The Limits of Tartary: Manchuria in Imperial and National Geographies Author(s): Mark C. Elliott Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 59, No. 3 (Aug., 2000), pp. 603-646 Published by: Association for Asian Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2658945 . Accessed: 17/08/2012 10:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. 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].

.

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

http://www.jstor.org The Limitsof Tartary: Manchuriain Imperialand National Geographies MARK C. ELLIOTT

THIS ESSAY EXAMINES THE TRANSFORMATION fromundifferentiated frontier to geographic region of that part of northeastAsia controversiallyreferred to as Manchuria.This transition-fromspace to place, as it were-long has tendedto be seen primarilyin termsof the extensionof colonial interestsinto China in the nineteenthand twentiethcenturies. However, as I shall argue,the inventionof this place began much earlier,in the seventeenthcentury, and owed substantiallyto the effortsof China's Manchu rulers,who claimedit as theirhomeland, the terre natale of the Qing dynasty(1644-1912). Even as the area was joined to the largerempire, Qing emperorstook care to investwhat I defineas "GreaterMukden" witha unique identity.This earlyprocess of geographic imagination was intimatelybound up with the emperors'wish to emphasizethe distinctivenessof the Manchu people vis-a-vis the Han Chineseas well as with theirdesire clearly to demarcatethe extentof the territoryunder Qing control.The secondproject relied on technologiesimported by Jesuitmissionaries; the firstmore on ritual,administrative, and literarystrategies. The combinationproved more effective than we are accustomedto thinking:By the 1830s "Manchuria"had emergedinto view on theworld's maps, gradually displacing an older and moreelusive toponym, "Tartary." Seventy years later, it had come into use as a place nameon Chinesemaps, too. Even today,though the use of "Manchuria" is gauche in some circles,the regioncontinues to enjoy a special regionalidentity thatowes considerablyto its Qing-and colonial-legacies.

Mark C. Elliott is AssociateProfessor of Historyat the Universityof California,Santa Barbaraand VisitingAssociate Professor of InnerAsian Studiesat HarvardUniversity (2000- 2001). This paperwas firstpresented at the Conferenceon Spatial Identitiesin Asia, held at the Universityof Colorado,Boulder, in June 1999; portionsof a revisedpaper weregiven subse- quentlyat seminarsat TokyoUniversity of Foreign Studies and theCenter for Chinese Studies, Universityof California,Berkeley. The authorwould like to extendthanks to all participants, in particularRuth Mostern,Nancy Park, and Marcia Yonemoto,for helpful suggestions for revision.I have benefitedsignificantly also fromcomments of the anonymous reviewers for The Journalof Asian Studies.I would also like to acknowledgethe encouragementgiven me by RichardSmith in an earlierattempt to deal withsome of the themesdiscussed here. Research supportfor the completionof this article has been generouslyprovided by a postdoctoral fellowshipfrom the Japan Societyfor the Promotionof Science and by Nihon University, Tokyo. TheJournalofAsian Studies 59, no. 3 (August2000):603-646. C) 2000 by the Associationfor Asian Studies,Inc.

603 604 MARK C. ELLIOTT

The discussionbelow proceedsfrom an initialconsideration of the difficultiesof using Manchuriaas a place name (whichI adopt here,but whichsome readersmay findquestionable) to a reviewof fourdifferent approaches taken by the Qing court towardthe Manchu homeland. The firstapproach centers on ritualizedimperial visits to ancestraltombs in theregion, as well as a 1677 expeditionto theChangbai ("Long White") Mountains,the birthplaceof the mythicalforebear of the Manchus,which laterbecame the object of statesacrifices. Second, in its literaryaspect, I take up the descriptionof Manchuriain a 1743 poem by the Qianlong emperor(r. 1736-1795), theOde to Mukden. Heavily annotated to elucidateits manyhistorical and geographical allusions, this work was perhaps the most complete expressionof Manchurian regionalitythe court ever endorsed. Administrative status is a thirdangle from which I evaluatethe imperialimagination of the region.Because of immigrationcontrols and differencesin its governmentframework, Manchuria remained relatively isolated fromthe restof China until the earlytwentieth century, circumstances that abetted thegrowth of an identitydistinct from the rest of China. The fourthand finalapproach to the creationof Manchuria I discussis the cartographic.This refersto the mapping of the Manchu homeland that took place in the early 1700s and the important influencethis project had upon bothlocal and global consciousness,in particularwith respectto the emergenceof "Manchuria"as a place name in world geography.The aim of this analysisis to addressthree basic concerns:Why was this area invested with a separateidentity and made into a distinctregion? How was this investiture carriedout? How successfulwas thisproject in the end? In additionto placingthe transitionfrom "Tartary" to "Manchuria"in historical context,the inquiryhere also seeksto framethe imaginationof the regionin a larger comparativecontext that considers more broadly the importanceof geography, place, and space in the formationof nationalismand identitygenerally. If we grantthat the sourceof contemporaryChina's spatialself-perception lies in the transformationthat occurredunder the aegis of the Qing imperialenterprise, what can the riseof a place called Manchuria-which by the 1930s ran directlycontrary to the dictates of nationalism-tell us about the political use of geography/iesin Asia? What is the relationbetween the spatial identityof the Qing and thatof modernChina? These are some of the questionsraised in the conclusion.

"NortheastChina" or "Manchuria"?

The frontierregion whence the Manchus came at firstlacked an all-encompassing toponym,and was knownfor most of the imperialperiod only by the namesof the varioustribes who inhabitedit. The southernzone east of theLiao Riverwas familiar enough that it early acquired its own Chinese name, Liaodong(sometimes also Glandong),but therewas no overarchinglabel, no largerconcept of "place" in this cornerof the realm.' In theManchu language, too, areas were at firstidentified mainly

'Withoutgoing into thevarious debates over the differencebetween "space" and "place," to distinguishthem in the reader'smind it may be worthwhilejust to note some of the characteristicscommonly associated with each, viz., space as global, universal,objective; place as local, particular,subjective. While some see place in dialecticopposition to space, others see it as the dailypractice of space; in all cases,as in thispaper, space and place areunderstood as mediated,historically inflected processes. This is a vast literature;Merrifield 1993 is one point of entry. THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 605 accordingto the people who lived there,e.g., yehe-iba, "the Yehe land/s,"j'usen-i ba, "Jurchenland/s," monggo-i ba, "Mongol land/s"(Elliott 1996). Afterthe conquest, however,the Manchus reorganized the administration of their natal territory, dividing it intothree zones: Shengjing/Mukden (created 1646), Jilin/GirinUla (created1653), and Heilongjiang/SahaliyanUla (created1683) (Figure 1).2 Heavily garrisonedand mostlyoff limits to Han Chinese-access was controlledby a pass systemand inspectionsat gates along the Willow Palisade (Ch liutiaobian3),which surrounded the perimeterof the Mukdendistrict-these were in effectmilitary districts, so that controlover the region,as in Mongolia and, later,Xinjiang, was maintainedby militarymen of the Eight Banners.4The largestgarrison was at the cityof Mukden (Ming Shenyang),where the Manchusmade theircapital in 1625.5 Together,the three districts of Mukden, Jilin, and Heilongjiangconstituted what eventuallybecame known in mostworld languages as "Manchuria"(Uapanese Manshii; German Mandschurei;French Mandchourie; Russian Man'chzhuriia),the interstitial region betweenChina, Russia, and Korea.6Yet the word Manju neveracquired a geographicalsense in Manchu, nor did Manzhou(the Chinesepronunciation of the charactersread Manshflin Japanese)gain acceptanceas an orthodoxplace name in Chinese.This raisessome fundamental concerns about who exactlyimagined this place into existence,and when and why theydid so, concernsthat are at the heartof this essay. "Manchuria"is withoutquestion a troublesometoponym. Though it continues to be widelyused by cartographerstoday-appearing in the 1992 TimesAtlas ofthe World,the 1993 Rand McNally New InternationalWorld Atlas, the 1996 National

2TheJilin garrison general was firstposted to Ningguta; in 1676, the positionwas relo- cated to Jilin,and the area was afterwardreferred to by thisname. The Heilongjianggarrison generalwas firststationed at Aihui, latermoving to Mergen(1690) and thenQiqihaer/Cicigar (1699). The boundariesof the modern provinces of Liaoning,Jilin, and Heilongjiangprovinces, createdin 1907, correspondonly roughlyto the Qing districtsof Shengjing,Jilin, and Hei- longjiang. 3Whereoriginal terms are introduced,the abbreviations"Ch" (forChinese) and "Ma" (for Manchu) are providedwhen the contextdemands. When both Chineseand Manchu termsare given,the firstterm is the Chinese. 4Beginningin the earlyseventeenth century, the "banner"(qi/gWsa) was the basic unit of militaryand social organizationin Manchu society.The systemwas preservedafter 1644 to maintaina separationbetween the conqueringpeople and the conquered.Thus bannerpeople were requiredto live separatelyfrom the Han Chineseeither in Beijing or in garrisoncities (a numberof which were in Manchuria),and theirspecial statuswas heightenedby a wide arrayof economic,social, and legal privileges. 5The new name derivedfrom the Manchu word mukdembi,meaning "to arise," a sense reflectedin its pairedChinese name, Shengjing, "rising capital." Mukden was also knownas Fengtianfu, and Fengtian(Ma Abkai imiyangga,more commonlyFungtiyan) also referredto the southernManchuria region generally. After the fallof the dynasty,the citywas knownas Fengtianuntil the namewas changedback to the olderShenyang, which is how it is currently known.For moreon names,see Lee 1971, 59. 6Morestrictly: the area borderedon the southby the GreatWall and the Bohai Gulf,on the southeastby Korea, on the east by the ChangbaiMountains and the PacificOcean, on the northby Siberia,and on the westby theLesser and GreaterXing'an (Khinggan)Mountains- thoughthe western border was sometimesextended to includeeastern Inner Mongolia and the areaof northern Zhili aroundRehe (Jehol).While theAmur forms the present northern border of HeilongjiangProvince, for most of the Qing the northernborder with Siberia was hundreds of kilometersfurther north. The Qing also claimed the entirecoastal region,including Sa- khalin.Large swaths of thisterritory were lost to the Russianempire in the treatiesof thelate nineteenthcentury. 606 MARK C. ELLIOTT

.__ - .,7k7;r 1~~r

r. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ " 4-J cN

CN

2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C II> ,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:I THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 607

GeographicAtlas ofthe World, and the 2000 Bertelsmann'sWorld Atlas-in recentyears scholarshave come to use it with caution,if at all. One reasonis that "Manchuria" calls up unpleasantassociations with Russian and, especially,Japanese imperialist designs on the Asian mainland, representedmost notoriouslyby the 1932 establishmentof the Japanese puppet state of "Manchukuo"(lit., "Manchu-country," Manzhouguoin Chinese, Manshi7kokuin Japanese; technically this became Mansh;iteikokuafter the elevationof the formerQing emperor,Puyi, fromChief Executive to Emperorin 1934). Using the name "Manchuria" is thus not only inaccurate,but implies a sanctionof odious colonial projects."The EasternThree Provinces"(Ch Dongsansheng),"Northeast China," or simply"the Northeast"(Ch Dongbei)are thereforethe preferredterms, and among Chinesescholars are the only acceptablereferences (Hosoya 1990, 105).7 Anotherreason for the taboo, as just noted, is that Manzhou,the Chinese equivalentof "Manchuria,"is acknowledgedto functionsolely as an ethnonym,not as a toponym.That is to say,Manzhou in Chinesemeans "Manchu," the name adopted in 1635 forthe diverseJurchen tribes grouped under Hong Taiji (1592-1643). It does not mean and nevermeant "Manchuria,"or so it is frequentlyasserted. Even Inaba Iwakichi,a staunchadvocate of an independentManchuria, insisted on this point (Inaba 1935, 546). For theirpart, postwar Japanese scholars have maintained thehistorical unjustifiability of using Manshfi as a place name(although it stillappears in popularwritings in Japan). For example,as Nakami Tatsuo writes,"Originally, Manzhouwas the name of the Manchu people or of theirstate; it was not the name of a region. In fact,neither Manchus nor Han Chinese have ever called China's Northeast'Manzhou.' " Nakami, along with most otherhistorians in Japan,China, and the West, scrupulouslyrefers to Manchuriaas "the Northeast"-though,as he pointsout, even this nomenclatureis not freeof baggage (Nakami 1998, 61). There is no denyingits colonialpast or the tragiclosses and sufferingconnected with disputesover who would rule this territoryand its people. Furthermore,there certainlycan be no questionthat external forces have been crucialin the formationof the region,since the 1689 Treatyof Nerchinsk(in Latin, Manchu, and Russian), which firstoccasioned the physicaldelimitation of a commonborder between the Qing and Romanov empires,must be regardedas an earlylandmark. But careful investigationraises serious doubts as to whether"Manchuria" is purelythe product of the colonial imaginationand whetherthe word Manzhou never acquired a toponymicalmeaning in Chinese.For thesereasons, and partlyalso forconvenience, I have electedto use the termManchuria in this essaywithout quotation marks- unproblematically,as it were-except as I intend to emphasizeits terminological status.The skepticalreader is invitedto followthe reconsiderationof the originsof Manchuria,both as a place and as a place name,in thesepages.

The Ritualized Homeland

Recentscholarship makes it plain thatgroup constructs such as theethnos or the nation rely upon particularnotions of place and space in their development.A common homeland(or the memoryof one) is frequentlyobserved as part of the

7In Chinese,it is rareto findManzhouguo mentioned as such; even in scholarlyliterature todayit is almostinvariably preceded by the characterwei, meaning "false, phony." 608 MARK C. ELLIOTT repertoireof elementsinvoked by groupsin affectingethnicity, and the mappingof national territoryis one way that modern states have been seen to consolidate themselvesas "imaginedcommunities" (Smith 1993; Anderson1991; Winichakul 1994). This generalpattern appears to hold amongthe Manchus, whose sense of who theywere was verymuch wrappedup in theirsense of wherethey had come from. Indeed,the very first lines of the Manchu Veritable Records-an account of the mythical originsof the Manchus and theexploits of the Qing founder,Nurhaci (1559-1626)- is a referenceto geography:

The ChangbaiMountains are two hundred 1i in heightand one thousand 1i around. On thetop of the mountains is a smalllake called the Tamun, which is eighty1i in circumference.From these mountains flow three rivers, the Yalu, the Sungari [Hantung],and the Aihu. [... .I The originsof the Manchu nation [Ma gurun]began on theeastern side of the Changbai Mountains, from Lake Bulhuri on Mount Bukuri. (Manzhoushilu, 1-2)

This descriptionis accompaniedby a drawingof the mountains,with Tamun Lake nearthe summitand the threerivers flowing out frombetween the mountainpeaks (Figure2). The storygoes on to relatethe miraculousstory of the conceptionby the shoresof Lake Bulhuriof BukuriYongvson, the firstprogenitor of the imperialAisin Gioro lineage,and as such the ancestorof all Manchus.Of course,as is well known, the accountin theManchu Veritable Records was theproduct of the eighteenth-century court.But it was based upon earlyseventeenth-century records, extensive fragments ofwhich have come down to us, and whenone examinesthese materials, the Changbai Mountainsare there,too.8 It is plain, then, that the link between identityand geographywas not solelythe product of laterimaginations, but was presentfrom the beginningof the Qing imperialenterprise. Moreover, the common chords struck with otherInner Asian originmyths-among theMongols, one immediatelythinks of the miraculousconception of the ancestralline of Cinggis Qayan and its originsat the sacredpeak ofBurqan Qaldun-suggest thatthe link was one generallyshared in the Altaic world(Cleaves 1982, ?1, 5, 21). The inseparabilityof Manchu identityand Manchu place was reinforcedin importantways once the Manchustook over China. Especiallysince most Manchus leftManchuria to fightin the campaignsof the conquest,later taking up residence in Beijing or in one ofthe provincial garrisons, the court found it necessaryto remind itselfand its people of theirgeographic roots, lest fadingmemories give way to the idea that the Manchusactually lived in China, and did not merelyoccupy it. One means by whichthe courtdid thiswas by incorporatingMukden and the Changbai Mountainsinto courtritual. This processbegan in 1671 whenthe eighteen-year-old Kangxi emperorreturned to Mukden to pay respectsto the Qing founders,whose mausolea on the city's outskirtshad just been completed(Shengzu shilu 36: 17a). Kangxi's was the firstvisit back to Manchuriaby any emperorsince the conquest, and the firstof three"Eastern Tours" (Ch dongxun)he would make in his long reign

8The VeritableRecords for the reignof Nurhaci (called Taizu Wu huangdishilu) provided the blueprintfor the laterManzhou shilu. The Wu huangdishilu was revisedduring the reign of the Shunzhiemperor (r. 1644-1661). The beginningpassage there,quoted in part above, containslanguage identicalto that in the Manzhoushilu. Furthermore, this passage, as Mat- sumuraJun has shown,was borrowedfrom an earliertext written in the secondhalf of 1635. Thus we can confidentlystate that this legend,including the openinggeographical setting, dates frombefore the Qing conquest.See Matsumura1997. THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 609

(the secondvisit came in 1682, the thirdin 1698). The Qianlong emperor(grandson ofKangxi) continuedthis tradition, visiting Mukden in 1743, 1754, 1778, and 1783, even bringinghis motheralong on the firsttwo visits. His successor,the Jiaqing emperor,went in 1805, and Jiaqing'ssuccessor, the Daoguang emperor,made what would be the last imperialvisit in 1829 (Ma 1997). Comparedto thetours to Jiangnan, the Eastern Tours were excursions on a modest scale. The emperortypically stayed in the palace in Mukden forseven to ten days while he carriedout variousactivities there and aroundthe city. There were banquets forlocal Manchu officialsand Mongol chieftainsto cementthe bonds betweenthe Qing courtand its representativesand allies; formalinspections of troops, equipment, and horsesat Mukden and otherpoints along the way; presentationsof giftsand amnestiesfor the local people; and archerycontests and hunting wheneverthe opportunitypresented itself (a large hunting reservewas maintained north of Mukden). But most importantwas the sacrificialactivity at the tombsand temples of the Manchuriancapital. Sacrificesto ancestorswere part of Manchu shamanic tradition,and involvedrites, prayers, objects, animals, and foodsvery different from those used in Chinese rituals.Preparations were elaborate.Once the sacrificeswere done (theytook the betterpart of fivedays), the emperorwould sometimescontinue travelingfarther north. In 1671, forinstance, after quitting Mukden the emperor spentseventeen days touring northern Shengjing and southwestJilin districts before returningto Beijing via Mukden(Shengzu shilu 37: 23a; 38: 3a). That Mukdenwas notalways the final destination suggests that the Eastern Tours were not necessarilyjust exercisesin filiality,even thoughthey were presented that way (Shengzushilu 35: 3a-b; 36: 21a). Additionalsightseeing served to satisfythe curiosityof the emperor and his entourageabout theManchu homeland. In thespring of 1682, on his secondtour, the Kangxi emperorwent with the ten-year-oldcrown princeto Mukdento give thanksat the tombsof Nurhaci and Hong Taiji forvictory over the rebel Wu Sangui.9Once this act of militaryritual was accomplished,the emperor,according to the diaryof an officialwho was partof the group,"wished to see moreof the frontier(Ch bianjiang),to explorethe land and personallyinspect the difficult[circumstancesJ ofhis ancestors'beginnings" (Gao 1986 [16841, 105). In his own letterto his grandmother,the emperorwrote that he wished to "admirethe [place wherethe] ancestorslay theirglorious foundation" (Shengzu shilu 101: 15b). The partythus ventured another 350 kilometersfurther north before reaching Girin Ula, on the SungariRiver, stopping, naturally, to huntalong the way (theybagged thirty-seventigers). The emperorwas much movedby the landscapehe encountered and lefta numberof poems,among them theselines about the Sungari,which the Chinesecall the Songhua:

"Boatingon theSungari" (Songhuaiiangfangchuan ge) Pureis thewater of the Songhua; Its springwaves, born of the evening rain, Mountinginto glittering whitecaps of folded brocade. The colorfulfishhawk-emblazoned sailsfollow the breeze, The musicof Shun in accompaniment,singing down the middle channel, Linedon bothsides by verdant slopes and emerald cliffs.

90n this visit, see the account in Gao 1986 [1684]. Verbiest,who accompaniedthe imperialretinue, also made a briefreference to these events.See Verbiest1854. The prayer offeredat Nurhaci'stomb is foundin Shengzushilu 101:16a-17a. 610 MARK C. ELLIOTT

...... | E

*.S ,u - A| -| -| |

Figure2. Changbaishan.This illustration,reproduced from the first page of the ManchuVeritable Records, accompanies the explanationof Manchuorigins in the ChangbaiMountains. Note the fivepeaks surroundingTamun Lake, fromwhich issue the region's threemain rivers. THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 611

..~~.....

~ 4

...... F... 2. Continued CllP9 612 MARK C. ELLIOTT

How brilliantlyfloat the clouds below the dazzling sun; Coursingswiftly downstream, we startlethe water-dragons, Our mastsand vessels densely moored by the riverside gates. Downto a man,our lion-hearted soldiers are peerless, Crimsoncords dangling from pennants mirrored in thewater; But I havecome to surveythe land, not to reviewthe troops. Pureis thewater of the Songhua; Its wavesbillowing and roiling, Deep andclear they pass into the far distant clouds and mist. (Li 1994, 183)

In additionto sightseeing,two immediateitems of business brought the emperor to Jilin.One was to inspectthe new shipbuildingworks erected as partof the planned offensiveagainst Russia. The otherwas to honorthe Changbai Mountains.As soon as he reachedGirin Ula in earlyMay, the emperorled his partyto the northbank of the river,where, before the Changbai range200 miles to the south,all performeda completeseries of threekneelings and nineprostrations. Later, after entering the city, the emperordedicated the followingwords to the mountains: "A DistantOffering to theChangbai Mountains" (Wangsi Changbaishan shi) Famedmountain, surpassingly excellent, you are the true source of the two rivers, Ceruleanmists encompassing the heavens, carmine clouds embracing the earth. Whenceeternal rises the augur of fortune, we reverewith one generation's rites; Craningour heads toward the sky, your towering majesty overawes the imperial gates. (Li 1994, 181)1o

The emperor'sinterest in theChangbai Mountains was notnew. Five years earlier, in 1677, he had instituteda ritualsacrifice to the mountains.This was a secondway, apartfrom ritual visits to Mukden,in whichthe geographyof theManchu homeland gained symboliccurrency. The sacrificebegan afteran expeditionwas sent to the Changbai Mountains, the Manchu ancestral birthplace,and returnedwith a descriptionof its exactlocation, heretofore unknown. A teamof four,led by imperial clansmanGioro Umuna, leftBeijing June 4 and arrivedJune 22 at GirinUla. While there,Umuna recruitedthe help of a colonel at the garrisonwho had grownup in the shadowof the mountains.A small partythen left Girin Ula on July1, sailingup the Sungarifor over a week,when theyleft the riverand began a five-dayoverland trek.On July16 theyarrived at the footof the Changbaishan: We cameacross a roundclearing surrounded by densewoods, where there was a meadowbut no trees, and a streamin front. [. .. I Whenwe walked out of the woods, themountains were shrouded in fogand clouds and we couldnot see anything. We kneltdown before the mountain and chanteda prayer.The momentwe weredone, thefog cleared and theChangbai Mountains leapt up vividlybefore us. We were thunderstruck.We continuedclimbing the path that led upwardbefore us. [... .I In

'OAdifferent poem by thesame nameis recordedin Gao 1986 [16841, 110): "Your sacred precinctsare majesticand sublime,/ More beautifulthan the WaterSpirit's palace. /Sacrifices outside the cloud pavilion,/ Spirit-moneyrising and fallingwithin. / Ceaselesslyyour black watersflow, / You meet the distantocean air. / We preparethe fengshan in yourhonor, / Making offeringsas we pay our respects."The fengshansacrifice was the most importantle- gitimizingrite the emperorcould perform,as it symbolizedhis receptionof the Mandate of Heaven. THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 613

thedistance were the massive shapes of the peaks. On closerinspection, their form was veryround, and everythingshone bright white from the ice and snow.The mountainsare aboutone hundred1i highand thereis a lake on top,surrounded closelyby five peaks. The wateris greenand extraordinarily pure, the waves playing on thesurface.

This could only be the Tamun Lake describedin the ManchuVeritable Records! On theirway back theyreported an unusualoccurrence when they startled a flockof deer on the mountain.Most ran away, but seven of the deer fell to the ground,"as if someonehad pushedthem over," and rolleddown the hill rightwhere the group was standing.Thinking that this was a giftfrom the spirit of the mountain (Ch shanling)- theywere hungryand theirnumber was originallyseven-they shot all sevendeer: "We acceptedthe deerand bowed to the mountainagain. ... .1 Aftertaking twenty- threesteps further down, we turnedto look back and saw only clouds and fog once more.[. .. We neversaw the mountainsagain" (Yang 1993 [17071, 11-12). Umuna's accountgreatly impressed the emperor,who observedthat "thereare manymiracles in this venerableplace of providentialorigin," and decreedthat the spiritof the Changbai Mountainsshould be given a ritualtitle and that sacrifices shouldbe made to it "markthe dynasty's flourishing as a giftfrom the gods" (Hummel 1943-44, 625; Shengzushilu 69: 3a-b). Shortlythereafter the Board of Rites responded by recommendingthe institution of semiannual sacrifices to thespirit of the mountain. The emperorapproved this proposal,adding the significantstipulation that they shouldbe carriedout accordingto the same protocolused in the sacrificesto the Five SacredPeaks (Ch wuyue)in China proper(Yang 1993 [17071, 11; Shengzushilu 70: 8a; 71: 10b; Liu 1998).11 The emperor'ssatisfaction that the Manchus'legendary place of originhad been establishedwas well justified,for corroboration of the storyof BukuriYong'son and the rise of the Aisin Gioro clan lent the Qing court-always anxiousabout how it was perceivedby theHan Chinese-greaterauthenticity and prestige.In fact,it seems that the expedition'ssuccess caused the emperorto refinesomewhat his ideas about the relationshipbetween Mukden and the ChangbaiMountains. On his firstvisit to Mukden (1671), Kangxi referredto it using the stock phrase, "the momentous ancestralbirthplace" (Ch zuzongfaxiang zhongdi) (Shengzu shilu 36: 22b). But on his secondvisit to the tombs,he characterizedMukden as the "momentousland where thenation was established"(Ch guojiazhaoji zhongdi) (Shengzu shilu 10 1: 2 la). It would seem that zuzongfaxiang zhongdiwas reservedfor the Changbai Mountains after 1677-the expressionis used in the edict commandingUmuna to explore the Changbaishan(Yang 1993 [17071, 10)-and was applied whenthe emperorwent to GirinUla and sacrificedthere in 1682,12 along with anotherterm, "the place where thedragon arose" (Ch longxingzhi di) (Kangxiqijuzhu, 831). The shiftmay be explained by the Kangxi emperor'srecognition that, as theplace whereheaven had inaugurated

"The "Five SacredPeaks" are usuallyTaishan, Huashan, Hengshan, Songshan, and (with a differentcharacter) Hengshan. "China proper"refers to the coreareas of Chinesecivilization as distinctfrom the borderregions. On some Chinese maps, one sees this conceptualization reflectedin the termZhongguo benbu; the correspondingJapanese term, Chflgoku hondo, is quite similar. '2Shengzushi/u 101: 25a. In 1698, he referredto Shengjingin slightlydifferent terms again, calling it "the place where generationsof ancestorsfounded [the Qing]" (Ch liezu chuanxingzhi di) (Shengzushilu 190: 20a). On this point, see also the interpretationin Liu 1998, 38. My thanksto Ms. Liu forsharing her work with me. 614 MARK C. ELLIOTT the Aisin Gioro lineage, the Changbai Mountains rankedabove Mukden in the hierarchyof Manchu origins. The elevationof theChangbaishan to thesame standing as the Five Sacred Peaks (which had strongassociations with Chinese emperorsof antiquity)and the institutionof the fengshansacrifice was at once a gambit to underscoreQing legitimacyand a means of groundingthe identityof the imperial lineage to a specificplace, which,however remote, the courtcould claim had been surveyed. More thanthe identityof the imperiallineage was at stakehere. Because in the Altaic world "all membersof the tribe,including the common people, were, by tradition,considered descendants of a single ancestor"(Fletcher 1986, 16), the ancestorof the Aisin Gioro was theancestor to whomall Manchustraced their descent. This idea was unequivocallystated by the Yongzhengemperor, Kangxi's successor, in 1728: "The Manchus are all the descendantsof the August ancestorsTaizu [Nurhacil,Taizong [Hong Taijil, Shizu [the Shunzhi emperorl,and Shengzu [the Kangxi emperorl"(Shangyu baqi, Yongzheng6: 2a-b). In otherwords, every Manchu sharedthe same origin,folded into the noble mythof the originsof the Qing ruling house,and everyManchu shared the same homeland,the ChangbaiMountains. That this was primarilyan elite notion cannot be denied, and it is doubtful whetherordinary Manchus, especially if theyserved in garrisonsin the provincesor in the farwestern frontier, thought very much about the "Long White Mountains." Yet thecourt's efforts to fostera regionalidentity focused on theChangbai Mountains did notgo entirelyunrewarded. For one thing,the mountains became a tropeof later Manchu poetry,figuring in the titlesof at least fourdifferent collections published between1723 and ca. 1908. Some criticseven speak of a "ChangbaiSchool," referring to the large numberof essaysand poems on nostalgic,nature-related Manchurian themes(e.g., the ChangbaiMountains, the SungariRiver, hunting, ginseng) written duringthe Qing, muchof which was pennedby bannermanauthors, such as Cao Yin and Singde (Guan 1997). This literaryproduction testifies to the enduringplace of the mountainsand the importanceof the Manchurianlandscape in the collective imagination.Indeed, the Changbai Mountainsthemselves gradually came to be a symbol of Manchu identity.Whereas Manchus commonlyidentified themselves accordingto theirbanner affiliation, as theyears passed, a growingnumber of Manchu literatichose instead to prefixtheir signature with the two characterschangbai.13 Thoughfew, if any, of them had everbeen there,they were nonetheless moved in this way to pay tributeto the supremesite of ancestralmemory.

I Sing ofMukden

The symbolicconnection established in the seventeenthcentury between the ChangbaiMountains and theMukden tombs provided the foundation for the regional identityof what we might call "Greater Mukden." By the Kangxi emperor's definition,this extendedwell beyondthe area underthe jurisdictionof the Mukden garrisongeneral to encompass"the land outsideShanhaiguan Pass as faras Ningguta and otherplaces" (Shengzushilu 101: 21a) (moreon this is said in the sectionbelow

"3Thispractice was remarkedon even in the Qing. See Chen 1984 [18801, 95. A curious postscriptto this use of the expression"Changbai" is thatone of the fivetime zones declared in the firstyears of the Republic of China, applyingto the northeasternmostreaches of Man- churia,was called "Changbai time" (Changbaishijian). THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 615 on cartography).Moreover, Kangxi's use of ritualand poetryto establishthe Greater Mukden as a mnemonicsite of Manchu identityset precedentsthat his successors, notablythe Qianlong emperor,would follow.In 1743, afterhis inauguralpilgrimage to the Manchu homeland,Qianlong decided that a merepoem was not enough:he would writean ode (Ch fu),in the classic Chinesetradition of the "Capital Odes," collectedin the fifth-centuryWen xuan (Knechtges1982-1986). The resultwas the monumentalOde to Mukden(Shengjing fu/Mukden-i fujurun bithe), once described grandioselyas "one ofthe most involved and extravagantevents in theannals of world publishing"(Et6 1956, 235). Five yearsafter the initialpublication of the bilingual oeuvre,the emperorordered a jubilee printingin both Chineseand Manchu using thirty-twodecorative styles, including fonts that carriedfish-head, bird-head, and phoenix-featherserifs, fonts that were all rightangles, fonts that were no angles,and so on. Some of the Chinesestyles in the 1748 editionwere genuine pre-Qin forms, but the Manchustyles had to be invented.It is doubtfulthat anyone could haveread them;they must have been intendedfor collectors only. The Ode to Mukdenis an overflowingpaean to the majestyof GreaterMukden. Where the Kangxi emperorhad raisedthe ChangbaiMountains to paritywith such reveredsummits as Taishan,so the Qianlong emperortook to speakingof Mukden, "the place whereour nation'sfoundation began" (2b/67:9)'4 in the same breathas Bin and Qi, the homelandof the foundersof the Zhou dynastythirty-three centuries earlier.Apart fromemphasizing the region's historicalsignificance, the emperor referredalso to itsritual importance: "Mukden," he rhapsodized,"is themost excellent place underheaven:" As is proper,I admirefrom afar the imposingtombs at Yongling,Fuling, and Zhaoling.But unableto approachin personto performthe sacrifices, how should I be able to demonstratemy true reverence to latergenerations? Hence ... I setout fromBeijing. Arriving at theplace we formerlymade our capital, I beheldthe traces ofthe ancestors, and was overcome with filial thoughts. On thisoccasion, I observed all theriches [of the landl: the firm strength of the mountains and rivers, the virtuous simplicityof the people and all theirpossessions, the excellent fertility ofthe grains and fields.Thus have I seenwhat is trulya countryblessed by heaven, in itssum a placewhere khans arose. (3b-5a/68:10-69:7)

Though it was the tombsthat originally prompted his visit,the emperormakes clear herethat he was just as impressedby the veryland and its people,which, in his eyes, surpassedthose of otherplaces. The point forus is not thathe was biased (thatgoes withoutsaying), but thathe choseto link thevitality of the dynastywith the vitality of the place, Mukden. In invokingthe name "Mukden,"it appearsthat the emperorhad morein mind thanjust the space withinthe walls of the old Manchucapital. His poem is a tribute to the entireregion-to GreaterMukden-whose craggedpeaks, wild forests,and fertileplains wereunbelievably dense with life.The poem gives long lists of native animals("tigers, leopards, bears, black bears, wild horses,wild asses,deer [four kindsl, wolves,wild camels,foxes, badgers . . . ") (20b-22a/76:1-3), birds("pheasant, grouse, geese,ducks, herons, storks, cranes, pelicans, swallows, woodpeckers . . . ") (22b-25a/ 76: 6-10), plants ("reeds [five kindsj, thatch, water scallion, safflower,

'4Citationsare to Qing Gaozong 1743; secondcitation is to page:linefrom the text (minus annotations)reproduced in Klaproth1828, whichis morewidely available. 616 MARK C. ELLIOTT knotweed ... ginseng ... iris... ") (25b-27a/77: 4-9), and trees("ten-thousand- yearcypress ... the lightgreen maple ... the cedar,which makes springlast eight thousand years. .. the enduring oak") (27a-28a/78:1-4). The list of fish and mollusksgoes on fortwenty lines. The profuseconcentration of such vitality brought heaven and earthtogether "like a forge"to make GreaterMukden a "harmonious place," whichwas thengiven to the GreatQing gurun"forever" (31b-32a/80: 5-7). The praisesof GreaterMukden's natural wonders are furthersung in passageson the sky,stars, and clouds,its fieldsand rivers,its herdsof finehorses, and its grains and vegetables; its industriousand thriftyinhabitants are credited with the perspicacioushusbanding of this land of plenty.Near the end of the poem, the languagebecomes even morefulsome:

MajesticMukden was founded along the north bank of the Shen waters. Its mountains arehigh and its rivers broad. It is fixedas a universalmodel, a mostwondrous place, greatas a tigeror a dragon.[. . .. Establishedon a grandscale, it promulgatesthe ruleof great kings. [. . .I The shiningLong White Mountains, embraced on oneside bythe sea, attest to this.Such a propitiouslocation will last forever, generation after generation.It surpassesand humbles all [other]places and has united [lands] within and [lands]without. (65b-67b/95:6-96:5)

As this passage makes plain, the emperorsaw GreaterMukden as a true "place," a specialregion where the land, water, and air-indeed, thewhole of nature-combined to forma distinctiveenvironment. In the Ode, then, we are dealing with a true chorographyand not a meregeography. It is significantthat for the Qianlongemperor, Mukden's foremost qualities were its unusualethereal characteristics, originating in the ChangbaiMountains. Standing at lastbefore the tombs of his grandfathers,he wroteof "reflecting upon themarvelous humors(Ma ferguwecukesukdun) and admiringthe displayof virtue"(8b/ 70:9-10) at the site. The sourceof these"marvelous humors"?

In thebeginning, our GreatQing dynastyarose from origins in theLong White Mountains.Marvelous humors there gathered-it was a most resplendentand auspicious[place]. (12a/72:6-8)

The emperorthen quickly recounted the mythof BukturiYongs'on and the progress of the earlyManchus in consolidatingpower until, in 1625, the "risinghumors" amassed and the city of Mukden was settled(14a-b/73:5-6). The connectionhere with the ChangbaiMountains was fundamental.The belief-upheld by locals until the earlytwentieth century-was thata "dragonvein" (Ch longmai)ran betweenthe Changbaishanand the imperialtombs at Mukden,along whichwas transmittedthe animatingforce (Ch longqi)that had broughtthe Qing dynastyto power.'5 One is remindedhere not onlyof the powerof geomanticbeliefs, but also of the environmentaldeterminism of the twelfth-centuryphilosopher Chen Liang, who believedthat the essenceof the Han people dependedupon theunique "humors"(Ch qi) ofthe Central Plain, which he fearedwould be dispersedafter their long occupation by alien conquerors(Tillman 1979). Similarly,the Qianlong emperorsaw in the superiorenvironment of GreaterMukden, above all its sukdun(translated above as

'5Enatsu1994, 107-10. THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 617

"humors,"but also understoodto mean "atmosphere,""ether," "airs"), the sourceof Manchu greatnessand imperialsuperiority over lesserpeoples. This was surelyhis meaning when he wrote of Mukden's having "united tlandsl within and tlandsl without"-that the Manchus,on the basis of theirancestral association with such an exaltedplace, had unifiedthe realm.His point was simpleenough: Mukden was an imperialplace and had producedan imperialpeople. The ironyhere, of course,is that by 1743 acculturationwas alreadymaking inroadson the "ancientvirtues" of the Manchu conquerors. Many bannermen had lost the abilityto speak the Manchu languageor even to shootproperly, and the frugal ways of the conquestgeneration had long since been forsakenfor the pleasuresof China's urbancenters. The publicationof the Odeought thereforebe seen as part of theQianlong emperor's larger scheme to rekindleManchu ethnic pride and encourage the preservationof putativelytraditional customs, a programwhich mostlyfailed (Crossley1987; Elliottforthcoming). His pleas to uphold "theold Manchuway" (Ma Manjusaife doro) falling on deafears, one can easilyimagine that as theOde was being disseminatedto Manchusaround the country,the emperorwas thinkingto himself, Now if onlythe people would provethemselves worthy of the place!'6

Manchuria forthe Manchus

The Qianlong emperor'sliterary vision furtherpromoted the idea of a Manchu homelandat a time when Manchu identitywas in crisis.But even as he wrotethe Ode,the emperorwas painfullyaware that his belovedMukden was, demographically speaking,slipping fromhis grasp. Qianlong hence went even furtherto explicitly associateManchu identityand Manchu space by espousingthe idea not only that Manchuriawas differentfrom Chinese territory,but that it should be reservedfor Manchus.He thereforeimposed for the firsttime a legal ban on Han settlementin the Manchu homeland. These notionsseem to have long been in the air: In 1679, the Kangxi emperor wrote to the Mukden garrisongeneral that, "Mukden and associatedplaces are incommensurablewith lands in the interiorti.e., Chinal. [They arel Manchuplaces, and Manchu soldiershave dwelt ttherel"(Gongzhongdang Kangxichao zouzhe 8: 27).17 That Manchuriawas a Manchu place was implicitalso in the policy(effective until 1756) requiringthe bodiesof bannermenwho died "abroad"-that is, in theChinese provinces-to be repatriatedto Beijing,while permitting the local burialof Manchus who died on duty in Mukden, Jilin, and Heilongjiang (Elliott forthcoming). Qianlong's administrativeapproach to the creationof a Manchu geographywas likewiseinchoate in earlierpolicies. Han emigrationto the Northeastwas actually officiallypermitted only in the veryearly Qing, notablybetween 1653 and 1668, whenthe "Regulationson Recruitmentand Cultivationin Liaodong"were in force.'8

16Significantlythe 1743 editionI have consultedis stampedwith the seal of the library of the Beiping No. 1 Middle School. Renamedin the 1910s, thiswas originallythe school for membersof the imperiallineage, which, like othereducational institutions, held thepoem in its collection. 17Edict to Anjuhulof KX18.9.18 (22 October 1679). The originalreads: "mukden-ijergi babe.dorgi bade duibuleci ojorakgz. manju-I ba manjucooha tehebi." '8During this time, Han settlementin the area near Liaoyangwas encouragedto com- pensatefor the depopulationthat occurredduring the conquest.The regulationswere sus- pended underthe Oboi Regencyand neverrevived (Inaba 1935, 305-9; Diao and Yi 1994, 7-10). 618 MARK C. ELLIOTT

Afterthat time, Han Chineserequired special permissionfrom the Board of War to enter the area-unless, of course,they were being sent into exile, in which case permissioncame fromthe Board of Punishments,or the emperorpersonally. In fact,however, many thousands of Chinesemoved illegitimately to the region, the gates and checkpointsalong the Willow Palisade unable to check the influxof peasantshungry for fertile land. Much of this land was nominallyin the hands of bannerpeople, but as fewseem to have had much interestin farmingit, theywere happyto sell it forshort-term gain. By earlyin the Qianlong reignthe numbersof emigrantsgrew so large,and thealienation of banner land so intense,that the emperor was movedto act. In 1740 came a decreeforbidding further Han emigrationbeyond Shanhaiguan,a ban that remainedin effectuntil the implementationof an entirely new set ofpolicies for the Northeastin the earlytwentieth century. The closing(Ch feng/in)of Manchuria-the ban includedJilin and Heilongjiang, too,which the emperor also consideredto be "theManchus' roots" (Diao 1995b, 181- 82)-owed partlyto practicalconsiderations, including the desireto assertcontrol over agriculturalproduction by protectingimperial estates and limitingginseng poaching.But politicalconsiderations were not absent.Robert H. G. Lee conjectured that,"The emperorsmight have reasoned that only in theManchurian frontier region, wherethe Manchu and tribalpopulation outnumbered greatly the Chinese population in the beginningof the dynasty,could the traditionand spiritof Manchu culture remainunsullied by contactswith the Chinese"(Lee 1971, 183). This indeedseems to havebeen the case. The wordingof the emperor's edict makes the point in a slightly differentway: As Shengjingis theManchus' place of origin (Ch Manzhougenben zhi di), [matters] concerningit areextremely important. [. . .I It mustnaturally be keptorderly, and groupsof peasants living here and there is not[a situation]to be tolerated.The fruits ofthe land should all be madeto revertto thosein thebanners. (Gaozongshilu115: 17b-18b)

The concernhere for the well-beingof bannerpeople reflectedboth an awarenessof the economicpredicament that many Manchu familiesfaced when Han farmerstook overas well as a recognitionthat the presence of so manyHan was havinga deleterious effecton Manchu customs.Limiting Han numbers,and preservingthe regionfor Manchus,thus would be doublybeneficial for the dynasty'slong-term welfare. It is no coincidencethat shortly after closing Manchuria to Han settlers,the emperor closed offMongolia, too, citing the negativeimpact of Han immigrationon traditional Mongol lifestyles(Diao 1995a, 170-71). The emperor'ssense thatManchuria belonged to the Manchusmanifested itself also in a 1736 decision to end the practiceof exiling Han Chinese therewhile continuingto send Manchu convictsto penal servitudein Jilin and Heilongjiang (Diao and Yi 1994, 51-52).'9 The same convictionwas reflectedas well as in the structureof appointments.As mentionedabove, administrationof the Northeast differedfrom that of China properin thatcivil authorityrested in the hands of the garrisongenerals of Mukden, Jilin, and Heilongjiang. Normal divisionssuch as

19This decisionwas partiallyreversed the nextyear, and small numbersof Han offenders continuedto be exiled to Manchuria,provided they had familiesto accompanythem. Banish- mentto the regionwas suspendedonce again in 1813, by whichtime Xinjiang had replaced Manchuriaas the destinationof choice forserious offenders. See Waley-Cohen1991, 60. My thanksto Prof.Waley-Cohen for additional information on thispoint. THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 619 prefectures(Chfu), departments (Ch zhou),and counties(Ch xian)were at firstlacking. As the Chinese populationincreased, these levels of administrationwere gradually instituted,mostly in Mukden(a fewwere established in Jilinduring the Yongzheng reign).Such posts,along withpositions in theMukden secondary capital bureaucracy, wereoriginally also open to Han Chinese.The Qianlong emperor,however, changed the rules:After 1751, all officialsserving in Manchuria,civil as well as military,were henceforthto be Manchus(Diao and Yi 1994, 52). The prohibitionof Han immigrationinto Manchuriadoes not appear to have been veryeffective even during the Qianlong reign,and it grewless and less effective as timepassed. Nevertheless,the mereexistence of the courtban on Han settlement servedto confirmthe notion that the Northeastwas a frontier-a liminal region separatefrom China, governedby Manchus only, home to a small, but distinct indigenouspopulation, and subjectto separaterules. It was thissame peripheral status, of course,that facilitated Russian occupationof Manchuria'snorthernmost stretches in the laternineteenth century. Only graduallydid it dawnon thecourt that the land it had been tryingso hard to save forManchus by keepingit out of Chinesehands mightwell end up all in foreignhands. A radicalrevision of the administrative policies concerningManchuria finally took place in 1907, when the provincesof Fengtian, Jilin, and Heilongjiang were createdand the region broughtinto line with the governmentof the rest of China (thoughManchus still monopolized the top positions) (Lee 1971, 152-64). But this last-minutechange could not undo two centuriesand moreof attempts to fostera separatesense of place here.However it mightbe tinkered with administratively(under the Republic of China it would later be divided into nineprovinces; under Manchukuo, fifteen), "Manchuria" was hereto stay.

The Mapping of Mukden

As we have seen, the ritual,literary, and administrativestrategies the court pursuedformed part of a coherent,if not explicitlyarticulated, program to foster Manchurianregionality. They were complementedin significantways by the imaginationof Manchuria into cartographicform. Probably the earliest unified projectionof the regionmade by the Qing thathas survivedto thiscentury is a map made ca. 1690 that shows not just Manchuriabut all of northeastAsia, including Siberia.This map-almost certainlycopied from a Russianoriginal (many of the place names,all in Manchu,are indisputablyphonetic transliterations from Russian) (Fuchs 1933, 8-13)-lacks a grid, but it may have helped orientpolicymakers as to the geographicrelationship between Manchuria and the rest of Asia.20Another early attemptto map the Manchu homeland was a map of the Changbai Mountains, commissionedin 1691, fourteenyears after Umuna's explorations (Yang 1993 t17071, 9). This map is apparentlynot extant,but a photographof a "Manchu Map of the ChangbaiMountains," included in a 1935 collectionof photographs of Manchuria by Naito Torajiro,may possiblybe the Umuna map, or, morelikely, a laterversion of it (Naito 1935) (Figure 3). These initialefforts were superseded when, at the end of

20AsYoshida Kin'ichi has shown,there are at leastthree such maps, all ofthe same vintage: the "Fuchsmap" (now in Dalian), the "New Langtanmap" (in Taipei) and the "Thomasmap" (in Rome). It seemsthat there was also at leastone othermap of the regionbefore this, which theManchu negotiators had withthem at Nerchinsk,but its whereaboutsare unknown (Yosh- ida 1992, 51-63). 620 MARK C. ELLIOTT

'N

Figure3. "Manchumap of the ChangbaiMountains." According to Naito Torajiro,who foundit storedin the palace complexat Mukden, this map (now lost),followed the surveysmade forthe Huangyu quanlantu.Annotated entirely in Manchu,it is centeredon the regionof the ChangbaiMountains (the Willow Palisade is shownat left,but place namesinside it are omitted)and faithfullyreproduces the descriptionin the ManchuVeritable Records: the main summit(labeled amba sanggiyan alin,i.e., "greatwhite mountain") consists of fivepeaks, with a lake in the middle.Other details, such as the locationof waterfalls,suggest thatsome of the informationmay have been come fromactual exploration,such as the 1677 expeditionled by Umuna. Reproduced fromNaito 1935. THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 621 the 1690s, the Kangxi emperorembarked on a much more ambitiousplan: With assistancefrom European Jesuits in the serviceof the court,he would map in detail all of Manchuria,and the restof the empire,too. The well-knownstory of theJesuit role in the Qing mapmakingenterprise can onlybe brieflysketched here. From the timeof MatteoRicci a majorcontribution of Jesuitmissionaries in China had been to introduceEuropean ideas ofcartography and informationabout worldgeography that the Chineselargely lacked, and to send back to Europe moreaccurate maps of China (Needham and Wang 1959; Bernard1938; Yee 1994). Under the Manchus, however,the Jesuits'role changed. Aftertwice overcomingchallenges to the accuracyof theircalendars (in 1644 and 1669), they were employedfor the firsttime to make maps of the realmfor the court(though this did not preventthem from continuing in theirold role of passinginformation on to Europeancontacts). The Jesuitsfirst proposed the idea of a map of the entire empireto the Kangxi emperorin 1698 and receivedan encouragingresponse. Ten yearslater, after more missionaries had been recruitedto carryout the work,a trial expeditionwas sent to map the Great Wall. Impressedby the results,the emperor authorizedthe real work to begin. Finally,in 1717 a completeset of maps of the empirewas presentedto the emperor.A copperplateversion was preparedthe next year,and a woodblockprint published in 1721.21 Known as the Huangyuquanlan tu ("Map of a full view of the imperialterritory") this atlas-sometimes called the "Kangxi Atlas" or the "JesuitAtlas"-was the basis fornumerous other maps, not all of them court-sponsored,throughout the eighteenthand nineteenthcenturies. Some, such as the Huangyushipai quantu [1726-17291 and Qianlongshisanpai ditu [17601, also knownas Huangyuquantu, were expensive productions only for the palace (Gugong bowuyuantushuguan et al. 1995, 264-266). But others,such as Zou Boqi's Huangyuquantul [18441 and Da QingZhongwai yitong yu(di]tu [1863, 1889] werefor generalconsumption. The Huangyuquanlan tu was also, until the earlytwentieth century,the basis foralmost all laterWestern maps of China. It is beyondquestion that a majorimpulse behind this project, particularly as it unfoldedin Manchuria,was strategic.As PeterPerdue has recentlyshown, the late seventeenthand earlyeighteenth centuries represented a criticalmoment in world historyas the Qing and Romanov empiresbumped up against one anotherand, boundarieswere drawn (Perdue 1998). The Manchucourt desired as muchinformation as possibleon the borderwith Russia, and made no secretof this (Gaubil 1970, 171- 73). But therewere otherimpulses, too, behind the wish to improvethe level of knowledgeabout Manchuria.Jesuit accounts tell how, a few monthsbefore the proposalfor the Jesuit Atlas was suggestedto him, the emperorwas informedin a conversationwith missionariesthat the cityof Mukden was located to the northof Beijing, and not on the same latitude,as he believed.A curiousman, and knownto dabble in Westernastronomy, mathematics, and music,the emperordecided to test this assertionhimself. First he sent one of the fathersto make celestialobservations in Shandongand Liaodong.Then he availedhimself of the opportunity when visiting Mukden in 1698 (the thirdEastern Tour) to make some observationshimself. After

21Thepublication history of the JesuitAtlas is somewhatcomplex. The firstedition of the maps (xylograph,1717) appears to have included only twenty-eightmaps; the second edition(copperplate, 1718) and the third(xylograph, 1721) both containedthirty-two maps. See Fuchs 1938; Funakoshi1986, 19-26; Yee 1994, 181-84. The xylographedition (minus the generalmap) was reprintedin Fuchs 1943a; a chartof the differenteditions appears in Fuchs 1943b, 60. 622 MARK C. ELLIOTT making the calculationsusing the threesets of readings,he realizedhis errorand acknowledgedit openly beforethe Jesuitsand othersat court. At this point he consentedto the Jesuit cartographicundertaking (Gaubil 1970, 541-42). This incident suggests that the wish to know Mukden better was of fundamental importancein going ahead withthe Jesuit map project,and revealsincidentally that when the Manchusentered the Shanhaiguanpass to conquerChina in 1644 it seems theydid not know theywere movingsouth. (In this light,the appellation"Eastern ThreeProvinces" suddenly makes sense.) The firstmap in theJesuit Atlas serieswas in facta "CompleteMap ofMukden" (Ch Sheng/ingquantu), and its completionmarked a crucialpoint in the development of Mukdenas a site of Manchu identity.Based on threesurveys made between1709 and 1712, the map was supplementedby informationprovided especially by additionalsurveyors (bannermen, not Jesuits)sent out by the court(Fuchs 1943b, 20-28).22 Significantly,this map was not limited by the formaladministrative boundariesof the area governed by the garrison-generalat Mukden, typically understoodas "extendingeast to westone thousandli fromXingjing to Shanhaiguan, and northto southone thousand1i fromKaiyuan to Jinzhou"(Shengzu shilu 2: 25a- b, citedin Inaba 1935, 307-8). Rather,it presenteda swathof territory corresponding to the idea of "GreaterMukden," from the Liaodongpeninsula in the south(roughly 39 degreesof latitude)to Bedune and Ningguta in the north(roughly 45.5 degrees) and fromthe Willow Palisade in thewest (119 degreesof longitude) to theYalu and Tumen Riversin the east,along with,of course,the ChangbaiMountains (about 130 degrees)(Fuchs 1943a, Map 1) (Figure 4). Accordingto Jesuitaccounts, when the fullimage of Manchuancestral territories was shownto Manchusat court,the effect was dramatic:"Those who had been bornin Beijing saw in it theirold country[patriel and could learnmore about it in one quarter-hourthan all theyhad everheard said by travelers(Bernard 1938, 459; Fuchs 1943b, 62, both citing the Introductionto Du Halde 1735). Of course,it shouldnot be forgottenthat by spreadingthe newsof the impact theirmaps had made, the Jesuits,always anxious to communicatethe usefulnessof their mission back to Europe,were also able to win somegood publicity. The imperialcharge for the makingof the Mukden map was broad,beginning with a specificjustification for the project: Sinceancient times mapmakers have not followed in accordancewith the principles ofmeasuring the heavens by degrees to determinedistances on theearth, and as a resultthese maps contain many errors. I have thus especially sent out people gifted at makingsuch observations to drafta detailedmap on whichone might observe the topographyand geographyof the northeastregion projected according to astronomicalcalculations.

This was followedby an explanationof wherehis agentswere to go: The SungariRiver flows north from the ChangbaiMountains, past the [Jilin] shipyardsand northeastbeyond Dasheng Ula, whereit joinsthe Heilongjiang and flowsto thesea. All ofthis is theterritory ofChina [Ch cijie xi zhongguodifang]. The Yalu Riverflows southeast from the ChangbaiMountains, then to thesouthwest

22Accordingto a 1726 Jesuitreport, the surveyingof Manchuriawas done almostexclu- sivelyby triangulation;there were only very few astronomical measurements taken. Moreover, theJesuit survey team was not permittedto travelto the mouthof the Amur on the eastern coast,concerning which reliable information could onlybe obtainedfrom the Russians (Gaubil 1970,120,715-16). THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 623

Figure4. Sheng1ingquanta. This "CompleteMap of Mukden"was, after the generalmap of the empire,the firstsheet in the atlas presentedto the Kangxi emperorby Jesuit missionaries in 1718. The area representedhere extends significantly beyond the bailiwickof the militarygovernor of Mukdento includeall of "GreaterMukden. Reproducedfrom Fuchs 1943a by courtesyof Toyo bunkakenkyujo, Universityof Tokyo.

betweenFenghuangcheng and Yizhou, on theKorean border, to thesea. Northwest ofthe Yalu Riveris all theterritory ofChina, to its southeast is theterritory ofKorea, and theriver is theboundary. The TumenRiver flows east along the perimeter of theChangbai Mountains, then southeast to theocean. Southwest of the Tumen is theterritory ofKorea, while to itsnortheast is theterritory ofChina, and theriver is theboundary. All ofthese places are already known, but the area between the Yalu and theTumen is stillunknown. (Shengzushila 246: 9a-lOb)

The emperor'swish was to fillin thisgap, and his interests,like thoseof otherearly modernmonarchs, were obviously geopolitical in nature,insofar as a clarificationof the borderwith Korea was a goal along with the map of Mukden therewere also detailedcharts of Jeholf , t Ussuri and the Heilongjiangrivers which contained a wealthof new informationabout Manchuria,much morethan thatshown on Ming 624 MARK C. ELLIOTT and earliermaps.23 At thesame time,however, it shouldbe pointedout thatthe very mode the emperorused to definethe "northeastregion" (Ch dongbeiyi dai) hewed veryclosely to the landmarksestablished decades beforein the ManchuVeritable Records-thatis, the ChangbaiMountains and the riversthat flow out frombetween itspeaks. In thissense, the Mukden map, like theUmuna expedition,was theproduct of two intersectingurges: one to enhanceManchu identityby inscribingManchu place, the otherto definethe extentof Qing imperialspace. Though the Jesuit maps were not published as such in China-maps being consideredsensitive, secret texts by the Qing state-much ofthe information on them was distributedindirectly on maps includedin variouseditions of theDa Qingyitong zhi and the Da QingHuidian, which were available to scholarsat the time. By the middle of the eighteenthcentury the familiaroutcropping on China's northeastern frontierwas veryclearly rendered in maps of the easternhemisphere of the globe, on which the Qing empireitself was quite plainlydelineated (Figure 5). Significantly, however,though these maps thus made the enclosureof the Manchurianfrontier explicit,at the same time theycould also accentuateits distinctiveness:on a number of them-such as one now preservedin London,on whichthe entireexpanse of Inner Asia, fromLake Balkhashin the west to the lowercourse of the Amurin the east,is represented24-allplace names are in Manchu,with only those south of the Great Wall in Chinese(Fuchs 1943b, 81). One reasonfor this may simplyhave been that it was easierto transcribenon-Chinese names into an alphabeticlanguage like Manchu than it was to approximatethem using Chinesecharacters. Yet we have manymaps fromthe 1700s on whichChinese is theonly language used, apparently without undue difficultyon the cartographer'spart. Anotherexplanation is that by this sleightof handthe state was able to declareits claimof sovereignty over these frontier territories while simultaneouslyannouncing to all concernedparties that said territories remainedseparate even as theywere cartographicallymerged into a single empire. Operatinglike a linguisticparallel of theGreat Wall, thestrange writing on themap made it clear thatthis was a Manchu space-or, forplaces outsideManchuria, Qing space-and helped bridge,at least temporarily,the geographicestrangement that threatenedto deprivethe deracinatedconquest group of its sense of where"home" properlywas.

From "Chinese Tartary"to "Mantchooria"

Apart fromgiving shape to Manchu consciousnessby presentinga snapshotof GreaterMukden, the Kangxi cartographicproject made an enormousimpact upon Europeanawareness, and in thisway, too, contributedsignally to creatingthe idea of

23Cf.the count of hundredsof place names on the Kangxi atlas maps in Fuchs 1943b: 81-2. 24J have not seen this map, whichis in the collectionof the Royal GeographicalSociety, but it is describedin Simon and Nelson 1977, 1.30, wherepart of it is reproducedin Plate VI-VII. In styleit resemblesthe map in Naito 1935, thoughit is muchlarger. Unfortunately, the image is out of focusand place names are extremelydifficult to make out. Neitherthis nor the Naito map is dated, but both differgreatly from the 1690 map of northeastAsia shownin Fuchs 1933. Naito was of the opinionthat his map was based on theJesuit maps of theregion; Simon and Nelson writethat theirs may precede the Jesuit enterprise. A preliminary comparisonwith the JesuitAtlas maps suggeststhat Naito was correct-i.e., that both of thesemaps date fromthe 171Os or slightlylater, but furtherwork on thisproblem is needed. THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 625

Figure5. Map of EasternHemisphere, from Haijiang yangiie xingshi quantu,ca. 1790. This image is froma populartype of coastalmap, in scrollform, copies of whichexist in (amongother places) London, Berlin,and Washington,D.C. All of themare precededby a map of the easternhemisphere (itself based on a 1730 map by Chen Lunjiong, Yanhai quantu),on whichthe contoursof the Qing empireare highlightedby a brightsaffron coloring. Note the incorporationof Manchuria)together with China proper,Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet, into one whole. Reproducedby courtesyof Staatsbibliothekder PreussischerKulturbesitz, Berlin.

Manchuria.Before the eighteenthcentury, Western knowledge of this part of the worldwas extremelylimited: the area was known,along with almostall the restof Centraland Inner Asia, simplyas "Tartary."The etymologyof this name is not entirelyclear. The ultimatesource was most likely the Chinese dada, a name for northernnomads, which dates from at least the ninthcentury C.E. and was borrowed intoEuropean vocabularies after the Mongol invasions. Because the hellish destruction 626 MARK C. ELLIOTT wroughtby Mongol armiescalled up associationswith Tartarus,the Latin name for Hades, the originalform, "Tatar," changed to "Tartar"-at least, this is the story givenby the medievalchronicler Matthew Paris, who ascribedthe pun to King Louis IX of France(Morgan 1986, 57). "Tartar"was used in Englishfor the firsttime by Chaucer (who may well have read Paris), and in later centuriesthe name was indiscriminatelyapplied by the membersof sedentarypopulations in both Europe and East Asia to nomadsof north and centralAsia, from Turkey to Siberia.The breadth of meaning of these terms invited attemptsto be more precise-hence we find "GreaterTartary" and "LesserTartary," "Eastern Tartary" and "WesternTartary," "Chinese Tartary"and "IndependentTartary;" to distinguishthem from other "Tartar"groups, the Manchus were spoken of in someearly texts as "ManchuTartars." But the level of understandingwas still crude. The arrivalof the Jesuit Atlas mapseffected a revolutionin Europeancartography of East Asia. Sent firstto Franceby 1725, when theywere presented to the French king, theyprovided the basis fornew, authoritativemaps drawn by Jean-Baptiste D'Anville, which accompaniedJean-Baptiste Du Halde's four-volumeDescription g6ographique,historique... de la Chineet de la Tartariechinoise, published in Paris in 1735. These maps, in turn,were the basis foranother, modified, set of maps made forthe Englishtranslation of Du Halde's work,which appeared in Londonin 1738- 1741. Afterfurther editing, the maps werealso publishedseparately by D'Anville in his 1737 NouvelAtlas de la Chine(Foss 1985). The Europeanmaps differed from the original maps made forthe Kangxi emperor in a numberof ways. Not onlywere there more of them(forty-two, all told),but the Europeanmaps also combinedinformation from several of the originalmaps and includeddata takenfrom other sources that were not partof the compilationof the JesuitAtlas. The impressivegeneral map of "la TartarieChinoise," absent from the originalJesuit Atlas, is the resultof just such an effort.This map includesall ofwhat we mightcall todayInner Asia, coveringthe entirearea fromHami in the west to Sakhalinand Japanin the east,and fromthe 34th parallelin the southto the 54th parallel in the north(the London maps extendas farwest as the Caspian Sea). It includesa large amountof ethnographicinformation indicating the areas thatwere home to variousethnic groups ("les Tongouses," "les Oeluts," etc.). On the Paris maps, the Manchu homeland is singled out with the legend "Ancien pays des Mantcheouqui ont conquit la Chine"; on the London maps, the descriptionof the samearea is shortenedto "theManchew" (D'Anville 1735; Green1738-1741) (Figure 6). As will be explainedbelow, it seemsprobable that this information was ultimately the sourcefor the renamingof one part of "ChineseTartary," first as "Manshui"and thenas "Manchuria,'around the turnof the eighteenthcentury. The firstoccurrences of Manchuriaas a toponymappear in Japanesemaps of the late 1700s.25 Thereis no mistakingthe Chinese characters for Manshf on twodifferent maps: Ashia zenzu ("Complete Map of Asia") and Chikyulhankyl s60zu ("General HemisphericMap of the Earth") (Funakoshi 1986, Plates 12, 15, and 15b). The author,Katsuragawa Hoshu (1751-1809), hailed froma prominentfamily of Dutch- learningphysicians retained by the Tokugawashoguns and was also somethingof an experton Russianrelations. Both of the above maps wereincluded in his 1794 work,

25Asimilar conclusion is drawnin Nakami 1998, 62, whichI came acrossin the course of revisingthis paper. Yano's assertion,that Japanese Manshg was borrowedfrom English "Manchuria"sometime in the 1840s, is not tenableunder the evidence(Yano 1941, 7). See also Nakami 1993. THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 627

I -~~~~~~~~~~~0 ~~ .j -

E

') -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Q

-A ~ ~ ~ ~ -

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4 &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4~

t. (WU~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

in,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- 628 MARK C. ELLIOTT

Hokusabunryaku, an accountof a Japaneseshipwreck on the Kamchatkapeninsula. That Manshz7on thesemaps is a place name and not a tribalname is fairlycertain, since tribal names are most often writtenin katakana.26The similar diagonal placementof the characters(in both cases to the northeastof Mukden,between the Long White Mountainsand the lower courseof the Heilongjiang [i.e., the Amur River}),clearly denote the area as Manshz7.Legends in the same stylealso appearfor Shibori(Siberia), Chosen (Korea), Shina (China), and MokJ(Mongolia). Where did this Manshg come from?As FunakoshiAkio has demonstrated, Japanesemapmaking came under the strong influence of European, especially Russian, maps startingin the later 1700s. Funakoshipersuasively shows that the Ashia zenzu and Chikyi7hankyi7 sJzu were based mainlyon Russianoriginals. He also demonstrates thatthese Russian maps, in turn,relied heavily on otherEuropean maps, which were themselvesmade on the basis of theJesuit Atlas, and thatit was in this roundabout way thatthe Huangyuquanlantu eventually made its way to Japan(Funakoshi 1986, 29-50). We may thereforeconclude that Katsuragawa'sidentification of the region betweenthe Heilongjiangand the Bohai Gulf as Manshgdepended on information takenfrom European maps. I have not been able to determinewhether any word like Manshuappears on Russian maps of this period.If so, thenthis is the likelysource; if not, then Katsuragawamust have borrowedit elsewhere.The originalD'Anville map is one possibility,but given the close ties betweenJapan and Holland at this time,a Dutch map, such as the 1751 Kaart van Oost-Tartarye,by Pieterde Hondt, whichexplicitly acknowledged its Jesuitorigins, is more likely(Figure 7). Now in theTenri University Library, it was used as the templatefor two Japanese maps made in 1809 (Funakoshi1986, Plates47, 37, 38). Correctlyassociating the legendon this map- "Manchews"(similar to the English "The Manchew,"save forthe missing definitearticle)-with the Manchushe knew ruled China (Japaneseintelligence on this point surpassedthat of the West), but perhapsencouraged by the autonomous meaning of the characterzhou ("region, land") typicallyused to write Manzhou, Katsuragawa(if indeedhe was the first)apparently understood this as a place name, therebyunwittingly introducing Manshg to the worldas a place name.27 Mansh7'spassage from tribal name to place nameproceeded quickly, though not systematically.Within a decade a numberof prominentJapanese cartographers, includingYamada Ren, Baba Sadayoshi(1787-1822), KondoJdz6(1771-1829), and TakahashiKageyasu (1785-1829) began to use the charactersMansh17 as a toponym on theirmaps (Funakoshi1986, Plates 16, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, 53, 54, 57, 60, 62c) (Figure8). Thanksto theDutch japanologistPhilipp von Siebold(1796-1866), some of thesemaps were soon circulatingin Europe (Figure 9). By the 1830s, roughlya generationafter the appearanceof Katsuragawa'smaps, various Indo-European forms of Mansh7had emerged.A veryearly use is in an 1830 historyof China, Geschichte

26Thisidentification is firmerfor the Chikyzihankyzi s5zu than for the Ashia zenzu.On the latter,some place names are also writtenin katakana,and at least one tribalname appearsin Chinese characters.Moreover, Ashia zenzuincludes the legend "Chinese Tartary"(written in charactersas shinadattan but glossed as kitaisukayatarutariya)-a second,and possiblyover- lapping,toponym written in largercharacters to the west ofManshi. Thereare no conflicting or competinglegends on the Chikyllhankyzi sjzu. 27Manchiu-koku-manchiuin katakana, koku in Chinese characters-appearson another Japanesemap, titledHokuhai ("Northern Seas"), also based on a Russianoriginal, that possibly predatesthe maps in Hokusabunryaku. While Manchiu-kokumight be "Manchu-country,"it could also mean "countryof the Manchus." For this reason,it is impossibleto be certain whetherit functionshere as an ethnonymor a toponym. THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 629

'*0 -0 d, od v

K~~~~~~~~~a(

-14Po~~~~ z

vexZn C bCL

7~~~~~~=7 - ~ ~ ~ ~ D

r,~~~4 . @ z s t ~! ~ ~ *_ 4. -~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

>L~0 630 MARK C. ELLIOTT

0

0 \~~~~~~~~~~~~

0 2~~~~~~~0

~~~~0 ~~~ /

* N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4IL THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 631

e-5 8

>- -'-~ -Y E

*.( (,0

00V

~~~~~~~~~1-v~~~~~~~~~~~- -

Go 4-cM 0 o /,~~~~~~~~~~~~ZcAj

(j. ,* Q

1-4 r 10' ~~~OV ~ ~ 1 632 MARK C. ELLIOTT des OstlichenAsiens, by JohannHeinrich Plath, who employedMandschurey routinely as a place name(e.g., "die V6lkerder Mandschurey") throughout the book, suggesting thatit may alreadyhave been in use beforethis (Plath 1830-3 1).28 The author,who taughtat the Universityof G6ttingen,drew heavilyon Jesuitsources: no doubt he had seen the D'Anville maps, and his accountwas certainlyalso influencedby the 1770 Frenchtranslation by Amiotof the Odeto Mukden, which was widelypublicized at the time,not least by Voltaire(Amiot 1770; Eta 1956, 235-236). (He could not havebeen ignorantof this, as thepoem's original Manchu text, minus the annotations, had been publishedjust two yearsbefore Plath's own workby theGerman orientalist Jules Klaproth[Klaproth 18281.) By the end of the decade, "Manchuria"(written variouslyas "Mandshuria,"Mantchooria," etc.) was appearingin UnitedStates atlases (Tanner1836; Mitchell 1839), and had enteredcommon usage in Englishand other Europeanlanguages.

Manzhou as a Toponym in Chinese

The above is a particularlystriking instance of the interactionof Europeanand Japanesecartographies in the earlymodern period. But it is worthremembering that the originalimpetus for this exchangecame fromthe Manchu court,which had sponsoredthe cartographicwork that made it all possible.Thus whenManshzi-i.e., Manzhou-was eventuallyadopted as a place namein theChinese language, the circle was closed.This happenedat leastby 1877, whenthe termis used in an essaytitled, "Manzhou kaoliie" (A Brief Study of Manchuria),in a well-knowngeographical collectanea,Xiaofanghuzhai yudi congshu. The author,Gong Chai, a scholarfrom the southerncoastal city of Ningbo, began witha nod to the historicalimportance of the region,writing, "Manchuria [Manzhoul is to the northeastof the capital and is the dynasty'sauspicious place of originifa xiangzhi di]"-this latterthe exactphrase, of course,introduced by the courttwo centuriesearlier-before going on to stressthe strategicurgency of improvingborder defenses here and in Xinjiang (Gong 1877, 139a). Twentyyears later, prominent Qing officialssuch as Liu Kunyi and Zhang Zhidong also invokedManzhou as a place name in theirown writings(Yano 1941, 7-8). Hence, contraryto receivedwisdom, "Manchuria" did once functionas a place name in Chinese,after all. This conclusion is borne out in cartography,too. An examinationof early twentieth-centuryChinese-made maps of China revealsthat Manzhou had begun to be used as a toponymby the firstdecade of the 1900s, roughlyseventy years after it was introducedin Europe and about a centuryafter it began to be used in Japan. Employingthe same charactersas thosefor "Manchu" (i.e., the name of the ethnic group),Manzhou appears precisely in the spot one would expectit, in the northeast sectorof the empire,sandwiched between the Amurand the Bohai Gulf(Figures 10, 11). Some of these maps date fromthe late Qing and bear the imprimaturof the EducationBureau, an indicationthat they were officially approved and intendedfor use in classrooms.Others date fromthe Republicanperiod (one as late as 1932) and includemaps published by CommercialPress, the largest publisher at thetime, which

28Mandschureymay owe its specificform to the combinativeform of GermanMandschu: "Mandschuren"(Manchus), "Mandschurisch" (Manchurian) (the latter, referring to theManchu language, was in use no later than 1810). Alternatively,it may derive fromthe Russian "Man'chzhur,"meaning a Manchu (person). THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 633

.. . . .;. . ?...... z . . . ;. . j;.

Figure 10. Portionof Huangchaoyitongtu, 1905. As seen in thismap, by the early1900s, Manzhouhad enteredstandard usage as a place name. The volumein whichit was publishedwas endorsedby the Qing educationalministry. Reproduced by courtesyof ToyoiBunko, Tokyo. reprintedthem again and again a good signthat they enjoyed a verywide circulation (Yudi xiehui 1903, Map 2; Yudi xiehui 1905, Map 1; Wu Xianxi 1918, Maps 5, 7, 9; Yaxin dixueshe 1915, Map 1; Ouyang 1932, Map 2; Zhonghuaminguo yuannian lishu[1912] in Smith 1993, Plate 17). While it is oftenimpossible to distinguish toponymsand ethnonymson earlierChinese maps, here the distinctionseems plain. The typefonts used forMaznzhou are consistentwith those used forother place names, and wherethere is text,its usage supportsan interpretationof Manzhou as a toponym (e.g. Manzhousangshi tu, "map ofthe lost territories of Manchuria," in Yaxin dixueshe 1915). In fairnessit should be said thatthe majorityof maps fromthe early Republican period use only the names of the northeasternprovinces and avoid Manzhou.One might well be inclined to interpretthis apparent reluctanceon the part of contemporarymapmakers as evidenceof nationalistsentiment at a time when first the warlordZhang Zuolin and thenJapanese imperialist expansion sought to hold the regionunder their exclusive control. Patriotic insistence on the unityof China and Manchuriawould logicallyseem to have favoredthe use of a termlike "The EasternThree Provinces," a relativisticexpression ("Eastern in relationto what?")that expressedthe unityof China and Manchuriain an essentialway, rather than a term like Manzhoa,which granted the regiona primafacie separate existence 29 It is all the

29Thisis not to suggestthat the termwas inventedfor this purpose at thistime. On the contrary,dongsansheng is attested during the Qing (see, forinstance, Gaozong shilu 324: 12a). The point is thatthis usage becamede rigueur. 634 MARK C. ELLIOTT

. -o

U 4

.(V) D 0 C)

t't/ - X j t t-F '5

tw:W1 ; S . e. --- ttt; j; E0< i > -.

-C

E 32 W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

- t-F

-s W - K A 4 ~~~~~~~~~~gjh ~ THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 635 moresurprising, then, to discoverthat Manzhou continued to be used as a place name well intothe 1930s byan organizationno lessprominent than the Chinese Communist Party.It appearsin theofficial name of the Party branch in theregion, its publications (e.g., "ManchurianWorker" [Manzhou gongren}), and in propagandauntil 1937, when the Party'sorganization was crushed(Zhang 1987). That even Liu Shaoqi and Zhou Enlai saw fitto use Manzhouin theirofficial correspondence suggests that, contrary to whatmight be expected,the name "Manchuria"did not grosslyviolate everyone's nationalisticsentiments at the time.Japanese colonization notwithstanding, in the earlytwentieth century Manzhou was on its way to becominga regulartoponym in Chineseand alreadyoccupied a well-definedspot in educatedminds of the day.30 At what point political expediencydecisively intervened to expungeManzhou fromthe Chinesevocabulary remains uncertain. By the 1950s, even the memoryof its toponymicalmeaning had seeminglybeen obliterated,though some writers found it hard to shake the habit.3"Its originalsense as an ethonymwas lost,too, replaced by the newfangledformulation, Manzu ("Man[chuj national minority"),an abbreviationthat has resultedin the bizarreidentification of the Manchus in some quartersas the "Man" nationality.Yet even thoughthe Chineseword Manzhou has recededinto the historicalvocabulary, the distinctiveidentity of both people and regionremains part of the contemporaryscene. Ask a Chinese personwhere he is from,and the answeris likelyto be "Zhejiang," "Anhui,"or the nameof some other province.Ask a residentof Liaoning, Jilin, or Heilongjiang, and theanswer will almost alwaysbe, "I'm a Northeasterner[donghei ren}." People fromthe Northeast-even if theyimmigrated from Shandong only a centuryago, as manydid-take pridein the region'shistorical importance, its fabled "threetreasures" (ginseng, sable, and Ula grass),and its cuisine("Northeast style [donghei weij" restaurantsabound in Beijing, usually offeringboiled jiaozi dumplingsand simple, down-homecooking). Travel agenciesadvertise the wonders of theNortheast's scenic beauty, its "whitemountains and black rivers"(baishan heishui), along with such winterattractions as "iced trees" (guashu),the Harbin Ice Festival,and skiingvacations-where else?-in theChangbai Mountains.Administratively, the Northeastalso constitutesits own militaryregion, possessesits own educationalinstitutions (e.g., Dongbei NormalUniversity, Dongbei Universityof Finance)and pursuessimilar industrial and exportpolicies focusedon Japan,Korea, and Russia, all of whichconfirm the impressionof continuedregional coherence.In otherwords, in its latest incarnationas "the Northeast,"Manchuria appearsto have survivedas a distinctregional entity.

Geographyand Imagination

In Landscapeand Memory,historian Simon Schama exploresthe ways in which literary,artistic, and historicalperceptions of forests, mountains, and riverscontribute to individualand groupidentity. Investigating the development of German identity, alwaysin tensionbetween a sylvan"barbarian" past and the "civilizing"tendencies of the Latinworld (first Rome, laterItaly and France),he findsthat the forestplayed

30Thelack of Manchu-languagemaps fromthe period makes it hard to say forcertain, but it would seem that the Manchu word Manju nevergained the additionalgeographical sensethat the Chineseword Manzhou did. 3"Inhis 1958 historyof the Manchus,Mo Dongyin occasionallyslipped into calling the Northeast"Manchuria" (Mo 1958, 170 n. 96). 636 MARK C. ELLIOTT a key part in the German imagination,particularly in the early 1500s, when the stirringsof the Reformation kindled a newself-awareness. With therebirth of German historyat thistime, centered on theantique hero Arminius (Hermann), came also the rebirthof German geography and naturaldescription. As thehome of the noble rustic, the Germanforest was of special interestfor writers and artists.Yet Schama notes thatit was just at thistime that the forests were being cut down: "So thegeographers whowanted to celebratethe organically living world of the German woods . .. needed to replantit withtheir literary and visual imagination."Moreover, he concludesthat although this effortat "cultural afforestation"failed to achieve its desired goal (Germanylay in ruinsat the end of the ThirtyYears' War in 1648), it providedthe materialfor an eighteenth-centuryrevival, when the Romanticswould get a second try(Schama 1996, 95, 102). There are a few similaritieshere with the Manchu case, which I think are instructive.First, their "barbarian" origins, documented in Chinese textsfrom the Ming, meant that, like the Germans,the Manchus had to deal with a negative historicallegacy. One approachwas to deny it; this was essentiallythe tack in the Manzhouyuanliu kao (Researcheson the originsof the Manchus),published in 1783 (Crossley1987). Anotherway was to glorifyit, as the Germansattempted to do. We see thisapproach in the Odeto Mukden, its verdantforests bursting with game and its hard-workingpeople bringingforth abundance from the soil. The superiorityof the orderhere, of the land and the veryair, presentedan obvious (if unstated)contrast withthe decadence and excessof Chinesecities, where most Manchus lived. Through hispoem theemperor wished not just to singthe praises of the cradle of Qing greatness but also to impressupon them the values of the Mukden world as a way of counteractingthe harmfulinfluence of Chinese "civilization"-a leitmotifin elite discussionsof the fate of the supposedly rustic Manchu warrior from the time of Hong Taiji on (Elliottforthcoming). A second similaritywith the German case is that, like the sixteenth-century attemptto renewrustic Teutonic virtues, the eighteenth-centuryattempt to renew the "Old Way"-the virtuesof riding,shooting, speaking Manchu, and living a Spartanlife-also failed.For all thehyperbole of the Ode to Mukden, its verbal lushness mimickingthe animal and vegetallushness of the landscapeit was describing,the poem probablydid not do mucheither to halt the declineof ancestralinstitutions or to improvethe region'spopularity. Qianlong's was an imaginarylandscape, and one thatpeople wereprobably content to experiencevicariously. As the travelaccounts all told (thoughthey were no doubt embroidered,too), the real Mukdenwas a harsh and unforgivingplace, bleak,cold, and dangerous.Not fornothing were the regime's enemiesexiled here in the earlyQing. Laterin the eighteenthcentury, Manchus who were sent fromBeijing to live in Manchuria-part of the court'splan to relieve overcrowdingin the capital-tried everythingthey could to return.The factis that, with the exceptionof the bannergarrisons (home to about 20,000-30,000 soldiers and theirfamilies) and one successfulmilitary colony at Shuangchengpu(established in the 1850s), Manchuriawas a land virtuallywithout Manchus, or, indeed, very manypeople at all. When the regionfinally began to repopulatein the nineteenth century,the settlers were Han Chinese:by 1900, therewere 170 millionpeople living in Manchuria,of whom 150 millionwere Han withno connectionwhatsoever to the Eight Banner system(Mo 1958, 169-70). By the time the dynastyfell in 1912, Mukdenwas overwhelminglya Chinese place, and theManchus remained where they werein Beijing and the garrisoncities in China proper. THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 637

Here I would like to suggesta third,and final,similarity with the Germancase as describedby Schama,which is thatalthough Manchu space could not be preserved, and althoughthe Manchu identitythat the Qing emperorswere at such pains to cultivatethrough maps, ritual,and poetryfailed to undergoa dramaticrevival, the project itselfand the rise of a place called Manchuria had importanthistorical consequenceslater on-most violentlyin the earlytwentieth century as attemptsto followthrough on its incipientterritoriality came to loggerheadswith new doctrines ofnationalism in China.For though it was underManchu rule that Manchuria became a permanentpart of the Qing empire,as the exampleof Mongolia demonstrates,it did not necessarilyfollow that by graceof thisit would eventuallyhave to becomea permanentpart of China. This is merelywhat transpired.By way of conclusion,I would like to considerthe implications of the emergence of Manchuria for the modern Chinesegeo-body.

Conclusion: The Limits of Tartary

The term"geo-body" was coinedby Thai historianThongchai Winichakul, who definedit as "theoperation of the technology of territoriality which created nationhood spatially"(Winichakul 1994, 16). Arguingthat the hardeningof state boundaries duringthe age ofcolonialism and nationalismconferred legitimacy upon theresulting geopoliticalshapes once theywere projectedonto maps, Winichakul showed that theseshapes (Italy's "boot," forinstance, or France'strademark hexagon) then assume identitiesof theirown, as if a country'sappearance on the globe were somehowa unique, timeless,"natural" geographical form. Moreover, as Winichakulfound for Siam, this form-that is, the geo-body-often carriespolitical weight,as when a governmentdecides to use it as a symbolof the inviolabilityof nationalterritory. This has been true forChina, too, and China's territorialintegrity continues to be defendedtoday on the basis of the eighteenth-centurygeo-body. The projectionback in timeof essentiallyQing-era boundaries may raise some eyebrows(though China is by no means the onlyplace whereterritorial claims are made on such grounds),yet thisvery reflex allows us to identifythe sourceof modernChina's geographicalself- perceptionin the boundaryshifting that took place under the aegis of the Qing enterprise. Much the same point has been made before.In a seminal 1967 article,Ping-ti Ho arguedthat China looks the way it does todaybecause of the Manchu dynasty's success in expandingthe area under its dominationand in devising a systemof administrationthat integrated the innerprovinces of China proper with areas of Inner Asia newlybrought under Qing control."Geographically," Ho wrote,"China could neverhave reachedits presentdimensions without the laborious,painstaking, and skillfulwork of empirebuilding carriedout by Manchu rulersbetween 1600 and 1800.... The contributionof the Ch'ing periodto the formationof modernChina as a geographicand ethnicentity is of the greatestsignificance" (Ho 1967, 189). In notingthat the incorporationof Manchuria,Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjiang owed to the stewardshipof the alien Manchus,Ho drewattention to the factthat it was the boundariesof the territoryadministered by the Qing statewhich (for the mostpart) shaped the geographiccontours of the modernChinese republics and theirlook on themap. For thoughthe Qing enclosureof the historicfrontier in the northand west was not unprecedented-the Han, Tang, and Yuan empires were similarly 638 MARK C. ELLIOTT expansive-it was, forthe mostpart, final. It thusmarked an epochalturning point in the historicalprocess of Chinese geography.By the end of the 1700s, once the centuries-oldtension between the "Central Plain" (Ch zhongyuan)-long a synechdochefor China itself2)-and the frontier(what the poets called saiwai or guanwai, "beyond the pale") was largely resolved, the terms of the ancient differentiationbetween interior and exteriorwere fundamentally altered. With this, themeaning of "China" beganto change."China" was no longersimply the territories inhabitedby the people of the CentralPlain; it became a space, the territoriesover which the stateclaimed sovereignty-andwhich, like otherearly modern states, it had mapped.In thissense, China's spatial transformation under the Qing can be said to correspondto the creationof the Chinesegeo-body. In this connection,the state'suse of cartography,"a formof politicaldiscourse concernedwith the acquisition and maintenanceof power," is particularlynoteworthy notonly because maps are the"prime technology" of the geo-body (Winichakul 1994, 17), but also becausethe appeal to cartographymay be seen to heraldthe primacy of "space overplace" (Harley 1988). That said, place did not suddenlycease to matter: it would be wrongto assumethat the Qing spatialtransformation left a unifiedlegacy or thatthe geocorporation of the modernChinese state was a linearprocess. Different partsof the empiredeveloped different types of connectionswith the center,each at the same timeevolving in separateways as places.In thissense, the Qing imagination of empireproduced not one, but manyterritorialities, mostly compatible so long as the Manchuswere in power.The fall of the dynasty,on the otherhand, resultedin an immanenttension between these places and the new nationalcenter-dedicated upon radicallydifferent bases thanthe old imperialone-which in some casescreated (and continuesto create)serious problems for what would be called "nationalunity." For Manchuria,as we have seen, the transformationof the regionin the Qing dependedupon a varietyof processes:ritual and literarycelebration, administrative calibration,and cartographicimagination. Through these means, by the early1700s, Manchus,Chinese, and Europeanshad agreed that this cornerof "Tartary"indeed constituteda distinctiveregion, though they had not yetagreed on a commonname for it. Thanks in part to Japanesemediation, the outlines of an agreementon "Manchuria"were in place a centurylater, by which time the othernorthern and westernfrontiers (Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjiang) had also been blocked out and named. The outlineof the Manchurianregion that had takenshape was, as shown above,framed around an imperiallydefined Manchu identity that depended on ancient origin myths and sacred mountains-elements shared across Inner Asian civilizations-as well as on imaginarylandscapes and ancientrituals that bore closer resemblanceto Chinese antecedents.But Manchuriawas as yet relativelyweak, a hybridconstruction founded as much on memoryas on geography.We mightthink of it as a geo-bodyin the making,a place in the processof becoming(also) a space, particularlygiven the importantrole played by cartographictechnologies in giving it clearergeographic form, drawing "Manchuria" and delimitingit on the world's maps in the nineteenthcentury. As could be predictedfrom the case of Siam, colonialismand capitalismat the same timeaccelerated the pace ofManchurian geo-body-building. The adoptioninto

32Theequivalence of these two expressionsis nicelydemonstrated in a 1747 Manchu sacrificialtext: where the authorof the texthad writtenjung yuwan-i ba (i.e., zhongyuan),the Qianlong emperorcorrected this to read insteaddulimbai gurun (i.e., Zhongguo,China) (First Historical Archivesof China, Manwenzhupi zouzheljigou bao, "Manjusai wecerefe baita be sosomeejehengge"). THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 639

Chineseof Manzhou as a place namein the 1870s occurredas concernsover the empire's generalweakness were risingand immediatelyafter Russia had takenadvantage of Qing debilityto win cessionof major chunksof territoryin both Manchuriaand Xinjiang. Disputes overcontrol of Manchuria-its labor,railroads, ports, mines, and crops-increased thereafter,particularly with the arrivalof the Japaneseand their 1905 defeatof the Russianarmy in a war thatwas foughton Manchuriansoil and in Manchurianwaters. By then,Manzhou was in playas a toponymon Chinesemaps and generalcuriosity about the regionwas mounting.Not just the colonialpowers, but Manchuriansthemselves awoke to theiridentity and the role theirhomeland could play in politics: If Zhang Zuolin failedin his missionto permanentlycarve out a separateplace forManchuria in a newlyglobalized "Asia" (Karl 1998), it was in part becausethe Japanese army thought it could do a betterjob of it. The rise of Manchukuo after 1931 broughtthe contradictionsbetween the Chineseand the Manchuriangeo-bodies into open and ultimatelydisastrous conflict, as Manchuriawas joined to a different(and a differentkind of) empire.As Prasenjit Duara has recentlypointed out, one of the motivatingideologies in the Manchukuo statewas a kindof pan-Asian "redemptive transnationalism" that was directlyopposed to the "territorialnationalism" centered on the sanctityof a fetishizednational space (i.e., the geo-body), which was what animated most Chinese politicians and intellectualsat the time (Duara 1997). On the one hand, it is entirelyfitting that "redemptivetransnationalism" should have turned up in Manchuria,since, as we have seen,transnational impulses, transmitted most notably through cartography (but also throughpoetry), figured so importantlyin its creationas a local, Manchu place. At thesame time,however, we shouldnote that the spatializationof Manchuria as a new, "transnational"Manchukuo ironically ended up puttingmore meat on thisgeo-body's bones. Though of coursepolitically heavily dependent on Japan,at no time in its historydid Manchuriaenjoy a moreindependent identity than in the 1930s and early 1940s. Its emergenceas a centerof global attentionspawned a floodof Manchuria- related books, pamphlets,and articles in all languages, analyzing its strategic centralityas the "cockpitof Asia" and a "cradleof conflict" (Etherton 1932; Lattimore 1932) and debatingits properstatus (Shao 1998). And while thereare important differences,to be sure,between the imperialand the colonial visionsof Manchuria, underlyingboth one can detecta similarimagination at work.33Nothing illustrates thisbetter than the 1932 reprintingin Dalian of the Odeto Mukden in bothManchu and Chinesedecorative scripts, deluxe copies of whichwere given to membersof the LyttonCommission sent by the League of Nations to investigatethe circumstances surroundingthe declarationof an independentManchukuo.34 We can imaginewhat the presenter-Count Uchida, president of the Southern Manchuria Railway

330ne mightpoint hereto the romanticizedaccounts of Manchuria(and Mongolia) pro- duced byJapanese authors in the 1930s and 1940s, portrayingit as a land of abundanceand opportunity(Kleeman 1999). While this literatureshares more, probably, with the literature ofimperial travel and colonizationas describedin Pratt1992, its attentionto thearea's natural featuresstrikes some of the same notesas the writingof the so-calledChangbai School. The regioncontinues to exercisea fascinationupon Japanese writers today, as seen in the novelsof MurakamiHaruki, most particularlyin A Wild SheepChase (Hitsuji-omeguru boken) and The Wind-upBird Chronicles(Nejimakidori no kuronikkuru). 34Forthis piece of informationI am indebtedto Nakami Tatsuo. Though I have been unable to examinethem personally, copies of the 1932 editionof the Odeto Mukden (Dalian: Shiwenge) are to be foundin librariesin Hohhot,Shenyang, and Dalian. See Huang and Qu 1991. 640 MARK C. ELLIOTT

Company-was tryingto say: "Here is proofthat we did not invent'Manchuria' ourselves."35It is hardto imaginea gesturethat could moreeffectively illustrate the complexand unexpectedways in whichdifferent imaginations of this particular region of East Asia continuedto circulatefor over two hundredyears. Despite this history,of course,the Manchuriangeo-body did not last: With the Japanesedefeat, it was incorporatedonce and forall intothe largerChinese geo-body. Afterward,as noted,even the mention of its name was forbidden,annulling the process of onomasticconvergence that had begun in the 1790s and leavingthe impression that no unifiedname forthe regionhad everexisted. One mightdisagree that there had evereven been a geo-bodythere at all, sinceno "nation"ever emerged, but surely thisis a teleologicalreading backward from a nationalnarrative. For howeverit came to be defined(politically, demographically, nationally), as the foregoinghas shown, "Manchuria"has been its own place since the eighteenthcentury, and to a degree remainsso even today.

"Tartary"as a generalname for the unknown territories of Central and InnerAsia workedwell forcenturies, but it had its limits.As the Manchuand Russianempires expandedin the seventeenthand eighteenthcenturies, the strategicimportance of theseareas grew, and the learnedand powerfulin Europe as well as in Asia desired more informationand bettermaps. This process,in tandemwith the Qing court's wish to substantiateits claim to imperiallegitimacy and defendthe rampartsof Manchuidentity, gave birthto "Manchuria"in place and time.The notionof region herethus arose first, not as a resultof colonialistschemes, but as a resultof the cross- pollinationof texts,images, and technologiestransfixed upon a previouslyuncharted part of the globe. This nascentterritoriality received a fillipin the late nineteenth and earlytwentieth centuries, when colonialism and capitalismcombined to createa separategeo-body on the ritual,literary, administrative, and, especially,cartographic structuresof Manchurianregionality built by China's Manchu rulers.From this perspective,the most importantQing bequest to modernChina-its geography- appearsfar more complex than the straightforward"transfer of title" it mightseem at firstglance. The creationof what becamethe Chinesegeo-body in factcombined contradictoryimpulses of local and global definitionand a range of nationaland transnationalprograms, which scholars have lately begun to reexamine.The Manchuriancase shows clearlythat the geographicalinstantiation of the modern Chinesestate involved, not so muchthe preservation of what was, in theend, a highly problematiclegacy from the Qing, but the reconstitutionof nationalterritory. That thisrequired a new imaginationof the Chinesenation is obscuredby the choicethat was made in the end, namely,to rebuildon the linesof the Qing empire.But it was a reconstitution,nonetheless.

35Accordingto the catalogueprepared by the Mukden Library,the original1748 edition of the Ode,along with worksby Amiot, Klaproth,and otherWesterners who had written eitherabout the poem or about "Manchuria,"were all put on exhibitfor the delegationto inspect(Eto 1932). THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 641

Glossary liutiaobian4PfkA Ashiazenzu P;m i, longmai TA- baishanheishui EI Lb -J longqi , bianjiang g longxingzhi di Atl changbai -b Manshfuj i{ Changbaishijian :R j R4, Manshukoku i'{JIl Changbaishan A n l ManshCiteikoku jii f Chikyzhankyz7 s5zu WtI1Ji4t,t Manzhou Ji4ijfl EJ Manzhougenben zhi di Fi 4 Chuigokuhondo 1tlVAC z tt ci jie xi zhongguodifang . rf- Manzhougongren QM#jjkj)1J RtItIJl71 Manzhousangshi tu i Da QingHuidian ti,1 tAj Manzhoushil/u FiAjjfll DJt Qingyitongzhi b Manzhouyuanliukao rigifflffi& dada *p ;,6jDongbei 7ik Manzhouguo AiNJNo dongbeiren Vkb Manzu i dongbeiwei IVIL Ni/onhenkai ryakuzu ir *H F dongbeiyi dai IL n j Dongsansheng qi (banner) ; dongxun qi (humors) , faxiang zhi di ; saiwai V$ fengjin t shanling LL1X fengshan " Sheng]ingfuFfi0gg j Fengtianfu i*: Shengingquantu f fu(poem) jt shinadattan 3 fu(prefecture) J Songhuajiangfangchuange 4t,}jIi1 Guandong lJI atSnt]41-aguanwai g9$ TaizuWu huangdi shilu F;k9A guashu #4f4{ Gujintushu jicheng t WangsiChangbaishan shi r J J rIiS~ guojiazhaoji zhongdi Kl fi wei it wuyue Hokuhai F'L.C j xian ,qg Hokusabunryaku RItAtINJ Zhongguobenbu p Huangyuquanlantu ; zhongyuan43) koku g zhou (district) JI'I Ii . zhou(region, land) .9'f Liaodong zuzongfaxiang zhongdi i liezuchuangxing zhi di PIJAft1J 642 MARK C. ELLIOTT

List of References

AMIOT, JOSEPH MARIE, S. J. 1770. Elogede la Ville de Moukdenet de ses environs. Paris: N. M. Tillard. ANDERSON, BENEDICT. 1991. ImaginedCommunities (rev. ed.). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. BERNARD, HENRI, S.J. 1938. "Les Etapes de la Cartographie Scientifique pour la Chine et les Pays Voisin depuis le XVIe siecle jusqu'a la findu XVIIIe siecle." MonumentaSerica 3: 428-76. Bertelsmann'sWorld Atlas (Japaneseedition). 2000. Tokyo: Shobunsha. CHEN KANGQI. 1984 [18801. Langqianjiwen chubi (Miscellaneous notes of a retired official).Beijing: Zhonghuashuju. CLEAVES, FRANCIS WOODMAN, trans. and ed. 1982. TheSecret History of the Mongols. Cambridge:Harvard University Press. CROSSLEY, PAMELA KYLE. 1987. "Manzhouyuanliu kao and the Formalization of the Manchu Heritage."Journal of Asian Studies46.4: 761-90. DA QING HUIDIAN (The collectedinstitutes of the Qing dynasty).Editions of 1733 and 1763. DA QING YITONG ZHI (Unified atlas of the Great Qing). Ediifionsof 1744, 1790, 1842. DA QING ZHONGWAI YITONG YUiDI}TU (Unified comprehensive map of the GreatQing). Editionsof 1863, 1889. D'ANVILLE, JEAN-BAPTISTE BOURGUIGNON. 1735. Cartegenerale de la Tartarie Chinoise.In volume4 ofDescription geographique, historique . . de la Chineet de la Tartariechinoise, edited byJean-Baptiste Du Halde. Paris: P. G. Lemercier. DIAO SHUREN. 1995a. "Lun QianlongchaoMengdi de fengjinzhengce" (The policy of closing off Mongolian lands during the Qianlong reign). In Ming-Qing Dongbeishiyanjiu lunji, edited by Diao. Changchun:Jilin wenshi chubanshe. . 1995b. "Lun Qingdai Jilin diqu xingzhengtizhi ji qi bianhua" (The administrativeframework for Qing-era Jilin and its changes). In Ming-Qing Dongbeishiyanjiu lunji, edited by Diao. Changchun:Jilin wenshi chubanshe. and YI XINGGUO. 1994. JinsanbainianDongbei tudi kaifashi (The historyof land developmentin the Northeast during the last three hundred years). Changchun:Jilin wenshi chubanshe. Du HALDE, JEAN-BAPTISTE. 1735. Descriptiong6ographique, historique, chronologique, politique,et physique de l'empirede la Chineet de la Tartariechinoise, enrichie des cartes generalesetparticulieres deces pays, de la cartegenerale et des cartes particulieres du Thibet, etde la Core'e.Paris: P. G. Lemercier. DUARA, PRASENJIT. 1997. "Transnationalism and the Predicament of Sovereignty, 1900-1945." AmericanHistorical Review 102.4: 1030-51. ELLIOTT, MARK C. 1996. "Manchu (Re)Definitionsof the Nation in the Early Qing." IndianaEast Asian WorkingPapers Series on Language and Politicsin Modern China 7:46-78. . Forthcoming.The Manchu Way: TheEight Banners and EthnicIdentity in Late ImperialChina. Stanford:Stanford University Press. ENATSU YOSHIKI. 1994. "Shinkai kakumeigo, kyiuHotensho ni okeru kanchi no haraisage" (The disposition of officiallands in Fengtian after the 1911 Revolution).To-yo-shi kenkyu7 53.3: 103-27. ETHERTON, PERCY. 1932. Manchuria,The Cockpitof Asia. New York: Frederick Stokesand Co. THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 643

ETO ToSHIO. 1932. ExplanatoryNotes on Some Books and Mss. ofThe Mukden Library Preparedfor the Honourable Members of Commission ofEnquiry from League of Nations [sicl (Kokusairenmo0ch-osaiin eisetsu tenrankai sho, teko0 kaisetsu). Mukden: South ManchurianRailway Co. 1956. "Shiny- yobanashi"(Evening chats in Shenyang).In Et-, Dattan: T5-hokuAjia norekishi to bunken.Tokyo: Maruzen. FIRST HISTORICAL ARCHIVES OF CHINA (Beijing). Manwenzhupi zouzhe/jigou bao (Manchu-languagepalace memorials,jigou packet),item 26. FLETCHER, JOSEPH. 1986. "The Mongols: Ecological and Social Perspectives." HarvardJournalof Asiatic Studies 46.1: 11-50. Foss, THEODORE N. 1985. "The Editing of an Atlas of China, A Comparison of the Work ofJ.-B. D'Anville and the Improvementsof John Green on theJesuit/ K'ang-hsiAtlas." In Imagoet mensura mundi: Atti del IX Congressointernazionale di storiadella cartografia.Rome: Istitutodella EnciclopediaItaliana. FUCHS, WALTER. 1933. "Uber einigeLandkarten mit Mandjurischer Beschriftung." Manshfigakuh57 2: 1-18. . 1938. "Materialenzur Kartographieder Mandju-Zeit,"Part II. Monurmenta Serica3: 189-231. 1943a. DerJesuiten-Atlasder Kanghsi-zeit. Peking: Fujen Universitat. 1943b. Der Jesuiten-Atlasder Kanghsi-zeit:Seine Entstehungsgeschichte nebst Namensindicesffir die Karten der Mandjurei, Mongolei, Ostturkestan, und Tibet. Peking: Fujen Universitit. FUNAKOSHI AKIO. 1986. SakokuNihon ni kita'K5-kizu' no chirigakushiteki kenkyi7 (The acceptanceof Kangxi maps in Japan in the period of isolation: a study of geographicalhistory). Tokyo: H-oseidaigaku shuppankyoku. GAO SHIQI. 1986 [16841. HucongDongxun rilu (Diary of the imperialretinue on the easterntour). In Changbaicongshu chuji, edited by Li Shutian.Changchun: Jilin wenshichubanshe. Gaozongshilui [Da QingGaozong chun huangdi shiluj (Veritable records of the Qianlong reign).1964 [19371. Taipei: Huawen shuju. GAUBIL, ANTOINE, S. J. 1970. Correspondancede Pkin, 1722-1759. Geneva: LibrairieDroz. GONG CHAI. 1877. "Manzhou kaolue" (A brief study of Manchuria). In Xiaofanghuzhaiyudi congshu, edited by Wang Xiqi, juan 2: 139a-b. GongzhongdangKangxichao zouzhe (The secretpalace memorialsof the Kangxi reign). 1977. 9 volumes.Taipei: National Palace Museum. GREEN, JOHN [BRADOCK MEADJ. 1738-1741. A GeneralMap ofEastern and Western Tartary,commonly called Tartary. In volume2 ofA Descriptionofthe Empire of China and ChineseTartary, by J.-B. Du Halde. London:Ed. Cave. GUAN JIXIN. 1997. "Qingdai Manzu zuojia wenxuezhongde 'Changbaishan qingjie"' (The "Changbai Mountainsspirit" in the worksof Manchu writersin the Qing). Minzuwenxue yanjiu 1997.3: 72-75. GUGONG BOWUYUAN TUSHUGUAN [Imperial Palace Museum Libraryl and LIAONINGSHENG TUSHUGUAN [Liaoning Provincial Libraryl, eds. 1995. Qingdaineifu keshu mulu jieti (Annotatedcatalogue of books printedin the Qing palace). Beijing: Zijinchengchubanshe. HARLEY,J. B. 1988. "Silencesand Secrecy:The Hidden Agenda of Cartographyin EarlyModern Europe." Imago Mundi 40: 57-76. Ho, PING-TI. 1967. "The Significanceof the Ch'ing Period in Chinese History." Journalof Asian Studies 26.2: 189-95. 644 MARK C. ELLIOTT

HOSOYA YOSHIO. 1990. "Manju gurun to 'Mansh uikoku' " (The Manchu gurunand Manchukuo).In Rekishino naka no chiiki,edited by HamashitaTakeshi. Tokyo: Iwanamishoten. HUANG RUNHUA, and Qu LIUSHENG. 1991. QuanguoManwen tushu ziliao lianhe mulu(Union catalogue of Manchu books in the People's Republic of China). Beijing: Shumuwenxian chubanshe. HUMMEL, ARTHUR JR., ed. 1943-44. EminentChinese of the Ch'ing Period. 2 volumes. Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office. INABA IWAKICHI. 1935. ZoteiMansh; hattatsushi (Revisedand expandedhistory of the developmentof Manchuria).Tokyo: Nihon hyoronsha. Kangxi qijuzhu (Kangxi-eradiaries of activityand repose). 1984. First Historical Archivesof China,ed. Beijing: Zhonghuashuju. KARL, REBECCA E. 1998. "CreatingAsia: China in the World at the Beginningof the TwentiethCentury." American Historical Review 103.4: 1096-1118. KLAPROTH, JULIUS. 1828. ChrestomathieMandchou ou Recueil de Textes Mandchou. Paris: ImprimerieRoyale. KLEEMAN, FAYE. 1999. "Mysticismand Corporality:Reenvisioning Manchuria in a Post-colonialJapan." Paper presentedat the Conferenceon Contemporary JapanesePopular and Mass Culture,Montreal. KNECHTGES, DAVID. 1982-1986. Wen xuan, or, Selectionsof refinedliterature. Princeton:Princeton University Press. LATTIMORE, OWEN. 1932. Manchuria,Cradle of Conflict. New York: Macmillan. LEE, ROBERT H. G. 1971. The ManchurianFrontier in Ch'ingHistory. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press. Li SHUTIAN. 1994. Ula shilue(A shorthistory of Ula). Changchun:Jilin wenshi chubanshe. Liu Lu. 1998. "Frontierand Homeland:Cultural Encounters and thePoetics of Exile in Late Seventeenth-CenturyManchuria." Unpublished seminar paper, University of California,San Diego. MA DONGYU. 1997. Xiongshisifang: Qingdi xunshou huodong (Touring the realm:the imperialtours of the Qing emperors).Shenyang: Liaoshen shushe. Manzhoushilu/Manju-i yargiyan kooli (The Manchu veritablerecords). 1969 [19371. Taipei: Huawen shuju. MATSUMURA JUN. 1997. "The Founding Legend of the Qing Dynasty Reconsidered."Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 5 5: 41-60. MERRIFIELD, ANDREW. 1993. "Place and Space: A LefebvrianReconciliation." Transactionsof the Institute of British Geographers N.S. 18.4: 516-531. MITCHELL, SAMUEL A. 1839. "Map of Asia," in SchoolAtlas. Philadelphia. (Copyrightedimage accessibleat http://davidrumsey.com) Mo DONGYIN. 1958. Manzushi luncong(Collected essays on Manchu history). Beijing: Renminchubanshe. MORGAN, DAVID. 1986. TheMongols. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. NAITO TORAJIRO [Konani. 1935. ZohoManshu7 shashincho (Photographic album of Manchuria,enlarged ed.). Kyoto: Kobayashishashin seibansho. NAKAMI TATSUO. 1998. " 'Hokuto Ajia' karamita 'Higashi Ajia' " ("East Asia" as seen from"Northeast Asia"). In HigashiAjia sekaino chiiki nettowdku, edited by HamashitaTakeshi. Tokyo: Yamakawa shuppansha. NationalGeographic Atlas ofthe World, 6th ed., 2nd rev.ed. 1996. Washington,D.C.: National GeographicSociety. THE LIMITS OF TARTARY 645

NEEDHAM, JOSEPH, with WANG LING. 1959. Scienceand Civilisationin China. Volume 3, Mathematicsand theSciences of the Heavens and theEarth. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. OUYANG LING, ed. 1932. JiazhongZhonghua xinleifensheng tu (New provincialmap of China), 3rd ed. Wuchang:Yaxin dixue she. PERDUE, PETER. 1998. "Boundaries,Maps, and Movement:Chinese, Russian, and MongolianEmpires in EarlyModern Central Eurasia." International History Review 20.2: 263-86. PLATH, JOHANN HEINRICH. 1830-31. Geschichtedes OstlichenAsiens. 2 vols. Gottingen:Dieterichschen Buchhandlung. PRATT, MARY LOUISE. 1992. ImperialEyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation.New York: Routledge. QING GAOZONG [Qianlong emperorl.1743. Mukden-ifujurun bithe (The Ode to Mukden).Beijing. Rand McNally New InternationalWorld Atlas, 2nd rev. ed. 1993. Chicago: Rand McNally Publishers. SCHAMA, SIMON. 1996. Landscapeand Memory.New York: VintageBooks. Shangyubaqi (Edicts to the Eight Banners).1735. 10 ce. SHAO, DAN. 1998. "Legitimationand Delegitimationof Manzhouguo's Nationhood: Use of Ethnicityand History." Unpublished seminar paper, Universityof California,Santa Barbara. Shengzushilu fDa Qingshengzu ren huangdi shiluj (The veritablerecords of the Kangxi reign).1964 [19371. Taipei: Huawen sbuju. SIEBOLD, PHILIPP FRANZ VON. 1832-52. Nippon,Archiv zur beschreibungvonJapan unddessen Neben- und Schutzldndern. Leiden: C. C. van der Hoek. SIMON, WALTER, and HOWARD G. H. NELSON. 1977. ManchuBooks in London: A UnionCatalogue. London: The BritishLibrary. SMITH, ANTHONY D. 1993. "EthnicElection and CulturalIdentity." Ethnic Studies 10.1-3: 9-25. SMITH, RICHARD. 1993. ChineseMaps. Oxford:Oxford University Press. TANNER, HENRY S. 1836. "Asia," in WorldAtlas. Philadelphia. (Copyrighted image accessibleat http://davidrumsey.com) NAKAMI TATSUO. 1993. "Chiiki gainen no seijisei" (The political characterof regionalconcepts). In MizoguchiYfizo, Hamashita Takeshi, Hiraishi Naoaki, and MiyajimaHiroshi, eds., Ajia kara kangaeru1: K6satsusuru Ajia. (Tokyo: Tokyo UniversityPress, 273-295. THOMSON, JOHN S. 1909. The Chinese.Indianopolis, In.: Bobbs-Merrill. THONGCHAI WINICHAKUL. 1994. Siam Mapped:A Historyof theGeo-Body of a Nation.Honolulu: Universityof Hawaii Press. The TimesAtlas ofthe World. 1992. New York: HarperCollinsPublishers. TILLMAN, HOYT J. 1979. "Proto-Nationalismin Twelfth-CenturyChina? The Case of Ch'en Liang." HarvardJournalof Asiatic Studies 39.2: 403-28. VERBIEST, FERDINAND. 1854. "Two Journeysinto Tartary."In Historyof the Two TartarConquerors ofChina, edited and translatedby theEarl ofEllesmere. Hakluyt Society;reprint New York: Burt Franklin,n.d. WALEY-COHEN, JOANNA. 1991. Exile in Mid-QingChina: Banishmentto Xinjiang, 1758-1820. New Haven, Conn.: Yale UniversityPress. Wu XIANXI,ed. 1918. Shijiexin yutu (New map ofthe world), 3rd ed. (1st ed. 1909, 2nd ed. 1914). Shanghai:Commercial Press. 646 MARK C. ELLIOTT

YANG BIN. 1993 [17071. Liubianjilue (A conciserecord of the willowpalisade). In Jilinjiliie, edited by Yang Lixin. Changchun:Jilin wenshi chubanshe. YANO JIN'ICHI. 1941. Manshflkindaishi (The modernhistory of Manchuria). Tokyo: Meguroshoten. YAXIN DIXUESHE. 1915. Da Zhonghuajingsheng daoxian xiangtu (Detailed administrativemap of China). Wuchang:Yaxin dixueshe. YEE, CORDELL. 1994. "Traditional Chinese Cartographyand the Myth of Westernization."In TheHistory of Cartography, Vol. 2, Book 2: Cartographyin the TraditionalEast and SoutheastAsian Societies,edited by J. B. Harley and David Woodward.Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. YOSHIDA KIN'ICHI. 1992. Roshiato Chflgokuno tjbu kokkyJo megurusho mondai: NeruchinsukujJyaku no kenkyfi (Various Problems of the Eastern Frontier of Russia and China: Studiesof the Treatyof Nerchinsk).Tokyo: Kansuido. YUDI XUEHUI, ed. 1903. Wanguoyudi tu (World atlas). n.p. YUDI XUEHUI, ed. 1905. Huangchaofenshengtu (reprint ed.) (Map of the empireby province).n.p. ZHANG GUANG'EN. 1987. ZhonggongManzhoushengwei jianshi (Briefhistory of the CCP Manchurianprovinces committee). Shenyang: Liaoning shehui kexueyuan dangshiyanjiusuo. Zou BoQI. 1844. Huangyuquantu (Complete map of the imperialrealm).