Soviet Studies of Premodern China: Assessments of Recent Scholarship 0892640537, 9780892640539

Citation preview

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN CENTER FOR CHINESE STUDIES

MICHIGAN MONOGRAPHS IN CHINESE STUDIES NO. 50

SOVIET STUDIES OF PREMODERN CHINA Assessments of Recent Scholarship Gilbert Rozman editor

Ann Arbor Center for Chinese Studies The University of Michigan 1984

Copyright 1984

by Center for Chinese Studies The University of Michigan all rights reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Soviet Studies of premodern China (Michigan monographs in Chinese studies; no.50) Includes indexes. 1. China-History—Study and teaching—Soviet Union. 2. Chinese literature—Study and teaching— Soviet Union. 3. China—Study and teaching—Soviet Union. I. Rozman, Gilbert. II. Series DS734.97.S65S68 1984 951'.072047 84-7742 ISBN 0-89264-052-9 ISBN 0-89264-053-7 (pbk.)

Cover design by Kristin Henry Cover photograph: detail of Sheng Mao-yeh, Chinese early 17th century, Lan­ ding Pavilion, handscroll, ink and color on silk, courtesy of The University of Michigan Museum of Art. Photograph by Patrick Young. Printed in the United States of America

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments Note on Translation and Transliteration

vii ix

Part One: An Overview Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3

Introduction, Gilbert Rozman Background, Gilbert Rozman Guide to Research Tools, Maureen Donovan

1 7 39

Part Two: Chinese History to the Fourteenth Century Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7

Archaeology and Early History, David W. Goodrich The Sung, Chin, and Hsi-Hsia, Ruth Dunnell Archaeology and Mid-Imperial History: The Chin and Yllan, Thomas T. Allsen The Yiian, Elizabeth Endicott-West

53 69 81 97

Part Three: Chinese History to the Twentieth Century Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11

The Early Ming, Elizabeth Endicott-West The Ming-Ch'ing Transition: Frontier History, Nailene Chou Wiest The Late Ch'ing: Political History, Don C. Price The Ch'ing and its Legacy: Social Change, Gilbert Rozman

111 121 133 149

Part Four: Chinese Literature Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14

Introduction to Literature, Jeanne Kelly and Helmut Martin Literature through the YUan, Jeanne Kelly Literature of the Ming and Ch'ing, Helmut Martin

165 169 183

Contents (Continued)

Appendices Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8

The Organization of Chinese Studies Candidate's Degrees Awarded in Chinese Studies, 1973-81 Doctor's Degrees Awarded in Chinese Studies (specialists active from the mid-1970s to the early 1980s) Classification of Soviet Books on Pre-1949 China Published1976-78 and Part of 1979 Selected Monographs on Pre-1949 China Published 1976-79 Sborniki: Collections of Articles Recent Publications on China: Size of Editions Sinologists Recently Commemorated in Narody Azii i Afriki (Peoples of Asia and Africa) (NAA) and Problemy DaVnego Vostoka (Problems of the Far East) (PDV)

Notes Index of Soviet Specialists onChina General Index

197 199

202 203 204 205 207

208 209 239 241

Ackno wledgm ents

This assessment of Soviet writings on China has been made possible through the assistance of many individuals. First of all, I would like to thank Allen Kassof, the director of the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX) and the staff who work with him. They arranged exchanges in Chinese studies, including interviews by me of specialists in Moscow and Leningrad in December 1977 and January 1978, and again, in conjunction with a conference on seventeenth-century China, in June 1982. They also arranged the extended stays of Elizabeth Endicott-West (1978-79) and Ruth Dunnell (1980-81). IREX administers the American Council of Learned Societies-Soviet Academy of Sciences Binational Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences. Its U.S. subcommission on East Asian studies, which I chair, has obtained materials from its counterpart in the Soviet Union that otherwise would have been un­ available. Such ongoing scholarly exchanges are vital to mutual understanding, and have made this volume possible. Particular thanks are due to the associate director of IREX, Daniel Matuszewski, for carefully reading portions of our manuscript and offering suggestions for revision. Individual authors are grateful to their many Soviet colleagues who have exchanged materials and provided other types of assistance. Without listing everyone who has contributed to our research, we would single out two scholars in particular: L. P. Deliusin and L. S. Kiuzadjian, who have represented the Soviet side of the subcommission on East Asian studies. Their cooperation has been a model for what we can hope to achieve through the binational exchange. I also want to thank B. L. Riftin, whose assistance on the literature chapters both Jeanne Kelly and Helmut Martin gratefully acknowledge. Of course, specialists in the Soviet Union who have been eager to help us learn more about scholarship in their country are in no way responsible for the evaluations we have made. Thanks are also due to Joseph Fletcher, F. W. Mote, Andrew Plaks, and Arthur N. Waldron for thoughtfully reading part or all of the manuscript and offering suggestions for revision. Theresa Kuzianik has contributed greatly in the preparation of the manuscript. We want especially to thank Janis Michael, who has worked with a rare devotion to careful editing to improve this volume. I should further like to thank all the contributors to this volume, many of whom have read each others1 chapters and revised their own to achieve a high level of coordination. My task as editor has been greatly eased by their strong

viii

support as well as their acceptance of the challenge of sharing their awareness of Russian-language materials about China with others. Both Princeton University's East Asian Studies Program and Trenton State College have contributed to meeting the costs of this publication. We are grateful for their generosity. Above all, with this volume we hope to contribute to international under­ standing of Soviet scholarship and, in the process, to show our appreciation of the determined efforts of serious scholars in the Soviet Union to work for the advancement of sinology. It is our view that the chief compliment we can pay to them is to take their work seriously and to begin to give it the attention it deserves.

A Note on Translation and Transliteration

Titles of Russian books and articles are translated in the text in order to clarify the discussion of sources for most readers. In the notes, book titles are given in Russian to facilitate identification by those interested in locating sources. Since exact article titles are normally not necessary in finding publi­ cations for which book titles are available, we also translate these in the notes. Where ambiguity is likely, we use the original Russian. When Russian names are written in English, it is not unusual to find varied spellings. To avoid this, with the exception of several names that are already quite familiar outside the Soviet Union, we have been consistent in adhering to the Library of Congress system of transliteration. As exceptions we write Kryukov (not Kriukov), Kuczera (not Kuchera), Kiuzadjian (not Kiuzadzhian), Sladkovsky (not Sladkovskii), and Tikhvinsky (not Tikhvinskii).

CHAPTER 1 Introduction Gilbert Rozman

Academic specialists in the Soviet Union write a great deal about China, not only about its modern, communist-led transformation, but also about its historical development and premodern literary achievements. Studies of Chinese history and literature by Soviet authors are surprisingly numerous, broad in coverage, and often distinctive in choice of topic or original in inter­ pretation. In some cases, they offer a direct challenge to conflicting Western, Chinese, or Japanese viewpoints. The information and insights available through Soviet works on China could be valuable to specialists outside the Soviet Union. Yet, few Westerners are even aware of counterparts in Moscow and Leningrad who are doing research on similar problems with similar sources and are closely following the publications that appear in the West. National frontiers have less and less meaning in the contemporary world of scholarship. In recent times, ideas have spread quickly from one side of the globe to the other. However, in the case of Soviet studies on China—especially those treating China prior to the communist movement in the 1920s—a combination of circumstances has severely limited ordinary academic contacts and communication. The result has been a controlled, largely one-way flow of information into the Soviet Union. With few exceptions, Western as well as Chinese and Japanese specialists on China know little about the writings of their Soviet counterparts. Our scant familiarity with this branch of Chinese studies can be attributed to shortcomings on both sides. Above all, it is necessary to single out the Soviet government’s policy of managed seclusion. It has warned its scholars of the dangers of ideological contamination and repeatedly denied them visas to attend conferences outside the Soviet bloc, even when all expenses would have been met by the organizers abroad. It has required that foreign correspondence be cleared with the proper authorities, and has often prohibited unsupervised meetings with visiting scholars. The itineraries of such visitors within the Soviet Union have been unjustifiably restricted. In general, the Soviet govern­ ment has created an atmosphere hostile to the spontaneous exchange of ideas. Though Soviet delegations do attend international congresses and favored or well-positioned individuals do manage to secure permission to travel and to host

2

GILBERT ROZMAN

foreigners, the controls are not relaxed sufficiently to permit outside examina­ tion of Soviet activities on China. To the extent that the Soviets themselves have opened the door to cöhtacts, they have done so partly to legitimize their own scholarship as a respected part of the international community and partly to increase their own access to information. They are especially eager to tap the superior China-watching capabilities of the United States today. The door has been opened wide enough to show clearly that there are many specialists in the USSR who would like expanded contacts and want foreigners to become more familiar with their writings, but whose desires have been largely frustrated. On the Western side, communication problems stem largely from ignorance of the value and quality of some Soviet scholarship, and inability to read Russian. Aware of the blatantly ideological and tendentious nature of Soviet writings on China during the periods of Stalinism and of close Sino-Soviet alliance, foreign specialists have been slow to take note of the changing stan­ dards of scholarship. Consequently, they do not realize that recent scholarship is often of a high quality and could be valuable to their work. Lack of sinolo­ gists who are able to read Russian is a further obstacle to the spread of Soviet work on China. The multiple language demands of Chinese studies are onerous enough that, with the exception of a few specialists on the People’s Republic, few scholars learn Russian. Those who do generally work in isolation, and consequently find it difficult to keep up with Soviet publications, to assess the contributions of unknown Soviet authors, and to cope with a different frame­ work of analysis. As a result of these barriers, to the disappointment of our Soviet colleagues and to the detriment of our own scholarship, we have shown little awareness of their scholarly achievements. English-language information on Soviet studies of China consists of (1) summaries at the end of some Soviet books, (2) translated papers for interna­ tional congresses and translated articles in the journal Far Eastern Affairs, (3) occasional book reviews in journals and passing references in books, (4) a small number of review articles, and (5) a review book by E. Stuart Kirby, Russian Studies of China?- Scattered and fragmented, these materials vary consider­ ably in their objectives and coverage. Often their prime objective is simply to acquaint Western readers with an unfamiliar study or series of studies. As necessary as that task might be, the selection of studies often tends to be incomplete and does little to illuminate the general character of the field. Moreover, most reviews appear in publications directed at very limited audiences, such as the separate dynastic studies newsletters. Soviet reviews of Soviet literature on China that are published especially for foreign audiences lack the detachment and independence required for a careful assessment of the field. These reviews are difficult to locate and do not go very far in answering the most important questions concerning Soviet studies of China: what are

INTRODUCTION

3

their main subjects and themes, their main approaches and methods, their main contributions and shortcomings? E. S. Kirby’s overview fails to answer these questions because it relies too heavily on a single conference volume.2 It is superficial, introducing a wide range of topics without evaluating the findings of a broad spectrum of relevant Soviet writings. Our lack of knowledge of Soviet work makes necessary a more thorough probing of the quality of various types of studies. A more cohesive and analytical approach is advisable, and indepth coverage is possible only with a more limited range of subjects than is chosen by Kirby. A single volume cannot answer all the questions about Soviet studies on China that the reader is likely to ask. However, by bringing together evalua­ tions of specialists who are familiar with diverse fields of Chinese studies and who know Russian, such a volume can begin to seek answers to some of the most pressing questions. Soviet Studies of Premodem China is a review and assessment of the field of Soviet sinology covering approximately two decades from the early 1960s to 1982 based on the authors’ familiarity with a substan­ tial literature and aimed at understanding its general qualities and limitations. In order to make this volume up to date and to show the continued advancement of scholarship, we focus much of our attention on works that appeared from the mid-1970s to the early 1980s. The present volume does not cover Soviet studies of Sino-Soviet relations, the history of the People’s Republic of China, the earlier history of the Chinese Communist Party, and most other topics pertaining to the decades of transfor­ mation after the fall of imperial China in 1911. Political posturing and ideolo­ gical goals are most conspicuous in these areas, which warrant separate investi­ gation as an integral element in the bitter Sino-Soviet dispute of the 1960s and 1970s. Our decision to concentrate on earlier periods, combining the perspec­ tives of history, sociology, and literature, allows us to avoid the areas in which political pressures most strongly influence the conclusions of scholars. We focus here on the writings of individuals who are recognized within the scholarly community, seeking the best and most lasting contributions of Soviet sinology, while also discussing any elements that appear inadequate. The authors of this assessment find evidence of political limitations even in writings about history and historical literature, but this must not lead sinologists elsewhere to ignore the work of Soviet scholars. We have also found much serious and significant scholarship, which is neglected only at risk of limiting the development of Chinese studies outside of the Soviet Union. The period examined in Soviet Studies of Premodem China is characterized by a high degree of continuity in organizations and personnel working under conditions relatively favorable to scholarship. As such, it contrasts sharply with the instabilities and dislocations of previous periods: the 1920s, when Soviet rule was imposed on one of Europe’s leading schools of sinology; the

4

GILBERT ROZMAN

1930s, when Stalinism devastated many areas of scholarship and caused the death of more than a few sinologists; the 1940s, when the German invasion and siege of Leningrad brought *great destruction; and even the 1950s when the demands of ideology guided a rapidly expanding field away from historical complexities. Our assessments are organized chronologically, first for the field of history and then for literature. Part 1 presents an overview of Chinese studies in the Soviet Union and discusses the basic features. Chapter 2 looks at its objectives (both political and scholarly), organization, and publications, and also reflects on general features of change and continuity, and of consensus and diversity. The infor­ mation included here comes not only from publications but also from my inter­ views with more than sixty specialists in Moscow and Leningrad conducted in late 1977 and early 1978 and updated through additional discussions in Moscow in June 1982. The extended stays of Elizabeth Endicott-West in Moscow and of Ruth Dunnell in Leningrad provided additional information about Chinese studies during this period. We also include in part 1 Maureen H. Donovan's professional guide to research tools. In chapter 3 she describes breakthroughs in bibliographic control and the availability of resources that are unique to the Soviet Union. In addition, she identifies problems that hamper scholarship, such as lack of access to foreign materials. Part 2 assesses Soviet writings on history and archaeology through the period of the YUan (Mongol) dynasty. A gap of over one thousand years exists between the periods examined in David W. Goodrich's treatment of prehistory and the earliest historical periods of the pre-imperial era and Ruth Dunnell's examination of the Sung and its northern rival dynasties, the Chin and the HsiHsia. Unfortunately the dearth of Western sinologists who know Russian is such that we could not locate anyone who is prepared to evaluate Soviet writings concerning the Warring States period and early imperial history. The concen­ tration of three chapters on mid-imperial history from the tenth to the four­ teenth centuries reflects the considerable Soviet interest in this period. This interest is partly^ accounted for by two facts: the current borders of the Soviet Union include territories which were under the rule of dynasties centered within China in this period, and the Mongols who ruled China for part of this period also ruled Russia. Part 3 looks at late imperial history. Two chapters concentrate on issues of particular significance to Soviet officials. Nailene Chou Wiest's analysis of writings about nationalities on the borders of the Chinese empire considers one of the most politicized topics. Since the Sino-Soviet boundaries dispute heated up in the 1960s, historical claims about borders, treaties, and relations among nationalities have become one aspect of the conflict. Chapter 11, on social change in the Ch'ing dynasty, raises issues pertinent to comparative history and Marxist stages of development. Issues of sociological and economic history are central to the Soviet interpretation of broad patterns of social change in China.

INTRODUCTION

5

Part 4 focuses on literature. Jeanne Kelly and Helmut Martin provide a joint introduction, and each examines a long period of literary history, paral­ leling the coverage of history in parts 2 and 3. These authors note that Soviet scholarship has an impressive record in literature although it has not become adequately integrated into the international scholarly community. Their assessments of particular works show in some detail the contributions that have been made. The appendix presents in tabular form some of the information discussed in chapters 2 and 3 on the organization of Chinese studies and on Soviet literature in that field. Together the thirteen chapters that follow discuss hundreds of books and articles and single out a large number of scholars who are making important contributions. Of course, each chapter presents solely the views of its author. We have attempted no collective judgment even though we have sought a high level of coordination in the format of presentation. Chapters vary in their overall assessments as Soviet scholarship varies in its quality. Whatever other specialists on China might gain from our individual assessments, we can offer them no adequate substitute for reading the Soviet works and making their own expert judgments.

CHAPTER 2 Background Gilbert Rozman

Soviet government is characterized by national planning and centralized organization, and the field of Chinese studies has been structured accordingly. The development of this discipline is a matter of concern to high authorities, consequently, they consider it important to regulate it through planning, over­ sight, and allocation of resources. An example of the regular attention given at the highest Party gatherings to academic plans and their fulfillment is the criticism levelled at oriental studies by the important Twentieth Party Con­ gress in 1956. Those in the field tend to increase their efforts at coordinating their work with governmental plans around the time of the Party Congresses, with the two leading journals Peoples of Asia and Africa and Far Eastern Affairs carrying lead articles with such titles as "The Twenty-fifth Congress of the CPSU and Soviet Chinese studies.” New and renewed priorities are an­ nounced and discussed at all levels. Each work group deliberates about how it should implement the announced plans, and leaders at various levels issue directives, sometimes with far-reaching consequences. On a reduced scale, the basic process of planning and overview is repeated for annual plans and at intervals during each year. As background to our analysis of the field in the 1960s and 1970s, the fifties warrants our attention as the formative period for contemporary studies. This chapter begins with an overview of changes which took place in Chinese studies at that time. The 1950s in Retrospect During the 1950s, repeated allegations of shortcomings in Chinese studies led to numerous reorganizations of this academic discipline, with at least seven major changes occurring. First, scholars in Chinese studies, who had been largely involved with the philological concerns of language, literature, and historical records in the tradition of prerevolutionary sinology began to work on contemporary, politically oriented topics. Demands for such a shift had been heard since the 1920s, but it was not until the 1950s that they became more urgent and produced a lasting response. A resolution of the Presidium of the 7

8

GILBERT ROZMAN

Academy of Sciences on 1 July 1950, was but one of many strong statements of dissatisfaction with the neglect of pressing problems in studies of the East: "In these days when events of international historical significance are occurring in the East . . . when the crisis of the colonial system of imperialism has taken on unprecedentedly sharp forms, such a lag in Soviet science on actual problems of oriental studies is intolerable.”* Second, the 1950s brought a massive expansion of Chinese studies: an accelerated training of qualified personnel, a growth in bibliographic holdings, and an increase in publications, especially after 1957.2 By the end of the decade, large numbers of newly trained specialists on China—most in their twenties and thirties and some with experience living in the Peopled Republic of China—had joined the academic community. There is reason to believe that from the mid-1950s these new specialists were continuously chosen on the basis of political criteria, especially their parents1influence. Third, along with other disciplines, Chinese studies changed substantially in the aftermath of Staling death and the Twentieth Party Congress in 1956 at which Khrushchev denounced the "cult of personality.” Over a decade later, a history of oriental studies in the Soviet Union asserted: Concluding the examination of the composition of cadres of the institute [The Institute of Oriental Studies], it is necessary to note that the cult of personality of Stalin, beginning in the 1930s, had an extremely negative effect on the development of the institute and of oriental studies as a whole. Many orientalists wound up lost to science as a result of the arrests of the second half of the thirties. Chance accusations and suspicions led in those years to significant losses of young and well-known scientists. In addition, repression forced many orientalists to avoid actual, contemporary themes and to engage in research of "quieter” questions.^ The chilling effect on originality and controversy was unmitigated until after Staling death. V. N. Nikiforov notes that, prompted by the decisions of the Twentieth Congress, "the revival of the social sciences in socialist countries was also reflected in the rise of creative thinking in the study of Eastern his­ tory. Researchers did not want to take earlier conclusions as truth, and strove to rethink them critically.”* The partial liberation of scholarship from various constraints at this time must certainly be considered one of the preconditions for the advancement of Chinese studies in the following years. Tight controls remained, however, even if restraints were less stifling. The fourth major change of the 1950s was organizationaL New organiza­ tions in new locations and with new leaders rose to the fore. In 1950 the Insti­ tute of Oriented Studies (IVAN) moved from Leningrad to Moscow, a step in the increased centralization of control. At the same time, the institute was reor­ ganized and placed under new direction. Further major reorgeuiizations

BACKGROUND

9

occurred every two or three years during the turbulent 1950s.5 In 1956, in response to perhaps the sharpest criticism of the shortcomings in the institute from the Central Committee of the Communist Party, the institute was told "to study more deeply the contemporary situation in countries of the East; to prepare works on the national-liberation movement, and the crisis of the colonial system; to unmask reactionary theories of bourgeois scholars justifying the colonial yoke and policies of racial exclusion in the relations of certain peoples; to research the literature and languages of countries of Asia and Africa."5 The institute received help, including new leadership under B. G. Gafurov, a strengthened staff, expanded facilities, and an increased budget for foreign literature and for travel abroad. From 1956 to 1960 a separate Insti­ tute of Chinese Studies was in existence. Gafurov remained in charge of the Institute of Oriental Studies (after it was reunited with Chinese studies the entire institute was temporarily renamed the Institute of the Peoples of Asia [Institut Narodov Azii]) until his death in 1977, and under his general direction the basic framework of Chinese studies soon stabilized. As of 1982 his suc­ cessor, E. M. Primakov, had not greatly altered this course. Around 1960 and for some years thereafter China specialists were increas­ ingly able to find work with other newly established social science institutes, where they have largely remained. The major change for Chinese studies occurred in 1966, when the Institute of the Far East (IDV) was established in Moscow. From that time, IVAN and IDV have remained the dominant organiza­ tions for Chinese studies. IVAN has been assigned primary responsibility for the premodern period and IDV for the contemporary era. Both also emphasize the transitional period to 1949. By the early 1970s, the furious pace of organi­ zational change had slowed almost to a standstill as the relatively young staff of the 1960s continued working with little labor turnover. Recent expansion has centered on contemporary China, leaving the personnel working on earlier periods largely intact. The fifth change in Soviet studies of China during the 1950s was the estab­ lishment of a clear foundation for further studies in the field. Some tools for the development of the field included (1) the 1960 comprehensive bibliography of Russian works on China by P. E. Skachkov; (2) the outstanding tradition of sinological research and training left by such eminent academicians as V. M. Alekseev and others educated prior to the Russian Revolution whose careers, in some cases, extended as late as the 1950s;7 (3) the new histories of China and other general books published in the 1950s that provided an overview of the Soviet perspective;5 (4) the numerous translations of modern Chinese writers, which established a basis for the greatly expanded translation and analysis of Chinese classics in the next decades; (5) the early publications, mostly in the late 1950s, by those who were emerging as the new leaders of the field; and (6) the journal published by IVAN, which has borne the name Peoples of Asia and

10

GILBERT ROZMAN

Africa since 1961. The training and publishing careers of the majority of specialists on China can be traced back to the 1950s. Taking advantage of new tools and new opportunities* by the early 1960s they were able to develop specific research interests that would, in most cases, endure over the following decades. The emergence from a quarter century of almost complete isolation was a sixth lasting development of the 1950s. Although delegations began partici­ pating in international gatherings in the mid-1950s, it took a long time for Soviet specialists to become well informed about the proliferation abroad of activities and publications concerning China. More than any other gathering, the Twenty-fifth International Congress of Orientalists in 1960 in Moscow is regarded as the coming of age of the Soviet Union’s international role in Asian studies. According to a Soviet source, ’’Conducting the congress in the Soviet Union made it possible to demonstrate convincingly the range and depth of research peculiar to Soviet science, for the inclusion of five hundred scholars in the Soviet delegation rather than the twenty to thirty usually included when congresses are held abroad showed that Soviet oriental studies are advanced in world oriental science.”9 However incomplete, the reinstatement of Soviet specialists on China in the international community had profound implications for their research, particularly as foreign studies of China experienced unpre­ cedented development at this time. Unlike most of the above changes, the seventh change affecting this pro­ gram was not shared by other area studies. At the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s, relations between the Soviet Union and China became antagonistic. The close alliance with the Chinese during the 1950s had stulti­ fied critical or independent appraisals, not only of contemporary conditions, but also of historical circumstances. But, when an open break between the two countries occurred in 1960 and Soviet advisors hastily withdrew from China, Soviet authorities instructed their China scholars to take a fresh look at all aspects of Chinese studies. Writing about the 1950s, M. I. Sladkovsky observed: "The main defect in our sizable historical, political and other literature was that it did not critically appraise the historical experience of the Chinese revolution. Following Chinese official historiography, it frequently promoted the popularization of the cult of personality of Mao Tse-tung, not objectively elucidating many historical events, and ignoring separate facts that illustrated contradictory processes occurring in the Chinese revolutionary movement in the PRC.’*19 Soviets were now expected to criticize the scholarship of the PRC, which created opportunities for an independent approach. These seven changes converged to create a basis for accelerated develop­ ment of Chinese studies during the 1960s and 1970s. In the early 1960s the revitalized Soviet area program was at an early stage. The staff of specialists was vastly expanded and reorganized. Scholars displayed a heightened interest

BACKGROUND

11

in social science approaches and in diverse topics, many clearly identified with Marxist-Leninist ideology. De-Stalinization, reestablishment of international contacts, and the sudden estrangement between the USSR and the PRC pro­ foundly transformed the conditions for research within a span of several years. By the mid-1960s the character of future Soviet studies of China was clearly established. Leadership in Chinese Studies The majority of specialists who publish on China work at institutes of the Academy of Sciences, but others work at universities under the Ministry of Higher Education, for journals, or at institutes not under the Academy. The directors of many of these organizations have important policy responsibility within the Moscow international affairs hierarchy. Below the institute direc­ tors are deputy directors, department (otdel) heads, and sector heads. These are the people who run the field and are held accountable for the fulfillment of specific plans. Table 1 lists many of these top figures.11 The total number of Soviet research specialists on China may approach one thousand. It is likely that roughly one-quarter are employed by IDV, under the direction of M. I. Sladkovsky and V. A. Krivtsov, the deputy with prime respon­ sibility for Chinese studies. At IDV there are about seven departments, each of which emphasizes contemporary China but includes some research on earlier periods. Employees of IDV have published on periods that are assessed in this volume in the areas of ideology and Chinese culture. The main center of research on imperial and pre-imperial China is IVAN. E. M. Primakov, the director since 1978, is an Arabist. The deputy with prime responsibility for Chinese studies is V. M. Solntsev, whose personal interest is linguistics. The most important figure for historical research is L. P. Deliusin, both through his direct responsibility for the approximately forty specialists in the Department of China and his general role in the organization of confer­ ences and publications. The Leningrad branch (L. O. IVAN) has a much smaller staff and focuses more narrowly on the rare manuscripts in its collection. A number of other institutes of the Academy of Sciences, three of which are noted in table 1, have smaller groups of China specialists. The universities have a much more limited role in research on China than the institutes under the Academy of Sciences. Two universities predominate: Moscow State University (MGU) and Leningrad State University (LGU). M. F. Iur'ev heads the department (kafedra) of the history of China within the Insti­ tute of the Countries of Asia and Africa (Institut stran Azii i Afriki or ISAA); G. V. Efimov prior to his death in 1980 long held a corresponding administrative post in the Eastern Faculty at LGU. V. I. Semanov at MGU and E. A. Serebriakov at LGU have direct oversight over literature. Since the late 1960s

12

GILBERT ROZMAN

the Far Eastern State University (Dalnevostochnyi gosudarstvennyi universitet or DVGU) in Vladivostok has been built up as the third center. In addition, a small number of specialists are scattered at other universities and pedagogical institutes. Mention should also be made of two powerful bureaucracies which have a very important role in the study of China as well as in policy formulation. Two of the leading spokesmen for the field, M. S. Kapitsa and S. L. Tikhvinsky, work within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs while maintaining active involvement in the research institutes of Chinese studies. (Recently Tikhvinsky assumed a post in charge of all historical institutes in the Academy of Sciences.) Another powerful spokesman is O. B. Rakhmanin, who has an important position under the Central Committee of the Communist Party. In table 1, the names of the principal administrators appear in italics. The fact that most of them are chiefly concerned with the contemporary period creates an opportunity for Deliusin to play the leading administrative role for historical work on pre­ modern China. Political Objectives Soviet writings, including those on China, have a dual nature: they are both scholarly and political. However, the precise nature of that duality is not always easy to ascertain. Much effort goes into blurring the line between the two to make it impossible to determine what is purely scholarly and what is intrusively political. For instance, high standards of objective scholarship are equated with full support for Marxism-Leninism, as in this statement by L. P. Deliusin, "The all-around objective study of historical material, and its general­ ization .on the basis of Marxism-Leninism continue to remain the most impor­ tant« problems of China specialists—historians, economists, literary special­ ists."13 Even the choice of methods, sources, and topics is a matter of immediate political significance; the guidelines and precedents for publication leave no doubt about what is minimally required, and the norms of a particular organization or the revisions suggested at various review stages may add to the requirements in any given case. There are clues that alert the reader as to how politicized a publication is. Works that focus on politically sensitive topics, such as Sino-Russian rela­ tions, are easy to identify as highly political. Often they are not published by "Nauka," the primary publisher for the Academy of Sciences. They rely heavily on quotations from Party sources and make little or no use of original sources. But most writings mix political objectives with scholarship in less obvious ways. One essential step for developing a broad understanding of Soviet publi­ cations on China is to clarify the political objectives that operate most persistently.

BACKGROUND

13

Soviets make no denial of the importance of political objectives in every field of scholarship. The report of the National Scientific Conference of China Specialists, held from 29 November to 1 December 1971, begins with a state­ ment called TIThe actual problems of Soviet Chinese studies,” by an outsider to the field, academician P. N. Fedoseev, vice-president in charge of the social sciences within the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences. Fedoseev begins: "The all-around scientific study of China has important theoretical and political significance. The Central Committee of our party and the Soviet government always have given and will give great attention to the development of Chinese studies.”1* He concludes that publication of the papers of the conference "will aid in the mobilization of all forces of Soviet Chinese studies for working out the actual problems of the contemporary era, and widening and increasing the effectiveness of scientific research on China in the interests of fighting for the purity of Marxist-Leninist learning and strengthening the unity of the ranks of the international communist movement and the world socialist system.”15 The call to service is well understood. An historical survey reports about IVAN, "With all its scientific-research work, the institute has tried actively to assist the party in the resolution of the problems raised for it on the front of the ideological struggle."16 Among the ways in which politics intrudes into Soviet publications, we find four to be widely represented in the literature on China: (1) affirmations of the distinctive and superior Marxist-Leninist basis of Soviet research, (2) justifica­ tions of past and présent Soviet policies and scholarship, (3) attacks on the "falsifications" of so-called bourgeois studies and of Chinese Communist schol­ arship, and (4) selections of topics relevant to current policy interests. All of these are objectives repeatedly demanded by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and, in one way or another, reaffirmed in the plans for the field. None can be publicly opposed within the Soviet Union. At most, one finds some diversity in interpreting these goals and varied attention to them. i. Marxism-Leninism Soviets claim that the primary achievements of their scholarship result from its Marxist-Leninist foundation. They also claim that the conclusions drawn from the evidence on China fully support the principles and findings of Marxism-Leninism. Perhaps the most quoted China specialists on such matters of ideology and politics are two of the three persons in the field with the highest academic rankings, academician S. L. Tikhvinsky, and corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences M. I. Sladkovsky (N. T. Fedorenko is the

*The Russian word "aktuaVnyi" means actual, pressing, or urgent.

14

GILBERT ROZMAN

third). It seems clear that they bear special responsibility for voicing the most general clàims for the field. On contemporary matters they are joined in this task by the more authoritative voices of O. B. Rakhmanin and M. S. Kapitsa. In 1978 Sladkovsky stated, "The history of the Chinese revolution convin­ cingly corroborates the living force of Leninism, the universality of its basic principles."*^ In various specialized studies one also finds claims of this sort and other self-congratulatory remarks. For example, in 1974 O. E. Nepomnin claimed that "Soviet sinologists, studying socioeconomic progress in China in the nineteenth through twentieth centuries, give a strictly scientific Marxist analysis of the deep processes occurring in the economy of this country. . . . [This school] is especially characterized by historical objectivity in evaluating the economic expansion of foreign capital in China."*® Such claims rest on a number of implicit and sometimes explicit assumptions: that the existence of Marxist-Leninist theory, based on historical materialism, guides scholarship into fruitful areas of study; that prior knowledge of certain historical laws (zakonomemosti) of social development offers a solid basis for interpreting information; that state planning and Party leadership yield advantages of coordinated scholarship; and that fulfillment of the five-year plans indicates successful realization of these potentials. The leadership demands that schol­ arship reflect and serve its interpretation of Marxism-Leninism. In historical studies from 1955 to 1956 there were brief signs of a "nascent concept of scholarship and research as ends in themselves," but these have not resurfaced in any direct way.*9 While the overall objective has not changed, the means to accomplish it have. The preponderance of quotations from the collected writings of certain dominant figures in Party history has given way to a sparser distribution of quotations or frequently to no quotations at all. The methods of argumentation have also changed. Disapproval of earlier forms of argumentation is not un­ common, although the rejection of past practices is not necessarily stated forthrightly. V. P. Qiushechkin's work reflects the rethinking of what used to be the unquestioned division of history into several "classical stages" of societal development and also provides a less than candid explanation of how this evolu­ tionary approach was once thrust upon Soviet scholars. He writes, ". . . this methodological surrogate, now existing only as a justification of Eurocentric theory in historical and sociological sciences, imperceptibly came into our science in the early 1930s and just as imperceptibly took root in it as something fully Marxist and understandable by itself."20 Disregarding the intense debates of the 1920s and 1930s, Iliushechkin contends that the persistence of the con­ cepts of slave and feudal formations in Soviet publications is based on an out­ dated and scientifically baseless methodology and on interpretations of several undeveloped statements in the classics of Marxism that require concrete for­ mulation and comparative study.2* As is discussed in chapter 11, Iliushechkin's

BACKGROUND

15

interpretation of so-called socioeconomic formations is controversial even though his disapproval of inadequate methods has not been challenged. Other authors who are not as direct as Iliushechkin in questioning past methods find milder ways in which to acknowledge the occurrence of major changes. In 1974, G. V. Efimov wrote that before the 1960s articles reviewing Lenin!s works had predominated and little actual research was done. Since then, more significant research has been conducted on important problems raised by Lenin in his writings on China.22 The claims for Marx, Lenin, and others are still considerable—sometimes verging on infallibility and omni­ science—but their role is now more restricted to matters that In some instances do not interfere with the scholarship itself. The emphasis is now on the "creative" application of Marxism-Leninism. 2. Soviet policies Soviet leaders demand not only that full approval be given to MarxistLeninist ideology as they interpret it, but also that specialists on China extend unqualified support to Soviet policies past and present. Compliance is universal in major publications. A pronouncement by M. I. Sladkovsky in 1978 shows how sweeping the claims can be: "The policies of the USSR in relation to China over the course of the entire history of the Soviet government have been unchangingly based on principles of proletarian internationalism and constitute the practical application of Leninist teaching in concrete historical condi­ tions."23 Such statements blend ideological assumptions with patriotic approv­ al of Party and government decisions since the revolution. High on the list of priorities are demonstrating the international significance of the Russian Revolution, including its positive effects on the world revolutionary process; showing the correctness of Soviet policies on China as part of the continued strengthening of the (Soviet-led) world system of socialism; and establishing the fairness of Russian gains in international relations with China. Of course, these goals affect some topics more than others, but they are not limited to a small body of literature. In reading Soviet works on China, it is important to realize that the ramifications of Marxist theory and questions of Soviet policy extend widely to works on diverse periods and themes. In their critiques of Soviet academic study of China, the Soviet govern­ ment and the Party acknowledge some successes, but also cite past mistakes and make strong demands for intensified efforts. A 1973 conference, which occurred at a time of tightening ideological restrictions in academic disci­ plines, summed up the recent development of Soviet historical studies with a critical comment on methodological and concrete historical mistakes in indivi­ dual works.24 Overall theory and orientation is less frequently criticized in works by Soviet scholars than narrowly methodological or factual matters. On the other hand, evaluations of Western and Chinese writings may recognize

16

GILBERT ROZMAN

individual successes in concrete historical investigation but cast doubt on the more general objectives of scholarship. This has been especially true since about 1973, when the Soviets began to place greater emphasis on intensified confrontation with works of bourgeois scholarship. 3. Attacks on bourgeois writings It is an acknowledged objective of Soviet works to demonstrate that Soviet studies of China are superior to those done in the West. This requires identifi­ cation of shortcomings in studies elsewhere.25 Specialized Soviet publications focus on historiography in England, the United States, West Germany, and the PRC.26 Although the general assessments and separate historiographic intro­ ductions in monographs customarily praise selected foreign studies and even credit entire schools of scholarship with positive features, they also frequently charge that basic inadequacies exist owing to the bourgeois outlook of the scholars. The Soviets reject the notion of value-free scholarship and, further­ more, accuse Westerners (with some exceptions among those labelled pro­ gressive) of being motivated by service to the capitalist system.2^ Through the 1970s Soviets were repeatedly reminded of the intensification of the ideological struggle on an international scale and of the integral role of Chinese studies as a battleground. The inferiority of Western scholarship is attributed to many factors, four of which ares (1) its dearth of scientific abstraction;26 (2) its lack of interest in basic questions without which the essence of the historical pro­ cess remains incomprehensible;29 (3) its defense of imperialist history;39 (4) its treatment of rebellious peasants as bandits rather than as forces in a just and inexorable class struggle. There are Soviet authors who refer only to the positive qualities of particular Western and Japanese writings relevant to their research. However, in such cases they must not select themes that bourgeois writers are thought incapable of treating properly unless they indicate why an exception to the rule can be made. In general, scientific, objective, and com­ prehensive Marxist-Leninist analysis is contrasted to one-sided, narrow, and non-scientific bourgeois scholarship. Soviets rarely recognize viewpoints from outside of their own bloc of countries as Marxist or Marxist-Leninist. They vigorously reject Chinese claims to this ideological position, especially since the Sino-Soviet split. The objective of discrediting the Chinese leadership and its interpretations of a variety of issues is prominent in many Soviet publications. Under these circum­ stances, attention centers on the roots of the Maoist deviation in Chinese qo history. In a book issued in 1976, S. L. Tikhvinsky draws a link between the past and the present, stating, ,TAmong the numerous socioeconomic factors aiding the emergence of the anti-Soviet course of the Peking leadership, the traditions of old China play a significant role.33 Soviet historians are in gener­ al urged to focus on the historical causes of present conditions, but this goal

BACKGROUND

17

appears more urgent in Chinese studies where the past is considered especially pertinent to understanding the present. 4. Policy-oriented topics The last of the ways in which political priorities affect scholarship is the selection of topics with contemporary political relevance. Political impera­ tives fluctuate, but, in one manner or another, scholarship is required to serve Marxism-Leninism, the Communist Party, and the Soviet state in discrediting "bourgeois” and CCP scholarship and achieving other stated goals. In the late 1950s and early 1960s under S. L. Tikhvinskyfs leadership of historical studies, the demands for relevance became so intense that specialists on early periods of history switched en masse to the modem era. Only later were they per­ mitted to return, if possible, to earlier interests or to select topics less ob­ viously connected with peasant rebellions and imperialist excesses. Neverthe­ less, recent bibliographies still demonstrate the predominance of periods and topics with special political significance: international imperialism and anti­ colonialism, peasant wars, nationalism, Communist Party history, relations with non-Han (Soviets say non-Chinese) minorities and neighboring peoples, historio­ graphic critiques of foreign studies of China, and periodization of Chinese history. In a paper entitled, "Traditional China in Soviet Scholarly Publications 1975-76," especially prepared for American sinologists in conjunction with the activities of the A.C.L.S.-Academy of Sciences, USSR Binational Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences, the Soviet historian, N. I. Fomina, writes that the greatest proportion of studies on the medieval period (third to seventeenth centuries) concerned foreign relations and non-Chinese minor­ ities.^4 By encouraging research on certain topics or types of topics in the field of Chinese studies, the Soviets strive to produce scholarship which will fulfill their political objectives. It is quite likely that most Soviet specialists on China find the govern­ ments political objectives, in one form or another, burdensome. Many are not Party members and those who are may, like large numbers of Soviet citizens, have joined the Party for the sake of career advancement. Through intensive training in Chinese language, history, and culture, many specialists have devel­ oped a strong desire to study that country more objectively than the Party and government may find desirable. Some lived in China during the 1950s and are genuinely fond of much of what they learned about the Chinese way of life. Such scholars may grudgingly do what is necessary in order to meet the minimal requirements for political reliability and at the same time try to meet inter­ national standards of good scholarship. They may find some escape in concen­ trating on relatively narrow topics far removed from the center of political concern. For them, "theory" is something to be avoided. In contrast, certain administrators and others in the discipline write primarily about topics that are

18

GILBERT ROZMAN

highly sensitive politically, support the Party and government political objec­ tives, and concentrate on broad generalizations without looking deeply into historical detail. However, the inverse relationship between politics and scholarship breaks down in some cases. A few individuals, among them admini­ strators, produce strong doses of both, and, given the low job turnover, there may be some who get by without much of either. Foreign visitors have ob­ served that some specialists who produce both political and scholarly work appear embarrassed when reminded of their heavily politicized tracts. Scholarly Objectives A second set of objectives must also be considered in any assessment of Soviet studies of China. Since the mid-1950s the goal of high scholarly stan­ dards has occupied a prominent place in Soviet historical and literary research. Earlier research methods are rejected and continued inadequacies criticized. Positive assessments of particular methods used in foreign scholarship also lend support to high standards. Nancy Whittier Heer discusses the emergence of this trend in Soviet studies of history: "During the decade 1956-1966 a subtle but significant change took place in the official concept of the didactic function of history. History remains a utilitarian and politically oriented science, but its very utility as a teacher and guide to policy is increasingly seen to be depen­ dent upon higher scholarship, more sophisticated methodology, and more con­ crete investigations of the past."'*'* Soviet scholars also refer to this trans­ formation, noting that a qualitative leap occurred, though in some cases much more needs to be accomplished. It may be instructive to review some of the methods now rejected by large numbers of Soviet specialists on China. In their reviews of each other's publi­ cations and of earlier styles of research, they are sometimes critical of: (1) argument by illustration without attention to how typical the case cited might be and without criticism of the quality of the source on which the author is dependent; (2) inadequate use or citation of relevant sources, especially pri­ mary sources; (3) uncritical acceptance of secondary sources, whether Chinese Communist, Western, or earlier Soviet writings; (4) presentation of conclusions on a miserly factual base; (5) reliance on analogy rather than on adequate, concrete data; (6) failure to speak to the established level of scholarly dis­ course; and (7) insufficient application of modern social science methods. Above all, Soviet scholars appear to be concerned with language competencies, familiarity with sources, and in-depth knowledge of the facts. In response to my questions about whom they respect, Soviet specialists primarily praised their colleagues who work closely with Chinese language sources. Their writings and oral remarks both show their respect for professionalism and specialization.

BACKGROUND

19

Two Soviets who convey this spirit in their writings are N. Ts. Munkuev and N. I. Fomina. Writing in 1977, Munkuev praises both Soviet and foreign studies of China while indicating that much remains to be done, especially in terms of sources: Sinology, both in the Soviet Union and in the West and Japan over the * last decades, has achieved serious successes in the study of separate epochs and certain problems of the high culture, and ideology of China. But there still remain many "blank spots” in these fields of science. . . . [China is] the only country that has preserved so much printed literature about its past that it is difficult for the researcher even to examine all of these multivolume works.”36 Writing in 1974 about the anti-Ch'ing struggle in Southeast China in the mid­ seventeenth century, Fomina notes that, ”The first Soviet historians who formulated and solved problems on the history of the anti-Ch'ing struggle did not proceed from concrete material, but from general views on the history of China as a whole.”37 In the late 1950s a new era began with the publication of investigative articles and monographs. "In essence, only from this time is it possible Oto speak of the scientific study of sources and the matter of historioQ graphy.”00 Scholars such as Fomina and Munkuev convey a sense of humility before the complex demands of investigating problems in Chinese history. Both Munkuev and Fomina are memebers of the Department of China of IVAN. The head of their department, L. P. Deliusin, has taken a leading role in upgrading scholarly standards. For the annual conferences there entitled Society and State in China, which in 1978 included ninety-five papers and participants from more than thirty institutes, universities, museums, etc., the guidelines favor controversy and relatively open exchanges of opinions. The annual published collections of papers and the several sborniki (collections of articles) that have been based on the conference proceedings reflect this en­ couraging environment for scholarship. Indeed, it is widely accepted that this conference has contributed greatly to higher standards as well as to improved communications in the field. The organizers of this annual conference at the Department of China value the exploratory atmosphere as a forum where hypotheses and analyses can be presented for the first time. In the 1973 collection, G. D. Sukharchuk noted that ”all or almost all of these published materials have in common the fact that in them for the first time in the Soviet literature on Chinese studies an analysis of certain moments in Chinese history is presented or a hypothesis is offered which considers the social and governmental development of China or its separate institutions.”39 The organizers also advocate minimal interference in the author's text by the editorial collective, claiming that they preserve the author's point of view as fully as possible. The conference results in:

20

GILBERT ROZMAN

. . . rather diverse points of view on close and even identical ques­ tions and also quite a number of controversial utterances and opin­ ions. Among the points* of view presented are unusual and unaccus­ tomed ones which are certain to produce controversy and, very likely, strong objections. But for us specialists on China this is only for the better. It will be useful to let the points of view be heard and to determine our relation to them, and to correct our opinions con­ sidering the weighty objections and new argumentation "for" and "against” the proposed positions.40 Under these circumstances, the editorial collective is not obliged to concur with what is said and may even take note of particular articles that will arouse objections. The goal is to stimulate discussion and scientific debate. The relatively free atmosphere of the annual proceedings of Society and State in China cannot, however, be regarded as typical. The volumes have a very limited circulation (rising from two hundred copies in 1973 to four hundred in the early 1980s) and apparently are available for distribution only at the conference. Some readers at the Lenin State Library have access to them, but even foreigners are not permitted to photocopy. The explanation given for the rule against photocopying is that too few copies were printed. In other words, limited circulation is reinforced by restrictions on duplication in an effort to curtail access. Chinese studies have remained relatively uninvolved in the introduction of new techniques such as quantitative analysis, both during the debates that marked Soviet social sciences in the 1960s and in more recent applications in selected areas of history. However, in 1978 Deliusin noted the increasing popularity of the statistical approach, and appeals to improve research methods seem to be related to recent advances in the use of this approach abroad.4* Since Soviet scholars closely follow developments in the West, their progress in this direction is likely to be influenced by the international evolution of the field. In the meantime, research methods continue to lag seriously. It is interesting that the scholarly objectives and political objectives are voiced largely by different groups. One seems most intent upon catching up to the standards of scholarship of its counterparts abroad and winning interna­ tional recognition for mastery of those standards; the other group expresses the aims of Party leaders in pursuing ideological struggle and seeks their approval for fulfilling plans. The use of political objectives to the exclusion of scholarly objectives constrains full comparisons with Western and Japanese writings, restricts the presentation of conclusions that can be construed as contrary to political interests, and generally results in a lack of candor. It also steers scholarship toward safe ground and narrowly construed tasks. Perhaps the scholarly objectives least threatening to political objectives and least depen­ dent on up-to-date access to foreign research developments are the translation

BACKGROUND

21

and examination of primary sources and the use of a small corpus of largely primary sources to study a problem. Of course, even these artificially limited research tasks run the dual risk of ignoring relevant foreign studies and of being dismissed as irrelevant to Soviet priorities. The following chapters show that these avenues are pursued by many of the best Soviet specialists on China. The creeping archivism of the past two decades is consistent with the goal of raising the quality of scholarship; yet it is also ironic given the ideological emphasis on contemporary relevance. The Organization of Personnel In order to assess Soviet scholarship on China, it is useful to know about the organization of personnel. Not much has been written about this, but information from interviews and official records help to show career patterns, which are strongly influenced by administrative controls on recruitment, training, advancement, and work conditions. As elsewhere, training in Chinese studies begins in undergraduate institu­ tions and continues at the graduate level. It is noteworthy that the majority of Soviet specialists on China have studied at either MGU or LGU, the highly prestigious Soviet centers of learning in most fields. In history, G. V. Efimov and M. F. Iur'ev, respectively, were in charge of the training of all but the oldest generation active in the field today. Thus, there is remarkable continu­ ity and homogeneity in the basic preparation of virtually the entire corps of Soviet specialists. The undergraduate program lasts for five years. The main requirement for entrance is successful performance on four examinations: Western language, Russian language and literature, the history of the USSR, and perhaps a writing exercise. Students enter directly into a Chinese area program. Since the mid1950s, and increasingly in recent years, oral competence in Chinese has been stressed at the undergraduate level along with written skills. Language profi­ ciency varies among those educated at different times. Those trained in special language programs during the 1940s or sent to China for extended stays in the 1950s often have good oral skills but many in the sizable groups that followed in the university classes of the 1950s have less oral preparation. Later graduates again have better training in the spoken language, although often without the opportunity to travel abroad. In recent years some have gone to Singapore for training. Most read English well, but few are competent in Japanese or in a second Western language. Apart from language study, the curriculum of the first two years includes a heavy dose of the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and an introduction to China's geography and people. At both LGU and MGU the sequence of courses on Chinese history is divided chronologically over roughly three years. Before this basic sequence

22

GILBERT ROZMAN

is completed, semester papers and specialized courses (for example, antifeudal struggles,* T’ang to Ming, and secret societies in the Ch'ing) during the third and fourth year prepare the student for a senior thesis (diplomnaia rabota) in the fifth and final year. Undergraduate specialization is oriented towards applied and modern areas. Students are discouraged from choosing topics for senior theses from premodern periods. At MGU only one or two out of ten to twenty history students a year concentrate on periods before the nineteenth century; at LGU there might be even fewer. After the defense of the thesis in the spring, to graduate the student must pass examinations in Chinese studies (including language), ’’scientific” communism, and English (perhaps completed earlier). Both MGU and LGU operate under centralized state controls over the curri­ culum; yet their textbooks and courses vary and they compete for preeminence in the field. MGU graduates about ten students each in Chinese history, philo­ logy, and the newly established specialty in economics. They work as trans­ lators, correspondents, and employees in appropriate ministries or in border and coastal positions. With some exceptions, including recent alumni of Moscow institutes such as Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), graduate stu­ dents in Chinese studies have been selected from MGU and LGU. Entrance depends on such things as the quality of the senior thesis, the performance on a fall examination for admission to graduate studies, recommendations from the undergraduate program, and perhaps submission of a paper. Insistence on political reliability is another determining factor. Recently, Jews have been denied admission to the graduate program. The first six months after admission are oriented toward two of the three required examinations: a Western language and Marxist-Leninist philosophy. Recently, the latter requirement has been expanded to involve perhaps as much as % year of study outside of one’s home institution. Only after the require­ ments outside of the specialty are completed do students normally begin to concentrate on ipeeting the requirements in their specialty, including language work. The number of graduate students is very small and instruction is largely tutorial. Few students may be enrolled in an institute and their plans for specialization must correspond to long-term manpower priorities. A student may meet once a week with a Chinese language tutor and once a week with one or more advisors. The student chooses a dissertation theme shortly after arrival, and works primarily with one or two specialists on a highly focused area. Each year an individual plan is prepared and discussed in the sector, a unit with a common historical period, topical, or country interest which may be as small as five persons or as large as twenty or more. There is some possibil­ ity of publishing graduate research papers, for example, in the proceedings of the annual conference, Society and State in China. In the last stages of the

BACKGROUND

23

three-year graduate program, attention centers almost exclusively on disserta­ tion research. Some modifications in this schedule are made for corresponding students, who take four years to meet the requirements. Another variation is enrollment that combines part-time research with graduate work. Undergraduates are normally seventeen to twenty-two years old and grad­ uate students twenty-two to twenty-five; the earliest age at which students receive the candidate’s degree is approximately twenty-six. The dissertation is first discussed in the sector. Following the advisor’s approval, the sector is asked for its formal approval. Next, an outside institution must add its approval and the scientific council of the student’s own institute must concur. Since there is no separate council for the Leningrad branch of IVAN, approval must come from Moscow. The time for the dissertation defense is set months ahead, and a synopsis is then written and distributed to relevant institutions and individuals. The time of the defense is published and two opponents are chosen who must give their approval. This lengthy process can be delayed for various reasons. Indeed, many who completed their undergraduate schooling in the 1950s did not defend their candidate’s dissertations until the late 1960s or early 1970s. From the mid-1950s to the 1960s it was often difficult to secure a regular position in Chinese studies. Initial employment frequently long pre­ cedes the date of the defense. For those few permitted to join the ranks of specialists in research and teaching on China, a decade or more may pass between the time they are admitted into a program of Chinese studies and the time they receive the candidate’s degree as a badge of professional training. Entrances, graduations, courses, and examinations provide opportunities for authorities to check the political training and background of the students. Open competition based on exam results has far less meaning in this field than in less sensitive areas of study. Much of the time of graduate study is spent in personalized instruction under the close supervision of one or perhaps a few instructors. A large part of the preparation is research oriented and centered on a particular period, topic, and sometimes a single type of source. In many cases a long-term research specialization continues on the theme of the candidate’s dissertation. Even so, because important sources are unavailable or instruction in Japanese is not given priority, the preparation is often seriously deficient. Table 2 provides information on the areas of specialization of new candi­ dates in Chinese studies from 1973 to 1981. Of the 157 persons identified, 42 are in philology, 48 focus on periods before 1949, and the remaining 67 special­ ize on the PRC. IDV leads in output, followed by IVAN, then by MGU. None of the other institutes or universities has graduated many candidates in recent years; the Institute of the International Workers’ Movement (IMRD), LGU, and MGIMO have fairly active programs and the others produce no more than an occasional candidate. Omitted from the list are art, architecture, and perhaps other areas of Chinese studies, but the numbers involved are very small.

24

GILBERT ROZMAN

Across the Soviet Union—primarily at MGU, LGU, and the newly estab­ lished Far Eastern State University (DVGU) in Vladivostok—perhaps as many as one hundred to two hundred-students graduate each year in Chinese studies. No more than twenty to thirty of them manage to enter a graduate program at a university or a research institute, and, of these, no more than ten are employed to do the type of research that results in publications. The number of scholars who specialize in pre-1949 China is considerably smaller. During the years 1973-81, only twenty-seven candidate's degrees were awarded to specialists on China before 1917. Most recipients were not new entrants to the field, but had been trained much earlier and had been delayed in obtaining their basic degree. Few young people have found opportunities to study in this field. Employment on the staff of an institute may begin even prior to the de­ fense of the candidate's dissertation. In the 1950s many were hired at IVAN and at its temporary replacement in the China field, the Institute of Chinese Studies (1956-60). In the late 1960s and early 1970s, many found positions at the newly established IDV. The number of positions outside the main institutes in the field, and recently, even away from Moscow and Leningrad, has been expanding. However, employment opportunities are still scarce because over the past quarter century there has been little attrition among those already in the field. Initial employment may require translating, editing, providing research assistance, or fulfilling various subadministrative tasks. But these first years on the job may also be productive in improving skills and producing publications. The research staff of each institute is divided into the junior ( mladshie nauchnye sotrudnikO and senior (starshie nauchnye sotrudnikO ranks. The monthly wage depends on these distinctions and on whether the staff member has the candidate's degree, the doctor's degree, or neither. In addition, remu­ neration increases with administrative rank, culminating in the high base wage (600 rubles) and ample perquisites of an institute director. Many at the junior level earned only about one-quarter of this in the late 1970s. Group and individual productivity plans determine the number of pages each staff member must write. Assignments are also made by topic. The junior staff at IVAN are each expected to write about 75-100 typewritten pages over a year, in contrast to the roughly 125-50 pages required of each senior person. These pages are then revised for publication. The number of pages varies from organization to organization. Of course, energetic scholars often exceed these quotas, and quality is a consideration. Failure to produce the planned number of pages may result in a loss of pay, although that may not happen when the sector as a whole fulfills its plan. Soviet assessments of the field show this concern with the number of publications which appear. For example, in S. D. Miliband, Bio-bibliographical Dictionary of Soviet Orien­ talists, the number of published works is recorded for each specialist. One

BACKGROUND

25

person is credited with more than twenty, while another is credited with over fifty. According to Miliband, at least half of the specialists in Chinese studies have published more than fifty items, perhaps as many as 10 percent of special­ ists have as many as one hundred items to their credit. Many of these are short, perhaps only a few pages. The rules for the two levels of staff may also vary in other respects. On 6 January 1978, shortly after E. M. Primakov assumed his new duties as direc­ tor at IVAN, he attempted to increase control by cutting back "library days”: the senior staff was to spend three days a week at the institute and the junior staff four days. This was a serious blow to scholars accustomed to working at home who were now obliged to share desks crammed together in large offices bereft of reference materials. It was possible, however, for some to circum­ vent these rules, for example, by making brief appearances at the office. The Miliband bibliography lists over one hundred individuals born after 1915 who were still active in Chinese studies in 1975, providing an overview of the background of senior people in the field. Of the total, I have identified eighty specialists with a strong current research interest in China. Making a few modifications based on more recent information from 1977-78, I have tabulated their recorded positions and backgrounds. These established figures in the field worked at IVAN (28; 24 in the Department of China); IDV (18); the Leningrad branch of IVAN (8); the two leading universities MGU and LGU (4 and 5, respectively); INION (4); and in all but three of the remaining cases at other institutes (9 in Moscow, and 1 in Leningrad). All are in Moscow (66) and Lenin­ grad (14). All except the university faculties (9) and three others (a journal editor, a staff person in publishing, and a person recorded as doing Party work), are employed in institutes of the Academy of Sciences or other major institutes. Background information in Miliband's book on this group of established specialists adds to our understanding of the development of the field. About 70 percent of the group (excluding two born abroad and three whose parents were in military service) are classified as children of employees (that is, the intelli­ gentsia or the service occupations), far more than the numbers of workers (15), peasants (7), and those in miscellaneous categories not part of the intelligent­ sia. In 1980 over 50 percent of the entire group was between forty-seven and fifty-four years of age, a highly concentrated age distribution. Bom around 1930, when the Stalinist industrialization and collectivization first gripped the country, these people were just young enough to miss wartime military service and to take advantage of expanding educational opportunities. They started higher education after the war along with some older specialists who were fresh from military service. Altogether fifty-five of the eighty specialists graduated between 1947 and 1956, including sixteen from the later disbanded Moscow Institute of Eastern Studies (MIV) from 1949 to 1952, and eleven from LGU and eight from MGU from 1950-1955. During these years a number of graduating

26

GILBERT ROZMAN

classes contained as many as three or four future specialists on China. The LGÜ class of 1950 produced three who acquired doctor’s degrees by 1973, Its, Vorob’ev, and Serebriakov, as well as Iakhontov who has a candidate’s degree. No less an achievement was recorded by the LGU class of 1955, which produced three who acquired doctor’s degrees by 1970, Semanov, Rif tin, and Kychanov. 1953 was the year in which the greatest number graduated from MGU; among the graduates were L. S. Vasil’ev and Meliksetov who went on to receive the doctor’s degree by 1975, and classmates E. A. Belov and N. P. Svistunova who were to earn candidate’s degrees. Of all the classes, the 1951 graduates of MIV were most numerous. There were as many as seven China specialists in this class including doctors Rumiantsev, Perelomov, and Konovalov, and four candi­ dates who later had responsible organizational posts—Glunin, Kukushkin, Zadoenko, and Khokhlov. The careers of most established specialists were carved out in the formative years of the 1950s; they found employment and began to establish themselves at a time of great flux in Chinese studies. Homogeneous preparation, common background, and long personal ties remain a central fact in this field three decades later. As in other Soviet academic centers, the number of women diminishes at higher levels of rank. There are many women in Chinese studies; in the De­ partment of China at IVAN at least one-third of the roughly forty scientific workers are women. Yet, on the Miliband list of eighty established figures in all of Chinese studies, I could identify only thirteen women. Table 3 lists fiftyseven persons with a high standing in the field, that is, who had received doctor’s degrees by 1982. On this list it is my impression that O. (Ol’ga) L. Fishman was the only woman prior to 1980, after which Akatova and Kartunova were added. Bearing disproportionately the added burden of housework and child care, women take longer to complete the candidate’s degree and then to achieve higher positions in their institutions. Administrators are also over­ whelmingly male. It is worth noting that there are several husband-wife and father-daughter combinations in Chinese studies. Among the* highest ranking figures, the institute heads, their assistants, and the department heads, as mentioned in table 1, are some of the oldest people in the field. When the field expanded rapidly, some of these senior people had opportunities to rise faster than did their younger colleagues in the following periods. The careers of the three highest-ranking persons are strik­ ingly similar. Fedorenko (1912), Tikhvinsky (1918), and Sladkovsky (1906) all spent long years of service in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Ministry of Foreign Trade before they were awarded doctor’s degrees, appointed professors, and named as corresponding members of the Academy of Sciences. Later Fedorenko returned to diplomatic life as ambassador to Japan and then ambas­ sador to the United Nations. Efimov (1906) and Iur’ev (1918) assumed their administrative posts at LGU and MGU respectively in the 1950s. Even younger

BACKGROUND

27

leaders such as Deliusin (1923), Krivtsov (1921), and Solntsev (1928) worked outside of academics, as correspondents, or in foreign affairs at early stages in their careers. Above the more purely academic types stand those with more political experience or long years in administrative service or both. They rose to prominence under circumstances which have not recurred and had unusual opportunities to demonstrate a commitment to the Party’s objectives. At IDV there are a few hundred scientific workers, including about four­ teen with doctor’s degrees and perhaps more than one hundred with candidate’s degrees. In the Department of China (IVAN) there are eleven with doctor’s degrees and well over twenty with candidate’s degrees. Among the China specialists at the Leningrad branch of IVAN and at MGU and LGU, there are several at each center with doctor’s degrees. For the scholar the doctor’s degree represents a goal with many tangible and intangible benefits. Following the granting of the candidate’s degree, it normally takes the productive scholar five to ten years to be promoted to the senior staff or the university position of docent. Next, the wait for the doctor’s degree begins. A small number of fast risers have received the degree by their early forties, noteworthy among them Semanov, Kryukov, Kychanov, and Rif tin, whose dissertations were all approved between 1968 and 1971 before they had reached age forty, when IVAN and other institutes sharply increased the number of degrees awarded. Most recip­ ients are between forty-five and fifty-five years old. Scholars older than fiftyfive are sometimes awarded the degree on the basis of their overall publica­ tions rather than a particular, substantial manuscript. The process of approval is generally long and complex, and was made even more onerous around 1976 when new procedures were worked out and rules were tightened. Even after appropriate monographs are readied by established scholars, long delays can occur because of waiting lists (and presumably quotas) at each institute and divisions within the scientific councils at an institute. The migration of scholars has played an important part in the development of Chinese studies in many countries. However, in the case of the Soviet Union, there have been only a small number of persons of Chinese descent among the ranks of sinologists. Some of these use Russified names (for example, A. G. Krymov, the specialist on early twentieth-century ideology) and others maintain their Chinese names (such as T’an’ Ao-ch’uan, whose specialty is historical linguistics). Indicative of the small number involved is the fact that only about 2 percent of the articles on China published in the twenty-four volumes of the annual conference proceedings Society and State in China from 1973 to 1981 (conferences 4-12), are by identifiably Chinese authors (five persons in all). Soviet Jews who apply to emigrate immediately become nonpersons and references to their work and contributions are deleted in subsequent

28

GILBERT ROZMAN

publications. This is a general characteristic of Soviet academic life which will not enter into any of the chapters in this book. To our knowledge Vitaly Rubin is the only sinologist to have emigrated during the period 1960-80, and his field, early thought, is not covered in any of the following chapters. It should be noted, however, that his name has been removed from the literature in the USSR as much as possible. China specialists do not work in a mobile labor market, especially since the possibilities for nonacademic work inside China ended in 1960. There are few places of employment, and, except in unusual periods after a new center is established, there is little hiring from the outside. Staffing is remarkably stable and the character of institutes, departments, and sectors is unlikely to change except when new administrators are named. Each of the major China centers has a distinctive atmosphere. IVAN’S Department of China under Deliusin generally supports scholarly independence and individual choice of research topics and methods. It bridges all periods of Chinese history without strong pressure for shifting attention to the twentieth century and to the topics some consider most politically relevant. IDV under Sladkovsky is much more politicized and more directly involved in providing informational services to national leaders; yet it includes sectors that may be less caught up in this "applied” orientation. The Leningrad branch of IVAN more closely approxi­ mates a pure research atmosphere, but the range of interests there remains narrow. It alone has an official mandate to concentrate on China before the nineteenth century and to work primarily with rare manuscripts. Along with LGU, L. O. IVAN is handicapped by the increasing concentration of personnel and resources in Moscow. Inadequate book purchases for Leningrad libraries threaten to isolate scholars from recent developments in their fields abroad. In contrast, the staff at INION, plays a decisive role in processing information frpm throughout the world on China. This staff maintains bibliographic ser­ vices and prepares résumés of foreign publications, some published in one of its many reference journals, Social Sciences Abroad: Oriental Studies and African Studies (Obshcfxestvennye nauki za rubezhom: Vostokovedenie i Afrikanistika). MGU and LGU, of course, emphasize undergraduate teaching. So does MGIMO, with its heavy concentration on contemporary foreign relations. There are indications that strong rivalries, even animosities, weaken the base of cooperation among these centers and the specialists themselves. While a number of part-time appointments link various organizations in Moscow (for example, MGU uses specialists from various institutes to teach courses), the ties between LGU and L. O. IVAN appear strained. Also the two leading com­ plex research organizations in the field, IDV and IVAN, are known to have sharp differences in outlook that affect their relations. These differences are often personal and political as well as scholarly.

BACKGROUND

29

The Organization of Publications Analysis of the organization and classification of publications provides important background information for assessing studies of China. The annual bibliographies (and occasional cumulative supplements) of books and articles on China in Russian edited by V. P. Zhuravleva at INION offer a good starting point for the examination of publications.42 The listing for 1976 consisted of 1,350 items, 115 books and the remainder articles. By 1979 the total had expanded to 2,434 items, of which 131 were books and monographs. However, the long list for one year is somewhat deceptive. Under the heading of books are such items as the proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Congress of the CPSU, books of Brezhnev's speeches during the year, résumés (roughly ten to forty pages long) of candidate's dissertations, short linguistics papers deposited in manuscript form, and many volumes that only peripherally concern China. Altogether, about twenty-five books center on China before 1949. A more focused list of publications on China is contained in a booklet in Russian pre­ pared by INION for, among other purposes, the meeting of the U.S.-USSR Binational Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences (October 1979). Entitled "Books and Articles on China, published in 1976-79,” this booklet omits most peripheral matter yet still includes a remarkably large number of publica­ tions.42 Over a period of roughly three and a half years, this bibliography indicates an output of 119 books on China before 1949. Table 4 presents a breakdown by category. The first, general works on China, includes four multi-volume annual conference proceedings, (Society and State in China), and four sborniki (collec­ tions of articles) also from the Department of China at IVAN. The second category, history of sinology, includes a multi-volume collection of conference papers in honor of N. Ia. Bichurin’s bicentennial, four more which are devoted to the history of Russian sinology, one on Chinese studies in England, and one consisting of the collected works of the former Soviet academician N. I. Konrad. The fifth category, general history, includes two sborniki, and the sixth, ancient and medieval history, includes two translations and one sbornik. The works in the seventh category, modem history from the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries, are chiefly concerned with foreign relations and popular rebellions. The eighth, contemporary history pre-1949, includes four conference proceedings from the IDV annual gatherings on problems of the history of contemporary China, eight books on Sino-Soviet relations or memoirs of Soviets who were in China, and two sborniki. The tenth, Chinese language, includes four language texts, and the twelfth, Chinese literature and folklore, includes translations and a collection of the works of the former Soviet acade­ mician V. M. Alekseev. The other works listed on the chart, including those in

30

GILBERT ROZMAN

the third and fourth categories, are monographs. Table 5 translates the titles of some of the major monographs among these 119 books. It is necessary to note that some of the one thousand to fifteen hundred articles published during this period are not substantial scholarly contribu­ tions. Many of the materials on the history of Chinese studies and on biblio­ graphy are brief tributes to Soviet specialists on their sixtieth or seventieth birthdays, including a list of their publications. A number of the articles on the history of the CCP commemorate anniversaries of major events and birthdays of leading figures. Nevertheless, the volume of serious scholarly output re­ mains considerable. Omitting both conference papers and articles in sborniki (and some other items included in the annual bibliographies), the three-and-ahalf year bibliography still contains several hundred articles on China prior to 1949. If the China-centered citations in the annual bibliographies (including published conference articles) are included, the total rises well above one thousand articles. In her English-language report for the Binational Commission, 'Traditional China in Soviet Scholarly Publications of 1975-76," N. I. Fomina classifies materials by type. She examines the periods up to the 1911-13 revolution, dividing her review into four sections—history, ideology, literature, and art. Under history Fomina notes three main fields: study of sources, historiography, and research into concrete historical problems. In turn, the study of sources is divided into translations, textual analysis, and descriptions of the nature or content of sources. Historiography apparently involves reviewing or citing works that show how others have looked at historical problems; for example, Chinese following a Confucian perspective, Russians prior to 1917 with an interest in the study of China, Soviets developing the field in recent times, or international schools of Chinese studies. Fomina also points to various types of concrete problems that are popular among Soviet historians, including foreign relations, non-Chinese nationalities, socioeconomic history, and periodization. Fomina then differentiates the other types of writings on China. Under ideology she mentions separate clusters of studies on early social thought and the origins of China, on Confucianism, and on nationalism. Soviet writings on literature also fall into three categories: translations, essays on individual literary scholars, and theoretical investigations. She mentions two collections of translations of poetry, a collection of novella translations from the fourth to the eighteenth centuries, and translations of laconic aphorisms (tsa-chuari). Essays on individual scholars and on theory interpret such elements as mytho­ logical plots, poetic rhyme, the formation of poetic genres, the influence of Buddhist concepts, prose structure, and the role of imagery. Fomina notes several broad monographs on art—on aesthetic problems of painting, on the evolution of costume and its symbolism, on the conditions in the Academy of Painting—and articles focusing on the work of individual artists, particular painting styles, and selected museum collections.

BACKGROUND

31

A second unpublished Soviet overview written in English covers the years 1977-79. Entitled »'Study of Traditional China in the USSR in 1977-79: Over­ view of Literature," it emphasizes the important place of translations. Histori­ cal translations with commentaries include Shanghai ching (Catalogue of moun­ tains and seas) and Chit-Van kuo-chth (History of the Khitan state).44 For the same span of three years thirteen volumes of translation from Chinese litera­ ture are noted, six published by Khudozhestvennaia Literatura and the others by "Nauka." Mention is also made of a thick collection of documents, RussianChinese Relations in the Eighteenth Century: Materials and Documents.45 Together, Zhuravleva's bibliographies, the two Soviet overviews, and our collective familiarity with the vast and diverse recent Soviet material about China offer the impression of a wealth of scholarly publications. In the follow­ ing section, I seek to give preliminary answers to some questions that help us to assess the level of scholarship in these studies of China. What sorts of issues do they raise? What range of sources do they use? How is the argument struc­ tured? What significance do the conclusions have for the field? How are political objectives evident? The chapters in parts 2, 3, and 4 of this volume offer more detailed answers to these questions for particular periods and fields of Chinese studies. The Variations in Publications In this section I examine separately the short conference paper, the pub­ lished article, and the monograph. The first of these can be found in abundance in the proceedings of each of the annual conferences on Society and State in China, which began in 1970. The published article appears in a wide variety of journals and books, but is especially numerous in the sbomiki that are published each year. The monograph represents an extended presentation in which a full display of scholarly elements can be expected. The papers in Society and State in China, mostly five to ten pages in length, are broadly representative of historical writings. In the published proceedings of the tenth scientific conference in 1979, there were eighty-six authors and almost as many papers, virtually all on periods prior to 1949: twelve on the "ancient" period through the second century A.D., eight on the "medieval" period through the thirteenth century, thirteen on the later "medieval" period through the eighteenth century, ten on the nineteenth cen­ tury, eight on the early twentieth century, and twenty-two on the period after 1919. A majority of the historians of pre-1949 China contribute to this collec­ tion and have done so on an annual or almost an annual basis since the early 1970s. Thus, by tracing the papers of individual authors over the decade, one can gain unusual insight into the development of research interests among most specialists in the Held. The papers are brief, but often bold or at least sugges­ tive-tossing out incompletely developed ideas or tantalizing the reader with

32

GILBERT ROZMAN

excerpts from the author’s primary writings still in progress. They do not provide a basis for assessing scholarly argumentation or use of sources; how­ ever, these papers give an excellent introduction to the questions addressed in Soviet studies. The titles of the papers in the 1979 proceedings of Society and State in China in many cases indicate the questions they address. One type of paper sets out to define, identify, or interpret a specific element of Chinese tradi­ tion. Examples of this type include E. I. Kychanov, ’’The meaning of the term seh in the seventh to tenth centuries”; L. S. Vasil'ev, ’The idea of predes­ tination in the historical texts of the Chou epoch"; E. S. Lisevich, "On the problem of the interpretation of ancient trigrams pa kua"; and V. M. Rybakov, "The principle of general service responsibility (lien-tso) in the T’ang Code." Most papers of this sort concentrate on textual analysis and add some con­ cluding comments about the meaning of this clarification for understanding a larger social issue, for example, the role of officials or the character of social stratification. A second type of paper is concerned with the timing or the development of a new condition or a form of writing. In 1979 examples of this type were also common: A. V. Aleksandrov, "On the first stage of the use and production of iron in ancient China"; A. M. Karapet’iants, "The beginning and fixing of the poetic tradition in China"; R. V. Viatkin, "On the first stage of the development of Chinese historiography"; S. R. Lainger, "On the organization of samesurname among the hua-ch!iao: several questions of genesis"; G. V. Efimov, "On the question of the development of nationality self-consciousness in China"; and O. V. Kuchuk, "On the basic stages of the Chinese colonization of North Man­ churia (mid-nineteenth to the first quarter of the twentieth centuries)." In these, papers, the authors generally draw on primary sources to propose a date or*a sequence for important social changes. Other papers offer a brief perspective on an event, a source, a social group, or a traditional interpretation. For example, there are M. E. Kravtsova, "On the place of the poet in traditional China"; G. Ia. Smolin, ’The government newspaper of the Sung empire"; A. S. Martynov "On the traditional interpreta­ tion of foreign wars in official documents of China, seventh to eighteenth centuries"; E. A. Belov, "On the character of the Wuhan uprising in 1911"; and A. S. Kostiaeva, "On the role of secret societies in the contemporary period." The authors of these short pieces suggest hypotheses or new ways of looking at historical issues. There are also papers that examine data on social conditions or on produc­ tion. Among these are: O. E. Nepomnin, ’The structure of the population of China at the end of the nineteenth century"; G. A. Sukhacheva, "Several statis­ tics on the state of craft production in Manchuria in the second half of the nineteenth century"; and G. P. Beloglazov, ’The system of landownership and

BACKGROUND

33

land use in Manchuria in the 1920s." Papers with statistics are not numerous and, as one would expect, concentrate on recent periods. Of the many hundreds of short papers published in Society and State in China during the 1970s, some take a pointed look at a narrow theme and others offer a summary of work being done on major issues. On most matters there is no discussion of political implications of the material, just the preliminary thoughts of a researcher open to comment and criticism. One obvious advan­ tage of this format is that it informs specialists about work in progress. Some of the papers are discussed at the annual winter conference, when as many as two hundred specialists convene in Moscow. The collection of papers is printed for distribution almost exclusively to the participants and other specialists on China. Unfortunately, most sborniki do not help the scholar to draw together different works dealing with the same area. Many Soviet sborniki bear titles which are so general that the reader has little idea of what to expect, and the collection of articles often covers such a broad range that there is little justifi­ cation for publishing them as a group. Nor is any serious effort made by the responsible editor or the editorial collective to draw general conclusions from the collection as a whole. By 1982 a trend in favor of coordinated collections was in evidence, and exceptions with greater focus can be identified in the list of sborniki in table 6. Many of the Soviet collections consist of a diverse assortment of articles. There is no overarching theme that links the separate articles. Moreover, the collections have no concluding chapters and only brief introductions, at most seven pages and in the majority of cases one to three pages. Thus, there is no effort made to justify the juxtaposition of the selected pieces or to draw collective conclusions. One of the collections formed on the basis of the annual conferences on Society and State in China recognizes the "mosaic character" of the volume and applauds it for serving the same purposes as the conferences themselves, that is, clarifying little-studied problems, adding insight on issues of scientific controversy, looking more deeply at particular issues, and intro­ ducing new facts and problems. Praise is given to the use of original ma­ terials and the presentation of concrete examples. No mention is made of the lack of integration of articles. The Soviets have also published other types of sborniki and indicated an interest in other objectives. The collection Secret Societies in Old China not only claims that many problems have been insufficiently studied but also asserts that this is an opportunity to present the position of Soviet historical science in the face of one-sided and often incorrect treatments in the bourgeois literature.47 This collection is integrated to the point that all authors make use of the single bibliography at the end and present citations in the text by the number in the bibliography. As often occurs in Soviet bibliographies in Chinese

34

GILBERT ROZMAN

studies, the listing is extensive but has some odd and striking omissions. The 334 items in this list show considerable familiarity with Russian, Chinese, Western European, and even a few Vietnamese sources, but only a single refer­ ence to the important Japanese literature on secret societies. In the case of a 1974 sbornik, Agrarian Relations and the Peasant Move­ ment in China, there is neither an introduction nor any attempt to connect the themes in the eleven papers that span nearly two millennia.4® However, even in the absence of a general chapter, there is greater cohesion in the selection of topics here than in most sborniki. The collection of eighteen papers in The Role of Tradition in the History and Culture of China shows a consistent inter­ est in the impact of tradition in such areas as state regulation of economic life and foreign policies.49 The sbornik Social and Socioeconomic History of China concentrates on the development of social classes. In the volume China: History, Culture and Historiography, which includes introductions and commen­ taries, many papers show a common interest in the publication and translation of Chinese sources.59 And in the collection State and Society in China, three of the fifteen articles focus on a single Chinese communist activist and another three form a unit around the controversy between Meliksetov and Nepomnin concerning the development of capitalism (see chapter 11). Several of the sborniki on periods before 1949 (and those on the period after 1949 that are not reviewed here) concern matters highly relevant to Soviet political objectives. The short introductions to the collections do not hesitate to draw the appropriate conclusions. In Foreign Policies of the ChHng State in the Seventeenth Century, Chinese policies are described as part of a tradition of sinocentrism and aggression in relation to non-Chinese peoples, and even as hegemonism—a catchword in the current Sino-Soviet struggle.51 The collection Revolution 1925-1927 in China emphasized the great role played by the Soviets in accelerating the revolutionary process in China and strongly justifies Soviet policies that have been the subject of much controversy.5® More recently, China: In Search of Paths of Social Development concentrates on the history of social thought in an era of growing interest in socialism and takes the expected position that capitalism has been proven inadequate and that only the Communist Party has defended the largest social classes.5® On the one hand, many sborniki provide little integration, merely presen­ ting an assortment of papers about twenty pages long rather than the five to ten pages common to the annual conference publications. On the other hand, those sborniki that do have a focus primarily treat politically relevant issues. One cannot rule out competent scholarship on politically sensitive topics, but it is discouraging to find predictable conclusions that the author would not be permitted to contradict. There is not much coordination of scholarship through sborniki (although the sectors in the Department of China are thanked in many cases for discussing the various articles), and, to the extent it occurs, it centers on themes singled out for political significance.

BACKGROUND

35

It is necessary to turn to longer publications to gain a deeper understanding of Soviet research. The issues discussed briefly in conference papers and sborniki are developed most fully in monographs. The Soviet monograph has a number of characteristic features. First, it has a responsible editor (otvetstvermyi redaktor) who guides the manuscript through publication and assumes some responsibility for it along with the author. Second, it has a brief summary (a few sentences) on the back of the title page below the name of the responsible editor. Third, the table of contents is at the back. Fourth, publica­ tion information also normally appears on a separate page a t the back, in­ cluding the number of copies printed and the price. Fifth, there is a long bibliography divided into many categories: first the works of the founders of Marxism-Leninism (Marx, Engels, and Lenin), then Russian sources, Chinese sources (perhaps separated into one section for primary sources and another for secondary ones), Japanese sources (often combined in the listing with Chinese ones), and Western language sources. Characteristically the largest category is Russian sources—an indication of how much has been written on China since the nineteenth century and how thoroughly familiar Soviets are with the literature in Russian in their specializations. There are also numerous references to Chinese secondary sources of the 1950s and early 1960s. Sixth, in most cases early in the book the author discusses historiography, separately reviewing Russian, Soviet, Chinese Communist, Western, and perhaps Japanese publica­ tions (although a working knowledge of Japanese is uncommon). A section on primary sources may also be included, with brief comments on the basic ma­ terials. On occasion there is a list of characters referred to in the text, a terminological dictionary, or an index of names. There is rarely a general index. Apart from these elements the book is likely to concentrate on detailed historical analysis. Subsequent chapters of this volume analyze the historical contents of particular Soviet books on China. At this point, I would like to address a few features which commonly appear in them. Use of quotations from Marx, Engels, and Lenin was formerly widespread in Soviet writings, but recently there has been a good deal of variation in the number of such quotations and the degree to which they directly relate to the authors view. Many books have no such quotations or just a few together with a small selection of sources by the founders of Marxism-Leninism in the bibliography. Others have quite a few quotations which are selected to fit the author's argument and are therefore not obtrusive. Nevertheless, there is still a clear line on many historical sub­ jects associated with the ideological founders, and required mention of their ideas in historical works serves the purpose of keeping the author within certain bounds. Over the past thirty years quotations have been much less frequent and less important. The nature of the topic may be as important as the discretion of the author in determining the extent of this sort of quotation.

36

GILBERT ROZMAN

A review of a period or topic in Marxist (i.e., Soviet) historiography is a common feature of Soviet works on China. Some scholars report on themes that have been covered, without evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the coverage, while others stress the achievements and advances of Soviet spe­ cialists. Still others assume a somewhat critical stance of contemporary Soviet specialists on China. An example of this last approach is found in the historio­ graphic chapter of A. V. Meliksetov, Socioeconomic Policies of the Kuomintang 1927-1949. Meliksetov notes the inadequate state of scholarship on the topic and justifies the need for more research. He also raises a familiar theme in noting the distinctiveness of China and warning against applying general as­ sumptions and categories accepted elsewhere. He goes further than many in specifically criticizing his Soviet colleagues for borrowing categories from the literature on social classes in other countries. Such a practice, he states, confuses the analysis of Chinese conditions. The term "kulaks” is cited as an example. Meliksetov also candidly observes that the unsatisfactory ("falsi­ fying”) writings of Ch'en Po-ta in the PRC had an unduly great influence on Soviet historiography through the early 1960s, hampering the development of objective research on the Kuomintang. Meliksetov’s comments on Soviet sino­ logy of an earlier period might be interpreted as a general criticism of the intrusion of political objectives into research. The sympathies of Soviet researchers, as of all Soviet public opinion, were, completely naturally, fully on the side of the communists, which psychologically and politically created an easily understood hostility to the Kuomintang regime and its policies, and hatred for the butchers of the Chinese communists. In the study of the Kuomin­ tang all of this stimulated above all a search for signs of socioeco­ nomic breakdown and failure of Kuomintang policies, and interfered « with the objective evaluation of economic and political realities. On the other hand, at that time in Soviet social sciences not all of the necessary conditions for creative development existed; the situation of'the cult of personality also negatively influenced Chinese studies. It took its toll above all on the theoretical understanding of Chinese reality: dogmatism hampered the exposure and analysis of new socioeconomic phenomena. In general, interest in theoretical works fell, which is explained by ”the increasing tendency to avoid theoretical generalizations.” All of this led to a definite duality in the works of Soviet sinolo­ gists: the analysis of concrete socioeconomic phenomena based on vast factual material often contradicted generalizations that in many works bore an a priori and dogmatic character. These generalizations emphasized the constancy of the semicolonial conditions of the

BACKGROUND

37

development of China, the antinational character of all policies of the Kuomintang, and the impossibility of the capitalist evolution of the country.5* The crude contradictions between facts and generalizations found in ear­ lier Soviet writings are rarely evident in recent publications on the premodern era. Current criticisms of lingering Eurocentrism or the incorrect use of such concepts as evolutionary stages and social class divisions seem designed to prevent the reemergence of such bifurcated writings. Repeated praise for the concrete investigation of actual conditions suggests a preference for solid research over politically correct generalizations which are not based in fact. Yet, the need to use current political objectives in writing history still creates contradictions, albeit more subtle than in the past. The chapters in this book are able to do what Soviet authors cannot: expose the deleterious effects on scholarship of forcing conclusions that the research does not warrant and encouraging narrow, limited studies. Soviet scholars pay some attention to methods of research and argumenta­ tion in discussions of sources and historiography, but the discussion is likely to be brief and inadequate. They consistently omit consideration of the lack of logical connections between research findings and generalizations in so much Soviet literature. The difficulty of balancing the demands of ideology and scholarly research requires Soviets to show, at best, a lack of candor about the need to reexamine all assumptions in the literature. In a time of growing international appreciation of social science methods that improve the reliability of findings, Soviet specialists on China have shown little interest in methodological discussions that would clearly associate them with the new currents and the new awareness of problems associated with the old ways. These limitations are closely related to the dearth of comparisons in Soviet scholarship between China and other countries. The exciting promise of Marxist historiography for comparative research on the abundant hypotheses about social development has not been realized. Another difficulty for Soviety scholars is inadequate access to foreign sources and assistance, and otherwise poor working conditions. Restrictions on book purchases and on contacts with foreigners often mean that scholarship is conducted without necessary materials; bibliographies may omit relevant recent publications or dissertations. As the situation has improved, Soviets have become more aware of what they need to achieve a desirable level of accessibility to modern scholarship, but the inability of scholars to criticize their own institutes limits change in this area. In addition, lack of photo­ copying, secretarial assistance, and access to foreign libraries make the working conditions of Soviet scholars poor by the standards of Japanese, American, and European scholars.

38

GILBERT ROZMAN

Despite these criticisms, we should recognize that impressive advances in methodology have occurred in the Soviet Union. Research methods are often comparable to those used abroad and the logical development of arguments has improved considerably over the years to the point where most Soviet works are not at a disadvantage in this respect. Particular progress has been made with regard to identification and use of primary and secondary sources and in such traditional sinological pursuits as the definition of Chinese terms. Among Soviet publications on China, we observe many variations. At the extremes are specialists who deal primarily with political issues where the conclusions are well known in advance, and specialists who concentrate on narrowly defined topics and factual materials well removed from pressing political concerns. The two extreme types differ in their choice of topics, use of sources, use of quotations from the Marxist-Leninist founders, views of both Soviet and Western historiography, and methods of presentation. Both are, at least from time to time, under pressure to move closer to the middle group that clearly espouses both Soviet political and scholarly objectives. Pressures from work groups, scientific councils, administrators, responsible editors, publishing boards, and the Soviet censorship organs, make it impossible for the reader to determine which elements of a book are the author's own creation and which represent a compromise with other requirements. Although the topic seems to determine the degree of political input more than anything else, on many topics there is still room for variation among authors. Finally, we do not find a pre­ cise inverse association between political intrusions and scholarly worth; the assessment of the value of Soviet contributions must go beyond this simplistic assumption. The following chapters indicate in detail the large variety of combinations that exist.

CHAPTER 3 Guide to Research Tools Maureen H. Donovan Soviet sinologists benefit from a variety of research tools which keep them informed about current and retrospective literature on China published in the USSR and throughout the world. Since the importance of Asian studies is recognized in central planning committees, funds have been made available to set up bibliographic data collection and distribution networks to aid scholars in their research. These bibliographic systems play an important role in pro­ moting communication and coordination among scholars, and have helped to make recent advances in Chinese studies possible. Bibliographic data are collected at a number of central libraries and are made available in publications and through responses to requests. Since deposi­ tory libraries are included in the network, coverage of Soviet publications on China is virtually complete. Efforts are made to inform scholars about new foreign publications by including citations for works from abroad that have been received at participating libraries. However, access to books and articles published outside the USSR remains a problem. Restricted funds at central libraries that collect foreign-language materials have made the development of comprehensive research collections impossible. Funds are so limited that instances in which additional copies of foreign books are purchased for separate institutes or departments are rare. Conveniently. China specialists are pri­ marily concentrated in Moscow where the foreign books are collected. Centralized bibliographic services have also helped to maintain control over the use of foreign scholarship. Because their own institute or university cannot normally purchase copies of books or journals from abroad, scholars frequently have easy access to citations and reviews but not to the works themselves. The bibliographies they rely on employ standardized subject head­ ings and descriptors in order to guide interpretation, and reviews of works from abroad represent orthodox judgments. Nonetheless, citations in recent publica­ tions indicate that Soviet sinologists are becoming increasingly aware of schol­ arship done outside the USSR and that they are able to use it in their work to a substantial extent. This trend is reflected in the expanded coverage of foreign works in bibliographies.

39

40

MAUREEN H. DONOVAN

Bibliography and Historiography The first major breakthrough in bibliographical control for Chinese studies in the USSR came in 1932 with the publication of P. E. Skachkov’s Bibliography of China, a comprehensive bibliography of books, articles and pamphlets pub­ lished in Russia from 1730 to 1930. In 1960 a second edition was issued bringing coverage up to 1957.^ The 19,551 entries in the second edition cover all aspects of Chinese studies and include scholarly articles and monographs, reports of first-hand observers, writings for the mass audience and ideological or political works. Skachkov’s bibliography, in each of its successive editions, has made it possible for scholars throughout the world to become familiar with the important contributions of Russian and Soviet sinologists. Skachkov’s role as the bibliographer of Soviet sinology has been continued by V. P. Zhuravleva of the Institute of Scientific Information in the Social Sciences (INION) who is currently compiling a retrospective bibliography for the period from 1957 through the present. As part of this project, she has been issuing annual biblio­ graphies of Chinese studies in the USSR on a prompt and regular basis to facili­ tate access to recent scholarship.2 Petr Emelianovich Skachkov (1892-1964) devoted his life to the bibliog­ raphy and history of Russian and Soviet sinology. His monographic history of Russian sinology before the 1917 revolution, Outlines of the History of Russian Sinology, which was left unfinished at his death, was edited by his daughter and colleagues and issued in 1977.2 Although written as a survey history of the development of the field, it also serves as a guide to the work of early Russian sinologists. Over two hundred pages of the book are devoted to footnotes, indexes, and appendixes, including detailed listings of unpublished manuscripts and other archival materials. This work should be used in conjunction with his Bibliography of China for a complete inventory of the work of early sinologists since so many of their writings remain unpublished.* V. N. Nikiforov’s Soviet Historians on the Problems of China provides background on th e work of scholars during the period from 1917 to 1949.5 It is an orthodox interpretation of controversies which arose over ideological issues during the Stalinist period, and cannot be considered an objective history. Nonetheless, it includes some useful information on the careers of several individual sinologists as well as a lengthy bibliography. The books by Skachkov and Nikiforov reflect a general concern among Soviet scholars for evaluation of the state of the field. As scholarship has progressed throughout the postwar period, researchers have turned again and again to look for the origins of their theoretical approaches in the works of their predecessors, to reexamine their own hypotheses in the light of their critical reading of earlier works, and to develop a self-conscious awareness of their place in the evolution of ideas about historical development. Since the

GUIDE TO RESEARCH TOOLS

41

traditional Marxist analysis of history provides only cursory treatment of Asian society, Soviet historians and scholars have been active in shaping theoretical frameworks to be used in the study of China. In doing this they have closely monitored the work of their colleagues and of scholars abroad, both Marxist and non-Marxist, and have published a great number of historiographical books and essays based on their readings.® Publications on historiography are so numerous that it has emerged as one of the most visible subfields of sinology in the Soviet Union. Historiographical works can be used in developing literature searches for specific subjects, periods, or authors. In addition to general historical surveys, such as the works by Skachkov and Nikiforov, specialized review essays treat topics of particular importance for Soviet scholars, such as peasant uprisings, agrarian relations, urban history, or problems of periodization.7 Bibliographies given in these essays can serve as an introduction to Soviet scholarship on a given topic, while the authors discussion of the works can be useful in evalu­ ating the current status of any debates among Soviet scholars over theoretical issues relevant to the subject. The focus of review essays is on the continuities and discontinuities in theoretical orientation, and frequently the survey extends back to the work of such nineteenth-century sinologists as N. Ia. Bichurin (1711-1853) in an effort to establish the heritage and lineage of the approaches used. While bibliographies, histories of the field, and historiographical works provide an introduction to Soviet scholarship on China, S. D. Miliband’s Biobibliographical Dictionary of Soviet Orientalists contains information about scholars who have been active in the field.® This work combines brief bio­ graphical notices of scholars working on Asian studies during the Soviet period with representative citations of their published works. It contains more infor­ mation about these scholars and about the structure of Asian studies in the Soviet Union than has ever been available before. Miliband’s dictionary includes data about 1,450 scholars and writers who have published on South, Southeast and Central Asia, the Near East, Oceania and Africa, as well as East Asia. East Asian specialists comprise a fourth of the total, including 260 who have written about China, the largest number listed for any single country excluding those who work on Soviet Central Asia. The dictionary is a comprehensive list which includes specialists on China’s minorities and Soviet relations with China who may not use Chinese, but Gilbert Rozman’s analysis in chapter 2 of specialists still active in the 1970s focuses only on those who use Chinese.® The information given about each scholar includes: date of birth, date of death (if deceased), record of degrees and advancement in rank, employment history, honors received, number of works published, and a sampling of citations for major scholarly books and articles.

42

MAUREEN H. DONOVAN

The criteria for inclusion of scholars in the dictionary were the receipt of the candidate's degree (see table 2) by 1968 and a record of publication equiva­ lent to at least ten printers sheets. A printer's sheet (pechatnyi list) is a measure used in the Soviet Union to determine authors' fees, prices of books, and various statistics used in the publishing industry.10 Ten printer's sheets can roughly be equated with one monograph or a number of journal articles, with a variance in exact number of pages depending on the format used in printing. The dictionary, thus, provides information on scholars who made significant contributions to scholarship by the early 1970s, and on preceding generations, but it does not mention Stalinist-era difficulties. Most of those included were in their forties or fifties at the time of the dictionary's publication in 1975; the median date of birth for sinologists in the dictionary is 1922, and only four of them were born after 1935. The career summaries given in this work indicate the number of publica­ tions each scholar has written. Many are credited with at least fifty citations and twenty-seven sinologists are listed as having published a hundred or more works. The latter include: Field: History L. A. Bereznyi, 1915N. N. Cheboksarov, 1907L. P. Deliusin, 1923G. V. Efimov, 1906-1980 B. P. Gurevich, 1919V. N. Nikiforov, 1920S. L. Tikhvinsky, 1918-

(American sinology) (Ethnography) (Agrarian problems) (Late Ch'ing history) (Border areas) (Historiography) (Late Ch'ing history)

Field: Literature L. E. Cherkasskii, 1925L. Z. Eidlin, 1909N. T. Fedorenko, 1912L. D'. Pozdneeva, 1908V. F. Sorokin, 1927A. N. Zhelokhovtsev, 1933-

(Poetry) (Poetry) (Modern literature) (Modern literature) (Drama) (Sung literature)

Evaluation and Location of Publications One of the problems encountered in bibliographic searches of Soviet schol­ arship is how to determine which publications have scholarly value. Soviet scholars publish a wide variety of works addressed to diverse audiences. Many of them are very short in length. Their writings include popular works for the mass market (frequently with a high content of ideological propaganda),

GUIDE TO RESEARCH TOOLS

43

textbooks at all levels, translations, historiographical works, research under­ taken to fulfill a plan for scholarship, as well as research on topics in which they have a long-term intellectual interest. There are cases when books deal­ ing with subjects that would appeal to only a small segment of the scholarly community in the United States are addressed to a general audience in the Soviet Union and are written in an appropriate style without references to primary sources. For example, in the 1970s a number of studies of specific aspects of the history of Chinese foreign policy in the dynastic period were issued, presumably to establish justification for Soviet criticism of foreign policy in the Peopled Republic of China by implying similarities between pres­ ent and past practices. S. L. Tikhvinsky's The History of China and the Present is one of the clearest examples.11 This book contains eleven essays dealing with aspects of Chinese history and the history of foreign relations from the ancient period through the twentieth century. It is a polemical volume that is chiefly historiographical, with praise for the work of Soviet historians and sharp criticism of research being done in the Peopled Republic of China. In spite of its specialized topic, the book was clearly intended for a popular readership since 37,000 copies were issued. In evaluating the scholarly level of a particular work, the most useful indicator is the size of the edition or tirazh This information is available in each book as part of the colophon; it is also carried in such national biblio­ graphies as Book Chronicle and Yearbook of Books in the USSR.12 The general principle is that the larger the number of copies, the more popular the nature of the work. Sometimes the scholarly reputation of the author is useful in determining the potential value of a book, but in the Soviet Union even those with high standards do not necessarily escape the pressure to write and publish for a mass audience. Table 7 presents information about the sizes of editions of some recent publications arranged according to the number of copies printed. This small sample provides a rough index of the kinds of audiences anticipated for various types of scholarship on China or Asia, ranging from highly specialized mono­ graphs issued in editions of hundreds of copies to a treasury of Asian poetry in Russian translation, 926 pages in length and published in an edition of 303,000 copies to meet popular demand in a nation of poetry enthusiasts. Information about new publications is carried in a number of Soviet biblio­ graphic publications. Prepublication notices appear in New Books of the USSR, a weekly catalog which gives author, title, publisher, estimated size of the edition, pagination, and projected date of publication.12 Each entry is anno­ tated and normally includes mention of the audience for which the book is intended. Since these notices are made before publication, all information is tentative. In particular, the size of the edition and the publication date are frequently changed, depending on the availability of paper and the priorities in

44

MAUREEN H. DONOVAN

scheduling use of the printing facilities. Sometimes books announced for publi­ cation never actually appear, in print. New Books of the USSR is published mainly for the convenience of non-Soviet book buyers and contains only se­ lected titles which are thought to have an appeal for readers abroad. Despite its lack of comprehensiveness this weekly catalog is the best tool for locating and ordering new books before they have been sold out.1^ Books go out of print very quickly in the Soviet Union and second printings are not usually made even when there is a demand for a particular title. After publication, all books are listed in Book Chronicle, a weekly listing of all publications in the Soviet Union except ephemera and works produced in editions of less than one hundred copies.15 Entries are arranged by subject according to a standardized classification system of thirty-one headings. There are quarterly indexes by name, subject, and geographical subject. Official publications, summaries of dissertations, and works in other specialized cate­ gories are carried in quarterly supplementary issues. The Yearbook of Books of the USSR is the annual, cumulative listing of books published.15 It is not as comprehensive as Book Chronicle since it excludes several categories of publi­ cations, but the fact that it is cumulative makes it particularly convenient. In addition to these national bibliographies for books, there is a weekly index to all articles in journals and symposium volumes, Chronicle of Journal Articles, and a monthly index to newspapers, Chronicle of Newspaper Articles .17 These publications are also arranged by subject and have quarterly name and geo­ graphical indexes. Scholarly works on China are issued by a number of publishers, including universities, institutes, and scholarly conferences, but "Nauka," the organ of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, has increasingly dominated this and other areas of academic publishing. "Nauka" maintains an editorial division to handle books about Asia (the Central Editorial Board for Eastern Literature), which at one time had an independent existence. Retrospective catalogs of its publications are issued at irregular intervals under the title, Books of the Central Editorial'Board for Eastern Literature of the Publisher "Nauka,"15 Two issues have been published, covering 1957-66 (1,394 titles) and 1967-71 (886 titles). The catalogs include annotations for each title as well as author and title indexes. "Nauka" also publishes one of the two major scholarly journals for Asian studies, Peoples of Asia and Africa, issued bimonthly. The other major journal is Problems of the Far East, a quarterly which appears in English under the title Far Eastern Affairs and is issued by Progress, the organ of the State Com­ mittee of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. These journals regularly publish articles on various aspects of Chinese studies. Problems of the Far East includes a higher proportion of articles on China, most of which deal with contemporary subjects although history, literature, and culture are not

GUIDE TO RESEARCH TOOLS

45

excluded. Peoples of Asia and Africa usually includes one or two articles on China in each issue, primarily from the fields of literature, history, and philo­ sophy. Both journals publish commemorative articles honoring senior scholars on their birthdays and obituaries for deceased colleagues. These usually include a complete bibliography of the scholar's work and are therefore extremely useful in bibliographic searches. Table 8 presents a list of scholars covered in recent issues of these journals. The journals also carry reports of scholarly conferences held in the Soviet Union and abroad, including lists of papers presented. Book reviews cover both Soviet and foreign publications. More comprehensive coverage of retrospective publications of all pub­ lishers is provided in the annual bibliography, Literature on the Countries of Asiaf Africa and Oceania, published jointly by INION and IVAN.12 It is very similar to the Bibliography of Asian Studies published by the Association for Asian Studies, except that its coverage extends to the Middle East and Africa in addition to South, Southeast, and East Asia. Compilation is slow and publica­ tion occurs several years after the period covered in the bibliogràphy. It in­ cludes all original and translated works published in Russian in the Soviet Union that deal with the countries covered. Entries are arranged by country and are subdivided by subject; author access is provided through an index. The 1976 edition (published in 1980) includes 252 items under the section on China. INION is the leading center for the dissemination of current bibliographical information on the social sciences and humanities in the Soviet Union today. An outgrowth of the Academy of Science's former Fundamental Library of the Social Sciences, it received institute status in 1969 and has been known by its present name since 1972.22 INION's emergence was a result of the restruc­ turing of information centers and libraries to develop centralized bibliographic coordination for the social sciences and the humanities and to work toward the implementation of an automated bibliographic system. It now operates as the kingpin in a network of major research libraries, publishing bibliographic guides to their current acquisitions, book-length bibliographies, and other reference tools. These bibliographic services reflect a great emphasis in the USSR on the role of institutes and their libraries in meeting the research needs of scholars.21 INION's mission is to give the scholar information on all significant literature in his branch of knowledge and on his specific area of interest, and to supply it to him in the most efficient way.22 In order to meet this goal the institute publishes forty-four current bibliographies and review journals on the various fields and subfields of the social sciences and humanities.22 INION also provides about three hundred abstracts on China for distribution each year. INION's most important current bibliography is New Soviet and Foreign Literature on the Social Sciences: South and Southeast Asia, the Far East.2* A monthly listing of about twelve to sixteen hundred journal article and book citations, its recent issues have carried four to seven hundred entries on China,

46

MAUREEN H. DONOVAN

arranged under detailed subject headings. The classification system, with more than sixty subheadings for China, is a flexible one which allows for the creation of new headings as the literature demands. This system is based on the tradi­ tional thirty-one subject classification system used since 1946 in Book Chron­ icle, which is designed according to Marxist theory and includes a hierarchical structure. However, the system has been expanded and modified in a way which suggests that pragmatic concerns were of primary importance. The works listed are entered in the original language of publication for all languages in Roman and Cyrillic alphabets and in Cyrillic transcription for other scripts. The compilers add brief explanatory notes on all works in languages other than Russian and on those works for which titles do not adequately reveal the nature of their content. Coverage of articles and books on China published in the Soviet Union is prompt and virtually complete since the bibliography is based on the acquisitions of INION and nine other major research libraries which are depository libraries for areas of the humanities and social sciences.25 Sep­ arate, analytical entries are made for articles in conference volumes and journals. No author index is provided. As a guide to current publications on Asian studies, the monthly bibliog­ raphy is the only listing of its kind presently being published in the Soviet Union or anywhere else. Although it can be considered comprehensive only for Soviet publications, foreign-language works account for the largest number of entries. The contents of selected journals in Chinese, English, German, Japanese, and other languages are indexed within months of their publication. Coverage of books is more haphazard, however, because of the weakness of foreign-language holdings in the institutes and libraries that contribute to the bibliography. 6 Even the combined acquisitions of such national libraries as the Lenin State Library, the All-Union Library of Foreign Literature, the Library of IVAN, and INIONV own library cannot match the collection development found at large American East Asian libraries. They do not come close to what is achieved at the Library of Congress. Many foreign-language books are cited in the monthly bibliography only- when reviews of them are indexed, making it uncertain whether copies of the books themselves have been acquired. The network of depository libraries and the centralized coordination of foreign-language acquisitions in the Soviet Union virtually require this type of service. It makes it possible for libraries to avoid duplicate purchases while at the same time enabling scholars at various locations to learn of library acquisi­ tions relevant to their work without delay. Moreover, since scholars them­ selves are restricted from purchasing copies of foreign publications, they are almost totally dependent on what libraries acquire. The compilation and publi­ cation of this monthly bibliography thus represents a labor-intensive effort to stretch scarce resources and maximize their use.

GUIDE TO RESEARCH TOOLS

47

In addition to the monthly bibliography, INION issues a bimonthly abstract journal covering works on Asian and African studies published outside the USSR, Social Sciences Abroad: an Abstract Journal, Series 9s Oriental and 9 7 African Studies. The abstracts, which are written by Soviet scholars, some­ times contain criticism and so should more properly be called reviews. Similar reviews of work done by their own colleagues in the Soviet Union appear in the seven disciplinary journals issued in the series, Social Sciences in the USSR: an Abstract Journal.28 These publications cover both the social sciences and humanities, according to the Soviet use of the term tfsocial sciences.” The abstracts or reviews vary in length from about five to ten pages and cover selected books and articles. They fill a special need because of the difficulty of access to books in general and reflect Soviet concern for critical evaluation of ideological interpretation and historical methodology. Special Collections While INIONfs monthly bibliography provides data on the current acquisi­ tions of a number of libraries, other sources make available information about retrospective holdings, especially famous collections of manuscripts and early printed books. A descriptive survey of library holdings in all Asian languages, Oriental Collections in Major Libraries of the USSR, was published in 1962.29 This collection of essays by scholars working at a number of libraries includes extensive coverage of Chinese collections as well as related holdings for such fields as Mongol, Manchu, Tibetan, and Central Asian studies. The essays are short and do not give any detailed information, but they provide a useful over­ view of the major research collections for Asian studies in the USSR. In parti­ cular, the authors relate the history of the growth of the libraries and give details about the acquisition of important collections of rare books and manu­ scripts over the long course of their development. The major Soviet collection of primary sources on premodern China is located at the Leningrad branch of IVAN, formerly known as the Asiatic Museum. This library holds important collections of manuscripts and early printed books and is one of the most famous sinological libraries outside of East Asia. In 1972, a volume commemorating the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Asiatic Museum in 1818 was published under the title, The Asiatic Museum—Leningrad Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the U S S R It contains essays on the historical development of Chinese, Manchu, Mongolian, Tibetan, and Tangut studies, as well as articles covering the full range of East, South, Southeast Asian, and Near Eastern studies at the institute. The essays describe the published and ongoing research of institute members, conferences and other activities sponsored by the

48

MAUREEN H. DONOVAN

institute and the growth of the various collections in all fields of Asian studies which today comprise a library of over six hundred thousand volumes. In 1973 a three^volume catalog of the Chinese woodblock-printed books in the library was published.3* This catalog is arranged according to a modified version of the traditional Chinese classification scheme and describes some 3,662 works in fifty thousand volumes. Citations in the catalog include the original title in Chinese characters, transcription of the title into the Cyrillic alphabet, authors name, and physical description of the volumes. Dating is provided only when explicitly carried in the work itself. The third volume of the set is an appendix including a listing of the contents of collectanea, indexes of authors* names and titles by number of strokes, and a number of other fea­ tures such as a bibliography of bibliographies of Chinese books. The collection cataloged in these volumes traces its origins to the eightytwo volumes of Chinese and Manchu dictionaries which Lorenz Lang brought back in 1727 from his trade mission to Peking. The collection was enhanced during the nineteenth century through the donations of the personal libraries of a number of scholars. Cataloging began during the nineteenth century, but it was not until the beginning of the present century that a systematic approach to organizing the materials was introduced under the directorship of Vasilii Mikhailovich Alekseev (1881-1951). Alekseev, who was a renowned scholar of Chinese history and literature, also devoted himself to expanding and develop­ ing the Chinese and Central Asian holdings through a careful acquisitions program beginning in about 1913. He sought to establish a library which could serve as a laboratory for the training of sinologists.32 Even today his legacy is evident in the structure of the institute. Young scholars become involved in cataloging and handling rare editions as part of a training program which en­ sures that they will be familiar with the primary sources and reference works needed m their research; at the same time their work contributes to the on­ going effort to catalog the collections. The 1973 catalog, for instance, is the work of a team of scholars led by B. B. Vakhtin who devoted more than a decade to its compilation. The treasures of the Chinese collection at Leningrad are its manuscript holdings, and most famous among them are the Tun-huang materials which were acquired by S. F. Oldenburg during his expedition of 1914-15. Approximately a fourth of these manuscripts have been described in the published catalog, Description of the Chinese Manuscripts in the Tun-huang Collection at the Institute of the Peoples of Asia, which was issued in two volumes in 1963 and 1967.33 At the time of its publication this catalog was greeted with tremen­ dous enthusiasm by sinologists around the world. In 1964 the French Academy awarded the Prix Stanislas Julien to the Leningrad branch of IVAN for com­ piling and publishing the first volume. Both Buddhist and secular materials are included among the 2,954 items described in the two volumes, although the highest concentrations are found in the various categories of Buddhist texts.

GUIDE TO RESEARCH TOOLS

49

In addition to Chinese manuscripts from Tun-huang, the Leningrad branch also houses the Kozlov collection of Tangut and Chinese manuscripts and early printed books of the eleventh to fourteenth centuries brought back by Petr Kuz'mich Kozlov from Khara Khoto in 1909. This collection contains over 8,300 items including both Buddhist and secular works. In 1963 a catalog, Tangut Manuscripts and Xylographs, was issued covering 60 secular and 395 Buddhist titles from the collection.3* In this work annotations are provided for the secular works, but the Buddhist texts are merely listed by title in both Tangut and Chinese script. The rich collections in Leningrad also include Manchu, Mongol, Uighur, and Tibetan materials as well as such special items as Chinese rubbings. A survey of manuscript collections and citations of published catalogs for each collection can be found in an article by L. N. Men'shikov, "Far Eastern and Central Asiatic manuscript collections at the Leningrad branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies."35 Scholars associated with the Leningrad branch have drawn heavily on the primary sources included in its collections for their research. K. K. Flug's history of Chinese printing during the Sung dynasty, for example, was based on his extensive use of materials from a number of collections.36 In an effort to make some of these unique resources available to scholars throughout the world, members of the institute have prepared selected volumes for reprint in the series Monuments of Literature of the East.37 This series was begun in 1959 to prepare for the Twenty-fifth International Congress of Orientalists in Moscow and has continued to the present. Books included in the series cover all languages of Asia and fall into several categories: facsimile editions of unique texts accompanied by a typeset version and various introduc­ tory and supplementary materials; critical editions of texts with alternative readings, notes, and other bibliographical apparatus; edited texts published in conjunction with translations and textual analysis; and translations of texts without reproduction of the original for works which present no major textual problems. A catalog of publications in the series up to 1976 has been issued, Monuments of the Literature of the Peoples of the East. Monuments of Literaoo ture of the East: a Catalog of Serial Publications, 1959-1976. The Leningrad branch is a part of IVAN based in Moscow. A general guide to the library holdings of the institute has been issued in a bilingual edition in Russian and English, A Guidebook for the Library of the Institute of Oriental Studies.36 Information about dissertations defended at the institute, whether in Moscow or in Leningrad, is found in Doctoral and Candidate's Dissertations Defended at the Institute of Oriental Studies, 1950-1970: aBibliography, a listing which gives the names of those who received degrees, their mentors, and the titles of their dissertations.*6 Although the Leningrad collections are the richest in rare primary sources for the study of traditional China, a number of important collections are found at other institutes and universities, particularly in Moscow. The Lenin State

50

MAUREEN H. DONOVAN

Library, for example, houses the K. A. Skachkov library of eighteenth and nineteenth, century Chinese manuscripts and printed books. This collection, which is noted for its rare materials on Sinkiang Province, is partially described in the catalog compiled by A. L Melnalksnis, Description of the Chinese Manu­ scripts, Books and Maps From the Collection of K. A. Skachkov.4* Special Bibliographies A number of recent bibliographies are addressed to the practical needs of researchers using Soviet libraries. A union list of Chinese dictionaries in Soviet libraries was compiled by A. M. Kaigorodov.4^ A guide to reference works on Asia and Africa was issued by the Library of the Academy of Sciences in 1972.4® G. V. Efimov, a professor at Leningrad State University who taught seminars on historiography, issued An Historical and Bibliographical Survey of Sources and Literature for a New History of China in four volumes from 1965 to 1979.44 A guide to sources and secondary literature on the workers1 move­ ment in China is currently being published. Part 1, which was issued in 1982, covers 1,830 publications in Chinese, Russian, and Western European languages over the period 1917-78.45 This guide is divided into several sections and subsections, including lengthy sections on the organization of labor (with sub­ sections on wages, the work day, social insurance, the position of transport workers, the position of women and child labor) and on the workers1 movement in China (including forty-seven pages covering unions). Chinese periodical holdings in Soviet libraries have received considerable attention from bibliographers recently. A union list of Chinese periodicals, covering 1,846 titles held by nine research libraries in Moscow and Leningrad, was compiled by a team of librarians and published in 1979.46 A union list of Chinese periodical holdings in the social sciences and humanities held at eight libraries in Leningrad was issued in 1980 as part of a series of union lists of periodicals from Asia and Africa.47 Holdings of 443 Chinese scientific and technical periodicals held at twenty libraries as of 1973 were included in a union list published in 1979.4® Bibliographies and guides produced for the use of Soviet sinologists can also serve to acquaint scholars outside the USSR who know Russian with Soviet scholarly contributions on China. However, in 1980 a new periodical, Soviet Oriental Studies Today, began publication with the aim of bringing the work of Soviet researchers to the attention of those who do not know Russian.4** An early issue includes a useful bibliography of articles by Soviet scholars which have been published abroad, primarily in English.'*® This periodical should make it easier to follow developments in Soviet sinology in the future. Soviet bibliographies produced for specialists on China are impressive primarily because of an underlying commitment to serve the needs of the

GUIDE TO RESEARCH TOOLS

51

researcher. However, the results only partially compensate for the general scarcity of research materials. Although sinologists working in the Soviet Union have the advantage of a bibliographic system which specifically ad­ dresses their needs, the effects of inadequate collection building over an ex­ tended period of time and declining acquisitions at research libraries due to budgets which have not kept pace with inflation continue to make it frustrating to do research on China in the Soviet Union.

CHAPTER 4 Archaeology and Early History David W. Goodrich

Since the end of China’s self-imposed isolation during the Cultural Revolu­ tion, Chinese archaeology has aroused renewed interest around the world. In the West, major exhibitions of recent and earlier finds have been staged, inter­ national symposia convened, and new journals founded. The Soviet Union has also seen a renewal of interest, judging by the spate of books on Chinese archaeology recently published. However, Moscow has not been on the itin­ eraries of Peking's magnificent exhibitions, and Soviet interest seems more confined to academic circles, spurred by the large amount of material which has appeared since the resumption of archaeological publication in China in 1972. Recent Soviet work on Chinese archaeology continues a long tradition of Russian study of early China, outlined for the pre-Soviet period by P. E. Skachkov and for the three decades between the Russian and Chinese revolu­ tions by V. N. Nikiforov.1 Before 1917 there was virtually no scientific ar­ chaeology in China. Between 1917 and 1949, large-scale, systematic excava­ tion was introduced to China, with major projects begun at Chou-k'ou-tien and Anyang. Nonetheless, the overall scale of work was quite limited, particularly in comparison with the large amount of salvage work, surveys, and excavations since 1949. Consequently, early Soviet sinologists had little archaeological material with which to work. Furthermore, they were isolated from the Bur­ lington House exhibition in London, which in 1935-36 provided a great stimulus to the study of Chinese art and archaeology in the West. Thus, Soviet sinology produced little that can be called archaeological before 1949. In the late 1950s, during the resurgence of research on early China, discus­ sions of archaeological research also increased. Since that time there have been more than ten Soviet specialists publishing on ancient China, most of whom are making at least some use of archaeological data. This chapter consi­ ders their work on those periods for which archaeology is the primary source of information, that is, from the earliest hominoid occupation of China until the early Chou period of the late Bronze Age. 53

54

DAVID W. GOODRICH

Influences on Soviet Archaeology Soviet sinologists writfr about Chinese archaeology for the same reasons as their Western counterparts, but their work is affected by two additional factors: geography and politics. The geographical proximity of China and the Soviet Union is important because the objects of archaeological research, from the level of technocomplexes and cultures to artifact types and traits, are distributed without regard to modern borders. Soviet scholars are well placed to view Chinese archaeology in its continental context. Those working on the archaeology of Siberia and Mongolia often need to know something of Chinese archaeology to understand their own material. This is particularly true for the Paleolithic, for which data are especially limited and a broad, comparative perspective is required. Bronze and early Iron Age artifacts and traits reliably dated in China have also been very useful in establishing Siberian and Mongolian chronologies. Proximity makes Chinese archaeology useful for Soviet scholars and keeps them from seeing Chinese archaeology in isolation. As for the political factor, the Soviet government claims to be guided by Marxist principles in all matters. This was once the basis for close alliance between China and the Soviet Union. During the years of Sino-Soviet friend­ ship, Soviet sinologists had better access to Chinese archaeological material than any foreigners have had since then. Soviet scholars directly influenced the development of archaeology in China, and some spent several years studying there. The influence of Marxism on Soviet sinology goes well beyond facilitating access to China. Marxism colors all Soviet scholarship in ways that jar Western notions of scientific detachment. lu. V. Bromleyfs description of Soviet ethnog­ raphy could as easily be taken from a Soviet or Chinese discussion of history or archaeology: ’This science, which is based on Marxist-Leninist principles and performs not only cognitive but also ideological functions, is opposed to objec­ tivism and indifference to politics.”2 In the recent Sino-Soviet rift, Soviet sinology has not been indifferent to politics. Some work is blatantly politicized and stretches facts and reason in attempting to minimize or deny the achieve­ ments of Chinese civilization and its antecedents. However, most Soviet work on Chinese archaeology is neither tendentious nor sinophobic, and some directly opposes such distortions. Anyone studying Chinese archaeology, itself Marxist, soon learns to look beyond contemporary politics to the archaeological past. The influence of the Marxist framework on Soviet scholarship is often difficult to assess, for it affects everything from style of argumentation to the division of academic disciplines. An outline of that framework is necessary to understand the aims and emphases of Soviet studies of Chinese archaeology. As it happens, Marx did not write a great deal on precapitalist society. Shortly before he died he read Louis Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society and

ARCHAEOLOGY AND EARLY HISTORY

55

instructed Engels to write about it. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State appeared in 1884 and later became the main canon of Soviet (and Chinese) archaeology. Engelsfs treatise influences Soviet archaeology and related disciplines in several ways. Perhaps most fundamentally, Soviet archaeology is supposed to be explanatory. It cannot be criticized, as Western archaeology once could, for being largely descriptive. Indeed, Soviet archaeology deserves some of the credit for making the Western discipline more explanatory: the man most responsible for that change, V. Gordon Childe, was a Marxist yrho was deeply influenced by his reading of Soviet archaeology. As in other Soviet social sciences, social phenomena are seen as interconnected, and much of the ex­ planation consists in laying out causal linkages—hence the frequent use of the opening phrase, "It is no accident . . ." to introduce conclusions. In keeping with Marx and Morgan, many of the linkages are seen as evolutionary; a society at any point in time can be understood only in light of its historical, or pre­ historic, development. Archaeology was still quite young at the time Morgan and Engels were writing, and they relied heavily on other sources in reconstructing the early phases of precapitalist development. These sources included ancient history, recorded legends, and recent and ancient descriptions of peoples thought to represent "survivals" of prehistoric phases. Thus from the outset Soviet studies of archaeology and early history have used archaeological data in conjunction with ethnographic, linguistic, and historical material. In fact, the major Soviet archaeological organization was known as the Institute of the History of Mate­ rial Culture until 1959, when it was renamed the Institute of Archaeology. During the 1930s, under the influence of N. Ia. Marrfs officially sanctioned ideas, archaeology and ethnography maintained an especially close relation­ ship. The main task of both was the history (in the broad, Marxist sense) of precapitalist society, and the two disciplines differed mainly in the material each examined—excavated artifacts on the one hand, ethnographic survivals on the other. Both disciplines emphasized universal stages of development. Another task was to counter bourgeois social science, and specifically to refute the diffusionism which at that time was often the only explanation for cultural change offered by Western archaeologists. Thus, while in the West similarities in Neolithic painted pottery between China and the Near East were seen as evidence of diffusion from west to east, in the Soviet Union these same similar­ ities were interpreted to uphold the Marxist theory that cultures at the same stage of social development independently produce similar and even identical traits.^ Western anthropology, in the meantime, had abandoned the evolu­ tionism of its founders in favor of functionalism and ahistorical analyses of the "ethnographic present."

56

DAVID W. GOODRICH

In 1950, Stalin reversed his earlier support of Marrist theories and de­ nounced them as vulgarizations of Marxism. In archaeology, the reaction against Marrism led to the prevalence of empirical work over theoretical, and to a concern with the origins of individual cultures which Marrism had stifled. Migration and diffusion became acceptable and even important explanations for similarities between cultures and for cultural change. In the last few years, Soviet archaeology has broadened to include social theory once more, but now more firmly based on archaeological evidence. Ethnic prehistory continues as a major branch, but some archaeologists are now stressing sociological explana­ tions, and in doing so note useful aspects of Marr's theory of stages.4 The study of social systems is a point of convergence between Soviet and Western archae­ ology, and as Bruce Trigger suggests, the path taken by Soviet archaeologists gives them a perspective on the discipline that Western archaeologists should find useful.5 While these changes were occurring in Soviet archaeology, Soviet ethno­ graphy was expanding to include the study of peoples living in the contemporary world so that it now roughly corresponds to the Western fields of social and cultural anthropology. Soviet ethnographers continue their emphasis on evolu­ tion, both in general theory and in studies of specific peoples. They firmly place societies in their historical (or prehistoric) context, and discuss them in terms of evolutionary stages. As Gilbert Rozman demonstrates in chapter 11, these stages are now largely freed from Marrist dogma, and are used as tools with recognized limitations. They are not universal, and in precapitalist stages politics can be allowed primacy over economics in determining social forma­ tions. The emphasis on historical context and the typology of social forms are major differences from Western anthropology and, as Ernest Gellner shows, potentially very useful for Western anthropologists.5 'A recent trend in Soviet ethnography has been to define its place among the social sciences as the discipline concerned with ethnicity and ethnic units** The role of political factors in the formation of ethnic units in the present and the past has bçcome a major focus of the field. A glance at the very colorful linguistic maps of the Soviet Union shows why this trend is no accident. Soviet scholars maintain both the tradition of examining ethnic groups in their histor­ ical context and the traditional overlap of archaeology, ethnography, and history. Thus among the authors of works on Chinese archaeology frequently cited below, only one, V. E. Larichev, is a practicing field archaeologist. L. S. Vasil’ev and S. Kuczera would be classified in the West as historians, M. V. Kryukov and R. F. Its as anthropologists, and N. N. Cheboksarov as a physical anthropologist. The new trend also underscores Soviet interest in ethnogenesis: the origin of Chinese civilization is a major topic in Soviet studies of Chinese archaeology.

ARCHAEOLOGY AND EARLY HISTORY

57

Sino-Soviet Contacts in Archaeology Contacts between Soviet and Chinese archaeology were established shortly after the founding of the Peopled Republic of China. Early in 1950, Kiselev, a leading Soviet specialist in Siberian archaeology, made his first tour of China to examine collections and lecture on history and archaeology. His trip preceded Staling denunciation of Marrism, and he explained the similarities in painted pottery between sites of the Yang-shao culture and the Ukrainian site of Tripol’e as the result of parallel indigenous developments amonç early agricul­ turalists farming on loess.® Soviet works on general archaeology were trans­ lated and published in China at this time, but perhaps the most concrete evi­ dence of Soviet influence on Chinese archaeology was the excavation at Panp'o. This site, still the best-known and best-published Neolithic site in China and representative of the entire Yang-shao stage, was dug in the mid-1950s on the model of the Soviet excavation at Tripore. (The choice of the model is now seen in China as inappropriate since it led to problems in stratigraphic interpre­ tation; these problems affected the original ceramic analysis, which has since been revised.) At about the same time, Cheboksarov spent more than two years in China as a foreign expert. He took part in two ethnographic expeditions organized by the Central Academy of National Minorities, gathering material on the physical and cultural anthropology of Chinese and minority groups in southern China. He also co-authored an article on Chinese paleoanthropology with the leading Chinese specialist, Woo Ju-kang, for a Soviet journal.9 In the 1950s and early 1960s, Kryukov and Kuczera, the latter a Polish citizen who works in Moscow, spent several years at Peking University. Kryukov (Liu K'ofu in Chinese) has the distinction of being one of very few foreigners to have published articles on Chinese archaeology in the Chinese archaeological jour­ nals. Unfortunately for Soviet sinology, the Sino-Soviet rift cut short cultural exchanges with China. After the Cultural Revolution and China's opening up to the noncommunist world, Western scholars began to enjoy better access than Soviet sinologists. The significance of this change in access can be illustrated by the 1974 report on the Neolithic site at Ta-wen-k'ou.10 This is the first monographic site report published since the Cultural Revolution which returns to the format of earlier site reports. It is very important for any study of Neolithic North China. Apparently the report was initially unavailable to Soviet scholars, for it is omitted from consideration in four major recent works, all of which mention the Ta-wen-kTou culture or the type site. These works are: T. I. Kashina's Ceramics of the Yang-shao Culture (1977); M. V. Kryukov, M. V. Sofronov, and N. N. Cheboksarov's The Ancient Chinese: Problems of Ethnogenesis (1978); S. Kuczera's Chinese Archaeology 1965-1974: Paleolithic-

58

DAVID W. GOODRICH

Yin Period (1977); and L. S. Vasil'ev's Problems of the Genesis of Chinese Civilization (1976). The Early Periods Soviet studies of early man in China reach back to the Pliocene epoch; they include Ramapithecus and Sivapithecus, early hominoids whose fossils have been found in Yunnan and dated to some eight million years ago. Kuczera agrees with Chinese paleoanthropologists who cite these fossils as evidence that Yunnan may have belonged to the cradle of mankind.11 Cheboksarov, in contrast, doubts that either was a direct ancestor of the earliest hominids.1^ Neither view would be controversial in the West since the data are so limited. By way of comparison, a well-known Chinese specialist, Jia Lanpo, takes a very controversial position in excluding Africa while including southwestern China in the area where hominids first evolved.1** A wide chronological gap with very little fossil evidence separates the Pliocene hominoids from Homo erectus, who is best represented in China by Peking Man. The Peking Man discoveries over half a century ago demonstrated the presence of hominids in Middle Pleistocene China. While this fact cannot be doubted, some Soviet scholars have recently argued that Peking Man?s im­ mediate ancestors came from outside China. G. P. Grigor'ev is one, and in so arguing he overlooks significant Early Pleistocene evidence of hominid occupa­ tion.14 Kuczera, on the other hand, noted the Yuan-mou incisors as a possible link in a chain leading back to the Pliocene fossils; he did this without the benefit of the paleomagnetic dates for the Yuan-mou formation, which now place the teeth well back into the Early Pleistocene at some 1.7 million years ago. Larichev summarizes artifactual evidence from the Early Pleistocene and sharply rebukes those, Grigor'ev in particular, who deny the presence of man in China before the Middle Pleistocene; the recent publication of the Hsi-hou-tu site report strengthens Larichev's position.16 As Larichev reminds his readers, the site at Chou-k'ou-tien where Peking Man was found has been of great importance in the development of interna­ tional paleoanthropology and Lower Paleolithic archaeology.16 Not only has this site yielded the largest known sample of H. erectus, it began doing so more than fifty years ago when very few H. erectus fossils had been found, not to mention scientifically excavated examples from primary deposits in association with rich collections of artifacts and faunal remains. The Chou-k'ou-tien material continues to influence Lower Paleolithic archaeology throughout Asia east of India because it has been studied so long and because other sites are so much less informative in comparison. Chou-k'ou-tien has long been regarded as a major representative of the "chopper-chopping” complex of stone tools. These are the less specialized tools

ARCHAEOLOGY AND EARLY HISTORY

59

found in South, East, and Southeast Asia, and are usually contrasted with the technically more advanced tools of the handaxe tradition best known from Africa and Europe. Soviet scholars differ in the way they handle the dichotomy between the handaxe and chopper traditions. Grigorfev accepts the dichotomy and sees nothing but the chopper tradition in China. Larichev takes him to task for using only dated, secondary sources, and strongly objects to his suggestion of backwardness and archaism in the Chinese Lower Paleolithic. Larichev likewise does not reject the dichotomy in tool traditions, but sees the develop­ ment within China of bifacial techniques leading to the production of handaxes. Kuczera, following the Chinese archaeologists, does not force a handaxechopper distinction on the Chinese material. Soviet archaeologists studying the limited Lower Paleolithic remains in Mongolia and Siberia also assess their material in light of the Chinese Lower Paleolithic and the handaxe-chopper dichotomy. They, too, differ in their interpretations. Thus Okladnikov sees handaxes in Mongolia as evidence of a Lower Paleolithic migration eastwards across Central Asia into an area where the chopper tradition was more common.17 Derevianko, on the other hand, interprets the recent discovery of handaxes in the Soviet Far East as indicating that "man from northern China settled in the Amur region" in the Middle Pleis1 ft tocene. Such differences among Soviet scholars in how they interpret the handaxe-chopper dichotomy suggest that they make too much of this distinction. The Chinese Upper Paleolithic has long been of interest to Soviet spe­ cialists. Until recently, Upper Paleolithic tools were the earliest known arti­ facts from Mongolia and eastern Siberia. Archaeologists everywhere assumed that humans reached these areas only at this time, and that at least some of the immigrants were related to the Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of China because their artifacts showed similarities with material from Inner Mongolia. Moreover, in the 1930s Soviet archaeologists actually excavated some material from the late Paleolithic or later in Manchuria. Early Soviet archaeologists went so far as to define a "Siberian-Chinese cultural province" for the Upper Paleolithic, culturally distinct from the European and Mediterranean-African provinces.1® Larichev has summarized and synthesized Soviet, Korean, Jap­ anese, and Chinese work in several books and articles. As editor of the series History and Culture of the East of Asia, he has also brought into print related articles on the Paleolithic of India and Central Asia. He concludes that the Upper Paleolithic in China developed from the basis of the Chinese Middle Paleolithic, but shows evidence of contact with Central Asia, northern Asia, on and western Eurasia. The question of genetic connections between men of the Lower and Upper Paleolithic in China remains a topic of debate in the Soviet Union. Cheboksarov has long maintained that there was cultural continuity across this

60

DAVID W. GOODRICH

span, but he has changed his views on the genetic relationship. In the paper he co-authored with Woo Ju-kang, Cheboksarov included China within the area where H. sapiens evolved. In The Ancient Chinese, he attributes the appear­ ance of H. sapiens with the Chinese Upper Paleolithic to the eastward migra­ tion of modern men from a much smaller area of sapienization; he helpfully gives some of the opposing arguments in making his case. Kuczera takes the position of most Chinese scholars, who see the shovel shape of H. erectus incisors from Yüan-mou and elsewhere, together with other features of Chinese H. erectus morphology, as evidence of genetic links with modern mongoloid populations. Western scholars, by way of comparison, have taken both views in the past, seeing an indigenous line of evolution or the immigration of an H. sapiens line from outside; the current Western thinking emphasizes grades or stages of evolution (H. erectus, H, sapiens) within which precise lines cannot yet be traced. The Neolithic The transition from the Upper Paleolithic to the Neolithic remains one of the most intriguing puzzles in Chinese archaeology, for although the gap in archaeological evidence continues to narrow, it has not yet been filled. Kuczera agrees with Chinese archaeologists who see limited Mesolithic remains in North China as representing a stage leading toward the local evolution of the northern Chinese Neolithic. Kryukov relies on scanty material from Szechwan said to represent the Mesolithic. He combines these remains with projections into the past of evidence from linguistics and physical anthropology to trace the origins of the Neolithic of North China back to the upper course of the Yangtze River. He maps a migration route from there to the Wei River valley, and sees the latter as a "cultural hearth” from which Neolithic developments based on the cultivation of millet spread to other parts of North China. A series of recent excavations, published only since 1977, have now established Neolithic cultures in North China earlier than Kryukov anticipated and support the theory of local evolution.2* The most substantial piece of work devoted to the Chinese Neolithic by a Soviet scholar is Kashinafs 1977 monograph Ceramics of the Yang-shao Cul­ ture ,22 She begins with a chapter recounting the history of the study of the Chinese Neolithic, probably the most complete account yet published. Her summary of the conflicting arguments made by Chinese archaeologists during the early 1960s on the relationships between the various Neolithic cultures in North China gives the reader a good feeling for the complexity of the prob­ lem. Kashina also mentions that Soviet literature on the subject was slight at that time, but already divided on the question of indigenous development versus diffusion or migration from western Eurasia.

ARCHAEOLOGY AND EARLY HISTORY

61

Kashina devotes the main part of her monograph to a typological analysis of Yang-shao pottery. There are serious difficulties in attempting such an analysis solely on the basis of published reports, as Kashina herself points out, and the monograph is a good illustration of the problems awaiting any foreigner studying Chinese archaeology. Looking at photographs and drawings cannot really substitute for examining pots and sherds, and of course only a small sample is actually published. Descriptions give only a general idea of diagnos­ tic features such as paste. Furthermore, the terminology for everything— vessel shapes, ornamentation, and even cultures—can vary from one report to another. Added to these is the problem that significant nelv discoveries occur frequently and our picture of the Chinese Neolithic is constantly changing. The picture is changing even faster in China, where information about important sites may circulate for years before appearing in publications available abroad. Kashina's general conclusion that painted pottery developed in North China and spread westward toward Tibet can hardly be doubted, and hers is the fullest treatment in Russian. Her attempt at a systematic classification of ceramic shapes is laudable, but there are problems with specific details, es­ pecially in light of the revised Pan-p'o ceramic analysis referred to earlier. She tends to use whole sites as basic units rather than cultural levels which may number half a dozen or more at a single site. The way in which levels at dif­ ferent sites correspond in time is rather more complex than her sequential arrangement of four "cultural-chronological complexes" and eight periods suggests. Also, had the Ta-wen-k'ou site report been available it might have suggested regional cultures within the Yang-shao Neolithic; instead, she does not mention the Ta-wen-k'ou and related cultures and subsumes the Ta-wenk'ou site into the Yang-shao under another name. Kashina's monograph, inci­ dentally, is a volume in the series, History and Culture of the East of Asia, mentioned above in connection with Larichev's work on the Paleolithic; articles in other volumes extend archaeological coverage of the region around China into the Bronze and Iron Ages. As Kryukov demonstrates in The Ancient Chinese, current understanding of regionalism in the Chinese Neolithic results in part from the order that radio­ carbon dating has brought to the mass of archaeological data collected since 1949. Specifically, he discusses cultural variations in the Yang-shao stage and the succeeding Lung-shan stage. Unfortunately, he could not anticipate the new evidence that allows regionalism to be pushed back still further. Recent excavations and radiocarbon dates have established the existence of the Early Neolithic stage, preceding the Yang-shao. Differences among the Early Neo­ lithic cultures of North China, namely the Lao-kuan-t'ai, P'ei-li-kang and Tz'ushan Cultures, arid between those three and the Early Neolithic Ho-mu-tu Culture on the southeastern coast, now point to the beginnings of distinct cultural traditions in a period unknown archaeologically until very recently.

62

DAVID W. GOODRICH

This situation suggests that the transition to the Neolithic took place in China as it did in the Near East and the New World, as a gradual process occurring 23 over a broad area and not in localized hearths. Knowledge of the Neolithic of southern China is much more limited. R. F. Its's eighty-page summary is probably the most extensive and detailed single account to appear in print. This summary constitutes almost a third of his Ethnic History of the South of Eastern Asia.24 His aim in the book is to trace the development of minority peoples in South China, particularly the Chuang, Miao, and Yi (or Lolo), on the basis of folklore and archaeological, linguistic, and historical sources. The physical anthropology of the Neolithic inhabitants of China is as yet poorly known because only a small amount of skeletal material has undergone scientific analysis. Cheboksarov!s summary in The Ancient Chinese is useful in putting what is known into broad chronological and geographical contexts. Both he and Kryukov accept Yen Yen's interpretation of the Neolithic populations from a few sites in North China. According to this view, which was generally accepted in China and by some Western scholars as well, two of the populations showed some similarities with southern mongoloids. Those who accepted this view could easily use it to support the theory of a southern origin of the North Chinese Neolithic. However, Yen's work has recently been reexamined, and the view now taken in China is that the Neolithic populations of North China are morphologically much closer to each other than to modem southern groups.25 This accords with Howells's earlier suggestion that the Neolithic populations of North China fall within the range of variation for the modem inhabitants of the same region. 2fi In an earlier version of his section in The Ancient Chinese, Cheboksarov emphasized more the idea of ancient populations grading into each other across China; but in the context of linguistic evidence, the emphasis in The Ancient Chinese is more on distinct groups.27 The Bronze Age History begins in China with the Bronze Age and archaeological remains must be used in conjunction with epigraphic material and relevant portions of the Chinese classics. Most Soviet sinologists agree with Chinese and Western scholars that archaeology clearly demonstrates the indigenous development of Chinese civilization. They see little change in agricultural technology, with bronze restricted to weapons and ritual objects for the elite. The material culture of the Shang clearly reflects higher levels of social organization and differentiation than existed previously, but Soviet discussions of the social structure hinge more on epigraphic and historical evidence than archaeology. As Kryukov points out, scholars around the world seem to have exhausted the possible theoretical approaches in typing Shang society, and the Soviet

ARCHAEOLOGY AND EARLY HISTORY

63

sinologists he mentions are certainly divided.22 He suggests that the applica­ tion of social typologies to China is premature without more concrete study of early Chinese social organization—the subject of his own monograph, Forms of Social Organization of the Ancient Chinese. L. I. Duman echoes Kryukov’s suggestion, and presumably both are reacting to earlier typological debates summarized by V. N. Nikiforov.29 Kryukov’s monograph deals primarily with the kinship relations which underlay social organization. His study is noteworthy for several reasons. His training in ethnography is a necessary foundation for comparative and theoreti­ cal work on kinship. Moreover, he has facility with the 'epigraphic sources, having written a booklet, The Language of the Yin Inscriptions, and co-authored a textbook on archaic Chinese, one third of which is devoted to inscriptions on bone, plastron and bronze.29 Finally, in his Kinship System of the Chinese, he relates the ancient kinship system to the modern, which he studied in China, and traces the continuous evolution of kinship over three millennia.2* Kryukov’s work on ancient social organization is interesting and useful, but not as imaginative as K. C. Chang’s controversial argument for a system of two exogamous moieties systematically intermarrying and alternating in succession to the Shang throne, an argument Kryukov does not mention.22 The notion that society in Bronze Age China was stratified and organized on the basis of kinship does not by itself address the scale of organization. The use of kinship principles did not mean that Shang lacked a government, of course, and there is debate in the Soviet literature on the nature of that gov­ ernment. Duman, in the article just noted, takes exception to the view that Shang was a ’’tribal” society, citing several features of formal government. One of these features, the king’s granting of lands, he examines in a posthumous article.22 A. A. Serkina devotes a monograph to another such feature, slavery: she uses epigraphic evidence to distinguish different kinds of slavery and concludes that the institution of slavery was well developed in Shang times.24 L. S. Vasil’ev, who among Soviet sinologists seems to have written most on the Shang social order, sees the Yin as an ethnically distinct and homo­ geneous group of semi-nomads who moved in among more backward Neolithic farmers in the Yellow River basin. Their ethnic distinctiveness and small number allowed the ’’tribal federation of the Yin” to use the kin-based, tribal structure of primitive society. From this basis new social and administrative forms gradually arose. The Chou conquest presented the new king with the problem of governing a large, ethnically mixed area, and he solved it by means of the system of feudal princes.22 Kryukov likewise sees the Yin, narrowly defined as the Shang of the oracle inscriptions, as a small group. However, he believes that the Yin grew out of the local Neolithic culture, and he includes non-Yin tribes within the area of Yin hegemony, which he locates as the Cen­ tral Plain of North China. He extends the system of feudal princes back into

64

DAVID W. GOODRICH

the Shang, and regards the change from Shang to Western Chou as of little structural significance.3** This view of relatively small-scale organization was in accord with archae­ ological evidence available through the 1950s. Recorded legends and oracle texts give little direct information on the size of the area controlled by the Shang. Moreover, the oracle inscriptions mention scores of surrounding groups, friendly and hostile to Shang, as if the Shang were just the most powerful—and literate—among many. Archaeologists studying the Shang concentrated their research in the area around northern Honan where they expected to find evi­ dence, focusing more on understanding Shang at its core than on the peri­ phery. Still, by 1960 they had investigated the massive Shang wall at Chengchou which established the capacity of the Shang to mobilize labor on a grand scale, implying a well-developed social organization. And, as Kiselev reported following his 1959 archaeological mission to China, one of the important ac­ complishments of Chinese archaeology in the preceding decade had been the discovery of Shang and Chou remains over a broad area.37 The expanse of Shang culture and the level of Shang political organization were coming into view. Publications from China since the Cultural Revolution clearly show that Shang culture was not restricted to the Central Plain. Kuczera is aware of the importance of new finds in expanding earlier conceptions of Shang territory, and also of the difficulties in distinguishing cultural and political limits. Unfor­ tunately, his book ends with the Shang. Kryukov does not mention the new material summarized by Kuczera, but he and his co-authors carry on into the Chou. It is early in the Chou period that distant political ties first become apparent in the archaeological record. Kryukov discusses Chou political or­ ganization, mostly on the basis of textual material. He does mention, albeit in a footnote and with less detail than follows, the excavations at the large Wes­ tern Chou cemetery in Liu-li-ho outside Peking; these yielded a bronze vessel bearing an inscription which strongly suggests that the site was the seat of the marquisite of Yen and that the first marquis sent to Yen was the son of the Duke of Shao, advisor to the first Chou kings. The Liu-li-ho discoveries indi­ cate that early Chou society was organized at a level capable of establishing political ties over a considerable distance. At the same time, these discoveries raise questions about the nature of those ties, for Chinese historical geography has long located "barbarians” between Yen and the Chou center. Diffusion and Indigenous Development Like Western sinologists, Russian scholars have long been interested in contacts between Chinese and non-Chinese. This holds true even for the ear­ liest periods of Chinese history. Both Kuczera and Kryukov discuss oracle

ARCHAEOLOGY AND EARLY HISTORY

65

inscriptions mentioning non-Shang tribes, and in The Ancient Chinese Kryukov goes into some detail on '’barbarians” of the Chou period. These discussions are in terms of groups named in epigraphic and historical texts because archaeolo­ gical evidence for alien cultures within the area of the Shang and Chou cultures is very slim. The use of these names leads to a distinction between the Shang or Chou and their neighbors that may be more apparent than real. For Kryukov, however, it is precisely in the context of differences between the Chou and their neighbors that the ancient Chinese become a distinct ethnic group. On the basis of historical material, he sees the appearance after the early Chou of an ethnic consciousness among the "Hua-hsia* as they distinguish themselves from neighboring "barbarians.” The problem, of course, is that all the records were made by the Hua-hsia, and it is not at all clear just how different the "barbarians" were. Kryukov, for example, favors arguments associating the Ti with steppe horsemen, while PrüSek believes that they were essentially similar to ancient Chinese farmers.**® At present neither opinion can be verified, but future excavations will probably show that the distinction between Chinese and "barbarians" is complex. Already a recent survey of the archaeology of Hopei interprets variations in the archaeological record as representing different Chou states known historically; the state of Chung-shan in particular shows a mixture of Chinese and non-Chinese elements, both archaeologically and historically.®® The above brief summary of Soviet work on Chinese archaeology is incom­ plete without further mention of Vasil'ev's extraordinary book Problems of the Genesis of Chinese Civilization—extraordinary for the lengths to which Vasil'ev goes in trying to refute the indigenous development of Chinese civilization. Most Soviet scholars do not share his views. Kryukov, Sofronov, and Cheboksarov write in The Ancient Chinese (p. 294): "Really, one gets the impression that L. S. Vasil'ev's task consists not in the analysis of the whole aggregate of factual material, but in the selection of illustrations of the regu­ larity he postulates." Like its antithesis, Ping-ti Ho's Cradle of the East, Vasil'ev's book can be useful if read with caution. Vasil'ev's book demonstrates, by its long justification of diffusionism, just how free Soviet scholars are to forsake general social theory in favor of parti­ cularistic interpretations of historical development. This can also be seen in much of the other Soviet work on Chinese archaeology, which generally uses available evidence to trace particular loci and sequences of development. Thus, as noted earlier, Kryukov maps the route of Neolithic development from Szechwan to North China. Kashina's monograph traces a basically linear devel­ opment and diffusion in Yang-shao pottery. Cheboksarov's views on the physi­ cal anthropology of the ancient inhabitants of China most recently emphasize line rather than grade. I call this sort of approach lineal' in that it entails the sequential arrangement of available data in lines of development.*®

66

DAVID W. GOODRICH

A lineal approach has been the norm in Western and Chinese studies of Chinese archaeology as well, whether favoring the indigenous evolution of cultural innovations or emphasizing diffusion. This approach is probably most familiar now as the "nuclear approach” associated with K. C. Chang, who suggested that the Central Plain of North China was a center for prehistoric and historic developments which then radiated out to other parts of China. A lineal approach is almost inevitable when the evidence is scanty; the tempta­ tion to line up what is available is very great, and even a necessity when the chronological framework is still being built. As data accumulate, however, the lacunae in archaeological knowledge take on shape, and single loci and lines of development begin to look simplistic. Thus, Chang has recently noted the historical bias in applying the nuclear approach to Neolithic North China, while in the Bronze Age he sees Chinese civilization as arising from the interaction of several local states.4* The parallel problem in Western studies of human evolution gave rise to the concept of "grade” and to an emphasis on grades rather than lines of devel­ opment. "Stage” is the archaeological equivalent to grade, although it is not as widely used and the term "interaction sphere” better conveys the sense of a network of influences. I will use the term "stadial approach” to contrast with "lineal.” The stages of this approach are not Marr's universal stages, but rather stages within broad cultural traditions. In the case of China, a stadial approach allows lines of continuity or influence between varieties of culture within and between the various stages of the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. But in focusing on stages the perspective is broadened beyond centers and lines of develop­ ment. The stadial approach encompasses a large area, and draws attention to cultural variation and to gaps in the archaeological coverage.42 I have already characterized Soviet work on Chinese archaeology, most of which is done by specialists in other fields, as lineal. When this work traces the antecedents of minority peoples and "barbarians” it might be better termed "multilineal." The accumulating data which have suggested the stadial approach to Chinese and Western scholars can also be fitted into a multilineal frame­ work. Given the retrospective and lineal inclinations of Soviet ethnography, continued use of the multilineal approach seems likely. But with one strand or several, a retrospective and lineal approach entails the problem of historical bias. This problem is familiar to Soviet ethnography in another contexts Chesnov notes that two major difficulties with earlier ethnographic projections into the past (from "survivals") were "the exaggeration of genetic continuity and the absolutization of ethnic characteristics."42 These same problems are inherent in projecting Chinese and non-Chinese cultures back into the past. Archaeologists as a rule take a line of sight opposite to retrospection; they establish cultures and cultural variations in the past, and then place them in their archaeological (or historical) context. Moreover, Soviet archaeology is no

ARCHAEOLOGY AND EARLY HISTORY

67

longer just ethnic prehistory, as noted earlier. This broadening of the discipline has been accompanied by debates over the concept of ’’archaeological culture,” and by recognition of the ways in which such cultures do and do not correspond to ethnic units. Kryukov and his co-authors are aware of these debates but have chosen an ethnographic definition of "culture” based on ethnic conscious­ ness. This serves their purpose in tracing the origins of the ancient Chinese defined as "Hua-hsia." Kryukov continues this use of "culture" in a more recent paper addressing the role of political factors in the development of an ethnic consciousness in ancient C hina.^ However, a broader understanding of Chinese archaeology requires the use of archaeological units, as well as great care in labeling these units "Chinese" or with any other ethnic name. This lineal approach in studies of ancient China is hardly unique to Soviet work. The skepticism in Western archaeology concerning explanations based on migration or diffusion is fairly recent, and its application to China is quite new. Sinology’s bias in favor of written records has helped maintain a generally lineal and retrospective view until recently, when archaeological evidence for regionalism has become clear-cut. It is not fair, therefore, to criticize Soviet work alone for being lineal. There are other ways in which the potential value to Western scholars of the Soviet perspective has not been fully realized. International Paleolithic archaeology is well served by Soviet work placing the Chinese Paleolithic in its continental context, but so far this has not been the case for later periods. The social typologies of Soviet ethnography have not been successfully applied to archaeology, and the emphasis on history Gellner appreciates in Soviet ethno­ graphic analyses is too easily turned into historical bias when used to examine the past* The lineal approach should change as Chinese archaeological publications become more available in the Soviet Union and as developments in Soviet and Western archaeological thinking spread through Soviet academia. Soviet schol­ arship undoubtedly will benefit from the resumption of Sino-Soviet academic exchanges in 1983. Soviet archaeological theory is advancing, on its own and through stimulation from the West. There are young Soviet scholars with both archaeological and sinological training and they may bring more of a stadial approach to sinology. Soviet work is likely to improve, and the extreme diffusionism represented by Vasil’ev, already criticized, should not last long. Future Soviet studies of Chinese archaeology will have a solid base in Kuczera’s Chinese Archaeology and The Ancient Chinese by Kryukov, Sofronov, and Cheboksarov. Both books are very useful research tools: they summarize a great deal of material, facilitate access to that material through several indexes each, and invite further research by providing very complete biblio­ graphies in several languages. Books such as these will continue to appear. The Ancient Chinese is the first volume in a series that continues into later periods,

68

DAVID W. GOODRICH

and in his introduction to Chinese Archaeology Kuczera expresses his hope of continuing his work beyond the Shang. In the second volume of The Paleolithic of Northern, Central and Eastern Asia, Larichev mentions that a third part is planned. It is important to remember that Chinese archaeology is a young field experiencing rapid growth. There is much work to be done and every reason to expect that Soviet sinologists will share in the endeavor. Certain topics will continue to be popular in Soviet sinology: debates about the nature of early government in China are far from resolved, and work on the relationship be­ tween the ancient Chinese and their neighbors will surely continue. This work will be a significant contribution to sinology in general.

CHAPTER 5 The Sung, Chin, and Hsi-Hsia Ruth Dunnell Many Soviet scholars have made important-even outstanding—contribu­ tions to the study of tenth- through thirteenth-century China, including work on the Sung, Sung relations with neighboring groups, and on non-Chinese dynas­ ties. Two distinct branches of Soviet sinology are represented among these scholars. One deals primarily with interpretation and historiography; the other with textological analysis and ethnolinguistic problems. Scholars in the first category are generally associated with LGÜ or MGU; those in the second tend to work at IVAN, particularly at its Leningrad branch.* In 1959 and 1960 the postwar revival of scholarship was signaled by the publication of History of the Printed Book of the Sung Period, Tenth to Thir­ teenth Centuries by K. K. Flug (d. 1941) and Tangut Philology by N. A. Nevskii (d. 1938).2 These are the posthumous works of two important figures who worked in the fields of textological analysis and ethnolinguistic problems. Both men gained their reputations in labors that, then as now, define the basic orientation and priorities of sinological research at L. O. IVAN: cataloging, investigating, and publishing materials in the rich archival collections of the institute (until 1930 the Asiatic Museum). During the 1930s, Flug published a series of short but useful descriptions of Chinese manuscripts and blockprints in these archives, while Nevskii's pioneering work with the Tangut collection is the foundation of the advances in Tangut studies described below.3 In the following sections, I will examine Soviet scholarship on the Sung, Chin, and Hsi-Hsia. Work on the Sung and Chin is largely interpretive and historiographic, while, due to the availability of the archives at L. O. IVAN, more has been written in the fields of textological analysis and ethnolinguistics by scholars of the Hsi-Hsia. The Sung The Marxist paradigm plays a prominent role in the work of Sung his­ torians, so that their attention typically centers on socioeconomic and political problems. Among the principal Sung specialists at MGU and LGU, G. Ia.

69

70

RUTH DUNNELL

Smolin, E. P. Stuzhina, and Z. G. Lapina base their interpretations on a per iodizing scheme of Chinese history articulated earlier by L. V. Simonovskaia and others.4 "According to this concept," explains Smolin in a recent biblio­ graphic essay: Sung China passed through that stage of social evolution when feudal­ ism, ^Which formed the socioeconomic basis for the Middle Ages, was at its height. This stage, dating in China back to the eighth century, replaced the early medieval period; but it is with the formation of the Sung empire that the developed feudal system revealed in a more complete and distinct way its higher economic potential compared with the early medieval era and a greater dynamism on the whole.5 This "higher economic potential" and its implications are examined from various angles by the three above-mentioned scholars. Other common features of their studies are a thorough exposition of pertinent secondary literature and a sensitivity to the impact of contemporary politics in the PRC on relevant Chinese scholarship.6 These general characteristics of Soviet sinological works distinguish them from much Western (or "bourgeois") scholarship, which, I believe, tends to be less systematic in this regard. G. Ia. Smolin elucidates socioeconomic and political themes concerning agrarian relations and conditions of the peasantry, focusing on peasant unrest and documenting the ever-broadening struggle of the laboring classes against a tightening feudal noose. Class struggle intensified, but remained within feudal boundaries. Hence, although Smolin repudiates a traditional Western view of the Sung as a peaceful, pacifistic era marred by little internal disturbance, he affirms the absence of large-scale peasant rebellion. This absence is explored in a lengthy monograph, Anti-feudal Uprisings in China from the Second Half of the Tenth to the First Quarter of the Twelfth Centuries (1974). Herein Smolin poses the questions: why was no peasant war possible in the Sung, and why did protest to growing feudal oppression instead express itself in the form of periodic, frequently simultaneous, local up­ risings? In answering these questions, the author specifically identifies the legacy of the Huang Ch'ao rebellion of the late Tlang as a major influence on Sung policymakers, and on the imagination of all Chinese. Sung statesmen consciously strove to avert the recurrence of such a rebellion, and responded more promptly to disturbances during the Sung than in any previous era. In response to PRC debates in the 1950s and 1960s on issues of class struggle in Chinese history, Smolin devotes an entire chapter to the clarifica­ tion and defense of the concept of peasant war (which he accuses Western scholars of not taking seriously) and the applicability of class struggle analysis to Sung China.^ He argues that the struggle of peasants was antifeudal, even when not self-consciously so or not defying the categories of feudal relations.

THE SUNG, CHIN, AND HSI-HSIA

71

Although admittedly blind and spontaneous, the protest of the laboring masses forced the government system to reform and gradually progress toward the capitalist stage of historical development. Thus Smolin can safely deny that peasant struggle during the Sung was revolutionary (a view espoused by some Chinese scholars), while asserting its antifeudal character (denied by Kuo Mo-jo and others). Smolin examines the peasants' world view, ideologies, strategies, and ex­ pressions of protest. A tradition of rebellion was formed as oppressed groups learned that they could gain some measure of relief, however passing, by their "antisocial" activities. Class war thereby assumed the role of a regulator and corrective factor in economic evolution, and facilitated the progressive devel­ opment of feudalism. He traces the shifting center of revolt through three chronological stages: (1) 960-1030, in Szechwan and the southwest; (2) 10301080, in the north; and (3) late eleventh century to 1125, in the south and southeast, where it remained from the mid-Sung onward. Smolin ends his analysis here because he considers that the Jurchen and later Mongolian invasions introduced an antiforeign element into domestic unrest that for a time muted the expression of antifeudal protest. Despite its somewhat polemical tone, Smolin's formidable treatise rewards the reader with a wealth of painstakingly culled data on Sung social history and should be accorded a prominent place in the secondary literature on that subject. E. P. Stuzhina pioneered the Soviet study of urbanization, trade, and handicrafts in Sung, Ming, and Ch'ing China.® To define the character of Sung economic development within the basic paradigm outlined above, Stuzhina investigates such issues as urban centers, hired labor, trade, conditions of urban handicraft production, the guild system, and state policies regarding urban life. Her basic premise is that the growth of cities, trade, and urban handi­ crafts, however dynamic, never exceeded the constraints imposed by feudal institutions, specifically those of the bureaucratic state. She dismisses attempts to locate "seeds of capitalism" in the Sung, and suggests that Edward Kracke exaggerated the degree of national economic unity while Robert Hartwell overstated the level of economic development and hence its alleged decline.® Stuzhina agrees with Etienne Balazs's comments on the inhibiting effects of the governmental presence in cities, but rejects his contention that the countryside, by contrast, enjoyed greater freedom.10 Stuzhina's basic research on the Sung period has appeared in the mono­ graph, The Chinese City, Eleventh to Thirteenth Centuries (1979). Her listing of Japanese references, while not definitive, heralds a trend in recent Soviet sinology to exploit that literature. Regrettably, Chinese characters are absent in the text and bibliography, a fault of the editors and not the author. Her review of secondary studies presents an uncontentious assessment of early

72

RUTH DUNNELL

Soviet writings on the Chinese economy including those of M. P. Pokrovskii, a controversial historian whose ,fcommodity-monetary relations” school of thought claimed adherents among sinologists in the 1930s. Kaifeng and Hangchou, for which data are most plentiful, serve as the basis of Stuzhina's analysis in The Chinese City. On the question of hired labor, she points to the amorphous terminology in the sources as a sign of an under­ developed phenomenon, and concludes that hired labor was sporadic and em­ ployed only in connection with services, construction, or illegal activities. In other words, there was no hired labor in the basic production of raw materials or finished goods other than comestibles. And, to the extent that laborers generally obtained hire through a hang organization which they were obliged to join, their labor was not really free. Although noting the flourishing of specialty markets and trade fairs, Stuzhina claims that trade still exhibited a "typical medieval character”—that is, it served primarily to fulfill the daily demands of city residents, while wholesale transactions remained limited. Trade in food supplies and prepared dishes exceeded that of all other products combined. Here the reader is treated to a survey of urban eating habits, and learns, among other things, that most people ate out most of the time.** Interurban and interregional trade strengthened slowly but steadily during the Sung. Based on Balazs's economic map and other ,TSung Project” materials, Stuzhina asserts that the shift of the economic center to the southeast can be precisely dated to the eleventh century. In The Chinese City (p. 205) she disagrees with Meng Wen-t'ung's conclusion that the relative unimportance of the Yangtze basin in Sung trade indicated weak interregional exchange throughout the empire. However, Stuzhina cautions that most interregional trade was conducted by great merchants and only a small portion of this trade was actually legal. Stuzhina shows that Sung economy and society displayed qualitatively significant signs of growth and change that render inappropriate the formula "traditional society.” Nevertheless, this growth occurred within the bounds of maturing feudalism, and was circumscribed, if not deformed, by the parallel development of a strong central bureaucracy and its regulatory policies. She therefore treads a very fine line when she states in The Chinese City that the Mongol invasion interrupted the "spontaneous process of urbanization and growth of commercial-monetary relations in China” (p. 39). Her descriptions of the Sung bureaucracy make spontaneity seem out of place here. All in all, the book provides a useful, comprehensive, and stimulating survey of Sung urbani­ zation. As such, it fills a large gap in the Western-language literature on the Sung economy. Z. G. Lapina specializes in studying the political and ideological response to economic pressures: the Northern Sung reform movement. To clarify the

THE SUNG, CHIN, AND HSI-HSIA

73

causes of the split in the reform camp under Wang An-shih, and the failure of Wang’s programs, Lapina has focused her inquiry on the views and activities of Wang’s predecessors, Fan Chung-yen, Li Kou, and Ou-yang Hsiu.1^ Political Struggle in Medieval China (1970) presents the synthesis of her early research. In the introductory historiographical essay, Lapina identifies the primary weak­ ness of traditional Confucian and modern Western scholarship as their subjec­ tivism and tendency to substitute descriptions of personality conflicts and fac­ tional struggles for analysis of political events. In the case of Wang An-shih, the man has become identified with the reforms, thus obscuring their ’’inner causes." / She finds these "inner causes" in "new tendencies in agrarian relations," and connects the emergence of a distinct reform ideology with regional rivalry between the politically dominant north and the economically rising south. Fan Chung-yen’s reform program reflected, above all, demands of lower-level officialdom for access to effective political action and communication with the sovereign. It failed to achieve these goals, Lapina suggests, because Chinese society lacked the maturity to create a feudal monarchy with class representa­ tion. Yet she sees the effort to do so as progressive, that is, promoting the development of self-conscious classes competing to defend their group in­ terests. With the rise of Wang An-shih, the severe socioeconomic crisis in Sung society dominated the terms of political struggle. For concerned scholars such as Li Kou, Ou-yang Hsiu, and Su Shih, primacy of agriculture and supremacy of state were fundamental, though increasingly incompatible, premises. According to Lapina, only Li Kou proposed active measures to correct the state’s fiscal ills, and she considers his influence key to understanding the origin and fate of Wang An-shih*s new laws.1^ Lapina attributes the defection of Wang’s early supporters to contradic­ tions inherent in Sung society. By advocating widespread state interference in economic life, Wang’s policies tended to undercut new urban productive forces and solidify the institutional and ideological opposition of the central govern­ ment to the emergence of more progressive socioeconomic forms. The author reevaluates labels customarily attached to this or that group of reform parti­ sans. Wang An-shih was not necessarily progressive, nor Ssu-ma Kuang reac­ tionary. Her argument unfolds clearly, and carefully avoids oversimplification in the weighing of cause and effect. The link between "new tendencies in agrarian relations" and political events, however complex, could be even more boldly drawn, but Lapina’s interest lies in intellectual, not economic, history. More recently, Lapina has focused her research on an intensive exegesis of Li Kou’s writings on economy and statecraft, the assumptions behind language, and the attitudes and ideology conveyed thereby. In an analysis of his defini­ tion of kingship (wang-tao) she judges Li Kou’s attitude toward tradition (the

74

RUTH DUNNELL

past) as "critical" and his views "unique." Li turned, not to the Chou, but to the Han and T'ang for practical examples to illustrate his points. His unorthodoxy (perhaps pre-orthodoxy) lay in a more relativistic and flexible relationship to tradition, which he considered to be something dynamic, adaptable to the changes of time and present needs.14 Nascent orthodoxy and imperial ideology are also examined in several short articles by A. S. Martynov, an intellectual historian. One piece addresses the rationale behind Sung foreign policy, which, Martynov concludes, reflected the typical Chinese belief in the indivisibility of the human, political, and natural orders.1** Another asks, with reference to the writings of Su Tung-p’o, what enabled the lengthy coexistence and interaction of the Confucian ethical tradi­ tion and the concrete political realities of China.16 A possible answer is sug­ gested in a certain distance maintained by Confucians in relation to politics, and by the possibility (asserted by Su) of peaceful coexistence between the sage (chim-tzu, whose primary function or tool is the word, wen) and the political activist—two polarities of the Confucian persona. So-called Neo-Confucianism, Martynov postulates in a third essay, did not produce a new official ideology.17 Paradoxically, Neo-Confucianism substan­ tially altered views of the world, but not of the ruler or state. Chu Hsi adopted traditional concepts of the imperium without question because he was less concerned with those notions than with awareness of the individual and his inner life. This awareness grew out of Buddhist interpretations of nature (hsing), which Chu Hsi found unsatisfactory. His personal quest thus evolved into the rigid orthodoxy of a later era. The Chin A voluminous literature has accumulated on the Jurchen Chin and Tangut Hsia states. Much of this scholarship shares a unifying concern to establish unequivocally the independent cultural and political identity of foreign dynas­ ties, in explicit contrast to the "Great Han Chauvinism" of PRC material on the "fraternal" peoples of China's past. The confusing, often overlooked decades following the Jurchen invasion of North China are now being systematically explored by S. N. Goncharov. In an attempt to define who was designated by the term "han-erh," Goncharov observes that in this period it specifically denoted Chinese who were closely associated with peoples occupying the northern territories, and that it overlaps in usage with the older term, "yen-/en."16 Because the han-erh was an anoma­ lous group, clearly distinguished by contemporaries from Sung (southern) Chinese and other northern Chinese, Goncharov objects to Rolf Trauzettel’s translation of han-erh as "sons of Han" for its perceived failure to clarify the

THE SUNG, CHIN, AND HSI-HSIA

75

translator's own distinction (if indeed he has made one) between the groups of people referred to in the quoted statement.*® In another article, Goncharov examines early Sung views of the conduct of affairs with the Jurchens in the light of two contrasting models of Chinese attitudes towards "barbarians."2® One model, that of "imminent sovereignty," was established by A. S. Martynov for Ch'ing relations with Tibet. The other, posited by M. V. Kryukov for sixth- to thirteenth-century China, consists of conciliar or contractual diplomacy. According to Goncharov's analysis, the Sung court perforce relinquished claims to sovereignty over the "barbarians" in order to achieve peace. Initially, however, it did not regard the Jurchens as worthy partners in contractual diplomacy, and so repeatedly violated agree­ ments with the Jurchens. Finally, reduced to vassalhood, it focused on "inter­ nal harmony" in place of "unification" and resorted to various ritual fictions to mask the diplomatic reality of contractual relations in which it could not dictate the terms. S. A. Shkoliar also worked on the relationship between the Jurchens and the Sung in a recently completed study on the Sung-Chin war of 1206-08. He elaborates the political, diplomatic, and military aspects of this important but neglected episode in Sino-Jurchen history.2* Shkoliar has long been devoted to the history of military strategy and technology in the tenth to fourteenth centuries, as seen in his monograph, Chinese Pre-firearm Artillery (1980). M. V. Vorob'ev has added significantly to the scholarship on Jurchen soci­ ety and the history of the Chin state. Over a decade of his research culminated in the publication of The Jurchen and the State of Chin, Tenth Century to 1234 (1975). This volume stands in sharp contrast to Tao Jing-shen's more narrowly focused study in English of Jurchen sinicization.22 It contains a massive quantitity of information, arranged in the form of topical essays on the social, economic, and political structure of Jurchen society at various stages in its history. In a final chapter recounting Jurchen relations with other Asian peoples, Vorob'ev does not neglect Korean sources and the Korean role in Asian history. Otherwise, the topical format of the book tends to obscure its the­ matic unity, and lends a choppy, rambling quality to the narrative. Occasional errors in names and dates occur, and the use of Japanese secondary scholarship, for whatever reason, has not been thorough. In a lengthy conclusion, Vorob'ev elaborates a hypothesis of Jurchen history in antithesis to that espoused by Tao Jing-shen. He contends that Chinese influence did not destroy Jurchen-Chin culture, that the Chin state represented the "supreme and original embodiment of the creative forces of Southern Tungus medieval society," and that Chin culture and the Jurchen "ethnos" survived long after the fall of the Chin state. Repeated assertions of the originality of Jurchen state formation provoked criticism even from Vorob'ev's

76

RUTH DUNNELL

Russian reviewer, and contradict the author's own testimony elsewhere in the text.23 Vorobfev presents extensive evidence of mutual borrowings between Chinese and Jurchen, but ignores the issue raised by Tao of the Jurchen impact on Chinese political institutions. Vorob’ev’s express purpose is to counteract the perceived tendency of many Western and Asian scholars to identify cultures of the Far East with Chinese culture and to assume that the mere presence of anything Chinese leads impla­ cably to sinicization.2^ He treats the question of Chinese influence by main­ taining that direct borrowing took place only after the Jurchens had conquered North China, and that since the ruling elite lost its ethnic purity under the influence of Chinese elite customs, it may no longer serve as a standard of Jurchen culture as a whole. The significance of the role of external factors in Jurchen history is over­ shadowed by the introduction of another factor into a decisive position—that of "ethnos." Phrases like "ethnic solidarity" and "ethnic decline" are used to describe the early victories and later defeats of the Jurchens. Vorob'ev attri­ butes the strength of the early Jurchen confederation to its meng-an mou-We system of communal organization and traces the complex transformations in meng-an mou-kfe after their implantation onto Chinese soil (pp. 130-36, 192206). His analysis implies that changes in social structure underplay the politi­ cal crisis that paralyzed Chin government in the thirteenth century; that disin­ tegration of the meng-an mou-kfe was directly linked to "ethnic decline" and certainly to military decline. Sinicization, Vorob'ev believes, does not ade­ quately account for this process, but he lacks the conceptual tools to clarify his own argument. Soviet theories of ethnos and feudal state formation are, at least in this instance, contradictory rather than compatible. The Hsi-Hsia One of the most fertile developments in Soviet sinology lies in the field of Tangut studies. The archives of L. O. IVAN house a rare collection of Chinese and Tangut manuscripts, discovered in 1908-09 by Colonel P. K. Kozlov in the ruins of Khara Khoto (Edzina, Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region).23 Kozlov's precious finds were first scrutinized by I. A. Ivanov and V. L. Kotvich. A. A. Dragunov and K. K. Flug also contributed to the inventory, but the real founder of Tangut studies was N. A. Nevskii. Nevskii developed an interest in Tangut texts while he was working with the sinological community in Osaka in the 1920s. Later he returned to Leningrad and devoted most of his energies to the compilation of a Tangut dictionary, based on native philological texts and translations of Buddhist sutras from Tibetan and Chinese. Altogether he elucidated 955 Tangut characters. Z. I. Gorbacheva prepared the manuscripts

THE SUNG, CHIN, AND HSI-HSIA

77

of Flug and Nevskii for publication. As senior archivist in the postwar period, she contributed much to the cataloging of the Tangut collection. In 1937 Nevskii*s fruitful labors ended when he became a victim of Staling purges. Soon after the posthumous publication in 1959 of his essays and manu­ script dictionary he was awarded the Lenin Prize. Tangut studies revived around 1959, and since then a talented group of specialists has emerged in Leningrad, led by E. I. Kychanov. A student of T*ang legal history, Kychanov made Hsi-Hsia the subject of his doctoral dissertation, and absorbed into it the initial /fruits of his own and his predecessors* labor with Tangut sources. An Outline of the History of the Tangut State (1968) presents a lucid narrative of Tangut history from tribal genesis to the postconquest Yüan period. In the conclusion he assesses the nature and extent of Chinese, Tibetan, and Uighur influence on the evolution of Tangut culture and government. He also enumerates real and possible channels of Tangut influence on the Mongols.2® The Tanguts drew selectively from Chinese models in constructing their governing apparatus, educational system, and later, in the twelfth century, their ruling ideology. Though Chinese was the lingua franca of East Asia at that time, the Tangut language was widely used, and native customs were preserved. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s Kychanov published descriptions, transla­ tions, and analyses of diverse Tangut documents. These include legal, military, and economic sources as well as specimens of poetry and folklore.27 An early twelfth-century military code, a table of official ranks, and an almost complete text of a mid-twelfth-century law code provide abundant data on Tangut administrative, legal, and social organization. They also reveal areas of Chinese, Tibetan, and other influence, native innovation, and similarity with Khitan, Jurchen, and Mongolian practices. In 1978 Kychanov finished the enormous and often tedious task of trans­ lating the Hsia law code (the Tangut version of the T*ang code). This document consists of twenty chapters and 1,460 articles, of which only chapter 16, parts of chapter 14, and a few scattered articles are missing. His translation exceeds a thousand pages, and is accompanied by nearly nine hundred pages of commen­ tary and analysis. The sheer volume of this labor unavoidably raises obstacles in the path of its publication, which, however desirable, remains a distant prospect. Most of Kychanov*s publications of the last fifteen years introduce information contained in the code. Of considerable interest for cultural history are Kychanov*s renderings (albeit tentative) of Tangut proverbs, odes, and a rhymed encyclopedia modeled roughly on the Chien tzu wen and used as a language textbook.28 Regarding a late twelfth-century compilation of Tangut proverbs, Kychanov suggests that this genre of writing belongs to an Eastern Tibetan and Central Asian tradition.29 These aphorisms consist of two lines whose rhythm derives from

78

RUTH DUNNELL

parallel construction. Confucian and Buddhist motifs are absent; prosaic im­ ages and themes predominate. From an untitled block print dated ca. 1186, Kychanov has translated a long ode of forty-six lines in the parallel style, titled "Hymn to the Revered Ancestors of the Tanguts."30 This poem recounts the genealogy and exploits of the legendary (or real) predecessors of the Tangut ruling house, not unlike the Secret History of the Mongols. Though the rendering is still uncertain in places, due to the poor condition of the block print, the content unmistakably affirms the important role played by Tibetans in early Tangut history. Here Buddhist motifs abound. Late Tibetan and Mongolian sources preserve three versions of mi-nag (Tangut) ancestral legends, which can now be studied along with the earlier Tangut ode. Through analysis of these sources and others, Kychanov sheds considerable light on Tangut social, administrative, and military institutions. M. V. Sofronov has made outstanding contributions to the decipherment and linguistic analysis of the Tangut language.31 In 1968 his research was published in a two-volume text, A Grammar of the Tangut Language. In volume 1, Sofronov discusses the method by which he derived his phonetic values (using "inner" or native phonological and lexical treatises along with Tangut transla­ tions of sutras from Chinese and Tibetan), and presents an outline of Tangut morphology and syntax. Volume 2 contains a list of the approximately six thousand Tangut characters, arranged according to the top or left-hand compo­ nent of the ideograph, and accompanied by tentative phonetic reconstructions. Like others before him, Sofronov characterizes the Tangut script as uniquely complex and historically significant in being the sole ideographic script deliberately created from scratch in a short period of time, and hence not subjected to a long and gradual evolution.33 Each ideograph represents a separate semantic structure, the meaning of which derives from the combina­ tion of distinct and classifiable graphic units. These graphic units can be reduced to eight basic linear or right-angled strokes, and combine into progres­ sively more complex structures, in a limited number of discernible configura­ tions. Some Tangut ideographs serve only to transcribe foreign pronunciations and possess no semantic value of their own. Although the principles guiding the construction of Tangut ideographs have not yet been fully illuminated, Sofronov cautions against overstating the degree of similarity between Tangut and Chinese. K. B. Kepping has addressed many problems in Tangut grammar since the publication of Sofronov's text. She has identified six verbal prefixes that function as indicators of time and aspect and has analyzed agreement of verbs with subject and object, the formation of substantive plurals, and other related matters. Her studies confirm Nishida Tatsuo^ identification of Tangut as a

THE SUNG, CHIN, AND HSI-HSIA

79

Tibeto-Burman language. In a private communication (July 1981), she an­ nounced that she had finally determined the meaning of the last two auxilliary morphemes (verbal), which had long eluded definition. The manuscript of Kepping's latest work, !The Tangut Language (Morphology),” went to press in August 1981. Kepping has also studied Tangut translations of Chinese texts, some of which may survive only in their Tangut versions.3'* Thousands of manuscript and block-printed books in the Khara Khoto collection add a new dimension to research in the history and art of book printing. High-quality book printing flourished in Hsi-Hsia, a subject investi­ gated by A. P. Terent'ev-Katanskii. This scholar has exâmined the structure and dating of books, artistic format, binding, paper, illustrations, writing styles, and the persons connected with the production and publication of books in HsiHsia. His monograph on this subject, Books in the Tangut State, appeared in 1981.34 Kychanov has also written a piece on Tangut manuscripts, and L. N. Men'shikov has described the history and production of Chinese blockprints and blockprinted engravings found in the Khara Khoto collection. These essays are scheduled for future publication along with others in a cooperative volume devoted to this collection. The staff of the Far Eastern Section of the State Hermitage Museum also plays an important role in the cataloging, study, and publication of Khara Khoto materials. Involved in this endeavor are E. I. Lubo-Lesnichenko, the curator of the Far Eastern Section; M. L. Rudova (Chinese art history); N. V. D'iakonova (Central Asian art history); and T. V. Grek (Indian art). Among the artifacts from Khara Khoto housed in the Hermitage is a stunning collection of Tangut Buddhist icons and paintings. A catalogue of these items is in preparation, and its publication will bring some exciting new material to the study of the history of Buddhism and art in China and Central Asia.

CHAPTER 6 Archaeology and Mid-imperial History: The Chin and Yiian Thomas T. Allsen While archaeology is responsible for much of our knowledge of ancient China, it has not, to date, played a major role in the study of the mid-imperial period of Chinese history. This stands in sharp contrast to the situation that obtains in medieval studies in the West, where "industrial archaeology” has made important contributions to our understanding of the social, economic, and cultural history of Europe. The failure of most Western and Chinese scholars to make full use of the available archaeological data in the study of mid-imperial Chinese history is particularly regrettable since the historical background of the emergence in this period of powerful dynasties of foreign origin in the north, the Liao (9071115), Chin (1115-1234), and Yiian (1207-1368), is imperfectly documented in the literary sources. Given the limitations of the traditional sources, archaeo­ logy can help substantially to supplement our fund of information on these states. By greatly extending our knowledge of the ethnic origins, material culture, religious practices, and life-styles of the non-Chinese elements in these states, the testimony of the spade can provide us with a much needed corrective to the distorted and stereotyped picture of the "barbarian” con­ querors presented in the Chinese chronicles. Armed with new data, scholars should be able to address the perennial problem of acculturation in dynasties of conquest with considerably more confidence. There are various reasons for this neglect of the valuable contributions of archaeologists to mid-imperial Chinese history. In the first place, most of their work is recent, dating from the period after World War II, and it has yet to be digested by traditional historians. Second, there has been a widespread but unjustified belief that the Inner Asian peoples such as the Jurchens and Mon­ gols, founders of the Chin and Yiian dynasties respectively, simply left no archaeological record behind them. Moreover, those who are aware that such a record does in fact exist have cast doubt in its utility, pointing out the great difficulties involved in the dating and attribution of the finds.1 Finally, some of the best work done in this field is produced by archaeologists in the USSR and the Mongolian Peopled Republic and therefore remains unknown or inacces­ sible to sinologists who do not read Russian.^

81

82

THOMAS T. ALLSEN

Despite these difficulties, there is evidence of a growing awareness on the part of Western scholars of the value of archaeological data in the study of the so-called dynasties of conquest and the importance of the Soviet contribution to this body of knowledge. It is the purpose of this paper to make a system­ atic survey of the results of Soviet archaeological work on Siberia, the Mari­ time Province, and Outer Mongolia in the mid-imperial era, and to show why these findings are of such interest to students of Chin and Yiian history.4 General Characteristics of Soviet Archaeology Soviet archaeology has grown steadily in the postwar period, particularly in the last twenty years. During the interwar years the groundwork was laid for future development, but practical results were few, as can be seen from the publication dates of the material surveyed here. Major sites in the Soviet Union and Mongolian Peopled Republic were only excavated in the late 1940s and 1950s, and the results first published in the 1960s and 1970s. The Mongols1 imperial capital at Khara Khorum is a case in point. First discovered and identified in the closing years of the Tsarist regime, the ruined city was not thoroughly investigated owing to the dislocations of World War I and the Russian and Mongolian Revolutions. Plans subsequently were laid to begin work on the site in the late 1930s, only to be delayed again by another period of war and reconstruction. Work finally was begun at Khara Khorum in 1948, and the fascinating discoveries to be discussed below were described in a collaborative work that appeared in 1965. Soviet scholars have now launched their own reconnaissance, and many significant sites, hitherto unknown, have been identified and excavated in recent years. The announced purpose of this work is to provide a historical account of all the peoples and cultures, both ancient and modern, that have flourished within the present-day frontiers of the USSR. Since many of these peoples, especially those in Siberia and Central Asia, left few or no written records behind, archaeologists and historical ethnographers have taken the lead in retrieving and reconstructing their history. The findings of these scholars just now are beginning to find their way into print, and promise to greatly advance our understanding of Eurasian history. Much of the work conducted by Soviet archaeologists is sponsored and organized by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR or its regional branches such as the Siberian branch, headquartered at Novosibirsk, which is responsible for many of the digs discussed here. The work done in the Mongolian Peopled Republic has been directed by a joint committee of the Soviet and Mongolian Academy of Sciences. Universities and museums also play a role, but do not dominate the field as in the United States.

ARCHAEOLOGY AND MID-IMPERIAL HISTORY

83

It is difficult to judge from afar the quality of the work of Soviet archaeo­ logists, Only when experienced archaeologists from the West have had an opportunity to follow the work of their Soviet colleagues in the field will we be able to make an accurate assessment, but the available evidence strongly suggests that Soviet archaeologists are technically proficient and professional in their approach. Their recording procedures are systematic, their dating techniques modern, and the published results of their work of high quality— detailed and extremely well illustrated. Also, it appears that Soviet archaeolo­ gists can call upon the talents of a wide variety of scientists, including paleon­ tologists, chemists, metallurgists, etc., for aid in analyzing data. Archaeology is closely associated, intellectually and institutionally, with the disciplines of history, ethnography, and oriental studies in the Soviet Union. Field expeditions are normally joint ventures, involving archaeologists, physical anthropologists, epigraphers, historians, numismatists, and ethnographers. Given this integrated approach, it is not surprising that the technique of ethno­ graphic analogy—understanding archaeological data by means of ethnographic parallels—is widely employed. Further, this integrated approach has en­ couraged an extensive and fruitful exchange between archaeologists and his­ torians. Some scholars, M. V. Vorob'ev, for example, work and publish in both fields. Those archaeologists, such as Vorob’ev, E. V. Shavkunov and E. I. LuboLesnichenko, whose scholarly concern involves China directly, are trained in sinology as well and make wide use of Chinese sources and secondary works in their research. Others, such as V. D. Len'tov and S. V. Kiselev, whose primary focus is the indigenous culture of North Asia, often do not know Chinese, but their work still has great value and relevance for the student of Chinese history. In the interpretation of the findings, Soviet archaeologists, not surpris­ ingly, adhere to Marxist suppositions concerning the evolution of human society through specific developmental stages. The environmental or ecological ap­ proach so favored in Western archaeology is in evidence in the USSR, but the more traditional Marxist methods of analysis still hold the field. Like their colleagues in history, the archaeologists view the period of Chinese history under consideration here as part of the feudal stage of development. However one feels about some interpretations imposed on the data by Soviet scholars, particularly their sometimes facile extrapolations of social structure from archaeological remains, the raw material they have uncovered and described in the last decades deserves careful scrutiny. Admittedly, there are difficulties in making use of this new data, but there is every reason to believe that careful analysis will yield substantial dividends.

84

THOMAS T. ALLSEN

Soviet Archaeological Literature Before examining the findings of Soviet archaeology as they bear on mid­ imperial Chinese history, it will be useful to survey the major periodicals and serials in the field published in the USSR, and to indicate the available biblio­ graphic tools through which this increasingly voluminous literature can be controlled. The main journal is Soviet Archaeology (Sovetskaia arWieologiia)f 1957- , which is issued six times a year by the Academy of Sciences. This is a general review covering all phases of the discipline. Major articles are normally sup­ plied with extensive summaries in English. Another important outlet for archaeological research is the Brief Communications of the Institute of Ar­ chaeology (Kratkie soobshcheniia Ihstituta ar1dieologii)9 1939- . Published by a subsection of the Academy of Sciences, each volume contains ten or twelve articles devoted to a common theme, for example, the Bronze Age in Eastern Europe. The most important serial is Materials for the Study of the Archaeology of the USSR (MateriàLy po issledovaniiu arhheologii SSSR). This series is also issued by the Institute of Archaeology and often serves as the vehicle for publishing the results of particular archaeological expeditions, sometimes in multivolume sets. In addition, there is important material issued in the form of monographs or as contributions to symposiums. It is often difficult to find this type of publication, especially if it is issued by a regional press. Access can be gained through the various bibliographical guides prepared by the Academy of Sciences. For current bibliography in the field the major tool is New Soviet Litera­ ture Concerning the Social Sciences: History, Archaeologyf Ethnography (Novaia sovetskaia literatura po obshchestvennym naukam: Istoriia, arldieologitû, etnografiia)9 1947- , a monthly comprehensive survey of all types of Soviet publications in archaeology—books, articles, and collective works. Soviet Archaeological Literature (Sovetskaia arkheologicheskaia literatura) is retrospective, accumulating every four or five years the citations contained in New Soviet Literature Concerning the Social Sciences To keep abreast of current fieldwork, Archaeological Discoveries (Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia), 1965- , should be consulted. This annual publication reports on the progress of all ongoing excavations in the USSR and all foreign expeditions in which Soviet scholars are involved. While comprehensive, the coverage is generally brief. However, more detailed discussions of work in progress in a particular region often can be found elsewhere in the literature. For example, E. V. Shavkunov recently has prepared a survey of archaeological research on the imperial period of Mongolia.® This kind of article is a common feature of Soviet archaeological literature and can be traced through the above-mentioned guides.

ARCHAEOLOGY AND MID-IMPERIAL HISTORY

85

The Jurchens and the Chin Dynasty Ethnic Origins The Chin dynasty, which controlled China north of the Huai River through­ out the twelfth century, was founded by the Jurchens, a Tungus-speaking people from Manchuria. The Jurchens had a complex economy which involved hunting, gathering, herding, and agriculture, and recent Soviet excavations have shown that their cultural attainments were much more impressive than has hitherto been assumed. / The ethnic roots of the Jurchens can be traced back to the Mo-ho, a group frequently mentioned by Chinese historians of the early imperial era. The archaeological remains of the early ancestors of the Jurchens are exhaustively treated by E. I. Derevianko in his monograph, The Mo-ho Monuments of the Middle Amur. The sites surveyed, including villages, towns, and burial grounds, date from the fourth to the eighth century and reveal a fairly advanced econ­ omy. Agriculture, horse breeding, and pig raising were all practiced by this basically sedentary people. The Jurchens1 ethnic ties to the Mo-ho are clearly documented in the archaeological record. Comparisons of the clothing, weaponry, ornamentation, and burial practices of the two show unequivocally that the Mo-ho legacy forms a major component of the Jurchen cultural inheri­ tance. According to Derevianko, Mo-ho culture in its turn was heavily influenced by the peoples of the steppe, particularly the early Turks, and this too is re­ flected in Jurchen culture. V. E. Medvedev has taken up this same theme in his study of belt-pendants, showing that many of the decorative styles in evi­ dence among the Jurchens in the eleventh century are derived from ancient Turkish motifs as transmitted by the Mo-ho.8 Jurchen culture was also influenced by the Po-hai, a Tungus-speaking people who formed a large, powerful state in the eastern half of Manchuria during the period 698-926. E. V. Shavkunov, in his The Po-hai State and the Remains of its Culture in the Maritime Province, stresses the diversity of the cultural connections of the Po-hai and their subject peoples such as the Moho. Korean, Japanese, Chinese, and Turkic influences can be identified from the archaeological record found in southeastern Siberia and Manchuria. The complex Po-hai culture left its imprint in turn on the Hei-shui Mo-ho, the immediate ancestors of the Jurchens. According to Shavkunov, this impact can be seen in Jurchen arrowheads, defensive armor, and decorative motifs, which show marked similarities with Po-hai traditions.9 The problem of the Jurchens* cultural and ethnic affinities is explored in greater detail by Medvedev in his monograph, The Culture of the Amur Jurchen in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries. In this work, based on an analysis of the inventories of Bolon, Molchanikha, and Nadezhdinsko, three large burial grounds

86

THOMAS T. ALLSEN

located near Khaborovsk, he emphasizes the North and Central Asian connec­ tions of the Jurchens and minimizes their indebtedness to the Chinese. He points out, for instance, that in their burial customs and religious beliefs, Siberian cults, especially those involving the sun, predominated and continued to do so even after the formation of the Chin dynasty. Some Buddhist in­ fluences were felt later, but these never displaced native practices. Medvedev also argues that in their material culture (for example, pottery, metallurgy, and riding equipment) the Jurchens1 ties are to the peoples of the South Siberian forests and the Eurasian steppes, not to the Chinese.*** This is a recurrent theme in Soviet archaeological literature. Society and Culture of the Chin Period Soviet scholars have also uncovered important sites dating from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, that is, from the period after the establish­ ment of the Chin dynasty. Several walled towns and villages have been un­ earthed and studied in recent years.** Among the more interesting from the standpoint of cultural influence, is a fortified court found near the contem­ porary city of Ussurisk on the Suifan River. In 1960 M. V. Vorob'ev took part in the excavation of this twelfth-century site, which contains Chinese-style cera­ mics, but according to the author follows long-established local traditions in the architecture.*2 E. V. Shavkunov's investigation of the Jurchen architecture 11 of the Chin era comes to the same conclusion.10 In his survey of the twelfthcentury habitations located in the Maritime Province, Shavkunov argues that they are a product of indigenous building techniques and were not borrowed from China. The heating systems, as well as other construction features, can be traced back to the Tungus people of an earlier age. This, of course, means that the Jurchens and other Tungus groups as well, lived in permanent settle­ ments prior to extensive contact with the Chinese. Other archaeological discoveries show the persistence of Jurchen-Tungus cultural forms into the Chin period and beyond. The ornamentation on the ceramic goods found at Shaigino, a trade and craft center in the Maritime Province dating from the latter half of the twelfth century, has been studied by Shavkunov, who argues that the most common of the designs have magical and religious significance that can be associated with the old Tungus cults of the sun and fire.14 Even in the thirteenth century, North Asian motifs held their ground against outside influence. Shavkunov’s analysis of nine bronze mirrors of the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries also unearthed in the Mari­ time Province indicates the presence of Buddhist elements in the ornamenta­ tion of these locally produced items, but here too, shamanist symbols still predominate.*^ North Asian shamanism, not imported religions, dominated the spiritual life of the Jurchen people during the dynastic period. This holds true for the post-Chin era as well. Medvedev has shown through comparison of Chin

ARCHAEOLOGY AND MID-IMPERIAL HISTORY

87

religious artifacts with those of the Tungus peoples of the Amur Basin, the modern descendants of the Jurchens, that many ancient shamanistic practices were preserved well into the twentieth century.*® Thus, while Soviet archaeo­ logists concede that outside influences conditioned Jurchen cultural develop­ ment, they are careful to point out that these never overwhelmed native traditions. Another facet of the cultural history of medieval Manchuria that has attracted the interest of Soviet scholars is the writing systems of the Chin and their subject peoples. Shavkunov has studied the most primitive form of com­ munication in use among the Jurchens, the so-called knot waiting, which was a kind of code employed in sending military messages.17 Since similar methods were in use among various nomadic peoples of Inner Asia, this is further evi­ dence, in the authors opinion, of the Jurchens* indebtedness to the cultural patterns of the steppe. Examples of the system used to write the Jurchen language during the Chin dynasty, a kind of syllabary based on modified Chinese characters, have been preserved in various inscriptions. The only known speci­ men of the Jurchen script on paper, discovered in Inner Mongolia by a Russian explorer in the early twentieth century, has been described and analyzed by a team of Soviet and Hungarian specialists.1® The Khitans, after the fall of the Liao dynasty and their incorporation into the Chin empire, continued to write in their own script, also based on modified Chinese characters. V. S. Starikov has described one such specimen, a Chinese-Khitan bilingual inscription dating from 1134.19 As mentioned previously, Jurchen economic life was varied. The archaeo­ logical data have confirmed their acquaintance with agriculture, but perhaps the most surprising discovery to date concerns the Jurchens* achievement in metallurgy.20 Although the literary sources make no mention of such skills among the Jurchens, the work of V. D. Len*tov shows that metalworking was a highly developed art and an important element in Chin culture. His monograph, Metallurgy and Metal Fabrication among the Jurchens in the Twelfth Century, reports in detail on the excavations at Shaigino, a production center containing eight workshops, numerous furnaces and forges, and housing for seventy families. A wide variety of goods were produced there: weapons; agricultural implements; tools for carpenters, stonemasons and potters; and metal fittings used in building construction. The fact that many of these items have standard sizes and weights indicates that mass-production techniques were widely used. From the size of the enterprise, it is clear that the Shaigino workshops were geared to meeting demand far beyond the local community. On the basis of the results of the spectral and chemical analyses to which the Shaigino material was subjected, Len*tov concludes that both the ferrous and non ferrous metals were of high quality. The techniques used in metal production and fabrication predate the Chin dynasty and can be traced back to

88

THOMAS T. ALLSEN

the metalworkers of the Po-hai state. Once again, in the opinion of a Soviet archaeologist, Chinese influence on the Jurchens was not a decisive factor in their cultural development before or after the formation of the Chin.2^ Chin Numismatics Soviet studies of Jurchen coinage have advanced considerably our know­ ledge of the Chin monetary system and the Chin economy in general. This is one area where Soviet scholars have acknowledged that Chinese models under­ lie Chin practices. In the first place, Chinese coins circulated in large numbers in Manchuria and the Maritime Province throughout the Middle Ages. M. V. Vorob'ev points out that while the Chin had its own monetary system, the lack of availability of precious metals forced the Jurchens to rely for the most part on Sung currency rather than on the output of their own mints.22 This was the case even on the outer fringes of the Chin empire, not just in those regions abutting the Southern Sung; in a recently discovered coin horde of the twelfth century in the Marino time Province, Sung issues outnumber Chin by a wide margin. This pattern was established prior to the formation of the Chin state. Shavkunov has demonstrated that in the tenth and eleventh centuries Sung coins circulated widely in the Maritime Province, to the virtual exclusion of Liao issues.2^ As regards the monetary system of the Chin, it followed well-established Chinese patterns. The main difference between the two, N. V. Ivochkina points out, is that the Chin system, unlike the Sung, made extensive use of silver.26 Some Chin coins have been found in Khara Khoto, a Tangut commercial and communications center in Inner Mongolia, indicating that the Jurchens had trading connections with various Western peoples through the intermediary of the Hsi-Hsia state.26 Finally, the seals of the Chin dynasty have provided useful information on the organization of the Jurchen state. M. V. Vorob'ev has studied several bronze seals and shown how they can provide additional data on the titulature, administrative terminology, and geography of the Chin dynasty.27 The Mongols and the Yiian Dynasty Mongolia and Khara Khorum The trans-Eurasian empire created by Chinggis Khan and his successors has long attracted the attention of scholars. Studies of Mongolian rule in Iran, Russia, and China abound, but relatively little effort has been made to illu­ minate the history of the Mongolian homeland during the period of empire. This is unfortunate, since the literary sources, principally Chinese and Persian, contain frequent references to Mongolia in the thirteenth and fourteenth

ARCHAEOLOGY AND MID-IMPERIAL HISTORY

89

centuries, and these data now can be supplemented by the findings of recent archaeological research. One interesting feature of the history of medieval Mongolia is the emer­ gence of a number of urban centers during the thirteenth and fourteenth cen­ turies. The existence of such settlements, alluded to in the literary sources, has been documented extensively by Soviet and Mongolian archaeologists in the last thirty years. In the view of V. L. Egorov, the reasons for this incipient urbanization are not to be found in the natural evolution of Mongolian society, but in the special conditions of imperial expansion that resulted in the sudden influx of wealth and a sedentary population (particularly merchants and crafts­ men) into the Mongolian steppe.28 Of the various urban centers that arose at this time, Khara Khorum, the imperial capital situated along the Orkhon River, is by far the most important. The excavation of this site, conducted by a team of Soviet and Mongolian archaeologists under the direction of S. V. Kiselev, was begun in 1948, and by the time of its completion in the late 1950s over six thousand square meters of soil had been uncovered. The results of these labors were published in a collec­ tive volume entitled Ancient Mongolian Cities9 which appeared in 1965. The cosmopolitanism of the Mongol empire is clearly reflected in the archaeological remains of its capital. Kiselev's investigation of the imperial court reveals that in both architecture and decor Chinese, West Asian, and native influences mixed easily.28 The Buddhist frescoes found under the main court structure provide the best illustration of this cultural mingling. L. A. Evtiukhova, who has analyzed this material, isolates several distinct artistic styles—Uighur, Tibetan, and Chinese.88 In other words, artisans from various parts of East and Central Asia had a hand in fashioning the decor of the court. Only the ceramics and tiles recovered at the capital show a unified tradi­ tion: almost all were produced by Chinese craftsmen. However, it is of consi­ derable interest to note that while Chinese influence dominates, the ceramics were made locally, confirming that Chinese masters, as the literary sources indicate, were settled in Khara Khorum.81 A large section of Khara Khorum was set aside to accommodate these craftsmen and the numerous merchants who flocked to the imperial court. The trading quarter, and indeed the entire city, was walled off. This was not, in the opinion of Kiselev, for defensive purposes, but in order to facilitate policing and the collection of taxes.82 The finds within this quarter again demonstrate the international character of the Mongol state. Beads, for instance, though manufactured locally, follow no single tradition. They draw on many styles, all of which were found in the pre-Mongol era among peoples later incorporated into the Mongol empire. From the stylistic evidence alone it is clear that masters from such places throughout Eurasia as Khwarazm, Bulgaria on the Volga, Eastern Turkestan, and

90

THOMAS T. ALLSEN

Siberia, were brought to Khara Khorum to work on behalf of the imperial court.33 Certainly, a careful examination and comparison of the archaeologi­ cal remains of other government-sponsored workshops located in different parts of the Mongol empire would yield some interesting data on the diffusion of artistic styles and technology throughout Eurasia. The only native Mongolian industry unearthed at Khara Khorum is bone and horn carving. The implements produced by the medieval Mongolian craftsmen, including combs, plates, and handles of various types, are similar, in V. P. Levashova's view, to those manufactured by the Kazakh and Khakass into the twentieth century.34 The metalworkers of the imperial capital produced a wide variety of implements both for local use and for trade in Siberia and East Asia. Chemical analysis of such cast-iron products as cooking pots and wheel bushings indicates that the manufacturing technique used was different from that of the Chinese.33 Apparently the Mongols followed North Asian metallurgical tradi­ tions. According to Kiselev and Merpert, the foundries turned out weapons, wagon parts, horseshoes, blacksmith tools, and agricultural implements in­ cluding hoes, picks, and plows.36 These latter items presumably were produced for the use of the agricultural community that was installed in the environs of Khara Khorum in the early thirteenth century in an effort to augment the food supply of the capital. The activities of the merchants who converged on the capital are reflected in the archaeological record, too. Evtiukhova has described the weights and measures recovered in the trade quarter.37 The same scholar has investigated the rather fragmentary numismatic finds. Only two of the 239 coins that came to light date from the Ylian period. The remaining are Sung and Chin issues.36 This is not surprising, since paper money was the legal tender of the Yiian dynasty and the only metal coinage was copper pieces. Despite the presence of new economic forces in the steppe, pastoral nomadism continued to flourish unabated. V. I. Tsalkin has studied the osteological remains of the domesticated animals from the vicinity of Khara Khorum and found that long-horned cattle, sheep, goats, horses, and camels, the stan­ dard herd animals of the Mongols, are all in evidence. His statistical analysis of these skeletal remains indicates that the percentage of animals in each category is very close to the twentieth-century figures. Fourteenth-century Khara Khorum Twentieth-century Mongolia

Cattle

Sheep and Goats

Horses

Camels

6.0

89.0

4.7

0.3

5.7

85.1

6.5

2.7

These figures demonstrate that, with the exception of camels, there has been little change in the structure of the Mongolian herd in the last five hundred

ARCHAEOLOGY AND MID-IMPERIAL HISTORY

91

years, dramatic testimony to the inherent conservatism of pastoral nomadism.39 Although clearly the largest, Khara Khorum was by no means the only urban center of Mongolia in the imperial period. Around Khara Khorum itself were various satellite villages, serving as rest stops for travelers to the Mongol capital. To the north, in the Transbaikal region of the USSR, several Mongol settlements have been excavated under the guidance of Kiselev.40 These settlements seem to be the residences of Mongolian nobles or high officials, and were a kind of elaborate winter camp, supplied with all the comforts and ser­ vices a wealthy and influential nomad could command or purchase. One such establishment located on the Khirkhir River, an affluent of the Argun, almost certainly belonged to Yisiingge (ca. 1190-ca. 1270), a nephew of Chinggis Khan, for it is on this site that the earliest specimen of Mongol writing has been found, a tablet in honor of Yisiinggefs feats as an archer. The settlement consists of a large central citadel surrounded by numerous lesser buildings, including a blacksmith's shop. All the structures are made of stone, and the tiles are done in a local style unrelated to any neighboring culture. Yisiingge's "city," according to Kiselev's dating, flourished throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.41 Farther to the north are the ruins of another court located on the Kondui River. First discovered in the late nineteenth century, it was not excavated until the 1950s. The central citadel, datable to the thirteenth century, was, when initially laid out, quite similar to the main court at Khara Khorum. Later renovated in the fourteenth century, it became much more elaborate. Its most distinctive feature is that it is not quadrangular, as is most "Mongolian" archi49 tecture, but cross-shaped. Additional "aristocratic cities" mentioned in the written sources, such as Chingai's city on the southern slopes of the Altai, and Bai Baliq on the Kerulen River, have yet to be located and investigated. Khara Khoto The city of Khara Khoto in Inner Mongolia was a major trade center throughout the mid-imperial period. It was also one of the larger cities of the Tangut or Hsi-Hsia state that dominated the Kansu corridor and the Ordos region from 990 until 1227. In consequence of Chinggis Khan's destruction of the Tanguts, Khara Khoto became part of the YUan dynasty and was still flour­ ishing, according to Marco Polo, in the last quarter of the thirteenth century. Sometime after the collapse of Mongol rule in China, Khara Khoto, or Etzina in Marco Polo's nomenclature, was abandoned and passed from the historical stage. In the early part of the twentieth century the city was rediscovered and described by several European travelers. P. K. Kozlov, the noted Russian explorer, conducted the most detailed investigations of this site. He led a

92

THOMAS T. ALLSEN

major expedition there in 1908 and again in 1926, this time, of course, under Soviet auspices. On each occasion much material was uncovered and sent back to European Russia, including texts in Tangut, Chinese, Jurchen, and Mongolian; artifacts; coins; etc. This material, currently housed in the Hermitage and L.O. IVAN, is now being subjected to scholarly scrutiny, and several interesting studies have already resulted.46 The investigations of E. I. Lubo-Lesnichenko have shown that in addition to its commercial activities, Khara Khoto functioned as an important crafts center. In fact, there is evidence that the artisans of Khara Khoto made a substantial contribution to the development of the blue and white porcelain ware that became so famous in the Ming period. In her study of the fragments of cups and dishes collected by Kozlov in 1908 and 1926, Lubo-Lesnichenko came to the conclusion that the earliest use of cobalt in porcelain can be traced to the Khara Khoto masters of the fourteenth century. The tone of these fragments is very uneven when compared with Ming examples, but this is only to be e je c te d since the technique at this time was still in an experi­ mental stage. 4 The numismatic finds at Khara Khoto are also of considerable interest. Kozlov recovered three specimens of the paper currency of the YUan era in the eastern section of the city, and Lubo-Lesnichenko has described these notes and discussed their inscriptions in some detail. The photographs accompanying the text will greatly facilitate the study of these extremely rare examples of Yiian currency for those who do not have access to the originals.45* Kozlov’s explorations established the presence of a Muslim community in Khara Khoto. This is, of course, not at all surprising, since Muslim merchants controlled the trans-Eurasian trade during the Mongol era, and Khara Khoto was astride one of the main commercial routes. In 1908 Kozlov described and photographed an Islamic mazar, or mauso­ leum, outside the southeast corner of the city wall. In 1962 a Soviet paleonto­ logical expedition again visited the site and returned with new measurements and additional photographs. According to G. A. Pugachenkova, who has scruti­ nized all of this material, the mausoleum, built of brick and plaster, follows an architectural style evolved in the Middle East in the eleventh and twelfth centuries and then spread into Central Asia in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries—further evidence of the Mongol era’s importance for the penetration of Islam into East Asia.46 The Yuan Frontier in the Yenesei While Chinese cultural and political influence was at times felt in the basin of the Yenesei, to the northwest of Mongolia, this area did not become an integral part of a China-based dynasty until the Yiian era. Inhabited for the

ARCHAEOLOGY AND MID-IMPERIAL HISTORY

93

most part by Turkish-speaking Kirgiz, the Yenesei was brought under Mongol control in the first decade of the thirteenth century. During the Yiian it was administered from Khara Khorum as a dependency of Ling-pei Province (Outer Mongolia). Little effort has been made outside the USSR to explore the medi­ eval history of the Yenesei, despite the fact that the sources contain frequent references to this area and its inhabitants during the Mongol era. The archaeo­ logy of the Yenesei basin has been intensely investigated in recent decades and has added much to our fund of information on this region. The only comprehensive account of the Yenesei in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries is the relevant chapter of L. R. Kyzlasov's monograph, The History of Tuva in the Middle Ages, which surveys the regions political, eco­ nomic, and cultural evolution during the century and a half of Mongolian rule.47 The Mongols' interest in Tuva, the southern Yenesei basin, can be explained by the availability there of various essential resources. In Kyzlasov's view, this region functioned as a colony supplying agricultural products and metal goods needed ' to fuel the empire's campaigns of conquest. To this end the Mongols established a series of "colonial cities" throughout the Yenesei, from which the exploitation of the local resources could be organized and directed.4® The remains of one such town, and, according to Kyzlasov, perhaps the administrative center of the entire region, are located on the Ulugh Kern, a main tributary of the Yenesei. The architectural style of its buildings shows clearly that this town was not one of the pre-existing native cities, but an outpost especially constructed by the Mongols following their conquest of the area.4® The ruins of another sizable center, known as Den-terek in the local tradi­ tion, are found also along Ulugh Kern. Oblong in shape, and measuring 625 meters by 200 meters, this town contains over 120 dwellings, including the court of the local governor, office buildings, metalworking shops, and resi­ dences. By Kyzlasov's calculations, the entire town was constructed in the first half of the thirteenth century.50 Additional sites have been investigated, including one built for Muslim merchants, who, as mentioned previously, played a prominent role in the economic life of the Mongol empire.51 Besides these urban centers, the Ytlan presence in the Yenesei can be detected in the burial mounds of the region.52 In these graves and in other sites as well, the products of Chinese craftsmen have been found in abundance. Lubo-Lesnichenko, for instance, has examined the mirrors imported into the area by the Yiian. So many have been recovered that it is possible to recon­ struct the main lines of the development of the decorative techniques. As a result of this influx of Chinese and other foreign decorative styles in the Mongol period, the local traditions in mirror making were considerably broadened.55

94

THOMAS T. ALLSEN

Conclusions The problem of the character, pace, and extent of acculturation has domi­ nated the study of dynasties of conquest. How fast and to what degree were the barbarians” transformed by their contact with the Chinese? Conversely, how was Chinese society affected by the foreign conquerors? Sinologists, of course, have long been concerned with these questions, but such questions also have relevance for others interested in the broad issues of social change. Obviously, to measure accurately the pace and extent of acculturation, one needs to know a great deal about the societies involved, both before and after contact. While information on China is relatively abundant, the same cannot be said for the ”other side.” This situation arises largely from the character of the written sources on which studies of conquest dynasties are based. The Chinese chronicles, which normally supply most of the data, often give a very distorted view of barbarian” life. In the first place, they provide little detail on the traditional culture of the northern peoples, and much of that is stereotyped. It is frequently the case that groups widely different in language, ethnic origins and socioeconomic organization are described in very similar terms. Secondly, what information is imparted concerns exclusively the activities of the ruling elite. In many instances, studies of cultural assimilation in foreign dynasties look at only a small, albeit important, segment of barbarian” society. Given the biases of the Chinese historians, it is difficult to obtain an accurate and balanced account of the society of the barbarian” peoples. To secure a more precise picture of the forces at work in conditions of foreign conquest, it is necessary to turn to the archaeological record in order to am­ plify and correct the literary sources. This record is vital for a number of reasons. By using these data it is possible to reconstruct in some detail the material and spiritual culture of the barbarian” conquerors in the precontact period. Only when a cultural baseline” is firmly established, can the assimila­ tion process be accurately measured. The construction of such a baseline is possible with archaeological data because a Jurchen or Mongolian artifact reflects Jurchen or Mongolian tastes and values, not Chinese, as the written records do. Further, the archaeological record permits an examination of the rate of acculturation of various social classes, not just the ruling elite. The literary sources frequently reveal the changing habits and attitudes of the tribal leaders in consequence of intense interaction with the Chinese, but what of the com­ mon herder or hunter? Most dynasties of conquest tried to maintain large ”tribal preserves” in their homeland from which they could recruit fresh levies unsullied by contact with the subject peoples. Again, archaeological data can make a major contribution to the determination of the long-term success of this policy of cultural isolation.

ARCHAEOLOGY AND MID-IMPERIAL HISTORY

95

What, then, does the archaeological record say in general terms about the problem of assimilation in the Chin and Yüan dynasties? Even from a cursory examination several points stand out. The Jurchens had a well-developed cultural tradition prior to intense contact with the Chinese. Moreover, these traditions in religion, art, metallurgy, etc., were derived from older regional cultures of North and Central Asia, and persisted long after the formation of the Chin dynasty. The Jurchens were not simply the primitive hunter-gatherers they are sometimes made out to be: the cultural distance between them and the Chinese was not so great as has been assumed. As regards the Yüan, it is clear from the archaeological evidence that the Mongols were influenced by a number of peoples, not only by the Chinese. It is questionable, for example, to take any movement toward a more settled form of existence as a sign of sinicization, since the Mongols were in contact with many developed sedentary societies, for example, the Uighurs and Central Asian Muslims. This stricture, of course, applies equally to other social changes. The adoption by the Mongols of cultural traits alien to their nomadic tradition should not automatically be attributed, as is often the case, to Chinese influence. It is possible to argue that the Soviet insistence that there was minimal Chinese penetration of the Amur region in the Middle Ages and that the Tungus and other groups in the area were therefore largely culturally independent of the Chinese, is in part motivated by a desire to counter Chinese territorial claims in Siberia. Furthermore, their claim that the cultural ties between the Tungus and, say, the Siberian Turks were continuous and intense prior to their incorporation into the Russian state can be viewed merely as an attempt to document the "historic unity" of the peoples of the USSR and to show that the present union of Soviet peoples is neither artificial nor unprecedented.54 Nevertheless, the archaeological data Soviet scholars produce rather forcefully support their basic argument that interaction and exchange among the autoch­ thonous populations of North and Central Asia were far more important in their cultural development than were borrowings from China. They overstate their case on occasion, but this is not sufficient grounds for dismissing their evidence. The Soviets, of course, are not the only source of archaeological informa­ tion on the Jurchens and Mongols: both the Chinese and Japanese have made substantial contributions to our knowledge of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia during the Chin and Yllan dynasties. Only when all of the archaeological data have been synthesized and compared with the documentary evidence will an accurate depiction of the social history of the non-Chinese dynasties be pos­ sible. Soviet archaeologists can be expected to play a prominent role in this process.

CHAPTER 7 The Yüan Elizabeth Endicott-West Any assessment of current Soviet scholarship on the Yuan period must take into account those ideological and political considerations which to some de­ gree affect Soviet scholarship and life as a whole. Briefly, these considerations may be enumerated as follows: the Marxist-Leninist schematization of history, the prevailing official Soviet attitude towards the People's Republic of China, and the protective, "elder brother" relationship of the Soviet Union with the Mongolian People's Republic. These ideological considerations establish the outermost limits of possible interpretation of YUan history in that Soviet schol­ ars do not openly challenge their fundamental validity. While adherence to these limits predictably results in some rigidly ideological writings, it has not precluded a high level of scholarship on the part of certain Soviet sinologists. The degree to which the tenets of Marxist historical science are applied to Yüan history differs widely among Soviet sinologists. As an example of two extremes, L. A. Borokova superimposes a strictly Marxist framework upon late Yüan events, while the writings of N. Ts. Munkuev on Yüan and non-YUan areas of China's history usually avoid reference to the works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. For instance, in the introduction to his translation of Wolfram Eberhard's Chinese Festivals, Munkuev chooses not to criticize "bourgeois" historiography of China, and instead praises the work of both Eberhard and Derk Bodde.1 In contrast, Borokova's The Uprising of the "Red Turbans" in China is interlaced with Marxist historical terminology, and consequently gives the impression of having been written as an ideological polemic rather than as a scholarly treatise.2 Most Soviet writings on the Yuan, however, fall between these two extremes. Soviet works published over the past twenty years on the period of Mongo­ lian rule of China generally acknowledge, but do not necessarily agree with, the theory of "nomadic feudalism" formulated by B. Ia. Vladimirtsov in his 1934 work, Social Structure of the Mongols: Mongolian Nomadic Feudalism.3 Vladimirtsov, an eminent Mongolist whose reputation as a scholar is well de­ served, presented in this book a theory of nomadic feudalism whereby the preconquest Mongols moved from the Marxist stage of primitive communal society to the stage of feudal society, bypassing the slave-holding stage. The

97

98

ELIZABETH ENDICOTT-WEST

concept of nomadic feudalism incorporates the idea of feudal control, or ownership, of both pastures and livestock. Control of pasturelands in a nomadic culture such as that of the thirteenth-century Mongols is seen as the equivalent of land ownership in a sedentary culture. There has been no consensus among Soviet scholars since Valdimirtsov's time concerning the basis of feudal rela­ tions among Inner Asian nomads, specifically over the question of whether feudalism manifested itself in the control of pastureland or of livestock. A few Soviet theoreticians have even rejected the applicability of the concept of land ownership among seasonally migrating nomads; Vladimirtsovfs theory of nomadic feudalism continues to influence Soviet writings on the Mongols of YUan times.4 The Mongols and the Sino-Soviet Rift The deterioration of the Soviet Union's relationship with China from the early 1960s until recently has had an important and obvious effect on Soviet Yuan studies. It can be argued that the quality of Soviet sinology has improved in periods of tension between the two nations. In times of Sino-Soviet friend­ ship the compulsion felt by Soviet scholars to repeat the point of view of Chinese historians has limited debate, while in periods of tension a broader spectrum of opinion has been permitted and criticism of Chinese historians1 work has been encouraged. Although the increase in the volume of work on the Yiian since the mid-1960s seems to indicate that the rift in Sino-Soviet rela­ tions has indeed benefited the development of Yuan studies, one must also be aware of the propagandists uses to which certain topics in Yuan history have been put. The issue of the role of Chinggis Khan and his armies in the formation of a "Mongolian state" in the early thirteenth century and the impact of those armies on both Asia and Europe have become a platform for denouncing Chi­ nese scholarship on the YUan and for accusing China of hegemonic ambitions in Outer Mongolia. An example of the propagandists use of the issue of Chinggis Khan's role in history appears in E. I. Kychanovfs 1973 book, The Life of Temiijin, Who Desired to Conquer the World. This otherwise informative, lively, and nonpropagandistic work, based on primary source material though directed at a popular audience, ends with a chapter entitled "Chinggis and His Legacy." This chapter gives the impression of having been tacked on by a zealous censor: it consists of an anti-Chinese diatribe which contrasts rather grotesquely with the sensitive nature of the previous chapters, which are sprinkled with quotations from Gorkii, Pushkin, and Blok. In this concluding chapter, Kychanov asks whether one hundred years of continuous wars of con­ quest were necessary in order to achieve the unification of the Mongolian people into a nation. His answer: "It cannot be doubted that had the strengths

THE YÜAN

99

of the newly formed Mongolian nation and the talent of the Mongolian people been directed not at wars of conquest through the fault of the ruling class, but rather at the working out of internal social-economic and cultural tasks, the Mongolian state would have achieved even more."6 Kychanov virulently criticizes post-1960 Chinese historiography on Chinggis Khan and the Yiian as a whole. He writes that Peking since 1960 has praised Chinggis Khan out of "mercenary motives" and that expansionist desires have led PRC historians to declare that the Ytian was a period of the unifica­ tion of China and of a "pan-Asiatic" formation. Kychanov denies that in terms of "historical progress" the wars of Chinggis Khan had any justification, and berates the Chinese for celebrating the eight-hundredth birthday of Chinggis Khan in 1962. For obvious reasons, Kychanov does not mention that TömörOchir, a member of the Party Politburo in the Mongolian Peopled Republic, led a nationwide celebration of Chinggis Khan!s birthday in 1962, and through overt pressures exerted by the Soviet Union was purged the same year for doing so.6 Kychanov's only specific reference in his final chapter to the work of a PRC scholar is to a "broadly propagandistic article" by Han Ju-lin. Although Kychanov does not cite the title of Han Ju-lin's article, it is almost certainly the same piece which N. Ts. Munkuev praised in his article, "On the question of the economic condition of Mongolia and China in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries," published in 1965.7 The prevailing Soviet view of contemporary PRC historiography on the Yiian has been set down by S. L. Tikhvinsky, who is the editor of both editions (1970, 1977) of the volume, Tatar-Mongols in Asia and Europe. In his introduc­ tory article in the 1977 edition, Tikhvinsky asserts that before 1961 Chinese historians were unified in their correct assessment of the period of the Mongo­ lian conquest as a period of the great suffering of the Chinese people under a "foreign yoke." Since 1961, however, a réévaluation of Mongolian rule in China has been undertaken by various Chinese historians, the result being an attempt to characterize the Mongolian conquest of China as beneficial to China's politi­ cal unification, the development of trade, transport, and inter-Asian cultural contacts. Tikhvinsky accuses Chinese historians of deliberately falsifying the boundaries of YUan China in recent historical maps so as to include Eastern Turkestan and Central Asia, and writes that, "as is well known, these regions constituted territory of the independent Mongolian state, formed in 1264 by the nephew of Ögödei, Khaidu, who headed the anti-Khubilai coalition of descen­ dants of Ögödei and Chaghatai and who had absolutely no relation to Yuan China."6 As though this hint at Chinafs hegemonic ambitions were not clear enough, Tikhvinsky writes (p. 19): The experience of history inevitably bears witness to the fact that all conquests and wild plans of "world domination" in the end are doomed to ignominious failure; however, they bring innumerable calamities

100

ELIZABETH ENDICOTT-WEST

and destruction to people, each time setting humanity back several centuries. The peoples of the world in our time must be vigilant and not allow the possibility of a repetition. Tikhvinsky's accusation that PRC historians have deliberately ignored the negative effects of the Mongolian conquest of China, while using Yüan history as a means of proving China's territorial claims in Central Asia, stands as only one part of his overall thesis that PRC historians purposefully have distorted the history of all non-Han dynasties of conquest in China. In a 1975 article, which reviews PRC historiography since the mid-1950s, entitled "Great Han hegemonism and publications on historical themes in the PRC," Tikhvinsky excoriates Chinese historians for their supposed claim that all lands upon which Chinese troops fought over the past two thousand years should be regarded as part of present-day Chinai Tikhvinsky also sees "Great Han hegemonism" in the alleged attempt by PRC historians to portray non-Han peoples, such as the Manchus, who resided in lands which at one time or another came under the aegis of a dynasty of conquest, as in fact Chinese. Symptomatic of "Great Han hegemonism," according to Tikhvinsky, is the elevation of "those figures who were able to strengthen the spirit of Great Han pride," such as Han Kao-tsu, Han Wu-ti, Ts'ao Ts'ao, and the T'ang Empress, Wu Tse-t'ien. Also praised by PRC historians are "cruel conquerors" such as Chinggis Khan, Khubilai Khan, and the Ch'ing K'ang-hsi Emperor. In a classic example of the proverbial pot calling the kettle black, Tikhvinsky criticizes "the attempt of the Maoists to utilize historical science for the unseemly purposes of political struggle with [their] adversaries." Lest the reader be confused concerning the identity of these adversaries, Tikhvinsky repeatedly refers to the "fanning of malicious anti-Sovietism" and the "fanning of anti-Soviet hysteria" by the Maoist leadership. He concludes his article with the statement that the "Soviet people" are confident that socialism will triumph in China, and that "historical science in the PRC, having overcome bourgeois nationalism, will once again develop on the basis of Marxist-Leninist methodology." The Mongolian People's Republic The Soviet policy of playing the role of "elder brother" both to the ethnic minorities within the USSR and to Soviet bloc countries such as the Mongolian People's Republic (MPR) has determined the limits of historical interpretation allowed those peoples. Because MPR historians often write in Russian and publish articles in Soviet journals, their scholarly output merits mention. Since the incipient celebration of Chinggis Khan's eight-hundredth birthday in the MPR was abruptly ended under Soviet pressure in 1962, MPR historians have fallen in line by negating Chinggis Khan's actual role in the process of the

THE YÜAN

101

formation of a Mongolian "state” or "empire” even more emphatically than their Soviet counterparts. Bazaryn Shirendev, the president of the Mongolian Peopled Revolutionary Party, writing in the July 1968 issue of the Soviet journal, Party Life, denounced contemporary Chinese historiography of Mongolia: Chinese historians, from their great-power position, especially em­ phasize the racial kinship and religious ties of the Chinese-Manchu emperors with the Mongolian khans. The historian Han Ju-lin in his article, "Concerning Chinggis Khan," writes about the campaigns of Chinggis Khan essentially as a positive phenomenon, emphasizing that these campaigns supposedly furthered the drawing together of the peoples of conquered countries. Marxist scholars view the campaigns of Chinggis Khan and his successors as predatory and reactionary.10 Shirendev, like the majority of eminent historians in the MPR, received his candidate's degree at IVAN. The characteristic absence of any Mongolian nationalist undertones and the cautious wording of statements concerning Chinggis Khan and other Mongolian historical personages reflect the degree to which Mongolian historical scholarship is subservient to Soviet policy. Sh. Natsagdorzh, another prominent Moscow-trained Mongolian historian, described Chinggis Khan's historical role in a paper presented at the Second International Congress of Mongolists in 1972: In examining the complex problems concerning the formation of a unified Mongolian state, we have arrived at the conclusion that the creation of a Mongolian feudal state was in no way a product of its founder, but was a product of the "historical laws" [ zakonomernosti] of the internal development of Mongolian society itself. . . . In de­ termining the role and place of the creator of the Mongolian state, Chinggis Khan, in the history of Mongolia, we believe that the activi­ ties of Temiijin previous to the formation of a unified state bore a progressive character. His later political activities in the period of his conquest of neighboring countries assumed a particularly reactionary character.11 Despite the coolness of relations between the PRC and the MPR since 1964, MPR scholars have continued to research and publish in certain areas related to Yüan history, specifically: ethnographic origins of the Mongolian people; archaeology of the Khitans and Mongols on MPR territory; the social history of the steppe in Yüan times; interpretation of the thirteenth-century Secret History of the Mongols; and phonetic restitution of the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Mongolian language. A recent article written in Russian, "Mongolian-Chinese relations (thirteenth through fifteenth century)," by the Mongolian scholar, O. Chuluun, exhibits a solid command of a wide range of

102

ELIZABETH ENDICOTT-WEST

Yüan-period Chinese sources, including the difficult colloquial documents in the Vung-chih t’iao-ko and the Yüan tien-chang. The seriousness of MPR scholarly interest in East Asian and Central Asian history is reflected in the fact that an Institute of Oriental Studies was established under the jurisdiction of the MPR Academy of Sciences in 1968, and since 1978 the institute has published an annual journal, Problems in Oriental Studies, in Mongolian.12 The Preconquest Mongols Soviet historical writing on the Yuan is different from Soviet scholarship on other Chinese dynasties because the Mongols, after all, conquered the Russian principalities in the thirteenth century and are therefore also a part of Russian history. The fact that Russian historians have a vested interest in such questions as the cultural and economic levels of the thirteenth- and fourteenthcentury Mongolian people affects their treatment of certain issues in the realms of history and archaeology. In examining the peculiar emphases of Soviet scholarship on the history of the preconquest Mongols, one finds that it is characteristic of Soviet scholar­ ship on conquest dynasties to describe the preconquest social structure, eco­ nomic means of livelihood, and culture of those non-Han peoples who ruled China. The field of ethnogenesis, a well-developed discipline in Soviet aca­ demics, attempts to solve the puzzle of the ethnic origins of peoples. Atten­ tion in Soviet sinology has been focused on the origins of four conquest peoples who ruled parts or all of China from the tenth through the fourteenth centuries. E. I. Kychanov has addressed the question of the origins of the Tangut people ("On the problem of Tangut ethnogenesis"), M. V. Vorob’ev has investigated the origins of the Jurchen tribes ("Economy and daily life of the Jurchens before the formation of the Chin dynasty"), Kh. Perlee, an MPR scholar, has written on early Khitan cities ("Khitan cities and settlements in the territory of the Mongolian Peopled Republic, tenth through early twelfth centuries"), and L. L. Viktorova has investigated both the Khitans and the earlv Mongolian tribes (The Mongols: Origins of the People and Sources of Culture), In terms of the preconquest history of the Mongolian tribes, no break­ through has been achieved in Soviet ethnographic studies in pinpointing the existence and geographic location of the Mongolian tribes before Chinggis Khan’s time. L. L. Viktorova, a specialist in the field of Mongolian ethno­ genesis, has written that the problem of isolating an ancient Mongolian ethnic and linguistic group "remains unresolved."14 Viktorova’s work on the prethirteenth-century Mongols is strengthened by her extensive use of data from Soviet and Mongolian archaeological expeditions, but the total absence of Chinese-language primary sources, which are invaluable for early Mongolian history, from the bibliography of her recent book on Mongolian ethnogenesis points to a weakness in the use of written materials.

THE YÜAN

103

Other treatments of the preconquest Mongols can be found in the works of the archaeologists Kh. Perlee, S. V. Kiselev, and V. L. Egorov. They have attempted to revise earlier notions of the preconquest Mongols as completely nomadic tribes by concentrating on Khitan and early Mongolian city-building activities. Kh. Perlee stresses that both written and archaeological sources attest to the existence of many cities in Mongolia in the period of Khitan sovereignty. Buddhist carvings found on the walls of two pagodas in the city of Bars-khot I, according to Perlee, reflect the closeness of Khitan art to Mongo­ lian art, and this closeness, in turn, supports the theory of the same general origins of the two peoples.15 Perlee writes that the Khitans, as ancestors of the Mongols, must not be viewed as exclusively nomadic, since early Khitan settlements contain evidence that agriculture was practiced. S. V. Kiselev and L. A. Evtiukhova, in their description of the court of Khara Khorum, point out the existence of a permanent grain market, local agriculture, and the virtual absence of wild animal bones in the thirteenthcentury ruins of the city as evidence of the sedentary, urbanized level of Mon­ golian life at that time.15 As V. L. Egorov stresses in his article, "The reasons for the rise of cities among the Mongols in the thirteenth through fourteenth centuries,” Soviet scholars have rejected the idea that the economy of the Mongols was based solely on nomadic herding, and have come to the conclusion that a mixture of nomadic and settled elements existed in early thirteenthcentury Mongolian society.17 While the archaeological data stand as firm evidence, this emphasis on the advanced nature of Mongolian society may also serve another purpose. One possible reason why so much has been published concerning the early urban culture of the Mongols is that the destruction and two-century-long subjugation of the Russian principalities by a semiurbanized, culturally advanced people is more acceptable to Russian national sensitivities than their destruction and subjugation by pastoral, yurt-dwelling nomads. This may in part explain the overwhelming emphasis in Soviet ethnographic and archaeological literature on the advanced aspects of the culture and economy of the preconquest Mongols. Sinologists and Mongolists A traditional characteristic of Russian oriental studies (vostokovedenie) that predates the Soviet period but has continued to exist to the present is that the great majority of Russian specialists on East Asian history read either Mongolian or Chinese, but not both.18 Lack of knowledge of Mongolian is a drawback in treating the history of the Yiian period since the two most impor­ tant compilations of Yuan official documents and legal codes—the Vung-chih t'iao-ko (Code of comprehensive institutions) and the Yiian tien-chang (Institu­ tions of the Yiian dynasty)—contain colloquial Yilan-period Chinese, which incorporates Mongolian syntax. The language of these documents has been

104

ELIZABETH ENDICOTT-WEST 19

characterized as ”a sort of translationese Chinese in Mongolian word order.” Indeed, many Yiian imperial decrees were originally written in Mongolian and translated into Chinese at the Mongolian Han-lin Academy. Among those early, well-known Russian orientalists whose work was based completely on Chinese source material were N. Ia. Bichurin (1777-1853), who used Chinese sources for the writing of Mongolian history, and P. I. Kafarov (Arkhimandrit Palladii, 1817-78), who translated the Secret History of the Mongols from Chinese into Russian.20 Among those who used the translated Mongolian-language source material without reference to Chinese were la. I. Shmidt (1779-1847), who published a German translation of the Erdeni-yin tobchi in 1829 and the first grammar of the Mongolian language in 1831; A. M. Pozdneev (1851-1920), the first director of the Eastern Institute in Vladivostok; and the eminent Mongolist, B. Ia. Vladimirtsov (1884-1931). One very notable exception to this traditional characteristic of Russian oriental studies was Academician V. P. Vasil'ev (1818-1900), who worked in many languages includ­ ing Mongolian, Chinese, Manchu, Tibetan, and several Turkic languages.21 This rather rigid dichotomy between sinologists on the one hand and Mongolists on the other also exists among pre-Soviet and Soviet Buriat scholars. Since the mid-nineteenth century, when Dorzhi Banzarov (1822-55), the first university-educated Buriat researcher of Central Asian history, was active, Buriat scholars have been at the forefront of the fields of Central Asian and Mongolian history, religion, and philology. Few if any of these scholars, how­ ever, were trained in Chinese language or history. Over the past fifteen years, the Buriat city of Ulan-Ude has become a Soviet center of oriental studies, with the organization of a Siberian Depart­ ment of the Academy of Sciences, of which the Buriat branch (filial) was founded in 1966.22 Under the jurisdiction of the Buriat branch is the Buriat Institute of Social Sciences, which has a Department of Oriental Studies. Central Asian research at the Department of Oriental Studies is divided into three sectors: Tibetan studies, Mongolian studies, and Buddhology. hi the sector of Mongolian studies, research is devoted to three distinct areas: the study of Mongolian sources, the study of the history of the culture of the Mon­ gols from earliest times to the present, and the study of Russian-Mongolian relations especially in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The Mongolian Collection of the Manuscript Division of the Buriat Institute of Social Sciences has very rich holdings in the history and law of Buriatia and Mongolia.23 Per­ haps because of the absence of a department of Chinese studies at the Buriat Institute of Social Sciences, Buriat scholars such as N. Ts. Munkuev and S. D. Dylykov, whose areas of interest extend to East Asia, are affiliated with IVAN in Moscow. An examination of the 1977 edition of Tatar-Mongols in Asia and Europe shows the extent of the dichotomy between sinologists and Mongolists today.

THE YUAN

105

Of the nineteen Soviet contributors (not counting Sh. Sandag and Ch. Dalai who are citizens of the MPR), only two, N. P. Shastina and N. Ts. Munkuev, use Mongolian-language primary and secondary sources. Shastina, whose specialty is seventeenth-century Mongolian chronicles, apparently does not read Chinese. Only Munkuev has succeeded in merging the traditionally exclusive disciplines of sinology and Mongolian studies through his wide-ranging use of Chinese and Mongolian sources. One of the most important developments in Soviet Yiian studies has been the publication of annotated translations of Chinese and Mongolian sources into Russian. Most of these translations have appeared in the series, Monuments of Literature of the East (Seriia "Pamiatniki pis'mermosti vostoka"); of special interest to Western sinologists and Mongolists are N. P. Shastina's 1973 trans­ lation of the Altan tobchi, and N. Ts. Munkuev's 1975 translation, accompanied by facsimile text, of a Sung dynasty envoy's recollections of his travels among the Mongols, the Meng-ta pei-Iu.2^ Munkuev has also published a translation of the first half of another early thirteenth-century description of the Mongols, the Hei-ta shih-lüeh.25 Depth of Research When one examines various themes within Soviet Yiian studies, one finds that those sinologists who write on Yiian intellectual, social, economic, and military history are not, for the most part, YUan "specialists.” For example, Stanislaw Kuczera, a Pole who lives in Moscow and is affiliated with IVAN, is the only sinologist who has written on intellectual developments in the YUan period. Kuczera has referred to his interest in the YUan as only a "hobby”—his main field is Chinese archaeology. Even so, Kuczerafs suggested periodization of the cultural history of the YUan merits attention.26 In period one, Kuczera portrays the Mongols as "simple," "primitive" people interested only in the subjugation of China; the bright spots in this period were the first attempts to organize a National College (1234) and the introduction of state examinations (1237) under Ögödei. In the second period, coterminous with Khubilai's reign, Kuczera sees the process of "sinification" of the Mongolian rulers (an inevitable and positive process in his opinion) as evidenced by the partial restoration of the education system. Kuczera designates period three, coterminous with the reign of the Emperor Jen-tsung (1311-20), as the apogee of the process of sinification and as the turning point in the cultural history of the Yuan, when the systems of state schools and examinations were restored. Period four consists of the fall of the YUan and the attendant disintegration of educational institutions. One wishes that Kuczera had probed more deeply into the actual workings of the examination system during the reign of the Emperor Jen-tsung. For

106

ELIZABETH ENDICOTT-WEST

instance, did the examination system, even at its best in the Yüan, bear a close relationship to the system of appointment of officials, or did the Mongols favor so-called irregular means of appointment such as the use of the hereditary y in privilege? Although Kuczera outlines the existence of separate examinations for Chinese on the one hand and Mongols and se-mu-jen (Western and Central Asians) on the other, he does not explore the implications of separate examinations for the appointment of officials. All in all, the examination system of the Yüan dynasty was one of the least important institutions of the period. Even when it did function, it bore little resemblance to the examina­ tion systems of Chinese dynasties, a fact largely overlooked by Kuczera. It is questionable, then, whether the reinstitution of examinations should be viewed as symbolic of the successful Unification” of the Mongols. Kuczera has also contributed an article on the thirteenth-century Mongo­ lian conquest of Tibet to the volume, Tatar-Mongols in Asia and Europe. In this article, Kuczera, on the basis of Chinese sources, writes that, ”In the fifties [1250s], during the rule of Mongke Khan, Tibet was once and for all included in the Mongolian empire, as the concrete and well-dated information in Chinese sources bears witness.”2^ A recent article on the same topic, based on Tibetan primary sources, concludes, on the contrary, that there was no Mongolian inva­ sion of Tibet proper in the 1250s and that the first steps to impose Mongolian rule on Tibet were taken in 1264, the year the 'Phags-pa Lama returned home to Tibet from Khubilafs court.28 An excellent article by the eminent Russian Tibetologist, lu. N. Roerich, published in 1958, also describes ”the development of treaty relations” between Tibet and the Mongolian khans in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.29 Using Tibetan primary sources, Roerich points out that the Mongols never conquered Tibet outright with a full-scale military campaign, but that the heads of the great Tibetan monasteries entered into a mutually manipulative relationship with the Mongolian rulers. The complexities of Mongolian foreign relations with Tibet have largely been ignored by Kuczera, who, not availing himself of Tibetan sources to reconstruct political patronage relationships, focuses on Tibet through the eyes of Chinese sources as though Tibet were a unified political entity, headed by one unchallenged authority, the ’Phags-pa Lama. Just as Kuczerafs chapter in Tatar-Mongols in Asia and Europe treats the initial period of the Mongolian conquest of Tibet without reference to the later development of relations between Yuan China and Tibet, so two other chapters in the same volume concentrate on the early period of Mongolian campaigns into Korea and Southeast Asia. Both A. A. Bokshchanin's chapter on the Mongolian incursions into Southeast Asia and V. M. Serov's chapter on the Korean campaign are descriptive rather than analytical pieces. They empha­ size the immediate devastation that the Mongols wrought rather than the

THE YUAN

107

long-range impact of the Mongolian presence, both in terms of the affected countries* social-political order, and in terms of YUan China*s postinvasion foreign relations with those countries.3® Among the obvious deficiencies in Soviet YUan studies is the dearth of research into the domestic situation in China under the Mongols. Research into YUan society, economy, and regional-local administration has suffered, while the history of the Mongolian expeditions in Asia has received the lion*s share of attention. Munkuev, for example, has pointed out the lack of attention given to the question of the forms of exploitation and the situation of the peasantry in the "appanages" of the Mongolian aristocracy in North China.31 Virtually all research on YUan administration has focused on the metropol­ itan bureaucracy in Ta-tu, the capital, while ignoring the workings of regional and local government. This focus has, to some extent, been determined by the Soviet sinologists* heavy dependence upon officially authorized dynastic his­ tories, such as the Yuan shih, while the so-called informal sources in Chinese historiography, such as the wen-chi (literary collections), pi-chi (miscellaneous jottings of scholars), and ti-fang chih (regional gazetteers), all of which repre­ sent important repositories of social history for the Yuan period, are seldom used.32 This failure to consult informal sources is due in part to the fact that most Soviets who write on YUan history are not Yuan specialists and therefore do not have the time or motivation to become well acquainted with a wide range of sources. Limitations in library holdings in the field of YUan history, owing to budgetary restrictions, also may account for the unfamiliarity of some Soviet historians with YUan sources. One example of an attempt to analyze YUan social history is an article by L. I. Duman on the "agrarian policies of the Mongolian feudal lords.’*33 Duman's specialties include Sinkiang in the eighteenth century and the history of Chinese relations with the Hsien-pei and Khitans from the third to the eleventh centuries. Many of his observations on YUan social history in this article are highly debatable. For instance, Duman believes (p. 344) that agrarian structure during the YUan was in essence no different from previous periods, except for a redistri­ bution of land which favored the Mongolian aristocracy’s interests. Concerning the "appanage system" (sistema udelov), Duman writes (p. 344) that, **. . . the Mongolian feudal lords completely borrowed this form of land ownership, as also [they borrowed] others, which had existed in China before the arrival of the conquerors." Duman’s failure to ascribe this practice to the Mongols* pastoral, nomadic society is surprising since N. Ts. Munkuev, in a review article written in 1958, described the system of allotment of population and territory used by the preconquest Mongols.34 G. V. Melikhov in his article, ’The estab­ lishment of the power of the Mongolian feudal lords in northeast China," also recognizes the Mongolian origins of this practice during the YUan.35

108

ELIZABETH ENDICOTT-WEST

In contrast to Duman's supposition of Chinese origins of Mongolian forms of princely landholding, A. A. Bokshchanin, in a brief overview of the "appanage system'1 in Chinese history, writes that "the appanage system in the period of Mongolian domination in China . . . was produced not so much by earlier Chinese customs, as by the introduction into the conquered country of a rela­ tionship formed in Mongolian society."^ Yet, both Duman and Bokshchanin claim that the central government in Yiian times maintained fiscal and admini­ strative control over the ''appanages.'' On the contrary, there is abundant evidence in both the Yiian dynastic history (Yiian shih) and in the Yiian tienchang that imperial princes in their allotted territories were allowed to rec­ ommend people for office within their territories, and that the top officials, the ta-lu-hua-ch'ih (Mongolian darughachi) and the judges (jarghuchi) of the es, were appointed by the appanage-holders, not by the central governConspicuous in Duman's article is the complete absence of references to the extensive Japanese secondary literature on YUan landholding and agricul­ ture. Again, in his discussion of the growth of slavery during the Yiian, Duman fails to tap the great reservoir of Japanese secondary literature. Duman's apparent unfamiliarity with Japanese is symptomatic of a major problem in Soviet sinology as a whole—the lack of emphasis on Japanese language training and the consequent inability to consult the well-developed sinological literature of Japan. In addition to the limited use of modern Japanese scholarship, Soviet works on Yiian social history tend to overlook key Western scholarship. For example, the above-mentioned article by G. V. Melikhov undoubtedly would have been strengthened had he referred to the fifty-four-page article by Igor de Rachewiltz, published in 1966, on the same topic.^® Melikhov's expertise in Chinese history rests in the Ch'ing period. Another example of a deficient bibliography appears in L. A. Borovkova's book, The Rebellion of the "Red TurbansP in China (1971). Her bibliography lists twenty-seven British, American, French, and German works, only three of which were published later than 1962. Most Soviet sinologists command a reading knowledge of English, if not also of French or German. Therefore, failure to consult Western secondary literature on China probably reflects limited access. The Rebellion of the "Red Turbans" in China is one of the few book-length treatments of an aspect of YUan social history. In the preface, Borovkova writes that the purpose of her book is to reconstruct the general course of events during the late YUan rebellions, and that, understandably, the source materials have determined what questions can be addressed. This book is accurate and useful as a summary of events in the late YUan. In terms of

THE YÜAN

109

historical analysis, however, Borovkova's main finding, stated simply, is that the late Yuan rebellions caused the fall of the Yiian. The specific underlying causes of the rebellions themselves are never explored, unless one gives cre­ dence to her vague thesis of a welling up of "emancipationist” and "patriotic” sentiments among the Chinese people against their Mongolian rulers. The Yiian dynasty survived hundreds of rebellions from its very inception; according to a recent work on the Yiian military, in the year 1283 more than two hundred groups of "bandits” existed in South China, and in 1289 more than four hundred incidents are documented.39 To understand why the Yuân government could not withstand the pressures of rebellion in the 1350s and 1360s, while surviving similar pressures earlier in the dynasty, requires an analysis of such factors as the Yuan military command structure, the regional garrison system, and the state of the economy, all factors which Borovkova neglects to discuss in any depth. YUan military organization and technology have received more atten­ tion in the works of S. A. Shkoliar, a specialist in medieval Chinese weaponry who has also written on the Sung and Chin (see chapter 5).*° Both Borovkova's book and her 1977 article on the Red Turban rebellions are hampered by the shrill ideological tone that she adopts.41 As a refutation of the views of PRC historians, who focus on class interests as decisive in the late Yiian rebellions, she repeatedly states that anti-Mongolian sentiments, especially among the North Chinese peasantry, constituted the decisive stimu­ lus to revolt. To picture the Chinese peasantry as focusing its anger into a rebellion directed only at the Mongols, and not at the collectively ruling and exploiting group of Chinese, Mongols, and Central Asians, is to ascribe to the fourteenth-century Chinese people notions of race and nation that simply did not exist. One may argue that the traditional Chinese criterion for determining whether an individual was one of them or not was cultural (acceptance of Chinese culture), not racial or national.42 Borovkova apparently is imposing Chinese nationalistic feelings of the late Ch'ing and early twentieth century upon the fourteenth-century Chinese. An offshoot of Soviet research on the Yiian is the use of the Yiian dynastic history for ethnographic information on the history of various Turkic peoples. In 1963, E. I. Kychanov contributed an article based on the Yiian shih, on the thirteenth-century migrations of the Kirgiz.43 More recently, A. Sh. Kadyrbaev of the Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography in Kazakhstan has examined the biographies of prominent Yiian-period Qangli, Qarluq, and Qipchaq in the Yiian shih and the Hsin Yiian shih. In one short article he portrays a "ruling class” composed of the Mongolian nobility and Western and Central Asians, and outlines the way in which ethnically Turkic individuals mastered aspects of Chinese civilization while also contributing administrative know-how to the Yiian leadership.44

110

ELIZABETH ENDICOTT-WEST

Conclusions The Yüan is a remarkable period in Chinese history in that scholars—both Soviet and non-Soviet—have been unable to agree on the basic functions of certain social and political institutions or on a periodization of the dynasty. Periodization of the Yuan has not been acknowledged as a topic of debate among Soviet scholars; yet it is obvious that wide differences of opinion exist concerning even the formal beginning and end dates of the dynasty. For example, three writers offer six variations on the dates of the YUan. Kuczera settles on 1280 to 1368. Borokova in her book decides on 1270 to 1368, but in her article designates 1271 to 1368. Munkuev in separate articles offers three variations: 1215 to 1388, 1206 to 1388, and 1260 to 1388. It is interesting that Munkuev chooses 1388 as the date of the fall of the Yüan, rather than 1368, which is the conventional date; 1388 is the year of the death of Ayushiridara, who ruled the Yüan court in exüe in Khara Khorum after the Mongols had been expelled from Ta-tu in 1368.45 As has been shown above,the emphasis in Soviet YUan studies has rested on the preconquest period and the initial period of the Mongolian campaigns of conquest in Asia. When the long-range effects of Mongolian rule in China are mentioned in Soviet literature, they are universally deemed negative and are not examined in appreciable depth. Thus, the social and economic history of Yüan China is one of the least-researched areas within Soviet Yüan studies as a whole. The prerevolutionary Russian tradition of sinology, which favored the translation and annotation of important primary source material, has lived on in the work of N. Ts. Munkuev. In fact, Munkuev may be seen as an heir not only to the rich tradition of Russian oriental studies but also of the Western tradi­ tion as embodied in the works of Paul Pelliot, Antoine Mostaert, and Francis W. Cleaves. Munkuev!s thoroughly researched description and meticulously anno­ tated translation into English of a fourteenth-century Mongolian tablet of authority (p'ai-tzu) found near Simferopol exemplify the very highest level of achievement not only in Soviet Yuan studies but in Soviet sinology as a whole.*6 As a Buriat scholar, Munkuev also exemplifies the best of traditional Buriat historical and phüological scholarship. Unlike Buriat scholars of previous generations, however, Munkuev does use Chinese sources, and has successfully integrated the study of Mongolian history with the study of Chinese history. Munkuev's contribution of articles to Western journals and collections has made his work somewhat accessible to Western sinologists and Mongolists.47 Thus, despite the ideological considerations that make the study of the history of the Mongols in China a difficult topic for many Soviet sinolo­ gists, scholarship of a very high calibre has appeared.

CHAPTER 8 The Early Ming Elizabeth Endicott-West The history of the early Ming dynasty is more open to debate for Soviet sinologists than is the history of the Yiian. Perhaps because the Mongolian conquests in Asia and Europe are considered an ideologically sensitive area, there is not a wide range of opinion among Soviet historians concerning issues in Yiian history. In contrast, widely conflicting interpretations of the signifi­ cance of the late Yiian rebellions and the establishment of the Ming, of the reign of the first Ming emperor, Chu Yiian-chang (Ming T'ai-tsu), and of the direction of agrarian policy in the early Ming attest to the liveliness of debate on Ming China. A fluidity of interpretation is shown, for instance, by L. A. Borovkova!s revision between 1961 and 1979 of her opinion of Ming T'ai-tsu's reign. Inter­ pretations of court politics, social history, and economic trends have not jelled into an orthodox position. Soviet scholars writing on the Ming have generally concentrated on the following issues: the late Yiian rebellions and Chu YUanchang's rise; the civil war of 1399-1402 and the problem of the feudatory princes; patterns of landholding; Ming overseas foreign relations; Buddhism; and historiography (B. G. Doroninfs work). The high level of Soviet interest in early Ming history, especially the reign of Chu Yiian-chang (1368-98), is reflected in the recent translation from Chinese into Russian of Wu Hanfs classic biography of the first Ming ruler.1 The Late Yiian Rebellions L. A. BorovkovaTs interpretation of the late Yiian rebellions as primarily peasant revolts sparked by anti-Mongolian nationalistic sentiment has been discussed in the previous chapter. Borovkova, in her 1971 book, The Uprising of the "Red TurbansV in China, and in two articles on the rise of Chu Yiian-chang, has examined the origins, leadership, and goals of the Red Turbans in Hao-chou (Anhui province). She writes that, although the early rebel leaders were peas­ ants, the leadership rapidly passed into the hands of ?,representatives of the ruling class, such as Kuo Tzu-hsing, and then Chu Yiian-chang, who surrounded themselves with feudal lords as advisers, especially scholar-Confucians."2

Ill

112

ELIZABETH ENDICOTT-WEST

Borovkova sees the "feudal degeneration on the part of the rebel leadership headed by Chu Yüan-chang" as occurring at the very beginning of the Red Turban movement. Despite the support of the Chinese peasantry during the years 1355-63, Chu Yiian-changfs insurgent government proceeded to levy land and commercial taxes which were often higher than those levied by the Yüan government. In an extremely unsympathetic portrayal of Chu Yüan-chang’s motives, Borovkova’s book depicts the future Ming emperor as duping the peasantry by redirecting the thrust of popular uprisings exclusively against the Yüan dynasty, and away from the target of feudal exploitation. "The formation of a Chinese state," according to Borovkova, was the goal of all the rebel groups—those of Liu Fu-t’ung, Chfen Yu-liang, and Chang Shih-ch'eng. A major difference between Liu Fu-t'ung and Chu Yüan-chang, in her opinion, is that the former fought against both Mongolian and Chinese "feudal lords," while the latter fought only against the "Mongolian yoke."'* An example of the debates which occur among Soviets who write on the Ming can be found in N. P. Svistunova’s comments on Borovkova’s article, "The uprising of the ’Red Turbans’ and the rise of Chu Yüan-chang," (1961). Svistunova criticizes Borovkova’s conclusion that the only significance of the late Yuan rebellions lay in their success in preparing the way for Chu Yüanchang’s expulsion of the Mongols and his unification of the country.* In her article Borovkova had cast the rebel Chu Yüan-chang’s land reforms in a some­ what cynical light, viewing them as only a device to ensure the peasantry’s support.5 Svistunova, who often uses the adjective "progressive" in describing Chu Yüan-chang’s imperial reign, believes that "one of the basic results of the antifeudal, anti-Mongolian wars was the expansion of free-peasant property rights," and that this expansion was a part of an agrarian policy which attempted to safeguard the lives, property, and land of peasants from the encroachment of the "aristocracy" and officials. According to Svistunova, Chu Yüan-chang was motivated in part by his desire to prevent free peasants from entering into a tenant relationship with large landowners, since it was to the government's benefit to weaken the power of large landowners and also to keep peasants as taxpayers. Svistunova's use of the phrase "free peasantry" has been criticized by O. E. Nepomnin, who has argued that since peasants in the Ming did not have the right to leave their villages and were legally attached to the land, such a category did not exist.6 In contrast to Borovkova’s description of the late YUan rebellions as na­ tionalistic and anti-Mongolian in tone, Svistunova emphasizes peasant griev­ ances against unfair taxation during the Yüan as a major cause of rebellion. Although Svistunova believes in the existence of a nationalistic current in the overthrow of the Yüan, she favors an economic, class-oriented interpretation, labelling the rebellions "a classic example of a victorious mass-peasant move­ ment." In the introduction to her book, Svistunova provides a useful overview and fair appraisal of the works of PRC historians on early Ming history, most of

THE EARLY MING

113

whom support an economic interpretation of the late Yüan rebellions. In 1969, as the Sino-Soviet split grew more intense, Borovkova began a review of Svistunovafs book with a stinging diatribe against recent PRC scholarship on medieval Chinese history. Borovkova disputes Svistunova's analysis of the late Yiian rebellions, calling the rebellions "a classic example of the use of a peas­ ant movement by feudal lords for the attainment of their own goals—the seizure of political power and the expulsion of foreign conquerors.”® The sharp tone of criticism that marks Borovkova's review of Svistunova's book also prevails in O. E. Nepomnin’s article, "The social reality of the agrarian policy of the Ming dynasty (second half of the fourteenth century)."® Nepomnin questions Svist unova's description of the late Yiian rebellions as "antifeudal" and "peasant" in nature, pointing out that the peasants suffered terribly in the last decades of the Yiian. Yet, Nepomnin does not offer an alternate interpretation. The Policies of the Ming Founder Closely linked to the problem of the late Yiian rebellions in Soviet histor­ iography is the issue of Chu Yiian-chang's policies towards powerful landlords on the one hand and the peasantry on the other. N. P. Svistunova, who has concentrated on early Ming landholding in several articles and in her book on agrarian policy, has generally cast Chu Yiian-chang's imperial accomplishments in a positive light, writing, for instance, that "the policy of the Ming govern­ ment in the years of Chu Yiian-chang's reign was progressive to the extent that it safeguarded the gains of the peasantry and limited the growth of private lands of feudal lords."10 Because of her sympathetic portrayal of Chu Yiian-chang's reign, Svistunova's work came under severe attack in the late 1960s. O. E. Nepomnin wrote that her evaluation of Ming T*ai-tsu's agrarian policy as "antifeudal" and "propeasant" "does not correspond to the facts," and accused her of attempting to revive the "Chu Yiian-chang legend" through her emphasis on "a victorious peasant war" at the end of the Yiian.11 Borovkova wrote that Svistunova was gullible in her reading of Ming sources, since she apparently accepted at face value Chu Yiian-chang's pronouncements in his edicts about his concern for the people.12 Whereas Svistunova visualizes Chu Yiian-chang as an emperor working in the interests of the peasantry, partially taking into account the interests of large landholders, Borovkova sees exactly the opposite: while some of the peasants' interests occasionally may have coincided with the interests of the large landholders, it was the latter whom Chu Yiian-chang had in mind when he made policy. Surprisingly, in two articles written in 1974 and 1979, Borovkova reverses her negative opinion of Chu Yiian-chang's reign, adopting a far more reserved stance. Although not abandoning her earlier opinion that feudalism and

114

ELIZABETH ENDICOTT-WEST

serfdom were in full bloom in the early Ming, she performs an about-face, writing, "His [Chu YUan-chang's] attempt to limit the development of largescale, landlord landownership went counter to the objective historical laws (zakonomernostù of the development of Chinese feudal society and therefore sooner or later was bound to suffer failure.1'13 Borovkova's point is that after the death of the first Ming emperor, the tendency towards the growth of large estates and the spread of tenant relations reasserted itself. Thus, Borovkova, while tentatively acquiescing in Svistunova's portrayal of Chu YUan-chang*s policies, has it both ways by insisting that these "progressive” policies consti­ tuted an aberration or zigzag in the objective course of Chinese feudal history. In a recent article on life in the Chinese countryside in the late fourteenth century, Borovkova credits Ming Pai-tsu with a certain benevolence towards the peasantry, and she refers to the emperor as "an intelligent and talented person" and "a sober politician."1* Borovkova's revision of her interpretation of Chu Yüan-chang and the 1980 translation into Russian of Wu Han's biography of Ming Pai-tsu indicate that the historiographical pendulum is now moving in the direction of rehabilitating the reputation of the first Ming ruler. In a 1976 book, A. A. Bokshchanin attempts to synthesize the various viewpoints on Ming T'ai-tsu's agrarian policy.15 He writes that most re­ searchers would agree that at the end of the fourteenth century the develop­ ment of agricultural production was stimulated intentionally in order to remedy the situation the Mongols had left behind. Under Ming Pai-tsu there was more arable land, a greater number of taxpaying peasant households, and a growth of state revenue. Yet, at the same time, according to Bokshchanin, the govern­ ment removed the obstacles to the growth of private landholding. Bokshchanin points out the lack of agreement between Borovkova and Svistunova on the scale and timing of the limitation of large landholding and notes the existence of "a definite contradiction" in Ming T'ai-tsu's acts. Svistunova believes that many limitations were removed in the latter part of Ming T'ai-tsu's reign, while Borovkova points to the physical liquidation of landholders, the movement of peasants onto state lands, and the withdrawal by the government in the 1390s of lands previously granted to high officials as examples of greater limitation in the middle of his reign. Whatever the scale of restriction on large landholding, that policy, according to Bokshchanin, was in direct contradiction to the ab­ sence of any actual juridical barriers to the spread of private landholding. As for the source of this contradiction, Bokshchanin believes (p. 194) that, while Ming T'ai-tsu did have a social plan conducive to the growth of small peasant landholdings, he was at the same time bent on forming "a system of cruel feudal exploitation in the countryside." Bokshchanin has written on one important aspect of Ming T'ai-tsu's reign that Svistunova and Borovkova have all but ignored: the growth of the em­ peror's power. Writing that the question of the strength of antifeudal

THE EARLY MING

115

sentiment in the late YUan rebellions is still "debatable,” Bokshchanin empha­ sizes (p. 14) that "alongside the liberation movement, parallel to it, a critical struggle for power was going on in the country. The consequences of this could not have disappeared immediately, and the internal political unity of the coun­ try could hardly have been restored by the act of the proclamation of a.new emperor." Bokshchanin, whose strength is political analysis, believes that the long years of rebellion in the late YUan left a legacy of internal political insta­ bility. This situation in turn explains Chu Yiian-chang’s desire to strengthen his personal power as emperor. Bokshchanin portrays the general direction of fiscal and administrative policy under Ming T*ai-tsu as one of centralization: the strengthening of the army, the restoration of the economy, and the building of imperial power. Bokshchanin agrees with Svistunova’s analysis that the state’s economic power under Ming T’ai-tsu was founded on the broadening of state lands, the growth of landholding among the "petty peasantry," and the restriction of landholding among the "feudal lords." Unlike Svistunova, Bokshchanin stresses the underlying political discontent within the "ruling class" (specifically, tension between the emperor and the feudatory princes) under Ming T’ai-tsu, concluding that "the despotic methods of rule which were practiced by the first Ming emperor restrained the stated discontent and drove the conflicts deep down" (p.21). Svistunova, in contrast, attributes Chu YUan-chang’s policy of fiscal cen­ tralization to the emperor’s fear of "the spectre of the great peasant war" which had destroyed the YUan. L. A. Borovkova also reduces the question of personal motivation to one of fear: she describes Chu YUan-chang*s institution of the li-chia system in the countryside as an effort to assuage popular dissatis­ faction with the "bureaucratism, bribery, extortion, [and] corruption" which existed within the official administrative apparatus.16 One aspect of Ming history that Svistunova and other Soviet historians ignore is institutional continuity between the YUan and the Ming. For instance, in her discussion of the Ming military and its settlements (pp. 45-52), Svistunova does not mention that the origins of the wei-so system and the practice of hereditary transfer of military office can be traced back to the YUan. Such YUan-to-Ming elements of continuity were described by Henry Serruys as early as 1957.^ Concentration upon the destructive aspects of the Mongolian conquest has led to a general appraisal of the YUan period as an aberration in Chinese history; apparently this appraisal has in turn precluded a search for institutional connections between the YUan and Ming. Familiarity with Sources Soviet scholars writing on early Ming history display the same patchy acquaintance with Western secondary sources as those writing on the YUan.

116

ELIZABETH ENDICOTT-WEST

N. P. Svistunova’s book, for example, has been criticized by L. A. Borovkova for its limited use of European secondary literature on the Ming.18 This is rather ironic since Borovkova’s 1971 book and 1978 article on the Red Turban rebel­ lions both demonstrate little familiarity with Western scholarship in her own area of expertise. Yet, the inclusion in Svistunova’s bibliography of no Western publication more recent than 1935, the total absence of Japanese works, and the surprising absence of standard Chinese secondary works by Ting I, Fu I-ling, and Meng Sen cannot be overlooked. It should be noted that Svistunova's strength as a sinologist lies in transla­ tion of primary source material, rather than in theoretical analysis and inter­ pretation. In 1975 she published a full translation of chapter 80 of the Ming dynastic history (on the salt and tea administration), accompanied by brief, relevant translations from the Ming shihrlu.18 A. A. Bokshchanin’s Imperial China at the Beginning of the Fifteenth Century (1976) stands out for containing the most extensive bibliography of any Soviet work on Ming history. Bokshchanin demonstrates a sophisticated use of Chinese sources, extensive acquaintance with Chinese, Russian, and Westernlanguage works on Ming history, and the desire to integrate discussion of broader works of a theoretical nature such as S. N. Eisenstadt’s The Political Systems of Empires, Wittfogel’s Oriental Despotism, and Etienne Balazs’s Chinese Civilization and Bureaucracy into Soviet sinology as a whole. Dis­ playing a talent for synthesizing many viewpoints, while avoiding excessively negative comments on ideas with which he disagrees, Bokshchanin’s command of bibliography on the Ming is as noteworthy as Munkuev’s command of bibliography on the Yiian. Imperial China covers the period from the death of Ming T’ai-tsu (1398) to the end of Ming Ch’eng-tsu’s reign (1425), and devotes particular attention to the causes of the ’’civil war” of 1399-1402 and to the relations between the central government and the feudatory princes. Bokshchanin describes the 13981401 reforms undertaken by the second Ming emperor, Chu Yiin-wen (Hui Ti), as ’’utopian” in character; as a result of these reforms, the internal political instability which was the political legacy of Ming T*ai-tsu’s reign was exacer­ bated. Bokshchanin views (pp. 31-42) the 1399-1402 war in which Chu Yiin-wen was overthrown by his uncle, the Prince of Yen, Chu Ti, as a result of Chu Yiinwen’s attempt to terminate the ’’appanage system” as the ’’logical end” of the confrontation between the feudatory princes and central power as embodied by the emperor. Bokshchanin’s long-standing interest in the struggle between Chu Yiin-wen and the Prince of Yen is reflected in a series of articles published between 1973 and 1979. Bokshchanin attempts to show that the 1399-1402 civil war repre­ sents not merely a struggle for the throne, but a collision of certain social and political forces. Comparing the civil war to an analogous event in Russian

THE EARLY MING

117

history—the "feudal war” which began in 1425 when Iurii Dmitrievich Ugiichskii refused to recognize the right of his nephew, Vasilii H, to the throne— Bokshchanin writes that this type of war can be viewed as "a historically de­ termined (zakonomernoe) manifestation of the objective process of battle between a centralized government which was taking shape and centrifugal forces." Yet, Bokshchanin cautions that the 1399-1402 war should not be classified as the type of feudal war that led to national unification as in Russia or Western Europe in the fifteenth century, where such wars marked the com­ pleted transition from "feudal fragmentation" to national unification. The civil war occurred as "a reaction to the comparatively long existence of strong imperial power, given the tendency towards feudal separatism."2® In a separate article devoted to the problem of the terminology which has been applied to the early Ming feudatory princes, Bokshchanin writes that the phrase "system of princes” (sistema printsev) should be used to refer to only those periods in China!s history when imperial relatives did not have appanages. However, for those periods when imperial relatives acquired special administra­ tive rights in regard to their principalities, Bokshchanin would use the phrase "appanage system.” Periods when the appanage system existed include 200-150 B.C.; the end of the third century, A.D.; the end of the eighth through the first half of the fourteenth century; and the end of the fourteenth century.21 In his book, Bokshchanin also provides a blow-by-blow account of the battles between the forces of Chu Yiin-wen and the Prince of Yen. Bokshchanin notes that once the Prince of Yen, Chu Ti, became emperor (Ming ChTeng-tsu), he worked as had his former opponents to concentrate power in the hands of the emperor. No longer a champion of the greater independence of the feudatory princes, Ming Chfeng-tsu nevertheless did not resurrect Ming T’ai-tsu’s policies, according to Bokshchanin, but formed new policies in re­ sponse to the times. Despite the idea expressed throughout the book that Ming Ch'eng-tsufs attempt at political consolidation was successful, Bokshchanin writes in his conclusion (p. 304) that "the stabilization of the internal political situation in China, which was achieved in the first quarter of the fifteenth century there­ upon did not lead to noticeable progress in the political and economic life of the country." His overall description of Ming Ch'eng-tsu's reign hardly would lead the reader to anticipate such a negative evaluation of the reign in terms of Ming history as a whole. But, according to Bokshchanin, from the mid-fifteenth century onward, the Ming gradually entered into a protracted period of crisis which eventually led to a large-scale peasant war and to the fall of the dynasty. In addition, Bokshchanin has devoted attention to the topic of Chinese relations with Southeast Asian countries in the Ming period. In his China and Countries of the South Seas in the Fourteenth to Sixteenth Centuries,

118

ELIZABETH ENDICOTT-WEST

Bokshchanin explores the history of interstate cultural and economic relations before the advent of Western Europeans in that part of Asia.22 He delves into a variety of primary source materials, including a Kwangtung provincial gazet­ teer and, as listed in his bibliography, an apparently rare 1617 manuscript copy of the K'o-tso chui-yu by Ku Ch'i-yiian, a work first printed in 1618. In a volume devoted to modern PRC historiography, Bokshchanin also contributes a negative overview of Chinese historians* writings from the 1930s to the 1970s on the voyages of Cheng Ho to Africa, the Persian Gulf, and the Red Sea between 1405 and 1433. PRC historians, according to Bokshchanin, use the fact of Cheng Ho*s voyages to serve "today's hegemonistic aspirations of the Chinese leaders."23 Bokshchanin has also written an article on the increasingly popular topic of Buddhism in the Ming. Addressing the question of what determined a Ming emperor's attitude towards Buddhism and Taoism, Bokshchanin stresses that personal feeling was not the sole factor; rather the political uses to which either Buddhism or Taoism could be put were major determinants. Bokshchanin sees the role of religious dogma as a counterweight to aid an emperor in "the latent struggle of imperial power against Confucian orthodoxy and bureaucracy which were chaining its [imperial power's] freedom."2* Similarly, A. S. Martynov, in an article entitled "Confucianism, Buddhism, and the court in the Ming period," makes two important points on the role of Buddhism at the Ming court.23 First, he writes that while the monarchy in the Ming often used eunuchs to restrict the influence of bureaucracy in the admini­ strative sphere, in the spiritual sphere the monarchy used Buddhism for the same purpose. Secondly, Martynov stresses the relative freedom of Ming emperors to espouse Buddhism, and points out by way of comparison that in Russian history Ivan the Terrible would not have dared even to consider accepting Islam or building mosques in the Kremlin. Martynov believes that Chinese emperors were more independent of official doctrine than were their Russian counterparts. In a 1982 volume of articles devoted to Taoism in China, Martynov has written on the life and ideas of Lin Chao-en, a sixteenth-century Ming thinker who developed a syncretist doctrine of the unity of Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism.23 Martynov believes that historical conditions in early and midMing times were especially conducive to the spread of Taoist ideas among the educated elite. A divergence between Confucian "orthodoxy" and the imperial court, as exemplified both in Chu Yiian-chang's belief that the emperor should stand as highest authority in questions of ritual and in the controversy over rites under the Chia-ching Emperor, proved to be beneficial to Taoism. The subject of popular religious movements in China has also attracted attention. In the same volume on Taoism, E. B. Porshneva has written on Taoist-inspired popular movements, and elsewhere Porshneva and N. V. Abaev

THE EARLY MING

119

have jointly examined the involvement of Buddhism in sixteenth-century popu­ lar sects.2^ One other noteworthy development in Soviet studies on Ming China is B. G. Doronin!s work on Ming historiography. Doronin’s 1976 candidate’s dissertation, according to its brief abstract, first recounts the process of the compilation of the Ming shih, the dynastic history, and then examines the Ming shih as a source on the ’’peasant war” of 1627-46 in China.2® Writing that medieval Chinese sources are characterized by class homogeneity and hostility towards mass movements (in a separate article he refers to the ’’extremely untrustworthy character" of the Ming shih), Doronin expresses an attitude towards official Chinese historiography that is shared by a number of his Soviet colleagues.2® Although such primary sources are recognized as necessary material for the study of any particular period, they are sometimes treated by Soviet sinologists with a skepticism bordering on disbelief. The Ming shih for Doronin represents a "feudal source" that reflects the biases of China’s feudal class. Such an extreme position is rarely found among Western scholars. Etienne Balazs’s observation that the dynastic histories were written by "historian-officials" who were "dependents of the reigning power" is mild by comparison with Doronin’s attitude.30 Doronin has also criticized PRC historians for not bothering with the question of the authenticity of factual material in Ming sources. Since the end of the Cultural Revolution, writes Doronin, PRC historians have been trying "to overcome the traditional uncritical attitude towards sources, which for a long time hindered the fruitful study of [their] own history."31 As a whole, the works of Svistunova and Bokshchanin form the basic foun­ dation of Soviet studies on early Ming history. Although Svistunova’s inter­ pretations have been disputed, her translation of primary source material is in the best tradition of Soviet sinology. Bokshchanin, by incorporating the views of Western sinologists into his work, seems to be seeking a path of communica­ tion between Soviet and Western scholars. In a discussion of state structure and the nature of power in medieval China, Bokshchanin minimizes the differ­ ences of approach between Soviet and Western researchers: Soviet researchers take note of the importance of the function of economic organization of the Chinese state in various stages of its development. In their works the specific role which the bureau­ cracy—an isolated stratum [slot] of the ruling class—played in Chinese society has been touched upon. Also, the complex problems of the interrelation of imperial power with bureaucracy have found reflection. Western European and American sinologists concentrate their attention upon the traditional character of Chinese social and state structure, avoiding the term "feudalism." However, this does not preclude a varied approach to several important theoretical oo problems.

120

ELIZABETH ENDICOTT-WEST

While there is more to the lack of agreement among Soviet sinologists and their Western counterparts than the use or avoidance of the word feudalism," the underlying intent of this statement is noteworthy. The continuing debate among Soviet specialists themselves over the significance of the first Ming emperor's reign and the issue of a "free peasantry" in the early Ming indicates a vigorous ongoing interest in this period of Chinese history.

CHAPTER 9 The Ming-Ch'ing Transition: Frontier History Nailene Chou Wiest

The study of Chinese frontier history has a long and sometimes illustrious tradition in Russian sinology. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Russian understanding of China was, in large part, shaped by the people on China's frontier who served as intermediaries in the early contacts between the two empires. Geographic propinquity and some shared aspects of the heritage of Mongol rule inclined some of the earliest Russian experts on China to inves­ tigate, also, the peoples along this Inner Asian frontier. Since that time, the geopolitical interest has been inseparable from academic interest in this field. As sinology developed in the nineteenth century, tsarist expansion into Central Asia combined with the great archaeological discoveries in the desert of Sinkiang gave new impetus to the study of the Chinese frontier.1 In the Soviet period, the traditional interest in China's frontier acquired a somewhat new orientation. Sinology, like other disciplines, was to reflect and support socialist policy ostensibly aimed at extending international help to oppressed peoples. According to early Soviet specialists, although China had been victimized by the nineteenth-century European imperialists, its leaders had imposed upon China!s own frontier peoples an archaic and oppressive form of rule. To expose past injustice and uncover the history of Han Chinese exploitation of neighboring peoples was therefore to raise the consciousness of the nationalities on the periphery of China for their socialist salvation. L. I. Duman's Agrarian Policies of the Ch'ing Government in Sinkiang at the End of the Eighteenth Century (1936), with its ubiquitous quotations from Marx, Engels, and Lenin and its rigid application of assumed socioeconomic regular­ ities, became the archetype of Soviet monographs on Chinese frontier history during the Stalinist era. In the first decade after the founding of the PRC, Russian sinology was largely recovering from a long period of neglect during the war and from the "Stalinist excess of intellectual repression."2 Chinese frontier history was the subject of a number of candidate's dissertations by a new generation of schol­ ars, which, however, remained unpublished.2 In the 1960s, when Sino-Russian relations abruptly turned sour, the new Soviet sinology, characterized by sharp critiques and greater methodological sophistication, emerged rapidly.

121

122

NAILENE CHOU WIEST

The focus on the frontier sharpened especially after the border clashes in 1969. Studies of Chinese frontier history assumed new importance and urgency because, the Soviets claimed, Chinese historians had used so-called historical truth as their basis for "territorial pretensions” over the land of neighboring peoples and for justification of "gross intervention” in their internal affairs. Chinese historians were faulted for espousing "Great Han Chauvinism” (or "bigpower chauvinism”) and an anti-Russian stance in their interpretation of Chinese frontier history. According to this line, Chinese historians have an irridentist argument which claims that large border areas that now lie within Soviet jurisdiction had belonged to China since time immemorial and were unfairly seized by tsarist imperialists. The worst example of this approach may be found in Kuomintang historiography, but, Soviet specialists lament, this example has been widely followed by PRC historians.6 Soviet writers thus take frontier studies as an arena in which they can denounce Chinese "falsification” and set the record straight. General Framework In China and Its Neighbors in Ancient Times and the Middle Ages (1970), a collection of articles which reviews China’s relations with neighboring peoples to the Ming dynasty, S. L. Tikhvinsky affirms at the outset that the present territory of the PRC was formed relatively late in history. Originally settled in the Yellow River region and dependent on settled agriculture, Chinese civiliza­ tion was constantly at odds with the nomadic peoples along its northern fron­ tier. Thus, the frontier has played an important role in shaping Chinese history. The ideological conviction that China was the "Middle Kingdom” took form as far back as the Chou dynasty. Arrogant and potentially aggressive, this ideol­ ogy was put into practice by the unified state of the Ch’in and Han dynasties to produce an unprecedented territorial expansion. In the next two thousand years, dynastic strength waxed and waned, but, Tikhvinsky insists, the expan­ sionist ideology endured.6 Appraising the Chinese world view, Soviet sinologists offer many generali­ zations which make interesting comparisons with American interpretations set forth in John K. Fairbank (ed.), The Chinese World Order (1968). Examples can be found in A. S. Martynov, The Status of Tibet in the Seventeenth to Eighteenth Centuries (1978). The Chinese, Martynov argues, divided the world into two spheres, the hua (Chinese) and the i (non-Chinese), and Chinese superi­ ority over barbarians was undisputed. He concedes that their sense of superior­ ity was characteristic of many ancient civilizations, but argues that the Chinese version was unique in the way in which it found a theoretical basis in Chinese cosmological thought, especially as articulated by Confucianism.7 The

THE MING-CH’ING TRANSITION

123

Chinese emperor, as the Son of Heaven, was mandated to bring harmony to the two spheres in a universal rule. On the well-supported premise that political consciousness is often re­ vealed by official terminology, Martynov studies some two hundred concepts in traditional Chinese diplomatic usage.® Te(dobroûeteV)~~rule by virtue—asserts Martynov, is a central concept in the Chinese perception of foreign relations. It is a quality that the monarch possessed and could pass down through the dynastic line like property. Te functions like a magnet which attracts neigh­ boring societies to the civilizing rule of China.® If virtue failed to attract the i to Chinese rule, then the emperor could justifiably use force to bring about their submission.*® Although his conclusions are not surprising, Martynov’s detailed analysis of concepts is a useful approach to the subject of world view. If he had had an opportunity to work with foreign specialists on complex lin­ guistic issues, his serious approach to scholarship would most likely have set a high standard in the field. The basic Soviet argument is that Chinese ideology was potentially aggres­ sive when it was coupled with superior military force. However, the "adven­ turous policies” often had an adverse effect on China’s agrarian economy which, in turn, could weaken imperial rule. Therefore, despite its chauvinistic pro­ nouncements, China was in reality vulnerable. The Soviets use Ming-dynasty frontier history as an example to illustrate the limits of the Chinese capacity to rule the territories that lay beyond Han-Chinese agricultural settlements. Frontiers in the Ming Dynasty Early Ming expansion by both land and sea was an outgrowth, Tikhvinsky alleges, of the reassertion of Chinese independence after a period 6f foreign domination during the Mongol Yiian dynasty. The military struggle against the Mongols, moreover, prepared the Chinese for further military exploits.11 Along the northern frontier, the most notable feat of early Ming expansion was the several expeditions led by Ishiha to northern Manchuria where he built a monastery and erected a stele. Ming relations with the Jurchens are ex­ amined by G. V. Melikhov, who argues that Ishiha’s expeditions were not mili­ tary campaigns and consequently did not establish Ming political control over northern Manchuria.12 He charges that Chinese historians such as Tsiang Tingfu have failed to see the expeditions in the context of Ming policy, either toward the frontier of that era in general or toward the Jurchens in particular. Chinese historians have been prompted by ’’Great Han Chauvinism” and an ’’anti-Russian attitude” to claim the establishment of the Ming empire on territory which never belonged to China. Western historians such as Henry Serruys, who have echoed the Chinese view, are accused in turn of relying too

124

NAILENE CHOU WIEST

closely on Chinese sources. Melikhov maintains that the inscription on the stele that is kept in Vladivostok provides further evidence that the Ishiha expeditions were not intended to be military campaigns. He argues that the Ming guard system (wei and so) merely created advance posts which did not have jurisdiction over the land beyond. What, then, was the extent of Ming control over the northern frontier? N. P. Svistunova looks for an answer in the Huang Ming chiu-pien fcao, a late Ming treatise on frontier defense.16 In a long and uninspired article without careful analysis, she traces the location of Ming frontier outposts. Her conclu­ sion, that the gradual collapse of the frontier defense system was both the cause and the effect of the financial strain it put on Ming economy, fails to be persuasive. The purpose of the article is clear, however. The inclusion of Svistunova's article in China and Its Neighbors in Ancient Times and the Middle Ages, as the responsible editor explains, serves to fix the Chinese frontier along the boundary which f,the Chfin emperor once intended.”14 The western sector of the Ming frontier is treated in an interpretive article by A. S. Martynov on the trade of tea and horses.16 Stating that China's view of international trade is fundamentally different from the European concept of trade as a mundane affair, Martynov asserts that international trade for the Chinese carried moral and political significance and had to be con­ ducted according to an elaborate scheme, namely, the tribute system.16 Cere­ monial aspects aside, external trade was used not so much for furthering eco­ nomic gains as for advancing military and strategic interests. Government and merchants were often at cross purposes. The pursuit of political influence was not always compatible with economic gains. For example, the government monopoly of the tea and horse trade, which was designed for control of the "barbarians,” not only retarded the normal growth of trade but encouraged contraband and eventually became self-defeating. Martynov's study per­ ceptively examines the fundamental problem of government control and trade, which bears not only on frontier defense but also on incipient capitalism in the Ming dynasty. The Ming-Chling Transition Soviet writers stress that the period from the rise of the Manchus as a small frontier tribe in the northeast to their conquest of China is of crucial importance in Chinese frontier history. The fact that the Manchus, a not very numerous people, were eventually able to bring all of China under their control, has great significance in understanding traditional frontier relations. More­ over, their homeland and base of operations, Manchuria, served as the arena for the first Sino-Russian conflict.

THE MING-CHTOG TRANSITION

125

According to G. V. Melikhov in Manchurians in the Northeast in the Seven­ teenth ■ICentury, the feudal consolidation of the Manchu tribes had a domino IT effect. Their rapid expansion, however, did not allow the Manchus adequate time to integrate the tribes. In effect, the extent of Manchu control was roughly confined to territory within the Willow Palisade, beyond which the land was inhabited by the Mongols, whose relations with the Manchus fell into a separate category of alliance. Melikhov argues that the Manchus did not pay serious attention to the Amur region (northern Manchuria) until the 1660s when Russian settlers had already brought much of the land under cultivation, and local tribes had pledged their allegiance to the tsar. Taking advantage of Russian unpreparedness, the Manchus on several occasions besieged weakly fortified Albazin and finally forced the Russians to come to terms. The Treaty of Nerchinsk, therefore, clearly demonstrates Manchu aggressiveness. Melikhov draws extensively on the documentary sources concerning early Sino-Russian relations compiled by his colleagues and flatly dismisses views contradicting his own.18 His one-sided perspective notwithstanding, Melikhov^ work is based on meticulous research and abounds in detailed information. In Policies of the Manchurian Dynasty: Ch'ing in South and North Mongolia in the Sixteenth Century, I. S. Ermachenko examines early Manchu-Mongol relations. Her emphasis is the institutional framework developed between the Mongols and the Manchus which served to define their relationship in subse­ quent years. There were two stages of development in these relations according to Ermachenko. In the first stage, the Mongols enjoyed equal rights and the same status as the Manchus. In other words, they were genuine allies. But soon the Manchus were adroitly exploiting the divisions among Mongol tribes and successfully subjugating one after another. Eventually, in the second stage, the Mongols lost their independence and were reduced to vassals. A great deal of feudal tension survived between Manchu and Mongol lords and between different social classes on both sides.18 The theme of social history is not developed further; the book lapses into a narrative of various Manchu campaigns against Chahar Khan, Lindan Khan, and the Khalkhas, which empha­ sizes Manchu aggressiveness and brutality. Melikhov does not claim to be a Manchuologist nor Ermachenko a Mongol­ ist; they study Chinese frontier history primarily on the basis of Chinese sources and Russian translations of Manchu and Mongol sources. Their bibli­ ographies consist of hundreds of secondary sources in Russian published in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In addition, because they are limited by a thesis they are presumably obliged to accept, these Soviet specialists have difficulty objectively examining all points of view concerning territorial claims in East Asia during the mid-seventeenth century.

126

NAILENE CHOU WIEST

It has been noted in other chapters that there is a division of labor within Soviet oriental studies between those who know Inner Asian languages and those who know Chinese; few know both. This also holds true for Soviet scholars studying the frontier. Among the Mongolists who work on frontier history entirely from Mongol sources are G. S. Gorokhova, who has written Notes on the History of Mongolia in the Epoch of Manchurian Rule (End of the Seven­ teenth to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century) (1980), and Sh. B. Chimitdorzhiev, author of The Anti-Manchu Liberation Struggle of the Mongol People (Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries) (Ulan-Ude, 1974). Their work is omitted here since only those who use Chinese are examined in this chapter. Ch'ing Expansion Whereas the central theme of Ming frontier history in Soviet sinology is to demonstrate the ineffective nature of the Chinese frontier system, the focus on the Ch'ing period is to expose the unrelenting expansionist drive unleashed by combining Manchu and Chinese feudal elements. In Foreign Policies of the Ch'ing State in the Seventeenth Century (1977), a sequel to China and Its Neighbors from Ancient Times and the Middle Ages, L. I. Duman affirms that the Chfing empire!s relations with surrounding peoples reflect the true Chinese tradition of sinocentrism, which by the seventeenth century had become a kind of religious faith.2® This sinocentrism, far from being aloof and pacifist, is predatory and aggressive. The Manchu-Chinese were cunning and ruthless. The Soviets use similar terms to characterize Mongol-Chinese aggression in dealing with earlier Yüan expansion. The underlying motive for expansion is inter­ preted by Soviet sinologists not so much as population pressure—spillover theory—but as the necessity to reduce social tension in Chinese society ruled by a conquest dynasty, which caused ethnic and class conflicts.21 In other words, outward expansion is seen as a safety valve and as a method for consolidating feudal rule in China by the Manchu-Chinese dyarchy. According to Duman, the tribute system practiced in the Ch'ing dynasty was a yoke thrust upon their neighbors by the Chinese. Under this yoke, the neighboring peoples lost their freedom and became subject to the divide-andrule policy of the Ch!ing government. In the intercourse between the neigh­ boring peoples and the Manchu court, elaborate ceremonies and investitures were deeply humiliating to the vassals. In the most frequently employed tactic of "using barbarians to control barbarians,” Duman charges, the Chinese often disguised their aggression in "peace-loving" slogans and invoked the model of "family" to idealize the sinocentric world order. In this sugar-coated diplo­ matic rhetoric, China was the benevolent pater familias generously extending protection over and caring for the welfare of smaller peoples. Another tactic

THE MING-CITING TRANSITION

127

employed by the Chinese was psychological warfare to defame their adver­ saries. Furthermore, the Ch'ing made use of racial and ethnic affinities to advance their interests. The sanctimonious posture assumed by the ManchuChinese could also gain favor from the deeply religious people on the periphery of the empire. In short, Ch'ing policies towards neighboring peoples were "active, offensive, and aggressive” which made the Ch'ing, that is, the Chinese government, a veritable "hegemone” in East Asia.22 Undoubtedly, the message conveyed by such tendentious assertions is not altogether inaccurate, but one would look in vain for the balànced account of the benefits and losses resulting from the relations among the Manchus, Han Chinese, and Inner Asian peoples. Duman's one-sided approach may be some­ what extreme, but it is indicative of much of the Soviet work in this area. A. S. Martynov, however, provides a more objective and analytical inter­ pretation of traditional Chinese foreign relations. He documents Chinese readiness to assert universal rule over neighboring peoples in his book on Ch'ing relations with Tibet in the seventeenth century.2^ Martynov traces the trans­ formation of Ch'ing rule in Tibet from an originally limited pretense to leader­ ship to the "normalization” of Tibet's position as part of China's doctrine of external relations. In this sequence of events, Ch'ing policy towards Tibet was not unlike the policy towards other neighboring peoples such as the Khalkhas, the Dzungars, and the Nepalis. Three elements were at play, maintains Martynov, in the diplomatic inter­ course between China and Tibet: the Confucian political theory, the unique Manchu experience in handling frontier peoples, and the role of Buddhism.24 The Manchu-Chinese shrewdly played on the assumption of theocratic similarity between the emperor and the Dalai Lama. Martynov asserts that in the middle of the seventeenth century Tibet was still in the early stage of feudalism. Thus, Tibetan society was relatively unaffected by the introduction of ManchuChinese military, fiscal, and administrative systems. Manchu-Chinese inter­ ference in Tibetan economic life mounted in the second half of the eighteenth century as Ch'ing policy strove to reduce the range of services traditionally performed by the elite. The ruling class of the Tibetan society was gradually deprived of its social functions. But, until the end of the eighteenth century, Tibet continued to be perceived as the property of the lamas. Reviewing the many dimensions of this medieval relationship between peoples, Martynov contends that the Chinese claim to suzerainty over Tibet, whether examined in historical context or in modern terms, is presumptuous. Despite his generally competent scholarship, Martynov is not free from some common mistakes, such as anachronism, committed by Soviet sinologists. Concepts of modern international law can be used heuristically in studying traditional relations, but they do not constitute an absolute standard of

128

NAILENE CHOU WIEST

judgment as Martynov implies. Moreover, Martynovfs monograph is flawed by an insufficient understanding of the institutions and politics of the early Ch*ing dynasty.25 For part of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Dzungars—a branch of the Western Mongols—had been the most serious challengers of Manchu supremacy on the Asian continent. The reconstruction of the rise and fall of the Dzungar khanate has assumed a new interpretive importance for contemporary Soviet sinologists in underscoring the hegemonic nature of Chinese external policies and extolling the progressive nature of Russian im­ perial rule across the frontier. The triangular relationship between China, Russia, and the Dzungar khanate has been dealt with in several documentary collections on early Sino-Russian relations.26 In International Relations in Central Asia from the Seventeenth to the First Half of the Nineteenth Century, B. P. Gurevich reexamines Dzungar history, especially the aftermath of the Ch'ing conquest in the middle of the eighteenth century when the peripheries of the Chinese and Russian empires were brought face-to-face across common Central Asian frontiers.27 The Central Asians were presented two models of economic and political develop­ ment. On the land of the Dzungars and Eastern Turkestan they were reduced to vassals under Manchu-Chinese colonial rule, which threw their social develop­ ment backward to the point of complete disintegration. By contrast, in Kazakhstan the way was opened to enlightenment through voluntary economic and political ties with tsarist Russia. Although the lack of an impartial ana­ lytical framework for comparative study tends to make the account as twodimensional as I have summarized it, Gurevich does draw attention to the important consequences of Chinese and Russian rule in this region. Gurevich, in an article coauthored with V. A. Moiseev, emphasizes the relevance of Central Asian history to the present international context by highlighting the benevolent asylum offered by the Russians to the Dzungars when the Manchus stormed over that conquered land in the mid-eighteenth century.26 He claims that Russia blocked the Manchu-Chinese advance to Siberia, thus containing Chinese aggression within the frontier. The authors conclude their article with an analogy to the "adventurous course of Maoist policies in the aggression against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.11 A substantial literature has appeared on Sino-Russian relations. While it is beyond the scope of this volume to review these materials, they bear impor­ tantly on studies of the relations between Ch'ing China and other peoples to the north. The principal figure in this research is V. S. Miasnikov, whose writings draw heavily on archival sources. His major interpretive book, The Ch’ing Empire and the Russian State in the Seventeenth Century, was published in 1980. It includes a large bibliography of secondary sources: 336 items in Russian; 122 items in Chinese and Japanese; and 115 items in Western European

THE MING-CH’ING TRANSmON

129

languages. In addition, the bibliography lists more than 100 archival materials or publications of these documents. Miasnikov examines such important themes as the traditions of Chinese diplomacy and the history of contacts with the Russian state. Although his conclusions are vigorous affirmations of Soviet territorial claims, this is an indispensable compilation of detailed evidence. The Economic Policies of the Chting Government in Sinkiang in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century, by V. S. Kuznetsov, is a case study of Ch'ing frontier administration.'*® Although retaining the dryness of a dissertation, the book is solid in research, unusually free of political invective, and compares favorably to Duman’s early work on Sinkiang. Kuznetsov states that although the Ch'ing conquest of Sinkiang in the eighteenth century decimated the popu­ lation and blunted the edge of local opposition to colonial rule, the military action could not eliminate class contradiction in either the conquering or the conquered societies. Instead, the warfare sharpened existing contradictions. Kuznetsov argues that when the Ch'ing government could no longer live on pillage in Sinkiang it organized a military-bureaucratic machine designed to exploit the indigenous people to the maximum level possible. The system worked efficiently until the beginning of the nineteenth century when the empire entered long, drawn-out crises. By this time, the entire Ch'ing political system was permeated with corruption. The economic disorder reduced rev­ enue and caused growing pauperization of the local populace. The latter were under the double exploitation of the Ch'ing military-bureaucratic machine and the indigenous elite (beks), which intensified the ethnic and class opposition and made the political situation extremely unstable. Kuznetsov stresses the Ch'ing failures in Sinkiang. Maintaining the army and bureaucracy demanded considerable revenue. When the local revenue from Sinkiang could not meet the expense of the continuing war and growing bureau­ cracy, the central government introduced subsidies which became a serious drain on the ChTing treasury. The situation was aggravated after the Opium War of 1840-42. The Ch'ing government reduced agricultural reclamation projects and made other cutbacks in order to make ends meet in Sinkiang. The attempt to make Sinkiang self-sufficient proved futile. By distributing free land to settlers from China and to local landless per­ sons, the Ch'ing government sought to reduce social tension both in China proper and in Sinkiang. It was hoped that a large Chinese settlement in Sin­ kiang would relieve population pressure inside inner China and would strengthen the Chfing position in Kashgar in times of Moslem uprisings. Kuznetsov insists, however, that the reclamation policy did not succeed because migration simply brought to the new land the social problems of the homeland. There was a shortage of farming tools and capital. Small peasants within the inner prov­ inces could migrate only with the help of wealthy peasants and landlords who were unwilling to take risks. Local hostility towards outsiders likewise

130

NAILENE CHOU WIEST

thwarted Chinese settlers. Government suspicion of private enterprises and demands for corvée on land reclamation projects also hampered the peasant economy. The analysis of Sinkiang focuses particularly on class conflict and the origins of uprisings. Kuznetsov asserts (p. 167) that colonialism in Sinkiang unwittingly brought with it Chinese forms and methods of feudal exploitation. Despite an allotment of virgin land, colonists were forced to work for the wellto-do peasants who owned the means of production. Ruined by tax-farming, they faced increasing taxes with shortened periods for payment. Thus, the Chinese population, intended as a stabilizing factor in frontier areas, became a source of trouble. At the same time, local people suffered the extortions of the indigenous elite through "voluntary donations” and constant redistribution of Uighur (Turkish-speaking Muslims) land, which resulted in inferior land and higher taxes. In disgust and despair, they were ready to rise up against the established order. Kuznetsov also seeks (pp. 89-145) to explain the shortcomings of Ch'ing policies concerning trade. Together, the failures of agricultural and trade policy are seen as deepening the social crisis in Sinkiang. The motives attrib­ uted to the Ch'ing are always base, never lofty. Thus, the Ch'ing are seen as seeking to increase revenue, not by raising the general level of the local econ­ omy, but by predatory exploitation of the people (Chinese colonists, natives, and merchants). Accordingly, in the 1860s and 1870s Sinkiang experienced an extraordinary aggravation of ethnic and class tensions which finally erupted in an uprising that shook the Ch'ing empire. B. P. Gurevich, in a short article on Ch’ing isolationist policy in Sinkiang in the early 1800s, agrees with Kuznetsov's thesis on the negative nature of Ch'ing economic policy, and claims that the Chinese were unreformed expansionists down to the last days of the nineteenth century.**1 Ever ready, the Chinese would prey on Russian weakness and foray into "Russian” land as they did in the restitution of ni and the dispute of the Pamirs.**^ This one-sided treatment of Chinese relations with frontier nationalities and Chinese expansion is further seen in A. Khodzhaev, The Ch'ing Empire, Dzhungaria and East Turkestan (Colonial Policies of Ch'ing China in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century), Khodzhaev's study describes the Muslim rebeUion in Sinkiang during the mid-nineteenth century. To the author, the war was an ethnic and religious conflict—Turkic and Chinese Muslims against the Manchu and Chinese colonizers. His narrative of the war is a garbled account which wanders from the insurgents' side to the campaigns launched by the Chinese and the Manchus. Deliberately silent on the Russian occupation of Hi, Khodzhaev misses the important issues underlying the "West Campaign." His most important contribution lies in the usage of hitherto untapped Uighur sources which include manuscripts in archives and books published in Kazan'

THE MING-CITING TRANSITION

131

around the turn of the century as part of the Pan-Turkic movement. Valuable as those sources are, Khodzhaev fails to offer any new interpretations of cen­ tral issues. Besides Khodzhaev, a number of Soviet researchers in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are also using Turkic sources on Sinkiang.^ Nevertheless, their studies appear to lack the analytical tools and interests present in the writings by sinologists in Moscow and Leningrad. Conclusions This area of Soviet research on China is seriously impaired by political objectives. Soviet sinologists approach Chinese frontier history for the dual purpose of paring down Chinese territorial claims and exposing Chinese expan­ sionism. The territory Chinese can rightfully claim, according to Soviet sinolo­ gists, is south of the Great Wall and southeast of the Willow Palisade. According to the Soviet view, the present Chinese frontier was achieved as a result of unwelcome and exploitative Manchu-Chinese military expansion in outlying areas. Their inability to treat frankly similar Soviet military expan­ sion in neighboring areas and the growing rivalry of the two great Asian land powers seriously clouds the analysis. The Soviets stress continuity, both past and present. Grounded in Chinese philosophical and Confucian tradition, the expansionist ideology which governs China’s relations with neighboring peoples is seen to have survived changes of dynasties and regimes. It is further assumed that expansionism in the seven­ teenth and eighteenth centuries was necessary to perpetuate Manchu feudal rule by continuing outward campaigns, and that other necessities gave rise to later expansionism. For the peoples on the periphery of the Chinese empire, the unequal nature of traditional Chinese diplomacy was deeply humiliating and threatening to their independent existence. For the peoples brought under direct Manchu-Chinese rule, the colonial administration was exploitative and oppressive. Fortunately for these Asian peoples, Russians valiantly stopped the advancing horde of Manchu-Chinese and offered asylum to the frontier population. From the Soviet point of view, the implications for the present are no more difficult to identify. These historical lessons, established by Soviet sinologists, are intended to dispel any illusion about China’s benevolent inten­ tions towards Third World nations. The Soviet Union is the heir to Russia’s benevolent foreign policies in Central and East Asia, while the People’s Republic of China continues the expansionist course of its dynastic predeces­ sors. Can materials so obviously slanted to suit contemporary political objec­ tives be useful? This chapter has emphasized the analyses offered by Soviet specialists, the most suspect element in their studies. It is difficult to divorce

132

NAILENE CHOU WIEST

these analyses from the data being examined. Nonetheless, it is important to note that Soviet specialists are presenting a considerable amount of informa­ tion on issues that have not been widely studied. In some cases they draw on sources unavailable to outsiders and add significantly to the general under­ standing of Chinafs relations with its border peoples. As Joseph Fletcher has made clear in his recent publications, Russian-language materials are an essen­ tial and increasingly valuable foundation for research on China's Inner Asian ties.34

CHAPTER 10 The Late Ch'ingi Political History Don C. Price

Over the past two decades, Soviet research on late Ch'ing political history has brought increasing sophistication, expertise, and open inquiry to questions that had been raised previously, but poorly treated. The most striking advances began with the work of S. L. Tikhvinsky and G. V. Efimov, and have continued since the late 1960s, primarily under L. P. Deliusin at IVAN. Specialists there on China's late nineteenth and early twentieth-century domestic and inter­ national politics and intellectual history have led the field far beyond early Soviet scholarship, but considerable continuity of interpretation can be seen, especially with regard to imperialism, class struggle, and Chinese nationalism. Early Soviet efforts to bring modern Chinese history into a Marxist frame­ work did not proceed without controversy. Despite unanimity on the impor­ tance of relating political and intellectual developments to economic factors and the class struggle, there was sometimes sharp disagreement on specific issues. What, for example, was the significance of popular uprisings like the Taiping rebellion? Were they directed against landlords, autocrats, or aliens? Were they progressive or (especially in the case of the Boxers) reactionary? What of the reform movement? Was it to be viewed as a promising develop­ ment, the failure of which was more unfortunate than inevitable, or as a treacherous maneuver designed to rescue a rotten regime? The nature of the revolutionary movement and the role of its leader, Sun Yat-sen, were no less subject to debate, especially in view of Sun's espousal of an at least quasi­ socialist doctrine at a time when it was by no means clear that the overthrow of the dynasty could mean a triumph for the bourgeois class. Finally, there was the question of the role of imperialism in China's history, and, while there was little doubt about its aggressive and exploitative character in general, there was debate on the role of Russia in particular. Much of this disagreement reflected the political and ideological battles in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s, and it flourished in the absence of close historical investigation.1 Although these debates were stifled for a long time, many of the same issues reemerged in the more substantial research that began in the late 1950s.

133

134

DON C. PRICE

An Influential Early Interpretation One general interpretation that has, in the judgment of recent Soviet historiographical surveys, stood the test of time comparatively well, was presented in V. N. Kuchumov's Essays on the History of the Chinese Revolution, published in 1934.2 The authors main purpose in three chapters dealing with the Hundred Days Reform, the 1911 Revolution, and the Revolution of 1925-27, was to provide a historical explanation for the split between China's bourgeois nationalist movement and the anti-imperialist, agrarian revolutionary move­ ment of the workers and peasants. The importance of the Stalin-Trotsky struggle in the interpretation of history was accented in this work by a bitter attack on Ch'en Tu-hsiu and P'eng Shu-chih for failing to appreciate the role of peasants and workers in the Revolution of 1911-13. Kuchumov's interpretation of the late Ch'ing was marked by a strong emphasis on the role of imperialism and the ways in which China responded to it. According to him, it drew Chinese agriculture into the world market, leading to an increased exploitation of China!s tenant farmers. And, while prompting the growth of an industrial and commercial bourgeoisie, it also enraged them by the unfavorable terms of competition which it imposed. They, in turn, adapted to their domestic "feudal" environment, but formed a "liberalnationalist bourgeois-landlord bloc," demanding from their government a na­ tionalist policy vis-à-vis the imperialists. For its part, the Manchu regime rejected a nationalist policy, fearing to mobilize its own people, and capitu­ lated to imperialist pressures. This in turn prompted periodic popular uprisings, which Kuchumov defended against the charge of simple banditry, pointing out that they were directed against imperialism and feudalism. By the end of the dynasty, the liberal nationalists" were insisting on major political changes conducive to a new capitalist order. Reformers hoped that the government could implement them. While revolutionaries, including Sun Yat-sen, shared this goal, they were determined to overthrow the government to achieve it. But neither reformers nor revolutionaries seriously undertook to mobilize the people in their efforts, despite the importance of the role played by mass uprisings (Kuchumov spoke of the "party of anarchy") in the Revolution of 1911. Based almost exclusively on secondary literature and non-Chinese jour­ nalism (he knew no Chinese), Kuchumov's essays cannot be considered original research, and they hardly exhaust the range of Soviet work through the 1940s on the late Ch'ing.2 Nevertheless, his work provides a useful introduction to the lines of analysis and interpretation which became dominant in later Soviet studies.

THE LATE CH'ING

135

Reform and Revolutionary Thought With few exceptions, important monographic research based on original sources dates from the late 1950s. The most significant late Ch*ing studies from that formative period were published by two men who throughout the 1960s and 1970s were among the most powerful figures in Soviet Chinese studies (see chapter 2): S. L. Tikhvinskyfs The Late Nineteenth Century Reform Movement in China and Kang Yu-wei and G. v. Efimov*s China's Foreign Policy, 1894-1899. Each in its way fleshed out and to some' extent corrected Kuchumov*s interpretation; both indicated directions for further research and analysis. Like much subsequent Soviet (and Western) scholarship on modern China, Tikhvinsky!s book owed a great deal to publication by scholars in the Peopled Republic of China of rich documentary collections like The Reform of 1898, but it also drew on a much wider range of primary materials and secondary litera­ ture in Chinese, Japanese, English, German, and French, as well as Russian archives.4 Although dated by now in some respects and unsatisfying in others (see below), this study remains an impressive piece of research. Endorsing Kuchumov’s general approach to the reform movement, Tikhvinsky nevertheless criticized him for underestimating the role of mer­ chants, industrialists, and liberal landlords, and for misreading the differences between the reformers* nationalism and that of Sun*s revolutionary party. In his rather more detailed review of the nineteenth-century background, Tikhvinsky found feudalism as much to blame as imperialism for the failure of Chinese capitalism to develop in a "normal” way, and showed how the platforms and propaganda of the reformers consistently demanded improved conditions for Chinese commerce and industry.5 But K*ang Yu-wei*s organization of an anti­ footbinding society in 1883, and the leading role of scholars in the reform movement of 1896-98, suggested a kind of landlord nationalism and liberalism (perhaps not always directly associated with the commercialization of agricul­ ture) which was at least as politically important as that of the bourgeoisie. Tikhvinsky*s narrative and analysis of K*ang*s political career and the politics of the reform movement, based primarily on K*ang*s autobiography and Liang CWi-chWs account, while hardly definitive, nevertheless remain ex­ tremely useful. In fact, this work set a standard and constituted a point of departure for subsequent Soviet work in a number of areas of late Ch*ing his­ tory. The area least productively pursued, ironically, is the transition from currents and assumptions in traditional thought to those of the modern period. As far as the background and emergence of K*ang*s utopian vision is concerned, Tikhvinsky himself provided only an exegesis of the Ta-t'ung shu. Perhaps the firm conviction that K*ang*s "liberalism” was molded most decisively by his

136

DON C. PRICE

social and economic context explains Tikhvinsky's neglect of K'ang's person­ ality, the evolution of his thinking, and the light it sheds on the interaction between China's traditional culture and the demands of the modern world. But he does challenge us to consider why the reformers* ideas appealed to certain people—especially the ideas about strengthening China by replacing the existing order with one more conducive to native capitalist enterprise. This line of investigation was continued in lu. V. Chudodeev's On the Eve of the 1911 Revolution in China: The Constitutional Movement of the Liberal Bourgeois-Landlord Opposition (1966). Drawing on the recently published Chinese documentary collections and on the writings of Chang Chien, Chudodeev provides the best review so far (by a non-Chinese) of the constitu­ tionalist movement in its social and political setting. Over the decade pre­ ceding the revolution, Chudodeev notes a significant rise in the capitalization of Chinese enterprises and a concomitant spread of chambers of commerce. At the same time, many of the new capitalists were landlords, drawn into com­ mercial agriculture and simultaneously investing in nonagricultural enterprises while maintaining links with the bureaucracy. Thus, as Kuchumov and Tikhvinsky had suggested, capitalism developed in China in a distinctive way, adapting to feudalism instead of breaking sharply with it.6 Chudodeev traces the rise of the constitutionalist movement along two lines, one being the career of the scholar-entrepreneur, Chang Chien, and the other following the activi­ ties, first in China, then in exile, of propagandists and would-be statesmen like K'ang Yu-wei, Liang Ch'i-ch'ao and their associates. In the writings of these propagandists, much of Chinafs plight was blamed on the backwardness of the people. Thus, the reformers sought national salvation through education and a government based on an elite franchise (or, at times, enlightened despotism). This approach, and the reformers* emphasis on economic development through free native enterprise, dovetailed with the interests and views of men like Chang Chien, with one foot in the old society and the other in the new econ­ omy. Chudodeev deals in considerable detail with the last four years of the dynasty—a period in which, as he shows, the Manchus were clearly trying, through a process of government reorganization, to tighten their grip on civil administration, the military, and the nation's economic resources, while eco­ nomic crises were prompting ever louder and increasingly well-organized de­ mands for the immediate establishment of parliamentary government and a responsible cabinet. One of the most effective points made in this work is Chudodeev's char­ acterization of the constitutionalists' dilemma and inconsistency. Afraid of the revolutionaries, they argued that the Chinese people were not yet ready for self-government, until a government with which they had become increasingly impatient turned the same argument against their demands for the early con­ vening of a parliament. Less effective, although potentially more important, is

THE LATE CH'ING

137

Chudodeev's thesis that the constitutionalist program expressed the class interests of liberal bourgeois landlords. His evidence is impressive, but for how much do class interests account? As Chudodeev himself observes, there were conservative officials in the government with their own brand of ’’feudal na­ tionalism.” One wonders what common denominator might underlie this and "liberal bourgeois” nationalism, and how much weight should be assigned, for example, to the outrage over the cession of Taiwan as compared with frustra­ tion over foreign entrepreneurs’ tax privileges. Such questions are perhaps less likely to be pursued where there is no hesitation about applying the terms "liberal" and "feudal” to the late Ch’ing, and little sense of a need to define them. Tikhvinsky paved the way to close investigation of late Ch’ing revolu­ tionary thought with his Sun Yat-sen: His Foreign Policy Views and Practice (1964). The central focus in this work is the evolution of Sun’s attitudes (and, by implication, the stance of the "bourgeois" revolutionaries) towards the interlocking problems of imperialism and revolution. For the pre-1911 period, Tikhvinsky finds Sun's very moderate stance vis-à-vis the imperialist powers intriguing. Citing evidence that resentment of imperialist aggression and exploitation is a constant theme in Sun’s thought throughout this period, he shows that by 1906 at the latest Sun was extremely wary of the contribution to China's economic development that might be expected from foreign investors and technicians, whose interests, he thought, were incompatible with China’s industrialization.7 On the other hand, Tikhvinsky also shows that Sun hoped to gain support in the form of arms, supplies, etc., from a number of foreign powers down to 1908, and thereafter was concerned primarily with securing their benevolent neutrality toward the revolution. Raising the question of why Sun never called openly for an anti-imperialist struggle before 1911, Tikhvinsky finds the answer partly in the realm of tactics but, and more importantly, in the petit-bourgeois base of Sun’s revolutionary movement, which feared mass xenophobia of the Boxer variety. A. M. Grigor'ev took the same problem as the point of departure for his slim volume, The Anti-imperialist Program of the Chinese Bourgeois Revolu­ tionaries, 1895-1905 (1966), but, while Tikhvinsky’s work focused almost exclu­ sively on Sun's thought, Grigor’ev examined a wide range of early revolutionary pamphlets and articles, as well as some of Liang Ch'i-ch'ao's writings. Grigor'ev explains the revolutionaries' reluctance to mobilize an anti­ imperialist struggle in much the same way as Tikhvinsky, although he assigns greater proportional importance to immediate tactical considerations than to their fear of "barbaric" and "uncivilized" mass movements like the Boxers.8 But Grigor'ev goes on to argue that these revolutionaries, like the reformers, thought there was a real chance to squeeze out foreign capital gradually and peacefully. Viewing imperialism merely as a matter of politics, they thought

138

DON C. PRICE

that the balance of conflicting imperialisms gave China an opportunity to regain her economic independence. Grigor'ev's argument is weakened by his failure to pursue the revolutionary-reform debates beyond 1905, when they took a different turn, but his case is nevertheless cogently presented. A. G. Krymov's Public Opinion and Ideological Struggle in China, 1900-1917 (1972) carries the story further in time, and deals even more broadly with the various currents of reform and revolutionary thought. Like Grigor'ev's study, this book draws heavily on early pamphlet and periodical literature reprinted in recent documentary collections, as well as other original sources. Krymov deals rather objectively and successfully with the debates between revolu­ tionaries and reformers (in a treatment remarkably similar to Michael Gasster's work of 1968),9 covering a wide spectrum of ideas in the revolutionary camp and crediting Liang Ch'i-ch'ao with a number of telling criticisms of weaknesses and inconsistencies on the part of his opponents. Among other things, he finds Liang's assessment of imperialism in 1905-7 far more realistic than that of the revolutionaries. Although Krymov criticizes Western scholarship for its pre­ occupation with the impact of the West on the course of China's modern trans­ formation, no alternative schema is developed in his book. In fact, he neither considers the imprint of tradition on modern Chinese thought, nor does he (unlike Chudodeev) try to show how changes in the Chinese economy and society account for the diversity of the ideas which he examines. A major weakness of the book is that it does not reflect an acquaintance with recent Western research. This is most evident in the thumbnail sketches of several important figures.*9 Nevertheless, it is to Krymov's credit that he has dealt with his material so concretely and has expanded the range of Soviet investiga­ tions into late Ch'ing thought far beyond any previous work. Three articles in a 1979 symposium entitled China: in Search of Paths of Social Development continue this kind of careful investigation of reform and revolutionary thought. N. M. Kaliuzhnaia reviews the background and circum­ stances of the publication of the revolutionaries' main journal, Min pao, and analyzes its contents.** D. N. Voskresenskii, in what amounts to an extensive bibliographical study, surveys the treatment of Russian revolutionary ideas by the Chinese before 1911, adding some items not previously noted in the Western literature.*2 L. N. Borokh contrasts the ideas of progress in Liang Ch'i-ch'ao and Sun Yat-sen, finding the latter's rejection of social Darwinism for a vision of moral progress closer than Liang's to the thought of Liang's master, ICang Yu-wei.13 In another intriguing article of 1979, Borokh examines Liang's espousal of Benjamin Kidd's vision of progress (as opposed to the Marxian materialist dialectic) and explains it in terms of Liang's religious sensibility and his need to relate personal mortality and sacrifice to a scheme of social prog­ ress. Borokh's approach to these questions, by no means incompatible with a larger Marxian framework, at the same time brings a new level of sensitivity to the thinkers' concerns as they themselves understood them.*3

THE LATE CH'ING

139

Borokh's close attention to the cultural and intellectual milieu of the revolutionary and reform movements was already evident in her Society for the Revival of China (1971), a detailed study of the background and development of the Hsing-chung hui down to 1900 (before the Waichow uprising). Stressing the similarities between Sun Yat-sen's early thought and that of other reformers of the 1880s, and noting the affinities between the Hsing-chung hui and secret societies, she presents Sun and his nascent revolutionary organization as far less Westernized and peripheral to the Chinese social and intellectual milieu than previously supposed. In a similar vein, she suggests that the vicissitudes of re form-revolutionary relations were far more decisively affected by the re­ spective goals and fortunes of the two groups than by the reformers1 contempt for Sun and his organization.*® Foreign Policy and Patriotic Movements A major factor in the interpretation of reform and revolutionary politics and thought was the conception, vigorously propounded by Kuchumov, of the traitorous and capitulationist policy of the late Chring government. This idea has inspired another line of inquiry in recent Soviet research. Efimovfs study of 1958 marked a major advance, drawing not only on Russian archives and a wide range of Western documentation and research, but also, and most significantly, on the Chinese sources. The Ch'ing policy, he argues, was one of reluctant capitulation. Devastated militarily and financially by Japan in 1894-95, the dynasty could thereafter only try to "use one barbarian to control another,” occasional unrealistic hawkish protests notwithstanding. This explains, according to Efimov, ChinaTs eagerness for an alliance with Russia in 1896, and her toying with the idea of an Anglo-Japanese alliance when the one with Russia proved to be of so little help. Although the Ch'ing mustered what re­ sources they had in an effort to resist foreign demands, they were always ready to yield at the expense of China's interests rather than risk a loss of domestic control. Even in the case of the Boxer uprisings, Efimov argues, the court and official endorsement of the Boxers did not mean that the Ch'ing regime in­ tended to fight the foreign colonizers in earnest.17 When the Empress Dowager declared war on the foreigners in 1900, this was merely a maneuver to save her dynasty from Boxer wrath. The Boxers were deceived, and once again the powers rescued the Ch'ing from the people. Efimov provides an impressive account of Chfing foreign policy in the interval between the first Sino-Japanese war and the Boxer uprising, but there are two respects in which it is problematic. One is the area of Sino-Russian relations. Early Soviet writings were divided on the question of tsarist imperi­ alism in China, some taking a harshly critical view, others finding Russia's relations with China on the whole no more, perhaps less, aggressive than those of the other powers.18 The latter view came to prevail, and is reflected to a

140

DON C. PRICE

greater or lesser degree in the treatment of Chinese views and policies in recent Soviet writings. Krymov, for example, in his discussion of Sung Chiaojenfs anti-imperialist writings, disregards one of his most important series of articles, entitled "Two hundred years of trouble from Russia." Likewise, in discussing the revolutionaries* fear of direct anti-imperialist action, Krymov omits all mention of the Anti-Russian Volunteer Corps, a protorevolutionary movement organized in 1903. Grigor*ev at least referred to the "student army" organized to "resist France and Russia." Tikhvinsky*s books avoid mention of the Russian threat to China whenever possible, despite the fact that it was a major theme in the reform propaganda of 1896-98. Nor does he speak of the seizure of Port Arthur, only of its defense and subsequent "lease."1** Efimov does discuss the seizure of Port Arthur, but his account of foreign relations in this period suggests that granting the Russian demand for a Chinese Eastern Railway through Manchuria was prepayment for an alliance which the Ch*ing court desired, rather than postpayment, under severe duress, for the triple intervention. But the Chinese documentary evidence adduced by Efimov is at best inconclusive on this point, and hardly sufficient to refute the argu­ ment in Romanov*s excellent study of 1934: that the railroad concession was extracted from an unwilling China no less than the lease on Port Arthur and the on Liaotung Peninsula. The other problematic aspect of Efimov*s interpretation is the treatment of the Ch'ing dynasty as one profoundly alien to China and thus inclined to yield to foreign pressure rather than to defend the national interest. The validity of such a picture depends partly on an assessment of the readiness or reluctance with which the court and Manchu grandees made concessions, partly on the extent to which Manchu attitudes on this point differed from those of the Chinese, and partly on whether the reason the monarchy and its loyal defenders wound up in a helpless position was because they placed the interests of the dynasty above those of the nation or because they shared a much broader conservatism. Such problems are pursued in two studies published in 1976 which devote considerable attention to official and popular attitudes in China*s foreign relations. A. S. Ipatova’s The Patriotic Movement in South China in the 1840s focuses on popular resistance to the British incursions in the Canton area. Reviewing the proclamations of the resistance and the forms the struggle took, and deducing (from admittedly skimpy data) its social composition, Ipatova insists that it deserves to be characterized as patriotic, anticolonial, and broadly popular.21 Organized by patriotic gentry, it enlisted craftsmen and urban poor in addition to its predominant constituency, the peasants. Most of the time, the resistance movement had to contend with the hostility of the government, which viewed its own people, rather than the British, as the main enemy. Even so, popular resistance played a role in the continued exclusion of

THE LATE CH'ING

141

foreigners from Canton down to the Second Opium War. Drawing on an exhaus­ tive bibliography of primary and secondary materials, Ipatova steers a middle course between what she regards as the exaggerated claims of some Chinese scholars for the importance of the popular resistance, and Wakeman's char­ acterization of it as an expression of Cantonese provincial xenophobia or­ ganized by the gentry.22 The question remains to what extent the Cantonese resistance (and by extension, the inclinations of the Chinese people at large during this era) can be called patriotic, and Ipatova provides neither a defini­ tion of the term nor any strong, explicit argument for her position. The same issue of the propensity of the Ch'ing dynasty to yield under foreign pressure owing to its non-Han origins was addressed for the period of the Second Opium War by S. I. Zaretskaia in China's Foreign Policy, 18561860: Relations with England and France. Like Ipatova's, her work reflects a familiarity with a broad range of primary sources and secondary literature in Chinese, English, and French (as well as Russian). Zaretskaia argues that within Ch'ing officialdom the policy of nonresistance favored by the court was by no means unanimously endorsed, and that the court was prepared to yield to Britain and France on every demand injurious to China's sovereignty and eco­ nomic interests except those for permanent diplomatic representation in Peking and audiences with the emperor. On these points, the court resisted to the bitter end specifically because yielding would have threatened the dynasty's prestige and legitimacy.22 Partly in an effort to seek accommodation and maintain the flow of customs revenue necessary to support its war against the Taipings, the court maintained trade in all the treaty ports except Canton throughout the conflict, even though discontinuing it would have substantially weakened the invaders' position. As for popular resistance, Zaretskaia finds ample evidence of boycotts and militia resistance throughout the period. Gentry-led peasantry played the major role, but they were joined by Canton's urban poor, coolies, sailors, boatmen, and some merchants. She argues that their efforts were discouraged by the court and local officials. British and French reports suggest that popular resistance was a matter of grave concern to the foreigners, and, in fact, they did not have sufficient military forces to press their demands had the government supported the people. It may be objected that Zaretskaia's analysis of the alternatives facing the court is inadequate, and that the Imperial Commissioner, Yeh Ming-ch'en, did mobilize militia against the British.2* In any event, she presents a strong challenge to Western scholars to rethink their conception of popular antiforeign patriotism and examine the evidence for this period more closely than they have done up to now. Kaliuzhnaia works on the most dramatic episode juxtaposing Ch'ing foreign policy and popular Chinese resistance to the foreign presence; the Boxer Rebel­ lion.22 She rejects early Soviet suggestions that the Boxer movement might

142

DON C. PRICE

have been revolutionary, and has abandoned her own original opinion that it was to a significant degree antifeudal, finding that Boxer rhetoric attacked the dynasty for failure to protect China from the foreigners, and Boxers clashed with the authorities chiefly in the course of their antiforeign activities. In The Boxer Uprising (1978), her own careful review of the evidence shows the Boxers to be a congerie of local secret societies, spontaneously organized local selfdefense groups, and bandit gangs. They had little or no White Lotus influence, and were united by their antiforeign animus and pro-Ch’ing slogans. Devoid of class consciousness, this xenophobic movement gained the support of landlords and officials on the local and in some cases provincial levels, before its en­ dorsement by the court. Even hints in their early proclamations about the overthrow of the dynasty seemed to envision no change in the sociopolitical order, and she doubts that the slogan, "Overthrow the Ch’ing; restore the Ming," was ever used. This assessment of the nature of the uprising is logically consis­ tent with her rejection of Efimov’s opinion that the Ch’ing regime manipulated the Boxers so as to divert their anger away from the dynasty and against the foreigners. In contrast, she holds that foreign pressure became so intolerable as to drive the court to embrace (albeit inconsistently) a spontaneous anti­ foreign struggle, and to try to bring it under official control. Although she does not draw the implication explicitly, Kaliuzhnaia’s view suggests serious qualifi­ cation of the argument that government leaders invariably placed a higher priority on suppressing their people than on resisting imperialism.26 There is no question about the priorities in the case of the Taiping and Nien rebellions, however. The Nien Uprising in China, 1853-1868 (1963), still the only major Soviet investigation of the subject, was undertaken by N. K. Chekanov, who died in 1961 before completing the preparation of his manu­ script. Somewhat dated by now, it nevertheless stands as a well-documented study based on a good command of Chinese and Western sources and research. Chekanov characterizes the Nien bands as possible offshoots of the White Lotus sect that were catalyzed into a full-scale uprising by the Taiping Rebellion. They gathered strength in North China as a result of land hunger, oppressive landlordism, and gentry and government corruption leading to a breakdown of water control and irrigation systems. Thus, in Chekanov’s analysis, the Nien forces were composed primarily of peasants and subject to all the severe prob­ lems of organization and coordination characteristic of peasant movements. At the same time, their leadership lacked any commitment to changes in the prevailing sociopolitical order, aiming only at the overthrow of the Ch’ing.27 Despite the movement’s weaknesses, Chekanov finds the Nien armies militarily superior to those on the government side in all respects except for numbers and weaponry. Although China was not ripe for an overthrow of its feudal order, Chekanov considers the overthrow of the dynasty to have been a real possibility

THE LATE CfflNG

143

and explains the defeat of the Nien as the result of specific historical circum­ stances. One such, he argues, was the dynasty’s surrender to foreign demands, enabling it to concentrate its full energies on the suppression of rebellion and to enlist foreign aid, especially modern weapons, for that purpose. The only monograph to appear on the Taiping movement in the last two decades is V. P. Qiushechkin’s The Taiping Peasant War (1967). Social and economic conditions in mid-nineteenth-century China as a whole weigh more heavily in his analysis of the background of this rebellion than the specifics of the Kwangtung-Kwangsi environment in which it was launched. Despite the drawbacks of this approach (which may underestimate the rise of Hakka-Punti conflict and the complex composition of the movement in its earliest stages), it explains how the Taipings could eventually cover such a large territory and last so long. In any event, Iliushechkin treats the conflict as a peasant war growing out of peasant misery. Although its program of land redistribution was not implemented, he argues on the basis of scattered evidence that the burden of rents and taxes on the peasantry was eased in the territory under Taiping control until the last years of the rebellion.2® He also draws attention (pp. 128-29) to the failings of the Taiping leaders, who continued the ’’worst tradi­ tions of China’s feudal monarchy.” This feudal element he also blames for the internal division and struggles which were a major reason for the ultimate failure of the Taipings.2® At the same time, he observes that foreign interven­ tion and assistance to the Ch’ing government hastened their defeat. Finally, one of the most interesting extended treatments of popular move­ ments is that of A. S. Kostiaeva, Popular Movements in China, 1901-1911 (1970). Based primarily on Chinese publications of documentary collections, this work looks for trends underlying a number of comparatively small-scale protest movements, riots and uprisings throughout China over a decade. Con­ trary to Kuchumov’s and Tikhvinsky’s opinion that the new economic environ­ ment drove Chinese landlords to exploit their tenants more severely, Kostiaeva rejects the idea that these movements were caused by an increase in rents. The underlying cause of dissatisfaction, in her analysis, was most often levies necessitated by the Boxer indemnity and taxes to finance the new reform measures. This new burden fell on everyone from tenants to middle-scale landlords. Accordingly, the ’’popular movements” were most consistently antiforeign in thrust, less often antidynastic, and almost devoid of politically progressive elements.®® Revolutionaries managed to exert only a minor influ­ ence on them, while secret societies, and in a few cases gentry, provided leadership for a predominantly peasant rank and file. 1 Later research in the West has corrected some misconceptions in Kostiaeva’s analysis, but on the whole it successfully provides a more concrete picture of the diversity of popular movements in respect to their social context

144

DON C. PRICE

and the kinds of disaffection they reflect.32 In fact, this work should serve as a point of departure for Soviet scholars in more detailed investigations of the popular political mentality in late Ch'ing China. A number of recent articles have dealt with various other aspects of popular organization and resistance, including the Moslem uprisings in Yunnan and the Small Swords in Shanghai. The cumulative effect of such studies, like the monographs discussed above, has been to confirm the ideological and or­ ganizational limitations of all kinds of popular movements in the traditional ("feudal") environment, in contrast to the exaggerated claims by early Soviet and more recent Chinese writers.'*'* The Revolution of 1911 This, in turn, raises the issue of the role of popular involvement, sponta­ neous or otherwise, in the Revolution of 1911, one of the questions addressed in E. A. Belov's The Wuchang Uprising in China (1971). Belov is primarily con­ cerned with establishing the primacy of the Hupei revolutionary movement in the overthrow of the dynasty and the establishment of the republic. The defeat of previous T'ung-meng hui efforts he attributes to their failure to mobilize substantial popular support for revolutionary goals. By contrast, it was pre­ cisely a prolonged period of more or less continuous organizational activity and propaganda, focusing finally on New Army soldiers and noncommissioned officers, that lent the Wuchang Uprising its strength. Belov criticizes Kuchumov for exaggerating the victories of the masses at large, for like Kostiaeva he stresses their defects in consciousness and coor­ dination, down to and including the vast outbreak in Szechwan in 1911 which created the conditions for revolution.3* By contrast, the revolutionary cells in the New Army at Wuchang were both a vehicle for popular revolutionary im­ pulses and, in 1911, a rallying point for popular support. Drawing heavily on original memoirs of the central Chinese revolutionary movement, Belov's thesis stresses the Wuchang revolutionaries' independence of T'ung-meng hui (and Sun Yat-sen's) guidance, and constitutes an important challenge to Sun's reputation as leader of the revolution. In contrast, Efimov's first major publication since 1958, The Bourgeois Revolution in China and Sun Yat-sent 1911-1913 (1974), was designed in part to rectify the trend then preva­ lent among Western scholars to downgrade Sun's role.33 Relying heavily on the existing monographic literature, Efimov reaffirms the anti-imperialist nature of the revolution, stressing the tactical impossibility of a direct attack on the imperialist powers. He notes the limitations of mass opposition to the dynasty, but emphasizes the importance of intense and widespread popular disaffection for its overthrow. If, as Efimov holds, the T'ung-meng hui did not effectively mobilize this mass revolutionary potential, one might ask how important that

THE LATE CHUNG

145

organization was in the course of the revolution. Thus, while Sun Yat-sen (quite properly) figures prominently in his narrative of the revolutionary move­ ment, Efimov's synthesis does not deal effectively with Belov's challenge. Belov has been criticized for his iconoclasm, but has maintained his posi­ tion vigorously in a series of short articles which: (1) compare the immediate adoption of a provisional constitution in Wuchang favorably with Sun Yat-sen's plan for an extended period of tutelage; (2) compare the size of the Wuchang revolutionary organizations (about five thousand) with that of the Tfung-meng hui as a whole (about ten thousand); (3) sharply distinguish real uprising from plots and putsches; and (4) insist that the Wuchang uprising was a soldiers' revolt, not just a military coup.36 The most recent major study in which Sun receives extensive treatment, V. N. Nikiforov's The First Chinese Revolutionaries (1980), is a thoroughly matter-of-fact, detailed inquiry into the revolutionary movement and Sun's role in it, including the first close examination in Soviet scholarship of the Waichow and Independence Army uprisings of 1900 and the Hung Ch'iian-fu plot of 1903. To be sure, it deals with the less controversial period, 1895-1903, and takes no position on the 1911 Revolution. Despite some overlap with Borokh's work in both narrative and analysis, Nikiforov takes a somewhat different tack, empha­ sizing Sun's role less, and the role of other figures in the revolutionary move­ ment more. Indeed, in his account, "reformers'' figure prominently in the story of early revolutionaries since reformers and revolutionaries had many close links and the distinction between them was not always clear. Nikiforov's work owes a considerable debt to the earlier researches of Borokh and Western scholars, but it is clear, for example, in his analysis of the Canton plot of 1895, that he has probed deeply into the Chinese sources in an effort to reconstruct the relations and roles of the various participants.37 Conclusions Soviet research on late Ch'ing politics and political thought has attained a creditable standard over the past two decades. Although Soviet scholars lack convenient access to important archives in Taiwan and the West (not to men­ tion the PRC), they have at their disposal a wealth of published source material as well as important Russian archives, and, on the whole, they use them to good effect. In comparison with Western research on the late Ch'ing, certain gaps are noticeable. Despite Tikhvinsky's contributions, most intellectual history re­ mains focused rather narrowly on political thought. The intellectual presuppo­ sitions and dilemmas of the self-strengthening program and the thought of nineteenth-century statesmen have generally been disregarded. There have been no broad efforts to deal with the transition from a traditional world view

146

DON C. PRICE o Q

through reform thought to nationalism and revolution. This gap can be related to others. One appears to be a lack of interest in self-strengthening efforts in general, perhaps arising from a belief that their significance is thor­ oughly captured in interpretations of the changing economy and the social and political contradictions to which this change gave rise.39 But even this kind of interpretation has not been fleshed out for the nineteenth century by anything more substantial than Tikhvinskyfs and Chudodeev's introductory chapters, and nothing comparable to Tikhvinskyfs and Efimov's accounts of court and fac­ tional politics has been attempted for earlier decades. Nor do we find much interest in the functioning of the nineteenth-century state, central, provincial, and regional power structures, the mu-fu and examination systems, and so on. Another related gap is in the genre of biography. So far only K'ang Yu-wei and Sun Yat-sen have been the subjects of book-length studies, or even major articles.40 There seems to be little inclination to delve deeply into the percep­ tions, reflections, and activities of individuals as a means of shedding light on their times. Finally, the coverage of Sino-Russian relations is particularly disap­ pointing, for this is a field in which Russian archives afford Soviet scholars a great advantage. But it is also a field in which strong biases, or perhaps even stronger taboos, have prevented much fruitful work.41 Very recent publica­ tions on late Ch'ing foreign relations continue to reflect the impact of powerful present-day concerns. Several articles in the collection, Documentary Refuta­ tion: Against the Falsification of the History of Russo-Chinese Relations (1982), deal with the late Ch'ing, generally reaffirming the picture of a rela­ tively friendly Russian approach to China (in contrast to the rapacity of Western imperialism) down to the 1890s. But the notorious Ignat'ev mission is barely mentioned, the Ili crisis is treated one-sidedly, and the secret treaty of 1896 is omitted.42 Another symposium, China and Her Neighbors (1982), in discussing China's relations with several countries and peoples, stresses the pernicious role of the "xenophobia and sinocentrism characteristic equally of feudal, bourgeois, and petit-bourgeois ideology and utopian peasant socialism in China."43 One of the more substantial articles in this volume (pp. 34-89) is V. S. Miasnikov and N. V Shepeleva's "The Ch'ing Empire and Russia in the eighteenth to early twentieth centuries." In this survey, even the relatively objective treatment of the 1890s and early 1900s will strike the Western reader as somewhat unbalanced, but it does challenge us to reconsider the extent to which the nineteenth-century Russian incursions into China were a response to the advances of British, French, and German imperialism. Aside from this particularly sensitive area, research and debate appear to proceed with considerable freedom, given a Marxist framework. Even the acknowledged importance of pursuing the roots of Maoism in China's past seems to have had little impact on research on the late Ch'ing. The specifics of

THE LATE CITING

147

Chinese thought and politics in this period are sufficiently remote from immediate concerns that serious and fruitful inquiry can be pursued with little external constraint. Although still for the most part poorly acquainted with Japanese research, Soviet scholars display a wide familiarity with current Western and Chinese scholarship in their fields of interest. If their perspective on the state of the field in the bourgeois" world is occasionally somewhat skewed, this may reflect the fact that they are still writing for a somewhat insular scholarly community with its own distinctive background, presupposi­ tions, and preoccupations. The great merit of Soviet research on the late Ch'ing lies in its effort to relate politics and thought to the social and economic background. It is illumi­ nating, in fact, to reflect on the schema of interpretation advanced so boldly by Kuchumov in the 1920s. In certain respects he has been shown wrong, and yet we are still likely to be intrigued by his suggestions about the ways in which new trade and industry created new interest groups and new political battle lines within the country. Western scholars may be dissatisfied with the easy way in which recent Soviet research draws connections between putative social groupings and the patriotic," "feudal,” or "liberal” stances which they adopt, but the work of scholars like Kaliuzhnaia, Chudodeev, Borokh, Belov, and others suggests an increasingly close argumentation and attention to concrete histori­ cal reality with which scholars outside the Soviet Union will want to be familiar.

CHAPTER 11

The Ch’ing and Its Legacy: Social Change Gilbert Rozman Most of the hundreds of articles and tens of books on the history of Ch!ing China published in the Soviet Union during the past two decades concern rela­ tions with neighboring peoples and the political and diplomatic history of the dynastyfs final century of decline. The preceding chapters show how these popular topics have been treated, with work on the former influenced by Russian nationalism and the Sino-Soviet border dispute, and work on the latter influenced by the ideology of anti-imperialism. In contrast, little attention has been given to economic conditions and social changes in late imperial China despite the importance of these topics in Marxist-Leninist explanations of world history. Indeed, with the exception of O. E. Nepomnin, The Genesis of Capitalism in Chinese Agriculture (1966), and E. P. Stuzhina, Chinese Crafts in the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries (1970), there is scarcely a specialized monograph on these internal developments. Year after year, of the approxi­ mately one hundred papers compiled in the three-volume collection, Society and State in China, only a few focus on Ch!ing society and the domestic econ­ omy. To the extent that these issues are treated, the perspective on them has been deeply influenced by Marxist literature in the PRC and more recently by scholarship in the West. Soviet social-science writings on late imperial China are not characterized by much originality or depth, although there are consci­ entious scholars who are making competent contributions. References to Ch’ing society and the domestic economy appear in discus­ sions of at least four of the general themes found in Soviet studies of Ch’ing China: (1) socioeconomic formations (including the Asiatic mode of produc­ tion); (2) the origins of capitalism; (3) the legacy of traditional society; and (4) the causes and consequences of peasant rebellions and nationalistic antagon­ isms. Although individual studies on the Ch’ing dynasty often get by without addressing any of these themes, special claims are made for them in the ideo­ logical rationale for scholarship. They are often declared important when historians are called upon to raise their level of generality, to give a higher theoretical content to their research, and to overcome tendencies toward excessive descriptiveness and narrowness. It is claimed that studies should be linked to the ’’objective inner logic of history” which can be found in MarxistLeninist theory. In this way, scholarship is able ”to form a picture of social life

149

150

GILBERT ROZMAN

as a whole” and to avoid a "chaotic conglomeration of isolated facts and events."1 A small number of innovative studies have focused squarely on one or another of these four themes, even though they have not been well incorporated into the mainstream of specialized research. Socioeconomic Formations It is commonplace for Soviet sources to claim that, "the history of society consists of the history of the development and sequence of socioeconomic formations. . . . There are five of these formations altogether: the primitive communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist and communist."3 Nonetheless, since the Stalinist era, the subject of formations has been approached in new, less dogmatic ways, though without challenging basic ideological premises. Many scholars now reject attempts to deduce historical regularities from the existence of formations. The result has been an uneasy division marked by an emphasis on the middle-range generalizations that result from specific histor­ ical investigation, and at the same time by continued repetition of the basic laws (zakony or zakonomernosti) set forth in the theory of successive forma­ tions. Many reject earlier interpretations of economic determinism, recently identified as no more than "vulgar falsifications" attributed to Soviet writings by opponents of Marxism.3 Soviets now write that history can move in zigzags and that development can be slowed or speeded by the actions of the masses, which in turn are affected by varied forces. Only the general direction of the movement of society is considered economically determined. Historians must investigate the empirical evidence of diverse relationships among social vari­ ables in order to ascertain the timing of formations in particular countries. There is also an official tolerance of certain attempts to revise the longaccepted sequence of socioeconomic formations. Under these relatively open conditions, a lively debate has proceeded about the applicability of the fivestage formula to China. The two principal figures in this debate are V. P. Iliushechkin and V. N. Nikiforov. The three questions at the heart of the debate on socioeconomic forma­ tions are: (1) textual (What did the founders of Marxist-Leninist thought mean in their writings on formations and on the distinctive histories of countries in the East?); (2) historiographic (What explains the conclusions about periodi­ zation in Marxist studies of China since the Russian Revolution?); and (3) historical (How should the accumulated evidence of Chinese history be inter­ preted?). The first two questions gained popularity from the mid 1960s to the beginning of the 1970s, following widespread criticism of the five-stage formu­ la and Marx's concept of the Asiatic mode of production by non-Soviet Marxists. The opening salvos of the debate in the USSR were fired by nonChina specialists. Then Nikiforov joined this debate in General and Particular

THE CHTNG AND ITS LEGACY

151

in the Historical Development of Countries of the East (1966), in a 1971 article entitled, ”K. Marx and F. Engels on the Asiatic mode of production,” and in Soviet Historians on Problems of China (1970).^ Although a lull set in during the 1970s, later the clash between Nikiforov and Iliushechkin intensified. Nikiforov supported the five-stage theory in The East and Worldwide History (1977), whereas Iliushechkin attempted to substitute a single precapitalist class formation for the slave-owning and feudal stages. In a 1979 collection of articles, Social and Socioeconomic History of China, Iliushechkin developed his analysis of the methodology of existing periodization, criticizing the distinction between slave-owning and feudal as Eurocentric and based on a priori judgments.6 He contrasted his views with Nikiforov!s on such issues of Chinese history as private property, the role of the state, social-class differentiation, slavery, and mass uprisings. Although the implications of this clash of views pertain to the periodization of Chinese history all the way up to the twentieth century, the two opponents concentrate on the details of pre­ imperial history and the first dynasties. Other specialists on China and on Asian history in general have commented on this debate. If the opinion of E. M. Zhukov is an indication of official thinking, then Nikiforov's viewpoint is deemed more consistent with the facts of world and Chinese history.6 (Before his death in 1979 Zhukov was the only historian of East Asia with the rank of academician.) The five-stage formula continues to be widely repeated. The notion of a single, precapitalist formation has won little acceptance, and the idea of a distinctive Asiatic mode of produc­ tion (for which there is no clear-cut advocate) has become a contemporary political issue. Nonetheless, NikiforovTs defense is not regarded as beyond assault. In 1977, A. V. Meliksetov repeated Iliushechkin's oft-stated warning of the need to be very careful in the application to Asia of concepts based on European histor­ ical materials and accused Nikiforov of excessive subjectivity and of at­ tempting to discourage debate rather than developing the discussion.^ Earlier, in 1973, L. S. Perelomov reviewed the first stages of the debate in the context of research on ancient China, noting that, despite their concentration on the details of ancient history, the two opponents are actually specialists on modern and contemporary China.6 This fact, in addition to the virtual absence of coverage of later periods, the tendency of the authors to repeat themselves rather than analyze conditions in depth, and the lack of interest by other China specialists in testing the hypotheses that could be generated through the de­ bate, suggests that the debate on periodization is not very fruitful for a histori­ cal understanding of China. Yet, it has been useful in exposing the weaknesses in prevailing interpretations of socioeconomic formations and for its insights into problems of theory and of historical methodology in Chinese studies. The issue remains very much alive; in 1982 a new book by Iliushechkin was approved

152

GILBERT ROZMAN

for publication after intense discussions at both IVAN, where he works, and at IDV, where Nikiforov is employed. There is no sign of a comparably lively exchange of views on the timing of other benchmarks in the development of socioeconomic formations. Wide­ spread use of the labels "ancient" (drevnaia—to the third century A.D.); "medieval" (srednevekovaia—to the seventeenth century); "modern" (novaia—to the time of the Russian Revolution); and "contemporary" (noveishaia) appar­ ently does not arouse much interest in the comparative implications of these choices for understanding Chinese development. There is general agreement that in the eighth century early feudalism gave way to developed feudalism, which yielded to late feudalism in the seventeenth century. This view is occa­ sionally qualified by modest variations, for example, E. P. Stuzhina’s separation of rural and urban periods, but there is no direct challenge that has stimulated new research.1® Understandably, the liveliest discussion in this area has been concerned with problems of the transition from feudalism to capitalism, a process seen as beginning in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century and referred to as a multiformation (mnogoukladnost0 with elements of both. The Ch’ing period is little discussed in the literature on formations, since divergent views on the genesis of capitalism have not raised fundamental questions about the nature, sequence, and timing of formations. The Origins of Capitalism Circumstances have worked against the emergence of a sustained interpre­ tation or debate about social evolution and economic development. Writers who have addressed many of the themes pertaining to what Soviets refer to as the transition from feudalism to capitalism—the development of production and distribution, the growth of cities, the transformation of social classes, and the evolution of landholding patterns—have generally not carried their research to fruition. Of the scholars who have worked on these themes, E. P. Stuzhina fell ill and died in 1974, A. N. Khokhlov shifted his primary interest from rural conditions to the history of Russian sinology, and N. I. Fomina switched from the study of peasant rebellions to research on merchants only in the mid 1970s, and then shifted again to preparation of a reference work on Asia in the early 1980s. Only O. E. Nepomnin has worked continuously in this area, generating considerable controversy with his conclusions. Stuzhina’s two books, Chinese Crafts in the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Cen­ turies and The Chinese City (Eleventh to Thirteenth Centuries), are a signifi­ cant contribution to Chinese studies. They bring together important evidence on China’s premodern development—its final stages of feudalism. As discussed by Ruth Dunnell, Stuzhina’s book on Sung cities and its epilogue by G. Ia. Smolin offer the fullest analysis available of the character and timing of "developed

THE CHTNG AND ITS LEGACY

153

feudalism” in China, including explanations for its failure to lead quickly to the beginnings of capitalism. Her book on craft production assesses "late feudalism" as a period when capitalist relations gradually began in China, but "ran up against the impeding role of the guild system and public crafts, heavy tax oppression, and the tendency of the despotic centralized state to preserve old methods of feudal exploitation."** Together these two books systemati­ cally build on and refine the views of L. V. Simonovskaia, who during the 1950s and 1960s filled a gap within the Soviet community of China specialists in explaining the evolution from the Sung to the Ch'ing dynasties. Stuzhina's work is characterized by unusual familiarity with a diverse range of sources, both primary and secondary, including rare epigraphs located during her stay in China in the 1950s. Even for those Western scholars who disagree with her conclusions about stages of feudalism, much of her detailed treatment of social conditions is useful, for example, her examination of changing technologies in the production of various handicrafts, with its diagrams and illustrations. A. N. Khokhlov has written a number of articles about such topics as agrarian policies, land ownership, land rents, and the TarCh’ing lil-li as a source in agrarian legal history. Yet, his presentations remain fragmentary, often failing to take into account research conducted abroad. For instance, a 1971 article entitled, "Internal trade in China from the end of the eighteenth to the first half of the nineteenth century," failed to cite secondary sources in Jap­ anese or English and made such blunders as mentioning without qualification a Russian informants estimate that the population of Peking and its suburbs in 1849 was about three million.*** Although Khokhlov dates the last stage, or breakdown, of feudalism from the end of the eighteenth century (p. 83), the evidence he presents hardly begins to make a case for this timing (which is later than StuzhinaS and earlier than NepomninS). Recognizing the tremendous gap that still exists in Soviet research on these areas of Chinese history, N. I. Fomina launched her research on mer­ chants with an article on Soviet historiography. Although Stuzhina wrote similar review articles on PRC historiography, no corresponding attention has yet been given to recent Japanese and Western publications in these areas. Indeed, review articles on the international literature concerning four topics of "medieval" history, published as recently as 1977 in the collection, Historiog­ raphy of the Countries of the East, show virtually no familiarity with Western scholarship after the early 1960s.*4 The four posthumous articles of Simonovskaia and Stuzhina (in one case co-authored by Smolin and in another by Lapina) are, indeed, incongruous. Apart from the repeated misspellings of names, the attempts to characterize the state of a field on the basis of an odd and outdated selection of materials is embarrassing testimony to limited access to materials, and perhaps to concealed barriers to positive assessments of Western scholarship. An example of this is the treatment of Western literature

154

GILBERT ROZMAN

on cities, crafts, and trade. It is clear that access to foreign publications remains a serious problem and that historical issues which date back centuries are still politically controversial. In her review, Fominas blunt criticisms of shortcomings in the Soviet study of merchants offer an encouraging sign that she will avoid comparable mis­ takes. Fomina objects to the narrowness of the source base, the excessively schematized approach, the selection of materials for illustrative purposes, the insufficient attention to historiography, the strong tone of largely unproven assertions (often very important ones), and the lack of consideration of opposing opinions.1® She concludes (p. 155) that many hypotheses reappear in one work after another and "begin to be accepted as axioms although they are not supported by factual materials." Fomina also notes, as pertinent to her own planned research, issues on which Soviets disagree, such as whether state policies toward merchants were largely unchanging or were actually quite flexible. It should be noted that in none of these areas does she specify the Soviet targets of her criticism. The writings of O. E. Nepomnin cover the nineteenth century and have been widely, often critically, reviewed in the Soviet Union. His first book, The Genesis of Capitalism in the Agriculture of China (1966), enumerates a long list of supposedly distinctive factors that slowed ChinaTs rural development and contrasted with conditions elsewhere. He neither analyzes these factors in depth nor presents evidence on other countries for his concluding comparisons. This book and its bibliography imply virtually total ignorance of modern Wes­ tern and Japanese secondary scholarship—not an uncommon situation in the mid 1960s. Nepomnin's second book, The Economic History of China, 1864-1894 (1974), was followed by a third, The Socioeconomic History of Chinat 1894-1914 (1980). The bibliographic gaps in English are not so serious in these recent books, and the factual basis for his conclusions has been strengthened. Nevertheless, a striking discrepancy remains between Nepomnin's confidently stated generali­ zations and his limited presentation of the most relevant evidence. Focused primarily on the urban sector, his 1974 book: (1) makes many errors and impre­ cise statements (for example, in its conclusions about urban populations and the relative populations of administrative centers and nonadministrative cities);*® (2) criticizes "bourgeois" writings as a group without making much use of them (for example, the writings of Ping-ti Ho on demography or of G. William Skinner on marketing—although Nepomnin's most recent articles at last have begun to draw on these sources [pp. 10-11]); and (3) transposes, in a misleading way fraught with assumptions, the language and conditions common in studies of other "medieval" settings to China (for example, in his opinions about peas­ ant exploitation and serfdom [p.21]). Characterizing Chinese development with adjectives like "misshapen" (urodlivyi) and "deformed," Nepomnin repeat­ edly draws general, comparative conclusions with implications about the

THE CH’ING AND ITS LEGACY

155

impossibility of resolving contradictions under a capitalist system and the necessity of a socialist revolution.1^ He presents evidence for many important points, but still does not instill confidence that his conclusions represent induc­ tive history based on a weighing of that evidence rather than deductive history based on commonplace and little-tested assumptions. A. V. Meliksetov is both the primary analyst of subsequent capitalist development in China and Nepomnin’s foremost critic. He finds much to praise in Nepomnin’s work, but criticizes some of its methods and then uses the infor­ mation it provides as a springboard for reinterpreting problems of the genesis of capitalism.1® Meliksetov’s two books, Bureaucratic Capital in China (Eco­ nomic Policies of the Kuomintang and the Development of State Capitalism in 1927-1937) (1972), and Socioeconomic Policies of the Kuomintang (1927-1949) (1977), carry the examination of social change forward to the establishment of the PRC. The historiographic sections of Meliksetov’s writings give considerable insight into his approach. He is even more critical than most Soviet sinologists of work produced in the PRC, charging that its negative influence is only slowly being rooted out from Soviet scholarship.1® Meliksetov, unlike most of his colleagues, has a wide command of English-language sources as well as an appreciation of their diversity and the wide range of materials they use. He has also had more opportunity than all but a few Soviets to work in the United States and to confer with American counterparts. This and his recognition of the possible uses of English-language scholarship in stimulating future research put him in the forefront of the growing number of Soviets who are well versed in American sinology. Even he, however, does not use Japanese sources, leaving a gap in his work. Soviet writings about the development of capitalism draw heavily on the scholarship of the PRC. In the divergent opinions expressed about the origins of capitalism and their subsequent fate under the impact of imperialism and early twentieth-century reform, there is a clear reflection of (and in the 1970s increasingly a reaction against) the intense debates about periodization in China before the Cultural Revolution. Whereas in 1979-81 a more positive appraisal of the early Ch’ing became popular in the PRC, Soviet specialists showed no sign of accepting this view. The Legacy of Traditional Society It is not uncommon for Soviet historians to propose explanations for the slowness of China’s development, especially during the last centuries of feu­ dalism. In some studies China is considered to be burdened by conditions common to all Asian countries except Japan.^® More often, China’s slow development is blamed on conditions specific to itself, especially on various ’’traditions”—some associated with the role of the government and the nature of

156

GILBERT ROZMAN

social classes and most embedded in Confucian thought. Interpretations of "traditional” China are deeply indebted to American scholarship and to efforts to explain the fate of contemporary China. They may serve a positive role in demonstrating the relevance of historical understanding to evaluations of modern China and the inadequacies in the views of those contemporary special­ ists who simply assume the applicability of Soviet experience to China. The collection, The Role of Tradition in the History and Culture of China, most clearly embodies the interest, evident since the mid 1960s, in "tradition" as a barrier to "social progress." Published in 1972 after disconcerting events in the PRC obliged Soviets to search for the peculiarities of development that might be responsible for distorting China's transition to socialism, this volume includes articles on the role of "tradition" in many areas; for example, in the forms and methods of the early anti-Chfing struggle, in state regulation of economic life, in foreign policies, and in the position of the ruling class. The responsible editor and prominent figure in the Soviet reexamination of "tradi­ tions" is L. S. Vasil'ev, a specialist on ancient history. His articles draw heavily on Western writings that regard the persistence of "traditional" ways in late imperial China as a particularly strong impediment to modernization. Vasil'ev describes China in familiar terms as having a persistent balance of organiza­ tional forces, weak horizontal social ties and a high level of social mobility, strong state controls over private property, periodic reform as an instrument of 91 tradition, and unusually strong immunity to radical change. Only its opening to the West in the nineteenth century enabled the situation to change. Vasil’ev and many others see the influence of longstanding "traditions" even in recent events. This emphasis on the "yoke of tradition" raises at least three themes that are potential challenges to Marxist history as long practiced in the Soviet Union. It stresses the uniqueness of Chinese history rather than its conformity to the accepted theory of world history. It concentrates on the superstructure, Confucian ideology, as a determining factor in the rate of social change, and, in the process, implies that class conflict was dulled. And it concludes that social change was slowed, if not virtually halted, by tradition, in contrast to the inexorable march of history elsewhere. Recent reinterpreta­ tions of Marxist-Leninist theory allow for some degree of variation on these points, but the sweeping implications of the imprecise concept of "tradition" may be difficult to reconcile with the essential Soviet theory of development. Indeed, historians such as L. A. Bereznyi have criticized the one-sided emphasis on "tradition" in the writings of John K. Fairbank and others as an attem pt to shift the responsibility away from colonialism for the backwardness of depen­ dent countries.^ In recent years Soviets have followed the example of their Western counterparts in finding more precise ways of referring to the many internal historical conditions that may be helpful in explaining slow develop­ ment. Yet, the concept of "tradition" is still invoked, as in O. E. Nepomnin!s

THE CH'ING AND ITS LEGACY

157

1978 reference to "the almost untouched weight of the stagnant Confucian tradition.”23 A short article in the proceedings of the 1977 eighth annual scientific conference on Society and State in China sets forth Meliksetovfs main ideas about the influence of the traditional socioeconomic structure” on capitalist evolution over the century before 1949.24 It notes five basic features of that structure: (1) the decisive role of government (elsewhere he refers to des­ potism) in preventing the development of independent classes and in otherwise shaping the course of development; (2) the pervasive role of, capital based on commerce and usury in all spheres of society and its close link to the bureau­ cratic apparatus of the state; (3) the fluidity of the ruling class; (4) the early existence of free labor and capital sufficient for the manufacturing stage of capitalism (although this stage did not appear prior to the mid-nineteenth century; and (5) the high adaptability of forms of exploitation to varied social conditions. He argues that these features contributed to the rapid development of forms of capitalism, but without the discontinuation of old exploitation and of the state's diverse and extensive functions. Despite his criticisms of Nepomnin, Meliksetov shares Nepomnin's characterization of China's capitalist development as "deformed” and "misshapen.” Moreover, by virtue of his focus on recent history, he takes a stand on such issues as the nature of the working class, class relations, and Communist Party policies—all matters that the dominant group in the field at IDV has sought to interpret definitively. Drawing extensively on foreign scholarship, Meliksetov opens a dialogue with Western writers, punctuated with many controversial assertions that deserve examination by scholars who are familiar with his work and its setting in Soviet studies of China. Along with L. P. Deliusin and his department at IVAN and V. G. Gel'bras and his colleagues at the Institute of the International Workers' Movement (IMRD), Meliksetov employs the concept of tradition to counter the ahistorical generalizations that prevail at IDV. Two other Soviet specialists deserve mention for their recent work on twentieth-century local conditions, including class relations in the village, local administration, and community organization and customs. Agrarian Relations in China from the Twenties to the Forties of the Twentieth Century (1970), by A. S. Mugruzin (at IDV) is a detailed reexamination of the statistics available in surveys of this period on landholding and rent in Szechwan Province. Through the 1970s Mugruzin continued to publish articles on rural social relations, but without engaging recent advocates of other viewpoints abroad.25 In contrast, N. I. Tiapkina (at IVAN) draws extensively on Western anthropological and historical writings as she introduces Soviet audiences to subjects that have long been popular in the United States such as village kinship groups and the impact of local administration on communities.26 It is not yet clear what distinctive Soviet imprint may be given to these topics.

158

GILBERT ROZMAN

On the whole, in research on premodern social change and the initial phases of modernization the Soviets remain far behind specialists in both Japan and the West. In some areas they have made considerable progress, especially through prodigious use of primary materials, as in Stuzhina's work, and through extensive familiarity with Western writings, as in Meliksetov's work. Yet, over these past two decades we find evidence that their advances have been slowed by at least four factors: (1) the low priority given to these topics as demon­ strated by the small number of Soviets with these specialties in 1982; (2) the delayed acceptance of foreign achievements, often compounded by out-of-date bibliographies with inadequate use of Japanese, an even more serious problem in this respect than ignorance of recent Western writings, and by the combative approach associated with a rigid classification of sources by nationality as bourgeois or even as anticommunist; (3) the dearth of interaction with and criticism from the leading specialists abroad, who would undoubtedly have many suggestions about sources, methods, and assumptions in Soviet works; and (4) the limits imposed on conclusions by political constraints, even though in some areas these have eased, for example, in the acceptance of more positive assessments of Kuomintang economic achievements. The improving trend of scholarship is unmistakable, especially away from the more rigidly controlled IDV. Ignorance of Soviet sources for this period poses many dangers of missing useful research aides such as new overviews of the field, criticisms of existing scholarship, reinterpretations of primary materials, applications of varied secondary sources including a large body of Soviet materials, and original conclusions. In some fields, for example, the study of Sung-dynasty cities, the point has been reached when foreign neglect of Soviet scholarship may warrant as severe a reproof as those we have directed against certain Soviet specialists for neglect of important foreign scholarship. In their case the fault must be shared with those who restrict their contacts and fail to purchase library materials. Greater use of Soviet materials is possible with relative ease for Western scholars. Peasant Rebellions and Nationalistic Antagonisms Another focus of Ch'ing studies in the Soviet Union has been on the Manchu government and its relations to peasant movements and to peoples on the Chinese periphery, in other words, its power in the face of class and national­ istic antagonisms. The bulk of this literature centers on the seventeenthcentury rise of the Manchus to power and their changing Central Asian rela­ tions, and on the demands of the Manchu dynasty as part of the revolutionary and anti-imperialist struggles that ushered in the twentieth century. The previous two chapters concentrate on these themes, but also include such themes as the impact of social class relations on peasant rebellions, that war­ rant consideration for their general importance to Ch'ing history.

THE CH’ING AND ITS LEGACY

159

The only single-volume collection (sbornik) on the Chfing appeared in 1966 under the title, Manchu Dominion in China. In its long introductory chapter, S. L. Tikhvinsky, the responsible editor, takes a broad look at this period. He regards the period as a time of cruel exploitation of Chinese peasants, enor­ mous destruction of the economy, deep Chinese hostility to the Manchus, and conservation of feudal relations accompanied by the introduction of prefeudal forms and presumably checking the normal evolution of "late feudalism."22 His analysis, however, errs in many important respects. Tikhvinsky refers errone­ ously to the peasants as being bound to the land, ignores the strong recupera­ tive powers of the Chinese economy when discussing its deterioration, and anachronistically attributes modern nationalistic sentiments to Chinese throughout the period. In making his case, Tikhvinsky criticizes "bourgeois" historiography for idealizing Manchu rule in the personality of separate emperors and for ignoring Chinese-Manchu contradictions. He also finds "bour­ geois" studies inferior (pp. 56-60) because they reject the active role of the uprisings of Chinese peasants and non-Han peoples in shaking Manchu rule and underestimate the role of the capitalist powers in preserving Manchu rule in the Taiping and Boxer crises. Despite the fact that Tikhvinskyfs article cites recent Western studies, the combined bibliography at the end of the volume lists only Soviet publications (well over one hundred) on the Ch’ing. Thus, the book is something of a throwback to the time when Soviet insularity justified incomplete acquaintance with international secondary scholarship. Tikhvinsky conveys an attitude of intense ideological competition with "bourgeois" scholar­ ship. His conclusions are a reversion to another earlier practice—the style of simplistically separating social forces into good and evil. Between the mid 1960s and mid 1970s, the quality of scholarship in many fields of research on pre-1949 China rose appreciably. The contrast can be seen in comparisons of books by writers from two generations—L. V. Simonovskaia’s The Antifeudal Struggle of Chinese Peasants in the Seventeenth Century (1966) and N. I. Fomina’s The Struggle Against the Ch’ing in Southeast China of the Middle Seventeenth Century (1974). Together the publications of these authors, as well as the recent work of B. G. Doronin and others, indicate a deep interest in research on China’s seventeenth-century uprisings.28 A product of earlier training and initial career development, Simonovskaia does not flinch before general questions. She approaches them confidently and claims to have answers for them. Fomina, writing eight years later, humbly suggests that the state of the field does not yet permit many important ques­ tions to be answered. Thus, she justifies a limited analysis centered on specific regions and specific features of the opposition movement and an approach that does not permit answers to wide theoretical questions, but may aid in their resolution in the future.29 One finds in her work little repetition of Simonovskaia’s claims that society was not ripe for unification of the progres­ sive strata of the city, that the victory of reactionary forces caused China to

160

GILBERT ROZMAN

return to stagnant and backward forms of economy and culture, and that the rebellion had an antifeudal character.30 More than a decade of publications on this topic preceded Fomina’s book. Typical of many scholars of her generation, Fomina reviewed the relevant historiography (especially that of the PRC), immersed herself in primary materials, wrote brief appraisals of various aspects of her topic, and finally produced a book based solidly on fact. Another study of rebellions that meets modern scholarly standards is the 1972 book by E. B. Porshneva, Study of the "White Lotus"—the Ideology of the Popular Uprising 1796-1804. Porshneva establishes a distance between her research and the works of "certain contemporary historians" in which "the role of the religion of secret societies comes down to ’using’ them in the capacity of an external cover for the class actions of the popular masses. . . ."31 In her opinion, the Soviets have not tried to understand the aspirations or the frame of mind of the lower strata, which requires a keen awareness of popular religious beliefs. She seeks to explain the basic contents of religious beliefs and to show their role in the White Lotus uprising. Porshneva has recently focused directly on religious sects, looking at the historiography of heterodox movements.32 Reviewing the Soviet literature, she indicates that only in the recent period have Soviets come to understand the methodological importance of differentiating religious sects and secret soci­ eties. She also shows extensive familiarity with the recent writings of Western sinologists whose research overlaps considerably with her own. Here is one of many clear examples of a Soviet specialist virtually cut off by the closed Soviet system from scholarly exchange that could be important to her research. The inability of Western specialists to read Russian further reduces the possibility that her scholarship might have international impact. There are others writing about resistance to the Chinese state during the nineteenth century, including V. P. Hiushechkin, who was mentioned above for his reinterpretations of periodization, and B. M. Novikov. Iliushechkin pub­ lished a book on the Taiping Rebellion in 1967 and was the responsible editor for a collection of articles on secret societies in 1970 and another on agrarian relations and the peasant movement in 1974.33 Over the past decade, however, Iliushechkin has concentrated on secondary sources and can no longer be consi­ dered at the forefront of Soviet research on peasant uprisings. For example, in a 1979 article on the ideology of the leadership of peasant uprisings, Iliushechkin criticizes the tendency in secondary sources to treat the leaders as revolutionaries opposed to the feudal system.**4 He finds this tendency es­ pecially prevalent in the PRC, but notes its presence in past Soviet studies as well. He does not make any new contributions to the field in this article. B. M. Novikov published a number of articles in the 1960s and 1970s on antiCh’ing secret societies, but his candidate’s dissertation was not accepted until 1976 and he has yet to produce a monograph.33 Much of his work focuses on

THE CH'ING AND ITS LEGACY

161

particular uprisings, ideas, or organizations centered in areas of Southeast China over a short span of time. With the shift of several specialists to new interests in the 1970s and the limited focus of others (V. S. Kuzes, for example, who writes only on a Shanghai uprising of the 1850s), the intense activity of the 1960s in the study of Ch'ing uprisings did not continue into the next decade.36 Among other specialists on Ch'ing history, F. A. Toder and S. R. Lainger deserve mention for their work on emigrants from the provinces of Southeast China and the communities they settled. Toder*s Taiwan and its History (Nine­ teenth Century) emphasizes the struggles of capitalist powers over the island, and also offers some background on the settlement and development of the area. Toder makes broad use of Western-language sources, but shows little inclination to probe their explanations of internal conditions. Rather, he con­ centrates on political history from the 1860s to the 1900s within the context of international imperialism. Lainger examines Chinese communities in Latin America. Articles published in 1975 and 1979 on the formation of the Chinese bourgeoisie in Cuba explore a little-studied subject, drawing heavily on a 1927 book published in Spanish.37 Lainger's approach offers information on the stages of capital growth in Cuba, yet neither author proceeds very far toward a generalized and comparative approach to the problems raised. One book about Chfing society that might easily be overlooked because of its popular nature and slight reliance on Chinese-language sources is V. Ia. Sidikhmenov!s China: Pages of the Past. Fifteen thousand copies were printed in 1974 and thirty-five thousand in the second edition of 1978—far more than the editions of one thousand to four thousand copies typical of the other books we mentioned (see table 7). Drawing extensively on the writings of travelers and sinologists (both Western European and Russian) who lived in China, Sidikhmenov depicts Chinese customs and outlooks. He presents legends to show perceptions about the universe, gives striking examples of religious super­ stitions, and offers intriguing information on the cult of ancestors, the role of the emperor as the Son of Heaven, and on the practices of local officials. This colorful collection of anecdotes and observations makes for interesting reading, but it errs in depicting the eccentric as commonplace, for example, in de­ scribing the sale of children as a normal occurrence.36 The book takes a highly negative view of certain social practices and regurgitates simplistic assump­ tions, for example, ”the entire history of the Ch'ing dynasty was filled with the heroic struggle of the Chinese people against oppressors, for social and national liberation” (p. 370). Although Soviet sinologists do not seem to regard this book as a scholarly contribution, it was produced under the responsible editorship of R. V. Viatkin at IVAN and was published by ”Nauka,” an agency of the Academy of Sciences. L. S. Vasil'ev, Cults, Religions, Traditions in China (1970) is a more substantial, though still rather shallow, treatment of religious practices.

162

GILBERT ROZMAN

Other Studies of China in Transition Many historian administrators, including Sladkovsky, Iur'ev, Efimov, and Deliusin write on early twentieth-century China. Despite differences in ap­ proach, there is agreement on the importance of political history from the period just prior to the 1911 Revolution to the period following the 1927 Revo­ lution. Inevitably, their coverage of China also ranges into the social condi­ tions that affected the outcomes of the two revolutions and the emergence of the Chinese Communist Party. Their different ways of treating these social conditions are clear reflections of the diverse influences they have on this field. Perhaps most extreme in his simplified interpretations of Chinese society is Sladkovsky. Some of his unqualified assertions on the major issues of modern Chinese history are found in the book, China: Basic Problems of History, Economics, Ideology. For instance, he treats social classes as if they were concrete groups that express a unified will and uses deceptive terms such as "parasitic reactionary classes."09 Because IDV is largely concerned with the contemporary era, Sladkovsky has not had a strong influence on those writing on premodern China. Soviet evaluations of Sun Yat-sen and of the 1911 Revolution in China have changed considerably over the past two decades. Sun's collected works were translated into Russian in 1964. Collections of articles on him (1966), and on the 1911 Revolution (1962) are also indicative of the intense interest in this period. G. V. Efimov's recent books, The Bourgeois Revolution in China and Sun Yat-sen (1911-1913) (1974) and Sun Yat-sen: In Search of a Path 1914-1922 (1981) offer a new Soviet understanding on these matters. In his introduction to the earlier book, Efimov criticizes bourgeois historians for minimizing the role of Sun Yat-sen and the revolutionary democrats, and, in turn, claims that one of the goals of his book is to analyze their distortions of reality.40 For example, without offering any evidence, he states that Marius B. Jansen's discussion of Sun Yat-sen's supposedly positive response to a Japanese offer of a large sum of money for arming two divisions in exchange for the concession of Manchuria "smacks of the most undisguised invention" (pp. 337-38). Efimov repeatedly criticizes the writings of Mary Wright, even accusing her of "not proceeding from an objective analysis of the facts of the 1911 Revolution but from the tendency to artificially look for historical ties, originating in interests far from science" (p. 349). Deprecating comments such as this apparently deal less with American scholars' capacity to organize evidence than with the class interests they are alleged to serve. Efimov's own characterization of the revolution rests on his analysis that its moving forces were deeply rooted in the evolution of social classes. In the writings of prominent Soviets much depends on the state of China's social classes; yet no specialized overview of classes in

THE CH'ING AND ITS LEGACY

163

this period or preceding periods has been attempted. Treated in this fashion, social classes are largely arbitrary categories. M. F. Iur'ev differs from the above two authors in the dearth of interest he shows in Western historiography. His 1968 book, The Revolution of 1925-1927 in China, and his article on the Nan-ch'ang uprising in a 1978 collection of the same name rely heavily on Party documents and histories with scarce acknowl­ edgment of rival interpretations by non-Marxists. He concentrates on recon­ structing the internal political history of these years, yet must explain events in terms of social forces that are scarcely analyzed. For example, he accepts the 1927 Party report that ”75 percent of the rural population were devoid or almost devoid of land and subject to cruel feudal exploitation. . . ."41 Never­ theless, Iur'ev's work does not seem to jump from one simplification to another and he largely avoids the derisive language and exaggerated claims of Sladkovsky and Efimov. The 1972 book by L. P. Deliusin, The Agrarian-Peasant Questions in the Policies of the CCP (1921-1928), also draws heavily on Party documents. In this book, as elsewhere, Deliusin demonstrates that, perhaps alone among leading Soviet administrators, he reexamines revolutionary history with original insights into the mistakes made by activists, including Party leaders; gener­ alizes without blatant oversimplifications; reviews the findings of Western scholars without belligerence; and frequently draws on information about social conditions to illuminate political themes. The point is not that Deliusin offers a persuasive interpretation of the much-disputed CCP policies and rivalries in the early years of its development, but that he manages to avoid the glaring inadequacies prevalent among other prominent Soviets committed to the politi­ cal use of historical studies. Deliusin's standards for scholarship are the posi­ tive force behind the real achievements of Soviet historians of China that we seek to identify in this book. One product of Deliusin’s department at IVAN is the 1979 sbornikt China: In Search of Paths of Social Development, which was discussed by Don C. Price in chapter 10. This volume on social thought contains only a fraction of the vast Soviet output on the history of Chinese political consciousness during the first decades of this century, but it vividly shows the diversity of approaches in the field. Concentrating their attention on reporting and interpreting the contents of newspaper articles, the writings of political figures, and the poli­ cies of leaders, specialists in social thought have accumulated considerable information that should be of value to their colleagues. Although the conclu­ sions are carefully phrased to avoid contradicting the general Soviet line con­ cerning the need for class struggle and revolution, many articles are relatively free of blatant ideological assumptions. They demonstrate that a number of scholars with a narrow focus can examine sources closely, weigh evidence, and avoid making highly politicized judgments even when treating issues not far

164

GILBERT ROZMAN

removed from sensitive questions concerning the origins of the Chinese Com­ munist Party and its early policies. Conclusions All the shortcomings of Soviet sinology prevalent during the Stalinist era are to some extent still present. Not only do isolation, outdated and incom­ plete bibliographies, repetition of dubious and unproven conclusions, substitu­ tion of illustrations for systematic proofs, oversimplification of complex prob­ lems accompanied by the easy separation of forces into good and evil, mindless applications of supposedly universal laws without regard to the facts of Chinese history, and blanket hostility toward "bourgeois" sinologists still occur, but there is no vigorous effort to eliminate the shoddiness that remains. Yet, indirectly, and occasionally in reviews of particular works, many scholars strike out against a number of these unsatisfactory practices. They appeal for high standards and do their best to meet them despite barriers they are powerless to overcome and restrictions on open criticism of the primary obstacles to highquality scholarship. Some Soviet scholars have improved their work signifi­ cantly by drawing on advances in foreign sinology; working with remarkably long and relatively complete bibliographies; avoiding broad, ideological conclu­ sions; emphasizing the priority of empirical research; and focusing on original and important topics. Even when high standards have not been attained, these improvements resulted in some studies of sufficient value that foreign scholars who ignore them may be placing their own research at a disadvantage. As important as research on Ch'ing society and the legacy of imperial China's social structure may be for a Marxist understanding of modern China, this has been a neglected area of Soviet sinology. Whereas at least one hundred new specialists on contemporary China have been trained at IDV and elsewhere since the resurgence of Chinese studies in the late 1960s, there have apparently been no new scholars entering the fields considered in this chapter. The quality of studies has improved in comparison to work done in the 1960s, but there is still no sign of an important breakthrough either in specialized monographs or in general interpretations. While there are publications worthy of notice, in this area there is no reason to expect a major Soviet impact on Chinese studies.

CHAPTER 12 Introduction to Literature Jeanne Kelly and Helmut Martin Chinese literature enjoys a surprising popularity in the Soviet Union. There are many specialists in this area, including an older generation that entered the field in the 1950s and a continued gradual influx of new blood in recent years. Although specialists in literature were slow to be included among the advanced scholars who received doctors degrees after 1953, as indicated in table 3, in the years 1965-73 they fared much better, garnering six of those coveted degrees. Among the more than forty recipients of the candidate’s degree in philology during the years 1973-81, as identified in table 2, there are ten whose primary specialty can be identified as literature. Altogether there are at least fifty Soviet specialists writing about the literature of China, more than half of them concentrating on the imperial era. The comprehensive bibliography of writings in Russian on China edited by V. P. Zhuravleva, The People's Republic of China: Bibliography of Literature in Russian Published in 1979, lists many books and articles. The output of this single year may be taken as representative of Soviet scholarship in recent times. There were eight books of translations together with commentaries, eight scholarly studies that were not primarily translations, at least two broad collections in which Chinese literature figures importantly, and one textbook. Generally these books are between two hundred and four hundred pages long. In addition, the bibliography lists the following numbers of articles: fifteen on the interrelations between Chinese and foreign literature, forty-seven on the history of Chinese literature, twenty-seven on contemporary Chinese literature since 1919, four on Tibetan and Mongolian literature, five on folklore, and ten on theater and movies. Over the last thirty years, Soviet translators and spe­ cialists have managed to familiarize large numbers of their countrymen with China’s great literary tradition. They continue to make new contributions both for mass and specialized audiences. The single most influential figure in developing Soviet studies of China’s traditional literature was the academician, V. M. Alekseev (1881-1951). Alekseev served as a bridge between Western European sinology and Russian scholarship, studying in France and returning to serve as a professor in St. Petersburg. He then kept high standards of scholarship alive under the difficult

165

166

JEANNE KELLY AND HELMUT MARTIN

conditions of Stalinism. Indeed, only since his death has a full appreciation of Alekseev's creativity become possible, aided by a comprehensive bibliography (1972) of his published and biographical materials and by posthumous publica­ tions, including Chinese Literature: Selected Works (1978), edited by his daugh­ ter M. V. BanT