The Limits of Tartary: Manchuria in Imperial and National Geographies Author(S): Mark C
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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