From Personal Network to Institution Building: The Lifanyuan, Gift Exchange and the Formalization of Manchu-Mongol Relations

ju mongγol ayiladqal-un debter-üd (2010), edited by B. Oyunbilig et al., 23 vols. + Index, Hohhot: Nei Menggu renmin chubanshe.
Rowe, William T. (2009): China’s Last Empire. The Great Qing, Cambridge, Mass. et al.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Schorkowitz, Dittmar (2012): “Historical Anthropology in Eurasia ‘…and the Way Thither’”, History and Anthropology 23:1, 37-62.
Song, Tong (forthcoming): “Lun Shunzhi chao Qingting yanlai zhidu 论顺治朝清廷宴赉制度” [Concerning the system of banquets and rewards of the Qing court during the Shunzhi period]”. Song Tong’s article will be published in Manmeng dang’an yu Menggushi yanjiu, Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe in August 2014.
Stoler, Ann Laura (2009): “Considerations on Imperial Comparisons”, in: Empire Speaks Out. Languages of rationalization and self-desciption in the Russian Empire, edited by Ilya Gerasimov et al., Leiden et al.: Brill, 33–55.
Sykes, Karen (2005): Arguing with Anthropology. An Introduction to Critical Theories of the Gift, London and New York: Routledge.
Tighe, Justin (2005): Constructing Suiyuan. The Politics of Northwestern Territory and Development in Early Twentieth-Century China, Leiden et al.: Brill.
Veit, Veronika (1986): “Die mongolischen Völkerschaften vom 15. Jahrhundert bis 1691”, in: Die Mongolen. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte und Kultur, edited by Michael Weiers, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 379-411.
Weiers, Michael (1975): „Zwei mandschurische und mongolische Schreiben des Sure Han aus dem Jahr 1635“ Zentralasiatische Studien 9, 447-477.
Weiers, Michael (1979): „Mandschu-Mongolische Strafgesetze aus dem Jahre 1631 und deren Stellung in der Gesetzgebung der Mongolen“, Zentralasiatische Studien 13, 137–190.
Weiers, Michael (1983): „Der Mandschu-Khortsin Bund von 1626“, in: Documenta Barbarorum. Festschrift für Walther Heissig zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Klaus Sagaster et al., Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 412-435.
Weiers, Michael (1987): „Der erste Schriftwechsel zwischen Khalkha und Mandschuren und seine Überlieferung“, Zentralasiatische Studien 20, 106-139.
Weiers, Michael (1989/91), „Mongolenpolitik der Mandschuren und Mandschurenpolitik der Mongolen zu Beginn der dreissiger Jahre des 17. Jahrhunderts“, Zentralasiatische Studien 22, 256-275.
Weiers, Michael (1998): “Die unruhigen Grenzen des Aisin-Staats Ende der 20er und Anfang der 30er Jahre des 17. Jahrhunderts“, in: Beiträge zur Geschichte, Sprache und Kultur der Mandschuren und Sibe, edited by M. Gimm et al., Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 193-249.
Xin Manhan Da Cidian新满汉大词典 (1994),edited by Hu Zengyi 胡增益, Urumqi: Xinjiang renmin chubanshe.
Zhang, Shuangzhi 张双智(2010): Qingdai chaojin zhidu yanjiu清代朝觐制度研究, Beijing: xueyuan chubanshe.
Zhao, Yuntian 赵云田(2002): Zhongguo zhibian jigou shi 中国治边机构史, Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe.

1^ There can be no single accurate translation for this office, because its Chinese, Manchu and Mongol names are not equivalents, but convey different interpretations of this office’s responsibilities. For two recent discussions of the difficulties to find an English translation for this office see Di Cosmo (2012: 182-184) and Chia (2012: 2).

2^ Stoler (2009: 41/42) sees this as a characteristic of imperial formations.

3^ Later Chinese sources refer to these visits as chaojin, which can be translated as “pilgrimage to the emperor” (Chia 1993: 64). Manchu sources of the Shunzhi period refer to these visits as aniya doroi jimbi “come for the New Years’s ceremonies” (Qing chao qianqi Lifanyuan 2010: vol. 1, 141). For Chinese sources concerning Mongols visiting the court see Zhang (2010: 33-108).

4^ See Qing chao qianqi Lifanyuan 2010. On the amount of legal material in this collection see Heuschert-Laage (2012).

5^ If the court, as in the case of the Tümed and the Čaqar Mongols, had reservations about the loyalty of a confederation’s leadership, it would not acknowledge members of its elite as jasaγ, but designate imperial appointees (Tighe 2005: 39-41).

6^ For the Oirat campaigns see Perdue (2005: 133-299). In 1771, the Torγot Mongols, who in the 1630s had moved to the lower Volga region, returned and were integrated into the Qing state.

7^ Nicola Di Cosmo argues that “the once allied southern Mongols were turned into ‘vassals’ or ‘surrendered people’” (2012: 180). The concepts of lord/vassal versus patron/client relationships are very close and developed in the different contexts of medieval European and Roman society. Both are based on obligatory reciprocity and describe patterns of unequal power relations. However, because patronage has been identified as an instrument used in processes of state building and territorial integration in early modern time (Asch et al. 2011; Emich et al. 2005; Kettering 2002), I will stick to this term.

8^ At that time, Manchus still referred to themselves as Jusen.

9^ In a letter to the Urad Mongols from February 1632, Hong Taiji asks “who will be the one to protect you so that you can move on without hurry and go your own way without being taken [by force]?” (Weiers 1989/91: 270/271).

10^ For Hong Taiji’s efforts towards standardization, which were in parallel with introducing the new name “Daicing” for the Manchu state and adopting a new title of reign, see Heuschert-Laage 2011.

11^ Manchu text in Jiu Manzhou Dang (1969): fol.3377. (6) o ice jakūn de karacin i šamba tabunang . sirantu : - han de hengkileme jihe : (7) han de gajihangge šamba emu morin . sunja honin yali : sirantu emu morin : emu giyahūn : tasha (8) suku emke jafaha bihe : honin yali : giyahūn be gaiha : jai gaihakū bederebuhe : Jiu Manzhou Dang quoted after Gruber (2006: 40).

12^ Title of nobility.

13^ Manchu text in Jiu Manzhou Dang (1969): fol.3378/3379. (9) o ineku tere inenggi karacin i šamba tabunang : sirantu : wang lama genehe : genere doroi būhengge : šamba tabunang (10) de loho emke : jeku juwan hūle sirantu de jebele emke + jeku : juwan hūle : wang lama de hilteri ūksin saca (3319) (1) būhe : Jiu Manzhou Dang quoted after Gruber (2006: 40).

14^ An example for this kind of record keeping can also be found in the Jiu Manzhou Dang (1969): fol. 4554-4555, where the gifts of the Mongol delegation under the aegis of the Sečen Qan Šoloi of the Qalqa are listed, which reached the Manchu court in January 1636. A translation of this passage is given by Weiers (1987: 110).

15^ Mongol text in Mongγol dangse (2003: vol. 1, 202/203). 202 (1) o aγuda örösiyegči nayiramdaqu . (2) + boγda qaγan-u jarlaγ : tümen nasutu (3) + boγda qaγan-i törögsen edür kiged : sin-e jil orobasu ba : yeke bayasqulang-un (4) učir-a : ergükü beleg-i yeke gejü törö-yin yabudal-un (5) yamun-dur toγtaγabai : γadaγ-a-du ayimaγ-un vang-ud . noyad . (6) tayiji-nar-un ergükü beleg-ün toγ-a : qosiγun büri : tümen nasutu (7) + boγda qaγan-u törögsen edür . --- boγda qaγan-du dörbeged morin : 203 (1) ulus-un ejen qatun-dur . qosiyaγad morin : sigüsü nijeged üker . (2) naimaγad qoni :: yeke bayasqulang bolbasu . γadaγ-a-du ayimaγ-un vang-ud (3) noyad . tayiji-nar . --- boγda qaγan-dur . qosiyaγad morin : ulus-un (4) ejen qatun-dur . nijeged morin . beleg ergükü : sigüsü nijeged üker (5) naimaγad qoni bui : sin-e jil orobasu . boγda qaγan-du dörbeged morin . ulus-un (6) ejen qatun-dur . qosiyaγad morin . sigüsü nijeged üker naimaγad qoni : (7) degedü erdem-tü nögöge on : ebül-ün ekin sara-yin γučin-a : Amendments to the text made by a different hand at an unknown date. For the meaning of the term ayimaγ (polity) Atwood (2004: 5).

16^ Titles of nobility.

17^ The term did not yet have a religious connotation, in the sense of an öglige-yin ejen, a donor, who gives alms to a monk. For the use of the term öglige soyurqal in 1636, see Heuschert-Laage (2011: 57).

18^ The Mongol equivalent is šangnaqu. For parallel use of these terms see Qing chao qianqi Lifanyuan (2010: vol. 13, 1 & 4). The Mongol term öglige, which had been employed in 1646 (see above) was no longer used.

19^ An example for the use of šangnaha with regard to envoys (in Manchu elcin) and būhe with regard to members of the nobility can be found in the Jiu Manzhou Dang (1969): fol. 3373. Jiu Manzhou Dang quoted after Gruber (2006: 39).

20^ Tenggis in 1646 rejected Manchu overlordship and, in his armed conflict with the Qing, accepted military support from the Northern Qalqa (Veit 1986: 406; Fang 1943/44a: 215; Čing ulus-un 1984: 108-110).

21^ For the Maussian distinction between commodity relationships and gift relationships, in which the object was directly linked to the person of the giver see Carrier 1991: 126-128.

22^ Manchu language memorial of the Lifanyuan of Shunzhi 16/intercalary3/24 (May 14^th, 1659) in Qing chao qianqi Lifanyuan (2010: vol. 1, 217): (top 8) horcin i joriktu cin wang . (9) darhan baturu giyūn wang . (10) ++ dergici cohome niyamarame acaki jio sehede . uthai urgunjehei jiderakū (11) elemangga joriktu cin wang oci . (12) ++ hese be bairakū . ini cisui gungju nimere be dahame jidere be tookaha (bottom 1) sehebi : darhan baturu giyūn wang geli beye edun dekdehebi : gege geli (2) hefeli aššahabi : juwe omolo akū oho seme hacilame baita (3) tucibume . (4) ++ hese be jurceme wesimbuhengge ambula giyan de acahakūbi :

23^ Died in 1666 and was succeeded by his younger brother Biltagar (Qing chao qianqi Lifanyuan 2010: vol. 1, 401/402). According to Čing ulus-un (1984: 31) the line of the Joriktu Cin Wang was not acknowledged as ruling and, in administrative terms, was part of the middle banner of the Qorčin of the left wing.

24^ Title of Manjusiri (died 1665), who was acknowledged to rule the middle banner of the Qorčin of the left wing. For this person see Čing ulus-un (1984: 31/32). According to Jagchid (1986: 77) Manjusiri in 1628 had married a daughter of Yoto (died 1638), who was a grandson of Nurhaci. The girl was later adopted by the emperor as his daughter.

25^ The expression hefeli aššambi is documented in Xin Manhan da cidian (1994: 395).

26^ Contrary to what one would expect, omolo is not used with a plural suffix (Doerfer 1963a: 38-41).

27^ This follows from the plural gungju se used earlier in the document.

28^ Plain Yellow, Bordered Yellow and Plain White banner, which were the personal property of the emperor (Elliott 2001: 79, 404n147).

29^ Imperial rescript in Manchu language to the memorial of the Lifanyuan of Shunzhi 16/intercalary3/24 (May 14^th, 1659) in Qing chao qianqi Lifanyuan (2010: vol. 1, 217): (1) joriktu wang baturu wang be niyamarame acaki (2) seme jio seci hese be donjihai uthai jiderakū (3) yasa de fafun akū adali bulcame siltahangge (4) ambula giyan de acahakūbi : suweni jurgan . ilan (5) gūsai hebei ambasai emgi acafi gisurefi wesimbu : (6) wang sa be ubade gajira be naka :

30^ For example the Mongol Code (in Chinese Menggu Lüli) and compendia of institutional practice such as the Lifanyuan zeli and the Da Qing Huidian.

31^ In case of the Qalqa Mongols, these were the Military Governor in Uliasutai and the Governors stationed in Ikh Khuree (Urga) and in Khovd. Among the Southern Mongols, the Governor General of Suiyuan (Hohhot) and the Čaqar and Jehol commanders-in-chief in addition to military duties were also entrusted with legal affairs. (Zhao 2002: 291-316; Brunnert/Hagelstrom 1911: 452-462).