Advanced search
Publication Cover
Annals of the Association of American Geographers Volume 69, 1979 - Issue 4
Journal homepage
24
Views
8
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

THE WILLOW PALISADEFootnote∗

RICHARD L. EDMONDS Doctoral student in the Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60637
Pages 599-621 | Published online: 15 Mar 2010

  • ∗ I wish to thank Akizuki Toshiyuki, Jim Delehanty, Mali Edmonds, Norton Ginsburg, Hatano Masataka, Paul Wheatley, and Yang Shu-sen for their encouragement and suggestions. This study was supported by grants from the Center for Far Eastern Studies at the University of Chicago and the Monbusho of the Japanese government.
  • 1 For some examples of Chinese frontier fortifications, see: Owen Lattimore, “Origins of the Great Wall of China: A Frontier Concept in Theory and Practice,”Geographical Review, Vol. 27 (1937), pp. 529 49 (the Great Wall of North China); Owen Lattimore, The Mongols of Manchuria (New York: The John Day Company, 1934), pp. 43–45 (the Hsingan Wall of the Tungpei region); Ronald G. Knapp, “Chinese Frontier Settlement in Taiwan,”Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 66 (1976), p. 58 (the t'u-niu-kou dirt ridge of T'aiwan); and Shou P'eng-fei, Li-tai Ch'ang-ch'eng K'ao (A Discussion of the Great Wall Through the Ages) (Te T'ien-lu Hsü-kao chih 2, 1941) (all North China frontier barriers).
  • 2 The social ecological framework formulated by Erik Cohen, “Environmental Orientations: A Multidimensional Approach to Social Ecology,”Current Anthropology, Vol. 17 (1976), pp. 49 70 provides a multidimensioinal approach to classifying the relationship of man to his environment. Cohen divides the ways man views landscape features into four environmental orientations: instrumental (resources), territorial (control), sentimental (attachment), and symbolic (significance), each with two suborientations: instrumental—technological and economic, territorial—strategic and political, sentimental—primordial and prestigious, and symbolic—aesthetic and moral-religious. The Willow Palisade is a physical manifestation of Cohen's territorial orientation. In his own words (p. 54) “Boundaries in the political sphere correspond to the price in the economic sphere: they are the endproduct of a bargaining process and represent the agreed-upon division of a territory between competing groups or interests.”
  • 3 The Chinese measures used in this paper varied from province to province and by time period. The metric and English equivalents given should be considered only approximates and are rounded. Yang Pin. Liu-pien Chi-lüeh (Notes on the Willow Frontier), Hsiao-fang-hu-chai Yü-ti Ts'ung-ch'ao Hsü-pien (The Little Square Vase Studio Geographical Series): chih 1, ts'e 5, Wang Hsi-ch'i, comp. (Shanghai: Chu-i T'ang, 1894), p. la gives T'iao-tzu-pien as an alternate name for the Willow Palisade. Chang Shang-hsien, “Ken-pen Hsing-shih Shu” (“A Description of the Form of our Dynasty's Roots”), Huang-ch'ao Ching-shih Wen-Pien (Collected Essays on Statecraft Under the Reigning Dynasty), Ho Ch'ang-ling, comp., chüan 80, “Ping-cheng 11, Sai-fang-shang,” p. 7b employs the name I-t'iao-pien. Lucien Gibert, Dictionnaire Historique et Géographique de la Manchourie (Hong Kong: Imprimerie de la Société des Missions-Étrangères, 1934), p. 567 translated Liu-t'iao-pien as “Barrière des saules” and gave “Barrière des pieux” as an alternative. T'iao and pieux can be translated as ‘stakes’ or ‘pale’ since portions of the Willow Palisade may have been composed of stakes. Owen Lattimore, Inner Asian Frontiers of China (New York: American Geographical Society, 1940), p. 108, footnote, derived his term “Chinese Pale” from Gibert and the concept of the “English Pale” in Ireland. Liu means ‘willow,’ while the I in I-t'iao-pien means ‘single’ or ‘one.’ For reference to the levees, see Shou, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 25a. Chi Shih (Yang Shu-sen), “Liu-t'iao-pien ti Li-shih ho Su-hsiu ti Miu-lun” (“The History of the Willow Palisade and the False Theories of Soviet Revisionism”), [Lishi Yanjiu], No. 3 (1975), p. 112, says the trees were planted in groups of three, spaced five ch'ih apart. The figure for the height of the trees comes from Kao Shih-ch'i, comp., Hu-tsung Tung-shun Ji-lu (A Diary of an Eastern Journey in the Emperor's Entourage) in Shih-liao Hsü-pien, Vol. 41 (T'aipei: Kuang-wen Shu-chü, 1968), chüan hsia, p. 3b. Man has often used features of the physical landscape such as trees to delimit boundaries. Paul Guichonnet and Claude Raffestin, Géographie de frontières (Vendôme: Presses Universitaires de France, 1974), p. 15 point this out in the statement: “La délimitation territoriale peut s'accompagner d'une démarcation au sens moderne, sinon politique, du terme dans la mesure o[ugrave] le support de la frontière est constitué par des cours d'eau ou des marques dans le paysage, sur les arbres par example.” Demarcation of boundaries by a combination of trees and ditches was not unique to China but rather widely practiced among traditional societies. George Wynn Brereton Huntingford, The Galla of Ethiopia: The Kingdom of Kafa and Janjero (London: International African Institute, 1955), p. 116 provides an interesting comparative example from the Kafa: The kingdom was surrounded, where there were no natural defences, by deep and wide ditches defended by tree-trunk palisades and crossed at intervals by narrow bridges. … Bieber gives the dimensions of the ditches as 6 metres in width and 3 metres in depth; he describes the gates, kell[otilde] as consisting of circular fenced enclosures entered by drop-gates. Customs dues were collected at these gates. Outside the line of fences was a strip of unoccupied land like the moga of the Galla states. At points where Galla attacks were expected, the gates were additionally defended by a high rampart and several lines of entrenchment, a form of defence much admired by the neighbours of the Kafa. The gates were manned by Manj[otilde] under a Kafa commander.”
  • 4 Sa-ying-e, Chilin Wai-chi (A Private Account of Kirin), (1810?) Hsiao-fang-hu-chai Yü-ti Ts'ung-ch'ao Tsai-pu-pien, III, chih 1, ts'e 71, Wang Hsi-ch'i, comp. (Shanghai: Chu-i T'ang, 1894), p. 1b; Yang Pin, op. cit., footnote 3, p. la; and Liu Hsüan-min, “Ch'ing-tai Tung-san-sheng I-min yü K'ai-k'en [“The Colonization of the Three Eastern Provinces During the Ch'ing Period”], Shih-hsüeh Nien-pao [Historical Annual], Vol. 2, No. 5 (1938), p. 70. Yang Shu-sen?, [Qingdai Liutiaobian] (The Ch'ing Willow Palisade) (Liaoning Jen-min ch'u-pan-she, 1978?), p. 31 says the trench was only 8 ch'ih wide at the mouth, 8 ch'ih deep, and 5 ch'ih wide at the bottom.
  • 5 Inaba Iwakichi, Z[otilde]tei Manshũ Hattatsu Shi (A Revised History of Manchurian Development) (T[otilde]ky[otilde]: Nippon Hy[otilde]ronsha, 1935), pp. 323–24. A traveler in Liaohsi (western Fengt'ien) during the late Ch'ing told Inaba about a report which an official at Chang-wu-t'ai gate had shown him. The report, which was given to the Fengt'ien Military Governor, concerned repairs of Chang-wu-t'ai gate and the surrounding area:.
  • 6 This traveler also found out other information by talking to the gate official. The levee was 3 ch'ih high and 3 ch'ih wide. The trench was 5 ch'ih deep and 5 ch'ih wide so that together the trench and the levée were 8 ch'ih high and 8 ch'ih wide. The wall was in the middle of the levee. It was said that on the inside a 7 ch'ih wide and 4 ch'ih deep trench was dug, and on the outside an 8 ch'ih wide and 4 or 5 ch'ih deep trench was also excavated. Two willows were fastened horizontally to the trees or willow branches were woven together and fastened. The willow trees were spaced about 1 ch'ih 7 ts'un apart or roughly three trees every 5 ch'ih. Inaba was compelled to believe this report since there were only a few tree stumps left when he investigated part of the western section of the Palisade in 1907. The distances between the various segments of the Palisade from Chang-wu-t'ai to Pai-t'u-ch'ang given in the above report do not total to the figure of 162.5 li. Such inaccuracies are abundant in reports on the Willow Palisade.
  • 6 The reference to elms comes from Gibert, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 567. Henry Evan M. James, The Long White Mountain or A Journey in Manchuria (London: Longmans, Green, and Co. 1888), p. 6 refers to the Palisades: “They consisted of long lines of wooden chevaux-de-frise, in the shape of St. Andrew's crosses, and made it difficult for men, and especially for cavalry, to pass.” No Chinese references talk specifically about wooden stakes although the interpretation of the texts is open to speculation. James states that the Willow Palisade was constructed by the Ming dynasty and lists erroneous reasons for its construction: “to keep out Manchu and Tartar robbers.” I doubt the accuracy of James' remarks but since he wrote in 1888 and since Inaba (footnote 5) and Gibert (footnote 3) both indicate the use of stakes, it seems likely that stakes were erected late in the Ch'ing to replace the willow trees.
  • 7 Paul De Lapradelle, La frontière: étude de Droit international (Paris: Les Éditions internationales, 1928), pp. 14–15 among others suggested the zonality of frontiers prior to Lattimore. Guichonnet and Raffestin, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 16, point out that zonality, as opposed to linearity, was equally applicable to the Roman frontier.
  • 8 Lattimore, op. cit., footnote 3, pp. 3–4.
  • 9 Lattimore, op. cit., footnote 3, pp. 240, 480–83.
  • 10 Lattimore, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 547. Chilin is Chinese for the Manchu term Kirin. I use Kirin to refer to the Ch'ing province and Chilin to refer to the Chinese People's Republic's province. This is necessary since Ch'ing Kirin occupied what is now the eastern half of Chilin, eastern Heilungchiang and portions of the Soviet Union.
  • 11 Lattimore, op. cit., footnote 3, pp. 106–09. Lattimore's work leads me to believe that in the macro picture of China's inner Asian frontiers he views the Willow Palisade as an extension of the Great Wall and in the micro view of Tungpei the Palisade is a “reservoir wall” between the Tungpei “reservoir” in the south and the zones of the Manchus and Mongols to the north. Owen Lattimore, “Chinese Colonization in Manchuria,”Geographical Review, Vol. 22 (1932), pp. 180 82; and Norton S. Ginsburg, “Manchurian Railway Development,”Far Eastern Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 4 (1949), pp. 398 400 regard all of Tungpei as a frontier region. Robert H. G. Lee, The Manchurian Frontier in Ch'ing History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970) concentrates his study on the outer zone of Kirin and Heilungchiang. Lattimore, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 496 talks about a first marginal zone and a second marginal zone along the Great Wall frontier. Lattimore's comments are directed at the Inner Mongolian frontier, but with some modification this is the best way to view the Ch'ing Manchurian frontier. The Fengt'ien (Liaotung) region or what Lattimore calls “Lower Manchuria” and the “Chinese Pale” represents a zone where Han-Chinese intensive agriculture was practiced long before the Ch'ing, but during the first half of the Ch'ing was still a zone of frontier contact. North of the Palisade was yet another zone which was definitely a frontier zone during the second half of the Ch'ing dynasty.
  • 12 Chi Shih, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 113 describes the Palisade's shape as similar to the character jen.
  • 13 During the Republican period the Willow Palisade's extreme western portion served as the border between Jeho and Liaoning provinces. Today it is the border between Chaoyang Diqu (region) and Chinchou Diqu in Liaoning province.
  • 14 Chi Shih, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 112.
  • 15 Shengching T'ung-chih (Complete Gazeteer of Shengching), chüan 16, pp. 8b–10a; Ta Ch'ing Huitien Shih-li (Cases and Precedents of the Collected Statutes of the Great Ch'ing Dvnasty), (1908), chüan 1146, “Pa-ch'i Tu-t'ung, Ping-chih;” and Liu, op. cit., footnote 4, pp. 70, 73, and 106, note 55. According to the Pa-ch'i T'ung-chih Ch'u-chi (Complete Eight Banner Gazeteer, Initial Part), chüan 151. “Ming-ch'en Lieh-chüan 11,” p. 4b the 1679 expansion over 20 li of the portion connecting Ming-shuit-t'ang, Kaot'ai-pao, and Nien-p'an-kou gates was undertaken by the Fengt'ien Military Governor, An Chu-hu.
  • 16 I-hsien-chih (Gazeteer of I-hsien), chung-chüan 1, “Ti-yü-chih,”ts'e 3 (1931), p. 30b.
  • 17 Lattimore, Mongols of Manchuria, op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 45–46. Chi Shih, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 112; and Yang Shu-sen (pen name: Chi Shih), “Tsai-lun Liao-t'iao-pien ti Li-shih” (“A Further Discussion of the Willow Palisade's History”), [Jilin Shida Xucbao], No. 1 (1978), p. 44 gives a 1661 date for the completion of both the eastern and western sections, but his references are to gates on the western section. In [Qingdai Liutiaobian], op. cit., footnote 4, pp. 34–35, it is recorded that the portion of the eastern section from Feng-huang to Chien-ch'ang gates was constructed in 1638 in order to prevent Koreans from entering Fengti'en to gather ginseng. The majority of my data suggests the 1672 date for the eastern section (Table 1). Lee, op. cit., footnote 11, p. 4, notes that in 1653 Tungpei administration was split into two units, one administered from Shengching and the other from Ninguta. It is possible the timing of this split is related to the construction of the eastern section.
  • 18 Jean Baptiste Bourguignon D'Anville, Atlas général de la Chine, de la Tartarie Chinoise, et du Tibet (Paris: Dezauche, 1737?); and “Fengt'ien Fu Nan-fen Chiang-yü-t'u,” in the Ku-chin T'u-shu Chi-ch'eng (Compendium of Ancient and Modern Works), Chiang Yen-hsi, ed. (T'aipei: Wen-hsing Shu-chü, 1964 reprint), map no. 13, show the terminus of the eastern section near Fenghuangch'eng City. However, the “Fenghuang T'ing-t'u, Ch'in-ting Ta Ch'ing Huitien-t'u (Collected Statutes of the Great Ch'ing Dynasty: Maps), (1908), chüan 147; and A-kuei, comp., Shengching, Chilin, Heilungchiang Teng-ch'u Piao-chu Chan-chi Yü-t'u (An Annotated Atlas of Military Monuments in Shengching, Kirin, and Heilungchiang Provinces and Other Places) (Talien: Manshū Bunka Kyokai copy of a 1778 Chinese and Manchu bilingual edition, 1935) both have hills between the eastern section's terminus and the coast. As settlement increased in the area the Palisade could have been extended this 90-odd li from Fenghuangch'eng.
  • 19 Chia Ch'ing Ch'ung-hsiu I-t'ung-chih (A Comprehensive Imperial Geography of the Realm sponsored by the Chia Ch'ing Emperior) (Shanghai: Shang-wu (Commercial Press) copy of the Ch'ing-shih-kuan volumes, 1934), chüan 60, “Fengt'ien Fu 2,” p. 21b. The Shengching T'ung-chih, op. cit., footnote 15, chüan 16, p. 9b says the eastern and western sections were over 1800 li long.
  • 20 Chilin T'ung-chih (Complete Gazeteer of Kirin), chüan 15, “Yü-ti-chih 3, Chiang-yü-shang,” p. 3a; and the Chia Ch'ing Ch'ung-hsiu I-t'ung-chih, chüan 60, “Fengt'ien 2,” p. 21b; and Yang Pin, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 1b note that the name Lao-pien‘Old Border’ was used to refer to the eastern and western sections since in large part they followed the Ming Liaotung Wall. Most scholars adopt the view that the eastern and western sections were a single unit, with the northern section as a separate division. This idea comes from the Lao-pien and Hsin-pien distinction. Distinct administration of the gates in three groupings leads me to believe it best to divide the Palisade into three sections. Chi Shih, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 113 refers to the northern section as i-t'iao tan-pien‘a single palisade’ in contrast to the Lao-pien. Possibly he means there was only one levee or perhaps there was no ditch. See also [Qingdai Liutiaobian], op. cit., footnote 4, p. 40.
  • 21 Chia Ch'ing Ch'ung-hsiu I-t'ung-chih, op. cit., footnote 19, chüan 68, “Chilin 2, Kuan-yu,” p. 25b.
  • 23 Sa-ying-e, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 1b; and Lee, op. cit., footnote 11, p. 75.
  • 24 The Shengching T'ung-chih, op. cit., footnote 15, chüan 16, pp. 8b–10a and chüan 19, pp. 28b–32b lists twenty-one gates although the names in the two listings differ slightly. The Ch'in-ting Ta Ch'ing Hui-tien-t'u, op. cit., footnote 22, chüan 146, “Yü-ti 8, Shengching Ch'üan-t'u,” and chüan 148, “Yü-ti 10, Chilin sheng Ch'üan-t'u,” lists twenty-one; but according to Yang Pin, op. cit., footnote 3, p. la-b, the Shengching T'ung-chih notes twenty gates which he lists. After matching names, I found the difference revolves around Ch'ang-ling-shan gate of the western section. The Chia Ch'ing Ch'ung-hsiu I-t'ung-chih, op. cit., footnote 19, chüan 65, “Chinchou Fu 2, Kuan-ai,” p. 15a, says Ch'ang-ling-shan gate was eliminated in 1697. The Shengching T'ung-chih was written early in the K'ang Hsi reign while the Ta Ch'ing Hui-tien was first completed in 1690 and used sources written prior to 1686. The Ta Ch'ing Hui-tien did go through revisions, and either Ch'ang-ling-shan gate was eliminated from the data at that time or else was excluded because the government planned elimination of the gate before 1690. Ch'ang-ling-shan gate only appears on the “Shengching Yü-ti Ch'üan-t'u,” found in the Shengching T'ung-chih, “T'u,” p. 6a. Inaba, op. cit., footnote 5, pp. 325–26 says the gates were locally called men-shang or pien-shang and mentions a K'o-ang and a Shan-lao-ta gate. Ogoshi Hirataka, Manshū Ryok[otilde] Ki Ichimei Hakusan Bokusui Roku (A Diary of Manchurian Travels or Pai-shan Hei-shui Memoirs) (T[otilde]ky[otilde]: Zenrin Shoin, 1901), p. 112 also lists K'o-ang gate. No other source mentions these gates, and Inaba makes the mistake of considering Pan-la-shan and Pu-erh-t'u'-k'u as well as Pa-yen E-fo-lo and Fa-t'e-ha as separate gates which makes one doubt the credibility of his list. It is possible K'o-ang and Shan-lao-ta were added late in the Ch'ing or that K'o-ang and Ma-ch'ien-tsung-t'ai are the same gate. Chang Ch'i-yüm, chairman editorial board, Ch'ing-tai I-t'ung Ti-t'u [China's National Atlas of (the) Ch'ing Dynasty—First Edition, 1760] (T'aipei: Kuo-fang Yen-chiu-yüan & Chung-hua-ta-tien Pien-yin-hui, 1966), p. 103 map of “Fengt'ien Fu (Sheng-ching), Jeho Pila” indicates a spot just to the east of Fa-k'u gate along the Palisade which is called K'o-ang-ah. It is very close to the spot where Ma-ch'ien-tsung-t'ai gate appears on later maps. Yeh-mao-t'ai and T'u-k'ou-tzu gates were only found in [Qingdai Liutiaobian], op. cit., footnote 4, pp. 50–51.
  • 25 Shengching T'ung-chih, op. cit., footnote 15, chüan 16, p. 9a–b and chüan 19, p. 31a–b; and Chia Ch'ing Ch'ung-hsiu I-t'ung-chih, op. cit., footnote 19, chüan 65, “Chinchou Fu 2, Kuan-ai,” p. 15a–b.
  • 26 Sa-ying-e, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 1b explains the derivation of several gate names. Chang-wu-t'ai gate's alternate name, Yang-hsi-mu gate, appears in the Atlas of the Republic of China, Vol. 3, North China, ed. by Chang Ch'i-yün (Yangmingshan: The National War College, 1961), “Liaoning, Antung & Liaopeh—Topography,” p. D2 and indicates this gate was the entrance way to the Yanghsimu Pastures, land set aside under the Suruk Mongols for the Imperial family. Similarly Feng-huang gate was shown as Kao-li or ‘Korea’ gate which according to Sata K[otilde]jirō, Manshū Kyūseki Shi (A Gazeteer of Manchurian Ancient Ruins), Vol. 2 (Talien: Minami Manshū Tetsudō Kabushiki Kaisha, 1926), pp. 478–90 is a name used in this region since T'ang times, while Fenghuangch'eng City dates only from Ming times. According to Yang Pin, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 3b fa-k'u was a Chinese transliteration for ‘waterfall’ north of the Palisade; while [Qingdai Liutiaobian], op. cit., footnote 4, p. 51 says it is a transliteration from Manchu meaning ‘a dam to catch fish’; but Lattimore, Mongols of Manchuria, op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 203–04 notes that in Manchu fako means ‘wall’ or ‘barrier,’ according to Merse, and elderly Daghor he interviewed between 1929 and 1933. Sa-ying-e, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 1b explains that pu-erh-t'u-k'u might derive from ‘complete’ in Mongolian while su-pa-erh-han comes from the Manchu for ‘tower,’‘pagoda.’ There was a mountain with a pagoda on it south of the Pu-erh-t'u-k'u Su-pa-erh-han gate. The Ch';ien Lung Emperor issued an edict eliminating Su-pa-erh-han from the name. Ch'ing-ho, Ho-erh-su, and I-t'ung gates were named after rivers, ho-erh-su coming from the Manchu word meaning ‘a grass which grows in a salt flat by the sea.’ [Qingdai Liutiaobian], op. cit., footnote 4, pp. 48–49 says Pai-shih-tsui, Sung-ling-tzu, Chiu-kuan-t'ai, Ying-e, and Feng-huang gates were named after neighboring mountains. Fa-t'e-ha, a Chinese transliteration of the Manchu ‘hoof,’ has another name, Pa-yen E-fo-lo (Manchu-Payen Oforo), which means ‘rich promentory’ derived from a hillock 10 chang tall and wide west of the gate. This hillock was shaped like an elephant's hoof. The K'ang Hsi Emperor gave the gate this second name while staying 15 li north of the gate at Huangshan Tsuitzu in 1682, Liu, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 106, footnote 55 made the mistake of considering Fa-t'e-ha and Pa-yen E-fo-lo as two separate gates as did Inaba (footnote 24). Wei-yüan-pao and Ai-yang gates were named after Ming towns, but Hsing-ching gate was named for the nearby city, Hsingching, called Yenden in Manchu, hence the alternate Chinese named for this gate, Yin-teng. [Qingdai Liutiaobian], op. cit., footnote 4, p. 52 says the Aiyang gate's alternate name Ai-ho comes from the Manchu word meaning ‘porcelain.’ It is possible that Ma-ch'ien-tsung-t'ai gate is named after a ch'ien-tsung‘lieutenant’ whose surname was Ma. Lists of Manchu and Mongol place names, with Chinese transliterations can be found in the Chia Ch'ing Ch'ung-hsiu l-t'ung-chih, op. cit., footnote 19, chüan 67, “Chilin 1,” pp. 25b–29a; and Gibert, op. cit., footnote 3, pp. X-XII.
  • 27 Chi Shih, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 113 says that according to the Shengching T'ung-chih the road north from Wei-yüan-pao gate used by officials led to all major points in Kirin and Heilungchiang while the major points in Kirin and Heilungchiang while the major merchant road connecting Patuna with Heilungchiang passed through Fa-t'e-ha gate. Gibert, op cit., footnote 3, p. 954 notes that during Ming times the Chinese used to buy horses from the Jürched tribes at the location which later became Wei-yüan-pao gate. Wei-yüan-pao gate seems to have been the most important transit point along the Palisade. Sonoda Ikki, “Nankaijin no Manshũ Ryok[otilde] ni Taisuru K[otilde]satsu (2)” (An Investigation Pertaining to Verbiest's Travels in Manchuria, Part 2”), Man M[otilde], Vol. 12, No. 3 (1931), p. 44 has mapped the K'ang Hsi Emperor's second journey through Tungpei (1682 based on Verbiest and Kao-Shih-ch'i with the Emperor entering Kirin via Wei-yüan-pao gate.
  • 28 Wang Yü-ch'i, comp. and Li I-tu, rev., K'aiyüan Hsien-chih (Gazeteer of K'aiyüan Hsien), (1929), chüan 7, “Pien-fang-piao,” p. 45a–b says the Ying-e, Wei-yüan-pao, and possibly Ai-yang gates of the eastern section had adjutants (chang-ching) and captains (fang-yü). According to the Chia Ch'ing Ch'ung-hsiu l-t'ung-chih, op. cit., footnote 19, chüan 67, “Chilin 1,” p. 28a, chang-ching comes from the Manchu chanyin‘assistant.’ The adjutants were responsible to the Five Boards of the Shengching civil government while the captains were under the Shengching Military Governor. Other information in this passage from the K'aiyüan Hsien-chih is unreliable. It is possible that in some cases the captain and adjutant were the same person since Gibert, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 567 states, chang-ching was the particular rank of gate captains, or two different persons as the above passage implies. In the later case the captain may have been in charge of the gate and the adjutant in charge of the neighboring pien-t'ai‘fort.’ The Chia Ch'ing Ch'ung-hsiu-l-t'ung-chih, chüan 57, pp. 28b–29a only lists one captain (fang-yü) for each gate. The government clerks were called pi-t'ieh-shih or pang-shih in Chinese. William Frederick Mayers, The Chinese Government (Shanghai: Kelly & Walsh, Ltd., 1897), p. 20 states that pi-t'ieh-shih comes from the Manchu bitheshi which means ‘writer.’ The gate lieutenants were variously referred to in Chinese as po-shen-k'u, men-wei, or ch'ien-tsung, while corporals were called ling-sui and the troops, t'ai-ting or ping. A list of gate personnel for the eastern and western sections can be found in the Fengt'ien T'ung-chih (Gazeteer of Fengt'ien), (1934). chüan 171, “Chün-pei 4.” Sa-ying-e, p. 12a lists various ranks of pay in the Kirin government: the military governor received a total of 1,956 taels, a captain received 80 taels, a government clerk 21, 28, or 36 taels plus 11 to 15 piculs of rice, a corporal 24 taels, and troops probably 12 taels annually. Expenditures for the four northern section gates (4 captains @ 80 taels apiece, 4 government clerks @ 28 tales apiece, and 80 troops @ 12 taels apiece) would have been 1392 taels annually (excluding rice supplements). The total annual budget for Kirin military personnel was 316, 700 taels, which means that gate personnel expenditure accounted for 0.44 percent of the early Ch'ing Kirin military personnel budget.
  • 29 Inaba, op. cit., footnote 5, p. 326. [Qingdai Liutiaobian], op. cit., footnote 4, p. 55 quotes a statement which says Wei-yüan-pao gate had two small rooms on either side of the gate, one for prisoners. Most likely these prisoners were people who were caught trying to smuggle goods past the gate.
  • 30 Liu, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 77 says each government clerk, corporal and other officer received 50 shang (land measure) and each gate trooper received 16 shang from a total of 63,430 mou (land measure) of t'ai chan ting-ti‘land alloted to guards’. Sa-ying-e, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 18b says that bannermen lands (ch'i-ti) around the four gates of the northern section amounted to 26,652 shang.
  • 31 Shengching T'ung-chih, op. cit., footnote 15, chüan 16, p. 9b; and Sa-ying-e, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 6a. Sa-ying-e's reference to twenty-seven pien-t'ai may have been for the northern section only.
  • 32 Lattimore, Mongols of Manchuria, op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 225–27 discusses the Sibe or Sibege‘Gate’ Mongols who were assigned gate duty on the Willow Palisade. The Chinese term, Hsi-po, and other similar transliterations referred to these people. Many such groups were considered “New Manchus” after the Ch'ing conquest of China Proper. See Lattimore, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 135.
  • 33 I-hsien-chih, op. cit., footnote 16, chung-chüan 1, “Ti-yü-chih,” p. 30b.
  • 34 Gibert, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 567.
  • 35 The city military commandants were known in Chinese as ch'eng-shou-wei or ch'eng-fang-shou-wei.
  • 36 Shengching T'ung-chih, op. cit., footnote 15, chüan 16, pp. 8b–10a. In Peking there were six Boards, but Shengching had only five, corresponding to the Boards of Revenue, Ceremonies, War (Ping-pu), Punishments, and Works. The secretaries were known as ssu-kuan.
  • 37 Ch'ing-ch'ao Wen-hsien T'ung-k'ao (Literary Encyclopedia of the Ch'ing Dynasty), chüan 182, ping 4, p. 6426.
  • 38 The I-hsien-chih, op. cit., footnote 16, chung-chüan 1, “Ti-yü-chih,” p. 30b gives us an insight into the administration of patrols along the Palisade. The 129 li portion of the western section between Sung-ling-tzu gate and a point 19 li east of Chiu-kuan-t'ai gate was under an adjutant and his garrison (chufang) who most likely were stationed in a local pien-t'ai. The 148 li segment immediately to the east of the above portion, starting 65 li west of Ch'ing-ho gate and ending at Pai-t'u-ch'ang gate, was similarly administered. According to the Shengching T'ung-chih, op. cit., footnote 15, chüan 29, p. 12a; and the I-hsien-chih, chung-chüan 2, “chien-chih-chih,” p. 26b in 1732 a Sub-prefect of the Palisade (Kuan-pien T'ung-chih) was established at Chiu-kuan-t'ai gate.
  • 39 Shou, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 23b.
  • 40 Li Hsien, comp., Ta Ming I-t'ung-chih (Complete Gazeteer of the Great Ming Dynasty), (1461 edition), chüan 25, p. 37a, “Ku-chi,”“Ku-ch'ang-ch'eng.” The recent discovery of the ruins of the “Second Great Wall” in Liaoning province promises to produce a vast amount of information regarding the early walls of Tungpei.
  • 41 Gibert, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 569; Shou, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 24a–b; and Chang Wei-hua, “Ming Liaotung Pien-ch'iang Chien-chih Yen-ko-k'ao” [“A History of the Liao Tung Frontier Walls of (the) Ming Dynasty”], Shih-hsüeh Nien-pao [Historical Annual], Vol. 2, No. 1 (1934), p. 267. Historical atlases such as Albert Herrmann, An Historical Atlas of China, Norton Ginsburg, ed. (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1966), pp. 8–53; and Shih-ti Chiaoyü Ch'u-pan-she, ed., Pen-kuo Li-shih-ti-li Chiao-k'o-t'u (A Chinese Historical Geography Atlas) (T'aipei: Shih-ti Chiao-yü Ch'u-pan-she, 1967) conflict as to location and time walls were built in Tungpei. For our purposes it is sufficient to note that wall building occurred although not at the exact location of the Willow Palisade.
  • 42 K'aiyüan Hsien-chih, op. cit., footnote 28, chüan 2, “Ku-chi,” p. 50a says the portion of the Ming wall in K'aiyüan Hsien was constructed during the Cheng Te reign (1506–1522). The 1442 date comes from Inaba Iwakichi, “Mindai Ryōtō no Henshō” (“The Ming Liaotung Wall”), Manshū Rekishi Chiri, Vol. 2, No. 7 (1913), p. 463. See also Chang Wei-hua, op. cit., footnote 41, p. 268; and [Qingdai Liutiaobian], op. cit., footnote 4, p. 32–33.
  • 43 Ch'üan Liao-chih (Complete Gazeteer of Liaoning), (1565 ed.) in Li Fu et al. rev., Liao-hai Ts'ungshu (I-wen Yin-shu-kuan), chün 2, “Pien-fang-chih,” p. 25a.
  • 44 Discussion of the repairs and extensions of the Ming Liaotung Wall can be found in Chang Wei-hua, op. cit., footnote 41, pp. 267–73; and Inaba, op. cit., footnote 42, pp. 463–546. The wall used stone, wood, tile, and existing ridges and mountains in various portions.
  • 45 Chang Wei-hua, op. cit., footnote 41, p. 271.
  • 46 Shou, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 25a gives the 1466 date. In Fang K'ung-chao, comp., Ch'üan-pien Lüehchi (Notes on the Border) (1930 ed.), chüan 10, p. 26a, Hsiung T'ing-pi says that Han Pin pacified (ting) the old boundary (chich) in the Aiyang area. Chang Wei-hua, op. cit., footnote 41, pp. 270–71 assumes that this means that Han Pin reconstructed the wall. In any case, according to Chang T'ing-yü, comp., Ming Shih (Ming History) in Ssu-pu-pei-yao, chüan 186, “Chang Nai Chüan,” p. 16a, it was repaired (hsiu) by chang Nai prior to 1502. In 1574, a hsin-chieh‘new boundary’ was built by Chang Hsüeh-yen and Li Ch'eng-liang which was actually to the east of the Willow Palisade's Ai-yang and Feng-huang gates, according to the Ch'üan-pien Lüeh-chi, chüan 10, p. 26a.
  • 47 Ch'ing T'ai-tsung, Ta Ch'ing T'ai Tsung Wen Huang-ti Shih-lu (The Veritable Records of Ch'ing T'ai Tsung), chüan 41, “Ch'ung Te 3, fourth month, hsin-ch'ou,” pp. 15b-16a.
  • 48 Lattimore, op. cit., footnote 3, pp. 103–15.
  • 49 Kawakubo Teir[otilde], “Shin matsu ni okeru Kichirin sh[otilde] Seihokubu no Kaihatsu” [“Exploitation of (the) North-western Part of Kichirinsho (Kirin province) in the End of (the) Ch'ing Dynasty”], [Rekishigaku kenkyu; The Journal of the Historical Science Society], Vol. 5, No. 2 (1935), p. 148 cited ginseng, lumbering, hunting in the Imperial Hunting Reserves and entry of Han-Chinese and Mongols into Kirin as more important reasons for constructing the Willow Palisade. Li Chi, Manchuria in History: A Summary (Peip'ing: Peking Union Bookstore, 1932), pp. 37–39 listed ginseng, geomancy, and racial purity as the reasons for restricting settlement in Tungpei. Inaba, op. cit., footnote 5, pp. 326–34 gives restriction of Han-Chinese, ginseng, and protection of the Imperial Hunting Reserves as reasons for the construction of the Palisade.
  • 50 Chi Shih, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 116 from the Shengching T'ung-chih. Inaba, op. cit., footnote 5, p. 335 says that the Manchu homeland was 1,500 li east of Hsingching and that the custom of sacrificing at the Ch'ang-pai Shan Range was the K'ang Hsi Emperor's compromise since it was closer to Peking and well under Manchu control.
  • 51 K'o-yen, T'u-shu, “Tungpei San-pao Chin-shenghsi: Fang Chilin sheng T'e-ch'an Yen-chiu-so” (“Today the Three Treasures of Tungpei are Superior to the Past: A Visit to the Special Products Research Institute of Chilin Province”), Dili Zhishi, No. 1 (1978), p. 12, locates the region where the majority of wild ginseng grew as lying between 400 and 480 north latitude and 1200 to 1340 east longitude. The plant takes at least six years before it is suitable as medicine.
  • 52 Yang Pin, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 8a. A more detailed discussion of ginseng's history and uses can be found in: F. Porter Smith, revised by G. A. Stuart, Chinese Materia Medica (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1911), under Panax ginseng and P. repens. According to Stuart, by late Ch'ing, Shangtang ginseng was called sha-shen and was not the true ginseng variety known in Chinese as jen-shen (see also Adenophora). For more information see K'ung Ch'ing-lai, Chih-wu-hsüeh Ta-tzu-tien [Botanical Nomenclature: A Complete Dictionary of Botanical Terms] (Shanghai: Shang-wu Yin-shu-kuan, 1926), p. 15; and Andrew C. Kimmens, Tales of the Ginseng (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1975).
  • 53 Li Chi, op. cit., footnote 49, p. 38 says that the Manchu conqueror, Nurhachi, started his career as a ginseng trader in Fushun, and this tradition in part encouraged the establishment of a monopoly.
  • 54 Liu, op. cit., footnote 4, pp. 69–70 says there were three Imperial Hunting Reserves northeast of Wei-yüan-pao gate: 1) Yü-wei for the emperor, 2) Wang-tuo-lo-su-wei for the Nei-wu Fu, and 3) Hsienwei for the bannermen to practice archery and hunting. Mayers. op. cit., footnote 28, p. 98; and Gibert, op. cit., footnote 3, pp. 952–53 mention a separate Imperial Hunting Reserve in Jeho called the Mu-lan Reserve, which was done away with in 1863. The Shengching Imperial Hunting Reserves had their own guards. Liu, pp. 89–92 says the northern portion of the reserves in Kirin were opened for settlement during the T'ung Chih reign (1862–1875) prior to those portions closest to the Willow Palisade in Fengt'ien. The Talingho Pastures which were south of the Willow Palisade had a separate embankment built around them to keep out settlers. Chi Shih, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 116 cites the Ta Ch'ing I-t'ung-chih (Complete Gazeteer of the Great Ch'ing Dynasty), chüan 573 which gives the dimensions of the Shengching Imperial Hunting Reserves as: north to south over 480 li, southeast to northwest over 510 li, and southwest from Ying-e gate to the northeast over 520 li. For further information on the Imperial Hunting Reserves see [Qingdai Liutiaobian], op. cit., footnote 4, pp. 58–60.
  • 55 The Yanghsimu Pastures were offered to the K'ang Hsi Emperor by Mongol princes of the Khorchin Banners in 1692. From east to west they extended 150 li and from north to south 250 li. Gibert, op. cit., footnote 3, pp. 963–64 says they were eliminated in 1902.
  • 56 The ancestral locus of the Korean people is thought to be centered in the region around Ch'ang-ch'un in Chilin province.
  • 57 Shou, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 25b. The Tung-pien-wai-ti‘Land outside the Eastern Palisade’ was also called the Tung-pien-wai-k'ai-k'en-ti‘Settlement land outside the eastern Palisade’ and the Tung-pien-wai-sheng-k'o-ti‘Registered land outside the Eastern Palisade’.
  • 58 Liu, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 89.
  • 59 Jean Baptiste du Halde, Description de l'Empire de la Chine et de la Tartarie Chinoise…, Tome 4 (Paris: P.-G. Le Mercier, 1735), p. 422.
  • 60 Hae-jong Chun, “Sino-Korean Tributary Relations in the Ch'ing Period,” in John King Fairbank, ed., The Chinese World Order (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 91.
  • 61 Inaba, op. cit., footnote 5, pp. 318, 333–34 emphasizes the role of the northern section as a divider between Mongols and Manchus and stresses the importance of the western section as a divider of Han and Mongol lands in the area around Hsin-t'ai and Fa-k'u gates.
  • 62 The poor military capabilities of the Willow Palisade can be seen in the following quote from Du Halde, op. cit., footnote 59 (English translation), (London: Printed by T. Gardner for Edward Cave, 1741), p. 236: “It is enclosed only by a wooden Palisade, seven or eight Foot high, and more fit to mark its Bounds, and keep out petty Robbers than to oppose an Army: The Gates are no better, and guarded only by a few soldiers.” The I-hsien-chih, op. cit., footnote 16, chung-chüan 1, “Ti-yü-chih,” p. 30b states that the gates of the Ming Liaotung Wall, like those of the Great Wall, were called kuan‘passes'. This is a hint that the Ming Liaotung Wall was considered a continuation of the Great Wall.
  • 63 The terms “North Manchuria” and “South Manchuria” were vitalized by the Japanese and Russians after their division of Tungpei into two spheres following the Russo-Nipponese War of 1905. The Japanese-owned and operated South Manchuria Railroad, and the Russian (after 1918, Soviet-Chinese)-owned and operated Chinese Eastern Railroad systems met at Ch'angch'un just north of the Willow Palisade's remains. Indeed, the Japanese sphere corresponded to the old Fengt'ien Pale along with the predominantly Korean Chientao (Korean-‘Kando’) and West Chientao (the old Tung-pien-wai-ti) districts, while areas north of the Palisade were under Russian economic tutelage.
  • 64 Chang Shang-hsien, op. cit., footnote 3, pp. 7b–8a.
  • 65 I. Aritaka, “Manshū ni okeru Keiki no Tonkon ni Tsuite” [“The Kei-ki's (Manchu Peking Bannermen's) encampment and cultivation in Manchuria”], [The Shichō: Journal of History], Vol. 4, No. 3 (1934), p. 19 stressed the idea that many Han-Chinese ran off when the Manchus took over Liaotung (Fengt'ien).
  • 66 The Shengching T'ung-chih, op. cit., footnote 15, chüan 16, p. 9a; and Liu, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 70 note that Fa-k'u gate had already been established in 1662 to check illegal crossings.
  • 67 Liu, op. cit., footnote 4, pp. 72–73 gives examples and location of famine areas within these provinces. See also Kawakub[otilde], op. cit., footnote 49, p. 158.
  • 68 Yüeh Keng-yen, comp., Li T'ien-chih, rev., Jung-ch'eng Hsien-chih (Gazeteer of Jungch'eng Hsien), (1840), chüan 3, “Shih-hou, Hu-k'ou,” p. 2a–b. Kawakubo, op. cit., footnote 49, pp. 158–59 cites a similar example from Ichou.
  • 69 Ta Ch'ing Hui-tien Shih-li, op. cit., footnote 15, chüan 158, “Hu-pu, Hu-k'ou liu-yü-i-ti.”
  • 70 Ta Ch'ing Hui-tien Shih-li, op. cit., footnote 15, chüan 158, “Hu-pu, Hu-k'ou liu-yü-i-ti.” Many such edicts were issued.
  • 71 Ta Ch'ing Hui-tien Shih-li, op. cit., footnote 15, chüan 158, “Hu-pu, Hu-k'ou liu-yü-i-ti,” Ch'ien Lung 26 edict.
  • 72 Liu, op. cit., footnote 4, pp. 74, 108, footnote 100.
  • 73 Ta Ch'ing Hui-tien Shih-li, op. cit., footnote 15, chüan 1119, “Pa-ch'i tu-t'ung 9, T'ien-chai.”
  • 74 Du Halde, op. cit., footnote 62 (English translation), p. 244.
  • 81 Lattimore, Mongols of Manchuria, op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 74–75.
  • 82 The adminstrative units eliminated were Yüngchi chou (Chilin City), T'aining hsien (Ninguta- 1726–36), and Ch'angning hsien (Patuna-est. 1726).
  • 83 Sai-chung-a, “Chih-kuan-chih, San-kuo-ch'ao,”Chilin T'ung-chih, op. cit., footnote 20, chüan 60 in 1810 urged for the reestablishment of civil rule in Patuna for Han-Chinese.
  • 84 Liu, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 75 lists one such edict issued in 1776.
  • 85 Liu, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 94 says they were under the officials in K'aiyüan and Lattimore, Mongols of Manchuria, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 202 says the colonists were under officials in T'iehling.
  • 86 Kawakubo, op. cit., footnote 49, p. 171. According to the Ta Ch'ing Hui-tien Shih-li, op. cit., footnote 15, chüan 158, “Liu-yü-i-ti,” in 1800, an area of 230 by 180 li in the Gorlos Front Banner was opened for Han settlement, while chüan 978, “Chi-ch'a Chung-timin-jen,” says in 1806 a sector of 100 by 45 li of the Khorchin Left Wing Rear Banner was opened. Liu, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 94 says that settlement was so intense that the Khorchin Left Wing Rear Banner was closed again in 1812. However chüan 979, “Kengchung-ti-mou,” of the Ta Ch'ing Hui-tien Shih-li says a 120 by 52 li portion of the Banner was opened in 1812. Lattimore, Mongols of Manchuria, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 203 mentions an order to set up a barrier similar to the Willow Palisade in 1832 to separate Han-Chinese from Mongols within this Banner.
  • 87 The T'ung Chih Tung-hua-lu (Record of East China), chüan 80, p. 42b says the area from south of Feng-huang gate to north of Hsing-ching gate had 96,000 shang of cultivated land and over 10,000 settlers by 1868. Chüan, 88, p. 25b says that in 1869 the area northeast of Feng-huang and Ai-yang gates had over 140,000 mou of cultivated land.
  • 88 Ch'ing-ch'ao Hsü Wen-hsien T'ung-k'ao (A Literary Encyclopedia of the Ch'ing Dynasty- Supplement), chüan 208, “Ping 7, k'ao 9561.”
  • 89 James, op. cit., footnote 6, p. 6.
  • 90 Nagayama Takeshirō, Shūýū Nikki (A Journey Around the World), kan 2 ([Sapporo]: Hokkaidō Tondenhei Honbu, 1889), pp. 237–38.
  • 91 Alexander Hosie, Manchuria: Its People, Resources and Recent History (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1904), pp. 172 and 17. In the quote from page 17, Hosie is referring to the western, northern, and eastern sections when he says “both palisades.”
  • 92 Ogoshi, op. cit., footnote 25, pp. 112–13.
  • 93 Inaba, op. cit., footnote 5, pp. 324–26.
  • 94 Chi Shih, op. cit., footnote 3, pp. 113 and 115 takes an example from a work cited in his footnote simply as Liu-t'iao-pien Chien-chih Tiao-ch'a Chi-shih‘A Factual Record of the Investigation of the Willow Palisade's Construction,’ a text which I have not yet seen, although it will soon be published in Peking: “All horse-drawn vehicles which passed through the gate had to pay taxes: those going out paid 200 wen, those coming in paid even more. Even corpses and people on their way to burial who passed through the gate had to pay.”
  • 95 K'aiyüan Hsien-chih, op. cit., footnote 28, chüan 2, “Ku-chi,” p. 50a. The ninth year of the Republic was 1920.
  • 96 Hyakuman bun ichi Manshūkoku Yochizu (A 1:1,000,000 Map of Manchoukuo) (Dai Nippon Teikoku Rikuchi Sokury[otilde]bu, 1925 survey).
  • 97 Gibert, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 570.
  • 98 R. Welch, C. W. Pannell, and C. P. Lo, “Land Use in Northeast China: A View from Landsat-I,”Map Supplement No. 19, Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 65 (1975) shows the Willow Palisade. Although Pannell told me that there was a clear image, the decision that the image was the Willow Palisade was based on a process of elimination. In the [Zhong-hua-ren-min-gong-he-guo Feng-sheng Di-tu-ji] (A Provincial Atlas of the People's Republic of China) (Peking: Di-tu Chu-ban-she, 1974), pp. 25–26 and 29–30 the Great Wall is still indicated. [Qingdai Liutiaobian], op. cit., footnote 4, p. 34 notes that in the area around Ch'ing-ho gate the remains of the Willow Palisade are most obvious today since the Palisade made use of the old Ming Liaotung Wall in this particular portion, and pp. 106–07 states that the area southeast of Wei-yüan-pao gate also has very visible remains.
  • 99 Today railroad lines and major roads pass through the towns located at Chiu-kuan-t'ai, Ch'ing-ho, Ma-ch'ien-tsung-t'ai, Ying-e, and Feng-huang gates. A light railway used to run through Wei-yüan-pao, but now only a road runs by that gate. Pai-shih-tsui, Fa-k'u, Hsing-ching, Chien-ch'ang, Ai-yang, Ho-erh-su, and I-t'ung gates are located near major roads. The “Manshū Kikō” (“Manchurian Travel Diary”), (manuscript held by Hokkaidō University Library, 1877) says that major roads from Inner Mongolia passed through Chang-wu-t'ai and Fa-k'u gates to Hsinmin which meant goods went into China Proper or to Yingk'ou harbor without having to pass through Shenyang.
  • 100 Zayavlente Lravitestvo S.S.S.R. (Statement of the U.S.S.R Government), Pravda, 14 June, 1969, pp. 1–2. Translation from The Current Digest of the Soviet Press, Vol. 21, No. 24 (1969), p. 10.
  • 101 Chi Shih, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 110; and Yang Shu-sen, op. cit., footnote 17, pp. 41–48.
  • 102 Chi Shih, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 113. According to Yoshida Kinichi, “Shin no Ryūjūhenshū ni Tsuite, Merihofu setsu Hihan” [“On the Liu-t'iao-pien-ch'iang (willow palisade) of the Ch'ing Dynasty”], [The Toyo Gakuho], Vol. 59, Nos. 1,2 (1977), p. 22, note 4, the book Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Russko-kitajskie otnosheniia v XVII veke (Seventeenth Century Russo-Chinese Relations), Vol. 1 (Moskva: 1969, p. 11 gives the date 1678 for completion of the Palisade. See also Yang Shu-sen, op. cit., footnote 17, pp. 44–45.
  • 103 Chi Shih, op. cit., footnote 3, pp. 110, 112. The statements are from S. L. Tikhvinsky (“A Discussion of the History of the Formation of the Russo-Chinese Border”), Mezhdynarodnaia Zhizn,' No. 6 (1972) which I have not seen.
  • 104 Chi Shih, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 112; and Yang Shu-sen, op. cit., footnote 17, p. 48.
  • 105 Ch'ing Kao-tsung, from the K'aiyüan Hsien-chih, op. cit., footnote 28, chüan 12, p. 1b.
  • 106 Chi P'ing, “Ch'ing ju-kuan-ch'ien Tuf Tungpei ti T'ung-i” (“The Ch'ing Government's Unification of Tungpei before the Conquest of China Proper”), [Lishi Yanjiu], No. 2 (1975, p. 115 says the Ming established garrisons among the Jürched tribes north of the Liaotung Wall. Such control as there was must have been weak and limited compared to Ch'ing control beyond the Palisade. Murata Jir[otilde], Manshū no Shiseki (Historical Relicts of Manchuria) (T[otilde]ky[otilde]: Zaiyūhū Kankokai, 1944), p. 119 clearly expresses the opinion that the Ming wall was a national border for the Han-Chinese but the Willow Palisade was a special internal boundary of the Ch'ing empire. [Qingdai Liutiaobian], op. cit., footnote 4, p. 4 says that Ming control extended far beyond the Liaotung Wall.
  • 107 Yoshida, op. cit., footnote 102, pp. 1–25. In his notes Yoshida lists these books: N. Iakinf Bichurian, Statisticheskoe opisanie Kitajskoj imperii (A Statistical Account of Imperial China) (Saint Petersburg, 1842), Ch. 2, pp. 27–28; Akademiia Nauk SSSR, op. cit., footnote 103; and G. V. Melikhov, Man'chzhury na Severo-vostoke (XVII v.) (The Manchurians of Tungpei in the Seventeenth Century) (Moskva: Nauk, 1975).
  • 108 Yoshida, op. cit., footnote 102, pp. 14–15; Melikhov, op. cit., footnote 107, pp. 114–18; Shengching T'ung-chih, op. cit., footnote 15 (1684 ed.), “Shengching Yü-ti Ch'üan-t'u;” and Du Halde, op. cit., footnote 59, p. 64. Yoshida traces Melikhov's mistaken date of 1726 for completion of the northern section to Bichurin, op. cit., footnote 107, pp. 27–28.
  • 109 Kawakubo, op. cit., footnote 49, p. 148 uses the expression hassho no chi; and Liu, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 101 uses the same expression in Chinese, fa-hsiang-chi-ti' ‘the cradle,’ or ‘the birthplace’ to describe the relationship between the Manchus and Shengching. The term “sacred” was used by Dugald Christie, “Manchuria Half a Century Ago and To-day,”The Scottish Geographical Magazine, Vol. 464 (1930), p. 196.Chinese primary documents include the following expressions” (Man-chou) ken-pen ti-fang and ken-pen-chung-ti‘the land of [the Manchu's] roots,’lung-hsing-chih-ti‘the land [from which the Imperial] dragon arose’ from the Ta Ch'ing Kao Tsung Ch'un Huang-ti Sheng-shun (The Sacred Edicts of the Great Ch'ing Emperor Kao Tsung), (Kuang Hsü edition), chüan 264, “Hou-feng-su 4,”“Ch'ien Lung 42, Tingch'ou, 6th month, I-mou, and 12th month Ting-ssu p. 9a; and wo-ch'ao hsing-lung-chih-ti‘the land from which our dynasty flourished’ from Shu Ho-te, “Pach'i K'ai-k'en Pien-ti Shu” (“A Discussion of the Settlement of the Eight Banners in Border Lands”), Huang-ch'ao Ching-shih-wen-pien, op. cit., footnote 3, chüan 35, pp. 9b–10a. For a discussion of socioreligious space in traditional urban China see Paul Wheatley, Pivot of the Four Quarters (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1971), pp. 411–36.
  • 110 Cohen, op. cit., footnote 2, p. 54.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.