization and had civilized the whole of Asia" (Dik6tter 1992, 86). As formulated
by Sun Yat-sen, the term "Han" denoted a race.
Although successive constitutions defined China as a multiethnic political
community, China's leaders from Sun Yat-sen through Mao Zedong have consistently
argued that the country was rightfully dominated by Han Chinese. Liang Qichao had
warned that the political consequences of defining the new nation in terms of Han
culture alone would be the dissolution of the Qing empire. Liang sought to retain
the Qing peripheries. Although he urged that a "greater nationalism" (da minzuzhuyi)
be created to bring the Manchus, Mongols, Uighur, and Tibetans into the nation,
Liang's own writings raised the possibility of assimilation. After all, Liang noted,
Manchus were for the most part indistinguishable from Chinese. The European
identification of coresidence, common blood, speech, religion, custom, and livelihood
as the basis for a nation-state was thus already partially fulfilled (Kataoka 1984, 284).
Sun Yat-sen also occasionally spoke about the need to rise above existing ethnic
identities to create a new "national people" (Zhonghua minzu, guromin) (Sun 1973, 1:2,
5; 2:397, 404). In the Sun-Joffe Manifesto (1923) and in the "Fundamentals of
National Reconstruction" drawn up at the first Guomindang National Congress in
1924, Sun would proclaim the right of ethnic minorities to determine their own
political future. But Sun also suggested that cooperatives should be organized to
promote the migration of Han Chinese into the minority regions (Kataoka 1984,
298), and justified an assimilationist policy by identifying it as the contemporary
counterpart of the historical process of sinicization. Chiang Kai-shek continued this
theme by arguing that since ethnic minorities inhabiting peripheral regions were
already part of the greater Chinese race, they could have no separate identity (Benson
1990, 12-14).
Theories of assimilation developed in the twentieth century paralleled earlier
intellectual attempts to integrate the experience of conquest into a Confucian
framework. The Confucian claim to cultural universalism defined Chinese identity on
cultural rather than ethnic grounds and strove for incorporation of other peoples into
Confucian civilization (Dow 1982).5 This perspective was severely challenged during
the Northern Song confrontation with the Jurchen Jin in the twelfth century
(Trauzettel 1975), when a few scholars proposed "a circumscribed notion of the Han
community and fatherland (guo) in which the barbarians had no place" (Duara 1993,
786). Even if one accepts Duara's argument that their views were a kind of premodern
nationalist consciousness, writers like Fang Xiaoru (1357-1402) and Wang Fuzhi
(1619-92) remained in the distinct minority until the late nineteenth century. As
the debates over assimilation through education of the non-Han peoples in southwest

5That Chinese attitudes towards ethnic minorities included a strong "Orientalist" com-
ponent has been noted by a number of scholars recently: see Rowe 1994; Millward 1994.

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
840 EVELYN S. RAWSKI

China demonstrate (Rowe 1994), the Confucian ideal of cultural transformation

remained alive through the Qing dynasty.
The emergence of Han nationalism inevitably stimulated the formation of ethnic
identities in the peripheries of the former Qing empire. Crossley (1990b) has urged
us not to attribute anachronistically too strong an ethnic consciousness to the early
Manchu rulers. Although Nurgaci and Hongtaiji helped to create a Manchu
community by commissioning the creation of a written language and designating the
very name, "Manchu," by which the unified Jurchen were to be known, the Manchu,
Mongol, and Han designations of the banners were not strict ethnic categories: there
were Mongols in Manchu as well as Mongol banners, Han in Manchu as well as Han
banners. Crossley concludes that "culturally the important distinctions of the early
Qing period lay not between the Manchus and the Chinese-martial Bannermen but
between the Bannermen of all origins and the conquered Chinese" (Crossley 1987,
779). Not until the eighteenth century did Manchu rulers reinvent ethnic categories,
but exceptions, involving the transfer of "meritorious" non-Manchu households from
Han and Mongol banners to Manchu banner registration, could be found into the
middle of the nineteenth century (Crossley 1987, 779).
The Revolution of 1911 freed Manchus, Mongols, Uighurs, and Tibetans to create
their own independent ethnic states. Loyalty to the Qing dynasty did not
automatically translate into loyalty to China: as Nakami Tatsuo points out (Nakami
1984, 146), the Mongols never considered themselves part of a Zhongguo (China). Han
migration into minority territories during the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries exacerbated anti-Han sentiments (Crossley 1990b; Gladney 1991, 81-93).
Although the Russians, Japanese, and British influenced the outcomes (Lattimore
1934; Terashima 1984), these independence movements were fundamentally the
product of a new ethnic consciousness which was fed by the pan-Mongol and pan-
Turanian movements developing outside China's borders (Khan 1994; Forbes 1986).
In Tibet, the ending of the Qing dynasty brought the Dalai Lama, head of the
dGe lugs pa sect and the nominal ruler, back from exile in India. Tibetans expelled
the Chinese officials and troops and declared independence. From that point until
1950, Tibet enjoyed defacto if not dejure independence (Goldstein 1989). The Khalkha
Mongols established an independent state in 1912 and put the Jebtsundamba
Khutukhtu, their highest-ranked reincarnate in the Tibetan Buddhist hierarchy, at
the head of a secular state with the title Bogd Khaghan ("Holy Emperor") (Humphrey
1994). This was the predecessor of the Mongolian People's Republic.
The creation of an independent Mongolia attracted Mongols from what is now
known as Inner Mongolia (Nakami 1984, 136). Responses within Inner Mongolia
from 1910 through the end of World War II ranged from attempts to restore the last
Qing emperor to the creation of an Inner Mongolian Revolutionary People's Party on
the Soviet model, which advocated self-determination through revolution (Lattimore
1934, 29-30; Terashima 1984). The strengthening of Mongol identity throughout
the early twentieth century was epitomized in the revival of Chinggis Khan's cult.
Prohibited by the socialist rulers of Outer Mongolia, the Japanese, Guomindang, and
later Mao Zedong supported the cult center among Inner Mongols (Khan 1994; Liang
1988).
Both the Mongolian and Tibetan movements for independence were sustained by
the presence within their borders of peoples belonging predominantly to one ethnic
group. The situation was quite otherwise in the far west and northwest, where
sectarian disputes divided Turkic-speaking Muslims and historical differences
separated Turkic Muslims from the Dongan or "Chinese Muslims" (Gladney 1991).

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 841

Scholars have shown that the politics of the far west was also strongly influenced by
events in Central Asia. In Gansu, Naqshbandiyya orders vied with each other and
against the older Sunni tradition from the late Qing period (Lipman 1984). Even
though their attempts to establish a Republic of East Turkestan in 1933, 1944, and
1949 failed, Xinjiang in reality moved out of China's control and into the Russian
orbit after 1912 (Dreyer 1976, 22-26; Forbes 1986). Turkic-speaking Muslims
rejected the assimilationist discourse of the Guomindang and have proved similarly
resistant to PRC policies of ethnic "fusion" (Millward 1994).
Like its predecessors, the People's Republic of China has consistently repressed
independence movements and emphasized its determination to retain control of Tibet,
Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia. Since 1949, China's policy toward ethnic minorities
has veered between ensuring minority representation within the framework of a
unitary state and focusing on the ultimate assimilation of minority peoples (Mackerras
1994). In place of tonghua, the phrase used by Sun and other early nationalists to
discuss assimilation, PRC scholars talk about "fusion" (ronghe), the outcome of a long-
term historical process in which nationalities will "influence and learn from each
other" (Mackerras 1994, 7). Despite all of the slogans concerning the "unity of
nationalities" (minzu tuanjie), students of the contemporary scene have noted the
continuing persistence of ethnic nationalisms in the PRC (Gladney 1991; Townsend
1992). One scholar has ascribed this phenomenon to the failure of successive modern
Chinese states to create one "imagined community" that would constitute the Chinese
nation. John Fitzgerald (1996) concludes that China is a "nationless state".

Conclusions

The disjuncture between Han nationalism and "state nationalism" (Townsend

1992) creates problems for the writing of Chinese history. Han nationalism has deeply
influenced the historical discourse throughout the twentieth century (Duara 1995).
Contemporary Chinese historians project China's past in terms of its 1911 borders,
although it was not until the rise of nationalism that history was written as "a seamless
narrative of one realm, the territory of the modern state" (Chatterjee 1993, 95). Since
Chinese history is construed as the study of the governments that have rualed over
Chinese speakers, nationalism creates problems of interpretation concerning the long
periods-over half of its recorded history-when China was conquered and ruled by
non-Han peoples.
China as presently constituted is the historical product of the interaction of many
different peoples. The size of the Chinese empires varied enormously over time.
Unification, which is frequently cited as a hallmark of Chinese identity, occurred only
as the culmination of a centuries-long evolution of multiple competing states. The
first unified empire, Qin (221-206 B.C.), controlled only a fraction of the territory
encompassed by later dynasties. The empire grew during the Han (206 B.c.-220 A.D.)
and Tang (618-907) dynasties and was rent asunder during the Six Dynasties (222-
559) and the tenth to fourteenth centuries. Under the Mongols (1279-1368) and the
Manchus (1644-1911), China (defined as the territory occupied predominantly by
speakers of Chinese) was itself incorporated into larger empires that spanned Inner
Asia and East Asia. Only a definition of the nation that transcends Han identity can
thus legitimately lay claim to the peripheral regions inhabited by non-Han peoples,
since these claims rest on the empires created by the Mongols and the Manchus.

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
842 EVELYN S. RAWSKI

"Sinicization"-the thesis that all of the non-Han peoples who have entered the
Chinese realm have eventually been assimilated into Chinese culture-is a twentieth-
century Han nationalist interpretation of China's past. Removing sinicization as a
central theme in Chinese historiography focuses our attention on the research agenda
ahead. We need to reevaluate the historical contributions of the many peoples who
have resided in and sometimes ruled over what is today Chinese territory. The task
of deconstructing the national-level narrative, which demands that scholars carefully
study regional and local cultures in various periods, has already begun in China and
abroad, with the startling discoveries of complex jade-working cultures outside the
Central Plain that Ho Ping-ti cited as the "cradle of Chinese civilization" (Ho 1976).
These new archaeological discoveries suggest multiple origins of the features that we
have identified as "Chinese." Archaeologists have identified a distinctive northeastern
cultural complex with ties to the peoples who resided in the Korean peninsula and
islands of Japan, that might have contributed to the origins of the Shang state (Nelson
1995, 252). That the homeland of the Jurchen/Manchus developed its own distinctive
Neolithic society, epitomized in the Hongshan site, challenges the center-periphery
assumptions of Sinology. Multiply this question by the number of these new sites and
we have an approximation of the challenge that awaits historians.
I have no doubt that the next thirty years will continue to overturn our
generalizations about the significance of Qing history. For the moment, how might
we summarize an answer to this question of significance? The Qing was the most
successful of China's dynasties in terms of its territorial expansion. Its success was a
consequence of its hybrid origins. A non-Han conquest regime, it drew on multiple
sources and adapted ideologies of rulership and administrative structures to the
cultures of subject peoples. This strategy was an important factor in its successful
consolidation of the empire. But Qing policy yielded unanticipated consequences. By
applying its vast resources to the task of educating subject peoples, bureaucratizing
steppe regimes, and disseminating published literatures in the languages of subject
peoples, Qing rulers actually altered their cultures and societies. The tribal barriers
dividing Mongols were lowered; Qing patronage of the dGe lugs pa enabled that sect
to dominate rival Tibetan Buddhist orders and unify Tibet. The Qing peace enabled
reformist Islamic movements to penetrate and stimulate sectarian quarrels among
Turkic Muslims. Harsher policies toward Muslims eventually stimulated peoples
divided by sectarian strife to unite against the Han. The Qing peace also stimulated
Han Chinese merchants to penetrate the economies of the peripheries and created a
backlash amongst indebted ethnic minorities.6 Qing policies stimulated changes that
paved the way for the ethnic movements of the early twentieth century. In that sense,
too, the Qing deserves further attention and study.

List of References

AHMAD, ZAHIRUDDIN. 1970. Sino-Tibetan Relations in the Seventeenth Century. Rome:

Istituto Italiano per il medio ed estremo oriente.
BADARONGGA. 1993. "Manzhouyu yu Dawoeryu de guanxi." Qingyu yanjiu 2:35-
38.

6There was armed resistance by Oroqen, Ewenk, and Daur minorities in the northeast
after the 1911 Revolution; the activities of the Daur are described in Daur 1987, chap. 5;
Hatanaka 1989; Stuart, Li, and Shelear 1994.

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 843

BARFIELD, THOMAS J. 1989. The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
BARTLETT, BEATRICE. 1985. "Books of Revelations: The Importance of the Manchu
Language Archival Books for Research on Ch'ing History." Late Imperial China
6.2:25-36.
1991. Monarchs and Ministers: The Grand Council in Mid-Ch'ing China, 1 723-
1820. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
BAWDEN, CHARLES R., trans. 1961. The Jebtsundamba Khutukhtus of Urga; Text,
Translation and Notes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
BENSON, LINDA. 1990. The Ili Rebellion: The Moslem Challenge to Chinese Authority in
Xinjiang, 1944-1949. Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe.
BERGHOLZ, FRED W. 1993. The Partition of the Steppe: The Struggle of the Russians,
Manchus, and the Zunghar Mongols for Empire in Central Asia, 1619-1715: A Study
in Power Politics. New York: Peter Lang.
BQMST. Baqi Manzhou shizu tongpu. [17441 1989. Compiled by Ortai et al. 8 vols.
Reprint, Shenyang: Liao Shen shu chubanshe.
BQTZ. (Qinding) Baqi tongzhi. [17391 1986. Compiled by Ortai et al. Reprint,
Changchun: Dongbei shifan daxue chubanshe.
CHAN, HOK-LAM. 1991. "'Ta Chin' (Great Golden): The Origin and Changing
Interpretations of the Jurchen State Name." T'oung Pao 77.4-5:253-99.
CHANG JIANG, AND LI LI. 1993. Qinggong shiwei. Shenyang: Liaoning daxue
chubanshe.
CHANG YINGSHENG. 1993. Beijing tuhua zhong de Manyu. Beijing: Beijing Yanshan
chubanshe.
CHASE, HANSON. 1979. "The Status of the Manchu Language in the Early Ch'ing."
Ph.D. diss., University of Washington.
CHATTERJEE, PARTHA. 1993. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Post-colonial
Histories. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
CHEN BAORONG. 1987. Qing Xiling congheng. Shijiazhuang: Hebei renmin
chubanshe.
CHEN, CHIEH-HSIEN. 1988. Manchu Archival Materials. Taipei: Linking Publishing
Company.
CHEN HUIXUE. 1991. "Manzhou shizu shenhua yanjiu congshu." Heihexuekan 1:83-
93.
CHEN KEJI. 1986. Cixi, Guangxu yifang xuanyi. Compiled by Chen Keji et al.
Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
CHIA, NING. 1992. "The Li-fan Yuan in the Early Ch'ing Dynasty." Ph.D. diss.,
Johns Hopkins University.
.1993. "The Lifanyuan and the Inner Asian Rituals in the Early Qing (1644-
1795)." Late Imperial China 14.1:60-92.
CROSSLEY, PAMELA K. 1985. "An Introduction to the Qing Foundation Myth."
Late Imperial China 6.2:13-36.
1987. "Manzhou yuanliu kao and the Formalization of the Manchu Heritage."
Journal of Asian Studies 46.4:761-90.
. 1990a. Orphan Warriors: Three Manchu Generations and the End of the Qing
World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
. 1990b. "Thinking About Ethnicity in Early Modern China." Late Imperial
China 1: 1-34.
.1992. "Review Article: The Rulerships of China." American Historical Review
97.5:1468-83.

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
844 EVELYN S. RAWSKI

. Forthcoming. A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in the Transformation

of Qing Imperial Ideology. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
and EVELYN S. RAWSKI. 1993. "A Profile of the Manchu Language in
Ch'ing History." HarvardJournal of Asiatic Studies 53.1:63-102.
DAN SHI. 1989. Yige Qinggong taijian de caoyu. Beijing: Taisheng chubanshe.
DAUR. 1987. Dawoerzujianshi. Compiled by Daowerzu jianshi bianxiezu. Huhehaote:
Nei Menggu renmin chubanshe.
Di CosMo, NICOLA. Forthcoming. "Manchu Rites and Ceremonies at the Qing
Court: A Study Based on the Manjusai wecere metere kooli bithe, The Code of Sacr
and Rituals of the Manchus." In State Ritual in China, edited by J. McDermott.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DIKOTTER, FRANK. 1992. The Discourse of Race in Modern China. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Dow, TSUNG-I. 1982. "The Confucian Concept of a Nation and Its Historical
Practice." Asian Profile 10.4:347-61.
DRAY-NOVEY, ALISON. 1981. "Policing Imperial Peking: The Ch'ing
Gendarmerie, 1650-1850." Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.
DREYER, JUNE T. 1976. China's Forty Millions: Minority Nationalities and National
Integration in the People's Republic of China. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
DUARA, PRASENJIT. 1993. "Bifurcating Linear History: Nation and Histories in
China and India." Positions 1.3:779-804.
.1995. Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of Modern China.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Du JIAJI. 1986. "Dui Qingdai yizheng wang dachen huiyi de moxie kaocha." Qingshi
luncong 7:115-24.
DQHD. (Qinding) Da Qing huidian, (Qinding) Da Qing huidian tu, (Qinding) Da Qing
huidian shili. [18181 1991. Reprint, as part of Jinadai Zhongguo shiliao congkan,
third series. Taipei: Wenhai chubanshe. [18991 1976. Reprint, Taipei: Xinwen
feng chuban gongsi.
DQSL. Qingshilu. 1964. Reprint, Taipei: Hualian chubanshe. 1986. Reprint, Beijing:
Zhonghua shuju.
ELLIOTT, MARK C. 1993. "Resident Aliens: The Manchu Experience in China,
1644-1760." Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley.
EWENK. 1983. Ewenkezu jianshi. Compiled by Ewenkezu jianshi bianxiezu.
Huhehaote: Neimenggu renmin chubanshe.
FANG, CHAO-YING. 1950. "A Technique for Estimating the Numerical Strength of
the Early Manchu Military Forces." HarvardJournal of Asiatic Studies 13.1:192-
214.
FARQUHAR, DAVID. 1968. "The Origins of the Manchus' Mongolian Policy." In
The Chinese World Order: Traditional China's Foreign Relations, edited by John K.
Fairbank. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
. 1971. "Mongolian vs. Chinese Elements in the Early Manchu State." Ch'ing-
shih wen-t'i 1.6:11-23.
. 1978. "Emperor as Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Ch'ing Empire."
HarvardJournal of Asiatic Studies 38:5-34.
FENG RIKANG. 1985. Yongzheng zhuan. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe.
FITZGERALD, JOHN. 1996. "The Nationless State: The Search for a Nation in
Modern Chinese Nationalism." In Chinese Nationalism, edited by Jonathan Unge
Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe.

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 845

FORBES, ANDREW D. W. 1986. Warlords and Muslims in Chinese Central Asia: A

Political History of Republican Sinkiang, 1911-1949. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
FORtT, PHILIPPE C. 1992. "Making an Imperial Landscape in Chengde, Jehol: The
Manchu Landscape Enterprise." Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago.
FRANKE, HERBERT. 1978. From Tribal Chieftain to Universal Emperor and God: The
Legitimation of the Yuan Dynasty. Munich: Verlag der Baerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
and DENIS TWITCHETT. 1994. The Cambridge History of China, Volume 6:
Alien Regimes and Border States, 907-1368. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Fu YUGUANG. 1990. Samanjiao yu shenhua. Shenyang: Liaoning daxue chubanshe.
and MENG HUI-YING. 1991. Manzu samanjiaoyanjiu. Beijing: Beijing daxue
chubanshe.
GCGS. Guochao gongshi. 1987. Compiled by Ortai et al. Reprinted in 2 vols., Beijing:
Beijing guji chubanshe.
GDZZ. Printed collections of palace memorials, issued under titles Gongzhong dang
Guangxu chao zouzhe (1973); Gongzhong dang Kangxi chao zouzhe (1976); Gongzhong
dang Yongzheng chao zouzhe (1977); and Gongzhong dang Qianlong chao zouzhe (1982-
86). Compiled by Guoli gugong bowuyuan. Taipei: Guoli gugong bowuyuan.
GLADNEY, DRU C. 1991. Ethnic Nationalism in the People's Republic. Cambridge:
Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University.
GOLDSTEIN, MELVYN C. 1989. A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951. Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
GRUPPER, SAMUEL M. 1980. "The Manchu Imperial Cult of the Early Qing
Dynasty: Texts and Studies on the Tantric Sanctuary of Mahakala at Mukden."
Ph.D. diss., Indiana University.
GUAN XIAOLIAN. 1988. "Lun 'Manwen laodang'." Manzu yanjiu 1:52-58.
HAN JINCHUN, and Li YIFU. 1984. "Hanwen 'minzu' yici de chuxian ji qi chuqi
shiyong qingkuang." Minzu yanjiu 2:36-43.
HATANAKA, SACHIKO. 1989. "Ethnicity and Culture Complex in the Northern
Minorities." In Ethnicity and Ethnic Groups in China, edited by Chian Chiao and
Nicholas Tapp. Hong Kong: New Asia College, Chinese University of Hong
Kong.
HE YUZHOU, and WANG YINGXI. 1989. "Lun Qingdai dui Huizu de zhengce."
Shehui kexue (Lanzhou) 2:61-65.
HEISSIG, WALTHER. 1954. Die Pekinger lamaistischen Blockdrucke in mongolischer
Sprache; Materialen zur mongolischen Literatiirgeschichte. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Ho, PING-TI. 1967. "The Significance of the Ch'ing Period in Chinese History."
Journal of Asian Studies 26.2:189-95.
.1976. The Cradle of The East: An Inquiry into the Indigenous Origins of Techniques
and Ideas of Neolithic and Early Historic China, 5000-1000 B.C. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
HOSOYA YOSHIO. 1968. "Shincho ni okeru hakki seido no suii." Tdyo^gakuho^ 5 1.1: 1-
43.
HUA LI. 1983. "Qingdai de Man Meng lianyin." Minzu yanjiu 2:45-54, 79.
HUMPHREY, CAROLINE. 1994. "Remembering An 'Enemy': The Bogd Khaan in
Twentieth-Century Mongolia." In Memory, History, and Opposition Under State
Socialism, edited by Rubie S. Watson. Santa Fe: School of American Research.

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
846 EVELYN S. RAWSKI

IM, KAYE SOON. 1981. "The Rise and Decline of the Eight Banner Garrisons in the
Ch'ing Period (1644-191 1): A Study of the Kuang-chou, Hang-chou, and Ching-
chou Garrisons." Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois.
JIN BAOSHEN. 1992. "Jian tan Qianlong dui fazhan Manwen de gongxian." Qingshi
yanjiu 1:78-80.
JIN JISHUI and ZHOU SHACHEN. 1988. Wangfii shenghuo shilu. Beijing: Zhongguo
qingnian chubanshe.
JIN QIZONG. 1988, 1989a. "Qingqi de Manzu." Manzu yanjiu 3 (1988):63-66, 4
(1988):58-64, 1 (1989):56-63, 2 (1989):66-80.
. 1989b. Beijing jiaoqu de Manzu. N.p.: Nei Menggu daxue chubanshe.
KANDA NOBuo et al., comp. 1972.Jokoki to^: Y6seich6^. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko.
. 1983. J6k6ki to^: Kenryz?cho^. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko.
KATAOKA KAZUTADA. 1984. "Shingai kakumei jiki no gozoku kyowaron o
megutte." In Chz?goku kin gendaishi no shomondai, edited by Tanaka Masayoshi
sensei taikan kinen ronjikai. Tokyo: Kokusho kankokai.
KCHZ. 1984. Kangxi chao Hanwen zhupi zouzhe xuanbian. 8 vols. Beijing: Dang'an
guan chubanshe.
KCZZ. 1977. Gongzhongdang Kangxi chao zouzhe. Compiled by Gugong bowuyuan. 9
vols. Taibei: Gugong bowuyuan.
KESSLER, LAWRENCE D. 1976. K'ang-hsi and the Consolidation of Ch'ing Rule, 1661-
1684. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
KHAN, ALMAZ. 1994. "Chinggis Khan: From Imperial Ancestor to Ethnic Hero."
In Cultural Encounters on China's Ethnic Frontiers, edited by Stevan Harrell. Seattle:
University of Washington Press.
KHORDAKOVSKY, MICHAEL. 1992. Where Two Worlds Met: The Russian State and
the Kalmyk Nomads, 1600-1771. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
KXQZ. 1984. Kangxi qiju zhu. Compiled by Zhongguo diyi lishi dang'an guan.
Beijing: Xinhua shuju chubanshe.
LATTIMORE, OWEN. [19341 1969. The Mongols of Manchuria. Reprint, New York:
Howard Fertig.
[ 19401 1988. Inner Asian Frontiers of China. New York: American
Geographical Society. Reprint, New York: Oxford University Press.
LEE, JAMES, and Guo SONGYI. 1994. Qingdai huangzu renkou xingwei he shehui
huanjing. Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe.
Li LUHUA. 1995. "Lun Qing ruguan qianhou Manzu wenhua de xingcheng yu
yanbian." Beifang wenwu 4:84-87.
LIANG BING. 1988. Chengjisi han ling yu Erduosi. Huhehaote: Nei Menggu renmin
chubanshe.
LIN JING. 1991. "Lasa lansheng." Zijincheng 4:22-26.
LIPMAN, JONATHAN. 1984. "Ethnicity and Politics in Republican China: The Ma
Family Warlords of Gansu." Modern China 10.3:283-316.
Liu XIAOMENG. 1994. "Manzu qixing shiqi suo shou Menggu wenhua de
yingxiang." Shehui kexue zhanxian 6:169-75.
MACKERRAS, COLIN. 1994. China's Minorities: Integration and Modernization in the
Twentieth Century. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
MHDC. 1993. Man Han da cidian. Compiled by An Shuangcheng et al. Shenyang:
Liaoning minzu chubanshe.
MIAO PUSHENG. 1987. "Feichu Boke zhidu yu Xinjiang jian sheng." Xinjiangshehui
kexue 4:84-94.

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 847

MICHAEL, FRANZ. {19421 1979. The Origin of Manchu Rule in China. Reprint, New
York: Octagon Books.
MILLWARD, JAMES A. 1993. "Beyond the Pass: Commerce, Ethnicity and the Qing
Empire in Xinjiang, 1759-1864." Ph.D. diss., Stanford University.
. 1994. "A Uyghur Muslim in Qianlong's Court: The Meanings of the
Fragrant Concubine." Journal of Asian Studies 53.2:427-58.
NAKAMI, TATSUO. 1984. "A Protest Against the Concept of the 'Middle Kingdom':
The Mongols and the 1911 Revolution." In The 1911 Revolution in China:
Interpretive Essays, edited by Eto Shinkichi and Harold Z. Schiffrin. Tokyo:
University of Tokyo Press.
NELSON, SARAH M., ed. 1995. The Archaeology of Northeast China Beyond the Great
Wall. London: Routledge.
OROQEN. 1983. Elunchunzu jianshi. Compiled by Elunchunzu jianshi bianxiezu.
Huhehaote: Neimenggu renmin chubanshe.
OXNAM, ROBERT B. 1975. Rulingfrom Horseback: Manchu Politics in the Oboi Regency,
1661-1669. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
PANG, TATJANA A. 1994. "An Introduction to the Literature of the Sibe-People."
Central Asiatic Journal 38.2:189-213.
PETECH, LUCIANO. 1973. Aristocracy and Government in Tibet, 1728-1959. Rome:
Istituto Italiano per I1 Medio ed Estremo Oriente.
POLACHEK, JAMES M. 1992. The Inner Opium War. Cambridge: Council on East
Asian Studies, Harvard University.
POZDNEYEV, A. M. [18961 197 1. Mongolia and the Mongols. Translated by John R.
Shaw and Dale Plank. Vol. 1. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
QDGT. Qingdai gongting congshu. 1993. Edited by Wang Peihuan. Shenyang: Liaoning
daxue chubanshe. The four titles in the first set are: Qing gong hou fei, by Wang
Peihuan; Qing gong huangzi, by Tong Yue and Lii Jihong; Qing gong shiwei, by
Chang Jiang and Li Wei; and Qing gong taijian, by Tang Yinian.
QDLZ. Qing di liezhuan. 1993. Changchun: Jilin wenshi chubanshe. A fourteen-
volume set of monographs which includes biographies (some of them previously
published) of Nurgaci, Hongtaiji, Dorgon, and Empress Dowager Cixi as well as
of the ten Qing emperors. The final volume, Qing chao dianzhi, is on Qing
regulations.
QDQZ. Qingdai qiju zhu ce. Taipei: Lianhebao wenhua jijinhui, Guoxuewenxian guan.
Composed of Xianfeng chao, 57 vols. and Tongzhi chao, 43 vols., both published
1983; Daoguang chao, 100 vols., published 1985; and Guangxu chao, 80 vols.,
published 1987.
QIAO ZHIZHONG. 1994. "Hou Jin Manwen dangce de chansheng ji qi shixue yiyi."
Shehui kexue zhanxian 3: 155-60.
QLSY. Qianlong chao shangyu dang. 1991. Compiled by Zhongguo diyi lishi dang'an
guan. 18 vols. Beijing: Dang'an chubanshe.
Qu LIUSHENG. 1989. "Qingdai Junjichu Manwen dang'an congshu." Lishi dang'an
1:124-29.
RAWSKI, EVELYN S. 1988. "The Imperial Way of Death." In Death Ritual in Late
Imperial and Modern China, edited by James L. Watson and Evelyn S. Rawski.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
.1991. "Ch'ing Imperial Marriage and Problems of Rulership." In Marriage
and Inequality in Chinese Society, edited by Rubie S. Watson and Patricia B. Ebrey.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
848 EVELYN S. RAWSKI

. 1996. "The Creation of an Emperor in Eighteenth-Century China." In

Harmony and Counterpoint: Ritual Music in Chinese Context, edited by Bell Yung,
Evelyn S. Rawski, and Rubie S. Watson. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
ROSSABI, MORRIS. 1982. TheJurchens in the Yuan and Ming. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
China-Japan Program.
ROWE, WILLIAM T. 1994. "Education and Empire in Southwest China: Ch'en
Hung-mou in Yunnan, 17 33-38." In Education and Society in Late Imperial China,
1600-1900, edited by Benjamin A. Elman and Alexander Woodside. Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
SHENYANG. 1987. Shengjing huanggong. Compiled by Shenyang gugong bowuyuan.
Beijing: Zijincheng chubanshe.
SPENCE, JONATHAN D. 1966. Ts'ao Yin and the K'ang-hsi Emperor: Bondservant and
Master. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
STARY, GIOVANNI. 1990. "The Meaning of the Word 'Manchu': A New Solution
to An Old Problem." Central Asiatic Journal 34.1-2:109-19.
STEINHARDT, NANCY SHATZMAN. 1990. Chinese Imperial City Planning. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
STUART, KEVIN, and LI XUEWEI. 1994. Tales from China's Forest Hunters: Oroqen
Folktales. Sino-Platonic Papers No. 61. Philadelphia: Department of Asian and
Middle Eastern Studies.
and SHELEAR, eds. 1994. China's Dagur Minority: Society, Shamanism, and
Folklore. Sino-Platonic Papers No. 60. Philadelphia: Department of Asian and
Middle Eastern Studies.
SUN YAT-SEN. 1973. Guofu quanji. Compiled by Zhongguo Guomindang,
Zhongyang weiyuanhui, Dangshi weiyuanhui. 6 vols. Taipei: Zhongguo
Guomindang, Zhongyang weiyuanhui, Dangshi weiyuanhui.
TAO LIFAN. 1992. "Qingdai gongting de saman jisi." Xibei minzu yanjiu 1:221-32.
TERASHIMA HIDEAKI. 1984. "Shosiu minzoku mondai: kindai nai Mongoru
minzoku undo." In ChAgoku kin gendaishi no shomondai, edited by Tanaka
Masayoshi sensei taikan kinen ronji kankokai. Tokyo: Kokusho kankokai.
TOGAN, ISENBIKE. 1992. "Islam in a Changing Society: The Khojas of Eastern
Turkistan." In Muslims in Central Asia: Expressions of Identity and Change, edited
by Jo-Ann Gross. Durham: Duke University Press.
TONG WANLUN. 1992. "Lun Manzu sanxian nii shenhua de xingcheng yu jiazhi."
Minzu yanjiu 3:32-39.
TORBERT, PRESTON M. 1977. The Ch'ing Imperial Household Department: A Study of
Its Organization and Principal Functions, 1662-1 796. Cambridge: Council on East
Asian Studies, Harvard University.
TOWNSEND, JAMES. 1992. "Chinese Nationalism." The Australian Journal of Chinese
Affairs 27:97-130.
TRAUZETTEL, ROLF. 1975. "Sung Patriotism as a First Step Toward Chinese
Nationalism." In Crisis and Prosperity in Sung China, edited by John W. Haeger.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
TWITCHETT, DENIS, and KLAUS-PETER TIETZE. 1994. "The Liao." In The
Cambridge History of China. Vol. 6: Alien Regimes and Border States, 907-1368.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WAKEMAN, FREDERIC, JR. 1985. The Great Enterprise: The Manchu Reconstruction of
Imperial Order in Seventeenth-Century China. 2 vols. Berkeley: University of
California Press.

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 849

WANG HONGGANG. 1988. "Manzu samanjiao de sanzhong xingtai ji qi yanbian."

Shehui kexue zhanxian 1:187-93.
WANG JIAPENG. 1991. "Zhongzhengdian yu Qing gong Zang zhuan Fojiao."
Gugong bowuyuan yuankan 3:58-71.
WANG XIANGYUN. 1995. "Tibetan Buddhism at the Court of Qing: The Life and
Work of lCang-skya Rol-pa'i-rdo-rje (1717-1786)." Ph.D. diss., Harvard
University.
WANG ZHONGHAN. 1988. Manzu shi yanjiu. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue
chubanshe.
WECHSLER, HOWARD J. 1985. Offerings of Jade and Silk: Ritual and Symbol in the
Legitimation of the rang Dynasty. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Wu, SILAS H. L. 1979. Passage to Power: K'ang-hsi and His Heir Apparent, 1661-
1722. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wu YUANFENG. 1991. "Junjichu Manwen yuezhebao ji qi zhengli bianmu." Qingshi
yanjiu 2:61-64.
WYLIE, TURRELL. 1978. "Reincarnation: A Political Innovation in Tibetan
Buddhism." In Proceedings of the Csoma de KYrbs Memorial Symposium Held at
Mdtraffired, Hungary, 24-30 September 1976, edited by Louis Ligeti. Budapest:
Akademiai Kiado.
XU SHIYAN, and LI DONGSHAN. 1986. Da Tajian An Dehai zhi si. Tonghua: Jilin
renmin chubanshe.
XU SHUMING. 1992. "Qingdai qianqi Heilongjiang xiayu diqu de minzu ji
xingzheng guanli." Zhongguo bianjiang shidi yanjiu 1:89-93.
YAN CHONGNIAN. 1983. Nuerhachi zhuan. Beijing: Beijing chubanshe.
.1989. Yanbuji. Beijing: Beijing Yanshan chubanshe.
YANG XUECHEN, and ZHOU YUANLIAN. 1986. Qingdai baqi wang gong guizu xing
shuai shi. Shenyang: Liaoning renmin chubanshe.
YANG ZHEN. 1993. "Yinti chujun diwei wenti yanjiu." Qingshi luncong 1992, pp.
107-23. Shenyang: Liaoning renmin chubanshe.
YANG ZHENGGUANG. 1990. Zhongguo zuihou yige da taijian. Beijing: Chunzhong
chubanshe.
YU SHANPU. 1985. Qing Dongling daguan. Shijiazhuang: Hebei renmin chubanshe.
Yuanmingyuan 1991. Compiled by Zhongguo diyi lishi dang'an guan. 2 vols. In the
Qingdai dang'an shiliao series. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe.
YZHCC. Yongzheng chao Hanwen zhupi zouzhe huibian. 1989. Compiled by Zhongguo
diyi lishi dang'anguan. Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe.
YZQZ. Yongzheng chao qiju zhu ce. 1993. Compiled by Zhongguo diyi lishi dang'an
guan. 5 vols. Beijing: Xinhua shuju.
ZHANG JINFAN, and Guo CHENGKANG. 1988. Qing ruguan qian guojia fall
zhidushi. Shenyang: Liaoning renmin chubanshe.
ZHANG NAIYAN. 1990. Qinggong shuwen: chu, xuhian hebianben. Beijing: Zijincheng
chubanshe.
ZHANG QINGCHANG. 1990. Hutong ji qita: shehui yuyanxue de tansuo. Beijing:
Beijing yuyan xueyuan chubanshe.
ZHANG XIXIN. 1988. Qing zhengfuyu lamajiao. Xuchang: Xizang renmin chubanshe.
ZHAO YUNTIAN. 1995. "Menggu 'luli' he 'Lifanyuan zeli. Qingshi yanjiu 3:106-
10.
ZHAO ZHIQIANG. 1992. "Lun Qingdai de Neifan shufang." Qingshi yanjiu 2:22-
28, 38.
ZHAOLIAN. 1980. Xiaoting zalu. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
850 EVELYN S. RAWSKI

ZHOU SUQIN. 1995. "Qingdai Shunzhi, Kangxi liang di zuichu de qingong." Gugong
bowuyuan yuankan 3:45-49.
ZHOU YUANLIAN. 1984. Qingchao kaiguoshi yanjiu. Shenyang: Liaoning renmin
chubanshe.
. 1986. Qingchao xingqi shi. Changchun: Jilin wenshi chubanshe.
and Zhao Shiyu. 1986. Huangfu shezheng wang Doergun quanzhuan. Changchun:
Jilin wenshi chubanshe.

This content downloaded from

144.214.148.12 on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 02:02:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms