Stephen G. Haw

THE SEMU RENT5 § A IN THE YUAN EMPIRE*

ABSTRACT

Most non- and non-Chinese in the Yuan Empire were categorized as Semu reno Comparatively little work has been done on identifying exactly who they were, where they came from, how many of them there were, and what roles they fulfilled. In the absence of precise data, a number of misconceptions have crept into common circulation. It seems often to be assumed that they were predominantly Muslims, and that many of them were . These assumptions are seriously questioned here. The largest single group of Semu ren was probably the Turks, of various kinds, both Muslim and non-Muslim. Many Semu ren held military posts. They formed a very important part of the Imperial Guard. By no means all were from Western and : a significant number of them, such as the Tanguts and Tibetans, originated from areas within the East Asian Mongol Qanate. Terminology of relevance to the Semu ren is examined, including the term Huihui @] @], concluding that it has often been incorrectly understood in the past. It originally meant 'Uighur', and only gradually came to mean 'Muslim'. It is pointed out that, before Huihui was used in the sense of 'Muslim', there was no commonly-used term in Chinese which had that meaning.

One very important means of cultural transmission during the Mongol/Yuan period was the physical movement of substantial

* This article is an expanded version of a paper presented at the conference 'Mobility and Transformations: New Directions in the Study of the ' Ooint Research Conference of the Institute for Advanced Studies and the Israel Science Foundation), Jemsalem, June 29-July 4, 2014.

MINGQING YANJIUXVIII (2013-14) ISSN 1724-8574 © Universiti degli Studi di Napoli "L'Orientale"

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access Stephen G. Haw

numbers of people from one part of the Great Mongol Empire to another. In the empire of the Great Qan in East Asia (which consisted basically of and Mongolia, but also included Korea and Tibet), migrants from outside, including Central and Western Asians, were known by the general appellation of Semu reno Although the Semu ren have been the subject of study for some considerable time, there is still a lack of clarity regarding exacdy who they were. Where did they come from? How many of them were there? These and other related questions have never been fully and satisfactorily answered.

Terminology A major problem with understanding who the Semu ren were is that of terminology. The term semu itself has very often been misunderstood. As recendy as 1999, Michael Dillon stated:

In Yuan official documents, all of the migrants from Central Asia to China were classified as one of the peoples known as semu, a term which is often translated as 'coloured eyes' or 'blue eyes' to indicate that these were westerners whose eyes were not uniformly dark like those of the Chinese, but the Chinese characters for semu can also be translated as 'special status'.l It is really quite extraordinary that such a statement should have been made so recendy, for, as long ago as 1927, Paul Pelliot made clear that semu had nothing to do with 'coloured eyes'. Nor is there any connotation of 'special status'. Pelliot explained Semu ren as "[gens] classes dans les categories". 2 In the past, I have often used the translation 'Classified Peoples', which is more or less a rendition into English of Pelliot's French. Now, I would say that a much more accurate translation is 'people of various categories', or, more simply, 'people of various kinds'. Pelliot also noted that the term Zhu se ~~, meaning "de toutes categories", was "a la base de l'expression" semu. In fact, these two expressions, Zhu se and semu, are two contracted forms of the same longer expression. It is well known, to anyone with any knowledge of

1 Dillon 1999: 21. 2 Pelliot 1927: 266n; see also Brose 2007: 2n.

40

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access The Semu ren in the Yuan Empire the , that Chinese have a strong aversion to terms which consist of more than two or three characters. A good modern example is Wucha1!Jiqi Wenhua Da Geming 7C£~~~,&Jt{-t:A£f!:iP, the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution". In English, this is usually shortened to 'Cultural Revolution'. The Chinese contraction is much shorter - just two characters, Wenge Jt£f!:. A contemporary example is the common use of Xing sheng ff ~~ as a short form of Xing Zhongshusheng ff q:t if ~', Branch Secretariat. 3 Zhu se and semu both originate from the expression Zhu semu - 'all the various kinds'. A failure to realise this has often led scholars studying the Semu ren astray.4 For example, although Funada Yoshiyuki dearly associates the term S emu ren with the longer Zhu semu ren, 5 he apparently failed to realise the existence of the second contracted form, Zhu se reno Thus, he points out that the term Semu ren is of comparatively infrequent occurrence in the History 0/ the (Yuan shi jG 1:'. ),6 but overlooks the use of Zhu se reno Between them, these two terms are in fact of frequent occurrence - well over 100 times in the whole of the History o/the Yuan Dynasty. Funada also suggests that the term Semu ren did not come into use until the 1270s, although he himself notes that Chinggis Qan, at the instigation of Guo Baoyu $~.'-:::&, promulgated a law which distinguished between Mongols and Semu ren, on the one hand, and Han ren ¥lA, on the other. 7 This, of course, must have occurred before 1227. Another early usage, of the full expression Zhu semu, occurs at the time of Mongke's reign, when there is a reference to Zhu semu guan ~ 13 I§ 1'r, "all the Semu officials". 8 An early occurrence of Zhu se ren is in the biography of Xue Talahai ~**iJ~,

3 Farquhar 1990: 367. 4 The term Zhu se ren was used during the Jin ~ dynasty to mean peoples other than the Jurchens; see Yan Xingpan 2012: 62-63. 5 Funada 2010: 2. 6 Funada 2010: 8-9. 7 Funada 2010: 9, 12; YS 149: 3521. 8 YS 3: 46.

41

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access Stephen G. Haw who submitted to Chinggis Qan in 1214, and was awarded a tide which included this term.9 An expression of common occurrence in the Yuan shi is Zhu se ren Jiang ~ ~ A III.. Jiang means 'craftsman' or 'artisan'. This term undoubtedly refers to the various Semu craftsmen, including considerable numbers from Central Asia and further west, who were removed to East Asia to work for the Mongols. Again, the term has previously been misunderstood. Farquhar translated it "Artisans of Several Classes" or "All Classes of Artisans",10 thus obscuring the association with Semu reno It is clear that these translations are incorrect, because they ignore the character ren, which is left untranslated. The expression means "artisans [who are] Zhu se ren", that is, "artisans of the people of various kinds". Pelliot's discussion ofXunmalin ~Jff**, "une ville musulmane dans la Chine du nord", makes clear that the "artisans des diverses categories" who were setded in the town were from Samarqand, Bukhara, and neighbouring places. II By no means all of these foreign artisans were Muslims, however. The Yuan shi records that the Directorate-General (Zongguanju ~~i'Rt) of the Semu artisans controlled eleven subordinate offices. The first of these was responsible for producing Buddhist images -painted, modelled from clay, and carved from wood. The others dealt with lost-wax bronze casting; general bronze foundry; gold- and silver-work; steel-working; polishing and working precious stones, such as agate and jade; stonemasonry; woodwork; and lacquer work. The remaining two were a warehouse department, dealing with storage of materials and worked objects, and an office for handling disputes involving artisans under the authority of the Directorate-General. Judging by the grade and number of their officials, the two offices handling the production of Buddhist images and lost-wax bronze casting were more important than any of the other offices. The highest officials of the Directorate• General held the upper third grade of the Yuan bureaucracy, while those of these two offices were of the lower fifth grade. The heads of the other offices were of lower seventh, lower eighth, and (in the case

9 YS 151: 3563. 10 Farquhar 1990: 143, 201, 332. 11 Pelliot 1927: 263-279, particularly p. 266.

42

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access The Semu ren in the Yuan Empire of the warehouse only) upper ninth grade. There were four ranking officials heading each of the first two offices, but only one or two in all the rest. 12 It seems likely that the artisans responsible for making Buddhist images may have been from the Buddhist state of Xi Xia iZ!i ~, and possibly also from Tibet. Three thousand households of artisans from Transoxania were setded at Xunmalin.13 It is therefore likely that there were tens of thousands of foreign artisans and their families in the entire Yuan Empire.14 In view of the common usage of Zhu semu ren and related terms in the Yuan shi, it may seem surprising that, as Funada has pointed out, no equivalent term has yet been identified in any other language. IS On reflection, however, there may be very good reasons for this. The fact that no equivalent has been identified in any Persian source is easily explained: the term was used in the Yuan Empire to identify people who were not Mongols, Chinese, or other peoples formerly resident in the Jin and Song Empires. It was not used in the Ilkhanate or other Mongol Qanates. The apparent lack of any equivalent in Mongolian may well result from the comparatively small corpus of extant material in Mongolian dating from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. It is also the case that Zhu semu is not a very specialised term -it simply means "all the various kinds" - so perhaps no necessity was felt to include Semu ren or Zhu se ren in any of the extant glossaries, such as the Menggu y!yu ~(i!i' ~ ~B- or the Huqyi y!yu ¥ ~ ~* ~B- .16 In any case, the argument from what has not been found is notoriously weak.

In fact, there must have been an equivalent of Semu ren in Mongolian. This is certain, because the term occurs in Chinese documents of which a Mongolian version must also have existed. As a

12 YS 85: 2144-2145. 13 Pelliot 1927: 266; YS 122: 3016. 14 Strictly speaking, the title 'Yuan' applied to the entire Mongol Empire, but it is conventionally used to refer to the East Asian Qanate under the direct rule of the Great Qan. In this article, I sometimes use 'East Asian Qanate' as an alternative to 'Yuan Empire'. 15 Funada 2010: 2. 16 Funada 2010: 2-3.

43

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access Stephen G. Haw

rule, Yuan government documents were first written in Mongolian, and then translated into Chinese (and other languages, if necessary).17 Most legal documents issued by the central government were probably originally written in Mongolian, or at least were translated into Mongolian. The terms Zhu se ren and S emu ren occur in quite a number of them, including imperial edicts. In the Tongzhi tiaoge ji~H!lIJ~:Mt there is an ordinance relating to the registration of Zhu se ren jiang, the artisans of the people of various kinds. 18 There are also regulations relating to the different treatment of the various groups of people in the official examinations, which mention Semu ren several times. 19 Funada himself refers to a passage in the Yuan dianzhang jG A ~ which specifically mentions the Mongolian-language version of a document. 20 The term Semu ren occurs quite often in the Yuan dianzhang, because laws were often different for the "people of various kinds", compared to those applicable to Han ren (Northerners) and Nan ren r¥i A (Southerners).21 Thus, part of the usual punishment of thieves was to have their faces tattooed, but, by imperial edict, Semu ren were exempt from tattooing.22 The edict to this effect is called a sheng Zhi ~ §'. According to Lien-sheng Yang, this term was used for imperial instructions originally issued in Mongolian, and later translated into Chinese. 23 Thus, as this edict was very probably originally written in Mongolian, and contains reference to Semu ren, there must have been a term for Semu ren in Mongolian.

Ethnicity and Identification It is clear that the Semu ren enjoyed privileged status, above that of the Han ren and Nan reno They were exempt from certain punishments, such as tattooing, and they enjoyed preferential treatment in the civil

17 Endicott-West 1989: 83-84; see also Yang 1956: 42-46. 18 Fang Linggui 2001: 18. 19 Fang Linggui 2001: 221. 20 Funada 2010: 8. 21 For discussion of the meanings of these terms, and of my translations of them, see Haw 2014: 22. 22 YD Z 49: 1778; Chen Gaohua 2011/3: 1628: YS 38: 823, 104: 2665. 23 Yang 1956: 43.

44

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access The Semu ren in the Yuan Empire service examinations and in appointment to office. 24 Their privileges even extended to what they were allowed to wear: "Mongols are not included in this prohibition [against wearing clothes decorated with certain patterns], and Zhu se ren who are members of the kefig, and so on, are also not included. They are only forbidden to wear the 'Dragon and Phoenix' pattern. 'Dragon' means the one with five claws and two horns".25 Funada's claim that: "the category of Semu ren did not exist a priOr!',26 therefore cannot be accepted. It is certainly true that the concept of Semu ren "sometimes varied in its referential range or showed evidence of confusion in its usage",27 but a certain amount of imprecision in the use of a term does not completely invalidate it.

It is, in fact, in the section of the Yuan dianzhang which deals with the tattooing of thieves that a simple answer can be found to the question: who were the Semu ren? "Apart from the Northerners, and Southerners (Haner Gaoli ManiJ ren ~.7t~fllm-=f A), all are Semu ren". This was in answer to a query sent up to the Central Secretariat (Zhongshusheng 9:t .~') from at least one regional unit of government: "It is still not clear who the Semu ren are".28 If it was not always clear to officials of government at the time, it is hardly surprising that there is some difficulty now in understanding the term. It may also be noted here that this definition appears to include Mongols with the Semu reno This is a point that will be mentioned again below. This information in the Yuan dianzhang, although brief, is nonetheless useful. The 5 emu ren can be defined, in a general sense, by who they were not. They were not Mongols, of course, although, as just seen, Mongols sometimes seem to have been included with them. Nor were they from China or Korea - they were not former subjects of the Jin Empire, the Han ren (Northerners), Koreans (who were treated like Han ren), nor former subjects of the Song Empire, the Nan

24 Fang Linggui 2001: 221; YS 20: 432, 39: 839; Farquhar 1990: 34-35. 25 YS 78: 1942. 26 Funada 2010: 13. 27 Ibidem. 28 YD Z 49: 1780: Chen Gaohua 2011/3: 1630.

45

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access Stephen G. Haw ren (Southerners), colloquially known as Man~. 29 This general definition, however, leaves many questions unanswered.

Funada explores the case of a Jurchen who was a thief, and the question that arose regarding whether his punishment should include tattooing or not. It is clear that there was confusion about Jurchens - were they Semu ren or not?30 The Yuan dianzhang cites a decision of 1269, that Han ren, Jurchens and Khitans could not be darughachis in Routes (or Circuits; Lu ~4t) and appanages, and were to be dismissed from such posts, but that Huihui @] @], Uighurs, Naimans and Tanguts, like Mongols, could remain in office.3! This was taken to mean that Jurchens were not Semu reno On the other hand, Huihui, Uighurs, Naimans and Tanguts clearly all were. The situation regarding Jurchens and Khitans was not entirely clear-cut, however, for the Yuan shi also records that "people from the Hexi ¥ilJ@ region [that is, the Gansu Corridor, formerly part of the Tangut state], Huihui, Uighurs, and so on", could hold offices up to the rank of darughachi of a Myriarchy (Wanhufu ;i;? M), in the same way as Mongols, whereas J urchens and Khitans were subject to the restrictions on holding high office that were imposed on Han reno "But those Jurchens and Khitans who were born in the north-west, and who do not understand Chinese, are the same as Mongols".32 This must refer to Jurchens and Khitans from the Western Liao (Xi Liao @:iI), or Qara Khitay, Empire. 33 Thus, like Chinese, some of whom were Han ren and some of whom were Nan ren, Jurchens and Khitans could be either Han ren or Semu reno This clearly shows that the system of classing people into four groups - Mongols, Semu ren, Northerners, and Southerners - had little direct

29 See Haw 2014: 8-9. for discussion of the term Man;d. 30 Funada 2010: 9-10; YDZ 49: 1806-1807; Chen Gaohua 2011/3: 1654-1655. 31 YS 82: 2052. 32 YS 13: 268. 33 This is perhaps somewhat surprising: there can be no doubt that there was a significant number of Khitans in the Qara Khitay Empire, but whether the same was true of Jurchens may be doubted. Probably the general point was what was important here - that Khitans and Jurchens who were not to any extent sinicized were to be considered S emu reno

46

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access The Semu ren in the Yuan Empire connection to ethnicity. In fact, it was a function of how loyal the Mongols believed the various groups of people would be. Those that had submitted first, like the ~ l§ Uighurs, were considered more likely to be trustworthy than those who had submitted later, and especially those who, like the Nan ren, had, for a long time, offered strong resistance to the Mongols. There is evidence of this in Qubilai Qa'an's response to the Koreans, who had complained that the Uighurs were given precedence over them at court: ~~m~~, ~*~I~. ft*m~~~~~m, ~~a ~I~, ~~.~m, ~*~~, ~~~~. You submitted later, therefore you are ranked low among the princes. During the reign of our Tai Zu j( f£i [Chinggis Qan] , the Iduq qut [ruler of the Gaochang Uighurs] was the first to submit. Therefore it was ordered that he be ranked first among the princes. Arslan [ruler of the Qarluqs] submitted afterwards, therefore he was ranked below him. You should know thisP4 In the first year of the Dade Att- reign-period [1297], in the fourth month, on the day bingshen jAj $ [26 April], officials of the Central Secretariat (ZhongshusheniJ raised a number of points regarding the appointment of officials. Among them was the suggestion that: "In every Region (Dao :@:), the Regional Investigation Offices (LianJangsi ffifft-wJif]) should choose Mongols to be officials. If none are available, then they should use the sons and grandsons of long-serving S emu officials. As an inferior choice, they may include Semu and Han ren." The emperor agreed. 35 The Regional Investigation Offices were subordinate to the Censorate, a very important department of government which oversaw the general conduct of officials, both civil and military. It could impeach officials and had the right to communicate directly with the emperor. 36 Clearly, the loyalty of officials of the Censorate was of the utmost importance, hence the

34 YS 7: 128; Haw 2014: 13; Allsen 1983: 247. My translation differs very slightly from that of Allsen, mainly stylistically. See also Brose 2008: 260; and Brose 2005: 405-06. 35 YS 19: 410-411. 36 Farquhar 1990: 241-242.

47

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access Stephen G. Haw recommendation that Mongols, and Semu ren from long-serving official families, should hold office in its departments.

Further evidence that the Semu ren were considered to be more reliable and trustworthy than the Han ren and, especially, the Nan ren, is that they formed a very substantial part of the Imperial guard units. Ch'i-ch'ing Hsiao, in his study of the Yuan military, states that, of "a total of thirty-four units, twelve were mainly composed of Se-mu and another five of Mongols".37 Several other units were partly composed of Semu ren,38 so that, in all, the Semu ren alone must have constituted almost half of the Imperial guards, greatly outnumbering Mongol guardsmen, and probably outnumbering Chinese. Among the guard units, there were a Tangut Guard, a Qarluq Myriarchy, a Xiyu g§±,glG ('Western Regions') Guard, a Qangli Guard, three Alan Guard units, a Russian Guard, and four Qipchaq Guard units. The Qipchaq Guards, between them, were composed of 49 chiliarchies. 39 If these were anywhere near their nominal strength, then there must have been some 40 to 50 thousand Qipchaqs in these units of the Imperial guard. The probably numbered more than 20 thousand. The Turkic Guard units (Qipchaqs, Qarluqs, and Qanglis) were six of the twelve units of Semu reno This is certainly a reflection of the importance of Turks in the Mongol Empire. It must also be noted that the idea that the Semu ren were overwhelmingly Central Asians, or Western and Central Asians, 40 is certainly wrong. Russians, Alans, Tanguts, Naimans, Onggiits, and Tibetans were not Central or Western Asians. Central Asians (most of them Turks) were undoubtedly well represented, but it is unlikely that Western Asians were at all numerous. There is no evidence of large numbers of Persians in the Yuan Empire: this was, in fact, affirmed several decades ago. 41 On Western Asians in general, it is worth noting that 'Ala' aI-DIn and

37 Hsiao 1978: 45. 38 Hsiao 1978: 48-50; Pelliot 1959: 573. 39 Hsiao 1978: 48-49. 40 See, for example, Endicott-West 1989: 13, 14; Allsen 2001: 5-7; Franke and Twitchett 1994: 214,428,630. 41 Hung 1981: 617; see also Haw 2014: 21, 23; Haw 2014B: 278.

48

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access The Semu ren in the Yuan Empire

Ismail, the trebuchet engineers (who were very probably not Persians, but were certainly from ), had to be sent specially to China in about 1270.42 This implies that there was no one already in East Asia who had similar knowledge and skills.

If the S emu guardsmen had families, they may have represented something close to half a million Semu ren in the Yuan Empire. With the households of craftsmen, the number would almost certainly have considerably exceeded half a million. This begins to give some idea of how many Semu ren there were. This question of numbers is a very difficult one, however. Here, it is necessary to note that there were two different groups of Semu ren - those who came from outside the area under the direct rule of the Great Qan, and those whose homelands lay within the East Asian Qanate. Among the latter were the Tanguts and other peoples of the former Xi Xia state (including the Uighurs of the former Ganzhou ttj'!'l Qanate), the Tibetans, the various non-Chinese peoples of , and, at least at first, the Uighurs of Gaochang. The Gaochang region was eventually lost to the Chaghadai Qanate. If the Naimans were Semu ren, as I believe they originally were, they would also fall into this group. These various peoples must have been numerically the most important group of Semu ren, probably considerably outnumbering those who had migrated (voluntarily or otherwise) from other parts of the Great Mongol Empire. It seems very probable that the Naimans were considered to be Semu ren, because (as already noted above) they are included in lists of peoples who were allowed to hold high office hke Mongols. Tao Zongyi, writing near the end of the period of Mongol rule in China, also included them in his list of Semu ren. 43 Their exact status is a complex issue, which will not be discussed fully here. It seems at least possible that their status may have changed over time, perhaps because of gradual assimilation to the Mongols. Unlike the later

42 YS 203: 4544. 43 Tao Zongyi 1959, 1:13.

49

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access Stephen G. Haw

Manchus, the Mongols made no attempt to restrict intermarriage 44 (this is an important point in the present context). The Naimans, a people of Mongolia, incorporated into Chinggis Qan's emerging empire at an early date, probably intermarried with Mongols and perhaps increasingly became speakers of Mongolian. It may have become hard to distinguish them from Mongols, so that, in the end, they frequently were regarded as Mongols. This is clearly something that requires further research. It may be noted here that there is a common assumption that foreigners who settled in China became 'sinicized' or 'sinified' (in Chinese, huahua • ft.), but, in reality, the process was often more complex. During the Mongol/Yuan period, it was by no means uncommon for Chinese, and various other peoples of the Empire, to become, at least to some extent, 'Mongolized'. During the early Ming period, the Hongwu ¥~:lEt Emperor repeatedly complained about Chinese who had taken Mongol names, wore Mongol dress, and even spoke the Mongolian language.45

Numbers One estimate of the Yuan population during the second half of the thirteenth century suggests that there were about 400 thousand households (hu ?) of Mongols and Semu ren. 46 The question then is, how many people were there in a household? Five is often taken as an approximate average, but there are indications that this is too few for the Semu reno The census of 1290 counted 18,205 households under the Municipal Affairs Office (Lu shi si ~.:~r§j) of the city that is now Nanjing l~Djt Individuals (kou rJ, literally 'mouths') numbered 94,992. This gives an average of slightly more than 5 people per household. Of these, the Semu households numbered 149, with 2,919 individuals.47 This is an average of just under 20 people per household. These figures for the Semu ren do not appear to result from any error of transcription, as they are a subset of overall numbers of 'people from the north' (bei ren ::f~A), and when added to the figures for Han ren,

44 Hung 1981: 625. 45 Serruys 1959: 162-163. 46 Endicott-West 1989: 86. 47 Zhang Xuan 2009,8: 1155.

50

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access The Semu ren in the Yuan Empire

they produce the correct totals. It is interesting to note, too, that Mongols are included under Semu households in these lists. Other Semu ren specifically listed are Uighurs (Huihe'er ~'ifLfQ m), Huihui, Khitans, and 'people from Hexl, presumably meaning Tanguts. 48 Another set of population figures, for the town of Zhenjiang ffi¥I, lists, under the heading 'Oudanders' (Qiao yu {-rt~), Uighurs (Weiwuer ~:g: ~), Huihui, Christians (Yelikewen illffiPJ~, who would probably have been mainly Turks such as Nestorian Christian 6nggiits),49 people from Hexi, Khitans, and Jurchens. In this case, 14 households of Uighurs consisted of 93 individuals (an average of about 6.5 per household), 23 households of Christians amounted to 103 individuals (only about 4.5 people per household), and three households from Hexi were comprised of no less than 35 people (almost 12 per household). The term Semu is not used, so it is not clear if the Khitans and Jurchens were considered to be Semu ren or not. What is quite clear is that the number of people per household varied widely, although Semu households tended to be large (by contrast, households of Han ren in Zhenjiang, of which there were 3,671, averaged only just over 2.5 per household - 9,407 individuals).50 Unfortunately, this kind of detailed information about populations during the Yuan period is scarce. The comparatively large size of Tangut households is, however, confirmed by figures for Ganzhou and Suzhou it1'1'[ Routes of the Gansu i:tit Branch Secretariat. The census of 1290 recorded 1,550 households in Ganzhou, with 23,978 individuals (more than 15 people per household). In Suzhou, 1,262 households were comprised of 8,879 people (seven per household).5! It has been suggested that, in 1290, there could have been as many as 100 thousand households in the Gansu Branch Secretariat. 52 This might represent a total population of about a million, or even as many as a million and a half. The population of the former Xi Xia state was not entirely composed of

48 Zhang Xuan 2009, 8: 1157,1160. 49 Dickens 2001: 13; Li 2006: 5-8. 50 Tuoyin and Yu Xilu 1990, 3: 2649. 5! YS: 60: 1450. 52 Wu Songdi 2000: 312.

51

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access Stephen G. Haw Tanguts, and it is not clear whether ethnic Chinese from this area were treated as Semu ren or not, but if there were about a million or so 'Tanguts' (in the broad sense of former subjects of the Xi Xia state), then it is likely that there must have been at least a few million Semu ren in total. The figure of 400 thousand households of Mongols and Semu ren cited above seems likely to be conservative. Even if it is approximately correct, there might have been as many as ten or even fifteen individuals per household, which would give four to six million people in all. Since Mongols in the Yuan Empire probably numbered no more than a million, or even less,53 it is quite possible (and even likely) that the Semu ren numbered some three to five million. Returning to the question of the Imperial Guards, it is noticeable that there was no Uighur Imperial guard unit. Indeed, the Uighurs, although of considerable importance in the Empire, played a comparatively minor role in military affairs. Although an Uighur army had taken part in the western campaigns of Chinggis Qan, and Uighur officials often performed military functions during the early decades of Mongol rule, they later became increasingly involved in civilian affairs. 54 The Qipchaqs also became extremely influential, dominating the government during the late Yuan period.55 It is clear that Turks of various kinds were a large proportion of the Semu ren, and played very significant roles in Yuan government. 56 Another noticeable absence is any major Huihui element in the Imperial guard. It is quite possible, however, and even very probable, that Huihui were the majority of the guardsmen in the "Western Regions" unit. This raises two further problems of terminology. If there is a lack of clarity regarding the precise meaning of S emu ren, considerably greater uncertainty surrounds the two terms Xi yu and Huihui. The term Xiyu, the 'Western Regions' (or, originally, the 'Western Region'), is an old one, long pre-dating the Mongol period. It occurs at

S3 Smith 1975: 282-283; Allsen 1983: 245. 54 Brose 2007: 54, 76-77, 163, 164, 205, 268. 55 De Rachewiltz 1983: 295. 56 Haw 2014: 18-23.

52

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access The Semu ren in the Yuan Empire least as early as the Han dynasty. 57 It is quite precisely defined in the Hanshu~.: To north and south there are high mountains. There is a river in the middle. From east to west it is more than 6,000 Ii ~, from north to south it is more than a thousand Ii. On the east, it adjoins the Han Empire, from which it is separated by the Yumen ]ir~ and Yang ~ Passes [or fortified gates; just west of Dunhuang -tt:l:1i!.]. In the west, it is delimited by the Congling ~~ [the "Onion Range", that is, the Pamirs and adjacent mountain ranges].58 In other words, the 'Western Region' was the Tarim Basin. Unfortunately, the term did not keep this narrow meaning. In the course of time, anywhere that was reached by the overland routes that ran westwards from Dunhuang tended to be included in the Xiyu. In the broad sense, the 'Western Regions' could mean more or less anywhere in Central Asia, western Asia, South Asia, much of and even North Africa.59 If, therefore, it is recorded that someone, or someone's ancestors, came from the Xiyu, this really means very little, and great caution must be exercised in the interpretation of such a record.

Huihui and Semu ren A far greater degree of confusion surrounds the term Huihui. It is usually taken to mean 'Muslim' (or 'Islamic'), and I myself have, in the past, assumed that this was its basic meaning. It was long ago noted by Arthur Waley, however, that it sometimes meant 'native of Turkestan'. 60 In fact, it was derived from the early Chinese transcriptions of the name of the Uighurs, who, during the period of the Tang dynasty, were known, in Chinese, as Huihe @]~z or Huihu @] tl61 The earliest use of the term Huihui that has yet been identified is in the Mengxi bitan ~¥l~~~ by Shen Kuo ¥tJi'§, which dates from

57 Sima Qian 1959,60: 2109. 58 Ban Gu 1962, 96 shang -.1: 3871. 59 Ci Hai bianji weiyuanhui 1982:85. 6°Waley 1931: 36; see also Cleaves 1951: 501n. 61 Yang Zhijiu 2003: 7; Haw 2014: 18.

53

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access Stephen G. Haw 1088. In a chapter dealing with music, there is a passage which says that, when Chinese soldiers returned victorious in their border campaigns, they would sing. Shen says that the songs were old, and at least partly in colloquial language. He gives the words of a few of them, including one which mentions "beating Huihuz" and "cleaning up the road to Anxi ~jffi".62 In this instance, it seems certain that Huihui means 'Uighurs', for Anxi was an administrative region established in the Tarim Basin during the Tang dynasty. It may be noted that the Song Empire fought no campaigns against Muslims. At this point, it should be noted that there was no general term in Chinese for 'Turks'. The various with which the Chinese came into contact, at different periods, were designated by more specific ethnonyms, including 'Uighur'. It is possible, however, that the term Huihui was sometimes used to designate Turks in general. From about the middle of the eighth century onwards, the Uighurs were the Turkic people with whom the Chinese had most contact. Thus, the term developed to mean, not so much a 'native of Turkestan' as, quite simply, a Turk. When most of the Turks of Central Asia became Muslims, for the Chinese, 'Turk' became more or less indistinguishable from 'Muslim'. So the term Huihui came to mean 'Muslim'. The Uighurs of Gaochang, who, in the early thirteenth century, were not Muslims, but mainly Buddhists, with some Eastern Christians and Manichaeans among them, then needed a new name, and were called Weiwuer~-t-fjy\ or Weiwu~][ (with several variants). In the Song Empire, however, the term Huihui may well have continued to be used to mean 'Uighur' or 'Turk' for some time after its meaning had changed in northern China. For example, in the Hei Da shiliie ~ fit. ~ of 1237, there are clear references to 'Huihui characters', meaning 'Uighur script,.63 A translation by F.W. Cleaves of the passage including the second of these references runs as follows: "As for that [the writing] which circulates among the Hui-hui ... (i.e., Mohammedans), one uses the Hui-hui (Uyyur) characters". 64 He apparently failed to realise that there is a contradiction in his

62 Shen Kuo 2002, 5: 32. 63 Peng Daya and Xu Ting 1983: 212. 64 Cleaves 1951: 501.

54

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access The Semu ren in the Yuan Empire

translation. The Uighur script was generally not used among Muslims. Muslim Turks used the Arabic script to write Turkic, at least as early as about 1100. 65 Therefore, 'among the Hui-hut' here must mean 'among the Uighurs', or perhaps 'among the Turks'.66 An interesting early passage in the Yuan shi relates that the Ong Qan, having been attacked by his younger brother and the Naimans, was forced into flight: "The Ong Qan went through the three countries of Hexi, the Huihu, and the Huihui, and fled to the Khitans".67 Hexi must mean Xi Xia, the Tangut state. The Huihu would almost certainly refer to the Gaochang Uighurs. Huihui here is less obvious. Usually, in the Yuan shi, Huihui guo !ill!ill~, "the country of the Huihut", means . It seems very unlikely that it could mean that here. Probably it must refer to the Muslim Turks of eastern Central Asia, under Qara Khitay rule at the time. The Qara Khitay were certainly the Khitans to whom the Ong Qan fled. In 1265, Qubilai Qa'an decreed that: "Mongols shall fill the post of darughachi in all Routes (Lu), Northerners (Han ren) shall fill the post of Director-General (Zongguan ~~ l'f), and Huihui shall fill the post of Associate Director-General (Tongzhi [q) ~Q). This shall always be the fixed rule." 68 It seems unlikely that Huihui here specifically means "Muslims". It probably means Semu ren in general. At other times, Qubilai Qa'an displayed aversion to , and even banned, for a time, the slaughter of animals in the Muslim fashion, as well as circumcision.69 In 1290, a senior Muslim official of the Jiang-Huai ~I ¥t Branch Secretariat reported that officials of the public granaries had stolen grain and embezzled money, and requested that they be punished by carving their faces and cutting off their hands. Qubilai replied: "This is Islamic law!" and would not permit it. 70 Incidentally, the passage about appointment of officials in Routes also shows that

65 Erdal 1984: 291-292, 296. 66 See also Haw 2014: 17-18 on this passage of the Hei Da shiliie and on the use of Arabic script for writing Turkic. 67 YS 1: 6. 68 YS 6: 106; cf. Farquhar 1990: 7-8. 69 Haw 2014: 30-31. 70 YS 16: 339.

55

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access Stephen G. Haw

Mongols were widely used in local government offices. The common assertion that the Mongols used the Semu ren as a kind of buffer between themselves and the conquered Chinese, so that the resentment of the Chinese was focused principally on the Semu ren rather than on the Mongols themselves,71 is not supported by good evidence. The simple fact is that there were not enough Mongols to fill every government post. Semu ren helped to fill the gaps, as did Northerners from the former J in Empire of the J urchens (Northerners, Han ren, were not all Chinese, but, as already noted, included J urchens and Khitans, among other former Jin subjects). The considerable degree of imprecision in the use of the term Huihui is also shown by the fact that it was certainly applied to Jews, as well as to Muslims, and even to some groups of Christians. 72 Jews are sometimes specifically referred to as Zhuhu Huihui * m@] @] ,73 but they must very frequently simply have been included among Huihui, without distinction. The physician Aixue ~ ~ is also called a Huihui,74 although it is almost certain that he was a Christian.75 Thus, even if someone is specifically referred to as a Huihui, it cannot automatically be assumed that he was a Muslim. Faced with a large influx of people from Central Asia and further afield, who were generally unfamiliar to most Chinese, and probably more particularly to the Chinese of the former Southern Song Empire, terms such as Semu ren and Huihui were often used very loosely. It has even been suggested that Chinese sometimes used Huihui more or less in the way that Wa~uo ren j"~A, 'foreigners', is used by Chinese today.76 As late as 1366, almost at the end of Mongol rule in China, Huihui could still be used in a sense that undoubtedly cannot have been 'Muslim'. Tao Zongyi 1*V*1R, in his fascinating collection of notes, Nancun chuogeng lu m~1~*Jt~, refers to a 'Tibetan monk HuihuP (Xifan seng Huihui [§ ~ 1~ @] @]). This is in a passage about the

71 See, far example, Rassabi 1981: 258-259. 72 Pelliat 1959: 23; Leslie 1986: 195-196; Liu Yingsheng 2010: 87-88. 73 Leslie 1995: 242. 74 YS 8: 147. 75 Allsen 2001: 149-150. 76 Wei Xin 2006: 179.

56

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access The Semu ren in the Yuan Empire desecration and robbing of the Southern Song imperial tombs by Yang Iianzhenjia ~UJl{.f}]a, a Tibetan Buddhist monk.77 Yang was very probably not a Tibetan, however, but rather a Tangut. At least it is certain that he came from the former Xi Xia state, as the Ming shi EJl j: clearly states that he was a 'man from Xia' (Xia ren JIlA).78 Perhaps he was an Uighur, from the former Ganzhou Qanate, and Huihui here means 'Uighur', or perhaps it is simply used in a general sense to mean a 'foreigner'. In any case, it is an interesting late example of the use of Huihui in a sense other than 'Muslim'. Another such usage occurs in the Yi yu i/Ji ~ ±~ it, a work probably dating from the early Ming period, which says that Cambodia was a country of the 'southern Huihuz'.79 It is significant that Muslims in China during the Yuan dynasty were Semu reno They were not either Han ren or Nan ren; that is, they were not Chinese. This very strongly implies that there were no established communities of Chinese Muslims during the Yuan period; at least, not at its beginning. There may well have been Muslims in the port cities of the south-east (especially jjU'H) during the late , but they were foreigners. In fact, during the Song dynasty, there was no term in Chinese for 'Muslim' or 'Islam'. Had there been any significant communities of Muslims in China during the Song dynasty, there would surely have been such a term. As Pelliot suggested almost 90 years ago, Islam only became established in China during the Mongol/Yuan period: "Sauf au titre des relations etrangeres'l'islam n'apparait guere en fait dans l'histoire chinoise avant 1"epoque mongol'~ e .... To my knowledge, the only Chinese term which occurs before about 1200 with the meaning 'Islam' is Dashi fa :*iti!. This term occurs in a single passage in the Tong dian :imA, a work completed in 801. 81 The section in which it appears contains descriptions of foreign

77 Tao Zongyi 1959,4: 43, 47. 78 Zhang Tingyu 1974, 285: 7315; a similar statement also occurs in Zha Jizuo 1993, Zhi;t, 8:451. 79 Zhou Zhizhong 2000: 24. 80 Pelliot 1927: 279. 81 Du You 193: 14b; Du You 1988: 5266.

57

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access Stephen G. Haw countries. It is clear that it was a foreign religion, the 'law (or doctrine) of the Caliphate', which had no particular connection with China. Although Muslims certainly visited China at various times from the seventh century onward, the overwhelming majority of them were envoys and merchants, who spent a limited time in China, and then usually departed. Only during the Mongol period did large numbers of Muslims settle permanently in China, and then they were Semu ren, essentially non-Chinese. It was not until the that the change occurred from 'Muslims in China' to 'Chinese Muslims,.82

Conclusion The Semu ren, then, were a varied group. Tao Zongyi lists no less than 31 different kinds of Semu ren. 83 Although his list certainly contains repetitions, errors, and omissions, it is clear that his number is not substantially wrong. Many of the Semu ren were Turks -Qipchaqs, Uighurs, Qarluqs, Qanglis, Onggiits, Muslim Turks from Central Asia, and others. Turks, of various kinds, were very probably the single largest group of Semu ren. 84 There were also many whose homelands lay within the East Asian Qanate -the Tanguts and other peoples of the former Xi Xia state, the Tibetans, many of the Uighurs, the Onggiits, and others. Then there were people from further afield• Alans, Russians, Syrians, even Central and Western Europeans such as Marco Polo. They were involved in numerous activities. Some were artisans, like those settled at Xunmalin; some were soldiers, like all

82 Leslie 1987: 183-186. Leslie's writings on remain fundamental, but although he generally adopts a sceptical approach, in my opinion he is still too ready to accept some of the claims relating to Islam during the Song dynasty. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss in detail the status of Islam in China before the Mongol period, but it seems clear to me that many claims for the Song period do not withstand critical scrutiny. In relation to Pu Shougeng and the claim that he was a Muslim, see Haw 2014A: 7-8. Israeli 2002 is a collection of previously• published articles, not a coherent account. Some of the articles (e.g. Chapter 16, "Al• Sin") are inadequately referenced. 83 Tao Zongyi 1959, 1:13. 84 For further discussion of Turks in China during the Mongol period, see Haw 2014: passim.

58

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access The Semu ren in the Yuan Empire

those in the Imperial Guard units, or military engineers, like 'Ala' al• DIn and Ismail; some were officials, of various kinds and at various levels; some came to propagate their religion, like John of Monte Corvino;85 some were merchants.86 This does not exhaust the extent of their activities. There were probably a few million of them. The exact number must have varied over time, but, in the late thirteenth century, there may have been as many as about five million. The 'people of various categories' were a very significant group in Yuan society.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ALLSEN, Thomas T., "The Yuan Dynasty and the Uighurs of Turfan in the 13th Century", in Morris ROSSABI (ed.), China among Equals: the Middle Kingdom and its Neighbors, 10th - 14th Centuries, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983. -- Culture and Conquest in Mongol Eurasia, Cambridge: University Press, 200l. BAN Gu J!JI1lm, Han shu rlff, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju r:f:t¥ff,$], 1962. BROSE, Michael c., "Uyghur Technologists of Writing and Literacy In Mongol China", Toung Pao, 2nd series, 91,2005: 396-435. -- Suijects and Masters: Uyghurs in the Mongol Empire, Bellingham: Center for East Asian Studies, Western Washington University, 2007. -- "People in the Middle: Uyghurs in the Northwest Frontier Zone", in D.J. WYATI (ed.), Battlifronts Real and Imagined: War, Border and Identiry in the Chinese Middle Period, New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. CHEN Gaohua J)! rI'Q ¥ et aL (eds) , Yuan dianzhang JG A:!lj[ (Da Yuan shengzhengguochao dianzhang *JG~lI&OO!jtj}A:!lj[), 4 vols., Tianjin: Tianjin guji chubanshe; Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 201l. Ci Hai bianji weiyuanhui 15¥~~~*&~ ~ Wr (ed.), Ci Hai: dili fence (Iishi dili) 15¥ ~:j:fuf1ll.7tffl (Hf!£:l:-t!!f1Il.), 2nd edn., Shanghai: Cishu chubanshe 15¥ff ill JtlH±,1982.

85 Dawson 1955: 222-231. 86 Endicott-West 1989A: 127.

59

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access Stephen G. Haw

CLEAVES, Francis W., "A Chancellery Practice of the Mongols in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries", Haroard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 14.3/4,1951: 493-526. DAWSON, Christopher (ed.), The Mongol Mission, London: Sheed and Ward, 1955. DE RACHEWILTZ, Igor, "Turks in China under the Mongols: a Preliminary Investigation of Turco-Mongol Relations in the 13 th and 14th Centuries", in Morris ROSSABI (ed.), China among Equals: the Middle Kingdom and its Neighbors, 10th - 14th Centuries, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983. DICKENS, Mark, "Nestorian Christianity in Central Asia", (available online at http://www.oxus.com/N estorian_Christianity _in_ CA. pdf) 2001. DILLON, Michael, China's Muslim Hui Community: migration, settlement and sects, Richmond: Curzon, 1999. Du You ;f±{;b, Tong dian Jm~, in Si ku quan shu hufyao [9J!l!~fhw~. --Tong dian Jm~, vol. 5, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju r:J:t¥ffJiU, 1988. ENDICOTT-WEST, Elizabeth, Mongolian Rule in China: Local Administration in the Yuan Dynasty, Cambridge and London: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University, and Harvard-Yenching Institute, 1989. --"Merchant Associations in Yuan China: the Ortoy', Asia Mqjor 3rd series, 2.2, 1989A: 127-154. ERDAL, Marcel, "The Turkish Yarkand Documents", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 47, 1984: 260-301. FARQUHAR, David M., The Government of China under Mongolian Rule: a riference guide, Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990. FANG Linggui 11 ~ ~, Tongzhi tiaoge jiaozhu Jm *0 1k ~ ~ tt, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju r:J:t¥ffJiU, 2001. FRANKE, Herbert, and Denis TWITCHETT (eds.), The Cambridge , vol. 6, Alien Regimes and Border States, 907 - 1368, Cambridge: University Press, 1994. FUNADA Yoshiyuki, "The Image of the Semu People: Mongols, Chinese and Various Other Peoples under the Mongol Empire", Paper presented at the international roundtable entitled "The Nature of the Mongol Empire and its Legacy", Centre for Studies in Asian Cultures and Social Anthropology, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 6 November 2010: 1-21.

60

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access The Semu ren in the Yuan Empire

HAW, Stephen G., "The Persian Language in Yuan-dynasty China - a Reappraisal", EastAsian History 39, 2014: 5-32. -- "The History of a Loyal Heart (Xin shz) - a late-Ming forgery", Journal ifthe R'!)'al Asiatic Society, Available on Cambridge Journals Online 2014A: 1-9; doi:l0.1017/S1356186314000686 (published online 23 October 2014). -- "Bayan of the Barin's Persian Wife, And Other Perplexities", Journal if Asian History, 48.2, 2014B: 263-279. HSIAO, Ch'i-ch'ing, The Military Establishment ifthe Yuan Dynasty, Cambridge: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University, 1978. HUNG, Chin-Fu, "China and the Nomads: Misconceptions in Western Historiography on Inner Asia", Haroard Journal ifAsiatic Studies 41, 1981: 597-628. ISRAELI, Raphael, Islam in China: Religion, Ethnicity, Culture, and Politics, Lanham: Lexington Books, 2002. LESLIE, Donald D., Islam in Traditional China, Canberra: College of Advanced Education, 1986. -- "Living with the Chinese: the Muslim Experience in China, T'ang to Ming" in Charles LE BLANC and Susan MADER (eds.), Chinese Ideas about Nature and Society: Studies in Honour ifDerk Bodde, Hong Kong: University Press, 1987. -- "The Mongol Attitude to Jews in China", Central Asiatic Journal 39.2, 1995: 234-243. LI Tang, "Mongol Responses to Christianity in China: A Yuan Dynasty Phenomenon", National University of Singapore, Asia Research Institute Working Paper Series, no. 63,2006. LID Yingsheng, "A Lingua Franca along the Silk Road: Persian Language in China between the 14th and the 16th Centuries", in R. KAUZ (ed.), Aspects ifthe Maritime Silk Road: From the Persian Gulf to the East China Sea, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010. PELLIOT, Paul, "Une Ville Musulmane dans la Chine du Nord sous les Mongols", Journal Asiatique, tome 211,1927: 261-279. --Notes on Marco Polo: ouvrage posthume, vol. 1, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1959.

61

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access Stephen G. Haw

PENG Daya ~:*m and XU Ting 1*~, Hei Da shiluejianzheng~1j\j!.~~ ~,(ed.) WANG Guowei I~~, in Wang Guoweiyishu I~~JI~, vol. 8, Shanghai: Shanghai Shudian J::#lt~;;s, 1983. ROSSABI, Morris, "The Muslims in the Early Yuan Dynasty", in John D. LANGLOIS, Jr. (ed.), China under Mongol Rule, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981. SERRUYS, Henry, The Mongols in China during the Hung-Wu Period (1368 - 1398), Bruxelles: Melanges chinois et bouddhiques publies par L'Institut BeIge des Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 1959. SHEN Kuo ¥JtJi5, Mengxi bitan ~¥$:'&H~, Changsha ffijy: Yuelu shushe ~ ft~:f±, 2002. SIMA Qian P] ~~, Shi ji !t~2, 10 vols., Beijing: Zhonghua shuju r:p ¥~ no, 1959. SMITH, John Masson, Jr., "Mongol Manpower and Persian Population", Journal oj the Economic and Social History oj the Orient, 18.3, 1975: 271-299. TAO Zongyi ~~iHx., Nancun chuo geng lu J¥j~1~fjj:JK, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju r:p¥~no, 1959. TUOYIN E.5l~ and Yu Xilu ]tr$~, Zhishun Zhenjiang Zhi ~JI~ijtiLt, in Song Yuanfangzhi congkan *jCjJ;t:iiflJ, vol. 3, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju r:p¥~no, 1990. WALEY, Arthur, The Travels oj an Alchemist: the Journ~ oj the Taoist Ch 'ang-Ch 'un from China to the Hindukush at the Summons if Chingiz Khan, London: Headley Brothers, 1931. WEI Xin fftj JTJ\, "Xi yu huajia Gao Kegong minzu wenti yanjiu jl§ ~,. *raJ 5'Ut~~r~~Im:fi]fJ'L", Xin Xiyu: Lilun ban WTjl§~: ~W6It&, 2006.24: 179-180. WU Songdi ~t~ ~, Zhongguo renkou shi r:p ~ )UJ j:, di san juan ~ =~, Liao SongJin Yuan shiqi ~*~jCfR!fAA, Shanghai: Fudan daxue chubanshe ~ 1=1.:** ill It&:f±, 2000. YAN Xingpan ~ Jl!1i, "Lun Jindaide 'Zhu se ren' - Jindai minzu qishi zhiduhua qushi ji qi yingxiang §jij~1~1¥J '~~A' - ~1~~~Jl:i*5[ *tllt1·tJj~Eci!;~IlI~J", Shanxi shifan daxuebao (Shehui kexue ban) 39.4, 2012: 62-66. YANG Lien-sheng, "Marginalia to the Yuan tien-chang', Harvard Journal oj Asiatic Studies 19, 1956: 42-51. YANG Zhijiu ~;t:~, Yuandai HuiZ}l shigao jC1~@]~!tm, Tianjin: Nankai Daxue chubanshe J¥j~:**illlt&:f±, 2003.

62

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access The Semu ren in the Yuan Empire

YDZ: Va Yuan shengzhengguochao dianzhang Aj[;~lI&OO~)t~4·~ [facsimile of Yuan edition], Beijing: Zhongguo guangbo dianshi chubanshe 9J ~"':fi ~*JHBYi1±, 1998. YS: SONG Lian *It et aL (eds.), Yuan shi 7G~, 15 vols., Beijing: Zhonghua shuju 9J ••JiU, 1976. ZHAJIZUO ~t.tifft, Zuiwei lu mHt~, in Zhongguoyeshijicheng, Chengdu px:t~: Bashu shu she E:!.~.U, 1993, vol. 15. ZHANG Tingyu '* M:li et aL (eds.), Ming shi SA ~, 28 vols., Beijing: Zhonghua shuju 9J ••JiU, 1974. ZHANG Xuan '*~~, ZhizhengJinling xin Zhi ~iE~~~jfit, in Lr Yongxian '* ~:$t et aL (eds.), Song Yuan zhenxi difangzhi congkan,yi bian *j[;~liffl:l:-tf! 1Jit ii til, z,t.i, vols. 4-6, Chengdu px:t~: Sichuan Daxue chubanshe [g)II*~t±lYiU, 2009. ZHOU Zhizhong mJ3&9J, Yiyu Zhi ~±!rjit, ed. Lu Junling j)iili3t~, Zhongwai jiaotong shiji congkan 9J j"3tJ.m~*~iitIJ 4, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju 9J ••JiU,2000.

63

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 03:38:52AM via free access